Schema Knowledgebase

Appearance

Learning Platform Evaluation — RFP Source References ​

This file documents the real-world RFPs, evaluation rubrics, and vendor evaluation guides that informed the categories, criteria, and questions in this framework. These sources can be consulted directly for deeper context or for adapting the framework to specific procurement contexts.

Institutional RFP Documents ​

University of Missouri System — LMS RFP 31151 (2023) ​

  • Issuer: University of Missouri System (UM System), Columbia, MO
  • Date: October 2023
  • URL: https://www.umsystem.edu/sites/default/files/2023-10/10 RFP 31151 LMS (231016) - v1 COMPLETE W-ATTACHS.pdf
  • Scope: Full replacement LMS procurement for a major US public university system
  • Relevance: One of the most recent comprehensive higher-ed LMS RFPs publicly available. Covers functional requirements, vendor qualifications, security/compliance, pricing, and implementation expectations.
  • Key contribution to this framework: Infrastructure, security, implementation, and support categories

Mohave Community College — LMS RFP 06-2021 ​

  • Issuer: Mohave Community College, Kingman, AZ
  • Date: 2021
  • URL: https://www.mohave.edu/assets/RFP-06-2021-Learning-Mgmt-System-LMS.pdf
  • Scope: LMS procurement for a 2-year community college
  • Relevance: Representative of the 2-year/community college LMS evaluation pattern, which ListEdTech research identifies as distinct from 4-year universities in its weighting of functional/technical criteria (38% of total score).
  • Key contribution to this framework: Functional requirements weighting, course management, grading/rubrics

University of New Mexico — LMS RFP Selection Process & Report ​

  • Issuer: University of New Mexico (UNM), Albuquerque, NM
  • Process page: https://at.unm.edu/lms/lms-rfp/index.html
  • Final report: https://canvasinfo.unm.edu/common/unm_lms_rfp_selection_report.pdf (requires UNM NetID for full access)
  • Outcome: Selected Canvas LMS from Instructure
  • Relevance: A well-documented public university LMS evaluation process. The RFP was triggered by a provost taskforce recommendation and evaluated multiple vendors using questionnaires, technical deep-dives with instructional designers, and stakeholder sessions.
  • Key contribution to this framework: Process structure, stakeholder discovery approach, vendor demonstration methodology

Texas State Technical College (TSTC) — LMS Pilot RFP (2019) ​

World Bank — LMS Evaluation Rubric (Uganda, 2025) ​

Evaluation Guides & Analysis ​

  • Publisher: ListEdTech (higher education technology research firm)
  • URL: https://listedtech.com/blog/deconstructing-lms-rfps-the-most-popular-evaluation-criteria/
  • Methodology: Analysis of 69 North American institution RFPs — 13 community colleges, 20 universities, 28 school districts, 8 state systems — covering 450+ distinct evaluation criteria
  • Key findings:
    • Six primary requirement type categories: Functional, Non-Functional, Contractual, Management, Submission, Business
    • Weight distribution varies significantly by institution type (2-year vs. 4-year vs. K-12 vs. state systems)
    • Top functional categories: course management, content creation, attendance/classroom management, reporting, assessment/grading, participant communication, video conferencing
    • Post-pandemic addition: video conferencing integration now appears in most RFPs
  • Key contribution to this framework: Category taxonomy, weight distribution by institution type, functional requirements list

ListEdTech — "Packaging New Requirement Types for LMS RFPs" ​

  • Publisher: ListEdTech
  • URL: https://listedtech.com/blog/packaging-requirement-types-for-lms-rfps/
  • Key findings: Defines the 6 requirement type taxonomy in detail. Business requirements carry 19% weight; functional requirements 18%; contractual, management, and submission requirements each carry ~17%; non-functional requirements carry 14%.
  • Key contribution to this framework: Requirement type classification, weight distribution data

Docebo — "LMS Evaluation Criteria & LMS Evaluation Checklist for 2025" ​

  • Publisher: Docebo (LMS vendor — note potential vendor bias)
  • URL: https://www.docebo.com/learning-network/blog/lms-criteria/
  • Note: Vendor-produced content; useful for criteria completeness but weights should be treated skeptically
  • Key findings: 15 evaluation dimensions including AI capabilities, gamification, content marketplace access, localization, and mobile-first design — dimensions that appear less frequently in traditional academic RFPs but are prominent in corporate L&D evaluations
  • Key contribution to this framework: Corporate/enterprise-specific criteria (AI, gamification, content marketplace), mobile learning

LearnWorlds — "The Ultimate LMS RFP Checklist: Selecting the Right Partner Training LMS" ​

  • Publisher: LearnWorlds (LMS vendor — note potential vendor bias)
  • URL: https://www.learnworlds.com/lms-rfp-checklist/
  • Key findings: Detailed question-level checklist covering: course management, content management (with specific file format requirements), user management and authentication, assessment, reporting, integrations, security, and pricing. Particularly strong on the "what questions to ask vendors" granularity.
  • Key contribution to this framework: Specific question wording for content management, user management, and authentication sections

Rippling — "How to evaluate learning management software: RFP criteria & template" ​

  • Publisher: Rippling (HRIS/HR platform vendor — note potential vendor bias)
  • URL: https://www.rippling.com/blog/learning-management-software-rfp-template
  • Key findings: Corporate L&D-centric perspective. Emphasizes: compliance training automation, workflow-triggered enrollment, performance management integration, global/multilingual support. Includes specific example questions for each category.
  • Key contribution to this framework: Compliance automation, HRIS integration, automated enrollment, multilingual support criteria

D2L — "The Complete LMS Evaluation Guide" ​

  • Publisher: D2L/Brightspace (LMS vendor — note potential vendor bias)
  • URL: https://www.d2l.com/blog/the-complete-lms-evaluation-guide/
  • Key findings: Four-phase evaluation process: planning → RFP → evaluation of submissions → vendor selection. Emphasizes weighted scoring matrices and use of vendor demonstrations as the highest-weighted evaluation component.
  • Key contribution to this framework: Evaluation process structure, demonstration-phase methodology

NCAT (NC A&T State University) — LMS Evaluation Tool ​

  • Issuer: North Carolina A&T State University
  • URL: https://www.ncat.edu/_files/pdfs/provost/lms-evaluation-tool.pdf
  • Methodology: Adapted from McGill University's LMS selection grid; uses standardized scoring across categories
  • Key contribution to this framework: HBCU/minority-serving institution perspective, provost-level evaluation lens

Central Oregon Community College (COCC) — LMS Evaluation Guide ​

Key Patterns Across Sources ​

Based on analysis of the above, the following evaluation categories appear consistently across both academic and corporate RFPs:

CategoryFrequencyTypical Weight Range
Functional / Course ManagementUniversal18–38%
Security & ComplianceUniversal10–20%
Support & ServiceUniversal10–15%
Pricing & Commercial TermsUniversal15–25%
Integration & InteroperabilityVery common8–15%
Analytics & ReportingVery common8–12%
Accessibility (WCAG/ADA)Very common5–15%
Implementation & OnboardingCommon8–12%
Vendor Viability / ReferencesCommon10–20%
Mobile ExperienceCommon (post-2020)5–10%
AI FeaturesEmerging (2023+)0–10%
GamificationLess common (corporate)0–5%
Multilingual/LocalizationSelective (global orgs)0–10%

Notable pattern: Academic RFPs (higher ed) weight functional requirements and vendor references heavily. Corporate L&D evaluations weight integration, compliance automation, and user experience more heavily. International/development-sector evaluations add connectivity, offline capability, and low-bandwidth criteria.

Schema Education — Internal Research