The Pensions Regulator

WEB Content Review

Incomplete applications

9
Incomplete applications
8 SME, 1 large

Completed applications

12
Completed applications
11 SME, 1 large
Important dates
Opportunity attribute name Opportunity attribute value
Published Friday 6 September 2019
Deadline for asking questions Friday 13 September 2019 at 11:59pm GMT
Closing date for applications Friday 20 September 2019 at 11:59pm GMT

Overview

Overview
Opportunity attribute name Opportunity attribute value
Summary of the work We want to review how people are supported in making decisions about their pensions changing. Working across four government agency websites, we’re looking for an independent reviewer to make recommendations on content design, search engine optimisation, information architecture, user experience and interaction design.
Latest start date Thursday 31 October 2019
Expected contract length 2 months
Location No specific location, eg they can work remotely
Organisation the work is for The Pensions Regulator
Budget range £10,000 - £20,000

About the work

About the work
Opportunity attribute name Opportunity attribute value
Why the work is being done Following a select committee inquiry into the Tata Steel restructure, The Pensions Regulator (TPR) worked with the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and The Money and Pensions Service (MAPS) to commission Caroline Rookes to undertake an independent review of the way members were supported during the changes relating to the British Steel Pension scheme.
Problem to be solved We are looking to improve how people find the most relevant information on making decisions when changes are proposed to their pension; we want to reduce any duplication or inconsistency published across four websites and make it easier for people to move between the websites where that is necessary. Recommendations are sought on how to improve the content and user experience related to the top ten tasks for each audience type: members; trustees and advisors.
Who the users are and what they need to do The audience is broad: trustees of pension schemes needing to know how best to communicate with members about the change; financial advisors needing to support members in making decisions; and members needing to make decisions about the options available to them. Generally speaking, The Pensions Regulator supports trustees, The Money and Pensions Service supports members, the Financial Conduct Authority supports financial advisors and employers and the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) supports all audiences (in specific situations where the PPF need to be involved).
Early market engagement None
Any work that’s already been done User journeys and stories have been created for the different audiences, along with an Alpha phase website.
Existing team The successful supplier will be working with an in-house digital team of content designers, user researchers and developers to guide their work.
Current phase Alpha

Work setup

Work setup
Opportunity attribute name Opportunity attribute value
Address where the work will take place No specific address is necessary - we are located in Brighton. The partners we are working with eg FCA are based in London.
Working arrangements We can be flexible and support remote working. It would be helpful for the supplier to attend demos of their findings in person.
Security clearance none

Additional information

Additional information
Opportunity attribute name Opportunity attribute value
Additional terms and conditions We would add The Pensions Regulatir standard terms for travel and expenses. We will also add the Pensions Act

Skills and experience

Buyers will use the essential and nice-to-have skills and experience to help them evaluate suppliers’ technical competence.

Skills and experience
Opportunity attribute name Opportunity attribute value
Essential skills and experience
  • Experience of advising government on the design of online content (5%)
  • Experience of applying the Government Service Standard to the development of online content and website design (5%)
  • Expertise in search engine optimisation, information architecture, user-centred content design and user experience/interaction design (5%)
  • Availability to meet our timescales of review in December 2019 (5%)
Nice-to-have skills and experience
  • Experience of testing online services with end-users (4%)
  • Evidence of working with multiple partners, with different style guides, to improve the consistency of the user experience (4%)
  • Experience of working with subject matter experts within a regulated industry eg lawyers, policy professionals(2%)

How suppliers will be evaluated

How suppliers will be evaluated
Opportunity attribute name Opportunity attribute value
How many suppliers to evaluate 3
Proposal criteria
  • Experience as described in a case study(10%)
  • Approach and Methodology (15%)
  • Presentation of Solution(15%)
Cultural fit criteria
  • Work as a team with our organisation and other suppliers (4%)
  • Take responsibility for their work (4%)
  • •Be comfortable standing up for their discipline (2%)
Payment approach Capped time and materials
Assessment methods
  • Written proposal
  • Case study
  • Presentation
Evaluation weighting

Technical competence

70%

Cultural fit

10%

Price

20%

Questions asked by suppliers

Questions asked by suppliers
Supplier question Buyer answer
1. Is the budget of £10,000–£20,000 inclusive or exclusive of VAT? It is inclusive of VAT
2. Is the ‘review’ mentioned in the 4th essential question the alpha service assessment or something else? No, the review is not the GDS alpha service assessment. The review will focus on non-transactional content across four websites looking at the areas identified in the summary of the work.
3. Is the ‘review’ mentioned in the 4th essential question the alpha service assessment or something else? No, the review is not the GDS alpha service assessment. The review will focus on non-transactional content across four websites looking at the areas identified in the summary of the work.
4. Hi there – are you looking for hands-on support to move your project from alpha to beta, or is this more of a review of work already done before you move to beta? Review of work already done
5. Do you expect user research to form part of this work, or do you have existing user research that you can share? User research does not form part of this work. Research/insight to be shared later in the process.
6. Do you need to pass any GDS assessments or is this all flat content? Flat content
7. Do you have an idea of the number of journeys you would like to address? Are there scenarios? Are you able to share the user stories you have already identified as part of this ITT? The user stories will form part of the ITT for the shortlisted suppliers in the 2nd part of this process
8. What are the top 10 tasks, and how have they been identified? These will be supplied as part of 2nd stage ITT, to the shortlisted supplier set.
9. What do you envisage as being the deliverables, or are you looking to suppliers to suggest this? Are you looking for a report, or a new set of wireframes? Are you able to share anything from the alpha? We are expecting an assessment against best practice in content design and recommendations for where we could improve. The recommendations could use wireframes - or any other visual method - to illustrate a point, but we are not looking for recommendations on a full website re-design. In particular we are interested in how easily the user can complete some core tasks - from finding the content, to understanding it and navigating around it (on one website and across 4 related websites). We can share work from the Alpha later in the process.