Response to Offeror Questions Document.pdf

RFP26-08RHT-015 Questions and Responses Page 1 of 9

STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

OFFICE OF PROCUREMENT MANAGEMENT

523 EAST CAPITOL AVENUE

PIERRE, SOUTH DAKOTA 57501-3182

DSS Rural Health Transformation – South Dakota Behavioral

Health Modernization (CCBHC) Systems Evaluation and Technology Roadmap

Questions and Responses

PROPOSALS ARE DUE NO LATER THAN APRIL 17th, 2026, BY 5:00 PM CDT

RFP26-08RHT-015

BUYER: Department of Social Services

POC: Kirsten Blachford Kirsten.Blachford@state.sd.us

Q1: South Dakota’s RHT strategy references Collaborative Care (CoCM) model. Because CoCM is not specifically referenced in this RFP, will there be future RFPs that support CoCM implementation as part of the RHT initiative.

A1: Yes. It will be published on the state’s procurement website.

Q2: Is there a not-to-exceed budget or anticipated funding range for this project, including any constraints by phase or deliverable?

Would the State please share the estimated budget or budget range for this work?

Is there an estimated budget or funding allocation available for this opportunity?

Are you able to provide a target or maximum budget range for this work to ensure proposals are aligned with available resources?

Has the State established a budget or anticipated contract value for this engagement? If so, can the State provide a budget range or ceiling to assist vendors in scoping and pricing their proposals appropriately?

A2: No, there is not an anticipated funding range or estimated budget to allow for the interested parties who’ve completed similar work to dictate effort and associated costs from prior experience in similar projects.

Q3: Can the State clarify the expected level of effort across the evaluation, roadmap development, and implementation planning components? Are certain deliverables weighted more heavily than others?

A3: All deliverables are important. Proposals should indicate offerors anticipated levels of effort for each area.

Q4: What level of specificity is expected in the final technology roadmap (e.g., high-level strategic recommendations vs. detailed technical specifications and implementation plans)?

hics?

A4: The state expects the offeror to provide detailed technical specifications, and mailto:Kirsten.Blachford@state.sd.us

RFP26-08RHT-015 Questions and Responses Page 2 of 9 implementation plans for the state and providers to execute off of and not leave room for interpretation.

Q5: What level of access will the selected vendor have to DBH, Medicaid, MMIS, STARS, and provider systems to support the current state assessment?

Will the awarded vendor receive access to STARS, MMIS and provider EHRs to conduct analysis?

A5: Primary access is expected to be a curated, read only view of state systems. The state team will coordinate with the South Dakota Bureau of Information and Technology (BIT) development team as appropriate if more direct access is needed. Provider systems can be assumed the same.

Q6: What role does the State expect the vendor to play in stakeholder engagement, particularly with providers pursuing CCBHC certification (e.g., facilitation, analysis, or both)?

A6: Analysis and reporting of needed IT changes only.

Q7: Can the State clarify anticipated travel requirements, including frequency, duration, and whether travel should be assumed as required for key activities?

What is the State's expectation regarding on-site, hybrid and remote work delivery?

Will the State provide guidance on the anticipated number of required in-person visits to South Dakota to assist vendors in accurately estimating travel costs?

A7: Travel may be needed more so on the Provider side of evaluating EHRs. The state does not anticipate travel to be a requirement for state system evaluation. This may vary depending on the need of Provider systems. Offerors should anticipate that there will be some hybrid work.

Q8: Can the State provide any additional detail regarding the relative weighting of evaluation criteria (e.g., technical approach, experience, cost)?

A8: Refer to 6.0 of the RFP.

Q9: Is this RFP only for the consulting effort to create Technology Roadmaps and the Final Report or is the purpose of this proposal for the report and the technology solutions to meet the gaps identified in the assessment? In other words, will there be a separate RFP for the technology that the final report determines to be needed to support this project?

A9: Yes, this is only for the consulting effort to create technology roadmaps and analysis of the time, effort, and specifics to execute on CCBHC IT compliance. It is undetermined if another RFP will be needed to support the IT roadmap.

Q10: Based on questions not being responded to until April 2, we respectfully ask for a one-week minimum extension of the proposal submission date.

A10: Timeframes will remain as is.

Q11: If this RFP is for consulting services only to create roadmaps, can you provide further clarification on the purpose of Section 7.5.3 listing Other Costs over a three-year term as well as Attachment A and how it would relate to consulting services?

A11: 7.5 gives examples of tables intended to illustrate the level of detail and organization expected in vendor responses. Those examples are provided for reference only and are not intended to be exhaustive, prescriptive, or binding. Offerors are encouraged to adapt the format as needed to best represent their proposed solution-so long as all required components are clearly addressed and align with the Scope of Work and Cost Proposal sections of the RFP.

RFP26-08RHT-015 Questions and Responses Page 3 of 9

Q12: If this RFP is for both consulting services to build the roadmaps and for the recommended technology solutions:

a. How would the state propose that bidders describe their technology stack and how would it be evaluated.

b. How does the state expect bidders to provide a firm fixed price in the response to this RFP knowing that information coming from the Final Report would impact and define technology needs.

A12: a) Describe your technology stack as best you see fit. b) this RFP is only for the consulting service to build the roadmaps and strategy plan. It does not include completion of the recommended technology solutions.

Q13: Billing: Please provide more background on the billing concerns for the scope of work including, but not limited to:

1. Are current stakeholders (CMHCs, CCHBCs, other DCOs, etc.) already submitting claims to the State’s MMIS system?

2. If so, is the State looking to make changes to this process?

3. Or do some stakeholders require a platform to help them submit claims because they do not have a compliant EHR solution to do so?

A13: 1) Yes, but not as CCBHCs. 2) Only if changes are necessary to submit CCBHC claims, data and outcomes. 3) Possibly. We are currently accepting applications from eligible behavioral health organizations to participate in the 2026 CCBHC provider cohort. Selected providers would be included in the roadmap of this project.

Q14: Attachment A, Section XII (4): Would the State please further define this clause, as it is vague. Is there a standard that the State has set and could it provide an example?

A14: These are standard BIT clauses that will be negotiated and refined with the vendor who is awarded the contract. As this contract will not involve code development, this will most likely be removed from the final contract.

Q15: Attachment A, Section XII (13): Would the State please provide the name of the identity provider it uses and whether it’s SAML 2.0 compliant?

A15: The State uses Microsoft Entra ID and supports OIDC (preferred) or SAML 2.0.

Q16: Can the agency please clarify whether individual past performance (i.e., experience of proposed key personnel with similar project experience) will be considered, or if organizational/company past performance is mandatory?

A16: Please reference 6.0 Proposal Evaluation and Award Process.

Q17: Is this a new opportunity or a recompete? If this is a recompete, could you please provide incumbent contractor information?

A17: New opportunity.

Q18: Can the agency share any current challenges or pain points that this effort is intended to address?

A18: CCBHC compliance with claims, data and outcomes at both the state and provider level and provider batchload functionality.

Q19: Is prior experience in the medical/behavioral health domain preferred or required for this engagement?

A19:Please refer to 3.0 Scope of Work and 6.0 Proposal Evaluation and Award Process.

Q20: When you note “requirement,” which RFP section are you referring to?

1. The requirements in the Scope of Work (Section 3)?

2. Or the Proposal Requirements and Company Qualifications (Section 4)?

RFP26-08RHT-015 Questions and Responses Page 4 of 9

3. Or Proposal Evaluation and Award Process (Section 6.0)?

A20: All of them.

Q21: Please clarify how we should submit the technical proposal and cost proposal. For example, should we

1. Provide 2 separate PDFs (1 for the technical proposal and 1 for the cost proposal)?

2. Or 1 PDF (combining the technical and cost proposals)?

A21: Either is acceptable.

Q22: Will the State consider adding a reasonable and customary Limitation of Liability clause appropriate for a professional services engagement? Offeror proposes the following language for the State’s consideration:

“Limitation of Liability. Neither party shall be liable for consequential, special, punitive, or incidental damages, or lost profits from any cause under this Agreement. Each party’s liability (whether in contract, tort, negligence, strict liability, by statute, or otherwise) to the other party or to any third party under this Agreement shall in the aggregate be limited to direct damages not to exceed the fees received by Contractor for the portion of its Services giving rise to such claim.”

Will the State consider adding language to protect Contractor’s ownership of its pre-existing and/or independently developed materials that may be utilized during the engagement?

Offeror proposes the following language for the State’s consideration:

“Contractor IP. Deliverables do not include any pre-existing and/or independently developed intellectual property, materials, ideas, know-how, processes and methodologies of the Contractor (“Contractor IP”), and such Contractor IP and any developments, modifications, improvements, or enhancements of Contractor IP will remain the property of Contractor.”

Will the State consider modifications to this section to limit its indemnification obligation to third party claims and balance the scope of exposure with the work being performed? Offeror proposes the insertion of “third party”, “to the extent arising”, and “Contractor’s negligence in” in the first sentence of Subsection 2.5 for the State’s consideration:

“2.5 The Contractor agrees to indemnify and hold the State of South Dakota, its officers, agents and employees, harmless from and against any and all third party actions, suits, damages, liability or other proceedings that may arise to the extent arising as the result of Contractor’s negligence in performing services hereunder.”

Will the State consider modifications and/or additions to the State Contract Terms and Conditions? If yes, please provide guidance for submitting the requested changes; for example, should Offeror include its requested changes in its proposal, or wait to present requested changes if selected as a winning bidder?

A22: Contract language adjustments must be approved via our Legal team at the time of offering a contract.

Q23: Will the state accept ISO 27001 certification in lieu of SOC 2 Type II report to satisfy compliance with Section VII?

A23: SOC2 Type 2, and/or the offeror allow us to scan the system (non-prod).

Q24: Has South Dakota identified which community behavioral health provider organizations will likely become CCBHCs in the state? Is the state considering CCBHC roll-out to be a pilot cohort, with a few entities; or full roll-out with all eligible entities?

RFP26-08RHT-015 Questions and Responses Page 5 of 9

The RFP references “up to 11” Community Mental Health Center EHRs. Has DBH identified which CCBHC cohort providers (or other select providers that are interested in CCBHC certification) they would like to include in this, or is the expectation that vendors identify these 11 from the cohort list?

A24: We are currently accepting applications from eligible behavioral health organizations to participate in the 2026 CCBHC provider cohort. Selected providers would be included in the roadmap of this project.

Q25: Please describe the estimated volume/time related to stakeholder engagement and/or the number of potential presentations/audiences that may be required.

A25: Past experience in this space would dictate potential for time requirements and should be budgeted accordingly.

Q26: Does the state expect stakeholder interviews and other data gathering to be completed in person, virtually or both. If on-sites are expected, is there an estimated expectation of what that time would be used to do (e.g., audiences, data collection points, time estimates)?

A26: Stakeholder interviews and other data gathering can be completed in person or virtually.

Q27: For the second payment pathway (Medicaid plus state-funded for income-qualified, non- Medicaid eligible individuals), does DBH envision a parallel state-funded billing system outside MMIS, a MMIS-adjacent workflow, or another mechanism?

A27: The DBH envisions continued use of its parallel state-funded billing system outside MMIS, which intersects with MMIS for Medicaid eligible claims.

Q28: Are there fixed milestones, federal reporting requirements, or internal RHT deadlines within the May 2026–February 2027 period that should drive project sequencing and prioritization?

What reporting obligations and measures must the roadmap support on day one?

A28: The state will be responsible for any RHT milestone and deadline reporting and will work with the vendor accordingly.

Q29: Does DBH or the State leverage a Health Information Exchange? If yes, are the providers that will become CCBHCs connected and active users?

A29: No.

Q30: Are there any EHR systems already known to DBH that are under consideration?

A30:No, providers have a variety of EHRs currently in use.

Q31: For 'other select provider EHRs' beyond the 11 CMHCs — how many additional providers does DBH anticipate including? Is there a cap?

A31: Unknown, no cap.

Q32: Is it appropriate to assume that the selected vendor will have access to MMIS / STARS system manuals / documentation, ability to interview users / owners, and will receive systems demos, but will not have access to the systems themselves or any PHI/PII? Would the same be true for the EHR systems?

If not, can DBH share what type of access you anticipate the vendor having?

A32: Yes, the selected vendor will have access to MMIS / STARS and provider EHRs.

Q33: The RFP requires the vendor to address two CCBHC payment paths: (1) Medicaid PPS and (2) Medicaid plus state-funded PPS for income-qualified, non-Medicaid-eligible individuals. Has the state determined if providers would utilize PPS for Medicaid

RFP26-08RHT-015 Questions and Responses Page 6 of 9 reimbursement and Fee-For-Service for non-Medicaid eligibles? Or is the intent for providers to bill and be reimbursed for PPS through both pathways?

A33: This is not yet decided.

Q34: The RFP requires the vendor to address two CCBHC payment paths: (1) Medicaid PPS and (2) Medicaid plus state-funded PPS for income-qualified, non-Medicaid-eligible individuals. Has South Dakota determined a preferred PPS rate methodology for the vendor to consider as part of this requirement?

A34: This is actively being decided, but likely between PPS1 and PPS3.

Q35: The RFP says, “travel to South Dakota may be deemed necessary and required as determined by the state.” Are there any expectations or desires the state has to help inform cost proposals that would necessitate in person meetings using per diem rates?

A35: No.

Q36: The RFP references a “summary matrix of research of other states' methodologies.”

Which methodologies are DBH referencing here?

A36: Delivery of data and billing solutions other states have instituted, including incentive-based payment and CCBHC data requirement interaction.

Q37: Section 4.3 asks for information on at least three previous and current service contracts.

Can the state confirm which section of the Proposal Response format this should be included in? Can the State also confirm which section of the proposal 5.2.5 Disclosure of RHT funding should be included in?

A37: In their respective and appropriate sections.

Q38: Section 5.2.3.2 asks for a specific point-by-point response, in the order listed to each requirement in the RFP. Can the state confirm that this is just for all requirements noted in Section 3.0?

A38: Yes, this is for all requirements noted in section 3.0.

Q39: The cost per EHR reviewed is a required line item. Should this reflect a per-system assessment fee, or a per-provider fee in cases where multiple providers use the same EHR platform?

How should offerors price “cost per EHR reviewed” if multiple providers use the same EHR vendor but have materially different instances or configurations?

Should the "cost per EHR reviewed" reflect a flat rate per system, or should it vary based on EHR complexity?

A39: Per system is fine, although there may be providers that have different tools built in, so proceed as you best see fit.

Q40: The RFP states: “The offeror may be expected to perform additional work as required by any of the State signatories to the contract. This work may be a condition for the system to move into production […]” Since we are not moving a system into production or doing systems work, should we assume this is not applicable?

A40: Section 7.3 still applies. The expectation is that the final product will be ready to move into production upon completion and if it is not, the State may require additional work to be completed as part of the overall cost proposal, to ensure the product meets our needs to be able to move into production.

Q41: What level of technical depth is expected in the final roadmap (conceptual vs. system architecture-level detail)?

RFP26-08RHT-015 Questions and Responses Page 7 of 9

A41: System architecture-level detail.

Q42: Should the roadmap include vendor/product recommendations, or remain vendor-neutral?

A42: Both can be included.

Q43: Are there existing data standards in use (e.g., HL7, FHIR, X12) that vendors must align with?

A43: Yes, X12.

Q44: Which EHR platforms are used across the 11 CMHCs?

A44: Unknown and varies from provider to provider.

Q45: Should the roadmap focus primarily on optimizing existing technologies or is the State open to re-platforming?

A45: Existing technologies.

Q46: What are the State’s highest-priority pain points today: duplicate entry, reporting lag, billing errors, claims denial patterns, lack of DCO coordination, limited data visibility, provider burden or something else?

A46: Batchload acceptance from provider EHRs to state system. CCBHC implementation will be new in South Dakota so any CCBHC specific data and outcome requirements will also need to be included in the roadmap between the state systems (STARS and MMIS) and provider EHRs.

Q47: Is South Dakota already leaning toward a specific CCBHC program model or payment authority such as Section 223 demonstration participation versus an independent state Medicaid approach or should the vendor evaluate those options?

A47: No determination has been made at this time. We do not expect the selected vendor to evaluate these options but some of the work may help to inform our decision.

Q48: For the Medicaid PPS path, should vendors assume the scope includes PPS methodology design, cost-report structure, audit approach, quality bonus design, and crisis-service payment options?

A48: No, the scope will not include those items. This will be for an IT roadmap for CCBHC data collection, reporting, and billing to also include batch load acceptance into our state system.

Q49: For the Medicaid-plus-state-funded path for income-qualified but non-Medicaid individuals, what reimbursement construct should vendors assume (e.g. mirrored PPS, encounter-based state payment or another state-funded methodology)?

A49: Mirrored PPS.

Q50: Should the roadmap address DCO encounter attribution, documentation standards, billing responsibility, revenue allocation and data-sharing obligations between the CCBHC and DCO?

A50: Yes. This should minimize and/or eliminate duplicative manual entry where possible for DCO and CCBHC providers between state and provider systems.

Q51: Is alignment beyond Medicaid and state funding in scope (e.g. commercial payer enablement, Medicare interactions, tribal billing considerations or future demonstration funding)?

A51: Yes, as applicable to CCBHC.

RFP26-08RHT-015 Questions and Responses Page 8 of 9

Q52: Should the roadmap include data flows tied to 988, mobile crisis, crisis stabilization, telehealth or only DBH/Medicaid/provider core systems?

A52: Yes, the roadmap should be fully encompassing every aspect of CCBHC data collection, reporting, and invoicing.

Q53: What is the governance body that will ultimately make final decisions regarding the roadmap?

A53: Select members of DBH, South Dakota’s Bureau of Information and Technology (BIT), South Dakota Medicaid, CCBHC Provider cohorts as it relates to their own EHRs, and others inside of DSS.

Q54: Which stakeholders does the State expect to participate directly in interviews and workshops?

A54: TBD with future discussions.

Q55: May the selected vendor store or process PHI/PII in a vendor-controlled environment and if so, what security evidence will be required at proposal stage versus post-award?

A55: No.

Q56: What are the preferred peer states the State would like included in the required “other states” comparison matrix?

A56: Similar in population and geography and payment methodology (e.g. other non-MCO states).

Q57: Should the cost proposal cover only the assessment/roadmap engagement? How would the state handle additional downstream work that may stem from this project?

A57: Yes. Additional needs may be presented via another RFP.

Q58: Are multiple cost proposals intended to reflect alternative scope assumptions, delivery models or roadmap depths?

A58: Yes.

Q59: Is there a page limit for the technical proposal? Are resumes and appendices included in that limit?

A59: No limit.

Q60: Should vendors provide explicit milestone acceptance criteria for the preliminary work plan, provider action plans, interim findings and final roadmap?

A60: Yes.

Q61: On the State of South Dakota Procurement Management Posting Board for Current Opportunities, the Event Details (https://postingboard.esmsolutions.com/3444a404-3818- 494f-84c5-2a850acd7779/eventDetail/19703) for this note: “This is an Invitation-Only Event. If you are interested in this event, please contact the Procurement Office for more information or to be added to invitation list.” Is that correct that this RFP is invitation only? If so, are we able to be added to the invitation list?

A61: No, this is not invitation only.

Q62: On the South Dakota Department of Social Services website listed in the RFP (https://dss.sd.gov/keyresources/rfp.aspx) I do not see this RFP listed. Is this the website I should be referring to for solicitation documents and inquiry responses?

RFP26-08RHT-015 Questions and Responses Page 9 of 9

A62: This RFP is listed on the Bureau of Administration’s Procurement Management page here: https://postingboard.esmsolutions.com/3444a404-3818-494f-84c5- 2a850acd7779/events.

Q63: Can the State confirm the intended Period of Performance is May 8, 2026 through February 28, 2027?

A63: Yes. There may be an option to extend if more time is needed.

Q64: Section 3.5.3 requires proposals to include names, resumes, and specialized expertise of key project staff. Can the State provide clarification on which roles are considered 'key project staff' for purposes of this requirement? Is it required that all proposed staff be named?

A64: Prior experience on the offer’s part in this RFP ask should help dictate key personnel needed. Key project staff are required only.

Q65: Must all subcontractors be identified and named at the time of proposal submission, or can subcontractors be proposed and approved after contract award?

A65: Yes, at time of proposal submission.