FDLE-ITN-2601 Addenda #1.pdf

DATE: August 28, 2025

SOLICITATION NUMBER: FDLE ITN 2601

SOLICITATION TITLE: Information Technology Services Management Solution

REPLY OPENING: September 16, 2025

ADDENDA NUMBER: 1

This addendum serves as notice of responses to questions received from potential Vendors relevant to the Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) and amended pages from the original ITN document.

Remove: Pages 9-10 of the original advertisement 07/28/2025 Invitation to Negotiate document.

Insert: Attached pages 9-10 of the Invitation to Negotiate document marked amended (8/28/2025).

All other terms and conditions of the ITN remain unchanged.

THIS ADDENDUM NOW BECOMES PART OF YOUR PROPOSAL RESPONSE.

THE ADDENDA ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM SHALL BE SIGNED BY AN AUTHORIZED COMPANY REPRESENTATIVE, DATED AND RETURNED WITH THE ITN RESPONSE.

ADDENDA ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

COMPANY NAME:

ADDRESS:

CITY: STATE: ZIP:

AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE: TITLE:

AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE: DATE:

PHONE: EMAIL:

FAILURE TO FILE A PROTEST WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED IN FLORIDA STATUTE 120.57(3) OR FAILURE TO FILE A BOND OR OTHER SECURITY WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED FOR FILING A BOND SHALL CONSTITUTE A WAIVER OF

PROCEEDINGS UNDER CHAPTER 120 FLORIDA STATUTES.

SECTION 2 SCHEDULE OF EVENTS—AMENDED (AUGUST 28, 2025)

Below is the timeline that represents the Department’s best estimate of the schedule that will be followed.

If deviations from this schedule occur, the Department will publish an ITN addendum on the Vendor Information Portal (VIP). No liability to the Department will result from such deviations. All required Respondent actions must be completed by the date and time in the schedule. The Department will not consider late submittals. All listed times are Eastern Time (ET) in Tallahassee, Florida.

EVENT DUE DATE LOCATION

ITN Advertised/Released 07/28/2025 Posted to the Vendor Information Portal (VIP)

Vendor Information Portal

Non-Mandatory Pre-Reply Conference

08/12/2025

@ 2:00 p.m.

Via Conference Call

Conference Call Number:

(850) 270-3999

Participation Code:

756 972 908#

Questions Submitted in writing by email

Must be received

PRIOR TO:

08/20/2025

@ 12:00 p.m.

Submission deadline for Respondent Written Questions

FDLE Procurement Officer via email:

FDLEOGSContracts@fdle.state.fl.us

Answers to Questions

(Anticipated Date) 08/28/2025

Technical Replies Due

Must be received

PRIOR TO:

09/12/2025

@ 2:30 p.m.

Submit To:

FDLE Off-Site Mail Facility c/o Florida Department of Law Enforcement Headquarters, Office of General Services

Attention: Angela Githens 813B Lake Bradford Road

Tallahassee, FL 32304 angelagithens@fdle.state.fl.us

Technical Reply Opening

09/12/2025

09/16/2025

@ 3:00 p.m.

344 560 933#

FDLE-ITN-2601 Addenda #1 9 08/28/2025

EVENT DUE DATE LOCATION

Anticipated Evaluations Phase

09/17/2025- 10/06/2025

09/22/2025 –

10/08/2025

Evaluation Team Members to begin evaluations individually.

Anticipated Negotiation Phase

10/13/2025- 11/03/2025

10/20/2025 –

11/05/2025

Negotiations are not public meetings, however, they are recorded.

Negotiation meetings will be conducted in Tallahassee, Florida, if conducted in-person, or using technology-based solutions, if conducted remotely.

Negotiation Team Public Meeting

(Anticipated Date)

11/04/2025

11/10/2025

@ 10:00 a.m.

843 556 87#

Posting of Intent to

Award

(Anticipated Date)

11/04/2025

11/10/2025

The Department shall utilize the State of Florida, MyFloridaMarketPlace Vendor Information Portal, and the Florida Administrator Register for all Invitation to Negotiate Public Notice information in accordance with Chapter 120.525, F.S., and Rule 28-102.001, F.A.C., respectively.

THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

FDLE-ITN-2601 Addenda #1 10 08/28/2025

Q uestion #

Q uestion

FD

LE Response

Does FDLE use AzureAD (Entra ID) or only on-prem

Active Directory

FDLE uses both AzureAD (Entra ID) and on-prem Active Directory.

W hich Asset M anagem ent System does FDLE use?

FDLE uses FLAIR for Asset M anagem ent. See page 48 for additional inform ation.

Can a few sm all on-prem ises supporting servers be used to com m unicate w ith the vendor's SaaS system s w here needed?

FDLE anticipates a fully functional vendor hosted and m aintained SaaS envirom ent.

W hat are all the current w orkflow capabilities?

FDLE has a num ber of w orkflow s that include but are not lim ited to: ticket creation, assignm ent, escalation, approvals, and closure w orkflow

s. FDLE seeks expanded autom ation, dashboards, and reporting in the new SaaS

ITSM

solution. O ther w orkflow s m ay be discussed and evaluated during negotiations.

Are the Phases m eant to be Launced into production or just developed and tested separately w ith deploym ent including all phases?

FDLE expects a phased launch into production. Each phase should be tested separately and deployed sequentially to m inim ize operational disruption.

Vendors should recom m end the sequencing that best aligns w ith FDLE’s operational needs.

Volum e O ne requires a "Redacted Copy" be included.

W hat exactly are w e redacting?

Respondents m ust redact confidential, trade secret, or proprietary inform ation consistent w ith Florida Statutes Chapter 119 (Public Records Law

How m any ticket tem plates w ill be needed (Cherw ell calls these Specifics form s)? How com plex are these tem plates/ For exam ple, how m any fields each, how m any require approvals, how m any require tasks or other w orkflow once subm itted?

FDLE doesn't have a predeterm ined num ber of ticket tem plates, how ever they w ill vary in com plexity. Som e require m ultiple fields, approvals, and w orkflow steps; others are sim pler. Vendors should propose a flexible configuration approach.

Is a Design Docum ent Required? If so, is there need for tw o versions: As-Designed and As-Built or Just As-

Built?

FDLE does not require a Design docum ent for the SaaS solution.

W hat does it m ean that "Changes should be reflected on the ... Dashboards...? Can you provide an exam ple?

FDLE expects that system changes (e.g., ticket status updates, w orkflow actions) w ill be autom atically reflected in real-tim e dashboards. Exam ple:

w hen an incident is escalated, dashboards update im m ediately to show the new assignm ent.

FDLE-ITN-2601 FDLE Answers Addendum #1 08/28/2025

Q uestion

FD

LE Response

Is the custom er dashboard view expected to be view ed in the portal by custom ers? If so, w hat data is needed to be displayed and does the data have to be in the form of a dashboard or w ould equivalent data be acceptable?

Yes. FDLE em ployees w ill view dashboards in the self-service portal. Data should include at a m inim um but not be lim ited to: ticket status, com m ents, and history of that FDLE em ployee's ticket subm issions. Equivalent data presentations are acceptable if functionality is m aintained. Vendors should propose any addtional functionality.

W ould it be acceptable to use an Infrastructure

Category for either or both Incident and Service Request or do you need a full custom ticket type object?

FDLE anticipates three separate categories Infrastructure, Incident, and Service Requests. Vendors should provide a solution that supports clear categorization, reporting, and ITIL alignm ent. Custom ticket types m ay be proposed if they add value.

How do you define Alert? Are alerts a type of ticket?

O r is an alert a special form atting of a ticket based on a set of conditions?

FDLE defines an Alert as a notification or condition-based trigger that m ay result in a ticket or special form atting of a ticket. Alerts are not a separate ticket type but m ay be configured to escalate or highlight conditions.

W hat is the definition of an 'external' user. Is this the general public accessing the system w ithout authentication?

External custom ers are defined in the Definitions section of Attachm ent H page 48. They w ill not access the system . FDLE w ill enter tickets into the system on their behalf.

W ill the external custom ers be authenticated? If yes, how

? Through Active Directory, or som ething like

O kta? O penID?

N o.

How is tim e tracked to open tasks?

Tim e on tasks is tracked through ticket and task tim estam ps w ithin Cherw ell.

The new

ITSM

solution m ust provide integrated tim e tracking for tasks and w orkflow s.

Can you estim ate the num ber of roles required?

How m any roles w ill require field specific access rights vs record-specific rights?

U ser Types w ill differentiate functional roles. Exam ples: Adm inistrator, IT Analyst, Project M gr., Section M gr., Service Desk, and Service Desk M anager.

U ser Types w ill determ ine access, w orkflow s, and reporting. The specific num ber of roles is undeterm ined at this tim e.

W hat is the intended purpose of the U ser G roups?

Assign w ork to them

, send notifications to them

Request approval from them

? O ther? Are U ser G roups the sam e as Team s?

U ser G roups w ill be used to assign w ork, send notifications, and request approvals. They m ay also function as team s for w orkload m anagem ent.

Vendors should provide flexible group configuration.

How w ill the U ser Type be used in daily operations?

Can you also provide som e exam ple types?

See Answ er #16.

Q uestion

FD

LE Response

W hat are Alert Designations? How are they represented in the system and how are they used?

Attachm ent H Section V. (A.), #24

W hat are VIP custom er alerts?

VIP alerts are special notifications applied to tickets raised by high-priority individuals or agencies. These alerts ensure expedited handling and visibility w ithin dashboards and w orkflow s.

W hat is a data retention action?

Data retention should include a full audit trail, record addition, deletion, and all m odifications m ade to tickets, including the creation or m odification date/tim e, user inform ation involved, even w hen m ultiple users m ake changes at the sam e tim e (creator, status changes, com m ents, notes, resolution, etc.)

W hat are "application tem plates"? How are they created and used in Cherw ell?

Application tem plates in Cherw ell are pre-defined form s used to stream line ticket creation. They are created by adm inistrators and used to standardize fields, approvals, and w orkflow s for recurring requests.

Please describe the level of interaction w ith the state's Asset/Accounting M anagem ent system

Im porting records? Tagging assets w ith codes from the accounting system ? Providing asset depreciation reports?

Currently the Cherw ell solution does not integrate w ith the FLAIR system

FDLE’s interaction w ith FLAIR/PALM is prim arily for im porting records and tagging assets w ith state accounting codes. The optional PALM integration w ould be a future enhancem ent.

Does FDLE have a current change m anagem ent process docum ented? Please provide an overview of the existng process.

Yes. FDLE m aintains a docum ented Change M anagem ent process aligned to ITIL. Changes are logged, review ed by the Configuration & Change Control

Board (CCCB), and approved prior to release. Vendors should propose a Change M anagem ent process that includes at a m inim um the listed functions.

How m any Know ledge bases do you have currently?

N one.

How m any Know ledge Articles w ould need to be m igrated?

N one.

Do you have Know ledge O w ners / and M anagers, and do you have a w ell-defined Know ledge M anagem ent

Process?

N one.

Q uestion

FD

LE Response

Do you have Know ledge in other repositories / system s that you w ould w ant our solution to integrate into?

N one.

Is Problem

M gm t being considered as part of your

ITSM

im plem entation?

N o.

Is M ajor Incident M gm t being considered?

Q uestion is unclear as w ritten.

How m any Service Requests are planned to be developed?

Q uestion is unclear as w ritten.

How m any Application Access system s are being considered?

~150 approxim ately

Does your current Helpdesk follow

ITIL processes and standards?

FDLE’s current Cherw ell system follow s ITIL processes to a lim ited degree.

The new

ITSM

solution should support ITIL best practices.

Is the CSC open to a Case M anagem ent approach incorporating ITSM com ponents?

Yes. FDLE is open to a case m anagem ent approach, provided all ITSM requirem ents are m et.

Are external custom ers considered the “agencies / organizations” supported or sim ply “individuals” grouped by agency?

See Answ er #13.

Do agents utilize any tools or have any scripted repeatable processes they follow for support?

Yes.

How m any w orkflow s are in place for w orking incidents?

U nknow n.

W hat is the estim ated num ber of item s in the service catalog in the current environm ent?

~50 approxim ately.

W hat is the approxim ate num ber of current w orkflow s for task fulfillm ent that need to be taken into the new platform

See Answ er #4.

Som e requirem ents ask for tickets using hardw are specific inform ation; should a CM

DB be defined for Phase 1?

Yes. If required to com plete Phase 1 and w ill be discussed further during negotiations and discovery.

Q uestion

FD

LE Response

Is there a clearly defined FDLE Change M anagem ent (business) process in place? Is there a CAB that review s changes before releases.

See Answ er #24.

Is t here a source of truth for location data synchronization or w ill location / regional inform ation be im ported and m aintained in the new platform

Q uestion is unclear as w ritten.

How m any reports are being asked for initial im plem entation?

Vendors should propose standard solution reports w ith other custom reports m ay be discussed and evaluated during negotiations.

W hat specific FIPS 140-3 encryption requirem ents m ust be m et beyond standard FIPS com pliance?

FDLE requires FIPS-com pliant encryption for data at rest and in transit, consistent w ith federal and state standards.

Can FDLE provide a data export sam ple from the current Cherw ell system to better understand data structures and volum e?

Yes. FDLE can provide a sam ple export of Cherw ell data to the aw arded vendor.

W hat is the estim ated data volum e (num ber of tickets, know ledge articles, users, etc.) that needs to be m igrated?

FDLE requires m igration of ticket data, users and audit data for at least the previous 24 m onths at a rate of ~59,000 annually.

Are there any custom integrations or third-party tools currently connected to Cherw ell that need to be m aintained?

FDLE currently has integrations w ith Active Directory.

W hat is the preferred go-live tim eline for each proposed phase?

FDLE has not established a predefined project schedule. Vendors should subm it a proposal that best m eets the requirem ents outlined in the SO W and m inim izes disruption w hile supporting a phased adoption.

W ha t are the specific SLA requirem ents for system availability and response tim es?

FDLE requires high availability SaaS w ith 99% uptim e and response tim es consistent w ith IT industry standards. Final SLA perform ance m etrics w ill be negotiated prior to contract execution.

Are there specific reporting requirem ents or dashboards that m ust m atch current Cherw ell outputs for continuity?

N

o. FDLE expects continuity in core reports/dashboards currently used in

Cherw ell. Vendors should propose equivalent or enhanced reporting.

Q uestion

FD

LE Response

Can FDLE provide exam ples of current ticket w orkflow s and approval processes, particularly for BSE Change M anagem ent?

See Answ er #24.

How m any different ticket tem plates are currently in use, and can sam ples be provided?

See Answ er #7.

W hat is the expected volum e and com plexity of Application Access Adm inistration (AAA) requests?

U nknow

n. Vendors should propose their solutions that best m eets the ITN requirem ents.

W hat is FDLE's preference for training delivery m ethods (virtual vs. in-person) given the distributed w orkforce?

FDLE w ill accept both virtual and in-person training. How ever, the vendor should propose how they plan on delivering training content and how it w ill be accessed as requested in Section VIII of Attachm ent H. The Training is not required to be provided on a LM

S platform

Are there existing training m aterials or SO

Ps that should be incorporated into the new system training?

N o.

W hat ongoing support m odel does FDLE prefer after go-live (dedicated support team

vs. standard support)?

FDLE anticipates a standard vendor support m odel, w ith options for enhanced support discussed during negotiations.

Can FDLE clarify if the 5-year term includes im plem entation tim e or if im plem entation m ust be com pleted w ithin a specific tim efram e before the 5-year operational period begins?

The 5-year contract term includes im plem entation. Vendors should propose an im plem entation project schedule that ensures operational readiness w hich continues into ongoing support w ithin that term

Are there specific budget param eters or cost expectations w e should consider in our pricing m odel?

FDLE has not established a predefined budget for this project. Vendors should propose com petitive pricing aligned w ith the scope of w ork.

W hat is FDLE's preference for pricing optional features (bundled vs. à la carte vs. future contract am endm ents)?

FDLE is open to pricing m odels. FDLE w ill evaluate for best value.

You m ention audit trail data as part of the m igration.

Is this specific to incidents only?

N

o. See Answ er #46. Final m igration data w ill be negotiated prior to contract execution.

Q uestion

FD

LE Response

You m ention audit trail data as part of the m igration.

Does this also include Journalized type data? For exam ple w hen w orking on an Incident various activities are captured as the occur and are stored against the incident record.

See Answ er #46.

You m ention audit trail data as part of the m igration.

Can you share the # of audit records you expect to m igrate, and w hat tables those audits are against?

N um ber of audit records is unknow n.

How m any em ail layouts do you have?

N one.

Are your em ail layouts in HTM L and do they have CSS styling and form atting that you expect to care over?

N /A.

Are you looking for a M obile Application capability, or the ability to render the Self Service Portal on a M obile Device?

N o.

W hat is the desired go-live date for the first and subsequent phases of the new

ITSM

system

See Answ er #48.

How m any resources are actively m anaging IT assets, i.e. creating and updating asset records? Are these resources included in the 170 ITS em ployees licensed for Cherw ell or are they a separate function from

ITSM

Asset M anagem ent is currently being m anaged outside of Cherw ell.

W hat tools are currently in place for discovering configuration item s, e.g. SCCM , Intune?

Detailed configurations w ill be shared w ith aw arded vendor as necessary.

Vendors should propose available integration capabilities of their product.

W hat tools are currently in place for m onitoring infrastructure assets, e.g. SCO

M , Azure M onitor, SolarW inds?

See Answ er #68.

W hat is the current ITSM platform in use today, and w hich ITSM process/m odules are currently being used by FDLE (Incident, Request, Change, Problem

The ITSM platform is Cherw ell. See Answ er #4.

Q uestion

FD

LE Response

Are current ITSM processes based on ITIL best practices?

See Answ er #33.

Does FDLE currently have a Service Catalog in place today? If so, how m any catalog request item s are currently published and available for IT or end users to utilize?

Yes, See Answ er # 38.

Does FLDE currently have a know ledge base in place today? If so, w hat know ledge base is being used and how m any articles are currently published?

N o.

In addition to Active Directory (m entioned in the proposal initiation), are there any additional integrations required to support Day O ne go-live?

Required Day O ne integrations: Active Directory.

Does FLDE currently have a CM DB (Configuration

M anagem ent Database) in place today? If so, w hat is the current level of CM DB m aturity and w hat configuration item s are currently being populated and m anaged?

N

o. See Answ er #40.

Is hardw are or softw are asset m anagem ent in scope for the initial ITSM im plem entation?

N o.

Is Virtual Agent support an initial need for Day O ne go live?

N o, FDLE w ill not consider Virtual Agency or Chatbot support.

Are there any requirem ents to have 100% U

S-based vendor staff throughout the project?

Yes. FDLE requires SaaS hosting w ithin the continental U nited States consistent w ith Florida Adm inistrative Code 60G

G -4.002(6).

For questions 1-20 in this section, should the respondent answ er each of those questions w ithin that section? O r should this inform ation be provided elsew here in our response?

Attachm ent H Evaluation Criteria 1-20 questions w ill be used by the ITN

Evaluators to score the Technical Reply.

In reference to the CJIS com pliance, does this refer to the staff that w ill be handling the im plem entation?

Yes. CJIS com pliance applies to vendor staff handling im plem entation and any access to CJIS data.

Q uestion

FD

LE Response

Are secure SaaS clouds outside of AW S G ovCloud and Azure G ovClouds acceptable? For exam ple, a

FedRam p certified hosted solution?

N o.

The ITN states that the solicitation and resulting contract w ill be governed by Florida law

, w ith venue in Leon County. W ould FDLE consider m odifications to allow an alternative governing law (e.g., Delaw are or N ew York). The lim itation of liability provision on page 88 excludes professional negligence, m eaning vendors w ould not have the benefit of liability protections for such claim s under Florida law

N o, FDLE w ill not consider changing the governing law . N o, FDLE w ill not consider a change of venue.

FDLE specifies potential integration w ith the state’s

FLAIR/PALM

system

. Could FDLE confirm w hether integration w ith PALM is required at go-live, or if it w ill be considered a future enhancem ent?

See Answ er #74

The ITN encourages respondents to propose “Value-

Added Services or Enhancem ents” beyond the stated requirem ents. Could FDLE clarify w hether such features w ill be considered in evaluation scoring, or only reserved for discussion during negotiations?

Value-added services w ill be considered during negotiations, but evaluation scoring w ill be based on m andatory requirem ents unless otherw ise noted.

FDLE specifies integration w ith Active Directory, IM

S, and potentially PALM

. Could FDLE confirm w hether vendors should assum e that API docum entation and technical support for these integrations w ill be provided by FDLE, or should respondents propose and budget for custom discovery efforts?

FDLE w ill support personnel w ill w ork w ith aw arded vendor to provide technical support for Active Directory integration. The O ptional PALM integration w ould be a future enhancem ent and w ould follow Departm ent of Financial Services statew ide deploym ent tim elines.

The ITN requires W

CAG

2.1 com pliance. W ill FDLE provide specific accessibility testing protocols and tools during U

AT, or should respondents propose their ow n com pliance validation approach?

Vendors should propose their ow n W

CAG

2.1 com pliance validation approach. FDLE m ay provide supplem ental testing protocols during U

AT.

Q uestion

FD

LE Response

The ITN states that “N o third party integrations” w ill be accepted. How ever, the Scope of W ork (Attachm ent H) references integrations w ith FDLE’s

Active Directory, IM S, and potentially PALM

(ITN

Pages 50–55). Could FDLE clarify:

Does FDLE currently operate any third-party hosted or m anaged tools (e.g., security, asset m anagem ent, m onitoring, reporting, or SaaS services) that vendors w ill be required to integrate w ith?

If so, w ould these be considered outside the “no third party integrations” restriction, since they are FDLE-m andated?

FDLE’s restriction on “no third party integrations” applies to vendor-proposed external services.

The draft contract requires the contractor to fully indem nify FDLE for third-party claim

s. If FDLE requires integration w ith an FDLE-selected third-party tool or platform , w ill FDLE agree to indem nify or otherw ise hold harm less the vendor for issues, claim s, or defects arising from those third-party tools, since the vendor has no control over them

See Answ er 87#.

Is FDLE an existing ServiceN ow user?

N

o. FDLE is not a ServiceN ow user. The current platform is Cherw ell.

W hen do you plan to go live? // W hat is the tim eline/ deadline for com pleting the ITSM im plem entation?

See Answ er #48.

How m any em ployees & IT users w ill be using the platform

Approxim ately 170 ITS em ployees.

Is there any budget allocated for this project?

FDLE does not publish budget allocations. Vendors should subm it com petitive pricing.

W hat are the current sources from w hich tickets are being raised? W ill they be sam e for the new system also?

Tickets are currently raised via portal, em ail, and phone. FDLE expects these to rem ain for the new system

Q uestion

FD

LE Response

Is FDLE open to im plem enting AI features for the proposed ITSM solution?

N o.

In w hich form at is the current data stored in? Also, how m uch data on average needs to be m igrated from

Cherw ell?

Current data is stored in Cherw ell’s database form

at. FDLE anticipates m igrating tickets, users, and related data, w ith volum es provided during planning.

W ho is the external custom er FDLE is referring to?

And how w ould they access the system or raise incidents?

External custom ers are defined in the Definitions section of Attachm ent H page 48. They w ill not access the system . FDLE w ill enter tickets into the system on there behalf.

The solution should provide som e m echanism to display an external custom er m nem onic and O

RI in a ticket. An O

RI is an O riginating Agency Identifier code assigned by the FBI. – Can you elaborate this requirem ent?

The solution should have the ability to store and display an external custom er’s m nem onic and FBI-assigned O RI code as a custom field in tickets for identification, tracking, and reporting. See IM

S definition.

How m any Catalog Item s are in scope to be built?

See Answ er #38.

W ill FDLE continue to use their existing Discovery tool, or can w e provide asset discovery and configuration m anager database in the ServiceN ow solution along w ith ITSM

N /A.

W hat are all the third-party integrations that are in scope for this project? Also, can you help us understand the purpose of the integration?

See Answ er #87.

W hat level of data encryption is FDLE looking for?

See Answ er #44.

In Section 1.4, the ITN outlines phased adoption.

W hat capabilities m ust be available at go-live?

All requirem ents listed w ithin Phase 1.

In Section VI.A of attachm ent H, the ITN describes integrations. W hat integrations are required at go-live, and w hich can be phased in later?

See Answ er: #74.

In Section VI.A of attachm ent H, the ITN discusses organizational change. W ill the State use a phased rollout by region or user group?

N o.

Q uestion

FD

LE Response

In 1.2-1.3, the ITN outlines perform ance requirem ents. Can the State share benchm arks or know n issues in Cherw ell?

N o know n issues w ith Cherw ell. The Cherw ell Service M anagem ent product w ill reach End of Support on Decem ber 31, 2026.

In Section 1.4 and VI.A of attachm ent H, w hich capabilities are m ost critical to m itigate risk/com pliance concerns?

Q uestion is unclear as w ritten.

In Section 1.2, the ITN outlines current platform gaps.

W hat are FDLE’s m ost pressing issues w ith Cherw ell today?

See Answ er #105.

In Section 1.2-1.3, the ITN describes platform users.

Can the State clarify the different user groups and their roles?

See Answ er #16.

In Section VI.A of attachm ent H, the ITN does not specify m obile adoption priorities. W ill m obile-friendly design be expected at go-live?

N o.

In Section VI.A of attachm ent H, the ITN references incident categorization. W ill FDLE provide predefined categories or should the vendor propose a m odel?

FDLE w ill provide baseline categories. Vendors m ay propose enhancem ents aligned to ITIL best practices.

In Section VI.A of attachm ent H, the ITN includes problem m anagem ent. W ill it be required at go-live, or can it be phased in later?

Vendors should recom m end the sequencing that best aligns w ith

FDLE’s operational needs.

In Section VI.A of attachm ent H, the ITN outlines task m anagem ent. Are capabilities like assignm ent, escalation, and VIP alerts required at go-live?

Yes. At m inim um FDLE requires the assignm ent, escalation, and VIP alerts to be available at go-live.

In Section VI.A of attachm ent H, the ITN describes change processes. W ill the current change w orkflow s be shared w ith the vendor?

N

o. See Answ er #24.

In Section VI.A of attachm ent H, the ITN references approval w orkflow

s. W ill a m ulti-level approval process be required at go-live?

Yes.

Q uestion

FD

LE Response

In Section VI.A of attachm ent H, the ITN m entions know ledge articles. W ho ow ns them

, and are they expected to be m igrated?

N

/A.

In Section VI.A of attachm ent H, the ITN outlines service catalog redesign. W ill FDLE provide catalog scope, or should the vendor recom m end im provem ents?

Yes to both.

In Section VI.A of attachm ent H, the ITN describes config needs. Can the State clarify the expectations for tem plates and w orkflow configuration?

Vendors should provide flexible tem plate and w orkflow configuration aligned w ith FDLE requirem ents and ITIL best practices.

In Section VI.A of attachm ent H, are there any security lim itations on APIs the vendor should be aw are of?

Any integration m ust com ply w ith FDLE security, encryption, and access control requirem ents.

In Section VI.A of attachm ent H, the ITN references

PALM

. Are there know n constraints or expectations related to this integration?

The O ptional PALM integration w ould be a future enhancem ent and w ould follow Departm ent of Financial Services statew ide deploym ent tim elines.

In Section VI.A of attachm ent H, the ITN includes dashboards. W hat type of dashboards are required (role-based, service, etc.)?

See Answ ers #16 and #17.

In Section VI.A of attachm ent H, the ITN describes telephony. W hat platform is used today, and is integration expected?

N ot interested.

In Section VI.A of attachm ent H, w hat level of access control is required (data, group, role)?

FDLE requires role based access control across each area listed.

In Section VI.A of attachm ent H, is FIPS encryption required? W hat is the contingency plan for outages?

Yes. FIPS-com pliant encryption is required for data in transit and at rest.

Vendors m ust provide a disaster recovery and continuity of operations plan for outages.

In Section VI.A of attachm ent H, ITN specifies audit log access, w hat inform ation needs to be captured?

Audit logs m ust capture user actions, configuration changes, security events, approvals, and ticket activity for com pliance.

In Section VI.A of attachm ent H, w hat level of perm ission control is expected (read, edit, adm in)?

FDLE expects role-based perm ission controls supporting read, edit, and adm in levels, w ith flexibility for custom perm issions.

Q uestion

FD

LE Response

In Section VI.A of attachm ent H, w hat dev tools are currently in use (Jira, DevO ps, etc.)? W ill these need to interact w ith Change M anagem ent for phase 3?

FDLE has no plans to integrate dev tools.

In Section VI.A of attachm ent H, w hat historical data needs to be m igrated (type, volum e, age)?

See Answ er #46.

In Section VI.A of attachm ent H, w ill parallel operations or data cleanup be required during cutover?

N o.

In Section VI.A of attachm ent H, w hat reporting is required (SLA, KPI, ad hoc)?

FDLE requires SLA, KPI, and ad hoc reporting capabilities from

Day O ne.

In Section VI.A of attachm ent H, is there an existing Change Advisory Board (CAB)?

Yes. FDLE has an established CCCB to review and approve changes.

In Section VI.A of attachm ent H, w ho ow ns configuration and process changes post go-live?

FDLE anticipates a fully functional vendor hosted and m aintained SaaS envirom ent.

In Section VI.A of attachm ent H, w hat governance processes w ill apply to U

AT and signoff?

FDLE w ill m anage form al U AT and signoff processes, including test scripts, validation, and docum ented approval.

In Section VIII of attachm ent H, w hat training m odel is expected (Train-the-Trainer, LM

S)?

See Answ er #54.

In Section VII.D of attachm ent H, w hat support m odel is expected (m anaged vs. staff augm entation support)?

See Answ er #131.

In attachm ent K, how are m inor enhancem ents defined and prioritized?

M inor enhancem ents are sm all configuration or w orkflow changes. FDLE w ill prioritize them through its governance and change m anagem ent processes.

In attachm ent H, w hat are the expectations for SLA perform ance incentives or penalties?

SLA perform ance incentives and penalties w ill be determ ined during contract negotiations. Vendors should propose m odels based on industry standards.

In attachm ent H, how are SLA escalations and service credits handled?

SLA escalations w ill follow FDLE’s escalation procedures. Service credits for

SLA violations w ill be negotiated and defined in the final contract.

Are there any offline tools or processes external to Cherw ell in use? (e.g., spreadsheets, shared inboxes) Yes.

Q uestion

FD

LE Response

W hich ITSM

/ESM

practice areas are currently active?

(e.g., Incident, Service Request, Change, Problem

Know ledge, CM

DB, Asset M anagem ent, Service Catalog, etc.)

See Answ er #11.

O th er than Active Directory and FLAIR/PALM w hat other integrations w ith the legacy system are currently operating? W hich of these integrations are critical for Day 1, and w hich could be phased in later?

See Answ er #103.

How m any agents and technicians w ill be logging in to resolve/fulfill tickets and perform system adm inistration/configuration w ork?

Approxim ately 170 IT FDLE em ployees w ill access the system

Regarding self-service capabilities via phone, does the agency w ish to integrate their existing help desk telephony system into the solution? If so, w hat telephony system is being utilized?

See Answ er #121.

How m any internal call center agents and supervisors w ill need access to the system

Approxim ately 18 Help Desk staff w ill require access.

How w ill the new

ITSM

solution's proposed user roles align w ith the existing roles and perm issions for the 18 Help Desk staff and the 170+ ITS em ployees?

Q uestion is unclear as w ritten.

How m any autom ated w orkflow s are currently in use? How m any w ill be m igrated to the new solution?

U nknow n.

W hat types of data do you intend to m igrate from your legacy system ? (e.g., tickets, CI records, users, know ledge articles) Can you provide approxim ate record counts? Are there any com pliance or regulatory requirem ents influencing your data

See Answ er #46

W hat are your expectations for training delivery?

(e.g., rem ote, onsite, role-based, train-the-trainer) See Answ er #54.

Q uestion

FD

LE Response

The current system is licensed for 60 concurrent users. Can you provide m ore detail on the expected num ber of concurrent users for the new solution, and if there are plans to expand beyond the current user base of 170 ITS em ployees?

Vendor should include current licensing needs and include their pricing m odels for future scalablity options.

G iv en that the current system is an on-prem ise

Cherw ell product, w hat specific data schem a or data export form ats w ill be available to facilitate the m igration to the new SaaS solution?

FDLE can provide Cherw ell exports to the aw arded Vendor.

The RFP states that the solution should be able to integrate w ith Active Directory to m odify or add m em ber data and to provide/display internal custom er inform ation. W hat is the preferred m ethod for this integration (e.g., API, scheduled data im ports)?

Q uestion is unclear as w ritten.

Attachm ent L-FDLE Contract Docum ent w ith

Standard Term s and Conditions m entions that detailed financial consequences w ill be determ ined prior to contract execution. Could you provide exam ples of the types of perform ance failures and the corresponding financial consequences that w ill be considered during negotiations?

Exam ples: m issed SLA targets, system dow ntim e, or failure to m eet reporting obligations. Financial consequences m ay include service credits or liquidated dam ages, finalized during negotiations.

Regarding the Affidavit of N o O ffshoring, w hat is the intended credit am ount and total cap per violation that the contractor w ould be responsible for, as m entioned in the sam ple text on page 101?

The final credit am ount and cap per violation w ill be determ ined during negotiations and incorporated into the executed contract.

W hat is the current ITSM platform in use, and w hat m odules are actively utilized?

See Answ er #4.

Can FDLE provide an application landscape diagram or integration points required for the new

ITSM

Q uestion is unclear as w ritten.

Is there a preferred identity provider (e.g., ADFS, Azure AD) for SSO integration?

M icrosoft ADFS and M icrosoft Apps

Q uestion

FD

LE Response

W hat specific system s or tools w ill the ServiceN ow need to integrate w ith (e.g., HRM

S, ERP,

cybersecurity tools)?

The current ITSM is Cherw ell.

Does FDLE require any legacy ticket data to be m igrated? If yes, w hat is the expected data volum e, age, and form at?

See Answ er #46.

Are there any required SLAs for incident/request resolution that the system m ust enforce or m onitor?

Yes. SLAs for incident and request resolution m ust be configurable and enforceable w ithin the ITSM solution.

Ho w m any processes or tem plates are anticipated to be necessary for the initial rollout of Request Fulfillm ent?

U nknow n.

Does FDLE require specific CJIS auditing reports or capabilities to be natively em bedded in the ITSM

N o.

Are there any specific F.A.C. 60G

G controls that should be explicitly m et in system configuration or policy?

Yes. Vendors m ust ensure com pliance w ith F.A.C. 60G

G -4.002(6) and other applicable Florida security controls as stated in the IT Security Addendum

Ar e background checks or clearance required for im plem entation personnel accessing production or staging environm ents?

Yes.

Does FDLE require data encryption at rest and in transit using specific FIPS-com pliant standards?

See Answ er #44.

Can you share exam ples of current or expected reports and dashboards to be replicated or created in the new system

FDLE requires replication of ticket status, SLA, w orkload, and perform ance dashboards, w ith flexibility to create additional ad hoc reports.

Ar e there know n accessibility gaps in the current system that FDLE is specifically seeking to address in this transition?

See Answ er #105.

W hat is the expected start date and tim eline for

Phase 1 im plem entation?

See Answ er #48.

Q uestion

FD

LE Response

W ill FDLE assign internal project m anagers or subject m atter experts during each phase?

Yes. FDLE w ill assign internal project m anagers and SM Es for each im plem entation phase.

W ill there be a form al U

AT (U

ser Acceptance Testing) process led by FDLE or the vendor?

FDLE expects that the Vendor w ill lead form al U

AT and FDLE w ill perform and approve U

AT.

I s there a preferred or required change m anagem ent/training approach (e.g., in-person, virtual, LM S-based)?

N o.

Should the fixed-price quote include optional value-added m odules (e.g., Virtual Agent, Chatbots), or m ust those be separated?

Vendors m ay propose optional m odules, but they m ust be priced separately from core functionality. FDLE w ill entertain Virtual Agents or Chatbots during negotiations.

Are there constraints or preferences around m ulti-year SaaS license paym ent schedules (e.g., annual upfront vs. m ilestone-based)?

See Attachm ent K Price Reply for pricing structure.

W hat is the expected duration and scope of post-deploym ent hypercare or m anaged services?

FDLE expects a 60-90 day hypercare period post-deploym ent, w ith m anaged services negotiated as needed.

Does FDLE envision the selected vendor taking on long-term platform adm in responsibilities (e.g., M

SP

m odel), or just initial deploym ent?

FDLE anticipates a fully functional vendor hosted and m aintained SaaS envirom ent.