01 · Executive decision
Bid — if four unknowns are resolved quickly.
The opportunity is unusually approachable: a concise brief, a disclosed budget, a combined brand-and-website scope, and evaluation criteria that include creativity rather than price alone. The example studio profile has credible alignment.
The decision remains conditional because the largest cost drivers — content migration, CMS and integrations, accessibility level, and support — are not defined. Those answers determine whether the $50K–$60K budget is healthy or compressed.
Bid ifThe studio can start in August, prove two recent comparable projects and references, deliver both identity and accessible CMS work, and protect the budget with written assumptions.
Skip ifThe studio needs more than $60K before migration and support, lacks recent references, cannot show accessibility evidence, or cannot mobilize the senior team by 10 August.
02 · Hard gates
What must be true before proposal work begins.
Comparable workTwo brand-and-website examples covering UX/UI and accessibility
Must prove ReferencesTwo comparable clients from the last three years
Must prove DeliveryAvailable from 10 August through the 18 December goal
Confirm Commercial$50K–$60K must cover brand, web, migration, QA, training, and support
Model carefully LocationNo geographic restriction is stated in the three-page RFP
Ask buyer 03 · Scope and risk
The six questions hiding most of the cost.
01Content migration is undefined
No page count, content inventory, archive volume, or content-owner responsibilities are stated.
Accessibility target is vague
The brief references WCAG but does not state the version, conformance level, audit method, or remediation boundary.
CMS and integrations are unknown
Platform, hosting, forms, CRM, donation, email, search, multilingual, and data requirements are not specified.
Brand and web share one budget
The $50K–$60K range must absorb research, identity, templates, UX, build, migration, QA, SEO, analytics, and training.
Support is open-ended
Post-launch support and warranty are requested without a defined period, service level, or included hours.
Fast mobilization
Selection is planned for 31 July with an intended start only ten days later.
04 · Portfolio proof map
Do not show the portfolio. Prove the four decisions.
Brand transformationBefore-and-after identity systemShow the problem, research, retained equity, new system, rollout, and organizational adoption.
Mission-led websiteComplex content made usableProve audience prioritization, information architecture, accessible UX, and a manageable CMS.
Delivery confidenceComparable timeline and teamConnect milestones, approvals, migration, QA, and launch to named senior people.
Measurable outcomeEvidence beyond aestheticsUse engagement, task completion, accessibility, search, content operations, or conversion results.
05 · Questions for the buyer
Ask before the commercial model is locked.
- What CMS, hosting environment, integrations, forms, and third-party tools are currently in use or preferred?
- How many pages, posts, documents, datasets, and media assets must be migrated, rewritten, archived, or redirected?
- Who owns content strategy, copywriting, editing, approvals, and final content entry?
- Which WCAG version and conformance level should the new site meet, and is an independent audit expected?
- Does the budget include hosting, licenses, photography, copywriting, translation, accessibility auditing, and post-launch support?
- What research access is available: staff, board, partners, advocates, families, and other audience groups?
- Are remote or out-of-state vendors fully eligible, and are in-person workshops expected?
- What warranty period and ongoing support response times should vendors price?
06 · Recommended response
A concise proposal structure mapped to the decision.
1. Executive fitState the combined brand-and-web capability, nonprofit relevance, availability, and one outcome-led reason to select the team.
2. UnderstandingTranslate the mission into audience, accessibility, trust, advocacy, and content-management outcomes.
3. ApproachSeparate discovery, brand audit, identity refresh, IA/UX, design, development, migration, QA, launch, and training.
4. TimelineShow approvals and dependencies from 10 August through 18 December, including content and stakeholder decisions.
5. ProofUse two comparable projects with before/after context, measurable results, accessibility work, and the senior team involved.
6. CommercialsPrice each major workstream, list assumptions, separate optional services, and define change control.
7. ReferencesProvide two recent comparable contacts and make the relevance of each engagement explicit.
07 · Working schedule
Eight days from qualification to submission.
20–21 JulConfirm hard gates, select case studies, send buyer questions.
22 JulLock scope assumptions, team, differentiators, and response ownership.
23–24 JulDraft approach, schedule, case studies, and commercial model.
25 JulComplete first response and compliance review.
26 JulSenior review: clarity, proof, risk, and budget.
27 JulFinal edits, reference confirmation, PDF and email checks.
28 JulSubmit well before 5 PM Mountain Time and retain delivery evidence.
08 · Commercial starting point
Protect the range with assumptions, not optimism.
Illustrative $55K allocation- Discovery, audit, research
- $7K
- Brand identity refresh
- $10K
- IA, UX, and visual design
- $10K
- CMS development
- $18K
- Migration, QA, SEO, analytics
- $7K
- Training and defined warranty
- $3K
Total · $55K BidOrSkip analysis, not buyer guidance. Rebuild this allocation after CMS, content, integration, accessibility, and support answers are confirmed.