SW1075_Literacy_and_Math_Scree_EV00000955-Amendment_1.pdf

OMES FORM CP011 (11/2024) AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION | Page 1 of 14

Central Purchasing

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION

GENERAL INFORMATION

Date of issuance 08/25/2026

Solicitation/Event #

EV00000955

Requisition # 0900020763

Amendment #

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 Nicholas Linder

Phone 405-522-6606

Email Nicholas.Linder@omes.ok.gov

DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT

a. This is to incorporate the following:

On behalf of the State of Oklahoma, OMES gives notice of:

The following questions concerning this solicitation, received during the Q&A period, which closed on 08/10/2026. All questions and procurement/agency responses are detailed as follows:

Q 1. 1.a)The documents variously require literacy for K–3, math for grades 2–5, a system for K–5, screening “through grades beyond elementary,” applicability through the middle grades, and norms beyond elementary “not limited to K–3 or K–6.”

Please specify the mandatory grade coverage separately for:

(a) literacy screening;

(b) mathematics screening;

(c) progress monitoring;

(d) diagnostic assessment; and

(e) national norms.

A 1. (a) Literacy screening: Kindergarten through Grade 3.

(b) Mathematics screening: Grades 2 through 5.

(c) Progress monitoring: Same grade ranges as core screening (K-3 literacy / 2-5 math), with the instrument also usable through Grade 8.

(d) Diagnostic assessment: Same grade ranges as core screening (K-3 literacy / 2-5 math), with the instrument also usable through Grade 8.

(e) National norms: Norming must extend through Grade 12.

Q 2. What is the minimum grade through which the instrument must be administered and normed to satisfy the requirements for “middle grades” and “beyond elementary grades”?

A 2. The instrument must be usable through Grade 8 to satisfy the "middle grades" and "beyond elementary grades" requirements, and must be normed through Grade 12.

Q 3. Which grades does this cover? "Be appropriate for use in a universal screening context through middle grades". Is this Literacy and Math? Will this also be covered under the contract? Will these be census administrations? If not, what is the annual student usage per grade?

A 3. This applies to both literacy and math. Use at grades 6-8 is optional and district-elective rather than a statewide requirement; it will not be administered on a census basis and does not have an associated statewide per-grade student count. Bidders may propose this capability as an optional add-on in Exhibit 2, Pricing.

Q 4. Please identify which of these tasks is required by grade covered by the Solicitation (K-6?)

OMES FORM CP011 (11/2024) AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION | Page 2 of 14

• Phonological awareness

• Sound-symbol recognition

• Alphabet knowledge

• Rapid automatized naming

• Decoding and encoding skills

• Oral reading accuracy and fluency

• Vocabulary

• Reading comprehension

A 4. All eight listed tasks are required for the literacy screening system.

Q 5. Please identify which of these tasks is required by grade covered by the Solicitation (K-6?)

• Real-world problem-solving skills

• Procedural fluency

• Conceptual understanding

• Productive dispositions

• Math deficiency risk indicators, sufficient to identify students at risk for math deficiency and monitor math progress throughout the school year

A 5. All five listed elements are required for the mathematics screening system.

Q 6. Please define "diagnostic assessment"? Is the expectation that this is a stand-alone assessment/separate from the Screener? Is this for both math and literacy or just literacy? Is there an interest in a combined diagnostic/screener.

A 6. A diagnostic assessment is a tool that provides deeper analysis of student needs beyond the initial screener, to support instructional planning for students demonstrating reading deficiencies as well as students performing at or above grade-level proficiency. It may be either a stand-alone assessment or a tool combined with the screener; both approaches are acceptable. This requirement applies to both literacy and math. It is tied to the same grade ranges as core screening (K-3 literacy / 2-5 math) and must also be available for use through Grade 8. Bidders should propose the specific format, content, and technical approach for their diagnostic assessment as part of their response.

Q 7. Exhibit 1 requires demonstrated capacity for progress monitoring “up to once a week while maintaining valid results.” Must the proposed instrument contain alternate progress-monitoring forms validated for weekly administration in both literacy and mathematics, or is weekly availability of curriculum-based or diagnostic measures sufficient? Please specify the grades, domains, and evidence expected.

A 7. Progress monitoring must be available through Grade 8, aligned to the same domains as core screening (literacy and math), at a frequency of up to once per week while maintaining valid results. Bidders should describe their proposed approach to progress-monitoring forms and the supporting evidence for weekly administration as part of their response.

Q 8. Please clarify the page length for Appendices - what is expected to be included in those 15 pages?

A 8. The 15-page allowance is intentionally left open-ended. There is no required or fixed list of contents; bidders may use this space at their discretion to support their response.

Q 9. Exhibit 1 requires technical manuals, research studies, implementation examples, sample reports, a sandbox account, and key-personnel qualifications, while limiting the proposal—including appendices—to 40 pages.

Please confirm which materials may be submitted as separately labeled attachments or links outside the 40-page limit. Please also identify everything included in the page count, including the cover page, table of contents, Executive Summary, ATO confirmation, VPAT reference page, résumés, sample reports, and appendices.

A 9. The items presented for response in the Exhibit #1 technical response are the only items that are factored into the 40-page limit.

Q 10. Exhibit 1 includes a two-page Executive Summary within the Technical Response, while Bidder Instructions

§7.2 requires the Executive Summary in Bid Packet Section 2 and §6.1 directs bidders not to duplicate content. Should the Executive Summary appear only in Bid Packet Section 2, with a cross-reference in Exhibit 1? If so, does it count toward Exhibit 1’s 40-page limit?

A 10. The Executive Summary must be submitted only in Bid Packet Section 2. It should be cross-referenced, not restated, in the Exhibit 1 Technical Response, and does not count toward Exhibit 1's 40-page limit.

Q 11. May bidders summarize and cite technical evidence within the 40-page response and provide complete technical manuals, norming studies, validation studies, and independent research as supplemental attachments or active links? If links are permitted, will linked documents be evaluated?

A 11. Yes. Bidders may summarize and cite technical evidence within the 40-page Exhibit 1 response and provide complete technical manuals, norming studies, validation studies, and independent research as separately labeled attachments or active links; these materials will not count toward the 40-page limit.

Q 12. Bidder Instructions Section 9 states that bidders must submit financial information “if requested.” Please confirm whether audited financial statements and tax returns are required with the initial bid response. If they are required, please specify which documents and fiscal years must be submitted, whether both audited

OMES FORM CP011 (11/2024) AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION | Page 3 of 14 financial statements and tax returns are required, and whether the documents must be provided for the bidder, its parent company, or both. Please also confirm that Section 9 financial information is submitted separately, treated as confidential under 51 O.S. § 24A.5(1)(h), and excluded from Exhibit 1’s 40-page Technical Response limit.

A 12. Audited financial statements are not required to be returned with your bid submission, however the state reserves the right to request them at any point.

Q 13. Exhibit 1 establishes a 40-page limit for the Technical Response and includes a two-page Executive Summary, a Cost Proposal with no stated page limit, and 15 pages of appendices. The Bidder Instructions separately require the Executive Summary in Bid Packet Section 2 and pricing in Section 8 using Exhibit 2, while also directing bidders not to duplicate content across sections. Please confirm:

1.) Whether the Executive Summary should be submitted only in Bid Packet Section 2 and cross-referenced in the Exhibit 1 response;

2.) Whether the Section 2 Executive Summary counts toward Exhibit 1’s 40-page limit;

3.) Whether the Cost Proposal should be submitted only in Section 8 and is excluded from the 40-page limit;

and

4.) Whether Exhibit 1’s 15-page appendix allowance is included within, rather than additional to, the 40-page limit.

A 13. 1.) The Executive Summary should be submitted only in Bid Packet Section 2 and cross-referenced, not restated, in the Exhibit 1 response.

2.) No, it does not count toward Exhibit 1's 40-page limit.

3.) Yes, the Cost Proposal should be submitted only in Section 8/Exhibit 2 and is excluded from the 40-page limit.

4.) Yes, the 15-page appendix allowance is included within, not additional to, the 40-page limit.

Q 14. Must a bidder propose one integrated screening instrument that provides both literacy and mathematics screening, or may a bidder propose a coordinated suite consisting of separate literacy and mathematics instruments? If a combined suite is permitted, must both instruments share a single administration platform, reporting system, student profile, and pricing structure?

A 14. .A coordinated suite of separate literacy and mathematics instruments is acceptable only if it is fully unified: the instruments must share a single administration platform, a single reporting system, a single student profile, and a single pricing structure. A suite of separate instruments that does not meet all four of these conditions will not satisfy the requirement.

Q 15. Please define the evidence the State expects to establish that an instrument identifies “characteristics of dyscalculia.” Is a validated mathematics-risk screener sufficient, or must the instrument have classification-accuracy evidence against an independently established dyscalculia criterion? Please identify any required sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, reliability, or validity standards.

A 15. Bidders should provide the strongest available evidence of validity and reliability for identifying characteristics of dyscalculia, with preference given to externally or independently produced research. Specific sensitivity, specificity, or classification-accuracy thresholds are not prescribed; bidders should describe and support the evidence base for their instrument as part of their response.

Q 16. Must bidders provide Oklahoma-specific concurrent or predictive validity evidence for both literacy and mathematics against Grade 3 OSTP performance at the time of proposal submission? If Oklahoma-specific evidence is not yet available, will evidence involving comparable state summative assessments satisfy this requirement pending an Oklahoma validation study?

A 16. Concurrent and predictive validity against Grade 3 OSTP is a scored evaluation criterion (Assessment Quality, Validity, and Reliability), not a mandatory pass/fail requirement. Bidders without Oklahoma-specific validity evidence at the time of submission may present evidence from comparable state summative assessments, along with their plan for completing an Oklahoma-specific validation study.

Q 17. Does “state-configurable annual benchmark thresholds” mean authorized State administrators must be able to directly change thresholds through the platform, or may the vendor implement State-approved thresholds through a configuration process? Please specify required roles, approval controls, timing, validation expectations, and whether annual OSTP linkage and benchmark-setting work must be included in the proposed price.

A 17. The State Board of Education, in consultation with OEQA, must be able to annually define and reset benchmark scores without requiring a new instrument procurement. Bidders should describe how their platform supports this, whether through direct administrator access or a vendor-managed configuration process, and should include this functionality within their proposed all-inclusive pricing.

Q 18. Please specify the minimum functionality required to satisfy the pass/fail requirement to report student-level

OMES FORM CP011 (11/2024) AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION | Page 4 of 14 data directly to OSDE and OEQA, including required data elements, file format or API specifications, transfer frequency, identity-matching fields, security protocol, historical-data requirements, and implementation deadline. Will a secure CSV/SFTP export satisfy the requirement, or is a real-time API or direct State portal access required?

A 18. Acceptable methods for reporting student-level data to OSDE and OEQA include a secure web-based administrative portal, downloadable reports or data exports (e.g., CSV), an API, secure automated file transfer, or another vendor-supported method acceptable to the State. A secure CSV/SFTP export satisfies the requirement; a real-time API is not required. All data must be encrypted at rest and in transit, subject to controlled access and industry-standard security measures, hosted in U.S. data centers, and subject to the State's security certification and accreditation review (ATO) process. Bidders should propose specific data elements, transfer frequency, identity-matching fields, and historical-data handling as part of their response

Q 19. Please provide the current required data elements and reporting specifications for the Student Literacy

Intervention Plan (SLIP) and Individualized Math Intervention Plan (IMIP). Must these features be operational by the beginning of the 2027–28 school year? Should all design, development, maintenance, and future changes resulting from state guidance be included in the base per-student price?

A 19. The data elements and reporting specifications for SLIP and IMIP are still being finalized by the State. A fully integrated SLIP and IMIP feature is expected to be operational for use beginning in August 2027. The awarded vendor will be expected to collaborate with OSDE on the design, development, and maintenance of these features consistent with the Oklahoma Strong Readers Act, the Oklahoma Math Achievement and Proficiency Act, and subsequent state guidance. Ongoing development and maintenance of these features should be included in the base per-student, all-inclusive pricing.

Q 20. Exhibit 1 requires a successful rollout for the 2027–28 school year, but Attachment A states that the initial contract ends October 1, 2027. Please provide the anticipated award date, implementation start date, statewide launch date, and initial period of performance. Please also clarify whether pricing should include implementation activities occurring before the 2027–28 school year.

A 20. The anticipated award date is no later than January 2027. Statewide launch is expected in August 2027, with the selected vendor providing technical assistance and professional learning to districts before the 2027-28 school year begins. The initial contract term runs from contract execution through October 1, 2027, with up to four one-year renewal options and a final contract end date of September 30, 2031. Implementation activities occurring before the 2027-28 school year should be included in the proposed pricing.

Q 21. Attachment A identifies the final possible contract end date as “09/31/2031.” Please confirm the intended final end date.

A 21. Scrivner error. The contract end date should be 09/30/2031.

Q 22. Please provide estimated student counts by grade for literacy and mathematics, the estimated number of districts and schools, and any expected annual enrollment growth. Please also clarify whether pricing should cover all eligible students statewide or only students actually administered an assessment.

A 22. Pricing should cover all eligible students statewide (all K-3 students for literacy and all grades 2-5 students for math).

Estimated student counts by grade, along with district- and school-level enrollment, are published by OSDE at https://oklahoma.gov/education/services/student-information/state-public-enrollment-totals.html. Optional use at grades 6- 8 (see the response to Q3) is district-elective and may be structured separately in Exhibit 2 as an optional add-on.

Q 23. Attachment A requests multi-year pricing for a minimum of three years, while the contract may extend through four one-year renewals. Must bidders provide firm pricing for the initial term plus all four renewal years?

Please specify the contract year dates to use in Exhibit 2.

A 23. Bidders shall complete Exhibit 2 by providing proposed pricing for the initial contract term and each optional one-year renewal period. Pricing submitted in Exhibit 2 will be used for evaluation purposes and will establish the bidder's proposed pricing for each applicable contract year.

Bidders may propose different pricing for each contract year or fixed pricing for the duration of the contract. Any future request for a price adjustment during an exercised renewal term is not automatic and remains subject to the price adjustment provisions of the resulting contract and OMES approval. Bidders should clearly identify any pricing guarantees, stability commitments, or price caps offered in their proposal.

For purposes of Exhibit 2, Contract Year 1 is the initial contract term from contract execution through October 1, 2027.

Contract Years 2 through 5 correspond to each exercised one-year renewal period thereafter.

Q 24. Attachment A requests clearly defined pricing stability, guarantees, or caps, while Attachment B permits certain annual price-increase requests. Should bidders propose fixed prices for all contract and renewal periods, or may bidders identify annual increases or caps? If increases are permitted, what index, maximum percentage, and effective dates will be accepted?

A 24. See answer to Q23.

Q 25. Exhibit 2 does not provide designated rows for grade bands, literacy versus mathematics, implementation, integrations, annual validation, SLIP/IMIP development, or each renewal year. May bidders add rows or worksheets without changing the required pricing format? Please specify the pricing units and scenarios the State wants evaluated.

A 25. Yes, you can add rows and descriptors to clearly define the pricing elements and pricing structure you are bidding on.

OMES FORM CP011 (11/2024) AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION | Page 5 of 14

Q 26. Exhibit 1 lists a Cost Proposal but provides no page limit, while Bidder Instructions §7.8 requires pricing in Bid Packet Section 8 using Exhibit 2. Please confirm that all pricing should be provided only in Section 8/Exhibit 2, cross-referenced in Exhibit 1, and excluded from the 40-page limit. Please also clarify Exhibit 1’s reference to pricing “in accordance with Section 3.”

A 26. Yes the cost proposal should be provided in Exhibit #2 as a separate document and does not count against your 40-page technical response limit.

Q 27. Sandbox Access: Please specify when sandbox access must begin, how many evaluator accounts are required, the required access period, whether student and administrator roles must be provided, and whether the sandbox must contain representative literacy and mathematics assessments, sample student data, reports, and State-level data-export functionality. Please also provide a secure method for transmitting credentials.

A 27. The evaluation team requires 7 sandbox accounts with a 30-day access window. Bidders should describe their proposed process for provisioning accounts, including timing, user roles, and secure credential transmission, as part of their response.

Q 28. ATO status

Will confirmation that an ATO request was submitted satisfy the proposal requirement even if the State’s review remains pending on the bid due date? Is the ATO confirmation excluded from the 40-page limit?

A 28. Yes, you can submit a document showing your company’s submittal to the ATO process. Before you can move forward with award, we will verify that you have an approved ATO. It is excluded from the 40-page technical response limit.

Q 29. Accessibility documentation

Is a current VPAT 2.5 covering WCAG 2.2 AA required, or will another VPAT version or accessibility conformance report be accepted? Must the VPAT cover both the student assessment and administrative/reporting platform? Is remediation information required for partially supported criteria?

A 29. Please submit any accessibility documentation and/or a link to a VPAT that you currently have.

Q 30. Insurance timing

Bidder Instructions §7.3.5 requires a Certificate of Insurance with the bid. Must the certificate demonstrate all limits in Attachment B at proposal submission, including $2 million commercial general liability, automobile liability, and the specified cybersecurity/privacy coverage, or may coverage be increased after notice of award and before contract execution?

A 30. Yes, you can submit your most current insurance certificate however you will not move forward with award, if chosen, until a valid COI is presented.

Q 31. Applicability of sensitive-data provisions

The cover page marks FERPA but does not appear to mark CJIS, FTI, HIPAA, or other categories, while Attachment D contains extensive boilerplate provisions for those data types.

Please confirm that FERPA and Oklahoma student-data requirements are the applicable sensitive-data provisions and that requirements concerning CJIS, federal tax information, SSA data, HIPAA/ePHI, and other unmarked data categories do not apply unless such data are later placed within the contract’s scope.

A 31. It is expected that FERPA and Oklahoma student data requirements are the only applicable data however the state does include all protected data sets in our language in the event that such data categories do become in scope.

Q 32. Service-Level Agreement: Bidder Instructions §7.7.7 states that proposed service-level agreements must be submitted “if” required. Please confirm whether bidders must submit a proposed SLA with the initial response. If required, please identify the required service levels or minimum standards and confirm whether the SLA is excluded from Exhibit 1’s 40-page limit.

A 32. We are looking for you to submit your standard company SLA and providing it does not count against your 40-page technical response limit.

Q 33. Statement of Work: Bidder Instructions §7.7.8 states that a proposed Statement of Work template must be submitted “if” required for professional services. Please confirm whether the implementation, training, integration, configuration, SLIP/IMIP development, OSTP validation, or other services contemplated by this solicitation constitute professional services requiring a proposed SOW template. If an SOW is required, please confirm whether it is excluded from Exhibit 1’s 40-page limit.

A 33. We are looking for a copy of your standard company SOW template for review. Providing the SOW template does not count against your 40-page technical response limit.

Q 34. Do the demo accounts need to being within the same log-in space or can they be separate given the different grade bands for ELA and Math? How many accounts are needed? What types of accounts are required - Student, Teacher, Admin?

A 34. The evaluation team requires 7 sandbox accounts total, consistent with the response to Q27. Literacy and math platforms may use separate logins; a unified login space is not required. Across the 7 accounts, bidders must provide access to student, teacher, and administrator views. Bidders must also demonstrate the platform's capability to build and report an intervention plan comparable to the Student Literacy Intervention Plan (SLIP) and Individualized Math Intervention Plan (IMIP), consistent with the responses to Q6 and Q19.

Q 35. Do the reviewers to see functionality for SLIP and Math IMIP?

A 35. Yes. Reviewers must be able to see the platform’s SLIP and IMIP functionality during the sandbox evaluation.

Because the State’s SLIP and IMIP data elements and reporting specifications are still being finalized (see the response to Q19), bidders should demonstrate their platform’s current capability to create and report an intervention plan of this type, along with their approach to incorporating final state specifications once published.

OMES FORM CP011 (11/2024) AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION | Page 6 of 14

Q 36. Would just a math screener or just a literacy screener be accepted? Or must a company be able to provide a screener for both subjects?

A 36. Yes, bidders may propose a math-only or literacy-only screening instrument. Bidders proposing both subjects as a coordinated suite must meet the unification requirements described in the response to Q14.

Q 37. Many of our technical and research documents exceed 100 pages. May we include external links in our proposal for the State to access additional details if they wish to learn more?

A 37. Yes, consistent with the response to Q11. Bidders may include external links to complete technical and research documents that exceed the page allowances of the Exhibit 1 response, provided the 40-page narrative includes a summary and citation of the relevant evidence.

Q 38. Do we submit math and ELA separately or do they need to be in 1 submission

A 38. Bidders should submit a single proposal response. If a bidder is proposing only one subject (literacy or math), the response should address that subject only. If a bidder is proposing both subjects, the response must present them as a single, unified suite consistent with the response to Q14, not as two separate submissions.

Q 39. Hi! Will you accept bids for a literacy screener that is for grades 3-12?

A 39. No. Literacy screening coverage is required for Kindergarten through Grade 3, consistent with the response to Q1(a).

A literacy screener limited to Grades 3-12 does not meet this requirement. Separately, the instrument's ability to also be used through Grade 8 (progress monitoring and diagnostic use) and normed through Grade 12, as described in the responses to Q1 and Q2, remains an additional expectation beyond the core K-3 screening requirement.

Q 40.

Below please find our list of questions. We look forward to receiving the answers to help inform our submission. Thank you!

Questions:

In Attachment A on page 3, under “5) System Functionality and Deliverables – 15%” criterion “a” references “Section 1.4.” Does that mean Section 1.4 of Exhibit #1?

Please clarify which document layout and content should be followed: 1) the Bidding Instructions placement of the Executive Summary or 2) the Exhibit #1 breakdown and page requirements for the Executive Summary. The Bidding Instructions note that “bidders must respond to each section listed below” but the sections listed therein do not interface cleanly with the required page-based sections as listed and described in Exhibit #1.

Does the statement in Exhibit #1 - “All proposals may not exceed 40 pages in length (including appendices)” include the required signed forms (004/076), the required exceptions to terms, the required list of confidential information, etc., detailed within Sections 1-6 and 8-12 as described in the Bidding Instructions under item 7 “Response to Bid”? Or does the 40-page limit only apply to the Bidding Instructions “Section 7 Response to Specifications” - if so, is “Section 7 Response to Specifications” considered to encompass the entirety of Exhibit #1’s section “3. Proposal Submission Guidelines” components and component page limits?

Given the 40-page limit, will OSDE accept links that lead directly pages in online documents where evidence relevant to the required criteria can be found? The links would be prefaced by summarizing sentences including the key information responding to the criterion. Most technical and guidance documents needing to be referenced in order to provide a complete response are longer than the 15 pages allotted for appendices.

In Exhibit #1, Section 1.4 Deliverables, A. Screening Administration, the state requires that “The system must support state-configurable annual benchmark thresholds.” Would OSDE please clarify the expectation for “how benchmark thresholds can be updated by state administrators” with examples of acceptable methods for providing this information or access?

In Exhibit #1, Section 1.4 Deliverables, G. Data Management System, it states “The ability to report student-level data directly to the State Department of Education and OEQA is a statutory pass/fail requirement.” Would OSDE please clarify whether SFTP, API, or similar Ed-Fi-compliant method would suffice to meet this requirement?

In Exhibit #1, Section 1.4 Deliverables, H. Administration Requirements, the second bulleted item: what is meant by “implementation examples” and what evidence does OSDE expect to receive?

In Exhibit #1, Section 2.1 Required Qualifications, 3. Early Literacy and Math Expertise - what is meant by “expertise”? Would OSDE accept evidence demonstrating validation by third parties (e.g., state approvals for universal screening, national clearinghouse evaluations)?

In Exhibit #1, Section 3 Proposal Submission Guidelines, there appears to be overlap between the “Deliverables and System Functionality (5 pages)” section (requires “Description of assessment administration, reporting, and progress monitoring”) and the “Data and Reporting (6 pages)” section (requires “Sample reports (student, classroom, school, and district levels)”). Please clarify if report examples are needed within both sections or if it would be acceptable in the “Deliverables and System Functionality” section to reference the samples provided in the “Data and Reporting” section for the sake of space.

OMES FORM CP011 (11/2024) AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION | Page 7 of 14

In Exhibit #1, Section 3 Proposal Submission Guidelines, the section “Vendor Qualifications and Experience (1 pages)” expects the following information be provided within a single page: “Description of organizational background and experience” as well as “Relevant past projects and references” and “Resumes or qualifications of key personnel” components. Would OSDE accept links to external documents that contain information sufficient to completely address the requirements of this section?

Is OSDE looking for universal literacy screening in grades K-3 or K-5, and universal math screening in grades 2- 5 or K-5?

Would OSDE please confirm the outcome of the RFA as one vendor to provide both reading and math screening, or whether it is one vendor each (potentially the same or different) for reading and math screening?

If a bidder has fewer than 15 pages of appendices, may the bidder distribute that quantity of pages across other sections in their response?

A 40. • Yes, the reference to "Section 1.4" in Attachment A refers to Section 1.4 of Exhibit #1.

• The page-based structure and content requirements described in Exhibit #1, Section 3 (Proposal Submission Guidelines) govern the technical response. Bidders should organize their Exhibit 1 response according to Exhibit 1's section breakdown, and that response is submitted within Section 7 (Response to Specifications and Requirements) of the bid packet described in the Bidder Instructions.

• Per the response to Q9, only the items presented for response in the Exhibit #1 technical response are factored into the 40-page limit. Required forms, certifications, exceptions to terms, confidentiality statements, and other bid packet components described in Bidder Instructions Sections 1-6 and 8-12 are not counted toward the 40-page limit.

• Yes, consistent with the responses to Q11 and Q37, bidders may include links directly to relevant pages in online documents, prefaced by summarizing sentences addressing the criterion, without those linked materials counting toward the 40-page limit.

• See the response to Q17 regarding state-configurable benchmark thresholds.

• See the response to Q18 regarding acceptable methods for reporting student-level data. An Ed-Fi-compliant method may qualify as "another vendor-supported method acceptable to the State" described in that response;

bidders should describe their proposed approach.

• "Implementation examples" refers to evidence of the instrument's use in real-world settings, such as case studies, prior district or state deployments, or references describing the scope and outcomes of those deployments. Bidders should describe relevant prior implementations as part of their response.

• "Expertise" in early literacy and mathematics assessment may be demonstrated through the bidder's own research and development history as well as through third-party validation, such as state approvals for universal screening or national clearinghouse evaluations. Bidders should present the strongest available evidence, consistent with the preference for externally or independently produced evidence described in the responses to Q15 and Q16.

• Bidders may reference the sample reports provided in the Data and Reporting section rather than duplicating them in the Deliverables and System Functionality section, provided the reference is clear.

• Bidders may include links to external documents to support the Vendor Qualifications and Experience section;

however, the core response addressing organizational background, relevant projects, and key personnel qualifications should be included within the one-page allowance.

• See the response to Q1(a)-(b): universal literacy screening is required for Kindergarten through Grade 3, and universal math screening is required for Grades 2 through 5.

• See the response to Q36: a single vendor may bid on literacy only, math only, or both.

• The section page allowances described in Exhibit 1, Section 3 are provided to guide organization of the response within the overall 40-page limit. Bidders with fewer than 15 pages of appendices may reallocate that space to other sections, provided the total response does not exceed 40 pages.

Q 41. Individual districts may access student data through our platform and can download and provide it to the

State Department of Education and OEQA. Will this satisfy the requirement under items 1) and 2) of the Evaluation Criteria section on page 2 of Attachment A?

A 41. No. The State requires that OEQA and OSDE be able to pull student-level data directly from the vendor's system. A method in which individual districts access and download data from the vendor's platform and then separately provide it to the State does not satisfy the pass/fail requirement described in the response to Q18.

Q 42. Document: Purpose, Page 1

We understand that this solicitation will result in the identification of three reading and math instruments, and that the State Board of Education will select one screening instrument from the approved list.

Will this solicitation replace the following:

• Universal Screening for Risk of Reading Difficulties List of Approved Assessments

• Oklahoma Math Achievement and Proficiency Act list

• The contract associated with Solicitation EV00000396 (renewal options available through 2035)

Document Exhibit 1, Section 3 (Proposal Submission Guidelines), prescribes a proposal structure consisting of Executive Summary, Technical Proposal, Deliverables and System Functionality, Data and Reporting, Implementation Plan, Vendor Qualifications and Experience, Cost Proposal, Required Assurances, and Appendices, with a stated maximum proposal length of 40 pages including appendices.

However, the Bidder Instructions require a different bid packet structure consisting of Sections 1-12, including Cover Page, Required Forms, Certifications and Disclosures, Confidentiality Requests, Exceptions to Terms, Pricing, Business References, and other required submission components.

Please clarify how bidders should reconcile these two organizational requirements. Specifically:

OMES FORM CP011 (11/2024) AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION | Page 8 of 14

• Should the Exhibit #1 narrative response sections be submitted within Section 7 (Response to Specifications and Requirements) of the bid packet described in the Bidder Instructions?

• Does the 40-page limit apply only to the Exhibit #1 technical response narrative, or does it apply to the entire submission, including required forms, certifications, pricing, references, confidentiality statements, and other bid packet sections required by the Bidder Instructions?

Document: Exhibit #1, Section 3 (Proposal Submission Guidelines), prescribes a proposal structure consisting of Executive Summary, Technical Proposal, Deliverables and System Functionality, Data and Reporting, Implementation Plan, Vendor Qualifications and Experience, Cost Proposal, Required Assurances, and Appendices, with a stated maximum proposal length of 40 pages including appendices.

However, the Bidder Instructions require a different bid packet structure consisting of Sections 1-12, including Cover Page, Required Forms, Certifications and Disclosures, Confidentiality Requests, Exceptions to Terms, Pricing, Business References, and other required submission components.

Please clarify how bidders should reconcile these two organizational requirements. Specifically:

• Should the Exhibit #1 narrative response sections be submitted within Section 7 (Response to Specifications and Requirements) of the bid packet described in the Bidder Instructions?

• Does the 40-page limit apply only to the Exhibit #1 technical response narrative, or does it apply to the entire submission, including required forms, certifications, pricing, references, confidentiality statements, and other bid packet sections required by the Bidder Instructions?

To ensure consistent responses from all bidders, please provide guidance regarding the intended proposal structure and page-limit applicability.

Document: Exhibit 1, Page 8. Is there a page limit for the cost proposal?

Document: Bidder Instructions, Page 3. To ensure compliance with the State's expectations, please clarify how many separate documents/files the State expects bidders to upload as part of their proposal submission.

Specifically, should bidders:

• Submit a single consolidated proposal document organized according to the bid packet structure; or

• Submit multiple separate documents corresponding to the sections identified in the Bidder Instructions and/or Exhibit #1?

If multiple documents are required or preferred, please identify the specific documents the State expects to receive and whether any required forms, pricing, references, assurances, or appendices should be submitted as separate files.

Document: Bidder Instructions, Page 5. Section 7.7.4 of the Bidder Instructions states that, "If an information technology VPAT is required, the URL link to the bidder's VPAT shall be submitted in this section as a bid packet page referencing the VPAT."

While the solicitation indicates that the procurement includes IT components, we were unable to locate a specific requirement within the solicitation documents that states a VPAT must be submitted.

Please confirm whether a Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT) is required.

Document: Bidder Instructions, Page 5. Section 7.7.5 of the Bidder Instructions states that "for all IT solicitations, bidders are required to submit an Authority to Operate (ATO) or confirmation that an ATO has been requested" with their proposal response.

While the solicitation cover page indicates that the procurement has IT components, the solicitation is primarily for literacy and mathematics screening instruments and associated assessment services.

Please confirm whether Solicitation EV00000955 is considered an IT solicitation for purposes of Section 7.7.5 and, therefore, whether bidders are required to submit an ATO or proof of ATO request with their proposal submission. If an ATO is required, please clarify whether evidence of an ATO request submission is sufficient at the time proposals are due.

Document: Bidder Instructions, Page 7. The Bidder Instructions state in Section 9: Financial Information that "If requested, the bidder shall submit up to the last three years of audited financial statements and up to three years of tax returns.” Are tax returns requested?

A 42. • Yes. This solicitation will supersede and replace the existing Universal Screening for Risk of Reading Difficulties approved list, the Oklahoma Math Achievement and Proficiency Act list, and the contract associated with Solicitation

EV00000396.

• See the response to Q40 above regarding reconciling the Exhibit #1 proposal structure with the Bidder Instructions bid packet structure and the scope of the 40-page limit.

• See the response to Q47 below: no page limit applies to the Cost Proposal.

• Bidders should submit their proposal organized according to the bid packet structure described in the Bidder Instructions, with the Exhibit #1 technical response narrative submitted within Section 7. Required forms, pricing, references, and other bid packet components should be submitted as separate files where indicated in the Bidder Instructions.

• See the response to Q29: bidders should submit any accessibility documentation or VPAT link currently available.

• This solicitation is considered an IT solicitation for purposes of Section 7.7.5. See the response to Q28: bidders may submit confirmation that an ATO request has been submitted; an approved ATO will be verified prior to award.

• Tax returns are not required to be submitted with the initial bid response, consistent with the response to Q12; the State reserves the right to request them at any point.

Q 43. Thank you for the opportunity to ask questions. We have two additional questions to add to our list, which we will also send via email as well:

OMES FORM CP011 (11/2024) AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION | Page 9 of 14

In the Bidding Instructions, Section Nine: Financial Information, it is unclear whether the financial documentation requested is required be provided within this submission. Would you please confirm if this section is applicable to this solicitation?

In Exhibit #1, there is a 1-page section called “Required Assurances” that bidders must include. Will the State provide a template or expected format for bidders to use, or would two statements affirming the two listed items with a signature be sufficient?

A 43. • See the response to Q12: financial information is not required to be submitted with the initial bid response; the State reserves the right to request it at any point.

• It is acceptable for bidders to submit two signed statements affirming the two listed items in the Required Assurances section; no separate template is required.

• Tax returns are not required to be submitted with the initial bid response; the State reserves the right to request them at any point.

Q 44. Is OSTP correlation evidence is required at submission or can be developed post-award via a linkage study?

A 44. OSTP correlation and predictive validity evidence is a scored evaluation criterion, not a mandatory pass/fail requirement at submission. Consistent with the response to Q16, bidders without Oklahoma-specific OSTP correlation evidence at the time of submission may present evidence from comparable state summative assessments along with a plan for completing an Oklahoma-specific linkage or validation study post-award. Proposals will be scored based on the strength of the evidence available at the time of submission.

Q 45. whether literacy and math may be proposed as separately-evaluated components or must be a single integrated instrument?

A 45. See the responses to Q14 and Q36. Literacy and math may be proposed as separate, single-subject components by different vendors, or as a combined suite by one vendor. A combined suite must meet the full unification requirements described in the response to Q14 (single platform, single reporting system, single student profile, and single pricing structure).

Q 46. confirmation of the contract end date (09/31/2031 isn't a real date);

A 46. See the response to Q21. This was a scrivener's error. The correct final contract end date is 09/30/2031.

Q 47. Does the Cost Proposal counts against the 40-page cap?

A 47. No. See the responses to Q13(3) and Q26. The Cost Proposal should be submitted separately in Exhibit 2/Bid Packet

Section 8 and does not count against the 40-page Technical Response limit.

Q 48. Is ATO confirmation-of-request is sufficient at submission?

A 48. Yes. See the response to Q28. Confirmation that an ATO request has been submitted is sufficient at the time of proposal submission. An approved ATO will be verified before the State proceeds with award.

Q 49. Can you identify, by grade, the literacy and numeracy skills required?

A 49. The mandatory grade ranges for literacy screening, math screening, progress monitoring, diagnostic assessment, and national norms are specified in the responses to Q1 and Q2. Within those grade ranges, bidders should describe the specific literacy and numeracy skills and tasks assessed at each grade level as part of their proposal response.

Q 50. Can you define specifically which literacy tasks should be assessed at each grade level?

A 50. See the response to Q4: all eight listed literacy tasks (phonological awareness, sound-symbol recognition, alphabet knowledge, rapid automatized naming, decoding and encoding skills, oral reading accuracy and fluency, vocabulary, and reading comprehension) are required for the literacy screening system. Bidders should describe in their proposal which specific tasks and item types are administered at each grade level within the K-3 literacy screening range

Q 51. What is included in your expectations for phonological awareness (segmenting, blending, etc.)?

A 51. Bidders should describe the specific phonological awareness components assessed by their instrument, which may include rhyming, blending, segmenting, and sound manipulation, and at which grade levels each is administered, as part of their proposal response.

Q 52. Please define how to measure Productive Disposition.

A 52. Bidders should describe how their instrument measures productive disposition as an element of mathematical proficiency, including the constructs assessed and the methodology used, as part of their proposal response.

Q 53. Cost Proposal — Exhibit #1's submission guidelines specify explicit page counts for every section except Cost Proposal.

Please confirm whether the Cost Proposal counts toward the 40-page cap, and whether Bidder Instructions §7.8.1's

OMES FORM CP011 (11/2024) AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION | Page 10 of 14 requirement to submit it “as a separate document for ease of evaluation” means separate from the Technical Response only, or a fully standalone submission.

A 53. No, the Cost Proposal does not count toward the 40-page Technical Response cap, consistent with the responses to Q13(3), Q26, and Q47. "Submitted as a separate document for ease of evaluation" means the Cost Proposal must be a standalone document (Exhibit 2) separate from the Exhibit 1 Technical Response, not merely a separate section within a single combined file.

Q 54. Exhibit #1 states bidders must respond to each numbered section listed (§§1.1–2.2), while the Proposal Submission Guidelines (Exhibit #1, p.7) impose a different structure (Executive Summary, Technical Proposal, Deliverables, etc.).

Should the Technical Response explicitly restate and answer each numbered requirement, or is a narrative organized by the Guidelines’ headings acceptable as long as every requirement is addressed?

A 54. A narrative organized according to the Proposal Submission Guidelines' headings (Exhibit 1, Section 3) is acceptable, consistent with the response to Q40. Bidders are not required to restate and separately answer each numbered requirement in §§1.1-2.2, provided every requirement is addressed within the Guidelines' structure. Bidders are encouraged to include a requirements compliance matrix (see response to Q66) to help evaluators trace where each requirement is addressed.

Q 55. Bidder Instructions §7.2 requires an Executive Summary covering company/contact/marketing information as part of the overall bid, and Exhibit #1 separately requires its own 2-page Executive Summary (product overview, differentiators, alignment to goals). Please confirm these are understood as two distinct, purpose-specific Executive Summaries and would not violate the no-duplication rule in §6.1.

A 55. There is only one Executive Summary requirement, not two. Consistent with the response to Q10, the Executive Summary must be submitted only in Bid Packet Section 2; it should be cross-referenced, not restated, in the Exhibit 1 Technical Response. Bidders should not prepare a second, separate Executive Summary for Exhibit 1.

Q 56. The Bidder Instructions state "If requested, the bidder shall submit up to the last three years of audited financial statements and up to three years of tax returns..." Is Section 9 (Financial Information)…