Adaptive Learning RFP Template: Score Vendors Fast

Choosing an adaptive learning platform should not take months. Use this adaptive learning RFP template to move from long lists to a shortlist in weeks, with a clear scoring matrix, a tight procurement checklist, and vendor questions that reveal fit fast. 

If stakeholders need a refresher on the tech behind adaptive systems, share this primer on what adaptive learning is and how it powers personalized learning paths. 

How to use this template

1. Copy the requirements document section into your RFP.
2. Use the scoring matrix below to weight criteria.
3. Run a structured vendor evaluation with live demos and sandbox access.
4. Document decisions inside your edtech RFP file and announce next steps.

Procurement checklist

Use this checklist to keep the team aligned from market scan to award.

• Business goals and success metrics
• Stakeholders and evaluation panel
• Finalized requirements document
• Security, privacy, and accessibility rules
• Demo scripts and sample content
• Sandbox access and trial period
• Implementation plan, migration scope, and timeline
• Total cost of ownership model
• Contract terms and service levels
• Sign-off path and board approvals

If your team needs a simple overview of LMS selection considerations, share EDUCAUSE’s topic hub on Learning Management Systems. 

Requirements document template

Copy, edit, and paste into your RFP.

1) Context and objectives

• Brief overview of your institution, learner profiles, and outcomes.
• Target programs and subjects for initial rollout.
• Success metrics for the first two terms.

2) Functional requirements

• Adaptive pathways, mastery-based progression, and item-level feedback.
• Instructor tools for creating personalized activities.
• Analytics for learner, course, program, and institutional levels.
• Mobile-friendly learner experience.

3) Interoperability and integrations

• Support for 1EdTech LTI 1.3 for tool integrations.
• Single sign-on with existing identity provider.
• Data export to data warehouse or analytics layer. (1edtech.org)

4) Accessibility

• Conformance with WCAG 2.1 AA guidelines across web and mobile. 

5) Data privacy and security

• Compliance with local and international privacy laws.
• For Philippine institutions, alignment with Republic Act 10173, the Data Privacy Act of 2012 and NPC guidance. 
• Storage location, encryption at rest and in transit, incident response, and audit logs.

6) Implementation and support

• Onboarding, migration, training, and change management plan.
• SLAs, uptime commitments, and support tiers.
• Named customer success contact.

7) Pricing

• License model, implementation fees, optional modules, and three-year TCO.

8) Evaluation and award

• Scoring criteria, panel roles, timeline, and documentation method.

If stakeholders need a quick explainer for accessibility or privacy, include ADA Title II web accessibility rule context and an NPC DPA quick guide in your appendix. 

Scoring matrix (copy and use)

Give each criterion a weight. Rate vendors from 0 to 5. Multiply and sum for a weighted total.

Why weighted scoring works. It brings structure to vendor evaluation and reduces bias by prioritizing the criteria that matter most. If you want a quick refresher, here is a clear weighted scoring overview. 

Demo script for apples-to-apples comparisons

Ask every vendor to follow the same flow and use the same content.

1. Create a course shell and build an adaptive path for three learner personas.
2. Import an item bank and show mastery-based remediation.
3. Connect two external tools through LTI 1.3 and pass grades back. (1edtech.org)
4. Show analytics at student, cohort, and program levels.
5. Run accessibility checks and show alt text, captions, and keyboard nav per WCAG 2.1 AA. (W3C)
6. Export anonymized event data to your analytics layer.
7. Show admin controls for roles, permissions, and audit logs.

Vendor evaluation questions

Use these questions inside your edtech RFP to separate marketing claims from proof.

• How does your engine adapt content and assessment at the concept or objective level.
• Which models drive recommendations and how are they validated.
• What telemetry powers learner and instructor dashboards.
• Which external tools integrate through LTI 1.3 and what is required to set them up. (1edtech.org)
• Describe your accessibility testing process against WCAG 2.1 AA. Provide a current VPAT. (W3C)
• Provide details on DPA 2012 compliance, data residency, encryption, retention, and breach notification. Include your privacy governance map. (National Privacy Commission)
• Outline onboarding, training, and change management for faculty and students.
• Share three similar implementations with timelines, risks, and outcomes.

Requirements that often get missed

• Sandbox access with the same features as production.
• Rubric for content migration and QA gates.
• Clear statement of limits for support response times.
• Data model documentation and event schema.
• Exit plan with no lock-in fees.
• Standards alignment for tools and content, including LTI 1.3 and accessible design per WCAG 2.1 AA. 

Timeline you can copy

• Week 1 to 2. Market scan, shortlist, finalize RFP.
• Week 3. Issue RFP and schedule vendor briefings.
• Week 4 to 5. Demos and sandbox testing.
• Week 6. Panel scoring and due diligence.
• Week 7. Reference calls, negotiate, and award.

Where PathBuilder fits

If you want a head start on the evaluation, share these with the panel:

• The concept of adaptive learning and how it works in practice. 
• How personalized learning paths drive performance and reporting. 
• A quick explainer on AI in education to frame your requirements around analytics and content generation.
• When you are ready, point decision makers to About PathBuilder to request a structured demo against this template. (pathbuilderedu.com)

Copy-and-paste RFP section

Use this in your document under “Evaluation.”

Evaluation and Scoring
Proposals will be evaluated using a weighted scoring model based on the criteria listed in Section 6. Each response will be scored from 0 to 5, then multiplied by the assigned weight to calculate a weighted total. The highest total score will be recommended for award, subject to due diligence and contract negotiation. The panel will document decisions and scoring notes in the evaluation worksheet and will retain all materials for audit purposes. Reference checks, security reviews, and accessibility validations will be part of the final due diligence. For integrations, the vendor must demonstrate conformance with 1EdTech LTI 1.3 and provide a current VPAT indicating WCAG 2.1 AA alignment. Philippine institutions must confirm compliance with RA 10173, Data Privacy Act of 2012. (1edtech.org)

Want this as a fillable Google Sheet with auto-calculated weights and a clean scoring matrix tab? We can generate it and tailor the requirements document to your programs. If you prefer, we can also run a vendor-neutral procurement checklist workshop with your panel, then schedule a PathBuilder demo that follows your script.