ESBD_File_317494_DIR-CPO-TMP-573 Addendum 1.pdf

Addendum 1

SOLICITATION NUMBER: DIR-CPO-TMP-573

SOLICITATION NAME: IT Research and Advisory Subscription Services &

Computer Assisted Legal and Investigative Research (CALIR) Services

ADDENDUM NUMBER: 1

Addendum Date: March 24, 2023 If you should have any questions regarding this Addendum, please contact:

Stephanie Harrison

Department of Information Resources 300 W. 15th Street, Suite 1300

Austin, Texas 78701 E-mail: stephanie.harrison@dir.texas.gov

Notice is given to Respondents desiring to submit a response to the above referenced solicitation that additional information is required:

This Addendum modifies the solicitation IT Research and Advisory Subscription Services & Computer Assisted Legal and Investigative Research (CALIR) Services, Solicitation No. DIR-CPO-TMP-573, released February 16, 2023. It informs the parties that:

Pre-Proposal Conference Slides, Pre-Proposal Conference Attendee List, and Pre-Proposal Video Link have been provided. In addition, the Question and Answers received by the Q&A deadline have been addressed. Addendum 1 also provides an updated Exhibit E, Itemized Pricing form.

In the submission of its Response to this solicitation, Respondents shall submit this signed “page one” of the Addendum, acknowledging receipt of the Addendum.

Respondent Acknowledgment of Receipt

(printed entity name)

(printed name of authorized representative)

(signature of authorized representative)

(date)

This addendum to Request for Offer DIR-CPO-TMP-573:

1. Revises RFO Sections 2.1.1 iii

2. Corrects the first paragraph of RFO Section 2.1.1.1

3. Updates RFO Section 3.3 Schedule of Events

4. Includes Pre-Proposal Conference Presentation Slides;

5. Includes Pre-Proposal Conference Attendees List;

6. Includes Pre-Proposal Conference Video

7. Includes updated Exhibit E Itemized Pricing Form

8. Q&A Document

1. RFO Section 2.1.1 iii Restricted Access to Public Records Databases and Materials (for Governmental or Law Enforcement Agency Use)

Online comprehensive information databases, software, and search tools, restricted to governmental or law enforcement agency personnel with authorized use related to investigating or researching federal, state, or other program/benefits eligibility, fraud, or other authorized use. Should provide the users the ability to conduct basic and advanced searches.

For each specialized public records database or restricted access database identified in response to Section 2.1., Respondent shall describe the specific criteria for authorized use or access. Respondent shall also provide copies of any licensing or security documents that may need to be executed with respect to the specialized public records databases.

2. RFO Section 2.1.1.1 Related Services for Computer Assisted Legal and Investigative Research (CALIR) Services

Related services are any value-added service that Respondent may perform as related to the products proposed in Section 2.1. Related services include, but are not limited to, product installation, integration, maintenance and support, managed services and product training.

3. RFO Section 3.3 Schedule of Events: Updates the Due Date for responses to April 17, 2023.

Date/Time Activity

February 16, 2023 Publish RFO on Electronic State Business Daily

March 3, 2023 1:00pm (CT) Optional Pre-Proposal Webinar

March 6, 2023 5pm (CT) Deadline for submitting questions

April 17, 2023 2:00 PM (CT) Deadline for DIR to receive Vendor references Deadline for submitting responses to RFO

March 31, 2023 – until completed Evaluation of responses, oral presentations (if requested), negotiations, and contract execution

4. PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE PRESENTATION SLIDES

Please see the following pages.

5. PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE ATTENDEES LIST

Please see the following pages.

6. PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE VIDEO

Video Link: https://youtu.be/03btDGA7IaU

7. EXHIBIT E ITEMIZED PRICING FORM

Please see following pages.

8. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

# RFO

Section Vendor Question DIR Answer

1 Attachment

ESBD_File_317494_Attachment 1 Sample Contract

• Section 7 (Internet Access to Contract and Pricing Information)

• p. 4 of 8

Section 7 states that "In addition to the requirements listed in Appendix A, Section 7.2, Internet Access to Contract and Pricing Information, Successful Respondent shall include the following with its webpage: a) A current price list or mechanism to obtain specific contract pricing; b) MSRP/list price or DIR Customer price; c) Discount percentage (%) off MSRP or List Price.

