Bid_Amendment_-_EVT0010861_-_Bid_Amendment_2.pdf

Office of Procurement and Contracts Phone: 785-296-2376 900 SW Jackson St., Room 1001 North Fax: 785-296-7240 Topeka, KS 66612 www.admin.ks.gov/procurement-and-contracts

Adam C. Proffitt, Secretary Laura Kelly, Governor Todd Herman, Director

Amendment Request for Proposal

Date: July 28, 2026

Amendment Number: 2

Event Number: EVT0010861

Closing Date: August 18, 2026, 2:00 PM CST

Procurement Officer: Tyrone Gasper

Telephone: 785-296-3126

E-Mail Address: Tyrone.Gasper@ks.gov

Agency: Kansas State School for the Blind

Item: Website Accessibility Compliance

Conditions: 1) Answers to submitted questions follow on page two (2) of this document.

2) Bidder questions round 2 are due by 5:00pm CT August 4th, 2026.

Responses to questions will be posted by addendum.

A signed copy of this Addendum must be submitted with your bid. If your bid response has been returned, submit this Addendum by the closing date indicated above.

I (We) have read and understand this addendum and agree it is a part of my (our) bid response.

NAME OF COMPANY OR FIRM:

SIGNED BY:

TITLE: DATE:

It shall be the vendor's responsibility to monitor this website on a regular basis for any changes/addenda.

http://admin.ks.gov/offices/procurement-contract http://www.admin.ks.gov/procurement-and-contracts mailto:Tyrone.Gasper@ks.gov http://admin.ks.gov/offices/procurement-contract

Event ID: EVT0010861

EVT0010861 – Amendment 2

Website Accessibility Compliance

Questions and Answers

Q1: Website size (Specifications - Technical Scope of Work; Expected Deliverables - “Remediated Source Code”) - Approximately how many web pages, unique templates, and subdomains/microsites make up the KSSB website in scope? This drives audit and remediation effort and pricing.

A1: The website is one domain with less than 100 unique pages and less than 2500 media objects.

Q2: Platform / CMS (Specifications - Technical Scope of Work; Expected Deliverables – “Remediated Source Code”) - What content management system or platform does the KSSB website run on, and will the vendor be given direct access to remediate source code, or is the vendor to deliver recommendations for KSSB staff to implement?

A2: The site is on WordPress 7.0, but is currently hosted by a third-party. Direct access will not be granted to the production site, but a development copy can be established if the audit recommendations require significant code access.

Q3: Document remediation volume (Specialized Requirements - “Document & Media Remediation”)

- How many documents (and total page count) require remediation, broken out by type (PDF, Word, PowerPoint, etc.)? The RFP states “all PDFs must be fully tagged” - what is the total inventory?

A3: This is for the vendor to determine during the audit. The size of the existing material is provided in answer A1.

Q4: Media remediation volume (Specialized Requirements - “Document & Media Remediation”) - How many videos / audio files require captioning and Extended Audio Description, and what is their total run-time?

A4: This is for the vendor to determine during the audit. The size of the existing material is provided in answer A1.

Q5: Third-party tool inventory (Sustainability & Roadmap Integration (NCADEMI) - “Inventory & Tiered Evaluation”) - Approximately how many educational-technology products and third-party tools must be inventoried and evaluated under the NCADEMI roadmap?

A5: A comprehensive inventory does not exist, which is why the agency is seeking a consultant to help create one. Therefore, it is impossible to accurately answer this question. However, we do know that over 100 educational-technology products and third-party tools are in use across our programs.

Q6: Staff training (Expected Deliverables - “Staff Training”) - How many staff need role-based “born-accessible” training, in how many sessions, and delivered virtually or on-site?

A6: Approximately 40 staff members will need training. Delivery virtually or on-site is up to the vendor to propose, but it must be in an accessible format for staff with sensory and motor impairments.

Q7: UAT testers (Expected Deliverables - “User Acceptance Testing”) - For the User Acceptance Testing with actual screen-reader users, will KSSB provide the test participants, or is the vendor expected to recruit and compensate them?

A7: The vendor is expected to recruit and compensate them. The agency’s staff already operate at capacity delivering existing services, which is why we are seeking the assistance of a consultant for this initiative. The vendor MUST NOT recruit existing agency employees for this work due to conflict-of-interest restrictions, but the vendor MAY recruit eligible current or former students of the agency at its discretion.

Q8: WCAG version / scope (Specifications - Technical Scope of Work) - Is the target strictly WCAG

2.1 Level AA, or should the vendor also account for WCAG 2.2? Is any KSSB- or Kansas-specific accessibility policy in scope?

A8: The required minimum threshold is WCAG 2.1, but vendors may exceed this by pursuing WCAG

2.2 if specified in the proposal. Agency-specific and Kansas-specific accessibility policies do not exceed WCAG 2.1 requirement to the knowledge of the agency.

Q9: VPAT format (Expected Deliverables - “Formal Accessibility Statement / VPAT” (ACR format)) - Does KSSB have a preferred VPAT 2.5 edition - 508, WCAG, or INT?

A9: The VPAT 2.5 WCAG edition is preferred.

Q10: Usability findings beyond conformance (Specifications - Technical Scope of Work; Expected Deliverables - “Audit Report”) - While we recognize the importance of WCAG 2.1 AA conformance to meet the ADA Title II ruling, does KSSB also want non-conformance usability issues documented, so that all potential assistive-technology barriers are captured?

A10: Yes.

Q11: Pricing model (Cost Sheet) - The Cost Sheet asks for hourly and per-day rates. Does KSSB want a time-and-materials engagement at those rates, or a fixed not-to-exceed project price? Is there an estimated budget or hour ceiling for this project?

A11: The agency intends to award based on Time and Materials with a Not-to-Exceed cap for the main website (Year 1 scope), and Time and Materials for broader ongoing efforts. Budget information is not available.

Q12: Completion date (Compliance Justification; Event Details - Appendix A) - Is there a required project completion date (e.g., ahead of the 4/26/2027 federal deadline), and what does the 8/9/2026 “Due Date” in the Event Details (Appendix A) refer to?

A12: The audit, reporting, and remediation recommendations must MUST be completed ahead of the April 26, 2027 federal deadline, but ideal proposals will set an earlier target. The 8/9/2026 due date in the Event Details (Appendix A) appears to be an artifact of the bid generation system.

There are no project deadlines from the Agency associated with 8/9/2026.

Q13: On-site requirement (Specifications) - Is any on-site work required, or is fully remote delivery acceptable?

A13: On-site work is not required, but is permissible. Completion of the project will likely require scheduled real-time communication, but that can be achieved through remote means.

Q14: PDF Tagging: Can Kansas State School for the Blind provide an estimated total count of the historical PDFs currently hosted on the site?

A14: The total media count is provided in Answer A1. The vendor will have to perform an audit to determine what proportion of these files are PDFs.

Q15: Web Page and Document Sampling: Will Kansas State School for the Blind allow a statistically representative sampling methodology for legacy content, or is a manual audit required for 100% of all live pages and documents?

A15: A manual audit is preferred for 100% of pages, but bidders may propose a sampling methodology for the existing content.

Q16: Refreshable Braille Displays: Does Kansas State School for the Blind require the vendor to conduct physical hardware testing using an RBD, or is verification via screen reader semantic markup output (e.g., ensuring correct ARIA live regions and landmarks) acceptable?

A16: A reasonable random sample (greater than 10%) of tested pages must be tested with physical hardware using a refreshable Braille display.

Q17: Integration of the NCADEMI Sustainability Roadmap: Does Kansas State School for the Blind already have an established Cross-Disciplinary Steering Committee or accessibility committee in place?

A17: The Agency does have an existing Cross-Disciplinary committee that has been assigned this responsibility, but improvements are likely needed.

Q18: NCADEMI Incorporation: Should the vendor's proposal strictly focus on the items explicitly listed in the Technical Scope of Work (Page 27), or should we incorporate NCADEMI components, such as establishing a steering committee, formalizing internal/external communication plans, and creating feedback loops?

A18: The proposal MUST encompass the items explicitly in the Section 4, Specifications. Evaluation and award will be based on conformance to the requirements of the Specifications.

Q19: Appearance Before Committee: In the event the Procurement Negotiation Committee requests an interview or presentation, will these meetings be held virtually or will they require an in-person appearance in Topeka?

A19: Please refer to Section 1.5, Appearance Before Committee.

Q20: Expected Deliverables: Does Kansas State School for the Blind have a preferred delivery method for staff training (e.g., synchronous in-person workshops, live virtual webinars, remote trainings)?

A20: No.

Q21: Languages in Scope: Are there any localized or foreign language versions of the Kansas State School for the Blind website or digital documents currently in use that require accessibility testing and remediation, or is the scope strictly limited to English content?

A21: Strictly English. Some content is made available in other languages on a select basis, but the official version of all published documents are in English. While not a localized or foreign language, higher grades of Braille, including Nemeth code, may be used to encode certain materials.

Q22: Website Scale: Can you provide the approximate number of pages, templates, and unique layouts that comprise the current Kansas State School for the Blind website?

A22: Refer to Answer A1.

Q23: Third-Party Integrations: Section 3 mentions creating an inventory of third-party tools. Can you share a list of the primary third-party applications, portals, or plugins currently integrated into the Kansas State School for the Blind website that are within the scope of this evaluation?

A23: Refer to Answer A5.

Q24: Procurement Alignment: Section 3 mandates establishing procedures for future third-party software purchases. Does Kansas State School for the Blind currently have a procurement review process in place, or is the vendor expected to design this framework entirely from scratch?

A24: The Agency is subject to State of Kansas procurement review processes, which are comprehensive as far as the actual procurement process is concerned. However, the existing processes merely require vendors to warrant that their products are WCAG compliant, and do not involve any methodology for attempting to verify this before a purchase is made.

Q25: Policy Ownership: When drafting the formal Digital Accessibility Policy, who are the primary internal stakeholders at Kansas State School for the Blind or the Department of Administration who will be responsible for reviewing and approving the policy?

A25: The agency’s Cross-Disciplinary Technology Committee will be the first body to review it, and includes the Superintendent, Instructional Staff, and Technology Support Staff. Ultimately, policies of the Agency are statutorily governed by the Kansas State Board of Education.

Q26: Contract Period & Phasing: The contract period is three years with options to renew, but the federal compliance deadline is April 26, 2027. Does Kansas State School for the Blind expect the core remediation and technical fixes to be fully completed well ahead of the April 2027 deadline, with years 2 and 3 dedicated strictly to monitoring and training?

A26: Compliance is not a static one-and-done issue. The Agency is looking for a consultant to partner with the Agency to ensure ongoing compliance as standards change, products evolve, and new technology is acquired and implemented after the initial compliance deadline.

Q27: 'Staff Training' Deliverable: Approximately how many Kansas State School for the Blind staff members are expected to participate in staff training? Should the training be tailored specifically for content creators (e.g., teachers uploading PDFs), or will it also need to include technical training for internal IT/web developers?

A27: Refer to Answer A6. The training should encompass content creators and technical training for technology support staff.

Q28: Is subcontracting permitted under this solicitation?

A28: Refer to Section 3.23 (Subcontractors) of the State’s Terms and Conditions.

Q29: If subcontracting is permitted, may the Prime Contractor rely on the qualifications, experience, certifications, references, and past performance of its subcontractor(s) to satisfy the minimum and mandatory qualification requirements?

A29: Refer to Section 3.23 (Subcontractors) of the State’s Terms and Conditions.

Q30: May proposed subcontractor personnel be presented as members of the proposed project team and participate in project delivery?

A30: Refer to Section 3.23 (Subcontractors) of the State’s Terms and Conditions.

Q31: Must all subcontractors be identified at the time of proposal submission, or may subcontractors be added after contract award with the State's approval?

A31: Refer to Section 3.23 (Subcontractors) of the State’s Terms and Conditions.

Q32: Is there a maximum percentage of the work that may be subcontracted?

A32: Refer to Section 3.23 (Subcontractors) of the State’s Terms and Conditions.

Q33: Does the State permit the use of offshore resources for any portion of this engagement?

A33: Offshore resources are not prohibited. However, all confidential or proprietary information may only be accessed by individuals subject to the personal jurisdiction of the courts of the United States, and the vendor must ensure compliance with all Kansas laws pertaining to the use of foreign technology, which does impose restrictions on some countries. It is the responsibility of the vendor to ensure compliance, and the Agency will not provide legal guidance or legal counsel regarding this matter.

Q34: If offshore resources are permitted, are there any restrictions regarding the type of work that may be performed offshore (e.g., accessibility testing, document remediation, development, reporting, or administrative support)?

A34: Refer to Answer A33.

Q35: Does the State require all project management, accessibility testing, remediation, and client-facing activities to be performed within the United States?

A35: Refer to Answer A33.

Q36: May bidders utilize experience and references from commercial-sector projects to satisfy the required qualifications, or is government/public-sector experience mandatory?

A36: Bidders may use any experience and references to demonstrate qualifications, and MAY optionally specify whether such relevant experience and references are from the public and private sector.

Q37: Will experience supporting educational institutions, higher education institutions, nonprofit organizations, or other public-serving organizations be considered comparable experience?

A37: Yes. However, the degree to which the organization is subject to the same or similar legal obligations will be considered as well.

Q38: May commercial clients be provided as references if the projects involved similar scope and complexity?

A38: Yes.

Q39: Is experience supporting schools for the blind, accessibility-focused organizations, or agencies serving individuals with disabilities preferred or required?

A39: No.

Q40: May the qualifications, certifications, experience, and past performance of proposed key personnel be used to satisfy the minimum qualification requirements where applicable?

A40: Yes.

Q41: Does the State provide any evaluation preference for Kansas-based vendors?

A41: Refer to the Event Details document, Bidders Preference Program Section.

Q42: Is there any preference for vendors maintaining a physical office within the State of Kansas?

A42: Refer to Answer A41.

Q43: Are there any mandatory proposal formatting requirements such as font type, font size, page limits, margins, line spacing, tab dividers, or section formatting?

A43: Reference Section 2.1 Submission of Proposals

Q44: Aside from the file naming convention specified in the RFP, are there any additional submission formatting requirements bidders should follow?

A44: Reference Section 2.1 Submission of Proposals

Q45: What Content Management System (CMS) currently powers the Kansas State School for the Blind website?

A45: Refer to Answer A2.

Q46: What is the approximate number of public-facing webpages included within the scope of this project?

A46: Refer to Answer A1.

Q47: Approximately how many PDF documents, Microsoft Office documents, videos, online forms, and other digital assets require accessibility remediation?

A47: Refer to Answer A1 and Answer A3.

Q48: Does the project include remediation of all existing website content or only selected high-priority pages and documents?

A48: The project includes remediation of all existing website content on the public-facing kansasblind.org website.

Q49: Will archived or legacy content be included in the accessibility remediation effort?

A49: If it is available on the public-facing kansasblind.gov website, it is included, regardless of archived or legacy status.

Q50: Will the selected vendor receive administrative access to the website's CMS, source code, and development/staging environments?

A50: Refer to Answer A2.

Q51: Has the State previously conducted an accessibility audit, and if so, will the results be shared with the selected vendor?

A51: The Agency previously undertook an accessibility initiative that resulted in the creation of the current website. The circumstances surrounding that event prevent disclosure of certain aspects, and the results of that effort pre-date years of modifications, so the Agency deems them irrelevant to the current initiative, which must be comprehensive.

Q52: Has the State previously conducted an accessibility audit, and if so, will the results be shared with the selected vendor?

A52: Refer to Answer A51.

Q53: Approximately how many webpages are expected to undergo manual accessibility testing, and is testing expected for every page or representative templates only?

A53: Refer to Answer A1 for total volume, and Answer A15 and Answer A16 for sampling expectations.

Q54: Will the State provide access to individuals who use assistive technologies for User Acceptance Testing (UAT), or is the selected vendor expected to recruit participants?

A54: Refer to Answer A7.

http://kansasblind.org/ http://kansasblind.gov/

Q55: Does the project include remediation of third-party applications integrated with the website?

If so, how will third-party accessibility issues be managed?

A55: Yes. The vendor is to propose how such issues will be managed

Q56: Will original editable source files be provided for document remediation where available?

A56: Where available, but many such draft documents may no longer exist.

Q57: Is an Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR/VPAT) required for the website, and what level of detail is expected in the final accessibility report?

A57: Refer to the Bid Specifications and Answer A9.

Q58: Approximately how many staff members are expected to participate in accessibility training, and should the training be delivered onsite, virtually, or in a hybrid format?

A58: Refer to Answer A6 and Answer A20.

Q59: Does the State currently have a Digital Accessibility Policy that requires updating, or is the selected vendor expected to develop a new policy and implementation roadmap?

A59: The Agency prefers the development of a new comprehensive policy and implementation roadmap instead of relying on scattered legacy ad-hoc policies and roadmaps.

Q60: Will the State assign a dedicated Project Manager, and what reporting cadence (weekly, biweekly, or monthly) is expected throughout the engagement?

A60: The Agency will assign a Project Manager only if the successful bidder is not providing one as part of the solution. The reporting cadence to the Agency will be no less than monthly, and no more than weekly, as negotiated between the PM and Agency administration and based on progress and performance.

Q61: What are the acceptance criteria for successful completion of the project, and will the State perform independent accessibility validation before final acceptance?

A61: This is a two-phase engagement consisting of a core remediation project due by April 2027, followed by ongoing support on a time and materials (T&M) basis.

The core project will be accepted as successfully complete when all deliverables specified in the bid are delivered on time, and website pages/elements either meet the following standards OR have specific, actionable remediation strategies and source code patches documented for all remaining errors:

• Automated Baseline: 100% of pages pass automated scans to conform with WCAG 2.1 Level AA.

• Keyboard Operation: 100% of pages are certified as fully keyboard navigable.

• Manual Usability: A random sample of no less than 10% of pages passes manual testing to confirm actual screen reader and refreshable Braille display functionality.

• Media Assets: 100% of hosted media files and documents possess all necessary tagging, description, and accessibility markup.

Q62: The Cost Proposal requests hourly consulting rates and daily training rates only. Should bidders include estimated labor hours, assumptions, or optional pricing for remediation activities within their proposal?

A62: Refer to Answer A11.

Q63: Is there an anticipated project budget or not-to-exceed value for this engagement?

A63: Budget Information is not available. Refer to Answer A11.

Q64: Does the State anticipate making a single contract award or multiple awards?

A64: This bid event will result in a single contract award.

Q65: Will the resulting contract be available for use by other Kansas state agencies or cooperative purchasing entities?

A65: Any resulting contract will be awarded for use for the Kansas State School of the Blind. This bid event is not Statewide and is not available to political subdivisions.

Q66: Are there any incumbent vendors currently providing website accessibility compliance or support services, and if so, will transition documentation be made available?

A66: No.

Q67: Does the State expect the selected vendor to provide ongoing accessibility monitoring and support after the initial remediation effort?

A67: Yes.

Q68: The RFP references both the DOJ ADA Title II Final Rule and the NCADEMI ADA Title II Roadmap. Should bidders treat the NCADEMI framework as a mandatory implementation requirement or as recommended guidance when developing their proposed methodology?

A68: The NCADEMI Roadmap is guidance, not a mandatory legal requirement imposed on the Agency. However, the Specifications state “the project will follow the NCADEMI ADA Title II Roadmap.”

The NCADEMI Roadmap itself internally identifies itself as a guidance document, and defers to the DOJ ADA Title II Finale Rule as the authority.

Q69: RFP §4 (SPECIFICATIONS), subsection 4, Technical Scope of Work & Manual Testing

The RFP requires a layered testing strategy combining automated scanning, keyboard-only testing, and mandatory manual screen-reader scans across JAWS, NVDA, and VoiceOver. The Kansas State School for the Blind website (kansasblind.gov) is a substantial site, with approximately 159 unique content pages plus staff and events archives and document attachments visible in the public sitemap.

A page-by-page manual screen-reader audit of the full surface would consume substantial resources without proportionally improving defect coverage, because most pages on a templated CMS share the same components and structures. Industry-standard practice for sites of this scale is to perform manual audits on a representative sample of pages selected for component coverage, structural and content uniqueness, and visitation or traffic data, and then apply the documented findings as remediation patterns across all instances of each affected template or component.

Will the Kansas State School for the Blind accept a representative-sample manual audit methodology, sampled by component, structure, and content uniqueness combined with visitation metrics, with findings applied site-wide to all pages that share the audited template or component, as the basis for the Audit Report deliverable identified in §4 subsection 6?

A69: Refer to Answer A15. The site is not considered large by industry standards, and has a disproportionately large number of users who are known to have sensory impairments.

Q70: RFP §4 (SPECIFICATIONS), subsection 4, Mandatory Manual Screen Reader Scans (JAWS, NVDA, Voiceover)

The RFP names JAWS, NVDA, and VoiceOver as the required screen readers for manual testing but does not specify version requirements for the screen readers or the browser pairings expected for each engine. Version-pairing decisions materially affect testing scope and the conformance assertions that can be made in the Audit Report and VPAT/ACR.

(a) Does the Kansas State School for the Blind require specific minimum or current versions of JAWS, NVDA, and VoiceOver for the manual screen reader scans, or are bidders free to test against the latest publicly released versions at the time of audit?

(b) Does the Kansas State School for the Blind require specific browser pairings for each screen reader (for example, JAWS with Chrome and Edge, NVDA with Firefox and Chrome, VoiceOver with Safari), or are standard vendor pairings acceptable?

(c) The RFP names "Voiceover" without specifying platform. For a public website scope, standard vendor practice is to test VoiceOver on macOS paired with Safari. Can the Kansas State School for the Blind confirm that VoiceOver-macOS is the intended platform under this RFP, and that VoiceOver-iOS (mobile) is not part of the scope unless explicitly added?

A70: The bidders are free to test against any combination of software meeting the bid requirements, provided that such combinations are specified in the bid response. Software platform combinations must be reasonably current (release date within 1 year), but do not need to be the most recent versions on the date of testing.

Q71: FP §4 (SPECIFICATIONS), subsection 2, Specialized Requirements for School for the Blind:

Quality Alt-Text & Long Descriptions

The RFP rightly emphasizes that educational graphics must provide equal pedagogical value to blind and low-vision users, a higher bar than baseline WCAG 1.1.1 conformance given the user community.

A common high-volume alt-text drafting approach uses an AI-assisted workflow in which every AI-generated description is reviewed and adjusted by a qualified human accessibility analyst for accuracy, contextual appropriateness, pedagogical value, and WCAG 1.1.1 conformance before delivery. Under this model the AI provides the first pass, and the analyst is the source of truth for every final description that ships.

Will the Kansas State School for the Blind accept an AI-assisted alt-text drafting workflow as the basis for the alt-text and long-description deliverables, provided that every AI-generated description is reviewed, adjusted, and approved by a qualified human accessibility analyst before delivery, and the final published descriptions are the analyst-approved versions? If yes, are there any image categories (for example, classroom-specific instructional diagrams, student-produced artwork, historical photographs) that the Kansas State School for the Blind would prefer be drafted directly by a human analyst from the outset?

A71: The use of AI is not prohibited, and is encouraged for speed and efficiency, but explicit manual review and verification is required for 100% of AI-generated content (including for generated source code). All content generated with AI assistance must be declared to the Agency by the bidder before or at the time of submission.

Q72: RFP §4 subsection 2 (Document & Media Remediation: "All PDFs must be fully tagged") AND

§5 (COST SHEET)

RFP §4 subsection 2 establishes that all PDFs must be fully tagged as part of the Document and Media Remediation requirement. To plan appropriate resource allocation and team capacity for the PDF remediation work, and to determine whether a formal archival analysis (assessing legacy or historical documents for remediation, replacement with accessible HTML equivalents, archival treatment, or retirement) is appropriate to recommend, bidders need additional information about the document corpus. Separately, the existing Cost Sheet structure does not include a line item suited to per-page PDF rates alongside the hourly consulting rates.

Per-page rates are the standard structure for PDF remediation work because remediation effort tracks directly with document length and complexity rather than with continuous consulting time.

A per-page line item alongside the existing hourly rates would give the Kansas State School for the Blind predictable, document-level cost transparency for the PDF portion of the engagement.

(a) To support resource allocation, team capacity, and skills-mix planning for the PDF remediation work, and to determine whether a formal archival analysis of legacy or historical documents is appropriate to recommend, can the Kansas State School for the Blind provide the approximate number of PDFs in scope for remediation, the approximate total page count across that corpus, the primary content types represented (for example, forms, multi-column reports, data tables, accessibility plans, parent handbooks, scanned legacy documents), and the languages those documents are authored in?

(b) Will the Kansas State School for the Blind issue an addendum to the Cost Sheet adding a fourth line item, "PDF Remediation, $___ per page," so that bidders may include per-page rates for document remediation alongside the existing hourly consulting and training rates?

A72: No.

Q73: RFP §5 (COST SHEET) in conjunction with §3.37 (Indefinite Quantity Contract)

The Cost Sheet provided in §5 contains three hourly or daily rate line items (Standard Consulting Fees, Highly Specialized Consultation, Staff Training) and does not include a field for a total project cost, a not-to-exceed (NTE) amount, an estimated annual spend, or an illustrative baseline-scope total. §3.37 describes the resulting agreement as an Indefinite Quantity Contract under which the State orders quantities as actually required, with no guarantee of volume.

Bidders need a clear understanding of whether the cost evaluation will be conducted solely on the three rates as submitted, or whether the Kansas State School for the Blind also wants bidders to provide a total figure in some form alongside the rate schedule.

(a) Will the Kansas State School for the Blind evaluate cost solely on the three hourly or daily rates filled in on the Cost Sheet, with total contract spend determined post-award by the volume of work the State elects to order against those rates?

(b) If the Kansas State School for the Blind would like bidders to provide a not-to-exceed total, an estimated annual spend, or a total figure for an illustrative baseline scope (for example, the initial audit, the first round of remediation, the initial VPAT/ACR, and the initial staff training cohort) in addition to the rate schedule, would the Kansas State School for the Blind please issue an addendum identifying which total to provide, where to provide it (Cost Proposal addendum, separate cost narrative, etc.), and the scope assumptions that should underlie the total?

(c) For purposes of §2.7 (Timeline) and §2.8 (Methodology) in the Technical Proposal, can the Kansas State School for the Blind confirm that phase durations and project-planning timelines (for example, "Audit Phase: weeks 1 through 6") are permitted content in the Technical Proposal, even though effort-hour estimates and dollar amounts are prohibited under §2.3(e)?

A73: Refer to Answer A11. No single component of the bid response it solely determinative. The bidder’s anticipated volume of time required to achieve the desired outcome will be considered if provided, and this is not prohibited by Section 2.3, which prohibits costs from being included in the technical proposal.

Q74: RFP §1.14 (Evaluation of Proposals) and §5 (COST SHEET)

The RFP does not state a budget, ceiling, or expected annual or contract-term spend. Because the resulting agreement is an Indefinite Quantity Contract spanning a three-year base term plus two twelve-month renewals (five-year potential), bidders setting their proposed rates without any directional signal from the Kansas State School for the Blind cannot calibrate those rates against the State's expectations of volume.

A directional indication of the expected annual or contract-term spend would allow bidders to propose rates that responsibly serve the Kansas State School for the Blind and align with the State's procurement expectations.

Can the Kansas State School for the Blind provide a directional indication of the expected annual budget, the expected total contract-term budget, or the budget envelope it has allocated for this Website Accessibility Compliance engagement (for example, a range, an estimated annual spend, or a not-to-exceed figure), so that bidders may calibrate their rate proposals appropriately? If the Kansas State School for the Blind prefers not to disclose a specific figure, can it confirm whether the rate evaluation under §1.14 will be conducted purely on rate competitiveness without reference to any internal budget benchmark?

A74: Refer to Answer A11.

Q75: RFP §4 (SPECIFICATIONS), subsection 1 (Executive Summary) and subsection 6 (Expected

Deliverables: Audit Report)

The RFP frames this project as preparation for the April 26, 2027 federal compliance deadline and identifies the Audit Report and Remediated Source Code as a primary deliverable. The scope and approach of a new audit are materially different depending on whether the Kansas State School for the Blind already has (a) a recent accessibility audit, (b) a prior VPAT or Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR) for kansasblind.gov, or (c) partial remediation work already underway.

If prior work exists, the awarded vendor's methodology can calibrate the new audit to validate and extend that work rather than treat the site as green-field, which improves both engagement efficiency and continuity for the Kansas State School for the Blind.

(a) Has the Kansas State School for the Blind previously commissioned an accessibility audit, a VPAT/ACR, or any partial accessibility remediation work for kansasblind.gov (including prior vendor engagements, internal review efforts, or third-party automated scans)?

(b) If so, will the prior audit findings, VPAT/ACR, and any remediation documentation be made available to the awarded vendor as inputs to the new engagement?

(c) Are there any specific known accessibility issues, complaints, or pending OCR or DOJ matters affecting kansasblind.gov that the Kansas State School for the Blind expects the awarded vendor to prioritize in the initial audit pass?

A75: No prior audit work, findings, or details regarding prior remedial efforts will be made available to the vendor. This must be pursued as a new, clean project from the ground up.

Q76: RFP §4 (SPECIFICATIONS), subsection 6, Expected Deliverables: Formal Accessibility Statement / VPAT

RFP §4 subsection 6 lists "Formal Accessibility Statement / VPAT" as an expected deliverable in ACR format. In current accessibility practice, an Accessibility Statement and a VPAT/ACR are typically distinct artifacts serving different purposes:

- An Accessibility Statement is a public-facing webpage (commonly published at /accessibility on the site) declaring the organization's commitment to accessibility, the standard targeted, known limitations, feedback channels, and the contact for accommodation requests. Its audience is end users.

- A VPAT/ACR (Voluntary Product Accessibility Template, completed as an Accessibility Conformance Report) is a formal procurement-and-compliance document attesting conformance to a specific standard on a row-by-row Success Criteria basis. Its audience is procurement officers, auditors, and ADA Title II or Section 508 compliance reviewers.

The VPAT/ACR template is published by the Information Technology Industry Council (ITI), currently at version 2.5, in the following editions:

- VPAT 2.5 WCAG, attesting conformance to WCAG only

- VPAT 2.5 508, attesting conformance to WCAG together with the Revised Section 508 standards (functional performance criteria, hardware, software, and support documentation chapters)

- VPAT 2.5 EU, attesting conformance to WCAG together with EN 301 549

- VPAT 2.5 INT, the combined international edition covering WCAG, Revised Section 508, and EN 301 549

Clarification of which edition the Kansas State School for the Blind requires ensures the awarded vendor produces the deliverable in the correct format.

(a) Does the Kansas State School for the Blind want the awarded vendor to deliver an Accessibility Statement (public-facing webpage), a VPAT/ACR (formal procurement-and-compliance attestation document), or both?

(b) Which VPAT/ACR edition does the Kansas State School for the Blind prefer for the deliverable? In current U.S. state-agency practice, the two most commonly selected editions are the VPAT 2.5 WCAG edition (attesting conformance to WCAG 2.1 Levels A and AA) and the VPAT 2.5 508 edition (attesting conformance to WCAG 2.1 Levels A and AA together with the Revised Section 508 standards). The VPAT 2.5 EU and VPAT 2.5 INT editions are also available if the Kansas State School for the Blind has a specific requirement for EN 301 549 or combined international coverage.

A76: Bid questions should not be compound questions. Refer to Answer A9 and the bid specifications.

Q77: RFP §4 (SPECIFICATIONS), subsection 6, Expected Deliverables: User Acceptance Testing

(UAT)

The RFP identifies User Acceptance Testing involving actual screen reader users as a final-deliverable component to confirm real-world usability of the remediated site, but does not specify a minimum number of participants, the disability or assistive-technology profiles required, or whether participants will be sourced by the Kansas State School for the Blind or by the awarded vendor. Each of these parameters materially affects the design, scheduling, and resource allocation of the UAT phase.

(a) What is the minimum number of screen reader users the Kansas State School for the Blind requires for the UAT participant pool, and does the requirement differentiate by assistive technology (for example, a minimum number per engine across JAWS, NVDA, and VoiceOver-macOS) or by user profile (for example, blind from birth versus late-onset, students versus adult community members, refreshable Braille display users versus speech-only users)?

(b) Will the Kansas State School for the Blind source the UAT participants from its student, alumni, family, and staff community, or does the awarded vendor source and compensate the participants?

(c) Are there any tasks, user journeys, or page workflows that the Kansas State School for the Blind requires the UAT script to include explicitly (for example, parent enrollment forms, scholarship applications, KORA requests, calendar registration), or is the UAT script designed by the awarded vendor with the Kansas State School for the Blind's approval?

A77: Refer to Answer A7. The bidder must propose how the UAT requirement will be met. No minimum, maximum, or variation of disability for participants is defined. This was intentional.

Q78: RFP §4 (SPECIFICATIONS), subsection 2, Specialized Requirements for School for the Blind:

Document & Media Remediation

RFP §4 subsection 2 requires that videos include Extended Audio Description, and the broader scope of WCAG 2.1 Level AA conformance contemplates several distinct multimedia accessibility service offerings:

- Captions for pre-recorded video (open or closed)

- Plain transcripts for pre-recorded audio-only content

- Descriptive transcripts combining dialogue transcription with text descriptions of visual content (used for video as an alternative to or supplement for audio description, and for audio content where listener context is important)

- Standard audio description for pre-recorded video (descriptions inserted into the natural pauses of the original audio track)

- Extended audio description for pre-recorded video where the natural pauses are insufficient and the video is paused to permit longer descriptions

To identify which of these multimedia service offerings are required under this engagement, and to plan appropriate staffing, vendor capacity, and scheduling for the multimedia work, bidders need an approximate aggregate runtime by media category.

(a) Can the Kansas State School for the Blind provide the approximate aggregate runtime of pre-recorded audio-only content (for example, podcast segments, oral history recordings) currently published on or planned for kansasblind.gov that is in scope for transcript creation, and indicate any subset that requires descriptive transcripts rather than plain transcripts?

(b) Can the Kansas State School for the Blind provide the approximate aggregate runtime of pre-recorded video content currently in scope for captioning under this engagement?

(c) Can the Kansas State School for the Blind provide the approximate aggregate runtime of pre-recorded video content currently in scope for audio description under this engagement, and identify how many of those videos are expected to require Extended Audio Description (where on-screen visual content cannot be described within natural pauses in the existing audio track) as opposed to standard audio description?

A78: Part of the requested service is to audit and inventory the Agency’s website.

Q79: (Reference: Section 5, Cost Sheet; and Section 1.14, Evaluation of Proposals)

The Cost Sheet in Section 5 requests a rate schedule (Standard Consulting Fees per hour, Highly Specialized Consultation per hour, and Staff Training per day). For the purpose of cost evaluation under Section 1.14, does the State want only the rate schedule as structured in Section 5, or also an estimated total or not-to-exceed amount for the Year 1 scope of work?

A79: An estimate of time and type of time to complete the deliverables in the year 1 scope of work must be a part of the technical proposal (which must NOT include actual costs).

Q80: (Reference: Section 4, Specifications, User Acceptance Testing)

The specifications require User Acceptance Testing involving actual screen-reader users. Will KSSB make its own students or staff who use assistive technology available to participate in UAT, or should the bidder plan to source all assistive-technology test participants independently?

A80: Refer to Answer A7.

Q81: (Reference: Section 4, Specifications, Technical Scope of Work and Manual Testing)

Will the awarded vendor be granted administrative access to the KSSB WordPress environment (theme and template source, and the content management system) and the hosting environment necessary to perform source-level remediation?

A81: Refer to Answer A2.

Q82: (Section 5) The Cost Sheet requests hourly rates only, with no estimated volume of work

(e.g., number of pages, documents, or media items requiring remediation, or anticipated hours per phase). Can the State provide an estimated inventory count or historical spend on comparable prior engagements to help bidders size their cost proposals?

A82: Refer to answer A1.

Q83: Federal Compliance Deadline

The RFP references a federal deadline for WCAG 2.1 Level AA compliance. Could you please confirm the specific federal deadline date? Understanding the exact date is essential for us to propose a realistic remediation timeline and prioritize deliverables accordingly.

A83: The federal deadline is April 26, 2027.

Q84: Current Website Size and Scope

To accurately estimate the level of effort for the accessibility audit and remediation, could you provide the approximate number of web pages, PDF documents, multimedia files (videos, audio), and fillable forms currently on the website?

A84: Refer to Answer A1.

Q85: Current Website Technology / CMS Platform

What CMS platform (e.g., WordPress, Drupal, or custom-built) is the current website built on, and who is the current hosting provider? This information is necessary to plan the technical audit approach and assess any integration or compatibility considerations.

A85: Refer to Answer A2. The hosting provider is not relevant because vendors will not be given direct access to a production website, and may change at any time.

Q86: PDF and Multimedia Document Remediation

Is the remediation of existing PDF documents and multimedia content (e.g., videos requiring captions, audio requiring transcripts) included within the scope of this contract, or is the scope limited to web page-level WCAG 2.1 Level AA compliance?

A86: PDFs and multimedia content hosted directly on the kansasblind.gov website are in-scope.

Q87: Third-Party and Embedded Content

Does the website include any third-party widgets, embedded tools, external forms, or iframes (such as social media feeds, maps, or payment portals)? If so, is the vendor responsible for ensuring those third-party elements meet WCAG 2.1 Level AA standards, or is that the responsibility of the third-party provider?

A87: The bid specification calls for an audit to identify and inventory such possible components, and to evaluate and make remediation efforts. Remediation of accessibility issues with third-party components may include, but is not limited to, recommendations to remove the component, fork http://kansasblind.gov/ and alter the source code if available, switch to an alternative component, or send specific remediation requests to the third-party developer.

Q88: Project Timeline and Milestones

The RFP does not include a milestone schedule. Could you confirm the expected project start date and whether there are specific milestone deadlines (e.g., audit report delivery, remediation completion, staff training, final compliance report)?

A88: Bidders are expected to propose start dates, milestones, and completion dates, consistent with the published RFP schedule and the known federal deadline.

Q89: Ongoing Maintenance and Monitoring Scope

The RFP references ongoing support and maintenance throughout the contract period. Could you clarify what this entails — for example, does it include:

• Periodic accessibility re-audits?

• Remediation of new accessibility issues introduced by content updates?

• Provision of an automated monitoring tool?

• Or simply technical support for previously remediated items?

A89: The bidder is to propose what it is able to offer for ongoing support and maintenance. The goal of this RFP is to contract with a consultant to serve as an ongoing partner to maintain accessibility of existing and new content.

Q90: Service Level Expectations

Are there any defined response times or service level expectations for ongoing support requests (e.g., response within X business hours, resolution within X business days)? If so, please provide the required SLA parameters so we can incorporate them into our proposal.

A90: An SLA generally includes penalties for failure to meet exact cut-offs, and excessive costs for guaranteeing the service level. The Agency does not have any desire to have an SLA. Response times will need to be reasonable within normal contracting practices to avoid outright cancellation for nonresponsiveness through normal contract dispute processes.

Q91: Staff Training — Format, Scope, and Audience

How many staff members are expected to receive accessibility training, and what is the preferred delivery format (e.g., virtual, in-person, recorded/on-demand)? Additionally, should training cover only content authoring practices, or also technical/administrative functions such as CMS configuration and plugin management?

A91: Refer to Answer A6 and Answer A20.

Q92: Hosting Responsibilities

The RFP does not specify the hosting model. Is the vendor expected to manage or co-manage hosting infrastructure, or will hosting remain with the current provider? Are there any state-mandated cloud providers, security standards (e.g., NIST, FedRAMP), or data residency requirements that hosting must comply with?

A92: The Agency is and will remain responsible for hosting. This RFP is for website accessibility consulting, not website hosting.

Q93: Vendor CMS Access

Will the selected vendor be granted direct backend access to the CMS to implement remediation changes, or will all updates need to be coordinated through the agency's internal IT staff?

A93: Refer to Answer A2.

Q94: Cost Proposal Format — Fixed Price vs. Time & Materials

The cost sheet requests consulting fees and training rates. Should the vendor submit a fixed-price proposal for all deliverables, a time-and-materials rate schedule, or both? If time-and-materials, can the agency provide an estimated number of hours per task category to allow for consistent comparison?

A94: Refer to Answer A11.

Q95: Accessibility Conformance Report (VPAT/ACR)

Is a Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT) or Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR) required as a formal deliverable at the conclusion of the remediation phase?

A95: Yes.

Q96: WCAG Version Preference

WCAG 2.2 Level AA is currently the published successor to WCAG 2.1. The RFP specifies WCAG

2.1 Level AA compliance. Would the agency consider or accept a proposal that targets WCAG 2.2 Level AA, which provides additional success criteria for users with cognitive, learning, and mobile accessibility needs?

A96: Refer to the bid specification and…