RFP 25-03 Low-Code Application Development Services Questions and Answers

# Section Page # Question Answer

1 1.1 5 What is the current state of the legacy system's data

- has a data dictionary, schema, or data migration assessment been completed that will be made available to the selected vendor?

Per section 1.1 of the RFP, the Department has an existing revenue system consisting of an ASP.Net web forms application with a Microsoft SQL backend running on a single virtualized server in the Department's Microsoft Tenant. Originally put into production in 2005, the existing architecture is archaic, disjointed, and the result of 20 years of accretion, budget constraints, and resource availability.

The Department has a complete Data Dictionary, Entity Relationship Diagram, and limited documentation of the functional specifications created by the Department’s Product Owner, which will be shared with the awarded Contractor. The current system has approximately 20 tables, displays 15-20 operational screens, and produces approximately twelve (12) hard-coded reports, only five (5) of which are used in current processes.

2 1.1 5 Does the Department intend for the public-facing portal (required by August 1, 2026) to be built using Power Pages, or is a different technology acceptable?

Per the preamble to the Statement of Work, the Department has made the strategic decision to embrace the Microsoft Power Platform. All systems proposed must be built in the Microsoft Power Platform, be located in the Department’s Microsoft Tenant, and use native Power Platform capabilities as much as practical. Therefore, the public facing Dealer Portal must be built in Power Pages or its current equivalent.

3 1.1 5 Could the Department describe the current legacy revenue system, including the technology platform, database, approximate data volume, and number of years of historical data?

Please see the answer to question #1.

4 1.1 5 What volume and types of data are expected to be migrated from the legacy system (e.g., historical license records, assessment records, financial transactions, dealer/account master data)?

Please see the answer to question #1.

5 1.1 5 Will the legacy system continue to operate in parallel during a transition period, or does the Department expect a hard cutover on August 1, 2026?

The Department has timed the implementation of the new Revenue System to align with key dates associated with the change in the State of Florida citrus season (i.e. August 1, 2026, and November 1, 2026). The existing system will be retired from service at this time, and the application portion of the legacy system will be deactivated. Due to the entirely new data schemata used by the Power Platform, the Department will not convert historical data as part of this project. The legacy database will be maintained for historical reporting purposes.

6 1.1 5-6 Can the Department describe the current revenue system being replaced, including its technology platform, approximate age, and the data formats in which legacy data is stored or accessible?

Please see the answer to question #1.

7 1.1 5 Can you confirm the target architecture for Power Platform (model-driven vs canvas apps for each module)?

The Department envisions a primarily model-driven application architecture with selected functions, specifically external facing tasks, being built as canvas apps. Specific screens, functions, and architecture selections will be discussed with the awarded Contractor.

8 1.1 5 Are there any existing reusable components or solutions within the FDOC tenant that we should leverage?

No. This is a green-field implementation. Please see the answer to question #5.

9 1.1 5 What licensing scenarios and workflows must be supported in the first release (apply, renew, amend, suspend, revoke) and what conditional steps are

The solution must support all workflows by the end of the Initial Development period. The primary function of the revenue system is to collect advertising assessments from citrus dealers and required (reviews, inspections, compliance checks)?

processors. Dealer licensing is maintained by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS). As such, there are minimal licensing management workflows.

10 1.1 5 What exact data fields and business rules are required for dealer sales reporting, including amendment or resubmission processes?

This information will be shared with the awarded vendor during the backlog review and sprint chartering processes. The forms to be submitted by the industry are:

Form 1R Form 3R Form 4R Form 4R FRESH Form 6R Examples can be found on the Department’s website at the following link:

fdocgrower.app.box.com/embed/s/761asba1a4?so rtColumn=date&view=list

11 1.1 5 Can you provide the complete set of assessment formulas, including rounding rules, tolerance thresholds, and whether historical recalculation is required?

This information will be shared with the awarded vendor during the backlog review and sprint chartering processes.

12 RFP s.

1.1 SOW s.

1.1

5 What is the current legacy revenue system (platform, vendor, age, data format)? Will vendors have access for discovery at or before project kickoff? Is data cleansing/transformation included in vendor scope, or will the Department provide a migration-ready data set? How much historical data requires migration?

Please see the answer to questions #1 and #5.

13 1.1.1 5 What is the approximate number of internal FDOC users and external industry users (dealers, processors, packers, growers) expected to use the system?

The Department has approximately five (5) internal users for the future system. The Department receives checks daily and makes deposits approximately three (3) times per week. This https://fdocgrower.app.box.com/embed/s/761asba1a4?sortColumn=date&view=list https://fdocgrower.app.box.com/embed/s/761asba1a4?sortColumn=date&view=list responsibility is split across the five (5) internal users. The industry portal will have approximately two hundred (200) external users who must register annually and make submissions/payments weekly.

• The annual registration process is anticipated to take under 20 minutes (including login, information entry, verification, and submission).

• The submission/payment process is anticipated to take under 20 minutes (including login, form selection, form completion, financial information entry, and form submission.)

It is anticipated that each industry partner (dealers, processors, packers, growers) should have a single master “Account” analogous to their business entity (i.e. the ) and “Contacts” who represent the individual users who perform self-administration functions and weekly submissions.

The portal should, at a minimum, be able to handle twice this traffic simultaneously.

14 1.1.1 5 Please provide the expected number and general subject areas of reports to be delivered at go-live (e.g., revenue dashboards, dealer activity, PALM reconciliation, financial summaries), and whether any existing reports must be migrated.

The existing revenue system maintains approximately five (5) operational reports and no live dashboards. The Department expects that the reports indicated in the question will cover the general scope and purpose of the reports and dashboards that will be required. The final number of reports will be determined during the Initial Development. Development of Florida PALM financial data reporting in PowerBI is out of scope for this engagement. The focus for reporting covered by this engagement will be "operational" reporting and visualization of data provided by dealers through the portal and not financial reporting for the Department.

15 1.1.1 5 Will external users be accessing the solution? If so, are they currently added as guests to FDOC’s Microsoft tenant or will a public-facing portal be needed for these users?

Please see the answer to question #13.

16 1.1.1;

SOW s.

5 Please describe the expected file-delivery/ingestion pattern for PALM interfaces (e.g., SFTP drop-zone, event-driven triggers, manual loads), including the Department’s preferred transport, encryption, and monitoring approach for Azure Synapse ingestion.

Florida PALM is currently in User Acceptance Testing (UAT) and will remain so until December 15th, 2026.

Test data is available and will be provided during the development effort for testing. All required interface files have been built and internally tested by Florida PALM. Currently the Florida PALM UAT produces the interface files once daily (overnight batch). These files are stored in a secure Managed File Transfer (MFT) location (i.e. requires credentials and white-listed access) and must be retrieved by the Department to be ingested into Azure Synapse.

More information, including exact file formats, layouts, frequency, and specifications can be found on the Florida PALM Knowledge Center. The URL, provided for convenience, is:

https://myfloridacfofloridapalm.us.document360.io /docs/interfaces

The Florida PALM interface files will be ingested daily. The interface list provided in the Price Sheet indicates the exact interfaces Citrus requires.

17 1.1.1 5 Section 1.1.1 references "a suite of application solutions" and directs Respondents to the Statement of Work for a list of required solutions.

Section 1 of the SOW provides the complete list of the applications required and the domain of their functions. The specific Epics, Features, and User https://myfloridacfofloridapalm.us.document360.io/docs/interfaces https://myfloridacfofloridapalm.us.document360.io/docs/interfaces

Could the Department provide a detailed list of the specific applications or modules to be developed, along with the key functional requirements for each?

Stories are under development and will be shared and refined with the awarded Contractor.

18 1.1.1 5 The RFP describes capabilities including license application and renewal processing, dealer sales reporting, assessment calculations, billing support, reconciliation, and financial reporting. Are all of these capabilities expected to be delivered within the initial 8 sprints and $200,000 development budget, or are some anticipated to be addressed through Optional Sprints?

Per section 2.1.4 of the SOW, all items in section 1 of the SOW must be completed as part of the Initial Development effort.

19 1.1.1 5 What types of Microsoft licenses (e.g., Power Apps per user/per app, Dataverse capacity, Azure Synapse) are currently available within the Department’s environment?

All operational licensing for the new system will be the responsibility of the Department. The Department has purchased, and will maintain, ten

(10) per-user Power Apps licenses through existing Microsoft VAR agreements for Department personnel and expects token licensing (i.e. per authenticated user/per month) for approximately two hundred (200) external users in the Power Pages portal. Azure Synapse capacity will be purchased by the Department as needed.

20 1.1.1 5 Will Microsoft Power Platform, Dataverse, and Azure Synapse licensing be provisioned and funded by the Department, or should respondents include licensing costs in their proposal?

Please see the answer to question #19.

21 1.1.1 5 Does the Department currently have Microsoft Power Platform licenses (e.g., Power Apps per-app, per-user, or premium plans) and Power Pages capacity, or will the Contractor be responsible for recommending and the Department procuring the necessary licenses?

Please see the answer to question #19. The Contractor may make licensing recommendations to expand capabilities or to take advantage of cost savings during the engagement.

22 1.1.1 5 Does the Department use Azure Active Directory (Entra ID) for identity management, and will the Contractor have access to the Department's directory for configuring role-based access controls and authentication?

Yes. The Department uses EntraID. Per section 3.1.3 of the SOW, the Contractor will work with the Department's existing Managed Services partner to coordinate access to this information.

23 1.1.2 5 The RFP describes a "Delivery Team operating within the Department's Agile governance structure." Does the Department have an established Agile framework (e.g., Scrum, SAFe) in use, or will the Contractor be expected to propose and establish the Agile methodology?

The Department has staff familiar and experienced with several Agile development methodologies, including SCRUM, Kanban, and SAFe. The SOW was written to accommodate numerous approaches to Agile; if the Respondent has a preferred Agile methodology, they may propose it.

24 1.1.2 5 What level of FDOC staff availability should the Contractor expect for sprint ceremonies (planning, reviews, retrospectives, daily standups), requirements validation, and UAT? Will the Department assign a dedicated Product Owner or business lead?

Per section 3.1.1 of the SOW, the Department has a dedicated PALM Project Manager who will serve as the dedicated Product Owner for this engagement.

The Product Owner will participate in Agile ceremonies as described in section 2.4 of the SOW.

25 1.1.2 5 Does the Department require any on-site presence at the FDOC office in Bartow, FL, or may all work be performed remotely?

Please see section 2.1.1 of the SOW.

26 1.1.3 5 What is the expected sprint duration (e.g., 2 weeks, 3 weeks)? With 8 sprints over 16 weeks, the implied duration is 2 weeks per sprint. Please confirm.

The Department confirms that sprints will be 2 weeks in duration.

27 1.1.3 5 Are the $200,000 and $50,000 budgets hard caps, or are they estimates that vendors can price above or below?

The Department has established the budget for this project in consultation with Microsoft itself, industry Power Platform experts, and the market at large.

Respondents may propose any costs they deem appropriate, however, proposals exceeding the established budget(s) may be considered non-responsive if such a decision is in the best interest of the State of Florida.

The budget(s) indicated are for the initial development efforts only. The optional sprints and ongoing post-implementation support required should be priced separately.

28 1.1.3 5 Is the $200,000 development budget a fixed ceiling or a target estimate? Will proposals that exceed this amount be deemed non-responsive?

Please see the answer to question #27.

29 1.1.3 5-6 Are the three operational milestones (Aug 1, Nov. 1, 2026 and Jan 12, 2027) contractually binding deliverable dates, or are they target dates subject to mutual agreement?

These dates are external constraints and cannot be altered. Please see the answer to question #5.

30 1.1.3 5-6 What are the specific contractual consequences if the August 1, 2026 portal or November 1, 2026 revenue collection deadlines are not met? Do those consequences apply if delays are attributable to Department-side dependencies such as late Sprint Charter delivery, PALM interface unavailability, or Managed Services vendor delays?

The Department may assess financial consequences in the amount of $500 per business day for failure to deliver by the indicated dates. The Department will consider all factors, including its own responsiveness and performance, in the determination of whether to assess financial consequences.

31 1.1.3 5-6 Please define the Department's turnaround time to issue Sprint acceptance determinations after each Sprint Review, identify the system of record for acceptance, and describe expected availability and response SLAs for the Product Owner and SMEs during backlog refinement, UAT, and Sprint Reviews.

Please see SOW sections 2.2 and 3.2. The Department’s Product Owner will provide a response within one (1) business day of all requests.

Items requiring additional review, clarification, or research will be discussed at time of occurrence.

32 1.1.3 5-6 Do the stated budgets of $200,000 (Power Platform) and $50,000 (Azure Synapse) represent hard contractual ceilings?

Please see the answer to question #27.

33 1.1.3 5-6 Do these budgets EXCLUDE the cost of Microsoft Power Platform, Dataverse, Azure Synapse, Power BI Premium, and other required licenses and are those

Please see the answer to questions #19.

licenses already provisioned by the Department or procured separately outside this contract?

34 1.1.3 6 What core Dealer Portal functionality must be fully operational by August 1, 2026, and which features can follow later?

Please see SOW section 1. The Dealer Portal must allow industry access and registration of locations, reporting frequency, seasons, and varieties by August 1, 2026.

35 RFP

1.1.3 SOW s.

RFP - 5 Are specifications for all 12 Florida PALM outbound interfaces finalized, documented, and available for vendor review now? Will a PALM test/sandbox environment be accessible during development? If PALM's statewide go-live slips beyond January 12, 2027, will the vendor's contractual obligations and deadlines be adjusted accordingly?

Please see the answer to question #16.

36 1.1.3 5 Is the stated $250,000 budget allocated for development only, or should it also include post-implementation support and other associated costs?

The budget indicated is for the initial development efforts only. The optional sprints and ongoing support required should be priced separately.

37 1.1.3 6 The RFP states the system must be "fully integrated, validated, and operational" by the Florida PALM Go- Live date of January 12, 2027. Will the Department or the Florida PALM project team provide a test environment and test data for integration validation prior to go-live?

Please see the answer to question #16.

38 1.1.3 5-6 Are the 12 outbound Florida PALM interfaces expected to be available for integration development and testing prior to the PALM Go-Live date of January 12, 2027? If so, what is the anticipated availability date?

Please see the answer to question #16.

39 1.1.3 5-6 The RFP allocates a $50,000 budget for the Azure Synapse Data Warehouse and 12 outbound PALM interfaces. Does this budget include Azure infrastructure/hosting costs, or are Azure

Please see the answer to question #19.

subscription and compute costs funded separately by the Department?

40 1.1.3 6 Please clarify whether the Department guarantees Florida PALM interface readiness by the stated milestones, and if not guaranteed, identify the mechanism for addressing PALM-related dependencies (e.g., change order, Optional Sprints, or timeline adjustment).

Please see the answer to question #16.

41 1.1.3 6 Is there a Sprint 0 for setup and onboarding before Sprint 1, or does Sprint 1 start as the first billable Sprint?

The Department anticipates an onboarding period of approximately one (1) week prior to the commencement of Sprint 1. The Contractor should make the Delivery Manager and Delivery Team available for emails and approximately 10 hours of meetings during this period.

42 1.1.3 6 Is the $50,000 Azure Synapse budget intended to cover Microsoft licensing and infrastructure costs as well as development labor for the Data Warehouse solution, or is this budget just for the development labor?

Please see the answer to question #19.

43 1.1.3 6 The SOW references an August 1, 2026 target for the Dealer Portal. Given an anticipated contract award on or around May 12, 2026, this allows approximately 11 weeks with an immediate project kickoff. Can the Department confirm this deadline is a hard requirement, and whether there is any flexibility if discovery or environment setup delays Sprint 1?

Please see the answer to question #30.

44 1.1.3 6 The SOW references a Florida PALM go-live integration date of January 12, 2027. Is the Data Warehouse solution expected to be fully operational and integrated with PALM by that date, or is a phased integration acceptable?

The solution requires Florida PALM data to be virtualized from Azure Synapse to the other applications (e.g. Chart of Accounts values and Vendor records). As such, the efforts should be concurrent with the specific interfaces ingested into Azure Synapse prioritized towards this integration.

45 1.1.3 5-6 Is the total $250,000 budget expected to cover the initial 8 sprints, with additional funding available if optional sprints are leveraged? Is there an approximate budget figure if work extends to leverage up to 16 sprints?

Please see the answer to question #36.

46 1.1.3 6 Please confirm expected scope and size of the “small” Azure Synapse data warehouse.

The Department expects the Azure Synapse data warehouse to accommodate the twelve (12) interface files coming from Florida PALM. Please see the answer to question #16.

47 1.1.3 6 How many tables are included for each data source? Are there data models that can be shared?

Please see the answer to question #16.

48 1.1.3;

SOW s.

RFP pg.

6; SOW

pg. 1

Will vendors need to be able to submit payments by August 1, or just add and update box counts?

Please see the answer to question #34.

49 1.1.3;

3.5.1.5

6, 16 Is there an approved budget for ongoing support services, or is this budget open for discussion? The cost of ongoing support services may vary based on the effort provided by the preexisting Managed Services vendor, or level of in-house Power Apps expertise at the Department.

Please see the answer to question #36.

50 1.1.3;

3.5.2.1;

3.5.2.3

6, 16, 17-18

Will the Department's Azure Synapse environment be pre-provisioned, or is the Contractor expected to provision and configure the Synapse workspace as part of this engagement?

Per the section 3.1.3 of the SOW, all changes to the Department’s infrastructure (e.g. environment creation and access provision) will be accomplished by the Managed Services partner in coordination with the awarded Contractor. The Department will use industry-standard Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) practices. This includes an environment strategy consisting of the following:

• Development (DEV) – The Contractor will have full access to this environment to create and publish solutions.

• Testing (UAT) – The Contractor will have limited access to this environment to view, verify and validate configurations created by the promotion of solutions by the Managed Services vendor.

• Production (PRD) – The contractor will have no access to this environment and must coordinate with the Department’s Managed Services vendor to view information.

The Power Platform environments and Azure Synapse workspaces will be created as “out of the box” during May 2026. The Contractor should be prepared to submit any configurations, recommendations, or other requirements for infrastructure during the one (1) week onboarding period.

51 1.1.3;

SOW s.

2.1.4

RFP p.

6; SOW

p. 2

Please describe how PALM dependency risks will be tracked during the 16-week initial development schedule and indicate the Department’s threshold for invoking schedule re-planning if PALM test files or specifications are not available on time.

Please see the answer to question #16.

52 1.4 7 What is the payment schedule and are payments tied to individual sprint completions and acceptance, to milestone dates, or to a fixed monthly schedule?

The Contractor may invoice for completed and accepted work monthly.

53 1.4 7 What specifically constitutes 'production-ready' for purposes of transitioning from development billing to support services billing?

Post-Implementation Support begins with the acceptance of the final Sprint, which will be the eight (8) Initial Development Sprints, but may include any of the eight (8) Optional Sprints, if ordered.

54 1.6 7 Is participation from MBE, VOSB, or other disadvantaged business firms required or encouraged for this solicitation?

There are no identified requirements for vendor classification or participation in this solicitation.

55 1.6 7 Is teaming or subcontracting allowed? If yes, do all subcontractors need to be named in the proposal?

The Department requires the awarded Contractor to meet their contractual obligations. The Delivery Team may be composed of subcontractors or contracted resources, but the Contractor retains all liability for completion of each Sprint as chartered.

The composition and lines of authority for any such arrangement should be clearly documented in the Proposal. The Department will brook no delay(s) in delivery caused by Contractor’s staffing of the Delivery Team, and the Department reserves all rights to request clarification, qualification, or otherwise examine such arrangements as part of the evaluation process.

56 1.6 7 Is there a minimum percentage of work the prime vendor must perform directly?

Please see the answer to question #55.

57 1.10 1.1.3

9, 5 What is the anticipated contract execution date, and when does the Department expect Sprint 1 to begin? The current timeline shows Intent to Award on ~May 12, 2026 - will there be sufficient runway to meet the August 1, 2026, portal milestone?

Given one (1) week onboarding prior to Sprint 1, the Department anticipates that the delivery timeline can be met.

58 1.10 9 The anticipated award date of May 12, 2026 leaves approximately 11 weeks before the August 1, 2026 Dealer Portal go-live less than the 16-week development estimate. How does the Department reconcile this gap?

The Department has selected an Agile methodology for delivery of this project. The Department expects each Sprint to result in working software ready to be tested and deployed to production. This timeline provides for five (5) complete sprints prior to the August 1, 2026 deadline.

59 1.10 9 Will scope be limited to a minimum viable portal, the contract start accelerated, or the deadline adjusted if award is delayed?

The Department may adjust the delivery timeline if circumstances warrant.

60 1.11 9-10 For Licensure & Registration, does the offeror need to be located in Florida, or can they be from any state?

Respondents may be located anywhere within the United States.

61 1.11 9 Is Florida business registration needed at the time of proposal submission?

Florida business registration is not required at the time of proposal submission.

62 1.11 9 For a company registered outside Florida (e.g., Georgia), is a Florida Foreign LLC registration required, and if yes, can it be completed after award but before contract execution?

Out-of-state companies are not required to register with the Florida Department of State to submit a proposal, however, upon award and prior to signing an agreement, the awarded vendor will need to register as a foreign LLC in Florida.

63 3.1, 3.3 13, 15 Are the Department of Citrus's Florida PALM interface specifications and technical documentation available to respondents prior to proposal submission, or will they be made available upon contract award? PALM documentation is available publicly, but the usage details specific to Department of Citrus would be helpful.

Please see the answer to question #16.

64 3.5 15 Please confirm the submission package is: 1 original of Volume I, 1 original + 3 copies of Volume II, and 1 USB with one copy of each volume. Is that correct?

The Department confirms this is correct.

65 3.5.1.1 15 Does an NMSDC-certified MBE/ Small business (SWAM) satisfy the CBE status disclosure in the Executive Summary?

There are no requirements for a respondent to hold any certified business enterprise status to provide a Proposal. The Executive Summary must disclose any CBE status held, even if the status is “none”.

66 3.5.1.1 15 Is CBE status scored or just a disclosure? Disclosure only. The Department will apply any applicable adjustments in accordance with Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code.

67 3.5.1.4 16 The RFP requires references from clients for whom "commodities and/or contractual services of similar

The Department is seeking to accurately evaluate the capabilities of the Respondent in accomplishing scope and size" were provided. Does "similar scope" specifically require Power Platform or low-code development references, or would references for comparable application development and integration projects using other technologies also be accepted?

the scope identified in the SOW, which includes low-code development in the Power Platform.

Respondents should select references which most clearly demonstrate their expertise in the relevant areas, particularly the Power Platform. Failure to provide a Proposal, with references, which demonstrates this experience will be considered in the evaluation, and may be grounds for determining a Respondent as “non-responsible”.

68 3.5.1.4 16 Are references from private sector clients accepted?

Yes.

69 3.5.1.4 16 Does a reference need to be specifically on Microsoft Power Platform, or will similar enterprise application development work be accepted?

Please see answer to question #67.

70 3.5.1.4 16 Can a subcontractor's past performance be submitted as one of the three references?

Please see answer to question #67. If the Contractor’s Proposal includes a subcontractor’s resources as the Delivery Team, they should provide at least one (1), possibly two (2) past performance reference(s) for that subcontractor for the Department’s consideration. Please indicate which references are for the subcontractor in the Proposal.

71 3.5.1.4 16 If we were a subcontractor and the reference is from the end client, will that be acceptable?

Contractors may not submit themselves as references for their own subcontractors.

72 3.5.1.4;

3.13

16, 21 The RFP requires three client references of similar scope. For respondents whose most relevant experience was performed by key personnel at prior employers rather than under the responding firm's name, may personnel-level references be submitted in addition to or in lieu of firm-level references?

The Department cannot accept individual references.

73 RFP s.

3.5.1.4 Tab D

16 Are commercial and federal client references acceptable for meeting the past performance requirements?

Yes.

74 3.5.2 16 Under Volume II, the table is mentioned as Volume I Business Proposal. Can you please clarify if Tab A to Tab E is for Volume II Technical proposal?

The table in section 3.5.2 of the RFP should be titled “Volume II Technical Proposal” in accordance with the section title.

75 3.5.2 16 What are the environment strategies (Dev/Test/Prod) and deployment pipelines currently in place?

Please see the answer to question #50.

76 3.5.2 17 What are the authentication mechanisms for the Dealer Portal (Azure AD, B2C, other)?

The Respondent should propose the authentication method in their proposal.

77 3.5.2 17 Can you detail the role-based access control (RBAC) model for internal vs. external users?

This under is development and will be shared and refined with the awarded Contractor.

78 3.5.2 17 What identity provider should be used for external users (e.g., Azure AD B2C), and do dealers require multi-entity or multi-account access?

Please see the answer to question #76.

79 3.5.2 18 Are there any compliance or security standards (e.g., state-specific, CJIS, etc.) we must adhere to?

All solutions deployed in the State of Florida must adhere to Chapter 60GG-2 of the Florida Administrative Code. There is no specially restricted (e.g. CJIS) data in the revenue system.

80 3.5.2 18 What audit logs are required (field-level, transaction-level, integration logs), and must they support immutability or export for external audit review?

The Department requires standard audit logs kept by the Microsoft Power Platform.

81 3.5.2 18 Are there any agency-specific compliance, security standards, or data privacy requirements beyond Florida statutes?

Please see the answer to question #79.

82 3.5.2.1 16 The RFP references integration with "enterprise data sources and financial systems." Beyond Florida PALM, what other systems or data sources must the solution integrate with (e.g., existing FDOC databases, state email/identity systems, third-party payment processors)?

The phrase “enterprise data sources and financial systems” refers to Florida PALM and any systems connected to Florida PALM. The channel for integration for the Department is the twelve (12) interfaces from Florida PALM.

83 3.5.2.1 17 Please confirm whether row-level security is required in Power BI, and if so, describe the security model (e.g., by region, by dealer, by revenue type).

Please see the answer to question #14.

84 3.5.2.1;

3.5.2.3

16-18 Can the Department identify its current Managed Services vendor, or describe the nature of their role in environment promotion and release management, as well as other Power Apps development projects, so respondents can plan appropriate coordination touchpoints in their delivery approach?

The current Managed Services vendor is AllTek Services. AllTek’s responsibilities are described in section 3.1.3 of the SOW.

85 3.5.2.1;

3.5.2.3

16, 18 Will the Department provision Development, Test, and Production Power Platform environments prior to project kick-off, or is environment setup part of the Contractor's Sprint 1 scope?

Please see the answer to question #50.

86 3.5.2.1;

3.5.2.4

16, 18 Will the Contractor be granted Solution Publisher access within the Development environment, or will all environment configuration require coordination with the Managed Services vendor?

Please see the answer to question #50.

87 3.5.2.2 16-17 The RFP describes the Delivery Manager as responsible for managing delivery performance and coordination. Does the Department expect the Delivery Manager to be 100% dedicated to this engagement, or is a part-time allocation acceptable?

The Department expects the Contractor to meet the contractual obligations outlined in the Contract and SOW, as well as each Sprint Charter. The allocation of resource time to accomplish this is at the discretion of the Contractor. The Contractor must participate in all Agile Ceremonies as defined in the

SOW.

88 3.5.2.4 17 What specific governmental security standards or frameworks does the Department require for this system (e.g., NIST 800-53, FISMA, FedRAMP, specific Florida statutes or FDACS standards)?

What is the required data classification or Impact Level?

Please see the answer to question #79.

89 3.5.2.4 17-18 What logging, monitoring, audit, retention, and cybersecurity standards must [vendor name redacted] meet?

Please see the answer to question #80.

90 3.5.2.4 18 Which legacy systems are in scope, data volumes, quality expectations? Which party owns Florida PALM integration configuration?

There are no legacy systems in scope. The Contractor is responsible for creating the data warehouse and ingestion pipelines for the Florida PALM data. Please see the answer to question #16.

91 3.5.2.4 18 Is there a data dictionary, schema documentation, or data export capability available for the current system that respondents may reference in preparing their proposals, to properly scope the expected data migration effort?

Please see the answer to question #1.

92 3.5.2.4 18 What is the approximate volume of historical records that will need to be migrated or made accessible in the new system (e.g., number of dealer records, years of sales reports, assessment history)?

Please see the answer to question #1.

93 3.5.2.4 17-18 What data must be migrated (full history, active year, partial history)?

Please see the answer to question #1.

94 3.5.2.4 17-18 Please identify known data quality issues in legacy source systems (duplicates, incomplete records, format inconsistencies) that may affect migration effort estimation.

Please see the answer to question #1.

95 3.5.2.4 16 Please describe any network security requirements for the Data Warehouse, including whether Private Endpoints, VNet integration, or IP whitelisting are required, and who manages the networking layer.

The data warehouse must function inside the Department’s tenant. The Department’s Managed Services vendor is responsible for all non-endpoint functionality.

96 3.5.2.5 18 Does holding Microsoft Power Platform certifications (PL-100, PL-200, PL-400, DP-203) help with scoring?

The Department will consider all information provided in each Respondent’s Proposal.

Respondents with demonstrated experience and documented expertise with the core technologies in this project will most likely score higher.

97 3.5.2.5 18 Are subcontractors permitted, and if so, must subcontractor qualifications and past performance be disclosed in the Technical Proposal (Tab E)?

Please see the answer to questions #55 and #67.

98 3.5.2.5 18 Does the Department require specific security clearances or background checks for Contractor personnel?

No.

99 3.5.2.5 18 Are there minimum staffing levels or specific labor categories that the Department expects the Contractor to provide (e.g., minimum number of developers, required architect role)?

There is no minimum staffing level. Traditional Agile teams consist of between three (3) and nine (9) individuals. Respondents should propose the staffing roles and levels needed to accomplish the delivery of the system.

100 3.5.2.5 18 Do resumes count toward the 20-page limit for Tab E?

Yes.

101 3.5.2.5 18 Do we need to submit resumes for all proposed resources, or will resumes for key personnel only be sufficient with the proposal submission?

No. In lieu of resumes, Respondents may provide a brief written summary of the experience, qualifications, and certifications of any proposed personnel the Respondent determines adequately demonstrates expertise and experience with the defined technologies.

102 3.6.4 19 Do architecture diagrams and tables of contents count toward the page limits in Volume II?

Diagrams and visuals are included in the page limitations. Per section 3.6.6 of the RFP, architecture diagrams may be larger than standard letter format and fold out, counting as only one (1) page per face.

103 3.6.4;

3.6.6

16-17 Please confirm whether diagrams and architecture visuals placed on standalone pages count toward page limits or are excluded like tables of contents, tabs, and glossaries.

Please see the answer to question #103.

104 3.6.7 17-18 Please confirm whether electronic USB file naming must mirror binder tab names (e.g., 'Volume I – Tab A') or whether descriptive folder structures are acceptable so long as organization matches the RFP’s volumes and tabs.

Respondents should name files in the USB copies so as to easily identify the file contents without requiring the Department to open each file to verify content. It is preferred that Respondents submit each volume in a single file, if possible.

105 3.9 20 Can the complete proposal be sent via USPS, FedEx, or UPS if it arrives before April 21, 2026, at

1:00 PM EST?

Yes.

106 3.14 21 Does the Department provide any evaluation preference or scoring advantage for Florida-based vendors, and are out-of-state vendors eligible to submit proposals?

The Department will apply evaluation adjustments, if any, in accordance with Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code.

107 s.

3.14.1 Att. G

21 Are the Azure Synapse deliverables (AS-001 to AS-

013) evaluated as part of the $50,000 budget separately from the $200,000 PowerApps budget, or is the Total Price for scoring purposes the combined sum of all sections?

The Department will evaluate all elements of Attachment G Price Sheet.

108 3.14.1 22 For the Cost Proposal scoring formula, which price totals are included in "Respondent's Total Price"?

Does this include only the initial development services (Azure Synapse + 8 Delivery Sprints), or does it also include Optional Sprints and Support Services?

Please see the answer to question #108.

109 3.14.1 22 Is fixed-price the only accepted pricing model, or can Time-and-Materials be proposed for optional Sprints and support?

The Department will not consider a Time and Materials pricing structure. Respondents shall propose prices in accordance with Attachment G Price Sheet.

110 3.14.1 22 What pricing structure is preferred—T&M (Time & Materials), Fixed Price, Cost-Reimbursable, or Hybrid?

Please see the answer to question #109.

111 3.14.3 22 For the Past Performance evaluation, if a reference contact cannot be reached after two attempts, will the Department make any additional effort to reach an alternate contact, or will a score of zero be applied immediately?

The Department will follow the process defined in section 3.14.3 the RFP.

112 3.14.3 22-23 The RFP states that only the top three (3) Technical Proposal scorers will have their references contacted. If a reference cannot be reached after two (2) attempts and receives a score of zero, will the Respondent be given the opportunity to provide an alternate contact?

No. Respondents should make their references aware of the need for potential contact during the indicated period.

113 3.14.3 22 Will vendors be notified before their references are called so references can be prepared?

Please see the answer to question to #112.

114 3.14.3 22 If a reference is unreachable after 2 attempts and the vendor receives a zero, can an alternate contact be submitted?

Please see the answer to question to #112.

115 3.18 24 The RFP states the Department may award to a higher-rated, higher-priced respondent where technical superiority outweighs price difference.

Can the Department provide any guidance on the practical weighting of technical score versus cost, and whether a premium-quality team at higher cost would be competitively viable?

Please see section 3.14 of the RFP.

116 4 26 How they weight sub-criteria in Section 4, what "comparable" experience means for references, whether specific certifications are preferred.

The past performance scores are not weighted.

117 4.1 26 If a reference contact has left the company, can an alternate contact at the same organization be provided?

Yes.

118 4.1 26 Are all 10 past performance evaluation questions asked to the references scored equally?

Please see the answer to question #116.

119 4.1.1 8-9 Are SAFe certifications (e.g., SAFe Scrum Master) or a PMP with Agile experience accepted in place of CSM, PSM, or PMI-ACP for the Delivery Manager?

Yes.

120 4.1.1 8-9 Does a copy of the Delivery Manager's Agile certification need to be submitted with the proposal?

No. The requirement is mandatory and will be validated at the time of contract award. Failure to produce a valid certification may be grounds for a respondent being declared “non-responsible” and their Proposal being rejected.

121 5 4 Does the 1% MyFloridaMarketPlace Transaction Fee need to be included in the proposal price, or is it handled separately after award?

State of Florida contractors are responsible for the MyFloridaMarketPlace transaction fee in accordance with Rule 60A of the Florida Administrative Code.

122 SOW The SOW notes that all work performed under the SOW shall be conducted remotely unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Department. In that context, could you please confirm whether contractor personnel are required to be based in the United States, or whether offshore resources may be used, provided all work is performed remotely and in compliance with the Department's security, access, and contractual requirements?

Per Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code, and Department policy, all access to State of Florida data must be done from within the United States.

Offshore or near-shore resources may not be used.

Proposal of offshore resources is grounds for rejection of a Proposal as “non-responsive”. Usage of offshore resources is grounds for contract termination.

123 SOW 1 What language is your current legacy system written in? Visual FoxPro, Microsoft Access, or something else?

Please see the answer to question #1.

124 SOW 1 Approximately how many tables, screens and reports are in your current system?

Please see the answer to question #1.

125 SOW 1 Do you still have the source code to your existing legacy system?

Please see the answer to question #1.

126 SOW 1 In the following list, would you please list which PALM interfaces you expect to ingest:

a. ARI007 - Inbound Deposit Data

b. ARI012 0 Outbound ACH NOC Deposit Data

c. ARI024 - Outbound Deposit Data

d. ARI020 - Outbound Returned Items Data

e. GLI001 - Chartfield Values

f. GLI002 - Outbound Actuals Extract

g. GLI017 - Outbound Chartfield

h. GLI051 - Detail GL Journal

Please see the answer to question #16.

i. POI001 - Encumbrances

j. POI007 - Outbound Carry Forward Payable

k. PRI007 - Salary Detail

l. PRI058 - Payroll with Accounting

m. KKI009 - Budget Detail

n. API031 - Outbound Voucher and Payment

o. API041 - Inbound Voucher Spreadsheet

p. SDI008 - Outbound Speedkey

q. IUI001 - Inbound Inter/Intra Unit Spreadsheet

r. IUI002 - Inbound Inter/Intra Unit

s. IUI003 - Outbound Inter/Intra Unit

127 SOW 1 Does your current legacy system send data BACK to FLAIR and in turn, will the new system be sending data BACK to PALM?

There is no interface with FLAIR from the current system. The future state system will not send data directly to Florida PALM (i.e. there are no inbound interfaces to Florida PALM). The new system must output the PALM Inbound Deposit Spreadsheet Upload (ARI010) for manual upload into Florida

PALM.

128 SOW 1 Understanding that the new system, of course, will be web-based and offer some new streamlined workflows due to newer web-based technologies, approximately what percentage of the features and/or workflows of your current legacy system would you like to keep? For example, would the new revenue application be similar to your existing legacy system?

The new system will provide the same business functionality as the existing system. However, the new system will be of a substantially different design due to technology and process changes.

129 SOW 1 Will the new system utilize SSO? Yes. Please see the answer to question #76.

130 SOW 1 Do any architectural diagrams exist of your current system that you could share with the vendor community?

Please see the answer to question #1.

131 SOW 1 Do you have an Entity Relationship Diagram (ERD) of your current legacy system that you can share?

Please see the answer to question #1.

132 SOW 1 Has anyone at Citrus created preliminary specifications of the Administration Application?

Please see the answer to question #1.

133 SOW 1 Besides FLAIR / PALM, are there any other old-school interfaces (data or file sharing) that your current system utilizes (i.e. with your Dealers) that will need to be converted to APIs?

Yes. The current system must ingest a weekly file from the Florida Department of Agriculture. The new system must also ingest a monthly file from the United States Department of Agriculture. Each file has fewer than 25 fields and under 1,000 records.

Both files must go into Azure Synapse and be virtualized to the revenue system as needed.

134 SOW 1 Solutions Required - What is the estimated number of users expected to access the system at go-live and at steady state?

Please see the answer to question #13.

135 SOW 1 Data Migration & Integration - What is the estimated volume and complexity of data to be migrated from the legacy system (e.g., number of records, years of history, data quality considerations)?

Please see the answer to question #5.

136 SOW 1 Can you provide details on the 12 Florida PALM interfaces (data formats, frequency, APIs vs batch)?

Please see the answer to question #16.

137 SOW 1 What are the expected integration patterns (real-time APIs, batch processing, event driven)?

The integration pattern will be daily batch for PALM ingestion and event driven (i.e. per deposit) for the output. Please see the answer to question #16.

138 SOW 1 Are there any third-party systems) besides Florida PALM) that need to be integrated?

No. Please see the answer to question #133.

139 SOW 1 What is the expected data volume and growth for the Data Warehouse in Azure Synapse?

The Department’s total volume of data is under 5GB and is not expected to grow significantly. The current revenue system is under 600MB for all 20 years of data.

140 SOW 1 Are there any UI/UX standards or design systems that the Dealer Portal must follow?

The Department will entertain any proposed design standards. Respondents are encouraged to include information about their UI/UX experience in the relevant sections of the Proposal for evaluation.

141 SOW 1 What is the expected user load/concurrency for the Dealer Portal?

Please see the answer to question #13.

142 SOW 1 Will the portal require multi-language support or accessibility compliance (e.g. WCAG)?

The portal will be in English and must be compliant with ADA Section 508 for accessibility. Adherence to WCAG 2.2 standards is highly encouraged.

143 SOW 1 What are the key reporting requirements and tools (Poer BI, embedded analytics)?

Please see the answer to question #14.

144 SOW 1 Are there predefined KPIs, dashboards, or regulatory reports that must be supported at go-live?

Please see the answer to question #14.

145 SOW 1 Can the project leverage offshore resources for development and support, and are there any restrictions or security considerations for remote/offshore access?

Please see the answer to question #122.

146 SOW 1 What are the expected traffic volumes, peak load scenarios, and performance expectations for the external Dealer Portal?

Please see the answer to question #13.

147 SOW 1 Are there specific accessibility (e.g., WCAG) or multilingual requirements for public-facing components?

Please see the answer to question #142.

148 SOW 1 Can you provide schemas, formats, and frequency details for each of the 12 PALM outbound interfaces feeding Synapse?

Please see the answer to question #16.

149 SOW 1 Should PALM interfaces operate in real-time, event-driven, or scheduled batch mode, and who is responsible for error handling, retries, and reconciliation?

Please see the answer to question #137.

150 SOW 1 What subject areas, historical depth, and data tracking mechanisms (e.g., SCDs) are required in the Synapse Data Warehouse?

The data warehouse will contain PALM interface data and revenue system data. Please see the answer to question #137.

151 SOW 1 What reconciliation processes must the system support (daily totals, variance checks, exception handling workflows)?

The Department expects the Contractor to provide expertise in the construction of the data warehouse and to follow industry best practices for data integrity.

152 SOW 2 Agile Development Methodology - Can the Department confirm whether the core development scope is expected to be completed within the initial eight (8) sprints, excluding any optional sprints?

Please see the answer…