STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

615 E. 4th Street, Pierre, SD 57501

Offeror Questions and Answers RFP #: 27-09RHT-025— Rural Health Data Atlas- Informatics Services Issued: September 14, 2026 State POC: Anita Bharadwaja 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 #: 27-09RHT-025.

Rural Health Data Atlas — Platform, Architecture & Current Status

1. Can the State provide a general description of the current status of the Rural Health Data Atlas, including the platform vendor or any other contracted support roles and its current stage of development?

2. Please identify the current Rural Health Data Atlas platform and vendor, along with the principal State data architecture components, hosting environments, integration methods, identity services, and ETL/orchestration technologies with which the selected personnel will work.

3. Can the State provide additional information about the current maturity/status of the Rural Health Data Atlas, including the platform/vendor already selected, major data sources currently available or planned, and the principal Data Scientist priorities anticipated during the first several months of the contract?

4. Scope & Existing Infrastructure: Are the automated processes and data systems mentioned currently built on a specific tech stack or cloud platform (e.g., Azure, AWS, SQL Server, Python/R), or is the selected vendor expected to recommend and implement new architecture?

5. Who is the current Data Atlas platform vendor, and what responsibilities will remain with that vendor versus the Data Scientist and Informatician resources provided under this RFP?

6. Could the State provide an overview of the current Rural Health Data Atlas architecture, including the platform, technology stack, hosting environment, databases, data lake/data warehouse, visualization layer, and integration components?

7. Is the Rural Health Data Atlas already implemented, currently under development, or still in the planning stage? Please provide the current implementation status and expected roadmap.

8. Which Azure services are currently implemented within the State’s data environment, particularly Databricks, Azure Data Factory, Synapse, Cosmos DB, Azure SQL, or other data services?

9. Where is the Rural Health Data Atlas currently hosted?

10. Existing Software Platform / Off-the-Shelf Product: Section 1.1.2 mentions extracting and loading data “for ingestion by the Rural Health Data Atlas platform.” Has the State already identified or purchased a specific commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software product or platform vendor for the Data Atlas, or will the software selection/development be part of this contract’s scope?

11. Has the State selected the software solution? If so, can you share the specifications?

12. Please clarify the expected coordination and division of responsibilities between these staff and the Rural Health Data Atlas platform vendor.

Response The Rural Health Data Atlas is a state-led initiative currently in development. It is being created as a centralized, state-owned platform, which will likely be hosted in Microsoft Azure. This cloud-based data visualization and distribution platform consolidates health data into an interactive environment featuring maps, charts, tables, and point-and-click analysis tools, and is designed to support other advanced visualizations, ensure role-based access control, enable real-time ingestion, and be compliant with accessibility standards. As outlined in Section 3.1, data is sourced from various channels, including SD DOH systems, other South Dakota state agencies (such as the Department of Social Services), federally curated data sources, local and county datasets, and other publicly available resources.

The selection or development of the platform software is not included in the scope of this staffing RFP. Since the platform vendor has not been awarded yet, specific details about the platform cannot be finalized or published at this time. This includes information about the selected product and its full specifications, the finalized architecture (including databases, data lakes or warehouses, visualization layers, and integration components), and the specific Azure data services to be implemented, such as Databricks, Azure Data Factory, Synapse, Cosmos DB, or Azure SQL.

The staffing resources being sought under this RFP will support the upstream data work that feeds the Atlas, rather than the platform itself. Data from current information systems needs to be migrated to the DOH data lake contained in the state’s Azure Cosmos Db. As described in Sections 1.1.2 and 3, these roles will curate and maintain the datasets and indicators that feed the platform; maintain and troubleshoot the data interfaces and feeds connecting state agency systems to the Atlas; apply data governance standards; and prepare and validate data for ingestion (i.e., Extract, Transform, and Load). The staffing resources selected under this RFP will not be responsible for the Data Atlas platform itself, but are expected to coordinate with the Data Atlas vendor selected under a separate RFP. Section 3.1 instructs the Data Scientist to apply data governance standards to Atlas indicators in collaboration with the platform vendor. Much of the data governance will be applied before the data are ingested by the Data Atlas. In the first month, the priorities for the Data Scientist will focus on functional tasks such as dataset curation, interface maintenance, and data preparation for ingestion as outlined in Section 3.1. The Department will coordinate these priorities, with the Data Sources section below identifying the priority datasets.

Data Sources, Feeds & Technical Environment

13. Has the SD DOH identified priority datasets or data sources for the first contract year? If so, can a general description of those sources be provided?

14. Please provide the estimated number and types of datasets and interfaces expected during the first contract year, including source systems, current interface methods, refresh frequencies, approximate data volumes, and any known backlog of feeds requiring development or remediation.

15. Please provide an inventory of the existing data sources expected to be supported by the selected resources.

16. Approximately how many source systems are currently in scope?

17. How many state agencies, local governments, counties, healthcare organizations, Tribal Nations, clinics, academic institutions, or other external organizations are expected to provide data?

18. What are the approximate data volumes currently being processed?

19. Are there real-time, near-real-time, daily, weekly, monthly, or annual feeds?

20. What data formats and exchange mechanisms are currently used by the source systems, such as CSV, Excel, JSON, XML, APIs, database connections, HL7, or other formats?

21. Are there existing ETL/ELT pipelines or data-integration processes that the selected resources will maintain, or will new pipelines need to be developed?

22. What are the expectations for ongoing support and maintenance of the data feeds, interfaces, datasets, and dashboards throughout the contract period?

23. Approximately how many datasets, indicators, data feeds, dashboards, and reports are currently expected to be maintained or developed under this engagement?

24. Does the State anticipate that the selected resources will develop new Power BI, Tableau, or ESRI dashboards, or primarily maintain and support existing dashboards and reporting assets?

25. For the potential migration of existing Power BI and Tableau dashboards into the Rural Health Data Atlas, approximately how many dashboards are currently being considered for migration?

26. Please identify the primary data platforms, Azure services, databases, and interface technologies the selected personnel will support.

Response The specific priority datasets for the first contract year have not yet been finalized. A complete inventory of source systems has not been established at this proposal stage, but will build on the DOH IT inventory and DOH data encyclopedia. The finalized inventory will be determined during the State's Information Inventory phase, which is expected to be completed by October 30, 2026, in collaboration with the selected staffing resources. A minimum of ten data sources is anticipated at the initial launch, with most of them being federally curated. Data will be contributed by South Dakota State agencies, including the Department of Health (SD DOH), the Department of Social Services (DSS), and the Department of Human Services (DHS), along with federally curated sources, local and county datasets, and other publicly available sources (Section 3.1). It is important to note that hospitals, community coalitions, rural health clinics, Tribal Nations, and academic and research organizations will be primary beneficiaries and users of the Atlas, rather than data providers.

At the proposal stage, information regarding the number and types of datasets and interfaces, source-system counts, current interface methods, refresh frequencies, approximate data volumes, and the number of datasets, indicators, data feeds, dashboards, or reports to be maintained or developed is not available. A comprehensive Information Inventory will be completed during Year 1, specifically by October 30, 2026. This process, conducted in collaboration with the selected personnel, will establish data volumes, record counts, historical depth, source and dataset counts, ingestion-pipeline counts, refresh frequencies per source, and annual growth rates. No backlog of feeds requiring development or remediation has been identified, and therefore there are no known data-quality issues with the expected data sources. Offerors should base planning assumptions on their own reasonable estimates regarding the structure, format, and volume of source data.

As the State's data infrastructure (i.e., Azure Cosmos Db) is still under active development, this engagement will involve developing new data feeds as well as maintaining existing ones. The SD DOH, DSS, and DHS maintain separate cloud environments. For federally curated sources, retrieval, curation, and maintenance will fall within the scope for the selected staffing resources (Section 3.1). Ongoing responsibilities throughout the contract period, as described in Sections 3.1 and 3.2, include curating and maintaining datasets and indicators, developing and maintaining new data feeds from state agency systems, maintaining and troubleshooting data interfaces, and resolving technical issues that may affect the flow of data available for ingestion. The specific data formats and exchange mechanisms for each source will not be enumerated at the proposal stage, but will be established during the Information Inventory phase.

For dashboards, Section 3.1 instructs the Data Scientist to support the State's use of Power BI, ESRI, and Tableau. Additionally, Section 3.2 outlines the Informatician's responsibility to identify a migration strategy for the optional transition of existing departmental Power BI and Tableau dashboards into the Atlas. The number of dashboards to be developed, maintained, or considered for migration, as well as the balance between new development and support for existing assets, will be determined as the platform and data inventory evolve.

The platform is anticipated to reside within a state-owned Microsoft Azure tenant. SQL, Python, JavaScript, and Azure data services—including Databricks, Azure Data Factory, Synapse, and Cosmos DB—are identified in Section 3.2 as relevant technologies for the Informatician role. Section 3.1 mentions Power BI, ESRI, and Tableau as visualization tools that the Data Scientist will support, including the transition of data transformation logic to bronze, silver, and gold data medallion layers in the Azure Cosmos Db. In support of the DOH data lake, Azure data services such as Databricks, Azure Data Factory, Synapse, and Cosmos Db can be used to support ETL from DOH data sources and data systems.

Incumbent Vendor, Contract History & Historical Spend

27. Is there currently an incumbent vendor or contractor providing Data Scientist, Informatician, or related staffing/informatics services for the Rural Health Data Atlas initiative? If yes, please provide the incumbent vendor name(s), if publicly available.

28. Please provide the approximate number of temporary/contract workers utilized annually for similar data science, informatics, or related staffing services, if available.

29. Please provide the approximate number of staffing requests or assignments issued annually under similar staffing arrangements, if available.

30. Please provide historical spend or usage by job classification, particularly for Data Scientist, Informatician, public health informatics, or related positions, if available.

31. Please confirm if this is a new initiative or a re-bid of an existing contract.

32. If it is a re-bid, please share the names of the current service providers/incumbent vendors. Additionally, how many active resources are working under the previous contract?

33. Please provide the historical spending associated with this contract.

34. Are there any specific challenges, pain points, or areas of concern that you are currently experiencing with the existing vendors?

35. Is there currently an incumbent vendor or contractor performing the Data Scientist and/or Informatician functions described in this RFP? If yes, who is the incumbent?

36. Is the incumbent vendor allowed to participate in this RFP?

37. What are the current limitations and challenges that you are facing?

38. Is this a new contract/project? If not, can you please provide past project timeline, incumbents, and historical annual spend for each project year?

39. Is there a current or recent incumbent contractor providing similar data science or informatics staffing support to the Department? If yes, please provide the contract value.

Response The initiative is new; no incumbent vendor or contractor currently provides Data Scientist or Informatician services for this project. This initiative has no prior contract, historical spend, or staffing history. Information on the number of contract workers utilized, historical staffing volumes, and spend by job classification is not available for this procurement. All other questions in this group relate to a re-bid or existing contract, which does not apply here.

Budget & Contract Value

40. What is the estimated budget or not-to-exceed value for the initial one-year contract period?

41. Please confirm the budget allocated for this project.

42. What is the approved budget or range allocated for this project?

43. Is there a maximum authorized amount or not-to-exceed amount currently anticipated for the first contract year?

44. What is the expected contract value for this RFP?

45. What is the estimated budget range or not-to-exceed ceiling for this engagement?

46. Does the State have an anticipated budget for the contract?

Response Offerors should propose an hourly rate card as outlined in Section 3.3. The hourly rate card should be estimated for Year One according to the Section 7.0 Cost Proposal guidelines. The total contract amount will be set as a not-to-exceed figure at contract execution (see Section 2.4). A specific budget figure, range, or ceiling will not be disclosed during the proposal stage. Offerors are encouraged to submit their lowest and best proposal, considering the combination of candidate education, experience, and price.

Position Scope, Awards & Selection Structure

47. Section 3.0 lists two position types, Data Scientist and Informatician. May an Offeror propose for one position type only, or must a proposal cover both?

48. Does the Department anticipate making a single award or multiple awards under this RFP?

49. Section 3.3 states that offerors may provide up to three candidates for each position and that up to one candidate from each position type will be selected. Please confirm whether the Department currently anticipates selecting one Data Scientist and one Informatician in total, or whether additional candidates may be engaged during the contract term.

50. Please clarify the anticipated number of awards expected under this RFP.

51. Can an offeror submit a proposal for only one of the two positions (Data Scientist or Informatician), and can the State make separate awards for each position to different vendors?

52. Can the State confirm whether Offerors may submit a proposal for only one of the two position types (Data Scientist or Informatician), or are Offerors required to propose candidates for both position types?

53. Please confirm whether the State intends to award both the Data Scientist and Informatician positions to one Offeror or may award them separately.

54. Please confirm the anticipated number of positions to be filled for each role.

Response Offerors may submit a proposal for one or both positions, based on the candidates they can offer who meet the minimum qualifications; they are not required to propose for both. Section 3.3 confirms that offerors may propose up to three candidates per position. Through the RFP process, up to one candidate per position type will be selected. The two positions are evaluated and selected independently, and the Data Scientist and Informatician positions may be awarded to different offerors. There is no limit on the number of firms that may be awarded under this RFP, and Section 6.4 reserves the State's right to make award(s) as deemed in its best interest.

Hours, Level of Effort & Scheduling

55. Please confirm the anticipated hours per week and weeks per contract year for each position, whether any minimum or maximum hours are guaranteed, and whether the State may award the Data Scientist and Informatician positions to different offerors.

56. What approximate level of effort does the State anticipate for the Data Scientist position (for example, average hours per week or percentage of full-time effort)? Is there a minimum availability or capacity the State expects proposed candidates to commit?

57. Does the State anticipate the level of effort remaining relatively consistent throughout the contract year, or should Offerors anticipate significant variation in hours based on project phases, data availability, or other needs?

58. Does the State anticipate regular working-hour availability or specific meeting/core-hour requirements for the selected Data Scientist, or would work generally be scheduled flexibly in coordination with State personnel?

59. Please confirm the expected number of hours per week for each selected Data Scientist and Informatician.

60. Please provide the anticipated number of hours for the Data Scientist and Informatician positions.

61. What is the expected weekly level of effort for the Data Scientist and Informatician?

62. What are the expected core working hours and time zone requirements?

63. The RFP requests candidate availability information, including hours per week or days per month; however, it does not specify the anticipated level of effort for the Data Scientist and Informatician positions. Please clarify the expected number of hours per week or monthly hours anticipated for each position.

Response Each position should estimate full-time work at 40 hours per week, approximately 2,080 hours per year. Work priorities will be coordinated with State personnel. Level of effort is expected to remain relatively consistent throughout the contract year, though specific tasks and priorities will be refined in coordination with the Department. There are no fixed core-hour requirements; however, availability during Central Standard Time business hours is preferred to support coordination with State personnel. The award of the Data Scientist and Informatician positions to different offerors is permissible.

Work Location, Remote/Onsite & Project Locale

64. Is remote performance acceptable for the Data Scientist position? If so, what onsite presence or travel to Pierre or other South Dakota locations does the State anticipate?

65. Are staffing assignments expected to be primarily onsite, remote, or hybrid, or will the work arrangement be determined separately for each selected candidate or staffing assignment?

66. If onsite or hybrid work is required, please identify the anticipated primary work location(s) in South Dakota and the expected onsite frequency.

67. Team Staffing & Location: Is there a requirement or preference for team members to be located on-site for technical assistance and staff collaboration, or is fully remote support permitted for these roles?

68. Do you expect the vendor to perform any tasks on-site, or can all work be performed remotely?

69. Do you accept offshore resources?

70. What does the RFP mean by “availability to the project locale” and “familiarity with the project locale” in Sections 3.3 and 6.1?

71. Are travel expenses for required onsite activities reimbursable at State-approved rates?

72. Are the Data Scientist and Informatician roles fully remote? If occasional onsite presence is required, please specify how frequently, and confirm whether non-local (out-of-state) candidates can be proposed.

73. Is remote or hybrid remote/onsite work an option, or will all work be onsite?

74. Work Location, Sourcing, and Remote Flexibility: Section 3.3 requests the candidate’s “availability to the project locale.” Is the State specifically looking for local South Dakota candidates, or is this opportunity 100% remote? If hybrid or onsite presence is mandatory, what is the exact frequency required in Pierre, SD?

75. May both positions be performed fully remotely? If not, what onsite presence is expected?

76. How will the State evaluate “availability to” and “familiarity with” the project locale for remote personnel?

77. The RFP requests information regarding availability to the project locale and ability to travel onsite if necessary. Please clarify whether the Department anticipates remote, hybrid, or onsite performance for the selected resources. If onsite support is required, please provide the expected location, frequency, and circumstances requiring onsite attendance.

Response These positions are performed remotely. On-site presence is not required, and neither physical presence within South Dakota nor prior experience with State agencies is required. Availability to the project locale (Section 6.1.4) refers to the position being dedicated to DOH for the full 40 hours per week. Familiarity with the project locale (Section 6.1.5) refers to knowledge of South Dakota that would more quickly enable understanding of the data (e.g., knowledge that there are 66 counties in South Dakota assists with quality assurance). Offshore resources are not allowed. When onsite travel is requested, in-state and out-of-state travel is reimbursed at State per diem rates (Section 7.0).

Employment Arrangement & Staffing Model

78. The RFP states that up to one candidate will be selected for each position type. May the selected candidate serve as the primary resource and point of contact while receiving technical, analytical, research, project-management, or subject-matter support from other personnel employed by the Offeror? If so, should supporting personnel and their costs be identified in the proposal?

79. Can proposed candidates be engaged as either W-2 employees or C2C/subcontractor resources, or does the State require a specific employment arrangement?

80. Operational Management Structure: The RFP states that the Department is seeking “contractual staffing support” (Section 1.1.1). Will the selected vendor be expected to actively manage these two resources and project deliverables as a managed service, or will the resources be directly managed on a daily basis by the state’s internal program and technical staff?

81. The RFP identifies that the Department is seeking contractual staffing support for Data Scientist and Informatician positions. Please clarify whether the awarded vendor’s responsibility is limited to recruiting and providing qualified personnel resources, or whether the Department expects additional vendor-managed support throughout the engagement.

82. Section 5.2.3.1 requires Offerors to provide a narrative describing their assessment of the work, approach, and resources necessary to fulfill the requirements. Please clarify whether the Department expects the response to include the Offeror’s pre-placement and post-placement support approach, including candidate sourcing, qualification verification, onboarding, transition support, ongoing resource management, and coordination with the Department throughout the engagement.

Response The proposed candidate for each position need not be an existing employee of the offeror; whether the offeror provides in-house personnel or recruits a candidate is within the offeror's discretion. The engagement is for a named individual per position rather than a staffing pool or managed service. Project management is provided by a Department point of contact, who directs the position's scope of work during weekly project meetings. The State's technical and program teams are available to provide input, and the selected candidate is typically the team member with the specialized expertise of the data source or data system of focus. Section 5.2.3.1's narrative (assessment of the work, approach, and resources) is the appropriate place to describe the offeror's approach to fulfilling the position.

Candidate Qualifications, Resumes & Documentation

83. For the Data Scientist minimum qualification requiring “two years’ experience working in a public health setting,” how does the State define a “public health setting”? Would experience providing direct healthcare services in clinical or long-term-care settings qualify toward this requirement?

84. Are individual proposed candidates required to provide client references or past-project references, or are the 2–3 client references requested in Section 3.3 intended only for the Offeror’s organization?

85. Page 12, Section 5.2.3.2 — given that this proposal will be for staffing support, will resumes/curriculum vitae meet the requirements of this section? If not, can the Department elaborate on the specific points we should address?

86. For Section 5.2.3.2, should offerors respond separately to every duty and qualification listed for each resource presented in Section 3?

87. Section 3.3 states information concerning applicants can be provided “either in narrative or in the applicant resume or curriculum vitae.” However, Sections 5.2.6 and 6.3 request detailed information be provided about the applicants. Are specific resumes required at the time of submission, or can we provide sample resumes?

Response For this requirement, a public health setting is any environment outside traditional one-on-one clinical treatment where organized community efforts aim to prevent disease, prolong life, and promote health. This includes, but is not limited to, state and local health departments, tribal health programs, federally qualified health centers, public health laboratories, community health organizations, and academic or research institutions engaged in population-level health work. Experience that solely involves providing direct one-on-one clinical or long-term care services will not satisfy this requirement on its own. However, public sector or healthcare experience may substitute for public health experience if adequately justified in the proposal (see Section 5.2.3.3).

Candidates with submitted resumes are strongly preferred. Proposals that include known candidates provide the evaluation team with more detailed information than those with To-Be-Determined (TBD) candidates, although TBD or masked candidates are permitted. When resumes are included, there is no page limit; however, brevity focused on relevant experience is appreciated. Offerors are encouraged to submit up to their top three candidates for each position.

