← All articles

Citable Research Platforms: RFP Checklist

A one-page checklist of what an RFP for a validated-instrument research platform should require. Print and attach to the procurement file.

Bert Carroll ·
LinkedIn RSS

Eight requirements every RFP for a validated-instrument research platform should include. Rationale, vendor-response signals, and sources at the full reference.

  1. Instrument fidelity is inviolable. Items, response scale, scoring, domains, phase thresholds, and recommendation copy are not modifiable through the platform by anyone. Updates only as versioned releases by the instrument author. Parallel variants (translations, youth or short forms) served as authorized variants. Architectural separation of immutable instrument layer from configurable analysis layer.

  2. Citable datasets, FAIR-aligned. Persistent identifier (DOI via Zenodo, DataCite, or equivalent). Versioned snapshots with immutable contents. Stable URLs. Published data dictionary in PDF and machine-readable metadata (DDI-XML or JSON Schema). Documented collection methodology. Pre-formatted APA and Chicago citations.

  3. Public, organizational, and admin modes are distinct. Anonymous public mode (no login, aggregate-only, k-anonymity controls). Authenticated organizational mode with consent-based collection and longitudinal tracking. SSO via SAML or OIDC. Multi-tier account hierarchy. Database-layer data isolation: row-level security or equivalent server-side enforcement, not application-layer filtering.

  4. Operational posture for PII. Hosting in a region appropriate to the deploying jurisdiction with documented RPO and RTO. TLS 1.2+ in transit, AES-256 at rest. MFA on admin accounts. Multi-year audit logging. Documented retention and deletion. Incident response and breach notification. WCAG 2.2 AA accessibility (2.1 AA minimum) and responsive design. HIPAA BAA upgrade path when a deploying organization is a covered entity.

  5. Federal grant-reporting compatibility. Vendor cites the specific frameworks by name: SAMHSA MHBG, ReCAST cross-site indicators, SPARS, NIH or HRSA equivalents. Describes export structure (format, field mapping, reporting cadence). Identifies domain expertise (prior experience, named SME collaborator, or both). Reporting templates configurable as requirements evolve.

  6. Attribution and instrument-author IP. Instrument license between author and funder is incorporated by reference into the contract. Attribution on every public-facing page (sponsor, funder, instrument author). Sponsor and funder attribution configurable per deployment; instrument-author credit fixed across all deployments. Vendor describes how it enforces ownership boundaries set by the license; vendor does not assert ownership.

  7. End-of-term disposition. A credible plan for the end of the contracted period: either transfer to a successor steward (procedure, timeline, vendor support) or decommissioning (notification timeline, complete data return to funder, branding removal, archival artifacts). Specific sustainability terms negotiated at contract, not pre-specified at RFP.

  8. Disclosure of prior relationships. Vendors with any prior consulting, research, or advisory relationship with the instrument author or the funding organization disclose nature and scope in the proposal cover letter. Disclosure does not disqualify; failure to disclose may. Protects the procurement process and gives qualified vendors with prior relationships a clean path to bid.

A note on price. A bid that is meaningfully cheaper than the field is not a savings, it is a signal. For a validated-instrument platform, a low bid usually means the vendor has not understood requirements 1, 2, 5, or 6. The funder pays the actual cost later, in lost citability, eroded instrument fidelity, or platform decommissioning under duress. Weight cost modestly relative to technical approach, demonstrated experience, and prototype demonstration.