Response to Offeror Questions document.pdf

RESPONSES TO VENDOR QUESTIONS 24RFI11736 -SDDLR BOARDS

AND COMMISSIONS

1. Given the short timeline between the release of the Q&A and/or addenda, can the response due date be extended by at least 1-3 weeks?

Based on the number of vendor responses received and the large volume of questions received during the vendor enquiry stage of the RFI, DLR has taken into consideration the request for extended time for vendors to submit their response to the RFI.

The timeframe and schedule section of the RFI has been amended to reflect a new RFI submission date of Friday, November 29, 2024, at 11:59 p.m. Central Standard Time. This reflects a two-week extension for vendors to submit.

2. Does SDDLR have a required or desired page limit for RFI responses?

No. There is no set format for the RFI.

3. The RFI identifies both Electrical and Plumbing Commission’s systems to be replaced within a year.

When ideally does SDDLR want to procure and start implementation of a new system?

The State’s RFI/RFP procurement process typically results in a 3–4-month time frame between the completion of these requirements, vendor selection, contract negotiations, Scope of Work (SOW) finalization, and signature of parties to be obtained. The overall timeframe can vary due to complexity, of course. Development is estimated to begin March or April 2025. The state anticipates a production date to be reached within a 32-to-40-week timeframe. DLR would prefer a shorter turnaround time but is aware there are many factors and software differences that may result in shorter, or longer, implementation timeframes.

4. The timing may not be feasible for a new system to be procured, implemented, and fully “go live” within a year of this RFI. Is SDDLR accounting for this and amenable to a new system being potentially implemented by the beginning of 2026?

Yes. Based on the answer to #3 above, this is a known possibility.

5. Are respondents expected just to provide pricing methodology information for section 2.5 Pricing and

System Licensing, or is SDDLR also looking for budgetary estimates here as well?

We are seeking your company’s pricing structure. Is your system a commercial off the shelf (COTS) requiring state-specific customization or is the product built as a custom product? Is there a base-price charged? Is the pricing dependent on the number of licensee holders within each specific board portal?

Or is the pricing structure set up by each board and commission staff member per EULA held?

6. Please clarify whether respondents should provide technical responses solely within Appendix A, or within the headings listed above in the “RFI Response Scope” section.

Please answer the questions within Appendix A. The appendix is more detailed and provides insight to the capabilities, requirements, and a build methodology a vendor must meet. This would be further set forth in a formal RFP.

7. Though the RFI's Table of Contents states that the requirement to provide "Projected Costs" for the system is provided on Page 6, this section does not appear. Can SDDLR confirm that it seeks to gather cost estimates from vendors as part of this RFI?

Correct.

8. Number of distinct boards /commissions and license types to be implemented.

Number of online forms (e.g., applications, renewals, profile updates and other online processes) to be implemented.

Enumeration of desired integrations, including type (real-time vs. batch) and file format of integration (including payment processor) Number of data sources, size (in GB) and complexity (e.g., number of tables) of the data and documents to be converted.

Number of board and commission staff users (Please provide a breakdown of the number of SDDLR employees that will be using the new solution by SDDLR Program, role, as well as which ones will be performing mobile inspections.)

Projected costs are reflected on page 11, Section 2.5 - Pricing and System licensing. This will vary depending on the board. We are looking at multiple boards and commissions currently. DLR will work with compatible vendors when an RFP is developed. We will provide more specific information, including the number of licenses/inspections for participating boards at that time. An RFP would provide further structure to develop a Scope of Work, and from that SOW, a specific cost. Scalability of the system is key, i.e. it is possible the initial build and implementation may only include two Boards and Commissions (B&Cs); Electrical and Plumbing Commissions. However, depending on budgets, timeframes, critical need, another B&Cs wishing to be added to the platform, etc., DLR is actively planning for an array of different scenarios. It is then important to know how, typically, a vendor determines their pricing method when building and, eventually, adding other B&C portals to the platform.

The consideration vendors must have is to understand how B&Cs are structured in South Dakota. The list of B&Cs mentioned earlier in the RFI are considered independent boards and commissions and thus have different administrative rules, SD Codified Laws (SDCL), fees and assessments, as well as varying levels of complexity in operations. But, employees of the B&Cs are state employees, including board members. Forward-thinking, if the platform is dynamic enough, other B&Cs from other departments in state government, could be interested in being added to a new platform, assuming the performance, suitability, scalability, and price/ROI can be found acceptable by each specific B&C.

9. Is it fair to assume that portable tablets / equipment for SDDLR inspection staff and internet connectivity will be supplied by SDDLR?

Yes.

10. Number of administrative users with access to configure the system:

This will also vary depending on the board or commissions participating. If/when an RFP is developed based on the responses to this RFI. This RFI is to garner information on what may be available, while an RFP will be more detailed and conducive to developing clear SOWs and the pricing for each.

11. Please provide an approximate number of standard email/letter templates that will be used by SDDLR that are to be integrated and automated by the system.

This will vary depending on the board or commission. This would be information that would be provided during the scope of work through an RFP process. DLR understands costs may vary greatly from board to board, so again, pricing structure is necessary to develop a potential range of cost.

12. Can SDDLR provide an inventory of all the reports that need to be replicated within the new system?

This will be provided during the scope of work developed by each individual board. This would be further defined within an RFP process for interested boards and commissions.

13. Please provide the annual number of applications / renewals processed by SDDLR for the Boards / Commissions to have a new system implemented for.

This will be provided during the scope of work be each individual board. This would be further defined within an RFP process for interested boards and commissions to join in an initial development agreement. Applications/renewals, permits, licenses, and inspections vary.

14. Would South Dakota Department of Labor and Regulation consider an extension to RFI #24RFI11736?

This is addressed in Question #1. A two-week RFI submission window has been granted.

15. I’m inquiring about the RFI mentioned above which was released earlier this week. According to the RFI, “SDDLR is seeking to replace, at minimum, two legacy systems. Electrical Commission and Plumbing Commission within one calendar year.” If there are previous related contracts for this requirement, could you provide the related contract info contract #, value, and expiration? Any information you’re able to provide is greatly appreciated. What are the current licensing board systems in place currently, by board?

Legacy systems are primarily in-house developed (built by SD Bureau of Information and Telecommunications (BIT). The systems are built utilizing SQL databases with maintenance and front-facing applications developed by small IT vendors.

Currently, the two legacy systems, at minimum, that must be replaced; Electrical Commission and Plumbing Commission, underwent a mostly unsuccessful modernization attempt over a year ago. The two contracts of these commissions can be found at this public link, (click here).

Specifically;

a. Electrical Grants and Contracts: (click here).

b. Plumbing Grants and Contracts: (click here).

https://open.sd.gov/ https://open.sd.gov/contractsDocShow.aspx?DocID=23-1000-059 https://open.sd.gov/contractsDocShow.aspx?DocID=23-1000-060

To further clarify, Electrical is a ‘partial’ system in that the vendor named within the contract produced an application and licensing portal but failed to develop an inspection and permitting portal. Thus, the SD Electrical Commission is operating with two systems: A modernized licensing system, and a legacy (SQL db) inspection and permitting system. Plumbing Commission: the modernized system was never fully developed. Because of this, DLR refused to place the system into production. The legacy system remains in-use.

16. How many active licensees does each board/commission have, by board?

This will be provided during the scope of work be each individual board. This would be further defined within an RFP process for interested boards and commissions. However, further information about the Electrical and Plumbing license counts are available within the above contracts listed in OpenSD, (click here).

17. How many staff users will the new solution support?

This will vary by board. Most B&C office administration consists of an Executive Director and one to three office support staff.

18. How many of these users are field based inspectors?

Plumbing has 5, Electrical would be approximately 20, at full capacity.

