Administrative Document - RFP #1199.docx

STATE OF IDAHO

DIVISION OF PURCHASING

FOR

Idaho Transportation Department

Request For Proposal

Law Enforcement Liaison

RFP Number: #1199

Table of Contents

Section 1 Administrative Information and Overview

1.1 Purpose

The State of Idaho’s (“State”) Division of Purchasing (“DOP”), on behalf of the Idaho Transportation Department (“ITD”) is issuing this Request For Proposal (“RFP”) to solicit Proposals from qualified and experienced firms (“Offerors”), that can provide Law Enforcement Liaison services. Background information is provided in Exhibit 2. General Requirements are provided in Exhibit 3. The complete scope of work is provided in Exhibit 4 with a list of definitions pertinent to this event listed in Exhibit 1.

1.2 Procurement Schedule

Pre-Proposal Meeting:

Deadline to submit questions:

Closing Date (deadline to submit Proposal):

Public Opening Date:

Bid Opening Link:

The State will make every effort to adhere to the schedule below, but reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to adjust the schedule.

8/4/2026 @ 11:00 am MT 8/10/2026 @ 11:59 pm MT See the IPRO Powered by Luma Event Main Page for current closing date and time.

8/24/2026 @ 10:30 am MT Join the meeting now

1.3 RFP Lead

Name:

Title & Agency:

Email:

The individual listed below (referred to as “RFP Lead”) is responsible for the conduct of this procurement. From the issue date of this RFP, until a contract is awarded, or the RFP is cancelled, Offerors are prohibited from communicating with any State employee, Official, or Evaluators regarding this RFP or procurement.

Erik Schmidt Buyer, Division of Purchasing Erik.Schmidt@adm.idaho.gov

1.4 Pre-Proposal Conference

Link:

A non-mandatory pre-proposal conference will be held to provide an overview of the RFP process, the scope of work, and submission requirements. While attendance is highly encouraged, it is not mandatory. The meeting will be conducted virtually, with the access link provided below. To inform the State of your planned interest and attendance, please complete and submit Exhibit 5.

Join the meeting now

1.5 IPRO eProcurement System

This Solicitation is issued by the State via the State’s eProcurement system, IPRO. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to monitor IPRO for any updates or amendments.

Link: IPRO POWERED BY LUMA

1.7 Questions

The Offeror must review this entire RFP solicitation, including associated documents. All questions, requests for clarification, or other correspondence must be submitted in writing via email to the RFP Lead. See Exhibit 6 for additional instructions. Questions must be submitted using the table provided within Exhibit 6.

1.8 Modifications and Exceptions to Requirements, Terms, and Conditions

1.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

7. Vendors are strongly encouraged to submit any proposed modifications to the requirements, terms, or conditions of the RFP on Exhibit 7 – Contract Modifications and Exceptions prior to the deadline to submit questions. Questions regarding these requirements must contain the following:

0. The rationale for the specific requirement being unacceptable to the party submitting the question (define the deficiency).

0. Recommended verbiage for the State’s consideration that is consistent in content, context, and form with the State’s requirement that is being questioned.

0. Explanation of how the State’s acceptance of the recommended verbiage is fair and equitable to both the State and to the party submitting the question.

7. In the event that a Proposal contains modifications or exceptions to any Solicitation requirements, terms, or conditions which are not addressed during the question and answer period, they must be identified and submitted on Exhibit 6 - Modification and Exception Form and must contain the same information outlined in Section 1.8, above. The State will not consider any modifications or exceptions that are not identified specifically on Exhibit 6.

7. The State has sole discretion to determine if the modifications or exceptions submitted by an Offeror would result in a material change or otherwise threaten the integrity of the procurement process. See Idaho Terms and Conditions Background and Limitations. Pursuant to the Idaho Administrative Procedures Act (IDAPA) 38.05.01.084.e, the State may only negotiate non-material modifications or exceptions. Modifications or exceptions which the State determines to be material, or which otherwise threaten the integrity of the procurement process, will not be accepted or negotiated. If the Offeror has conditioned its Proposal on the State’s acceptance or negotiation of its proposed modifications or exceptions, and the modifications or exceptions are deemed material, the Offeror will be given the opportunity to retract the proposed modifications or exceptions from its Proposal. Failure to do so will result in the Offeror’s Proposal being found non-responsive, after which it will receive no further consideration.

7. Non-material modifications or exceptions may be discussed with the apparent successful Offeror, at the discretion of the State; however, the State must have the right to reject any and all such modifications and/or exceptions, or to call an end to such discussions, and to instruct the Offeror to amend its Proposal and remove the modifications and/or exceptions. Failure to do so may result in the State finding the Proposal non-responsive.

7. Except as otherwise provided within the Solicitation, the State will not consider modifications or exceptions to the requirements, terms, or conditions which are proposed after the RFP Closing Date.

1.9 Amendments

The State may issue amendments to make changes to the RFP, or to respond to any questions. Amendments will be posted on IPRO. Offerors are responsible for monitoring IPRO for updates and amendments. All published amendments must become part of this RFP, and must be considered by the Offeror in its Proposal. Oral interpretations or clarifications of this RFP are not binding and should not be relied upon. Any verbal responses or informal communications from the State regarding this RFP are considered unofficial and will not be binding.

1.10 Authority

This procurement is conducted in accordance with IDAPA 38.05.01 and pursuant to Title 67, Chapter 92 of the Idaho Code.

Section 2 Format & Submission Requirements

2.1 Adherence to Requirements

The Proposal must be submitted in accordance with the requirements set forth in this document. Any Proposal that does not adhere to the requirements may be deemed non-responsive and rejected. The State reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to waive any minor informalities or immaterial non-compliance.

2.2 Deadline to Submit

All Proposals are due at the date and time specified in the Procurement Schedule (Section 1.2). Late Proposals must not be accepted or considered. The State must not be responsible for any technical issues, difficulties, or delays. Offerors are strongly encouraged to begin the process of submitting the Proposal response far enough in advance of the Closing Date/Time to allow for resolution of any technical difficulties.

2.3 Submittal Form Templates

The Offeror must ensure that their response meets all requirements detailed within this RFP. This RFP contains Submittal Forms, which must be used by the Offeror to submit their Proposal. Offerors must not re-create these Submittal Forms, create their own Submittal Forms, or edit the format structure of the Submittal Forms. An electronic copy of each Submittal Form is posted along with this RFP. The Offeror must download, complete, and submit each Submittal Form in their response.

2.4 General Format Requirements

The Proposal response must meet the following requirements:

2.4.1 The Offeror must not embed information, embed files, or embed any links within the Submittals.

2.4.2 Be made on standard 8.5” x 11” paper size.

2.4.3 Use a minimum font size of ten (10) (images, figures, graphs, charts, are excluded from this font size).

2.4.4 Use a font style such as: Calibri, Arial, Times New Roman, or similar.

2.4.5 The Offeror must not attach additional information to any Submittal Form (unless it has been explicitly requested). Any additional attachments submitted will not be considered in the evaluation process.

2.4.6 Cost information must only be contained within the Cost Proposal Submittal Form. No other document or Submittal Form may contain cost or pricing information.

2.5 Page Limits

The Submittal Forms have maximum page limit requirements, as shown in the table below. The Offeror must ensure that their Proposal meets these page limit requirements. Offerors must not exceed the maximum page limits. Please note that the page limit applies exclusively to the front side of a page only (i.e. a ‘1 Page’ implies that the Offeror can only provide a response on one side of a piece of paper). Additional text will be removed or redacted before being provided to evaluators; only the text within the page limit will be evaluated. Offerors may add a cover page and table of contents which will not affect the Maximum Page Limits and this information will not be used for evaluating Offerors Proposal. Any substantive content added to the cover page or table of contents will be removed or redacted before being provided to evaluators.

2.6 Electronic Submission Instructions

The Offeror must submit the Proposal as follows:

1.

2.

2.1.

2.2.

2.3.

2.4.

2.5.

2.6.

2.6.1. The Proposal must be submitted electronically through IPRO POWERED BY LUMA. The State will not accept Proposals in any other manner (i.e. facsimile, email, or hardcopy submissions). All Offerors participating in this Solicitation must establish an account in the IPRO system, as it is necessary in order to process and/or award the resulting Contract(s). Establishing an account is free.

Link: IPRO POWERED BY LUMA

Please make sure that the entity profile under which the Proposal is submitted in IPRO, is the same legal entity presented in the uploaded response materials. If there are any discrepancies, the entity information provided within Submittal Form A prevails.

2.6.2. The Proposal must be submitted in the following forms:

* If applicable. Applies to Proposals with trade secrets as discussed below.

2.6.3. All electronic files must be in Adobe PDF, Microsoft Word, or Microsoft Excel format as noted in the table above.

2.6.4. The Proposal file(s) must not be password protected or locked in any way.

2.6.5. All submission materials must be submitted at the same time. If multiple submissions are received, only the latest timely submission will be considered.

2.6.6. Alternate Proposals are not allowed.

2.6.7. Note: When submitting through IPRO, enter your Cost in IPRO as “$0.01”.

2.6.8. If your Proposal contains trade secrets (see Section 2.7), submit an additional redacted version. This submittal must have 'Redacted' in the file name.

2.7 Trade Secrets and Non-Public Information

The Idaho Public Records Act, Idaho Code title 74, chapter 1 (the “Act”) defines trade secrets to “include a formula, pattern, compilation, program, computer program, device, method, technique or process that derives economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by other persons and is subject to the efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.” The Act also defines other records that may be exempt from public disclosure.

In addition to marking each page of the document with a trade secret or other exemption notation (as applicable; and as provided in Paragraph 28 of the Solicitation Instructions to Vendors), Offerors must also:

1.

2.

2.1.

2.2.

2.3.

2.4.

2.5.

2.6.

2.7.

2.7.1. Identify with particularity the precise text, illustration, or other information contained within each page marked “trade secret” or “exempt from disclosure” (it is not sufficient to simply mark the entire page). The specific information you deem “trade secret” or “exempt” within each noted page must be highlighted, italicized, identified by asterisks, contained within a text border, or otherwise clearly delineated from other text/information and specifically identified as a “trade secret” or “exempt from disclosure.”

2.7.2. Provide a separate document entitled “List of Redacted Trade Secret and Exempt Information” which provides a succinct list of all trade secret and exempt information noted in your Proposal; listed in the order it appears in your submittal documents, identified by Page #, Section #/Paragraph #, Title of Section/Paragraph, specific portions of text/illustrations; or in a manner otherwise sufficient to allow the State’s procurement personnel to determine the precise text/material subject to the notation. Additionally, this list must identify with each notation the specific basis for your position that the material be treated as exempt from disclosure and how the exempting the material complies with the Act.

2.7.3. Submit a redacted copy of any Proposal response document (e.g. Scope of Work Response) with all trade secret and exempt information removed or blacked out. The redacted copy must be submitted electronically in the Supplier Attachments section of IPRO, with the word “redacted” in the file name.

Section 3 Proposal Contents

3.1 Background, Declarations, and Certifications (Submittal Form A) The Offeror must complete and submit all information requested in this Submittal Form. An Offerors failure to complete and submit Submittal Form A may be found non-responsive and given no further consideration.

3.2 Technical Proposal (Submittal Form B)

The Offeror must complete and submit all information requested in Submittal Form B. An Offerors failure to complete and submit Submittal Form B may be found non-responsive and given no further consideration. The Technical Proposal consists of four (4) parts, as described below:

3.2.1 Part 1 - Qualifications and Experience: In this Part, demonstrate how the Offeror meets the Minimum Qualifications in Exhibit 4, Section 4, and describe the qualifications of the key personnel who will be assigned to this Contract. Respond to each item below.

3.2.1.1 Law Enforcement Liaison Experience. Describe the Offeror's experience serving as a liaison with law enforcement agencies on traffic safety or grant-funded enforcement programs, including the number and types of agencies supported, the specific support provided, the length of time in the role, and any key outcomes or measurable improvements achieved.

3.2.1.2 Sworn Law Enforcement Leadership Experience. Describe the Offeror's sworn law enforcement leadership or supervisory experience related to traffic enforcement or traffic safety operations, including the agency name and size, the rank or position held, the length of time in the role, direct responsibilities, and examples of traffic enforcement or safety initiatives led or managed.

3.2.1.3 Grant Management Experience. Describe the Offeror's experience administering, managing, or supervising grant-funded traffic enforcement in coordination with a State Highway Safety Office, including the types of grants involved, the Offeror's role and level of responsibility, the number and types of agencies supported, the length of time performing this work, and any key outcomes or measurable results achieved.

3.2.1.4 Training Experience. Describe the Offeror's experience organizing and conducting training courses and exercises for law enforcement agencies related to traffic enforcement and safety. Include any certifications, POST accreditations, or similar credentials that validate this experience.

3.2.1.5 Idaho Experience and Statewide Approach. Describe any experience working with Idaho law enforcement agencies, Idaho traffic enforcement or highway safety programs, or the Idaho Office of Highway Safety, including the nature of the work, the Offeror's role, the length of the engagement, the agencies or regions involved, and any relevant outcomes. Describe the Offeror's approach to statewide liaison work across the entire state of Idaho.

3.2.1.6 Key Personnel and Qualifications. Identify the key personnel who will be assigned to this Contract. For each, provide a role description, the requisite qualifications and experience, and an explanation of how the person will contribute to accomplishing the scope of work. The response should demonstrate the extent to which the proposed team has the expertise to accomplish the scope of work, and highlight any unique attributes that make the team especially qualified.

3.2.2 Part 2 - Approach: In this Part, describe how the Offeror will perform the scope of work. All sections of the scope of work (Exhibit 4) are required contract services; describe the methodology, personnel, and timelines the Offeror will use to meet them.

3.2.2.1 Overall Approach and Schedule. Provide a brief roadmap of the major activities or tasks the Offeror will use to deliver the service and meet the Agency's expectations (cost, time, quality), and a high-level schedule of those major activities.

3.2.2.2 Methodology for Core Service Functions. Describe how the Offeror will perform each of the following core service functions, including methodology, personnel, proposed timelines, confidentiality processes, and any information or support needed from the Agency. Provide concrete examples of the Offeror's methodology for each:

3.2.2.2.1 Agency Evaluation and Monitoring (Exhibit 4, Section 6): comprehensive agency assessments, evaluation tools and metrics, site visits/interviews/documentation reviews, and written reports and recommendations.

3.2.2.2.2 Grant Application Review and Award Participation (Exhibit 4, Section 7): participation in review, scoring, and selection; assessment of applications; subject-matter expertise to review panels; and collaboration on funding recommendations.

3.2.2.2.3 Program Monitoring and Compliance Support (Exhibit 4, Section 8): monitoring grant-funded program progress, identifying performance gaps and corrective actions, and supporting post-award oversight.

3.2.2.2.4 Training and Technical Assistance (Exhibit 4, Section 10): guidance and technical assistance to agencies, delivery or coordination of training, and support for the Idaho Highway Safety Summit.

3.2.2.2.5 Stakeholder Engagement and Relationship Management (Exhibit 4, Section 11): building and maintaining relationships with law enforcement leadership and stakeholders, ensuring two-way communication between the Office of Highway Safety and agencies, and serving as a resource and advocate.

3.2.2.3 Subcontractors. If the Offeror intends to use subcontractors, describe the extent of subcontractor involvement, how each will comply with contract requirements (including confidentiality), and the qualifications of each subcontractor position. If the Offeror does not intend to use subcontractors, include a statement to that effect.

3.2.2.4 Performance Commitments. The minimum Performance Measures the Contractor must meet are stated in Exhibit 4, Section 20. The Offeror may propose to meet higher standards and is encouraged to do so where its approach and staffing support them. Identify each proposed standard and the Performance Measure to which it applies.

3.2.3 Part 3 - Obstacles, Challenges, & Risks: The Offeror must identify and address issues, concerns, challenges, obstacles, or risks that may impact the successful delivery of this project or service. This includes areas that may cause the project to not be completed on time, not finished within budget, generate any change orders, or may be a source of dissatisfaction for the Agency. The Offeror must rely on and use their past experience and knowledge of completing similar projects to identify these potential risks, issues, or challenges.

Each item should contain enough information to describe to a reader why the item is a valid risk/concern. The Offeror should also explain how it will avoid or minimize the risks from occurring. The Offeror should consider:

3.2.3.1 Controllable Items: This includes risks, activities, or tasks that are controllable by the Offeror, or by entities/individuals that are contracted to by the Offeror. This includes things that are part of the technical scope of what the Offeror is being hired to do. This may also include risks that have already been minimized before the project begins due to the Offeror’s expertise (i.e. risks that are no longer risks due to the Offeror’s expertise in delivering this type of project). All controllable risks and strategies to mitigate them MUST be included in the Offeror’s base Proposal cost and schedule (if there are any impacts at all).

3.2.3.2 Non-Controllable Items: This includes risks, activities, or tasks that are not controllable by the Offeror. This may include risks, issues, challenges, or obstacles attributed by the Agency, Agency personnel, parties hired by Agency, risks that are caused by other agencies, or completely uncontrollable risks. These can also be areas/risks that can contribute to contingency. Although these risks may not be controlled by the Offeror, the Offeror must identify a strategy that can be followed or used to mitigate these risks. All non-controllable risks and strategies to mitigate them must not be included in the Offeror’s base Proposal cost or schedule.

Provide a brief description of each item (background of how the concern/issue may impact the project or service if it occurs), and a strategy to prevent/minimize the issue/concern from occurring, or strategy to minimize the impact of the risk if it does occur.

3.2.4 Part 4 – Scenario (Operational Staffing and Cost Basis): The Offeror must respond to the scenario presented in Submittal Form B, Part 4. The scenario establishes operational parameters for one (1) full contract year of services and requires the Offeror to describe their staffing model, allocation of staff effort to operational functions, district coverage approach, the basis for each direct cost category, and any Year 1 staffing adjustments needed to absorb transition activities. The response must be consistent with the position titles and amounts entered in Submittal Form C – Cost Proposal; material inconsistencies may be grounds for clarification or a non-responsiveness determination. Cost, salary, fringe, and dollar amount information must not appear in this Part.

3.3 Cost Proposal (Submittal Form C)

The Offeror must complete and submit all information requested in Submittal Form C – Cost Proposal. The Offeror is not permitted to adjust or modify this form, and may not include additional rates, amounts, costs, information, exceptions, or limitations to their cost proposal. An Offerors failure to meet these requirements may be found non-responsive and given no further consideration.

Section 4 Evaluation & Award Procedures

4.1 Mandatory Submission Requirements

All Proposals will be reviewed on a "pass" or "fail" basis to ensure compliance with all mandatory submission requirements. Proposals determined by the State, at its sole discretion, to be responsive in this regard will proceed to the evaluation process outlined in this Section. Proposals that do not meet the mandatory submission requirements will be deemed non-responsive. Mandatory submission requirements include, but are not limited to, the following:

1.

2.

3.

4.

4.1.

4.1.1. The Proposal was submitted prior to the specified Closing Date and Time.

4.1.2. The Proposal complies with the submission instructions detailed in Section 2.6.

4.1.3. The Proposal includes a fully completed and signed Submittal Form A.

4.1.4. The Proposal includes all required Submittal Forms listed in Section 3.

4.2 Evaluation Criteria

The objective of the State in soliciting and evaluating Proposals is to ensure the selection of a firm or individual that will produce the best possible results for the funds expended. Responsive Proposals will be evaluated as described in the table below.

4.3 Evaluation Committee

The Technical Proposal will be evaluated and scored utilizing one (1) or more Technical Proposal Evaluation Committee(s). The scores for the Technical Proposal will be normalized as described in Section 4.4.

4.4 Calculations

The following approach will be used to normalize and calculate scores:

Written Proposal Calculations

For each document that is evaluated and scored by the evaluation committee, the RFP Lead will:

4.4.1 Average evaluator scores for each Proposal.

4.4.2 Identify the highest raw average score among all Proposals.

4.4.3 Assign normalized points as follows:

4.4.3.1 The Proposal with the highest raw score will receive the maximum available points for Submittal B.

4.4.3.2 All other Proposals will receive a proportional share of the available points using the formula:

Interviews, Presentations, and Demonstrations Calculations (if conducted)

The RFP Lead will average all evaluator scores for each Interview, Presentation, or Demonstration element. The averaged score will then be normalized as follows:

4.4.4 The Offeror receiving the highest raw average score for an element will be awarded the maximum available points for that element.

4.4.5 All remaining Offerors will receive a proportional share of the available points using the following formula:

Cost Calculations

Points for the Cost Proposal will be normalized as follows:

4.4.6 The Proposal with the lowest total evaluated cost will receive the maximum available points.

4.4.7 All remaining Proposals will receive a proportional share of the available points using the following formula:

4.5 Candidate Selection

The RFP Lead may select at least the top two (2) highest ranked Offerors to be invited to participate in presentations and/or interviews. The State reserves the right, but is not required, to shortlist additional Offerors as it deems appropriate. The State intends to only open Cost Proposals for the selected Offerors.

4.6 Presentations

The RFP Lead may invite selected Offerors to participate in presentations, which will be scored by an evaluation committee. The presentation may be performed virtually or in-person, and the Offeror may prepare PowerPoint slides. The Offeror will be provided a maximum of 90 minutes, and should allow for about 15 minutes of questions within that limit. The Offeror is prohibited from disclosing their cost Proposal at any time during the presentation. The Offeror may bring up to three (3) team members, one of which must be the Project Manager. If an invited Offeror fails to perform a presentation, they will be given a "0" score, which may jeopardize the Offeror's competitiveness.

Presentation Scenario – Developing a Contextual Evaluation Framework

OHS administers federal funding for multiple high-visibility enforcement (HVE) mobilizations each year, in which approximately fifty (50) law enforcement agencies participate. These agencies (municipal police departments, county sheriff's offices, state law enforcement, and tribal law enforcement agencies) operate in vastly different environments, varying in staffing, resources, geographic responsibilities, roadway networks, traffic volumes, crash histories, traffic safety priorities, and organizational capacity. While they apply for the same federal grant opportunities, their challenges and opportunities to improve traffic safety are often very different.

OHS staff handle grants management, fiscal oversight, and federal compliance, and rely on the Law Enforcement Liaison (LEL) for the operational law enforcement expertise needed to evaluate agency effectiveness. That evaluation informs funding recommendations, identifies opportunities for technical assistance, and helps direct limited federal funds where they can most improve traffic safety outcomes. OHS is seeking a methodology that evaluates effectiveness within the context of each agency's operating environment, recognizing that similar levels of activity may represent very different levels of effectiveness depending on an agency's resources, responsibilities, and challenges.

Presentation Content. Describe how the Offeror would develop and implement a contextual evaluation framework that can be applied consistently across Idaho's diverse law enforcement agencies. The Offeror’s response should address:

1.

2.

3.

4.

4.1.

4.2.

4.3.

4.4.

4.5.

4.6.

4.6.1. The quantitative and qualitative factors the Offeror would weigh in evaluating agency effectiveness.

4.6.2. How the Offerors methodology maintains fairness and consistency while accounting for differences in staffing, geography, resources, roadway characteristics, crash trends, enforcement priorities, and organizational capacity.

4.6.3. How the Offeror would distinguish agency activity from agency effectiveness in developing funding recommendations.

4.6.4. How the framework would help OHS identify agencies that should receive additional funding, maintain current funding, receive targeted technical assistance, or be considered for reduced funding.

4.6.5. How the Offeror would communicate those recommendations in a manner that is objective, transparent, repeatable, and defensible.

1.

2.

3.

3.1.

3.2.

3.3.

3.4.

3.5.

3.6.

4.7 Key Personnel Interviews

The RFP Lead may invite selected Offerors to participate in key personnel interviews, which will be scored by the evaluation committee.

The Offeror is responsible for assigning key personnel (individuals) to this Contract. These individuals must be assigned to this role for the duration of the contract and must not be permitted to be removed or replaced during the first twelve (12) months of this Contract, unless requested and approved by the State (with the exception of uncontrollable events such as: retirement, medical emergency/injury/sickness, or resignation). Any changes made after the first twelve months must be approved by the State.

The following key personnel may be interviewed:

1.

2.

3.

4.

4.1.

4.2.

4.3.

4.4.

4.5.

4.6.

4.7.

4.7.1. Project Manager: Individual that will serve as the daily point of contact for this contract and responsible for managing this overall effort.

Interviews are expected to last approximately 30 minutes per individual. The State will interview individuals separately (not as a team). Interviewees may be asked questions regarding their experience, knowledge and understanding of the scope of work, obstacles and challenges, strategies, and their plan/approach.

The State anticipates that the interviews may be performed virtually or in-person. No other individuals from the Offeror’s organization can attend, participate, or observe the interview. Interviewees may not bring notes or handouts. Interviewees will be prohibited from making any reference to their submitted cost or fee Proposal. No substitutes or proxies will be allowed. Individuals who fail to attend the interview will be given a “0” score, which may jeopardize the Offerors competitiveness.

4.8 Clarification Discussions

The RFP Lead may, in the State’s sole discretion, perform clarification discussions with the Offeror(s) to verify and validate that the Proposal will meet the needs of the Agency. At any time during this period, if it is discovered that the Offeror has not met a mandatory requirement, or has failed to adequately respond to an item below, the State may find the Offeror non-responsive.

4.9.1 The Offeror may be required to provide documentation to demonstrate its responsibility. Failure to provide the requested documentation may result in the Offeror being deemed non-responsible. IDAPA 38.05.01.81.

4.9.2 If requested, provide any additional documentation that may be requested, which may include a detailed project/work plan, testing and commissioning plan, training, change management plan, safety plan, staffing plan, operational plan, maintenance plans, warranties, bonding and insurance, background checks, etc.

4.9.3 The clarification discussion cannot materially alter the Proposal. The State does not expect to negotiate any terms or conditions requested by the Offeror, unless they were submitted by the Offeror prior to the deadline for submitting questions (see Section 1.8), or they provide the State an opportunity to secure more advantageous terms or pricing.

4.9 Best-And-Final-Offer (BAFO)

The State reserves the right to request Best and Final Offers (BAFOs) from Offerors. If BAFOs are requested, the State will issue written instructions to the selected Offerors identifying the scope of the BAFO request and the deadline for submission. Offerors must not modify any aspect of their Proposal except as specifically requested by the State. BAFO responses must be submitted in accordance with the instructions provided. Failure to submit a BAFO, if requested, may result in the Offeror’s original Proposal being considered as its final offer.

4.10 Award

Award of Contract will be made to the responsive, responsible Offeror whose Proposal receives the highest number of total normalized points.

4.11 Resulting Contract

If the State awards Contract(s) from this solicitation, it will do so by issuing a Contract Purchase Order (CPO) Contract document(s) from Luma, the State’s ERP system. The State anticipates issuing a single contract from this solicitation, incorporating the Terms and Conditions, Scope of Work, Appendices, and some or all of the Offeror’s Technical Proposal.

EXHIBIT 1

Definitions

This Exhibit defines terms used throughout this RFP and, where applicable, the resulting Contract. Where a term is defined in federal statute or regulation, the citation is provided. Cross-references identify the section of this RFP where each defined term is most relevant. Terms not defined below carry their ordinary meaning.