Your security operations center processes thousands of alerts daily. Analysts manually triage incidents, copy context between tools, and execute repetitive response workflows that should be automated. The mean time to respond is measured in hours when it should be minutes.
The challenge is that SOC automation platforms differ dramatically in orchestration depth, integration breadth, and operational maturity. A vendor claiming "comprehensive SIEM integration" might connect to three platforms via API, while another maintains bidirectional connectors with 40 systems.
A structured RFP process forces vendors to answer the same questions on your terms. This article provides the complete requirements framework: what capabilities matter, what questions separate capable platforms from those that just present well, and the template you need to run an effective evaluation.
What SOC automation platforms actually do
A SOC automation platform, sometimes called 'SOAR', connects the disparate tools in your security stack and automates workflows that currently require manual analyst effort.
The core capabilities cluster into four categories.
- Orchestration connects your SIEM, endpoint detection, threat intel feeds, ticketing systems, and identity platforms into workflows that pass context automatically.
- Automation executes repetitive tasks, enriching alerts with threat intelligence, checking indicators against allow lists, pulling logs, and creating tickets.
- Case management centralizes investigation workflows so analysts work from a single interface. An alert triggers a case that automatically gathers context from integrated systems and tracks every action from detection through resolution.
- Response playbooks codify the decision trees your best analysts use. When the platform detects a phishing email, it automatically isolates the endpoint, quarantines similar messages, extracts indicators, checks them against threat intel, and generates a summary for analyst review.
An effective RFP surfaces which platforms genuinely solve these problems and which simply shift the administration burden from your existing tools to a new orchestration layer.
Core platform capabilities your RFP must evaluate
1. Orchestration and integration depth
SOC automation platforms advertise integration counts that sound impressive until you examine what "integration" actually means. Your RFP should distinguish between deep bidirectional integrations and shallow API connections.
For each critical system in your stack, require vendors to specify whether the integration is native or third-party, whether it supports bidirectional workflows or read-only queries, what specific actions the platform can execute, and what information can be pulled automatically.
If your SIEM is Splunk, ask whether the platform can create queries, retrieve results, update notable events, and trigger actions, or if it merely reads alert feeds. If you use CrowdStrike, ask whether playbooks can isolate hosts, retrieve process trees, and collect forensics—or if integration stops at pulling alerts.
Shallow integrations create an orchestration theater. The platform technically connects to your tools, but still requires manual analyst effort.
2. Playbook and automation capabilities
Pre-built playbooks vary dramatically in quality. Your RFP should evaluate playbook depth, customization flexibility, and operational maturity.
Ask vendors how many pre-built playbooks they provide by category: phishing response, malware containment, insider threat investigation, and vulnerability management. Request examples of complex playbooks and ask how many automated steps versus manual decision points each contains.
Require vendors to explain playbook development. Can your team build custom playbooks without professional services? Does the platform use visual editors or require coding? Can playbooks call external scripts? How are playbooks versioned and tested?
Separate platforms that ship with useful automation from those providing a framework requiring significant customization before delivering value.
3. Threat intelligence integration
Effective SOC automation depends on timely threat intelligence. Ask vendors which commercial and open-source feeds they integrate natively, how frequently they update intelligence updates, whether custom feeds can be ingested, and how intelligence is surfaced during investigations.
Can playbooks automatically enrich indicators against multiple sources? Does the platform deduplicate and correlate intelligence? Platforms claiming "threat intel support" but requiring manual queries have not solved the enrichment problem.
4. Case management workflow
Require vendors to demonstrate case management with a realistic incident scenario. How does an alert become a case? What information is automatically gathered? How do analysts add evidence and collaborate? Can cases be templated by incident type?
Evaluate whether the platform brings context to the analyst or requires hunting across dashboards.
Security and compliance requirements
1. Certifications and audit reports
Security platforms undergo more scrutiny because buyers trust vendors with sensitive security information. Require specific, current certifications—no room for aspirational commitments.
Require vendors to provide their most recent SOC 2 Type II report with audit period and any exceptions. Ask for ISO 27001 certification with the certificate number and expiration. If you operate in regulated industries, specify FedRAMP, HIPAA, or PCI DSS requirements.
Do not accept "working toward certification" as equivalent to holding a current certification. Vendors with mature security programs maintain these continuously.
2. Data handling and residency
SOC platforms ingest and analyze your organization's security telemetry, which may include information you cannot export to certain jurisdictions or store with certain subprocessors. Your RFP must establish clear data handling requirements.
Ask vendors where customer data is stored by default, what regional deployment options are available, whether data can be restricted to specific geographic regions, which subprocessors have access to customer data, and what data is used for platform improvement or machine learning model training.
Organizations subject to GDPR or other data sovereignty regulations require vendors to specify how they ensure compliance and what mechanisms support data subject requests.
3. Access controls and audit logging
Require vendors to detail their access control model: role-based permissions, privileged access management, supported authentication methods (SSO, MFA, certificates). Ask how user activity is logged, retention periods, export capabilities, and alerting on anomalous actions.
Vendors with mature security practices provide detailed answers because they have implemented them deeply. Vague responses signal immature controls.
Integration and deployment requirements
Your platform must integrate cleanly with your existing stack. A platform requiring network rearchitecting or tool replacement creates a new integration project, not automation.
SIEM and security tool integration
Specify your exact SIEM and require vendors to detail integration. If you run Splunk Enterprise Security, ask whether the connector supports Cloud and on-premise deployments. Request specifics on bidirectional data flows.
List every security tool requiring integration: EDR, NDR, cloud workload protection, IAM, email security, threat intel platforms. For each, require integration depth specifics.
Generic "we integrate with leading tools" claims waste time. Require specifics.
ITSM and collaboration integration
If incidents create ServiceNow tickets, ask whether integration is bidirectional—can the platform update status, add comments, and close tickets automatically? If your team coordinates in Slack or Teams, can the platform send notifications, collect approvals, and log chat actions?
Platforms forcing security teams to adopt new workflows create adoption friction.
The SOC automation platform RFP template
Use the following template as your working framework. Each table is editable; add rows for integrations specific to your environment, remove sections that do not apply, and adjust scoring weights to reflect your priorities.
Section 1: Vendor background and stability
Section 2: Platform capabilities matrix
For each capability, indicate: Native (built and maintained by your team), Partner (third-party integration), or Custom (requires development). Provide specific limitations or prerequisites.
Section 3: Security and compliance
Section 4: Deployment and operations
Section 5: Pricing
Standardize pricing responses to enable accurate comparison. All vendors should complete every field.
Total estimated annual cost
Additional pricing questions:
- What triggers overage charges, and what are the rates?
- Are development and staging environments included or priced separately?
- Describe volume discount tiers and their terms.
- What cost escalation should we expect at renewal?
Evaluating vendor responses
Receiving proposals is the beginning of evaluation, not the end. Structure your assessment in three phases to separate genuine capability from effective presentation.
- First pass: Completeness and compliance. Eliminate responses that skip required sections, fail to provide requested documentation, or do not meet non-negotiable requirements. A vendor who cannot follow submission instructions is signaling how they will manage implementation.
- Second pass: Technical depth and integration quality. Score platform capabilities, integration breadth, and security documentation using your weighted criteria. Have your security engineering team review technical sections independently before procurement evaluates pricing. Shallow integrations that look acceptable on paper become obvious when engineers examine them.
- Third pass: Reference validation and proof of concept. Call every reference provided and ask specifically about integration quality, implementation challenges, and ongoing operational overhead. The gap between vendor claims and production reality surfaces in reference calls.
For your top two or three platforms, require a proof of concept in your actual environment. Connect the platform to your SIEM, build a realistic playbook, and measure whether the automation actually reduces analyst effort or just shifts it. Proofs of concept with production integrations reveal limitations that vendor demos gloss over.
One signal worth attention during evaluation is response accuracy and completeness. Vendors using AI RFP tools with response generation capabilities that auto-fill security questionnaires from verified documentation respond faster and with greater technical precision than vendors manually assembling answers. When a SOC automation vendor takes six weeks to complete a security questionnaire, that timeline itself signals something about their operational maturity and internal tooling. Leading bid and proposal teams at security vendors handle complex compliance questionnaires in days, not weeks, because they have automated response, review, and approval workflows, exactly the capability they are selling to you.
The vendors demonstrating this operational maturity in their responses are more likely to deliver it in their products.
Best practices for running the RFP process
- Set a realistic timeline. SOC automation evaluations are technically complex. Give vendors four weeks minimum to respond. Rushed responses hide capability gaps.
- Require a proof of concept. Shortlist two vendors after proposals, then require deployment in your test environment with realistic workflows using your actual tools. POCs expose integration claims that break down in practice.
- Involve daily users. SOC analysts, security engineers, and incident responders evaluate platforms differently from procurement. Build cross-functional input into scoring.
- Validate claims independently. For every "seamless" integration, check vendor documentation, search user communities, and ask references specifically about that integration's quality.
- Document selection rationale. Record why you selected the vendor—capabilities, integration quality, pricing, and risks accepted. This protects the decision and provides context at renewal.
Using this template effectively
Adapt the template sections to your specific environment. Remove integration rows for tools you do not use. Add rows for proprietary systems or industry-specific requirements. Adjust the scoring matrix weights before distributing; the weights provided are a starting point reflecting common priorities, not a prescription for every organization.
The most effective RFP templates force specificity before you send them. Every vague requirement you replace with a concrete question about your actual environment is a filter that separates genuinely capable vendors from those optimized for presenting well rather than operating well.
SOC automation platforms are critical infrastructure decisions with multi-year implications. The RFP process is your opportunity to pressure-test vendor claims before operational dependencies form. Use it.
When vendors respond with verified, source-cited security documentation and complete technical answers, rather than generic marketing language, they are demonstrating exactly the operational rigor you want in a security partner. The vendors whose presales and solutions teams can respond to complex security RFPs quickly and accurately are showing you how they execute operationally, not just how they sell.
