BID ADDENDUM 08 - Answers to Questions.pdf

IMPORTANT BID ADDENDUM

August 26, 2026

FAILURE TO RETURN THIS BID ADDENDUM IN ACCORDANCE WITH INSTRUCTIONS

MAY SUBJECT YOUR BID TO REJECTION ON THE AFFECTED ITEM(S):

BID Number: RFP 115-6181 COMMODITY: Website Redesign ADDENDUM Number: 08 USING AGENCY: Pitt Community College PURCHASER: Jane Alligood OPENING DATE/TIME: September 2, 2026 @ 2:00 PM ET

INSTRUCTIONS:

Please make the following change(s) in the bid referenced above:

Reference Vendor Question PCC Response 1 §4.1 Pricing, p.12;

Attachment A, pp.22–

Has PCC established a budget range or not-to-exceed amount for the one-time implementation, and a separate annual budget for the recurring years?

PCC has established a budget for the project; however, the College will not disclose the specific amount.

2 §3.4 Evaluation Criteria, p.11;

Attachment A, p.23

For the 10 available Price points, will PCC evaluate the “Grand Total Price for Entire Contract (one-time costs plus 4 years of operation),” the Total One-Time Cost for Year One only, or both weighted separately?

PCC will evaluate the Grand Total Price for the Entire Contract, including one-time implementation costs and recurring costs for the option years, as submitted in Attachment A.

3 §1.3 Contract Term, p.6;

Attachment A, p.23

The four optional renewal years are described as covering “the recurring costs as listed in Attachment A.” Are the renewal years intended for support and maintenance only, or may they also cover additional development and enhancement work? If additional development is contemplated, should vendors include hourly or blended rates?

The renewal years are intended to cover ongoing support and maintenance. Additional development and enhancement work may be addressed as needed.

Vendors should provide their proposed hourly or blended rates for additional work.

4 §5.2 Functionality and Performance (e), p.16

The RFP references discoverability “across traditional search engines and AI-powered search experiences.” Is optimization for AI-driven search and answer engines considered in scope for

Yes, PCC is interested in improving discoverability across traditional search engines and emerging AI-powered search experiences. It would be evaluated under Content Strategy.

this engagement, and would it be evaluated under Technical Approach or under Content Strategy?

5 §5.2 Functionality and Performance (c), p.16

Regarding “advanced search capabilities”: is PCC interested in an AI-powered assistant or conversational search tool to help prospective students find programs, understand admissions steps and reach the right department? If so, should it be included in the base proposal or priced as an optional component under Attachment A?

PCC does not specifically require an AI-powered assistant or conversational search tool. PCC does already utilize Element451’s AI-powered chatbot. Vendors may propose AI-assisted search or related capabilities as an optional component and explain their benefits, implementation approach, and associated costs.

6 §5.2 Functionality and Performance (c) and (h), pp.16–17

If an AI assistant or AI-assisted search is of interest, does PCC have an institutional policy governing generative AI tools, student data handling, or student-facing automation that a proposed solution would need to comply with?

PCC cannot provide information regarding institutional policies or guidelines related to generative AI, student data handling, or student-facing automation at this time.

Vendors proposing AI-assisted search, chatbots, or other AI capabilities should clearly describe their approach to privacy, security, data handling, governance, and compliance considerations. PCC anticipates that guidelines and requirements related to AI may be developed and communicated during the course of the project.

7 §5.2 Functionality and Performance (h), p.17

The RFP asks vendors to describe “recommended integrations, forms, data flows, and handoff points” but does not name the underlying systems. Could PCC identify the platforms currently in use for the student information system, admissions/CRM, learning management, degree catalog, forms and workflow, payments, event calendar, and Foundation/donor management?

PCC’s current systems and platforms include Colleague (SIS), Element451 (CRM, forms, and events), CFNC (admissions and applications), Modern Campus (academic catalog and program data), FundFive (continuing education and workforce enrollment), SharePoint/Microsoft Entra ID, and Moodle (soon to be Canvas). PCC also maintains a separate Foundation website, which is not included in this proposal.

8 §5.2 Functionality and Performance (h), p.17

Of the systems identified above, which integrations must be live at launch, and which are desirable but may be deferred to a later phase or a renewal year?

The following integrations are expected to be supported/linked to at launch: Colleague, Modern Campus, Element451, FundFive, Paradigm, Moodle/Canvas, and Microsoft Entra ID. PCC would like to explore the inclusion of program-specific job outlook and salary information on individual program pages; this functionality may be deferred to a later phase.

9 §5.1 General, p.14;

§5.2 Content Management (d), p.16

For the employee-facing intranet:

does an internal portal or intranet exist today, or is this a greenfield build? Should intranet access authenticate through an existing identity provider such as Microsoft Entra ID or Google Workspace via single sign-on, and approximately how many employees would use it?

Yes, PCC has an existing intranet.

Our goal is to establish a separate, secure and user-friendly intranet for faculty and staff, distinct from the college’s public-facing website.

The intranet would serve as a centralized location for internal communications, resources, documents, forms, policies, announcements and other employee information. We are open to the vendor’s recommendations regarding the best platform or approach to achieve this goal, including third-party solutions such as Interact. We would like the proposed solution to be easy for both employees to use and for college staff to manage, while providing appropriate security, authentication, permissions and integration with our existing technology environment.

10 §5.2 Platform and Technology (a), p.16

The RFP asks that the design integrate with PCC’s current platform, WordPress, “unless the Vendor clearly identifies and justifies an alternative approach.”

Will a justified alternative be evaluated on equal footing with a WordPress proposal, or does PCC have a working preference for remaining on WordPress?

A justified alternative to WordPress will be evaluated on equal footing with a WordPress proposal. Cost and overall value will also be considered as part of the evaluation.

11 §5.2 Platform and Technology (a), p.16;

Attachment A, p.23

Attachment A includes a line item for “CMS Maintenance Costs (If Proprietary CMS is Used).” Should this be read to mean PCC would consider a custom-developed or proprietary content management solution, or is the intent to remain on an open-source platform that PCC owns and staff can maintain outright?

PCC prefers a CMS that can be maintained and managed by College staff without ongoing vendor dependency for routine website management. Vendors proposing a proprietary or custom-developed CMS should clearly identify and justify the approach and provide all associated costs.

12 §5.1 General, p.15;

§5.2 Platform and Technology (b), p.16

Would PCC consider a decoupled or headless architecture, where content is authored in a content management system and delivered through a separately built front end, provided that non-technical staff retain the authoring, workflow, approval and publishing capabilities described in §5.2?

PCC is open to vendor recommendations regarding the website architecture, provided the solution allows non-technical staff to easily manage, approve, and publish content. Vendors should provide a clear rationale for their recommended approach.

13 §2.8 Alternate Proposals, p.8;

§5.2 Platform and Technology (a), p.16

If a vendor recommends an approach other than a standard WordPress implementation, should that be submitted as a formal Alternate Proposal under §2.8 with separate pricing, or presented as the vendor’s single primary recommendation within the base proposal?

Vendors may propose platforms other than WordPress if they clearly identify and justify an alternative approach that better serves PCC’s goals. Vendors should present their recommended approach within the base proposal.

14 §5.1 General, p.15;

Attachment A, p.23

§5.1 states that PCC “will maintain the site internally with PCC staff,” while Attachment A requests recurring hosting, licensing and subscription costs. Will PCC provide hosting for the new website and intranet, or should vendors include hosting in their recurring pricing? Is the current WordPress site self-hosted or on managed hosting?

The selected Vendor will be responsible for providing and managing hosting for the new public website. The current WordPress website is hosted through SiteGround and managed by the current website vendor.

15 §5.3 Tasks/Deliverables, p.18;

§5.2 Content Management (g), p.16

Regarding “migration of up to 500 combined pages”: is 500 PCC’s estimate of the content expected to survive the audit, or a ceiling on vendor effort? Approximately how many pages exist on the current site today, and where content requires rewriting, will PCC staff author the new copy or is that expected of the vendor?

The 500-page limit represents the anticipated scope for vendor-led migration. The current PCC website contains approximately 2,477 core content URLs. PCC expects a combination of rewriting, editing, restructuring, and migration of content within the approved scope.

PCC staff will be responsible for migrating remaining retained content.

16 §5.3 Tasks/Deliverables, p.18

The phase durations listed in §5.3 total thirteen months (2 + 4 + 4 + 2 + 1), while the same section states the project “shall not exceed 12 months.” Should vendors plan for phases to overlap, or propose a compressed schedule to fit within the twelve-month ceiling?

The phase durations listed in the RFP are estimates and may overlap as appropriate. Vendors may propose a schedule that fits within the 12-month maximum.

17 §3.4 Evaluation Criteria, p.10;

§5.2 ADA Compliance, p.15

Has PCC conducted a recent accessibility audit of the current website, and if so, can the findings or a summary of known issues be shared with vendors? Are there existing accessibility complaints, agreements or remediation commitments that the redesign is expected to resolve?

PCC has conducted accessibility reviews of the current website and can provide relevant audit information and findings to the selected Vendor during the Discovery phase. The redesigned website is expected to meet WCAG

2.1 Level AA requirements, including addressing document accessibility. PCC would also like to reduce the number of downloadable PDF documents where possible by transitioning information to accessible web content.

18 §5.2 Suggested Sites, p.17;

§1.0 Purpose and Background, p.5

Was the current PCC website designed and built in-house or by an outside agency? If by an outside vendor, is that firm eligible to respond to this solicitation?

The current PCC website was designed and built by an outside agency. The agency is eligible to respond to this solicitation.

19 §4.4 References, p.12;

Attachment D, p.24

Regarding the requirement for at least three references with “one minimum from education”: will PCC accept a reference from an education-sector organization that serves colleges and universities, or must that reference be a college or university client directly?

Yes. PCC will accept references from K–12 institutions, higher education institutions, nonprofit educational organizations, workforce-development organizations, or similar education-sector entities, provided the referenced project is comparable in scope and complexity to the services requested in this RFP.

20 §4.7 Agency Insurance Requirements Modification, p.13

§4.7 lists three contract-value tiers for default insurance coverage but does not state the corresponding limits. Could PCC confirm the required minimum limits for Cyber Liability coverage and for each other coverage applicable at the anticipated contract value?

PCC requires a minimum of $1,000,000 in Cyber Liability Insurance coverage. Therefore, vendors must provide evidence of cyber liability coverage meeting or exceeding this limit and addressing the coverage areas identified in Section 4.7.

Coverage that is merely 'commercially reasonable' but below the $1,000,000 minimum would not satisfy the requirement.

21 §2.7 Proposal Contents, p.8;

§7.0 Attachments, p.24

The attachment designations appear inconsistent between sections. §4.2 cites “Attachment G: Certification of Financial Condition” while §2.7(l) and §7.0

Clarification - ATTACHMENT D:

CUSTOMER REFERENCE FORM,

ATTACHMENT E: LOCATION OF

WORKERS UTILIZED BY VENDOR,

and ATTACHMENT F:

identify it as Attachment F; §4.4 cites “Attachment E: Customer Reference Form” while §7.0 identifies Attachment D as the reference form and Attachment E as Location of Workers. Could PCC confirm the complete list of required attachments and their correct designations?

CERTIFICATION OF FINANCIAL

CONDITION are located on Page 24 of the RFP.

22 §2.7 Proposal Contents, p.8

Is there a page limit or required format for the proposal narrative, and if so, does that limit exclude the required attachments, resumes, work samples and appendices?

PCC has not established a page limit or specific format for the proposal narrative.

23 §3.3 Proposal Evaluation Process, p.10

Does PCC currently anticipate requesting oral presentations or demonstrations from shortlisted vendors, and if so, approximately when would those occur relative to the September 28 tentative award date?

PCC may request oral presentations or demonstrations from vendors at its discretion. The timing has not been determined at this time.

24 Section 4.1 Pricing / Attachment A, Pages 12 and 22-23

What budget has PCC set for this project, including setup, software, hosting, support, and yearly costs?

PCC has established a budget for the project; however, the College will not disclose the specific amount.

25 Section 5.2 Platform and Technology, Page

Please describe your current WordPress setup. What hosting, theme, plugins, custom code, and other tools do you use today?

PCC’s current website is hosted by SiteGround and uses WordPress version 7.1. The site uses the Classic Editor and Elementor. Major plugins include Elementor, Gravity Forms, Employee Directory, TablePress, WP Mail Logging, SearchWP, and Events. The website uses a custom theme and a single WordPress installation.

26 Section 5.2 Functionality and Performance, Page 17

What systems must connect to the new website or intranet, such as the SIS, CRM, admissions system, course catalog, forms, payment tools, Microsoft 365, or Foundation systems?

PCC’s current systems and platforms include Colleague, Element451, CFNC, Modern Campus, FundFive, SharePoint/Microsoft Entra ID, Moodle (soon to be Canvas), and a separate Foundation website for payment tools. Most systems are linked to rather than directly integrated with the website.

Vendors should identify recommended integrations and associated costs.

27 Section 5.2 Content Management and Best Practices, Page 16

For the content being moved to the new site, how much does PCC expect the vendor to rewrite or clean up, and how much will PCC staff provide or update?

PCC expects a combination of content cleanup, editing, rewriting, reorganization, and migration. The selected Vendor should provide content strategy, information architecture, templates, editorial guidance, governance recommendations, and migration support, while also performing hands-on content editing and rewriting within the approved 500-page migration scope as needed.

PCC anticipates that some content will require substantial revision while other content may only require updating, reformatting, or reorganization. PCC staff will participate in content review and provide final approval of migrated content. PCC staff will be responsible for migrating the remaining content identified for inclusion in the new website.

28 Section 5.2 Functionality and Performance, Pages 16-17

About how many content items should the search tool index, and about how many searches do users make each month? If these numbers are unknown, what numbers should vendors use for pricing?

PCC anticipates approximately 6,000 on-site searches per month.

Vendors should anticipate indexing approximately 5,000 content items, including website content and relevant documents.

29 Section 5.2 Functionality and Performance, Page 17

Besides the public website, what other content should be included in search, such as the intranet, course catalog, SharePoint, Microsoft 365, or other systems?

PCC does not currently have a defined list of external content sources that must be indexed.

Vendors should recommend appropriate additional content sources based on their proposed search and content-discovery solution.

30 Section 5.2 Security, Privacy, and Data Protection Requirements, Page

If private employee content is included in search, what login, SSO, user role, and access rules must the search tool support?

Private employee content will not be included in the public website search. Any access and search requirements for the employee intranet will be determined during the project.

31 Section 5.2 Functionality and Performance, Pages 16-17

Does PCC want Generative AI search at launch, such as asking questions in plain language and getting answers from approved PCC content?

PCC does not specifically require Generative AI search at launch.

Vendors may propose AI capabilities and explain their benefits, implementation approach, and associated costs.

32 Section 5.2 Content Management and Best Practices, Page 16

Does PCC have a WordPress page editor or builder it prefers, or would you like the vendor to recommend one?

PCC currently uses Elementor but is open to vendor recommendations.

33 Section 5.2 Content Management and Best Practices, Page 16

How many current website pages, PDFs, forms, images, and other files does PCC expect the vendor to review, clean up, migrate, or retire?

The current PCC website contains approximately 2,477 core content URLs, approximately 5,321 media items, including approximately 2,112 documents, and approximately 47 embedded forms. Vendors should assume all existing content will be reviewed as part of the content strategy process, although only up to 500 public-facing pages are included in the vendor migration scope.

34 Section 5.2 / Employee-Facing Intranet / Internal Content Solution, Pages 14–17

What platform does PCC currently use, if any, for employee-facing or intranet content, and does PCC expect the selected vendor to build a new intranet solution or organize/integrate an existing platform such as Microsoft 365 or SharePoint?

Our goal is to establish a separate, secure and user-friendly intranet for faculty and staff, distinct from the college’s public-facing website.

The intranet would serve as a centralized location for internal communications, resources, documents, forms, policies, announcements and other employee information. We are open to the vendor’s recommendations regarding the best platform or approach to achieve this goal, including third-party solutions such as Interact. We would like the proposed solution to be easy for both employees to use and for college staff to manage, while providing appropriate security, authentication, permissions and integration with our existing technology environment.

35 Section 5.3 Tasks/Deliverables, The RFP identifies migration of up to 500 combined pages. Does the 500-page limit include both public website and employee/intranet content, and how should documents, PDFs, forms, media, and other assets be counted for purposes of this limit?

The 500-page migration limit applies to public-facing website pages only and does not include employee/intranet content.

Documents, PDFs, forms, media, and other assets are not counted toward the 500-page limit and should be considered separately from the page migration scope.

36 Section 5.3 Tasks/Deliverables, Does PCC expect the selected vendor to perform user research and stakeholder interviews directly with students, prospective students, faculty, staff, employers, or other audiences? If so, approximately how many stakeholder groups, interviews, workshops, or research sessions should vendors assume for pricing?

Yes. PCC expects the selected Vendor to conduct stakeholder and user discovery activities. PCC will assist with identifying and connecting the Vendor with representative students, faculty, staff, employers, and other stakeholder groups. Vendors may propose an appropriate research methodology and level of effort.

37 Section 5.2 Design and User Experience, Page

What level of content creation and institutional storytelling does PCC expect from the selected vendor? Should vendors include copywriting, photography, videography, or other original content production, or will PCC provide these assets?

PCC expects the selected Vendor to assist with copywriting and content development for the website. PCC will provide photography, videography, testimonials, and other multimedia assets.

38 Section 5.2 Platform and Technology / Section 5.1 General, Pages 14–16

Does PCC intend to retain its current hosting environment, or should vendors propose hosting for the public website and/or intranet? If vendor-proposed hosting is expected, are there specific infrastructure, security, backup, disaster-recovery, or data-location requirements vendors should use for pricing?

PCC expects the selected Vendor to provide and manage hosting for the public website and intranet. PCC does not have specific requirements beyond those outlined in the RFP.

39 Section 5.3 Tasks/Deliverables, Are the phase durations shown in Section 5.3 intended to be sequential, or may phases overlap, provided the entire project is completed within the 12-month maximum?

The phase durations are not intended to be strictly sequential and may overlap as appropriate.

40 Section 5.2 Content Management / Functionality, Pages 16–17

Approximately how many PCC staff members will require CMS and/or intranet access, and approximately how many should vendors assume will participate in administrator, content-manager, or train-the-trainer training?

PCC anticipates approximately five staff members will regularly manage the public website.

Additional IT staff will require access to the intranet. Training needs for administrators, content managers, and train-the-trainer participants will be determined during the project.

41 Section 3.4 Evaluation Criteria, Pages 10–11

For the Experience, Team, References & Work Samples criterion, will PCC consider relevant public-sector and higher-education experience comparable to community-college experience, PCC will consider relevant public-sector and higher-education experience comparable to community-college experience.

Direct community college or is direct community-college experience expected or preferred?

experience is preferred but not required.

Execute Addendum:

BIDDER: ____________________________________________________________________

ADDRESS (CITY & STATE): _____________________________________________________

AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE: __________________________________ DATE: ____________

NAME and TITLE (Print): ________________________________________________________