Evaluating bids for an Exponential site
This section is for procurement officers, project managers and evaluation panel members who must compare bids for a content management system, when one or more bids are based on Exponential. It gives templates you can copy, guidance for running demos and a proof of concept, and evidence guides that tell you what the product documentation proves and what it does not. Every fact links the repository page it comes from.
Contents
Pages in this section
| Page | Answers |
|---|---|
| Evaluation checklist template | Which checks to run and where the evidence for each is |
| Scoring sheet template | How to score bids so two evaluators reach the same result |
| Weighting the evaluation criteria | How to decide mandatory versus scored, and the weights |
| Building an evaluation panel | Who sits on the panel and what each member checks |
| Demo scripts for evaluation panels | What every bidder must show, in which order |
| Questions to ask during a CMS demo | The questions, and the answers the documentation supports |
| A proof-of-concept plan | How to test Exponential yourself, starting with a one-command install |
| Evaluating accessibility evidence | What is evidenced for WCAG, EN 301 549 and Section 508, and what is not |
| Evaluating security evidence | What is evidenced for OWASP, CSP and disclosure, and which defaults to change |
| Reference checks | How to ask for and call references |
| Evaluating a support partner | How to judge the supplier who builds, hosts or supports the site |
| Evaluating the open source project health | How to check that the project is maintained |
| Red flags and pitfalls | Claims and patterns that need evidence, and mistakes panels make |
Reading order
- Before the tender is published: weighting, panel, demo scripts.
- When bids arrive: checklist, the two evidence guides, red flags.
- During demos and testing: questions, proof of concept.
- Before the decision: references, support partner, project health, then scoring.
Cost comparisons are in the sibling folder total-cost-of-ownership, and exit planning in exit-plans; both are listed in the procurement overview.
Principles of this section
- Documented facts only. The product's status against each standard comes from
doc/eng-us/standards/, whose status words are explained in Standards: how to read the status. - No invented references, customers or numbers. Where a weight or score is needed, the template leaves a blank.
- Software and service are evaluated separately. The free software has no license fee; the supplier's work, hosting and support are where most cost and risk sit.
- Invented data in demos and tests. Never real personal data of citizens or staff.
The landing page for public-sector readers is Governments: start here.
Related pages
- Procurement: overview
- Accessibility standards
- Security standards
- Privacy standards
- Free documentation: this page is free to copy, translate and improve under the GNU FDL 1.3.
Become an Exponential Partner
Partners share their information, provide funding, contribute back and develop the products with us, and that is how Exponential grows. A partner website and dashboard are planned for mid-2027: please become a partner today to speed up our growth rate and land new features faster.