Question: For 7b, if DIR Customer Price is provided instead of MSRP/List price, is it necessary to provide the "Discount percentage (%) off MSRP or List Price" stated in 7c?

The DIR customer must be able to obtain the DIR customer price and to ensure they are getting the contracted discount rate. Therefore, both the discount off the MSRP/List price and either the MSRP/List price or the DIR customer price are required on the DIR webpage.

2 Attachment

Attachment 2, Section 9.2 - Reporting and Administrative Fees [page 20]. It is this Respondent’s understanding that the reporting methodology in place under the current contract is meeting the needs of the DIR. Seeing as the reporting requirements from the

Respondents that are awarded a contract as the result of this RFO will receive instructions on reporting requirements upon award of the contract. There is no guarantee that the reporting requirements will remain exactly the same.

previous RFO are substantially similar, can the DIR please confirm that Respondents can continue to provide the DIR with the same reports they're providing today?

3 Attachment

Attachment 2, Standard Terms and Conditions, Section 4.2 Modification of Contract Terms and/or Amendments [page 7]. Section 4.2.C states, “Customers shall not have the authority to modify the terms of the Contract;

however, additional Customer terms and conditions that do not conflict with the Contract and are acceptable to Successful Respondent may be added in a Purchase Order and given effect. No additional term or condition added in a Purchase Order issued by a Customer can conflict with or diminish a term or condition of the Contract. Pre-printed terms and conditions on any Purchase Order issued by Customer hereunder will have no force and effect. In the event of a conflict between a Customer’s Purchase Order and the Contract, the Contract term shall control.”

We understand that the resultant contract will be similar to the Sample Contract provided with the solicitation, however, a Respondent’s license terms must also be incorporated. The license terms could be placed last in the order of precedence so that the State’s standard terms govern any conflict of terms. (Please note that such terms are industry-standard; all legal and investigative research providers in this industry—including this Respondent and its competitors—are subject to the same limitations.) Can the DIR please confirm it will permit Respondents to submit their standard contract terms

Respondent may submit license agreements with their proposal, however, Attachment 1 Sample Contract – Section 10 contains the terms regarding how license agreements will be incorporated into a DIR cooperative contract. Any exceptions to the Sample Contract should be made in accordance with the RFO. Please note that all submitted license agreements are subject to review and negotiation.

and conditions with their price proposals?

4 Attachment

Attachment 3, Service Agreement Template, Engagement Contract Order Form. It is this Respondent’s understanding that this Template is a new requirement for this RFO. Under this Respondent’s current DIR contract, we are utilizing our own order forms in conjunction with the DIR’s contract. It is customary for Respondents to utilize their own order forms/paper when executing a contract, and this method has been working for the DIR, and the State. Can the DIR please confirm that this Respondent can continue to utilize its own order form under the new contract resulting from this RFO?

Attachment 3 Service Agreement Template is an optional template that may be incorporated into a negotiated contract. If the respondent has their own service agreement, submit a copy of that agreement for review as a part of the proposal submission. Any respondent generated service agreements must comply with Sections 10 and 11 of the DIR contract (Attachment 1 to the

RFO).

5 Exhibit A The exceptions format in Exhibit A Section 13, at bottom of page 3, is a table with three columns. However, Exhibit A also mentions (in multiple places) Exhibit A1 as the exceptions format. The table in Section 13 is inconsistent with Exhibit A1, which contains seven columns.

A. Which format does DIR prefer for exceptions: the table in Section 13, or Exhibit A1.? We’d prefer one format only, in lieu of a requirement to repeat exceptions in two formats.

B. The exceptions table in Section 13 is preferable because it’s more streamlined. Is a Microsoft Word version of this table is acceptable, in lieu of an Excel document? Word allows more easily the presenting of changes in redlined format, which the RFO requests.

Utilize the Exhibit A1 Exception Spreadsheet. Respondents do not need to submit exceptions in two different formats.

6 Exhibit A Exhibit A requests information on cancelled contracts over the past five years. Specifically, Attachment 1 requires detailed information on each cancelled contract along with a liability waiver (Exhibit G) for each. We are a large company that services thousands of government, private-sector, academic and law enforcement organizations nationwide, with contract cancellations on a regular basis. Clients may terminate contracts for a variety of reasons, including for convenience, bankruptcy, or non-allocation of funds.

Details of those circumstances are confidential in nature due to our clients’ privacy concerns. Also, disclosing a complete listing of clients and their circumstances would be administratively impractical. In lieu of providing such a list, we would certify that to the best of our knowledge there have been no cancellations for cause or default on our behalf. Is DIR amenable to this approach? (For reference, we submitted a similar question pursuant to a different DIR RFO we responded to in 2021. DIR’s response was, “Yes, however certification must be made as stated and is subject to DIR validation through other sources.”)

Yes, however certification must be made as stated and is subject to DIR validation through other sources.

7 Exhibit A What if there isn't a single owner with greater than 25% ownership, we are a publicly traded company. (Exhibit A, page 7)

If this section is not applicable, enter “N/A” into the field so a response is provided.

8 Exhibit B Exhibit B, Respondent History and Experience – CALIR Only [page 2] and Exhibit C, Customer Support and Marketing Plan [page 2]. Exhibit B, Item #6 appears to be duplicative of Exhibit C, Item #8. Is it sufficient to provide the information in one location and then

Section 3.8.1.3 of the RFO “Respondent shall not refer to information provided elsewhere in the RFO Response or reference website links.”

cross reference to that location where the duplicative information is requested?

Please re-read the referenced sections in this question as these two questions are asking for different information that are to be provided different formats.

The evaluators score each section independently from information provided in a previous section.

Missing/incomplete sections will not receive the maximum points allotted for that section which may result in an overall score that does not allow for the respondent to advance into the negotiation phase.

9 Exhibit B Exhibit B, Respondent History and Experience – CALIR Only, Item #1 [page 1]. The solicitation requires Respondents to “Include how your company will meet the scope for CALIR services as outlined in Section 2.1.1 of the RFO” and limits the response to five

(5) pages. This is not sufficient to provide the detail required by Section

2.1.1 of the RFO. Will the DIR please either eliminate the page limit all together, or increase the page limit to 50 pages?

Exhibit B CALIR Only.

The response to question 1 has a 5-page limit.

The response to question 3 has a 3-page limit.

The response to question 4 has a 2-page limit

The response to question 5 has a 1-page limit per function (up to 5 functions)

The response to question 6 has a 3-page limit.

The page limits are in place to allow respondents to provide the essential information necessary for evaluators to determine if the respondent is capable of providing the services outlined in the RFO. Evaluators are not required to continue to review responses that exceed the page limits for the corresponding sections.

10 Exhibit B Exhibit B, Respondent History and Experience – CALIR Only, Item #5.a [page 1]. The solicitation requires Respondents to describe their “Ability to search databases using natural language and/or Boolean search logic and ability to search multiple databases at the same time” and limits the response to one (1) page. This is not sufficient to provide the detail required by Section 5.a. as this Respondent will have multiple products with search functionality to discuss. Will the DIR please either eliminate the page limit all together, or increase the page limit to 10 pages?

See response to question 9.

11 Exhibit C Page Limit Clarification, Exhibit C – Contract Marketing and Customer Support Plan [page 1-2]. Page 1 of Exhibit C – Contract Marketing and Customer Support Plan states “In no more than seven (7) pages total, non-inclusive of the requested attachments, Respondent must provide a plan that describes the Respondent’s ability and strategy for promoting and supporting the contract,”. However, on page 2 Exhibit C states that “** The attachments provided in response to numbers 8 and 9 are not included in the 5-page limit for Respondent’s response for Exhibit C.

Can the DIR please confirm this Respondent’s understanding that Exhibit C has a 7-page limit, non-inclusive of requested attachments?

It is a 7-page limit not including requested attachments.

12 Exhibit E – Pricing Form

The four headings in Exhibit E Tab 2 are as follows: SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE Description; RESEARCH SERVICE Description; OPTIONAL SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE Description; and OPTIONAL SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE Description.

Section 2 of the RFO contains the scope information.

Subscription service allows a customer to have access to particular databases, files, etc., and the customer can

Please elaborate on differences among these headings. I.e., what is the difference between a “subscription service” and a “research service”? Also, please explain the meaning of “optional subscription service” (i.e., can all of our offerings simply be included under the foregoing “subscription service” heading?); and why does “optional subscription service” appear twice in the tab?

review what they have access to at any time.

Research services generally require a person to fulfill a specific request from the customer and provide recommendations back to the customer.

If the respondent does not provide these offerings, these sections may remain blank.

The headers are set to carry over to the next page, so page 2 of tab 2 has the header from the previous table “Optional Subscription Services” at the top of page 2, Tab 2.

13 Exhibit E –

Form

RFO Section 2.4.A.5 says to fill in Tab 5 Complete Catalog “if applicable.” Yet instructions at the top of page 5 say, “Failure to provide a complete catalog of products being offered by Vendor as instructed may result in Offer being disqualified from further evaluation.”

We’re unsure if Tab 5 is applicable. We have offerings whose prices may appear in Exhibit E tabs 2, 3 and/or 4. It’s unclear if DIR requires us to reinsert the same pricing in Tab 5. Please elaborate.

Catalog pricing is optional.

Respondents will need to make a business decision regarding the proposed offerings and where they align within the scope of the RFO.

Addendum 1 updates Exhibit E to remove this statement, “Failure to provide a complete catalog of products being offered by Vendor as instructed may result in Offer being disqualified from further evaluation.”

14 Exhibit E –

Form

Exhibit E Tab 3 is designated for “Related Services.” Please elaborate on types of services this tab is for and how they differ from Tab 2. We notice RFO Section 2.1.1.1 describes related services as they pertain to CALIR offerings only, while Tab 4 has its own heading for CALIR related services. Does Tab 3 pertain to related services for only IT Research and Advisory Subscription

The RFO specifically lists out related services for CALIR that are generally a part of the proposed offerings for CALIR. The RFO does not restrict related services to only CALIR, so the Exhibit E, Pricing Form allow for a respondent to offer pricing for CALIR, and/or IT Research and Advisory Subscription Services.

Services? Please define these relates services.

It is up to the respondent to clearly define their proposed offerings and demonstrate how they align with the scope of the RFO.

15 Exhibit E –

Form

DIR’s pricing format requires MSRP (list) prices plus discounts. In all of our statewide agreements, we publish standard government fees that that we regard as “ceiling” prices we would not exceed. Discounts are available on a case-by-case basis depending on multiple factors such as: quantity and type of solutions in an agency’s overall purchase, volumes, number of people within the agency requiring access to our solutions, number and types of data searches that customers perform within our platforms, preferred delivery methods of data, committed contract term, existing/non-existing business relationships, etc. Therefore, we are unable to identify a minimum guaranteed price discount for specific products. Also, our published rate for Texas must be consistent with other statewide agreements in the interest of fairness to those states that publish our ceiling fees with understanding that discounting will be made available.

Pursuant to these concerns, please allow the MSRP to reflect the vendor’s “ceiling” price, with discounts reflected as: 0% or TBD. Then to address DIR’s interests, we would be happy to submit with our offer a certification that the listed fees are “ceiling” prices, and discounting will be made available to Texas government agencies on case-by-case basis depending on factors listed above.

Respondent must be able to show best value to the state in all aspects of their response to the RFO. Pricing makes up 30% of the overall score.

Respondent must be able to demonstrate how their pricing structure offers value to DIR customers should the respondent be awarded a contract.

16 Exhibit E – Pricing Form

During the past several years, our statewide contracts in other states have allowed a “Custom Packages” option.

It’s for agencies with unique and customized content and/or solution needs that do not fit into prescribed line-item offerings. In these cases, our company and the agency would agree on specific content/solution offerings and volumes. However, we cannot offer an MSRP price and associated discount, as the solutions, content and volumes are unknown. Is DIR willing to allow this approach? If so, please modify Exhibit E and BidStamp’s Pricing Form to accommodate it. Alternatively, we could offer a “not-to-exceed” fee as the MSRP along with a 0% or 1% minimum discount as a placeholder, as the discount would be unknown. Is DIR willing to allow this alternative approach?

