Amendment 2_5400030040.pdf

State of South Carolina

Request for Proposal

Amendment 2

Solicitation:

Date Issued:

Procurement Officer:

Phone:

E-Mail Address:

Mailing Address:

5400030040 09/03/2026

JOHNNY HARLESTON

8038988054

HARLESJ1@DPH.SC.GOV

SC Dept. of Public Health Attn: Procurement PO Box 2046

WEST COLUMBIA SC 29171-2046

DESCRIPTION: Project and Portfolio Management (PPM) software USING GOVERNMENTAL UNIT: SC Department of Public Health

SUBMIT YOUR OFFER ON-LINE AT THE FOLLOWING URL: http://www.procurement.sc.gov SUBMIT OFFER BY (Opening Date/Time): 09/1/2026 02:30 PM ET 09/24/2026 02:30 PM ET (See "Deadline For Submission Of Offer" provision) QUESTIONS MUST BE RECEIVED BY: 08/24/2026 05:00 PM ET (See "Questions From Offerors" provision)

NUMBER OF COPIES TO BE SUBMITTED:

CONFERENCE TYPE: Not Applicable

DATE & TIME:

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

LOCATION: Not Applicable

AWARD &

AMENDMENTS

Award will be posted on 09/10/26 10/20/2026. 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 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)

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) 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 - PREFERENCES DO NOT APPLY TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS PER SOUTH

CAROLINA PROCUREMENT CODE SECTION [§11-35-1524(e)(5)(B)] PAGE TWO (SEP 2009) End of PAGE TWO

Amendment No. Two

RFP 5400030040

Description: Project and Portfolio Management (PPM) software

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 has 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 provision. Stricken text is deleted. [02-2A097-1]

The following prospective offeror questions and agency response is hereby incorporated into the solicitation.

1. What is the total number of Users the State will require for this project? How many of those users will require Manager licenses/privileges?

State’s Response: See response #23

2. For electronic submission, can the State please confirm whether the Price-Business Proposal/Biding Schedule forms must be submitted separately from the Technical Proposal (i.e., as two separate documents), or whether all materials may be combined into a single submission? Additionally, should pricing information be excluded entirely from the Technical Proposal response?

State’s Response: The Technical Proposal and Price-Business Proposal must be submitted as separate documents. Pricing information should be excluded from the Technical Proposal and included in the separate Price-Business Proposal, in accordance with Section II. B. Special Instructions, Contents of Offer clause.

3. Can the State confirm that offerors are not permitted to submit redlines, exceptions, or requests to negotiate the terms and conditions upon down-selection or award?

State’s Response: Offerors are able to submit redlines or exceptions as a separate attachment document with proposal. See Section VI. clause “DISCUSSIONS AND NEGOTIATIONS – OPTIONAL (FEB 2015).” Any applicable EULA must also be separately attached and submitted with proposal. Offerors should review EULA documents in advance of submission to remove any clauses which are redundant, inapplicable, or incompatible with this solicitation.

4. The solicitation identifies an estimated contract period from September 16, 2026, through September 15, 2031, could DPH please clarify the expected implementation duration and target go-live date following the contract start date?

State’s Response: DPH anticipates an implementation period of approximately six to eight weeks after kick-off meeting, following the contract start date, with a target go-live within that timeframe. Offerors should provide a proposed implementation schedule based on their recommended approach. Proposed timelines will be evaluated as part of the proposal review, and the final implementation schedule will be established with the selected Contractor.

5. Can the proposed solution be hosted outside DPH’s Microsoft 365 environment if it meets all State security and data requirements?

State’s Response: Deployment within DPH’s Microsoft 365 GCC environment is strongly preferred to ensure alignment with existing infrastructure, security controls, and operational practices. Offerors may propose a solution hosted outside DPH’s Microsoft 365 environment, provided the proposal clearly describes the hosting model and demonstrates compliance with all applicable State security, privacy, data residency, access-control, integration, and other technical requirements. Any proposed hosting arrangement will be subject to the State’s security review and approval.

Offerors may propose hosting outside of the agency’s Microsoft 365/Dynamics 365 GCC environment only if the alternative environment is demonstrably GCC-compliant and the proposal clearly documents the hosting model, security posture, data residency, and required integrations.

6. Does DPH have a preferred implementation approach (onsite, remote, or hybrid)?

State’s Response: DPH does not have a preferred implementation approach. Offerors may propose an onsite, remote, or hybrid approach based on their recommended implementation methodology. The proposed approach should be clearly described in the proposal, including any anticipated onsite requirements. All costs associated with the recommended approach, including travel, lodging, and other onsite expenses, must be included in the proposed implementation price and clearly identified.

7. Could DPH please confirm the exact number of users who will require licenses for the proposed solution? This will help us prepare accurate pricing

State’s Response: See response #23

8. Is there an estimated or allocated budget range for this project that vendors should consider while preparing their proposal?

State’s Response: DPH is not providing an estimated budget range for this procurement.

Offerors should propose pricing based on their recommended solution and implementation approach. Pricing will be evaluated in accordance with the solicitation requirements.

9. Standard technical support is included with the proposed software licensing. Will this support be sufficient, or does DPH require dedicated technical support personnel? If dedicated support is required, please clarify where the associated cost should be included in the Price Proposal.

State’s Response: DPH does not require dedicated technical support personnel. Standard technical support included with the proposed software licensing is acceptable, provided that:

• The Contractor trains designated DPH IT staff and system administrators to troubleshoot and resolve routine, lower-tier support issues.

• DPH can escalate issues that cannot be resolved internally to the Contractor or software provider.

• The proposal identifies the applicable service-level agreements (SLAs), including response and resolution targets by issue severity, support hours, escalation procedures, and available support channels.

• Any costs associated with technical support, administrator training, or escalation support are clearly identified and included in the applicable software licensing, implementation, or support costs in the Price Proposal.

10. Are there any other systems or applications, not listed in the RFP, that DPH expects the proposed solution to integrate with?

State’s Response: DPH has not identified any required integrations beyond those described in the solicitation. The solicitation identifies integration capabilities involving Microsoft Teams, Microsoft Planner Premium or equivalent, Microsoft Project Desktop or equivalent, Power BI, SharePoint, Azure DevOps/Jira or equivalent, and Dynamics 365 or other applicable financial or line-of-business systems.

Offerors should describe the integrations supported by their proposed solution, including any prerequisites, limitations, licensing requirements, and associated costs. Optional integrations, including Azure DevOps or similar platforms, must be clearly identified and separately priced in accordance with Section III.8, Pricing & Licensing.

If a vendor proposes hosting outside the agency’s Microsoft 365/D365 GCC environment, the solution must still integrate with the agency’s Entra ID (Azure AD) for user authentication. Single Sign-On is required to maintain State security, access control, and identity governance policies.

11. The RFP indicates that data migration is not required but may be proposed as an optional service. Could DPH please provide the approximate volume of data to be migrated so vendors can estimate and price the optional migration services accurately?

State’s Response:

DPH currently has approximately 20 active projects, most of which are being managed through Microsoft Teams and related tools. This information is provided for general context only and does not represent a commitment to migrate all active projects.

DPH does not currently have a reliable estimate of the volume or complexity of data that may be included in an optional migration. Offerors proposing optional migration services should:

• Describe their proposed migration approach and required discovery activities.

• Clearly state all assumptions.

• Identify the factors that would affect the final cost, such as the number of projects, source systems, data volume, data types, attachments, custom fields, and historical records.

• Provide tiered, unit-based, or time-and-materials pricing that can be applied once the migration scope is confirmed.

Any optional migration services must be separately priced and will not be included in the base implementation.

12. Could DPH please confirm whether the documents listed under Section IX – Attachments to Solicitation, including the Offeror’s Checklist and completed Service Provider Security Assessment Questionnaire (SPSAQ), should be included within the Technical Proposal or submitted as separate attachment files?

State’s Response: The Offeror’s Checklist and completed Service Provider Security Assessment Questionnaire may be submitted as separate, clearly labeled attachment files and do not need to be embedded within the Technical Proposal. The Technical Proposal should reference the applicable attachments where appropriate. All required attachments will be considered part of the Offeror’s complete submission.

The Price-Business Proposal must be submitted as a separate document. Offerors must also comply with the solicitation’s file-size, file-naming, signature, confidentiality, and redacted-copy requirements.

13. Could DPH please confirm which Microsoft 365 Government environment is currently in use (GCC or GCC High)

State’s Response: DPH currently uses the Microsoft 365 Government Community Cloud (GCC) environment, not GCC High.

14. Could DPH please confirm whether the proposed solution is required to meet any federal cloud or security requirements (such as FedRAMP), and if so, please specify the required compliance level?

State Response: Proposed State’s Response: The solicitation does not establish a specific FedRAMP authorization level for the proposed solution. However, all proposed solutions must meet applicable State security, privacy, data-protection, access-control, and compliance requirements and will be subject to the State’s security and technical review.

Offerors proposing a cloud-hosted solution should identify the solution’s current FedRAMP authorization status and impact level, if applicable, and provide available security certifications, independent audit reports, and compliance documentation.

Offerors should also clearly identify the hosting provider, data-storage and processing locations, security-responsibility model, and any third parties that may access, process, store, or transmit State information.

The State reserves the right to require additional security documentation or controls based on the proposed architecture and security review.

15. Section III.2 and Requirement R1.1 state that "preference will be given to solutions that maintain data within the State's Microsoft 365 tenant or provide clear controls for data access, storage, and processing." Please confirm that a solution hosted in a dedicated Microsoft Azure environment, with documented controls over data access, storage, processing, and export, is considered fully responsive to R1.1 and R3.1. If the two approaches are scored differently, please describe how that preference is weighted within the Technical Solution evaluation factor.

State Response: A solution hosted in a dedicated Microsoft Azure environment is not automatically considered nonresponsive. Offerors proposing this approach must demonstrate that the solution satisfies R1.1, R3.1, and all applicable State security, privacy, access-control, data-protection, and compliance requirements.

The proposal should clearly describe:

• Hosting architecture and tenant isolation

• Identity and access management

• Data-storage, processing, and backup locations

• Encryption and key-management controls

• Audit logging and security monitoring

• Data export, portability, retention, and deletion capabilities

• Administrative access and third-party access

• Security certifications and independent assessments

• The division of security responsibilities among DPH, the Offeror, Microsoft, and any other providers Preference for solutions that maintain data within the State’s Microsoft 365 tenant remains part of the Technical Solution evaluation. However, an externally hosted Azure solution may be evaluated as responsive if it demonstrates appropriate controls and satisfies the solicitation requirements. No separate numerical weight has been assigned to the hosting preference beyond the evaluation factors published in Section VI. The State will evaluate the proposed architecture as part of the overall Technical Solution factor and will not make a final responsiveness determination before reviewing the complete proposal.

16. Requirement 1.6 references Dynamics 365 integration. Please clarify the expected integration behavior - for example read-only consumption of financial data for consolidated reporting, or bidirectional write-back to the financial system, and whether this integration is expected within the base implementation or a later phase.

State’s Response: DPH does not currently have a financial system that will be integrated with the proposed solution. Dynamics 365 or other financial-system integration is not required as part of the base implementation. DPH may consider a financial-system integration in a future phase. Offerors should describe the solution’s available financial integration capabilities, including whether they support read-only data consumption and bidirectional data exchange, along with any prerequisites, limitations, and licensing requirements. Any proposed costs for a future financial system integration should be identified separately as optional.

17. Requirement 1.4 references integration with Microsoft Project Desktop for complex scheduling. Approximately how many DPH users are expected to author schedules in Project Desktop, and approximately how many active projects are anticipated to use this integration?

State’s Response: DPH anticipates that approximately 8–10 users may author schedules in Microsoft Project Desktop. The agency typically has approximately 25 active projects at a time; however, project complexity varies, and not all active projects will require Project Desktop integration.

18. The Bidding Schedule requests annual pricing for Years 1 through 5 but does not specify user volume. Please provide the anticipated number of users by role for each contract year - for example, portfolio managers, project managers, resource managers, team members, and executives.

State’s Response: See response to Question # 23.

19. Approximately how many active projects, programs, and portfolios does DPH expect to manage in the solution at go-live?

State’s Response: See response to Question # 17.

20. [Vendor] understands that you would like to integrate the following tools with your future PPM solution: Microsoft Teams, Planner, Project Desktop, Power BI, SharePoint, Dynamics, and Azure DevOps. Could you please elaborate on how you currently use Planner and Dynamics?

State’s Response: DPH currently uses Microsoft Planner and Planner Premium to develop and manage project schedules, tasks, assignments, dependencies, and related project work. The proposed solution should support continued use of these capabilities while providing portfolio-level governance, visibility, and reporting.

DPH currently uses Dynamics 365 but has not identified a Dynamics 365 integration for the base PPM implementation.

21. If data migration is required in the future, what types of data would you like to migrate?

State’s Response: If DPH elects to use optional migration services, the anticipated scope would primarily include project schedule information and project-related documents. The specific projects, source locations, data fields, document types, and historical periods to be included would be determined during migration planning. Any optional migration approach and pricing should clearly identify assumptions, supported data types, prerequisites, and limitations.

22. Could you please confirm that our proposal should address the following sections:

• Part 7 – Vendor Qualifications & Proposal

• Part 8 – Pricing & Licensing

• Requirements Matrix

• Security Assessment Annex

• If there are any additional sections that should be included, please let us know.

State’s Response: Offerors must submit all information and documentation required by the solicitation. At a minimum, the proposal must include:

• A signed Cover Page and Page Two

• A Technical Proposal addressing the applicable requirements in Section III, including Section III.7, Vendor Qualifications & Proposal Instructions, and the Requirements Matrix

• The development roadmap, release schedule, and release notes required by Section

IV

• The qualifications information required by Section V

• A separate Price-Business Proposal addressing Section III.8 and completing the Bidding Schedule/Price Proposal in Section VIII

• A complete response to the Service Provider Security Assessment Questionnaire included in Section IX

• Any other forms, certifications, attachments, or information required by Sections II.B, IV, V, VIII, and IX

• A redacted Technical Proposal, as applicable, in accordance with the solicitation instructions

Offerors should follow the organization, numbering, and submission instructions provided in Section IV, Information for Offerors to Submit.

23. [Vendor] understands that you require 1,000 licenses. Could you please specify the user profile breakdown?

For example:

• Project Managers

• Portfolio Managers

• Resource Managers

• Team Members

• Administrators

• Viewers

State’s Response: DPH is not requesting 1,000 full-authoring licenses. For planning purposes, DPH anticipates the following user profile:

• System Administrators – Approximately 3 users

• Portfolio Managers: Approximately 3 users

• Project Managers: Approximately 10 users

• Resource Managers: No users currently serve exclusively in this role, but may in the future

• Project Team Members: May access project information and collaborate through Microsoft Teams or related project workspaces but generally will not require full project-authoring capabilities

• Executives: Primarily expected to view dashboards and reports rather than manage project information directly

Some users may perform more than one role; therefore, these estimates should not be treated as additive. Team members and viewers generally will not require project-authoring or administrative capabilities.

Offerors should clearly describe the license type required for each role and identify whether Teams-based collaborators and dashboard or report viewers require a PPM license. Proposals should provide unit pricing or pricing tiers for additional full, limited, collaborative, and view-only users.

24. User Count and License Scope The solicitation does not specify the anticipated number of users. Can DPH provide the expected number of users who will access the PPM solution, including any distinction between active contributors (e.g., project managers, program managers) and read-only stakeholders or executives? This will allow vendors to submit accurate and comparable licensing proposals.

State’s Response: See response to Question # 23.

25. Implementation Timeline and Agency Resource Availability The RFP references a phased implementation approach but does not define the expected Phase 1 scope, target go-live timeline, or level of agency IT involvement anticipated. Can DPH clarify the expected implementation timeline, which integrations are considered in scope for initial deployment, and what agency resources will be available to support the engagement?

State’s Response: DPH anticipates an implementation period of approximately six to eight weeks after kick-off meeting, following the contract start date, with a target go-live within that timeframe. Offerors should provide a proposed implementation schedule based on their recommended methodology. Proposed timelines will be evaluated as part of the proposal review, and the final implementation schedule will be established with the selected Contractor.

Phase 1 is anticipated to include:

• Core PPM platform configuration

• Project, program, and portfolio governance capabilities

• User roles, permissions, and administrative configuration

• Microsoft Teams and Planner Premium integration or equivalent capabilities

• Initial Power BI dashboards and reporting capabilities

• Administrator and end-user training

• Microsoft Project Desktop integration, or integration with the selected equivalent advanced scheduling tool, if included in the final solution

Azure DevOps and other optional integrations may be implemented in a later phase based on agency priorities. Dynamics 365 or other financial-system integration is not included in Phase 1.

DPH expects to provide participation from the current Project Online administrators, designated future system administrators, IT and security personnel, and applicable business subject-matter experts. Agency resources will support requirements validation, tenant and environment access, security review, configuration decisions, testing, and training. Offerors should identify the specific State roles, estimated level of effort, and timing of agency participation required by their proposed approach.

26. AI-Assisted Capabilities Section R2.1 identifies AI-assisted capabilities as a "Should" priority requirement. Can DPH confirm whether AI features that process or surface project data within the platform are acceptable, and whether there are any restrictions on AI tools or models given the State's security and compliance requirements?

State’s Response: AI-assisted capabilities that process or surface project data may be included as part of the proposed solution, provided they undergo and successfully pass the State’s required security, privacy, compliance, and technology reviews before being enabled. AI functionality is not required for the base implementation or Phase 1 go-live.

From an IT standpoint, AI may be native to the proposed platform itself. If AI capabilities are delivered through a third-party tool or external service, the Offeror must clearly identify that tool and provide all required details noted below so the State can assess security, data handling, and compliance implications.

Offerors should describe:

• The AI features available within the proposed solution

• Whether the AI is native to the platform or delivered via a third-party tool/service

• The AI model and service provider used

• What DPH data would be accessed, processed, transmitted, or stored

• Where data processing and storage would occur

• Whether DPH data or prompts would be retained or used to train shared or public models

• Tenant isolation, access controls, audit logging, and administrative controls

• Whether individual AI features can be disabled

• Any licensing requirements or additional costs

DPH data must not be submitted to public or consumer AI services or used to train shared models without the State’s prior written approval.

27. Microsoft 365 GCC Environment The RFP expresses preference for solutions that support in-tenant data management within the State's M365 environment. Can DPH confirm whether the solution must be deployed within a GCC or GCC High environment, or whether a FedRAMP-authorized SaaS solution with appropriate data access, storage, and governance controls would satisfy this requirement?

State’s Response: See response #14

28. Demo or Presentation Opportunity The award criteria note that discussions and negotiations are optional and that the State may accept an offer without prior notice or conversation. Will shortlisted vendors have an opportunity to present or demonstrate their solution prior to award, or will evaluation be based solely on written proposals and pricing?

State’s Response: The State may, at its discretion, invite Offerors whose proposals are reasonably susceptible to being selected for award to present or demonstrate their proposed solutions. Any presentation or demonstration would be used to clarify or validate the solution’s capabilities against the requirements and evaluation factors stated in the solicitation. Offerors should not assume that a presentation or demonstration will be provided and must submit their most complete and competitive technical and price proposals by the submission deadline. The State reserves the right to make an award without discussions, presentations, or demonstrations.

29. Amendment Timeline for Offeror Questions We did not see a specified date for when responses to offeror questions will be published as an amendment. Given the September 1 submission deadline, can DPH share when vendors should expect the amendment with answers to be posted to procurement.sc.gov?

State’s Response: Question no longer relevant. See Amendment text regarding current schedule for Bid Opening Date.

30. The RFP indicates that implementation may be phased. Please identify which capabilities and integrations DPH considers mandatory for the initial/base implementation versus capabilities that may be implemented in later phases. Specifically, which of the following must be operational at initial go-live: Teams, Planner, Project Desktop, Power BI, Dynamics 365, Azure DevOps, Jira, and other integrations?

State’s Response: See response #25 https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/procurement.sc.gov__;!!GpFojh-4Mw!PupQ_2zPBgENBKwietVfzIHkpgQxsOYu9r4A9Wx-60QGg4pmDRQvdSfyKJcuHHVOcGRJ_CP5jOf94g1ZhfVTmas$

31. Does DPH have a required or preferred project start date, production go-live date, or overall implementation duration? Are there fiscal-year deadlines, blackout periods, legislative cycles, or other dates that should be incorporated into the proposed schedule?

State’s Response: DPH anticipates that implementation will begin following the contract start date and will take approximately six to eight weeks after kickoff, with a target production go-live within that timeframe. Offerors should provide a proposed implementation schedule based on their recommended methodology, including key milestones, dependencies, testing, training, and go-live activities. Proposed timelines will be evaluated as part of the proposal review, and the final implementation schedule will be established with the selected Contractor.

DPH has not identified any fiscal-year deadlines, blackout periods, legislative cycles, or other date restrictions that must be incorporated into the proposed schedule. Offerors should identify any scheduling assumptions, dependencies, or required State decisions that could affect the proposed timeline.

32. Approximately how many users should the proposed solution support at go-live and over the expected contract term? Please identify approximate counts by role, including:

• Project managers

• Program managers

• Portfolio/PMO users

• Executives/read-only users

• Resource managers

• Team members

• System/application administrators

State’s Response: See response to Question # 23.

33. Approximately how many active projects, programs, and portfolios does DPH currently manage, and what growth does DPH anticipate over the next three to five years?

State’s Response: DPH typically manages approximately 25 active projects at a time across its project portfolio. The number of formal programs and portfolios may vary based on agency priorities and how related projects are grouped within the selected solution. DPH does not anticipate significant growth beyond the current volume of approximately 25 concurrent active projects during the next three to five years. Offerors should propose a solution that can accommodate reasonable fluctuations in project, program, and portfolio volume without requiring major reconfiguration.

34. Does DPH require separate Development, Test/UAT, and Production environments? Are additional environments required for training, disaster recovery, sandboxing, or integration testing?

State’s Response: DPH does not require a separate development environment for this implementation. However, DPH does desire both Test/UAT and Production environments. The Test/UAT environment will be used for training, sandboxing, and integration testing to ensure solution stability and readiness prior to production deployment. Offerors should describe the environment included in the proposed solution, along with any limitations, data‑refresh capabilities, and environment‑specific licensing requirements.

35. Beyond Microsoft Project Online, what tools are currently used for project intake, project management, scheduling, resource management, status reporting, portfolio reporting, risk management, financial tracking, benefits management, and executive reporting?

State’s Response: DPH currently uses a combination of Microsoft Project Online, Microsoft Teams, SharePoint, Planner/Planner Premium, other Microsoft 365 applications, and Power BI. Usage varies by project, and the agency does not currently use a single standardized tool for every project and portfolio management function.

• Project intake and management: Project Online, SharePoint, Teams, and Microsoft 365 applications

• Scheduling and task management: Project Online, Planner/Planner Premium, and Microsoft 365 applications

• Collaboration and document management: Teams and SharePoint

• Status and portfolio reporting: Project Online, Power BI, and Microsoft 365 applications

• Risk, issue, financial, and benefits tracking: Primarily Project Online, SharePoint, and Microsoft 365 applications, depending on the project

• Executive reporting: Power BI and Microsoft 365 applications

DPH does not currently use a dedicated enterprise resource-management or integrated financial-management system for PPM purposes. The proposed solution should help standardize and consolidate these functions.

36. The solicitation states that the solution should integrate with advanced scheduling tools such as Microsoft Project Desktop. What specific behavior does DPH expect from this integration? For example, is DPH seeking:

• Direct bidirectional schedule synchronization;

• Import/export of Project schedules;

• Publication of schedule summary information to the PPM platform;

• Synchronization of milestones and key dates;

• Continued use of Project Online as an intermediary;

• Or another integration model?

State’s Response: DPH would like designated users to continue developing and managing complex project schedules in Microsoft Project Desktop while making key schedule information available in the proposed PPM solution for reporting and oversight.

DPH prefers an approach that keeps information updated between Microsoft Project Desktop and the PPM solution in both directions. However, other approaches may be proposed, such as importing and exporting schedules or sharing key schedule information. At a minimum, the PPM solution should reflect important milestones, dates, task status, dependencies, and overall schedule progress.

Microsoft Project Online will not be used as part of the integration. Offerors should clearly explain how their proposed approach would work, what information can be shared, how updates would occur, any limitations, required licenses, and associated costs.

37. Where Microsoft Project Desktop is used, should Project remain the authoritative source for detailed schedule information, with selected schedule information rolled into the PPM platform?

State’s Response: For projects managed in Microsoft Project Desktop, Project Desktop may remain the primary source for detailed schedule information. DPH prefers to use a combination of Project Desktop for more complex projects and Planner Premium for less complex projects. Relevant schedule information from both tools should be brought together to support consistent project, program, and portfolio reporting. Vendors may provide alternatives to this preference.

DPH may also seek to incorporate relevant Azure DevOps information into consolidated reporting in a future phase, as Azure DevOps is actively used by OIT for work management and delivery. Offerors may propose other approaches that achieve these outcomes. The proposal should clearly explain how the recommended approach would work, how information would be kept current, and any effects on existing tools, licensing, and user workflows.

38. How extensively is DPH currently using Planner Basic and Planner Premium, and approximately how many Plans are actively managed?

State’s Response: DPH’s use of Planner Basic and Planner Premium is currently limited and evolving. The agency began expanding its use of Planner after Microsoft announced the retirement of Project Online, and Planner Premium only recently became available within DPH’s environment. Planner is also commonly used outside of the PMO for smaller individual efforts and internal departmental projects, which may not always be tracked as formal PMO initiatives.

DPH has approximately 25 active projects at a time, but not every project currently has an associated Planner plan. The number of active plans has not been centrally inventoried and may change as teams transition to the new tools. Offerors should describe how their proposed solution supports both Planner Basic and Planner Premium, including any licensing requirements, limitations, and options for incorporating Planner information into consolidated reporting.

39. What information does DPH expect to flow between Planner and the PPM platform? For example:

• Tasks

• Assignments

• Percent complete

• Dates

• Milestones

• Buckets

• Dependencies

• Effort

• Status

State’s Response: DPH expects relevant Planner information to be available in the PPM platform to support project oversight and consolidated reporting. This may include:

• Tasks and deliverables

• Assignments and task owners

• Start and due dates

• Percent complete and completion dates

• Status and priority

• Milestones

• Buckets or work categories

• Dependencies

• Estimated effort, where available

• Overdue or delayed tasks

• Project and plan identifiers

• Links back to the applicable Planner plan or task

DPH does not necessarily expect every Planner data element to be copied into the PPM platform. Instead, the PPM solution should maintain a clear link back to the originating Planner plan so users can easily reference detailed task information when needed.

Offerors should recommend which Planner information should be shared within the PPM platform, whether updates would occur in one or both directions, and how the recommended approach would support accurate project, program, and portfolio reporting.

Any limitations associated with Planner Basic or Planner Premium should be clearly explained.

40. Does DPH currently maintain an enterprise Power BI/Fabric architecture, designated workspaces, gateways, semantic models, deployment pipelines, or reporting standards that the PPM implementation must follow?

State’s Response: DPH maintains an enterprise Power BI environment that includes Power BI Premium, an enterprise data gateway, and designated workspaces used for publishing and managing reports. Depending on the dashboard and its intended audience, DPH may use either service accounts or individual user accounts for data access and refresh operations. These practices support secure, reliable reporting across departmental and enterprise needs.

While DPH does not currently maintain formal Fabric‑wide semantic models or standardized deployment pipelines specific to PPM, the agency does use GitHub and Azure DevOps pipelines for application development and deployment activities. Offerors should describe how their proposed PPM solution can operate within this environment, including how reporting content would be published, refreshed, governed, and secured.

Any dependencies, limitations, or alignment requirements related to Power BI Premium, workspaces, gateways, or account models should be clearly explained.

41. Does DPH have existing executive, PMO, program, or project status reports that the new solution must reproduce or replace? If so, can representative examples be provided during discovery or prior to final solution design?

State’s Response: DPH does not have existing standard executive, PMO, program, or project status reports that must be reproduced. Current project status information is entered into a SharePoint list, but it is not used to generate a standardized set of reports.

The selected Contractor will work with DPH during discovery and solution design to define dashboards and reports that meet the solicitation requirements and agency needs.

42. What financial information must be visible in the PPM solution and dashboards? For example:

• Approved budget

• Forecast

• Actuals

• Commitments

• Encumbrances

• CAPEX/OPEX

• Labor cost

• Vendor cost

• Variance

• Funding source

State’s Response: DPH does not currently track project costs or financial information within the PMO and has not identified specific financial data that must be displayed as part of the base implementation. No financial system integration is required for Phase 1.

Offerors should describe the solution’s available financial-management capabilities, including which of the listed financial data elements can be tracked or reported if DPH adopts those practices in the future. Any required configuration, integration, licensing, or additional costs should be clearly identified and separately priced as optional.

43. How does DPH currently define and track project or program benefits? Should the solution support benefit owners, target dates, expected value, realized value, KPIs, qualitative outcomes, or other benefit-realization measures?

State’s Response: DPH does not currently use a standardized process or tool to define and track project or program benefits. The agency may explore benefit-realization practices in the future, but this capability is not required for the base implementation.

Offerors may describe any available benefit-management capabilities, such as benefit owners, target dates, expected and realized value, key performance indicators, qualitative outcomes, and related reporting. Any additional configuration, licensing requirements, or costs associated with these capabilities should be clearly identified as optional.

44. What financial or ERP platform currently contains authoritative project financial information, and is financial-system integration expected in the base implementation or only as a future phase?

State’s Response: DPH does not currently have a financial or ERP platform that serves as the authoritative source for project financial information. Financial-system integration is not required as part of the base implementation. DPH may explore this capability in a future phase. Offerors may describe available financial-system integration capabilities, including prerequisites, limitations, licensing requirements, and optional costs.

45. Section 1.6 refers to Dynamics 365 or an equivalent financial/line-of-business system. Is DPH currently using Dynamics 365? If yes, which applications or modules—for example Finance, Project Operations, Business Central, Customer Service, or another D365 application?

State’s Response: DPH does not currently use Microsoft Dynamics 365 for financials systems. Dynamics 365 integration is not required as part of the base implementation.

The reference in Section 1.6 is intended as an example of a potential future financial or line-of-business system integration.

46. If Dynamics 365 integration is required, what information needs to move between the systems, and should the integration be:

• Inbound to PPM;

• Outbound from PPM; or

• Bidirectional?

State’s Response: Dynamics 365 integration is not required as part of the base implementation, and DPH has not defined specific information that would need to move between the systems. If DPH pursues a financial or line-of-business system integration in a future phase, the required data and direction of information exchange will be determined at that time. Offerors may describe the inbound, outbound, and bidirectional integration capabilities available within their proposed solution.

47. Does DPH currently use Azure DevOps, Jira, both platforms, or another development-management tool?

State’s Response: DPH currently uses Azure DevOps and GitHub; The agency does not use Jira. Usage and reporting practices vary across teams and projects as the agency continues to mature its governance and standardization of the platform. DPH is interested in understanding how the proposed PPM solution could integrate with Azure DevOps to provide consistent project and portfolio visibility when Azure DevOps is used for project delivery. Offerors should describe their available Azure DevOps integration capabilities, recommended governance considerations, reporting approach, prerequisites, limitations, licensing requirements, and optional costs. DPH does not currently use Jira as its standard development-management platform.

48. The RFP states that integration depth may vary by implementation scope. What level of integration does DPH expect:

• Portfolio visibility only;

• Project/sprint status;

• Work-item counts and progress;

• Stories/features/epics;

• Tasks;

• Defects;

• Milestones/releases;

• Or full bidirectional synchronization?

State’s Response: DPH does not expect the same level of integration for every system.

The appropriate integration depth will depend on the tool, the information it contains, and its role in the proposed solution.

DPH’s primary objective is consolidated project, program, and portfolio visibility.

Relevant information may include project status, tasks and progress, milestones, key dates, releases, and other summary-level information needed for reporting and oversight.

Detailed information, such as stories, features, epics, work items, and defects, should remain in the applicable source system unless it is useful for consolidated reporting.

Full bidirectional synchronization is not required for every integration. Offerors should recommend the appropriate integration approach for each system and explain what information would be shared, the direction and frequency of updates, how duplicate or conflicting information would be managed, and any prerequisites, limitations, licensing requirements, and costs.

49. Should Azure DevOps/Jira remain the authoritative execution system for Agile teams, with selected delivery information rolled up for project/program/portfolio governance?

State’s Response: Yes. Azure DevOps should remain the primary execution system for OIT teams, with selected delivery information made available in the PPM solution for project, program, and portfolio reporting and governance. DPH does not use Jira. DPH will need to establish consistent governance and data standards to support meaningful reporting across teams. Offerors should describe their recommended approach for determining which information should be shared, standardizing the information used for reporting, and keeping it current across the systems.

50. Does DPH have a standard project life cycle today? If so, please provide the stages, gates, approval points, required artifacts, and project status definitions that the proposed system should support.

State’s Response: DPH is moving toward a standardized stage-gate project life cycle and has established the following preliminary framework for the proposed solution to support:

• Intake

• Initiation

• Planning

• Execution

• Validation/Transition

• Closure

The solution should also support:

• Gate decisions of Go, Go with Conditions, Hold, Rework, and No-Go

• Configurable approval workflows involving the project sponsor, business owner, PMO, and Governance Review Group, as applicable

• Required artifacts by project phase

• Separate fields for life-cycle stage, gate decision, and overall project health

The specific approval points, required artifacts, role assignments, and status definitions may vary based on project type, size, complexity, and risk. DPH will provide its baseline governance framework for use in configuring the selected solution.

51. What delivery methodologies must the platform support, for example Waterfall, Agile, Scrum, Hybrid, operational/work-management initiatives, or all of these?

State’s Response: State’s Response: DPH uses a combination of Waterfall, Agile, Scrum, Hybrid, and less formal task or work-management approaches. The approach selected depends on the type and complexity of the work, team practices, and whether the effort involves a vendor-provided solution. The proposed platform should accommodate multiple delivery approaches without requiring all work to follow the same methodology.

Offerors should describe how their solution supports and reports across work using different delivery approaches.

52. Does DPH currently maintain standard project templates, schedules, status reports, risk registers, issue logs, charters, or governance forms that should be incorporated into the solution?

State’s Response: State’s Response: DPH currently uses some project templates, schedules, status-reporting formats, charters, and governance documents, but they have not been fully standardized across the agency. DPH has also used the out-of-the-box risk and issue lists available in Microsoft Project Online.

The selected Contractor should work with DPH during discovery and solution design to review current practices and establish appropriate standardized…