RFP 260000002593 Answers to Questions Final.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 62 KB Posted
- Attached to
- EGLE-GRMD - RBDMS Modernization
- Solicitation number
- RFP 171 260000002593 3
- Issued by
- Michigan
About this file
This document is a comprehensive Q&A response file for Michigan's Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy (EGLE) Groundwater and Remediation Management Division (GRMD) related to RFP 260000002593 for MiSTAR Enhancements and Support. The RFP seeks a contractor to modernize, consolidate, and migrate legacy RBDMS (Regulatory-Based Database Management System) components into a single cloud-hosted MiSTAR platform that manages oil, gas, and UIC regulatory operations. The project encompasses system maintenance, technical support, enhancements, training, and integration capabilities, with a contract structure of a five-year base term plus five one-year renewal options. Key deliverables include migrating approximately 70 reports, remediating database schema issues (removing approximately 160 empty and deprecated tables and columns), consolidating functionality from RBDMS Desktop, WinAdmin, and the EGLE Dashboard into MiSTAR, and implementing Class VI functionality by March 2028 with a $25,000 monthly credit provision for delays. The current 24 GB database contains 83 actively utilized tables with approximately 6.9 million records across key modules including Wells, Production, Inspections, Bonding, Facilities, and Incidents. Resources must be in place immediately upon contract signature, with deployment to production required for Class VI by the fixed deadline of March 2028.
The implementation fee is firm fixed for defined scope, with changes outside baseline scope handled via formal change notice process. The State will procure all cloud hosting, software licenses, and subscriptions (AWS, Azure, or GCP standard government cloud tenants), with the contractor responsible for application development, data migration leadership, security compliance, and integration with MiLogin, Content Manager API, and ESRI services. The State currently utilizes on-premise Next Generation Digital Infrastructure (NGDI) with Windows OS and SQL Server 2019 Enterprise; the MiSTAR technology stack consists of .NET 8, SQL Server 2019 Enterprise, and API-based architecture. Post-production warranty of at least 90 days covers all implementation defects, with ongoing maintenance and support fees commencing afterward at published rates. The State has identified specific data remediation priorities but does not require comprehensive data cleansing beyond relational integrity adjustments; existing defects are excluded from scope. A 20% Geographically Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (GDBE) subcontractor spend requirement applies if the bidder claims GDBE status. The State will not extend the October 26, 2026 proposal deadline, with contract execution anticipated in late 2026 and work commencement anticipated for February or April 2027.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| MiSTAR -Enhancements and Support RFP (RBDMS) Posting 10-16-2026.docx | DOCX document | |
| Mandatory PreProposal Meeting Deadline September 29 2026 2pm.docx | DOCX document | |
| Update to bidder Question 165.docx | DOCX document | |
| Amended RFP Changes..docx | DOCX document |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Master- Answers to Questions
| MiSTAR Enhancements and Support |
| Request for Proposal No. 260000002593 |
| Description of System: MiSTAR system will serve as EGLE GRMD’s modernized, consolidated platform for managing oil, gas, and UIC regulatory operations. It will replace legacy RBDMS components by integrating their functions into a single system that improves data management, streamlines workflows, and supports reporting and tracking activities. The system will provide maintenance, technical support, enhancements, training, and integration capabilities, enabling GRMD to manage regulatory processes more efficiently. |
State Answers to Vendor Questions (Due date: 12/16/2026)
| Q# | Document and Section | Page# / Requirement# | Bidder Question | Answer |
| 1 | Proposal Instructions — Background | N/A | Can the State confirm the current/incumbents and associated contracts, contractor, and total historical contract value for RBDMS/MiSTAR maintenance and support (e.g., Contract 071B7700011)? | https://www.michigan.gov/dtmb/-/media/Project/Websites/dtmb/Procurement/Contracts/007/7700011.pdf |
| 2 | Schedule B — Pricing | N/A | Can the State confirm the current annual spend on RBDMS/MiSTAR maintenance, support, and enhancement services under the existing contract, to help bidders appropriately scope and price the new 5-year base + 5 one-year option engagement? | https://www.michigan.gov/dtmb/-/media/Project/Websites/dtmb/Procurement/Contracts/007/7700011.pdf |
| 3 | Proposal Instructions — Background | N/A | Does the State anticipate the incumbent contractor will participate in a formal transition-out process under Schedule G regardless of award outcome, or is transition cooperation contingent on the incumbent's own bid participation? | If not incumbent we will need a transition in and out. |
| 4 | Summary of Objectives Section 7 Timeline Alignment | Pg. 3 | The RFP references contract start dates of February 2027 and April 19, 2027. Which date should bidders use for pricing, staffing, project scheduling, and milestone planning assumptions? | Resources will need to in place as soon as Contract is signed, regardless of timing. |
| 5 | Proposal Instructions Section 5 Questions | Pg. 10 | Will bidders be provided access to architecture diagrams, source code inventory, database schemas, data dictionaries, interface specifications, and sample reports prior to proposal submission? | This will be provided after Contract signing. |
| 6 | Summary of Objectives Section 2 Resilience & Hosting Requirements | Pg. 3 | Has the State selected a preferred hosting platform (AWS, Azure, or GCP), or should bidders recommend their preferred cloud platform as part of the proposal? | See Schedule A, 4D. |
| 7 | Schedule A Section 4D IT Environment Responsibilities | Pg. 118 | Will cloud platform selection be evaluated as part of the technical score, and if so, what evaluation criteria will be applied? | See RFP Submission Guidelines, Section 8 "Evaluation Process" and Schedule A, 4D |
| 8 | Schedule A Section 4 State Hosted Software Solution | Pg. 118-119 | If AWS is proposed, will the application be deployed into an existing State-owned AWS Organization and account structure, or should bidders design and provision a new AWS environment within State tenancy? | Existing State cloud environment. AWS is a standard government cloud tennant. |
| 9 | Schedule A Section 4 State Hosted Software Solution | Pg. 119 | Please provide details regarding existing State cloud capabilities available to the selected vendor (Landing Zone, IAM, networking, security services, centralized logging, backup services, etc.). | AWS, Azure, and GCP cloud environments are all standard government cloud tennants. |
| 10 | Schedule A Section 4D Infrastructure Requirements | Pg. 119 | Should cloud consumption costs (compute, storage, network, managed services, support plans, and marketplace subscriptions) be included in the bidder's pricing response or procured separately by the State? | These costs should not be included. |
| 11 | Summary of Objectives Section 2 Cloud Migration | Pg. 3 | Please provide a RACI or responsibility matrix describing cloud operational responsibilities between DTMB, EGLE, Contractor, and cloud provider. | Cloud hosting - State, contractor support |
Cloud service costs - State Provisioning - Contractor/State Networking - State, contractor support Security - Contractor/State Backup - State Monitoring - State Migration - Contractor/State Cutover - Contractor/State Rollback - State, contractor support
| 12 | Schedule D Service Level Agreement | Pg. 144+ | Please confirm that deployment within a State-owned AWS, Azure, or GCP tenant qualifies as a "State Hosted Solution." | Confirmed. |
| 13 | Summary of Objectives Section 2 Cloud Migration | Pg. 3 | Please define NGDI and provide current infrastructure details, including hosting architecture, operating systems, databases, application versions, and current utilization metrics. | On-premise Next Generation Digital Infrastructure (NGDI), a private cloud for government, Windows OS and SQL DB. |
| 14 | Summary of Objectives and Appendix Integration – To-Be Architecture | Pg. 3 & 151+ | The future-state architecture description indicates DataMiner will be retired, but the To-Be Architecture still includes DataMiner and MIDataMinerSecurity. Please clarify whether DataMiner remains in scope, is replaced, or will be retired. | It appears the text description used was an old one. Dataminer and its associated database are not being retired at this time. |
| 15 | Summary of Objectives – Business Process Consolidation | Pg. 4 | Please provide a detailed inventory of functionality currently provided by the EGLE Dashboard that must be incorporated into MiSTAR. | Any functionality required has been incorporated into the business requirements. |
| 16 | Schedule A Attachment 1 Business Specifications | Pg. 130+ | Are the listed business specifications considered the complete implementation scope, or should bidders assume all existing RBDMS functionality remains in scope even if not explicitly referenced? | It is assumed the necessary functionality has been incorporated into the business requirements. See requirement #72. |
| 17 | Schedule A Attachment 1 Business Specifications | Pg. 130+ | For requirements labeled "Current," should bidders assume existing functionality is production-ready and only requires preservation, or should modernization/remediation efforts be anticipated? | Defined as: Current functionality within MISTAR which must be maintained on any new modules as needed. |
| 18 | Schedule A Attachment 1 Business Specifications | Pg. 130+ | Who will have final authority to determine functional equivalency when migrating or modernizing existing RBDMS functionality? | The State. |
| 19 | Schedule A Section 24 Milestones / Class VI Functionality | Pg. 127-129 | Please provide detailed requirements, workflows, forms, regulatory rules, acceptance criteria, and field definitions for the Class VI functionality referenced throughout the RFP. | See business requirements. |
| 20 | Schedule A Section 24 and Business Specifications #47-48 | Pg. 128 & 137-138 | Several Class VI specifications contain "unknown," "likely," and "to be determined" language. May bidders identify assumptions and submit pricing based on documented assumptions? | Yes, identify assumptions. |
| 21 | Schedule A Section 24 Milestones | Pg. 128 | Please clarify whether "Class VI Functionality by March 2028" means development completion, deployment to production, UAT completion, or formal State acceptance. | Deployment to production. |
| 22 | Schedule A Section 24 Milestones | Pg. 128 | Will the $25,000/month credit requirement apply if delays are caused by State approvals, incomplete requirements, environment provisioning delays, or third-party dependencies? | State caused dependancies, schedule changes, and penalties will be taken into account over the course of the project. |
| 23 | Schedule J Federal Reporting Requirements | Pg. 148 | Please provide the reporting format and compliance requirements associated with Class VI milestone reporting for federal funding purposes. | The Contractor for Class VI database upgrades will need to provide semiannual progress summaries each year on Class VI MiSTAR EDD development and RBDMS upgrade activities, submitted by April 15 and October 15, to support EGLE’s EPA reporting deadlines of April 30 and October 30. Each summary will describe work completed; the status of deliverables and milestones; any delays or issues; and planned next steps. In addition to the semiannual summaries, the Contractor will provide a final progress summary upon completion of all contracted work under the Class VI grant. If the Contractor’s work concludes prior to the end of the grant period, no additional summaries may be required unless specifically requested by EGLE. |
| 24 | Summary of Objectives Section 6 Data Migration | Pg. 3 | Please provide an inventory of all migration sources, databases, tables, attachments, documents, reports, and integrations included within migration scope. | Information will be provided after contract signing. |
| 25 | Summary of Objectives Section 6 Data Migration | Pg. 3 | Please provide current database sizes, record counts, attachment volumes, document counts, and anticipated annual growth rates. | Information will be provided after contract signing, as needed. |
| 26 | Section 6 Data Migration / Schedule A Section 12 Reserved | Pg. 3 & 123 | Who is responsible for data mapping, cleansing, reconciliation, transformation logic, duplicate resolution, and migration validation activities? | Contractor responsible with support and approval from State. |
| 27 | Section 6 Data Migration | Pg. 3 | Has the State conducted a data-quality assessment? If so, can findings be shared with bidders? | No. |
| 28 | Section 6 Data Migration | Pg. 3 | What migration success criteria and acceptance metrics will be required (record count reconciliation, referential integrity, document associations, GIS validation, etc.)? | 100% success and acceptance, unless agreed upon by the State after contract signing. |
| 29 | Section 6 Data Migration | Pg. 3 | How many mock migrations, dress rehearsals, and production cutovers should bidders include in scope? | Bidder must provide details in bid proposal to the State. |
| 30 | Section 6 Data Migration | Pg. 3 | Will legacy systems operate concurrently with MiSTAR during transition, and if so, for how long? | Legacy systems (ie. RBDMS Desktop) will continue to be operational until the State has accepted the functionality within MiSTAR. It will then be decommissioned once the new functionality is operational in the MiSTAR production environment. |
| 31 | Schedule A Section 10 Software Requirements | Pg. 121 | Will source code repositories for MiSTAR, RBDMS Desktop, WinAdmin, and associated integrations be made available to the selected contractor? | Yes after contract signing. |
| 32 | Schedule A Section 10 Software Requirements | Pg. 121 | Please provide application technology versions, framework versions, code volumes, release history, and current development practices. | MiSTAR - .Net 8; SQL Server 2019 Enterprise |
DataMiner - .NET Core 2; ASP.NET 4.8; C#; VB.NET; SQL Server 2019 Enterprise
NewtonSoft, jQuery and Bootstrap
The State follows Agile development practices.
| 33 | Schedule A Section 10 Software Requirements | Pg. 121 | Can current applications be built and deployed from existing source repositories without proprietary tools not provided by the State? | Yes. |
| 34 | Schedule A Section 10 Software Requirements | Pg. 121 | What automated testing assets currently exist (unit, integration, performance, security, regression testing)? | Vulnerability Security Scans only. |
| 35 | Schedule A Section 10 Software Requirements | Pg. 121 | Please provide an inventory of all third-party software, libraries, frameworks, licenses, and components currently used within the system. | NewtonSoft, jQuery and Bootstrap. |
| 36 | Schedule E Section 5.1 FedRAMP Requirements | Pg. 154 | If hosted within the State's AWS environment using AWS services already possessing FedRAMP authorization, what additional compliance responsibilities remain with the Contractor? | See Schedule E. |
| 37 | Schedule E Security Accreditation Process | Pg. 155 | Does the State currently have an approved SSP, POAM, and ATO package for MiSTAR that will be provided to the selected Contractor? | These currently exist. But, will need to be updated with this development effort. The contractor will be consulted for input on compliance and NIST controls as needed. |
| 38 | Schedule E Application and Infrastructure Scanning | Pg. 156-158 | Will DTMB provide access to State-approved security scanning tools and GRC platforms, or should bidders include all licensing and operational costs in their pricing? | The State does not provide contractors direct access to their security scanning tools or GRC platform. Vulnerability scanning reports completed by the State can be provided to the contractor for evaluation and remediation. GRC information will be gathered and entered by the State with contractor input. |
| 39 | Schedule A Section 11 Integrations | Pg. 122 | Are non-production environments available for MiLogin, Content Manager, and ESRI integration testing prior to production deployment? | Yes, at a minimum QA environments exist. |
| 40 | Schedule A Section 6 User Capacity | Pg. 120 | Are the listed user concurrency figures peak concurrent loads or average operating assumptions for infrastructure sizing purposes? | Peak concurrent loads. |
| 41 | Proposal Instructions – Confidential Treatment Form | N/A | Which Confidential Treatment Form should a vendor use, and under what circumstances does each provided form apply? | See RFP Submission Guidelines |
| 42 | Evaluation Process – Demonstrations | N/A | If demonstrations are requested, what functionality, environment, data, format, notice period, and logistics should vendors plan for? | If a Demo is required the State will provide an agenda for a virtual presentation. |
| 43 | Summary of Objectives – Technical Documentation | N/A | Can the State provide non-amendatory MyStar demonstration materials, current architecture diagrams, technology-stack documentation, or user documentation? | MiSTAR - .Net 8; SQL Server 2019 Enterprise |
DataMiner - .NET Core 2; ASP.NET 4.8; C#; VB.NET; SQL Server 2019 Enterprise Additional information is available upon contract signing.
| 44 | Schedule A Section 24 Milestones – Class VI | Pg. 127-129 | What are the required Class VI delivery milestones, grant deadlines, minimum initial scope, and acceptance criteria? | Vendor completion and State acceptance of all Class VI business specifications by March 2028, see RFP for additional details. |
| 45 | Schedule A – Desktop Migration Scope | N/A | How many desktop modules, screens, forms, reports, workflows, and checklists are expected to be migrated or modified? | The modules and checklist expected are listed in the business requirements along with the data and tables that apply to them. Data may move from one table to new table within the same database, but will not migrate to another database. Forms currently only exist in MiSTAR and don’t need to be migrated. Reports should be migrated as is, there is approximately 70 reports that need to be migrated. |
| 46 | Schedule A – Reporting Requirements | N/A | Approximately how many reports require migration, redevelopment, or enhancement, and what report technologies or templates are currently used? | Approximately 70 reports need to be migrated into the MiSTAR application. Currently reports are held as views or stored procedures (created by state admin) within the MIRBDMSNET database and handled through a combination of the WinAdmin application, XML/RDLC files, and the Desktop application report functionality. |
| 47 | Summary of Objectives – Database Cleanup | Pg. 3 | Has the State identified specific obsolete tables, referential integrity issues, data volumes, or priority data domains for remediation? | The State has identified specific obsolete tables, referential integrity issues, and priorty data domains for remediation. Specific data volumes have not been identified. |
| 48 | Schedule A Section 4 – Environment Responsibilities | Pg. 118-119 | What environments are available, and which party is responsible for provisioning, deployment, administration, and production release? | Development, Quality Assurance, and Production environments. |
The State with input and assistance from the contractor.
| 49 | Schedule A Section 11 Integrations | Pg. 122 | Are upgrades or changes planned for Content Manager, Data Miner, DNR transfers, Esri, or related interfaces during the contract period? | Regular maintence upgrades are coordinated across the enterprise and the vendor will be required to work with the State during this process to ensure continuity of the service. |
| 50 | Schedule D – Support and Maintenance | Pg. 144+ | What historical incident volumes, severity mix, enhancement volumes, support hours, and service expectations should pricing assume? | MiSTAR received its last enhancement in March of 2026. Dataminer received ADA fixes in March of 2026 as well. The CM Integration also received a security/maintenance update in 2025. Of the 12 tickets submitted in the last 12-24 months, two medium severity support tickets required vendor assistance. |
| 51 | Schedule E Security Requirements | Pg. 154-158 | What security standards, testing, documentation, background checks, and remediation timelines apply? | See State PSPs. |
| 52 | Schedule A – ADA/Accessibility Requirements | N/A | What ADA or WCAG version and conformance level must the applications meet, and who performs acceptance testing? | Please review www.michigan.gov/standards to answer this question and learn more about SOM Digital Standards. |
| 53 | Proposal Instructions – Solicitation Timeline | Pg. 1-2 | If evaluation concludes early, what activities may begin in February or March, and would the State issue an early notice to proceed or phased authorization? | Once Contract is signed, work may then begin. |
| 54 | AI supported Transition and Support | N/A | What is the decision of the MiStar team to utilize AI for Support and Migration effort and the ongoing enhancements andcOperational Improvements. | Depending on the proposed tool and approval from Enterprise AI Governance. |
| 55 | Summary of Objectives, Resilience & Hosting Requirements; Schedule A, Section 4, State Hosted Software Solution | 4; 92 | AWS, GCP, and Azure are stated as existing State cloud environments but references direct State contracts only with AWS and GCP. |
| Has the State selected the cloud platform for moving MiSTAR, DataMiner, and their associated databases from NGDI? If not, how and when will it be selected? | No, selected based on proposal and evaluation. (See Schedule A, 4D). | |||
| 56 | Schedule A, Section 4, State Hosted Software Solution and division of responsibilities | 92-93 | For each of the following areas, please identify whether the State or the Contractor is responsible, and describe any shared responsibilities: Cloud hosting, cloud service costs, provisioning, administration, networking, security, backup, monitoring, migration, cutover, parallel operation, and rollback. | |
| Cloud hosting - State, contractor support |
Cloud service costs - State Provisioning - Contractor/State Networking - State, contractor support Security - Contractor/State Backup - State Monitoring - State Migration - Contractor/State Cutover - Contractor/State Rollback - State, contractor support 57 Schedule A, Section 4, IT Environment Responsibilities 77 The RFP identifies Development, QA/UAT, and Production environments.
What environments must the contractor build or support: development, test, QA, staging, training, production, DR?
| Please list all required environments and any environment-specific requirements for availability, data refresh, access, or configuration. | Infrastructure issues needing application changes will be the responsibility of the vendor. New development work should support the cloud infrastructure. | ||||
| 58 | Summary of Objectives, Public-Facing Functionality | 4 | The RFP describes read-only public access as being “for future implementations,” but also provides estimated user and concurrency volumes. Is public-facing functionality required under this contract? If so, what capabilities are required, when must they be implemented, and how will they be accepted? | Dataminer is currently public facing and is what is represented in the user volumes given. Public access to MiSTAR would be related to Optional Business Specifications #7. | |
| 59 | Schedule A, Attachment 1, Business Specification Worksheet, Item 5, Documents | 143 | Please clarify how the RFP’s document repository requirements relate to its OpenText Content Manager requirements. Which document types must be stored in the MiSTAR repository, and which must remain in Content Manager? For documents moving to MiSTAR, please confirm the source and estimated volume, required metadata and links to MiSTAR records, retention requirements, and migration acceptance criteria. | This item is optional and would reflect a replacement of the CM document storage system and therefore a removal of the existing CM API functionality. Documents would still need to be viewable in MiSTAR as currently available via the CM API and as described in the individual module Business requirements. The requirements listed in Optional item 5 reflect what would be needed in order to replace CM. We would anticipate moving all files (524,422 files at 1196 GB). |
Metadata depends on the folder involved, each folder typically has less than 10 metadata fields.
Retention schedules are applied to a folder level with notification when documents have exceeded their time limit.
| 60 | Summary of Objectives, Legacy System Migration; Schedule A, Background and Description of Systems Being Replaced; Appendix Integration | 4; 76; 173-175 | What is the technical stack of DataMiner application at EGLE? | DataMiner - .NET Core 2; ASP.NET 4.8; C#; VB.NET; SQL Server 2019 Enterprise | |
| 61 | Summary of Objectives, Content Manager integration security and document management; Schedule A, Section 11, Integration | 4-5; 99 | Where are OpenText Content Manager and its APIs hosted? | ||
| With the understanding that APIs will be used for integration with OpenText Content Manager, please provide details on the required secure connectivity. | Within the State, see PSP's. | ||||
| 62 | Appendix Integration, Table 3, To-Be Components | 175 | Table 3 lists CM9 Web Services in the future state. Does this contract require changes to those services? If so, which party will develop, test, deploy, and support the changes, and what State review or approval is required? | Yes there would be minor updates to the CM API required. Vendor to develop and support those changes along with support State deployment. State to deploy, test and accept. | |
| 63 | Schedule A, Background, Description of Systems Being Replaced; Business Specification Worksheet, Item 44; Appendix Integration | 76; 124; 177–179 | The RFP identifies the EGLE Dashboard for retirement. Business Specification Item 44 calls for an Orphan Well list page, while Appendix Integration describes an Orphan Well dashboard for public viewing and internal editing. Do these references describe the same capability? Please confirm the required public and internal functions, edit permissions, data sources, and whether this work is in scope for this contract. | These are separate items. EGLE dashboard functionality is included in the Business requirements in separate items. Orphan Well/Facility dashboard is an ESRI item that is not a vendor responsibility. Orphan Well/Facility data and an Orphan Well/Facility list page is a requirement within MiSTAR and would be a part of this project. | |
| 64 | Summary of Objectives, Project & Implementation Objectives | 4 | Is the April 2028 date fixed, or can scope/schedule be adjusted based on discovery? Are there regulatory or statutory deadlines that need to be considered. | Only the Class VI functionality has a fixed deadline. Vendors may suggest alternate timelines based on their experience and proposed milestone schedule. | |
| 65 | Schedule A, Background and IT Environment Responsibilities | 75-76 | Are there any MIRBDMS/Desktop functions that must remain operational after MiSTAR goes live? | The Desktop will be completely retired after this project is complete and is not expected to remain live. | |
| 66 | Schedule A, Background and IT Environment Responsibilities | 75-76 | Which legacy applications/components besides Desktop, WinAdmin, and Dashboard are actually in scope for retirement or modification? | Those are the applications being retired. MiSTAR and MiSTAR Security will be modified. | |
| 67 | Schedule A, Background, Description of Systems Being Replaced; Appendix Integration | 76; 173-179 | Is MiRBDMS_Web part of the modernization scope, and is the expectation to retain, modify, replace, or retire it? | The database known as MIRBDMSNET_Web is currently a cleansed copy of the MIRBDMSNET database and is used by Dataminer and several database transfers. Vendor will work with GRMD/DTMB to decide the best use of this database and execution of State approved changes. | |
| 68 | Schedule A, Background, Description of Systems Being Replaced; Appendix Integration | 76 | Which current MiRBDMS capabilities are considered mandatory/business-critical? | See RFP business requirements. Optional items are listed in a separate table. | |
| 69 | Summary of Objectives, Operations & Governance, Training Requirements; Schedule A, Section 14, Training Services | 3; 100 | Beyond the train-the-trainer model and recorded sessions described in the RFP, are there required delivery formats, materials, recording standards, or acceptance criteria? | State currently utilizes Microsoft Teams, but is open to other formats with mutual agreement. | |
| 70 | Schedule A, Background | 76 | What framework/runtime versions are in use? | MiSTAR - .Net 8; SQL Server 2019 Enterprise |
DataMiner - .NET Core 2; ASP.NET 4.8; C#; VB.NET; SQL Server 2019 Enterprise
| 71 | Summary of Objectives, Base-Level Criteria/Unified platform modernization | 2 | Is the MiSTAR technology stack required to remain unchanged, or may the contractor refactor/modernize it? | The state would prefer to avoid changes to the technology stack that would effect the current working functionality within MiSTAR. The State is open to proposed changes with State Approval. |
| 72 | Summary of Objectives, Base-Level Criteria/Unified platform modernization | 2 | Is MiSTAR monolithic, layered, service-oriented, or based on APIs/services? | MiSTAR uses APIs. |
| 73 | Schedule A, Background | 76 | What version of RBDMS is EGLE's RBDMS derived from? | .Net |
| 74 | Summary of Objectives, Technical Requirements & Compliance; Schedule A, Sections 9–10 | 3; 96–98 | Are there State technical standards or approved technology lists that constrain the solution? | See the State PSPs. |
| 75 | Schedule D, Service Level Agreement; Nonexclusive Remedy for Security Breach | 158-160; 161 | What availability, recovery-time, and recovery-point requirements apply? | See Schedule E in RFP. |
| 76 | Schedule A, Section 4, State Hosted Software Solution | 78 | Are there restrictions on managed cloud services, containers, PaaS databases, application services, or other cloud-native technologies? | AWS, Azure, and GCP cloud environments are all standard government cloud tennants. |
| 77 | Summary of Objectives, Technical Requirements & Compliance; Appendix Integration | 3; 173-179 | What database engine and version are used today? | SQL Server 2019. |
| 78 | Summary of Objectives, Technical Requirements & Compliance; Appendix Integration | 3; 173-179 | How much business logic resides in the database versus application code? | Unknown. |
| 79 | Summary of Objectives, Data Migration; Schedule A, Section 12, Migration-Reserved | 3; 77 | How much historical data exists and how much must be migrated? | Data may move from one table to another table within the same database, but will not migrate to another database. Tables, views, stored procedures, triggers, etc currently accessed and used by the Desktop application need to be addressed. No other historic data in other locations is included in scope. Database is 24 GB currently. |
| 80 | Summary of Objectives, Data Migration; Schedule A, Section 12, Migration-Reserved | 3; 77 | Are any large datasets expected to remain in place rather than migrate? | Data may move from one table to another table within the same database, but will not migrate to another database. |
| 81 | Summary of Objectives, Data Migration; Schedule A, Section 12, Migration-Reserved | 3; 77 | Will the contractor be responsible for data cleansing/remediation, or only transformation and migration? | The vendor will not need to cleanse or otherwise remediate data beyond adjustments to relational integrity and removal of obsolete fields. Tables, views, stored procedures, triggers, etc currently accessed and used by the Desktop application need to be addressed. |
| 82 | Summary of Objectives, Data Migration; Schedule A, Section 12, Migration-Reserved | 3; 77 | Are there specific retention requirements that significantly affect storage or migration? | Data in the database is not subject to a retention schedule that will significantly effect this project. |
| 83 | Summary of Objectives, Base-Level Criteria/Unified platform modernization | 2 | What is the complete inventory of systems that interface with MiSTAR/RBDMS? | See the APPENDIX INTEGRATION (SCHEDULE A - SECTION 11) in RFP. |
| 84 | Summary of Objectives & Section 11, “Integration,” with Appendix Integration | 3-5; 98-99; 172-179 | Which existing integrations identified in Section 11 and Appendix Integration must the Contractor modify, reconfigure, replace, or otherwise support under this Contract? In addition, are any integrations required beyond those listed in the RFP? For each integration in scope, please identify the systems involved, the required work, and its purpose. | MiLogin and the Content Manager API are the only integrations listed in Section 11 that the vendor will be responsible for. All integrations are shown in APPENDIX INTEGRATION (SCHEDULE A - SECTION 11) in RFP. All required work is captured within the Business Requirements of the RFP. |
| 85 | Appendix Integration, current-state and to-be data-flow tables | 176-179 | Which external systems write into the RBDMS/MiSTAR databases? | Only the ESRI integration for Inspections/Orphan Well/Facility items has a write function from another database back into the MIRBDMSNET database. |
| 86 | Summary of Objectives, Support for Integrations; Schedule A, Section 11, Integration; Appendix Integration; Background, source code ownership | 3-5; 98-99; 172-179 | Are all integration specifications, API documentation, schemas, and source code available for functionality that needs to move as part of this project? | Yes, after contract signing. |
| 87 | Schedule A, Section 11, Integration; Appendix Integration | 98–99; 172–179 | Is ArcGIS Enterprise, ArcGIS Online, or both involved? | Both, however the ESRI integrations are state owned and will not be the responsibility of the vendor. |
| 88 | Schedule A, Section 11, Integration; Appendix Integration | 98-99; 172-179 | Will the contractor be expected to modify GIS services, layers, spatial databases, or only consume existing services? | Only consume existing services (specifically for Dataminer and the AOR portion of MiSTAR). |
| 89 | Summary of Objectives, Geospatial Support; Schedule A, Section 11, Integration; Appendix Integration | 3; 98–99; 172–179 | Are mobile/field applications part of the contractor's development responsibility or only an integration responsibility? | The ESRI integrations are state owned and will not be the responsibility of the vendor. The only requirement is that the vendor take into account the integration and receive approval from the State when making changes to the database. |
| 90 | Schedule E, Data Security Requirements | 156 | Please confirm contractor responsibilities within Schedule E. | Bidder must agree to Data Security Requirements as presented in Schedule E. |
| 91 | Summary of Objectives, Security Requirements; Schedule E, Data Security Requirements | 3; 156 | Is the contractor responsible for redesigning/consolidating MiSTAR to conform to Schedule E? | For any work performed by the vendor, vendor must adhere to all Schedule E Data Security Requirements. |
| 92 | Milestones/Deliverables for Implementation | 94 | Is Class VI development expected to run concurrently with the RBDMS migration? | No. Class VI needs to be completed by the March 2028 deadline while the remaining development work is more flexible. It is up to the vendor to propose a strategy for managing the timelines. |
| 93 | Schedule A, Attachment 1, Business Specification Worksheet, Reports/Letters items 73–74 | 135 | Which existing RBDMS and MiSTAR reports must be migrated, modified, consolidated, or newly developed within this scope of work? For each report, please identify its data sources and historical data requirements, whether that data will be migrated, and the applicable report acceptance or reconciliation criteria. | Approximately 70 reports need to be migrated into the MiSTAR application. Currently reports are held as views or stored procedures (created by state admin) within the MIRBDMSNET database and handled through a combination of the WinAdmin application, XML/RDLC files, and the Desktop application report functionality. |
| 94 | Schedule A, Attachment 1, Business Specification Worksheet, Reports/Letters items 73–74 | 135 | What reporting technologies are currently used? | Approximately 70 reports need to be migrated into the MiSTAR application. Currently reports are held as views or stored procedures (created by state admin) within the MIRBDMSNET database and handled through a combination of the WinAdmin application, XML/RDLC files, and the Desktop application report functionality. |
| 95 | Schedule A, Attachment 1, Business Specification Worksheet, Reports/Letters items 73–74 | 3; 135 | Are regulatory reports technically complex or dependent on extensive historical data, and will that data all be moved from legacy? | All data used for reports is held within the current MiRBDMSNET Database and accessed via views or stored procedures. |
| 96 | Summary of Objectives, Technical Requirements & Compliance; Appendix Integration | 3; 173-179 | What is the database size and expected annual growth? | 24 GB, Annual growth unknown. |
| 97 | Schedule A, Background | 76 | Are there large batch-processing workloads? | There are multiple schedule jobs to transfer data from one database to another, as shown in the APPENDIX INTEGRATION (SCHEDULE A - SECTION 11) in the RFP. Otherwise there are no large batch processing jobs. |
| 98 | Schedule A, Background | 76 | Are there current performance issues that modernization is expected to solve? | No. |
| 99 | Milestones/Deliverables for Implementation | 94 | Which party is responsible for leading requirements definition and business analysis, including documenting, validating, and obtaining approval for business requirements? | Vendor is responsible for leading and working with the State. |
| 100 | Contractor Personnel; Contractor Key Personnel; Schedule B, Rate Card for Ancillary Professional Services | 102-103, 174 | Does the State require dedicated Contractor resources for UX, database administration, GIS, or DevOps? If so, please identify the required roles, qualifications, and expected level of effort or allocation by project phase. | The required contractor resources are listed in the RFP. |
| 101 | Summary of Objectives; Schedule A §3; Attachment 1 – Business Specifications; Schedule B §1 | 3–5, 91, 113–171, 172 | For the firm-fixed implementation price, can the State provide a definitive, itemized baseline of all functionality to be retained, moved from RBDMS Desktop/WinAdmin/EGLE Dashboard, or newly created in MiSTAR? Please clarify whether each 'Move' and 'Create' requirement—including associated reports, permissions, validations, and business rules—is included in the mandatory baseline, and how subsequently discovered functionality will be handled. | See business requirements, additional information can be provided after Contract signing. Any changes outside the scope of the contract will be handled via change notice. |
| 102 | Summary of Objectives; Appendix Integration – To-Be Architecture | 3–5, 207–209 | The Summary of Objectives requires continuing DataMiner support and cloud migration, while the To-Be Architecture narrative describes DataMiner as retired but its component and data-flow tables retain it. Which statement is controlling? Please identify whether DataMiner must be maintained, migrated, refactored, integrated, replaced, or retired, and the associated completion milestone. | It appears the text description used was an old one. Dataminer and its associated database are not being retired at this time. |
| 103 | Schedule A §24 – Milestones; Schedule A Attachment 1 – Business Specifications | 110–111, 113–171 | For Class VI functionality due by March 2028, will the State provide a defined functional and regulatory acceptance baseline, required interfaces and data sets, and objective test criteria? Please clarify whether new or evolving Class VI requirements after baseline approval are subject to formal change control and how State-caused dependencies affect the $25,000-per-month milestone credit. | See Business Specifications. Any changes outside the scope of the contract will be handled via change notice, State caused dependancies, schedule changes and penalties taken into account. |
| 104 | Schedule A §2–3; Appendix Integration – As-Is Architecture; Attachment 1 | 90–91, 113–171, 203–207 | Can the State provide an inventory of the legacy RBDMS Desktop, WinAdmin, and EGLE Dashboard modules to be absorbed by MiSTAR, including screen/report counts, workflows, scheduled jobs, stored procedures, custom business rules, role permissions, and unsupported or obsolete features? Which functionality may be rationalized or decommissioned rather than rebuilt like-for-like? | Modules and their data sets, functionality, custom business rules are included in the Business Requirements. Scheduled jobs are shown in the integration appendix. Permissions go down to the data set levels. The database has at least 250 stored procedures and 70 reports. |
| 105 | Schedule A §2, §4, §16; Appendix Integration | 90–93, 101–102, 203–209 | What are the current MiSTAR, DataMiner, and legacy application technology stacks, framework/runtime versions, database versions, source-control repositories, build/deployment tools, third-party dependencies, and existing architectural documentation? Please indicate what source code, automated tests, and build instructions will be transferred and whether any components cannot currently be built or deployed reproducibly. | MiSTAR - .Net 8; SQL Server 2019 Enterprise |
DataMiner - .NET Core 2; ASP.NET 4.8; C#; VB.NET; SQL Server 2019 Enterprise Additional information/source code is available upon contract signing.
| 106 | Schedule A §3, §15–16, §24; Schedule B §1 | 91, 101–102, 109–110, 172 | Will the initial requirements/design validation period include State-facilitated source-code, data, interface, and technical-debt assessment before the detailed work-package baseline is accepted? Where material undocumented functionality, inherited defects, unsupported dependencies, or data-quality problems are identified after award, will the parties evaluate their schedule and cost impacts through the approved change-control process rather than presume them included in the fixed fee? | Source code will be provided after contract signing and any changes outside the scope of the contract will be handled by change notices. Existing defects are not considered in scope for this RFP. |
| 107 | Summary of Objectives – Data Migration; Schedule A §11; Appendix Integration | 5, 98–99, 203–210 | Can the State provide source/target database inventories and estimated row counts, database sizes, growth, retention requirements, transformation rules, and historical data ranges for legacy-to-MiSTAR and NGDI-to-cloud migration? Please identify tables or datasets expressly excluded from migration and the required reconciliation, rollback, cutover, and business-signoff criteria. | Database is 24GB (growth unknown), See Sheet A tab in this document for additional database details. Data may move from one table to new table within the same database, but will not migrate to another database. Data in the database is also not subject to a relevant retention. Additional information will be provided after contract signing. |
| 108 | Summary of Objectives – Data Migration; Schedule A §8, §24; Appendix Integration | 5, 95, 109–111, 203–210 | Which party will profile, cleanse, deduplicate, correct referential-integrity errors, resolve legacy data anomalies, and sign off migrated data? Can the State identify known data-quality issues and clarify whether substantive remediation of preexisting source-data defects is an included implementation deliverable or separately authorized work? | The State has identified specific obsolete tables, referential integrity issues, and priorty data domains for remediation. Specific data volumes have not been identified. The vendor will not need to cleanse or otherwise remediate data beyond adjustments to relational integrity and removal of obsolete fields. Tables, views, stored procedures, triggers, etc currently accessed and used by the Desktop application need to be addressed. |
| 109 | Schedule A §11C; Appendix Integration – Data Flows | 99, 205–210 | For the existing ESRI and SQL Server Integration Services exchanges—including nightly refreshes and bidirectional CSSAGENCYEDIT transfers—can the State supply package inventories, job schedules, transformation and schema mappings, exception logs, service accounts, and interface owners? Must existing SSIS packages be modified for the new cloud environment, and who owns GIS-side remediation and end-to-end testing? | The ESRI integrations are state owned and will not be the responsibility of the vendor. The only requirement is that the vendor take into account the integration when making changes to the database to attempt to reduce impact and to work with GRMD on this. |
| 110 | Schedule A §11B; Appendix Integration | 99, 205, 209 | For the OpenText Content Manager/CM9 read-only integration, should the Contractor implement only document retrieval/viewing in MiSTAR or also metadata search, security trimming, audit logging, attachment linking, and error recovery? Will the State provide working API specifications, test endpoints, sample responses and CM subject-matter experts, and which party resolves defects at the CM service boundary? | Currently the integration is just retrieval. The enterprise content manager team supports the content mangager, the contractor will support the integration from MiSTAR and Dataminer. Additional information is available upon contract signing. |
| 111 | Schedule A §7, §11A; Appendix Integration | 94, 98, 203–209 | Beyond retaining MiLogin federation, must the Contractor redesign or migrate legacy RBDMS/WinAdmin permissions into MiSTAR's role model, consolidate user/security databases, and implement administrative MFA? Please provide the expected identity/role mapping, accepted SAML or OIDC patterns, test tenant availability, and which State team owns MiLogin configuration and approvals. | Users can be handled by the admin, no consolidation of databases is needed. New roles similar to old roles in WinAdmin will need to be created for various modules. MFA through MiLogin will need to be configured for administrators/MiSTAR Security. MiSTAR is currently using SAML, lower environments are available. MiLogin configuration is owned by the State Enterprise MiLogin Team and Vendor. |
| 112 | Summary of Objectives – Resilience & Hosting; Schedule A §4, §24 | 4, 91–93, 110 | Which cloud provider and State tenancy should bidders assume for MiSTAR, DataMiner, and their databases, and what is the detailed State-versus-Contractor responsibility split for landing zones, network connectivity, IaC, database migration, identity, monitoring, backup, disaster recovery, and cutover? Will the State provision compliant development/test/production environments and required connectivity by the 90-day environment milestone? | This is State hosted per RFP. Vendor to propose their preferred cloud provider, see Schedule A 4D. Infrastructure issues needing application changes will be responsibility of the vendor. New development work should support the cloud infrastructure. |
| 113 | Schedule A §4D; Schedule B §§1, 4–5; Summary of Objectives | 4, 92, 172–174 | Will the State pay cloud consumption, data egress, managed database, backup, monitoring, security-tool, and existing third-party license charges directly under its own agreements, or must any of those costs be included in the Contractor's firm-fixed fees? Please identify existing licenses and any new licenses or subscriptions that the Contractor must procure and price. | Yes, the State does/will pay for these. |
| 114 | Schedule A §§4, 9–10; Schedule E §§6, 9–10 | 91–93, 96–98, 189–192 | What development, QA/UAT, and production-equivalent environments, sanitized test datasets, CI/CD permissions, automated test assets, and deployment approvals will be available at contract start? Will State-provided environments and approved tools be sufficient to perform integration, performance, accessibility, and security testing without the Contractor purchasing additional infrastructure? | See Schedule E - DATA SECURITY REQUIREMENTS for contractor responsibilities. |
| 115 | Schedule A §11; Appendix Integration – As-Is/To-Be Data Flows; Schedule A §24 | 98–99, 205–210, 109–111 | Who will coordinate and approve end-to-end regression testing of MiSTAR, DataMiner, MiLogin, Content Manager, ESRI, DNR WEB, LOTS, and overnight/reporting interfaces after migration? Can the State identify interface owners, maintenance windows, representative test cases, and acceptance criteria, particularly where State or third-party teams must change upstream/downstream systems? | ESRI, DNR WEB, and LOTs are state owned and will not be the responsibility of the vendor. The State in conjunction with the vendor will coordinate testing for the State's approval. Yes the State will identify the necessary contacts and information throughout implementation. |
| 116 | Schedule A §§2–3, 16; Schedule D §2 | 90–91, 101, 179–182 | Before support responsibility transfers, can the State provide the current defect backlog, unresolved incidents, enhancement queue, known performance bottlenecks, unsupported runtime dependencies, and availability history for MiSTAR and DataMiner? Will inherited defects be baselined and prioritized separately from defects introduced by the Contractor? | Existing defects are not considered in scope for this RFP. |
| 117 | Schedule D §§1–2; Schedule B §3 | 178–183, 173 | Can the State provide 12–24 months of MiSTAR/DataMiner support history by severity, monthly ticket volume, incident duration, root-cause category, repeat incidents, change/release frequency, and typical engineering hours? Please distinguish first-line tickets resolved by the State from incidents escalated to the Contractor for second-line support. | MiSTAR received its last enhancement in March of 2026. Dataminer received ADA fixes in March of 2026 as well. The CM Integration also received a security/maintenance update in 2025. Of the 12 tickets submitted, two medium severity support tickets required vendor assistance. |
| 118 | Schedule D §§1–2.3; Schedule A §21 | 178–180, 107–108 | What specific activities remain with DTMB/EGLE first-line support—user account administration, password issues, incident triage, data correction, infrastructure monitoring, backups, middleware troubleshooting, and root-cause isolation—versus Contractor second-line support? May the Contractor rely on documented State diagnostics, logs, and staff assistance before SLA response and resolution obligations apply? | The State handles user accounts, initial triage, data fixes, password issues, infrastructure, backups, etc. The State attempts to resolve before contacting the vendor. See Schedule D Section 2. |
| 119 | Schedule D §§2.2–2.6 – SLA metrics, workarounds and extensions | 180–182 | For the four-hour Critical Service Error resolution requirement, does the SLA clock operate only during the stated 8:00 AM–5:00 PM Eastern support hours, and does it pause for State/third-party dependencies or authorized maintenance? Please specify the process and decision timeframe for written acceptance of a workaround and whether a workable interim fix satisfies the Critical resolution measure before reclassification to High. | This is defined in Schedule D. |
| 120 | Schedule D §§1, 3 – State Cause and Service Level Credits | 179, 183–184 | How will service-level credit liability be allocated when a single incident has multiple causes or involves State-managed hosting, cloud outages, MiLogin, ESRI, Content Manager, or other third-party components outside Contractor control? Are simultaneous response and resolution credits cumulative for one event, and is there an aggregate monthly cap on credits relative to the Support Service Fee? | Contractor is responsible for outages caused by Contractor, please see the SLA Schedule. Please see SLA Schedule and note this language: "If the Contractor fails to meet the Service Level Metrics, the State will be entitled to the corresponding Service Level Credits specified in the table below provided that the relevant Service Error did not result from a State Cause." Applicability of Service Level Credits remains in the sole discretion of the State. |
| 121 | Schedule D §2.1(d); Schedule B §6 – Travel and Expenses; Schedule A §22 | 180, 174, 108 | Because the SLA requires on-premise second-line support when remote support will not resolve an issue and Schedule B excludes travel reimbursement, can the State identify expected support locations, typical historic on-site callouts, required on-site response windows, and whether planned deployment/cutover and emergency travel must all be included in the fixed support/implementation fees? | On-site location is in Lansing, Michigan. There is no history of needing on-site support. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .