The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
SBCTC 2024-RFP-001 Student Success Q&A (Vol. 1)
| 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https://ocio.wa.gov/policy/securing-information-technology-assets-standards-parts-rescinded above is the link to Washington State standards.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 would like it by the date listed in the schedule.
| 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 |
| Given the breadth of capabilities expected to support mandatory requirements, is a custom built system desired? |
| We are looking for a solution that already exists, thus the nature of the requirements asking Vendors to describe their proposed solution’s capability. We recognize that there may be specific areas where our requirements may necessitate a proposed solution to be modified in some way, but our desire is a pre-existing solution. |
| 9 |
| What will happen if no off the shelf product can meet all mandatory requirements? |
| The RFP is designed to potentially award a contract to the vendor who scores the highest number of points. We reserve the right to decide whether there is a participating response that can meet enough of our requirements, as reflected in the scoring. We also reserve the right to decide that none of the proposed solutions will be sufficient. |
| 10 |
| Would you consider awarding the contract to a singular vendor that does not meet all areas of Section 5.1? |
| See answer to question #9 |
| 11 |
| Would you consider a vendor that utilizes third-party services to meet all RFP requirements? |
| There is no prohibition against collaborative responses. However, you will need to have a lead who submits a single response. It may be particularly helpful if you are submitting a collaborative response to indicate in certain requirements which requirement is met by each participant, and/or what their role is. |
| 12 |
| Would you consider signing multiple contracts (vendor & third-party vendors) if the outcome ensured full satisfaction of RFP requirements? |
| We will consider it. While we customarily desire to work with a single contract and have the collaborating vendors to sort out the terms of their collaboration amongst each other, it is acceptable to put forth a proposal that might require more than one contracting entity. That transactional determination, if required, will be sorted out when parties get to contract negotiations. |
| 13 |
| What is the targeted 'go live' date for students to use the degree planning tool(s)? |
| The answer to this question is partially contingent upon the capability statements in vendor responses. We would like for tools to be available to students as soon as is reasonably possible, with the understanding that there is an implementation timeline and project plan that must be put in place. |
| 14 |
| What is the ideal implementation process and timeline for this project? |
| We are looking for Vendor input as to their capabilities in implementation. We need you to provide estimates for what the effort will be on the Vendor’s part, as well as the effort/resources required by the participating colleges and SBCTC. We need to understand the resources needed to implement your proposed solution and what implementation timelines are possible. |
| 15 |
| Does SBCTC have a format or form they want vendors to fill out regarding the Financial Quote? |
| We do not have a specific form. We will total the 5 year cost to receive your services (ALL COSTS, including implementation and any licensing, training, maintenance, etc.). Because this contract will also be made available to the other public higher education institutions in the state, we will need a price list that they can reference when purchasing your service. |
| 16 |
| Would you be open to vendors moving the Excel file into Word so that we can expand upon our response and include screenshots/images where necessary while ensuring the vendors maintain integrity of the Excel file? |
| You might want to use both. See answer to question #1 |
| 17 |
| Are you willing to accept an electronic signature in lieu of a wet ink signature on all forms? |
| Yes. A digitally created (whether drawn in a computer program or typed out) or reproduced signature is accept able as well (such as an image of a signature). We operate under the assumption that as long as we get a clear intent to be bound in the signature area, it is acceptable. Especially since we only accept a digital and not a hard copy version of you response. |
| 18 |
| Would you be open to vendors providing accessibility practices documents and HECVATs instead of completing the 1 Ed Trusted App Accessibility Rubric? |
| “Vendors do not need to be a member of the organization to complete the accessibility rubric. They only need to be members if they intend to upload their responses to the organization's portal. If we strike the requirement of completing this rubric, we are going to lose a lot of good accessibility information that a VPAT simply does not include. I included you in an e-mail I sent just moments ago to 1 Ed tech inquiring if we can get a document version of the rubric to make it easier for vendors to complete it. |
I understand that the HECVAT is a tool used to answer questions about security and privacy of a product. Some accessibility-specific questions were recently added to the HECVAT, which is why I asked if that's what they were inquiring about. In my opinion, the 1 Ed Tech accessibility rubric
HYPERLINK "https://www.imsglobal.org/spec/dataprivacy/accessibility/v1p0" \o "https://www.imsglobal.org/spec/dataprivacy/accessibility/v1p0" is a better tool than the HECVAT.”
The specific accessibility items we wanted to have addressed are in Appendix A, so you should still be able to respond to those as well.
| 19 |
| We understand from the RFP instructions that exceptions to the terms in Appendix B are to be submitted along with the Response, not during the Q and A period. Can you please confirm this understanding? |
| Yes, please submit your exceptions with your response. Reminder that we are looking for a contract substantially similar to what we included in the RFP. |
| 20 |
| Beyond Implementation, what is the anticipated rollout of the solution for the schools? |
| We do not have any specific expectation of what the roll out will look like. Colleges are not required to participate so it can be difficult to predict which schools will be implemented at which time. |
| 21 |
| Are all schools required to use the selected vendor’s proposed solution? |
| No. |
| 22 |
| Is there a desire for a system wide level of reporting and access? |
| Answer will be posted in Volume 2 |
| 23 |
| How will pricing be handled for separate schools? |
| There is no current centralized budget and payment for this project. Pricing needs to be represented as a price list that schools can leverage. |
| 24 |
| In the RFI there were a few questions about feasibility of providing individual solution instances for each institution versus shared or federated instances. I haven’t found any corollary questions in the RFP, so I was wondering whether an assumption had been made regarding which of the above ‘modes’ was preferred (or mandated). |
Answer will be posted in Volume 2
| 25 |
| What is the plan for implementing the solution on a centralized and individual level? |
| Answer will be posted in Volume 2 |