Data Model Scorecard.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 13 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- RFI-16230
- Issued by
- Leon County, Florida
About this file
This is a vendor evaluation scorecard for the Florida Department of Revenue's SAP S/4HANA Process Intelligence and Business Process Management Platform initiative. The scorecard is designed to systematically evaluate vendor responses to the Request for Information (RFI) issued on this solicitation. Vendor questions are due June 19, 2026 at noon Eastern Time, with RFI responses due July 3, 2026 at noon Eastern Time. The Department seeks enterprise process intelligence solutions to support its transition from SAP ECC to S/4HANA, requiring capabilities including automated process discovery, standards-based process modeling, conformance checking, and continuous process monitoring. Demonstrations will be scheduled only with vendors who respond affirmatively to mandatory requirements. Vendors must be registered with the State of Florida Department of Management Services through MyFloridaMarketPlace and with the Department of State, Division of Corporations to conduct business in Florida.
The evaluation scorecard assesses vendors across seven weighted categories: Core Migration Capabilities (18 points), Security & Access Control (16 points), Compliance & Data Privacy (9 points), Usability & User Experience (13 points), Technical & Integration (12 points), and Vendor & Commercial (10 points). Each criterion is scored on a 1-5 scale with suggested benchmarks and weighted calculations for objective comparison. Key evaluation areas include Process Mining & Discovery, Master Data Management, Multi-Factor Authentication, Single Sign-On, Role-Based Access Control, StateRAMP/FedRAMP compliance, IRS Pub. 1075 compliance, SAP S/4HANA native integration, API capabilities, cloud deployment scalability, vendor support commitments, and peer references from state and local government entities. This RFI is an information-gathering exercise with no contract award anticipated; the Department's intent is to determine whether a formal solicitation should be released based on gathered intelligence.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| RFI 25.26-118 Attachment 1 .xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Vendor Questions and Department Responses.pdf | ||
| 25.26-118, SAP S4HANA Process Intelligence.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Scorecard (2)
| FDOR SUNTAX Data Model Tool Evaluation | Vendor Evaluation Scorecard | |||||||
| Score each vendor 1–5 in the gold 'Your Score' columns. Weighted totals update automatically. | |||||||
| Evaluation Criteria | Weight | ||||||
| Criterion | Weight (%) | Suggested | |||||
| Score (1–5) | Your Score | ||||||
| (override) | Weighted | ||||||
| Score | Rationale | Suggested | |||||
| Score (1–5) | Your Score | ||||||
| (override) | Weighted | ||||||
| Score | Rationale | ||||||
| CORE MIGRATION CAPABILITIES | |||||||
| Process Mining & Discovery | 5 | 0.00 | 3 | 0.00 | |||
| Master Data Management | 4 | 0.00 | 3 | 0.00 | |||
| Customization Analysis | 5 | 0.00 | 3 | 0.00 | |||
| Implementation Speed | 4 | 0.00 | 3 | 0.00 | |||
| SECURITY & ACCESS CONTROL | |||||||
| Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) | 4 | 0.00 | 4 | 0.00 | |||
| Single Sign-On (SSO) | 4 | 0.00 | 5 | 0.00 | |||
| Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) | 4 | 0.00 | 4 | 0.00 | |||
| Audit Logging & Activity Monitoring | 4 | 0.00 | 4 | 0.00 | |||
| COMPLIANCE & DATA PRIVACY | |||||||
| StateRAMP / FedRAMP Compliance | 3 | 0.00 | 3 | 0.00 | |||
| Taxpayer Data Privacy (IRS Pub. 1075 / CJIS) | 3 | 0.00 | 3 | 0.00 | |||
| Public Sector / Regulatory Fit | 3 | 0.00 | 4 | 0.00 | |||
| USABILITY & USER EXPERIENCE | |||||||
| User Interface (UI) Quality | 5 | 0.00 | 3 | 0.00 | |||
| Self-Service & Ease of Use | 4 | 0.00 | 3 | 0.00 | |||
| Training, Documentation & Onboarding | 4 | 0.00 | 4 | 0.00 | |||
| TECHNICAL & INTEGRATION | |||||||
| SAP S/4HANA Native Integration | 4 | 0.00 | 5 | 0.00 | |||
| API & Third-Party Integrations | 4 | 0.00 | 3 | 0.00 | |||
| Cloud Deployment & Scalability | 4 | 0.00 | 4 | 0.00 | |||
| VENDOR & COMMERCIAL | |||||||
| Cost & Licensing | 3 | 0.00 | 3 | 0.00 | |||
| Vendor Support & SLA Commitments | 4 | 0.00 | 4 | 0.00 | |||
| Peer References (State/Local Gov) | 3 | 0.00 | 3 | 0.00 | |||
| WEIGHTED TOTAL SCORE | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||
| SCORING GUIDE | |||||||
| 5 – Excellent | Best-in-class; clear, proven advantage | ||||||
| 4 – Good | Strong capability with minor gaps | ||||||
| 3 – Average | Meets basic requirements; some gaps | ||||||
| 2 – Below Avg | Notable gaps requiring mitigation | ||||||
| 1 – Poor | Significant deficiency; high risk |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .