Updated Response to Offeror Questions document.docx

Vendor Questions & Answers for RFP# SDSU06252026 – SDSU Large Language Model (LLM) Search Optimization July 10, 2026 & July 15, 2026

Vendor A:

1. Does SDSU currently use any SEO, content optimization, or AI-search visibility tools today? If so, which ones?

a. SDSU currently uses Siteimprove and Google Analytics for website quality, accessibility, analytics, and limited SEO monitoring. SDSU does not currently utilize a dedicated LLM Search Optimization, GEO, AEO, or AI visibility platform. This procurement seeks a new solution in that category.

2. For scope purposes, should our proposal cover the primary sdstate.edu domain only, or should we also account for any subdomains or affiliated sites (e.g., athletics, specific colleges, admissions)?

a. Initial proposal and term is for sdstate.edu domain only. Additional domains could be considered under a separate contract.

3. Which generative AI platforms is SDSU most interested in monitoring for visibility and citations (e.g., ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Google AI Overviews, Copilot)?

a. Yes, we are interested in those and would like flexibility to adapt as the technology changes.

4. Who can we expect to be the primary day-to-day users of the selected platform (marketing, IT, communications, or individual departments), so we can tailor our workflow recommendations appropriately?

a. SDSU anticipates requiring a combination of administrative, contributor, and reporting-focused user roles within the proposed solution. For proposal and pricing purposes, vendors should assume the following approximate user populations:

i. Administrative Users: Up to 10 users responsible for platform administration, configuration, governance, reporting, and oversight.

ii. Content Contributors / Editors: Approximately 250 users responsible for reviewing recommendations and managing content within their assigned colleges, departments, programs, or website sections.

iii. View-Only / Dashboard Users: Up to 10 users, including leadership and other stakeholders, requiring access to dashboards, reports, and performance metrics without content management responsibilities.

b. User counts provided above are planning estimates and may be adjusted during implementation based on institutional needs, governance decisions, and the capabilities of the selected solution.

5. Is there a budget range or not-to-exceed amount associated with this engagement?

a. See RFP Section 2.4

6. What is the anticipated initial contract term, and are renewal options expected (e.g., 1-year vs. multi-year)?

a. See RRP Section 1.12 Length of contract

Vendor B:

Contract & Legal

1. Next Steps / Demo Process Can the State clarify the next steps following proposal submission? Specifically, is the State open to a custom product demonstration, and if so, what does that process involve?

See RFP Section 1.14

2. Contract Execution / Signature Will the resulting contract or agreement need to be signed by VENDOR? Please confirm the signature and execution process.

Yes

3. Section 1.11 — Proprietary Information Section 1.11 appears to provide that proprietary information submitted by an offeror becomes property of the State upon contract award. Can the State clarify the intended scope of this provision and confirm whether it is negotiable for the successful offeror?

South Dakota Codified Law (SDCL) Ch.1-27 and 5-18A require as stated in section 1.11. Certain portions or proposals are part of proposal logs and awarded proposals as well as the contract awarded, are public records. An awarded vendor can protect certain portions of the proposal to protect personal privacy or prevent disclosure of secure, proprietary data. Refer to section 1.11 for instructions on how to identify such items within the proposal.

4. Section 1.13 — Governing Law Section 1.13 designates South Dakota as the governing law. Is the State open to negotiating an alternate governing law provision as part of contract negotiations?

No

5. Section 2.2 — Termination Section 2.2 addresses termination but does not explicitly reference termination for convenience. Can the State confirm whether termination for convenience is included in this provision, and clarify how the termination terms would interact with a vendor's standard Master Subscription Agreement (MSA)?

The RFP is subject to the RFP Standard Contract Terms and Conditions, Section 2.9, applicable State of South Dakota standard terms, laws, regulations, and procurement requirements. Any contract resulting from this solicitation will be subject to review and approval by the State and SDSU, and contractual terms will be negotiated with the selected vendor as appropriate.

SDSU and the State reserve all rights available under applicable law with respect to contract termination. Vendors should not assume that their standard Master Subscription Agreement (MSA), End User License Agreement (EULA), Terms of Service, or other standard commercial terms will automatically govern the resulting agreement.

If a vendor proposes use of a standard MSA or subscription agreement, the vendor should include that document with its proposal and clearly identify any terms that it considers material to the proposed business arrangement.

6. Section 2.6 — Workers' Compensation Insurance Section 2.6 requires Workers' Compensation Insurance. Can the State confirm the specific coverage requirements (e.g., statutory limits) so offerors can validate their certificates of insurance meet requirements?

Offerors are expected to maintain Workers' Compensation Insurance in accordance with applicable federal and state laws governing the jurisdictions in which their employees perform work.

Product & Technical Scope

7. Of the ~9,000 pages, how many domains and subdomains are in scope? Are there specific high-priority sections (e.g., Admissions, Financial Aid, Academic Programs) that should be the focus of initial optimization?

Initial proposal and term is for sdstate.edu domain only. Additional domains could be considered under a separate contract. SDSU has not established a mandatory ranking of institutional use cases; however, the University anticipates that content areas with high visibility, high user demand, or high institutional impact may warrant particular attention during implementation and prioritization activities.

8. Does SDSU currently have defined content taxonomies, content types, or a structured sitemap, or would the vendor be expected to help establish content hierarchy?

No, the vendor is not expected to develop a content hierarchy.

9. Which specific AI/LLM platforms are highest priority for SDSU to monitor (e.g., ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews/AI Mode, Perplexity, Gemini, Copilot, Claude)? Are there specific AI-driven discovery scenarios — such as prospective students asking "best ag programs in the Midwest" — that the team wants to optimize for?

Yes, we are interested in those and would like flexibility to adapt as the technology changes.

Similar to standard SEO and keyword optimization, each section of the site will have specific topic optimization goals.

10. When the RFP references "detection of inaccurate, incomplete, or conflicting AI answers," does SDSU expect the vendor to proactively monitor and alert on AI-generated content about the university? If so, how frequently (daily, weekly)?

We are looking for a solution that will provide monitoring and alerts on an ongoing basis.

11. For "peer benchmarking against similar institutions," does SDSU have a specific peer set in mind (e.g., other land-grant universities, SDCAC conference peers)? How many benchmark institutions would be expected?

SDSU anticipates benchmarking against approximately 10 peer land-grant institutions but is open to larger benchmark groups if supported by the solution.

12. What analytics platforms does SDSU currently use (e.g., Google Analytics 4, Adobe Analytics)? Is there an expectation for the vendor to integrate with and pull data from these existing analytics tools?

SDSU currently uses Google Analytics for analytics. SDSU does not require integration with existing analytics platforms as a condition of the proposal. However, vendors should describe any available integrations with analytics and reporting platforms that may enhance the functionality of the proposed solution.

13. For "zero-click behavior" analysis, is SDSU looking for data on how often AI-generated answers replace clicks to university pages, or more broadly for search-engine-level zero-click data (e.g., featured snippets)?

The primary request would be related to AI-generated answers, but we would be interested in all levels of zero-click behavior.

14. Does SDSU want to monitor how third-party sources — such as Wikipedia, Reddit, YouTube, or Rate My Professor — influence how AI platforms represent the university? Or is the scope limited to SDSU-owned web properties?

SDSU's primary focus remains the optimization and measurement of authoritative institutional content within the sdstate.edu domain. However, the University recognizes that AI systems often synthesize information from a variety of sources beyond institutional websites.

SDSU is interested in understanding how third-party sources may influence the way AI-powered search and answer systems represent the University, its programs, services, and reputation. As a result, SDSU welcomes capabilities that provide visibility into external sources that may contribute to AI-generated answers.

15. Does SDSU currently track or intend to track how digital content performance connects to enrollment outcomes, application submissions, or other institutional conversion goals? If so, what systems house that conversion data?

Please describe the solutions for this type of reporting within the tool if an integration would be possible.

16. For the "AI-readiness scoring" referenced in Section 3.6, does SDSU have a baseline understanding of what factors should contribute to that score, or would the vendor be expected to define and calibrate the scoring methodology?

SDSU has intentionally not prescribed a specific methodology, scoring model, or required point scale for "AI-readiness scoring." One of the objectives of this procurement is to evaluate the maturity and effectiveness of vendor approaches for assessing how well institutional content can be understood, summarized, cited, and surfaced by AI-driven search and answer systems.

17. How frequently does the university's web content change? Are there seasonal publishing cycles (e.g., enrollment periods, application deadlines, academic calendar changes) that would require more frequent data refreshes or re-scoring?

Content is consistently changing throughout the year.

18. What level of Drupal integration does SDSU envision — read-only content ingestion via crawling, or does the university expect in-CMS content recommendations or modules that operate within the Drupal editorial workflow?

SDSU's primary expectation is that the proposed solution will be capable of analyzing content managed within the University's Drupal environment and providing actionable recommendations to content owners and administrators.

SDSU's preference is for a solution that minimizes complexity and ongoing maintenance while preserving institutional control of content, governance workflows, and publishing processes.

19. How many content contributors/users would need platform access? Are there distinct roles (e.g., view-only dashboards for leadership, edit/action for content teams, admin for IT)?

SDSU anticipates requiring a combination of administrative, contributor, and reporting-focused user roles within the proposed solution.

For proposal and pricing purposes, vendors should assume the following approximate user populations:

· Administrative Users: Up to 10 users responsible for platform administration, configuration, governance, reporting, and oversight.

· Content Contributors / Editors: Approximately 250 users responsible for reviewing recommendations and managing content within their assigned colleges, departments, programs, or website sections.

· View-Only / Dashboard Users: Up to 10 users, including leadership and other stakeholders, requiring access to dashboards, reports, and performance metrics without content management responsibilities.

User counts provided above are planning estimates and may be adjusted during implementation based on institutional needs, governance decisions, and the capabilities of the selected solution.

20. For "department and section-based access controls," does SDSU expect role-based views per academic department/college, or is this more about general admin vs. user access?

Role-based views per academic department/college

21. Given the August 2026 go-live target, what does SDSU consider "minimum viable" functionality at launch vs. capabilities that can be phased in over the first contract year?

Please describe the standard functionality that will be available at launch vs. what additional capabilities that don't currently exist.

Vendor C:

The following questions are submitted pursuant to section 1.10 of RFP #SDSU06252026 to obtain clarification of requirements. Questions are organized by RFP section reference.

3.2 – Foundational SEO

3.3 – LLM Search Optimization

SDSU recognizes that visibility, citation tracking, and answer monitoring capabilities may vary across platforms based on available data, APIs, platform limitations, and vendor methodologies. Vendors should describe:

· Which AI-powered search and answer environments are supported by the solution;

· How visibility is measured across different AI platforms;

· Any differences in monitoring methodology between AI-enhanced search experiences and standalone conversational AI tools;

· Any limitations or constraints associated with specific platforms;

Recommendations regarding the most effective approach to measuring AI visibility and answer quality across the evolving AI search ecosystem.

Rather, this requirement is intended to ensure that the university retains ownership and control of its content and can reasonably transition to another solution in the future without being dependent on proprietary content formats, workflows, or structures that cannot be exported, reused, or managed outside the vendor's platform.

One of the objectives of this RFP is to identify a solution that can help the University establish a baseline understanding of how SDSU is represented across AI-powered search and answer platforms and identify opportunities for improvement.

3.4 – Performance Measurement and Analytics

For proposal and pricing purposes, vendors should assume the following approximate user populations:

· Administrative Users: Up to 10 users responsible for platform administration, configuration, governance, reporting, and oversight.

· Content Contributors / Editors: Approximately 250 users responsible for reviewing recommendations and managing content within their assigned colleges, departments, programs, or website sections.

· View-Only / Dashboard Users: Up to 10 users, including leadership and other stakeholders, requiring access to dashboards, reports, and performance metrics without content management responsibilities.

User counts provided above are planning estimates and may be adjusted during implementation based on institutional needs, governance decisions, and the capabilities of the selected solution.

3.5 – Content Gap, Risk, and Quality Analysis

3.6 – Actionable Content Optimization Recommendations

3.7 – Workflow, Usability, Governance

3.9.1 – Security and Compliance

3.9.2 – System Architecture and Integration

3.9.3 – Content Ingestion and Indexing

2.4 and 2.15 – Contract, Pricing, and IP Ownership

2.6 – Insurance Requirements

Vendors should assume that the insurance requirements stated in the RFP remain applicable for proposal purposes. If a vendor believes a specific requirement is not applicable to its proposed solution or business model, the vendor should identify that exception in its proposal and provide supporting rationale for decision making by SDSU.

5.0 – Proposal Format and Submission

Total questions submitted: 39

Vendor D:

1. If selected for award, is the successful vendor required to register as a business in the State of South Dakota prior to contract execution or performance?

a. It is the responsibility of the vendor to confirm whether they are required to register with the State of South Dakota to do business.

2. Are there any local, county, or municipal business licenses, registrations, permits, or authorizations required for vendors performing services under this contract?

a. It is the responsibility of vendor to confirm these.

3. Does South Dakota State University require vendors to maintain a physical presence in South Dakota to perform this engagement?

a. No

4. The RFP references security documentation (SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001, NIST CSF, HECVAT, VPAT, etc.). Are equivalent security controls or alternative documentation acceptable if a proposer does not maintain every listed certification?

a. Reasonable alternative documentation is acceptable but not preferred.

5. Will South Dakota State University accept a phased approach for security documentation if certain certifications are in progress or maintained by an affiliated technology provider?

a. To ensure an efficient and thorough evaluation of the proposal and vendor, we request that these documents are not provided in a phased manner.

6. Can the University provide any additional details regarding the expected technical environment, including existing CMS integrations, authentication methods, or identity management platforms that the selected vendor will be expected to support?

a. SDSU's primary web environment is based on Drupal 10, and vendors should assume that any CMS-related integrations will need to support the current production Drupal environment and future supported Drupal versions.

7. Is there an anticipated implementation timeline following contract award, including any required kickoff or deployment milestones?

a. SDSU anticipates contract award in August 2026. The implementation start date will be negotiated with the selected vendor based on project readiness, resource availability, and agreed-upon implementation planning.

8. Can the University provide additional information regarding the expected volume of content, websites, or domains to be included beyond the approximate 9,000 pages referenced in the RFP?

a. Initial proposal and term is for sdstate.edu domain only. Additional domains could be considered under a separate contract.

9. Are there any incumbent vendors currently providing these services, and if so, will transition assistance or historical data be made available to the selected vendor?

a. This is a new solution for SDSU.

10. Does SDSU currently utilize an enterprise SEO and/or AI Search Optimization platform (such as BrightEdge, Conductor, Siteimprove, SEMrush, or similar), or is the University seeking a new solution through this procurement?

a. SDSU currently uses Siteimprove and Google Analytics for website quality, accessibility, analytics, and limited SEO monitoring. SDSU does not currently utilize a dedicated LLM Search Optimization, GEO, AEO, or AI visibility platform. This procurement seeks a new solution in that category.

11. Are AI visibility monitoring, citation tracking, and AI-generated answer monitoring expected to be provided through automated platform functionality, or would managed services that include periodic monitoring, reporting, and strategic recommendations satisfy the University's requirements?

a. Batch reporting features within the tools is acceptable.

12. When referencing Drupal integration, is the University seeking a direct CMS integration, or would an external platform that analyzes and provides recommendations for Drupal-managed content be acceptable?

a. SDSU's preference is for a solution that can analyze and optimize content managed within the University's Drupal environment; however, SDSU does not require a direct CMS integration as a condition of proposal submission.

An external platform that ingests, analyzes, and provides recommendations for Drupal-managed content is acceptable, provided it meets the functional, reporting, governance, and security requirements defined in the RFP.

13. Will the selected vendor be expected to implement content recommendations and optimization activities, or is the University's expectation that the selected vendor will identify and prioritize opportunities while SDSU staff execute the content changes?

a. SDSU retains ownership and approval authority for content changes. Vendors may propose implementation assistance, consulting, or managed services; however, institutional content publishing and approval authority will remain with SDSU.

14. Which AI-powered search and answer platforms are considered in scope for optimization and reporting (e.g., Google AI Overviews, ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Perplexity, Microsoft Copilot, or others), and are all of these expected to be supported?

a. Yes, we are interested in those and would like flexibility to adapt as the technology changes.

15. Does the University anticipate that the selected vendor will primarily provide strategic recommendations and governance, or is the expectation that the vendor will actively manage and optimize the platform on an ongoing basis?

a. SDSU's preference is for a software platform that provides the functionality described in the RFP. However, vendors may propose professional services, strategic consulting, managed services, or hybrid approaches that enhance the University's ability to achieve its objectives.

16. Is the University seeking a software platform, professional services, or a combined solution? If a technology solution is expected, must it be a proprietary platform, or are managed services supported by industry-standard technologies acceptable?

a. SDSU's preference is for a software platform that provides the required functionality; however, vendors may propose professional services, managed services, or hybrid delivery models that enhance the University's ability to achieve the objectives of the RFP.

17. What reporting cadence does the University anticipate (e.g., monthly, quarterly, or another schedule), and are executive-level dashboards expected as part of the engagement?

a. Please describe the reporting capabilities available within the solution.

18. Will the selected vendor be provided access to existing analytics platforms (e.g., Google Analytics, Google Search Console, Bing Webmaster Tools, or other SEO reporting tools) as part of the engagement?

a. SDSU does not require integration with existing analytics platforms as a condition of the proposal. However, access to Google Analytics and other available analytics resources may be provided if supported by the proposed solution.

19. How will South Dakota State University measure the success of this engagement during the initial contract term? Are there specific KPIs or performance outcomes the University expects the selected vendor to achieve?

a. SDSU has not established specific KPI thresholds, accuracy requirements, or visibility improvement targets for this procurement. Because LLM visibility and answer-engine optimization are evolving rapidly and institutional baselines have not yet been established, SDSU is seeking vendor expertise in defining meaningful and measurable performance indicators as part of implementation.

20. Does the University have an existing baseline for SEO and AI search performance that will be shared with the selected vendor?

a. SDSU currently has access to traditional web analytics, search performance data, and content inventory information through existing institutional tools and platforms. However, SDSU has not established a formal baseline for LLM visibility, AI-generated answer performance, citation frequency, sentiment, or other emerging AI search metrics.

21. For SEO baseline metrics (e.g., crawl errors, indexation status, and page-level performance), may the selected vendor leverage existing analytics platforms such as Google Search Console and Bing Webmaster Tools, or is the University expecting these capabilities to be generated natively within the proposed solution?

a. SDSU does not require integration with existing analytics platforms as a condition of the proposal. However, access to Google Analytics and other available analytics resources may be provided if supported by the proposed solution.

22. The RFP references role-appropriate dashboards for non-technical users. Is the University seeking multiple role-based dashboards with unique user experiences, or would a configurable dashboard with exportable reporting for various stakeholders satisfy this requirement?

a. Yes, a configurable dashboard would be acceptable.

Vendor E:

1. The RFP references both a software platform and strategic consulting services. Is SDSU seeking a technology solution, a managed service, or a hybrid engagement that combines software and consulting?

a. SDSU's preference is for a software platform that provides the required functionality; however, vendors may propose professional services, managed services, or hybrid delivery models that enhance the University's ability to achieve the objectives of the RFP.

2. What are the top three outcomes SDSU hopes to achieve during the first year of this engagement (e.g., improved AI visibility, stronger SEO foundation, governance, content recommendations, staff enablement, or reporting)?

a. Improved AI visibility, through a stronger SEO foundation and content optimization recommendations.

3. Approximately how many domains, subdomains, and websites are expected to be included in the engagement? Should vendors assume only sdstate.edu or the university's broader web ecosystem?

a. Initial proposal and term is for sdstate.edu domain only. Additional domains could be considered under a separate contract.

4. Is SDSU looking for strategic recommendations only, or will the selected vendor also be expected to implement content and technical recommendations?

a. SDSU is seeking a solution that provides the capabilities described in the RFP.

5. Should vendors include content strategy only, or should pricing also include content writing, editing, and production of new AI-optimized content?

a. SDSU is seeking a solution that provides content recommendations.

6. Will SDSU have internal web development resources available to implement technical recommendations, or should vendors include technical implementation within their proposed services?

a. SDSU has internal resources that support website administration, content management, and web development; however, the availability and level of effort that can be dedicated to implementation activities may vary based on project scope, timing, and institutional priorities.

As a result, SDSU encourages vendors to clearly identify any assumptions regarding institutional staffing and technical resources required to successfully implement and maintain the proposed solution.

7. How frequently does SDSU anticipate receiving AI visibility reports and strategic recommendations (e.g., monthly, quarterly, or on demand)?

a. SDSU prefers a solution that supports ongoing monitoring with the ability to provide both scheduled reporting and on-demand reporting. Real-time reporting is not required.

8. Are there specific AI platforms SDSU considers highest priority (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini, Google AI Overviews, Claude, Perplexity), or should vendors recommend the appropriate monitoring strategy?

a. Yes, we are interested in those and…