part I and part II DoIT B-52341.pdf

Sole Source Justification Form

Version 7.01 Page 1 of 6

Bulletin Reference Number 27-448DOIT-INFOT-B-52341

Requesting Agency/University Department of Innovation and Technology

Sole Source Justification Form - Part I Section I - General Information

Department/Bureau/Section: Department of Innovation and Technology

Need Identified Date: 4/1/2026 Supply/Service Need By Date: Jun 1, 2026

Project Title: Euna Solutions Grant Management License and Implementation

Vendor: Euna Solutions

Provide a description of the supplies or services required:

This solicitation will include an enterprise Saas license for Euna Grants (previously known as AmpliFund) as well as sole source services from Euna Solutions for system functionality enhancements. This will continue current licensing and include enhanced system functionality and services for GOMB's continued implementation of an enterprise grant management system. This grants management system is proprietary and using OEM resources is the only feasible solution for services needed.

Value: Estimated Value of Initial Term, this Change Order or Amendment: 11,444,566

Will this Sole Source amend a Professional or Artistic Services contract? Yes No

*Sole Source may not be used for amendments for Professional or Artistic Services if the amendment would increase the value by more than 5% of the initial award or extend the term by more than 60 days.

Type: New Sole Source

Section II - Proposed Term

One-Time Purchase Term Contract

Estimated Contract Begin Date: Jun 1, 2026

Estimated Contract End Date: May 29, 2029

Number of Potential Renewals: 0

Length of Each Renewal in Months: 0

Total Value of All Renewals:

If a Term Contract, does the term, including renewals, exceed 12 months? Yes No

If yes, provide a detailed justification including any economic benefit received for agreeing to a multi-year term:

Euna/Amplifund is a DoIT standard. It has previously been bought through a Co-op. However the Co-op must subcontract to Euna/ Amplifund to do all professional services since this is a SaaS solution and must be configured in Euna's enviroment. A 3 year term will give the State the time to finish the implementations at all agencies who want to utilize the software and work on getting to a steady state phase where licensing could potentially be bought from a reseller. Implementations take place on an agency to agency basis. See the attached "Implementation" pdf that shows as of Feb 2026 there are 24 agencies at some stage of implementation of the Grant Management System (GMS), nine agencies have implemented parts of the GMS, four are actively implementing, two are planning future implementation, and four others have expressed interest in implementing new modules to their existing systems.

Section III - Funding Source Select the type of funding to be used (Check all that apply): State Appropriate Funds Federal Funds Other (Explain):

Section IV - Sole Source Justification

Version 7.01 Page 2 of 6

Bulletin Reference Number 27-448DOIT-INFOT-B-52341

Requesting Agency/University Department of Innovation and Technology

This purchase is economically only available from a single source primarily because it is: (If "Other" explain in one sentence)

Software License/Upgrade/Maintenance

Are there secondary justification(s) for this sole source? Yes No

Section V - Purchase History

Has the Agency or University Purchased these supplies or services in the past? Yes No

Term Term From Term To Value Description Contract Number Type

1 1/4/2019 Dec 31, 2023 12,640,000 NASPO AR2488 Grants Mngmt - Cooperative P-5085:1 RFP

2 01/01/2024 09/15/2026 6,294,511.41 NASPO - Amplifund Grant Management licenses and implementation - Cooperative

P-1938:177 RFP

If more than 10, or if other comments, explain:

Section VI - Business Rationale

1. Provide a detailed explanation of the need for the supplies or services:

It is in the best interest of the State to continue use of the Euna (Amplifund) enterprise grants management system so that the State can maximize the investment made in the cumulative 7-year terms. This system is being configured for use by all state grant-making agencies and provides a centralized place to manage the complete grant life-cycle from application through closeout that leverages the efficiencies of automation. In addition, the solution’s integration with ERP Finance will provide for improved financial tracking, reporting, and accountability. Implementations have been through OEM vendor through cooperative contract. When a new agency adopts the Grants Management System, the vendor customizes the SAAS system to fit the Agency’s needs.

2. Provide a list and describe in detail the specifications required to satisfy the need:

Must interface with existing State-wide Enterprise Grants Management System, per DoIT Technical Standards.

Version 7.01 Page 3 of 6

Bulletin Reference Number 27-448DOIT-INFOT-B-52341

Requesting Agency/University Department of Innovation and Technology

3. Provide detail explaining the justification selected in Section IV to explain why the requested supplies or services are the only ones available that can satisfy the agency or university requirements?

Euna Solutions (which purchased the Aplifund software) customized their proprietary software for a solution for the State's need of an Enterprise Grants Management System. The licenses are required to maintain access to the system and sole source is required for the OEM to update and make changes to their code in the system as needed by the State. This system is being configured for use by all state grant-making agencies and provides a centralized place to manage the complete grant life-cycle from application through closeout that leverages the efficiencies of automation.

Previously, the licenses were bought from a reseller through the cooperative contract. But only the OEM can configure the software in their own environment to complete the implementations for agencies, so it was done as resold services from the OEM through the reseller. To get the best price on licensing, our aim is to put both the implementation and the licensing under the same contract, thereby avoiding markups by going straight to the OEM.

In addition, the solution’s integration with ERP Finance will provide for improved financial tracking, reporting, and accountability.

4. What are the unique features of the supplies or services that are not available in any other product or by any other vendor? Provide specific quantifiable factors/qualifications:

The services required are for new implementation at new agencies and can only be done by the OEM.

5. Has the Agency or University considered alternative supplies or services to satisfy their need? Yes No

5a. If no, why weren't alternatives evaluated?

The cost to implement a brand new Enterprise Grants Management system would be millions of dollars and a new system would still involve licensing costs. The current solution has already been built and only requires licensing costs and small changes.

6. Are there resellers or distributors?

Yes No N/A

7. What efforts were made to get the best possible price (i.e. did the agency/university negotiate) and how did you determine the price for this purchase is considered fair and reasonable?

This solution was originally procured through the NASPO Cooperative. In 2017-2018, GOMB and ERP were jointly charged with performing Market Research for a statewide grants management solution. Every effort was made to target Market Research to systems subject to Federal Uniform Guidance with users comparable in scale / size to the State of Illinois. The conclusion of extensive research, vendor demonstrations, reference checks and stakeholder dialogue led to a collaborative decision to recommend StreamLink Software’s AmpliFund product as the statewide system for life-cycle grant management. Furthermore, this was originally done through the ROMAC process. Of the vendors who were awarded contracts by the cooperative, DoIT put out a request for quote for licenses and awarded to the lowest cost vendor.

8. Will this purchase obligate the State to this vendor for future purchases such as maintenance, licensing or continuing need?

Yes No

8a. If yes, please provide details regarding future obligations and/or needs:

The software manufacturer will be required to implement the software to new agencies who adopt it. Post implementation, the licensing can be competitively bid.

Version 7.01 Page 4 of 6

Bulletin Reference Number 27-448DOIT-INFOT-B-52341

Requesting Agency/University Department of Innovation and Technology

9. What will be the financial or other impact to the State if this sole source is not approved and a competitive bid is required?

Any move to another grant management system would require full project management review, procurement, negotiations, and implementation planning. All previous monies invested in these areas that lead to AmpliFund’s current level of implementation would be lost as a new system would require all the same steps previously completed. Additionally, both systems would have to be run concurrently until a new system was fully operational, which would likely take more than a year and cost taxpayers thousands of external consultant and development hours or $2-3M in additional cost over maintaining the current system and investment. The current contract includes Illinois-specific configuration built to GATA statutory requirements and federal Uniform Guidance into the out-of-the-box AmpliFund software. These configurations and all prior investments into state agency and grantee training and system integration at the agency level would also be lost, duplicating the cost of lost production hours as training would have to occur on the new platform as well as duplicated implementation work, and a significant data migration; or an additional $1.5-2M in unnecessary costs.

Illinois has 32 grant making state agencies, 60 state agencies that receive federal, federal pass-through and/or state funding (includes the 32 grant making state agencies), 15,200 unique registrants in Illinois' Grantee Portal and over 9,200 un-duplicated grantees, a very large quantity of entities applying for grant awards, approximately 2,500 state-administered grant programs, and nearly 47,000 grants are awarded to sub-recipients and grantees. Having such a wide and varying group under the grants umbrella necessitated a standardized Statewide platform for all grant transactions. All momentum towards this goal would cease as a new system would need to be reintegrated and brought to current levels. A change in vendor or software would take the State back to 2017 in terms of progress and postpone the overall goal by many years as a new system would need to catch up to today's AmpliFund levels.

Stakeholder change management has evolved and matured under the current contract. The AmpliFund team has committed core personnel to their Illinois team which has led to trust and respect among state agencies, grantees and external stakeholder groups.

Implementation support resources and a reliable platform which is not restricted by license requirements has strengthened buy-in towards Illinois’ approach to configure and implement a compliant, flexible, statewide, life-cycle grant management software solution.

Continuity within the AmpliFund resources is paramount to ongoing effective and efficient change management.

10. Is there any additional information you would like to add to justify this sole source?

Version 7.01 Page 5 of 6

Bulletin Reference Number 27-448DOIT-INFOT-B-52341

Requesting Agency/University Department of Innovation and Technology

Section VII

Requesting Department Representative

Requesting Department Signature Required

I know and understand the contents of this Sole Source Justification and attest that all statements are true and correct and the fairness and reasonableness of the price was adequately confirmed.

Date May 4, 2026

Printed Name Dave Carter E-mail Address dave.carter2@illinois.gov

Phone Number 217-299-9678

State Agency Bureau/Division Head or University Purchasing Director Approval and Signature Required

I know and understand the contents of this Sole Source Justification and attest that all statements are true and correct and the fairness and reasonableness of the price was adequately confirmed. (All prior form fields will lock once this e-signature is completed)

E-mail Address christopher.brinkmeyer@illinois.gov

Phone Number 217-685-4682 Date Jun 18, 2026

Printed Name Chris Brinkmeyer

Agency Bureau/Division Head or University Purchasing Director and Not a Designee

SPO Approval and Signature Required

I have reviewed and understand the contents of this Sole Source Justification and agree with the State Agency or University determination.

I have reviewed and understand the contents of this Sole Source Justification and do not agree with the State Agency or University determination. As a result, the State Agency or University must explore other sourcing methods to satisfy their need.

State Purchasing Officer Signature Phone Number 217-685-9312 Date Jun 18, 2026

Printed Name Joshua Sergent E-mail Address joshua.sergent@illinois.gov

Version 7.01 Page 6 of 6

Bulletin Reference Number 27-448DOIT-INFOT-B-52341

Requesting Agency/University Department of Innovation and Technology

Sole Source Justification Form - Part II Section I - General Information

Project Title Euna Grant Management and Licensing JPMC SS

Vendor Euna Solutions

Initial Date of Procurement Bulletin Posting Jun 30, 2026

Was a Sole Source hearing held per 30 ILCS 500/20-25?

Yes - Complete Section II and III below (Section II will only be visible when this option is selected)

No - Section II not required, go to Section III below Section III - CPO Approval and Signature Required

Based on my review, I authorize the Agency/University to proceed in accordance with the published Notice referenced above.

Based upon my review, I authorize the Agency/University to proceed with the following Changes.

Based on my review, the Agency/University is not authorized to proceed with this sole source as presented and my recommendation is that it be cancelled.

Other

CPO Signature CPO Phone 217-622-1857

Printed Name Ellen H. Daley Date Jul 15, 2026

CPO E-mail Ellen.H.Daley@illinois.gov

Version 7.01 Page of Sole Source Justification Form - Part I Section I - General Information Will this Sole Source amend a Professional or Artistic Services contract?

If yes, what was the original contract value?

*Sole Source may not be used for amendments for Professional or Artistic Services if the amendment would increase the value by more than 5% of the initial award or extend the term by more than 60 days.

Section II - Proposed Term If a Term Contract, does the term, including renewals, exceed 12 months?

If yes, provide a detailed justification including any economic benefit received for agreeing to a multi-year term:

Section III - Funding Source Select the type of funding to be used (Check all that apply):

Section IV - Sole Source Justification Are there secondary justification(s) for this sole source?

Section V - Purchase History Has the Agency or University Purchased these supplies or services in the past?

Term Term From Term To Value Description Contract Number Type Section VI - Business Rationale

1. Provide a detailed explanation of the need for the supplies or services:

2. Provide a list and describe in detail the specifications required to satisfy the need:

3. Provide detail explaining the justification selected in Section IV to explain why the requested supplies or services are the only ones available that can satisfy the agency or university requirements?

4. What are the unique features of the supplies or services that are not available in any other product or by any other vendor? Provide specific quantifiable factors/qualifications:

5. Has the Agency or University considered alternative supplies or services to satisfy their need?

5a. If yes, name the alternative vendors whose supplies or services were evaluated:

5b. If yes, what were the alternatives for each vendor and why were they unacceptable? Be specific with regard to features, characteristics, requirements, capabilities and compatibility:

5c. Explain how the market evaluation was conducted?

*This evaluation is to determine available options within a market. If the evaluation is to determine quality or best suited option, this is not the appropriate source selection. Under no circumstances shall the evaluation consist of testing alternative options. These activities must be conducted in a competitive transparent environment (i.e. IFB or RFP).

5a. If no, why weren't alternatives evaluated?

6. Are there resellers or distributors?

7. What efforts were made to get the best possible price (i.e. did the agency/university negotiate) and how did you determine the price for this purchase is considered fair and reasonable?

8. Will this purchase obligate the State to this vendor for future purchases such as maintenance, licensing or continuing need?

8a. If yes, please provide details regarding future obligations and/or needs:

9. What will be the financial or other impact to the State if this sole source is not approved and a competitive bid is required?

10. Is there any additional information you would like to add to justify this sole source?

Section VII Requesting Department Signature Required I know and understand the contents of this Sole Source Justification and attest that all statements are true and correct and the fairness and reasonableness of the price was adequately confirmed.

State Agency Bureau/Division Head or University Purchasing Director Approval and Signature Required I know and understand the contents of this Sole Source Justification and attest that all statements are true and correct and the fairness and reasonableness of the price was adequately confirmed. (All prior form fields will lock once this e-signature is completed) SPO Approval and Signature Required Sole Source Justification Form - Part II Section I - General Information Was a Sole Source hearing held per 30 ILCS 500/20-25?

Section II - Sole Source Hearing Details The State posted to the Illinois Procurement Bulletin a description of the State's need, the justification for the sole source decision, and information regarding the opportunity to submit comments and testify at a public hearing. Notice of the hearing was also posted outside of the hearing room 48 hours prior to the hearing.

The public hearing was conducted for the purpose of receiving testimony regarding the sole source determination. The Hearing Officer recommends the following:

The following relevant documents are attached:

Section III - CPO Approval and Signature Required 9.0.0.2.20101008.1.734229 Ellen.H.Daley@illinois.gov

from Euna Solutions for system functionality enhancements. This will continue current licensing and include enhanced system functionality and services for GOMB's continued implementation of an enterprise grant management system. This grants management system is proprietary and using OEM resources is the only feasible solution for services needed.

Previously, the licenses were bought from a reseller through the cooperative contract. But only the OEM can configure the software in their own environment to complete the implementations for agencies, so it was done as resold services from the OEM through the reseller. To get the best price on licensing, our aim is to put both the implementation and the licensing under the same contract, thereby avoiding markups by going straight to the OEM.

In addition, the solution’s integration with ERP Finance will provide for improved financial tracking, reporting, and accountability.

Illinois has 32 grant making state agencies, 60 state agencies that receive federal, federal pass-through and/or state funding (includes the 32 grant making state agencies), 15,200 unique registrants in Illinois' Grantee Portal and over 9,200 un-duplicated grantees, a very large quantity of entities applying for grant awards, approximately 2,500 state-administered grant programs, and nearly 47,000 grants are awarded to sub-recipients and grantees. Having such a wide and varying group under the grants umbrella necessitated a standardized Statewide platform for all grant transactions. All momentum towards this goal would cease as a new system would need to be reintegrated and brought to current levels. A change in vendor or software would take the State back to 2017 in terms of progress and postpone the overall goal by many years as a new system would need to catch up to today's AmpliFund levels.

Stakeholder change management has evolved and matured under the current contract. The AmpliFund team has committed core personnel to their Illinois team which has led to trust and respect among state agencies, grantees and external stakeholder groups. Implementation support resources and a reliable platform which is not restricted by license requirements has strengthened buy-in towards Illinois’ approach to configure and implement a compliant, flexible, statewide, life-cycle grant management software solution. Continuity within the AmpliFund resources is paramount to ongoing effective and efficient change management.