PEOPLE FIRST NEXT GENERATION CLOUD-BASED HCM

SOLUTIONS

Request for Information (RFI)

DMS- 25/26-044

Questions and Answers

DMS- 25/26-044 Page 2 of 28

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Note: All written questions are reproduced in the same format as submitted by the Respondent.

The purpose of this RFI serves strictly as a market research and fact-finding tool for planning purposes; it is not a solicitation for competitive offers or contract awards. It enables the Department of Management Services (DMS) to gather industry insights on modern, cloud-based Human Capital Management (HCM) platforms.

NO. QUESTION ANSWER

1. The RFI specifies “Payroll Preparation” as a required component. Can DMS confirm that payroll processing, tax calculation, and disbursement will reside in the Florida PALM payroll module, with the HCM platform responsible for preparing and exchanging payroll-relevant data bi-directionally with PALM?

Yes. At this time, DMS can confirm that this is the anticipated design.

2. Will DMS publish the technical interface specifications, supported standards (e.g., REST/SOAP APIs, file-based), and data exchange cadence for integrating an HRIS with the PALM payroll module? Are the Payroll Business Process Models (BPMs 100.1-100.8) the authoritative reference?

This is a Request for Information (RFI) for research and planning purposes so the Department may gather industry insights on modern, cloud-based Human Capital Management (HCM) platforms.

3. For the ~40 partial users (universities/colleges) that exchange data via daily interface files and use the system for benefits only, does DMS intend to preserve the daily interface-file model in the future state, or move those entities to direct/native use?

Unknown at this time and will depend on the capabilities of the solution

4. The current environment uses SAP BusinessObjectives and an external data warehouse. What level of native reporting, dashboard capabilities, and data warehouse/BI parity does DMS expect from the HCM platform versus a separate BI layer?

This Request for Information (RFI) seeks market feedback to help shape the future Human Capital Management (HCM) solution. Vendors are encouraged to submit their recommendations and capabilities.

DMS- 25/26-044 Page 3 of 28

5. Given the thousands of accumulated customizations and 600+ interfaces, is DMS’s modernization objective to reproduce that complexity through configuration, to rationalize/reduce/eliminate it, or a level of both?

See answer to question #4.

6. For the optional HR Service Center, can DMS clarify which functions it views as in-scope for a platform vendor’s technology layer (e.g., HR case/ticket management, intake portals, automation/AI, intelligent knowledge base) versus operational/BPO staffing?

All of this is in scope for purposes of this RFI as long as BPO staffing is included.

7. What benefits administration functions does DMS expect to be delivered natively by the HCM platform versus through integrated third-party administrations (e.g., FSA/HAS/HRA adjudication, dependent eligibility verification, COBRA, carrier connectivity, etc.)?

This Request for Information (RFI) seeks market feedback to help shape the future Human Capital Management (HCM) solution. Vendors are encouraged to submit their recommendations and capabilities.

8. Does DMS have required or preferred security compliance frameworks for the HCM platform (e.g., FedRAMP, CJIS, data residency)?

The solution must meet all cybersecurity laws and standards in the State of Florida.

9. The RFI notes a cloud-migration effort under the current PeopleFirst contract, set to expire 8/20/2029. How does DMS view the relationship and sequencing between that in-flight migration and a future next-generation HCM platform?

See answer to question #7.

10. Section VLB.3 asks about cooperative purchasing vehicles. Does DMS have a preference among vehicles (e.g., NASPO, GSA, existing state contracts, etc.) that it would find most useful to learn about?

See answer to question #2.

11. Approximately how many of the 120,000 state agency employees are non-exempt hourly employees versus exempt salaried employees?

See answer to question #2.

DMS- 25/26-044 Page 4 of 28

12. How are hourly employees currently recording time: physical time clocks, web clock, mobile clock, supervisor entry, or third-party systems? If you are using physical clocks do you intend to replace them with a new solution?

See answer to question #7.

13. Do any agencies utilize 24/7, rotating shifts, DuPont schedules, Pitman schedules, 12-hour shifts, shift bidding, or firefighter schedules? If yes, approximately how many employees would fall under this requirement?

See answer to question #7.

The proposed HCM solution must be able to handle any one or combination of these and other flexible schedules.

14. Can the Service Center currently categorize calls and cases by issue type? If so, what is the percentage associated with payroll errors and corrections?

See answer to question #2.

15. What are the leading root causes of payroll corrections?

See answer to question #7.

16. How does the Department balance the desire to modernize HR processes with the need to preserve existing agency-specific practices? Is the Department open to process standardization where it materially improves efficiency, user experience, and maintainability?

See answer to question #7.

17. To what extent is the Department interested in leveraging leading-practice processes delivered by a modern cloud HCM platform versus replicating existing People First processes and customizations?

See answer to question #7.

18. Does the Department envision a single, enterprise-wide configuration for all agencies and partial users, or a more federated model with controlled local variation?

See answer to question #7.

19. How important is it that future system updates and innovation from the HCM vendor can be adopted rapidly without lengthy re-development or re-testing cycles?

DMS- 25/26-044 Page 5 of 28

20. Does DMS envision permitting or encouraging the use of artificial intelligence, including AI agents, for functions such as employee self-service, HR case triage, knowledge retrieval, document processing, workflow automation, and contact-center support? If so, are there State-specific requirements or constraints related to human oversight, data residency, model training, auditability, and use of employee data?

See answer to question #7.

21. Is the Department specifically seeking a true multi-tenant SaaS solution where all customers are on a common code line, with regularly scheduled updates managed by the vendor?

See answer to question #7.

22. How does the Department prefer to manage cloud update cycles (e.g., semiannual or quarterly releases) in terms of preview environments, regression testing, and change management?

Unknown at this time.

23. Are there constraints or preferences around data residency, hosting regions, or specific cloud/security certifications the HCM platform must support?

See answer to question #8.

24. Among the thousands of customizations and over 600 interfaces, can the Department rank or categorize which are mission-critical to preserve versus those that are candidates for standardization or elimination?

See answer to question #7.

25. Is the Department open to replacing current customizations with configurable business rules, workflows, and role-based security within the new HCM platform?

Yes.

DMS- 25/26-044 Page 6 of 28

26. How flexible is the Department regarding possible simplification or consolidation of:

o The four existing pay cycles (monthly, biweekly, biweekly 7-days back, 15th–14th)?

o The fourteen unique FLSA schedules and extended schedules?

o Dual classification systems across agencies?

Not in-scope for the RFI and outside the authority of the Department.

27. For collective bargaining, 60L rule, and statute requirements, does the Department expect these to be primarily addressed via configurable rules and eligibility conditions, rather than custom code?

Unknown at this time.

28. For the more than 600 existing interfaces, does the Department have a target for rationalizing and consolidating integrations in the future ecosystem?

See answer to question #7.

29. Given that People First currently maintains more than 600 external interfaces, can DMS describe the primary integration patterns and technologies in use today (for example, file-based exchange, APIs, middleware, real-time versus batch), along with the anticipated requirements for interface modernization and ongoing agency-managed integrations? Are you willing to provide a technology landscape or reference specific integrations that will need to be consisted in addition to this technology change.

See answer to question #7.

30. Does the Department have preferred statewide integration platforms or standards (e.g., ESB, iPaaS, event-based integrations) that the HCM platform should support natively?

DMS- 25/26-044 Page 7 of 28

31. Are there specific statewide systems (e.g., financials, identity management, data warehouse, LMS, benefit administrators) that the HCM platform must integrate with in near real time?

Unknown at this time.

32. Does the Department have a preference for vendor-delivered, pre-built integrations versus custom interfaces developed by the State or its implementation partners?

See answer to question #7.

33. How satisfied is the Department with the current external data warehouse and SAP Business Objects reporting model with respect to:

o Timeliness of data;

o Ease of self-service reporting for HR, managers, and leadership; and o Ability to support dashboards and analytics without significant IT involvement?

See answer to question #7.

34. What reporting, analytics, dashboarding, and data-extract capabilities must be available to State agencies and central administrators? Specifically, does DMS anticipate a need to replace or coexist with SAP Business Objects, and what expectations exist for self-service reporting, governed semantic models, real-time operational reporting, historical-data retention, and downstream data warehouse integrations?

The Department desires robust reporting to meet the needs of the enterprise and individual state agencies. For the purposes of the RFI, the Department would like to see vendor recommended options to handle complex HR reporting needs that meet records retention requirements and all cybersecurity and data laws of Florida.

35. Is the Department open to an HCM solution that delivers embedded dashboards, configurable analytics, and role-based reporting directly within the platform, potentially reducing dependence on separate BI tools?

Yes.

DMS- 25/26-044 Page 8 of 28

36. Are there reporting or analytics requirements that must remain in a statewide BI environment, and if so, how does the Department envision data exchange (e.g., APIs, event-based feeds, scheduled extracts)?

The Department needs the ability to conduct enterprise and individual reporting but does not maintain a specific requirement on BI environment location at this time. Note, at this time, that data exchange methods including API and flat file interface transfer must be in scope to accommodate other ERP systems and Agency Business Systems.

37. The RFI emphasizes improving the employee and manager experience and expanding self-service. How does the Department plan to measure success in these areas (e.g., adoption rates, reduction in call volume, satisfaction scores)?

Vendors are encouraged to provide how they would measure these improvements.

38. Are there specific pain points with the current People First user experience (navigation, performance, accessibility, mobile support, etc.) that the Department most wants to address?

See answer to question #7.

39. Does the Department have preferences regarding o Native mobile applications (iOS/Android) versus responsive web only;

o Accessibility standards (e.g., WCAG level); and o Multilingual support needs across the platform and self-service portals?

The solution should be compatible with all accessibility standards in the ADA, including recommended WCAG level at the time of implementation.

40. How tightly does the Department envision integration between the HCM platform and the HR Service Center for case management, knowledge management, and ticket/workflow orchestration?

The current service center supports and processes organizational management tickets for HR Offices all over the state.

DMS- 25/26-044 Page 9 of 28

41. Does the Department prefer a native HR case management solution within the HCM platform, or is it open to an integrated but separate case/ticketing solution if recommended by the vendor?

42. How does the Department prioritize the following service center capabilities:

omnichannel support (phone/web/email/chat), self-service knowledge base, automation of routine transactions, and AI/virtual assistant support for common HR inquiries?

See answer to question #7.

43. For the current service center volumes (calls, tickets, FSA claims, premium refunds, etc.), does the Department expect the future solution to primarily reduce contact volume, improve service center efficiency, or both?

Vendors are encouraged to provide all benefits for a future solution.

44. For partial users (universities, colleges, and other benefit-only users), does the Department anticipate:

o Continuing the current model where external systems remain the HR systems of record and the State platform provides benefits administration only; or

Expanding the scope of the future HCM platform to support a broader set of HR capabilities for these entities?

o Are there statutory, governance, or autonomy considerations for universities and colleges that may limit how broadly the future State HCM platform can be used beyond benefits?

o How important is it that the future solution supports multiple entities with differing policies, bargaining units, calendars, and benefit plans in a single tenant or configuration?

How important is it that the future solution supports multiple entities with differing policies, bargaining units, calendars, and benefit plans in a single tenant or configuration? – This is mandatory

DMS- 25/26-044 Page 10 of 28

45. Please describe the State’s expected enterprise security and identity requirements for a future cloud HCM platform, including single sign-on, multi-factor authentication, federation standards, role-based access controls, privileged-access management, audit logging, security monitoring, and integration with State identity and security operations capabilities.

See answer to question #8.

46. Beyond standard state security requirements, are there specific frameworks (e.g., NIST, SOC, ISO) or state cyber policies that the HCM platform must comply with?

See answer to question #8.

47. Does the Department require additional data segregation capabilities (e.g., by agency or user group) beyond role-based access controls?

Yes.

48. How does the Department envision identity and access management for the HCM platform, including SSO, MFA, and integration with existing State identity directories?

Unknown at this time.

49. Please describe the State’s expected enterprise security and identity requirements for a future cloud HCM platform, including single sign-on, multi-factor authentication, federation standards, role-based access controls, privileged-access management, audit logging, security monitoring, and integration with State identity and security operations capabilities.

See answer to question #8.

DMS- 25/26-044 Page 11 of 28

50. Can DMS provide high-level guidance on its expectations for migration of historical People First data, documents, audit records, and reporting history from the current SAP ECC 6.0 environment?

Additionally, what recovery time and recovery point objectives, disaster-recovery testing expectations, and business-continuity requirements should vendors consider for the statewide HCM environment?

See answer to question #7.

51. How does the Department prioritize among implementation objectives such as speed to value, minimal disruption to payroll and benefits, maximizing process standardization, and change management/training?

See answer to question #7.

52. Is the Department considering a preferred transition model (e.g., big-bang go-live, phased by function, or phased by agency/user population)?

See answer to question #7.

53. Does the Department have current or planned data quality and data-cleansing initiatives that it expects to align with the HCM modernization timeline?

See answer to question #2.

54. How does the Department prefer to structure pricing for a cloud-based HCM platform (e.g., subscription per employee/user, tiered pricing by population segment, all-inclusive vs. modular)?

This is not a solicitation for offers. This is a Request for Information (RFI) for research and planning purposes.

55. Are there existing cooperative purchasing agreements or statewide contracts (e.g., NASPO, GSA, or others) that the Department anticipates referencing or leveraging for any future solicitation?

See answer to question #54.

DMS- 25/26-044 Page 12 of 28

56. When evaluating total cost of ownership, does the Department plan to consider factors such as:

o Elimination of on-premise infrastructure and related support;

o Reduction in custom code maintenance; and o Reduced downtime and upgrade effort associated with a SaaS model?

See answer to question #54.

57. For a potential future competitive procurement, how does the Department anticipate weighting the following:

o Functional breadth and depth across Hire-to-Retire;

o User experience and self-service;

o Platform flexibility/configurability;

Implementation approach and change management;

o Total cost of ownership and value;

and o Vendor public-sector experience and references?

See answer to question #54.

58. Are there specific, quantifiable success measures (e.g., reduction in call volume, improvement in employee satisfaction, time-to-fill reductions, payroll accuracy metrics) that the Department would like respondents to address directly?

See answer to question #7.

59. Can DMS clarify whether responses may be submitted by firms that provide HCM implementation, integration, modernization, and/or HR Service Center services in partnership with a commercial HCM platform provider, rather than as the direct owner of the HCM SaaS product?

Yes, the Department will accept responses from both.

DMS- 25/26-044 Page 13 of 28

60. Does DMS prefer vendors to respond only to the required HCM Platform components, or would a combined HCM Platform and HR Service Center response be more useful for the Department’s planning purposes?

The Department does not have a preference.

61. For the current People First environment, can DMS provide a high-level inventory or categorization of the 600+ interfaces by type, frequency, criticality, and external stakeholder group?

See answer to question #7.

62. Can DMS clarify whether it is seeking information on replacing current customizations with standard configurable SaaS functionality, preserving selected customizations, or evaluating a hybrid approach?

See answer to question #7.

63. Are there specific People First modules or business areas that DMS considers highest priority for modernization, such as benefits administration, recruitment, time and attendance, payroll preparation, reporting, or organizational management?

All are important.

64. For payroll preparation, can DMS clarify the expected boundary between the HCM platform and any downstream payroll processing systems, including whether the future solution must support the existing four pay cycles and current payroll preparation rules?

See answer to question #1.

Yes, it would need to support the existing pay cycles at this time.

65. For benefits administration, can DMS clarify the expected scope for partial users, retirees, state universities, state colleges, and benefit-only populations whose HR system of record is outside People First?

At the time of writing, the People First system is the system of record for (including but not limited to) benefit selection, capturing qualifying status changes, and collecting employee / employer contributions. This is currently handled via a series of interfaces with benefits-only entities and front-end portal access for employees of those entities for benefits selection.

DMS- 25/26-044 Page 14 of 28

66. Can DMS clarify whether historical data migration expectations should include full legacy history, selected history, active employee/benefit records only, or an archive/reporting strategy?

Unknown at this time. However, historical data will need to be available for reporting purposes.

67. Can DMS provide additional information on current reporting needs, including the role of SAP Business Objects, the external data warehouse, standard reports, ad hoc reporting, dashboards, and agency-level reporting requirements?

Specific reporting requirements for future solution unknown at this time. However, HR reporting ranges between ad hoc enterprise and individual-level reports, canned or standard reports, and dashboards.

68. For security and access management, can DMS clarify key identity, authentication, role-based access, audit, and agency-specific segregation requirements that a future cloud HCM platform should support?

See answer to question #8.

69. Can DMS clarify current or preferred requirements for mobile access, app support, accessibility, multilingual support, and user experience for employees, managers, HR professionals, applicants, retirees, and benefit-only users?

See answer to question #7.

70. For HR Service Center operations, can DMS clarify whether the Department is interested in a fully outsourced service center, a hybrid state/vendor model, or platform-enabled support tools that integrate with an existing service center model?

See answer to question #7.

71. Given the scope and complexity of this procurement, would the State consider a four (4) week extension to the proposal submission deadline to allow Offerors to submit more complete and competitive responses?

DMS- 25/26-044 Page 15 of 28

72. If an extension is granted, does the State anticipate maintaining the current evaluation and award timeline, or adjusting key milestone dates accordingly?

This is not a solicitation for offers. See RFI Section IX, for the RFI Timeline.

73. Please confirm whether Offerors may submit redlined exceptions to the State’s Standard Terms and Conditions as part of their proposal.

See answer to question #54.

74. Will commercially reasonable and risk-balanced contract redlines be reviewed and considered during the evaluation and negotiation process?

See answer to question #54.

75. Please confirm whether the unlimited liability provisions in the Standard Contract Terms are negotiable.

See answer to question #54.

76. Would the State consider a mutual limitation of liability cap (e.g., tied to a multiple of annual contract value), with customary carve-outs for data breach, willful misconduct, and statutory violations?

See answer to question #54.

77. Are offshore or nearshore resources permitted for any portion of the services, provided all security, data residency, and compliance requirements are met?

See answer to question #8.

78. Does the State require any mandatory onsite staffing, or is a remote or hybrid delivery model acceptable?

See answer to question #7.

79. Are background checks required for all Vendor personnel, or only for personnel with physical or logical access to State systems or data?

See answer to question #7.

80. Please confirm whether funding for this procurement has been approved.

See answer to question #54.

81. Does the State have an estimated or not-to-exceed total contract value for the initial term and any renewal options?

DMS- 25/26-044 Page 16 of 28

82. Does the State have an estimated annual contract value or anticipated annual spend associated with this procurement?

See answer to question #54.

83. Is there a minimum spend or volume commitment associated with this contract, or will usage be at the discretion of the State and participating agencies?

See answer to question #54.

84. Does the State have a preferred solution, platform, or technology stack in mind for this procurement, or is the State open to alternative approaches that meet the requirements?

See answer to question #54.

Vendors are encouraged to provide information about their offerings in accordance with RFI Section VI, Response.

85. Will the State consider vendor-proposed solutions or architectures that differ from the examples described in the RFP, provided all functional and technical requirements are met?

See answer to question #84.

86. Please identify the incumbent vendor(s) currently providing services similar to those described in this RFP.

The current contract is with NorthgateArinso, LLC.

87. Please provide the expiration date(s) of the incumbent contract(s), if applicable.

The current expiration date of the incumbent contract is August 20, 2029.

88. Is the scope described in this RFP substantially similar to the incumbent scope, or does this procurement represent a material change or expansion in services?

See answer to question #54.

89. Does the State anticipate conducting a Best and Final Offer (BAFO) phase?

See answer to question #54.

90. Will post-submission discussions be limited to proposal clarifications, or may limited negotiations occur prior to award?

See answer to question #54.

91. Is the State seeking a single integrated HCM platform, or are best-of-breed solutions acceptable?

DMS- 25/26-044 Page 17 of 28

92. Has the State identified preferred deployment approaches (big bang, phased by module, or phased by agency)?

See answer to question #7.

Unknown at this time.

93. What is the anticipated timeline for issuing the RFP and beginning implementation?

See answer to question #54.

94. Does the State envision one implementation partner, or separate OEM, SI, and managed services providers?

See answer to question #7.

Unknown at this time.

95. Can the State provide a current inventory of the 600+ integrations categorized by business function and technology?

See answer to question #7.

96. Approximately how many custom SAP developments currently exist?

See answer to question #7.

97. Which customizations are mandatory business requirements versus candidates for modernization?

See answer to question #7.

98. Will the State provide documentation for current business processes and configuration?

See answer to question #7.

99. Will all 33 agencies migrate simultaneously, or in implementation waves?

See answer to question #7.

100. What level of business process standardization is expected across agencies?

See answer to question #7.

101. Will universities and colleges remain benefit-only participants, or are future HR/payroll consolidation scenarios being considered?

Unknown at this time.

102. How much agency-specific configuration will be permitted within the future platform?

See answer to question #7.

Unknown at this time.

103. Can the State provide detailed payroll processing volumes by pay cycle?

See answer to question #7.

104. Which payroll calculations are currently highly customized and expected to remain?

DMS- 25/26-044 Page 18 of 28

105. Can the State provide documentation describing the 14 FLSA schedules and associated calculation rules?

See answer to question #7.

106. What collective bargaining agreements and statutory requirements create the greatest payroll complexity?

See answer to question #7.

107. Are retroactive payroll adjustments and off-cycle processing considered core requirements?

See answer to question #7.

108. Does the State intend to modernize integrations using APIs and middleware, or replicate existing interfaces?

See answer to question #7.

109. Is there an enterprise integration platform already in place (e.g., SAP CPI/PI-PO, MuleSoft, Boomi, Azure Integration Services)?

See answer to question #7.

110. Which external systems are considered mission critical for Day 1 operations?

All modules mentioned in the RFI documentation are critical for Day 1 operations.

111. Will vendors be expected to rationalize and reduce the number of integrations as part of implementation?

See answer to question #2.

112. What historical HR and payroll data must be migrated into the new system?

See answer to question #66.

113. Will legacy SAP ECC remain available for historical inquiry after go-live?

See answer to question #54.

114. Approximately how many years of payroll, benefits, and employee history are expected to migrate?

See answer to question #66.

115. Will the State provide data quality assessments before implementation begins?

DMS- 25/26-044 Page 19 of 28

116. Are there specific State cybersecurity standards or cloud hosting requirements beyond standard SaaS certifications?

See answer to question #8.

117. What identity management platform currently provides authentication (Azure AD, Okta, etc.)?

See answer to question #2.

118. Are there CJIS, IRS Pub. 1075, HIPAA, or other regulatory compliance requirements applicable to the solution?

The solution will house PII and PHI and is subject to all state and federal laws governing the security of that type of data.

119. What are the most critical reporting gaps in the current SAP BusinessObjects environment?

See answer to question #7.

120. Does the State envision an enterprise data warehouse separate from the HCM platform?

See answer to question #7.

Unknown at this time.

121. Approximately how many operational, dashboard, and regulatory reports must be recreated?

See answer to question #7.

122. If the optional HR Service Center is selected, does the State prefer full BPO, staff augmentation, or technology-only support?

123. What service level agreements currently exist for call center response times, payroll processing, and case resolution?

See answer to question #2.

124. What are the State's primary success metrics for this modernization initiative?

See answer to question #7.

125. Beyond functional fit, what evaluation criteria will carry the greatest weight in the future procurement?

See answer to question #2.

126. What are the Most important Business Outcomes or what is like your measure of success (KPI) after this Implementation?

See answer to question #54.

127. What is the Driving Factor coming from - Is this IT or Business initiative?

DMS- 25/26-044 Page 20 of 28

128. Roadmap for Other SAP Application Migration including Path to S4?

See answer to question #2.

129. Can the State Provide current High-level Infrastructure and Integration restrictions to be considered?

See answer to question #2.

130. Are all 240k Users Payroll users or some contractor profile only Users?

See Section IV.A., Users, in the RFI.

131. Is Payroll also scoped to be transitioned to Cloud along with Success factors?

Yes.

132. What are the core/key integrated systems with People First system ? For eg; Partial users who connect with People First only for Benefits, have their HR records in another system. So should we assume these kind of core system integrations need to be considered as is with the new Cloud based HCM system and highlight how those integrations can be efficiently managed in our response?

See answer to question #7.

133. Given the large number of integrations with external systems, does the selection of the HCM cloud based platform will factor in the flexibility to retain the customized architecture to the extend possible or move towards a more standardized architecture by consolidating some of those key external systems (this may impact systems in other agencies)?

See answer to question #7.

134. What cloud migration does the Department plan to complete under the current contract with the People First vendor? What scope does the Proviso language cover in terms of impact to the Human Resources Information System (HRIS)? Will this migration overlap with the modernization efforts for the HCM platform? Are there any roadmaps or timelines defined for this?

DMS- 25/26-044 Page 21 of 28

135. What are the key Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems the platform must integrate with? Are there plans to move to

SAP S/4HANA?

See answer to question #2.

136. Is the Department open to a hybrid solution for time tracking and absence management, such as ADP Workforce Software?

See answer to question #7.

137. Does the Department use any specific payroll software that must be retained, or is it open to solutions such as SAP Payroll or Employee Central Payroll (ECP)?

See answer to question #7.

138. The Goal section does not list compensation or succession and career development. Are these functions managed by external systems?

See answer to question #7.

139. What is the expected scope for data migration, and what are the historical data retention needs?

See answer to question #66.

140. Does the Department expect a pricing model for the recommended platform, or only the pricing model for the implementation and support services provided? Vendors assume no Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) estimate is required at this stage.

See answer to question #54.

141. Location: Is there a mandatory requirement for all of the HR Service Center staffing to be located in Tallahassee and/or Florida?

Unknown at this time.

142. Location: Would the Florida DMS permit all or partial service center staffing to be permanently located in the US (other than Florida), North America, South America, or India? If yes, please confirm acceptable regions.

See answer to question #8.

DMS- 25/26-044 Page 22 of 28

143. Transfer HR Service Center Staff: Would Florida DMS permit / have the ability to facilitate the full and/or partial transition of the current HR service center staff to the payroll of Cognizant?

See answer to question #2.

144. Transfer HR Service Center Lease: Would Florida DMS permit / have the ability to facilitate the transfer of the lease of the physical location of the current HR service center staff to Cognizant?

See answer to question #2.

145. Staffing Mix: What portion, if any, of the current HR Service Center employees belong to a collective bargaining unit?

See answer to question #2.

146. Language Supported: What languages other than English and Spanish are required to be supported by the HR Service Center? Please describe required level of support for languages other than English?

(within 24 hours, live each day, during open enrollment)

See answer to question #2.

147. Service Center Coverage: What modifications are desired to providing standard service coverage to respond to calls, voicemails, and email inquires from Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m.

and 6:00 p.m., ET excluding state observed holidays.

See answer to question #2.

148. Self-Service Technologies: What are the primary Employee Self-Service technologies utilized by the current HR Service Center to provision online and self-service support to the covered population?

See answer to question #7.

149. Turnover: What is the annual turnover rate for the last two years at the current HR Service Center?

This is a Request for Information (RFI) for research and planning purposes.

Vendors are encouraged to submit their recommendations and capabilities for a modern solution.

DMS- 25/26-044 Page 23 of 28

150. Customer Satisfaction Rate: What is the CSAT scores for the last two years at the current HR Service Center?

See answer to question #149.

151. What are the top three business outcomes FL DMS hopes to achieve through People First modernization?

See answer to question #2.

152. Does FL DMS anticipate standardizing HR business processes across agencies as part of a future modernization effort, or will agency specific variations continue to be required?

See answer to question #2.

153. Does FL DMS have any preferences, restrictions, or requirements regarding the use of onshore, nearshore, offshore, or hybrid delivery models for implementation services, ongoing support, and optional HR Service Center operations?

See answer to question #8.

154. Does the Department anticipate procuring the Cloud HCM Platform and the HR Service Center under a single contract, or as separate procurements?

Unknown at this time. The Department intends to use the information received from this RFI for research and planning purposes.

155. If separate, does the Department expect the platform vendor to interoperate with a service center operated by a different vendor?

See answer to question #154.

156. Is the Department evaluating a cooperative purchasing vehicle as a likely procurement path, or does it anticipate a full and open competitive solicitation such as an Invitation to Negotiate?

See answer to question #154.

157. What factors will the Department weigh when selecting vendors for follow-on demonstrations, and is there an anticipated window for those sessions?

Unknown at this time. Following review of the responses, the Department may request demonstrations if it determines that additional information is needed.

158. Does the Department have a preferred structure, page limit, or response template beyond addressing Sections VI.A through

VI.C?

The Department requests clear and concise responses, submitted in accordance with Section VII, Response Submission.

DMS- 25/26-044 Page 24 of 28

159. Does the Department require compliance with a specific security framework such as StateRAMP, FedRAMP Moderate, SOC 2 Type II, or National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) SP800-53?

See answer to question #8.

160. Will the Department accept a Multi-Tenant Commercial SaaS environment, or does it require a government community cloud or single-tenant deployment?

See answer to question #7.

161. Does the Department require conformance with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act and Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 or 2.2 Level AA for both the public-facing and internal interfaces?

See answer to question #39.

162. Does the Department have target Recovery Time Objective (RTO) and Recovery Point Objective (RPO) thresholds, and any system availability or uptime requirement, that a future solution must meet?

See answer to question #7.

163. Can the Department provide a high-level breakdown of the current interface landscape, including interface types, approximate volumes, criticality, and whether any are expected to remain external in the future state?

See answer to question #7.

164. Please clarify the intended scope of ‘payroll preparation’ in the future state, including whether the Department is seeking full payroll processing, payroll calculation support, payroll interfaces to downstream systems, or preparation of payroll inputs only.

See answer to question #7.

165. Please describe any policy, security, or approval constraints on the use of AI assisted capabilities within the HCM platform and optional HR Service Center, including knowledge management, case summarization, and self service.

DMS- 25/26-044 Page 25 of 28

166. Is the Department interested only in Florida-usable cooperative agreements, or should vendors also provide broader public-sector cooperative vehicles?

Vendors are encouraged to provide information on any cooperative purchasing contracts they hold with a governmental entity.

167. Can the Department provide guidance on how or in what format you prefer for pricing? Should it be presented separately for the HCM platform/software, deployment costs, and optional HR Service Center?

This is not a solicitation for offers.

In accordance with Section VI, Response, the Department is requesting vendors describe their pricing model for their Cloud based HCM platforms and (if applicable) HR Service Center operations.

168. Can the Department provide additional detail on the current reporting environment, including the role of SAP Business Objects, the external data warehouse, the approximate report inventory, and whether report rationalization is expected as part of transition?

See answer to question #2.

169. For the current service center volumes, can the Department provide seasonal peaks, channel mix, and average handling complexity across calls, tickets, FSA claims, OM tickets, and premium refunds?

The RFI gives annual volumes only

See answer to question #2.

170. For the reference of "HR Service Center Operations" within this solicitation, does the scope of work include responsibility for the ongoing maintenance, sustainment, and technical operations of the underlying HR technology platform (e.g., system updates, patch management, break/fix, hosting, and availability monitoring), or is the expectation that the selected vendor will support service delivery operations only, with technology maintenance remaining the responsibility of the State or a separate technology provider

This is not a solicitation.

171. Please confirm whether the Department expects third party account administration to include HSA investment administration, debit card services, claims substantiation and reimbursement, and any COBRA or direct bill administration associated with qualifying status changes.

DMS- 25/26-044 Page 26 of 28

172. Can the Department provide a high-level summary of collective bargaining complexity relevant to the future solution, such as the number of bargaining units and any major rule variations that materially affect HR, time, attendance, or payroll preparation?

See answer to question #2.

173. Are there specific custom workflows, rules, or integrations that must be preserved or can be standardized?

This is not a solicitation for offers. This is a Request for Information (RFI) for research and planning purposes so the Department may gather industry insights on modern, cloud-based Human Capital Management (HCM) platforms.

174. Can you provide a prioritized list of critical external systems/interfaces that must be supported at go-live?

See answer to question #173.

175. Are there preferred integration methods (APIs, SFTP, etc.) or middleware in use?

See answer to question #173.

176. What is the expected scope of data migration (historical data, active records, attachments)?

See answer to question #173.

177. Are there data quality or cleansing requirements for legacy data?

See answer to question #173.

178. Are there specific reporting tools or standards (e.g., SAP Business Objects) that must be supported or replaced?

See answer to question #173.

179. Are there unique payroll rules (e.g., collective bargaining, dual classification) that must be supported?

See answer to question #173.

180. Will timeclocks be needed? See answer to question #173.

181. Do you want employees to be able to use a mobile device for time collection or PTO requests?

See answer to question #173.

182. Is accrual/PTO tracking needed as part of the proposed solution?

Yes

DMS- 25/26-044 Page 27 of 28

183. Is leave management (ie. FMLA) needed as part of the proposed solution?

Yes

184. Does the organization track points/occurrences for exceptions, such as a late in or missed punch?

See answer to question #7.

185. Is compliance tracking (ie. Changes in overtime or FMLA legislation) needed as part of the proposed solution?

Yes

186. Do employees track time against grants or projects?

Yes

187. Is the State open to a hybrid service center model (onsite/remote, shared/dedicated)?

See answer to question #7.

188. What are the language and hours-of-operation requirements?

189. What is the State’s appetite for automation and AI-driven support (e.g., chatbots, case routing, analytics)?

See answer to question #7.

190. Are there specific state or federal compliance requirements (e.g., FIPS, NIST, HIPAA) beyond standard data privacy and security?

See answer to question #8.

191. Is the State seeking a single-vendor, unified HCM suite, or are best-of-breed/point solutions for certain modules acceptable?

See answer to question #7.

192. Are there any modules or functions that are explicitly out of scope?

See answer to question #7.

193. What is the expected timeline for transition, and are there phased deployment or big bang preferences?

See answer to question #7.

194. How many total CBAs? How many union employees do you have?

See answer to question #7.

195. Do all CBAs renew at the same time or do they renew at different times throughout the year?

DMS- 25/26-044 Page 28 of 28

196. Do you have any grants that are tracked in

HR?

See answer to question #7.

197. Can you provide a breakdown of employees by pay frequency?

See answer to question #7.

198. Are all bi-weekly employees paid on the same pay date or is there an even and odd schedule?

See answer to question #7.

199. Are the bi-weekly pay group employees, that are not paid 7 days back, paid current or in arrears?

End of Questions and Answers.

PEOPLE FIRST NEXT GENERATION CLOUD-BASED HCM SOLUTIONS