RFP 01GO-S3715

BEAD GRANT MANAGEMENT SERVICES

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

1. Regarding the conflict-of-interest clause, can the State explain the rationale for the prohibition on serving as a contractor or subcontractor for subgrantees in other States than Nevada, or put another way, if there are no real or perceived conflicts of interests between the submitting parties and a subcontractor or subgrantee, what rationale is the office using for this particular prohibition?

The State has reconsidered this requirement. Section 4.2.3 no longer prohibits financial relationships with broadband service providers and broadband equipment vendors generally. The restriction is directed at the specific identity of the BEAD subgrantee and its majority ownership, affiliates or subsidiaries. Several of Nevada's eighteen BEAD subgrantees are members of multi-state corporate families.

A restriction limited to work performed within Nevada would not reach the relationship of concern, because a firm engaged by an affiliated entity or by a similar ownership group in another state would hold an ongoing commercial relationship with the same corporate family whose reimbursement requests, milestone certifications, and construction work the Contractor must review, inspect, and process in Nevada under Sections 3.3, 3.4, 3.7, and 3.9.

Section 4.2.3(b)(4), prohibiting the Proposer from itself serving as a BEAD subgrantee or as a supplier of broadband equipment or materials to a BEAD subgrantee in any state, is retained without change in scope.

The standard applied is the appearance of impaired objectivity, not proof of an actual conflict in a particular case. The purpose is to avoid adjudicating that question during the period of performance, when the consequence of an adverse determination would fall on subgrantees and on program schedule.

2. Section 4.2.3 (Minimum Qualifications - Conflict of Interest) prohibits any financial relationship with "any Nevada BEAD subgrantee, broadband equipment vendor, or broadband service provider," and any subcontractor role to BEAD subgrantees in any state. Section 4.2.2, however, strongly prefers prior BEAD or comparable broadband program experience, which firms typically obtain through engagements involving broadband service providers. Please clarify: Whether "financial relationship" includes completed past engagements, or only current, ongoing relationships; Whether the prohibition regarding equipment vendors and service providers applies only to entities participating in Nevada's BEAD program, or to any such company nationwide; and Whether, consistent with the conflict-of-interest disclosure and State-determination process described in the Critical Items section, the State will consider disclosed relationships with proposed mitigation measures (e.g., firewalls, recusal) in making its determination, or whether any such relationship is categorically disqualifying.

The experience sought under both sections is grantor-side experience. Section 4.2.1 requires engagements managing grants administration for state or federal pass-through grant programs. Section 4.2.2 refers to supporting states or territories in BEAD, ReConnect, ARPA Capital Projects Fund, RDOF, or comparable programs. Experience of that kind is obtained by working for eligible entities and administering agencies, not for broadband service providers, and does not create a relationship restricted by Section 4.2.3.

The State does not regard the two sections as in conflict. OSIT confirms that Section 4.2.2 is a scored preference rather than a mandatory minimum qualification.

(a) Completed versus current. Completed engagements are not disqualifying. A completed engagement with any broadband service provider or broadband equipment vendor within the thirty-six (36) months preceding the response deadline must be disclosed under Section 4.2.3(c)(1) and will be evaluated by the State. A current or pending engagement with a Nevada BEAD Subgrantee or its Affiliate above the threshold in Section 4.2.3(b)(2) is disqualifying regardless of where the work is performed and regardless of subject matter.

(b) Nevada participants versus nationwide. As stated in question 1, the disqualifying prohibition applies to Nevada BEAD Subgrantees and their Ownership Groups, Affiliates or Subsidiaries, wherever the work is performed. It no longer applies to broadband service providers or equipment vendors generally. Current engagements with providers or vendors that are not Nevada BEAD Subgrantees are disclosable under Section 4.2.3(c)(2) and are not disqualifying.

Section 4.2.3(d) excludes arm's-length ordinary-course purchases of telecommunications, internet, information technology, and equipment services for the Proposer's own operations. That carve-out is limited to ordinary-course purchases; it does not extend to ownership or securities interests. Passive or immaterial securities holdings, including holdings by key personnel, are disclosable under Section 4.2.3(c)(3) and are evaluated by the State on the same basis as other disclosed relationships — they are not excluded outright.

(c) Categorical versus mitigable. Both, depending on the category. Section 4.2.3(b) sets out conditions that are categorically disqualifying and not subject to waiver or mitigation. Section 4.2.3(c) sets out relationships that are disclosable and evaluated by the State, which may find no conflict, accept the relationship subject to an approved mitigation plan, or determine the conflict cannot be adequately mitigated. Section 4.2.3(e) specifies the required contents of a mitigation plan. Section 4.2.3(e) also imposes a continuing duty on the Proposer and, following award, on the Contractor to disclose new or materially changed relationships, and any subsequent actual or potential conflicts of interest within the scope of Section 4.2.3(c) throughout the contract term; requires State approval before a mitigation plan is deemed accepted; and reserves the State's right to terminate for cause if an approved mitigation plan is not followed or later proves inadequate.

3. The project overview states that OSIT is soliciting "qualified environmental consultants or consulting firms." Given that the scope of this solicitation is program and grants management, and that environmental permitting is not meant to be addressed in detail in this RFP, please confirm that this reference is in error and that environmental consulting qualifications are not required.

Confirmed. The reference was a drafting error. Environmental consulting qualifications are not required and will not be evaluated. Environmental, permitting, and historic preservation services are the subject of a separate solicitation. The Contractor's obligations relating to environmental and permitting matters are limited to those stated in Sections 3.12 and 3.15.

4. Section 4.2.1 requires "four (4) completed engagements... totaling $50 million or more." Please clarify whether each engagement must individually involve a program of $50 million or more, or whether the four engagements must aggregate to $50 million or more. Please also confirm whether substantially underway (but not closed-out) engagements qualify as "completed."

The four engagements must aggregate to $50 million or more in total program value. No single engagement is required to reach that figure.

For purposes of Section 4.2.1, an engagement is “completed” if the Proposer's scope of work under that engagement has concluded. An ongoing engagement also qualifies if the Proposer has performed continuously under it for at least twenty-four (24) months as of the response submission deadline. Proposers shall state the period of performance and the program value for each engagement offered.

5. The scope requires site visits at key construction milestones for each of the 18 subgrantees, with frequency calibrated to size and risk. To ensure consistent pricing across proposers, can the State provide an assumed number of annual field inspections, and confirm whether travel costs should be included in the cost schedule or reimbursed separately?

Assumed inspection volumes for pricing purposes are as follows and based on OSIT assumptions of low-risk, medium-risk and high-risk subgrantees.

OSIT estimates that there will be approximately 40 site visits annually, or 160 site visits over the course of the program.

· Low-risk subgrantees: annual site visits

· Medium-risk subgrantees: semiannual visits

· High-risk subgrantees: quarterly visits

If we assume a distribution of five low-risk, four medium-risk, and five high-risk subgrantees we get:

· 5 annual visits

· 8 semi-annual visits

· 20 quarterly visits

The program and grants management vendor if one is selected will coordinate with the OSIT Operations Director to determine whether the vendor or the OSIT operations team makes the visit. Also, travel coordination is expected to efficiently cover multiple visits in one travel reimbursement.

Travel and per diem associated with field inspections and required on-site meetings are reimbursed at State of Nevada rates for airfare, ground transportation, lodging, meals and incidentals as a pass-through, subject to an annual not-to-exceed amount stated in the Cost Schedule. Travel is excluded from the extended amount and from cost scoring and shall not be included in any service line.

OSIT will work with the awarded vendor, if a contract is awarded as a result of this procurement, on travel approval processes and reimbursement procedures.

6. Please describe the current state of program administration: Will any reimbursement activity occur before the anticipated October 15, 2026 start date; Is there an existing tracking system from which data must be migrated in order to meet the 60-day system and dashboard deadlines; and Is any incumbent contractor currently performing any portion of these services?

(a) OSIT does not anticipate activity on this contract before October 15, 2026 at this time.

(b) OSIT has used a grants management tracking system for American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) middle mile and last mile awards including both programs funded by State Fiscal Recovery Funds and Coronavirus Capital Projects fund. OSIT will consider using another Grants Management/Program Management system that meets the requirements for systems stated in section 3.4 and other portions of the RFP.

(c) A contractor is currently providing this service for ARPA funding.

7. Regarding the separate environmental/permitting RFP: As referenced in this RFP there is a parallel opportunity, can a vendor propose on both and be awarded both solicitations?

This RFP is only for the Grant Management. However, a vendor may respond to both solicitations. Responses are individually reviewed and scored by an independent evaluation committee, and responding to both provides no assurance of award of either.

If proposals come from the same firm, or an Affiliate, subsidiary or subcontractor of that firm, the following applies: No individual who performs, reviews, or certifies environmental or permitting work under the separate contract may perform the construction-start hold, reimbursement review, or field inspection functions under this contract with respect to the same subgrantee project. A written separation plan must be submitted to OSIT within fifteen (15) days of the later award.

8. Does OSIT have an estimated budget, funding ceiling, or target contract value for this engagement that vendors should use to inform proposed pricing?

The State will not publish an estimated contract value or funding ceiling for this solicitation. OSIT mandates a single pricing structure and states the assumptions all proposers must use, so that proposals are directly comparable without reference to a State estimate.

When respondents are building their proposed budgets they should consider that OSIT must adhere to the 2 percent cap of its allocated grant BEAD funds for expenses relating directly or indirectly to the administration of the grant. Respondents should review the NTIA’s guidance related to the 2% Grant Admin Cap, and the NTIA FAQs.

9. May a vendor submit a response to this solicitation as the prime contractor while also being named as a subcontractor on a separate vendor's response to the same solicitation?

Yes, subject to the following conditions. Both proposers must disclose the arrangement in their responses. The firm participating in both responses must certify that no pricing information, technical approach, or other competitively sensitive information has been or will be shared between the two proposal teams, and that no individual has worked on both responses. Failure to disclose the arrangement is grounds for disqualification of both responses under Section 9.8.

10. Please confirm that the "State Ownership of Proprietary Information" clause and the Data Transfer Package deliverable (D-13) are limited to State-provided data and program records, and do not extend to Contractor's pre-existing proprietary software, platform architecture, or system configurations used to deliver services under this contract.

Confirmed in substance and clarified. The Data Transfer Package (D-13) and State’s data-ownership requirement in Section 3 extend to all program data, program records, documents and work product created for the State under this contract, including data generated within the system during performance. They do not extend to Contractor’s pre-existing proprietary software or a contractor’s underlying platform architecture which remains with the contractor, subject to a license granted to the state to use such materials to the extent necessary to receive the services and to effect transition at contract end.

D-13 is clarified to require, in addition to data export in non-proprietary formats: the data dictionary, database schema and entity-relationship documentation, code and value sets, workflow and business-rules documentation, report and dashboard definitions, user role and permission matrix, and integration specifications necessary for the State or a successor contractor to interpret and use the transferred data. This does not require delivery of contractor's source code.

Proposers are advised that this is a federally funded award subject to 2 CFR Part 200. Under 2 CFR 200.315, the Federal agency reserves a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable right to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use works developed under the award for Federal purposes and to authorize others to do so, and intangible property acquired under the award may not be encumbered without Federal agency approval. Proposals must not condition delivery of deliverables on terms inconsistent with these requirements.

Proposers are advised to review the Standard [State] Form Contract, Section 21 (State Ownership of Proprietary Information), Section 22 (Public Records) and Section 23 (Confidentiality).

11. We understand the selected contractor will be expected to develop a field inspection schedule in coordination with OSIT. The RFP indicates that field inspections will be conducted at construction start, segment completion, and service activation. Please provide the anticipated number of construction segments for each of the 18 subgrantee projects. If the number of segments has not yet been established, please describe how segments will be defined.

Construction segments have not been defined as of the date of this Addendum. Segments will be defined post-award by the Contractor in coordination with OSIT and each subgrantee, based on the subgrantee's approved project design and construction sequencing. For pricing purposes, proposers shall use the field inspection guidance provided OSIT offers the following data on BEAD Regional Project Areas that may assist vendors in crafting their response (note that these numbers could change based on NTIA guidance)

Number of Subgrantees: 18 current Number of RPAs: 148 current Number of LEO RPAs: 43 current Number of Serviced BSLs: 26,191 current

Number of Serviced BSLs by technology:

· Fiber: 17,023

· Cable: 748

· Licensed Fixed Wireless: 1,013

· LEO: 7,407

12. Our understanding of the BEAD program rules, from the perspective of the NV OSIT (as the BEAD Eligible Entity, or EE), is that sub-grantees are required to perform all necessary work related to the performance of the BEAD project, as proposed and approved by NV OSIT; that includes solicitations for all services above a sub-grantee specific de minimis threshold. The performance of all program activities is, therefore, the responsibility of the 18 sub-grantees for their respective projects, including solicitations, contracting, etc. Those contracted services include entities to provide:

(1) Environmental and historic preservation (E&HP) services through to ESAPTT submission to, and approval by, NV OSIT;

(2) Permitting;

(3) Design / Engineering (D/E) Services;

(4) Construction, once ESAPTT approval is obtained;

(5) Construction management (arms-length from construction entity); Professional Nevada Engineer (PE) Certifications;

(7) Grant management, and guidance on compliance; and

(8) Any other contracted services. Please confirm this is a valid assumption or provide clarifications.

Confirmed in substance. Each subgrantee is responsible for performing or procuring the work necessary to complete its BEAD project, subject to the terms of its subgrant agreement and applicable law.

The State does not confirm the specific procurement thresholds, arms-length construction management arrangement, or other requirements described in the question. Subgrantee procurement obligations are governed by the subgrant agreements and by applicable federal and state requirements, not by this solicitation. Proposers should not assume any requirement not stated in the subgrant agreements or in this RFP.

For clarification, any and all subcontractors, surveyors or professional Nevada engineers must be licensed in the State of Nevada. This clarifies that PE certifications must come from a licensed Nevada PE.

13. Our reading of this RFP: NV OSIT, as BEAD EE, is seeking a contractor to review and assure that the documents created and submitted by each of the 18 sub-grantees is complete and sufficient, following all BEAD program guidelines. This includes developing and providing training for the sub-grantees. Please confirm this is a valid assumption or provide clarifications.

Confirmed, but the assumption stated in the question is not a complete statement of the scope of work. OSIT is the BEAD Eligible Entity, that the 18 subgrantees are the entities deploying broadband infrastructure under subgrant agreements and that the review of subgrantee submissions and delivery of training are core obligations of the vendor if an award is made as a result of this procurement. The characterization of the contractor’s role is not limited to reviewing and assuring the completeness and sufficiency of documents created and submitted by subgrantees. The scope of work also includes:

· Ongoing training and technical assistance to ensure compliance with the BEAD program that may include monthly webinars; providing office hours and a minimum of two individual check-ins per subgrantee per month;

· Hands reimbursement preparation assistance and evaluating documentation submitted by subgrantee to establish it has qualified for a milestone and milestone payments;

· Operation of a reimbursement or payment tracking and workflow management system (3.4)

· Build America, Buy America compliance, guidance certification collection and waiver support (3.5);

· Providing a grant management system and executive dashboard to easily inform OSIT and State staff with construction progress tracking, conducting independent field inspections, grant compliance tracking, federal and state reporting, and \

· Engaging in weekly briefings to the OSIT Director and Deputy Director. Proposers should price against the full scope of work in Section 3, not against this summary.

· All deliverables D-1 through D-13.

Proposers will propose and price against the full scope of work at Section 3 and deliverables at Section 3.23, and not against the summary set forth in this question. This response does not modify the RFP.

14. NV OSIT is NOT looking for the selected contractor under this RFP to perform services for each of the sub-grantees for EHP, permitting, design / engineering, construction inspection, construction, grants management, or other services. The selected contractor under this RFP would provide guidance to the sub-grantees, conduct regular project status meetings, and review sub-grantees prepared documents. Please confirm this is a valid assumption or provide clarifications.

Confirmed in part and corrected in part. Confirmed: The contractor will not perform environmental or historic preservation review, permitting, design or engineering, or construction, for on behalf of any BEAD subgrantee, and will not act as the subgrantee's grants manager.

Not confirmed as to construction inspection. Section 3.9 of the RFP requires the Contractor, in concert with the existing OSIT operations team, to conduct independent field inspections of subgrantee construction work, to inspect deployed infrastructure against OSIT and NTIA BEAD technical standards including speed and latency standards, to prepare written inspection reports, risk reviews, and to coordinate and track corrective action. This is a required element of the scope of work and is not limited to review of subgrantee-prepared documents. See also the response to Question 17.

15. NV OSIT is NOT looking for the selected contractor under this RFP to perform independent reviews of any PE certifications for each of the sub-grantees. Those services for NV OSIT would be contracted under another RFP. Please confirm this is a valid assumption or provide clarifications.

The Contractor is responsible for tracking the receipt, currency, and completeness of professional engineer certifications as program documentation, and for flagging missing or expired certifications. The Contractor is not required to perform independent engineering review of the substance of a PE certification. Any independent engineering review OSIT elects to obtain will be procured separately.

16. Re 3.7, Construction Progress Tracking, the contractor selected for this RFP will be responsible for designing and maintaining the system to enable visibility and tracking, of milestones and items enumerated in 3.7.1 and 3.7.2. Collection of this information will be the responsibility of the 18 sub-grantees, with guidance and quality assurance provided by the selected contractor. Please confirm this is a valid assumption or provide clarifications.

Confirmed. Under Sections 3.7 and 3.18, the Contractor designs, provides, and operates the system. Subgrantees are responsible for reporting milestone progress, with supporting documentation and uploading required evidence. The Contractor is responsible for assisting subgrantees in providing the information and documentation, verifying completeness and accuracy of the information submitted and for maintaining accurate location-level status records.

17. The following tasks are in scope for this RFP: Field inspections of in-process and/or completed construction work by sub-grantees. Please confirm this is a valid assumption or provide clarifications.

Confirmed. Section 3.9 requires the Contractor to conduct independent field inspections of field work by subgrantees, supplementing OSIT operations staff, to develop an inspection and project review schedule calibrated to project size and risks, to provide monthly (or ad hoc) updates to the OSIT Director of project progress, delays, or issues and to conduct site visits at construction start, segment completion, and upon service activation; to review and verify applicable technical standards and prepare written inspection reports with photographic documentation of work/.project completions, and to coordinate and track corrective action. Assumed inspection volumes for pricing are stated in question 5.

18. The contractor selected for this RFP will be responsible for designing and maintaining the system to enable visibility and tracking of the following: (1) verification of performance metrics (upload, download, latency); and (2) collection of BSL location data and status to the FCC Broadband Data Collection efforts. Collection of this information will be the responsibility of the 18 sub-grantees, with guidance and quality assurance provided by the selected contractor. Please confirm this is a valid assumption or provide clarifications.

Confirmed as to system design and operation, and as to subgrantee responsibility for data collection and reporting.

Corrected as to verification. Under Section 3.9.3, the Contractor inspects deployed infrastructure against OSIT and NTIA BEAD technical standards in concert with the existing OSIT operations team, including speed and latency standards. That obligation includes independent verification in the field and is not satisfied solely by quality assurance review of subgrantee-reported data.

19. Re 3.12 and 3.15, environmental and historic preservation activities in support of ESAPTT approvals by NV OSIT and NTIA (as joint lead agencies) is the subject of a separate RFP. Has this RFP been issued? Has this contract been awarded? We can provide those services and have for BEAD awards and other projects funded primarily by federal grants and loans. We will commit to working collaboratively with whichever vendor is selected by NV OSIT. Can you confirm status?

OSIT released the Environmental Permitting, Right-of-way consulting RFP on July 13. It can be accessed through Nevada ePro. OSIT confirms that this solicitation does not include performance of environmental review, historic preservation review, permitting, or rights-of-way services, and that no additional scope accrues to the Contractor if no separate vendor is engaged.

20. Re 3.13 and 3.14, for the vision of operation, working with NV OSIT, the selected RFP contractor will define requirements for NV OSIT usage and reporting, "specifying" and implementation the single user interface, which will be essentially identical for all 18 sub-grantees (with only minimum configuration to support, for example, different technology types). This satisfies Goal 2.5.1. There will be no customization for any single sub-grantee. Please confirm this vision of operation is consistent with NV OSIT expectations.

Confirmed. A single, common user interface for all eighteen subgrantees is expected, with configuration limited to what is necessary to accommodate differences such as technology type. Per-subgrantee customization is neither required nor desired. Section 3.21 states the State's preference for a system calibrated in scale and cost to eighteen subgrantees and usable by organizations with limited grants management capacity.

21. Re 3.13 and 3.14, for the vision of operation, NV OSIT is looking for a single instance of a BEAD Management Dashboard that would provide dashboard visibility to NV OSIT management to current status (date-time stamped) for all 18 sub-grantee awards. This satisfies Goal 2.5.2. Please confirm this vision of operation is consistent with NV OSIT expectations.

Confirmed. A single dashboard instance presenting current status across all eighteen subgrantee awards is required, accessible from any device, available continuously, and updated in real time or near-real time as described in Section 3.14.

22. Re 3.7, the contractor for this RFP will be providing guidance, training, and support to assure all documentation can be captured and maintained (and must be provided by all sub-grantees). The contractor for this RFP will be responsible for timely weekly and periodic reporting to NV OSIT, and in turn, to NTIA. Submission of reports to NTIA will be NV OSIT with support by selected contractor for this RFP.

Confirmed, with one clarification. Under Section 3.13, the Contractor takes primary responsibility for compiling data, drafting each required report, and submitting it to OSIT for final review and approval before filing. Filing with NTIA is made by OSIT. The Contractor does not file directly with NTIA unless expressly directed in writing by OSIT.

23. Re 4.2.6, RFP requests a minimum of three (3) verifiable references from state government clients for comparable grants management engagements. We have procured BEAD awards for clients in two states, both of which will have accepted their awards by end of July. We are prepared to offer as references the leads of those clients' respective State Broadband Offices. In addition, we are prepared to offer an NTIA program director (not related to BEAD) who can attest to our experience and expertise regarding federal grant program management. Would those suffice as three valid references?

Section 4.2.6 requires verifiable references from state government clients for comparable grants management engagements. A reference qualifies only where the state government entity was the Proposer's client for the engagement being referenced. A state broadband office that was the counterparty to, rather than the client of, the Proposer does not satisfy Section 4.2.6.

A reference from a federal agency does not satisfy Section 4.2.6 as issued. Such a reference may be submitted in addition to the required three and will be considered under the Past Performance factor in Section 7.

24. In addition, regarding 4.2.6, we can provide references to tribal government and municipal government references for federal grant programs? While not State governments, Tribal governments are considered peers of U.S. Federal Government, following government-to-government protocols. Would those tribal government references satisfy "state" reference requirement?

Section 4.2.6 requires references from state government clients. Tribal and other governmental references may be submitted in addition to the required three and will be considered under the Past Performance factor in Section 7.

25. Also, regarding 4.2.6, we can provide references to municipal government references for federal grant programs? While not State governments, would those municipal government references satisfy "state" reference requirement?

No. Section 4.2.6 requires references from state government clients. Municipal government references may be submitted in addition to the required three and will be considered under the Past Performance factor in Section 7.

26. Re 4.3.1, it requires identification for certain key personnel roles requiring named resources in the proposal response. Can one resource satisfy multiple roles (e.g. Grants Management Lead and Subgrantee Support Lead)? Please confirm this is acceptable.

OSIT strongly recommends that single individuals be proposed for no more than two key personnel roles and in some cases select roles should be separated. For example, Construction Monitoring and Field Oversight Lead (operations) should not be combined with any other role. No combination may be proposed that would place the same individual on both sides of the functional separation.

Proposers combining roles shall demonstrate that the individual satisfies the minimum qualifications for each role and shall address capacity in light of the recurring obligations in Sections 3.2, 3.9, and 3.16.

27. Will the selected contractor for this RFP be provided the following BEAD documentation for each of the 18 sub-grantees: (1) BEAD grant application to NV OSIT; (2) executed BEAD award agreement; (3) .xlsx of all BSL; (4) GIS data for segments, BSL, etc. (5) attestations; (6) any design / engineering details; (7) PE certifications; (8) ILOC / performance bonds; and (9) any other information pertinent to oversight of all BEAD sub-grantee program performance obligations. These will, of course, be under appropriate confidentiality, non-disclosure, and appropriate use agreements.

Yes. Following contract execution, OSIT will provide the Contractor with the program records reasonably necessary to perform the scope of work, subject to execution of confidentiality requirements and appropriate-use terms acceptable to the State. This will include BSL locations, GIS data and essential information pertaining to last-mile project areas. Design and engineering data, KMZ files, etc. may be provided by the subgrantee.

Proposers should note that certain materials, including location-level broadband serviceable location data and subgrantee financial and design information, are non-public and may constitute controlled unclassified information and State data subject to confidentiality requirements. Handling requirements include the United States hosting, encryption, multi-factor authentication, role-based access, and audit trail requirements in Section 3.20, and compliance with NRS 242.3468 and applicable EITS standards. Proposers shall price accordingly.

See also the attached standard-form state contract, Sections 22 (Public Records) and 23 (Confidentiality).

28. Also, regarding 4.2.6, we can provide references to municipal government references for federal grant programs? While not State governments, would those municipal government references satisfy "state" reference requirement?

This is a duplicate of Question 25. See the response to Question 25.

29. Re 4.3.1, it requires identification for certain key personnel roles requiring named resources in the proposal response. Can one resource satisfy multiple roles (e.g. Grants Management Lead and Subgrantee Support Lead)? Please confirm this is acceptable.

This is a duplicate of Question 26. See Response to Question 26.

30. Will the selected contractor for this RFP be provided the following BEAD documentation for each of the 18 sub-grantees: (1) BEAD grant application to NV OSIT; (2) executed BEAD award agreement; (3) .xlsx of all BSL; (4) GIS data for segments, BSL, etc. (5) attestations; (6) any design / engineering details; (7) PE certifications; (8) ILOC / performance bonds; and (9) any other information pertinent to oversight of all BEAD sub-grantee program performance obligations. These will, of course, be under appropriate confidentiality, non-disclosure, and appropriate use agreements.

This is a duplicate of Question 27. See Response to Question 27

31. NV OSIT is NOT looking for the selected contractor under this RFP to perform services for each of the sub-grantees for EHP, permitting, design / engineering, construction MANAGEMENT, construction, grants management, or other services. The selected contractor under this RFP would provide guidance to the sub-grantees, conduct regular project status meetings, and review sub-grantees prepared documents. Please confirm this is a valid assumption or provide clarifications.

Confirmed that this RFP is not to perform service for subgrantees with respect to EHP, performing environmental services, design, engineering or construction management. The Contractor will not serve as construction manager for any subgrantee project. Contractor will provide guidance to the subgrantees, including coordinating regular project status meetings, providing reports to OSIT, reviewing subgrantee prepared documents generated under the BEAD program, and provide management for processing milestone reimbursements.

The correction stated in the response to Question 14 applies here as well. Independent field inspection under Section 3.9 is within the scope of this solicitation and is distinct from construction management.

32. Have subrecipient agreements been signed by the ISPs?

At the time of this response, no subrecipient agreements have been signed as of the publication of these Q & A responses.

33. Paragraph 2.1 states that the purpose of the RFP is to provide Program Management and Grant Management Services. Paragraph 2.2 states that OSIT is seeking qualified environmental consultants. 2.4.3 also mentions permitting and compliance work and permitting is mentioned as an objective elsewhere in the document. Paragraph 3.15.1 states that OSIT may engage a separate vendor for EHP services. Is the respondent expected to include EHP services in their response? If OSIT does not engage a separate vendor for EHP services, who would lead the EHP efforts?

The respondent is not expected to include environmental or historic preservation services. The reference in Section 2.2 to environmental consultants was a drafting error.

If OSIT does not engage a separate environmental and permitting vendor, no additional scope accrues to the Contractor under this solicitation. Section 3.12.1 to state that the Contractor's obligations in that circumstance are limited to integrating environmental and permitting milestone data received from subgrantees. Environmental and historic preservation compliance work itself remains the responsibility of the subgrantees and, as applicable, of OSIT and NTIA as joint lead agencies.

Refer to Sections 4.2.6; 6.2.4.C; 7.1.6.E; 9.8.6.A through G; and 10.7, all of which address client references. The reference questionnaire is attached on the Attachment tab in NevadaePro.

34. Paragraph 9.8.6 A states that vendor may be asked to provide reference questionnaire to client references. When will the vendor know if they must provide reference questionnaire from clients?

The references should be the same; however, they need not be listed in Section 4.2.6.

Refer to Section 4.2.6; 6.2.4.C; 7.1.6.E; 9.8.6.A, B, C, D, E, F, and G; and 10.7 all refer to Client References. The reference questionnaire is attached on the Attachment Tab in NevadaePro.

35. Should the proposer list the same references in sections 4.2.6. as the requested references in section 9.8.6?

The references should be the same; however, they need not be listed in Section 4.2.6.

36. References are requested in both section 4.2.6. and 9.8.6. Please clarify the required amount of references requested and whether they should be provided with the response to Minimum Qualifications or the response to Critical Items.

Section 4.2.6 stipulates a minimum of three (3) verifiable references. The references are emailed directly to amorfin@admin.nv.gov from the company providing the reference. This is included on the Reference Questionnaire form that is attached in NevadaePro.

37. What does Est. Usage refer to on the Cost Schedule?

Est. Usage is the quantity multiplied by the unit price to produce the extended amount for each line.

38. Section 3.12.1 states (on page 7) a requirement to "coordinate with the environmental/permitting consultant... to ensure that dashboard data is integrated and that the OSIT Director has a unified, real-time view of all compliance and construction milestones in a single dashboard interface." Has that vendor already been selected or is that procurement pending? Will the State provide the existing environmental dashboard's API documentation or technical specifications to assist vendors in designing the integration approach?

The environmental/permitting vendor has not been selected and is being procured. OSIT will make introductions to the selected vendor, if a contract is awarded for the purposes of technical discussions. The State does not have an environmental dashboard; The environmental/permitting vendor will be required to work with and through the NTIA’s Environmental Screening and Permit Tracking Tool (ESAPTT portal).

39. The RFP indicates a requirement for " finalization to the State's NV BEAD program guide which will be inclusive of grant management requirements, obligations, procedures, Build America Buy America/Davis Bacon Wage Scale and other Federal requirements, obligations, preconstruction (permitting, environmental review, route planning) activities, construction activities, timeliness" (Section 2.5.1, Goal A(2) on page 4). Does an internal working draft or outline of the NV BEAD Program Guide exist, as the word "finalize" suggests? If so, will the State provide the current internal working draft to vendors to clarify the remaining scope involved in finalizing it?

OSIT has prepared an internal Grant Compliance Manual for OSIT and Subgrantees. This is a user guide for grant compliance of broadband last-mile projects funded through the BEAD Program.

40. What is the expected baseline or sampling rate, across the 18 subgrantees and 26,236 locations, for physical milestones and location-level field inspections as described in section 3.9 on pp. 6-7?

Actual inspection frequency will be set post-award in the inspection schedule developed under Section 3.9.1, calibrated to the size and risk profile of each subgrantee project. The schedule will be developed in cooperation with the OSIT Operations Team.

41. Does the firm-level requirement for three state government references (section 4.2.6, page 13) apply strictly to the prime contractor, or must proposed subcontractors submit them too?

Section 4.2.6 applies to the prime contractor only. Proposed subcontractors are not required to submit separate references under Section 4.2.6. Where a subcontractor supplies proposed key personnel, that subcontractor's relevant experience will be considered under the Firm Qualifications and Key Personnel factors in Section 7.

42. Will the State provide a copy of the boilerplate BEAD subgrantee agreement template to help vendors understand the exact compliance artifacts requiring systemic onboarding and tracking?

The draft boilerplate BEAD subgrantee agreement will not be provided at this time. It is not yet finalized, and no subgrant awards have been signed by subgrantees at this time.

43. The Cost Schedule's "Est. Usage" column (column E) is blank - what unit basis should vendors use for time & effort items (hours? FTE-months? flat annual rate?), since Price Est. X Usage equals Extended Amount?

See the response to Question 72. Time-and-effort service lines are priced as a firm fixed monthly amount with an Est. Usage of 48. Hourly, blended, and full-time-equivalent pricing may not be used for those lines. A labor basis-of-estimate worksheet is required as supporting information but is not scored and does not modify the fixed pricing.

44. The contract term is 4 years (10/15/2026-10/31/2030) with a 1-year renewal option, but the recurring cost line is capped at a "4 year cap" while the evaluation criteria explicitly scores "Total 5-year estimated cost." How should the optional 5th (renewal) year be priced in the Cost Schedule Form?

The optional fifth year is priced on a separate, clearly identified line as a firm fixed annual amount covering all services including system recurring costs. The evaluation criterion “Total 5-year estimated cost” means the sum of the four-year base term extended total and the optional fifth-year amount. Travel pass-through amounts are excluded from both.

45. Does OSIT already have any existing licenses, platforms, or state IT infrastructure (e.g., a state-standard grants management tool) that the vendor should build on or integrate with, rather than provide fully from scratch?

There are no interfaces with State IT infrastructure required. OSIT expects to be credentialed to use the winning vendor’s systems, if a contract is awarded for this procurement. The degree of OSIT access to the vendor’s system will be discussed as part of the contract negotiation process.

46. Would a proposer be considered ineligible if it provides non-BEAD related products, subscriptions, data, technology, and/or professional services to a Nevada broadband service provider?

It depends on whether that provider is a Nevada BEAD subgrantee or an Affiliate of one, as defined in Section 4.2.3(a). If the provider is a Nevada BEAD subgrantee or an Affiliate, a current or pending engagement is disqualifying under Section 4.2.3(b)(2) whether or not the engagement relates to BEAD, unless total consideration is below the threshold stated in that paragraph, in which case it is disclosable under Section 4.2.3(c)(3).

If the provider is not a Nevada BEAD Subgrantee or an Affiliate, the engagement is not disqualifying. It must be disclosed under Section 4.2.3(c)(2) and will be evaluated by the State. Ordinary-course purchases by the Proposer for its own operations are excluded entirely under Section 4.2.3(d)(1).

47. Would a proposer be considered ineligible if it provides non-BEAD related products, subscriptions, data, technology, and/or professional services to a BEAD subgrantee in another state?

This is not disqualifying as addressed in question unless that entity is also a Nevada BEAD Subgrantee or an Affiliate of one. Section 4.2.3(c)(2) expressly addresses this circumstance: an engagement with a BEAD subgrantee in another state or territory that is not a Nevada BEAD Subgrantee or an Affiliate is disclosable and is evaluated by the State, not categorically disqualifying.

Section 4.2.3(b)(4) is a separate provision and continues to prohibit the Proposer from itself being a BEAD subgrantee, or a supplier of broadband equipment or materials to a BEAD subgrantee, in any state or territory.

48. Section 4.2.6 requires "a minimum of three (3) verifiable references from state government clients for comparable grants management engagements," while Section 9.8.6.B states that "the single point of contact may receive up to three complete reference questionnaire documents directly from the client references via email, if determined to be required for evaluation of the work solicited." Please clarify whether vendors may submit more than three reference contacts, or whether the reference requirement is capped at three under Section 9.8.6.B.

It is a minimum of three (3) verifiable references. More than three is acceptable.

49. Section 10.1.3 states that "vendors are encouraged to submit a single file attachment per section where possible." Please define what constitutes a "section" for purposes of this instruction (e.g., does each numbered top-level heading of the technical proposal constitute a separate section, or does this refer to the major proposal divisions such as Firm Qualifications, Relevant Experience, Scope of Work, etc.)?

Attachments requested are indicated in Section 5, along with the Technical Proposal response.

50. Given the 60-day timeline for full deployment, would OSIT be open to a phased rollout approach?

Yes. a phased schedule is acceptable with separate milestones for: subgrantee portal, reimbursement submission, and the reimbursement workflow within sixty (60) days of contract execution; the Program Overview Snapshot, Reimbursement Pipeline, and Reimbursement Financial Summary dashboard modules within ninety (90) days; and all remaining dashboard modules, including environmental and permitting integration, within one hundred fifty (150) days. Proposers shall state any dependency on OSIT that affects these dates.

51. What is OSIT's anticipated timeline for reviewing and approving system configurations, user acceptance testing (UAT), and security clearances?

OSIT anticipates its system reviews to be a collaborative exercise with the selected vendor is an award as made as part of the procurement. OSIT anticipates that a system overview will be provided by the vendor and that the system overview will include a discussion of decisions and options where OSIT has to provide guidance/approvals to the vendor.

OSIT plans to assist the vendor in determining who of the existing OSIT staff and contractors require access to the grants management system and the degree of access needed for each individual. OSIT anticipates that this will be a dynamic interaction, with the flexibility to add access privileges and initial access for new OSIT staff/contractors at some regular interval.

52. What integration methods are currently supported by the Nevada State Financial System (NEBS/Advantage) for payment reconciliation? Does the system support modern REST/SOAP APIs, or will payment reconciliation rely on automated, batch secure-FTP (SFTP) file transfers?

The grants management system is not expected to be linked to the State of NV financial system. The grants management system needs to produce documentation necessary to justify payments, but OSIT will take this documentation and process it separately for subgrantee payments.

53. To what extent are the data schemas and APIs for the Nevada Environmental/Permitting Dashboards and the NTIA Reporting Portal documented and accessible to the vendor at the start of the contract?

As to the environmental and permitting dashboard, see the responses to Questions 19 and 38.

As to NTIA reporting, submissions are made by OSIT through NTIA's grants systems. No application programming interface to those systems is provided to contractors. The Contractor's obligation under Section 3.13 is to compile data, draft each required report, and deliver it to OSIT for review and approval before filing.

54. Beyond the 18 primary subgrantees, what is the estimated total number of individual external users requiring portal access, and what level of training support does OSIT expect from the vendor?

Based on experience with ARPA last mile projects, the average number of subgrantee individuals requiring portal access has been between three and five individuals per subgrantee. This should be used as a guide for the prospective vendor.

55. Do the 18 subgrantees currently use, or are they expected to use, a standardized Excel template for reimbursement requests, or do they submit in diverse formats?

OSIT expects the prospective vendor to offer a standardized reimbursement form as part of their proposal. OSIT assumes that this reimbursement form will seamlessly interface with the vendors grants management system. OSIT is flexible on format.

56. Does OSIT require a specific federal security compliance level for the cloud hosting environment (e.g., FedRAMP Moderate, FedRAMP High, or StateRAMP) to satisfy NTIA oversight?

OSIT does not anticipate that the vendor’s (if a vendor is awarded as a result of this procurement) grants management system will interface with any State or Federal systems. Reports and invoices will be generated from the vendor’s system and forwarded by OSIT via secure connections to State and Federal Agencies.

57.