Bid Addendum 1.pdf

Guilford Technical Community College 601 E. Main Street

Jamestown, NC 27282

ADDENDA 1

IFB/RFQ NO. 99-MP25036

Commodity: Student Loan Default Prevention and Management Services

Using Agency Name: GTCC

Date: Friday, April 24, 2026

This addendum addresses the following:

Response to Vendor Questions:

Vendor Question GTCC Response

Reference: N/A Does GTCC have a current provider? If so, can you share who the vendor is?

Yes. Guilford Technical Community College’s current provider for student loan default prevention and management services is Educational Credit Management Corporation (ECMC).

Reference: 3.3.9 Higher Education Community Vendor Assessment Toolkit, page 7 Is it expected that a completed HECVAT is part of the RFP response package?

A completed Higher Education Community Vendor Assessment Toolkit (HECVAT) is not required to be submitted as part of the initial RFP response package.

As stated in Section 3.3.9, Vendors proposing SaaS or other vendor‑hosted solutions must be prepared to provide a completed HECVAT upon request by GTCC’s Information Technology Services (ITS) Department, and a required HECVAT must be submitted prior to contract award if requested. Vendors are encouraged, but not required, to submit a current completed HECVAT with their proposal to facilitate and potentially expedite the security review; however, failure to include a HECVAT at the time of proposal submission will not render an offer non‑responsive.

Reference: 4.1 Offer Costs, page 10, and 5.2 Evaluation Criteria - Total Cost of Ownership, page 11

In order to maximize GTCC's capacity to evaluate pricing responses as equitably as possible, we recommend that GTCC provide a specific number of accounts for providers to price e.g. how many accounts for borrower outreach, how many for delinquency management.

Providing portfolio volume size, regardless of whether those numbers are the final contractual or operational numbers will ensure all vendors are using the same volume assumptions and have priced for a defined portfolio, facilitating an "apples to apples" comparison.

GTCC understands the rationale underlying the Vendor’s comment; however, the College has intentionally structured this solicitation as an indefinite quantity, agency‑specific contract and does not intend to prescribe hypothetical portfolio volumes for pricing purposes. Vendors should propose pricing in accordance with their standard pricing models using Attachment D. For evaluation purposes, GTCC reserves the right to apply normalization, scenario‑based analysis, or other reasonable comparison methods, as needed, to equitably evaluate Total Cost of Ownership across proposals without establishing implied usage assumptions or contractual commitments.

Reference: 6.3.2 Offer Organization, page 17, and 7.4 Vendor’s License or Support Agreements, page 18

Can GTCC please clarify what the applicability of licensing agreements is to be considered a compliant response to the RFP? Is it correct to assume that a licensing agreement would only be applicable if it is the bidder's business practice to put in place a licensing agreement with its clients, i.e. if contractual agreements with institutions supported does not normally require a

Section 7.4 – Vendor’s License or Support Agreements applies only where it is the Vendor’s standard business practice to utilize a license, support, maintenance, or similar agreement in connection with the services, software, or proprietary assets proposed under this RFP; accordingly, if a Vendor does not customarily require a separate license or support agreement for the services offered, no such agreement is required to be submitted to be considered responsive, and the Vendor may simply indicate that licensing agreement, no agreement should be submitted with the RFP response?

no separate agreement is applicable. For Vendors that do utilize standard license or support agreements, the applicable agreement(s) should be submitted for review and will be considered only to the extent they do not conflict with or materially alter the terms and conditions of the RFP, including the Department of Information Technology (DIT) Terms and Conditions, which shall govern in the event of any conflict.

Reference: Attachment D: Cost Form, Optional Services or Modules (Not Required for Base Proposal), page 42

Is there a preferred format for this attachment or any of the attachments that bidders are required to submit, e.g.

is an Excel file of the Cost Form attachment acceptable or is there a different required file format (same question for all attachments)? This question acknowledges the requirement for .pdf files and is seeking clarification about the format of the file format from which the .pdf is created.

GTCC does not require a specific source file format for completing Attachment D or other required attachments; Vendors may prepare attachments in the format that best supports accurate and complete information (e.g., Excel, Word, or similar), provided that all submitted materials are converted and uploaded as non‑password‑protected PDF files in accordance with Section 6.3.3 (Offer Submittal) of the RFP. Attachment H: Financial Review Form is a specific exception, as it expressly requires submission in Excel format to support review and analysis. The PDF versions submitted via the electronic Vendor Portal (eVP), except where an attachment explicitly requires a different format, will be the versions evaluated by the College, and Vendors are responsible for ensuring that all content is clearly legible and fully represented in the submitted files.

Reference: Attachment D: Cost Form, Optional Services or Modules (Not Required for Base Proposal), page 42

Are there specific requirements for the optional "Financial Education Modules" referenced?

There are no specific technical or functional requirements prescribed for the optional “Financial Education Modules” referenced in Attachment D;

inclusion of such modules is entirely at the Vendor’s discretion and is not required for a compliant base proposal. Vendors proposing optional Financial Education Modules should clearly describe the scope, intended audience, delivery method, and pricing of the offering. Any optional modules will be considered supplemental to the core Student Loan Default Prevention and Management Services and will be evaluated separately, if at all, and only if the College elects to consider or purchase such optional services.

Reference: Attachment D: Cost Form, Optional Services or Modules (Not Required for Base Proposal), page 42

If we have additional optional services, it is anticipated we will provide additional rows in the table in our response?

Yes. Vendors may include additional rows in the “Optional Services or Modules (Not Required for Base Proposal)” table to identify and price any additional optional services they wish to propose. Any added rows should follow the same table structure provided in Attachment D and clearly identify the optional service, associated cost (if selected), and a brief description.

All such optional services must be presented separately from the base proposal and are not required for responsiveness or evaluation of the core services.

Reference: Attachment D: Cost Form, Optional Services or Modules (Not Required for Base Proposal), page 42

Will the optional services be included in the price (Total Cost of Ownership) evaluation?

Optional services identified in Attachment D are not included in the evaluation of the Total Cost of Ownership for purposes of proposal scoring unless GTCC expressly states otherwise in an addendum.

The Total Cost of Ownership evaluation will be based on pricing associated with the required base services only, as submitted in the applicable sections of the Cost Form. Optional services are provided for informational purposes and future consideration and will be evaluated, if at all, separately from the base proposal.

Reference: Attachment H: Financial Review Form, page

Section 6.3.3 states the only file type accepted shall be .pdf, jpeg or .png, but this attachment specifically requires an Excel file. Can GTCC please clarify?

GTCC acknowledges the distinction noted. For Attachment H: Financial Review Form, Vendors are required to complete and submit the form in Excel format as specifically instructed within Attachment H, as this format is necessary for review and analysis. All other required proposal materials and attachments shall be submitted in non‑password‑protected PDF format in accordance with Section 6.3.3. The Excel file for Attachment H may be uploaded in addition to the PDF submission, and this exception applies only to Attachment H where explicitly stated.

Reference: N/A

Who is your current service provider (incumbent)?

Yes. Guilford Technical Community College’s current provider for student loan default prevention and management services is Educational Credit Management Corporation (ECMC).

Reference: N/A

What is the budget for the requested services?

Guilford Technical Community College has elected not to disclose a budget for this solicitation in order to promote open and competitive pricing and to avoid anchoring proposals to a predetermined funding level.

Given the indefinite quantity, usage‑driven nature of the services and the variability in vendor pricing models, GTCC believes it is more appropriate for Vendors to propose pricing that reflects their standard cost structures and the requirements of the RFP. This approach supports a best‑value evaluation by allowing the College to assess relative pricing, scalability, and cost effectiveness across proposals without creating implied spending commitments or restricting competition.

Reference: 7.2 Financial Statements Page 18

In the first paragraph, there is mention of Financial Review Form (Attachment I). However, I only see Attachment H.

Where can I find the Financial Review Form (Attachment I)?

GTCC acknowledges the discrepancy noted. The reference to “Financial Review Form (Attachment I)” in Section 7.2 is a typographical error; the Financial Review Form is Attachment H, which is included with the RFP documents. Vendors should complete and submit Attachment H in accordance with the instructions provided therein, and no separate Attachment I is required or applicable to this solicitation.

Reference: Attachment H: Financial Review Form Page

Vendor shall review the Financial Review Form, provide responses in the gray-shaded boxes, and submit the completed Form as an Excel file with its offer. Vendor shall not add or delete rows or columns in the Form, or change the order of the rows or column in the file.

Is the Financial Review Form an Excel file?

Yes. Attachment H: Financial Review Form is provided as an Excel file and is intended to be completed and submitted in Excel format in accordance with the instructions in Attachment H. Vendors should complete the gray‑shaded fields only and should not add, delete, or reorder rows or columns. The completed Excel file shall be submitted with the Vendor’s offer as specified;

no separate “Attachment I” exists for this solicitation.

Reference: Page 49 is missing

The last page says Page 48 of 49 – Do I need Page 49?

GTCC confirms that no additional page is required and that all required RFP content and attachments are included in the materials as issued. Vendors do not need to locate or submit a separate final page, and proposals will be evaluated based on the complete RFP documents and attachments provided by the

College.

Reference: 3.2.2 SOLUTIONS NOT HOSTED ON

STATE INFRASTRUCTURE

(b)(i) Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP) certification

Will FedRAMP compliance be a deal breaker?

FedRAMP certification is not an absolute requirement for this solicitation and, by itself, will not be a sole disqualifying factor. As stated in Section 3.2.2(b), FedRAMP is identified as a preferred form of independent third‑party security assessment for solutions handling Medium Risk (Restricted) or High Risk (Highly Restricted) data; however, Vendors that cannot provide FedRAMP may submit alternative, acceptable security assessments (e.g., SOC 2 Type II or other permitted reports) in accordance with the RFP. GTCC will evaluate the overall adequacy of a Vendor’s security posture, risk profile, and supporting documentation when determining responsiveness and best value.

Reference: GOVRAMP compliant in North Carolina

On North Carolina Department of Information Technology site:

https://it.nc.gov/programs/cybersecurity-risk-management/esrmo-initiatives/govramp-adoption

Our products are not GovRAMP compliant at a federal level. However, we are state-level certified in Texas (TX- RAMP). We’re not sure how close TX requirements are to NC’s requirements… Is this GovRAMP required? If so, when would we have to be certified by?

GovRAMP certification is not required under this solicitation and is not identified as a mandatory compliance item in the RFP. While North Carolina participates in the GovRAMP framework as a risk‑management initiative, the RFP requires Vendors to demonstrate an overall information security posture consistent with Section 3.2.2, which may be satisfied through acceptable third‑party security assessments (e.g., SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001, or other permitted assessments) as described in the RFP. State‑level certifications such as TX‑RAMP may be provided as supplemental information for consideration, but GovRAMP certification is not a condition of proposal responsiveness or award, and there is no required timeline by which a Vendor must obtain GovRAMP certification as part of this procurement.

By signing below, the Vendor acknowledges that they have reviewed the questions and answers associated with IFB/RFQ No. 99-MP25036. This Addendum should be signed and returned with the Vendor’s IFB/RFQ response package.

Company

Printed Name

Signature Date https://it.nc.gov/programs/cybersecurity-risk-management/esrmo-initiatives/govramp-adoption https://it.nc.gov/programs/cybersecurity-risk-management/esrmo-initiatives/govramp-adoption