Amendment #4 - Q&A - RFI PMAA 2027_0008 .pdf

Amendment #4 - Questions & Answers (Q&A)

RFI PMAA 2027*0008

CPW Wildlife Health Information Database

A. The following questions, and the answer to each, were received:

1. What was the annual spend under the previous contract for these services?

i. The current ‘system’ is spreadsheets and google forms and the like.

No spend. That is one of the main purposes of doing this RFI - we need to see how much funding we need to obtain to do a real system.

From Exhibit A - Scope of Work “Information, data, and digital artifacts recorded in spreadsheets and Word/PDF documents are stored on various computers, Google shared drives, an MS Access database for some of the sample archives, and also in document storage files.”

2. If this is a new contract, what is the estimated annual budget?

i. That is the purpose of this RFI is to see how much funding we will need to obtain.

3. Is the agency open to a hybrid delivery model utilizing a combination of onshore and offshore resources?

i. Main players need to be onshore. Developers/DBAs/Testers/Lead

Architect can be offshore.

4. Will the work be performed onsite, remotely, or through a hybrid arrangement?

i. Not onsite. We don’t have the office space to accommodate.

Remote work is just fine with us.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nbS2LV7px8Qm84tcrk5hAD5hvib5uDw2/view

5. Would it be possible to consider a 1–2 week extension to the proposal submission deadline?

i. The response submission deadline has been extended one week to

9/15/26, see Amendment #2 posted to VSS.

6. Is this contract intended for a single vendor or for multiple vendors?

i. Single vendor but this is an RFI so no contract will be offered.

7. Who is the current or previous incumbent vendor for these services?

i. Please see the answer to question 1.

8. Are there any challenges, gaps, or pain points with the current solution or contractor that the agency is looking to address through this procurement?

i. It is not a cohesive system. Please read the Overview and

Background of Exhibit A - Scope of Work

9. Is there a projected contract award date and anticipated start date?

i. This is an RFI not an RFP. No contract will be issued.

10.What is the estimated volume of historical data to be migrated?

i. 10-15 years worth of reports; approximately 30.5 Gigabytes of data including photos, spreadsheets, word documents, and pdfs

11.Is the vendor responsible for developing and maintaining data export integrations from other CPW databases, or will CPW provide standardized export files?

i. CPW will provide standardized export files.

12.For scanned historical submission forms, is the requirement limited to storing and associating the scanned PDF with a record, or must the system perform OCR and extract structured and searchable data from the scanned document?

i. Just storing the artifact is all that is required for the initial build.

OCR may come into play at a later date but is not needed for the

MVP.

13.What are the expected annual storage volumes for database records and artifacts?

i. In the Overview and Background of Exhibit A - Scope of Work -

“The lab processes about 400 carcasses a year.”

14.Does CPW require direct connectivity from Tableau/R to the production database?

i. We would need to connect Tableau/R to the database. ODBC connection is sufficient.

15.What percentage of historical data is expected to be migrated as structured or searchable data versus retained as attachments?

i. 50% structured, 50% attachments.

16.What GIS platform does CPW currently use, and what level of GIS integration is expected?

i. ArcGIS. Please see the General System Requirements of Exhibit A

- Scope of Work item 20, Analytic Capability Requirements item 2a.

17.98.8% uptime does not seem to match the intended 25 hours of maximum downtime. Asking for clarification.

i. The downtime does not include patches, bugfixes, and functionality pushes. The 25 hours does seem off. Please use the 98.8% number. The main need is for this to be up and functional during business hours. Very little to no work gets done overnight.

18.What barcode symbologies and scanning hardware are currently used by

CPW, and is the vendor expected to provide, configure, or integrate with barcode scanners and/or label printers?

i. The Wildlife Health Lab currently uses LabelVision 20/20 Designer software to produce barcode labels that encode a wildlife health laboratory identification number (e.g., WHL 27 001). Barcodes are printed with a Zebra Printer ZT510 and scanned with a Tera scanner. The database would not necessarily need to generate its own barcodes but should be able to integrate with existing systems.

