24-RQFINMODRFI-NM Addendum #1.9.19.26.pdf

North Carolina Solicitation Addendum Version Date: 11/2021

Page | 1

RFI ADDENDUM #1

THIS ADDENDUM IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE RETURNED

1. The following are questions received about the Solicitation and the State’s response to those questions:

Question # Document Section

Vendor Question State’s Response

1 Section 1.0 Executive Summary

Can the Department confirm whether an administrative prime / channel-partner model—where an entity coordinates state-level administrative execution, stakeholder governance, and local agency coordination while deploying a tier-one commercial enterprise software solution—is fully accommodated within the structural scope of this modernization RFI and future solicitation?

Yes. NCDPI is also open to an administrative prime and/or channel-partner model. Vendors should propose solution and delivery structure they believe best addresses the business capabilities and specifications identified in the RFI, including any channel partners, software providers, system integrators, or other parties that would participate in delivering the proposed solution.

The response should clearly identify the proposed partners and their respective roles and responsibilities, including responsibility for implementation, integration, licensing, ongoing support, stakeholder coordination, and overall accountability for successful delivery.

Issuing Agency: NC Department of Public Instruction

Solicitation Number: 24-RQFINMODRFI-NM

Solicitation Description: Finance Modernization

Solicitation Opening Date and Time:

October 23, 2026 at 10:00 AM ET

Addendum Number: 1

Addendum Date: September 19, 2026

Purchasing Agent: Nicole Mathis

RFI NUMBER: Error! Reference source not found. 24-RQFINMODRFI-NM ADDENDUM NUMBER: Error! Reference source not found. 1

North Carolina Solicitation Addendum

Page | 2

Vendor Question State’s Response

2 Subsection l (Project Management)

Regarding the phased modernization approach and sequencing of business capabilities, will the Department consider modular deployment models where an experienced prime channel partner manages integration layers independently before core ledger cutover to mitigate operational risk across LEAs?

DPI is open to recommendations from the prime contractor regarding integration and sequencing. Where a prime contractor model is proposed, the respondent shall describe dependencies, risks, and sequencing consequences. The prime contractor shall be responsible for the coordination, integration, and work performed by the channel partners. DPI will work collaboratively with the prime contractor to finalize implementation plan and deployment sequencing.

In the response, if a specific sequence is required or recommended for successful implementation, the prime contractor shall identify the recommended sequence. This information will enable DPI to understand the implications and make informed decisions

3 Page 3, Section

1.0 – Executive Summary

Will NCDPI accept responses limited to professional services, data integration, analytics, AI governance, or implementation support when the respondent is not the commercial software licensor?

Respondents are not required to be commercial software licensors.

Referring to section 1.0, the purpose of the RFI is to gain information on viable platforms and strategies for a financial system. Responses that are limited to professional services capabilities should include recommended vendors, applications, and strategies beyond just the professional service capabilities.

4 Page 3, Section

1.0 – Executive Summary

Is NCDPI seeking a single prime systems integrator, multiple module or solution providers, or a combination of a commercial platform vendor and specialized implementation partners?

Refer to section 1.0 of the RFI, DPI seeks responses from vendors who can address one or more core business capabilities in the RFI. The department is open to a wide variety of solution approaches. This may include a single enterprise platform that can be configured, a prime system integrator proposing and integrating multiple channel partner solutions to address the full set of capabilities or a solution that addresses specific core business capability and recommends complementary partner products, where available.

Where multiple products or channel partners are proposed, the prime contractor shall clearly identify how the components will work together, and the respective roles and responsibilities of

North Carolina Solicitation Addendum

Page | 3

Vendor Question State’s Response the prime contractor and its channel partners.

5 Page 3, Section

1.0 – Executive Summary

May a respondent identify prospective platform or implementation partners whose formal teaming arrangements have not yet been finalized at the RFI stage?

Refer to response to question 4.

