RFP 26-85939 Att G - Q&A Template with State Answers.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 32 KB Posted
- Attached to
- FSSA Learning Management System (LMS)Bid Documents State and local contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 26-85939
- Issued by
- Marion County, Indiana
About this file
Summary of RFP 26-85939 Questions and Answers
This document is a Questions and Answers (Q&A) template for RFP 26-85939, issued by the State of Indiana Department of Administration on behalf of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration (FSSA) for a comprehensive web-based Learning Management System (LMS). The solicitation, issued for the FSSA Privacy & Security Office and Division of Family Resources serving Marion County, seeks a fully functional LMS to support privacy and security compliance training for state personnel and contract workforce members. The system must support a minimum of 7,800 active user licenses with capacity to migrate approximately 35,000 active and inactive user records and over 32GB of historical training modules containing approximately 240,000 SCORM and iComposer files from the current system. Key deliverables include LMS user access management with Azure AD federation for Single Sign-On (SSO), privacy and security training content covering topics such as information security awareness, social engineering, cloud security, email security, and phishing, course management and scheduling with enrollment limits by user realm, user notifications, assessment and proctoring capabilities, advanced tracking and reporting with separate, partitioned dashboards for the Privacy & Security Office and Department of Family Resources, and comprehensive project management documentation. The pre-proposal conference was scheduled for April 29, 2026; the deadline for written questions was May 6, 2026, with responses posted by May 13, 2026; and proposals were due May 27, 2026, by 3:00 PM Eastern Time through the Supplier Portal. The contract term is four years commencing October 1, 2026, with an optional two-year renewal period for a total potential six-year term, with a target go-live date of October 1, 2026.
The Q&A document clarifies critical requirements including data residency (vendor-hosted storage following Indiana Office of Technology policies rather than state-owned cloud tenants or Indiana-specific physical storage), hosting via vendor infrastructure compliant with Indiana security standards including RAMP certification and FedRAMP moderate compliance, integration capabilities limited to Azure AD SSO with no additional integrations required, and optional MWBE, WBE, and IVOSB subcontractor participation scored at one point per category with no negative evaluation impact for non-participation. The State does not allocate a specific budget and identifies cost as a primary scoring factor; pricing must remain firm for 180 days from award. The current system, operated by Inspired ELearning with Ziff Davis, will be replaced with a fully functional solution available on day one of contract commencement, with the FSSA Privacy and Security Office and Department of Family Resources responsible for system ownership and management. Migration requirements include approximately 400-500 transcript completion records per active or inactive user, preservation of 1,000 historical lessons for active use, and the capability to build multiple-choice exams natively within the LMS or through integrated solutions since iComposer files will not be migrated. The State requires at least 30 individuals to receive administrator training, maintains a ten-year data retention policy, expects annual training review and documentation updates only upon vendor-initiated system changes, and does not anticipate utilizing Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) services for this solution.
View the file
Other files for this state and local contract opportunity
Show all 27
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Q&A
| Attachment G | ||||
| Questions and Answers Template | ||||
| RFP 26-85939 | ||||
| Please submit your questions in the blue shaded areas by the date and time established in the RFI. | ||||
| # | DOC NAME (RFI or Attachment) | PAGE # AND/OR SECTION # | RESPONDENTS QUESTION | STATE'S RESPONSE |
| 1 | M - Infrastructure Overview |
O - Scope of Work
B - Sample Contract M, section Hosting Options O, section Technical Requirements / Hosting
| B, section Data Location / Security | Please clarify the State’s data residency and hosting requirement for cloud-based LMS solutions. Attachment M requires cloud-based offerings to be within a State-owned cloud tenant and states that data must reside within that tenant, while the Scope of Work states that FSSA requires a completely vendor-hosted solution, and the SaaS terms require only that data at rest be located in data centers in the United States. Is the State requiring physical data storage in Indiana, storage within a State-owned tenant regardless of cloud region, or U.S.-based vendor-hosted storage if justified under the exception process? | Vendor-hosted storage following IOT policies, https://www.in.gov/iot/policies-procedures-and-standards/ |
| 2 | RFP - Boilerplate |
A - Minority & Women Business Commitment Form
A1 - Vet Business Committment RFP, sections 1.20-1.22, pages 13-16; 3.2 Evaluation Criteria
A, page 1
| A1, page 1 | Please clarify whether MWBE, WBE, and IVOSB participation are optional scored items or requirements that may negatively affect evaluation beyond loss of the assigned points. RFP Sections 1.20 to 1.22 state that failure to address or meet these goals may impact evaluation, while Attachment A states failure to meet MWBE goals will not affect evaluation, Attachment A1 states failure to address IVOSB opportunities will not impact evaluation, and Attachment J allows respondents to opt not to submit these forms. | Subcontractor participation is optional. The percentages will count toward the final scoring. The impact of not using MBE, WBE, and IVOSB participation is liminted to the one point deduction in each category. | |||
| 3 | Page 17, Section 2 (Training Content), | Attachment O | Is pre-built content important to you? If so, what topics are you interested in? | Yes, it is a requirement for this RFP under deliverable #2 for Training Content. |
The Awardee must provide the content for these privacy and security training modules with a range of security related subjects, including but not limited to:
| a. | basic information security awareness, | ||||
| b. | advanced information security awareness, | ||||
| c. | information security fundamentals, | ||||
| d. | social engineering, | ||||
| e. | cloud security, | ||||
| f. | email security, | ||||
| g. | password management, | ||||
| h. | social engineering, and | ||||
| i. | phishing. | ||||
| 4 | Page 15, Section 1a (LMS User Access) | Attachment O | What integration capabilities are required for the LMS? | The vendor/solution should be able to federate with the State's Azure AD for Single Sign-On (SSO). Any further integration could be dependent upon their solution. | |
| 5 | Page 19, Section 1.24 (Summary of Milestones) | RFP Boilerplate | When do you plan to make a decision on the LMS vendor? | The goal is to make an award recommendation by the end of June 2026. | |
| 6 | Page 26, Section 12 (Timeline) | Attachment O | What is your target date for having the new LMS live and accessible to users? | 1-Oct-26 | |
| 7 | Page 12 (Document Management) | ||||
| (Note: Only general software like SharePoint/Azure is listed) | Attachment O | What systems do you currently use for HRIS, performance management, ATS, etc.? Please provide the names of these systems. | SuccessFactors | ||
| 8 | Page 11 (Project Management - Deployment/Implementation Plans) | Attachment O | What is your plan for launching the LMS? | A fully functional solution on day one of the contract. | |
| 9 | Page 10 (Project Management) and Page 14 (Section 1), | Attachment O | Who will be responsible for ensuring the LMS is properly implemented? Do you have a dedicated LMS Administrator? | The FSSA Privacy and Security Office owns and manages the system. | |
| 10 | Page 9 (Background) and Page 24 (Section 9), | Attachment O | How many team members will be involved in creating content, and do you have a designated administrator? | There are 30 admins in the current solution. | |
| 11 | Page 18, Section 2 (Training Content) | Attachment O | Who will be responsible for creating company-specific content? | FSSA staff. | |
| 12 | Page 4, Section 4 (Customizations/Project Steering Committee) | Attachment O | Who will be in charge of the LMS implementation on your team? | The FSSA Privacy and Security Office and the Dept of Family Resources. | |
| 13 | Page 1 (Purpose) (Note: Specific headcount not listed, only the departments) | Attachment O | How many team members are dedicated to this project? | 10 | |
| 14 | Page 1 (Purpose) | Attachment O | Will the LMS be managed by the HR or Operations team? Who will be the system owner? | The FSSA Privacy and Security Office owns and manages the system. | |
| 15 | Pages 1-2 (Purpose and Objectives), | Attachment O | What are your main goals for the LMS platform? | Ease of use and reporting capability. | |
| 16 | Page 1 (Purpose) | Attachment O | Why are you looking to change your LMS now? | Legislative procurement change. | |
| 17 | Page 9 (Desired Future State) | Attachment O | What are the top three issues you are currently facing that we can help address? | The Scope of Work outlines desired functionalities. | |
| 18 | Page 23, Section 8 (Migration and Historical Data) | Attachment O | What external authoring tools are you using currently? | We currently utilize the Articulate 360 Suite and publish using SCORM/xAPI/CMI5; however, we reserve the right to change authoring tools. | |
| 19 | Page 9 (Background and Current State) | Attachment O | What has been your experience with these tools? | The experience has been positive. No issues. | |
| 20 | Not explicitly stated in the provided sources. | Not Found | Are there any language requirements for the content? | There are no language requirements for availability of different languages. | |
| 21 | Not explicitly stated in the provided sources. | Not Found | What is your budget for this LMS project? | There is no specific budget allocated. Cost is a primary factor in scoring. | |
| 22 | Page 8 (Background and Current State) (Note: Vendor name not listed) | Attachment O | Are you currently using an LMS? If so, who is the vendor? | Inspired ELearning with Ziff Davis. | |
| 23 | Page 20, Section 5 (LMS User Notifications) | Attachment O | What tools do you use for company communication? (e.g., Slack, Teams, email) | Teams and Outlook. | |
| 24 | Page 12 (Document Management) | Attachment O | Do you have a document management system like SharePoint? Where do you store important documents and SOPs? | Yes, we use SharePoint for document and SOP storage. | |
| 25 | Not explicitly stated in the provided sources. | Not Found | Are all employees on-site, or do you have a hybrid work model? | State employees are onsite, however contract staff who will use this system are a mix of hybrid, onsite or full remote. | |
