A copyable RFP for a city, county or agency website redesign and content platform: scope, accessibility, roles and approvals, hosting, data ownership and exit, pricing format, and a 100-point scoring rubric.
This is a request for proposals you can copy into your own procurement template and edit. It is written for a city, county, special district or state agency replacing its public website and the system staff use to publish it. Text in [square brackets] is for you to fill in. Below the template is a scoring rubric so your panel scores the same things the RFP asks for. Your procurement office's own rules (bonding, insurance, local preference, forms) always win over anything here.
If you are a private business buying a website design project rather than a public platform, our website design RFP template is a better fit.
[Entity name] ("the [City/County/District]") invites proposals from qualified firms to provide a hosted website content management platform, the redesign and migration of [www.example.gov], and ongoing support. The [City] serves a population of approximately [number] and publishes content from [number] departments.
Milestone Date RFP issued [date] Written questions due [date, time, to whom] Answers published as an addendum [date] Proposals due [date, time, format, where] Shortlisted vendor demonstrations [date range] Intended award [date] Target launch [date, at least 3 months before your accessibility compliance date] All questions must be submitted in writing. Contact with other staff or elected officials about this RFP during the solicitation period may disqualify a proposer.
The current site runs on [platform] and has approximately [number] pages, [number] PDF documents and [number] active publishers across [number] departments. Monthly visits are approximately [number], with the most-used services being [e.g. utility payments, permits, agendas, job postings]. The site also links to these third-party systems, which are not in scope for replacement but must be linked or embedded: [list: payments, permitting, agenda management, GIS, recruitment, library catalogue].
Known problems we want this project to solve: [e.g. publishing depends on two staff members; navigation is organised by department rather than by task; many forms are PDFs; accessibility testing has found recurring template defects].
The selected vendor will:
- Run discovery with staff and residents, including at least [number] usability sessions, and deliver a recommended information architecture organised around resident tasks.
- Design a template set covering at minimum: home page, department landing page, service page, news item, event, meeting and agenda page, directory entry, form page, search results, and alert banner.
- Provide and configure a hosted publishing platform, including roles, approvals and departmental sub-sites or sections.
- Migrate [all / an agreed subset of] current content. Describe your approach to content that should be retired rather than moved, and to converting PDF forms into web forms.
- Train [number] publishers and [number] administrators, and provide written guides the [City] may reuse internally.
- Provide hosting, maintenance, security patching and support for an initial term of [number] years, with optional renewals.
4.1 (Mandatory) All templates, components and vendor-provided content must conform to WCAG 2.1 Level AA at launch, consistent with 28 CFR part 35, subpart H. Proposers should state whether they also design to WCAG 2.2 AA.
4.2 Describe how you test for accessibility, including which automated tools you use, what you test manually (keyboard, screen readers, zoom and reflow), and whether people with disabilities take part in testing.
4.3 Provide current accessibility conformance documentation for the publishing platform's public output and its staff editing interface, such as an Accessibility Conformance Report, with the date of testing and who performed it. Disclose known issues.
4.4 Describe what the platform does to stop publishers from introducing defects: required alternative text, heading structure, link text checks, table markup, contrast limits in the editor.
4.5 The vendor will fix accessibility defects in templates or platform code reported by the [City] within [number] business days for defects that block access to a service, and [number] days for others, at no added cost.
4.6 The [City] may run its own or a third-party accessibility audit at any time. The vendor will cooperate and remediate findings in its scope.
5.1 Describe the user roles available and what each role can do. State whether roles can be limited to one department's section or site.
5.2 Describe approval before publishing: who can approve, whether approval can be required for some publishers and not others, and whether it supports one or several review stages.
5.3 Describe the audit trail: which actions are recorded (sign-in, edit, publish, permission change), how long records are kept, and how staff export them in response to a records request.
5.4 Describe how staff sign in, including support for the [City]'s identity provider [name], multi-factor authentication, and removing access when an employee leaves.
5.5 Describe scheduled publishing and unpublishing, content review reminders, and how emergency alerts are posted site-wide.
5.6 Describe how departments or partner bodies (for example [library, parks, police]) can have their own section or site while keeping the [City]'s brand, navigation and footer.
6.1 Describe the hosting arrangement: provider, data location, backups (frequency, retention, restore testing) and content delivery.
6.2 State the availability commitment you will put in the contract, how it is measured, and the remedy if it is missed. Provide the last 12 months of measured availability if you have it.
6.3 Provide your security documentation, such as independent audit reports or certifications you hold, your vulnerability management process and your incident notification timeline. Do not list certifications you do not currently hold.
6.4 Describe how the site stays available during a traffic spike, such as a storm or election night.
6.5 Complete the [City]'s security questionnaire in Attachment [X].
7.1 (Mandatory) All content, media, form submissions and analytics data belong to the [City].
7.2 Describe exactly how the [City] can export its full site, including content, media, page structure and, where applicable, templates and code, in formats it can use without the vendor. State whether export is self-service and whether it costs extra.
7.3 At the end of the contract, the vendor will provide a full export, keep the site running for up to [number] days during transition, and then delete [City] data and confirm deletion in writing.
7.4 Describe how the [City]'s domain names, DNS and email records stay under [City] control throughout.
Proposals must follow this order and must not exceed [number] pages excluding attachments:
- Cover letter signed by an authorised representative
- Company overview: years in operation, staff assigned to this project and their roles
- Response to Sections 3 to 7, numbered to match
- Project plan and timeline
- Three references from public-sector clients of similar size, with contact details, from projects in the last [number] years
- Pricing in the format in Section 9
- Exceptions to the [City]'s standard contract terms
- Required forms: [list]
Provide pricing in this table. Do not bundle optional items into one-time costs.
Item One-time Year 1 Years 2 to 5 (each) Discovery, design and build [ ] n/a n/a Content migration [ ] n/a n/a Training [ ] [ ] [ ] Platform licence and hosting n/a [ ] [ ] Support and maintenance n/a [ ] [ ] Optional items (list each) [ ] [ ] [ ] State any limits that would change the price (pages, users, sub-sites, storage, traffic) and the annual increase cap you will accept.
Proposals that meet the mandatory requirements will be scored by an evaluation panel using the criteria and weights below. The [City] may invite the highest-scoring proposers to a scripted demonstration, which will be scored separately, and may award to the proposal that offers the best overall value, not necessarily the lowest price.
Give each panel member this table. Agree scores per criterion before adding them up, and write one line on why each score was given; it helps if a decision is challenged.
| Criterion | Points | Full marks look like | Low marks look like |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accessibility approach and evidence (Section 4) | 20 | Dated conformance report, named manual testing methods, editor guardrails, defect fix times in writing | "Our sites are ADA compliant" with no evidence, or reliance on an overlay |
| Publishing, roles and governance (Section 5) | 15 | Shows department-scoped roles, approvals and an exportable audit trail in a live product | Describes features only on a roadmap |
| Understanding of residents' needs and scope (Section 3) | 15 | Task-based plan, real research, a view on what to retire | Template answer that could be sent to any city |
| Data ownership and exit (Section 7) | 10 | Self-service full export at no charge, clear transition terms | Export on request only, or for a fee |
| Hosting, security and continuity (Section 6) | 10 | Documented backups and incident process, availability commitment with a remedy | No measurable commitments |
| Team and references (Section 8) | 10 | Named staff with relevant public-sector work, references that confirm it | Unnamed team, references from unrelated work |
| Five-year cost (Section 9) | 15 | Lowest total five-year cost scores full marks; others score in proportion | Hidden limits or uncapped increases |
| Project plan and realism | 5 | Launches with margin before the compliance date | Launch date after the compliance date |
Cost formula. A common method: (lowest five-year total / this proposal's five-year total) x 15. It keeps cost meaningful without letting it outweigh accessibility.
Send every shortlisted vendor the same script a week ahead and ask them to do it live in the product, not in slides:
Before you issue the RFP, run your own requirements through our website platform procurement checklist. It is a longer list of questions you can draw from.
We.Inc offers a white-label website platform that departments can use under one government brand. We will answer only what our platform does today, including what it does not do. Send us your RFP or book a demo, and see our website platform for government agencies page for what is in scope.
Last checked 2026-10-25.
This template is general information, not legal or procurement advice. Follow your jurisdiction's procurement rules and have counsel review the final document.
At minimum: background and current state, scope of work, accessibility requirements tied to WCAG 2.1 AA, publishing roles and approvals, hosting and security, data ownership and exit terms, a fixed pricing format and published scoring criteria.
Many panels give price 15 to 25 percent of the total score. Higher weights tend to let the cheapest bid win regardless of accessibility or fit.
Yes. Send every shortlisted vendor the same script and score them doing it live in the product. It separates features that exist from features on a roadmap.
We.Inc is an AI-powered website builder you can resell under your own brand. Launch a branded client dashboard, bill on Stripe Connect, and deliver AI-generated websites in minutes. White-label pricing is tailored to your volume and setup: book a 30-minute demo for a quote.