Q and A Response 091126.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 35 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- BD-27-1036-EDU02-EDU02-133022
- Issued by
- Massachusetts
About this file
This is a Question and Answer Response document for RFQ 27ITS81MP01, a website modernization procurement issued by the Executive Office of Education (EOE) on behalf of the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE). The solicitation seeks vendors to modernize the DESE website, currently comprising approximately 2,814 webpages and 12,781 downloadable files, into a Drupal 11 solution hosted on AWS. The project is structured in four phases: Business Requirements Refinement (4-6 weeks), Solution Architecture Design (6-8 weeks), Implementation with Prototype (10-14 weeks), and Data and Content Migration (4-6 weeks), with vendors able to propose for individual phases or all phases. Proposals were due September 28, 2026, with questions due by September 8, 2026. Project start is November 5, 2026, with production go-live fixed at June 30, 2027. The resulting contract may extend to June 30, 2037 for related services. Estimated award notification is the week of October 20, 2026. Bidders eligible to respond must be current vendors on the statewide ITS81 contract, a mandatory cooperative-purchasing vehicle requirement.
Bidders must meet mandatory minimum qualifications including a minimum of three years of experience delivering enterprise-wide website modernization projects within the past five years, at least one government agency project, and demonstrated experience implementing at least one Drupal solution hosted on AWS, with all proposed project staff required to meet the three-year threshold. Firm-fixed-price proposals are required for each proposed phase, with separate hourly rates for key resources that must remain constant for the first three years and increase by no more than 3% annually thereafter. Vendors must assume responsibility for data and content migration from semi-structured HTML format using scraping and transformation where necessary, configuration of existing Google Analytics 4 tooling, integration with Azure Active Directory for authentication, evaluation and recommendations regarding Coveo search platform replacement, multilingual support through Google Translate integration across six core languages with machine translation for most content, and implementation of a content governance workflow ensuring accessibility compliance before publication. DESE will provide final content-disposition decisions and content owners prior to the Data and Content Migration phase, provision AWS infrastructure including dev, production, and training environments, configure CloudFront CDN, and manage legacy site maintenance during transition. All deliverables must achieve WCAG 2.1 or 2.2 Level A and AA compliance, with vendors required to remediate accessibility violations in their own implementation at no additional cost. CORI background checks are mandatory for all vendor and subcontractor personnel accessing EOE data systems, with specific criminal convictions including data security violations, computer crimes, and violent felonies considered disqualifying. No budget ceiling or funding cap has been disclosed for the procurement.
View the file
Other files
Show all 19
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
| No. | Date | Subject | Question | Document Reference | Response | |
| 1 | 9/7/26 | Mandatory Staff Experience Scope | Section 4 states "All proposed project staff must have a minimum of three (3) years of experience delivering enterprise-wide website modernization or digital transformation projects of comparable size, scope, and complexity within the past five (5) years." Does this mandatory requirement apply to all proposed personnel regardless of role (including project managers, business analysts, content strategists, user researchers, and accessibility specialists), or only to personnel performing technical implementation and architecture roles? | RFQ >> Section 4: Mandatory Minimum Bidder Requirements (Required Qualifications) | The requirement applies to all project staff. | |
| 2 | 9/7/26 | Managed Platform AWS Qualification | Section 4 requires "experience implementing at least one Drupal solution hosted by Amazon Web Services ("AWS")." Would a Drupal solution hosted on a managed Drupal platform whose underlying infrastructure is documented as built on AWS (for example, a platform that runs on AWS EC2, S3, and related services) satisfy this requirement, or must the Bidder demonstrate direct, unmanaged AWS hosting? | RFQ >> Section 4: Mandatory Minimum Bidder Requirements (Required Qualifications) | A Drupal solution hosted on a managed Drupal platform whose underlying infrastructure is documented as built on AWS (for example, a platform that runs on AWS EC2, S3, and related services) satisfies this requirement, | |
| 3 | 9/7/26 | Finalist Demo Drupal Version | Section 4 states that, if invited, the Bidder "must be able to demonstrate a Drupal solution of comparable size and scope during the finalist oral presentation to validate the Bidder's experience and technical capabilities." Must the demonstrated solution run on Drupal 11 specifically, or may a Bidder demonstrate a comparable Drupal 10 implementation alongside a Drupal 11 prototype built for this opportunity? | RFQ >> Section 4: Mandatory Minimum Bidder Requirements (Required Qualifications) | Drupal 10 for demonstration is fine. | |
| 4 | 9/7/26 | Content Disposition Decision Authority | Will DESE provide final content-disposition decisions (migrate as-is, migrate with transformation, rewrite, consolidate, archive, or delete) and identified content owners for the items in Attachment F before the start of the Data and Content Migration phase, or is the Vendor expected to lead that disposition process as part of the engagement? | RFQ >> Section 9: Bidder Response Requirements >> C. Cost Proposal, including; And | ||
| Attachment F - Site Inventory and App Inventory | Yes. DESE will provide final content-disposition decisions and identify the applicable content owners for the items in Attachment F prior to the start of the Data and Content Migration phase. | |||||
| 5 | 9/7/26 | Content Disposition Volume Breakdown | For firm-fixed-price purposes, can EOE provide an estimated breakdown of how many of the approximately 2,814 webpages and 12,781 downloadable files identified in Attachment F are expected to fall into each content-disposition category (migrate as-is, migrate with transformation, archive, or delete), or should Bidders assume a specific percentage breakdown for pricing? | Attachment F - Site Inventory and App Inventory | Bidder should make their own assumption for pricing proposal, subject to requirement refinement. All assumptions must be expressly identified as required in the RFQ. | |
| 6 | 9/7/26 | Accessibility Remediation Scope | Does the scope of the Data and Content Migration phase include accessibility remediation of the downloadable files identified in Attachment F, or is the Vendor expected to inventory, assess, and classify those files for migration disposition, with remediation of any files carried forward scoped and priced separately? | Attachment F - Site Inventory and App Inventory | The scope does not include accessibility remediation of the downlaodable files. | |
| 7 | 9/7/26 | Accessibility Remediation Volume | If accessibility remediation of downloadable files is included in the fixed-price scope, approximately how many downloadable files should Bidders assume require remediation? | Attachment F - Site Inventory and App Inventory | Accessibility remediation of legacy PDF and Office documents is not included in the Bidder’s scope; Content Providers are responsible for ensuring that content and documents provided for migration meet applicable accessibility requirements. | |
| 8 | 9/7/26 | Drupal Rewrite Scope Assumption | Attachment F identifies multiple applications, custom tools, and reusable learning objects with potential future-state treatments, including rewrite in Drupal. Should Bidders assume that every item identified for Drupal rewrite must be implemented within the firm-fixed-price scope and completed by June 30, 2027? | Attachment F - Site Inventory and App Inventory | Yes, every item should be implemented within the firm-fixed price scope and completed by June 30, 2027. | |
| 9 | 9/7/26 | Drupal Rewrite Volume Assumption | Attachment D1 - User Interface Consideration is listed in Section 1 of the RFQ and is referenced in Attachment D (TR-15 and TR-19) as the source of the School and District Profiles design screenshots to be used as design reference, but it was not included in the posted attachment package. Will Attachment D1 be posted prior to the proposal due date, and if so, on what date? | Attachment D & D1 | Attachment D1 is indeed posted in Commbuys | |
| 10 | 9/7/26 | Multi-Vendor Phase Coordination | If different procurement service phases identified in Section 3 are awarded to different Bidders, how will EOE manage cross-vendor dependencies, deliverable acceptance responsibility, and handoff between phases? | RFQ >> 9. BIDDER RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS >> B. Narrative Business Response, including: | Such coordination will be handled strategically. | |
| 11 | 9/7/26 | Warranty Period Requirement | What warranty period is required following production deployment of each phase's deliverables? | Attachment H - Template Statement of Work | All bidders have agreed to the RFR ITS81 Section 5.2 Warranties. Additional warranties should be offered by bidders per the text of Section 6 (C) and shall be agreed upon during contract negotiation. | |
| 12 | 9/7/26 | Budget Ceiling Disclosure | Is there a budget ceiling or funding cap associated with this procurement that Bidders should be aware of when preparing a firm-fixed-price proposal? | No. | ||
| 13 | 9/7/26 | Plain Language Content Scope | Attachment B (BR-11, Plain Language and Content Readability) identifies existing content that "can be dense, technical, jargon-heavy, and difficult for end-users to understand" and asks the Bidder to advise on plain language and readability, including developing guidance or templates. Does the scope of this engagement include an audit or remediation of existing dense or jargon-heavy content itself, or is the Bidder's role limited to providing plain-language guidance, templates, and recommendations applied to future content? | Attachment B - Business Requirements | No. | |
| 14 | 9/7/26 | Page Types Requiring Full Design | Attachment D (TR-14, Figma Design Deliverables) and Attachment B (BR-04, Home/Landing Pages and Layout Design) require the Bidder to provide page templates and layout patterns for DESE review. How many distinct page types (for example: homepage, landing page, resource hub, data/reporting page, form page, content/article page) does EOE expect to receive full, high-fidelity designs for, as opposed to a smaller set of reusable, component-based templates? | Attachment D - Technical Requirements | We will have at least 7 distinct page types (including homepage, main navigation, resource hub/portal, news article, content, campaign, media card library and about 12 components. We expect to receive full high-fidelity designs for the page types. | |
| 15 | 9/7/26 | Attachment M Recommendations Scope | Attachment M contains numerous strategic, technical, content, UX, and operational recommendations. For purposes of the firm-fixed-price proposal, should Bidders assume that all recommendations in Attachment M are required to be implemented within this engagement, or are the recommendations intended as inputs to the Business Requirements Refinement phase, during which DESE and the selected Vendor will prioritize and determine which recommendations will be implemented by June 30, 2027? | Attachment M - HRiA CPLAN-DESE Website Assessment Report | The recommendations are meant to provide guidelines for this modernization initiative. | |
| 16 | 9/7/26 | Multilingual Languages and Volume | What are the priority languages Bidders should assume for multilingual support, and what is the approximate volume of webpages and documents requiring translated versions? | Attachment B - Business Requirements | English, Spanish, Chinese, Portuguese, Vietnamese, Haitian Creole are the core languages. |
All webpages should translate into the 6 core languages using Google Translate (or another recommended tool) integration. Downloadables intended for family audiences will also need translation. Some documents will need up to 19 language translations. These include Albanian, Arabic, Cape Verdean, Chinese, French, Gujarati, Haitian Creole, Hmong, Japanese, Khmer, Korean, Laotian, Polish, Portuguese, Russian, Somali, Spanish, Ukrainian, Vietnamese and will be determined by the content owner.
| 17 | 9/7/26 | Multilingual Translation Responsibility | Is the Vendor responsible for producing translations, or primarily for implementing the multilingual platform, workflow, and governance? | Attachment B - Business Requirements | The vendor will be responsible for implementing the multilingual platform (Google Translate), workflow, and governance. |
| 18 | 9/7/26 | Machine Translation Acceptability | If the Vendor is expected to produce translations, is machine translation with human review acceptable, and who is responsible for human and cultural translation validation? | Attachment B - Business Requirements | The Vendor is not expected to produce translations. Machine translation for most webpages is expected. There are a handful of webpages that currently have human translation. These pages are monitored by their content owners and updated with their translation vendor. |
| 19 | 9/7/26 | Translation Scope: Full vs. Subset | Attachment M references translating "all content"; should Bidders price full-inventory translation, or a defined priority subset? | Attachment M - HRiA CPLAN-DESE Website Assessment Report | We will continue implementing using machine translation. The vendor will be expected to implement the multilingual platform. |
| 20 | 9/7/26 | Search Platform (Coveo) Scope | Attachment F identifies the existing DESE search solution as a Coveo API integration, while Attachment M recommends significant improvements to search and content discovery. For purposes of fixed-price estimating, should Bidders assume Coveo will remain the search platform and that scope is limited to integration/configuration and improvements to taxonomy, metadata, and search experience, or should Bidders include evaluation, replacement, or material redevelopment of the search solution? | Attachment F - Site Inventory and App Inventory and Attachment M - HRiA CPLAN-DESE Website Assessment Report | We would like Bidders to include an evaluation and recommendations on redevelopment or replacement. |
| 21 | 9/7/26 | Coveo Access and Re-Indexing | If Coveo is expected to remain the search platform, will EOE provide the existing Coveo tenant, licensing, and administrative access, and should Bidders assume responsibility for re-indexing Drupal content, documents, metadata, synonyms, facets, relevance tuning, analytics, and search-result templates? | Attachment F - Site Inventory and App Inventory | Yes, we will provide access to Coveo. Yes, Bidders should assume responsibility for re-indexing Drupal content, documents, metadata, synonyms, facets, relevance tuning, analytics, and search-result templates. |
| 22 | 9/7/26 | Stakeholder Workshop Volume Assumption | The requirements call for stakeholder workshops, interviews, user research, collaborative design, and validation with representative users. For purposes of consistent firm-fixed-price estimating, can EOE provide the anticipated number of stakeholder groups, workshops/interviews, usability-testing rounds, and representative-user sessions Bidders should assume? | RFQ ITS81 >> 9. BIDDER RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS >> Cost Proposal, including: | Bidder should provide their anticipated number during the Business Requirement Refinement phase. |
| 23 | 9/7/26 | Migration Completion Date Scope | The RFQ identifies June 30, 2027 as the Production Live/Project Completion date, while the migration requirements contemplate phased migration and identifying activities that may continue later. Please clarify what minimum content and application migration scope must be completed by June 30, 2027, versus what migration activities may continue after production launch. | RFQ >> 8. RFQ AND PROJECT TIMELINE AND CALENDAR | The Bidder should propose their data and content migration approach and timeline. |
| 24 | 9/7/26 | Phase Pricing Amendment Provision | The disposition of content (migrate as-is, migrate with transformation, rewrite, consolidate, archive, or delete) is an output of the Business Requirements Refinement phase, while firm-fixed pricing is required for all proposed phases at submission. May the fixed prices for subsequent phases be established or adjusted following EOE approval of the Business Requirements Refinement deliverable, consistent with the RFQ's contract-amendment provisions, or must all phase prices remain firm based on Bidder assumptions made at proposal submission? | RFQ >> 3. Background and purpose of the scolicitation AND 6. Scope of work >> 6.2 Minimum Deliverables | The Bidder should propose the firm fixed pricing for each phase defined in the scope of work. |
| 25 | 9/7/26 | Content Export Format | Please describe the current source system(s) of record for the webpages and downloadable files identified in Attachment F, and confirm whether the website content is available in a structured, machine-exportable format suitable for automated migration, and if so, in what format(s)? | Attachment F - Site Inventory and App Inventory | Semi-structured HTML |
| 26 | 9/7/26 | Non-Exportable Content Assumption | If the website content is not available in a structured, machine-exportable format, should Bidders assume that some portion of the content will require scraping, transformation, or manual re-creation? | Attachment F - Site Inventory and App Inventory | Yes |
| 27 | 9/7/26 | AWS/DevOps Provisioning Responsibility | The RFQ states that the solution will operate within an AWS environment provided by EOE and that hosting services are not required from the Bidder. Please clarify which infrastructure and DevOps components will already be provisioned by EOE at project start - including AWS accounts/environments, ECS Fargate, PostgreSQL, Terraform/IaC baseline, GitHub repositories, and CI/CD tooling - and which components the Vendor is expected to configure or stand up. | Attachment D - Technical Requirements | EOE will provision the infrastructure as needed. Bidders should provide the timeline and dependencies upon infrastructure in their responses. |
| 28 | 9/7/26 | AWS/GitHub Access Lead Time | What lead time should Bidders assume for Vendor personnel to receive required AWS and GitHub access? | Attachment D - Technical Requirements | Once staff has passed CORI checks, GitHub access can be provided with a day. AWS access must be coordinated with EOTSS and may take up to two weeks. |
| 29 | 9/7/26 | Third-Party Integrations Inventory | Attachment D requires the Vendor to inventory third-party systems, APIs, feeds, scheduled jobs, batch processes, shared data sources, and integrations that must remain operational during migration and cutover. Can EOE provide an existing inventory of these integrations and dependencies, including the systems of record, interface types, authentication methods, data flows, and frequency of exchange that Bidders should assume are in scope? | Attachment D - Technical Requirements | This information is part of the discovery to create the inventory deliverable. |
| 30 | 9/7/26 | Legacy Database Dependencies | Attachment D notes that current applications connect to SQL Server and Oracle databases. For applications expected to be retained, integrated, or rewritten, can EOE identify which applications depend on these databases and whether the future Drupal solution is expected to access those data sources directly, consume APIs provided by EOE, or replace that functionality within Drupal? | Attachment D - Technical Requirements | This information is part of the discovery to create the inventory deliverable. |
| 31 | 9/7/26 | Number of Drupal/AWS Environments | How many Drupal/AWS environments should Bidders assume must be configured and supported as part of the engagement (for example, development, test/QA, UAT, staging, production, training, or disaster recovery)? | Attachment D - Technical Requirements | We should minimally have development, production and training environments. |
| 32 | 9/7/26 | Environment Provisioning Responsibility | Will EOE provision the base infrastructure for each Drupal/AWS environment, or is the Vendor expected to provision it? | Attachment D - Technical Requirements | EOE will provision the infrastructure. |
| 33 | 9/7/26 | Security Review Scope | What security review and approval activities should Bidders include in scope prior to production launch - for example, architecture review, threat modeling, vulnerability scanning, penetration testing, code scanning, dependency scanning, or formal EOTSS/EOE security sign-off | Attachment D - Technical Requirements | Bidders should plan for architecture review, vulnerability scanning, penetration testing, code scanning, accessibility testing, dependency scanning, and formal EOTSS/EOE security sign-off. |
| 34 | 9/7/26 | Security Testing Responsibility Split | Of the security review and testing activities required, which will be performed by EOE versus the Vendor? | Attachment D - Technical Requirements | The Bidder should perform and provide the results of Accessibility testing. The bidder will work with EOE to schedule penetration testing by EOTSS. The bidder will schedule and provide documentation for architecture reviews, and provide written responses and ongoing status on scanning results. |
| 35 | 9/7/26 | Forms Rebuild vs. Integration | For forms and interactive functionality identified in Attachment F, can EOE clarify which forms are expected to be rebuilt natively in Drupal versus linked to or integrated with existing systems? | Attachment F - Site Inventory and App Inventory AND Attachment D - Technical Requirements | Forms will be linked with MassForms or Alchemer. They will not be rebuilt natively in Drupal. |
| 36 | 9/7/26 | Rebuilt Forms Backend Requirements | For forms rebuilt natively in Drupal, should Bidders assume requirements such as file uploads, email notifications, persistence of submitted data, workflow/routing, and integration with downstream systems? | Attachment F - Site Inventory and App Inventory AND Attachment D - Technical Requirements | No, forms will not be rebuilt natively. |
| 37 | 9/7/26 | Current Analytics Platforms | What analytics platforms and accounts are currently in use and expected to remain in the future solution? | Attachment F - Site Inventory and App Inventory | Google Anlaytics 4 |
| 38 | 9/7/26 | Analytics Scope Assumption | Should Bidders assume configuration of existing analytics and tag-management tooling only, or include selection, implementation, dashboard development, and migration of existing tracking definitions? | Attachment F - Site Inventory and App Inventory AND Attachment D - Technical Requirements | Configuration of existing analytics and tag management tooling only. |
| 39 | 9/7/26 | Legacy Site Parallel Operation Duration | During migration and cutover, how long should Bidders assume the legacy DESE site must remain operational in parallel with the new Drupal site? | Attachment F - Site Inventory and App Inventory AND Attachment D - Technical Requirements | 1-2 weeks for cutover. 90-180 days of access for the Web Services Team after cutover. |
| 40 | 9/7/26 | Legacy Site Maintenance Responsibility | Who will be responsible for maintaining the legacy platform, implementing content freezes, producing delta extracts, and applying urgent content updates during the transition? | Attachment F - Site Inventory and App Inventory AND Attachment D - Technical Requirements | EOE's Web Services team |
| 41 | 9/7/26 | Redirects and URL Inventory | Does EOE have an existing inventory of redirects, vanity URLs, rewrite rules, and high-traffic or business-critical URLs? | Attachment F - Site Inventory and App Inventory AND Attachment D - Technical Requirements | Yes, we can produce this information. |
| 42 | 9/7/26 | URL Preservation Assumption | Should Bidders assume that all existing public URLs must either be preserved or individually mapped to redirects as part of migration? | Attachment F - Site Inventory and App Inventory AND Attachment D - Technical Requirements | URLs should be individually mapped to redirects as part of the migration. |
| 43 | 9/7/26 | Prototype Phase Scope and Acceptance | Please clarify the intended scope and acceptance criteria for the "Implementation with Prototype" phase. Is the prototype expected to be a production-quality implementation of a representative subset of content types, workflows, integrations, and page templates that will become the production platform, or a separate proof of concept that precedes full implementation? | RFQ ITS81 3. Background and purpose of the scolicitation AND 6. Scope of work >> 6.2 Minimum Deliverables | Prototype/Proof of Concept should eventually become part of the final solution. |
| 44 | 9/8/26 | Experience implementing a Drupal solution on AWS for vendors responding to a subset of phases | For a vendor proposing a subset of phases, do the Mandatory Minimum Qualifications in Section 4(b) (experience implementing a Drupal solution on AWS), apply to all proposed staff, or only to staff assigned to phases that include implementation? | RFQ ITS81 Section 4: Mandatory Minimum Bidder Requirements (Required Qualifications) | Please see response to question 1. |
| 45 | 9/8/26 | Forms.mass.gov as Forms Platform | For forms and interactive functionality identified in Attachment F, could DESE use forms.mass.gov (which currently provides the ability to create, maintain, and embed forms into Mass.gov pages) for some of these forms, or do they require functionality that must be built natively in Drupal? | Attachment F - Site Inventory and App Inventory | DESE will use Alchemer and forms.mass.gov (MassForms) for their forms. |
| 46 | 9/8/26 | Authenticated Access Requirement | Will the DESE website require authenticated access for content editors or other users? | Attachment F - Site Inventory and App Inventory AND Attachment D - Technical Requirements | Yes, authenticated access will be required. |
| 47 | 9/8/26 | Identity Provider Integration | If the DESE website requires authenticated access, should the Drupal solution integrate with an existing Commonwealth identity provider (such as Azure Active Directory), consistent with the approach currently used for Mass.gov? | Attachment F - Site Inventory and App Inventory AND Attachment D - Technical Requirements | Yes |
| 48 | 9/8/26 | Analytics Deliverable Scope | Attachment A lists "Content Governance, End User Activity Analytics, and Trend Reporting" as a Solution Architecture and Design phase deliverable. Does this deliverable primarily involve configuring existing analytics tooling , for example, ensuring attributes such as page type, site section, and audience are properly tagged and reportable in Google Analytics, or does it require a separate governance/reporting plan document, new analytics dashboards, or new analytics infrastructure? | Attachment F - Site Inventory and App Inventory AND Attachment D - Technical Requirements | Yes, this deliverable will involve configuring existing Google Analytics tooling. |
| 49 | 9/8/26 | Legacy Document Remediation Scope | Attachment A states that project goals include "required remediation of all applicable webpages and downloadable files identified within project scope." Attachment C identifies approximately 12,000 downloadable documents on the current site. Can EOE confirm whether manual accessibility remediation of legacy PDF and Office documents is included in the scope of this engagement, and if so, in which phase and at what estimated volume? | Attachment A - Backgroud, Goals, and Scope and Attachment F - Site Inventory and App Inventory | Please see response to question 7. |
| 50 | 9/8/26 | Prototype Terminology Clarification | Attachment A lists "Wireframes and Interactive Prototypes" as a Solution Architecture and Design phase deliverable, while "Implementation with Prototype" is a separate, later phase. Is the Solution Architecture and Design phase's prototype a clickable design-tool (for example, Figma) mockup, while the Implementation phase's prototype is a coded, functional Drupal build? | Attachment A - Backgroud, Goals, and Scope | Please see response to question 43. |
| 51 | 9/8/26 | ACR Applicability to Custom Build | Attachment E's Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR/VPAT) requirement appears to be structured for evaluating a vendor's existing commercial product. Since this engagement involves the design and development of a custom government website rather than licensed software, can EOE clarify what the ACR should evaluate in this context, if it is required at all? | Attachment E - Accessibility Requirements | Correct, we do not require an ACR at the bidder proposal stage. EOE requires certification confirming that the designed and developed solution conforms to the Commonwealth’s Accessibility Standards identified in the RFQ. Please refer to the accessibility requirements at the link provided in the RFQ. |
| 52 | 9/8/26 | Post-Launch Content Provider Liability | Attachment E states the vendor is responsible for remediating, at no additional cost, accessibility violations in "any implementation, configuration, or documentation delivered or performed by the vendor" for the term of the agreement. Following production launch, when Content Providers publish new content independently through the self-service model this engagement establishes, can EOE confirm whether the vendor's remediation responsibility extends to accessibility issues introduced by Content Providers after launch, or is limited to defects within the vendor's own implementation and configuration? | Attachment E - Accessibility Requirements | Vendor's remediation responsibility does not extend to accessibility issues introduced by Content Providers after launch. However, the solution must provide a content governance workflow in which the content provider certifies that content meets established accessibility requirements before publication can proceed. The workflow should also support additional validations and approvals as needed to ensure content meets defined quality, compliance, and publishing standards. |
| 53 | 9/8/26 | Existing Accessibility Baseline | Is an existing accessibility audit, VPAT, or Accessibility Conformance Report available for the current DESE website that could serve as a baseline for this engagement? | Attachment E - Accessibility Requirements | Yes, and accessibility audit is in progress now and can be provided to the awarded bidder. |
| 54 | 9/8/26 | Prototype-First Sequencing | Does the "Implementation with Prototype" phase involve building one or two representative prototypes first for EOE review and approval, followed by full build-out of the remaining scope, or is "prototype" describing the fidelity of the entire phase's output rather than a sequencing approach? | RFQ ITS81 3. Background and purpose of the scolicitation AND 6. Scope of work >> 6.2 Minimum Deliverables | Please see response to question 43. |
| 55 | 9/8/26 | Migration Volume by Content Type | What types of content (for example, pages by content type, taxonomy terms, images) are planned for migration, and approximately how many of each type? | Attachment F - Site Inventory and App Inventory | Please see response to question 14. |
| 56 | 9/8/26 | Content Export Format - Follow-Up (Direct Access Alternative) | As a follow-up to a previously submitted question regarding the source system of record and export format for DESE website content and data: in addition to a structured, machine-exportable export, would EOE also consider providing Bidders with direct access to the source database and file system (for images, PDFs, and other assets) as an alternative migration approach? | Attachment F - Site Inventory and App Inventory | We will not consider providing Bidders with access. |
| 57 | 9/8/26 | AWS Environments | Are EOE's dev/test/stage/production AWS environments already provisioned, or will the Bidder start from an empty AWS account? | Attachment D - Technical Requirements | EOE will provision the infrastructure as needed. Bidders should provide the timeline and dependencies upon infrastructure in their responses. |
| 58 | 9/8/26 | Intake Process | Is the ServiceNow intake process expected to remain the system for content management initiation, and/or be integrated with Drupal? | Attachment C - Current Process Documentation | Yes. |
| 59 | 9/8/26 | Authentication | Is there existing Authentication or Single Sign On tools we are expected to use? | Attachment D - Technical Requirements | The Commonwealth uses Azure AD. |
| 60 | 9/8/26 | Coveo Integration | Is the Coveo integration to be retained, replaced, or independently evaluated? | Attachment F - Site Inventory and App Inventory AND Attachment D - Technical Requirements | This is up for evaluation. Would like to explore other cost effective alternatives. |
| 61 | 9/8/26 | Translator Services | Does DESE/EOE provide human translator services for final content review? | Attachment B - Business Requirements AND Attachment F - Site Inventory and App Inventory | No, for most content there is no human content review. There is a few content pages that were human translated, these are managed by the content owner and the translation vendor. |
| 62 | 9/8/26 | Remediation of PDF Documents | Can MA confirm that remediation of PDF documents for accessibility will not be required of the Bidder? | Attachment E - Accessibility Requirements | Please see response to question 7. |
| 63 | 9/8/26 | Go-Live Date | Is the go-live date fixed? | RFQ >> 8. RFQ AND PROJECT TIMELINE AND CALENDAR | Yes |
| 64 | 9/8/26 | Deliverable Review Timeline | Is EOE/DESE's deliverable review turnaround built into the Attachment A timeboxes or additive? | Attachment A - Backgroud, Goals, and Scope >> C. Scope of work >> Project Timebox | Yes. |
| 65 | 9/8/26 | CORI Certification/Policy | May Vendor staff begin work and receive limited system/data access before CORI certification is complete, or must certification precede any access? | RFQ AND Attachment K - CORI Check Requirements | No access can be given until CORI certification is complete. |
| 66 | 9/8/26 | Single/Multisite Architecture | Is doe.mass.edu a single Drupal 11 site, or should Bidders plan for a multisite architecture? | Attachment D - Technical Requirements | This should be a single site, unless the requirements in discovery point to more than one site. |
| 67 | 9/8/26 | CDN Usage | Will the modernized site use a CDN (e.g., CloudFront), and if so, is that within the Bidder's scope to configure or is it provided/managed by EOE? | Attachment D - Technical Requirements | Yes, EOE will configure the CloudFront. |
| 68 | 9/8/26 | Narrative and Page Limit Requirements | Attachment I's Bidder Response Checklist references page limits and items not clearly referenced in RFQ Section 9, and RFQ Section 9 lists narrative response items using an inconsistent numbering scheme (numbered items 1-2, then lettered items a-e, then a second unlettered a-b sequence for the Attachment B and D narrative responses). Can EOE confirm the complete, correctly ordered list of required narrative components and their individual page limits for the Bidder Response? | RFQ >> BIDDER RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS | Please see the amended sections of the RFQ Rev1 with correct numbering for Section 6 and Section 9. |
| 69 | 9/8/26 | Attachment I Item Numbering Discrepancy | Attachment I (Bidder Submission Checklist) refers to "Items 1-4" for the RFQ Section 9(A) Cover Letter and "items 1-7" for the RFQ Section 9(B) Narrative Business Response. However, Section 9(A) contains only three numbered items (1, 2, and 3), and Section 9(B) contains two numbered items (1, 2) followed by five lettered sub-items (a through e), not a sequential 1-7 numbering. Can EOE clarify which specific items and sub-items in Sections 9(A) and 9(B) correspond to Attachment I's item references? | RFQ >> BIDDER RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS | Please see the amended sections of the RFQ Rev1 with correct numbering for Section 6 and Section 9. |
| 70 | 9/8/26 | 10-Page Description vs. 5-Page Attachment Narratives | RFQ Section 9(B)(1) limits the description of proposed services to 10 pages, while Section 9(B)(e) separately requires a 5-page narrative response to Attachment B (Business Requirements) and a 5-page narrative response to Attachment D (Technical Requirements), consistent with Attachment I's checklist. Please clarify whether the 5-page Attachment B and Attachment D narrative responses are included within the 10-page description of proposed services or are submitted in addition to it as separate documents. | RFQ >> BIDDER RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS | The page limits are separate. The 10-page limit applies to the description of proposed services. The Attachment B and D narraitve responses are 5-page limit each. |
| 71 | 9/8/26 | CORI-Equivalent Background Check Process | Attachment K permits Vendor staff and subcontractors to complete a background check other than the Massachusetts CORI process, "provided that the information is at least as detailed and complete as that provided by publicly available CORI checks." Can EOE clarify what background-check providers or verification standards would be considered acceptable equivalents to a Massachusetts CORI check? | Attachment K | This information is not available at this time but it will be provided to the awarded bidder upon request |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .