Response to Offeror Questions document.docx

STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IT) RFP

(South Dakota Bureau of Information & Technology, 700 Governors Dr, Pierre, SD, 57501)

Infrastructure Resiliency: Data Center Relocation

RFP #: 26RFP19987

RESPONSES TO OFFEROR QUESTIONS

Q. Does the State require the proposed data center facility to be physically located within South Dakota or within a specific maximum distance or travel time from Pierre or another State location? If not, please identify any maximum distance, latency, travel-time, or physical accessibility requirements applicable to the proposed facility.

A. The proposed data center location must be physically located within South Dakota. Please refer to RFP ADDENDUM 1 – Physical Location Requirement for Data Center Services.

Q. Please confirm the total initial physical footprint required, including the number of cabinets/racks. Please provide the anticipated total critical IT load in kW.

A. Current Physical Footprint and Rack Requirements The State's current physical footprint consists of 24 racks/cabinets.

Power Profile

· Average consumption: 1,942 kWh/day

· Average UPS output: 90.1 kVA

· Peak UPS output: 98.2 kVA

· Standard rack configuration: A/B power, 208V, 30A, single-phase The rack inventory includes a mix of:

· Four-post server cabinets

· Two-post telecommunications racks

· Four-post telecommunications racks

· Several high-density 208V three-phase racks with dedicated power requirements Anticipated Critical IT Load Based on the current rack configurations and power requirements, the anticipated critical IT load is approximately 70 kW.

Respondents should size their solution to accommodate 24 total racks, associated A/B power distribution, and an estimated critical IT load of approximately 70 kW.

Q. The State of South Dakota participates in cooperative purchasing vehicles, including NASPO contracts. Would the State consider satisfying some or all of the requirements contemplated by this RFP through an existing competitively solicited cooperative contract, including an applicable NASPO contract or another State-authorized cooperative purchasing vehicle, where the required data center, cloud, connectivity, and related services are available under that contract? If so, please identify the cooperative purchasing vehicles the State would consider acceptable and whether an award or procurement under such a vehicle could be made in lieu of, or separately from, an award under this RFP.

A. The State of South Dakota intends to continue with the current RFP process to ensure that all requirements are clearly defined and fully met. However, the State would consider leveraging an existing competitively solicited cooperative purchasing vehicle, such as a NASPO contract or another State‑authorized cooperative contract, as the legal procurement mechanism if it simplifies the contracting process and provides the required data center, connectivity, or related services.

At this stage, the RFP remains the primary vehicle for establishing requirements, while cooperative purchasing contracts may be used in parallel or as the final contracting path where appropriate.

Q. Are deployments required outside of South Dakota, specifically in Des Moines, Columbus, and Dallas?

A. All deployments must be physically located within South Dakota. The proposed data center location must be physically located within South Dakota. Please refer to RFP ADDENDUM 1 – Physical Location Requirement for Data Center Services.

Q. How many cabinets/racks are required at each location?

A. The State's current physical footprint consists of 24 racks/cabinets. Respondents should size their solution to accommodate 24 total racks, associated A/B power distribution, and an estimated critical IT load of approximately 70 kW. The State does not currently provide specific cage size or square footage requirements

Q. What is the anticipated IT power load (kW) at each location?

A. Anticipated Critical IT Load Based on the current rack configurations and power requirements, the anticipated critical IT load is approximately 70 kW.

Q. Which network providers/carriers will need to be connected?

A. The State is not currently mandating connectivity to any specific network provider or telecommunications carrier. The intent of the RFP is to evaluate the facility's ability to support resilient and diverse network connectivity options.

Respondents should identify the telecommunications carriers available within their facility, describe available cross-connect options, and explain how their solution supports diverse and physically separated network paths for redundancy and resiliency. The State will work with the selected vendor during implementation planning to determine the specific carrier and circuit requirements necessary to support the State's final network architecture and migration strategy.

Facilities with access to multiple carrier options and the ability to support redundant connectivity paths are preferred.

Q. Is cloud connectivity required? If so, which cloud providers?

A. Cloud connectivity is not a mandatory requirement of the proposed solution. However, the State is interested in understanding the facility's capability to provide low-latency, high-availability connectivity to major cloud providers as part of its overall evaluation of network flexibility and future scalability. 06.APPENDIX_F_Evaluation_Criteria includes an evaluation criterion asking whether the facility can provide interconnection to public cloud services such as AWS, Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud Platform, Oracle, and similar providers.

Respondents should identify available cloud connectivity options within their facility and describe any cloud on-ramp, direct-connect, or express-route capabilities that are available. At this time, the State is not requiring connectivity to any specific cloud provider as part of this RFP.

The State may consider cloud connectivity capabilities as part of its long-term infrastructure strategy and future requirements; therefore, respondents are encouraged to describe available connectivity options to major public cloud providers, if offered by the facility.

Q. What is the target installation/delivery date for the relocation?

A. The State has not established a fixed installation, delivery, or relocation date at this time. Following contract award, the State and the selected vendor will jointly develop a detailed transition and migration plan that includes implementation sequencing, facility readiness activities, testing, cutover planning, and an agreed-upon migration schedule. The State anticipates a collaborative planning approach.

Respondents should propose their typical implementation and onboarding timelines, identify any facility provisioning lead times, and describe dependencies that could affect the migration schedule. The State will consider implementation approach, readiness requirements, and schedule feasibility as part of its evaluation.

The State's objective is to complete the migration in a secure, orderly, and low-risk manner while minimizing disruption to critical services. The final implementation timeline will be established during the transition and migration planning phase following vendor selection.

Q. Please clarify the applicability of Appendix B to respondents proposing a colocation-only solution in which the customer retains responsibility for hosting, managing, monitoring, and administering its own applications, systems, and data.

A. Appendix B is the State of South Dakota's standard Security and Vendor Questionnaire and is included as part of the RFP for all respondents. For respondents proposing a colocation-only solution where the State retains responsibility for hosting, managing, monitoring, and administering its own applications, systems, and data, certain questions may not be applicable to the proposed service model.

Respondents should complete Appendix B to the extent applicable to their offering. Where a question is not relevant to a colocation-only service, the respondent may select "N/A" and provide a brief explanation describing why the requirement does not apply. Responses should focus on the services, systems, facilities, and security controls that are within the respondent's scope of responsibility.

The State will evaluate responses in the context of the proposed service model and recognizes that not all application-, platform- or managed-service-related questions will apply to a colocation-only offering. This questionnaire remains important for understanding the vendor's security posture, facility controls, operational practices, and risk management processes.

Q. Several requirements within the RFP reference monitoring, reporting, environmental metrics, and operational visibility. Is a State-accessible Data Center Infrastructure Management (DCIM) platform required as part of the proposed solution, or may respondents satisfy these requirements through alternative monitoring and reporting methods?

A. The State is not requiring respondents to provide a specific Data Center Infrastructure Management (DCIM) platform. Respondents may satisfy the RFP's monitoring, reporting, environmental metrics, and operational visibility requirements through a DCIM solution or through other tools, processes, and reporting mechanisms, provided they enable the vendor to meet all applicable RFP requirements.

The State's objective is to ensure adequate visibility into facility operations, environmental conditions, infrastructure performance, incident management, and reporting obligations. Respondents should clearly describe the monitoring and reporting capabilities included in their proposed solution, the metrics available to the State, the method of access to operational information, and how those capabilities support the RFP's resiliency, operational, and reporting requirements. The specific technology used is at the vendor's discretion.

Q. Section 1.12 of the RFP states the contract term will be 10 years with up to two one-year renewals; however, Appendix E requests a three-year cost view. Please clarify the pricing expectations. Should respondents provide pricing only for Years 1-3 as requested in Appendix E, or should pricing be provided for the full 10-year contract term?

A. Respondents should complete Appendix E as provided and include a detailed cost breakdown for Years 1 through 3, consistent with the Appendix E instructions requesting a three-year operating cost view. Appendix E specifically directs vendors to provide a three-year view of recurring operating costs.

Because the anticipated contract term is ten (10) years with up to two (2) one-year renewal options, respondents are also encouraged to describe any pricing assumptions, escalation methodologies, renewal pricing approaches, or factors that may affect pricing beyond Year 3. This information may be provided as supplemental documentation accompanying Appendix E.

For proposal evaluation purposes, the required pricing submission is the completed Appendix E three-year cost model.

Q. For Appendix F, Item H09, please define what the State considers a “high-density/converged infrastructure deployment,” including the anticipated power/cooling density and any specific cooling methodology or technology the State expects the facility to support.

A. For the purposes of Appendix F, Item H09, the State is not prescribing a specific definition, power density threshold, cooling methodology, or cooling technology. The intent of the requirement is to assess whether the proposed facility can accommodate infrastructure that may require greater-than-standard rack power densities and associated cooling capacity over the life of the contract. Appendix F asks respondents to identify whether their facilities can support these types of deployments.

Respondents should describe the maximum rack densities their facilities can support, any applicable cooling approaches available within the facility, and any constraints or requirements associated with supporting higher-density deployments.

The State's objective is to ensure that the selected facility has sufficient flexibility, power capacity, cooling capacity, and scalability to support future infrastructure needs without requiring a specific technology approach. This aligns with the RFP's broader emphasis on capacity planning, cooling redundancy, resiliency, and long-term operational scalability.

Q. Can the State provide estimated rack requirements, cage requirements, or square footage requirements for the proposed deployment?

A. The State's current physical footprint consists of 24 racks/cabinets. The rack inventory includes a mix of four-post server cabinets, two-post telecommunications racks, four-post telecommunications racks, and several high-density 208V three-phase racks with dedicated power requirements. Respondents should size their proposed solution to accommodate 24 total racks, associated A/B power distribution, and an estimated 70 kW critical IT load.

At this time, the State does not have specific cage size or square footage requirements available. Vendors should use the rack count, power profile, and critical load information provided to determine the appropriate cage and floor space necessary to support the proposed deployment.

Q. Can the State provide estimated power requirements, including current or anticipated kW consumption, cabinet density requirements, and anticipated growth projections?

A. The State's current power profile and anticipated deployment requirements are based on its existing footprint of 24 racks/cabinets. The State's average power consumption is approximately 1,942 kWh per day, with an average UPS output of 90.1 kVA and a peak UPS output of 98.2 kVA. The standard rack configuration utilizes A/B power feeds, 208V, 30A, single-phase power.

Based on the current rack configurations and power requirements, the State's anticipated critical IT load is approximately 70 kW. Respondents should size their solution to support this estimated critical load and the associated A/B power distribution requirements.

Regarding cabinet density, the State's environment includes a mix of four-post server cabinets, two-post telecommunications racks, four-post telecommunications racks, and several high-density 208V three-phase racks with dedicated power requirements.

No further growth projections beyond the anticipated total of 24 racks are available at this time.

Q. Can the State provide current and anticipated connectivity requirements, including bandwidth expectations, cross-connect quantities, internet requirements, and dark fiber requirements, if any?

A. The State is not providing definitive bandwidth requirements, cross-connect counts, internet service requirements, or dark-fiber requirements as part of this procurement. The purpose of this RFP is to evaluate the facility's ability to support the State's current and future connectivity needs within a resilient, scalable hosting environment.

Q. What is the State's anticipated timeline for facility onboarding, migration activities, and full production occupancy following contract award?

A. The State has not established a fixed installation, delivery, or relocation date at this time. Following contract award, the State and the selected vendor will jointly develop a detailed transition and migration plan that includes implementation sequencing, facility readiness activities, testing, cutover planning, and an agreed-upon migration schedule. The State anticipates a collaborative planning approach.

Respondents should propose their typical implementation and onboarding timelines, identify any facility provisioning lead times, and describe dependencies that could affect the migration schedule. The State will consider implementation approach, readiness requirements, and schedule feasibility as part of its evaluation.

The State's objective is to complete the migration in a secure, orderly, and low-risk manner while minimizing disruption to critical services. The final implementation timeline will be established during the transition and migration planning phase following vendor selection.

Q. Section 6 states that respondents should "respond to each point in Sections 3 and 4 in the order they were presented." However, Section 6.2.3 also provides a separate proposal organization structure. In addition, Sections 6.3 through 6.15 introduce additional required proposal content (e.g., Statement of Understanding, Project Plan, Response to State Contract Terms, Background Investigation Statement, etc.) that are not specifically identified within the Section 6.2.3 outline. Should respondents structure their proposal primarily according to the organizational headings identified in Section 6.2.3? Or should respondents structure their proposal according to the order of Sections 3 and 4, incorporating the required appendices and documentation within those sections?

A. Respondents should primarily organize their proposals using the proposal structure identified in Section 6.2.3. The State's preference is that proposals follow the Section 6.2.3 headings and organizational format, with the corresponding sections tabbed or bookmarked as described in the RFP.

All required content identified elsewhere in Section 6, including the requirements in Sections 6.3 through 6.15, should be incorporated into the applicable Section 6.2.3 proposal sections or included as the required appendices and supporting documentation referenced by those sections.

Respondents are still expected to address the requirements described in Sections 3 and 4; however, the State does not require proposals to be reorganized to mirror the exact order of Sections 3 and 4. Instead, respondents should use the Section 6.2.3 organizational structure and clearly demonstrate how their solution satisfies the requirements of Sections 3 and 4.

Q. If Section 6.2.3 is the preferred organizational structure, should the additional requirements identified in Sections 6.3 through 6.15 be incorporated into the applicable sections of that structure, or should separate proposal sections be created for each requirement?

A. Respondents are not required to create separate proposal sections for each item identified in Sections 6.3 through 6.15. The State's preference is that proposals follow the organizational structure outlined in Section 6.2.3, using the prescribed headings and tabs/bookmarks identified in that section. 01.BIT_RFP_DataCenter states that proposals should be prepared using the Section 6.2.3 headings and that those sections should be tabbed or bookmarked.

