Enterprise
RFP and vendor evaluation support
Structured responses grounded in audited documentation, a named owner for your process, and evaluation criteria that actually separate AI development platforms.
Ciao supports RFPs with a named response owner, written answers grounded in audited documentation — SOC 2 Type II reports under NDA, a security pack, a GDPR DPA — and live demonstrations of the controls being claimed. Unlike evaluations written for low-code suites or outsourcing firms, an AI development platform RFP should score code ownership, governance of AI changes, security testing depth, deployment control and model-vendor dependency.
Published 2026-07-03 · Last updated 2026-07-03
RFPs meet a new category
Most RFP templates in circulation were written for one of two vendors: a low-code suite or an outsourced development firm. An AI-assisted engineering platform is neither, and templates built for the old categories miss the questions that matter most here — who owns the generated code, how AI-made changes are governed and audited, whether security testing runs against the live application, and how exposed the platform is to a single model vendor.
This page does two jobs. It tells you how Ciao responds to RFPs, and it offers the evaluation criteria worth writing into your document — criteria fair to every vendor, because they ask for evidence any serious platform should be able to produce.
The criteria table below is written to be lifted directly into an RFP. Every row asks for evidence — audit reports, contractual terms, live demonstrations — so using it will not tilt the process toward any one vendor, including Ciao. It will tilt the process toward vendors who can prove what they claim, which is the point of running an RFP at all.
What documentation exists to support your evaluation
- SOC 2 Type II reports — Available under NDA — independent audit evidence rather than self-attestation, usable as scoring evidence in most frameworks.
- Security pack — Architecture, isolation, encryption and data-handling detail for the technical scoring track, available on request via the contact page.
- GDPR DPA and contract terms — Processor obligations, subprocessor commitments and zero-retention model contracts, ready for the legal track.
- Questionnaire responses — Written answers in your format, grounded in the same audited documents so evaluation answers do not drift from evidence.
- Live demonstration — The controls claimed on paper — Guardrails review, the append-only audit trail, live security testing — can be shown running, which is stronger scoring input than any written answer.
How Ciao responds to an RFP
1. Named owner
One person on the enterprise team owns your process end to end — deadlines, clarifications, document delivery.
2. Clarifying questions
Ambiguous requirements are questioned early, in writing, so the response answers what your committee actually needs scored.
3. Written response
Answers are drawn from the security pack, the SOC 2 Type II report and the DPA, and marked where a requirement is met contractually, structurally or not at all — an honest 'no' beats a soft 'yes' discovered in year two.
4. Demonstration
Committees are invited to watch the claimed controls operate live: a governed merge with recorded review, the audit trail, security findings confirmed against a running app.
5. Commercial response
Serious production programs start at USD 10,000 per year; deployment posture — Ciao cloud, your own cloud account, private VPC, or on-prem under separate terms — is priced and stated explicitly.
Evaluation criteria worth writing into your RFP
| Criterion | What to ask every vendor | What Ciao provides |
|---|---|---|
| Code ownership | Do we own the output, in standard technologies, exportable at any time? | 100% code ownership — standard React, TypeScript and Tailwind, exportable to your own repo at any time |
| Governance of AI changes | How are risky AI-made changes detected, reviewed and recorded? | Guardrails detects risky changes, applies plain-English policies, records human review, and leaves an audit trail behind every merge |
| Security testing depth | Is testing static-only, or verified against the running application? | Static scanning, dependency checks, access-control probes, findings confirmed against the live app |
| Identity and access | SSO, MFA, role-based access control? | SSO via SAML and OIDC, optional MFA, RBAC |
| Auditability | Can every prompt, merge, deploy and admin action be reconstructed? | Append-only audit trail across prompts, merges, deploys and admin actions |
| Deployment control | Can it run in our cloud, VPC or data center? | Ciao cloud, your own AWS, Azure or GCP account, private VPC, or on-prem under separate terms |
| Model dependency | What happens if one model vendor fails or changes terms? | Multi-provider model ladder with fallback; zero-retention model contracts |
Scoring advice from the other side of the table
Weight evidence over demonstration polish. A rehearsed demo tells you about the vendor's sales engineering; an audit report under NDA and a live, unrehearsed look at the audit trail tell you about the platform. Ask each vendor where data lives under each deployment option they offer, and ask what happens to your code and your applications if the relationship ends — the export answer separates platforms from lock-in quickly.
Finally, score honesty. A vendor that marks a requirement 'not met' or 'met contractually, not by certification' is giving your committee usable information. Treat that precision as a positive signal, because it predicts how the vendor will behave when something goes wrong in production.
Budget evaluation time for a hands-on stage. A scored demonstration on your own scenario — a small governed build, a deliberately risky change routed through review, an export of the resulting audit records — produces more decision-grade information in a day than another round of written clarifications produces in a month.
Frequently asked questions
Will Ciao complete our security questionnaire as part of the RFP?
Yes — send the questionnaire in the format your process uses. Responses are grounded in the security pack, the SOC 2 Type II report and the DPA, so written answers stay consistent with the audited evidence.
Do you respond to public-sector RFPs?
Public-sector processes vary by jurisdiction and framework, so raise your specific procurement requirements with the enterprise team early. The document set — SOC 2 Type II under NDA, security pack, DPA — supports most evaluation structures.
What proof exists that the platform runs real production workloads?
Ciao powers products used by millions globally, including Automo.AI, Desygner.com and WeBrand.com. Ask during your evaluation what reference material is available for your segment.
Can our RFP require deployment into our own infrastructure?
Yes. Ciao deploys to your own AWS, Azure or GCP account or a private VPC, and on-prem is available under separate terms. State the required posture in the RFP so the commercial response prices it explicitly.
How should we compare Ciao against low-code and no-code vendors?
Use criteria both categories can answer: code ownership and exportability, governance of changes, security testing depth, and identity controls. The comparison pages linked below set out where the categories differ without competitor attacks.