DQ-DACA-2026000432 Q&A.pdf

Colorado Charter School Institute

DQ-DACA-2026000432 – Website Redesign, Migration, and Maintenance Services

Questions and Answers

1. Section 2.C.i requires experience with a state agency, school district, or BOCES in Colorado. Could experience working with a public school board outside Colorado potentially satisfy this requirement?

ANSWER: No. As outlined in Section 2.C.i of the solicitation, demonstrated experience working with at least one Colorado state agency, school district, or BOCES is a mandatory minimum requirement. Experience outside of Colorado, while valuable, does not satisfy this requirement.

2. Could you please confirm whether CSI intends to continue using the current WordPress platform, or if the State is open to considering alternative CMS solutions based on vendor recommendations?

ANSWER: CSI is open to considering alternative CMS solutions based on vendor recommendations. While the current websites operate on WordPress, the solicitation is not prescriptive to that platform and encourages respondents to propose solutions that best meet the project goals related to usability, accessibility, security, and long-term maintainability.

3. Could you please clarify whether website hosting is expected to be included as part of the vendor’s scope of work, or if CSI plans to retain its existing hosting environment?

ANSWER: Respondents should include hosting as part of their proposed solution or clearly describe recommended hosting options. CSI is open to vendor recommendations regarding hosting environments that support performance, security, and reliability requirements. Note that per State of Colorado IT requirements, any web hosting or cloud infrastructure must be housed within the United States.

4. If available, could you please provide an estimated budget range or ceiling for this project to help vendors align their proposed approach and scope appropriately?

ANSWER: CSI is not providing a specific budget range for this solicitation.

Respondents are encouraged to propose competitive, transparent pricing that reflects the full scope of work and aligns with the State’s expectation of cost-effectiveness.

5. Could you provide additional guidance on the preferred content migration approach (vendor-led, shared, or CSI-led), and the expected level of vendor involvement?

ANSWER: CSI is open to contractor-led or shared approaches. Respondents should clearly describe their proposed approach, including roles, responsibilities, and associated pricing. The final approach will be determined in partnership with the selected vendor during project planning.

6. Beyond the platforms mentioned (e.g., Constant Contact, LearnWorlds, Buffer), are there any additional integrations or systems that the selected vendor should anticipate?

ANSWER: In addition to Constant Contact, LearnWorlds, and Buffer, respondents should anticipate potential integration with standard tools such as analytics platforms (e.g., Google Analytics), form tools, and other commonly used web services. CSI welcomes optional recommendations for additional integrations but does not require them.

7. Given the recent malware incident, could you please share any specific security standards, protocols, or compliance requirements that the new solution should adhere to?

ANSWER: The selected solution must include strong security practices, including proactive monitoring, regular updates, backup and recovery capabilities, and rapid incident response. All work must comply with applicable State of Colorado technology standards and accessibility requirements. Vendors should outline their approach to ensuring a secure and resilient website environment.

8. Are there any evaluation preferences or considerations related to vendor location, such as preference for Colorado-based firms or demonstrated experience within the State?

ANSWER: There is no formal preference for vendor location. However, respondents must meet the mandatory requirement of having prior experience working with a Colorado state agency, school district, or BOCES. As noted above, any web hosting or cloud infrastructure must be housed within the United States.

9. Could CSI clarify the expected level of contractor responsibility for content migration (e.g., full-service vs. shared approach)? Additionally, should the contractor be responsible for content cleanup tasks such as addressing outdated content, accessibility remediation, and fixing broken links, or will CSI provide finalized content for migration?

ANSWER: CSI is open to full service or shared migration approaches. The contractor will be responsible for supporting migration and ensuring content functions correctly within the new site. The contractor should flag broken links or accessibility issues, while CSI will provide updated or replacement content as needed.

Respondents should clearly define responsibilities for content cleanup within their proposed approach.

10. Does CSI have a preferred hosting environment or WordPress stack (e.g., managed hosting provider, security tooling), or should respondents include hosting, security, and infrastructure as part of their proposed solution?

ANSWER: CSI does not require a specific hosting environment or WordPress stack.

Respondents should propose a complete solution, including hosting, infrastructure, and security tooling, or clearly describe recommended options that meet project requirements for performance, security, and maintainability.

11. Could CSI provide further detail on what is considered in-scope for ongoing maintenance versus billable enhancements, particularly regarding content updates, minor feature changes, and the number of support hours included in the maintenance retainer?

ANSWER: Ongoing maintenance includes routine updates (CMS, plugins, security patches), backups, uptime monitoring, accessibility audits, and technical support for site functionality and security. Maintenance hours are included within the retainer. Work outside routine maintenance—such as new feature development, significant content restructuring, or additional builds—will be considered enhancements and must be separately scoped, quoted, and approved.

12. The solicitation does not include an anticipated budget range for this project.

Could you share the budget or expected price range CSI has allocated for website redesign, migration, as well as for ongoing maintenance services? This will help ensure our proposed scope and pricing are appropriately aligned.

ANSWER: Please refer to Question 4 above.

13. Could you share what is driving the July 27, 2026 go-live deadline?

Understanding the business or operational context behind this date will help us plan the most effective project approach and ensure we’re aligned with CSI’s priorities from day one.

ANSWER: The July 27, 2026 go-live date is driven by a combination of operational urgency and planning considerations. Following recent service disruptions related to a malware incident, CSI is prioritizing a timely transition to a more secure, stable, and well-supported website environment. Additionally, this timeline aligns with internal planning cycles and positions the organization to enter the 2026–27 school year with an improved, unified website experience for both public users and school-based stakeholders.

14. The RFP requests pricing for all three migration approaches (Contractor-led, Shared, and CSI-led). Does CSI have a preferred approach, or is the intent to evaluate all three options and select based on pricing and fit?

ANSWER: Please refer to Question 5 above. Contractor-led or Shared approaches will be evaluated.

15. The RFP does not specify hosting responsibilities post-launch. Will the awarded vendor be expected to provide hosting as part of the maintenance agreement, or will CSI maintain its own hosting environment?

ANSWER: Please refer to Question 3 above.

16. Is an interview or presentation expected as part of the evaluation process?

ANSWER: CSI may, at its discretion, invite one or more respondents to participate in an interview or presentation as part of the evaluation process. However, interviews are not guaranteed and the State reserves the right to make an award based solely on submitted quotes.

17. Will the vendor that developed and/or currently maintains the CSI website be invited to bid on this project?

ANSWER: All respondents meeting the minimum requirements will be evaluated based on the same criteria as outlined in the solicitation.

18. Is WordPress the preferred or required platform moving forward, or are alternative CMS platforms being considered?

ANSWER: Please refer to Question 2 above.

19. Will the selected vendor be expected to provide hosting and security infrastructure, or will the site remain on an existing hosting environment?

ANSWER: Please refer to Question 3 above.

20. Does CSI have a preferred content migration approach (contractor-led, shared, or CSI-led), and what level of internal capacity is available to support migration?

ANSWER: Please refer to Question 5 above regarding preferred migration approach.

CSI anticipates having internal capacity to support the migration process. CSI will designate a primary point of contact, along with an additional staff member available to assist with migration-related tasks. CSI is also currently conducting backend content cleanup and organization efforts to streamline the migration and improve overall efficiency.

21. Are there specific accessibility testing tools, reporting formats, or prior audit benchmarks CSI expects vendors to follow for WCAG 2.1 AA compliance?

ANSWER: All work must comply with the State of Colorado accessibility standards and WCAG 2.1 Level AA requirements. CSI does not prescribe specific accessibility testing tools or reporting formats; however, vendors should propose a comprehensive approach that includes both automated and manual testing, clear documentation of findings, and a structured remediation plan. Deliverables should include an accessibility testing summary and any required remediation recommendations.

22. How will CSI define success for this project post-launch (e.g., usability improvements, reduced support needs, search performance, etc.)?

ANSWER: CSI will define project success based on the extent to which the new website delivers an improved, unified user experience for multiple audiences, including public users and school-based stakeholders. Key indicators of success include improved usability and navigation, streamlined access to resources, enhanced accessibility compliance, reliable performance and security, and the ability for CSI staff to efficiently manage and maintain site content over time.

23. If available, can CSI provide a general budget range or guidance to help vendors align proposed solutions with available funding?

ANSWER: Please refer to Question 4 above.