APLD Bidder Q and Agency R FINAL 04302026.pdf

idfpr.illinois.gov

Multi-Year DOB Anti-Predatory Lending Database IFB BidBuy Bid# 26-440DFPR-BANKI-B-50508 Bidder Questions and Agency Responses

# Bidder Question Agency Response

Section 6.5 of the SLAs references Azure based hosting.

Please confirm whether Azure hosting is a mandatory requirement of the contractor for this solicitation, or whether alternative, functionally equivalent architectures that meet all stated service level requirements are acceptable.

Azure hosting is not mandatory and equivalent alternatives are acceptable. IDFPR requests that Bidders submit a redlined SLA that accurately reflects the Bidder’s solution. Per Section B.2.5. of the IFB Instructions document, “The State will determine whether the Bid meets the stated requirements. Minor differences or deviations that have negligible impact on the price or suitability of the supply or service to meet the State’s needs may be accepted or corrections allowed. If no bidder meets a particular requirement, the State may waive that requirement.”

The Disaster Recovery SLA describes active geo replication between Azure regions. Please clarify whether Azure SQL geo replication architecture is required of the contractor for this solicitation, or whether demonstrated compliance with the stated Recovery Point Objective (RPO), Recovery Time Objective (RTO), and annual disaster recovery testing requirements would satisfy the State’s expectations.

Azure SQL geo replication architecture is not required.

IDFPR requests that Bidders submit a redlined SLA that accurately reflects the Bidder’s solution. Per Section B.2.5. of the IFB Instructions document, “The State will determine whether the Bid meets the stated requirements. Minor differences or deviations that have negligible impact on the price or suitability of the supply or service to meet the State’s needs may be accepted or corrections allowed. If no bidder meets a particular requirement, the State may waive that requirement.”

The contract requires the Vendor to implement additional improvements (Section 1.3.5), integrations (Section 1.3.6.3), enhancements (Section 1.2.3.3.1.4), scalability (Section 1.2.1.5), reporting (Section 1.3.4), and training (Section 1.2.1.12.1.2) at no additional cost throughout the contract term. Please clarify whether these no-cost obligations include discretionary functional changes unrelated to statutory or regulatory requirements, or whether such obligations are limited to activities necessary to support statutory compliance.

The no-cost obligations listed would be for non-material functional and operational changes needed to keep the APLD system operating smoothly while meeting and maintaining all contractual and statutory requirements.

If material modifications to the APLD system and contract are required, then Section 1.2.1.7. of the contract shall apply.

The IFB requires bidders to submit pricing for all renewal options at the time of bid submission. Should bidders assume that renewal pricing, once submitted and awarded, is final and not subject to later re-negotiation, We understand circumstances may arise that necessitate changes which were not reasonably foreseeable at the time a contract was signed. However, if contract renewal options and/or material contract https://idfpr.illinois.gov/ even in the event of changes to scope, technology requirements, or applicable regulations?

change orders are exercised that include modifications to pricing terms, these procurement actions are subject to public posting requirements and potential protests.

Please clarify whether price evaluation will be based on the initial two-year contract term only, or on the total potential contract value covering the full ten-year contract term, inclusive of all renewal options.

Section B.1. in the IFB Instructions document states, “The State may award to the lowest priced responsive and responsible Bidder whose Bid meets the specified criteria. The State will award by lowest overall total price.” This is the cumulative price of the initial contract term and all renewal options covering the full ten-year term.

Section 6.5 references the use of Microsoft or VMware compatible tools for migrating virtual machines to State infrastructure. Given that the APLD is delivered as a vendor-hosted solution, where the Vendor maintains the hosting environment, please clarify the anticipated circumstances, if any, under which migration of virtual machines to State-owned infrastructure would be required.

Because the APLD is delivered as a vendor-hosted solution, the State does not anticipate routine migration of vendor-hosted virtual machines to State-owned infrastructure. The State may request future integrations or interfaces to and/or from the APLD to State-owned infrastructure and/or other third-party solutions. If an exit transition plan needs to be executed, part of the transition is migrating any and all state-owned data to state-owned infrastructure for redundant storage.

Does the State anticipate hosting the APLD solution on State owned or State managed infrastructure at any point during the contract term, or should bidders assume a vendor-hosted operating model for the duration of the agreement?

At this time, no, we don’t anticipate the State hosting the APLD solution during the term of the contract.

Bidders should assume a vendor-hosted operating model for the contract term.

Section 1.2.1.14.1.4 references an exit transition plan due 180 days prior to contract conclusion, while Section 1.3.7 references a 90-day timeline. Please clarify which provision governs.

Section 1.3.7. will be modified to 180 days. A corrected version of the contract document will be added to BidBuy. Interested bidders should execute this version when submitting their bids.

The contract requires the Vendor to implement additional improvements (Section 1.3.5), integrations (Section 1.3.6.3), enhancements (Section 1.2.3.3.1.4), scalability (Section 1.2.1.5), reporting (Section 1.3.4), and training (Section 1.2.1.12.1.2) at no additional cost throughout the contract term. Would the State consider establishing a reasonable annual cap on no cost systems and support hours, with requests exceeding that cap addressed through the existing Statement of Work and Blended Hourly Rate process already established in the contract?

No. Please see Agency Response to Question #3 above.