GuideResearch notePreview
How to prepare a corporate website RFP that gets better proposals
A structure for tenders that produces comparable proposals instead of comparable slide decks.
Direct answer
A good kurumsal web sitesi RFP describes outcomes, users, scope, content, CMS, integrations, accessibility, privacy, performance, SEO and AI discoverability, governance and post-launch operations — not only page count and design references. Proposals can only be as specific as the document that requested them.
Why most corporate RFPs produce incomparable proposals
When an RFP specifies deliverables but not outcomes, each vendor fills the gap with its own assumptions. The result is a shortlist of documents that cannot be compared on price or approach, because they are answering slightly different questions.
The remedy is not a longer document. It is a document that is specific about the things that drive cost — content, integrations, governance and post-launch operations — and deliberately open about the things where you want vendor thinking, such as UX approach and information architecture.
Fifteen sections to include
01
Business context and goals
What the organisation does, why the project exists now, and which measurable outcomes must change. Vendors cannot propose to an unstated objective.
02
Current website issues
Describe the actual problems — editorial bottlenecks, performance, structure, integrations — rather than only that the site 'looks dated'.
03
Audience and priority journeys
Ranked audiences and the three to five journeys that carry commercial or operational weight.
04
Scope and page types
Templates and content types rather than page counts. Page counts invite proposals priced on volume instead of on structure.
05
Content and migration
Volume, languages, what is being rewritten, who writes it, and how existing URLs and content will be migrated.
06
UX and UI expectations
Brand assets available, design-system expectations, the review process and who holds final approval.
07
CMS and editorial workflow
What editors must manage independently, roles and permissions, approval flows, and multi-language handling.
08
Technical stack and integrations
Hosting constraints, security requirements, and every system the site must exchange data with — CRM, careers, investor data, search, translation.
09
Accessibility requirements
The target alignment, the review process expected during delivery, and how accessibility is maintained after launch. Ask for method, not for badges.
10
Cookie and privacy requirements
Consent interface expectations, pre-consent tag policy, preference management and who governs tags post-launch.
11
Performance and SEO/GEO requirements
Performance budgets in numbers, redirect and migration expectations, structured data and entity consistency requirements.
12
Testing, UAT and launch
Environments, browser and device matrix, UAT responsibilities, acceptance criteria and the launch plan including rollback.
13
Maintenance and change requests
The post-launch operating model you expect, including improvement capacity and how small changes are handled.
14
Commercial model and assumptions
Budget range or band, payment structure, and an explicit request that vendors list their assumptions and exclusions.
15
Evaluation criteria
The weighting you will apply, published in advance. This single section improves proposal quality more than any other.
Red flags in RFPs
- Scope defined only as a page count, with no template or content-type model.
- No budget indication, which forces vendors to guess and to price defensively.
- Design references from unrelated sectors, with no explanation of what is admired.
- Accessibility and privacy reduced to a single sentence asking for conformance.
- Integrations mentioned by system name only, with no owner or documentation.
- Evaluation criteria withheld, or announced after proposals are received.
- Unrealistic timelines that assume content already exists and approvals are instant.
- No mention of maintenance, which guarantees the topic is negotiated from a weak position.
What to ask vendors to submit
- Approach to discovery, information architecture and content strategy.
- The named team, roles and committed availability.
- Two comparable case examples with the problem, the decisions and the outcome.
- Design-system and CMS governance approach, with documentation samples.
- Accessibility method during delivery, including manual review.
- Performance budgets and how conflicts with other requirements are resolved.
- Migration and redirect approach for existing URLs.
- Post-launch operating model, with an indicative monthly shape.
- Assumptions, exclusions and dependencies on your team.
- Commercial breakdown by phase, plus the maintenance proposal.
Cap the response length. A twelve-page limit forces prioritisation and makes the evaluation genuinely comparable.
Request a preliminary assessment
A public-signal review of your current website that can be attached to an RFP as a shared, vendor-neutral starting point.
Request preliminary assessmentRelated index dimensions
D2 · 10%
UX & Content Clarity
D3 · 15%
Performance & Technical Health
D4 · 15%
Accessibility & Inclusive Experience
D5 · 10%
Cookie & Privacy Experience
D6 · 15%
Technical SEO & AI Discoverability
D7 · 10%
Maintenance & Update Efficiency
D8 · 10%
Digital Operations & Cost Optimization
This guide is educational and based on publicly observable enterprise web patterns. See the methodology.