STATE OF HAWAI’I

DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND FINANCE

August 28, 2026

ADDENDUM A

TO

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

No. RFP 2026-001G

FOR

Green Fee Outcomes Framework & Monitoring/Evaluation Dashboard

Cynthia Morita Procurement Officer Department of Budget & Finance

RFP 2026-001G

https://stateofhawaii.na1.adobesign.com/verifier?tx=CBJCHBCAABAA0RSAsn4tyAJmnY-MUc61hmdiwILxFyfw

ADDENDUM A RFP 2026-001G

Section I. The following additional information is provided as answers to questions submitted by potential offerors on HIePRO by August 24, 2026, 2:00 PM.

Notice: Please note that the total amount identified in the RFP represents the maximum amount of funding available. Due to administrative and central services fees, the total amount of funding available has been updated to $465,000 (corrected amount).

All prospective applicants should use the revised funding amount of $465,000 (corrected amount) when reviewing the RFP and the responses provided in this Q&A document.

Additional Notes: The State does not require vendors to propose a completely separate dashboard environment. Vendors may propose new or existing infrastructure, provided the proposed solution meets all RFP requirements and associated costs during the contract period remain within the $465,000 (corrected amount) budget.

The State’s ETS team will collaborate with the selected vendor throughout the project.

1. Do the procurement stakeholders expect the selected contractor to deploy and operate a separate dashboard environment, or would they support an approach that leverages the State's existing ArcGIS infrastructure and GIS staff for dashboard operations while using supplementary services for project registry management, storytelling workflows, and public transparency features?

Yes. Vendors may consider leveraging the State’s existing ArcGIS infrastructure and GIS staff, as well as supplementary services for project registry management, storytelling workflows, and public transparency features, rather than deploying and operating an entirely separate dashboard environment.

2. Given the $500,000 maximum contract budget, please clarify whether required third-party software licenses, hosting, platform subscriptions, administrator/contributor licenses, and other recurring technology costs are expected to be included within the $500,000 ceiling, or whether the State will provide/procure such licenses separately.

The State currently holds licenses for several technology platforms. Vendors may consider leveraging existing State platforms and resources when developing their proposals.

Any additional licenses, subscriptions, hosting costs, or other technology expenses required to deliver the project during the contract period should be assumed to be included within the $465,000 (corrected amount) allocation. The State anticipates procuring recurring licenses separately after the contract period expires.

3. Please clarify what State personnel resources will be made available to the contractor for data collection, stakeholder coordination, content development, data validation, and ongoing dashboard administration, and whether these State resources are expected to constitute a dedicated level of effort.

The selected vendor will work with the State Budget Administrator, State Green Fee Coordinator, and a designated Point of Contact in each department that has Green Fee projects.

Green Fee project leads have been informed that they are expected to collaborate with the contracted vendor and collect and share relevant project metrics for inclusion on the public dashboard. Metrics will be determined as part of the project.

4. What is the projected number of users in the groups below? Internal System Administrators / State Overseers: A small team comprising the Contract Administrator (BPPM Administrator), Procurement Officer, and representatives from the Office of the Governor and the Department of Budget and Finance (BUF). Data Contributors & Project Leads (Awardees/Agency Leads): Staff across the administering departments and project teams managing the 90+ Green Fee projects who require login access to enter metrics, upload storytelling assets, and submit progress reports.

The internal system administrator/State overseer group is expected to consist of approximately 5–7 users, including the Contract Administrator, Procurement Officer, and representatives from the Office of the Governor and Department of Budget and Finance.

For Data Contributors and Project Leads, the system should accommodate at least 25 users, with one login assigned to each participating department. Ideally, the system should accommodate up to 91 users, with one login assigned to each Green Fee project.

5. 1. Section I.L identifies conflicts of interest as grounds for disqualification. If an offeror holds or is concurrently pursuing a contract with a State department for work funded in whole or in part by a Green Fee appropriation, would BUF consider that a conflict of interest for purposes of this solicitation?

No, concurrent Green Fee funded state contracts would not necessarily be a conflict; it depends on the nature and scope of the concurrent contracts. This contract would not restrict subsequent participation in Green Fee projects or Green Fee funded work.

6. 2. Does the $500,000 maximum contract budget stated in Section II.A include Hawaii General Excise Tax, or is GET to be added to the proposed price?

Yes. The $465,000 (corrected amount) represents the maximum amount of funding available under the RFP, including General Excise Tax (GET). Please note that the available funding was updated due to administrative and central services fees.

7. 3. Does the $500,000 maximum include all platform licensing, subscription, and hosting costs for the 24 month implementation period, or are those treated separately?

Yes. Any additional licenses, subscriptions, hosting costs, or other technology expenses required to deliver the project during the contract period should be assumed to be included within the $465,000 (corrected amount) allocation.

8. 4. If BUF exercises either of the two 12 month extension options, will additional funding be identified for those periods, or must extension-period services be priced within the $500,000 ceiling?

No additional funding is currently available for the optional 12-month extension periods. The $465,000 (corrected amount) represents the maximum amount of funding available for the contract, regardless of whether either or both of the optional 12-month extensions are exercised.

9. 5. Does the State currently hold an enterprise license or existing agreement for any dashboarding or geospatial platform that would be available to the contractor at no additional cost to this contract?

Yes. The State currently holds licenses for several technology platforms. Vendors may consider leveraging existing State platforms and resources when developing their proposals.

10. 6. Section II.C requires the solution to meet the State-adopted accessibility standard. Will BUF identify the specific standard and version that will govern acceptance testing prior to public release?

The solution must meet the State-adopted accessibility standard identified in the RFP. The specific standard/version and requirements for independent validation or a VPAT/Accessibility Conformance Report are as described in the Hawaii Electronic Information Technology Disability Access Standards at https://ets.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Hawaii-Electronic-Information-Technology-Disability- Access-Standards.pdf

11. 7. Phase I requires a preliminary online visual of fiscal data for an initial set of projects to be posted by December 31, 2026, approximately two months after the October 30, 2026 contract start date. Will BUF clarify the expected scope and fidelity of this first deliverable, and whether it may be hosted on an interim platform pending selection of the production environment?

https://ets.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Hawaii-Electronic-Information-Technology-Disability-Access-Standards.pdf https://ets.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Hawaii-Electronic-Information-Technology-Disability-Access-Standards.pdf https://ets.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Hawaii-Electronic-Information-Technology-Disability-Access-Standards.pdf https://ets.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Hawaii-Electronic-Information-Technology-Disability-Access-Standards.pdf https://ets.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Hawaii-Electronic-Information-Technology-Disability-Access-Standards.pdf https://ets.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Hawaii-Electronic-Information-Technology-Disability-Access-Standards.pdf

It can be hosted on an interim platform/website that BUF will provide. The preliminary online visual is a basic graphic of the fiscal status of the 91 green fee projects, and BUF will provide data to the selected contractor to complete this.

12. 8. Attachment A lists over 90 projects, several without stated dollar amounts. Will BUF confirm the number of projects in the initial active cohort, and whether a roster of designated project leads and administering department contacts will be provided at contract start?

The initial implementation will cover the active cohort of Green Fee-funded projects identified by BUF. The framework must also accommodate more than 90 Green Fee projects and future projects.

The specific number of projects included in the initial active cohort and the December 31, 2026 preliminary visualization is 91 projects, which were funded through the state budget. The scope is to just show basic funding status information for the projects.

The number of Green Fee projects for the upcoming session will not be finalized until Budget Act for Fiscal Biennium 2027-2029 is signed into law. The dashboard should be designed to accommodate the addition of new projects and support project visualization and tracking on an annual basis, as well as continued tracking of multi-year funded projects.

13. For ongoing Green Fee reporting and future funding cohorts, do procurement stakeholders envision maintaining project information, metrics, and dashboard content primarily through a centralized, State-administered process, or do they expect individual Green Fee awardees to maintain project records and dashboard reporting directly? (This forms the basis of our proposed narrative since we understand how limited awardees can be on this front). Additionally, should offerors assume future project cohorts will be incorporated into existing reporting workflows through administrative onboarding to be determined.

Both. Green Fee project leads are expected to collaborate with the selected vendor and collect and share relevant project metrics for inclusion on the public dashboard.

The State is open to solutions that leverage existing State platforms and infrastructure where appropriate.

Regarding specific data-entry method, approval workflow, user permissions, and division of responsibility, vendors are invited to propose their recommendations.

14. We are a firm specializing in Data Analytics, Business Intelligence, and dashboard development and do not provide the full scope of services under this RFP. Can we submit a proposal limited to the public-facing dashboard creation and implementation (Component C), or is the procurement restricted to vendors that can provide the complete scope of services across all components?

No. The RFP is intended to procure the full scope of services identified in the solicitation.

15. We are a firm specializing in Data Analytics, Business Intelligence, and dashboard development. Can vendors submit a proposal limited to Phase 2 and Phase 3 of the scope, or is a proposal required to cover all phases of the project?

The RFP is intended to procure the full scope of services identified in the

16. Is there a page limit, required format, or required template for the proposal or the Fee Proposal? No fee proposal form was included with the RFP.

Responses should be no more than 75 pages including all attachments such as resumes, sample work products, appendices, etc. Font size should be at least 12 point font, and font style should be clear and easy to read. All responses and relevant attachments should be combined into one single PDF document. There is no preferred file naming convention, section ordering, or required price format. If a proposal exceeds the 75-page limit, only the first 75 pages will be considered during the evaluation.

17. Will priority-listed Offerors be permitted to present virtually on September 30, or is in-person attendance in Honolulu required?

Virtual presentations can be accommodated.

18. Should the Fee Proposal price the two optional 12-month extension periods, and if so, as fixed annual amounts or per-deliverable?

No additional funding is currently available for the optional 12-month extension periods. Offerors should not assume that additional funding will be provided if either or both extensions are exercised.

19. Regarding the organizational criteria in Section IV.E, may past performance and references include projects that the Offeror's proposed key personnel performed or directed while employed by other organizations, where those key personnel will deliver this work?

The State is seeking vendors with a demonstrated history of successfully and timely implementing and delivering projects of similar scope and complexity. Relevant experience gained by key personnel through prior employers, as well as applicable commercial experience, may be considered.

20. Which State-adopted digital accessibility standard and version (for example, WCAG 2.1 AA) will apply to acceptance testing of public-facing deliverables?

The solution must meet the State-adopted accessibility standard identified in the RFP. The specific standard/version and requirements for independent validation or a VPAT/Accessibility Conformance Report are as described in the Hawaii Electronic Information Technology Disability Access Standards at https://ets.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Hawaii-Electronic-Information-Technology-Disability-https://ets.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Hawaii-Electronic-Information-Technology-Disability-Access-Standards.pdf https://ets.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Hawaii-Electronic-Information-Technology-Disability-Access-Standards.pdf https://ets.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Hawaii-Electronic-Information-Technology-Disability-Access-Standards.pdf https://ets.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Hawaii-Electronic-Information-Technology-Disability-Access-Standards.pdf

21. The RFP identifies a maximum contract budget of $500,000. Please clarify whether this amount is intended to cover all project costs, including implementation services, dashboard/platform licensing, hosting/cloud infrastructure, data-entry or companion-platform licensing, accessibility testing, training, outreach/storytelling activities, and the 90-day warranty support.

Yes. The $465,000 (corrected amount) maximum contract budget applies to the initial 24-month implementation period and should cover all costs required to deliver the project during that period, including implementation, licensing, hosting, accessibility, training, outreach, warranty support, and other related project costs.

22. The RFP states that the implementation period is twenty-four (24) months following the Notice to Proceed, while Section II.E states that all work shall be completed within the FY2026-2027 through FY2028-2029 performance period.

Please clarify the intended base contract performance period and whether the base term is strictly 24 months or extends through FY2028-2029.

The initial contract is 24 months.

23. The RFP states that the initial implementation will cover the active cohort of Green Fee-funded projects identified by BUF and that the framework must accommodate more than 90 projects and future projects. Please identify the number of projects expected to be included in the initial implementation and, if available, provide the list of projects comprising the initial cohort.

91. See response to Question 12.

24. Please provide an inventory of the data sources and repositories expected to support the initial cohort, including source system names.

https://ets.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Hawaii-Electronic-Information-Technology-Disability-Access-Standards.pdf https://ets.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Hawaii-Electronic-Information-Technology-Disability-Access-Standards.pdf

There is no current inventory of data sources or repositories supporting the initial cohort. The State will work with the selected vendor to identify and provide access to relevant project information and data sources.

25. The RFP identifies Tableau, Power BI, ArcGIS Online, or similar platforms as examples. Please confirm whether the State has a preferred or existing platform that must be used, or whether vendors may propose the platform they consider most appropriate based on functionality, accessibility, security, maintainability, and total cost of ownership.

Proposals that leverage either new or existing infrastructure are welcomed, provided the proposed approach meets the project requirements and all costs associated with setup, implementation, and ongoing maintenance during the contract period can be accommodated within the $465,000 (corrected amount) budget.

26. Please provide an inventory of the source systems, databases, files, applications, and other data repositories that are expected to provide data to the Phase II dashboard.

There is no current inventory of source systems, databases, files, applications, or repositories. There are no requirements to integrate directly with existing systems.

All data must be collected and managed via a secure, user-friendly interface.

27. Please clarify whether the State has an existing centralized data warehouse, data lake, database, or other data platform that is expected to serve as the underlying data layer for the Phase II dashboard. If no such platform exists, is the selected contractor expected to design and implement a centralized data repository/data warehouse as part of the solution, or may the dashboard connect directly to the identified source systems?

No. There is no existing centralized data warehouse or data platform that the vendor is required to integrate with.

28. Please clarify whether the State expects the solution to be hosted within a State-managed environment, a State cloud tenant, or a contractor-managed cloud environment. If a State environment is required, please identify the available infrastructure and any applicable provisioning or security requirements.

Either a state cloud tenant or a contractor-managed cloud tenant is acceptable, but in either case the Vendor must provide a proposed hosting cost within the project budget.

29. Please clarify whether recurring platform, hosting, GIS, database, data-entry, analytics, or other third-party licensing costs should be included within the $500,000 maximum contract budget or priced separately.

Any additional licenses, subscriptions, hosting costs, or other technology expenses required to deliver the project during the contract period should be assumed to be included within the $465,000 (corrected amount) allocation. The State anticipates procuring recurring licenses separately after the contract period expires.

30. Please clarify the expected data-refresh frequency for the financial, project, outcomes, GIS, and other dashboard data, including whether any sources require real-time, near-real-time, daily, weekly, or reporting-cycle-based updates.

At least monthly. All data must be collected and managed via a secure, user-friendly interface.

31. Please provide the anticipated number internal users (State administrators, project leads/contributors, others etc.) and public dashboard users.

The system should accommodate at least 25 Data Contributors and Project Leads, with the ideal capacity being up to 91 users, with one login assigned to each Green Fee project.

The dashboard should be designed to accommodate public access; the anticipated number of public users is not currently available.

32. Please clarify the expected approximate number of statewide outcomes, project indicators, outputs, and financial measures to be defined in the initial indicator dictionary, and whether BUF has any minimum or preferred hierarchy for these measures.

There should be enough metrics to encompass the full breadth and diversity of green fee projects, while being manageable for both project leads to compile and the public to understand.

The selected vendor will be responsible for developing the Green Fee monitoring and evaluation framework in coordination with the State and Green Fee project leads.

33. Please clarify the anticipated number of dashboards and reports to developed under Phase II.

One dashboard and defer to vendor proposal and agreed upon methodology for number of reports. See response to Question 103 for more details.

34. Should the six functional layers identified in the RFP (Financial Transparency, Project Tracking, Outcomes, Geographic/GIS, Storytelling, and Strategic Impact) be implemented as separate dashboards, or as interconnected pages/views within a single integrated dashboard solution?

See response to Question 103.

35. Please clarify the expected scope of storytelling and communications support, including the approximate number of project narratives, interviews, photographs, videos, public meetings, social media activities, and paid promotional activities anticipated during the contract.

See response to Question 143.

36. Please identify any required languages for translation and whether BUF will provide translation services, photography/video assets, captions/transcripts, or other multimedia content, or whether these services are expected to be provided by the contractor within the proposed fixed price.

English is the only required language

37. Please clarify whether the dashboard is expected to be embedded within an existing State website/domain or delivered as a standalone public website. If an existing State website/CMS is to be used, please identify the platform and the State’s responsibilities for domain, hosting, security, publishing, and content management.

Preferably the dashboard is embedded on an existing or new website within the hawaii.gov domain.

38. Please provide the anticipated number and types of State users who will require administrator, contributor, and end-user training, and clarify whether training is expected to be delivered virtually, onsite in Hawaii, or through a combination of both approaches.

The internal system administrator/State overseer group is expected to consist of approximately 5–7 users. The system should accommodate at least 25 Data Contributors and Project Leads, with the ideal capacity being up to 91 users.

In-person training will be provided on Oʻahu, with additional training available via Zoom to accommodate staff located on the Neighbor Islands.

39. We are a firm specializing in Data Analytics, Business Intelligence, and dashboard development. Can we submit a proposal limited to Phase 2 and Phase 3 of the scope, or offerors are required to cover all phases of the project?

No. The RFP is intended to procure the full scope of services identified in the

40. Is a hybrid delivery model utilizing both onshore and offshore (e.g. India) resources permitted?

Vendors are free to propose their desired delivery model.

41. Could you confirm if subcontractors allowed as part of this engagement?

Yes, subcontractors are permitted, and subcontractor references may be included where relevant. There is no specific limitation or maximum percentage of work that may be subcontracted, provided the proposed team can successfully deliver the products and services described in the RFP and the total proposal remains within the maximum available funding.

42. If subcontracting is permitted, will client references for work performed by subcontractors be considered acceptable for evaluation purposes?

See response to Question 41.

43. Is there a preferred minimum or maximum number of client references that should be included in the proposal?

No set min/max for client references.

44. Are client references from commercial organizations acceptable, or must all references be from government or public-sector clients?

Yes.

45. Please confirm whether registration in Hawaii Compliance Express (HCE) is required at the time of proposal submission, or whether HCE registration and related compliance documentation are required only from the selected offeror prior to award or contract execution.

Pursuant to §103D-310 Responsibility of offerors. (c) All offerors, upon award of contract, shall comply with all laws governing entities doing business in the State, including chapters 237, 383, 386, 392, and 393. Offerors shall produce documents to the procuring officer to demonstrate compliance with this subsection. Any offeror making a false affirmation or certification under this subsection shall be suspended from further offerings or awards pursuant to section 103D-702. The procuring officer shall verify compliance with this subsection for all contracts awarded pursuant to sections 103D-302, 103D-303, 103D-304, and 103D-306, and for contracts and procurements of $2,500 or more awarded pursuant to section 103D-305; provided that the attorney general may waive the requirements of this subsection for contracts for legal services if the attorney general certifies in writing that comparable legal services are not available in this State.

Registration with HCE is not required, as vendors may also demonstrate compliance by providing certificates or other documentation of good standing and compliance from the applicable agencies:

• DCCA

• DLIR

• DoTAX

• IRS

46. Could you please provide further details regarding Phase I - Outcomes Framework Development, including its scope, key activities, expected deliverables, and the State’s expectations for the selected contractor?

See RFP page 17.

47. What level of data automation is expected for the initial dashboard versus the self-updating framework in Phase III?

There is no automation expected for the initial dashboard that just displays the fiscal data; for phase III, it is expected that the project leads can update their data and that the dashboard will refresh with new data.

48. Will BUF provide existing project, financial, performance, geographic, and other relevant data for all 90+ Green Fee-funded projects? If yes, please identify the source systems, file formats, data owners, historical periods, and approximate data volumes?

No. Green Fee project leads are expected to collaborate with the selected vendor and provide relevant project metrics and information. The State will work with the selected vendor to identify and provide access to relevant project information and data sources.

49. Is the project and financial information in Attachment A the complete dataset currently available to the State, or does BUF maintain additional project-level information that will be provided to the selected contractor?

Yes. Attachment A represents the complete dataset currently available. Additional project-level information and metrics will need to be identified and collected through collaboration with the Green Fee project leads.

50. Are project-level KPIs, baselines, targets, milestones, and outcome measures already defined for the 90+ projects, or is the contractor expected to develop these measures from the ground up?

No.

51. If project data is maintained separately by individual State agencies/project leads, will BUF coordinate access to those agencies and project leads, or is the contractor expected to independently conduct data collection and follow-up?

The State will coordinate with the appropriate departments and project leads. Green Fee project leads have been informed that they are expected to collaborate with the contracted vendor and collect and share relevant project metrics for inclusion on the public dashboard.

The dashboard vendor will work collaboratively with the departments to identify, obtain, and collect the necessary data for inclusion in the dashboard.

52. What level of data cleansing, reconciliation, historical data loading, and data-quality remediation should bidders assume within the fixed-price scope?

Very little, since this will be newly collected data.

53. Does BUF have an existing statewide outcomes framework, logic model, KPI framework, or evaluation methodology that the contractor should use as a starting point?

54. For projects with no existing outcome measures, does BUF expect the contractor to work directly with project teams to establish baselines, targets, formulas, and reporting methods?

Yes. See response to Question 32.

55. How much flexibility will the contractor have to recommend new statewide outcomes and indicators, subject to BUF approval?

New outcomes and indicators are welcome.

56. Does BUF expect every project to have a common minimum set of statewide indicators in addition to project-specific indicators?

No. See response to Question 32.

57. Does BUF already have a preferred or State-supported platform such as Power BI, Tableau, or ArcGIS Online that the contractor should leverage?

The State currently holds licenses for several technology platforms. Vendors may consider leveraging existing State platforms and resources when developing their proposals. Proposals that leverage either new or existing infrastructure are welcomed, provided the proposed approach meets the project requirements and associated costs can be accommodated within the $465,000 (corrected amount) budget.

58. If Power BI is proposed, will BUF provide the required Power BI/Fabric/Power Platform licenses, or should software licensing be included within the contractor's $500,000 budget?

The State currently holds licenses for several technology platforms, which vendors may consider leveraging when developing their proposals. Any additional licenses, subscriptions, hosting costs, or other technology expenses required to deliver the project during the contract period should be assumed to be included within the $465,000 (corrected amount) allocation.

59. Does BUF have an existing public website/CMS where the dashboard will be embedded, or is the contractor responsible for establishing the public-facing web presence?

The Department has a departmental website that is irrelevant for this project. This project will be hosted on a publicly available website that is not the BUF departmental website.

60. What level of customization is expected beyond the standard capabilities of Power BI, Tableau, ArcGIS Online, or another commercial dashboard platform?

None is required; but defer to vendor proposal on suggestions

61. Approximately how many project leads and State administrators are expected to enter, review, approve, or administer data in the proposed solution?

The internal system administrator/State overseer group is expected to consist of approximately 5–7 users. The system should accommodate at least 25 Data Contributors and Project Leads, with one login assigned to each participating department. Ideally, the system should accommodate up to 91 users, with one login assigned to each Green Fee project.

62. Does BUF expect the contractor to develop a separate data-entry application/interface, or can data entry be implemented using capabilities within the selected dashboard/platform ecosystem?

Vendors are free to propose their data-entry solution.

63. What approval workflow should be assumed between project lead submission, State agency review, BUF approval, and public publication?

BUF, the Green Fee Coordinator and other state stakeholders will review and approve methodology, outcome metrics, and data, before it is uploaded to a publicly accessible dashboard.

64. Will BUF provide geographic coordinates, GIS layers, project boundaries, island/county information, and other authoritative geographic data for the Green Fee projects?

No but this information can be collected from the green fee project leads by the vendor.

65. Does the State currently use ArcGIS Online/Enterprise or another GIS platform that the proposed dashboard must integrate with?

Vendors may consider leveraging the State’s existing ArcGIS infrastructure and GIS staff, as well as supplementary services for project registry management, storytelling workflows, and public transparency features, rather than deploying and operating an entirely separate dashboard environment.

66. What systems or sources currently contain the project, financial, KPI/outcome, GIS, narrative, and multimedia data?

There are no existing systems or repositories identified for these data. The vendor is expected to work with Green Fee project leads to identify, gather, and manage the necessary project data and metrics.

67. Will BUF provide direct access to these sources, provide data extracts, or require the contractor to collect data from individual State agencies/project leads?

The specific division of responsibility for data collection, validation, data entry, and access to source systems will be determined as part of the project. The dashboard vendor is expected to work collaboratively with the appropriate departments to identify, obtain, and collect the necessary data for inclusion in the dashboard.

Departments and project contractors are aware that projects are required to collect and track applicable metrics.

68. What is the approximate data volume and number of historical years available for the 90+ projects?

There are no existing systems or automated integrations identified. All data must be collected and managed via a secure, user-friendly interface.

69. What data formats/systems are currently used (e.g., databases, Excel/CSV, APIs, GIS, documents), and are automated integration methods available?

There are no existing systems or automated integrations identified. All data must be collected and managed via a secure, user-friendly interface.

70. What is the current level of data completeness, standardization, and quality for project KPIs, financial data, baselines, targets, and geographic information?

There is no existing data; data will need to be collected.

71. Please confirm if experience requirements in section F for key personnel are mandatory.

72. Can vendors provide commercial experience in their response?

Yes, especially if it is relevant to the scope of work.

73. Is it mandatory for vendors to have a similar State-wide implementation prior experience?

No. Statewide experience is a sole determining factor; rather, vendors should demonstrate the qualifications, past performance, and capabilities necessary to successfully complete the work. Proposals should also present strong, thoughtful, and practical approaches to achieving the project’s objectives.

74. Please clarify what is meant by 'sample work products'.

This could be but is not limited to examples of past deliverables that demonstrate a vendor’s capability, quality, and experience.

75. Please confirm if there is a limit to the key members proposed.

There is no specific limit on the number of key personnel proposed. However, proposals should remain within the maximum available funding and demonstrate that the proposed staffing structure is appropriate and necessary to successfully complete the work.

76. What information is required for each proposed subcontractor (resumes, qualifications, references, scope of work, percentage of effort, etc.)?

See RFP Page 19.

77. Can the technical proposal and fee proposal be submitted as separate PDF files, or should they be combined into a single file?

78. Is there a preferred naming convention for uploaded proposal files in HIePRO?

79. Please confirm all forms and certifications that are required to be submitted with the proposal at the time of bid submission.

The forms and certifications required at bid depend entirely on the requirements of the specific solicitation and will be identified in the solicitation documents.

80. If the Offeror is a non-Hawaii business, is registration in Hawaii required before proposal submission or after contract award?

For an out-of-state business contracting with a Hawaii State or county agency, registration is not automatically required simply because the business is bidding on or receiving a government contract. The requirements depend primarily on the vendor’s activities and presence in Hawaii:

Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (DCCA – Business Registration Division): An out-of-state corporation or LLC generally must register as a foreign entity if it is transacting business in Hawaii in a manner that requires foreign qualification. For example, establishing a Hawaii office, maintaining ongoing operations, or regularly conducting business through personnel located in Hawaii may require registration. Simply shipping goods to a Hawaii agency from outside the State generally does not, by itself, require DCCA registration.

• For more information: DCCA Business Registration Division – (808) 586-2727.

Department of Taxation (DoTAX): A Hawaii General Excise Tax (GET) license is generally required when the vendor conducts taxable business activities in Hawaii, such as performing services or construction work in the State. A vendor that only sells and ships goods to Hawaii from outside the State may not need a GET license.

• For more information: DoTAX Taxpayer Services – (808) 587-4242.

Department of Labor and Industrial Relations (DLIR – Unemployment Insurance):

Registration may be required when the vendor has employees working in Hawaii and is subject to Hawaii unemployment insurance requirements. The circumstances, including where and how long employees work in Hawaii, determine whether registration is required.

• For more information: DLIR Unemployment Insurance Division – (808) 762- 5752.

In short, an out-of-state vendor does not automatically need to register with DCCA, DoTAX, and DLIR simply because it does business with a Hawaii government agency.

Each requirement depends on the vendor’s specific activities and circumstances in Hawaii.

81. Is there a maximum percentage of contract value or work that may be subcontracted?

No. See response to Question 41.

82. Is there any limitation on the percentage of work that may be performed by subcontractors?

No. See response to Question 41.

83. In what form will the Attachment A project information be provided at notice to proceed — structured data (spreadsheet or database export) or contract documents — and will it include award amounts, administering agencies, project locations, and period of performance for all listed projects?

Additionally, does the State have an existing system of record for Green Fee awards that the contractor will use during the contract term?

There is no existing system of record. The vendor is expected to develop the data requirements in collaboration with the project leads and gather the necessary information for inclusion in the dashboard.

84. Would the State accept a delivery model in which the data registry, validation pipeline, and public dashboard are developed and operated in a dedicated State of Hawaiʻi GitHub organization — with repositories, automation, and published components under State ownership consistent with the §26 rights-in-data provisions of AG-008, enterprise licensing carried by the offeror during the contract term, and the organization transferable intact to State administration — such that no recurring contractor-hosted dependency is required for continued operation? If the State maintains an existing GitHub Enterprise presence that it would prefer offerors use, should proposals assume access will be provided at notice to proceed?

There is no specific requirement related to GitHub.

85. General Conditions paragraph 26 (Ownership Rights and Copyright) provides that the State shall have complete ownership of all material developed, prepared, assembled, or conceived by the contractor pursuant to the Contract, as works made for hire. The Scope of Work (p. 15) separately provides that source files, schemas, data models, connectors, configurations, and design assets are to be transferred to the State "subject to disclosed third-party license terms," and the Technical Qualifications Criteria (p. 24) contemplate that an offeror may "provide a subscription model the State can independently maintain." Please confirm how these provisions operate together. Specifically:

does paragraph 26 apply to commercially available software that pre-exists the Contract and is licensed to the State — whether owned by a third party or by the offeror — or is such pre-existing software excluded from the works-made-for-hire provision, with paragraph 26 applying to the configurations, data models, content, and documentation developed for the State under the Contract?

See section 26 of the state’s General Conditions.

86. Section II.A states a Maximum Contract Budget of $500,000 for a 24-month implementation period. Section I.E provides for an initial 24-month term with the option to extend for two additional 12-month periods without reprocuring. Is the $500,000 maximum applicable to the initial 24-month term only, or does it represent the ceiling for the entire potential 48-month contract including both option periods?

The $465,000 (corrected amount) maximum contract budget applies to the initial 24-month implementation period. No additional funding is currently available for the optional 12-month extension periods.

87. Will offerors be required or permitted to include firm pricing for the two optional 12-month extension periods in the Fee Proposal submitted with this RFP? If so, will that pricing be included in the cost evaluation under the Evaluation Criteria?

No additional funding is currently available for the optional 12-month extension periods. The $465,000 (corrected amount) represents the maximum amount of funding available for the contract, regardless of whether either or both optional extensions are exercised. The offeror can include firm pricing options that fit within the total amount of the funding available.

88. Section II.B states that the initial implementation will cover "the active cohort of Green Fee-funded projects identified by BUF." Attachment A lists 91 FY2027 appropriation line items. Approximately how many projects does BUF anticipate will comprise the initial active cohort for Phase I and Phase II? Will the contractor be responsible for all 91 line items during the initial 24-month period, or a defined subset?

Yes, 91. See response to Question 12.

89. The Scope of Work requires offerors to document the proposed hosting model and to identify hosting charges. Does the State require that the solution be hosted within a State-managed environment or on a specific State-approved infrastructure, or may the contractor propose commercial cloud hosting? If contractor-provided hosting is acceptable, are there State security review, accreditation, or approval processes that must be completed before public launch, and what is the typical duration of that process?

See response to Question 28.

90. The dashboard requires a Financial Transparency Layer and a preliminary online visual of fiscal data by December 31, 2026. From which State system(s) will appropriation, allotment, encumbrance, and expenditure data be sourced?

Will the contractor be provided with automated or API-based access to those systems, or is data expected to be provided periodically by BUF in extract form?

What is the expected refresh frequency?

BUF will provide basic funding release data for all 91 projects in Excel and other available formats. The vendor will work with the State to identify and obtain other relevant project information and data sources as needed.

91. Section III.A(l) lists "Completed Fee Proposal and all required certifications" as a required proposal element. The Phase 1 mandatory requirements checklist in Section IV.H lists "Completed Proposal and all required certifications."

Please confirm the requirement. Additionally, will BUF provide a required Fee Proposal form or template, or should offerors propose their own format?

See RFP.

92. Section I.T states that an original "Certification of Compliance for Final Payment" (SPO Form 22) is "attached." The documents issued with this RFP appear to include Attachment A (Green Fee project appropriations) and Attachment B (General Conditions) only. Please confirm whether SPO Form 22 or any other attachment was intended to be included, and whether it is required at proposal submission or only at final payment.

SPO Form 22 is no longer in use. Vendors must provide proof of compliance to receive final payment. Compliance may be demonstrated through an HCE Certificate of Vendor Compliance or through separate documentation from the applicable State and Federal agencies.

93. Does BUF impose a page limit, required section ordering, font, or margin requirement for the proposal? If no page limit applies, does BUF have a preferred approach for organizing responses to the thirteen mandatory requirements in Section IV.H?

See response to Question 16.

94. The Scope of Work requires the solution to "meet the State-adopted accessibility standard." Please identify the specific standard and version (for example, WCAG 2.1 Level AA, WCAG 2.2 Level AA, or Section 508). Will BUF or another State office conduct independent accessibility validation prior to acceptance, and will a VPAT or Accessibility Conformance Report be required?

The solution must meet the State-adopted accessibility standard identified in the RFP. The specific standard/version and requirements for independent validation or a VPAT/Accessibility Conformance Report are as described in the Hawaii Electronic Information Technology Disability Access Standards at https://ets.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Hawaii-Electronic-Information-Technology-Disability-

95. To support licensing, account, and training estimates, approximately how many project lead / contributor accounts and how many State administrator accounts does BUF anticipate the system will need to support during the initial term?

The internal system administrator/State overseer group is expected to consist of approximately 5–7 users.

For Data Contributors and Project Leads, the system should accommodate at least 25 users, with one login assigned to each participating department. Ideally, the system should accommodate up to 91 users, with one login assigned to each Green https://ets.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Hawaii-Electronic-Information-Technology-Disability-Access-Standards.pdf https://ets.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Hawaii-Electronic-Information-Technology-Disability-Access-Standards.pdf https://ets.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Hawaii-Electronic-Information-Technology-Disability-Access-Standards.pdf https://ets.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Hawaii-Electronic-Information-Technology-Disability-Access-Standards.pdf https://ets.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Hawaii-Electronic-Information-Technology-Disability-Access-Standards.pdf https://ets.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Hawaii-Electronic-Information-Technology-Disability-Access-Standards.pdf

96. Does the State require the public-facing dashboard to be available in languages other than English at launch or during the contract term? If so, which languages, and does the requirement extend to project narrative and storytelling content as well as interface elements?

97. Does BUF currently own Power BI, Microsoft Fabric, ArcGIS Online, Azure or M365 environments that the selected contractor is expected or permitted to leverage?

The State currently holds licenses for several technology platforms. Vendors may proposals.

98. Does BUF have a preferred platform for project leads to submit and update data, such as SharePoint, Microsoft Power Apps, Dataverse, web forms, ArcGIS, or another State system?

No. See response to Question 13.

99. Approximately how many project leads, agency administrators, BUF administrators, and other internal users are expected to enter, approve, or administer data?

The internal system administrator/State overseer group is expected to consist of approximately 5–7 users, including the Contract Administrator, Procurement Officer, and representatives from the Office of the Governor and Department of Budget and Finance.

For Data Contributors and Project Leads, the system should accommodate at least 25 users, with one login assigned to each participating department. Ideally, the system should accommodate up to 91 users, with one login assigned to each Green

100. Does BUF require anonymous public access to the dashboard without user authentication, and are there any restrictions on using a public-embedding or capacity-based licensing model?

The dashboard should be viewable by the public without user authentication.

101. What source systems, file formats, data repositories, or existing agency reporting processes are currently used for Green Fee financial, project, outcome, and geographic data?

There are no existing source systems, repositories, or automated integrations identified for the project. The selected vendor will work with the State and Green Fee project leads to identify, collect, and manage the necessary data.

102. When estimating, are the recurring costs and fees to be included within the "up to $500K" maximum budget contract? If so, how many years should be included in the recurring costs and fees budget estimation?

Any licenses, subscriptions, hosting costs, or other technology expenses required to deliver the project during the initial 24-month contract period should be included within the $465,000 (corrected amount) contract allocation.

Recurring costs after the initial contract period expires, including third-party software licenses, hosting, platform subscriptions, administrator/contributor licenses, and similar technology costs, are not expected to be included within the $465,000 (corrected amount) ceiling. The State anticipates procuring those licenses separately after the contract period.

103. Is this a database requirement for the back-end…