ESBD_File_340067_CIO-24-157 Addendum 2.pdf

THE TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM

Office of Procurement & HUB Program

ADDENDUM NO. 2

Date: November 27, 2023 RFP Due Date: November 29, 2023 New RFP Due Date: December 12, 2023 RE: RFP01 CIO-24-157 Fundraising and CRM Platform

Respondents shall acknowledge receipt of addendum(s) on the Execution of Offer (Exhibit A).

RFP Extension:

The due date of the RFP has been extended to Tuesday, December 12, 2023. The first sentence of Section

2.3 shall now read as follows, “All proposals must be received by the A&M System, no later than 2:00:00 p.m. CST, December 12, 2023 electronically via email to soprocurement@tamus.edu with the subject line of “RFP01 CIO-24-157 – Fundraising and CRM Platform.”.”

As such, the dates within Section 1.5 - Calendar of Events have been revised as below:

Deadline to Submit Questions November 29, 2023 Release of Final Addendum (if applicable) by December 1, 2023 RFP Responses Due December 12, 2023, by 2:00 p.m. CST Presentation/Demonstrations (if applicable) TBD Selection of Respondent(s) TBD

Question/Response Clarification:

Member institutions independently operate their own instances of CRM and fundraising solutions. Given this the A&M System does not have direct knowledge of or insight into Member institution instances and much of the data requested is not available. Some responses are individually answered by one or more Members, therefore the data provided may only represent a sampling.

When preparing a proposal response, please consider that one or more Member institutions may subscribe to your solution. The intention of this RFP is to select a pool of Providers that the Members may select from to implement a solution. Each awarded Provider will have a master agreement with the A&M System that will serve as the basis for a Member specific engagement.

Note that some questions were not included below as they were similar or duplicates to other questions submitted.

Questions/Responses:

1. Please provide the number of Constituent Records managed in the individual (Sister Campus/Organizations) db.

Response: The number of Constituent Records vary greatly from school to school. We do not have the breakdown per school at this time, however, one of the regional respondents has 96,000 constituent records.

2. Please provide the current CRM/Donor Management solution employed by each institution (Sister Campus/Organizations).

mailto:soprocurement@tamus.edu

Response: The full list of solutions employed within each Member institution is not known or inventoried. Some known examples are Blackbaud, Blackbaud RE NXT, Salesforce and still others maintain components that are developed in-house.

3. What kind of MSFT licenses does the system currently employ?

Response: While the majority maintain a MSFT licenses that are based on an O365 license set for large institutions (similar to E5), there is no mandated license set for individual Members.

4. What other software licenses does the system currently employ?

Response: This question is too broad to answer definitively.

5. In regards to question 4.7 B – “Has respondent worked with the A&M system in the past 5 years?”, is this question as it related to the RFP specifically or for the entire respondent portfolio?

Response: The intent is to answer as it relates specifically to the scope of this RFP. A Respondent may answer as it relates to other solutions within your portfolio as long as that work performed is briefly described.

6. Would the system consider extending the due date of the submission by 1 week due to the extension of the vendor call?

Response: Refer to the RFP Extension section above.

7. 3.2 Background

● Integration and Consolidation:

○ What specific integrations are currently in use by the various A&M System Members, and how will they be migrated or connected to Salesforce?

Response #1: GeoTrust/Digicert - and LiveAlumni are two integrations currently used.

There are more, but we do not have a full list from every Member institution.

Response #2: ImportOmatic

○ Can we get a list of the current tools and platforms used by A&M to ensure that we are capturing what is needing to be consolidated?

Response #1: GiveCampus (annual giving), PeopleGrove (mentoring), Handshake (employer relations), Banner Student ERP (converting student data to alumni), NetCommunity (web content management system, email marketing, event registration, and custom giving URLs), Fundriver by Evertrue (endowment reporting), Quickbooks (accounting), ResearchPoints (wealth screening), AddressFinder & Deceased Finder (records management).

Response #2: ImportOmatic, iWave, Encompass, Marketplace, AlumniFinder, ResearchPoint

Response #3: Blackbaud Raiser’s Edge, Banner, FAMIS, ImportOmatic, Anthology Encompass, WebFocus, Marketplace

8. 3.3.1 Required Functionalities

A. Engage with and manage Member institutions’ constituents.

● Multichannel Engagement:

○ Can you provide examples of A&M multichannel engagement strategies?

Response: Example 1) tracks the following for engagement: Individual Actions/Interactions (face-to-face, emails, phone calls, direct mail), Solicitation Appeals – Email (opens, clicks, conversions) & Direct Mail (sent and responses), Volunteerism (governing boards, advisory boards, committees, guest speaker), Experiential (event attendance – career expos, fundraising events, stewardship events, social networking) –- they would like to add Social Media, but do not currently track it in our CRM.

○ Does A&M plan on streamlining the channels for engagement across entities?

Response: Yes

● Donor Insight:

○ What donor information does A&M look at today from a reporting perspective?

Response #1: Constituency, Communication Preferences, Constituent Giving, Fund History, Fundraising Production by gift type/constituent type/fund type or fund attribute, Campaign Reporting, Appeal Reporting, Membership Reporting (standing, expiration, renewal), Prospect Research (gift likelihood, connectedness, status), Officer Assignments/Portfolio Management, Actions/Interactions (dashboard for development activity), Email Activity (opens, clicks), Events (registrations, attendance), Attributes/Custom Fields (specific distinction groupings such as awards, interests, honors, etc.

Response #2: All donor details including bio info, giving history, employment, and engagement.

Response #3: Constituency Codes (student, parent, employee), Addresses (cities, states, countries), Degree or Interest

○ What are the different ways a donor can give to A&M?

Response #1: Typically, a university handles some and foundation handles others such as credit card, online via 3rd party platform using Venmo & PayPal, check, money order, stock, donor advised funds, will/bequest, insurance policy, IRA rollover, gift-in-kind (variety of physical assets such as property or art)

Response #2: In person, mail, online, ACH Bank Draft, Payroll Deduct, Planned gift, Stock, Real Estate.

Response #3: Online (CC), Mail (Check, CC), In Person (Check, CC)

● Campaign Reporting:

○ What type of campaign reporting are you doing today?

Response #1: Feasibility, Production, ROI

Response #2: Dashboard in NXT that shows fund categories, dollars raised and committed, fund designation, constituency, percent to goal.

Response #3: Number of Donors, Donation amounts, (Total and per appeal/campaign)

○ How do you manage engagement for events? Or do you need the ability to manage events from the CRM?

Response #1: Yes, some Members utilize Blackbaud’s Raiser’sEdge for event records management, which then empowers them to pull it into their NetCommunity environment for registrations and then response data goes back to Raiser’sEdge/RENXT to the constituent record and the event record so they can pull RSVP lists, attendee lists, guest preferences, capacity report, etc.

Response #2: Yes, we import invited, registered, and attended guests.

Response #3: Yes, we need the ability to manage events from the CRM.

● Communication Tools:

○ Does A&M today have a marketing/communication platform? Can you list for each channel?

Response #1: Yes. See individual responses below.

Email: Currently some Members utilize Blackbaud NetCommunity for web CMS and email marketing, but have been transitioning the email marketing to RENXT

Phone

Text/SMS: Previously some Members used a texting platform and are currently exploring options.

Website

Social: Hootsuite, Meta Business Suite for Facebook & Instagram, and then schedule LinkedIn separately

Response #2:

Email – Encompass and Mail Chimp

Phone – N/A

Text/SMS – Mongoose

Website – Cascade

Social – Sprout Social

Response #3:

• Email - Blackbaud Raiser’s Edge, Anthology Encompass

• Phone

• Text/SMS - SignalVine

• Website - Anthology Encompass

• Social - Posts are made on the TAMIU Alumni Facebook and Instagram

● Online Donations:

○ How is online donation processing handled by A&M today, and what payment methods are supported?

Response #1: Blackbaud Merchant Services & GiveCampus

Response #2: Encompass with Marketplace Upay site. We accept American Express, Discover, Dina Card, B Card, MasterCard, and Visa.

Response #3: Online credit card donations are processed through Anthology Encompass or TouchNet Marketplace. The Member details are then imported from Anthology Encompass into RE. Constituent records are either created or updated. Once imported, the transaction details are imported from Anthology Encompass into RE. The imported transaction details will be added to the constituent’s record and a batch. Transaction details from Marketplace are entered into a batch manually, if the donation is coming from a new member, a new record is created for them

○ Is each entity on their own donor platform? If so, is that data consolidated?

Response #1: For many Members, it all goes into Blackbaud’s Raiser’sEdge/RENXT – either through integration or import functionality.

Response #2: Yes, but each is not consolidated.

Response #3: No

○ Does each entity have their own development team?

Response #1: Yes. Some Members may use external vendors that provide assistance, and it would be appropriate for offerings to augment development for implementation purposes.

Response #2: If by “entity” you mean college, school, or department? Then, no. There is one development team that raises funds for all university programs. If by “entity” you mean software program we use, still no.

● Email Personalization:

○ Can you give an example on how A&M segments their contacts for marketing purposes?

Response #1: Example) By Constituent Code/Category - alumni, donor, board member (insert different boards), employer/organization, foundation; Giving History – based on consecutive support to specific fund/program, Event Attendance – RSVP or attended a past event, Giving Interest – based on giving history (last gift fund or largest gift fund), Education – based on the college, department, major, etc.; Affiliation – based on attributes such as student-athlete, ROTC, student government, clubs, awards/honors received; Campaign/Membership Specific

– based on support for a specific campaign, membership program or appeal supported either as a volunteer, member or donor.

Response #2: Annual Giving Segmentation based on Lybunts, Sybunts, and Acquisition, as well as looking at record of giving to different departments including alumni info for giving towards the college.

Response #3:

Current Students for Ring Sales and Philanthropy Cords

Alumni for giving campaigns and events

Employees for Giving Campaigns

Community for Giving Campaigns

○ What channels does A&M market through?

Response: email, social media, direct mail, events, partnerships

● Metrics and Reporting:

○ Can you list out the type of reports you need for each category?

Response #1: At a minimum, we need the following.

Volunteers: current and past lists

Members: current standing, expirations/renewals, acquisitions, general listing

Events: RSVPs, attendance, preferences, registration type(s)

Campaigns: acquisition, retention, overall production, ROI

Donors: giving history (by specific timeframes, funds, appeals, or campaigns), actions, donor acquisition rate, retention rate, listing of lapsed, assigned (to development team member) or expired assignments of donors, prospect status of donor, current/past/future opportunities/proposals.

Response #2:

■ Volunteers – Summary and Matrix

■ Members - Summary

■ Events – Summary and Matrix

■ Campaigns - Dashboard

■ Donors – Summary, Matrix, and possibility of joined reports depending on report requests.

Response #3:

■ Volunteers

■ Members - Constituency Reports

■ Events

■ Campaigns - Fund Category Reports

■ Donors - Donor level Reports

● Donor Management:

○ What are some core processes that A&M have today for acquiring new donors?

Response #1: Prospect identification reporting (based on prospect management ratings, recent gift data, etc.), assigning an appeal strategy (annual giving or major gifts), assigning development team member (affinity or interest).

Response #2: Annual giving.

Response #3: The primary target for new donors is new alumni.

○ What are some core processes that A&M have today for donor retention?

Response #1: Similar to above in Response #1.

Response #2:

Segmented donor stewardship and impact communications timely reporting targeted stewardship and donor recognition programs donor communication plan based on level of giving

Response #3: Distribution of the annual report, Donor Wall display, special invitations

○ Does A&M have a wealth management tool to see capacity to give?

Response #1: Yes

Response #2: Yes, within Raiser’s Edge

○ Does each entity have their own process for how they handle acquisition and retention of donors?

Response: Yes

○ Does each entity have their own development team?

Response: Yes

● Customizable Campaigns

○ Is the ability to create campaigns centralized within A&M or decentralized?

Response: Decentralized and centralized depending on the Member institution.

● Integration with Banner and Award Management:

○ What information from Banner needs to be in the CRM?

Response #1: Student constituent record (bio, education, contact, scholarships, attributes, affiliations, etc.).

Response #2: Target X and Scholarship Universe.

Response #3: Distribution of the annual report, Donor Wall display, special invitations

○ What information from Award Management needs to be in the CRM?

Response: Scholarship reward recipients.

○ Can you please confirm the platforms for Banner and the Award Management system?

Response #1: Banner 9, Argos, Target X and Scholarship Universe.

Response #2: Ellucian Banner, working with Scholarship Universe

● Guided Fundraising

○ What are the steps or path today for guided fundraising?

Response: Currently, Members do this manually through segmentation and calendaring frequency ourselves.

● Data Enrichment Services

○ What demographic information is important to collect?

Response: Contact information such as mailing address, cell phone, email, social media profile

– as well as relational to organizations or other individuals within database.

● Merchant Services/Financial Transaction Management

○ What merchant does A&M use today?

Response #1: Members mostly use Blackbaud Merchant Services & GiveCampus (which uses Stripe, PayPal & Venmo).

Response #2: Marketplace.

Response #3: Touchnet

○ When it comes to managing multiple funds is this decentralized or centralized within the organization?

Response: Mostly centralized at Member institutions.

● Licensing Questions

○ How many internal users will be managing or needing access to A&M’s new CRM?

Response: At our smaller, regional universities, 15-35. At our larger regionals and TAMU, significantly more.

○ How many students will need access to a student portal?

Response: We do not use a separate student portal – they have a different user type within same system that limits what they can access/do.

○ How many donors and alumni will need access to a donor portal to self-service giving?

Response #1: Our donors do have this capability currently; however, we cannot give you an accurate count at each Member institution at this time.

Response #2: 40,000 +

○ How many contacts does A&M email on a monthly basis? And how many emails does A&M send out?

Response: This varies from institution to institution. An example of email traffic for our smaller, regional Members is that every month, they email approx. 34,000 typically 1-2x and then 1-3 segmented emails to smaller groupings.

9. The proposal requirements indicate two PDF documents - "proposal" and "forms." One of the files (Attachment B) provided in the request is an Excel spreadsheet. Is this to be included with the response?

Response: Yes.

10. Are you anticipating a single implementation for the entirety of the TAMU system? Or do you expect separate databases for each of the 11 organizations in the network?

Response: The intent of this RFP is to establish a master agreement with one or more Respondents to provide options for our Member institutions to utilize as needed. This is not intended to provide a single platform or environment for all Members collectively.

11. We base our pricing tiers on current full-time undergraduate enrollment. If you expect to implement using the latter in question #2, what are the current undergraduate enrollment figures for each Member?

Response: Pricing shall be submitted in a format to include pricing options for all Member institutions.

12. In reference to the second bullet within Section 4.5, can you provide an average size campus/department to be used as an example to answer this item?

Response: That is not generally available at the time of the issuance of the RFP. However, the range of size of Member institutions varies widely.

13. TIMING: Do any institutions have expiring licensing or contracts that would impact their need to move at an accelerated timeline?

Response: They do, but to the best of our knowledge they are not within the next 12 months.

Member institutions have agreements that expire uniquely to each institution.

14. TIMING: What timing considerations are in place for this engagement? Are there any hard requirements on go-live dates?

Response: These are relevant only to the individual institutions. To the best of our knowledge, none are within the next 12 months.

15. TIMING: Are there any other migrations/projects happening that will conflict with this one and partnership w/ IT?

Response: This question is not relevant to the RFP.

16. TIMING: Please outline what you feel the impact is on your team both short and long-term by not addressing this challenge or set of issues.

Response: This question is not relevant to the RFP.

17. DECISION PROCESS: What are your top priorities when making this decision and/or selecting a software solution and implementation partner? For example, would the solution and partners’ ability to drive success supersede cost in terms of prioritization?

Response: None identified.

18. DECISION PROCESS: Is the Texas A&M System looking to implement all ‘mandatory’ requirements at once or in a phased approach?

Response: Given the intent of this RFP this question cannot be addressed.

19. DECISION PROCESS: What are the key differentiators you’re looking for in selecting a solution and an implementation partner?

Response: All information available is provided in the RFP requirements.

20. DECISION PROCESS: How does the institution/department finalize a decision on a solution like this?

Response: Given the intent of this RFP this question cannot be addressed.

21. DECISION PROCESS: Who are the primary stakeholders involved in this decision outside of procurement?

Response: The committee is comprised of individuals from several Members of the A&M System and from different roles.

22. DECISION PROCESS: Is there an anticipated budget for annual licensing for future technology? In addition to licensing, Is there already a determined budget for implementation services?

Response: No.

23. DATA MIGRATION SCOPE: As a vendor, are we to assume that all integration and data migration efforts will not involve institutional resources, though subject to change based on the campus?

Response: Yes.

24. DATA MIGRATION SCOPE: Is any data currently being archived in a data warehouse that partners should be aware of?

Response: No.

25. DATA MIGRATION SCOPE: How many years of data would the Texas A&M system want to be imported into the proposed solution?

Response: Given the intent of this RFP this question cannot be addressed.

26. DATA MIGRATION SCOPE: How many records, per campus or agency, will need to be migrated to the new system?

Response: Varies by institution and given the intent of this RFP this question cannot be addressed.

27. SYSTEM INTEGRATION SCOPE: What payment gateway(s) are currently used by the different schools and agencies included in the scope of this RFP?

Response: Varies by institution and given the intent of this RFP this question cannot be addressed.

28. SYSTEM INTEGRATION SCOPE: What email system/provider is used by the different schools and agencies included in this RFP? (Google or Microsoft)

Response: Generally, this is Microsoft, thought external providers have been engaged previously.

29. SYSTEM INTEGRATION SCOPE: Is there an existing Extract, Transform, Load (ETL) data integration tool in place at Texas A&M that should be used for data migrations, and if so, what is the name of the ETL Tool vendor and product?

Response: None are used universally.

30. SYSTEM INTEGRATION SCOPE: What systems of record (i.e.: ERP, SIS) are within scope to integrate with the proposed solution?

Response: This is widely varied by Member. It is not a standardized process.

31. GENERAL: Does the TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM have any requirements around US-based staff?

Response: No.

32. GENERAL: Will Texas A&M accept a proposal from a respondent that will provide only the platform, or these services to implement a platform for Texas A&M, or must the response to the RFP be for BOTH the platform and the services to implement that platform?

Response: Respondents may submit a complete implementation proposal (system platform + implementation services) or just the platform itself as some Members may choose to handle implementation with their own internal resources. The A&M System is not looking for implementation services only.

33. GENERAL: Is it expected that the selected vendor will support redefining the business process (if applicable)?

Response: This question is not relevant to the RFP.

34. GENERAL: How will the Information Technology Department be involved in this project? Is there an IT department at each school or agency that will be assisting with the project or will IT support come from a central group?

Response: Varies by institution.

35. GENERAL: The proposed solution must facilitate ‘multichannel’ engagement strategies. Can you please specify the engagement channels to be included in the engagement strategies?

Response: Varies by institution.

36. GENERAL: How many potential users are there at each of the institutions, and agencies included in this RFP?

Response: Varies by institution and we are not able to provide this data.

37. GENERAL: Does the proposed software need to be available in any additional languages beyond English? If so, please specify the other languages the software needs to support.

Response: No.

38. GENERAL: Given the close proximity of the Thanksgiving holiday to the due date of this proposal, could the Texas A&M System please extend the due date of this RFP by two weeks?

Response: Refer to the RFP Extension section above.

39. Would the Texas A&M System be open to third-party solutions in conjunction with the proposed advancement solution?

Response: Yes.

40. What is Texas A&M System’s EIR and ICT accessibility criteria?

Response: Refer to section 4.9 of the RFP.

41. If a vendor is not selected through this acquisition, will a campus within the system be prohibited from utilizing their software?

Response: No.

42. Please provide baseline data points such as number of users, number of constituents, and longevity on current system.

Response: Varies by institution and we are not able to provide this data.

43. Please confirm that each decision and purchase will be made at the individual campuses.

Response: Confirmed.

44. Of the agencies you list, which have fundraising needs? Please describe the needs of these agencies and how they would differ from the academic campuses.

Response: This could vary by agency and we are not able to provide this information.

45. Please provide the number of CRM users by campus.

Response: Varies by institution and we are not able to provide this data.

46. What is the number of donors by campus who would visit a giving portal annually to donate, find out about events, etc.?

Response: Varies by institution and we are not able to provide this data.

47. What is the estimated number of advancement email sends annually per campus? How many active subscribers (donors) do you communicate with annually? What is the anticipated increase in subscribers each year?

Response: Varies by institution and we are not able to provide this data.

48. For your multichannel engagement - can you provide more information around what channels are of interest to you all (e.g. SMS, advertising, web personalization, direct mail, etc.)?

Response: Varies by institution and we are not able to provide this data.

49. If SMS is of interest, can you provide estimates of SMS sends per campus? Will these be mass texts or 1:1 conversations?

Response: Varies by institution and we are not able to provide this data.

50. If advertising is of interest, what platforms are being used to advertise on (e.g. Facebook, X (Twitter), Instagram, Google, etc.)? How are advertising audiences being generated and uploaded to these platforms today? How often are these audiences refreshed?

Response: Varies by institution and we are not able to provide this data.

51. If direct mail is of interest, is this currently managed in-house by each campus, or via a direct mailing service? Who will typically receive direct mail (e.g. targeted segments; all donors; etc)?

Response: Varies by institution and we are not able to provide this data.

52. If engagement via a mobile app is of interest, what systems are used? What operating systems are supported (iOS, Android, etc)?

Response: Varies by institution and we are not able to provide this data.

53. If web personalization is of interest, what CMS platforms are used at each campus?

Response: Varies by institution and we are not able to provide this data.

54. For marketing analytics & reporting - does there need to be a global (consolidated) view of marketing performance across the entirety of the Texas A&M University System?

Response: No.

55. What KPIs / metrics are most important to report on?

Response: Varies by institution and we are not able to provide this information.

56. What data sources do you wish to analyze (e.g. email, web analytics, social, etc)?

Response: See other responses in other questions previously answered.

57. Is there a need to look at marketing conversion data beyond campaign and channel-level reporting (e.g. individual/person granular-level reporting)?

Response: This could vary by Member

58. How often are reports/dashboards refreshed?

Response: Varies by institution and we are not able to provide this data.

59. Do you work with a marketing agency? If so, what reporting do they typically provide? How is this data typically shared with you today (e.g. spreadsheet, dashboard, etc).

Response: Varies by institution and we are not able to provide this information.

60. For delivering personalized marketing - what channels are most important for you to personalize?

What data points are most important to you to use for personalization (e.g. name, school, degree/major, funds, geography, etc.)?

Response: Varies by institution and we are not able to provide this information.

61. How many data sources will need to be integrated with the platform? What are those data sources?

Response: Varies by institution and we are not able to provide this information.

62. What ETL / Middleware (if any) is used on each campus currently?

Response: Varies by institution. There is no single provider of ETL.

63. What will the cadence of these integrations be? (Daily, Weekly, in real-time)

Response: Varies by institution and we are not able to provide this information.

64. Is there a need to manage donor or advancement events?

Response: Varies by institution and we are not able to provide this information.

65. Will all development staff have the same level of access?

Response: Varies by institution and we are not able to provide this information.

66. Will geographical territory management be required for gift officers?

67. Will syncing between email inboxes and the solution be required?

Response: Varies by institution and we are not able to provide this information.

68. Will reports be shared with groups or persons outside of the advancement offices?

Response: Varies by institution and we are not able to provide this information.

69. Is it possible that some of the 11 Members will share a single database instance of a vendor product, or is the assumption that each Member would manage their data in separate tenants?

Response: Not currently.

70. In section 3.3.2, what data is being referred to in the context of “Option for quarterly data updates”?

Response: Varies by institution and we are not able to provide this information.

71. In section 3.3.1, what system is used for “Award Management”. Is this system for scholarship awards from Banner, or Award Management for research (https://vpr.tamu.edu/award-management/). For this system are APIs or data extracts available?

Response: This question is answered in previous questions.

72. Are there any data lakes/warehouses/MDMs used today?

Response: None.

73. How does each campus manage deduplication / identity resolution today?

Response: Varies by institution and we are not able to provide this information.

74. Do you use any data enrichment/identity sources today (e.g. LiveRamp; Epsilon; Axxiom; etc.)?

Response: Not at this time. Some Members manually update information in their data sources.

75. Do you currently have a unique ID for each donor? Where does this ID come from?

Response: Varies by Member institution. The Respondent should consider that unique identifiers for subjects inside their system have unique identifiers assigned by the Member institution.

76. Regarding the Proof Concept request can the Texas A&M System please provide additional information/context around that specific ask?

Response: In the case that a Respondent is selected as a finalist, we will ask those Respondents that are finalists to provide a live Proof of Concept system for the selection committee to interact with. Having a Proof of Concept system available for committee members to test is important in making final selections.

77. General: Can we get details about the existing systems, integrations, or apps (architecture diagram), databases currently in use for constituent relationship management and fundraising within the A&M System.

Response: Because these vary by Member institution, this information is not available.

78. General: We are assuming that Salesforce Platform is not being used by any of the A&M system currently, please confirm.

Response: Texas A&M University at College Station is using Salesforce. Other Members may as well but this cannot be confirmed at this time.

79. General: What is your implementation timeline or roadmap? Is there a specific date you are trying to hit for the launch? Are there key milestones between now and then?

https://vpr.tamu.edu/award-management/ https://vpr.tamu.edu/award-management/

Response: There is no current timeline as each of the Member institutions have varying requirements.

80. Business Process Overview: Is there a standardized business process or application that is used by the A&M System Member universities and agencies for CRM?

Response: There is no standardized process. This varies by Member institution.

81. Software Deployment/IT Development and Change Control Standards: How is the master source code maintained currently? Is there any version control system like Gitlab available? How is version-control done, and where/how is the Source-code master maintained?

Response: This question is not relevant to the RFP.

82. Software Deployment/IT Development and Change Control Standards: Do you have defined processes for managing application configuration change requests for your enterprise applications?

Response: This question is not relevant to the RFP.

83. Overall Environment related Questions: How is Change Management managed currently in your organization?

Response: This question is not relevant to the RFP.

84. Overall Environment related Questions: Is there a Governance and/or Application Lifecycle Management tool/solution used currently?

Response: This question is not relevant to the RFP.

85. Overall Environment related Questions: Is there any Automation Testing Tool currently in use?

Response: This question is not relevant to the RFP.

86. Overall Environment related Questions: What is the medium and frequency of Training for new Users who get onboarded?

Response: Varies by institution and we are not able to provide this information.

87. Support: Is the support requested in section 3.4.4.A application support only or End user support as well? If yes, what is the expected Business support hours for End User support?

Response: Varies by institution, but both are required. No other information is available.

88. Support: How is Support done currently - Phone, Email, IM, Face-to-face, or anything else?

Response: Varies by institution and we are not able to provide this information.

89. Support: Is day-to-day operational Support for the implementation categorized into Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3? If yes, can you let us know the SLAs for each?

Response: Support varies by the need of the institution.

90. Training: What is the expected level of user support, training, and documentation that should be provided along with the platform?

Response: Varies by institution and we are not able to provide this information.

91. Training: What is your preferred training approach? (Custom onsite, train-the-trainer, private web-based only, public web-based only)

92. Training: Do you have an internal training organization that can be leveraged?

Response: None.

93. Training: What types of users will be using the application? (Executives, management, account managers, account executives, customer support representatives, marketing representatives)

Response: Varies by institution and we are not able to provide this information.

94. Training: Do you need to deliver your training in multiple languages?

Response: No.

END OF ADDENDUM NO. 2