Addendum No. 8 UCO-958 School of Professional Studies Website Redesign.pdf

July 1, 2025

ADDENDUM No. 8

TO: Prospective Proposers

FROM: Helena Gacina (helena.gacina@cuny.edu)

The City University of New York

RE: UCO-958

Request for Proposal

School of Professional Studies Website Redesign

This Addendum No. 8 to the above-referenced RFP is being issued to:

i) Revise Key Events and Dates

ii) Respond to questions received by Due Date 2

iii) Inform prospective proposers that CUNY will not respond to questions received after Due Date 2.

All capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in the RFP.

i) The Key Events and Dates are hereby revised as shown below:

Action Date

CUNY issues RFP for School of Professional Studies

Website Redesign

April 10, 2025

Procurement Lobbying Law Restrictions Begin April 10, 2025

Pre-Proposal Conference/Site-Visit

☐ Mandatory ☐ Optional

N/A

Submission of Written Questions Due Date 1 April 17, 2025 @ 2:00 pm Eastern Standard Time

Submission of Written Questions Due Date 2 May 28, 2025 @ 2:00 pm Eastern Standard Time

Proposal Submission Due Date and Time July 10, 2025 @ 1:00 pm Eastern Standard Time

CUNY Central Procurement Office Office of the Executive Director of Strategic Sourcing and Chief Procurement Officer 230 West 41st Street New York, NY 10036 mailto:helena.gacina@cuny.edu

UCO-958 School of Professional Studies Website Redesign Addendum No. 8

ii) List of Questions and Answers

Q1. We’d love to learn more about the team that oversees the College SPS website. Can you provide an overview of the roles, skills, and headcount?

A1. The CUNY SPS Office of Marketing, Communications, and Events team is comprised of roughly 12 full time staff, four of which are highly involved in overseeing the website. These individuals include Chief Marketing Officer (CMO), Director of Marketing, Developer, and SEO

Manager.

Q2. HubSpot and Slate are both mentioned, which areas of the College are using which tool?

A2. At this time, the Marketing Team uses Hubspot and the Admissions/Enrollment

Management Team uses Slate, although Marketing is in the process of being trained in Slate.

Q3. Do you see an opportunity to streamline your content and reduce the number of pages on your site as part of this project?

A3. Yes, this is an opportunity to review and condense some of our website’s pages and sections.

Q4. Are you interested in copywriting services as part of our proposal submission?

A4. Yes, we are interested in copywriting services as part of this project.

Q5. User permissions and roles were mentioned in the RFP, currently, how many people work on the website? Are there future plans to increase or decrease the number of people working on the website?

A5. At this time, we have approximately 10 staff who actively work on the website. We have plans to increase this number in order to provide some departments with more autonomy over content updates for their sections.

Q6. Thinking about your current website, what is working well for you, and what are the pain points?

A6. Our current pain points include:

• Complex Navigation: Site menus are unclear and overly broad (e.g., "About" is used as a catch-all), which causes users to rely too heavily on search.

• User Experience Issues: Key actions like applying to programs require multiple clicks and are buried in pages, making the user journey inefficient.

• Content Challenges: The site is text-heavy, lacks personalization, and has inconsistent formatting across pages.

• Performance Issues: Mobile experience, page speed, and SEO optimization (like meta tags and alt text) need improvement.

• Content Governance: Editing and updating content is more complex than needed; the

Drupal CMS structure (e.g., views and blocks) is cumbersome for non-technical users.

• Visual Inconsistencies: Design is outdated and varies across pages within the same section.

What’s working:

• Recent CMS Upgrade: The site was recently migrated to Drupal 10, offering more stability and modern backend capabilities (although it's now being transitioned to

WordPress).

• Photo and Media Library: A library of photos and an Envato account supports quality visual content.

• Search Bar Usage: Both staff and students frequently use the search bar to navigate the site, indicating it’s a helpful tool

Q7. Can you share a budget

A7. CUNY does not provide budget information for its solicitations.

Q8. Other than Hubspot and Slate, are there any other integrations

A8. No, there aren’t any other integrations at this time.

Q9. How much content do you need to migrate? If we cant get an exact number of pages, can we provide a cost range? Will you team do any of the migration?

A9. We need to migrate most of the pages on the website, although this number may vary after we determine the results of the discovery period. The selected vendor will handle all the migration work.

Q10. Do you need any content written?

A10. Yes, we want certain content to be re-written.

Q11. Who are your largest competitors?

A11. We have three different types of competitor areas:

1. Public Online Degree Programs such as SUNY Empire, UMASS Global, University of

Maryland Global Campus

2. Private Nonprofit Online Universities such as SNHU, WGU, Purdue University Global, and University of Phoenix

3. Other CUNY colleges that offer online/hybrid programs

Q12. We are interested in supporting the UCO-958 – School of Professional Studies Website

Redesign opportunity as a MBE-certified subcontractor. While we have strong experience in website redesign, CMS migrations, accessibility compliance, and CRM integrations, we do not have prior experience specific to higher education institutions.

As noted in the RFP, “Any proposed subcontractors are subject to approval by CUNY and must also meet appropriate qualifications and an acceptable level of experience.”

We would appreciate your guidance on whether our relevant experience, though not specific to education would still meet CUNY’s requirements for subcontractor approval.

