Active SLED Opportunity · OHIO · CLEVELAND METROPARKS
AI Summary
Cleveland Metroparks seeks qualified vendors for a 3-year contract with AI development and professional services, including optional renewal. Vendors may bid on select capabilities. The RFP establishes a prequalified vendor pool with no guaranteed work. Insurance, compliance, and performance bond requirements apply.
Cleveland Metroparks is soliciting proposals from qualified vendors interested in artificial intelligence development and professional services and entering into a three (3) year agreement with an option to renew for one (1) additional one (1) year period at Cleveland Metroparks sole discretion and subject to negotiation of terms and conditions for the renewal period. Cleveland Metroparks is searching for Proposers with considerable experience in providing this type of activity. --- QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS --- Q: What is the estimated three-year spending or anticipated project budget range? A: There is no set budget, project budget(s) will be allocated if and when a business vertical chooses a project. Q: Is the $5M cyber/E&O coverage required when the master agreement is signed or only before a funded project begins? A: When the master agreement is signed. A: If $5M is not your current insurance coverage limit, please note that in your proposal. Q: Should pricing include hourly rates, sample fixed-price projects, or both? A: Both are preferred but not required. Provide enough detail that we can understand your approach to pricing. Q: May vendors bid on selected AI capabilities, or must they provide every capability listed? A: Vendors may bid on select capabilities. Q: Will successful commercial AI projects satisfy the production-AI requirement? A: No answer provided yet. Q: Is Ohio foreign LLC registration required at proposal submission or only after award? A: Ohio foreign LLC registration is not required solely to submit a proposal. However, if the proposer is already registered in Ohio as a foreign LLC/corporation, it should provide a current Ohio Certificate of Good Standing with its proposal. The RFP requires a certificate of good standing from the proposer's state of formation. If an out-of-state proposer is selected for award and Ohio law requires registration based on the services to be performed, the proposer will be responsible for obtaining and maintaining any required Ohio registrations before contract execution. Q: Section E(4)(a) requests security and compliance certifications. Certifications such as SOC 2 attest to the controls of a hosted product or SaaS environment, whereas this RFP procures professional and development services delivered within Cleveland Metroparks' own cloud tenancy and security boundary. Will Cleveland Metroparks confirm that, for professional services proposers, documented alignment with government cybersecurity frameworks (e.g., NIST AI RMF, NIST CSF, CIS) and the certifications of proposed personnel satisfy this requirement, and that the absence of a corporate product certification such as SOC 2 will not be scored negatively? A: OC2 compliance is required ONLY if the proposer's solution and personnel operate entirely within Cleveland Metroparks' cloud and security boundary, with no CMP data or workloads hosted on the proposer's own infrastructure or a third-party platform. Under those conditions, documented alignment with recognized frameworks (e.g., NIST AI RMF, NIST CSF, CIS) plus relevant personnel certifications is fine. However, if any part of the proposed solution involves the proposer hosting CMP data or systems including through a subcontracted service SOC 2 or an equivalent attestation is required for that component. A: *SOC2 compliance, to correct the typo. Q: Section F(4) states a proposer may agree to a limitation of liability provision in lieu of a performance bond, while the Proposal Application requires the undersigned to agree to furnish a Performance and Payment Bond prior to commencement. Please confirm that a proposer electing the limitation of liability alternative under Section F(4) is not required to furnish a bond, and how the Proposal Application language should be read in that case. A: Yes. The proposer electing the limitation of liability alternative under Section F(4) is not required to furnish a performance bond. Proposer's have two options: provide a performance bond or agree to the limitation of liability provision (or agree to both if they so choose). Q: Given that this RFP establishes a pool of prequalified vendors with no guaranteed work, please confirm that any performance bond (or letter of credit/escrow) obligation would be sized to the fees of executed statements of work rather than to an estimated annual contract value, and would be required only upon issuance of a funded SOW. Bonding an unfunded pool award would add cost to Cleveland Metroparks with no corresponding protection. A: Cleveland Metroparks acknowledges that this RFP is intended to establish a pool of pre-qualified vendors and does not guarantee any minimum amount of work. Any performance bond, letter of credit, or escrow requirement would be addressed in connection with a specific contract and/or statement of work, taking into consideration the scope, risk, and value of the services being procured. Cleveland Metroparks reserves the right to determine whether such security is required and, if so, the appropriate amount based on the particular engagement. Q: The limitation of liability provision in Section F(4) excludes from the cap claims arising from AI hallucinations, discriminatory or biased outputs, and IP infringement in outputs. Uncapped liability for generative AI output behavior is generally not insurable at any limit and will either reduce competition or be priced into every proposal. Would Cleveland Metroparks consider subjecting these categories to a negotiated super-cap (for example, a multiple of fees or the proposer's E&O/cyber policy limits) rather than excluding them from the cap entirely? A: No answer provided yet. Q: Section F(2)(iv) requires Technology E&O/Cyber Liability of $5,000,000 per claim and aggregate. For an as-needed services pool where individual SOWs may be modest in size, would Cleveland Metroparks accept limits scaled to the value and risk of awarded SOWs, or a combination of primary and umbrella coverage? Please also confirm that certificates of insurance are required upon award, not with the proposal. A: Yes, alternative limits and combination of coverages may be considered. Yes, COIs would be required upon execution of a final agreement. Q: Section F(2)(ii) and (iii) require commercial auto liability and property insurance. Please confirm these apply only to the extent a proposer operates vehicles or maintains property on Cleveland Metroparks premises, and are not scored requirements for professional services performed remotely or at proposer facilities. A: Auto liability would only be required should the proposer operate a vehicle on any Cleveland Metroparks premises. We expect that the proposer will have property insurance covering any business personal property used in conjunction with the work (whether on premises or off premises). Q: Section E(4)(c)(v) references supporting Cleveland Metroparks' incident response team in the event of a data breach. Please confirm the selected vendor's role is limited to supporting incidents involving AI systems the vendor designed or implemented, and that this RFP does not procure managed cybersecurity, SOC monitoring, or enterprise incident response services. A: To confirm, this RFP is not intended to procure managed cybersecurity, SOC monitoring, or enterprise-wide incident response services. The requirement in Section E(4)(c)(v) is limited to reasonable cooperation and support related to incidents, vulnerabilities, or data breaches involving the vendor's AI solutions, services, or implementations. Cleveland Metroparks may require vendor assistance in investigating, mitigating, and remediating incidents affecting the vendor's products or services. Q: Section E(4)(o) indicates Cleveland Metroparks may request up to three years of financial statements. For proposers whose legal entity was organized more recently than three years ago, please confirm that financial statements since inception, supplemented by a letter of good standing from the proposer's banking institution, will satisfy this requirement A: This is acceptable. Q: Section E(4)(a) requests an example of an artificial intelligence project that has been successfully implemented and is operational in production. May a proposer satisfy this requirement through a project completed by a disclosed subcontractor or teaming partner, provided that the personnel who performed the work are included on the proposed team and their specific roles are clearly identified? A: Vendors should provide examples of their own original work on proposals to the RFP, and disclose any subcontractors they intend to use on Cleveland Metroparks projects. Q: If a proposer includes a specialized subcontractor or teaming partner, must each subcontractor independently maintain the full insurance limits identified in Section F(2), or may subcontractors be covered through the prime contractor's insurance program, subject to the terms of the final agreement? A: Either would likely be acceptable, subject to review by internal staff and/or Cleveland Metroparks' insurance broker. Q: For the AI-Enabled Animal Behavior Monitoring and Analytics Platform described in Exhibit A, is Cleveland Metroparks seeking vendors to extend an existing vendor-developed solution, assume support or development responsibility for the existing platform, or provide complementary services alongside the current provider? Will existing architecture documentation, source code, models, training data, and technical interfaces be made available for future project assignments? A: It is our goal to provide all relevant data and let the vendor choose next steps (rebuild, augment, etc.) Q: If multiple vendors are awarded master agreements, how does Cleveland Metroparks anticipate assigning future projects? Will statements of work be competed among selected vendors, directly negotiated with the vendor best aligned to each use case, or assigned through another process? A: Statements of work will be developed when projects are identified which may offered to one or multiple vendors depending on the capabilities needed. Q: Section E(4)(a) requires "Examples of similar government or public-sector projects vendor has implemented," and appears under the notice that failure to provide any or all of the listed documents may result in rejection. Is this element pass/fail for responsiveness, or is it scored within the 25% Relevant Experience & Qualifications factor in Section E(5)(i)? For a proposer whose directly comparable work is primarily commercial, will closely analogous engagements - regulated industries, public-facing digital services, or work for nonprofit or quasi-public entities - be considered responsive? A: Comparable projects may be submitted and will be scored within the 25% Relevant Experience & Qualifications criteria. Q: Exhibit A, Project 2 (Park Documentation Audit) describes automating the evaluation of internal processes and documentation to produce structured summary reports with citations, strengths, gaps, and recommendations. Approximately what volume, file formats, and source repositories are in scope, and where does the documentation currently reside? Is the intended outcome a repeatable system operated by Cleveland Metroparks staff, or a recurring service delivered by the vendor? Are there defined review criteria, standards, or accreditation requirements the evaluation must assess against? A: This is used as an example, if this project is selected, then a statement of work will be delivered containing additional details. Q: Exhibit A, Project 3 (Conversational AI for Guest Experience): what content sources and systems must the virtual agent integrate with - website CMS, event and program calendars, GIS or mapping data, ticketing or registration? Is there an expected accessibility conformance target such as WCAG 2.1 AA or 2.2 AA? Are there anticipated concurrent-user or peak seasonal volume figures that should inform architecture and pricing? A: Potential system integrations and user volume information for this use case are to be determined. Cleveland Metroparks typically aims to meet WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility standards. Q: Section C states Cleveland Metroparks "will choose the top vendors and award contracts to one or multiple vendors under this RFP." Approximately how many vendors does Cleveland Metroparks anticipate selecting for the pool? A: The number will depend on how many proposals are received that meet our requirements and business needs. Q: Further to Question #3 regarding pricing form: the agreement runs three years with a one-year renewal option. Will proposed rates be held firm for the full term, or may they be escalated annually, for example by CPI, subject to approval? How will Cost be scored comparably if proposers submit materially different pricing structures? A: Prices should be fixed for the term, but if you anticipate price increases, document those price increases per year in your proposal. Q: Section E(4)(b)(i) lists Microsoft Azure, AWS, and Google Cloud. Is Cleveland Metroparks standardized on a particular provider, and are there existing enterprise agreements or data residency requirements proposed solutions must conform to? Separately, is there a page limit for the proposal narrative, and are the Proposal Form, Proposal Application, Statement of Proposer's Qualifications, Affidavit, and Attachment I excluded from it? A: Existing providers, agreements, and data requirements will be shared with vendors on a case by case basis as projects are defined. There is no page limit for proposals.
SLED stands for State, Local, and Education. These are solicitations issued by state governments, counties, cities, school districts, utilities, and higher education institutions — as opposed to federal agencies.
SamSearch Platform
AI-powered intelligence for the right opportunities, the right leads, and the right time.