SW1045_EV00000871_Amendment_2.pdf

OMES FORM CP011 (11/2024) AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION | Page 1 of 141

Central Purchasing

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION

GENERAL INFORMATION

Date of issuance:09/23/2026 Solicitation/Event #: EV00000871

Requisition # Amendment #: 2

Hour and date specified for receipt of offers is changed:

No Yes, to this date: and this time: CST

Pursuant to OAC 260:115-7-30(d), this document shall serve as official notice of amendment to the solicitation identified above. Such notice is being provided to all suppliers to which the original solicitation was sent.

Suppliers submitting bids or quotations shall acknowledge receipt of this solicitation amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation by doing one of the following:

1. Sign and return a copy of this amendment with the solicitation response being submitted.

2. If the supplier has already submitted a response, this acknowledgement must be signed and returned before the solicitation deadline. All amendment acknowledgements submitted separately shall have the solicitation number and bid opening date printed clearly in the subject line of the email.

Return to:

Contracting officer:

Benjamin Komolafe

Phone

Email:

Benjamin.Komolafe@omes.ok.gov

DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT

a. This is to incorporate the following:

On behalf of the State of Oklahoma, OMES gives notice of: Response to questions raised by bidders during the Q&A Session.

Due to the extensive number of questions submitted, this Q&A document may contain inadvertent errors, omissions, or inconsistencies. The issuing organization reserves the right to clarify or correct any information. Questions seeking clarification of an answer provided in this document may be submitted directly to the Contracting Officer for this solicitation;

however, submission of a question does not guarantee that an additional response or clarification will be issued. If any conflict arises, the original solicitation documents, including any formal amendments, will govern

Q 1. For the Services category, can a supplier provide individual qualified emerging-technology professionals on an hourly/time-and-materials basis to augment an agency's existing team, with the agency directing the day-to-day work, or are Services engagements intended to be deliverables-based/project-based where the supplier assumes responsibility for completing a defined scope of work?

A. The RFP does not establish open-ended agency-directed staff augmentation as a standalone offering.

Q. Does the Services category allow for staff augmentation models similar to SW1025, or is SW1045 intended to address implementation, integration, development and managed services that are distinct from staff augmentation?

A. No. Category 2 Services is intended to cover development, configuration, integration, testing, deployment, and managed operations. Hourly rates may support a SOW, but the SOW must define scope, schedule, deliverables, and total cost.

Q. For Services, may a vendor propose a resource-based delivery model using individual personnel with hourly rates, or must each resulting engagement be priced and performed as a defined project/deliverable?

A. See #2 above.

Q 2. Our firm works with companies developing and deploying emerging technologies, primarily helping them with commercialization and market readiness — including customer and stakeholder discovery, use-case development, business-case validation, go-to-market strategy, adoption, and scaling.

We don't primarily provide technical implementation services such as AI/ML engineering, data engineering, or solution architecture.

Based on the Scope of Work, would a firm with our service profile be considered responsive for Category 1, or is the intent that Category 1 bidders also have the internal technical ET capabilities and personnel

OMES FORM CP011 (11/2024) AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION | Page 2 of 141 identified in Section II.4.D?

I want to make sure we understand the eligibility threshold correctly before determining whether to submit.

A. Category 1 covers advisory, assessment, planning, governance, readiness, roadmap, and implementation support; you do not have to provide technical implementation services or respond to Category 2.

Q 3. Can you please confirm is this the renewal of the existing contract, if yes are you able to provide the incumbents and duration of the current contract?

A. This is not a renewal of an existing contract. The solicitation provides no incumbent list, prior-contract value, guaranteed spend, estimated SOW count, or committed volume. Each Purchasing Entity decides whether and how to use the resulting Master Agreements.

Q 4. Service Delivery & Assurance B.

For each category that Bidders are proposing, they shall provide two (2) examples of projects delivered to public entities, within the past five (5) years, that demonstrate their ability to provide services nationwide.

For each project, Bidders are required to:

A. Provide contact information;

b. Start and end date for the project; and

c. Project description Question: with reference to the above can we provide two (2) examples of projects delivered to Private /Commerical entities, within the past five (5) years, that demonstrate our ability.

A. No. The projects must be delivered to public entities to meet this requirement.

Q 5. We have identified postings for this solicitation on multiple state procurement portals. Please confirm whether EV00000871 is a single NASPO ValuePoint solicitation being administered by the State of Oklahoma as the Lead State, with the postings by other states serving only as participating/advertising notices, and whether Offerors are required to submit only one proposal through the Oklahoma Supplier Portal rather than separate proposals to each participating state?

A. EV00000871 is the Oklahoma Supplier Portal event and SW1045 is the statewide/NASPO solicitation identifier. Bidders should show both identifiers on proposal files and submit one response through the Oklahoma Supplier Portal; other-state postings are notices, not separate proposal portals.

Q 6. Attachment B states that, for each category proposed, bidders "shall provide two (2) examples of projects delivered to public entities, within the past five (5) years, that demonstrate their ability to provide services nationwide."

Attachment H, Category 1 - Experience, Requirement 1, asks bidders to "Describe three (3) recent engagements, from the past three (3) years, in which you provide consulting services around ET," and does not specify that the client be a public entity.

The two provisions differ in three respects: the number of examples required (two versus three), the lookback period (five years versus three years), and whether the client must be a public entity.

Q. Which provision governs the bidder experience response, and how many examples covering what period should bidders provide?

A. Both requirements apply. Provide two public-entity projects completed or performed within the past five years to demonstrate nationwide delivery and also provide the category-specific examples requested in Attachment H using its stated three-year lookback. A project may be reused when it independently meets each applicable requirement; commercial work may support Attachment H where public status is not required but cannot replace the two public-entity projects Q. May engagements delivered to commercial clients be used to satisfy this requirement? We note that Attachment H separately asks bidders to "Describe your experience working with government or public sector entities," which suggests public sector experience is evaluated as its own topic rather than as a condition of the experience examples.

A. Both requirements apply. Provide two public-entity projects completed or performed within the past five years to demonstrate nationwide delivery and also provide the category-specific examples requested in Attachment H using its stated three-year lookback. A project may be reused when it independently meets each applicable requirement; commercial work may support Attachment H where public status is not required but cannot replace the two public-entity projects.

Q 7. May bidders respond to the experience and technical requirements for Categories 1 and 2 in a Word document, which would include the Source Section, Req#, and Requirement text?

OMES FORM CP011 (11/2024) AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION | Page 3 of 141

A. Submit each required solicitation form in its native format where provided. Return Attachment H in Excel and Attachment I as a separate Excel file; supporting material may be separately labeled and cross-referenced. No proposal-wide page limit or special filename convention is stated, except the two-page scenario narrative limit.

Q 8. Ref: Attachment B, Scope of Work, Section II.4.

Question 1: The RFP requires Bidders to provide two (2) project examples delivered to public entities within the past five (5) years for each proposed category. Please clarify whether a project in which the Bidder performed services as a subcontractor to a prime contractor may be submitted as one of the two required government project references, or whether the referenced projects must be engagements in which the Bidder served as the prime contractor.

A. The solicitation does not expressly exclude work performed as a subcontractor. The proposed clarification is to allow it when the bidder identifies its role, workshare, scope, prime contractor, and an authorized reference contact.

Q. If a project performed as a subcontractor is acceptable as a project reference, please clarify whether the Bidder may provide the prime contractor’s contact information as the reference for that project, or whether the Bidder is required to provide the public sector end client/purchasing entity’s contact information.

A. Provide business contact information sufficient for verification. References are not required to submit a separate form unless later requested. For work products, submit a concise sanitized excerpt, sample, or representative artifact; if disclosure is contractually prohibited, explain the restriction and provide a non-confidential substitute.

Q 9. cDeFi All Odds LLC is a for-profit small business. Do we qualify to apply? Do we qualify as a participating entity as long as we coordinate with NASPO to confirm the entity’s eligibility to execute a Participating Addendum?

A. Yes, all businesses can submit a bid and the ability to participate depends on the outcome of the evaluation and if chosen for an award.

Q. 2) DeFi All Odds was invented as a Career Assessment backed by the National Science Foundation SBIR, Phase I & II, to help students and professionals discover their career paths in emerging technology and beyond. Crypto Tutors INC is the parent company of DeFi All Odds LLC and is filed under one tax form for both companies. The employees are the same for both companies. Visit DeFiAllOdds.com to learn more. The DeFi All Odds career assessment is based on hobbies and interests and provides 400 job title recommendations based on a patent-pending algorithmic system and database. For this contract, we would adjust the platform to only include job titles relevant to AI, Machine Learning, Quantum, Blockchain, Robotics, NLP, VR, and process automation. This is a great solution to help Americans think about careers in these new emerging technology industries. Do you recommend that we apply?

A. The state cannot make recommendations about whether or not you should respond to a bid opportunity.

Q. 3) RFP Overview / Attachment C, Stage 2: Are there any minimum organizational thresholds to be eligible for award, such as years in business, annual revenue, employee count, or financial-stability requirements? If so, please specify.

A. No minimum revenue, employee count, or years-in-business threshold is stated beyond the mandatory requirements and specified lead experience. Certifications are evaluated only where Attachment H requests them;

evidence should be relevant to the offered scope and current as of proposal submission.

Q. 4) Attachment H, "National Coverage": DeFi All Odds is an online business and provides coverage to all states in the United States. Is a physical location in all of the states required?

A. Nationwide capability may be demonstrated through offices, remote delivery, deployment capability, or approved subcontractors; a physical office in each state is not required. The solicitation does not state a minimum number of jurisdictions or a published point formula.

Q. 5) Attachment I, Rate Sheet, and Attachment C, Cost Evaluation: How is the "Total Blended Hourly Rate" calculated across the labor categories, as a simple average of all role and skill-level rates, or a weighted average? If weighted, please provide the weighting.

A. The evaluated Total Blended Hourly Rate is the simple, unweighted arithmetic average of the populated required row-level blended rates, as implemented by the AVERAGE formula in Attachment I. No labor mix weighting is published.

Q. 6) Attachment I, Rate Sheet: The instructions state rates are required for all labor categories. If a bidder does not offer certain labor categories, may those rows be left blank or marked "not applicable" without the proposal being deemed non-responsive, and how are unpriced categories treated in the blended-rate calculation?

A. Refer to the amended Attachment I. Attachment I instructs bidders to provide rates for all labor categories.

Blank, zero, or N/A entries could distort the average and should not be used unless the Lead State expressly permits them.

OMES FORM CP011 (11/2024) AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION | Page 4 of 141

Q. 7) Attachment I, Category 1 Scenario: Are the estimated effort ranges (for example, Phase A 1,800– 2,200 hours) binding for evaluation? If a bidder proposes fewer hours through efficiencies, will that be scored favorably for cost-effectiveness or flagged unfavorably as outside the range?

A. Category 1 effort ranges and the 70% remote/30% onsite assumption are evaluation assumptions for comparability. Bidder should remain within the published ranges unless an amendment expressly permits an alternative; efficiencies may be explained in the two-page narrative Q. 8) Attachment B / Sample Master Agreement: Are there specific security or compliance certifications, such as SOC 2, StateRAMP, CJIS, or FedRAMP, required to hold the Master Agreement, or are those addressed at the individual SOW level?

A. Prior to any award a bidder will be required to submit a security certification and obtain an approved Oklahoma Authority to Operate order (ATO). Other security or compliance certifications can be requested at the participating entity or SOW level.

Q 10. Does the offshore restriction apply only to personnel delivering contract services, or also to back-office functions such as recruiting, HR, corporate IT, finance, and internal systems?

A. Only to personnel delivering contract services.

Q. 2. Must the two required reference projects be Emerging Technology projects, or can they be other public-sector projects demonstrating nationwide delivery capability?

A. Per the requirements the reference projects need to relate to the category you are proposing. For each category that Bidders are proposing, they shall provide two (2) examples of projects delivered to public entities, within the past five (5) years, that demonstrate their ability to provide services nationwide.

Q. 3. How should the Total Blended Hourly Rate be calculated—simple average across all positions/levels or weighted?

A. The evaluated Total Blended Hourly Rate is the simple, unweighted arithmetic average of the populated required row-level blended rates, as implemented by the AVERAGE formula in Attachment I.

Q. 4. Can subcontractor past performance and personnel experience be used for Bidder Experience scoring?

A. The solicitation does not expressly exclude work performed as a subcontractor. The bidder should identify its role, workshare, scope, and an authorized reference contact.

Q. 5. Please confirm the correct naming/numbering for Attachment H and the Supplier Bid Submission Guide, as the RFP uses inconsistent references.

A. The Supplier Bid Submission Guide is Attachment L. The Attachment N reference is a clerical error; no Attachments M or N are included in the solicitation package Q. 6. For Category 2 Scenario 2B, please confirm the required work location/delivery model—remote, onsite, or hybrid.

A. 70% remote / 30% onsite (Oklahoma City metro) Q. 7. Please confirm the certificate holder name and address to be used on the required COI, including the Workers’ Compensation certificate.

A. State of Oklahoma Office of Management and Enterprise Services 2401 N. Lincoln Blvd, Oklahoma City OK 73105 Participating Addenda may impose additional entity-specific insurance.

Q. 8. Should the proposed lead’s resume be submitted as a separate attachment, included in Attachment H, or elsewhere in the proposal?

A. Attached at bid factor Seq Nbr 2 Company Information.

Q. 9. Please clarify the responsibilities and minimum qualifications for the proposed cooperative agreement lead beyond the required 5 years of public-sector leadership experience.

A. The state encourages you to provide the best candidate for the role of the cooperative agreement lead. The criteria is that they must have at least five years leading public-sector engagements and a resume must be provided.

Q 11. Reference: RFP Overview, “Important Dates,” items 2–3. Please confirm the applicable time zone for the

August 28, 2026 Q&A deadline and the October 15, 2026 proposal deadline.

A. The published dates and times controlling the RFP is Central Standard Time (CST) zone. Oklahoma time zone is Central Standard Time (CST).

Q. 2. Reference: RFP Overview, cover page; “How to Respond,” item 2(b). Should proposal documents display EV00000871, SW1045, or both identifiers?

A. EV00000871 is the Oklahoma Supplier Portal event and SW1045 is the statewide/NASPO solicitation identifier. Bidders should show both identifiers on proposal files and submit one response through the Oklahoma Supplier Portal; other-state postings are notices, not separate proposal portals.

OMES FORM CP011 (11/2024) AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION | Page 5 of 141

Q. 3. Reference: RFP Overview, “RFP Documents,” item 15; “Other Documents,” item 8. The first list identifies the Supplier Bid Submission Guide as Attachment L, while the second refers to Attachment N.

Please confirm that Attachment L is the correct designation and that no Attachments M or N are missing.

A. The Supplier Bid Submission Guide is Attachment L. The Attachment N reference is a clerical error; no Attachments M or N are included in the solicitation package.

Q. 4. Reference: Attachment B §§ I and II.1–II.2. May bidders select individual subcategories within Category 1 or Category 2, or must a bidder offer every subcategory within its selected category?

A. Bidders may submit a proposal for Category 1, Category 2, or both. Awards will be made at the category level; the State will not separately evaluate or award the Category 2 subcategories. Accordingly, a bidder proposing Category 2 may not select individual subcategories. The resulting Master Agreement will identify the category or categories awarded.

Q. 5. Reference: Attachment B § II.3.c. If subcategories may be selected, will the resulting Master Agreement identify the specific subcategories awarded to each contractor?

A. Bidders may submit a proposal for Category 1, Category 2, or both. Awards will be made at the category level; the State will not separately evaluate or award the Category 2 subcategories. Accordingly, a bidder proposing Category 2 may not select individual subcategories. The resulting Master Agreement will identify the category or categories awarded.

Q. 6. Reference: Attachment B § II.4.B; Attachment H, tab “Cat 1 – Experience,” Req. 1. May the two public-entity projects required by Attachment B also satisfy the three Category 1 ET consulting engagements required by Attachment H when they meet the applicable scope and recency requirements?

A. Yes, both requirements apply. Provide two public-entity projects completed or performed within the past five years to demonstrate nationwide delivery and also provide the category-specific examples requested in Attachment H using its stated three-year lookback. A project may be reused when it independently meets each applicable requirement; commercial work may support Attachment H where public status is not required but cannot replace the two public-entity projects.

Q. 7. Reference: Attachment B § II.4.B; Attachment H, tab “Cat 2 – Experience,” Reqs. 1–4. May the two public-entity projects required by Attachment B also satisfy the Category 2 project-example requirements?

A. Yes, both requirements apply. Provide two public-entity projects completed or performed within the past five years to demonstrate nationwide delivery and also provide the category-specific examples requested in Attachment H using its stated three-year lookback. A project may be reused when it independently meets each applicable requirement; commercial work may support Attachment H where public status is not required but cannot replace the two public-entity projects.

Q. 8. Reference: Attachment H, tab “Cat 2 – Experience,” Reqs. 1–4. May the same project be cited for more than one Category 2 subcategory when it included the applicable custom development, implementation and integration, testing and quality assurance, and/or managed services?

A. Yes, a project may be reused when it independently meets each applicable requirement; commercial work may support Attachment H where public status is not required but cannot replace the two public-entity projects in Attachment B.

Q. 9. Reference: Attachment B § II.4.B. Must each public-entity example itself have involved nationwide delivery, or should the examples collectively demonstrate the bidder’s ability to support customers nationwide?

A. Nationwide capability may be demonstrated through offices, remote delivery, deployment capability, or approved subcontractors; a physical office in each state is not required.

Q. 10. Reference: Attachment B § II.4.B; Attachment H, tabs “Cat 1 – Experience” and “Cat 2 – Experience.” Are projects performed as a subcontractor eligible when the bidder clearly identifies its role, responsibility percentage, scope, and prime contractor?

A. The solicitation does not expressly exclude work performed as a subcontractor. It is allowed when the bidder identifies its role, workshare, scope, prime contractor, and an authorized reference contact.

Q. 11. Reference: Attachment H, tab “Cat 1 – Experience,” Req. 6; Attachment D § XV.15.4.1. May a bidder rely on a proposed subcontractor’s corporate experience for evaluated requirements? If so, what commitment, workshare, and supporting documentation are required?

A. No. The experience provided in Attachment H, tab “Cat 1 – Experience,” must be the bidder’s own corporate experience. A bidder may describe a proposed subcontractor’s relevant experience as supplemental information, but it will not satisfy or be evaluated in place of the bidder’s experience required by Req. 6.

Q. 12. Reference: Attachment H, tab “Cat 1 – Experience,” Req. 10. Must bidders demonstrate corporate experience with every listed ET family, or will bidders be scored based on the technologies for which they provide relevant evidence?

A. Based on the technologies for which they provide relevant experience.

Q. 13. Reference: Attachment H, tab “Cat 1 – Experience,” Reqs. 1 and 3. Is submission of a work-product or roadmap sample mandatory? If so, may a bidder submit a sanitized or redacted client artifact?

OMES FORM CP011 (11/2024) AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION | Page 6 of 141

A. For work products, submit a concise sanitized excerpt, sample, or representative artifact; if disclosure is contractually prohibited, explain the restriction and provide a non-confidential substitute.

Q. 14. Reference: Attachment B § II.4.B.i. Will the project contacts be treated as references and contacted during evaluation? Please confirm the required contact information and whether references must submit anything separately.

A. Yes Q. 15. Reference: Attachment B §§ II.1.a.i and II.4.C.i. Please identify where bidders should submit the one-page staff-experience summary and the cooperative-agreement lead’s résumé.

A. As a separate attachment clearly labeled at attached on bid factor Seq Nbr 2 – Company Information.

Q. 16. Reference: Attachment B § II.4.C. May the cooperative-agreement lead be a committed subcontractor, or must the individual be an employee of the bidder at proposal submission?

A. If submitting a committed subcontractor, they must be identified as such in the resume.

Q. 17. Reference: Attachment B § II.3.b. May the same qualified relationship manager support more than one Purchasing Entity, subject to workload and Purchasing Entity approval?

A. Yes Q. 18. Reference: Attachment H, tabs “Cat 1 – Technical” and “Cat 2 – Technical,” National Coverage Req. 1. What constitutes the ability to “currently provide services” in a state: an existing office or employee, an active registration, a committed subcontractor, or the demonstrated ability to deliver remotely and deploy qualified personnel?

A. Nationwide capability may be demonstrated through offices, remote delivery, deployment capability, or approved subcontractors; a physical office in each state is not required.

Q. 19. Reference: Attachment H, tabs “Cat 1 – Technical” and “Cat 2 – Technical,” National Coverage Req. 1. Is there a minimum number of states or territories a bidder must select to remain eligible for an award?

A. No – but should be equivalent to the states you are using for references.

Q. 20. Reference: Attachment C, Stage 2, Mandatory Minimum Requirements. Please define “offshore resources,” including whether the restriction covers subcontractors, help-desk personnel, development personnel, administrative support, and personnel located in U.S. territories.

A. The pass/fail prohibition will be applied to personnel who perform contract delivery or access, process, transmit or store Purchasing Entity systems or Customer Data, including subcontractors. Corporate domicile and citizenship alone are not the test. Purely internal back-office staff with no delivery role or access should not be treated as delivery resources. Resources from U.S. territories and non-contiguous states are not considered offshore.

Q. 21. Reference: Attachment C, Stage 2, Mandatory Minimum Requirements. Please clarify whether the contiguous-U.S. data-storage requirement includes backups, disaster-recovery copies, logs, telemetry, prompts, metadata, and third-party platform data.

A. Correct; all state data is subject to the mandatory minimum requirements.

Q. 22. Reference: Attachment H, tab “Cat 2 – Technical,” Req. 6; Attachment C, Stage 2. Requirement 6 asks bidders to discuss global partners, while Stage 2 prohibits offshore resources. May global partner capabilities be described if no offshore personnel participate in contract delivery or access Customer Data?

A. Yes

23. Reference: Attachment I, tab “1. Instructions,” Category 1 and Category 2 Rate Sheet instructions. Must bidders provide a nonzero rate for every listed labor category, including categories not required for the bidder’s selected subcategories? Are zero or N/A entries permitted?

A. Attachment I instructs bidders to provide rates for all labor categories. Blank, zero, or N/A entries could distort the average and should not be used unless the Lead State expressly permits them. Additional roles should be proposed only through a clearly labeled 'Other' row or separate crosswalk without changing required formulas.

24. Reference: Attachment I, tab “4.1 Cat 2 – Rate Sheet,” Software Engineer rows 40–42. The sheet omits the Mid-Level designation and contains inconsistent Senior and Principal/Lead descriptions and qualifications. Please provide a corrected rate sheet or clarify the required levels.

A. Refer to amended Attachment I.

25. Reference: Attachment C, Stage 5, Category 2 Scenario Cost Evaluation; Attachment I, tabs “4.2.1 Cat 2 – Scenario” and “4.2.2 Cat 2 – Scenario Resp.” Attachment C directs bidders to select either Scenario 2A or 2B, while the response sheet presents both and states that complete pricing is required for all phases. Please confirm whether bidders must respond to 2A, 2B, or both.

A. Either 2A or 2B.

26. Reference: Attachment I, tab “4.2.2 Cat 2 – Scenario Resp,” columns I–K. The five-year lifecycle formulas appear to multiply Phase 1 and Phase 3 managed-service costs. Please confirm the intended calculation and issue a corrected workbook if necessary.

OMES FORM CP011 (11/2024) AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION | Page 7 of 141

A. Refer to amended Attachment I.

27. Reference: Attachment I, tab “4.2.1 Cat 2 – Scenario.” If a bidder selects Scenario 2A, may it pursue Category 2 without offering a proprietary managed AI service under Scenario 2B?

A. Proposing to provide a proprietary managed AI services is not a requirement to bid on Category 2.

28. Reference: Attachment I, tabs “3.2.1 Cat 1 – Scenario,” “3.2.2 Cat 1 – Scenario Resp,” and “3.

Cat 1 – Rate Sheet.” Please provide the required rate-sheet mappings for AI Strategist, Governance Lead, Data Architect, Change Management Lead, and Training Lead.

A. Refer to amended Attachment I

29. Reference: Attachment C, Stage 5; Attachment I, tabs “2. Summary Cost,” “3. Cat 1 – Rate Sheet,” and “4.1 Cat 2 – Rate Sheet.” Please confirm that the evaluated blended hourly rate is the unweighted average of every required labor-category rate.

A. Confirmed.

30. Reference: Attachment I, tab “1. Instructions,” Rate Sheet instructions; Attachment B § II.3.d.

Must hourly rates include all anticipated nationwide travel, or may Purchasing Entity-approved travel be separately reimbursed under the applicable travel policy at the SOW level?

A. For evaluation, proposed rates and scenario pricing must include the travel assumed in the workbook. Actual travel may occur only with Purchasing Entity direction and approval and under its travel policy. Any separate reimbursement must be expressly authorized in the SOW and may not cause pricing to exceed applicable ceilings.

Q. 31. Reference: Attachment I, tab “3.2.1 Cat 1 – Scenario,” Standardized Evaluation Assumptions, item 3. Does the 30% onsite assumption apply to 30% of total labor hours, particular roles, or scheduled onsite activities? May bidders propose a different onsite allocation while maintaining the required total effort?

A. Yes, total labor hours. No, bidders must stay within the requested allocations.

Q. 32. Reference: Attachment H, tabs “Cat 1 – Technical” and “Cat 2 – Technical,” Implementation and Promotion Req. 2. What reporting period should bidders use for cooperative sales volume, and may individual sales figures be claimed confidential in accordance with Attachment K?

A. Use the most recent completed fiscal year plus year-to-date, label the period, and claim confidentiality only as permitted by Attachment K.

Q. 33. Reference: Attachment C, Stages 3–4; Attachment H. Will individual Attachment H requirements be equally weighted within each evaluation stage? If not, please provide the available point allocation by requirement.

A. Yes.

Q. 34. Reference: RFP Overview, “Offeror Response,” item 3; Attachment H, Cover tab instructions.

Must Attachment H be returned in its original Excel format? May bidders expand response cells and submit clearly cross-referenced supporting appendices?

A. Yes, the offeror response template in Excel format can be expanded but does not support additional appendices to be added.

Q. 35. Reference: RFP Overview, “Offeror Response”; Attachment L, Supplier Bid Submission Guide.

Please confirm whether the technical response should be submitted as separate files by attachment or as one consolidated proposal packet, and identify any technical-response page limit or additional filename convention.

A. The technical and cost responses should be submitted as separate files by attachment.

Q. 36. Reference: Attachment D §§ V.5.5.1–5.5.12. How should hourly consulting and project-based services be represented in the NASPO ValuePoint eMarketPlace? Please confirm whether a hosted catalogue, punchout site, eQuoting, or another service-specific method will satisfy this requirement.

A. Upon award, NASPO ValuePoint’s eMarketPlace team will work with the Bidder to ensure pricing and/or services are represented to suit the nature of the awarded contract.

37. Reference: Attachment D §§ XIV.14.1–14.9. Do the AI Provisions apply to Category 1 advisory engagements when the contractor does not deploy an AI System, process Customer Data, or provide software?

A. Yes Q. 38. Reference: Attachment D §§ XIV.14.6–14.8. Are the data-classification, metadata-tagging, lineage, and reporting requirements limited to Customer Data processed by an AI System? May the associated tools and effort be defined and priced at the SOW level?

A. No, all state data is subject to contractor controls in addition to those used in delivery of AI. Associated tools should be disclosed in the bid response and effort will be defined and priced at the SOW level.

Q. 39. Reference: Attachment D § XII.12.2.4. This provision states that Intellectual Property Indemnification is not subject to limitations of liability, but no general limitation of liability appears in the Sample Master Agreement. Is the omission intentional, and will the Lead State consider an aggregate contractor-liability cap for obligations other than the expressly excluded intellectual-property indemnification?

OMES FORM CP011 (11/2024) AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION | Page 8 of 141

A. The Sample Master Agreement does not contain a general aggregate liability cap, and insurance does not limit contractual liability. A bidder may propose changes in Attachment J (and a red line if required), but acceptance is not guaranteed.

Q. 40. Reference: Attachment D §§ XI.11.3 and XIV.14.4.4. Please confirm that licenses to pre-existing Contractor Intellectual Property are limited to components embedded in and necessary to operate an accepted Deliverable, rather than all methods, frameworks, tools, or Intellectual Property used during performance.

A. Correct.

41. Reference: Attachment D § XIV.14.4.5. Please clarify whether the license covering future versions, modifications, and enhancements applies only to versions supplied under the applicable SOW and paid for by the Purchasing Entity.

A. Correct.

42. Reference: Attachment D § XIV.14.4.7. Does the prior-written-approval requirement apply to every open-source dependency and third-party component or only components incorporated into Deliverables? May standard open-source licenses and third-party pass-through terms remain applicable?

A. The prior written approval requirement applies when the Contractor incorporates third party IP or open-source components into the Deliverables. Whether standard third party terms remain applicable or must be negotiated will be determined by the Purchasing Entity.

Q. 43. Reference: Attachment D § XIV.14.3.2.1. What event, authority, test, or materiality threshold determines that an AI model exhibits bias or ethical concerns and triggers the 72-hour corrective-action evidence requirement?

A. The requirement is triggered when the Supplier or State identifies, through bias testing, monitoring, audit, incident review, complaint or other credible evidence, a material bias, discriminatory impact or material deviation from applicable legal, regulatory, or ethical requirements associated with the AI system. A final legal determination is not required before the obligation applies; however, minor statistical variation or immaterial performance differences alone do not constitute a trigger. The assessment should consider they system’s intended use, affected population, severity and scope of the impact, and applicable laws and standards. The Supplier is responsible for using appropriate industry-recognized testing methods and documenting the basis for its determination.

Q. 44. Reference: Attachment D §§ X.10.1–10.5. Does the one-year Product warranty apply to consulting services and advisory Deliverables? If so, may the applicable SOW establish service-specific warranty terms and acceptance criteria?

A. No. The one-year warranty in Attachment D §§ X.10.1–10.5 applies to Products and does not apply to consulting services or advisory Deliverables. The applicable SOW may establish service-specific performance requirements, acceptance criteria, review periods, and cure procedures consistent with the Master Agreement.

45. Reference: Attachment D §§ IX.9.3–9.5. Please confirm that each SOW may establish objective acceptance criteria, review periods, rejection procedures, cure procedures, and deemed-acceptance provisions appropriate to the services and Deliverables being ordered.

A. Confirmed.

46. Reference: Attachment D §§ XIII.13.1–13.7; Attachment A2, item 6. Please confirm which insurance certificates must accompany the proposal and which are required only after Master Agreement execution, Participating Addendum execution, or before performance begins.

A. A copy of your current Certificate of Insurance (COI) is requested with your submission, however, must be provided in accordance with the contract coverages within 30 days of the execution of a master agreement.

Q 12. CATEGORY & SCOPE

1. Can a Bidder propose for both Category 1 (Consulting) and Category 2 (Services) and be evaluated independently for each, or does bidding on both categories affect scoring in either category? (Reference:

RFP Overview, Section II) A. Yes, each category will be evaluated independently.

2. The RFP references "Emerging Technology" broadly. Does the scope include AI-powered regulatory compliance platforms, seed-to-sale tracking integrations, and government-mandated monitoring systems (e.g., Metrc/state cannabis tracking) as qualifying Emerging Technologies? (Reference: Attachment B — Scope of Work)

A. This solicitation is for consulting and professional services; it is not for the acquisition, licensing, or implementation of specific SaaS platforms. Technologies or platforms referenced in the question are not independently within scope. Related services would qualify only if they fall within the applicable service category and the

OMES FORM CP011 (11/2024) AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION | Page 9 of 141 requirements of a future SOW.

3. For Category 2 — Services, are SaaS (Software-as-a-Service) platform subscriptions an allowable delivery model, or must all services be delivered strictly as hourly consulting engagements? (Reference:

RFP Overview, Section II) A. No this solicitation is for AI project service delivery and not for the sale of SaaS solutions.

EVALUATION & SCORING

4. In Stage 3 (Bidder Experience), how is experience with state-mandated compliance systems (such as Metrc API integration with OMMA) weighted relative to traditional IT consulting project references?

(Reference: Attachment C — Stage 3) A. There is no distinction given to state-mandated systems relative to traditional IT consulting but whether the experience is with Emerging Technology projects.

5. For Stage 4 Technical Evaluation — National Coverage (10 pts), does having a live, production-grade platform already covering all 50 states satisfy the National Coverage requirement, or is physical office presence in multiple states required? (Reference: Attachment C — Stage 4) A. Nationwide capability may be demonstrated through offices, remote delivery, deployment capability, or approved subcontractors; a physical office in each state is not required.

6. Regarding the Blended Hourly Rate formula: if a Bidder's AI-powered delivery model significantly reduces the number of billable hours needed to complete a comparable scope, should this efficiency be reflected in the blended rate or described separately in the scenario narrative? (Reference: Attachment C

— Stage 5) A. We expect the scenario response to remain within the requested ranges for evaluation efficiency.

7. For Category 2 Scenarios (2A and 2B), will the detailed scenario descriptions be provided as part of Attachment I, or are they published separately? If available now, can you provide them? (Reference:

Attachment C — Stage 5) A. See Attachment I – 4.2.1 Cat 2 Scenario

8. The evaluation plan states that only the top 50% of bidders advance from Stage 3 to Stage 4. Is this calculated by total number of bidders per category, or by a minimum point threshold? (Reference: RFP Overview, Section VI) A. Point threshold

MANDATORY MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS

9. Regarding the offshore resources restriction: if a Bidder's cloud infrastructure provider (e.g., AWS, Google Cloud) has global data centers but the Bidder configures all instances to US-only regions, does this satisfy the requirement of not storing data outside the contiguous United States? (Reference: Attachment C — Stage 2) A. Yes.

10. Does the offshore restriction apply to subcontractors' employees as well, or only to the prime contractor's direct staff? (Reference: Attachment C — Stage 2) A. Subcontractors’ employees as well.

COST PROPOSAL

11. The RFP lists up to 44 labor categories in the Rate Sheet. Is a Bidder required to provide rates for ALL 44 labor categories, or only those the Bidder intends to utilize in delivering services? (Reference:

Attachment I) A. Yes, all labor categories. Blank, zero, or N/A entries could distort the average.

12. For the Blended Hourly Rate calculation, does the Lead State define "blended" as a simple average of all proposed rates, or a weighted average based on anticipated utilization? (Reference: Attachment C — Stage 5) A. Average

13. Can a Bidder include AI automation hours at a reduced rate (reflecting the efficiency of automated processing vs. human labor) in the Blended Hourly Rate, or must all rates reflect human-staffed positions?

(Reference: Attachment I; Attachment C — Stage 5) A. Rates must reflect human-staffed positions for the purpose of evaluating the scenarios.

14. Are there minimum or maximum rate thresholds? Will unreasonably low rates be flagged as non-responsive? (Reference: Attachment I; RFP Overview, Section VI) A. No rate thresholds exist. The answer to this does not affect your ability to bid.

15. For the Scenario Cost Evaluation, should Bidders assume a specific agency size, number of users, or jurisdiction scope, or is the Bidder expected to define these parameters within their scenario response?

(Reference: Attachment C — Stage 5; Attachment I) A. Please refer to the 3.2.1 Cat 1 and 4.2.1 Scenario tabs.

NASPO & PARTICIPATION

16. Once a Master Agreement is awarded, does the Contractor need to negotiate individual Participating Addendums with each state, or is the Master Agreement sufficient for all 50 states to purchase under?

(Reference: Attachment D; Attachment E)

OMES FORM CP011 (11/2024) AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION | Page 10 of 141

A. Contractor will need to negotiate with any states requesting a Participating Addendum.

17. How many Interested States have requested participation in this RFP? Is the list of Interested States in Attachment E available for review? (Reference: Attachment E) A. Six – see embedded attachments in Attachment E.

18. For small and woman-owned businesses (WOSB), are there evaluation preferences applied under Oklahoma's mandatory state preferences? (Reference: Attachment A — Section H) A. No

CONTRACT & TERMS

19. The initial term is 1 year with renewal options. What is the maximum total contract duration including all renewals? (Reference: RFP Overview, Section IV) A. One year (1) plus four (4) renewals for a total of five (5) years.

20. Is there a minimum revenue or purchase guarantee under the Master Agreement, or is all revenue dependent on Participating Entity adoption? (Reference: Attachment D) A. Dependent on adoption.

21. Can a Contractor modify or update its technology platform and service offerings during the contract term, or are deliverables locked to what was proposed at bid time? (Reference: Attachment D) A. Yes; see 4.3 Scope of Work Updates.

TECHNICAL & IMPLEMENTATION

22. For Bidders with existing production platforms (as opposed to those proposing to build new solutions), does the Lead State prefer demonstrated working technology over proposed future capabilities?

(Reference: Attachment C — Stage 4) A. The state does not declare a preference.

23. Does the Technical Evaluation consider live demonstrations of working technology, or is it strictly document-based? If demonstrations are permitted, at what stage would they occur? (Reference:

Attachment C — Stage 4; RFP Overview, Section VI) A. Demonstrations can be requested at any time prior to awarding a Master Agreement without obligation to do so.

24. Can existing government integration agreements (e.g., Metrc API agreements, OMMA system integrator status) be submitted as supporting documentation for Bidder Experience? (Reference:

Attachment C — Stage 3) A. Attachment H controls the number and format of examples submitted for scoring. Bidders must provide:

• Category 1: Three project engagements completed or substantially performed within the past three years.

• Category 2: One project example for each of the four identified service areas, completed or substantially performed within the past three years.

For each proposed category, at least two examples must involve public-sector entities and demonstrate the Bidder’s ability to support nationwide delivery. The three-year period in Attachment H is the controlling lookback period because it is more restrictive than the five-year period stated in Attachment B.

The same project may satisfy both Attachments B and H. A project may support multiple Category 2 service areas or both categories when the response separately explains the work, experience, and outcomes relevant to each applicable service area or category. Reuse of a project does not eliminate the requirement to provide three distinct Category 1 engagements.

25. Is there a page limit, word count, or specific format requirement for narrative responses in Attachment H (Requirements Response Table), or may Bidders provide responses of any length?

(Reference: Attachment H; RFP Overview, Section V) A. Contain all responses to the parameters of the response field in the Excel Attachment H response table.

Q 13. If a response in Attachment H exceeds the available spreadsheet space, may the bidder submit supplemental narrative pages or an appendix for that response?

A. Submit each required solicitation form in its native format where provided. Return Attachment H in Excel and Attachment I as a separate Excel file; supporting material may be separately labeled and cross-referenced. No proposal-wide page limit or special filename convention is stated, except the two-page scenario narrative limit.

Q 14. For Attachment H, how will evaluators distinguish between a satisfactory response and a high-scoring response for Category 1 technical requirements?

A. If it meets or exceeds the listed requirements.

OMES FORM CP011 (11/2024) AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION | Page 11 of 141

Q 15. Of the emerging technology domains identified in the RFP, which technologies does the State anticipate will generate the greatest demand from participating entities during the initial contract period?

A. The state does not have this information.

Q 16. For ET roadmap development, are there preferred planning horizons, such as one-year, three-year, five-year, or longer-term roadmaps?

A. No standard roadmap horizon is prescribed. Bidders should explain a planning horizon appropriate to the use case and may use near-, mid-, and long-term phases; each SOW may set a specific horizon.

Q 17. How does Oklahoma envision this NASPO Emerging Technologies contract coexisting with other existing

NASPO technology contracts held by a bidder?

A. SW1045 is a separate cooperative portfolio for the in-scope emerging technology consulting and services. It does not replace or modify another NASPO contract; a Purchasing Entity should select the contract whose awarded scope fits its requirement.

Q 18. 1. Attachment B, Section III.B; Attachment H, Cat 2 Experience, Req. 1-4. Will project examples performed for federal agencies be accepted as public entity experience?

A. Yes

2. Attachment H, Cat 2 Experience, Req. 1-4. Will project examples delivered by the Bidder's key personnel at prior employers, or by proposed subcontractors, be credited toward Bidder experience if identified as such?

A. No. The experience provided in Attachment H, tab “Cat 1 – Experience,” must be the bidder’s own corporate experience. A bidder may describe a proposed subcontractor’s relevant experience as supplemental information, but it will not satisfy or be evaluated in place of the bidder’s experience required by Req. 6.

3. Attachment I, Tab 4.2.2. The instructions state Bidders respond to only one of Scenario 2A or 2B, but the compliance check on the tab requires complete pricing for all phases of both. Please clarify which applies.

A. See Amended Attachment I.

4. Attachment I, Tab 4.1. The Software Engineer (AI Apps) rows list Junior, Senior and Principal levels with descriptions and qualifications that appear to be copied from other roles, and do not match the position chart in Attachment B. Please confirm or issue a corrected rate sheet.

A. See amended Attachment I.

Q 19. After reviewing the solicitation documents, we identified that the items in the attachment require clarification to ensure our proposal is fully compliant with the requirements.

Thank you for your time and assistance.

We look forward to your guidance so we can prepare a complete and competitive proposal.

A. No substantive question is stated in this entry, or the request cannot be resolved from the solicitation as written.

Q 20. We are writing to submit our questions regarding the RFP ”Emerging Technologies Consulting and

Services". Attached are some of our queries seeking clarification, please have a look at them and revert us with your answers.

A. No substantive question is stated in this…