Addendum No. 2 to RFP No. 26-04_.pdf

RFP Number: 26-04: Case Management Software System Addendum Number: 2

NOTICE TO PROPOSERS: THIS ADDENDUM SHALL BECOME PART OF THE RFP, AND PROPOSERS SHALL ACKNOWLEDGE, IN WRITING, RECEIPT, AND INCORPORATION OF ALL ADDENDA AND CLARIFICATIONS IN THEIR RESPONSE. FAILURE OF THE PROPOSER TO RECEIVE ADDENDA SHALL NOT RELIEVE THE PROPOSER FROM ANY OBLIGATION UNDER ITS PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED. THE PROPOSER SHALL IDENTIFY AND LIST IN ITS PROPOSAL ALL ADDENDA RECEIVED AND INCLUDED IN ITS PROPOSAL; FAILURE TO DO SO MAY BE ASSERTED BY THE DISTRICT AS A BASIS FOR DETERMINING

THE PROPOSAL NON-RESPONSIVE.

Answers to Questions

Number Question Response

1. Due to the delayed posting of the Questions and

Answers document, will the Proposers receive extra time to submit their Proposals to the

District?

Yes. Proposals for RFP No. 26-04 are now due to the District on Wednesday, April 15, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. PST.

2 For Appendix C: Mandatory Documents, there are two separate Exhibits that are identified as Exhibit

J. Are these documents correctly labeled?

Yes, there are two separate exhibits labeled as Exhibit J. One of the documents—Exhibit J: Russian Economic Sanctions

Certification (page 53 of the RFP)—was mislabeled and can be deleted, as it is a duplicate of Exhibit E.

The other document, Exhibit J: Cloud Computing Services

Agreement (page 55 of the RFP), is correctly labeled and should not be deleted. This document is essential to the contracting process and must be reviewed in the event of an award under this RFP (please see section 4.18 in the RFP for additional information).

3. How many user licenses LACCD anticipates needing for the platform?

The District’s current Case Management System has approximately 25 “users” that include employees, legal counsel, campus personnel, etc. The District has a current population of 267,000 students and employees who are able to submit cases for review and track progress of their case.

The new Case Management Software solution must take both populations in consideration and provide all licensing necessary for a fully functional system.

4. Submission: Section 4.2 outlines instructions for submission via mail. Sections 4.5 and 5.2.1 mention submission via Bonfire. Can you clarify whether proposals should be submitted by mail, Bonfire, or both?

The District will not use Bonfire for this RFP.

To clarify, all proposals are to be submitted by mail or delivery to:

Los Angeles Community College District 770 Wilshire Blvd, 6th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017 ATTN: Andrea Daniel – Procurement Specialist

Proposals submitted via fax, telephone, email or bonfire will not be accepted. All Proposals must be received by 2:00 PDT on Monday, April 13, 2026.

5 Does LACCD currently use a case management system for Title IX and DHR cases? If yes, are you able to share what system is used?

Yes, LACCD currently using a Commercial Case Management system for Title IX and DHR cases. However, LACCD’s current vendor is not relevant to a firm providing the District with a comprehensive Case Management Solution.

6 How many people information systems does

LACCD utilize and plan to connect?

We currently connect, at a maximum:

• Azure SSO (SAML)

• Office365

• SIS for import of student information, as applicable

• SAP for import of employee information, as applicable.

7 Does LACCD want providers to include transfer of legacy data?

Yes.

8 Does LACCD have a desired completion date for implementation?

LACCD’s desired go-live date is August 30, 2026, or sooner.

In addition, the District intends to implement a single, districtwide go-live across all college campuses.

9 How many total users does LACCD anticipate using the system?

The District’s current Case Management System has approximately 25 “users” that include employees, legal counsel, campus personnel, etc. The District has a current population of 267,000 students and employees who are able to submit cases for review and track progress of their case.

The new Case Management Software solution must take both

10 The RFP states that “All digital products and services must comply with WCAG 2.2 Level AA now and before July 2026 with WCAG 2.1 AA.”

Could the District please clarify whether this requirement applies to:

I. All system components, including internal administrative interfaces used

The requirement applies to both internal and external facing system components - ALL system components.

by investigators, coordinators, and other staff; or

II. Public-facing components only, such as intake/reporting portals or external user access points?

11 Section 4.2 requires submission of one printed original, eight copies, and a USB drive, while

Section 5.2.1 states proposals shall be submitted electronically via Bonfire. Which method governs for the full proposal submission?

Section 4.2 - Proposal Submission instructions are correct.

All proposals must be delivered to the District by April 13, 2026. Proposals are to be enclosed in a sealed package as noted in the RFP.

The District will not use Bonfire for this RFP.

12 What case management system(s) are currently in use across all nine campuses?

Yes, for all nine Colleges, LACCD is currently using a

Commercial Case Management system. However, LACCD’s current vendor is not relevant to a firm providing the District with a comprehensive case management solution.

13 Can you provide an estimate of the number of records, historical data volume, and the file/data formats that would need to be migrated?

There are currently 1301 case files and there are approximately 500 historical records that will also need to be included in the data migration. The records are in OneDrive, SharePoint, PDF, database export and spreadsheet formats.

14 Is data migration expected to occur for all nine colleges simultaneously, or will it be handled on a phased basis?

Campus data is currently stored centrally and will be migrated simultaneously since the intention is to continue to store this data centrally.

15 Is there an existing data schema or export format available that we can review?

The District uses PeopleSoft Campus Solutions for SIS and

SAP for HR. Refer to those respective companies for data formats as required.

16 Appendix A, Section 12 identifies the following systems as integration targets:

• Student Information System (SIS)

• Learning Management System (LMS)

• HR Systems

• Calendar

• Email

• Authentication/SSO Providers

Can the District confirm this is the complete list of systems for which integration will be required, and provide the specific platform name and version currently in use for each?

Please see the answer to question No. 15 for a response.

17 How many users of the system are there?

counsel, campus personnel, etc. The District has a current population of 267,000 students and employees who are able to submit cases for review and track progress of their case.

The new Case Management Software solution must take both

18 We can either host the data in MS Azure Government Cloud or can install into the existing

Azure account for LACCD. Obviously, we would need to pass on hosting costs if we host but there would be none of these costs if we install into your account. Is this an option?

The vendor shall be solely responsible for hosting.

19 Does LACCD currently use any case management system (commercial or in-house) for Title IX and

DHR matters? If yes, what is the name/version of the existing system?

LACCD is currently using a Commercial Case Management

Software System for Title IX and DHR matters.

However, LACCD’s current vendor is not relevant to a firm providing the District with a comprehensive case management solution.

20 Approximately how many Title IX/DHR cases (new

+ carry-over) does the District handle annually across all nine colleges?

This number varies year to year, however, there are currently

1301 case files to date. On average, we receive approximately 300 cases annually.

21 Can you provide a high-level breakdown by college or by case type (e.g., student vs.

employee)?

No, the information requested is confidential and has no bearing on the preparation of an RFP proposal.

22 What are the specific pain points or limitations with the current process/tools that the new system is expected to resolve?

The current system’s interaction/integration with other

LACCD systems (SIS, SAP, Outlook, etc.) is very challenging.

Currently many emails from the current system sent to

LACCD-based emails go into spam. Similarly, student and employee information doesn’t seem to regularly pull into the current system from SIS, SAP, etc. so users have to use outlook to message or manually create profiles for students/employees. Additional challenges include the drafting of communication/letters. The current system does not allow things to be saved as drafts to revisit later. Case searches, filtering and recall is another pain point—it’s challenging to access a person’s case history/involvement which is further complicated by the inconsistent pulling of info from SIS and SAP. Gathering case data and historical comparisons (total number of Title IX, DHR, other cases) is also challenging.

• Integration with current systems (SIS, Outlook, Zoom etc.)

o Emails from current system go to Outlook junk folders o Information pulls – getting student or employee information from our systems in a timely manner o Calendar integration

• Document/PDF handling o Ability to remove documents o document section/dashboard within case file o ability view without downloading

• Save emails/templates as drafts and come back later

• Correspondence tracking within the system – currently, replies to emails are not in chronological order, reply function is a pop up box that limits ability to see original email

• Ability to see PII, not just name of individuals when writing to them in an email (we have multiple people with the same name but cannot see emails or ID #s when the system pulls for tagging to determine if it is the correct individual)

• Ability to set individual reminders on cases

• Case search/recall functionality (keyword search across all cases, search person who is not a party – DM, Advisor, etc)

• Tag for Decision Maker when a case moves to the investigation stage

• Ability to attach multiple documents to an email or upload to case file in a batch

• Search ability based on keyword that searches all cases not just a singular case type

• Ability to export select items from a case file versus a single item or the entire file

• Remote access

• Dedicated App

• Intuitive reports – o Reports that show all data points in a case or the ability to pick particular data points (assigned investigator, names of parties, etc.

o Ability to see raw data of a report (for example current system will show number of case by a particular user group, but we are unable to click and access the raw data that was used to gather the report to see which cases it is referencing).

23 For the “Intake & Reporting” and “Communication

Tools” requirements, does LACCD have a preferred method for anonymous reporting and secure external-party messaging (e.g., portal-based, email integration, or SMS)?

The District currently supports Office365, Kiteworks, and

SFTP.

24 Section 5 and Appendix A reference “customizable case statuses,” “automated progression,” and

“visual dashboards.” Will LACCD require full administrative rights to modify workflows and dashboards post-go-live, or will changes be handled only through the vendor?

LACCD requires administrative rights post go-live.

25 For “Regulatory Reporting,” are there any specific Clery Act, Title IX, or OCR report templates/formats that must be delivered out-of-the-box?

There are no report templates that need to be delivered out of the box, however, we’re looking for notices, correspondence and other templates that may be available out of the box.

26 What are the primary LACCD systems that the new case management solution must integrate with (e.g., Ellucian Banner SIS, HRIS, Active

Directory/LDAP, Microsoft 365, Canvas, etc.)?

Please list any preferred integration methods (API, flat-file, etc.).

See Question 15 above.

27 For historical data migration, what is the estimated volume of existing Title IX/DHR records

(number of cases and approximate document count) and what formats are available (PDF, database export, spreadsheets)?

There are currently 1301 case files and there are approximately 500 historical records that will also need to be included in the data migration. The records are in OneDrive, SharePoint, PDF, database export and spreadsheet formats.

28 Will LACCD provide a test/sandbox environment and dedicated IT resources during the data-migration and integration phases?

LACCD provides test environments for SAP and SIS. All other required environments shall be provided by the vendor.

29 What is the District’s preferred go-live timeline relative to the tentative award date (May 15, 2026) and Board approval (June 3, 2026)? Is a phased rollout by college or a single District-wide go-live preferred?

Please see question No. 8 for response.

30 What level of end-user training is expected (e.g., train-the-trainer, role-based sessions, ongoing support)? How many training sessions and users should be planned for?

At least 1 session for Title IX Coordinator, Deputy

Coordinators and Compliance Investigators.

At least 1 session for IT on database management and integration.

At least 2 train-the-trainer sessions.

At least 4 role-based training sessions for the campuses.

31 After go-live, what are LACCD’s expectations for ongoing support (e.g., dedicated account manager hours, response-time SLAs, 24/7 vs. business-hours)?

• PST business hour help – chat/email

• Dedicated account manager during PST business hours

• Robust help guides/tutorials in multiple formats

• Ongoing training

32 What is the total estimated number of licensed/internal users who will require full access to the system across the District and all nine colleges?

Approximately 25 licensed/internal users will require full access to the system across the District and all nine colleges.

33 Please provide a breakdown of expected users by role (e.g., District Title IX Coordinator, Deputy

Coordinators, Investigators, Case Managers, HR/Legal/Compliance staff, College-level administrators, etc.) and by location (District office vs. each individual college).

The system could potentially be used by all LACCD employees, students and external individuals who need to report any Title IX, DHR or Retaliation complaints.

counsel, campus personnel, etc. The District has a current population of 267,000 students and employees who are able to submit cases for review and track progress of their case.

The new Case Management Software solution must take both

34 Will the system also need to support external users (complainants, respondents, witnesses) via a self-service portal? If yes, approximately how many external users are anticipated annually?

Yes, the system will also need to support external users via the portal. This number varies greatly, however this number is not expected to exceed 100 persons annually based upon current case data.

35 What is the expected peak concurrent usage (maximum number of users logged in simultaneously), especially during high-volume periods such as the start of each semester?

The total number of “users” will be all people who are authorized to log in upload, download or read case documents in the system. Users who submit a complaint/request are typically NOT users.

36 Does LACCD anticipate significant growth in user numbers over the 5-year contract term (base + 2 option years)? If so, what growth rate or additional users should proposers plan for when preparing the Cost Proposal?

LACCD does not anticipate significant growth user numbers over the 5-year contract term.

37 The Cost Proposal Worksheet (Appendix B) requests fees for a 5-year term. Should proposers provide separate line items for:

1. Software licensing/subscription

2. Implementation/migration services

3. Training

4. Ongoing maintenance/support

Any optional modules or add-ons?

For Appendix B worksheet.

Please provide pricing for all categories as listed in Appendix B – Cost Proposal, including all related costs for the data transfer, software, training, maintenance, and any other proposed services. Costs not identified by the Proposer on the cost proposal but incurred later will be the responsibility of the Proposer.

Therefore, if other cost needs to be identified on the spreadsheet please identify those cost on the spreadsheet.

38 Is there a maximum budget range the District is targeting?

The District does not have a predetermined budget.

39 Will the selected solution be required to host data exclusively within the continental United States?

Are there any specific CPRA or California data-residency requirements beyond those already stated in the Cloud Computer Services

Agreement?

Yes. The District’s security requirements are in LACCD

Administrative Protocol 3723A: Information Security Risk

Evaluation of Third-Party IT Agreements is attached, or available online at https://go.boarddocs.com/ca/laccd/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=CMU22J7C831 C.

40 For accessibility (Section 20 of the standard agreement), will LACCD require a current VPAT

(WCAG 2.1 AA / Section 508) at the time of proposal, or only after award?

At the time of proposal submission and throughout the duration of the awarded contract.

41 Are there any additional security certifications

(FedRAMP) that LACCD considers highly desirable or mandatory?

AP 3723A provides a list of acceptable third-party audits and certifications (attached).

https://go.boarddocs.com/ca/laccd/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=CMU22J7C831C https://go.boarddocs.com/ca/laccd/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=CMU22J7C831C

42 During the Second Phase interviews/demonstrations (May 13–14, 2026), will proposers be provided with scripted scenarios or a sample Title IX/DHR workflow in advance?

No.

43 How does the District handle confidential information?

Please refer to Section 4.12 – Exemption from Disclosure in the RFP.

Proposals will remain confidential in their entirety until the evaluation and analysis process is complete and a recommendation of an award has been approved by the LACCD Board of Trustees. All proposals submitted will become the property of the LACCD. The Proposer must identify, in writing, all copyrighted material, trade secrets, or other proprietary information that the preparer claims are exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act (California Government Code Section 6250 et seq.).

Please thoroughly read Section 4.12 in its entirety to have a full understanding of the process.

44 Will the District sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement? No. The District employees will not sign a Proposer’s Non- Disclosure Agreement (NDA).

45 Is there a maximum budget or amount allocated for this RFP?

Is the District currently using an incumbent system? If so, is data migration required?

Yes, the District currently using an incumbent system.

Yes, it is required of the firm that is awarded this contract to provide data migration, as noted in the RFP.

47 If there is an existing incumbent system, are there any specific pain points the District is looking to address?

Please see the answer to question No. 22.

48 Are there any specific system integrations required?

49 Is there a defined go-live or deployment timeline?

Please see question No. 8 for a response.

50 Is there a requirement for the solution to support mass notifications? If so, what is the anticipated volume, and would this include both email and

SMS notifications?

No, mass notifications will be needed.

51 What case management systems or tools (if any) does LACCD currently use to manage Title IX and

DHR cases across the nine colleges? Is the current solution a COTS solution or a custom-built/internally developed system?

