Eight questions every L&D team should ask before signing an eLearning vendor contract, covering SME depth, quality, turnaround, and accessibility.
Why Vendor Selection Is Harder Than It Looks
Search "eLearning content development company" and you will find hundreds of vendors, and almost all of them claim the same things: instructional design expertise, subject-matter-expert access, fast turnaround, and "high-quality, engaging content." At the proposal stage, nearly every vendor looks capable. The differences that actually matter — cost overruns, missed timelines, content that needs a full rebuild eighteen months later — only surface after the contract is signed.
A structured evaluation exists to surface those differences before you commit budget and a production calendar to a partner who cannot deliver against them.
The Eight Questions Every L&D Team Should Ask
- How deep is their subject-matter-expert network, really? A vendor with two or three generalist SMEs on staff will struggle the moment your content spans multiple specialised domains. Ask how they source SMEs for topics outside their existing bench, and how quickly.
- What does their instructional design process actually look like? "We follow ADDIE" is not an answer. Ask to see an actual design document or storyboard template, and who reviews it before production starts.
- Can they show outcomes, not just outputs? Completion rates and course counts are outputs. Ask for evidence tied to behaviour change, assessment score improvement, or reduced error rates — even directional evidence from past engagements.
- What is their actual production quality bar? Request two or three samples in your specific content type (technical, compliance, K-12, etc.), not generic reels. Quality varies enormously by domain even within one vendor.
- How do they handle accessibility and WCAG compliance? This should be a built-in production step, not an optional add-on quoted separately. If it is priced as an afterthought, treat that as a signal.
- What is their realistic turnaround time at scale? A vendor's fastest possible turnaround for one module is a different number from their sustainable throughput across twenty modules running in parallel. Ask for both.
- How do they handle revisions and stakeholder feedback? Clarify how many review rounds are included, how conflicting stakeholder feedback gets resolved, and what happens when a revision request falls outside the original scope.
- Can they scale with you, or will you outgrow them? A vendor that is a strong fit for a ten-module pilot may not have the bench strength for a two-hundred-module annual programme. Ask directly about capacity, not just capability.
Warning Signs vs. What Good Looks Like
| Evaluation Area | Warning Sign | What Good Looks Like |
|---|---|---|
| SME sourcing | "We can find anyone" with no specifics | Named domain categories with existing vetted SMEs |
| Instructional design | Generic ADDIE/SAM buzzwords only | A real sample storyboard or design document, reviewed with you |
| Accessibility | Quoted as a separate, optional line item | Built into the standard production workflow by default |
| Pricing | A single flat per-hour rate for all content types | Rates that vary sensibly by complexity level (see L1/L2/L3) |
| References | Only logos, no named contacts | Willing to connect you with a current client for a real conversation |
| Revisions | Unlimited revisions promised with no scope boundary | A clear, reasonable number of rounds with a defined change-request process beyond that |
Red Flags to Watch For
- Pricing that seems too good to be true relative to the complexity level requested — it usually means either inexperienced SMEs, minimal instructional design, or scope that will expand once you are locked in
- Reluctance to share a sample in your actual content domain, offering only generic showcase reels instead
- No clear point of contact for project management, or a single person handling both sales and delivery with no dedicated production team
- Vague answers about how conflicting stakeholder feedback gets resolved during review cycles
- Accessibility treated as a certificate you can buy at the end rather than a practice built into every stage of production
Structuring Your RFP Around These Questions
- Require named work samples in your specific content type and industry, not portfolio reels
- Ask for a sample storyboard or design document for a topic similar to your own, reviewed live if possible
- Request references you can actually contact, not just client logos
- Build accessibility requirements into the core scope of work, not an optional appendix
- Ask explicitly about capacity for your programme's actual scale, not just their smallest pilot offering
The Bottom Line
The vendors who look strongest on a proposal slide and the vendors who deliver reliably at scale are not always the same vendors. Asking these eight questions in the evaluation stage, and pushing for concrete answers rather than reassurances, is the single highest-leverage thing an L&D team can do before signing a contract.
Margo Learning welcomes this level of scrutiny from prospective clients, because a rigorous evaluation process is exactly how organisations end up with content partners who deliver on what they promise.