MILEAP RFP 260000001525 Vendor Questions Answers.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 56 KB Posted
- Attached to
- MiLEAP ISD Case Management System
- Solicitation number
- RFP 171 260000001525 3
- Issued by
- Michigan
About this file
This is a vendor questions and answers document for the Michigan Department of Education's MiLEAP (Michigan Learning for All and Early Literacy Partnership) ISD Case Management System RFP 260000001525. The State seeks a contractor-hosted Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) solution to replace the existing IntelliGrants system and manage IDEA Part C compliance activities, monitoring workflows, complaint investigations, and corrective action planning for approximately 1,500 users across 56 Intermediate School Districts (ISDs). The solution must fully meet all Digital Accessibility Requirements (WCAG 2.1) by go-live, integrate with MiLogin via SAML 2.0 authentication, and support standardized workflows with ISD-specific content customization. Implementation must occur within a hard contractual requirement of 150 calendar days from contract execution (anticipated start date October 1, 2026), though the State would consider a phased go-live approach. The RFP requires migration of open and active IDEA Part C-related data, documents, and workflows from the legacy system as a one-time migration event. All required functionality identified in the Business Specification Worksheet must be available at initial go-live, with no phased deployment of core capabilities permitted.
The State will evaluate proposals on best value based on technical merit (up to 100 points), with pricing reviewed only for proposals scoring 80 or above; however, no specific pricing formula or weighting methodology has been disclosed. Bidders must include all implementation services—including configuration, customization, migration, integration, testing, project management, training, documentation, and accessibility remediation—in a firm fixed implementation fee, itemized by service category. The State does not share budget information, existing report layouts, or legacy system outputs during solicitation and will negotiate specific reporting requirements and data sharing agreements during project kickoff. FedRAMP authorization is mandatory for hosting providers, or contractors may provide hosted services with either FedRAMP authorization or annual SSAE 18 SOC 2 Type II audits based on NIST SP 800-53 MOD controls. Training approaches, mobile functionality scope, and document generation methods should be proposed by bidders based on their recommended system solutions. The current contractor will provide transition support based on existing contract terms, with a 180-calendar-day transition-in period and full operational Transition In and Out plans required at proposal stage for evaluation.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| RFP - Software MILEAP ISD.docx | DOCX document |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Question # | Document and Section | Page # | Vendor Question | State Response |
| 1 | 5. ADA Compliance | 69 | The RFP references specific Digital Accessibility standards. Can the State clarify expectations for compliance at go-live versus over time (e.g., whether full compliance is required at implementation or if remediation plans are acceptable)? | Solution must fully meet all Digital Accessibility Requirements by Go Live. |
| 2 | Schedule A – Attachment 1 – Business Specification Worksheet | For requirements in the Business Specification Worksheet, does the State consider configurable (no-code/low-code) solutions equivalent to custom-developed functionality for evaluation purposes? | No, we do not treat configuration as the same as customization. | |
| 3 | 7. Access Control and Authentication | 70 | Can the State provide additional detail on the expected integration with MiLogin (e.g., authentication protocols, available APIs, and the Contractor’s responsibilities for implementation)? | The key requirements for SAML 2.0 based integrations:� |
The integrated application has SAML 2.0 capabilities to validate and consume the SAML 2.0 assertions from MILogin. MILogin will be the Identity Provider(IDP) and the integrated application will be the Service Provider (SP). The integrated application must be able to support encrypted and signed SAML 2.0 assertions. All user attributes will be sent to the integrated application in the SAML 2.0 assertion.
| 4 | Scope and success criteria | 1. Does the state have a current system in place? If so, can you detail the functionality gaps that led to procuring a new system? | Yes, there is a current system. Additional information is not available at this time. |
| 5 | Scope and success criteria | 2. Is the state interested in an existing SaaS solution and different approaches used by other states, or modeling a custom system exactly to the requirements? | Per the Purpose section of Schedule A the State is requesting a Contractor hosted SaaS solution. The State is not looking for a Custom solution. |
| 6 | Scope and success criteria | 3. Are all required business processes fully captured in the business specifications, or should bidders assume additional workflow discovery and refinement during implementation? | Refinement will be necessary |
| 7 | Legacy data migration | 1. Please confirm the exact scope of historical data migration: all legacy data, only IDEA Part C-related data, or only active/open records plus a historical archive. | Open/active IDEA Part C related data/documents/workflows must be migrated. |
| 8 | Legacy data migration | 2. Is the vendor expected to maintain any ongoing integration or coexistence with the legacy system after go-live, or is this a one-time migration only? | This should be a one-time migration. |
| 9 | Requirements | There are numerous requirements with an exceptional level of detail like color coding alerts, the contents of drop-downs, etc. How will the state encourage alternate means of compliance where the proposed solution is different but equal, or where it is more intuitive, more integrated, more automated, requires less user workload or otherwise solves the stated requirement problem by a different means? | All proposals will be reviewed based on the content of the submission. Selection will be based on best solutions to the problem and justification for alternate solution. |
| 10 | Requirements | 1. How does the state’s selection and scoring process handle new, or more modern capabilities, or increased functionality and approaches that lessen the user burden, provide better than expected usability, easier training, or better value than those specifically required? | All proposals will be reviewed based on the content of the submission. Selection will be based on Best Value to the State. |
| 11 | Workflow & case types | 1. Please provide the full list of case/work item types the system must support at go-live. | Workflow for program monitoring, workflow for state complaint investigations, workflow for corrective action planning, dashboards reflecting open workflows, |
| 12 | Workflow & case types | 2. Are workflows expected to differ by ISD, or must all ISDs use a common statewide standardized process? | Workflow should be standardized; content included in workflow must be able to be individualized to the ISD. |
| 13 | Reporting, dashboards, and federal compliance output | 1. Can the State provide a complete inventory of required standard reports, dashboards, exports, and regulatory/federal submissions? | These would be negotiated during development of statement of work. This system will not perform federal submissions, however data/information from the system will need to be included in reports to support MiLEAP's development of federal submissions. |
| 14 | Reporting, dashboards, and federal compliance output | 2. Are there existing report layouts, templates, or current-state outputs from the legacy system that bidders can review? | The State does not share existing report layouts, templates, or current state outputs during the solicitation process. |
| 15 | Integrations and technical architecture | 1. Beyond MiLogin, what other systems, data sources, or outbound interfaces are required at go-live or during the base term? | Per Section 11 - Integrations of Schedule A, the only integration at this time is MiLogin. |
| 16 | Integrations and technical architecture | 2. Does the State prefer API-based interoperability, batch file exchange, or another approach? | This would be a future state discussion. |
| 17 | Security and privacy | 1. Please confirm whether FedRAMP authorization is mandatory for the proposed hosting environment, or whether HITRUST equivalent controls are acceptable for all bidders. | MCS Architecture recommends directing bidder to Schedule E – Data Security Requirements 5. Protection of State’s Information and responding with: |
5.1 If Hosted Services are provided by a Hosting Provider, ensure each Hosting Provider maintains FedRAMP authorization for all Hosted Services environments throughout the Term, and in the event a Hosting Provider is unable to maintain FedRAMP authorization, the State, at its sole discretion, may either a) require the Contractor to move the Software and State Data to an alternative Hosting Provider selected and approved by the State at Contractor’s sole cost and expense without any increase in Fees, or b) immediately terminate this Contract for cause;
5.2 for Hosted Services provided by the Contractor, maintain either a FedRAMP authorization or an annual SSAE 18 SOC 2 Type II audit based on State required NIST Special Publication 800-53 MOD Controls using identified controls and minimum values as established in applicable State PSPs;
| 18 | Security and privacy | 2. What level of field-level security, masking, redaction, and auditability is expected for sensitive data? | Role based user security would be utilized. | ||
| 19 | Training | 1. Is the training expectation direct end-user training for all ~1,500 users, train-the-trainer for designated ISD leads, or a blended model? | Bidders must propose what they believe will be an effective training plan based on their proposed system solution. | ||
| 20 | Training | 2. How many user roles/personas require separate training content and job aids? | Depends on the solution proposed by the vendor. | ||
| 21 | Timeline | 1. Is the 150-day implementation window a hard contractual requirement or the State’s preferred target schedule? | This is a hard contractual requirement, however the state would consider a proposal for a reasonable phased Go-live plan. | ||
| 22 | Timeline | 2. What State and MiLEAP resources will be dedicated to requirements validation, data mapping, testing, and training during that period? | That will be determined and shared at Project Kickoff | ||
| 23 | Pricing clarification | 1. Should bidders price the solution as enterprise licensing, named users, concurrent users, transaction volume, or another model? | The State will review various pricing options for licensing. | ||
| 24 | Pricing clarification | 2. Does the State want all migration, reporting, training, accessibility remediation, and security compliance activities included in the fixed implementation fee? | Yes and should be itemized out. | ||
| 25 | Schedule A -Statement of Work, Section 4 IT Environment Responsibilities | 68–69 | Please confirm whether the State has a preferred hosting model for this procurement, including whether Contractor Hosted SaaS is preferred over a State-hosted deployment, and whether any hosting environments are prohibited beyond the stated security requirements. | Contractor Hosted is preferred to State hosted. | |
| 26 | Schedule A -Statement of Work, Section 4 IT Environment Responsibilities / Schedule E -Data Security Requirements | 68,124–125 | The RFP states that non-public State PSPs are available under NDA. Please confirm when those non-public PSPs will be released to bidders and whether bidders will be permitted additional time to revise their security responses after reviewing them. | Non-public PSPs will be shared shortly after the NDA is signed by the bidder. Bidder must follow up with the Solicitation Manager to get the NDA. | |
| 27 | Schedule A -Statement of Work, Section 5 ADA Compliance | 70 | Please confirm which exact digital accessibility standard and conformance level the State expects the Solution to meet, including whether WCAG 2.1 AA is the required standard for all user roles, reports, generated documents, and administrative functions. | The solutions must meet all Digital Accessibility Requirements including WCAG 2.1 for all user roles, reports, generated documents, and administrative functions. | |
| 28 | Schedule A -Statement of Work, Section 6 User Type and Capacity | 70–71 | Please clarify whether the listed user counts are named users, licensed users, or estimated active users, and whether the State expects pricing based on total named users, concurrent users, or an enterprise model. | The counts reflect estimated active users. The State will review various pricing options. | |
| 29 | Schedule A -Statement of Work, Section 6 User Type and Capacity | 71 | Please confirm the State’s expected non-functional performance requirements, including acceptable page load times, report generation times, batch processing times, and file upload/download performance under peak concurrent usage. | See SCHEDULE D – SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENT, 2.4 Software Response Time. Software response time, defined as the interval from the time the end user sends a transaction to the time a visual confirmation of transaction completion is received, must be less than 2 seconds for 98% of all transactions. Unacceptable response times shall be considered to make the Software unavailable and will count against the calculation of Availability. | |
