Multifamily connectivity tool
Managed Wi-Fi RFP Scorecard for Multifamily Properties
Give every provider the same requirements and property assumptions. Score documented commitments, identify exceptions, and compare full-term cost before selecting an apartment network partner.
By Josh Siddon · Published September 21, 2026
How should you score managed Wi-Fi proposals?
Set property-specific requirements before issuing the RFP. Score each proposal from 0 to 4 against the same six categories, multiply each score by its category weight, and divide by 4 for a result out of 100. Record the evidence and exceptions beside every score. Treat unresolved security, coverage, or contract requirements as decision gates rather than allowing a high total to hide them.
This scorecard evaluates managed Wi-Fi proposals, not whether a property should buy managed Wi-Fi at all. If you are still choosing a service model, start with our bulk internet versus managed Wi-Fi guide.
Define the same RFP baseline for every bidder
Supply a consistent property profile: building count, unit mix, site plans, existing cabling and circuits, current agreement dates, expected resident and staff devices, amenity coverage, smart-building systems, construction limits, and target launch sequence. Ask every provider to identify assumptions they could not verify. Without a common baseline, a lower price may reflect a smaller scope.
Separate requirements into mandatory, preferred, and optional. Require providers to mark each one as included, excluded, or subject to validation, with a document reference. Decide who can approve exceptions before reviewing scores.
Weighted evaluation criteria
These starting weights total 100%. Change them before proposals arrive to reflect the portfolio’s priorities; retain the same final weights for every provider.
| Category | Weight | Evidence to request |
|---|---|---|
| Coverage and capacity | 20% | Property-specific design, unit and common-area coverage assumptions, capacity model, survey method, and test plan. |
| Resident experience and support | 20% | Move-in workflow, device policy, support hours, first-contact owner, escalation path, and resident-facing communications. |
| Operations and security | 15% | Carrier and network responsibilities, monitoring, incident reporting, segmentation approach, access controls, and equipment inventory. |
| Deployment and acceptance | 15% | Building sequence, property access needs, resident disruption plan, acceptance tests, defect process, and handoff documents. |
| Five-year economics | 20% | Itemized circuits, construction, equipment, licenses, support, billing, increases, refreshes, and exit costs on identical assumptions. |
| Contract and exit risk | 10% | Term, renewal, assignment, performance remedies, equipment ownership, data access, transition assistance, and termination language. |
Use one evidence scale
- 0: No response or material requirement unmet
- 1: Claim only; important gaps remain
- 2: Partial evidence or significant exceptions
- 3: Requirement met with documented evidence
- 4: Requirement met with strong evidence and a verifiable commitment
A demonstration or marketing claim is not a contract commitment. Record the source for each score, such as a design drawing, support handbook, priced schedule, contract exhibit, reference call, or test plan. Re-score when a bidder resolves an exception in writing.
Worked scoring example
The following numbers are hypothetical and demonstrate the calculation only. They are not vendor ratings or client results. Vendor A scores higher on coverage; Vendor B scores higher on resident support and economics.
| Category | Weight | Vendor A score / weighted | Vendor B score / weighted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coverage and capacity | 20% | 4 / 20 | 3 / 15 |
| Resident experience and support | 20% | 2 / 10 | 4 / 20 |
| Operations and security | 15% | 3 / 11.25 | 3 / 11.25 |
| Deployment and acceptance | 15% | 3 / 11.25 | 2 / 7.5 |
| Five-year economics | 20% | 2 / 10 | 3 / 15 |
| Contract and exit risk | 10% | 2 / 5 | 3 / 7.5 |
| Total | 100% | 67.5 / 100 | 76.25 / 100 |
The result is a discussion tool, not an automatic award. Review mandatory requirements and contract exceptions separately. A provider that cannot meet a critical coverage or support obligation may be unsuitable even with the highest weighted total.
Normalize the five-year cost
Ask each bidder for an itemized annual schedule covering construction, circuits, equipment, licenses, monitoring, resident support, taxes, planned increases, refreshes, and end-of-term work. Use the same occupied-unit and vacancy assumptions. Show owner payments, resident charges, and any revenue share separately rather than netting an uncertain benefit against a firm cost.
Keep one-time capital costs visible. Note which equipment the owner owns, leases, or must return, and price the transition if the property is sold or changes providers. Any “to be determined” item should remain an open risk, not a zero in the comparison.
Decision gates before award
- Confirm design coverage and acceptance tests for representative units, common areas, and building systems.
- Name the first resident-support contact and the party that coordinates carrier and network incidents.
- Resolve security boundaries and access to operational records.
- Confirm the contract matches the scored proposal, including prices, service levels, remedies, renewal, assignment, and exit assistance.
- Record unresolved exceptions, owners, due dates, and the person authorized to accept each risk.