ADDENDUM NO.: One

TO: All Offerors

REFERENCE: Request for Proposal (RFP): Course Design and Development eVA RFP ID: #121137

University RFP Event ID: #1214651

Dated: June 11, 2026

RFP Closing On: June 24, 2026

If you have any questions concerning this Addendum or the RFP, please contact jxu2vt@virginia.edu

Thank you for your participation in this Process. I look forward to receiving your proposal.

Sincerely, Jess Lenore

Category Manager

Procurement Services

Please sign below, acknowledging receipt of this Addendum and return this document with your response to the RFP.

Signature Name of Firm

Printed Signatory Name Date https://the-rector-and-visitors-of-the-university-of-virgi.public-portal.us.workdayspend.com/bid-details/1065598 mailto:jxu2vt@virginia.edu

The following section in the RFP has been revised from:

RFP Section IV. Contents of the Proposal, D. Note: The rates provided will be the maximum rates that a Selected Firm will be able to charge during the first two (2) years of any resulting Agreement.

Thereafter, a Selected Firm will be able to alter its Goods & Services Proposal and Fees, only by signing an official Amendment to the Award Agreement into full effect with the University. If the

University elects to exercise the option to amend the Agreement, the price(s) for the subsequent amendment period shall not exceed the price(s) of the previous renewal period increased/decreased by more than the percentage increase/decrease of the Other Services category of the CPI-W section of the Consumer Price Index of the United States Bureau of Labor

Statistics for the latest twelve months for which statistics are available, unless approved by an authorized representative of the University.

to

Note: The rates provided will be the maximum rates that a Selected Firm will be able to charge during the first three (3) years of any resulting Agreement. Thereafter, a Selected Firm will be able to alter its Goods & Services Proposal and Fees, only by signing an official Amendment to the Award

Agreement into full effect with the University. If the University elects to exercise the option to amend the Agreement, the price(s) for the subsequent amendment period shall not exceed the price(s) of the previous renewal period increased/decreased by more than the percentage increase/decrease of the Other Services category of the CPI-W section of the Consumer Price Index of the United States

Bureau of Labor Statistics for the latest twelve months for which statistics are available, unless approved by an authorized representative of the University.

Pre-Proposal Questions & Answers

Question 1: As UVA continues expanding online and hybrid learning environments, how is the institution currently approaching the integration of generative AI within course design, assessment strategy, and faculty support initiatives?

Answer 1: UVA encourages the thoughtful and responsible use of generative AI to support teaching, learning, and operational efficiency. Approaches vary by school and program, but current areas of exploration include content development, media production, assessment design, learner support, faculty productivity, and administrative workflows. The University is actively evaluating emerging AI-enabled tools and instructional approaches through pilot projects and institutional partnerships. Selected Firms should demonstrate the ability to recommend and implement AI-supported solutions where appropriate while maintaining transparency, accessibility, academic integrity, privacy, and alignment with institutional values and program goals.

Question 2: Are there particular areas where UVA anticipates selected firms providing additional support for faculty transitioning into online or hybrid instruction, especially related to instructional strategy, course redesign, or adoption of emerging educational technologies?

Answer 2: Yes, please refer to Section 7 of Agreement Attachment 1: Goods and Services

Proposal and Fees.

Question 3: Beyond WCAG 2.1 AA compliance requirements, are there institution-specific priorities related to learner engagement, interdisciplinary instruction, or professional workforce education that UVA hopes selected firms will help support?

Answer 3: Yes. In addition to accessibility compliance, UVA places a strong emphasis on learner engagement, authentic assessment, active learning, community building, and instructional approaches that support diverse student populations. Many programs serve working professionals and graduate learners; therefore, flexibility, relevance, applied learning, and real-world problem solving are important design considerations. Selected

Firms should be prepared to adapt their design approach to the goals, audiences, and pedagogical priorities of individual schools and programs.

Question 4: Within this multi-vendor agreement structure, how does UVA envision balancing large-scale course production support with more specialized strategic partnerships focused on faculty development, instructional innovation, or emerging pedagogical initiatives?

Answer 4: The University anticipates utilizing selected firms for a range of engagements.

Some projects may involve large-scale program or course development efforts requiring production capacity and project management support. Other engagements may focus on strategic consultation, faculty development, instructional innovation, accessibility improvement, pilot initiatives, or specialized expertise. Schools and departments will select partners based on the nature of the work and the capabilities demonstrated by each

Selected Firm.

Question 5: The RFP references pilot projects and emerging instructional initiatives. Could UVA provide additional examples of the types of innovation-focused learning initiatives that may arise under this agreement structure?

Answer 5: Examples may include AI-enhanced learning experiences, simulation-based learning, virtual and augmented reality applications, conversational AI tools, competency-based education models, adaptive learning approaches, accessibility innovations, media production pilots, emerging instructional technologies, and other initiatives aligned with institutional teaching and learning priorities. Specific opportunities will vary throughout the term of the agreement.

