Att G - Q&A with State Responses.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 26 KB Posted
- Attached to
- ISPHN De-escalation TechniquesBid Documents
- Solicitation number
- RFP 26-84328
- Issued by
- Vanderburgh County, Indiana
About this file
This is a Questions and Answers (Q&A) document for RFP 26-84328, issued by the Indiana Department of Administration on behalf of the Indiana Psychiatric Hospital Network (ISPHN), seeking a Medical De-escalation and Intervention Training provider. The RFP solicits training services for up to 25 trainers at each of six state psychiatric facilities: Evansville Psychiatric Children's Hospital, Evansville State Hospital, Madison State Hospital, Logansport State Hospital, Richmond State Hospital, and NeuroDiagnostic Institute. Training must address two distinct certification levels—Employee and Non-Employee—and can be delivered through in-person, virtual, hybrid, or asynchronous formats, with any training involving a physical component anticipated to be conducted in person to ensure hands-on practice and feedback. The pre-proposal conference was held on December 3, 2025, with questions due by December 10, 2025, and state responses provided by December 17, 2025. Proposals are due December 31, 2025, at 3:00 PM Eastern Time. The initial contract term is four years with two optional one-year renewals. Training delivery is expected to utilize existing state systems, such as SuccessFactors for eLearning and remote meeting platforms like Zoom or Teams, with no requirement for the vendor to provide a full learning management system or cloud hosting infrastructure.
The state has not allocated a specified budget for this project and does not expect the vendor to provide a full learning platform or system; proposals for services-only delivery via in-person, remote meeting platforms, or hybrid approaches are acceptable. The current incumbent, Bridge Building Techniques, Inc., will not continue in this role. The state emphasizes that training content and delivery practices must align with Joint Commission standards EC.02.01.01 and HR.01.05.03, all applicable state and federal guidelines governing psychiatric care, ISPHN hospital-specific operational policies, and trauma-informed and culturally appropriate principles. Training effectiveness must be assessed using tools that measure incident reduction, improvement in self-efficacy and preparedness, and observable improvements in overall safety, with example KPIs including restraint numbers and injury incidents. The estimated average participation in each Train the Trainer session is approximately 15 participants, though classroom sizes can accommodate up to 25 trainees with a 25:3 trainer-to-trainee ratio for new employees and similar ratios for refresher training. The contractor is expected to maintain internal records of trained individuals, including staff names and dates of training, though the solution is not expected to serve as a data storage or database system for the ISPHN. Questions regarding cloud hosting, infrastructure requirements, and complex technical compliance matters were marked "Not in Scope," redirecting respondents to Indiana Office of Technology (IOT) resources and the state's vendor engagement guidelines.
View the file
Other files
Show all 23
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Q&A
| Attachment B | ||||
| Questions and Answers Template | ||||
| RFP 26-84328 | ||||
| Please submit your questions in the blue shaded areas by the date and time established in the RFI. | ||||
| # | DOC NAME (RFI or Attachment) | PAGE # AND/OR SECTION # | RESPONDENTS QUESTION | STATE'S RESPONSE |
| 1 | RFP document | Section 1.3 | Can you confirm if there are specific training modules already in use within ISPHN that the new training must align with, or is the vendor expected to develop completely new content? | The ISPHN utilizes the proprietary system provided by its current vendor. It is expected that the awardee will provide its own system to the ISPHN. |
| 2 | RFP document | Section 1.4 | Is there a preferred or required trainer-to-trainee ratio for the de-escalation and intervention training? | Refreshers can be 1:1 but largely they are in a classroom setting of above 5 trainees and 3 trainers. For new employees, the same ≥5:3trainers. Classroom and orientation sizes usually cap at 25 and that would still constitute a 25:3 ratio. |
| 3 | RFP document | Section 1.4 | Should the training materials be tailored differently for employees versus non-employees (e.g., contractors, interns)? | Training must address two distinct certification levels: Employee and Non-Employee. See Section 1: Target Audience for more detail. |
| 4 | RFP document | Section 1.4 | Will the training include both in-person and virtual formats? If so, can you clarify any technological preferences for virtual delivery? | Training may be delivered through in-person, virtual, hybrid, or asynchronous formats. Virtual delivery must adhere to IOT specifications and 508 accessibility guidelines. |
| 5 | RFP document | Section 1.4 | Could the State provide more details on preferred digital training platforms or any existing systems that could be integrated to reduce costs, such as LMS platforms? | The state uses SuccessFactors for eLearnings. |
| 6 | RFP document | Section 1.4 | What specific metrics or KPIs does the State expect to track for the training effectiveness (e.g., reduction in incidents, employee feedback)? | Tools must assess incident reduction, improvement in self-efficacy and preparedness, and observable improvements in overall safety. Example KPIs include restraint numbers and injury incidents. |
| 7 | Who is the current incumbent for this project? | The current incumbent for this project is Bridge Building Techniques, Inc. | ||
| 8 | What is the budget allocated for this project? | There is no specified budget for this project. | ||
| 9 | Main Document | Page 7 / Section 1 | Which governing body needs to support certification? | All training content and delivery practices must align with Joint Commission standards EC.02.01.01 and HR.01.05.03, or their subsequent equivalents as updated by accrediting authorities; meet all applicable state and federal guidelines governing psychiatric care and staff competency; with all ISPHN and hospital-specific operational policies and procedures; and embody trauma-informed principles and support culturally appropriate practices. |
| 10 | Main Document | Is there a yearly budget for this RFP? | There is no specified budget for this project. | |
| 11 | Main Document | Page 7 / Section 1 | Training delivery format indicates training can be done virtually, hybrid, in person, etc. Are there requirements that a certain training must be held a certain way, or are we able to determine the format of the training? | Classroom-style or verbal instruction may be delivered virtually or in a hybrid format. At present, the ISPHN anticipates that any training involving a physical component will be conducted in person to ensure demonstration, hands-on practice, guidance, and feedback. However, if a vendor can propose an alternative format (e.g., advanced simulation or virtual reality) that achieves equivalent outcomes, such approaches may be considered. |
| 12 | Main Document | Page 8 / Section 1 | Under Locations and Annual Certifications, it says ISPHN requires certification of up to 25 Trainers at each of the 6 locations. If it is 'up to 25', what would the average be at each location? | An estimated average participation in each Train the Trainer session is approximately 15. |
| 13 | Main Document | Page 29 | Under Cloud Terms and Conditions, if an SaaS proposed training platform does not meet IndianaRAMP but has Single Sign-On through a service that meets IndianaRAMP, such as Microsoft Azure, is that sufficient? | Not in Scope. More information can be found here - https://www.in.gov/iot/iot-vendor-engagement/ and https://govramp.org/providers/ |
| 14 | Attachment M | Is contractor solution hosting in-scope for this RFP? | See Section 2 of Attachment M | |
| 15 | Main Document | Section 1.4 – Summary Scope of Work (p. 6) | The Summary Scope of Work references digital learning modules, high-quality instructional videos, and ongoing technical/educational support. Please confirm whether the State expects respondents to provide a full learning platform or training management system for State staff (e.g., LMS/online portal with tracking and reporting), or if the State will accept a services-only proposal where any vendor technology is used solely internally by the vendor and training completion data is delivered to the State via exports/reports. | No, the State does not expect respondents to provide a full learning platform or system. Instead, the State will consider proposals for fully in person training, remote meeting platforms for virtual training such as Zoom or Teams, or a hybrid of the two approaches. A full learning management system is not the intent of this solicitation. |
| 16 | Attachment M – Infrastructure Overview | Introductory note: “NOTE: The following Infrastructure Overview applies if solution hosting is in scope” | Attachment M states that the Infrastructure Overview applies if solution hosting is in scope. Please confirm whether respondents must complete Attachment M (and any related cloud questionnaires) only if proposing a State-facing system hosted for ISPHN (e.g., LMS or case/training management system), and may respond “N/A” if all platforms are used only internally by the vendor with results submitted to the State via reports. | Respondents are not required to submit Attachment M. |
| 17 | Main Document | Section 2.3.16 – Cloud Terms and Conditions (p. 29; references Attachments B.1, B.2, B.3) | Section 2.3.16 explains that, depending on the proposed system, Infrastructure-as-a-Service (Attachment B.1), Platform-as-a-Service (Attachment B.2), and/or Software-as-a-Service (Attachment B.3) Additional Terms and Conditions could apply. If a respondent provides a turnkey SaaS application with no separate PaaS or IaaS components exposed to the State, will only the SaaS terms in Attachment B.3 apply, or does the State intend to apply the PaaS and/or IaaS terms as well? | If a respondent provides a turnkey SaaS application with no separate PaaS or IaaS components exposed to the State, only the SaaS terms apply. |
| 18 | Attachment M – Infrastructure Overview | Cloud-based service offering requirements / Preferred hosting model | Attachment M states that the State strongly prefers a cloud-based service offering and that cloud-based service offerings are required to be within a State-owned cloud tenant, with exceptions allowed if justified. For this RFP, does the State expect the primary evaluation preference to be (a) a vendor solution deployed in a State-owned cloud tenant, or (b) a vendor-hosted SaaS solution (with NIST 800-53 alignment) considered equally if sufficient justification is provided? | Not in Scope - Option A - more information can be found here - https://www.in.gov/iot/iot-vendor-engagement/ and https://govramp.org/providers/ |
| 19 | Attachment M – Infrastructure Overview | “State-Owned Cloud Tenant (Preferred Cloud Solution)” | Under the State-Owned Cloud Tenant (Preferred Cloud Solution) scenario, Indiana Office of Technology (IOT) will set up the tenant, while the vendor installs and manages the application and unique aspects of the solution. Please clarify the expected division of responsibilities between IOT and the vendor for: (1) subscription/resource group creation and RBAC roles; (2) network configuration (VNets, VPN/ExpressRoute, firewall rules); (3) identity integration (Entra ID/Azure AD); and (4) monitoring/logging tool configuration and ownership. | The State does not expect respondents to provide a full learning platform or system. Instead, the State will consider proposals for fully in person training, remote meeting platforms for virtual training such as Zoom or Teams, or a hybrid of the two approaches. A full learning management system is not the intent of this solicitation. The roles stated in this question are not expected. |
| 20 | Attachment M – Infrastructure Overview | “State-Owned Cloud Tenant (Preferred Cloud Solution)” | Within a State-owned cloud tenant deployment, may the vendor architect the solution using PaaS services (e.g., managed databases, container services, serverless functions, object storage), provided all resources remain within the State-owned tenant and comply with the Information Security Framework and StateRAMP/RAMP requirements? | The State does not expect respondents to provide a full learning platform or system. Instead, the State will consider proposals for fully in person training, remote meeting platforms for virtual training such as Zoom or Teams, or a hybrid of the two approaches. A full learning management system is not the intent of this solicitation. |
| 21 | Attachment M – Infrastructure Overview | State-Owned Cloud Tenant – financial consumption charges | Attachment M states that the State owns the financial consumption charges within the State-Owned cloud tenant. Should respondents exclude underlying IaaS/PaaS consumption from Attachment D (Cost Proposal) and instead price only software subscription, implementation, and support services, or does the State expect respondents to estimate and incorporate anticipated cloud consumption costs into our proposed pricing even if billing ultimately flows through the State’s enterprise agreements? | Not in Scope - the State expects respondents to estimate and incorporate anticipated cloud consumption costs into our proposed pricing even if billing ultimately flows through the State’s enterprise agreement |
| 22 | Attachment M – Infrastructure Overview | “Vendor Hosted Cloud Tenant” | For the Vendor Hosted Cloud Tenant option, Attachment M requires independent verification of alignment with NIST 800-53 Rev. 5 and StateRAMP/GovRAMP-like practices. Will existing certifications such as StateRAMP, FedRAMP Moderate, or SOC 2 Type II be considered sufficient evidence of compliance, or will the State require a separate NIST 800-53 Rev. 5 assessment specific to this solution? In addition, by what date relative to go-live must full compliance be demonstrated for this RFP? | Not in Scope - more information can be found here - https://www.in.gov/iot/iot-vendor-engagement/ and https://govramp.org/providers/ |
| 23 | RFP 26-84328 Main Document | Section 1.4 – Summary Scope of Work (training content and reporting) | For the training, certification tracking, and reporting described in the Summary Scope of Work, please confirm what types of data the system is expected to store and process (e.g., staff names and contact details, State employee IDs, facility affiliation, training status). Will any protected health information (PHI) or patient-identifiable data (such as incident details or patient IDs used in scenarios) be stored in the solution, and how does the State classify this data under the State’s Information Security Framework (e.g., Public, Confidential, Regulated)? | The Contractor's solution is not expected to serve as a data storage solution or database for the ISPHN, as the Network maintains its own records regarding staff training schedules and requirements. However, as part of good business practice, the ISPHN expects that the Contractor would maintain internal records of the individuals they have trained (e.g., staff names and dates of training). This ensures both parties have appropriate documentation of training activities. |
| 24 | Attachment B.3 – IOT-SaaS (Additional Terms and Conditions) | Data Ownership / Records Retention and Destruction (similar language also in Attachments B.1 and B.2) | Attachments B.1, B.2, and B.3 require that State data be maintained in accordance with State records retention requirements and disposed of appropriately at contract end. For this training program, what retention periods and disposition rules does the State anticipate for training records, audit logs, and related system artifacts (e.g., should training completion records be retained for a defined number of years after an employee separates)? | Not in Scope - https://www.in.gov/iara/ |
| 25 | Attachment B.3 – IOT-SaaS (Additional Terms and Conditions) | Security / Encryption requirements (similar language also in Attachments B.1 and B.2) | Attachments B.1, B.2, and B.3 require encryption of all data in transit and at rest in accordance with the State’s Information Security Framework. For a deployment within a State-owned tenant, does the State require customer-managed encryption keys (CMK) using State-controlled key vaults/HSMs, or are vendor-managed keys acceptable as long as all resources reside in the State tenant? For a vendor-hosted cloud deployment, does the State have specific FIPS 140-2/140-3 or algorithm requirements beyond those described in the Information Security Framework? | Not in Scope - more information can be found here |
| 26 | Attachment B.3 – IOT-SaaS (Additional Terms and Conditions) | Security / Access Management | For any State-facing application provided under this RFP, does the State require single sign-on (SSO) for State users via Entra ID/Azure AD or another identity provider? If so, is multi-factor authentication (MFA) expected to be enforced centrally by the State’s IdP, or must the vendor also provide native MFA capabilities within the application? | https://www.in.gov/iot/iot-vendor-engagement/ and https://govramp.org/providers/ |
| 27 | Attachment B.3 – IOT-SaaS (Additional Terms and Conditions) | Security / Identity and Access Management | How does the State prefer that user accounts (e.g., hospital staff, trainers, administrators) be provisioned and de-provisioned in any State-facing system—via automated feeds from existing systems (such as HR or a statewide LMS), scheduled import files (CSV/SFTP), SCIM-based provisioning, or manual administration? Does the State have a preferred standard (e.g., SCIM 2.0 or specific APIs) that respondents should plan to support? | Not in Scope - Authentication (Access Indiana) - https://www.in.gov/inwp/applications/authentication/ |
| 28 | RFP 26-84328 Main Document | Section 1.4 – Summary Scope of Work (program structure and reporting) | Does ISPHN currently utilize a statewide learning management system (LMS) or learning record store (LRS) that this solution is expected to integrate with (for example via SCORM, xAPI, or REST APIs)? Beyond LMS integration, are there any required interfaces to other State systems (such as incident reporting, HR, or credentialing systems) that respondents should plan for in the technical design? | Not in Scope - Authentication (Access Indiana) - https://www.in.gov/inwp/applications/authentication/ |
| 29 | Attachment B.3 – IOT-SaaS (Additional Terms and Conditions) | Logging / Monitoring / Audit Requirements (similar language also in Attachments B.1 and B.2) | Attachments B.1, B.2, and B.3 require that the vendor provide access to security and system logs, including user access information, IP addresses, and performance/latency statistics, and allow appropriate audits. Are there specific log retention periods, formats, or SIEM integrations (such as forwarding logs to a State-managed SIEM) that respondents should plan for? Does the State require real-time or near-real-time alerting to IOT for certain events (e.g., admin privilege changes, repeated failed logins, or bulk data export events)? | The State does not expect respondents to provide a full learning platform or system. Instead, the State will consider proposals for fully in person training, remote meeting platforms for virtual training such as Zoom or Teams, or a hybrid of the two approaches. A full learning management system is not the intent of this solicitation. Attachments B1, B2, and B3 are not required. |
| 30 | Attachment B.3 – IOT-SaaS (Additional Terms and Conditions) | Business Continuity / Disaster Recovery (similar language also in Attachments B.1 and B.2) | Attachments B.1, B.2, and B.3 state that recovery time objectives (RTO) and recovery point objectives (RPO) will be defined in the Service Level Agreement and that annual disaster recovery tests are required. For this training solution, does the State have target RTO and RPO values (e.g., RTO ≤ 4 hours, RPO ≤ 15 minutes) that respondents should design to meet, or should respondents propose RTO/RPO values they consider appropriate for this service? | Not in Scope |
| 31 | Attachment B.3 – IOT-SaaS (Additional Terms and Conditions) | Service Levels / Availability and Performance (similar language also in Attachments B.1 and B.2) | Attachments B.1, B.2, and B.3 require that services be available to the State at all times subject to the SLA. Does the State have a specific minimum uptime SLA target (for example, 99.9% monthly availability) and maximum allowable planned maintenance windows that respondents should propose against? Are there any specific performance expectations, such as maximum page-load times from remote facilities or minimum concurrent user capacity per hospital, that should be assumed? | https://www.in.gov/iot/iot-vendor-engagement/ and https://govramp.org/providers/ |
| 32 | Attachment B.3 – IOT-SaaS (Additional Terms and Conditions) | Personnel Screening / Background Checks (similar language also in Attachments B.1 and B.2) | Attachments B.1, B.2, and B.3 require an FBI Identity History Summary Check for each employee involved in providing services under the contract. Please clarify whether this requirement applies only to personnel with logical access to State data or the State tenant, to all training staff who physically interact with State facilities, or to all employees assigned in any capacity to this contract (including remote support and development staff). Will the State accept existing FBI checks completed within a recent timeframe, and if so, what timeframe is acceptable, or must new checks be performed specifically for this contract? | Not in Scope |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .