2600415 IEPA EIMS Rebid Q and A.docx

Illinois EPA – EIMS Rebid RFP Questions and Answers

Budget and Procurement Structure

1. Has IEPA established a budget range or not-to-exceed amount for the implementation and ongoing operation of the Environmental Information Management System?

IEPA has projected estimates and budgeted appropriately for this project, but does not have information to assist in bid preparation at this time.

2. Is funding fully appropriated, or contingent on future legislative approval or federal grants?

Contingent on future legislative approval after FY27.

3. Does the State expect the vendor to provide separate pricing for implementation vs ongoing operations (M&O)?

Pricing shall be submitted using the IL Cost Workbook – Attachment B. Ongoing operations is on tab three of the IL Cost Workbook. Implementation costs will be covered under different tabs located within the IL Cost Workbook.

4. Is IEPA open to subscription-based SaaS pricing versus traditional license + maintenance models?

License + maintenance are preferred.

5. What contract duration is anticipated (e.g., 5-year base with renewals)?

10-year initial term.

6. Is there a target annual operating cost IEPA expects to stay within?

Not yet established.

Current System and Cost Baseline

7. What systems currently support permitting, compliance, inspection, enforcement, and financial tracking across IEPA programs?

Currently stand-alone systems, unique to each bureau, support each of the listed functions. Systems are dated, and were mostly developed in-house or with contractor support.

A mix of all the above, but primarily custom-developed and bureau-specific.

Due to the disparate nature of current systems and support, this estimation is not readily available.

Project Timeline and Implementation Expectations

14. Does IEPA have a target go-live date for the new EIMS?

Please refer to Section F.1.34 of the RFP document.

Please refer to Section F.1.34. of the RFP document.

16. Is there an expected implementation duration (e.g., 18–36 months)?

Please refer to Section F.1.34. of the RFP document.

17. Would IEPA consider a modular rollout starting with high-priority permitting programs?

Yes, this would be considered.

18. Is IEPA planning for a pilot bureau implementation before statewide deployment? Please refer to Section F.1.34 of the RFP document. No specific pilots have been planned, although proposals that include phased implementation will be considered.

Scope and Program Coverage

19. Which IEPA bureaus will be included in the initial implementation scope?

To be determined based on the proposal. All bureaus will be included eventually, but open to a phased approach if that is proposed.

20. Are air, land, and water permitting programs expected to be implemented simultaneously?

To be determined based on the proposal. All bureaus will be included eventually, but open to a phased approach if that is proposed.

Yes. Multiple ArcGIS systems and other ESRI apps are currently in use, including Survey 123, Field Maps, and Experience Builder. This includes using SQL and REST services backends.

23. Will the EIMS need to integrate with EPA federal systems (e.g., ICIS, ECHO, CDX)?

Yes, such as RCRAInfo.

24. Is IEPA seeking a single facility registry across all programs, or separate program databases?

Single facility registry across all programs with the ability to incorporate bureau-specific information.

25. Does IEPA require vendors to demonstrate environmental regulatory experience specifically, or is experience with general licensing systems sufficient?

Please refer to Section A.2.4. “Vendor Roles” for required experience.

Data Migration and Legacy Systems

26. Approximately how many legacy systems or databases will require migration?

Please refer to Section B.2.2. and B.2.3. of the RFP document.

27. What is the estimated volume of records to be migrated?

Please refer to Section B.2. of the RFP document.

28. Will historical permit and compliance records be migrated or only active records?

Both historic and active permit and compliance data may be migrated.

29. Are there data quality challenges in existing systems the vendor should anticipate?

There is a possibility of data quality challenges in existing systems

30. Is there a central facility registry today, or will the EIMS create one?

There is an existing one. EIMS will also need to create one.

Permitting and Regulatory Complexity

31. Approximately how many permit applications are processed annually across all IEPA programs?

Approximately 9,600. Please see: Permit Annual Summary

32. Which programs generate the highest permit volume?

Please see: Permit Annual Summary

Please see: Permit Annual Summary Public Portal and External Users

36. How many external regulated entities interact with IEPA today?

On the order of thousands regulated entities.

Electronic signatures will be integrated, and CROMERR compliant where required.

Integration and Technology Environment

DoIT is standardizing Azure cloud hosting. GovCloud or public dependent upon use case. In most cases public suffices.

41. Are there state security standards beyond FedRAMP / NIST / CROMERR?

IAM (provided via Okta).

42. Will IEPA require real-time GIS-enabled environmental reporting and facility mapping?

Yes, utilizing ESRI tools and services.

Reporting and Analytics

43. What are the most critical reporting needs IEPA expects the EIMS to support?

Standardized and non-standardized reporting is desired. This includes Federal reporting, reports for public consumption, internal evaluations, site specific or program wide information in response to specific inquiries.

44. Will the system support environmental justice analytics and geographic reporting?

YES

45. Is there an expectation for self-service dashboards for program managers?

YES

Maintenance and Operations

46. What support model does IEPA expect after implementation?

DoIT resources will provide Level 1 help desk support, which is currently provided 24x7. The vendor is expected to provide Level 2 and Level 3 product support.

Unknown at this time

48. Will IEPA require 24×7 support?

IEPA is evaluating Maintenance and Operations, including the Help Desk. Vendors should describe their best approach for support for F.3.10.9.

Vendor Demonstration Expectations

49. What specific use cases should vendors demonstrate?

Please refer to Section F.5. for use cases related to the demonstration.

50. Will IEPA provide sample workflows or datasets for demonstrations?

Unknown at this time.

Competitive Landscape

51. Are there specific commercial environmental permitting systems IEPA evaluated prior to issuing this RFP?

No

52. Does IEPA currently use any commercial environmental management platforms?

One-off basis, typically for single functions.

Project Scope and Priorities

53. The RFP mentions 758 operational activities — can IEPA provide process flow documentation for the top 10–15 most critical permitting and compliance workflows, even informally?

IEPA cannot provide process flow documentation and compliance workflows at this time.

Data Migration

54. What is IEPA's definition of "active project" for migration purposes — specifically, how far back does “active” or open permit and enforcement data go? Please confirm only “active project” data is in the migration scope.

The desire is to at least maintain the functionality of existing systems, which are estimated to include data through the 1980s or 1990s.

Technical Architecture

55. Could the agency please describe what is meant by dual-running of systems.

Parallel operations of current functions and equivalent EIMS functions.

56. Regarding the dual-running approach during cutover — what is the expected duration of parallel operations, and who bears responsibility for keeping legacy systems current during that period?

Parallel operations will continue until the equivalent EIMS functions are deployed and validated. DoIT and IEPA are responsible for keeping legacy systems current during the parallel operations period.

57. For analytics and data visualization, is it sufficient for the system to seamlessly provide data to third-party tools such as Excel, Tableau, and Power BI, or must native analytics capabilities be built into the EIMS itself?

Both options would be considered.

Integrations

58. Does the legal management software integration referenced in the technical requirements refer to an existing tool already in use at IEPA, or is the vendor expected to propose one? What is the functional scope of the desired integration?

The vendor should propose a solution as a part of the submission.

59. Does IEPA currently maintain HW data directly in RCRAInfo? For integration, what is the anticipated flow of data between RCRAInfo and the new solution?

RCRAInfo is currently entered by hand. Under a grant, we are working on a system to allow us to push info from our database to RCRAInfo. Ideally, we would like generators to submit information to us via electronic reporting, have that info populate our database, and then have the data needed by RCRAInfo pushed electronically to RCRAInfo.

60. What is the current data exchange frequency and volume between AmpliFund and SAP, and will the EIMS be expected to sit in that data flow or simply read from it?

The frequency of the current data exchange is not readily available at this time. At this time, it’s expected to read from it.

Cloud Hosting and Infrastructure

61. Preferred Cloud Provider — Does IEPA have a preferred cloud hosting provider (e.g., AWS GovCloud, Azure GovCloud, Google Cloud) or should vendors propose their own?

DoIT is standardizing Azure cloud hosting. GovCloud or public dependent upon use case. In most cases public suffices.

Stakeholder Engagement

62. Change Management — Does the agency anticipate a formal change-management program that should be jointly executed with the vendor?

Yes

Implementation and Support

63. Architecture — Does the State envision the EIMS as a single consolidated platform for all programs (air, water, land, waste) or a federated architecture with modular capabilities?

Preference for consolidated platform.

64. Implementation Phasing — The RFP indicates a preferred phased rollout within a 24-month implementation window. Can IEPA clarify whether specific bureaus or program areas are expected to be prioritized for the initial deployment phase?

There is no set bureau or program rollout schedule at this time.

65. Legacy System Transition — The RFP references a dual-running approach between legacy systems and the new EIMS during transition. Can IEPA clarify whether any specific legacy systems must remain operational throughout the full implementation period?

There are likely to be systems that will need to remain fully operational until EIMS is fully deployed and validated.

66. Mobile Inspection Capability — For field inspections, does IEPA expect the mobile application to support offline data capture and synchronization in areas with limited or no network connectivity?

There is interest in proposals that allow for this capability.

67. Reporting & Analytics — Tools Does IEPA currently utilize enterprise reporting or analytics platforms (such as Power BI or similar tools) that the EIMS solution should integrate with for dashboards and reporting?

There may be one-off integrations of existing tools, but largely EIMS should provide this capability

68. Reporting Templates — Are there existing regulatory reporting templates used for federal reporting that the vendor should expect to automate within the EIMS solution?

YES

69. External users — Does IEPA anticipate requiring public access to environmental datasets, facility information, or compliance history through a public-facing data portal?

Yes

70. AI/Automation — Are there any preferences for AI/ML or automation tools to support predictive compliance monitoring, anomaly detection, or citizen engagement?

Open to reviewing proposals with AI/ML capabilities

71. Budget — Has a specific funding amount or budget range been approved that can help align our technical and cost proposal?

IEPA has projected estimates and budgeted appropriately for this project, but does not have information to assist in bid preparation at this time.

72. Timeline — Does the Agency have a preferred go-live date or implementation timeline in mind for the new system?

Please refer to Section F.1.34. of the RFP document.

73. Support Model Clarification — Please clarify the expected support model for EIMS operations. Will the Agency provide Level 1 help desk support, with the vendor responsible for Level 2 and Level 3 support, or should the vendor provide full Level 1–3 support services? If Level 1 support is provided by the Agency, please indicate the expected hours of operation.

DoIT resources will provide Level 1 help desk support, which is currently provided 24x7. The vendor is expected to provide Level 2 and Level 3 product support.

74. Operational Support — Can IEPA clarify expectations regarding vendor responsibilities during post-implementation operations, including support hours, SLAs, and system monitoring responsibilities?

The vendor is expected to provide product support and monitoring of the product software system and infrastructure post-implementation. Open to proposals regarding support hours and SLAs.

Data Migration/Archival

75. Data Migration — The RFP estimates approximately 4–5 TB of data to be migrated. Can IEPA provide a breakdown of the major legacy systems contributing to this volume and confirm whether this estimate includes both structured data and documents?

Primarily structured data that does not include documents. Spread across many systems for all bureaus.

76. Data Quality — Will IEPA provide data profiling or data quality assessments of legacy systems prior to migration, or should the vendor plan to conduct comprehensive data discovery and cleansing?

Both

77. Data Archival — For legacy records that are rarely accessed but must be retained due to regulatory requirements, does IEPA prefer full migration into the new EIMS or archival access through a separate repository?

Full migration is preferred, but if legacy records can be accessed from the new EIMS by integrating access to the separate repository, this is acceptable as well.

78. Document Management Strategy — Does IEPA expect the EIMS platform to serve as the primary document repository for regulatory records, or should the solution integrate with an existing enterprise document management system for long-term records retention?

The solution should integrate with an existing document management system for long-term records retention, specifically DocuWare.

Integration

79. Architecture — Does the State maintain an enterprise integration platform or middleware that vendors are expected to use when integrating EIMS with other State systems?

There’s no required standard platform for middleware or integration services.

80. Federal System Interfaces — For integrations with federal EPA systems such as ICIS, SDWIS, RCRAInfo, AQS, and EIS, will interface specifications and data exchange formats be provided by IEPA during implementation?

YES

81. GIS Integration — The RFP indicates that IEPA currently utilizes ESRI ArcGIS. Should the proposed solution integrate directly with existing ArcGIS services hosted by the State, or is the vendor expected to host additional GIS services as part of the solution?

Integration with ESRI is required. Open to consideration of additional GIS services.

82. External User Identity — The RFP specifies integration with the State’s Okta identity platform. Should external users (e.g., permit applicants, consultants, laboratories) authenticate through the same Okta identity provider, or should the solution support self-registration and external identity management?

Authenticate through the same Okta identity provider

Testing and Training

83. UAT Framework — What is IEPA’s preferred testing framework for UAT and integration testing (e.g., use of Jira, ALM, TestRail)?

All proposals will be considered.

84. Training — What level of end-user and administrative training is expected from the vendor? Does the Agency anticipate requiring role-based training materials, train-the-trainer sessions, or post-go-live support for onboarding new users?

IEPA expects substantial end-user and administrative training from the vendor, up to and including the methods listed.

85. LMS — Will the vendor be expected to provide and manage a Learning Management System (LMS) for training, or can training be delivered through existing State platforms?

Open to either option.

86. Operational Responsibilities Post-Implementation — Following system implementation, does IEPA anticipate that certain system administration or configuration activities will transition to internal staff, or will these functions remain primarily vendor-managed during the maintenance and operations phase?

IEPA expects the Vendor to provide system administration for the infrastructure.

Miscellaneous

87. Relating to the ipg-active-registered-vendor-disclosure-formerly-forms-b-v.23.1~8; Question #4: Is "Disclosure of Current and Pending Contracts" only with the State of IL or in any state?

Only State of Illinois contracts need disclosed.

88. Will the attendee list from the pre-bid conference will be shared with vendors following the session?

Yes, a list of the pre-submission conference attendees has been uploaded to the “Attachments” tab in BidBuy.

89. RFP Section A.1, B.2.: Are all target properties confirmed to be on Adobe Experience Manager (AEM) today, and are there exceptions (e.g., web apps, microsites)?

The answer is unknown at this time.

90. RFP Section A.2.1.: What Adobe Experience Manager (AEM) constraints are non-negotiable, such as required templates and components and rules for global versus agency-specific regions, and is the vendor expected to use an existing Illinois design system (for example, the Illinois WCMS Author Guide)?

IEPA utilizes the Illinois WCM Authoring Guide - https://wcmauthorguide.illinois.gov/

91. RFP Section A.2.1.: During design, the RFP states to “incorporate” existing content but no migration — can you please clarify further what you mean by "incorporate"?

No further clarification at this time.

F.1. is a list of requirements that will become part of the contract. There is nothing to complete and return for this Section. By submitting a proposal, the Offeror is agreeing to the contract requirements set forth in Section F.1.

Yes, as required.

100. Will the vendor be responsible for accessibility remediation of legacy content, such as PDFs, and rich media assets, such as videos?

Not required, but desired.

101. The RFP describes implementation scope across the Associate Director's Office (ADO), Division of Legal Counsel (DLC), Financial Management, and records management at a high level. To ensure vendors can propose an accurate and complete solution, could the State provide additional clarification on the following:

a. Which specific programs and processes from ADO, DLC and Financial Management are in scope and which are explicitly out of scope?

There are unlikely to be programs and processes that are explicitly out of scope.

b. Which legacy systems are expected to be fully replaced, versus integrated with the new solution? The majority of legacy systems will be fully replaced.

c. What data is expected to be migrated, and are there known data quality or formatting issues with legacy data?

Historic and active data will be migrated. There may be data quality or formatting issues with legacy data.

102. Could the agency clarify what is meant by Technical Requirement TR-5 “The solution should provide automated compliance checks to ensure adherence to contract terms.” Specifically is the requirement related to the issuance and compliance with an issued permit, or is it relative to a different contract?

No further information is available at this time.

103. TR-11 indicates the solution should provide risk assessment frameworks to evaluate potential environmental or safety impacts. Risk assessment can vary significantly in complexity and approach — from a configurable scoring matrix that rates facilities based on violation history and operational factors, to a formal impact modeling tool that projects environmental consequences of incidents or non-compliance. To ensure vendors propose the right solution, could the State provide additional detail on:

a. Is there an existing risk assessment methodology or framework the solution should support, or is the agency looking for the vendor to propose an approach?

The vendor should propose an approach.

b. Is the primary intent to prioritize inspection and enforcement activities, or to model and project actual environmental or safety impacts?

The intent is to assist in prioritizing inspection activities and to model actual environmental impacts from regulated activities.

c. Should the framework be configurable by program type, or applied uniformly across the agency?"

The framework should be configurable by program type.

104. TR-14 indicates the solution should integrate with blockchain-based tools for immutable records of compliance data. Blockchain is one approach to ensuring records cannot be altered after creation; however, there are other widely accepted methods that achieve the same outcome — such as cryptographic audit logs, write-once storage, and timestamped hash verification — that may be more practical to implement within an enterprise solution. Could the State clarify:

a. Is blockchain integration a firm requirement, or is the underlying goal to ensure compliance records are tamper-evident and auditable?

Not a firm requirement.

b. If the solution provides demonstrable immutability through alternative means, would that be considered compliant with TR-14?"

Alternative solutions will be considered.

105. We believe a 24-month go-live is achievable for high-priority programs; however, attempting to implement all programs within scope on this timeline introduces significant risk to the project. Would the State be open to a phased implementation schedule that prioritizes critical programs while allowing adequate time for full deployment of all programs?"

Phased approaches will be considered.

106. Did the evaluators see the previous pricing and could that influence their decision? The evaluators did not see previous pricing, and the names of the Offerors for the original solicitation were not disclosed to anyone.

image1.jpg image2.jpg