RFI 260000000007 for PPM Tool Vendor Questions.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 33 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- RFI 171 260000000007 2
- Issued by
- Michigan
About this file
This is a Request for Information (RFI) response document for Michigan's Department of Technology, Management and Budget (DTMB) regarding an Enterprise Project Portfolio Management (PPM) Tool procurement for the Enterprise Project Management Office (EPMO). The State seeks a comprehensive PPM solution to support IT and non-IT projects (including maintenance, procurement, and audit initiatives, but excluding construction projects managed under PIMS) across DTMB and approximately 20 state departments and agencies. The solution must accommodate an estimated 3,000 users managing approximately 400 projects annually. The State anticipates issuing a formal RFP in Fall 2026 through Spring 2027 following this RFI phase. The current vendor providing PPM services is REGO CONSULTING CORPORATION under contract MA180000000806. The RFI document consists of 80 vendor questions and corresponding State responses addressing technical, operational, and compliance requirements.
Key requirements include native support for waterfall, agile, and hybrid project delivery methodologies; centralized enterprise resource management with role-based capacity planning; enterprise-wide portfolio governance with stage-gate processes and steering committee oversight; integration with existing systems including Microsoft Project, Active Directory (IBM SSO via SAML 2.0), Power BI, JIRA, Azure DevOps, and SIGMA financial systems using API-based integrations as the preferred approach; timesheet and financial management at both summary and detailed levels including EVM calculations; AI-enabled predictive analytics for forecasting delays and cost overruns; and multi-tenant SaaS architecture with compliance to Michigan's IT policies and WCAG 2.1 Level AA accessibility standards. The State indicated it is unable to share budget information at this time and is open to vendor recommendations on hosting models (SaaS, State cloud, or on-premises) provided security and compliance requirements are met. Vendors must distinguish current functionality from roadmap items, with roadmap capabilities expected to be available on day one of implementation. The State anticipates data migration from legacy systems and requires records retention schedule enforcement and immutable audit logs with detailed change-level retrieval capabilities.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Request for Information PPM Tool.docx | DOCX document |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Vendor Questions
| RFI# 260000000007 | |||||
| Question #1 | Document and Section | Page # | Vendor Question | State Response | |
| 1 | Program Overview | General | Does the department have an estimated total contract value for this solicitation? | We are unable to share the budget at this time. | |
| 2 | Program Overview | General | Is there a current vendor providing this service? If so could you please provide the current contract documents/information? | MA180000000806 | REGO CONSULTING CORPORATION |
3 Future RFP General If the department issues a solicitation, what would be the estimated timeframe for procurement? Yes a formal RFP will follow.
Timeline: Fall 2026 - Spring 2027
| 4 | Program Overview | 1 | Does the State envision the PPM platform primarily supporting IT projects, capital infrastructure programs, or a hybrid enterprise portfolio including facilities, transportation, and operational initiatives? | We primarily support IT projects/portfolios including Procurement, Audit, Maintenance and Operations. Business Processes/Changes related to IT. |
| 5 | Investment Management Methodology | IMM | Does the State currently follow a formal portfolio governance model (e.g., stage-gate, steering committee governance, or portfolio review boards), or is the new PPM solution expected to introduce and standardize governance practices across departments? | State currently has Governance processes for investment management that is expected to mature and grow. The tool should facilitate the scalability and growth. |
| 6 | Strategic Alignment | Q2 | How does the State currently measure alignment between projects and statewide strategic initiatives, and are standardized performance metrics or OKRs currently used across agencies? | This process is currently handled outside the tool. The goal is to incorporate the strategic and performance data/alignment into the tool. |
| 7 | Portfolio Planning | Q3 | Does the State expect the PPM tool to support scenario planning for large multi-year programs, including capital investments and infrastructure modernization initiatives? | Yes. |
| 8 | Project Execution | Q5 | Will the State require integration between the PPM platform and existing document management or construction PMIS systems used by departments managing capital programs? | Currently SharePoint (Document Management) is not integrated with PPM tool. However, we would like to entertain this integration. |
Integration with PIMS is not needed.
| 9 | Scheduling | Q6 | Does the State currently utilize scheduling platforms such as Primavera P6, MS Project, or other scheduling tools that the new PPM platform would need to integrate with? | Yes, MS Project. |
| 10 | Resource Management | Q7 | Is the State seeking centralized enterprise resource management across agencies or decentralized resource planning within individual departments? | Yes. And we are utilizing a centralized resource management capabilities in the PPM tool and expect to continue. |
| 11 | Financial Controls | Q8 | Will the PPM solution need to support integration with existing financial systems beyond SIGMA for budget tracking and financial forecasting? | No |
| 12 | Risk & Change Management | Q9 | Does the State currently maintain enterprise risk registers or program-level risk management frameworks that the PPM platform should integrate with? | This capability is included and is expected to continue to be managed in the PPM tool. |
| 13 | Status Reporting | Q10 | Is the State interested in predictive analytics or AI-supported portfolio insights that can forecast schedule delays, cost overruns, or resource bottlenecks? | Yes, as part of the PPM Tool. |
| 14 | Reporting | Q17 | Does the State envision executive dashboards primarily for portfolio oversight at the enterprise level, or also for program-level operational management across departments? | Dashboards and reporting are required for all levels of stakeholders. |
| 15 | Integration | Q18 | Can the State provide additional detail regarding the anticipated data architecture, including preferred BI platforms (e.g., Power BI, Tableau) for enterprise reporting integration? | The PPM tool should be fully capable to integrate with Power BI |
| 16 | Artificial Intelligence | Q22 | Are there specific State policies or governance frameworks that vendors should consider regarding the use of AI-driven decision support within government portfolio management systems? | Yes. All policies will need to be adhered to. https://www.michigan.gov/dtmb/-/media/Project/Websites/dtmb/Law-and-Policies/IT-Policy |
| 17 | Implementation | Q23 | What is the anticipated scale of implementation (e.g., number of users, number of agencies, estimated number of projects per year)? | Estimated #of users = 3000 |
Estimated # of Departments = 20 Estimated # of Projects/year = 400 18 Future RFP General Does the State anticipate issuing a formal RFP following this RFI, and if so, is there an estimated timeline for the procurement process? Yes a formal RFP will follow.
Timeline: Fall 2026 - Spring 2027
| 19 | RFI — Program Overview / Requirements | 7 | Can the State clarify the anticipated scope of the Enterprise PPM solution for purposes of this RFI, including whether the intended deployment is limited to the EPMO or expected to support multiple departments/agencies statewide, and whether the State can share an estimated user population by role type? | State Law requires that EPMO manages all IT projects for all State Departments. Estimated current user count is 3000 and may grow in the future. |
| 20 | RFI — Requirements / Current-State Context | 7, various | Can the State identify the primary current tools or systems used today for intake, portfolio planning, project management, budgeting/financial tracking, resource management, reporting, timesheets, document management, and Agile delivery, so vendors can tailor responses to the State’s current environment? | Documents are managed on SharePoint. |
Agile delivery is performed in DevOps and JIRA and managed in Clarity.
Reporting is in PowerBI and Clarity.
All the rest is managed in Clarity.
21 RFI — Common Capabilities / Solution Integration (Question 18) 12 For the integrations referenced in the RFI, can the State identify which integrations are considered most critical for a future implementation and whether the State is primarily seeking native connectors, API-based integrations, file-based exchanges, or a combination? API based integration are highly preferred.
Integrations critical: MS Project, AD, BI Systems, DataMart, DevOps/JIRA.
Depending on the solution being offered and selected, this priority might change.
| 22 | RFI — Funding Allocation and Budget Integration (Question 15) / Solution Integration (Question 18) | 12 | With respect to SIGMA and other financial/time-management systems, can the State clarify whether it is seeking real-time bi-directional integration, scheduled batch synchronization, or reporting-level data exchange only? | Based on your tool's capabilities and SIGMA requirements, we will evaluate the solution. |
| 23 | RFI — Support for Multiple Project Methodologies (Question 14) / Solution Integration (Question 18) | 12 | For support of Waterfall, Agile, and Hybrid delivery, does the State expect the proposed PPM platform to provide native Agile execution capabilities, or would integration with existing Agile tools such as Jira or Azure DevOps be acceptable? | We will evaluate both solutions. |
| 24 | RFI — Vendor Guidance/Recommendations for RFI Response | 7 | The RFI requests that vendors distinguish current functionality from roadmap items and provide estimated availability timelines. Can the State clarify whether roadmap capabilities are acceptable for purposes of this RFI and whether the State has any threshold expectations regarding timeframe to availability? | State has the roadmap capability in the current tool and therefore is expected on day 1. |
| 25 | RFI — Common Capabilities / Artificial Intelligence (Question 22) | 13 | For AI-enabled capabilities, can the State clarify whether there are any specific policy, hosting, data-handling, auditability, explainability, or human-review requirements vendors should assume when describing AI functionality? | Yes. All policies will need to be adhered to. https://www.michigan.gov/dtmb/policies/it-policies |
| 26 | RFI — Security, Compliance, Access, and Audit Controls (Question 20) / Hosting & Compliance | 11 | Can the State clarify whether there is a required hosting or compliance baseline for a future solution, such as specific cloud environments, State-only hosting requirements, NIST control expectations, or required third-party attestations? | Yes. All policies will need to be adhered to. https://www.michigan.gov/dtmb/policies/it-policies |
| 27 | RFI — Accessibility (Question 29) | 15 | Can the State clarify the expected form of accessibility evidence for this RFI and any future solicitation, such as a VPAT, WCAG conformance statement, demonstration, or other documentation? | No evidence is required for the RFI. For all Solutions, the State is required to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) including its accessibility standard for websites, applications, content and documents. See https://www.michigan.gov/som/digitalstandards for more information about WCAG compliance requirements. |
| 28 | RFI — Delivery of Response (Section 5) | 2 | The response instructions state that the price response should be saved separately from all other response documents. Can the State clarify whether pricing or budgetary estimates (versus just price lists) are desired as part of this RFI and, if so, the level of detail expected? | PRICING |
Please provide a pricing sheet that includes:
| a. | Licensing information | ||||
| b. | Fee structure | ||||
| c. | Service level agreement tiers | ||||
| 29 | RFI — Program Overview / Requirements | 7 | Is Michigan’s EPMO primarily IT/application portfolios or capital/construction programs (or both)? | Michigan's EPMO is primarily IT/application portfolios. | |
| 30 | RFI — Program Overview / Requirements | 7 | Is it solely for the use within DTMB or other State Departments will leverage this application? | All State departments will leverage the application. | |
| 31 | RFI — Program Overview / Requirements | 7 | Do they require FedRAMP/NIST 800-53 Moderate / GovCloud-style hosting as a hard requirement (the RFI asks about it explicitly) , or is it “nice to have”? | Please review https://www.michigan.gov/dtmb/policies/it-policies | |
| 32 | RFI — Security, Compliance, Access, and Audit Controls (Question 20) / Hosting & Compliance | 11 | Can you share the State’s Information Security Requirements Terms & Conditions in which the application would need to align? | Please review https://www.michigan.gov/dtmb/policies/it-policies | |
| 33 | Future RFP | General | What are the anticipated next steps with the RFI Process? | A formal RFP will follow. Timeline: Fall 2026 - Spring 2027 | |
| 34 | Program Overview | General | Is budget approved? | We are unable to share the budget at this time. | |
| 35 | Future RFP | General | What is the timeframe to move forward? | A formal RFP will follow. Timeline: Fall 2026 - Spring 2027 | |
| 36 | Section 1. Program Overview | 7 | Can you clarify whether the target scope for the new PPM tool is limited to IT and the EPMO or is intended to be used by business units across the broader enterprise (e.g., agency-level portfolios and non-IT initiatives)? | PPM Tool will be used by EPMO to manage projects across DTMB and for all other agencies/departments which EPMO supports. The projects include IT and Non-IT (Maintenance, Procurement, Audit, etc.), but do not include construction projects (PIMS). | |
| 37 | Section 3. Requirements – Investment Management Methodology (IMM) – Project Intake & Demand Management (Question #1) | 7 | What tools and processes are currently used for intake and demand management (including any existing forms, workflows, or ServiceNow modules), and are there specific elements you expect to preserve or replicate in the new solution? | The intake and demand management process is supported by the PPM tool that State is currently using. The process must exist in the new solution. | |
| 38 | Section 3. Requirements – Strategic Alignment and Prioritization (Question #2) | 8 | Do you already have a standardized scoring model or prioritization framework (e.g., SUITE or agency-specific models) that the PPM tool must support, or are you expecting vendors to propose a recommended scoring and alignment framework? | The State is interested in reviewing recommendations. | |
| 39 | Section 3. Requirements – Portfolio Planning and Balancing (Question #3) | 8 | Are there specific constraints (funding sources, FTE caps, union rules, grant restrictions, etc.) that must be modeled in what-if scenario planning, and do you have any existing portfolio hierarchy standards we should align to? | State is interested in understanding what is available to improve the alignment with strategic goals and funding sources. | |
| 40 | Section 3. Requirements – Resource and Capacity Management (Question #7) | 9 | Can you provide estimated counts by role for key user groups (e.g., portfolio managers, project managers, resource managers, team members, executives) to help us right-size licensing and capacity planning? | We currently have 3000 licensed users in various roles. | |
| 41 | Section 3. Requirements – Timesheet Management (Question #13) | 11 | Does the State intend to standardize on the PPM solution as the system of record for time entry for in-scope users, or will time continue to be captured in another system and integrated for financial actuals and utilization? | Time entry is expected to be recorded in the PPM tool to manage cost and resources on project/program/portfolio levels. | |
| 42 | Section 3. Requirements – Funding Allocation and Budget Integration (Question #15) | 11 | Can you elaborate on the current and target integration patterns with SIGMA and other financial systems (e.g., real-time APIs vs. batch loads, direction of data flow, and any middleware or integration platforms already in use)? | Currently no integration between PPM and SIGMA exists. State is interested to see the integration patterns your PPM tool has to offer. | |
| 43 | Section 3. Requirements – Common Capabilities – Solution Integration (Question #18) | 12 | Beyond MS Project, Jira, Azure DevOps, SIGMA, and Active Directory, are there any other strategic systems (e.g., HR, procurement, records management) that the State expects the PPM solution to integrate with in phase one? | No | |
| 44 | Section 3. Requirements – Artificial Intelligence (Question #22) | 13 | Are there State-specific restrictions or policies regarding the use of cloud-hosted generative AI (e.g., use of customer data for model training, data residency, or mandatory use of State-approved AI platforms) that vendors should explicitly accommodate in their AI solution design? | Please review https://www.michigan.gov/dtmb/policies/it-policies | |
| 45 | Section 3. Requirements – Hosting, Compliance, and Data Security (Question #28) | 15 | Does the State require the PPM solution to be hosted in a U.S. government community cloud (such as a FedRAMP-authorized GovCloud), or will a commercial cloud that meets NIST SP 800-53 Moderate controls be acceptable if all other security and compliance requirements are met? | Please review https://www.michigan.gov/dtmb/policies/it-policies | |
| 46 | Section 3. Requirements – Hosting, Compliance, and Data Security (Question #28) | 15 | Please confirm the State’s expectations around multi-tenant SaaS versus single-tenant or dedicated instances, and whether any additional contractual or technical controls are required if a multi-tenant SaaS architecture is proposed. | If SaaS, multi-tenant will be expected. | |
| 47 | Section 3. Requirements – Security, Compliance, Access, and Audit Controls (Question #20) | 13 | Which enterprise identity provider(s) and SSO standards (e.g., Azure AD, Okta, ADFS; SAML vs. OIDC) should the PPM solution integrate with, and are there specific MFA solutions mandated for administrative and privileged users? | Currently State is using IBM as the identity provider. PPM tool should be able to integrate with IBM SSO using SAML 2.0 or OIDC. MFA is policy based and can be modified. | |
| 48 | Section 3. Requirements – Accessibility (Question #29) | 15 | In addition to WCAG 2.1 Level AA, does the State require a current VPAT/ACR and any specific accessibility testing or certification (e.g., third-party testing, screen-reader validation) as part of vendor responses? | For all Solutions, the State is required to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) including its accessibility standard for websites, applications, content and documents. See https://www.michigan.gov/som/digitalstandards for more information about WCAG compliance requirements. | |
| 49 | Section 3. Requirements – Data Retention (Question #27) | 15 | Are there existing State of Michigan records-retention schedules for project and portfolio data that the PPM solution must enforce (e.g., retention period for closed projects, financial records, lessons-learned artifacts), and should the tool integrate with any enterprise records-management or archiving platforms? | The PPM tool should allow to enforce records retention schedules for all project and portfolio data. Integration with enterprise records-management or archiving platform is not required. | |
| 50 | Response Instructions – Section 5. Delivery of Response | 2 | Will the State accept architectural diagrams and example dashboards (e.g., for portfolio planning, executive reporting, and AI-assisted insights) as supporting attachments, and if so, are there any formatting or size constraints beyond the 6 MB per-document limit already noted? | Yes, the bidder may also submit copies of documents in PDF. Attachment file size is limited to 30 MB per document. The proposal and attachments must be fully uploaded and submitted prior to the proposal deadline. | |
| 51 | RFI – Project Intake & Demand Management | 7 | Should bidders assume a single standardized enterprise intake and governance-routing model across all agencies, or should the proposed solution support agency-, portfolio-, or investment-specific intake forms, approval paths, and prioritization criteria? | State uses a single standardized enterprise intake process for all departments. State would like to explore other solutions. | |
| 52 | RFI – Strategic Alignment and Prioritization | 8 | Will the State provide a defined set of organizational objectives, scoring dimensions, and benefit categories for investment evaluation, or should bidders assume these artifacts will need to be configured as part of implementation? | We are interested in seeing the configurable options your solution provides, as we do not yet use an OKR framework built into our PPM solution | |
| 53 | RFI – Strategic Alignment and Prioritization | 8 | When the RFI references “custom scoring models” and “prioritized roadmaps,” should bidders assume a centrally administered scoring framework for the EPMO, or support for multiple scoring models by agency, portfolio, or investment type? | Multiple scoring modules by department and/or portfolio. | |
| 54 | RFI – Portfolio Planning and Balancing | 8 | Should bidders assume that what-if scenario planning must support both funding constraints and capacity constraints concurrently, including comparison of alternative scenarios across the portfolio hierarchy? | Yes | |
| 55 | RFI – Governance Workflow and Approvals | 8 | Can the State clarify whether review boards, approval stages, and decision-routing rules are already defined, or whether bidders should assume the selected solution must help establish and configure the future-state governance model? | The selected solution must help establish and configure the future-state governance model. | |
| 56 | RFI – Governance Workflow and Approvals | 8 | With respect to approval history and audit access, are bidders expected to support only standard workflow audit trails, or also formal audit retrieval, reporting, and retention requirements for compliance and review purposes? | We currently log the information. Interested in reviewing what your tool's capabilities are. | |
| 57 | RFI – Project Planning and Setup | 9 | Should bidders assume approved demand items must convert directly into active projects with inherited metadata, templates, and core artifacts, or is manual project creation acceptable if traceability is maintained? | Both | |
| 58 | RFI – Scheduling and Work Management | 9 | Is the State expecting native PPM functionality for task dependency handling, critical path visualization, baseline tracking, variance thresholds, and automated alerts, or would integration with external scheduling tools be acceptable for some of these capabilities? | Task dependency handling, critical path visualization, baseline tracking, variance thresholds, and automated alerts are expected to be part of native PPM functionality. | |
| 59 | RFI – Resource and Capacity Management | 9 | Should bidders assume the resource model must support named resources, role-based allocations, contractor resources, and cross-portfolio approval workflows, including manager approvals for assignment requests? | Yes | |
| 60 | RFI - Cost and Financial Control | 9 | Can the State clarify whether project financial management is expected at a summary portfolio level only, or at a detailed level including actuals vs. plan, CapEx/OpEx categorization, labor cost capture, and physical asset allocation? | Project financial management should be both on summary and detail levels. | |
| 61 | RFI - Risks, Issues, and Change Management | 10 | Should bidders assume the State has an existing enterprise standard for risk scoring, issue escalation, and formal change control, or should proposed solutions allow these frameworks to be configured during implementation? | Tool should be able to accommodate PMI standards. | |
| 62 | RFI - Status Reporting and Health Indicators | 10 | Are PMI-aligned EVM measures such as CPI and SPI expected for all projects, or only for selected project types or maturity levels within the EPMO? | EVM calculations (as per PMI) such as CV, SV, CPI, SPI are expected for all projects managed in the PPM tool. | |
| 63 | RFI - Stage-Gate and Compliance Management | 10 | Can the State clarify whether the stage-gate methodology, required deliverables, lessons-learned process, stakeholder feedback surveys, and corrective action workflows are already defined, or whether the selected solution is expected to help operationalize these controls? | These processes are already defined. However, State is interested to know if these controls are native to your tool. If not, what solution do you propose to operationalize them within your PPM solution. | |
| 64 | RFI - Timesheet Management | 11 | Should bidders assume timesheet functionality is required for all project participants, or only for selected roles, funding types, or projects where time entry must update project progress and financial actuals? | It is required for all project participants. | |
| 65 | RFI - Funding Allocation and Budget Integration | 11 | Should bidders assume projects may be funded through multiple departments, appropriations, or grant sources simultaneously, and is integration with SIGMA expected to be real-time, batch-based, or informational only at this stage? | Yes, projects may be funded through multiple departments, appropriations, or grant sources simultaneously. We are interested in your solution to integrate with SIGMA. | |
| 66 | RFI - Reporting | 12 | Can the State identify which reporting capabilities are considered mandatory for this effort: out-of-the-box dashboards only, self-service ad hoc reporting, predictive analytics, BI integration, or all of the above? | All of the above | |
| 67 | RFI - Solution Integration | 12 | Can the State prioritize which integrations are considered essential for initial implementation versus future-state expansion, particularly for Azure DevOps, Jira, MS Project, SIGMA, Active Directory, BI platforms, and time-management tools? | Active Directory, BI Platforms, DataMart, MS Project, and DevOps/Jira integrations are essential for the initial implementation. | |
| 68 | RFI - Security, Compliance, Access, and Audit Controls | 13 | Should bidders assume the security model must support enterprise-wide role-based access across multiple organizational units from day one, including SSO, MFA, immutable audit logs, and detailed change-level audit retrieval? | Yes | |
| 69 | RFI - Artificial Intelligence | 13 | Can the State clarify whether AI-enabled capabilities are being evaluated as immediate functional expectations, optional value-added capabilities, or future roadmap considerations, particularly for generative summaries, natural-language search, forecasting, prioritization, and role-based report/dashboard generation? | Immediate functional expectation | |
| 70 | RFI - Implementation / Hosting / Accessibility | 14 | Should bidders assume the future-state procurement will require a SaaS-first offering with government-cloud hosting, SOC and NIST-aligned compliance posture, formal SLAs, defined retention controls, and WCAG 2.1 Level AA conformance at go-live, or are these being requested in this RFI primarily for market discovery? | This information is being requested in this RFI primarily for market discovery. For policies, please review https://www.michigan.gov/dtmb/policies/it-policies. See https://www.michigan.gov/som/digitalstandards for more information about WCAG compliance requirements. | |
| 71 | Program Overview | 7 | Can the State confirm whether any existing project or portfolio management tools (e.g., MS Project, Jira, ServiceNow, Smartsheet, or internally developed tools) are currently being used across departments, and whether the new PPM solution is expected to replace or integrate with them? | MS Project, Jira, and DevOps are currently being used across departments which the new PPM solution is expected to integrate with (not replace). | |
| 72 | Scheduling and Work Management | 9 | Approximately how many users are expected to use the PPM platform initially and at full enterprise adoption (e.g., project managers, executives, resource managers, team members)? | 3000 users, which may scale up in the future. | |
| 73 | Program Overview | 7 | Will the PPM platform be implemented centrally through the Enterprise Project Management Office (EPMO), or will it support multiple state agencies with independent project portfolios? | PPM solution will be implemented centrally through EPMO. | |
| 74 | Licensing & Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) | 14 | Could the State provide additional details on the expected integration with SIGMA, including whether the integration will be limited to financial data (e.g., budgets and actuals) or will also include project metadata and resource information? | We are exploring these options and are interested in your tool's capability. | |
| 75 | Hosting, Compliance, and Data Security | 15 | Does the State have a preferred hosting model (SaaS, State cloud, or on-premises), or is the State open to vendor recommendations provided security and compliance requirements are met? | State is open to vendor recommendations, provided the solution adheres to State's security and compliance requirements. | |
| 76 | Solution Integration | 18 | Does the State anticipate migrating existing project records, portfolio data, or historical reporting data from legacy systems into the new PPM solution? | Yes | |
| 77 | Status Reporting and Health Indicators | 10 | Are there any existing enterprise reporting standards or BI platforms (e.g., Power BI) that the PPM solution must integrate with for executive dashboards and analytics? | Power BI platform is a must | |
| 78 | Project Intake & Demand Management | 7 | Does the State currently have a defined project governance framework or stage-gate model used by the EPMO that the PPM solution must support? | Yes | |
| 79 | Artificial Intelligence | 13 | With respect to the AI capabilities requested, does the State have specific governance policies or restrictions related to AI usage within government systems that vendors should consider? | 1340.00.130.02 Acceptable Use of Information Technology | |
| 80 | Introductory Paragraph | 7 | Following the completion of this RFI, does the State anticipate issuing a formal RFP for the PPM solution, and if so, what is the anticipated timeframe? | Yes a formal RFP will follow. Timeline: Fall 2026 - Spring 2027 |
https://www.michigan.gov/dtmb/-/media/Project/Websites/dtmb/Law-and-Policies/IT-Policy/13400013002-Acceptable-Use-of-Information-Technology-Standard.pdf
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .