For enterprise IT leaders tasked with selecting a TEM vendor, the stakes are high. The right partner delivers 25-35% sustained cost reduction and transforms telecom from cost center to strategic asset. The wrong choice results in failed implementation, internal resource drain, and continued waste—at cost of $500K-2M over 3-year contract.
This guide provides a structured evaluation framework drawn from 37+ enterprise TEM implementations across Fortune 500 organizations. We'll cover the complete selection process from requirements definition through contract negotiation, including weighted evaluation criteria, RFP template elements, proof of concept methodology, and common decision traps to avoid.
Whether you're evaluating TEM software platforms or managed service providers, this framework ensures objective vendor comparison aligned to your organization's strategic priorities.
Define Requirements and Success Criteria
Before engaging vendors, document your current state and desired outcomes to ensure vendor proposals align to actual needs:
Current Environment
- • Annual telecom spend by category (voice, data, wireless)
- • Number of locations and geographic distribution
- • Carrier mix and contract structure
- • Monthly invoice volume
- • Current TEM tools/processes
- • Existing integrations (ERP, ITSM, CMDB)
Success Metrics
- • Target cost reduction percentage
- • Acceptable implementation timeline
- • Internal resource availability
- • Budget range (CapEx vs. OpEx preference)
- • Must-have vs. nice-to-have capabilities
- • Scalability requirements (M&A, international)
Critical Decision: Service Model Fit
Early determination of software vs. managed services preference focuses evaluation. Key question: Do you have 2-4 dedicated FTE resources available to operate a TEM platform? If not, managed services providers should be your primary focus regardless of software platform sophistication.
Six Core Evaluation Criteria (Weighted Scoring)
1. Platform Capabilities
Assess technology foundation enabling comprehensive telecom expense management:
- • Automated invoice ingestion (EDI, email, portal scraping, API)
- • Carrier coverage (supports your specific providers)
- • Data normalization accuracy (handles non-standard formats)
- • Circuit inventory management and reconciliation
- • Workflow automation and approval routing
- • Reporting depth and customization flexibility
- • Integration capabilities (REST APIs, pre-built connectors)
- • Mobile accessibility and user experience
2. Service Model Fit
Evaluate alignment between vendor service model and your internal capabilities:
- • Internal resource requirements (FTEs needed to operate platform)
- • Execution capability (software-only vs. managed services)
- • Carrier relationship leverage (negotiation expertise)
- • Proactive optimization vs. reactive support
- • Dispute management and recovery services
- • Training comprehensiveness and ongoing education
- • Account management structure and escalation paths
3. Pricing Structure
Analyze total cost of ownership and alignment to outcomes:
- • Fee structure (license-based, contingency-based, percentage-of-spend)
- • Implementation costs (setup, training, integration)
- • Ongoing support fees and annual increases
- • Additional fees for 'out of scope' services
- • Payment terms and flexibility
- • Savings calculation methodology and validation
- • Performance guarantees and fee adjustments
4. Implementation Timeline & Process
Assess realistic timeline and resource requirements:
- • Implementation duration (90-180 days typical)
- • Time-to-first-value (when initial savings identified)
- • Internal resource requirements (IT, finance, procurement)
- • Data migration and integration complexity
- • Training approach and knowledge transfer
- • Pilot/phased rollout vs. big-bang deployment
- • Go-live criteria and success validation
5. Track Record & References
Validate vendor claims through reference checks:
- • Client references in your industry and spend range
- • Verified savings metrics and methodology transparency
- • Client retention rates (90%+ indicates strong satisfaction)
- • Years in business and financial stability
- • Industry certifications and partnerships
- • Case studies with quantified results
- • NPS scores and customer satisfaction data
6. Scalability & Future-Readiness
Ensure vendor can support organizational growth:
- • M&A integration capabilities (absorbing acquired company circuits)
- • International expansion support (global carrier coverage)
- • Multi-carrier complexity management
- • Platform scalability (handling 2-3x current volume)
- • Technology roadmap and innovation commitment
- • New service type support (cloud communications, SD-WAN)
TEM Vendor RFP Essential Elements
Section 1: Company Profile
- • Company overview and industry
- • Number of locations and geographic spread
- • Annual telecom spend by category
- • Current carrier relationships
- • Monthly invoice volume
- • Existing TEM tools/processes
Section 2: Requirements
- • Service model preference (software/managed)
- • Must-have platform capabilities
- • Integration requirements
- • Target cost reduction goals
- • Implementation timeline constraints
- • Budget parameters
Section 3: Pricing Request
- • Detailed fee structure breakdown
- • Implementation costs itemized
- • Ongoing support and training fees
- • Payment terms and schedules
- • Savings calculation methodology
- • Performance guarantees offered
Section 4: Vendor Qualifications
- • Years in business and ownership
- • Client count and retention rates
- • References (3-5 in similar profile)
- • Case studies with verified results
- • Financial stability indicators
- • Industry certifications
Pro Tip: Include 3-6 months of actual invoice samples with RFP. Request vendors analyze this data and present preliminary findings during demonstration phase. This validates capabilities with your specific complexity vs. sanitized demo environments.
Proof of Concept Methodology
Proof of concept (POC) is the most critical phase of vendor evaluation—where vendor claims meet reality of your actual data. Effective POC validates savings methodology, assesses platform capabilities, and evaluates team expertise before contract commitment.
POC Structure (30-60 Days)
POC Scope
- • Provide 3-6 months of actual invoices (20-30% of total spend sample)
- • Include representative complexity (multiple carriers, service types, locations)
- • Request detailed audit identifying errors, optimization opportunities, projected savings
- • Evaluate platform capabilities: data accuracy, reporting, workflow integration
- • Assess team responsiveness, communication quality, and expertise depth
POC Deliverables from Vendor
- • Savings Opportunity Summary: Billing errors identified, optimization opportunities, projected annual savings
- • Implementation Roadmap: Phased approach with timelines for achieving savings
- • Platform Demonstration: Your data loaded showing reporting, inventory, workflow capabilities
- • Team Introduction: Meet assigned account team who will manage ongoing relationship
Best Practice: Conduct POC with your top 2 finalists simultaneously for direct comparison. Negotiate that POC fees ($5K-15K typical) apply toward implementation if you select that vendor. Set clear POC success criteria upfront: minimum savings identified, data accuracy thresholds, delivery timeline.
Reference Check Framework
Speak with 3-5 client references in similar industry and spend profile to validate vendor claims. Reference checks often reveal operational realities not apparent in presentations or POC results.
Questions for References
- Savings Validation: Were projected savings realized? Timeline? How measured?
- Service Quality: Responsiveness? Proactive vs. reactive? Communication frequency?
- Implementation: On time? On budget? Unexpected challenges?
- Platform: Uptime? Data accuracy? User adoption? Integration stability?
- Relationship: Would you select again? What would you change?
- Value: ROI achieved? Ongoing optimization? Strategic value beyond cost savings?
Reference Selection Tips
- Request specific profiles: Same industry, similar telecom spend range, comparable location count
- Mix implementation vintages: Recent (6-12 months) + mature (2+ years) to assess both onboarding and ongoing value
- Ask for direct contacts: Not marketing-managed references but actual operational contacts
- Verify reference authenticity: LinkedIn profiles, mutual connections, company validation
- Red flag: Vendor unable or unwilling to provide references matching your profile suggests limited experience in your segment
Final Selection Decision Matrix
Synthesize all evaluation inputs into weighted scoring model for objective final selection:
| Criteria | Weight | Vendor A Score | Vendor B Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Platform Capabilities | 20% | 8/10 × 20% = 1.6 | 9/10 × 20% = 1.8 |
| Service Model Fit | 25% | 7/10 × 25% = 1.75 | 9/10 × 25% = 2.25 |
| Pricing Structure | 20% | 6/10 × 20% = 1.2 | 8/10 × 20% = 1.6 |
| Implementation | 15% | 9/10 × 15% = 1.35 | 8/10 × 15% = 1.2 |
| Track Record | 15% | 7/10 × 15% = 1.05 | 10/10 × 15% = 1.5 |
| Scalability | 5% | 8/10 × 5% = 0.4 | 7/10 × 5% = 0.35 |
| Total Weighted Score | 100% | 7.35 / 10 | 8.70 / 10 |
Note: Weighted scoring provides objective framework but should be balanced with qualitative factors: team chemistry, strategic vision alignment, cultural fit, and long-term partnership potential. TEM engagements typically span 3-5+ years requiring strong ongoing relationship beyond initial capabilities assessment.
Related Resources
Top TEM Providers Comparison 2025
Detailed analysis of leading TEM vendors including Tangoe, Calero, MDSL, Socium, Brightfin with platform capabilities and pricing models.
Compare Providers →TEM Software vs. Managed Services
Comprehensive comparison of software-only platforms vs. managed service providers including total cost of ownership analysis.
Read Comparison →Frequently Asked Questions
Need Help Evaluating TEM Vendors?
Our team has supported 37+ Fortune 500 organizations through TEM vendor selection, RFP development, and proof of concept evaluation. Schedule a consultation to discuss your evaluation process.