The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
SOLICITATION ADDENDUM TWO
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
SOLICITATION NUMBER: 124065 O5
ONE RED Ag Data Bank and Grants Program Opening Date: February 23, 2026 Addendum Effective Date: February 10, 2026
Questions and Answers
Following are the questions submitted and answers provided for the above-mentioned solicitation. The questions and answers are to be considered as part of the solicitation. It is the responsibility of bidders to check the State Purchasing Bureau website for all addenda or amendments.
| Question Number |
| RFP Section Reference |
and/or Subject Area
RFP
Page Number
SCOPE OF BID (Split Award)
| 1. |
| Solicitation – Proposal Structure |
| 5–7 |
| Does NDWEE anticipate the possibility of a split award, such that an 'Administrative Prime' manages the grant disbursement and federal compliance, while a 'Technical Lead' provides the specialized Ag Data Bank, Support Infrastructure, ASP network, and/or AI modeling? If so, would the State prefer that bidders submit as a pre-formed team, or is the State open to facilitating a 'Master Integrator' structure post-award? |
NDWEE is open to the possibility of a split award that separates administrative and technical responsibilities. While the Agency’s preference is for proposing entities to clearly define roles and responsibilities through a pre-formed team at the time of proposal submission, the Agency is also open to allowing a master integrator structure to be established post-award, provided that roles, accountability, and coordination mechanisms are clearly defined and meet program and compliance requirements.
| 2. |
| Solicitation – Proposal Structure |
| 5–7 |
| Will NDWEE consider multiple awards or only a single prime contractor for this scope? |
| See response to question 1. |
| 3. |
| Solicitation – Proposal Structure |
| 5–7 |
| For purposes of proposal development, should proposers assume that NDWEE anticipates a single prime contractor responsible for all deliverables, or is NDWEE open to proposals where responsibility for different deliverables is allocated across team members or limited to a subset of the overall scope? |
| See response to question 1. |
| 4. |
| Solicitation – Subcontracting / Proposal Instructions |
| 5–7 |
| Do partnerships need to be explicitly identified prior to submission? Is NDWEE willing to consider submissions that partially meet requirements? Is NDWEE willing to structure the solicitation for multiple technical performers and a single systems integrator? |
| While the Agency’s preference is for proposing entities to clearly define roles and responsibilities through a pre-formed team at the time of proposal submission, the Agency is also open to allowing a master integrator structure to be established post-award, provided that roles, accountability, and coordination mechanisms are clearly defined and meet program and compliance requirements. |
| 5. |
| Solicitation – Procurement Process |
| 2–3 |
| Would NDWEE consider hosting an open proposer or vendor information session to facilitate teaming or partnership formation among interested parties? |
| No. Due to the current procurement timeline, NDWEE does not plan to host an open proposer or vendor information session. Interested parties may pursue teaming or partnerships independently. |
DATA BANK RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLATFORMS (Custom vs Off-the Shelf Platform Design)
| 6. |
| Solicitation Scope of Work § V.C, & Deliverables V.D.1 |
Attachment A §2.1; §2.4
25-26
7–9
To minimize project risk and speed up the ONE RED timeline, is NDWEE open to a 'Platform-as-a-Service' (PaaS) model? In this structure, a company would act as a technical subcontractor providing their existing, proven 'Ag Program Program Database and Dealership' software to the State’s chosen prime contractor. Would this 'license-and-implement' approach be viewed as a technical advantage in the scoring process compared to a 'build-from-scratch' proposal?
NDWEE is requiring the ONE RED Ag Data Bank to be a completely separate, platform that may be cloud-based. This platform may be based on existing, proven database software, but ONE RED data must not be integrated with data already held by the prime contractor or a technical subcontractor.
| 7. |
| Solicitation Scope of Work § V.C, & Deliverables V.D.1 |
25-26
To accelerate the ONE RED timeline and reduce technical overhead, will NDWEE consider proposals that license an existing, proven database of programs available in Nebraska in lieu of building a new repository from the ground up? If so, what would be the state’s requirements for the vendor to maintain and update program eligibility criteria?
See response to question 6.
| 8. |
| Solicitation Scope of Work § V.C, & Deliverables V.D.1 |
25-26
| Does NDWEE expect the Carbon Intensity (CI) Data Bank to be a purpose-built, custom-developed application owned by the State, or would NDWEE consider a solution primarily based on a configurable commercial platform provided all governance, consent, audit, and reporting requirements are fully met? |
| See response to question 6. |
| 9. |
| Solicitation Scope of Work § V.C, & Deliverables V.D.1 |
7–9
| Can NDWEE confirm whether proposers may leverage off-the-shelf or commercially available grant management software to partially fulfill the requirements of Deliverable 2, provided all functional and security requirements are met? |
| See response to question 6. |
| 10. |
| Solicitation Scope of Work § V.C, & Deliverables V.D.1 |
7–9
Our solution is built on the Google Cloud and Vertex AI stack, would the state consider a solution that resides within a 'Sovereign Data' framework where the state owns the instance and associated data, but the vendor provides the interface, tools, and maintenance via a license?
See response to question 6.
DATA BANK PLATFORM SCOPE
Scope of Work § V.C, & Deliverables V.D.1
Attachment A, 1.1
24-26
| Does the NDWEE intend for the digital interface developed under this RFP to serve exclusively the Ag Data Bank, Precision Ag, and Regenerative Ag programs, or is the vendor expected to build a portal that also incorporates residential programs like Pre-Weatherization and Community Solar? |
| The digital portal for the ONE RED Ag Data Bank and Grants program is expected to only serve that program and its participants. It will not serve or share data with other ONE RED programs. |
24-26
Will the Ag Data Bank be required to share or aggregate data with other ONE RED sectoral providers (e.g., residential energy efficiency) for statewide EPA reporting, or will those programs maintain independent reporting streams?
See response to Question 11.
24-26
In cases where a producer applies for ag grants (Precision/Regenerative) but also resides in a home eligible for the Residential Pre-Weatherization program, should the Ag Data Bank interface flag these multi-program opportunities for the user, or are the programs to be kept entirely siloed?
See response to Question 11.
24-26
| Does NDWEE envision the CI Data Bank and the Grants Program functionality operating as a single integrated platform, or as separate systems that interoperate through defined interfaces? |
| Producer participation in the Ag Data Bank establishes their eligibility for the grant programs, so there will need to be close interoperability between the Data Bank and grant platform functions. These functions should be presented to participants through a single, integrated, interactive portal, which could link to separate systems in the background. |
24-26
| Should vendors assume that the CI Data Bank and the Precision and Regenerative Agriculture Grants Digital Interface are expected to be implemented as a single integrated system, or would NDWEE accept two tightly integrated but distinct platforms? |
| See response to Question 14. |
24-26
Does the state envision the platform functioning as a White-Label Enrollment Portal where producers can apply for multiple state and federal grants (stacking) simultaneously, or is the platform strictly limited to the ONE RED programs?
No. The platform(s) will only serve the ONE RED Ag Data Bank and Grants Program.
24-26
| What are the expected structure(s) for submission and management of “Grant Applications” |
| In consultation with NDWEE, the selected vendor will develop, maintain, and operate a digital platform for the vendor and NDWEE to efficiently review, score/prioritize, and complete producer applications and payments. |
SCOPE OF DATA BANK ADMINISTRATOR DUTIES
§ V.D.2.1 & 2.3 Deliverables
| 25-28 |
| Is the awarded vendor expected to only build and operate the Ag Data Bank and digital grant interfaces, or also to administer the Regenerative Agriculture Incentive and Precision Agriculture Incentive programs (e.g., application review, eligibility determination, payment processing, producer support)? |
a. Is the vendor the first-call, primary grower-support provider or will NDWEE/Another party be the first on-call support provider with secondary support and technical guidance, etc. delivered by the vendor
In consultation with NDWEE, the selected vendor will develop, maintain, and operate a digital platform that enables both the vendor and NDWEE to efficiently receive, review, score, prioritize, and approve producer grant applications in accordance with NDWEE provided eligibility criteria. The vendor will serve as the first point of contact and primary support provider for growers. The Ag Data Bank Administrator will also design and manage workflows to process grantee reimbursement requests, issue payments, and provide direct support to producers.
§ V.D.2.1 & 2.3 Deliverables
| 25-28 |
| Which functions will remain the responsibility of NDWEE versus the awarded vendor, specifically related to: |
a. Producer enrollment and eligibility approval, Grant award decisions, Incentive payment authorization, Ongoing producer support and dispute resolution
See response to question 18.
§ V.D.1 & 2.3 Deliverables
| 25-28 |
| What level of ongoing operational involvement does NDWEE expect from the vendor following initial system delivery, such as technical support only versus active program operations support? |
| The prime vendor will be responsible for day-to-day operation and maintenance of the ONE RED Ag Data Bank and associated grant programs through the life of the contract. This will include the data and grant portal, payment system, customer support, and reporting. |
§ V.D.1.1 & 1.3 & 2.1 & 2.3 Deliverables
| 25- 28 |
| Can NDWEE clarify the intended division of responsibilities between the State and the vendor for incentive and grant payment workflows, including eligibility determination, authorization, and execution of payments? |
| See response to question 18. |
§ V.D.1.1 & 1.3 & 2.1 & 2.3 Deliverables
| 25, 28 |
| Can NDWEE clarify the anticipated division of responsibilities between the Department and the vendor for activities such as ASP onboarding, producer enrollment, and investigation or resolution of data discrepancies or potential fraud? |
| NDWEE anticipates that the vendor will lead ASP onboarding activities, with support from the Department as needed. Producer enrollment will be a collaborative effort, with NDWEE, the vendor, a potential marketing firm, and other relevant agencies and departments working together to drive participation. NDWEE also expects the vendor to conduct the initial review and resolution of data discrepancies and to coordinate with the Department as appropriate on any matters involving potential fraud. |
| 23. |
| Attachment A §3.1; §3.5 |
| 12-13 |
| Can NDWEE clarify which elements of grant administration are expected to be performed by the Contractor versus NDWEE (e.g., application review, eligibility determinations, reimbursement approval)? |
| See response to question 18. |
| 24. |
| Attachment A §1.5; §2.5 |
| 3-4, 9-10 |
| Does NDWEE expect the Contractor to lead producer outreach and engagement activities, or to support NDWEE- and partner-led engagement efforts? |
| NDWEE expects the Ag Data Bank administrator to support engagement led by NDWEE or other partners. |
| 25. |
| Solicitation Scope of Work § V.C, & Deliverables V.D.1 |
| 25-28 |
| Can the vendor utilize its own proprietary enrollment workflows for helping producers enroll in programs? |
The Data Bank administrator may use its own proprietary enrollment workflows to enroll producers as long as resulting data is fully aligned with the Ag Data Bank program.
§ V.D.1.5, D.2.5
| 25- 28 |
| Is the required Help Desk and support center intended to support only the Ag-related participants, or will it serve as the primary technical support line for all ONE RED grant recipients, including those in the residential and commercial building sectors? |
The Help Desk/Support Center will serve participants in the Ag Data Bank and Grants Program only.
§ V.D.1.5, D.2.5
| 26-28 |
| Does NDWEE expect the vendor to provide recurring training or onboarding support for new producers and Approved Service Providers throughout the contract term? |
| The vendor is expected to develop training materials for producer participants and Approved Service Providers and to maintain a help or support center to handle queries from participants and Approved Service Providers. |
DATA BANK TIMELINE
§ V.D Deliverables
| 25-29 |
| Will the program be rolled out in phases, or is statewide availability expected at initial launch? |
| It is preferred that the Ag Data Bank, grant interface, and program support components be developed concurrently and activated according to the Preferred Timeline dates for each Deliverable component. NDWEE anticipates beta testing of each platform after initial development. |
§ V.D Deliverables
| 25-29 |
| Can Deliverables 1, 2, and 3 (CI Data Bank, Grant Interface, Program Support) be activated independently, or does NDWEE anticipate awarding and activating all deliverables concurrently? |
| See response to question 28. |
§ V.D Deliverables
| 25-29 |
| Should vendors assume that all three Deliverables will be activated at contract start, or does NDWEE anticipate phased activation of Deliverables based on program needs or funding availability? |
| See response to question 28. |
| 31. |
| Solicitation § V.D. (Deliverables) |
| 25-29 |
| How does NDWEE define “system launch” for purposes of the June 2026 milestone? Given the number of concurrent deliverables targeted for completion by June 2026, is NDWEE open to prioritizing core functionality for initial launch with phased delivery of other features over time? |
| See response to question 28. |
§ V.D Deliverables
| 25-29 |
| The deliverables identify June 2026 milestones for core system functionality. Can NDWEE clarify whether this date is intended to represent initial operational capability, with additional functionality and operational maturity phased thereafter, or full production readiness across all program components? |
| See response to question 28. |
DATA OWNERSHIP AND PRODUCER CONSENT
Scope of Work § V.C, § V.D.1, Deliverables
| 25-26 |
| Does the State’s definition of 'Data Ownership' include the producer's right to revoke access to their historical CI data at any time, and if so, what is the required data retention policy for NDWEE’s reporting obligations to the EPA? |
NDWEE will not have ownership of a producer’s data. However, by enrolling in the Data Bank, the producer gives consent to the Data Bank Administrator access to the submitted data for the duration of the grant program. Producers will not have the right to withdraw data from the Data Bank. A producer and the DWEE must retain records in accordance with the terms and conditions of the federal award and any applicable state and federal rules and statutes.
Scope of Work
| 25-26 |
| Should producer consent apply prospectively only, or is the system expected to support retroactive consent changes affecting historical data access or visibility? |
| See response to Question 33. |
Scope of Work
| 25-26 |
| Does NDWEE have an established producer consent model that vendors must follow, or should vendors propose a consent framework aligned to Nebraska data governance requirements and EPA audit expectations? |
| NDWEE will work with the Ag Data Bank administrator to develop a standard producer consent framework. Potential vendors may include a consent framework as part of their proposal. Consent management and data governance must conform with state law. |
Scope of Work
| 25-26 |
| Are there specific Nebraska statutes, policies, or agency guidance that NDWEE expects to be explicitly reflected in the Data Bank’s consent management and data governance logic beyond what is stated in the RFP? |
| See response to Question 35. |
| 2 |
| Will NDWEE provide standardized producer consent language, or is the Contractor expected to develop and manage consent workflows? |
| See response to Question 35. |
DATA TRANSFERS
| 38. |
| Solicitation § V.D.1.1.e (Deliverables) |
| 26 |
| Does NDWEE anticipate API integrations to be limited to CI score submission and data intake, or should vendors assume broader two-way integrations with external systems (e.g., registries, reporting platforms, or grant-related systems)? |
| The Ag Data Bank vendor will be required to develop APIs to enable the intake of CI scores with supporting data and documentation. Subject to producer consent, the vendor may also support the transfer of data to external systems at the producer’s request, as well as the transfer of grant documentation and reports to the State of Nebraska Electronic Content Management System. |
| 39. |
| Solicitation § V.D.1.1.e (Deliverables) |
| 26 |
| To ensure the Data Bank provides maximum value to producers, does NDWEE require the platform to support bi-directional data synchronization with existing Farm Management Information Systems (FMIS) like John Deere Operations Center or Climate FieldView? |
The prime contractor will be required to work with existing Farm Management Information Systems (FMIS) to develop APIs to support transfer of data and information from the FMIS to the ONE RED Ag Data Bank. NDWEE does not anticipate transfers from the Ag Data Bank to a FMIS.
| 40. |
| Solicitation § V.D.1.f (Deliverables) |
| 25 |
| The RFP states a preference for compatibility with national and international registries. Does NDWEE know which registries it seeks compatibility with? |
The prime contractor may be required to develop APIs to transfer data (upon request of the producer) to one or more carbon registries such as Climate Action Reserve, VERRA VCS, or other commercial carbon registries as requested.
| 41. |
| Solicitation § V.D.1.f (Deliverables) |
| 25 |
| What “national and international registries" does NDWEE expect the CI Data Bank platform to be compatible with? |
| See response to Question 40. |
| 42. |
| Solicitation § V.D.1.f (Deliverables) |
| 25 |
| Section 1.f of the deliverables references compatibility with national and international registries. Can NDWEE clarify which registries or standards are contemplated and whether this implies data export, methodological alignment, or formal system integration? |
| See response to Question 40. |
APPROVED SERVICE PROVIDERS
§ V.C Scope of Work
| 24 |
| The RFP references 3rd party vendors who will assist farmers in understanding the carbon intensity of their grain. Can you provide examples of who these third party vendors are, and what service you anticipate they would use to develop initial CI scores for growers? |
The potential third party vendors could be key agriculture partners that will use approved methodologies for collecting the required inputs in order to calculate a CI score. The services they provide will vary depending on farmer participation and data availability. This could range from digital receipts for seeds to on-field soil testing depending on the vendor and their technical platform.
§ V.C Scope of Work
| 24 |
| Does NDWEE intend for the 'Approved Service Provider' (ASP) status to be granted to entities or to individual practitioners (e.g., a specific agronomist)? If the latter, will the State accept a 'Master Qualification' model where a company acts as the primary contractor responsible for the training, oversight, and CI-score accuracy of its sub-contracted ASPs/Enrollment Partners? |
NDWEE intends to allow Approved Service Provider (ASP) status to be granted to both entities and individual practitioners. NDWEE, in coordination with the selected bidder, will develop the criteria and requirements for ASP approval. The selected vendor will be responsible for ensuring appropriate training, ongoing oversight, and the accuracy and consistency of CI scores for all approved service providers operating under the program.
§ V.C Scope of Work
| 24 |
| Does NDWEE require the vendor to build a brand-new network of ASPs, or can the vendor leverage an existing network of the same (e.g., agronomists, crop insurance providers, and land managers) who are already trained in conservation program enrollment and have established trust with Nebraska producers? |
NDWEE Expects the program to include a mix of independent Approved Service Providers along with existing networks of providers. However, all service providers must be trained and follow ONE RED protocols and requirements.
§ V.C Scope of Work
| 24 |
| Will NDWEE provide initial approval criteria, documentation standards, or workflows for Approved Service Providers (ASPs), or is the vendor expected to design the ASP qualification, approval, and monitoring framework as part of the solution? |
| NDWEE will provide the initial approval criteria, documentation standards, and workflows for Approved Service Providers (ASPs) in collaboration with the vendor. The vendor will be responsible for implementing and supporting these processes within the system. |
AGRICULTURAL DATA
| 5 |
| What is the expected scope of “soil moisture levels, or crop health data” to be collected to satisfy program requirements? |
Data to be collected must be sufficient to support program monitoring, evaluation, and incentive calculations, but the exact parameters such as measurement frequency, geographic coverage, and level of detail are still being determined by NDWEE.
| 5 |
| For required reporting on soil health and water conservation metrics, does NDWEE expect the Contractor to calculate these outcomes directly, or to aggregate and report data provided by participants, ASPs, or NDWEE-approved models? |
| NDWEE expects data to be aggregated and reported based on vendor and NDWEE coordinated parameters |
TEMPLATES AND FORMATS
| 49. |
| Attachment A, § 1.4, 1.6 |
| 3-4 |
| Will NDWEE provide templates, reporting formats, and QA procedures for the Ag Data Bank program, or is the vendor expected to develop these assets? |
| NDWEE is developing QA procedures and will work jointly with the vendor to develop reporting formats and QA procedures that meet program and compliance requirements. |
| 50. |
| Attachment A, § 1.4, 1.6 |
| 3-4 |
| Beyond the quarterly and annual reports identified in the RFP, are there additional EPA or internal NDWEE reporting formats or templates vendors should plan to support? |
| At this time, NDWEE has not identified additional required EPA or internal reporting formats beyond the quarterly and annual reports described in the RFP. However, vendors should plan to support additional reporting as needed to provide inputs for a public-facing dashboard that will be developed by NDWEE, including the ability to generate data and metrics suitable for public display and transparency purposes. |
| 51. |
| Attachment A, § 1.4, 1.6 |
| 3-4 |
| Will NDWEE define the required data standards and submission schema for CI scores provided by Approved Service Providers, or should vendors propose a schema aligned with GREET and program requirements? |
| NDWEE is developing the data and documentation requirements for CI scores and calculations through the approved GREET model. NDWEE will share those with the vendor to integrate into the Ag Data Bank Platform. Vendors may also propose a schema aligned with the GREET model and program requirements as part of their proposal. |
DATA/CI SCORE VALIDATION
§V.D.1.4
Attachment B §7-B4
25 (of 27)
| Is the awarded vendor expected to generate or calculate CI scores directly, or will all CI scores originate from third-party providers? If third-party providers are anticipated, which entities are expected to supply CI scores, and what level of validation or acceptance responsibility would the vendor retain? |
| The ASP generates an estimated CI score, obtains the grower’s consent, and submits the score with supporting data to the Ag Data Bank. The awarded vendor, as Ag Data Bank Administrator, validates each CI score using the designated GREET model, compares it to the submitted score, and would be responsible to notify the submitter of any discrepancies before the score is recorded and used for incentive payments. |
| Is the expectation that CI calculations will be performed externally by Approved Service Providers using the FD-CIC tool, with the CI Data Bank responsible for validation, governance, storage, and auditing rather than performing calculations internally? |
| Yes. It would be expected that the ASP generates an estimated CI score, obtains the grower’s consent, and submits the score with supporting data to the Ag Data Bank. The awarded vendor, as Ag Data Bank Administrator, validates each CI score using the designated GREET model, compares it to the submitted score, and would be responsible to notify the submitter of any discrepancies before the score is recorded and used for incentive payments. |
| Is the Contractor expected to independently validate or verify data collected by growers and submitted by Approved Service Providers (ASPs) for use in CI score generation, or is the Contractor’s role limited to enforcing process, format, and tool (e.g., FD-CIC) compliance? |
| The Data Bank administrator will be responsible for validating (utilizing the GREET model specified by NDWEE) the CI score calculations provided by Approved Service Providers. |
In the event of a CI score audit failure by the EPA or a regulatory body, where does the state envision the primary liability resting: with the individual ASP who uploaded the data, or the Data Bank administrator? Additionally, does NDWEE intend to provide a 'Safe Harbor' provision for producers who act in good faith based on ASP-generated CI scores?
The producer and their Approved Service Provider are jointly responsible for the accuracy of the data and documentation required to calculate the CI Score.
Per the Scope of Work, the Data Bank administrator will be responsible for validating (utilizing the GREET model specified by NDWEE) the CI score calculations based on data provided by Approved Service Providers.
Will the state provide a standardized 'verification checklist' for service providers using the GREET model, or is the vendor expected to define the audit criteria for CI score validity?
NDWEE will provide a comprehensive list of data documentation and record-keeping requirements for producers and Approved Service Providers to facilitate verification. The vendor may be asked to review and provide input.
Can you elaborate on the expectations regarding verification in Section 1.1 (d) Integrate a payment system that automates the issuance of incentive payments once a valid CI score has been received, verified, and confirmed
a. Is the vendor expected to perform any verification or review of CI scores?
See response to question 54.
| Is the platform expected to support automated ASP performance monitoring and benchmarking, or is ASP oversight expected to be primarily administrative and compliance-based? |
| Both automated performance validation on each enrollment CI score as well as CI score compliance monitoring. |
| Does NDWEE expect the system to include automated fraud detection or anomaly detection related to CI score submissions and grant data, or will manual review processes be sufficient? |
| Vendors may propose automated fraud or anomaly detection features as part of their solution to enhance data integrity and support efficient review and validation. |
AUDITS
| 60. |
| QAPP §C; Attachment A §1.4 |
QAPP
15–16 (of 27)
| Are independent QA audits of the vendor’s systems expected annually, and if so, will NDWEE define the scope? |
| Annual independent QA audits of the vendor’s database system are required, with scope defined by NDWEE in collaboration with the vendor. The vendor is responsible for supporting the audit and addressing any findings in accordance with State requirements. |
| 61. |
| QAPP §C; Attachment A §1.4 |
QAPP
| Does NDWEE expect the platform to support ad-hoc EPA audit requests, including the ability to reconstruct historical CI determinations using archived data, inputs, and logic? |
| The ONE RED Ag Databank must be designed and managed to retain all submitted farm data needed to calculate and validate any submitted CI score and to make this data available to auditors designated by NDWEE or EPA if requested. |
| 14 |
| To what extent is the Contractor expected to actively monitor and audit Approved Service Providers versus providing tooling and reporting to support NDWEE-led oversight? |
| The producer and their Approved Service Provider are jointly responsible for the accuracy of the data and documentation required to calculate the CI Score. Per the Scope of Work, the Data Bank administrator will be responsible for validating (utilizing the GREET model specified by NDWEE) the CI score calculations based on data provided by Approved Service Providers. Data Bank Administrator would be responsible for notifying the submitter of any discrepancies before the score is recorded and used for incentive payments. |
| 63. |
| QAPP §C; Attachment A §1.4 |
QAPP.
| What level of participation is expected from the Contractor during annual EPA or NDWEE data quality audits? |
| The ONE RED Ag Databank must be designed and managed to retain all submitted farm data needed to calculate and validate any submitted CI score and to make this data available to auditors designated by NDWEE or EPA if requested. The Contractor should be prepared to assist NDWEE in answering questions, providing information, and addressing any data quality issues identified during the audit and to implement corrective actions as needed. |
TRANSACTION VOLUME
64.
Does NDWEE have target assumptions for:
a. Number of producers expected to enroll, Annual CI score submissions, Annual grant applications
NDWEE has a goal of enrolling 10,000 producers through the life of the program. Annual distributions/enrollment/submissions will depend on the pace of implementation, producer participation, and available funding.
Potential Enrollment:
· 2026: 500
· 2027-2029: 2000-3000 per year
Potential Grant applications:
· 2026: 50-100
· 2027-2029: 2000-3000 per year
65.
| Does NDWEE have target assumptions for annual incentive payment volume, including the total dollar amount expected to be distributed to producers each year? |
| See response to Question 64. |
66.
| Approximately how many Approved Service Providers does NDWEE anticipate onboarding during the first year of the program, and how is that number expected to scale over the contract term? |
| The number of Approved Service Providers (ASPs) anticipated for onboarding in the first year and over the contract term is unknown at this time. It would be reasonable to expect 10. |
67.
| Is there an estimated annual volume range for Precision and Regenerative Agriculture grant applications that vendors should plan system capacity and pricing assumptions around? |
| See response to question 64. |
68.
| Does NDWEE have any target budget ranges or cost expectations for individual Deliverables that vendors should consider to ensure cost realism? |
| Vendors should propose costs that reflect a realistic, efficient approach to completing all required Deliverables while keeping administrative costs as low as possible. NDWEE would expect project design, development, maintenance, and administration through 2029 to not exceed more than 8% of the overall program budget to maximize funds available for producers. |
69.
| Should vendors assume growth in users, data volume, CI submissions, and payment transactions over the contract term, and if so, are there thresholds NDWEE would like reflected in pricing assumptions? |
| See response to question 64. |
PRODUCER INCENTIVES
§ V.D.1.3
Attachment A §1.3
| How are producer incentive payments expected to be calculated and issued, including whether payments will be based on fixed incentive rates, production or bushel-based multipliers, CI-weighted performance metrics, or a hybrid structure? |
| The incentive structure is currently under development by NDWEE and has not yet been finalized. |
| How are producer incentive payment amounts expected to be defined, and are incentive levels intended to be fixed or programmatic subsidy amounts established by NDWEE, or performance-based and dynamically linked to a producer’s measurable contribution to lowering a biofuel facility’s total CI score? |
| See response to question 70 |
| Can NDWEE elaborate on the intended mechanics for incentive payments issued upon receipt of a verified CI score: i.e., are growers paid for CI scores regardless of whether qualifying management practices have been in place historically or are newly adopted? |
| Yes, participants will be provided with an incentive payment upon submitting a validated CI score and supporting documentation to the Data Bank, independent upon management practices. |
PAYMENT PROCEDURES
Sec V.D.2.1 & 2.3 Deliverables
| 27-28 |
| Will incentive and grant payments to producers be issued directly by the State of Nebraska, or is the awarded vendor expected to disburse funds on the State’s behalf? |
a. If by the vendor - What is the desired method of payment (ACH, redeemable payment voucher, check, etc)
The awarded vendor is required to develop a workflow to make payments through integration with banking or payment systems (e.g., ACH, digital wallets, or direct deposit platforms) to facilitate timely and accurate payments to participants.
| 74. |
| Solicitation Sec V.D.1.1 & 1.3 & 2.1, 2.3 |
| 26 & 28 |
| Are there existing state financial systems (e.g., ACH, treasury platforms) the vendor must integrate with, or is the vendor expected to propose a payment solution? |
| The awarded vendor is required to develop a workflow to make payments through integration with banking or payment systems (e.g., ACH, digital wallets, or direct deposit platforms) to facilitate timely and accurate payments to participants. |
| 75. |
| Solicitation Sec V.D.1.1 & 1.3 & 2.1, 2.3 |
| 26 & 28 |
| Does NDWEE expect the vendor to integrate directly with State financial systems for incentive and grant payments, or should vendors assume the use of third-party payment processors for disbursements? |
| See response to question 73. |
| 76. |
| Attachment A §2.1–2.4 |
| 7–9 |
| Should proposers assume integration with NDWEE’s existing grant management system or is NDWEE open to parallel or partially overlapping grant workflows? |
| The Ag Data Bank Administrator will be required to develop a system and workflow to receive, review, and approve grant applications following eligibility criteria to be provided by NDWEE. The Administrator will also be required to develop a workflow to process grantee reimbursement requests, to make payments, and provide direct support to producers. |
| 77. |
| Solicitation Sec V.D.1.1 & 1.3 & 2.1, 2.3 |
| 26 & 28 |
| Will the incentive payments (e.g., the $0.03/bushel CI incentive) be disbursed from a state-managed escrow account via the vendor’s API, or is the vendor expected to manage the actual flow of funds through a third-party merchant processor? If the latter, are the associated transaction fees intended to be part of the 'Admin Costs' in the Cost Sheet, or passed through to the grant budget? |
| The vendor will manage all the actual payments with producers then request reimbursement from the State monthly or weekly or at whatever cadence seems agreeable between the vendor and NDWEE. |
| 78. |
| Solicitation Sec V.D.1.1 & 1.3 & 2.1, 2.3 |
| 26 & 28 |
| If the vendor is involved in payment processing, what level of financial responsibility or liability is expected for: |
a. Payment errors, Delays, Fraud or misuse
Since the vendor is responsible for developing, maintaining, and operating the payment processing system, they assume responsibility for errors, delays, fraud, and misuse conducted by them or their subcontractor(s). Liability will be limited for similar actions by ASPs and producers which is why data validation and audits must also be performed.
| 79. |
| Solicitation Sec V.D.1.1 & 1.3 & 2.1, 2.3 |
| 26 & 28 |
| Are incentive and grant payments expected to be event-driven, batch-processed, or a combination of both, and are there preferred payment frequencies? |
| The awarded vendor is expected to develop an automated system to make incentive payments to participants as CI scores are submitted, based on predefined rules and thresholds developed by NDWEE. Grant reimbursements likewise will be single transactions upon receipt and successful review of reimbursement requests. |
| 80. |
| Solicitation Sec V.D.1.1 & 1.3 & 2.1, 2.3 |
| 26 & 28 |
| Should the system support partial or staged grant disbursements, or are payments expected to occur as single transactions following verification? |
| See response to question 79 |
IDENTITY VERIFICATION FOR PAYMENTS
| 81. |
| Solicitation Sec V.D.1.1 & 1.3 & 2.1, 2.3 |
| 26 & 28 |
| What requirements or standards will govern producer identity verification for payment issuance, such as third-party identity verification services, tax or banking records, or integration with existing state systems? |
| Producer identity verification for payment issuance will be governed by applicable state financial control policies, IRS reporting requirements, and industry best practices for identity assurance, including NIST SP 800-63 Digital Identity Guidelines. The system will support integration with third-party identity verification services (e.g., ID.me, LexisNexis, or equivalent) to validate individual and business identities using a combination of personally identifiable information (PII), knowledge-based checks, and document verification where required. For payment issuance, the platform will require validated tax information (W-9 for individuals or entities) and banking details. Bank account ownership will be verified through ACH prenote or micro-deposit verification prior to enabling payments. All identity verification results will be logged and auditable. |
| 82. |
| Solicitation Sec V.D.1.1 & 1.3 & 2.1, 2.3 |
| 26 & 28 |
| How are producer identities expected to be verified and submitted as part of enrollment and payment processing, including whether identity verification will rely on third-party services, government-issued identification (e.g., driver’s license or passport), tax records, or other approved documentation or systems? |
a. Will verification of crop production and/or land ownership/control be included?
See response to question 81. ASP and Data Bank Administrator would be responsible for verification and validation of data.
| 83. |
| Solicitation Sec V.D.1.1 & 1.3 & 2.1, 2.3 |
| 26 & 28 |
| What are the preferred identity providers (IDP) for use in the platform? |
| The system will support integration with third-party identity verification services (e.g., ID.me, LexisNexis, or equivalent) to validate individual and business identities using a combination of personally identifiable information (PII), knowledge-based checks, and document verification where required. IDP must be in conformance with state and federal law |
| 84. |
| Attachment A §1.2; §2.2 |
| 2 & 8 |
| Does NDWEE require integration with State identity or authentication systems for administrators or vendors? |
| See response to question 83 |
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND CYBERSECURITY
§V.D.1.2 & D.2.2
| 26 & 28 |
| Are there any existing State-standard platforms, cloud providers, identity systems, or technology standards that NDWEE requires or prefers vendors to align with for hosting and operating the CI Data Bank and Grants Platform? |
| The Ag Data Bank platform, cloud services, and identity systems must conform with policies and procedures in the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Cybersecurity Framework and must conform with state and federal law. |
| 86. |
| Solicitation – Contract Terms / IP |
III. Vendor Duties, § I
12–15
| Is NDWEE pursuing unlimited rights to developed software systems or "restricted" rights allowing the developing Contractor to retain commercialization rights? |
| See RFP Section: Solicitation – Contract Terms / IP |
III. Vendor Duties, § I
§V.D.1.2 & D.2.2
| 26 & 28 |
| Regarding the annual cybersecurity audit requirement, does NDWEE expect this audit to be conducted by an independent third party, and should vendors include the cost of such audits in their proposals? |
| Yes - NDWEE expects annual audits to be conducted by a third party. Vendors may include a breakout of this cost in their proposals. |
§V.D.1.2 & D.2.2
| 26 & 28 |
| Are there any State or NDWEE technology standards, preferred hosting environments, or prohibited technologies that vendors should account for when designing and costing their solutions? |
| See response to question 85 |
DATA AND RECORDS RETENTION
§V.E
| 30-31 |
| Beyond the requirements outlined in Section E, are there any Nebraska-specific data retention, privacy, public records, or disclosure requirements vendors should consider in their designs and cost assumptions? |
The ONE RED Ag Databank must be designed and managed to retain all submitted farm data needed to calculate and validate any submitted CI score for the duration of the contract. This data may need to be transferred to another repository at the conclusion of the contract. Grant data must be transferred to the State of Nebraska Enterprise Content Management System for long-term storage.
A producer and the DWEE must retain records in accordance with the terms and conditions of the federal award and any applicable state and federal rules and statutes.
§V.E
| 30-31 |
| Are vendors expected to implement full data lineage, versioning, and traceability for CI scores and environmental metrics sufficient to reproduce results several years after submission? |
| See response to question 89. |
SCENARIO MODELING
§V.D.2.1.c
| 28 |
| Does the NDWEE require the Scenario Modeling Tool to provide real-time estimates of financial ROI alongside CI score changes, or is the requirement limited to environmental impact (GHG) modeling? |
The scenario modeling tool is intended to provide recommendations on practices that would reduce CI scores. NDWEE does not expect it to include a financial component.
§V.D.2.1.c
| 28 |
| For the Scenario Modeling Tool, does NDWEE expect quantitative outputs aligned directly to FD-CIC metrics, or is a comparative or illustrative modeling approach acceptable for decision-support purposes? |
| The Scenario Modeling Tool is expected to make qualitative recommendations of practices that could lower a producer’s CI score based on their historical data. |
§V.D.2.1.c
| 28 |
| Should the Scenario Modeling Tool be designed primarily for producer self-service use, internal NDWEE grant evaluation, or both? |
| The Scenario Modeling Tool should be designed for producer self-service use. |
§V.D.2.1.c
| 28 |
| Does NDWEE anticipate that eligible regenerative or precision agriculture practices may change during the contract term, requiring the scenario modeling tool to be configurable and extensible by administrators? |
| Although eligibility is expected to remain consistent, NDWEE anticipates that preferred practices may change over time. The scenario modeling tool should therefore support administrative configuration and flexibility. |
§V.D.2.1.c
| 28 |
| Will the state allow for integrations with existing, AI-based scenario-modeling tools that already utilize GREET-aligned methodologies? |
Existing AI-based scenario modeling tools could potentially be used, upon NDWEE review of full documentation.
FUTURE PROGRAM CHANGES
| 10 |
| Are there anticipated policy, regulatory, or programmatic changes already known to NDWEE that vendors should account for in system design and pricing assumptions for the 2026–2029 period? |
| No, vendors must remain flexible to accommodate any changes that occur during the contract term |
| 10 |
| Are vendors expected to include the cost of future regulatory, reporting, or program changes within the base not-to-exceed amounts, or will such changes be addressed through contract amendments? |
| Contract amendments will be used if changes are needed. |
| 10 |
| What is NDWEE’s anticipated process for addressing any scope changes over the multi-year contract term? |
| NDWEE anticipates that any scope changes over the multi-year contract term will be addressed through a formal change process. |
| 99. |
| QAPP §A12; Solicitation Contract Terms |
Program change
| QAPP 11 (of 27); Solicitation 13–14 |
| At contract conclusion, what data handoff, archive, or transition support is expected from the Contractor? |
| NDWEE has not yet determined the specific requirements for data handoff, archiving, or transition support at contract conclusion. |
| Does NDWEE anticipate a full technology and operational transition at the end of the contract term, including knowledge transfer, documentation, and training for NDWEE staff to assume ongoing operations? |
| NDWEE has not yet determined the specific requirements for data handoff, archiving, or transition support at contract conclusion. |
This addendum will be incorporated into the solicitation.
SPB Form 26 Last Revised 4-17-2025