WEBSITE REDESIGN PROPOSAL COMPARISON WORKSHEET
Branding Tatva | Prepared 26 October 2026
Guide: https://brandingtatva.com/insights/compare-website-redesign-proposals
Service scope: https://brandingtatva.com/website-redesign

Use this working copy to compare proposals against the same brief. Copy it
into your own project record and complete one supplier record for each
proposal. Opening this resource requires no account or email address.

This is a planning aid, not a universal scoring model. Choose your priorities
before reading the proposals. The signed proposal and contract define the
work. Keep confidential quotations, passwords, access tokens, customer
records and private analytics in your own controlled workspace.

STATUS WORDS USED BELOW

INCLUDED: named in the quoted scope and fee.
SEPARATELY PRICED: available through an additional stated fee.
CLIENT SUPPLIED: your team owns the task or input.
UNRESOLVED: the proposal does not yet give a usable answer.
NOT REQUIRED: deliberately outside this brief, with the reason recorded.

01. FREEZE ONE BRIEF

Business and public website:
Priority customer and service:
Main customer action:
Business outcome the project should support:
Existing pages and assets that may need to stay:
Required page types and approximate page inventory:
Languages and markets:
Required forms, booking, payments, CRM or other integrations:
Editing tasks the internal team must perform:
Launch date, time zone and approval owner:
Budget range and billing currency:
Known constraints:
Open questions:

Send the same brief to each supplier. Record a changed assumption instead
of silently comparing proposals based on different starting points.

02. SET THE DECISION METHOD BEFORE READING PRICES

Decision owner:
Reviewers:
Date proposals will be assessed:
Importance scale chosen by the team:
0 = not required for this brief
1 = useful
2 = important
3 = essential

Assign importance before scoring a supplier. Do not add points merely
because a proposal contains more pages, templates, meetings or features.

Non-negotiable requirements:
Useful options:
Items deliberately outside the project:
Evidence needed before approval:
Reason a proposal may be rejected regardless of total score:

03. COPY ONE SUPPLIER RECORD

Supplier:
Proposal date and version:
Named delivery team and locations:
Quoted currency:
Project fee:
Tax stated as included / excluded / unresolved:
Payment or conversion charges:
Payment stages:
Proposed start and launch dates:
Validity period:
Dependencies and assumptions:
Confidential record location:
Questions sent and response date:

Do not publish another supplier's confidential proposal or use it as public
marketing material. You can ask each supplier to clarify responsibilities
without sharing a competitor's document.

04. COMPARE SCOPE ON THE SAME LINES

For every line below, record:
Importance 0-3 | status word | named deliverable | owner | fee or inclusion
| acceptance evidence | unresolved question

Discovery and customer journey:
Information architecture and page inventory:
Wireframes or content structure:
Visual design and named templates:
Responsive states:
Copywriting and editing:
Image selection, production and licences:
Existing content entry or migration:
CMS setup and editor roles:
Forms and delivery checks:
Booking, payment or CRM integrations:
Search inventory, metadata and redirect work:
Analytics or consent configuration:
Accessibility scope and evaluation method:
Performance scope and test conditions:
Browser and device coverage:
Hosting, domain and deployment:
Training and editing instructions:
Launch support:
Post-launch support and maintenance:
Account ownership and exit:

A heading such as SEO-ready, accessible, responsive or fully managed is not
a complete commitment. Ask which tasks, pages, standards, test conditions
and evidence the phrase covers.

05. COMPARE PAGE AND TEMPLATE RESPONSIBILITIES

Repeat this record for each important page type.

Page type:
Number of pages:
Template or flexible sections:
Who writes:
Who edits:
Who supplies and licenses images:
Who enters or migrates the content:
Who reviews mobile states:
Who approves:
Acceptance evidence:
Status word and unresolved question:

A twelve-page proposal with four purpose-built templates and writing can
represent different work from twelve pages placed into two flexible layouts.
Compare the responsibilities, not only the page count.

06. COMPARE BUILD PLUS TWELVE MONTHS OF OPERATION

Count each charge once. Keep the original quote visible and record any
conversion separately.

Project design and development:
Copy, migration and image work:
Integrations and separately priced setup:
Domain charges:
Hosting:
CMS, plugins, licences and subscriptions:
Monitoring, maintenance and support:
Usage-based charges:
Taxes and payment or conversion charges not already included:
Internal staff or contractor work:
First-year total in the quoted currency:
Comparison value in your budget currency, date and rate source:
Items whose future price is unknown:

A low project fee can be appropriate when your team owns more of the work.
The comparison should make that remaining work visible.

07. ASK FOR ACCEPTANCE EVIDENCE

For every essential item, record:
Requirement:
Pages or journey covered:
Test environment:
Browser, device or condition:
Expected result:
Evidence supplied:
Person who corrects a failure:
Retest timing:
Launch approver:
Status: pending / passed / failed / out of scope with reason

Useful evidence can include reviewed page inventories, working editing
demonstrations, form-delivery checks, redirect maps, browser records,
accessibility findings, performance observations and handover instructions.
Agree the actual evidence for this project rather than assuming a single
tool score certifies the whole website. [1] [2] [3]

08. CONFIRM OWNERSHIP, RIGHTS AND HANDOVER

Domain account owner:
Hosting account owner:
CMS owner and administrator:
Analytics, consent, form and integration owners:
Source code or export supplied:
Design and content files supplied:
Font, image and software licence limits:
Third-party subscriptions:
Credentials transfer method:
Editing and recovery instructions:
Support route and response expectations:
Exit process, timing and charges:
Items the supplier may retain or reuse:
Unresolved rights or account questions:

Request qualified advice where a contract, licence or ownership question
needs it. Keep credentials out of this worksheet.

09. RECORD THE COMPARISON

Repeat one row per criterion.

Criterion:
Importance 0-3:
Supplier A status and evidence:
Supplier B status and evidence:
Supplier C status and evidence:
Difference that affects the decision:
Clarification required:
Decision owner:

Totals can help organise a review, but they do not replace a non-negotiable
requirement, contractual review or judgement about the people doing the
work. Keep unresolved answers visible instead of converting them to zero.

10. WRITE THE DECISION RECORD

Selected proposal and version:
Decision date and owner:
Reason it fits the brief:
Required clarification incorporated:
Scope expressly excluded:
Final project fee and currency:
First-year operating amount or unknown items:
Named delivery team:
Acceptance evidence agreed:
Accounts and rights agreed:
Launch and support responsibility:
Risks accepted:
Reasons other proposals were not selected:
Signed record location:
First project review date:

If the brief remains unclear, resolve the customer journey, page inventory
and responsibilities before choosing. For a scope discussion with Suman,
share the public website, required pages and unresolved decisions. Do not
send another supplier's confidential proposal.
https://brandingtatva.com/contact?service=website-redesign#write

SOURCE NOTES CHECKED 26 OCTOBER 2026

[1] Google Search Central: planning a site move.
https://developers.google.com/search/docs/crawling-indexing/site-move-with-url-changes

[2] W3C Web Accessibility Initiative: evaluating web accessibility.
https://www.w3.org/WAI/test-evaluate/

[3] Google, web.dev: Core Web Vitals and the distinction between field and
lab measurement.
https://web.dev/articles/vitals
https://web.dev/articles/lab-and-field-data-differences

The worksheet's comparison method and fields are Branding Tatva's planning
format. The sources support the named technical questions; their inclusion
does not imply endorsement, search visibility or a project outcome.