Addendum No 3. Q&A.docx
DOCX document 60 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Cloud-Based Vital Records Management System
- Solicitation number
- 120277 O3 REBID
- Issued by
- Douglas County, Nebraska
About this file
This is Addendum No. 3, a Questions and Answers document issued by the State of Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services for solicitation number 120277 O3 REBID Vital Records Management System. The addendum addresses 34 questions submitted by prospective bidders regarding the cloud-based vital records management system procurement. The original solicitation opening date of December 5, 2025, at 2:00 PM CST was extended by two weeks per Question 19's response. Key clarifications include confirmation that the state will maintain its own credit card processor with vendor system compatibility required, that data migration involves multiple sources using state file numbers as common keys to tie data together, and that approximately 10,000,000 records with various image formats (TIFF, JPEG, PDF, PNG, and database blobs) require conversion. The state confirmed no pre-proposal meeting will occur and that the solicitation opening is for bid review against mandatory and minimum requirements. The addendum specifies that proposers must include a confirmation statement within their proposal demonstrating comprehension and compliance with minimum essential qualifications.
The addendum confirms that the state will not drop liquidated damages for unmet UAT or production schedules, though additional language was added acknowledging delays caused by the state or external third parties (such as SSA, NCHS, or NAPHSIS) may be exempted. The state declined to consider alternative invoicing milestones, maintaining that 50 percent of invoicing remains tied to final implementation phases. No small business set-asides are designated, though DHHS encourages small business participation without required set-aside percentages. The state does not favor specific business categories in evaluation. Vendors must register with Nebraska to transact business, and out-of-state vendors are directed to registration procedures and Nebraska Revised Statute 73-603(c). Attachment 1 functional specifications are available as an Excel document on the official solicitation website rather than as a PDF, and file upload submissions have no size limitations.
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
50 files listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
SOLICITATION ADDENDUM 3
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
SOLICITATION NUMBER: 120277 O3 Vital Records REBID Vital Records Rebid Opening Date: December 5, 2025, 2 PM (CST) Addendum Effective Date: November 17, 2025
Questions and Answers
Following are the questions submitted and answers provided for the above-mentioned solicitation. The questions and answers are to be considered as part of the solicitation. It is the responsibility of bidders to check the State Purchasing Bureau website for all addenda or amendments.
| Question Number |
| RFP/ITB |
Section Reference
RFP/ITB
Page Number
| Question |
| State Response |
| 1. | |
| N/A | |
| N/A | |
| Does the State intend to award the opportunity as a small, disadvantaged business set-aside? | Comment by Lewis, Jerome: Needs to be sent to Procurement or legal |
| No |
| 2. | |
| N/A | |
| N/A | |
| Will the State favor 8(a) small businesses, small businesses, or disabled veteran owned businesses in a potential set-aside? | Comment by Lewis, Jerome: Needs to be sent to Procurement or legal |
DHHS encourages small businesses to participate. There is not a required set aside percentage.
| 3. |
| N/A |
| N/A |
| Are there any unique institutional knowledge requirements or certifications that are essential for success? |
Proposed personnel/management should possess relevant experience and expertise in relation to the scope of work.
| 4. |
| N/A |
| N/A |
| Are there any existing tools, platforms, or processes that must be maintained or integrated? |
Please review Sections V. Project Information and Essential Qualifications and VI. Project Description and Scope of Work and all related attachments.
| 5. |
| N/A |
| N/A |
| Does the State of Nebraska wish to model their system after any of the available COTS Vital Records Management System, or wish to utilize any available COTS (e.g. Netsmart). |
| Bidders should propose the best solution based on the review of Sections V. Project Information and Essential Qualifications and VI. Project Description and Scope of Work and all related attachments. |
| 6. | ||
| RFP Section I – “Procurement Procedure,” subsection C. “Schedule of Events” | ||
| 2 | ||
| Activity #4 in the table lists information for the solicitation opening/submission. It also lists meeting information and a meeting link, but we do not find any other reference to the meeting in the RFP. Can the State clarify the purpose of the meeting and vendor expectations around the meeting, or confirm the meeting information was unintentionally included? | Comment by Lewis, Jerome: Needs to be sent to Procurement | Comment by Murphy, Bradley: Done |
| There is no pre-proposal meeting for this solicitation. #4 is a solicitation opening meeting where bids received will be reviewed for the mandatory and minimum requirements. |
7.
RFP Section I – “Procurement Procedure,” Subsection E. “Secretary of State/Tax Commissioner Registration Requirements (Nonnegotiable)”
Can the State provide more information on how vendors can receive authorization to transact business within the State of Nebraska?
Please review the following link.
https://www.nebraska.gov/business/business-licensing/
| 8. | |
| RFP Section II – “Terms and Conditions.” subsection e. “Beginning of Work & Suspension of Services” | |
| 11 | |
| Will the State provide detailed documentation to assist new vendors during transition from previous vendor to new? | |
| Please refer to Section VI Project Description Scope of Work (A)(4)(f) and (h). | Comment by Lewis, Jerome: Needs to be sent to Procurement |
| 9. |
| RFP Section VI – “Project Description and Scope of Work,” Subsection A3. “Order Management Module” |
| 31 |
| Can the State clarify if they would like the "Order Management Module" to simply track and record secure payments made, or if they would like the system to facilitate/perform the transactions? |
| The System should facilitate/perform the transactions along with track and record secure payments made. |
| 10. |
| RFP Section VI – “Project Description and Scope of Work” |
| 30-48 |
| Can the State confirm when it intends the successful vendor to provide detailed work plans with project milestones and implementations plans? |
| The awarded vendor will be provided with details upon contract execution. |
| 11. | |
| RFP Section VI – “Project Description and Scope of Work,” Subsection D. "Project Work Plan and Management Implementation" | |
| 46-48 | |
| Are the subsequent listed project requirements and their corresponding "detailed narrative" to be provided with the solicitation submission? | Comment by Lewis, Jerome: Needs to be sent to Procurement |
| Yes |
| 12. |
| RFP Section VII – “Solicitation Response Instructions,” sub-section h. “Summary of Bidder’s Corporate Experience” |
| 50 |
| Will past performance on similar work—especially within the State of Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)—be weighted heavily? |
Please refer to the Solicitation Evaluation Criteria.
| 13 |
| RFP Section VII – “Solicitation Response Instructions,” sub-section i. “Summary of Bidder’s Proposed Personnel/Management Approach |
| 50-51 |
| Are resumes for key personnel evaluated based on prior experience with the DHHS? |
| No |
| 14 | |
| RFP Section VII – “Solicitation Response Instructions,” sub-section i. “Summary of Bidder’s Proposed Personnel/Management Approach | |
| 50-51 | |
| What areas of experience and expertise does the State prefer key personnel to possess? | Comment by Lewis, Jerome: Needs to be sent to Procurement |
| Proposed personnel/management should possess relevant experience and expertise in relation to the scope of work. |
| 15 | |
| RFP “Contractual Agreement Form” | |
| 52 | |
| What steps can vendors outside the State of Nebraska take to pacify the "foreign vendor" designation in this solicitation? | Comment by Lewis, Jerome: Needs to be sent to Legal |
| Please refer to the following link regarding registering with the State of Nebraska. |
https://www.nebraska.gov/business/business-licensing/
Please also refer to the following statute:
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 73-603(c)
| 16 | |
| RFP “Contractual Agreement Form” | |
| 52 | |
| Are vendors with a "Nebraska Vendor Affidavit," or who are partnering with vendors who have the "Nebraska Vendor Affidavit" preferred? | Comment by Lewis, Jerome: Needs to be sent to Procurement |
| Please see response to Q #15. |
| 17 | |
| Attachment 1 - Functional Specifications | |
| 1 | |
| This document mentions that instructions for filling out that sheet are in "tab 1." As Attachment 1 is a PDF, vendors cannot toggle to "tab 1." Can the State provide instructions for how to respond to/fil out Attachment one in a separate document? | Comment by Lewis, Jerome: Needs to be sent to Procurement |
| Attachment 1 is posted as an excel document. Not a PDF. The official solicitation is on the following link: |
https://das.nebraska.gov/materiel/purchasing/120277%20O3%20REBID/120277%20O3%20REBID.html
| 18 | |
| Solicitation Evaluation Criteria, Part 4 – Cost Sheet Points | |
| 1 | |
