B-53435 DOIT SSJF Part I.pdf

Sole Source Justification Form

Version 7.01 Page 1 of 8

Bulletin Reference Number 26-448DOIT-ADMIN-B-53435

Requesting Agency/University Illinois Department of Natural Resources

Sole Source Justification Form - Part I Section I - General Information

Department/Bureau/Section: IDNR/Office of Realty and Capital Planning/Impact Assessment Section

Need Identified Date: Apr 17, 2026 Supply/Service Need By Date: Aug 1, 2026

Project Title: Development of New Environmental Review Tool for EcoCAT (Ecological Compliance Assessment Tool)

Vendor: NatureServe

Provide a description of the supplies or services required:

Department of Natural Resources needs an environmental review tool (ERT) with access to the Biotics Database in order to have real time data in order to stay in compliance with the Illinois Endangered Species Protection Act [520 ILCS 10/11(b)] and Illinois Natural Areas Preservation Act [525 ILCS 30/17] as set forth in procedures under Title 17 Ill. Admin. Code Part 1075, as well as the Interagency Wetland Policy Act of 1989 [20 ILCS 830] as set forth in procedures under Title 17 Ill. Admin. Code Part 1090 when state agencies provide funding, including federal pass-through funding or technical assistance.

Value: Estimated Value of Initial Term, this Change Order or Amendment: 460,450

Will this Sole Source amend a Professional or Artistic Services contract? Yes No

*Sole Source may not be used for amendments for Professional or Artistic Services if the amendment would increase the value by more than 5% of the initial award or extend the term by more than 60 days.

Type: New Sole Economically Feasible Source

Version 7.01 Page 2 of 8

Bulletin Reference Number 26-448DOIT-ADMIN-B-53435

Requesting Agency/University Illinois Department of Natural Resources

Section II - Proposed Term

One-Time Purchase Term Contract

Estimated Contract Begin Date: Aug 1, 2026

Estimated Contract End Date: Jul 31, 2029

Number of Potential Renewals: 0

Length of Each Renewal in Months: 0

Total Value of All Renewals: 0

If a Term Contract, does the term, including renewals, exceed 12 months? Yes No

If yes, provide a detailed justification including any economic benefit received for agreeing to a multi-year term:

The Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) is requesting a 3-year term for several reasons, specific to this engagement:

*Implementation and configuration: These initial steps are estimated to take roughly 12 months from the time of contract execution.

After that time the annual Maintenance and Operations fees will begin and production will commence within the system. Based on the implementation time IDNR wishes to have a contract vehicle that will allow for use beyond the standard one year term.

*Technological continuity and essential system capabilities: A longer contract term will allow IDNR to secure ongoing licensing, reduce potential operational disruptions associated with frequent renewals, and more fully leverage the system’s advanced features. In particular, extended stability will enable the agency to centralize existing databases, incorporate new data from other states and external databases, and expand the usability and strategic value of this information in support of not only departmental goals, but information sharing goals of various surrounding states.

*Ongoing compliance: The Department is charged with maintaining compliance with the llinois Endangered Species Protection Act [520 ILCS 10/11(b)] and Illinois Natural Areas Preservation Act [525 ILCS 30/17] as well as the Interagency Wetland Policy Act of 1989 [20 ILCS 830]. The Solution created by this sole source procurement will be the means by which this, and other functions related to IDNR's mission, is accomplished. A longer term contract mitigates the potential risks associated with doing multiple shorter term agreements.

*Market Conditions: IDNR has been conducting research, primarily with other states, to evaluate potential options to meet this need for approximately 3 years. The only two options that were and are currently being used are: (1) this ERT product from NatureServe or (2) a custom, state-built and hosted solution. The apparent stagnation in this market indicates that it's unlikely that a new Solution that is capable of meeting the same needs will be developed within the 3-year term of this request.

Section III - Funding Source Select the type of funding to be used (Check all that apply): State Appropriate Funds Federal Funds Other (Explain):

Section IV - Sole Source Justification

This purchase is economically only available from a single source primarily because it is: (If "Other" explain in one sentence)

Items are Copyrighted or Patented and the Items are Only Available from the Holder

Are there secondary justification(s) for this sole source? Yes No

Another justification that this purchase is only available from a sole source is because it is:

Compatibility of Equipment, Accessories, Replacement Parts or Service

Another justification that this purchase is only available from a sole source is because it is:

Section V - Purchase History

Has the Agency or University Purchased these supplies or services in the past? Yes No

Version 7.01 Page 3 of 8

Bulletin Reference Number 26-448DOIT-ADMIN-B-53435

Requesting Agency/University Illinois Department of Natural Resources

Section VI - Business Rationale

1. Provide a detailed explanation of the need for the supplies or services:

The Impact Assessment Section in the Office of Realty and Capital Planning at IDNR requires implementation, configuration, integration, licensing, maintenance, and the operation of a new environmental review tool for EcoCAT. It is necessary to replace both the publicly available EcoCAT tool and the internal project tracking system, known as Tracker. The contract will include application requirements and design, system architecture and data design, application configuration and deployment as a software as a service platform (SaaS), including training and technical transfer.

The Illinois Department of Natural Resource’s EcoCAT environmental review tool (ERT) is used for project entry, screening, and tracking of projects submitted for resource review. It was first implemented in 2006 as a way for state, federal, and local government agencies to more efficiently consult with the Department on potential impacts to state protected natural resources pursuant to applicable regulations. The EcoCAT tool helps us stay in compliance with the Illinois Endangered Species Protection Act [520 ILCS 10/11(b)] and Illinois Natural Areas Preservation Act [525 ILCS 30/17] as set forth in procedures under Title 17 Ill. Admin. Code Part 1075, as well as the Interagency Wetland Policy Act of 1989 [20 ILCS 830] as set forth in procedures under Title 17 Ill. Admin. Code Part 1090 when state agencies provide funding, including federal pass-through funding or technical assistance. The system also helps staff efficiently organize project files, assign tasks, and quickly respond to inquiries to better meet project deadlines. This business need is currently being met with the existing applications which are out-dated and in great need of modernization. The applications are nearly 20 years old. Small fixes and updates over the years have kept the system going, however, EcoCAT is due for a more significant upgrade to meet modern technology standards and allow for easier maintenance and compatibility with newer software in the future.

In 2023, the EcoCAT system received just under 15,000 submissions for natural resource information and review related to projects throughout the state, with staff averaging approximately 41 project reviews each day utilizing the system. EcoCAT also provides instant results for information requests and consultation "clearance" for projects when no natural resources of concern are indicated to be in the vicinity of project locations. The current system is not only a risk from a security standpoint but also has the potential of projects being cleared inaccurately because it does not have real time data and uses out-dated data from a third party.

The current system is very outdated, nearing the 20 year mark, and only minor modifications have been made throughout the years.

There are many system bugs and performance issues. All aspects of the current system, including data collection, project review, and project management require updates and optimization so that the agency may continue to perform its many critical functions associated with the implementation and ongoing usage of the system.

Version 7.01 Page 4 of 8

Bulletin Reference Number 26-448DOIT-ADMIN-B-53435

Requesting Agency/University Illinois Department of Natural Resources

2. Provide a list and describe in detail the specifications required to satisfy the need:

IDNR requires an Environmental Review Tool that:

*Is an off-the-shelf Software as a Service (SaaS) solution that can interface with the Biotics real-time Database with little to no customization required.

*Queries the protected resource information from both the Natural Heritage Database and Biotic Database and updates automatically, in real time.

*Maintains an historical aggregation of projects through the Biotic Database for use by both Illinois and surrounding states, including interstate data entry and review.

*Performs the internal administrative functions that are necessary for optimized agency operations and compliance: project tracking and management modules, assigning projects to internal reviewers, auto generating reports and letters to send to applicants, workflow assignments for different types of project reviews, recording fee payment information, recording and tracking protected resource information, generating reports and metrics about project reviews, using dashboards for applicants to log in and track the status of their reviews and upload additional project information.

*Performs the external, public-facing functions that are necessary for IDNR to receive and process the high volume of submissions for natural resource information and provides instant, real-time data that satisfies IDNR's statutorily-mandated consultation requirements.

* Is capable of real time location tracking and reporting: System must intake geospatial attributes of a project location so it can be determined if there are protected resources around the project location. This needs to be completed in real time to ensure that out-dated data does not cause a breach of the division's goals.

*Allow applicants to indicate the geospatial attributes of the project location by the following means: Public Land Survey System (PLSS), Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM), drawing points, lines, and/or polygons on an interactive map, and ability to upload shape-files and/or other geospatial data (i.e. KMZ, GPS, etc.).

3. Provide detail explaining the justification selected in Section IV to explain why the requested supplies or services are the only ones available that can satisfy the agency or university requirements?

An off-the-shelf SaaS solution with little to no customization is required because the Agency has already attempted to procure a custom-built solution. And, through that effort, it was determined that this was not technically or financially feasible. This solution must be capable of pulling data from both the Natural Heritage Database and Biotic Database, because these are the two existing systems with which the State has to work to perform this portion of its mission. A system that queries from both places will significantly reduce both the administrative burden and risk of errors associated with the current band-aid system. Additionally, the platform will need to be accessible by IDNR employees, constituents, and representatives from other states in order to perform the full lifecycle of requirements;

subsequently, the system must have the capability to assign various user roles with permissions that align with intended use of the system. Real-time updating and sharing of information is a critical requirement that is not currently being met. This has led to costly errors in data entry/transfer, inappropriate approvals that were based on bad, incorrect, incomplete, or old data and creates a significant compliance risk.

4. What are the unique features of the supplies or services that are not available in any other product or by any other vendor? Provide specific quantifiable factors/qualifications:

NatureServe is uniquely qualified to provide development, hosting, and maintenance for an environmental review tool that meets all of the above requirements and is able to do so without significant customizations or additional fees. Most notably, the underlying data systems contained within the platform are based on a standardized core application that is used throughout the United States. This degree of software compatibility across state programs, which is not available from any other source nor would it be available to us via a custom build solution, allows seamless data sharing across state lines for a cohesive national data set. Real-time integration with, and access to, the data maintained in Biotics is a core requirement of any environmental review tool that could potentially meet the state's needs; currently, NatureServe is the only vendor offering such an environmental review tool.

5. Has the Agency or University considered alternative supplies or services to satisfy their need? Yes No

Version 7.01 Page 5 of 8

Bulletin Reference Number 26-448DOIT-ADMIN-B-53435

Requesting Agency/University Illinois Department of Natural Resources

5a. If yes, name the alternative vendors whose supplies or services were evaluated:

The alternate vendor whose services were directly evaluated was ESRI, a geographic information systems company. The agency also looked at Biodiversity Information Serving Our Nation (BISON), iMAPlnvasives and EnviroSuite.

5b. If yes, what were the alternatives for each vendor and why were they unacceptable? Be specific with regard to features, characteristics, requirements, capabilities and compatibility:

*ESRI was engaged in 2020 at a total cost of almost $300,000. The project was terminated when it was only 25% complete when it became apparent that they would be unable to create a successful interface with the Biotics Database in order to supply real time data to the system.

*BISON is a database maintained on a government website but does not have an accompanying ERT tool that may be used. Without the ERT tool this is not an option for the agency.

*iMAPlnvasives database only tracks invasive species.

*Envirosuite is a cloud-based platform that specializes in environmental intelligence. It provides real-time monitoring and predictive modeling for air quality, water, noise, and other environmental parameters. This system however does not track endangered and threatened species which is one of the programs main goals.

5c. Explain how the market evaluation was conducted?

*This evaluation is to determine available options within a market. If the evaluation is to determine quality or best suited option, this is not the appropriate source selection. Under no circumstances shall the evaluation consist of testing alternative options. These activities must be conducted in a competitive transparent environment (i.e. IFB or RFP).

Subject matter experts in the Impact Assessment section held detailed meetings with reciprocating state agencies and received detailed information about the development and maintenance of their ERT's with NatureServe. Specifically, discussions were held with staff in Natural Heritage programs in New Mexico, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania and received information via email from Missouri.

Questions included how long it took to develop their tool, cost of development, details about ongoing yearly maintenance, and what other alternatives, if any, they may have evaluated as part of procuring an ERT.

As a result of these conversations it was determined that the major competitors for this solution (referenced above) were all missing factors that are extremely important to the state program and would require (where possible) extensive customization, at substantial cost, to make them meet the agencies needs. In some instances the customization was not possible and data transfer and tracking would have to occur in multiple solutions. The need for significant configuration and customization, and/or multiple solutions to meet the state's needs, would have a large financial impact on the program.

6. Are there resellers or distributors?

Yes No N/A

Version 7.01 Page 6 of 8

Bulletin Reference Number 26-448DOIT-ADMIN-B-53435

Requesting Agency/University Illinois Department of Natural Resources

7. What efforts were made to get the best possible price (i.e. did the agency/university negotiate) and how did you determine the price for this purchase is considered fair and reasonable?

* ESRI was engaged in 2020 at a total cost of almost $300,000. The project was terminated when it was only 25% complete when it became apparent that they would be unable to create a successful interface with the Biotics Database in order to supply real time data to the system. We can extrapolate that out to estimate that, had they been able to deliver a solution, it would have cost the State approximately $750,000 - $1,000,000.

*Technical subject matter experts evaluated the need and determined that a workable custom-built solution is estimated to cost the State approximately $1.5 - $2 Million dollars initially; that is in addition to the cost of the resources that would need to be devoted, in perpetuity, to maintaining, operating, and updating the system.

*The configuration of a SaaS COTS solution would require an additional outlay of $250,00 - $500,000, on top of the same costs associated with procuring NatureServe (implementation, maintenance, operation, licensing, training, etc). This would make that option nearly double the cost of procuring NatureServe and is very likely to result in an inferior solution.

*IDNR, in conducting its research with other States, inquired about the cost of any products and services that would also be necessary for our project. Using those figures, the Agency was able to determine that the pricing terms offered by NatureServe are competitive and that the 5% annual increase in hosting aligns with standard industry practices for hosting services.

8. Will this purchase obligate the State to this vendor for future purchases such as maintenance, licensing or continuing need?

Yes No

8a. If yes, please provide details regarding future obligations and/or needs:

There will be annual costs for hosting, maintenance and data updates for the ERT. This may include cloud servers and Amazon web servers as well as licenses for GIS software, database software, and server software. Maintenance costs will also includes access to the programmers at NatureServe for ongoing modifications or additions to the ERT. The cost for year 1 hosting (starting 30 days after production release) will be $45,000 and be subject to a maximum 5% annual increase.

- Deploy and configure with custom functionality: $368,200

- Year 1 hosting: $45,000

- Year 2 hosting: $47,250

- Total estimated value: $460,450

9. What will be the financial or other impact to the State if this sole source is not approved and a competitive bid is required?

The financial impact to the State could be very significant if the sole source is not approved. IDNR has already spent a significant amount of time and money in an effort to upgrade the EcoCAT system; these are considered sunk costs, since they did not produce an even partially workable solution. Continuing down the custom-build path is risky because such a solution still may not fully meet the department's needs, resulting in additional expenses. Additionally, this would be a costly delay in terms of the agency's performance of its critical mission functions. The outdated system can no longer support such a large volume and the increasingly-complex technical needs; until it's replaced with a solution that meets all of the agency's requirements, the agency is taking on unnecessary compliance and operational risks that could be very costly to the State and its taxpayers.

10. Is there any additional information you would like to add to justify this sole source?

Version 7.01 Page 7 of 8

Bulletin Reference Number 26-448DOIT-ADMIN-B-53435

Requesting Agency/University Illinois Department of Natural Resources

Section VII

Requesting Department Representative

Requesting Department Signature Required

I know and understand the contents of this Sole Source Justification and attest that all statements are true and correct and the fairness and reasonableness of the price was adequately confirmed.

Date Jul 22, 2026

Printed Name Jeffrey Schukai E-mail Address jeff.schukai2@illinois.gov

Phone Number 217-524-3026

State Agency Bureau/Division Head or University Purchasing Director Approval and Signature Required

I know and understand the contents of this Sole Source Justification and attest that all statements are true and correct and the fairness and reasonableness of the price was adequately confirmed. (All prior form fields will lock once this e-signature is completed)

E-mail Address christopher.brinkmeyer@illinois.com

Phone Number 217-524-7057 Date Jul 22, 2026

Printed Name Chris Brinkmeyer

Agency Bureau/Division Head or University Purchasing Director and Not a Designee

SPO Approval and Signature Required

I have reviewed and understand the contents of this Sole Source Justification and agree with the State Agency or University determination.

I have reviewed and understand the contents of this Sole Source Justification and do not agree with the State Agency or University determination. As a result, the State Agency or University must explore other sourcing methods to satisfy their need.

State Purchasing Officer Signature Phone Number 217-685-9312 Date Jul 22, 2026

Printed Name Joshua Sergent E-mail Address joshua.sergent@illinois.gov

Version 7.01 Page 8 of 8

Bulletin Reference Number 26-448DOIT-ADMIN-B-53435

Requesting Agency/University Illinois Department of Natural Resources

Sole Source Justification Form - Part II Section I - General Information

Project Title Development of New Environmental Review Tool for EcoCAT (Ecological Compliance Assessment Tool)

Vendor NatureServe

Initial Date of Procurement Bulletin Posting

Was a Sole Source hearing held per 30 ILCS 500/20-25?

Yes - Complete Section II and III below (Section II will only be visible when this option is selected)

No - Section II not required, go to Section III below Section III - CPO Approval and Signature Required

Based on my review, I authorize the Agency/University to proceed in accordance with the published Notice referenced above.

Based upon my review, I authorize the Agency/University to proceed with the following Changes.

Based on my review, the Agency/University is not authorized to proceed with this sole source as presented and my recommendation is that it be cancelled.

Other

CPO Signature CPO Phone

Printed Name Date

CPO E-mail

Version 7.01 Page of Sole Source Justification Form - Part I Section I - General Information Will this Sole Source amend a Professional or Artistic Services contract?

If yes, what was the original contract value?

*Sole Source may not be used for amendments for Professional or Artistic Services if the amendment would increase the value by more than 5% of the initial award or extend the term by more than 60 days.

Section II - Proposed Term If a Term Contract, does the term, including renewals, exceed 12 months?

If yes, provide a detailed justification including any economic benefit received for agreeing to a multi-year term:

Section III - Funding Source Select the type of funding to be used (Check all that apply):

Section IV - Sole Source Justification Are there secondary justification(s) for this sole source?

Section V - Purchase History Has the Agency or University Purchased these supplies or services in the past?

Term Term From Term To Value Description Contract Number Type Section VI - Business Rationale

1. Provide a detailed explanation of the need for the supplies or services:

2. Provide a list and describe in detail the specifications required to satisfy the need:

3. Provide detail explaining the justification selected in Section IV to explain why the requested supplies or services are the only ones available that can satisfy the agency or university requirements?

4. What are the unique features of the supplies or services that are not available in any other product or by any other vendor? Provide specific quantifiable factors/qualifications:

5. Has the Agency or University considered alternative supplies or services to satisfy their need?

5a. If yes, name the alternative vendors whose supplies or services were evaluated:

5b. If yes, what were the alternatives for each vendor and why were they unacceptable? Be specific with regard to features, characteristics, requirements, capabilities and compatibility:

5c. Explain how the market evaluation was conducted?

*This evaluation is to determine available options within a market. If the evaluation is to determine quality or best suited option, this is not the appropriate source selection. Under no circumstances shall the evaluation consist of testing alternative options. These activities must be conducted in a competitive transparent environment (i.e. IFB or RFP).

5a. If no, why weren't alternatives evaluated?

6. Are there resellers or distributors?

7. What efforts were made to get the best possible price (i.e. did the agency/university negotiate) and how did you determine the price for this purchase is considered fair and reasonable?

8. Will this purchase obligate the State to this vendor for future purchases such as maintenance, licensing or continuing need?

8a. If yes, please provide details regarding future obligations and/or needs:

9. What will be the financial or other impact to the State if this sole source is not approved and a competitive bid is required?

10. Is there any additional information you would like to add to justify this sole source?

Section VII Requesting Department Signature Required I know and understand the contents of this Sole Source Justification and attest that all statements are true and correct and the fairness and reasonableness of the price was adequately confirmed.

State Agency Bureau/Division Head or University Purchasing Director Approval and Signature Required I know and understand the contents of this Sole Source Justification and attest that all statements are true and correct and the fairness and reasonableness of the price was adequately confirmed. (All prior form fields will lock once this e-signature is completed) SPO Approval and Signature Required Sole Source Justification Form - Part II Section I - General Information Was a Sole Source hearing held per 30 ILCS 500/20-25?

Section II - Sole Source Hearing Details The State posted to the Illinois Procurement Bulletin a description of the State's need, the justification for the sole source decision, and information regarding the opportunity to submit comments and testify at a public hearing. Notice of the hearing was also posted outside of the hearing room 48 hours prior to the hearing.

The public hearing was conducted for the purpose of receiving testimony regarding the sole source determination. The Hearing Officer recommends the following:

The following relevant documents are attached:

Section III - CPO Approval and Signature Required 9.0.0.2.20101008.1.734229

*Implementation and configuration: These initial steps are estimated to take roughly 12 months from the time of contract execution. After that time the annual Maintenance and Operations fees will begin and production will commence within the system. Based on the implementation time IDNR wishes to have a contract vehicle that will allow for use beyond the standard one year term.

*Technological continuity and essential system capabilities: A longer contract term will allow IDNR to secure ongoing licensing, reduce potential operational disruptions associated with frequent renewals, and more fully leverage the system’s advanced features. In particular, extended stability will enable the agency to centralize existing databases, incorporate new data from other states and external databases, and expand the usability and strategic value of this information in support of not only departmental goals, but information sharing goals of various surrounding states.

*Ongoing compliance: The Department is charged with maintaining compliance with the llinois Endangered Species Protection Act [520 ILCS 10/11(b)] and Illinois Natural Areas Preservation Act [525 ILCS 30/17] as well as the Interagency Wetland Policy Act of 1989 [20 ILCS 830]. The Solution created by this sole source procurement will be the means by which this, and other functions related to IDNR's mission, is accomplished. A longer term contract mitigates the potential risks associated with doing multiple shorter term agreements.

*Market Conditions: IDNR has been conducting research, primarily with other states, to evaluate potential options to meet this need for approximately 3 years. The only two options that were and are currently being used are: (1) this ERT product from NatureServe or (2) a custom, state-built and hosted solution. The apparent stagnation in this market indicates that it's unlikely that a new Solution that is capable of meeting the same needs will be developed within the 3-year term of this request.

The Illinois Department of Natural Resource’s EcoCAT environmental review tool (ERT) is used for project entry, screening, and tracking of projects submitted for resource review. It was first implemented in 2006 as a way for state, federal, and local government agencies to more efficiently consult with the Department on potential impacts to state protected natural resources pursuant to applicable regulations. The EcoCAT tool helps us stay in compliance with the Illinois Endangered Species Protection Act [520 ILCS 10/11(b)] and Illinois Natural Areas Preservation Act [525 ILCS 30/17] as set forth in procedures under Title 17 Ill. Admin. Code Part 1075, as well as the Interagency Wetland Policy Act of 1989 [20 ILCS 830] as set forth in procedures under Title 17 Ill. Admin. Code Part 1090 when state agencies provide funding, including federal pass-through funding or technical assistance. The system also helps staff efficiently organize project files, assign tasks, and quickly respond to inquiries to better meet project deadlines. This business need is currently being met with the existing applications which are out-dated and in great need of modernization. The applications are nearly 20 years old. Small fixes and updates over the years have kept the system going, however, EcoCAT is due for a more significant upgrade to meet modern technology standards and allow for easier maintenance and compatibility with newer software in the future.

In 2023, the EcoCAT system received just under 15,000 submissions for natural resource information and review related to projects throughout the state, with staff averaging approximately 41 project reviews each day utilizing the system. EcoCAT also provides instant results for information requests and consultation "clearance" for projects when no natural resources of concern are indicated to be in the vicinity of project locations. The current system is not only a risk from a security standpoint but also has the potential of projects being cleared inaccurately because it does not have real time data and uses out-dated data from a third party.

The current system is very outdated, nearing the 20 year mark, and only minor modifications have been made throughout the years. There are many system bugs and performance issues. All aspects of the current system, including data collection, project review, and project management require updates and optimization so that the agency may continue to perform its many critical functions associated with the implementation and ongoing usage of the system.

Q2Answer: IDNR requires an Environmental Review Tool that:

*Is an off-the-shelf Software as a Service (SaaS) solution that can interface with the Biotics real-time Database with little to no customization required.

*Queries the protected resource information from both the Natural Heritage Database and Biotic Database and updates automatically, in real time.

*Maintains an historical aggregation of projects through the Biotic Database for use by both Illinois and surrounding states, including interstate data entry and review.

*Performs the internal administrative functions that are necessary for optimized agency operations and compliance: project tracking and management modules, assigning projects to internal reviewers, auto generating reports and letters to send to applicants, workflow assignments for different types of project reviews, recording fee payment information, recording and tracking protected resource information, generating reports and metrics about project reviews, using dashboards for applicants to log in and track the status of their reviews and upload additional project information.

*Performs the external, public-facing functions that are necessary for IDNR to receive and process the high volume of submissions for natural resource information and provides instant, real-time data that satisfies IDNR's statutorily-mandated consultation requirements.

* Is capable of real time location tracking and reporting: System must intake geospatial attributes of a project location so it can be determined if there are protected resources around the project location. This needs to be completed in real time to ensure that out-dated data does not cause a breach of the division's goals.

*Allow applicants to indicate the geospatial attributes of the project location by the following means: Public Land Survey System (PLSS), Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM), drawing points, lines, and/or polygons on an interactive map, and ability to upload shape-files and/or other geospatial data (i.e. KMZ, GPS, etc.).

*BISON is a database maintained on a government website but does not have an accompanying ERT tool that may be used. Without the ERT tool this is not an option for the agency.

*iMAPlnvasives database only tracks invasive species.

*Envirosuite is a cloud-based platform that specializes in environmental intelligence. It provides real-time monitoring and predictive modeling for air quality, water, noise, and other environmental parameters. This system however does not track endangered and threatened species which is one of the programs main goals.

Q5cAnswer: Subject matter experts in the Impact Assessment section held detailed meetings with reciprocating state agencies and received detailed information about the development and maintenance of their ERT's with NatureServe. Specifically, discussions were held with staff in Natural Heritage programs in New Mexico, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania and received information via email from Missouri. Questions included how long it took to develop their tool, cost of development, details about ongoing yearly maintenance, and what other alternatives, if any, they may have evaluated as part of procuring an ERT.

As a result of these conversations it was determined that the major competitors for this solution (referenced above) were all missing factors that are extremely important to the state program and would require (where possible) extensive customization, at substantial cost, to make them meet the agencies needs. In some instances the customization was not possible and data transfer and tracking would have to occur in multiple solutions. The need for significant configuration and customization, and/or multiple solutions to meet the state's needs, would have a large financial impact on the program.

*Technical subject matter experts evaluated the need and determined that a workable custom-built solution is estimated to cost the State approximately $1.5 - $2 Million dollars initially; that is in addition to the cost of the resources that would need to be devoted, in perpetuity, to maintaining, operating, and updating the system.

*The configuration of a SaaS COTS solution would require an additional outlay of $250,00 - $500,000, on top of the same costs associated with procuring NatureServe (implementation, maintenance, operation, licensing, training, etc). This would make that option nearly double the cost of procuring NatureServe and is very likely to result in an inferior solution.

*IDNR, in conducting its research with other States, inquired about the cost of any products and services that would also be necessary for our project. Using those figures, the Agency was able to determine that the pricing terms offered by NatureServe are competitive and that the 5% annual increase in hosting aligns with standard industry practices for hosting services.

- Deploy and configure with custom functionality: $368,200

- Year 1 hosting: $45,000

- Year 2 hosting: $47,250

- Total estimated value: $460,450