EVT0010883_-_Bid_Amendment_3_Q_A.pdf

Office of Procurement and Contracts 900 SW Jackson St., Room 1001 North Topeka, KS 66612

Phone: 785-296-2376 Fax: 785-296-7240 www.admin.ks.gov/offices/procurement-and-contracts Adam Proffitt, Secretary Todd Herman, Director

Laura Kelly, Governor

Amendment

Request for Proposal

Date: August 12, 2026

Amendment Number: 3

Event Number: EVT0010883

Closing Date: September 22, 2026, 2:00 PM CST

Procurement Officer: Justin Hubbard

Telephone: 785-296-6271

E-Mail Address: Justin.Hubbard@ks.gov

Agency: Kansas Department of Administration — Procurement and Contracts

Item: Online Marketplace Services

Conditions: 1) Answers to questions received begin on page two (2) of this document.

2) Bidder Questions Round 2 are due by August 26, 2026 COB. Questions requesting clarification of the bid event must be submitted in WRITING to the Procurement Officer prior to the close of business on August 26, 2026 to the following address:

Justin Hubbard E-Mail Address: justin.hubbard@ks.gov

A signed copy of this Addendum must be submitted with your bid. If your bid response has been returned, submit this Addendum by the closing date indicated above.

I (We) have read and understand this addendum and agree it is a part of my (our) bid response.

NAME OF COMPANY OR FIRM:

SIGNED BY:

TITLE: DATE:

It shall be the vendor's responsibility to monitor this website on a regular basis for any changes/addenda.

http://admin.ks.gov/offices/procurement-contract http://www.admin.ks.gov/offices/procurement-and-contracts mailto:Justin.Hubbard@ks.gov mailto:justin.hubbard@ks.gov http://admin.ks.gov/offices/procurement-contract

Event ID: EVT0010883

EVT0010883 – Amendment 3

Online Marketplace Services

Questions and Answers

Q1: What are the biggest challenges or pain points staff and users experience with the State's current purchasing methods?

A1: This question is not relevant to this bid event as this is a new bid event.

Q2: Can the State provide estimated annual spend by category and the number of PPAs expected to use the contract?

A2: This information is not available.

Q3: What share of State and PPA transactions is P-card versus invoiced/PO, and what is the average order value?

A3: This information is not available.

Q4: Do the State or its agencies currently purchase through an online marketplace or similar arrangement? If so, when does that contract end and what annual volume runs through it?

A4: This is a new bid event.

Q5: What is the State's target go-live date?

A5: The State is the primary buyer and sets its own go-live date during implementation. There is no single fixed go-live date in the RFP. The Contractor must submit an implementation timeline, per Section 3.29. That timeline covers contract execution, State account setup, category restriction setup, in-state small business features, PPA onboarding, and full go-live. Each PPA that later elects to use the contract sets its own go-live date.

Q6: What is the State's budget for this project?

A6: This information is not available.

Q7: How should Offeror present its category discounts in Section 2.5 Category-Level Pricing if Offerors discounts do not align with RFP names categories in this section? For example, within the Section 2.5 category, “Industrial, MRO, and Safety Supplies”, there exists multiple unique Offeror categories with differing discounts applicable to this RFP category.

A7: Use the Section 2.5 categories as the basis. Give the discount for each listed category. If one category holds several of your internal categories with different discounts, do one of the following:

1) Give a representative or blended discount and state the range in the Notes / Conditions column or

2) Add rows with the Offeror-proposed additional category option and break out each subcategory and its discount. Make the basis of any blended figure clear.

Q8: On Attachment_A_-_Market_Basket_Cost_Sheet, The Market Basket response template does not appear to accommodate products with units of measure that differ from the requested item. Should proposers normalize pricing to the requested UOM for submission, or will the Lead State normalize pricing during the evaluation? If the Lead State will perform the normalization, how should proposers identify the offered UOM?

A8: Price each line to the unit of measure shown in the unit of measure (UOM) column where you can. The template sets the UOM and the monthly quantity. There is no separate offeror UOM field. If you can supply only a different pack or unit, price the closest available unit. Then record the offered unit or pack in the Substitute Description / Notes column. The State reviews any such difference in the acceptability review, before it finalizes category subtotals.

Q9: In Section 2 Cost Sheet: If initial price scoring is based on a point-in-time comparison, how will the Lead State ensure an equitable evaluation between firm fixed pricing, which remains constant throughout the pricing period, and dynamic pricing, which may increase or decrease significantly over the same period?

A9: The evaluation uses a single price snapshot for every bidder so fixed prices and dynamic prices are captured on the same basis and for the same window and does not lock in one pricing model.

A PPA that needs price certainty may elect fixed pricing under Section 1.6. Each bidder enters prices as of the Pricing Snapshot Date on the Summary tab. That date must be no earlier than 14 calendar days before the submission deadline. The snapshot is for evaluation and ranking only and is not a guaranteed price. The State scores each category on its own and may make multiple awards by category to competitive bidders.

Q10: In Section 2 Cost Sheet: The solicitation appears to evaluate pricing submitted in the Price Scoring Tabulation without distinguishing between fixed pricing and market-indexed (dynamic) pricing models. Because fixed pricing requires suppliers to assume inflation and market volatility risk for the duration of the pricing commitment, while dynamic pricing shifts some of that risk to the purchaser, these pricing models reflect materially different commercial approaches. Can the Lead State clarify how the evaluation will account for this distinction to ensure an equitable comparison of offers?

A10: The evaluation captures fixed pricing and dynamic pricing on the same snapshot basis per the Summary tab Pricing Snapshot Date. The snapshot is a point-in-time value for ranking only. It is not a price commitment. The State does not convert or adjust between pricing models. The Offeror describes its pricing model and any at-or-below-market protections in Section 1.6 and Section 2.2. The State weighs those descriptions in the best-interest award decision under Section 3.15. Multiple awards by category mean a bidder may not be excluded only because of its pricing-model type.

Q11: How will the State evaluate a dynamic pricing offer which, unlike a fixed pricing offer, is less stable and subject to change multiple times during a day without notice?

A11: The dynamic price is captured once as of the Pricing Snapshot Date on the Summary tab. Later intraday changes do not affect the recorded snapshot value. The snapshot is for evaluation only.

During the performance of the contract, if awarded, the bidder must show that dynamic prices stay at or below standard retail per Section 1.6. The State may also compare quoted basket prices against live platform prices during the contract per the Instructions tab and Section 1.6.

Q12: In section 3.15.1 Cost Evaluation: Market Basket and Category Award – The State will publish to PPA’s Offeror category rankings established by evaluation. Can you explain how this ranking will be established among Offerors that bid fixed priced product vs.

dynamic priced product, understanding that dynamic priced product may change at any time. These pricing models reflect materially different commercial approaches which negate any effort to rank bidders by evaluation.

A12: The State ranks bidders within a category by the category Market Basket total, lowest first, per Section 3.15.1. Every Offeror is ranked on the same snapshot basis. The ranking is a buyer reference as of the evaluation snapshot. It is not a price guarantee. The ranking refreshes at each periodic re-basket under Section 1.6. The State makes multiple awards by category. All awarded Offerors stay available to PPAs, whatever their pricing model. A PPA keeps full discretion to buy from any awarded Offeror.

Q13: Based on the extension of the RFP due date to 9/22, can the State offer a second round of Offeror questions?

A13: Any modifications to this RFP will be in the form of an addenda. It shall be the vendor's responsibility to monitor this website on a regular basis for any changes/addenda.

Q14: The State currently purchases some of the categories of items included in this RFP through its participation under the NASPO cooperative contract. Is this RFP intended to replace the current NASPO program?

A14: This contract does not replace the State's other cooperative participation. The purpose is to fill an identified gap for small, transactional, and off-contract retail buys. The contract may also serve as a cooperative vehicle for other public agencies, which is a secondary benefit. Use of the contract is voluntary, per Section 1.1. The State will make awards by category and the State and each PPA will decide which categories they use and which they restrict, per Sections 1.5 and 1.4.3. So this contract will sit beside other statewide vehicles, not replace them.

Q15: Can the State please confirm that electronically submitted proposals should be sent via email, as described in Section 3.22 Submission of Proposals Electronically, and not through the State of Kansas eSupplier portal, which appears to have a mechanism to submit a response to this RFP request?

A15: Bid proposals may be submitted electronically via E-Bids, email, or by Courier as described in Sections 3.22 Submission of Proposals Electronically and 3.23 Submission of Proposals via Courier Service.

Q16: Section 3.22 requires a Technical Proposal and a Cost Proposal file. However, it will likely be necessary to have two files for the Cost Proposal, one for the information requested in Section 2 Cost Sheet and one to return the Attachment A – Market Basket Excel file. Is this acceptable? Or does the State not want the Excel file returned in Excel format?

A16: Submission of two separate files, one for the Cost Sheet and one for Attachment A – Market Basket is acceptable. Reference Section 3.22 of the Bid Documents.

Q17: Section 3.29 requests a timeline for implementation. How many State agencies are expected to onboard immediately after award?

A17: This information is not available.

Q18: Section 4.42 Charge Back Clause provides the State with the right to charge back contractors when “the delivery time established by the contract” isn’t met. Given that this is an Indefinite Quantity Contract (4.36) and only a preference for delivery times is established (1.7), this provision does not seem applicable for the scope of work. Would the State consider removing or amending this provision?

A18: The State does not agree to remove Section 4.42. It is a standard Kansas term. The clause applies where the contract sets a delivery time. That can be a delivery date the bidder commits to under Section 1.7 or a delivery date on a specific order.

Q19: Section 5.1 refers to an “invitation to participate” as a pre-submission requirement. Can the State please clarify what this is referring to?

A19: Bidders are to email the procurement officer of this RFP to request an official invitation to bid on this event.

Q20: Section 5.1 states to include: “Completed and signed Event Details document (separate document attached on website).” Please confirm that the State wants this document completed as a form in our Technical Proposal and not completed online using the web form on the State of Kansas eSupplier portal?

A20: Either form of submission is acceptable.

Q21: Section 6.2 Terms Herein Controlling Provisions states “Any terms that conflict or could be interpreted to conflict with this attachment are nullified.” Is this to be interpreted that exceptions to Section 6 will not be considered? Or can exceptions to any terms in Section 6 be submitted using the process outlined in Section 3.19?

A21: Refer to section 3.19 Exceptions.

Q22: Exhibit A: Marketplace Cooperative Contract Addendum includes required form responses, but Exhibit A is not listed in the Cost Proposal required responses outlined in Section 2 or the Technical Proposal required responses outlined in Sections 3.24 and 5.1.

Can the State please clarify where Exhibit A should be included in our proposal response?

A22: Refer to RFP Section 2.5A.

Q23: The Instructions tab in Attachment A – Market Basket states that both (1) Catalog List Unit Price and (2) Discount % off list are required to be filled out. Since dynamic, market-based pricing models are traditionally completely unrelated to list prices set by manufacturers, should the “list price” column be filled out with the manufacturer’s list price or the “publicly available” market price?

A23: Enter the price that public buyers could get on the Pricing Snapshot Date. Put that price in the Catalog List Unit Price column. Use the Summary tab snapshot date, which is no earlier than 14 calendar days before the deadline. For dynamic pricing with no separate manufacturer list price, enter the snapshot platform price as the catalog price. Enter any extra discount in the Discount % off List column. The Net Unit Price must include all discounts.

Q24: For Attachment A – Market Basket, in many case brands are not specified and there are no identifying manufacturer numbers. If the proposed item meets the description provided in column C, should this be marked as “Available” in column I?

A24: Yes, if a product that meets the Description/Specification column is available, it should be marked as “Yes” in the “Available?” column.

Q25: The Instructions tab in Attachment A – Market Basket under the No-Bid Items section implies that bidders may no bid an item within a category and still be considered.

However, this conflicts with the language in 2.5A Market Basket Cost Evaluation which states that “an Offeror must price every line item in a category to be evaluated in that category.” Can the State please clarify which terms are correct?

A25: Blank cells are not accepted and will render the category disqualified from consideration. If an offeror is unable to provide a product within a category, the line item must have “No Bid” selected with the “Available?” column.

Q26: Can our marketplace include our full product catalog or only the items categories specified in the RFP?

A26: Your marketplace may include your full catalog. Awards are not limited to the Market Basket items. The Market Basket is for evaluation only. The State may make awards by category per Section 3.15.1. The RFP also invites your complete catalog across as many categories as your platform supports per Section 1.5.

Q27: Does the State anticipate that its users will order directly on contractors’ websites or continue using the SOK SMART platform punchout?

A27: Each participating entity will work with the awarded vendor to determine the purchasing process and platform.

Q28: Can the State provide estimated annual spend by category and anticipated contract volume for the State and Participating Public Agencies (PPAs)?

A28: This information is not available.

Q29: Can the State provide a list of existing Kansas mandatory contracts and categories that must be restricted or blocked within the marketplace?

A29: Category restrictions may vary as they will be determined by each participating entity.

Q30: In the State's perspective, how does “opaque algorithm-driven pricing” (from 1.1) differ from Dynamic Pricing as defined in Section 1.2 Definitions?

A30: The two terms are related but not the same. Dynamic Pricing in Section 1.2 is a permitted pricing model with real-time, changing prices. The concern in Section 1.1 is dynamic pricing that is opaque, meaning the price method is not clear and buyers cannot check prices against the market. While the RFP explicitly allows dynamic pricing, it also requires that the bidder make its pricing clear and keep prices at or below standard retail per Section 1.6.

Q31: Regarding 1.4.4, how will the State define and validate "in-state small businesses" for purposes of seller identification and reporting? Will the State provide an approved list or certification source for qualifying Kansas small businesses?

A31: The Office of Procurement and Contracts’ in-state small business classification is currently under development. In-state small businesses is intended as a classification rather than a certification.

The Office of Procurement and Contracts does not have an approved list or certification source for qualifying Kansas small businesses at this time.

Q32: The RFP document contains several requirements that refer to “third-party sellers.” Can you define third-party sellers? If all the products sold on our platform are manufactured by suppliers that we contract with directly, would these requirements be non-applicable?

A32: A “third-party seller” is defined as a business that meets all of the following:

1. It is a business separate from the bidder,

2. It lists and sells its own products to buyers through the bidder’s platform,

3. The bidder does not own or supply that inventory. The third-party seller is the source of those goods to the buyer,

4. It is not a party to this contract. The bidder stays the single contracting party and the payee for all orders.

Given this definition, a manufacturer or supplier that sells goods to the bidder is not a third-party seller.

Q33: In Section 1.6, Administrative Fee Independence Certification, the RFP states that administrative fees are “not calculated as a function of the prices charged” but Section 2.3 Administrative Fee states that the administrative fee is a percentage of “gross sales transacted.” Can you please clarify Section 1.6, as it seems to contradict Section 2.3, as well as how administrative fees are commonly administered?

A33: The 2% Cooperative Administrative Fee in Section 2.3 and Exhibit A.5 is a fixed percentage of gross sales. It is the same rate for every product and every PPA. It is the only administrator compensation.

Section 1.6 addresses a different situation when a fee whose rate or amount is set to reward above-market pricing. A flat 2% of gross sales does not create that reward. The administrator earns the same 2% whether an item is priced at, above, or below market, meaning the administrator gains nothing when a PPA is charged more than market. The certification and the 2% fee agree.

Q34: For Section 1.6 Price Requirements, could the State please clarify its intended interpretation of the term “similarly situated public entity” as used in the Price Parity requirement? Specifically, can we assume this refers to similar public entities with similar quantities and mix of products and services, delivery and service requirements, and purchase volumes at similar times, after considering applicable incentives, rebates, and discounts?

A34: Correct. A similarly situated public entity means a public entity buying the same product under this contract, in the same period, under comparable buying conditions. Price parity does not block normal, disclosed commercial discounts. A different net price is acceptable when it comes from a permitted discount structure under Sections 1.6 and 2.4. That includes volume, tiered, account-level, cumulative, cooperative-aggregate, and promotional discounts.

Q35: Will participating agencies be permitted to negotiate agency-specific pricing and terms, or are all PPAs expected to receive identical pricing? Sections 1.10 and Exhibit A appear potentially inconsistent on this point.

A35: Reference Exhibit A, Section A.5 Administrative Fees.

Q36: Can you please clarify your expectations for how we are supposed to complete Section 2 Cost Sheet? It looks like it was reproduced from an Excel file or Word table format, but it is in PDF so the fields in brackets are not editable and the space provided is not practicable to insert response next to the brackets. Is it acceptable to reproduce this section in our response?

A36: A reproduction of this section is acceptable.

Q37: Section 2.5 Category-Level Pricing includes a list of categories we are expected to provide discounts for, but this category list has difference compared to the categories provided in Attachment A – Market Basket. For examples, Attachment A includes the category “Breakroom and Facilities Supplies” but Section 2.5 has these in two different categories, “Janitorial, Sanitation, and Facility Supplies” and “Food, Pantry, and Breakroom Supplies,” among other differences. Which set of categories should govern?

A37: Please reference Bid Amendment 2 where this has been corrected.

Q38: The table in Section 2.5 includes the option to offer a Dynamic pricing model, but then also includes a column for “Discount Off List.” Dynamic, market-based pricing models are traditionally completely unrelated to list prices set by manufacturers. How are respondents supposed to reconcile this issue? Must pricing proposed be related to a list price?

A38: Using the same methodology for completing Attachment A – Market Basket for those with a dynamic pricing model, the list used may be your platform’s pricing on the Pricing Snapshot Date entered in Attachment A – Market Basket. For Discount Off List, enter any additional discount as the percent off, which may be zero.

Q39: Section 3.10 Signature of Proposals states that proposals require an “original signature.”

If proposals are submitted electronically and our company considers electronic signatures (through Adobe Sign) legally binding, will the State consider electronically signed documents as meeting the original signature requirement?

A39: Yes, electronic signature will be accepted.

Q40: How will the State be evaluating proposed equivalents, as described in Section 3.15.1?

The descriptions provided in Attachment A – Market Basket allow for a wide range of products to be quoted. For example, K-Cup pods (category 2, line 1) will have a significant price difference depending on flavor and brand. Another example is the compatible toner cartridge (category 3, line 10) — are suppliers to look for any toner compatible with any HP or Canon device to price?

A40: Price to the exact specification where you can. Where the description is broad, choose a reasonable, mainstream product that meets the description in form, fit, and function. For example, on the K-Cup line, price a standard variety pack that meets the count and pack size and for the compatible toner line, price a compatible cartridge that fits the stated device family and meets the standard of being a common HP/Canon printer, then disclose the equivalent in the Substitute Description / Notes column. The State reviews equivalents for acceptability before it finalizes category subtotals, per Section 3.15.1.

Q41: Per Section 3.15.1, the State intends to evaluate the cost of bidder proposals “using the Market Basket Cost Sheet (Attachment A).” However, it is unclear whether the discount percentages offered in the market basket are tied to the overall program pricing model.

The spreadsheet seems to allow a different percentage off for each line item within a category. Are there rules for how the percentage discounts offered in this market basket need to be applied to all items if awarded a category?

A41: The Market Basket discounts are per line item.and the Section 2.5 discounts are per category, both will be reviewed and evaluated, but they are two different instruments. In the Market Basket, enter the net price for each listed line at the listed quantity. There is no rule that one line's percent must apply to a whole category. Awards are by category, and awards are not limited to the Market Basket items, per Section 3.15.1. Your ongoing contract pricing follows Section 1.6 and your Cost Sheet, not a single basket line percent. The Market Basket prices 1) are for evaluation purposes only and 2) set a benchmark for the pricing audit, per the Instructions tab.

Q42: Per Section 3.15.1, “Contract-level fees…are evaluated separately and are not allocated to individual category totals.” How will total program costs be considered in the overall evaluation criteria if not factored into pricing considerations?

A42: Contract-level fees are visible to the State and count in the overall award decision, but not in a category subtotal. Section 3.15.1 evaluates platform, subscription, and membership fees on their own, apart from the per-category price. You disclose these fees on the Cost Sheet (Section 2.6) and on the Market Basket Summary tab. The State weighs total program cost in the best-interest award under Section 3.15. Section 3.15 considers cost, completeness, compliance, and the pricing and discount structure. Also, every Mandatory [M] feature must be free of any subscription or membership fee, per Section 1.6.

END OF AMENDMENT 3 – EVT0010883