Amendment_001_RFQ_00046700TTR UMDCGS_ Report Design_eMMA.pdf

Addendum form 2.2 Rev. June 7, 2017 Page 1 of 1

Description of Amendment (Continued):

The following changes are made to the solicitation referenced in Block 7A.

This Amendment form is a part of the Contract Documents and modifies, deletes, and/or adds to the original solicitation documents as noted below.

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION

1. AMENDMENT NUMBER 2. DATE ISSUED 3. No. OF PAGES (INCLUDING THIS ONE)

4. ISSUED BY

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND

DEPARTMENT OF PROCUREMENT & BUSINESS SERVICES

2113-R CHESAPEAKE BUILDING

4300 TERRAPIN TRAIL

COLLEGE PARK, MARYLAND 20742-6050

POINT OF CONTACT: Tresa T. Robinson

TELEPHONE NUMBER: 301-405-4231

ELECTRONIC MAIL ADDRESS: trobin14@umd.edu

5. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 4)

6. NAME, ADDRESS AND FEI NUMBER OF CONTRACTOR

TO ALL PROSPECTIVE PROPOSERS

7A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

7B. DATED

8. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION

The solicitation identified in 7A above is amended as set forth in Item 9.

The due date and time specified for receipt of offers/bids is extended to or changed to

Contractor must acknowledge receipt of this amendment.

Receipt of all Amendments MUST be acknowledged by signature in box 10B. below and returned with Technical Proposal.

FAILURE OF CONTRACTOR’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR RECEIPT OF OFFERS/BIDS PRIOR TO THE DUE DATE AND TIME SPECIFIED MAY RENDER CONTRACTOR’S OFFER UNACCEPTABLE/NON-RESPONSIVE AND SUBJECT TO

REJECTION.

9. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT (Use additional pages if required)

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 7A, including previous amendments, if any, shall remain in full force and effect.

10A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or Print) 11A. NAME OF PROCUREMENT OFFICER (Type or Print)

10B. CONTRACTOR SIGNATURE

(Signature of Person Authorized to Sign)

10C. DATE SIGNED

trobin14 Cross-Out

RFQ_00046700TTR Bidder Questions and Answers:

1) The period of performance (Oct 2026–Mar 2028) captures one national GHGIA (April 2027).

Should the quote include production work on the April 2028 national GHGIA that would begin inside the term, or will that be scoped separately?

A. Yes, the quote can itemize production work for beginning the subsequent report.

2) Does CGS have existing InDesign templates and a brand guide for the GHGIA report family, or will the Report Producer build the templates in year one?

A. Templates exist but likely will need updates/changes as some changes are anticipated for the next GHGIA. Currently PDF and word versions of the April 2026 report exist. A style guide (vs. brand guide) for the GHGIA report family exists in draft form and would be completed with templates in year one.

3) How many review rounds does CGS anticipate per report (draft/final), and will chapters arrive on a rolling basis or as a single package?

A. We anticipate 4-6 review rounds and chapters would arrive most likely on rolling basis

(with aim to provide all within one week. We can discuss preference with vendor.

4) For "occasional printing" of data briefs, should print production be quoted as a pass-through, or included as an allowance in the lump sum?

A. Allowance in lump sum, but delineate allowance for the occasional printing, etc.

5) Are the linked deliverable examples (GHGIA Report, Policy Brief, Policy Report, Webpages) available as PDFs? The links in Attachment A did not carry over in the PDF.

GHGIA Report (and GHGIA web area: https://ghgi.cgs.umd.edu/) Policy Brief Policy Report Webpage(s)

6) Attachment A, Section 5, Item 2 reads, “Description of your proposed approach to facilitating the design process and generating the requested deliverables. Please address the following.” No list appears after that sentence. Could the University provide the items the vendor is expected to address?

A.

7) Attachment A, Section 5, Attachment B asks for three work samples similar in scope to the samples linked in Section 2.2. The four sample deliverables listed in Section 2.2 do not appear to include active hyperlinks in the posted PDF. Could the University provide the URLs for those reference materials?

