DQ1 LAAA 2026-358 Q&A #2.docx

DQ1 LAAA 2026-358 Question and Answer Document #2 The State was notified that additional questions were submitted in accordance with the DQ and the Questions and Answers document is amended below to include the additional questions. The deadline for DQ1 LAAA 2026-358 is extended until April 3, 2026.

1. SME Engagement & Responsibilities

a. RFP Section: 3.P

b. Will subject matter experts (SMEs) be identified and provided by the Department of Law, or is the Offeror expected to source SMEs for approval?

SMEs will be identified by the Department of Law and will be compensated by the Offeror.

2. Pilot Process Scope

a. RFP Section: 3.P

b. Can the Department clarify what is intended by a “limited pilot review process”?

A “limited pilot review process” will allow for a representative sample of law enforcement officers and community-based partners to participate in the DVLAP training and provide feedback that is incorporated into the final end product. What level of support is expected from the Offeror (e.g., facilitation, survey development, participant coordination, analysis), versus implementation of consolidated feedback only?

The DOL will identify pilot participants and the Offeror will be responsible for developing a process to collect feedback, for reviewing feedback, and for incorporating it into the final work product.

The Offeror may receive feedback and guidance from the Department of Law on what issue areas should receive priority.

c. Can the Department provide guidance on how post-pilot revisions will be incorporated into the overall project scope?

Post-pilot revisions will be incorporated into the overall project scope as one of the final steps of curriculum design. The Offeror should map out how the pilot will fit into their timeline for this project as a last step of review with time allocated to incorporate pilot feedback.

3. Timeline & Deployment Expectations

a. RFP Section: Not explicitly defined

b. Are there target timelines or milestone expectations for development and rollout of the three courses, including any preferred sequencing or phased delivery?

The target timeline for all three courses to be completed and launched is December 2026. There is no need for phased delivery as the courses will be rolled out simultaneously.

4. LMS Packaging & Modular Delivery

a. RFP Section: 3.O; 3.P

b. Does the Department’s LMS support multiple modular packages within a single course structure?

The Department LMS is yet to be developed, but it is a goal of that process to allow for support of multiple modular packages within a single course structure.

5. Authoring Approach

a. RFP Section: 3.M

b. Does the Department have any preferences regarding authoring tools (e.g., Articulate Rise vs. Storyline), or is this at the Offeror’s discretion?

The Department has a preference for Articulate Storyline but is open to Offeror’s experience and feedback for other tools.

6. Video Production Logistics

a. RFP Section: 3.M

b. Are SME video segments expected to be filmed in person, or would remote recording approaches be acceptable?

Remote recording approaches would be acceptable, though in person would be preferrable. The Department of Law is able to assist in providing professional recording of SME segments, but the Offeror will be responsible for editing of and incorporation of segments recorded by the Department of Law.

7. Existing Materials & Prior Training Insights

a. RFP Section: 3.L

b. At what stage of the project will Offerors be granted access to existing LAP training materials?

Offerors will be granted access to existing LAP training materials at the outset of the project and after the vendor agreement for this project has been signed.

c. Is any learner feedback or evaluation data from prior trainings available to inform design?

There is not specific learner feedback or evaluation data from prior trainings that is available to inform design, but the trainers who have provided in-person LAP training over the past couple of years are available to provide their experience and feedback.

8. Work Plan Expectations

a. RFP Section: 3.P; Appendix D

b. Are Offerors permitted to modify or expand upon the provided Work Plan template (e.g., goals, objectives, or activities), or should it be followed as-is?

Offerors may modify or expand upon the provided Work Plan template, as long as all required information is provided.

9. Budget Guidance

a. RFP Section: 4.D

b. Is there a not-to-exceed budget or funding range available for this project?

There is not a not-to-exceed budget for this project, but priority will be given to the lowest-cost offers. As stated in section 5.A.i, “This solicitation and the resulting Contract(s) or Purchase Order(s) will be awarded to the responsible Respondent(s) whose acceptable Quote is determined to be the most advantageous to the State, with price/cost being the primary consideration.”

10. Review Cadence & Stakeholder Input

a. RFP Section: 3.P

b. Will feedback be consolidated through a single Department point of contact, or should Offerors anticipate input from multiple stakeholder groups?

Project feedback provided by the Department of Law will be consolidated through a single Department point of contact. However, feedback acquired through the pilot should be consolidated by the Offeror.

11. Supplementary Materials Scope

a. RFP Section: 3.P

b. Is there an anticipated number or range of supplementary implementation materials to be developed as part of this project?

There is not currently a set number of anticipated supplementary implementation materials to be developed as part of this project and determinations regarding what materials may be appropriate should be recommended by Offeror and are subject to the approval of the Department of Law. At a minimum, supplementary materials likely should include a DVLAP FAQs (one for law enforcement and one for community partners), a DVLAP Flow Chart demonstrating how the LAP process works from a law enforcement and community partner perspective, instructions on how to fill out the DVLAP form, a one-pager providing key statistics on DV lethality, and a technical assistance document on DVLAP implementation (one for law enforcement and one for community partners)..

12. Would the Department of Law be amenable to vendors proposing multiple solution options that reflect varying levels of design fidelity (e.g., differing degrees of interactivity and production complexity)?

a. If so, can you please confirm whether it would be acceptable to include additional columns within the cost template to clearly delineate pricing for each option?

The Department of Law would be amenable to vendors proposing multiple solution options that reflect varying levels of design fidelity. If such options are provided by the Offeror, they should be clearly delineated within the cost template with pricing for each option. All required information and any assumptions concerning the Cost Proposal should be provided as well.

13. Section 3.O.i notes that each course should be structured in short segments (preferably 10–20 minutes, not exceeding 30 minutes per segment), while Section 3.O.ii indicates that total course length will be determined in consultation with DOL and SMEs.

a. Can you please confirm that the segment duration guidance applies to individual modules, and that overall course length is intended to be flexible and finalized collaboratively during the design phase?

Yes, this is correct.

14. The RFP, Section 3 Scope of Work / Specifications, portion B Subject Matter Expert Consultation states: "The awarded Offeror shall consult with subject matter experts (SMEs) identified or approved by the Department of Law (DOL) to ensure Contractor has the understanding required to develop the course content and can integrate SME perspective and video into the final courses." And Appendix B - Cost Proposal includes a line item for "Subject Matter Expert Consultation." Will Colorado or the contractor provide the SMEs? If Colorado provides SMEs, will the contractor or Colorado pay for their time?

The Department of Law will identify appropriate SMEs, but they will be paid for by the contractor if such payment is required. The Offeror budget should include a line item for SME consultation.