STATE OF ALASKA

Department of Fish and Game Division of Administrative Services

ADF&G Website Modernization and ADA Compliance 2026-1100-0138 Amendment # 2

2/6/2026

This amendment is being issued to make changes to the RFP document and provide responses to questions that were submitted by potential offerors.

Changes to the RFP:

Change 1:

Section 1.03 DEADLINE FOR RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS Proposals must be received no later than 2:00 PM prevailing Alaska Standard Time on February 19, 2026, as indicated by postmark or email timestamp and late proposals will not be considered.

Change 2:

SEC. 3.12 JOINT VENTURES

Joint ventures will be allowed.

Announcements:

Announcement 1: The question and answer period is now closed. Amendment 3 is forthcoming to address remaining questions submitted by offerors.

Questions submitted by potential offerors and answers from the state:

Question 1: Will there be a single point of contact responsible for collecting and providing consolidated feedback to streamline direction?

Answer: No, ADF&G consists of multiple divisions and sections, each with their own stakeholders, content owners, IT staff, and publication specialists.

Question 2: What specific materials or topics should be included in the handoff documentation referenced in Section 3.02 (Deliverables / Milestones Timeline)?

Answer: Handoff documentation should include enough detail for the department to maintain the new system going forward.

Question 3: Does the State have a preferred or existing hosting environment that this solution should use (for example, a specific cloud provider, a State data center, or an approved cloud platform)?

Answer: The solution must be a cloud-based solution to comply with the State of Alaska cloud first policy.

It can be a 3rd party SaaS solution, assuming it meets the State of Alaska Information Security Policies, or be hosted in the State of Alaska GCC Azure tenant.

Question 4: Within that environment, is the contractor’s role limited to building the new site, with the State assuming responsibility for infrastructure and ongoing maintenance?

Answer: The post-project maintenance and support of the system will be the responsibility of the department.

Question 5: What is the expected duration of the post-launch support/warranty period?

Answer: Vendors should propose a reasonable support/warranty period aligned with project complexity.

The intent is to ensure access to technical support resources for a limited time following handoff to DFG staff, in the event of post-launch production issues.

Question 6: If contractor-hosted solutions are acceptable, what are expectations for backups, security controls, and operational responsibilities?

Answer: These requirements are expected to be gather during project execution. Offeror may propose SLAs as part of the project proposal.

Question 7: Can you please provide the ISPs referenced in the RFP?

Answer: The ISPs will be attached.

Question 8: In order for us to propose a suitable website development solution, can you tell us what the peak daily traffic is?

Answer: The peak active users per day is 28,000.

Question 9: Are you able to provide backend access to your current website?

Answer: Yes, during the project the offeror will have access to the existing systems.

Question 10: Is there a cutoff year that determines which content should be migrated and which can be archived?

Answer: This will be determined during the Discovery & Assessment phase of the project

Question 11: There is a lot of content on the current site. To help us anticipate the scope of migration and a workable design for the new site, does the State anticipate deleting or retiring any existing content rather than migrating it to the new site?

Answer: Yes, the department seeks a simplified design that allows the public access to the most important information while still complying with the State of Alaska website look and feel.

Question 12: Will ADF&G identify the content to be archived?

Answer: This is expected to occur during the Discovery & Assessment and Content Migration Plan project phases.

Question 13: Can the State provide an estimate of the number of PDFs and other downloadable documents currently published on the site? Additionally, is accessibility remediation of these documents (including tagging, reading order, alt text, and other WCAG compliance requirements) included in the contractor’s scope, or will this be addressed separately by the State?

Answer: There are approximately 11,000 PDFs currently published on the website. The majority of these documents are expected to be archived. Accessibility remediation of documents that remain public facing will be performed by the department. The contractor’s scope includes providing the CMS and website functionality necessary to host, manage, and present both remediated and archived documents.

Question 14: Will content being brought over be migrated as‑is, or is it subject to refresh?

Answer: Migrated content may be refreshed as necessary to align with the new website design and to meet

ADA/WCAG requirements. Beyond those updates, no additional content changes are anticipated.

Question 15: What are the State’s expectations for site search functionality in the modernized platform? If a third-party search tool is currently in use, should the new solution replicate that functionality, improve upon it, or replace it?

Answer: The new implementation needs to improve upon the existing search functionality.

Question 16: Additionally, should the new system support searching of documents (such as PDFs) and filtering by content type, topic, or other criteria?

Answer: Search results should include PDFs. Implementation details have not been discussed. This RFP is asking for project assistance with building those requirements.

Question 17: How frequent and extensive are content updates?

Answer: Updates are driven by business need and may occur frequently. Offeror may propose a governance structure in their project proposal to better track content updates.

Question 18: Will the URL structure change significantly? Who is responsible for defining and implementing redirect mapping?

Answer: This RFP is asking for assistance in gathering those requirements. We expect the URLs will change as they are a result of the current ColdFusion environment.

Question 19: Does ColdFusion provide content change or audit logs, and what level of access is available to those logs for migration planning purposes?

Answer: There are logs including last modified datetime.

Question 20: What types of sensitive data are collected, where is that data handled or stored, and is this related to the shop functionality or other areas of the site?

Answer: The public website only contains data approved for public release. The ADF&G Online Store is out of scope.

Question 21: Is the shop included in this scope of work?

Answer: The ADF&G Online Store is out of scope.

Question 22: In Section 3.02, you reference full ADA/WCAG 2.1 compliance for content added to the new website no later than April 26, 2026—can you confirm that this is the correct date?

Answer: Yes, the department expects offerors to propose a realistic and defensible strategy that ensures the core non-archived content is compliant by April 26, 2026 followed by incremental improvements. This may include prioritization, sequencing, or phased delivery approaches. The contract term anticipates work extending through approximately February 2027.

Question 23: Does the State require specific tools or reporting formats for ADA/WCAG testing verification?

Answer: No.

Question 24: Who are the key stakeholders for this project and how integrated into the process will they be?

Answer: ADF&G consists of multiple divisions and sections, each with its own stakeholders, content owners, IT staff, and publication specialists. These stakeholders will be involved throughout the project, particularly in reviewing, updating, and approving content within their respective sections of the website.

Question 25: How many people are responsible for publishing and maintaining content on your site?

Answer: Currently, most website updates are handled through IT. With the introduction of a CMS, ADF&G anticipates more frequent updates being made directly by content owners. Roles and responsibilities have not yet been finalized; however, the number of individuals responsible for publishing and maintaining content is expected to be limited within each division.

Question 26: Is your team familiar with Agile methodologies, where work is conducted in sprints and tasks are refined and prioritized on an ongoing basis throughout the project?

Answer: Yes.

Question 27: Section 1.02 notes that payment is "subject to funds already appropriated". Can the Department provide the anticipated budget range for this fiscal year to ensure proposed solutions are financially sustainable for the Department?

Question 28: What version(s) of ColdFusion are you currently running for your site(s) and apps?

Answer: ColdFusion 2021.

Question 29: Does ADFG use an authentication platform for end users, agency users, or content authors/IT/administrators? If so, what solution?

Answer: Microsoft Entra ID.

Question 30: What external systems and services does the ADFG website integrate with?

Answer: This can be discovered during the Discovery & Assessment phase.

Question 31: Would ADFG be able to share the following website, content and app metrics?

Number of websites/domains. Number of current webpages. Number of digital assets (quantity and storage) currently hosted or available on the website (images, videos, documents). Number of active ColdFusion apps. Site Analytics -- page views/month, visitors/month (12 month average would be helpful, if possible).

Answer: This can be discovered during the Discovery & Assessment phase.

Question 32: Is the State of Alaska common look and feel standard available to review?

Answer: https://www.alaska.gov/LookAndFeel/

Question 33: Have any ADA accessibility assessments, User Experience assessments or Information

Architecture reviews been performed recently?

Answer: No.

Question 34: Will ADFG own design or content modifications resulting from the assessments or should these activities be factored into the scope of services?

Answer: Factored into the assessments.

Question 35: Does ADFG intend to continue using Google Analytics as the web analytics platform or should recommendations for analytics solutions be included in the scope of services?

Answer: Continue using Google Analytics.

Question 36: Please clarify the contract type, as Section 3.04 states it is a "time and materials agreement", but

Section 3.08 states it is a "Fixed price contract based on pricing submitted in proposal”.

Answer: The contract will be Time & Materials.

Question 37: What is the estimated number of distinct web pages or unique content items that will need to be assessed and migrated from the existing ColdFusion site to the new CMS?

Answer: The department is requesting the vendor to assist with assessing our currently environment as part of the project.

Question 38: Given that the contract date is projected as March 2, the idea that a state level website project is going to complete the entire project process and launch as a WCAG 2.1 AA compliant website by April 26 is wildly optimistic. What exactly are you expecting by April 26, full site, landing page placeholder, something else?

Answer: Yes, the department is open to a phased approach. The department expects offerors to propose a realistic and defensible strategy that ensures the core non-archived content is compliant by April 26, 2026 followed by incremental improvements. This may include prioritization, sequencing, or phased delivery approaches. The contract term anticipates work extending through approximately February 2027.

Question 39: Is the vendor responsible for remediating PDF and Word Docs on the site? If so, we need to count the number of documents and number of pages that will need remediation.

Answer: There are approximately 11,000 PDFs currently published on the website. The majority of these documents are expected to be archived. Accessibility remediation of documents that remain public facing will be performed by the department. The contractor’s scope includes providing the CMS and website functionality necessary to host, manage, and present both remediated and archived documents.

Question 40: Has the state done any preliminary work in identifying content that qualifies as archivable versus what must be remediated and live on the new site?

Question 41: Who maintains the existing site, an internal team or an agency partner? If a partner, who?

Answer: The existing website is maintained by department IT staff with assistance of 3rd party contractors.

Question 42: Is there an organizational preference for open source vs. a proprietary CMS

Answer: No.

Question 43: Is there a preference for any specific CMS? If yes, is that preference driven by familiarity, budget, perceived technical superiority or ease of use, or some other factor?

Answer: The RFP does not identify a preferred or incumbent CMS platform. While the State of Alaska commonly uses the Microsoft technology stack and some departments, including one ADF&G division, currently use Umbraco to some extent, this RFP is designed to begin with an assessment of existing content and business needs, with requirements guiding the selection of the appropriate technology. The CMS does not need to be proposed upfront; instead, the Project Plan may describe a methodology to evaluate requirements and support selection of the most appropriate CMS.

Question 44: Section 3.10 references the requirement for SSAE SOC 1, SOC 2, or SOC 3 reports. Are these reports required at the time of proposal submission, or only upon award and annually thereafter?

Answer: This can be discovered during the Discovery & Assessment phase.

Question 45: Will single sign-on be used to control administrative access to the site? If yes, please elaborate.

Answer: Integration into the State of Alaska Microsoft Entra ID tenant is preferred.

Question 46: Where is the site currently hosted?

Answer: The site is hosted in the State of Alaska GCC Azure tenant.

Question 47: Do you need a contractual SLA for hosting (more expensive) or a best-effort SLA based on a 99.9% historical uptime (less costly)?

Answer: SLA.

Question 48: How do you envision the relationship with the developer post-launch? Do you need a maintenance and support contract to keep sites patched and secure?

Answer: A temporary post-launch support period is required as part of the project deliverables. Ongoing maintenance, patching, hosting support, and long-term security updates are not required under this RFP and are expected to be the responsibility of the Department after handoff.

Question 49: Are you interested in website tools that will enhance the user experience (search, chatbots, etc) using AI?

Answer: Yes.

Question 50: Section 2.01 mentions the site contains "dynamic content". Does this refer strictly to news feeds and calendars, or are there complex ColdFusion applications (e.g., license databases, harvest reporting tools) that need to be re-engineered/re-coded within the new CMS?

Answer: The scope does not include complex business applications. However, there will be dynamic interactive content that will require integration with existing services and databases of limited complexity. Examples of in-scope applications are displaying an org chart based off changing content stored in a database, user sign up for email notifications of changing topics, and display meeting schedules based off backend service and database queries. Creating an inventory of existing content and deciding which will be included in the new website design will occur during the Discovery & Assessment and Content Migration Plan phase of the project.

The Department does not have a validated count of PDF or Word documents requiring remediation. We would like to simplify overall website design and the content available through the website. Inventory will be assessed as part of the project during the Discovery and Assessment phase. Offers may browse the public website to gain a better understanding of the existing content and propose a risk based approach to the project.

Question 51: What do your current analytics say about mobile usage of the site compared to desktop use?

Answer: Approximately 50% mobile and 50% desktop.

Question 52: Do you have access to segments of your user base who can be available to the selected vendor for user research and usability testing?

Answer: No.

Question 53: AI?

Answer: Not currently used.

Question 54: What policies do you have regarding the use of generative artificial intelligence to automate any of the tasks outlined in your scope of work, assuming they are subject to human review?

Answer: No AI policies beyond the SOA Information Security Policies which will be attached.

Question 55: What policies do you have regarding the use of generative artificial intelligence to provide site functionality?

Answer: No AI policies beyond the SOA Information Security Policies which will be attached.

Question 56: Are there any specific AI tools that you are authorized or required to use (e.g., Gemini, OpenAI, etc.)? Are there any tools that you are not allowed to use?

Answer: Microsoft Copilot and Azure AI tools are approved for use in the State of Alaska Azure GCC tenant.

Other AI tools can be used but must meet conform to the SOA Information Security Policies.

Question 57: What ColdFusion modules are currently installed on your site that may need equivalent functionality?

Answer: The department is requesting the vendor to assist with assessing our currently environment as part of the project.

Question 58: Is any of your site’s existing functionality provided through custom code? If so, can you provide details?

Answer: The department is requesting the vendor to assist with assessing our currently environment as part of the project.

Question 59: Is hosting part of the scope of this project?

Answer: No.

Question 60: The Scope of Work requires compliance with "State of Alaska Information Security Policies (ISPs)".

Can these specific ISP documents be provided to offerors prior to the proposal deadline so we can ensure our proposed architecture meets these standards?

Answer: Yes, they will be attached.

Question 61: Section 3.09 notes that all services must be performed in the United States. Can you please confirm whether any portion of the work may be performed offshore if a waiver is requested, or if all project activities must strictly remain onshore?

Answer: No, work performed will require access to systems and data only accessible within the United

States.

Question 62: May we include and rely upon the experience and references of proposed key personnel who will be assigned to and actively working on this project, in addition to firm-level experience?

Answer: Yes, offerors may include and rely upon the experience and references of proposed key personnel, provided those individuals will be assigned to and actively working on the project.

Question 63: Does ADF&G have a preferred or incumbent CMS platform, or should vendors propose a CMS solution as part of their technical approach?

Answer: The RFP does not identify a preferred or incumbent CMS platform. While the State of Alaska commonly uses the Microsoft technology stack and some departments, including one ADF&G division, currently use Umbraco to some extent, this RFP is designed to begin with an assessment of existing content and business needs, with requirements guiding the selection of the appropriate technology. The CMS does not need to be proposed upfront; instead, the Project Plan may describe a methodology to evaluate requirements and support selection of the most appropriate CMS.

Question 64: Beyond the requirements outlined in Section 4.02, are there any additional formatting standards we should follow (e.g., font type or margin requirements)?

Answer: No additional formatting standards are specified beyond those in Section 4.02.

Question 65: Is there an anticipated or not-to-exceed budget range for this project that the State can share for planning purposes?

Answer: No, the RFP does not disclose an anticipated or not-to-exceed budget range.

Question 66: To qualify for the 100 Alaska Offeror Preference points, must a valid Alaska business license be held prior to the proposal submission deadline, or would obtaining the license after award still qualify an offeror for these points?

Answer: To qualify for the 100-point Alaska Offeror Preference, a valid Alaska business license must be held prior to the proposal submission deadline. Section 6.02 clearly states that holding the license prior to the deadline is required to receive Alaska preferences. Obtaining a license after award does not qualify an offeror for preference points.

Question 67: Section 3.10 references the requirement for SSAE SOC 1, SOC 2, or SOC 3 reports. Are these reports required at the time of proposal submission, or only upon award and annually thereafter?

Answer: SOC reports are not required at the time of proposal submission. Section 3.10 requires the contractor to provide a Type 2 SSAE SOC 1, 2, or 3 report on an annual basis, which indicates this requirement applies post-award, not during proposal evaluation.

Question 68: Is it mandatory to provide public-sector project references, or may commercial-sector projects of similar scope and complexity be submitted and considered acceptable?

Answer: Public-sector experience is preferred but not strictly mandatory. Section 1.04 requires experience with public-sector agencies or large-scale organizations.

Question 69: The RFP notes a contract start date of approximately March 2, 2026, and a "Hard Deadline" for

WCAG 2.1 compliance on April 26, 2026 (approximately 7 weeks later). We recognize this date aligns with the federal DOJ Title II compliance mandate. However, a full enterprise website modernization (Discovery, Design, Migration, Development) typically requires 9–12 months.

a. Clarification: Is it the Department’s expectation that the new CMS website must be fully launched and live by April 26, 2026?

b. Alternative: Or, does this deadline imply the Vendor must prioritize the remediation of specific "active" content on the existing legacy ColdFusion site to meet the mandate while the new site is being built?

c. Strategy: Would the Department consider a "Phased Launch" approach—deploying a compliant "MVP" (Minimum Viable Product) core site by April to satisfy the mandate, while migrating deeper historical content in subsequent phases?

Answer: Yes, the department is open to a phased approach. The department expects offerors to propose a

26, 2026 followed by incremental improvements. This may include prioritization, sequencing, or

Question 70: The RFP correctly cites the DOJ Title II exemptions for "Archived Web Content" (content created before the compliance date that is kept only for reference). To accurately scope the migration effort, has the Department already performed a content audit to identify which sections of the current site will be designated as "Archived" versus "Active"?

a. Follow-up: If this inventory does not exist, should the Vendor include a "Content Auditing & Archival Strategy" phase as the first priority to ensure the Department legally segregates legacy content before the April deadline?

Answer: The archived content will need to be identified during the project. The Discovery & Assessment phase is expected to include the content inventory. However, offerors may include additional phases as part of their proposed project strategy..

Question 71: The RFP describes the current site as a "mix of static pages, dynamic content, and downloadable documents" on ColdFusion. Does the scope include the redevelopment of complex dynamic business applications (e.g., permitting lookups, biological databases) currently hosted in the ColdFusion environment, or is the scope strictly limited to the informational Content Management System (CMS)?

Answer: The scope does not include complex business applications. However, there will be dynamic interactive content that will require integration with existing services and databases of limited complexity. Examples of in-scope applications are displaying an org chart based off changing content stored in a database, user sign up for email notifications of changing topics, and display meeting schedules based off backend service and database queries. Creating an inventory of existing content and deciding which will be included in the new website design will occur during the Discovery & Assessment and Content Migration Plan phase of the project.

Question 72: The RFP requires a "modern, secure" system. Does ADF&G prefer to host the new solution on existing State of Alaska on-premise infrastructure, or is the Department open to a Vendor- Managed Cloud (PaaS) environment? We have successfully utilized secure cloud environments (e.g., Pantheon, Acquia) for other Fish & Game agencies to reduce internal IT maintenance and enhance security.

Answer: The solution must be cloud hosted to comply with the State of Alaska cloud first policy. It can be a

3rd party SaaS solution (assuming it complies with the State of Alaska security policies) or be hosted in the State of Alaska GCC Azure tenant.

Question 73: To assist in scoping the "Accessibility Compliance" effort, can the Department provide an estimated count of the PDF and Word documents currently hosted on the active site that will require remediation?

Answer: The Department does not have a validated count of PDF or Word documents requiring remediation. We would like to simplify overall website design and the content available through the website. Inventory will be assessed as part of the project during the Discovery and Assessment phase. Offers may browse the public website to gain a better understanding of the existing content and propose a risk based approach to the project.

Question 74: To assist in scoping the overall migration effort, can the Department provide an estimated count of web pages, by type if possible (e.g. press releases, species pages etc.).

Answer: Similarly to the response above, the website will be redesigned in content and look and feel during the project. We do not have a breakdown of existing content but expect the offeror to assist in gaining that knowledge during the project.

Question 75: Should hosting costs be included in the proposal, or will hosting be provided by the State?

Answer: Hosting costs will not be included in the proposal. The department will need hosting estimates before deciding on a CMS but expects this work to be part of the project after the Discovery & Assessment phase.

Question 76: Are maintenance costs to be bundled with implementation, or should they be quoted separately?

Answer: CMS maintenance costs will need to be identified prior to deciding on a CMS but this is expected to be a task of the project.

Question 77: Are there any expectations regarding ongoing operational or support costs beyond the contract term?

Answer: No expectations of ongoing operational and support costs beyond the go-live support.

Question 78: Are there any preferred or restricted CMS platforms or technology stacks that the State would like to avoid or prioritize?

Answer: The SOA primarily uses the Microsoft technology stack. Several SOA departments have chosen

Umbraco as their CMS. This RFP is seeking assistance in assessing our exiting content and business needs then letting the requirements help decide the technology.

Question 79: Does the State have a preference for cloud provider or on-premises infrastructure for hosting the new CMS?

Answer: The solution must be a cloud-based solution. It can be a 3rd party SaaS solution (assuming it meets the SOA security policies) or be hosted in the State of Alaska GCC Azure tenant.

Question 80: Is there a minimum project value or size for qualifying reference projects?

Answer: No, however similar in size to the State of Alaska, Department of Fish & Game is preferred.

Question 81: Are references from non-US government but public sector (e.g., state, local, education) acceptable, or must they be from federal contracts?

Answer: Prior experience does not need to be federal contracts or U.S. based organizations as long as is meets the other criteria in SEC 1.04.

Question 82: Is any in-person presence required for project kickoff, training, or major milestones, or may all activities be conducted remotely?

Answer: In-person attendance is neither required nor anticipated. Collaboration with the department will occur during Alaska business hours via Microsoft Teams video conferencing.

Question 83: Are there any restrictions on the storage location of project data (e.g., must data be stored within

Alaska or within the United States)?

Answer: All data must be stored within the United States and comply with all State of Alaska Information

Security Policies. The State of Alaska typically establishes a Microsoft Teams team for project collaboration. Virtual desktops for contractor remote access can be provided if needed.

Question 84: Are there any intermediate milestone deadlines (other than the ADA/WCAG compliance date) that must be met, or is the project schedule fully at the contractor’s discretion?

Answer: No other hard deadlines. There may be go-live blackout period due to changing business needs.

Project timeline is to be proposed by the contractor and approved by the department.

Question 85: What is the expected duration for post-launch maintenance and support?

Answer: Vendors should propose a reasonable support/warranty period aligned with project complexity. The intent is to ensure access to technical support resources for a limited time following handoff to DFG staff, in the event of post-launch production issues.

Question 86: Are there specific service level agreements (SLAs) or response/resolution time requirements for post-launch support?

Answer: No explicit SLAs are defined. Vendors may propose standard response and resolution targets as part of their support approach. Support resource must be available during Alaska business hours

Question 87: Are there any additional security compliance requirements (e.g., FedRAMP, FISMA, NIST) for the hosting environment beyond State of Alaska Information Security Policies?

Answer: No.

Question 88: Is the vendor expected to provide hosting for the new website, or will the contracts the site after launch?

Answer: No. The State will either provide hosting within the State of Alaska GCC Azure tenant or establish a contract with a third-party SaaS provider, depending on the CMS selected following the Assessment and Discovery phase.

Question 89: Are there any known required integrations with internal State systems or third-party platforms beyond typical public website functionality (e.g., analytics, accessibility scanning, embedded media, or search)?

Answer: There are data integrations with DFG owned services and databases for purposes of interactive content. There are also embed web components and frames such as reporting and map widgets.

Question 90: For the April 26, 2026, WCAG 2.1 compliance milestone, does DF&G anticipate a phased rollout approach in which a compliant site framework and priority content are live by that date, with remaining content migrated and validated over time?

Answer: Yes, the department is open to a phased approach. The department expects offerors to propose a

26, 2026 followed by incremental improvements. This may include prioritization, sequencing, or

Question 91: Does DF&G anticipate that the awarded vendor will be responsible for full execution of content migration, or primarily for providing templates, tooling, and support while DF&G staff perform the bulk of migration?

Answer: ADF&G anticipates that the awarded vendor will be responsible for executing content migration, rather than solely providing templates or tools. The Department intends to pursue, in collaboration with the vendor, a simplified website design that emphasizes clarity and usability, with a reduced volume of on-site content to make information easier for the public to find. As part of this effort, ADF&G anticipates that a significant portion of legacy content will be evaluated for archival rather than migration to the new site. ADA remediation of published documents, such as PDFs, will be the responsibility of the Department.

Question 92: How does DF&G define “non-archived website content” for the purposes of the April 26 accessibility requirement?

Answer: For purposes of the April 26 accessibility requirement, ADF&G relies on the definition of archived content established under DOJ ADA Title II rule. During the course of the project, and following an initial content assessment, the Department may exclude certain pages as part of its goal to simplify the website and focus on the most important and commonly accessed information.

Content selected for publication will be evaluated based on frequency of public use to establish a migration priority. Using that prioritization, ADF&G, working with the vendor, will determine what content is practical to migrate to the CMS prior to April 26, with remaining prioritized content migrated in subsequent phases thereafter.

Question 93: When is the deadline for submitting questions for this RFP?

Answer: Question and answer period is now closed.

Question 94: Does Submittal Form B (Project Plan) need to be completed on the form provided in the RFP (page

8 of Section 7. Attachments)? Or can Submittal Form B be completed within our own proposal template as long as we don’t exceed the 10-page limit?

Answer: Yes, the submittal form document must be used.

Question 95: Resumes must be included in Submittal Form B (Project Plan) as separate attachments. Do resumes count toward the 10-page limit of Submittal Form B? If not, is there a page limit for each resume?

Answer: No, resumes do not count towards the 10-page limit.

Question 96: Are we able to request edits to draft contract language about insurance requirements in our proposal? If so, where in the proposal is best to make that request?

Answer: Appendix A and B are standard State of Alaska documents. They have been created by the

Department of Law and Division of Risk Management. Changes can be requested but are rarely accepted.

Question 97: Page 21 of the RFP under Evaluation Criteria, Cost Criteria, lists the Cost Proposal as Submittal

Form D. Is that supposed to be Submittal Form C?

Answer: Correct, Cost Proposal is Submittal Form C.

Question 98: Section 4.05 has a detailed description of what needs to be included in the cost proposal and the statement “the costs identified on the cost proposal are the total amount of costs to be paid by the state. No additional charges shall be allowed.” However, Submittal Form C just has 2,620 hours entered and the note these are just estimated hours.

a. Which would be the correct statement regarding the information submitted in Form C?

b. Is the Department interested in receiving estimates of the actual hours we would estimate for the project at this stage, or would that be addressed in later rounds of selection?

Answer: Offerors must submit their pricing using the estimated number of hours to ensure proposals are consistent and like-to-like.

Question 99: Will joint ventures or subcontractors be allowed?

Answer: Yes. Amendment 2 - RFP Changes - reflects this change.

Question 100: Are there any citizenship or residency requirements for key project personnel beyond the requirement that all work be performed in the US?

Answer: It is expected and required that all employees working on this project will be located in the United States.

Question 101: Are original signatures or notarized documents required for submission, or are digital signatures sufficient?

Answer: Digital signatures are accepted.

Question 102: Are there any additional local, minority, or veteran business participation goals or set-aside requirements beyond the Alaska Offeror Preference?

Answer: No, please ensure to review section 6.11 of the RFP for preference details.

Question 103: Are there any other required licenses or certificates, in addition to the Alaska business license, to be eligible for award?

Answer: No. The Awarded contractor will be required to have an Alaska business license and provide a certificate of insurance that lists ADF&G as the additional insured. No other certifications will be required.

Eric Verrelli – Procurement Officer – eric.verrelli@alaska.gov mailto:eric.verrelli@alaska.gov