| 30 | Schedule A -Statement of Work, Section 7 Access Control and Authentication / Section 11 Integration | 71, 75 | Please provide additional technical details for MiLogin integration, including whether the State will provide a sandbox or test tenant, expected authentication flow, required claims or attributes, role-mapping expectations, and whether both internal and external users will authenticate through the same MiLogin implementation. | Development, QA and production environments will be provided for MILOGIN. Yes, to internal and external users authentication. MILOGIN will authenticate and then the CASE MANAGEMENT will grant access by role. | |
| 31 | Schedule A -Statement of Work, Section 8 Required Functionality Relating to Data Retention, Disposal, and Retrieval | 72 | Please provide the applicable records retention schedule, including retention periods by record type, archival requirements, and expectations for deletion from backups, so bidders can accurately describe compliance with retention and disposal obligations. | The State will communicate any additional requirements at Project Kick Off and Implementation phase of the project. Bidder must be able to meet the requirements within Schedule A - Statement of Work - Section 8. | |
| 32 | Schedule A -Statement of Work, Section 8 Required Functionality Relating to Data Retention, Disposal, and Retrieval | 72 | Please clarify the expected scope and form of the required Data Sharing Agreement, including whether a State template will be provided and whether any material terms are negotiable. | That will be determined and shared at Project Kickoff | |
| 33 | Schedule A -Statement of Work, Section 9 End User and IT Operating Environment / Section 10 Software | 73–75 | Please clarify the expected level of mobile support. Is full mobile transactional functionality required, or is responsive access for selected functions sufficient? If only selected functions are expected on mobile devices, please identify the required mobile use cases. | For the SOM mobile device standard, please refer to 1360.00.11. | |
| 34 | Schedule A -Statement of Work, Section 10 Software | 74–75 | Please clarify whether the State expects the proposed Solution to include built-in document generation for Word-based notifications and letters of findings, or whether export to Word templates for offline editing is acceptable. | All proposals will be reviewed based on the proposed solution. | |
| 35 | Schedule A -Statement of Work, Section 10 Software / Software Terms and Conditions, Artificial Intelligence | 75, 47 | The RFP asks bidders to identify and describe the use of AI within or used to develop the Solution. Please clarify whether the State will permit optional AI-enabled features if disabled by default, and whether AI used only in software development tooling must also be disclosed with model documentation. | The State will review optional AI-enabled features. | |
| 36 | Schedule A -Statement of Work, Section 11 Integration | 75 | Please clarify whether “unlimited user uploads” means unlimited by count only, or whether the State has expected maximum individual file sizes, supported video formats, storage growth assumptions, and retention expectations for uploaded media. | Bidders must propose what they believe will be sufficient capacity. | |
| 37 | Schedule A -Statement of Work, Section 12 Migration | 76 | Please confirm the precise scope of migration from the current IntelliGrants environment, including which data sets, document repositories, historical records, open complaints, corrective action plans, user accounts, audit history, and archived materials must be migrated versus retained externally for reference. | Open/active IDEA Part C related data/documents/workflows must be migrated. | |
| 38 | Schedule A -Statement of Work, Section 3 Purpose / Section 12 Migration | 68, 76 | The RFP notes that MiLEAP must continue partnering with MDE until 9/30/2027 and that some actions in the old system may need to carry over. Please clarify whether the State expects dual-system operation during transition, and if so, for how long and with what data synchronization responsibilities. | The current Contractor would provide transition support based on the terms of their contract with the State. | |
| 39 | Schedule A -Statement of Work, Section 14 Training Services / Schedule B -Pricing | 77, 106–107 | Please clarify the State’s expected scope for initial and ongoing training, including the number of sessions, anticipated class sizes, required training audiences, train-the-trainer expectations, and whether the optional post-go-live training hours should be priced as a fixed annual bucket or on a consumption basis. | Bidders must propose what they believe will be an effective training plan based on their proposed system solution. | |
| 40 | Schedule A -Statement of Work, Section 15 Transition Responsibilities / Schedule G -Transition In and Out Plan | 77, 131 | Please clarify the minimum required content, format, and level of detail for Schedule G, including whether the State expects a full operational transition plan at proposal stage or a draft approach subject to refinement during contract negotiations. | The State expects a full operational Transition In and Out plan at the proposal stage for evaluation. | |
| 41 | Schedule A -Statement of Work, Section 24 Project Management | 83–84 | Please confirm whether the milestone dates are mandatory or target dates, and whether bidders may propose phased implementation, pilot deployment, or alternate sequencing without being scored down, provided the overall objectives are met. | Bidder to propose recommendation. | |
| 42 | Schedule A -Statement of Work, Section 24 Project Management / Schedule B -Pricing | 84, 106 | Please clarify whether State review and approval periods are included within the milestone schedule, particularly for requirements validation, design approval, accessibility review, testing, and final acceptance. | Yes, State activity is within the milestones schedule | |
| 43 | Schedule A -Attachment 1 Business Specification Worksheet | 86–99 | Please confirm whether bidders may provide assumptions or explanatory notes where a requirement cannot be answered strictly as Current Capability, Requires Configuration, Customization, Future Enhancement, or Not Available, especially for requirements that depend on clarification from the State. | Assumptions are not allowed as part of the bidder proposal response. | |
| 44 | Schedule B -Pricing | 104–107 | Please clarify how the State will evaluate pricing across subscription, term license, and perpetual license models to ensure bidders using different pricing structures are compared consistently on a like-for-like basis. | That information is not available at this time. Evaluations will be based on Best Value to the State. | |
| 45 | Schedule B -Pricing | 104–107 | Please confirm whether all implementation services, including configuration, customization, migration, integration, testing, project management, training documentation, and accessibility remediation, must be included in the firm fixed implementation fee, or whether any of these items may be priced separately. | All costs identified in the question should be included in the implementation costs and itemized out. | |
| 46 | Schedule D -Service Level Agreement / Schedule F -Disaster Recovery Plan | 123, 130 | Please clarify whether the State has minimum required recovery time objective, recovery point objective, uptime, and support response or resolution targets beyond what is generally referenced in the schedules, and whether these targets are negotiable. | Please see Schedule D - Service Level Agreement. The State's expectations on RTO/RPO, Uptime and Support Responses are clearly defined as the minimum requirements. If the bidder chooses to redline the schedule, that the bidder at risk of being Non-Responsive and the proposal disqualified. | |
| 47 | Schedule A -Statement of Work, Section 4 / Business Specification SYS 2 | 68, 91 | Please clarify whether the FedRAMP Moderate or higher requirement applies to the underlying hosting environment, the proposed application itself, or both. | For Statement of Work Business Specifications, inquire to Agency Services. MCS Architecture Schedule E – Data Security Requirements regarding FedRAMP authorization are stated in Schedule E 5. Protection of State’s Information. | |
| 48 | Proposal Instructions, Section 8: Evaluation Process | 5-6 | Will the State require a functional "Proof of Concept" (POC) or oral presentation during the evaluation phase, and if so, what is the anticipated window for those sessions? If required, will these sessions be scored as part of the 100-point technical scale, and how much advance notice will Bidders receive to prepare environments? | That has not been determined at this time. | |
| 49 | Schedule A – Statement of Work, Section 3: Purpose | 31-32 | Section 3.6 and 3.7 of the Terms allow for Permitted Subcontractors. Does the State have a preference for the Prime Contractor to be the Software Publisher, or is a Project Management firm acting as the Prime with a SaaS-providing Subcontractor equally weighted in the 'Vendor Question Worksheet' (20 points) evaluation? | The bidder that we will directly be contracting with will be full responsible for their subcontractors in all aspects including the Software Publisher if the bidder is a reseller. | |
| 50 | Schedule A – Statement of Work, Section 12: Migration | 76 | Given that IDEA Part C compliance data was historically managed within the Catamaran system, does the State have a preference for a solution that maintains architectural or data schema continuity with those historical records? | Bidders to propose recommendation and the most appropriate system solution. | |
| 51 | Schedule A – Statement of Work, Section 24: Project Management (Milestones) | 84 | Regarding the 'Requirements and Design Validation' milestone (Execution + 90 days), will the State provide the finalized 'Business Rules' and 'Indicator Data' templates at kickoff, or is the 90-day window intended for collaborative development of these rules? | SOM will work collaboratively as part of the requirements and design validation phase. | |
| 52 | Schedule B – Pricing | 103-104 | Schedule B requires firm-fixed pricing for implementation and support. Does the State have an 'Authorized Budget' or 'Not-to-Exceed' ceiling for the initial 3-year base term that Bidders should remain under to be considered 'Best Value'? | The State does not share budget information during the solicitation process. | |
| 53 | Schedule A – SOW, Section 3 Purpose / Section 10 Software | 80–81, | |||
| 89 | Please describe, at a high level, the full set of business functions and user capabilities the State expects the proposed system to provide at go-live. | Please see SCHEDULE A – ATTACHMENT 1 – BUSINESS SPECIFICATION WORKSHEET | |||
| 54 | Schedule A – SOW, Section 3 Purpose / Table 1 Business Specification Worksheet | 80–81, | |||
| 104–111 | Please confirm whether all required functions are expected to be available at initial go-live, or whether any functions may be phased in after go-live. | All required functionality as identified in the RFP are required at Go Live. | |||
| 55 | Schedule A – SOW, Section 2 Background / Section 3 Purpose | 80–81 | Please describe the current system and process in more detail, including how the State and ISDs are managing the work today and what the State most wants to improve in the new system. | Additional detail will be provided at Project Kickoff | |
| 56 | Schedule A – SOW, Section 2 Background / Section 3 Purpose | 80–81 | Please clarify the most important business problems or limitations in the current system that this procurement is intended to solve. | Please see the RFP for the information. | |
| 57 | Schedule A – SOW, Section 11 Integration | 90 | In addition to MiLogin, please identify any other systems, services, or data sources that the proposed solution will need to connect with. | Per Section 11 - Integrations of Schedule A, the only integration at this time is MiLogin. | |
| 58 | Schedule A – SOW, Section 12 Migration | 90–91 | Please describe the full scope of data migration expected by the State, including what data must be moved into the new system and what data may remain archived only. | Open/active IDEA Part C related data/documents/workflows must be migrated. | |
| 59 | Schedule A – SOW, Section 12 Migration | 90–91 | Please clarify whether the State expects the vendor to perform data cleanup, validation, mapping, and reconciliation as part of the migration effort. | That has not been determined at this time. | |
| 60 | Schedule A – SOW, Section 12 Migration / Section 15 Transition Responsibilities | 90–91 | Please describe any open items, in-progress actions, or historical records from the current system that must remain usable or active in the new system after transition. | That has not been determined at this time. | |
| 61 | Table 1 Business Specification Worksheet – Documentation / Data | 109–111 | Please describe the State's expectations for document handling in the new system, including how documents are expected to be uploaded, stored, searched, reviewed, and retained. | Bidders must propose how documents are managed in their proposed system. | |
| 62 | Table 1 Business Specification Worksheet – Data Manipulation and Reporting | 110–111 | Please describe the State's reporting expectations, including the types of reports, who will use them, and whether the State expects users to build their own reports. | Please see the RFP for the information. | |
| 63 | Table 1 Business Specification Worksheet – System / Data | 107–111 | Please describe the State's expectations for workflow, dashboards, work queues, and status tracking in the proposed system. | Please see the RFP for the information. | |
| 64 | Table 1 Business Specification | 107–111 | Please describe the State's expectations for user roles, permissions, and access to data and documents across State users and ISD users. | The State will utilize MILOGIN and role based security. | |
| 65 | Schedule A – SOW, Section 10 Software | 89 | Please clarify whether the State has any preferred technology approach, hosting approach, or architectural expectations for the proposed solution beyond what is already stated in the RFP. | Bidders should propose what they see as the most appropriate system solution. | |
| 66 | Schedule A – SOW, Section 10 Software | 89 | Please clarify whether the State expects bidders to propose AI-enabled capabilities, and if so, what types of AI use would be acceptable or useful for this project. | Bidders may propose AI options, but must have the ability to turn off. The State will review AI options and determine what is and isn't acceptable as part of the review. | |
| 67 | Schedule A – SOW, Section 14 Training Services | 91 | Please describe the State's expectations for training, including preferred training format, user groups, and whether recorded or self-paced training materials are expected in addition to live training. | Bidders must propose what they believe will be an effective training plan based on their proposed system solution. | |
| 68 | Schedule A – SOW, Section 16 Documentation | 91 | Please clarify what types of documentation the State expects the vendor to provide for system users, administrators, and technical teams. | Please see RFP for the information. | |
| 69 | Schedule A – SOW, Section 10 Software / Section 9 IT Environment | 86, 89 | Please describe any mobile, browser, device, or end-user environment expectations the State wants bidders to plan for in the proposed solution. | For the SOM mobile device standard, please refer to 1360.00.11. | |
| 70 | Schedule A – SOW, Section 10 Software / Section 9 IT Environment | 86, 89 | Please describe any expected release, upgrade, testing, or change-management approach the State wants the vendor to follow after implementation. | The State utilizes the SUITE methodology and best practices for implementation and maintenance. | |
| 71 | Attachment 1 – Resume Templates, Contractor Security Officer | 29 | If the proposed Contractor Security Officer has strong relevant experience in handling the security of similar projects and solutions, will the State consider that individual acceptable even if they do not currently hold security certifications? | MCS Architecture recommends directing bidder to Attachment 1, Resume Templates and the experience requirements stated as follows: Required Skills Education: Bachelor’s degree, Certification: Security certifications actively held. | |
| 72 | Attachment 1 – Resume Templates, Contractor Project Manager | 25–26 | If the proposed Project Manager has strong relevant experience managing similar corporate projects and is fully capable of leading this engagement, will the State consider that individual acceptable even if they do not currently hold a PMP, Scrum, or similar project management certification? | The State will evaluate the resumes in the evaluation criteria. A certification is preferred but not mandatory. | |
| 73 | Vendor Questions Worksheet – State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience | 17 | If a bidder does not have direct IDEA Part C program experience, but does have experience implementing secure, compliance-oriented case management systems in regulated environments, will the State consider that experience acceptable if the bidder can meet all business specifications? | Experience and/or knowledge in IDEA Part C is preferred. | |
| 74 | Schedule C – Insurance Requirements | Schedule C | If a bidder's current certificate of insurance does not show all Schedule C requirements exactly as written, but the bidder can provide equivalent coverage and required endorsements through a combination of policies, umbrella/excess coverage, or post-award endorsements, will the State consider that acceptable? | Bidders are expected meet the requirements of the RFP and all schedule and terms at the time of proposal submission. If the bidders proposing something else they run the risk of being considered Non Responsive. | |
| 75 | Schedule C – Insurance Requirements | Schedule C | If a bidder's current Privacy/Security Liability and Professional Liability limits are below the amounts stated in Schedule C, but the bidder can increase or supplement those limits before contract execution, will the State consider the proposal responsive? | Bidders are expected meet the requirements of the RFP and all schedule and terms at the time of proposal submission. If the bidders proposing something else they run the risk of being considered Non Responsive. | |
| 76 | 18. EVALUATION PROCESS | 5 | The evaluation awards up to 100 technical points, with pricing evaluated only for proposals scoring 80 or above (p. 5). How will pricing be weighted relative to the technical score in the final best-value determination? Is there a specific formula or ratio? | Pricing will be evaluated based on Best Value. There is not a specific formula or ratio. | |
| 77 | Schedule A - Section 2. Background | 65 | Page 65, Section 2. Background states "The current existing system is used to track activities and data related to IDEA and the Michigan Administrative Rules for Special Education (MARSE) for both the Michigan Department of Education Offices of Special Education and MiLEAP Early On, Part C of IDEA." Does the "current existing system" provide all of the requirements outlined in Schedule A - Attachment 1 - Business Specification Worksheet? | The RFP requirements should be answered by the Bidder. | |
| 78 | Schedule A - Section 11. Integration | 73 | For file uploads described as "unlimited" and ranging from Word documents to high-definition video (p. 73) — is there a practical per-file size limit that is acceptable, or should Bidders truly plan for unbounded file sizes? | Bidders must propose what they believe will be sufficient capacity. | |
| 79 | Schedule A - Section 11. Integration | 73 | What is the anticipated total storage growth rate per year? | The data volume is listed in the RFP. | |
| 80 | Schedule A - Section 12. Migration | 73-74 | The RFP states the database has 326 tables and 6,469 columns, but that Part C represents roughly 10% of the tables (p. 74). Will the State provide a detailed data dictionary or schema documentation for the Part C subset prior to or upon contract execution? And will bidders have access to the current Intelli Grants environment (even read-only) for discovery purposes during implementation? | If/when applicable, this information will be provided to selected Bidder. | |
| 81 | Schedule A - Section 12. Migration & Schedule A - COMP 5 | 74 & 86 | The current database is 75 GB (p. 74). How much of that data needs to be migrated to the new system versus archived? The RFP references retaining the current year plus six prior years with active access, and documents older than eight years in a repository (p. 86). Should bidders plan to migrate all historical data, or only the active window? If it's all historical data, how much data needs to be active data that is accessible within the application and how much would be archived as historical data? | Open/active IDEA Part C related data/documents/workflows must be migrated. | |
| 82 | Schedule A - Section 24. Project Management | 81 & 103 | The proposed milestone schedule requires acceptance within 150 calendar days of contract execution (p. 81), with an anticipated contract begin date of October 1, 2026 (p. 1). Given the complexity of migration, MiLogin integration, and training for 1,500 users across 56 ISDs, would the State consider a phased go-live (e.g., pilot ISDs first, then broader rollout), or is a single simultaneous launch expected? | Yes, the state would consider a phased go-live. | |
| 83 | Schedule A - Section 24. Project Management | 81 & 103 | Is there a hard federal reporting deadline that drives the go-live date? Understanding the regulatory calendar would help Bidders propose realistic schedules. | Yes, there is a hard deadline for the go-live date. | |
| 84 | Schedule A - Attachment 1 - Business Specification Worksheet | 84-85 | The Business Specification Worksheet instructions state that customizations (source code changes) "may not be considered and may impact the evaluation" (p. 85). Can the State clarify whether any customization automatically results in a scoring penalty, or whether limited, well-justified customizations are acceptable? | If a majority of the system has to be customized to meet the States needs then there may be penalty assessed. | |
| 85 | Schedule A - WFS 4 | 88 | "The system must provide email notifications and escalations prior to workflow due dates." Is there a set number of email notifications that are sent prior to workflow due dates? How many users are expected to receive these email notifications each time? | An answer to this question is not necessary to complete RFP proposal response. | |
| 86 | Schedule A - WFS 6 | 88 | "The system will change workflow activity text to red and underlined as a visual clue that it is late or needs an immediate response." This is a very specific requirement. Is it acceptable if the Bidder's solution provides the visual clue that a workflow activity is late or needs an immediate response in a different manner, or is the Bidder expected to modify their solution to meet this specific visual clue (e.g. "change workflow activity text to red and underlined")? | Bidders to propose recommendation. | |
| 87 | Schedule A - SYS 8 | 89 | "When a Consultant or System User uses the 'IDEA' functionality, the system must allow for an additional field 'Other IDEA Regulation(s)' field that offers a list of approximately 10 configurable options." Please provide the list, or a partial list of the "approximately 10 configurable options". | An answer to this question is not necessary to complete RFP proposal response. | |
| 88 | Schedule A - SYS 9 | 89-90 | "When a Consultant or System User uses the 'MARSE' functionality, the system must allow for an additional field 'Other MARSE Rule(s)' field that offers a list of approximately 10 configurable options." Please provide the list, or a partial list of the "approximately 10 configurable options". | An answer to this question is not necessary to complete RFP proposal response. | |
| 89 | Schedule A - DATA 12 | 94 | "When in the Monitoring workflow, the system must be able to list and make selectable, with the option to export, at least 7 types of Monitoring Reports." Please provide examples of the "7 types of Monitoring Reports". | An answer to this question is not necessary to complete RFP proposal response. | |
| 90 | N/A | N/A | Please list all of the entities who participated in the creation of this RFP (e.g. MiLEAP, DTMB, MDE, current vendors, or partners, etc.). | The State only includes internal resources in the development of the solicitation. | |
| 91 | N/A | N/A | What is the current budget for the 2025-26 Fiscal Year for providing the functionality and performing the services outlined in this RFP? | The State does not share budget information during the solicitation process. | |
| 92 | Is there a budget for this project? | The State does not share budget information during the solicitation process. | |||
| 93 | What is the current volume of scheduled reviews? | An answer to this question is not necessary to complete RFP proposal response. | |||
| 94 | Approximately how many different compliance letters exist? | An answer to this question is not necessary to complete RFP proposal response. | |||
| 95 | Approximately how many reports are in scope? | An answer to this question is not necessary to complete RFP proposal response. | |||
| 96 | Can the state provide a detailed functional requirements list beyond the high-level description in the statement of work (e.g., user stories, use cases, or workflows) as part of the Q&A process? | Please see Schedule A - Business Specification Worksheet | |||
| 97 | Is there an interest in seeing this built in traditional Dep Ops (no AI) or proposed with AI? Or both? | Bidders may propose AI options, but must have the ability to turn off. The State will review AI options and determine what is and isn't acceptable as part of the review. | |||
| 98 | Tell us more about the external users. Are authenticated users using the Power Pages or anomamous users? | All users will access via MILOGIN. | |||
| 99 | Outline how the ISD's work in relation to the state of MI. What is the relationship between the ISD and state of MI? | An answer to this question is not necessary to complete RFP proposal response. | |||
| 100 | Are there on-site requirements for the vendor development and testing team? | On-site requirements if any will be determined at Project Kickoff. | |||
| 101 | What frequency is desired for on-site, in person collaboration meetings? | On-site requirements if any will be determined at Project Kickoff. Also, please review Schedule A - Section 22 - Meetings for additional information. | |||
| 102 | Knowing there is coordination needed with MiLogin, will a MiLogin Project Manager be available to coordinate with? | That will be determined at Project Kick Off. | |||
| 103 | Is this project scheduled into MiLogin's development workplan? | An answer to this question is not necessary to complete RFP proposal response. | |||
| 104 | Is the goal to lift and shift the current processes into a new system, or is the goal to update the processes along with updgrading the system? | Bidders must propose what they see as the most appropriate system solution. | |||
| 105 | Are ISDs aligned on processes, or will the system need to support variability? | Workflow should be standardized; content included in workflow must be able to be individualized to the ISD. | |||
| 106 | Who has the final authority on requirements conflicts between ISDs and state? | An answer to this question is not necessary to complete RFP proposal response. | |||
| 107 | What is the current vendor's ability to support a transition in? | The current Contractor would provide transition support based on the terms of their contract with the State. | |||
| 108 | Is there a specific amount of time dedicated towards the transition in period? | Please see the Terms and Conditions. Expected Transition timeframe is defined there. 180 calendar days. | |||
| 109 | Are there specific format(s) needed for any contractor provided documentation? | The Bidder will provide documentation to meet SUITE requirements. | |||
| 110 | How many DTMB and Agency Program Managers (or designee) will be jointly approving all Deliverables and day-to-day activities? | That will be determined and shared at Project Kickoff | |||
| 111 | What stakeholder groups are available to participate in HCD sessions? | That will be determined and shared at Project Kickoff | |||
| 112 | How many internal user roles are anticipated? | Please see Schedule A - Statement of Work - Section 6 - User Type and Capacity | |||
| 113 | How many internal users are anticipated? | Please see Schedule A - Statement of Work - Section 6 - User Type and Capacity | |||
| 114 | How many external user roles are anticipated? | Please see Schedule A - Statement of Work - Section 6 - User Type and Capacity | |||
| 115 | How many external users are anticipated? | Please see Schedule A - Statement of Work - Section 6 - User Type and Capacity | |||
| 116 | Is there an existing Learning Management System that this project will leverage? | No | |||
| 117 | How many individuals are on the core project team from the State of Michigan? | That will be determined and shared at Project Kickoff | |||
| 118 | What are the roles and allocations for the core project team on the SOM side? | That will be determined and shared at Project Kickoff | |||
| 119 | Are data quality issues in the current system known and documented? If so, can the State identify specific issue types such as duplicates, missing metadata, inconsistent code values, or incomplete document relationships? | An answer to this question is not necessary to complete RFP proposal response. The RFP requirements should be answered by the Bidder. | |||
| 120 | Are there standard federal reporting formats the system must support? | This system will not perform federal submissions, however data/information from the system will need to be included in reports to support MiLEAP's development of federal submissions. | |||
| 121 | Will the state provide test cases, or is the vendor responsible for providing? | The vendor will collaborate with the state on the test cases | |||
| 122 | What level of UAT involvement is expected from ISDs? | There will be ISD involvement in UAT, to be determined by the time of the kickoff. | |||
| 123 | What are the top concerns with the current system? | Please refer to Schedule A in the RFP. | |||
| 124 | What happens if State dependencies delay the project - will schedule/cost adjustments be allowed? | The State would review if the situation comes up. | |||
| 125 | How long does the State security review and approval process typically take? | It varies based upon each application. | |||
| 126 | Who is responsible for defining the overall testing strategy (ex: test phases, entry/exit criteria, and defect severity definitions)? | That will be determined and shared at Project Kickoff. | |||
| 127 | Does the State expect the Contractor to provide a Master Test Plan for State review and approval? If yes, at what milestone must this be delivered? | The vendor will collaborate with the state on a master test plan and it will be ready for state review by the end of the Requirements and Design Validation milestone event. The master test plan must be approved by the state and in place by the Testing and Acceptance milestone event. | |||
| 128 | Will the State designate QA/UAT leads with formal acceptance authority, or is accesptance limited to Program Managers only? | The State designate a project lead with formal acceptance authority in regards to QA/UAT. | |||
| 129 | Can the State clarify whether Acceptance Testing and User Acceptance Testing (UAT) are considered the same activity or separate phases? | The use of acceptance testing is a global term for each of the testing phases that we've outlined in our document. User Acceptance Testing will be considered acceptance testing. | |||
| 130 | Who is expected to execute UAT test cases? | The state project team will execute UAT test cases. The vendor will need to be available to correct UAT failures noted by the state project team. | |||
| 131 | Does the State have a standard defect severity classification? | That will be determined and shared at Project Kickoff. | |||
| 132 | Can the State clarify whether open Medium or Low defects are acceptable at Acceptance, and if so, under what conditions? | The state has the final determination. | |||
| 133 | Is there an expectation for a defect remediation plan or backlog governance for post‑acceptance defects? | Yes | |||
| 134 | For maintenance releases and new versions, is the Contractor expected to perform full regression testing for each release? | Bidder to provide release management recommendations and best practices as part of RFP response. | |||
| 135 | Does the State expect to participate in regression validation? | The State will require vendor and SOM testing. | |||
| 136 | Does the State expect formal performance and load testing prior to Acceptance, given the defined concurrent user volumes? | Yes | |||
| 137 | Are there minimum performance benchmarks (beyond SLA response times) that must be validated during testing? | Please refer to the RFP for more information. | |||
| 138 | Will performance testing need to account for peak seasonal usage (ex: spring/fall monitoring cycles)? | Yes | |||
| 139 | Will accessibility conformance be revalidated for each major release, or only at initial Acceptance? | Yes, it will be validated at each major release. | |||
| 140 | If accessibility defects are identified during testing, must they be resolved prior to go‑live, or can remediation plans be accepted? | Yes, they must be remediated before go live. | |||
| 141 | Does the State require security testing evidence (ex: vulnerability scans, penetration testing summaries) as part of Acceptance? | Yes | |||
| 142 | Will the State conduct independent security testing, and if so, how are remediation timelines coordinated with Acceptance? | MCS Architecture recommends directing bidder to Schedule E – Data Security Requirements 8. Security Audits. | |||
| 143 | How many environments does the State expect to be available for testing? | That will be determined and shared at Project Kickoff. Most likely a System integration testing (SIT), User Acceptance Testing (UAT) and smoke testing in Production | |||
| 144 | Will ISD users participate in testing using production‑like data, and if so, how will PII be protected? | Production-like data doesn't need to be live data. Sample data will be provided for testing with the ISDs | |||
| 145 | What testing artifacts must be delivered to the State as part of Acceptance? | That will be determined and shared at Project Kickoff. Most likely, state will require design documents, test cases, workflow, and release notes. | |||
| 146 | Does the State expect ongoing access to the Contractor’s test management or defect tracking tools? | A shared defect tracking tool is required during development. It is not clear what is meant by "ongoing." | |||
| 147 | If critical defects are discovered during the warranty period, can Acceptance be revoked or conditionally reassessed? | An answer to this question is not necessary to complete RFP proposal response. | |||
| 148 | Can the State clarify whether rule‑based automation is considered AI for purposes of Section 24, or only machine learning based systems? | Section 24 applies to machine learning or artificial intelligence models. Such models include, but are not limited to, generative AI or agentic AI. | |||
| 149 | Are Model Cards considered formal contract deliverables subject to Acceptance? | Yes, model cards are considered contract deliverables | |||
| 150 | How frequently do State and Federal compliance rules change; will the system be expected to maintain past compliance rules for audit or just for reference? Should changes be applied retrospectively? | Frequency is not known. Typically changes are applied going forward, not retrospectively. | |||
| 151 | How will permissions be defined? Pre-defined based on the current system or collaboratively developed with the state? | The state will work with the vendor to identify permissions levels | |||
| 152 | Will workflows need to accomodate working days and state/local holidays in its calcuations for alerts, escalations and reporting? | Yes, no weekends, state or federal holidays, or local holidays. Admin should be able to add local holidays | |||
| 153 | Will the escalation process need to take into account alternative contacts if the primary escalation contact is out of the office? Will the workflow require the ability to set a proxy approver or escalation contact? | Yes, the ability to name an alternate person for escalation or approval should be a part of the new system | |||
| 154 | Will dashboards be configurable by the user or fixed for a particular role? | Bidders should propose what they see as the most appropriate system solution. | |||
| 155 | Will the dashboards be multi-page/drill-down or does the State expect all information to be contained in a single page? | Bidders should propose what they see as the most appropriate system solution. | |||
| 156 | Regarding the Save function - the requirements say the user must have a save function but also be automatic? Is the State desiring an autosave on change feature? Or all Saves must be applied without fail when the user saves? | SOM may require autosave for some workflows, but not on change for every field, and user save. | |||
| 157 | The system requires FedRamp Moderate? Does SoM anticipate FedRamp High being required before contract end or in the future? | The State is only requiring FedRamp Moderate. Please see Schedule E - Data Security Requirements | |||
| 158 | Does the State have expected load times/SLAs for dashboards or workflows? | Please refer to the RFP for more information. | |||
| 159 | Regarding visual cues for late tasks and alerts - does the State require the contractor implement the cues as written or can equivalent cues be proposed? | Equivalent cues may be proposed | |||
| 160 | Will any other authentication mechanism be allowed besides MiLogin? | SOM will utilize MILOGIN and role based security. | |||
| 161 | Is there an expectation that the system will indicate, based on rules, what expected documents have not been submitted? | Bidders should propose what they see as the most appropriate system solution. | |||
| 162 | Does the State anticipate that the data in forms and templates be imported into the system to update fields, workflows and records? Or will these be support evidence for case and not imported? | Bidders should propose what they see as the most appropriate system solution. | |||
| 163 | For uploaded video, should these play in an provisioned viewer or should the user download and play from their desktop? | Bidders should propose what they see as the most appropriate system solution. | |||
| 164 | What is the average size and how many columns and rows will a typical Child Level Information-related spreadsheet contain? | The documentation size varies. | |||
| 165 | What is meant by "accompanying information" when searching for data in the document repository? Metadata? Child demographics? Case data? | Yes | |||
| 166 | For the audit trail on data, does the State desire to retain prior versions or just the data that changed along with the user who changed it? | SOM will require some changes, but not all changes, as a record of change. | |||
| 167 | When autopopulating forms and templates, will the user be allowed to overwrite those autopopulated fields or should they remain fixed? | Yes, based upon user role, some users can overwrite. | |||
| 168 | When capturing internal communication between MiLEAP staff and ISDs, is this communication internal to the application, connected to emails or will it need to take into account external systems like Slack, Teams or other communication software? | SOM may send communications via the application and via emails. | |||
| 169 | Will reporting fields/formats be fixed or can users create ad-hoc reports? | Bidders should propose what they see as the most appropriate system solution. | |||
| 170 | What are the seven types of Monitoring Reports? | An answer to this question is not necessary to complete RFP proposal response. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .