EOG-RFQ-26-03 Q&A.pdf

RFQ No. EOG-RFQ-26-03 Website Domain Acquisition, Static Website Development, and Complementary Graphic

Materials

Addendum No.1 Questions and Answers.

The EOG has received the following questions through email, and the Agency’s answers are provided in the table listed below:

The RFQ references both:

• a static site generator workflow for internal content updates, and

• the option for vendor-provided content update support with defined turnaround times.

To prepare an accurate proposal, could you please confirm which approach the EOG prefers for post-launch content updates?

Specifically:

1. Should the contractor implement a static site generator workflow that enables EOG staff to update content directly, or

2. Should the contractor provide ongoing content update support? If so, what turnaround time and expected update volume should we plan for?

The EOG does not have a preferred approach. EOG may select either option based on the pricing and capacity demonstrated in vendor submissions.

Vendors are encouraged to propose solutions that best reflect their capabilities and budget effectiveness while remaining within the $75,000 threshold. The agency should retain the ability to make content revisions directly after implementation.

The agency anticipates only minimal revisions following implementation.

Should the domain and hosting environment be established under EOG ownership, and does EOG anticipate any premium domain acquisition?

The domain should be registered under EOG ownership, with EOG as administrative and technical contact.

Vendors should include pricing models based on anticipated costs with the acquisition of a standard domain.

Who will be responsible for ongoing hosting, maintenance, and renewals after project completion?

Vendors should configure hosting initially but transition long-term hosting, DNS, and SSL renewals to

EOG.

Can EOG confirm the final number of pages, content volume, and whether all content/assets will be provided upfront or in phases?

Vendors should plan for 6 pages and assume content will be provided at or shortly after kickoff.

Should the website remain strictly informational/static, or include any interactive elements (e.g., forms, downloads)?

Deliverable 2 defines the site as a static website, intended for minimal modification after implementation.

Simple downloadable documents or embedded media may be acceptable, but interactive forms requiring server-side processing are unlikely.

For the required content update mechanism, does EOG have a preference between a static workflow or CMS-based solution?

The RFQ lists static site generator workflow or vendor-managed content support as the two options. At this time CMS-based solution are not requested.

Are there specific ADA validation tools/standards and analytics/data requirements (e.g., GA4, privacy guidelines) Vendors should follow?

The RFQ requires compliance with WCAG 2.1 AA but does not specify testing tools or analytics platforms.

Vendors should propose their best solution to meet qualification requirements.

What are the expected review and approval timelines, and how should Vendors account for delays outside their control?

Vendors should assume 3–5 business days for each review cycle and include schedule caveats for delays.

Are there any existing websites, templates, or reference examples EOG would like Vendors to follow in terms of structure, functionality, or design direction?

EOG may expect alignment with existing State of Florida web properties (e.g., myflorida.gov style conventions), but vendors should propose clean, modern designs consistent with state branding requirements.

Can EOG provide an estimated scope/quantity of graphic deliverables and expected revision cycles?

Vendors should submit proposals that best address the requirements outlined in the RFQ and reflect their organization’s capabilities, approach, and expertise. Responses should be based on each vendor’s professional judgment and standard practices.

11 Will EOG provide branding guidelines or templates to ensure consistency?

Branding assets (logo files, color palettes) should be provided at kickoff.

Until provided, vendors may reference existing official state web properties such as flgov.com for general style consistency

Are there defined milestones or phased deadlines for each deliverable within the overall project period?

No milestones are listed beyond the project period (May 19–June 30, 2026).

Vendors should propose milestone dates aligned with the condensed 6-week schedule.

What are the expected turnaround times for EOG reviews and approvals at each stage?

see response to Question 8.

How should Vendors account for delays related to content delivery, feedback, or approvals that may be outside Vendor control?

Vendors should outline any assumptions regarding content delivery, feedback, and approval timelines within their proposals. If delays occur due to factors outside the vendor’s control, the vendor may request reasonable schedule adjustments. EOG will work collaboratively with the selected vendor to mitigate delays and maintain the project timeline.

Can EOG clarify the acceptance criteria and approval process tied to each deliverable for invoicing?

Deliverables are deemed accepted when:

• They meet all RFQ scope requirements

• They are approved in writing by the Contract Manager

16 Are Vendors permitted to define reasonable revision limits within their proposals?

The RFQ does not restrict or prohibit vendors from defining revision limits.

Can EOG provide additional detail on evaluation criteria for best value selection?

The RFQ states that EOG will select the vendor providing the overall best value, based on:

• Staff experience

• Availability

• References

• Price

The EOG may also consider:

• Demonstrated ability to deliver static government websites

• Past work quality

• Proposed timeline feasibility

• Cost realism

Is there an estimated budget or target allocation for this RFQ to help Vendors appropriately align scope and pricing?

Total shall not exceed $75,000.00

Deliverable Pricing – The RFQ requests deliverable based pricing. May vendors also provide an overall cost summary in addition to per deliverable pricing, or must pricing be strictly broken down by each deliverable only?

The RFQ requires deliverable-based pricing and a completed cost proposal section, however it does not restrict vendors from submitting a total project cost summary.

Domain Acquisition – Will the Executive Office of the Governor reimburse domain registration costs separately, or should vendors include domain purchase and registration fees within the proposed deliverable cost?

Domain costs should be included within Deliverable 1 pricing and should not be billed separately.

Static Website Updates – The RFQ notes a “simple content update mechanism.”

Should vendors propose a specific static site generator workflow (e.g., Hugo, Jekyll) or is vendor provided update support acceptable as long as turnaround times are defined?

The RFQ supports either option.

Proposals should present:

• One recommended approach

• Justification

• Optionally: pricing for the alternative as an add-on

Graphic Materials – For Deliverable 3, are vendors expected to provide a fixed number of graphics (e.g., one infographic, several icons), or should proposals outline flexible capacity with unit pricing for additional items?

Vendors should submit proposals that best address the requirements outlined in the RFQ and reflect their organization’s capabilities, approach, and expertise. Responses should be

Letters of Support / References – The RFQ does not explicitly require letters of support. Can vendors submit professional references from prior government or nonprofit clients instead, and will these be considered sufficient?

Yes. The RFQ does not require letters of support. References alone are acceptable.

Content and branding material delivery:

Given the anticipated contract end date of June 30, 2026, can you confirm when written content, images, and branding materials referenced in Deliverable 2 will be made available to the selected vendor?

We want to ensure our proposed timeline accurately reflects any dependencies on your side.

such as flgov.com for general style consistency

Domain naming guidance: Do you have existing naming conventions, preferred registrars, or specific domain extensions (e.g., .gov, .com, .org) in mind for this project, or will the vendor be expected to recommend options from scratch?

The EOG will provide input and domain naming guidance to the selected vendor at project kickoff.

in the RFQ and reflect their organization’s capabilities, approach, and expertise. Responses should be

State of Florida branding standards: Will the selected vendor be provided with existing State of Florida brand guidelines, typography, and color standards referenced in Deliverable 2, or will these need to be sourced independently?

Until provided, vendors may reference existing official state web properties

Hosting environment: Does EOG have a preferred hosting provider or infrastructure requirement for the static website, or is the vendor free to recommend and implement an appropriate hosting solution as part of their proposal?

The vendor may propose any secure, compliant hosting platform.

Scope of graphic materials: Regarding Deliverable 3, can EOG provide an indication of the anticipated volume of graphic assets — for example, the number of one-pagers, icons, or banners expected

— to help vendors price this deliverable accurately?

Vendors should submit proposals that best address the requirements outlined in the RFQ and reflect their organization’s capabilities, approach, and expertise. Responses should be

Static site technology stack: The RFQ references static site generators such as Hugo, Jekyll, and Eleventy as example approaches. Can EOG confirm whether

The RFQ references static site generators such as Hugo, Jekyll, and Eleventy but does not prohibit alternatives.

there are any IT security requirements or preferences that would restrict or favor a particular static site framework?

Specifically, we would like to clarify whether a framework such as Next.js -configured to export a fully static HTML/CSS/JS build with no server-side runtime - would be considered compliant with the static website requirement.

in the RFQ and reflect their organization’s capabilities, approach, and expertise. Responses should be

Hosting Services Will hosting services be provided by EOG, or should hosting setup and ongoing hosting costs be included within the vendor’s pricing proposal?

Vendors should assume the following:

• Vendor sets up initial hosting

• Long-term hosting ownership transitions to EOG unless otherwise contracted

Vendors may include optional ongoing hosting support pricing.

Domain Acquisition Has the project domain already been identified, or is the vendor expected to propose multiple domain options and manage the full acquisition and registration process?

The EOG will provide input and domain naming guidance to the selected vendor at project kickoff. The vendor is expected acquire the domain.

Content Ownership and Delivery Will EOG provide all final written content, images, and branding assets for the website, or is the vendor expected to assist with content strategy, copywriting, or content development?

EOG will provide written content, images, and branding assets in stages throughout the project. Vendors should anticipate collaborating closely with the agency and are expected to offer recommendations based on their professional expertise and experience.

While EOG will supply the core content, vendors may be asked to support content strategy and refinement as part of an iterative development process.

Branding Guidelines In addition to the State of Florida branding standards, is there a specific project brand guideline document that vendors should follow?

State of Florida branding rules serve as the governing standard.

ADA / WCAG Compliance Does EOG require a formal accessibility audit and certification for WCAG 2.1 AA compliance, or is implementation based on accessibility best practices and validation sufficient?

The RFQ mandates compliance with WCAG 2.1 AA, but does not require a VPAT or third-party audit.

Content Update Mechanism For the requested “simple content update mechanism,” does EOG prefer a static site generator workflow (such as Hugo, Jekyll, or Eleventy), or would vendor-managed content update support be preferred?

See Questions 1 and 6.

Graphic Materials Scope For Deliverable 3 (Graphic Design & Complementary Materials), is there an expected quantity or estimated range for infographics, banners, icons, section headers, or other visual assets to be included?

in the RFQ and reflect their organization’s capabilities, approach, and expertise. Responses should be

Review and Revision Rounds Please confirm the expected number of design and content revision rounds that should be included within the proposed scope.

The RFQ does not specify a limit on revisions; however, vendors may define reasonable revision limits based on their professional judgment and standard practices.

Project Timeline Is there a preferred public launch date prior to June 30, 2026, that vendors should consider when preparing the project schedule?

Vendors are expected to complete the project as efficiently as possible;

however, the project timeline may not extend beyond June 30, 2026.

Reference Websites Are there existing reference websites, prior projects, or examples that EOG would like the final website to align with in terms of structure, style, or functionality?

Vendors may reference missions to

Can EOG confirm the required submission channel for quotes, including whether responses should be submitted through SAP Business Network, MFMP/VIP, email

Submissions should be submitted to EOGPurchasing@eog.myflorida.com.

mailto:EOGPurchasing@eog.myflorida.com to EOGPurchasing@eog.myflorida.com, or more than one method?

Will EOG provide all approved written content, images, logos, brand standards, and required page content before project kickoff?

Until provided, vendors may reference existing official state web properties

For pricing purposes, should vendors assume the website will include the upper bound of six pages, or should vendors provide separate pricing for three, four, five, and six pages?

Vendors should plan for 3-6 pages.

For pricing purposes, how many complementary graphic materials should vendors assume, including infographic one-pagers, icons, banners, or section headers?

in the RFQ and reflect their organization’s capabilities, approach, and expertise. Responses should be

Does EOG prefer a static site generator workflow for future content updates, or vendor-provided content update support with defined turnaround expectations?

Please see Questions 1, 6, and 36.

Who should own and administer the registrar, DNS, hosting, SSL, analytics, and related administrative accounts at launch?

EOG should ultimately own and control:

• Registrar accounts

• DNS records

• Hosting accounts

• SSL certificates

• Analytics properties

The vendor may initially configure these but should transfer full control to EOG before project completion

If analytics are requested, is Google Analytics acceptable, or does EOG require a specific analytics platform?

The RFQ states that basic analytics may be configured, vendors may propose and justify a particular solution based upon vendor’s professional judgment and standard practices.

Does EOG require a specific accessibility validation report, testing tool, or documentation format for WCAG 2.1 AA compliance?

The RFQ requires WCAG 2.1 AA compliance, but does not require any particular tool or report format.

It states the contractor will review the best options and purchase the domain.

Will the contractor own and manage it for any time after the completion of the project? If so, for how long?

The RFQ requires the vendor to purchase and register the domain on behalf of EOG, then provide full documentation and access credentials.

• Vendor should not retain long-term ownership

• Ownership transfers to EOG

Do you intend for the contractor to host the site, and if so, for how long?

The RFQ requires hosting setup and deployment but does not reqire long-term hosting responsibilities.

50 What is the exact page count anticipated within the 3–6 page range?

Vendors should plan for 3-6 pages.

Will EOG provide all written content and media assets, or is copywriting/content creation expected from the vendor?

EOG will provide written content, images, and branding assets in stages throughout the project. Vendors should anticipate collaborating closely with the agency and are expected to offer recommendations based on their professional expertise and experience.

While EOG will supply the core content, vendors may be asked to support content strategy and refinement

Is a specific static site generator (e.g., Hugo, Jekyll, Eleventy) required, or is an alternative platform acceptable?

The RFQ references static site generators such as Hugo, Jekyll, and Eleventy but does not prohibit alternatives.

Vendors should submit proposals that best address the requirements outlined in the RFQ and reflect their organization’s capabilities, approach, and expertise. Responses should be judgment and standard practices

How many graphic assets are anticipated under Deliverable 3 (e.g., one-pagers, icons, banners)?

Vendors should submit proposals that best address the requirements outlined in the RFQ and reflect their organization’s capabilities, approach, and expertise. Responses should be

How many rounds of revisions are expected for both the website and graphic materials?

The RFQ does not specify a limit on revisions; however, vendors may define reasonable revision limits based on their professional judgment and standard practices.

Does EOG have a preferred domain registrar and/or domain extension (.gov, .org, .com)?

The EOG will provide input and

Will EOG provide a State of Florida branding guidelines document to the selected vendor?

Branding assets (logo files, color palettes) should be provided at kickoff.

Until provided, vendors may reference existing official state web properties

Will EOG provide all written content and media assets prior to the start of development?

EOG will provide written content, images, and branding assets in stages throughout the project. Vendors should anticipate collaborating closely with the agency and are expected to offer recommendations based on their professional expertise and experience.

While EOG will supply the core content, vendors may be asked to support content strategy and refinement

Will any pages require interactive functionality such as contact forms, file downloads, or embedded media?

Deliverable 2 defines the site as a static website, intended for minimal modification after implementation.

Simple downloadable documents or embedded media may be acceptable, but interactive forms requiring server-side processing are unlikely.

Would submission of a preliminary website prototype/mockup as part of the proposal be considered acceptable supporting evidence of implementation capability and project approach?

The RFQ does not require mockups or prototypes as part of the proposal submission.

Vendors may include mockups if they choose.

Will approved written content, logos, branding assets, and imagery be provided by the Executive Office of the Governor following award?

EOG will provide written content, images, and branding assets in stages throughout the project. Vendors should anticipate collaborating closely with the agency and are expected to offer recommendations based on their professional expertise and experience.

While EOG will supply the core content, vendors may be asked to support content strategy and refinement as part of an iterative development process.

Branding assets (logo files, color palettes) should be provided at kickoff.

Until provided, vendors may reference existing official state web properties

For Deliverable 2, would vendor-provided content update support satisfy the static content update mechanism requirement, or is a self-managed editing workflow required?

Deliverable 2 allows two valid options:

1. A static site generator workflow, or

2. Vendor-provided content updates with defined turnaround times

Therefore, vendor-managed updates meet the requirement.

If a self-managed editing workflow is required, does the Executive Office have any preferred hosting environment, static site generator, or content management workflow requirements?

Would references and prior project narrative descriptions satisfy the staffing qualifications section, or does the Executive Office prefer formal portfolio examples or documented prior engagements?

The RFQ does not require formal portfolio examples; references alone are acceptable. Vendors are encouraged to submit materials that best demonstrate their organization’s performance capabilities.

Branding Guidelines Will the EOG provide documented State of Florida branding guidelines (typography, color palette, logo usage, seal standards) to the selected vendor, or should the vendor reference the current flgov.com visual identity as the primary design standard?

Until provided, vendors may reference existing official state web properties such as flgov.com for general style consistency

Hosting Environment Are there specific hosting requirements for this project (e.g., state data center infrastructure, AWS GovCloud), or may the vendor propose a commercial cloud solution (e.g., AWS cloudFront with S3) provided it meets applicable NIST security standards and includes SSL, DDoS protection, and uptime guarantees?

Deliverable 3 — Scope of Graphic Materials Approximately how many infographic one-pagers and visual assets (icons, banners, section headers) are anticipated under Deliverable 3?

Understanding the estimated volume will allow us to provide more accurate pricing.

in the RFQ and reflect their organization’s capabilities, approach, and expertise. Responses should be

Content Availability Will the written content, images, and graphics referenced in Deliverable 2 be

EOG will provide written content, throughout the project. Vendors should available at project kickoff (May19), or should the vendor anticipate progressive delivery of content materials during the engagement period?

anticipate collaborating closely with the agency and are expected to offer recommendations based on their professional expertise and experience.

While EOG will supply the core content, vendors may be asked to support content strategy and refinement

Content Update Mechanism Does the EOG have a preference between a static site generator workflow (e.g., Hugo, Jekyll, or Eleventy, where designated staff would edit content files directly) or vendor-provided content update support with defined turnaround expectations?

This question duplicates Questions 1, 6, 36, and 45.

Since this may affect scope, can you share the topic or overview of this website and supporting materials?

The goal of this website is to support public information distribution and enhance outreach and awareness.

The PO end date is listed as June 30, 2026 with a start date of May 19th. This is not much time for the requested work, given the outlined SOW. Is this the correct end date or is the timeline able to be determined as part of the work required?

The anticipated start date is May 19, 2026, and the anticipated end date is June 30, 2026.

For Deliverable 1, domain name purchase costs can vary based on the TLD (top-level domain). Should we anticipate purchasing a single .com domain name for budgetary reasons?

The RFQ requires the vendor to follow State of Florida naming guidance and recommend the best available domain.

Cost savings should not override compliance or clarity.

The EOG will provide input and domain naming guidance to the selected vendor at project kickoff.

For Deliverable 2, design is mentioned as being “consistent with State of Florida branding standards, typography, and color guidelines.” Will these guidelines and associated branding assets be provided? Or should logo design and art direction

The RFQ requires alignment with State of Florida branding standards, which Branding assets (logo files, color services be included for this website and support materials that is specific to the topic, audience, and goals?

For Deliverable 3, can you share about how many support materials are projected to help provide a more accurate estimate of the anticipated work?

in the RFQ and reflect their organization’s capabilities, approach, and expertise. Responses should be

Do you have any preference for CMS platforms (e.g., Drupal, WordPress, or any proprietary tools)?

The RFQ does not reference any CMS platform, and the project is explicitly defined as a static website.

Therefore:

• EOG has no stated CMS preference

• A CMS is not expected or required

• Vendors should propose static-generation solutions compatible with Deliverable 2 requirements

It was mentioned that a static site generator workflow (e.g., Hugo, Jekyll, Eleventy) may be considered—do you have a preference among these tools?

The RFQ references static site generators such as Hugo, Jekyll, and Eleventy but does not prohibit alternatives nor is there a preference.

Vendors should submit proposals that best address the requirements outlined in the RFQ and reflect their organization’s capabilities, approach, and expertise. Responses should be

Could you please share the budget allocated for the current website?

Project budget shall not exceed $75,000.

Are you experiencing any challenges with the current website, particularly with content publishing?

This is a new site build, not a redesign or migration.

What are the key objectives or drivers for the new website?

The goal of this website is to support public information distribution and enhance outreach and awareness.

Who is the incumbent vendor currently providing support for the existing website?

This is a new site build, not a redesign or migration.

The preferred method of submission (electronic via email, MyFloridaMarketPlace portal, or physical delivery).

The RFQ identifies the submission contact as:

EOGPurchasing@eog.myflorida.com

Any specific instructions for labeling or structuring the proposal file(s).

The RFQ does not provide specific file-naming or structural requirements beyond including:

• A complete cost proposal

• Deliverable-based pricing

• Responses meeting all Scope of

Work elements

In your file name please include:

• Solicitation number

(EOG-RFQ-26-03)

• Vendor name

State of Florida Branding Standards (Deliverable 2 & 3) The RFQ requires compliance with State of Florida branding standards for both the static website (D2) and graphic design materials (D3). Could EOG provide or direct us to:

- Official State of Florida brand guidelines document

- Logo files (vector formats preferred)

- Approved color palette (hex/RGB/CMYK values)

- Typography standards (approved fonts and usage hierarchy)

- Any existing component library or design system documentation

Branding assets (logo files, color palettes) should be provided at kickoff.

Until provided, vendors may reference existing official state web properties

Domain Naming Guidance (Deliverable 1) The RFQ references "EOG and State of Florida naming guidance" for domain acquisition. Could you please specify:

- Preferred domain naming conventions (e.g., format, keywords, character limits)

- Any mandatory or prohibited terms

- Preferred top-level domain extension(s) (.gov, .fl.gov, .com, .org, etc.)

- DNS and security requirements beyond SSL (e.g., DNSSEC, specific hosting providers) vendor at project kickoff.

• Prefer .gov or .fl.gov (if eligible)

• Use .org or .com only if government TLDs are unavailable

• Follow security best practices such as enabling DNSSEC, SSL, and secure registrar locks

Static Website Technical Specifications (Deliverable 2) To ensure optimal implementation:

- Does EOG have a preference for specific static site generators (Hugo, Jekyll, Eleventy, etc.) or is vendor choice acceptable?

- Are there required or prohibited hosting platforms/environments?

- Should the content update mechanism include a content management interface, or is a developer-supported workflow (Git-based, etc.) acceptable?

- Are there specific analytics platforms required (Google Analytics, Matomo, etc.)

or is this vendor's choice?

The RFQ provides general technical requirements, including:

• Static site design

• ADA/WCAG compliance

• Secure hosting configuration

• Optional analytics setup

• A required content update mechanism (SSG or vendor support)

Vendors may propose any standards-compliant static site approach that meets the above requirements.

Accessibility Validation Requirements (Deliverable 2) For WCAG 2.1 AA compliance documentation:

- Which accessibility validation tools does EOG prefer for acceptance testing (axe DevTools, WAVE, Lighthouse, Pa11y, other)?

-Should accessibility conformance reports be delivered with the final deliverable?

The RFQ requires compliance with WCAG 2.1 AA but does not specify testing tools or analytics platforms.

Vendors should propose their best

86 Graphic Design Materials Scope (Deliverable 3)

Vendors should submit proposals that best address the requirements outlined in the RFQ and reflect their https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ffl.gov%2F&data=05%7C02%7CEOGPurchasing%40eog.myflorida.com%7C8ce730cc6da04c36ed2d08deacefcca1%7C6ae1dc38bd164caabed2f923d518e145%7C0%7C0%7C639138343212504988%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=zQQrb%2BthKFNcf%2BB5h6ojzNRuQuxvF8b2a%2B6nNCnu92k%3D&reserved=0

The RFQ mentions "infographic-style one-pagers, icons, banners, and section headers.&quote;

Could you clarify:

- Expected quantity or range (e.g., number of one-pagers, icons, banners)

- Specific use cases or dimensions for web banners

- Print specifications (trim sizes, bleed requirements) for print-ready formats organization’s capabilities, approach, and expertise. Responses should be based on each vendor’s professional judgment and standard practices.

Branding assets (logo files, color palettes) should be provided at kickoff.

Until provided, vendors may reference existing official state web properties

Project Kickoff & Security Awareness Training The RFQ mentions required Security Awareness Training before EOG network access:

- What is the estimated duration and format of this training?

- Can training be completed remotely, and how soon after award can it be scheduled?

The RFQ states only that vendor personnel must complete Security Awareness Training before receiving EOG network access.

• Training is typically provided online

• Often 30–60 minutes in length

• Usually completed during or immediately after project kickoff

More details will be provided to the selected vendor should it be deemed necessary.

Question 1: Content Update Mechanism Deliverable 2 references either a static site generator workflow or vendor-provided content update support with a defined turnaround. Does EOG anticipate making content updates directly through a build pipeline, or would EOG prefer the vendor handle updates under a defined turnaround? If the latter, what update frequency and turnaround expectations should we plan for?

Please see question 1

Question 2: Hosting Environment, SLA, and Certificate Management Deliverable 2 references secure hosting configuration, environment setup, deployment, and verification of site performance and uptime, but does not

The RFQ requires the vendor to configure secure hosting, deploy the static website, and verify performance and uptime, but it does not specify whether hosting must be vendor‑managed or deployed into an EOG‑controlled environment. 2 specify the hosting environment. To clarify scope and pricing:

• Does EOG expect the vendor to provide and manage the hosting environment, or will the site be deployed into a State of Florida or EOG-managed environment?

• If vendor-provided, are there preferred or required hosting providers, certifications (e.g., FedRAMP, StateRAMP), or data residency requirements?

• What uptime SLA target should the proposal plan for?

• For SSL/TLS certificates, is automated certificate management (e.g., Let’s Encrypt) acceptable, or does EOG require a specific certificate authority or procurement process?

The RFQ also does not define:

Any uptime SLA target Any required hosting certifications (e.g., FedRAMP, StateRAMP) A required TLS certificate authority

Based on industry best practices, since the RFQ is silent:

Vendors may propose a secure commercial cloud hosting solution (e.g., AWS S3 + CloudFront, Azure Static Web Apps).

Automated SSL/TLS (e.g., Let’s Encrypt) is acceptable unless EOG requests a state‑managed certificate.

A reasonable SLA target for static government sites is 99–99.9% uptime, but EOG has not mandated one.

Question 3: Content Readiness, Review Cycles, and Timeline Dependencies Deliverable 2 indicates that written content, images, and graphics will be provided by the EOG. Given the project timeline of May 19, 2026 through June 30, 2026, can EOG clarify:

• Will final, approved written content for all pages be available at the start of the engagement, or is content development expected to occur in parallel with design and build?

• What is the anticipated review and approval cycle for content, design mockups, and graphic deliverables (e.g., number of review rounds and expected stakeholder turnaround)?

• For Deliverable 3, will EOG provide finalized source content for graphic synthesis, or is collaborative content development part of the scope?

throughout the project. Vendors should anticipate collaborating closely with the agency and are expected to offer recommendations based on their professional expertise and experience.

While EOG will supply the core content, vendors may be asked to support content strategy and refinement as part of an iterative development process.

Vendors should assume 3–5 business days for each review cycle and include schedule caveats for delays.

91 Question 4: Accessibility Validation Expectations

The RFQ requires compliance with WCAG 2.1 AA but does not specify testing tools or analytics platforms nor does it require a VPAT or third-party

Deliverable 2 specifies WCAG 2.1 AA compliance. To clarify validation expectations and scope:

• Does EOG require a third-party accessibility audit and/or VPAT documentation, or is vendor self-attestation supported by automated and manual testing acceptable?

• Is there a preferred or required testing methodology, tool, or auditor that the vendor should align with?

audit. Vendors should propose their best

Do you have a count or an estimate for how many infographic one pagers will be needed?

in the RFQ and reflect their organization’s capabilities, approach, and expertise. Responses should be based on each vendor’s professional judgment and standard practices

Do you have a full list of visual assets that would be needed to complement the website design?

Until provided, vendors may reference existing official state web properties

94 Is there a timeline/deadline for completion of this project?

Yes, The RFQ specifies the contract period as May 19 – June 30, 2026.

Should the quote be submitted via email to EOGPurchasing@eog.myflorida.com, or is there a specific portal or platform through which submissions must be made?

The RFQ identifies the submission point of contact as:

EOGPurchasing@eog.myflorida.com

Are there any specific file format requirements or naming conventions for the submitted documents?

The RFQ does not provide specific file-naming or structural requirements beyond including:

• A complete cost proposal

• Deliverable-based pricing

• Responses meeting all Scope of

Work elements

In your file name please include:

• Solicitation number

(EOG-RFQ-26-03)

• Vendor name

Should the quote be addressed to you directly, or to a specific team or department?

The RFQ names the point of contact as:

Jacob Hershberger, Purchasing Director

Will all website content and graphics be provided at project kickoff, or should vendors anticipate phased delivery? Who will serve as the final approver for content?

EOG will provide written content, images, and branding assets in stages throughout the project. Vendors should anticipate collaborating closely with the agency and are expected to offer recommendations based on their professional expertise and experience.

While EOG will supply the core content, vendors may be asked to support content strategy and refinement as part of an iterative development process.

Branding assets (logo files, color palettes) should be provided at kickoff.

Until provided, vendors may reference existing official state web properties such as flgov.com for general style consistency

The Contract Manager or is typically the final approver, however some approvals may be delegated to EOG project staff

Should the solution be deployed within an existing EOG managed hosting environment, or should vendors propose a hosting configuration for initial deployment and transition?

Vendors should configure hosting initially but transition long-term

Beyond the examples provided (e.g., Jekyll, Hugo, Eleventy), is EOG open to alternative approaches that meet the requirement for a low-maintenance, static website?

The RFQ references static site generators such as Hugo, Jekyll, and Eleventy but does not prohibit alternatives.

in the RFQ and reflect their organization’s capabilities, approach, and expertise. Responses should be based on each vendor’s professional judgment and standard practices

What level of accessibility validation documentation is expected at delivery (e.g., internal review, compliance summary, or formal VPAT)?

The RFQ requires compliance with WCAG 2.1 AA but does not specify testing tools or analytics platforms nor does it require a VPAT or third-party audit. Vendors should propose their best

Is there an incumbent vendor currently providing website development, hosting, domain management, or graphic design services related to this project? If so, will the incumbent be submitting a response to this RFQ?

No.

Has any vendor previously assisted the EOG in developing the scope, technical requirements, branding direction, or domain strategy associated with this RFQ?

Does the EOG already have preferred domain name options identified, or is the awarded vendor expected to provide naming strategy recommendations from scratch?

Is the selected vendor expected to transfer full ownership of the domain registration and hosting environment directly to the State upon completion?

Yes.

Does the EOG have an existing hosting provider or preferred hosting environment that vendors should account for in their proposal?

Are vendors permitted to recommend alternative static website frameworks or lightweight CMS solutions outside of the examples listed in the RFQ (Hugo, Jekyll, Eleventy)?

The RFQ references static site generators such as Hugo, Jekyll, and Eleventy but does not prohibit alternatives.

Vendors should submit proposals that best address the requirements outlined in the RFQ and reflect their organization’s capabilities, approach, and expertise. Responses should be

Will the EOG provide all written copy, imagery, branding assets, and content architecture, or should vendors include content strategy and copywriting support in their pricing?

throughout the project. Vendors should anticipate collaborating closely with the agency and are expected to offer recommendations based on their professional expertise and experience.

While EOG will supply the core content, vendors may be asked to support content strategy and refinement as part of an iterative development process.

Branding assets (logo files, color palettes) should be provided at kickoff.

Until provided, vendors may reference existing official state web properties

Are there existing State of Florida digital branding guidelines, UI standards, or accessibility templates that will be provided to shortlisted vendors?

Branding assets (logo files, color palettes) should be provided at kickoff.

Until provided, vendors may reference existing official state web properties

Can the EOG clarify the expected approval workflow and number of stakeholder review rounds anticipated for website and graphic deliverables?

Stakeholder approvals will depend on the complexity of the content, with larger or more substantive components requiring more review than simple adjustments. On average, vendors should assume 3–5 business days for each review cycle and should include appropriate schedule contingencies for potential delays.

Is there an expectation that the selected vendor provide ongoing maintenance, security monitoring, hosting support, or content updates after the initial launch period?

Vendors should configure hosting initially but transition long-term

Can the EOG provide additional detail regarding the “vendor-provided content update support with defined turnaround expectations” noted in Deliverable 2?

EOG anticipates that the selected vendor will provide post-launch content update support for routine updates such as text adjustments, image replacements, and minor page modifications. Specific turnaround expectations will be defined collaboratively during the project, but vendors should assume standard, reasonable timelines for minor content updates. This support is intended to supplement EOG’s ability to make updates directly and ensure that any necessary changes can be completed efficiently and accurately.

Please see questions 1 and 6 for additional details.

Will analytics configuration require integration with an existing State analytics platform, Google Analytics property, or Tag Manager environment?

The RFQ states that basic analytics may be configured, vendors may propose and justify a particular solution based upon vendor’s professional judgment and standard practices.

Does the EOG anticipate any future expansion of the website beyond the currently identified 3–6 pages?

Not at this time.

Are there any specific cybersecurity or compliance standards beyond SSL and WCAG 2.1 AA that vendors should incorporate into the proposed solution?

The RFQ requires compliance with WCAG 2.1 AA but does not specify testing tools or analytics platforms.

Vendors should propose their best

Will the selected vendor be required to coordinate with internal State IT personnel for DNS configuration, hosting approvals, or deployment?

Yes.

Can the EOG clarify whether hosting costs should be included within the proposed fixed-cost deliverables or treated separately?

The hosting costs should be included in the fixed-cost deliverables.

Is there a preferred project launch date within the contract window ending June 30, 2026?

Vendors should work to complete the project as quickly as possible but may not go beyond 6/30/2026.

What evaluation weighting will be placed on pricing versus technical approach, accessibility expertise, security approach, and prior government website experience?

A vendor will be selected based on their ability to provide the best value to the state. All factors included within a vendor’s proposal will be taken into consideration.

Will references or prior public-sector website examples be required as part of the submission?

They are not required but are strongly encouraged.

Is the EOG open to awarding additional future work or renewals related to expanded website functionality, campaign microsites, or ongoing design support under this procurement?

We are unable to answer at this time.

Can the EOG clarify whether there is an anticipated budget allocation across Deliverables 1, 2, and 3, or if vendors should determine the recommended allocation within the total not-to-exceed amount of $75,000?

Please determine costs within the $75,000 limit.

Are there any required integrations with State systems, external databases, forms, or third-party platforms that vendors should anticipate even within the static site structure?

Will the awarded vendor be expected to provide training or documentation for EOG personnel managing future content updates?

Does the EOG anticipate requiring multilingual accessibility or translation functionality as part of this project?

Will there be oral presentations, interviews, or negotiations following proposal submission, or will award decisions be made solely from the written responses?

No, decisions will be made based solely upon written submissions.