Addendum 2 - RFP# 2026-0125 - Q & A 2 - UDDA - OIT.pdf
PDF 142 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Unified Data Dissemination Project - OIT
- Solicitation number
- RFP FEDA 2026000125 7
- Issued by
- Arapahoe County, Denver City, Colorado
About this file
This is Addendum 2 to Request for Proposal #2026-0125 for the Unified Data Dissemination App issued by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) Office of Information Technology (OIT). The addendum provides clarification through vendor questions and answers regarding project scope, timeline, and budget allocation. The project requires development, implementation, testing, user acceptance testing (UAT), and full deployment of a unified data dissemination system by October 4, 2029. The system must achieve full operational status by this deadline, with all development, integration, and deployment activities completed within this timeframe. The scope includes integration with onBase systems using pull-only APIs, with any necessary API development or modifications falling within the awarded vendor's responsibility. Post-implementation activities include a 180-day warranty period beginning after system acceptance and deployment to the production environment.
The total contract budget of $2,075,000 covers development, implementation, deployment, and the 180-day warranty period only. This budget does not include costs for optional maintenance and support years, which will be scoped and priced separately post-go-live based on funding availability and renewal decisions. The contract distinguishes between three separate cost components: development and implementation costs within the fixed budget, annual operational costs to run the developed system (covering platform and infrastructure expenses excluding application support), and optional maintenance and support costs (covering application-level support, fixes, updates, and enhancements). For bid evaluation purposes, optional items and annual operational costs will be included in the total evaluated price for award consideration. The project may transition to a maintenance and support phase after October 4, 2029, contingent on available funding.
View the file
Other files
Show all 15
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Addendum 2
SOLICITATION QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS - 2
Solicitation #: RFP# 2026000125 Solicitation Name: Unified Data Dissemination App - OIT
Vendor Question #1: Timeline vs. Scope Alignment Section 2.9 (Timeline) states the system must be developed, implemented, and fully operational by 10/4/2029.
Can you confirm that all development, integration, testing, UAT, and deployment activities must be completed by this date, and that any contract period beyond this date is intended only for maintenance, support, and enhancements?
CDPHE Answer #1: Your understanding of the timeline is correct.
Vendor Question #2: Development Period vs. Maintenance Period Based on Section 2.9 and 2.8 (Budget), please confirm:
o Which portion of the contract is considered the core “development & implementation” period, and o From which point in time the project transitions into maintenance and support only.
CDPHE Answer #2: The project may transition to maintenance and support after 10/4/2029, if funding is available.
Vendor Question #3: 180-Day Warranty vs. Maintenance Section 2.7 requires a 180-day post-production implementation warranty.
Can you clarify:
o Whether this warranty runs immediately after Final Acceptance of the fully operational system, and o Whether warranty activities are expected to be included in development cost, and not billed as part of maintenance/support?
CDPHE Answer #3: The warranty period begins after the system has been accepted and fully deployed into the Production Environment.
Vendor Question #4: $2,075,000 Budget – What Timeframe Does It Cover?
Section 2.8 (Budget) allocates $2,075,000 and also states proposers must include costs for development and maintenance years.
Can you confirm whether this amount is intended to:
o Cover only development, implementation, deployment, and warranty, or o Represent a total not-to-exceed budget across development plus optional maintenance/support years?
CDPHE Answer #4: The total budget is for development, implementation, deployment, and warranty. It does not cover optional maintenance and support years.
Vendor Question #5: Maintenance & Support Cost Expectations Section 2.8 and Attachment 2 list Optional Annual Maintenance and Support.
Can you clarify:
o Whether maintenance/support pricing should assume continuous engagement post go-live, or o Be scoped only to future optional years, subject to renewal and funding?
CDPHE Answer #5: Maintenance and support would be scoped separately post go-live.
Vendor Question #6: Annual Operational Cost – Scope Clarification Attachment 2 includes a separate line item for “Annual Operational Cost to run the developed system.”
Can you clarify:
o What specific cost components should be included (e.g., AWS hosting, infrastructure, monitoring, backups, security tooling), and o Whether this cost should exclude application support and enhancement labor, which would instead fall under maintenance/support?
CDPHE Answer #6: This cost is for annual ongoing operational expenses without maintenance and support.
Vendor Question #7: Avoiding Cost Overlap To ensure consistent pricing, can you confirm that:
o Operational Cost is intended to cover platform and infrastructure run costs, and o Maintenance & Support is intended to cover application-level support, fixes, updates, and enhancements, with no overlap between the two?
CDPHE Answer #7: Your understanding is correct.
Vendor Question #8: Evaluation of Optional & Operational Costs For evaluation purposes, can you confirm whether:
o Optional items (AI layer, Maintenance & Support), and o Annual Operational Cost are included in the total evaluated price for award, or provided primarily for visibility and planning?
CDPHE Answer #8: The optional cost will be evaluated as part of the total bid evaluation.
Vendor Question #9: Availability of onBase APIs
The RFP and Q&A responses reference both the availability of REST APIs and the need to develop APIs for onBase integration.Please confirm whether REST APIs required for the defined onBase integration use cases are already available and accessible at the time of project start, or whether the selected vendor is expected to develop or modify APIs within onBase as part of this scope.
CDPHE Answer #9: It is currently unknown if existing REST APIs are defined for all use cases within the system. Any OnBase API additions or modifications is within scope of the awarded vendor.
Vendor Question #10: Responsibility for API Development and Configuration
If any new APIs need to be developed or existing APIs need to be modified for onBase integration, please clarify whether this responsibility falls within the scope of the selected vendor, or whether such API development and configuration will be handled by CDPHE or an existing third-party vendor.
CDPHE Answer #10: Any OnBase API additions or modifications is within scope of the awarded vendor.
Vendor Question #11: Integration Pattern and Cost Implications
Please confirm whether the onBase integration for this project is expected to be pull-only, with no write-back or document modification required.
CDPHE Answer #11: OnBase integration will be pull-only.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .