The verdict in three sentences
An objective vendor selection rests on a weighted scorecard, not price alone: a bid at half price almost always hides a trimmed scope or no acceptance testing. Weight references 25%, price 25%, methodology 20%, timeline 15%, support 15% to compare apples with apples. Three disqualifying red flags: a bid below 50% of market, no contractual acceptance testing, and invisible references.
The weighted scorecard (New York, 2026)
| Criterion | Weight | What you score |
|---|---|---|
| References | 25 % | Comparable B2B cases, verifiable results |
| Price | 25 % | Detailed per-workstream quote, market coherence |
| Methodology | 20 % | Sprints, milestones, governance, acceptance |
| Timeline | 15 % | Realistic plan, buffer, penalties |
| Support / retainer | 15 % | Contract, SLA, post-launch hourly rate |
3-year TCO view by project type
| Project type | Build (USD) | Retainer (USD/mo) | 3-yr TCO |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brochure site 5-8 pages | 15,000 - 30,000 | 1,200 - 1,800 | ~58k-95k |
| Premium brochure | 30,000 - 55,000 | 1,800 - 2,500 | ~95k-145k |
| Institutional site | 55,000 - 120,000 | 2,500 - 3,500 | ~145k-246k |
| Rebuild + SEO migration | 25,000 - 60,000 | 1,500 - 2,500 | ~79k-150k |
The red flags that should alert you
Some signals expose a risky vendor. A bid below 50% of market: scope is cut (no SEO, no acceptance testing, content on you). No contractual acceptance testing: no commitment to conformity before final payment. Invisible or unreachable references. An opaque lump sum with no per-workstream breakdown, impossible to compare. No retainer offered: the vendor vanishes after launch. Unrealistic deadlines ("full site in 2 weeks") that hide an uncustomized template. Always require contractual acceptance with written criteria and a 10-to-20% holdback released after sign-off.
Mini case study
Linda, procurement lead at an industrial group in New York, runs an RFP for an institutional site. She receives four bids: 28,000, 52,000, 84,000 and 98,000 USD. The cheapest is tempting, but her scorecard reveals no acceptance testing, no SEO migration and no retainer: disqualifying red flags. The 84,000 USD bid scores highest (references 22/25, methodology 18/20, solid retainer). On a 3-year TCO (build + retainer at 30,000 USD/year), the gap versus the "cheapest" fully closes, and the risk of a non-conforming delivery is removed.
FAQ
Need a professional website?
Kolonell builds websites that attract clients, optimized for the Sénégalese market. Free quote in 2 minutes.
How do I make vendor selection objective?
With a weighted scorecard: references 25%, price 25%, methodology 20%, timeline 15%, support 15%. You score every bid on the same criteria, neutralizing the "lowest price" bias.
Is a very low bid a good deal?
Rarely. Below 50% of market, scope is cut (SEO, acceptance, content). The overrun shows up mid-project or after launch.
What is contractual acceptance testing?
A validation phase with written acceptance criteria before final payment. Without it, you pay for a site that may not conform. Require a 10-to-20% holdback.
Should the retainer be part of the RFP?
Yes, it carries 15% of the score. A vendor without a retainer disappears after launch. Budget 1,200-3,500 USD/month depending on complexity.
What is a website's 3-year TCO?
The build plus annual maintenance plus hosting. An 84,000 USD institutional site with a 30,000 USD/year retainer is roughly 174,000 USD over 3 years: that is the figure to compare.
Let's scope your project. Send us your RFP and criteria: we respond with a detailed per-workstream quote, contractual acceptance and a costed retainer. Detailed quote within 48 h. WhatsApp +221 77 596 93 33.
Mohamed Bah
Fondateur, Kolonell
Passionate about digital and entrepreneurship in Africa, Mohamed has been helping Sénégalese businesses with their digital transformation since 2020. Founder of Kolonell, he believes every SME deserves a professional and accessible online présence.