Yes, LACCD currently uses a Commercial Case Management

System for Title IX and DHR cases. However, LACCD’s current vendor is not relevant to a firm providing the District with a comprehensive case management solution.

52 Approximately how many historical case records would need to be migrated to the new system, and in what format(s) is this data currently stored

(e.g., database export, PDFs, spreadsheets)?

There are approximately 500 historical records that will need to be included in the data migration. The records are in

OneDrive, SharePoint, PDF, database export and spreadsheet formats.

53 Given that the system will serve the District's approximately 250,000 students and over 6,000 employees across nine colleges, can the District confirm whether the reporting/intake portal must be accessible to all students, faculty, and staff

Yes, however all students and employees do not need the same access as the Title IX Coordinator, Deputy

Coordinators, Compliance Investigators, Select IT

Administrators, etc. The number of cases varies, but is approximately 300 per year.

without individual user licensing restrictions?

Additionally, approximately how many cases does the District process annually across all nine

54 Are there existing integrations with any student information system (SIS), learning management system (LMS), human resources system, or single sign-on (SSO) identity provider that the new system must connect to? If so, please identify the specific platforms and preferred integration method (e.g., SAML, OIDC, API, SFTP)?

55 What is the District's target go-live date for the new case management system? Is there a phased rollout expect Sation (e.g., pilot at one or two colleges before district-wide deployment)?

Please see question No. 8 for answer.

56 What are the top three pain points of the current solution?

Please see the answer to question No. 22.

57 Is there a specific case management platform(s) you are leaning towards? If yes, which one and why?

58 What is the approved or anticipated budget range for licenses, implementation, and ongoing support? Is the budget inclusive of change management, staff training, data migration, and integrations?

Please note: The Firm’s proposal should be inclusive of staff training, data migration and integrations and other requirements identified in the RFP.

59 Are there any funding constraints or grant dependencies related to this project?

No. If there were, they would have been identified in the RFP.

60 Are there any systems that you plan on retaining that will need to be integrated with the new CRM?

See Question 15 above.

61 Please list your current tech stack (CRM, Student

Information Systems (SIS), Learning Management

Systems (LMS), HR systems, calendars, and Single Sign-On (SSO) etc…)

See Question 15 above.

62 What key metrics are you tracking and focused on improving throughout this project?

Efficiency and improvements in complaint reporting throughout LACCD.

63 Are your current state processes already documented, or do you require your current state to be mapped out in this solution?

The Current processes are documented and mapped by the current provider, therefore, they would need to be mapped according to your company and provided in the proposal.

64 Can you provide a detailed breakdown of the evaluation criteria and their respective weightings that will be used to assess proposals.

Please carefully and thoroughly read the RFP, Section 6 and the criteria that is provided throughout the RFP document.

65 Can you provide the number of administrator-type users there will be for the new case management system? Administrator-type users are defined as users that will need access to the entire case management system (intake and backend data, including resolution and reporting) such as administrators, investigators, advisors, and reviewers.

Approximately 25.

66 How many cases do you expect to be opened, managed, and resolved annually? How many individuals does that represent?

This is a variable number as there may be multiple complainants and respondents with each case. The District opens approximately 300 cases per year.

67 Are you seeking more of an out-of-the-box point solution that provides Title IX and DHR case management or are you seeking a more scalable enterprise case management solution that can expand over time to support other case management use cases (example: student services, faculty management, HR employee services, etc.)?

LACCD is seeking a provider who can provide case management software system. The proposal should be structured to describe the functionality that your company can provide and a cost proposal for those services.

68 Appendix B requires a fixed cost for the "migration of data from existing system to new system".

What is the current system being used, what is the estimated volume of data (number of cases/records), and what format is the current data in?

LACCD is currently using Commercial Software as the case management system for Title IX and DHR matters. There are currently 1301 case files and there are approximately 500 historical records that will also need to be included in the data migration. The records are in OneDrive, SharePoint, PDF, database export and spreadsheet formats.

However, LACCD’s current vendor is not relevant to a firm providing the District with a comprehensive case management solution.