19. List all anticipated third-party interfaces:

This will vary by board. Possibly two to three interfaces per board or commission with any interface, if necessary, to link directly to a national organization(s) associated to the respective board and commission. For certain, all boards do require an interface with the South Dakota Department of Social Services to check applicants/renewing licensees for child support delinquencies.

20. Will the State be leveraging a specific LMS tool or external vendors for the training content? Or will that be included in this replacement system?

The vendor is anticipated to provide fundamental training in the functionality and navigation of the vendor-deployed system. However, once the basics are understood by staff, further training would consist of continued hands-on learning by staff. DLR’s LMS can be utilized for onboarding of future employees.

21. How many agents within the Department support the Electrical and Plumbing commissions? How many inspectors within the Department support the Electrical and Plumbing commissions?

Answers previously provided above in #19.

22. Are there any users that are not directly employed by the State who would need to approve decisions or data?

No.

23. Are there any users that are not directly employed by the State who would need to complete tasks as part of the application or review processes?

24. Are there any users that are not directly employed by the State who would need to complete inspections?

25. How many different license and permit types are supported by the Electrical and Plumbing commissions?

a. Plumbing-3 permit types. 33 different licenses.

b. Electrical-2 permit types-6 licenses.

26. Is there a specific payment provider that needs to be leveraged for this solution?

Elavon is the state’s preferred payment provider. Other options will be considered, however he vendor must satisfy all BIT and SD State Treasurer’s Office approval.

27. Will field agents and inspectors have access to a mobile device or tablet?

Yes. State will provide all hardware and internet accessibility.

28. Are there standard sets of fee rules for different license or permit types?

29. Will the continuing education management system be leveraged to promote and market courses or mostly be available to support current license and permit types?

It would be used to support the current license and permit types. The boards would like to be able to approve course listings that have been submitted by (training/course) providers.

30. Is there a standard template leveraged across the Electrical and Plumbing commissions for their pocket cards and license displays?

31. Do most license and permit types follow a similar workflow for approval, fulfillment, and inspection? Is the intention to fully migrate off the current system? Or is a phased approach to this engagement preferred?

Licenses and permits do not follow the same process. Each board has different processes and rules, and policies to follow.

32. Are there any automated background checks that will be expected for connecting and validating information in another system?

Yes. Explained above in Question #20.

33. Is a historical data migration effort in scope for this engagement? If so, does your current data set include unique identifiers?

Yes. Plumbing Commission has unique identifiers throughout. Electrical Commission does not.

34. Is the intention to create a separate licensing and permitting portal or to allow users to access these services through the existing Citizen and Business portals the State currently has implemented?

DLR would seek to place each licensing agency (Board or Commission) as a portal that lies within the South Dakota Digital Citizens and Business portal. It will be imperative to provide access to both consumers/citizens and businesses through the state’s Single Sign-On (SSO) protocol utilizing B2C and B2B Azure AD.

35. Has the Organization seen demos from vendors in the last 12 months?

36. Will the SDDLR make a purchasing decision based on this RFI Response/Vendor Presentations? Will the

SDDLR be issuing an RFP as it relates to this opportunity?

An RFP must be developed to request further details, legal clauses, EULAs, state IT requirements, suitability, pricing, and a detailed scope of work (SOW).

37. Has funding been approved for this project? If so, what is the project budget?

DLR does not allocate funds based on approvals to move forward with projects. The allocation of funds will be based on the actual amount of contract. The contract itself needs to be approved by the appropriate internal authorities.

38. What are the evaluation criteria that will be used for the RFI?

Criteria will primarily be made dependent on the information received from the vendor in the RFI. IT solutions and compatibility with SD BIT state IT standards will also be considered. The RFI does not guarantee a virtual meeting with the state nor a selection to compete through an RFP.

39. Do you require that the awarded vendor be headquartered in the United States?

While this is not a hard “no”, a preference for a United States-based company is preferred. More importantly than the headquarters location of the vendor would be the location of the Business Analyst (BA) and Development teams. Offshore BAs and Development are less desirable due to the time zone differences and the availability of development teams to meet with Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) and BIT developers who would assist with necessary integrations and data transfer protocols.