19.Does CPW have any applicable cybersecurity requirements, security standards, data classification requirements, and required security controls that vendors are expected to meet?

i. https://oit.colorado.gov/standards-policies-guides/information-securi ty-office

20.Can CPW provide a prioritized list of required standard reports for initial implementation?

i. No. We believe most reporting needs can be covered through adHoc reporting.

Also please see the Report Requirements section of the Exhibit A -

Scope of Work.

21.What search capabilities are required for narrative fields?

i. Keyword search capabilities

22.Please clarify whether the barcode itself is expected to encode all sample information, or whether the barcode is intended to contain a unique identifier that is used to retrieve the associated information from the database.

i. The barcode should be associated with a unique identifier created by the wildlife health laboratory’s numbering system. The unique identifier will be assigned to each submitted case and will be referenced on all case reports and diagnostic results. See answer to Q18 for more information.

23.Is CPW fully set on requiring a relational database? Or can a document-based database be proposed?

i. Relational database please

24.Are SLA clocks measured 247 for critical/high incidents or only during support hours?

i. Only during support hours

25.Which categories of work are expected to consume the 50 monthly hours?

i. Bug defect fixes, adjusted functionality, meetings, small functionality changes, your investigation time needed for defect analysis, push to production time.

26.What level of data cleansing, transformation, deduplication, and validation is expected from the vendor versus CPW?

i. For historical data, CPW will do all data cleansing, transformation, deduplication, and validation. For new data entered into the system, we will need to work with the vendor to set up data validation and business rules.

27.Is the required search capability for uploaded artifacts limited to associated metadata and assigned keywords, or should the system provide full-text indexing and search of the contents? If content search is required can an example use case be provided?

i. Just metadata and keywords for uploaded, non structured artifacts.

28.Should the desired solution support data entry when network connectivity is unavailable with synchronization once connectivity is restored? Or should it be assumed network accessibility when used in the field will always be available for user interaction?

i. Offline capability is not a requirement of this database.

29.Can CPW define what is “view the files … in the system” require browser-based rendering or preview of each supported file type? Or are certain file types to be downloaded and opened via the user's locally installed application associated with that file type? If browser-based viewing is required, can CPW provide the file types required for support.

i. Just download and open is fine. Please see the Managing Case

Data and Associated Files Requirements section of Exhibit A -

Scope of Work

30.Is this requirement limited to storing and associating the PDF with the record, or must the system perform OCR and/or extract information from the form into structured database fields? If data extraction is required, please identify the fields to be extracted, any validation or accuracy expectations, and provide representative examples of both historical scanned forms and current readable submission forms.

i. Just PDF upload. No OCR

31.Should system availability calculation assume 24/7/365 hours (8,760 hours)? Should we assume a 98.8% availability standard or the 25-hour maximum downtime limit for the purposes of this RFI?

i. See question 17

32.Should vendors use a five-year or ten-year planning and pricing horizon?

i. When we do the RFI, we will be doing a 1 year contract with 9, 1 year extensions for a total of 10 years.

33.Can CPW confirm the number of full-time staff. Is there an anticipated number or range of temporary, intern, Level 4 users for licensing?

i. We roughly estimate the following number of users:

1. Level 1: 1-3

2. Level 2: 6-9

3. Level 3: 20-30

4. Level 4: 200-300

34.Should field submitters receive Level 3 permissions, expanded Level 4 permissions, or a separate submission role?

i. Field submitters will either be placed in Level 3 or Level 4 depending on their job role and what types of samples they collect.

35.Should the vendor expect to perform data conversion, cleaning, extraction, and migration from existing CPW sources (e.g., spreadsheets, MS Access database, shared drives, documents, and other repositories)? Can the approximate record count, artifact count, and storage volume anticipated for the initial migration be provided?

i. CPW will be responsible for cleaning and validating all data. We will work with the vendor on how best to transfer this data for the vendor to apply to the system.

ii. See answer to Q.10

36.Is the generation and printing of barcode labels part of accessioning? Or is the requirement limited to storage, manual entery, scanning, and reading barcode values assigned through an existing process? If barcode generation and printing are required, please identify any required barcode symbologies, label formats, and existing CPW printing or scanning hardware that the solution must support.

i. See the answer to Q18.

37.Are Fees and Costs to be included in the main Quote Response or can we include in a separate file? Does the State have a preferred response format for Fees and Costs?

i. Fees and costs in a separate file is very acceptable. No preference in file format for the fees and costs.

38.Will the forthcoming RFP permit the vendor to retain ownership of its pre-existing commercial SaaS platform, reusable components, generalized enhancements, and underlying source code, while the State owns its data and any separately identified CPW-specific deliverables?

i. You will retain ownership of your pre-existing SaaS system. CPW will own its data in your system as well as any CPW specific deliverables.

39.Please provide estimated counts and storage volumes for historical spreadsheets, Access records, Word/PDF documents, images, scanned submission forms, and other artifacts to be migrated, and confirm the respective responsibilities of CPW and the vendor for cleansing, deduplication, transformation, and validation.

i. See answer to Q.10

40.The RFI specifies both 98.8% annual availability and a maximum of 25 downtime hours per year, which represent different availability levels.

Which standard will govern, and what RTO, RPO, multi-region deployment, and disaster-recovery testing requirements should vendors price?

i. Please see the answer to question 17. CPW is seeing a Tier 1 cloud hosted system (Google Azure, etc). All of these hosting options have disaster recovery with multi-region (East/West coast) baked in. Therefore no disaster recovery testing is needed. A disaster recovery plan is needed though per State requirements.

41.For PingID, GIS reference layers, Tableau, and R Analytics, please identify the required authentication protocols and clarify which interfaces must be automated APIs or direct connections versus supported file import/export processes.

i. PingID is not a hard requirement. In application authentication is acceptable. Tableau, and R Analytics can be an ODBC connection with authentication within your application. GIS layers can be pushed to a location on your server.

42.Please clarify whether the anticipated 50 hours per month of fixed-price development and maintenance is a mandatory minimum purchase, when it begins, whether unused hours expire or roll forward, and how CPW will prioritize and accept work performed under that allowance.

i. 50 hours per month is a mandatory minimum at least for the first few years until we stabilize. Since we are doing a 1 year contract with 9 one year extensions, we can adjust this as the project matures. It is 50 hours a month bankable to 100 hours max. The banked hours do not expire but if we are maxed out at 100 hours then any leftover hours in a month will not bank and thus expire.

ii. The hours are to be used for all maintenance work, small functionality extensions, all of the meetings surrounding the working of these items including destination, investigation, design, and push to production.

iii. We will have a backlog document with defects and functionality changes and additions. CPW and the vendor will jointly work this document with CPW providing priority and the vendor providing hours estimates. At a minimum a monthly meeting will be needed to discuss what is going to production for the current month and what needs to be worked for the next month based on hours needed and priority. This meeting will come out of the 50 hours per month.

43.Could CPW clarify whether it is seeking a fully custom-built (design-build) solution developed specifically for CPW's Wildlife Health Lab workflows, a configured/customized COTS or SaaS platform, or whether CPW is open to either approach? Specifically:

i. Is a custom-built solution, a COTS based solution, or a hybrid

(COTS platform plus custom development) equally acceptable?

1. We are open to any approach but prefer a SaaS solution as it simplifies upgrades and backup and recovery. Also, CPW is not willing to host an application in the State’s network or cloud instances.

ii. If COTS is proposed, what degree of customization would be expected to meet the detailed requirements in Exhibit B?

1. We are up to changing workflows to match what is offered by an off the shelf low/no code product if one exists.

iii. Will proposals be evaluated under the same criteria and weighting regardless of which approach a vendor proposes?

1. If you suggest having CPW host the application ourselves, your proposal will not be considered. Otherwise all other implementation patches will be weighted the same.

44.Exhibit B's vendor workbook asks respondents to rate their compliance with each requirement using a scale (C, P, S, N, N/A) as defined in Exhibit

A, Section II, including an "S" rating specifically for "a pre-existing or third-party software" solution requiring "some modification." This degree-of-compliance framework, applied at the level of individual line-item requirements, more closely resembles a formal RFP evaluation methodology than typical RFI market research, and its explicit accommodation for pre-existing/third-party software suggests CPW may be anticipating, and may evaluate favorably configurable COTS alongside or instead of fully custom-built solutions. To help determine whether our firm and delivery model are a good fit before committing further time to a full RFI response, can CPW clarify whether it has a genuine preference or leaning toward a configurable COTS based solution over a fully custom-built (design-build) solution? Specifically, should firms that specialize exclusively in custom design-build engagements, without a pre-existing base platform to configure, expect to be at a competitive disadvantage in the subsequent RFP evaluation, given the structure of the

Exhibit B compliance scale?

i. While the spreadsheet seems to favor a non-custom build solution, it does also speak to a custom solution as well. For example, if your firm can’t integrate with GIS or has not done so in the past, we would need to know that.

45.Has CPW previously seen, demoed, or otherwise become aware of any vendor systems that it currently considers a viable option for this project?

If so:

i. Who are these vendors/products?

1. We have not seen any other vendor’s system nor have we seen a system that deals with Wildlife Health.

ii. When did CPW last review, demo, or otherwise interact with each of them (e.g., a product demonstration, sales presentation, reference call, or site visit)?

1. We have not seen any other vendor’s system nor have we seen a system that deals with Wildlife Health.

iii. Were any of these interactions part of a prior, separate procurement or informal market research effort, and if so, is any documentation from that effort (e.g., requirements notes, evaluation criteria) available to respondents to this RFI?

1. We have not seen any other vendor’s system nor have we seen a system that deals with Wildlife Health.

46.Would CPW consider a solution built and hosted on the Microsoft Azure

Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS) environment to be a fully viable option under the Section IV hosting requirements? Specifically:

i. Does CPW have a preference, requirement, or bias toward any one of the three named tier-1 providers (AWS, Azure, GCP), whether due to existing State of Colorado OIT infrastructure, standards, or prior agency experience?

1. We are fine with any Tier-1 providers. We currently have applications running on all 3 of the ones you list.

ii. Is a PaaS-based architecture (as opposed to IaaS) acceptable, provided the multi-region, availability, and disaster recovery requirements in Section IV are met?

1. This is acceptable.

iii. Are there any State of Colorado OIT technical standards, security requirements, or existing enterprise agreements with a specific cloud provider that respondents should be aware of when proposing a hosting architecture?

1. No enterprise agreements with a specific hosting provider that are available to a 3rd party.

2. https://oit.colorado.gov/standards-policies-guides/information

-security-office

3. Since this is only animal data, no PII, some of the security requirementslisted do not apply.

47.For ad hoc reporting and analysis, would CPW accept a solution that integrates with a business intelligence tool such as Microsoft Power BI, Tableau, or another comparable BI platform? Specifically:

i. Since Tableau and R Analytics are the only tools named in Exhibit

A, does CPW have a preference, requirement, or existing enterprise license/standard (e.g., State of Colorado OITprovided

Power BI or Tableau licensing) that respondents should design around?

1. We would only need an ODBC connection so that Tableau and R Analytics can connect. Some groups are using Power

BI but not the Wildlife Health Lab currently.

https://oit.colorado.gov/standards-policies-guides/information-security-office https://oit.colorado.gov/standards-policies-guides/information-security-office

ii. Would CPW accept a vendor-proposed alternative BI tool (e.g., Power BI) in place of or in addition to Tableau/R Analytics, provided it meets the ad hoc querying and reporting needs described in

Section J?

1. Our scientists are very, very heavy users of Tableau and R

Analytics. They are our preferred data analytics tools.

iii. Does CPW expect the BI/reporting layer to be included as part of the vendor's proposed solution and pricing, or does CPW intend to license and manage the BI tool separately and simply require the underlying data to be accessible to it (e.g., via direct connection, API, or data export)?

1. Just an ODBC connection will be made available to our analytics tools.

2. AdHoc reporting should allow for spreadsheet, CSV file export.

48.Could CPW clarify the intent of Item #22 in the General System

Requirements section? Is Item #22 intended to convey a distinct technical requirement beyond what's already stated in Items #1, #11, #12, and #18

(e.g., a requirement related to seasonal capacity, performance, or scalability during peak processing periods)?

i. It is there to detail peak periods as this has proven to pop up as a question on most RFIs’RFPs we have done in the past few years.

49.Beyond the structured MS Access archive and spreadsheet-based bulk imports described in Section A.21, does CPW expect the vendor to be responsible for migrating the broader body of historical unstructured data

(Word narrative reports, scanned/paper submission forms, and miscellaneous spreadsheets on shared drives) into the new system, or will that data remain out of scope for the Page 3 of 4 initial implementation and be migrated later (if at all)? If migration of this unstructured historical data is in scope, is there an estimate of its volume (e.g., number of years, records, or files) that vendors should plan for?

i. Any data migrated will be converted into a form/structure that works for the migration into the new system. We are willing to work with the vendor on an appropriate data migration workflow and structure that will work for both parties.

50.Does CPW expect the new system to support any electronic data interface/integration with external diagnostic laboratories, or will exchanging data with outside labs continue to rely on the same manual spreadsheet upload/download process described in Appendix D?

i. AdHoc reporting with data export will work for CPW

ii. Data ingestion from other systems will be as it for the initial release.

The structure of the spreadsheet will be worked out with the vendor during discovery with CPW doing all data stewardship work

(cleansing, data quality, deduplication, etc). The vendor should still check for issue with the data before ingesting the data as is done with any data injunction process.

51.Is the weekly GIS data upload described in Section A.20 expected to be an automated system-tosystem integration (e.g., API or scheduled data feed), or a manual file upload process performed by CPW staff?

Additionally, can CPW identify which GIS platform (e.g., Esri ArcGIS) hosts the source data, so vendors can assess integration compatibility?

i. Manual file upload to the vendor’s servers. ArcGIS.

52.Exhibit A, Scope of Work, Section A.13.c states that "authentication must either be provided with the vendor's solution or support PingID." Is PingID the State of Colorado's/CPW's mandated single sign-on (SSO) or identity provider standard that the solution must support regardless of the vendor's proposed architecture, or is it simply one acceptable authentication option among others (e.g., vendor-native authentication, SAML/OIDC federation with another identity provider)? If PingID integration is required, can CPW share any additional technical details (e.g., protocol, existing configuration) vendors should account for in their response?

i. PingID is the State’s identity provider for many of the State’s applications. Integration with PingID is a nice to have.

ii. Vendor-native authentication within the application without PingID integration is perfectly acceptable. Most of our vendor based applications use this method.

53.Exhibit A describes CPW Wildlife Health as "a veterinary diagnostic and research facility" and lists requirements that closely resemble core

Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS) functionality, specimen accessioning and barcode tracking (Section E), sample inventory and freezer/storage location tracking (Section H), configurable test types and results (Section K), and chainof- custody-style audit tracking (Section D). At the same time, the RFI also asks for capabilities that go well beyond a typical LIMS, such as extensive free-text case narratives and diagnoses (Section I), GIS/mapping visualization (Section

B.2), dashboards (Section F), and broad ad hoc BI reporting/export

(Section J). The RFI itself never uses the term "LIMS" or characterizes the desired solution using an established software category, which makes it difficult to know whether to approach this as a laboratory/specimen-management platform or as a more general-purpose case management and data analytics system. Could CPW clarify whether it envisions this solution as a veterinary/animal-health Laboratory

Information Management System (LIMS), specifically? Or does CPW see the LIMS-like sample/test-tracking functionality as just one component within a broader, general-purpose wildlife health case management and research database?

i. CPW sees the LIMS-like sample/test-tracking functionality as just one component within a broader, general-purpose wildlife health case management and research database

ii. Has CPW evaluated or benchmarked this project against any existing commercial veterinary or animal-health LIMS products? If so, would CPW share which category of product it has in mind?

1. We have not evaluated any LIMS systems.

iii. Of the requirements listed in Exhibit A, which does CPW consider the "core" system (i.e., what the solution fundamentally is) versus supporting/adjacent features that could be delivered via integration with other tools?

1. We are up for exploring integration with other tools.

54.To help scope an appropriate discovery and design approach, could CPW share more detail on how it anticipates involving its Wildlife Health subject matter experts during the requirements gathering and design phases?

i. We will designate several wildlife health SMEs including our lead

State Wildlife Veterinarian as well as a PM for our CPW folks. Data experts will be brought in as needed as well.

55.Does CPW anticipate designating a specific point person or small core group to serve as the primary liaison(s) for day-to-day design collaboration with the vendor, versus involving the full staff throughout?

i. Yes, this is how we operate with all projects. We will have a PM on our side as well to assist in coordination.

56.What cadence and format does CPW envision for SME engagement (e.g., weekly workshops, periodic reviews, async feedback), so vendors can propose a project plan that fits well with CPW's preferred way of working?

i. To begin with weekly or biweekly workshops. Once discovery is complete then we can move to sprint reviews with UAT testing.

57.Are there particular times of year CPW would prefer to schedule major design milestones or workshops, given the seasonal shifts in caseload described in Section A.22?

i. Yes, during peak times it will be difficult to perform the more intense discovery portion of the project. In addition we have holiday and election freeze periods where we are not able to push to production.

58.What is the anticipated implementation and go-live schedule for this project? Is there a target date CPW is planning around?

i. We are looking to get funding this fall which would mean an RFP in the spring with a summer start time

59.Do you have a preferred rollout approach: a single system-wide go-live, or a phased functional rollout?

i. We can discuss a phased approach. A phased approach should avoid having to do multiple data migrations for the same functional area.

60.Can CPW share the anticipated budget range or order-of-magnitude cost estimate that has been allocated or planned for this project, including initial design/development/implementation and the ongoing annual hosting/support/maintenance costs described in Section 3.8 and Exhibit A, Section VI.10?

i. We do not have a budget range. THis is the reason for the RFI.

We need to see what the range is from the RFI and seek funding in

October.

61.If a specific number or range cannot be disclosed at this time, could CPW indicate the general procurement tier or threshold this project is expected to fall into (for example, whether the anticipated contract value is expected to be above or below the $100,000 threshold referenced in Exhibit C, Model Information Technology Contract)?

i. We have no idea what the range would be given how basic the

‘system’ we currently use is. The jump in technology from where we are to where we want to be makes it impossible to provide a range.

62.Can you provide a list of vendors/organizations who have submitted questions for this RFI?

i. By policy, we are not able to provide this information as it might bias

CPW when reviewing the eventual proposals and future RFP submissions.

63.Can CPW confirm the maximum total email size that can be accepted, including all attachments?

i. Emails up to 50 MB can be accepted.

64.Can CPW confirm the complete list of mandatory forms, exhibits, certifications, and signed documents that must be submitted for a response to be considered complete and responsive?

i. This is listed in the RFP documentation. We would need answers to the requirements spreadsheet. In SHout - A pricing document, a document providing your firm’s background project approach, previous project examples and information on how you would implement the system.

65.Are subcontractors required to be identified now?

i. The main company must be USA based. We would like to know you as a company.

66.Are vendors required to complete all tabs/sections of Exhibit B (Vendor

Workbook), or may certain sections be marked "Not Applicable"?

i. Some may be marked N/A.

67.Are vendors permitted to submit responses as a prime contractor with multiple subcontractors?

i. Main lead company, USA based, is acceptable at this time

68.Are there any preferred or restricted file formats for response attachments

(e.g., PDF, Word, Excel, ZIP)

i. No restricted formats.

69.If the response exceeds email size limits, may vendors submit multiple emails, and how should they be labeled?

i. Yes, vendors may submit multiple emails although one email is preferred. The Response email should include the Subject line:

“Submission: “RFI PMAA 2027*0008 email #1 of 2, email #2 of 2, etc.”

70. Can CPW provide an overview of the current Wildlife Health data environment, including the MS Access database, spreadsheets, shared drives, documents, and other repositories, and identify which components are expected to be replaced by the new solution?

i. We are looking to replace all of it.

71.Is there an existing application, database, vendor, or internal solution currently supporting the Wildlife Health Program? If so, can CPW describe its key capabilities, limitations, and the primary reasons for modernization?

i. No current vendor. It is a combination of MSAccess, shared drives, documents, and spreadsheets.

72.Can CPW provide approximate volumes for the data and artifacts that would need to be migrated, including the number of database records, spreadsheets, documents, photographs, PDFs, and other files?

i. See answer to Q.10

73.What level of historical data migration does CPW anticipate—from a specific date/period or the complete historical record—and is migration of all associated documents and photographs also expected?

i. We are looking to migrate all past data eventually. A phased approach can be considered to prioritize migration of data collected over the past five years.

74.Does CPW expect the selected vendor to perform data profiling, cleansing, standardization, deduplication, transformation, and source-to-target mapping, or will CPW provide migration-ready data?

i. CPW will provide migration ready data. As with any data injection process, data validation and business rule processing should be followed. This can dovetail with the requirement for new data ingestion via spreadsheet.

75.Can CPW provide representative samples of the current MS Access database and spreadsheet data, along with sample documents/artifacts, during the subsequent procurement to allow vendors to accurately assess migration complexity?

i. We are not able to provide this at this time.

76.Does CPW or Colorado OIT have a preferred cloud platform or approved hosting environment for this solution, such as Azure, AWS, or another

State-approved environment?

i. THis is to be a vendor hosted system. Any tier-1 system Google, AWS or Azure is acceptable.

77.Are there existing CPW or Colorado OIT enterprise services—such as identity management, storage, GIS, databases, APIs, or security services—with which the proposed solution will be required to integrate?

i. This is to be a totally vendor hosted system. Data integration with other internal OIT systems is not required for initial release.

Integration with OIT’s PingID solution for authentication is not required.

78.Is CPW expecting the vendor to provide and manage the complete hosting environment, including application infrastructure, database, storage, backup, monitoring, patching, disaster recovery, and security?

i. Yes - complete vendor managed environment.

79.The SOW references recurring data such as GMU boundaries, DAU boundaries, and cross-reference tables. Can CPW clarify the source systems, data formats, update frequency, and preferred integration mechanism for these datasets?

i. ArcGIS reference lays will be pushed to the vendor. GMUs and

DAUs boundaries change on average once a year.

80.For GIS capabilities, does CPW expect an embedded GIS capability within the Wildlife Health application, or would integration with an existing

CPW/Colorado GIS platform such as ArcGIS be preferred?

i. Based on the location where a sample is taken, CPW would like an in application map display(does not have to be a direct ArcGIS implementation) to visualize the data. THis will help us track disease migration patterns in the State.

81.Can CPW provide an approximate number and examples of existing standard reports that must be recreated or supported at go-live?

i. We don’t have any standard reports currently. An AdHoc query solution with Excel/CSV export is what is needed.

82.For ad hoc reporting and analytics, is CPW open to an architecture where the operational database is integrated with an enterprise BI platform such as Power BI, rather than requiring all analytical functionality to be built directly into the application?

i. As long as the solution can facilitate AcHoc reporting we are fine with any proposal.

83.Does CPW have a target implementation or go-live timeframe, and does

CPW anticipate a phased implementation or a single production deployment?

i. We will get funding in October, go to RFP in the Spring, with project start date in the summer. Phased deployment is fine as long as data migration will not be needed multiple times for the same business function.

84.What level of participation and availability should vendors assume from

CPW staff for requirements gathering, data mapping, testing, UAT, migration validation, training, and go-live?

i. Please see answers to questions 54 and 55.

85.Would CPW prefer vendors to propose a configurable/COTS-based solution with limited customization, a fully custom application, or is CPW specifically seeking vendor recommendations regarding the most appropriate approach?

i. Please see answers to 43 and 44.

86.Can CPW provide the expected security, availability, performance, Recovery Time Objective (RTO), Recovery Point Objective (RPO), and incident-response requirements that vendors should use when developing their solution and pricing?

i. Please see the Service Level Agreement, Performance, Incident

Response Requirements section of Exhibit A - Scope of Work

ii. If you use a tier 1 cloud based provider, disaster recovery/failover is baked in.

87.For authentication, the RFI references PingID. Does CPW have a preferred enterprise identity/SSO/MFA solution that the proposed application must integrate with?

i. PingID is a nice to have. In application integration is acceptable.

88.For the ongoing 50-hours-per-month support and enhancement model, can CPW clarify which activities are expected to be covered within those hours and which activities would be considered separately priced work?

i. Please see answers to questions 25 and 42.

89.Given CPW's expectation that the solution remain effective and relevant for 10 years, can CPW clarify its expectations regarding product upgrades, technology refreshes, third-party licensing, cloud infrastructure costs, major version upgrades, and replacement of obsolete technology during the contract term?

i. Since the yearly contract will renew, we have the opportunity to adjust costs yearly.

ii. Patches and bug fixes will be covered under the 50 hours as well as minor improvements. If patches/upgrades eat up the 50 hours then we will need to move non critical issues to another month.

iii. For major functionality improvements, we will need to do a requirements document and associated amendment to the contract wich will generate additional billing from the vendor.

90.Does CPW prefer a Commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS) solution, a configurable platform, or a custom-built solution, or is CPW open to evaluating all approaches based on overall fit and long-term value?

i. Please see answers to 43 and 44.

91.To what extent should CPW administrators be able to configure new fields, validation rules, test types, and workflows without vendor support?

i. Configuration is a nice to have but not required for the initial release.

ii. New tests come along all of the time so there will be some expectation to have this sort of change come through. For initial release we can deal with this sort of change within the 50 hours of maintenance per month.

92.Will the forthcoming RFP provide approximate volumes, formats, and priorities for historical data and artifacts to be migrated?

i. Yes these will be provided when we post the RFP.

93.How does CPW envision responsibility for historical data cleansing, normalization, deduplication, and validation being shared between CPW and the vendor?

i. CPW and the vendor will agree on a standard data format and workflow. Please see previous questions on data migration expectations.

94.Is CPW open to vendors recommending an alternative data model that improves scalability, flexibility, and traceability while meeting the required business relationships?

i. Feel free to design a better data model. We are open to change.

95.Should the solution support configurable workflows for different scenarios such as live sampling, necropsies, surveillance, research, and outbreaks?

The RFI indicates that cases can progress in different ways and information may become available in varying sequences.

i. All of these have different workflows.

96.For Level 4 users, how should the system determine which submitted cases and results each user is authorized to view?

i. We will assign which workflows a level 4 user has access to.

97.Is CPW open to automated/API-based integrations with other CPW systems instead of recurring file uploads where technically feasible?

i. Yes but this is not required for initial release.

98.Does CPW have a preferred approach for providing data access to

Tableau and R, such as APIs, database views, or scheduled extracts?

i. ODBC connection is all that is needed.

99.Is CPW open to recommendations for improving the current barcode and identifier strategy across animals, cases, samples, and subsamples?

i. While we are open to suggestions, CPW will maintain the historical numbering system for case submissions for continuity of data organization and reporting.

100. Given the expected 10-year solution lifecycle, what are CPW's priorities for long-term adaptability, data portability, and minimizing vendor or technology lock-in? The RFI specifically calls for a solution that remains effective and relevant for 10 years.

i. Please see the answer to 89.

101. Does CPW envision a phased implementation, and would CPW welcome vendor recommendations on capability prioritization and sequencing?

i. Please see the answer to question 59

102. Are there any anticipated future integrations with State, CPW, laboratory, GIS, or other systems that vendors should consider when defining the solution architecture?

i. None planned at this time.

103. Beyond technical acceptance, what key outcomes would CPW consider measures of project success, such as improved data quality, reduced data-entry effort, faster reporting, or improved research and surveillance capabilities?

i. Our goals and objectives are listed on page 3 of the Exhibit A -

Scope of Work

104. Can vendors provide commercial references?

i. We would loewe to see a reference section of your proposal along with a description of the project you have performed with them. We will not be contacting them at this time.

105. Can vendors provide a resume instead of key personnel bios?

i. Resumes are acceptable

106. What does 'training' refer to in the requirements for key personnel?

i. We would like you to provide training to a small group of users on how to use the system. This will be recorded. These trainer at

CPW will then train the other techs.

107. Is there a page limit to the response?

i. No page limit but emails cannot exceed 50 MB. All other terms and conditions of RFI PMAA 2027*0008 remain the same.

108. Section 1.2 states that no award will result from any response to this

RFI. Could you confirm whether responding to this RFI is a prerequisite for, or otherwise considered in the evaluation of, a subsequent solicitation for this system?

i. The RFI is not a prerequisite for the forthcoming RFP

109. Does CPW have a target window for releasing that subsequent solicitation? We are planning staffing across fiscal years and any indication of timing would help.

i. Based on the RFP dollar amounts, we will seek funding in October with the RFP to happen in the Spring 2027 with a project start date of July 2027