Procuring custom software for a regulatory body requires a careful balance of clarity, risk management, and long-term stewardship. The procurement process should move beyond a checklist of features and instead define the outcomes, governance, and ongoing support that will sustain a system through policy changes and operational use. The following guidance—designed for IT decision-makers at regulatory bodies—focuses on four core practices that materially reduce procurement risk and increase the likelihood of a successful long-term partnership.

1. Craft RFPs that emphasize outcomes, not feature lists

An effective request for proposal (RFP) defines the problems to be solved and the measurable outcomes expected, rather than prescribing a detailed feature set. Specify success criteria and acceptance metrics such as processing time reductions, auditability requirements, user satisfaction targets, data retention and privacy obligations, and interoperability expectations with existing systems and data partners. Include statutory or policy constraints that affect functionality (e.g., evidence retention periods, public-reporting formats) so vendors can propose appropriate design and controls. Outcome-focused RFPs encourage innovative, maintainable solutions and make vendor responses easier to compare against the same business objectives.

2. Evaluate vendors on domain experience, delivery approach, and support

Domain expertise—especially experience with regulatory workflows, licensing, investigations, and public registries—should be a primary evaluation criterion. Assess whether vendors have implemented the types of controls and audit trails your regulations require. Equally important is the proposed delivery approach: prefer teams that balance rigorous upfront requirements capture with iterative delivery (a hybrid approach), ensuring both compliance evidence and regular stakeholder feedback. Finally, evaluate post-delivery support: SLAs, defined maintenance windows, security patching procedure, knowledge transfer plan, and clear escalation paths.

3. Request short proofs-of-concept to de-risk large procurements

Require a short, time-boxed proof-of-concept (PoC) or pilot phase before committing to full development. A PoC—typically 4–8 weeks with narrowly defined deliverables—validates core assumptions (integration with a key data source, expected behaviours, or a licensing workflow) and demonstrates a vendor’s technical fit and communication style. Define evaluation criteria for the PoC in advance, including deliverables, acceptance tests, and intellectual property terms. A successful PoC reduces technical and contractual uncertainty and provides evidence to justify continued investment.

4. Outline governance and long-term maintenance expectations

Procurements must specify who will govern changes post-go-live and how those changes will be approved, prioritized, and funded. Include contractual terms for maintenance, security updates, data exports, and an exit plan that ensures continuity if a vendor relationship ends. Define responsibilities for documentation, training, and knowledge transfer so institutional capability does not reside solely with the vendor. Establish KPIs and a regular review cadence (e.g., quarterly or semi-annual) to assess operational health and compliance posture.

Checklist for procurement documents

• Outcome-based success metrics and acceptance criteria.
• Evidence of domain experience and relevant references.
• Clear description of delivery methodology and governance model.
• Short, funded PoC scope with evaluation criteria.
• Maintenance SLAs, security obligations, and exit/transition terms.
• Requirements for documentation, training, and knowledge transfer.

A disciplined procurement process that prioritizes outcomes, verifies vendor fit through a PoC, and codifies governance and maintenance expectations will produce resilient, compliant systems—reducing operational risk while preserving regulatory integrity over the long term.

Photo by Shutter Speed on Unsplash