(Question and Answer) RFI 2027000013 - COData Analytical Services.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 30 KB Posted
- Attached to
- EGB FY27 RFI 2027000013 SLDS (REQ 13874079)
- Solicitation number
- RFI EGBA 2027000013 4
- Issued by
- Denver County, Denver City, Colorado
About this file
This file is a Question and Answer (Q&A) document from the State of Colorado's Request for Information (RFI 2027000013) regarding COData Analytical Services, managed by the Colorado Office of Information Technology (OIT). The RFI seeks market research input from vendors regarding analytical services to support the Colorado Longitudinal Data System (SLDS), which integrates K-12 education, higher education, career and technical education (CTE), workforce training, and employment data. The State is not making any awards or contracting for services through this RFI; rather, the purpose is to gather information from the market to inform future solicitation strategy. Responses were due on October 29, 2026, at 1:30 PM Mountain Time, submitted through BidNet Direct. The RFI requires vendors to provide company information, relevant experience with similar analytical research, customer references, proposed approaches, and optional pricing information. No clarification sessions are planned, and vendor participation in this RFI is not a prerequisite for submitting proposals to any subsequent solicitation.
The State has not yet formally identified a budget, funding source, or estimated contract value for future analytical work. COData currently operates a Snowflake-based data environment with analytics performed in R and dashboards created in Tableau, with potential expansion to Snowflake/Python capabilities. The existing data has already been linked and is planned for at least annual updates; vendors are not expected to access source systems directly or perform data linking. The State is evaluating whether to provide de-identified individual-level data or aggregated datasets to research partners and whether vendors will work within the State's existing Snowflake environment or receive data extracts. The anticipated engagement timeline is measured in months to quarters, though the duration and structure of future contracts remain undetermined. Data access and security requirements, including disclosure-avoidance standards and suppression rules, are documented in COData's governance policies available on the COData website. The State is considering all research methodologies, vendor qualifications, organizational structures, and analytical tools that align with stated goals and objectives, remaining flexible regarding whether to engage academic institutions, private consulting firms, or hybrid partnerships.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| RFI, 2027000013 COData Analytical Services (REQ 13874079) V3.docx | DOCX document | |
| RFI, 2027000013 COData Analytical Services (REQ 13874079) V2.docx | DOCX document | |
| RFI, 2027000013 COData Analytical Services (REQ 13874079) V3.pdf |
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
Sheet2
| Date | Question | Answers |
| 10/9/26 | Does COdata have specific analytic projects or research questions in mind for this partnership (for example, particular educational programs, CTE pathways, or workforce training programs)? If so, could the State share them or indicate which areas are the highest priority? | Not at this time no. |
| 10/9/26 | Is COdata's approved Research Agenda publicly available? If so, could the State share a link or copy? | The research agenda is available on COdata Website |
| 10/9/26 | Is any of this work intended to contribute to the second COdata annual report due in April 2027? | This work is not intended to be included in the second annual report |
| 10/9/26 | Has the State identified an estimated budget or funding source (for example, state appropriation or federal SLDS grant funds) for the analytic work that may follow this RFI? | A budget has not be formally appropriated at this time |
| 10/9/26 | Which department or office will sponsor and manage the resulting work, and which agencies' programs are expected to be the focus of analysis? | The scope of internal stakeholders is not fully known at this time, as is common with inital market research elements. The work will be managed by the COdata program team |
| 10/9/26 | What is the anticipated timeline for any solicitation that follows this RFI, and does the State expect to make one award or several (for example, a pool of analytic partners)? | Pursuant to the State of Colorado procurement code, information about future soliciations cannot be disclosed until such information is made public. |
| 10/9/26 | Does the State anticipate using an existing contract vehicle, cooperative agreement, or intergovernmental agreement for this work? | Pursuant to the State of Colorado procurement code, information about future soliciations (including the use of cooperative or enterprise agremenets) cannot be disclosed until such information is made public. |
| 10/9/26 | Will analytic partners work directly within COdata's Snowflake environment under State-issued accounts, or receive de-identified extracts? | This is currently not yet known, and is part of the larger market reserach effort goal within this formal market research |
| 10/9/26 | Does COdata have established disclosure-avoidance standards (for example, minimum cell sizes or suppression rules) that partners should plan around? | We do have noted supression rules available in our governance policies on the COdata website |
| 10/9/26 | Does COdata have preferred analytic tools for reproducibility with State staff (for example, R, Python, or STATA)? | Vendors are encouraged to proposal any and all solutions that will meet the stated goals and objectives. |
| 10/9/26 | 1. Scope of Services — Research vs. Technology: Does the State anticipate that future engagements will focus primarily on statistical research, econometric analysis, and program evaluation, or will they also include analytics engineering, data preparation, data quality, ETL/ELT development, and reporting within the existing COdata environment? | The intent of the this RFI is to gain market insight into the realm of statistical research, econometric analysis, and program evaluation. |
| 10/9/26 | 2. Research Agenda and Deliverables: Can the State share its approved research agenda, particularly the initial priority research questions, anticipated types of studies, and expected deliverables (e.g., statistical reports, impact evaluations, predictive models, dashboards, or policy recommendations)? | The research agenda is available on COdata Website |
| 10/9/26 | 3. Research Methodologies: Does the State anticipate requiring rigorous causal-inference or program-impact evaluation methodologies, such as difference-in-differences, regression discontinuity, or propensity-score matching, or will descriptive, longitudinal, and predictive analytics also satisfy its research objectives? | The State shall consider any and all options that are in the best interest of their stated goals and objectives |
| 10/9/26 | 4. Vendor Qualifications: Does the State anticipate requiring respondents to demonstrate completed academic research studies or peer-reviewed publications, or will demonstrated experience developing statewide longitudinal data systems, government analytics solutions, and statistical research capabilities through qualified personnel also be considered? | The State shall consider engaging with organizations who offer options within the best interest of their stated goals and objectives |
| 10/9/26 | 5. Individual SME Experience vs. Corporate Experience: Will the State consider the relevant research experience, publications, and prior engagements of proposed key personnel and specialized subcontractors when assessing vendor qualifications, even if those engagements were performed before joining the proposing organization? | The State shall consider engaging with organizations who offer options within the best interest of their stated goals and objectives |
| 10/9/26 | 6. Academic Partnerships: Does the State anticipate requiring a university or academic research institution as the prime contractor or formal research partner, or may private consulting firms lead engagements using qualified researchers, economists, statisticians, and subject-matter experts? | The State shall consider engaging with organizations who offer options within the best interest of their stated goals and objectives |
| 10/9/26 | 7. Contract Structure: Does the State anticipate selecting one comprehensive research partner or establishing multiple contracts or task orders for different research areas and technical specialties? | Contracts shall not be awarded as a result of this RFI, as Market Research is not condusive to this end. |
| 10/9/26 | 8. Existing Contractors and Responsibilities: Is the State currently receiving similar research or analytical services from external contractors or academic institutions? If so, how would the anticipated services differ from those already being provided? | None that are relevant to this RFI |
| 10/9/26 | 9. Data Access and Research Environment: Will selected research partners perform analysis within the State's existing Snowflake environment, and will approved external analytical tools such as Python, R, and Stata be permitted? What data-access, privacy, and security restrictions are anticipated for contractor personnel? | Vendors are encouraged to proposal any and all solutions that will meet the stated goals and objectives. |
| 10/9/26 | 10. Procurement Timeline and Estimated Scope: Does the State anticipate releasing a formal solicitation following this RFI? If so, can it provide an approximate procurement timeline, anticipated contract duration, and estimated budget or level of effort? | Pursuant to the State of Colorado procurement code, information about future soliciations cannot be disclosed until such information is made public. |
| 10/9/26 | Data access: Will analytic partners work inside the State's COdata Snowflake environment (for example, a secure enclave with State-provisioned accounts), or will the State provide de-identified extracts? Are there requirements for partner staff, such as U.S. or Colorado residency, background checks, or FERPA training? | This is a Request for Information (RFI), and no work will result pursuant to this market research |
| 10/9/26 | Engagement model: How many analytic projects per year, and of roughly what size, does the State anticipate? What contracting approach does it expect to use for a subsequent solicitation (for example, a price agreement with task orders, or intergovernmental agreements with universities)? | This is a Request for Information (RFI), and no work will result pursuant to this market research |
| 10/9/26 | Will the State consider respondents that pair a data engineering and analytics firm with an academic or education-research partner to cover SLDS research experience? | This is a Request for Information (RFI), and no work will result pursuant to this market research |
| 10/9/26 | Research agenda: Can the State share the current COdata Research Agenda, or its priority research questions, so respondents can tailor their examples? | The research agenda is available on COdata Website |
| 10/9/26 | Privacy standards: What disclosure-avoidance standards (for example, minimum cell sizes and suppression rules) and data-sharing agreement terms will analytic partners be expected to follow? | We do have noted supression rules available in our governance policies on the COdata website |
| 10/10/26 | Is this intended to identify an approved list of vendors? Or is this to identify one vendor to support across multiple analytics tasks? | No/No... Please review Section one of this soliciation for the goals of this engagement |
| 10/10/26 | Are vendors required to submit an RFI response in order to submit a response to a subsequent RFP? | No |
| 10/10/26 | Is this envisioned as an FFP or a T and M contract? | This is a Request for Information (RFI), and no work will result pursuant to this market research |
| 10/10/26 | Can you expand on what you're referencing in terms of cooperative agreements or intergovernmental agreements that may be leverage quote or provide an example? | Please familiarized your self with public procurement processes, including the referenced intergovernmental and cooperative agreements. This includes price agreement and enterprise agreements. |
| 10/10/26 | Is there an estimated contract value or quantity of analytics tasks that may be requested in a given year? | None has currently been identified |
| 10/10/26 | What is the anticipated date for release of an RFP? For contract start? | Pursuant to the State of Colorado procurement code, information about future soliciations cannot be disclosed until such information is made public. |
| 10/10/26 | How will work be assigned if multiple vendors are selected? | No vendor will be selected as a result of this Market Research |
| 10/10/26 | What types of deliverables are anticipated? | No deliverables will be awarded as a result of this solicaition, as the goal is market research |
| 10/10/26 | The Schedule of Activities directs submissions to BidNet Direct, while Section 3.1 directs submissions via email to the procurement point of contact. Please confirm the required submission method. | Pursuant to version 2, please submit to Bidnet, with the point of contact (mike.whalen@state.co.us) addressed as the State of COlorado point of contact. |
| 10/12/26 | 1. The submission deadline is 10/29/2026 at 1:30 PM. Is that Mountain Standard Time (MDT)? | Correct Mountain Time |
| 10/12/26 | 2. Would it be possible to have access to a listing of topics/projects that are currently considered part of COdata’s research agenda? | The research agenda is available on COdata Website |
| 10/12/26 | 3. Could you please outline, based on percentages, the anticipated work for this opportunity under the following (or additional) categories: |
a. Database management/integration
b. Population of existing, public-facing dashboard
c. Creation of new, public-facing dashboard elements
| d. Compiling annual report e. Research services addressing COdata’s research agenda | No Work is currently being planned to that segmented composition. This soliciation will help our organization organize after the research is conducted. | ||
| 10/12/26 | 4. How long do you anticipate the analytic partnership to exist? Would this be a multiyear, year-to-year, or some other time period arrangement? | This timeline is not known at this time, but "months" if not "Quarters" can be anticipated at this time | |
| 10/12/26 | 5. How will the chosen vendor access data stored within COdata? Does COData envision providing access through secure tunneling/VPN networks? Will personnel from the selected vendor have to be familiar with/use technologies currently possessed and installed within the COData environment? | Vendors will not be chosen as a result of this effort., as this RFI is meant for market research. | |
| 10/12/26 | 6. Can you confirm we’d have access to the data via snowflake, and would this be through a VDI? | This is currently not yet known, and is part of the larger market reserach effort goal within this formal market research | |
| 10/12/26 | 7. What is the current typical workflow of the data. It starts in snowflake, then goes to an analytic tool? How do your current data tools link together? | The data curently resides in Snowflake with analytics work peformed in R and dashboards in Tableau. Both connecting to data in Snowflake. We are also exploring using Snowpark/Python within Snowflake for potential future analytics work. | |
| 10/12/26 | 8. Would you be comfortable if we used R for analysis? Would it be possible to install R on your machines that we access through a VDI? | Vendors are encouraged to proposal any and all solutions that will meet the stated goals and objectives. | |
| 10/12/26 | 9. For snowflake, would you be comfortable if we connected our notebooks to GitHub for version control? This would be for our notebooks and scripts, not the data itself. | Vendors are encouraged to proposal any and all solutions that will meet the stated goals and objectives. | |
| 10/12/26 | 1. Submission method: The RFI's Schedule of Activities (p. 1) directs respondents to submit through BidNet Direct, while Section 3.1 (p. 5) directs respondents to submit by email to the procurement point of contact. Could OIT confirm the required submission method for the RFI? | Pursuant to version 2, please submit to Bidnet, with the point of contact (mike.whalen@state.co.us) addressed as the State of COlorado point of contact. | |
| 10/12/26 | 2. Research agenda: The RFI references COdata's approved Research Agenda, but we were unable to locate a final version. Could OIT confirm whether the Research Agenda has been finalized and, if so, whether it can be made available to respondents? | The research agenda is available on COdata Website | |
| 10/12/26 | 3. Data availability and format: Section 1.4(a) identifies the data currently available within the COdata ecosystem. Could OIT clarify the extent to which these datasets are already linked and available for research, including their historical coverage, frequency of updates, and known limitations? Does OIT anticipate that future research partners would have access to individual-level, de-identified linked data, or only aggregated datasets or state-generated analytical extracts? | Listed data have already been linked and are planned for at least annual updates. We would consider access to both de-identifed individual level data as well as aggregated data files. | |
| 10/12/26 | The RFI instructs vendors to submit their responses through BidNet Direct but does not specify a maximum file size. Could the State confirm the permitted file-size limit for individual uploads and whether a total submission-size limit applies? | There is no file limitations to this end | |
| 10/12/26 | Section 3 states that responses should be submitted as one or more attachments in commonly accessible file types. Could the State clarify which formats are accepted for the main response and supporting documents, such as PDF, Microsoft Word, or Excel? | Any "commonly accessible file types" will be accepted | |
| 10/12/26 | If the response includes several supporting documents, such as work samples, customer references, and other company information, may vendors upload them individually, or does the State permit a single ZIP file containing the supporting documents? | The state instucts vendors to submit individual files, and not to compact file submissions, as compression may hinder the readability of files otherwise considered responsive | |
| 10/12/26 | After uploading a response through BidNet Direct, will the system provide a submission confirmation or receipt? Additionally, if a vendor needs to replace or correct an uploaded file before the deadline, will the system allow the submission to be revised? | Yes, Please work with BidNet if this occurs. | |
| 10/12/26 | Can the State share the approved COdata Research Agenda so vendors can align their proposed approach and research expertise with the permitted scope? | The research agenda is available on COdata Website | |
| 10/12/26 | What analysis does the State need that is not currently covered by the COdata public dashboard and annual report? | This is not currently know has this element is part of this formal market research | |
| 10/12/26 | Will the partner contribute to the annual report planned for April 2027, or will its studies follow a separate schedule? | This work is not intended to be included in the second annual report | |
| 10/12/26 | Will the State provide linked education and employment datasets, given that Master Data Management IDs are outside the scope? | Listed data have already been linked and are planned for at least annual updates. We would consider access to both de-identifed individual level data as well as aggregated data files. | |
| 10/12/26 | How much historical data is available across K12, higher education, CTE, workforce training, and employment to support longitudinal studies? | Please see examples of existing reporting on our Website. | |
| 10/12/26 | Are there known gaps in the available data that could limit analysis of educational programs and subsequent employment outcomes? | Please see examples of existing reporting on our Website. | |
| 10/12/26 | Is preparing data for individual studies part of the partner’s scope, or will the State provide datasets ready for analysis? | This is currently not yet known. This RFI will support the market research required to understand this more fully. | |
| 10/12/26 | Should vendors plan to deliver research findings only, or also develop Tableau dashboards and repeatable analytical workflows? | This is currently not yet known. This RFI will support the market research required to understand this more fully. | |
| 10/12/26 | Will the State provide the analytical environment and licenses within its existing Snowflake, Informatica, and Tableau landscape? | This is currently not yet known. This RFI will support the market research required to understand this more fully. | |
| 10/12/26 | What restrictions on access to individual-level education and employment records should vendors account for in their proposed approach? | We do have noted supression rules available in our governance policies on the COdata website | |
| 10/12/26 | Does the State expect comparisons of program outcomes, or also research into whether participation in a program leads to better outcomes? | Vendors are encouraged to proposal any and all solutions that will meet the stated goals and objectives. | |
| 10/12/26 | How will responsibilities be divided between the analytic partner and State researchers for defining study methods, validating findings, and approving publication? | Our governance policies detail publishing and release procedures. We are interested in hearing vendor approaches to methods and validation | |
| 10/12/26 | Is the State considering separate assignments for each study or an ongoing partnership covering multiple studies, and what initial workload and duration are anticipated? | Vendors are encouraged to proposal any and all solutions that will meet the stated goals and objectives. | |
| 10/12/26 | Can the State share the source systems feeding COdata and confirm whether the vendor will work with data already available in COdata or need access to those systems? | The vendor would not be granted access to the source systems that provide data to COdata | |
| 10/12/26 | Will the State provide linked datasets across education, workforce training, and employment, or will the vendor need to combine and prepare these datasets for each study? | We are not anticipating that the vendor would need to link data. | |
| 10/12/26 | Can the State share the current COdata architecture and explain how Snowflake, Informatica, and Tableau support data preparation, analysis, and reporting? | Not as a part of this Request for information, as this is formal market research | |
| 10/12/26 | Will the vendor use the State’s existing analytical environment, or should vendors propose additional tools and infrastructure? | The State shall consider any and all options that are in the best interest of their stated goals and objectives | |
| 10/12/26 | What historical coverage, refresh frequency, and known data gaps should vendors account for when analyzing education-to-employment outcomes? | Please see examples of existing reporting on our Website. | |
| 10/12/26 | Will the scope include changes to existing data pipelines, analytical models, and Tableau dashboards, or will these remain with the State’s technology team? | This would remain within the states technology team. | |
| 10/12/26 | The RFI lists the information vendors are expected to provide but does not prescribe a specific response template. Could the State confirm whether vendors may use their own response format, provided that all requested information is addressed? | Vendors are encourage to respond to this soliciation, in the matter that is most advantagious is outlining their orgaization's vision of this engagement. | |
| 10/12/26 | Is there a recommended page limit for the response, or may vendors decide the length based on the information needed to address the requirements in Section 2? | No | |
| 10/12/26 | The RFI requests details such as company size, revenue, years in business, and core industries. Could the State clarify whether all these details should be provided individually, or would a brief company profile covering these areas be sufficient? | Either proposed response is acceptable | |
| 10/12/26 | For the examples of prior work products requested in Section 2, would a summary of relevant projects and their outcomes be sufficient, or does the State expect actual work samples to be included? | Either proposed response is acceptable | |
| 10/12/26 | The RFI requests two to three customer references with similar needs and scope. Could the State clarify whether references must be from public-sector organizations or whether relevant private-sector and research organization references are also acceptable? | Vendor are encouraged to respond with references of "similar size, scope, and effort" to the request for information. Either would be acceptable and deemed responsive. | |
| 10/12/26 | For the requested customer references, should vendors provide contact names, email addresses, and phone numbers, along with a brief description of the work performed, or is there a preferred format for presenting references? | Yes, no formal response criteria is prescribed | |
| 10/12/26 | The RFI asks vendors to describe their reliance on external vendors or subcontractors. If a vendor expects to finalize its subcontracting arrangements after the scope is better defined, would it be acceptable to describe the anticipated approach and identify any currently known partners? | Please identify this segmentation in your organization's response | |
| 10/12/26 | The RFI requests information about the vendor's company, experience, capabilities, and proposed approach. Could the State clarify whether it is primarily looking for a general overview of the vendor's qualifications or a more detailed description of how the vendor would support future analytical research activities? | Vendors are encourage to respond to this soliciation, in the matter that is most advantagious is outlining their orgaization's vision of this engagement. | |
| 10/12/26 | Are there particular areas of vendor experience or organizational capability that the State would like respondents to emphasize when preparing their submissions? This would help vendors focus their responses on the information most useful for the State's market research. | Vendors are encourage to respond to this soliciation, in the matter that is most advantagious is outlining their orgaization's vision of this engagement. | |
| 10/12/26 | Section 4.5 explains that vendors requesting confidential treatment for specific information must provide a redacted response alongside the unredacted response and confidentiality justification. Could the State confirm whether vendors that are not requesting confidential treatment need to submit only one unredacted response? | If any information is being submitted as "confidential" then the vendor is responsible for submitting two versions of their proposal: One, which is unredacted while the second, is unredacted. However, vendors who are not claiming confidentiality in part or as a whole of thier submissions are not required to submit two seperate proposals. | |
| 10/12/26 | The RFI states that pricing information is optional. If a vendor chooses to include pricing information, would the State prefer a general pricing structure, indicative rates, or an estimated cost range, rather than a detailed project-specific cost proposal? | Vendors are encourage to respond to this soliciation, in the matter that is most advantagious in outlining their orgaization's vision of this engagement. | |
| 10/12/26 | The RFI states that the State may hold clarification sessions with selected organizations. Could the State clarify whether these sessions are intended only to clarify the submitted responses or whether vendors may also be asked to provide additional information about their experience, approach, or previous work? | No clarification sessions are planned at this time | |
| 10/12/26 | The Schedule of Activities says to submit via BidNet, but Section 3.1 says to submit via email. Could you please clarify which submission method is required? | Pursuant to version 2, please submit to Bidnet, with the point of contact (mike.whalen@state.co.us) addressed as the State of COlorado point of contact. | |
| 10/12/26 | The Table of Contents lists more items under Section 3 than are included in the document. Was any relevant Section 3 content accidentally omitted? | Language has been updated in the soliciation | |
| 10/12/26 | Beyond the existing CoDATA dashboards and reports, what additional projects is there interest in pursuing? | The research agenda is available on COdata Website | |
| 10/12/26 | For the approach question under the Company Overview section, should our response focus specifically on SLDS, or describe our approach in general? | Vendors are encourage to respond to this soliciation, in the matter that is most advantagious in outlining their orgaization's vison of this engagement. |
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yBcl4NJk59fVw9_rRf8DiC-2ioTAJw3p/viewhttps://codata.colorado.gov/https://codata.colorado.gov/resources/program-resourceshttps://codata.colorado.gov/resources/program-resourceshttps://codata.colorado.gov/https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yBcl4NJk59fVw9_rRf8DiC-2ioTAJw3p/viewhttps://codata.colorado.gov/resources/program-resourceshttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1yBcl4NJk59fVw9_rRf8DiC-2ioTAJw3p/viewhttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1yBcl4NJk59fVw9_rRf8DiC-2ioTAJw3p/viewhttps://codata.colorado.gov/resources/program-resourceshttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1yBcl4NJk59fVw9_rRf8DiC-2ioTAJw3p/viewhttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1yBcl4NJk59fVw9_rRf8DiC-2ioTAJw3p/viewhttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1yBcl4NJk59fVw9_rRf8DiC-2ioTAJw3p/viewhttps://codata.colorado.gov/
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .