# How Should an Rfp Structure the Evaluation Criteria Differently for a Cloud-Based Saas Solution versus an On-Premise Software Installation? ▴ Question

**Published:** 2025-08-08
**Categories:** Question

---

![Abstract geometric representation of an institutional RFQ protocol for digital asset derivatives. Two distinct segments symbolize cross-market liquidity pools and order book dynamics](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-execution-protocol-2.jpg)

![A precise mechanical instrument with intersecting transparent and opaque hands, representing the intricate market microstructure of institutional digital asset derivatives. This visual metaphor highlights dynamic price discovery and bid-ask spread dynamics within RFQ protocols, emphasizing high-fidelity execution and latent liquidity through a robust Prime RFQ for atomic settlement](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/precision-engineering-driving-institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-execution-across-advanced-rfq-protocols-and-prime-brokerage-frameworks.jpg)

## Concept

The formulation of a Request for Proposal (RFP) represents a critical juncture in an organization’s technological and financial trajectory. It is far more than a procurement document; it is an architectural blueprint for future operations. The manner in which [evaluation criteria](https://prime.greeks.live/area/evaluation-criteria/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite) are structured for a cloud-based Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) solution versus a traditional [on-premise software](https://prime.greeks.live/area/on-premise-software/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite) installation reveals an organization’s fundamental assumptions about control, cost, risk, and agility. The two paths diverge not merely on technical specifications but on the very philosophy of how technology serves the enterprise.

An on-premise solution is an acquisition of a tangible asset, demanding criteria focused on the robustness and longevity of that asset. In contrast, a SaaS solution is the procurement of an outcome, necessitating criteria that rigorously define and guarantee the quality of that service.

Understanding this distinction is paramount. The on-premise RFP is engineered to assess the buyer’s capacity to own and operate a complex system. Its evaluation criteria must therefore probe deeply into the software’s intrinsic characteristics ▴ its architecture, its compatibility with existing infrastructure, and the resources required for its maintenance and eventual replacement.

The process is inwardly focused, centered on the organization’s ability to integrate and manage the software as a core component of its own technological estate. The questions asked are those of a builder, examining the quality of the materials and the soundness of the design before committing to a long-term construction project.

> The core difference in RFP structure lies in evaluating an owned asset (on-premise) versus a subscribed service (SaaS).

Conversely, the SaaS RFP is an exercise in defining and securing a partnership. The evaluation criteria shift from the internal capabilities of the buyer to the external capabilities and reliability of the vendor. Since the underlying infrastructure and software code remain under the vendor’s control, the focus moves to service levels, [data security](https://prime.greeks.live/area/data-security/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite), [vendor viability](https://prime.greeks.live/area/vendor-viability/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite), and the contractual framework governing the relationship. The organization is not buying software in the traditional sense; it is subscribing to a continuously evolving service.

The RFP becomes a tool for mitigating the risks associated with dependency on a third party, asking the questions of a discerning client engaging a critical service provider. This fundamental pivot from asset ownership to service consumption dictates every subsequent detail of the evaluation framework.

![Central translucent blue sphere represents RFQ price discovery for institutional digital asset derivatives. Concentric metallic rings symbolize liquidity pool aggregation and multi-leg spread execution](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-engine-high-fidelity-execution-1.jpg)

## Foundational Models of Technology Consumption

The on-premise model is rooted in the principle of capital expenditure (CapEx). It involves a significant upfront investment to purchase software licenses and the hardware required to run them. This model grants the organization complete control over the software and its data, a factor that is often a primary driver for its selection in highly regulated industries or for core systems where data sovereignty is non-negotiable.

The evaluation process for this model is consequently weighted towards validating the long-term value and sustainability of this capital investment. Criteria must be designed to minimize the [total cost](https://prime.greeks.live/area/total-cost/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite) of ownership (TCO) over the asset’s entire lifecycle, from implementation to decommissioning.

The SaaS model operates on an operational expenditure (OpEx) framework, replacing large upfront capital outlays with predictable, recurring subscription fees. This approach offers financial flexibility and shifts the burden of maintenance, updates, and infrastructure management to the vendor. The evaluation criteria for SaaS must therefore prioritize the vendor’s operational excellence and the contractual guarantees that ensure service continuity and performance.

The focus is less on the physical and more on the abstract ▴ the [service level agreement](https://prime.greeks.live/question/what-is-the-role-of-service-level-agreements-slas-in-the-rfp-evaluation-process-for-a-service-provider/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite) (SLA), the vendor’s security posture, and the ease with which the service can be scaled up or down in response to business dynamics. The RFP for a SaaS solution is a testament to a world where access and reliability have become more valuable than ownership and control for many business functions.

![A polished, two-toned surface, representing a Principal's proprietary liquidity pool for digital asset derivatives, underlies a teal, domed intelligence layer. This visualizes RFQ protocol dynamism, enabling high-fidelity execution and price discovery for Bitcoin options and Ethereum futures](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/high-fidelity-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-platform-intelligence-layer.jpg)

![Sleek, futuristic metallic components showcase a dark, reflective dome encircled by a textured ring, representing a Volatility Surface for Digital Asset Derivatives. This Prime RFQ architecture enables High-Fidelity Execution and Private Quotation via RFQ Protocols for Block Trade liquidity](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/advanced-institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-platform-architecture-for-high-fidelity-rfq-protocol-execution-and-price-discovery.jpg)

## Strategy

A strategically designed RFP moves beyond a simple checklist of features to become a sophisticated tool for modeling future costs, risks, and operational agility. The differentiation in evaluation criteria between SaaS and on-premise solutions is a direct reflection of two divergent strategic paths. The on-premise strategy is one of building and controlling a core asset, while the SaaS strategy is one of leveraging a specialized partner to achieve a business outcome. The evaluation criteria are the mechanisms by which an organization validates its chosen strategy and ensures that the selected solution aligns with its long-term financial and operational objectives.

![A precision optical component stands on a dark, reflective surface, symbolizing a Price Discovery engine for Institutional Digital Asset Derivatives. This Crypto Derivatives OS element enables High-Fidelity Execution through advanced Algorithmic Trading and Multi-Leg Spread capabilities, optimizing Market Microstructure for RFQ protocols](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-optimal-execution-system-microstructure.jpg)

## Total Cost of Ownership a Tale of Two Models

A comprehensive analysis of the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) is the bedrock of any sound software procurement strategy. The components of TCO differ so significantly between on-premise and SaaS solutions that they require distinct evaluation frameworks. An RFP that fails to capture these differences will produce a misleading comparison, potentially leading to severe budget overruns and a misalignment of resources.

![A metallic circular interface, segmented by a prominent 'X' with a luminous central core, visually represents an institutional RFQ protocol. This depicts precise market microstructure, enabling high-fidelity execution for multi-leg spread digital asset derivatives, optimizing capital efficiency across diverse liquidity pools](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/prime-os-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-execution-microstructure.jpg)

## Deconstructing On-Premise TCO

For an on-premise solution, the initial license fee is merely the visible tip of the iceberg. A strategic RFP must compel vendors to provide detailed cost breakdowns for a wide array of associated expenses. The evaluation criteria should be structured to capture and quantify these often-underestimated costs:

- **Hardware Acquisition and Maintenance** ▴ This includes the initial cost of servers, storage, and networking equipment, as well as ongoing maintenance contracts and periodic hardware refresh cycles.

- **Software Licensing and Renewals** ▴ Beyond the initial purchase, this covers annual maintenance fees, which typically range from 18-25% of the initial license cost, and the price of any necessary third-party software (e.g. databases, operating systems).

- **Implementation and Customization** ▴ Costs associated with professional services for installation, configuration, data migration, and any development work required to tailor the software to specific business processes.

- **Internal Personnel** ▴ The fully-loaded cost of the IT staff required to manage, maintain, and support the system, including system administrators, database administrators, and help desk personnel.

- **Facility Costs** ▴ The often-hidden costs of housing the hardware, including data center space, power, and cooling.

- **Training and Development** ▴ The expense of training both end-users and the internal IT team on the new system.

![A symmetrical, multi-faceted digital structure, a liquidity aggregation engine, showcases translucent teal and grey panels. This visualizes diverse RFQ channels and market segments, enabling high-fidelity execution for institutional digital asset derivatives](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/precision-liquidity-aggregation-engine-for-digital-asset-derivatives-trading.jpg)

## Unpacking SaaS TCO

The TCO for a SaaS solution appears simpler due to its subscription-based nature, but a robust evaluation requires looking beyond the monthly fee. The RFP criteria must be designed to uncover all potential costs throughout the contract lifecycle:

- **Subscription Fees** ▴ The core cost, which can be structured by user, usage, or feature tier. The RFP must demand clarity on how these fees scale and what triggers cost increases.

- **Integration Costs** ▴ While the vendor manages the core application, integrating it with other enterprise systems often requires separate connectors or custom API development, which can be a significant expense. 

- **Data Migration** ▴ The cost of extracting, transforming, and loading data from legacy systems into the new SaaS platform.

- **Customization and Configuration** ▴ While deep customization is often limited, configuring the platform to meet business needs may still require professional services from the vendor or a third-party consultant.

- **Training** ▴ Even with intuitive interfaces, user training is often necessary to ensure full adoption and value realization.

- **Contract Exit Costs** ▴ A critical and often overlooked criterion. The RFP must probe the costs and processes associated with retrieving data in a usable format should the organization decide to switch vendors.

> Your RFP’s TCO model must accurately map to the fundamental economic differences between a capital expense and an operational expense.

The following table provides a strategic comparison of the TCO components that must be evaluated for each model.

| Cost Category | On-Premise Evaluation Focus | SaaS Evaluation Focus |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Initial Outlay | High (Software licenses, hardware purchase, initial implementation services). Represents a major capital expenditure. | Low (Typically limited to setup fees and initial data migration). Primarily an operational expenditure. |
| Recurring Costs | Annual software maintenance, hardware support contracts, internal IT staff salaries, facility costs (power, cooling). | Predictable subscription fees (per user/month), potential for add-on features, costs related to exceeding usage tiers. |
| Upgrade & Refresh | Significant project-based costs for major software upgrades and periodic hardware replacement cycles (typically 3-5 years). | Included in the subscription fee. Updates and new features are rolled out automatically by the vendor. |
| Scalability Costs | Requires purchasing additional hardware and potentially more expensive software licenses to handle increased load. Involves significant planning and capital outlay. | Handled by adjusting the subscription plan. Costs scale more directly with usage, allowing for greater business agility. |
| Hidden Costs | Personnel costs for patching and maintenance, data center overhead, unplanned downtime, cost of technology obsolescence. | Integration complexity, data egress fees, costs of switching vendors (vendor lock-in), price increases upon contract renewal. |

