RRCC 26-14-RFP01 Vendor Question and Answers.pdf

RRCC 26-14-RFP01 Vendor Questions and Answers Page 1 of 64

Red Rocks Community College

RRCC 26-14-RFP01 Website Redesign, Development and Migration

Vendor Questions and Answers (in blue)

BUDGET, PRICING, EVALUATION CRITERIA, PAGE LIMITS

1. What is your planned budget for this project?

Answer: The department has decided not to disclose the budget.

2. Does RRCC have a total budget or a maximum amount in mind for this project? Even a rough range is helpful so vendors can propose a realistic scope without having to guess.

Answer: Already answered.

3. Budget Range: Is there an anticipated budget range or not-to-exceed amount for the initial project phase?

Understanding the budget parameters would allow vendors to propose appropriately scoped solutions.

Answer: Already answered.

4. What was the annual spend for the previous year on this Project?

Answer: For FY 2025–2026, RRCC spent $16,000 on hosting and maintenance for this project. In the prior year, RRCC budgeted $53,000 for development work. Vendors should note that this development budget is not indicative of expected development costs for the current project. The previous amount reflects unrelated work and should not be used as a basis for estimating this scope.

5. If this is a new Contract, What is the annual Budget for this?

Answer: Already answered.

6. What is the budget range that you'd like to stay within?

Answer: Already answered.

7. Is there a specified budget requirement for this project?

Answer: Already answered.

8. Are there any budget requirements that you can share?

Answer: Already answered.

9. Can you share or have you established a budget range for this project?

Answer: Already answered.

RRCC 26-14-RFP01 Vendor Questions and Answers Page 2 of 64

10. Is there a Not-to-Exceed (NTE) budget or estimated budget range for this project?

Answer: Already answered.

11. How would RRCC like vendors to structure the ongoing maintenance and support scope? I.e. as a fixed monthly retainer, a time-and-materials arrangement, or a combination? Should vendors propose a separate cost for maintenance, or include it a unified project cost?

Answer: RRCC recommends separate line items, with pricing approach determined by the vendor. Please note: RRCC realizes an error in its RFP when stating in the timeline that maintenance and support would be months 1-12. Maintenance and support would begin after launch. Vendors should price maintenance and support beginning after launch according to the timeline they propose.

12. Hosting pricing in Tab E. Section 1.C.iii lists hosting as an "Optional Hosting Objective." If a bidder recommends that RRCC use a hosting provider the bidder does not operate, should Tab E include hosting pricing, a recommended budget range, or no hosting line at all?

Answer: Hosting should be listed as a separate line item.

13. What is the budget range for this project, including both the initial redesign/migration and the ongoing maintenance and support phases? Understanding the budget parameters will help us propose appropriately scoped solutions.

Answer: Already answered.

14. Do you have an anticipated budget range for this project?

Answer: Already answered.

15. Could RRCC kindly share an estimated budget range or anticipated investment level for this initiative?

Answer: Already answered.

16. Can you share a budget or budget range for the project?

Answer: Already answered.

17. Budget range or not-to-exceed amount. The RFP does not state a budget range for the initial build or the first twelve months of maintenance. Can RRCC share an expected range or ceiling so our proposal is sized against the College's actual operational envelope?

RRCC 26-14-RFP01 Vendor Questions and Answers Page 3 of 64

18. Is this project funded? If so, can you share a budget target or range? Has RRCC established a budget range or not-to-exceed figure for the redesign, migration, and rebuild phase? If a specific budget has not been finalized, would RRCC be willing to share an approximate budget tier to help vendors shape a realistic scope and approach?

Answer: Already answered.

19. Is there a preferred pricing format that vendors should follow when submitting their cost proposal?

Answer: A specific pricing format is not required. However, we do want to see a detailed line-item breakdown of all anticipated costs. Optional items can be provided as a separate line-item in the breakdown.

Please include a year-by-year breakdown for up to five years. In addition, we will need a single total dollar amount for the entire project, not an estimate.

20. How should pricing be structured in the proposal (e.g., firm-fixed price, time and materials, hourly rates, or a combination)?

Answer: Already answered.

21. Should vendors provide one overall project price, or break costs out by phase, such as discovery, design, development, migration, and ongoing maintenance? Should optional items like hosting or AI features be listed separately?

Answer: Already answered.

22. Can RRCC clarify whether travel expenses, if required onsite, should be included in pricing or billed separately?

Answer: RRCC prefers that travel be a separate line item.

23. Is optional hosting expected to be included in pricing, or should it be proposed as a separate line item?

Answer: Already answered.

24. Is pricing for the optional hosting service expected as a distinct, optional line item separate from the core implementation cost proposal, or should it be incorporated into the overall five-year pricing structure?

RRCC 26-14-RFP01 Vendor Questions and Answers Page 4 of 64

25. The findings in the Discovery and Design phase and the decisions made by RRCC, will have a significant influence on the costs for the Transfer and Rebuild and Improved Functionality phases of the project. Will

RRCC accept a cost range estimate for these phases in this proposal, given that this discovery work has not yet happened?

Answer: RRCC cannot accept an estimated price. Vendors may choose to provide separate pricing for alternate pathways.

26. Is there a separate budget allocation for ongoing maintenance and support following launch? If so, is

RRCC able to share its current annual investment range for website hosting, maintenance, and support under the incumbent arrangement?

Answer: Already answered. Please note: RRCC realizes an error in its RFP when stating in the timeline that maintenance and support would be months 1-12. Maintenance and support would begin after launch.

Vendors should price maintenance and support beginning after launch according to the timeline they propose.

27. The RFP requires that the proposal not exceed 50 pages (excluding administrative documents). Do the Tab

F references (client contact lists) count toward the 50-page limit, and are screenshots or portfolio samples included in the page count?

Answer: Screenshots and portfolio samples can be outside the limit.

28. Are vendors required to submit resumes of key personnel, and if so, will those resumes count toward the

50-page proposal limit?

Answer: Resumes can be outside the limit.

29. Page limit interpretation. Section 5 caps the proposal at 50 pages "not including administrative documents." Does "administrative documents" mean only the contents of Tab A (Signature Page, W-9, Vendor Disclosure Statement), or does it also include the table of contents, tab dividers, references page

(Tab F), confidential information tab (Tab G), redlines (Tab H), and VPAT acknowledgment (Tab I)?

Answer: Page limits apply to Tabs B, C, D, and E.

30. Page Limit: The RFP mentions a 50-page limit for the proposal. Does this limit apply to the entire submission, or are Appendices/Administrative documents excluded from this count beyond the specific

"administrative documents" mentioned?

RRCC 26-14-RFP01 Vendor Questions and Answers Page 5 of 64

31. Evaluation Criteria Weights: Section 6.C lists four evaluation criteria — Experience and Qualifications, Management Plan, Technical Proposal, and Pricing — but states they are listed in no particular order. Will

RRCC publish relative point weights or percentage allocations for each criterion prior to the proposal submission deadline? Understanding the relative weight of each criterion would allow offerors to calibrate the depth and emphasis of their responses appropriately.

Answer: RRCC will not be using weights or percentage allocations. It will be a five (5) point scale.

32. Section 6.C (Proposal Evaluation Criteria): Can RRCC provide the relative weighting or prioritization of evaluation criteria (Experience, Management Plan, Technical Proposal, Pricing)?

Answer: Already answered.

33. Section 6.C lists Experience and Qualifications, Management Plan, Technical Proposal, and Pricing as evaluation criteria “in no particular order.” Is RRCC able to share the approximate relative weighting of these categories?

Answer: Already answered.

34. Can RRCC share the relative weighting of the four evaluation criteria (Experience and Qualifications, Management Plan, Technical Proposal, Pricing), or confirm they are weighted equally?

Answer: Already answered.

35. Hosting as a Scored Component: Section 4.C.i identifies hosting as an optional objective, and Tab E requests that pricing include all annual and one-time expenses. Will hosting be evaluated as a scored component alongside the technical and management criteria, or will it be treated as a separate, optional line item that is evaluated independently? We want to ensure our cost proposal is structured to reflect how

RRCC intends to use the hosting response.

Answer: Already answered.

36. Would you consider a proposal/cost estimate that is limited to performing the Discovery & Design phase, prior to estimating for the rest of the project? We ask because it would be very difficult to provide an accurate and honest estimate for the full project up front. Many decisions will be made based on user testing and discovery activities that will shape the direction and effort to implement solutions. As an example modifying the existing site would be a significantly different level of effort from a full replatform and migration.

RRCC 26-14-RFP01 Vendor Questions and Answers Page 6 of 64

37. In addition to the stated evaluation criteria, are there any priority considerations or differentiators that will most influence vendor selection?

Answer: RRCC will evaluate on the stated criteria.

38. For optional hosting and ongoing maintenance, should pricing be shown separately from implementation costs?

Answer: Already answered.

39. Are there any budgetary ceilings or funding constraints vendors should consider when proposing solutions?

Answer: Already answered.

40. To ensure vendors propose a solution that aligns with the College's financial realities, has RRCC established a budget range or not-to-exceed amount for the initial 6–12 month redesign/migration phase?

Answer: Already answered.

41. Does the 50-page proposal limit apply strictly to the narrative content, or does it include administrative documentation such as the Vendor Response Signature Page, W-9, and Vendor Disclosure Statement?

Answer: Already answered.

42. Is there an anticipated budget range for this project (initial build and ongoing maintenance)?

Answer: Already answered.

43. Do you have a maximum budget amount we should not exceed?

Answer: Already answered.

44. Budgeting for "Additional Functionality": Regarding the "Additional Functionality Items" , is there a total contingency budget allocated for these items, or should we just provide the requested pricing models for ad-hoc work?

Answer: Provide the pricing model for ad-hoc work.

45. If a vendor proposes an AI-powered feature like smarter search or a chat assistant as an optional extra, should it be priced separately in the cost proposal, or listed as an alternative overall pricing scenario?

[Reference: Section 5, Tab E]

RRCC 26-14-RFP01 Vendor Questions and Answers Page 7 of 64

Contract Term, Award, Procurement, Administrative Requirements

46. Proposal Clarity: Since the BidNet site may reference the "Colorado Community College System" instead of "Red Rocks Community College", should we address our cover letter to the System or to RRCC specifically?

Answer: Red Rocks Community College is the primary on this bid. Therefore, all documents should be addressed to RRCC specifically.

47. Higher Education Experience Preference: Section 2.A states that experience with higher education and community colleges is "preferred." Can RRCC confirm whether the absence of direct higher education references is a scored disadvantage, or whether demonstrated experience with comparable institutional platforms — such as large-scale government portals, multi-stakeholder web applications, or regulated public-sector sites — will be considered on equal footing during evaluation?

Answer: Respondents will not be penalized for lacking direct higher-education experience. While such experience is preferred, it is in each proposer’s best interest to highlight any comparable work with complex, multi-stakeholder, or regulated institutional platforms. Demonstrated success in similar environments will be fully considered during evaluation.

48. The evaluation criteria section is referenced in the RFP but not fully described in the solicitation document provided. Can RRCC clarify the scoring weights assigned to each evaluation factor (e.g., experience, technical approach, cost, references)?

Answer: Already answered.

49. Section 5, Tab F requires a minimum of three references from clients where work was performed within the last five years. May references come from clients in sectors other than higher education (e.g., government agencies, healthcare organizations, non-profit institutions) if the work is technically comparable in scope and complexity? And does RRCC require that at least one reference be from a higher education institution?

Answer: Already answered.

50. Will this solicitation result in a single award or multiple awards?

Answer: Single award.

51. Is vendor registration in Colorado required at the time of proposal submission, or can registration be completed upon award?

Answer: Registration can be completed at the time of the award.

RRCC 26-14-RFP01 Vendor Questions and Answers Page 8 of 64

52. Contract term date correction. Section 1.H reads: "The initial term of the awarded Contract is anticipated to begin on July 1, 2026 and end on June 30, 2026." We assume the end date should read June 30, 2027 — can RRCC confirm?

Answer: The anticipated initial term is July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2027.

53. Section 1.H states that the initial contract term is anticipated to begin on July 1, 2026 and end on June 30, 2026. We assume the intended end date is June 30, 2027. Can RRCC confirm the correct initial term dates?

Answer: Already answered.

54. Can RRCC confirm the intended contract term, as the RFP lists a start date of July 1, 2026, and an end date of June 30, 2026?

Answer: Already answered.

55. Section H - Shall we assume that the contract end date is June 30, 2027?

Answer: Already answered.

56. Contract term discrepancy. Section 1.H.i states "the initial term of the awarded Contract is anticipated to begin on July 1, 2026 and end on June 30, 2026." Are we safe to assume this should be June 30, 2027?

Answer: Already answered.

57. Could you please confirm the expected project timeline and target launch date?

Answer: Already answered.

58. Section B1 - What is the desired launch date?

Answer: Already answered.

59. Subcontractor Disclosure: Section 17.B of the State Model Contract requires prior written approval of the

State before any subcontract is executed. For purposes of the proposal, should offerors identify all anticipated subcontractors in Tab B, and will those named subcontractors be treated as approved upon contract award without requiring a separate approval step?

Answer: Vendors should state if they will be using subcontractors. RRCC will request a more formal, detailed list from the intended awardee and process for approval at that time.

RRCC 26-14-RFP01 Vendor Questions and Answers Page 9 of 64

60. Section 5, Tab H states that the Colorado Special Provisions are non-negotiable and that any requested modifications to the State Model Contract may be factored negatively into the evaluation. Without requesting any specific changes, can RRCC identify which sections of the State Model Contract or its exhibits have historically drawn vendor questions, so that we can review those provisions carefully before submission rather than flag them in Tab H unnecessarily?

Answer: It varies for different vendors. Some of the main issues are indemnification, limitation of liability, arbitration and choice of law, all of which are set in statute for us.

61. The cost proposal (Tab E) asks vendors to include pricing for all years of the contract term. The initial term is described as running through June 30, 2026, while the project timeline spans 12 months from kickoff.

Can RRCC clarify the intended contract start date and whether Year 1 pricing should cover the full 12-month implementation plus any overlap into a renewal year? Vendors need to understand the fiscal year structure to price accurately across the five-year maximum term.

Answer: Yes, pricing should cover all costs within a 12-month period, understanding that some phases may overlap fiscal years, RRCC would like work to begin on July 1st. Vendors should provide a budget based on their proposed timeline.

62. Section 1.H (Anticipated Contract Term) / General Background: Is this requirement a recompete or a new initiative? If recompete, can RRCC disclose the current or most recent vendor supporting the website and the scope of their engagement?

Answer: Archetype 5 currently assists RRCC with website maintenance.

63. Section 1.A (General Information) / Section 4 (Scope of Work): Can the State confirm the expected place of performance for this effort? Is the work anticipated to be fully remote, hybrid, or require onsite presence at

RRCC? If onsite support is required, please specify expected frequency and roles.

Answer: RRCC prefers but does not require for initial vendor onboarding (initial meeting(s) to establish liaisons, cadence, and timeline) and launch to be in person; RRCC expects the bulk of the work to be remote.

64. Section 2.B (Organizational Personnel):: Are there any required or preferred key personnel roles or minimum qualifications that Offerors should include as part of their proposal?

Answer: There are no required roles; RRCC is looking at experience and capabilities, not specific roles.

65. Section 4 (Scope of Work) / Section 5 (Requested Proposal Format): Are there any expectations regarding minimum or maximum team size, or preferred team structure, for this engagement?

Answer: No. Whatever the vendor believes is appropriate to get the work done.

RRCC 26-14-RFP01 Vendor Questions and Answers Page 10 of 64

66. Are there any incumbent hosting, platform, or vendor contractual constraints that may affect migration timing, access to environments, repository transfer, or production cutover planning?

Answer: No. RRCC has all of the content. While a very small percentage of the code may be inaccessible, RRCC does not expect that to be a constraint.

67. Section 5, Tab C requests a management plan that includes SLA terms. What are RRCC's expectations for post-launch support response times — for example, critical/security issues vs. general requests? Is there a defined support window (business hours vs. 24/7), and are after-hours response obligations expected during the maintenance and renewal years?

Answer: RRCC’s expectation is 24/7 (not only business hours) for critical/security issues. For other (non-critical) requests, RRCC and the vendor will agree on specific response times during initial vendor onboarding/planning discussions. While we anticipate response times that reflect established industry standards, the vendor should also understand that our student population relies on accurate, up‑to‑date information to support their academic progress.

68. Section 2.A specifies that RRCC desires vendors with experience in higher education, and Section 5, Tab B explicitly asks vendors to highlight experience with "higher education and other community colleges, if any." How does the evaluation committee weight experience with four-year universities (e.g., liberal arts colleges, research universities) relative to two-year community college experience? Does a demonstrated portfolio of higher education clients across institution types satisfy this criterion, or does the preference specifically favor community college engagements?

Answer: Already answered.

69. The RFP does not reference MBE/WBE certifications or supplier diversity preferences in its evaluation criteria. Does RRCC's procurement policy, or the Colorado Community College System's broader procurement guidelines, provide evaluation preference points or scoring advantages for proposals that include MBE- or WBE-certified vendors or subcontractors?

Answer: RRCC/CCCS does not have procurement policies regarding preference points or scoring advantages.

70. Does the State of Colorado or the Colorado Community College System maintain a supplier diversity program, registry, or certification framework that vendors or their subcontractors should be registered with prior to proposal submission? If so, would inclusion of certified diverse suppliers as subcontractors be viewed favorably by the evaluation committee, even if it is not a formal scoring criterion?

Answer: RRCC/CCCS does not have a supplier diversity program in place.

RRCC 26-14-RFP01 Vendor Questions and Answers Page 11 of 64

71. Section 5, Tab G addresses confidential information and notes that commingling of confidential and non-confidential information is not acceptable. What categories of information does RRCC consider eligible for confidential treatment in a vendor's proposal? Specifically, may vendors designate proprietary methodologies, pricing models, or personnel compensation structures as confidential?

Answer: Per CRS 24-72-200.1 and 24-72-204 which includes the requirement that neither pricing nor the entire proposal may be considered confidential. RRCC would consider any other request for confidentiality on a per request basis.

72. Is there a preference for small business, local business, or diverse supplier participation?

Answer: Already answered.

73. Is RRCC currently working with an external web development or digital partner? If so, will they be involved during transition?

Answer: Yes. RRCC will seek as much assistance as possible but there is no contractual obligation on their part.

74. Can you please give us an extension of 1-2 weeks to submit our proposal?

Answer: RRCC will not be giving an extension.

75. Colorado preference. We’re interested in learning more about the evaluation strategy for companies outside of Colorado. What weight will be assigned to that specific category, if any?

Answer: Already answered.

TIMELINE, LAUNCH, MILESTONES

76. Section 4 (Scope of Work – Timeline & Milestones): Is the anticipated 6–12 month implementation timeline fixed, or can Offerors propose alternative timelines based on their recommended approach?

Answer: Vendors are free to propose another timeline and RRCC will consider it in the context of the vendor’s recommended approach.

77. The RFP references ongoing maintenance and support during Months 1–12, while also referencing a post-launch baseline report before the maintenance phase formally begins. Should vendors price maintenance and support as concurrent with the implementation period, as a discrete post-launch phase, or both?

Answer: RRCC realizes an error in its RFP. Maintenance and support would begin after launch. Vendors should price maintenance and support beginning after launch according to the timeline they propose.

RRCC 26-14-RFP01 Vendor Questions and Answers Page 12 of 64

78. RFP mentions possible "new functions" to be added.... What would those be? How many?

Answer: RRCC expects new functions to be identified during discovery and through normal daily use of the website. The vendor should provide pricing for such work in whatever manner they typically price ongoing ad hoc updates.

79. Section 3 specifies that Technical Integration Audit and Persona/Journey Research must be completed and approved by RRCC before architecture and wireframes begin, and that User Research must be validated and navigation architecture approved before development begins. How many approval cycles does RRCC anticipate at each of these gates, and what is the expected RRCC review turnaround time? Gated timelines with open-ended approval cycles are a significant scheduling risk, and vendors need to understand

RRCC's internal capacity for timely review.

Answer: RRCC and the vendor will agree on specific approvals at the start of the project during vendor onboarding/initial planning discussions. The vendor may include customary/recommended approvals and approval times in their proposal. This work is a priority for RRCC and RRCC commits to not being a bottleneck.

80. Are there any fixed deadlines (e.g., enrollment cycles, institutional milestones) that should be considered when planning launch timing? If so, is there an available list of minimum requirements for each milestone to inform the product roadmap?

Answer: RRCC does not have any fixed deadlines or priorities at this time. When discussing the detailed timeline during vendor onboarding at the start of the project, RRCC will take some academic/institutional activities into consideration, however those activities will not drive the work.

81. Are there any key institutional deadlines (e.g., enrollment cycles) that should be considered when planning launch timing?

Answer: Already answered.

82. Please identify the top technical priorities for the first 90 to 180 days of the contract and clarify whether

RRCC has any fixed implementation constraints such as academic-calendar blackout periods, launch windows, or mandatory sequencing for discovery, migration, testing, training, and handover activities.

RRCC 26-14-RFP01 Vendor Questions and Answers Page 13 of 64

83. Acceptance testing windows. Section 4.B.6.b allows RRCC 10 business days for acceptance testing of technical deliverables. Does this apply to each deliverable individually, or to major milestones?

Answer: The 10-day requirement applies to major milestones. RRCC is interested in how vendors structure the timeline without other constraints.

84. What would push this project toward the shorter end of the timeline versus the longer end? Is it mostly about how much needs to be rebuilt, or does it come down to how quickly RRCC can review and sign off on work as it progresses? [Reference: Section 4.B, Timeline and Milestones]

Answer: RRCC is providing some flexibility to allow the vendor to structure the work in the manner they believe will lead to the highest quality product.

CMS STRATEGY, PLATFORM PERFORMANCE, ARCHITECTURE

85. CMS Preference: The RFP invites vendors to recommend a CMS path forward but references WordPress specifically in several places. Does RRCC have an institutional preference for WordPress, or is the CMS recommendation genuinely open based on vendor assessment?

Answer: RRCC requires a fully managed platform that supports automatic security updates and includes a recommended CMS. Our preference is for an open-source CMS solution to ensure flexibility, portability, and ease of migration between hosting providers. The proposed solution should minimize vendor lock-in while providing ongoing security patching, maintenance, and platform support. RRCC believes that WordPress meets these requirements, however is open to other recommendations.

86. Are you open to vendors who would only rebuild on a new CMS (ie would not consider rebuilding on

Drupal)?

Answer: Yes.

87. You mention using Drupal now and open to WordPress. Do you prefer an open source CMS? Or a

Commercial CMS?

Answer: Already answered.

88. CMS Recommendation Timing: The scope asks the awarded vendor to assess the current Drupal implementation and recommend whether to migrate or rebuild. Will RRCC accept a proposal that includes a preliminary CMS recommendation based on publicly available site information, while reserving the formal recommendation for the discovery phase? Or does RRCC expect offerors to commit to a specific

CMS recommendation as part of the proposal itself?

Answer: Yes, we will accept a preliminary recommendation, however the solution must fall within the proposed budget.

RRCC 26-14-RFP01 Vendor Questions and Answers Page 14 of 64

89. Section 4.B (Detailed Scope of Work – Website Transfer and Rebuild): Does RRCC have a preferred CMS direction (e.g., retain Drupal or migrate to a new CMS), or is the vendor expected to fully recommend and justify the CMS selection?

Answer: Already answered.

90. Section 1.C (Overview and Goals) / Section 4.B (Optional Hosting Objective): Should Offerors include hosting services as part of their proposal, or will hosting be procured separately by RRCC? If optional, how will hosting be evaluated?

Answer: RRCC’s evaluation of development services will be independent of whether a vendor offers hosting services. Proposals will not be advantaged or disadvantaged based on the inclusion or exclusion of hosting. Vendors who provide hosting may include it as an optional component of their proposal. Vendors who do not offer hosting may instead provide a recommendation for a hosting solution. RRCC will make a separate decision regarding hosting after selecting the development vendor and may consider, but is not obligated to follow, the selected vendor’s recommendation. The hosting decision will be based on factors such as cost, security, accessibility maintenance, uptime requirements (e.g., 99% or higher), and critical response times.

91. The RFP asks vendors to recommend whether to enhance the existing Drupal implementation or migrate to a new CMS. Does RRCC have an internal preference or prior direction from leadership, or is the recommendation fully open to vendor analysis?

Answer: Already answered.

92. Given that portions of the current Drupal implementation have inaccessible source code, what level of access will be provided to the existing codebase and database?

Answer: RRCC hopes for full administrative access, however vendors should assume no access to source code in their pricing and proposed work plan.

93. The RFP asks for a CMS recommendation after Discovery is complete, but also requires a full cost proposal upfront. Since different CMS solutions can carry meaningfully different costs for development, maintenance, and licensing, how would you like vendors to handle this variability in their cost proposals?

Answer: RRCC recommends that vendors make the proposed CMS a separate line item in their budget so that RRCC can compare proposals.

94. Does RRCC have a preference for an open source CMS (like Drupal or WordPress) over a proprietary or licensed solution?

RRCC 26-14-RFP01 Vendor Questions and Answers Page 15 of 64

95. Are there any CMS solutions RRCC would not consider for this project?

Answer: RRCC prefers a CMS that is known in the industry. We would not consider a custom-built CMS.

96. If a new CMS is proposed, does Red Rocks Community College have a preference of open-source or proprietary CMS?

Answer: Already answered.

97. Sections 1.C.i and 4.B describe two possible paths — enhancing the existing Drupal 10 platform or rebuilding on a new CMS — with the selected vendor responsible for the recommendation. These paths represent materially different scopes, timelines, and pricing envelopes. Does RRCC prefer if cost proposals that: (a) present a single vendor-recommended path with pricing and supporting rationale, (b) present parallel pricing for both paths alongside the recommendation to support RRCC's decision-making, or (c) allow the vendor to determine the most useful format?

Answer: We expect the decision to be made as a result of discovery, and therefore providing two paths would be helpful. However, if a vendor is confident of their recommendation for the best path based on public review of the current website and information provided above, the vendor may choose to provide a proposal for only that path.

98. If total rebuild is recommended, does the school have a preferred CMS?

Answer: Already answered.

99. The RFP references the current site as Drupal-based and notes potential migration to WordPress or a headless CMS. Does RRCC have a platform preference, or is the vendor expected to recommend the target

CMS as part of the Discovery phase? If RRCC has a preference, will that preference be disclosed before proposals are submitted, so vendors can price accordingly?

Answer: Already answered.

100. In addition to recommending a CMS, are there any constraints or preferences, such as headless vs.

traditional CMS with visual editing, that vendors should consider?

Answer: RRCC is inclined to a traditional CMS with visual editing, as we believe that solution is better for nontechnical people.

101. Are there any preferred or prohibited CMS platforms we should consider in our recommendation?

RRCC 26-14-RFP01 Vendor Questions and Answers Page 16 of 64

102. Can RRCC confirm whether it has a preferred direction between enhancing the current Drupal platform versus migrating to a new CMS, or should vendors independently recommend the best solution?

Answer: Already answered

103. What CMS and hosting platform are you currently using, and are there any constraints or preferences around staying on or moving away from it?

Answer: The RRCC website is built on Drupal. RRCC’s website is currently hosted on Pantheon, with hosting managed by our existing development partner. Remainder already answered.

104. Please clarify whether RRCC already has a preferred future CMS direction or whether the selected vendor is fully expected to evaluate Drupal against alternative CMS options and recommend the best path forward.

Answer: Already answered

105. Does RRCC have a preference for what platform powers the new website, or are you open to the vendor making that recommendation based on your needs and budget? [Reference: Section 4.B, Website

Transfer and Rebuild]

Answer: Already answered.

106. The RFP leaves the platform choice open to vendor recommendation, which we appreciate. To help us size that recommendation realistically, could RRCC indicate which of the following best describes where leadership is leaning on the platform decision?

a. Option A: Stay on Drupal with improvements. Lower upfront cost since the existing platform is kept.

RRCC already knows the system, but it will still require ongoing developer involvement for upgrades, security, and maintenance. This works best if RRCC plans to keep access to Drupal expertise, either in house or through a contractor, long term.

b. Option B: Move to WordPress or a similar open source platform. A moderate rebuild investment with lower ongoing maintenance than Drupal. There is a much larger pool of developers available, which reduces dependency on any single vendor. That said, self-hosted WordPress still needs regular updates and security management, and setting up proper editorial controls takes some configuration.

c. Option C: Move to a fully managed platform. Higher annual cost, but hosting, security, and maintenance are largely handled by the platform provider, whether that is a managed WordPress environment like Pantheon or a higher ed focused platform. This reduces long term dependency on any single development firm and is a better fit if the goal after launch is a site that RRCC staff can manage with minimal outside technical help.

RRCC 26-14-RFP01 Vendor Questions and Answers Page 17 of 64

Note: There is no wrong answer here. The response helps us recommend a path that fits both your operational reality and budget without overbuilding or underbuilding.

Answer: RRCC is inclined to option C, but open to others at the vendor’s recommendation. See above for further detail.

CONTENT STRATEGY, VOLUME, MIGRATION GOVERNANCE

107. Content Migration Responsibilities: Will RRCC staff be responsible for any content rewriting or migration tasks, or is the vendor expected to manage all content work? Clarifying the division of responsibility would allow for more accurate scoping.

Answer: RRCC expects that most to all migration tasks will be done by the vendor. RRCC will be responsible for content clean up and writing/rewriting. Specific roles will be discussed and agreed upon during the initial project onboarding.

108. What internal resources will be available to support content migration, approvals, and testing throughout the project?

Answer: Marketing and communications, a current team of five, will assist on the project. RRCC and the vendor will agree on specific roles during vendor onboarding/initial planning discussions.

109. Accessibility Baseline: Has the current site undergone a recent WCAG audit? Understanding the current compliance baseline would help vendors accurately scope remediation effort.

Answer: RRCC is carrying out a WCAG audit now. Information will be provided when available.

110. What is the estimated number of pages, content volume, or total site size to be migrated?

Answer: RRCC estimates the number of pages at 250-280 and the number of content elements at 1600.

While RRCC expects to reduce that amount through the current audit and through the discovery phase, vendors should provide a cost estimate based on the current estimate so that RRCC can compare proposals.

111. Existing Content/Data: Is there an estimated volume of content (e.g., number of pages, PDFs) that needs to be audited and migrated?

Answer: Already answered.

112. Approximately how many total webpages, content types, assets, and PDFs are currently in scope for review/migration?

RRCC 26-14-RFP01 Vendor Questions and Answers Page 18 of 64

113. Could you provide an approximate estimate of the number of pages or assets anticipated for migration?

Answer: Already answered.

114. Section 4.B (Detailed Scope of Work – Discovery & Design / Content Audit): Can RRCC provide an estimate of the current website size, including total number of pages, PDFs, and media assets expected to be migrated or reviewed?

Answer: Already answered

115. Please quantify the amount of content on the site? (number of pages, files, nodes, etc.) Do you expect all content to migrate to the new site?

Answer: Already answered.

116. Section 3 describes "transfer of existing site content" during Months 3–8. How many pages, content nodes, or records does RRCC estimate exist in the current Drupal installation? Additionally, does the current content model include custom content types, taxonomies, or complex field structures that would complicate automated migration scripting, or is the content relatively flat? This directly determines whether migration can be scripted and automated or must be handled manually.

Answer: It depends on the automated approach, as there is custom source code being used for certain widgets; RRCC believes most migration will have to be done manually.

117. Our initial crawl suggests roughly 1,300–1,400 pages. Does that align with your understanding, and/or are there significant content areas not publicly crawlable (e.g., authenticated or system-driven content)?

Answer: Yes, that generally aligns. Our count of pages is slightly higher (appx 1600), likely due to differences in page definitions and other technical issues. As already stated, we are seeking to reduce that number prior to migration. All parts of the website within the scope of this project are publicly crawlable.

Vendors should make their cost proposal based on our number so that RRCC can compare proposals. The only location that is password protected is “The Rock” and that is outside the scope of this work.

118. Approximately how many pages does the current site contain that may need to be migrated?

Answer: Already answered.

119. Volume of current content. To help us accurately estimate the effort required for the content audit, cleanup, and migration phases, what is the approximate number of existing web pages and PDFs currently hosted on www.rrcc.edu http://www.rrcc.edu/

RRCC 26-14-RFP01 Vendor Questions and Answers Page 19 of 64

120. Content Development - Will the chosen vendor be responsible for writing new content or copy-editing existing website content? If so, in order to provide an accurate quote, how many pages of content should the chosen vendor plan to:

a. Copywrite (provide new content

b. Copy edit existing content

Answer: RRCC is responsible for writing copy and for copyediting.

121. Can Red Rocks Community College provide an estimated number of pages to be migrated if a new

CMS is chosen?

Answer: Already Answered

122. Can RRCC provide any available estimates for current content volume by major content type—for example, core content pages, news/posts, program pages, event/calendar pages, directory records, and

PDFs—to help vendors size migration, QA, and content-governance effort?

Answer: Already answered.

123. How many of the existing pages will carry over from the current site?

Answer: Already answered.

124. I see there is a "RRCC Students, Faculty, and Staff Login" that leads viewers to the RRCC Library

Resources section. Will this website redesign include that RRCC Library Resources section as well? If so, how many pages, and how many files does that section include?

Answer: No, that is outside the scope of this project.

125. Is there an intranet or portal for current students and faculty? If so, is this within the scope of this project?

Answer: This project includes only the primary RRCC website. Linked or affiliated sites are not included in the scope of work.

126. Are media assets (images, PDFs, videos, documents) included in the migration scope? If so, does

RRCC have an estimate of the total asset volume? Are any assets stored in external repositories (e.g., a

DAM, a shared network drive, a CDN) rather than natively within Drupal? Asset migration scope is often underestimated and can meaningfully affect timeline and cost.

Answer: Already answered to the extent we’re able.

127. The RFP references components whose source code is inaccessible. Can RRCC provide more detail on the number and nature of these components, and whether documentation or functional specifications exist?

RRCC 26-14-RFP01 Vendor Questions and Answers Page 20 of 64

Answer: RRCC has been informed by our current development partner that a small number of components

(approximately seven or fewer) include proprietary code. These reportedly include the current calendar views and date‑picker functionality; active‑trail parent logic; a linked‑image component for responsive internal links; a custom Linkit profile for internal content; and several plug‑ins. RRCC does not have full documentation of these proprietary elements and is providing this information as currently understood.

128. Can you clarify: "Rebuild the site or at least certain components/functions for which source code is not accessible.” Are you speaking of the normal course of site improvement, or should we expect difficulty preserving certain components currently in Drupal?

Answer: Already answered. See above.

129. In regards to content migration:

a. Will the entire .edu domain need to be migrated?

b. Are there parts of the site that will not be migrated?

c. Are there additional domains that need to be migrated?

d. In regards to migration, how many different page layouts do you have on your current site?

Answer: The .edu domain needs to be migrated but we expect to reduce content; there are no additional domains; there are 7-page layouts (basic, book, department, event, landing, news, program).

130. Does RRCC expect the selected partner to migrate all content, or are you open to a division of labor with internal staff handling some of it as a cost-saving measure?

Answer: Already answered. RRCC will be as helpful as possible.

131. If content needs to be rewritten, will RRCC handle that internally, or is writing support expected from the selected partner?

Answer: Already answered.

132. Could you clarify the expected level of content support, including whether content will primarily be migrated as-is or require rewriting and optimization?

Answer: RRCC is responsible for content; we will welcome SEO optimization.

133. Where discovery identifies content that should be revised before migration, should vendors assume RRCC staff will perform substantive content rewriting, or should proposals include vendor-led editorial/content strategy support beyond audit, recommendations, and governance?

RRCC 26-14-RFP01 Vendor Questions and Answers Page 21 of 64

134. Content Governance: Who will be the final internal decision-maker for the "content governance model," particularly regarding the distinction between high-traffic student-facing pages and internal operational pages?

Answer: Director of Marketing and Communications

135. Section 3 describes a phased scope encompassing Discovery & Design, CMS transfer/rebuild, and six discrete functionality items. Will RRCC provide a formal content inventory or site audit as part of the kickoff deliverables, or is the vendor expected to conduct a full content inventory as part of Month 1 discovery? Understanding who owns this artifact affects how we scope and price the Discovery phase.

Answer: RRCC has done an informal, preliminary inventory (e.g., count and types of pages and content) and has provided that information above/below. RRCC is currently carrying out a formal audit and expects to have and provide the results of that at project kick-off.

136. Section 3 calls for migration of existing site content. Does RRCC have an existing URL redirect map, or will the vendor be responsible for generating one? Are there SEO preservation requirements — such as maintaining existing URL structures or preserving metadata — that constrain migration strategy?

Answer: Due to staff turnover, RRCC does not have a complete answer to this question. It is our understanding that the site has the capability to create redirects and aliases, but that there are none currently being used.

137. Can RRCC provide an estimated total number of pages or content items to support scoping of content audit and migration?

Answer: Already answered.

138. Will content decisions, such as what to migrate, rewrite, or archive, be made centrally through

Marketing and Communications or managed across departments, and how will final approvals be handled?

Answer: Marketing and Communications will handle all content.

139. Has a recent accessibility audit of the current website been conducted, and can the findings be shared?

RRCC 26-14-RFP01 Vendor Questions and Answers Page 22 of 64

140. Post-launch, how will responsibility for ongoing accessibility remediation (including PDFs) be divided between RRCC and the vendor?

Answer: RRCC expects to do remediation; RRCC is currently doing an inventory and intends to both reduce the number of PDFs/documents and implement a process for remediating and better managing new content. We do not expect a big role for the vendor in this area.

141. Section B2 - Do you need any support with content writing? If yes, how many pages would you be looking for support with? Do you have writers on staff to help support the website?

Answer: RRCC will handle all content writing.

142. Section B2 - How many pages of content are on the site? How many existing pages do you anticipate being migrated as is to the new site? Are you looking for any support with adjusting and checking the content after the scripted migration? If yes, what is the approximate number of pages you will need support with?

Answer: Already answered.

143. The RFP mentions "content strategy and clean up." Will RRCC's internal team be solely responsible for copywriting and editing new and migrated content, or should the vendor scope in copywriting services?

Answer: Already answered.

144. Are there any current subdomains that fall within the scope of this project?

Answer: No.

145. Are any current site sections of the site out of scope for this project?

Answer: “The Rock” is accessible through a sign in. That section is not part of the scope.

146. Site copyediting: Do you foresee keeping current for launch? Or will RRCC team and/or vendor create site content?

Answer: Already answered.

147. Launch Criteria: You mentioned that go-live criteria and final approvers will be agreed upon. Are there specific departments (e.g., IT, Marketing) that historically have the most influence over launch sign-off?

Answer: Marketing and Communications will have final approval.

148. Site copyediting: As part of a possible brand refresh would you be looking to us to revamp site text content? If so to what extent?

RRCC 26-14-RFP01 Vendor Questions and Answers Page 23 of 64

149. Migration: Are there portions of your site that you know will not be migrated (archived)?

Answer: Already answered.

150. Can you provide further detail on the request for an integrated calendar? Does it push or pull data from disparate systems outside of the CMS?

Answer: RRCC desires a calendar that includes the academic calendar and current/future events added by assigned editors.

151. Please clarify the expected depth of the content audit and migration effort, including whether

RRCC expects a full page-level inventory of all content, a prioritized audit of key sections, and whether the selected vendor should expect to perform automated migration, manual migration, or a hybrid approach.

Answer: Already answered.

152. Site scale. Approximately how many pages, PDFs, and content editors/authors are in scope? This informs the content audit, training plan, and migration estimate.

Answer: See above for pages. Outside of the marketing team, fewer than 10 RRCC staff members currently have editing access. As part of the redesign, RRCC seeks support in defining user roles and permissions, and in establishing a governance structure that allows distributed content editing (content only, not site structure) with an appropriate approval workflow.

153. PDF accessibility remediation. The content audit will inventory site PDFs and recommend a remediation approach.