2001-25 Cloud Services Addendum 1

Agency:	Hartford Housing Authority
State:	Connecticut
Type of Government:	State & Local
NAICS Category:	518210 - Data Processing, Hosting, and Related Services 541512 - Computer Systems Design Services 541519 - Other Computer Related Services
Posted Date:	Jan 6, 2026
Due Date:	Jan 15, 2026
Original Source:	Please Login to View Page
Contact information:	Please Login to View Page
Bid Documents:	Please Login to View Page

Attachment Preview

ADDENDUM # 1

1/6/2026

2001-25 CLOUD SERVICES

Original Notice of RFP Issued on: November 6, 2025

Response Due Date: Thursday, January 15, 2026

To All Prospective Bidders:

The purpose of this addendum is to provide answers to questions raised by a potential bidder.

1. What was the annual spend for the previous year on this Project? $120,000.

2. If this is a new Contract, What is the annual Budget for this? $150,000

3. Are you open to a hybrid delivery model with a mix of offshore and onshore resources?

Please clarify, I am not sure what this question is about.

4. Work will be onsite or remote. Remote

5. Is this contract intended to be awarded to a single vendor or to multiple vendors? One vendor

6. Who are previous incumbents on this project? Novus

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1. I am writing to ask about the subcontractor requirements related to the Hartford Housing

Authority for RFP 1382 - 2001-25. We work with a company out of Florida to assist with

staffing when we are short staffed. You must receive permission from the Authority prior to

passing work on to a third party.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1.Are you looking for respondents to provide end-user support of the applications running within the

Server Hosting Environment? NO

a. If yes, it is expected that we also support the end-user’s workstation used to connect into

the Server Hosting Environment?

b. Is there any end-user support you are looking for? No

2) The SPS mentions the environment must integrate with the client firewall. Does the authority

desire to collocate a firewall in the same rack as the cloud hosting environment, or do you desire

for respondents to include a firewall within the Server Hosting Environment solution? If the

latter, what does the SPS mean by stating that the solution must integrate with the client firewall?

Include firewall within the hosting environment solution and integrate agency physical device i.e.

IPSec tunnels, firewall rules, NAT, routing policies, or SD-WAN integration

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1. Can the Authority provide the expected number of employees that the contractor must maintain?

2. Does the Authority have a preferred cloud service provider (e.g., AWS) or preferred landing

zone/architecture for hosting these services? No. However, Agency currently has a Microsoft 365

business premium license.

3. Will the Authority require offsite or geo-redundant backups? Yes.

4. Beyond Active Directory, are there any legacy applications requiring special configuration? No

What are the expected Recovery Time Objective (RTO) and Recovery Point Objective (RPO) for disaster

recovery? At this time, the Authority has not defined specific numeric RTO (Recovery Time Objective)

or RPO (Recovery Point Objective) requirements in the current SPS/RFP.

Respondents are expected to:

Propose their recommended RTO/RPO values based on industry best practices for a Server Hosting

Environment with disaster-recovery capability.

Explain how their proposed RTO/RPO supports operational continuity and data protection

Clearly specify whether the targets apply to:

• Full environment failover

• Critical systems only

• Backups, replication, or hybrid recovery approach

5. Should Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) costs be included in the pricing proposal, or will these

be handled separately? Yes

6. Should proposals include cost models for scaling Remote Desktop Services licenses beyond the

initial 50 users? No

- Does the customer have more information/specs on the environment to be migrated beyond what was

listed in the RFQ?? At this time, no additional migration specifications or environment documentation

beyond what is already listed in the RFQ is available.

Respondents are expected to:

• Base their proposals on the current RFQ scope only

Include discovery and assessment activities in their migration approach, if required for accurate

sizing, dependency mapping, or planning

Clearly state any assumptions, constraints, or risks identified due to limited upfront environment

detail

If a solution depends on deeper environment insights (e.g., application dependencies, server

inventories, data volumes, network flows, or integration touchpoints), those should be treated as

part of the respondent’s discovery phase, not as missing Authority-provided specifications.

7. - Is AWS a preferred CSP??No Preferences

8. - Want to clarify that this includes services too and not just IaaS quote?? Refer the RFQ

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1. To accurately spec cloud platform instance types, will the housing authority accept proposals

which exceed the specifications requested to conform to available cloud platform instance types?

Yes

The RFP does not outline CPU requirements, can the housing authority please specify CPU core count

requirements for each server listed? Industry best practices for server hosting environments

any sizing outcomes identified through their proposed discovery or assessment phase (if included)

Clearly document and justify the CPU configuration in their solution, including:

processor model/family core count per server or vCPU allocation

2. How many concurrent users does the housing authority expect to utilize the Remote Desktop

Services server? 50 Max

a. Does the housing authority operate more than 1 internet circuit? This will be necessary to

determine the site-to-site VPN requirements for redundancy/failover? One per location

b. If yes, what make/model of firewall does the housing authority have in place currently?

SonicWALL NSA 2700 (main) and TZ470

3. Does the housing authority currently utilize Microsoft 365? If so, what license types are in place

currently? Yes, 365 business premiums.

4. Will the housing authority require DUO MFA to be implemented on end-user devices, or only the

servers noted in the project scope? End users

5. Will the housing authority utilize mobile app push notifications for DUO MFA or will the housing

authority require hardware tokens? Both methods currently in used

a. If hardware tokens are expected to be used, can you please

specify a quantity or if a unit price for tokens is acceptable? Not

applicable now

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I am writing to request clarification regarding the reference requirement in the solicitation. Specifically,

we would like to confirm whether it is acceptable to submit key personnel experience and references

instead of company-level references as part of our proposal submission.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Transition, Evaluation & Administration

1. Is there an incumbent provider, and will transition documentation be made available? transition

documentation has not been published and is not currently available for distribution. Respondents should

include discovery and knowledge transfer in their transition plan.

2. What is the expected transition timeline from award to steady-state operations? The Authority expects

vendors to propose a realistic transition timeline from award to steady-state operations, including phased

onboarding if required. No mandated timeline has been issued.

3. Are there defined cutover or blackout windows to avoid operational disruption? No predefined cutover

or blackout windows have been formally issued. Vendors should propose cutover strategies that minimize

operational disruption and identify recommended windows if needed.

4. Are references required to be public-sector only, or are comparable commercial references acceptable?

Comparable commercial references are acceptable, provided they demonstrate similar scope, scale, and

compliance maturity. References are not required to be exclusively public-sector.

5. Will post-submission clarifications or discussions be allowed? Yes, the Authority may request

clarifications after submission. Respondents should be prepared to support Q&A or provide additional

detail if asked.

Data Residency & Funding Restrictions

1. Are all production data, backups, and logs required to remain hosted within the United States? Vendors

should assume that all production data, backups, and logs will be hosted within the United States,

2. Are there HUD, state, or federal funding restrictions that prohibit use of offshore or foreign entities?

There are no broadly published HUD notices in this RFQ that authorize offshore or foreign entities for

data hosting or administration. Vendors should avoid proposing offshore entities unless justified and

flagged for approval.

3. Should vendors assume all services must be delivered domestically unless explicitly approved in

writing? Yes, vendors should assume all services must be delivered domestically unless explicitly

approved in writing.

4. Are there audit or reporting requirements tied specifically to data location or personnel location? No

separate audit or reporting requirements tied specifically to personnel or data location have been issued

beyond domestic delivery and U.S. data residency assumptions.

5. Are exceptions to location requirements ever permitted under this contract? Exceptions may be

considered, but only if formally requested and approved in writing by the Authority.

Remote Work, Offshore & Location of Performance

1. Does the Authority permit fully remote administration and support, or is any on-site presence required?

Yes, the Authority permits fully remote administration and support. No on-site presence is required under

current scope.

2. Are there requirements that support personnel be located within Connecticut or the United States?

Respondents should propose qualified support models. There is no mandate that staff reside in

Connecticut, but vendors should assume U.S.-based personnel for system administration.

3. Are offshore or non-U.S.-based personnel permitted to perform monitoring or administrative functions?

Offshore or non-U.S.-based personnel should not be assumed for system administration, monitoring, or

status entry unless the vendor proposes it as part of a clearly restricted, compliance-safe role and flags it

for approval.

4. If offshore resources are allowed, are there restrictions on data access, roles, or hours of operation? No

formal offshore staffing model has been authorized, so vendors proposing offshore resources must define

restricted roles, limited data access, time boundaries, and compliance controls for Authority review.

5. Are there citizenship, residency, or background check requirements for personnel with system access?

The RFP does not currently define required citizenship, but personnel with system access should be

prepared to support:

✔ background checks

✔ role-based access controls

✔ least-privilege system access, all documented in the proposal.

Subcontracting & Staffing Model

1. Can the Authority clarify the approval process and timeline for proposed subcontractors? Vendors

should propose their subcontractor approval workflow and timeline for Authority review. No mandated

process has been issued.

2. Is there a minimum self-performance requirement for the prime contractor? No minimum self-

performance percentage has been defined. The prime must retain full accountability for all services

delivered.

3. Are subcontractors required to meet the same experience, insurance, and compliance standards as the

prime? Yes, subcontractors must meet the same insurance, experience, and compliance expectations as

the prime if they perform system-impacting functions.

4. Would a model where the prime retains full accountability while approved subcontractors perform

portions of the work be acceptable? Yes, this model is acceptable, provided subcontractors are approved

in writing and the prime retains full responsibility.

5. Are substitutions of subcontractors permitted after award with written approval? Permitted with

written approval only.

Pricing & Contract Structure

1. Should pricing assume flat monthly fees, or is tiered or usage-based pricing acceptable within the firm

fixed price model? Pricing should align to the firm fixed price model. Vendors may propose tiered or

usage-based pricing if it fits within a predictable fixed price structure and is clearly defined.

2. How should vendors price future scaling for additional users, storage, or compute? Vendors should

include:

This page summarizes the opportunity, including an overview and a preview of the attached documents.

Description	Opening Date/Time	Closing Date/Time
2001-25 Cloud Services Addendum 1	December 04, 2025 :	January 15, 2026 :

2001-25 Cloud Services Addendum 1

Attachment Preview

Sign-up for a Free Trial, Government Bid Alerts

See Also