The requirements described in Sections 6.3 through 6.15 should be incorporated into the applicable Section 6.2.3 proposal sections or included as the required appendices, forms, certifications, statements, and supporting documentation referenced by those sections.

Respondents should ensure that all required content is included and clearly identifiable within the proposal. If a respondent elects to provide a separate subsection for a specific requirement to improve clarity, that is acceptable; however, the State does not require a standalone proposal section for each Section 6.3 through 6.15 requirement.

The State's primary objective is to receive proposals that are complete, well organized, and easy to evaluate using the structure outlined in Section 6.2.3.

Q. Section 6.10 states that respondents should answer the listed Corporate Qualifications questions and references Appendix D as the vehicle for providing those responses. However, some of the information requested in Section 6.10 does not appear to align directly with the format and questions provided in Appendix D. Should respondents complete Appendix D exactly as provided and consider that sufficient to satisfy Section 6.10 requirements, or are additional narrative responses addressing Section 6.10 also expected?

A. Respondents should complete Appendix D as provided. A completed Appendix D is required and is intended to serve as the primary vehicle for addressing the Corporate Qualifications and Experience requirements referenced in Section 6.10.

If a respondent believes that information specifically requested in Section 6.10 is not fully addressed by the Appendix D format, the respondent may provide supplemental narrative information or supporting documentation to ensure a complete response. Such supplemental information may be included with Appendix D or referenced from another appropriate section of the proposal.

The State's intent is not to require respondents to duplicate information between Appendix D and separate narrative sections. A fully completed Appendix D, together with any necessary supplemental information required to address Section 6.10, will be considered sufficient to satisfy the Corporate Qualifications requirements.

Q. Appendix D, Section 5 (Project Experience and References), requests three customer references for similar projects. Appendix H (Project Experience and References) requests detailed information regarding four recent projects. How many references/projects should respondents ultimately provide for evaluation purposes: three or four?

A. Respondents should provide information for four (4) projects in accordance with Appendix H. The State will use those project examples as the primary basis for evaluating project experience, qualifications, and past performance.

To satisfy the customer reference requirement in Appendix D, respondents may use references associated with those same four projects. The State does not require separate or additional project examples beyond those submitted in Appendix H.

As a result, respondents should submit:

· Four (4) project examples meeting the requirements of Appendix H; and

· Customer reference information associated with those projects sufficient to satisfy Appendix D.

Submission of four qualifying projects will satisfy the State's intent regarding both project experience and reference validation requirements

Q. Is Appendix H intended to replace the Project Experience and Reference portions of Appendix D, or must both be completed independently?

A. Appendix H is not intended to replace Appendix D. Respondents should complete both appendices as part of their proposal submission.

Appendix D is intended to collect information regarding the offeror's corporate qualifications, experience, and customer references as part of the State's overall assessment of the offeror's capabilities.

Appendix H intends to collect detailed information regarding recent project experience and past performance.

To reduce duplication, respondents may use the same projects and customer references in both appendices where applicable. However, respondents should complete each appendix in its entirety and provide all information requested in each form.

Respondents may use different or the same projects and references in both appendices but must complete each appendix in its entirety. For evaluation purposes, the State will review both Appendix D and Appendix H as separate proposal components.

Q. Section 7 provides a specific cost proposal format and cost tables. Appendix E also contains a detailed Cost Analysis template with a different format and level of detail. Should respondents complete both the Section 7 cost tables and Appendix E? If only one is required, should respondents follow Appendix E or the Section 7 cost proposal format?

A. Respondents should complete Appendix E: Cost Analysis and use it as the primary cost proposal submission format. The RFP specifically requires a completed copy of Appendix E and references Appendix E as the vehicle for presenting project costs, operational support costs, disaster recovery costs, and other pricing information.

Respondents are not required to duplicate the same pricing information in both Appendix E and separate Section 7 cost tables. To the extent there is any inconsistency between the Section 7 cost proposal format and Appendix E, Appendix E shall govern for purposes of proposal submission and evaluation.

Vendors may provide supplemental pricing schedules or explanatory documentation if necessary to clarify assumptions, pricing methodology, optional services, or future pricing considerations; however, the completed Appendix E will serve as the State's primary pricing evaluation document.

Q. Can you provide an inventory summary or rack elevation diagram of the equipment planned for relocation – primarily needed if the State wants the vendor to provide a physical relocation.

A. The State is not providing a detailed equipment inventory, asset list, or rack elevation diagrams as part of the RFP at this time.

The State's current physical footprint consists of 24 racks/cabinets.

The equipment in scope generally includes enterprise-class servers, blade and chassis systems, centralized storage platforms, network equipment, management equipment, power distribution components, and other supporting infrastructure currently operating within State facilities.

The primary objective of this solicitation is to evaluate the respondent's ability to provide a secure, resilient, and scalable hosting environment capable of accommodating the State's existing and future infrastructure requirements. Respondents should base their proposals on the information provided in the RFP and associated appendices.

If relocation services are proposed as part of the respondent's solution, it should be clearly indicated in the response. Respondents should describe their methodology for inventory validation, migration planning, equipment handling, transportation, installation, testing, and cutover activities. Final inventory details, rack assignments, and migration logistics will be developed during transition and migration planning following contract award.

Q. What are the current and projected power requirements for the environment?

A. Current Power Profile

· Average consumption: 1,942 kWh/day

· Average UPS output: 90.1 kVA

· Peak UPS output: 98.2 kVA

· Standard rack configuration: A/B power, 208V, 30A, single-phase

· Anticipated Critical IT Load Based on the current rack configurations and power requirements, the anticipated critical IT load is approximately 70 kW.

At this time, the State is not establishing a specific future power-growth requirement as part of this procurement. Respondents should propose solutions capable of supporting the current load while also demonstrating the ability to accommodate future growth and additional capacity needs during the contract term. The RFP includes requirements related to spare power and cooling capacity, scalability, and the ability to support increasing demand over time.

Respondents are encouraged to describe available expansion capacity, power scalability options, and any limitations associated with future growth within the proposed facility.

Q. What are the highest-density rack requirements that the facility must support?

A. The State has not established a specific maximum rack-density requirement for this procurement. Respondents should describe the maximum rack densities their facility can support and demonstrate the ability to accommodate the State's current environment and future growth requirements. The State will evaluate facility scalability and support for higher-density deployments.

Q. Does the State prefer metered power billing, allocated power billing, or a blended pricing model?

A. The State does not have a preference for metered power billing, allocated power billing, or a blended pricing model.

Respondents may propose the pricing model that best aligns with their service offering and operational practices.

Respondents must clearly describe their power billing methodology and include all assumptions used to develop pricing. During evaluation, the State will compare proposals based on the total cost of ownership and overall value of the proposed solution rather than the specific power billing methodology used.

Q. What are the sizes of the existing racks/cabinets? Does the State want the vendor to provide new racks as part of the proposal?

A. The State is not providing detailed rack or cabinet dimensions as part of the RFP at this time. The information available to respondents includes the estimated rack quantities and power requirements provided through the procurement process.

The State does not require respondents to provide new racks as part of their base proposal. If respondents offer rack procurement, replacement, or rack modernization services, those options may be identified separately and clearly priced as optional services. The final determination regarding reuse of existing racks, replacement, or deployment of new racks will be made during transition and migration planning following vendor selection.

Q. Does the State require a Private Cage, if so, are there any access control requirements on the cage such as badge access, biometrics, etc?

A. The State requires its equipment to be physically secured and segregated from other customers within the facility. This may be accomplished through a private cage, private suite, or another dedicated and access-controlled area that provides equivalent physical separation and security.

Respondents should describe the physical security controls protecting the State's environment, including access authorization processes, access logging, visitor controls, escort requirements, and any authentication mechanisms used to control entry (e.g., badge access, biometrics, or multi-factor access controls).

The State's requirements are informed by applicable security and regulatory obligations, including IRS Publication 1075 requirements for restricting physical access to systems and environments containing protected federal tax information, where applicable.

Q. Does the State want the vendor to include extra space for future expected growth?

A. The State expects the proposed solution to support future growth and expansion. Respondents should describe the facility's ability to accommodate additional space, power, and cooling requirements over the life of the contract. The State is not requiring a specific amount of reserved space in the base proposal.

Q. Is the selected vendor expected to provide physical relocation and migration services, or only the destination hosting environment?

A. The selected vendor is expected to provide the destination hosting environment. If respondents also offer physical relocation and migration services, they should describe those capabilities and include any associated costs in their proposal.

The RFP scope includes the hosting of production workloads, compute and storage systems, network infrastructure, and related equipment. Migration planning and implementation activities are intended to be developed collaboratively following vendor selection.

Q. Does the State have a target migration timeline or desired completion date?

A. The State has not established a date at this time. Following contract award, the State and the selected vendor will jointly develop a detailed transition and migration plan that includes implementation sequencing, facility readiness activities, testing, cutover planning, and an agreed-upon migration schedule. The State anticipates a collaborative planning approach.

Respondents should propose their typical implementation and onboarding timelines, identify any facility provisioning lead times, and describe dependencies that could affect the migration schedule. The State will consider implementation approach, readiness requirements, and schedule feasibility as part of its evaluation.

The State's objective is to complete the migration in a secure, orderly, and low-risk manner while minimizing disruption to critical services. The final implementation timeline will be established during the transition and migration planning phase following vendor selection.

Q. How many carrier circuits will need to be delivered into the new facility and who are the State’s preferred telecommunications carriers?

A. The State is not currently mandating connectivity to any specific network provider or telecommunications carrier. The intent of the RFP is to evaluate the facility's ability to support resilient and diverse network connectivity options.

Respondents should identify the telecommunications carriers available within their facility, describe available cross-connect options, and explain how their solution supports diverse and physically separated network paths for redundancy and resiliency. The State will work with the selected vendor during implementation planning to determine the specific carrier and circuit requirements necessary to support the State's final network architecture and migration strategy.

Facilities with access to multiple carrier options and the ability to support redundant connectivity paths are preferred.

Q. Is the selected facility intended to serve as the primary production site, a disaster recovery site, or both?

A. The State intends for the selected facility to serve as a primary production hosting environment for systems to be relocated under this initiative.

Q. Is a geographically separate disaster recovery location required as part of the proposal?

A. No. The State is not requiring respondents to provide a geographically separate disaster recovery location as part of the base proposal.

Q. Is there a minimum facility tier requirement (Tier III, Tier IV, or equivalent), or will the State evaluate facilities based on demonstrated resiliency and capabilities?

A. The State has not established a minimum facility tier certification requirement (e.g., Tier III or Tier IV) for this procurement.

Respondents should identify any data center tier certifications or equivalent standards applicable to their facility and describe the facility's resiliency, redundancy, availability, security, and operational capabilities. The State will evaluate proposals based on the demonstrated ability of the facility to meet the RFP's resiliency, continuity, security, and operational requirements.

Q. Are there specific geographic restrictions or preferred regions for the site location?

A. The proposed facility must be located within South Dakota. While the State does not have a preferred city or region, respondents should identify any environmental, geographic, or man-made risks associated with the proposed location, such as floodplains, seismic activity, rail corridors, airports, or other hazards that could affect service continuity.

Q. Many compliance frameworks are noted throughout the documents, but we don’t see where any are specifically called out as required. Please confirm.

A. Not all compliance frameworks referenced in the RFP are mandatory certifications or attestations that respondents must possess.

The State's primary requirement is that the proposed solution comply with the BIT Information Technology Security Policy and the security, physical, operational, and resiliency requirements identified throughout the RFP. The RFP further requires vendors to maintain a security posture aligned with the minimum control expectations of NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5.

Other frameworks and standards referenced in the RFP, such as IRS Publication 1075, CJIS, HIPAA, PCI DSS, FedRAMP, SOC, and similar frameworks, may apply depending on the services provided, the systems hosted, or the regulatory requirements associated with specific State workloads. The RFP generally requires respondents to demonstrate their ability and willingness to meet those requirements when applicable.

The State will evaluate respondents based on their ability to satisfy the RFP's stated security, operational, and compliance requirements rather than requiring a specific set of certifications unless expressly identified elsewhere in the solicitation.

Q. The Cyber insurance requirement does not show a required amount of coverage – please clarify the specific coverage limit, or is the State want to know what our current cyber insurance coverage is?

A. The RFP does not currently establish a specific minimum cyber liability insurance coverage amount. The State's intent is to understand the respondent's cyber liability insurance coverage and verify that appropriate coverage is maintained for the services being proposed. The RFP requires vendors to provide certificates of insurance and describes the types of cyber-related incidents and costs that the coverage should address, but does not specify a minimum coverage limit.

Accordingly, respondents should identify their current cyber liability insurance coverage, including applicable coverage limits, and provide any supporting insurance documentation requested by the RFP. The State reserves the right to negotiate final insurance requirements with the selected vendor during contract discussions.

Q. Can you provide historical volume for tasks, service hours, response times from State employees in support of the State’s current cabinet / rack infrastructure?

A. The State does not have historical task-volume, service-hour, or response-time metrics available for release as part of this procurement.

Respondents should assume responsibility for providing the level of remote hands, operational support, incident response, and facility services necessary to support the proposed hosting environment in accordance with their service model and applicable service level commitments. The RFP requires respondents to describe their operational support capabilities, remote hands services, response processes, and associated service levels.

Q. Section 6.14 Cost: Please clarify – is the State asking offerors to build in costs of a full DR site solution? If so, what are the requirements of the State’s disaster recovery plan expectations as noted in 6.14.

