Addendum-One.pdf

Office of State Procurement 112 Administration Building

50 Sherburne Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155

SOLICITATION ADDENDUM

Addendum No.: 01 Date of Addendum: July 22, 2026

Due Date, Time: July 27, 2026, 3:00 PM CT Revised Due Date, Time: July 30, 2026, 3:00 PM CT

Buyer: Kaleigh Stevens Agency: Office of State Procurement

SWIFT Event/Posting Ref. No.: G0210 - 2000018472 Title:

Assessments: Literacy Screening Tool for Grades K-3

SCOPE OF ADDENDUM

This addendum, containing the following revisions, additions, deletions, or clarifications, is hereby made part of the Solicitation, including the Sample Contract and Exhibits if applicable.

The purpose of this addendum is to revise a section of the RFP, revise the solicitation due date and time, and answer questions received about the Solicitation.

Responders acknowledge receipt of this addendum by responding to SWIFT Event No. G0210 - 2000018472, Version 2 (or more recent version) by the solicitation due date and time.

Except as modified by this addendum, all the terms and conditions remain in full force and effect.

ADDENDUM

I. Section 5 of the RFP is DELETED and REPLACED as follows:

SECTION 5 – EVALUATION PROCEDURE AND CRITERIA

The State will conduct an evaluation of responses to this Solicitation. The evaluations will be conducted in three phases:

Phase 1 - Review responses for responsiveness and pass/fail requirements Phase 2 - Evaluate responses Phase 3 - Select finalist(s)

Phase 1 – Responsiveness and Pass/Fail Requirements

The purpose of this phase is to determine if each response complies with mandatory requirements. The State will first review each proposal for responsiveness to determine if the Responder satisfies all mandatory requirements. The State will evaluate these requirements on a pass/fail basis.

Mandatory Requirements. The following will be considered on a pass/fail basis:

• Responses must be received by the due date and time specified in this RFP.

• Responder meets all required specifications outlined in Attachment D: Specifications, Part 2, unless all responders are unable to meet the same required specification and the State elects to waive that requirement.

Phase 2 - Evaluate Responses

Only those responses found to have met Phase 1 criteria will be considered in Phase 2.

The factors and weighting on which responses will be evaluated are:

1. Acceptance of State’s Terms and Conditions 100 points

2. Responses to Specifications, Attach. D, Part 2, Sections 1 – 11 500 points

3. Responses to Specifications, Attach. D, Part 2, Sections 12 – 17, and Section 19 0 points

4. Responses to Accessibility of Services or Products

Specifications, Attach. D, Part 2, Section 18 100 points

5. Cost Detail 300 points

1,000 points

6. Preference Points (if applicable) 120 points (in addition to 1,000 available)

Preference points are described under Solicitation Terms and will be applied to the total score after points have been awarded.

The scoring rubric that will be used to score responses to Specifications, Attachment D, Part 2, Sections 1 – 11, is attached as Attachment E.

Phase 3 - Select Finalist(s)

Only those responses that have been evaluated under Phase 2 shall be eligible for Phase 3.

The State will make its selection based on best value, as determined by this evaluation process. The State reserves the right to pursue negotiations on any exception taken to the State’s standard terms and conditions.

In the event that negotiated terms cannot be reached, the State reserves the right to terminate negotiations and begin negotiating with the next highest scoring responder or take other actions as the State deems appropriate.

If the State anticipates multiple awards, the State reserves the right to negotiate with more than one Responder.

It is anticipated that the evaluation and selection will be completed by September 30, 2026.

II. The State extends the due date and time of the Solicitation from July 27, 2026, 3:00 PM CT, to July 30, 2026, 3:00 PM

CT, 3:00 PM CT.

III. Below are the State’s responses to the questions received about the Solicitation.

Q1. Is it the intent of the State to select only one vendor, or is it the intent to select multiple vendors from which districts can choose?

A1. The State intends to select multiple vendors from which districts can choose.

Q2. Does the State intend to create an approved list, establish a contract with a preferred vendor, or a mix of the two (preferred vendor + alternate list)?

