addendum-1-rfp-sos-2027-01-q-a.pdf

NEW HAMPSHIRE SECRETARY OF STATE

David M. Scanlan

Corporations Division Thomas Connolly | Director

28 School Street, Concord, NH 03301 Mailing address: State House, Room 204, 107 North Main Street, Concord, NH 03301

(603) 271-3244 | corporate@sos.nh.gov

Addendum #1 to Business Services System Replacement SOS 2027-1

Request for Proposal: RFP SOS 2027-1

Responses to RFP Questions

Issued: 8/21/2026

Questions & Responses

Exhibit A (see next page) contains questions submitted by interested parties and the corresponding agency responses.

A large volume of questions from multiple vendors were submitted in various formats within the clarification window. The Secretary’s office answered as many questions as possible within our window to respond. Not all questions were answered due to staffing constraints or lack of data.

Some questions were edited down to remove identifying the firm who submitted the question. Some questions were edited for clarity, to match the response template format, and for distribution to a wide audience.

All other terms and conditions of RFP SOS 2027-1 remain unchanged. Vendors are reminded to acknowledge receipt of this Addendum #1 in their proposal submission.

Authorized By:

/s/ Thomas Connolly

Corporations Director

New Hampshire Secretary of State mailto:corporate@sos.nh.gov

Corporation Division

Exhibit A

Question Answer

Paragraph 3 of the Statement on

Work on p. 19 states, “The New

Hampshire Secretary of State will host and operate any developed software on premises; the vendor will release enhancements and any software patches to New Hampshire staff with instructions as to deployment and will assist in deployment if requested throughout the duration of the contract.”

However, in Table B-2.2.5 Hosted

Platform, Technical Requirement

T4.2 states “will necessarily be hosted by the Secretary of State’s office, whether located on premises or on distributed cloud networks.

Internal IT Staff will maintain the solution and need documents and materials to manage day-to-day software issues and larger patches."

Can the State clarify if you require a

State-provided and managed on-premises (or State-Controlled Cloud) hosting infrastructure, or will the

State consider a vendor-provided and managed cloud/SaaS solution hosted in a leading commercial or government cloud environment?

State Controlled Cloud

What was the annual spend under the previous contract for these services?

Under the existing contract, maintenance of the NH Quickstart application is billed monthly in the amount of $15,040, at an annual cost of $180,480.00.

Will the work be performed onsite, remotely, or through a hybrid arrangement? Remote with occasion onsite presence

Is this contract intended for a single vendor or for multiple vendors? Single Vendor

Who is the current or previous incumbent vendor for these services

The NH Quickstart system was originally purchased from PCC

Technology, LLC n/k/a Civix. The code was purchased from Civix in

2022 at the end of the 5-yr license and maintenance agreement. At that time, WSD Digital, LLC d/b/a ReFrame Solutions was awarded a contract to provide ongoing support and maintenance for the application.

Are there any challenges, gaps, or pain points with the current solution or contractor that the agency is looking to address through this procurement?

We are hoping to gain improvements to usability and flexibility to configure some system features that must be updated frequently due to legislation

Is there a projected contract award date and anticipated start date?

Estimated vendor selection and state approval is expected in

November of 2026. Work should begin in Jan 2027

Are there any mandatory subcontracting goals associated with this contract? No

How many unique external portal users (citizens, business owners, registered agents) does the State anticipate registering for accounts on the new Business Service Portal in

Year 1 through Year 5?

User Counts are as follows:

2020 - 70773

2021 - 61741

2022 - 56027

2023 - 57580

2024 - 51065

2025 - 55140

What is the expected monthly or annual volume of portal logins? Are there seasonal or predictable peak filing periods (e.g., annual renewal seasons) where concurrent user traffic on Experience Cloud is expected to spike significantly? This will help us determine if a login-based or member-based licensing model is most cost-effective.

For average daily volume assume 300 users, peak daily volume 1300.

