50-2526031 CRM RFI Addendum 3.pdf

North Carolina Community College System

Dr. Jeff A. Cox

President

200 W. Jones St., Raleigh NC 27603

Mailing Address: 5001 Mail Service Center | Raleigh, NC 27699-5001 Street Address: 200 W. Jones St. | Raleigh, NC 27603 nccommunitycolleges.edu | Phone: 919-807-7100 | Fax: 919-807-7173

IMPORTANT RFI ADDENDUM

May 13, 2026

THIS RFI ADDENDUM DOES NOT HAVE TO BE RETURNED:

BID Number: 50-2526031 COMMODITY: Customer Relationship Management (CRM)

ADDENDUM Number: 03 USING AGENCY: ***DEPARTMENT - NCCCS***

PURCHASER: Grant Braley OPENING DATE/TIME: May 20, 2026 @ 4:00 PM EST

INSTRUCTIONS:

1. Answers to Vendor Questions.

# Vendor Question Answer

1 NCCCS indicates interest in a shared systemwide “golden image” configuration. Can you clarify how governance will be structured to manage enhancements, configuration changes, and release management across colleges while maintaining that baseline?

A shared governance structure will guide system-wide decisions, likely through a steering committee and functional advisory groups. The NCCCS Office retains final authority over the golden image baseline.

2 What level of flexibility will individual colleges have relative to the systemwide “golden image” baseline, and how will exceptions be managed?

The NCCCS Office will own the baseline “golden image” configuration. Colleges will have controlled extension capabilities.

3 Does NCCCS anticipate a phased rollout approach (e.g., pilot cohort of colleges) or a systemwide deployment across all 58 institutions?

A phased, pilot-based rollout is anticipated, with selection based on readiness, diversity of size/type, and willingness to serve as early adopters.

4 What criteria will NCCCS use to prioritize initial implementation groups or pilot institutions?

A phased, pilot-based rollout is anticipated, with selection based on readiness, diversity of size/type, and willingness to serve as early adopters.

5 Is NCCCS planning for a centralized data architecture or reporting layer to support system-level insights across all institutions?

The NCCCS is evaluating a centralized reporting approach, with a preference toward a shared data layer that supports systemwide insights while still allowing institutional-level reporting.

6 What are the expectations for real-time versus batch integrations with SIS platforms (Ellucian Banner/Colleague) and LMS platforms such as Canvas?

Integration expectations are a combination of near real-time integration for key transactions and scheduled batch processes where appropriate.

7 What CRM or student engagement tools are currently in use across the colleges, and how variable is adoption and maturity across institutions?

The current environment is highly variable, with multiple platforms and limited standardization.

8 Can NCCCS expand on expectations for employer and workforce engagement capabilities and how these should integrate with student lifecycle processes?

Alumni, employer, and workforce engagement is important but secondary to core student lifecycle functionality in initial phases.The initial release will prioritize core functionality required to support recruitment, admissions, student engagement, and event management.

9 Has NCCCS defined a funding model for this initiative (e.g., system-funded vs. institution-funded), and how will costs be allocated across colleges?

Funding models are under evaluation and may include system-level and institutional contributions.

10 Will vendors be required to respond to this RFI in order to be eligible to participate in a subsequent RFP?

Participation in the RFI is not required for future RFP eligibility.

11 How does NCCCS envision supporting colleges with limited or no existing CRM capability during implementation, onboarding, and long-term adoption?

A hybrid support model is anticipated, combining centralized, vendor-led, and institution-level support roles.

12 There are mentions of Alumni and Donor Tracking. Is the CRM intended to do end-to-end constituent management supporting the full student lifecycle? Is there neccessary consideration for additional integrations for integration with Advancement?

Alumni, employer, and workforce engagement is important but secondary to core student lifecycle functionality in initial phases.The initial release will prioritize core functionality required to support recruitment, admissions, student engagement, and event management.

13 Does each campus have their own instances of Banner and Canvas or are both on a centralized model, leveraged by all of the institutions?

The NCCCS plans to move to a single SIS instance for all colleges. LMS integrations will remain decentralized.

14 In regards to payments, are their specific payment processing requirements for each institution or the NC Community College System generally?

Payment will be processed in accordance with NC procurement regulations. Vendors must typically submit invoices directly to the purchasing agency, with payment processed after receipt and acceptance of goods/services

15 Beyond the eVP addendum, will respondent submissions (or summaries thereof) be shared with the 58 colleges or only retained within the System Office?

Respondent submissions will be retained by the System Office, with summaries shared in alignment with State procurement guidelines and confidentiality requirements.

16 Will the future Banner SaaS environment be a single, system-managed instance with shared data across all 58 colleges, a federated model with college-specific instances, or a hybrid?

The integration design and "golden image" approach differ materially across these architectures.

The NCCCS plans to move to a single SIS instance for all colleges.

17 How does the State envision balancing the "golden image" baseline against local college autonomy? Specifically: which configuration domains (workflows, communication templates, application forms, reporting dashboards) does the State expect to be standardized at the system level vs.

owned by individual colleges?

The NCCCS Office will own the baseline “golden image” configuration. Colleges will have controlled extension capabilities.

18 Should respondents demonstrate the ability to retire existing point solutions (e.g., separate scheduling, CRM, early alert, and case management tools) within a single platform, or is the State open to a multi-vendor stack integrated through middleware?

The results of the RFI will inform the NCCCS approach to multiple vendors for different parts of the lifecycle, the preference is for a single solution.

19 The RFI references "broad adoption" but does not specify whether participation by all 58 colleges is mandated or opt-

in. Will respondents be evaluated against a 58-college deployment scenario, or a phased/voluntary adoption model?

The NCCCS is exploring a single, system-wide CRM platform.

20 Should the cost worksheet (Year 1–3) reflect a fully-deployed 58-college scenario, a phased rollout, or both?

Vendors should provide pricing for full and phased deployment scenarios. A phased, pilot-based rollout is anticipated, with selection based on readiness, diversity of size/type, and willingness to serve as early adopters.

21 Is there a contract currently fulfilling CRM services for NCCCSO? If so, could you provide the contract #, value, expiration, and vendor name?

The NCCCSO does not currently have a system-wide CRM contract.

22 How does this RFI align with an/or build upon the objectives established in the 2023 Recruitment CRM RFP (IFB 50- 2223035)? What outcomes from the 2023 process informed the scope of this RFI?

The 2023 RFP established a voluntary, cohort-based pilot that gave the System Office direct operational experience evaluating CRM performance across institutions of varying size and capacity. Outcomes from that process — including observed gaps in pricing transparency, vendor responsiveness, training support, and data integration — directly informed the scope and evaluation criteria of this

RFI.

23 What system functionalities are required to be available in an offline or limited-connectivity environment? Are there specific colleges or use cases that drive this requirement?

Vendor responses should include solution capabilities for offline and/or limited connectivity environments. There are no specific use cases driving this requirement.

24 Should pricing be structured as a bundled, full lifecycle cost, or should advancement and donor management components be proposed and priced separately?

Advancement and donor management components be proposed and priced separately

25 What level of standardization versus local flexibility is the system targeting across the 58 colleges? Is the intent a single 'golden image' baseline configuration with optional local customization, or something more decentralized?

The NCCCS Office will own the baseline “golden image” configuration. Colleges will have controlled extension capabilities.

26 Is NCCCS considering a phased rollout (pilot institutions first) or a full systemwide deployment from the outset? If phased, how will pilot institutions be selected?

A phased, pilot-based rollout is anticipated, with selection based on readiness, diversity of size/type, and willingness to serve as early adopters.

27 How does NCCCS plan to support colleges with no existing CRM infrastructure versus those with more mature CRM environments? Will there be tiered implementation tracks?

A hybrid support model is anticipated, combining centralized NCCCS, vendor-led, and institution-level support roles.

28 What are the most significant gaps today across the student lifecycle (recruitment, onboarding, advising, retention, and completion) that NCCCS is prioritizing with this CRM initiative?

The NCCCS is prioritizing improved recruitment funnel management, seamless onboarding, and stronger engagement to support retention and completion.

29 What system-level reporting and benchmarking capabilities are most important to NCCCS leadership? Are there specific cross-college dashboards or KPIs that the system office needs to track?

Key dashboards include application funnel metrics, yield rates, and student engagement indicators. Solutions should enable consistent KPIs and systemwide performance comparisons across institutions.

30 What role will the NCCCS system office play in driving adoption versus individual colleges? Will there be a centralized implementation team, or will each college manage its own deployment?

A hybrid support model is anticipated, combining centralized NCCCS, vendor-led, and institution-level support roles.

31 Can you describe the anticipated governance and decision-making structure for this initiative, including the roles of the System Office, institutional leadership, and any advisory or steering committees?

A shared governance structure will guide system-wide decisions, likely through a steering committee and functional advisory groups.

32 Which stakeholder groups will be involved in evaluating responses and shaping next steps following this RFI?

A shared governance structure will guide system-wide decisions, likely through a steering committee and functional advisory groups.

33 How will responses to this RFI inform a potential future procurement process (e.g., formal RFP, pilot phase, or phased evaluation)?

RFI responses will inform requirements, solution design, and procurement strategy, potentially leading to a formal

RFP.

34 What is the anticipated timeline for next steps, including any potential RFP issuance, pilot programs, or phased rollout decisions?

The timeline for next steps is under development, with expectations for phased progression following RFI review.

35 Is the intent to select a single system-wide platform, a set of approved vendors, or another model?

The NCCCS is exploring a single, system-wide CRM platform.

36 To what extent will individual colleges retain autonomy in selecting and configuring CRM solutions, and is the long-term vision a mandated system-wide platform or a recommended framework?

The NCCCS is exploring a single, system-wide CRM platform. The NCCCS Office will own the baseline “golden image” configuration. Colleges will have controlled extension capabilities.

37 Are there existing CRM, communication, or application platforms currently in use across institutions that the System Office is seeking to consolidate or replace through this initiative?

While some of the colleges currently have a CRM, this initiative is largely a greenfield deployment with some coexistence and migration considerations.

38 How is the System Office envisioning the scope of the shared “baseline” or “golden image” configuration, and what balance of standardization versus institutional customization is expected?

The NCCCS Office will own the baseline “golden image” configuration. Colleges will have controlled extension capabilities.

39 Can you provide a current overview of enterprise systems in use across the 58 colleges, including SIS, LMS, and key engagement or application platforms?

The environment is primarily Ellucian-based, with varied LMS and engagement tools across institutions.

40 Are there plans to standardize core systems (e.g., SIS, LMS) in parallel with this CRM initiative, and how should vendors plan for that transition?

There are related system-level initiatives underway, and vendors should design for flexibility to accommodate future alignment.

41 What level of real-time integration and system interoperability is expected across institutions and system-level reporting environments?

A mix of near real-time and scheduled batch integration is expected, with emphasis on reliable data synchronization for key processes.

42 How important is system-level reporting and cross-institution analytics in evaluating solutions?

System-level reporting and analytics are highly important.

43 Are there existing data infrastructure initiatives (e.g., data lakes, centralized reporting platforms) that this solution should align with?

The NCCCS is advancing data governance and centralized reporting capabilities, though the environment is still evolving. Solutions should be flexible and capable of aligning with future system-level data infrastructure.

44 How does the System Office envision the role of AI in supporting system-wide consistency, student engagement, and operational efficiency?

AI is viewed as an essential capability to enhance engagement, efficiency, and consistency.

45 How central is employer and workforce engagement functionality in evaluating CRM solutions relative to traditional student lifecycle use cases?

Employer and workforce engagement is important but secondary to core student lifecycle functionality in initial phases.

46 What challenges or gaps in the current CRM and engagement landscape across NCCCS is the System Office most focused on addressing through this initiative?

The current landscape is operating with varied tools, inconsistent support, and varied levels of adoption, and lacks transparent pricing.

47 Is the System Office considering pilot cohorts, phased adoption, or segmentation by institutional readiness as part of implementation?

A phased, pilot-based rollout is anticipated, with selection based on readiness, diversity of size/type, and willingness to serve as early adopters.

48 Are there anticipated funding models (e.g., system-level funding, institutional contributions, grants) that will shape how solutions are evaluated?

Funding models are under evaluation and may include system-level and institutional contributions.

49 How is the System Office engaging institutional leadership in shaping the direction of this initiative?

Institutional leadership is engaged through advisory groups, committees, and structured feedback processes.

50 How does the System Office envision ownership of ongoing support (e.g., centralized system-level, vendor-led, institution-level, or hybrid)?

A hybrid support model is anticipated, combining centralized, vendor-led, and institution-level support roles.

51 How does the System Office view the role of third-party partners or implementation firms in supporting onboarding, adoption, and ongoing success?

A hybrid support model is anticipated, combining centralized NCCCS, vendor-led, and institution-level support roles.

52 How are tradeoffs between cost efficiency and depth of support being considered in evaluating potential solutions?

The NCCCS seeks to balance cost efficiency with long-term value, scalability, and support quality.

53 What expectations does the System Office have for vendor accountability in driving adoption, performance, and outcomes across all institutions?

Vendors will be expected to demonstrate accountability for delivery, adoption, performance, and measurable outcomes.

54 What level of shared services, training, and change management support is expected as part of a system-wide rollout?

A hybrid support model is anticipated, combining centralized, vendor-led, and institution-level support roles.

55 What challenges has the System Office observed in supporting CRM adoption and success across institutions to date?

A hybrid support model is anticipated, combining centralized NCCCS, vendor-led, and institution-level support roles. The System Office has observed that adoption gaps emerge quickly between large institutions with dedicated enrollment management staff and smaller colleges with limited capacity to configure, train, and sustain platform use. Across cohorts, the most consistent friction points have been data integration complexity, vendor responsiveness and customer service, pricing transparency, and the need for more structured and accessible training resources.

56 I am seeing two different due dates on the RFI and would appreciate clarity. The top of the form lists May 7th as a due date, further down under RFI Procedures it indicates that responses must be received in the office by May 13th. Do we have until May 13th at 4:00PM to submit?

The updated due date is May 20, 2026 at 4 PM.

57 With regards to pricing, would you like one total price that includes all 58 colleges, or do you prefer to have pricing for each college separately?

The NCCCS is requesting a total price for all 58 colleges.

58 Please describe the intended governance model for a single CRM environment supporting all 58 institutions, including where final authority resides for system-wide configuration decisions.

Colleges will have controlled extension capabilities. A shared governance structure will guide system-wide decisions, likely through a steering committee and functional advisory groups. The NCCCS Office retains final authority over the golden image baseline.

59 Will CRM governance be centralized, decentralized, or hybrid? If hybrid, please describe how decision-making will be divided between system leadership and individual institutions.

Colleges will have controlled extension capabilities. A shared governance structure will guide system-wide decisions, likely through a steering committee and functional advisory groups. The NCCCS Office retains final authority over the golden image baseline.

60 How will system-wide changes that impact multiple institutions (e.g., data model updates, workflow changes) be reviewed, approved, and prioritized?

System-wide changes will be managed through a formal governance structure, including a change control process with system office leadership and college representation to review, prioritize, and approve updates.

61 Is the expectation that all 58 institutions operate within one Reach and Dataverse environment (i.e. single Azure tenant), or will multiple environments be used?

NCCCS is currently evaluating environment strategy, but is generally considering a shared, multi-tenant architecture with appropriate logical separation rather than fully independent environments per institution.

62 What level of data separation is required between institutions (e.g., complete isolation, limited shared visibility, system-level reporting only)?

Data separation will be enforced at the institutional level, with controls to ensure colleges primarily access their own data while supporting system-level reporting.

63 Should users ever have visibility into records associated with other institutions (e.g., shared constituents or system-level analytics)?

Cross-institution visibility will be limited and role-based, primarily for system-level functions, shared constituents, and approved reporting use cases.

64 How should ownership be handled for contacts who interact with more than one institution within the system? (i.e.

Each college will handle contact directed to their respective institution. If a student engages multiple individuals who apply to more than one institution within the system) institutions, they will receive contact from each college independently.

65 In the event of data conflicts between Reach and integrated systems (e.g., SIS), which system should be considered the authoritative source?

The SIS will generally be considered the system of record for academic and enrollment data, while the CRM will serve as the system of engagement for recruitment and communication data.

66 Are institutions expected to follow a common recruitment lifecycle, or may lifecycle stages and business process rules vary by institution?

The NCCCS anticipates a common baseline recruitment lifecycle, with limited flexibility for institution-specific extensions where justified.

67 Where institutional process variation exists today, is the objective to preserve those variations or to standardize them across the system?

The objective is to standardize core processes where feasible, while allowing controlled variation to meet unique institutional needs.

68 Is a phased or pilot-based rollout anticipated prior to full systemwide deployment? If so, how will pilot institutions be selected?

A phased, pilot-based rollout is anticipated, with institutions selected based on readiness, diversity of size/type, and willingness to serve as early adopters.

69 Is parallel operation with legacy systems expected during transition, and if so, for what duration?

The NCCCS will determine at a later time whether parallel operation with legacy systems will be required during the transition period, as well as the expected duration of any such overlap.

70 How many distinct Student Information System (SIS) platforms are currently in use across the 58 institutions?

The NCCCS plans for all colleges to use the same SIS at the time of integration.

71 Are integrations expected to be consistent across all institutions, or may different institutions require distinct integration patterns?

The NCCCS expects a standardized integration framework, with some flexibility to accommodate institution-specific requirements where necessary.

72 Which integrations are considered mandatory for initial go-live versus eligible for phased delivery?

Mandatory integrations for initial go-live include CFNC and core SIS integrations (Colleague/Banner), with additional integrations (e.g. third-party tools) eligible for phased delivery.

73 Are institution-specific third-party tools expected to remain in use long-term, or is platform consolidation a future objective?

Institutions may have additional third-party tools that will remain in long-term use.

74 Are there scenarios where data must remain fully restricted to a single institution for regulatory, compliance, or policy reasons?

Yes, certain data may require strict institutional-level access controls to meet regulatory, compliance, or policy requirements.

75 How many institution-level users are expected to perform administrative or configuration activities?

A relatively small subset of users at each institution (e.g., system administrators and power users) will perform configuration activities; estimates will be refined during implementation.

76 Who owns ongoing system optimization and configuration after initial implementation? (e.g. centrally managed governance vs. institution-specific governance)

A shared governance structure will guide system-wide decisions, likely through a steering committee and functional advisory groups. The NCCCS Office retains final authority over the golden image baseline.

77 What is the institutional project management organization structure? What is the level of involvement from this team during Reach project implementation?

NCCCS will provide central project leadership, with each institution designating project leads and SMEs expected to actively participate throughout implementation.

78 Will the CRM implementation project be socialized to all of the institutions?

Yes, the project will be broadly communicated and socialized across all 58 institutions through formal engagement and communication channels.

79 What is the expectation of how historical data should be retained?

Vendors should propose solutions that adhere to institutional retention policies.

80 What system(s) are currently in place to manage/track Alumni and Donors?

Alumni and Donor tracking is currently decentralized, with institutions using a variety of systems or local solutions.