6 Page 5, Section 3.0(b) – Current Ecosystem; and Page 10, Section 4(j)(1) – Data Management and Integration

Will NCDPI provide an inventory of the existing financial applications, databases, integration interfaces, file formats, file volumes, transaction volumes, and technologies represented in the current financial ecosystem?

A comprehensive technical inventory of the existing financial ecosystem is not anticipated to be provided as part of this RFI. The RFI is intended to obtain market information regarding potential solution approaches, rather than detailed solution design.

Vendors shall identify any assumptions made regarding the current-state environment and specify any additional information regarding applications, databases, interfaces, file formats, data or transaction volumes, or technologies that would materially affect the proposed architecture, implementation approach, timeline, or estimated cost.

7 Page 9, Section 4(f) – General Finance and Accounting

Which financial capabilities currently reside in the North Carolina Financial System, and which capabilities does NCDPI expect the proposed modernized solution to replace, supplement, or integrate with?

NCFS is a statewide financial management and cash accounting system and is not included in scope for this modernization. DPI, as a state agency, interfaces with NCFS to receive and send files. All internal DPI financial capabilities identified within this RFI are in scope and are candidates for this modernization. The purpose and scope of this RFI is limited to the financial systems that DPI uses to communicate and pass cash to subrecipients, including all the public schools in North Carolina, which are not included in NCFS.

The modernized NCDPI financial application is expected to integrate with NCFS, as appropriate, to support required financial processes and data exchanges.

8 Pages 10–11, Sections 4(j) –

Does NCDPI have a preferred cloud environment, hosting model, NCDPI’s preferred enterprise cloud platform is Microsoft Azure. Vendors

North Carolina Solicitation Addendum

Page | 4

Vendor Question State’s Response

Data Management and Integration and 4(k) – Technical Specifications identity and access-management platform, integration platform, data platform, reporting tool, or other enterprise architecture standard that respondents should consider?

shall describe how the proposed solution would align with and integrate into an Azure-centered enterprise architecture, including identity, security, integration, data access, monitoring, and reporting.

Where the proposed solution is hosted outside Azure or depends on other cloud platforms or proprietary services, respondents should clearly identify those dependencies, explain the architectural rationale, and describe any implications for interoperability, security, operations, data movement, cost, and vendor lock-in.

9 Page 13, Section 4(n) – Cost

For vendors responding to selected capabilities rather than the complete financial ecosystem, may cost estimates be limited to the proposed capabilities and presented as ranges based on clearly stated assumptions, dependencies, and exclusions?

Yes

10 Page 4, Section 2.0(C)(1) – Submit RFI:

Content and Format

For Software-as-a-Service, Platform-as-a-Service, or professional-services responses, should respondents provide a logical cloud architecture diagram and service inventory in place of a physical network diagram and equipment list?

Yes. Logical cloud architecture and service/component inventories are acceptable where physical equipment is not applicable. Diagrams should show trust boundaries, integrations, identity, data flows, hosting responsibilities, and any external services.

11 1.0 Executive Summary, Does NCDPI envision selecting a single enterprise platform to address all identified financial capabilities, or would the Department consider a composable/best-of-breed architecture in which specialized solutions address different capabilities while integrating through a common data and reporting framework?

NCDPI is open to considering various solution approaches including a single enterprise platform, a best-of-breed architecture, or a combination of solutions. Vendors are encouraged to propose an approach that best addresses the objectives of the RFI.

For solutions involving multiple components, products or platforms, vendors shall describe integration, licensing, support, data management and the total cost of ownership implications to support a cohesive financial system with consistent user experience, interoperability, etc.

12 1.0 Executive Summary, The RFI permits vendors to respond to one or more capabilities.

Will responses addressing a subset

Refer to response to question 4

North Carolina Solicitation Addendum

Page | 5

Vendor Question State’s Response of capabilities be evaluated independently for those areas, and could multiple vendors ultimately participate in a phased modernization program?

13 3.0 Modernization Goal and Current Ecosystem,b.

Current Ecosystem

Which existing platforms or capabilities does NCDPI currently expect to retain as authoritative systems following modernization, particularly NCFS and the existing PSU ERP environments?

NCFS is a statewide system that is not managed by NCDPI and therefore is outside the scope of this modernization effort. The existing PSU ERP system is also outside the scope of this modernization.

The proposed solution should integrate with these systems and interoperate with them.

14 3.0 Modernization Goal and Current Ecosystem,b.

Current Ecosystem

Is NCDPI primarily seeking to replace the internally developed “DPI Financials” and Appropriations/Funding applications shown in the current-state diagram, or is the Department also evaluating replacement of transactional functionality currently performed within NCFS?

NCDPI is not seeking to replace the functionalities performed within NCFS.

The financial capabilities identified in this RFI are specific to NCDPI administered financial and education-funding capabilities and are in scope for this modernization. The modernized solution is expected to integrate with NCFS where necessary to support the applicable business process and data exchange.

15 4.0 Specifications,b.

Allotment Management

For allotment management, approximately how many funding formulas and rule sets are currently maintained, how frequently are they modified, and how many allotment calculation cycles or adjustments are processed annually?

While the exact number of PRCs and formulas change year-to-year due to legislation, there are currently about 120 Program Report Codes (PRCs) made up of ~90 State Allotment PRCs and ~30 Federal Allotment PRCs. Each PRC typically has its own rule set.

Each Program Report Code formula contains at least one funding factor or funding rate which is established through legislation or based on calculations with source data such as Average Daily Membership (ADM), Local Education Agency (LEA) Budget, Salary, special population headcounts, census data, etc.

Annually, these formulas and rule sets are modified by the State Board of Education, Budget Bill, and mini bills passed by the Legislature.

The five-year average for the number of revisions processed is 86.4 revisions

North Carolina Solicitation Addendum

Page | 6

Vendor Question State’s Response

(with an upward trend due to an increase in PRCs). Please note that the revisions are not just adjustments to original calculations for PRCs but also allotments that are based on new approvals or requests, and the transfer of allotments between PRCs.

Modernization and automation efforts should increase the allotment distribution efficiency and therefore decrease the number of allotment revisions processed annually.

There are two main allotment calculation phases which occur for both federal and state allotments. NCDPI refers to these Allotments phases as "Planning" (Forecast) and "Initial" (Actual).

16 4.0 Specifications,b.

Allotment Management

Does NCDPI require authorized Finance users to maintain funding formulas and legislative/business-rule changes directly through no-code/low-code configuration, or would technically administered configuration be acceptable?

The objective is to allow authorized business administrators to respond to legislative, regulatory, policy, and operational changes without recurring software development, while maintaining appropriate governance and control. Vendors shall describe how configuration is versioned, effective-dated, tested, approved, promoted, audited, and, where applicable, rolled back.

17 4.0 Specifications,b.

Allotment Management

What level of calculation detail and transaction volume should vendors assume for the approximately $14 billion in state and federal funding—for example, number of programs, appropriations, allotment records, PSUs, adjustment transactions, and historical years to be retained?

For the purposes of this RFI, NCDPI has provided figures in response to question

15. Please note that these figures are provided as an indicative measure of the scale and complexity of the current environment rather than a definitive transaction volume specification.

Detailed counts for appropriations, individual allotment records, PSU Level transactions file and interface volumes, and historical retention requirements are not being prescribed at the RFI stage.

Vendors shall identify the assumptions used in developing their proposed solution, architecture, implementation approach, and cost estimates. Vendors shall identify any additional transactional volume, historical data calculation, or organizational

North Carolina Solicitation Addendum

Page | 7

Vendor Question State’s Response information that would materially affect the proposed approach or cost.

18 4.0 Specifications,c.

Cash Management

Must the future solution itself originate and transmit ACH/payment transactions, or may cash-disbursement execution remain within an authoritative banking/ERP system while the modernized solution supports planning, approvals, monitoring, reconciliation, exception management, and reporting?

The solution should initiate and transfer the ACH file to the approved State banking institution.

19 4.0 Specifications,d.

Fiscal Grants Management

Is NCDPI seeking a full grants-management system of record— including application intake, award execution, document management, compliance, and closeout—or would the Department consider retaining specialized grant-administration capabilities while using an integrated financial planning platform for grant budgeting, forecasting, allocations, monitoring, and reporting?

NCDPI’s Grants Management specifications are described in section

4.0 (d) of the RFI. NCDPI is seeking information regarding the capabilities identified in that section and is not prescribing a specific solution architecture or requiring all capabilities within a single grants management system of record.

NCDPI is open to considering different operating and solution models. Where a vendor recommends that a particular capability be retained or provided outside the proposed solution, the response should clearly identify the capability, explain the recommended approach and describe how the proposed solution would integrate with or exchange information with that service.

Vendors may also identify additional grants management capabilities or value-added services that are not specifically addressed by the RFI specifications, but that the vendor believes would provide value to the department.

20 4.0 Specifications,e.

Financial Forecasting and Scenario Planning

What are NCDPI’s highest-priority forecasting use cases and desired planning horizons (e.g., current-year forecast, biennial planning, five-year forecast, legislative scenarios, enrollment/population-driven funding scenarios)?

Priority use cases are analyses in response to legislative scenarios such as proposed funding formula changes or in preparing cost estimates for proposed new programs to compare projected costs to proposed funding. These cases are usually on a 1-2 year timeframe.

Secondary use cases include examining funding implications because of potential enrollment/population shifts.

North Carolina Solicitation Addendum

Page | 8

Vendor Question State’s Response

These use cases are usually on a biennial budget planning or longer (5-10 year) timeframe.

21 4.0 Specifications,f.

General Finance and Accounting

Does NCDPI expect the proposed modernization solution to replace core General Ledger, Accounts Receivable, and transactional accounting capabilities, or may NCFS remain the system of record with the proposed solution providing planning, allocation, reconciliation, analytics, and reporting capabilities around it?

Refer to response to question 14

22 4.0 Specifications,f.

General Finance and Accounting

How many distinct PSU Charts of Accounts, NCFS mappings, federal account/purpose-code mappings, and historical mapping versions should vendors assume must be maintained?

PSUs report financial information to DPI using DPI's chart of accounts. DPI's chart of accounts must map to the State (NCFS) Chart of Accounts and must support reporting on Federal account/purpose codes and grants. This means one chart of accounts for DPI each fiscal year with periodic updates, with associated mappings updated multiple times during the fiscal year to support State and Federal reporting requirements and changes.

The proposed solution should support effective dating, versioning, and historical reporting of the Chart of Accounts and associated mappings so that changes can be maintained over time while preserving the mappings applicable to prior periods and transactions.

23 4.0 Specifications,i.

Data, Reporting, and Analytics

Approximately how many internal NCDPI users and external PSU users are anticipated, and can the Department provide an estimated breakdown by administrator/model-builder, read/write, approver, and read-only/reporting user types?

User counts and roles will vary depending on the capabilities and solution model proposed by the Vendor.

At this RFI stage, NCDPI is not providing definitive user counts by role.

Internal NCDPI and external user populations may have different roles and levels of system interaction.

Vendors should describe their licensing assumptions, as applicable, for different user types, such as IT/administrative, transactional/read-write, approver, and read-only/reporting users.

North Carolina Solicitation Addendum

Page | 9

Vendor Question State’s Response

If user volumes or role types materially affect solution sizing, licensing, or cost, Vendors shall identify the applicable user ranges, licensing tiers, role assumptions, or other thresholds used for their proposed solution and describe the associated cost implications. Vendors should also identify whether pricing is based on named users, concurrent users, transactions, organizational entities, usage/consumption, or another licensing metric.

24 4.0

Specifications,i.

Data, Reporting, and Analytics

What are the expected peak concurrent-user volumes, particularly during allotment releases, budget submissions, grant reporting, or year-end activities?

Refer to question 23. A general assumption is that all DPI roles would also be concurrent users and approximately 1/3 of General Users may be concurrent.

Approximate peak activities are year-end close in June and July, State appropriation in July and August, federal grant allotments in September and October, federal grant closeout September through December, and during reporting periods.

25 4.0 Specifications,j.

Data Management and Integration

Can NCDPI identify the primary source and target systems expected to integrate with the modernized solution, including NCFS, PSU ERP systems, data platforms, banking interfaces, payroll/personnel systems, and reporting repositories?

Refer to section 3.0 of the RFI, Current Ecosystem, and the chart provided.

Key systems that must be a part of any solution:

• NCFS is a source for budget and actual data and a target for batch files.

• PSU finance systems are a source for expense and revenue data.

• Finance Data Platform is the data lake for finance and some student data.

The arrows in the Current Ecosystem chart show the type of data that flows between applications

26 4.0 Specifications,j.

Data Management and Integration

Are existing integration middleware, enterprise data platforms, APIs, or managed file-transfer services available for reuse, or should vendors assume

For purposes of this RFI, vendors shall propose the integration architecture and approach that is appropriate to support the business capabilities described in the RFI. Where the proposed solution requires integration middleware, North Carolina Solicitation Addendum

Page | 10

Vendor Question State’s Response responsibility for providing the integration/orchestration layer?

orchestration capabilities, APIs, managed file transfer, or other integration services, vendors should identify those components and indicate whether they are proposed as part of the solution or are assumed to be provided by NCDPI.

27 4.0 Specifications,j.

Data Management and Integration

What refresh frequencies are required by major data domain— real-time, intraday, nightly, monthly, or event-driven—and which interfaces are considered business-critical?

NCDPI's preference is for data to be available for reporting and decision-making purposes in real time where practicable. However, integration frequency should be based on the underlying business process and control requirements. Respondents should recommend where synchronous, event-driven, asynchronous, scheduled, or batch processing is appropriate and identify the operational and cost implications. Information generated and maintained within the proposed solution should be available for reporting and authorized user access without unnecessary processing delays.

Data accuracy, completeness, integrity, and timely processing are important across the environment because the financial ecosystem supports the distribution, management, accounting, reconciliation, and reporting of State and federal funds.

For purposes of this RFI, NCDPI is not prescribing a definitive classification of business-critical interfaces.

28 4.0 Specifications,k.

Technical Specifications

What State security, cloud-hosting, data-residency, disaster-recovery, and compliance standards must the proposed SaaS solution satisfy?

Are there specific State security certifications or authorization requirements vendors should address?

Proposed solutions must comply with the applicable NCDIT Statewide Information Security Manual, statewide security and data-handling policies, and other State security requirements in effect for the procurement and implementation. Respondents should describe how their solution supports applicable security controls, including identity and access management, encryption, logging and monitoring, vulnerability management, incident response, continuity and disaster recovery, and protection of State data.

North Carolina Solicitation Addendum

Page | 11

Vendor Question State’s Response

For third-party cloud services, respondents should identify their current GovRAMP status or accepted FedRAMP authorization, the applicable authorization level, and any activities required to satisfy North Carolina cloud-service risk authorization and continuous-monitoring requirements.

29 4.0 Specifications,k.

Technical Specifications

The RFI references compliance with “applicable higher education security and privacy standards.”

Can NCDPI clarify the specific security/privacy standards applicable to this K–12/state-agency environment?