| 26 | Page 8 (Background and Current State) | Attachment O | What is your current onboarding process for new hires and is the onboarding training something you want to incorporate in your LMS as a part of onboarding? | No. | |
| 27 | Not explicitly stated in the provided sources. | Not Found | Do you have any coaching or mentorship programs as part of your learning initiatives? | Yes. | |
| 28 | Att O Scope of Work | 3, Background and Current State | Regarding the statement, "The current solution includes built-in analytics to track course status and completion. It allows for verifying compliance, scheduling reports, and | ||
| has a searchable, cloneable, fully customizable system reports. FSSA can keep track of license usage, onboarding progress, exam scores, phishing click-through and report rates." could FSSA clarify what click-through tracking is needed? Would reporting on progress statuses such as enrolled, started, completed, failed, etc. be acceptable? | The progress statuses outlined in the question are acceptable. | ||||
| 29 | Att O Scope of Work | 3, Desired Future State | Regarding the statement, "FSSA would also like the ability to set limits on module rounds between different users, currently limits are only set on registration," could FSSA clarify what outcomes or controls it hopes to achieve by introducing limits on module rounds between different users? | FSSA needs classroom and training scheduling functionality that includes options to limit enrollment based on realm. For example, we may cap a training session at 25 individuals and the LMS could limit the number of vendor registrants at 10 and state registrants at 15. FSSA also desires to set limits on the number of times that an individual make take a module (used for testing purposes). | |
| 30 | Att O Scope of Work | 5, Solution Training | "The purpose of training activities is to ensure all users receive training on the System and associated business process changes." Question: will all end users need training by the vendor, or is providing training for FSSA LMS administrators acceptable? | The Solution Training section of Att O Scope of Work is referring to the vendor providing training for FSSA LMS administrators. | |
| 31 | Att O Scope of Work | 7, Tracking and Reporting | "a. percentage of module completion" Question: Is a module a single SCORM file or is a module a series of SCORM files and you need to track progress for each SCORM such as enrolled, started, completed, failed, etc.? | In this context a module is a SCORM file with a single SCO. A curriculum is comprised of multiple modules and we need to monitor overall curriculum completion percentage and individual module completion status. | |
| 32 | Att O Scope of Work | 7, Tracking and Reporting | "b. time spent on a lesson" Question: what type of lesson/courses does FSSA need to track time spent? Online SCORM courses, etc.? | FSSA needs to track time spent in Online SCORM courses and quizzes per user per module. | |
| 33 | Att O Scope of Work | 8, Tracking and Reporting | "FSSA requires, at a minimum, two configurable dashboards, one for the PSO and one for the DFR with detailed and configurable reporting that is user friendly and intuitive." Question: Could FSSA clarify what specific data elements, metrics, or reporting views it would like included on the PSO and DFR dashboards. | Total available licenses, active linceses, top users with pending courses, top groups with pending courses, recent training with completion status, and phishing campaign data. | |
| 34 | Att M Infrastructure Overview | 1 | "Prospective vendors should keep all the foregoing in mind as they prepare their proposals and be confident that any proposal they ultimately choose to submit are flexible enough to accommodate commonly accepted industry practices and standards in the typical state government-required RAMP." Question: Is GovRAMP/StateRAMP a requirement? We are FedRAMP moderate certified would that be acceptable? | Yes, RAMP is a requirement. IOT's policy can be found here: https://www.in.gov/iot/policies-procedures-and-standards/ | |
| 35 | Att D - Cost Proposal | N/A | Can we include an additional "Option Items" section that shows additional optional items and their assocaited pricing beyond the core scope of work? Or would you only like to see these items upon request? | Yes we would like to see "Option Items." | |
| 36 | Att O - Scope of Work | Page 1 | Solution Configurability and Customization Preference - does the State consider standard configuration changes from default configurations to be a customization or only true product/ code customizations? | The State prefers a solution that meets requirements of out of the box functionality with minimal customization. The State expects the selected Respondent to act as a partner to help identify potential business process changes that leverage out of the box or configuration options and reduce or eliminate the need for custom code. | |
| 37 | Att O - Scope of Work | Page 3 - Desired Future State | Can you please expand on this ask - "FSSA would also like the ability to set limits on module rounds between different users, currently limits are only set on registration." - what does FSSA consider "module rounds"? | FSSA needs classroom and training scheduling functionality that includes options to limit enrollment based on realm. For example, we may cap a training session at 25 individuals and the LMS could limit the number of vendor registrants at 10 and state registrants at 15. FSSA also desires to set limits on the number of times that an individual make take a module (used for assessment purposes). | |
| 38 | Att O - Scope of Work | Page 4 - Solution Training | Is this deliverable intended to be training offered to system administrators in order to maintain the solution or if this training on the implementaiton process (or both)? Does FSSA have a request for the duration/ extent that this would be delivered (vitrual ILT? Documentation etc.)? What type of updates does FSSA expect to have done annualy? Can you provide a few examples? | The Solution Training section of Att O Scope of Work is referring to the vendor providing training for FSSA LMS administrators. This could be virtual including documentation. FSSA does not expect and annual training unless vendor initiated system changes occur (such as the enrollment process for example). Documentation should reflect all changes. | |
| 39 | Att O - Scope of Work | Page 5 - Deliverables, section 1 | How many of the 7,800 users are FSSA credentials users vs. non- FSSA? Does FSSA have a source system for FSSA credential users and/or non-FSSA users that will be fed into the LMS (like from and HRIS system) - if yes, are all these users coming from one system or multiple? | The majority of users are FSSA users that exist within the State's active directory/OKTA identity management systems. 750 up to 1000 users may not be in any State systems. | |
| 40 | Att O - Scope of Work | Page 6 - Deliverables, section 2 | Training Content - does FSSA need Training Content described available for all users or a subset? | Available to assign to all users. | |
| 41 | Att O - Scope of Work | Page 8 - Deliverables, section 8 | Migration and Historical Data - Can you provide an approximate number of transcript completion records for these 35,000 active and inactive users? For the historical training modules - Are the iComposer files also SCORM? Does FSSA need to migrate any other training types (materials (PDFs/Word), videos, tests, instructor led training, curriculum) - if yes, approximately how many for each? | Average active and inactive users has approximately 400-500 courses in their transcript. All training mateiral are packaged as SCORM, xAPI, or CMI5. iComposer were built using the incumbent's native LMS functionality and only the the results (completion date, score, etc.) will need to be migrated. The new LMS must have some form of native resource to build multiple choice exams. FSSA will need to migrate other types of training materials (PDFs, videos, etc.) but these types of materials are usually imbedded in the SCORM/xAPI/CMI5 package). | |
| 42 | Att O - Scope of Work | Page 8 - Deliverables, section 12 | What is the desired implementation timeframe/go-live date for the LMS? Is the intent to deploy the LMS to all FSSA and non-FSSA users at the same time or have a phase roll-out? | Go live October 1, 2026 - deployed to all users at the same time. | |
| 43 | Att O - Scope of Work | General | Is FSSA interested in virtual instructor-led training integrations (MS Teams, Zoom etc.)? | Potentally but it is not a requirement. | |
| 44 | Att O - Scope of Work | General | Will all FSSA and non-FSSA users enter the platform through the same landing page or will there need to be customized UI experiences for each type of user? If multiple pages, how many are you estimating? | Same landing page for FSSA and non-FSSA users. | |
| 45 | General | General | Can FSSA share any information on the budge allocated for this RFP? | There is no specific budget allocated. Cost is a primary factor in scoring. | |
| 46 | General | General | Would FSSA be open to extending the due date to 6/3 to allow for time for thoughtful responses based on information shared from the Q&A? | No. | |
| 47 | Att O - Scope of Work | Page 1 - Objectives | What audit log fields, filters, and retention periods are typically required for Federal and State reviews, and what limitations in the current tool make “quick access to audit logs” difficult today? | Who: user identifiers, originator info |
What: actions performed (create, read, update, delete) What changed: field-level diffs Why/Context: selection criteria, affected resources, session info Retion Period: 10 years
| 48 | Att O - Scope of Work | Page 1 - Solution Configurability and Customization Preference | Since the current platform is largely out-of-the-box with a stated desire for minimal disruption, which unmet needs (reporting, identity, curricula rules, data exports, integrations) are driving consideration of change? Additionally, during the use of the existing solution were any lightweight configurations that were attempted but could not close those gaps? | FSSA does not share internal operational decisions during competitive evaluations. |
| 49 | Att O - Scope of Work | Page 5 - LMS User Access and LMS User Accounts | For non-FSSA credentialed users, what is the current provisioning/onboarding process, password/MFA policy, and deprovisioning cadence, and where does the present system create friction for external stakeholders as social logins are not allowed? | FSSA requires that there is a "back door" entry point for individuals that do not have yet have Single Single Sign-On credentials to login to the LMS and start completing coursework. |
| 50 | Att O - Scope of Work | Page 8 - Migration and Historical Data | Of the ~35,000 users and ~32GB/240,000 SCORM and iComposer files are there known data-quality issues (e.g., inconsistent completion codes, duplicate users, broken manifests) the vendor should plan to remediate? | No. |
| 51 | Att O - Scope of Work | Page 8 - Technical Support | In the current model of “little engagement with the vendor outside of helpdesk,” which incident types/severities struggle to meet expectations, and what admin training or self-service documentation gaps most affect resolution time? Additionally, would you be able to provide volume of helpdesk tickets submitted to vendor on a monthly frequency for the past calendar year. | We are not able to provide detailed information regarding internal incident trends, support ticket volumes, or specific areas of administrative training. These items reflect internal operational data that we do not share during competitive evaluations. |
| 52 | Att O - Scope of Work | Page 8 - Technical Support | How many individuals will require Admin Training? | At least 30 individuals. |
| 53 | Att O - Scope of Work | Page 4 - Desired Future State | Does FSSA's Desired Future State include any integrations into the LMS (e.g. Teams, AWS, GitHub, Jira, Okta)? | No. |
| 54 | Att O - Scope of Work | Page 8 - Migration and Historical Data | Is FSSA seeking a vendor to audit current training modules (for branding, archival, ADA compliance) prior to migration? | No. |
| 55 | Att O - Scope of Work | Page 5 - Training Content | Does FSSA have existing privacy and security training modules to update and migrate? How many training modules will be created? | Yes. |
| 56 | Att O - Scope of Work | Page 8 - Migration and Historical Data | Would the state be open to limiting the historical data conversion to last 5 years of data in order to avoid converting stale historical data? | The State's data retention policy is set at the last ten years or data. |
| 57 | Att O - Scope of Work | Page 7 - Assessments | Please clarify whether the requirement for “native software for proctoring multiple choice exams” requires functionality developed directly within the LMS platform, or whether a fully integrated proctoring capability delivered as part of the overall LMS solution would satisfy this requirement. Please also clarify the requirement for “proctoring” by explaining if this involves presenting assessments to the learners asynchronously or if you are requiring live supervision to be performed by a human and/or automated machine proctor. | Fully integrated proctoring is fine. We do not require live supervision, asynchronously is sufficient. |
| 58 | Att O - Scope of Work | Page 3 - Desired Future State | Please clarify the meaning and purpose of setting “limits on module rounds between different users.” | FSSA needs classroom and training scheduling functionality that includes options to limit enrollment based on realm. For example, we may cap a training session at 25 individuals and the LMS could limit the number of vendor registrants at 10 and state registrants at 15. FSSA also desires to set limits on the number of times that an individual make take a module (used for assessment purposes). |
| 59 | Att O - Scope of Work | Page 5 - LMS User Access and LMS User Accounts | Please provide the required data elements for historical transcript migration and confirm whether all active and inactive user records must be fully searchable and reportable in the new LMS at go-live. Please roughly estimate the total number of records that are required to be migrated into the new system. | This is not a complete list, but basic LMS requirements such as user name, email address, user transcripts, region, division, department, supervisor name and email address, and a mimumum of four custome fieds. We will need to migrate transcript history for all active and inactive users, including course history with completion status and dates. |
| 60 | Att O - Scope of Work | Page 8 - Migration and Historical Data | Please confirm whether all historical training modules and files must remain fully launchable in the new LMS, or whether archival retention and transcript/reporting continuity would be sufficient for older legacy content. Please describe how many of these historical training modules are planned for active use in the new system. | Not all historical training modules and files are required to remain fully launchable. We estimate that about 1000 historical lessons will remain active. |
| 61 | Att O - Scope of Work | Page 5 - LMS User Access and LMS User Accounts | Please confirm whether the minimum 7,800 active licenses are expected to be reusable across different individuals over time while preserving complete transcript history for prior inactive users, and whether any limits apply to inactive-user retention or retrieval. | Correct, the active licenses need to be reusable across different individuals while retaining a complete transcript history for prior inactive users for the duration of the State's 10 year data retention policy. |
| 62 | Att O - Scope of Work | Pages 5-6 - Training Content | Please confirm whether the Awardee is expected to provide an off-the-shelf privacy and security content library, custom-developed/branded modules, or both; and if custom content is required, please provide the anticipated number of modules and expected update cadence. | Yes, it is a requirement for this RFP under deliverable #2 for Training Content. |
The Awardee must provide the content for these privacy and security training modules with a range of security related subjects, including but not limited to:
| a. | basic information security awareness, |
| b. | advanced information security awareness, |
| c. | information security fundamentals, |
| d. | social engineering, |
| e. | cloud security, |
| f. | email security, |
| g. | password management, |
| h. | social engineering, and |
| i. | phishing. |
FSSA may want to include FSSA branding (logo) on custom-developed modules as well as remove any content that goes against policies and procedures. Trainings should be reviewed for updates annually.
| 63 | Att O - Scope of Work | Page 8 - Timeline | In addition to the stated contract start date, please confirm the expected implementation timeline, go-live target, key milestone dates, and any acceptance or IV&V review timelines that could affect implementation sequencing or invoice approval. | The LMS must be implemented on the contract start date. There will be leeway for migrating historial data. |
| 64 | Attachment O | Section 8 | Can the State provide the specific versions and technical specifications of the "iComposer" files currently in use to ensure full compatibility for migration into the new LMS? | We would not be migrating the iComposer files over we would either need the capability to build multiple choice exams via the native LMS or through an integrated solution. The existing iComposer files were built using the incumbents software. |
| 65 | Attachment O | Sections 1 & 8 | Does the State require that the 35,000 historical/inactive records be hosted within the 7,800 active license count, or should the solution provide a separate, non-billed archive for historical transcript access? | Separate non-billed archive for historical transcript access. |
| 66 | Attachment O | Section 2 | For the required privacy and security modules, will FSSA provide the raw subject matter expertise (SME) and source text, or is the Awardee expected to research and author the primary legal and regulatory content? | The Awardee would research and author based on industry standards for security and cyber-security awareness trainings targeted to end users. |
| 67 | Attachment O | Desired Future State, pg 3 | Could the State define a "module round" and clarify if the intent is to limit the number of attempts a user has to pass a module within a specific timeframe or across their entire transcript history? | FSSA needs classroom and training scheduling functionality that includes options to limit enrollment based on realm. For example, we may cap a training session at 25 individuals and the LMS could limit the number of vendor registrants at 10 and state registrants at 15. FSSA also desires to set limits on the number of times that an individual make take a module (used for assessment purposes). |
| 68 | Attachment O | Solution Configurability, pg 1-2 | To avoid project delays, what is the anticipated turnaround time for the Project Steering Committee to review and provide written approval for a customization proposal once the functional specifications are submitted? | 10 business days. |
| 69 | Attachment O | IV&V Payment Approval, pg 2 | If IV&V services are deployed, will the State define specific Service Level Agreements (SLAs) for the IV&V review period to ensure payment timelines are not negatively impacted by the approval process? | FSSA does not anticipate using IV&V for this solution. |
| 70 | Attachment O | Section 7 | Does the State require these two dashboards to exist within separate, partitioned "realms" with no data overlap, or will a single top-level administrator have visibility into both PSO and DFR data? | Separate and partitioned with no data overlap. |
| 71 | Attachment O | Section 11 | Given the submission deadline, is there a formal process for Respondents to obtain and sign the required NDA immediately to ensure the proposed technical architecture aligns with the IOT framework prior to the bid due date? | No, IDOA does not have a certain process. |
| 72 | Attachment O | Section 1 (LMS User Access and LMS User Accounts) | Does the current e-learning management system have any specific integration with Microsoft Azure AD beyond authentication that the new solution must replicate, such as automated user provisioning or group syncing? | Being able to facilitate single sign-on is our only requirement. |
| 73 | RFP Document | Page 35 and 36 | Can you clarify the level of flexibility associated with the Women Business Subcontractor Commitment and Indiana Veteran-Owned Small Business Subcontractor Commitment requirements? | It is a voluntary program, it is not required. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .