Answers to Vendor Questions.docx

RFI# 5400029015 Centralized Financial Oversight Overlay for SC Technical Colleges (Proviso 93.22)

Answers to Vendor Questions

**RFI Responses now due by 11am on Tuesday, November 25, 2025**

Question 1 - Scope of Data Integration Beyond ERP financials: Does the State intend the overlay to ingest/analyze data from Student Information Systems (SIS), fundraising/advancement, program or workforce-development systems, or other non-financial sources? If yes, which domains are in scope for cross-college comparison?

DTO response: The scope of the effort is “pilot” program as indicated in the proviso. For this engagement, the State is interested in maximizing the value for the level of effort in the near-term. Vendors should provide a recommendation on the scope of financial information that would be sufficient to complete the proviso language while minimizing the up-front level of effort.

Question 2 - Chart of Accounts (CoA) Standardization: Is there an existing statewide COA, or would part of the project be building the data model with crosswalks (e.g., fund, function, department, program, grant, project) across Colleague and Banner instances?

DTO response: Each college has their own chart of accounts.

Question 3 - Comparative Analytics Objectives: Is the primary objective financial comparison among the 16 colleges, or does Admin also want benchmarks across academic, financial, and other programmatic data sources?

DTO response: The scope of the pilot is focused on the reporting of financial information. However, as a future implementation other benchmarks may be considered to expand the reporting capabilities of the system.

Question 4 - User Population and Roles: Approximately how many users will require access (by college and at Admin) and what are the principal roles (finance, executive leadership, internal audit, grants, IT)? Any external auditors or legislative staff who may require read-only access?

DTO response: Minimum number of users and roles to execute the Proviso language. For future implementation users and roles should expand.

Question 5 - Cadence of Use and Refresh Frequency: How often do you expect users to review metrics and insights (daily, weekly, monthly, near real-time)? What minimum data refresh cadence is desired?

DTO response: Vendors should provide recommendations to keep data as fresh as possible and to provide maximum value but minimize complexity and overhead, but monthly at a minimum.

Question 6 - FP&A / Budgeting Scope Should the overlay include FP&A capabilities such as budget-to-actuals, forecasting, scenario modeling, and driver-based planning, or should it limit to reporting/analytics and anomaly detection?

DTO response: The pilot should be focused on providing maximum value for minimal effort and we are open to vendor recommendations to accomplish this. Out of the box reporting analysis, anomaly detection, and using Artificial Intelligence to analyze the data and gather insights is preferred to achieve the pilot's objective.

Question 7 - Accountability, Fund Accounting, and Grant Reporting What specific accountability and compliance outcomes are desired (e.g., fund accounting integrity, grant draw-down tracking, restricted vs. unrestricted funds)? Are there required reporting formats or statutory/regulatory frameworks we must support?

DTO response: Examples of outcomes may include reporting that supports Fund & Grant Compliance, Budget Control & Oversight, Financial Integrity & Auditability, Transparency & Reporting, Operational Efficiency, Stewardship & Accountability, among others. Determination of outcomes will also depend on the capabilities of the overall pilot solution and the data. Any solution must comply with general government accounting standards as well as FERPA and SC DIS 200 requirements.

Question 8 - Scope and Data Integration - Can you confirm whether direct API access or data extracts from the colleges’ existing Ellucian Colleague/Banner systems will be available to the third-party solution for the pilot?

DTO response: API access and/or data extracts will be made available by the State Technical Colleges as necessary to comply with the proviso requirements. API usage if preferred when available.

Question 9 - Financial Data Standardization

a) Does the State envision a common chart of accounts or mapping framework being developed as part of the pilot, or will this be provided by Admin/SBTCE?

b) Should the solution support budgetary data, actuals, and encumbrances, or focus solely on transactional financial data?

DTO response:

a) Yes, the expectation is a mapping framework to a standard framework.

b) To meet the language of the proviso, transactional financial data is the focus of this pilot effort.

Question 10 - Technical Environment and Hosting

a) Does the State have a preference between on-premise, cloud-hosted, or hybrid deployments for the overlay solution?

b) Are there existing State-approved cloud environments (e.g., AWS, Azure, SAP HANA Cloud, Google Cloud) that must be used?

c) Will Admin provide a central hosting location for the pilot, or must the vendor propose one?

DTO response: To help control costs, state owned hosting and network resources will be made available to support this pilot initiative. However, the state is open to recommendations to alternative strategies for hosting and management for the purposes of this pilot if there is justification. Generally, the state prefers a “Cloud-Smart” approach to solutions with a preference for SaaS solutions unless there is ample justification for a managed public cloud hosted solution. If it is determined to use public cloud hosting, the state will leverage state contract cloud solutions such as OTIS’s managed cloud shared service which accommodates both Azure and AWS hosting environments.

Question 11 - Governance and Access

a) Who will have system ownership and data governance authority—Admin, SBTCE, or individual colleges?

b) How granular should role-based access be (e.g., state-level, campus-level, department-level)?

c) Will any of the pilot data be shared publicly (for transparency reporting), or is it strictly internal oversight?

DTO response: Admin has been tasked with executing the proviso language and will maintain system ownership and data governance authority for the duration of the pilot. However, all other SC Technical College System (SCTCS) data reporting is managed through the State Board for Technical and Comprehensive Education (SBTCE). So, the pilot system should be designed in a way to transition those roles as executive and/or legislative guidance on system ownership and/or data governance authority evolves.

Question 12 - Pilot Success Criteria - What deliverables or performance measures (e.g., cost savings, compliance reporting, time-to-insight) will define a successful pilot outcome for the June 30, 2026, report?

DTO response: The scope of the proviso is to prepare an impact assessment of the pilot including advantages, opportunities, risks, costs, etc. made possible by the pilot implementation. Net cost savings are required to include in the assessment report and would be considered as a component of success. Additionally, the any qualitative benefits (identified from the proviso) achieved from implementing the pilot solution should be considered to evaluate a success:

· Overall improvements to financial transparency

· Standardize naming conventions across all colleges

· Enable direct comparisons of key financial measures

· Employ AI-driven analytics to detect anomalies, outliers, or compliance flags

· Employ AI-driven feature to provide plain-language summaries of trends and findings

· Support multi-campus, multi-fiscal-year data for reporting

· Support secure role-based access

· Grant Admin top-level oversight to view aggregated data in real time

· Compare financial performance across colleges

· Identification of compliance concerns

· Identification of best practices that could enhance statewide financial oversight Question 13 - Funding and Procurement Path

a) The RFI notes that no funds have been allocated yet. Should vendors assume the pilot could be funded in FY 2026, or is Admin seeking cost ranges for potential budget requests?

b) If this proceeds to an RFP, does the State anticipate a competitive procurement or potential pilot via cooperative agreement or demonstration MOU?

DTO response: No legislative funds have been specifically allocated to execute this pilot effort outlined in this proviso, so the state is extremely sensitive to any costs related to implementing the pilot. Based on the net impact of the pilot, funds may be requested in a future budget cycle to continue or expand a solution addressing the Proviso’s objectives. Any future acquisition or expansion will be conducted in accordance with the South Carolina Procurement Code and its regulations.

Question 14 - Staffing –

a) Do you allow offshore resources?

b) What resources do you have available to support the project?

c) Do you have SMEs available for each of the systems from which you plan to access data?

d) How do you currently handle end user training

DTO response:

a) No offshore resources are permitted to contribute to the solution developed.

b) Services made available through SCTCS shared services via the SBTCE or the OTIS shared service program may be available to support this effort as necessary. A list of OTIS shared services can be reviewed at: https://sharedservices.admin.sc.gov/.

c) State of SC Technical colleges have various SMEs that can contribute on an as needed basis; however, to keep cost and complexity low it is advised to streamline efforts to minimize the logistical complexity and coordination of those SME resources for the purposes of the pilot. The state is open to vendor recommendations for pilot scope for how this minimization can be achieved.

d) User training will need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. However, for the purposes of the pilot user training efforts should be minimized to only what is necessary to evaluate the impact of the solution to keep pilot implementation costs as low as possible.