TPA RFP Template: What to Ask About Compliance, Service, and Fees
A practical guide for plan sponsors comparing TPA RFP template: decision criteria, due diligence questions, costs, service, implementation, and review.
A practical TPA RFP template asks who owns compliance work, how exceptions are handled, what service is included, and how every fee is calculated.
Choosing a retirement-plan service model is a buyer decision with operational and fiduciary consequences. A 401(k) allows employees to contribute part of wages to individual accounts, and employers may also contribute.[1] The committee’s task is to evaluate the delivery model against the plan it actually operates—not against a generic promise of simplicity, choice, or savings.
At a glance
- Core question: What arrangement best supports this plan’s operations and governance?
- Focus: Compare administrative depth, correction workflow, service commitments, fee triggers, and coordination with the recordkeeper, payroll team, auditor, and committee.
- Reading path: define the model, compare evidence, then implement and review the decision.
Define the decision before comparing providers
A TPA proposal should be tested against the plan document and the plan's real operating calendar. The Department of Labor emphasizes following plan documents, documenting decisions, and paying only reasonable plan expenses as fiduciary responsibilities.[2] A useful RFP makes those responsibilities concrete with consistent questions and response formats. A provider relationship should be described in terms of functions: who receives payroll data, who reconciles deposits, who applies plan terms, who answers participants, who prepares reports, who supports testing or corrections, and who has discretion. Titles alone do not decide fiduciary status; the DOL explains that discretion in plan administration or asset management can create fiduciary status.[2]
Start with a one-page operating profile. List participant count and workforce patterns, payroll systems and frequencies, plan features, recurring exceptions, investment governance, committee capacity, and the service failures the plan is trying to solve. Then identify non-negotiables. Examples include reliable contribution processing, support for the plan’s eligibility rules, usable reporting, clear escalation, and a transition plan that does not interrupt participant service.
Compare the model, not just the presentation
| Lens | What to examine | Useful evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | Which functions are included, excluded, or delegated? | Responsibility matrix and contract schedule |
| Cost | How are provider, investment, transaction, and change fees described? | Fee exhibit with assumptions and triggers |
| Service | Who owns recurring work and exceptions? | Service calendar, escalation path, sample reports |
| Control | What can the committee change without a full conversion? | Implementation and change-management plan |
Compare administrative depth, correction workflow, service commitments, fee triggers, and coordination with the recordkeeper, payroll team, auditor, and committee. Ask every finalist to respond to the same fact pattern and to state assumptions. Comparable answers are more valuable than polished but differently scoped proposals. DOL guidance notes that surveying providers with the same information can help a fiduciary make and document a meaningful comparison.[2]
Do not treat a vendor’s standard workflow as proof that it fits your plan. Ask for a walkthrough using a real but de-identified scenario: a payroll correction, an eligibility question, a participant loan or distribution request, an annual review, and an unexpected data-file failure. The walkthrough reveals handoffs, timing, ownership, and whether the proposed service model can handle your ordinary exceptions.
Implement with a documented, proportionate process
Set evaluation criteria before presentations begin. A practical committee can use a shared requirements document, a response template, a scoring rubric, a record of questions and clarifications, and meeting minutes that explain the decision. This does not mean every decision requires the same length of project. It means the process should be capable of showing why the selected approach addressed the plan’s needs, fees, and risks.
Decision flow
- Find error: locate the failure, affected participants, and dates.
- Size remedy: calculate the remedy, deadline, and responsible parties.
- Execute fix: execute correction and communicate the required action.
- Retain proof: retain calculations, approvals, and completion evidence.
Move forward only when the committee can explain the evidence, owner, and next review point for the decision.
Practical buyer checklist
| Workstream | Questions to ask | Decision record |
|---|---|---|
| Operations | Who owns each file, exception, and participant escalation? | Named owner, timing, and escalation route |
| Fees | What is included, what changes the price, and who pays? | Comparable fee schedule and assumptions |
| Transition | What data, notices, testing, and blackout planning are required? | Milestones, dependencies, and contingency owner |
| Monitoring | Which measures show service and controls are working? | Review calendar, scorecard, and action log |
Review the decision after selection
Selection is not the end of oversight. The DOL says fiduciaries should act prudently, follow plan documents when consistent with ERISA, and pay only reasonable plan expenses.[2] Build a review calendar that distinguishes routine service monitoring from a broader market check. Review unresolved exceptions, missed service commitments, participant experience, reporting quality, fee changes, and whether the provider is performing the functions promised in the agreement.
