Questions - Answers.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 27 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Identity Access Management (IAM)
- Solicitation number
- 30DOE-S1482
- Issued by
- Churchill County, Nevada
About this file
This document is a Questions and Answers Excel file related to a Request for Proposals (RFP) for an Identity Access Management (IAM) system issued by the Nevada Department of Education (NDE). The project involves implementing an IAM system that will integrate with five key applications used by the department, including Microsoft Office 365, Bighorn SharePoint portal, the OPAL educator licensing system, the Infinite Campus student information system, and the SAIN data warehouse. The solution must support approximately 1,100 users initially, with the ability to scale to include additional community users such as teachers, students, and parents in the future. The RFP requires the system to be cloud-hosted and support two-factor authentication. The department is seeking a phased approach for implementation, with a target go-live date of January 2023.
Regarding pricing, the department has an approximate budget of $2 million for this effort, funded by a federal grant. The department is open to both managed service and self-managed solutions, and will consider both innovative and cost-effective proposals. There are incumbent contractors for some of the existing systems, and the department currently lacks a centralized IAM solution, relying on individual product-level security controls and manual auditing processes.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 30DOE-S1482 Identity Access Management - Final~1.docx | DOCX document | |
| Quote Instructions.pdf | ||
| Letter of Intent to Award - Identity Automation.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
Bid Q&A for Export Report
| Bid Q&A | |||||
| QUESTION_NBR | CREATED_BY | QUESTION_SUBJECT | QUESTION_TEXT | ANSWER_TEXT | |
| 1 | RFP@NOVACOAST.COM | Insurance Requirements Document | I cannot open the insurance pdf that is within the RFP. Is it possible to receive that as a separate document, please? | Please contact Heather Moon. Contact information is on the first page of the RFP. | |
| 2 | RFP@NOVACOAST.COM | Proposed Staff Resumes | Will staff resumes with redacted employee contact information be considered responsive? | Yes | |
| 3 | RFP@NOVACOAST.COM | Dual Authentication | Throughout the RFP the term ?dual authentication? is used. Is this term meant to denote Two Factor Authentication, or authentication from two possible sources, or something else? Please define ?dual authentication? for the purpose of this RFP. | The term refers to a minimum of two factor authentication. | |
| 4 | RFP@NOVACOAST.COM | Training 3.3.3.1 | For the purpose of training, 3.3.3.1, is end-user the actual solution end-user (e.g. students, employees, etc.) or the project end-user (e.g. IT operations staff who will own and support the solution)? | Project end users. | |
| 5 | RFP@NOVACOAST.COM | Deliverables Hard copies (Section 4.2) | Deliverables, requiring hard copies (section 4.2). In the current pandemic world, with we are assuming remote work, are deliverables still required to be delivered in printed hard copies? If so, will the identified State Project Manager be able to receive and redistribute hard copies in a timely manner? | The Department would consider digital copies in lieu of hard copies when appropriate. | |
| 6 | RFP@NOVACOAST.COM | System Requirements 4.5.1 | System Requirement 4.5.1 ? does ?cloud hosted? include solutions residing in a private cloud (AWS or Azure for example) or only SaaS solutions? | Yes, private cloud hosting is acceptable as long as the location is identified in the contract and it resides within the United States | |
| 7 | RFP@NOVACOAST.COM | Section 6 - Environments | Section 6 ? environments. What is the standard set of environments at the State for a solution of this complexity, risk, and size? Does the solution ownership group have a preference? Should this be seven environments for function separation, or three for minimization of support and cost, or some other desired number? | The Department does not have a preference. The RFP will be evaluated based on the proposed solution for functionality, ease of use and cost. | |
| 8 | BRUCE.KOOP@OKTA.COM | End-user Roles / Quantities | Please describe who will be using the solution to authenticate (eg, faculty, staff, students, parents, etc), including quantities of each category and estimated frequency of use (eg, daily, monthly, annually, etc). | In this phase of the project, the users will consist of Department staff (160 users, these users will utilize the solution daily to authenticate to O365 and SharePoint), School District technical staff (750 users. These users will access SharePoint a minimum of weekly). The solution needs to have the ability to scale out to all educators (23,000 frequency of use would be daily for Infinite Campus), Students and Parents (1 million, frequency of use would be weekly). All educators, parents and students are not included in the scope of this RFP, but the solution would need to have the capability of including those users at additional licensing costs and cloud resource costs but should not require additional products or development costs. | |
| 9 | SALLYSMITH | Number of Environments | Considering the Identity and Access Management (IAM) system as a shared service, is the State open to consolidate the multiple IAM environments? | Yes | |
| 10 | SALLYSMITH | User Count | What is the total number of users expected/planned to use the newly implemented IAM system, this will have direct impact on the software licensing? | ~900 | |
| 11 | SALLYSMITH | Existing applications | Can the State share the technical details for in-scope applications (e.g., protocol, technology etc.) with the legacy system for evaluating the protocols for integration? | MS O365 w/Exchange, Bighorn = On-prem SharePoint v.2016 currently using Forms Based Authentication to provide role level access, OPAL is a custom solution based on the MS development stack that is SAML and OAUTH compliant, Infinite Campus is a WEB Based student information system and is SAML compliant. SAIN system if the back-end data bases and warehouse and is built on MS SQL | |
| 12 | SALLYSMITH | User Count | What is the total number of users expected/planned to use the newly implemented IAM system, this will have direct impact on the software licensing? | See above | |
| 13 | SALLYSMITH | Existing applications | Can the State share the technical details for in-scope applications (e.g., protocol, technology etc.) with the legacy system for evaluating the protocols for integration? | See above | |
| 14 | CDUGUAY@AETSYSTEM.COM | Incumbent | Is there an Incumbent contractor attached to this work? Is or was there at any point (2005-Present) a team or firm from Private Industry helping with the day to day challenges? | Yes, there are incumbant contractors for the OPAL system and Infinite Campus. The Department also employs a part time contractor/consultant for SharePoint. | |
| 15 | CDUGUAY@AETSYSTEM.COM | Budget | Is there a max budget for this effort, if so what is the range? Is this LPTA work? | ~$2,000,000 | |
| 16 | CDUGUAY@AETSYSTEM.COM | What is more important | What's more important, innovation or price? | Both are important but the project is funded by a Federal Grant and cannot exceed the allocation. | |
| 17 | RFP@NOVACOAST.COM | System Requirements p.22 | In the table, the systems listed have a column "System Connections" - please clarify if this column indicates that the listed systems do or do not have existing connections to other systems in use already. We want to understand that the IAM system will indeed be able to integrate with the systems in the table using connectivity means such as vendor APIs, direct integration, text files, or other vendor-defined methods. | The systems listed do not have existing connections with the exception of Bighorn and the SAIN SLDS. Administrative access to these systems utilize the Department's existing Active Directory. User access to Bighorn (SharePoint) utilizes Forms Based Authentication and SAIN and the PKW SLDS do not currently have user level access. | |
| 18 | RSTREETS | Security and Compliance Requirements | Can you provide the State of Nevada security and compliance requirements to which the solution will be subject? Anything beyond the document referenced: http://it.nv.gov/Governance/Security/State_Security_Policies_Standards___Procedures/ (State Information Security Policies, Standards, and Procedures)? | There are no additional security requirements.The system must also comply with the Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) but these requirements are access related not technical in nature. FERPA compliance will be important when establishing access levels within the solution. | |
| 19 | RSTREETS | Security and Compliance Requirements | Are the charter schools subject to the same regulatory requirements from state and federal as the Nevada DoE schools are? | Yes | |
| 20 | RSTREETS | Current State IAM | Current user self service abilities? | Password reset for Exchange and SharePoint. | |
| 21 | RSTREETS | Data Visualization Tools | What are the data visualization tools currently in place for teachers, administrators, and parents. Please provide screen shots, if applicable | http://nevadareportcard.nv.gov/di/ - http://npwr.nv.gov/ - https://portal.bighorn.doe.nv.gov | |
| 22 | RSTREETS | Current Application List | Please provide a list of all State of Nevada systems that may need to be supported by the new IAM system, the access required by those systems, and the suggested timeline for integration | Infinite Campus, Department admin access (160), 18 mo. Bighorn SharePoint Portal, Admin and user access (~900), 18 mo. OPAL, Department staff access (20), 18 mo. O365 w/Exchange, Department Staff (160), 18 mo. SAIN Department Admin staff (20), 18mo. | |
| 23 | RSTREETS | Required Self Service Use Cases | In addition to registration, authorization and password management, what other capabilities should be available for self-service? | Name change, device management for Dual Auth. | |
| 24 | RSTREETS | Required Self Service Use Cases (Parents) | Will parents/guardians/care-givers also have access to those same self-service capabilities? | Not in the scope of this RFP but solution should allow for that for future expansion. | |
| 25 | RSTREETS | User Populations | 474,000 students, 650 schools (how many administrators?) and over 23,000 teachers. Is that including charter schools too? What about parents/guardians? | Including all those populations are not part of this scope of work but system will need to be able to scale to those numbers for future expansion. Costs to expand should only include licensing and hosting expansions and not require additional development or products. Parent population would be ~1 million. Current scope includes ~1,100 users that access some or all of the applications listed on pg 22. | |
| 26 | RSTREETS | Current Application List | In addition to O365, SharePoint and AD, what other applications are in your environment? | Infiniite Campus (statewide student information system), OPAL custom WEB based educator licensing system built on the MS stack. The backend data bases (SAIN system) MS SQL. | |
| 27 | RSTREETS | Identity Store | Are students included in the AD domain? What is their identity store if not? | No not in current AD, students are not included in the scope of the RFP but solution will need to be capable of adding them at some point. Student's current identity store is Infinite Campus (SAML compliant). | |
| 28 | RSTREETS | Approval Process 2.6.1 | What is the process for obtaining state approval as required by section 2.6.1? | Approval by the Department of Education and the Office of Enterprise Information Technology (EITS). Product documentation will be submitted to the Department and undergo a review and then be sent to EITS for a security review and final approval. Products already in use in the State will not be subject to additional approval. | |
| 29 | RSTREETS | Section 2.6.2 | Regarding 2.6.2, most SaaS licenses are based on a subscription per user/per month. Would that be acceptable? | Yes. Annual billing cycle is preferred. | |
| 30 | RSTREETS | QA Testing | Will the QA monitor mentioned in 2.7.3 provide any assistance or guidance in QA testing? | Yes | |
| 31 | RSTREETS | LAN/WAN Infrastructure | Please provide details on the state LAN/WAN infrastructure as this will impact connections between the Dept of Education and the other state agencies, even if it is likely that they all may eventually be in the AWS or Azure cloud. | LAN/WAN infrastructure is provided by the Office of Information Technology (EITS). Most State Departments are connected to EITs via fiber and then provided public access from the EITs facility. Connectivity to school districts is via public internet. | |
| 32 | RSTREETS | Required Browser Support | What browsers are the solutions required to support? (Re: 3.3.1.1) | Edge, Chrome, Firefox and Safari | |
| 33 | RSTREETS | Training Requirements | Users, connected systems, yearly maintenance all impact the subscription pricing model. Please provide as much detail as you can (particularly on applications and federated users) on those items. Training is also a factor in pricing - how many DoE technologist do you anticipate training? Considering the yearly software maintenance fees, support will be a factor - do you have specific SLAs in mind at this point? | See questions 10,13, 19 and 24 above. There would be ~ 10 technicians to be trained on the solution. We would like to see several maintenance options ranging from a fully managed solution to basic phone/on-line support 8x5. The Department's preference would be fully managed, but realize this may not be possible due to budget restrictions. | |
| 34 | RSTREETS | Location of Support Resources | Considering 3.3.2.3, if the hosting of the solution is in the US, can support resources be located elsewhere? Or will that make the solution non-responsive? | It is preferred support be located in the US also but the Department would consider support located outside the US. | |
| 35 | RSTREETS | Disaster Recovery | Regarding 3.3.5, can you share DR requirements for your current system? | Department systems SharePoint and SAIN are backed up daily/weekly/monthly. These systems have a 72 hour DR recovery requirement. The OPAL and Infinite Campus systems are cloud based and backup and retore DR requirements are contractually obligated to the product vendors. OPAL and Infinite Campus are critical systems and have 24 hour recovery SLAs. O365 is a State held contract and I do not know what the DR SLA states. | |
| 36 | RSTREETS | Current Support Model | For 3.3.6, can you provide details on the current and proposed support models from a customer service perspective? | See question 35 | |
| 37 | RSTREETS | Current PIM/PAM Solution | For 3.4.1, do you currently have a PIM/PAM product in place? If so, what is it, and what systems/accounts are being protected? | No | |
| 38 | RSTREETS | Current SEIM | 3.4.4 - What are you currently doing for IAM audit and reporting? Is your IAM integrated with a SEIM? If so, what is it? | There is no IAM solution currently in place. Security is based on individual product set and audits are painstakeingly manual. | |
| 39 | RSTREETS | Section 3.6.5 Clarification | The Table below 3.6.5 does not seem to be a requirements matrix. Can you clarify? | The table lists the applications to be included in the solution, the approximate number of current users and the current authentication method. See questions 10, 13, 19 and 24 for further clarification. The scope of this RFP will include the five applications listed and the ~1,100 users that access those systems. | |
| 40 | RSTREETS | Portability Requirement | Please elaborate on the notion of 'portability' required in 4.5.3. Do you mean that the solution can run on either Azure or AWS, for example, or do you have other ideas of portability in mind? | Yes, portability refers to the ability to move the platform/solution to other could provider services. | |
| 41 | RSTREETS | Expectations/Responsiblity | What are the expectations of the proponent for existing data / application migration to the new solution? What activities will the DOE team be responsible for? | It is the expectationof the Department that the vendor will assist in identifying the roles/access levels required to implement the solution across the five application listed on Pg 22. Vendor will migrate/link the existing security systems with the new solution. Vendor will migrate user identities into the new identity store and assign appropriate access levels to systems. The DOE will assist in the identification of current roles and the development/consolidation of those roles to be used in the new system. DOE will assist in collecting/providing vendor with information related to existing systems. DOE will assist in developing test criteria and testing data/user migrations to ensure functionality. DOE will provide access to and coordinate vendor and State resources for existing applications (OPAL, Infinite Campus, SharePoint and the Office of Enterprise Information Technology). | |
| 42 | RSTREETS | Level 2 and Level3 Support Requirements, After Go-Live | Is DOE looking for a managed service for L2 / L3 type issues post go-live as part of the support? Or is the intent for the DOE team to manage this internally? | DOE would prefer a managed service but realize this may be cost prohibited and would like to see several management/support options. | |
| 43 | RSTREETS | Phased Approach or Big Bang | Is DOE looking for a phased approach to the transition from the legacy solution to the new IAM solution or would this be a big bang approach to cutover? | Preferable a phased approach by application but all 5 applications listed on pg 22 must be included in this scope. Priority to be determined in planning phase. | |
| 44 | RSTREETS | Timeline | Are there specific timelines that DOE is looking to address to migrate away from the legacy solution? | 18-24 months | |
| 45 | RSTREETS | Annual Product Licensing | In the Annual Prod Lic ? Main Schedule of the excel, there is reference to the ?percentages of the original amount for each fee?. Can you please clarify the purpose of this? | ||
| 46 | RSTREETS | Number of Environments Required | Is the requirement to have 4 environments available for DOE? Development, SIT, Training and Production? | If the solution is fully managed by the vendor the Department would expect two environments, test and production. If the solution is managed by the Department would expect a minimum of three environments, SIT, Training and Prod. The Department does not want a solution that we would have to do any type of development. | |
| 47 | RSTREETS | Timeline | In Section 4.6 Timeline, there is a reference to January 2023, as to when the system implementation is required by? Our timeline based on a July 2021 start is significantly shorter for go-live. Are there any specific reasons for a January 2023 date? | No. This project is part of a Federal Grant and that is the timeline we specified when applying. Timelines that can be implemented earlier are perfectly acceptable. There is no penalty for completing your Grant ahead of schedule. | |
| 48 | RSTREETS | Number of Application in Scope for Integration | Is the overall scope of integrations limited to 5 applications both from an Access Management and Identity Governance perspective? | Yes, as well as estimated cost to integrate applications and the potential number of licensed users. | |
| 49 | RSTREETS | Onsite/Offsite Requirements | Are there specific requirements around onsite meetings / workshops during particular phases of the project? | Due to the pandemic, all on-site meeting requirements or expectations are dynamic. The Department would like to have on-site meeting at key milestones in the project but at this time our office is closed to the public. | |
| 50 | FISCHERID2 | 3.4.1.1.B | What systems are in scope for the Privileged Identity Management? | SharePoint, SAIN, OPAL | |
| 51 | FISCHERID2 | 3.4.1.A | How many Roles to you imagine maintaining in the solution, roles that define user access? | Less than 100. Ideally ~50. Currently over 400 | |
| 52 | FISCHERID2 | 3.4.3.2 | How many targets for Single Sign-On are there? Are the targets SAML enabled, if not, what protocols? | Five targets to include the five applications listed on pg 22. Infinite Campus, OPAL and O365 are SAML enabled. Bighorn (Sharepoint) currently uses Forms Based Authentication for users but Administrators use AD to access. The SAIN system is the back-end database/datawarehouse environemnt and is MS SQL based and uses AD for authentication so can be SAML enabled | |
| 53 | FISCHERID2 | 3.6.5 | Does the matrix include all integration targets? | Yes | |
| 54 | FISCHERID2 | Please clarify the number of user identities you would like included | o | Total number of students across the community ? do you consider them internal users? | |
| o | Total number of teachers ? do you consider them internal users? | ||||
| o | Total number of employees ? do you consider them internal users: | ||||
| o | Do you want parents included? If so, total number of parents. Are they internal or external? | Internal users are defined as Department staff (160). External users are defined for this project as School District admin staff, product support vendors and other State agency partners (~900). Community is defined as teachers, students and parents. As stated above, community users are not part of the scope of this RFP, but solution must be extendable to include community users in the future. | |||
| 55 | FISCHERID2 | User Definition is as follows: | Internal user: An employee, contractor, or other User who is not an external user. Education: a student, faculty, or staff member, regardless of their location or whether the student matriculated through another institution. External User: Any user who does not meet the criteria of an Internal User. For example: external contractors, commercial partners, vendors, alumni, guests, etc., are External Users. | See question 56 | |
| 56 | ELLEN.WALKER@OPTIV.COM | Time Extension | W would like an additional 2 weeks to respond due to the complexity of the Bid response. | The Department will agree to a one week extension to 4/13. | |
| 57 | RSTREETS | Number of Subscription Licenses | Please provide number of Users for Access Management and Identity Governance & Administration. Will there be Full Users and Lite Users (those accessing less than 5 applications)? If so define the number of Full Users and Lite Users for each Access Management and Identity Governance & Administration. | ~1,100 users for IAM and ID governance. ~160 Full users and ~900 Lite users. | |
| 58 | RANJEET@IDENTOPIA.COM | MFA | Does NDE currently have an MFA solution in place? | No | |
| 59 | RANJEET@IDENTOPIA.COM | Provisioning/Deprovisioning | How many applications need direct provisioning and deprovisioning of users and access from the IGA solution. And what types of applocations | 4 (Infinite Campus, Bighorn (SharePoint), OPAL and O365 | |
| 60 | RANJEET@IDENTOPIA.COM | Access reviews | Do we need manager certification only or will there be a scenario for other certifications like application owner and role composition etc? | Manager and application owner | |
| 61 | RANJEET@IDENTOPIA.COM | PAM | Does NDE have an existing Privileged Access Management solution in place? | No | |
| 62 | RANJEET@IDENTOPIA.COM | Professional Services | IS NDE looking for professional services from system integrator companies that are partners with product vendor companies or is the expectation that product vendor companies should only respond to this bid? | The Department will accept and consider bids from integrators as well as product vendors. | |
| 63 | RANJEET@IDENTOPIA.COM | IAM team | What is the current IAM team size and qualifications at NDE | We do not have a current IAM solution but those functions are performed by existing 10 staff members. 3 staff members are qualified AD administrators, 4 staff are database administrators/developers and remaining staff provision/deprovision accounts, manage helpdesk, perform routine security maintenace and audits. The OPAL system is managed by another unit and has two staff that manage accounts in that system. The Department intends to hire two additional staff dedicated to this project, A security administrator and a systems analyst. | |
| 64 | RANJEET@IDENTOPIA.COM | Consolidated Solution | IS NDE looking for a single product or multiple products implemented in a best of breed consolidation also an option? | Either solution is acceptable. | |
| 65 | RSTREETS | Number of Subscription Licenses | Full user is defined as an DOE Employee, a lite user is anyone outside of the DOE whom you are managing with limited access. | Yes, and/or Full user has access to all five applications. Lite user would access one or two. | |
| 66 | RANJEET@IDENTOPIA.COM | QA team | is there a dedicated QA team at NDE for this project? | No, project will utilize existing staff for QA. There will be one new hire systems analyst that will be dedicated to the project and will be included in performing QA. | |
| 67 | RANJEET@IDENTOPIA.COM | On Prem applications | How many on prem applications will have to be integrated with the new solution | Two. Bighorn (SharePoint) and SAIN (SQL back-end) | |
| 68 | RANJEET@IDENTOPIA.COM | Onsite | Will this work be remote or onsite | Due to pandemic all work will be remote currently. This could change if restrictions are lifted. It was the original intent to have at least one dedicated vendor resource on-site full or part time. | |
| 69 | DAN.GOGGIANO@SOLUTIONS-II.COM | Various - See questions | 1. | Section 2.1 -Does this RFP intend to include development on the existing PK-12 Operational Data Store (ODS) and Workforce Reporting (NPWR) systems to create APIs or Web Service calls to allow for data integration between the different systems? | |
| 2. | Section 2.1 Does this RFP intend to include development on the existing PK-12 Operational Data Store (ODS) to allow for student/teacher/classroom level access and restrictions? | ||||
| 3. | Section 2.1 Does this RPF intend to include SSO capabilities for other organizations outside of Nevada Department of Education (NDE)? E.g. Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Motor Vehicles, Department of Corrections, Governor?s Office of Workforce Innovation (OWINN), etc. | ||||
| 4. | Section 2.1 Can we get a Matrix of anticipated user types (Admin, Employee, Teacher, Parent, Student, Partner Organization, etc.) mapped to the existing/anticipated applications with access levels? | ||||
| 5. | Section 2.3 What kind of access is required/anticipated to the Student Accountability Information Network (SAIN)? Will this be individuals, application linkage (API/Web Service calls, etc.)? | ||||
| a. | If application linkage is required, does this RFP intend to include development on the existing SAIN applications? | ||||
| 6. | Section 2.3 Can you elaborate on the expected ?granular security access? needed within the Bighorn Portal (SharePoint 2016) | ||||
| 7. | Section 2.3 Considering SharePoint 2016 (Bighorn Portal) will be End-of-Life on or before (7/13/21) the Contract Start Date, does this RFP intend to include a SharePoint upgrade and/or migration to a supported SharePoint version? | ||||
| a. | Does this RFP intend to include any additional development, if required, to get the previous custom development operational again on the new SharePoint version? | ||||
| 8. | Section 2.3 Is the existing PK-12 Operational Data Store (ODS) only a Directory Service that manages identity and access, or does the current ODS also contain additional data? (e.g. PII, Student information, records, etc.) | 1. No. 2. Not in this scope but would like to solution to have the ability to extend to those users in the future. 3. Yes, all Nevada public School Districts, DETR NSHE and OWINN 4. See attached. 5. Administrator access in this scope but would like to allow for application linkage in the future. 6, Currently, Full admin access, File sharing access by Unit with the department, district and school, Department, District, School access for current scope. Ability to extend to teacher, student and parent in the future. 7. Not included in this contract but will be upgraded outside this contract. 7a. No. 8. Current ODS contains other data including but not limited to PII, student records, other departmental data storage. | |||
| 70 | DAN.GOGGIANO@SOLUTIONS-II.COM | Various - See questions | 10. | Section 3.3.2.7 Please clarify ? i.e. does this include non-payment or non-renewal of services/software? | |
| 11. | Section 3.4.1.1. A ? Please confirm the total number of IAM Users | ||||
| 12. | Section 3.4.1.1 B ? Please confirm the total number of Privileged users | ||||
| 13. | Section 4.4.9 ? Please confirm total number of authorized users who will have an individual log-in | ||||
| 14. | Section 4.5.3 ? Does this apply to SaaS? | ||||
| 15. | Section 4.6.2 ? Does the contract term begin at go-live (Jan 2023) or on the contract start date (7/13/21)? | ||||
| 16. | Section 6.1 ? Please confirm total number of environments and number of users in each that are required. E.g. Development/Data Conversion, Integration/Test, Training, Production. | ||||
| a. | Please also identify the length of time each environment needs to be accessible. | ||||
| 17. | Section 12.3.4.1 Is it a requirement that Project Management be located in Carson City, or can Project Management services be performed remotely? | ||||
| 18. | Section 12.3.10 ? Please define ?most?. What is the expected amount and timeline of onsite activities? | ||||
| 19. | Section 12.3.11 Is the intent for this to apply to Commercial Software applications which may be used in the overall solution? | ||||
| 20. | Section 12.3.14 Is the intent for this to apply to Commercial Software applications which may be used in the overall solution? | ||||
| 21. | Section 12.3.19.2 G ? If necessary, is a remote interview acceptable? | ||||
| 22. | What do you mean by Integrate with Infinite Campus? Is this SSO meaning integration means providing a user the ability to SSO into IC? Or are you requesting, pulling data from IC to manage lifecycle of users in Azure AD or On-Prem AD? | ||||
| 23. | Are you looking to replace Active Directory with the new IAM?s cloud directory? | ||||
| 24. | Are you asking for the IAM to interact with OPAL? What exactly needs to happen with integration with OPAL? | ||||
| 25. | Are you requiring the new IAM system to reside in Azure cloud? | ||||
| 26. | Do you have an internal development team to make this integration? | 10. ?. 11. ~1,100. 12. ~10. 13. ~1,100. 14. No, solution must be portable across cloud providers. 15. Start date. Additional licensing and Maintenance beyond two years would be a new contract. 16. This is dependent on the proposed solution. If solution is a SaaS or OTS then the Department would expect two environments, Training/Test (~20 users) and Production (~1,100 users). Development and Integration Testing would not be required. 16a. Production 24x7, Training/test could be on-demand 17. Remotely is acceptable. 18. This is left over from previous RFPs. Sorry I did not remove it. Due to the pandemic, this is no longer a requirement. 19. No, only custom solutions or data/documentation developed specifically for Nevada. 20. No, only to artifacts developed exclusively for the State. 21. Yes. 22. The ability to SSO into IC and the ability of IC users to SSO into Bighorn and OPAL. 23. Not necessarily but could be considered. 24. SSO to OPAL from AD and IC, user access provisioning and deprovisioning. 25. Has to be cloud based and Azure is preferred but not required. 26. No, not dedicated. Integration would be joint effort between solution provider, NDE staff and vendors of systems to be integrated. | |||
| 71 | DAN.GOGGIANO@SOLUTIONS-II.COM | Various - See questions | 27. | Can you list the web applications and the protocols and APIs supported by them? | |
| 28. | Does this project include SSO for end users to access these web apps? | ||||
| 29. | Is the travel requirement mandatory or will remote work be allowed in lieu of onsite activities? | ||||
| 10. | 12.3.10 Travel Requirements |
Most design, development and testing activities shall occur in Carson City (except those activities mutually agreed to be performed at the contractor?s facility).
| 30. | Are there any user types in scope beyond internal employees, Faculty/Staff and students? (i.e. Contractors, parents, alumni) | ||||
| 31. | What is the quantity of users that will need to be covered by the solutions? | 27. ? 28. Yes. 29. Remote work will be allowed. 29. See above. 30. Yes, school district administrators for the Bighorn (SharePoint) application (~750 users). 31. ~1,100 | |||
| 72 | HMOON | 3.4.1.1.B | What systems are in scope for the Privileged Identity Management? | Bighorn (SharePoint) and SAIN back-end systems (MSSQL) | |
| 73 | HMOON | 3.4.1.A | How many roles do you imagine maintaining in the solution, roles that define user access? | Less than 100, preferably ~50. Currently have 400+ | |
| 74 | HMOON | 3.4.3.2 | How many targets for Single Sign0On are there? Are the targets SAML enabled, if not, what protocols? | See #54 | |
| 75 | HMOON | 3.6.5 | Does the matrix include all integration targets? | See #55 | |
| 76 | HMOON | Various | Total number of students across the community - do you consider them internal users? | See #55-57 | |
| 77 | HMOON | Various | Total number of teachers - do you consider them internal users? | See #55-57 | |
| 78 | HMOON | Various | Total number of employees - do you consider them internal users? | See #55-57 | |
| 79 | HMOON | Various | Do you want parents included? If so, total number of parents. Are they internal or external? | See #55-57 | |
| 80 | HMOON | General | Internal User: An employee, contractor, or other User who is not an external user. Education: a student, faculty, or staff member, regardless of their location or whether the student matriculated through another institution. | See #55-57 | |
| 81 | HMOON | General | External User: Any user who does not meet the criteria of an Internal User. For example: external contractors, commercial partners, vendors, alumni, guests, etc., are External Users. | See #55-57 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .