Faculty Data Management Project Phase 1.pdf

Table of Contents

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

SOM | Faculty Data Management Project Phase 1

RFP No. RFP_F-0000000053

April 18, 2025

RFP_F-0000000053 Page 2

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP)

Procurement Service Center (PSC) University of Colorado 1800 Grant Street, Suite 400 Denver, CO 80203

Purchasing Agent (PA): Chrissy Alexander E-Mail: chrissy.alexander@cu.edu

Request for Proposals #: RFP_F-0000000053

PROPOSALS MUST BE RECEIVED BY: May 30, 2025.

E-MAIL OR FACSIMILE RESPONSES WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.

Rocky Mountain E-Purchasing System (BidNet) website link:

https://www.bidnetdirect.com/colorado/universityofcolorado

Schedule of Activities:

This projected schedule is an estimated timeline and is subject to change at the sole discretion of the University. All times listed in this document are understood to be Denver local time.

Event Date

RFP Advertisement April 18, 2025

Pre Proposal Bid Conference April 21, 2025, at 11:00 AM

Last Date to Submit Written Questions May 2, 2025, at 2:00 PM

Proposal Due Date May 30, 2025, at 2:00 PM

Pre-Proposal Conference – OPTIONAL An optional Pre-Proposal Conference will be held virtually via a Zoom Meeting at the date and time listed above in the Schedule of Activities. Please click on the following link to access the meeting.

https://cusystem.zoom.us/j/93281912975?from=addon

At this conference, University representatives will explain the opportunity and answer questions regarding this RFP, including any written questions submitted to the University prior to the conference.

RFP Questions The University will not answer any telephone inquiries about this RFP. Written questions are due by the deadline for questions listed in the Schedule of Activities above and shall be submitted electronically via the Rocky Mountain E-Purchasing System (BidNet) website. CU requires all questions to be submitted individually on this site.

Questions will be responded to by CU as deemed appropriate. If the Proposers’ questions are unclear or non-substantive in nature, CU may request clarifications or decline to answer.

mailto:chrissy.alexander@cu.edu https://cusystem.zoom.us/j/93281912975?from=addon

RFP_F-0000000053 Page 3

Note: BidNet limits the characters available to input for the University to respond to each question. For this reason, multiple questions may not be submitted as a single question, as the University is unable to respond to multiple questions in the space provided. Because of this limitation, the University reserves the right to reject groups of questions submitted in a single question box or to select and respond to only one question posed. A multi-part question containing an initial question and a follow-up is the exception to this rule. All questions and answers will be posted on the BidNet website as an addendum to the RFP at the link below following the deadline for submittal of questions:

https://www.bidnetdirect.com/colorado/universityofcolorado

Proposal Submittal The proposal shall be prepared in accordance with the Preparation of Proposal as described in Section VI of this RFP. Proposers shall submit their proposal and all required forms via the BidNet website. Proposals are due by the date and time listed in the Schedule of Activities above.

Allow ample time for the electronic submission of your proposal. Following is a link to a BidNet Electronic Bid Submission (EBS) site. CU strongly encourages Proposers to review this information prior to starting your submission in addition to starting the submission process at least one business day prior to the proposal due date. CU will not extend the submission deadline due to any technical issues or outages you may experience. Also provided below are links to a webinar recording and slide deck related to a vendor training that was conducted on November 8, 2023.

Proposer EBS Guide and FAQs:

https://faq.bidnetdirect.com/electronic-bid-submission/

Bidnet Webinar Recording and Slide Deck:

https://player.vimeo.com/video/886645835?h=6d7aea788f https://communications.bidnet.com/hubfs/University-of-Colorado-Vendor-Webinar-November-8- 2023.pdf

General Statement of Work The CU School of Medicine (CU SOM) seeks to replace the existing annual review platform, PRiSM, (Performance Management in the School of Medicine) and the School’s faculty database, FIMS (Faculty

Information Management System), with the goal of modernizing and centralizing the data management system for faculty lifecycle processes. The primary objective is to consolidate and automate faculty performance reviews, promotion processes, and reporting functions while enabling flexibility, customization, and seamless integration with existing systems. This updated system will streamline workflows, improve data management, and provide a more efficient review process for faculty, administrators, and staff. It is expected that the vendor providing the awarded solution, will also be providing implementation services including process analysis, change management, training, and support services for the maintenance and operations of the system in the years to come.

https://faq.bidnetdirect.com/electronic-bid-submission/ https://player.vimeo.com/video/886645835?h=6d7aea788f https://communications.bidnet.com/hubfs/University-of-Colorado-Vendor-Webinar-November-8-2023.pdf https://communications.bidnet.com/hubfs/University-of-Colorado-Vendor-Webinar-November-8-2023.pdf

RFP_F-0000000053 Page 4

PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

The following is a checklist for reference when compiling the proposal submission. The documents listed below are required:

• Technical Proposal:

o Complete responses to the Technical Proposal Content as outlined in Section

IV

• Cost Proposal

• Proposal Form(s) - all complete and signed o CU Solicitation Form

• Variances:

o List of all proposed modifications and/or legal issues regarding terms of the solicitation document and/or the Sample Agreement and Special Provisions, Attachment C and/or the Sample BAA, Attachment E

• Insurance Requirements

RFP_F-0000000053 Page 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP)

PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

I. UNIVERSITY AND PROJECT OVERVIEW

II. SCOPE OF WORK, QUALIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS

III. ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION

1. Issuing Office

2. Introduction and Acceptance of RFP Terms

3. Means of Communication

4. Interpretation of Proposal Documents

5. Addenda

6. CU BidNet Website

7. Withdrawal of Proposal

8. Award

9. Protested Solicitation and Award

10. Rights of CU

11. Confidentiality of Records

12. Proposer Agreements

13. Certification of Independent Price and Work Determination

14. Designation of Subcontractors

15. Payment

16. Insurance Requirements

17. Governmental Immunity

18. Conflicts of Interest

19. Form of the Contract

20. Solicitation Response and Material Ownership

21. Incurring Costs

22. Determination of the Responsibility of the Proposer

23. Amendment Process

24. Invoicing

25. Procedure for Invoice Payments

26. Audit

27. Travel Expenses

28. Non-Exclusive Agreement

RFP_F-0000000053 Page 6

29. Non-Discrimination

30. News Releases

31. Taxes

32. Assignment and Delegation

33. Standard of Conduct

34. Other Applicable Statutes

35. Cooperative Purchasing

36. IT Security and Compliance

IV. PREPARATION OF PROPOSAL

1. Preparation of Proposal – Proposal Forms

2. Preparation of Proposal – Technical Proposal

3. Technical Proposal Contents

4. Cost Proposal Form and Content

V. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

1. Evaluation of Proposals

2. Past Performance

3. Shortlisting and Oral Presentations (If Necessary)

4. Best and Final Offers

5. Evaluation Criteria

VI. ATTACHMENTS

A. CU Solicitation Form

B. Insurance Requirements

C. Sample Agreement and Special Provisions

RFP_F-0000000053 Page 7

I. UNIVERSITY AND PROJECT OVERVIEW

This solicitation is issued by the University of Colorado (CU or University), through the Procurement Service Center (PSC).

CU is the state’s largest and most influential public research university, a community of approximately 67,000 students and 37,000 employees spanning four campuses and system administration. Every year CU graduates thousands of students who fill critical workforce needs across the state. CU is the state’s third-largest employer with an annual operating budget of $5.5 billion. CU faculty attracted $1.4 billion in sponsored research awards to conduct research in economic sectors critical to the state and nation, including energy, bioscience, aerospace, and health care. Overall, CU contributes approximately $14 billion annually to the state’s economy.

The proposal must be prepared and submitted in accordance with the requirements and procedures contained in this RFP document and the University’s policies, rules, policies, and procedures.

Compliance with these requirements by the Proposer is mandatory and is a condition of responsiveness. Any failure to satisfy these requirements will be a sufficient basis for the University to disqualify the Proposer. The University shall not be liable for any of the Proposer’s expenses associated with its preparation of the proposal or University’s consideration of it. The Proposer, if selected, shall not include any such expenses as part of its fee for performing the Scope of Work.

As a result of this solicitation, CU intends to award a contract to a single proposer. The anticipated starting date for any resulting contract is July 28, 2025. By submitting a signed proposal in response to this solicitation, the Proposer represents and warrants that it will honor its proposal as being held open as irrevocable until time of award. The term of the contract resulting from the award of this solicitation shall begin upon execution of the contract, and end three (3) years later. The contract may be renewed upon mutual agreement for up to one (1) additional two-year period for a total term not to exceed five (5) years. CU, at its discretion, may terminate the contract with thirty (30) days’ notice by stating so in writing.

RFP_F-0000000053 Page 8

II. SCOPE OF WORK, QUALIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS

1. Project Background and Scope

The School of Medicine’s Office for Faculty Affairs (OFA) oversees a wide array of critical functions related to faculty management, including data collection, reporting, faculty promotions, appointments, awards of tenure, and annual performance reviews. These processes are essential in maintaining the smooth operation of the school, ensuring that faculty are appropriately evaluated and supported in their academic and professional growth, in alignment with university policies, state and federal laws, and accreditation and reporting requirements for various higher education accreditors.

Project Overview The CU School of Medicine (CU SOM) seeks to replace the existing annual review platform, PRiSM, (Performance Management in the School of Medicine) and the School’s faculty database, FIMS (Faculty Information Management System), with the goal of modernizing and centralizing the data management system for faculty lifecycle processes. The primary objective is to consolidate and automate faculty performance reviews, promotion processes, and reporting functions while enabling flexibility, customization, and seamless integration with existing systems.

This updated system will streamline workflows, improve data management, and provide a more efficient review process for faculty, administrators, and staff.

Challenges with Current Solutions

a. Manual Data Entry: The Office for Faculty Affairs (OFA) is currently relying on a combination of in-house developed solutions (FIMS & PRiSM) and other solutions to manage faculty data. However, these tools, as currently programmed and configured, require significant manual data input. The current systems lead to inefficiencies and increase the chance of human error.

b. Negative Feedback from Users: The current systems and processes have received negative feedback from faculty and departmental end-users. These issues stem from the cumbersome data entry and management process, the lack of dynamic reporting, and the rigid structure that does not easily allow for unique data fields depending on the type of work faculty perform. The issues make it difficult for users to efficiently interact with the system and obtain necessary information.

c. Lack of Longitudinal Database: There is no centralized, reliable, and comprehensive longitudinal database capable of tracking faculty professional characteristics or activity metrics. This gap in data management makes it difficult to generate meaningful reports without extensive manual effort, which is both time-consuming and prone to errors and delays.

d. Challenges in Reporting: Report generation is a manual and painstaking task, requiring significant data reconciliation with additional sources. Faculty data must be manually compiled before it can be published, which leads to delays and inconsistency in reporting.

e. Inability to Track Faculty Activities: There is a gap in tracking the broader range of faculty activities, such as national presentations, leadership roles, and contributions to academic endeavors. The lack of tracking makes it challenging for the OFA and departmental leaders to track faculty accomplishments and monitor their professional development over time.

f. Disconnected Data: Currently, there is no linkage between data entered for annual review and promotion processes. This disconnect adds clerical burden and makes it challenging to manage faculty evaluation in a holistic manner, as key performance metrics and feedback from one process may not be easily accessible during another.

g. Complexity of the Academic Promotion Process: The academic promotion process is vital for the institution's operations and is a priority for the Dean. However, the existing solution is cumbersome, requiring significant clerical workload, which delays decision-making and adds unnecessary complexity to the process.

h. Challenges in tracking and administering mentorship relationships as a CRM function

RFP_F-0000000053 Page 9

Current Hardware/Software Details

• Existing Systems: The OFA currently uses a combination of FIMS, PRiSM, and Interfolio.

• Hardware: Servers and infrastructure supporting the current systems.

• Software: Legacy systems for data entry, faculty roster management, and reporting, which may not be optimized for scalability or integration with modern platforms.

Opportunities for Improvement

a. Streamlining Business Processes: There is a significant opportunity to streamline and modernize the business processes associated with faculty data management, academic promotions, and other faculty activities. By eliminating manual data entry and reducing reliance on legacy systems, the OFA could improve efficiency, reduce errors, and create a smoother experience for all stakeholders.

b. Reducing Administrative Workload: Automating faculty data management and integrating various business processes would reduce the administrative burden. This would allow administrative staff to focus on higher-value tasks, such as supporting faculty development or addressing faculty needs in a timelier manner.

c. Enhancing Faculty Experience: By creating a more user-friendly and efficient system, the OFA can improve the overall experience for faculty members. They will have better access to the data needed for their annual reviews, promotions, and other evaluations, resulting in more transparency and satisfaction with the process. Faculty will have greater ability to tailor their performance reviews and promotion materials to their unique job circumstances to better communicate their activities and achievements during the annual review and promotion processes.

d. Leveraging Cutting-Edge Technology: The OFA has the opportunity to adopt modern, scalable technologies that can address the needs of the rapidly growing faculty community. Implementing a comprehensive, customizable solution will not only reduce clerical workload but also enhance the institution’s capacity to handle complex data and processes moving forward.

e. Customization for SOM's Needs: A vendor with the ability to provide a solution tailored to the unique needs of the School of Medicine is crucial. This would ensure that the system is aligned with the specific requirements of the academic, research, administrative, and clinical roles that faculty members play. However, this needs to be done without creating “technical debt”, or a hard-to-maintain system that is quite different from other instances of the system in production at like institutions.

f. Benefiting from Industry Standards and Domain Expertise: SOM would like to ensure that the system is developed, maintained and continually improved with the technology sector’s best practices in mind. SOM would also like to ensure that product implementation, roadmap and support are benefiting from the domain expertise of the vendor, in the higher education sector, and specifically in the large medical school sub-category.

Project Objectives

a. Develop a Comprehensive Solution: Create a robust, centralized system that consolidates faculty data and streamlines business processes, including appointments, annual reviews, promotions, and tenure awards.

b. Automate Data Management: Minimize manual data entry and reporting by automating the collection, maintenance, and reporting of faculty data, allowing for better data accuracy and timeliness.

c. Enable Holistic Faculty Tracking: Implement a system that can track a wide range of faculty activities and achievements (e.g., research, teaching, clinical work, presentations, leadership roles) to provide a holistic view of faculty performance.

d. Integrate Review and Promotion Data: Link the data from annual reviews and promotions to allow for a more seamless and cohesive process.

e. Improve Reporting Capabilities: Establish a system that can easily generate reports on faculty demographics, activities, and performance metrics without extensive manual

RFP_F-0000000053 Page 10 effort. Also, allow SOM to easily integrate the system’s data into an existing data warehouse or repository that facilitates cross-system reporting across multiple dimensions such as finance, human resources, grants, compliance, and accreditation.

f. Enhance User Experience: Improve the experience for both faculty and administrative staff by providing a more intuitive, user-friendly interface for managing and accessing faculty data.

a. Prepare for Scaling: Design the system to be flexible and scalable, allowing future adjustments, including those align with changes in operating models, faculty management practices, university policy, and law, without requiring significant code changes.

Expected Outcomes

a. Reduced Clerical Workload: Administrative staff and faculty will spend less time on manual data entry,reconciliation, and collation allowing them to focus on more strategic tasks.

b. Improved Data Accuracy and Reporting: The new system will provide accurate, reliable, and up-to-date faculty data, facilitating better decision-making and reducing errors in reporting.

c. Enhanced Faculty Satisfaction: Faculty will experience a smoother, customizable, and more transparent process for annual reviews, promotions, and other administrative processes, leading to greater satisfaction.

d. Streamlined Faculty Review & Promotion Processes: The promotion process will become more efficient and less time-consuming, allowing for timely and well-supported academic decisions.

e. Scalable Solution: The system will be flexible and scalable to accommodate the growth of the faculty over time, ensuring that it can meet future needs.

f. Cost Effectiveness: The total cost of ownership of the system and its related resources, over the system’s lifetime, will be in line with competing solutions.

g. Reduction in Technical Complexity: SOM will no longer have to own the technical complexity of this system, with limited, shared IT resources.

h. Alignment with Cybersecurity, Data Privacy, and IT Best Practices: SOM will benefit from a system that is designed and maintained with IT best practices in mind, including and especially in the areas of cybersecurity and data privacy.

Deliverables

Vendor must provide an initial response to each of these sub-sections below, as part of their overall response to the RFP. The response needs to show how the vendor will address each of these sub-sections in their proposed solution. The more full-featured the response in each of these sub-sections, the more favorably it is likely to be assessed as part of the RFP Evaluation Criteria. The expectation is that the awarded vendor will refine these responses or deliverables in the initial planning phases of the system implementation work, in collaboration with CU SOM project stakeholders.

a. Customized, Turnkey Software Solution: A fully integrated, comprehensive, turnkey system that manages faculty data, business processes, and reporting, that is completely ready to be implemented without any additional programming or modification by SOM.

b. User Interface: A user-friendly interface for both faculty and administrative users to interact with the system, that reduces or eliminates repetition of data entry and provides the most effective and efficient way to accomplish key requirements, user stories, or use cases.

c. Business Process Transformation Plan: A draft plan that shows:

i. How business process analysis and systems analysis will be conducted in concert with SOM to discover the full functionality provided by existing systems

RFP_F-0000000053 Page 11 such as Prism and FIMS, including any back-end integrations or system functionality that are not documented in this RFP.

ii. How major processes or workflows will change from their current state with PRiSM and FIMS, to a future state with the proposed system and its integrations with associated systems and services.

iii. This draft Process Transformation Plan in the proposal will be edited and updated by the awarded vendor and SOM during the implementation planning phase based on a discovery phase with the awarded proposer.

d. Fit-Gap Analysis: A proposed analysis that helps identify the differences or gaps that exist between the functionality requested by SOM, and the current capabilities of the proposed solution, enabling SOM to make informed decisions about application customization/extension, or additional/alternative solutions. Given that we have had unique, home-grown systems in use in this space over many years, we expect that not everything we ask for in the requested system functionality can be reasonably addressed by a single system, but we need the vendor to help us understand what in our requested functionality cannot be addressed by the proposed system. This will allow us to think about additional solutions to augment the proposed solution, in order to meet the larger set of needs that might exist.

e. Data Migration Plan: A proposed plan for a one-time migration of existing/historical data from the current systems (FIMS, PRiSM, HCM, other sources) to the new solution.

i. We have custom, in-house applications that have been running for a good part of a decade, or more, that provide strong functionality in this space. In your plan, please address how you believe we can maximize the value derived from the migration of historical data from our legacy applications to your proposed solution, while minimizing the risk.

ii. Please include QA/QC details about how you intend to validate and reconcile the data migration.

f. Data/System Integration Plan: A proposed plan for an ongoing integration of the latest data in upstream and downstream data systems and data repositories with the proposed solution, including existing data from internal enterprise data sources (HCM, Grants, Contracts and other sources) and external systems (PubMed and other sources), with a view to minimizing clerical workload, data accuracy, and overall process efficiency.

i. Keep in mind that there might be potential integration with university-wide enterprise systems, such as PeopleSoft HCM, CIW, and Salesforce, and SOM-specific data repositories such as A2E, to ensure that faculty data is synchronized across the institution. (We must note that HCM does not allow data uploads from other systems but serves as the upstream system of record for all human resources, and financial data across the CU system.)

ii. The proposed system must be compatible with other cloud and on-premises solutions used within SOM for purposes of workflow automation, data analytics and overall business process transformation, including Smartsheet, Tableau, and Power BI.

iii. Please share the approach by which you expect to integrate the proposed solution with key systems or sources of data that will continue to operate contemporaneously with this proposed solution, including PeopleSoft HCM, and Active Directory/LDAP.

iv. We have an operational data store and data warehouse (A2E) where we house data from many transactional systems, to allow our end-users to access data in a much more efficient and standardized manner. Please share if you would allow us to incorporate your system’s data into this operational data store, and how that might work.

g. System Migration/Cutover Plan. A proposed plan that describes how either a phased approach to system migration, or a “big bang” approach to system migration, will be

RFP_F-0000000053 Page 12 utilized in our setting to gradually or immediately migrate to the proposed solution. Please describe ways in which the vendor will define and manage success in this space, given how vitally important this is to our overall effort. It is also important for us to understand what kinds of tests vendor will run to verify success in this space, and if there will be any way to roll back to a safe harbor or last known good state, in case the cutover fails.

h. Testing Plan. A proposed plan that addresses throughout the life of the entire project:

a. Types of testing, including but not limited to User Acceptance Testing (to ensure that users have a chance to validate the system configuration and operation), System and Integration Testing (to see if all of the system and its integrations are working correctly), Load/Performance Testing (to simulate the load of all the expected users well before go-live), Regression Testing (to ensure that new code or data updates don’t break the system)

b. Test case development and ownership. We want to see the vendor provide and run test cases for the major use cases or areas of requested system functionality.

If SOM needs to play a part in this, this should be spelled out.

c. Issue tracking and resolution processes. We would like to see tracking and resolution processes for issues uncovered during testing.

d. Customer involvement in UAT. We would like to see a proposed manner by which the vendor will engage key system user representatives in User Acceptance Testing.

i. Reporting Tools: Please describe the tools in the proposed solution that allow for the automated generation of reports related to faculty demographics, activities, publications, and performance. This also includes APIs and other tools that allow SOM to integrate the proposed solution’s data into existing and/or new data repositories, allowing the organization to more easily provide unified reporting across multiple platforms and applications.

j. Implementation Plan. Detailed plan customized for CU SOM that lays out all of the steps and stages in the full implementation of the purchased functionality, developed/updated with input from SOM, with a special focus on requirements validation, system configuration, user acceptance testing, training, go-live support, overall implementation support, and organizational change management.

i. As we move toward implementation, it is essential that the vendor conducts a thorough assessment of SOM’s existing in-house systems, processes, and integrations, relative to the scope of this RFP. This evaluation should include a full review of critical business workflows and dependencies to ensure that no functionality is disrupted during or after implementation. We expect your team to identify potential gaps, dependencies, and conflicts early in the process, and to provide recommendations for mitigating risks to operational continuity.

ii. Your due diligence, and attention to detail with regard to implementation planning will be a key factor in ensuring a smooth transition and protecting the integrity of our essential business processes, and the overall return on investment of this project.

iii. Please share with us what you believe are the lessons learned from other similar implementations, that have helped inform your implementation best practices, risk mitigation approaches, and measures of success.

iv. Describe any methods, tools, and/or timelines for building, tracking, and testing system implementations of your proposed solution.

v. Please also share with us processes and approaches that you have in your implementation playbook that will aid in our project’s realignment, recovery and eventual success, should things not go as planned in the implementation of this proposed system.

vi. Please share with us a description of your entire team, including and especially the roles and backgrounds of the key players who will be involved in helping us with this implementation, in areas including but not limited to implementation

RFP_F-0000000053 Page 13 planning, product configuration, user acceptance testing, training, go-live management, support, change management, etc.

k. Go-Live Support

a. Training, and Materials. We would like access to the proposed types of training, and the various training materials, for the different types of roles and audiences, including end-user faculty and administrative staff, power users, technical support, and system administration, in order for SOM to effectively use and maintain the new system.

b. Communications and Change Management Support. We would like to see any components or planning that helps us understand how the vendor will help our team in managing communications and change management for various groups of system users, and customers. We would have interest in a variety of engagements with our user and customer base, in advance of the go-live period, including webinars, town halls, and virtual meetings.

c. Go-Live Support Plan. We would like to see a proposed plan for what the vendor will provide through their implementation team and support team during what is sometimes called the “hypercare period” or “go-live period”. If there is an expected role or best practice for SOM to stand up a helpdesk as part of the go-live period, that should be spelled out. Sample scripts, training materials and other documentation relevant to this plan should be provided as part of the response in this sub-section.

d. Monitoring of System Performance and Go-Live System Adoption Metrics.

Please provide examples of what you believe you will provide during the go-live phase to help us understand the performance of the system, customer satisfaction (end-user community), and the level of system adoption, as a way to understand the health of the overall implementation effort.

l. Business Continuity Plan. A proposed plan for allowing SOM to operate in the event the system goes down or becomes inaccessible.

m. Cybersecurity and Data Privacy. A description of how the proposed solution incorporates standards, practices, and infrastructure designed to protect highly sensitive faculty and staff data, in conformance with evolving industry best practices, as defined by standards and/or institutions such as ISO 27001, SOC 2, OWASP, and NIST. Please share as much as is feasible for you to share about your technology solution’s alignment with cybersecurity and data security/privacy best practices, and compliance with applicable state and federal laws, and our organizational policies in this space.

n. Maintenance and Operations. The vendor must provide a detailed service level agreement that defines and describes the response time, and quality of service that the customer can expect over the life of the system, including and after the implementation phase.

2. Minimum Mandatory Qualifications

Proposers must meet these minimum requirements to be considered for evaluation and award.

Functional Requirements:

a. Must be able to integrate seamlessly with University systems via APIs based on contemporary, secure, and widely accepted technology standards.

b. Must have customizable user roles and permissions, with the ability to assign specific review tasks to faculty and administrators.

c. Must have the ability to provide automated generation of reports, including faculty performance reviews and promotion status.

d. Must have flexibility to support varying workflows across departments and user roles.

e. Real-time data availability and performance metrics.

RFP_F-0000000053 Page 14

Non-Functional Requirements:

a. The system must be scalable to accommodate growth in the number and roles of faculty members and additional departments or divisions.

b. Data privacy must comply with state law, federal law, university policy, HIPAA and other relevant privacy standards.

c. System security must conform to CU policies, state and federal law, and evolving industry best practices defined by standards and/or institutions such as ISO 27001, SOC 2, OWASP, and NIST.

d. System data must be encrypted at rest and in-motion.

e. The system must have 99.9% uptime and include a robust disaster recovery plan.

3. Minimum Service Requirements

Proposers must agree to provide the following Minimum Service Requirements during the life of any contract awarded.

a. Must provide warranty period and policy.

b. Must provide details on after-sales support model.

c. Must provide a proposal for training staff on use of the platform.

d. Must provide clear documentation for implementation, maintenance, and troubleshooting.

e. Must provide a proposal for ongoing customer support, including software updates and security patches.

RFP_F-0000000053 Page 15

III. ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION

1. Issuing Office This RFP is being issued by the University of Colorado (CU or University) through the Procurement Service Center (PSC). This RFP is governed by the University’s policies and Procurement Rules in effect at the time of its issuance. The PSC Purchasing Agent listed herein is the sole point of contact concerning this RFP. All communication must be done through the PSC. Prospective and actual Proposers shall not directly contact other CU personnel regarding matters concerning this solicitation.

2. Introduction and Acceptance of RFP Terms

The Proposer, by submitting its proposal, acknowledges that it understands and will agree to the corresponding Exhibits and the Scope of Work, and that the Proposer shall be able to perform as required. Acknowledgement of this condition shall be indicated by the signature of an officer or authorized agent of the Proposer on the CU Solicitation Form which is attached hereto and incorporated here in as Attachment A. A submission in response to this RFP acknowledges acceptance by the Proposer of all terms and conditions as set forth herein. The Proposer shall identify clearly and thoroughly any variations between its proposal and this RFP. Failure to do so shall be deemed a waiver of any rights to subsequently modify the terms of performance, except as outlined or specified in this RFP.

Proposers shall undertake a detailed review of Attachment C, Sample Agreement and Special Provisions, and submit with their proposal a list of all legal issues or proposed modifications which the Proposer would like CU to consider, should they be selected for award. The Proposer may submit questions regarding the Sample Agreement and Special Provisions using the same method designated for other questions related to this RFP. Proposers are strongly advised to seek legal counsel for advice regarding the Sample Agreement and Special Provisions. CU will not respond to legal questions about the interpretation of a provision of the Sample Agreement and Special Provisions or provide legal advice regarding the Agreement to proposers. CU shall assume that the Sample Agreement and Special Provisions has been thoroughly reviewed and discussed with legal counsel prior to submission of the Proposal. If the Proposer does not identify any issues or proposed modifications to the Sample Agreement and Special Provisions, CU may refuse to consider any proposed revisions received later from the Proposer, if they are selected for award.

CU may consider the Proposer’s comments in considering whether to select Proposer for award.

The Sample Agreement and Special Provisions are subject to revision or modification by CU at any time. CU reserves the right to modify any term or condition of this Agreement, and to add, delete or modify terms and conditions, as CU’s interests may require, prior to execution of a final agreement. The Sample Agreement and Special Provisions may contain provisions required by Federal, State, and/or University policy, and these provisions may not be revised or negotiated.

3. Means of Communication

During the solicitation process for this RFP, all communication between the PSC and Proposers will be made via postings on CU’s Rocky Mountain E-Purchasing System’s (BidNet’s) website:

RFP_F-0000000053 Page 16

The PSC will post notices, which include, but are not limited to, any modifications to administrative or performance requirements, answers to inquiries received, clarifications to requirements, addenda, and the announcement of the awarded Proposer. It is the responsibility of each potential Proposer to monitor the BidNet website regularly to be aware of changes, communications and/or addenda to solicitation.

4. Interpretation of Proposal Documents The Proposer may request, in writing, a clarification or interpretation of any aspect of the RFP documents. Such requests must be made via the BidNet website by the due date and time specified in the Schedule of Activities listed on Page 2. CU shall post all questions and answers on the BidNet website following the deadline for submittal of questions as an addendum to the bid.

CU will not accept or respond to oral inquiries except for those made at the Pre-Proposal Conference, if applicable. The only ‘official’ responses are those that are posted to the BidNet website for this RFP.

Should any interested Proposer, sales representative, or manufacturer find any part of the listed specifications or terms and conditions to be discrepant, incomplete, or otherwise questionable, it shall be the responsibility of the concerned party to notify the Purchasing Agent of such matters immediately upon discovery.

Proposers cannot rely on any other statements that clarify or alter any specification or other term or condition of the solicitation.

5. Addenda

CU reserves the right to revise the RFP documents at any time up to the time set for submission of the proposals. Any such revision(s) shall be described in an addendum to the RFP and shall be posted on CU’s BidNet website.

If CU determines that the addendum may require significant changes to the Scope of Work, the deadline for submitting the proposals may be postponed by the number of days that CU determines will allow Proposers sufficient time to revise their proposals. Any new submittal deadline date for delivering proposals to CU shall be included in the addendum.

Proposers must acknowledge in the proposal submission that they received all addenda to the proposal documents (see Attachment A). Failure to acknowledge receipt of addenda may disqualify the proposal.

6. CU BidNet Website It shall be conclusively presumed that the Proposer did, before submitting a proposal and prior to the final proposal deadline, read all addenda, posted decisions and other information items relevant to the RFP which appeared on CU’s BidNet website. Proposer may also contact the Purchasing Agent by email at Procurement@cu.edu to confirm all posted information.

Please visit CU’s BidNet website which contains such services and information as:

a. Advertisements for Documented Quote, RFx and IFB opportunities

b. Status of Documented Quote, RFx and IFB opportunities

c. Addendums including Proposer questions and responses

d. Award information mailto:Procurement@cu.edu

RFP_F-0000000053 Page 17

7. Withdrawal of Proposal

A Proposer may withdraw its proposal, up until time of award, by submitting to CU a written request signed by the Proposer’s authorized representative. The withdrawal of a proposal does not prejudice the right of the Proposer to submit future proposals.

8. Award

Any resulting contract from this solicitation will be awarded to the Proposer whose overall offer is deemed to be the most advantageous to CU as determined by the evaluation team. The PSC, after review and approval of the evaluation team's written recommendation, will notify all Proposers via a posting on CU’s BidNet website of the results of the solicitation evaluation. The posting will be an announcement of the award.

The contents of the proposal (including persons specified to implement the project) of the Proposer will become contractual obligations if acquisition action ensues. Failure of the successful Proposer to accept these obligations in a contract, purchase order, or similar authorized acquisition document may result in cancellation of the award and such Proposer may be removed from future solicitations.

9. Protested Solicitation and Award

Any actual or prospective Proposer who is aggrieved in connection with either the solicitation or subsequent award of a contract may protest to the University of Colorado, Associate Vice President/Chief Procurement Officer. The protest shall be submitted in writing within seven working days after such aggrieved person knows, or should have known, of the facts giving rise thereto. Sections IX, C. and IX, D. University of Colorado Procurement Rules.

Regarding the language above, it is important for proposers to note that a protest to the solicitation’s requirements or specifications should be made within seven (7) working days of when the item being protested is known or after the Award date whichever comes first.

The announcement of the Award will be made via a posting on CU’s BidNet website. The requirement for timely submission of any protest (7 working days) will begin on the first working day following posting of the Award.

10. Rights of CU CU reserves the right to cancel or modify this RFP at any time and to reject any or all proposals for any reason or for no reason. This RFP is an open and equitable invitation for proposals, and each proposal constitutes an offer to contract that CU may consider in its sole and absolute discretion. Any errors or omissions in a proposal may result in the rejection and disqualification of the entire proposal. Errors, omissions, and other acts that may result in proposal rejection and disqualification include, but are not limited to, failure to strictly comply with the RFP requirements or any applicable policies, rules, or policies; the submission of any inaccurate or false information;

any improper communications or collusion involving Proposers; default or termination for cause of any public or private contracts within the past five years; delinquent arrearages owed to CU;

and failure to submit proof of licensing or franchise authority and any related exclusivity requirements.

Notwithstanding the broad rights reserved to CU to reject and disqualify any or all proposals, CU may waive any immaterial deficiencies in proposals and may allow Proposers to cure any such

RFP_F-0000000053 Page 18 deficiencies if an opportunity to cure is determined by CU to be in CU’s best interests. If given an opportunity to cure, Proposers will be notified of the allotted time to correct the identified deficiency; failure to correct the deficiency in the time allotted may result in proposals being deemed non-responsive and disqualified. CU’s waiver of an immaterial deficiency will in no way modify the RFP or excuse Proposers from full compliance with all RFP specifications. CU may exercise the foregoing rights at any time without notice and without any liability whatsoever to any Proposer or other party. By responding to this RFP, each Proposer is deemed to accept and agree to all terms and conditions and to waive any rights to challenge CU’s determinations regarding proposal deficiencies in accordance with this section.

During the evaluation process, CU reserves the right to request additional information from any Proposer, to seek clarification of information provided, to conduct its own due diligence with respect to any Proposer or proposal, reference checks, or any other investigations deemed necessary.

11. Confidentiality of Records

Documents submitted to or created by the University in response to this solicitation are subject to the Colorado Open Records Act (C.R.S. § 24-72-201 et seq.) (“CORA”). In accordance with the University policies and procedures, all documents submitted to or created by the University in response to this solicitation are confidential and privileged and may not be inspected until an award is made or the solicitation is cancelled by the University. An award is made when the University formally executes a contract resulting from this solicitation. A solicitation is cancelled when notice of such cancellation is posted on University’s BidNet Website.

CORA requires the University to withhold certain information, including trade secrets, confidential commercial and financial data, or privileged information. To designate portions of the solicitation as confidential, Proposer must:

1. Mark the cover page as follows: “This response to the Solicitation Name and Number includes trade secrets, confidential financial data, or other privileged information.”

2. Mark each sheet or data to be restricted with the following: “Confidential: Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the cover page of this response to the solicitation.”

3. Provide a separate secondary proposal in BidNet with a redacted copy of your entire response to this solicitation. Proposer is responsible for properly and adequately redacting any data which Proposer desires to remain confidential. If entire pages or sections are removed, a page indicating that the page or section has been redacted must represent the redacted pages. Failure to provide a secondary response with a redacted copy may result in disclosure of an unredacted copy under CORA.

4. Provide a written explanation of the basis under which each redacted item has been deemed confidential, making refence to the exception under CORA and/or any other law restricting disclosure.

Neither a proposal in its entirety, nor proposal price information will be considered confidential/proprietary.

A request for non-disclosure of your proposal under the guidelines stated above does not guarantee it can be withheld under CORA. The Proposer's opinion as to what constitutes trade secret, confidential financial data, or privileged information is not binding on the University when

RFP_F-0000000053 Page 19 responding to a CORA request. Where a CORA request is made to inspect or copy proposals or other documents related to this opportunity, the University has sole discretion to determine whether information or records must be provided under CORA.

12. Proposer Agreements Proposers may submit proposed agreements of any form (contracts or documents) that contain supplemental terms and conditions that the Proposer desires to be considered by CU for inclusion in the contract. Such forms may include Proposer’s software licensing agreements, maintenance contracts, and technical support agreements. By accepting delivery of these items, CU is not bound to accept them as part of an ensuing contract. CU may negotiate such supplemental terms and conditions that do not materially conflict with the contract terms and conditions detailed in this RFP and do not materially change the nature of this solicitation or adversely affect competition. If the parties cannot agree on the terms of the contract, including any terms desired by Proposer, CU may terminate negotiations with the Proposer and enter into a contract with another responsive Proposer.

13. Certification of Independent Price and Work Determination

By submission of this proposal, each Proposer, and in the case of a joint proposal, each party thereto, certified, that, in connection with this procurement:

a. Prices and specific work processes in this proposal have been arrived at independently, without consultation, communication, or agreement, for the purpose of restricting competition, as to any matter relating to such prices with any other Proposer or with any competitor, or with any party contracted by CU to design and/or manage all or part of the program or work of which this RFP is a part;

b. Unless otherwise required by law, the prices quoted and specific work processes described in this proposal have not been knowingly disclosed by the Proposer and will not knowingly be disclosed by the Proposer prior to opening, directly or indirectly to any other Proposer or to any competitor or to any party contracted by CU to design and/or manage all or part of the program or work of which this RFP is a part; and

c. No attempt has been made or will be made by the Proposer to induce any other person or firm to submit or not to submit a proposal for the purpose of restricting competition.

Further, each person signing Attachment A, CU Solicitation Form, for this proposal certified that:

d. They are the person in the Proposer’s organization responsible for the decision as to the prices being offered herein and that they have not participated, and will not participate, in any action contrary to subsection a through c above; or

e. They are not the person in the Proposer’s organization responsible for the decision as to the prices being offered herein but that they have been authorized in writing to act as agent for the persons responsible for such decision in certifying that such persons have not participated, and will not participate, in any action contrary to…