Question 6: Can UVA provide an indicative estimate of anticipated annual demand under this contract framework (e.g., approximate number of courses, programs, projects, or annual spend) to support realistic resource planning and pricing?

Answer 6: At this time UVA is unable to provide a reliable estimate of anticipated annual demand (e.g., number of courses, programs, projects, or total spend) under this agreement. This RFP is intended to establish multiple contract vehicles for services on an as-needed, project-based basis. Demand will be driven by evolving institutional priorities, funding availability, and individual unit requirements. Offerors should structure their proposals to accommodate variable demand and scalable engagement levels as detailed in Agreement Attachment 1: Goods and Services Proposal and Fees.

Question 7: Section 1 of the Pricing Attachment defines Tier 1/2/3 by the number of videos and interactives "per module." Could UVA clarify the expected number of modules per 3-credit course, and whether a module equates to a week of instruction, a topic unit, or another defined structure?

Answer 7: The pricing template assumes a typical semester-long course structure consisting of approximately 12 to 15 instructional modules. However, actual course structures may vary by discipline, school, and instructional approach. Offerors should base pricing on a standard semester-length course and disclose any assumptions regarding module counts in Agreement Attachment 1, Section 9.

Question 8: Could UVA clarify what content the vendor can expect from faculty/UVA at the start of each project — such as existing course materials, reading lists, raw lecture recordings, or prior course builds — and what the vendor is expected to create from scratch?

Answer 8: The amount and format of faculty-provided content will vary by engagement.

Specific expectations regarding UVA/faculty contributions will be defined in each

Statement of Work.

Question 9: All three course tiers include a "Canvas build" deliverable. Could UVA confirm whether the vendor is responsible for building courses from scratch in Canvas, or whether UVA will provide a course shell, master template, or design system that the vendor populates?

Additionally, will the vendor have direct access to Canvas to publish, or will a UVA administrator handle final upload and configuration?

Answer 9: UVA will provide Selected Firms with the access necessary to perform the scope of work identified in each Statement of Work. The availability of templates, shells, and development environments may vary by school or program. Final publishing, deployment, and production release processes will be coordinated with the University and may vary depending on institutional requirements.

Question 10: Section 2 lists a single "Multimedia Developer" role. Could UVA clarify if this is expected to cover both graphic design (illustrations, infographics, branded templates) and media development (video editing, motion graphics, interactive authoring), as these typically require distinct skill sets and tooling? Additionally, can vendors propose roles not listed in

Section 2 — such as a Canvas Integrator or Programmer — with corresponding hourly rates, or is the table exhaustive?

Answer 10: Yes. The roles identified in Section 2 of Agreement Attachment 1 represent commonly anticipated service categories and are not intended to be exhaustive. Offerors may propose additional roles and associated rates where appropriate. Offerors should clearly describe the responsibilities and qualifications associated with any additional proposed roles.

Question 11: The insurance requirements reference carriers authorized in Virginia with A.M. Best ratings. Please clarify whether policies issued by carriers licensed in other U.S. states, but not

Virginia, will be acceptable, provided coverage limits meet or exceed the stated thresholds.

Answer 11: Policies issued by insurers that are licensed in other U.S. states will be acceptable, provided the insurer meets Virginia’s insurance requirements and are authorized to transact business in Virginia.

Question 12: Please confirm whether insurance policies issued by international or surplus/excess carriers (not admitted in Virginia but licensed abroad) will be acceptable to fulfill the RFP insurance requirements, provided certificates of insurance are furnished, and coverage limits meet or exceed the stated thresholds.

Answer 12: Please refer to Answer #11.

Question 13: Is there a possibility to mutually negotiate the insurance coverage(s) post award?

Answer 13: Yes, with the caveat that if there are exceptions to the insurance requirements, they should be included within the proposal as “Firm Name – Contractual

Provisions” utilizing ‘Track Changes’ in the ‘Review’ tab. If no exceptions are provided, UVA assumes the Firm has accepted the insurance provisions as they are and will not be open to negotiation.

Question 14: The RFP specifies insurers must hold an A.M. Best rating of A:VII or higher. Please confirm whether equivalent international ratings (e.g., S&P, Moody’s, Fitch) will be accepted for foreign carriers, or whether only A.M. Best ratings are recognized?

Answer 14: Equivalent international financial strength ratings will be accepted for foreign carriers, provided the ratings are equivalent to an A.M. Best rating of A:VII or higher.

Question 15: The RFP requires $2M cyber liability coverage from a Virginia-authorized carrier.

Please clarify whether foreign vendors may satisfy this requirement through policies issued by carriers licensed outside Virginia, or whether Virginia authorization is mandatory.

Answer 15: Please refer to Answer #11.

Question 16: Cyber liability insurance coverage is referenced twice, once in the Data Processing

Agreement and again in the contract template with differing limits. Please clarify which limit is controlling for final compliance purposes, and whether the higher of the two must be adopted by vendors.

Answer 16: The higher of the two stated cyber liability insurance limits will govern.

Question 17: If no Virginia employees or contractors are used, is a specific Virginia endorsement still required, or can vendors declare the coverage requirement as not applicable?

Please clarify whether vendors operating with a 100% offshore workforce and U.S.-based independent contractors (1099) are considered compliant?

Answer 17: If any Vendor employees or contractors will be performing work on-site, the specified insurance coverage, including any applicable Virginia endorsements, are mandatory.

Question 18: Please confirm whether vendors that do not operate owned vehicles in Virginia, and whose coverage is limited to hired and non-owned autos, must still provide evidence of automobile liability insurance for owned vehicles. If no Virginia-based vehicles or drivers are engaged, can the requirement for owned auto coverage be declared not applicable, with hired/non-owned coverage alone deemed sufficient?

Answer 18: This provision can be removed if there is no on-site work during the course of the award agreement. Please notate your exception by including it within the proposal as

“Firm Name – Contractual Provisions” utilizing ‘Track Changes’ in the ‘Review’ tab.

Question 19: Please confirm whether vendors may submit ISO/IEC 27001:2022 and SOC 2 Type

II certifications instead of NIST SP 800-171, or whether direct certification under NIST/FIPS standards is required?

Answer 19: Please see section 4.b. of Agreement Attachment 4: Data Protection

Addendum. The University recognizes ISO 27001 and SOC 2 Type II as valuable indicators of information security maturity. Offerors should provide all relevant security certifications and documentation available. The University will evaluate compliance requirements as part of the vendor review process and reserves the right to request additional information or controls where necessary.

Question 20: Could you provide additional detail on how project opportunities will be distributed among selected firms (e.g., competitive mini-bids versus direct selection)? Additionally, is UVA able to share any estimates regarding anticipated annual volume or pipeline across schools or programs?

Answer 20: This RFP is intended to result in multiple awards, establishing a pool of prequalified Selected Firms available to provide services on an as-needed basis. Individual

University departments, schools, or programs will have the discretion to engage Selected

Firms directly based on their specific needs, and no additional, formal competitive solicitation process (e.g., mini-bids) is required for each opportunity. With respect to volume, the University does not guarantee any minimum or maximum level of work under the resulting agreements, and demand will vary based on program priorities and departmental needs across the institution.

Question 21: Could you clarify how UVA envisions the distinction between online and hybrid course development within this RFP? Additionally, do you have a sense of the anticipated proportion of online versus hybrid projects over the term of the agreement?

Answer 21: For purposes of this RFP, online courses are delivered without a required in-person component and may be a fully asynchronous experience or a combination of asynchronous and synchronous learning activities. Hybrid courses combine online learning activities with in-person instructional experiences. The specific delivery model, learner experience, and technology environment will vary based on the needs of the school, program, and target audience. The University does not have a predetermined proportion of online versus hybrid projects; demand will be driven by the priorities of individual schools, departments, and programs over the term of the agreement. Selected Firms should be prepared to support both modalities.

Question 22: For planning and pricing purposes, can you clarify the expected division of responsibilities between faculty and vendor teams for content creation, storyboarding, instructional design, and assessment development?

Answer 22: Faculty serve as the primary subject matter experts and are responsible for providing disciplinary expertise, core content, and academic direction. Selected Firms are expected to partner closely with faculty and University stakeholders throughout the design and development process. Depending on the project, vendor responsibilities may include instructional design; learning experience design; content organization and refinement;

alignment of outcomes, assessments, and learning activities; storyboard development;

assessment and rubric recommendations; media planning and production; accessibility review; technology integration; and course build within the designated delivery environment. Offerors are expected to apply instructional design expertise and provide recommendations that enhance learner engagement, clarity, alignment, accessibility, and overall course quality. Assessment design and content development are typically collaborative processes, with the University retaining final authority over academic, curricular, and assessment decisions. The specific division of responsibilities for each project will be defined in the applicable Statement of Work.

Question 23: Do you currently have specific courses or programs in mind for early development under this agreement? If so, would you be able to share the subject areas or general topics to help us better understand the scope?

Answer 23: The University has not identified specific courses or programs for public disclosure at this time. Individual schools and departments will initiate Statements of Work based on their own program priorities as the agreement is utilized. Selected Firms should demonstrate broad capability across disciplines and program types.

Question 24: To ensure accurate pricing in Attachment 1, could you outline the types of media assets UVA anticipates vendors producing (graphics, animations, interactive elements, narrated content, screen recordings, etc.)?

Answer 24: Agreement Attachment 1: Goods and Services Proposal and Fees defines the expected media types across Sections 3–6, including: video production (basic editing through heavy animation, AI avatar and AI-generated video, screencasts, and video capture); audio production (AI and human voiceover, podcast episodes); interactive content (basic through high-complexity interactives, AI simulations, chatbots, and apps);

and images and graphics (stock photography, illustrations, infographics, and banners).

Offerors should price the full range of asset types they are able to provide and indicate N/A for those they do not offer.

Question 25: Can UVA provide guidance on required or preferred technology platforms (e.g., LMS, authoring tools, media tools), as well as any restrictions or considerations related to third-party integrations?

Answer 25: Canvas is the University's primary Learning Management System for online and hybrid course delivery, though other platforms may be utilized depending on the audience. Offerors are not required to use any specific authoring or production tools, but must disclose all tools used in Section 9 of Agreement Attachment 1, including identifying any AI-assisted production tools as standard inclusions or add-ons. All authoring, media production, and student-facing tools, including any integrated into Canvas, must comply with the University's data protection and security requirements as outlined in Agreement

Attachment 4.

Question 26: Will we have access to existing courses/materials so that we may align and style match as closely as possible to the academic standards of UVA? And to what extent should vendors align with existing UVA course templates and design standards, versus proposing custom learning frameworks or pedagogical approaches?

Answer 26: Yes, exemplars and examples will be provided prior to course development within Canvas. The extent to which existing course materials, templates, and design standards are shared will depend on the specific engagement and the school or department involved. Offerors should describe in their proposals their approach to aligning with institutional standards as well as their capacity to propose custom learning frameworks where appropriate. Agreement Attachment 3, Section EE (Brand Standards) requires that all work produced comply with UVA’s brand standards and visual guidelines, available at brand.virginia.edu.

Question 27: The RFP anticipates awarding contracts to multiple vendors. Is there a minimum firm size, revenue threshold, or full-time staff count required to qualify as a prime contractor?

Specifically, are sole-proprietor firms and micro-businesses (under $100,000 annual gross receipts) eligible to compete as the primary Contract Supplier?

Answer 27: The University welcomes proposals from all qualified Firms that can demonstrate the capability to provide the Goods/Services described in the RFP.

Question 28: The RFP's pricing template includes roles such as Video Production Specialist, Graphic Artist, and Audio Engineer. Must a responding firm employ all listed roles in-house, or is it acceptable to fulfill some service categories through qualified subcontractors, with the prime contractor responsible for quality and delivery?

Answer 28: Agreement Attachment 3 references subcontractors throughout (including

Sections B, C, M, and U), confirming that subcontracting is an anticipated and permissible delivery model. Offerors should disclose their use of subcontractors in their proposal and, where subcontractors will be used for significant portions of the work, identify those partners.

Question 29: Section 3.1 references that firms already holding a VASCUPP cooperative contract for similar services may be ineligible or face restrictions. Can UVA confirm whether any existing

VASCUPP agreements would preclude a firm from responding to or being awarded this RFP?

Answer 29: Firms holding existing VASCUPP cooperative contracts are not precluded from responding to this RFP. However, the University reserves the right to decline an award where doing so would duplicate existing cooperative agreements.

Question 30: The RFP requests references demonstrating prior experience in higher education course design. May a proposing firm cite work performed by its principal(s) under a prior employer or independent contractor arrangement — prior to the firm's formal LLC registration — as qualifying experience, provided the work was substantively the same in scope and the same individual is now the firm's principal?

Answer 30: Yes, the University will consider relevant project examples and references where the work was performed by the firm’s current principal(s), provided the proposal clearly identifies the individual’s role in the work, the organizational context under which it was performed, and a verifiable reference contact. The University will evaluate the substance and comparability of the experience, not only the name of the contracting entity.

Question 31: If prior UVA work is submitted as a reference, will UVA Procurement facilitate an internal reference verification process, or should the proposer independently obtain a reference contact within the relevant UVA unit (e.g., SCPS, School of Medicine) for inclusion in the proposal?

Answer 31: Proposers are responsible for providing appropriate reference contact information within their proposal. The University will not facilitate internal reference coordination on behalf of the proposer.

Question 32: The pricing template includes distinct line items for video production, audio recording, graphic design, and interactive media (Sections 4–7). Must a firm be able to provide all listed service categories, or may it indicate in its proposal which categories it provides directly and which it would fulfill through named subcontractors? Will UVA issue task orders only for categories a vendor has confirmed capacity for?

Answer 32: Please indicate in the proposal which categories will be subcontracted out and which are kept in house. Please also see Answer 28.

Question 33: Section 2 of the pricing template lists hourly rates for specific roles (e.g., Senior

Instructional Designer, LMS Developer, Project Manager). For small firms where a single individual may serve multiple roles on a project, how should blended or overlap functions be priced? Is it acceptable to list the same person under multiple role categories at different hourly rates reflecting the nature of the work performed?

Answer 33: Yes. A single individual may be assigned to multiple role categories. However, the University requires pricing by role because Statements of Work may request support for specific services or expertise rather than dedicated personnel. Offerors should provide a rate for each applicable role category, even when the same individual performs multiple roles. Billing should be based on the role and service being provided, not the individual assigned.

Question 34: The RFP requires submission of a VPAT (Voluntary Product Accessibility Template /

Accessibility Conformance Report). VPATs are typically used to document accessibility conformance of software products. For instructional design services firms — which produce custom course content rather than standalone software — how should the VPAT requirement be interpreted? Is a firm-level accessibility policy statement and WCAG 2.1 AA compliance methodology description an acceptable alternative or supplement?

Answer 34: The University recognizes that service-based organizations may not maintain product-specific VPAT documentation. Firms that do not have a VPAT may instead provide documentation describing their accessibility practices, WCAG 2.1 AA compliance methodology, accessibility review processes, quality assurance procedures, and staff expertise related to accessibility.

Question 35: If UVA designs and provides certain media assets (e.g., legacy video or institutional imagery) that do not meet WCAG 2.1 AA, how is vendor responsibility for accessibility apportioned? Will task orders specify which assets the vendor is responsible for remediating versus assets furnished by UVA as-is?

Answer 35: All materials and courses developed by the offeror are required to meet

WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility standards without exception. This includes any assets the offeror creates, modifies, or incorporates into the course build. When UVA provides existing assets, offerors are responsible for ensuring those assets also meet WCAG 2.1 AA before delivery, either by remediating them or flagging them to the institution for resolution. No content may be delivered that does not meet the required accessibility standard. Each

SOW will define the specific scope of remediation responsibilities for UVA-provided materials.

Question 36: Tiers 1–5 in the pricing template assume Canvas as the LMS build environment. If a future task order specifies a different platform (e.g., a non-Canvas system used by a UVA affiliate or partner), will pricing for that engagement be negotiated separately, or are vendors expected to honor their Canvas-based tier pricing regardless of platform?

Answer 36: Platform requirements will vary by engagement and will be identified in the applicable Statement of Work. For purposes of Attachment 1 pricing, offerors should assume delivery within a standard learning management system environment and disclose any platform-specific assumptions, exclusions, or pricing considerations in Agreement

Attachment 1, Section 9. If a future engagement requires substantial platform-specific development, integrations, or technical work beyond the scope assumed in Agreement

Attachment 1, those requirements may be addressed within the applicable Statement of

Work.

Question 37: How does UVA define the unit count for tiered course pricing (Tiers 1–5)?

Specifically: (a) Is a 'module' defined by credit hours, seat time, or content volume? (b) If a course spans multiple Canvas shells or is divided into self-contained micro-credential modules, how is it counted for tier purposes?

Answer 37: For purposes of Agreement Attachment 1 pricing, the tiered course rates are intended to represent a single semester-length course development engagement rather than a strict formula based on credit hours, seat time, or content volume. Please refer to

Agreement Attachment 1 where baseline assumptions are provided in Section 1. Offerors should price against that baseline and disclose any assumptions in Section 9.

(a) The term “module” is used as a production planning unit for the included media and interactive package (e.g., videos per module, interactives every other module). The University does not prescribe a fixed definition tied to credit hours, seat time, or a specific content volume. In practice, offerors should assume a typical semester-length course organized into approximately 12–15 instructional modules unless otherwise specified in the Statement of Work.

(b) (b) Multiple Canvas shells do not automatically create multiple billable course units. If a single course is delivered across multiple shells for administrative, cohort, cross-listing, or deployment reasons, it is generally treated as one course for tier pricing unless the Statement of Work defines materially separate development scopes. Likewise, self-contained micro-credential, certificate, or modular offerings should not automatically be priced as one “course” each. The

Statement of Work will identify whether the engagement is being treated as (i) a single course development, (ii) multiple distinct course developments, or (iii) a custom program/modular development effort. Where the scope materially differs from the Attachment 1 baseline, pricing will be established through the applicable Statement of Work.

Question 38: Does UVA have an existing or in-development policy governing the use of AI tools

(e.g., generative AI, AI-assisted writing, AI-generated imagery or audio) in contracted course development work? If so, please provide or reference that policy. If not, will individual task orders specify permitted and prohibited AI tool usage?

Answer 38: The University does not currently have a single, institution-wide policy governing offeror use of AI tools in course development. Individual task orders may specify permitted and prohibited AI tool usage based on the preferences of the school or department initiating the work. Offerors must disclose in Attachment 1, Section 1 which AI-assisted production tools (e.g., avatar video, AI-generated video, AI voiceover) are included as standard within each tier versus available as add-ons, and must list all AI tools used in

Section 9. The University reserves the right to restrict specific tools on a per-engagement basis. Additionally, pending the nature of the course content and applicable data considerations, the University may require that any AI tools utilized operate within a closed or restricted model environment to ensure appropriate data security, confidentiality, and compliance.

Question 39: The RFP notes that Virginia SWaM participation is encouraged and scored. Will UVA give separate scoring consideration to firms that hold all three SWaM certifications (Small, Micro, AND Women-Owned) versus firms with only one or two? Will a SWaM prime contractor receive additional credit for engaging SWaM subcontractors on task orders?

Answer 39: Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the RFP criteria, with SWaM status and/or utilization plan weighted at 10% of the total score. All proposals will be assessed holistically against the stated requirements and scoring methodology.

Question 40: For micro-businesses and small firms, is there a minimum contract value or task order size below which UVA will not issue work orders under this contract? Conversely, is there a maximum single-task-order value that a micro-business prime contractor would be expected to handle without additional approval or bonding?

Answer 40: The RFP does not establish any minimum or maximum contract value or statement of work (SOW). Work will be issued on an as-needed basis, and no minimum or guaranteed volume is provided under the resulting agreements. Selected Firms are expected to perform work consistent with their proposed capabilities, with scope and value defined at the time of each statement of work (SOW).

Question 41: Have any of the faculty targeted for these courses taught online? If so, what is the average experience level with this delivery format?

Answer 41: Faculty experience with online teaching varies considerably across schools and departments. Some faculty have extensive online teaching experience, while others may be teaching online for the first time. Selected Firms should demonstrate capability in supporting faculty across the full spectrum of experience, from first-time online instructors to those with established online teaching practice, as described in RFP Section IV.B.v and xi.

Question 42: What is the expected weekly or monthly time commitment required from UVA faculty during the 4–5 month course development timeline? Will there be dedicated project champions or academic project managers within the specific schools to facilitate faculty availability and onboarding?

Answer 42: Faculty time commitments will vary by project and will be established through each Statement of Work in collaboration with the relevant school or department. Offerors should note that Agreement Attachment 1, Section 1 states: “Faculty time is noted for context only and is not included in vendor cost.” Offerors are expected to design their engagement models to be efficient with faculty time and to document any faculty availability assumptions in Section 9 of Agreement Attachment 1.

Question 43: Does UVA have a centralized team responsible for providing and vetting subject matter expertise, or should the vendor expect to frequently source external SMEs as outlined in

Section 2?

Answer 43: Faculty within the relevant school or department serve as the primary subject matter experts for course development engagements. The Office of the Vice Provost for

Online Education and Digital Innovation (OEDI) coordinates vendor engagements. As noted in Attachment 1, Section 2, SME support from vendors “may be used when OEDI or a school requires vendor-sourced subject matter expertise in lieu of or to supplement faculty involvement.” Offerors must describe their process for sourcing, vetting, and managing

SMEs in their proposal.

Question 44: Section IV.D (page 12) states that the proposed rates will be the maximum rates allowed for the first two (2) years of the Agreement. However, RFP Attachment A, Section II.B

(page 17) states that the rates will be capped for the first three (3) years. Could the University please clarify whether the rate lock is for two or three years?

Answer 44: Please refer to the amended language on page 2 of this amendment.

Question 45: The pricing template requires vendors to define which AI-assisted production tools

(e.g., Synthesia, ElevenLabs, etc.) are included in the standard tiers. If these specific tools are utilized, is the Selected Firm expected to bundle the enterprise platform/licensing costs into the per-course or per-asset fee, or does UVA provide enterprise access to these platforms for vendor use?

Answer 45: The purpose of Agreement Attachment 1 is not to prescribe specific platforms or licensing arrangements, but rather to understand the capabilities included within each offeror's proposed services and pricing. Offerors should identify which AI-enabled tools, platforms, and production technologies they have available and indicate whether those capabilities are included within the proposed tier pricing or offered as separate add-on services. If a proposed solution requires additional licensing fees beyond those included in the offeror's pricing, those costs should be clearly identified in Agreement Attachment 1, Section 9. Platform licensing and access requirements for specific projects will be addressed in the applicable Statement of Work.

Question 46: For the Canvas LMS build, does UVA possess standardized, school-wide course templates and blueprints that the Selected Firm must build within, or will the vendor be responsible for designing the structural Canvas UX architecture from scratch?

Answer 46: The availability of standardized Canvas templates varies by school and program. Some schools may provide existing templates or blueprints; others may not. The specific approach for each engagement will be defined in the Statement of Work. Offerors should describe their capability to work within existing institutional templates as well as to develop new course structures where none exist. Any assumptions about template availability should be disclosed in Agreement Attachment 1, Section 9.

Question 47: The RFP notes that multiple firms will be selected and work will be distributed on an 'as-needed' basis with no guaranteed volume. To help us plan resource scaling, can the

University share historical data or an estimated projection of how many online/hybrid courses it anticipates developing across the institution in the 2026–2027 academic year?

Answer 47: Please refer to Answer #6 or #20.

Question 48: Section IV.G specifically asks if firms are certified from the Virginia Department of

Small Business & Supplier Diversity (SBSD). Does the University recognize equivalent federal small business certifications (e.g., 8a, WOSB, SDVOSB) or out-of-state small business certifications for scoring this section, or must all certified partners be explicitly registered with the Virginia SBSD? While we are not an SBSD firm, we have SBSD partners. Do we need to submit the partners' SBSD certification as part of our proposal response?

Answer 48: Please refer to Answer #49.

Question 49: Does our firm qualify for this RFP if our partner is not SBSD-certified by the state of

Virginia?

Answer 49: Yes. SBSD certification is not a mandatory eligibility requirement. RFP

Section IV.G asks firms to describe their small business status and/or their plan for small business utilization. Firms that do not hold SBSD certification and do not have SBSD-certified partners may still submit a proposal. The Small Business criterion represents 10% of the evaluation score, and proposals will be evaluated holistically across all criteria.

Question 50: Section 2 (Hourly Role Rates) of the RFP requests separate hourly pricing for

"Subject Matter Expert (SME) General" and "Subject Matter Expert (SME) Specialized/Technical."

Could you please provide examples of the specific academic disciplines, courses, or program types that fall under the "General" versus "Specialized/Technical" SME categories?

Answer 50: For purposes of this RFP, “General” SMEs are those with expertise in broadly accessible subject areas such as general education, communications, business fundamentals, or social sciences. “Specialized/Technical” SMEs are those with expertise in fields requiring advanced or credentialed knowledge, such as medicine, law, engineering, data science, or other technical disciplines. Vendors should use their professional judgment when categorizing SMEs and disclose their categorization methodology in Section 9 of Agreement Attachment 1.

Question 51: The RFP notes that vendors may be required to provide vendor-sourced SMEs to supplement or substitute faculty involvement and must describe their vetting process. Are there any geographic location restrictions or residency requirements for vendor-sourced SMEs (e.g., must they reside within the United States or Virginia)?

Answer 51: There are no explicit geographic restrictions on vendor-sourced SMEs in the

RFP documents. However, all work performed under this agreement is subject to U.S. law, and Protected University Data may not be stored outside the United States without prior written consent from the University, per Agreement Attachment 4, Section 3(b). Vendors should ensure that SME engagement models comply with all applicable data protection requirements.

Question 52: AI vs. Traditional Production: The RFP requires us to specify which AI-assisted production tools (e.g., Synthesia for AI Avatars and Veo3 for AI Video) are standard and which are add-ons. Do your individual schools or programs have strict policies against or preferences for AI-generated video and avatars in credit-bearing courses?

Answer 52: Please refer to Answer #38.

Question 53: Raw Footage Availability: In previous engagements, UVA faculty provided prerecorded raw video lectures. To ensure accurate project scoping, we assume that similar assets will be provided for future course development. Please confirm if this baseline process remains the same moving forward.

Answer 53: Whether faculty provide prerecorded raw video or other source materials will vary by engagement and faculty preference. This should not be assumed as a standard baseline. The specific materials to be provided by UVA at project kickoff will be defined in each Statement of Work. Offerors should disclose their assumptions about faculty-provided source materials in Section 9 of Agreement Attachment 1.

Question 54: On-Campus Video Capture: If you require "Video Capture (In-House)," will these take place on the UVA campus or will they include remote/satellite locations?

Answer 54: Video production activities may occur on the University of Virginia campus, at affiliated locations, or at other locations identified by the University. Specific location requirements will be defined in the applicable Statement of Work.

Question 55: Authoring Tool Ecosystem: Based on our previous experience utilizing H5P for interactive content (across basic, moderate, and high complexity), should we assume we will continue using this platform for its integration with your Canvas LMS environment?

Answer 55: Please refer to Answer #25 and #26.

Question 56: We understand that the Canvas LMS platform will be used for the course build.

Please confirm whether: The existing UVA course template will be utilized for the course build, or

UVA expects us to design and develop a new course template prior to the course build. If a new template is required, please confirm whether a single course template will suffice and can then be leveraged across all subsequent course builds.

Answer 56: Please refer to Answer #46.

Question 57: Section II, Scope of Goods/Services; Section III, Basis of Selection (Accessibility, Quality Assurance, and Standards Compliance): The RFP references alignment with "institutional design standards" and "accreditation expectations" as evaluation criteria, but does not identify a specific quality framework. Does UVA require or prefer alignment with Quality Matters (QM) standards, and if so, is formal QM certification expected for delivered courses, or is QM-aligned internal review sufficient? If UVA uses a proprietary or alternative quality standard, please identify it so responding firms can accurately describe their conformance approach.

Answer 57: The University does not mandate Quality Matters certification for delivered courses. All course materials and content developed by vendors are required to meet

WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility standards. OEDI applies its own internal design standards framework, using a design standards rubric to conduct structured QA reviews at key milestones. Offerors should describe their quality assurance approach in response to RFP

Section IV.B.ix and demonstrate how it can integrate with OEDI's existing review process.

Question 58: Agreement Attachment 1, Section 1 (Course Design and Development Tiers) and

Sections 3–5 (Media Rate Cards): The pricing template defines media inclusions per tier (e.g., 1 video/module at Tier 1, up to 10 minutes maximum duration; 8 basic interactives every other module). Please confirm whether these media specifications represent UVA's expected standard for each tier, or whether UVA has additional or minimum requirements for video production or interactive content that should inform how firms scope and price deliverables. Specifically: (a)

Are there minimum video production standards (e.g., recording format, visual quality, branded elements) beyond what is described in the tier definitions? (b) Are there required interactive activity types or minimum counts per course that apply regardless of tier?

Answer 58: The tier definitions in Agreement Attachment 1, Section 1 represent the

University’s baseline expectations for media inclusions at each level. There are no additional mandatory minimums beyond what is specified in the tier definitions. Offerors may propose higher-quality production approaches within each tier. Individual Statements of Work may specify additional requirements based on the needs of the school or department. Offerors should disclose any production quality standards they apply as part of their pricing assumptions in Section 9. Please also refer to Answer #24.

Question 59: Agreement Attachment 1, Section 1 (Course Design and Development): The pricing template specifies that all tiers assume a semester-long, 3-credit course. Please clarify whether this is the standard unit for all anticipated engagements, or whether UVA anticipates courses with different credit hour values (e.g., 1-credit, 2-credit, or variable-credit courses) or non-standard lengths (e.g., 8-week accelerated formats, doctoral seminars, or non-credit professional development courses). If so, should firms price those variations separately, or propose a methodology for adjusting the per-course fee based on credit hours or seat time?

Answer 59: Please refer to Answer #7.

Question 60: Can the University of Virginia provide an estimate for the number of firms it anticipates awarding under this contract vehicle?

Answer 60: The University currently anticipates awarding contracts to approximately 4–5 firms under this RFP. However, as stated in the RFP, the University reserves the right to make fewer awards or no award at all, at its sole discretion.

Question 61: How will future Statements of Work be assigned among awarded firms (e.g., direct assignment, rotation, mini-competition, departmental selection, or another process)?

Answer 61: This RFP is intended to establish a pool of prequalified firms. Future

Statements of Work will be awarded based on the needs of the requesting school, department, or program. The requesting unit may review awarded firms' qualifications, experience, capacity, project approach, and subject matter expertise and may request presentations, consultations, or discovery discussions prior to selecting a firm. Selection processes may vary by project, and the University does not anticipate utilizing a fixed rotation, mandatory mini-competition, or other uniform assignment methodology for all engagements.

Question 62: Is there historical or anticipated annual spend, project volume, or service utilization information available for similar course design and development services?

Answer 62: Please refer to Answer #6.

Question 63: For course development requests, what level of source material is typically available at project kickoff (e.g., syllabus, draft content, recordings, assessments, existing course materials)?

Answer 63: The level of source material available at project kickoff will vary by engagement. Faculty may provide syllabi, existing course materials, reading lists, raw lecture recordings, or previously built course shells—or may be starting a course from scratch. Offerors should describe in their proposals how they approach projects across varying levels of existing content and should document their assumptions about source material availability in Agreement Attachment 1, Section 9.

Question 64: For course development engagements, should selected firms assume responsibility for implementation within Canvas, or will vendors generally provide Canvas-ready deliverables for UVA implementation?

Answer 64: Please refer to the Unit Definitions in Agreement Attachment 1.All unit definitions in Agreement Attachment 1, Section 1 include a "Canvas build" as part of the vendor's deliverable. Vendors are expected to build course content directly in Canvas as part of the standard engagement. An OEDI staff member will assist with Canvas administration and master shell creation. Specific arrangements regarding Canvas access and final configuration will be defined in each Statement of Work.

Question 65: What are the typical turnaround expectations for course development, redesign, and rapid-response instructional design requests?

Answer 65: Please refer Agreement Attachment 1, Section. 1. Turnaround expectations for course revisions, redevelopments, and rapid-response work will vary by scope and will be defined in individual Statements of Work. Offerors are encouraged to describe their capacity for both standard and accelerated timelines in their proposals.

Question 66: For future course or program development requests, should selected firms assume that UVA faculty or program teams will provide primary subject matter expertise, or may selected firms be asked to source supplemental SMEs when needed?

Answer 66: Please refer to Answer #43.

Question 67: For projects involving existing course materials, should vendors anticipate accessibility remediation activities as part of the requested services, or primarily accessibility review, guidance, and support associated with newly developed content?

Answer 67: Both remediation and review are within scope. All content developed by the offeror must meet WCAG 2.1 AA standards regardless of whether it is new or revised. For projects involving existing course materials, the specific scope of accessibility work — whether full remediation, targeted review, or guidance only — will be defined in each

Statement of Work. Please refer to Agreement Attachment 1, Section…