RFI No. COM660001 Amendment 1.pdf

80 Calvert Street, Annapolis Maryland 21401 410.260.7445 1-800-552-3941 (MD) www.marylandcomptroller.gov

Fax: 410-974-2737 Maryland Relay 711 wgreen@marylandtaxes.gov

Brooke E. Lierman Comptroller

Wayne P. Green

Director, Administration & Finance

Amendment No. 1 Issued 1/22/26

To

RFI No. COM660001

This Amendment No. 1 is being issued to amend the above-referenced RFI by incorporating responses to all vendor questions received prior to the posted deadline. Additionally, vendors are notified that the response deadline for this RFI is hereby extended to February 2, 2026, 5:00 PM Eastern Time.

ID Submitted Question Response

Q0001 Intentionally Left Blank Intentionally Left Blank

Q0002 Does the State have an anticipated budget range allocated form this engagement, recognizing that the RFI is intended to inform multiple solution options and implementation approaches?

The purpose of the RFI is to explore various solution options and implementation strategies that will support a comprehensive financial modernization. At this stage, the RFI aims to gather market intelligence, understand available capabilities, and identify best practices to guide future procurement strategies. Any funding decisions will align with the scope, complexity, and value provided by the proposed solutions, adhering to established State budgeting and approval processes.

Q0003 Does the State have a preferred cloud ERP platform or vendor, or is the State intentionally remaining platform-agnostic at this stage?

The State is intentionally remaining platform agnostic for the purposes of this RFI while focusing its market research on Tier 1 cloud-based Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems.

mailto:XXX@marylandtaxes.gov

RFI No. COM660001 Amendment 1

Q0004 What is the anticipated timeline for release of the formal RFP following this RFI, and is the RFP expected to be published through the State’s eMaryland Marketplace Advantage (eMMA) portal?

Any RFP or other formal solicitation the state publishes in support of this acquisition will be posted to eMMA.

Q0005 Approximately how many total users does the State anticipate supporting with the proposed solution at full statewide deployment?

Please see Section 3.3.1. The current FMIS system supports 4,200 unique users in ADPICS and 5,000 unique users in R*STARS. Users in ADPICS are typically users in R*STARS. The State anticipates the proposed solution will support at minimum 5,000 users statewide upon full deployment.

Q0006 Does the State expect a role-based access control (RBAC) model with differentiated permissions across agencies, functional areas, and user types, or is a more uniform access model envisioned?

The State is evaluating role-based access control (RBAC) models that balance statewide standardization with agency-specific differentiation. We anticipate the need for differentiated permissions across agencies, functional areas, and user types to support least-privilege access, segregation of duties, and auditability. The degree of standardization versus differentiation will be informed by market input and future requirements.

Q0007 Are there known, high-priority custom capabilities or functional requirements that the State already anticipates will need to be supported beyond standard out-of-the-box ERP functionality?

The State seeks to minimize high priority custom capabilities beyond standard out of the box (OOTB) ERP functionality. The State expects the selected product to provide robust configuration options that accommodate State specific requirements without custom development.

Q0008 Has the State established an executive governance structure or steering committee for this modernization effort, and how will key decisions related to scope, phasing, and prioritization be made?

Yes. The State has established a comprehensive, multi-tiered governance framework to ensure effective oversight and decision-making. Decisions are made at the appropriate levels and are escalated as required, particularly regarding scope, phasing, and prioritization. The governance framework includes representation from agencies across all defined industry clusters, as well as agencies of varying size and geographic location, ensuring both diversity and alignment with statewide objectives.

Q0009 Does the State anticipate a single prime integrator model, or is a multi-vendor or modular contracting approach under consideration?

The State has not decided on a contracting approach for a System Integrator.

Q0010 Are there specific agencies or functional areas the State considers early adopters or pilot candidates for initial implementation waves?

The State anticipates deploying the solution through a phased, multiwave implementation approach. However, specific pilot agencies and early adopter groups have not yet been identified.

Q0011 Does the State have an inventory of existing legacy and boundary systems that will require integration with the future ERP platform?

Yes, the State is finalizing an inventory of legacy and boundary systems that will require integration with the future ERP platform. The State seeks a solution that supports seamless interoperability with these systems and offers flexible integration options to accommodate diverse technical environments. Vendors are encouraged to describe their integration capabilities, including approaches for connecting with the process areas outlined in Table 2 of the RFI, and to highlight any tools, frameworks, or methodologies that facilitate efficient and secure data exchange.

Q0012 Are there known data quality, data governance, or master data management challenges the State is already aware of that vendors should account for in their proposed approaches?

Yes, there are foundational challenges in all three areas. Vendors are encouraged to highlight their capabilities to address such data challenges when possible, through their RFI response.

Q0013 Are there specific State of Maryland security standards, policies, or compliance frameworks (beyond FedRAMP, SOC, and NIST) that vendors should explicitly address?

Vendors should also include PCI DSS.

Q0014 Are there specific performance metrics or KPIs the State expects to use to measure vendor success during implementation and post-go-live operations?

Yes, the State expects to include vendor and project success criteria in a future implementation professional services RFP.

Q0015 Re: RFI §1–2 - RFI Please clarify whether the State envisions a single integrated statewide ERP instance for all agencies, or a multi-instance model segmented by agency, industry, or branch of government.

The State intends to create a single, centralized statewide ERP instance for all State financial operations. The objective is to streamline services, drive process standardization, and improve end user experience across agencies, while enabling necessary agency level configuration. As part of the phased, multiwave implementation approach, vendors should consider dependencies and interoperability with the other key systems and modernization investments referenced in Section 3.3.3 and Table 3 of the RFI.

Q0016 Re: RFI §3.2 / §4.2 - Are all 15 Financial Management Core Functions expected to be implemented in the initial ERP program, or will certain functions be deferred to later phases?

The State intends to implement all 15 Financial Management Core Functions through a phased deployment strategy to reduce complexity and mitigate risks associated with a single “big bang” implementation. Vendors should provide recommendations from industry on priority financial management core functions for early implementation phases versus functions that can be delayed without resulting in technical debt, significant rework, reduced solution capabilities, or breaking cross-functional dependencies.

Q0017 Re: RFI §3.3.1 - Is the legacy FMIS (ADPICS and R*STARS) expected to be fully decommissioned at go live, or will a coexistence period be required?

The State intends to implement the modern ERP solution through a phased deployment strategy to minimize complexity and mitigate risks associated with a single “big bang” approach. As part of this strategy, a coexistence period is anticipated between the new ERP solution and the legacy FMIS applications (ADPICS and R*STARS). The State expects to work collaboratively with the selected vendor to define the sequencing of deployment phases, cutover waves, establish integration requirements during coexistence, and align with organizational readiness and resource availability.

Q0018 Re: RFI §4.2 Objective 4 - Does the State anticipate implementation phases organized by functional domain, agency/industry, or a hybrid approach?

Please refer to RFI Section 6, General Proposed Solution Questions, #9.

Q0019 Re: RFI §3.3 / §4.2 - Please clarify expectations for historical data migration, including number of fiscal years and archival requirements.

The State is assessing historical data migration and archival requirements as part of this market research. At the RFI stage, the State is not prescribing a specific number of fiscal years; instead, we seek vendor input on option paths and tradeoffs.

Q0020 Re: RFI §4.2 Objective 3 - Has the State identified systems that must remain system-of-record post ERP (e.g., iValua, Workday, CPB)?

The State is in the process of validating which systems will remain system of record post ERP. At a high level, the future ERP is expected to be authoritative for core financial domains (e.g., general ledger, commitments/encumbrances, disbursements, financial reporting). For the remaining functional areas, designations will be confirmed in subsequent phases and may include selected external systems where appropriate.

Q0021 Re: RFI §4.2 Objective 5 - Will organizational change management be centrally led by the State, or vendor-designed and executed?

Organizational Change Management will be centrally led by the State.

Q0022 Re: RFI §4.2 Objective 10 - Is FedRAMP authorization required at the ERP application level, infrastructure level, or both?

The proposed solution must comply with the State’s requirements as described in RFI Section 4.2 Statement of Objectives, #10.

Q0023 Re: RFI §6 Q13–14 - Does the State anticipate phased ERP licensing aligned to rollout waves, or enterprise licensing at program start?

The project is expected to be muti-year and multi-phased with numerous waves. The State expects a licensing agreement that is most beneficial to the State and aligns with the anticipated go-lives.

Q0024 Re: RFI §1 - Is the anticipated ERP implementation RFP expected to be vendor agnostic or vendor led with a single prime?

The State has not decided on a contracting approach for a System Integrator.

Q0025 Re: RFI §2 / §4.1 - What decision authority will OSFI retain versus individual agencies during implementation?

The State has established and chartered a multi-tiered Governance structure. Decisions are made at the appropriate level and escalated as necessary as it relates to scope, phasing, and prioritization. Various agencies across the state are represented throughout the Governance structure.

Q0026 Re: RFI §4.2 Objective 7 - Please clarify expectations for public-facing transparency dashboards versus internal analytics.

Public-facing transparency dashboards may include, but are not limited to, sustainability goals related to Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG). Internal analytics may include, but are not limited to, operational reporting.

Q0027 Re: RFI §6 Q16 - Will AI capabilities be optional or deferred until after core ERP stabilization?

Understanding available and planned AI capabilities in the market is a priority for the State. Vendors should highlight such capabilities when possible, throughout their RFI response.

Q0028 Re: RFI §6 Q11 - Does the State anticipate vendor-managed services, State-operated support, or a hybrid model post go live?

The State would like to understand the different options available. For more details, please see RFI Section 6 General Proposed Solution Questions, #11.

Q0029 Re: RFI §4.1 - Does the State anticipate future ERP expansion to quasi-governmental or external entities?

The proposed solution will need to support the industries and agencies found in RFI Section 9.1 Appendix 1 - Industries with Example Agencies, Table 5.

Q0030 Re: RFI §1 / §4.1 / §8 - Please explain the State’s current vendor strategy for the FMIS/ERP modernization effort.

Specifically, does the State anticipate a multiple-award RFP with separate vendors for discrete modernization areas (e.g., ERP platform, systems integrator, data migration, OCM), or a single-prime/vendor-led model? In addition, please describe how the State’s MBE participation requirements are expected to be applied and evaluated under either a multi-vendor or single-vendor procurement approach.

The State has not decided on a contracting approach for System Integrator implementation professional services. The State is committed to complying with the State’s MBE participation requirements for procurement related to the modernization effort.

