Response to Offeror Questions document 2.docx

Questions/Answers for RFP#25RFP14102 Convert Water Rights and Water Use Databases from FoxPro to GIS-Centric Database

1. Can you confirm that the 20-page maximum only applies to the RFP Form, Executive Summary and Detailed Response? Can you confirm that all other items fall outside the page limits (cover page, cover letter, tabs, table of contents, resumes, glossary, cost proposal, Security Vendor Questionnaire).

The 20-page maximum only applies to the RFP form, Executive Summary and Detailed Response – all other items fall outside of the 20-page limit.

2. Can you confirm we should submit our proposals via email to Ron Duvall at ron.duvall@state.sd.us?

Yes, to ron.duvall@state.sd.us

3. Will the demos and the reviews be in-person or on-line?

Demos and technical Reviews are hosted on Microsoft Teams. We have time slots set aside for BIT technical reviews on Wednesdays at 10 am and Thursdays at 1 pm CST.

4. When the State requests in item 5.2.3.1 a “specific point-by-point response, in the order listed, to each requirement in the RFP” are they referring to the section 4 proposal requirements?

Yes, specifically in section 4, sections 4.1 through 4.3; 4.4.1.1, 4.4.1.5 and 4.4.1.6; 4.4.1.9; 4.4.2.2; 4.4.3.3 and 4.4.3.4; and 4.5.1.

5. Can we include letters of reference in an Appendix (not part of the 20-page limit)?

Yes, in the Appendix is fine.

6. Are there any known data quality issues in the FoxPro or Access databases (duplicates, missing values, inconsistent relationships)?

No.

7. Are there full definitions of each field (data dictionary) for all tables, including lookup values?

There is nothing written, but that information will be provided as needed.

8. Can we get example records for each type of record, including memo fields and associated PDFs?

Yes.

9. Are there any constraints or validation rules currently used (even if enforced manually) that should carry over to the new system?

Yes, although not many.

10. For the irrigation and non-irrigation PDFs, are there existing naming conventions or folder structures we need to replicate or enhance?

Yes.

11. Do you want all historical data migrated, including archived irrigation water use tables back to 1994?

Yes.

12. Should we address the current one-to-one relationship flaw and design proper one-to-many relationships where needed? Are you expecting us to recommend data model improvements?

Definitely address one-to-many status, this is significant reason for the upgrade, there are numerous one-to-many relationships that currently don’t exist, but should. Any recommended data model improvements are welcome.

13. Will the State provide the data in advance as clean DBF/XLS dumps, or will incremental access be required?

Yes.

14. What is the expected volume of total PDF files across all systems?

17,000 PDF, 44 GB (Water Right) 167,000 PDF, 12.8 GB (Water Use Reports)

15. Can you clarify what is meant by "robust search" — is it expected to have advanced filters, saved searches, spatial queries, etc.?

Both spatial and text-based queries capable combined with “and/or” logic for the most common searches. For advanced, custom searches, use ESRI/ArcGIS tools.

16. What is the minimum set of reports needed on day one? (Are the three end-of-year summaries for irrigation/non-irrigation mandatory for go-live?)

End-of-year summaries are not mandatory at go live. Go live date can be scheduled for a date not sensitive to immediate report generation.

17. Please describe the State's Single Sign-On (SSO) environment (Active Directory, ADFS, Azure AD, etc.).

The State’s SSO supports the industry standard OAuth 2.0 protocol. This identity management will handle password recovery and multi-factor authentication (MFA). MFA is required for all application Administrators and may be required for other users. Microsoft’s official documentation on the identity provider the State has implemented can be found at the following links based on type of user:

For public/citizens (Azure Active Directory B2C):

· https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/active-directory-b2c/

· https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/active-directory-b2c/integrate-with-app-code-samples For state employees, businesses, partners, providers (Microsoft Entra ID):

· https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/active-directory/architecture/auth-oauth2

· https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/active-directory/develop/v2-protocols-oidc

18. Have SSO requirements been successfully implemented in other State of SD projects? If so, were those projects hosted by the State, by a vendor, or on another platform?

For GIS applications SSO has been successfully implemented and is required on all our projects.

19. What role definitions already exist? Or do they need to be defined as part of the project?

Editing is limited to a few program staff right now and database is password protected. SSO roles will need to be created.

20. Will the public search need a CAPTCHA solution you already use statewide, or should we propose one?

CAPTCHA will be needed regardless of whether provided by the state or vendor.

21. Who will be responsible for developing the Caspio applications for irrigation and non-irrigation reporting?

The Caspio application for irrigation has been developed, development of the non-irrigation version and the connection of both to the vendor-developed application will be the responsibility of the vendor. Also, willing to consider a vendor developed, non-Caspio means of collecting online water use reporting by water users.

22. Can you confirm that we will only be responsible for syncing data to the new system, not the Caspio forms themselves?

At the beginning of the water use reporting year a reset of the Caspio table(s) holding reported water use will need to be cleared and reset to receive the next years’ worth of reported water use. Once reporting begins in the Caspio application that reported data should sync from Caspio to the offeror’s application. The offeror’s application will not need to sync to Caspio.

23. Are there equivalent REST API Endpoints to the webhooks for the data we need to sync from Caspio? Alternatively, which webhooks fetch the data? Webhooks aren’t sufficient for syncing if we want to prevent data loss.

I am unfamiliar with Caspio’s rest API capabilities, but this link may be of help - Web Services API - Caspio Online Help. Regarding webhooks, here is another link - Getting Started with Webhooks in Caspio - Caspio Online Help. My understanding is webhooks is a one way street from Caspio to the application.

24. Should we build tools for exporting clean datasets each year for Caspio's upload, or will this be handled manually?

Some method will be needed to upload a clean dataset to Caspio. It is possible to import XLSX or XML files into Caspio which is the method currently being used to reset Caspio each year. For more on data imports - Importing Data - Caspio Online Help

25. Should the application simply link to existing PDFs via URL/path, or will it be responsible for generating new PDFs (e.g., reports, notices) as well?

The application needs to do both. There are existing PDFs available on a local network with a mapped path available over the web. For an example, visit our online water rights database which contains a subset of the data fields, but with links to the water right files - South Dakota Search for South Dakota Water Rights. The application will need to generate water use reporting forms for mailing (these forms have been “printed” to PDF and then sent by a staff member to a local printer is manageable batches) and also create a PDF containing the water use data reported by each water user and then the end-of-year summary reports. Examples are available upon request.

26. Are there any expectations for automated PDF generation beyond the mailing workflows (e.g., on- demand permit PDFs)?

Yes, reported water use needs to generate a PDF. This will be similar to the blank forms generated for mailing except it will also contain the reported water use information. There will also be occasions were an “on demand” blank form may need to be generated outside of the initial mailing.

27. Can you elaborate on the 7-year review workflow for "parent" permits? How should the system prompt and track those reviews?

A prompt (e.g. email) based on the date of the next year review will be beneficial about 3 months before the review is due. After the review is complete, then staff can insert the date of the next review which then prompts another review in seven years.

28. Should the application automatically calculate water allocations (reserved, withdrawn, remaining) or will staff continue to manage some of this manually?

The application should be able link to permits (children) placing water to use that was reserved by the future use permit (parent). Ideally, the volumes of water appropriated by the children will be deducted from the parent so the parent (future use permit) shows the amount of water remaining in the reservation.

29. Are there other permit workflows (besides 7-year review and annual reporting) we should account for?

There is a workflow in processing an application to appropriate water. This process is NOT part of this RFP. After the application has been processed, then staff will manually add a new record to the application.

30. What is the target go-live date?

The RFP is for a two-year contract so ideally by the end of that term, there is the possibility of renewal for another year.

31. Are there any regulatory deadlines driving this timeline?

No.

32. Which section in the proposal would you like the reference letters to be located?

Appendix is fine.

33. Do the reference letter pages count as part of the proposal’s total page limit?

No.

34. If we sign a NDA, could the Foxpro flat tables (.dbf files) and Access database be provided to us for review?

NDA is not necessary, FoxPro tables can be made available in a generic dbf or xls format. The Access database is basically a mailing list consisting of records already in the FoxPro tables.

35. The RFP states the web application should be Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant. What WCAG standard version does the web application need to meet?

WCAG 2.1, Level AA to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Title II.

36. The RFP states the SDDANR has ArcGIS Enterprise 11.3, can the offeror assume that the state would provide the license for the software if the proposed solution is hosted on premise?

SDDANR has a stand-alone ArcGIS Server that is tied into our Enterprise with version 11.3. The state does not provide licenses to vendors, however, our ArcGIS Pro licenses are concurrent and SDDANR has access to them.

37. Does the State already have ArcGIS Enterprise configured to use State's Identify and Access management strategy for accessing enterprise ArcGIS REST services for state employees?

Yes, it ties into our Esri Enterprise.

38. Does the offeror need to include costs for servers or database licenses if the proposed solution is hosted on premise? If yes, how would we estimate State licensing?

The state has an Esri Enterprise Agreement which allows us to provide servers or database licenses for hosted on-prim services. SDDANR already has geo-enabled databases at their disposal.

39. If the offeror proposes a State hosted on premise solution, would it be hosted on a shared ArcGIS Enterprise installation or would this solution have its own dedicated servers?

It would be hosted on the already existing ArcGIS servers that SDDANR has access to.

40. If the offeror proposes a State hosted solution, is there a preference between on premise servers or State Cloud?

The state and SDDANR has access to ArcGIS Online, ArcGIS Portal through our Enterprise. If Online is chosen it would be hosted on Esri’s server. On-prim has ArcGIS servers already accessed by SDDANR. We do not have ArcGIS servers in the cloud yet, however, data can be stored anywhere.

41. What State Cloud provider does the state use? Example Azure, AWS, Google.

Azure

42. Does the solution need to support mobile device use such as editing water rights or water use data on a phone or tablet?

No.

43. Are there any business requirements to view or edit the data in the field in a disconnected environment?

No.

44. Could the State kindly confirm whether vendors are allowed to submit only an electronic copy of their proposals, without the need for a physical copy?

A physical copy is optional.

45. Could the State please confirm if vendors have to include the contract within the response to this RFP?

A contract resulting from selection of a successful vendor will come later.

46. Could the State please confirm the required electronic submission method for vendor responses? Should proposals be submitted via a designated portal or email?

Email is preferred but other arrangements can be made if file size is an issue.

47. Could the State kindly confirm if vendors are required to submit their responses via email? If so, could you please provide the designated email address for submission?

Email is ron.duvall@state.sd.us, other arrangements can be made if file size is an issue.

48. Are electronic signatures allowed?

Yes.

49. Is there a tentative budget assigned for the resultant contract?

Approximately $415,000 available with the possibility of an ongoing maintenance agreement at some amount to be determined.

50. Could the State please confirm the required forms that must be submitted with the proposal?

Please refer to Sections 4 and 5.

51. Could the State please grant an extension on the due date?

No.

52. Could the State please provide clarification on the appropriate section within the response where vendors should include the forms?

The RFP cover form is one of the 20 pages allowed in the proposal along with the executive summary and detailed response. Other documents can be part of an appendix which does not count towards the 20 pages.

53. Could the State please confirm if vendors can meet the requirements with a subcontractor?

It is permitted pursuant to subcontracting requirements on page 32 of the RFP.

54. Could the State please clarify if subcontracting is permitted under this RFP?

It is permitted pursuant to subcontracting requirements on page 32 of the RFP.

55. Could the State please clarify if vendors can use subcontractor's references?

Everyone involved in the proposal should provide references.

56. Could the State kindly confirm whether vendors are required to submit a single document containing the technical response, cost proposal, and required forms, or if these should be submitted separately?

The proposal consists of 20 pages whether one document or 20 separate documents. Appendix content, same.

57. Can the State provide more detail on the existing FoxPro data structure—such as the number of tables, data volume, relationships, and examples of data fields?

The water rights tables and current year of water use reporting are approximately 85 MB. Historical water use reporting tables (1994 to present) is a combined total of 234 MB. There are also small lookup tables constituting only a few KB. The water rights database consists of five tables (free tables not in a database container) all in a one-to-one relationship. Each year of irrigation water use reporting is in its own table. All the tables are related to each based on the water permit number. Data fields are common fields you would expect, text, numeric, date, and a few memo type fields larger than a typical 254 character text field. Examples of the data can be made available in a generic dbf or xls format.

58. Are there any known data quality issues (e.g., duplicates, inconsistencies) in the current FoxPro data that need to be addressed during the conversion?

No.

59. Are there existing schemas, ER diagrams, or documentation for the FoxPro tables that can be shared?

No, but I have a decent history with the data contained in the tables.

60. Is there a preferred ESRI product or licensing level (e.g., ArcGIS Enterprise, ArcGIS Online, ArcSDE) that should be used in the GIS-centric database solution?

ArcGIS Enterprise (Portal) or ArcGIS Online for sharing the application with the public. Prefer avoiding using ArcSDE.

61. Should the GIS system integrate with existing state GIS data or services (e.g., land parcels, boundaries)?

Yes, however, the state does not yet have a statewide parcel database. There are various boundary files that can be incorporated into the application.

62. Are spatial features already present in the FoxPro data (e.g., coordinates, shapefiles), or will they need to be geocoded?

Latitude/Longitude values exist in the data. The solution will need to allow adding polygon features, but the addition of polygon features will be by staff using the solution provided by the chosen vendor.

63. Can the State clarify the State’s preference or constraints between on-premise, cloud, or hybrid hosting models (e.g., budget, security, compliance)?

We have no preference beyond it works well, is secure, and can be done for the dollars available. However, a consideration will be ongoing costs for a vendor hosted solution which should be spelled out in the cost proposal.

64. If cloud hosting is considered, are there preferred platforms (e.g., AWS, Azure, Google Cloud) or state-mandated vendors?

Azure is the preferred platform for cloud hosting.

65. What level of access or control will the State require over a cloud-hosted solution (e.g., admin rights, full database access, backup management)?

Unclear as to whether this means having admin rights to tweak the application built by the vendor or admin rights for adding/editing records, etc. Regarding admin rights to the solution as built, if there are simple tweaks or fixes needed, then admin access is desirable. Access to data with ArcGIS Pro is needed for custom queries, report building, etc.

66. Can the State describe the types of reports that need to be generated (e.g., annual usage summaries, permit statuses, violation tracking)?

There are a few reports that are needed annually such as the water usage summaries which consists of all the permit holders reporting their water use, name, address, yes/no fields, water source, county, and other text and water use numeric data. There are groupings by water source – a copy of each is available upon request.

67. Are PDF documents currently linked in FoxPro, or are they stored separately? What metadata connects them to the data?

PDF file are stored separately on the state network with a mapped path to allow internet access. The PDFs are named with the permit number assigned to the water right and, in the case of water use questionnaires, the permit number and year of reported usage. Here is a sample link to a PDF of a water right file - 8094-3.pdf.

68. Should the system include a document management capability for uploading, storing, and retrieving PDFs?

PDFs are currently stored on a network drive, assuming a mapped link to allowing viewing of PDFs can be incorporated into the solution, then that will work for viewing. PDF documents also need to be edited by staff so they need to be stored in a location where the PDF is directly accessible. The solution is not anticipated to be the application used to access PDFs for editing of the PDF.

69. How many users are expected to access the system, and what are their roles (e.g., admins, data entry, public users)?

Five or fewer people will need admin/editing. Public viewers will be limited to viewing water rights data. There are around 2,000 water users who need the ability to report water use online, only about a third to date do online reporting, the rest mail in completed forms.

70. Will public-facing access or self-service tools be needed (e.g., permit lookup, usage history)?

Yes, public facing of water rights data (not editable though) and public facing to report water usage.

71. Should the solution include form-based data entry for future water use reports, or will that be done via upload/import?

Not sure what the question is, reporting water use online is by using a Caspio-based reporting form. Current practice is a download of the entire Caspio table and then FoxPro code to update the local FoxPro table with anything reported online in Caspio by comparing timestamps. Webhooks or rest API would be desirable replacement in the solution or an entirely new online reporting system that stays within our budget.

72. What is the process for collecting annual water use reports currently, and how do you envision it in the new system?

Currently a mailing is done and paper forms for reporting irrigation use with a postage paid return envelope. The cover letter encourages online reporting which is done using Caspio. Roughly one third have done online reporting using Caspio. The new system is envisioned doing much the same thing with FoxPro being replaced by the solution. Use of Caspio is viewed as a cost saving measure since it is already in use, and it appears the tools are available for it to “talk” to the solution using either webhooks or rest API -- open to other options in solution other than using Caspio that are cost effective. One difference will be the automatic generation of PDF reports as users submit their water use data (whether through online submission or a staff member entering the date from a paper form) or when edits are made to a record. Currently, paper forms are scanned and named (using code) and online submissions are imported into an Adobe form using a manual process to generate those PDFs. After the reporting year is complete, three end of year summary reports are generated for reported irrigation usage. A new report will need to be created for nonirrigation water usage reports.

73. Will users submit their water use reports directly into the system, or will staff enter them manually?

Online reporting should go directly into the system, completed paper forms will be entered manually.

74. Should the system include automatic notifications or reminders (e.g., annual report-due alerts)?

Not initially, perhaps desirable functionality in the future.

75. Will the vendor be responsible for historical data validation and reconciliation with stakeholders?

Assuming the data from the historical foxpro tables can be imported into the solution, very little validation should be needed aside from some spot checking to ensure the import was successful. No reconciliation with stakeholders outside of our program.

76. What is the expected timeline for going live, and are there any critical milestones (e.g., next reporting cycle)?

Hopefully, by the end of the two-year timeframe identified in the RFP.

77. Will post-deployment support and training be required? If so, for how long and for which user groups?

See section 3.6.3 concerning training. An ongoing maintenance contract may be possible as well as expenses for a vendor-hosted solution.

78. Is it allowed to use offshore resources?

See sections XLVII and 4.4.1.8 in the RFP for banned providers. Any offshore resources will have to be reviewed and approved by our Security Operations Center.

79. Are there any specific budget limitations or cost ceilings that vendors should be aware of when proposing solutions (e.g., fixed price, not-to-exceed)?

Approximately $415,000.00

80. 4.2 Provide the following information related to at least three previous and current services/contracts- Please confirm if firms need to provide 3 projects or 6 projects in total, 3 for each.

Three each.

81. Please confirm if the requirements mentioned under section 4.4.1 General Provisions are to be provided in the proposal response or later stages.

Include 4.4.1.1, 4.4.1.5 and 4.4.1.6; 4.4.1.9 others are later.

82. Please confirm the heading name and number for the requirements mentioned under '5.2.3.2 A specific point-by-point response, in the order listed, to each requirement in the RFP. ' Section 3.0 Scope of Work and in section 4, sections 4.1 through 4.3; 4.4.1.1, 4.4.1.5 and 4.4.1.6; 4.4.1.9; 4.4.2.2; 4.4.3.3 and 4.4.3.4; and 4.5.1.

83. Are vendors supposed to provide responses to Evaluation criteria? If yes then under which section?

No.

84. 6.4.3.3 Reference letters (50 points).- Please confirm if firms can provide reference details in the proposal instead of reference letters from their clients.

Reference details are acceptable so long as contact information is provided for the references.

85. Can firms add a cover letter to their proposal? If yes, will it be counted under the page limit?

Cover letters can accompany the proposal and will not count as part of the page limit.

86. Can firms provide commercial references and experience?

I am not sure what distinction is being made. The offeror needs to decide what references they deem appropriate for this RFP.

87. Will the case studies of previous experience be counted under the page limit? If yes, can firms add them in the appendix and refer to the response?

Case studies are part of the 20 page limit, not the appendix.

88. Please confirm if the table of contents and proposal cover page will be part of the 20-page limit.

The table of contents and a cover letter/page are not part of the 20-page limit.

89. Please provide formatting requirements such as page margin, font size, font type, etc.

Margins at least 0.4 inches and any decent, legible font 10 pt or larger.

90. Are reference letters required (6.4.3.3) or just contact information as requested in 4.3?

Assuming you mean 4.2, not 4.3. Reference details in lieu of letters are acceptable so long as contact information is provided for the references.

91. Does the State expect to contract this on a deliverables-based fixed fee basis or as a time & materials contract?

Fixed fee basis as our budget is what is available.

92. Do you have a license for FME?

No, the state does not have a license for FME, the Feature Manipulation Engine by Safe Software.

93. Are your either of your Esri environments (ArcGIS Enterprise or ArcGIS Online) currently federated with your SSO provider?

Our ArcGIS Enterprise servers are federated together and yes we are federated with our SSO providers.

94. Does SD DANR currently have an enterprise relationship geodatabase and if so what underlying DBMS (SQL Seever, Oracle, etc) is being used?

Yes, SDDANR does have a geodatabase DBMS and it is on SQL Server 19.

95. Does the $415,000 budget cover the entire 2-year period plus the 1 option year, or is that amount for a specific portion of the contract such as the initial implementation of the project + software licensing + storage.

It is for initial implementation of the project, any on-going maintenance agreement will be subject to the state budgeting process all state agencies go through.

96. Is there any confidential or personal identification information data contained within the current tables?

No, unless you count names, addresses, email and phone numbers. All of our information is publicly available.

97. What is the State's current IT architecture? For example, AWS, Azure, Other, None.

Azure

98. Is there any issue with the State hosting the data on their ArcGIS Server?

No

99. Are the State's staff experienced with Portal's Experience Builder and Dashboards?

Very limited although experienced with ArcMap now being replaced by ArcGIS Pro (this limited experience concerns Water Rights staff, not SDBIT who have staff very familiar with GIS).

100. Please provide a list of any existing software licensing in place that could be leveraged as part of this effort.

The state uses Esri’s Experience Builder and Dashboards with both the Portal and Online environments.

101. Does the State currently have Power BI licenses?

Yes.

102. If the State has Power BI licenses, what license level is in place? For example: Power BI Premium, Power BI Premium per User, Power BI with Microcsoft Office E5, stand-alone Power BI?

Yes, the state has both Power BI Pro and Power BI Premium plans.

103. What are the potential non-digital data sources that may be entered into the GIS-Centric database?

I don’t understand what “non-digital data” may be referring to.

104. Does the State of South Dakota have a reference letter template or guidelines for the reference letter?

No, however, reference details in lieu of letters are acceptable so long as contact information is provided for the references.

105. What is the total number of state users and a rough estimate of the number of public users?

Probably a dozen or so people inside of state government will consistently be accessing the database, potentially up to 2,000 people concerning water use reporting, with an unknown number of people accessing the non-editable data online, water right holders, realtors, commercial interests, etc.

106. Are there any peak transaction/volume spikes on given days?

After the initial mailing of the irrigation water use questionnaire, several hundred may hit the online reporting over the period of a few days.

107. How many PDFs are associated to a given record, roughtly how many PDFs are there in total, and what's the typical size?

Water use reports in the 100 to 200 KB range, water right PDFs, largest is 129 MB and median is about 2 MB.

17,000 PDF, 44 GB (Water Rights); 167,000 PDF, 12.8 GB (Water Use Reports)

108. What are the uptime requirements for the system (SLA)?

SLA requirements will be discussed as part of contract negotiations, but the database is used consistently throughout the day so up-time for staff is critical to doing their jobs.

109. Do we need to geocode/locate any of the data and does any of the data currently have GIS information in it?

Geocoding is not needed, lat/longs are in the data. Polygon capabilities need to be part of the solution, but staff will add those in once the solution is built.

110. Are there any issues with using the Caspio REST API to send and receive data?

In theory it should work, but until a test is completed, I can’t guarantee it.

111. Does the State have any restrictions on using Esri's Experience Builder as a primary aspect of the solution?

No.

112. Could you provide us with the database schema and/or an entity-relationship diagram (ERD) for the FoxPro data, or alternatively, share complete or partial data for our review to help estimate the level of effort?

The tables are all in a one-to-one relationship with the permit number being the key field relating the table. Tables can be shared in a generic dbf or xls format upon request.

113. Do you have a reference ESRI data model or schema that you'd like us to follow while preparing the final ESRI output?

I do not have a reference ESRI data model/schema.

114. Is it acceptable to provide our redlines to MSA and Exhibit B (Bureau of Information and TelecommunicationsRequired IT Contract Terms) ?

At this point, we will not be reviewing redlines. The final IT provisions could vary slightly based on the proposed solutions.

115. Can we use our offshore resources for part of work of this project ?

See sections XLVII and 4.4.1.8 in the RFP for banned providers. Any offshore resources will have to be reviewed and approved by our Security Operations Center.

116. What is the typical size of a single Water Rights record in the database? As per the document we understand there are about 16K water rights records in the database - For sizing the storage Water use reports in the 100 to 200 KB range, water right PDFs, largest is 129 MB and median is about 2 MB.

17,000 PDF, 44 GB (Water Rights); 167,000 PDF, 12.8 GB (Water Use Reports)

117. What would be the average size of the PDFs that get attached to a single water rights record - For sizing storage

2 MB

118. How many new water rights records get added into the database in an year? - For sizing storage and also to understand concurrency 100 to 200

119. What is the typical size of a Irrigation water use record in the database? - For sizing storage Assuming you mean the PDF size, in the 100 to 200 KB range

120. What is the volume of the Irrigation water use record that get added in a year? - For sizing storage and to understand concurrency Approximately 4,000 data base entries and associated PDFs.

121. One of the ways in which Irrigation water use is reported is using the web-based interface using Caspio. We understand Caspio is a platform to build web application. Please let us know if the Caspio interface referred in the document is a web application build in house using Caspio. If yes, can we get the URL to view it.

Yes, it is a web application that was built in-house. Any URL I provide will give you access to edit someone’s record. In lieu of that, I can provide a download of the data in a spreadsheet format.

122. When a new Water rights record or a Irrigation Water use is reported, is there any internal workflow involved to review the data and approve it, before pushing into the database. If yes, we would like to know the details and also if that workflow should be implemented in the proposed solution.

Right now when an online report is submitted it is pushed once a day to the database. As soon as it is completed, an email is sent to the pertinent staff and the submission is reviewed. If the record has already been pushed to the database, it is edited, if necessary, either directly in the database or in Caspio where the edit will get pushed to the database. Some sort of review will be needed in the new application to ensure the submitted data makes sense.

123. As per document the data in the database is accessed by agency staff and also by public. How is the data segregated between internal and public visibility? How do we know what information is available publicly and otherwise? - To understand data privacy and security Currently, only a subset of the most pertinent data is publicly available which doesn’t mean the rest of the data is not “public” data. Any data we have is available to the public upon request.

124. Is there a need to digitize the information in the PDF and bring it into database?

No, at least not at this stage.

125. Currently the state is using ArcGIS server version 11.3 and ArcPro3.3. Can this server be considered as one of the options for this solution?

Yes.

126. URL for the current system that public users use to search information Water Rights Database (subset of FoxPro data of most pertinent information) - South Dakota Search for South Dakota Water Rights

127. In current system where public users search for information, are there any statistics interms of number of users accessing the system, number of queries per day/week/month, most common information that users search for, etc.

Nothing accessible to me, maybe SDBIT would be able to access something.

128. What are expectations for the demo and the timeline for go-live versus hosting to the team The timeline is available in Section 1.7 with demos followed by tech review. The hope is the solution is implemented within two years.

Correct.

After an application is processed and approved (none of which is part of this solution). A staff person will create a new record in the solution and add the data to the record entry. From time-to-time, a staff member will edit existing entries to add more information to the record or edit existing data. Entry/editing will be a small number of staff, probably 3 or 4 people. Other staff will be accessing the data in the solution daily. Assume one-to-many relationships will be managed using a key ID field in the parent and children records.

Sample data will be made available upon request in a generic dbf or xls format.

The idea is for a comparison so, if submitting only one detailed solution, then at a minimum the recommendation should demonstrate why one the preferred solution is superior to the other in terms of cost, on-going costs, speed, reliability, etc.so the state knows the basis why the proposal is focused on only one type of solution.

Water use reporting for irrigation is broken out by a volume calculated from hours pumped per month at whatever rate is specified. Nonirrigation is just an annual volume. There are no water meters required, tracking velocity, etc.

If by parcel data you mean quarter(s) section, township, range we use that format to identify pump sites and legal descriptions of irrigated areas or future use areas. Lat/longs exist for pump sites right now, polygons do not exist for irrigated areas or future use areas. The solution is to accommodate staff adding polygon information which does not currently exist. There are no signature requirements as part of this solution.

Permit numbering will already be assigned prior to adding a new record in the solution so the solution will not need to accommodate auto-generating a number. To answer the question water right east of the Missouri River are a number with a -3 appended, west river a -1 is appended to anything north of the Cheyenne River and Pennington county, everything to the south of that line is -2. Sometimes a letter will also be added to the number when a permit is split between multiple owners or when an application is filed to amend an existing permit. Presumably some sort of unique ID will be part of the solution for parent records with the same ID assigned to children records.

11.3

Whichever is more efficient and cost effective keeping in consideration the states security measures.

Yes

Can the state describe the review process that occurs every 7 years for permit records that reserve water?

The permit holder is contacted to determine if they want to retain their future use permit, if so, then a notice is prepared and a hearing held by the Water Management Board. If the permit is allowed to remain in effect, then the database is updated reflecting the date of the next review. The future use permits are in the existing database but a paper listing of them is also kept for quick reference.

The historical reported water use all relates to existing records in the water rights database by permit number. The record in the water rights database has lat/longs. Any polygons to be added by staff will relate to the entirety of the area that can be irrigated as identified in the water rights record and not to specific areas where water was applied historically (e.g. water right permit covers two quarters but only one quarter was irrigated, also the historical data has no way of identifying exactly what quarter was irrigated anyway).

These can be provided upon request.

Yes.

Editing of the water rights database will be only for water rights staff but a nonediting public-facing application is to be part of the solution. Water use reporting will be available to some staff and to approximately 2,000 permit holder via Caspio or a better solution than Caspio if offered by the vendor. Historical water use has not been publicly available through an online app and this initial conversion does not need to add that functionality.

Not at this time unless there is some statewide restriction I am unaware of.

The State’s SSO supports the industry standard OAuth 2.0 protocol. This identity management will handle password recovery and multi-factor authentication (MFA). MFA is required for all application Administrators and may be required for other users. Microsoft’s official documentation on the identity provider the State has implemented can be found at the following links based on type of user:

For public/citizens (Azure Active Directory B2C):

· https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/active-directory-b2c/

· https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/active-directory-b2c/integrate-with-app-code-samples For state employees, businesses, partners, providers (Microsoft Entra ID):

· https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/active-directory/architecture/auth-oauth2

· https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/active-directory/develop/v2-protocols-oidc

Pg 13 3.5.8

No.

No.

Reference details in lieu of letters are acceptable so long as contact information is provided for the references.

The budget is fixed for this conversion project. Any increase is only possible due to budgetary changes which are an executive and legislative activity. Offerors obviously need to estimate if it is possible to accomplish this project with the number of hours payable from our approximate $415,000.00 currently available.

The awarded vendor will work with the agency to develop a plan which would include the reports.

Any testing would be required to pass security scans as required under 4.4.2.1 and 4.4.2.3 before allowed into a production environment. The offeror would be required to use industry standard processes and procedures. Any protected State Data cannot be used in a non-production environment.