6.14 also references “future facility-level configuration, infrastructure expansion” – our assumption is this is for the people costs of responding to these changes, not the actual cost of the infrastructure, space and power – is that correct?

A. No. The State is not requiring respondents to provide a geographically separate disaster recovery location as part of the base proposal.

The reference in Section 6.14 concerning disaster recovery is intended to ensure that respondents describe how disaster recovery and business continuity would be addressed for the proposed hosting environment and that any services included in the proposal are appropriately reflected in the cost submission. The State's broader disaster recovery strategy will continue to be refined as part of the Infrastructure Resiliency Initiative.

Regarding "future facility-level configuration, infrastructure expansion, or operational service work," the State's intent is primarily to obtain pricing for the labor and professional services associated with those activities, such as engineering, remote hands, installation, configuration, and operational support. Respondents may identify separate infrastructure-related costs, such as additional space, power, cooling, cages, cabinets, or cross-connects, if applicable; however, the State is not asking respondents to pre-price unspecified future capacity expansions in the base proposal.

Q. Section 6.2 Page 26: Cost documentation. Is something missing from the first bullet point?

“Complete cost analysis (“ A. The opening parenthesis after "Complete cost analysis" was included in error and should be disregarded. Respondents are required to complete and submit 05.APPENDIX_E_Cost_Analysis, which is the State's required cost proposal and pricing submission document.

Q. Is a portal required? If so, what are the minimum requirements? Can you provide examples of the deliverables?

A. The State is not requiring a customer portal as a mandatory component of the proposed solution. However, the State does require access to operational and facility data related to the hosted environment. Respondents may satisfy this requirement through a customer portal, API access, secure file exports, SNMP, or other comparable methods.

If a portal or web-based management interface is provided, respondents should describe its capabilities and how the State would access information such as:

· Environmental monitoring data

· Power consumption metrics

· Security and access logs

· Network utilization information

· Incident notifications and reporting

· Service requests or remote hands requests, if applicable If a portal is included in the proposed solution, any web-based management interface must meet the applicable security requirements identified in the RFP, including vulnerability scanning and supporting documentation.

Q. Section 7.2: Does this section indicate that the Offeror will be expected to perform on-site work at Becker Hansen for equipment relocation and coordination activities? Is the Offeror expected to be responsible for the physical relocation of equipment to an Offeror facility?

A. Section 7.2 does not require respondents to provide physical relocation services as part of their base proposal.

The primary purpose of this procurement is to obtain a secure and resilient hosting environment for State infrastructure.

If respondents offer physical relocation, migration coordination, transportation, installation, or related on-site services, they should describe those capabilities and include any associated costs in their proposal.

Q. Appendix A: Section XI: Is there any protection or reimbursement for expenses incurred if the project is terminated or stopped late in the delivery process?

A. Appendix A does not establish a separate reimbursement mechanism for costs incurred as a result of project termination beyond the rights and obligations set forth in the resulting contract.

Respondents should assume that any compensation associated with project termination would be governed by the final contract terms and the services or deliverables accepted and payable under that contract. If respondents have concerns regarding termination-related risk, they should identify any assumptions or exceptions in their proposal for the State's consideration.

Q. Section XVI: Does this requirement apply to service contractors (e.g., HVAC, electrical, or other specialty contractors)?

A. Section XVI is not specific to HVAC contractors, electrical contractors, relocation providers, or other specialty contractors. Rather, the requirement applies to the Vendor's overall responsibility to ensure that the State's access to its data is not hindered due to contract disputes, billing disputes, mergers, acquisitions, or similar business events.

To the extent contractors, service contractors, or specialty contractors have access to or responsibility for State data or systems, the Vendor remains responsible for ensuring compliance with the requirements of Section XVI and for maintaining uninterrupted State access to its data throughout the term of the agreement.

Q. Is prior-written consent required for each individual contractor engaged to support the project?

A. The State does not require prior written consent for each individual contractor, technician, or service provider engaged by the Vendor to support contract performance.

However, the Vendor remains responsible for all subcontractors, contractors, and third parties used in the performance of the contract and for ensuring compliance with all applicable contract, security, and data protection requirements. Where required by the contract, the State may require disclosure of subcontractors and reserves the right to review or approve subcontracting arrangements consistent with the terms of the resulting agreement.

Any contractor with access to State systems, facilities, equipment, or data must comply with applicable security, confidentiality, and access-control requirements.

Q. Section XVIII: Is a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) or similar agreement required to prevent the sharing of proprietary site information?

A. The RFP does not require respondents to execute a separate Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) solely for the purpose of protecting proprietary site information.

The State recognizes that certain facility, security, operational, and infrastructure information may be confidential or proprietary. Respondents should clearly identify any information they consider proprietary or confidential and follow any applicable confidentiality and public records provisions set forth in the RFP and resulting contract.

If proprietary information must be exchanged during site visits, contract negotiations, or implementation planning, the State may consider reasonable confidentiality protections at that time.

Q. Appendix C: 3.1 Power “Minimum redundant AC high power feeds, generator backup, UPS systems, and power usage monitoring” Are redundant generators required? Are redundant UPS systems needed? Are redundant power monitoring systems required?

A. The State does not require a specific redundancy architecture (e.g., N+1, 2N, or equivalent) for generators, UPS systems, or power monitoring systems. However, the proposed facility must provide redundant power infrastructure and demonstrate sufficient resiliency to support the State's availability, continuity, and operational requirements.

Respondents should describe their power architecture, including generator redundancy, UPS redundancy, monitoring capabilities, and any identified single points of failure. The State will evaluate the proposed solution based on its demonstrated resiliency, availability, and ability to support continuous operation during maintenance activities and unplanned events.

Q. 7.1 & 7.2 Auditing and reporting: Are there any disaster recovery testing requirements beyond normal maintenance and operational testing?

A. The State is not specifying disaster recovery testing requirements beyond the testing, validation, maintenance, reporting, and resiliency activities otherwise required by the RFP.

Respondents should describe their standard testing, maintenance, and operational validation practices related to power, cooling, connectivity, backup systems, business continuity, and facility resiliency. The State is primarily interested in understanding how respondents verify the continued readiness and reliability of their infrastructure and operational controls.

If respondents offer disaster recovery services or capabilities beyond the base requirements, they may describe any associated testing practices as part of their proposal.

Q. Summary Table: Power: Are redundant generators required?

A. The State does not require a specific generator redundancy configuration (e.g., N+1, 2N, or equivalent). However, the proposed facility must provide generator-backed power continuity and sufficient power resiliency to meet the State's availability and continuity requirements. Respondents should describe their generator architecture, redundancy model, fuel strategy, and any associated resiliency capabilities. The State will evaluate the solution based on its demonstrated ability to support continuous operations during power disruptions and maintenance activities.

Q. Are redundant UPS systems required?

A. The State does not require a specific UPS redundancy architecture (e.g., N+1, 2N, or equivalent). However, the proposed facility must provide UPS-backed power protection and sufficient power resiliency to support the State's availability, continuity, and operational requirements.

Respondents should describe their UPS architecture, redundancy model, maintenance approach, and any associated resiliency capabilities. The State will evaluate the proposed solution based on its demonstrated ability to provide continuous operation during utility outages, equipment failures, and maintenance activities.

Q. Alerts: Please clarify the requirement to notify the State immediately "upon discovery." Does "upon discovery" mean initial identification of the event, or after validation and assessment of the issue?

A. For purposes of this RFP, "upon discovery" means after the respondent has performed sufficient validation to determine that a reportable event, incident, outage, alarm, or condition exists and may affect the State's environment. The State is not expecting notification based solely on an unverified alert or preliminary indication.

Respondents should notify the State as soon as reasonably possible following identification and initial assessment of a reportable event and should provide updated information as additional details become available. The State's objective is timely awareness of issues that may impact availability, security, environmental conditions, power, connectivity, or facility operations, without requiring vendors to delay notification until a complete root-cause analysis has been completed.

Q. In Section 4.3.8 it states, “The offeror must provide adequate rack, floor, and wall/cage space, power distribution, weight load accommodation, structured cabling, raised floor or equivalent environmental conditions, and appropriate airflow and cooling support for State-installed equipment.” For the offeror to provide the correct information can the State provide the amount of floor space needed, per rack power requirements (phase, amperage, voltage), total power requirements and the maximum estimated weight of equipment that will be installed in an individual rack, and the amount and type of cable cross connects that will be required?

A. The State's current physical footprint consists of 24 racks/cabinets.

The standard rack power configuration is A/B power, 208V, 30A, single-phase.

The rack inventory includes a mix of four-post server cabinets, two-post telecommunications racks, four-post telecommunications racks, and several high-density 208V three-phase racks with dedicated power requirements.

The current power profile includes an average consumption of 1,942 kWh per day, an average UPS output of 90.1 kVA, and a peak UPS output of 98.2 kVA.

Based on the current rack configurations and power requirements, the State's anticipated critical IT load is approximately 70 kW. Respondents should size their solutions accordingly.

At this time, the State does not have specific requirements or estimates available for:

· Floor space or square footage requirements.

· Cage dimensions or wall/cage space requirements.

· Maximum equipment weight per…