Amendment One.pdf

SAP

State of South Carolina

Request for Proposal Amendment One

Solicitation:

Date Issued:

Procurement Officer:

Phone:

E-Mail Address:

Mailing Address:

5400026085 11/8/2023

ELSIE MONTGOMERY

(803) 734-8428 Emontgomery@ed.sc.gov SC Department of Education Attn: Procurement Office 1429 Senate Street, Suite 200 Columbia SC 29201

DESCRIPTION: Education Scholarship Trust Fund System USING GOVERNMENTAL UNIT: SC Department of Education Admin

SUBMIT YOUR OFFER ON-LINE AT THE FOLLOWING URL: http://www.procurement.sc.gov SUBMIT OFFER BY (Opening Date/Time): 11/21/2023 11:00 AM EST (See "Deadline For Submission Of Offer" provision) QUESTIONS MUST BE RECEIVED BY: 10/24/2023 5:00 PM EST (See "Questions From Offerors" provision) NUMBER OF COPIES TO BE SUBMITTED: One (1) Electronic Technical marked "Original", One (1) Redacted Electronic Technical Copy marked "Redacted”, One (1) Electronic Price marked “Original”, and One (1) Electronic Price Copy marked “Copy” See Section II. A “DISCLOSURE OF YOUR BID / PROPOSAL and SUBMITTING CONFIDENTIAL DATA, Section II. B “Electronic Copies- Required Media and Format”

Initial here_____ if a redacted copy is NOT necessary.

CONFERENCE TYPE: Pre-Proposal Conference

DATE & TIME: 10/24/2023 10:00 AM EST

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

LOCATION: Via Microsoft Teams Contact the Procurement Officer, by 10/24/2023, at 9:00 AM, EST for conference access code, via email above.

AWARD &

AMENDMENTS

Award will be posted on 12/09/2023. The award, this solicitation, any amendments, and any related notices will be posted at the following web address: http://www.procurement.sc.gov

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 thirty (30) 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)

http://www.procurement.sc.gov/ http://www.procurement.sc.gov/

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) Amendment No. Amendment Issue

Date Amendment No. Amendment Issue

Date Amendment No. Amendment Issue

Date Amendment No. Amendment Issue

Date

DISCOUNT FOR

PROMPT PAYMENT

(See "Discount for Prompt

Payment" clause)

10 Calendar Days (%) 20 Calendar Days (%) 30 Calendar Days (%) _____Calendar Days (%)

PREFERENCES – DO NOT APPLY PER SC CONSOLIDATED PROCUREMENT CODE [11-35-1524(E)(5)] PREFERENCES – DO NOT APPLY PER SC CONSOLIDATED PROCUREMENT CODE [11-35-1524(E)(5)]

_____In-State Office Address same as Home Office Address ____In-State Office Address same as Notice Address (check only one) PAGE TWO (SEP 2009) End of PAGE TWO

AMENDMENTS TO SOLICITATION (JAN 2004) (modified): (a) 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 by identifying the amendment number and date in the space provided for this purpose on Page Two and returning with solicitation response (c) If this solicitation is amended, then all terms and conditions which are not modified remain unchanged.

A. Change wording in Section VI. Evaluation Factors – Proposals (Modified) to read:

Qualifications The Offeror’s experience and references should provide evidence of its depth and breadth of experience as well as evidence of successful past projects of a similar nature. in financial, human resources and other relevant disciplines.

No other changes to this clause.

B. Answer Questions Received

1. Please confirm the desired program launch date.

The State’s Response: The portal must be launched by January 15, 2024.

2. Will price proposals be weighted and/or evaluated by criteria outside of the stated “realism, reasonableness, and affordability to determine whether they reflect an understanding of the requirements” standard outlined in the RFP? If yes, what is that weight and/or criteria?

The State’s Response: No. It should also be noted that proposals whose prices exceed the maximum funds available will be disqualified. The State Budget line tem 1A.63 (SDE-EIA: Surplus) has authorized $2,000,000 for start-up costs for the administration of the program.

3. Will any state agency be responsible for providing data for or verifying family income, or other eligibility?

a. Reference: A.3 Application System, p. 17

b. Recommendation: Data partnership (APIs when applicable) with state agencies to smoothly approve/deny families will be useful in shortening the timeline for families to leverage available funds and to support targeted marketing and engagement efforts to families who most need the available resources. We’ve seen this work well when the state is willing to leverage existing verification mechanisms and data so that the chosen vendor can lower the lift for families applying by building backend verification processes leveraging existing income and eligibility data.

The State’s Response: The agency would like to see options for both data partnerships and document uploads. Given the tight timeline, APIs may not be initially available but would be our preferred solution long-term.

4. Is it the state agency’s intention to leverage the chosen vendor’s call center and customer service structures for both programmatic and technical (platform & digital wallet) support questions, or only technical?

a. Reference: A.6 Support and Training System, p. 19

b. We often partner with state agency administrative teams to split these support categories, placing Student First in charge of all technical support and creating a robust helpdesk with FAQs and articles.

The State’s Response: Programmatic and technical. We do not have available FTEs to answer programmatic questions through a call center of our own.

5. It is our understanding that the fund will fund both school level tuition and fees as well as services and products.

– Are service and product expenses allowable after tuition or fees, or are their program expectations regarding prioritization of expense types?

– Will the state agency have a role in setting quality metrics for appropriate service providers and products?

– Will the state agency approve purchases of service or products at a provider or line item level?

a. Reference: III. Scope of Work–A.2, p. 17 The State’s Response: 1) There are not program expectations regarding prioritization of expenses. For instance, a student could purchase a laptop, and then expend the remainder on tuition if they chose to do so. There are caps in the law of certain types of expenses (ie- an annual limit on transportation). 2) Yes 3) The agency will set the approved program expenditures, and participants will spend within those rules.

6. The RFP states that the digital wallet is to be funded upon program approval.

– Will the state agency program administrators own the development of application questions, the review and approvals of applications, as well as appeals processes, or will the chosen vendor independently own these processes?

– And will the state agency pre-pay the chosen vendor with funds for families students accounts, or will the vendor need to submit invoices for reimbursement upon authorized pre-approved expenses made by the families students accounts?

a. Reference: A.5 Fiscal Management and Payment System, p. 19 The State’s Response: 1) While the state agency program administrators will ultimately own the development of application questions, they would appreciate suggestions from the vendor based on best practices from other states. The same applies to appeals processes. The review and approval of applications will be executed by the vendor. 2) The funds will actually be loaded on a quarterly basis into the applicant’s digital wallet (SC Code XXXX), so while the platform should make it evident that the family is awarded $6,000 annually, the funds themselves wont’ be immediately available. The families should not expend any funds until they are actually loaded into the account.

7. When does SC DOE intend to flow approved funds to the education technology vendor?

– Option 1: Upon student approval into ESTF program, OR

– Option 2: Upon reimbursement of ledgered amounts toward approved services.

a. Reference: A.5 Fiscal Management and Payment System, p. 19 The State’s Response: Neither. A student is accepted into the ESTF program in January-February, and the funds will not be available until after the start of the new fiscal year in July. Once the funds are available, they will be transferred to the Education Technology vendor for management and to disburse directly to approved service provider upon the request of the participant.

8. On a scale from 1-10, what appetite does the state have for additional services to support the

ESTF's success such as grassroots awareness campaigns and paid marketing services to increase parent engagement and adoption?

a. Reference: N/A The State’s Response: The RFP requires the vendor to share its plan for recruiting participants, so the State anticipates awareness campaigns and necessary marketing to be included in the proposals submitted.

9. How large does the State anticipate the management team will be, and what roles will the team members have?

The State’s Response: The state was not given any FTEs to manage this program, so it is currently one person. Their role will be mainly vendor management and coordinating with external marketing partners. The fiscal impact statement submitted to the state had a potential of several FTEs required, but those have not been given/funded at this point in time.

10. What is the conflict of interest stance on responding vendors having investors/ shareholders with vested interest also in education service providers (tutoring, curriculum, and other) that could feasibly serve as education vendors for the ESTF?

a. Reference: Organizational Conflict of Interest, p. 31

b. Our context in the education technology landscape leads us to request that state administrators consider explicitly stating that vendors with such conflict of interests will be considered unresponsive.

The State’s Response: Please consider the “OCI FAQ for Contractors” and “Organizational Conflicts of Interest Procedures, Guidance and Information” available at www.procurement.sc.gov as instructed in the clause titled “Disclosure of Conflicts of interest or unfair competitive Advantage” on page 9 of the solicitation and discussed in the clause on page 31.

11. The RFP says it is MANDATORY to have 3 years’ experience, will the state uphold this rule for ALL bidders? So therefore if a company was not incorporated on or before 2020 this excludes them?

a. Reference: Qualifications–Special Standards of Responsibility, p. 25

b. Recommendation: We strongly recommend the state adhere to the 3 years of experience quality measure to ensure that SC families are served by established and proven education technology vendors.

The State’s Response: In order to encourage the maximum competition, three years’ experience can be construed to mean with similarly-styled portals for things like Medical Spending Accounts or Health Savings Accounts, or with programs in other states.

12. In addition to customizing the ESTF technology platform to the rules/regulations and nomenclature of the program, would the state prefer to have the online platform solution bear the logo of the state on the login screens and helpdesk for families/schools/admins with customized colors to create a streamlined and on-brand user experience?

a. Reference: III. Scope of Work–A.2, p. 17

b. Student First’s experience with serving families elevates the preference that families experience a seamless visual experience that centers the state program’s branding.

The State’s Response: Yes.

13. Can the State please clarify what it means that processing fees cannot be charged? RE:

Section A.5.e

The State’s Response: No processing fee will be charged to families/vendors that elect to participate in the program.

14. Does "may not charge any processing fees" mean that no processing fee can be charged to the State? RE: Section A.5.e

The State’s Response: No processing fee will be charged to families/vendors that elect to participate in the program.

15. Does "may not charge any processing fees" mean that no processing fee can be charged to the families? RE: Section A.5.e

The State’s Response: Correct. We also will not accept charging participating fees to vendors/service providers.

16. Would the State be open to a different pricing model other than font loading fees that are charged to the state, such as vendor transaction fees? We ask the question because charging the state up front for services to be rendered shifts 100% of the risk from the contractor to the state.

A real example from another state is a contractor charged the state $1.5M up front to administer a microgrant program funded at $48.5M. On the surface, that looks like a 3% fee. However, the contractor was only able to process and administer less than $10M, which as a percentage, puts the front-loaded fee at over 15% or 5x higher than expected. Front loading also creates a disincentive for the contractor to perform at the highest level, including staffing appropriately for customer support. RE: Section A.5.e

The State’s Response: Yes, but it cannot be in the form of participant fees (either for student applicant or approved vendors). The law (SC Code 59-8-125(B)) limits the Department to retaining up to 2% of funds for program administration. If only 1,000 students participate in the program, that would be $120,000 which would be the maximum the Department could pay a vendor.

17. Will the state consider other pricing options that are performance based and not front-loaded? RE: Section A.5.e

The State’s Response: Yes, as long as the proposal doesn’t exceed the budgetary restrictions of the first year, and 2% of the total amount allocated to students on second and subsequent years. The law reads “The department shall deduct an amount from the ESTF to cover the costs of overseeing the accounts and administering the program up to a limit of two percent.” (SC Code 59-8-125 (B))

18. Will the state consider a means by which vendors on the platform who have provided services pay a fee to participate in the program? RE: Section A.5.e

The State’s Response: No.

19. Will the state entertain a means by which vendors on the platform who have provided services are not charged a processing fee, and instead, the state pays a quarterly fee based upon how much money has been distributed to all vendors? RE: Section A.5.e

The State’s Response: No.

20. Are there current state API’s in place for secure interaction with State data? RE: Section A.3.6

The State’s Response: There is an API off the EdFi system that would have base student demographic data for students who have been enrolled in public school in South Carolina.

21. Which state agency or agencies would participate in data sharing with other student databases? RE: Section A.3.6

The State’s Response: We are in early conversations with the SC Department of Social Services (DSS) re: datasharing (a yes/no response) solely for determining eligibility.

22. Will the state allow data access to applicants’ tax return information or provide in-house income eligibility verification using application information provided by the vendor? RE:

Section A.3.6

The State’s Response: Ideally, though if we’re not able to get access to all the appropriate data points, document upload/validation may be necessary.

23. What is the priority, sequencing, and expected timeline for bringing the various systems in the new solution?

24. The State’s Response: This has not been defined and would be dependent on vendor recommendations and capabilities.

25. Can the Department provide the number of internal users (employees, delegated individuals, commission/board members, etc.) by program area that will require access to this system

The State’s Response: Initially, there will likely be less than five. As we learn more about staffing needs once the program is implemented, this could grow.

26. For internal users, we are assuming that there will be a need for an ActiveDirectory integration in the new solution. Is that correct?

The State’s Response: We don’t anticipate that there needs to be an ActiveDirectory integration with a hosted solution. We do have ActiveDirectory integration capabilities if that is the route the vendor wants to propose.

27. How many public customers will need access to the system?

The State’s Response: There is not currently a way to estimate this other than to reiterate the maximum number of participants in each year: 5,000 during year 1; 10,000 during year 2; 15,000 during years 3+. There is no way to estimate the number of vendors/service providers who will offer goods/services at this time.

28. How many scholarship applications are expected per year?

The State’s Response: No estimate is available.

29. Please provide a list of external data integrations that are required with this system.

The State’s Response: The ones we’ve identified for initial implementation include EdFi Operational Data Store (ODS) and an API with the Department of Social Services, assuming we can get it in place in time.

30. Is the solution expected to integrate into any existing systems within the Department?

The State’s Response: The solution will query the data with State Unique Numbering System (either powerschool or separate database).

31. For any integration needs, we are assuming that APIs will be available for us to use. If not, is building APIs in scope for this project?

The State’s Response: Building needed APIs (currently we’re working with the Department of Social Services to set one up for the implementation year to ascertain eligibility via Medicaid status), but building additional ones that emerge would be within the scope.

32. Are there any data exchange requirement?

The State’s Response: The solution will query the data with State Unique Numbering System (either powerschool or separate database).

33. Is integration with an Electronic Signature tool like DocuSign or AdobeSign in scope for this project?

The State’s Response: There must be a way for applicants/service providers to sign assurances. The offeror will suggest how to best accomplish this.

34. Is there a requirement to integrate with any external qualification systems?

The State’s Response: The RFP leaves it up to the vendors to suggest how they would recommend making the application process the least burdensome it can possibly be.

35. How does the Department anticipate the disbursement of funds to the recipients?

The State’s Response: Details of this requirement are outlined in A.5 under “Fiscal Management and Payments System” on page 19 of the solicitation. See specifically item A.5.f.

36. Will this solution be required to enable the disbursement of funds to individuals and/or service providers?

The State’s Response: The disbursement of funds will be to service providers. No participant may seek reimbursement for expenditures.

37. Is there a requirement to bring in application data from fillable forms into the system?

The State’s Response: No, though vendors are welcome to propose as a solution.

38. We assume that there are a variety of document types that will need to be pushed into the

Department’s document management system. Is that correct?

The State’s Response: Yes.

39. The Department may elect to consider any security, e.g., letter of credit, performance bond, parent-company corporate guaranty. Can you confirm and clarify this requirement?

The State’s Response: To be eligible for award, offerors must have the capability in all respects to perform fully the contract requirements. Section V. has a clause (Qualifications of Offerors) which allows the State to consider documents that provide information that confirm capabilities of the offeror.

40. Does the Department foresee the need for on-going operations and maintenance after go-live date?

The State’s Response: Yes. The vendor is charged with the majority of program administration, and depending on changes in laws or program guardrails, maintenance would be needed.

41. How many internal state users will there be? and their roles?

The State’s Response: Initially, there will likely be less than five. As we learn more about staffing needs once the program is implemented, this could grow.

42. external users

a. do you have any estimates on the number of people that will apply for the scholarships?

b. are there any other external users that would need access to the system? type, role or volume?

The State’s Response: There is no way to estimate either A or B at this time.

43. We see that a lawsuit was filed against this program, do you foresee this affecting the process?

The State’s Response: The lawsuit should not affect the RFP unless the court rules otherwise. We are monitoring the litigation and will communicate any updates with the potential vendors.

End of Amendment One.