Keep a concise file: the original requirements, proposals or benchmark evidence, questions, scorecard, meeting notes, contract terms, and follow-up actions. The record should show a reasoned process, including why a lower-cost option was not chosen if it lacked needed capability. It should also show when a narrow issue was handled through negotiation or corrective action instead of a full market process.
Questions that expose hidden assumptions
- Which plan task is most likely to fail during a busy payroll or year-end period, and who owns the recovery?
- What data must move between parties, how is it validated, and how are errors communicated?
- What services are standard, which are project-based, and what event triggers an additional charge?
- Which decisions stay with the committee, and which functions are performed with discretion?
- What evidence will be available at the next review to show whether the arrangement is working?
Before closing the file, assign an owner to each open item and a date for confirming it. That small discipline prevents an evaluation from becoming a collection of opinions rather than a usable governance record.
Takeaway
The best provider decision is a documented match between the plan’s needs and a service model the committee can understand, monitor, and improve. Use a common scope, comparable evidence, a clear fee view, and named owners for every handoff. This article is general educational information, not legal, tax, investment, or fiduciary advice; review plan documents and obtain advice suited to your circumstances before making a provider or plan-administration decision.
References
- [1] Internal Revenue Service, 401(k) plans. https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/401k-plans
- [2] U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration, Meeting Your Fiduciary Responsibilities. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/publications/meeting-your-fiduciary-responsibilities
Discuss your plan with Yang's Pension Consulting
Decision pathway
Use this page to frame the decision, collect the plan documents and operating facts that matter, and then confirm the facts with the appropriate plan, tax, actuarial, legal, or compliance professional.
- Define: identify the plan terms, workforce facts, and timing involved.
- Compare: separate operational choices from questions that require professional analysis.
- Implement: document the approved approach and align payroll, providers, and communications.
- Review: revisit the process when plan design, workforce, or rules change.
Try a related planning aid: Fee and Service Benchmark Worksheet.
Continue learning
TPA RFP Template: What to Ask About Compliance, Service, and Fees
Structure a TPA request for proposal around specific deliverables and accountability: document support, nondiscrimination testing, contribution and distribution processing, filing preparation, correction support, participant communications, cybersecurity practices, response times, service-team continuity, and implementation milestones. Require each bidder to identify all compensation and any subcontractors or affiliated service providers involved in delivery.
Records and controls to review
Retain the RFP, bidder responses, fee schedules, disclosure materials, scoring criteria, reference-check notes, finalist comparisons, committee minutes, contract drafts, and written explanations for the final selection. After appointment, retain service-level reports, invoices, compliance calendars, exception logs, and documented follow-up so the sponsor can assess whether the promised services were actually delivered.
Before changing operations
Use the written plan and the current service agreement as the starting point. Compare them with the payroll configuration, provider report, and participant-facing materials that will actually be used. If the records conflict, pause the change, identify the controlling record, assign an exception owner, and document the resolution before the next processing cycle.
Test a normal example and a realistic edge case before release. Record what was verified, who verified it, the action taken, and the date for the next reconciliation. This gives the sponsor and its providers a repeatable record rather than a conclusion reconstructed after an exception occurs.
For each change, identify the event that triggers the work, the data source used, the person who approves the result, and the evidence retained after completion. A short exception log should also state when an item is escalated and when a corrected result has been independently reconciled. This control-oriented approach helps expose gaps between a decision and the daily administration that carries it out.
When a provider or internal team supplies information, retain the source version, confirm the effective date, and record unresolved assumptions before action. A concise review note should connect the operational conclusion to the governing document, the supporting report, and the responsible reviewer so future corrections can start from evidence rather than recollection.
Implementation checkpoint
- Confirm: identify the governing provision and effective date.
- Reconcile: compare payroll, provider, and participant records.
- Assign: document who owns exceptions and follow-up.
- Retain: preserve approvals, reports, communications, and completion evidence.
Important boundary: An RFP is a diligence tool, not a substitute for reviewing the final arrangement or identifying the fiduciary authority that will make decisions. Fee disclosures and contract language should be assessed in the context of the services received, potential indirect compensation, conflicts, and the plan’s own document and operational requirements.
Reference
- Official source: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/employers-and-advisers/plan-administration-and-compliance/fiduciary-responsibilities/fee-disclosure-failure-notice