![A multi-layered, circular device with a central concentric lens. It symbolizes an RFQ engine for precision price discovery and high-fidelity execution](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-protocol-engine-for-precision-execution.jpg)

![Central mechanical pivot with a green linear element diagonally traversing, depicting a robust RFQ protocol engine for institutional digital asset derivatives. This signifies high-fidelity execution of aggregated inquiry and price discovery, ensuring capital efficiency within complex market microstructure and order book dynamics](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-protocol-engine-best-execution.jpg)

## Execution

The execution phase of an RFP process translates strategic objectives into a granular, data-driven evaluation framework. This is where the architectural differences between on-premise and SaaS solutions become most apparent. A well-constructed evaluation matrix is not a generic template but a purpose-built analytical tool designed to dissect vendor proposals against a set of highly specific, weighted criteria. The goal is to create an objective, defensible, and transparent selection process that directly links the final decision to the organization’s core requirements.

![A sharp, teal blade precisely dissects a cylindrical conduit. This visualizes surgical high-fidelity execution of block trades for institutional digital asset derivatives](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-precision-execution-microstructure.jpg)

## The Differentiated Evaluation Matrix

The heart of the execution process is the evaluation matrix. While some criteria, such as core functionality, are common to both models, the weighting and specific lines of inquiry must diverge significantly. The following table illustrates how evaluation categories are broken down into model-specific criteria, providing a blueprint for constructing a robust and differentiated scoring system. The weighting rationale underscores the strategic priority behind each category, a critical element for aligning stakeholders and ensuring the final score reflects the project’s true goals.

| Evaluation Category | On-Premise Specific Criteria | SaaS Specific Criteria | Weighting Rationale |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Technical Architecture | Compatibility with existing OS, databases, and hardware. Modularity of design. Documented API for internal integration. Scalability path and hardware requirements. | Vendor’s multi-tenant architecture. Data segregation mechanisms. Public API availability and rate limits. Documented disaster recovery and business continuity plans. | High for on-premise, as the buyer owns the integration risk. Moderate for SaaS, focused on the vendor’s reliability and integration capabilities. |
| Security & Compliance | Support for internal security policies (e.g. Active Directory integration). Granularity of user access controls. Vulnerability patching process and schedule. | Vendor’s security certifications (SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001). Data encryption standards (in transit and at rest). Data residency and sovereignty guarantees. Incident response protocol. | Critical for both, but the focus shifts from internal control (on-premise) to external validation and trust (SaaS). |
| Implementation & Support | Vendor’s implementation methodology and project management team. On-site support availability. Long-term support roadmap and version upgrade policies. | Onboarding process and time-to-value. Support channel availability (24/7?). Documented Service Level Agreements (SLAs) for uptime and support response. | Focus on project management for on-premise (a large, one-time project). Focus on ongoing service delivery for SaaS (a continuous relationship). |
| Vendor Viability | Company history and financial stability. Size of development team. References from companies with similar implementations. | Financial health (crucial for long-term service). Customer churn rate. Product roadmap and frequency of updates. Escrow arrangements for source code. | Important for on-premise, but absolutely critical for SaaS, as vendor failure means service termination. |
| Scalability & Performance | Performance benchmarks on specified hardware. Clear path for vertical and horizontal scaling. Licensing implications of scaling. | Guaranteed performance SLAs. Elasticity of the platform to handle demand spikes. Tiered pricing models for scaling users or usage. | On-premise requires planning for future capacity. SaaS requires validating the vendor’s ability to provide capacity on demand. |

![A dark, reflective surface features a segmented circular mechanism, reminiscent of an RFQ aggregation engine or liquidity pool. Specks suggest market microstructure dynamics or data latency](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/digital-asset-options-rfq-execution-microstructure-prime-os.jpg)

## Operationalizing the Service Level Agreement

For on-premise software, support agreements are important. For a SaaS solution, the Service [Level Agreement](https://prime.greeks.live/question/what-are-the-critical-differences-between-level-2-and-level-3-data-in-simulating-queue-position/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite) (SLA) is the contract that defines the very nature and quality of the product being purchased. It is the single most important document after the master service agreement itself.

An RFP for a SaaS solution must not simply ask if a vendor has SLAs; it must demand specific, measurable, and financially-backed commitments. The evaluation of these commitments is a core execution task.

> In a SaaS evaluation, the Service Level Agreement is not just a support document; it is the specification sheet for the product itself.

Your RFP should require vendors to respond to a detailed SLA requirements list. This list becomes a critical part of the evaluation and subsequent contract negotiation.

- **Uptime Guarantee** ▴ This should be expressed as a percentage (e.g. 99.9% or 99.99%) and clearly define what constitutes “downtime.” The calculation method, including exclusions for scheduled maintenance, must be transparent.

- **Performance Metrics** ▴ Define acceptable thresholds for key user interactions, such as application response time or report generation speed. These metrics ensure the service is usable, not just available.

- **Incident Response Times** ▴ Specify maximum response and resolution times based on the severity of the issue. For example, a “Severity 1” (system down) issue might require a 15-minute response time and a 4-hour resolution time.

- **Financial Penalties (Service Credits)** ▴ The SLA must have teeth. It should clearly state the service credits (e.g. a percentage of the monthly fee) that will be applied if the vendor fails to meet the agreed-upon uptime or performance metrics.

- **Disaster Recovery (RTO/RPO)** ▴ Demand specific Recovery Time Objectives (RTO) and Recovery Point Objectives (RPO). RTO is the maximum time allowed for service restoration after a disaster, while RPO is the maximum acceptable amount of data loss.

- **Data Portability** ▴ The SLA or contract must specify the process, format, and timeline for retrieving all customer data upon contract termination, preventing vendor lock-in.

By embedding these specific requirements into the RFP’s execution framework, an organization transforms the procurement process from a feature comparison into a rigorous assessment of service quality and long-term risk management. The resulting decision is based not on marketing promises, but on contractual commitments that can be monitored and enforced for the life of the relationship.

![A central, blue-illuminated, crystalline structure symbolizes an institutional grade Crypto Derivatives OS facilitating RFQ protocol execution. Diagonal gradients represent aggregated liquidity and market microstructure converging for high-fidelity price discovery, optimizing multi-leg spread trading for digital asset options](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-protocol-execution-engine-11.jpg)

## References

- Bower, Joseph L. and Clayton M. Christensen. “Disruptive Technologies ▴ Catching the Wave.” Harvard Business Review, vol. 73, no. 1, 1995, pp. 43-53.

- Armbrust, Michael, et al. “A View of Cloud Computing.” Communications of the ACM, vol. 53, no. 4, 2010, pp. 50-58.

- Lahmar, Ines, and Nabil Sahli. “A New Model for SaaS Total Cost of Ownership.” Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Cloud Computing and Services Science, 2015, pp. 244-251.

- Thomas, Biju. “The RFP Process for Cloud Services.” Cloud Computing ▴ A Practical Approach, CRC Press, 2017, pp. 325-340.

- Gartner, Inc. “Market Guide for SaaS Management Platforms.” Published 2023.

- Benlian, Alexander, and Thomas Hess. “The Role of Trust in SaaS-Adoption ▴ An Empirical Investigation.” Proceedings of the 19th European Conference on Information Systems, 2011.

- Scott, Rob. “Why it’s time to ditch the traditional RFP for SaaS HRM.” Connecting HR Australia, 16 Oct. 2023.

- “The Ultimate Guide to Writing and Responding to Software RFPs.” Inventive AI, 30 Jan. 2025.

![A cutaway view reveals an advanced RFQ protocol engine for institutional digital asset derivatives. Intricate coiled components represent algorithmic liquidity provision and portfolio margin calculations](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/prime-os-rfq-protocol-engine-digital-asset-derivatives-core-internal-mechanism-visualized.jpg)

## Reflection

![Precision-engineered beige and teal conduits intersect against a dark void, symbolizing a Prime RFQ protocol interface. Transparent structural elements suggest multi-leg spread connectivity and high-fidelity execution pathways for institutional digital asset derivatives](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/insti-grade-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-protocols-multi-leg-execution-junction.jpg)

## The System as a Mirror

Ultimately, the structure of an RFP’s evaluation criteria holds up a mirror to the organization itself. A framework heavily weighted towards capital cost, internal control, and detailed technical specifications reflects an institution that values ownership and self-sufficiency. It signals a culture that views technology as a core, controllable asset, an extension of its own operational fortress. Such an organization builds its systems with the deliberation of a stonemason, valuing permanence and direct authority over the technological stack.

In contrast, a framework that prioritizes service levels, vendor viability, and contractual flexibility reveals an organization architected for agility. It indicates a culture that treats technology as a utility, a source of power to be consumed and directed as needed. This institution values speed, scalability, and the strategic allocation of its internal resources toward its core mission, choosing to delegate operational complexity to specialized partners. The decision between on-premise and SaaS, therefore, is not merely a choice between two software delivery models.

It is a declaration of operational identity. The most effective RFP is one that honestly reflects this identity, ensuring that the chosen system is not just a tool, but a true extension of the organization’s strategic character.

![Abstract geometric structure with sharp angles and translucent planes, symbolizing institutional digital asset derivatives market microstructure. The central point signifies a core RFQ protocol engine, enabling precise price discovery and liquidity aggregation for multi-leg options strategies, crucial for high-fidelity execution and capital efficiency](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/principals-operational-framework-optimizing-institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-protocol-execution-for-alpha-generation.jpg)

## Glossary

<a href="https://prime.greeks.live/area/evaluation-criteria/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite" class="glossary-item-box">
![A sleek pen hovers over a luminous circular structure with teal internal components, symbolizing precise RFQ initiation. This represents high-fidelity execution for institutional digital asset derivatives, optimizing market microstructure and achieving atomic settlement within a Prime RFQ liquidity pool](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/optimizing-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-through-prime-os-precision.jpg)

## Evaluation Criteria

Meaning ▴ Evaluation Criteria define the quantifiable metrics and qualitative standards against which the performance, compliance, or risk profile of a system, strategy, or transaction is rigorously assessed. </a><a href="https://prime.greeks.live/area/on-premise-software/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite" class="glossary-item-box">
![Abstract representation of a central RFQ hub facilitating high-fidelity execution of institutional digital asset derivatives. Two aggregated inquiries or block trades traverse the liquidity aggregation engine, signifying price discovery and atomic settlement within a prime brokerage framework](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-protocol-execution-hub-core.jpg)

## On-Premise Software

Meaning ▴ On-Premise Software refers to computational applications and data infrastructure deployed and operated directly within an institution's own physical data centers and local hardware. </a><a href="https://prime.greeks.live/area/vendor-viability/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite" class="glossary-item-box">
![A sophisticated control panel, featuring concentric blue and white segments with two teal oval buttons. This embodies an institutional RFQ Protocol interface, facilitating High-Fidelity Execution for Private Quotation and Aggregated Inquiry](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-grade-rfq-protocol-interface-for-digital-asset-derivatives-execution.jpg)

