Att A - RFI Q&A State Response.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 85 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Project Management as a ServiceBid Documents
- Solicitation number
- RFI 26-84093
- Issued by
- Indiana
About this file
This document is a Request for Information (RFI 26-84093) issued by the Indiana Office of Technology (IOT) seeking a comprehensive Project Management as a Service (PMaaS) solution. The RFI is structured in two phases: Phase 1 focuses on advisory services to assess the current Project Management Office (PMO) environment and develop a transition strategy, while Phase 2 involves establishing a managed services agreement to support project management operations. Key deliverables include developing project management delivery frameworks, enterprise project intake processes, PMO governance charters, maturity roadmaps, a SharePoint project management wiki, and change management plans. The RFI requires responses by September 17, 2025, at 3:00 PM ET, with a contract period anticipated to range from 3 to 12 months. The procurement seeks a vendor to provide staffing support across three service levels: Project Coordinator, Senior Project Manager, and Program Director.
The solicitation will leverage ServiceNow Strategic Portfolio Management (SPM) as the authoritative platform for project intake, prioritization, and reporting, with an implementation targeting November 2025. While specific budget ranges are not disclosed, funding has been allocated in IOT's current fiscal year budget. The evaluation process will include mandatory requirements, management assessment/quality (75 points), and cost evaluation (25 points). The State reserves the right to directly award a contract based on RFI responses or issue a follow-up Request for Proposal (RFP), potentially limiting future competitive solicitation to RFI respondents. The current PMO environment serves over 90 state agencies with approximately 12 project managers, and the initiative aims to standardize project management practices, improve governance, and provide scalable project management resources across executive branch agencies.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Att E - Response Template.docx | DOCX document | |
| RFI 26-84093 Main Document - Addendum 1.pdf | ||
| PMaaS RFI - Addendum 1 - Summary of Changes.pdf | ||
| Att C - Infrastructure Overview.docx | DOCX document | |
| Att B - Artificial Intelligence Technical Questions.docx | DOCX document | |
| Att D - Cost Proposal.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Att A - RFI Q&A Template.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| RFI 26-84093 Main Document.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Q&A
| Attachment A |
| Questions and Answers Template |
Please submit your questions in the blue shaded areas by the date and time established in the RFI.
| # | PAGE # AND/OR SECTION # | RESPONDENTS QUESTION | STATE'S RESPONSE |
| 1 | Section 1.4 | What modules of ServiceNow are intended to be implemented? | Strategic Portfolio Management (Innovation Management, Demand Management, Project Management, and Resource Management) |
| 2 | Section 1.4 | What is IoT's current staffing that will be retained to become part of this Project Management Center of Excellence? | IOT's Division Director of Project Management will remain in place |
| 3 | Section 1.4 | Does IoT have existing project management processes that they want to fold into the new Project Management Center of Excellence? | Yes |
| 4 | General | Is the state open to responses that only adress part of the RFI requirements? | Yes |
| 5 | General Scope & Intent | Is the intent to select a single vendor for both Phase 1 and Phase 2, or will these phases be procured separately? | The intent is to select a single vendor for both phases, but we will consider seperate procurements if necessary. |
| 6 | Phase Structure | Is the intent to award both Phase 1 (Advisory & Transition) and Phase 2 (Managed Services) to the same vendor under a single contract? Or will these phases be procured separately? | The intent is to select a single vendor for both phases, but we will consider seperate procurements if necessary. |
| 7 | Project Details | Will the vendor be expected to supply and manage all PMO staff directly, or will some staff be state employees working under vendor guidance? | The vendor will be expected to supply and manage all project management resources directly. |
| 8 | Budget & Pricing | Is there a budget range or funding allocation for Phase 1 and Phase 2 that vendors should use as a basis for pricing? | Funding for the Project Management Center of Excellence (PM CoE) and Project Management as a Service (PMaaS) initiatives have been allocated in IOT's current fiscal year budget. While IOT confirms that budget is available to support both Phase 1 (Advisory & Transition/CoE) and Phase 2 (PMaaS), specific budget ranges will not be disclosed as part of this RFI. |
Vendors are encouraged to provide pricing structures and cost models that reflect industry best practices, scalability, and alignment with the scope of services outlined. Cost information will be further evaluated and refined in any subsequent procurement process.
9 Risk & Compliance Are there any specific state IT security or data handling policies beyond standard NIST guidelines that the vendor must comply with? The Indiana Office of Technology (IOT) operates within a defined set of State compliance and governance requirements that apply to all IT projects and must be considered in any proposed solution. These requirements include:
| • | State IT Security and Data Governance: Alignment with Indiana information security policies and standards, which are based on NIST frameworks and other federal best practices. |
| • | Procurement and Contractual Obligations: Compliance with State procurement rules, contractual terms, and conflict-of-interest requirements. |
| • | Records Retention and Transparency: Adherence to Indiana public records statutes, including documentation, audit trails, and data retention standards. |
| • | Accessibility and Inclusion: Deliverables, training, and systems must comply with State accessibility requirements and ensure equitable access across agencies. |
| • | Governance Structures: IOT engages with executive leadership and agency stakeholders through steering committees, portfolio reviews, and oversight bodies. Governance maturity varies across agencies, requiring enterprise-level consistency. |
The Project Management Center of Excellence (PM CoE) and Project Management as a Service (PMaaS) will play a key role in standardizing compliance expectations, including:
| • | Embedding compliance checkpoints into intake, governance, and reporting processes. |
| • | Providing templates and guidance to ensure consistent application across agencies. |
| • | Leveraging ServiceNow Strategic Portfolio Management (SPM) to track compliance requirements and provide enterprise visibility. |
| • | Serving in an advisory and assurance capacity, while leaving primary accountability with individual agencies for execution and statutory compliance. |
In summary, IOT seeks to establish a governance model that balances enterprise-wide standardization with agency-level accountability, ensuring compliance obligations are met consistently and effectively across all IOT-driven IT projects.
| 10 | General | Is it the intent of the state that a single vendor will complete both Phases 1 and 2? If not, can vendors choose to respond to only Phase 1 or only Phase 2? | The intent is to select a single vendor for both phases, but we will consider seperate procurements if necessary. | |
| 11 | General | Is there an incumbent involved with the PMO? Is there a consulting firm that has provided a majority of the consultants to the PMO? | No | |
| 12 | Page 3 | Who was involved in the rollout of ServiceNow? | ||
| Unsure of the intent/applicability of this question. | ||||
| 13 | General | What is the typical range of project lengths? | ||
| Project durations vary widely depending on scope and complexity. Some initiatives may last only a few months, while larger technology-enabled projects can extend beyond a year. The CoE will establish standardized intake and portfolio reporting through ServiceNow Strategic Portfolio Management (SPM) to provide greater visibility into project durations across the portfolio. | ||||
| 14 | General | Is the awarded vendor precluded from bidding on future IOT projects? If so, can the State please clarify the preclusion. | ||
| For PM CoE: These roles are more likely to involve (to name a few) strategic planning, governance design, and internal process development, which could create conflicts if the same vendor is also delivering or managing projects they helped design that may require full deconfliction. For PMaaS, these roles are more operational and may be less sensitive to conflicts where resource level deconfliction may be applied for specific individuals working on overlapping projects. | ||||
| 15 | General | Please clarify if it is responsive to submit responses to this RFI that include a Prime and Subcontractor partnership? | While the RFI itself does not preclude such a partnership or assign points for these partnerships, future RFPs often include evaluation points or scoring incentives for meeting or exceeding these participation goals. | |
| 16 | Page 8 | Can the State please confirm that the respondent needs to complete Attachment B (Artificial Intelligence Technical Questions), Attachment C (infrastructure Overview), Attachment D (Cost Proposal) and Attachment E (Response Template) for a submission to be considered complete. | Confirmed. | |
| 17 | Page 8 | Does the 20 page limit apply only to Attachment E (Response Template)? Or is the combined total page count for Attachments, B, C, D, and E limited to 20 pages? | The 20 page limit pertains to the narrative to components A - N under the Information Requested section of the Main RFI doucment only. Keep in mind that the IOT DOES NOT want an abundance of attachments such as those you listed or catch-all responses from the narratives that would have otherwise have caused narratives to exceed 20 pages. | |
| 18 | General | How many employees does IOT have in total? How many of those employees are directly engaged in providing IT services to IOT stakeholders? | IOT employs a broad workforce (500+ employees) across multiple functions. Within the PMO, there are currently 12 project managers directly engaged in supporting IOT-driven IT initiatives. The CoE will improve visibility into resource capacity and stakeholder engagement across the agency. | |
| 19 | General | Does the IOT currently have a Governance Council? | No. IOT does have a Governance Program, Executive Director, and support staff. | |
| 20 | Page 7 | Who are the internal and external stakeholders that will be impacted by this project? | Internal stakeholders include IOT leadership, project managers, IT staff, and business sponsors directly involved in delivering technology initiatives. External stakeholders include executive branch agencies supported by IOT, who will be impacted by standardized intake, governance, and PMaaS service delivery. Broader impacts may extend to agency leadership and end users where technology-enabled projects affect business operations. | |
| 21 | 2.2 Response Instructions | Addendum #1 indicates that the prior instructions in Section 2.2 were removed and replaced with a reference to Attachment E – Response Template, and that Attachment E has been incorporated into the RFI outline. However, the current version of the document still displays strike-through formatting under Section 2.2. |
For clarity, could you please confirm:
Should respondents complete only Attachment E and disregard all struck-through instructions under Section 2.2?
| Does the 20-page limit remain in effect, and if so, does it apply solely to the content entered in Attachment E, or to the entire submission (including appendices and graphics) as previously described? | Yes, please complete Attachment E and disregard all struck-through instrcutions. The 20 page limit is still in effect and pertains to the content provided in Attachment E. | ||||
| 22 | Section 1.6 | What specific criteria will IOT use to evaluate potential conflicts of interest for this PMO CoE and PMaaS engagement? | Please refer back to section 1.6 of the RFI Main Document, specifically the portion regarding De-Confliction Language. The RFI requests approaches for complete deconflcition and resource level deconflcition. See also response to question #14. | ||
| 23 | Section 1.5 | Beyond the stated goals, what specific metrics or key performance indicators will IOT use to measure the success of the PMO CoE establishment and PMaaS implementation? | IOT currently tracks limited performance indicators for project management, focused primarily on schedule adherence and issue escalation. However, a comprehensive enteprise-wide KPI framework specific to the Project Management Center of Excellence (CoE) and Project Management as a Service (PMaaS) has not yet been formalized. |
The intent of this initiative is to establish measurable outcomes that reflect both operational efficiency and long-term value. To that end:
* Existing KPIs: Current metrics include project completion data, milestone and scope adherence, though applied inconsistently across agencies.
* Vendor Role: IOT expects the selected vendor to recommend a standardized KPI framework aligned with industry best practices. This should include measures such as schedule variance, resource utilization, benefits realization, stakeholder satisfaction, and knowledge retention.
* Adoption & Continuous Improvement: The CoE will serve as the authoritiy for validating and maintaing these KPIs, ensuring that they are embedded in the ServiceNow Startegic Portfolio Management (SPM) platform for consistent reporting and long-term tracking.
IOT anticipates building upon limited existing measures and looks to the vendor to propose, refine, and operationalize a comprehensive KPI framework to evaluate success of both the CoE and PMaaS models.
| 24 | Section 1.4 | Which existing PMO processes, templates, or documentation should be preserved and incorporated into the new PMO CoE framework rather than replaced? | IOT has core artifacts such as project charters, RAID logs, and status reports that will be evaluated for reuse. The CoE will determine which elements to preserve and where new standards are required. |
| 25 | 1 | The RFI states that the State may elect to directly award a contract or release a future Request for Proposal (RFP). What specific factors or criteria will be considered when deciding to either directly award a contract based on RFI responses or move to a competitive solicitation process? | The State reserves the right to either proceed to a competitive RFP or directly award a contract based on the responses to this RFI. Factors that will inform this decision include the quality and completeness of vendor responses, demonstrated alignment to IOT's requirements, pricing models, and the vendor's ability to meet timeline and scalability needs. If sufficient detail and confidence are achieved through RFI responses, the State may elect to proceed with a direct award; otherwise, a competitive RFP may be pursued to further refine requirements. |
| 26 | 1 | The RFI mentions that the State may limit participation in any future competitive solicitation to vendors that respond to this RFI. Will this be a firm requirement for a future RFP, or will other vendors be considered for this opportunity? | The determination on next steps beyond this RFI have not been made yet. In order to ensure that you are included in any subsequent solicitations issued for this need (should one be issued), please provide a proposal on this RFI. |
| 27 | 2 | The RFI highlights "inconsistent delivery" and "unclear governance" as key challenges. Beyond the deliverables listed, what is the State's desired long-term cultural outcome for project management, and how will that success be measured? | The desired long-term cultural outcome is to establish a consistent, accountable, and collaborative project management culture across IOT-driven IT projects. Success will be reflected in standardized practices, improved transparency, proactive risk management, and stronger stakeholder satisfaction. Over time, maturity will be measured through adoption of CoE standards, improved portfolio visibility in ServiceNow Strategic Portfolio Management (SPM), and alignment of project outcomes with statewide strategic priorities. |
| 28 | 2 | The RFI requests a 2–5-year strategic roadmap for the PMCoE. What are the State's top three long-term strategic goals for the PMO that the roadmap should support? | IOT's long-term strategic goals for the PM CoE are to: |
1. Standardize project management practices across IOT-driven IT projects, including intake, governance, and reporting
2. Increase scalability and delivery capacity through the PMaaS model, ensuring timely access to qualified project management resources
3. Enhance alignment with strategic priorities by improving visibility, portfolio management, and consistent use of ServiceNow Strategic Portfolio Management (SPM) as the authoritative system of record
These goals should guide vendor recommendations in the proposed 2-5 year roadmap.
| 29 | 3 | The RFI outlines three roles: Project Coordinator, Senior Project Manager, and Program Director. What are the expected annual project volumes for each of these skill levels? | This is unknown at this time due to unpredictability in the project intake and demand lifecycle. |
| 30 | 3 | The RFI states that each level would consist of remote contractors. Is there any expectation for on-site presence for kick-off meetings, project oversight, or stakeholder workshops? | No onsite requirements at this time (contractors are fully remote), but this could change in the future with any new expectations from the state CIO or state administration. However, unique project requirements could dictate one-off onsite needs for certain meetings. |
| 31 | 3 | What is the State's current process for onboarding and providing access to State systems for external contractors, and what is the typical lead time for this process related to hardware and software access / provisioning? | IOT provisions access for external contractors through standard onboarding processes managed by HR and IT security. Lead times vary, but typical provisioning for hardware and system access requires 2-4 weeks. |
| 32 | 3 | How will the vendor's team work with the State's internal Project Management Office (PMO) to document current processes before the ServiceNow implementation kickoff? (That was indicated to have occurred in July of 2025. Did that happen already?) | The ServiceNow implementation is already in-flight. The vendor team will partner with the IOT Division Director of Project Management to mature and evolve foundational processes built in ServiceNow. |
| 33 | 4 | The RFI requests recommendations for technology integration with ServiceNow SPM. Has the State already purchased specific ServiceNow modules for this implementation, and if so, which ones? | Yes, Strategic Portfolio Management (Innovation Management, Demand Management, Project Management, and Resource Management) |
| 34 | 4 | The RFI mentions integration with the State's "existing project portfolio management or HR systems". Can the State provide more details on these existing systems, including the specific systems and the desired level of integration? (For example, is a Workday portfolio module in use?) | At this time, no specific statewide HR or portfolio management system integrations have been mandated. ServiceNow Strategic Portfolio Management (SPM) will serve as the authoritative platform for intake, portfolio management, and reporting. Opportunities to integrate with HR or finance systems (e.g., to support forecasting or alignment) may be evaluated in the future, but these requirements have not yet been defined. |
| 35 | 4 | The RFI asks about managing conflicts of interest. To what extent can the vendor's proposed resources be utilized for other State IT projects outside of this RFI's scope? | As stated in section 1.6 of the RFI Main Document, "respondents must provide options and an approach for how they will manage conflicts as follows. Provide an approach that would result in complete de-confliction of the Respondent from all other IT projects whatsoever with the State and another approach that would result in de-confliction of the Respondent's resources assigned to this opportunity. Respondents may offer other scenarios. Explain the impacts to Respondent and to the State in each scenario, including impacts on abililty to fulfil the goals of this opportunity, uphold confidentiality, and delivery quality work at a competitive price." |
| 36 | 5 | The RFI mentions that demonstrations may be requested. If a demonstration is asked for, will it focus on the PMCoE framework, the PMaaS model, or both? | Both |
| 37 | A, PM COE | Given the many legacy platforms and progress made around modernization, there are likely projects in flight which presently utilize different project methodologies (e.g., Agile, Waterfall, Hybrid). Is there guidance for specific project methodologies that will need to be preserved as required by various State agencies? Is there a desire to move entirely to Agile over time? Please provide context on the degree to which there are requirements or constraints across the portfolio, by agency, etc. | Currently, methodologies vary by agency, with Agile, Waterfall, and Hybrid approaches all in use. The CoE will provide guidance to support multiple methodologies while promoting consistency where possible. |
| 38 | B, PM COE | In the current intake and prioritization process, what specific criteria and weighting are used to assist project prioritization within and across agencies? (Please include tools that may be used outside of ServiceNow.) | Criteria and weighting vary by agency and project type. At present, IOT considers factors such as statutory mandates, funding availability, and strategic alignment, but there is no single enterprise-wide standard. |
| 39 | C, PM COE | What is your current process for establishing apparent decision-making authority and accountability to prevent bottlenecks in the project approval process? | None, this process will be established with the migration into ServiceNow for project intake and portfolio governance. |
| 40 | D, PM COE | What specific metrics or key performance indicators (KPIs) do you presently use to measure the PMCoE's progress toward achieving the milestones in the 2–5-year roadmap? | IOT does not yet have a fully defined Project Management Center of Excellence (CoE) and therefore does not currently track formal KPIs against a 2-5 year CoE roadmap. However, IOT does monitor certain baseline project management metrics within its current PMO environment, including: |
* Project completion rates
* Milestone adherence and schedule variance
* Issue and risk escalation frequenty
* Agency statekholder satisfaction feedback
As part of this initiative, IOT expects the selected vendor to assist in defining and operationalizing a comprehensive KPI framework to measure CoE progress against its long-term roadmap. This framework will likely include:
* Governance & Standardization: Adoption rates of standardized intake, templates, and reporting processes
* Delivery Effectiveness: Portfolio-level schedule/cost variance, project success rates, and reduction in rework
* Resource & Capability Development: Utilization of PMaaS resources, skill development, and knowledge retention
* Organizational Maturity: Advancement in maturity models over the 2-5 year horizon
* Value Realization: Demonstrated linkage of projects to strategic outcomes, statutory mandates, or service improvements 41 F, PM COE Will the PMCoE apply to all State agencies, or will other agencies use separate PMOs / PMCoEs of their own design? IOT anticipates that the Project Management Center of Excellence (CoE) will serve as the enterprise standard for project managment practices across all executive branch agencies supported by IOT. The intent is to provide a centralized framework for intake, prioritization, governance, and reporting that ensures consistency and visibility at the statewide-level.
That said, IOT recognizes that certain agencies may maintain their own internal PMOs to address agency-specific mandates, industry standards, or specialized project types. In these cases, the expectation is that agency-level PMOs will align with CoE standards for core project management practices and utilize availability enterprise tools for intake, protfolio management, and reporting.
This approach balances enterprise-wide governance and transparency with agency-level flexibility.
| 42 | H, PM COE | How will you ensure the quality of internal, State resources provided (i.e. subject matter experts) and what is the process the State uses today when replacing a project resource if their performance is deemed unsatisfactory or inconsistent? | IOT ensures the quality of internal resources through performance monitoring by project sponsors and resource managers. If performance is unsatisfactory, IOT follows standard HR and contractor management processes to provide corrective action, reassignment, or replacement. |
| 43 | H, PM COE | What is the process for staff augmentation to address a sudden, short-term increase in project demand or a critical skill gap in full-time State positions where their day jobs must continue to be staffed? | IOT utilizes contract staff augmentation through approved vendor pools to address short-term or specialized needs. Requests are prioritized by IOT leadership and filled based on availability and alignment with agency priorities. |
| 44 | M, PM COE | What specific tools and platforms do you presently use to manage the project management lifecycle, including resource request forms and dashboards? | A mix of tools are used today, including Microsoft Project, Smartsheet, Sharepoint, and Microsoft 365 for forms and reporting. ServiceNow Strategic Portfolio Management (SPM) is being implemented to become the authoritative platform. |
| 45 | Page 3, Section 1.4 Background | What departments/agencies does the IOT PMO currently serve? | The IOT PMO primarily serves executive branch agencies across the State of Indiana that rely on IOT for technology-enabled projects and services. Engagement levels vary by agency and project type, and participation is not currently standardized. A core objective of the CoE will be to establish consistent practices and governance across all supported agencies. |
| 46 | Page 3, Section 1.4 Background | Is the IOT PMO currently involved in all IT projects or just some? Is IOT's current involvement in state IT projects mandatory or optional (i.e., are departments/agencies required to use them)? | IOT PMO currently is not involved in all projects, based on resource constraints. Involvement on state IT projects is not mandatory today. |
| 47 | Page 3, Section 1.4 Background | The RFI states that: "to ensure a successful transition, the PMO requires comprehensive documentation of current processes, business process mapping for future state operations, and support for internal PMO projects." Is IOT requesting that the awarded vendor provide project management support for its internal PMO projects, and if so can IOT please elaborate on this? | Yes. Vendors may be requested to provide limited project management support for internal PMO initiatives as part of the transition. This support will focus on documenting current processes, assisting with businss process mapping, and enabling the CoE to establish standardized framworks and governance. The primary objective is to ensure continuity and consistency during the transition. |
| 48 | Page 4, Section 1.4 Background | The RFI states that key challenges facing the PMO include: "Aligning with Indiana state government compliance and governance requirements." Can IOT please briefly describe this challenge and reference the related compliance/governance requirements? | IOT must ensure that all IT projects it leads or supports comply with statewide governance and regulatory requirements, while also maintaining consistency across 90+ agencies with varying levels of project management maturity. The primary challenge lies in applying compliance uniformly in a decentralized environment where agencies often operate with different processes, documentation standards, and oversight structures. |
Key compliance and governance considerations include:
* State IT security and data governance standards (aligned with NIST and other federal frameworks)
* Procurement and contractual requirements under State of Indiana law, including conflict-of-interest policies
* Records retention and transparency obligations under Indiana public records statutes
* Accessibility and inclusion standards that apply to project deliverables, training, and systems
* Internal governance structures, such as executive steering committees and portfolio review bodies, which currently vary in maturity and effectiveness across agencies
The intent of the Project Management Center of Excellence (CoE) is not to assume full compliance tracking for every project across the State, but to:
* Define standard compliance requirements and checkpoints within the project lifecycle
* Provide templates, guidance, and reporting standards to ensure compliance considerations are consistently addressed
* Leverage ServiceNow Strategic Portfolio Management (SPM) to embed compliance into intake, governance, and reporting processes
* Serve as an enterprise-level advisory and assurance function, while leaving primary accountability for compliance within the individual agencies executing projects 49 Page 4, Section 1.4 Background Can IOT please briefly explain how it envisions the Project Management as a Service (PMaaS) model differing from how the existing IOT PMO operates today, and how the two will interact? The current IOT Project Management Office (PMO) operates primarily as an internal team supporting select IT projects, with limited staffing capacity, incosistent adoption of standardized practices, and variable alignment across the 90+ agencies served. While effective in certain areas, the existing model has proven insufficient to meet enterprise demand for scalable, consistent project management services.
The envisioned Project Management as a Service (PMaaS) model differs in several ways:
* Scalability and flexibility: PMaaS will provide a centralized pool of vetter project management professionals available on demand to address fluctuations in project volume and skillset requirements
* Standardization: Project managers deployed through PMaaS will operate within the frameworks, processes, and governance structures defined by the Project Management Center of Excellence (CoE), ensuring consistency across all projects.
* Quality and Proactiveness: PMaaS will emphasize not only resource availability but also project manager quality, ensuring resources are proactive, skillsed, and aligned with best practices
Separation of Roles:
* The PM CoE will serve as the standards-setting and governance body, responsible for defining frameworks, templates, and success measures
* PMaaS will serve as the execution arm, providing resources to deliver projects in alignment with those standards 50 Page 4-5, Section 1.5 Goals Can IOT please briefly explain how it envisions the Project Management Center of Excellence (PM CoE) differing from how the existing IOT PMO operates today, and how the two will interact? The current IOT Project Management Office (PMO) functions as a small internal team that provides project management support for select IT initiatives. While it offers value in certain areas, its scope and impact are limited by staffing constraints, inconsistent application of project management practices, and varying levels of governance maturity across agencies.
The envisioned Project Management Center of Excellence (CoE) will differ significantly by serving as the enterprise authority for project management standards, governance, and maturity development. Key distinctions include:
* Standards and Frameworks: The CoE will define and maintain standardized project management processes, templates, and governance structures, ensuring consistency across 90+ agencies.
* Governance and Assurance: The CoE will provide oversight and assurance functions, embedding compliance checkpoints, portfolio visibility, and performance monitoring into statewide project delivery
* Maturity and Capability Building: The CoE will establish training, knowledge-sharing, and maturity roadmaps to advance project management capability across agencies.
Separation of Roles:
* The PM CoE will serve as the standards-setting and governance body, responsible for defining frameworks, templates, and success measures
* PMaaS will serve as the execution arm, providing resources to deliver projects in alignment with those standards
| 51 | Page 4-5, Section 1.5 Goals | The RFI states that: "for planning purposes, we are estimating 3 levels of skillset demand, lasting an average of 6 months to 1 year in duration" and then lists a Project Coordinator, Senior Project Manager, and Program Director position. Can IOT please explain if it is requesting that the vendor provide these positions or if these are the positions that IOT is looking to internally fill for their PM CoE/PMaaS models? And if IOT is requesting that the vendor provide these positions, does IOT expect these staff members to be providing project management services for other state projects in addition to performing the Project Management Center of Excellence and Project Management as a Service portions of the project? | IOT anticipates that the vendor will provide Project Coordinators, Senior Project Managers, and Program Directors as part of the PMaaS model. These resources will primarily delivery project management services for IOT-driven IT projects and will operate in alignment with CoE standards and governance. The PMO Director role will remain internal to the State, while vendor-supplied resources will supply the majority of delivery capacity. | |
| 52 | Page 4-5, Section 1.5 Goals | The RFI states that: "the desired outcome of PMaaS is a centralized resource pool—managed by or in partnership with the PM CoE—that enables rapid deployment, knowledge retention, and consistent quality of delivery without the administrative burden of permanent staffing changes." Can IOT please explain if it is requesting that the vendor provide these positions or if these are the positions that IOT is looking to internally fill? | IOT is requesting the vendor provide these positions. | |
| 53 | Page 6, Information Requested, Project Management Center of Excellence, Staffing Support, H. | The RFI states that: "the vendor shall provide strategic staffing support to ensure the Project Management Center of Excellence (PM CoE) is appropriately resourced during its launch, operationalization, and long-term evolution. This includes both foundational workforce planning support in Phase 1 and informing the scalable, on-demand staffing strategy for Phase 2 (Project Management as a Service)." Can IOT please explain if it is requesting that the vendor provide staff to manage state projects? | Yes. Vendors will be expected to provide PMaaS resources to manage IOT-driven IT projects. These resources will absorb and supplement existing State capacity, ensure continuity of delivery, and align with the standards and frameworks established by the CoE. | |
| 54 | Page 8, Section 1.6 RFO Outline | Can IOT please confirm that each vendor's RFI response is limited to 20 pages, as there are 14 complex items to provide responses to (i.e., A. through N. in the Information Requested section)? | The 20 page limit pertains to the narrative to components A - N under the Information Requested section of the Main RFI doucment only. Keep in mind that the IOT DOES NOT want an abundance of attachments or catch-all responses from the narratives that would have otherwise have caused narratives to exceed 20 pages. | ??? |
| 55 | Attachment B, Artificial Intelligence (AI) | Attachment B, Artificial Intelligence (AI) seems to be for vendors providing/implementing/developing software solutions. Are vendors responding to this RFI required to complete it? | Yes | |
| 56 | Attachment C, Infrastructure Overview | Can IOT please confirm that solution hosting is out of scope, and therefore that vendors do not need to complete Attachment C, Infrastructure Overview? | Please complete attachment even if it doesn’t apply by denoting prompts as N/A. | |
| 57 | N/A | Does IOT have any preference on when this project will start, and if so can IOT please now share it? | We are motivated to begin this project as quickly as possible. | |
| 58 | N/A | Does IOT have any preference on when each phase (i.e., Project Management Center of Excellence and Project Management as a Service) will start, and if so can IOT please now share it? | We are motivated to begin all phases of this project as quickly as possible. | |
| 59 | N/A | Does IOT have any preference on the duration of this project and each of its phases (i.e., Project Management Center of Excellence and Project Management as a Service), and if so can IOT please now share it? | No | |
| 60 | N/A | Does IOT have any preference on the rates and/or overall budget for the requested services, and if so can IOT please now share them? | Funding for the Project Management Center of Excellence (PM CoE) and Project Management as a Service (PMaaS) initiatives have been allocated in IOT's current fiscal year budget. While IOT confirms that budget is available to support both Phase 1 (Advisory & Transition/CoE) and Phase 2 (PMaaS), specific budget ranges will not be disclosed as part of this RFI. |
Vendors are encouraged to provide pricing structures and cost models that reflect industry best practices, scalability, and alignment with the scope of services outlined. Cost information will be further evaluated and refined in any subsequent procurement process.
| 61 | Section 1.3 (Purpose of the RFI) | The RFI states the State may limit participation in a future RFP to vendors who respond to this RFI. Can the State confirm whether non-respondents will be excluded from subsequent solicitations? | Non-respondents to the RFI could potentially be excluded from participating in any subsequent competitive solicitation, depending on how the State chooses to proceed. |
| 62 | Section 1.3 (Purpose of the RFI) | Does the State anticipate awarding to a single vendor to provide both the PM CoE and PMaaS solution, or is there a possibility of multiple awards (e.g., one vendor for CoE, another for PMaaS) | If this is a concern for your organization, it would be prudent to submit at least a minimal response to the RFI to ensure eligibility for future opportunities. |
| 63 | Section 1.6 (RFI Outline / 20-page limit) | Can the State clarify whether the “20-page limit” applies strictly to the narrative or includes attachments (e.g., resumes, rate cards, case studies)? | The 20 page limit pertains to the narrative to components A - N under the Information Requested section of the Main RFI doucment only. Keep in mind that the IOT DOES NOT want an abundance of attachments or catch-all responses from the narratives that would have otherwise have caused narratives to exceed 20 pages. |
| 64 | Page 11, Section 2.2 (Response Instructions) | Can the State clarify the level of detail expected in RFI responses? For example, should vendors provide fully developed solutions, staffing models, and pricing detail, or is the intent for responses to remain high-level and conceptual to inform a future RFP? | The State is not requesting fully developed implementation plans as part of this RFI. However, because IOT may use responses to inform either a future RFP or a direct award from this RFI, submissions should provide sufficient detail to demonstrate the vendor's approach, capabilities, and alignment to the scope of work. High-level roadmaps, staffing models, and conceptual transition strategies are appropriate at this stage; detailed implementation planning will be finalized during contract negotiations with the selected vendor. |
| 65 | Page 13, Section 2.2(G) | For training, does the State prefer virtual/on-demand training solutions, or will in-person workshops be required? | IOT does not require broad project management training for State staff as part of this effort. Training expectations will focus on onboarding, knowledge transfer, and adoption of CoE standards and ServiceNow Strategic Portfolio Management (SPM) processes. These activities may be delivered virtually or in person, with flexibility to align to project needs and stakeholder preferences. |
| 66 | Section 3.1 (Evaluation Criteria) | In Step 2, proposals are ranked only on Management and Cost. Does this mean past performance and references are evaluated under Management Assessment, or in a separate category? | Yes, based on the Evaluation Criteria section in the RFI 26-84093 document, that criteria are not listed as a separate scoring category. Instead, they are evaluated as part of the Management Assessment/Quality (MAQ) category, which is worth 75 points. |
| 67 | Not Specified | Will there be any evaluation criteria or preference points for certified small businesses, minority-owned, women-owned, or veteran-owned businesses in the subsequent RFP? If so, can the State provide guidance on how these designations will be considered? | While the RFI itself does not assign points for these designations, future RFPs often include evaluation points or scoring incentives for meeting or exceeding these participation goals. |
| 68 | Section 1.4 (Background) | Will the State require vendors to support the ServiceNow SPM rollout as part of PM CoE/PMaaS implementation, and if so, what level of access to ServiceNow environments will be provided? | The ServiceNow implementation is already in-flight. The vendor team will partner with the IOT Division Director of Project Management to mature and evolve foundational processes built in ServiceNow. Level of access will be determined based on need. |
| 69 | Section 1.5 (Goals) | For PMaaS, does the State anticipate primarily long-term project manager assignments (6–12 months) or short-term surge support (3 months or less)? | Long term. |
| 70 | Page 6, Section 1.5 (Goals) | For PM CoE and PMaaS support, is the State primarily seeking staff augmentation resources (e.g., project managers assigned on demand), or a strategic consulting partner to help evaluate, design, and support long-term PMO operations and governance? | For PM CoE, we are seeking a strategic consulting partner. |
For PMaaS, we are seeking staff augmentation resources.
| 71 | Section 1.6 (De-Confliction Language) | Given the hybrid nature of this initiative (consulting for the CoE, staff augmentation for PMaaS), can the State clarify how conflict-of-interest requirements will apply differently to consulting/advisory roles versus augmentation/project delivery roles? | For PM CoE: These roles are more likely to involve (to name a few) strategic planning, governance design, and internal process development, which could create conflicts if the same vendor is also delivering or managing projects they helped design that may require full deconfliction. For PMaaS, these roles are more operational and may be less sensitive to conflicts where resource level deconfliction may be applied for specific individuals working on overlapping projects. |
| 72 | Section 2.2 (Response Instructions) | The RFI requests detailed solution descriptions, including staffing structures and training. Does the State expect vendors to propose sample staffing models, or should responses be limited to conceptual approaches? | Propose sample staffing models please. |
| 73 | Attachment B (AI Technical Questions) | If a proposed solution leverages AI, will the State require proof of compliance with IC 4-13.1-5-1 at the time of RFI response, or only at the RFP/proposal stage? | IC 4-13.1-5-1 governs ethical and responsible use of AI. Compliance is expected at the time of deployment or contract award typically during implementation phase. Demonstrating awareness of and alignment with these standards is recommended. |
| 74 | Attachment B (AI Developer Use) | The AI attachment asks whether vendors’ developers use AI tools during implementation. Can the State clarify if restrictions apply to AI-enabled code generation tools (e.g., Copilot, ChatGPT), or only to embedded AI within the solution? | Enterprise-enabled AI tools (e.g., Copilot, ChatGPT) are not currently enabled at the State level, and therefore restrictions specific to their use in project deliverables are not applicable at this time. Vendors should assume that deliverables will be developed without the use of enterprise AI tools. Any AI functionality embedded within technology solutions must comply with applicable State and federal policies. |
| 75 | Page 8, Section 1.6 (RFI Outline) | Can the State confirm whether attachments (e.g., resumes, rate cards, case studies) are expected in RFI submissions, or if these should be deferred until a future RFP? | Please provide all applicable attachments as part of your RFI submission. |
| 76 | Section 1.7 (Summary of Milestones) | Can the State provide its anticipated timeline for releasing the subsequent RFP, and the expected award date for a resulting contract | The determination on next steps beyond this RFI have not been made yet. As stated in section 1.3 of RFI Main Document, "The State reserves the right to directly award a contract for the Project Management Center of Excellence and Project Management as a Service to a vendor or vendors based on the responses to this RFI or the State may choose to release a follow up Request for Proposal (RFP). |
| 77 | Section 1.10 (page 9) | Can the State clarify whether RFI responses will remain confidential until an RFP is issued, and what portions (if any) may be made public under Indiana’s Public Records laws? | See Section 1.10 on page 9 of the main RFI document for answers to these prompts. |
| 78 | Section 2.2 (Response Instructions, Page 12 – Cost Proposal) | Does the State expect vendors to submit preliminary cost estimates as part of the RFI using Attachment D, or will detailed pricing only be required at the RFP stage? | Completion of Attachment D is an expectation as part of a responsive proposal. |
| 79 | Section 1.5 (Goals) or Section 1.6 | Does the State intend for the vendor to propose a phased roadmap (Phase 1: PM CoE, Phase 2: PMaaS), or should responses treat them as separate, stand-alone options? | While each phase has distinct objectives, they are expected to operate in coordination rather than as stand-alone options. The CoE will establish frameworks, governance, and standards, while PMaaS will provide scalable delivery capacity aligned to those standards. Vendors should describe how their roadmap supports a progressive transition and integration of the two models. |
| 80 | Page 6, Section 1.5 (Goals) | The RFI describes the PM CoE scope in terms of governance, maturity planning, frameworks, and change management, which appears to align with strategic consulting services. Conversely, the PMaaS scope emphasizes rate cards and defined role levels, which aligns with staff augmentation. Can the State clarify whether it expects respondents to propose both a consulting-led solution for the PM CoE and a staff augmentation model for PMaaS, or if vendors may specialize in one or the other? | IOT anticipates that vendors will propose solutions for both the CoE and PMaaS, as the two models are intended to operate in coordination. The CoE will establish governance, frameworks, and standards, while PMaaS will provide scalable project management delivery capacity aligned to those standards. While both functions are expected to be addressed in responses, vendors may highlight areas of particular strength, provided their proposals demonstrate how CoE and PMaaS components will integrate to ensure consistency and continuity. |
| 81 | Section 1.5 (Goals / PMaaS Model) | For PMaaS, is the State’s priority to secure pre-vetted project managers for ad hoc assignments, or to establish a long-term, managed services model in partnership with a consulting provider? | Long-term, managed services model |
| 82 | Page 11. Section 2 | Do our responses to Section 2 need to be on the RFI document, or can we provide on a separate branded document? | Please use Attachment E - Response Template. |
| 83 | Who these resources report into for accountability and visibility into the transformation? (Director of PMO?) | Resources supporting the CoE and PMaaS will report into the PMO Director within IOT for accountability and visibility. This reporting structure ensures consistency in governance, alignment to enterprise priorities, and oversight of vendor-provided resources. | |
| 84 | Will there be a leadership or steering committee setup? | Yes | |
| 85 | How many existing PM/Agency resources exist today? | There are currently 12 project managers supporting the IOT PMO. Beyond these resources, additional agency staff may perform project-related functions, but these roles are not standardized or consistently tracked. A key function of the CoE will be to establish visibility into project management capacity across IOT. | |
| 86 | How does the organization operate today? What existing PM processes exist for technology projects? | Processes vary across agencies and projects, with no single enterprise standard. IOT applies basic governance and reporting, but maturity levels differ. | |
| 87 | Are the current resources more centralized and share PM resources? | Yes | |
| 88 | What methedology are they currently following? (Agile/Waterfall/Hybrid) | All three approaches are used today depending on agency preference and project type. Methodology selection is not currently standardized statewide. | |
| 89 | Who are the main stakeholders? Are these PMs supporting internal and or external agencies? | The primary stakeholders include IOT leadership, agency businss sponsors, IT staff, and project managers engaged in technology-enabled initiatives. PM resources support both internal IOT projects and external executive branch agency projects. The CoE will formalize stakeholder engagement practices to ensure consistent alignment and visibility across all supported agencies. | |
| 90 | Is there specific technology experience you would like the transformation staff to have? | Yes. Experience with enterprise IT project delivery and familiarity with ServiceNow Strategic Portfolio Management (SPM) will be especially valuable. Broader technology sector experience that demonstrates the ability to operate in large, complex IT environments will also be considered beneficial. | |
| 91 | Is a business sponsor/partner on every project? | Yes | |
| 92 | Will this team support any non-IT projects? | The scope of the IOT PMO, the future Project Management Center of Excellence (CoE), and PMaaS is limited to IT and technology-enabled projects that fall under IOT's responsibility to deliver and support. Enterprise delivery refers to the consistent application of standardized project management practices across technology initiatives, not to non-IT business projects outside of IOT's mandate. | |
| 93 | Do you currently utilize any framework for organizational change mgmt? | No | |
| 94 | What is the project intake process today? | Agency-initiated projects follow a standard IOT intake form for review and support. Overall, intake lacks consistency and standardization is a primary objective of the proposed CoE framework. | |
| 95 | How do projects get funded, started, managed and close? | Funding and initiation are driven by agency priorities, with IOT providing oversight for IT-enabled projects. Project management practices vary, and closing processes are not fully standardized. | |
| 96 | How does project team members get assigned? | Assignments are made based on availability, role requirements, and agency input. The process is not standardized statewide and will be refined under the CoE framework. | |
| 97 | The PMOCoE asked for a 2-5 year strategic roadmap? Do you have an IT Roadmap you can share so we can align the PMOCoE roadmap? | At this time, IOT does not have a published enterprise IT roadmap available for distribution. Agency priorities and statewide technology initiatives are managed through annual planning and budget cyeles rather than a single consolidated roadmap. The selected vendor will be expected to assist in developing a 2-5 year PM CoE roadmap that aligns with strategic objectives, modernization efforts, and agency demand as they evolve. | |
| 98 | July 2025 Service Now implementation? Did it start or is that part of this request? Which modules will be implemented within ServiceNow and when(Roadmap of module go-live target dates)? | The ServiceNow implementation is already in-flight. The vendor team will partner with the IOT Division Director of Project Management to mature and evolve foundational processes built in ServiceNow. Targeting a November 2025 go-live, but final timing is TBD. | |
| 99 | Portfolio mgmt? (including intake, staffing portfolio metrics and reporting?) | Yes |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .