The only LMS, LXP, LMS/LXP, Talent Development, Learning Platform, and Mentoring RFP you will ever need.

Each area includes new features and functionality, while removing other places that are no longer deemed relevant or are being reduced or eliminated by vendors.

You can use the entire template or take pieces of it for your own template or RFP document, or extract to reduce the size of the template.

For example, you seek only a mentoring platform. The template has a section just for mentoring, which you can send to prospective vendors.

You may be looking for an LMS or another type of learning system, such as a Talent Development platform that includes mentoring capabilities.

In this scenario, you include the mentoring option for your RFP.

I often hear from folks who worry it’s too long.

Look, if a vendor wants your business, they will complete the whole thing.
You are in charge of the process, not them.

Always remember that. This is going to be a long relationship – i.e., between you and your vendor.

With the RFP template, there’s no longer any guessing.

No, I should have asked them that, or wait, do they have it?

I did not include a pricing table or a calculation of the pricing.
You may say, “Wait, how come this XTA we wanted isn’t in there?”

The reason is simple – it is intended to cover enough for anyone to purchase a system; however, it isn’t set in stone.

That is to say, make the necessary modifications if you choose.

You want a proposal?

Get one. I strongly recommend it, by the way.

Before diving into the template, a couple of notes.

When you go to download it (the only option), you must include your e-mail address.

This is for internal purposes only.

You will not be spammed, nor will your e-mail be sold, nor will I reach out to you.

Secondly, it does not contain any malware.

The TEMPLATE – Here is the link to it – RIGHT HERE

The First Tab

The RFP is broken into a series of tabs, allowing for easy viewing, the ability to remove sheets/tabs, and focusing on one area versus another.

The intro section of the RFP

The first section you always want to complete.

This will ensure that the vendor has the pertinent information they need.

• Type of Org – This means what type of entity are you? A company, association, government, academia (state K-12 or higher ed), non-profit, small business, etc. – The less ambiguous the better. Vendors always want to know this information.
• Name of Contact – If it is you, state that. If not, then who does the vendor contact if they have any additional questions? Oh, and if it’s you, please put your name down.
• Phone number – Now, if you are no longer using or have an office number, then ignore this section and say N/A
• E-mail – Is tied to the Point of Contact.
• Website – Vendors will look to see who you are. If they do not see a website, it raises their suspicions. Even if you are new to the process and don’t have a website yet, please let the vendor know.
• Projected Go-Live Date – This indicates that you have learners in the system, ready to proceed, along with the necessary content, and have verified on your end that the system is functioning correctly. Never take the vendor’s word for it. Recognize that if you say you want to be live in six months, be aware that if it takes three months to sign and sign-off on a project plan, then your original goal of six months, let’s say from the date you state as the must date, may not be realistic. Let’s say you want to sign with the vendor on July 21st, and it’s a go; you want to be live by December. There are plenty of vendors that aren’t doable. For this example, let’s say it is. You must ensure that you can sign the contract and approve the project plan by a specific date. If you know it will take until the end of August, your live date will be pushed back. Secondly, if you change the project plan, the launch date may be impacted.
• Do you currently have a system? It’s either yes or no. If yes, you want to provide the vendor with this information. If you are using Moodle, then say Moodle. If you have 15 systems, identify who they are and specify which one you plan to replace. Let’s say it is number six. However, you still need number six to talk to the other nine systems. This is why this information is relevant.
• The last one – I changed it to the following: “Why are you leaving/wish to change to another system?” – Again, very relevant.

I had a client who stated how much they disliked their current system, because it couldn’t do… Now, in this line item, state the top three reasons.

This is not where you write a use case. You will do the use case in a separate file and send that along with your RFP to the vendor.

This is not where you write a use case. You will do the use case in a separate file and send that along with your RFP to the vendor.

While I always recommend seeing the demo before sending out an RFP, I am fully aware that many people send the RFP to vendors of interest without first reviewing the demo.

The rest of the tabs – All of them will have a header that looks like this

The areas of interest for you

a. Your Response(s) – The options are yes, no, or maybe. Pick one. This is achieved by clicking on the cell, which opens a pull-down menu.

b. Your Details – You have an option here. You can add some details for clarity or choose not to.

c. Vendor Response – This is where the vendor – not you- selects this and the next column. Vendor options – Yes, No, or Roadmap. Pretty simple. It’s one of these three.

d. Vendor comments/details – As a vendor, you want to add as much info as you can. If a vendor leaves everything blank – move on – i.e., you. It tells me they are lazy. Who wants that as a vendor? I have seen vendors who add the info, and you can see that they achieve it by doing a workaround. Yuck. Workarounds are horrible. No workarounds.

e. Craig’s Insight – With specific features/capabilities, you may see some additional comments from me here. Other features will not have it.

Don’t despair; I’ve just selected the relevant ones to consider.

If you plan to send the RFP as is or make minor tweaks, please ensure that you remove Craig’s Insights.

Functionality – The second tab

The central hub of capabilities/features. There are a few new sections here, along with ones that existed before – still relevant though.

Type of Learning

This is a new section because people are not clear on what type of learning, i.e., key relevant areas, you want to provide to your learners/customers.

Then others want sales training.

The kicker here is that every vendor offers sales training. But you get my drift.

The types are pretty straightforward.

Does every vendor offer them?

Practice skills area/lab – No. I am a massive fan of scenario-based learning, which can be effectively implemented when creating a course.

This, however, is a specific section in the system dedicated to practice skills or various real-world scenarios. They could offer a lab.

MOOC – The scourge of learning IMO. Many people still appreciate them, but honestly, it is nothing more than synchronous-based learning, with very low retention rates and high attrition rates.

If the vendor does SBL, then yes, they can offer a MOOC. Nevertheless, I presented it as a specific area.

On the flip side, your edtech (K-12, Higher Ed) shouldn’t offer sales training here.

Can you do it? Sure, but why?

An EdTech system is geared towards education, encompassing primary, secondary, and higher education. If you think your learners at your company are kids, then go for it.

Otherwise, don’t.

Workforce Development

Think Employees here. Some vendors refer to this as employee development or talent development; the latter is likely to be more extensive.

As AI expands, some of this will be driven by AI.

A vendor can stipulate this in their comments. Recently, I have noticed customer training-focused systems incorporating WD capabilities.

They will NOT have them all, and thus comparing a system focused on employees and another that is only customer training is like comparing a car to a tricycle. With a bell.

Learning Environment

The answer here is you want it ALL.

Even if you don’t plan to use it, you still want it.

Overwhelmingly, vendors have all of these.

Nevertheless, some out there lack this or that.

I broke up LE into two screens because it is a bit long. The search by Ratings, Type of Content, specific skills, or topics is for the catalog – course/content catalog. There should be a filter side option that lists this, or at least a search with TAGS for it.

I am a big fan of the filter side area next to the catalog, rather than having no section and only a search option.

The customizable home page gets tricky here. However, the premise is simple.

Mike goes into the system, and his view is different than Johnny’s.

Johnny and his group of people log in to the system, and their home page appears differently from that of anyone else.

The latter is very doable with many systems, as the Admin sets it up, and is also easy to do.

Some can – this allows the learner to have complete control over the widgets’ appearance, as the Admin has enabled this option.

This isn’t about changing logos or colors – that is presented in the “General” area.

Facilities Management

If you select yes on these items, then the vendor should provide details here. Leaving it blank is a bad idea on the part of the vendor.

Course Upload Types

People always want to know if the system accepts video (the most common inquiry). You are in luck. Overwhemingly, the answer is yes.

However, the size of the video – i.e. how big is that file and format type isn’t always in alignment. If the vendor doesn’t say, and you find out that your 25GB file won’t work – that would be important to know ahead of time.

For the materials, always check that the vendor accepts the file format you plan to upload. Never assume.

Compliance and Regulatory

Document signature is usually an integration with a 3rd party that you already have or will need.

Are there vendors who have one built-in (as in they build it themselves) – sure.

But it is not common.

AI Authoring and Course Standards

AI Authoring Tool

Two options here – either you want a built-in authoring tool – I refer to it as content creator – or you don’t. There are a lot of vendors that give you the option – as in you can use it with AI or you can choose not to use their built-in content creator with AI.

The second choice is that the system has a built-in content creator – and it is not AI capable.

Course Standards

What standards does the system accept. Let’s say your system only supports SCORM and your content is all AICC.

Well you will need to convert the AICC to SCORM, because they are not interopable.

AI (Generative)

I split this section into two parts on the page

• A personal agent is basically where the system can handle a task or multiple tasks for you. They are by no means at the level of a personal assistant nor a copilot, despite a vendor saying otherwise. Agents are already available for many AI programs; however, with learning, autonomous agents where you can create them to do ABC and then CDF are in the early stages in terms of capabilities—the same with learning.
• AI Tutor is hot. A vendor may call it an AI coach or an AI mentor. Usually, the two most common are Tutor and Coach. In essence, they are usually the same. I’m a fan of a human element here, rather than just relying on what the Tutor outputs, but I recognize that there are systems that do not do this. This is also a feature that I can see as a “Roadmap” for a vendor. I would not be surprised if vendors believe the chat assistant is their answer to a Tutor. I disagree as they are not the same.
• The next set (sans skills) is tied to content creation, with the equal exception being the ability to create a quiz with AI. That said, I have seen systems that combine these two, so content creation and assessment creation are all one happy family at the same time. Adding a quiz into or after the content, I get that, and that is common.
• Skills mean that AI can create the skills needed in the system or sought out in the system. It is not common, so be aware.
• Answer Engine/Chat Assistant

Two terms are being used interchangeably when it comes to a learner asking questions and the system, i.e., the AI responds in a chat window-like appearance.

The vendors who have it – either call it a chat assistant or an answer engine. Both are applicable, and, in a sense, could be interchangeable—with an asterisk.

Many answer engines are simply text responses. Followed up on my text question and again, text response.

Some go a step further, whereas you can upload a PDF, for example, and the system outputs whatever you asked within the PDF to be extracted – most request a summary or key takeaways.

Then, some systems refer to their learner chat window as a chat assistant.

It can do the same as an AE, but can go further with, say, the PDF, or you ask via audio (beyond rare in systems today), or upload an image and see the AI do its magic with a response (beyond, beyond rare).

I just presented both options here.

Thus, if a vendor calls their window a chat assistant, don’t fret – ask them if they can summarize a PDF if that is something you want.

It’s all vernacular here, with a twist.

The last piece under AI, you will want. I can tell you that the majority of vendors who have AI, 90% lack this text.  

Just because the AI you use to balance your checkbook doesn’t present it, or your recruiting tool for that matter, doesn’t mean it is fine to ignore.

This is learning – not how to play soccer with only an AI controller.

Slightly worse are vendors who present it, but not in every area that is of relevance – i.e., that answer engine/chat assistant area.   

The skills and maps the content with the skills using AI is what this refers to. It is not universal, even with skills systems only.

System is LLM Agnostic.

If you want to get confused, this is the place to do it.

Way too many vendors claim their system is LLM-agnostic and have no idea what it means.

It isn’t just sticking an API here and going TADA, it works. No, not at all.

Configuration is a necessity here, which is why MaaS makes so much more sense.

Microsoft Azure has it, Google Cloud offers it, and AWS too – (it’s called Bedrock). Additionally, there are numerous vendors, including those not as well-known, that offer it as well.

In simple terms, they are cloud-based platforms that contain a lot of LLMs that you can pick and choose from. There isn’t a need to pre-train it ahead of time.

Plus, the MaaS will identify, based on the use case it is responding to, the most suitable LLM for that response. There are vendors today who are utilizing MaaS for their systems.

MaaS – More technical explanation

Skipped sections – but they exist in the template

• Microsoft Teams – If you are using Slack, replace Teams for Slack – and then use the same items below, again replacing Teams with Slack
• Playlists/Channels – It is vernacular here – a vendor may say this list or content that is recommended = playlist aka channel
• Gamification – I will note that a benchmark is presented here, which allows you to compare your team or department to others within the company using point totals.
• Event Management – You want all these options, and yet, there are plenty of vendors who lack a waitlist, a calendar on the home page of the learner, and even the ability, once you register, to have it appear, i.e., the session on your Outlook 365 or Google Workspace/G-mail calendar.
• The rest of the Functionality tab, except for one item under Reports

Before I cover it, don’t fret – I have plenty of my “insight” in the sections I am skipping over.

Favorite Reports

I love, love, love this capability.

Yet, it is super rare. I’ve seen it now with a few systems, and I mean a few, but it should be in EVERY SYSTEM out there, because it makes 10000% sense to do so.

The basics are here

• You (admin) use specific reports over and over again. Not once, but a lot
• You check off a little icon or bookmark or whatever the vendor has with that option – i.e., the report
• Next, it goes into an area – either at the report’s top window with a folder, or a “Favorite” tex,t or another option that says favorites
• You click the “Favorites” and which one, and bam, it is off and running

What vendors find, and this isn’t new, is that admins will use less than 20% of the system’s back-end capabilities.

Thus, it makes sense to have favorites – because instead of going into the reports or metrics section and trying to find the report or reports you constantly run.

This isn’t the same as a set-it-and-go report, where the department head, or whoever, receives the report of ABCS every Friday at 10 a.m.

This is for you, Admin, or the head of L&D, Training, or whoever oversees the system and is a one-person team.

I hope more vendors join the favorite report area. Anyway, don’t be surprised if you say “yes” and then the vendor says “no”.

The rest of the tabs are pretty self-explanatory, and again, my insights where applicable are present.

HOWEVER

The one tab, I want to hit on is “Mentoring.”

My friend, mentoring is growing in our industry.

Not just standalones because they are more stagnant than they should be – for the amount of time mentoring standalones have been in the space, rather the growth will be tied to other types of learning systems, let’s say LMS or Talent Development in this scenario who will have either mentoring already in the system or offer it as a standalone but can add it to their learning too.

An employee development, customer training, even LXP or learning platform may have it as a standalone or as part of the system itself, and not only available for purchase as a standalone.

I based this feature list on a few factors

a. An analysis of key systems in mentoring (as a standalone platform) and within the learning piece of the system.

b. In my analysis, it wasn’t just the biggest players out there, rather it was all company sizes, and length in the industry – plenty of newbies. Lastly, it was global.

I found that all the items listed here should be more than sufficient for the majority of mentoring standalone platforms, mentoring built within the system, and the system comes with it, let’s say an LMS, or a mentoring standalone that can be purchased as that or within the system itself. Think either all, or just this piece.

Some vendors use ‘coach’ and ‘mentor’ interchangeably. I disagree with that idea, because they are not the same.

However, I recognize that vendors will do it, and that many people are okay with it, so, well, that’s how it is.

Please be aware that not every vendor will have all of the items listed below.

I know you are wondering does anyone have all of these items?

Yes.

There are ones who do – and not necessarily the biggest name you can think of on the mentoring side of the house (hint- mentoring platform only).

The first three are big – you want them. The third one, skills and goals-based matching, is dependent on the variables that the platform/system offers. You might find one that is only skills-based. If the vendor is only skills-based, and you are fine with that, then when the vendor responds with a ‘yes’, see what they type in for comments. If they say we only offer it with skills, then you know right away.

A criterion point that I didn’t list may include location or seniority level. Hence, think of the matching part here – variables.

What I found for the first piece, manual and automated, is that there are systems that it is built on a set of data with AI, and on others, it is an algorithm based on machine learning.

Manual could include variables that the admin wants to add or items they wish to remove.

AI Tutor, which you may have seen before, is included here for those who will only use the mentoring tab and nothing else as part of their search. Or part of their RFP.

I like Preferences as part of the matching analysis. I believe it is essential for any mentoring program or platform.

I am surprised by how many mentoring platforms lack the level of tracking that would be of extreme use for someone on the admin side of the house – especially those who oversee the entire department.

The more metrics, the better is something I live by. Mentoring is going to provide an ongoing experience that really empowers learners – not just today, but next month, six months, and even beyond, until they leave your company or become the CEO, and then they may still need a mentor or two.

Multiple programs make sense. Same with customizable program creation.

Preferably, you want both.

Let’s say you can’t decide, and although the ideal is both, the vendor offers only one, what will or should you do?

While I could say this is a must, I would suggest looking at the use case to determine why you want mentoring and which of the two initial items is more relevant and necessary for you in the next six months or year.

If you are still unsure, then for me at least, customizable is a preference that I would be fine with, but if the latter isn’t on that roadmap for 26, then I will say, “Thanks to myself, and see how my eliminate row button works with tht crummy co-pilot thing you just added for Excel.”

Session scheduling is where Pollly schedules a mentoring session, whether it will be face-to-face at a location where the mentor and mentee are, or it is online, virtual.

Polly schedules with the platform, and boom, zing, wham – once they book it, it goes into their calendar, too.

Video conferencing integration is common, so a vendor should be able to confirm that they have it.

I have come across a couple of mentoring platforms that have developed their mentoring conference tools, so you don’t have to purchase one if you plan to use it solely for mentoring purposes.

That said, if that is what you find as a plus, make sure it is included at no charge and that there are no fees attached, such as the number of events or discussion sessions.

You would think the survey/evaluation process is universal in mentoring, but nope, it’s not.

Even when I found them, a few were not using a Likert Scale (it is a series of statements, rather than open-ended questions or a single question). Example: The sales speaker wants $50 from you. On the scale side, right next to the statement: 1- if you are no way, 2-okay, sure, do they take a check? 3 – Fine, where do they want me to pay?”).

Any vendor worth having knowledge of surveys/evaluations would know, or should have, a Likert Scale.

The other two – well, you want them. And any mentoring platform or mentoring capabilities in a system should have them now, or before mid-2026. It is just common sense for the vendor here – and, in fact, common sense for mentoring in general.

Could you imagine not having notifications for your learning? Yeah, me neither.

Ditto on document sharing. If the learning side of the system allows you to share with a cohort or community/group, by golly, they should have it with mentoring.

Of these four, three may not exist in your current or ideal mentoring platform, regardless if standalone or within an existing system.

Thre three are

Goal Setting and Tracking, Skill Assessments, and Session Templates.

And of these three, the one that is hard to find, but yes, some vendors have it – session templates.

One vendor that I saw is NovoEd Mentor+.

I liked how it appeared, how it worked, and how it could achieve/deliver actionable results for the mentoree.

If the vendor has document sharing, they should have a library of resources where they can share materials that already exist in the library, rather than constantly having to search for them elsewhere.

I won’t go into the last 18 features/capabilities listed on the mentoring tab.

Just for length purposes.

Bottom Line

The TEMPLATE has been months in the making.

And now it is ready for you.

To leverage.

To tap into.

To use.

E-Learning 24/7