RFP26-233 Inquiries&Answers.pdf

RFP26-233 Hospital Portal Tool Inquiries Answers 9/8/2026

Q# Document Section Title Sub-Section Inquiry Department Response

1.0 RFP Anticipated Contract

Term

1.2.1. The start-up period is anticipated to run April 1 –

June 30, 2027, which falls within SFY 2027. The stated budget and the Appendix F pricing tabs cover SFY 2028 through SFY 2032 only. How is the start-up period compensated? Is separate SFY 2027 funding available, or must all start-up costs (including design, build, testing and initial deployment of the Portal Tool) be recovered within the SFY 2028–2032 deliverable prices?

The Contractor will not receive payment for the Start-Up Period or any period prior to the Operational Start Date. Offerors should account for all costs associated with Start-Up Period activities within their proposed pricing for the Contract.

1.1 RFP Budget 4.3.1. See Inquiry Q1.0 Please see the Department’s response to Q1.0

1.2 Appendix F Pricing Worksheet See Inquiry Q1.0 Please see the Department’s response to Q1.0

2.0 RFP Compensation 4.1.1. "Each SFY" tab. Section 4.1.2 provides that deliverables not listed in the Deliverable Table carry no payment. Several deliverables required by the Statement of Work do not appear as line items in Appendix F, including:

Visual Dashboard Tools (§3.3.4.1.1.5);

Customizable and Downloadable Reports (§3.3.4.1.2.8); Quality Control Process Document (§3.3.5.2.1); System Security Plan and Revised System Security Plan (§3.5.2.1, §3.5.3.1.1); Helpdesk Log Template (§3.7.1.4.1);

and MMIS Data Extraction Protocol (§3.8.4.1.1).

Appendix B, Exhibit E additionally requires a Closeout Plan, Business Continuity Plan and Operations Guide.

Should Offerors (a) add rows to Appendix F for these deliverables, (b) price them within the existing line items, or (c) treat them as unpaid? If (b), which line item should carry them?

Offerors should not add rows or otherwise modify the structure of Appendix F. Costs associated with required Deliverables that are not separately identified for payment must be incorporated into the applicable existing Deliverable pricing. No separate payment will be made for Deliverables not listed in Appendix F.

2.1 RFP Compensation 4.1.2. See Inquiry Q2.0 Please see the Department’s response to Q2.0

2.2 Appendix F Pricing Worksheet See Inquiry Q2.0 Please see the Department’s response to Q2.0

3.0 Appendix F Pricing Worksheet General Tab

C3:D10 The "Hourly Rate Tiers" section provides seven unlabeled rate rows. What job categories or labor tiers does the Department want priced, and should these correspond to the Key Personnel and Other Personnel positions proposed under RFP §2.2? Will the Department publish a standard job-category list to ensure comparability across Offerors?

The General Tab should have been removed from the original template. A corrected file, “RFP26- 233 Appendix F-Pricing Worksheet v3.xlsx,” has been uploaded to the VSS record. The revised version also includes a section for Offerors to provide Ad Hoc Hourly Rates.

4.0 Appendix F Pricing Worksheet General Tab

A4:B27

The Fixed Price Deliverables rows on the "General" tab are unlabeled, while the "Each SFY" tab is fully labeled. Are Offerors required to complete both tabs, and if so, what deliverable labels belong in the "General" tab rows? Should the "General" tab simply total the "Each SFY" tab?

Please see the Department’s response to Q3.0

5.0 Appendix F Pricing Worksheet General Tab

A1:B1

The "General" tab is titled "Appendix E – Pricing Worksheet" and shows "Solicitation #: RFP UHAA XXXXXX." Will the Department issue a corrected Appendix F, and should Offerors submit the file as issued?

Please see the Department’s response to Q3.0

6.0 RFP Ad Hoc Work 3.9. Is the hourly Ad Hoc Work pool funded within the $438,202 per-SFY maximum, or in addition to it?

Section 3.9.10 suggests Ad Hoc Work is constrained by the Contract Maximum for the SFY.

If Ad Hoc Work is within the cap, RFP 26-233 Hospital Portal Tool Project Balance what annual dollar amount or level of effort should Offerors assume is reserved for Ad Hoc Work when pricing the fixed deliverables?

Ad Hoc Work is not included in the Department’s Maximum Amount Available identified in Appendix F; however, RFP26-233 Appendix F – Pricing Worksheet v3 includes a section for Offerors to provide Ad Hoc Hourly Rates. Ad Hoc Work is separately authorized by the Department only if additional funding is available, and a Contract modification must be completed to add the additional Work and associated funding.

6.1 RFP Compensation 4.1.3. See Inquiry Q6.0 Please see the Department’s response to Q6.0

6.2 Appendix F Pricing Worksheet See Inquiry Q6.0 Please see the Department’s response to Q6.0

7.0 RFP Ad Hoc Work 3.9. To support realistic pricing, will the Department provide the historical volume of Ad Hoc Work under the current contract — annual hours authorized and dollars expended for each of the last three State Fiscal Years?

Ad Hoc Work is contingent upon the availability of funding. Historical usage occurred under different budget conditions and should not be used to anticipate or estimate Ad Hoc Work needs in future State Fiscal Years.

8.0 Appendix F Pricing Worksheet

Written Instructoins Manual

Each SFY Tab Row 10

"Written Instructions Manual" is priced only in SFY 2028. Please confirm this is intended as a one-time deliverable, with subsequent revisions priced under "Written Instructions Manual Updates."

Correct. The Written Instructions Manual is a one-time deliverable, with subsequent revisions possible beginning as early as SFY28. This is why the revisions are priced separately under Written Instructions Manual Updates .

9.0 RFP Compensation 4.1. Must the hourly rates proposed in Appendix F remain fixed for the full five-year term, or will the Department permit annual escalation? If escalation is permitted, what index or maximum percentage applies?

Please see the Department’s response to Q3.0 regarding Hourly Rates.

The Contract does not provide for annual escalation or adjustment of the Deliverable prices proposed in Appendix F during the five-year term.

Offerors should propose their Deliverable pricing for each State Fiscal Year as requested in Appendix F, accounting for anticipated costs over the Contract term. The CPI-U adjustment described in Appendix B, Exhibit E §1.13.3 applies only if the Contract is extended beyond five years.

9.1 Appendix B Rates Exhibit C See Inquiry Q9.0 Please see the Department’s response to Q9.0

10.0 RFP Project Background 1.5.3.2. The existing Portal Tool has been operated by

Myers & Stauffer LC since 2021 and was established in 2022. Does the State own the existing Portal Tool software, source code, database schemas and configuration, such that they would be made available to an incoming contractor? Or is the existing system the incumbent's proprietary property, meaning a new contractor must build a replacement system from the ground up?

The Department owns the State Records, including the underlying hospital submission data, and will make applicable State Records and datasets available to the selected Contractor for transition.

The existing Contract also provides the Department rights to Work Product developed under the Contract, including software and source code. Myers & Stauffer retains ownership of pre-existing or third-party proprietary technology. The Department will make available applicable State-owned Work Product but cannot provide proprietary components for which the Department does not have transfer rights.

10.1 RFP Project Background 1.5.3.4. See Inquiry Q10.0 Please see the Department’s response to Q10.0

11.0 RFP Project Background 1.5.3.4. Will the Department make the existing SQL database contents, uploaded hospital files, correspondence history and document repository available to an incoming contractor for migration into a new Portal Tool? If so, in what format, at what point in the schedule, and under what data-transfer protocol?

The Department will make State-owned data and records from the existing Portal Tool available to the selected Contractor as necessary for migration and transition, including uploaded files, correspondence history, and document repository content. The data will range from SFY 21-22 to current. Data should be available for all years for Department users. For provider users only the most recent data is necessary. The data will be provided in a format such as CSV, excel, or another format established within the work plan created during the start up period, beginning during the start up period, using SFTP.

11.1 RFP Data Retention 3.3.7.1. See Inquiry Q11.0 Please see the Department’s response to Q11.0

12.0 RFP Project Background 1.5.3.4. Please provide the approximate volume of data to be migrated or preserved: total storage size, number of files, number of database records, and number of program years of history that must remain accessible to hospitals and the Department at go-live.

Please see the Department’s response to Q11.0

13.0 RFP Anticipated Contract

Term

1.2.1. Will the outgoing contractor be contractually

obligated to cooperate with an incoming contractor's transition, and will there be a period of parallel operation between the incumbent system and the new Portal Tool? What overlap is anticipated between the start-up period (April 1 – June 30, 2027) and the incumbent's closeout?

The Department will require transition cooperation consistent with the applicable contractual closeout requirements; the timing and extent of overlap will be determined by the Department.

13.1 Appendix B Closeout Period Exhibit E

1.11.

See Inquiry Q13 Please see the Department’s response to Q13.0.

14.0 RFP Portal Tool 3.3. 14. RFP §3.3. Does the Department expect continuity of the existing portal URL, branding and hospital user accounts, or will hospitals be re-registered on a new system? If accounts must be migrated, will hospital user records and role assignments be provided?

The Department does not require continuity of the existing Portal Tool URL and branding. Existing Hospital user accounts and role assignments will be provided to the selected Contractor for migration.

15.0 RFP System Specifications 3.3.2.1.2. How many hospitals and provider organizations currently use the Portal Tool, and how many individual registered users? What is the expected peak concurrent user load during submission deadlines?

The current Portal Tool supports approximately 85 Hospital and Provider organizations and 10 Department/internal users, with estimated peak concurrent usage of 30 users. Current usage is approximately 1000 submissions/uploads annually across all four programs; typical file sizes range from 100KB up to 600KB. The Department anticipates no specific annual growth rate in users and submission volume during the Contract term, provided reporting requirements outlined in statute and provider numbers remain consistent.

Migration scope will require upload of all historic datasets, individual hospital submissions can be archived.

16.0 RFP System Specifications 3.3.2.1.1. What are the current annual submission volumes by program (CHASE, UPL, DSH, HAS, HFT, HCBA), the typical and maximum individual file sizes accepted, and the current total data storage footprint? What annual growth rate should Offerors assume?

Please see the Department's response to Q15.0

17.0 RFP Helpdesk and Log 3.7.1. Please provide the Helpdesk inquiry volume from the current Helpdesk Log for the last two years — total annual inquiries, peak monthly volume, and typical inquiry categories.

For the most recent two years, Helpdesk inquiry volumes were approximately 25 communications between the helpdesk and providers annually, with peak monthly volume of approximately 15 communications. Typical inquiry categories include assistance with login and issue with file uploading.

18.0 RFP Reporting Capabilities 3.3.4. Section 3.3.4. identifies three existing supporting reports (Progress Tracker, Raw Data Extract, Provider Users). Is there a complete inventory of reports and dashboards currently in production that the new Portal Tool must replicate? If so, will the Department publish it?

The selected contractor will not be required to replicate portal support tools, however, the selected contractor will be required to provide a progress tracker of submission from providers for each program as well as a raw data extract for each program in a format established in the workplan.

18.1 RFP Project Background 1.5.3.4. See Inquiry Q18.0 Please see the Department’s response to Q18.0.

19.0 RFP Training 3.4.1.7. How many Department staff and how many hospital personnel are expected to attend the annual training? Is one training event per year sufficient across all six programs, or does the Department expect program-specific sessions?

The Department anticipates approximately 5 Department staff and 40 Hospital personnel participating in annual training. One annual training covering all applicable programs is sufficient provided that each programs unique characteristics are addressed appropriately.

20.0 RFP Portal Tool 3.3. Is the Portal Tool to be hosted by the Contractor, or hosted within State infrastructure? If Contractor-hosted, are commercial cloud environments (for example AWS or Microsoft Azure, including GovCloud regions) acceptable, and is any Colorado OIT review or approval required prior to deployment?

The Portal Tool will be Contractor-hosted.

Commercial cloud environments are acceptable, including AWS, Azure, or applicable government cloud environments, and require OIT review and approval.

20.1 Appendix B Information Technology

Provisions

Exhibit H See Inquiry Q20.0 Please see the Department’s response to Q20.0.

21.0 Appendix B Data Handling Exhibit H

2.A.

State Records may not be stored outside the United States without prior written ISO consent.

Please confirm that a U.S.-region commercial cloud deployment satisfies this requirement and identify any additional State data-residency restrictions. e.g. will contractors residing abroad be eligible to work on this contract?

Contractors residing outside the United States is covered in Appendix B, Exhibit E, Contractor's Administrative Requirements, Section 4.2.2.

Contractor shall not allow remote access to State Records from outside the United States, including access by Contractor’s employees or agents, without the prior express written consent of OIS. Contractor shall communicate any request regarding non-U.S. access to State Records to the Security and Compliance Representative for the State. The State shall have sole discretion to grant or deny any such request.

22.0 RFP Security Plan 3.5. What specific security framework and certification level will the Department require of the awarded Contractor — for example NIST SP 800-53 (and at which baseline), SOC 2 Type II, HITRUST, FedRAMP authorization, or MARS-E 2.2? Do MARS-E requirements apply to this system given its role in Medicaid supplemental payment programs?

The Contractor must comply with the security requirements identified in §3.5 and Appendix B, including applicable OIT and federal security requirements. The Department prefers Soc 2 type 2, Fedramp and StateRamp, or equivalent third part assessment.

22.1 Appendix B IT Contract Template See Inquiry Q22.0 Please see the Department’s response to Q22.0

23.0 RFP Security Plan 3.5.1.10.2. The Contractor must coordinate with Medicaid

Enterprise Solutions (MES) vendors to monitor for vulnerabilities. Which MES vendors and systems are in scope, and what is the expected cadence and mechanism for that coordination?

For purposes of §3.5.1.10.2, Medicaid Enterprise Solutions includes MMIS. The Department will coordinate between the Contractor and the MMIS vendor at a cadence determined during the Start-up Period.

24.0 RFP Security Plan 3.5.1.10.3. Who is responsible for performing and paying for penetration testing — the Contractor, the Department, or Colorado OIT? What frequency is required, and must testing be performed by an independent third party?

Please reference Appendix B, Exhibit H, Section 5.D. (Compliance).

D. Contractor shall allow the State access and shall provide the State with information required to assess Contractor’s compliance, at the Contractor’s sole cost and expense. Such access and information shall include, at the State’s sole discretion:

i. An annual fiscal year SOC2 Type II audit including, at a minimum, the Trust Principles of Security, Confidentiality, and Availability, or an alternative audit recommended by ISO, including the performance of security audit and penetration tests, as requested by ISO.

25.0 Appendix B Protection of System

Data

Exhibit H 1.[E.]ii.

Will the Contractor have access to Federal Tax Information (FTI) under this Contract? If so, IRS Publication 1075 safeguarding, offshore-access prohibitions and background check requirements would apply, and Offerors need to price accordingly.

No. The Contractor is not anticipated to have access to Federal Tax Information (FTI) under this Contract. Accordingly, the FTI-specific requirements identified in Appendix B, including the conditional requirements related to IRS Publication 1075, would not apply.

26.0 RFP Ongoing Portal Tool

Services

3.3.9. What service level requirements apply to the

Portal Tool — required uptime percentage, permitted maintenance windows, incident response times, and Recovery Time Objective / Recovery Point Objective for the Business Continuity Plan? Are there financial consequences or liquidated damages for missing them?

The Contractor must meet the availability, support, incident response, backup, and recovery requirements identified in the RFP and resulting Contract. The Department has not established additional required uptime percentages, maintenance windows, incident response times, or RTO/RPO standards beyond those expressly stated in the solicitation; the Contract does not establish liquidated damages specifically for failure to meet these service levels, but the Contractor remains subject to the Contract’s applicable performance requirements and remedies.

26.1 Appendix B Operation's Guide Exhibit E

1.10.7.

See Inquiry Q26.0 Please see the Department’s response to Q26.0

27.0 RFP Functional Capabilities 3.3.3.1.3. Is integration with a State identity provider or single sign-on service required or preferred for Department users? For hospital users, does the Department require multi-factor authentication, and is any specific identity solution mandated?

All system users will authenticate through Contractor-provided identity management and MFA. Offerors must also comply with the access-control and security requirements of §3.3.3 and Appendix B.

28.0 RFP Project Background 1.5.3.4. The current system stores data in SQL databases.

Does the Department require or prefer a particular technology stack, database platform, or hosting arrangement for a replacement system, or is the Offeror free to propose its own architecture?

The Department does not have a preference among continuation of the existing solution, a commercially available platform-based solution, or development of a replacement solution, provided the proposed Portal Tool satisfies all requirements of the RFP and resulting Contract.

Offerors should propose the solution and technical approach they determine best meets the Department’s requirements.

28.1 RFP Portal Tool 3.3. See Inquiry Q28.0 Please see the Department’s response to Q28.0

29.0 RFP Annual Procedures 3.8.1. Section 3.8.1 requires the Contractor to

"aggregate data" for provider fee, UPL for inpatient and outpatient services, hospital-specific DSH limit calculation, and inpatient supplemental payment. Please clarify the Contractor's role: does the Contractor perform the UPL, DSH limit and CHASE model calculations, or does the Contractor collect, validate and aggregate data that the Department (or another contractor) uses to perform those calculations?

This distinction informs staffing and price.

The Contractor is responsible for collecting, validating, aggregating, and performing the data calculations necessary to fulfill the deliverables required by §3.8, including preparation of Hospital Data Reports and the Aggregated Data Report.

The contractor will not perform the final UPL, DSH limit, or CHASE payment calculations.

30.0 RFP Design and Purpose 3.3.1.2.5. Section 3.3.1.2.5 refers to Hospital Financial Transparency "Annual and Quarterly reporting," but the Annual Procedures in §3.8.16 address annual HFT aggregation only. Are quarterly HFT collection and aggregation within scope, and if so, what are the quarterly deliverables and due dates?

The data collection and warehousing of quarterly reporting submissions is required and within scope. however, quarterly HFT submissions are not aggregated in the annual processes as the format for quarterly reporting submission are not standardized like annual data. Quarterly reports are due 90 days after calendar quarter end.

30.1 RFP Annual Procedures 3.8.16. See Inquiry Q30.0 Please see the Department’s response to Q30.0.

31.0 RFP Portal Tool Refinements 3.3.8. Refinements are described as within scope and not separately compensated, while Ad Hoc Work is separately authorized and paid hourly. Given the breadth of §3.3.8.1.2 (new data extractions, new reports and dashboards, regulatory updates, performance tuning), how will the Department distinguish a Refinement from Ad Hoc Work in practice? Is there an “hours” or “complexity” threshold above which work is treated as Ad Hoc?

No predetermined threshold applies. The Department will distinguish Refinements from Ad Hoc Work based on the nature and scope of the requested Work: Refinements are routine, iterative changes to existing functionality within the Portal Tool’s existing technical framework, while Ad Hoc Work consists of new projects or services outside the Statement of Work or significant changes requiring substantial redevelopment or system-level restructuring, as described in §§3.3.8 and 3.9.

31.1 RFP Ad Hoc Work 3.9. See Inquiry Q31.0 Please see the Department’s response to Q31.0.

32.0 RFP Portal Tool Refinements 3.3.8. Is there an anticipated annual volume of

Refinement requests — for example, number of report or dashboard changes per year under the current contract — that Offerors should assume when pricing ongoing services?

The Department does not have an anticipated annual volume of Refinement requests for purposes of this solicitation as these result from unanticipated but necessary changes. Offerors should account for the Refinement requirements described in §3.3.8 when developing their proposed pricing.

33.0 Appendix B Personnel General

Requirements

Exhibit E 2.1.6.

Key Personnel must perform the majority of their work in the Denver metropolitan area unless the Department grants written permission otherwise.

Given that the Work is delivered through a web-based system and that biweekly status meetings can be conducted virtually, will the Department consider written approval for remote or hybrid performance? What criteria will the Department apply in evaluating such a request, and may an Offeror address this in its proposal without being deemed non-responsive?

The Denver-area requirement remains in effect unless the Department grants written permission otherwise. The RFP does not establish specific approval criteria or guarantee approval of a remote/hybrid arrangement.

34.0 RFP Organizational

Experience

2.1.3. The Department will evaluate an Offeror's "current

commitment and future plans to employ Coloradans." How is this factor weighted relative to the other evaluation criteria in §5.4.1, and will commitments to hire Colorado-based staff during the contract term be given the same consideration as existing Colorado employment?

The Department uses a qualitative evaluation process and does not assign numerical weights to the individual evaluation criteria in §5.4.1.

Offerors should address both their current commitment and future plans to employ Coloradans as requested; these factors will be considered by the Evaluation Committee as part of its qualitative review.

35.0 RFP Personnel Requirements 2.2.2. Section 2.2.2 identifies the Project Lead as Key Personnel, and §2.2.3 describes the Project Manager as "Additional Key Personnel." Section

2.2.5 prohibits any individual from filling more than one Key Personnel role. Please confirm which positions the Department treats as Key Personnel for this purpose, and whether the Web Application Lead and Quality Lead (§2.2.4.1) are Key Personnel or Other Personnel.

The Project Lead and Project Manager (or similar position) are the Key Personnel positions identified in §§2.2.2–2.2.3. The Web Application Lead and Quality Lead are identified under §2.2.4 as additional personnel and are therefore not designated Key Personnel; Offerors may propose the personnel structure they consider most effective, subject to the requirements of Offeror’s Response 4.

35.1 RFP Personnel Requirements 2.2.5. See Inquiry Q35.0 Please see the Department’s response to Q35.0.

36.0 RFP Additional Key Personnel 2.2.3.1.1.3. The Project Manager is required to hold delegated authority to execute Contract amendments on behalf of the Contractor. Please confirm that this authority is required of the Project Manager specifically, rather than any authorized officer of the Contractor.

Yes. Section 2.2.3.1.1.3 specifically requires the Project Manager to have delegated authority to execute Contract amendments and other modifications on behalf of the Contractor.

Accordingly, that authority must be held by the individual proposed for the Project Manager or similar position.

37.0 RFP Additional Key Personnel 2.2.4. May Key Personnel roles be filled by personnel of a proposed Subcontractor, or must Key Personnel be employees of the prime Offeror?

Yes. Key Personnel positions may be filled by personnel employed by a proposed Subcontractor, provided the individual meets all requirements applicable to the Key Personnel position. The Contractor remains responsible for Contract performance and must comply with all requirements governing Subcontractors, including the subcontracting limitation and Department approval requirements in Appendix B, Exhibit E §2.4.3.

37.1 Appendix B Personnel General

Requirements

Exhibit E 2.1.

See Inquiry Q37.0 Please see the Department’s response to Q37.0.

38.0 RFP Accessibility

Requirements

3.10.1 Which VPAT version does the Department require

(for example VPAT 2.5 Rev, and which edition — WCAG, Section 508, or INT)? Which WCAG version applies for "the most current version" — 2.1 Level AA or 2.2 Level AA?

The VPAT template provided as Appendix E is VPAT Version 2.5, WCAG Edition. The template is provided as a preferred version, however the Department will also accept the INT version. The current state standard is the WCAG 2.1 level AA.

Prospective vendors may choose to address all 56 criteria under the most recent version (2.2 level

AA).

38.1 Appendix E VPAT Posting the Final

Document

See Inquiry Q38.0 Please see the Department’s response to Q38.0.

39.0 RFP Accessibility

Requirements

3.10. [DISCLOSES] For an Offeror proposing a new digital application that does not yet exist, §3.10 provides that the Offeror identifies it as new and submits the VPAT upon delivery. Appendix A §4.3(4) states that a partially completed VPAT may cause the Department to find an Offeror not responsible, and §5.4.1.13 lists "VPAT Requirement" as an evaluation criterion. Please confirm that an Offeror proposing a new application, and declaring it as such, will not be scored adversely or found non-responsible for that reason. How will the "VPAT Requirement" criterion be evaluated for a new-build proposal?

A completed VPAT is not required at proposal submission for a new digital application; the Offeror must identify the application as new and, if awarded, submit the VPAT upon delivery.

The Offeror should remain mindful that if awarded a contract, the production of a VPAT does not in itself fulfill the State's requirement that all digital deliverables be accessible. The State will seek to obtain the remediation by the vendor of all deficiencies outlined in a VPAT, and the production of a plan for providing accommodations upon request.

39.1 RFP VPAT Requirement 5.4.1.13. See Inquiry Q39.0 Please see the Department’s response to Q39.0.

39.2 RFP Accessibility

Requirements

Offeror's Response 12.b.2.

See Inquiry Q39.0 Please see the Department’s response to Q39.0.

40.0 Appendix A General Instructions 4.2. Proposal documents must comply with Section 508 and State accessibility standards. Will the Department accept accessible, tagged PDF as the submission format, and are there any additional document accessibility requirements (for example remediation of third-party attachments such as resumes or certificates)?

Appendix A §4.2 does not prescribe a specific file format, but requires the proposal response and attachments to comply with Section 508, C.R.S.

§§24-85-101 et seq., State accessibility standards, and applicable WCAG Level AA requirements.

Accessible, properly tagged PDFs are acceptable provided they comply with the applicable accessibility requirements, and all attachments submitted as part of the proposal—including third-party resumes or certificates—must also meet the applicable accessibility requirements.

41.0 RFP Training 3.4.1.7.1. For training webinars, are live captioning and audio description both required, or is a recorded closed-captioned version sufficient to meet the accessibility requirement?

Training materials and webinars must comply with the applicable accessibility requirements identified in the solicitation.

To comply with WCAG criteria, live closed captions should be provided for live sessions alongside accessible platform controls. Recorded archives should provide synchronized closed captions and a fully descriptive audio track if visual data isn't spoken, or a descriptive text transcript. Providing an accessible recorded version is not an acceptable alternative to an accessible live session.

41.1 RFP Accessibility

Requirements

3.10. See Inquiry Q41.0 Please see the Department’s response to Q41.0.

42.0 RFP Proposal Evaluation

Criteria

5.4.1. Are the fifteen evaluation criteria weighted, and

will the Department publish the point values or relative weights assigned to each — in particular the weight given to Price relative to the technical criteria?

The Department uses a qualitative evaluation process and does not assign numerical point values or weights to the criteria in §5.4.1, including Price.

43.0 RFP Evaluation Committee 5.2.7. Does the Department currently anticipate holding oral presentations, product demonstrations, or requesting best and final offers? If demonstrations are likely, approximately when would they occur, and would a working demonstration environment be expected?

The Department has not determined whether it will request clarifications, discussions, oral presentations, or best and final offers. Any such activities will be requested and conducted in accordance with §5.2.7.

44.0 RFP Organizational

Experience

2.1.2.2. [DISCLOSES] "Current Portal Tool Usage" is a stated evaluation criterion, and Response 3 asks for a list of hospitals and providers currently using the Offeror's tool. For an Offeror whose proposed solution is a new build rather than an existing installed product, how will this criterion be evaluated? Will comparable large-scale data collection and reporting systems delivered for other government clients be given equivalent consideration?

Offeror’s Response 3 provides that if an Offeror’s proposed Portal Tool is not currently in use by Hospitals or Providers, the Offeror should clearly state that in its response. Comparable experience with large-scale data collection and reporting systems may be addressed through the applicable Organizational Experience and Similar Work responses and will be considered as part of the Department’s qualitative evaluation in accordance with §5.4.

44.1 RFP Current Portal Tool

Usage Offeror's Response 3.

See Inquiry Q44.0 Please see the Department’s response to Q44.0.

45.0 Appendix A Intent to Bid Notification 2.3. Section 2.3 refers to an "Intent to Bid Notification Deadline," but no such date appears in the Schedule of Activities in §2.0. What is the deadline for submitting a letter of intent to bid?

No Intent to Bid Notification Deadline was established in the Schedule of Activities. As stated in Appendix A §2.3, submission of a letter of intent to bid is optional and is not required as a condition for submitting a proposal.

45.1 Appendix A Schedule of Activities 2.0. See Inquiry Q45.0 Please see the Department’s response to Q45.0.

46.0 RFP Project Background 1.5.3. Please identify the current systems or processes supporting CHASE, UPL, DSH, HAS Fee, HFT, and HCBA, including the incumbent vendor if applicable, and provide the anticipated migration scope, historical years, file and attachment volumes, number of hospital/provider users, number of State users, and expected peak concurrent usage.

Please see the Department’s responses to Q11.0 and Q15.0.

46.1 RFP Design and Purpose 3.3.1. See Inquiry Q46.0 Please see the Department’s response to Q46.0

46.2 RFP System Specifications 3.3.2. See Inquiry Q46.0 Please see the Department’s response to Q46.0

46.3 RFP Functional Capabilities 3.3.3. See Inquiry Q46.0 Please see the Department’s response to Q46.0

47.0 RFP Portal Tool 3.3. For BIDM, Colorado interChange, identity management, and any other required State systems, please provide the expected interface methods, data direction and frequency, available specifications, authentication standards, test environments, and division of responsibility between HCPF, its existing vendors, and the selected contractor.

The Hospital Portal Tool does not need to connect to BIDM, Coloraldo interChange, identity management, or any other State Systems.

48.0 RFP Anticipated Contract

Term

1.2.1. Please clarify how Offerors should price and

invoice the April 1–June 30, 2027 startup period given that the Pricing Worksheet covers SFY 2028–2032. Is separate SFY 2027 funding available, or must all startup costs be included and amortized within the subsequent annual rates?

Please see the Department’s response to Q1.0

48.1 RFP Anticipated Contract

Term

1.2.2. See Inquiry Q48.0 Please see the Department’s response to Q1.0

48.2 RFP Anticipated Contract

Term

1.2.3. See Inquiry Q48.0 Please see the Department’s response to Q1.0

48.3 RFP Compensation 4.1. See Inquiry Q48.0 Please see the Department’s response to Q1.0

48.4 RFP Invoicing and Payment

Procedures

4.2. See Inquiry Q48.0 Please see the Department’s response to Q1.0

48.5 RFP Budget 4.3. See Inquiry Q48.0 Please see the Department’s response to Q1.0

48.6 Appendix F Pricing Worksheet See Inquiry Q48.0 Please see the Department’s response to Q1.0

49.0 RFP Draft Internet

Technology (IT) Contract

1.3. Please confirm whether the contractor may retain

ownership of its pre-existing SaaS platform, reusable modules, generalized configurations, tools, and platform improvements developed during performance, while granting the State appropriate subscription and use rights and recognizing State ownership of State data and State-specific deliverables.

Please see RFP26-233 Appendix D-Terminology, Section 1.1.19., Contractor Pre-Existing Material, and RFP26-233 Appendix B Section 16., Rights in Work Product and Other Information.

49.1 Appendix B IT Contract Template See Inquiry Q49.0 Please see the Department’s response to Q49.0.

50.0 RFP System Specifications 3.3.2. Please specify any mandatory security attestations or hosting authorizations beyond the HIPAA BAA, PII certification, System Security Plan, and accessibility documentation, and provide the required uptime, support hours, severity definitions, response and resolution targets, backup requirements, and RTO/RPO standards.

Please see the Department’s response to Q26.0

50.1 RFP Functional Capabilities 3.3.3. See Inquiry Q50.0 Please see the Department’s response to Q26.0

50.2 RFP Security Plan 3.5. See Inquiry Q50.0 Please see the Department’s response to Q26.0

50.3 RFP Helpdesk and Log 3.7. See Inquiry Q50.0 Please see the Department’s response to Q26.0

50.4 RFP Accessibility

Requirements

3.10. See Inquiry Q50.0 Please see the Department’s response to Q26.0

50.5 Appendix B IT Contract Template See Inquiry Q50.0 Please see the Department’s response to Q26.0

51.0 General General Question Would the Department share the reason for the cancellation of RFP UHAA 2026000015 RFP and reissue of the current procurement UHAA 2026000233?

A Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) request for publicly available information regarding the cancellation may be submitted through the Department’s CORA Portal:

https://coloradohcpf.govqa.us/WEBAPP/_rs/(S(p0 ybsb2mwhcotmmzs5adztfe))/SupportHome.aspx

52.0 RFP Anticipated Contract

Term

1.2. What is the anticipated Contract Effective Date? The Department anticipates an Effective Date of

April 1, 2027. The actual Effective Date will be the date the Contract is approved and signed by the Colorado State Controller or designee. The Start-Up Period begins on the later of April 1, 2027 or the Effective Date.

53.0 RFP Anticipated Contract

Term

1.2. If the Contract Effective Date is expected to occur

before the Contractor’s start-up period beginning on April 1, 2027, please clarify what activities, if any, the Contractor may begin before the formal start-up period.

Please see the Department’s response to Q52.0.

Additionally, The Contractor may not begin Work under the Contract before the Effective Date, and the Start-Up Period begins on the later of April 1, 2027 or the Effective Date.

54.0 RFP Anticipated Contract

Term

1.2. Conversely, if the Contract Effective Date is

expected to be April 1, 2027, would the Department consider an earlier effective date to allow for additional transition, planning, and implementation time between award and the start of operations?

Please see the Department’s responses to Q52.0.

& Q53.0 Additionally, the Department is not committing to an earlier date at this time.

55.0 RFP Project Background 1.5.3. The RFP states that the current Portal Tool has been operated since 2021 and that the system contains SQL databases and stored hospital-submitted data. Please clarify whether the selected Contractor will be expected to migrate historical data, documents, user accounts, audit trails, reports, SQL database content, or other existing portal assets into the Contractor’s proposed solution. If migration is expected, please provide additional detail regarding the available data formats, current system documentation, incumbent transition support, and expected timing for access to legacy system information.

Please see the Department’s response to Q11.0

56.0 RFP Annual Procedures 3.8.4. Section 3.8.4requires the Contractor to develop an MMIS Data Extraction Protocol. Please clarify the Department’s expectations regarding vendor access to MMIS data, including whether the Contractor will receive extracts from the Department, access an existing State-approved data exchange process, or be expected to connect directly to MMIS or another State system.

Section 3.8.4 provides that the Contractor will obtain MMIS data from the Department and will provide an MMIS Data Extraction Protocol describing the process for obtaining, extracting, and securely transferring the data necessary to perform the Work, subject to Department review and approval.

57.0 RFP Evaluation Methodology 5.0. Section 5.4 lists the proposal evaluation criteria but does not include point values or weighting.

Please confirm whether the Department will assign weights or point values to the criteria and, if so, whether those weights will be made available to Offerors

Please see the Department’s response to Q42.0

58.0 Appendix F Pricing Worksheet General Tab

Column C

Please confirm how Offerors should complete the hourly rate tier section of Appendix F, Pricing Worksheet.

Please see the Department’s response to Q3.0

59.0 Appendix F Pricing Worksheet General Tab

Column C

Should Offerors enter only the hourly rates by position or labor category?

Please see the Department’s response to Q3.0

60.0 Appendix F Pricing Worksheet General Tab

Column C

Alternately, should Offerors enter the total projected cost across all five State Fiscal Years allocated to each hourly rate tier? If the latter, please clarify how those amounts should reconcile to the fixed-price deliverables and the overall not-to-exceed amount.

Please see the Department’s response to Q3.0

61.0 Appendix F Pricing Worksheet Each SFY Tab

Row 5

The reissued RFP states that the start-up period begins April 1, 2027; however, the pricing worksheet covers SFY 2028 through SFY 2032.

Please confirm whether any pricing is expected for work performed during the final quarter of SFY 2027, including start-up activities occurring between April 1, 2027 and June 30, 2027. If pricing for SFY 2027 start-up work is expected, please clarify where Offerors should include those costs in Appendix F.

Please see the Department’s response to Q1.0

62.0 Appendix A Financial Information 4.3.3. The solicitation indicates that the Department may request an Offeror’s most recent audited annual financial statements and defines Certified Financial Statements as financial statements audited by an independent certified public accountant. For a privately held Offeror that does not obtain independently audited annual financial statements, would the Department accept alternative evidence of financial responsibility, such as company-prepared financial statements and/or other financial information provided under a confidentiality agreement? If so, please identify what alternative documentation would be acceptable.

Offerors should not submit financial statements with their proposals. If the Department requests financial statements to assist in determining an Offeror’s responsibility, the Offeror must provide financial information meeting the requirements of Appendix A §4.3.3; the Department has not identified company-prepared financial statements as an acceptable substitute for the requested financial statements.

62.1 Appendix D Certified Financial

Statements

1.1.6. See Inquiry Q62.0 Please see the Department’s response to Q62.0.

63.0 RFP Project Lead 2.2.2.1. Please clarify whether each of the experience areas identified in Sections 2.2.2.1.1.1 through

2.2.2.1.1.6 must be demonstrated by the individual proposed as Project Lead, or whether the Department will consider complementary experience distributed among the Project Lead and other proposed Key Personnel.

The Department will evaluate the individual proposed as Project Lead against each of §§2.2.2.1.1.1–2.2.2.1.1.6. The RFP does not state that failure to demonstrate one individual requirement automatically renders a proposal nonresponsive. Other Key Personnel requested in the RFP will be reviewed against the requirements for that position.

64.0 RFP Project Lead 2.2.2.1. Additionally, would failure of the proposed Project Lead to personally demonstrate any one of the identified experience areas render a proposal nonresponsive, or are these qualifications evaluated comparatively as part of proposal scoring?

Please see the Department’s response to Q63.0

65.0 RFP Personnel Requirements 2.2.2. May the proposed Project Lead be an individual employed by a subcontractor or teaming partner, provided the Offeror retains overall responsibility for Contract performance and management of the subcontractor?

Yes. Key Personnel positions may be filled by personnel employed by a proposed Subcontractor, provided the individual meets all requirements applicable to the Project Lead position in §2.2.2.

The Contractor remains responsible for Contract performance and must comply with all requirements governing Subcontractors, including the subcontracting limitation and Department approval requirements in Appendix B, Exhibit E §2.4.3.

65.1 RFP Additional Key Personnel 2.2.4. See Inquiry Q65.0 Please see the Department’s response to Q65.0.

65.2 RFP Personnel Offeror's Response

4.

See Inquiry Q65.0 Please see the Department’s response to Q65.0.

66.0 RFP Organizational

Experience

2.1. When evaluating the experience identified in

Sections 2.1.2.1 through 2.1.2.7, will the Department consider the combined experience of the Offeror and its proposed subcontractors or teaming partners, including relevant experience with Medicaid programs, Hospitals, Providers, governmental entities, Hospital cost and financial data, and similar large-scale data projects?

Yes. The Department will consider experience of the proposed team, including proposed subcontractors, when evaluating §2.1.2.

67.0 RFP General Information 1.1.1. Would the Department consider a solution in which the Portal Tool is configured and developed specifically for the Department using an established commercial cloud-based low-code application platform, with implementation, configuration, customization, maintenance, and support provided by the Contractor, provided the resulting Portal Tool meets all functional, security, accessibility, performance, and contractual requirements of the solicitation?

Yes. The Department will consider solutions developed or configured using an established commercial cloud-based low-code application platform, provided the proposed Portal Tool meets all requirements of the solicitation, including applicable functional, security, accessibility, performance, and contractual requirements. Offerors are responsible for demonstrating in their proposal how their proposed solution satisfies those requirements.

67.1 RFP Portal Tool 3.3. See Inquiry Q67.0 Please see the Department’s response to Q67.0.

68.0 RFP Project Background 1.5.3. Is the Department open to proposals that materially modernize or replace the architecture and technology underlying the existing Portal Tool, or does the Department have a preference for continuation of the existing Portal Tool and/or its current technical approach?

Please clarify whether the Department has any preference among continuation of the existing solution, implementation of a commercially available platform-based solution, or development of a replacement solution, provided all requirements of the solicitation are satisfied.

Please see the Department’s response to Q28.0

68.1 RFP Portal Tool 3.3. See Inquiry Q68.0 Please see the Department’s response to Q28.0

69.0 RFP Background 1.5. Prior to issuance of this RFP, did the Department conduct any formal or informal market research, Request for Information (RFI), vendor demonstrations, product evaluations, or other industry engagement related to the Hospital Portal Tool or its modernization/replacement?

If so, are there any publicly available materials, findings, requirements, demonstration scenarios, or other information resulting from that process that prospective Offerors may review?

A Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) request for publicly available information regarding a process prior to this RFP may be submitted through the Department’s CORA Portal:

https://coloradohcpf.govqa.us/WEBAPP/_rs/(S(p0 ybsb2mwhcotmmzs5adztfe))/SupportHome.aspx

70.0 RFP Anticipated Contract

Term

1.2. If an Offeror other than the incumbent is

selected, please describe the transition assistance and materials that will be available to the incoming Contractor during the anticipated April 1, 2027 through June 30, 2027 start-up period.

Specifically, will this include knowledge transfer, technical documentation, business rules, validation logic, report specifications, workflows, data structures, calculation methodologies, and other information necessary to transition Portal Tool operations?

During the Start-Up Period, the Department anticipates providing the information and coordination reasonably necessary for the selected Contractor to transition Portal Tool operations, including but not limited to report specifications, data structures, and validation logic. The selected Contractor will also be responsible for developing a Start-Up Plan addressing the steps, timelines, milestones, Deliverables, personnel, risks, and transition activities necessary to be fully operational by the Operational Start Date, as described in Appendix B, Exhibit E §1.10.8.

70.1 RFP Project Background 1.5.3. See Inquiry Q70.0 Please see the Department’s response to Q70.0

71.0 RFP Project Background 1.5.3.4 Please provide additional information regarding the data expected to be migrated from the existing Portal Tool, including, if available:

● Approximate database size and number of records;

● Number and approximate aggregate size of stored files/documents;

● Number of years of historical data to be migrated;

● Existing database format and schema;

● Availability of data dictionaries, relationships, and technical documentation;

● Whether historical audit logs, correspondence, and prior submissions must be migrated; and

● Whether all historical data and documents are expected to reside within the replacement Portal Tool by the Operational Start Date.

Please see the Department’s response to Q11.0

71.1 RFP Portal Tool 3.3. See Inquiry Q71.0 Please see the Department’s response to Q11.0

72.0 RFP Functional Capabilities 3.3.3. Will the Department provide the awarded

Contractor with documented data-validation rules, Hospital certification workflows, calculation methodologies, report specifications/templates, correspondence templates, data-aggregation rules, and other business logic currently used in connection with the Portal Tool and the programs it supports?

If any of this documentation is unavailable or incomplete, please clarify the Department’s expectations for discovery, validation, and recreation of these requirements during the start-up period.

Please see the Department’s response to Q70.0 regarding transition materials and legacy system documentation. During the Start-Up Period, the selected Contractor will be expected to work with the Department to identify, document, and implement the business rules, workflows, calculations, templates, validation requirements, and other requirements necessary to perform the Work.