Response to Offeror Questions document.docx

STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

615 E. 4th Street, Pierre, SD 57501

Offeror Questions and Answers RFP #26-09RHT-021 — Rural Health Data Atlas: Data Visualization and Analysis Platform Issued: August 21, 2026 State POC: Dr. Josh Clayton Email: doh.datamodernization@state.sd.us

This Addendum is issued to provide responses to written inquiries submitted by prospective offerors and is hereby incorporated into and made a part of RFP #26-09RHT-021.

1. Proposal Due Date

1. The RFP cover page states that proposals are due "No Later Than August 10, 2026," while the Schedule of Activities in Section 1.3 lists the Deadline for Proposal Submission as August 31, 2026. Please confirm the controlling proposal due date.

2. Please confirm the controlling proposal deadline. The RFP cover page references August 10, 2026, while the Schedule of Activities identifies August 31, 2026.

3. Proposal deadline. The RFP cover page states "PROPOSALS ARE DUE NO LATER THAN August 10, 2026," while Section 1.3 (Schedule of Activities) lists the Deadline for Proposal Submission as August 31, 2026. Could the Department please confirm the governing proposal submission date and time (CST)?

4. Please confirm the official proposal deadline, as the cover page states August 10, 2026, while Section 1.3 states August 31, 2026, at 11:59 p.m. CST.

5. The cover page gives a proposal due date of August 10, 2026; the Schedule of Activities gives August 31, 2026. Which one is correct?

6. The cover page lists August 10, 2026 as the proposal due date, but Section 1.3's schedule lists August 31, 2026. Our assumption is that the due date is 8/31/2026.

7. The RFP cover page states that proposals are due no later than August 10, 2026, while the Schedule of Activities in Section 1.3 lists the Deadline for Proposal Submission as August 31, 2026. Section 1.3 also indicates that the State's responses to offeror questions will be issued August 17, 2026, which falls after the cover page date. Will the State please confirm the operative proposal submission deadline?

8. Will the state please confirm the proposal schedule, as there is a contradiction in proposal due dates. The cover page states proposals are due August 10 and in section it states August 31. Please confirm the schedule.

9. Given a discrepancy between the RFP cover page (August 10) and Section 1.3, Schedule of Activities (August 31, 2026), may the State please provide definitive confirmation of the proposal submission deadline?

Answer The proposal due date is August 31, 2026, at 11:59 PM CT, as stated in Section 1.3 (Schedule of Activities). The RFP cover page has been updated to reflect this date. Offerors should visit the official website to view the corrected posting and should submit proposals no later than August 31, 2026

2. Release Timing, Attribution, Bidders Call

10. Can you please include us in the process and confirm any next steps outside of submitting a letter of intent. Also, will there be a bidders call?

11. Will written answers to all questions go out to every offeror by August 17? If that slips, will the submission deadline move too?

12. Will questions and answers be released to all offerors on a rolling basis or only in a single release on August 17, 2026?

13. Will the State attribute questions to the submitting offeror in the published Q&A, or publish them anonymously?

Answer No bidders' conference is planned for this RFP. Written responses to all timely submitted questions will be provided to every offeror as a single consolidated Q&A document on September 4, 2026, instead of on a rolling basis. Questions will be published anonymously, without attribution to the submitting offeror. If the release date of August 17 changes, all offerors will be notified. Aside from submitting a Letter of Intent, no additional process steps are required at this time.

3. Submission Method & 20MB Email Size Limit

14. Section 1.5 requires email submission. Can the Department confirm the maximum attachment/message size accepted, and whether a multi-part submission (e.g., separate emails for proposal, cost, and required diagrams) is acceptable if the full package exceeds that limit?

15. Section 1.5 limits the submission email, including attachments, to 20MB. Because the RFP requires separate responses, Security & Vendor Questionnaires, system/solution diagrams, and cost proposals for each hosting option, the total package may exceed 20MB. Will the State accept multiple emails, or delivery via a secure file-transfer link, if the complete proposal exceeds the 20MB limit? If so, what method is preferred?

16. Submission size limit. Section 1.5 requires electronic submission by email, limited to 20MB including attachments. If a complete proposal (including required plans and any hosting-option variants) exceeds 20MB, may an offeror submit the proposal across multiple sequential emails, and if so, how should such emails be labeled?

17. If the proposal exceeds the 20 MB email limit, may it be submitted through multiple numbered emails or another State-approved delivery method?

18. The proposal email is capped at 20 MB. With per-option diagrams, questionnaires, and cost proposals, the package may exceed that. Will the State accept a secure file-share link, an upload portal, or multiple emails?

19. Should the cost proposals, Security & Vendor Questionnaires, and system diagrams be submitted as separate attachments, or may they be embedded in the main proposal?

20. Email attachments are capped at 20MB. If our proposal exceeds that, our assumption is that we can send it across multiple emails or use a State-approved file-transfer link instead. Can you please clarify?