81 Can you specify what is meant by Alumni/Donor Tracking? Alumni and Donor Tracking refers to managing constituent relationships, engagement history, and giving activity for fundraising and outreach purposes. Alumni, employer, and workforce engagement is important but secondary to core student lifecycle functionality in initial phases.

82 Are you presently receiving/managing online donations? Is this done on a college by college basis, or at a system level.

What solution(s) are in place to receive/process the donations? What is your annual gift transaction volume (number of donations received annually) for your each institution? What is the amount of annual donations received by institution? How many alumni/donors are currently managed in your Environment? How many years of donor data do you plan on importing into a new system?

Online donation management is handled at the institutional level, with varying tools and processes;

detailed volumes and metrics are not centrally standardized.

83 Please provide a college by college estimate for number of applications received on an annual basis.

Application volume varies significantly by institution, but systemwide estimates are in the hundreds of thousands annuall

84 Please provide an estimate for the number of administrative/power users for each of the 58 campuses.

Administrative/power user counts will vary by institution size, but are expected to represent a small percentage of total users per campus.

85 Please provide an estimate for the number of departmental users (Admissions Advisors, Student Advisors, Staff) for each campus.

Colleges vary in size and may have differing needs for numbers of users.

86 Is the desired structure to house Alumni/Donor Data in the same CRM as the Student Lifecycle Data, or is it preferred that Alumni/Donor Data be housed in a separate instance of the CRM?

NCCCS is evaluating this approach, but the initial focus is on student lifecycle functionality, with alumni/donor/employer outreach capabilities potentially addressed in future phases.

87 What solutions/systems are currently being used to manage external partners, workforce outreach?

Management of external partners and workforce outreach are currently decentralized, with institutions using a variety of systems or local solutions.

88 This states the response deadline is May 13, 2026 at 4 PM ET but the due date on page 1 is listed as May 7, 2026. Please clarify the due date.

The updated due date is May 20, 2026 at 4 PM.

89 Does NCCCSO anticipate issuing a formal RFP following this RFI, or is there potential for vendor selection directly from this process?

RFI responses will inform requirements, solution design, and procurement strategy, potentially leading to a formal

RFP.

90 Can NCCCSO provide additional detail on the envisioned governance model for a shared, systemwide CRM platform (e.g., centralized vs. distributed administration)?

The NCCCS Office retains final authority over the golden image baseline. Colleges will have controlled extension capabilities. A shared governance structure will guide system-wide decisions, likely through a steering committee and functional advisory groups.

91 What level of autonomy will individual colleges have in configuring workflows, data models, and processes within the proposed “baseline” or “golden image” framework?

The NCCCS Office retains final authority over the golden image baseline. Colleges will have controlled extension capabilities.

92 How does NCCCSO anticipate balancing systemwide standardization with institution-specific needs?

The NCCCS Office retains final authority over the golden image baseline. Colleges will have controlled extension capabilities. A shared governance structure will guide system-wide decisions, likely through a steering committee and functional advisory groups.

93 Can NCCCSO provide an overview of the current technology landscape across the 58 colleges, including: Student Information Systems in use (e.g., Ellucian Banner vs.

Colleague)

Currently using Ellucian Colleague with the expectation to migrate to Banner

94 Can NCCCSO provide an overview of the current technology landscape across the 58 colleges, including: Any existing CRM or engagement platforms currently deployed

While some of the colleges currently have a CRM, this initiative is largely a greenfield deployment with some coexistence and migration considerations.

95 Is there an existing middleware or integration strategy (e.g., iPaaS) in place today?

Ellucian ethos, Data Connect, Boomi. NCCCS expeccts integration between proposed solution with Ellucian Colleague, Banner & Student.

96 Are there existing data standards or shared data definitions across institutions?

Data standards are compliant with federal and state requirements. Some data definitions may vary across insitutions

97 Does NCCCSO have an estimated number of anticipated users, including distinctions between administrative/power users and read-only or limited-access users?

Colleges vary in size and may have differing needs for numbers of users.

98 Can NCCCSO provide a breakdown of key user personas (e.g., admissions, advising, workforce development, employer relations)?

Colleges vary in size and may have differing needs for numbers of users.

99 Is NCCCSO considering a phased implementation (e.g., pilot colleges) or a single systemwide go-live?

A phased, pilot-based rollout is anticipated, with selection based on readiness, diversity of size/type, and willingness to serve as early adopters.

100 If a systemwide go-live is anticipated, are there target timelines for project start and deployment?

The NCCCS will explore timelines at a later phase of discovery.

101 Are there priority use cases or functional areas NCCCSO would expect to be addressed first (e.g., recruitment, advising, employer engagement)?

The initial release will prioritize core functionality required to support recruitment, admissions, student engagement, and event management, with alumni/donor/employer outreach capabilities potentially addressed in future phases.

102 What level of internal resources (system office and/or college-level) are expected to support implementation and ongoing administration?

A hybrid support model is anticipated, combining centralized, vendor-led, and institution-level support roles.

103 The RFI cover sheet lists a Due Date of May 7, 2026, while Section 2.A states that all responses must be received no later than May 13, 2026, at 4:00 PM ET. Which date is authoritative? Will the State issue an addendum to clarify?

The updated due date is May 20, 2026 at 4 PM.

104 Will the future procurement (RFP) include implementation services as part of the same instrument, or does the State intend to procure software licensing and implementation services separately (e.g., software via this RFI/RFP and SI services through a separate vehicle, an existing State Term Contract, or college-level engagements)?

NCCCS is currently evaluating the most effective procurement strategy and has not yet finalized whether software licensing and implementation services will be procured under a single instrument or through separate vehicles.

105 Does the State anticipate (a) a single master contract administered by NCCCSO covering all 58 colleges, (b) separate contracts with each college, or (c) a master agreement with college-level participation/work orders? Are there preferred or required procurement vehicles (NASPO

The NCCCS plans a single enterprise-wide license agreement signed by the System Office.

ValuePoint, E&I, Carahsoft, existing NC State Term Contracts) the State expects respondents to leverage?

106 Section 1.c lists capabilities across security, integration, data, automation/AI, UX, performance, student/customer management, student engagement, and event management.

Can the State identify which capabilities are MUST-HAVE for the initial systemwide baseline release versus those that may be deferred to subsequent phases (e.g., alumni/donor management, employer engagement, agentic AI)?

The initial release will prioritize core functionality required to support recruitment, admissions, student engagement, and event management. Vendors should design solutions that support future expansion without requiring re-platforming.

107 Has NCCCSO or any of the 58 colleges documented common business processes (e.g., admissions workflow, application review, advising case management, early-alert triggers, employer outreach) that should serve as the design starting point? Or is process design itself in scope of the implementation?

NCCCS and its colleges have varying levels of documented business processes, but there is no single, standardized systemwide process model currently in place.

108 What is the State's tolerance for custom development (Apex, LWC, custom objects/UI) versus strictly out-of-the-box configuration in the systemwide baseline? Are there limits or governance expectations on the percentage or type of customization permitted in the golden image?

The NCCCS Office retains final authority over the golden image baseline. Colleges will have controlled extension capabilities.A shared governance structure will guide system-wide decisions, likely through a steering committee and functional advisory groups.

109 Of the 58 colleges, can the State identify which currently hold Salesforce licenses or production orgs, and which products are deployed (Sales Cloud, Education Cloud, Marketing Cloud Engagement, Account Engagement/Pardot, Experience Cloud)? What is the State's expectation for those orgs — consolidated into the baseline, retired, or co-existing?

The NCCCS will not provide that information at this time.

110 Which non-Salesforce CRMs are currently in production across the 58 colleges (e.g., Slate, Element451, TargetX, Anthology Reach, EAB Navigate, Civitas)? What is the expected migration approach for those colleges — full data and configuration migration, lift-and-shift to baseline, or fresh start with reference data only?

While some of the colleges currently have a CRM, this initiative is largely a greenfield deployment with some coexistence and migration considerations.

111 Does the State have an existing CI/CD or change management process for Salesforce deployments (e.g., Gearset, Copado, SFDX pipelines), or is establishing a deployment framework expected to be part of the implementation scope?

The System Office maintains a change advisory board.

Vendors are encouraged to provide change management solutions, best practive, guidance within their solution delivery.

112 Are there managed packages currently in use at any college (e.g., FormAssembly, Conga, DocuSign, nCino-style products) that must be supported in the baseline? Are there existing custom Salesforce solutions at colleges that must be preserved or harmonized into the golden image?

At this time, there is no standardized set of managed packages required across all colleges. The selected solution should be flexible and extensible to support common third-party integrations where needed

113 What is the anticipated migration scope per college and in aggregate across the 58 colleges — historical applicants, current students, alumni, donors, communications history, advising notes, document attachments? Are there target date cutoffs (e.g., last 5 years) versus full historical migration?

Migration is expected to include core student lifecycle data, with final scope to be refined during implementation. Final cutoff windows will be determined during design

114 Will the State and/or colleges perform data extraction, cleansing, and de-duplication prior to migration, or is data preparation expected to be in scope for the implementation partner? Are there known data quality issues (duplicates across colleges, inconsistent IDs, legacy free-text fields) the State has already inventoried?

Data preparation is expected to be a shared responsibility.

115 Building on Salesforce's question regarding SIS integration:

approximately how many of the 58 colleges run Ellucian Colleague, Banner 9, and Banner Go respectively? For each SIS integration, is the State's expectation real-time bi-directional sync, near-real-time batch, or scheduled batch?

Which entities must sync (applicants, enrollments, course registrations, financial aid, transcripts)?

The NCCCS plans to move to a single SIS. Integration expectations are a combination of near real-time integration for key transactions and scheduled batch processes where appropriate.

116 Is selection and licensing of an iPaaS/middleware platform (e.g., MuleSoft, Boomi, Workato) in scope of this procurement, or does the State assume an existing/pre-existing integration platform that respondents should design against? If pre-existing, which platform?

The NCCCS has not mandated a specific iPaaS platform.

117 How many technical staff does NCCCSO have dedicated to or available for data integration work — specifically, staff with experience configuring SIS integrations (Colleague, Banner), managing API connections, or administering an iPaaS/middleware platform? What is their current level of familiarity with Salesforce administration and integration tooling?

The NCCCSO has limited dedicated integration resources, with some centralized support. The vendor is expected to provide strong technical leadership, knowledge transfer, and documentation.

118 What is the expected integration scope with CFNC (College Foundation of North Carolina) — read-only applicant data pull, bi-directional application status sync, or real-time event-based triggers? Does CFNC publish a vendor-accessible API, or does this integration require direct coordination with CFNC prior to implementation?

Integration with CFNC is expected to be bidirectional with near-real-time or scheduled sync. CFNC does not publish a vendor-accessible API, and the vendor will need to coordinate with CFNC prior to implementation.

119 Will the State provide a single, system-level identity provider (IdP) for SSO across all 58 colleges, or do colleges each maintain their own IdPs (e.g., Azure AD, Shibboleth/InCommon, Okta)? What is the expected approach to user lifecycle management (provisioning/deprovisioning) across institutions?

Identity management will remain decentralized across colleges. User lifecycle management is expected to remain locally managed by colleges, with integration hooks where needed.

120 What internal resources will NCCCSO and the colleges commit to the implementation — full-time project sponsor, system-office PM, business analysts, system administrators, SMEs per functional area, college-level project leads? What percentage of time can college-level resources be expected to dedicate (e.g., 25% during design, 50% during UAT)?

NCCCS and colleges will provide shared implementation support, the details of which will be decided at a later date.

121 How will design decisions affecting the systemwide baseline be made and ratified? Is there a defined governance body (steering committee, baseline change-control board)? Do individual colleges have approval, veto, or advisory authority over baseline elements? How will the 58 colleges' input be gathered and adjudicated?

A shared governance structure will guide system-wide decisions, likely through a steering committee and functional advisory groups. The NCCCS Office retains final authority over the golden image baseline.

122 Are there expectations or requirements for on-site implementation presence at the System Office, individual colleges, or geographic regions? Is travel reimbursable separately or assumed within the fixed price?

NCCCS anticipates a hybrid implementation approach.

On-site presence may include visits to the System. Office or select colleges during key project phases (kickoff, design workshops, go live support). The vendor should plan to cover their travel expenses.

123 Is NCCCS planning to transition to a centralized application model in which all 58 colleges use a single, systemwide application, while still allowing for certain decentralized components?

Yes, the NCCCS Office will own the baseline “golden image” configuration. Colleges will have controlled extension capabilities.

124 How does NCCCS prioritize the following capabilities in this evaluation – application, CRM/recruitment, student success/retention, employer/workforce engagement?

The initial release will prioritize core functionality required to support recruitment, admissions, student engagement, and event management, with alumni/donor/employer outreach capabilities potentially addressed in future phases.

125 What are the top three outcomes the new infrastructure must improve?

Efficiencies and returns in student recruitment, onboarding, and retention engagement.

126 What gaps exist today in student success/retention that this solution must address?

The current landscape is operating with varied tools, inconsistent support, and varied levels of adoption, and lacks transparent pricing.

127 How are early alert, advising, and case management handled today across colleges?

There is currently no unified methodology. Colleges use a variety of different software solutions and technologies.

128 Which department(s) own each lifecycle phase? Colleges use a variety of departments and approaches to student lifecyle management.

129 What level of standardization is expected across the 58 colleges?

The NCCCS Office will own the baseline “golden image” configuration. Colleges will have controlled extension capabilities.

130 What degree of local customization will be acceptable? The NCCCS Office will own the baseline “golden image" configuration. Colleges will have controlled extension capabilities.

131 What platforms and tools are currently used across campuses for marketing, recruitment, and communications?

Colleges use a variety of software solutions and technologies.

132 Does UA require application review and decisioning functionality to be included within the CRM? If so, please describe key requirements.

Application review and decisioning functionality is preferred for specialized programs, however, general application review and decisioning will occur in the SIS.

133 Is there a desire for centralized communication campaign management or decentralized control?

The NCCCS prefers centralized communication options;

however, individual colleges must be able to run institution-specific communication campaigns.

134 What current systemwide solutions are used for application collection and management, and to what extent must they be maintained, replaced or integrated into the proposed solution?

The CRM should ingest and process CFNC-originated applications.

135 Does UA have a preference for CRM solutions built on a specific platform (e.g., the Salesforce ecosystem)?

Not at this time.

136 What is UA’s preference for customization versus out-of-the-box functionality?

Preference is strong initial out-of-the-box functionality with opportunities for customization in later phases of implementation.

137 Which CRM systems are currently in use across campus and would this solution be replace existing CRMs in use or work in tandem?

While some of the colleges currently have a CRM, this initiative is largely a greenfield deployment with some coexistence and migration considerations

138 Is there a target go-live date or phased rollout plan by campus?

RFI responses will inform timelines for a potential formal RFP and implementation.

139 Should implementation occur simultaneously across campuses or in phases?

The NCCCS plans a phased, wave-based rollout. We will start with an initial pilot cohort of early adopters (TBD) followed by multiple implementation waves.

140 Is there a target go-live date or phased rollout plan by campus?

Not at this time.

141 What are the highest priority workforce use cases? The initial release will prioritize core functionality required to support recruitment, admissions, student engagement, and event management, with alumni/donor/employer outreach capabilities potentially addressed in future phases.

142 Are there existing systems used for employer relationship management today?

Employer management is currently decentralized, with institutions using a variety of systems or local solutions.

143 Is there an allocated or anticipated budget range for this initiative that vendors should consider when proposing solutions?

Not at this time.

144 What is the approximate annual application volume for across campuses?

Application volume varies significantly by institution, but systemwide estimates are in the hundreds of thousands annually.

145 Can UA provide an estimated number of users, segmented by role (e.g., administrative/power users vs. general/end users)?

Colleges vary in size and may have differing needs for numbers of users.

146 Must responses to the technical specifications beginning on page 3 be within the table or can we respond in order within a basic word text document?

Responses can be reported within the table or as a text document.

147 What is North Carolina CC System looking for vendors to enter into the Notes/Cost column in the technical specifications grid beginning on page 3?

This is an optional field to note vendor-specific solutions and costs related to that specification.

148 Could this RFI result in an award? Is that the expected scenario?

The RFI will not result in an award. An RFP may be issued at a later date.

149 Is it planned that an RFP will follow this RFI? RFI responses will inform requirements, solution design, and procurement strategy, potentially leading to a formal

RFP.

150 Is an RFI submission required to submit a response to a potential subsequent RFP?

Participation in the RFI is not required for future RFP eligibility.

151 It is our understanding that the NCCCS reports nearly 14,000 employees (non-faculty). Roughly speaking, approximately what percentage of these do you see as regular users of this tool? Additionally, what % would be occasional users?

NCCCS anticipates that approximately 20–30% of non-faculty staff would be regular users (e.g., admissions, advising, student services), with an additional 30–40% serving as occasional users depending on role, access level, and institutional adoption strategies. Usage will scale over time as functionality expands and adoption matures.

152 It is our understanding that the NCCCS reports nearly 18,000 faculty members. Roughly speaking, approximately what percentage of these do you see as regular users of this tool?

Additionally, what % would be occasional users?

The results of the RFI will inform the usage rates.

153 Approximately how many applications are completed across NCCCS annually? Do you have insight into incomplete application volume?

Application volume varies significantly by institution, but systemwide estimates are in the hundreds of thousands annually. NCCCS does not currently maintain a centralized count of incomplete applications, though improving visibility into application funnel metrics is a desired outcome of this initiative.

154 It is our understanding that there are ~631,000 students enrolled across the NCCCS. Roughly speaking, approximately what percentage of these do you see as interacting with this system daily? users of this tool? Additionally, what % would interact with this system monthly? It is our understanding that there are ~631,000 students enrolled across the NCCCS.

Roughly speaking, approximately what percentage of these do you see as regular users of this tool? Yearly?

The results of the RFI will inform the usage rates;

however, it is expected that all students will interact with the platform in some way each month.

155 Based on your public data and our understanding of similar customers, it is our assumption that your constituents actively receiving communications will be at least 1,000,000.

Roughly speaking, approximately what percentage of these can you envision receiving daily communications via Email and/or SMS? Approximately what percentage of these can you envision receiving weekly communications via Email and/or SMS? Monthly? Few Times a Year?

The results of the RFI will inform the usage rates.

156 Is there an existing enterprise integration strategy at NCCCS?

If so, how do you, if at all see this project within that strategy. We have a depth of integration options and expertise and seek to align the best fit options for your strategy.

The NCCCS plans to move to a single SIS instance for all colleges.The CRM golden image would integrate with the

SIS.

157 To better understand the scope of integration, can you provide estimated transaction volumes (e.g., number of student records synced per day) or concurrent user/record counts across the system? What is the expected peak volume of concurrent API calls during high-traffic periods like registration or application deadlines?

Colleges vary in size and may have differing needs transaction volume

158 For the integrations with third-party vendors like Parchment and CFNC, will the integration be managed via a central State-level contract/portal, or must the solution support 58 individual college-level API credentials

Vendors are expected to respond with architecture and pricing for both centraized and decentralized models.

159 Regarding integrations with third-party vendors (e.g., Parchment, CFNC), does the State have a preferred interoperability…