A12. CUNY SPS wants subcontractors to have higher education experience.

Q13. We would love to do the redesign for SPS, but we have only done one primary website.

Could you please let any firms applying know that we would be an excellent subcontractor on this project. We are an MBE and would help fulfill the goals for the project.

A13. See response to question 16 in Addendum No. 4.

Q14. is it required to have Form 4 notarized? Especially if our answers are 'no' to every question.

A14. Yes, it is required to have Form 4 notarized.

Q15. Have you worked with an agency like ours before? If so, tell me about that experience?

A15. This question is outside the scope of this project.

Q16. What's important to you about the partner you choose?

A16. We are looking for a vendor that values strategic collaboration, has higher ed experience, prioritizes a user-centered design, has content and SEO expertise, and technical flexibility.

Q17. Can you explain the main motivation for moving from Drupal to Wordpress? What issues have you encountered with your current CMS?

A17. The main motivation for moving from Drupal to WordPress is that the University system is mandating that all CUNY schools use WordPress as their CMS. At this time, we have not encountered any major issues with Drupal 10.

Q18. Will new content need to be written for the new site? If so, how much help are you expecting from your chosen partner? Do you need content strategy, copywriting, or copy editing services?

A18. Yes, we want the vendor to assist with writing the content for the site as well as provide content strategy, copywriting, and copy editing services.

Q19. If content will be provided by your chosen partner, please give an estimate for how many pages of content will need to be written or edited.

A19. This is currently difficult to assess, without having gone through the discovery period;

however, we expect approximately 50 pages will need content editing.

Q20. How many unique content types or page layouts should be included in the scope? If you don’t know for sure, even a ballpark guess would be helpful. A simple site will consist of 4-6 unique page layouts, a site of medium complexity will consist of 6-12 unique page layouts, a complex site will consist of 12-20+ unique page layouts.

A20. We want to see 6-12 unique page layouts.

Q21. Will content need to be presented in languages other than English? If so, which ones?

A21. No, content will not need to be presented in languages other than English.

Q22. If multiple languages are needed, who will provide the translated content and should the translated content be human-translated or will a machine translation (such as Google Translate) suffice?

A22. Multiple languages are not needed for the site.

Q23. Will this project require a substantial amount of data or content migration from the old system to the new one? If so, who will be responsible for this migration? Please estimate how much content, and what types of content, should be migrated over.

A23. This project will not require a direct content migration because the goal is to re-evaluate the existing site content and create a new content strategy. Populating the new site content will be completed in collaboration with CUNY SPS staff.

Q24. Is there someone who could be considered an incumbent on this project? Is there another company that you’ve worked with before, or any other company that would receive preference for winning this project?

A24. CUNY SPS previously worked with an agency on its last website redesign. No company would receive preference for winning this project.

Q25. One additional question, will the due date be extended to allow for bidders to use the response to the questions in their responses?

A25. Please refer to the revised Key Events and Dates above.

Q26. Do you maintain a list of firms interested in proposing on this opportunity? We are a NYS

Certified SDVOB and have a lot of experience running and supporting Website Redesign projects. We do not meet the minimum requirements to act as a Prime on this, but we can fulfill the 6% SDVOB requirement. If you have a list of prospective Primes that would be very helpful. If not, I will continue my search.

A26. Please see response to question 16 in Addendum No 4.

Q27. Company is a foremost engineering company with specialty in tech contents and web designs.

We are interested in participating in your recently advertised request for proposal for website redesign for the School Of Professional Studies.

Can we as a Nigeria company be accepted to submit our proposal?

We are confident that you will be impressed by the value we will bring through our work if allowed to participate in the tender.

A27. Please refer to Part 3, section 3.2 Specifications, Location, pg. 9 of the RFP. All services provided under this Contract must be provided within the continental United States (“CONUS”), and all data must be stored within CONUS.

Q28. am reaching out regarding the RFP UCO-958 – School of Professional Studies Website

Redesign. Upon reviewing the eligibility requirements, we noted that proposers are expected to provide three completed website projects for higher education institutions located within the

United States, operational for a minimum of one year.

Our agency, company name, specializes in accessible, standards-compliant digital platforms for public institutions across North America. While we have successfully delivered full website redesigns for two major Canadian universities:

• University 1

• University 2

We have also led significant engagements with a school board overseeing 63 schools, and a public library system, including implementation of CMS, library resource management, digital asset management, and WCAG 2.2 accessibility.

We would like to respectfully inquire whether these substantial and relevant projects may be considered acceptable for the reference requirement, given their scale, complexity, and alignment with higher education objectives.

A28. No, CUNY cannot consider the projects as outlined in your inquiry.

Q29. Which specific sections of the existing Drupal site require migration?

A29. All of the sections will need to be migrated.

Q30. Do we need to migrate all 1,500 pages, or only selected sections?

A30. We need to migrate most of the pages on the website, although this number may vary after we determine the results of the discovery period

Q31. Should we prioritize integrating Slate CRM and HubSpot?

A31. The vendor must prioritize integrating Slate CRM at this time.

Q32. Are there any other third-party systems or APIs that need to be connected?

A32. No, there are no other third party systems of APIs that need to be connected.

Q33. Will CUNY SPS provide a dedicated team (or point of contact) for user testing?