Yes, DIR will allow for custom packages per the customer’s request.

Respondents may add a line item for custom pricing, add TBD in the MSRP column and explain how those type of offerings work in the narrative portion of the RFO response.

17 Exhibit E – Pricing Form

ESBD_File_317494_Exhibit E Itemized Pricing

In the "Complete Catalog" tab, Column F's header reads "DIR Customer Discount." Several places throughout the RFO documents mention percentage off with regards to a customer discount, including the header of Column E (“Pricing Sheet” tab).

Question: Can you please confirm whether the preferred response should be a percentage off or dollar amount in this column?

The DIR Customer Discount is a percentage applied to the MSRP/List price to calculate the DIR Customer price.

The Exhibit E has been updated as a part of Addendum 1 with the formula re-inserted into the spreadsheet so the DIR Customer price auto calculates when the MSRP/List price and the DIR Customer Discount (percentage off) are entered.

18 Exhibit E – Pricing Form

Exhibit E, Itemized Pricing, Tab Clarification. Exhibit E contains four (4) tabs for pricing. Can the DIR please confirm this Respondent’s understanding that if bidding solely on

If proposing CALIR offerings only, Respondent will complete the CALIR tab in Exhibit E and if applicable, the Related Services and/or Complete Catalog tabs.

the CALIR section of the RFO it will only need to provide pricing on the Tab entitled “CALIR Discount”?

19 Exhibit E –

Form

Instead of submitting a singular price within a line of Exhibit E or BidStamp’s Pricing Form, may we insert a range of pricing (i.e., the minimum and maximum fee) for any given line item? BidStamp’s Pricing Form generates an error message when we attempt to do this.

BidStamp does not allow for ranges.

Provide one price and discount per line item.

20 Exhibit E – Pricing Form

ESBD_File_317494_Exhibit E Itemized Pricing

• Pricing Sheet tab

Exhibit E notes that the "Pricing Form must be completed in BidStamp."

Multiple Vendors submitting a proposal for the categories identified in the RFO's Scope of Work may be submitting hundreds of line items in their Exhibit E spreadsheets, which must be completed and submitted per RFO submission instructions. The current Pricing Form structure in BidStamp consists of line-by-line manual entry. This format increases the possible risk of information entered in BidStamp that conflicts with the Vendor's Exhibit E submission.

Question: To ensure no conflicts arise with the Vendor's required Exhibit E price submission format, will DIR please consider removing the requirement to complete the Price Form in BidStamp?

Alternatively, if pricing must be shown in BidStamp in addition to Exhibit E, is DIR able to provide a format for Vendors to complete and upload a spreadsheet in lieu of manual entry?

Product pricing that is not entered into BidStamp will not receive the points allocated with that part of the evaluation score. Products that are not scored as a part of the evaluation will not be considered as part of an award should the respondent score high enough to move forward in negotiations. Pricing is 30% of the total score.

21 Exhibit E – Pricing Form

Exhibit E, Itemized Pricing, CALIR Pricing Tab. The pricing spreadsheet doesn’t allow for enough information to fully explain each offering listed on the spreadsheet. To help evaluators fully understand the offers, will the DIR allow Respondents to provide supplemental information (not to exceed 25 pages -non-inclusive of this Respondent’s licensing terms and agreements) in addition to the completed Exhibit E?

Exhibit B allows for narrative explanation of the products and services included in the respondents’ proposal.

Exhibit E’s purpose is to demonstrate how the proposed pricing meets best value in regarding DIR customer discount on the products and services proposed.

22 Exhibit E – Pricing Form

In the “Pricing Sheet” tab of Exhibit E, instructions say, “Pricing Form must be completed in BidStamp.” However, the RFO indicates in multiple places that Exhibit E must be completed (e.g., sections 2.1.1.1, 2.4 and 3.8.4). Should pricing be inserted in BidStamp’s Pricing Form or in Exhibit E, which can be uploaded as a document in BidStamp?

Both Exhibit E and BidStamp pricing submissions must be included.

23 Exhibit E – Pricing Form

Do we interpret correctly that Exhibit E Tab 4 is designated for CALIR offerings, while Tabs 2 and 3 are designated for IT Research and Advisory Subscription Services?

The Exhibit E has been updated as a part of Addendum 1 with the formula re-inserted into the spreadsheet so the DIR Customer price auto calculates when the MSRP/List price and the DIR Customer Discount (percentage off) are entered.

24 Exhibit E –

Form

Our company offers a line of investigative and due-diligence solutions that assist with investigation of crimes, identifying individuals and businesses, and combatting fraud, waste and abuse in government programs. Some of these solutions can be priced in Exhibit E Tab 4 (CALIR), under its “Public Records Databases” heading. But all of our offerings also may be considered IT Research and Advisory Subscription Services pursuant to definitions in RFO Section 2.1.2. For efficiency, even though some of our

Respondents will need to make a business decision regarding the proposed offerings and where they align within the scope of the RFO.

offerings overlap with CALIR definitions in tab 4, may we price all of our offerings as IT Research and Advisory Subscription Services, which we assume should be priced in Exhibit E Tabs 2 and 3?

25 Exhibit F – Reference Form

BidStamp Portal, RFO Response Page, Vendor References. The references process outlined in the RFO solicitation document in Section 3.8.3.2 [page 11] indicates that all references must submit Exhibit F directly to DIR on behalf of the Respondent. It is this Respondent’s best practice to request a reference via email. However, we note that the portal includes a “Request Reference” function.

Can the DIR please confirm that Respondents may request references to submit Exhibit F in their own manner?

Or is it the DIR’s intent that Respondents invite references to submit Exhibit F via the “Request Reference” function on the portal?

Respondent may use the BidStamp function to send the Exhibit F reference form to the company that is completing the Reference Form or the Respondent may email the reference form to the company that is completing the reference form for the respondent. The BidStamp function to send the reference form is there as a convenience but is not a requirement to send the Reference Form via BidStamp.

26 Exhibit F – Reference Form

Reference form - IT Research and Advisory Subscription Services - Can we submit references for both research and advisory services or are the references limited to Research subscriptions only?

The reference form is for customers to provide references for the products and services being solicited in this RFO, IT Research and Advisory Subscription Services & Computer Assisted Legal and Investigative Research (CALIR) Services.

27 Exhibit F –

Form

Do references need to be from Texas or will DIR consider references from other states or countries?

References may be from any customer for which your company has provided similar services requested in the RFO.

28 Exhibit F –

Form

Reference form - IT Research and Advisory Subscription Services - Can we submit references for both research and advisory services or are the references limited to Research only?

See response to question 26.

29 General 1. Is this RFO/buy to be considered as a follow-on to the existing ITRAS contract now in place? 2. Can a supplier bid for just one component of the RFO, or must the bid include both areas? 3. Why are these two different areas of subscription services being combined? 4. Is the pricing currently in place under the existing DIR contract required as pricing to be submitted under this new RFO?

#1 No. This is a new RFO that contains the scope of the previous RFO #s DIR- TSO-TMP-261 and DIR-TSO-TMP-414.

Any current contract holders that were previously awarded under either of the referenced RFOs will need to submit a responsive proposal in order to be considered for an award under DIR-CPO-TMP-573. All previously awarded contracts under DIR-TSO- TMP-261 and DIR-TSO-TMP-414 will be managed independently in accordance with the terms of the contract.

#2 RFO Section 2.1 Respondent may submit for either or both service categories requested in this RFO.

Respondent must clearly distinguish between the service categories if Respondent is submitting to both options.

#3 DIR management made the decision to combine the scope of the two previous RFOs into a single RFO.

#4 No. Respondents should propose updated and current pricing.

30 General What states other than Texas have used the historical contracts?

Total sales per Fiscal Year are in section 1.3.7 in the RFO. Out of State sales for CALIR have been made to Florida and there were no out of state sales for IT Research Advisory and Subscription Services.

31 General Before we can prepare a full RFO response, it is essential we have sufficient time to consider DIR’s responses to inquiries. The contract is critically important to Texas agencies and our company, and vendors want to consider your needs carefully. If DIR is

Please see the revised RFO schedule in Addendum 1 which extends the RFO deadline to April 17, 2023 2:00pm CST.

unable to publish answers to questions by March 16, please consider extending the deadline for RFO responses by 10 business days after answers are posted.

32 General Pre-Proposal Conference, Submission of Required Proposal Exhibits, Minute 1:05:40. It was discussed on the Pre- Proposal Conference that all documents/required exhibits must be submitted in the format provided to Respondents (i.e. their native format).

For example, for purposes of signing Exhibit A, whose native format is Word, it will become a PDF once signed, as both DocuSign and Adobe Signature produce PDF’s after signing.

Furthermore, if Exhibit A is printed and signed with wet ink, upon scanning it back to a digital format to submit via BidStamp, it will become a PDF. Can the DIR confirm it is acceptable to provide documents that require signatures as a PDF even if the original version was not

PDF?

For the Exhibit A it is confirmed that a pdf with either a scanned “wet” signature or an acceptable verified electronic signature on a pdf document is acceptable.

A typed name in the required signature location will not be accepted as a “signed” offer.

The discussion in the pre-proposal conference regarding native formats for the submission documents was to provide warning that converting a document to a PDF may truncate your pages and leave off required submission information. Therefore, it was recommended that respondents to the RFO submit the majority of their response documents in the format provided (i.e., Word, Excel)

33 HUB In DBITS bid, we were allowed to sign the HSP via docusign; however, the HSP this time asks for a wet signature. Can we sign via DocuSign in lieu?

Yes, a DocuSign or other electronically verifiable signature on the HSP will be accepted.

A typed name in the required signature location will not be accepted as a “signed” HSP.

34 HUB Bid Open date in HSP, is that open date of the bid (date released), or the open date when the bid will be open by DIR.

The Bid Open date is the date the responses are due to DIR.

35 HUB Section 3.4.1(B) indicates, “A scan of the original, signed paper copy of the HSP must be uploaded into BidStamp.” Is an electronic signature on the HSP

See response to question 33.

acceptable, similar to what the DIR allows for Exhibit A?

36 HUB Exhibit D, HSP Sample Form, HUB Subcontracting Plan. This Respondent understands and respects the policy of the DIR to support Historically Underutilized Businesses in developing, establishing, maintaining, and enhancing minority involvement in the total procurement process. However, as is standard in the industry, online electronic legal research services are commercial-off-the-shelf subscription products that already exist in the marketplace (e.g., not a work for hire).

As such, there are no subcontracting opportunities as the product already exists. In particular, Respondents of online services implement extensive security measures to ensure that their systems are secure and to protect the privacy and confidentiality of their customers. Furthermore, many third-party data providers have strict confidentiality requirements that prohibit Respondents from subcontracting out the type of work anticipated by this RFO. Given the unique services provided, would the DIR consider waiving the HUB requirement for this project?

Reference Section 3.4.1 of the RFO.

To be considered a responsive submission, all respondents must submit a HUB Subcontracting Plan with their proposal.

If the respondent is planning to provide all offerings without the use of subcontractors, complete the self-performance section of the HSP.

37 HUB In the Vendor Webinar it was stated that the Hub Objective was 22% in the RFO document it states 26% which is correct? (RFO Page 7)

The HUB goal for this RFO is 26%. The pre-solicitation slides have been corrected and are attached to this, Addendum 1.

38 RFO 1.3.5 ESBD_File_317494_DIR-CPO-TMP-573

RFO

• Section 1.3.5 (Cost Recovery)

• p. 7 of 32

Section 1.3.5 (Cost Recovery) states, Section 9.2.4 of Attachment 2 Standard Terms and Conditions:

“DIR may change the amount of the DIR Administrative Fee upon thirty

(30) calendar days written notice to Successful Respondent without the

"The fee has been set at a not-to-exceed level of two percent (2.00%) by the current appropriations act of the State Legislature. For the purposes of responding to this RFO, the administrative fee is seventy-five hundredths of a percent (0.75%). DIR may change the administrative fee at any time during a Contract term. DIR will notify Successful Respondents of any change in the administrative fee."

Question: How many days of notice will be provided to Successful Respondents of any change in the administration fee?

need for an amendment to the Contract.”

39 RFO 2.1.1 RFO sections 2.1.1(iii) and 2.1.1. refer to “2.1.A.” However, Section 2.1.A is a brief sentence that seems out context with other sections citing to it. Should both references be changed to 2.1.1 or to a different section?

Addendum 1 corrects the reference in both section 2.1.1 iii and 2.1.1.1 to reference Section 2.1.

40 RFO 2.1.1 Section 2.1.1(v) allows printed materials such as books. We are highly interested in offering published legal content in print format on this contract for the benefit and convenience of Texas agencies and our company. Many other statewide contracts for CALIR Services allow books as well. However, we are unable to provide pricing for print products in the format that Exhibit E and BidStamp’s Pricing Form prescribe.

We offer over 1,000 print titles through our online bookstore. We cannot list all possible titles in an RFO response, and MSRP prices are subject to change based on a variety of factors. However, we can provide a blanket minimum available discount for all titles along with a link to the bookstore where agencies can identity MSRP prices at the time of purchase. This approach is

Section 2.1.1(v) clarifies that “Respondent may offer printed materials such as books or other hard copy materials only as a package with online services.” As such, separate pricing for printed books is not within the scope of this RFO. Pricing for printed materials should be included as part of an allowable online service.

consistent with all other state contracts for CALIR Services allowing printed materials (including our current CALIR contract with DIR) and is our only approved method of offering printed materials for statewide agreements. To allow for this pricing/discount structure, would DIR consider changing Exhibit E and BidStamp’s Pricing Form (which generates an error message when entering “N/A” as MSRP) as they related to pricing for printed materials?

41 RFO 2.3 Section 2.3: DIR reserves rights to reject responses and to waive minor technicalities. Does DIR also reserve the right to request cures of responses that do not meet DIR's standards?

Yes. However, Respondents should make every effort to submit complete and accurate proposals and make no assumptions that a Respondent will be given the opportunity to provide a revised proposal.

42 RFO 3.2.2 Written Questions and Answers [page 19]. The solicitation states that “Official answers will be posted as an Addendum to this RFO, on the Electronic State Business Daily (ESBD), available at http://www.txsmartbuy.com/esbd.” Can the DIR please clarify whether it will be releasing Q&A all at one time? Or will the DIR be releasing Q&A in batches?

One addendum (Addendum 1) will be posted that includes the Questions and Answers.

43 RFO 3.4.1

(HUB)

Typically, in this market segment IT Research and advisory firms as a subscription based service have no opportunity to subcontract any of the work. It's a self contained service that already exists and payment is largely for access to the existing capability.

Understanding that does the government still view that portions of this work could be subcontracted? (RFO page 21, section 3.4.1)

See response to question 36.

44 RFO 3.8.3.1 Section 3.8.3.1 indicates Exhibit A must be signed. This was discussed in detail

Yes, a DocuSign or other electronically verifiable signature will be accepted.

during the Pre-Proposal Webinar on March 3. DIR indicated electronic signatures are acceptable, which we appreciate due to corporate staff working in different locations throughout the country. Our standard method of attaching electronic signatures is through Adobe Acrobat’s signature-attachment feature. Is this acceptable to DIR?

A typed name in the required signature location will not be accepted as a “signed”.

45 RFO 3.8.3.3 With regard to Canceled Contract References (Section 3.8.3.3 of the RFO), some information surrounding a terminated contract may be confidential, so are companies permitted to confine their responses to government contracts (which may be publicly available)?

Section 3.13 of the RFO addresses how the Respondent may handle information in the proposal that the Respondent believes is confidential.

46 RFO 4.3 Main RFO Document, Section 4.3, Revised Offer - Demonstration Request [page 31]. To assist the DIR in the evaluation of proposals, we would recommend the DIR allow Respondents to provide a demonstration.

Demonstrations will allow Respondents the opportunity to present the products/services they are offering in response to the solicitation and would also give members of the evaluation committee an opportunity to ask questions about the Respondents’ proposal. Will the DIR allow Respondents the opportunity to provide a demonstration of their proposed solution?

Currently, DIR does not plan to ask for demonstrations of a proposed solution as a part of this cooperative contract RFO.