69 To accurately complete the Cost Proposal

Worksheet (Appendix B), which asks for the "No.

of Units", what is the anticipated total number of administrative/investigative users versus view-only users across the nine colleges?

The District’s current Case Management System has approximately 25 “users” that include employees, legal counsel, campus personnel, etc. The District has a current population of 267,000 students and employees who are able to submit cases for review and track progress of their case.

The new Case Management Software solution must take both

70 How can the data from the engagement platform be leveraged for reporting within CRM, if desired?

Are there specific Salesforce reports or dashboards that must be included?

LACCD does not use Salesforce and the information contained on this platform will not be stored in a CRM or elsewhere as it is confidential in nature.

71 Is there a need for multi-channel capabilities

(online forms, email, and phone) to ensure students can report incidents through their preferred method of communication?

All should be reported through the system/platform.

72 Is there a need to provide students with multiple, low-barrier reporting options, such as integrated online forms and anonymous reporting, to foster the "safe and inclusive environment" LACCD is committed to?

There is a need for anonymous reporting through the system/platform.

73 Is there a need for automated notifications and mass messaging to keep students informed of critical hearing dates, investigation timelines, and required actions?

There is a need for automated notifications to keep students informed of investigation timelines, required actions and potential hearing dates, but there is no need for mass messaging.

74 Do you have any regulatory requirements that must guide security or data storage?

Yes, it’s noted in the RFP.

75 The RFP mentions role-based views for "advisors and reviewers". Are these intended to be internal

District employees only, or will the system need to support external third-party access for these roles?

Both

76 Appendix A requires regular accessibility audits.

Does the District require these audits to be performed by an independent third party, or is a self-audit by the vendor's internal team acceptable?

Either

77 Would LACCD be open to structuring this as two separate contracts—one for the technology licensing and another for implementation services?

No. The District is looking for an all-inclusive system.

78 The Summary Schedule in Appendix B asks for a 5-year total. Since the initial term is three years with two one-year options, should the Year 4 and

Year 5 costs be binding fixed prices or estimates subject to adjustment?

Although the quote will not be binding for Years 4 and 5, the Proposer will need to provide well-supported cost projections for those years of service. Please note that if the quoted pricing is unusually high compared to prevailing market rates, the District may need to consider alternative

79 Section 4.19 lists several "integral provisions" where rejection will lead to a proposal being rejected. If a proposer requests a minor modification to the language of these sections

(such as Section 18 - Waiver of Damages;

Indemnity) without rejecting the core intent, will that be considered a rejection of the contract?

As provided in Section 4.19 “The District will make a good faith effort to consider contractual issues identified by providers and District requires all proposing providers to similarly make a good faith effort to comply with the District’s sample agreement terms and conditions.” Minor modification will not render a submission non-responsive.

80 How are your current systems integrated? Do you have a middleware tool that you want us to utilize for integrations e.g. Boomi, MuleSoft, Tibco, Informatica, webMethods,etc.?

81 Please list all the systems the CRM will integrate with. Also, state if the system will exchange data with the CRM or if only a single sign-on from CRM is required.

82 Is there a single sign-on (SSO) tool that is already in use today that will need to be integrated with the new Case Management System?

83 The RFP requests connectors or APIs for SIS, LMS, and HR systems. Can the District provide the specific names and versions of the third-party platforms (e.g., PeopleSoft, Canvas, Workday) that the new software must integrate with?

84 What specific data points or objects need to be synced between the platforms? Is it a one-way or two-way synchronization? What is the frequency of data sync?

The vendor shall make recommendations appropriate to their system.

85 What is the expected volume of data that will be integrated from and to the new CASE

Management System? How will the integration handle large data sets?

LACCD currently uses a Commercial Case Management

Software System as the case management system for Title IX and DHR matters. There are currently 1301 case files and there are approximately 500 historical records that will also need to be included in the data migration. The records are in

OneDrive, SharePoint, PDF, database export and spreadsheet formats.

86 Do you currently have a change management strategy and team in place to support the major changes both staff and students will face?

Yes.

87 Do you have enough staff/resources to define and deliver change management?

Yes.

88 How do you currently train staff/volunteers on the system?

In person on an as-needed basis.

89 Do you have IT staff that can be trained to manage the implementation and support the end users after the implementation?

No.

90 How will you measure adoption and success of the new system internally?

Measures will include among others:

Whether the transition and integration with LACCD systems has been completed.

Whether the cases are searchable.

Whether all historical and current cases have been uploaded and are made accessible.

Whether the system is usable to employees, students and community members for reporting.

Whether the required trainings have been scheduled/have taken place.

91 Can the District clarify the requirements for an

'authorized signature' on the proposal documents?

Is a wet-ink signature required on each copy?

Furthermore, are any of the forms required to be notarized prior to submission?

An authorized signature is the signature of an individual who has the legal authority to act on behalf of an organization and bind it to agreements, contracts, or official documents.

All forms maybe completed with wet or electronic signatures.

No notarization is required.

92 Clarification on "Benefits and Challenges"

(Section 5.3.4 D)

The District intends for Proposers to describe the anticipated benefits and challenges associated with their proposed work plan and project approach for delivering the services outlined

Regarding the requirement in Section 5.3.4 (D) to describe "benefits" and "challenges,: could the

District clarify the intended scope of this prompt?

Specifically, is the District seeking a description of the benefits and challenges associated with the technical features and functionality of the software itself, or is the focus on the anticipated benefits and challenges of our proposed work plan and project approach to implement the solution and manage the transition across the District’s nine in Appendix A. This includes implementation of the solution and management of the transition across the District’s colleges. While Proposers may reference relevant features or functionality of their software where appropriate, the primary emphasis should be on the execution of the work, including approach, resource planning, and overall project delivery.

93 Regarding the structure of Section 5.3.4, we noted some thematic overlap across the prompts related to operational management and implementation. In the interest of providing the most clear and concise response for the evaluation committee, would the District prefer that we strictly maintain the RFP’s question sequence (even if it results in repetitive information), or might we consolidate these related points into a single, comprehensive narrative that addresses all requirements?

It is preferred to maintain the RFP’s question sequence even if it results in repetitive information.

94 In the Proposal Content outline in Section 5.4.2, we note that the current structure focuses heavily on operations and implementation. However, Appendix A (Section B: General Qualifications and Requirements) contains specific prompts regarding technical functionality, hosting architecture, and security protocols. To ensure a thorough evaluation, could the District clarify

Proposers are responsible for organizing their submissions in a manner that ensures all required information is complete, well-structured, and easy for the District to evaluate.

where within the 5.4.2 Proposal Content outline these technical responses should be placed? For example, should they be included as a dedicated "Technical Requirements" section, or as a labeled attachment?

95 Section 5.4 (1. Appendix A) refers to "preceding instructions" for the completion of supporting documents. However, these instructions appear to be distributed across several sections of the RFP.

Could the District clarify if there is a consolidated list of requirements for Appendix A, or if we should continue to aggregate instructions from the general guidelines?

Please carefully and thoroughly read the RFP, Section 6 and the criteria that is provided throughout the RFP document.

96 The RFP indicates that the Small, Local, Emerging, and Disabled Veteran (SLEDV) participation is scored on a '0 or 10 points' basis. Could the

District clarify if the full 10 points are awarded for meeting any level of SLEDV participation, or if a proposer must meet a specific percentage threshold or all sub-category requirements to receive the 10 points?

The scoring for Certification of Small, Local, Emerging, and

Disabled Veteran Business (SLEDV) is based on the criteria outlined in Exhibit F. Firms will receive either zero or ten points, with points awarded only if the firm qualifies—by checking the applicable box—under one or more of the categories listed in Sections A through D.

97 The RFP Proposed Schedule listed on the cover page notes that Questions and Proposals are due to the District at 2:00 pm on their respective dates.

However, the other RFP Proposed Schedule (on page 8) notes that Questions and Proposals are

The RFP Proposed Schedule listed on the cover page of the

RFP is correct, RFP proposals are due to the District by 2:00 pm PST.

due to the District at 12:00 pm, on their respective dates. Which time is correct?