Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for Microsoft Academic to Nonprofit Licensing Transition

PART 1: INTRODUCTION
The Pierce County Library System (PCLS, or the "Library") is a junior taxing district under the
laws of the State of Washington established in 1946 as a rural library district under chapter 27.12
RCW. The Library provides library services for the residents of unincorporated Pierce County, 15
annexed cities and towns (Bonney Lake, Buckley, DuPont, Eatonville, Edgewood, Fife, Gig
Harbor, Lakewood, Milton, Orting, South Prairie, Steilacoom, Sumner, University Place, and
Wilkeson). The total estimated population served is over 686,500.
The purpose of this RFQ is to select a compliant, transparent, and supportable Microsoft Nonprofit
licensing path for PCLS. PCLS is seeking quotes for Microsoft Nonprofit licensing and related
transition support in response to Microsoft's decision to change library licensing eligibility and
move public libraries from Academic licensing treatment to Microsoft Nonprofit licensing. As a
result, PCLS must transition from Academic to Microsoft Nonprofit licensing. Submitters to this
RFQ (the "Submitter", "Vendor", "Responder", or "Quoter") must quote licensing that preserves
required functionality, security, compliance, analytics, reporting, and Microsoft 365 Copilot
eligibility wherever possible. Responses must clearly explain submitted nonprofit SKUs, any
differences from current Academic licensing, required prerequisites, transition risks, and total cost
impacts.
ESTIMATED TIMELINE
RFQ Announcement .........................................................September 16, 2026
Final questions due ..........................................................September 22, 2026, 5:00 p.m.
Responses due from PCLS ...............................................September 25, 2026
RFQ due to PCLS ............................................................September 29, 2026, 2:00 p.m.
RFQ Opening ...................................................................September 29, 2026, 2:15 p.m.
Notice of Intent to Award .................................................September 30, 2026
Procurement .....................................................................October 05, 2026
Board Approval (if over $150,000) ..................................October 14, 2026
PART 2: INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS
1) Questions About the RFQ: It is the responsibility of all responders to carefully review and
read the entire RFQ, and understand all terms, conditions, processes, and methods for
responding to this RFQ. All questions about this RFQ should be directed to Ron Babbel, IT
Infrastructure and Operations Manager, by email to rbabbel@piercecountylibrary.org or by
phone at (253) 548-3462. Oral explanations or instructions given before the award will not be
binding. Any information that is different from what is provided in this RFQ and given to a
prospective responder concerning this RFQ will be furnished to all prospective responders as
an amendment to the solicitation. The Library reserves the right to share answers with other
responders, if such information is necessary to responders in submitting quotes on the
solicitation or if the lack of such information would be prejudicial to uninformed proposers.
All questions must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. September 22, 2026.
2) Date of Submission: RFQ response must be submitted no later than 2:00 p.m. September
29, 2026. Submissions received late may be deemed not responsive and may not be considered,
2

at the Library's discretion. The Library reserves the right to extend the date of submission and
will provide due notice of such date extension.
3) Bid Submission: The method of submission is electronically to Petra McBride at
pmcbride@piercecountylibrary.org. Please use the subject line:
RFQ Response - M365 Nonprofit Licensing Transition - [Vendor Name].
4) Signatures: A corporate official who has been authorized to make such bid commitments must
sign the response, provided on the Declaration section below.
5) Withdrawal or Modifications of Quotes: The quoter may, without prejudice to itself, modify
or withdraw its quote by written request, provided that the quote and any withdrawal request
is received by the Library prior to the date of submission above. Following the withdrawal of
its quote, the quoter may submit a new quote provided it is received by the Library by the Date
of Submission.
6) Rejection of Bids: The Library reserves the right to reject any and all submissions without
penalty. Any and all submissions may be rejected for any cause.
7) Quoting Procedures and Forms: All responders must comply with the specifications and
requirements attached. Responders may submit additional information with their quotes as
desired.
8) Validity of Prices: Responders must confirm in writing that prices quoted will be valid and in
effect for a minimum of ninety (90) days after submission opening.
9) RFQ Opening: All submissions will be opened on or around 2:15p.m. on September 29, 2026
in a non-public opening, and each submission shall be evaluated on a number of criteria as
provided herein. The Library will submit a Notice of Intent to Award to the apparent winning
Vendor by 5:00 p.m. on September 30, 2026.
PCLS reserves the right to waive minor informalities, request a best-and-final offer, negotiate
with the apparent winning vendor, and cancel or reissue this RFQ at any time. Should
negotiations fail to produce a contract, PCLS reserves the right to negotiate with the next
highest scoring submission.
10) Public Disclosure of Submissions: The Library reserves the right to treat all submissions with
confidentiality prior to award. After award of the contract, all submissions will fall under the
requirement by Washington State law (chapter 42.56 RCW) that obligates the Library to make
the document available for public inspection, if requested.
11) Contract Administrator: The administrator of any contract or purchase, or both, stemming
from an award to this RFQ will be Ron Babbel, IT Infrastructure and Operations Manager.
12) References: List the names and addresses of three (3) customers, for whom the responder has
provided similar services, purchases, and scope of work. Include dates, contact persons, and
telephone numbers. Should any reference submitted by the responder be found unsatisfactory,
the Library, as its sole option, may reject that responder's offer. The Library shall be the sole
judge in determining a satisfactory or unsatisfactory reference response. References must be
submitted with the response. See References section below.
3

PART 3: SPECIFICATIONS
1) Current Licensing Requirements (Baseline for Quotation). Vendors must quote Microsoft
Nonprofit licensing for each requirement listed below. For each item, vendors must identify
the Microsoft Nonprofit SKU, disclose whether a direct nonprofit equivalent exists, explain
any functional or entitlement differences, and identify any prerequisites, dependencies,
limitations, or restrictions. No listed item may be omitted from the proposal.
The baseline requirements below are the foundation for the quote. Later sections explain how
vendors must document their quoted replacements, if any, disclose feature or eligibility
differences, and present pricing in a comparable format.
Required License or Service Quantity
Microsoft 365 Nonprofit Licensing Equivalent to 320
Microsoft 365 A5 Functionality
Microsoft 365 Copilot 15
Microsoft 365 Nonprofit Licensing Equivalent to 40
Microsoft 365 A1 Functionality
Microsoft Project Plan 5 25
Microsoft Teams Premium 100
Microsoft Visio Plan 2 25
Microsoft Power Apps Premium 10
Power BI Premium (Per User) 10
Microsoft Fabric Capacity 4 Capacity Units (CU)
Microsoft Defender for Servers 105 Virtualized Server Workloads
SQL Server Enterprise Core Licensing 24 Core Licenses
Microsoft Server Licensing for a Virtualized See Requirements Below
Environment (4 Physical Hosts, 224 Physical Cores)
Microsoft Azure and Consumption-Based Services As Proposed
Important Notes
* Quantities reflect anticipated requirements and may be adjusted during contract
negotiation.
* All quoted licensing must be eligible under Microsoft's Nonprofit licensing programs.
* Vendors shall identify the specific Microsoft Nonprofit SKU quoted for each
requirement.
* Vendors shall not assume Academic licensing benefits transfer directly to Nonprofit
licensing.
* Vendors must disclose any prerequisites required to achieve equivalent functionality.
* Vendors must identify any licensing, entitlement, support, security, compliance,
reporting, analytics, AI, or feature differences between current Academic licensing and
quoted Nonprofit licensing.
4

* Vendors shall not omit any item listed in this section.
2) Microsoft Server Licensing Requirements. PCLS operates a virtualized Microsoft server
environment consisting of four (4) physical server hosts, 224 total physical cores, and
Windows Server workloads operating within a virtualized environment. Vendors must:
* Identify the Microsoft Nonprofit server licensing model.
* Provide licensing sufficient to license all four (4) physical hosts and all 224 physical
cores.
* Identify all required Windows Server licenses, subscriptions, Software Assurance
benefits, or replacement licensing programs.
* Describe any differences between Academic and Nonprofit licensing rights or
entitlements.
* Identify any limitations, licensing restrictions, or prerequisites associated with the
proposed licensing model.
3) Microsoft SQL Server Licensing Requirements. PCLS requires twenty-four (24) SQL
Server Enterprise Core licenses suitable for production enterprise workloads. Vendors must:
* Identify the proposed Microsoft Nonprofit licensing model.
* Identify all required SQL Server Enterprise licensing components.
* Identify Software Assurance benefits or equivalent entitlements included within the
proposed licensing model.
* Explain any differences between Academic and Nonprofit licensing.
* Disclose any limitations, restrictions, dependencies, or licensing considerations that
may impact future use or expansion.
4) Microsoft Defender Requirements. PCLS requires Microsoft Defender licensing sufficient
to protect approximately 105 virtualized server workloads. Vendors must identify:
* The proposed Microsoft Defender licensing model.
* The specific Microsoft Nonprofit SKU(s) proposed.
* All required subscriptions, services, or prerequisites.
* Any Azure, Microsoft 365, or security licensing dependencies.
* Any limitations, exclusions, or feature differences between Academic and Nonprofit
licensing programs.
* How the proposed licensing provides coverage for the identified server environment,
with supporting documentation.
5) Microsoft Fabric Requirements. Vendors must provide Microsoft Fabric capacity licensing
sufficient for four (4) Capacity Units (CU), and must identify the specific Fabric capacity SKU
proposed, any nonprofit pricing eligibility, prerequisites, or dependencies, and any required
Microsoft 365, Azure, Power BI, or Fabric licensing dependencies.
6) Power Platform and Analytics Requirements. Vendors must provide ten (10) Power Apps
Premium licenses and ten (10) Power BI Premium Per User licenses and must identify all
required prerequisite licensing and disclose any nonprofit program limitations, restrictions, or
feature differences.
7) Microsoft Azure and Consumption-Based Services Requirements. Vendors must identify
and price all Azure subscriptions, consumption-based resources, capacity, data ingestion,
storage, retention, compute, automation, and related services necessary to support the proposed
Microsoft solutions. The response must identify the applicable service or meter, proposed
5

quantity or usage assumption, unit of measure, estimated annual consumption, included
allowances, overage rates, minimum commitments, dependencies, and any other recurring or
one-time costs. Estimates must include sufficient detail for PCLS to understand how changes
in usage may affect annual cost.
8) Response Structure Guidance. To make submissions easier to compare, vendors should
organize their responses around four areas: licensing replacement, feature and eligibility
disclosures, pricing, and transition support. The Mandatory Response Table in Section 4 and
the Pricing Summary Page in Section 7 are the primary response tools. Supporting narrative
should be used where explanation is needed, particularly for dependencies, feature gaps,
transition risks, and licensing assumptions.
9) Mandatory Vendor Response Table (Required). Vendors must complete a separate item-
specific Mandatory Response Table entry for each license or service identified in Section 3.
Each entry must identify the proposed Microsoft Nonprofit SKU, quantity, feature gap status,
gap details, dependencies or prerequisites, vendor comments, per-license cost, and annual cost.
Failure to complete the required tables may render the submission non-responsive. The tables
are located at the end of the RFQ, after the signature and pricing/quote sections. Required
response fields include:
* Quantity
* Proposed Microsoft Nonprofit SKU
* Feature Gap (Yes/No)
* Description of Any Gap
* Required Dependencies or Prerequisites
* Vendor Comments
* Per-License Pricing
* Annual Pricing
* One-Time costs
* Optional Services
* Minimum Commitments
* Contractual Obligations
* Comments
10) Licensing Equivalency & Feature Disclosure. Vendors must provide sufficient detail to
allow PCLS to determine whether each proposed nonprofit license is functionally equivalent
to the current Academic licensing baseline. At a minimum, vendors must:
* Provide side-by-side SKU mapping from Academic to Nonprofit licensing.
* Explicitly disclose any reduction or loss of security functionality, compliance
functionality, analytics or reporting capabilities, AI or Copilot functionality,
administrative capabilities, or support entitlements.
* Avoid statements of "equivalent" functionality without documented explanation.
* Identify any required prerequisite licenses, subscriptions, services, or dependencies
necessary to achieve equivalent functionality.
11) Pricing Transparency Requirements. Pricing must be presented clearly to identify both
annual licensing costs and per-license costs, along with any transition-related cost impacts.
Submissions must separately identify Microsoft Nonprofit pricing, annual recurring licensing
costs, one-time transition or implementation costs, optional services, annual billing options,
6

multi-year options if offered, minimum seat commitments, true-up or true-down rules, renewal
requirements, termination provisions, and exit constraints.
12) Mandatory Pricing Summary Page (Required). Vendors must include a standalone Pricing
Summary Page that provides a concise roll-up of the pricing contained in the completed
Section 4 Mandatory Response Tables. The summary must identify each required license or
service, proposed Microsoft Nonprofit SKU, quantity, per-license price, annual price, and one-
time costs. It must also separately identify and total any additional recurring, administrative,
service, transaction, support, implementation, contractual, or other charges included in or
associated with the proposal. The summary must show the total proposed annual recurring cost,
total one-time cost, and total first-year cost, and must reconcile to the detailed Section 4 table
entries. Any charge not included in the summary may be considered included in the quoted
total price. Inconsistencies between the Pricing Summary Page and the Mandatory Response
Tables may be scored as deficiencies.
13) Migration Risk & Support Model. Vendors must describe their licensing conversion
approach, expected timeline, expected tenant or service impacts, post-conversion validation
process, ongoing support model, escalation procedures, and renewal or lifecycle management
services.
14) Procurement Contract Disclosure (Informational). Vendors shall disclose all purchasing
contracts, cooperative purchasing agreements, state contracts, consortium agreements, or other
public-sector procurement methods available for use by PCLS, including but not limited to
Washington State DES, NASPO ValuePoint, OMNIA Partners, Sourcewell, TIPS, E&I
Cooperative Services, or other state, nonprofit, educational, regional, or public-sector
purchasing cooperatives.
For each procurement method, vendors shall provide: contract name; contract number;
sponsoring organization; expiration date; eligibility requirements; and confirmation that
Microsoft licensing resale is permitted. If another entity will provide licensing, invoicing, or
fulfillment for PCLS, that relationship must be disclosed.
15) Nonprofit Benefits & Value Adds. Vendors must identify all Microsoft Nonprofit grants,
donated licensing, discounted licensing, credits, or nonprofit benefits for which PCLS may be
eligible; clearly distinguish Microsoft-provided benefits from vendor-provided services; avoid
presenting no-cost Microsoft entitlements as paid services; and identify any nonprofit
programs that may reduce future licensing costs.
16) Evaluation Criteria. Submissions will be evaluated using a 0, 1, and 2 scoring rubric. "2"
means the proposal meets the requirement with clear supporting detail. "1" means the proposal
partially meets the requirement but is incomplete, unclear, or requires clarification. "0" means
the proposal does not meet the requirement, does not provide usable information, or does not
address the requirement. See below for scoring rubric.
7

Evaluation What PCLS Will Evaluate Score of 2 Score of 1 Score of 0
Criterion
Nonprofit The proposed licensing is eligible under Fully compliant and Partially documented Not compliant, not
Licensing applicable Microsoft Nonprofit licensing clearly documented. or requires documented, or
Compliance programs and properly identifies nonprofit clarification. proposes ineligible
SKUs, program rules, restrictions, and licensing.
eligibility assumptions.
Licensing The proposed nonprofit licensing preserves Clearly maps current Provides partial Does not
Equivalency and required Microsoft 365, security, compliance, requirements to mapping or demonstrate
Feature Retention analytics, reporting, AI, administrative, and proposed licensing incomplete equivalency or omits
support functionality compared with the and discloses all disclosure of material feature gaps.
current Academic licensing baseline. differences. differences.
Server and SQL The proposal adequately licenses PCLS's Provides a complete Provides an Does not address or
Licensing Windows Server environment, including 4 and supportable incomplete model or incorrectly licenses
Compliance physical hosts and 224 physical cores, and the server and SQL leaves assumptions the server or SQL
SQL Server Enterprise requirement of 24 core licensing model. unclear. requirements.
licenses.
Security and The proposed Defender licensing covers the Fully addresses Partially addresses Does not
Defender Licensing stated virtualized server workload environment coverage, coverage or leaves demonstrate
Compliance and identifies required SKUs, prerequisites, dependencies, and dependencies sufficient coverage
dependencies, feature differences, and supporting unclear. or omits required
expansion considerations. documentation. Defender licensing
details.
Power Platform, The proposal addresses Power Apps Premium, Fully addresses all Partially addresses Does not address one
Fabric, and Power BI Premium Per User, and Microsoft stated Power requirements or or more required
Analytics Fabric Capacity requirements, including Platform, Power BI, leaves assumptions analytics or platform
Compliance capacity assumptions, dependencies, nonprofit and Fabric unclear. components.
eligibility, and limitations. requirements.
Pricing The pricing is complete, comparable, and Pricing is complete, Pricing is partially Pricing is
Transparency clearly separates unit costs, annual costs, clear, and easy to complete or requires incomplete,
recurring costs, one-time transition costs, compare. clarification. inconsistent, or not
optional costs, billing options, commitments, usable for
renewal terms, and exit constraints. comparison.
8

Evaluation What PCLS Will Evaluate Score of 2 Score of 1 Score of 0
Criterion
Transition The vendor provides a clear transition Provides a clear, Provides a limited or Does not provide a
Approach and Risk approach, expected timeline, tenant or service practical, and low- incomplete transition usable transition or
Management impact expectations, validation process, risk transition approach. support approach.
support model, escalation process, and renewal approach.
or lifecycle management approach.
Procurement The vendor discloses applicable public-sector Provides all required Provides partial Omits required
Compliance procurement methods, business registration procurement disclosures or procurement
information, assumptions, exceptions, disclosures and requires clarification. disclosures or
certifications, and other required submission certifications. certifications.
materials.
Overall Value The proposal provides the best overall value to Strong overall value Moderate value or Low value, excessive
PCLS considering compliance, functionality, with clear benefits requires clarification risk, or insufficient
risk, supportability, pricing, nonprofit benefits, and manageable risk. on cost, risk, or information to assess
and long-term lifecycle considerations. supportability. value.
Critical Categories. A score of 0 in any critical category may result in disqualification:
* Nonprofit Licensing Compliance
* Licensing Equivalency & Feature Retention
* Server & SQL Licensing Compliance
* Security & Defender Licensing Compliance
Award will be made on a best-value basis using the criteria above; PCLS is not obligated to award to the lowest-priced quote. However,
if vendor ratings are substantially similar, PCLS may award the lower-cost quote, provided the submission meets all mandatory
requirements and presents no material licensing, compliance, transition, or support concerns.
9

PART 4: SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
To be considered responsive, vendor submissions must include the documents and disclosures
listed below. These items should be organized in the same order shown here so PCLS can
efficiently review each submission against the evaluation criteria.
* Cover Letter
* Completed Mandatory Response Table
* Licensing Equivalency Documentation
* Nonprofit Licensing Compliance Statement
* Pricing Proposal
* Server, SQL, and Microsoft Defender Licensing Proposal
* Power Platform, Power BI, and Fabric Licensing Proposal
* Procurement Method Disclosure
* Assumptions and Exceptions Statement
Failure to provide required documentation to the above may result in the proposal being deemed
non-responsive. The subsections below describe the expected content for each required submission
item.
A. Cover Letter (Not a Substitute for Declaration Section). Vendor may submit a cover letter;
however, this letter cannot be used to substitute the Declaration Section, as provided below.
Not submitting the Declaration Section may declare the entire submission as non-responsive.
A signed cover letter containing: vendor legal name; primary contact information; vendor
address and website; authorized representative name and title; and a statement acknowledging
the vendor's ability to provide Microsoft licensing under applicable Microsoft licensing
programs.
B. Completed Licensing Response Table. The Mandatory Response Table must include all
fields needed to compare licensing, quantities, gaps, dependencies, comments, and pricing
across vendor submissions.
C. Licensing Equivalency Documentation. Vendors must provide a side-by-side mapping of
requested licensing requirements to proposed Microsoft Nonprofit licensing, documentation
supporting licensing recommendations, a description of any differences between requested
functionality and proposed licensing, and identification of any products without a direct
nonprofit equivalent.
D. Nonprofit Licensing Compliance Statement. Vendors must provide a written statement
confirming: proposed licensing is eligible under applicable Microsoft Nonprofit licensing
programs; licensing recommendations comply with Microsoft licensing requirements; and
restrictions, limitations, prerequisites, or eligibility requirements have been fully disclosed.
E. Pricing Proposal. Vendors must provide pricing that includes: proposed nonprofit licensing
pricing; annual subscription costs; per-license costs; one-time implementation or transition
costs; optional services separately identified; minimum purchase commitments, if any; and
contractual obligations associated with proposed licensing. Sales taxes should not be included
in the submission and will not be used to calculate quoted pricing; applicable sales taxes will
be included on the purchase order. See last page of RFQ for entering the pricing proposal.
F. Server, SQL, and Microsoft Defender Licensing Proposal. Vendors must provide a licensing
recommendation covering the Windows Server environment (4 physical hosts, 224 physical
10