| Source file | Exhibit C.4 - BRF - Pricing Schedule REV3.0-Offshore |
| Tab used | Sched A Total Evaluated Price |
| Tabs in workbook | Sched A Total Evaluated Price, Sched B Deliverables Price, Sched C Maint and Ops Price, Sched D Extra Contractural Serv, MSC |
| File modified | 2025-01-28T05:57:55.329Z |
| Documents snapshot | propshop-archive/drive snapshot 2026-09-03 |
Extractor confidence
| Field | Confidence |
|---|
| 0 | m |
| 1 | e |
| 2 | d |
| 3 | i |
| 4 | u |
| 5 | m |
Fields the extractor could not find
non_opportunity_reasontotal_contract_valueddi_valuemo_valuewarranty_valuesaas_valuelicense_valuethird_party_valuevalue_by_yearduration_months_ddiduration_months_mocontract_term_monthsuser_countuser_count_notecounties_or_officesrolestotal_person_monthshours_basis_per_monthmodulesdeliverablesphasesassumptionsrfp_summarysoftware_and_tools
Extraction notes
Both spreadsheets in this folder are named 'Exhibit C.4 - BRF - Pricing Schedule REV3.0' (Offshore vs Onshore variants) and are Kyyba Tech Inc.'s own signed Vermont IES cost-proposal Schedule A/B/C/D forms for the State of Vermont / Agency of Digital Services / Department of Vermont Health Access. Neither workbook contains any mention of 'Cardinality' or 'Cardy' anywhere (checked all tabs) - this is COMPETITOR pricing intelligence Cardinality collected/retained for the VT IES opportunity, not Cardinality's own bid. total_contract_value, ddi/mo/warranty_value, roles, staffing and assumptions are therefore all left null rather than attributed to Cardinality; the two grand totals are captured in competitor_data and variant_totals instead. It is unknown from these files alone whether Cardinality bid on VT IES at all, bid as a sub to a different prime, or simply tracked Kyyba's bid for competitive intelligence.