An audit RFP template is a structured request for proposal that an organization sends to prospective audit firms, setting out the scope of work, submission requirements, and evaluation criteria so bids can be compared on an equal footing. A strong template does two things at once: it tells firms exactly what you need, and it gives your selection committee a defensible, weighted scorecard for ranking the responses. This guide provides a reusable audit RFP structure and a scoring rubric you can adapt for a nonprofit, a private company, or an employee benefit plan.
Price matters, but it should not decide the engagement by itself. The most important factor in auditor selection is the firm’s ability to perform a quality audit, and the Government Finance Officers Association recommends a full-scale competitive process in which the principal factor is audit quality rather than lowest cost. The sections below show how to build that principle into both the document you send out and the way you score what comes back.
Why a Formal Audit RFP Matters
Organizations change auditors for many reasons: a board policy requiring periodic rotation, fee creep, service problems, growth into new reporting requirements, or simply a desire to confirm the current fee is competitive. Whatever the trigger, running a formal process protects the people making the decision. A documented RFP and scorecard demonstrate to the board, audit committee, and funders that the choice was made on the merits.
A formal process also produces better proposals. When every firm answers the same questions in the same order, you can compare apples to apples instead of wading through marketing brochures. It forces each bidder to put its team, its approach, and its fee in writing, which surfaces differences that a casual conversation would hide.
Finally, the RFP sets expectations for the engagement itself. The timeline, deliverables, and communication protocols you specify in the document become the baseline you hold the winning firm to later. Loose requirements at the proposal stage almost always translate into friction once fieldwork begins.
The Audit RFP Template Structure
A complete audit RFP does not need to be long, but it does need to be organized. The following structure works for most nonprofits and private companies and can be trimmed or expanded to fit your situation. Treat each numbered section as a heading in your document.
1. Introduction and background. Describe your organization, its mission or business, annual revenue, and the reason you are soliciting proposals. State whether this is a first-time audit or a change from an incumbent firm.
2. Scope of services. Specify exactly what you are buying. List each engagement precisely, because the scope drives both the fee and the firm’s qualifications.
| Service | Include? | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Financial statement audit | Yes / No | Specify reporting framework (GAAP, modified cash, etc.) |
| Single Audit (Uniform Guidance) | Yes / No | Required if federal awards exceed the $1,000,000 threshold |
| Employee benefit plan audit | Yes / No | Form 5500 filing; note participant count |
| Tax return preparation (Form 990, 1120, 1065) | Yes / No | List each return |
| Agreed-upon procedures | Yes / No | Describe the specific procedures |
3. Organization information. Provide the data firms need to scope the work and quote a fee: total assets, revenue, number of locations, accounting software, prior-year audit adjustments, known complex transactions, and whether prior financial statements are available.
4. Timeline and deliverables. State your fiscal year-end, when records will be ready, your target date for fieldwork, and the date you need the final report. If your financial statements have a required public or funder release date, name it, as the GFOA advises specifying that date in the RFP.
5. Proposal requirements. Tell firms exactly what to submit and in what order. A consistent format is what makes scoring possible.
- Firm profile, size, and office that will serve the account
- Relevant industry experience and comparable client references
- The specific engagement team, with resumes and roles
- Peer review report (the firm’s most recent external quality review)
- Description of audit approach and use of technology
- Proposed timeline aligned to your deadlines
- Independence confirmation and any conflicts
- All-in fee quote by year, including out-of-pocket costs
6. Evaluation criteria. Publish how you will score proposals. Transparency here improves the quality of responses and reduces disputes afterward.
7. Submission logistics. Give the due date and time, the delivery method, a single contact for questions, and the date by which you will notify the selected firm.
The Audit Firm Scoring Rubric
Scoring converts a stack of proposals into a ranked shortlist. Build a weighted rubric before you open any responses, and have each committee member score independently before comparing notes. The weights below reflect the principle that quality and fit should outweigh price. Adjust the percentages to match your priorities, but keep fee at or below roughly a quarter of the total so cost cannot swamp the technical factors.
| Criterion | Weight | What strong looks like |
|---|---|---|
| Relevant industry experience | 25% | Many comparable clients; understands your reporting framework and regulators |
| Engagement team quality | 20% | Named, credentialed professionals; low expected turnover; partner access |
| Audit approach and methodology | 15% | Risk-based plan, clear data requests, use of audit technology |
| Peer review and independence | 15% | Clean (pass) peer review; no independence conflicts |
| Timeline and responsiveness | 10% | Fits your deadlines; realistic fieldwork plan |
| References | 5% | Verified, relevant, and positive |
| Fee | 10% | Competitive and clearly itemized, not just lowest |
Score each criterion on a simple 1-to-5 scale, multiply by the weight, and total the points. A worked example makes the mechanics clear.
| Criterion | Weight | Firm A score (1-5) | Firm A weighted | Firm B score (1-5) | Firm B weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry experience | 25% | 5 | 1.25 | 3 | 0.75 |
| Team quality | 20% | 4 | 0.80 | 4 | 0.80 |
| Audit approach | 15% | 4 | 0.60 | 3 | 0.45 |
| Peer review / independence | 15% | 5 | 0.75 | 5 | 0.75 |
| Timeline | 10% | 4 | 0.40 | 3 | 0.30 |
| References | 5% | 5 | 0.25 | 4 | 0.20 |
| Fee | 10% | 3 | 0.30 | 5 | 0.50 |
| Total | 100% | 4.35 | 3.75 |
In this example Firm B is cheaper, but Firm A wins on the strength of its industry experience and approach. That is the outcome a quality-weighted rubric is designed to produce, and it gives the committee a clear, documented rationale for the decision.
Scoring Factors That Deserve Extra Weight
Not every criterion carries equal risk, and two in particular warrant close attention regardless of how you distribute the points.
Industry and engagement-type experience. Audit quality is strongly correlated with how often a firm performs the specific type of work. In the employee benefit plan arena, the U.S. Department of Labor found that firms performing only one or two plan audits per year had a 76% deficiency rate, while firms performing at least 100 such audits had a deficiency rate of 12%. The lesson generalizes: ask how many engagements like yours the firm completes each year, and weight the answer heavily.
Peer review and independence. A firm’s most recent peer review report is a public indicator of its quality control, and a clean (pass) result should be table stakes. Independence is equally non-negotiable; the auditor should hold no financial interest in your organization that could compromise an objective opinion. Confirm both in writing as part of the proposal, not after you have selected the firm.
Two practical cautions round out the evaluation. First, be wary of a bid that is dramatically lower than the others, since an unrealistic fee often signals a thin scope or an inexperienced team that will struggle to finish on time. Second, insist on knowing the actual engagement team, not just the firm’s reputation, because the people assigned to your account determine the quality of the work far more than the logo on the letterhead.
Running the Process and Making the Decision
Give firms enough time to respond well. Three to four weeks is a reasonable window for most nonprofits and private companies, and a single named contact should field all questions so that every bidder receives the same information. If you expect many questions, consider circulating answers to all participants to keep the process fair.
Shortlist the top two or three scorers for interviews before you commit. A finalist meeting lets you confirm the chemistry with the partner and manager, probe the audit approach, and verify that the proposal’s promises hold up in conversation. Check references at this stage as well, and ask those references specifically about responsiveness, surprises on fees, and whether the firm met its deadlines.
Think beyond a single year. The GFOA recommends multiyear engagements of at least five years for governments because continuity reduces disruption and cost, and many private companies and nonprofits benefit from the same stability while still testing the market periodically. Whatever term you choose, document the final decision, retain the scorecards, and communicate the outcome promptly to every firm that bid. Treating losing bidders professionally keeps the field competitive the next time you go to market.
If you want help evaluating proposals or you are the firm receiving them, Pease Bell’s audit and assurance services team works with nonprofits, employee benefit plans, and private companies across a range of industries. For organizations weighing where an external audit fits alongside internal controls and compliance, our risk advisory services group can help frame the scope before you ever send out a request for proposal.
A well-built audit RFP template and scoring rubric turn a stressful vendor decision into a structured, defensible process. Define the scope precisely, weight quality over price, score every proposal the same way, and keep the documentation. The result is an auditor selected on merit, a cleaner engagement, and a decision your board or audit committee can stand behind.
Frequently Asked Questions
How much weight should fee get when scoring audit proposals?
Fee should carry less weight than quality and fit. A practical guideline is to keep fee at or below roughly a quarter of the total score so cost cannot swamp the technical factors, and a sample rubric might weight fee at 10%. The Government Finance Officers Association recommends a competitive process in which the principal factor is audit quality rather than lowest cost.
How long should audit firms have to respond to an RFP?
Three to four weeks is a reasonable response window for most nonprofits and private companies. A single named contact should field all questions so every bidder receives the same information. If you expect many questions, consider circulating the answers to all participants to keep the process fair.
What should an audit RFP require firms to submit?
An audit RFP should ask each firm for its profile and serving office, relevant industry experience and references, the specific engagement team with resumes, its most recent peer review report, a description of its audit approach and technology, a timeline aligned to your deadlines, an independence confirmation, and an all-in fee quote by year including out-of-pocket costs.
How long should an audit engagement term be?
The GFOA recommends multiyear audit engagements of at least five years for governments, because continuity reduces disruption and cost. Many private companies and nonprofits benefit from the same stability while still testing the market periodically. Whatever term you choose, document the final decision, retain the scorecards, and communicate the outcome promptly to every firm that bid.
Why does a firm’s audit volume matter when evaluating proposals?
Audit quality is strongly correlated with how often a firm performs the specific type of work. In employee benefit plan audits, the U.S. Department of Labor found that firms performing only one or two plan audits per year had a 76% deficiency rate, while firms performing at least 100 had a 12% deficiency rate. Ask how many similar engagements each firm completes annually.
Should we interview audit firms before making a selection?
Yes. Shortlist the top two or three scorers for interviews before you commit. A finalist meeting lets you confirm the chemistry with the partner and manager, probe the audit approach, and verify that the proposal’s promises hold up in conversation. Check references at this stage too, asking about responsiveness, fee surprises, and whether the firm met its deadlines.