A2. The State intends to select multiple vendors from which districts can choose. Of the selected vendors, all will be required to execute a contract containing the terms under which districts would purchase, but none will be marked as preferred or alternate.

Q3. Could you define the activities expected for the “implementation period” described in the following paragraph? “The screening tools approved through this solicitation will only be approved for the following school years: 2027-2028, 2028-2029, and 2029-2030. The screening tools will not be approved for the 2026-27 school year. The time between the contract effective date and the 2027-2028 school year is intended to serve as the contract implementation period.” Note: this paragraph is the second to last paragraph of Subsection 2 of Section 2 of the RFP.

A3. The implementation period will be used for activities such as district recruitment/participation, district ordering, planning, training, rostering, onboarding, and ensuring readiness for Fall 2027 screening.

Q4. Would MDE provide counts of LEAs and students for each of the currently approved literacy screener assessments?

A4. There are about 535 districts and 240,000 Kindergarten - Grade 3 students in Minnesota. The State currently has two approved literacy screener assessments: FastBridge and DIBELS. Approximately 384 districts and 223,000 students use FastBridge. Approximately 33 districts and 10,700 students use

DIBELS.

Q5. Does MDE have an estimate of the number of LEAs and students expected for the new tool(s) outlined in the

RFP?

A5. There are about 535 districts and 240,000 Kindergarten - Grade 3 students in Minnesota. The State is not able to estimate how many students or districts will use each tool since the State does not know how many tools will be approved or how many districts will use each tool.

Q6. Can responders submit supplemental materials (those not specially asked for) as appendices?

A6. Responders may submit supplemental materials that the State has not requested. The State is under no obligation to review such supplemental materials.

Q7. Would the State like to review any optional print ancillaries that accompany the online assessment? If so, where should the print ancillaries be sent and to whom?

A7. If a responder wishes to include optional print ancillaries that accompany the online assessment as part of their proposal, the responder should either upload a digital version of the print ancillaries as part of their proposal or provide a short description of the print ancillaries and indicate if the responder will mail them to the State at a later date. The State may request physical copies of the print ancillaries at a later date.

Q8. Regarding the requirement for “testing out of further screening,” could the State clarify if this refers to:

• Internal Adaptive Logic: The tool automatically bypasses or 'gates' sub-measures (e.g., phonemic awareness) once a student demonstrates mastery in higher-level domains (e.g., oral reading fluency)?

• External Exemption: A student being exempt from the universal screening process entirely based on a previous proficiency score from an alternate assessment?

• Early Exit during Administration: A student reaching a ceiling during a single session, causing the test to conclude early? Or

• Something else/Other - Clarify

A8. This refers to a model where a district can discontinue the administration of a subtest for any students who demonstrate mastery of the assessed skill. Responders should review Attachment D, Part 2, Section

1.13 for additional information.

Q9. Define or explain the "test out" model - does this refer to meeting a specific criterion (CRT) level or a percentile rank? Does this need to be tied to the Minnesota grade-level standards or something else?

A9. Responders should review Attachment D, Part 2, Section 1.13 for an explanation of the “test out” model.

The State is not requiring the “test out” model be tied to state level standards.

Q10. In Attachment D – Specifications, Sections 4-10, would you clarify what is meant by “benchmarked scores”?

A10. In general, in testing benchmark scores are empirically established cut scores on a universal screening measure that classify student performance into risk categories — typically at benchmark, below benchmark, or well below benchmark — based on the likelihood of meeting end-of-year proficiency targets. Benchmark scores are norm- or criterion-referenced and are typically set at the beginning, middle, and end of the academic year.

Q11. What do you mean by the term “morphological awareness”? Can you explain what you want to see regarding that?

A11. Morphological awareness involves the ability to consciously identify, understand, and manipulate the smallest meaningful units in language (morphemes), including base words, inflectional endings, and derivational affixes. It encompasses recognizing how morphemes combine to form complex words, interpreting the meaning and grammatical function of those word parts, and applying this knowledge to support word reading, spelling, and vocabulary development.

Evidence based measures typically require active manipulation and are not limited to simple recognition.

Q12. Could you describe the required Phonemic Awareness Tasks expected at Grades K and 1? For example:

blending, substitution, deletion/elision, segmentation, phonological working memory.

A12. The State has no predetermined Phonemic Awareness skills. The currently approved measures examine phoneme segmenting.

Q13. We noted a requirement for Letter Sounds. Does the State also expect Letter Naming as part of that task?

A13. No. The currently approved measures examine Letter Names and Letter Sounds separately.

Q14. Can the State describe the task "Reading with Real Words" and how that differs from Oral Language?

A14. Oral language should measure expressive and receptive language skills, not reading of words.

Q15. Describe what is meant by Oral Language and how that differs from Reading Fluency?

A15. Oral language should measure expressive and receptive language skills, not reading of words.

Q16. In Attachment D – Specifications, Section 11, the wording for subsections 11.1 through 11.3 states, “Upon request by the State will you provide” the named documentation, and includes a Yes/No response option only and no space for inclusion of a link or descriptive response. After a responder selects “Yes” in answer to those questions and submits their application through the online portal, will the State contact the responder’s Contact Person (Solicitation Questions) to request a separate submission of the named documentation? If not, how are responders expected to provide the documentation with, or after, they submitted their proposal? In addition, once provided via however method, will those named documents submitted then be considered part of the public record, or will their confidential/non-public proprietary and trade secret status exempt them?

A16. The State may request this information from the responder’s contact person at a later date. Once the State receives this information, the information will be earmarked as potentially containing trade secret data and may be exempt the State from providing the data, in the instance of a public data request, if the data are considered to be Non-Public/Trade Secret data (as defined by Minn. Stat. § 13.37).

Q17. In Attachment D: Specifications, Section 11. Documentation Upload or URL, Sections 11.1 – 11.4, In each of these requirements, the State requests documentation, but also indicates responders should submit the documentation upon request. Will the State confirm if responders should upload evidence (documentation) along with proposal responses by the stated deadline?

A17. Responders should not upload the requested documentation with the proposal responses by the stated deadline. This information may be requested from responders at a later date.

Q18. Could you confirm that responders are not supposed to include the following with our proposal submission:

technical manuals, administration manuals, evidence of validity, reliability, and classification accuracy, and norming data?

A18. Confirmed. The State may request this information directly from the responder at a later date.

Q19. Will the technical manuals, administration manuals, evidence of validity, reliability, and classification accuracy, and norming data be requested in Phase II?

A19. If the State requests this information, it will be requested in Phase II.

Q20. If a responder provides a URL to a guidance document that includes a login link and usernames and passwords, will the guidance document itself become part of the responder’s proposal and a public record if the responder gets an award, or will only the link to the document be considered a public record?

A20. The login link, usernames and passwords, and guidance document, submitted as part of the responder’s proposal, will be considered public information once an award is made regardless of whether that responder is awarded a contract.

Q21. Is there a requirement to produce an alignment study of assessment to standards?

A21. No.

Q22. Is there any word limit for the responses in Attachment D?

A22. No.

Q23. Could you clarify whether the response field in Attachment D supports rich text, embedded images, and hyperlinks, or is it limited to plain text only?

A23. Any area that does not include a checkbox (☐) or Click or tap here to enter text. field will support rich text, embedded images, and hyperlinks. Responders may respond outside the checkbox (☐) or Click or tap here to enter text. fields if it is necessary to include rich text, embedded images, and/ or other material as part of their response to that particular area. Finally, responders may also submit a separate document that includes rich text, embedded images, and/ or other material so long as the responder clearly identifies to which section the separate document responds.

Q24. A previous version of this solicitation included a workforce certificate requirement. There is no requirement in this solicitation. We have a certificate, should we submit it anyway?

A24. No. Responders do not need to submit their workforce certificate as part of their proposal.

Q25. Regarding the requirement for ISO 27001 (Exhibit A, Section 40.16 of the Sample Contract) – is it for ISO 27001 and SOC2 Type 2, or is SOC2 Type 2 sufficient?

A25. SOC2 Type 2 is sufficient.

Q26. Is Attachment E rubric scored using raw points that are subsequently normalized or converted to the 500-point technical score?

A26. Yes. A responders will receive a score in the form of a percentage that represents the rubric points earned out of the number of points available (for the specific tool(s) and submitted grade levels proposed by the responder). If a responder proposes a combination of tools, the responder’s total rubric score will be all rubric scores weighted by grade.

Q27. What is the total possible raw score available for the Attachment E rubric?

A27. There is not a single total possible raw score available for the Attachment E rubric since it depends on the subtests and grade levels each assessment covers.

Q28. Are any sections or indicators within Attachment E weighted differently than the raw point values shown in the rubric?

A28. No.

Q29. Is there an evaluation worksheet or scoring matrix that shows how the Appendix E scores aggregate to the 500-point technical score?

A29. No, not at this time.

Q30. In Attachment E: Grade K-3 Universal and Dyslexia Literacy Screener Rubric - for indicators scored "per required subtest" or "per required subtest per grade," could the State confirm the maximum points available for each indicator and the total possible Phase II score used by evaluators?

A30. The State is not able to provide the maximum points available for each indicator or the total possible Phase II score used by evaluators. The maximum points available for each indicator depends on the subtests and grade levels each assessment covers. The final Attachment E rubric score will be converted to a final score out of 500 points. Responders should review Section I and A26, above, for additional information.

Q31. The RFP indicates that the Cost Detail is worth 300 points. Could you clarify the methodology used to evaluate cost proposals? Is cost scored using a mathematical formula (e.g., lowest responsive cost receives the full 300 points with all other proposals scored proportionally), or will evaluators assign points based on qualitative review?

A31. Cost is scored using a mathematical formula. A scenario will be used. All scenario elements will be added together and the responder with the lowest cost will be awarded the full 300 points. All other proposals will be scored proportionally.

Q32. Could the State provide the evaluation criteria or scoring rubric that will be used for Section 18 (Accessibility of Services or Products)?

A32. The total of 100 points will be split into two categories of 50 points each and rated by Accessibility experts.

The first category relates to the responder’s narrative responses to the accessibility of services or products questions found in Subsections 18.1 – 18.2 of Attachment D, Part 2. The narrative responses will be evaluated and scored by the MNIT Accessibility Team. The State will compile all evaluator scores and then average the evaluator scores

The second category relates to the completed VPAT or ACR requested via Subsection 18.3 . The completed VPAT or ACR will be evaluated and scored by the MNIT Accessibility team. The State will compile all evaluator scores and then average the evaluator scores for the Section

The scores for the two categories will be added together and rounded to the nearest full point to obtain the responder’s score for this Factor out of 100 total points.

Q33. Will evaluators consider evidence provided throughout the proposal and referenced technical documentation, or only evidence presented within the response to the applicable specification section?

A33. Evaluators will make every attempt to consider the entirety of a responder’s response as they score specific sections. Responders are responsible for clearly indicating what materials in their response apply to which specification sections.

Q34. The evaluation table references Attachment E, Part 2, Sections 1–11. Could the State confirm that this refers to Attachment D (Specifications), with Attachment E serving as the scoring rubric?

A34. See Section I above. The reference to Attachment E, Part 2, Sections 1–11 in the evaluation table was in error.

Q35. Could you clarify the relationship between the Phase I pass/fail review described in the RFP and the Phase I Required Criteria checklist contained in Attachment E?

A35. See Section I, above. Reference to Attachment E in Phase 1 was in error. All pass/fail requirements in Attachment D (Phase 1) relate to the Required Criteria checklist contained in Attachment E. No responders will pass Phase 1 if they do not meet all Required Criteria list in Attachment E.

Q36. Is there a size limit for each file upload?

A36. No.

Q37. We have two different solutions that we are submitting for consideration. How do we submit both through the single Event in SWIFT?

A37. Responders should complete a separate Attachment D: Specifications for each solution and ensure each Attachment D is clearly labeled. Responders may complete a single Attachment F: Price Schedule, but pricing for each solution should be clearly identified and listed as separate line items. Then, responders should upload all documents in the area where instructed.

END OF ADDENDUM