A33. Yes, CUNY SPS will provide a dedicated team for user testing.

Q34. What is the expected timeline for gathering feedback and implementing revisions?

A34. We intend to work with the selected vendor on a suitable timeline for feedback and revisions in the early stages of the project.

Q35. Are there existing design templates or components we must incorporate?

A35. No, we do not need to incorporate existing design templates. Only branding components should be adhered to, although we are exploring new ways to promote our brand via the website redesign.

Q36. Or should we create a full redesign guided by the brand style guidelines?

A36. We can use the brand style guidelines as a starting point for the redesign, but we are open to exploring other options.

Q37. Beyond standard web-security best practices, are there any CUNY SPS–specific protocols or compliance requirements we must follow?

A37.No, there are no specific protocols or compliance requirements that must be followed.

Q38. What was the previously awarded amount?

A38. This question is outside the scope of this project.

Q39. Is there any specified budget for this project?

A39. Please see response to question 7.

Goals/project success

Q40. How will the success of this project, specifically its contribution to enrollment growth, be measured? Are there defined KPIs or conversion benchmarks already set, or would the vendor be expected to help define those?

A40. The success of the website redesign will be measured in part by its ability to contribute meaningfully to enrollment growth. While we have some internal performance indicators in place, we expect the selected vendor to play an active role in refining and formalizing a set of conversion-focused KPIs. These may include:

• Increase in new student applications across all semesters/sessions

• Improved conversion rates from site visitors to inquiry, and inquiry to application

• Higher engagement with program pages and CTAs

• Decrease in bounce rate and exit rate on key landing pages

• Growth in organic traffic driven by SEO and content improvements

• Improved mobile performance and page load times

Q41. What are the acceptable performance thresholds under Core Web Vitals, and is there baseline data available from the current site? Are there third-party scripts or legacy tools that might hinder optimization efforts?

A41.Core web vitals is a set of metrics that represent our target goals, but can be flexible if needed. Baseline data for the existing website can be gathered as part of the discovery phase of this project. There are no major third-party integrations that would hinder optimization efforts.

Q42. Are there other parallel initiatives (e.g., CRM upgrades, marketing campaigns, rebranding efforts) that might impact the website redesign timeline or scope?

A42. No, there are no other parallel initiatives that might impact the website redesign timeline or scope.

Q43. What are the biggest challenges or pain points that have affected past digital projects, and are there known risks or institutional hurdles we should anticipate?

A43. The biggest challenges we have experienced with past digital projects include:

1. Complex Stakeholder Environment: CUNY SPS serves multiple departments with varying priorities. Content ownership is often distributed, and managing competing visions can slow alignment and decision-making.

2. Content Overload and Governance: Our current site includes a large volume of legacy content. Past projects struggled with scope creep and lacked strong governance, leading to inconsistency in tone, structure, and quality.

3. Limited Internal Resources: We have a small internal team managing a large digital presence. While we have talented staff (developer, SEO expert, editorial team), we rely heavily on external support during large projects—especially for migration, design, and strategy.

4. Platform Transition Complexity: The recent Drupal 10 migration was resource-intensive.

Now moving to WordPress (as mandated by the CUNY Central Office), we must re-architect the site rather than rebuild it as-is. Previous transitions highlighted issues with technical documentation, training, and system flexibility.

Despite these previous pain points, we will work dutifully with the selected vendor to ensure that this project is expedited to the best of our ability.

Q44. Are there any shared systems, cross-campus dependencies, or university-wide policies that could introduce risks or delays specific to this project?

A44. No, there are no system, dependencies, or policies that could introduce risks or delays to this project.

Q45. What’s going to make you sit back at the end of this engagement and say “Wow, that was a good project. That was worth every minute“?

A45. A great project will leave us saying “That was worth every minute” when:

• Prospective students can find the right program and apply without frustration

• Site visitors feel like the design and messaging truly reflect the quality and spirit of our school

• Internal teams—from marketing to academic departments—feel empowered to manage content easily and consistently

• We see measurable gains in conversions, organic traffic, and user engagement

• Our accessibility, SEO, and mobile performance meet or exceed industry benchmarks

• We have a scalable, sustainable platform we can grow with—without needing to rebuild again in 3 years

Q46. Are there websites or digital experiences you admire? What aspects of those would you like to incorporate?

A46. We compiled a list of websites that we admire, but design aspects will be discussed during discovery.

• Harvard University (https://www.harvard.edu)

• Western Governors University (WGU) (https://www.wgu.edu)

• University of Florida (UF) (https://www.ufl.edu)

• Southern New Hampshire University (SNHU) (https://degrees.snhu.edu)

• Purdue Global: (https://www.purdueglobal.edu/)

• University of Phoenix: (https://www.phoenix.edu/)

• Penn State World Campus: (https://www.worldcampus.psu.edu/)

Content/site administration

Q47. What are the challenges that are present for current administrators and content editors that you want to improve on with the new website?

A47. We want to simplify the content editor user experience for non-developer staff.

Q48. Do you need a specific content editorial and approval workflow?

A48. We want users to be able to edit but only publish with approval from an admin.

https://www.harvard.edu/ https://www.wgu.edu/ https://www.ufl.edu/ https://www.purdueglobal.edu/ https://www.phoenix.edu/ https://www.worldcampus.psu.edu/

Q49. How many site administrators, content administrators and/or content administrator groups do you currently support?

A49. We currently have 3 site admins and several content editors that have limited access to

Editorial, Program and Event content types.

Q50. Are you going to migrate all the content, or will you curate your content prior to the migration?

A50. We want to curate content prior to the migration.

Q51. What is a feature that you currently have that is invisible to us while navigating your website, that you want to update/migrate?

A51. We want to update and standardize the CSS styling in partnership with the vendor following industry best-practices.

Q52. Does “content creation” also include photography and video or will that be provided by your team?

A52. CUNY SPS will provide as much photography and video as possible.

Integrations

Q53. Could you please share the current level of integration (e.g., API, link-out, embed, etc.) for third-party platforms used on the website?

A53. There are no complex API integrations on our website.

Q54. For both HubSpot and Slate an integration can be as simple as putting an iframe into a page, or very complicated with multiple integration points and feedback loops. Where on this spectrum are you now?

A54. We currently don’t use this functionality, so integration would be part of the discovery process.

Training and documentation

Q55. How many trainings do you require so that your team can be properly enabled on your new website?

A55. Please refer to Part 3. Section 3.3, Implementation Services and Deliverables, Milestone 12, Training

Sessions.

Q56. Do you want us to “train the trainers” or do you want us to train content editors directly? If so, how many are there?

A56. Yes, we can use the “train the trainers” model.

Q57. What does your desired documentation for the project look like?

A57. Document the basic content creation and editing process for content editors, highlighting any areas that are unique to our site. Additionally, documentation should be provided for any custom code, custom plugins or front end tools.

Accessibility

Q58. Do you require a specific format or template for the Accessibility Conformance Report

(ACR) or VPAT submission? Should it reflect current tools/methods or proposed post-launch compliance?

A58. Yes - we do require a VPAT or ACR. We recommend it follow this template:

https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.itic.org%2FdotAsset

%2F9dde58d5-71da-4355-92f7-25ec5c75407c.doc&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK

^ This is to accommodate new requirements from New York State and the Americans with

Disabilities Act requiring more updated versions of WCAG in the products we use

Site history and proposal process

Q59. Is there an incumbent agency participating in this RFP process?

A59. Yes, there is an incumbent agency.

Q60. Was the current website developed in partnership with an external vendor, or was it an internal initiative? Who was the external vendor?

A60. Yes, the current website was developed in partnership with an external vendor. Their name is OHO.

Q61. Did you invite any specific vendors to reply to the RFP?

A61. No specific vendor was invited to reply to the RFP.

Q62. Proposal Submission: For the three required PDF volumes, are there any restrictions on file size, naming conventions, or encryption?

A62. Please refer to Part 1, Section II Proposal Due Location and Part 4: Technical and

Management Proposal Requirements (Proposal Volume II), first paragraph of the RFP.

Q63. Services and data location: Can you confirm whether all development, staging, and production environments must be hosted within the continental U.S., including any third-party services or CDNs? We have a multinational team of full-time employees, and need the flexibility to assign project work across our geographies.

https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fview.officeapps.live.com%2Fop%2Fview.aspx%3Fsrc%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.itic.org%252FdotAsset%252F9dde58d5-71da-4355-92f7-25ec5c75407c.doc%26wdOrigin%3DBROWSELINK&data=05%7C02%7CHelena.Gacina%40cuny.edu%7C53611129d8a74289d1a808dda75005a4%7C6f60f0b35f064e099715989dba8cc7d8%7C0%7C0%7C638850684309635711%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=OkZ7CGGcy4DCaoaSU%2B16%2B1RD7OZcPNMR80UI8LmRf6c%3D&reserved=0 https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fview.officeapps.live.com%2Fop%2Fview.aspx%3Fsrc%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.itic.org%252FdotAsset%252F9dde58d5-71da-4355-92f7-25ec5c75407c.doc%26wdOrigin%3DBROWSELINK&data=05%7C02%7CHelena.Gacina%40cuny.edu%7C53611129d8a74289d1a808dda75005a4%7C6f60f0b35f064e099715989dba8cc7d8%7C0%7C0%7C638850684309635711%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=OkZ7CGGcy4DCaoaSU%2B16%2B1RD7OZcPNMR80UI8LmRf6c%3D&reserved=0

A63.The awarded Contractor is expected to perform all services within the Continental United

States and the Contractor must ensure that all CUNY data (“Data”) is stored within the

Continental United States (“CONUS”). All Data in transit must be handled in accordance with

FIPS-140-2 or TLS1 or TLS2 (or successor).

Q64. Part 2: Proposer Qualifications and Requirements; and Diversity Participation Goals, Page#

6, Proposer Minimum Qualifications Paragraph I (b)

Will the government confirm that the requirement for “3+ higher-ed websites live ≥1 year” limited to accredited colleges and universities, or would K–12, vocational institutions, or government education portals qualify as comparable experience?

A64. Per the minimum proposer’s requirements in the RFP, all vendors considered for this project must have worked on website projects for at least three higher education institutions.

Vendors who do not meet this minimum requirement cannot be considered.

Q65. Part 2: Proposer Qualifications and Requirements; and Diversity Participation Goals, Page# 6, Proposer

Minimum Qualifications Paragraph I (a).

The RFP requires experience with “3+ higher-ed websites live ≥1 year.” We have designed and developed numerous websites across various sectors, however, we currently have two qualifying higher-ed projects references. In addition, we have a third highly relevant project with a large private sector client involving similar scope, scale, and technology. Would CUNY accept this third project as a comparable reference to meet the minimum qualification?

A65. No, we will not accept this third project. All proposers need to confirm work with three higher education institutions.

Q66. Part 2: Proposer Qualifications and Requirements; and Diversity Participation Goals, Page# 6 Proposer

Minimum Qualifications Paragraph I (b)

If a vendor does not have three higher-ed website projects but has substantial relevant work for complex government or healthcare CMS platforms, will that be considered sufficient for evaluation?

A66. No, we will not consider this vendor for evaluation.

Q67. Part 2: Proposer Qualifications and Requirements; and Diversity Participation Goals, Page# 6, Proposer

Minimum Qualifications Paragraph I (a)

Does the requirement for “5+ years in open-source CMS websites” need to be specific to Drupal and/or

WordPress, or can this include combined experience across multiple open-source platforms (e.g., Joomla, Drupal, WordPress)?

A67. This can include a combination of open source platforms, but we expect the vendor to have substantial experience in WordPress.

Q68. 3.7. Accessibility, Page# 14-15, Subsection 3.7.3 and 3.7.4, Will a self-generated VPAT or ACR be acceptable to demonstrate WCAG 2.1 AA and Section 508 compliance, or does CUNY require certification by an external accessibility audit firm?

A68. The University requires that compliance with accessibility standards be reviewed, tested, and verified by CUNY to ensure that the product matches up to the VPAT/ACR.

Q69. Part 3: Section 3.2, Page# 9, RFP state that "compliance with all current privacy and disclosure standards, including but not limited to, the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) and CCPA the

California Consumer Protection Act (“CCPA”)"

Given this is a U.S.-based university project, can you clarify the extent of GDPR applicability and expectations for compliance documentation?

A69. The GDPR applies when the personal data of individuals in the EU is processed (which includes, but not limited to, collecting, storing, and organizing such data). Vendors should consult with their attorneys for further guidance.

Q70. Part 3: Section 3.3, Page# 9, Implementation Services and Deliverables

Is there a preferred platform or workflow for Git version control (e.g., GitHub, GitLab), or is any Git-compliant workflow acceptable?

A70. Any Git compliant workflow is acceptable.

Q71. Part 9: Supplier Diversity Provisions, Page# 66, B. Business Participation Opportunities for MWBEs and SDVOBs

Is documentation of M/WBE or SDVOB participation (e.g., letters of intent or subcontractor agreements) required at the time of proposal submission, or only upon contract award?

A71. It is required at the time of proposal submission.

Clarify Qualification Criteria and Assessment

Q72. Can CUNY confirm whether the requirement for three U.S.-based higher education website projects (RFP

Section 2.4.1) is a pass/fail criterion for technical qualification under Part 6, Step 3, or if it is scored holistically alongside other technical capabilities, such as expertise in WordPress migrations, API integrations, or WCAG 2.2

AA compliance, in the Volume II: Technical and Management Proposal evaluation?

○ Rationale: Addendum No. 3 states firms not technically qualified are removed (Part 6, Step 3) but doesn’t clarify if the three-case-study requirement is a strict gatekeeper or part of a broader scoring matrix. This is critical for your agency, with one project, to assess disqualification risk if relying on partners (e.g., Human Made, OHO Interactive) for additional case studies. If scored holistically, your WordPress migration or accessibility expertise could offset a single case study, supporting a “go” decision. If pass/fail, a partnership or lead proposer with three projects is essential, potentially leading to a “no-go.”

○ Cross-Reference: Q3 (technical qualification priorities) and Q60 (WCAG 2.2

AA) don’t address the case study evaluation mechanism. Q4 (evaluation metrics) focuses on outcomes (e.g., enrollment, SEO), not qualification criteria.

A72. Please refer to Part 6, Page 26 of the RFP, Table 1 Proposal Scoring Criteria and Weights.

Q73. For the three U.S.-based higher education website projects (RFP Section 2.4.1), can CUNY clarify whether projects using CMS platforms other than WordPress (e.g., Drupal, Joomla) are acceptable, provided they demonstrate relevant redesign, migration, or user experience expertise?

Rationale: Addendum No. 3 does not specify whether the three projects must be WordPress-based (unlike Q44, which confirms no specific WordPress stack is required for the new site). This clarifies if your agency’s project and partners’ projects (e.g., Human Made’s

UIC, potentially non-WordPress) qualify, critical for meeting the technical qualification threshold (Part 6, Step 3). A flexible CMS requirement supports a “go” decision by broadening eligible case studies.

○ Cross-Reference: No prior question (e.g., Q44 on WordPress stack, Q9 on Drupal pain points) asks about CMS requirements for the three case studies specifically.

A73. Yes, that is acceptable; however, the vendor must also have experience working in WordPress.

Q74. What documentation or evidence must proposers submit to verify the three qualifying website projects (e.g., project summaries, URLs, client references, contracts), and will CUNY contact references to validate past performance?

○ Rationale: Addendum No. 3 does not detail how CUNY verifies case studies (unlike Q4, which asks about evaluation metrics but not documentation). This ensures your agency and partners (e.g., OHO Interactive) prepare compliant submissions, avoiding disqualification for technical non-qualification. Clarity on references informs partner selection, supporting a “go” decision if documentation is straightforward.

○ Cross-Reference: Q4 (evaluation metrics) and Q16 (vendor list) do not address documentation or reference verification.

A74. Required documentation must include a combination of: Project Summaries; URLs to Live Websites, Client References, Scope of Work/Contract Summary, and Outcomes or KPIs (optional, but strongly recommended). Yes, CUNY will contact references to validate past performance.

Q75. In the technical qualification assessment (Part 6, Step 3) for Volume II, does CUNY prioritize specific criteria, such as experience with higher education websites, large-scale content migrations, or complex integrations, beyond the three-project requirement?

Rationale: Addendum No. 3 states firms not technically qualified are removed but doesn’t specify evaluation priorities (unlike Q14 on success metrics, e.g., enrollment, SEO). This clarifies how

CUNY weights qualifications (e.g., your agency’s migration expertise vs. partners’ higher education portfolio), guiding proposal focus. If technical strengths offset case study limitations, a

“go” decision is viable.

○ Cross-Reference: No question (e.g., Q14, Q47 on migration) asks about technical qualification priorities post-case study.

A75. Please see response to question 72.

Clarify “Proposer” as Prime Contractor or Teaming Group

Q76. Does the term “Proposer” in RFP Section 2.4.1 allow the three qualifying website projects to be provided collectively by the prime contractor and subcontractors, or must the prime contractor alone provide all three projects to meet the technical qualification requirement?

○ Rationale: Addendum No. 3 does not define “Proposer” for case study requirements

(unlike Q16, which lists vendors but not teaming rules). This is critical for your agency, with one project, to leverage partners like Human Made (UIC, Harvard) or OHO

(Tufts). If subcontractors’ projects count, a partnership enables a “go” decision; if not, a

“no-go” may be necessary unless you secure a lead proposer.

○ Cross-Reference: Q16 and Q67 (MWBE/SDVOB goals) discuss subcontractors but not case study eligibility.

A76. Prime contractor must have completed at least three (3) higher education institutions’ primary public websites located within the United States, which have been fully operational for a minimum of one (1) year.

Q77. If subcontractors’ projects are permissible, are there requirements for the prime contractor to contribute at least one qualifying project, or can the prime rely entirely on subcontractors’ past performance to meet the three-project requirement?

○ Rationale: No prior question addresses prime contractor case study contributions (unlike

Q49 on editorial roles). This tests whether your agency can lead with one project, relying on partners for the rest, or must subcontract to a vendor with three projects (e.g., Elliance).

Flexibility supports a “go” decision by allowing you to lead the bid.

○ Cross-Reference: Q4, Q16, and Q67 do not cover prime/subcontractor case study splits.

A77. Please see response to question 76.

Q78. Are joint ventures or Contract Teaming Agreements recognized (under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)

Subpart 9.6 (48 CFR §9.601)) permitted under the RFP, and if so, can the three qualifying projects be provided collectively by all entities in the joint venture, similar to a prime-subcontractor teaming arrangement?

○ Rationale: Addendum No. 3 does not mention joint ventures (unlike Q16 on MWBE subcontractors). This explores an alternative partnership model, allowing your agency to co-propose with Human Made or OHO, pooling case studies. If permitted, this strongly supports a “go” decision by expanding partnership options.

○ Cross-Reference: No question (e.g., Q16, Q67) addresses joint ventures or their case study eligibility.

A78. No joint ventures or contract teaming agreements are allowed under this RFP.

Clarify Unknown Requirements

Q79. Can CUNY specify the expected scope of AI integration, if any, for the website (e.g., chatbots, personalized content), and will vendors be responsible for developing custom AI tools or integrating third-party solutions like Ocelot

(Q20, Q74)?

○ Rationale: Addendum No. 3 confirms interest in AI (Q18, Q64) and potential Ocelot integration (Q20, Q74) but lacks specifics on scope or development. This clarifies resource needs, as custom AI development may exceed your agency’s capacity without a partner like Human Made (with API expertise). A defined scope supports a “go” decision if within your capabilities.

○ Cross-Reference: Q18 (AI search interest), Q41 (AI tools), and Q64 (AI expectation) do not detail AI scope or development responsibilities.

A79. Please refer to Addendum No. 4 which replaced addendum No. 3.

Q80. Can CUNY specify the expected scope of AI integration, if any, for the website (e.g., chatbots, personalized content), and will vendors be responsible for developing custom AI tools or integrating third-party solutions like Ocelot

(Q20, Q74)?

○ Rationale: Addendum No. 3 confirms interest in AI (Q18, Q64) and potential Ocelot integration (Q20, Q74) but lacks specifics on scope or development. This clarifies resource needs, as custom AI development may exceed your agency’s capacity without a partner like Human Made (with API expertise). A defined scope supports a “go” decision if within your capabilities.

○ Cross-Reference: Q18 (AI search interest), Q41 (AI tools), and Q64 (AI expectation) do not detail AI scope or development responsibilities.

A80. Please see response to question 79.

Q81. Will CUNY provide a content audit or inventory of the ~1,500 pages (Q19) prior to migration, or is the vendor expected to conduct a full audit during the discovery phase, including identifying content to omit or rewrite (Q24, Q78)?

○ Rationale: Addendum No. 3 notes ~1,500 pages (Q19), with some to be omitted during discovery (Q24) and content needing rewrites (Q48, Q78), but doesn’t clarify audit responsibilities. This determines your workload, as conducting a full audit increases effort. If CUNY provides an inventory, a

“go” decision is more feasible with limited staff (one developer, Q12).

○ Cross-Reference: Q24, Q46, Q78 (migration scope) do not specify audit responsibilities.

A81. The content audit will be performed in collaboration with CUNY SPS staff as part of the discovery process. See response to question 23.

Q82. Are there specific performance benchmarks for mobile-first layouts beyond Google’s Core Web Vitals (Q72), such as maximum load times or device-specific requirements, to ensure the redesigned site meets CUNY’s mobile experience goals (Q11)?

○ Rationale: Addendum No. 3 mandates Core Web Vitals (Q72) and mobile-first layouts

(Q7, Q11) but lacks detailed benchmarks. This clarifies technical requirements, critical for your agency’s development capacity. Reasonable benchmarks support a “go” decision; stringent ones may require a partner like OHO (180+ clients).

○ Cross-Reference: Q11 (mobile experience), Q72 (Core Web Vitals) do not specify additional mobile benchmarks.

A82. Core Web Vitals represent our performance targets, not a strict requirement.

Support Go/No-Go Decision

Q83. Is there an incumbent vendor supporting CUNY SPS’s Drupal 10 website (sps.cuny.edu) or other CUNY

WordPress websites (e.g., www.cuny.edu), and if so, are they eligible to bid on this RFP?

○ Rationale: Addendum No. 3 does not identify incumbents (unlike Q47, which notes a smooth Drupal migration). This probes whether vendors like Human Made (Pantheon partner) or Exhibit A agencies (e.g., OHO, Elliance) have an edge, critical for assessing competition. A strong incumbent may support a “no-go” decision unless you secure a comparable partner.

○ Cross-Reference: Q47 (migration process) and Q66 (CUNY IT role) do not address incumbent vendors or their eligibility.

A83. Yes, there is a vendor currently assisting with development work on the Drupal 10 site and they are eligible to bid on this RFP.

http://www.cuny.edu/

Q84. Part 9. Supplier Diversity Provisions, Section B, Business Participation Opportunities for MWBEs and

SDVOBs, Page 66, paragraph 2 and 3 and, Form 5, Supplier Diversity (MWBE/SDVOB) Utilization Plan

CUNY SPS has established a total MWBE participation goal of 30% for this project. Can this goal be achieved by an

MWBE acting as the prime contractor (not as a subcontractor)? Or must the MWBE prime contractor subcontract out a minimum 30% of the work to another MWBE?

If the MWBE prime contractor can satisfy the total MWBE participation requirement by itself alone, then how should the contractor indicate this on the CUNY Supplier Diversity Utilization Plan document? The document lists options/selections for MWBE subcontractors/suppliers to fulfill the goals, however it does not provide an option/selection for an MWBE prime contractor.

A84.Yes, a certified MWBE firm acting as the prime contractor can fulfill the entire MWBE participation goal for this project on its own, without the need to subcontract to another MWBE.

Per CUNY’s Supplier Diversity Provisions and New York State Executive Law Article 15-A, work performed directly by a certified MWBE prime contractor counts toward the MWBE participation goal. Therefore, if a certified

MWBE prime is awarded the contract and performs at least 30% of the total contract value itself, it will be deemed to have met the 30% MWBE participation goal.

Scope Q85. Implementation Timelines: What are the specific timelines for each phase of the project (discovery, design, development, testing, and deployment)?

A85. We are relying on the chosen vendor to dictate the exact timeline, but will need to complete the project within 18 months from when the contract is approved.

Q86. Future Enhancements: Are there any anticipated enhancements or additional functionalities post-deployment that we should be aware of?

A86. No, there are no future enhancements to discuss at this time.

CMS

Q87. Current CMS Data Migration:

A. Can you provide more details on the existing CMS and the complexity involved in migrating data to the new platform?

B. Content Inventory & Prioritization: Will CUNY SPS provide a prioritized list of content types and pages that are critical to migrate early, or should the vendor define this during discovery?

A87.

A. We are in the process of sunsetting our current CMS (Drupal) and moving into WordPress.

Since this is a new CMS for us and we have yet to undergo training, we are unable to share the specifics regarding the complexities of migrating data to the new platform.

B. Content types and pages will be defined during discovery.

Q88. Integration with Third-Party Tools:

A. Are there specific third-party tools or plugins that need to be integrated with the CMS? If yes, please provide details.

B. Are there any specific WordPress plugins or frameworks (e.g., Gutenberg, Elementor, WP

Engine) that CUNY prefers or prohibits?

C. Analytics & Tagging Tools: Beyond Google Tag Manager, are there other analytics platforms or dashboards in use (e.g., Hotjar, Adobe Analytics)?

A88. A. No, there are no specific third-party tools or plugins that need to be integrated with the CMS.

B. No, there are no WordPress plugins or frameworks (e.g., Gutenberg, Elementor, WP Engine) that CUNY prefers or prohibits.

C. We use Google Analytics.

Q89. CMS Customization:

A. What level of customization is expected for the CMS functionalities? Are there any custom modules or features required?

B. HubSpot & Slate Integration: Can you clarify the intended use cases for these integrations

(e.g., form submission tracking, lead nurturing, CRM data sync)?

C. Approval Workflow: Will content approval workflows need to integrate with existing tools

(e.g., SharePoint, email notifications), or should this be native to WordPress?

A89. A. This will be defined during discovery.

B. This will be defined during the discovery process.

C. This will be native to Wordpress.

Design

Q90. Accessibility Requirements: Are there specific accessibility standards (e.g., WCAG) that the new website must adhere to?

A90. The new website must adhere to the most current version of the WCAG guidelines in accordance with

NYS Executive Law § 170-F and NYS IT Policy NYS-P08-005.

Q91. User Feedback: Has any user feedback been collected regarding the current website design? If so, can you share the key findings?

A91. No, we do not have any formal user feedback to share on the current website.

Q92. Branding Guidelines:

A. Can you elaborate on any specific branding guidelines or visual identity elements that need to be maintained in the redesign?

B. Will the vendor be responsible for developing brand elements beyond web templates (e.g., iconography, photography style, extended color palette)?

A92. A. CUNY SPSP will use the brand guideline document that was provided in the RFP document.

B. CUNY SPS will be responsible for developing a majority of the brand elements; however, the vendor’s input in this area is also welcome.

Q93. User Personas: Will any existing audience personas or research be shared during discovery, or should vendors expect to create all personas from scratch?

A93. We conducted user persona research many years ago. While we will gladly share this information with the vendor, we expect that some of the audience personas may have changed since then. We want to use some of the discovery period to solidify our user personas.

Q94. Faculty Directory Requirements: Can CUNY provide additional detail on desired functionality for the faculty directory (e.g., filters, profiles, search features)?

A94. We will need to discuss this during the discovery process to fully understand the options available. At this time, we have profiles and filters in the directory.

Q95. Storytelling Features: Can you elaborate on what is envisioned under “interactive storytelling”? Are you expecting dynamic media, microsite experiences, or something else?

A95. We are open to different formats, but the key goal is to highlight our value propositions, student outcomes, and program impact in ways that are immersive, human, and memorable.

Content

Q96, Content Migration: What is the volume of content that needs to be migrated to the new website? Are there specific types of content that require special handling?

A96. See response to question 23.

Q97. Content Approval Workflow: Can you outline the current content approval workflow and any changes you are looking to implement post-redesign?

A97. We currently have content editors that can edit and publish limited types of content (e.g. News or

Events). We want to keep these roles and want to give more users access to edit and request approval to publish.

Technical Requirements

Q98. Hosting Requirements: Are there specific hosting requirements or preferences for the new website?

A98. No, we currently host our website through Pantheon.

Q99. Performance Metrics: What are the key performance metrics that the new website should achieve (e.g., load times, uptime, etc.)?

A99.

- Our target goals for load times and front end performance follow Core Web Vitals

- Our target uptime is 99%

Q100. Security Protocols: Are there any specific security protocols or compliance standards that need to be followed?

A100. We expect the vendor to follow industry best-practices implementing the proper security for a large, public web application.

Q101. Accessibility Review Partner:

A. Will an internal CUNY team perform accessibility testing, or should vendors budget for external accessibility audits?

B. VPAT/ACR Expectations: For the ACR/VPAT submission, will CUNY accept vendor self-attestation for custom WordPress builds, or must this be verified by a third-party?

A101. A. CUNY will internally be performing the audit, via an accessibility review team housed under

CUNY Central Student Affairs.

B. The University requires that compliance with accessibility standards be reviewed, tested, and verified by CUNY to ensure that the product matches up to the VPAT/ACR.

RFP Process

Q102. Evaluation Criteria: Can you provide more details on how the proposals will be evaluated and the weight of each criterion?

A102. Please see response to question 72.

Q103. Post Submission Process: What is the anticipated timeline and process for evaluating proposals, including any potential interviews or presentations?

A103. There is no estimate available.

Q104. BAFO Guidance: If Best and Final Offers are requested, will vendors be given insight into specific budget expectations or just encouraged to lower cost?

A104. No, CUNY will not provide an insight into the budget expectations.

Q105. Reference Interviews: Will CUNY contact references during the evaluation period, or only once a vendor is under final consideration?

A105. CUNY will contact references once a vendor is under final consideration.

SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS

THIS ADDENDUM NO. 8 IS PART OF YOUR PROPOSAL AND IS TO BE INCLUDED WITH

VOLUME I OF YOUR PROPOSAL. YOUR SIGNATURE BELOW WARRANTS THAT YOU

UNDERSTAND THIS ADDENDUM AND THAT YOU HAVE MADE THE APPROPRIATE

ADJUSTMENTS TO YOUR PROPOSAL AND CALCULATIONS. THE UNIVERSITY RESERVES

THE RIGHT TO REJECT PROPOSALS SUBMITTED WITHOUT ALL ADDENDA PROPERLY

SIGNED.

Signature

Title

Company Name

Date