[RFP_TEXT]: Northgate University RFP — Website Redesign. §2 Vendor must have completed at least three higher-education website projects in the past five years. §2.3 Teaming or subcontracting is not permitted. §5 Professional liability $2M per claim. Deliverables: discovery, IA, design system, 140 templates, WCAG 2.2 AA. Evaluation: portfolio 40, approach 30, cost 30. [COMPANY_PROFILE]: Solo UX designer, 9 years. One university project (2024). $1M professional liability. [DEAL_CONTEXT]: (left blank) [BID_CAPACITY]: (left blank) --- ## 1. Snapshot | Item | Assessment | |---|---| | **Buyer** | Northgate University | | **RFP** | Website Redesign | | **Scope** | Discovery, information architecture, design system, 140 templates, WCAG 2.2 AA | | **Term** | Unknown | | **Value** | Unknown | | **Due date** | Unknown | | **Submission method** | Unknown | | **Evaluation** | Portfolio 40%, Approach 30%, Cost 30% | | **Capacity** | Unknown | | **Key qualification** | ≥3 higher-education website projects in past 5 years | **Provisional call: NO-BID.** The RFP contains two major qualification problems: the company has only **1 stated university project vs. a mandatory minimum of 3**, and its **$1M professional liability is below the required $2M per claim**. Teaming/subcontracting is expressly prohibited, so the experience gap cannot be repaired through a partner. --- # 2. Knockout Check | Knockout | Status | Evidence / Gap | Fix | |---|---|---|---| | ≥3 higher-education website projects in past 5 years | **Fail** | §2 requires "at least three"; company has 1 university project (2024) | Cannot partner; verify whether additional qualifying projects exist | | No teaming/subcontracting | **Pass** | Solo designer structure complies | Maintain solo delivery | | $2M professional liability per claim | **Fail** | Company has $1M coverage; requirement is $2M per claim | Obtain additional/increased coverage if commercially feasible | | WCAG 2.2 AA | **Unverified** | No evidence supplied | Provide relevant accessibility experience/evidence | | 140 templates capability | **Unverified** | No evidence supplied | Demonstrate delivery capacity/methodology | | Design system | **Unverified** | No evidence supplied | Provide portfolio/process evidence | **Two material knockout failures exist.** --- # 3. Compliance Matrix | ID | Requirement | Ref | Type | Fit | Our evidence | Action | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | R1 | ≥3 higher-education website projects in past 5 years | §2 | Mandatory | **Gap** | 1 university project in 2024 | Verify whether 2 additional qualifying projects exist | | R2 | Teaming/subcontracting prohibited | §2.3 | Mandatory | **Meets** | Solo UX designer | No action | | R3 | $2M professional liability per claim | §5 | Mandatory | **Gap** | $1M coverage | Obtain $2M coverage | | R4 | Discovery | Deliverables | Mandatory* | **Unknown** | No evidence supplied | Provide approach/portfolio evidence | | R5 | Information architecture | Deliverables | Mandatory* | **Unknown** | No evidence supplied | Provide relevant examples | | R6 | Design system | Deliverables | Mandatory* | **Unknown** | No evidence supplied | Provide relevant evidence | | R7 | 140 templates | Deliverables | Mandatory* | **Unknown** | No evidence supplied | Explain production methodology/capacity | | R8 | WCAG 2.2 AA | Deliverables | Mandatory* | **Unknown** | No accessibility evidence supplied | Demonstrate capability | | R9 | Portfolio | §Evaluation | Evaluation | **Partial** | 1 university project | Need stronger higher-ed portfolio | | R10 | Approach | §Evaluation | Evaluation | **Unknown** | No approach supplied | Develop methodology | | R11 | Cost | §Evaluation | Evaluation | **Unknown** | No pricing information | Develop price if qualification is resolved | *The supplied RFP identifies these as deliverables but does not explicitly use "shall/must" language. --- # 4. Evaluation Map | Criterion | Weight | Our strength | Proof needed | |---|---|---|---| | **Portfolio** | 40% | **Weak** | Three qualifying higher-ed projects are required; only one supplied | | **Approach** | 30% | Unknown | Discovery, IA, design-system, template production and WCAG methodology | | **Cost** | 30% | Unknown | Competitive price for substantial 140-template scope | The **portfolio is the largest evaluation component**, and it directly overlaps with the mandatory experience requirement. That makes the missing higher-ed experience particularly damaging. --- # 5. Bid Scorecard | Dimension | Weight | Score | Reason | |---|---|---|---| | Capability fit | 25% | **2/5** | Only one university project is stated against a three-project minimum; insurance is also below requirement. | | Evaluation alignment | 20% | **2/5** | Portfolio requirement is heavily weighted at 40%, but only one qualifying project is evidenced. | | Relationship | 15% | **2/5** | No deal-context information supplied. | | Competition | 15% | **2/5** | No competitive information supplied. | | Capacity vs deadline | 15% | **2/5** | Capacity and deadline are not supplied. | | Value vs risk | 10% | **2/5** | Commercial value is unknown and mandatory qualification risk is high. | ### Weighted score **(2/5 × 25) + (2/5 × 20) + (2/5 × 15) + (2/5 × 15) + (2/5 × 15) + (2/5 × 10) = 40/100** ### Decision: **NO-BID** This is below the required **55-point threshold**, and there are also **unfixable/uncleared mandatory qualification issues based on current information**. **Confidence:** Moderate. The score is conservative because several inputs are missing, but the §2 experience gap is explicit and material. --- # 6. Red Flags in the Text ### 1. Mandatory experience threshold §2 requires **"at least three higher-education website projects in the past five years."** The supplied profile establishes only **one** university project. ### 2. No subcontracting workaround §2.3 explicitly states **"Teaming or subcontracting is not permitted."** This eliminates the most obvious way to supplement the missing higher-ed experience. ### 3. Insurance shortfall §5 requires **$2M per claim**, while the company has only **$1M** professional liability. ### 4. Large delivery scope The deliverables include **140 templates**, plus discovery, IA, design system and WCAG 2.2 AA. For a solo designer, this creates a potentially significant delivery-capacity issue, although the supplied capacity/deadline information is insufficient to quantify it. ### 5. Accessibility requirement WCAG 2.2 AA is specifically included in the deliverables. No accessibility credentials or prior WCAG 2.2 AA work were supplied. --- # 7. Clarification Questions 1. **§2:** Does a project need to be for an accredited higher-education institution to count toward the three-project minimum? 2. **§2:** What qualifies as a "higher-education website project"—does a major redesign of a university subsite count, or must it be an institution-wide website? 3. **§2:** Are projects completed as an independent consultant before the current business structure eligible for the three-project requirement? 4. **§2.3:** Does the prohibition on teaming/subcontracting also prohibit using specialist vendors for accessibility testing or other non-design services? 5. **§5:** Must the $2M professional liability coverage be in place at proposal submission, or may the selected vendor increase coverage before contract execution? 6. **Deliverables:** Does the requirement for 140 templates refer to design templates, CMS templates, or both? 7. **WCAG 2.2 AA:** Is independent accessibility testing/certification required, or is the vendor responsible for designing to the standard? --- # 8. NO-BID — What Would Change It The recommendation could change to **CONDITIONAL/BID** if the company can establish: 1. Two additional qualifying higher-education website projects completed within the past five years; and 2. $2M professional liability coverage per claim; and 3. Evidence that the solo designer can credibly deliver the 140-template scope and WCAG 2.2 AA requirement within the actual schedule. Because §2.3 prohibits teaming/subcontracting, a partner **cannot** solve the experience deficiency. ### Courteous decline note Subject: Northgate University Website Redesign RFP Dear Northgate University Procurement Team, Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the Website Redesign RFP. After reviewing the requirements, we have determined that we are not able to submit a proposal that fully meets the stated qualification requirements for this procurement. Rather than submit a response that does not satisfy those requirements, we have decided to respectfully decline to bid. We appreciate the opportunity and wish Northgate University success with the website redesign project. Best regards, [Name] [Company] --- # 9. Next 72 Hours Given the current **NO-BID**, I would limit effort to qualification verification rather than starting a full proposal. | Priority | Action | Role owner | |---|---|---| | **P0** | Search company records for any additional higher-education website projects completed within the last 5 years | Owner / Portfolio Lead | | **P0** | Confirm whether the existing university project qualifies under §2 | Owner / Procurement | | **P0** | Ask insurer/broker whether $2M per-claim coverage can be obtained | Owner / Finance | | **P1** | Inventory prior accessibility/WCAG work | UX Designer | | **P1** | Assess whether 140 templates are realistically deliverable solo | UX Designer | | **P2** | If no third qualifying project exists, issue decline and stop bid work | Owner | **Do not spend the available proposal capacity building a 40-page response until the §2 and §5 gates are resolved.** --- # 10. Quality Check | Check | Result | |---|---| | **Known mandatory failures/gaps** | **2** | | **§2 experience** | **Fail/Gap** — 1 stated vs. minimum 3 | | **§5 insurance** | **Fail/Gap** — $1M vs. required $2M | | **§2.3 teaming** | Pass | | **Other unknowns** | WCAG evidence, 140-template capacity, deadline, submission method, value, commercial terms | | **Assumptions** | None material beyond treating the stated one university project as the complete supplied evidence | | **Top missing input** | Whether two additional qualifying higher-ed projects exist | | **Second critical input** | Whether $2M per-claim insurance can be obtained | | **Third critical input** | Actual deadline/capacity information | ### Senior Bid Manager Call: **NO-BID** The decisive issue isn't simply that the portfolio is weak. The RFP establishes a **mandatory minimum of three higher-education projects**, the company has only one stated project, and **subcontracting is prohibited**. Combined with the $1M vs. $2M insurance gap, the opportunity is currently not qualified.