The 2-3 client references required under Section 3.3 are an organizational requirement fulfilled through Section 4.3; individual proposed candidates are not required to provide separate client references. Section 5.2.3.2 requires a point-by-point response to each duty and qualification listed in Section 3 for every proposed candidate. You may present qualification and experience information in a narrative format or ensure there is sufficient detail in the bullets describing responsibilities of past positions within the resume or curriculum vitae (see Section 3.3), with personnel qualifications detailed under Section 5.2.6.

Candidate Substitution & Availability

88. If a proposed resource becomes unavailable or allocated to any other project at the time of award/project start date, can we deploy another resource with the same/similar experience and skillset?

89. Candidate Availability & Substitution: Since resumes and client references are evaluated per candidate (Section 3.3), will the State permit candidate substitutions of equal or greater qualifications if a proposed individual becomes unavailable during the State’s review or contract negotiation window?

90. May an Offeror substitute for an equally or better qualified candidate if a proposed candidate becomes unavailable before award?

91. Please clarify whether an Offeror may provide a replacement candidate at the time of award if the originally proposed candidate is no longer available.

Response The Department may approve replacing a proposed candidate with an equally qualified candidate. This applies where a proposed individual becomes unavailable, including before award or during contract negotiation. The Department reserves the right to discontinue a contract if the proposed candidate is not acceptable. Further, qualified candidates are subject to a background check because of the protected data they will access during their work.

References & Similar Contracts (Sections 3.3 / 4.3)

92. Section 3.3 requests 2–3 client references from similar staff augmentation engagements, while Section 4.3 requests information regarding at least three previous or current contracts similar to the requirements of this RFP. Are these intended to be the same references/contracts, or is the State requesting separate information for these two requirements?

93. Section 4.3 asks for at least three previous and current contracts “performed by the Offeror’s organization,” while Section 6.3 states that the qualifications of the proposed personnel will be subjectively evaluated. For an Offeror whose proposed personnel hold the relevant experience from prior employers, may those engagements be presented under 4.3 and attributed to the individuals, or must all three contracts have been held by the responding organization itself?

94. Is Section 4.3 a mandatory requirement under Section 6.1, such that a proposal presenting fewer than three organization-held contracts would not proceed to comparative assessment?

95. Section 4.3 requests information for at least three previous/current services or contracts performed by the Offeror’s organization that are similar to this RFP. What degree of similarity is expected? For example, may Offerors provide contracts demonstrating relevant data analysis, research, technical assistance, or staff augmentation capabilities even if the work was not specifically public-health data science?

96. Section 3.3 requests 2–3 client references from similar staff-augmentation engagements. Can references correspond to broader relevant services described in Section 4.3, or must the referenced engagements specifically have been structured as staff augmentation?

97. Section 3.3 requires 2–3 client references from similar staff augmentation engagements, while Section 4.3 requires information for at least three previous/current similar contracts performed by the Offeror’s organization. Please confirm whether these are intended to be two separate requirements, or whether the same three engagements/references may satisfy both sections.

98. For the Section 4.3 similar-contract requirement, must prior engagements specifically involve public health/data informatics services, or will broader IT/data staff augmentation engagements of similar size and scope be considered acceptable?

99. Section 3.3 requires 2–3 client references from similar staff augmentation engagements, while Section 4.3 requires information regarding at least three previous and current similar contracts. Please confirm whether the same contracts and client references may be used to satisfy both requirements.

100. Please clarify whether references are required for the proposed candidates in addition to the organizational references required under the RFP. If required, please specify the expected reference format and information to be provided.

101. Please clarify whether Offerors may provide commercial-sector references demonstrating similar staff augmentation, data science, informatics, healthcare analytics, or related technical staffing engagements. If commercial references are acceptable, please confirm whether the use of commercial references instead of public-sector references will have any impact on the evaluation or scoring of the proposal.

Response Sections 3.3 and 4.3 may be satisfied by the same engagements. Section 3.3 establishes the requirement for 2–3 client references from similar staff augmentation engagements. Section 4.3 provides the format for submitting those references including client name, address, telephone number of a representative, dates of service, and a brief description of services performed. Offerors should provide at least three references in the format specified in Section 4.3. Individual proposed candidates are not required to provide separate client references. Commercial-sector references are acceptable provided a verifiable representative contact is included. The degree of similarity is evaluated subjectively; broader IT, data, technical assistance, or staff augmentation experience is acceptable even if not specifically public-health data science.

