SAP

State of South Carolina

Request for Proposal Amendment #2

Questions & Answers

Solicitation:

Date Issued:

Procurement Officer:

Phone:

E-Mail Address:

Mailing Address:

5400027667 05/12/2025

JEFFERY SCHWALK

1-803-737-1018 SchwalkJC@scdot.org SCDOT Procurement Office PO Box 191 Columbia SC 29202-0191

DESCRIPTION: GRANTS & ASSET MANAGEMENT SOLUTION

USING GOVERNMENTAL UNIT: SC Department of Transportation

SUBMIT YOUR OFFER ON-LINE AT THE FOLLOWING URL: http://www.procurement.sc.gov

SUBMIT OFFER BY (Opening Date/Time 05/15:2025 05/29/2025 2:30 PM (See "Deadline For Submission Of Offer" provision) QUESTIONS MUST BE RECEIVED BY: 04/23/2025 10:00:00 COMPLETED (See "Questions From Offerors" provision)

NUMBER OF COPIES TO BE SUBMITTED: ONE

CONFERENCE TYPE: Pre-Proposal

DATE & TIME: 04/22/2025 10:00:00 COMPLETED

(As appropriate, see "Conferences - Pre-Bid/Proposal" & "Site Visit" provisions)

LOCATION: The Conference will be held at SCDOT Headquarters, 955 Park St., Columbia SC 29201, in Room 101 or via 1- 833-523-3710 participant code 657738

AWARD &

AMENDMENTS

Award will be posted on 06/19/2025 07/15/2025. The award, this solicitation, any amendments, and any related notices will be posted at the following web address: http://www.procurement.sc.gov

You must submit a signed copy of this form with Your Offer. By signing, You agree to be bound by the terms of the Solicitation. You agree to hold Your Offer open for a minimum of ninety (90) calendar days after the Opening Date. (See "Signing Your Offer" provision.)

NAME OF OFFEROR

(full legal name of business submitting the offer)

Any award issued will be issued to, and the contract will be formed with, the entity identified as the Offeror. The entity named as the offeror must be a single and distinct legal entity. Do not use the name of a branch office or a division of a larger entity if the branch or division is not a separate legal entity, i.e., a separate corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship, etc.

AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE

(Person must be authorized to submit binding offer to contract on behalf of Offeror.)

DATE SIGNED

TITLE

(business title of person signing above)

STATE VENDOR NO.

(Register to Obtain S.C. Vendor No. at www.procurement.sc.gov)

PRINTED NAME

(printed name of person signing above)

STATE OF INCORPORATION

(If you are a corporation, identify the state of incorporation.)

OFFEROR'S TYPE OF ENTITY: (Check one) (See "Signing Your Offer" provision.)

___ Sole Proprietorship ___ Partnership ___ Other_____________________________

___ Corporate entity (not tax-exempt) ___ Corporation (tax-exempt) ___ Government entity (federal, state, or local)

COVER PAGE - ON-LINE ONLY (MAR. 2015)

mailto:SchwalkJC@scdot.org http://www.procurement.sc.gov/

AMENDMENTS TO SOLICITATION (JAN 2004)

(a) The Solicitation may be amended at any time prior to opening. All actual and prospective Offerors should monitor the following web site for the issuance of Amendments: www.procurement.sc.gov (b) Offerors shall acknowledge receipt of any amendment to this solicitation (1) by signing and returning the amendment, (2) by identifying the amendment number and date in the space provided for this purpose on Page Two, (3) by letter, or

(4) by submitting a bid that indicates in some way that the bidder received the amendment. (c) If this solicitation is amended, then all terms and conditions which are not modified remain unchanged. [02-2A005-1]

QUESTIONS FROM OFFERORS - AMENDMENT (JUN 2017)

THE SOLICITATION IS AMENDED AS PROVIDED HEREIN. INFORMATION OR CHANGES

RESULTING FROM QUESTIONS WILL BE SHOWN IN A QUESTION-AND-ANSWER FORMAT. ALL

QUESTIONS RECEIVED HAVE BEEN REPRINTED BELOW. THE “STATE’S RESPONSE” SHOULD BE

READ WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE QUESTIONS. THE QUESTIONS ARE INCLUDED SOLELY TO

PROVIDE A CROSS-REFERENCE TO THE POTENTIAL OFFEROR THAT SUBMITTED THE QUESTION.

QUESTIONS DO NOT FORM A PART OF THE CONTRACT; THE “STATE’S RESPONSE” DOES. ANY

RESTATEMENT OF PART OR ALL OF AN EXISTING PROVISION OF THE SOLICITATION IN AN

ANSWER DOES NOT MODIFY THE ORIGINAL PROVISION EXCEPT AS FOLLOWS: UNDERLINED

TEXT IS ADDED TO THE ORIGINAL PROVISON. STRICKEN TEXT IS DELETED.

QUESTION #1:

In reference to System Requirements #1 What type of assets will you be linking to your grants? Please provide an example list of asset types you want to associate with grant.

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #1:

From a Federal Transit Agency perspective, the assets classes which might be associated with a grant include: Revenue Vehicles, Equipment, and Facilities. Within these classes, capital assets include:

• Revenue Vehicles – Bus, Automobile, Ferryboat, Mini-Bus, School Bus, SUV, Van, etc.

• Equipment – Non Revenue Service Vehicle, Trucks, etc.

• Facilities – Administration, Maintenance, Parking Structure, Passenger Facilities, etc.

QUESTION #2:

What it (sic) the total number of assets you plan to track broken down by asset category: linear, building, vehicles, IT assets, etc.

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #2:

Data on assets needs to be maintained for each sub-recipient. Number of assets for each of the ~100 sub-recipients will vary.

QUESTION #3:

Do you plan to track linear assets like road segments?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #3:

SCDOT does not have a current requirement for tracking linear assets.

QUESTION #4:

Will you be completing maintenance on the assets or are the assets only maintained by the sub-recipients?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #4:

Capital assets are maintained by the sub-recipient. SCDOT only needs a capability to manage the data regarding the assets which will be the responsibility of the sub-recipient to input for SCDOT to report to

FTA.

QUESTION #5:

It is stated that the solution will require between 300-500 registered users, in order to provide more accurate pricing guidance, please provide the approximate number of users for the following categories outlined in the solicitation:

a. Local Transit Agency – Reimbursement Requester

b. Local Transit Agency – Grant Applications

c. Local Transit Agency Head

d. SCDOT Agency Reimbursement Reviewer

e. SCDOT Agency Grant Management

f. SCDOT Agency Intermodal and Freight Program Head

g. SCDOT System Administrator

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #5:

There are approximately 100 sub-recipients in SC, so for Transit Agency Head that is the approximate number. Each sub-recipient may also have approximately 1-10 users.

SCDOT will have approximately 15-20 users, and 2-3 system administrators.

QUESTION #6:

Could SCDOT please confirm whether vendors are required to offer a discount as part of their proposal, or if doing so is optional?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #6:

Contractors are not required to offer a discount as a part of their proposal. Please see Section IV:

Information for Offers to Submit: Price Proposal, and Attachment D: Pricing Worksheet Instructions for specifics regarding pricing.

QUESTION #7:

Could SCDOT please confirm whether vendors are required to submit their bids both electronically through http://www.procurement.sc.gov and as a hard copy to the physical address listed in the solicitation?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #7:

Proposers may either submit their proposal online using the online or through the submission of a hard copy. Numbered page 1 of the RFP includes the physical delivery addresses for hard copy delivery.

Proposals sent via USPS should be sent to the specified mailing address and delivery via UPS, FedEx, or hand delivery shall be made to the designated physical address. On-line bidding instructions are located in Section II: Instructions to Offerors – B. Special Instructions: On-Line Bidding Instructions (Modified).

QUESTION #8:

Could SCDOT please confirm whether vendors are required to include a summary of all insurance policies as part of their response?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #8:

Offerors shall submit the items specified in Section IV: Information for Offerors to Submit: Information for Offerors to Submit – Evaluation (Jan 2006): Technical Proposal, and those listed in Section IV:

Information for Offerors to Submit – General (Modified). This section specifies that an Offeror should provide a summary of all policies which are required to meet requirements specific to this solicitation.

An Offeror does not need to provide information for insurance policies or types which do not directly fulfill a specification or requirement within this solicitation.

QUESTION #9:

Could SCDOT please confirm how vendors are expected to demonstrate the "financial capability" as requested in the section QUALIFICATIONS OF OFFEROR (MAR 2015)?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #9:

Specifications regarding the submission of information reflecting the Offeror’s financial position is found in Section V: Qualifications: Qualifications – Required Information (March 2015): Item (b).

QUESTION #10:

Could SCDOT please confirm if vendors are required to submit any form of security, such as a letter of credit, performance bond, or parent-company corporate guaranty, with their responses as referenced in the statement: "we may elect to consider any security, e.g., letter of credit, performance bond, parent-company corporate guaranty, that you offer to provide"?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #10:

Offerors are not required to submit any form of security, such as a letter of credit, performance bonds, or parent-company corporate guarantee.

QUESTION #11:

Could SCDOT please confirm where vendors can locate the section containing the prompt: "Questions:

0 out of 2 questions answered (0 out of 2 mandatory)" within the solicitation or submission portal?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #11:

The questions requiring response are a part of the on-line bidding process, and are located in the “Questions” sub-tab, under the Rfx Information Tab. The Help Desk can also assist if you have difficulty locating information or completing a task. The Help Desk number is 803-896-0001.

QUESTION #12:

Are electronic signatures allowed?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #12:

Electronic signatures are allowed.

QUESTION #13:

Could SCDOT please confirm the required forms that must be submitted with the proposal?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #13:

Offerors shall submit the items specified in Section IV: Information for Offerors to Submit :Information for Offerors to Submit – Evaluation (Jan 2006): Technical Proposal, and those listed in Section IV:

Information for Offerors to Submit – General (Modified): Other Materials to be Provided.

QUESTION #14:

Could SCDOT please grant an extension on the due date?

SCDOT RESPOINSE TO QUESTION #14:

The SUBMIT OFFEROR BY date has been extended to May 28, 2025 at 2:30 PM. This date, as well as the Award Posting Date, has been updated on the Cover Page of this Amendment #1.

QUESTION #15:

Could SCDOT please confirm whether the use of a subcontractor is mandatory for this solicitation?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #15:

The use of a subcontractor is not mandatory.

QUESTION #16:

Could SCDOT please provide clarification on the appropriate section within the response where vendors should include the forms?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #16:

Offerors shall submit the items specified in Section IV: Information for Offerors to Submit: Information for Offerors to Submit – Evaluation (Jan 2006): Technical Proposal, and those listed in Section IV:

Information for Offerors to Submit – General (Modified): Other Materials to be Provided.

QUESTION #17:

Could SCDOT please confirm if the proposal should be submitted in a specific format (e.g., binders, folders, or loose sheets)?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #17:

Offerors choosing to submit a paper offer should follow the specifics in Section II: Instructions to Offerors

– A. General Instructions: Submitting a Paper Offer or Modification (MAR 2015). Section IV: Information for Offerors to Submit: Information for Offerors to Submit – Evaluation (Jan 2006): Technical Proposal specifies the page limit for the proposal. Additional formatting guidelines are not specified.

QUESTION #18:

Could SCDOT please confirm whether the technical response and pricing proposal should be submitted as separate documents?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #18:

The Technical Proposal and the Pricing Proposal shall be submitted as two separate, clearly labelled documents. For paper submissions, each part should be included within the same document. For electronic submissions, they may be two, separate clearly labelled attachments.

QUESTION #19:

Could SCDOT please confirm which copy of the service agreements vendors are required to attach with their response?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #19:

Offerors shall submit the items specified in Section IV: Information for Offerors to Submit: Information for Offerors to Submit – Evaluation (Jan 2006): Technical Proposal. Those items include Service Level Agreement (SLA) and Disengagement Services, which should include the Offeror’s associated policies and procedures.

QUESTION #20:

Could SCDOT please confirm whether vendors are allowed to use subcontractor references as part of their submission?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #20:

References provided in response to the requirement of this RFP shall be for work done by the Offeror, although a subcontractor or subcontractors may have been involved in the delivery of the services for which a reference is provided.

QUESTION #21:

Could SCDOT please confirm if the required qualifications can be fulfilled through the use of a subcontractor?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #21:

Offerors shall respond to the requirements of the RFP, which may include the use of a subcontractor, or subcontractors. Please refer to Section V: Qualifications: Subcontractor – Identification (Feb 2015) for additional information.

QUESTION #22:

Under technical qualifications, references are initially requested in point one and again in the last point.

Also, in the first point there are 3 references required, and in the last point 3-5, please confirm the exact number of references required and also where are firms supposed to add them?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #22:

References, along with other required items outside of either the technical or pricing proposal, may be submitted as a separate, clearly labeled document (or attachment, if utilizing on-line bidding).

The first request for references states you should provide at least 3 from customers of a similar size and responsibility as SCDOT, and that have implemented your solution in the last 5 years. Information requested includes the name of the organization, the contact information, and the dates of implementation. This does not require an overview or history.

Later in that section, Offerors are asked to provide the history of the Offeror firm with implementing solutions similar to the type requested within the RFP. The use of examples from 3-5 organizations is required. This later requirement involves the use of a narrative to summarize and establish qualifications, in addition to the submittal of the respective point of contact’s email and phone number.

There may be overlap between the two areas, although Offerors are reminded that this section provides material which establishes the Offerors Qualifications.

QUESTION #23:

Can firms add a cover letter? If yes, will that be counted under the page limit?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #23:

Offeror’s may add a cover letter, which will not count towards the page limit.

QUESTION #24:

Please confirm if firms need to make a separate heading titled QUALIFICATIONS -- REQUIRED INFORMATION (MAR 2015) in the bid response and provide a response to all the requirements mentioned herein or are these general instructions?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #24:

All required items listed in Section V: Qualifications: Qualifications – Required Information (MAR 2015) may be in a separate document, clearly labelled as Qualifications.

QUESTION #25:

If in case firms are providing a response to QUALIFICATIONS -- REQUIRED INFORMATION (MAR 2015), will it be considered in the page limit?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #25:

Material submitted as a part of required items listed in Section V: Qualifications: Qualifications – Required Information (MAR 2015) will not count toward the page limit.

QUESTION #26:

Under QUALIFICATIONS -- REQUIRED INFORMATION (MAR 2015), references are being asked again in point c, can firms repeat the references that they have provided in the above section Technical Qualifications?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #26:

In responding to the requirement in Section V; Qualification: Qualifications – Required Information (Mar 2015) to provided references, the Offeror may use references which have provided within the Offeror’s response to satisfy other RFP information requirements.

QUESTION #27:

"d) A list of every business for which supplies or services substantially similar to those sought with this solicitation have been provided, at any time during the past three years. '- Could SCDOT explain this requirement in simpler terms?"

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #27:

Please provide a list of businesses for which you have provided services which are similar in scope to this RFP, and which were performed and/or delivered within the last three (3) years.

QUESTION #28:

Can firms provide ongoing contracts as references?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #28:

Offerors may provide references which include ongoing contracts.

QUESTION #29:

Can firms provide commercial references and experience?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #29:

Offerors may provide commercial references and experience.

QUESTION #30:

Can you provide detailed workflows for grant application submission, approval, and reimbursement?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #30:

Section III – System Requirements Item #10 of the solicitation provides an overview of the existing workflows. During the initial phase of this project, it is expected that the selected vendor will perform an initial requirements confirmation where existing workflows are reviewed/discussed and any improvements/changes to that process will be incorporated in configuration of the vendor’s solution.

SCDOT is open to accomplishing the required workflow using the selected vendor’s recommended approach.

QUESTION #31:

What are the different user roles expected in the system (e.g., SCDOT admin, sub-recipient, reviewer, finance)?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #31:

See response to question #5, above.

QUESTION #32:

Does SCDOT have a preferred web-based solution (Power Platform/ASP.Net) or another?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #32:

SCDOT is asking for the vendor to host the solution, and the implementation platform is up to the vendor.

The vendor should review the SCDOT Requirements for Vendor-hosted Systems provided as an Appendix to the solicitation.

QUESTION #33:

What is the expected volume of transactions annually (e.g., number of grant applications, invoices, assets tracked)?

SCDOT REPONSE TO QUESTION #33:

Grant applications: On a calendar year annual basis, SCDOT processes approximately 150 grant applications. Since 2017, approximately 1,000 grant applications have been processed by SCDOT.

Invoices: On a calendar year annual basis, SCDOT processes approximately 1,000 invoices. Since 2014, approximately 7,000 invoices have been processed by SCDOT.

Assets: The existing SCDOT solution does not currently track sub-recipient assets. The quantity of assets in the various categories (see response to question #1) will vary by sub-recipient. Some may have less than 50, some may have more than 500. There won’t be any data conversion for this aspect, but the solution should be able to handle the input by sub-recipients and management of this data for an estimated 100,000 assets.

QUESTION #34:

Are there any specific asset categories and fields that must be supported in the Transit Asset Management module?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #34:

See the response to question #1, above.

For data fields that the system should provide, reference the FTA document for National Transit Database (NTD) requirements.

QUESTION #35:

How much data (in terms of size and number of records) will need to be migrated from the existing SharePoint solution?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #35:

See the response to question #33, above.

QUESTION #36:

Are there any existing integrations with other tools or systems (e.g., financial systems, TrAMS) that need to be maintained or developed?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #36:

SCDOT currently uses Microsoft Sharepoint 2019 for this system. The data from this should be fully converted into the new solution, so there is no need to maintain a Sharepoint integration at this time.

SCDOT has asked for an integration with a vendor provided digital signature capability.

SCDOT also requires notifications via email.

SCDOT has also asked for an integration with the FTA’s NTD.

Integrations with other FTA systems such as TrAMS is not currently a requirement.

QUESTION #37:

Can we review the structure or schema of the existing SharePoint data for better migration planning?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #37:

In the existing SharePoint solution there are lists, document libraries, and workflows that are organized under an OPT site and a VTE site.

OPT:

VTE:

QUESTION #38:

Can you provide a list or samples of the standard reports currently in use?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #38:

The funding reimbursement portion of the existing system utilizes the following:

• Monthly Financial Summary Report

• Form 600: Request for Reimbursement

• Form 608: Invoice Template

The grants management portion of the existing system utilizes the following:

• Certifications and Assurances

• Annual Application for Funding

• Budge Documents

As stated in the solicitation, SCDOT is open to using other form/template options to achieve the same workflow goals.

QUESTION #39:

What specific fields and data points must be reported to FTA under TAM, NTD, and TrAMS compliance?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #39:

The only planned integration is with the FTA NTD. This integration will require the vendor to comply with the FTA NTD data loading/integration specification.

QUESTION #40:

Are there any requirements for automated submission or syncing of reports to external systems like TrAMS?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #40:

There are no requirements for automated submission or syncing of reports to external systems like TrAMS.

QUESTION #41:

What authentication mechanism is expected for users (e.g., Single Sign-On, MFA)?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #41:

It is stated in the requirements for vendor hosted solutions that SCDOT requires SSO integration using Microsoft Entra.

See SCDOT Hosted Solution Requirements provided as Appendix A to the solicitation.

QUESTION #42:

Do you require role-based access at the module, record, or field level?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #42:

The solution should be capable for field-level role-based access.

QUESTION #43:

Is FedRAMP or any other specific security compliance required for the vendor-hosted solution?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #43:

QUESTION #44:

How often are Development, Testing, and Production environments expected to be refreshed or synchronized?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #44:

During the implementation phase the refreshing of environments will be dictated by the project timeline. After implementation is complete, the refreshing of the Dev or Test environment may be done monthly or quarterly.

QUESTION #45:

What are the expectations for support SLAs, response times, and maintenance windows?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #45:

QUESTION #46:

Do you require on-site training, or will remote/virtual training and documentation be sufficient?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #46:

See Section III Scope of Work – Implementation Requirements – Training in the solicitation.

QUESTION #47:

Is there a defined budget or funding cap for this project?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #47:

Offeror’s should submit their pricing proposal as per specifications, rather than basing it off of any SCDOT budget information. The Grants and Asset Management Solution has been through SCDOT’s planning processes to gain approval to proceed.

QUESTION #48:

What is the expected timeline for the vendor selection, system implementation, and go-live?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #48:

The Contractor shall propose a schedule for the implementation and go-live of the solution as a part of their submission.

QUESTION #49:

Will this contract include post-deployment support and enhancements beyond initial implementation?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #49:

SCDOT intends to include the initial period of maintenance and support in the contract which would begin after the six-month warranty.

QUESTION #50:

Is it allowed to use offshore resources?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #50:

Please refer to Section VII: Terms and Conditions – B. Special: Offshore Contracting Prohibited (Feb 2015).

QUESTION #51:

Are there specific reporting requirements for grants, and do you foresee needing custom reports beyond the standard ones?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #51:

See the response to questions #30 and #38, above.

QUESTION #52:

What type or categories of asset data (financial, service, or performance targets) needs to be tracked?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #52:

QUESTION #53:

The integration with NTD—will SCDOT need real-time API-based reporting or scheduled data exports? Would we need to integrate directly with the NTD system through API?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #53:

The Contractor shall recommend the most effective manner of integration with the FTA’s NTD as a part of their proposal.

QUESTION #54:

How should the application’s asset management module integrate with FTA's National Transit Database (NTD) and Transit Asset Management (TAM) compliance requirements?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #54:

The Contractor shall recommend the most effective manner of integration with the FTA’s NTD and TAM as a part of their proposal.

QUESTION #55:

Should existing forms (e.g., Form 600, Form 608) remain unchanged or be updated during digitization?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #55:

See the response to question #38, above.

QUESTION #56:

Is automated population of forms using existing data a desired feature? Which all data entities it’s applicable to? The documents mention using digital signatures for grant applications and reimbursement requests. Any preferred vendor (DocuSign, Adobe and so on)?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #56:

The Contractor shall recommend the most effective manner to configure workflows for sub-recipients as well as SCDOT users as a part of their proposal.

QUESTION #57:

Are there any known challenges or expectations around mapping legacy PDF forms (like Form 600 and 608) into interactive forms within the new system?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #57:

There are business rules associated with how items are included on the forms. These are encapsulated in the existing Sharepoint workflows and forms.

QUESTION #58:

What is your preferred procedure for digital signatures, and how do you envision this functionality supporting compliance documentation?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #58:

See Section III – System Requirements Item 9 in the solicitation.

QUESTION #59:

What is the current volume and structure of the data residing in SharePoint and are there any known inconsistencies or data quality issues that would need attention before the data migration?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QEUSTION #59:

See the response to question #35, above.

QUESTION #60:

Beyond initial data migration, does SCDOT envision any ongoing SharePoint integration for storing archived documents, training files, or backup of forms?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #60:

The Contractor shall recommend the most effective approach for managing documents within their hosted solution as a part of their proposal.

QUESTION #61:

What processes or criteria should be in place for the migration of existing SharePoint data to the new solution?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #61:

It is up to the vendor to propose the most effective approach for conversion of the existing Sharepoint data.

QUESTION #62:

Are there any specific query or filtering capabilities that are considered essential for SCDOT users?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QEUSTION #62:

This is non-specified. The Contractor is encouraged to highlight aspects of their solution that facilitates querying and filtering of data as a part of their proposal.

QUESTION #63:

Should exported data support specific formats (e.g., Excel, CSV, PDF)?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #63:

The Contractor shall outline their existing data export options as a part of their prposal. SCDOT typically uses xlsx, csv, and pdf as common export formats.

QUESTION #64:

What are the key requirements for standard and custom reports (e.g., SCDOT branding, configurable access levels)?

SCDOT RESPOSE TO QUESTION #64:

See the response to question #38, above.

SCDOT branding on the reports is preferred, and access to reports should abide by role-based access control.

QUESTION #65:

What are the default standard reports required?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #65:

QUESTION #66:

Do you require scheduled, automated reporting? If so, for what reports and to whom should they be sent?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #66:

QUESTION #67:

Should the system allow for advanced report customization (e.g., adding additional fields, adjusting formatting)?

SCDOT RESPONSET O QUESTION #67:

QUESTION #68:

What mandatory training data should be tracked (e.g., completion dates, attendees)?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #68:

See Section III – System Requirements – Section 13. Manage Training Data

QUESTION #69:

Should the system send automated reminders for training requirements or overdue sessions?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #69:

QUESTION #70:

Are integrations with external web-based training platforms required?

SCDOT REPSONSE TO QUESTION #70:

QUESTION #71:

Is sub-recipient training tracking expected to be with an existing LMS system? Or do we need to have it as a module in ServiceNow?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #71:

QUESTION #72:

What hosting requirements beyond Appendix A (e.g., uptime expectations, SLAs) need to be addressed?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #72:

Appendix A of the solicitation outlines the SCDOT vendor hosting requirements.

QUESTION #73:

Should development, testing, and production environments be isolated or share certain integration points?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #73:

Integration within specific environments should follow industry best practices.

QUESTION #74:

How does SCDOT envision handling exceptions in workflows such as incomplete submissions, expired training, or unresponsive reviewers? Should there be escalations, and if so, to whom?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #74:

Exception and escalation handling capability shall be included in workflows, with final routing to be determined.

QUESTION #75:

What is the current process for the grant management the process flows (e.g., grant application, reimbursement requests)?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #75:

See the response to question #30, above.

QUESTION #76:

What are SCDOT’s expectations for iteration frequency during Agile Scrum configurations?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #76:

Implementation sprint duration should follow the vendor’s best practices and recommendations may be included as a part of the proposal.

QUESTION #77:

Should an issue tracking (SIT/UAT) application to be managed on Defect Management on ServiceNow?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #77:

The Question is not clear to the SCDOT team.

The selected vendor should have an issue reporting and tracking solution to facilitate tracking, testing, and resolution of issues.

QUESTION #78:

Does SCDOT have an established process or governance model for testing and approving changes across development, test, and production environments (e.g., formalized UAT cycle, change advisory board)?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #78:

Yes, application and/or data changes are always validated in Dev and then Test environments. A deployment to Production once the system has been implemented requires a Change Management Request for approval and documentation of changes.

QUESTION #79:

How many training sessions are needed, and should they be tailored to different user roles?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #79:

The Contractor shall propose their training approach, which will include internal SCDOT users as well as external sub-recipients. See the Training section of the Implementation Requirements of Section

III.

It is expected that the training sessions will be recorded for future use.

QUESTION #80:

Should training sessions be segmented by topic and recorded for future onboarding?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #80:

See the response to question #79, above.

QUESTION #81:

Are there specific preferences for how training activities should be delivered (e.g., in person, remote)?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #81:

See the response to question #79, above.

QUESTION #82:

Are there Target date & key milestones on Go-Live?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #82:

See the response to question #48, above.

QUESTION #83:

What fallback procedures are required in case of issues during Go-Live?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #83:

Issues encountered during Go-Live would require SCDOT to continue to use the existing Sharepoint solution until the Go-Live issues can be resolved.

QUESTION #84:

How should issues be logged during the six-month warranty period?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #84:

All issues should be logged using the vendor’s proposed support reporting platform. This platform should provide a way for SCDOT to query the list of outstanding issues by priority and date submitted.

QUESTION #85:

Should the vendor provide regular updates about resolved and outstanding issues during this period?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #85:

Question is unclear to the SCDOT team.

If in regards to support issues, the Contractor should provide their approach for management of support tickets.

QUESTION #86:

What metrics will define an “error” qualifying for warranty support?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #86:

Please refer to the Solicitation: Section III – Implementation Requirements – Warranty.

QUESTION #87:

Will SCDOT require a formal change management process for future modifications to grant/reimbursement workflows post-Go Live (e.g., enhancements, new reporting needs, compliance updates)?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #87:

Changes to SCDOT production systems follow a change management process for the deployment. It is up to the Contractor to outline their approach for future modifications to workflows as a part of their proposal.

QUESTION #88:

How will upgrades or new capabilities be handled post-warranty?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #88:

See the response to question #87, above

QUESTION #89:

Are there other systems that require integration with this new solution?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #89:

See the response to question #36, above.

QUESTION #90:

Should the system support additional languages for non-English-speaking sub-recipients?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #90:

There is no existing requirement for language support other than English.

QUESTION #91:

What level of customization is expected for dashboard views for different user roles?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #91:

The vendor should propose how a dashboard capability would be configured in their hosted environment, as a part of their proposal.

QUESTION #92:

Can the government confirm that our cover letter and TOC will not count against the page count for the pricing and technical volumes?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #92:

A cover letter and a table of contents included as a part of the submitted proposal will not count towards the page limit. Tabs included in the proposal will not count toward the page limit.

QUESTION #93:

Would SC consider removing references to specific forms within the general liability section as ISO forms are ever evolving and rewritten?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #93:

The Section is amended as follows:

(1) Commercial General Liability (CGL): The most current version of the Insurance Services Office (ISO) Form CG 00 01 12 07 covering CGL on an “occurrence” basis, including products-completed operations, personal and advertising injury, with limits no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. This contract shall be considered to be an “insured contract” as defined in the policy.

QUESTION #94:

Would SC consider removing reference to “original” and “insurance policies” within the general liability section and replace with “certificate of insurance”?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #94:

The following change is made to Contractor’s Liability Insurance – General (Feb 2015):

(e) Prior to commencement of the work, the Contractor shall furnish the State with original certificates of insurance and amendatory endorsements or copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage required by this section. All certificates are to be received and approved by the State before work commences. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the Contractor’s obligation to provide them. The State reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by this section, at any time.

The following change is made to CONTRACTOR’S LIABILITY INSURANCE – INFORMATION

SECURITY AND PRIVACY (FEB 2015):

(j) Prior to commencement of the work, the Contractor shall furnish the State with original certificates of insurance for every applicable policy effecting the coverage required by this clause. All certificates are to be received and approved by the Procurement Officer before work commences. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the Contractor’s obligation to provide them. The State reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including policy declarations and any endorsements required by this section, at any time.

The references to ‘insurance policies’ will remain unchanged.

QUESTION #95:

Would SC consider removing “any” and “all insurance” from the general liability section and more specifically refer to “commercial general liability and auto” insurance?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #95:

SCDOT will not make that change.

QUESTION #96:

Would SC consider striking paragraph (h) of the general liability section?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #96:

This section will remain unchanged and SCDOT will not strike paragraph (h) of the general liability section.

QUESTION #97:

Reflecting IT industry standards, would SC consider adding a limitation of liability of up to 2x the annual contract value to the indemnification section or a separate section?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #97:

Generally, SCDOT will not accept limitations of liability.

QUESTION #98:

Reflecting IT industry standards, would SC consider striking “indirect” from damages within the indemnification section and/or limit such section to damages arising from gross negligence and willful misconduct?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #98:

SCDOT will not strike indirect damages from within the indemnification section and will not limit that section to damages arising from gross negligence and willful misconduct.

QUESTION #99:

What kinds of Assets will need to be tracked?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #99:

QUESTION #100:

Would SC consider reducing the required warranty to IT industry standard of 30 days, at most 90 days?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #100:

At this time, warranty requirements will remain as specified.

QUESTION #101:

Could you please provide counts by category of asset types?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #101:

See the response to questions #1 and #5, above.

QUESTION #102:

Who will be providing support for the platform and applications post go-live? Will this be supported by SCDOT resources or are you interested in ongoing services?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #102:

It is expected that the selected vendor will provide support for the hosted environments as well as the application post go-live.

QUESTION #103:

Could all questions and answers discussed during the pre-proposal conference be included in SCDOT’s QA response? Many items were not audible for participants who called in.

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #103:

Answers to verbal questions are non-binding and no record was made of the Pre-Proposal conference.

QUESTION #104:

How critical is it that the digital signature functionality be embedded versus seamlessly integrated?

Would an integrated approach with Docusign be acceptable to fulfill this requirement?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #104:

It is up to the Contractor to propose a solution based on their knowledge and experience in this area.

Whatever solution that is proposed will be the responsibility of the vendor who is awarded this contract from a cost, implementation, and support perspective.

QUESTION #105:

Would SCDOT consider a solution that enables accurate NTD reporting through configurable exports and quality checks, rather than requiring turnkey NTD integration functionality?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #105:

It is up to the Contractor to propose a solution based on their knowledge and experience in this area as a part of their proposal.

QUESTION #106:

How does SCDOT plan to fund this project? Is it part of the operating budget or capital budget?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #106:

Offerors should submit their pricing proposal as per specifications, rather than basing it off of any SCDOT budget information. The Grants and Asset Management Solution has been through SCDOT’s planning processes to gain approval.

QUESTION #107:

Does SCDOT have an approved budget for this new Grants Management System? If yes, can you provide that budget information to guide vendor bidding decision making? If the budget is too low it does not support bid preparation.

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #107:

The Grants and Asset Management Solution has been through SCDOT’s planning processes to gain approval. SCDOT has undertaken RFI and market research activity, and has a realistic expectation of similar solution costs. However, Offerors should submit their pricing proposal as per specifications, rather than basing it off of any SCDOT budget information.

QUESTION #108:

Has SCDOT previously entertained entertained any system demonstrations and or/presentations from vendors? If so, which systems were seen and when?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #108:

SCDOT issued an RFI in April 2024, as a part of market research activities. Approximately 22 responses were received. Presentation and/or demonstrations were provided by a number of Contractors over the last 12 months. Offeror’s should base their response on their own capabilities, rather than on what SCDOT may have seen while conducting market research activities.

QUESTION #109:

Did SC DOT utilize any vendor / SME consultants in defining the sought-after functionality and/or scope of work enumerated in the RFP? If yes, please provide the name of the vendor/consultant.

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #109:

SCDOT issued an RFI in April 2024, as a part of market research activities. Information obtained during the process may have been incorporated in this RFP. SCDOT did not engage a consultant to assist with the preparation of this RFP.

QUESTION #110:

Given the requirement to manage Federal funds, does SC DOT require vendors who have experience deploying Grants Management Systems at the Federal level?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #110:

Vendors should provide their qualifications for projects of similar size and scope.

QUESTION #111:

Can you provide the annual dollar amount of grant funding you receive for the current fiscal year?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #111:

Total dollar amount of grant funding for the current fiscal year is irrelevant for the purposes of this solicitation, and much is on a pass-through basis. Please see the response to Question #33 for relevant volume information.

QUESTION #112:

What dollar volume of these grants are pass-through grants to sub-grantees?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #112:

See the response to question #111.

QUESTION #113:

What is the total dollar amount of grants distributed?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #113:

See the response to question #111.

QUESTION #114:

Does SC DOT have a timeline / anticipated go-live date for the new system?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #114:

See the response to question #48.

QUESTION #115:

How many separate grant programs does SC DOT manage? Please provide a list if possible. Do the business processes (application, pre-award, award, etc.) and associated forms vary with each type of program or are all processes and forms standardized? When do each of the programs’ application periods begin in a given fiscal year?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #115:

See the response to question #30.

QUESTION #116:

What systems, both internal and external, does SC DOT need the new GMS to integrate with? Can you provide details for the integration (capability, data, etc.)?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #116:

See the response to question #36.

QUESTION #117:

What version of your financial management system is currently being used? Please provide the current modules that are implemented within the financial management system? Also, can you provide the expectation for the type of integration required, e.g., web services, file-based, one-way, or bi-directional data flow?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #117:

Integration with the SCDOT financial management system is not currently a requirement of this system.

QUESTION #118:

Can you provide an estimate of the volume of data to be converted and migrated into the new Grants Management System? What is the current format of this grant data? Please provide an example row of data and/or database schema.

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #118:

See the response to question #33.

QUESTION #119:

Please provide the following breakdown:

a. How many SC DOT staff will access/log into the grants management system more than 20 hours a month?

b. How many SC DOT staff will access/log into the grants management system less than 20 hours a month?

c. How many Grantee/Recipient users will need access to the grants management system?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #119:

See the response to question #5.

QUESTION #120:

In attachment B, Vendor Offeror’s Checklist, the bidder is cautioned:

• DO NOT INCLUDE ANY OF YOUR STANDARD CONTRACT FORMS!

• UNLESS EXPRESSLY REQUIRED, DO NOT INCLUDE ANY ADDITIONAL

BOILERPLATE CONTRACT CLAUSES.

However, on page 58, the last bullet states:

• Vendors are encouraged to include their standard Service Level Agreement ( SLA) as part of their response to an RFI or RFP.

Please confirm this will not disqualify the offeror if the standard SLA contains terms and conditions.

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #120:

An Offeror will not be found unresponsive in this area if they submit the requested Service Level Agreement and if that agreement contains terms and conditions.

QUESTION #121:

In System Requirements 11: Asset Management CapabilityCan the agency please provide more detail on the asset management capability, specifically the asset data category – including performance measure targets, transit facilities, transit way mileage, and vehicles, maintenance, and fuel. Does the agency require weekly/monthly/continuous tracking? Are there examples of performance measure targets?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #121:

See Section III – System Requirements – Item 11 Asset Management Capability.

QUESTION #122:

Can the government please break out the 300-500 user count estimate based on number of Local Transit Agency users vs. SCDOT users?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #122:

See the response to question #5.

QUESTION #123:

Would the government be open to a 99.95 Uptime (sic) SLA instead of a 99.99 uptime?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #123:

The vendor should provide accurate SLA information in their Technical Proposal so that the agency can evaluate and determine the best value for the State.

QUESTION #124:

Does the implementation timeline count toward the 30 page limit?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #124:

The implementation timeline is counted in the 30 page limit.

QUESTION #125:

Will the government provide the demonstration script at least 5 days before the scheduled demonstration?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #125:

SCDOT will provide a demonstration script, if demonstrations are required, at least five (5) days prior to the date of the scheduled demonstration.

QUESTION #126:

Does SCDOT want the invoices or compliance documentation to be processed using AI, or will human interaction be anticipated? Are invoices and documentation in a standard format?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #126:

The vendor should provide information in their Technical Proposal so that the agency can evaluate and determine the best value for the State.

QUESTION #127:

Approximately how much legacy date will need to be migrated from SharePoint> What are the file formats?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #127:

All legacy data from the existing Sharepoint solution will need to be migrated into the new solution.

QUESTION #128:

The system must be compliant with FTA regulations such as Transit Asset Management (TAM), National Transit Database (NTD), and Transit Award Management System (TrAMS). Where can we find these regulations to review?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #128:

Transit Asset Management (TAM), National Transit Database (NTD), and Transit Award Management System (TrAMS) are available from https://www.transit.dot.gov.

QUESTION #129:

Could SCDOT please clarify whether it is their intent that the vendor own and operate all licenses and technology as a managed service on behalf of SCDOT and that SCDOT will not be this system's principal owner?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #129:

See Section III – System Requirements – Item 6 and Appendix A Vendor Hosting Requirements.

https://www.transit.dot.gov/

QUESTION #130:

Would SCDOT specify what industry-recognized digital signatures it will accept?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #130:

Specifications in the Solicitation related to digital signatures may be found in Section III – System Requirements – Item 9 Digital Signature.

QUESTION #131:

Can the Government please clarify whether the warranty period is intended to include post-implementation support such as Hypercare? If so, what specific activities or service levels are expected during this period?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #131:

In this area, the Contractor should provide their proposed maintenance and support approach within their response to the RFP.

QUESTION #132:

Does annual maintenance include enhancements or modifications? What does SCDOT envision in the out years?

SCDOT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #132:

In this area, the Contractor should provide their proposed maintenance and support approach – including provisions for enhancements and modifications - within their response to…