Attachment 8 - Response to Vendor Questions Amend 2.docx

ATTACHMENT 8 AMEND 2

eProcurement Solicitation 5400020744 Response to Vendor Questions

NOTE: Q91 – Q105 were received in response to the original solicitation and inadvertently not included in the initial response. There are no other changes to this document.

Offerors are reminded that all communication concerning this solicitation MUST be coordinated through the procurement officer responsible for the solicitation. If it is determined that an Offeror has had inappropriate communications with anyone other than the procurement officer, their offer may be rejected outright. Please refer to the “Prohibited Communications and Donations” clause in Attachment L.1.

NOTE: For some questions, the State received multiple versions of the same question form multiple vendors. In those instances where the response was identical, we have incorporated those questions into one response.

Q1: Technology - Need to identify the preferred Front end and the backend database.

State’s Response: No change. The State is expecting a SaaS solution which would dictate the database used. Currently the State has database expertise centered around MS SQL.

Q2; Plans for Technology upgrade in the long run.

State’s Response: No change. Offerors will provide their normal upgrade practices/schedule as part of their offer. The State expects a minimum of one upgrade annually.

For the existing SCEIS system, the State is planning for the S4 Hana migration over the next two years with a migration beginning in 2023-2026. This migration has to be completed by 2027. Any technology changes going forward need to be SAP Solman or ChaRM compliant to ensure that transport workflows and other changes can take place across the systems.

Master Data changes will also be a big part of our preparation for S4 Hana. Customer (CN) and Vendor (VN) numbers will be replaced with Business Partner numbers (BPN’s) across all systems and applications. Any integrations or interfaces will need to plan to use the new structure.

Q3: Single Sign On for the state employees. State employee accounts details needs to be shared with the system to enhance single sign on.

State’s Response: No change. The State anticipates that users will have to sign on to the system. However, a separate sign on should not be required for access to the separate workstreams of the system.

Q4: Phased release of the application - Need to know the number of releases we can make before the final roll out.

State’s Response: No change. This will be proposed by the Offeror in the offer and negotiated later in the process.

Q5; Prototype for the application - Do we need to provide the clickable prototype of the application?

State’s Response: No change. The State is requesting a demonstration of the proposed system during Phase II of the evaluation.

Q6: Can we leverage subcontractors from outside US? Or offshore employees of the US company?

State’s Response: No change. While the use of foreign contractors or offshore employees is not specifically prohibited, the contract prohibits the “processing, storing, transmitting, or accessing government information…outside the continental United States, Alaska and Hawaii.” Refer to the “Information Security – Location of Data” clause.

Q7: Do any of the current environment systems use cloud-based technology? If so, what %?

State’s Response: No change. The current SCEIS ECC and SRM applications are on-premise. It is unknown if higher education institutions or political subdivisions ERP systems are cloud based or on-premise.

Q8: Is there currently a CRM as a component of the procurement system(s)?

State’s Response: No change. There is not currently a CRM component.

Q9: Does the company have a preference for a given system solution?

State’s Response: No change. The State does not have a preference for any given solution.

Q10: Is there a M/W/VBE participation requirement?

State’s Response: No change. The State does not have set asides.

Q11: Does the RFP allow for a stand-alone contract for Advisory Partnering/Project Management Role to coordinate between the State and the eProcurement Vendors?

State’s Response: No change. The State’s contract expectations are described in paragraph B.2, Contract Type.

Q12: Contract/Timeline. It was indicated there would be a total ten-year contract, being in place for 7 years and automatically renewing for three years after the seventh year. Additionally, the Pricing Model indicates two years for Implementation. Would you confirm that you anticipate going live in Year 2 and the remaining five years will be for system maintenance and management oversight?

State’s Response: No change. The implementation period is not included in the initial seven-year term of the SaaS contract. The seven-year term does not begin until the State has provided final acceptance of the Solution.

Q13: Would you be open to pricing for the eProcurement System to be hosted by vendor (SaaS/cloud) or deployed on your organization’s server (on-premise)?

State’s Response: No change. The State is seeking a SaaS solution only.

Q14: Data Import. Can you please provide details about the columns/fields are currently tracked in the current/legacy system?

State’s Response: No change. Please refer to Attachment 9 for the response to this question.

Q15: Data Import. How many total electronic Records (rows in excel spreadsheet) and how many total electronic files in current/legacy system?

State’s Response: No change. This information is not available.

Q16: Data Import. How many total legacy (historic) electronic contract files will be imported into the eProcurement System?

State’s Response: No change. The State’s intent is to only import active contract files. However, that does not mean some historic files will need to be transferred, but that number is not known at this time.

Q17: Data Import. Where are the legacy (historic) electronic contract files currently stored (shared folders, Sharepoint, document management system, paper, etc.)

State’s Response: No change. Currently, historical contract files are retained in one or more of the following: The contract record in SCEIS, OnBase and shared folders.

Q18: Data Integration. Can you please expand upon your preferences to integration with third-party systems? Please provide system details (system name, database used, home-grown or commercial) if applicable. Will this be an ongoing data integration or a one-time data import?

State’s Response: No change. The only third-party software the State anticipates integrating with are the ERP systems associated with higher education institutions and political subdivisions. This would be an ongoing process and not a onetime data import. There may also be a onetime data import for historical data.

Q19: Current architecture: Is Business Partner functionality enabled in SCEIS (SAP ECC)?

State’s Response: No change. Yes, and all Vendor and Customer numbers must be replaced with Business Partner prior to our migration to S4 Hana. We are planning for a master data cleanup/change over the next 12-24 months as part of our discovery planning efforts.

Q20: Data Integration. What data will your organization be passing in the data integration between the eProcurement System and other third-party systems?

State’s Response: No change. That will be dependent on which system is selected.

Q21: Data Integration. Are the other systems installed/deployed on your organization’s server(s) or is the vendor hosting the software (cloud/SaaS)?

State’s Response: No change. The State is seeking a SaaS solution only.

Q22: Data Integration. Does the third-party system have one of the following available for integration: SOAP API, REST API?

State’s Response: No change. Currently the interfaces between the WebSphere vendor portal applications and SCEIS are via ‘Web Services’. SRM and ECC are fully integrated and talk directly.

Q23: Document Templates. What agreement types would you like to author within the system (number of templates)?

State’s Response: No change. All agreement types that are authorized by the South Carolina Consolidated Procurement Code. Reference Attachment 3 – Requirements Traceability Matrix.

Q24: Can you please provide additional details about your organization’s workflow/approval processes? Can you please provide number of steps and examples?

State’s Response: No change. The workflow/approval process will vary from agency to agency, and there is no one model that will apply to every user within an agency. The workflow is best described by the functional requirements found in Attachment 3 – Requirements Traceability Matrix.

The SCEIS/SAP workflow process is centrally managed between all SAP systems- ECC, SRM, and others. These approvals and workflows are built-into our SAP solutions and will be fully functional as we move to S4 Hana and other SAP future solutions. The approval and workflow access is provided by our SAP Security Controls/Position Access and GRC (Governance Risk and Compliance) applications to support state-wide separation of duties and other auditable transactions and workflow access approval. This only pertains to State Agencies fully on SCEIS.

Q25: Is your organization eligible to purchase off of the GSA Schedule 70? If yes, would you like GSA pricing in the bid response or retail pricing?

State’s Response: No change. No.

Q26: Is vendor participation in United States E-Verify a requirement for award?

State’s Response: No change. The Offeror will need to determine for itself whether or not it must participate in the E-Verify program based upon the specifics of its proposal.

Q27: Does your organization require a full-time dedicated Project Manager for this implementation? Typically, implementations to not require a full-time dedicated project management resource for the project duration, but rather project management/coordination services hours (remote) are included with the proposal to support the implementation project management. If a full-time dedicated project management resources is a requirement for this project, are these services expected to be provided online or onsite?

State’s Response: No change. The State has not specifically defined that the contractor’s Project Manager must be “a full-time dedicated” person, nor that the Project Manager must be on site all the time during the implementation period. Offerors will describe their recommendation as part of the Implementation Plan in their offer, which will be subject to negotiations later in the solicitation process. In previous projects, we have found great success in having an assigned PM to work with the Central or External Agency PM to ensure appropriate communication paths are recognized.

Q28: Does your organization require digital signature or electronic signature options? Digital signature solutions leverage certificate-based digital identification for validation of document integrity as opposed to the more common electronic signatures. Digital signature requires additional validation services and are priced higher.

State’s Response: No change. Electronic signatures are a critical requirement in the RTM.

The State would be interested in the option for digital signatures.

Q29: If in the event our response is subject to an Open Records Request, will we be notified and given the opportunity to provide a redacted response in accordance with applicable Freedom of Information laws?

State’s Response: No change. A redacted version of the offer, if necessary, should be provided with the offer at the time it is submitted. The State is not required to notify respondents prior to releasing the offer, as submitted, prior to fulfilling a FOIA request. Refer to the “Disclosure of Your Bid/Proposal and Submitting Confidential Data” clause in Attachment L.1 for specific instructions regarding redacted offers. Overly redacted offers may be rejected outright.

Q30: Section: Attachment C – Statement of Objectives, I. Solution Implementation Requirements, 4.) State Project Support. Who is anticipated to the be contractor’s main project contacts to facilitate solution design and configuration decisions? In general, what role will representatives from the State Agencies, Higher Education Institutions, and political subdivisions play in the determining final state integration and configuration design?

State’s Response: No change. The State’s project manager will be housed within the DPS. State agencies, political sub-divisions and higher education institutions will play a role in determining the final state integration and configuration design.

Q31: Section: Attachment C – Statement of Objectives, F. Functional Requirements, 3. Vendor Enablement. Are each of the Higher Ed institution’s separately maintained vendor files expected to integrate with the eProcurement solution and/or be merged with the ECC database?

State’s Response: No change. The State would like the Offerors to propose a solution to integrating multiple vendor databases.

Q32: SC RFP Attachment 3 – Requirements Traceability Matrix - EPROC-IIC-17 through EPROC-IIC-2 - Interfaces, Integration, & Conversion. Is the eProcurement Request tools data interfaces or integration expectation limited to the “state’s financial system” or must considerations be made to interface with each agency/institution’s ERP across each of these integrations? (e.g. Are “g. financial approvals” datasets only derived from one system or many, Do “d. Chart of Accounts validation” occur in one financial system or vary based on user’s agency/institution, etc.).

State’s Response: No change. Considerations must be made to integrate with each users ERP system, and may vary based on the users agency or institution.

Q33: SC RFP Attachment 3 – Requirements Traceability Matrix – EPROC-IIC-49 – Interfaces, Integration, & Conversion, a. In-process Purchase Request and Purchase Order transactions from the state's financial system.

Can a general estimate be provided of the total number of pending purchase requests and purchase order transactions that may require conversion? OR total number of requisitions and purchase orders for a given fiscal year and estimated percentage to still be in process by end of a fiscal year?

State’s Response: No change. PO’s issued in FY21- 150,056 (reduced due to Covid); FY 20- 209,262 Carryforward PO’s- FY19-20- 20,219; and FY20-21- 21,659

Q34: SC RFP Attachment 3 – Requirements Traceability Matrix – EPROC-IIC-51 – Interfaces, Integration, & Conversion – c. Contract data - all active and in-active contracts in the State's current system including attached documents and pricing sheets. Can a general estimate be provided of the total number of active/inactive contracts that require conversion? General estimate on the number of attachments?

State’s Response: No change. This information is not available.

Q35: Solicitation Document, Attachment C, Section D, page 7: State Procurement Sizing and Volumetric Information.

The State references a list of entities including agencies, higher education institutions, and political divisions to be included in the scope. Can the State provide a range estimate for each of the areas below across all participating agencies, institutions, and divisions?

· The number of end users - ECC- 43,259; SRM 3,943 (2311 Shopping Cart Creators, 1280 SC Approvers, 610 Buyers – some users have multiple roles)

· The number of approvers, including managerial and financial - 1,280 (Shopping cart approvers)

· The number of sourcing managers and staff - 610 Buyer Roles perform this function.

· The number of contracting managers and staff - 630 Buyer roles doing this work (This includes 20 Users at SFAA who only do “strategic purchasing” or contracting.

· The number of accounts payable managers and resources - AP Managers/Approvers- 317; AP Clerks- 710

· The number of buyers - 630

· The annual volume of POs and invoices - # of PO’s in FY20- 209,262; FY21 150,056

· The annual volume of contracts, including amendments created - FY20- 7,216; FY21- 4234

· The annual volume of sourcing events - unknown

· How many solicitations does the agency run per year - FY20- 4,875; FY21- 2,783

· How many active contracts does the agency have – there are a total of 7392 active contracts in SCEIS: total active STCs – 1645; total active agency contracts awarded by DPS – 2050; total active contracts awarded by State agencies (not DPS) - 3697

State’s Response: No change. The State responses are provided above are only for State agencies using SCEIS. Ranges for higher education institutions and political subdivisions are not available.

Q36: Solicitation Document, Attachment C, Section D, page 9: Contracting Functionality. Will migration of all active State term contracts be included in the scope of this implementation?

State’s Response: No change. Yes.

Q37: If a platform offers full functionality in all areas except hosted catalogs and transmitting orders to suppliers, would it still be considered?

State’s Response: No change. The platform will be considered, but the Offeror needs to provide what options are available for catalog management.

Q38: Solicitation Document, Section F.1, page 9: Period of Performance. What is the State’s desired timeline for the implementation of the Solution and the date by which the State desires the Solution be implemented (i.e. “goes live”)?

State’s Response: No change. The State expects final implementation to be complete 18-24 months.

Q39: Ref Pg -73 of Solicitation .pdf – “During the course of the contract, if a using governmental unit makes a change to their back-end ERP system, the Contractor must provide all support necessary to enact the change and develop any required interfaces/integrations to the new ERP system.” Is it safe to assume that this will be on additional cost (hourly rate card basis) & should be treated as independent project without impacting the State's Procurement project?

State’s Response: No change. This work will be completed as a negotiated task order based on the Hourly Rates that are part of the contract.

Q40: State provided number for non-state entities like school systems, universities, cities that are in scope. Could you explain what portion of Source to Payment functionalities non state entities will you using on this new procurement platform? For example, Bid authoring, Bid approval process, Public Bid board & bid publication, response collection, etc.

State’s Response: No change. This information is unknown.

Q41: Thanks for providing list of colleges and their respective procurement systems. Do colleges use SAP ECC for any the functionalities like budget management or issuing payments to their suppliers?

State’s Response: No change. No colleges us SAP ECC for anything.

Q42: The existing self-funding model that is in place (0.75 to 2%). Can you provide details on how well existing self-funding model is managed currently? Does state of SC have business processes, technology, billing mechanism, revenue collection mechanism and reporting mechanism to support existing self-funding model? Also, please provide some metrics – how many contracts, how much revenue collected, etc?

State’s Response: No change. Currently our existing self-funded model is managed by our business operations personnel. It is not an automated system and we rely on the contractors to report their sales on their contracts.

The reports are in excel format, received quarterly, and recorded in a database. Once reports for all contracts for that vendor are received, an invoice is issued. It’s not in our current SAP system. The payments are received and applied against that vendor contract & reporting period and recorded in the database against the sales recorded.

Q43: Is self-funding model for all state executed contracts irrespective of the agencies or are there specific contract types with specific contract clause from certain agencies applicable for collecting funds?

State’s Response: No change. Currently, the self-funding model is only applicable to STCs.

Q44: State is currently using SAP SRM. And per SAP, in 2025 SAP SRM support will expire. Is the intent to use this new procurement solution to replace SAP SRM? If yes, are you looking for this project to sunset SAP SRM or SAP SRM sunsetting is something that will happen in the future?

State’s Response: No change. SRM will remain to support the functions/workstreams not supported by the Solution, and to provide integration with ECC. Some examples of SRM functions would include, but are not limited to, the Work Order system for state-wide Real-Estate and Plant Maintenance functionality, asset approval workflows and purchases, and Inventory Management system. The solutions are fully integrated between SRM and ECC and are being planned accordingly for our S4 Migration.

Q45: With the implementation of this new procurement solution, do you expect to sunset home-grown IBM Websphere platform currently in use for vendor registration? This way, new procurement solution becomes a platform for vendor registration. If that is not in the plan, is it safe to assume that IBM Websphere platform must be integrated with the new procurement solution?

State’s Response: No change. The State wants the vendor registration to be controlled through the vendor registration function of the Solution.

Q46: Can State recommend selection criteria for Pilot rollout agencies and Big bang rollout agencies?

Q47: Main PDF RFP, Page 11 F.3.1 and Attachment C, Page 29,1. Does the State have an opinion on how many agencies/users should be in the pilot group?

State’s Response (to Q46 &Q47): No change. The State would like the Offerors to propose the best method for rollout. With the SCEIS/SAP functionality being fully integrated across SRM and ECC all state agency rollouts would need to be simultaneous due to this integration. The SCEIS Change Management process will help with this rollout process. This is not the case for system our integration with non-state agencies or Higher-Eds into a differing system. This also may not be the case for solutions outside of our SRM or ECC applications, like the Vendor Registration Process.

Q48: Ref. Solicitation .pdf page 21 8.1.C- Vendor Experience: Is it a mandatory requirement to submit state references? If not, can we submit other public sector, government and/ or commercial reference to meet this requirement?

Q49: Can Vendors use large County and Higher Education as alternatives for vendor experience for eProcurement projects of similar size and scope?

State’s Response (to Q48 & Q49): No change. It is not a mandatory to submit state level references. Offerors may submit their references for projects of similar size and scope from other public sector or private entities.

Q50: Given the implementation is meant to be center led, does the opportunity exist for higher ed and subdivisions to use the state’s new eProcurement system directly (rather than interface to it)?

State’s Response: No change. Yes, non-state entities may choose to use the Solution directly.

Q51: Are the current state term contracts primarily header and/or product category level contracts?

State’s Response: No change. The State has a combination of product category and line item contracts.

Q52: Will the state have item level detail available for the existing contracts provided in the RFP?

State’s Response: No change. Yes, for those that are line items contracts. The contacted vendors will have to provide the data for product category contracts.

Q53: Main PDF RFP, Page 24, L.6. What does “Minimum labor description” mean?

State’s Response: No change. That means the Offeror must provide the position descriptions, and what skills and abilities are required to fill of all them, as part of their offer.

Q54: Attachment C: Page 1, Section 2.B, and Page 19 Section 6. Could the State please define what is meant by "Public Access"?

State’s Response: No change. Public access refers to State’s Response to a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act.

Q55: Attachment C: Page 4, Section ii, 9. Could the State please provide more detail on what "edit checks" are required?

State’s Response: No change. The expectation is to validate information against master data where appropriate.

Q56: Attachment C: Page 6, Section 4.C iii. Could the State confirm they want to validate the legal entity name and should Federal ID validation be included?

State’s Response: No change. Yes, to both questions.

Q57: Attachment C, Page 10: E. Does the solution require configuration of STC's in a manner that allows them to be shared with the political subdivisions? Can the State share how this process works today?

State’s Response: No change. Yes, through the Catalog Capability workstream. The State does not currently have the capability to permit political subdivisions or higher education institutions electronic access to STCs. Political subdivisions and higher eds use static webpages which contain information on STC. Below are links to the referenced websites.

Goods & Services Related STCs: https://procurement.sc.gov/agency/contracts/goods-and-services

IT Related STCs: https://procurement.sc.gov/agency/contracts/information-technology

Q58: Attachment C, Page 14, Section F, Item 1) Request Through Pay Workstream, Paragraph 2. The contract examples listed are Professional Services, Contingent Labor, Healthcare Services. Can you please indicate if these categories are in scope for the initial deployment?

State’s Response: No changes. Yes.

Q59: Attachment C, Page 16, Section 3. Could the State provide more details on what the capabilities required for capturing performance complaints/issues are? Does the State have an existing Help Desk capability where users can submit complaints/issues that could be leveraged?

State’s Response: No change. The Solution must provide a means for authorized users to post comments to a vendor file as a means of tracking performance. Those comments will not be available to the vendor and are for internal use only. The State does not have an existing capability to track vendor performance issues or complaints.

Q60: Attachment C, Page 19, Section F, Item 6) Purchasing/Data Analysis, Paragraph 2. Please further define the Solution data you wish to make public and the acceptable formats for this data.

State’s Response: No change. Currently we respond to FOIA requests on a case by case basis. Many of these requests are for similar information, so the State would like to explore opportunities to create a dashboard, or other method, for public access without having to individually respond to a FOIA request.

Q61: Attachment C, Page 20, 3. Is this a requirement to support web browsers in use at the time of contract execution, or is it a future looking requirement? Is 10% of the “Web Traffic” just traffic to this solution, or on the web as a whole? What if the State implements an “unusual” browser in 5 years’ time, who bears the cost of updating the solution to support that?

State’s Response: No change. The requirement to support web browsers applies both to the time of execution and an ongoing requirement. The Contractor will monitor web browser usage across the internet and the Solution must support all browsers that account for at least 10% of overall web traffic. The State has no intention of implementing any unusual web browser now or in the future.

Q62: Attachment C, Page 24 “Disaster Recovery.” Could the State provide additional clarity on the validation reports required to be provided annually? Is this for the core Software as a Service only, or is this a customized DR test of the State’s solution to be run by the vendor?

State’s Response: No change. The Offeror shall submit validation reports that, at a minimum, represent the components of the Solution required to recover and continues services as defined in the solicitation.

Q63: Attachment C, Page 25, 5. Can the State provide high-level information on the skillset of the “up to 5 Key Technical Resources: State end-users” and the “up to 10 Helpdesk/Admin State end users?”

State’s Response: No change. These personnel have not been identified at this time.

Q64: Attachment C, Page 27, 7. Could the State clarify the expectations on Help Desk Support? Is the State planning on providing Help Desk Support (Trained by us as identified on Page 26/5), or does the State desire us to provide Help Desk support?

State’s Response: No change. The State is willing to consider different support scenarios as provided in Attachment C for evaluation.

Q65: Attachment C, Page 27, 7 and Attachment E. Can the State please confirm that the expectation is that the vendor provides Application Management Services (AMS) above and beyond the support of the core out of the box solution to the level of meeting the defined SLA’s? For example, if a required service pack is released to the core solution and a level of release testing is required for the State to accept that Service Pack into its solution, should we be including in our proposal a Firm Fixed Cost to complete that testing, or would that testing be done changing an incremental price as calculated from the Rate card?

State’s Response: No change. The State wants the release testing included in the firm fixed price.

Q66: Attachment C, Page 38. May an innovation/value add service be described without defining the cost of implementation of that functionality?

State’s Response: No change. No. It is acceptable to describe the innovations/value adds in the proposal. However, the State will negotiate pricing for any value-added services included in the final contract prior to the award.

Q67: Attachment C, Section J Page 39. Must the support for a change to back-end ERP system by a governmental unit be included in the Fixed Fee implementation or post-implementation monthly charge, or will it be changed as a Change Order (Task Order) from the rate-card?

State’s Response: No change. The charges will be applied based on the rates in the Hourly Rate card.

Q68: Attachment 3: Worksheet “Instructions” Table 2 for Column G. Does the implementation effort estimate include PMO and OCM/Training Effort?

State’s Response: No change. Yes, the price proposal should include all aspects for the implementation effort.

Q69: Attachment 3: Worksheet “Instructions”, Table 2 for Column G. Can the State confirm that it understands that the Level of Complexity Estimates provided in Column G will be “Good Faith” as there can be overlap in implementation effort between different functionality/capability items and it can be hard to define how to allocate that effort?

State’s Response: No change. The State understands that Offerors are providing their best estimates based on their experience and the information provided by the State. However, Offerors will not intentionally misrepresent any portion of their offer in such a way as to make the offer more appealing than the offered solution has the capability to perform.

Q70: Attachment 3: Worksheet “Instructions”, Row 12 and Cost Proposal, Worksheet Instructions, Row 8. Attachment M is referred to but does not exist. Can we assume this refers to Section M on Page 28 of the Request for Proposals document?

State’s Response: No change. That is correct.

Q71: Attachment 4: Worksheet “Cost Proposal.” For the avoidance of doubt, can the State confirm that Table B should contain costs for Mandatory and Preferred items, but NOT for optional items?

State’s Response: No change. The price proposal shall include all functionality provided by the system included in the RTM. This includes the SC Critical, SC Preferred and SC Optional requirements.

Q72: Attachment 4: Worksheet “Cost Proposal.” Is there a section in our response where we may briefly summarize optional support services that are available to the State, but not a required part of our proposal?

State’s Response: No change. There is space in the worksheet for vendors to add lines to the cost proposal. If more narrative space is required submit an addendum or attachment to the price proposal.

Q73: Attachment 4: Worksheet “Cost Proposal.” For the avoidance of doubt, please confirm that implementation pricing is not required for optional requirements in any area of this worksheet?

State’s Response: No change. Implementation Costs are to be provided in Section B of the “1. Cost Proposal” tab of Attachment 4. If the offer includes functions listed on the “SC Optional” tab of Attachment 3, then those prices and implementation costs must be included in the price proposal.

Q74: Attachment 4: Worksheet “Hourly Rate Card.” How should we handle a scenario where we have different levels of a role? For example, we might have projects managers classified as “Expert” “Senior” and “Junior” with different rates. Should we fill in those resources starting on Line 47 (so in this example 47,48 and 49) and leave Line 17 blank, or should we assign one of the levels to Line 17 and create only two extra lines (47 and 28)?

State’s Response: No change. Yes, the spreadsheet is not locked, and you may add additional lines beginning at line 47.

Q75: Attachment 4: Worksheet “Hourly Rate Card.” Can the State confirm that these rates ONLY apply for work on the e-procurement solution, and not for work on other solutions (skillsets and therefore rates can be different for different solutions)?

State’s Response: No change. All pricing associated with this solicitation is restricted to the awarded contract(s) only.

Q76: Attachment 4: Worksheet “Hourly Rate Card.” Can the State confirm that there is no penalty if we do not have availability of a particular resource at a particular time, or put in another way, these rates apply if a resource is contracted to do work, but neither the state or the vendor guarantee any minimum or maximum amount of the services provided?

State’s Response: No change. The Contractor must have the ability to provide the contracted resource at any time during the contract term when requested by the State. The State does not guarantee a minimum/maximum amount of work for the services represented by the hourly rate card, and the State will not pay an hourly rate beyond what is negotiated in the final contract.

Q77: Attachment 4: Worksheet “Cost Proposal.” The instructions for Table E in Row 11 and Row 90 appear to conflict. One says costs should be provided only for optional requirements and one says costs should be provided for both preferred and optional. Can the State clarify what is expected in Table E?

State’s Response: The instructions in Attachment 4 have been updated to provide clarification.

Q78: Attachment C; Is this to be included in the solution and pricing for Phase I: “The Solution must also provide the capability to support the procurement of services from pre- established services contracts (e.g. Professional Services, Contingent Labor, Healthcare Services) that may include characteristics such as deliverable-based fee services...”

State’s Response: No change. Yes. Pricing must be included for all functions of the proposed solution.

Q79: Attachment L.1, Page 12. Is there a process defined for switching a subcontractor or for bringing the work in-house between RFP submittal and contract kick-off or post contract kick-off? We believe it is advantageous to the State to give us the flexibility to use the sub-contractor(s) with the best available resources at the time they are needed versus “locking-in” a choice up front?

State’s Response: No change. The instructions in the solicitation specifically require that the State is given the right to evaluate the personnel the Offeror proposes to use during the term of the contract, with the right of refusal. It also gives the State the right the review and approve any replacements for personnel who received prior approval of the State to work on the project. Any changes to the Contractors personnel will be addressed in accordance with those instructions. See the following clauses: Eligibility for Award, Qualifications, and Section F.6.

Q80: Regarding OCM methodology / best practices, is there a particular OCM methodology/approach (for example, ADKAR) the State advocates, and would like to see vendor partners abide by?

State’s Response: No change. The State has no preference and asks the Offerors to propose the best model for your system.

Q81: Does the State have any OCM tools/templates that you would want a vendor partner to leverage?

State’s Response: No change. The State has no preference and asks the Offerors to propose the best model for your system.

Q82: What level of communication (if any) has been done so far regarding this project to:

State’s Response: No change. Communications have been ongoing between Department of Administration, Division of Procurement Services, and other representative stakeholders from state agencies, political subdivisions, and higher education institutions. All are taking an active role in this process.

Q83: Does the State currently use Super Users to support large-scale changes?

State’s Response: No changes. Yes, they have been used to support in previous projects by other agencies.

Q84: Do you envision Super Users acting as classroom trainers/coaches after participating in Train the Trainer workshops that a vendor partner would facilitate?

State’s Response: No change. Super Users may be used as Trainers but there will be other State users who will be conducting training.

Q85: Do you envision Super Users maintaining training and documentation content post-go live, as revisions are needed over time?

State’s Response: No change. The State may have Super Users participate in maintaining training and documentation but there will be other State resources with this responsibility.

Q86: Do you have defined responsibilities between Super Users and Central Supporting agency regarding the solution?

State’s Response: No change. For State agencies, the SCEIS Team is planning to strengthen their Super User and Central Agency communications and organization as part of the S4 Hana Migration. This migration will have an impact across all state agencies and business units. Some of this has begun during the discovery phase of the project and we will see this increase tremendously over the next 12-18 months. This will be required so we can work with each agency during the training and testing phases- prior to migration.

The SCEIS team and user support focus is around our SAP applications and systems. Any outside Non-SAP solution would need to be planned for accordingly from a support perspective.

Q87: Are you familiar with Change Agent networks and do you see them playing a role on this project given the culture and corporate values?

State’s Response: No change. The State expects the Solution to be implemented in accordance with the best practices of change management.

Q88: Does the State see innovation playing a role in the OCM strategy and plan, or does the state prefer more standard approaches?

State’s Response: No change. The State expects that each Offeror will recommend their most effective OCM strategy as part of their offer. The State is open to any and all effective strategies.

Q89: How does the State require end user training? (i.e. classroom training, online/eLearning, etc.…)?

State’s Response: No change. The State expects the Offerors to propose the best approach and method of training for various users of the Solution.

Q90: We see there is a $100M spend reference in the RFP, is this the annual amount of spend that would be anticipated for the first year?

State’s Response: No change. The $100 million spend reference in Attachment 6 is only the amount spent by political subdivisions against State Term Contracts for calendar year 2018. Spend data for State agencies through SCEIS is in Attachment 7. There is no spend data available outside of state term contracts for higher education institutions and political subdivisions.

Q91: Should the Letter of Interest be included in the Technical Proposal or submitted to the State via email as a separate response?

State’s Response: No changes. Refer to paragraph L.4, “Proposal Preparation.”

Q92: Should the Service Provider Security Assessment Questionnaire be included in the Technical Proposal as an appendix or submitted to the State via as a separate attachment?

State’s Response: No change. Refer to paragraph L.10 “Service Provider Security Assessment Questionnaire.” The completed questionnaire is a separate attachment in the online submission.

Q93: Section: Contents of Proposal (RFP) (MODIFIED) Page: 112. The RFP states, "(c)The contents of your proposal must be divided into two parts, the technical proposal and the business proposal." Should "business proposal" be interpreted as "Cost" or "Price" proposal?

State’s Response: No changes. Refer to paragraph L.4, “Proposal Preparation, #3. Proposed Cost – using the Cost Proposal Workbook.”

Q94: Section: h. Functional Requirements Traceability Matrix Page: 26. Should the Requirements Traceability Matrix be submitted as a separate response in its native Excel format?

State’s Response: No change. Refer to paragraph L.8.h.

Q95: What areas of Attachment C should be included in the Technical response other than the one mentioned within Project Staffing (Section L.8.1.e)? For example, would the various Inline Narrative sections apply? and how and where does the State anticipate responses to these?

State’s Response: No changes. The State’s expectation is that each Offeror will use the entirety of the requirements of Attachment C to prepare their offer, and provide the information requested in the inline narratives as part of the offer.

Q96: Does the State have a preference for the single or dual prime response?

State’s Response: No changes. The State does not have a preference.

Q97: EPROC-PRD-27. Can the State elaborate on the process of trading in equipment as part of the purchase request? How often does this take place?

State’s Response: No changes. The Solution must have the functionality to account for the trade-in value as a discount to the price, without making the PO a negative dollar amount. The State does not have information on the frequency that trade-ins occur.

Q98: EPROC-PC-1. Does the state have an existing p-card program? Can the state describe the current end to end p-card process, including reconciliation.

State’s Response: No changes. This functionality is built into the Pcard program and reconciliations are performed at the using entity level, following procedures established by the using entity.

Q99: What is the expected size of the State OCM and Training supporting teams?

State’s Response: No changes. The State’s expectation is that the offer will include the recommended structure and size of the training support team.

Q100: Does the State have an existing LMS that can be leveraged for training? If yes, could you provide information on the system and the functionality available to support training activities?

State’s Response: No changes. SCEIS is currently using SuccessFactors. It may be an option to use this platform, but we are looking for Offerors to provide a recommendation for the platform that best fits their proposal.

Q101: Does the State Training team leverage an existing training development tool (e.g. Articulate 360)? Similar to other states, would the offeror be provided licenses to that tool for training development to support a streamlined development that aligns with the State training?

State’s Response: No changes. The State is not aware of an existing training development tool.

Q102: Page 39 of ePro solicitation, attachment C vi. What system (s) are used today by the State to track spend limits? Also, how are agencies notified? (e.g. ERP system tracks annual spend by agency and supplier. If an agency has exceeded their limit, the requisition is halted.)

State’s Response: No changes. For state agencies, SCEIS performs a budget check on all shopping carts prior to approval and encumbers funds when a PO is created. Users are given a system generated error message when budget is exceeded.

Q103: What requisition data/fields are anticipated to be shared between the procurement solution and SCEIS, and is the intention of this integration for pre-encumbrance purposes?

State’s Response: No changes. It is the State’s expectation that the Offeror will propose which fields need to be shared.

Q104: SC Procurement Code Section 11-35-1210: Per the statute, how is the authority amount ($50K and / or $150K) calculated - Is it based on cumulative totals or per transaction by supplier and individual government body?

State’s Response: No changes. The authority is based on a per procurement basis.

Q105: EPROC-SPR-10: Ability to create, upload or submit invoices including the ability to provide at a minimum the following elements: an itemized listing showing delivery of the supplies or performance of the service described in the order and the date of the purchase or rendering of the service or an itemization of the things done, material supplied, or labor furnished and the sum due pursuant to the contract or obligation.

Does the State intend to conduct invoice approvals, matching, and credit notes in the procurement solution or in SCEIS?

State’s Response: No changes. The State’s expectation is that the Offeror will recommend the best practices in accordance with their solution. The State has no preference.