Cost Proposal, Rate Card & Invoicing

102. Section 3.3 requires an hourly rate card, while Section 7.0 requires salary, fringe, percent effort, indirect costs, and monthly invoices reflecting actual costs incurred. Can the State clarify how the hourly rate card is intended to relate to the Section 7.0 cost proposal and monthly invoicing requirements?

103. Should the hourly rate submitted for each position be an all-inclusive billing rate incorporating salary, fringe, indirect costs, and contractor fee/profit, or should those components be treated separately?

104. Should the proposed hourly rate include a reasonable contractor fee or profit in addition to salary, fringe, indirect, and other allowable costs? If so, where should fee/profit be reflected in the Section 7.0 cost proposal?

105. When Section 7.0 states that monthly invoices must provide the same level of budget detail for “actual costs incurred,” will payment be based on the contracted hourly rate multiplied by hours worked, or reimbursement of the underlying actual salary, fringe, indirect, and other costs?

106. Will the State provide the selected contractor with required access to State data, systems, software, development environments, and licenses such as Power BI, ESRI, Tableau, or other required platforms, or should Offerors include anticipated software/equipment costs in the cost proposal?

107. Section 7.0 requests a Year-One budget allocation showing Personnel, Fringe, Supplies, Travel, Other, and Indirect Costs. Please confirm whether Offerors must submit both the hourly rate card and the detailed Section 7 budget allocation table.

108. The Section 7 budget table requests separate salary and fringe details. Please confirm whether the Department requires Offerors to disclose the actual employee salary/pay rate and fringe amounts for each proposed candidate.

109. What number of estimated annual hours should Offerors use when calculating the Year-One personnel budget for each position?

110. Section 7 requests anticipated future cost increases. Is there a maximum allowable annual escalation percentage for the four potential renewal periods?

111. Section 3.3 requires an hourly rate card for each position type, while Section 7 requires a detailed budget including personnel, fringe, supplies, travel, other, and indirect costs. Please clarify — do we need to provide equipment or supplies to our resources?

112. Pricing Alignment (Rate Card vs. Line Item Budget): Section 5.2.4 mandates an hourly rate card, while the Section 7.0 Budget Allocation Table requests itemized “Salary” and “Fringe.” For a staff augmentation model, should vendors complete the Section 7.0 table utilizing the total billable contract hourly rates rather than breaking down internal salary/fringe?

113. Sections 3.3 and 5.2.4 request hourly rates, while Section 7 requests salary, fringe, indirect, travel, and Year 1 cost detail. Please clarify the intended pricing/contract structure and how Offerors should reconcile the hourly rate card with the Section 7 budget table.

114. The RFP requires Offerors to provide an hourly rate card for each position type. Please clarify whether Offerors are required to provide a fixed hourly rate for each position type or whether hourly rate ranges may be provided. Additionally, please confirm whether Offerors may provide different hourly rates based on the proposed candidate’s experience level, such as junior, senior, or expert-level qualifications.

Response The hourly rate card is the primary cost proposal the State evaluates and should include all known costs (i.e., all-inclusive billing rate) for the one-year contract term. Contract renewal will be the time when any annual cost increases in the hourly rate card will be negotiated.

To simplify Section 7.0, please include the hourly rate card in Section D. Other of the budget allocation table. Offerors should use the budget allocation table to estimate their total Year One budget. The number of hours for each position type should be estimated for 2,080 hours (40 hours per week for 52 weeks).

The budget allocation table in Section 7.0 should be used to include anything the offeror considers separate from the hourly rate card, such as travel. In Section C. Travel of the budget allocation table, offerors should estimate two trips per year to Pierre, SD, to support work activities. All travel must receive pre-approval from the State and will be reimbursed at State per diem rates.

Invoices submitted for payment should include the number of hours worked, the hourly rate card, and additional costs approved by the department to be incurred by the selected vendor, such as completed travel.

Each position type must have a single fixed hourly rate. As an alternative cost proposal in Section 5.2.4, an offeror could propose hourly rate cards by experience level for one or both position type.

The State security policy will likely require selected staffing resources to access State data, or work within the State’s secure environment, using State-issued equipment. Any updates to equipment requirements will be communicated prior to contract execution. The State will provide access to necessary software and platforms. Offerors should not include hardware, software, or licensing fees related to a personal computer in their budget but can denote specialized personal computer software request, as well as other hardware, software, or licensing needs in their proposals.

Evaluation Criteria & Selection Process

115. Please provide the relative evaluation weighting for candidate qualifications, technical approach, past performance, availability/project locale, project management, and cost, and confirm whether candidate interviews or technical presentations will be included in the evaluation process.

116. Please confirm the evaluation criteria and weighting (e.g., technical vs. cost).

117. Will there be an opportunity for a virtual/on-presentation or negotiation meeting during the evaluation process?

118. Will the State interview proposed candidates before selection?

Response Proposals are evaluated against the seven criteria listed in Section 6.0. There is a maximum score of 580 points for the evaluation proposal:

i. Section 6.1.1: 100 points

ii. Section 6.1.2: 100 points

iii. Section 6.1.3: 100 points

iv. Section 6.1.4: 100 points

v. Section 6.1.5: 60 points

vi. Section 6.1.6: 60 points

vii. Section 6.1.7: 60 points Cost will be evaluated alongside the technical proposal and becomes increasingly important as technical scores become closer (Section 7.0). Awards will be based on the submitted documents; however, the State reserves the right to request an oral presentation from a shortlist of offerors as part of the defined evaluation process. Candidate interviews are not included as part of the evaluation process.

Timeline & Deadlines

119. Section 1.4 states that all deadlines fall at 11:59 p.m. CST. The BHRA posting board lists the proposal due date for event 26RFP-27-09RHT-025 as September 28, 2026 at 5:00 p.m. CT. Which governs?

120. What is the expected timeline for award notification and contract execution?

Response The deadline for submitting proposals is September 28, 2026, at 11:59 p.m. CST, as outlined in the Schedule of Activities in Section 1.4 of the RFP. Offerors should consult Section 1.4 for all relevant deadlines. Contract execution is anticipated to occur shortly after the award decision and contract negotiation.

Solicitation Administration

121. Also under 3.3, the last bullet appears to have been cut off. Is there additional information regarding what is expected in terms of project management techniques?

122. Is there any page limit for the Detailed Response/Technical Proposal, excluding resumes, cost proposal, and attachments?

123. Is there a local preference in connection with this RFP?

124. What is the anticipated volume of staffing requests (e.g., estimated number of requisitions per year)?

125. Could you please provide details on the job categories, labor classifications, or skill sets most requested?

126. Is there an employee conversion policy (i.e., can the department directly hire contractor staff after a defined period)?

127. Will timekeeping be handled through the department’s system, or will vendors be required to provide a platform?

128. Section 3.3 contains the incomplete phrase “Project management techniques to ensure selected candidates.” Please clarify the complete requirement.

Response In Section 3.3, the bullet point starting with "Project management techniques to ensure selected candidates" requests that the offeror outline their proposed approach to project management to guarantee that selected candidates effectively fulfill their position responsibilities throughout the contract period.

There is no page limit for the Detailed Response/Technical Proposal, excluding resumes, cost proposals, and attachments. This Request for Proposal (RFP) does not have any local preference. Additionally, there is no policy for employee conversion.

This procurement is focused on selecting one named candidate per position rather than creating a staffing pool, which means there is no expected annual volume of staffing requests or requisitions. The job categories being sought are Data Scientist and Informatician positions as described in Section 3.0.

Timekeeping will be managed through the vendor's own system. The vendor is responsible for maintaining accounting records and details of hours worked. The department requests that an account of hours worked be submitted with the invoice to support payment.

Federal Grant Reporting & Performance Measures

129. What federal grant reporting or performance-measure responsibilities are anticipated for the selected candidates?

130. Reporting & Performance Measures: For the federal grant reporting requirements, are there specific standard federal frameworks/templates currently in use (e.g., CDC data modernization standards), or will the team be developing custom reporting metrics from scratch?

Response Selected candidates will not handle federal grant reporting directly. However, their work in data curation, quality assurance, and preparation will support the Department's reporting obligations. Candidates must ensure that their data and outputs meet the necessary quality and documentation standards as determined by the Department.