ADDENDUM #1.pdf

UPST BID #, NAME: UMCEN-2025-0736, UMass ERP Roadmap Consultant UMASS CAMPUS, DEPARTMENT: UMass System, Innovation & Operational Services (UMass President’s Office)

ADDENDUM # 1

(5 Pages)

August 13th, 2024

The attention of respondents submitting proposals for the above project is called to the following addendum. The items set forth herein, whether of omission, addition, substitution, or clarifications are all to be included in and form part of the proposal submitted.

SCHEDULE CHANGES

NONE

CHANGES TO TERMS & CONDITIONS

NONE

CHANGES TO GENERAL SCOPE

Respondents shall note that Section 6. Proposal Response from the standard RFP terms and conditions shall be deleted. There is no page limit, and Respondents are to refer to Attachment G – General Scope for all RFP response instructions.

Attachment G (RFP Instructions and General Scope), Section 10.B.2, incorrectly lists the Statement of Work (SOW) attachment as

Attachment G - Appendix 1, SOW. This is incorrect and should read Attachment G – Appendix 2, SOW. This has been corrected with a modified Attachment G – General Scope v2.0.

RESPONDENT QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

1. Due to the 25-page limit for the proposal, can the resumes requested in Section 10.B.3 of Attachment G be included in an

Appendix and excluded from the 25-page limit? If no, we request the page limit be increased.

UMass Answer: Respondents may exceed the 25-page limit for this RFP; please disregard the page limit described in

Introductory details labeled “Section 6. Proposal Response”.

2. Section 10.B.3 of Attachment G requests “Resumes/CVs for all Principles, Partners, and/or Owners.” Can this be revised so that we are only required to provide resumes for the key staff who will work on this project? Our firm has nearly 70 principals, of which only one or two will be involved in the project.

UMass Answer: Yes, Respondents may list only the key personnel anticipated on the project, and their direct reports.

3. Due to the 25-page limit for the proposal, can the “Example deliverables (sanitized) of ERP Strategic Roadmaps” requested in Section 9.C.3 of Attachment G be provided in an Appendix and excluded from the page limit?

UMass Answer: See above; no page limit imposed on Respondents.

4. In Section 10.B.3 (A complete Firm Background and Proposal document) of Attachment G (RFP Instructions and General

Scope), bullet point #5 requests: “Client References - Provide a list of all engagements within the past 12 months, with general contact information and brief description of the project.” 1) Given the number of clients we work with in a year, it will not be practical to provide a list of all engagements our firm conducted in the last 12 months. 2) In addition, we value the confidentiality of our clients’ contact information. We request the ask for contact information be eliminated for this general list. Please advise on both points. Per our previous question, we ask that bullet point #5 be eliminated in favor of the similar information requested in Section 9.A.1 of Attachment G.

UMass Answer: Respondents may elect to only provide references as requested in Section 9.A.1 of Attachment G, which reads:

A. ERP Transformation & Strategic Roadmap Development Experience

1. Proven case studies on similar roadmap/strategy work for multi-campus systems like UMass

i. Date(s) of project – start through finish

ii. Scope of project

iii. Current state of institution’s ERP transformation

iv. Curren relationship & contact reference(s) with organization

5. In Section 10.B.3 (A complete Firm Background and Proposal document) of Attachment G (RFP Instructions and General

Scope), can bullet point #5 be eliminated in favor of the similar information requested in Section 9.A.1 of Attachment G?

UMass Answer: Yes, see above; Respondents may elect to only provide references as requested in Section 9.A.1 of

Attachment G.

6. In Section 10.B.3 (A complete Firm Background and Proposal document) of Attachment G (RFP Instructions and General

Scope), we are unclear how the response to bullet point #1 is different than what is requested in bullet point #3. Can we eliminate bullet point #1 and just provide the information in bullet point #3? Please advise.

UMass Answer: Respondents are to use their discretion, so long as both requests are covered it is fine to combine the information into a single section.

