Indiana BMV_Att B - posted 8.3.26.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 26 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Public-Facing Transaction PortalBid Documents
- Solicitation number
- 26-87000
- Issued by
- Marion County, Indiana
About this file
This is a Questions and Answers document for RFI 26-87000 issued by the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) regarding Phase 2 of its E-Title initiative, a public-facing web-based portal for electronic vehicle titling. The RFI solicits vendor information for a solution that will support end-to-end transfer-of-ownership workflows for both private-party and dealer transactions through a web interface optimized for desktop and mobile platforms. Written questions were due July 22, 2026 by 3:00 PM Eastern Time, with responses posted by July 29, 2026; vendor responses to the RFI are due August 17, 2026 by 3:00 PM Eastern Time. The portal must support full transfer-of-ownership capabilities, digital signatures, automated data validation, real-time integration with BMV systems, and dealer-specific inventory management, with required compliance to Indiana enterprise standards including the Information Security Framework, MuleSoft API Management, GoAnywhere MFT, Access Indiana SSO, WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility, and the State's AI Policy. The State reserves the right to limit future RFP participation to vendors responding to this RFI, and responses are limited to 15-20 pages with vendors expected to provide at least three client references, preferably state government clients near Indianapolis where site visits may be arranged.
Key operational data provided by the BMV indicates an average annual volume of 1,057,251.8 vehicle title transfers across Indiana from 2021 to 2025, with approximately 3,748 active licensed motor vehicle dealers as of July 28, 2026 who could potentially require portal access. Phase 1 of the E-Title initiative delivered an updated API for partial service providers, streamlined dealer scanning processes, electronic title transfer capabilities for trade-in and resale transactions, vehicle owner title format preferences, and the ability to convert electronic titles to paper. The RFI does not specify the number of internal BMV employees requiring concurrent access to the administrative back-end, and pricing terms, contract duration, renewal options, and funding sources are not detailed in this Q&A document.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| RFI Main Document 26-87000 v2.pdf | ||
| RFP Addendum 1.pdf | ||
| RFI Main Document 26-87000 rtp.pdf | ||
| Att B - Q&A Template.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Artificial Intelligence - Technical Proposal Questions.docx | DOCX document | |
| Infrastructure Overview.docx | DOCX document | |
| Att A - Response Template.docx | DOCX document |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Q&A
| Attachment B | ||||||
| Questions and Answers Template | ||||||
| RFI 26-87000 | ||||||
| Please submit your questions in the blue shaded areas by the date and time established in the RFI. | ||||||
| # | DOC NAME (RFI or Attachment) | PAGE # AND/OR SECTION # | RESPONDENTS QUESTION | STATE'S RESPONSE | RESPONSES | |
| 1 | RFI 26-87000 | Page 4; Scope of Work | Can the BMV provide the annual volume of vehicle title transfers in Indiana, specifically for private-party (P2P) vs. dealer transactions? | Average title transfers/year (2021 - 2025) = 1,057,251.8 |
Data regarding private party vs dealer sales not readily available, but can be gathered for future reference.
2 RFI 26-87000 Page 4; Scope of Work How many licensed motor vehicle dealers currently operate in Indiana that would require access to the portal for high-volume reassignment processes? As of 7/28/2026, the Indiana Secretary of State dealer portal lists 3,748 active dealers. Theoretically, they could all require access.
3 RFI 26-87001 Page 4; Scope of Work The RFI mentions this is "Phase 2" of the E-Title initiative. What specific functionality was delivered in Phase 1, and will Phase 2 require integration with or replacement of that existing architecture? Phase 1 of E-Title delivered:
* Updated application program interface for partial service providers (PSPs) to use for their dealer customers to process titles on the PSPs software.
* Streamlined dealer scanning process for dealers using a PSP operating on the updated API.
* Ability for a dealer using a PSP operating on the updated API to transfer an electronic title (trade-in + resale).
* Vehicle owner title format preference. The owner can designate at time of titling if they would like their title to be issued electronically or on paper.
* Print to paper transaction to convert an electronic title to paper for the purpose of moving to another state, resale, etc.
| 4 | RFI 26-87001 | Page 4; Scope of Work | How many internal BMV employees (branch staff, central office administrators, and auditors) are expected to require concurrent access to the administrative back-end of the portal? | <50 |
| 5 | Infrastructure Overview | Page 1; Solution Categories | The State mentions Azure or AWS tenants. Does the State also consider SaaS platforms like Salesforce or ServiceNow acceptable if they meet NIST 800-53 and RAMP security standards? | Salesforce and ServiceNow would be acceptable if the platform meets StateRAMP specifications or is hosted/managed within Indiana Office of Technology's own instance. |
| 6 | RFI 26-87001 | Page 3; Enterprise Standards | Since MuleSoft is the standard for API Management, does the BMV already have a library of exposed APIs for titling, or is the vendor responsible for building the APIs to connect to the backend? | BMV does have APIs for titling, but this project would also require the creation of new APIs to facilitate functionality that is currently not available. |
| 8 | RFI 26-87003 | Has a budget range or "Not-to-Exceed" amount been established for this project, and is it funded via state appropriations, federal grants, or a transaction-fee model? | A budget has not been established for this project at this time. |
BMV is open to exploring various fee models as presented by respondents.
| 9 | RFI 26-87004 | Does the State intend to limit participation in the future RFP solely to vendors who submit a response to this RFI? | No | |
| 10 | RFI 26-87005 | Does the BMV have a target "Go-Live" date for the portal, and does it coincide with the October 14, 2025, RAMP policy implementation deadline mentioned in the Infrastructure Overview? | BMV does not have a go-live date at this time. We are in the discovery phase. | |
| 11 | RFI Main Document and Attachment A | Section 5.a-d (Response Format and Attachments), Project Timeline (Attachment A) | Does the Indiana BMV have a statutory, regulatory or internal timeframe by which the end-to-end titling workflow for the public-facing electronic titling portal and integration with the national e-title standards must be implemented by the vendor? | BMV does not have a go-live date at this time. We are in the discovery phase. |
| 12 | RFI Main Document | Scope of Work | Is it the intent of the e-Title program and the Scope of Work in this RFI (or eventual RFP) to allow Partial Service Providers to connect to this e-title program via API? | The intention is to make the electronic dealer reassignment functionality available to all dealers, including those who use a PSP. If an electronic odometer disclosure microservice is created then we'd intend to make it available to all dealers. |
| 13 | RFI Main Document | Scope of Work | Will the State of Indiana BMV handle individual citizen peer-to-peer transaction customer service and/or provide a HelpDesk, or will the vendor be required to provide citizen-level customer service/HelpDesk to individual citizens? | We would expect that any issues encountered with the portal would be supported with a robust and descriptive error system. If unable to process online, we'd direct them to our existing customer service options and provide those teams with the necessary training to assist. |
| 14 | RFI Main Document 26-87000 rtp | General | Is it the intent of BMV for the eTitle portal to be extension to the existing MyBMV platform, or a separate public-facing portal? If separate, is there a business or technical reason or limitation of MyBMV that necessitates a distinct solution. | It would need to be a separate public facing portal but we envision it being accessible via a customer's myBMV account as well as via a stand-alone access point on the BMV's non-transactional website. The need for it to be separate is due to the complexities that will be involved with the dealer components of the system as well as limitations with myBMV's ability to display more than 10 vehicle records for a given customer. |
| 15 | RFI Main Document 26-87000 rtp | General | Is it the intent of BMV for the eTitle portal to be provided as a service hosted by a successful vendor, or will the solution be deployed to state infrastructure (public cloud or on premises)? | BMV is open to exploring the benefits of various models in this regard. |
| 16 | RFI Main Document 26-87000 rtp | General | To what extent does BMV anticipate making integrations available to third party Dealer systems to facilitate title transactions? | If possible, BMV would like to make integrations available to third party dealer systems. This will be a primary focus of our analysis of responses to this RFI. |
| 17 | RFI Main Document | Pg 3 / Background and Objective | Does Indiana envision lender/lienholder participation as part of Phase 2? | Ideally, BMV would like to see the portal contain a step for lienholder verification for any potential title transfers (thinking of dealer trade-in as well as private party sales). |
| 18 | RFI Main Document | Pg 3 / Enterprise Standards & Policies | Does Indiana intend to require identity-proofing standards such as IAL2/NIST? | Yes, the solutions must contain identity-proofing in line with NIST AAL2/IAL2 standards due to the electronic odometer disclosure. See 49 CFR Part 580 for details. |
| 19 | RFI Main Document | Pg 3 / Enterprise Standards & Policies | The RFI cites MuleSoft API Management and GoAnywhere MFT as enterprise standards. Are these mandatory integration paths for a future RFP, or preferred/optional? | These are the preferred route for any data transfer or API. Any other solution would need to meet StateRAMP standards and be approved by the Indiana Office of Technology. |
| 20 | RFI Main Document | Pg 3 / Enterprise Standards & Policies (Identity) | Is Access Indiana SSO required for all user types (individuals, businesses, and licensed dealers), and does the State expect vendor-provided identity proofing layered on top? | Access Indiana will be the IDP for our existing online customer portal (myBMV) in the near future, so it would also be the IDP for this customer facing titling portal. The state would need vendor-provided identity proofing in addition to this due to the requirements outline in 49 CFR Part 580 for the electronic signature component of the odometer disclosure statement. |
| RFI Main Document | Pg 3 / Security & BC/DR; Enterprise Standards | Will the State’s Information Security Framework and any associated NDA be made available to respondents before the response deadline, or only at the RFP stage? | The Information Security Framework can be found at https://www.in.gov/iot/files/State_of_Indiana_Information_Security_Framework_32520261224PM.pdf | |
| RFI Main Document | Pg 3–4 / Background and Objective; Scope of Work | Does the State envision electronic title issuance without a paper title record as part of this phase? | Yes, the portal we're seeking to create in this phase will facilitate the transfer of ownership utilizing an electronic title record. | |
| RFI Main Document | Pg 3–4 / Background and Objective; Scope of Work (AAMVA) | Which specific AAMVA workstreams are most important to BMV—the current private-party peer-to-peer e-title solution, or those still under development—and is BMV currently participating in any AAMVA pilot jurisdiction? | The private party peer-to-peer solution tackles a fundamental component of what this phase hopes to achieve, but the solutions that are currently being contemplated play a large role as well (dealer trade-in and relocation of vehicle owner from one state to another). | |
| RFI Main Document | Pg 4 / Scope of Work | Is integration with Indiana’s existing ELT (Electronic Lien and Title) environment expected? | It is strongly desired. | |
| RFI Main Document | Pg 4 / Scope of Work (Peer to peer) | Will the State require integration with the AAMVA Private Party Transfer Pilot at initial implementation? | Unkown at this time. BMV is treating this RFI as discovery to assist in exploring potential options. | |
| RFI Main Document | Pg 4 / Scope of Work | Should vendors assume future registration and titling transactions will be consolidated into a common portal? | This portal will need to seamlessy integrate back into BMV's existing online registration workflow, at a minimum. | |
| RFI Main Document | Pg 4 / Scope of Work (AAMVA integration) | Does BMV expect the vendor to integrate directly with AAMVA’s interoperability services, or to interface through an existing State/BMV middleware layer? | Unkown at this time. BMV is treating this RFI as discovery to assist in exploring potential options. | |
| RFI Main Document | Pg 4 / Scope of Work (Cross-state P2P) | Is there a preferred or required target for cross-state peer-to-peer transactions (e.g., specific reciprocal states), or is national interoperability the aspirational goal? | National interoperability is the goal. | |
| RFI Main Document | Pg 4 / Scope of Work (Volumes) | What are the expected transaction volumes and peak concurrency (annual title transactions and dealer reassignment volume) to help respondents size the solution and pricing accurately? | Average title transfers/year (2021 - 2025) = 1,057,251.8 |
Data regarding private party vs dealer sales not readily available, but can be gathered for future reference.
RFI Main Document Pg 4 / Scope of Work (Dealer functionality) Approximately how many licensed dealers would use the portal, and does BMV want integration with existing dealer management/inventory systems or a self-contained dealer module? As of 7/28/2026, the Indiana Secretary of State dealer portal lists 3,748 active dealers.
If integration with various DMS is an option, we would like to explore it. This is not a requirement at this time, however.
RFI Main Document Pg 4 / Response Format and Attachments (Page limit) The RESPONSE FORMAT AND ATTACHMENTS section states that "Respondents are to submit responses to the RFI, utilizing Attachment A, …", however, there are two additional attachments that seem to elicit responses, those are the Artifical Intelligence - Technical Proposal Questions docment and the Infrastructure Overview file. Are those documents just provided for informational purposes for a future RFP, or should Respondents provide these documents in addition to Attachment A with their submittal? Clarification for responses: When completing the response(s), please complete Attachment A and you may attach a word document that explains/details the specifics as outlined within the “Response Format & Attachments” section of the RFI Main Document.
BMV has removed the maximum # of pages for the response.
RFI Main Document & Att A - Response Template Pgs 4 & 5 / Response Format and Attachments (Page limit) The RESPONSE FORMAT AND ATTACHMENTS section states that "Respondents are to submit responses to the RFI, utilizing Attachment A, …", however this section also states that "Respondents must structure their response according to the sections outlined below ..." which lists eight (8) itemized sections that do not align directly to the sections provided in Attachment A.
Are Respondents to include responses to the eight (8) items listed in the RFI by fitting them into the boxes provided in Attachment A somehow, or provide responses to those eight (8) items in a separate document? If required to fit responses to the eight (8) items into Attachment A, can the page limit for Attachment A be expanded to include these items to 25-30 pages?
Also, if Respondents are required to include the eight (8) items into Attachment A, where is the best place to fit item #8, specifically, and is there a required method for attaching these materials since Attachment A is to be returned as a Word document and many of these attachments would be PDF documents? Clarification for responses: When completing the response(s), please complete Attachment A and you may attach a word document that explains/details the specifics as outlined within the “Response Format & Attachments” section of the RFI Main Document.
BMV has removed the maximum # of pages for the response.
| RFI Main Document | Pg 4–5 / Scope of Work; Technical Architecture & Integration Approach | What BMV title system(s) will serve as the system of record for real-time integration? Would this be the new title system and integrate with the STARS/Galaxy system? | STARS will remain the system of record for real-time integration. |
| RFI Main Document | Pg 5 / Risk, Compliance, and Safeguards | Are there specific data residency, hosting (State cloud vs. vendor cloud), or FedRAMP/StateRAMP requirements anticipated for a public-facing portal at State scale? | Indiana Office of Technology has a RAMP policy that can be found at https://www.in.gov/iot/files/P.05_Indiana_RAMP_Policy_for_Cloud_Offerings_32520261226PM.pdf |
| RFI Main Document | Pg 5 / Response Format and Attachments (Page limit) | The response is capped at 15–20 pages. Can the State confirm that the optional attachments (case studies, technical white papers, product sheets, and architecture diagrams)do not count against that page limit? | Optional attachments are welcome in addition to the page limit. |
| RFI Main Document | Pg 6 / Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V) | If the State elects to utilize IV&V, does it have a preferred IV&V model or existing IV&V vendor that respondents should plan to accommodate? | This will be outlined in any subsequent RFP posting(s) if needed. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .