Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement It topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County interviews IT vendors; five-year cyber-insurance 'tail' requirement raises questions
Summary
Osage County heard pitches from multiple IT vendors for a managed-services contract and focused discussion on the RFP insurance requirement that asks for a five-year liability 'tail.' Vendors said that requirement could raise costs or be handled with clarifying language; commissioners asked vendors to return insurer confirmations before award.
Osage County commissioners conducted scheduled interviews Dec. 16 with multiple vendors that responded to the county’s IT managed-services RFP. Presentations covered managed services, cybersecurity, backup and continuity, asset management, pricing and onboarding.
Vendors described proposals that combine a one-time onboarding/setup charge with a monthly recurring fee covering endpoint security, monitored backups, patching and help-desk support. Several vendors emphasized discovery and asset-management work early in the contract so the county would have a clear inventory, life-cycle schedule and predictable annual budgets.
A recurring concern across interviews was an insurance requirement in the RFP that calls for cyber-liability coverage and a five-year “tail” (coverage that would extend for claims that arise after the contract ends). Multiple vendors said their carriers either do not offer such a rider or that adding a five-year tail would raise premiums and could change the bid price; several offered to consult insurers and follow up with written confirmation. Commissioners asked each vendor to provide a clear statement from its insurer about whether the tail is available and, if not, how vendor liability and claim coverage would be handled after contract termination.
Commissioners did not disqualify any bidder on the basis of the tail question during the interviews. Instead, they agreed to gather insurer responses and resume evaluation before the award date (the commission indicated a competitive award is scheduled for Dec. 23). The board also requested staff input on whether it should alter the RFP’s insurance language or accept alternative risk-transfer mechanisms (for example, requiring vendors to maintain specific policy terms while the county adds its own protection if needed).
No procurement award was finalized during the meeting; interviews concluded and staff will compile vendor insurance confirmations and references for the board’s review prior to any final decision.