The reference to “higher education security and privacy standards” is intended to refer more broadly to applicable security, privacy, and data-protection requirements for NCDPI as a North Carolina State agency and K–12 education agency. The proposed solution is primarily intended to support financial management functions and may process multiple classifications and types of data. Vendors shall describe how their proposed solution supports applicable security, privacy, and data-protection requirements, including, as applicable:

• North Carolina Statewide Information Security Manual and applicable NCDIT security policies, standards, and requirements and GovRAMP for applicable cloud services;

and

• other applicable federal and State privacy, security, records-management, and data-protection requirements.

Vendors shall identify the security frameworks, certifications, controls, and standards applicable to their proposed solution.

30 4.0 Specifications,k.

Technical Specifications

What specific WCAG version and conformance level should vendors use when responding to the accessibility requirement?

The most current accessibility standards applicable to State and local governments under federal law and regulation as of the date of this solicitation is WCAG 2.1, Level AA.

Vendors should identify the current WCAG version and conformance level

North Carolina Solicitation Addendum

Page | 12

Vendor Question State’s Response supported and describe their approach for maintaining accessibility as applicable federal standards evolve.

31 4.0 Specifications,l.

Project Management

Does NCDPI have a target date for beginning implementation and/or a target date for the first production release?

NCDPI expects respondents to propose a realistic implementation timeline based on their recommended solution and implementation approach. If a phased implementation is proposed, the response should identify the anticipated timeframe for implementation and production release of each business's capability, including key dependencies and sequencing considerations.

32 4.0 Specifications,l.

Project Management

Which business capabilities does NCDPI currently view as highest priority for the first implementation phase? For example, allotment management, financial forecasting/scenario planning, grants financial planning, reporting/analytics, or another capability.

All business capabilities within this RFI are in scope for this modernization.

NCDPI has not prioritized a set of capabilities for the first phase of implementation.

Based on previous experience, understanding of the system and business process dependencies, implementation considerations and industry best practices, vendors are expected to recommend a phased implementation approach that minimizes disruption to NCDPI’s operations, manages implementation risks and maximizes business value.

Vendors shall explain the business and architectural rationale for the recommended sequencing, including foundational capabilities, dependencies, risk reductions, and opportunities for early business value.

Vendors are encouraged to identify areas where sequencing is flexible and can be adjusted by NCDPI based on business priorities, operational needs, resource availability, and other implementation considerations.

33 4.0 Specifications,l.

Project Management

Is there a desired maximum duration for the overall modernization program or for individual implementation phases?

DPI’s planning objective is to substantially complete the modernization within approximately three years.

North Carolina Solicitation Addendum

Page | 13

Vendor Question State’s Response

34 4.0 Specifications,l.

Project Management

The RFI references a future pilot installation. What scope, user population, duration, and success criteria does NCDPI currently anticipate for the pilot?

The referenced section describes a phased implementation approach for the capabilities included in the proposed solution; it is not intended to define a pilot implementation phase or establish a specific pilot scope, user population, duration, or success criteria at this stage.

For purposes of this RFI, Vendors shall include how the proposed capabilities could be implemented in logical phases, including recommended sequencing, dependencies, transition considerations, and implementation approach.

35 4.0 Specifications,n.

Cost

Has NCDPI established a preliminary budget or planning range for software subscription/licensing and implementation services that vendors should use when developing budgetary estimates?

Vendors shall develop estimates based on the specifications and business capabilities included in the proposed solution. Where software licensing, subscriptions and consumption-based pricing is involved, vendors shall provide estimates based on pricing ranges, assumptions and other factors that could materially affect the cost (users, integrations, storage, # of environments, AI, etc.).

36 4.0 Specifications,n.

Cost

For cost-estimating purposes, should vendors price all capabilities listed in the RFI, only the capabilities included in their response, or both a capability-specific price and an illustrative enterprise-wide modernization range?

Vendors are expected to price the capabilities that are included in their response.

RFI ADDENDUM #1