Rev. 09/01/2009

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT WILMINGTON

Purchasing Services

IMPORTANT RFP ADDENDUM

Date Addendum Issued: July 10, 2026

RFP NUMBER: 72-PALG26086 COMMODITY: Student Success & Retention Solution ADDENDUM NUMBER: One (1) USING AGENCY: UNCW PURCHASING AGENT: Antoine Glasper OPENING DATE/TIME: August 4, 2026 / 2:00 p.m. ET

INSTRUCTIONS:

This Addendum forms a part of the RFP Documents and modifies the Contract Documents with amendments and additions noted below:

I. Proposal Submittal Extension

The proposal submittal deadline has been extended to no later than 2:00 pm ET on August 4, 2026.

II. Questions and Answers

1. UNCW's requirements place significant emphasis on predictive analytics, machine learning, explainable AI, and automated interventions. Please describe the institution's current use of AI technologies across Student Success, Advising, Enrollment, Academic Affairs, and Student Affairs, including any AI governance frameworks, policies, or adoption goals that should be considered during implementation.

Answer: UNCW maintains a pro-innovation but cautious stance on AI. The university encourages the use of AI when it is applied responsibly, ethically, and securely, and is actively exploring its potential while establishing guardrails to protect academic integrity and institutional data. As part of this effort, UNCW is conducting a comprehensive evaluation of evidence-based AI practices in teaching, learning, student support, and operational efficiency. Although adoption is intentionally measured, the institution is committed to understanding how emerging technologies can enhance student success, improve service delivery, and strengthen academic quality.

Within academic advising, AI is implemented only as a support tool to assist advisors in their work with students.

It does not replace the need for professional advising or the advisor–advisee relationship. This aligns with NACADA’s scope of practice, which emphasizes maintaining one-to-one interactions and ensuring that group activities or artificial intelligence resources do not supersede or replace relationship-building. UNCW’s advising practice also prioritizes empowering students to be active participants in their advising experience by creating structures, policies, and opportunities for individualized connection.

2. Beyond the limitations of Starfish described in the RFP, what are the top three business challenges or operational pain points UNCW hopes to solve through this procurement?

Answer: Fragmented systems limiting coordinated, data-driven support: Student data, alerts, communication, and case management are spread across disconnected tools, preventing a unified view of student needs and hindering cross-campus collaboration.

Reactive support model that delays interventions: UNCW lacks the predictive analytics and automated workflows needed to identify risk early, personalize outreach, and intervene before issues escalate—resulting in missed opportunities to improve retention.

Inability to scale holistic, proactive student care: The university faces growing student complexity without modern tools to streamline workflows, coordinate care, and deliver timely, personalized support at scale.

3. Please describe current Starfish utilization, including approximate numbers of active faculty, advisors, staff, and students, along with the primary workflows currently managed within Starfish.

Answer: Starfish is a campuswide student success solution used across Academic and Student Affairs by students, faculty, and staff. With UNCW’s enrollment goal of 23,000 students, the current solution supports:

• Faculty & Staff — 3,733 users

• Students — 49,558 total (~22,000 active)

This scale underscores Starfish’s role as a core infrastructure system for academic engagement, advising, and student support.

Advising Configuration

Advising relies heavily on Starfish for caseload management, communication, and student engagement.

• Advisor Roles — 500 users hold the Primary Advisor role; 584 hold the General Advisor role.

• Role Structure — Primary Advisors cannot view all student content under the current configuration, necessitating the General Advisor role to ensure full visibility.

Workflows and Progress Surveys

Starfish automates structured feedback cycles throughout each term. These workflows are essential for early intervention, compliance, and student support.

Main Campus Surveys

• Roster Verification — Week 2; supports mandated Registrar reporting.

• Yet to Thrive — Week 2; targeted to First-Year seminars to identify early engagement concerns.

• Early Alert — Sent to all non-OAP undergraduate instructors; flags attendance, low scores, missing work, and enables referrals.

• In Danger of Failing — Alerts advisors to students at risk of failing.

• SASS Progress Survey — Collects performance information for Student-Athlete Support Services.

Online Accelerated Programs (OAP)

• Undergraduate Risk Survey — Flags students earning below a C.

• Graduate Risk Survey — Flags students earning below a B.

Core Functional Components

• Tracking Items — Faculty and advisors can flag concerns or issue kudos; advisors use tracking items to reinforce required student actions.

• Appointment Scheduling — Critical advising function enabling individual and group appointment availability and student self-scheduling.

• Kiosks — QR-based check-in for in-person advising appointments, feeding into waiting-room workflows.

• Notes vs. Messages — Notes create a shared record across the student’s success network; messages are private and limit information flow.

• Caseload & Filtering — Advisors use Starfish for caseload visibility, though filtering limitations require supplemental tools.

• Reporting — Advising offices use solution reports to analyze meeting trends, tracking items, and note content.

• Success Plans - Our current solution offers “Success Plans” which are a collection of tracking items that serve as trackable milestones for short and long-term goal setting, One of UNCW’s colleges utilizes this Success Plan feature as their primary enrollment management vehicle for students that plan to apply for Admission to their programs.

Support Services Integration

Several student support units—including the Career Center, Learning Center, and others—use Starfish referrals.

Advisors and faculty can refer students directly, and some referrals are automatically generated through progress surveys.

4. Please provide current unduplicated headcount for pricing purposes.

Answer: 23,000 students strategic plan goal UNCW’s current solution lists the following number of users with key user roles

• Faculty & Staff - 3733

• Students – 49558 total o ~22,000 Active o The remainder consists of profiles for all students with enrollments one year forward and four years back.

5. For Banner, Canvas, Degree Works, Slate, and other identified systems, does UNCW expect the selected vendor to develop and maintain production integrations, or does the institution anticipate providing internal technical resources for ongoing integration management?

Answer: The solution should leverage enterprise integration standards and minimize custom point-to-point integrations. Vendor-supported APIs, event-drive integrations, and documented data models are preferred to facilitate sustainable long-term maintenance.

UNCW's preference is for the selected vendor to provide and maintain supported production integrations with Banner, Canvas, Degree Works, Slate, and other identified enterprise systems whenever possible. Vendors should describe their standard integration architecture, available APIs or connectors, and their approach to maintaining integrations through application and platform upgrades.

UNCW will provide appropriate technical resources to support implementation, testing, security reviews, and ongoing collaboration. However, we prefer vendor-supported integrations that minimize the need for institution-developed or institution-maintained custom integration code.

UNCW is open to alternative integration approaches, provided they are well-documented, fully supported by the vendor, and sustainable over the long term. Vendors should clearly identify any integrations that require custom development, shared ownership, or ongoing support from UNCW technical staff, along with any associated assumptions or resource requirements.

6. Please describe the current enterprise data warehouse architecture and whether the selected solution will be expected to consume data directly from the warehouse, operational systems, or both?

Answer: UNCW currently maintains an enterprise reporting environment supported by a third-party vendor. The environment includes Banner data and a Student Data Mart that supports institutional reporting and analytics.

While this environment serves many reporting needs, it is still evolving and does not yet function as a fully integrated enterprise data warehouse. Some institutional data remains distributed across operational systems and departmental data sources.

The selected student success solution should integrate with UNCW's enterprise data ecosystem while minimizing the creation of additional data silos. The university expects the platform to consume operational data from authoritative source systems, including Banner, Canvas, Degree Works, Slate, and other institutional applications, as appropriate.

Equally important, the platform should provide secure, reliable access to student success data, including engagement history, appointments, communications, alerts, cases, interventions, referrals, and outcome measures, through well-documented APIs, scheduled data extracts, or other supported integration methods. This will enable Institutional Research & Planning, academic and student affairs leadership, and other authorized users to incorporate student success data into enterprise reporting, assessment, predictive analytics, and institutional decision-making.

As UNCW continues to mature its enterprise data architecture, the university seeks a solution that aligns with long-term data governance principles, supports interoperability, and facilitates the integration of student success data into a more comprehensive institutional analytics environment.

7. Please describe the anticipated procurement approval process, including evaluation committee composition, executive approvals, procurement approvals, and any Board of Trustees or UNC System approvals required prior to contract execution.

Answer: We are not disclosing information about the evaluation committee. The evaluation criteria can be found in section 3.4 of the RFP.

8. Has funding for this initiative already been approved, and if so, is UNCW willing to provide a target budget range for implementation and ongoing license costs?

Answer: Yes, funding has been approved. At this time, UNCW is not disclosing a target budget range and will evaluate pricing received through this competitive procurement process.

9. Has UNCW evaluated or received demonstrations from student success, advising, retention, or case management platforms within the last 24 months? If so, which solutions were reviewed?

Answer: No

10. Which offices will own and manage student communications within the selected platform, and are there any existing communication platforms or communication governance structures that must be retained?

Answer: ITS and university governance will own, maintain, and steward the solution’s technical infrastructure.

Student Success & Retention will serve as the administrative home for the selected solution, responsible for functional operations and user-facing configuration.

As the administrative owner, SSR will manage all student-facing communications generated through the solution, in collaboration with campus partners and in alignment with established university governance structures. This ensures consistent messaging, coordinated workflows, and compliance with institutional standards for data security, communication practices, and system governance.

11. Does UNCW envision the selected solution providing a student-facing engagement experience, or is the primary focus advisor-, faculty-, and staff-facing workflows?

Answer: UNCW requires a student-facing engagement experience within the selected solution, as well as robust engagement tools for faculty and staff. From the advising perspective, the solution must include a student-centered engagement component that supports the advising partnership defined by NACADA. Advising at UNCW is a collaborative relationship between professional advisors and individual students, focused on each student’s unique educational journey. The technology must therefore enable meaningful, individualized interaction rather than replace it, ensuring students remain active participants in their advising experience.

12. Does UNCW have interest in incorporating external student engagement, behavioral, or market intelligence signals into persistence and retention modeling, or should predictive analytics be limited exclusively to institutionally sourced data?

Answer: UNCW is interested in solutions capable of incorporating multiple sources of student data beyond traditional SIS information when appropriate. This may include learning management activity, advising interactions, student engagement indicators, and other institutionally approved data sources.

The solution should allow the university to determine which data elements are included in predictive models and support transparent, explainable analytics that can be evaluated for bias, fairness, and effectiveness.

13. What specific outcomes will define success during the first 12, 24, and 36 months after implementation?

Answer: This depends on the solution selected - UNCW does not have sufficient information available currently to provide an accurate response to this question. However, a few key outcomes are essential to success – migration of data from current to new solution, training of campus personnel, security risk evaluation and protocols established, successful testing of new solution, and integration of new solution with UNCW systems to name a few.

14. What staffing resources will be dedicated to implementation, ongoing administration, student success operations, and data governance following go-live?

Answer: The university will ensure the appropriate resources, protocols, and data governance is well established before, during, and following go-live.

15. What is the desired implementation timeline and target go-live date following contract award?

Answer: This will depend on the selected solution in addition to other critical project management implementation timelines; however, an anticipated timeline includes AY26-27 and AY27-28.

16. What level of implementation assistance does UNCW expect from the selected vendor, including project management, data migration, change management, training, and integration support?

Answer: UNCW expects the selected vendor to provide a comprehensive implementation approach that leverages the vendor's experience and establishes best practices. While implementation will be a collaborative effort between UNCW and the selected vendor, UNCW is seeking a partner that can provide strong leadership and guidance throughout the project.

Vendors should describe the level of support they provide for project management, solution configuration, change management, training, testing, and post-implementation knowledge transfer. UNCW is particularly interested in vendors with proven methodologies for data migration and system integration, including experience integrating with higher education platforms such as Banner, Canvas, Degree Works, Slate, and other enterprise systems.

To the extent possible, UNCW prefers vendor-supported integration and migration capabilities that minimize the need for custom development or institution-built migration and integration scripts. However, UNCW is open to evaluating a variety of implementation approaches and encourages vendors to clearly describe their recommended methodology, the respective responsibilities of the vendor and UNCW, and any assumptions regarding institutional resources.

17. Will implementation be led primarily by internal UNCW resources, the selected vendor, a third-party consultant, or a combination of these groups?

Answer: Ideally, implementation is expected to be led through a collaborative partnership between UNCW and the selected vendor. UNCW will provide internal project leadership, stakeholder engagement, business process expertise, and coordination across functional and technical teams. The selected vendor will be expected to lead product implementation activities, including solution configuration, implementation guidance, best practices, training, and knowledge transfer. This collaborative approach is intended to ensure a successful deployment while building internal expertise to support the solution following implementation.

18. Are there any incumbent vendor contract expiration dates, transition requirements, or timing constraints that should be considered when planning implementation?

Answer: There is strong possibility of all these items within UNCW. UNCW administration and departmental leadership will evaluate and address these issues with the selected vendor.

19. Are there any planned Banner, Canvas, Degree Works, Slate, data warehouse, or other major system upgrades over the next 24 months that vendors should consider when proposing integrations and implementation timelines?

Answer: UNCW performs regular maintenance and upgrades to its enterprise systems in accordance with vendor release schedules. Vendors should anticipate Banner maintenance and upgrade activities during established maintenance windows, which currently occur in August, September, October, December, March, and May.

A Degree Works upgrade is currently anticipated for spring 2027 (March or May timeframe, subject to confirmation). Canvas also has an upcoming upgrade planned, although the specific upgrade tier and implementation timeline have not yet been finalized.

Vendors should account for these routine upgrade activities when proposing integration approaches and implementation timelines. Additional system upgrades or maintenance activities may occur as vendor release schedules evolve.

UNCW is currently evaluating its long-term data warehouse strategy. While a data strategy initiative is underway, the future direction, implementation approach, and timeline remain in the early planning stages and have not yet been finalized or approved.

20. For purposes of proposing a firm implementation scope, can UNCW clarify which systems are required for initial go-live and which may be implemented in a later phase or treated as optional/add-on integrations?

1. Which systems are mandatory for day-one production use?

2. Which systems are expected during the initial contract term but may follow go-live?

3. Which systems should vendors price as optional or not-to-exceed services?

Answer: All systems listed in the RFP are essential for initial go-live

21. Can UNCW clarify the approved integration methods available for Ellucian Banner? Does UNCW currently use Ellucian Ethos for Banner data access?

Answer: Yes

22. If Ethos is available, which Ethos resources or APIs are available for student, enrollment, course, registration, financial aid, billing hold, and account-balance data?

Answer: UNCW has access to the Ellucian Ethos resources and APIs supported by our Ellucian environment.

Vendors should identify the specific Ethos resources required for student, enrollment, course, registration, financial aid, billing hold, account balance, and any other necessary data domains.

Access to institutional data is subject to UNCW's established data governance and security review processes. All requests for third-party access to institutional data will be evaluated by the appropriate data stewards to ensure that only the minimum data necessary is shared, in accordance with UNCW policies and applicable regulatory requirements. Final approval for access to specific Ethos resources or APIs will be based on this review.

23. If Ethos is not available or does not cover all required domains, may vendors use other approved approaches such as secure file exchange, enterprise data warehouse feeds, ODS/views, or other API layers?

Answer: Ellucian Ethos is UNCW's preferred integration method whenever it supports the required functionality, as it aligns with the UNCW’s long-term strategy of modernizing integrations and positioning enterprise systems for a potential future transition to SaaS. While no SaaS migration is currently planned, UNCW is seeking integration approaches that are sustainable and compatible with future modernization efforts.

If Ethos does not support a required integration or domain, UNCW is open to other secure, vendor-supported approaches, including APIs, secure file exchange, enterprise data warehouse feeds, operational data store (ODS) views, or other integration methods. Vendors should describe their recommended approach, explain why it is appropriate, and identify how it can be maintained or adapted as UNCW’s technology landscape evolves.

24. Are any Banner integration specifications, sample files, schemas, or API documentation available to shortlisted or selected vendors?

Answer: Relevant integration specifications, interface documentation, sample files, schemas, and available API documentation will be shared with the selected vendor, as appropriate, to support implementation. Any documentation provided will be limited to what UNCW is authorized to share under applicable licensing agreements, vendor contracts, and policies.

Documentation will be limited to the systems and data necessary to support the approved solution and will be subject to UNCW's data governance, security, and access approval processes. Vendors should identify any technical documentation or specifications they anticipate requiring to support implementation and integration planning.

25. Can UNCW provide the expected refresh cadence for each critical source system and clarify which events must be real-time or near-real-time?

1. What refresh cadence is expected for Banner, Canvas, Slate, Degree Works, Microsoft 365, and the enterprise data warehouse?

2. Which specific events must generate immediate or near-real-time alerts, such as attendance drops, low quiz scores, registration changes, account holds, or billing changes?

Answer: UNCW expects immediate or near-real-time alerts for the specific event categories identified in the question when those events indicate a need for timely student-success intervention. These include: Attendance drops or repeated attendance concerns, where attendance data is available. Low quiz, test, assignment, or course performance indicators when available. Registration changes, including course drops, withdrawals, reduced credit load, or failure to register for an upcoming term. New or changed account holds, particularly holds that affect registration or continued enrollment. Billing or account-balance changes that may affect a student’s ability to register, remain enrolled, or persist, when institutionally approved for use. For these event categories, vendors should describe the integration method, expected data latency, and whether the alert can be generated through real-time events, near-real-time API updates, or batch processing. Where real-time alerts are not technically available, vendors should identify the shortest sustainable refresh interval and explain any limitations.

25. For systems that do not support webhooks or events, what maximum batch interval is acceptable?

Answer: For systems that do not support webhooks, event streams, or real-time APIs, vendors should identify the lowest sustainable batch interval they can support and should clearly document any assumptions, dependencies, technical limitations, and data-latency expectations. For critical student-success indicators that drive alerts, outreach, or intervention, UNCW prefers same-day batch processing, with multiple daily refreshes preferred when technically feasible. For less time-sensitive data used primarily for reporting, analytics, historical context, or background reference, daily refresh is generally acceptable. Vendors should not assume that weekly or less frequent batch processing is acceptable for data used in active risk scoring, early alerts, registration intervention, student outreach, advising workflows, or enrollment-related decision support. Any proposed batch interval longer than daily should be clearly justified and tied to data that is not time-sensitive. At minimum, vendors should provide a source-by-source refresh plan that identifies:

• The proposed refresh cadence for each system.

• Whether the integration is event-based, API-based, file-based, warehouse-based, or another approved method.

• The expected data latency.

• The maximum batch interval.

• Any limitations imposed by the source system.

• How failed or delayed jobs are monitored and remediated.

• How data freshness will be visible to UNCW users and administrators.

26. Can UNCW clarify the expected role of the enterprise data warehouse?

a. Should the Student Success and Retention platform receive inbound data from the warehouse, publish outbound data to the warehouse, or both?

b. What warehouse platform or access pattern should vendors assume?

c. Are vendors expected to provide scheduled flat-file extracts, APIs, database views, or another mechanism for institutional research and reporting?

Answer: UNCW's enterprise data strategy is currently evolving, and the long-term role of the enterprise data warehouse in support of the platform has not yet been fully defined. At a minimum, UNCW anticipates the ability to publish outbound data from the platform to the enterprise data warehouse to support institutional reporting, analytics, and research. The need for inbound data from the data warehouse to the platform will depend on the proposed integration architecture and the vendor's recommended approach. Vendors should describe any inbound data dependencies and explain how they support the platform's functionality. Because the future data warehouse architecture is still under evaluation, vendors should propose flexible, standards-based integration methods. UNCW is open to supported approaches such as APIs, secure file exchange, database views, or other appropriate mechanisms for data exchange and institutional reporting. Vendors should clearly describe their recommended approach, including any assumptions, dependencies, and ongoing support requirements.

27. Can UNCW clarify the available Canvas integration approach and the Canvas data objects required at launch?

a. Will UNCW provide Canvas API access, Canvas Data/Data Services access, Live Events/webhooks, LTI, flat-file exports, or another method?

b. Which Canvas data elements are required for initial risk scoring and alerts?

c. Does UNCW expect vendors to write data back into Canvas, or is the Canvas integration read-only?

Answer: Canvas Integration Approach UNCW supports multiple methods for integrating with Canvas. Our preferred approach is a vendor-supported LTI

1.3 integration. Depending on the selected solution and implementation approach, integration options may also include the Canvas API, Live Events/webhooks, flat-file exports, or other supported mechanisms. Vendors should describe their recommended integration approach, including any prerequisites or dependencies.

Integration methods that require Canvas APIs, flat-file exchanges, or other custom integrations may require additional collaboration with UNCW technical resources.

Canvas Data Objects Required at Launch For initial implementation, UNCW anticipates requiring core student engagement and activity data to support risk scoring and early alerts. Current reporting needs include:

• Student SIS ID

• Student name

• Student email address

• Course SIS ID

• Course name

• Last user access date/time

• Last enrollment activity date/time

• No submission indicators

• Zero activity indicators These data elements reflect current reporting needs and may be refined during implementation as business requirements are finalized.

Canvas Writeback Requirements At this time, UNCW anticipates that the Canvas integration will be read-only. Vendors should identify any functionality that would require writing data back to Canvas and describe the purpose and technical approach.

28. Can UNCW clarify the expected scope of Slate and prospective-student functionality? Is Slate the authoritative source for prospect, applicant, admit, and transfer-intent populations?

Answer: Yes, Slate is the authoritative source for prospective student data and houses applicant/admit data, but Banner remains the campus system of record for admitted and enrolled student data.

29. Must pre-admission and prospective-student functionality be included in the initial implementation, or may it be phased?

Answer: We would prefer that all integrative functionality be included in the initial implementation to the extent to which data-stewards approve.

30. Should the Student Success and Retention platform provide a student-facing or prospective-student-facing self-service experience, or only staff-facing access to Slate-derived data?

Answer: The solution should provide a student facing self-service experience for prospective and currently enrolled students.

31. Can UNCW identify the Degree Works version and available integration method?

a. Does Degree Works expose APIs, batch extracts, or another approved interface for degree audit and progress data?

b. Should vendors assume the platform complements Degree Works by displaying degree-progress data and risk signals, or is UNCW seeking degree-plan creation/editing functionality outside Degree Works?

c. Is write-back to Degree Works required?

Answer: Our current solution does not pull data directly from Degree Works. Both solutions currently pull data separately from Banner. Our current solution does not write-back to Degree Works and no conversation has yet been had to do so.

32. Can UNCW clarify whether TutorTrac, EMS, Banner Finance, housing, door access, parking, and other relevant systems are required source systems for initial implementation?

a. If any are required for launch, please identify the authoritative system name, available interface, expected directionality, and expected refresh cadence.

b. If these systems are examples of possible future integrations, should vendors include them only as optional/add-on services?

Answer: TracCloud (formerly TutorTrac) currently sends a nightly data feed into Starfish, and we expect this information to remain available in any new solution. Advisors rely on this data in their work with students, and continuity of these feeds is essential for coordinated care and student success.

From a university-wide lens, our preference is that all solutions contributing data—including TracCloud and other systems used across Academic and Student Affairs—are fully integrated and ready at the point of implementation. This ensures the new system can support student success, coordinated care, and retention outreach from day one.

33. Can UNCW identify the minimum data sources and data elements required for risk scoring at launch? Which data domains must be present before a risk score is considered valid?

Answer: UNCW expects risk scores to be informed by a combination of academic, engagement, and enrollment-related indicators. At a minimum, vendors should assume the following domains will be available and incorporated into launch-phase risk scoring:

• Student demographic and enrollment data

• Academic performance indicators (course grades, GPA, credit completion, academic standing)

• Registration and enrollment behavior

• Attendance and/or course participation data when available

• Early alert and faculty referral data

• Learning management system engagement data (e.g., Canvas activity, assignment completion, participation indicators)

• Student success interaction data (advising appointments, support referrals, outreach history)

• Financial indicators when institutionally approved and available (e.g., financial need, account balance, registration-affecting holds)

UNCW is particularly interested in solutions that combine traditional academic indicators with early engagement signals that enable proactive intervention during the first six weeks of the term, rather than relying primarily on end-of-term outcomes.

34. What historical lookback period should vendors assume for model calibration and validation?

Answer: UNCW recommends vendors assume:

A minimum of three years of historical student data for initial model training and validation.

Five years of historical data is preferred when available to improve model stability and account for changing enrollment patterns.

Vendors should clearly identify any additional historical requirements needed to achieve acceptable predictive performance.

UNCW expects the selected vendor to validate predictive performance using institutional historical outcomes and to support recalibration as student populations, behaviors, and institutional practices evolve.

35. Are there minimum data-completeness thresholds UNCW expects vendors to meet before go-live?

Answer: UNCW recognizes that data availability and quality may vary across systems and domains. Vendors should identify data quality requirements and recommend thresholds as part of implementation planning.

Generally, UNCW would expect:

• Core student and enrollment records to be substantially complete prior to launch.

• Academic performance, registration, and early alert data to be available at sufficient scale to support reliable scoring.

• Transparent reporting of data quality issues, coverage gaps, and potential impacts on model performance.

• Validation testing demonstrating that risk scores perform as expected using available institutional data before production deployment.

Vendors should describe: Minimum data completeness requirements.

• Methods for handling missing data.

• Expected impacts of incomplete data on predictive accuracy.

• Recommended data quality standards for successful implementation.

36. Can UNCW clarify the expected model-validation and fairness-evaluation framework?

Answer: UNCW does not prescribe a specific model validation or fairness evaluation framework. Vendors should describe their approach to model validation, explainability, bias testing, ongoing performance monitoring, and model recalibration.

37. Which protected groups or subpopulations must be included in fairness testing?

Answer: Fairness testing must include all legally protected student groups that are relevant to UNCW’s jurisdiction and the model’s use case, as well as student subpopulations that may experience different prediction accuracy, intervention rates, or retention outcomes. At minimum, testing should include groups or subpopulations that are core civil-rights categories enforced by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. Testing should include groups and subpopulations relevant to the First-Time Full-Time cohort such as veteran or military-affiliated students, first-generation students, Pell-eligible or low-income students. UNCW expects that this will be a working relationship between the vendor and UNCW experts to develop and maintain model accuracy and performance.

38. Will UNCW provide the demographic and outcome data required to perform those evaluations?

Answer: UNCW will work with the selected vendor to provide appropriate institutional data necessary to support approved model validation and fairness evaluations, subject to the University's data governance, security, privacy, and regulatory requirements. Access to demographic and outcome data will be limited to the minimum data necessary and approved through established governance processes.

39. Are there required thresholds or formats for AUC, equalized odds, disparate-impact testing, bias audits, drift monitoring, and revalidation reports?

Answer: UNCW has not established institution-specific thresholds or reporting formats for model performance, fairness, or bias metrics currently. The selected vendor should employ recognized industry best practices for model validation, performance monitoring, fairness assessment, bias detection, model drift monitoring, and periodic revalidation.

The university expects the vendor to provide clear documentation of model methodology, performance metrics, assumptions, limitations, and fairness evaluations, along with recommendations for ongoing monitoring and governance. Models should be transparent, explainable, and support periodic review to ensure continued accuracy, reliability, and equitable outcomes across relevant student populations.

Vendors should describe the metrics they use (e.g., AUC, precision/recall, calibration, fairness measures, drift detection), their recommended monitoring cadence, and how model performance and fairness are evaluated over time.

40. How frequently does UNCW expect model performance and fairness artifacts to be refreshed?

Answer: Model performance and fairness should be evaluated on a regular basis and whenever there are significant changes to institutional data, student populations, model methodology, or business processes. At a minimum, UNCW expects periodic performance reviews, ongoing monitoring for model drift, and the ability to conduct ad hoc validation when warranted. Vendors should describe their recommended monitoring cadence and governance processes.

41. Can UNCW clarify the expected launch scope for student, parent, and guardian access? Are student self-service, student self-alerts, and peer alerts required at initial go-live?

Answer: From a university-wide perspective, yes—features such as student self-service and student self-alerts are expected to be available at launch. These capabilities are foundational to coordinated care, advising connection, and student success. While we would need additional clarity on the vendor’s definitions of “student self-service” and “peer alerts” within our context, the institution anticipates that students will have access to self-directed tools immediately upon implementation.

At the same time, the university is interested in learning more about peer alert options and how they may enhance coordinated care and student engagement. Both student-initiated and staff-initiated alert pathways contribute to a comprehensive engagement ecosystem, and understanding the vendor’s approach will be important for evaluating full responsiveness.

42. Must parent or guardian access be available at launch, or may that functionality be phased?

Answer: The university does not anticipate parent or guardian access.

43. What FERPA consent or authorization workflow should vendors assume for parent or guardian access?

Answer: We do not anticipate parent or guardian access.

44. Is anonymous student or peer alert submission required, optional, or prohibited?

Answer: Need better understanding of “peer alert”, but go off context clues, I don’t believe we want a peer alert feature at launch until we better understand the scope in our context.

45. Can UNCW clarify the required communications and notes migration/retention expectations? Should vendors support two-way SMS/texting as well as email and in-platform messaging?

Answer: From a university-wide perspective, SMS/texting and email functionality are essential components of any selected solution. The institution requires a built-in communication feature that supports both individual outreach to a single student and mass texting for coordinated care campaigns, retention outreach, and advising connection.

These capabilities allow staff to provide proactive, human-reviewed communication that aligns with institutional standards for student success and ensures students receive specialized and individualized support. A fully responsive solution must therefore include integrated texting and email tools at launch.

46. Are message volume estimates available for institution-wide campaigns?

Answer: UNCW has sent out emails and text to the entire 20,000 student population. We will have 1 to 1 messaging and emailing as well as mass messaging to the entire student body.

47. What level of note edit history is required: current author and timestamp only, full revision history, or immutable audit log of every change?

Answer: A full revision history, timestamp, and student read receipt is expected. Current configurations allow advisors to send notes to students with read receipts. Advising at UNCW is a relationship-based practice, in alignment with professional standards. As such, a full narrative of interactions is required to assist an advisor helping a student who may have had a previous advising connection with another professional.

48. Are advising notes, appointments, referrals, communication history, and alert history expected to be retained indefinitely or according to a defined retention schedule?

Answer: Currently unsure on our configurations, but Advising needs these to be retained indefinitely, since not every student continues to completion at the same pace.

49. Can UNCW provide the expected Starfish migration and cutover scope? What Starfish data domains must be migrated, such as advising notes, early alerts, flags, appointments, referrals, tracking items, success plans, communication history, attachments, and audit history?

Answer: All historical data mentioned in the sub question should be migrated. Notes, appointments, and tracking items are most critical. All offices use each tracking item in a unique fashion, and critical workflows will be disrupted if all points are not imported.

50. What historical data window should vendors assume?

Answer: The past 10 years – alignment with when UNCW adopted our current early alert solution.

51. What export formats or APIs will be available from Starfish?

Answer: Report formats: some reports can be Excel or CSV; CSV downloads as a .zip containing compressed .csv files. Current platform exports Starfish activity info in a flat file format run nightly, which may be available.

52. Does UNCW expect a parallel-run period with Starfish before cutover? If yes, what duration should vendors assume?

Answer: The duration of any transition will depend on the success of migration and integration, which could range from one month to a year. From an operational perspective, a parallel run for at least one semester is strongly recommended to ensure continuity of coordinated care, advising connection, and retention outreach.

This parallel period is essential for validating workflows, ensuring data accuracy, and maintaining uninterrupted student engagement.

53. Are rollback criteria or continuity requirements expected during cutover?

Answer: Yes, because the early alert tool supports critical student success functions, the institution expects minimal disruption during cutover. A continuity plan should address advising, appointments, alerts, outreach, reporting, and student access. Rollback procedures should be documented in the event of significant migration, integration, or system performance issues.

54. Can UNCW clarify its target production go-live date or academic-term milestone? Is UNCW targeting go-live before a specific semester, advising cycle, registration cycle, or Starfish renewal/decommissioning date?

Answer: Targeted go-live date will depend on the success of migration and integration. Preference is prior to August 2027.

55. Is a phased go-live acceptable, such as staff-facing core functionality first, followed by student-facing, parent/guardian, and optional integrations?

Answer: Student-facing integrations to go live in alignment with staff-facing functions - for training and teaching purposes. Further, these co-dependent functionalities support students in their ability to be active participants in academic advising relationships. Parent/guardian can be phased if applicable.

56. What institutional blackout periods or academic calendar constraints should vendors account for?

Answer: University wide constraints include but are not limited to orientation (May and June). Ideal launch would occur in July 2027. If possible, no launch should occur during peak advising (Fall: Oct and November) Spring:

(March and April).

57. Can UNCW clarify which security, accessibility, and compliance artifacts are required with the proposal versus after award?

a. Is a current VPAT or Accessibility Conformance Report required at proposal submission, before award, or during implementation?

b. Is a SOC 2 Type II report, penetration-test summary, disaster recovery plan, business continuity plan, or incident-response plan required with the proposal?

c. If certain reports contain confidential security information, will UNCW accept summaries or controlled disclosure after shortlisting/award?

Answer: Vendor's VPAT or Accessibility Conformance Report will be required before award is made, during final IT assessment processes. UNCW will make a specific request for this documentation.

Vendor's SOC II Type II report, penetration-test summary, disaster recovery plan, business continuity plan, incident response plan, and most recent (completed within 12 months) HECVAT will be required after proposals are submitted, but prior to award, during final IT assessment processes. UNCW will make a specific request for this documentation.

Summaries of reports and other associated security and compliance documentation that contain confidential information will not constitute an acceptable level of detail required as part of UNCW's IT assessment processes.

UNCW has included a confidentiality section in the IT Services & Systems Addendum that covers the disclosure of confidential information between the parties. UNCW may enter into a separate non-disclosure agreement if one is required by vendor for the disclosure of confidential or sensitive information contained within any of the aforementioned reports or associated documentation. As part of your final proposal, please indicate whether a separate non-disclosure agreement will be required for this documentation.

58. Can UNCW clarify the expected identity and access-management approach? Is Microsoft Entra ID/Azure AD the authoritative identity provider for staff and faculty?

Answer: Yes

59. Is SAML 2.0 required, or will OIDC/OAuth also be supported?

Answer: SAML 2.0 is the preferred authentication protocol.

60. Is automated user provisioning expected through SCIM, directory groups, API feeds, or another method?

Answer: The preferred provisioning method will be determined during implementation based on the solution and user population. Vendors should describe their supported provisioning options.

61. Are Microsoft Active Directory and LDAP direct integrations required in addition to SSO?

Answer: Direct Active Directory or LDAP integrations are not anticipated beyond standard single sign-on (SSO).

Vendors should identify if additional directory integration is required for their solution.

62. Can UNCW clarify how vendors should distinguish standard integrations from optional or variable-scope integrations for pricing? Should all of the listed source systems be included in firm-fixed base pricing?

63. May vendors price integrations with uncertain access methods, unknown data volumes, or non-core systems as optional/add-on or not-to-exceed services with assumptions?

Answer: It is recommended that vendors provide pricing in accordance with Attachment A – Pricing of the RFP to ensure apples-to-apples comparison.

64. Should historical Starfish migration, archival data loading, custom report development, and future integrations be included in the base price or separated as optional/add-on services?

Answer: Yes, it should be included in base pricing if part of the implementation cost.

65. Can UNCW provide planning assumptions for pricing comparability? Approximate enrolled student population in scope for year 1 and full deployment.

Answer: ~ 22,000 active: 23,000 strategic plan goal

66. Approximate number of staff/faculty users requiring access, by role if available.

Answer: Approximately 3733 Faculty & Staff Users. This number includes over 500 primary and general advisors. Anticipate similar numbers in the new solution, although the scope of the roles may differ.

Answer: Yes, all actively enrolled students.

67. Whether parent/guardian users should be included in base licensing.

Answer: No need for parent access.

68. Expected annual or monthly volume for email, SMS/texting, and in-platform messages.

Answer: Over 17,200 notes were sent to students in the Spring 26 term, with nearly 9,000 of those notes sending an email to the student.

69. If UNCW's answers to the written questions identify new mandatory integrations, new migration requirements, or new security/compliance artifacts, will UNCW issue any updated pricing instructions or allow vendors to include pricing assumptions and exclusions for items not fully defined in the RFP or addendum?

Answer: Yes, vendors may include pricing assumptions in their responses, provided they are clearly stated and well-documented. However, vendors must complete RFP Attachment A (Pricing Sheet) as provided, as it is structured to ensure an accurate and consistent apples-to-apples comparison across proposals. Additionally, the University reserves the right to update or clarify pricing instructions if it deems it necessary based on information identified through questions, addenda, or the proposal evaluation process.

71. Can UNCW clarify whether the student-facing capabilities described in the RFP are mandatory for award or illustrative examples, and how they will be evaluated? Is a dedicated student-facing self-service interface, such as a student-visible timeline of tasks, appointments, deadlines, and holds, required for award, or is staff-facing operation with proactive student notification by email and SMS acceptable?

Answer: From a university wide lens- A student-facing engagement interface will be a university-wide requirement for any selected solution.