The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
SBCTC 2024-RFP-002 Course Sharing Q&A
| 1 |
| Do you prefer Appendix F to remain in spreadsheet format or can it be converted to a chart or narrative in Volume 2? |
| Appendix F lists the requirements and provides an opportunity for you to organize your response. When you address the requirements, it would be best if you provide a narrative response for the items listed in Appendix F that is part of Volume 2. |
| 2 |
| RFP Page 6 Section 3.8.2: Vendor must respond to each question/requirement contained in Sections 3 through 6. |
Question: Section 3 appears to mostly contain instructions for the proposal that must be followed. Please confirm that the only parts of Section 3 vendors must specifically address in the proposal are 3.8.1, 3.17, and 3.18. If this is not the case, please clarify.
Yes, section 3 is mostly a set of instructions which do not require a separate response. Although it is also completely appropriate if you would like to respond that you have read, understand, and agree to comply with the requirements.
| 3 |
| Appendix B: CONFORMANCE WITH STANDARDS: CONTRACTOR shall comply with federal and state (OCIO) information security standards. |
Question: Which specific federal and WA State OCIO standards shall the contractor comply with?
https://ocio.wa.gov/policy/securing-information-technology-assets-standards-parts-rescinded above is the link to Washington State standards. We do not have a specific Federal Standard to point to at this time.
| 4 |
| RFP Page 11, Section 4.1.1: Vendor must provide … Washington UBI number (Unified Business Identifier number) ... |
Question: Does a vendor need to have the UBI Number in place for the proposal or can this be obtained once the vendor is selected and/or a contract is awarded?
A UBI Number is not required in order to bid, but you must have a number to do business with any Washington state entity, so if you are awarded, you will need one prior to signing the contract.
| 5 |
| Should we be submitting our demo account information today? |
We are receptive to whenever you can get that to us.
| 6 |
| Do you prefer Appendix F to remain in spreadsheet format or can it be converted to a chart or narrative in Volume 2? |
| Appendix F lists the requirements and provides an opportunity for you to organize your response. When you address the requirements, it would be best if you provide a narrative response for the items listed in Appendix F that is part of Volume 2. |
| 7 |
| Will we have an opportunity to ask follow-up questions to SBCTC's responses to these questions? |
| Yes, per the schedule in the RFP you have time to ask additional questions. |
| 8 |
| How will we distinguish if the Contract will be for 3 or 5 years? |
| SBCTC will make the determination at the time of contract negotiation as to whether 3 or 5 years is appropriate. In either case we are going to include optional extension years for any resulting contract. Our preference is for a 5 year contract, though the final determination can be made upon negotiations. |
| 9 |
| Are the schools on the same payment system or is that handled differently at different schools? |
| Colleges take payment at their individual institutions for classes and fees. Students can also pay online via our NelNet (3rd Party) payment processing integration. |
| 10 |
| What is the Implementation and payment timeline? |
| Potentially spring 2025 |
| 11 |
| What is the scope of the colleges involved? |
| The system is intended to include all of our CTC System colleges. |
| 12 |
| It looks like you want Demo accounts available on October 14th. Is there some kind of instruction or guidance that the Vendors |
| For this question we will address demo accounts provided for SBCTC to look at the software or solution prior to response submissions. |
| 13 |
| What kinds of things are you looking for in the Demo? |
| For this question we will address what we are looking for in Optional Vendor Presentations. |
| 14 |
| Can we get a confirmation of how PeopleSoft is set up at schools? |
Are there technical requirements we can have?
Are schools already sharing person data amongst each other?
All 30 colleges are on a single instance of PeopleSoft. Student data (person data) is shared across all institutions via a single EMPL ID.
The major technical requirements were already included in the RFP requirements.
| 15 |
| Requirement 5.4.5 looks like a comment and maybe not a requirement. |
Appendix F will be updated to remove this item. The item was originally intended to address the possible need for a Data Sharing Agreement to comply with the Washington State OCIO’s data sharing policy.
If it is determined that Data Sharing and access is a part of the services provided then a Data Sharing Agreement or Data Sharing language to address it will be included in any resulting contract.
| 16 |
| Are all 34 institutions in the same PeopleSoft instance? If not, how many instances exist? |
| One single instance of PS |
| 17 |
| For those institutions in the same PeopleSoft instance: which records are shared, and which are institution-specific, for a) Person Data, b) Student Program/Plan data, and c) Course and Section data? |
| Person data is shared, currently program plan is by institution and same with course and section. |
| 18 |
| Does the PeopleSoft configuration currently allow students to register for courses at a different institution than their active program/plan stack? |
| PS configuration does not allow for this as the students are admitted into a specific institution in the system. |
| 19 |
| Are all institutions intended to be home institutions (e.g., the school the learner is enrolled in) as well as teaching institutions (e.g., those offering courses to all students), or will there be any variation in participation level? |
| All institutions are currently configured to be home institutions where all activity happens sperate from the other institutions. |
| 20 |
| Does SBCTC have an expected or desired implementation schedule? |
| We would like the solution to be fully functional with students able to register for courses by March 2025. |
| 21 |
| Regarding the Schedule (RFP section 2), which indicates that the “Demo Accounts Active Date” is October 14, can SBCTC please clarify how vendors should make the demo accounts available to SBCTC? Additionally, further clarity on how the demo accounts will be used and the features SBCTC desires to test would be helpful. Lastly, would the System be willing to extend the deadline for receiving access to the demo accounts? |
| You can provide us with demo accounts at any time after the schedule says. Please email how to access them to the RFP coordinator or make arrangements with him via email. The demo accounts will be used to take a look at your proposed solution, with the understanding that it is just a demo account and is not yet specifically tailored to our needs. |
| 22 |
| RFP section 6.5.2 states that SBCTC’s budget for this solution is $500,000. Can SBCTC please clarify whether the $500,000 budget applies to one year of the contract or one contract term (which RFP section 1.3 indicates could be 3, 4, or 5 years)? If the $500,000 is meant to cover one contract term, can SBCTC please clarify the intended length of that term? |
| $500k is the PER YEAR budget to cover all costs at all colleges that want to participate (so should have capacity for all 34) |
The term of the contract will be determined upon contract negotiation. HOWEVER, for evaluation purposes, we will examine total cost for 5 years.
| 23 |
| Is SBCTC’s $500,000 budget intended to cover the cost of the solution for all 34 colleges to implement and use the solution? If not (e.g., if the budget is only for a pilot phase or a limited number of institutions), please clarify. |
| See answer to question #22. |
| 24 |
| Is the PeopleSoft environment currently configured to allow students to register at other institutions that share the environment? |
| It is not currently configured to allow that students register at other institutions. |
| 25 |
| Can students be directly billed through the shared instance of PeopleSoft? |
| Yes |
| 26 |
| What is meant by, and what is the intention or sample use case of, “combined sections” as mentioned in 5.2.12? |
| When courses are shared among multiple campuses, that is a “combined section” – we want to know how your solution handles the scenario where the enrollment limit in that combined course is reached, will the enrollment automatically close, will there be an ability to override the limit, etc. |
| 27 |
| RFP 4.1.1 describes the requirement to provide SBCTC with access to demo accounts. Can SBCTC please clarify how, when, and to whom vendors should provide this access? |
| You can provide us with demo accounts at any time after the schedule says. Please email how to access them to the RFP coordinator or make arrangements with him via email. |