RFP 6490 - Amendment 2.pdf

San Bernardino County Purchasing Department

Request for Information New Budgeting System

No. CAO127-CAO4-6490

Date: September 25, 2026

Amendment #1: to RFI No. CAO127-CAO4-6490 New Budgeting System

This Amendment is intended to provide additional information and/or to change the requirements in the above referenced RFI. Any information contained herein will be considered part of the RFI.

Amendment Description:

(1) ATTACHMENT K – Q&A RESPONSE is hereby incorporated into the RFI.

(2) Timeline is modified as follows in yellow highlight:

Release of RFI August 21, 2026

Deadline for Submission of Questions September 4, 2026, 5:00 PM PST

Deadline for Proposals October 7, 2026, 2:00 PM PST

Tentative Date for Demonstrations Week of October 13th, 2026

Request for Information

ATTACHMENT K

Q&A RESPONSE

RFI CAO127-CAO4-6490

Item No. Question Response

Please identify the current systems and tools used for budget preparation, forecasting, personnel budgeting, reporting, capital planning, cash forecasting, and budget-book production, including whether SAP Budget and Planning, Budget Prep, spreadsheets, or departmental applications remain in use. Which systems or processes does the County anticipate replacing, retaining, or operating in parallel?

The County currently uses SAP - Buget and Planning Module (SBP), for annual budget development, budget data entry, personnel cost budgeting, and related budget reporting. SAP S/4HANA is used for financial accounting, actuals, budget execution, and Year-End Estimates, with YEE functionality accessed through SAP Fiori. EMACS, the County’s Oracle PeopleSoft system, is the authoritative source for employee, position, classification, compensation, benefits, and other Human Resources information that supports the budget process. Excel workbooks, County templates, Access databases, SharePoint, shared drives, County-developed applications, Power BI and other reporting tools, and departmental applications are also used for supporting calculations, reconciliations, capital planning, cash forecasting, reporting, and other analysis.

For budget-book production, budget data is exported from SBP into Excel spreadsheets, while narrative and other supporting content are maintained in Microsoft Word.

County Communications uses Adobe InDesign to design and assemble the final budget publication. MadeToTag will be incorporated into the InDesign process to support accessibility remediation and production of an accessible

PDF.

The future budgeting solution is expected to assume the annual budget development, personnel cost budgeting, Request for Information workflow, approvals, version control, and budget reporting functions currently supported through SBP and related budget-specific processes. SAP S/4HANA, including the County’s Year-End Estimate process, EMACS/PeopleSoft, and other enterprise and departmental tools will continue to be used where they support functions outside the scope of the new budgeting solution. Oracle Fusion HCM is a future integration point.

During implementation, the current and new budgeting solutions may operate in parallel to support data conversion, reconciliation, testing, and production readiness.

Please provide the anticipated breakdown of the County's 300-plus users by role, including system administrators or model builders, central budget staff, departmental contributors, approvers, executives, report developers, viewers, and occasional users.

The majority of the County’s 300-plus users are anticipated to be departmental budget and fiscal staff who prepare, enter, analyze, review, and monitor budget information. This group includes Finance Analysts, Budget Officers, Staff Analysts I and II, Administrative Supervisors I and II, accountants, fiscal specialists, and comparable classifications.

CAO Finance staff will coordinate the Countywide budget process, review departmental submissions, monitor Requirements and Sources, and prepare Countywide budget recommendations and reports. System administration and model-building responsibilities will be performed primarily by the Auditor- Controller/Treasurer/Tax Collector Center of Excellence, with support from the central budget coordinator and budget system support staff. Primary executive review will be performed by the CEO, County Chief Financial Officer, Deputy Executive Officers, and CAO executive staff.

Request for Information

What is the County's desired implementation start date, target budget cycle and go-live date? Does the County anticipate a phased rollout or an enterprise-wide implementation, and will parallel operation with the existing budgeting system be required for a complete budget cycle?

