Scope: Enterprise-grade SAST tools for regulated CI/CD environments
Scoring scale:
- 0 = Not supported
- 1 = Limited
- 2 = Partial
- 3 = Adequate
- 4 = Strong
- 5 = Best-in-class
1. Evaluation Categories & Weights
| Category | Weight |
|---|---|
| Governance & Policy Enforcement | 20% |
| CI/CD Integration & Automation | 20% |
| Detection Quality & Accuracy | 15% |
| Developer Experience | 15% |
| Auditability & Evidence | 15% |
| Scalability & Operations | 10% |
| Vendor & Strategic Fit | 5% |
| Total | 100% |
2. Detailed Scoring Table (Per Vendor)
Duplicate this table per vendor (Vendor A / Vendor B / Vendor C).
Governance & Policy Enforcement (20%)
| # | Criterion | Score (0–5) | Weighted Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Policy-based enforcement (block / warn / report) | ☐ | |
| 2 | Per-app / per-team policy scoping | ☐ | |
| 3 | Versioned & auditable policies | ☐ | |
| 4 | Customizable severity & rule tuning | ☐ | |
| Subtotal | /20 |
CI/CD Integration & Automation (20%)
| # | Criterion | Score | Weighted |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | Native CI/CD integrations (GitHub, GitLab, Jenkins…) | ☐ | |
| 6 | PR / merge-triggered scanning | ☐ | |
| 7 | Pipeline gating based on results | ☐ | |
| 8 | API / export access for results | ☐ | |
| Subtotal | /20 |
Detection Quality & Accuracy (15%)
| # | Criterion | Score | Weighted |
|---|---|---|---|
| 9 | Language & framework coverage | ☐ | |
| 10 | Low false-positive rate | ☐ | |
| 11 | Explainability of findings | ☐ | |
| Subtotal | /15 |
Developer Experience (15%)
| # | Criterion | Score | Weighted |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12 | Clear code-level findings | ☐ | |
| 13 | Actionable remediation guidance | ☐ | |
| 14 | Developer workflow integration | ☐ | |
| Subtotal | /15 |
Auditability & Evidence (15%)
| # | Criterion | Score | Weighted |
|---|---|---|---|
| 15 | Timestamped & attributable scan results | ☐ | |
| 16 | Evidence retention & export | ☐ | |
| 17 | Mapping to CWE / OWASP / compliance | ☐ | |
| Subtotal | /15 |
Scalability & Operations (10%)
| # | Criterion | Score | Weighted |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18 | Enterprise-scale performance | ☐ | |
| 19 | Centralized administration | ☐ | |
| Subtotal | /10 |
Vendor & Strategic Fit (5%)
| # | Criterion | Score | Weighted |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20 | Vendor roadmap & support | ☐ | |
| Subtotal | /5 |
3. Final Score Summary
| Vendor | Total Score (/100) | Risk Level | Decision |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vendor A | ☐ Low ☐ Medium ☐ High | ☐ Approve ☐ Conditional ☐ Reject | |
| Vendor B | ☐ Low ☐ Medium ☐ High | ☐ Approve ☐ Conditional ☐ Reject | |
| Vendor C | ☐ Low ☐ Medium ☐ High | ☐ Approve ☐ Conditional ☐ Reject |
4. Mandatory Disqualification Criteria (Hard Stops)
A vendor must be rejected if any of the following apply:
- ☐ No CI/CD pipeline gating capability
- ☐ No exportable audit evidence
- ☐ No policy-based enforcement
- ☐ No enterprise support model
- ☐ No clarity on data retention / residency
5. Auditor & Procurement Notes
This scoring model enables:
- defensible tool selection decisions
- traceability from requirements → evaluation → selection
- reuse across future audits (ISO / SOC 2 / DORA / NIS2)
Auditors typically expect:
- documented criteria,
- objective scoring,
- and explicit acceptance of residual risks.
FAQ – RFP & Procurement Focus
Q1. Why use a weighted scoring matrix for SAST RFPs?
A weighted scoring matrix ensures objective comparison by prioritizing governance, CI/CD enforcement, and audit requirements over marketing claims or raw detection metrics.
Q2. Which criteria should carry the highest weight in regulated environments?
CI/CD policy enforcement, evidence retention, RBAC, scalability, and audit reporting should be weighted higher than rule count or language coverage.
Q3. Can this matrix be reused across multiple vendors?
Yes. A standardized matrix improves procurement consistency and reduces bias across SAST vendor evaluations.
