Amendment 1.doc

SAP

State of South Carolina Request for Proposal Amendment 1 Solicitation:

Date Issued:

Procurement Officer:

Phone:

E-Mail Address:

Mailing Address:

5400029438 03/17/2026

MELISSA MIMS

803-822-3597 melissamims@midlandstech.edu

MIDLANDS TECHNICAL COLLEGE

PURCHASING OFFICE

1260 Lexington Drive West Columbia SC 29170-2176

DESCRIPTION: IT CONSULTING SERVICES

USING GOVERNMENTAL UNIT: Midlands Technical College

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

SUBMIT OFFER BY (Opening Date/Time): 04/02/2026 10:00 AM (See "Deadline For Submission Of Offer" provision)

QUESTIONS MUST BE RECEIVED BY: 03/11/2026 2:00 PM (See "Questions From Offerors" provision)

NUMBER OF COPIES TO BE SUBMITTED: Submit online. One (1) Electronic Technical marked "Original", One (1) Redacted Electronic Technical Copy marked "Redacted”, One (1) Electronic Price marked “Original”, and One (1) Electronic Price Copy marked “Copy” See Section II. A “DISCLOSURE OF YOUR BID / PROPOSAL and SUBMITTING CONFIDENTIAL DATA, Section II. B “Electronic Copies- Required Media and Format”.

Initial here_____ if a redacted copy is NOT necessary

CONFERENCE TYPE: Not Applicable

DATE & TIME:

(As appropriate, see "Conferences - Pre-Bid/Proposal" & "Site Visit" provisions) LOCATION: Not Applicable

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 thirty (30) 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)

SAP

PAGE TWO

(Return Page Two with Your Offer) HOME OFFICE ADDRESS (Address for offeror's home office / principal place of business)

NOTICE ADDRESS (Address to which all procurement and contract related notices should be sent.) (See "Notice" clause) _________________________________________________ Area Code - Number - Extension Facsimile _________________________________________________ E-mail Address

PAYMENT ADDRESS (Address to which payments will be sent.) (See "Payment" clause) ____Payment Address same as Home Office Address ____Payment Address same as Notice Address (check only one) ORDER ADDRESS (Address to which purchase orders will be sent) (See "Purchase Orders and "Contract Documents" clauses) ____Order Address same as Home Office Address ____Order Address same as Notice Address (check only one)

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AMENDMENTS

Offerors acknowledges receipt of amendments by indicating amendment number and its date of issue. (See "Amendments to Solicitation" Provision)

DISCOUNT FOR PROMPT PAYMENT

(See "Discount for Prompt Payment" clause)

PREFERENCES - A NOTICE TO VENDORS (SEP. 2009): On June 16, 2009, the South Carolina General Assembly rewrote the law governing preferences available to in-state vendors, vendors using in-state subcontractors, and vendors selling in-state or US end products. This law appears in Section 11-35-1524 of the South Carolina Code of Laws. A summary of the new preferences is available at www.procurement.sc.gov/preferences .

DO NOT APPLY PER SC CONSOLIDATED PROCUREMENT CODE [11-35-1524(E)(5)]

PREFERENCES - ADDRESS AND PHONE OF IN-STATE OFFICE: Please provide the address and phone number for your in-state office in the space provided below. An in-state office is necessary to claim either the Resident Vendor Preference (11-35-1524(C)(1)(i)&(ii)) or the Resident Contractor Preference (11-35-1524(C)(1)(iii)). Accordingly, you must provide this information to qualify for the preference. An in-state office is not required, but can be beneficial, if you are claiming the Resident Subcontractor Preference (11-35-1524(D)).

DO NOT APPLY PER SC CONSOLIDATED PROCUREMENT CODE [11-35-1524(E)(5)]

____In-State Office Address same as Home Office Address ____In-State Office Address same as Notice Address (check only one)

PAGE TWO (SEP 2009)

End of PAGE TWO

Table of Contents

SECTION_I

ACQUIRE SERVICES (JAN 2006)

SECTION_IIA

DEFINITIONS, CAPITALIZATION, AND HEADINGS (DEC 2015)

AMENDMENTS TO SOLICITATION (JAN 2004)

AUTHORIZED AGENT (FEB 2015)

AWARD NOTIFICATION (FEB 2015)

BID/PROPOSAL AS OFFER TO CONTRACT (JAN 2004)

BID ACCEPTANCE PERIOD (JAN 2004)

BID IN ENGLISH and DOLLARS (JAN 2004)

CERTIFICATE OF INDEPENDENT PRICE DETERMINATION (MAY 2008)

CERTIFICATION REGARDING DEBARMENT AND OTHER RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS (JAN 2004)

CODE OF LAWS AVAILABLE (JAN 2006)

DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF OFFER (JAN 2004)

DRUG FREE WORK PLACE CERTIFICATION (JAN 2004)

DUTY TO INQUIRE (FEB 2015)

ETHICS CERTIFICATE (MAY 2008)

OMIT TAXES FROM PRICE (JAN 2004)

OPEN TRADE REPRESENTATION (JUN 2015)

PROTESTS (MAY 2019)

PROHIBITED COMMUNICATIONS AND DONATIONS (FEB 2015)

PUBLIC OPENING (JAN 2004)

QUESTIONS FROM OFFERORS (FEB 2015)

REJECTION/CANCELLATION (JAN 2004)

RESPONSIVENESS/IMPROPER OFFERS (JUN 2015)

SIGNING YOUR OFFER (JAN 2004)

STATE OFFICE CLOSINGS (JAN 2004)

DISCLOSURE OF YOUR BID / PROPOSAL and SUBMITTING CONFIDENTIAL DATA (FEB 2021)

SUBMITTING A PAPER OFFER OR MODIFICATION (MAR 2015)

VENDOR REGISTRATION MANDATORY (JAN 2006)

WITHDRAWAL OR CORRECTION OF OFFER (JAN 2004)

SECTION_IIB

CONTENTS OF OFFER (RFP) (FEB 2015)

ON-LINE BIDDING INSTRUCTIONS (MAR 2015)

OPENING PROPOSALS -- INFORMATION NOT DIVULGED (FEB 2015)

PROTEST - CPO - ITMO ADDRESS (JUN 2006)

SECTION_III

DELIVERY/PERFORMANCE LOCATION -- SPECIFIED (JAN 2006)

SECTION_IV

INFORMATION FOR OFFERORS TO SUBMIT -- EVALUATION (JAN 2006)

INFORMATION FOR OFFERORS TO SUBMIT -- GENERAL (MAR 2015)

MINORITY PARTICIPATION (DEC 2015)

SECTION_V

QUALIFICATIONS OF OFFEROR (MAR 2015)

SUBCONTRACTOR -- IDENTIFICATION (FEB 2015)

SECTION_VI

AWARD CRITERIA -- PROPOSALS (JAN 2006)

AWARD TO ONE OFFEROR (JAN 2006)

COMPETITION FROM PUBLIC ENTITIES (JAN 2006)

DISCUSSIONS AND NEGOTIATIONS - OPTIONAL (FEB 2015)

EVALUATION FACTORS -- PROPOSALS (JAN 2006)

SECTION_VIIA

ASSIGNMENT, NOVATION, AND CHANGE OF NAME, IDENTITY, OR STRUCTURE (FEB 2015)

BANKRUPTCY - GENERAL (FEB 2015)

CHOICE-OF-LAW (JAN 2006)

CONTRACT DOCUMENTS and ORDER OF PRECEDENCE (FEB 2015)

DISCOUNT FOR PROMPT PAYMENT (JAN 2006)

DISPUTES (JAN 2006)

FALSE CLAIMS (JAN 2006)

FIXED PRICING REQUIRED (JAN 2006)

NO INDEMNITY OR DEFENSE (FEB 2015)

OPEN TRADE (JUN 2015)

PAYMENT and INTEREST (FEB 2021)

PUBLICITY (JAN 2006)

PURCHASE ORDERS (JAN 2006)

SURVIVAL OF OBLIGATIONS (JAN 2006)

TAXES (JAN 2006)

TERMINATION DUE TO UNAVAILABILITY OF FUNDS (JAN 2006)

THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY (JAN 2006)

WAIVER (JAN 2006)

SECTION_VIIB

CHANGES (JAN 2006)

COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS (JAN 2006)

CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL (JAN 2006)

CONTRACTOR'S OBLIGATION -- GENERAL (JAN 2006)

DEFAULT (JAN 2006)

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION (NOV 2008)

LICENSES AND PERMITS (JAN 2006)

PRICE ADJUSTMENTS (JAN 2006)

PRICING DATA -- AUDIT -- INSPECTION (JAN 2006)

RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES (JAN 2006)

TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE (JAN 2006)

SECTION_VIII

BIDDING SCHEDULE (NOV 2007)

PRICE PROPOSAL (JAN 2006)

SECTION_IX

NONRESIDENT TAXPAYER REGISTRATION AFFIDAVIT INCOME TAX WITHHOLDING

SAP

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]

New SUBMIT OFFER BY (Opening Date/Time): 04/02/2026 10:00 AM

New Award Posting date: 4/10/2026

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. [02-2A097-1]

1. The solicitation indicates that three reference letters which are for comparable projects completed within the past five years should be provided. Could you please confirm whether formal signed reference letters are required at the time of proposal submission, or if descriptions of relevant projects would be acceptable?

Answer: Formal signed reference letters are not required at the time of proposal submission. However, if formal letters are not provided, the submitting firm should include contact information for the references. The evaluation team may contact those individuals directly to conduct reference checks.

2. Would experience performed by key personnel be acceptable as relevant references if those individuals are assigned to this engagement?

Answer: No. While experience of key personnel may be mentioned, the proposed firm must also demonstrate that the firm has the required relevant experience.

3. Could you please confirm whether this engagement represents a new initiative for Midlands Technical College, or if a similar technology assessment has previously been conducted by another consulting firm?

Answer: New Initiative

4. Could you please confirm whether this solicitation includes any small business preference or set-aside consideration for small businesses?

Answer: No, there are no small business preferences.

5. What should be in the business proposal- only commercials?

Answer: The Bidding Schedule with your pricing

6. Do we need to submit personnel resumes as part of the proposal?

Answer: Refer to Section IV, Item 5. Project Team a & b

7. Is it mandatory to submit a “redacted” Technical Proposal? What information should be removed in this redacted version?

Answer: No, a redacted version is not mandatory. Refer to Section II, Clause Disclosure of your Bid/Proposal and Submitting Confidential Information and Section IV, Clause Submitting Redacted Offers

8. On Page 11of the RFP document - 'ELECTRONIC COPIES - REQUIRED MEDIA AND FORMAT (MODIFIED) - In addition to your original technical and price proposal, you must submit redacted Technical Copy marked “Redacted Technical”, and one original price proposal as well as a redacted Price marked “Redacted Price”,’ could you please clarify “redacted price” - what should it look like?

Answer: Pricing is not confidential; therefore, your price cannot be redacted.

9. Can the College provide an overview of the current technology environment, including existing systems, major platforms, and infrastructure architecture?

Answer: Specifics will be provided to the successful bidder

10. Has the College conducted any prior IT governance, infrastructure, or cybersecurity assessments within the last five years that can be shared with the selected consultant?

Answer: We have a governance document for MyMTC. A cybersecurity assessment is conducted at least every two years, but there has not been a recent infrastructure assessment.

11. Will the College provide access to existing documentation, such as IT strategic plans, governance frameworks, infrastructure diagrams, system inventories, and previous audit reports?

Answer: Yes, we can provide access to these documents.

12. Should the infrastructure assessment include detailed technical evaluation of network architecture, cloud environment, identity and access management, disaster recovery and business continuity, and cybersecurity tools?

Answer: Yes, to the extent that it supports the goal of strategic planning and is not simply a tactical review of equipment and software.

13. Approximately how many stakeholder groups or departments should the consultant plan to engage during interviews or workshops?

Answer: Number of stakeholders to be interviewed will need to be determined by the successful bidder.

14. Is the selected consultant expected only to provide recommendations and roadmap deliverables, or will the College also expect assistance with implementation planning or execution support?

Answer: Only provide recommendations and roadmap. Any assistance the college deems appropriate will be obtained through a separate proposal.

15. Does the College expect the consulting team to perform work on-site, remotely, or in a hybrid model, and are there any minimum on-site engagement requirements?

Answer: Hybrid

16. Can the College provide an estimated budget range or historical cost for similar engagements?

Answer: This information will not be released.

17. Are three standard references sufficient, or are formal reference letters required? If letters are required, please provide the preferred format.

Answer: Formal signed reference letters are not required at the time of proposal submission. However, if formal letters are not provided, the submitting firm should include contact information for the references. The evaluation team may contact those individuals directly to conduct reference checks.

18. Is this solicitation affected by the $150K or $300K cap?

Answer: No

19. How many approximate stakeholders will we need to interviewed?

Answer: Number of stakeholders to be interviewed will need to be determined by the successful bidder during the assessment period.

20. Is the IT governance within a single IT department, or do other business units have their own IT units?

Answer: There is one IT department that is responsible for all technology support with the exception of multi-media equipment and services. A few other departments have ‘technical’ staff members to assist with specific technology, mostly software, related to their daily operations.

21. What IT services are provide today (i.e. Help Desk, Desktop Support, Application Development, etc.)?

Answer: All aspects of IT services are provided to support the college.

22. Does all work need to be done on-site, or just deliverable reviews?

Answer: Some on-site and some remote work can be completed.

23. Will all campuses need to be visited, or will stakeholders be available at a single location?

Answer: Multiple campuses will need to be visited; however, not all campuses must be visited.

24. Do you currently have something like a CMDB or current inventory of applications, servers, databases, etc. that will be available as an input to this project?

Answer: We can provide documentation on servers, databases and applications.

We do have an inventory that we will share with the winning bidder

25. Was there a recent issue (or set of issues) that prompted the issuance of this RFP? If so, can you elaborate?

Answer: This is part of the college’s 3-year strategic planning process.

26. Who is the project sponsor?

Answer: The college wide strategic plan subcommittee.

27. Could you confirm your fiscal year is July 1 through June 30?

Answer: Yes

28. Is the appropriation for this project in FY25/26 or FY26/27?

Answer: This question will not be answered as it is not relevant to the project.

29. Will all potential bidders receive copies of all submitted questions and answers issued as an Addendum to the RFP?

Answer: Yes

30. Do you have a date by which you expect to provide an answer to bidders’ questions? The proposal deadline is March 20, only 9 days after questions are due. Would you be willing to extend the proposal submission deadline if it takes more than a couple of days to respond to bidders’ questions?

Answer: MTC will adjust the proposal submission deadline accordingly.

31. The July 15, 2026, deliverable date is described as firm. Given a projected award date of March 30, what is MTC’s reasonably anticipated start date? Are there any blackout periods (such as the end of the semester) that would affect scheduling workshops or stakeholder sessions? Are there interim deliverables or milestones expected?

Answer: The start date will be determined by the award date.

32. We assume the bulk of project work will be conducted between April 1 and July 15, 2026. This aligns with what is often a very busy time for both internal and external IT stakeholders.

a. Approximately how many stakeholders will need to be consulted for the engagement?

Answer: Number of stakeholders to be interviewed will need to be determined by the successful bidder.

b. Do you anticipate that MTC stakeholders will be available to participate in focus groups and respond to surveys during this time?

Answer: Yes

c. Do you anticipate that MTC’s IT team will be able to provide quick responses to vendor inquiries as work progresses during this time?

Answer: Yes

33. How many MTC campuses or locations should the Bidder plan to include in the assessment?

Answer: All

34. Is on-site presence required for any portion of the engagement, or will MTC consider a remote delivery model?

Answer: On-site is preferred with some remote allowed.

35. Does MTC have a budget in mind for this project, and can you share that with us? By understanding your budget expectations, bidders can maximize their scope of work within your financial constraints and recommend ways to meet your requirements within your budget.

Answer: This information will not be divulged

36. The scope of work is broad (governance, systems assessment, infrastructure, stakeholder communications, org design). Does MTC anticipate all four areas being weighted equally, or are there higher-priority areas that should anchor the proposed approach?

Answer: Weighted equally

37. Is there an incumbent, and are they eligible to bid on this project? If so, who was the incumbent and what was the value of the contract?

Answer: There is no incumbent.

38. The solicitation requires three letters of reference as part of the Technical Proposal submission. Vantage appreciates our clients’ generosity in providing references for our firm, and we do not wish to overwhelm them with reference requests. Would MTC consider accepting project summaries with reference contact information instead of formal letters at the proposal stage, with full reference letters provided upon request if named a finalist?

Answer: Formal signed reference letters are not required at the time of proposal submission. However, if formal letters are not provided, the submitting firm should include contact information for the references. The evaluation team may contact those individuals directly to conduct reference checks.

39. What are the major milestones or events driving the stated schedule for the project?

Answer: Strategic Plan initiative

40. We understand that Item 3 in the RFP is seeking a vendor to conduct “a comprehensive inventory of technology tools and platforms across all divisions.”

a. Does MTC have an inventory of existing infrastructure for use in Item 4 of the RFP, or will an inventory of infrastructure also be required?

Answer: We can provide documentation on servers, databases and applications.

b. Does MTC have a preferred framework or methodology for technology inventory? Have you initiated any inventory efforts?

Answer: We would welcome your recommendation.

41. The scope references alignment with South Carolina Higher Education State Job Classifications. Should the bidder plan to develop a fully mapped classification structure, or are high-level role recommendations with general classification guidance sufficient?

Answer: High level roles are sufficient.

42. Does MTC operate under a centralized or distributed IT service delivery model, and are there divisional or departmental IT staff outside of the central IT organization who should be included in the assessment scope?

Answer: There is one IT department that is responsible for all technology support with the exception of multi-media equipment and services. A few other departments have ‘technical’ staff members to assist with specific technology, mostly software, related to their daily operations. All should be included in scope.

43. Does MTC have any major technology deployments or system upgrades planned or currently underway that may affect staff availability or the scope of the assessment?

Answer: MTC has projects ongoing, however they should not affect this project.

44. Can you provide information on the size of the MTC technology environment?

This information can be provided during the assessment.

a. Number of employees?

Answer: Provided to winning bidder

b. Number of servers?

Answer: Provided to winning bidder

c. Number of laptops & desktops?

Answer: Provided to winning bidder

d. Number of switches, routers, firewalls?

Answer: Provided to winning bidder

e. Number of internet connections?

Answer: Provided to winning bidder

f. Current technology budget?

Answer: Provided to winning bidder

45. What existing internal documentation will the selected vendor have access to?

Answer: We can provide IT documentation as needed.

46. Has any similar type of assessment been conducted in the past, and if so, would the results of that assessment be made available during the engagement?

Answer: There has not been an assessment of this scope.

47. Are there preferred formats for the deliverable reports?

Answer: No preference.

48. Onsite versus remote delivery expectations

Question: Does the College require onsite work for any portion of this engagement, or is remote delivery acceptable for all activities? If onsite is preferred, approximately how many onsite days should Offerors assume and during which phases?

Answer: See #5

49. Stakeholder engagement volume and format

Question: Approximately how many stakeholder interviews or workshops should Offerors plan for, and what stakeholder groups are in scope (executive leadership, IT leadership, faculty, administrative departments, student services, external partners)?

Answer: See #2

50. Depth of infrastructure evaluation

Question: For the “Infrastructure Evaluation and Compliance” workstream, should Offerors assume a high-level architectural review, or a deeper validation that includes configuration evidence review (for example, control evidence, logs, settings, and technical artifacts)?

Answer: A high-level review is preferred.

51. Scope boundary for systems inventory

Question: For the “comprehensive inventory of technology tools and platforms,” should the inventory include only centrally managed enterprise systems, or also department-owned applications, point solutions, and shadow IT?

Answer: Both

52. Organizational design expectations and constraints

Question: For the required proposed organizational chart aligned to South Carolina Higher Education State Job Classifications, should Offerors assume that recommendations must be headcount-neutral, or are net-new roles and staffing increases within scope if justified by findings?

Answer: Net-new roles as long as they are justified.

53. Current-state artifacts availability

Question: Will the College provide existing documentation to accelerate discovery, such as current IT org charts, role descriptions, governance charters, policies and standards, system diagrams, application lists, network diagrams, asset inventories, and recent audit findings?

Answer: We can provide documentation as needed.

54. Access model and data restrictions

Question: What access level should Offerors assume for conducting the assessment (read-only access to selected systems, screenshots or exports provided by IT, interviews only), and are there restrictions related to sensitive data or regulated environments?

Answer: Any access to systems, other than public web-based sites will be with IT staff support.

55. Key drivers and success criteria

Question: What are the primary drivers for this engagement (for example, audit findings, operational pain points, security concerns, systems sprawl, user experience issues), and what outcomes would define success by July 15, 2026?

Answer: Strategic Plan initiative

56. Roadmap fidelity expectations

Question: For the implementation roadmap, does the College expect sequencing and milestones only, or should it also include dependency mapping and rough order-of-magnitude cost ranges for major initiatives?

Answer: Roadmap should include milestones and dependency mapping

57. Required level of compliance alignment

Question: The RFP references recognized standards such as NIST and ISO. Does the College prefer a specific framework baseline (for example, NIST CSF, NIST 800-53, ISO 27001), or should Offerors propose the most appropriate framework(s) based on the College context?

Answer: Most appropriate, we do have information from SC CIC and SC DIS.

58. In-scope organizational units and locations

Question: Are all campuses, satellite locations, and divisions in scope, and should Offerors assume coverage of academic technology, administrative systems, and instructional technology together?

Answer: Yes

59. Stakeholder collaboration and communications deliverable expectations

Question: For the “Stakeholder Collaboration and Communication” scope, does the College expect specific deliverables such as a communication governance framework, communication templates, standards for reporting audit findings, or a recommended cadence and forum structure?

Answer: Yes, all mentioned.

60. Systems integration focus

Question: Should Offerors focus systems integration recommendations primarily on data consistency and reporting (standardized data entry, data sharing, reporting), or also include application integration approaches and integration platform considerations?

Answer: As much as is feasible to include.

61. User experience definition and target populations

Question: When referencing “user experience across all technology communication platforms,” which user groups should be prioritized (faculty, staff, students), and which platforms are most important (email, Teams, portal, intranet, service desk, knowledge base)?

Answer: In order of priority: Students, Faculty, Staff. All platforms listed and include ERP and LMS.

62. Implementation planning ownership and next steps

Question: After delivery of the roadmap, does the College anticipate using it to support future procurements and implementation planning, or primarily for internal decision-making and budgeting?

Answer: To be determined at a later date.

63. Project governance and cadence expectations during the engagement

Question: Does the College have a preferred project governance cadence during the engagement (for example, weekly steering check-ins, biweekly status reporting), and who will serve as the executive sponsor and day-to-day coordinator?

Answer: Biweekly status reporting. The executive sponsor and day-to-day coordinator is to be determined.

64. Evaluation process details

Question: Will the College conduct presentations, interviews, or clarifications as part of evaluation, or will award be based solely on the written submission?

Answer: I’m not sure if we want presentations or not. Or, is that something we need procurement to chime in on? To be determined. Melissa: Any thoughts?

65. IT Department Size and Staffing To help us appropriately size our proposed team and calibrate our approach, could you share a general sense of the current IT department? Specifically, we would find it helpful to know roughly how many full-time employees, part-time employees, and contractors currently support IT operations, how many staff members are in management or supervisory roles, and what the approximate annual IT budget looks like. This context will allow us to propose a team and timeline that is realistic and well-matched to the environment we would be working in.

Answer: The IT department has 36 total FTE positions plus 3 part-time positions. We have one director, one assistant director, 4 managers who also do work related to the areas they manage, and 1 supervisor.

66. Stakeholder Community On the stakeholder engagement side, do you have a rough sense of how many individuals we would be working with across the College? We are thinking about department heads, division leaders, faculty representatives, and any standing technology committees or governance bodies. Understanding the approximate size and composition of the stakeholder community upfront will allow us to build a realistic engagement plan and ensure our timeline accounts for the access and coordination that will be needed.

Answer: Number of stakeholders will need to be determined by the successful bidder.

67. Governance Model — Single Recommendation vs. Options For the governance and organizational structure work under Scope Area 1, we want to make sure the deliverable is structured in the way that is most useful to the College. Are you looking for the Contractor to land on and advocate for a single recommended governance model such as centralized, federated, or hybrid and make the case for it? Or would it be more valuable to present two or three viable options with honest pros and cons so that College leadership can weigh in on the direction? We are comfortable either way and simply want to be aligned before we structure that deliverable.

Answer: 2-3 viable options with honest pros and cons would be most appropriate

68. Organizational Chart — IT Only vs. College-Wide Technology Roles Still within Scope Area 1, when the solicitation references a proposed organizational chart, is the intent to chart the core IT department structure only, or should the chart also capture technology-related roles that exist outside of IT for example, instructional technology staff embedded in academic affairs, or departmental technology liaisons sitting within administrative divisions? If the broader picture is the goal, that is great and we are glad to include it. We just want to scope the discovery and mapping effort accurately from the start.

Answer: Broader options, to include an emphasis on the IT department, would be most appropriate.

69. Systems Inventory — Scale and Starting Point For the comprehensive systems inventory required under Scope Area 3, roughly how many academic and administrative divisions or departments should we expect to cover? On a practical level, does the College have any existing documentation we could use as a starting point such as an asset register, a prior technology assessment, or even informal lists maintained by individual departments or should we plan to build the inventory entirely from scratch? That distinction will have a real impact on how we structure the early phases of the project and how we allocate team time.

Answer: Please cover all areas. Yes, the college does have an inventory system that lists all college-owned equipment. The IT department also keeps more detailed documentation on its assets which include switch/router and other infrastructure hardware models, etc.

70. Compliance Framework Preference For the infrastructure evaluation and compliance work under Scope Area 4, does the College have a preferred framework in mind that findings should be benchmarked against for example, NIST CSF, NIST SP 800-171, ISO 27001, or some combination of these? If there is no existing preference or prior institutional commitment to a specific framework, is the Contractor free to recommend the framework or frameworks that best fit the College's risk profile and regulatory environment, with a rationale provided? We want to know upfront whether we are working within an established framework or whether a framework recommendation is itself part of the scope.

Answer: A framework recommendation that best fits the College’s risk profile is part of the scope.

71. Cloud-Hosted and SaaS Platforms Should our infrastructure assessment under Scope Area 4 include cloud-hosted systems and third-party SaaS platforms things like Microsoft 365 or any hosted ERP or student information system the College relies on or is the assessment focused primarily on on-premises infrastructure, the College's own data center, and network environment? Many institutions today have a significant and growing cloud footprint, and we want to make sure we are scoping the right environment rather than making assumptions that could lead to gaps in the assessment.

Answer: Yes, please do include cloud-based systems.

72. Student-Facing Platforms Under Scope Area 2, the solicitation references an objective to enhance user experience across all technology communication platforms. When the College says all technology communication platforms, does that include student-facing channels such as student portals, learning management systems, and mobile communication tools, or is the scope focused on faculty, staff, and administrative stakeholders? Both are very manageable from our end we just want to make sure our stakeholder engagement plan and user experience review reflect the correct population from day one.

Answer: To include all end users (students, faculty, and staff)

73. SECTION B — Timeline and Project Logistics Question 9: Project Start Date and Purchase Order Timing The solicitation anticipates award posting around March 30, 2026, with all deliverables due on the firm date of July 15, 2026. We are planning our project schedule tightly around that window. It would really help to know whether the College expects work to begin immediately upon award notification, or whether there will be a contract execution and purchase order process following award that could affect the actual start date. If the latter, roughly how long does that process typically take? We want to build a timeline that reflects when we will actually have authorization to begin work, not an optimistic assumption that could compress the schedule in ways that are hard to recover from.

Answer: This process can vary however when you receive the PO, you may begin work.

74. On-Site Visits Is the College expecting the Contractor to conduct on-site visits as part of this engagement? If so, a rough sense of how many visits you are anticipating and which campus locations would be involved West Columbia, Airport, Beltline, or others would help us build accurate travel assumptions into the price proposal. We are fully flexible on format and want to reflect reality in our pricing rather than either over- or under-estimating that component.

Answer: At least 1 on-site visit is expected. Some remote work can be performed. Vendor should determine the number of on-site visits needed to complete the work. Visits to any of the listed campuses could occur as well as visits to the Northeast Campus.

75. College Point of Contact Will the College be designating a single point of contact on your side to work with the Contractor day to day someone who can help us schedule stakeholder interviews, handle document requests, and manage review cycles throughout the engagement? If so, will that individual have the authority to provide timely access to College systems and documentation during the discovery phase? Having a clear go-to on your end will be one of the most important factors in our ability to hit the July 15 deliverable date, so we want to plan around that structure from the beginning.

Answer: A single point of contact will be identified dependent upon which area is being assessed.

76. SECTION C — Contract and Pricing Structure — Milestone-Based Invoicing The Fixed Pricing Required clause and the Bidding Schedule indicate a single LOT price, which we understand and are comfortable with. Our question is whether the College is open to structuring the payment schedule around deliverable milestones rather than a single payment at project completion or a fixed monthly cadence. A milestone-based payment structure tied to completed and accepted deliverables tends to serve both parties well on engagements of this kind. If the College has a preferred invoicing structure already in mind, we are glad to work within it we just want to understand the expectation before we finalize our approach.

Answer: No milestone based payment structure will be allowed.

77. Budget Parameters Is there a budget ceiling or not-to-exceed amount established by the College for this engagement? We are not looking to simply price to whatever ceiling exists we ask because understanding general budget parameters helps us calibrate the depth and breadth of the proposed approach so that what we submit is both competitive and realistic. If there is a figure you are able to share, we will work within it. If there is no established ceiling, we will size our proposal based on the full scope of work as described.

Answer: The budget will not be divulged

78. Form I-312 — Nonresident Taxpayer Registration As an out of state vendor, I am aware that South Carolina may require 2% income tax withholding for nonresident contractors under Section 12-8-550 of the South Carolina Code. We intend to submit Form I-312, the Nonresident Taxpayer Registration Affidavit, in order to qualify for the withholding exemption. We want to make sure we handle this correctly should Form I-312 be included in our proposal package at the time of submission, or should it be submitted directly to the College following contract execution and upon issuance of a purchase order?

Answer: Please follow directions on the Non-resident Taxpayer Registration Affidavit

79. Could the College clarify whether the consulting engagement is expected to be delivered fully remotely, onsite, or through a hybrid service model?

Answer: Consulting should be hybrid with onsite and remote (Teams/ZOOM meetings).

80. If onsite participation is required, please confirm the anticipated frequency or duration of onsite engagement expected from the selected consultant during the project lifecycle.

Answer: To be determined based on content of engagement.

81. Please confirm whether stakeholder meetings, workshops, or assessment activities may require after-hours or weekend participation.

Answer: No, we anticipate stakeholder interactions to occur during the college’s standard business hours (Mon-Thurs 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., and Friday 8:00 am until 1:30 p.m.)

82. Could the College specify whether the consulting team is expected to align with specific working hours or time zones during the project execution.

Answer: College business hours (eastern standard time zone) Mon-Thurs 8:00 am. until 5:00 p.m., and Friday 8:00 am until 1:30 p.m.

83. Are there any citizenship, residency, or security clearance requirements applicable to personnel assigned to this project?

Answer: Legal authorization to work in the United States

84. Does the College require the contractor to provide US-based personnel or a local point of contact for the duration of the engagement?

Answer: Yes, with legal authorization to work in the U.S.

85. Could the College provide an overview or approximate inventory of the current technology environment that will be assessed as part of this engagement?

Answer: MTC can provide this information as needed to the successful bidder.

86. Are existing network diagrams, architecture documentation, or technology asset inventories available that can be shared with the selected consultant to support the assessment activities?

Answer: MTC can provide this information as needed to the successful bidder.

87. Will the College provide access to any existing cybersecurity assessments, compliance reports, or technology governance documentation relevant to the scope of this consulting engagement?

Answer: MTC can provide governance documentation for college portal. We are willing to discuss cybersecurity assessments.

88. Is there an estimated budget range or funding ceiling allocated for this consulting engagement?

Answer: This information will not be divulged

89. Should the price proposal be structured as a fixed-price engagement or a time-and-materials pricing model?

Answer: Fixed Price

90. If onsite participation is required, should travel and related expenses be included within the price proposal submitted by the Offeror?

Answer: Everything should be included in vendor’s price.

91. Does this solicitation include any mandatory participation goals or requirements related to minority-owned, disadvantaged, or small business participation?

Answer: No

92. What primary drivers or recent developments prompted MTC to initiate this assessment at this time (e.g., leadership changes, system initiatives, audit findings, growth pressures, or governance challenges)?

Answer: Strategic Planning

93. Are there any activities or deliverables that MTC explicitly considers out of scope for this engagement (e.g., system selection, technical configuration reviews, or implementation planning)?

Answer: The example items would be out of scope along with any other tactical and operational assessment tasks. We would like recommendations on technology to consider upgrading or replacing.

94. Are there any upcoming milestones—such as budget cycles, system procurements, audits, or leadership decisions—that should influence the project timeline or prioritization of findings?

Answer: Strategic Planning

95. Does MTC have specific areas of emphasis within the scope (governance, collaboration, systems, or infrastructure) where deeper analysis or more detailed recommendations would be particularly valuable?

Answer: We would like recommendations on technology to consider upgrading or replacing.

96. How will MTC define success for this engagement at its conclusion (e.g., clarity of governance decisions, readiness for future investments, improved collaboration, leadership alignment)?

Answer: Comprehensive and credible assessment with sound recommendations that ultimately result in all examples above.

97. Are there any known constraints on stakeholder availability (e.g., academic calendar, staffing capacity) that should be considered when planning interviews, surveys, or workshops?

Answer: Availability will need to be considered when scheduling activities involving MTC personnel.

98. For Phase 4 (Infrastructure Evaluation and Compliance), does MTC currently use or align to a specific information security or risk management framework (e.g., NIST, CIS, ISO)?

Answer: NIST along with GLBA are considered key areas for compliance considerations.

99. For Phase 4 (Infrastructure Evaluation and Compliance), is MTC seeking a formal audit, gap/risk assessment against an established control set (e.g., NIST, CIS, ISO), or a high-level assessment against leading practices?

Answer: No, we would like recommendations on technology to consider upgrading or replacing.

100. How many distinct stakeholder groups does the College expect the consultant to interview?

Answer: Number of stakeholders to be interviewed will need to be determined by the successful bidder.

101. Will the College provide a dedicated liaison to coordinate the scheduling of these stakeholder sessions, or is the consultant responsible for all outreach and logistics?

Answer: College will provide listing of stakeholders and contact information for the consultant to coordinate outreach. Assistance with logistics will be provided as needed.

102. How many physical campus locations are included in the scope of this assessment?

Answer: 7 out of our 8 campus/locations are included.

103. Is IT support currently centralized at one location, or are there dedicated IT staff and infrastructure (server rooms, help desks) physically located at each campus?

Answer: Centralized for college-wide IT. There is a separate Multi-Media Services unit that handles classroom and meeting room technology. There are also technology representatives in a few of the departments that help with specialized technology used for instruction and business operation.

104. Does the "comprehensive inventory" of technology tools include hardware assets at all satellite campuses, or is it primarily focused on software and enterprise-level platforms?

Answer: Software and Hardware on all campuses

105. For the duration of the project, does the College expect the awarded vendor to conduct stakeholder interviews and infrastructure assessments primarily onsite, or is a hybrid/remote approach acceptable?

Answer: Hybrid model is acceptable.

106. The RFP mentions a "comprehensive inventory"; does the College currently utilize an Asset Management or IT Service Management (ITSM) tool that the consultant will be granted access to?

Answer: We use MS SCCM and Automox for PC and server management

107. Are there specific enterprise systems (e.g., ERP, LMS, CRM) that are considered "high priority" for the integration and redundancy assessment?

Answer: All elements should be considered.

108. Has the College undergone a formal security audit or NIST/ISO assessment within the last 24 months that can be shared with the awarded vendor to prevent duplication of effort?

Answer: We had an IT Risk Assessment performed last fall that we would be willing to discuss.

109. How many academic and administrative divisions, departments, and total end-users are within the scope of this assessment?

Answer: 7 divisions with multiple departments, 1400 Faculty/Staff, 11,000 Credit Students, 20,000 CCE Students

110. Can we get more detail on the specific systems to be assessed (ERP, LMS, SCADA/OT, cybersecurity platforms, etc.)

Answer: We are interested in recommendations specifically regarding ERP and related components. Details will be discussed during the review.

111. Can the College provide an estimated number of key stakeholders, committees, or focus groups the consultant is expected to engage with?

Answer: Number of stakeholders to be interviewed will need to be determined by the successful bidder.

112. The scope includes assessing critical technology infrastructure. Are there multiple campus locations or remote environments to assess, or is the infrastructure centralized solely at the West Columbia delivery location?

Answer: All campuses and remote locations should be considered.

113. Could you please confirm whether we are required to submit live resumes or sample resumes as part of the proposal?

Answer: You should submit real resumes of real individuals that would be working on this project.

114. Is it acceptable to redact the names of the resources in our submission?

Answer: Please refer to Clause DISCLOSURE OF YOUR BID / PROPOSAL and SUBMITTING CONFIDENTIAL DATA

115. Could you please confirm if there is an incumbent for this project? If so, may I request the name of the incumbent?

Answer: Not Applicable

116. Could you please clarify whether the work is expected to be performed remotely, onsite, or in a hybrid format?

Answer: Hybrid is acceptable.

117. Is candidate replacement allowed in the event of unforeseen circumstances?

Answer: No

118. Could you please provide the budget for this project?

Answer: This information will not be divulged.

119. Could you please confirm if a sample Certificate of Insurance (COI) is required, or if the original document needs to be submitted?

Answer: Sample will be sufficient

120. Can services be performed virtually?

Answer: We expect that some elements will need to be on-site.

121. Is it acceptable to offer a mix of On-Site and Remote services?

Answer: Yes

122. Is there an existing goal or vision already documented that can either be shared (in reference to "long-term institutional goals)?

Answer: Comprehensive assessment and recommendations to

123. Is this for the system used by the college staff or is it for the students and the systems they use?

Answer: The review should include all user types.