The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
Application Services Solicitation No. 601440000032007
SCEIS Modernization Solicitation #5400026039 Attachment L NOTE: The following table lists Offerors’ questions (as received by Admin, with no additional editing), references Solicitation components and sections if applicable, and states Admin’s responses.
Section #/ Paragraph #
| 1. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| I understand the pre-proposal meeting was on December 5. Is there a recording of the meeting? Are there available standard notes or agenda on what was discussed? Is there a list of attendees available? |
| 1. There is no recording of the pre-proposal meeting. 2. The Agenda discussed at the meeting is available in the Data Room which is accessible by signing an NDA and sending to Procurement Officer grozes@mmo.sc.gov |
3. A List of Attendees of the meeting is available in the Data Room which is accessible by signing an NDA and sending to Procurement Officer grozes@mmo.sc.gov.
| 2. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
J.1
| Can the State please provide access to Exhibit 3.4 Customer Satisfaction? |
| The requirements for Customer Satisfaction were incorporated into Section 4.19 of Exhibit 2.1 SCEIS Modernization SOW. Admin has removed Exhibit 3.4 from Section J.1 of the Solicitation document in Amendment 1. |
| 3. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
L.3 Past Performance
| Can the State please provide the questionnaires that need to be completed? |
| Past performance of Offerors shall be included in RFP Exhibits J.2.2, J.2.3, and J.2.4 as updated in the Solicitation document in Amendment 1. |
| 4. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
L.3 Past Performance
| Is it acceptable to the State that vendors include the completed past performance questionnaires in the Administrative proposal after the completed Solicitation 5400026039 Cover Page and Page 2? |
| See response to question #3. |
| 5. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
L.3 Information for Offerors to Submit
| Is it acceptable to the State for vendors to submit multiple PDF files for the Administrative and Technical Responses? For example ABC_Exhibit 2.2_part 1; ABC_Exhibit 2.2_part 2; etc. as needed in order to meet the 10 MB limit? |
| Yes, Offerors may submit multiple files. Each file cannot exceed 10MB. If a file exceeds 10MB, it may be divided into parts as long as the Offeror clearly marks the parts of the files, and the State can reconstruct a single file with reasonable effort. |
| 6. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
L.3 Proposal Format
| In order for vendors to completely respond to the 111 pages of requirements included in the Ex. 2.1 Scope of Work within the 120 page limit for Ex. 2.2 SCEIS Modernization Services Solution, is it acceptable to the State for vendors to use 11 point font for narrative response and use a smaller but readable font for tables, callouts, figure titles, and graphics? |
| For offers, Admin recommends a font size of 12. At their discretion, Offerors may reduce the font size for tables, callouts, future titles, and graphics to 11 or less. Nevertheless, the Evaluation Panel and other readers should be able to read and evaluate Offerors' documents without unusual zooming or enhancing. |
| 7. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
L.3 Table of Documents
| Can the State please confirm that the Key Personnel Resumes and Subcontractor information are excluded in the 4 page limit for Attachment C, Exhibit 2.3 – Key Personnel? |
| Admin has updated the maximum page count for Exhibit 2.3 Key Personnel in the table under L.3.1.3 Technical Response to 14 pages. |
| 8. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
L.3.1.2 Administrative Response
| Can the State please confirm that the page limit for Attachment J.2.2, J.2.3, and J.2.4 excludes the cover sheet, table of contents, and instructions and begins on the page vendors start writing a response? |
| Admin confirms that the maximum page count of 10 excludes the cover page, table of contents, and instructions. This note has been footnoted in Section L.3.1.2 of the Solicitation document in Amendment 1. |
| 9. |
| Exhibit 2.2 SCEIS Modernization Services Solution |
Page 4, Offeror Instructions #9
| Is it acceptable to the State that vendors complete the SCEIS Tool Matrix and include it as part of the Financial Response? |
| The tools matrix must be included as an Appendix to Exhibit 2.2 Solution Document. It is not included in the maximum page count for Exhibit 2.2. |
| 10. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| Might a second round of Q/A be suggested/needed? |
| At this time, Admin is planning one round of questions and answers. Admin intends to respond to questions in early January 2024 to inform Offerors’ responses. |
| 11. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| Will the State consider granting a one or even two-month extension on the due date? |
| Admin is extending the offer due date from Monday, January 29, 2024, at 11:00 AM Eastern Time to Monday, February 12, 2024, at 11:00 AM Eastern Time. |
| 12. |
| Exhibit 4.5 Skill Set Descriptions |
Section number 3.34.2 - Job Qualifications for Senior Manager
For education and experience should retail and healthcare industry experience be replaced with public sector experience as the nuance of public sector are more relevant to this solicitation?
Will the State adjust job descriptions to include experience related to SAP S/4 HANA?
Yes, retail and healthcare industry experience has been replaced with public sector experience. Admin will consider adjusting specific job descriptions to include experience related to SAP S/4HANA.
| 13. |
| Exhibit 3.3 Reports Matrix |
All
| Please provide additional direction as to the content requested in column F. |
| Exhibit 3.3, worksheet Reports, column F is to be used if a report is to be provided at a time other than the Commencement Date. At this point in the process, Admin believes all reports will be created and running on Commencement Date and are retaining this column for purposes of adjustments that may be made during the negotiations process. |
| 14. |
| Exhibit 3.3 Reports Matrix |
All
| Is the State asking for these reports to be developed as a part of the transition phase to Admin and SCEIS ? |
| As described in Exhibit 3.3 (Reports), Overview worksheet, the Reports worksheet contains a summary description of the format, content, and frequency of key reports required of the Offeror by Admin. Within this Reports worksheet, column F, Milestone Deliverable Date notes when the reports are due. At this time, all reports are due by the Commencement Date; therefore, yes, Admin is requiring these reports to be deployed during the Transition phase. The effort associated with this requirement shall be included in the solution and pricing response. |
| 15. |
| Exhibit 3.3 Reports Matrix |
All
| Is the State asking the System Integrator (SI) to price these new reports? |
| See the response to Question #14. |
| 16. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
| Can the State confirm the reference on page 40, “Section L.4.1, Information for Offerors to Submit-General” is actually referring to L.3 Information for Offerors to submit on page 35 of the RFP? |
| Admin has updated this reference from Section L.4.1 to L.3 as part of Amendment 1. |
| 17. |
| Exhibit 2.1 SCEIS Modernization Services SOW |
6.4.4.3 (g),
| Does the State own a data masking tool or is the State expecting the vendor to provide a tool with the capabilities? |
| Admin uses EPI-USE for data masking/scrambling. Admin is expecting the provider to review current usage and recommend use of current tool or recommend alternate tool that is compatible in S4/Hana environment with these capabilities. |
| 18. |
| Exhibit 2.1 SCEIS Modernization Services SOW |
6.1.2.2 (c), page 70
| The scope of Project 3 includes migration of on-premise SAP BW to cloud. As SAP BW end of life is slated for 2027 does the State intend to migrate to BW/4HANA along with S/4HANA migration or does this occur post S/4HANA migration? |
| See data artifact SAP Application Inventory. Migration project scope includes migration of BW to BW/4HANA. |
| 19. |
| Exhibit 2.1 SCEIS Modernization Services SOW |
page 9 and Attachment C, Exhibit 2.3 – Key Personnel, page 3 Is the “Migration and Transition Director” role listed in Ex. 2.1 under Key Personnel meant to be two roles split out across Application Services and Platform Services as shown in the table in Ex. 2.3?
Did the “Technical Director” role for Application Services get combined into another role? It is not listed in Ex. 2.1 under Key Personnel but is shown in the table in Ex. 2.3.
Exhibit 2.3 Key Personnel has been modified in this Amendment 1 to align with the Key Personnel requirements included in Exhibit 2.1; the modification removes the Service Component column and aligns the defined roles.
| 20. |
| Exhibit 2.1 SCEIS Modernization Services SOW |
| Does the State have a preference for a Public Cloud Service Provider (CSP) to host the future state SC SCEIS infrastructure? |
| Admin does not have a preference for a Public Cloud Service Provider. |
| 21. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| The solicitation mentions SAP Rise, public cloud, and private cloud in different parts of the documents. What is the preferred offering / approach for the State? |
| The Service Provider is to design and deploy the target solution as described in Exhibit 2.1 section 6 Migration Projects which requires a public cloud as the target platform. The only mention of private cloud in the RFP is in reference to any virtual private cloud that may need to integrate with the new public cloud based SCEIS solution. |
| 22. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| Does the infrastructure need to be hosted in NS2 or other hosting solutions being considered? |
| The infrastructure does not have to be hosted in SAP NS2. |
| 23. |
| Exhibit 4.1 Pricing Structure |
N/A
| Are the volumes on the BOM Volume Rates tab assumed to be correct for the quoting of licenses? |
| Yes. |
| 24. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| Will the State provide an infrastructure diagram that includes all systems subject to the solicitation, including database size? |
| Admin will not be providing an infrastructure diagram. The expectation is that the Offeror will propose the infrastructure architecture and solution that supports the sizing in the VM Landscape data artifact. |
| 25. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| Has the State identified any enhancements that will be implemented as part of the SAP ECC to S/4 migration? |
| Admin does not intend to implement new enhancements as a part of the Brownfield migration. It is expected that existing enhancements in effect at the time of migration will be migrated to the S/4 solution. See Exhibit 2.1 SOW, Section 6.3.2 Pre-Migration Projects, Custom Code Analysis and Remediation See Exhibit 2.1 SOW, Section 6.4.4.5 Migration Project, Deliverables, Configuration and Customization. |
| 26. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| Do you have a preference for hosting providers, for example AWS or Microsoft Azure? |
| See response to question #20. |
| 27. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| Please indicate if you have any on-going or planned projects that will potentially impact the ERP project. If so, please describe and provide the planned go-live dates of the projects and expectations to integrate and/or account for the planned projects in relation to the ERP planned go-live. |
| Exhibit 4.4 In-Flight Projects is meant to capture those projects that would be in-flight during transition and/or cross the service Commencement date(s). It is Admin's intent to complete this document later during the Procurement process when the transition period, Commencement date(s) and then-current in-flight projects are more accurate and realistic. |
| 28. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| Please provide a count and outline of the current and planned interfaces. |
| See data artifact Interface Counts. |
Additional information may be provided later in the procurement process.
Per Exhibit 2.1 SOW, Section 6.4.4.6 Migration Project, Deliverable, Integration, the Service Provider is responsible for creating the Deliverables for the integration strategy, architecture, requirements, design, build, testing, etc.
Offeror shall document any assumptions made in the preparation of an Offer in the appropriate Tab of Exhibit 4.1 Pricing Structure.
| 29. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| Are there any additional 3rd-party integrations planned during the ERP project? If yes, please explain. |
| See data artifact Interface Counts. The In-Flight Projects (to be completed later) may require additional integration points or changes to integration points. |
| 30. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| Please provide a count and outline of the current and planned developments, forms, and workflows. |
| See data artifact Custom Objects Metrics. |
See Exhibit 2.1 SOW, Section 6.3.2 Custom Code Analysis and Remediation.
Additional information may be provided later in the procurement process. Offeror shall document any assumptions made in the preparation of an Offer in the appropriate Tab of Exhibit 4.1 Pricing Structure.
| 31. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| How many reports does the State currently use to support the functional scope (Procurement/Logistics, Budget/Planning and Financial Management)? Please provide a count and outline of the current and planned reports. |
| See data artifact BI BW Custom Query Reports and Data Warehouse Custom Extractor Counts. |
Additional information may be shared during the procurement process. Offeror shall document any assumptions made in the preparation of an Offer in the appropriate Tab of Exhibit 4.1 Pricing Structure.
| 32. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| Of the reports the State currently uses, what percentage are custom developed reports? |
| See data artifact BI BW Custom Query Reports. |
| 33. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| Are the current reports sufficient to support the State’s stakeholder community? If not, please summarize the State’s reporting deficiencies identified and any assessment completed. |
| Current reporting is sufficient. |
| 34. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| Please provide a summary of the State’s ERP project team dedicated to the project and indicate whether team members will be dedicated as a full-time or part-time basis and, if part-time, an estimated percent allocation to the project and, if relevant, by project phase. |
| Offerors shall develop their solution and staffing based on the requirements set forth in the Solicitation document. Admin believes the current retained staffing model is irrelevant to the Offeror's response; any requirements of State resources shall be clearly identified and documented in the Offeror's response. |
| 35. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| Please provide a summary of the State’s IT team, their respective skill sets, and time commitment to the ERP project. |
| See response to question #34. |
| 36. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| Please provide a summary of project support by the State’s Central offices of Procurement/Logistics, Budget/Planning, Financial Management, etc. and general User Community. |
| See response to question #34. |
| 37. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| Please provide a summary of how and how many State Users access the current systems. For example, Desktop, Web Browser, Self-services, etc. for the ERP project scope. |
| The State has about 10,000 users across 125 entities or agencies that access ECC via SAP GUI for more than ESS/MSS. For ESS/MSS Self Service access, the State has about 42,000 employees. |
| 38. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| Please provide a summary of how and how many external Users (Vendors, Citizens, etc.) access the current systems for the ERP project scope. |
| There are approximately 9,000 Vendors who access the current system for Vendor Registration and Procurement processes. For these processes and external Users, Admin will be implementing a non-SAP solution. |
| 39. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| Will the State project team be primarily responsible for Change Management or User Training or should a comprehensive Organizational Change Management (OCM) engagement as well? |
| See response to question #34. |
| 40. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| For any on-site work planned, will the State provide a dedicated workspace for the State’s project team and System Integrator project team? If yes, please summarize the workspace planned. |
| Admin intends to provide workspace for project team members. Please specify your requirements in your Offer. |
| 41. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| Does the State currently utilize off-shore and/or near-shore consulting services? If yes, will off-shore and/or near-shore consulting services be permitted? If not, please list any special restrictions required for consulting services such as US citizenship, background checks, etc. |
| Admin does not currently leverage any Off-Shore resources as defined in Exhibit 1.1 (Definitions). Offeror shall reference Section 2.2 of Exhibit 2.1 (SOW) for requirements related to Location of Services. |
| 42. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| How many years’ historical data does the State plan to migrate to the new ERP system for Financial Management and Budget/Planning? |
| Detailed requirements have not been defined. |
See Exhibit 2.1 SOW, Section 6.3.3 Data Archiving Pre-Migration Project and Section.
See Exhibit 2.1 SOW, Section 6.4.4.4 Migration Project, Deliverables, Data Cleanup and Migration. Offeror shall document any assumptions made in the preparation of an Offer in the appropriate Tab of Exhibit 4.1 Pricing Structure.
| 43. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| Are there any plans to archive data to a data warehouse prior to or part of the ERP project? |
| See response to question #42. |
| 44. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| If responses to bidder questions are delayed, will the State consider an extension of the RFP due date to sufficient time to consider the answers provided and support better quality of bids? |
| See response to questions #10 and #11. |
| 45. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| Can the State disclose the budget for the migration project? |
| Admin will not disclose the budget for the migration project at this time. Offeror shall develop the solution and pricing response based on the requirements set forth in this Solicitation document. |
| 46. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A What roles and % of time commitment will be provided by the State in the project? For Example:
Functional area: AP - 1FTE; AR - 1 FTE; HCM -2.5 FTE, etc.
Could the State please clarify the project workstreams that would have dedicated State personnel and the number of personnel supporting them? How many FTE individuals will the State dedicate to the project?
See response to question #34.
| 47. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| Has the State created any structure for organizational change management for this project? For example, is there a steering committee or structure to evaluate current practices with a view to changing them? |
| Admin has some governance structures in place, but Service Provider shall propose their recommended governance structure. |
See Exhibit 1.2 Governance Model.
See Exhibit 2.1 SOW, Section 1 Operating Model.
See Exhibit 2.1 SOW, Section 6.4.4.1 Migration Project, Deliverables, Project Management.
See Exhibit 2.1 SOW, Section 6.4.4.8 Migration Project, Deliverables, User Training and Change Management.
| 48. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A Please describe key findings from any operational assessments you have conducted to understand your technology requirements as well as how new technology may drive improvement in other aspects of your organization (e.g, process, staffing, decision-making).
Clarifying: What other aspects of your operations (e.g., processes, staffing, decision-making) do you hope to improve by leveraging new technology?
The objectives of the projects are to migrate to the new platforms and not to implement new business functionality. The implementation of the new technical solutions will result in IT operational improvements.
See project objectives described in Exhibit 2.1 SOW, Section 6 Migration Projects.
| 49. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| Can the State please describe your current operational environment? To what degree might current processes be considered best practices? Please describe any external operational benchmarking that may have been conducted. |
| Refer to the Data Room for documents that describe the current operational environment. For example, SAP Application Inventory, SAP Installed Components, VM Landscape, SAP Technology Stack and Versions, etc. |
| 50. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| What is the State's expectations and plans for engaging stakeholders in the leadership, decision-making, and work of this initiative? |
| See response to question #47. |
| 51. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| Has the State identified a core team (e.g., sponsors, steering committee, project managers, project leads, subject matter experts, etc.)? If so, what capability will they bring to the project? What gaps in capability may exist? |
| See response to question #47. |
| 52. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| Can the State please describe any experience key project leaders and subject matter experts may have with enterprise technology implementation? With process improvement and process re-engineering? |
| See response to question #34. |
| 53. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| Can the State please describe the organizational experience with past change initiatives, including the type of project, success/struggles, lessons learned? |
| See response to question #34. |
| 54. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| Can the State provide the SAP Readiness Check if it has been performed? |
| See data artifacts - SAP HanaDatabaseTables_BW and HanaDatabaseTables_ECC from the Readiness Check. |
Additional information may be shared during the procurement process. Offeror shall document any assumptions made in the preparation of an Offer in the appropriate Tab of Exhibit 4.1 Pricing Structure.
| 55. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| For any/all expected and/or required 3rd-Party System interfaces, can the State please provide details of type of data being sent to the interfacing external system, as well as the 3rd-Party System to interface to? |
| See response to question #28. |
| 56. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| Does the State currently conduct employee training or is it outsourced? |
| Admin's service delivery operations, including training are currently led by retained resources. |
| 57. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| Can you please share a current landscape diagram that shows all your existing systems and interfaces, as well as current sizing of all your environments? |
| See data artifacts VM Landscape and Interface Counts. |
| 58. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| Can the State provide the SAP Readiness Findings Summary Report ? |
| See response to question #54. |
| 59. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| How many custom reports were built? |
| See response to question #32. |
| 60. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| How many standard reports are being used? |
| See question #31. |
| 61. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| Does Brownfield Implementation to S/4HANA mean that this is a technical upgrade with no changes to any of the current business processes or functionalities? |
| See Exhibit 1.1 Definitions for a definition of Brownfield S/4HANA Migration. |
See Exhibit 2.1 SOW, Section 6.4.2 Objectives. This is primarily a technical upgrade and only required changes will be made to the business processes.
| 62. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| Please provide a detailed list of all 3rd-party applications that need integration. |
| See response to question #28. |
| 63. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| Are there any custom developments or code within the existing SAP system, and do you have expectations regarding how they should be handled during the migration? |
| See data artifact Custom Objects Metrics. |
Given the Brownfield approach, the State will migrate many of the existing, required customizations to the new solution. The new S/4HANA solution may require current customizations to be modified to function in the new solution.
See Exhibit 2.1 SOW, Section 6.3.2 Pre-Migration Projects, Custom Code Analysis and Remediation.
See Exhibit 2.1 SOW, Section 6.4.4.5 Migration Project, Deliverables, Configuration and Customization. Offeror shall document any assumptions made in the preparation of an Offer in the appropriate Tab of Exhibit 4.1 Pricing Structure.
| 64. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| How much legacy data do you want to be migrated? |
| See response to question #42. |
| 65. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| How far back do you want to retain data? Is there any standard retention policy management in place? |
| See response to question #42. |
| 66. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| Please provide a detailed list of versions and compatibility checks for all applications that are a part of the integration. |
| See data artifacts: SAP Installed Software Components Versions; SAP Technology Stack and Versions. |
See Exhibit 2.1 SOW, Section 6.3.4 Pre-Migration Projects, Third Party Tools Assessment and Upgrade.
Additional information may be shared during the procurement process. Offeror shall document any assumptions made in the preparation of an Offer in the appropriate Tab of Exhibit 4.1 Pricing Structure.
| 67. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| Can you share the existing BPML Business Process Master List for the existing SAP solution? |
| See data artifacts Business Process Hierarchy (Six documents: FI, FRE, HCM, MM, PM, TRS). |
| 68. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| How much data do you currently have in your SAP ECC system, and what is the expected growth in data volume? |
| See data artifact VM Landscape for databases and sizes. |
Please note that a pre-project has been requested to design and implement data archiving. Offeror shall document any assumptions made in the preparation of an Offer in the appropriate Tab of Exhibit 4.1 Pricing Structure.
| 69. |
| Exhibit 4.1 Pricing Structure |
BOM
| Have you already acquired the necessary licenses for S/4HANA, or is this part of the scope of the project, as detailed in Exhibit 4.1 Pricing Structure? |
| No, per Exhibit 4.2 (FRM), ERP licenses, including S/4HANA, are the financial responsibility of the Offeror. |
| 70. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| What is the extent of customization currently in your SAP landscape? Please list down rough estimates of custom work (database tables with data volumes) for each application module. Please also list down the SAP RICEFW (Reports, Interface, Conversion, Enhancements, Forms, and Workflow) object counts for custom solutions. |
| See response to question #63. |
| 71. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| Can you provide existing functionalities that are in place for the Solman system, like Techmon, Charm, Soldoc, etc.? Will the new Solman have any changes to Application/OS/DB versions? |
| Solution Manager is currently supporting Change and Release Management (ChaRM), Technical Monitoring and Alerting, Custom Code Management, and Documentation Management. As part of the migration and establishment of the ongoing operations, additional functions could be implemented. |
See data artifacts: SAP Technology Stack, SAP Installed Software Components, VM Landscapes.
See Exhibit 2.1 SOW; Section 6.4 Project 3: SAP ERP Application Migration to SAP S/4HANA and the Public Cloud. Solution Manager is in scope for upgrade and migration.
Offeror shall document any assumptions made in the preparation of an Offer in the appropriate Tab of Exhibit 4.1 Pricing Structure.
| 72. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| Is Disaster Recovery testing planned to be performed for every landscape including Non-Prod and Prod? |
| See Exhibit 2.1 SOW Section 3.9 SCEIS Disaster Recovery Services. |
| 73. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| Can you share the number of users and the roles that are currently available in the ECC system? |
| See response to question #37. |
| 74. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| What is the role concept currently used? Single Role/Master Derived role /composite role? |
| Admin assigns roles based on Position, not based on Employee. We have master roles/templates within each Functional Area where authorizations are defined based on the actions taken for that role. |
| 75. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| In the context of avoiding customization and custom-developed code, how does the State envision handling unique business processes that may not align with standard SAP S/4HANA functionality? |
| See response to question #63. |
| 76. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| Can you list an inventory of FIORI Applications (or other side-by-side applications) in the scope of the project (custom or standard)? How many and which Fiori apps are in use today? |
| See data artifact Fiori Tiles. |
| 77. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| Does the State currently conduct employee training or is it outsourced? |
| See response to question #56. |
| 78. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
N/A
| Has the State developed a roadmap for this initiative and if so will it be shared? |
| Admin expects the Service Provider to provide a proposed roadmap based on the information provided in the solicitation documents. |
| 79. |
| Exhibit 2.1 SCEIS Modernization Services SOW |
section 4.12, page 51
| To better understand the efforts required to support Release Management, does THE STATE have N+1 system environment today to perform regression testing before rolling out new/changes to Software/Hardware applications? N+1 System is a parallel landscape to support the projects while production support team is working on fixes in production support landscape. |
| Please see VM Landscape data artifact. Admin does have an N+1 landscape and several lower and sandbox environments for testing. For the S/4HANA migration, the Offeror is expected to develop and implement an environment strategy. |
See Exhibit 2.1 SOW, Section 6.4.4.1 Migration Project, Deliverables, Systems & Landscapes.
| 80. |
| Exhibit 2.1 SCEIS Modernization Services SOW |
section 4.13, page 52
| Regarding Asset Inventory and Management, how many physical assets does THE STATE have today to understand the efforts required to provide services & support to Service Management Admin function? |
| The Service Provider will deploy the S/4HANA services from the cloud including Service Management responsibilities defined in Exhibit 2.1 SOW, Section 4.13 Asset Inventory and Management. |
| 81. |
| Exhibit 2.1 SCEIS Modernization Services SOW |
section 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4, from page 70 through 86
| We see in section 6.1.1 Overview, indicates that Service Provider will use and actively participate in overall Admin THE STATE modernization program governance, methodologies, approach, and reporting for in-scope projects. Does this mean that our RFP response need not provide our proposed Program Governance structure, Methodologies, and Approach? Do you want us to propose these in RFP response? |
| While the State does have a governance structure, methodologies, approaches and reporting, Offerors shall propose their recommended governance structure, methodologies, approaches and reporting. |
See Exhibit 1.2 Governance Model.
See Exhibit 2.1 SOW, Section 1 Operating Model.
See Exhibit 2.1 SOW, Section 6.4.4.1 Migration Project, Deliverables, Project Management.
See Exhibit 2.1 SOW, Section 6.4.4.8 Migration Project, Deliverables, User Training and Change Management.
| 82. |
| Exhibit 2.1 SCEIS Modernization Services SOW |
section 6.3.4, page 78
| How many third-party applications existing today are integrated with SAP ECC that needs to be thoroughly analyzed for software upgrade to avoid compatibility issues with S/4HANA? Is it possible to get the list of all third-party applications, with name, current version, etc? |
| See data artifact Tools Matrix Template. |
See Exhibit 2.1 SOW, Section 6,3,4 Third-Party Tools Assessment and Upgrades.
See Exhibit 2.1 SOW, Section 6.4.4.2 Migration Project, Deliverables, Assessment, Strategy and Readiness.
Additional information may be provided later in the procurement process.
Offeror shall document any assumptions made in the preparation of an Offer in the appropriate Tab of Exhibit 4.1 Pricing Structure.
| 83. |
| Exhibit 2.1 SCEIS Modernization Services SOW |
section 6.3.5, page 80
| How many SAP Roles & Security exist today, in SAP ECC that needs to be thoroughly analyzed for migration vs. New Roles & Security setup in S/4HANA? |
| Admin has defined 146 ECC SAP Roles. |
| 84. |
| Exhibit 2.1 SCEIS Modernization Services SOW |
section 6.3.6, page 81
| To better understand the efforts regarding Test Automation, and to leverage and assess existing test scripts / cases that may require changes for S/4 compatibility, how many total scripts are available today across all process groups & functions for all types of testing such as system, integration, functional, regression, and performance? |
| See data artifact Test Metrics. |
Additional information may be shared during the procurement process. Offeror shall document any assumptions made in the preparation of an Offer in the appropriate Tab of Exhibit 4.1 Pricing Structure.
| 85. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
Table of Documents
| Exhibit 2.3 Key Personnel has a 4 page maximum, yet on page 38 the table suggest we must submit Resumes of key personnel. Are resumes a part of the 4 page limit or not? Should we include an addendum or attachment? |
| See response to question #7. |
| 86. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
Page 23, Section L.1.1.1 Vision
| We understand that today, THE STATE has SAP SuccessFactors Learning and Performance Management system. As part of this THE STATE modernization program, is there a need to implement the remaining human resources, payroll, benefits, time and leave management capabilities enabled by SAP SuccessFactors? |
| Implementation of additional SuccessFactors modules is not in the scope of this Solicitation. |
| 87. |
| Exhibit 2.1 SCEIS Modernization Services SOW |
Refer Section 4.1 Table Page 37
| For IT Help desk function staffing is provided by THE STATE. Does the State expect the Service Provider to staff the IT Help? Will the State continue to do that? If you continue to do that, will you expect us to provide Level 1 IT Support? |
| The Service Desk services for the Application are being retained by Admin. The Help Desk would provide Level 1 support. |
| 88. |
| Exhibit 2.1 SCEIS Modernization Services SOW |
Section 6, Section 9
| Can you provide user counts by business function, locations, and hours of operations for SAP applications? |
| See response to questions #37 and #38. |
| 89. |
| Exhibit 2.1 SCEIS Modernization Services SOW |
section 6.1.2, page 71
| We see THE STATE has indicated in section 6.1.2 to go for Brownfield. However, we also see the same paragraph calls out “...in single event with minimal new functionality deployed or business process change”. The former points out Brownfield but the latter points out Bluefield. Please clarify if its Brownfield with absolute no new functionality or Bluefield that comes with both migrations as-is plus selective transformation with selective data migration of S/4HANA new functionalities. |
| Admin has adopted a Brownfield approach. The migration to S/4HANA may require some changes. Per the objects in section 6.4.2, "Implementing new business functionality is not an objective of this project". |
See response to question #61.
| 90. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
Data Room
| Our understanding is that this ticket count represent L2 and L3 tickets. L1 tickets are excluded. Is our assumption correct? |
| Ticket counts provided are inclusive of all support levels. |
| 91. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
Data Room
| Can you provide ticket dump for this period? This will help us further optimize the solution and attain higher productivity for the State. |
| See data artifact Help Desk Tickets by Area. |
Additional ticket information may be provided later in the procurement process. Offeror shall document any assumptions made in the preparation of an Offer in the appropriate Tab of Exhibit 4.1 Pricing Structure
| 92. |
| Exhibit 2.1 SCEIS Modernization Services SOW |
section 9
| Can you provide details about existing support model in terms of team structure, location, and size? We want to ensure Day 1 user experience is better or comparable to current solution. |
| See response to question #34. |
| 93. |
| Exhibit 2.1 SCEIS Modernization Services SOW |
section 6.1.2
| Can you provide an overview of your current SAP ECC authorization design including the number of roles and number of users? |
| See responses to questions #37 and #83. |
| 94. |
| Exhibit 2.1 SCEIS Modernization Services SOW |
section 6.1.2
| Do you foresee any challenges from a roles and authorizations perspective in your current environment that might pose a problem and needs to be addressed during the pre-project phase? For example, manually added authorizations, unused transactions, limitations in role design, etc. |
| No known issues. |
See Exhibit 2.1 SOW, Section 6.3.5 Pre-Migration Projects, Security and Role Assessment.
See Exhibit 2.1 SOW, Section 6.4.4.2 Migration Project, Deliverables, Assessment, Strategy and Readiness.
Offeror shall document any assumptions made in the preparation of an Offer in the appropriate Tab of Exhibit 4.1 Pricing Structure.
| 95. |
| Exhibit 2.1 SCEIS Modernization Services SOW |
section 6.1.2
| How are you managing segregation of duties in your current landscape? Are you considering remediating any existing SOD issues as part of the conversion? |
| Admin has a Data Owner request and approval process, that is integrated with the SAP GRC Access Control module. This identifies any SOD conflicts. Data Owners must provide and address SOD conflicts with mitigating controls before requests can be approved and fulfilled. |
| 96. |
| Exhibit 2.1 SCEIS Modernization Services SOW |
section 6.1.2
| Given that this is a brownfield implementation, there won’t be any redesigning of the roles, except for minor additions of Fiori based apps that may be requested by business. All existing transaction assignments to roles including naming convention will remain as-is (except obsolete transactions). Do you see this as an issue? |
| See Exhibit 2.1 SOW, Section 6.3.5 Security and Role Assessment. Unless determined to be required for migration based on the readiness assessment, it is not expected that new FIORI tiles will be implemented as a part of the migration. |
| 97. |
| Exhibit 2.1 SCEIS Modernization Services SOW |
section 6.1.2
| Are you aware of the new features and functionalities introduced in SAP S/4HANA through Catalogs, Spaces, and Page? Have you identified any specific security requirements associated with these features that may differ from SAP ECC? |
| At this time we have not identified changes to roles and authorizations in SAP S/4HANA. This is one of the pre-projects listed, See Exhibit 2.1 SOW, Section 6.3.5 Pre-Migration Projects, Security and Role Assessment. |
| 98. |
| Exhibit 2.1 SCEIS Modernization Services SOW |
section 8.1.8
| What user provisioning tools are being used currently in your landscape? Do you have GRC 12 Access Control? If so, what modules of Access Control are implemented? |
| See response to question #95. |
| 99. |
| Exhibit 2.1 SCEIS Modernization Services SOW |
section 8.1.8
| Are there any particular events or activities that should be closely monitored in the security audit log? What is the frequency of monitoring? |
| The Offeror shall recommend the solution. |
The expectation is that security is monitored 7x24x365.
Additional information may be shared during the procurement process.
Offeror shall document any assumptions made in the preparation of an Offer in the appropriate Tab of Exhibit 4.1 Pricing Structure.
| 100. |
| Exhibit 2.1 SCEIS Modernization Services SOW |
section 8.1.8
| How frequently would you like us to conduct analysis for identifying and implementing relevant SAP security notes? |
| See response to question #99. |
| 101. |
| Exhibit 2.1 SCEIS Modernization Services SOW |
section 8.1.8
| Could you provide insights into the critical applications that are most concerning from a security standpoint and that should be the focus for implementing relevant security notes? |
| All applications are considered critical from a security perspective. |
| 102. |
| Exhibit 2.1 SCEIS Modernization Services SOW |
section 8.1.8
| Are there specific restrictions or controls that need to be in place for consumer access in Client 000? |
| Client 000 is restricted to Basis and standard SAP Accounts. It does not contain end users at all. All Client 000 accounts are restricted according to SAP/Onapsis recommendations or have documented risk acceptance and mitigation controls. |
| 103. |
| Exhibit 2.1 SCEIS Modernization Services SOW |
section 8.1.8
| What are the current challenges in managing user profiles, roles, and authorizations in Client 000? Are there specific requirements or changes expected in this area? |
| See responses to questions #37, #74, and #102. |
| 104. |
| Exhibit 2.1 SCEIS Modernization Services SOW |
section 8.1.8
| What specific information or reports would you like to receive in the audit log for review by the Chief Information Security Officer (CISO)? |
| See response to question #99. |
| 105. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
Data Room
| Incident for 7 modules SuccessFactors are not available. Can we refer this documents for baseline estimations for incidents? |
| Currently, only SuccessFactors LMS is in operation (there are on average 45 tickets per month). Performance and Goals is scheduled to go-live in Q2 2024. The other modules may be implemented in the future. |
| 106. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
Data Room
| There is sharp spike of number incidents during month of Aug 23 and number of incidents in this month is almost double. What is the reason behind this spike? |
| OnBase Imaging connection issue. |
| 107. |
| Exhibit 3.2 Service Level Definitions |
| Do the service line definitions as provided in Ex.3.2 apply to L3 incident which requires bug fix by code or configuration change may require testing and transport movement to production system? |
| The Service Level definitions in Exhibit 3.2 apply to all Services provided by the Offeror. The definitions for the two incident service levels specify, in the definition, the level of service included (Level 2 and Level 3 Support). The business rules for application of a change related to a Priority 1 or Priority 2 ticket shall be documented in the SMM and may require immediate application of an emergency change aligned with the Incident Resolution SLA targets due to business impact. This SMM will also identify the approved “pause” states where the SLA clock is paused for approved purposes, such as awaiting approval and application of the Change Management process. |
| 108. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
Data Room
| Security incidents are around 535 in average per month. Can you provide a further classification of the security incidents by application, infrastructure, cyber, etc? |
| See response to question #91. |
| 109. |
| Exhibit 2.1 SCEIS Modernization Services SOW |
section 6.1.2, page 71
| Would the MS SQL move to SAP HANA database be part of the project-1 or project-2? |
| The Migration of MS SQL to SAP HANA is currently proposed as part of Project 3. Per Exhibit 2.1 SOW, Section 6, the Service Provider may adjust the sequence and size of projects to reduce risk and deliver higher value. |
| 110. |
| Exhibit 2.1 SCEIS Modernization Services SOW |
section 6.1.2, page 71
| Has the State decided on specific targeted go-live dates for all 3 projects? If so, could you please share with us? |
| Admin expects to complete the migration projects and transition services before the end of 2027. |
| 111. |
| Exhibit 2.1 SCEIS Modernization Services SOW |
section 6.1.2, page 71
| Are there any specific month/quarter that go-live is not preferred due to fiscal period end reasons for the State? If so, could you please share with us? |
| Exhibit 2.1 SOW, Section 6 Migration Projects describes some business and technical objectives. The Go-live strategy, timing and constraints have not been determined. |
| 112. |
| Exhibit 2.1 SCEIS Modernization Services SOW |
section 6.1.2, page 71
| Is the expectation for Onapsis migration support? If so, what Onapsis modules does the State intend to deploy to the new environment? |
| Admin uses Onapsis to scan the current SAP environment; however, Service Provider shall provide and include installation, configuration and operation of vulnerability scanning tool(s) for the solutions being implemented. |
| 113. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
Tools Matrix
| Is the expectation for Onapsis migration support? If so, what Onapsis modules does the State intend to deploy to the new environment? |
| See response to question #112. |
| 114. |
| Solicitation Document SCEIS Modernization |
Tools Matrix
| Do you want us to manage the Onapsis tool? Do you want us to manage the output of the Onapsis tool? Or both? |
| See response to question #112. |
| 115. |
| Exhibit 2.1 SCEIS Modernization Services SOW |
section 6.3.2 & 9.10.3
| Does the State have an existing custom code scanning solution? If so, is the intention to leverage the same toolset in the migrated environment? |
| Admin has used the SAP ATC ABAP Test Cockpit and within the BTP will leverage the Custom Code Migration application. The Offeror shall recommend any additional or comparable tools which can be leveraged during the project. |
| 116. |
| Exhibit 2.1 SCEIS Modernization Services SOW |
section 8.2
| Is the expectation to migrate the standalone SAP GRC Access Control 12.0 or to reimplement. If SAP GRC AC is to be reimplemented, will the application be a separate system or embedded in S/4HANA using S/4HANA embedded GRC? |
| Per the Brownfield migration approach, Admin is planning to migrate the current SAP GRC Access Control. Embedded GRC functionality has not been evaluated. |
| 117. |
| Exhibit 2.1 SCEIS Modernization Services SOW |
section 5.8
| To support the security assessments, is there a requirement for the supplier to provide penetration testing services or only support the State’s existing penetration testing activities? |
| Exhibit 2.1, section 5.8 is to support assessments that Admin initiates. Note section 5.2 requires penetration testing capabilities to support base security operations. |
| 118. |
| Exhibit 2.1 SCEIS Modernization Services SOW |
section 5.8
| How frequently would you prefer that have penetration testing? |
| With respect to Exhibit 2.1, section 5.2, Admin is looking for the Offeror to recommend best practice penetration testing in compliance with the SCDIS-200 Information Security and Privacy Standards while considering all aspects of the environment (e.g., in the event of a major architectural or technology change). For section 5.8, Admin will initiate penetration testing as needed to support audit demands. |
| 119. |
| Exhibit 2.1 SCEIS Modernization Services SOW |
section 8.3
| Besides the use of various Microsoft ADs and SAP GRC Access Control, are there additional Identity Management or ITSM tools to integrate with to manage the end user lifecycle? |
| Exhibit 2.1, section 3.4.1, R15 requires Offerors to integrate the solution with Admin’s active directory. As the solution is developed, there may be additional directory and ITSM integrations. |
| 120. |
| Exhibit 2.1 SCEIS Modernization Services SOW |
section 6.1.2
| As far as current data is concerned, do you want to bring all data post cleansing onto S/4HANA or only migrate selective data? |
| See response to question #42. |
| 121. |
| Exhibit 2.1 SCEIS Modernization Services SOW |
section 6.0
| Does the State have new GL functionality enabled in current SAP ECC? |
| SAP New GL functionality is enabled. |
| 122. |
| Exhibit 2.1 SCEIS Modernization Services SOW |
section 6.0
| Can the SIEM management and monitoring be conducted from global locations (outside US)? |
| Offeror shall reference Section 2.2 of Exhibit 2.1 (SOW) for requirements related to Location of Services. |
| 123. |
| Exhibit 2.1 SCEIS Modernization Services SOW |
section 5.4
| Does the State expect SIEM management [L1 and L2] to be 24x7, with on call support for priority incidents? |
| Yes, Admin requires 7x24x365 SIEM monitoring. Additionally, the Offeror should take the service levels in Exhibit 3.1 into staffing consideration. |
| 124. |
| Exhibit 2.1 SCEIS Modernization Services SOW |
section 5.4
| What is the Events Per Second (EPS) volume per day for ingestion to SIEM? |
| Given the Offeror is to design and deploy the target solution, Admin does not know projected SIEM volumes. |
| 125. |
| Exhibit 2.1 SCEIS Modernization Services SOW |
section 5.4
| Does state have preference for Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) tooling on the servers? Can we leverage existing State’s EDR tooling or Service Provider needs to provide EDR licensing? |
| The Offeror shall include all tooling required to meet the requirements and support the Offeror's proposed solution in their response. |
| 126. |
| Exhibit 2.1 SCEIS Modernization Services SOW |
section 5.7
| What is the scope of Cloud Access Security Broker (CASB) (number of users and number of applications)? |
| There is not a current CASB solution; the current infrastructure is hosted in Admin's on-premise data center. The Offeror shall include all tooling required to meet the requirements and support the Offeror's proposed solution in their Offer. |
| 127. |
| Exhibit 2.1 SCEIS Modernization Services SOW |
section 5.9
| What is the scope for data classification services? Is the THE STATE expecting the Service Provider to provide tooling? Would Data Loss Prevention (DLP) Tagging be in scope? If so, what is the current tool for tagging? |
| 1. See response to question #293. |
2. Yes.
3. See response to question #293 for data classification requirements.
4. Admin is expecting the Offeror to provide tooling.
| 128. |
| Exhibit 2.1 SCEIS Modernization Services SOW |
section 6.1.1
| THE STATE wants to migrate its SAP systems to the public cloud. Is the State planning to host SAP systems on the public cloud under the SAP RISE offering? |
| See response to question #20. |
| 129. |
| Exhibit 2.1 SCEIS Modernization Services SOW |
General
| Did THE STATE procure the required SAP Licenses? Is it possible to share the SAP BOM that will help us identify systems that are in scope for migration vs. new installation on the public cloud? |
| 1. See response to questions #69. |
2. See Exhibit 4.1 Pricing Structure, Tab BOM Volume Rates.
| 130. |
| Exhibit 2.1 SCEIS Modernization Services SOW |
section 6.4.2
| Is the BW system running on the HANA database? Is THE STATE planning to use the existing product version: BW on HANA and planning to migrate the system to the cloud using the “Lift and Shift” approach? |
| See response to question #18. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.