ITN SJAA 2026-0005

INQUIRIES AND RESPONSES

1. General / Scope Clarifications

A. Can the department provide current system architecture and a list of existing systems that will be replaced or integrated with the proposed solution?

RESPONSE:

● Architecture: CO - CAVU eLicense Deployment Diagram v2.pdf (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1E3ypWaGn93Rv_lABozSAVDZPIQWA8bxX/view?usp=drive _link). It is specific to the eLicense server migration/server(s). It does show how different files are exchanged to/from to external entities or to OIT for OIT supported applications.

● The existing legacy licensing and enforcement database

● An existing Electrical and Plumbing Permitting System

● An existing Document Management storage and retrieval system

● An existing Passenger Tramway licensing and inspection database

B. What is the expected number of internal users and external users

(citizens/businesses) that will use the system?

RESPONSE: Our division functions as a consumer protection agency in the State of Colorado. Internal users include approximately 255 named (internal) users.

External users include existing licensees, future applicants, and the general public.

C. Can the department provide current transaction volumes, such as:

a. Number of applications submitted annually

RESPONSE: The list below are yearly numbers from FY25

i. Initial applications - 53,196

ii. Renewal applications - 208,649

iii. Reinstatements/Reactivation applications - 7,254

b. Number of permits/licenses issued

RESPONSE: The total Electrical and Plumbing permits for FY25 was 25,098, which included both electronic and mail-in. The previous four year average was 27,013. The total number of licenses issued for FY25 was 41,849.

c. Number of inspections conducted?

RESPONSE: In FY25, the Division completed 63,962 inspections in the following areas:

Barber/Cosmetology, Electrical, Nursing, Nurse Aides, Passenger Tramway, Pharmacy, Funeral Homes and Crematories and Plumbers. The previous four year average was 68,253.

D. Does the department expect a single unified system for all modules (Licensing, Permits, Enforcement), or can these be implemented as separate but integrated modules?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1E3ypWaGn93Rv_lABozSAVDZPIQWA8bxX/view?usp=drive_link https://drive.google.com/file/d/1E3ypWaGn93Rv_lABozSAVDZPIQWA8bxX/view?usp=drive_link

RESPONSE: The vendor should propose a plan based on their experience and best chance for a successful implementation. The Division has concerns about a phased approach into a new platform as there are several interconnected professions, and muli-licensed individuals across disparate professions, along with questions about ongoing management of data. We are concerned two platforms would be unmanageable, but there may be opportunity to separately implement items such as inspections and permits. If there is a proposed solution to solve these concerns, we would be open to learning about it.

E. Are there any existing workflow diagrams or business process documentation that can be shared?

RESPONSE: There is existing workflow information and process documentation that can be shared when the contract is awarded.

2. Data Migration Questions A. What legacy systems will data be migrated from?

RESPONSE:

● The existing legacy licensing and enforcement database

● An existing Electrical and Plumbing Permitting System

● An existing Document Management storage and retrieval system

● An existing Passenger Tramway licensing and inspection database

B. Can the department provide estimated data volumes for migration (records for companies, licenses, permits, inspections, enforcement cases)?

RESPONSE: These are only estimates and will grow daily:

● 1.4M Records

● 650,000 - 700,000 Active Credential Records (inclusive of Business and

Individual licenses)

● Inspections, Permits and Enforcement Cases - Unable to estimate

C. Are historical documents and attachments required to be migrated as well?

RESPONSE: Yes

D. What data cleansing or deduplication expectations does the department have before migration?

RESPONSE: The Division does complete regular cleansing and clean up of records, however, there will be an effort through conversion/migration to resolve any incomplete or hidden cleansing needs.

3. Licensing / Permitting

A. Can the department provide a list of all license and permit types currently issued?

RESPONSE: All license types, programs, permits and additional Division information is available on the Division homepage at dpo.colorado.gov.

B. Are license renewals automated annually, or do they require manual approval?

http://dpo.colorado.gov/

RESPONSE: Most renewals are automated, but the system should allow for exceptions that would require manual review under certain conditions configured with business rules. It should also allow specific licenses or license types to be excluded from the automated approval process.

C. Does the department require conditional approvals or multi-department review workflows for licensing?

RESPONSE: Yes. Workflows should be configurable to allow for different levels of approval.

D. Are there state or federal regulatory rules that must be enforced automatically during application processing?

RESPONSE: Yes. The system should allow for the creation of rules or criteria for enforcement and application processing.

4. Inspections & Enforcement A. What type of inspection scheduling process is currently used (manual scheduling, automated routing, geographic assignment)?

RESPONSE: Inspections are scheduled manually, by geographic location (the inspector’s territory), and annually.

B. Will inspectors require mobile capabilities for field inspections (offline access, photo capture, digital signatures)?

RESPONSE: Yes, we would like to have offline access, photo capture, and digital signatures.

C. Does the department require integration with GIS mapping systems for inspections or enforcement cases?

RESPONSE: The Division does not currently require integration with GIS mapping systems for inspections, but it would be helpful.

D. Are there standard enforcement workflows, such as:

● Notice of violation

● Follow-up inspections

● Penalties and hearings?

RESPONSE: Yes there are standard workflows and processes for Enforcement that include follow-up inspections for some boards and code complaint inspections for others, to include corrections and finals; Case Activities, Resolutions, Violations, Final Actions, etc. We do issue citations (notice of violations) for electrical and plumbing.

5. Online Self-Service Portal

A. Does the department require a public self-service portal for:

● Application submission

● Status tracking

● Online payments

● Document uploads?

RESPONSE: Yes, along with the additional items outlined within the requirements documentation.

B. Should the portal support business account management, where a company can manage multiple licenses and locations?

RESPONSE: Yes, for defined credential types.

C. Does the department require multi-language support for the public portal?

RESPONSE: The Division does not currently have this ability but would be interested in learning more about available options.

6. Payments / Revenue A. What payment gateways or financial systems must the solution integrate with?

RESPONSE: The state CORE financial system

B. Are there requirements for:

● Refund processing

● Partial payments

● Payment plans

● Fee waivers?

Response: Yes, this functionality is necessary.

7. Reporting & Analytics

A. Can the department provide examples of key reports or dashboards required?

RESPONSE: Dashboard: Exhibit 5 should contain the information needed to answer this question as it contains the Division organization structure and program area, application performance and overall division health. System Administrators would need a dashboard, or other mechanism, to monitor system health, tasks, configurations needed, etc.

B. Does the department require real-time analytics, or are scheduled reports sufficient?

RESPONSE: Real-time reporting and scheduled reports will be necessary, including status, and aging reports at different stages of the enforcement and application review process.

C. Are there any state or federal compliance reporting requirements that the system must support?

RESPONSE: All current reports and areas of compliance are outlined in the ITN, Exhibit and Exhibit A - State Contract Template.

8. Architecture / Security

A. Does the department require the solution to comply with specific state security frameworks (e.g., NIST, CJIS, FedRAMP)?

RESPONSE: The solution must comply with FedRAMP approved services which are compliant with state compliance requirements. You may also reference Exhibit A - State Contract Template’s Exhibit C - Information Technology Provisions.

B. Are there identity management systems (SSO, Active Directory, Azure AD, Okta) that must be integrated?

RESPONSE: The solution must integrate with the state VPN (GlobalProtect)

C. Are there any cloud hosting restrictions or preferred cloud providers?

RESPONSE: The solution would be hosted on AWS Cloud provider. The AWS Cloud is an approved cloud provider with most FedRAMP approved services and is compliant with state compliance requirements. Azure is not an approved provider that meets the state compliance requirements at this time.

9. Implementation / Project Delivery A. What is the target go-live timeline for the full solution?

Response: Offerors shall include the anticipated date by which its proposed solution could/would be fully functional to go live based on their anticipated project schedule. The division is eager to pursue the soonest realistic opportunity to move to the new solution.

B. Does the department prefer a phased implementation (e.g., Licensing first, then Inspections, then Enforcement)?

RESPONSE: The vendor should propose a plan based on their experience and best chance for a successful implementation. The Division has concerns about a phased approach into a new platform as there are several interconnected professions, and muli-licensed individuals across disparate professions, along with questions about ongoing management of data. We are concerned two platforms would be unmanageable, but there may be opportunity to separately

C. What level of department staff involvement is expected during requirements validation and UAT?

RESPONSE: The Division has a team of System Administrators who manage and configure the systems. This team will be fully involved in validation and UAT.

There will also be a contingent from State OIT included for interfaces and other needed items. SME’s from individual programs will also be included as needed.

D. In the RFP it states that “Costs will be recovered through per-transaction fees retained by the vendor. No other funding is available for this project.” Is the State open to other funding approaches? Also, can the state provide more detail around estimated revenue via this approach?

RESPONSE: Please reference the response below in #15.

E. Can the State provide a short 2-week extension to the due date for proposals?

RESPONSE: Yes. The closing date of the response has been extended to April 13, 2026.

F. Has the State seen any demos/talked to vendors prior to releasing the RFP, if so which vendors and technologies?

Response: Team members have briefly reviewed varying different systems over a long period of time as part of our research related to desired functionality.

Most of these have taken place at conferences or multi-agency demonstrations.

10. Section 3 requirements, item C states "Proposed solution shall provide an enterprise multi-tenant solution that features contact based Customer (citizen) Relationship Management (CRM) functions". The Product Requirements matrix does not have a tab for Customer (citizen) Relationship Management functions.

Can you please articulate what those requirements are?

RESPONSE: These requirements are related to several aspects of the requirements spreadsheet to include ability for customers to access and maintain records through self service, ability for general public customers to access and research public information including license verification and public document retrieval, ability to communicate via email or other platform with record holders regarding their credential, among other features that allow the Division to maintain relationships with customers.

11. Does the funding mechanism for the transaction fee assume that fees will be collected directly by the vendor, or will the state collect the fees and pay the vendor the contracted fee amount?

RESPONSE: This can be part of the negotiation process discussion.

12. The RFP states that the agency manages over 550,000 licenses, registrations, certifications and permits. Can the agency provide a breakdown of the number broken out into each category (licenses, registrations, certifications and permits), as well as how many of each are for individuals versus businesses?

RESPONSE: The Division considers licenses, registrations, certifications and permits all as Credentials and functions the same systematically. Regarding numbers of Business vs Individuals you may research the various license types the Division manages at dpo.colorado.gov and review and filter counts of all credentials at the Colorado Information Marketplace at:

https://data.colorado.gov/Regulations/Professional-and-Occupational- Licenses-in-Colorado/7s5z-vewr/data_preview

13. General Information, section B states "The Department prefers to obtain a single solution but reserves the right to award to more than one vendor and/or to separate the goods/services into multiple awards with different vendors if determined to be in the best interest of the State." Can you define what type http://dpo.colorado.gov/ https://data.colorado.gov/Regulations/Professional-and-Occupational-Licenses-in-Colorado/7s5z-vewr/data_preview https://data.colorado.gov/Regulations/Professional-and-Occupational-Licenses-in-Colorado/7s5z-vewr/data_preview of scenario might result in awarding to multiple vendors, given that the RFP appears focused on a single enterprise solution?

RESPONSE: This is dependent upon the proposed solutions. It is an option for the Department in the event it would be in the best interest of the State in the event proposed solutions do not provide all required functionality.

14. Please provide current fees assessed to licensees, permittees, etc. and what any associated services fees are that go to existing software or payment providers.

RESPONSE: There is a $.75 transaction fee currently charged by the portal vendor. Credit card processing fees are 2.25% of the transaction total not including the $.75 transaction fee, and echeck processing fees are $1.00. A $2.00 portal fee is currently charged to licensees for renewals which is held in a fund balance through which maintenance and other vendor costs are funded.

15. Given that this project is transaction fee-funded, please provide fee collections per month for the most recent fiscal year to allow for financial modeling.

RESPONSE: Offerors are to submit pricing as outlined in Exhibit 4, Product Pricing. The State will consider price to determine the competitive range and will negotiate with those in the competitive range to determine how these costs will be incorporated into the transaction fees. The list below are yearly transaction numbers from FY25.

i. Initial applications - 53,196

ii. Renewal applications - 208,649

iii. Reinstatements/Reactivation applications - 7,254

16. Requirements 3.1.1 - Include two clients who have a statewide enterprise level (multi-tenant) implementation. If vendor cannot provide 2 statewide implementations, will we get disqualified?

RESPONSE: 3.1.1 is a scored item. The vendor would be encouraged to submit the nearest substantially equivalent implementation they have completed and any possible explanation.

17. Section 5 - Evaluation & Award - A. Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSB) The State encourages responses from Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSB) and sets a 3% statewide goal by dollar value of all contracts, to be awarded to SDVOSB. Prime vendor is not a SDVOSB. If we subcontract part of the project implementation, will we be eligible to meet the 3% goal.

RESPONSE: The SDVOSB applies to those with a direct contract with the State of Colorado and not subcontractors.

18. Section 3.1 - Requirements - Some of the requirements mentioned are considered confidential & propriety information. Will the vendor get disqualified if we don't submit the information in the proposal?

https://dhr.colorado.gov/statewide-equity-office/supplier-diversity/contracting-goal-set-for-partnerships-with-veteran-owned-small-businesses

RESPONSE: Reference ITN Section 4.G. Vendor Requests for Confidentiality.

19. Has the client reviewed or discussed this opportunity with any other vendor?

Have any demos been presented?

Response: Team members have briefly reviewed varying different systems over a long period of time as part of our research related to desired functionality.

Most of these have taken place at conferences or multi-agency demonstrations.

20. What are the challenges in your current systems?

RESPONSE: There are no particular challenges. The Division would like an expansion of stored procedures to allow for additional online transaction types (Change status, submit ad hoc payment, complete additional document uploads after application, etc) or if not a stored procedure the ability to configure such tasks.

21. The RFP requirements are detailed. In order for the vendor to provide a compelling response, we request the State to extend the proposal deadline by minimum 2 weeks?

RESPONSE: Yes. The closing date of the response has been extended to April 13, 2026.

22. Please provide any laws or administrative rules and regulations governing the payment of transaction fees to vendors that are relevant to this contract.

RESPONSE: Reference the requirements in Exhibit A - State Contract Template for rules and regulations governing payment requirements.

23. Please provide a monthly breakout of the number of licenses, certifications, etc.

for the past 3 years to allow for trend analysis.

RESPONSE: Please reference the response to question #36.

24. Given that this project is transaction fee-funded, please provide fee collections per month for the most recent 3 fiscal years to allow for financial modeling.

RESPONSE: We can provide the transaction counts for the last 3 fiscal years that you may use to model. Please see the information in question #25 for this information.

25. Transaction Volumes and Activity Data In order to develop an accurate financial model under the proposed transaction-based pricing approach, could DORA provide indicative information regarding expected annual transaction volumes?

Specifically:

● The estimated number of registrants broken down by profession and registrant type (e.g., individual licensees, firms, etc.).

RESPONSE: Please see the answer in question #12.

● List the types of transactions expected within the system (e.g., new applications, renewals, amendments, disciplinary submissions, complaints, payments, logins, search the register engagement, etc.).

RESPONSE: Currently the online transactions include Initial Applications, Renewals and Reinstatements. The Division wishes to expand the availability of online transactions to include Reactivations, License Status Changes and other application types that would require back office processing necessitating a fee. Items like an Online Complaint, Online License Verifications, Database Downloads among other research and general account maintenance are also currently available, however, they will continue to not come at a cost to the consumer/licensee.

● Estimated annual volumes for each transaction type.

RESPONSE: Estimated annual volumes can be determined using the FY information in the below bullet. Typically Odd fiscal years have increased Renewal volume due to the amount of license types due for renewal in those years. Initial Applications typically increase year to year.

● Any available historical data for transaction volumes across the 61 professions. If possible, it would be useful to be able to review volumes over the past 3 years to enable an assessment of trends.

RESPONSE: The following is a breakdown of transaction counts for the past three fiscal years:

● Initial Applications: FY25 - 53,196, FY24 - 45,793, FY23 - 39,236

● Renewal Applications: FY25 - 208,649, FY24 - 259,813, FY23 -

200,779, FY22 - 217,369 (*Note; Even FY are typically higher in volume due to the license types renewed in those years, thus we provided 4 years of data for proper trending)

● Reinstatement/Reactivation Applications: FY25 - 7,217, FY24 -

7,360, FY23 - 5,931

If available, a breakdown similar to the following would be particularly helpful:

Profession / Board

Registrant Type

Transaction Type

Estimated Annual Volume

[Insert Example]

[Insert Example]

[Insert Example]

[Insert Example]

26. Implementation Approach

Could DORA confirm whether a phased implementation approach would be acceptable, whereby professions are onboarded incrementally over a defined implementation period, or whether DORA expects a single “big-bang” deployment across all professions at go-live?

RESPONSE: The vendor should propose a plan based on their experience and best chance for a successful implementation. The Division has concerns about a phased approach into a new platform as there are several interconnected professions, and muli-licensed individuals across disparate professions, along with questions about ongoing management of data. We are concerned two platforms would be unmanageable, but there may be opportunity to separately

27. If a phased approach is acceptable, could DORA indicate:

● Whether there are priority professions or boards that should be implemented first.

● Any preferred sequencing or constraints that vendors should consider.

RESPONSE: Please see response to question #26

28. DORA Project Resources and Governance

Could DORA clarify the anticipated internal project structure during implementation?

Specifically:

● Will DORA provide a centralized project team responsible for the overall program across all professions?

RESPONSE: Yes, DORA has an internal systems team that will be working towards the new project. The team is centralized and includes Division and State OIT members and functions specifically to manage and configure the existing systems as well as new platforms. Additionally, the Division will bring in not-technical SME’s for specific program needs when necessary.

● Alternatively, will individual boards or professions provide dedicated subject matter experts to support requirements definition, testing, and implementation activities?

RESPONSE: Alluded to above, when necessary the centralized team will bring in specific SME’s for program specific processes as needed.

Understanding the expected availability of DORA resources will help estimate the delivery approach and timeline.

29. Hosting Environment Preferences Could DORA confirm whether there are any mandatory hosting platform requirements for the proposed solution?

For example:

● Is the solution required to be hosted on a specific State-approved cloud provider (e.g., Google Cloud)?

RESPONSE: The solution would be hosted on AWS Cloud provider.

● Would hosting on Microsoft Azure be acceptable where it meets all applicable State security, compliance, and data residency requirements?

RESPONSE: The AWS Cloud is an approved cloud provider with most FedRAMP approved services and is compliant with state compliance requirements. Azure is not an approved provider that meets the state compliance requirements at this time.

30. Vendor Payment Terms

Could DORA please confirm the standard vendor payment terms applicable under the contract (e.g., payment within 30 days, 45 days, or 60 days following receipt of invoice)?

RESPONSE: Reference Section 5 (Payments to Contractor) of Exhibit A - State Contract Template included in the ITN attachments. Note that the Vendor’s sole source of compensation shall be from fees collected during the term of the contract.

31. Withdrawal Following Preferred Supplier Selection Could DORA clarify whether there are any penalties, financial securities, or bid bond requirements that would apply if a vendor were selected as the preferred supplier but subsequently determined that it was unable to proceed with contract execution?

For example:

● Are there any financial or contractual consequences if the preferred bidder withdraws prior to contract award?

RESPONSE: No penalties if prior to contract.

32. Minimum Transaction Volumes / Revenue Assurance

As the vendor will incur significant upfront costs to design, configure, and implement the platform across multiple professions, could DORA confirm whether there will be any form of:

● Minimum annual transaction volume commitment; or

● Minimum annual revenue guarantee; or

● Baseline registrant volume assumption used by the State in its internal business case.

If no minimum volume guarantees are provided, could DORA share any internal projections used for planning purposes to help vendors estimate likely transaction activity over the contract term?

RESPONSE: There are minimum or maximum volume guarantees. Please reference the responses above to #15 and #25.

33. Adoption of Digital Transactions

Could DORA confirm whether the expectation is that all regulatory transactions will be processed through the new platform, or whether alternative channels (e.g., paper submissions, manual processing, legacy systems) will continue to be supported?

RESPONSE: At the current time, the Division still allows for paper check payments (manual payments). While the overwhelming majority of payments are completed electronically, there are about 10% (estimate) still completed manually.

Understanding the expected proportion of digital versus non-digital transactions will help vendors estimate the realistic volume of system transactions.

34. Termination and Cost Recovery

As the implementation investment will be recovered through transaction-based fees over the contract term, could DORA clarify:

● Whether any compensation or cost recovery mechanism would apply if the contract were terminated for convenience by the State prior to the vendor recovering its implementation investment.

RESPONSE: Reference Exhibit A - State Contract Template, section 2.E.

● Whether there is a minimum contract term during which the platform must remain in operation before termination for convenience can occur.

RESPONSE: Reference Exhibit A - State Contract Template, Section 2.E.

35. Fee Structure Flexibility

Could DORA confirm whether vendors are permitted to propose:

● Different transaction fee levels by transaction type (e.g., applications, renewals, disciplinary filings, etc.), or

● Alternative pricing structures that still align with the State’s objective of avoiding upfront implementation funding.

RESPONSE: Offerors are to submit pricing as outlined in Exhibit 4, Product Pricing. The State will consider price to determine the competitive range and will negotiate with those in the competitive range to determine how these costs will be incorporated into the transaction fees.

36. Registrant Growth Assumptions

Could DORA provide any historical data or forecasts relating to:

● Registrant growth trends across the regulated professions;

RESPONSE: We can provide the last five Fiscal Years of Estimated and Actual Active licensee data to assist in trending review. These numbers are below:

o FY25:

▪ Estimated: 531,883

▪ Actual: 598,250 o FY24:

▪ Estimated: 510,972

▪ Actual: 516,197 o FY23:

▪ Estimated: 481,734

▪ Actual: 496,089 o FY22:

▪ Estimated: 506,392

▪ Actual: 467,703 o FY21:

▪ Estimated: 507,639

▪ Actual: 452,321

● Expected increases or decreases in registrant numbers over the next 5–10 years.

RESPONSE: We can only provide estimates for the next 2 Fiscal Years, listed below:

o FY26

▪ Estimate: 616,198 o FY27:

▪ Estimate: 634,683

37. SLA & Performance Requirements

Does the 0.1 second transaction response time include authentication, external integrations, and identity verification?

● Is the response time measured from State network boundary or public internet user?

● Is the 4-hour DR restoration RTO inclusive of full system functionality and integrations?

● Does the 99.95% uptime exclude planned legislative deployments?

● Can vendors propose alternative SLA structures where industry standards differ?

38. Data Migration Can the state provide a data dictionary for CAVU eLicence.

RESPONSE: Yes, this will be provided to the selected vendor when appropriate.

● Will the current supplier be contractually required to provide structured export support?

RESPONSE: The State owns the data contained within the existing platform and will have plans in place for structured export activity to migrate the data.

● What is the required retention period for legacy data in active system vs archive?

RESPONSE: All data within the Division Licensing Database needs to be retained and accessible indefinitely.

39. CJIS / PII / Security Controls Will the PLRP need direct CJIS network access, or only store CJIS-derived data?

40. Budget & Commercial Model

A. Has the State established a budget range or not-to-exceed funding for this initiative (implementation + ongoing subscription/support)?

RESPONSE: no funds are budgeted for this project and it is fully funded from fees collected by the awarded Offeror.

B. Can the State share the anticipated annual operating budget allocated for the Professional Licensing and Regulation Platform?

RESPONSE: Proposers are to submit pricing as outlined in the Exhibits.

Reference ITN Section 3.Q. and Exhibit 4 Product Pricing. The Vendor’s sole source of compensation shall be from fees collected during the term of the contract.

C. What was the total implementation cost of the current CAVU eLicense system, including system integration and migration?

RESPONSE: Initial implementation $3,054,903

D. What is the current annual cost of operating and maintaining the existing system, including:

● Vendor licensing/subscription

● Infrastructure

● Support/maintenance

● Integration support?

RESPONSE: The current annual cost for operating and maintaining the existing systems was $381,542 annually for fiscal years 2024 and 2025, and is $526,766 for fiscal year 2026. This may or may not include all the functionality outlined in this ITN. It does not include the current $.75 per transaction fee or credit card/eCheck fees noted above in the response to #14. This does not include the permitting system, which is currently separate from the current licensing platform.

E. Is the State expecting vendors to propose:

● SaaS subscription pricing

● Transaction-based pricing

● Enterprise licensing pricing

● Or another pricing model?

RESPONSE: Offerors should enter pricing using Exhibit 4 - Product Pricing

F. Is there a preference for a fixed implementation cost vs phased implementation pricing?

RESPONSE: Please reference the response in 1.D. above.

G. Are there funding constraints tied to fiscal year appropriations that vendors should consider for implementation milestones?

RESPONSE: There is no state appropriation for this solution. See response to 40.B. above.

41. Implementation Timeline & Go-Live Expectations

A. Does the State have a target timeline for implementation and go-live, beyond the anticipated contract start date of September 1, 2026?

Response: Offerors shall include the anticipated date by which its proposed solution could/would be fully functional to go live based on their anticipated project schedule. The division is eager to pursue the soonest realistic opportunity to move to the new solution.

B. Is the State expecting:

● A single enterprise go-live, or

● Phased rollout by board/program?

RESPONSE: The Division has concerns about a phased approach into a new platform as there are several interconnected professions, and muli-licensed individuals across disparate professions, along with questions about ongoing management of data. We are concerned two platforms would be unmanageable, but there may be opportunity to separately implement items such as inspections and permits. If there is a proposed solution to solve these concerns, we would be open to learning about it.

C. Are there priority boards/programs that should be implemented first?

RESPONSE: Please see the response to 41 B above.

D. Does the State have a maximum acceptable implementation duration (e.g., 24 months)?

RESPONSE: The Division does not have a set timeframe, but wishes to deploy a new solution as soon as feasible and reasonably possible.

E. Are there any legislative or regulatory deadlines that require certain capabilities to be implemented by a specific date?

RESPONSE: Not at this time, but that may change depending on future legislative sessions.

F. Would the State consider parallel operations with the existing system during transition?

RESPONSE: See the response to ‘B’ above.

42. Current System & Operational Context The current environment includes CAVU eLicense with ~1.7M contacts and ~610k active licenses across 61 programs.

Clarification questions:

A. What are the primary limitations or pain points with the current CAVU eLicense platform?

RESPONSE: There are no particular pain points. The Division would like an expansion of stored procedures to allow for additional online transaction types (Change status, submit ad hoc payment, complete additional document uploads after application, etc) or if not a stored procedure the ability to configure such tasks.

B. Is the State planning to fully replace the current platform or maintain any components?

RESPONSE: The Division is planning to fully replace the current solutions.

C. What percentage of licensing activities are currently completed online vs manual/internal processes?

RESPONSE: Approximately 90% of initial applications, renewals and reinstatements from customers are completed online. All processing of these is completed electronically, when received manually in paper, the information is transferred to the platform.

D. Are there planned regulatory expansions that will increase license counts or boards beyond the current 61 programs?

RESPONSE: It is expected that the license counts and boards will grow. With each legislative session there is potential for additional programs and license types and typically there are additions each year.

E. What are the expected transaction volumes (applications, renewals, enforcement actions) annually?

RESPONSE: The list below are yearly numbers from FY25

iv. Initial applications - 53,196

v. Renewal applications - 208,649

vi. Reinstatements/Reactivation applications - 7,254

vii. Enforcement actions are not considered transactions.

43. Data Migration & Historical Records

A. How much historical data must be migrated (e.g., all history vs active records only)?

RESPONSE: All data currently held within the Division databases (whether expired or active) is required to be migrated.

B. Should vendors assume migration of:

● Licensing records

● Enforcement cases

● Inspection records

● Payment records

● Document attachments?

RESPONSE: Yes, all items within the Division databases.

C. What is the total estimated size of the existing database?

RESPONSE: The database size in bytes is not available at this time but can be provided later in the ITN Process.

D. Are there data quality issues in the current system that vendors should anticipate addressing?

RESPONSE: The Division does complete regular cleansing and clean up of records, however, there will be an effort through conversion/migration to resolve any uncompleted or hidden cleansing needs.

E. Will the State provide data mapping documentation or schema definitions for CAVU eLicense?

RESPONSE: Division systems staff will participate in data mapping and crosswalking activities to provide the information and documentation needed.

44. Integrations & External Systems The current environment contains 35–50 interfaces across agencies and vendors.

Questions:

A. Can the State provide a complete list of current integrations and data exchanges?

RESPONSE: The Division will provide an exhaustive list of interfaces with the selected vendor. Examples of interfaces include: Data Imports/Exports with 3rd party Orgs, Exam information imports, licensee data exports, inter-agency data imports. Some imports include records creation, some require contact match, all include some level of business rules prior to import dependent on the interface.

B. Which integrations are considered critical for day-one go-live?

RESPONSE: All existing interfaces are required for daily operations.

C. Are there existing API specifications or interface documentation available?

RESPONSE: Documentation is available and will be provided to the vendor who is selected.

D. Are vendors expected to maintain compatibility with:

● CORE financial system

● PDMP application

● State SFTP infrastructure?

RESPONSE: Yes and all other existing interfaces/integrations

E. Is the State planning to move away from SFTP integrations toward modern API-based integrations?

RESPONSE: The State currently uses SFTP for interfaces. There are API integrations in process but none exist for the Division at current.

F. Are there federal integrations (DEA, national licensing registries, compact licensing systems)?

RESPONSE: There are national interfaces with multiple compacts and other national regulating bodies.

45. Infrastructure & Hosting

A. Does the State prefer:

● Vendor SaaS hosting

● State-hosted cloud

● Hybrid architecture?

B. If SaaS, are there preferred cloud providers (Azure, AWS, GCP)?

RESPONSE: The solution would be hosted on AWS Cloud provider. The

AWS Cloud is an approved cloud provider with most FedRAMP approved services and is compliant with state compliance requirements. Azure is not an approved provider that meets the state compliance requirements at this time.

C. Are there State security frameworks or FedRAMP requirements vendors must comply with?

RESPONSE: See the answer to question 45 B.

D. Does the State require multi-tenant or single-tenant architecture?

E. What are the expected peak concurrent users?

RESPONSE: Internal users peak can reach over 250 named users. External users peak can reach over 5,000 - 10,000 at a time dispensing on time of year and day.

46. SLA & Operational Support The ITN specifies requirements like 99.95% production availability and ≤0.1 second response time for 99% of transactions.

Clarifications:

A. Does the State require 24×7 operational monitoring by the vendor?

RESPONSE: The vendor will have to have some operational monitoring in place at all times, even after hours, that will alert staff of an unexpected outage to prompt resolution.

B. Are vendors expected to provide 24×7 help desk services, or will the State manage first-line support?

RESPONSE: The Division has an in-house team that manages first line support and triage. Responses from vendors need to be available during Colorado business hours (8am - 5pm MTN, Monday through Friday) with availability for emergency responses afterhours when necessary.

C. What is the expected incident escalation process?

RESPONSE: The Division Systems Team will be the first line support for system issues. When issues arise with the platform that are above the access levels or ability of the internal team they will submit a ticket and include severity to the vendor for assistance. Severity is based on critical nature and if processes are halted.

D. Will the State require dedicated account management or service delivery governance meetings?

RESPONSE: The Division would prefer regular BA meetings with the vendor team to discuss planned updates, releases, issue tickets, etc.

47. UX / Public Portal Requirements

The system must follow Colorado UI Component Library and Digital Service Playbook standards.

Questions:

A. Are vendors required to use the Colorado Design System components directly, or only align with its principles?

RESPONSE: Online Services need to align with state guidelines and meet requirements of accessibility. Division and State logo images will need to be visible on Online Services.

B. Does the State expect a mobile-responsive portal or native mobile apps?

RESPONSE: The Division expects the Online Services to be fully responsive to any mobile device without loss of functionality or accessibility vs desktop versions.

C. Are there existing accessibility audits or WCAG compliance reports for the current system?

RESPONSE: No, but the Division would be interested in this ability for the future.

D. Does the State require multilingual support?

RESPONSE: No

48. Enforcement, Inspection & Permitting Scope Current volumes include:

● ~9,953 enforcement cases annually

● Electrical inspections ~50,000+ per year

● Plumbing inspections ~17,000+ per year

Questions:

A. Are vendors expected to support inspection management and permitting within the same platform?

RESPONSE: Yes.

B. Will inspectors require mobile offline capabilities?

RESPONSE: Yes.

C. Are there GIS or mapping requirements for inspections?

RESPONSE: The Division does not currently require integration with GIS mapping systems for inspections, but it would be helpful to have in platforms.

49. Governance & Vendor Engagement A. Will the State establish a joint governance structure with the vendor during implementation?

RESPONSE: This will be determined in the negotiation stages.

B. How frequently will the State expect executive steering committee meetings? RESPONSE:

RESPONSE: This will be determined in the negotiation stages.

C. Will vendors be required to provide on-site implementation resources in

Colorado?

RESPONSE: This will be determined in the negotiation stages.

50. Transition from Current Vendor A. Will the current vendor be required to support transition activities or data extraction?

RESPONSE: The current vendor will be available in some capacity to provide necessary support to ensure the successful transfer of Division owned data from the existing platform to a new platform. The Division has an in-house team that will be fully available to transition activities such as data mapping, conversion planning, configuration development, etc.

B. Will the State provide transition documentation or system architecture diagrams?

RESPONSE: The state will provide all available documentation and develop in coordination with the selected vendor any additional documentation needed. Current system architecture documentation will be available.

C. Is the State expecting knowledge transfer sessions from the incumbent vendor?

RESPONSE: The Division will provide knowledge transfer from internal Division Systems Support teams.

51. Architecture Strategy (SaaS vs Legacy Custom Platforms)

A. Is the State open to solutions where configuration replaces custom code for most licensing workflows?

RESPONSE: The Division has an in-house systems team that manages system configuration. If the portal is available for configuration that will be in line with current processes.

B. Does the State prefer platforms that provide regular feature updates several times per year rather than periodic major upgrade projects?

RESPONSE: The Division is open to different methodologies. However, the platform must be available for updates that may come from legislative requirements and cannot wait for a major upgrade.

C. Should vendors assume the State prefers a platform where new boards, programs, and license types can be configured by State administrators without vendor development?

RESPONSE: The Division prefers the ability to configure and develop in-house without vendor intervention where possible.

52. Upgrade & Technical Debt Strategy

A. Should vendors assume that all upgrades must be included within the subscription cost and not require additional implementation services?

RESPONSE: Known or future upgrades that are known should be included and detailed in Exhibit 4; Any planned Minor Releases or platform updates should be included in the subscription costs. Future legislatively mandated Change Requests/New Functionality that are currently unknown can be handled with a change request process and price structure.

B.

C. Would the State prefer a platform where new regulatory features developed for other jurisdictions are automatically available to Colorado?

RESPONSE: The Division would like the ability to secure new features but only after review and approval, not automatically included to prevent risk of negatively affecting current processes.

53. Configuration vs Custom Development

A. Does the State prefer a solution where licensing workflows are configured through business rule engines and workflow designers rather than custom code development?

RESPONSE: The Division prefers configuration by in house system admins through business rules with limited vendor intervention.

B. Should vendors assume that State staff will configure licensing workflows, forms, and rules using administrative tools?

RESPONSE: Yes. Initial deployment may require some assistance from the vendor or planning based on Division direction because of the size and amount of initial configuration.

C. Does the State expect the platform to allow configuration of:

● application workflows

● licensing paths

● reciprocity rules

● enforcement workflows

● inspections

● fee structures without vendor development?

RESPONSE: Yes, all general functions that are configurable via business rules.

D. Would the State prefer a low-code or no-code configuration environment?

RESPONSE: Low code is acceptable. There are in-house system admins who may desire the ability to code certain functionality or reports, but low code is the preference.

54. Integration Strategy (API-First Architecture) A. Does the State prefer that the licensing platform expose modern REST APIs for all core business functions?

RESPONSE: The state prefers that candidates provide a solution that will be modern and flexible and integrate within the current state structure.

B. Should vendors assume the State prefers real-time API integrations instead of batch SFTP transfers where feasible?

RESPONSE: The State currently uses SFTP for interfaces. There are API integrations in process but none exist for the Division at current.

C. Would the State expect the platform to support:

● event-driven architecture

● webhooks

● real-time data synchronization?

D. Should vendors assume that all licensing data entities must be accessible through API endpoints?

RESPONSE: The Division would prefer to provide accessibility to data with the most modern options as well as maintain flexibility with older modes of interface.

55. Data & Reporting Strategy

A. Does the State prefer embedded analytics and reporting tools within the licensing platform?

B. Should vendors assume that the State prefers real-time reporting without reliance on replicated reporting databases?

RESPONSE: The Division does need real time reporting. However, certain analytic reports can be developed using a replicated database in the interest of maintaining system performance for heavy load reporting. This replicated reporting database has to be updated at least nightly.

C. Does the State require self-service report creation tools for business users?

D. Would the State prefer the ability to export data via open data APIs for analytics platforms such as Power BI or Tableau?

RESPONSE: The Division is open to options provided by a vendor that will meet the needs of our daily, weekly, monthly and yearly reporting,

56. Implementation Strategy

A. Would the State prefer an implementation approach where boards and programs are onboarded incrementally in shorter phases?

RESPONSE: The Division has concerns about a phased approach into a new platform as there are several interconnected professions, and muli-licensed individuals across disparate professions, along with questions about ongoing management of data. We are concerned two platforms would be unmanageable, but there may be opportunity to separately implement items such as inspections and permits. If there is a proposed solution to solve these concerns, we would be open to learning about it.

B. Does the State prefer solutions that leverage preconfigured regulatory licensing templates?

RESPONSE: The Division is interested in preconfigured templates as well as the ability to configure additional templates by Division Sys Admins.

C. Does the State prefer vendors with existing implementations supporting multiple state licensing boards?

RESPONSE: The Division would like information about vendors who have experience implementing multiple board solutions in a centralized platform.

D. Are there specific commercial environmental permitting systems evaluated prior to issuing this RFP?

RESPONSE: No