Yes. A small team can run a useful security tool RFP from one page: a problem statement, five must-haves, four to six questions, a scoring rule and a two week hands-on test. Skip the formal scorecards and long panels, but keep written evidence and a test on your own code.
What a small team can skip
You probably do not need a six week schedule, a six person panel or a hundred question template. You do need to avoid the failure modes that big processes protect against: choosing on a demo, copying a vendor's requirements, and discovering exit terms too late.
A one page RFP keeps the protection and drops the paperwork.
The one page template
1. Problem (three lines). What is going wrong and what you want in six months. Example: "We find out about vulnerable dependencies too late, and nobody owns triage. We want findings in pull requests and a list of what we run."
2. Environment (four lines). Languages, source control, CI, where you deploy, team size.
3. Five musts. Short, testable, tied to your environment. For example: reads our lockfiles, reports in pull requests, exports a bill of materials, supports single sign-on, can be deployed the way our policy requires.
4. Questions for vendors (four to six).
- Which capabilities in your answer are generally available, early access or roadmap?
- Where is our data stored and does any source code leave our environment?
- What can we export, in what formats, if we leave?
- What does onboarding need from us, in hours, for the first repository?
- What are your support hours and response targets?
- How are units counted for pricing, and what is an add-on?
5. How we will decide. Name who decides, the weight of each section, and the tie-breaker. Three lines are enough.
6. Test plan. Two weeks, two or three repos, same criteria for every vendor.
A two week test for a small team
| Days | Activity |
|---|---|
| 1 to 2 | Connect one repository with least privilege access |
| 3 to 5 | Review findings with the developers who own the code |
| 6 to 8 | Open a pull request that adds a risky dependency and see what the check says |
| 9 to 10 | Export data and check that it opens and matches |
| 11 to 12 | Contact support with a real question and note how long it takes |
| 13 to 14 | Score, write one paragraph on the decision, and tell vendors |
Keep the vendor count low
Two or three vendors is enough for a small team. More than that costs you the hours you were trying to save. Use peers and developers to pick the names, and include any tool you already run.
Write down what you decided and why
A few lines in a shared document are plenty. When someone asks in a year why you picked it, you will have an answer, and when a renewal arrives you can test whether the reasons still hold.
A worked example: the page, filled in
Here is a sample for a team of twelve engineers.
Problem. We learn about vulnerable dependencies late and nobody owns triage. We want findings in pull requests, a current list of what we run, and one person accountable.
Environment. TypeScript and Python services, about 40 repositories in one hosted source control system, one hosted CI, containers on one cloud, no dedicated security staff.
Musts.
- Reads our lockfiles for npm and pip.
- Posts results in pull requests.
- Exports a bill of materials in an open format.
- Supports single sign-on.
- Lets us choose whether source code leaves our environment, and tells us what it sends.
Questions. The six listed above, sent as a two page form.
Decision. The engineering manager decides. Weights: fit 40, developer experience 30, data handling 15, support and terms 15. Tie-break: the better result on the pull request test.
Test. Two weeks, two repositories, three engineers.
This fits in a short document, and a vendor can answer it in an afternoon.
Roles in a team without a security group
| Task | Who |
|---|---|
| Writes the page | Senior engineer or engineering manager |
| Reviews data handling answers | The person who handles customer data commitments |
| Runs the test | Two engineers who own the test repositories |
| Decides | Engineering manager |
| Owns it afterwards | A named engineer with time reserved |
The last row matters most. Without an owner, even a good tool decays.
Mistakes small teams make
- Buying for a team you hope to be rather than the team you are.
- Skipping the data handling question because no one wants to ask it.
- Letting a free trial run without a plan, so nothing is learned.
- Forgetting to ask how pricing units are counted before the team grows.
- Choosing the tool a friend recommended without testing it.
When to scale up the process
Add steps when risk rises. If you handle regulated data, add a security questionnaire and a legal review. If you have several teams with different stacks, add more repositories to the test. If the purchase is large relative to your budget, add a reference call and a second evaluator. The one page stays the front sheet.
Keep the artifacts
Save the page, the responses and your test notes in a shared folder. When a renewal comes, rerun the test on one repository and compare. It takes an afternoon and protects you from drift.
Where Safeguard fits
If you want an easy first candidate to try, Safeguard offers a free scan at https://gold.safeguard.sh/scan, and its GA capabilities include dependency scanning, SBOMs, reachability analysis, and policies and gates. Apply the same five musts to it and to every other option.
Try it yourself
Click through it at your own pace, or open it full screen. Watch how a pull request check reports a risky dependency. It is the behavior your day six test should confirm for every vendor.
Quick check
Is one page enough for a regulated company?
It can be the front page. Regulated buyers often add a questionnaire and legal review behind it.
How many vendors should a small team test?
Two or three. More adds cost without much new information.
Who should own the tool after we choose it?
A named engineer with time reserved each week, plus a backup. Without an owner, findings pile up and the tool loses value.
Last reviewed: 19 October 2026.
