QA Course Sharing RFP Vol 1.doc
DOC document 58 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Course Sharing System RFP
- Solicitation number
- 2024-RFP-002
- Issued by
- Adams County, Asotin County, Benton County, Chelan County, Clallam County, Clark County, Columbia County, Cowlitz County, Douglas County, Ferry County, Franklin County, Garfield County, Grant County, Grays Harbor County, Island County, Jefferson County, King County, Kitsap County, Kittitas County, Klickitat County, Lewis County, Lincoln County, Mason County, Okanogan County, Pacific County, Pend Oreille County, Pierce County, San Juan County, Skagit County, Skamania County, Snohomish County, Spokane County, Stevens County, Thurston County, Wahkiakum County, Walla Walla County, Whatcom County, Whitman County, Yakima County, Asotin City, Clarkston City, Clarkston Heights-Vineland CDP, West Clarkston-Highland CDP, Benton City, Chelan City, Chelan Falls CDP, Clallam Bay CDP, Lewisville CDP, Rock Island City, Pacific Beach CDP, Whidbey Island Station CDP, Mercer Island City, Pacific City, Bainbridge Island City, Kingston CDP, Kitsap Lake CDP, Kittitas City, Klickitat CDP, Okanogan City, Anderson Island CDP, Fort Lewis CDP, Fox Island CDP, Herron Island CDP, Ketron Island CDP, North Fort Lewis CDP, Raft Island CDP, Stevenson City, Hat Island CDP, Lake Stevens City, Snohomish City, Spokane City, Spokane Valley City, Puget Island CDP, Garfield Town, Yakima City, Washington
About this file
This document is a Request for Proposal (RFP) issued by the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges (SBCTC) for a Course Sharing System to enhance educational access and equity across Washington's community and technical college system. The RFP seeks the implementation of a robust course sharing solution to address challenges in course availability, student mobility, and institutional collaboration. The RFP provides responses to several questions from potential vendors regarding requirements, standards, payment, and implementation timelines. The scope of the contract is intended to include all 30 colleges in the Washington Community and Technical College system, with a potential contract term of 3 to 5 years with optional extension years.
The RFP does not specify pricing terms, set-asides, or funding details. It notes that colleges handle payments and fees individually, and a third-party payment processing integration is utilized. The successful vendor will need to obtain a Washington Unified Business Identifier (UBI) number prior to contract award.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Preproposal Teleconference information.docx | DOCX document | |
| Course Sharing SBCTC 2024-RFP-002.doc | DOC document | |
| APPENDIX B Contract.doc | DOC document | |
| Appendix F Requirements Course Sharing.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Appendix F Requirements UPDATE.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| QA Course Sharing RFP Vol 2.doc | DOC 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
SBCTC 2024-RFP-002 Course Sharing Q&A
| # |
| Question |
| Answer |
| 1 |
| Do you prefer Appendix F to remain in spreadsheet format or can it be converted to a chart or narrative in Volume 2? |
| Appendix F lists the requirements and provides an opportunity for you to organize your response. When you address the requirements, it would be best if you provide a narrative response for the items listed in Appendix F that is part of Volume 2. |
| 2 |
| RFP Page 6 Section 3.8.2: Vendor must respond to each question/requirement contained in Sections 3 through 6. |
Question: Section 3 appears to mostly contain instructions for the proposal that must be followed. Please confirm that the only parts of Section 3 vendors must specifically address in the proposal are 3.8.1, 3.17, and 3.18. If this is not the case, please clarify.
Yes, section 3 is mostly a set of instructions which do not require a separate response. Although it is also completely appropriate if you would like to respond that you have read, understand, and agree to comply with the requirements.
| 3 |
| Appendix B: CONFORMANCE WITH STANDARDS: CONTRACTOR shall comply with federal and state (OCIO) information security standards. |
Question: Which specific federal and WA State OCIO standards shall the contractor comply with?
https://ocio.wa.gov/policy/securing-information-technology-assets-standards-parts-rescinded above is the link to Washington State standards. We do not have a specific Federal Standard to point to at this time.
| 4 |
| RFP Page 11, Section 4.1.1: Vendor must provide … Washington UBI number (Unified Business Identifier number) ... |
Question: Does a vendor need to have the UBI Number in place for the proposal or can this be obtained once the vendor is selected and/or a contract is awarded?
A UBI Number is not required in order to bid, but you must have a number to do business with any Washington state entity, so if you are awarded, you will need one prior to signing the contract.
| 5 |
| Should we be submitting our demo account information today? |
We are receptive to whenever you can get that to us.
| 6 |
| Do you prefer Appendix F to remain in spreadsheet format or can it be converted to a chart or narrative in Volume 2? |
| Appendix F lists the requirements and provides an opportunity for you to organize your response. When you address the requirements, it would be best if you provide a narrative response for the items listed in Appendix F that is part of Volume 2. |
| 7 |
| Will we have an opportunity to ask follow-up questions to SBCTC's responses to these questions? |
| Yes, per the schedule in the RFP you have time to ask additional questions. |
| 8 |
| How will we distinguish if the Contract will be for 3 or 5 years? |
| SBCTC will make the determination at the time of contract negotiation as to whether 3 or 5 years is appropriate. In either case we are going to include optional extension years for any resulting contract. Our preference is for a 5 year contract, though the final determination can be made upon negotiations. |
| 9 |
| Are the schools on the same payment system or is that handled differently at different schools? |
| Colleges take payment at their individual institutions for classes and fees. Students can also pay online via our NelNet (3rd Party) payment processing integration. |
| 10 |
| What is the Implementation and payment timeline? |
| Potentially spring 2025 |
| 11 |
| What is the scope of the colleges involved? |
| The system is intended to include all of our CTC System colleges. |
| 12 |
| It looks like you want Demo accounts available on October 14th. Is there some kind of instruction or guidance that the Vendors |
| For this question we will address demo accounts provided for SBCTC to look at the software or solution prior to response submissions. |
| 13 |
| What kinds of things are you looking for in the Demo? |
| For this question we will address what we are looking for in Optional Vendor Presentations. |
| 14 |
| Can we get a confirmation of how PeopleSoft is set up at schools? |
Are there technical requirements we can have?
Are schools already sharing person data amongst each other?
All 30 colleges are on a single instance of PeopleSoft. Student data (person data) is shared across all institutions via a single EMPL ID.
The major technical requirements were already included in the RFP requirements.
| 15 |
| Requirement 5.4.5 looks like a comment and maybe not a requirement. |
Appendix F will be updated to remove this item. The item was originally intended to address the possible need for a Data Sharing Agreement to comply with the Washington State OCIO’s data sharing policy.
If it is determined that Data Sharing and access is a part of the services provided then a Data Sharing Agreement or Data Sharing language to address it will be included in any resulting contract.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .