DQ1 QAAA 2026000263 Q&A.docx

Questions & Answers

1. The SOW states that the vendor will conduct community review of materials translated into Spanish and Arabic. Could you confirm who will be responsible for the initial translation before the review stage?

Answer: Initial translation will be completed by a separate, certified translation vendor.

2. Will reviewers be expected to make edits directly to the translated content, or provide comments and suggested revisions for another team to implement?

Answer: Suggestions are made to the translated content using track changes in Word or Google Documents and comments in Storyline Articulate Review 360.

3. The SOW indicates an estimate of 200–240 hours of work. Could you provide an estimated volume in words, pages, or number of modules expected during the contract period?

Answer: This will vary somewhat depending on what projects and types of training materials are developed in any given year, and the length of each material. On average, there will be around 6-8 hours of eLearning content, several slide decks of 15-150 slides, several participant and/or facilitator’s guides of 30-150 pages, and a variety of short supplemental materials. There were around 282 thousand words processed last year for both Arabic and Spanish.

4. How frequently will work be assigned (e.g., monthly batches, quarterly releases, or ad hoc requests)?

Answer: Work is largely assigned ad hoc. Advanced notice will be provided.

5. Are there any expected peak periods where larger volumes of material may require review?

Answer: The Colorado state fiscal year runs from July through June. The first half of the fiscal year is a heavier time for the development of new training materials, meaning the second half of the fiscal year (January through June) is heavier on translation and translation review tasks.

6. Approximately how many training modules, slide decks, or guides are expected to be reviewed within the contract period?

Answer: This will vary somewhat depending on what projects and types of training materials are developed in any given year, and the length of each material. On average, there will be around 6-8 hours of eLearning content, several slide decks of 15-150 slides, several participant and/or facilitator’s guides of 30-150 pages, and a variety of short supplemental materials.

7. What are the expected turnaround times for reviewing typical assignments?

Answer: Typical turnaround time for review of translated content is 5-7 business days

8. The payment schedule section references monthly payments but does not specify the pricing structure. Could you clarify whether the project is expected to be fixed-price, hourly, or milestone-based?

Answer: Fixed-price, which could use a per-word, hourly, or other fixed-price model.

9. Our organization typically structures linguistic review services using a per-word rate based on the volume of translated content. Would CDEC consider a per-word pricing model instead of hourly billing?

Answer: CDEC will not consider a per-word pricing model. Please submit cost information as outlined in the DQ document and Statement of Work Payment Schedule.

10. If hourly billing is required, could you clarify how hours should be tracked and reported for invoicing purposes?

Answer: Vendors may track hours using their preferred method. Invoices should state how many hours of work were performed, at what rate, and during which time period. Vendor invoices may be used, or CDEC can provide an invoice template. Invoices are submitted via CDEC’s web-based invoice submission process.

11. Will vendors be required to provide community reviewers located in Colorado, or can reviewers be located elsewhere as long as they meet the language and subject expertise requirements?

Answer: Physical presence in Colorado is not required. However, vendors should be able to provide subject matter expertise in early childhood, and in local Colorado language usage, lived experience, and culture.

12. The estimated hours are 200-240 per year—can you provide a breakdown of how these hours are expected to be split between Spanish and Arabic review?

Answer: The volume is split about equally between the two languages. Typically, once materials are developed in English they are translated to Spanish and Arabic. Occasionally, there might be a backlog of materials that only need translating into one language or the audience may necessitate only translating into one language, in which case, the hours may lean more heavily toward one language or the other.

13. What is the estimated volume of materials to be reviewed (e.g., number of pages, slide decks, eLearning modules) annually?

Answer: Please reference the response to question #6.

14. Are there incumbent vendors currently performing these translation reviews? If so, what are their names?

Answer: CDEC will not disclose this information at this time.

15. For Arabic, do you require Modern Standard Arabic, or are there specific regional dialects that are more commonly spoken by Colorado's early childhood workforce?

Answer: We use Modern Standard Arabic.

16. Are there existing CDEC-approved glossaries for Spanish and Arabic that we would be expected to align with? If so, can we review them prior to bidding?

Answer: We have working glossaries for Spanish and Arabic. They will be provided to the vendor when the work begins.

17. What specific qualifications or certifications are required for reviewers?

Answer: Specific certifications are not required. Reviewers should be able to review for accuracy, consistency, alignment with glossary and appropriateness of wording and tone for our early childhood audience. Preference will be given to vendors who are able to provide subject matter expertise in early childhood and in Colorado local language usage, lived experience and culture.

18. Do you have an idea of how many words your current vendor processed? Is that information that you can get from previous vendors?

Answer: There were around 282 thousand words processed last year. This may vary from year to year depending on the number of projects and types of training materials needing development.

19. I understand from the pre-solicitation meeting that last year you used approximately 220 hours of review. Please confirm that this means 220 hours per language, thus 440 hours total (approximately)?

Answer: The SOW estimates of 200-240 hours a work are total for both languages.

20. How many words did you have translated (and thus, reviewed) last year, per language? Your translation vendor will certainly have this usage data information.

Answer: There were around 282 thousand words processed last year (around 156 thousand for Arabic and 125 thousand for Spanish).

21. Were there any issues/difficulties that came up with your previous/current vendor?

Answer: CDEC will not disclose this information at this time.

22. When does the contract with your current translation vendor expire, and will there be an opportunity to bid on that contract as well?

Answer: CDEC will not disclose this information at this time. The opportunity to bid on the upcoming contract is through this Documented Quote (DQ) process.

23. Can CDEC provide an estimate of the total number of documents, slides, or word count expected to be reviewed annually? The solicitation estimates 200–240 hours, but understanding the volume of materials would help vendors price more accurately.

Answer: Please reference the response to question 6 and question 20.

24. For video content, what does the review entail - reviewing subtitles/captions, scripts, or both?

Answer: For video content, review will be of transcript documents and possibly captions.

25. In what format will materials be provided for review - Google Docs with tracked changes, proprietary eLearning authoring tools (e.g., Articulate/Rise), PDF annotation, or another format?

Answer: Documents for review may be provided in MS Word, Google Docs, PDFs, or slides (PowerPoint or Google Slides). Courses will be reviewed in Articulate Review 360.

26. Section 5.0, item 7 asks vendors to describe their experience with remote video conferencing platforms. Could CDEC clarify which video conferencing platform(s) the vendor would be expected to use for this engagement, and how frequently video conferencing will be utilized as part of the day-to-day workflow?

Answer: For meetings, CDEC typically uses Google Meet. For translation review, there will likely be a kickoff meeting at the start of the contract to introduce teams, provide details about workflow and answer any outstanding questions. Additional communication will be done through email.

27. Will the vendor be expected to attend regular check-in meetings with CDEC staff? If so, approximately how frequently, and will that time be counted within the 200–240 estimated hours?

Answer: There will be no regular check-in meetings . At contract start, there will be a kick-off meeting to introduce the teams, provide details about workflow and answer any outstanding questions. This meeting will not be included in the 200-240 estimated hours. All communication outside of the kick-off meeting will be done through email.

28. The solicitation requires a fixed-price, monthly payment schedule. Should pricing be structured as a flat monthly retainer, or on a per-deliverable/milestone basis? Is there a budget ceiling vendors should be aware of when pricing their quotes?

Answer: Pricing should be structured per deliverable/milestone. Vendors should add amounts for what they would charge for 200-240 hours of translation reviews for documents in Arabic and Spanish per year. CDEC is not sharing information about a budget ceiling in order to keep bids competitive.

29. Is there a standard turnaround time expected for reviewed materials, or will timelines vary by project?

Answer: Typically, review periods are between 5 and 7 days. Timelines can vary somewhat based on the amount of depth of materials.

30. Can you confirm if the posted "Exhibit A - Statement of Work- Template" is the correct version? It contains several comments, and we’re unsure whether these are meant for the vendor or are internal notes.

Answer: The template is the correct version. The comments are for vendor clarification.

31. I had a quick question about “Exhibit B” in the list of documents. It appears to reference a budget, but the document labeled Exhibit B seems to include additional provisions instead. I wanted to check if there is a separate budget template we should be using.

Answer: There is not a separate budget template. The payment schedule is included in Exhibit A, the fixed-price Statement of Work template.The Exhibit B, Additional Provisions has been revised to reflect the correct reference to the budget. Please reference version 2 of this Exhibit, which is attached to this amendment.

32. I noticed that Exhibit A includes a section for a payment breakdown, but I wasn’t sure if that replaces a full budget, or if there’s an additional template we should complete.

Answer: Please reference the response to question 31.

33. Pg 1 - Statement of Work (Introduction/Background) - Can the State provide an estimated volume of materials (e.g., number of courses, slide decks, videos, or total word count) expected to be reviewed during the contract period to help vendors accurately scope staffing and pricing?

Answer: Please reference the response to question 6 and question 20.

34. Pg 1 - Statement of Work (Scope of Work) - Will the review work be assigned on a recurring schedule (e.g., monthly batches), or should vendors anticipate ad hoc requests throughout the period of performance?

Answer: Reviews will be assigned on an ad hoc basis with advanced notice.

35. Pg 1 - Statement of Work (Scope of Work) - Is the vendor expected to provide subject matter expertise in early childhood education in addition to linguistic review, or is the focus strictly on linguistic accuracy, consistency, and glossary alignment?

Answer: Reviewers should be able to review for accuracy, consistency, alignment with glossary and appropriateness of wording and tone for our early childhood audience. Preference will be given to vendors who are able to provide subject matter expertise in early childhood and in Colorado local language usage, lived experience and culture.

36. Pg 1 - Statement of Work (Introduction/Background) - Are there specific certification or credential requirements for reviewers in Spanish and Arabic (e.g., ATA certification, education field experience), or will qualifications be evaluated holistically?

Answer: Please reference the response to question #17. Preference will be given to vendors who are able to provide subject matter expertise in early childhood and in Colorado local language usage, lived experience and culture.

37. Pg 1 - Statement of Work (Scope of Work) - Does the State require reviewers to be native speakers of the target language and/or based within Colorado, or can remote reviewers outside of the United States be utilized?

Answer: Reviewers aren’t required to be native speakers but they must have sufficient proficiency in the language to ensure the translation is culturally relevant and relevant to the early childhood system context in Colorado. Physical presence in Colorado is not required. Vendors located outside of the USA can apply. Working with vendors outside the U.S. requires CDEC to complete additional compliance procedures as a state entity.

38. Pg 1 - Statement of Work (Scope of Work) - Can the State clarify the expected deliverable format (e.g., tracked changes in Word, annotated PDFs, QA reports, glossary updates)?

Answer: Document deliverables may include MS Word or Google documents, spreadsheets, PowerPoints and PDFs. Reviewers will generally make corrections or comments using the built in tools (such as tracked changes in Word, annotations in PDFs). Courses will be viewed through Articulate 360 Review which has a built-in comment feature.

39. Pg 1 - Statement of Work (Scope of Work) - Will the State provide existing glossaries and style guides for Spanish and Arabic, and are vendors expected to update or maintain these resources as part of the contract?

Answer: We have working glossaries for Spanish and Arabic. They will be provided to the vendor when the work begins. Vendors are not responsible for managing the glossary.

40. Pg 1 - Statement of Work (Scope of Work) - Are there defined quality metrics or acceptance criteria that will be used to evaluate the vendor’s review work (e.g., error thresholds, QA scoring)?

Answer: The purpose of this solicitation is to ensure quality assurance of translations provided by a third party. For this reason it is necessary that the selected vendor has the expertise and language proficiency to demonstrate their ability to review the translations. If published translations reviewed by the awarded vendor receive negative feedback from training participants who use the translated training materials, this will be addressed accordingly.

41. Pg 1 - Statement of Work (Background – PDIS reference) - Will vendors be required to access or work within the PDIS platform directly, and if so, will access and training be provided?

Answer: Content review does not take place within the PDIS platform.

42. Pg 4 - Section 2.0 Quote Submission Instructions - Are there any required or preferred tools (e.g., CAT tools, QA tools) that vendors must use for consistency with existing workflows?

Answer: There are no required tools to use for workflow.

43. Pg 1 - Exhibit B Section 4 (Payment) - The contract indicates payment will be on a fixed price basis. Should vendors propose pricing as a total project cost, or is a unit-based structure (e.g., per word, per hour, per deliverable) acceptable within the fixed price framework?

Answer: Please reference the response to question #9. Vendors may propose pricing as a fixed-price/per hour cost structure, outlined in the payment schedule, there must be a total monthly cost for the term of the project. If vendors would like to include additional detail (e.g. as a unit-based structure/per hour) for any given month, they may do so as long as the description is listed in the corresponding month.

44. Pg 2 - Exhibit B Section 4 (Payment) - Can the State confirm whether there is a maximum budget or funding ceiling associated with this solicitation to guide pricing strategy?

Answer: The state is not sharing information about a maximum budget in order to keep bids competitive.

45. Pg 4 - Schedule of Activities - Are there expected turnaround times for review assignments (e.g., standard vs. expedited timelines)?

Answer: Standard turnaround time for reviews is 5 to 7 days.

46. Pg 1 - Statement of Work (Period of Performance) - During peak periods, is there an expectation for surge capacity or minimum staffing levels?

Answer: No.

47. Pg 1 - Exhibit D Section 21 (Insurance) - Given the nature of services (linguistic review), would the State consider waiving or adjusting the automobile liability insurance requirement if no on-site services are performed?

Answer: Yes.

48. Pg 5 - Exhibit D Section 12 (Payment Terms) - Can the State confirm whether partial invoicing is allowed based on completed deliverables, or only monthly invoicing regardless of deliverable completion?

Answer: Partial invoicing is allowed based on completed deliverables.

49. Pg 1 - Exhibit B Section 3 (Subcontracts) - Will the State allow the use of subcontractors (e.g., freelance reviewers), and if so, are there any approval timelines or limitations vendors should be aware of?

Answer: Subcontractors are allowed. If you know who the subcontractors are, include their information in your proposal and describe what the subcontractors will be doing on this project and why their skill set is suitable for this project.

50. Pg 4 - Section 2.0 Quote Submission Instructions - Can the State clarify the evaluation criteria (e.g., technical vs. cost weighting) that will be used to select the awarded vendor?

Answer: An award determination will be based on which quote offers the best overall value to the state, with cost as the primary factor. CDEC will evaluate quotes on multiple criteria beyond price alone through a qualitative assessment. An acceptable quote must demonstrate that the goods or services meet the Department's requirements at a fair and reasonable cost.

51. Pg 2 - Signature Page - Are there any specific past performance or experience requirements (e.g., similar government or early childhood projects) that will be evaluated as part of the selection process?

Answer: CDEC will evaluate relevant experience as outlined in the Documented Quote. A preference will be applied to organizations that demonstrate past experience with state government and early childhood systems. Please ensure that this information is included in your quote.