Menu
How many SOC 2 auditors should you get quotes from?
Invite five to seven firms for a self-run RFP and aim to compare at least three complete proposals. Five to seven is our working range, not a professional standard: it gives you alternatives while keeping the clarification and normalization work manageable.
Send the brief in parallel. Sequential calls let the scope drift: one firm prices Security only, another includes an additional Trust Services Criterion, and a third assumes a different observation period. The totals then describe different examinations.
Use the directory to build the set, our shortlist for named starting points, and the cost guide for current planning bands. This page owns what happens after the names are on your RFP list.
Which SOC 2 auditor proposals should you exclude?
Exclude a proposal when the issuing CPA firm cannot be identified or verified. Return incomplete scope, date, fee, or independence answers once for written clarification; exclude the proposal from this RFP if the firm will not fix them.
| Finding | Action | What would clear it |
|---|---|---|
| No exact legal CPA firm is named as report issuer | Exclude | A revised proposal naming the exact licensed CPA firm that will issue the report. |
| Licence record does not match the proposed issuer | Exclude from this round | Primary evidence from the relevant state board or other licensing authority that resolves the mismatch. |
| The deliverable is described as a certificate, badge, or readiness opinion | Exclude | A revised statement of work for a SOC 2 examination and signed report from the named CPA firm. |
| Report type, criteria, system boundary, or observation dates are missing | Return once | A revised proposal that prices the same written scope sent to every firm. |
| Draft and final dates have no dependencies or owner | Return once | A dated delivery plan stating what your team must provide and when. |
| The audit firm bundles readiness but will not explain independence | Return once | Written responsibilities and safeguards showing that management keeps its decisions and the firm does not examine work for which it assumed management responsibility. |
| Re-testing or scope changes are open-ended | Return once | Rates, a fixed allowance, or a written trigger-and-approval process. |
How do you verify the proposed SOC 2 report issuer?
Match the exact legal issuing firm to current primary records before you score the proposal. CPAverify receives current licence information from 53 US Boards of Accountancy; when its result is absent or unclear, go to the relevant state board instead of guessing.
| Evidence | Primary lookup | Record before the decision | If the public result is missing |
|---|---|---|---|
| US issuing CPA firm | CPAverify | Exact legal name, jurisdiction, firm licence status, and any displayed enforcement marker. | Use NASBA’s state-board directory and save the board result. |
| US peer-review evidence | AICPA Peer Review public file | Exact firm match, enrollment information, latest review period, and any public result or documents. | Ask for the latest report, acceptance letter, and administering body. No public rating is not the same as a failed review. |
| Partner-delivered or non-US proposal | Proposal and engagement letter, followed by the issuer’s licensing authority | The legal entity that issues the report and which team performs fieldwork. | Do not accept “CPA partner” as the issuer identity. Return the proposal until the exact legal firm is identifiable. |
An active licence and peer-review evidence establish a public-record baseline. They do not prove that the proposed team knows your industry, will meet your date, or priced your actual system boundary. Those questions belong in the proposal.
How do you run a SOC 2 auditor RFP?
Run the RFP in six steps: define one report, build the candidate set, apply the gates, send one question schedule, normalize every proposal, and score only the complete finalists. Each step preserves comparability for the next.
Step 1Define the report your buyer will accept
Write down the report type, Trust Services Criteria, system boundary, observation dates, draft deadline, final deadline, locations, and subservice organizations. Every firm must price this same scope.
Use the SOC 2 audit cost guide only to set a planning budget; this page keeps the proposals comparable.
Step 2Build a working shortlist
For a self-run RFP, invite five to seven firms and aim to compare at least three complete proposals. This is our operating default, not an industry rule: it creates a real comparison without turning the RFP into a procurement project of its own.
Find candidates in the auditor directory; use our shortlist only when you want named starting points.
Step 3Apply the four exclusion gates
Confirm the proposed issuer, public-record evidence, written scope, and dated commercial terms before a proposal enters the comparison. Do not let a strong sales call compensate for a failed issuer or licence check.
A missing detail can go back for one written clarification. A missing or unverifiable issuing CPA firm is a stop.
Step 4Send one scope and one question schedule
Send the same company overview, report type, criteria, system boundary, dates, assumptions, and quote questions to every firm on the same day. Require written answers on the same deadline.
A tailored brief produces different jobs. Different jobs do not produce comparable quotes.
Step 5Rebuild every proposal into the same rows
Line up the exact issuer, scope, dates, team, deliverable, normalized total, re-testing, scope changes, readiness work, and year-two method. Return blanks to the firm before you compare totals.
Keep the original proposal beside the normalized sheet. The sheet is a decision aid, not a replacement for the statement of work.
Step 6Score only the proposals that cleared the gates
Apply the weighted matrix to complete proposals, call references for the finalists, and read the statement of work before signing. A low total cannot compensate for an unidentified issuer, different scope, or an unbounded change clause.
Record the reason for the decision. The note becomes the starting point for renewal or an auditor change next year.
What should you ask when comparing SOC 2 auditor quotes?
Ask questions that force each firm to restate its proposed job in the same units: issuer, assumptions, dates, evidence flow, change triggers, draft process, and renewal method. Require the answers in writing so they survive the sales call.
| Ask every firm | Require in the written answer | Return the proposal when |
|---|---|---|
| Which legal entity issues the report, and who is accountable for the engagement? | The exact licensed firm name and jurisdiction, plus the day-to-day lead and engagement partner’s roles. | The answer names only a brand, affiliate, or unnamed “CPA partner.” |
| Which proposal assumptions can change the total or final date? | Named triggers for systems, criteria, locations, samples, delays, re-testing, and report revisions. | The answer says changes are handled “as needed” without rates or approval rules. |
| Which dates are firm commitments, and which depend on us? | Observation, kickoff, fieldwork, evidence cutoff, draft, management review, and final dates with owners. | The schedule uses only a quarter or elapsed-week estimate. |
| What evidence will you accept from our GRC platform, and what remains manual? | Accepted exports, portal or request-list workflow, evidence owners, and extra samples outside the platform. | “We integrate” is the full answer. |
| Who decides a scope question or testing exception? | The day-to-day lead, escalation path, signing partner involvement, and expected decision time. | No accountable person is named before signing. |
| What will the draft contain, and how many review rounds are included? | Deliverable sections, exception treatment, management-review process, included revisions, and final format. | The proposal promises only a “SOC 2 deliverable.” |
| How is year two priced if the scope is unchanged? | A number, range, or written method plus the changes that trigger repricing. | Renewal is omitted or deferred until after the first report. |
Which extra question should you add for your scope?
Add one context question when SaaS tooling, extra Trust Services Criteria, multiple entities, a fixed customer date, or bundled readiness changes the job. Keep the base RFP unchanged and append only the row that applies.
| Your situation | Add this question | Why it changes the comparison |
|---|---|---|
| SaaS team using a GRC platform | Which exports have you accepted from this platform on a completed SOC 2, and which evidence requests remained manual? | Platform familiarity affects evidence handling, not the auditor’s authority to issue the report. |
| Security plus additional criteria | Which controls and testing procedures are added for each criterion, and where is each addition priced? | A proposal for Security alone is not comparable with one covering Availability, Confidentiality, Processing Integrity, or Privacy. |
| Multiple entities, products, or countries | Which legal entities, systems, locations, and subservice organizations sit inside the system boundary? | One excluded product or delivery entity can change whether a customer accepts the report. |
| Fixed customer or renewal deadline | What is the latest date each dependency can arrive without moving the draft and final report dates? | A promised date without dependency cutoffs cannot be managed or compared. |
| Readiness and audit from related providers | Which entity performs each service, which decisions remain with management, and how will independence threats be evaluated and addressed? | The commercial bundle does not remove the attest firm’s independence obligations. |
How should you score the final SOC 2 auditor proposals?
Score only proposals that cleared all four gates. Rate each factor from zero to five, multiply the rating by its weight, and record the evidence behind the number. A gate failure stays a failure regardless of the weighted total.
| Factor | Weight | Five points | Zero points |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope fidelity | 30% | Every requested system, criterion, date, and deliverable is stated without hidden assumptions. | The firm priced a different or incomplete scope. |
| Calendar credibility | 25% | Dated milestones, dependency cutoffs, owners, and escalation path support your target. | No committed dates or dependencies. |
| Commercial certainty | 20% | The lowest complete normalized total also bounds re-testing, revisions, and scope changes. | Core rows are unpriced or open-ended. |
| Accountable team | 15% | Day-to-day lead and signing partner are named with clear decision responsibilities. | The team is assigned after signing. |
| Relevant execution evidence | 10% | Recent comparable references and a redacted sample or report extract support the proposed approach. | No comparable evidence is supplied. |
Calculation: rating ÷ 5 × weight. Keep the worksheet with the final statement of work so the decision can be audited at renewal.
Want SOC 2 auditor quotes on one fixed scope?
Tell us the report type, criteria, system boundary, target date, and current readiness once. We send the anonymized brief to firms that fit and return 3–10 ballpark quotes side by side; your identity stays private until you choose who to meet.
One brief. 3–10 quotes.
Tell us your scope once. Matched firms reply with a ballpark, a timeline, and what makes them different.
Which primary sources support the verification steps?
The issuer checks use AICPA and NASBA sources reviewed on August 19, 2026. The RFP ranges, exclusion sequence, question schedule, and weights are this site’s process; they are not AICPA requirements.
- AICPA authoritative SOC 2 examination guide — defines the professional examination and reporting context.
- NASBA: What is CPAverify? — explains that current CPA and accounting-firm licence data comes from 53 participating boards.
- NASBA Boards of Accountancy directory — routes a buyer to the relevant state regulator for direct confirmation.
- AICPA Peer Review public file — the public lookup for enrolled US firms and available review information.
- AICPA explanation of nonattest services and independence — describes independence threats under the Code when nonattest work is provided to an attest client.
Where should you go next?
Use the route that owns your next task: browse candidates, review our picks, check current cost bands, or compare firm types. Return here when you are ready to send one RFP.