40. What is the anticipated project start date and desired go-live date for the solution?

Answered above in #3.

41. What are the required forms as mentioned on page 6 under Vendor Response?

The form in this RFI refers to Appendix A: Response questions. This RFI has no other dedicated forms to include.

42. What is the SDDLR’s desired use case for integrating with File Director?

To bring in historical data to merge files to have a complete record of activity.

43. Is the State open to an alternative payment processor that is PCI compliant?

The current payment vendor DLR, and much of the state utilizes, is Elavon. However, other payment processors would be entertained if the vendor meets SD BIT IT standards and is PCI compliant.

44. Do you need historical data migrated?

45. What are the goals for historical data conversion?

To be able to retrieve a history of the licensee’s licenses, education, inspections, permits and payments accurately and easily.

46. What use cases are you hoping to serve with the historical data?

a. Ability to lookup licensee historical data for license verification.

b. Tracking of invoicing and payments for licensing fees.

c. Tracking of when a license will be requiring renewal.

d. Permit history lookup.

47. Will you be using the data purely for informational purposes? Will there be any need to perform transactional work on the data?

No. We will need the ability to invoice licensees, receive payments and track the balance due. We also need the ability to identify when a license is to expire and when to send out a renewal notice to those licensees.

48. Do you have active projects (e.g. open permits) in the data?

49. Will you need to close these applications in [named] vendor’s application, or are you able to close them out in your current system?

If it’s an open record, it would need to stay open during data migration. It would need to be closed out in the new system when necessary.

50. Do any of the records require renewals? E.g. Licenses or permits that expire.

Yes, to renewals. Expiration is also ‘yes’.

51. Does the data include scanned documents? E.g. PDF’s or scanned images.

52. What is the expected volume of records to be migrated from the previous system? Volume of documents/attachments?

This has been covered in Question #8.

53. Can you provide a full list of permit types and license types that you would like to be digitized in the new system?

This has been covered in Question #3 and #15.

54. Please clarify whether continuing education needs to be completed in the software.

Page four of the RFI indicates the following: Management of student education (CE) providers to submit class applications for approval and real-time list of approved classes; Management of student education records, when applicable; A method to perform these functions must be available in those applications that require CE.

55. Can the State elaborate on this: “2.2.4 Are there any specific activities or requirements that would require a work around or customization inside the system?” Does the State mean work arounds such as interfaces to account for functionalities lacking in the system?

It does include workarounds for functionalities currently not with the system, or where customization is required within the solution to meet the outlined features and capabilities.

56. Can the State elaborate on this: “2.2.2 Explain the process of adding a new licensing workflow to the system. How long does it typically take to add and configure a typical licensing workflow into the system?” Does this mean during the implementation phase? Are vendors to assume each workflow is the same complexity and requirements?

We would like an estimate of how long the implementation process would take. Depending on the board there will be different requirements that may require additional time.

57. Does the State desire a cloud agnostic solution?

The State of South Dakota prefers Azure Cloud Solutions. However, other cloud platforms will be entertained. The preference for Azure is tied, primarily, to the state’s enterprise system, Microsoft.

58. We have a Named User licensing structure. We define Named Users as "staff with access to the back-office Software regardless of whether such access is concurrent or consecutive." Based on this definition, how many Named Users does the agency anticipate having on its new system? Could SDDLR provide a breakdown for each board and commission?

This has previously been answered in Question #8.

59. Does SDDLR require a need for certain third-party data-exchange interfaces. Also, please note if each interface will be one-way or two-way.

Two-way interfaces, such as online payments/banking information and interfaces with the SD Department of Social Services, as described in Question #20 above, will be necessary.

Other interfaces, depending on B&C, may be necessary.

60. Can the State list all the types of licenses, registrations, permits, etc. that SDDLR supports, the approximate number of entities applying for and holding each type, and specify which license type(s) will require which types of online functionality (e.g. online applications, renewals, verifications, disciplinary processes, reciprocity, reinstatement, etc.)?

61. Please provide the names of all system outputs required, including reports, queries, and correspondences. Also provide the audience and the location from which each will be run (back-office, public website, specific login-secured area of public website, etc.). If such details are not available at this time, please provide at least the total numbers of each type of output required.

This will vary from board to board. Scalability of the platform is of utmost importance and within the future scope of work. It is reiterated that the platform to be designed and developed, in any chosen platform, will be the SD Electrical Commission and SD Plumbing Commission. Other B&Cs may, or may not, be integrated into the new platform, based on budget, and need. For vendor consideration to build-cost, these two B&Cs should be used as the base model for developing a consistent platform that is scalable based on B&C needs. The links to the contracts in OpenSD provided, contain the SOWs developed, including approximation of licenses issued.

62. Can you elaborate on the agency's preferences regarding hosting with the vendor?

DLR will consider both vendor-hosted and on-premises hosting cloud solutions, however, vendor-hosted would be the preferred method in this instance.

63. Can the State confirm pricing is not included, nor a requirement, for a responsive RFI submission? What is the budget for SDDLRs new solution?

Budgets vary from board to board. Fees for revenue streams are dependent on endorsement from the independent Boards and approval from the state legislature. Because of the independent nature of each board and commission under the purview of the SD Dept. of Labor and Regulation, the individual budget for each B&C wishing to be added to any potentially new platform varies greatly.

A new platform would require the initial development to be carried by the Electrical and Plumbing Commissions. These are the two most complex B&Cs in terms of regulatory needs and services. Other boards and commissions desiring to modernize on the new platform would be expected to pay a percentage of costs based on their licensing numbers and percentage of vendor maintenance that may be involved in upkeep.

DLR can offer State Fiscal Year 2025 for DLR Boards and Commissions staffing level and overall budget information at this public link, (click here). Refer to page 206 of the Governor’s Budget Report for FY2025. Also refer to the answer in #37 above regarding allocation.

64. Can you elaborate on any need for mobile inspection/field investigation capabilities? If there is any need, please respond to the following: (a) How many mobile devices would the agency need set up to use on the new system? (b) In order that we may determine the number of forms that would be integrated into the new mobile system, how many different forms are currently in use in the field? (c) How should pricing for these items be proposed?

65. Please identify instances where any agency employee has viewed or discussed a potential software application similar to the one being solicited in this RFI in the last 24-months. Please name the vendor(s), dates of contact and describe the nature of the contacts including whether pricing was discussed.

Please see Question #15 with the links to the two systems that provided unsatisfactory outcomes based on the SOWs created.

66. If and RFP is to come from this, what is the timeframe for the potential release and award of an RFP, and what is the desired implementation timeframe?

This has been answered in Question #3 above.

https://bfm.sd.gov/budget/

67. Can the State provide expectations around compliance? Will there be mandatory requirements for SOCs or StateRAMP/FedRAMP?

A selected vendor will undergo a vetting process that includes a technology review. The technology review is a comprehensive overview of how well the vendor’s proposed platform/software solution meshes with the state’s technical requirements. The comprehensive list of questions for this tech review would be provided during the RFP process to potential candidates.

68. Can the State elaborate on this: “2.4.3 Describe typical customer responsibilities for ongoing solution administration if using a managed/hosted implementation.” Specifically, does managed/hosted implementation mean self-hosted or hosted by the vendor?

The reference to “managed/hosted” sites would be managed within the State data centers or within a cloud-based solution by the vendor. The request is for a vendor to describe what the typical customer (State of South Dakota) responsibilities are for ongoing administration of the solution which extends beyond the management of the solution by the vendor.

69. Does the State expect vendors to answer all questions outlined in Appendix A?

To the best of their ability, yes. If certain questions are not applicable to a vendor, please state N/A.

These questions will assist the state in determining vendors willing to work with the state in developing a modernized B&C licensing and permit system RFP.