Procure a clear outcome, not just a method
An organization rarely needs AI, translation, or "Easy Language" in isolation. What it wants is for people to be able to understand an application, find an offer, or make an important decision. This purpose should be the starting point of the procurement process. If only a method is specified, companies may offer vastly different services under the same name, and the final selection is often driven by persuasive terminology rather than actual needs.
Therefore, describe who is intended to use the content and what needs to be achieved after reading it. A public service for people with limited German proficiency imposes different requirements than internal technical information. Furthermore, "Simple Language" and "Easy Language" are not interchangeable labels. "Easy Language" requires a clearly defined professional practice and appropriate involvement of the target audience.
The desired outcome should be specific enough to distinguish between proposals, yet without mandating a single technical solution from the outset. Providers can then demonstrate how they intend to fulfill the task. Data protection agreements, hosting, data retention, and pricing require their own attention. While they are part of the overall decision, they do not address the fundamental question of whether the purchased language service truly helps your readers.
A realistic scope prevents unsuitable standard proposals
Service providers need to know what content they will be working on. Specify typical text types, languages, volumes, and publication channels. An annual brochure differs significantly from daily CMS updates. Tables, forms, image captions, and emails can also be part of the service. If these elements only come to light after the contract is signed, the assigned personnel, schedule, and proposed workflow may no longer align with the actual task.
In addition to standard texts, highlight challenging areas. These might include technical terminology, legally sensitive statements, frequently changing deadlines, or content spanning multiple specialist fields. The goal is not to make the assignment seem artificially complex. A realistic scope allows providers to openly identify limitations and assign the right specialists, rather than offering a generic standard package for a far more demanding content landscape.
At the same time, clarify what is *not* included in the assignment. For instance, the client might retain responsibility for subject-matter approval, while the service provider handles linguistic editing and audience-suitability checks. Perhaps only priority pages are to be transferred, excluding historical archives. Clear boundaries protect both parties from unrealistic expectations. They also prevent key tasks from falling through the cracks between the editorial team, the specialist department, and the service provider.
Requirements should be evident in the final usage
Phrases like "high quality" or "user-friendly texts" leave too much room for interpretation. A description of the expected outcome is far more meaningful. Readers should be able to identify a specific prerequisite, state the next step, or independently use a contact channel. Such a requirement links language directly to the task. Providers can then explain how they create drafts, ensure technical accuracy, and verify reader understanding.
Define exactly which components are to be delivered. A text submission might include a headline, summary, links, alt text, and publication notes. In multilingual projects, the editorial team needs a clear link to the source version. For Easy-to-Read content, images and validation by members of the target audience can be essential. The precise specifications depend on the content and the chosen professional practice.
Avoid requirements that simply replicate a specific product unless that particular feature is truly necessary. An extensive list of functions can rule out innovative or simpler solutions without actually benefiting the reader. Instead, ask what outcome a specific function is intended to achieve. If direct CMS integration is important, describe the secure transfer of text and revision states, for example, rather than just specifying the name of a desired button.
A shared sample task makes proposals clearly comparable.
Ask suitable providers to work on the same realistic source texts. The sample task should be small enough to ensure a fair workload while still incorporating typical challenges. Publish the task, context, and evaluation criteria in advance so that everyone can demonstrate their capabilities on equal footing. A self-selected success story is less revealing, as providers will naturally present the example that best plays to their strengths.
Look beyond the final wording. Ask providers to explain what questions arose, what professional decisions were required, and how they handled uncertainties. Good service providers do not invent missing meaning; instead, they highlight where clarification is needed. When evaluating language services, what matters is whether the version suits the intended audience and purpose - not whether it matches the personal style of individuals on the selection team.
If target audience validation is to be part of the actual service, the process must be clearly described during the selection phase. Who will be involved, what task will the participants perform, and how will the insights gained be incorporated into the text? A generic promise to conduct user tests is insufficient. At the same time, an initial sample should not require extensive, unpaid production work. The scope must align with the value of the procurement and the effort required from the providers.
The proposed team must be capable of delivering the promised work.
Language services often combine various skill sets. Editors ensure clear phrasing, subject matter experts safeguard accuracy of meaning, translators write naturally in the target language, and individuals familiar with the target audience verify comprehensibility. Not every assignment requires a large team. However, the proposal should clearly indicate who will handle the necessary tasks and where the client retains responsibility.
Look for experience relevant to the content. A compelling marketing translation does not automatically demonstrate competence in handling medical or legal information. Similarly, general editorial experience is no substitute for qualifications in Easy Language. References are particularly valuable when they involve similar audiences, publication channels, and risk profiles. Ask about the actual roles of the individuals presented, rather than focusing solely on well-known client names.
Clarify who will actually be working on the assignment after the selection process. Senior experts often appear in presentations, while other individuals handle the day-to-day work. A provider should clearly explain the planned roles, backup arrangements, and collaboration processes. While personnel changes must remain possible, they must not lead to an unnoticed drop in the promised level of expertise. For critical content, it should be clear who is responsible for making technical or linguistic decisions.
The service must fit into the editorial workflow.
A high-quality language version is of little use if it is delivered merely as a file and subsequently requires laborious manual entry into multiple fields. Describe the workflow for content creation, review, and publication. Providers should demonstrate how headlines, links, image captions, and language versions maintain their correct associations. Often, a clear communication channel is sufficient; a complex integration process is not automatically superior to a simple, reliable workflow.
Editorial teams require clear queries and visibility regarding the status of the work. An anonymous queue complicates the resolution of issues, particularly when technical terms or missing source information are involved. The service offering should explain how clients can answer questions, review changes, and approve a version. However, avoid imposing a rigid workflow on every piece of content; a brief announcement and a complex service description require different levels of detail.
Take existing publication deadlines into account. If up-to-date information is released daily, the language version must not consistently lag weeks behind. Conversely, a carefully reviewed "Easy Language" version requires a realistic timeframe. Providers should not make blanket promises regarding speed but should instead explain the differences between content types. This allows the organization to determine which information should be published immediately and clearly, and which additional versions should be released according to a planned schedule.
Results and operational knowledge should remain with the organization.
Clarify the format in which edited texts, translations, and supplementary materials will be delivered. The organization should be able to reuse and update its published content and, if necessary, transfer it to a different service provider. Ambiguous usage rights or results accessible only within a third-party system create dependency. This also applies to images, glossaries, and specific text modules created during the project.
Valuable knowledge regarding technical terms, reader inquiries, and recurring errors accumulates throughout the course of the collaboration. This knowledge should not remain solely with individual service providers. Agree on a practical handover process for terminology and the rationale behind linguistic decisions. This refers not to the provider’s extensive internal archives, but to the material editorial teams need to maintain consistency in existing content.
Even when switching providers, it must be clear which versions are current, approved, or still pending. A clean export of texts and status information facilitates continuity. Procurement processes should take this potential transition into account from the outset, without allowing mistrust to dictate the collaboration. Clear handover protocols provide certainty for both parties and prevent readers from encountering outdated or contradictory versions after a change of provider.
The procurement process itself should be accessible and fair.
If an organization purchases services that are clear and accessible, its own documentation should be equally accessible. Unambiguous terminology, well-structured documents, and accessible file formats reduce the need for follow-up questions. Accessibility requirements must be appropriate for the specific service and should not be buried in a generic statement. For digital outputs, recognized criteria such as WCAG can serve as a benchmark, provided the required level of conformity is clearly specified.
Provide all providers with the same essential information. Answers to questions, revised deadlines, and clarifications regarding work samples should be made equally available to all parties in accordance with applicable procedural rules. This ensures that the quality of a proposal is not determined by chance contacts within a specialist department. Transparent conditions also benefit smaller, specialized providers who may have limited sales capacity but possess the right linguistic expertise.
Public contracting authorities must also comply with the procurement rules applicable to them. In principle, EU regulations regarding procurement for use by natural persons emphasize accessibility criteria, unless an objectively justified exception applies. How this is to be implemented in a specific procedure depends on the contract and applicable law. Competent procurement offices or legal advisors should review the specific arrangements.
Evaluation requires clear priorities rather than appealing overall impressions.
Determine which features are critical for success before bids are submitted. Linguistic quality, suitability for readers, professional collaboration, and reliable delivery can be weighted differently. Providers should be aware of these priorities. An evaluation formulated only after presentations favors the most persuasive performance and makes it difficult to reach a transparent, well-founded decision.
Distinguish between fundamental minimum requirements and attributes where bids may vary in quality. A lack of necessary language proficiency cannot be compensated for by a particularly elegant interface. Conversely, not every desirable feature should become a criterion for exclusion. This distinction keeps competition open and focuses attention on the features that are truly indispensable for readers and the editorial team.
Document the reasons for evaluations using specific language. Terms like "good" or "innovative" explain little. It is more meaningful to note, for instance, that a work sample met all conditions, that relevant questions were asked, and that the target audience review process is clearly described. Such justification facilitates internal decision-making, feedback to providers, and subsequent contract negotiations. It also reveals whether personal preferences inadvertently carried more weight than the published objectives.
A well-structured contract allows room for learning without losing sight of the objective.
Even a carefully planned procurement process cannot anticipate every future situation. If necessary, start with a limited scope that reflects typical requirements and remains manageable. It should be clear from the outset what constitutes an acceptable result and where the client's responsibilities lie. Initial content will reveal whether the scope, roles, and communication channels have been realistically defined.
Changes made during the project term must clearly relate to the original objective. Introducing new languages, additional content types, or different target audiences goes beyond minor adjustments in volume; such changes may require new skills and validation processes. Therefore, agree on a suitable method for evaluating such expansions, rather than quietly subsuming them into the existing scope of work or over-specifying every detail from the start.
Successful procurement aligns reader needs, actual content, and editorial work within a clear, coherent mandate. Providers understand the intended impact and can demonstrate their relevant expertise. The organization gains usable results and the ability to further develop the service. Above all, the outcome is not merely a language version destined for the archives, but a reliable component of the offering that helps people perform their tasks more effectively.