MoneyHelper Pensions Dashboards (MHPD) - Website Video Content

PURPOSE OF THIS REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) MaPS is engaging with the market to: • Share information • Invite feedback on the draft requirements • Invite lessons learned from similar opportunities, including risks • Invite suggested price approaches from similar opportunities HOW TO RESPOND TO THIS RFI The deadline for responses to this RFI is close of business on Monday 20th July, 2026. Responses to the RFI Questions must be returned via email to commercial@maps.org.uk by the date above. Clarification questions can be submitted at any time prior to the deadline via email to commercial@maps.org.uk RFI QUESTIONS MaPS would be keen to receive feedback from suppliers in relation to as many of the following questions that you are able to provide a response on: 1. Can you provide a video content solution that meets the requirements of the MoneyHelper Pensions Dashboard and would you would be interested in competing for any future procurement relating to this requirement? You can provide attachments or weblinks for supporting information. If yes, please provide a response covering the following areas: a) Organisation overview - a brief summary of your organisation, including the nature of your services and relevant capability. b) Solution overview - a summary of the video content solution you would propose or recommend for this type of requirement, including how it could support the MoneyHelper Pensions Dashboard. c) Relevant experience - examples of similar work you have delivered, particularly in relation to digital content, video learning, explainers, user engagement, behavioural insight or public-facing services. d) Accessibility experience - your experience of designing and delivering accessible digital/video content, including captions, transcripts, plain English, WCAG 2.1 AA and support for users with different accessibility needs. e) Financial services / consumer education experience - any relevant experience in pensions, financial guidance, consumer education, regulated or public-sector environments, or content designed to improve consumer understanding. f) Key dependencies and assumptions - any key inputs, dependencies, assumptions, third-party tools, hosting requirements, licensing considerations or MaPS decisions that would affect your proposed approach. g) You may provide attachments or web links for supporting information where helpful. CLARITY OF REQUIREMENT: 2. a) Does the information provided in the RFI give you a clear understanding of the requirement? b) If not, what is unclear? c) What additional information would you need to provide a firm proposal in any future procurement? 3. a) Do you have the ability to run a proof of concept trial as described in the RFI? If yes, please summarise your proposed approach, including: b) the methodology c) key roles d) indicative timeline e) consumer testing approach (including recommended sample size) f) assumptions g) dependencies h) any inputs you would require from MaPS i) how would you test whether video improves understanding compared with written/dashboard content alone j) what accessibility features would be included as standard, and what would be optional or additional cost, and k) what MaPS would own at the end of the PoC. 4. Are there any changes you would make to improve the proposed requirements for the overall solution or proof of concept? 5. Can you identify any challenges to delivering the proposed requirements, and if so, are there any mitigations you would suggest? In particular MaPS would be interested to understand any risks including but not limited to: a) data retention b) information security c) business continuity for system failure d) Intellectual Property Rights and e) Licensing f) Delivering the PoC within the indicative budget and timescale. 6. Are there any lessons learned you could share from previous experience of similar work? Please include any relevant lessons from: a) delivering video explainers b) behavioural or consumer testing c) financial education d) content for users with low financial literacy e) vulnerable customer groups f) accessibility needs, or g) public-sector digital services. 7. MaPS has not yet determined the chosen route to market. a) If you are a supplier on any existing government frameworks where the requirements are within scope, please provide further information on this procurement route. b) Are there any procurement routes you believe are particularly suitable for this requirement? 8. If you are an SME, is there anything in the requirement that would pose a barrier to you submitting a bid for this opportunity, including: a) timescales b) insurance, c) contract terms d) data/security requirements e) accessibility standards, or f) evidence requirements? 9. MHPD is a UK government-funded solution. As such, advertising or any other commercial activity will not be hosted on the site and is out of scope for this solution. Please confirm of any dependencies your solution has or may have on third-party platforms, embedded players, analytics cookies, branding, or monetisation models? 10. The PoC is expected to use synthetic or fictitious data only, and real customer data is out of scope. On that basis, please explain what data processing, hosting, storage, retention, analytics, tracking, reporting, third-party tools and sub-processors would apply to your proposed approach, even where only synthetic or fictitious data is used. Please also identify where any data would be hosted, how long it would be retained, what access controls would apply, and whether any cookies, analytics tags or external platforms would be used. 11. Please confirm if your solution generates any additional or new interpretation of material or if it purely enhances visual material. 12. What intellectual property/licensing model would apply to scripts, videos, source files, prototypes and testing outputs? PRICING: a) Pricing relating to the Requirement (post Proof of Concept) 1. What would your pricing model be for this solution? Please provide an indicative cost per annum. 2. If you charge by licence, what would the per annum cost be per licence and how many licences do you envisage would be required? Please include details of what the licence covers (e.g. users, views, videos, domains, hosting, analytics, editing rights, accessibility assets, source files and duration). b) Pricing relating to the Proof of Concept 3. Does the estimated budget range for the PoC pilot seem reasonable? Please explain what could reasonably be delivered within £15k-£25k inc. VAT and any trade-offs MaPS should consider. OTHER INFORMATION: 1. Please use this section to provide any additional information which you feel might be of value to the market engagement process. 2. Please identify any assumptions you have made in responding. CLARIFICATIONS: At its discretion, MaPS may seek further clarification from respondents in relation to the information contained within individual RFI responses. Clarification discussions, if held, will not constitute evaluation, negotiation, shortlisting or supplier selection. TERMS OF THIS RFI Please note that MaPS procurement strategy for this opportunity, including any identified frameworks, is not yet fixed and any aspect of this RFI, or any responses to, does not obligate MaPS to proceed with a formal procurement and MaPS makes no representations, implied or express, that it will proceed to formal procurement of a MoneyHelper Pensions Dashboards Video Proof of Concept. All information supplied in response to this RFI will not be subjected to formal evaluation or scoring. To maximise the benefits from the market engagement and best inform the potential procurement, suppliers are encouraged to participate and be as open and detailed in their responses as possible. This RFI is not a call for competition, request for quotation, tender, shortlisting process or supplier selection process. MaPS will not appoint a supplier to deliver the PoC based on responses to this RFI. MaPS will use responses only to understand the market, refine scope, test affordability, identify risks, consider procurement routes and shape any future process(es). This is not a shortlisting process and will not prejudice any future procurement exercise. Any material information arising from this RFI that is relevant to a future procurement may be reflected in the future procurement documents so that all potential bidders have access to the same information. Any future procurement may differ from the indicative scope in the RFI, based on market feedback, budget, governance and MaPS priorities. MaPS will not reimburse costs incurred in responding to this RFI. Suppliers should clearly identify any information contained within their RFI response that they consider to be commercially sensitive, confidential or otherwise unsuitable for wider disclosure, and should provide brief reasons for that view. MaPS will take any such markings into account when handling responses; however, suppliers should note that MaPS may be required to disclose information in accordance with applicable legal, statutory, transparency, audit, governance or reporting obligations, including under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. Any disclosure will be considered in accordance with the relevant legislation and any applicable exemptions.