Addendum 5 ARFP RHT 04.pdf

SOLICITATION NUMBER: ARFP RHT26*04

Addendum Number: 5

The purpose of this addendum is to modify the solicitation identified as ARFP RHT26*04 to reflect the change(s) identified and described below.

Applicable Addendum Category:

[ ] Modify bid opening date and time

[ ] Modify specifications of product or service being sought

[x] Attachment of vendor questions and responses

[ ] Attachment of pre-bid sign-in sheet

[x] Correction of error

[x] Other

Description of Modification to Solicitation:

1. To correct an error:

Section 4.2.2.13 now reads:

4.2.2.13 Property Rights - Vendor must agree to all terms in the below sub sections 1-4. . .

Section 4.2.2.13 should read:

4.2.2.13 Property Rights - Vendor must agree to all terms in the below sub sections 1-2. . .

2. Specify that vendors should submit one original hard copy technical and one original hard copy cost proposal along with five hard copy convenience copies of each.

3. Attach vendor questions and answers

Terms and Conditions:

1. All provisions of the Solicitation and other addenda not modified herein shall remain in full force and effect.

2. Vendor should acknowledge receipt of all addenda issued for this Solicitation by completing an Addendum Acknowledgment, a copy of which is included herewith. Failure to acknowledge addenda may result in bid disqualification. The addendum acknowledgement should be submitted with the bid to expedite document processing.

Questions and Answers Addendum 5, ARFP RHT26*04

1 Question The Contract terms contemplate subcontractors through their flow-down provisions. Will the State accept a proposal submitted by a prime Vendor that includes named subcontractors for specialized components, and if so, should subcontractor qualifications and roles be described in the technical proposal?

Answer Yes, the State will accept a proposal submitted by a prime Vendor that includes named subcontractors for specialized components. If subcontractors are proposed, the technical proposal should clearly describe each subcontractor’s role, scope of responsibilities, and relevant qualifications. The proposal should also demonstrate how the combined team satisfies the requirements of the Request for Proposal (RFP).

2 Question For the performance bond required prior to Contract award, is the bond obligation the responsibility of the prime Vendor only, or are named subcontractors expected to bond their portion independently? We also ask the State to confirm whether the performance bond is required for this solicitation as listed in the Required Documents section.

Answer The performance bond requirement applies to the prime Vendor. The prime Vendor is responsible for meeting all contractual obligations, including provision of any required performance bond. The performance bond applies as written for this solicitation and should be assumed to be required prior to contract award.

3 Question Does the State have a preference or requirement as to whether interoperability, analytics, and compliance and reporting functions are delivered by a single Vendor, or may they be delivered through a prime Vendor working with specialist subcontractors?

Answer Interoperability, analytics, and compliance and reporting functions are not required to be delivered by a single Vendor. The State will accept solutions delivered through a prime Vendor supported by specialized subcontractors, provided the overall solution meets all functional and technical requirements. The prime Vendor remains responsible for ensuring that all components, whether delivered directly or through subcontractors, operate as a cohesive, integrated solution and meet the requirements of the Request for Proposal (RFP).

4 Question Requirement 4.2.5 calls for normalizing data into HL7 FHIR US Core profiles, and 4.2.2.4 lists APIs, Managed File Transfer, and direct database transfers. For sources that cannot natively produce FHIR US Core, does the State expect the transformation to US Core to occur within the Data Spine, or at the source?

Answer For data sources that do not natively provide data modeled in the Health Level Seven Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources specification (HL7 FHIR specification), the Data Spine will be responsible for performing the transformation to the Health Level Seven Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources specification (HL7 FHIR specification) before it is saved into the Data Spine’s data store.

5 Question Requirement 4.2.2.10 asks the Vendor to reuse existing data use agreements, and the solicitation references WVHIN and the Department's Enterprise Data System. Should proposals assume integration with WVHIN and EDS as the primary existing assets, or will the State provide an inventory of source systems and their data-sharing agreements?

Answer Vendors should assume integration with the West Virginia Health Information Network (WVHIN) and Enterprise Data System as primary existing assets.

Additional system inventory and agreement details are expected to be refined during implementation planning. Vendors should describe an approach that can accommodate onboarding additional data sources and agreements over time.

6 Question Requirement 4.2.2.7 requires automated CMS and State report generation with a human sign-off before federal submission. Does the State expect the Solution to maintain traceability from each reported value back to its source records and transformation logic, so reported results can be substantiated during a federal review or audit?

Answer While the Request for Proposal (RFP) does not explicitly mandate traceability requirements at a detailed technical level, solutions should support sufficient transparency and auditability to enable validation of reported results. Vendors should describe how their solution enables traceability from reported values back to underlying source data and transformation processes to support review, verification, and audit activities.

7 Question Requirement 4.2.2.18.2 requires an internal audit log of user activity.

Separately from security audit logging, does the State expect the Solution to retain the data lineage and evidence supporting reported program and financial metrics for the applicable federal record-retention period?

Answer The Request for Proposal (RFP) does not explicitly define full data lineage and evidence retention requirements for program and financial metrics; however, given federal reporting and audit expectations, Vendors should describe capabilities to retain supporting data, transformation logic, and associated evidence necessary to substantiate reported results for applicable retention periods. This includes ensuring that reported outcomes can be audited and validated over time.

8 Question Will the State's evaluation consider a Vendor's approach to mapping reported metrics to their governing federal requirements, including RHTP reporting and 2 CFR Part 200 provisions, as part of demonstrating audit readiness?

Answer Vendors should demonstrate how their solution supports compliance with applicable federal requirements, including reporting under the Rural Health Transformation Program. Clearly articulating how reported metrics align to governing requirements and how the solution supports audit readiness will strengthen proposals and demonstrate the Vendor’s ability to meet program oversight and compliance expectations.

9 Question (Section 4.2.2.12 / General Terms Section 7): The solicitation requires an active, recognized healthcare security certification (HITRUST or SOC 2 Type II) as a condition of award. May this certification be held by a named subcontractor responsible for platform hosting and security operations, rather than the prime contractor? If so, what documentation is required at proposal submission versus prior to award?

Answer Yes, the State will accept a proposal submitted by a prime Vendor that includes named subcontractors for specialized components. If subcontractors are proposed, the technical proposal should clearly describe each subcontractor’s role, scope of responsibilities, and relevant qualifications. The proposal should also demonstrate how the combined team satisfies the requirements of the Request for Proposal (RFP).

10 Question (Section 4.3.2.5): The mandatory past performance requirement references automated Federal and State healthcare reporting systems related to CMS Population Health. May this requirement be satisfied through documented past performance of a named subcontractor, or must the prime contractor have held the relevant contract directly?

Answer Yes, the requirement may be satisfied through the documented experience of a subcontractor, if not directly by the prime contractor. If subcontractors are proposed, the technical proposal should clearly describe each subcontractor’s role, scope of responsibilities, and relevant qualifications. The proposal should also demonstrate how the combined team satisfies the requirements of the Request for Proposal (RFP).

11 Question (General): Is there an incumbent vendor currently providing data integration, analytics, or reporting services in support of the WV Rural Health Transformation Program? If so, will the incumbent be required to provide transition assistance to the awarded vendor?

Answer The State currently utilizes a vendor to support data warehouse and data integration capabilities for the State. However, the Data Spine Request for Proposal (RFP) is intended to establish a broader, program-wide solution for the Rural Health Transformation Program, and does not identify a single incumbent Vendor providing the full scope of Data Spine services defined in the solicitation. There is no requirement for an incumbent Vendor to provide transition assistance to the awarded Vendor.

12 Question (Section 4.2.2.23): Does the 90-calendar-day period for Milestone 1 begin at contract execution, or following a defined kickoff and environment provisioning period?

What specific deliverables or documentation constitute "full MECL/MECT alignment to secure Federal CMS certification readiness" for purposes of Milestone 1 acceptance?

Answer The 90-calendar-day period for Milestone 1 begins at contract execution.The milestone referencing “MECL/MECT alignment” reflects the expectation that the solution supports alignment with applicable federal standards and readiness for Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) program compliance and evaluation. The solicitation does not prescribe specific deliverables for formal CMS certification activities. Vendors should propose the documentation, artifacts, and validation activities required to demonstrate alignment with applicable federal expectations and their approach to supporting certification readiness or equivalent compliance posture. The State will collaborate with the selected vendor and CMS to define the final scope of this milestone during implementation.

13 Question (Section 4.3.2.4): Does the mandatory cloud platform qualification require that the Vendor operate its own certified infrastructure, or may the Vendor satisfy this requirement by deploying and configuring a third-party commercial platform that itself holds NIST 800.53 Rev 5 Moderate and HITRUST certifications?

Answer The required certifications may be held by a third-party commercial platform, but the Vendor must clearly identify the platform and demonstrate how the required certifications are met within the proposed solution. The Vendor remains responsible for demonstrating compliance with all applicable requirements of the Request for Proposal (RFP) across the complete solution, including any third-party infrastructure or services.

14 Question (Section 4.2.2.19.5): Does the requirement for a "FedRAMP Moderate or High certified cloud service provider" require deployment on a cloud platform holding a FedRAMP authorization (e.g., AWS GovCloud, Azure Government), or does it require that the Vendor's solution itself hold an active FedRAMP ATO?

Answer The requirement dictates that the underlying cloud platform/infrastructure (Cloud Service Provider (CSP)) hosting the solution must hold a FedRAMP Moderate or High authorization. The Vendor’s specific application/solution is not required to hold an independent FedRAMP SaaS ATO at the time of proposal, but it must be fully deployable within, and compliant with, the hosting provider's FedRAMP-authorized environment.

15 Question (General): Is this solicitation restricted to any small business set-aside category, including SBA 8(a), HUBZone, or SDVOSB, or is it open to all vendors regardless of socioeconomic designation?

Answer The Request for Proposal (RFP) is not restricted to any small business set-aside category, including Small Business Administration 8(a), Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone), or Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB).

The solicitation is open to all vendors regardless of socioeconomic designation.

16 Question (W. Va. Code § 5A-3-37(b)): In a best-value procurement scored 70 points technical and 30 points cost, how is the West Virginia reciprocal vendor preference applied? Is it applied as an adjustment to the cost score, as a pricing credit, or through another mechanism?

Answer This procurement is exempt from the provisions of W.Va. Code §5A-3.

17 Question (Section 4.2.2.23): Does the liquidated damages provision include carve-outs for delays caused by State-side factors — including delays in State approvals, State-furnished data access, or State infrastructure dependencies — or for force majeure events?

Answer As described in Section 4.2.2.23 and related provisions, the liquidated damages requirements apply as stated. The solicitation does not define additional exceptions, adjustments, or alternative treatment for delays beyond what is included in those sections.

18 Question (Section 6): Within the 70-point technical evaluation, how are points allocated across the individual evaluation criteria? Understanding the sub-weighting is necessary to prioritize proposal development resources appropriately.

Answer Section 6 establishes the overall evaluation framework, including a 70-point technical evaluation and 30-point cost evaluation, but does not further break down how points are distributed within the technical evaluation component. Vendors should ensure that their proposals comprehensively address all technical requirements and evaluation factors.

19 Question Given the upcoming federal holiday, would the State consider extending the submission deadline by one or two weeks?

Answer The bid opening date has been extended by addendum.

20 Question We've noted that neither email nor online submission of bids is permitted.

How many hard copies are required?

Answer Please submit one original hard copy technical and one original hard copy cost proposal along with five hard copy convenience copies of each.

21 Question We believe the following documents require signature only from the successful bidder at the time of contract award: (a) HIPAA Business Associate Addendum; (b) Software as a Service Addendum; and (c) Federal Funds Addendum. Please confirm or clarify.

Answer Yes. The stated documents only require signature from the successful bidder prior to award.

22 Question Will the State accept electronic signatures and digital notarization?

Answer Yes. The State will accept electronic signatures and digital notarization..

23 Question If a bidder chooses to indicate any exceptions in its bid (permitted per Instructions to Vendors, #7), should those exceptions be listed with the Technical or Cost Proposal?

Answer Exceptions to technical requirements should be in the technical proposal and exceptions to cost requirements in the cost proposal. No cost data should be in the technical proposal.

24 Question Given the short period between the question deadline and the bid due date, we respectfully request a two-week extension to the proposal submission deadline.

Answer The bid opening date has been extended by addendum.

25 Question Section 4.2. Section 4.2 states that “RHTP also envisions the Data Spine utilizing existing State data solutions and services to fulfill the desired to be environment.” Can the State share the list of existing data solutions and services currently in use? Is it acceptable for vendors to propose alternative or supplemental data solutions where they better meet the State’s goals and requirements?

Answer The State has identified certain existing data assets and systems, including the statewide Health Information Exchange and enterprise data capabilities, that are expected to be leveraged as part of the target environment. However, consistent with the Request for Proposal (RFP), the intent is to utilize existing State data solutions and services where appropriate, while allowing vendors to design a solution that best meets program objectives. Vendors may propose alternative or supplemental solutions provided they support the goals, interoperability, and performance requirements outlined in the RFP.

26 Question Section 4.1; Section 4.2.1.1; Section 4.2.1.5. Which source systems and data domains are required for the initial implementation phase versus later phases, and can the State prioritize the onboarding sequence across clinical, Medicaid claims/encounter, workforce/licensure, EMS, transportation, telehealth, remote patient monitoring, and community service systems?

Answer At this stage, the State has not prescribed a fixed onboarding sequence or phased prioritization of target data domains. Data will be expected to be onboarded as it becomes available for integration to the Data Spine.

27 Question Section 4.2.1.10.2; Section 4.2.1.10.3; Section 4.2.2.1-4.2.2.4. What are the expected initial and target volumes for data sources, interfaces, records, users, agencies/programs, environments, and report/dashboard consumers that should be assumed for implementation and pricing?

Answer The Request for Proposal (RFP) does not define specific expected volumes (e.g., number of records, interfaces, users, or agencies). Vendors should expect to integrated multiple data sources, both clinical and non-clinical, to support program-wide data tracking and reporting.

28 Question Section 4.1; Section 4.2.1.10.3; Section 4.2.1.10.5. What level of current-state architecture documentation, data models, interface specifications, API documentation, data dictionaries, and source-system SMEs will the State provide to support discovery, design, and onboarding?

Answer The State anticipates providing available documentation and access to relevant Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) where possible to support discovery and onboarding post-award. However, vendors should not assume complete or uniform documentation across all source systems and are expected to perform standard discovery, assessment, and validation activities as part of implementation.

29 Question Section 4.2.1.10; Section 4.2.2.16.4. Can the State clarify the expected implementation phases, milestone structure, acceptance criteria, and required deliverables for each milestone, including what constitutes formal Acceptance of the fully implemented Vendor Solution?

Answer The Request for Proposal (RFP) establishes high-level expectations for implementation planning, but does not prescribe detailed phases or milestone structures.

Vendors are required to propose:

- Implementation phases and timeline,

- Key milestones and sequencing, and

- Associated deliverables and dependencies

Formal acceptance will be based on alignment with the approved project plan and requirements and ongoing oversight and collaboration under the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) cooperative agreement structure, including performance monitoring and reporting expectations.

30 Question Section 4.2.1.10.2; Section 4.2.2.1-4.2.2.4; Section 4.3.2.4. What environments, hosting constraints, and deployment boundaries should vendors assume, including State-hosted versus vendor-hosted components, cloud/on-prem connectivity requirements, non-production data handling rules, refresh expectations, and access/security constraints?

Answer The Request for Proposal (RFP) does not prescribe a fixed hosting model, environment structure, or deployment boundary. The State’s current landscape includes a mix of existing assets (e.g., West Virginia Health Information Network (WVHIN) and enterprise data platforms), indicating a hybrid, multi‑system environment with both cloud and on‑premise components. Vendors should be prepared to integrate with the State's existing Enterprise Data System (EDS).

31 Question Section 4.2.1.8; Section 4.2.1.10.7; Section 4.2.2.16.4. What are the State’s expectations for managed services, operational support, monitoring, service levels, and transition from implementation into steady-state operations after formal acceptance?

Answer The Request for Proposal (RFP) anticipates that the selected vendor will support both implementation and ongoing operation of the solution, but does not prescribe a detailed managed services model. Vendors should include in their proposals: Their approach to operational support, monitoring, and service levels and a transition plan from implementation into steady‑state operations. Post‑award expectations will be governed by the cooperative agreement structure, which requires ongoing performance monitoring, reporting, and regular collaboration with Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the State.

32 Question Section 4.1; Section 4.2.1.2; Section 4.2.1.5. Should vendors assume migration, normalization, or reconciliation of existing data assets, master data, metadata, reporting logic, and historical analytics artifacts from current systems into the Data Spine, and if so, what approximate volume is in scope?

Answer The Request for Proposal (RFP) emphasizes integration and unification of fragmented data across systems but does not explicitly require wholesale migration of all existing assets. The Data Spine is expected to aggregate, normalize, and standardize data from diverse sources rather than replace all underlying systems.

33 Question Section 2 - Instructions to Vendors Submitting Bids. Can the State please confirm whether proposal responses may be submitted electronically by email, or whether only physical delivery and fax submission methods are permissible for this RFP?

Answer All bids should be submitted as physical, sealed proposals and delivered to the Office of Shared Administration (OSA) Purchasing at the address specified in Section 2.

Email and online submissions are not accepted. Vendors should follow the instructions outlined in the solicitation for sealed, two-part submissions (technical and cost proposals) and ensure that materials are delivered in accordance with the bid delivery requirements and timelines specified in the Request for Proposal (RFP) document.

34 Question Proposal Submission Method Section 2 states that bids must be submitted by physical delivery or fax and that email and online submissions are not accepted. However, Section 3A and Instruction 12 reference electronic submission through wvOASIS. Question: Please clarify the required proposal submission method and identify which instruction governs in the event of a conflict.

Answer All bids should be submitted as physical, sealed proposals and delivered to the Office of Shared Administration (OSA) Purchasing at the address specified in Section 2.

Email and online submissions are not accepted. Vendors should follow the instructions outlined in the solicitation for sealed, two-part submissions (technical and cost proposals) and ensure

35 Question Year 1 Implementation Scope and Pricing Baseline The solicitation requires vendors to submit firm fixed pricing for Year 1 implementation, including Core Data Integration, Additional Data Integration, Analytics Workbench deployment, and Automated Reporting. However, the solicitation does not identify the number of participating organizations, source systems, interfaces, historical data volumes, or other implementation assumptions that materially affect pricing. Question: To establish a common basis for pricing, please identify the implementation assumptions that all offerors should use when preparing their fixed-price Year 1 proposals, including the anticipated number and type of organizations, source systems, interfaces, and historical data to be included in the base implementation.

Answer As a new program, there is no historical data volume information to be provided. Any implementation assumptions are stated in the RFP.

36 Question Boundary Between Base Implementation and Future Integrations The pricing sheet includes fixed-price implementation activities and separately prices "Other Data Source Integrations" beginning in Year 2. Table 1 identifies certain data sources as Core while others are identified as Additional or As Needed. Question: Please clarify which data sources are expected to be included within the fixed-price Year 1 implementation and which data source integrations are intended to be performed under the future change directive process described in Section 4.2.7.

Answer Year 1 fixed‑price implementation is intended to establish the baseline Data Spine capabilities and initial integrations necessary to operationalize the platform.

Additional or expanded integrations beyond that baseline may be addressed through subsequent phases, including the change directive process described in Section 4.2.7. Vendors should define within their proposals which data sources are included in their Year 1 implementation scope and which integrations would be considered incremental or future enhancements.

37 Question Existing State Assets

The solicitation directs vendors to leverage existing assets including WVHIN, Enterprise Data Services, the Data Warehouse/Data Decision Support environment, and existing interdepartmental data sharing agreements.

Question: What documentation, architectural diagrams, interface specifications, data dictionaries, API documentation, governance documentation, and other implementation artifacts will be made available to the awarded Vendor to support solution design and implementation?

Answer The State anticipates providing available documentation, diagrams, interface specifications, and access where possible to support vendor onboarding using existing artifacts and institutional knowledge to the extent possible.

38 Question Milestone Payments, Acceptance, and Pricing The solicitation establishes milestone-based implementation payments during Year 1 while the pricing sheet requests annual pricing over a five-year period.

Question: Please clarify how the milestone payment percentages identified in Section 4.2.2.23 correspond to the Year 1 pricing shown on Attachment A and confirm whether proposal cost evaluation will be based upon the five-year Grand Total shown on Attachment A.

Answer The milestone‑based payment structure in Year 1 defines how implementation payments are distributed across approved milestones within that year, while Attachment A captures total cost across the full contract period (e.g., five years). Specifically, milestone percentages apply to Year 1 implementation payments only, tied to delivery and acceptance of defined milestones; and Proposal cost evaluation is expected to consider the total cost structure presented in Attachment A, consistent with a best‑value procurement model.

39 Question Milestone Delays Outside the Vendor's Control Implementation of a statewide Data Spine requires coordination with RHTP, participating agencies, healthcare organizations, external data providers, and third-party technology vendors.

Delays in access provisioning, interface development, testing, approvals, or user participation may occur outside the awarded Vendor's reasonable control.

Question: Please clarify how implementation milestones, payment approvals, schedule adjustments, and liquidated damages will be administered when delays are caused by Agency-controlled activities or by third parties outside the Vendor's reasonable control.

Answer The Data Spine requires coordination across multiple entities, and the State recognizes that certain dependencies (e.g., access, onboarding, third‑party interfaces) may fall outside direct vendor control. Implementation milestones, payment approvals, and schedule adjustments will be governed by the approved project plan, defined dependencies and responsibilities, and standard contract terms related to schedule management and change control.

40 Question Organizational Responsibilities During Implementation Successful statewide implementation requires technical implementation as well as coordination among participating organizations.

Question: Please identify which implementation responsibilities will remain with RHTP and participating organizations and which responsibilities will be assigned to the awarded Vendor, including stakeholder coordination, governance activities, source system readiness, testing participation, user acceptance, and organizational adoption.

Answer Vendors should clearly describe their roles, assumptions, and coordination approach within their proposals. Detailed responsibility allocation will be finalized as part of the approved implementation plan.

41 Question MECL/MECT Alignment and CMS Certification Readiness Milestone 1 requires "full MECL/MECT alignment to secure Federal CMS certification readiness."

Question: Please clarify the expected deliverables associated with this milestone, including whether RHTP expects certification readiness documentation, formal CMS certification activities, or another level of compliance, and identify the Agency's responsibilities in achieving this milestone.

Answer The milestone referencing “MECL/MECT alignment” reflects the expectation that the solution supports alignment with applicable federal standards and readiness for Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) program compliance and evaluation. The solicitation does not prescribe specific deliverables for formal CMS certification activities. Vendors should propose the documentation, artifacts, and validation activities required to demonstrate alignment with applicable federal expectations and their approach to supporting certification readiness or equivalent compliance posture. The State will collaborate with the selected vendor and CMS to define the final scope of this milestone during implementation.

42 Question Evaluation of Functional Medicine Requirement Section 4.2.2.11 requires that the Vendor Solution demonstrate no systemic bias against nutritional, preventative, or functional medicine pathways.

Question: Please describe the evaluation criteria, acceptance methodology, and objective evidence that RHTP will use to determine compliance with this requirement.

Answer Vendors should describe their approach to ensuring fair treatment of different care modalities within the solution and note any governance, validation, or monitoring mechanisms used to identify and mitigate bias. Acceptance will be based on alignment with the approved solution design and applicable program requirements.

43 Question AI/ML Data Use Restrictions Section 4.2.2.18.10 restricts use of Vendor Solution data for analytics, AI/ML training, or model development without written approval.

Question: Please clarify whether this restriction applies solely to training foundation models or whether it also prohibits tenant-specific model tuning, inference optimization, retrieval augmentation, prompt engineering, or other implementation activities performed exclusively within the RHTP environment.

Answer Vendors should assume that any use of Data Spine data beyond core solution functionality (including model training or enhancement activities) requires explicit State approval and the specific scope of permitted activities will be clarified during implementation and contract execution.

44 Question Contract Term and Renewal Structure The solicitation references a five-year pricing structure and future change directives but provides limited information regarding renewal.

Question: Please clarify the anticipated contract base period, renewal option structure, and the conditions under which the Agency intends to exercise renewal periods.

Answer Please see the RFP, General Terms and Conditions, #3 "Contract Term;

Renewal; Extension".

45 Question Proposal Organization The solicitation contains references to both physical submission requirements and electronic file organization but does not clearly identify required proposal volumes, page limitations, or response templates.

Question: Please confirm the required proposal organization, required response sections, page limitations (if any), and any required templates or forms beyond those identified in the solicitation.

Answer All bids should be submitted as physical, sealed proposals and delivered to the Office of Shared Administration (OSA) Purchasing at the address specified in Section 2.

Email and online submissions are not accepted. Vendors should follow the instructions outlined in the solicitation for sealed, two-part submissions (technical and cost proposals) and ensure that materials are delivered in accordance with the bid delivery requirements and timelines specified in the Request for Proposal (RFP) document.

Vendors should organize their proposals in accordance with the sections and requirements outlined in the Request for Proposal (RFP), including all required forms, certifications, and attachments explicitly identified in the solicitation. There are no specific page limitations, standardized response templates, or a required proposal outline beyond the instructions and forms provided within the solicitation. No additional templates or response formats are required beyond those included in the RFP. Vendors may structure their responses in a manner that clearly addresses all requirements of the RFP, provided that all requested content, documentation, and required forms are included and properly organized.

46 Question Project Specifications The solicitation speaks of project specifications in Section 4, Project Specifications (Integration, Implementation, Testing, and Acceptance Requirements) but the specifications are unclear.

Question:

The RFP requires the Contractor to design, develop, test, and implement numerous data source integrations but does not define the criteria that constitute successful completion and acceptance of an individual integration. Please clarify the acceptance criteria for a completed integration. Specifically, does acceptance require:

• Successful interface development and deployment,

• Successful exchange and validation of production data,

• User Acceptance Testing (UAT) approval,

• Formal written acceptance by the State,

• Completion of all production stabilization activities, or

• Another defined milestone?

Additionally, if acceptance depends on actions by third-party data providers or participating organizations outside the Contractor's control, please clarify how those dependencies will be addressed in the project schedule, milestone acceptance, and any associated payment milestones.

Answer The Request for Proposal (RFP) does not provide specific provisions governing acceptance or payments. However, milestone definitions— including dependencies and deliverables—are to be established during planning and approved by the State, which will govern execution.

47 Question 4.2.1.4 Goals and Objectives Are there any minimum throughput or concurrency expectations for API-based integrations?

Answer The Request for Proposal (RFP) requires support for standardized Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) and real‑time data exchange but does not specify minimum throughput, latency, or concurrency thresholds.

48 Question 4.2.2.7 Mandatory Project Requirements How do you define RPA-capable in this context - Traditional UI-based bots or modern, Agentic AI-based, workflow automation?

Answer The solicitation requires that the solution include “Robotic Process Automation (RPA)‑capable tooling from ingestion to visualization” but does not further define the specific type (e.g., traditional RPA vs. agentic AI‑based automation). Applicants should outline their assumptions in their response.

49 Question 4.2.2.8 Mandatory Project Requirements How do you define ‘actionable inference’ - alerts, recommendations, risk flags, or workflow triggers? How should actionable inferences be delivered—API responses, alerts, dashboards, or embedded within clinical systems (if so, elaborate please)?

Answer The Request for Proposal (RFP) requires the Data Spine solution to:

1. Share trends, gaps, and actionable inferences across systems, and

2. Deliver those inferences in a way that is tailored to destination systems.

The solicitation does not define a specific format (e.g., alerts vs. recommendations), or required delivery mechanisms (e.g., Application Programming Interface (API) vs. dashboard vs.

embedded clinical workflow). These design elements are expected to be proposed by the Vendor and aligned with destination systems.

50 Question 4.2.2.8 Mandatory Project Requirements What does ‘tailoring to destination systems’ mean in practice - formatting, terminology alignment, or workflow integration?

Answer The Request for Proposal (RFP) requires actionable inferences to be tailored based on destination systems, but does not further define specific implementation expectations (e.g., formatting, terminology, or workflow configuration). These design elements are expected to be proposed by the Vendor.

51 Question 4.2.2.16.4 Implementation Period Fees and Milestone Based Payments “The Vendor shall not assess, invoice, or otherwise charge RHTP for any fees, including but not limited to annual licensing, subscription, hosting, maintenance, or support fees, during the Implementation Period. Payment for implementation services shall be tied to the successful completion of mutually agreed-upon implementation milestones established during the initial planning sessions and incorporated into the approved Project Plan.”

The current requirement prohibits invoicing for all recurring costs during the Implementation Period, which may require vendors to absorb substantial infrastructure, licensing, and operational expenses over an extended timeline. Would the State consider revising this requirement to allow for: Phased activation of recurring fees tied to environment go-live or milestone completion, or inclusion of these costs within milestone payments to ensure sustainable delivery while maintaining alignment with milestone-based performance expectations? Can the State please clarify what is considered the Implementation Period?

Answer The requirement that no recurring fees be charged during the Implementation Period is explicitly stated in the solicitation. The Request for Proposal (RFP) does not provide for phased activation of recurring fees or alternative treatment of such costs (e.g., bundling into milestone payments).

52 Question 4.2.2.16.4 Implementation Period Fees and Milestone-Based Payments Can the State confirm milestone payments (Milestones 1 through 4) are released upon individual milestone completion and RHTP written verification, with only the final implementation payment (Milestone 5 / final Acceptance) withheld pending formal written Notice of Acceptance of the fully implemented solution?

Answer Milestone payments will be made upon successful completion of each milestone and State verification. No payment will be issued until the milestone is fully completed and approved. Only the final implementation payment will be withheld pending a written Notice of Acceptance.

53 Question 4.2.2.20 Acceptance Criteria Will acceptance criteria for each milestone be jointly defined during the initial planning session post-award, or will the State provide pre-defined acceptance criteria that vendors must agree to at contract execution?

Answer Acceptance criteria for each milestone will be defined post-award.

54 Question 4.2.2.20.3.6 Acceptance Criteria The 30-day stabilization period requires the system to operate "without material errors." Please define "material errors" in objective, measurable terms.

Answer During post-award contracting, the State and the awardee will define "material errors" in the awarded contract terms and conditions.

55 Question 4.2.2.21 Maintenance, Support, and Ongoing Optimization Please clarify whether the State expects monitoring of usage patterns and performance for AI/ML and analytics workloads in addition to standard reporting and integration workloads.

Answer Requirements for monitoring usage patterns or performance specific to Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning (AI/ML) models (e.g., model usage, inference performance, or analytics workload telemetry) separate from general system capabilities with be defined further post-award between the State and chosen Vendor. Vendors may propose monitoring approaches as part of their solution design, subject to State review and approval.

56 Question 4.2.2.23 Project Milestones Can the State clarify how “priority data sources” referenced in Milestone 1 relate to the “core data sources” in Table 1, including expected onboarding scope within the 90-day milestone?

Answer The Request for Proposal (RFP) requires that early implementation activities include finalization of the data architecture and identification of initial data sources and integration approach within Milestone 1. There is not a defined direct relationship between “priority data sources” and “core data sources,” not a required number or scope of data sources to be onboarded within an initial 90‑day period. These requirements will be determined between the State and the chosen Vendor post-award.

57 Question 4.2.2.23 Project Milestones Can the State confirm expectations for “tiered user training,” including target user groups, scope, and timing relative to system readiness?

Answer Vendors are expected to propose an approach to training and user adoption as part of their implementation plan. The structure, scope, and timing of training (including any tiered approach) will be defined in the Project Plan and subject to State approval post‑award, consistent with the requirement that implementation deliverables and milestones are jointly defined and approved.

58 Question 4.2.2.23 Project Milestones Milestone 1 references "full MECL/MECT alignment to secure Federal CMS certification readiness." Can the State clarify which MECL/MECT checklists apply to the Data Spine (vs. MMIS modules)?

Answer The milestone referencing “MECL/MECT alignment” reflects the expectation that the solution supports alignment with applicable federal standards and readiness for Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) program compliance and evaluation.The solicitation does not prescribe specific deliverables for formal CMS certification activities. Vendors should propose the documentation, artifacts, and validation activities required to demonstrate alignment with applicable federal expectations and their approach to supporting certification readiness or equivalent compliance posture. The State will collaborate with the selected vendor and CMS to define the final scope of this milestone during implementation.

59 Question 4.3.1.4 Qualification and Experience Information What is the expected user base (by role: clinical, administrative, researcher, public) for the analytics workbench and dashboards at go-live and over 5 years?

Answer The Request for Proposal (RFP) does not specify expected user counts by role or growth projections. Vendors are expected to propose scalable solutions that support a range of user types across participating stakeholders, consistent with the program’s data sharing and analytics objectives. Vendors should describe their assumptions and approach to user scaling within their technical and cost proposals.

60 Question 4.2.4 Additional Data Source Integration Requirements Please identify whether there are any source systems with known infrastructure or connectivity constraints the Vendor should consider in its design.

Answer Section 4.2.4 requires Vendors to design and establish secure ingestion across a diverse set of data sources. The Request for Proposal (RFP) does not identify specific source systems with known infrastructure or connectivity constraints. Vendors should describe their assumptions and approach to addressing potential integration and connectivity challenges within their technical proposal.

61 Question 4.2.5 Metrics for Ingestion Could the department please provide details for the “Additional Data” source interfaces, such as file types and frequency of processing?

Answer The requirements identify that the solution must support ingestion of a variety of data sources using multiple integration methods (for example, application programming interfaces, managed file transfer, and direct database connections), but do not provide source-specific interface details. Vendors should propose an approach that is flexible and capable of supporting a range of data formats, ingestion methods, and processing frequencies. Specific interface characteristics, including file types, data formats, and processing schedules for additional data sources, will be further defined during the implementation and planning phases in coordination with the selected vendor(s) and State stakeholders.

62 Question 4.2.5 Metrics for Ingestion What is the expected volume of 42 CFR Part 2 (SUD) data, and does the State require segmented consent management (e.g., Consent2Share or equivalent) within the Data Spine?

Answer There is not an expected volume of 42 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Part 2 Substance Use Disorder (SUD) data. Additionally, there is not a requirement for a particular segmented consent management solution (such as Consent2Share) within the Data Spine. However, the solution is expected to support compliance with applicable privacy and security requirements. Vendors should propose an approach that is capable of handling 42 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Part 2 Substance Use Disorder (SUD) data, including appropriate consent and data access controls as required by law. Detailed requirements related to data characteristics and consent management approaches will be further refined during the implementation and planning phases in coordination with the selected vendor(s) and State stakeholders.

63 Question 4.2.5 Metrics for Ingestion, Table 2 For the 60 metrics listed in Table 2, are formal technical specifications (numerators, denominators, eCQM/HEDIS alignment, attribution logic, time periods) available, or does the Vendor define these collaboratively during implementation?

Which specific CMS reporting templates and formats must be pre-built? Are these aligned with the CMS RHTP NOFO reporting requirements?

Answer The number, prioritization, and frequency of reports and templates will be further defined during the implementation and planning phases in coordination with the selected vendor(s) and State stakeholders. CMS reporting templates and formats will be provided following award.

64 Question 4.2.7.1 System Modification The cost sheet shows 100 estimated hours per year for system modifications in Years 2–5. How were these estimates derived, and do they represent a guaranteed minimum order or estimates only under the open-end contract structure?

Answer The numbers listed on the cost sheet are for reference purposes based on initial estimates. They are intended as estimates only under the open-end contract structure.

65 Question 6.5 Proposal Disqualification If a proposal meets all mandatory technical requirements but contains a minor administrative deficiency (e.g., missing addendum acknowledgment), will the State provide an opportunity to cure the deficiency before disqualification?

Answer Yes. The state will provide an opportunity for the vendor to cure a missing addendum acknowledgement.

66 Question Forms Can the State please confirm which forms need to be signed and returned with the proposal, vs. which are required after award?

Answer Please refer to the individual requirements on each form. See also question #21.

67 Question General Does the State require all documents requiring signature and/or notary be signed by the same person? Can the Vendor's CEO sign the Addendum Acknowledgement Form and Agency Request for Proposals Info Technology while the Vendor CFO signs the Purchaser Affidavit, provided all are authorized signers?

Answer Yes, documents requiring signature or notarization may be signed by different authorized representatives of the Vendor. The solicitation requires that all required forms and certifications be properly completed and signed; however, it does not require that all documents be executed by the same individual. Different authorized signatories (for example, a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and a Chief Financial Officer (CFO)) may sign different forms, provided each individual is duly authorized to execute such documents on behalf of the Vendor.

68 Question Page 49 SECTION 5: VENDOR PROPOSAL How many copies of the technical and cost proposals is the State requesting as part of submission?

Answer Please submit one original hard copy technical and one original hard copy cost proposal along with five hard copy convenience copies of each.

69 Question 23 4.2.1.3 / 4.2.1.6 / 4.2.2.2 The RFP references real-time analytics and data sharing. Can the State clarify latency requirements and which data domains must support real-time versus batch processing?

Answer The Request for Proposal (RFP) does not define specific latency thresholds or prescribe which data domains must operate in real-time versus batch. Vendors should describe their proposed approach to data processing, including where real-time versus batch methods are appropriate, as part of their technical solution.

70 Question 25 4.2.2.5 What are the measurable data quality thresholds (e.g., completeness, accuracy) required, and how should Vendors handle known data limitations from source systems?

Answer Section 4.2.2.5 requires that the Vendor provide robust tooling for data…