Website RFP Vendor Question Responses
Vendor questions have been consolidated to represent redundant questions.
1. Are there any non-negotiable deadlines or key milestones beyond those outlined in the RFP?
No. A project timeline should be proposed in the RFP response. Unforeseen challenges are a risk in any project. Should challenges arise, project timeline changes will be addressed and implemented.
2. When you mention mobile friendly, are you visualizing an application for download or only a website?
The website should be viewable on mobile devices. We are not considering an application for download.
3. Are there specific features or deliverables you consider the highest priority for launch?
The CMS needs to be available prior to the launch of the website.
4. Who will be involved in the decision-making process for design and functionality approval?
The MWRDRF staff will be involved in decision-making for functionality approval.
5. Will there be a single point of contact for project communications?
The primary contact is Vitaliy Bunimovich, IT Manager and the secondary contact is Mary Murphy, Operations Manager.
6. Does MWRDRF have specific requirements or restrictions for hosting within your Azure tenant, such as security, scalability, or specific integrations?
The site will need to comply with our cybersecurity policies (will be provided). Additionally, data costs and server maintenance considerations will play a role in the use of our Azure tenant for hosting. Vendors should present their recommendations for the optimal hosting solution.
7. Are there any existing Azure configurations we need to consider during setup? Will it be in your environment?
The Fund requires compliant with its cybersecurity policy. If the Fund’s Azure tenant is used for website hosting, there must be complete segregation of the website infrastructure from all other environments
8. What level of customization do you expect in the content management system (CMS)?
The Fund intends to leverage base functionality of the proposed CMS. Customizations will be considered if the need presents itself.
9. Are there specific workflows or user access roles you would like implemented?
It is preferred that the CMS offer administrator, content author and approver roles. Automation of workflow from the author to the approver would be ideal, but it is not required.
10. How much content from the current Umbraco website will need to be migrated to the new site?
We will need to migrate published public documents, page content, and possibly some visual assets (logo).
11. Are there any specific challenges you foresee with content migration, such as outdated formats or missing data?
No. However, proposers should view our current website for reference and address concerns for anticipated potential migration issues.
12. Should your team have the ability to make updates in real time to documents or will these be service level requests? This will help with our understanding for roles.
Staff will need to make real time updates to site content, including uploading and posting documents as required by law.
13. Are there specific enhancements you would like for the text-based search feature, such as filters or predictive search?
We are not seeking specific enhancements to the search feature. However, we are open to the developer’s recommendations for modernization of the search feature.
14. Should the search integrate with internal systems or databases?
No
15. Are there specific accessibility guidelines or certifications, such as WCAG 2.1 AA, that you require compliance with?
All proposals should comply with industry best practices and applicable guidance, laws, and regulations for comprehensive website development, hosting, and maintenance, including but not limited to cybersecurity, accessibility, privacy, copyright, and anti-spam. The Fund cannot affirm industry best practices or applicable guidance, laws, and regulations. Respondents should make their best efforts to determine industry best practices and applicable guidance, laws, and regulations and tailor their proposal accordingly. If there are any doubts about whether a service is required, Respondents can so indicate in their proposal and price that service separately.
16. Do you need accessibility testing and validation post-launch?
Refer to the response to question 15 above.
17. Are there usability concerns or feedback from your current website that we should address?
We are unaware of specific concerns.
18. Do you envision distinct user experiences for your three audience groups (active/inactive members, retired members, non-members)?
We are open to some distinction in presentation to these three audiences; however, it is not a requirement.
19. Are there specific strategies, analytics, or tools you want implemented, such as integration with Power BI?
No. However, the proposed solution should incorporate some manner of website analytics.
20. What metrics are most important for your website's performance tracking?
Proposers should provide a standard range for page load time and site availability.
21. What are your preferred response and resolution times for support requests?
For critical support issues, responses should be within a few business hours. All other issues should be addressed within a business day.
22. Would you prefer an SLA for ongoing maintenance and support?
Proposers should present their standard agreement as basis for initiating engagement negotiations.
23. Will the vendor need to adhere to any additional contracting terms not mentioned in the RFP, such as exclusivity clauses or performance guarantees?
See above
24. Are there anticipated future features or functionalities that we should consider in the initial architecture?
We will be creating a member portal through our line of business system provider that needs to be visually consistent with the main website. We estimate go-live in late 2025 or early 2026.
25. Would you like a roadmap for incremental improvements post-launch as part of the quote?
Proposers may include a statement in their RFP response about their approach to incremental improvements or other updates to the website, though it is not required.
26. Are there additional security or compliance requirements beyond the NIST Cybersecurity Framework and Illinois regulations?
Refer to the response to question 15 above.
27. Has your organization experienced or foreseen any unique cybersecurity challenges?
We expect best security practices to be applied to the development process, hosting, maintenance and support of the website. All vendors must comply with the Fund’s cybersecurity policies.
28. Will the website store or process sensitive member data, such as login credentials or personally identifiable information?
No, the website will not hold any member data or personally identifiable information.
29. Are there specific encryption or data protection protocols we should follow?
Refer to the response to question 15 above
30. What is your preferred process for testing and providing feedback during development?
We are open to the developer’s recommendations with respect to testing. The feedback and response cycle should be kept short, so that matters are addressed in a timely manner.
31. How often would you like progress updates or review meetings?
There should be weekly status updates, or more frequently if necessary.
32. How often will stakeholders need to provide feedback during the design and development process (e.g., design approval, progress reviews)?
The vendor should seek feedback during design and development milestones, or more frequently. All final design is subject to approval by the staff and Board.
33. Will MWRDRF staff require training on the new website and content management?
Yes.
34. Do you need documentation or guides tailored for non-technical users?
Yes.
35. How many MWRDRF staff members will require training on the content management system (CMS)?
Three staff members will require training on the content management system.
36. How many training sessions or hours does MWRDRF anticipate for staff, and should this include documentation or in-person/virtual training?
Training time is dependent on the complexity of the proposed CMS. Documentation should be included. Training should be virtual.
37. With 11 staff members, how many would need content management access, and what are their varying levels of technical expertise?
Three staff members have CMS access. Among those three are an IT professional, the Operations Manager, and the Investment Officer.
38. Are there specific examples or inspiration sites MWRDRF prefers for the redesign?
Staff finds https://surs.org/, https://www.trsil.org/, and https://www.nhrs.org/ to be aesthetically pleasing, and easy to navigate websites. Finalists will be asked to present examples of their finest work.
39. Are there brand guidelines or design assets (logos, colors, fonts) available to follow?
The Fund adopted its new logo in February 2023. It should be integrated into design. We are open to exploring complementary styling.
40. How many pages, documents, or media assets need to be migrated from the existing site?
There are approximately 35 pages and a few hundred documents to be migrated.
41. Are there any database integrations or back-end content systems associated with the current website that need to be transitioned?
No
42. Are there additional features or functionalities MWRDRF envisions adding beyond what is listed in the RFP?
We would like the capacity to host video. Additionally, our current hosting has strict size limitations for document uploads (under 5,000 KB). We need the capacity to upload larger documents. We are open to the proposer’s suggestions with respect to other features and functionalities.
43. Is MWRDRF prepared or willing to add any necessary features, services, or configurations to its existing Microsoft Azure subscription to support the website’s hosting and functionality requirements? For example, this could include enabling specific security measures, scaling resources, or adding additional services such as Azure SQL Database, .Net App Service, configuration of backups, etc.
We are open to the developer’s recommendations provided that our cybersecurity stance is not compromised in any way.
44. Are there any preferences for CMS solutions (e.g., Open Source, Proprietary)?
We are open to the developer’s recommendations. We would like the CMS to be broadly used and widely supported.
45. Does the sandbox environment need to replicate production for internal training purposes, or is it solely for testing?
The sandbox environment should be used for testing and training.
46. Does MWRDRF anticipate regular updates requiring vendor involvement, or will updates be handled exclusively by staff?
MWRDRF staff will handle the content updates using the CMS.
47. Will MWRDRF handle content entry after migration, or does the vendor need to input and organize all migrated content?
The MWRDRF will handle the content entry post-migration using the CMS created as a part of this project.
48. Are there other systems or third-party tools that the website needs to integrate with?
No
49. Is an existing Web Governance software currently in use by MWRDRF? If so, does this software need to be incorporated with the new website? If not, should a service with this functionality be included in the proposal?
The MWRDRF does not currently use Web Governance software.
50. Who are the primary decision-makers or approvers for this project?
Staff will present a vendor recommendation to the Board for approval.
51. Are there specific reasons for the set milestone dates (e.g., board meetings or reporting cycles), or is there flexibility if unforeseen challenges arise?
Unforeseen challenges are a risk in any project. Should challenges arise, project timeline changes will be addressed and implemented.
52. Does MWRDRF anticipate a phased rollout of features, or must all functionalities be ready at launch?
All functionalities should be ready at launch
53. Are there budgetary guidelines or constraints that MWRDRF can share to guide the fixed-price bid?
Proposers should present their pricing, subject to best and final offer negotiation.
54. Will MWRDRF consider milestone-based billing, or is a single payment expected upon project completion?
Vendors should propose their billing model, subject to negotiation.
55. Are there expectations or preference for annual costs or monthly costs associated with hosting and maintenance?
Vendors should propose their billing model for hosting and maintenance costs, subject to negotiation.
56. Does MWRDRF have a preference for a support model (e.g., on-demand, retainer-based)?
The level of support required is dependent on the flexibility of the CMS and other factors. At present, we anticipate a need for billable support on demand at an agreed upon hourly rate.
57. Is there a minimum warranty period expected after launch?
Proposers should present their standard warranty in their RFP response.
58. Does MWRDRF require specific third-party cybersecurity certifications or audits for the final system?
Proposers should include a statement regarding any cybersecurity certifications or audit results for their hosting in their RFP response.
59. Can you clarify how cost is weighted against other factors like experience, qualifications, and references?
RFP responses and cost quotes will be evaluated in their entirety. We are seeking the best product for the lowest cost.
60. Will the scoring rubric or evaluation matrix be made available to vendors?
Click here for a draft scoring rubric.
61. Should finalists prepare a live demo or a static presentation?
Finalists will be asked to present a live demo of their CMS. If the vendor would like to provide a live demo of other features, those may be considered.
62. Will the presentation be used to reassess proposals or only for additional clarity?
The live demo of the CMS will be used to both assess the proposal and provide clarity for best fit of the proposed product.
63. Can you provide data on current website traffic (e.g., average visits, peak usage times, Google Analytics Report) to help scope content, hosting, and performance needs?
Selected Reporting:
Acquisition Overview
All Users
Engagement Overview
Tech Overview
Pages & Screen
User Attributes
Traffic Acquisition
64. Are there any existing integrations (e.g., HR systems, payment platforms, or databases) that need to be maintained or replaced?
No
65. Beyond Google Analytics, are there other specific reporting or analytics tools required?
No
66. Does the Fund require multi-language capabilities for its website?
Refer to the response to question 15 above.
67. Given that your current website was launched in 2009, what specific pain points or limitations of the current Umbraco system have prompted this redesign initiative?
The Umbraco platform is narrowly used, and there are few available webhosts. We are seeking a more widely used CMS and hosting with broader support options.
68. While you've expressed a preference for Microsoft Azure hosting, what specific Azure services are you currently using that would need to integrate with the new website?
We are not currently using Azure services for our website. If possible, we would like to leverage use of our Azure tenant for website hosting for cost efficiency and governance. The proposer should present its recommendation for hosting platform.
69. Do you anticipate any significant legislative changes or new pension requirements that might impact website functionality in the next 2-3 years?
We do not anticipate legislative changes that may impact website functionality. The Fund is subject to State law, which is under the purview of the Illinois General Assembly, over which we have no control.
70. How do you currently measure the success of your website? Understanding your key performance indicators would help us align our solution with your strategic goals.
Successful website performance is defined as providing users with meaningful information in an easy to navigate platform.