| Can the State confirm they intend to offer an LPTA solicitation? | Comment by Lewis, Jerome: Needs to be sent to Procurement for wording |
| No |
| 19 |
| C. Schedule of Events |
| 2 |
| Would the State consider a two-week extension on this opportunity? | Comment by Lewis, Jerome: Needs to be sent to Procurement |
| Yes, a new schedule of events will be posted. |
| 20 | |
| V. C. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS FOR EVALUATION | |
| Page 28 | |
| The REBID has removed form “Attachment 1 – Minimum Qualifications”, yet the MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS FOR EVALUATION remains, how should the vendor respond to “Confirmation that your company has read, understands, and meets the minimum essential qualifications, experience, and/or capabilities is to be included in your proposal submission”? | Comment by Lewis, Jerome: Needs to be sent to Procurement |
| Proposers should include a statement within their proposal. See section V Project Information and Essential Qualifications (C). Confirmation that your company has read, understands, and meets the minimum essential qualifications, experience, and/or capabilities is to be included in your proposal’s submission. |
| 21 |
| VI.4.f Data/File Migration |
How many sources of data are expected to be migrated? If there are multiple sources, is there a common key or will a bridge need to be built to tie them together?
There are multiple sources for images and data. All sources use a State File Number and/or a key to tie them together.
| 22 |
| VI.4.f Data/File Migration |
| What is the volume of images being migrated? |
| Please see section V Project Information and Essential Qualifications (A) Migration of current data in SQL is estimated at 10,000,000 records with on-going daily increases. |
| 23 |
| VI.4.f Data/File Migration |
| Are the images stored in a format that is proprietary to the state or are the images stored in an existing application such as Filenet? |
| Yes, it is proprietary to the state. |
| 24 | |
| Attachment 1 Sections 13.10.2 and 13.10.18 | |
| Spreadsheet | |
| Section 13.10.2 says “The system should provide credit card machines provided and maintained by the Vendor for the processing of payments for customers.” Section 13.10.18 says “The State maintains its own credit card processor. The vendor must ensure compatibility with this system. The vendor is not responsible for payment processing.” Which of these is the preferred method of credit card processing? | Comment by Lewis, Jerome: Procurement we need to remove 13.10.2 |
| The state maintains its own credit card processor. |
Section 13.10.2 does not apply and will be removed.
| 25 | |
| Document RFP 12077 03 RFP Vital Records, Section I.C. | |
| 2 | |
| Does the file upload link have a file size limitation? | Comment by Lewis, Jerome: Please advise Procurement |
| No |
| 26 | |
| Document RFP 12077 03 RFP Vital Records, Part I, Section H, 1.b | |
| 17, 63 | |
| "Submission of Solicitation Responses", 1.b. Electronic Solicitation Response FILE NAMES. Referenced also with Page 63 of 64, Part VII, SOLICITATION RESPONSE INSTRUCTIONS, A.4 - COST SHEET which states this file is to be labeled "RFP 120277 03 REBID Cost Sheet". To be consistent with the file naming details noted in Part I, H.1.b, should the bidder add "Company Name" after "Cost Sheet" to that document file name? That is, "RFP 120277 03 REBID Cost Sheet Company Name"? | Comment by Lewis, Jerome: Please advise Procurement |
| It is not necessary to add company name as each upload is linked to the company name folder. |
| 27 |
| Document RFP 12077 03 RFP Vital Records, Section Z Liquidated Damages, Table 1 the first item. |
| Page 16 |
| The RFP is requiring the vendor meet an arbitrary schedule for UAT and then may invoke uncapped liquidated damages if this schedule is not met. The schedule is not based on any other State implementation, and if any State/vendor has indicated they have put all these modules in UAT and production in this amount of time we question the veracity of the that. As a vendor with 20+ years of successful implementations we know this schedule is not just an aggressive schedule, but one that can only be met by forcing the State to accept changing their business practices to meet already configured functionality that may not serve the State, and where the state waives many RFP requirements. For example, there are many items that could delay the project, such as NCHS changing the FHIR specifications (which they have done numerous times in the last year alone), and many others which are outside the control of the vendor. Instead of documenting every delay and negotiating schedule relief (which because this will occur frequently will significantly ADD to the schedule) we would much rather deliver a vital records solution that is the BEST solution for the State. With the State currently having a 15-year-old hybrid application, many new business methods to performing the State’s work should be reviewed, analyzed, and decided upon by the State. This schedule does not allow time to review and discuss potential improvements to business practices that may significantly reduce the time/labor for registrations to be completed. We understand the State may indicate that they will accept delays in certain circumstances, however the State has not clarified any process for documenting such delays and obtaining a formal schedule extension. Because of that, the vendor has to rely on the State “accepting delays at the State’s discretion”, and that puts significant risk on the vendor if the State does not agree or is not reasonable when it comes to the delays. Additionally, just because an external party such as SSA OVS indicates there will be a 2-week delay on their part, that does not mean that the entire project schedule will only be delayed by only 2 weeks. That deliverable may trigger multiple events, that cause ripple delays in other deliverables. The vendor would have to “trust” the State is going to understand the complexities and to be reasonable with schedule relief. Also, because of this risk the pricing will be greatly increased to take this risk into account. |
Will the State drop liquidated damages for not meeting the UAT 12-month schedule?
Will the State consider alternative timelines?
No. The State will not drop liquidated damages. Additional verbiage was added that that supports the States willingness to work with awarded vendor before liquidated damages are implemented. Reference Section II. Terms and Conditions (Z.) Liquidated Damages, Table 1. “Delays caused by the State or external third parties (e.g., SSA, NCHS, NAPHSIS) will be reviewed and may be exempted from liquidated damages.”
An updated schedule of events has been posted.
| 28 |
| Document RFP 12077 03 RFP Vital Records, Section Z Liquidated Damages, Table 1 the second item. |
| Page 16 |
| The RFP is requiring the vendor meet an arbitrary schedule for UAT and then may invoke uncapped liquidated damages if this schedule is not met. Same reasoning as previous question. |
Will the State drop liquidated damages for not meeting the production 15-month schedule?
Will the State consider alternative timelines?
See Question 27 Response
| 29 |
| Document 12077 03 RFP Vital Records Management System, Section Z Liquidated Damages, Table 1 the third out of business. |
| Page 17 |
| The RFP is asking for a hosted solution, which means either the vendor provides hosting in the “vendors cloud”, or a third-party hosting such as Amazon Web Services (AWS), MS Azure, etc. Most States prefer a third-party hosting, for many reasons such as they provide industry leading security and performance. However, even those providers suffer down time, which would be “out of business” in this liquidated damage clause. For example, AWS recently suffered an approximate 12 hour down time for thousands of applications. If this type of “out of business” event occurs for 2 days, the vendor has little recourse to provide a work around. For a workaround, the vendor would have to mirror everything in the hosted environment in 2 different hosting sites (example: AWS and Azure) to ensure there is a workaround to avoid this uncapped damage. This would essentially double the hosting cost to the State. |
Will the State drop liquidated damages for out of business?
Will the State consider alternative damages? For example, AWS and Azure provide refunds for down times typically based on the amount of down time. Can the vendor propose alternative damages where any refunds provided by the third-party hosting solution will be refunded on the maintenance invoice (which includes hosting costs)?
See Question 27 Response.
Acceptance or Exceptions to Section II. Terms and Conditions should be initialed and outlined in the table provided after the second paragraph on Page 10 of the RFP.
| 30 |
| Document 12077 03 RFP Vital Records Management System, Section Z Liquidated Damages, Table 1 the fourth and fifth item time sensitive and data movement. |
| 17 |
| For time sensitive issues there could be any number of reasons why this event may occur, including an error by State staff that keeps the record from being amended, or issued, etc. We understand the State may indicate that they will accept time sensitive issues in certain circumstances, however the State has not clarified any process for documenting such exceptions and obtaining relief. Because of that, the vendor must rely on the State “accepting time sensitive issues at the State’s discretion”, and that puts significant risk on the vendor if the State does not agree or is not reasonable when it comes to accepting the time sensitive issue. |
Will the State drop liquidated damages for time sensitive issues?
Will the State consider alternative damages for time sensitive issues?
For data movement, the interfaces linked to are not the vendor’s linkage requirements or applications, therefore responsibility to ensure they are working does not seem reasonable. The FHIR interface is constantly being updated and only part of it is considered stable. For example, a version of VRDR was released for FHIR and because a variable name was changed the interface broke. There was no warning of the change by NCHS, therefore only by using the FHIR interface was the error discovered. Additionally, with the government shutdown the FHIR interface stopped working a few weeks ago, with no warning when it stopped working and no idea when it will come back up. Based on the language in these damages, the vendor would have incurred damages during the government shutdown when clearly this is not the fault of the vendor. If an application that is interfaced with changes their application or linkage requirements, that could invoke damages to the vendor, and the vendor has no recourse to mitigate these potential damages. We have never seen a vital records RFP that requires the vendor to be responsible for someone else’s linkage requirements and/or applications. We understand the State may indicate that they will accept data movement issues in certain circumstances, however the State has not clarified any process for documenting such exceptions and obtaining relief. Because of that, the vendor must rely on the State “accepting data movement issues at the State’s discretion”, and that puts significant risk on the vendor if the State does not agree or is not reasonable when it comes to accepting the data movement issue.
Will the State drop liquidated damages for data movement?
Will the State consider alternative damages?
See Question 27 Response.
Acceptance or Exceptions to Section II. Terms and Conditions should be initialed and outlined in the table provided after the second paragraph on Page 10 of the RFP.
| 31 |
| Cost Sheet, Sections - Implementation and Post Implementation |
| 2 |
| There are 2 items constitute 50% of the invoicing allowed and they are the last 2 items to be completed, meaning they cannot be invoiced for at least 15 months when the application is in production. The State is asking us to hold on invoicing for 50% of the work until the application is in production which is a considerable hold back. This means the vendor is carrying the cost until the application is implemented, regardless of delays that are the caused of the State, third party delays, and anything else that causes delays or additional work for the vendor that are outside the control of the vendor. |
Will the State consider alternative milestones to be invoiced?
No, we are not considering alternative milestones.
| 32 |
| Attachment 1, Row 33 Ref: 1.3.1 |
| Tab Functional Specifications |
| The system must have the ability to complete a data conversion of all existing data, including images and files. To confirm that images can be converted, and to be able to estimate the level of effort to convert them, we must know how the current images are stored. For example, if they are stored in a proprietary format, they may not be able to be converted. Can the State confirm what the number and types of images and files that they want converted? |
| Yes, the State can confirm that the files are not stored in a proprietary format. Most of the images are TIFFs, some are JPEG, PDF, PNG, etc., and database blobs. |
33.
1. The previous version of the RFP contained an excel file for the Functional Specifications which included two tabs. The first was instructions. The document included in this version still says attachment 2 and does not include the instructions tab and is not excel. Will a corrected Excel version be provided?
Situation resolved please refer to the site https://das.nebraska.gov/materiel/purchasing/120277%20O3%20REBID/120277%20O3%20REBID.html
| 1. The previous version of the RFP contained a Word document for the Technical Specifications; will this be provided? |
| Please see answer to 33. |
This addendum will be incorporated into the solicitation.
SPB Form 26 Last Revised 4-17-2025
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .