Amendment 1.pdf

SAP

Amendment 1

Solicitation:

Date Issued:

Procurement Officer:

Phone:

E-Mail Address:

Mailing Address:

5400030147 09/18/2026 Andy Champion 843-792-1300 champiow@musc.edu MUSC University Finance University Procurement 1 Poston Rd Suite 350 Charleston SC 29407

DESCRIPTION: CORE MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE

USING GOVERNMENTAL UNIT: Medical University of South Carolina

SUBMIT YOUR OFFER ON-LINE AT THE FOLLOWING URL: http://www.procurement.sc.gov SUBMIT OFFER BY (Opening Date/Time): 10/01/2026 10/05/2026 at 11:00 AM ET (See "Deadline For Submission Of Offer" provision) QUESTIONS MUST BE RECEIVED BY: 09/09/2026 at 5:00 PM ET(See "Questions From Offerors" provision) NUMBER OF COPIES TO BE SUBMITTED: One (1) Electronic Technical Proposal, One (1) Electronic Business Proposal, One (1) Electronic Redacted Copy of Technical Proposal marked "Redacted", One (1) Electronic Redacted Copy of Business Proposal marked "Redacted", (See “Submitting Redacted Offers” provision Section IV, “Submitting Confidential Information” Section II.A.)

Initial here if NO redacted copy is necessary___________

CONFERENCE TYPE: Non-Mandatory Pre-Proposal Conference DATE & TIME: 09/09/2026 at 11:00 AM

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

LOCATION: Microsoft Teams Contact champiow@musc.edu at least one hour before conference for log-in information

AWARD &

AMENDMENTS

Award will be posted on 01/1/2027 01/02/2027. 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 one hundred twenty (120) 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) mailto:champiow@musc.edu http://www.procurement.sc.gov/ mailto:champiow@musc.edu http://www.procurement.sc.gov/ http://www.procurement.sc.gov/

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

_________________________________________________ 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" clause)

____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) Amendment No. Amendment Issue

Date Amendment No. Amendment Issue

Date Amendment No. Amendment Issue

Date Amendment No. Amendment Issue

Date

DISCOUNT FOR

PROMPT PAYMENT

(See "Discount for Prompt

Payment" clause)

10 Calendar Days (%) 20 Calendar Days (%) 30 Calendar Days (%) _____Calendar Days (%)

PREFERENCES - A NOTICE TO VENDORS (SEP. 2009): Preferences do not apply to Request for Proposals per SC Consolidated Procurement Code Section 11-35-1524, part (5)

PREFERENCES - ADDRESS AND PHONE OF IN-STATE OFFICE: Preferences do not apply to Request for Proposals per SC Consolidated Procurement Code Section 11-35-1524, part (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

AMENDMENTS TO SOLICITATION (JAN 2004)

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. [02-2A097-1]

Q1. Could you please elaborate on the current scale of operations?

A1. MUSC currently anticipates implementing the Core Management Software across approximately 15 to 20 research core facilities at contract inception. These facilities have varied operational models, including instrument-based cores, service-based cores, consultation-based resources, and cores that manage high-volume sample workflows. The system will support centralized service requests, scheduling, usage tracking, billing, reporting, user administration, and institutional integration. MUSC previously identified a need for actual-use tracking software and hardware for approximately 17 cores.

Q2. How many additional cores do you anticipate adding over the course of the contract term?

A2. MUSC anticipates the potential to expand by up to 15 additional cores over the next five years. The actual number may vary as institutional needs evolve. The platform must allow MUSC to add, remove, merge, or reconfigure cores during the contract term, including through annual adjustments.

Q3. On average, how many administrators and managed instruments/equipment pieces are associated with each core?

A3. The number of administrators and managed instruments or equipment varies significantly by core. Some service-based or consultation-based cores may manage few or no instruments, while instrument-intensive cores may manage multiple instruments and associated actual-use tracking devices. MUSC does not have a single representative average that applies across all core types. Vendors should propose a scalable model that accommodates differences in core staffing, equipment inventory, workflows, and usage-tracking requirements.

The system must provide role-based access for institutional administrators, core-level administrators, core staff, financial users, and end users. It must also support integrated scheduling and real-time usage tracking for managed instruments and services.

Q4. What is your preferred rollout strategy? Do you plan to onboard all cores simultaneously or follow a phased implementation approach?

A4. MUSC expects implementation planning and core onboarding to be coordinated with the selected contractor. Individual core configuration, training, testing, and migration activities may be sequenced in phases based on operational complexity.

However, the complete solution must achieve production readiness within nine months of contract execution.

Final acceptance requires completion of core configuration and testing, single sign-on, financial integration, legacy-data migration and reconciliation, required training, production go-live, and a defined 30-to-60-day hyper care period. Partial functionality or an incomplete production deployment will not satisfy the implementation requirements.

Q5. Could you share the specific weighting and scoring criteria for the evaluation process (e.g., pricing, technical requirements, system demonstration)?

A5. No Change. MUSC does not provide specific weighing and scoring criteria for the evaluation process.

Q6. Would you prefer to receive multiple pricing models in our proposal? For example:

o Q6a. A tier-based pricing model that scales with your phased implementation.

A6a. Vendors may provide clearly differentiated alternative pricing scenarios, including tier-based or scalable pricing models, provided each proposal satisfies the solicitation requirements. Each pricing scenario must clearly identify all implementation, subscription, licensing, support, integration, migration, training, actual-use tracking, hardware, and optional costs.

o Q6b. An "unlimited" enterprise model providing unrestricted access to all system features without core/user caps.

A6b. Yes. Vendors may submit an enterprise or unlimited-access pricing scenario, provided the proposal clearly describes the scope, included functionality, any exclusions or limitations, implementation costs, recurring costs, actual-use tracking costs, and the total cost over the contract term.

Alternative offers must be clearly differentiated and must independently meet the solicitation requirements.

o Q6c. Are you expecting data migration costs from legacy systems to be billed as a fixed one-time fee or on a time-and-materials basis?

A6c. Vendors should identify data migration costs separately and clearly state the proposed pricing basis. MUSC prefers pricing that allows the total evaluated cost to be determined, including all costs necessary to migrate, validate, reconcile, and obtain MUSC approval of legacy data. Any assumptions, exclusions, hourly rates, or conditions that could create additional migration charges must be clearly disclosed in the Business Proposal.

The solicitation requires pricing to include all costs associated with meeting the contract requirements, while implementation completion includes migration and reconciliation of legacy data with MUSC sign-off.

o Q6d. Will the financial evaluation prioritize the initial implementation costs or the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) over the entire contract lifecycle?

A6d. The financial evaluation will consider the costs identified in the submitted Business Proposal, including implementation costs, recurring costs, and other costs necessary to meet the solicitation requirements over the contract term.

Q7. Could you briefly describe your current workflow and clarify if you are currently using multiple commercial systems for scheduling and core management?

A7. MUSC currently uses a centralized core management platform for service requests, scheduling, equipment usage tracking, invoicing, and related core management activities. In the current workflow:

1. A principal investigator or user submits a service or equipment request.

2. The core reviews and approves the request.

3. The core performs the service or records instrument usage.

4. The system generates an invoice.

5. Financial administrators review and approve billing information.

6. Data are exported, validated, formatted, and submitted for posting to MUSC’s financial system.

7. Internal and external billing transactions are reconciled through the applicable financial processes.

MUSC currently uses a core management platform. Other tools and processes support financial data transformation, validation, submission, and specialized project tracking, but MUSC is not using multiple commercial core-management platforms as the standard enterprise workflow. The new solution must support internal and external billing, actual-use tracking, configurable core workflows, and institutional financial integration

Q8. Beyond standard reference checks, would you be interested in an on-site visit to one of our existing clients (e.g., the redacted) to see our solution operating in a live environment?

A8. MUSC appreciates the offer. At this time, vendors should respond to the solicitation requirements and provide the requested institutional experience and reference information. MUSC may request additional information, references, and discussions during the evaluation process if necessary.

Q9. Pricing Structure: Because the final number of core facilities integrated into the platform may fluctuate, will MUSC allow vendors to submit multiple pricing structures/scenarios?

A9. Yes. Vendors may submit multiple pricing structures or scenarios, such as per-core, tiered, volume-based, dynamic, or enterprise pricing, provided each pricing structure is clearly described and supports the solicitation requirements. Vendors must clearly identify all assumptions, limits, optional charges, and total costs.

• Q10. Submission Deadline: Given the RFP requirements, along with varied upcoming schedules of the people involved in delivering the response, would MUSC consider granting a brief extension to the October 1, 2026, 11:00 AM ET submittal date?

A10.. The proposal submission deadline has been changed to October 5th, 2026, at

11:00 AM ET.

Q11.Endpoint Protection Constraints (Requirement 1.5.2): Are there any strict network restrictions (e.g., proxy limitations, specific outbound port blocking) that might affect a tracking client communicating outbound via standard HTTPS?

A11. Yes, there are strict network restrictions that might affect a tracking client communicating outbound via standard HTTPS. MUSC will review each system on a case-by-case basis during the evaluation process.