Response to Offeror Questions document.docx
DOCX document 32 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Comprehensive IT Review
- Solicitation number
- 25RFP-SDBOR11242025
- Issued by
- Harding County, South Dakota
About this file
This document is a Response to Offeror Questions for the Comprehensive IT Review RFP (#SDBOR1124025) issued by the South Dakota Board of Regents (SDBOR). The SDBOR is seeking qualified consulting firms to conduct a comprehensive review of its Information Technology structure across six public universities and central services to identify opportunities for increased efficiency, improved service delivery, strategic alignment, and cost reduction. The vendor must deliver a comprehensive written report with an executive summary, detailed findings, actionable recommendations, and a formal presentation to the Board. Recommendations should prioritize initiatives by strategic value and immediate impact within a cost-benefit matrix. The engagement includes detailed workflow mapping, business process analysis, application inventory and rationalization review, governance framework development, and benchmarking against industry standards and multi-campus system models. Onsite visits are required to all six universities and the Regents Information Systems group on the USD campus in Sioux Falls, with the Board central office and data center in Pierre considered optional. One day per location is the baseline for onsite visits, with larger universities and the RIS group potentially requiring additional time. Proposal submissions were originally due by 5:00 PM Central Time on Wednesday, December 31, 2025, though the SDBOR indicated flexibility for extension requests due to the holiday period. The anticipated contract award decision is scheduled for January 31, 2026, with contract commencement on or after January 7, 2026. Workgroups are expected to be established in mid-January/early February 2026, with final report submission required no later than November 30, 2026, and Board presentation scheduled for December 10, 2026.
The SDBOR has not established a specific budget ceiling or budget range for this engagement and requests that travel costs including lodging and per diem be incorporated into the total proposed fees using reasonable assumptions based on South Dakota state travel policies, rather than listed as separate reimbursable expenses. The current System Chief Information Officer is Dave Hansen, and the SDBOR IT team consists of 26 full-time staff members supplemented by occasional contractors for specialized projects. The organization supports approximately 5,100 full-time equivalent employees across the system. No set-aside designations are specified in the RFP. The selected contractor must maintain $1,000,000 in commercial general liability, professional liability, and business automobile liability insurance, plus workers' compensation as required by South Dakota law. The assessment will focus approximately 80 percent on infrastructure, governance, business processes, IT organizational structure, and overall IT strategy, with approximately 20 percent focused on software functionality. The engagement is intended as a one-time comprehensive assessment with no ongoing support currently in scope. Key stakeholders include the System CIO, university CIOs, finance, academic affairs, student affairs, research, human resources, athletics, facilities departments, and student perspectives. The engagement explicitly excludes changing the ERP system, conducting an ERP strategy or readiness assessment, fragmenting or decentralizing ERP services, and reviewing the Bureau of Information and Technology (BIT) operations, though contextual understanding of REED network oversight and institutional interactions is required.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| RFP Document.pdf | ||
| RFP Document.pdf |
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
Responses to Inquiries Comprehensive IT Review RFP (#SDBOR1124025)
1. Strategic Intent & Outcomes
• Of the listed objectives - efficiency, service improvement, strategic alignment, and cost reduction - which are the highest priorities for the Board?
RESPONSE: While all four objectives, efficiency, service improvement, strategic alignment, and cost reduction, are important to the Board, efficiency is the highest priority. Improving efficiency across systems and processes is critical to ensuring resources are used effectively while ensuring operations run smoothly.
Service improvement and strategic alignment remain key considerations, as they support the Board’s long-term goals and enhance the experience for students, faculty, and staff. Cost reduction is also important, but it is viewed as a natural outcome of achieving greater efficiency rather than as a standalone objective.
| • | Beyond structural recommendations, are you expecting a future operating model and implementation roadmap as part of the deliverables? |
| RESPONSE: Yes. In addition to structural recommendations, the Board expects the deliverables to include a future operating model and an implementation roadmap. These components are essential to ensure actionable steps and a clear path forward is identified and available following the assessment. | |
| • | Are there any other key business objectives and strategic priorities driving this IT assessment, other than the planned transition from Ellucian Banner to a Banner Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) model? |
| RESPONSE: Yes. In addition to the planned transition to Ellucian Banner SaaS, the Board is focused on improving overall IT efficiency, strengthening governance, enhancing customer centric service delivery, and ensuring strategic alignment with institutional priorities. These objectives aim to position the IT organization to better support academic and administrative needs across the system. |
2. Scope & Participation
| • | Should this review include academic technology, research computing, and student-facing digital services, or focus primarily on administrative and enterprise IT? |
| RESPONSE: Yes. We want the review to include academic technology and student facing digital services where appropriate, in addition to administrative and enterprise IT and research computing. These areas are critical to supporting teaching, learning, and the overall student experience, so they should be considered as part of the comprehensive assessment. We anticipate there will be overlap with employee facing digital services and consideration for those services should be incorporated as appropriate. | |
| • | We assume this engagement covers both central SDBOR IT and each university’s local IT unit(s); please advise if not. |
| RESPONSE: That is correct. This engagement will cover both the central SDBOR IT organization and each university’s local IT units. | |
| • | Are any specific functions, campuses, or technology domains out of scope? |
| RESPONSE: Yes, certain items are out of scope. For example, changing the ERP system is out of scope for this engagement. The review should focus on assessing the current IT environment and providing recommendations for improvement, not on replacing or selecting a new ERP solution. Additionally, we will not fragment or decentralize any ERP or administrative services as part of this review; maintaining a unified ERP and customer centric approach is essential. | |
| • | Is the South Dakota School for the Blind and Visually Impaired and the South Dakota Services for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing also included in scope for this assessment? |
| RESPONSE: These schools are not expected to require additional work as part of this assessment. The South Dakota School for the Blind and Visually Impaired receives its IT services through Northern State University (NSU), and the South Dakota Services for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing receives its IT services through the University of South Dakota (USD). Therefore, their IT environments will be covered through the review of those respective universities. | |
| • | In the collaboration with BIT, how much of SD BOR's IT services are provided by BIT? Is a full review of BIT expected to be part of the comprehensive IT Review? |
| RESPONSE: BIT will NOT be part of the comprehensive IT review. While BIT provides certain services to SD BOR, this engagement is focused solely on the IT environment within the Board of Regents system and its universities. A full review of BIT is outside the scope of this assessment. |
3. Benchmarking
| • | Do you have named institutions or systems you would like us to include in the benchmarking exercise? |
| RESPONSE: We do not have specific institutions or systems identified for benchmarking. However, we expect the benchmarking exercise to leverage relevant comparators, industry best practices, and multi-campus, multi-university, or statewide system models rather than relying solely on direct peer institutions. The goal is to provide meaningful insights that align with our size, structure, and strategic objectives. | |
| • | The RFP mentions that the selected vendor shall benchmark against best practices and relevant comparators, recognizing that direct peer institutions may be limited. The consultant should use alternative approaches such as industry standards and multi-campus or statewide system models rather than strict institutional comparisons. Can you clarify the type of benchmarking SDBOR is looking for in this assessment? Is it headcount, IT budget spend, or something else? (e.g., service management (ITIL, ISO 20000), security (ISO 27001, NIST), risk management (COBIT, COSO))? |
| RESPONSE: We do not have a set expectation for the specific type of benchmarking metrics to be used. Instead, we are relying on the selected vendor’s industry expertise to recommend and apply the most relevant benchmarking approaches, considering our unique structure as a statewide system. |
While headcount and IT budget spend may be useful as contextual inputs, the emphasis should be on best practices, industry standards, and insights from multi-campus, multi-university, or statewide system models rather than strict institutional comparisons. The goal is to identify meaningful benchmarks that inform governance improvements and strategic alignment for our environment.
4. Logistics & Delivery Model
| • | Is your expectation that this project be performed onsite, hybrid, or primarily remote? |
| RESPONSE: We do expect some onsite visits as part of this engagement to gain a thorough understanding of the universities, campuses, and the project context. However, the work can be performed using a hybrid approach, combining onsite activities with remote collaboration where appropriate. | |
| • | Please confirm the number of expected onsite trips and any preferred or required assumptions related to travel, lodging, per diem, or state travel policies that should be reflected in the cost proposal. |
| RESPONSE: We anticipate at least one onsite visit to each campus as part of this initiative (Some university visits may take more than 1 day). Travel costs, including lodging and per diem, should be incorporated into your cost proposal rather than listed as separate reimbursable expenses. Please use reasonable assumptions based on South Dakota state travel policies when estimating these costs. |
· If travel is required, should those costs be included in our proposed fees or treated as reimbursable expenses?
| RESPONSE: Travel costs should be included in your proposed fees rather than treated as separate reimbursable expenses. This ensures transparency and allows for a complete understanding of the total cost of the engagement. | |
| • | More specifically, should we plan for on-site visits to all six universities and the central office, or a representative subset? |
| RESPONSE: We recommend planning on-site visits to all six universities to ensure a comprehensive understanding of each campus’s operations and needs in addition to the Regents Information Systems group on the USD campus in Sioux Falls. Visiting the Board central office and data center in Pierre can be considered optional. | |
| • | Please clarify the expected duration and depth of each required onsite visit to the six universities, the Regents Information Systems team, and the Board office. Is one day per location the assumed baseline? |
| RESPONSE: Yes, one day per location is the assumed baseline for onsite visits, but larger universities and/or RIS may need an additional day. Each visit should allow for meetings with key IT and administrative stakeholders, review of local operations, and collection of relevant documentation, with additional time or virtual follow-ups scheduled as needed for deeper analysis. |
5. Current-State & Documentation
| • | Does SD BOR already have an inventory of its networks, cybersecurity, data sources and support services for review or will the scope need to include taking inventory of these? |
| RESPONSE: See response below. |
· What documentation already exists (e.g., application inventory, service catalog, IT spend or budget detail, IT personnel by location, org charts, or policy documents)?
| RESPONSE: There is significant documentation already available, including application inventories, service catalogs, IT budget details, personnel information by location, organizational charts, and policy documents. The application inventory is a work in progress and may not yet be fully complete. We can provide access to these resources as needed. | |
| • | Do you have an incumbent? If yes, could you please let us know their name? |
| RESPONSE: The current System Chief Information Officer is Dave Hansen. | |
| • | How many employees do you currently have? |
| RESPONSE: The South Dakota Board of Regents System currently has approximately 5,100 full time equivalent employees excluding student workers and graduate assistantships. | |
| • | What is the size of the SDBOR IT team? |
| RESPONSE: The SDBOR IT team is relatively small with 26 staff members. | |
| • | What is the current SDBOR IT resource model? For example, besides the full-time staff, what type of resources are included, including part-time staff, contractors, third-party managed vendors? |
| RESPONSE: The current SDBOR IT resource model primarily consists of full-time staff at the system level, supplemented by a small number of contractors for occasional specialized projects. This blended approach helps maintain core expertise in-house while providing flexibility for specialized needs and implementation project support. |
6. Governance & Coordination
| • | How are IT decisions currently governed - through a CIO council, steering committee, or other structure? |
| RESPONSE: System IT decisions are currently governed through a collaborative structure led by the System CIO and coordinated with university CIOs. This includes regular meetings with a CIO Council that represents all six universities, as well as project-specific steering committees for major initiatives like ERP upgrades or cybersecurity programs. Strategic decisions are aligned with Board priorities and involve input from finance and academic leadership as needed. Local IT decisions are made at the campus level to address institution-specific needs. |
7. ERP & SaaS Transition
| • | What is the current timeline for the Banner SaaS transition? |
| RESPONSE: We are currently in the discovery phase of the Banner SaaS transition, and no formal timeline has been established at this point. The timeline will be defined after the assessment and planning stages are complete. | |
| • | Page 2 Bullet 5 mentions the future transition to Banner SaaS. Is the BOR looking for an ERP strategy and/or readiness assessment as part of this comprehensive IT review? |
| RESPONSE: No, the BOR is not seeking an ERP strategy or readiness assessment as part of this comprehensive IT review. The focus will remain on the broader IT environment rather than ERP-specific planning. | |
| • | Should our recommendations explicitly support or align with that transition and its governance model? |
| RESPONSE: Yes, recommendations should explicitly support and align with the planned Banner SaaS transition and its governance model. While the transition timeline is not yet defined, ensuring compatibility and alignment will help maintain strategic consistency and avoid future conflicts. |
8. Budget & Evaluation Parameters
| • | Has a budget range or ceiling been established for this engagement? |
| RESPONSE: No, a budget range or ceiling has not been established for this engagement at this time. | |
| • | Are there any state travel or procurement constraints we should consider when estimating costs? |
| RESPONSE: No, there are no specific state travel or procurement constraints to consider. Travel costs should be included as part of your proposal. | |
| • | Can SD BOR share the evaluation weights? |
| RESPONSE: The evaluation weights have not been finalized and cannot be shared at this time. | |
| • | Does SD BOR have a preferred cost worksheet to be used? |
| RESPONSE: No, SD BOR does not have a preferred cost worksheet to be used. Please include a detailed cost breakdown in your proposal using your standard format. |
9. Deliverables & Reporting
| • | What final deliverable formats are preferred - comprehensive report, executive summary, and presentation to the Board? |
| RESPONSE: We prefer a comprehensive written report accompanied by an executive summary. In addition, a presentation to the Board will be required to highlight key findings and recommendations. | |
| • | Are there preferred formats, templates, page limits, or specific expectations for the final written report and the presentation delivered to the Board? |
| RESPONSE: There are no strict page limits or mandated templates for the final written report; however, it should be well-structured, concise, and include an executive summary, detailed findings, and actionable recommendations. The presentation to the Board should be in a clear, professional format (such as PowerPoint) and highlight key insights, recommendations, and next steps. Visuals and summary charts are encouraged to make the information easily digestible. |
· Should recommendations be prioritized by quick wins versus strategic initiatives and include a cost-benefit matrix?
| RESPONSE: Priority should be incorporated into the cost-benefit matrix. We don’t want quick wins to be superficial or disconnected from long-term goals. The matrix should reflect both the immediate impact and the strategic value of each recommendation, ensuring that short-term actions align with broader objectives and deliver meaningful outcomes. | |
| • | Is the requested business process review intended to be a high-level assessment, or will detailed workflow mapping, documentation, and gap analysis be required? |
| RESPONSE: The requested business process review is intended to go beyond a high-level assessment. It should include detailed workflow mapping, documentation, and a gap analysis to identify areas for improvement and alignment with best practices. |
· What level of detail is expected in the proposed governance framework (e.g., high-level model, detailed RACI matrices, decision workflows, or operational procedures)?
RESPONSE: The proposed governance framework should provide more than a high-level model. We expect it to include clear roles, responsibilities, and decision-making workflows. While full operational procedures are not required at this stage, the framework should be actionable and provide sufficient detail to guide implementation.
· We would like to know if you are seeking a one-time assessment or if ongoing support will also be required after the assessment.
| RESPONSE: This engagement is intended to be a one-time comprehensive assessment. Ongoing support after the assessment is not currently in scope. | |
| • | Would SDBOR want to include any third-party stakeholders in the assessment process? |
| RESPONSE: No, we do not anticipate including third-party stakeholders in the assessment process. The focus will be on internal stakeholders within the Board office and the six universities. | |
| • | Is SD BOR looking for the IT Review to include an application inventory and review for rationalization? |
| RESPONSE: Yes, the IT Review should include an application inventory and a review for potential rationalization. While an initial inventory exists, it is a work in progress and may not be fully complete, so validation and recommendations for optimization will be important. | |
| • | If you were to place a % on the focus for the IT assessment, is it 50% focused on software functionality supporting functional processes and 50% on the infrastructure (e.g., networking, security, etc)? Or would you have a different % breakout? |
| RESPONSE: The focus will not be an even 50/50 split. While both areas are important, the assessment will lean more toward infrastructure, governance, and security rather than deep functional process analysis. A reasonable estimate would be approximately 20% on software functionality and 80% on infrastructure, governance, business process, IT organizational structure, and overall IT strategy. |
10. Key Stakeholders & Collaboration
| • | Can SDBOR provide an estimated number of stakeholder interviews per institution and the central office, as well as required participant roles (e.g., CIO, academic leadership, administrative units, IT staff)? |
| RESPONSE: There is no set number of interviews required. See response below for additional context related to stakeholder interviews. | |
| • | What are your expectations around the number/coverage of stakeholders to be interviewed (e.g., some clients want broad coverage to foster buy-in and others want limited targeted interviews to avoid disruption and manage costs)? |
| RESPONSE: We expect a balanced approach that ensures representation across all six universities and the system office without excessive disruption. At minimum, interviews should include leadership and key functional areas such as finance, academic affairs, enrollment management, operations, student services, and technical stakeholders, as well as students. Group sessions may be used where appropriate to manage costs while fostering broad input. | |
| • | In addition to IT, does SDBOR have a perspective of how many, or which departments/teams should be engaged in this assessment? For example, some organizations like to have a perspective of how IT is doing from other departments (e.g., Finance, Operations, Academic Instruction, etc.). |
| RESPONSE: Yes, we expect input from key functional areas beyond IT to provide a holistic perspective. Departments such as Finance, Academic Affairs (including College leadership), Student Affairs, Research, Human Resources, Athletics, and Facilities should be engaged in the assessment. In addition, student perspectives are important and should be included to understand how IT services impact the user experience. Their feedback will help ensure recommendations align with institutional priorities and end-user needs. | |
| • | Which business processes do you wish to include in the review and how deep do you prefer to go? |
| RESPONSE: The business process review should focus on IT functions and services that support academic, administrative, and student operations outside of the ERP and the current Learning Management System (LMS). The review should go beyond a high-level assessment and include targeted analysis of primary workflows, identification of key pain points, and a high-level gap assessment to identify inefficiencies and opportunities for improvement. Additionally, the review should examine IT policies, software acquisition processes, organizational structures, budgets, and service delivery models to ensure alignment with best practices and strategic goals. Given the number of applications and services supported across the Board office and universities, the review is not intended to produce exhaustive process documentation but should focus on areas with the greatest strategic impact. | |
| • | Are the decentralized IT operations across the six public universities onboard with this initiative and willing to make their stakeholders available to support? |
| RESPONSE: Yes, the decentralized IT operations across the six public universities are aware of this initiative and are expected to participate. Institutional leadership has been engaged, and stakeholders will be made available to support the review process, including interviews and data collection. |
· Who will serve as the executive sponsor and primary day-to-day contact for this engagement?
| RESPONSE: Nathan Lukkes, Executive Director of the South Dakota Board of Regents, will serve as the executive sponsor for this engagement. Heather Forney, System Vice President of Finance & Administration, will be the primary day-to-day contact. | |
| • | Will representatives from the Bureau of Information and Technology (BIT) or REED Network participate in interviews or governance discussions? |
| RESPONSE: No, representatives from the Bureau of Information and Technology (BIT) will not participate in interviews or governance discussions for this engagement. The focus will remain on internal SDBOR stakeholders. That said, the vendor should understand, at a contextual level, how the Board office provides system-wide REED oversight and how institutions interact with REED locally, so that structural and governance recommendations reflect these existing dependencies without evaluating REED operations themselves. |
11. Technical Information
| • | Can you share your current services catalog and note which are centralized vs decentralized and the extent to which the services are handled through internal vs external resources (e.g., contractors, contingent labor, outsourced)? |
| RESPONSE: We cannot share a current services catalog at this time. However, SDBOR will work closely with the selected vendor to provide the necessary information during the engagement, including details on which services are centralized versus decentralized and the extent to which they are supported internally or through external resources. | |
| • | To what extent are your current IT organizational structure, staffing, governance, service delivery models, campus-level IT operation, and campus-level IT operation integration with central services documented and up to date (e.g., can the documentation be relied upon, or must it be validated and/or updated)? |
| RESPONSE: Our IT documentation is comprehensive and generally up to date. It can be relied upon for planning and operational purposes; however, a validation and refresh process will be completed to incorporate recent changes and ensure cross-campus alignment prior to sharing with the successful vendor. | |
| • | Similarly, to what extent are your IT policies, software acquisition processes, organizational charts, budgets, service catalogs, and strategic plans up to date/accurate? |
| RESPONSE: See response above. | |
| • | Will SDBOR provide full access to IT budget and expenditure data across all institutions and central offices? What level of financial modeling (e.g., current state only vs. multi-year projections) is expected? |
| RESPONSE: Yes, SDBOR will provide full access to IT budget and expenditure data across all institutions and the central office. We expect financial modeling to include a current-state analysis with recommendations for efficiencies. Multi-year projections are not required but may be helpful if your proposed roadmap involves phased implementation over multiple years. |
· What KPIs are used today and are desired for the future to measure the effectiveness and efficiency of central IT services? For the engagement, how broadly would you like surveys distributed (e.g., faculty, staff, students)?
RESPONSE: SDBOR does not currently have formal KPIs in place to measure the effectiveness and efficiency of central IT services. Surveys should be distributed broadly to ensure diverse input, including faculty, staff, and students, as well as targeted groups within administrative units and technical stakeholders across all six universities and the system office.
· Could you please provide detailed information about your infrastructure, including the number of routers, switches, access points, firewalls, servers, etc.
RESPONSE: We are not able to provide detailed counts of infrastructure components such as routers, switches, access points, firewalls, and servers at this time. However, this information can be shared during the assessment process as needed.
SDBOR can provide high-level infrastructure counts across the universities and the system office based on information previously compiled for a 2023 RFP. These figures are intended solely to provide general sizing and context; updated and more detailed inventories will be shared with the selected vendor during the assessment.
Across the six universities and the system office, the 2023 data show approximately:
· 112 physical servers
· 1,277 virtual servers
· 45 externally facing network devices
· 40 firewalls
· 3 web application firewalls (WAFs)
· 53 unique databases
· 27,225 total endpoints, including
· 15,575 workstations These counts reflect the 2023 RFP submission and should be used for broad sizing only. Updated numbers can be provided during the discovery phase.
| • | What time are proposal responses due by on Wednesday, December 31, 2025? |
| RESPONSE: Proposal responses are due by 5:00 PM (Central Time) on Wednesday, December 31, 2025. | |
| • | Would SD BOR's be amenable to granting an extension given the response period is over the end of year holidays? |
| RESPONSE: Currently, the South Dakota Board of Regents intends to maintain the current proposal deadline of Wednesday, December 31, 2025. However, if you anticipate challenges due to the holiday period, we encourage you to communicate those concerns as soon as possible so they can be considered. | |
| • | Are the six decentralized public Universities and SD BIT aware of this initiative? Has the BOR done previous communications of this effort? |
| RESPONSE: Yes, the six decentralized public universities and South Dakota BIT have been made aware of this initiative. The Board of Regents has communicated about this effort through prior updates and discussions with institutional leadership and key stakeholders. | |
| • | Page 3 mentions office delivery of a paper proposal - Can the SD BOR confirm that proposals are not able to be emailed to the contact in the RFP? |
| RESPONSE: Yes, proposals may be emailed to the contact listed in the RFP by the December 31, 2025, deadline. We do ask that one hard copy follow by mail or delivery after the electronic submission. Only one hard copy is required. | |
| • | Beyond the contract start date, does SDBOR have target deadlines for onsite work, draft deliverables, final deliverables, or the Board presentation? |
| RESPONSE: We anticipate establishing workgroups in mid-January/early February 2026 to support stakeholder engagement and project planning. The final report must be submitted no later than November 30, 2026, and the presentation of the final report to the Steering Committee is scheduled for December 10, 2026. Vendors should incorporate these milestones into their proposed project timeline. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .