TL;DR
I've been asked to put a proposal forward a business analyst that will create a "business engagement framework" as part of a (vague) RFQ (Request for [Q]uotation).
You're tying yourself in knots over something that isn't even mentioned as a singular phrase in the material you shared. The specific phrase business engagement framework is never actually used; instead, you've conflated their request for an engagement framework that interfaces with business stakeholders and their organization's governance (whatever form that may take) into a neologism. Don't do that.
Communications Plans and Engagement Management
All engagements require some sort of management process. All projects require a communications plan. All they're really asking is whether you can document your process, and integrate some process maps and governance documents into that engagement plan.
The other highlighted bullet is just asking if you're capable of consolidating and presenting your requirements at the strategic level. That's generally code for:
Can you blend all the conflicting departmental and business unit requirements into a comprehensive set of integrated, enterprise-level requirements along with PKIs/OKRs that can be effectively communicated to executive leadership for decision-making?
Again, this is just standard project initiation and communications management stuff. They're just being explicit about the fact that they need you to articulate how you would do that, as it seems likely they either lack a defined process for that or aren't able to implement it themselves for any number of political, organizational, or interpersonal reasons.
In other words, think of the bullets as things to be explicit about. Based on the posted text, they're not actually asking for anything that isn't standard operating procedure for a consulting engagement or project initiation. They're just being really blunt about the details, which is (likely) a red flag that this is where they've had issues before, and they want you to address it head-on in your RFQ.
Pro Tip on Red-Flag Bullets
You may want to address engagement plans, communications plans, governance, and other customer-bulleted line items in such a way that your RFQ is not only responsive towards their concerns, but also in a way that protects your company within the engagement. That often means spelling out scoping assumptions about those bullet points, and articulating any associated change management policies or processes.
In particular, if they're already signalling that there isn't internal alignment on the project's requirements, then you should:
- Document the assumption that all solicited requirements can be reconciled by a third party (meaning your company) without the involvement of their executive leadership team.
- Note that changes in process, governance, requirements, executive priorities or decision-making, et al. may trigger a change management process and a review of the scope, assumptions, timeline, and costs associated with the project.
This shouldn't be different than what you're already doing, but when there's a bright red flag involved then you need to take extra care not to run afoul of whatever danger signals the client is clearly sending you. Ignoring signs that say "Danger! Bridge out ahead!" is never a good idea, and that's something I would read into various bullets you've presented. Plan accordingly.