## Vendor Viability

Meaning ▴ Vendor Viability defines the comprehensive assessment of a technology provider's enduring capacity to deliver and sustain critical services for institutional operations, particularly within the demanding context of institutional digital asset derivatives. </a><a href="https://prime.greeks.live/area/data-security/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite" class="glossary-item-box">
![Abstract forms representing a Principal-to-Principal negotiation within an RFQ protocol. The precision of high-fidelity execution is evident in the seamless interaction of components, symbolizing liquidity aggregation and market microstructure optimization for digital asset derivatives](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-protocol-execution-engine.jpg)

## Data Security

Meaning ▴ Data Security defines the comprehensive set of measures and protocols implemented to protect digital asset information and transactional data from unauthorized access, corruption, or compromise throughout its lifecycle within an institutional trading environment. </a><a href="https://prime.greeks.live/area/total-cost/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite" class="glossary-item-box">
![A pleated, fan-like structure embodying market microstructure and liquidity aggregation converges with sharp, crystalline forms, symbolizing high-fidelity execution for digital asset derivatives. This abstract visualizes RFQ protocols optimizing multi-leg spreads and managing implied volatility within a Prime RFQ](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-execution-microstructure.jpg)

## Total Cost

Meaning ▴ Total Cost quantifies the comprehensive expenditure incurred across the entire lifecycle of a financial transaction, encompassing both explicit and implicit components. </a><a href="https://prime.greeks.live/question/what-is-the-role-of-service-level-agreements-slas-in-the-rfp-evaluation-process-for-a-service-provider/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite" class="glossary-item-box">
![An abstract, angular, reflective structure intersects a dark sphere. This visualizes institutional digital asset derivatives and high-fidelity execution via RFQ protocols for block trade and private quotation](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/prime-os-rfq-protocols-for-high-fidelity-digital-asset-execution.jpg)

## Service Level Agreement

The SLA's role in RFP evaluation is to translate vendor promises into a quantifiable framework for assessing operational risk and value. </a><a href="https://prime.greeks.live/question/what-are-the-critical-differences-between-level-2-and-level-3-data-in-simulating-queue-position/?utm_source=options.greeks.live&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=satellite" class="glossary-item-box">
![A precision sphere, an Execution Management System EMS, probes a Digital Asset Liquidity Pool. This signifies High-Fidelity Execution via Smart Order Routing for institutional-grade digital asset derivatives](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/principal-rfq-engine-orchestrating-global-digital-asset-derivatives-liquidity-pool-price-discovery-and-high-fidelity-execution.jpg)

## Level Agreement

Level 3 data provides the deterministic, order-by-order history needed to reconstruct the queue, while Level 2's aggregated data only permits statistical estimation. </a>

**Tags:** [Data Residency](https://options.greeks.live/area/data-residency/), [Implementation Methodology](https://options.greeks.live/area/implementation-methodology/), [On-Premise Software](https://options.greeks.live/area/on-premise-software/), [Capital Expenditure (CapEx)](https://options.greeks.live/area/capital-expenditure-capex/), [Evaluation Criteria](https://options.greeks.live/area/evaluation-criteria/), [Service Level Agreement (SLA)](https://options.greeks.live/area/service-level-agreement-sla/)	

## Discover More

- 
### [How Should Evaluation Criteria Differ between a Software Product and a Consulting Service Rfp?](https://options.greeks.live/question/how-should-evaluation-criteria-differ-between-a-software-product-and-a-consulting-service-rfp/)
![A dark cylindrical core precisely intersected by sharp blades symbolizes RFQ Protocol and High-Fidelity Execution. Spheres represent Liquidity Pools and Market Microstructure. This abstract depicts Algorithmic Trading for Multi-Leg Spread strategies on an Institutional Grade Crypto Derivatives OS.](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/precision-rfq-execution-for-institutional-digital-asset-derivatives.jpg)

Evaluation criteria for software RFPs focus on tangible product features, while criteria for consulting RFPs assess intangible human expertise.

- 
### [How Do You Effectively Weight Scoring Criteria in a Hybrid Rfp Evaluation?](https://options.greeks.live/question/how-do-you-effectively-weight-scoring-criteria-in-a-hybrid-rfp-evaluation/)
![A sleek, high-fidelity beige device with reflective black elements and a control point, set against a dynamic green-to-blue gradient sphere. This abstract representation symbolizes institutional-grade RFQ protocols for digital asset derivatives, ensuring high-fidelity execution and price discovery within market microstructure, powered by an intelligence layer for alpha generation and capital efficiency.](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/prime-os-institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-execution-terminal-system.jpg)

A hybrid RFP's weighted scoring system translates strategic priorities into a defensible, data-driven procurement decision.

- 
### [How Does a Transparent Evaluation Criterial in an Rfp Influence Vendor Behavior and Proposal Quality?](https://options.greeks.live/question/how-does-a-transparent-evaluation-criterial-in-an-rfp-influence-vendor-behavior-and-proposal-quality/)
![A sleek, spherical white and blue module featuring a central black aperture and teal lens, representing the core Intelligence Layer for Institutional Trading in Digital Asset Derivatives. It visualizes High-Fidelity Execution within an RFQ protocol, enabling precise Price Discovery and optimizing the Principal's Operational Framework for Crypto Derivatives OS.](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/precision-lens-for-institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-execution.jpg)

Transparent evaluation criteria systematically shift vendor focus from persuasion to proof, yielding higher quality, data-driven proposals.

- 
### [How Do You Effectively Weight Evaluation Criteria in a Complex It Rfp?](https://options.greeks.live/question/how-do-you-effectively-weight-evaluation-criteria-in-a-complex-it-rfp/)
![The central teal core signifies a Principal's Prime RFQ, routing RFQ protocols across modular arms. Metallic levers denote precise control over multi-leg spread execution and block trades. This framework ensures high-fidelity execution, optimal price discovery, and efficient management of latent liquidity for institutional digital asset derivatives.](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/principals-prime-os-rfq-system-institutional-digital-asset-derivatives.jpg)

A system for translating strategic priorities into a quantitative, defensible framework for high-stakes technology acquisition.

- 
### [How Do You Effectively Weight RFP Evaluation Criteria to Reflect Project Priorities?](https://options.greeks.live/question/how-do-you-effectively-weight-rfp-evaluation-criteria-to-reflect-project-priorities/)
![A sophisticated metallic instrument, a precision gauge, indicates a calibrated reading, essential for RFQ protocol execution. Its intricate scales symbolize price discovery and high-fidelity execution for institutional digital asset derivatives. Teal illumination suggests dark liquidity aggregation, supporting the principal's operational framework and systemic risk mitigation via an intelligence layer.](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-execution-platform.jpg)

Effective RFP weighting translates strategic priorities into a quantifiable, defensible decision architecture for aligned procurement outcomes.

- 
### [What Are the Key Differences in Vendor Evaluation Criteria between a Collaborative and Traditional Rfp?](https://options.greeks.live/question/what-are-the-key-differences-in-vendor-evaluation-criteria-between-a-collaborative-and-traditional-rfp/)
![Precision-engineered device with central lens, symbolizing Prime RFQ Intelligence Layer for institutional digital asset derivatives. Facilitates RFQ protocol optimization, driving price discovery for Bitcoin options and Ethereum futures. Robust design ensures high-fidelity execution, capital efficiency, and counterparty risk mitigation.](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/high-fidelity-institutional-rfq-protocol-engine-for-digital-asset-derivatives-options-trading.jpg)

Collaborative RFPs evaluate a vendor's potential as a long-term innovation partner, while traditional RFPs assess compliance with predefined, cost-centric specifications.

- 
### [How Can You Objectively Weight RFP Evaluation Criteria for a Fair Comparison?](https://options.greeks.live/question/how-can-you-objectively-weight-rfp-evaluation-criteria-for-a-fair-comparison/)
![Abstractly depicting an Institutional Grade Crypto Derivatives OS component. Its robust structure and metallic interface signify precise Market Microstructure for High-Fidelity Execution of RFQ Protocol and Block Trade orders. The angular teal plane represents a transparent Liquidity Pool driving Price Discovery and Atomic Settlement.](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/principals-integrated-crypto-derivatives-rfq-protocol-architecture.jpg)

Objectively weighting RFP criteria requires a systematic architecture that translates strategic priorities into a defensible, mathematical model.

- 
### [What Are the Primary Differences between Measuring Roi for On-Premise versus Saas Rfp Platforms?](https://options.greeks.live/question/what-are-the-primary-differences-between-measuring-roi-for-on-premise-versus-saas-rfp-platforms/)
![Diagonal composition of sleek metallic infrastructure with a bright green data stream alongside a multi-toned teal geometric block. This visualizes High-Fidelity Execution for Digital Asset Derivatives, facilitating RFQ Price Discovery within deep Liquidity Pools, critical for institutional Block Trades and Multi-Leg Spreads on a Prime RFQ.](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/high-fidelity-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-execution-optimization-leveraging-proprietary-institutional-prime-os-for-optimal-price-discovery-and-latency-reduction.jpg)

The primary ROI difference is a trade-off: on-premise models analyze a depreciating asset's TCO, while SaaS models assess a dynamic service's continuous value stream.

- 
### [How Should the RFP Process Differ between Acquiring On-Premise Software versus a Cloud-Based SaaS Solution?](https://options.greeks.live/question/how-should-the-rfp-process-differ-between-acquiring-on-premise-software-versus-a-cloud-based-saas-solution/)
![The image displays a sleek, intersecting mechanism atop a foundational blue sphere. It represents the intricate market microstructure of institutional digital asset derivatives trading, facilitating RFQ protocols for block trades. The crossing elements symbolize multi-leg spread execution and aggregated liquidity, managed by a robust Prime RFQ for high-fidelity execution.](https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-prime-os-rfq-execution.jpg)

The RFP for on-premise software architects an owned asset, while the SaaS RFP architects a managed service-level contract.

---

## Raw Schema Data

```json
{
    "@context": "https://schema.org",
    "@type": "BreadcrumbList",
    "itemListElement": [
        {
            "@type": "ListItem",
            "position": 1,
            "name": "Home",
            "item": "https://options.greeks.live"
        },
        {
            "@type": "ListItem",
            "position": 2,
            "name": "Question",
            "item": "https://options.greeks.live/question/"
        },
        {
            "@type": "ListItem",
            "position": 3,
            "name": "How Should an Rfp Structure the Evaluation Criteria Differently for a Cloud-Based Saas Solution versus an On-Premise Software Installation?",
            "item": "https://options.greeks.live/question/how-should-an-rfp-structure-the-evaluation-criteria-differently-for-a-cloud-based-saas-solution-versus-an-on-premise-software-installation/"
        }
    ]
}
```

```json
{
    "@context": "https://schema.org",
    "@type": "Organization",
    "@id": "https://greeks.live/#organization",
    "name": "Greeks.Live",
    "url": "https://greeks.live/",
    "description": "Greeks.live is the definitive toolkit for the professional options trader, dedicated to empowering our users with institutional-grade data, advanced analytics, and a comprehensive suite of trading tools designed to provide a decisive edge in the market. Every article and guide published under the Greeks.live name is a product of our deep commitment to data-driven analysis and our mission to support the global trading community.",
    "email": "support@greeks.live",
    "logo": {
        "@type": "ImageObject",
        "url": "https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Greeks.Live-Logo-Icon.svg"
    },
    "hasPart": [
        {
            "@type": "WebSite",
            "name": "About Us",
            "url": "https://about.greeks.live"
        },
        {
            "@type": "WebSite",
            "name": "App Download Page",
            "url": "https://about.greeks.live/#/download/basic_trade"
        },
        {
            "@type": "WebSite",
            "name": "Newcomers' Guide",
            "url": "https://twisty-sign-c8b.notion.site/Guide-for-Greeks-live-X-Deribit-Newbies-5a08a3052822427d800af6eaf3704c8d"
        },
        {
            "@type": "WebSite",
            "name": "Knowledge Base",
            "url": "https://linktr.ee/greeks.live"
        },
        {
            "@type": "WebSite",
            "name": "Option Terminology",
            "url": "https://greekslive.notion.site/88dfc00e7c584d4d8969b6302a79a12f?pvs=4"
        },
        {
            "@type": "WebSite",
            "name": "Terms of Service",
            "url": "https://greeks.live/#/tos"
        },
        {
            "@type": "WebSite",
            "name": "Disclaimer",
            "url": "https://greeks.live/#/disclaimer"
        }
    ],
    "sameAs": [
        "https://x.com/greekslive",
        "https://youtube.com/@greeks_live?si=-KjT0Lkw4WUCI0tD",
        "https://t.me/greekslive_notifications",
        "https://t.me/greekslive",
        "https://pinterest.com/greekslive/"
    ],
    "makesOffer": [
        {
            "@type": "Offer",
            "itemOffered": {
                "@type": "Service",
                "name": "RFQ Platform",
                "url": "https://rfq.greeks.live",
                "description": "Execute institutional-grade block trades for crypto options and futures. This platform provides deep, over-the-counter (OTC) liquidity via a professional Request for Quote system.",
                "provider": {
                    "@id": "https://greeks.live/#organization"
                }
            }
        },
        {
            "@type": "Offer",
            "itemOffered": {
                "@type": "Service",
                "name": "Lending Tools",
                "url": "https://lend.greeks.live",
                "description": "Manage crypto lending and borrowing activities to earn yield or secure loans. This suite of tools helps users analyze interest rates and manage collateralized debt positions.",
                "provider": {
                    "@id": "https://greeks.live/#organization"
                }
            }
        },
        {
            "@type": "Offer",
            "itemOffered": {
                "@type": "Service",
                "name": "Data Lab",
                "url": "https://greeks.live/#/deribit/tools/datalab/BTC",
                "description": "Analyze historical and real-time options data with advanced metrics. This tool is designed for backtesting strategies and identifying market trends through comprehensive data visualization.",
                "provider": {
                    "@id": "https://greeks.live/#organization"
                }
            }
        },
        {
            "@type": "Offer",
            "itemOffered": {
                "@type": "Service",
                "name": "Profit & Loss Analysis (PnL)",
                "url": "https://greeks.live/#/deribit/tools/pnl_analysis",
                "description": "Track and analyze the Profit and Loss (PnL) of your options portfolio. This tool provides detailed performance metrics to help traders evaluate and refine their strategies.",
                "provider": {
                    "@id": "https://greeks.live/#organization"
                }
            }
        },
        {
            "@type": "Offer",
            "itemOffered": {
                "@type": "Service",
                "name": "Position Visualization",
                "url": "https://greeks.live/#/deribit/tools/pv/BTC",
                "description": "Visualize complex options positions and their corresponding risk profiles. This tool generates payoff diagrams to help traders intuitively understand potential profit, loss, and exposure.",
                "provider": {
                    "@id": "https://greeks.live/#organization"
                }
            }
        },
        {
            "@type": "Offer",
            "itemOffered": {
                "@type": "Service",
                "name": "Options Calculator",
                "url": "https://greeks.live/#/deribit/tools/calculator",
                "description": "Calculate the theoretical price and risk parameters ('the Greeks') of crypto options. An essential tool for pricing new trades and analyzing the sensitivity of existing positions.",
                "provider": {
                    "@id": "https://greeks.live/#organization"
                }
            }
        },
        {
            "@type": "Offer",
            "itemOffered": {
                "@type": "Service",
                "name": "Greeks.live Main Platform",
                "url": "https://greeks.live/",
                "description": "The central hub for the Greeks.live suite of professional cryptocurrency options and derivatives trading tools. Access analytics, manage positions, and explore the ecosystem.",
                "provider": {
                    "@id": "https://greeks.live/#organization"
                }
            }
        },
        {
            "@type": "Offer",
            "itemOffered": {
                "@type": "Service",
                "name": "Community Forum",
                "url": "https://t.greeks.live",
                "description": "Join the official Greeks.live community. Connect with other traders, share insights, and receive the latest updates directly from the team.",
                "provider": {
                    "@id": "https://greeks.live/#organization"
                }
            }
        },
        {
            "@type": "Offer",
            "itemOffered": {
                "@type": "Service",
                "name": "Greeks.live for Deribit",
                "url": "http://deribit.greeks.live",
                "description": "A dedicated interface for trading on the Deribit exchange. This platform leverages Greeks.live's advanced analytics and tools specifically for users of Deribit's options and futures markets.",
                "provider": {
                    "@id": "https://greeks.live/#organization"
                }
            }
        },
        {
            "@type": "Offer",
            "itemOffered": {
                "@type": "Service",
                "name": "Greeks.live for OKX",
                "url": "http://okx.greeks.live",
                "description": "A dedicated interface for trading on the OKX exchange. This platform integrates Greeks.live's powerful analytics with the OKX marketplace, focusing on its options and derivatives products.",
                "provider": {
                    "@id": "https://greeks.live/#organization"
                }
            }
        },
        {
            "@type": "Offer",
            "itemOffered": {
                "@type": "Service",
                "name": "GLVS.AI Trading Platform",
                "url": "https://www.glvs.ai/",
                "description": "An AI-powered platform for automated crypto options trading. Leverage advanced algorithms and data-driven signals to develop and deploy sophisticated, hands-free trading strategies.",
                "provider": {
                    "@id": "https://greeks.live/#organization"
                }
            }
        },
        {
            "@type": "Offer",
            "itemOffered": {
                "@type": "Service",
                "name": "API Testnet & Sandbox",
                "url": "https://test.greeks.live",
                "description": "A dedicated testnet environment for developers to test their API integrations and automated trading strategies. This sandbox allows for full functionality testing without risking real funds.",
                "provider": {
                    "@id": "https://greeks.live/#organization"
                }
            }
        }
    ],
    "subOrganization": [
        {
            "@type": "Organization",
            "name": "GreeksLive HK Co., Limited",
            "email": "support@greeks.live",
            "telephone": "+852-56418949",
            "address": {
                "@type": "PostalAddress",
                "streetAddress": "Unit 11, 27/F, K. Wah Centre, 191 Java Road",
                "addressLocality": "Hong Kong",
                "addressRegion": "North Point",
                "addressCountry": "CN",
                "postalCode": "0000"
            },
            "geo": {
                "@type": "GeoCoordinates",
                "latitude": "22.2932357",
                "longitude": "114.2022026"
            },
            "image": "https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Wah-Centre-Hong-Kong.jpg"
        }
    ]
}
```

```json
{
    "@context": "https://schema.org",
    "@type": "Article",
    "mainEntityOfPage": {
        "@type": "WebPage",
        "@id": "https://options.greeks.live/question/how-should-an-rfp-structure-the-evaluation-criteria-differently-for-a-cloud-based-saas-solution-versus-an-on-premise-software-installation/"
    },
    "headline": "How Should an Rfp Structure the Evaluation Criteria Differently for a Cloud-Based Saas Solution versus an On-Premise Software Installation? \u25b4 Question",
    "description": "An RFP's evaluation criteria must pivot from assessing an owned asset's lifecycle (on-premise) to validating a partner's service reliability (SaaS). \u25b4 Question",
    "url": "https://options.greeks.live/question/how-should-an-rfp-structure-the-evaluation-criteria-differently-for-a-cloud-based-saas-solution-versus-an-on-premise-software-installation/",
    "datePublished": "2025-08-08T17:40:49+00:00",
    "dateModified": "2025-08-08T17:40:56+00:00",
    "articleSection": [
        "Question"
    ],
    "author": {
        "@id": "https://greeks.live/#organization"
    },
    "publisher": {
        "@id": "https://greeks.live/#organization"
    },
    "image": {
        "@type": "ImageObject",
        "url": "https://options.greeks.live/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/institutional-digital-asset-derivatives-rfq-optimized-microstructure.jpg",
        "caption": "This abstract composition visually articulates institutional trading dynamics. Intersecting elements symbolize RFQ protocols and private quotation streams, balancing on a capital efficiency pivot, representing optimal price discovery for digital asset derivatives. Surrounding liquidity pools and execution venues highlight high-fidelity execution of block trades and multi-leg spreads. This intricate market microstructure underscores Prime RFQ capabilities, ensuring atomic settlement and best execution."
    },
    "keywords": [
        "Capital Expenditure (CapEx)",
        "Data Residency",
        "Data Security",
        "Evaluation Criteria",
        "Implementation Methodology",
        "On-Premise Software",
        "Operational Expenditure (OpEx)",
        "RFP Evaluation Criteria",
        "Scalability Planning",
        "Service Level Agreement (SLA)",
        "Technical Architecture",
        "Total Cost",
        "Vendor Viability"
    ]
}
```

```json
{
    "@context": "https://schema.org",
    "@type": "WebSite",
    "url": "https://options.greeks.live/",
    "potentialAction": {
        "@type": "SearchAction",
        "target": "https://options.greeks.live/?s=search_term_string",
        "query-input": "required name=search_term_string"
    }
}
```


---

**Original URL:** https://options.greeks.live/question/how-should-an-rfp-structure-the-evaluation-criteria-differently-for-a-cloud-based-saas-solution-versus-an-on-premise-software-installation/