Q0031 Could you tell me if it’s an RFI or an RFP? I see the file name for the actual document is listed as RFI, but the site where I’m viewing it is calling it RFP.

We confirm that this posting is a Request for Information, not an RFP or other formal solicitation document.

Q0032 I went to this link and was looking for the documentation associated with the RFP but nothing was posted. Also tried looking for it on BIDNET as well.

Please let me know how to get the files in order to determine if my team can make a suitable response.

The downloadable PDF version of this RFI can be found by scrolling sidewise on the eMMA posting where it is listed under "Downloads", however, any vendors having difficulty accessing the PDF can reach out directly to the procurement officer at tcain@marylandtaxes.gov to request a copy be provided by email.

Q0033 Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this RFI process. We are excited about the extensive work completed by Maryland and committed to delivering a high-quality response.

To ensure a comprehensive submission, we respectfully request:

• Questions Due Date: Currently January 7 → Requesting extension to January 21

• RFI Response Due Date: Currently January 26 → Requesting extension to February 26

These extensions are critical given the holiday season, as many key team members and stakeholders are out of office. Extra time will allow us to:

• Refine questions to ensure clarity and alignment with your objectives

• Develop a robust, innovative response leveraging full team collaboration

• Deliver a strategic, accurate submission that adds maximum value

The State will provide a one-week extension and all responses may be submitted by February 2, 2026 by 5:00 PM Eastern Time.

Q0034 We acknowledge and appreciate the substantial effort undertaken by the State of Maryland in preparing RFI No.

COM660001 . We remain fully committed to submitting a thorough, high-quality response that aligns with the State’s objectives.

To support the development of a comprehensive and well-considered submission, we respectfully request consideration of the following deadline extensions:

• Questions Due Date: January 7 → Requested extension to January 21

• RFI Response Due Date: January 26 → Requested extension to February 26

The requested extensions are necessitated by the holiday period, during which several essential team members are unavailable. Additional time will enable us to:

• Formulate precise and meaningful questions that align closely with the State’s goals

• Coordinate effectively across our full team to develop a strong and innovative response

• Ensure the final submission is accurate, strategic, and of maximum value to the State

The State will provide a one-week extension and all responses may be submitted by February 2, 2026 by 5:00 PM Eastern Time.

Q0035 Does the State desire responses from independent ERP Systems Integrators as well as from SaaS ERP vendors for this RFI?

Please refer to Section 1 of the RFI. The State is seeking market analysis information for a cloud-based Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system. There are no restrictions for System Integrators and SaaS ERP vendors to collaborate and submit a joint informational response.

Q0036 I’d like to confirm that Government Navigator is Maryland’s preferred communication platform for this RFI, along with the specific instructions in the current RFI. Please let me know if this is correct or if an alternative process should be followed.

Please refer to Section 8 of the RFI; all communications and questions regarding the RFI should be transmitted by email to the Procurement Officer at tcain@marylandtaxes.gov.

Q0037 Re: Sec 4.. (pp. 14-16) [Objectives:

statewide standardization with statutory exceptions; best practices; minimize workarounds.] Which agency-specific statutory exceptions must be preserved, and at what process points? Will Maryland publish a statewide ‘to be’ process catalog defining mandated standards vs. allowable variance?

The State seeks to understand proposed solution capabilities to enforce process standardization and uniformity while allowing for specific agency variance (e.g., multi-company versus multi-org, additional custom data capture, rules-based workflow routing, etc.)

The State of Maryland is actively developing future-state business processes to ensure statewide standardization while preserving necessary statutory exceptions. This initiative aims to define uniform practices across agencies and identify allowable variances.

Upon finalization, Maryland intends to publish a comprehensive statewide ‘to-be’ process catalog that clearly delineates mandated standards and permissible exceptions, supporting consistency and transparency across all agencies.

Q0038 Re: Sec 4.2 (pp. 14–16) [Objective:

single source of truth; transparency;

real-time visibility; GAAP/GASB and grant compliance.] What is the target system of record for budget formulation

vs. budget execution and statewide financial reporting post modernization?

Which public transparency portals must be supported and with what data latency?

The State seeks to understand the out-of-the-box capabilities of the full budget and forecasting lifecycle that includes planning, programming, budgeting, and execution within the proposed solution.

Maryland has not finalized the system of record for budget formulation, execution, and statewide financial reporting. The approach will be determined during implementation to ensure transparency and minimize risk.

Decisions on public transparency portals and data latency will also be determined during implementation.

Q0039 Re: Sec 4.2 #4 (pp. 15–16) [Objective:

agile, iterative deployment; phased rollouts; multiyear implementation with waves.] Please confirm the phasing strategy (by function, industry, release waves) and the MVP expectations for Phase 1. What nonnegotiable dependencies (fiscal year, legislative milestones, federal grant cycles) dictate wave sequencing?

The overall phasing strategy has not been finalized. The State is seeking information as part of this RFI on approaches and recommendations from the vendor community. Please refer to RFI Section 6 General Proposed Solution Questions, #9 for the State's initial desired phasing strategy.

Q0040 Re: Sec 4.2 #9 (p. 16) [Objective:

business led operations; reduce dependency on IT programming; strong governance and controls.] Which areas should be configurable by business users post go live (workflows, approval rules, reporting KPIs), and which must remain under IT governance?

The State does not wish to be solely dependent on IT governance for all system administration and maintenance. Therefore, the State seeks recommendations from vendors on specific areas and activities that have been successfully transitioned to a client responsibility.

Q0041 Re: Sec 3.2 (pp. 8–10) [Fund accounting, appropriations, encumbrance/pre-encumbrance across agencies.] Please provide current appropriation controls and required pre-encumbrance/encumbrance behaviors (agency-by-agency if they differ). Are there multifund posting scenarios and interagency transfers requiring special handling?

The State maintains multiple fund types, including Appropriated, GAAP, State, and Agency funds. A universal funds control is enforced statewide at the Appropriation level with capabilities to define lower-level controls at the Agency, project, and grant. As the authoritative source for core financial domains, pre-encumbrance and encumbrance balances are recorded and enforced on subsequent encumbrances, expenditures, and outlays. The State does not seek to replicate the existing solution and seeks vendor recommendations on proposed solution capabilities and industry best practices.

Q0042 Re: Sec 3.2 (pp. 8–10) [Grant Accounting: budgeting, tracking, billing, reporting; federal grant requirements.] Which federal grant frameworks (drawdown processes, cost principles, audits) must be supported out-of-the-box? Is there a centralized grant master

As the authoritative source for core financial domains, the State seeks vendor recommendations on the out-of-the-box grant capabilities, specifically recording the financial and accounting impact of grant activities.

and governance today, or should the ERP establish it?

Q0043 Re: Sec 3.2 (pp. 8–10) [Cost Allocation:

rule-based assignments across GL/CO segments.] What cost allocation methods (driver-based, statistical keys, periodic vs. real time) are mandated?

How must allocation rules be audited and versioned?

Currently, the State uses both direct driver-based and statistical methods for cost allocation. The State seeks to understand the out-of-the-box cost allocation methodologies supported by the proposed solution and the process automation available in it.

Q0044 Re: Sec 3.2 & Sec 3.3.1 (pp. 9–12) [Treasury & Disbursements: STO has a separate banking system; checks and ACH; bank activities.] Given STO’s separate banking system, what disbursement workflows and messaging formats (ACH, FedWire, positive pay, foreign currency) must be integrated?

Should ERP initiate payments or only generate postings and reconcile statements?

All messaging formats must be integrated.

The State would like to review all available capabilities within the product and determine the appropriate place to complete the Disbursement process to reduce technology debt and the risks associated with data integrity.

Q0045 Re: Sec 3.2 (pp. 8–10) [Tax Accounting:

collection, estimates, liability minimization, compliance.] Which tax accounting processes must reside inside the ERP vs. external tax systems, and what financial postings are expected to flow into the ERP?

Tax Accounting details are processed through an external tax system maintained by the Revenue Administration Division with tax collections and disbursements recorded in FMIS. The State seeks to understand the out-of-the-box tax accounting capabilities in the proposed solution.

Q0046 Sec 3.2 & Sec 3.3.2 (pp. 10–13) [Procurement: iValua platform;

MBE/SBR reporting; integration with finance.] With iValua in place, which procure to pay steps and reports should be financially posted in the ERP, and which remain in iValua? Please list required MBE/SBR reporting at ERP level vs. procurement system.

The State, in close coordination with the Department of General Services, is finalizing the approach to the Procure-to-Pay process.

The State seeks to understand the full suite of out-of-the-box capabilities across the "complete lifecycle of procurement functions such as needs identification, solicitation, contract management, award, performance management, and renewal or closeout" as outlined in RFI Section 3.2, Table 2 and the recording of the financial and accounting impact to pre-encumbrances, encumbrances, inventory sourcing/reduction, inventory replenishment, receipt accrual, expenditure, and payment.

Q0047 Sec 3.3.1.3–1.5 (pp. 11–13) [Reporting:

~145 ADPICS reports and ~342 R*STARS reports; ad hoc and statutory reporting.] Will the State provide a prioritized report catalog for rationalization (merge/eliminate/replace)? What are mandatory statutory reports (GAAP/GASB, grants) required at go live?

Yes, the State intends to provide a prioritized reporting scope as part of a future professional services system integrator RFP.

The reporting scope will include mandatory statutory reports.

Q0048 Sec 3.3.1 (pp. 10–12) [Mainframe migration: ADPICS (4,200 users), R*STARS (5,000 users); COBOL/DB2;

transaction codes; real-time interfaces.] Can Maryland provide data models, code tables, and transaction mappings for ADPICS/R*STARS to facilitate transformation to a modern chart of accounts? What is the archival vs.

conversion stance and how many years must be migrated?

Documentation to support data conversion and transformation will be made available by the State as needed in the future (post-RFI). The State is assessing historical data migration and archival requirements as part of this market research. At the RFI stage, the State is not prescribing a specific number of fiscal years; instead, we seek vendor input on option paths and tradeoffs.

Q0049 Sec 3.3.2 & Table 3 (pp. 13–14) [BARS:

centralized budgeting; HR reconciliation;

budget adjustments and reporting.] Should the ERP consume budgets from BARS and act as the execution system, or does Maryland expect budget formulation within ERP? How will HR reconciliation be aligned across BARS and ERP postings?

The State seeks to understand both solution capabilities that support seamless interoperability between these systems and the out-of-the-box capabilities of the full budget and forecasting lifecycle that includes planning, programming, budgeting, and execution within the proposed solution.

Q0050 Sec 3.3.3 & Table 3 (pp. 13–14) [Workday HR/Payroll (SPS/CPB):

statewide payroll; interfaces with universities and MDOT.] What is the canonical source for org hierarchies, positions, and cost assignments?

Outline payroll posting requirements (frequency, detail, retro adjustments, suspense handling).

The State is finalizing its enterprise and Chart of Accounts structure, hierarchy, and domain requirements. The State requires a flexible structure that can accommodate differentiation between the HRM system and proposed solution while maintaining specific data standards and the relationships between system values.

Q0051 Sec 3.3.3 & Table 3 (pp. 13–14) [Treasury BAIS: centralized platform for bank accounts, drawdowns, wires, FX, checks/ACH.] Please provide current interfaces and message standards used for BAIS and STO banking (file formats, APIs, schedules) and any event driven expectations going forward.

The State is finalizing an inventory of legacy and boundary systems that will require integration with the future ERP platform. The State seeks a solution that supports seamless interoperability with these systems and offers flexible integration options to accommodate diverse technical environments.

Q0052 Sec 3.3.3 & Table 3 (pp. 13–14) [GEARS (PeopleSoft), MSTARS (MDOT), University ERPs; coexistence

vs. consolidation.] For GEARS, MSTARS, and University ERPs, does Maryland prefer coexistence with bidirectional interfaces or consolidation into the statewide ERP over time?

Provide enterprise integration standards (API security, payloads, event bus).

The State has not determined if the systems will be interfaced or consolidated; the State expects coexistence for a period of time. The State is interested in recommendations on integration options and standards. Please see RFI Section 6 General Proposed Solution Questions, #15.

Q0053 Sec 3.3.4 (p. 14) [Custom interfaces:

batch, flat files, point to point, EDI, custom APIs; plan to modernize.] Will the State mandate a standard integration platform and patterns (API first, event mesh), and will agencies be required to adopt them?

The State is interested in recommendations on integration options and standards. Please see RFI Section 6 General Proposed Solution Questions, #15.

Q0054 Sec 4.2 #10 (pp. 16–17) [Cybersecurity and information security; FedRAMP, SOC 2, IRS Pub 1075; 508/WCAG 2.1 AA.] What FedRAMP level, SOC 2 scope, and IRS Pub 1075 controls must ERP hosting and applications meet? Will Maryland accept a shared responsibility model (cloud inherited + app-level controls)?

The ERP system must comply with the State’s cybersecurity requirements for systems designated Confidential/Sensitive, consistent with State policies and standards. Vendors must demonstrate how the proposed solution supports and satisfies the controls required under Maryland Data Classification Policy and the State Minimum Cybersecurity Standards. A shared responsibility model may be proposed, provided responsibilities for meeting State security requirements are clearly defined and supported by the solution.

Q0055 Sec 4.2 #10 (pp. 16–17) [Data residency, accessibility policy references; inclusivity and assistive tech support.] Confirm U.S. data residency requirements and whether single-tenant

vs. multi-tenant is prescribed statewide.

Are there sovereign cloud requirements for specific datasets (e.g., tax)?

The ERP system must comply with the State’s cybersecurity requirements for systems designated Confidential/Sensitive, consistent with State policies and standards, as well as any applicable federal cybersecurity, privacy, and data safeguarding requirements governing regulated data processed by the system (e.g., Federal Tax Information). As part of their response, offerors shall disclose where system data is stored and processed, including any cross-border data flows.

The State has not prescribed a single-tenant or multi-tenant architecture for Agencies. Offerors may propose a tenancy model that meets the State’s functional, security, and operational requirements and shall describe the implications of the proposed model, including configuration flexibility, operational complexity, cross-agency capabilities, and licensing and total cost considerations.

Q0056 Sec 4.2 #10 (pp. 16–17) [Identity & access: secure access; SoD; auditability across agencies.] What is the State’s standard for SSO/MFA (e.g., Entra ID) and SoD frameworks across agencies?

Will Maryland provide a central identity and role catalog, or should the ERP program define it?

The State does not currently operate a single statewide identity provider or centralized federated identity hub. State agencies use a variety of identify providers and authentication approaches. Offerors shall describe how the proposed ERP solution supports federated single sign-on and multi-factor authentication using industry-standard protocols, including identity providers supported and any limitations on concurrent federations with multiple identity providers.

The ERP program will define the enterprise role catalog, and the System Integrator will configure roles and segregation-of-duties controls within the ERP consistent with State-approved requirements and the selected vendor’s security model.

Q0057 Sec 6 #5 (p. 18) & Sec 4.2 #10 (pp. 16–

17) [Security incident disclosures within 5 years for proposed products.] Please confirm Maryland’s expectations for incident reporting, response SLAs, and audit participation for vendors and hosting providers.

Per RFI Section 6 General Proposed Solution Questions, #5, the State expects ERP vendors to coordinate on security incidents and to fully cooperate with security reviews and audits in accordance with agreed contractual terms.

Q0058 Sec 4.2 #10 (pp. 16–17) [Accessibility:

Section 508 and WCAG 2.1 AA;

assistive technologies and inclusive design.] Will Maryland require VPATs and periodic accessibility testing evidence? Are there specific assistive technologies widely used by State

The State, consistent with DoIT Digital Accessibility Policy and applicable nonvisual access standards, will expect any vendor awarded a contract to provide current VPAT documentation and meet all standards, employees that ERP UIs must support at launch?

including any applicable ongoing evaluation of accessibility testing.

Q0059 Sec 6 #10 (pp. 19–20) [Implementation framework; governance;

roles/responsibilities; change mgmt;

training.] Please describe Maryland’s central governance structure (steering committee, design authority, data governance council) and decision-making thresholds (config vs.

customize). Will there be a statewide template with controlled agency extensions?

The State has established and chartered a multi-tiered Governance structure.

Decisions are made at the appropriate level and escalated as necessary as it relates to scope, phasing, and prioritization. Various agencies across the state are represented throughout the Governance structure.

Q0060 Sec 6 #10 (pp. 19–20) [Data migration and testing strategies; smooth transition from legacy.] What data quality standards, golden record ownership, and MDM tooling will Maryland mandate? Define expectations for parallel runs, cutover rehearsals, and post go live reconciliation.

These requirements and expectations will be made available by the State as needed in the future (post-RFI). Vendors are encouraged to highlight capabilities related to data quality standards, golden record ownership, and MDM tooling as well as data conversion and reconciliation.

Q0061 Sec 4.2 #5 (pp. 15–16) & Sec 6 #10 (pp.

19–20) [Role-based training; simulation-based learning; onboarding; knowledge transfer.] What role based training format does Maryland prefer (simulation-based, LMS, train the trainer)? Are agency superuser networks to be established and funded?

The State is currently documenting user networks for participation in eventual training activities. For a training format, the State is looking for recommendations from vendors.

Q0062 Sec 6 #11 (p. 20) [Postimplementation maintenance & operations team composition, qualifications, roles.] What is Maryland’s target end-state for internal vs. partner-delivered operations (2–3 years post go live)? Please share expected team size and roles (functional, integration, This has not been determined by the State.

The State is interested in recommendations for the Vendor community based on their experience and best practices.

data, security, cloud ops) per agency cluster.

Q0063 Sec 6 #3 (p. 18) [Cloud hosting options for proposed solution.] Will Maryland consider RISE with SAP and hyperscaler-hosted options, and what compliance baseline must each meet? Are there prohibitions on vendor-managed hosting or preferences for State-managed cloud?

This has not been determined by the State.

The State is interested in recommendations for the Vendor community based on their experience and best practices.

Q0064 Sec 6 #13–14 (p. 19) [Licensing fees to commence at implementation and ramp during phases.] Please confirm allowed billing models (milestone based, wave go live) and any constraints for license start and ramp across phases.

Solution licensing fees are expected to commence at the time of system implementation. Please provide additional information on your proposed solution's billing models. The State requires that all responding vendors abstain from providing a price proposal in their response to this RFI.

Q0065 Sec 4.2 #6 (pp. 15–16) [Optimize TCO;

upgrade paths; scalable performance;

predictable cost structures.] What is Maryland’s preferred upgrade cadence, and are downtime windows mandated (e.g., nights/weekends, fiscal year blackout)?

The upgrade path will be determined during the implementation phase. The State seeks vendor recommendations for availability, acceptance options, required downtime, and industry standards relative to the proposed solution's upgrade cadence.

Q0066 Sec 6 #6–7 (pp. 18–19); Sec 7 (p. 20) [References requirements: statewide scope; >3 years; industry segments;

contact details.] For required statewide references (>3 years live) and industry-specific references, will Maryland accept multiproduct stacks (ERP + analytics + integration) as one reference? Is there a minimum threshold for user counts, module breadth, and migration complexity?

Yes. The State will accept multi-product stacks as one reference. References should be similar to the State's size and complexity.

Q0067 Sec 7 (p. 20) [Reference contact details;

outreach protocol.] Will Maryland contact references directly, and are vendors expected to secure preconsent from references?

The State may contact references directly.

The State recommends vendors to secure pre-consent for references submitted.

Q0068 Sec 8 (pp. 20–22) [Response format;

20-page limit; brochures; attachment limits; file naming; confidentiality.] Beyond the 20page response, does Maryland prefer appendices for product literature, security attestations (FedRAMP/SOC 2/IRS Pub 1075), and VPATs? Please confirm file naming conventions and size limits.

As described in Section 8 of the RFI, any product literature or additional appendixes a vendor desires to submit should be included as separate files, and all files must be no more than 5MB in size. If the total size of all files exceeds 35MB, they may be transmitted in multiple emails. Each file name should include the document title (i.e., "Product Brochure" or similar) and the vendor's name.

Q0069 Sec 3.3.1 (pp. 10–12) [FMIS user bases:

ADPICS (~4,200) and R*STARS (~5,000) unique users cited in RFI.] Please provide current finance-related user counts by agency and statewide totals for FMIS (ADPICS/R*STARS) and related systems, and projected post modernization counts (finance, budget, grants, treasury).

The total user counts will be determined during the implementation phase.

Q0070 Sec 3.2 (pp. 8–10) [Core functions imply distinct roles across finance and procurement lifecycle.] Can Maryland share a role-based breakdown (AP, AR, budget analysts, grant managers, treasury staff, auditors, reporting only) and any seasonal spikes requiring temporary license scaling?

