Q&A for RFI AI - Amendment - FINAL 7-7-2026.pdf

AMENDMENT #1:

Division of Housing Request for Information Regarding a Generative Artificial Intelligence Construction Plan Review System

RFI-NHAA-2026000047

Responses to Questions Received by 5:00pm 7-1-2026 Deadline

Q1. The RFI states that no single vendor may be able to provide all of the requested components. As the Division considers any resulting solicitation, does it anticipate structuring the procurement to allow specialized vendors to deliver discrete components — for example, separating the AI plan-review and compliance engine from Salesforce integration, payment processing, and the Office of Information Technology security-accreditation work — whether through separate lots, a prime-and-subcontractor model, or phased awards? Understanding this would help respondents propose the most effective delivery and teaming structure.

A1. Our preference is a prime-and-subcontractor model, but we would consider other models if enough detail is provided for consideration and evaluation. Information provided for partners or specialized vendors should be consistent with the information provided by the primary provider.

Q2. Given the Division's stated interest in piloting and scaling AI systems, would DOH consider procuring a bounded pilot or proof-of-concept — for instance, a single code path or structure type evaluated against historical, already-reviewed plans to measure accuracy and revision impact — as a separately scoped phase ahead of a full-system build? Relatedly, could the Division make a representative sample of historical reviewed plans available to support pilot calibration and accuracy measurement?

A2. We are asking for a fully implementable, comprehensive system but would consider a structure where we test, evaluate and launch in stages. Yes if we move to an RFP or next phase, historical reviewed plans can be provided for calibration, accuracy and testing. Given that new codes were effective, June 30, 2026, historical plans may be developed to a previously adopted and amended code set.

Q3. The RFI emphasizes recorded decision logic, SB24-205 compliance, and an AI initial review verified by a human. As the Division evaluates potential approaches, how does it weigh a solution's explainability and auditability — decision provenance, confidence signaling, and logging of human reviewer edits — relative to the breadth of automated features? This would help respondents focus their proposed designs where the Division places the most value.

A3. The proposal should explain compliance using experience with other similar contracts. If no experience is available, then that should be stated clearly in the RFI response. Here’s a link to OIT’s AI Guide. The act establishes enforcement procedures and liability allocations regarding automated decision-making technology (ADMT). The Colorado Attorney General is authorized to enforce these provisions through the "Colorado Consumer Protection Act," categorizing violations as deceptive trade practices. For actions initiated before Jan 1, 2030, the Attorney General must provide a 60-day notice and an opportunity to cure the violation if possible. While the act does not create a private right of action, it defines how fault is distributed between developers and deployers in civil cases involving unlawful discrimination.

Additionally, certain entities are exempt from these requirements if they maintain compliance with other legal obligations.

Q4. Submission formats: The submission checklists indicate plans are submitted electronically. In what file formats do they arrive today (PDF, native CAD/BIM such as Revit or DWG, scanned drawings, structured digital forms)? Approximately what share of a typical submission is drawing-based versus structured/tabular data?

A4. Most plans are submitted to the Division of Housing in PDF format. We expect the vendor to understand the ratio of tables to drawings. Content for the plan sets is clearly spelled out in our supplemental documents. For example, plan submittal checklists are available on the Division of Housing Manufacturers website:

https://doh.colorado.gov/manufacturers-modulars

Q5. Volume and current metrics: What is the approximate annual volume of residential versus non-residential plan submissions, and what are the current average review turnaround time and resubmittal rate?

A5. Annually, the Division of Housing receives approximately 1,000 plan sets for review, approximately 60% commercial, and 40% residential. The Division’s average time for review and approval is 5-10 days for residential and 10-20 days for commercial. Plan resubmittal rates are between 16% and 26%.

Q6. Role of the AI: Is the system intended to remain advisory, with a human reviewer making the determination of record, or is there any intent for it to issue determinations directly?

https://oit.colorado.gov/ai https://doh.colorado.gov/manufacturers-modulars

A6. We expect the work will be state compliant for a human to be a part of the approval process. The human could be part of a vendor’s team if the vendor has qualified plan reviewers, or part of the Division of Housing team, if a vendor doesn’t have qualified plan reviewers. Proposals will be accepted with either option.

Q7. Regulatory framework: The RFI references SB24-205. With the Colorado framework having since evolved to SB26-189 (effective January 1, 2027), which now governs automated decision-making for consequential decisions, would the Division like responses to address SB26-189, SB24-205, or both? Our intent is to design the explainability, audit-trail, and human-review features to the more demanding SB24- 205 standard (which comfortably satisfies SB26-189 as well) and to align with the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, but we want to reflect the Division's preference.

A7. Here’s a link to OIT’s AI Guide. The act establishes enforcement procedures and liability allocations regarding automated decision-making technology (ADMT). The Colorado Attorney General is authorized to enforce these provisions through the "Colorado Consumer Protection Act," categorizing violations as deceptive trade practices. For actions initiated before Jan 1, 2030, the Attorney General must provide a 60-day notice and an opportunity to cure the violation if possible. While the act does not create a private right of action, it defines how fault is distributed between developers and deployers in civil cases involving unlawful discrimination. Additionally, certain entities are exempt from these requirements if they maintain compliance with other legal obligations.

Q8. OIT and data constraints: Are there mandated hosting, data-residency, or architecture requirements from the Office of Information Technology, including any restrictions on transmitting submission data to third-party or commercial AI model providers? This materially affects model selection (self-hosted/open models versus commercial APIs).

A8. This link was provided in the RFI and provides information regarding OIT requirements and compliance.

Q9. Code editions: The RFI's code list references the 2024 IECC, while the detailed requirements and the current submission checklists reference the 2021 IECC, and the checklists reference the 2021 IBC and IRC for truss design. Could the Division confirm the editions the system should target (in particular which IECC edition governs) and confirm that the 2024 IBC, IRC, IMC, and IPC, the 2023 NEC, and the 2024 IFGC are the intended set?

https://oit.colorado.gov/standards-policies-guides/technical-standards-policies

A9.The Division was on the 2021 code set until the new 2024 code set went into effect on June 30, 2026. When code sets change, there is a 180 day grace period for plans that are already in development and review to be submitted to the Division of Housing. Starting July 1, 2026, all new plans being developed should be designed to the 2024 code set as amended, approved, and published in the Administrative Rules.

Proposals must be compatible with the 2024 code set as amended, approved, and published.

Q10. Existing systems and Salesforce: The submission checklists indicate plan-review payment is taken through Salesforce. Beyond payment, is Salesforce also the system of record for plan tracking and reviewer workflow, or is there a separate plan-review system today? Is the objective to integrate with existing tooling or to replace it?

A10. Plans are currently tracked in Google Sheets. Proposals may suggest a different plan tracking solution. A proposal that considers using Salesforce or other compliant and compatible tracking system will be considered.

Q11. Reference materials: Footnote A of the Regional Design Criteria table refers to a Division document, the "Regional Table User Guide." Could the Division share that guide?

A11. This document is in clearance and may not be available by the deadline for proposals.

Q12. Training and validation data: Is the Division able to make available a corpus of historical reviewed and approved plans, with reviewer annotations and outcomes, to support model development and validation? Access to such data is the single largest determinant of system accuracy.

A12. Yes, historical reviewed plans can be provided for calibration, accuracy and testing, but these plans may be developed to a previously adopted and amended code set.

Q13. Teaming: Will the Division consider responses from firms proposing to participate as a specialty subcontractor or teaming partner rather than as a sole prime, and is there interest in facilitating teaming among responders for any subsequent procurement?

A13. Our preference is a prime-and-subcontractor model, but we would consider other models if enough detail is provided for consideration and evaluation.

https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.coloradosos.gov%2FCCR%2FUpload%2FAGORequest%2FAdoptedRules02026-00151.docx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK

Q14. While reading the RFI document, I did not see any mention of a current vendor.

Is there an incumbent vendor currently providing these services? Or is this an entirely new requirement?

A14. There is not a current vendor.

Q15. Although this project is currently only in the RFI stage, I was curious whether the State had an estimated value of a potential contract that would be awarded should this project move past the RFI stage?

A15. We do not have an estimated value of a potential contract.

Q16. Does DOLA, with its current platforms, document code compliance reviews for residential and commercial construction plans, which building codes, disciplines (structural, fire, accessibility, energy, etc.), and what file formats are currently cached that would be searchable from an AI solution?

A16. Our current plan review system is completely manual and not in a searchable format.

Q17. Does DOLA currently collect jurisdiction-specific requirements (e.g., snow loads, wind speeds, seismic design categories, wildfire zones, local amendments)? If so, what format are these documents in (e.g. paper, scans, electronic format)?

A17. The Division of Housing is in the process of collecting this data for our regional design table. The final responsibility to ensure compliance lies with the manufacturer and third party agencies.

Q18. Is there documentation describing current DOLA AI policies (e.g. model retraining, code updates, version controls, and human-in-the-loop review policies)?

A18. Here’s a link to OIT’s AI Guide. There is a section at the bottom of the page for contractors.

Q19. In regard to integrations and payments, what platform is DOLA currently using to collect payments as part of the plan review process? What other state enterprise systems are currently being used as part of this process? How are those workflow statuses synchronized across the system now?

A19. The system should be able to process payments for review fees and should be able to accommodate payments made by check or credit card. We envision this as an interface via Salesforce, with the actual authorization of payments to be done by our internal internet payment portal.

Q20. Security baseline & deployment. What security baseline must the system meet (e.g., FedRAMP level and/or NIST 800-53 baseline) under OIT's Technical Standards?

Would a FedRAMP-High environment in AWS GovCloud (US) satisfy the data-protection requirements, or does DOLA's data classification require an on-premise / air-gapped deployment?

A20. This link was provided in the RFI and provides information regarding OIT requirements and compliance. SOC2 Type 2 is a minimum requirement.

Q21. Plan volume & mix. What is the expected annual volume of plan submissions (residential vs. nonresidential), and the typical sheet count and complexity per submission? This is the primary input for per-plan or per-square-foot pricing.

A21. Annually, the Division of Housing receives approximately 1,000 plan sets for review, approximately 60% commercial, and 40% residential. Plan sets and spec sheets page counts are typically as follows: residential, about 80 pages; small commercial, about 80 pages; large commercial, about 100 pages.

Q22. Submission format. Are plan sets submitted predominantly as vector PDFs with a text layer, or as scanned / raster documents? (This materially affects extraction accuracy and cost.) Are there standard submission templates or required formats?

A22. The Division of Housing typically receives plan submissions as PDF documents. As we currently use a human review, we specify requirements as to the type of PDFs submitted.

Q243. Audit of third-party reviews. Could you describe the intended scope of the system's ability to audit plans already reviewed or approved by third-party agencies — what inputs are available, and what the audit output should contain?

A23. The audit should be a full code compliant review and should ensure local design criteria or regional design criteria are met for the site location.

Q24. Regional design criteria. In what format will the July 2026 regional design criteria (the regional design table / regional model plan standards) be provided, and how frequently are they expected to change?

A24. The regional design criteria table is currently provided in Appendix A of the Administrative Rules. Changes should be anticipated annually, if requested by the local jurisdiction and approved by the Division.

Q25. Integrations. Can you describe the existing Salesforce instance and the expected integration points, plus any other systems (payments, identity / SSO, records) the solution must integrate with?

A25. We will consider proposals that explore further integration points with Salesforce. We expect some manual processing of plan review invoicing and payments on our side with the responses to this RFI.

Q26. Colorado AI law posture. The RFI references SB24-205, which was repealed and replaced by SB26189 (effective January 1, 2027). For the system's auditability and transparency deliverables, should we design to SB26-189, to SB24-205, or to the obligations common to both?

A26. Here’s a link to OIT’s AI Guide. The act establishes enforcement procedures and liability allocations regarding automated decision-making technology (ADMT). The Colorado Attorney General is authorized to enforce these provisions through the "Colorado Consumer Protection Act," categorizing violations as deceptive trade practices. For actions initiated before Jan 1, 2030, the Attorney General must provide a 60-day notice and an opportunity to cure the violation if possible. While the act does not create a private right of action, it defines how fault is distributed between developers and deployers in civil cases involving unlawful discrimination. Additionally, certain entities are exempt from these requirements if they maintain compliance with other legal obligations.

Q27. Process & evaluation. Does DOLA anticipate a pilot or proof-of-concept phase, and are there evaluation criteria or weighings you can share that a subsequent RFP would likely use?

A27. We are asking for a fully implementable, comprehensive system but would consider a structure where we test, evaluate and launch in stages. DOLA has not yet determined any further evaluation criteria or weighings at this point.

https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.coloradosos.gov%2FCCR%2FUpload%2FAGORequest%2FAdoptedRules02026-00151.docx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK

Q28. What is the approximate total number of construction plan submissions reviewed annually by the DOH? Please provide a breakdown between residential (IRC) and non-residential/commercial (IBC) submissions if available. This will inform our infrastructure sizing and cost modeling.

A28. Annually, the Division of Housing receives approximately 1,000 plan sets for review, approximately 60% commercial, and 40% residential.

Q29. What is the typical number of pages in a standard residential plan submission?

What is the typical page count for a non-residential or commercial plan submission?

Understanding submission size is critical to accurately estimating per-review AI processing cost and context window requirements.

A29. Plan sets and spec sheets page counts are typically as follows: residential, about 80 pages; small commercial, about 80 pages; large commercial, about 100 pages.

Q30. The proposed system will require a RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) knowledge base indexing all applicable building codes and regulatory documents, including 8 CCR 1302-14, the 2024 IBC (as amended), 2024 IRC (as amended), 2024 IMC, 2024 IPC, 2023 NEC, 2024 IFGC, 2024 IECC, the Colorado Model Electric and Solar Ready Code, the Colorado Wildfire Resiliency Code, and any relevant Regional Design Criteria tables. Does the DOH have an estimate of the total page volume of these documents? Alternatively, can the DOH confirm which of these documents are already available in searchable digital format?

A30. Our amendments to the ICC codes are in the Administrative Rules 8 CCR 1302-14 (linked in the RFI and available as pdf or MS Word), Rule 2. The Colorado Model Electric and Solar Ready Code can be found at this link. The Colorado Wildfire Resiliency Code can be found at this link. We can provide the regional design criteria tables as a Google sheet, or they are available in Appendix A of the Administrative Rules.

Q31. What percentage of the DOH's annual plan submissions involve closed construction panels, 3D-printed homes, or shipping container-based structures? This will help us assess whether specialized review modules or separate pricing tiers are warranted for these structure types.

A31. Currently, we do not envision this proposal to be submitted for closed panel construction or 3D-printed homes. The Division of Housing has only received a handful of submittals for these types of structures. We do not separate shipping container https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.coloradosos.gov%2FCCR%2FUpload%2FAGORequest%2FAdoptedRules02026-00151.docx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1djvz5to3UVDPC_g7Z0nwIgBtQwBinmuz https://dfpc.colorado.gov/colorado-wildfire-resiliency-code modulars from other modular structures. RFI responses will be acceptable if they do not include shipping container plan review capability, but please provide that information in the response.

Q32. Can the DOH share general information about the existing Salesforce instance (e.g., which Salesforce edition/cloud is in use, what data objects or processes related to plan review are currently managed in Salesforce)? This will significantly affect our integration approach and cost estimate.

A32. Our process can be summarized as follows: a manufacturer submits a plan for review by creating an asset in Salesforce. A plan is submitted for that asset that is then reviewed offline and corrections to the plan or plan approval is provided. From our current review process, the plans are downloaded and reviewed in Adobe, then once finalized, are digitally stamped with Adobe and then uploaded to Salesforce for retrieval by the manufacturer.

Q33. Does the DOH currently use an existing payment processor or gateway (e.g., Tyler Technologies, PayIt, Stripe Government, or a state-managed payment platform)?

Integration with an existing payment system will affect implementation scope and cost differently than building a new payment module.

A33. Yes, we use a state managed payment processing gateway.

Q34. Does the Colorado Office of Information Technology (OIT) have a preferred or mandated cloud hosting environment for this type of system (e.g., AWS GovCloud, Microsoft Azure Government, or on-premise OIT data centers)? Understanding OIT's Technical Standards in advance will allow us to align our proposed architecture accordingly and reduce OIT approval timeline risk.

A34. Any proposed solution must meet OIT requirements. This link was provided in the RFI and provides information regarding OIT requirements and compliance.

Q35. The RFI references Regional Design Criteria implementing in July 2026. Is the regional design criteria table referenced in the RFI currently available for prospective vendors to review? Access to this data in advance would allow for more accurate technical scoping.

A35. Yes, the regional design table is available in Appendix A of the Administrative Rules, 8 CCR 1302-14.

https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.coloradosos.gov%2FCCR%2FUpload%2FAGORequest%2FAdoptedRules02026-00151.docx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.coloradosos.gov%2FCCR%2FUpload%2FAGORequest%2FAdoptedRules02026-00151.docx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK

Q36. What is the DOH's anticipated timeline for issuing the formal RFP following evaluation of RFI responses? Understanding the procurement timeline will help us allocate appropriate resources for a comprehensive proposal.

A36. We do not have an anticipated timeline. An RFP may not be issued.

Q37. The RFI states the system should be capable of auditing plans reviewed and approved by third-party agencies. Approximately how many third-party agencies currently operate under DOH oversight, and do they currently submit their reviewed plans in a standardized digital format?

A37. The Division of Housing works with approximately 12 third-party agencies and only requires submission by PDF.

Q38. Has DOLA previously piloted or tested AI-assisted plan review tools, and what lessons learned should inform this RFI?

A38. DOLA did a small-scale feasibility pilot with a limited number of previously approved plans for single family residences in the same local area. We learned that it would be worth exploring a more comprehensive system that would be reliable and cost effective.

Q39. Is the intended system limited to factory-built structures and related state-regulated structure types, or could it expand to broader housing plan review?

A39. There are no plans to utilize this system for broader housing plan review, but the Division does have responsibility for all closed panel units as well as site-built hotels/motels and multifamily units in areas of the state that don’t have a building department. In addition, are watching other state efforts to solve their affordable housing solutions and emergency response to natural disasters.

Q40. How should the system distinguish state-level factory-built review from local zoning, site plan, utility, and permitting review?

A40. The Division is responsible for the construction and installation of the factory-built structure. Once we approve our plans, the manufacturer, seller, or developer works with the local jurisdiction for zoning, site plan, utility and permitting.

Q41. Which regional or local design criteria sources will DOLA provide, and which will the vendor be expected to gather and maintain?

A41. Our goal is to have wind and snow load requirements readily available. In addition, we assume that all jurisdictions will be following the state wildfire resilience code approved maps. Other design criteria may need to be verified independently.

Q42. Should the system associate each plan submission with a parcel, address, jurisdiction, or regional design zone?

A42. Yes. Site specific plans should be tied to an address. Regional Design Plans should list region design criteria designations, for example, Snow Region 1, Wind Region 2, No Fire Suppression, Structure Hardening 1, etc.

Q43. Does DOLA expect full local code ingestion, or only selected local/regional construction safety criteria relevant to factory-built review?

A43. We have designed the regional design criteria to be all encompassing. If the structure falls outside the boundaries of the definitions of compliant, then it would be a site-specific requirement plan review and could be subject to other local jurisdiction requirements.

Q44. What audit trail, source citation, human override, and review logic records are required for SB24-205 compliance?

A44. Here’s a link to OIT’s AI Guide. The act establishes enforcement procedures and liability allocations regarding automated decision-making technology (ADMT). The Colorado Attorney General is authorized to enforce these provisions through the "Colorado Consumer Protection Act," categorizing violations as deceptive trade practices. For actions initiated before Jan 1, 2030 the Attorney General must provide a 60-day notice and an opportunity to cure the violation if possible. While the act does not create a private right of action, it defines how faults are distributed between developers and deployers in civil cases involving unlawful discrimination.

Additionally, certain entities are exempt from these requirements if they maintain compliance with other legal obligations.

Q45. What Salesforce workflows, objects, and data fields need to be integrated?

A45. The system should be able to process payments for review fees and should be able to accommodate payments made by check or credit card. We envision this as an interface via Salesforce, with the actual authorization of payments to be done by our internal internet payment portal.

Q46. What annual plan volume and plan types should vendors assume for pricing?

A46. Annually, the Division of Housing receives approximately 1,000 plan sets for review, approximately 60% commercial, and 40% residential.

Q47. Does DOLA anticipate a future pilot, phased implementation, or full production

RFP?

A47. We have not committed to any future plans.

Q48. Does DOH envision the initial engagement as a phased pilot/proof-of-concept (e.g., a single structure type or code subset) before full production, or a single full-scope build?

A48. While we have not committed to any specific plan, we envision a single full-scope build.

Q49. Is there a target timeline for the anticipated RFP and for system go-live?

A49. We have not committed to any specific timeline.

Q50. What is the current annual volume of plan reviews, split between residential and non-residential submissions, and what growth is anticipated?

A50. Please see response to Q5.

Q51. What is the current average plan-review turnaround time and approximate staff effort (FTEs) devoted to review? This helps quantify the efficiency gains DOH is targeting.

A51. Please see response to Q5.

Q52. In what formats are plans submitted today: PDF, CAD (DWG/DXF/IFC/BIM), scanned images, or a mix — and is any structured metadata captured at intake?

A52. Please see response to Q4.

Q53. Are the Colorado amendments to the 2024 I-Codes, CCR 1302-14, and the regional design criteria table available in machine-readable form, or as PDFs only?

A53. Our amendments to the ICC codes are in the Administrative Rules 8 CCR 1302-14 (linked in the RFI and available as pdf or MS Word), Rule 2. The Colorado Model Electric and Solar Ready Code can be found at this link. The Colorado Wildfire Resiliency Code can be found at this link. We can provide the regional design criteria tables as a Google sheet, or they are available in Appendix A of the Administrative Rules.

Q54. Would DOH be able to provide a corpus of historical reviewed/approved plans (with review outcomes) to support model development, tuning, and accuracy validation?

A54. Yes, if we move to an RFP or next phase, historical reviewed plans can be provided for calibration, accuracy and testing. Given that new codes were effective, June 30, 2026, historical plans may be developed to a previously adopted and amended code set.

Q55. Beyond OIT's published technical standards, does DOH require the solution to reside in a specific environment (e.g., AWS GovCloud) or meet a particular data-classification or residency tier?

A55. DOLA’s preference is to keep Salesforce as the primary system holding data.

Q56. Will a State security assessment / Authority to Operate (ATO) aligned to OIT technical standards be required prior to go-live?

A56. Any proposed solution must meet OIT requirements. This link was provided in the RFI and provides the information regarding OIT requirements and compliance.

Q57. The RFI describes SB24-205 records as capturing prior reviews and the decision logic. Does DOH have a defined record schema and retention period for these decision records, or is the format at the vendor's discretion?

A57. DOH does not currently have a defined schema and retention period for these decision records.

Q58. What is the current Salesforce edition and architecture, and what is the intended scope of integration (data exchange, SSO/authentication, workflow)?

https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.coloradosos.gov%2FCCR%2FUpload%2FAGORequest%2FAdoptedRules02026-00151.docx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1djvz5to3UVDPC_g7Z0nwIgBtQwBinmuz https://dfpc.colorado.gov/colorado-wildfire-resiliency-code

A58. Service Cloud, Summer 26, Performance edition. Direct data exchange

Q59. For review-fee payment processing, is there an existing State payment gateway to integrate with, or should respondents propose one?

A59. The system should be able to process payments for review fees and should be able to accommodate payments made by check or credit card. We envision this as an interface via Salesforce, with the actual authorization of payments to be done by our internal internet payment portal.

Q60. For the anticipated RFP, are prime/subcontractor teaming arrangements acceptable, and will there be any Colorado-based, small-business, or disadvantaged-business (SDB/8(a)) considerations?

A60. Our preference is a prime-and-subcontractor model, but we would consider other models if enough detail is provided for consideration and evaluation.

Information provided for partners or specialized vendors should be consistent with the information provided by the primary provider. We will follow all Colorado requirements with respect to considerations for Colorado-based, small-business, or disadvantaged businesses.