21. Section 1.5 limits the submission email, including all attachments, to 20MB. Section 6.8 requires a completed Security and Vendor Questionnaire for each proposed deliverable and for each hosting option, and Section 6.7 requires a system diagram for each hosting option. Will the State clarify what constitutes a separate deliverable for the purpose of Section 6.8, and confirm whether it will permit submission via a secure file transfer or State-provided upload mechanism, or accept a proposal divided across multiple sequentially numbered emails?

22. 20MB email limit: If required diagrams, security questionnaires, resumes, and cost attachments exceed 20MB, what submission method should vendors use?

23. Other than the 20MB limit on the submission email (including attachments), are there any page limits or file-count limits for the proposal or its attachments? May multiple emails be used if attachments exceed 20MB?

Answer According to Section 1.5, submission emails and all attachments must not exceed a total size of 20MB. If an offeror's complete proposal package exceeds this limit, it may be submitted in multiple emails. Each email should be clearly labeled to indicate its order (e.g., "Proposal 1 of 3," "Proposal 2 of 3") and must include the offeror's name in the subject line. All parts must be received before the due date and time—August 31, 2026, at 11:59 PM CT—to be considered timely. Please note that no secure file transfer link or upload portal will be provided; email is the only accepted method of submission. There is no page limit for the proposal body, and there is no limit on the number of files submitted, aside from the 20MB size limit per email.

Cost proposals, Security and Vendor Questionnaires, and system diagrams may be included in the main proposal document together, as long as they are clearly labeled and organized. They do not need to be separate attachments.

For the Security and Vendor Questionnaire (Appendix B), complete the System/Product-General section only once, regardless of the hosting model. Additionally, complete the specific sections for each proposed hosting model (On-Premises, State Cloud Hosted/PaaS, and/or Vendor Hosted). The Questionnaire must be filled out using the provided Microsoft Word format and will be used for proposal evaluation.

4. Proposal Formatting & Page Limits

24. Is there a maximum page limit for the proposal body, and are attachments (e.g., diagrams, the project schedule, questionnaires, resumes) excluded from any such limit?

25. Beyond the two-page Executive Summary limit, are there any page limits or formatting requirements?

26. Does the customer have text and graphics requirements for submittal? In lieu of any requirements, may industry assume that we may use a font size of 11-pt for the proposal narrative, and 9-pt for graphics and tables?

Answer No maximum page limit applies to the proposal body. The Executive Summary (Section 6.3) is limited to two pages. Attachments including diagrams, project schedules, questionnaires, and resumes are not counted toward this limit. No additional page limits or formatting standards apply to text or graphics beyond the Executive Summary limit. Font size and formatting are left to the offeror's discretion. Offerors are encouraged, though not required, to use 11-point Calibri, 12-point Times New Roman, or a similarly common font style and size.

5. Deliverable Templates & Formats (RTM, PM Plan, etc.)

27. Does DOH have a preferred RTM format/template? Should it be submitted as its own tabbed section, a separate Excel attachment (similar to the required MS Project schedule), or embedded in the Deliverables narrative?

28. Please identify the security, architecture, privacy, BIT, and accessibility documents required with the proposal.

29. Deliverable expectations: Does the State have required templates or minimum content expectations for the project management plan, risk plan, data conversion plan, RTM, communication plan, testing plan, training plan, cutover plan, and operations plan?

30. The RFP directs offerors to respond to each point in Sections 3 and 4 in order. Will the State provide a response matrix or Requirements Traceability Matrix template to ensure consistent, comparable responses?

31. Does the State already have standard project management artifacts or frameworks (e.g., PMO templates, governance model, risk management approach, communication standards) that the vendor is expected to adopt, or should offerors propose their own project management framework and templates?

Answer Section 4.1 outlines the required deliverables for the project, which include the following:

- Project Management Plan

- Project Schedule

- Risk Management Plan

- Data Conversion Plan (if applicable)

- Requirements Traceability Matrix

- Communication Plan

- Testing Plan

- Training Plan

- Go-Live/Cutover Plan

- Post-Implementation Support Plan The State will not provide templates, a specific format for the Requirements Traceability Matrix (RTM), or minimum content standards for any of these deliverables. Offerors are encouraged to use their own formats and structures. Additionally, no extra security, architecture, privacy, or BIT documents are required beyond what is specified in other sections of the RFP. Offerors should propose their own project management framework and templates, which will be collaboratively refined with the Department after the award is made.

6. RFP Section Numbering Corrections 32.Can the State confirm this section should be Section 6. Proposal Submission Requirements? If so, can an updated RFP be provided with the numberering corrected?

33. Can the State confirm this section should be Section 7. Cost Proposal? If so, can an updated RFP be provided with the numberering corrected?

34. Can the State confirm this section should be Section 8. Proposal Evaluation and Award Process? If so, can an updated RFP be provided with the numberering corrected?

35. Section numbering inconsistency: The RFP appears to have numbering inconsistencies between Proposal Submission Requirements and Cost Proposal sections. Should vendors follow the heading titles, the section numbers, or both?

Answer The RFP section numbering has been corrected. An updated RFP has been posted to the procurement site.

7. Deadline Extension Requests

36. RFP 1.1.1, page 1 Given the complexity of the solution, would the State consider granting a two-week extension?

37. We kindly request a 1-2 week extension of the proposal submission deadline to ensure a thorough and high-quality response.

Answer No extension will be granted. The proposal due date remains September 4, 2026, at 11:59 PM CT.

8. Solicitation Eligibility & Registration

38. Additional Question 1: The South Dakota Procurement website identifies RFP No. 26-09RHT-021 as an "Invitation Only" solicitation. However, the RFP includes instructions for submitting a Letter of Intent and Proposal without referencing any invitation-only restrictions. Could the State please clarify whether this solicitation is open to all interested and qualified offerors, or whether proposal submission is limited to vendors that have received a direct invitation from the State? Additionally, please confirm whether offerors must be registered in the South Dakota Procurement Portal (e.g., the e-Procurement system) to submit a responsive proposal, or whether submission by email, in accordance with the RFP instructions, is sufficient.

Answer This solicitation is open to all interested and qualified offerors; it is not invitation-only. Registration in the South Dakota Procurement Portal is not required, but shortens the time from notice of award to contract execution for a project that has tight timelines. Submission by email in accordance with the RFP instructions (Section 1.5) is sufficient.

9. Budget / Not-to-Exceed Amount

39. Can the Department provide a target budget range or not-to-exceed amount for year one, to help vendors calibrate scope and staffing proposals to the State's expectations?

40. Has the State established a budget, estimated funding range, or not-to-exceed amount for Year 1 and/or the full potential five-year term of the platform?

41. What is the anticipated Year 1 budget range for this project? This helps us calibrate a proposal that fits your funding reality rather than over- or under-scoping the solution.

42. Is there an approved and finalized budget for this? Is there a NTE amount?

43. Can the state share the expected budget for this procurement?

44. Is there a maximum or target budget/not-to-exceed amount the State can share?

45. Please confirm whether a budget range or not-to-exceed amount has been established.

46. Can the Department provide the estimated budget or Not-to-Exceed (NTE) contract value for this procurement?

47. Is there an anticipated budget range or not-to-exceed amount for implementation and ongoing support?

48. Additional Question 2: Can the customer please provide pricing guidance related to its anticipated budget for year one, and the subsequent follow-on years? This will enable industry to develop a solutioning and pricing approach that provides the best value to the customer.

49. Additional Question 3: Will the State provide anticipated funding guidance or a target investment range for the Year One Minimum Viable Product (MVP) implementation? This information will enable offerors to propose an appropriately scoped MVP that aligns with the State's expectations while providing the best overall value.

50. What is the annual budget allocated for this RFP?

51. What is the total budget for this contract?

52. Section 2 leaves the TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT blank. What is the anticipated budget range or not-to-exceed amount for year one and for the full five-year potential term?

53. Budget. Has the Agency established an anticipated budget range, funding ceiling, or not-to-exceed amount for the initial contract period or for the project as a whole? If so, can the Agency provide the range and clarify whether it is intended to cover implementation, licensing, hosting, maintenance, support, and any optional services.

54. May the State confirm if a specific budget range or a not-to-exceed amount has been established for this engagement, inclusive of the initial one-year term and the four potential one-year renewal periods detailed in Section 2?

55. May the State disclose any budgetary ceilings or funding restrictions applicable to this program?

56. Please confirm the State's available budget or anticipated funding range for the Rural Health Data Atlas, including the available budget for Year 1 and any anticipated funding for subsequent contract years.

57. The RFP does not disclose an anticipated contract value or budget ceiling. Can the State provide a budget range or funding envelope for this engagement so offerors can appropriately size the proposed team, architecture, and delivery approach?

Answer The State does not provide a budget range or maximum limit for this procurement. Offerors must submit pricing that represents their most competitive and lowest-cost proposal for the specified scope of work.

10. Proposal Format & Structure

58. Section 6.3 states that Microsoft Project is the State's standard scheduling tool but that the schedule should be submitted in Microsoft Excel. Please confirm that an Excel (.xlsx) file is the required deliverable format for the project schedule, rather than a native Microsoft Project (.mpp) file.

59. Should the Cost Proposal be submitted as a separate document (and separate email) from the technical proposal, and should a distinct cost proposal be provided for each hosting option?

60. Are you looking at both licensing and support, and services with this RFP?

61. How should ongoing SaaS/subscription costs for third-party components (e.g., mapping APIs, AI services) be categorized in the cost table (License Fees vs. Other)?

62. Should the cost proposal be included as part of the technical proposal or submitted as a separate document?

63. Please clarify whether pricing must separately identify implementation, hosting, Azure consumption, licenses, support, maintenance, optional services, and renewal years.

64. Please confirm how additional datasets, indicators, dashboards, integrations, and scope changes will be priced.

65. Scheduling tool/file format — should vendors submit Excel only, Microsoft Project, or both?

66. Pricing structure — should costs be presented by phase, deliverable, role/hour, licensing, hosting, support, travel, optional features, and renewal years?

67. Is a State-prescribed cost template provided beyond the tables in the appendix?

68. Should future software development hourly rates be provided as a separate rate card, and will those rates be evaluated in cost scoring or used only for change orders?

69. Are the test/mirror environment, vulnerability scanning, and disaster recovery plan expected as one-time costs, recurring annual costs, or both?

70. For cost proposals, should anticipated data volume growth, additional data source integrations, or new feature development be scoped separately or should assumptions be made about the scope of these activities and included in the cost?

71. What is the payment structure: milestone/deliverable-based, monthly time and materials, or subscription? Is any retainage or holdback applied until go-live?

72. Should offerors submit both Excel and Microsoft Project formats, or is Excel alone acceptable at proposal stage?

73. Will the State accept assumption-based pricing bands for consumption services (base monthly run-rate for the MVP scope, with separate scaling assumptions for data volume, refresh frequency, storage, and user traffic)?

74. Will the State accept assumption-based pricing for unknown data source complexity, integration requirements, and future functionality?

75. Does the State prefer flat enterprise pricing, or may offerors propose role-based or usage-based alternatives? If user-based, what user assumptions should all offerors apply for comparability?

76. RFP 4.2.1, Page 14 — Please define how the use of the SD Azure environment should be priced. Is there an enterprise agreement that vendors can consult for pricing?

77. RFP Section 6.6 Other Costs, page 26 — Please provide details on how many years of pricing the State wants, and whether Azure costs should be priced as an MSRP passthrough or against a Microsoft enterprise pricing schedule. RFP Section 6.4 Staffing, page 26 — please clarify how many years of pricing are wanted, since the table in 6.6 suggests three years.

78. Should the staffing table reflect blended rates or individual named-resource rates, and are rates required to be firm-fixed for all five years?

Answer Offerors may propose assumption-based pricing for consumption or usage-based services and unknown scope, provided the assumptions are clearly stated. This extends to unknown data source complexity, integration requirements, and future functionality — offerors should state their own assumptions rather than wait for the State to specify these in advance.

The State prefers flat, capped pricing over exposure to usage-based overages, even if that results in a somewhat higher overall price. Specific pricing-band structures — for example, a base monthly run-rate for MVP scope with separate scaling assumptions for data volume, refresh frequency, storage, and user traffic — are not prescribed; offerors should propose their own structure and state the assumptions behind it.

If an offeror proposes role-based or usage-based pricing rather than flat pricing, the State has not specified standard user-count or usage assumptions that all offerors should apply for comparability. This remains open.

Cost proposals are evaluated separately from the technical proposal, per Sections 6 and 8.1, but may be included in the same document. A distinct cost proposal is required for each hosting option presented. No cost template exists beyond the three tables described below.

Invoices submitted for payments should be based on monthly time and materials toward achieving the milestone and ultimately delivering the platform (e.g., minimum viable product, feedback and refinement cycles).

The Staffing Table (Section 6.4) is structured for individual named resources, not blended rate categories, with the following columns: Name, Role, Total Hours on Project, Total Hours on Site, Hourly Rate, and Total. Staffing-table rates are not required to be firm-fixed beyond Year 1.

The Travel and Expenditure Table (Section 6.5) details all related travel and expenses.

The Other Costs Table (Section 6.6) is broken out by One Time, Year 1, Year 2, and Year 3, across Hardware, Software, Maintenance, License Fees, Training, and Other. Any third-party software license must be identified as perpetual or term. Azure consumption should be listed as its own separate line item within this table, with the assumptions used to calculate it clearly stated — the specific pricing basis for Azure consumption is addressed under the Azure Pricing Guidance category, below.

Microsoft Project is the State's standard scheduling tool; however, the project schedule must be submitted as a separate Microsoft Excel (.xlsx) document and cannot be submitted as a .mpp file.

Based on platform functionality, it would be ideal that administrators or super users could add datasets and create indicators or dashboards. Integrations would likely take the form of a new platform tool or capability, which would require a change order estimated by the vendor based on number of hours at a pre-defined hourly rate.

Any additional work required to correct security deficiencies, or to meet the originally agreed functional requirements, is not a chargeable project change. The cost of anticipated work of this kind should instead be built into the proposal and included in the base cost.

Future software development hourly rates should be disclosed in the cost proposal as a basis for change requests.

Pricing should be provided for the full potential contract duration — the base year and all four optional renewal years — as addressed under Category 11.

Payment occurs only after satisfactory completion, supported by an itemized invoice and a signed voucher. Milestone-based or monthly invoicing may be proposed, per Section 6.5, with the final schedule set by negotiation. Subscription-style billing is not named as a separate payment option, and whether retainage or a holdback applies until go-live is not addressed.

The following remain open: whether the RFP's scope covers licensing, support, and services together, or some subset; how ongoing SaaS/subscription costs for third-party components should be categorized (License Fees versus Other); whether cost items must be itemized further than shown above — for example, separating implementation from hosting, or licenses from support; whether future development rates are evaluated in cost scoring or used only for change orders; and whether the test/mirror environment, vulnerability scanning, and disaster recovery plan should be priced as one-time costs, recurring annual costs, or both — though the requirement for at least annual vulnerability scanning, per Category 43, implies those specific costs are expected to recur.

Offers proposing usage-based or rule-based pricing structures will be reviewed during the technical review and contract negotiation phase; final terms will be determined with the awarded offeror. The State maintains an existing Microsoft enterprise agreement covering a number of licensing items. Offerors should price to the best of their ability using available information; further detail will be addressed during technical review.

11 — Years of Pricing and Renewal-Year Costs

79. For the 1-year term with up to four 1-year renewal options, should Years 4–5 pricing be included in the initial Cost Proposal table, or only Year 1–3 as shown in the template?

80. Should Year-One implementation be priced as a firm-fixed price with a separate annual M&O fee, and should offerors price all four optional renewal years?.

81. Should our cost proposal price only Year 1, or all 5 possible years? The cost table in Section 7 only has columns through Year 3 — should we extend it through Year 5, or price renewals separately?

82. The contract term is one year with up to four one-year renewal options. Should the cost proposal include projected costs for the base year only, or for the base year plus all potential renewal years?

83. Renewal years: Should vendors price only the initial one-year term, or also provide pricing for each of the four optional one-year renewals?

84. Contract renewal is up to four one-year extensions. Are annual price escalation caps (for example, CPI-based) permitted in the cost proposal for years two through five?

85. Length of Contract 1.13 & 6.6 — The contract may be renewed for four additional one-year periods, while the cost form requests only Years 1 through 3. How should vendors price Years 4 and 5, annual escalation, cloud-consumption growth, and optional renewals?

Answer Pricing should be provided for the entire duration of the contract, including the base year and all four optional renewal years. The offeror should extend the cost table to include columns for Year 4 and Year 5; renewal-year costs do not need to be submitted as a separate document.

Price Year One implementation as a firm-fixed price, and list ongoing maintenance and operations as a separate recurring annual fee. Implementation costs are expected to occur within Years 1 through 3. Years 4 and 5 should reflect only ongoing or adjusted costs, without any new implementation costs.

CPI-based price escalation is allowed for the renewal years.

12 — Cost Evaluation Methodology Across Hosting Options

86. The RFP permits offerors to propose Vendor-Hosted, State On-Prem, and/or State Cloud (PaaS) solutions, each with materially different cost structures (e.g., vendor infrastructure and hosting fees vs. State-borne infrastructure, licensing, and staffing costs vs. State Cloud consumption-based pricing). Additionally, different offerors may propose different subsets of these hosting options, or different mixes of one-time versus recurring costs across the multi-year contract term. Given that cost is an explicit evaluation criterion (Section 8), can the State describe the methodology it will use to evaluate and compare cost proposals on a consistent basis across offerors proposing different hosting models, so that offerors can understand how to present their pricing for a fair and comparable evaluation (e.g., total cost of ownership over the base term plus renewal years, normalized on a per-hosting-option basis, or another standardized framework)?

87. The RFP permits both State-hosted and vendor-hosted deployment models. Since infrastructure and hosting costs are included only in vendor-hosted solutions, can the State clarify how cost proposals will be evaluated to ensure an equitable comparison between State-hosted and vendor-hosted offerings?

Answer Cost is evaluated separately from the technical proposal and is one of the criteria outlined in Section 8.1.

Microsoft Azure is the State's preferred and recommended hosting environment, since the State's predominant infrastructure already resides there. It is not a mandatory requirement — Vendor Hosted and State On-Premises options remain eligible for proposal, per Section 4.2.13.

Offerors must submit a complete, distinct cost proposal for each hosting option they propose, presenting the total cost of ownership for the base year and all optional renewal years for that option. Costs must not be combined across different hosting options.

The State will compare cost proposals within each hosting option, rather than across different hosting models.

For State-hosted proposals, offerors must include all costs the State would be expected to incur under that option, including any licensing fees, third-party software, and support costs, and must clearly state any assumptions made regarding State-provided infrastructure or staffing. The State will factor these stated assumptions into its evaluation.

13 — Federal (Rural Health Transformation) Funding & Flow-Down Terms

88. Is this procurement funded, in whole or in part, under the federal Rural Health Transformation (CMS) award? If so, are there specific federal flow-down terms (e.g., Stevens Amendment, Uniform Guidance provisions) that will apply to the resulting contract?

89. Is this initiative funded under the Rural Health Transformation program or another source that imposes cost-principle, allowable-cost, or reporting requirements we should reflect in the cost proposal?

90. Is this engagement funded by the federal Rural Health Transformation (RHT) program, and if so what is the period of performance for those funds and any obligation or drawdown deadlines?

91. Are there federal flow-down provisions (2 CFR 200, Build America Buy America, FFATA reporting, single-audit obligations) that will apply to the resulting contract?

92. Can the State please share expected future funding for SD Data Atlas in Y2–Y5 of the RHTP grant?

Answer This project is funded through the Rural Health Transformation program.

Future-year funding, for Years 2 through 5, is subject to appropriation and available expenditure authority, as stated in Section 2.10. The State is not able to commit to specific future-year funding amounts at this time. Contract renewals are not automatic and remain at the State's discretion.

Which federal flow-down provisions apply depends on whether the awarded entity is performing as a contractor providing a service to DOH, or as a subrecipient receiving a pass-through grant of RHT funding to carry out the purpose of the grant.

Subrecipients are responsible for all the same federal award terms and conditions as DOH, including Uniform Guidance under 2 CFR Part 200, and must be registered on SAM.gov with a Unique Entity Identifier (UEI).

Contractors performing a service are not required to follow federal award terms and conditions or the programmatic requirements of the award, but must still comply with applicable federal mandates, including Labor Standards, Civil Rights and Non-Discrimination, Integrity and Anti-Fraud, and Environment and Sourcing requirements.

Both contractors and subrecipients must follow any State terms and conditions listed in the award. The State allows both to follow their own purchasing policy; subrecipients are additionally bound by the open competition and bidding requirements in 2 CFR 200, Sections 200.317 through 200.327, while contractors have no State-imposed purchasing mandates.

14 — Cyber Liability Insurance Limit

93. Appendix A requires vendor commercial general liability and cyber liability coverage. Can the Department confirm the minimum required limits for cyber liability specifically, as Appendix A states general limits but does not appear to break out a cyber-specific minimum?

94. Appendix A leaves the required cyber-liability insurance limit blank. Please specify the required cyber-liability coverage limit so offerors can confirm or bind the appropriate coverage.

95. What is the required cyber liability insurance coverage amount?

96. Please confirm the required cyber-liability insurance amount.

97. Cyber Liability Insurance Limit. The Cyber Liability Insurance clause in Appendix A leaves the required coverage limit blank. Could the Department please confirm the minimum coverage amount the State requires?

98. What cyber-liability insurance limit will the State require? The amount appears blank in the Cyber Liability Insurance section of the addendum.

99. Cyber Liability Insurance. Appendix A requires cyber liability insurance but leaves the liability limit blank. What cyber liability limit is required? Does the requirement to maintain coverage for three years after completion apply after each annual term or after final completion of the contract, including renewals?

100. What is the required Cyber Liability Insurance limit? The amount is blank in Appendix A.

101. The cyber liability insurance limit is left blank. What limit will the State require, and does the three-year tail requirement apply to subcontractors and cloud hosting providers as well?

Answer Appendix A, Section II has been amended to require cyber liability insurance with a liability limit of $3,000,000. This coverage is in addition to what is required under Section 2.6. Before any work begins under the Agreement, the Contractor must provide the State with Certificates of Insurance demonstrating this coverage.

The three-year coverage requirement, as stated in Appendix A, Section II, applies after the final completion of all work under the Agreement, including any exercised renewal terms. This means that for a five-year contract, the coverage must extend approximately eight years in total, as it does not restart with each annual term.

If the Contractor uses a third party to host State data, they must include a cyber liability insurance requirement in their contract with that third party. This insurance must cover State data on devices used by the third party's employees, regardless of who owns the devices. The State prefers that the third-party coverage limit match the prime contractor’s limit of $3,000,000, but is open to considering alternative arrangements during negotiations, provided that the prime’s coverage extends to State data no matter where it resides.

15. Other Insurance, Liability and Contract Terms

102. Section 2.4: How does the payment on satisfactory completion provide funding for subcontractors as they complete work at each stage? Can this be navigated by payments made through subtasks as they are completed on monthly intervals? Or is this project expected to be paid out as described in the timeline in section 1.1.4?

103. Section 2.14: requires that subcontractors must adhere to all provisions in the agreement. Section 2.6.1 requires each subcontractor to follow the provisions, so would individual consultants used by the offeror to support elements of this proposal be required to carry a 1-million-dollar commercial liability policy?

104. The "Additional Work" clause says security and functional fixes are provided at no charge, with no stated end point. Is there a defined cutoff for this, such as a warranty period after the MVP goes live?

105. Will the State consider a mutual limitation of liability provision capping each party's aggregate liability (excluding indemnification for IP infringement and data breaches) at an agreed multiple of fees paid?

106. Will the State consider a mutual indemnification structure or, alternatively, limit the contractor's indemnification obligation to claims arising from the contractor's negligence, willful misconduct, or breach of contract?

107. Regarding Appendix A, Sections XXI–XXII, will the State consider aligning notification timelines and vendor obligations with industry standards (e.g., 72 hours for notification rather than 12 hours)?

108. Will the State consider capping the vendor's reimbursement obligations for security incident costs, or limiting reimbursement to incidents caused by vendor's negligence or willful misconduct?

109. For Appendix A Section V, will the State apply an objective standard (rather than "in the opinion of the State") for determining whether functionality has been reduced or replaced?

110. For Appendix A Section XXXIII, will the State consider applying a materiality threshold (e.g., no unresolved Critical or High findings) rather than automatic non-acceptance for any security issue discovered during UAT?

111. Will the State agree to provide a reasonable cure period (e.g., 30 days) for alleged breaches before exercising termination rights under Section 2.9?

112. For Appendix A Section XXXVI, will the State agree that payments for undisputed work will continue during any period of application removal from production, and that a dispute resolution process will apply before termination?

113. The remediation windows are 7 days critical/high, 14 medium, 30 low. Will the State accept risk-accepted or compensating-control dispositions for findings that are false positives or not exploitable?

114. The 12-hour security-incident notification and 2-business-day threat-notification windows are aggressive. Will the State accept notification without complete forensic detail within 12 hours, with follow-up updates?

115. The indemnification obligation is broad and uncapped and includes defense costs. Will the State negotiate a mutual limitation of liability, a cap tied to contract value, and exclusion of consequential damages?

116. Will the State negotiate the no-additional-fee replacement/upgrade entitlement clause for subscription-based SaaS products where versioning does not apply?

117. Termination for convenience on 30 days' notice is included. Will the State negotiate payment for work in progress, non-cancellable third-party license costs, and a wind-down period?

118. In a non-appropriation termination, how will prepaid annual license or hosting costs be handled?

119. The clauses allowing removal from production and unbilled additional work create open-ended obligations. Will the State agree to a mutually defined acceptance criteria and change-control process to bound this?

120. The cyber liability insurance limit is left blank. What limit will the State require, and does the three-year tail requirement apply to subcontractors and cloud hosting providers as well?

121. The service bureau clause permits State use extending to counties, cities, Tribal governments, and school districts at no additional fee. How should offerors size licensing for that user population, and what is the estimated number of such entities and users?

122. Prior written State consent is required for subcontractors. Will consent granted at award cover all subcontractors named in the proposal, including cloud hosting providers?

Answer The contract terms outlined in Section 2 and Appendix A represent the State's standard requirements and are not changed by this addendum. Offerors must specify any terms they challenge in their proposals. Any term not mentioned will be considered accepted as written (Sections 2 and 6.9). This is a Request for Proposal/Competitive Negotiation process, and the State retains the right to negotiate any aspect of all submitted proposals (Section 1.19). Requests to modify liability limits, indemnification structure, notification timelines, remediation dispositions, cure periods, termination terms, and acceptance criteria will be addressed during negotiations with the highest-ranked offeror; proposals should be priced to the published terms without assuming any requested change has been accepted. Payment is made only after satisfactory completion, against itemized invoices submitted with a signed state voucher; offerors may propose milestone-based or monthly invoicing in the Section 6.5 project plan, with the final schedule set during negotiations; the contractor pays subcontractors and is an independent contractor, not a State officer/agent/employee. Section 2.6 insurance limits apply to the contractor; for subcontractors, the contractor must include provisions requiring compliance with Agreement terms, State indemnification, and consistent insurance coverage. No separate warranty period is defined — correcting security deficiencies, meeting established functional requirements, addressing unsupported third-party technology, and resolving excessive resource consumption are non-chargeable for the full Agreement term including renewals. Indemnification excludes claims arising solely from State errors/omissions; sovereign immunity is not waived. Notification may be given within 12 hours without complete information if the reason is stated; delay beyond 12 hours only if legally required. Reimbursement for security-incident costs depends on a vendor-responsibility determination. If a for-breach termination is later found unwarranted, the contractor is compensated for eligible services/expenses to that point; non-appropriation termination requires five business days' written notice and is not a State default. A 30-day period applies before termination for production removal, during which the vendor may propose a remedy or use change management, and must implement an exit plan. Acceptance criteria/change control are set via the PM Plan, Requirements Traceability Matrix, Testing Plan, and Go-Live/Cutover Plan. Offerors must list all entities performing services with city/state and provide resumes for subcontractors' project leads; subcontractors named in the proposal and accepted at execution are approved. Third-party hosting providers require disclosure, 180 days' notice of any change, and flow-down cyber liability coverage.

No-additional-fee replacement/upgrade entitlement clause (SaaS, no versioning applies): Will be discussed during the technical review phase with the awarded offeror.

Termination-for-convenience mechanics (payment for work in progress, non-cancellable third-party license costs, wind-down period): Will be addressed during the technical review phase with the awarded offeror.

Handling of prepaid annual license or hosting costs in a non-appropriation termination: Will be discussed during the technical review phase with the awarded offeror.

Licensing sizing for the service bureau population (counties, cities, Tribal governments, school districts), including estimated number of entities and users: The service bureau population is included in the base license at no additional fee, unless the State agrees otherwise in writing. Specific entity and user counts for sizing purposes will be discussed during the technical review phase 16 — Intellectual Property Ownership

123. Regarding the requirement that the State own software programs, source code, documentation, and project materials, will the State permit the offeror to retain ownership of pre-existing intellectual property, reusable frameworks, accelerators, commercial components, and tools developed independently of this engagement?

124. Please clarify the State's ownership rights for custom deliverables while allowing vendors to retain pre-existing intellectual property, tools, frameworks, and commercial software.

125. Pre-existing and Third-Party Intellectual Property. Please confirm that State ownership of project-specific work product does not transfer ownership of an offeror's pre-existing tools, frameworks, libraries, templates, know-how, or third-party and open-source components, provided the State receives all rights needed to operate, maintain, modify, and support the delivered solution.

126. For Section 2.16, will the State clarify whether "all information contained therein provided to the State by the Contractor" is limited to information created specifically for this engagement, as distinct from the contractor's pre-existing proprietary platform, tools, and methodologies?

127. Will the State agree to distinguish between vendor pre-existing intellectual property and newly-created deliverables, such that vendor retains ownership of pre-existing IP with a perpetual license to the State?

128. At contract termination, what evidence will the State require for return, transfer, archival, and sanitization of State data across vendor and subcontractor environments?

129. Can the State confirm whether all curated data, metadata, audit logs, dashboard configurations, and derived datasets are considered State-owned work product?

Answer The intellectual property terms in Section 2.16 and Appendix A are the State's standard requirements and are not modified by this addendum. Offerors must identify any terms they dispute in their proposals; any unaddressed terms will be considered accepted (Sections 2 and 6.9). Requests to differentiate pre-existing intellectual property from new deliverables or retain ownership of frameworks, tools, or commercial components will be discussed during negotiations with the highest-ranked offeror. Offerors should describe any pre-existing tools, frameworks, or libraries relied upon in their proposals. All third-party software licenses, including open-source, must be disclosed. No additions can be made after the Agreement is signed without notifying the State and providing necessary licenses. All relevant license agreements, including EULAs, must be presented before execution, or they will not bind the State. State Data includes any data produced or provided by the State or by the Vendor for the State. The State retains all rights to State Data, granting the Vendor only a limited license to use it for their obligations. The State will own all data tables created under the Agreement and must be able to manipulate and access data through platforms like Power BI and Tableau. For AI functionality, all associated artifacts will be owned by the State. Upon termination, the Vendor must provide all State Data in a non-proprietary format upon notice and again on the termination date, and must extract information from external repositories in a State-selected format. All State Data must be returned or securely disposed of per NIST 800-88 guidelines, with Certificates of Sanitization provided to the State.

17 — Confidentiality / FOIA

130. What is the process for designating proposal materials confidential or proprietary under SDCL §1-27-1.9, including any Executive Summary justification the State requires?

131. Will the State confirm that marking the cost proposal, vulnerability scan report, and Appendix B questionnaire as confidential is acceptable, and that only those sections need Executive Summary justification?

132. In addition to its complete proposal, is it acceptable for a bidder to submit a redacted version of their proposal from which confidential information (as defined by the State of South Dakota Freedom of Information Law) has been stricken?

Answer The proposal of the successful offeror becomes public record. Protection is limited to circumstances such as client lists and non-public financial statements; an entire proposal may not be marked as proprietary.

To request protection, offerors must identify the specific information in the Executive Summary, mark it within the body of the proposal, and include a specific justification explaining why it should be protected, per Section 1.12.

All materials submitted become the property of the State and may be returned only at the State's option. The State may review and evaluate proposals at its discretion.

Three documents are treated differently. The Security and Vendor Questionnaire (Appendix B) is confidential by default — shared only with State employees who need to know in order to vet the offeror and the proposed solution, and not released publicly, per SDCL § 1-27-1.9. No separate designation or Executive Summary justification is required for Appendix B.

The Vulnerability Scan report may be marked "Confidential" by the offeror. Where an NDA is required before the State may review it, the offeror must notify the State and resolve the NDA with enough time to respond within the RFP timeframe.

The Cost Proposal is not automatically confidential. Any request to protect it must follow the Section 1.12 process, including specific justification in the Executive Summary.

In addition to the complete proposal, an offeror may submit a redacted version with confidential information.

18 — Evaluation Criteria, Weighting and BIT Approval Process

133. Section 8 lists evaluation criteria without stated weights. Can the Department confirm whether the criteria are weighted, and if so, share the weighting, or confirm they will be scored as unweighted/equal factors?

134. Will the State publish the relative weighting or scoring methodology for the evaluation criteria in Section 8, including how the BIT "approved/disapproved" determination and Cost factor into the overall ranking?

135. Can the State provide relative weighting or point values for the ten evaluation criteria listed in Section 8, or are they all weighted equally under "subjective judgment"?

136. Please confirm the final evaluation criteria and point allocation for technical approach, experience, security, demonstration, implementation schedule, and cost.

137. Will the State publish evaluation weights or a scoring methodology, and how is independently evaluated Cost combined with the technical assessment for final ranking?

138. RFP 1.1.1, page 1 — Please elaborate on the evaluation scoring.

139. Will cost be scored…