7. How much weight will be applied to respondents that do not have partnerships for implementations with ERP vendors? We are an implementation partner to an ERP vendor within our firm, however the ERP / Technology Strategy team that would deliver this work is separate from that group and “tool agnostic”.

UMass Answer: While existing partnerships with ERP vendors will be considered, they are not a heavily weighted factor in our overall assessment. The "tool agnostic" nature of your ERP/Technology Strategy team aligns with our objective of an unbiased, strategic approach. As such, no additional weight will be applied to firms based on their implementation partnerships alone. We value independence in strategy formulation and will focus on the demonstrated expertise / strategic insight your team can bring to this engagement.

8. Within the RFP it mentions development of a business case for roadmap options. Does UMass anticipate the options to include specific technologies with defined cost (shared from the vendor), or would ballpark pricing around a system replacement be sufficient to support the “cost benefit analysis” of the business case?

UMass Answer: UMass anticipates that the business case for roadmap options will include specific recommendations and associated cost estimates for each option. We expect vendors to provide a cost estimate and timeline for each recommendation based on UMass's current state and ERP market trends. While detailed technology-specific costs would be valuable, we understand that ballpark pricing around system replacement or upgrades may be more realistic at this stage.

9. If system selection would be included, does UMass anticipate / desire the ERP recommendations / scoring be done as part of an RFP to vendors? Would UMass prefer a “fit gap” assessment against the most prevalent technologies in the market?

UMass Answer: UMass would prefer a "fit gap" assessment against the most prevalent technologies in the market as part of the ERP recommendations. This approach will allow us to evaluate how well current leading solutions align with our specific needs and strategic goals. While system selection might be included later, our immediate priority is understanding the strengths and gaps of existing technologies relative to our requirements. This will provide a solid foundation for any future

RFPs to vendors.

10. For Client References, the RFP requires "a list of all engagements within the past 12 months, with general contact information and a brief description of the project." Due to client confidentiality policies, will UMASS consider revising the requirement to a list of 2-3 references from the past 12 months that include contact information?

UMass Answer: Yes, but UMass would expect the 2-3 references to be relevant to developing ERP Strategic Roadmap.

11. As part of the technology assessment, application rationalization and roadmap, does UMass anticipate the vendor would perform system selection activities to determine which system best meets UMass’ needs?

UMass Answer: UMass anticipates that system selection activities will be an integral part of the strategic roadmap delivered by the vendor. We expect the roadmap to include a thorough assessment of available systems, identifying the one that best meets our needs. This will ensure that our future ERP investments are aligned with our strategic goals and operational requirements.

12. In Attachment G (RFP Instructions and General Scope), Section 10.B.2 requests that bidders upload a single document for

“Redlines or edits to Appendix 1, SOW (optional; if applicable).” Please clarify which document is Appendix 1, SOW. In the

Buyer Attachments in BuyWays, there is a file named Attachment G, Appendix 2 – SOW. Is that the file you are seeking redlines for (if applicable)?

UMass Answer: See changes to general scope, the SOW attachment should read as Attachment G, Appendix 2 – SOW (not

Appendix 1). This has been corrected.

13. Does UMass expect as part of the project that a full set of function (business) requirements be established to support / align to the future state technology recommendation?

UMass Answer: If a Respondent feels a full set of business requirements is essential for the development of a successful ERP strategic roadmap than UMass would encourage vendors to include that deliverable as a part of their proposal.

14. Will the firm chosen for this RFP be prohibited from future execution of other related services such as software selection or implementation services?

UMass Answer: No, there are no restrictions on future bids or engagements.

15. Can UMass provide a description of the peer analysis conducted to date?

UMass Answer: UMass has conducted a preliminary peer analysis by reviewing project websites of institutions similar in size and scope. This initial analysis provided insights into best practices, common challenges, and the current state of ERP transformation efforts at peer institutions. Our goal was to understand where others are on their journey and to identify lessons that could inform our strategic planning. A more detailed peer analysis will be refined as part of the strategic roadmap development.

16. How many divisions and/or departments be involved in the design of the roadmap?

UMass Answer: UMass has put some initial thought leadership around this question but UMass expects vendors to recommend and propose this as a part of their proposal and successful experiences developing ERP strategic roadmaps.

17. How many functional/operational staff members would we engage with throughout the project in order to understand current state and design roadmap?

UMass Answer: UMass would expect the Respondent to propose this based on their experience developing successful ERP

Strategy Roadmaps.

18. In the Supplier Diversity tab of the Questions section of the BuyWays online response tool, are we supposed to answer

Question 4.4.5, which begins with “[For all goods]”? Does it apply to this solicitation for ERP consulting services?

UMass Answer: All respondents to answer “No” to this question as it does not apply to this RFx.

19. Could you provide clarity on the depth required for the recommendations on future technologies? Do you anticipate decisions to be made on applications to be implemented as part of this phase, or more focused on sequencing of the major system replacements based on research and experience of order? Or something else entirely?

UMass Answer: UMass envisions the recommendations on future technologies to be more focused on the sequencing of major system replacements. We expect the strategic roadmap to be guided by research and experience, prioritizing the order of replacements to ensure a smooth and effective transformation. While specific application decisions may come later, this phase will primarily focus on establishing a well-informed sequence for system upgrades.

20. Are we supposed to upload any files to the “Supplier Attachments” section of the BuyWays online response tool? There is a prompt to add attachments to this page, but there doesn’t seem to be an option to upload anything to this page. It is our interpretation that any documents we need to upload are addressed in the “Questions” sections. Please confirm or clarify.

UMass Answer: All required uploads are prompted in the Questions sections, but Respondents may upload miscellaneous attachments into the Supplier Attachments section if they wish. It is not required, however.

21. In the General Questions tab of the BuyWays online response tool, Question 1.1.2 states: “Please upload a combined and comprehensive PDF document of your entire submission proposal, inclusive of all attachments, that satisfies the requests made by documents within this RFX request.” Does this mean the comprehensive PDF document should also include the documents requested separately in Questions 1.1.1, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, and 2.4.8? If yes, can these items be excluded from the 25-page proposal limit?

UMass Answer: The 25-page limit has been eliminated.

22. In the prerequisites section of the BuyWays online response tool, Attachment D - Certification of Non-Collusion states: “A person submitting a bid or a proposal for the procurement or disposal of supplies or services to any governmental body shall certify in writing, on the bid or proposal, as follows:” Does answering “I agree” satisfy this requirement to “…certify in writing, on the bid or proposal…”? Or do we need to include a statement elsewhere in our proposal document? Please advise

UMass Answer: Yes, answering “I agree” will suffice.

23. In the prerequisites section of the BuyWays online response tool, Attachment D - Certification of Non-Collusion states:

“Bidders are required to sign below and submit this form with their bid.” Does answering “I agree” satisfy this requirement?

UMass Answer: Yes, see above.

24. We understand current state findings from the materials associated with “internal discussions about ERP, including a system-wide ERP Summit in April 2024 and campus focus groups in June and July of 2024“ will be made available to the selected vendor. What is the preferred level of engagement with stakeholders (i.e. campuses, system-level, President’s

Office) during this project?

UMass Answer: The level of stakeholder engagement during this project will be coordinated by the President’s Office

Innovation Team, in collaboration with a Systemwide Project Team. UMass expects Respondents to recommend and propose the level of engagement for the development of a successful ERP roadmap based on their experience.

25. Is the vendor selected for this ERP Roadmap project precluded from bidding on a future ERP implementation project?

UMass Answer: No, there are no restrictions on future bids or engagements.

26. Would it be possible to get a one-week extension on the proposal date

UMass Answer: No, UMass intends to keep the current schedule.

27. Will use of offshore staff be allowed?

UMass Answer: UMass prefers the use of onshore resources who can be present on-site as needed. While offshore staff may be considered, our priority is to work with teams that can engage directly with our stakeholders and be physically present when required.

--End of Addendum No. #1