RFP 26_27 _ Addendum 1 _ Q_A.pdf
PDF 142 KB Posted
- Attached to
- RFP 26-27 Content Filtering, Classroom Device Monitoring/Management, and Student Wellness/Safety ¿ M
- Solicitation number
- PE-62600-NONST-2026-000000128
- Issued by
- Chatham County, Georgia
About this file
This is an Addendum 1 Questions and Answers document for RFP 26-27 issued by Savannah-Chatham County Public Schools (SCCPSS) for a multi-year content filtering, classroom device monitoring/management, and student wellness/safety contract. The contract term runs from June 2026 through June 2029. The RFP seeks a cloud-based solution that vendors should propose as a single solution configuration rather than multiple alternatives. Key requirements include content filtering to block malicious sites, classroom device monitoring and management capabilities, and student wellness and safety features. The district expects the cloud solution to be managed by the vendor. Vendors must submit functional, technical, and budget checklists with detailed descriptions of how they meet or exceed requirements, with pricing information submitted in a separate sealed envelope. Evaluation criteria allocate 10 points to Section B, 35 points to Section C, 20 points to Section D, and 5 points to each of Sections E and an unspecified section, though clarification on scoring methodology was requested.
The current incumbent vendor is ContentKeeper, which provides all three requested services through ContentKeeper and StudentKeeper products. The district does not disclose budget or current pricing information to protect the bid process. The school environment includes multiple device management platforms: JAMF for Apple products, Google Apps for Education for Chromebooks, and both ManageEngine and Intune for Windows devices. Students take school-issued devices home, requiring solutions compatible with this deployment model. Vendors may propose optional value-added services with separately identified pricing provided base proposals fully meet mandatory requirements. The district requires Web Accessibility Compliance Documentation as part of submissions but did not provide a specific template at the time this addendum was issued.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| RFP 26_27 Content Filtering_ Classroom Device.pdf | ||
| RFP 26_27 _ Addendum 1.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Generated on Feb 19, 2026 8:55 AM EST - Alicia Williams
RFP 26-27 Content Filtering, Classroom Device Monitoring/Management and Student Wellness/Safety- Multi-Year Contract (June 2026 – June
2029) – Addendum 1
Questions and Answers
Gaggle.Net, Inc.
Questions
Question 1:
Who is the district currently using to provide these services? What is the budget for this purchase?
How much is the district currently paying for these services?
Response:
ContentKeeper. The district does not discuss budgetary information to protect the bid process.
Question regarding student devices
Question 2:
Do students take school-issued devices home or are they kept at school?
Response:
Yes
Malware Question
Question 3:
Can you please expand more on this requirement and how it relates to the services requested?
Provide Malware Protection for users
The solution should block sites that are know to be malicious.
K12itc
Management question
Question 4:
Would you be interested in having this solution managed for the district?
Response:
No, because we are asking for this to be a cloud solution, it is expected for this to be managed.
ProLogic ITS, LLC
Solicitation Document
Question 5:
Good day, I am unable to locate the main solicitation document. Will you please add it to the available downloads? Thank you.
Good day, Document has been added. Thanks.
SHI International Corp
Attachment C Sample Agreement
Question 6:
The RFP mentions an Attachment C sample agreement. Can SCCPSS provide this document as it was not included in the original bid package.
Current Incumbent(s)
Question 7:
Is the district currently using one vendor to provide all 3 of the requested services?
Response: ContentKeeper\StudentKeeper
Securly, Inc.
Evaluation Criteria Clarification
Question 8:
On p. 26, initial evaluation criteria is stated as: Section B, 5 points Sections C&D, 30 points Section
E, 5 points Whereas section headers for these sections indicate Section B, 10 points Section C, 35 points Section D, 20 points Section E, 5 points Can the customer clarify the scoring methods used for this submission?
Accessibility Standard
Question 9:
After reviewing the attached documentation, our team is struggling to find the referenced
"accessibility standard" in Section L, page 6. We would like to demonstrate compliance with this standard; is the agency amenable to releasing that document?
Budget Checklist
Question 10:
Quoted text: "Offerors are to complete the Functional, Technical, and Budget checklists below.
Along with the Functional and Technical checklists, offerors should provide a detailed description of how they meet or exceed all requirements. Pricing checklists must be returned in a separate sealed envelope. Note pricing information should be listed outside of that sealed envelope."
Question: We do not see a "Budget Checklist" in this RFP. Can you please provide it?
Additional Questions
Ryn Bennett, Feb 02, 2026 6:30 PM EST
Question 11.
1. Optional services not explicitly requested: May Vendors include optional or value-added services, with separately identified pricing, that are not explicitly requested in this RFP, provided the base proposal fully meets all mandatory requirements? If permitted, should these optional services be included only in the Cost Proposal, or may they also be described in the Technical Proposal (without pricing)? 2. Release of Questions & Answers:
Will responses to vendor questions be posted on a rolling basis as they are received, or will all responses be released together after the question submission deadline? If released together, what is the anticipated posting date? 3. Multiple filtering options or configurations:
Does the District allow Vendors to propose multiple filtering options or solution configurations (for example, different deployment models or feature sets) within a single response? If so, should these be presented as clearly identified alternatives within one proposal, or submitted as separate alternative proposals for evaluation?
Response:
1. Yes
2.
3. Vendors are limited to proposing 1 solution
Accessibility Compliance Documentation
Question 12:
In addition to our request for the district’s accessibility standards, a required upload is “Web
Accessibility Compliance Documentation”. Is there a template or form for this requirement? If so, can you provide please?
MDM
Question 13:
Hi, can we confirm which MDM is used by SCCPSS? This will help inform our response. Thank you!
Response:
For Apple products, JAMF. For Chromebooks, Google Apps for Education. For Windows, ManageEngine and Intune.
United Data Technologies
Web Accessibility Compliance Documentation
Question 14:
What are you looking for exactly for the Web Accessibility Compliance Documentation?
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .