A5_-_Conformance_Statements_and_Exceptions_in_RFP_Final_9.18.2025.xlsx

Sheet1 Request for Proposal

Solicitation No. BPM006839 SOS Petition Management Services Arizona Department of Administration State Procurement Office

Attachment 5 - BPM006839 Conformance Statements and Exceptions Requests

Offeror Name: Runbeck Election Services, LLC

If taking exceptions, the relevant subsequent sections must be completed. Add additional rows as needed.

This document must be returned in an Excel (.xls or .xlsx) format.

STATE WILL NOT CONSIDER ANY EXCEPTIONS UNLESS DESIGNATED ON THIS FORM.

READ ALL INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS BEFORE TAKING ANY EXCEPTIONS. OFFERS WITH EXCEPTIONS MAY BE FOUND NOT SUSCEPTIBLE FOR AWARD UNDER A.A.C. R2-7-C311.

IF NEITHER BOX IS MARKED WITH AN "X" UNDER ANY SECTION BELOW, THE OFFEROR’S RESPONSE TO THAT SECTION WILL BE CONSIDERED “YES” AND STATE WILL INTERPRET THE OFFER AS IF THERE WERE NO EXCEPTIONS TAKEN.

Standard Instructions to Offerors (RFP)

EX: 8.4.25 RES Response: Party Responsible to Opine State Response Supplier Response(s): Put date and Supplier Response:

EX: 8.11.25 RES Response: State Response Supplier Response(s): Put date and Supplier Response:

EX: 8.22.25 RES Response: State Response Supplier Response(s): Put date and Supplier Response:

EX: 8.27.25 RES Response: State Response Supplier Response(s): Put date and Supplier Response:

EX: 9.3.25 RES Response: State Response Supplier Response(s): Put date and Supplier Response:

Bates Number

DONE The scanning solution must include a feature that allows the SOS to adjust which data fields are included in the physical Bates display for all petition types. Strike out requirement The system does not allow the SOS to adjust which data fields are included in the physical Bates display. 7.22.25 State Response: Rejected

Per the current contract on page 44 in Section 1.4.3, this feature should have been developed and tested by the latest October 26, 2022. RES Response: Alternative language

The scanning solution must include a feature that allows the vendor (under direction of the SOS) to adjust which data fields are included in the physical Bates display for all petition types. Agency Response 8.7.25 State Response: Accepted

The alternative language proposed by RES.

The scanning solution must include a feature that allows the vendor (under direction of the SOS) to adjust which data fields are included in the physical Bates display for all petition types.

3.2. Scanning/Importing

Rescan

DONE The rescan option will be available after a batch has been closed before the image is imported into the review system. The rescan option will be available after a batch has been closed. The rescan option is not available before the image is imported. As stated two requirements above this line, rescan is available after the petition page has imported. 7.22.25 State Response: Rejected

Per the current contract on page 45 in Section 1.6.3, this feature was included at the time the original contract was signed. As previously stated, this requirement 1.6.3 contradicts with requirement 1.6 from the original requirement. This was likely an oversight from the original 2021 contract language. Agency Response 8.7.25 State Response: Accepted

The previous alternative language proposoed by RES.

The rescan option will be available after a batch has been closed.

3.2. Scanning/Importing

Rescan

Language was just agreed upon The scanning solution includes an option to turn off the inkjet so a bates number will not be printed on the hard copy. Strike out requirement The inkjet may not be turned off so that a Bates number is not printed. 7.22.25 State Response: Rejected

Exporting Raw Images

DONE The system must allow for the SOS to provide a naming convention or a set of guidelines on how to name files. For example, saved files for initiative/referendum/recall petitions must only include the petition name, county and bates number and for candidate petitions only the office, candidate’s party, last name and first initial shall be included. Strike out requirement The system does not allow the SOS to provide a naming convention. Saved file names are generated based on the vendor's logic. 7.22.25 State Response: Rejected

The SOS is requesting the vendor to provide an alternative solution or an option for an enhancement. This additional feature can be included in the software, which will be billed by the vendor at set development rates agreed upon in the contract. Agency Response 8.7.25 State Response:

Will need the vendor's set development rates before agreeing to this additional feature. Our develpoment costs are listed in attachment "A15 - Pricing Sheet" at $175/hour per developer. RES would work with the SOS to finalize the specific requirement(s) and provide a quote for the work. 8.12.25 State Response: Additional language to be included

Vendor must provide an estimate of the total hours required to develop / complete the proposed enhancement. The vendor agrees that no more than two developers shall be assigned to any development or enhancement project unless prior written authorization is obtained from the agency. 8.22.25 RES Response:

Our estimate is 15-25 hours total of development work for this feature. 8.26.25 State Response: Additional language to be included

State agrees to pay up to a total of 15 hours for the enhancement. The vendor must obtain prior written authorization from the agency, if 10 additional development hours are necessary. 8.28.25 RES Response:

We accept the additional language.

3.2. Scanning/Importing

Exporting Raw Images

DONE The import process must not disrupt scanning or reviewing. Strike out requirement The import process uses server resources and therefore impacts the performance of reviewing. 7.22.25 State Response: Rejected

Per the current contract on page 45 in Section 1.8.1, this feature was included at the time the original contract was signed. Scanning and reviewing can occur at the same time an import is running, and it has always been that way. We are just stating that when the processes run on the same server, performance issues may occur. However, we can meet this requirement as written by spinning up additional servers (if needed) to handle the workload. Please see more detail in box F52. Agency Response 8.7.25 State Response: Rejected.

Vendor must provide a clear plan on how the servers will assist in improving performance issues while importing, scanning and reviewing multiple stimultaneous petitions.

8/12/25 RES Response: Rejected The import process uses server resources and therefore impacts the performance of reviewing. This limitation has always allowed prior volumes to be processed within statutory requirements as seen since 2018.

8.12.25 State Response: Rejected

We respectfully hold firm in our position. This is necessary to ensure the agency continues to process within the statuatory requirements as it has since 2018. This must be a guarantee from the vendor which helps to ensure the agency will meet its statutory obligations. The agency is open to proposed alternative language from the vendor.

Per the current contract on page 45 in Section 1.8.1, this feature was included at the time the original contract was signed. 8.22.25 RES Response:

We will work on writing a plan on how additonal servers will improve performance issues as requested in cell G49, but will not have this ready by 8/25/25. 8.26.25 State Response: Rejected

Vendor needs to provide proposed alternative language. If not, the agency holds firm to the language provided in the RFP. 8.28.25 RES Response:

Please find a Scaling Proposal Plan we are submitting along with our responses. This suggested model will distribute load across servers, minimizing performance issues.

With our proposed scaling plan, we are requesting this requirement be removed. 8.28.25 State Response: Alternative Language

Current contract language requirement is the same as this solicitation. Replaced MUST NOT back to the original language DOES NOT.

Per the current contract on page 45 in section 1.8.1, this feature was included at the time the original contract was signed.

"The import process does not disrupt scanning or reviewing." 9/3 RES Response, we must respectfully hold firm to our previous response 9.4.25 State Response: The agency respectully holds firm in our position regarding the alternative language offered. This exact language is in the current contract.

Alternative Language

Exporting Raw Images

DONE The system must be able to import and export pages simultaneously while review occurs without interruption. The system must be able to import and export pages simultaneously while review occurs. Users will experience slower page load times while import and export are simultaneously running. 7.22.25 State Response: Alternative Language

Exporting Raw Images

DONE The system must allow for batches as large as 3,000 pages to be scanned prior to closing the batch. The system must allow for batches as large as 200 pages to be scanned prior to closing the batch. Batches are limited to 200 pages as larger batches exacerbate errors in IBML PostScan. 7.22.25 State Response: Rejected

Per the current contract on page 45 in Section 1.8.4, this feature was included at the time the original contract was signed. To ensure the stability of our product, we have removed this offering. Agency Response 8.7.25 State Response: Rejected.

We respectfully hold firm in our position as this is a needed function. Currently, the vendor supports this function for 500 pages.

Proposed alternative language:

The system must allow for batches as large as 500 pages to be scanned prior to closing the batch. This is a limitatation of ibml's software, and is out of the control of RES or the Vocem platform.

We will bill hourly to support scanning issues for batches over 200 sheets. IBML's product is not reliable enough for us to accept this requirement unless we are paid for our time to fix issues. 8.12.25 State Response: Rejected.

We respectfully hold firm in our position as this is a needed function. Currently, the vendor supports this function for 500 pages without additional cost. As such, we reject the vendor's proposed language to include the agency being billed hourly for support, which should be included in the cost already.

200 or less is not efficient for the agency's process during any filing period. For example, if a candidate submits 220 petitions, then it takes more time to close a batch and open a new batch for the additional 20 petitions. Even for initiative filings, if the agency is processing 30,000 pages, then closing in smaller batches will be detrimental in the agency meeting the statutory deadlines.

Proposed alternative language:

The system must allow for batches no smaller than 500 pages to be scanned prior to closing the batch. 8.22.25 RES Response:

Proposed alternative language: The system will allow for batches as large as 500 pages to be scanned prior to closing the batch. However, if batches exceeding 200 pages result in PostScan errors, any support required to resolve those issues will be billed at our standard hourly support rate. 8.26.25 State Response: Proposed alternative language.

The system will allow for batches as large as 500 pages to be scanned prior to closing the batch. 8.28.25 RES Response:

Since RES wants this requirement at 200 pages, but the Agency wants 500 pages, we will concede to meet the difference halfway at 350 pages.

RES Response: Alternative language

The system will allow for batches as large as 500 pages to be scanned prior to closing the batch. However, if batches exceeding 350 pages result in PostScan errors, any support required to resolve those issues will be billed at our standard hourly support rate. 8.28.25 State Response:

Proposed Alternative Language:

The system will allow for batches as large as 400 pages to be scanned prior to closing the batch. The agency will not agree to be billed hourly for support, when the support cost is already included into the submitted pricing model.

9/3 RES Response, we cannot meet this requirement - Rejected 9.4.25 State Response: The agency respectully holds firm in our position regarding the alternative language offered. The agency has in good faith agreed to drastically reduce the number of pages from 3,000 pages, which is almost a 90% reduction. The agency respectfully ask the vendor to negotiate in good faith as the alterntative language proposed is more than reasonable.

Proposed Alternative Language:

The system will allow for batches as large as 400 pages to be scanned prior to closing the batch.

RES: We are agreeable to the 350 batches (no language about billing at hourly rate) 9.5.25 State Response: Accept

The system will allow for batches as large as 350 pages to be scanned prior to closing the batch.

3.3. Petition Sheet and Line Review

User Access

Language was just agreed upon The system must allow up to 100 users to review petitions or conduct administrator functions (for example: auditing sheets or pulling data) at the same time. The system must allow up to 20 users to review petitions or conduct administrator functions (for example: auditing sheets or pulling data) at the same time. The system allows up to 20 users. If this number is exceeded the system's performance will substantially degrade. This limitation still allows the stated volumes to be processed within statutory requirements as seen in 2024. 7.22.25 State Response: Rejected

The SOS must adhere to statutory deadlines and reducing the number of users will cause irreparable harm to the agency and others.

Per the current contract on page 46 in Section 2.1, this feature was included at the time the original contract was signed. Since this requirement is utilized when the State is processing multiple petitions at once, we believe we can meet this requirement by spinning up additional servers to handle the workload up to 100 users. At least 90 days prior to periods of high demand with multiple simultaneous petitions, the State can elect to provision additional servers and have vendor deploy additional instances of the application to those servers, and configure the necessary scan jobs, at vendor’s hourly rate. The State may then set up a single petition per instance, allowing the maximum user load on each instance and thereby multiplying the number of simultaneous users. Agency Response 8.7.25 State Response: Rejected.

We respectfully hold firm in our position as this is a needed function.

8/12/25 RES Response: Rejected Our product does not meet this requirement, yet this limitation has always allowed prior volumes to be processed within statutory requirements as seen since 2018.

8.12.25 State Response: Rejected.

We respectfully hold firm in our position as this is a needed function. For the 2024 initiative filings, the agency required assistance from other divisions within the agency, another State agency and 50 temporary workers. Had the agency been limited to 20 users, the agency would not have met its statutory obligations with petition review.

Per the current contract on page 46 in Section 2.1, this feature was included at the time the original contract was signed. 8.22.25 RES Response:

We accept the RFP language.

3.3. Petition Sheet and Line Review

Sheet Access

Language was just agreed upon Users must have the ability to access sheets they previously reviewed in the assigned petition to fix errors. This feature is not currently available in the software. If the client wants to add it as an enhancement, we will quote the work at the hourly development rate. 7.22.25 State Response: Rejected

Sheet Access

DONE System allows individual reviewers to review petition sheets within parameters set by administrator. This feature is not currently available in the software. If the client wants to add it as an enhancement, we will quote the work at the hourly development rate. 7.22.25 State Response: Rejected

Per the current contract on page 46 in Section 2.3.2, this feature was included at the time the original contract was signed. Since the original contract, we have built new User Roles into the software that have enhanced Page Review functionality, negating the need for this former requirement. Agency Response 8.7.25 State Response:

The vendor must provide clarity regarding the enhanced Page Review functionality since this feature should already be included within the current system per the original contract. The Vocem system already automatically navigates and assigns a Page Reviewer to the next available page in the review queue. This ensures that all Page Reviewers can work together as a team to process any pending pages efficiently. Because the assignment logic is built into the system, there is no need for additional oversight or manual rule-setting by an Administrator. Introducing a mechanism for administrators to define reviewer-specific parameters would duplicate existing functionality, add unnecessary complexity, and offer no operational advantage. This requirement may have been needed because there was no easy way for a QC team to review pages; but we have now created a QC-dedicated role to manage this process. See H55. 8.12.25 State Response: Rejected.

We respectfully hold firm in our position. If the enhancement is already developed, the agency should not be billed at the hourly development rate. This enhancement cost should be included within the Software cost and not billed separately.

8.22.25 RES Response:

We are not proposing the State pay for any enhancement that is already included in the software. Our previous response states what is included in the software as of the latest software release. 8.26.25 State Response: Accept

Agency accepts provided that the enhancement is included within the software and cost provided within the contract.

3.3. Petition Sheet and Line Review

Sheet Access

DONE System allows administrator to set parameters for user access to petition sheets. This feature is not currently available in the software. If the client wants to add it as an enhancement, we will quote the work at the hourly development rate. 7.22.25 State Response: Rejected

Per the current contract on page 46 in Section 2.3.3, this feature was included at the time the original contract was signed. Since the original contract, we have built new User Roles into the software that have enhanced Page Review functionality, negating the need for this former requirement. Agency Response 8.7.25 State Response:

The vendor must provide clarity regarding the enhanced Page Review functionality since this feature should already be included within the current system per the original contract. As noted in H54, the Vocem system already manages page access automatically, eliminating the need for administrators to manually set parameters for which petition sheets each user can review. Additionally, we have recently introduced a dedicated QC Page Reviewer role that mirrors standard Page Reviewer functionality but is specifically designed for the Quality Control process. This role allows users to focus solely on QC tasks for previously reviewed pages without requiring Supervisors to manually assign pages—a process that was previously cumbersome and time-consuming. With this role, the system seamlessly and automatically manages QC assignments, enabling the process to proceed faster and more efficiently. Implementing manual access-parameter settings would be redundant and would not improve operational efficiency. 8.12.25 State Response: Rejected.

We respectfully hold firm in our position. If the enhancement is already developed, the agency should not be billed at the hourly development rate. This enhancement cost should be included within the Software cost and not billed separately.

8.22.25 RES Response:

We are not proposing the State pay for any enhancement that is already included in the software. Our previous response states what is included in the software as of the latest software release. 8.26.25 State Response: Accept

Agency accepts provided that the enhancement is included within the software and cost provided within the contract.

3.3. Petition Sheet and Line Review

Sheet Access

DONE If a reviewer does not complete their batch of pages, any pages they do not complete must be released when they leave the petition page, are idle for 10 or more minutes, or log out. If a reviewer does not complete their batch of pages, any pages they do not complete must be released after a period of 10 minutes. Pages are checked out to a reviewer for 10 minutes, and then are released. The release does not automatically apply when the reviewer leaves the page or logs out. 7.22.25 State Response: Alternative Language

Display Errors

DONE To move line disposition mark-ups to align correctly with image (up and down and left to right); To move line disposition mark-ups to align correctly with image (up and down); Line dispositions may be moved up and down, but not left to right. 7.22.25 State Response: Accepted

3.4. Administrative Review and Audit Features

Quality Control

DONE The back and front page of a petition sheet must be assigned to a singular administrative user and must not be split (i.e. The system must never assign Admin User A to the back page with Bates Number 1 and assign Admin User B to the front page with Bates Number 1. The system must only assign Admin User A both the back and front page with Bates Number 1 to avoid splitting the petition sheet). The back and front page of a petition sheet must be assigned to a singular reviewer and must not be split (i.e. The system must never assign User A to the back page with Bates Number 1 and assign User B to the front page with Bates Number 1. The system must only assign User A both the back and front page with Bates Number 1 to avoid splitting the petition sheet). This statement is true for Page Reviewers, but not for an Administrative user. The system doesn't "assign" Admins to any pages. An Admin can access any page they want at any time. 7.22.25 State Response: Accepted

3.5. Sampling and Exporting

Sampling

Language was just agreed upon Sampled lines must be distinctly marked, such as by adding “S-“ in the margin next to the randomly sampled line. Sampled lines must be distinctly marked on the export, such as by adding “S-" next to the randomly sampled line. This requirement is met as sampled lines are marked by an "S" in the export. However, if the client wants to build this feature into the Vocem screens user interface, we can proceed with this enhancement at at a hourly development rate. 7.22.25 State Response: Rejected

Per the current contract on page 50 in Section 4.1.3, this feature was included at the time the original contract was signed.

Export Formats

DONE The system must allow for the SOS to provide a naming convention or a set of guidelines on how to name files. For example, saved files for initiative/referendum/recall petitions must only include the petition name, county and bates number and for candidate petitions only the office, candidate’s party, last name and first initial shall be included. Strike out requirement The system does not allow the SOS to provide a naming convention for file names. Saved file names are generated based on vendor's logic. 7.22.25 State Response: Rejected

The SOS is requesting the vendor to provide an alternative solution or an option for an enhancement. This additional feature can be included in the software, which will be billed by the vendor at set development rates agreed upon in the contract. Agency Response 8.7.25 State Response:

Will need the vendor's set development rates before agreeing to this additional feature.

Our develpoment costs are listed in attachment "A15 - Pricing Sheet" at $175/hour per developer. RES would work with the SOS to finalize the specific requirement(s) and provide a quote for the work. 8.12.25 State Response: Alternative Language

Vendor must provide an estimate of the total hours required to develop / complete the proposed enhancement. The vendor agrees that no more than two developers shall be assigned to any development or enhancement project unless prior written authorization is obtained from the agency.

8.22.25 RES Response:

We are not sure how this requirement is different from line 48. If this is a different feature than line 48, then our estimate is 15-25 hours total of development work for this feature. If this is the same feature as line 48, there would be no additional charge. 8.26.25 State Response: Accept

This is not a different feature. It is the naming convention used for any files that will be saved using the system.

3.6. Data and Reports

Reports

DONE All reports must be in the form of a spreadsheet (.csv or .xlsx) that includes columns with the bates number, side, county designation, circulator information (if applicable), and other relevant information in the requested report for all petitions. All reports must also be available in PDF format. All reports must be in the form of a spreadsheet (.csv) that includes columns with the bates number, side, county designation, circulator information (if applicable), and other relevant information in the requested report for all petitions. Tabular reports are only available in CSV format; XLSX and PDF are not available. 7.22.25 State Response: Rejected

Per the current contract on page 51 in Section 5.2.7, the .xlsx feature was included at the time when the original contract was signed. If the vendor cannot produce the report in PDF, the SOS can agree to remove the PDF requirement. However, the SOS needs the .xlsx capability as previously provided in the original contract. RES Response: Alternative language

All reports must be in the form of a spreadsheet (.csv or .xlsx) that includes columns with the bates number, side, county designation, circulator information (if applicable), and other relevant information in the requested report for all petitions. All candidate filing reports must also be available in PDF format. Agency Response 8.7.25 State Response: Accepted

Alternative language proposed by RES.

All reports must be in the form of a spreadsheet (.csv or .xlsx) that includes columns with the bates number, side, county designation, circulator information (if applicable), and other relevant information in the requested report for all petitions. All candidate filing reports must also be available in PDF format.

3.6. Data and Reports

Reports

DONE Scanning and Page Import (This report should also designate specifically which pending scanned pages did not import into the system, if any.) Scanning and Page Import The additional feature (that the report should also designate specifically which pending scanned pages did not import into the system, if any) is not currently available in the software. If the client wants to add it as an enhancement, we will quote the work at the hourly development rate. 7.22.25 State Response: Rejected

The SOS is requesting the vendor to provide an alternative solution or an option for an enhancement. RES Response: We agree to offer an option for an enhancement, as stated in our previous response.

This additional feature can be included in the software, which will be billed by the vendor at set development rates agreed upon in the contract. Agency Response 8.7.25 State Response:

Will need the vendor's set development rates before agreeing to this additional feature.

Our develpoment costs are listed in attachment "A15 - Pricing Sheet" at $175/hour per developer. RES would work with the SOS to finalize the specific requirement(s) and provide a quote for the work. 8.12.25 State Response: Additional language to be included

Vendor must provide an estimate of the total hours required to develop / complete the proposed enhancement. The vendor agrees that no more than two developers shall be assigned to any development or enhancement project unless prior written authorization is obtained from the agency. 8.22.25 RES Response:

Our estimate is 15-25 hours total of development work for this feature. 8.26.25 State Response: Accept

State agrees to pay up to a total of 15 hours for the enhancement. The vendor must obtain prior written authorization from the agency, if 10 additional development hours are necessary.

3.6. Data and Reports

Filing Reports (Receipts)

3.6. Data and Reports

Post-Sampling Report

Language was just agreed upon The random sample must be in the form of a spreadsheet (.csv or .xlsx) The random sample must be in the form of a spreadsheet (.csv) Post-Sampling Report is only available in CSV format; XLSX is not available. 7.22.25 State Response: Rejected

Post-Sampling Report

NO Alternative language has been provided The report must further provide totals of how many total lines sampled per county and how many total pages sampled per county. This feature is not currently available in the software. If the client wants to add it as an enhancement, we will quote the work at the hourly development rate. 7.22.25 State Response: Accepted

3.6. Data and Reports

Post-Sampling Report

Strikeout Language DONE The system must also provide a PDF export of the information provided. Strike out requirement Post-Sampling Report is only available in CSV format; PDF is not available. 7.22.25 State Response: Accepted

3.7. Support, Training and Enhancement Procedures

Training, Testing, and Deployment

DONE The SOS will determine which training option works best and will notify the vendor of which training format is chosen. The SOS reserves the right to choose both options, if needed. The SOS will determine which training option works best and will notify the vendor of which training format is chosen. The SOS reserves the right to choose either option. The vendor will provide either in person training or virtual training once annually, but not both. 7.22.25 State Response: Accepted

3.7. Support, Training and Enhancement Procedures

Training, Testing, and Deployment

DONE The vendor must provide detailed, step-by-step hard copy training materials, ongoing user guidance, and updates if changes are made. The vendor must provide a detailed up-to-date user guide and updates if changes are made. A detailed user guide of the software will be provided for training, which will be provided electronically. 7.22.25 State Response: Alternative Language

Training, Testing, and Deployment

DONE The vendor must provide detailed hands-on training on the existing software before the SOS begins testing. The training must occur promptly after the award of the contract. Additional training must be provided before testing after any changes are made to the existing software. Strike out requirement Vendor will provide training on the end-to-end system, as stated in other requirements. 7.22.25 State Response: Accepted

3.7. Support, Training and Enhancement Procedures

Training, Testing, and Deployment

DONE "The vendor must provide end-to-end training for current and newly hired SOS staff as needed throughout the life of the contract. The vendor must offer both in-person and virtual training. The SOS will determine which training option works best and will notify the vendor of which training format is chosen. The SOS reserves the right to choose both options, if needed." Optional additional trainings at the development day rate. The vendor will provide either in person training or virtual training once annually, but not both. Explanation: Yes, RES confirms our conformance to the scope of work regarding training and we are able to provide training either on-site or remotely. If additional training is requested more than once annually, RES will quote these additional sessions at the quoted day rate of $1,750 per first day and $1,500 per additional day of the session, and RES will schedule these sessions at a mutually agreed upon time with reasonable notice. This proposal is noted in the A12 form and in the contract exceptions. Please contact us if you have any additional questions. RES looks forward to answering any questions and good-faith discussion regarding this proposal.

In regard to in-person training: RES will provide a knowledgeable trainer, an electronic user manual, and conduct hands-on instruction tailored to the agency’s workflows. To ensure training is as efficient and aligned with the client’s environment as possible, we respectfully request that the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office provide the following:

- A suitable training room equipped with a projector or screen

- Workstations or laptops for all attendees

- Access to agency-owned scanners used in production

- Use of the agency’s production environment to ensure consistency with their live configuration

- Paper test petitions for scanning exercises

- Responsibility for scheduling, communication with staff, and any hospitality needs

- Printed copied of the Vocem User Guide for attendees (if desired). 7.22.25 State Response: Alternative Language

Technical Assistance and Support

DONE The vendor must train the SOS on technical support information; however, the vendor is ultimately responsible for providing technical assistance. Strike out requirement There will not be a separate training for technical support, as vendor handles this aspect. 7.22.25 State Response: Alternative Language

Technical Assistance and Support

DONE Damaged scanners require same-day repairs during an active filing or review period which may include after hours, weekends and holidays. If the damaged scanner cannot be repaired on the same day, the vendor must provide an equivalent scanner replacement that same day, without additional cost. Strike out requirement Vendor will not provide replacement scanners. We encourage our customers to have a backup scanner for redundancy. 7.22.25 State Response: Alternative Language

Damaged scanners require same-day repairs during an active filing or review period which may include after hours, weekends and holidays.

Enhancement Procedures

DONE Enhancement Procedures: The system requirements must be adjusted if Arizona law changes. Enhancement Procedures: The system requirements must be adjusted if Arizona law changes, which will be billed by the vendor at set development rates. If the client needs to request changes or enhancements to the software, we will quote the work at the hourly development rat 7.22.25 State Response: Alternative Language

DONE All review parameters, such as sheet reject reasons, are set by the SOS. All review parameters, such as sheet reject reasons, are set by the SOS by informing the vendor what changes need to be made. The SOS determines the options, but there is no client user interface to change them. Client must notify vendor 60 days prior to a petition deadline if there will be any changes. 7.22.25 State Response: Accepted

3.8. Process Integrity

DONE If the software displays glitches or slows down to a point that would interfere with the statutory timeline for the SOS to comply with, then the vendor must immediately offer technical assistance, equivalent product replacement, and any additional resources to remedy the situation. Strike out requirement There is no ability for vendor to "speed up" the software or replace it. The system is limited to its existing performance. 7.22.25 State Response: Alternative Language

If the software displays glitches or slows down to a point that would interfere with the statutory timeline for the SOS to comply with the vendor must immediately offer technical assistance in order to remedy the situation.

Per the current contract on page 52 in Section 7.3.1, this is already included in the current contract with the exception of the verbiage added ""immediately". RES Response: Alternative language

-The host of the screen share must be available at the time that support is requested. Vendor will not need to separately contact customer IT staff to schedule a screen share.

-The screen share must allow vendor support to view the full screen at all times. Vendor will not need to scroll within a viewport to look at the top, bottom, left or right side of the server screen.

-The screen share must allow vendor support to switch between application servers at will. -Vendor will not need to request customer IT support staff switch the view to another server.

-The screen share must be uninterrupted. Vendor will not need to wait while customer IT staff step away. RES officially proposes we transition to a remote, unattended model. A remote, unattended support model would allow us to better serve the AZSOS, monitor our solution's performance proactively, prevent and mitigate potential issues before they arise as opposed to only react to issues once they are present and we are alerted, resolve issues faster, and deliver a higher level of service and customer success. This model also aligns with all existing Vocem partnerships. Our A15 sheet quotes our Support Cost with this remote, unattended model in mind at $15,000 base annually. Alternatively, if AZSOS cannot offer unattended access and requires attended access, RES would instead quote the Support Cost for attended-only access at $35,000 base annually with additional conditions provided: -The host of the screen share must be available at the time that support is requested. Vendor will not need to separately contact customer IT staff to schedule a screen share.

-The screen share must allow vendor support to view the full screen at all times. Vendor will not need to scroll within a viewport to look at the top, bottom, left or right side of the server screen.

-The screen share must allow vendor support to switch between application servers at will. Vendor will not need to request customer IT support staff switch the view to another server.

-The screen share must be uninterrupted. Vendor will not need to wait while customer IT staff step away. Please contact us if you have any additional questions. RES looks forward to answering any questions and good-faith discussion regarding this proposal. 7.22.25 State Response: Rejected

"There will be no unattended access to the AZSOS network." "All access must be supervised by the SOS IT staff." The host of the screen share must be available at the time that support is requested. SOS will schedule the screen share.

The screen share must be uninterrupted. RES Response: Alternative language

"There will be no unattended access to the AZSOS network." "All access must be supervised by the SOS IT staff."

-The host of the screen share must be available at the time that support is requested. SOS will schedule the screen share.

-The screen share must be uninterrupted.

-The screen share must allow vendor support to view the full screen at all times. Vendor will not need to scroll within a viewport to look at the top, bottom, left or right side of the server screen.

-The screen share must allow access to all servers. Agency Response 8.7.25 State Response: Partial accepted language.

"There will be no unattended access to the AZSOS network." "All access must be supervised by the SOS IT staff."

-The host of the screen share must be available at the time that support is requested. SOS will schedule the screen share.

-The screen share must be uninterrupted.

8.7.25 State Response: The vendor must provide clarification and detailed information to assist the agency in making an informed decision in the best interest of both parties in relation to the below bullet points.

-The screen share must allow vendor support to view the full screen at all times. Vendor will not need to scroll within a viewport to look at the top, bottom, left or right side of the server screen.

-The screen share must allow access to all servers. We need to have a discussion with the SOS so they can understand our needs. 8.12.25 State Response:

Why is this needed?

Supplier must provide a defined process that explains risk mitigating factors such as:

- Eliminating any security risks that may compromise the integrity of the agency and its servers.

-The screen share must allow vendor support to view the full screen at all times. Vendor will not need to scroll within a viewport to look at the top, bottom, left or right side of the server screen.

-The screen share must allow access to all servers. 8.22.25 RES Response:

Vendor requires a full screen view of the connected server as past experience has shown that a limited view increases resolution time and risk of errors.

Vendor requires access to all servers as past experience has shown that waiting for a host to return to the session to switch between servers dramatically increases resolution time. 8.7.25 State Response: We hold firm to this alternative language.

"There will be no unattended access to the AZSOS network and servers." "All access must be supervised by the SOS IT staff."

-The host of the screen share must be available at the time that support is requested. SOS will schedule the screen share.

-The screen share must be uninterrupted.

-The screen share must allow vendor support to view the full screen at all times.

-The SOS IT staff will remain in the session to ensure the vendor is not waiting for the host to return to switch between servers. 8.28.25 RES Response:

We accept the alternative language.

3.9. IT Requirements

DONE The vendor must provide immediate support to the SOS IT and develop a prompt plan when required updates and general maintenance are needed. The vendor must provide support to the SOS IT per SLA guidelines and develop a prompt plan when required updates and general maintenance are needed. Vendor will provide support according to the SLA. 7.22.25 State Response: Alternative Language

Language was just agreed upon The vendor shall offer competitive implementation and aggregate service level performance guarantees in which the vendor takes full financial risk for unsatisfied guarantees.

A service level off-set amount shall be imposed on the area affected by the Service Category.

The service level off-set amount shall be calculated and assessed monthly. The SOS reserves the right to off-set any fees due to the vendor in order to collect any service level off-set amounts reported by the vendor or identified by the SOS. If no fees or other remittances are due to the SOS, the vendor shall remit to the SOS any service level off-sets amounts within thirty (30) days after identification and communication of such claim to the vendor. The vendor acknowledges and agrees that in the event of a failure by the vendor to meet the performance and reporting requirements in the Contract, damage shall be sustained by the SOS, and that it is, and will be, impractical and extremely difficult to ascertain and determine the actual damages which the vendor will sustain by reason of such failure. The vendor therefore agrees that it shall pay the SOS the Service Level Off-Set amounts for such failures, at the sole discretion of the SOS, as set forth herein. The Service Level Off-Set amounts in this Contract are not punitive; the purpose of these Service Level Off-Set amounts is to ensure adherence to the performance requirements in the Contract and to have an agreement in advance between the SOS and the vendor regarding the amount of damages due to the SOS for certain vendor failures. Remove these three paragraphs. Customer accepts system as-is with same performance abilities as 2024. Vendor does not guarantee higher performance and does not accept financial risk. As the incumbent vendor currently providing Vocem under contract, RES has already demonstrated a consistent ability to meet service level expectations throughout the life of the current agreement.

We respectfully request the removal of offset fees for not meeting SLA guarantees for the following reasons:

Established Performance Track Record: RES has successfully met the operational and technical needs of the agency under the current contract, without prior incidents requiring SLA enforcement. This demonstrates our commitment to service continuity, responsiveness, and reliability.

Renewal vs. New Implementation: This agreement represents a renewal of an existing, in-production system—not a new deployment. Many performance risks tied to initial implementations no longer apply. The system is live, tested, and in regular use, minimizing risk to the agency.

Collaborative…