Role-based breakdown will be determined during the implementation phase.

Q0071 Sec 4.2 #6–7 (pp. 15–16) [Performance & analytics objectives;

dashboards; self service usage.] What percentage of users will need full transactional access vs.

inquiry/reporting-only? Will there be external users (auditors, subrecipients)

Specific requirements related to reporting access by user role will be made available by the State as needed in the future (post-RFI).

Vendors should speak to the diversity of their reporting and analytics capabilities and recommended usage (user type and purpose) when possible, through their RFI response.

requiring limited or portal-based access?

Q0072 Sec 4.2 #6 (pp. 15–16) [Scalable performance and predictable cost structures; peak periods.] Please provide estimates for peak concurrent users during fiscal close, budget submission, and grant cycles, and any performance SLAs for response times under peak load.

Please see RFI Section 3.3.1. The current FMIS system supports 4,200 unique users in ADPICS and 5,000 unique users in R*STARS. Users in ADPICS are typically users in R*STARS. The State anticipates the proposed solution to support at minimum 5,000 users statewide upon full deployment.

Q0073 Sec 4.2 #4 (pp. 15–16) [Phased rollouts across agencies and industries over multiple years.] Confirm the number of agencies and organizational units expected to onboard per phase and their approximate finance staff counts.

The State seeks vendor recommendations on priority financial core functions from Section 3.2, Table 2 for early implementation phases versus functions that can be delayed without resulting in technical debt, significant rework, reduced solution capabilities, or breaking cross-functional dependencies. The State also seeks vendor recommendations on the number of agencies and organizational units that the proposed solution can support in waves based on the information in RFI Appendix 1 - Industries with Example Agencies.

Q0074 Sec 1 & 4 (pp. 4–16) [Planning and outcomes; high risk/high value;

transparency; modernization.] What are Maryland’s top three success criteria (e.g., cost savings, risk reduction, speed to value, compliance, UX)? How will evaluation weight functionality, approach, TCO, and vendor experience?

Refer to RFI Section 4 Objectives and Outcomes. All responses will be reviewed.

The State will not be conducting any scoring or formal evaluation of response as this is not a solicitation.

Q0075 Sec 4.2 #6–7 (pp. 15–16) [Innovation (AI, analytics), self service insights, future-ready modernization.] Is Maryland open to emerging technologies (AI driven insights, predictive analytics, The State is very interested in understanding the emerging technological capabilities available in the market. Vendors should showcase their current and automation) in scope, and are there innovation showcase opportunities during RFI/RFP?

planned capabilities when possible, through their RFI response.

Q0076 Sec 4.2 #1 (pp. 15) [Best practices, standardization, harmonization across agencies.] Should vendors propose leading practices for statewide ERP governance and shared services, or should responses adhere to current organizational structures?

The State is interested in leading practices for statewide ERP governance and shared services models.

Q0077 Sec 1 & 8 (pp. 4, 20–22) [Planning purposes RFI; subsequent RFP planned; submission instructions.] Has Maryland established a budget range or funding model for modernization, and will funding be appropriated annually or as a multiyear capital project influencing phasing?

Please see response to Q0002.

Q0078 Sec 4.2 #6 (pp. 15–16) [Optimize TCO;

predictable cost structures; scalable performance.] How important is predictable subscription pricing vs.

flexibility for scaling users and functionality over time? What are the expected User counts for each respective function? Are there cost caps or thresholds vendors should be aware of?

Please see responses to Q0069 and Q0070.

The project is expected to be muti-year and multi-phased with numerous waves. The State expects a licensing agreement that is most beneficial to the State and aligns with the anticipated go-lives.

Q0079 Sec 6 #3 (p. 18) [Cloud hosting options;

compliance.] Does Maryland have a preferred cloud provider, or is vendor-managed hosting acceptable? Are there state mandates for hyperscaler selection or sovereign cloud requirements?

The State is intentionally remaining platform agnostic for the purposes of this RFI while focusing its market research on Tier 1 cloud ERP platforms. The goal of the RFI is to understand the breadth of available options and implementation approaches that can meet statewide needs.

Q0080 Sec 4.2 #3 (pp. 15–16) [Event-driven integration infrastructure; open standards; modular architecture.] Will Maryland mandate a specific integration platform or allow vendors to propose?

Are API first mandates or event-driven architecture requirements in scope that could favor certain platforms?

The State is interested in recommendations on integration options and standards. Please see RFI Section 6 General Proposed Solution Questions, #15.

Q0081 Sec 4.2 #5 (pp. 15–16) [Role-based training and sustainable knowledge transfer.] Will Maryland score vendors on change management, training approach, agency onboarding, and post go live support as part of evaluation?

All responses will be reviewed. The State will not be conducting any scoring or formal evaluation of response as this is not a solicitation.

Q0082 Sec 2–4 (pp. 5–16) [High risk/high value initiative; legacy modernization;

governance challenges.] What are Maryland’s biggest perceived risks (data migration, agency resistance, integration complexity), and how will vendors be evaluated on risk mitigation strategies?

The State is interested in learning about risks and risk mitigation strategies from the Vendor community based on their experience. The State will not be conducting any scoring or formal evaluation of response as this is not a solicitation.

Q0083 Sec 4.2 #6 (pp. 15–16) [Optimize TCO;

sustainable operations; predictable models.] Is Maryland open to shared risk models (e.g., outcome based pricing, phased payments tied to adoption metrics)?

The State is interested in learning about shared risk models.

Q0084 Sec 4.2 #10 (pp. 16–17) [Security & accessibility standards; compliance with frameworks.] Will Maryland require third party audits (security, accessibility, financial controls) during implementation, and should vendors include these in proposals?

Vendors should expect audits. Please see Disclaimer. The State is conducting market research and is not soliciting proposals from Vendors in response to this RFI.

Q0085 Sec 6 #6–7 (pp. 18–19); Sec 7 (p. 20) [References for equal or greater size, scope, complexity; >3 years; contact details.] Does Maryland value statewide ERP references more than large agency implementations, and will references significantly influence scoring?

The State prefers Statewide ERP references.

The State will also accept large agency implementations. The State will not be conducting any scoring or formal evaluation of response as this is not a solicitation.

Q0086 Sec 4.2 #6–7 (pp. 15–16) [Innovation and analytics as future-ready modernization.] Are innovation case studies (AI, analytics, automation) relevant to Maryland’s evaluation and should they be included as appendices?

The State is interested in learning about innovation case studies. Please see RFI Section 8 Submittal Instructions for Respondents for submitting other publications in addition to your response.

The State will not be conducting any scoring or formal evaluation of response as this is not a solicitation.

Q0087 How many years of historical data must be migrated from ADPICS/R*STARS, and what is the archival vs. conversion stance?

The State is assessing historical data migration and archival requirements as part of this market research. At the RFI stage, the State is not prescribing a specific number of fiscal years; instead, we seek vendor input on option paths and tradeoffs.

Q0088 Will Maryland provide a harmonized chart of accounts before implementation?

The State intends to provide a preliminary harmonized Chart of Accounts before implementation and anticipates the selected solution will influence the final structure, hierarchy, and domain value design.

Q0089 Does Maryland require fund accounting, appropriation controls, encumbrance/pre-encumbrance, and multi-fund GL out of the box?

Yes, the State requires fund accounting, appropriation controls, encumbrance/pre-encumbrance, and a multi-fund General Ledger out-of-the-box. Please see the response to question Q0041.

Q0090 Does Maryland require fund accounting, appropriation controls, encumbrance/pre-encumbrance, and multi-fund GL out of the box?

Please see response to Q0089.

Q0091 How will Maryland ensure seamless integration between ERP and existing systems like Workday HR/Payroll, BARS, BAIS, and iValua?

Please see response to Q0052.

Q0092 Given STO’s separate banking system, what are the expectations for payment initiation, reconciliation, and positive pay?

Please see response to Q0044.

Q0093 Will Maryland require an API-first, event-driven integration platform for statewide interoperability?

Yes, the State is interested in an API-first, event-driven integration platform and seeks vendor recommendations on the ideal architecture to support the proposed solution.

Q0094 How important is a centralized governance model with clear decision rights and configuration guardrails?

The State has established and chartered a multi-tiered Governance structure. Decisions are made at the appropriate level and escalated as necessary as it relates to scope, phasing, and prioritization.

Various agencies across the state are represented throughout the Governance structure.

Q0095 How critical is embedded segregation of duties (SoD) and audit trails for financial transactions?

The State requires embedded segregation of duties (SoD) and financial transaction audit trails to enforce least-privilege access and support auditability.

Q0096 Sec 3.2 (p. 8) [Accounts Receivable & Revenue (non-tax)] What are the primary AR/revenue streams to be supported (fees, permits, intergovernmental revenue, charges for services? Should ERP own invoicing/collections workflows or only serve as the accounting system of record?

All listed AR/revenue streams are applicable to the State, and the State seeks to understand the proposed solution's full suite of Accounts Receivable & Revenue capabilities, including invoicing and collections workflow.

Q0097 Sec 3.2 (pp. 8–10) [Inter-agency activity] What are the required scenarios for inter-agency transactions (recharges, shared services, allocations, due to/due from)?

All transactions referenced are in scope for the State’s interagency activity, including: recharges, shared services, allocations, due to/due from.

Q0098 Sec 3.2 (pp. 8–10) [Financial close & consolidation] What are Maryland’s expectations for statewide close (monthly/quarterly/annual), including close calendar governance, agency cutoffs, and consolidation requirements?

Is there a requirement for centralized statewide close cockpit / close task management?

Close governance (e.g., calendar, checklists, cutoffs, consolidation, etc.) is centrally managed by the Comptroller of Maryland for the annual financial close and monthly system period close. The State seeks vendor recommendations on industry best practice around monthly, quarterly, and annual financial closes and proposed solution capabilities that can support or automate any portion of the process.

Q0099 Sec 3.2 (p. 9) [Fixed Assets / Capital Projects / Leases] What fixed-asset requirements are in scope beyond depreciation/disposal (CIP, capital project capitalization, componentization, asset inventories)? Are lease accounting requirements (e.g., GASB 87/96) expected within the ERP scope or handled externally with postings into

ERP?

The State expects all fixed assets requirements, including lease accounting to be part of ERP scope. The State seeks to understand the full suite of out-of-the-box asset management and tracking capabilities, including the financial and accounting impact of capitalized and leased assets.

Q0100 Sec 3.2 (p. 9) [Cash forecasting / liquidity] What…