2027 02 Addendum 2.pdf

Request for Quotation # 2027-02

Central Workforce and Innovation Hub

Addendum 2 Dated September 11, 2026

*****PLEASE NOTE THE CLOSING DATE OF THIS RFI HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO OCTOBER 5, 2026 at

10AM EST

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ARE ANSWERED IN THIS ADDENDUM AS WELL ALL OTHER TERMS AND

CONDITIONS REMAIN THE SAME

1. Section 3.2, items h through k, ask for our employee standards of conduct while working at CCSU, safety training programs, safety policy, and a three year injury record. 12twenty is a cloud hosted software provider with a fully remote workforce and no personnel on campus. How would the University like us to address these items? We want to avoid a non responsive submission under Section 3.1.

If not on campus please disregard.

2. FR-018 calls for associating engagements with multiple university departments. Could CCSU describe the intended behavior, specifically whether a single engagement needs to be attributable to more than one department for reporting purposes, or whether cross department visibility into a shared partner's engagements meets the requirement?

CCSU is seeking cross-department visibility into shared partner engagements. Because multiple areas may have overlapping client relationships, the goal is to identify which departments are working with each partner to reduce duplication and streamline communication.

3. FR-062 lists Handshake as a mandatory integration, and the Section 13 diagram places it under Existing Systems. Does CCSU expect the CWIH platform to operate alongside Handshake long term, or to eventually absorb its functionality?

CCSU expects the CWIH platform to operate alongside the Handshake platform.

4. Section 1.4 and Appendix II, item B, give different copy counts. Please confirm how many printed copies and brochure sets are required.

One original and 4 copies.

5. Does the CCSU intend to select a vendor and negotiate a contract directly from this RFI process, or is this informational phase intended to inform a subsequent, formal Request for Proposal (RFP) solicitation?

Informational phase is intended to inform a subsequent, formal request for Proposal, solicitation.

6. The Proposed Timeframe Table lists "Contract Finalization" on April 30, 2027, and "Implementation Kickoff" in Summer

2027. However, the next line lists the "Pilot Launch" as Fall 2026, which precedes contract fi nalization and kickoff by several months. Can CCSU clarify the target date/year for the Pilot Launch (e.g., is the intended date Fall 2027)?

Intended date/year for Pilot Launch is Fall 2027.

7. The platform requires integration with a wide variety of systems. Does the University intend to use a Middleware solution (ex.

Mulesoft) when necessary?

If needed, we own Constituo.

8. For the mandatory Banner ERP/SIS and Slate CRM integrations, does the University expect real-time bidirectional data synchronization, or will daily scheduled batch file exchanges (e.g., fl at CSV files via secure FTP) be sufficient?

Scheduled 8-hour batch is acceptable or real-time. CSV files are sufficient.

9. Your solution is looking to capture data for a lot of different types of interactions. Do you foresee needing to have a lot of controls around record creation and ownership to ensure data quality? Should access to data be modeled by college/division, by functional role, or both?

This tool will serve the Central Workforce and Innovation Hub and a secondary system for all other platforms.

10. Do you have any central data governance that can control which fields and objects are editable by role?

No, non-customizable.

11. For each mandatory integration listed in Section 7 (Outlook, Handshake, Slate–Enrollment, Slate–Success/Retention, Slate–

Advancement, Banner ERP/SIS, Alumni Engagement systems, Power BI, Salesforce, Give Pulse, Monday.com), can the

University confi rm which are currently licensed and in production versus planned or aspirational, and whether API access or an existing integration/middleware layer (e.g., an iPaaS) is already in place that proposers should assume and design against?

Platforms are in production. Slate, Banner, Power BI and Salesforce are API Access and Alumni Engagement

Systems, Give Pulse and Monday.com would need integration.

12. Do you have a sense for the current volume, format, and general condition of existing external-partner data across the departmental spreadsheets, email records, and disconnected systems referenced in the Business Problem Statement? Is data migration, deduplication, and cleansing included in the awarded vendor's scope of work, or will the University prepare and cleanse this data prior to implementation?

80,000 Alumni, 100,000 student records, total records not to exceed 300,000.

13. What is the source of the job opportunities and postings? Where should the postings be viewed? (public or authenticated users only)

Handshake via authenticated users.

14. Can the university identify any document storage and security requirements? (I.e, policies around where documents can be accessed, how long they should be accessible, etc)

7 years per state of CT record retention policy.

15. Will all contract and agreement approvers be fully licensed users in the new system?

Yes

16. Are you open to acquiring third party packages to enhance capabilities around Salesforce’s native Contract management workflows and form creation? Oftentimes these packages come at an annual cost.

Yes

17. Is Banner ERP/SIS deployed on-premises or as Ellucian Banner SaaS (Ellucian Cloud)? Does the University currently hold an

Ellucian Ethos Integration license, or should the awarded vendor account for that as a separate procurement?

Yes, own ethos and Banner Sass migration on schedule for 6/14/27.

18. Section 7 references integration with "Alumni Engagement systems" without naming the specific platform(s) in use. Can the

University identify the current alumni engagement platform(s), along with the integration/API capabilities each offers?

Slate is utilized to record all alumni engagements. Slate is API Access. Live Alumni is also used as a platform that scrubs data about alums from LinkedIn, but is not being used as an alumni engagement tool as of now.

19. Are sandbox or test environments available for each mandatory integration system (Handshake, Slate, Banner, GivePulse, the alumni platform, Monday.com) to support development and testing prior to production cutover? Additionally, for each integration, does the University require real-time/near-real-time synchronization or is scheduled batch synchronization (e.g., nightly) acceptable?

No

20. What are the most important qualitative characteristics of the kind of partner you may choose for this specifi c project, given the current state of the project team on your side who would be working with us? This helps to inform the specifi c resources considered when building a thoughtful team.

Project management with depth to similar projects for educational vertical systems and price conscious.

21. Understanding cost is part of the evaluation criteria, is there a budget range you are targeting to stay within? We absolutely will aim to be lower but the information does help us prioritize solution design.

Not to exceed 200K development and 100K run.

22. Once the environment is live, what is the university’s plan to maintain the new instance?

Would prefer management, maintenance, and support.

23. Is there an expectation for the system to accept payments for events or specifi c programs offered through Workforce development? If so, does the university have a payment gateway or provider (CashNet, TouchNet, Authorize.NET) that must be used?

No expectation for payments. The university uses TouchNet.

24. Are joint proposals acceptable? e.g., a combined proposal from both the software vendor and implementation (professional services) partner.

Yes.

25. Users, Functionality, Access:

a. Please define each of the user groups that will be accessing the system (e.g., Leadership, IT, Counselors, Instructors, etc.) and how many folks there are in each group. Estimates work if final user numbers are not confirmed.

Leadership(5), CWIH team(2), and other groups to be determined as needed.

b. What actions does each user group need to take within the system? (e.g., view and/or enter data, send email or other communications, create forms, etc.).

Leadership (need view access)

CWIH team (will need full access to system)

Other (to be determined as appropriate)

c. Will external partners or contacts need any direct access to the platform (e.g., a partner portal for submitting inquiries or feedback), or is all partner-facing interaction limited to the forms described in Section 6.5?

Would be open to a partner portal for client feedback and inquiries.

26. Can you name the current technology solutions you hope to replace with this solution?

N/A

27. What systems, spreadsheets, or departmental databases are currently used to track external partner and engagement data, and which of these will CWIH replace versus continue to run alongside?

CWIH does not currently have a system in place and primarily uses spreadsheets to track information. Other platforms are used across campus and will require data integration.

28. What are the biggest challenges with the current, disconnected approach to managing external engagement? What is working well today that CCSU wants to preserve?

Limited visibility into university-wide engagement activities across departments.

29. Where do organizational records live currently? (e.g., spreadsheets, Outlook, departmental CRMs)?

Central uses various platforms. CWIH primarily relies on spreadsheets, Outlook, and Teams storage.

30. Can CCSU specify data migration requirements from existing systems — which systems, how many years of history, and which data elements should be migrated versus left behind?

Platforms are in production. Slate, Banner, Power BI and Salesforce are API Access and Alumni Engagement Systems, Give Pulse and Monday.com would need integration.

31. How are internships, apprenticeships, and other opportunities currently sourced, approved, and tracked. Is Handshake the system of record for any of these today?

Yes, Handshake is used.

32. What approval workflow is required for agreements, and how many approval steps/roles are typically involved (FR-038)?

N/A. Central already has an established process for this.

33. For the online forms described in Section 6.5 (partner inquiry, internal engagement submission, annual update, partner feedback), how many distinct forms are anticipated, and do any require e-signature?

4-5 forms and no

34. Of the eleven integrations listed in Section 7, which are must-have for initial launch versus phase 2, and which existing systems

(Slate, Handshake, Banner, Salesforce, Power BI, GivePulse, Monday.com, Alumni Engagement platform) are considered systems of record that CWIH must defer to versus systems CWIH should feed?

This tool will serve the Central Workforce and Innovation Hub and a secondary system for all other platforms.

35. Is there an existing integration platform/middleware (e.g., an iPaaS) in use today, or would CCSU expect the vendor to recommend one?

If needed, we own Constituo.

36. For the Banner ERP/SIS and Slate integrations, do any of these integrations need to be bi-directional versus one-way?

Scheduled 8-hour batch is acceptable or real-time. CSV files are sufficient.

37. Is Salesforce currently in use elsewhere at CCSU, and if so, in what capacity and by which departments?

Yes. Salesforce is currently used at CCSU by Information Technology and the Office of Professional Education.

38. What is the expected data refresh cadence for integrations (real-time, near-real-time, nightly batch)?

Scheduled 8-hour batch is acceptable or real-time.

39. Has budget been approved for this initiative? If so, what is the anticipated range for implementation services and for annual licensing/subscription costs?

Not to exceed 200K development and 100K run.

40. How important are AI agents for automating tasks (e.g., data entry from forms, meeting note summarization, follow-up reminders) and saving staff time across the CWIH user community?

Open to exploring this capability.

41. What would "explainable AI" need to look like for CCSU stakeholders and reviewers — for example, a plain-language rationale behind any AI-suggested partner match, priority score, or recommended follow-up?

N/A