Amendment 1.docx

Spartanburg Community College

Request for Proposal Amendment 1 (changes indicated in red) Solicitation:

Date Issued:

Procurement Officer:

Phone:

E-Mail Address:

Mailing Address:

5400028941 11/19/2025 Tami Steed 864-592-4671 steedt@sccsc.edu

SPARTANBURG COMMUNITY COLLEGE

PURCHASING OFFICE

131 Community College Drive Spartanburg SC 29303-4759

DESCRIPTION: Accessibility Compliance Tool

USING GOVERNMENTAL UNIT: Spartanburg Community College

SUBMIT YOUR OFFER ON-LINE AT THE FOLLOWING URL: http://www.procurement.sc.gov

SUBMIT OFFER BY (Opening Date/Time): 12/08/2025 2:00 PM (EST) (See "Deadline for Submission of Offer" provision)

QUESTIONS MUST BE RECEIVED BY: 11/05/2025 4:00 PM (EST) (See "Questions from Offerors" provision)

NUMBER OF COPIES TO BE SUBMITTED: ONLINE BIDDING PREFERRED: If submitting Online in SCEIS please See Online Bidding Instructions in Section II. B. If submitting Hardcopy, submit One (1) Original Hardcopy marked “Original”, and One (1) Electronic (digital) Media Copy marked “Copy” (See “Electronic Copies-Required Media & Format” provision Section II.B.) Initial here if NO redacted copy is necessary ___________

CONFERENCE TYPE:

DATE & TIME:

(As appropriate, see "Conferences - Pre-Bid/Proposal" & "Site Visit" provisions)

LOCATION:

https://www.sccsc.edu/about/vendors/purchasing-awards/

You must submit a signed copy of this form with Your Offer. By signing, you agree to be bound by the terms of the Solicitation. You agree to hold Your Offer open for a minimum of ninety (90) calendar days after the Opening Date. (See "Signing Your Offer" provision.)

NAME OF OFFEROR

(full legal name of business submitting the offer) Any award issued will be issued to, and the contract will be formed with, the entity identified as the Offeror. The entity named as the offeror must be a single and distinct legal entity. Do not use the name of a branch office or a division of a larger entity if the branch or division is not a separate legal entity, i.e., a separate corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship, etc.

AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE

(Person must be authorized to submit binding offer to contract on behalf of Offeror.)

DATE SIGNED

TITLE

(business title of person signing above)

STATE VENDOR NO.

(Register to Obtain S.C. Vendor No. at www.procurement.sc.gov)

PRINTED NAME

(printed name of person signing above)

STATE OF INCORPORATION

(If you are a corporation, identify the state of incorporation.)

OFFEROR'S TYPE OF ENTITY: (Check one) (See "Signing Your Offer" provision.)

___ Sole Proprietorship ___ Partnership ___ Other_____________________________

___ Corporate entity (not tax-exempt) ___ Corporation (tax-exempt) ___ Government entity (federal, state, or local)

COVER PAGE - ON-LINE ONLY (MAR. 2015)

SAP

SAP

PAGE TWO

(Return Page Two with Your Offer) HOME OFFICE ADDRESS (Address for offeror's home office / principal place of business)

NOTICE ADDRESS (Address to which all procurement and contract related notices should be sent.) (See "Notice" clause)

_________________________________________________ Area Code - Number - Extension Facsimile

_________________________________________________ E-mail Address

PAYMENT ADDRESS (Address to which payments will be sent.) (See "Payment" clause)

____Payment Address same as Home Office Address ____Payment Address same as Notice Address (check only one) ORDER ADDRESS (Address to which purchase orders will be sent) (See "Purchase Orders and "Contract Documents" clauses)

____Order Address same as Home Office Address ____Order Address same as Notice Address (check only one)

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AMENDMENTS

Offerors acknowledges receipt of amendments by indicating amendment number and its date of issue. (See "Amendments to Solicitation" Provision)

DISCOUNT FOR PROMPT PAYMENT

(See "Discount for Prompt Payment" clause)

PREFERENCES - A NOTICE TO VENDORS (SEP. 2009): Preferences do not apply. See SC Consolidated Procurement Code Reference 11-35-1524 (E) (2)

PREFERENCES - ADDRESS AND PHONE OF IN-STATE OFFICE: Preferences do not apply. See SC Consolidated Procurement Code Reference 11-35-1524 (E) (2)

PAGE TWO (SEP 2009)

End of PAGE TWO

AMENDMENT #1

Solicitation #5400028941

AMENDMENTS TO SOLICITATION (JAN 2004)

The Solicitation may be amended at any time prior to opening. All actual and prospective Offerors should monitor the following web site for the issuance of Amendments: www.procurement.sc.gov (b) Offerors shall acknowledge receipt of any amendment to this solicitation (1) by signing and returning the amendment, (2) by identifying the amendment number and date in the space provided for this purpose on Page Two, (3) by letter, or (4) by submitting a bid that indicates in some way that the bidder received the amendment. (c) If this solicitation is amended, then all terms and conditions which are not modified remain unchanged. [02-2A005-1]

Questions from Offerors - Amendment (Jun 2017) The solicitation is amended as provided herein. Information or changes resulting from questions will be shown in a question-and-answer format. All questions received have been reprinted below. The “state’s response” should be read without reference to the questions. The questions are included solely to provide a cross-reference to the potential Offeror that submitted the question. Questions do not form a part of the contract; the “state’s response” does. Any restatement of part or all of an existing provision of the solicitation in an answer does not modify the original provision except as follows: underlined text is added to the original provision. Stricken text is deleted. [02-2a097-1]

ALL OTHER TERMS, CONDITIONS, BIDDING INSTRUCTIONS, AND SPECIFICATIONS REMAIN UNCHANGED. IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS OR IF ANY CONFUSION OR UNCERTAINTY ARISES AS A RESULT OF THIS AMENDMENT, IT IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OFFEROR TO CONTACT THE PROCUREMENT OFFICER FOR CLARIFICATION. CONTACT INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND IN THE TOP RIGHT HAND CORNER OF THE COVER PAGE OF THIS AMENDMENT. REFERENCE THE “DUTY TO INQUIRE” CLAUSE IN THE ORIGINAL INVITATION FOR BID.

Due date extended. See cover page for extension.

Solicitation: 5400028941 Accessibility Compliance Tool Vendor Q&A

1. Can you clarify, is the references portion of the RFP:

· limited to 3 references or

· a minimum of 3 references?

SCC’s Response: a minimum of 3 references.

2. Under the section titled EVALUATION FACTORS – PROPOSALS (JAN 2006), “Demonstration” is listed as comprising 20% of the evaluation criteria. However, the solicitation does not appear to provide further detail regarding the nature or expectations of this demonstration.

Could you please clarify:

· What format the demonstration should take (e.g., live, recorded, virtual)?

· When and how will the demonstration be scheduled?

SCC’s Response: the demonstration will be virtual in attendance/presentation. A date/time will be scheduled through our procurement office. The demonstrations will be limited to one hour.

3. Under the section Scope of Services, Testing Capabilities, item F, can you clarify:

· What is the expected OCR functionality for scanned documents (ex. Full text conversion, metadata tagging)?

SCC’s Response: We want all documents, including scanned ones, to be remediated to achieve WCAG 2.2 Level AA compliance.

4. Under the section Functional Requirements, Content remediation and reporting, item D, please clarify:

Is the expectation for automated captioning/transcription for video and audio?

SCC’s Response: The solution should provide automated captioning and transcriptions, as well as identify content with missing captions. Ideally, it would be possible to add an approval or reporting workflow to check if the human pass has been completed.

5. Are there existing processes or tools currently in use, and what limitations are driving the need for this new solution?

SCC’s Response: Yes. Available processes and tools each have different limitations, and we would like a more holistic solution. We would also like granular reporting capabilities.

6. Has SCC evaluated any existing solutions in the market that partially meet these needs? If so, what gaps remain?

SCC’s Response: We have looked at various options through vendor demonstrations, trade shows, and recommendations from colleagues at other institutions. We are interested in a vendor that can offer a more complete solution that can work with larger portions of our portfolio.

7. What kind of accessibility training has SCC staff already received?

SCC’s Response: There are training courses and workshops available for faculty and staff.

8. Does SCC currently have any staff members whose primary job duties are accessibility compliance or remediation?

SCC's Response: No.

9. Does SCC currently use any kind of ticketing system to track accessibility issues?

SCC's Response: No.

10. Which features are considered critical versus optional enhancements?

SCC’s Response: Please see Section III Scope of Services for a list of required features.

11. What is SCC’s timeline and budget flexibility if custom development is required to achieve the requested functionality.

SCC’s Response: Offers should submit their best offer to accomplish the scope of work defined. SCC is only interested in items that are currently in production use.

12. The RFP has an installation date of 1/20/26 for delivering automated solutions. What is the timeline for vendors delivering manual testing/remediation services?

SCC’s Response: All services should be delivered within 30 days of an award.

13. Would SCC be open to a phased approach where essential capabilities are delivered first, followed by additional features as needed?

SCC’s Response: All services should be delivered within 30 days of an award.

14. Considering that most automated testing tools identify only about 30% of accessibility issues, what percentage of testing and remediation should be automated versus manual as expected from the offeror?

SCC’s Response: We are looking for a tool that allows for the majority of content to be automatically remediated. In the absence of automation, a workflow that prompts a human pass is valuable.

15. Can SCC clarify their expectations for any needed manual testing (e.g. testing with screen readers like JAWS/NVDA across key user flows) and strategies for how SCC’s team may weight vendors that appear to be underbidding manual testing hours?

SCC’s Response: We are looking for a tool that allows for the majority of content to be automatically remediate to regulatory compliance standards. In the absence of automation, a workflow that prompts a human pass is valuable.

16. Is there a full ICT (information and Communication Technology) inventory available to determine the full scope of the RFP? If so:

a. Can SCC provide a copy?

b. What is the date of the current ICT inventory?

c. If possible, the following information from the ICT inventory would be helpful.

i. Approximate size (e.g., number of pages, domains, workflows)

ii. Type (website, web application, desktop application, or native mobile app, documents besides PDFs, videos, etc.)

iii. Whether it is public facing or internal

Whether or not an accessibility assessment has previously been performed on the asset SCC’s Response: There is a software catalog available. The catalog is updated bi-annually. The files stored in the LMS have been automatically scanned with Anthology Ally. The pages on the website have been scanned with Site Improve.

Size information:

Website (1200 pages).

SharePoint Intranet (110 pages).

LMS (165,000 pieces of content).

17. The list of software products/platforms in scope includes third-party software which SCC may have little control over remediating. What are the vendor’s responsibilities when it comes to third-party software?

SCC’s Response: Solution should provide tools to identify and diagnose compliance issues of third-party software, as well as provide specific insights on remediation if automated remediation is not available.

image1.png