Spikes in activity are in January, end of March into early April, July, August

Will simple document searches be available to unauthenticated guest users? If so, what is the anticipated volume of daily guest search queries that Experience Cloud will need to support? This sizing is necessary to estimate portal bandwidth and guest user page view allocations. Yes. Approximately 500.

How many internal State of New

Hampshire employees (with .gov email addresses) will require named user access to the back-office data entry portal? Approximately 20

What is the breakdown of internal user roles (e.g., basic data entry clerks, supervisors/approvers, system administrators, and IT support staff)?

Assume 40 staff roles, 5 supervisors, 5 IT staff members of various levels

What is the total number of active registered business entities currently in the database, and what is the anticipated annual growth rate?

The total number is 217280

What is the current volume and methodology for mass communications (e.g., annual renewal notices)? Does the State intend to send email notices to all registered businesses at once, or are they triggered dynamically based on the anniversary of registration? This volume directly impacts the daily or monthly transaction send limits in

Marketing Cloud or Account

Engagement.

The state intends both large broadcasts to large user groups and dynamic notifications

Does the State require multi-channel communications (e.g., automated

SMS notifications in addition to email), or will communications be restricted to email and downloadable document generation?

Multi-Channel

What is the average and peak daily volume of transactions (REST API calls) expected to pass between the

Business Services system and the external financial system?

For the XML lien entry portal, is this intended to support real-time API integrations, or is it an automated batch processing interface? What is the expected frequency, file size, and transaction volume of these XML submissions? This is critical for sizing the memory and CPU (vCores) needed for MuleSoft runtimes.

Batch processing. We have no data as yet as to frequency.

Are there any other legacy databases or external state software systems from which (a proposed solution) must pull data on a real-time or scheduled sync basis? Mapping the integrations is necessary to calculate the total integration flows.

The solution must integrate with the State's single sign on functionality.

Does the State require public-facing, interactive analytical dashboards

(e.g., public-facing business growth statistics), or are standard, static operational reports sufficient? High-volume interactive dashboards for the public may require specialized

Tableau embedding licenses rather than native operational reports.

Expectation is that external users will have access to data at different price points and functionality. Expectation is that standard reports will be produced along with limited interactivity

Will advanced visualization and data filtering capabilities using Tableau be restricted to internal back-office users, or will they be exposed to portal users? Sizing the internal analyst user pool versus external portal users is required for proper analytics platform licensing.

Expectation is that external users will have access to data at different price points and functionality

New Hampshire currently maintains an enterprise investment in Tableau.

Will the State confirm that vendors may use the State’s existing Tableau environment to satisfy the dashboarding, ad hoc reporting, KPI tracking, financial reconciliation, and operational reporting requirements identified in this RFP?

No - The Secretary of States IT operates independently of the State's software relationships

Will the selected vendor be required to provide documented reporting views, APIs, data models, metadata, and secure connectivity necessary for the State to analyze registry and financial transaction data through its existing enterprise analytics environment?

Yes

Will the State require that the registry solution remain independent of any proprietary business intelligence product and support standard interfaces so reporting may be delivered through the State’s existing enterprise analytics platform?

The state prefers standard interfaces

If a vendor proposes a separate business intelligence or reporting platform, must all associated software licenses, hosting, implementation, administration, maintenance, and support costs be separately identified in the Price

Proposal?

The state is open to discussion

If a SaaS model is acceptable, how does the State define the requirement for 'internal IT staff to maintain the solution'? Is the State

The state is open to discussion looking for system administrator training to manage standard configurations (e.g., creating document types or editing fees) rather than hosting-level infrastructure maintenance?

P-37, Section 8.2.1 states that a cure period may be less than 30 days.

Would the State agree to provide a minimum cure period, as set forth in the contract resulting from DHHS-

RFP-2019-043, of 30 days?

Yes.

Would the State agree to change this provision, as previously agreed to by the State in the contract resulting from DHHS-RFP-2019-043, to the more objective “failure to perform the Services in accordance with the

Agreement or on schedule;” ?

Yes.

Would the State consider adding the following to this section, as similarly included in DHHS-2021-068, Contract

Amendment #1, as well as the

Contract resulting from RFP #2425-

21?

Subject to applicable laws and regulations, in no event shall the

Contractor be liable for any consequential, special, indirect, incidental, punitive or exemplary damages and the Contractor's liability to the State for any claims, liabilities, or expenses relating to this

Contract shall not exceed two times

(2X) the total Contract price set forth in Contract Agreement - P-37, Yes, conditionally.

General Provisions, Block 1.8.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, this limitation of liability shall not apply to any third party claims for bodily injury, death, or damage to real or tangible personal property to the extent caused by the Contractor's negligence or willful misconduct.

Notwithstanding the monetary limitation contained in this paragraph, in the event a claim or action is brought against the State in which infringement, and/or any third party claims for bodily injury, death, or damage to real or tangible personal property to the extent caused by the Contractor's negligence or willful misconduct are alleged, the Contractor, at its own expense, shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the State against all such claims or actions for any expenses, costs or damages, including legal fees and expenses, incurred by the State in connection with such claims or actions

Would the State agree to the following change to this section:

14.1 The Contractor shall, at its sole

expense, obtain and continuously maintain in force, and shall require any subcontractor or assignee to obtain and maintain in force, with levels and types that are commensurate with the risks associated with the services being contracted, the following insurance:

Yes.

The state mentions that proposals may be submitted both electronically and as a physical copy. Can the state please confirm that either an electronic submission or a physical copy is sufficient?

Both are required.

If proposing multiple solutions, may they be included in a single proposal response, or must each solution be submitted separately?

Separately

Can the State confirm whether a vendor-hosted, vendor-operated

Software as a Service (SaaS) solution is an acceptable proposal path under the Request for Proposal (RFP)'s hosting model requirements, including where the tenancy/subscription is in SOS’s name and the solution is still hosted by the vendor? The Request for

Proposal (RFP) appears to contain conflicting language on hosting, stating that the Secretary of State will host and operate developed software on premises, while also identifying pre-approved

FedRAMP/StateRAMP hosting platforms such as Amazon Web

Services (AWS), Azure, Google Cloud, and Oracle, and including a hosting detail pricing worksheet.

The SOS will host in a cloud controlled by the SOS

Please clarify whether StateRAMP requirements apply only when a cloud or Software as a Service (SaaS) delivery model is proposed. If the solution is deployed on New

Yes, this would not be applicable

Hampshire Secretary of State (NH

SOS) on-prem infrastructure, our assumption is that StateRAMP would not be applicable, subject to confirmation. If you preferable a softer framing, “consistent with industry standard” could also be used.

Has a vendor or product already been selected for the financial/merchant services system?

If so, can the State please provide that information, and are there any existing technology stacks or vendor environments that we should consider, including a list of technologies that would need to be integrated with or considered as part of the solution?

The Merchant Services System is the existing system used by the NH

Secretary of State's Office. This system went live in July, 2026 with

ReFrame Solutions as vendor.

Does New Hampshire Secretary of

State (NH SOS) have an existing engagement with Simplifile today, or is this a new integration to be established as part of this project?

The New Hampshire Department of Revenue Administration

(NHDRA) has an existing contract with Simplifile to transmit notices of tax lien filings and advance fees to the 10 registrars of deeds of

New Hampshire Counties. NHDRA wishes to file such notices with the Secretary of State using Simplifile. The New Hampshire Secretary of State does not, however, currently have such an agreement in place with Simplifile. The agency will negotiate such an agreement with the vendor prior to the solution going into production.

Regarding the migration of historical business and Uniform Commercial

Code (UCC) data, can the State provide the estimated volume—by gigabytes or record count—and historical period of records to be migrated; confirm whether the data is maintained electronically or in

32 gb of corporations records, 18 mb of writs, and 38 gb of UCC records. These are electronic records with physical backups stored at archives.

physical form and identify the current database technology; and confirm whether phased migration is permitted and whether the incumbent vendor is contractually obligated to support data extraction and mapping?

Can the State please formally identify the incumbent vendor(s) that originally developed and currently maintain the legacy Business Services

System?

The NH Quickstart system was originally purchased from PCC

Technology, LLC n/k/a Civix. The code was purchased from Civix in

2022 at the end of the 5-yr license and maintenance agreement. At that time, WSD Digital, LLC d/b/a ReFrame Solutions was awarded a contract to provide ongoing support and maintenance for the application.

Did the State utilize an external consulting firm, vendor, or third-party advisor to assist in gathering requirements, defining the scope of work, or drafting this Request for

Proposal (RFP)? If so, can the State please identify the firm?

No

Does the State anticipate partner agencies integrating with the New

Hampshire Business Identity

Credential (BIC) Application

Programming Interface (API) at go-live, or should vendors scope it as foundational architecture for future statewide adoption within a

“verifiable digital business ecosystem”?

Scope it as foundational for future

Can the State confirm if funding has been fully appropriated for the full lifecycle of this modernization effort, and if so, can the State please share the anticipated budget range or cap?

No appropriation has been made for the purchase of a replacement system. Rather, specific business filing fees are earmarked under state law as restricted revenue for the use of the Secretary of State to pay for the business programs and overall technology infrastructure of the agency.

Please clarify if the 259 Valid Filing

Types need to be web forms that portal users can submit electronically or will users download them and mail them to the Secretary of State?

The 259 is the full list that need to be supported for historical purposes. Expectation is that 50 or less web forms will be available at go live, and more will be enabled over time that are built within the management interfaces. All active forms will be available for user download and mail submission.

What is the current annual volume of constituent logins?

Approximately 110,000

Can the State provide the estimated number of active users in the current system and anticipated users of the new system, segmented by internal and external users, along with the applicable user personas or roles and confirmation of which users will be

State employees?

New user signup counts are as follows:

2020 - 70773

2021 - 61741

2022 - 56027

2023 - 57580

2024 - 51065

2025 - 55140

Internal user count is less than 50

Is Optical Character Recognition

(OCR) in scope?

No

Can the state please confirm that

English is the only language required.

Yes

Can the state please provide a target go-live date, or an estimated go-live date?

Not at this time

Section 1.1 calls for an effort to

"develop new software," while

Appendix A.1 requires a perpetual, royalty-free license to the Software and Documentation, including rights to create Derivative Works, and T4.2 requires the State to host and operate the system.

Will the State accept a commercial or configured product base, or does it require newly developed custom software owned and self-operated by the State?

If a vendor proposes a proprietary or third-party core, how does the

State expect the vendor to satisfy the

Appendix A.1 perpetual derivative-works license and deliver the materials State IT needs to maintain and patch it under T4.2?

For requirements marked

"Standard" (available in a vendor's current release), does the State expect source-level access and derivative-works rights to those existing components, or only to new and customized elements?

The Secretary's office is open to existing products configurable to our specification. We will negotiate license parameters in that situation.

Section 6.2 describes an open-ended initial term running "through a date mutually agreed upon"; please

The Secretary's office anticipates this system will be utilized between

5-15 years confirm the anticipated initial term length and the number and duration of the State-option extension periods contemplated.

Please identify the external payment/financial merchant services system referenced in requirements

B3, B5, and B99–B106, confirm whether its REST API specification will be provided to the selected vendor, and state its expected availability relative to this project's schedule.

Cybersource - API documentation will be available

Requirement B96 references

Simplifile or an equivalent eRecording network; please confirm whether the State has an existing agreement with a specific eRecording provider and whether the selected vendor is expected to establish that relationship.

The New Hampshire Department of Revenue Administration

(NHDRA) has an existing contract with Simplifile to transmit notices of tax lien filings and advance fees to the 10 registrars of deeds of

New Hampshire Counties. NHDRA wishes to file such notices with the Secretary of State using Simplifile. The New Hampshire Secretary of State does not, however, currently have such an agreement in place with Simplifile. The agency will negotiate such an agreement with the vendor prior to the solution going into production.

Please provide current record counts and annual transaction volumes for the existing systems and for the legacy databases to be migrated

(Historic Corporate Catalog, Null &

Void Document Database, Rejected

Filings Viewer, and historical writs) to support migration and performance sizing.

88 gb of electronic records.

Year-- Transaction Count

2021 - 2915

2022 - 140732

2023 - 465115

2024 - 509466

2025 - 548224

2026 - 357057

Appendix A.1 requires a nonexclusive, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free license including the right to create

Derivative Works; please confirm whether this grant is intended to apply to third-party or pre-existing

Only to custom commercial components incorporated into the solution or only to the custom-developed software and documentation delivered under the contract.

Are the legacy document images stored in a single repository, and in what formats (TIFF, PDF, PDF/A, other)? Are they OCR'd or searchable today?

.jpeg .jpg .png .bmp .tiff .pdf. No

Appendix B Topic 11 (Migration

Strategy) asks vendors to describe their approach to assessing data quality and cleansing 'incomplete records in the legacy system,' but does not characterize the current state of that data. Does the State have visibility into known data-integrity issues in the legacy stores identified in B38/B83 - for example duplicate records, incomplete fields, or orphaned references between the

Historic Corporate Catalog, the Null

& Void Document Database, and the

Rejected Filings Viewer - that vendors should anticipate when pricing the migration effort?

No expected old data cleanup- Minor exceptions may exist

Does the State have a target go-live date or any statutory, fiscal-year, or legislative deadline that constrains the implementation schedule?

No

Is there a budget or not-to-exceed range the State can share for this procurement?

No

Is the current system's vendor eligible to bid on this RFP?

Yes

Is that system currently in production, or is it a planned/concurrent procurement? If planned, what is its expected availability date relative to this project's schedule?

Yes

Will the State provide the financial system's API specification

(OpenAPI/Swagger or equivalent) to bidders during the inquiry period, or to the selected vendor at contract start?

Not currently available- Is currently being documented

Will a non-production sandbox or test instance of the financial system be available to the selected vendor for integration development and testing? If so, from what date?

Yes

Requirement B5 states filers may pay by ACH or credit card. Does cardholder data ever enter, transit, or persist in the Business Services

System, or is payment capture handled entirely within the financial system's own hosted pages/iframe?

Stated differently: is the Business

Services System intended to be within PCI DSS scope?

Yes, the Business Services System will be within PCI DSS scope

Requirement B38 requires the ability to search 'by last 4 digit credit card number regarding linked transaction receipts' and 'by check number.'

Does this data reside in the Business

Services System, or is the search

The 4 digits is anticipated to be in the Business Services System federated to the financial system at query time?

Which system is the system of record for fee schedules - this system (per

B8/B9, where staff set filing costs and finance billing codes) or the financial system? How is a fee change synchronized between the two?

This System

What is the intended behavior when the financial system is unavailable -should filings be queued and payment retried, or should submission be blocked?

Ideally no fee transactions could progress but if the shopping cart has an object that requires payment contemporaneously an error should present and request later entry

Requirement B34 allows fee override and suppression of transmission to the financial system for designated state government users. Does the financial system require notification of these suppressed transactions for audit purposes?

No

Requirement T4.2 states the

Secretary of State's office will host and operate the solution, and

Appendix A Sec.1 states the State will host on premises and deploy vendor-supplied patches. Requirements T2.1 through T2.7, however, impose

StateRAMP Ready/Authorized obligations, which apply to cloud service offerings operated by the provider. How does the State intend

StateRAMP requirements to apply to a vendor delivering custom software that the State itself hosts and

We expect to host the system in the state's cloud- Read on premises to speak to the cloud the state owns and maintains operates, where the vendor offers no cloud service to be authorized?

Requirement T4.2 permits hosting

'on premises or on distributed cloud networks,' and T4.1 pre-approves several FedRAMP/StateRAMP-authorized platforms including Azure

Commercial and Azure Government.

Would the State consider a solution hosted in a State-owned cloud tenancy - that is, cloud infrastructure procured, owned, and administered by the State rather than by the vendor? Would such a design satisfy

T4.2's requirement that the

Secretary of State host and operate the system?

Yes

If the solution must run in the State's on-premises datacenters, would the

State confirm the available platform services described in Appendix E -specifically, whether VMware vSphere (version?) and Oracle

Linux/OVM are the only supported virtualization platforms, and whether container orchestration (Kubernetes, OpenShift, or equivalent) is available or permissible?

Yes

Which relational database platforms are supported and licensed by the

State for a new system of this type

(Oracle, Microsoft SQL Server, PostgreSQL, other), and does the

State hold licenses that would be made available to this project?

SQL state will hold license

Does the State provide, and would this project be permitted to use, supporting platform services such as a search engine

(Elasticsearch/OpenSearch/Solr), a message broker, an object store, a container registry, or a CI/CD platform? Or must the vendor propose and the State acquire these?

Vendor could propose and state would acquire

Is the State's DoIT or the Secretary of

State's own IT staff responsible for operating this system in production?

How many FTEs are available, and what is their current technology skill profile?

Secretary's Staff. The IT staff consists of several analysts and DBAs.

There are no onsite software engineers.

Does the system store or process

Social Security Numbers, dates of birth, or other PII beyond business contact information? Specifically, do

UCC debtor records, Secured Party

Records. tax lien records, writs, or

Service of Process documents contain SSNs today?

No we don't collect this data- It may appear within scanned documents as user error

Requirement B87 requires notification when a financing statement meets predetermined conditions such as 'names of public officials' or 'state agency street addresses' - presumably a bogus-filing control. Would the State describe the current process and the full list of conditions to be detected?

This would be new functionality

What are the State's record retention requirements by program? B101 states Service of Process documents are retained 'for the life of the system' - is there a governing

Standing policy is that all records are considered permanent by office policy- Policy exceeds legal requirements retention schedule for business entity records, UCC records, and images?

Requirement B21 requires printing a log of filing data and images for distribution to the State Archives

Division. What format and medium does the Archives Division require, and at what frequency?

Archives accepts physical printed documents and associated PDF scans printed out. Frequency is determined by office staff and may vary- Staff should be able to export by date range at their convenience

Requirements B76 and B77 state that the external and internal portals must use 'Single Sign On and two factor authentication' (both

Mandatory), while B27 states that the State 'would like to implement

Single Sign On' and that this system must integrate with it 'once enabled at the state level.' Would the State clarify whether a statewide SSO capability exists today?

SSO is available on the state level our current system accepts state sso electronic credentials in addition to our agency specific user lists

If a statewide identity provider exists or is planned, would the State identify it (for example Microsoft

Entra ID, Okta, Ping, Login.gov, or a

NH DoIT-operated broker) and the federation protocols it supports

(SAML 2.0, OpenID Connect)?

We have an identity check protocol in place Login.gov

Until statewide SSO is available, does the State expect the selected vendor to deliver an interim identity and access management capability for public filers and for internal staff?

Are internal staff currently authenticated against a State Active

Directory or Entra ID tenant that this

SSO is now available to external users, and internal staff does not receive authentication system should federate with on day one?

What multi-factor authentication methods are acceptable to the State for public filers - TOTP authenticator apps, SMS/voice OTP, email OTP, FIDO2/passkeys? Requirement B22 references 'best practice standards for authentication'; is NIST SP 800-

63-3/-4 Authentication Assurance

Level 2 the intended target for filers, and is a different level intended for staff?

SMS, Voice OTP, TOTP authenticator app

Requirement B12 requires the design to accommodate later integration of identity verification software with minimal recoding. Has the State selected or shortlisted an identity proofing vendor? Is IAL2 remote identity proofing the anticipated end state?

We have not selected a vendor nor does a shortlist exist.

Requirement B32 (Preferred) references third-party electronic signature verification software. Does the State have a preferred or already-procured e-signature platform?

WE have not selected a vendor nor does a shortlist exist.

Is the State's intent for BIC to align with an emerging standard such as

W3C Verifiable Credentials, OpenID for Verifiable Credentials, or mobile driver's license (ISO/IEC 18013-5) infrastructure, or is a State-proprietary design acceptable?

State is looking to align with emerging W3C credentials

B108 states that 'users who do not possess a BIC should be restricted intended to restrict entity record management from viewing company data or making updates except in writing with identity verification.' Would the

State confirm this is intended to restrict entity record management, not the public search functions required by B35-B41?

B109 describes third-party credentialed verification across

'government, private, and educational' participants. Is this envisioned for the initial delivery, or is it a future-state capability the initial architecture must merely accommodate?

Future state capability

Are there existing NH statutes, executive orders, or DoIT strategy documents governing digital identity or verifiable credentials that vendors should design to?

No

The Valid Filing Types worksheet lists approximately 259 filing types. Are all of these currently in active use, and does the State intend all of them to be available in the new system at go-live, or is rationalization of the catalog part of this project's scope?

System will need to display and work with all historical filing types, while a subset of this 259 will be active and used go forwards -

System could launch with a subset but the filing creation management and editing will be available to create any missing documents

The Business Status worksheet lists

58 statuses. Similarly - are all in active use, and does the State intend to carry all 58 forward, or is status model simplification in scope?

Not all status values are used currently but system must be able to function with all historical fillings - We are open to consolidating status values as part of design and rollout

Which filing types are currently processed without manual staff review (straight-through), and which

We will not provide this list as we are requesting in the software the ability to toggle items back and forth always require review? Requirement

B69 anticipates both.

What are the current statutory processing timelines the office must meet - for example the expedited same-day and 24-hour service levels referenced in B20? Are these codified in RSA or administrative rule?

UCC filings are 3 days by statute- Otherwise office policy dictate service levels and are not codified

Requirement B20 places multi-tier expedite handling under the 'User

Profile' topic. Should expedite pricing tiers be configurable by staff in the administrative interface in the same manner as filing fees under B8/B9?

Yes

Requirement B70 requires a 'new unique nine-digit ID number' for each new entity. Do existing entities use the same nine-digit scheme, and must the new system continue the existing number sequence without collision? Is there a documented check-digit or format rule?

No

Requirement B85 requires compliance with IACA MARS (May

2018). Does the State currently comply with MARS in full, or are there known deviations in current practice that the new system should preserve or correct?

State of NH has our own rules

Requirement B43 requires certificates generated 'using tamper-evident technology' and B46 requires online validation. Does the State have an existing standard for this (for example a digital signature certificate

Yes issued to the Secretary of State, or a

QR-code-plus-verification-portal pattern)? Does the State hold a document-signing certificate today?

Requirement B1 (Preferred) requires

USPS address validation. Does the

State hold an existing USPS Web

Tools or CASS-certified service account, or is procurement of an address validation service part of the vendor's scope? Should international addresses be supported for foreign entities and out-of-country agents?

Yes we do have a relationship.

Could you expand more on the expectations around Requirement

B12- What does the state intend by saying “minimal recoding and no major changes”-

The scope of Requirement B12 should be read to include the following: We are specifying that the proposed system includes, or is fully compatible with, a fraud prevention solution capable of detecting, scoring, and blocking potentially fraudulent transactions based on device and behavioral intelligence.

The solicitation restricts all State

Data to the Continental U.S. and requires background checks for all staff fulfilling contract obligations. To allow for significant cost efficiencies, will the State permit qualified offshore personnel to support development and testing, provided they comply with all applicable security, access, and oversight requirements?

No

Is the agency open to a hybrid delivery model utilizing a combination of onshore and offshore resources

No

Can the vendor provide the entire services from an offshore location?

No