A. See response to question 5 above.

8) Attachment A, Section 3 states a period of performance of eighteen months commencing in October 2026, which spans more than one annual reporting cycle. Should the lump sum price cover a single cycle of each report listed in Section 2.1, or should it include a second national level GHGIA and associated products falling within the performance period?

A. See response to question 1 above.

https://ghgi.cgs.umd.edu/reports.html https://cgs.umd.edu/research-impact/publications/high-ambition-pathways-korea-achieve-60-ndc-target-2035 https://cgs.umd.edu/sites/default/files/2025-11/Report_United%20States%20Pathways%20to%202035.pdf https://country-ambition.cgs.umd.edu/

9) The state level GHGIA Data Brief in Section 2.1 is noted as “if requested.” Should this item be included in the lump sum, or quoted separately as an option? The RFQ pricing form provides a single lump sum line, so please confirm how the University would like optional or contingent items presented.

A. Please include in lump sum but provide as an allowance similar to printing.

10) Regarding the national level GHGIA of approximately 800 pages: what portion of the document is designed narrative content versus technical annexes and data tables, and approximately how many figures, charts, and tables are included? Section 2.2 states that CGS will provide figures and tables with the initial draft, and also lists creating figures and data visualizations from CGS exported templates among the Producer's tasks. Could the University clarify which figures will arrive as finished graphics and which the Producer is expected to build or redesign? Finally, how many rounds of consolidated CGS review feedback should vendors plan for on a report of this length?

A. See links included in RFQ to current report under question 5. Figures are listed in the table of contents for the current report (e.g., current report contains ~ 50 figures). Assume that CGS will provide figure data and mock-ups. CGS currently has a draft color palette to cover detail across figures. CGS will request support for finalizing figures for the executive summary, chapter 2, and chapter 9 of the report.

11) Attachment A, Section 2.2 requires vendors to follow ADA standards for accessible design.

Which specific standard applies, such as WCAG 2.1 AA or PDF/UA? Is the Report Producer responsible for tagging and remediation of long form PDFs, and what will the University accept as evidence of compliance at delivery?

A. WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility guidelines is the standard that applies. The key task is ensuring accessibility of the digital reports published; see accessible PDFs on this page:

https://brand.umd.edu/accessible-media-content. Yes, the reporter producer is responsible for accessibility-related tagging and remediation of documents. The current report has been tagged for accessibility, and many of the existing descriptions for each figure can likely be updated by the Report Producer in collaboration with UMD technical staff, as needed.

12) Can UMD provide any examples of the past completed reports? Reviewing them would help us assess the condition and complexity of the source material, the expected level of design refinement and the overall production effort. We can also take a closer look at approximately how many charts, tables, figures, and other graphics should we anticipate across the deliverables.

A. See links provided in RFQ in response to question 5.

13) Are all deliverables digital-only, or will the firm also be responsible for print-ready files, print coordination, or physical production?

A. Digital only with the exception of potentially printing the data brief for distribution at outreach events and seminars. The final deliverable files should be provided in both PDF and word form (for future updates). Files should be editable to address any errata/corrigenda required post publication.

https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/ https://brand.umd.edu/accessible-media-content

14) How should we account for material changes in page count, content, schedule, or scope under the lump-sum pricing structure?

A. All bidders should quote their most competitive lump sum offer to account for material changes in page count, content, schedule, or scope under in order to successfully complete said deliverables.

15) Has CGS previously contracted for these report production services? If so, could the University provide any available information on the historical scope and level of effort that may help vendors develop comparable staffing and pricing assumptions? Additionally, has the University established an anticipated budget or not-to-exceed amount for the 18-month engagement?

A. We are unable to share this information at this stage of the solicitation process. We encourage all bidders to quote their most competitive offer to successfully complete the project and said deliverables.

Binder2.pdf

RFQ_00046700TTR UMDCGS_Bidder Questions (CGS).pdf