The County anticipates a phased implementation following contract execution, followed by an enterprise-wide production go-live. The specific start date, target budget cycle, and implementation schedule will be established with the selected vendor based on project readiness, the County’s budget calendar, system configuration, integrations, data conversion, testing, training, and operational readiness.

The new budgeting solution is expected to operate in parallel with the current budgeting solution for one complete budget cycle. During the parallel cycle, the County will compare and reconcile budget data, personnel costs, Requirements and Sources, workflows, calculations, and reports between the two systems.

Following successful completion of the parallel budget cycle, testing, reconciliation, and County acceptance, the County anticipates full production cutover at the beginning of the next budget cycle.

Please identify the anticipated County resources available for the implementation, including central budget subject-matter experts, departmental representatives, SAP and Oracle integration resources, security and identity-management personnel, data owners, testing participants, trainers, and executive sponsors.

The County anticipates a cross-functional implementation team led by CAO Finance and Administration. County Budget staff will provide budget process subject-matter expertise, business requirements, configuration review, data validation, testing, and user acceptance support.

The Auditor-Controller/Treasurer/Tax Collector Center of Excellence is expected to have a significant role in system administration, configuration, technical design, data integration, reporting, testing, and ongoing support requirements. Human Resources will provide subject-matter expertise and data support related to EMACS, positions, compensation, and benefits. The Innovation and Technology Department will support security, identity and access management, environments, integration standards, and technical testing. Departmental representatives, data owners, trainers, testing participants, and CAO executive sponsors will also participate as appropriate. Specific staffing levels and time commitments will be determined during implementation planning.

Request for Information

Please identify required environments, such as development, test, user-acceptance testing, training, and production, as well as the County's identity provider, automated-provisioning requirements, data-residency requirements, and security classifications applicable to detailed personnel and financial information.

The proposed solution should support appropriate production and non-production environments necessary for implementation, testing, user acceptance, training, and ongoing support. Respondents should identify their recommended environment structure and any associated licensing, infrastructure, or resource requirements. The solution must also support integration with County identity and access management services, including MFA and automated user provisioning/deprovisioning capabilities where applicable. Specific identity provider and provisioning requirements will be subject to County identity and cybersecurity standards. Hosting and data residency must comply with applicable County cybersecurity, privacy, records, and data-protection requirements. Specific security requirements and classifications will be determined based on the solution architecture, system risk, and the personnel and financial information processed by the system.

For illustrative pricing and the requested 10-year total-cost-of-ownership estimate, should respondents assume enterprise-wide deployment of all identified capabilities, or may respondents present phased pricing for priority capabilities followed by optional modules or later phases? May software licensing and implementation services be priced separately?

Respondents may present both enterprise-wide and phased pricing, with priority capabilities separated from optional modules or later phases. Software licensing or subscription, implementation services, integrations, data conversion, additional environments, training, support, artificial intelligence, third-party products, and all other recurring and nonrecurring costs should be separately identified while also providing the requested 10-year total-cost-of-ownership estimate.

Which AI-enabled capabilities are priorities for initial implementation, and which are being evaluated for future adoption? Would the County permit functionality that uses an identified third-party model provider when data handling, security, retention, permissions, human review, and audit controls are fully disclosed?

The County has not designated a final set of artificial intelligence capabilities for initial implementation. For this RFI, respondents should identify production-ready capabilities for forecasting, variance and anomaly analysis, natural-language inquiry, narrative drafting, document review, and administrative assistance and distinguish those capabilities from roadmap items. Use of a disclosed third-party model provider may be considered subject to County security and privacy review, permission-trimmed access, controls against unauthorized model training, defined processing and retention practices, human review, auditability, and cost controls.

For budget-book production, does the County require all narrative authoring and publication capabilities to be native to the proposed budgeting platform, or would an integrated third-party narrative-reporting or document-production solution be acceptable if clearly identified and priced?

The County does not require all narrative authoring and publication capabilities to be native to the proposed budgeting platform. An integrated third-party narrative-reporting or document-production solution may be proposed, provided it meets the County’s functional, security, accessibility, integration, and support requirements. Respondents must clearly identify all third-party dependencies, licensing, integration methods, data-

Request for Information refresh behavior, accessibility capabilities, support responsibilities, and 10-year total cost of ownership.

Please provide representative information regarding the County's planning dimensions and expected data volumes, including the number of funds, departments, programs, accounts, grants, projects, organizational hierarchy levels, historical years, budget versions, forecast scenarios, and planning intersections expected to be maintained.

The County’s current budget structure includes approximately 623 fund codes, 46 departments and other agencies, 716 budget units, 416 Capital Improvement Program projects, and 27,592 budgeted positions. The 716 budget units span General Fund, Restricted General Fund, Special Revenue, Capital Improvement, Enterprise, Internal Service, Special Districts, Fire Protection District, and Other Agency funds.

Will the County require 50-plus departments to plan simultaneously within a shared enterprise environment, with immediate consolidation and centralized visibility, rather than through separate departmental models, sequential planning processes, or disconnected files?

Yes. The solution should support simultaneous planning across 50+ departments in a shared, governed enterprise environment with role-based access, centralized visibility, workflow, immediate or scheduled consolidation, and controls that prevent disconnected versions and unintended overwrites.

Should respondents identify every programming or scripting language, specialist technical skill, and vendor resource required to configure and maintain the proposed solution, including Groovy, VB.NET, JavaScript, SQL, proprietary calculation scripts, or similar technologies? Should these ongoing resource requirements be included in the 10-year total-cost-of-ownership estimate?

Respondents should identify all programming/scripting languages, proprietary technologies, specialized technical skills, vendor resources, licenses, and other resources required to implement, configure, integrate, administer, support, and enhance the solution.

Respondents should distinguish between implementation-only and ongoing requirements and include ongoing resource and licensing requirements in the 10-year TCO.

Will the County require multi-year scenarios to be created, copied, compared, and revised across financial, workforce, operational, and capital plans using shared assumptions, with immediate calculation of downstream effects and complete traceability to the underlying drivers?

Yes. The solution should support the creation, copying, branching, comparison, revision, freezing, and archiving of multi-year scenarios across financial, workforce, operational, and capital plans, with shared assumptions, recalculation of downstream effects, version comparison, data lineage, and complete audit history.

Does the County have a preferred or required integration architecture, middleware platform, or enterprise integration standard that respondents should assume for connections to SAP, Oracle, and other source systems, such as SAP Integration Suite or another middleware platform? If so, please identify the applicable platform and any required technical standards or protocols.

The County does not intend to prescribe a single middleware product at the RFI stage. The County prefers standards-based, API-first integration using secure and supportable interfaces. Respondents should describe their recommended architecture for integration with SAP S/4HANA, Oracle Fusion HCM, and other County systems, including APIs, web services, secure file transfer, batch integration, and any required middleware. Final architecture will be subject to County enterprise architecture, cybersecurity, and integration standards.

Request for Information

For the demonstration week, will the County provide a prescribed demonstration script, use cases, and/or sample data, or should respondents demonstrate the proposed solution using their own representative data and scenarios?

The County will provide an agenda to guide the demonstrations.

In addition to the historical years and data volumes requested in Question 9, what level of historical data granularity should respondents assume for conversion into the new system, for example, summary-level, account-level, transaction-level, or another level of detail?

The final conversion scope and level of historical-data granularity have not been determined. Respondents should provide clearly stated assumptions and tiered options for summary-level, account-level, position-level, and transaction-level history, including the effects on cost, schedule, performance, reconciliation, retention, and archival access. At a minimum, the proposed approach should support the history needed for multi-year trend analysis, forecasting, audit, and comparison of prior budget versions.

Please confirm the anticipated duration, number, and format of demonstration sessions per respondent, including whether demonstrations will be conducted virtually or in person and whether multiple sessions or audience-specific demonstrations are expected.

Information is not finalized as of yet. The County will provide an agenda and necessary information to guide the demonstrations when it is available.

We recognize that the RFI generally directs questions and communications through the County's ePro system. However, in Section IV.U, Demonstration Guide & Business Scenarios, the RFI specifically states that organizations interested in providing a demonstration should reach out to the RFI Contact listed above and the contact information is provided in Section I. Introduction. B. RFI Contact. Please let us know if this demonstration request should also be submitted through ePro or through email and please let us know if there are any additional scheduling or participation instructions we should follow.

Please communicate with the identified RFI contact to confirm your company's interest in providing a demonstration.

What are the County's top pain points in the current budget/forecast process, and what outcomes or success measures would define a successful new solution?

The County seeks a modern, configurable budgeting solution that addresses slow data entry and report processing while reducing spreadsheet dependence, duplicate data entry, reconciliation of budget, actual, and position information, inconsistent departmental practices, and labor-intensive budget-book updates. The solution should support Countywide annual budget development, mid-cycle adjustments, financial planning, budget request package management, personnel cost budgeting, workflow and approvals, version control, audit history, and reporting.

The solution should be adaptable to County business processes, integrate with existing and future County systems, support the secure use and integration of artificial intelligence capabilities, improve data accuracy, Request for Information timeliness, system performance, and the user experience, and allow County staff to independently administer routine system functions.

Who are the executive sponsors and key stakeholders for this initiative, and what governance/decision-making structure is planned (steering committee, approvals, change control)?

The County is not at liberty to disclose this information.

Where is budgeting and forecasting performed today (in an ERP module, separate budgeting software, spreadsheets, or other tools), and what are the major handoffs between systems?

Budget development is currently performed in SBP, the County’s SAP budgeting module. SAP S/4HANA is used for financial accounting, actuals, budget execution, and Year-End Estimates (YEE), with YEE functionality accessed through SAP Fiori. EMACS, the County’s Oracle PeopleSoft system, maintains employee, position, classification, compensation, benefits, and related Human Resources information. Excel workbooks and County templates are also used for supporting calculations and analysis.

Major handoffs include transferring and reconciling position and personnel information between EMACS and SBP, using SAP S/4HANA financial information during budget development and financial analysis, and entering supporting calculations from spreadsheets and templates into SBP. For budget-book production, budget data is exported from SBP into Excel spreadsheets, while narrative and other supporting content are maintained in Microsoft Word documents and provided to County Communications for design and production in Adobe InDesign. These handoffs require manual data entry, reconciliation, and validation across systems.

Beyond spreadsheets, what other tools or artifacts are used today (e.g., Access databases, SharePoint, custom apps, BI tools, offline templates), and what is expected to be replaced vs retained?

Beyond spreadsheets, the County uses Access databases, SharePoint, shared drives, County-developed applications, Power BI and other reporting tools, SAP S/4HANA and EMACS reports and data extracts, standardized offline templates, Adobe InDesign, and PDF accessibility and remediation tools. These enterprise and supporting tools are expected to be retained where they

Request for Information continue to serve Countywide or departmental business needs.

What are the key planning and reporting dimensions the solution must support (department, division, fund, cost center, program, project, position), and what are the approximate counts for each?

The County’s current budget structure includes approximately 623 fund codes, 46 departments and other agencies, 716 budget units, 416 Capital Improvement Program projects, and 27,592 budgeted positions. The 716 budget units span General Fund, Restricted General Fund, Special Revenue, Capital Improvement, Enterprise, Internal Service, Special Districts, Fire Protection District, and Other Agency funds.

The County’s budget structure captures Requirements, Sources, Net County Cost, Use of Fund Balance/Net Position, and Budgeted Staffing at the applicable budget unit level. The 416 Capital Improvement Program projects include projects administered by the Project and Facilities Management Department, Real Estate Services Department, Public Works – Transportation, Public Works

– Solid Waste Management, Public Works – Flood Control, San Bernardino County Fire Protection District, and Public Works – Special Districts.

Do statutory/external reporting requirements differ from internal management/budget reporting views, and does the County require alternate hierarchies/mappings to support both?

The solution should support alternate hierarchies, mappings, and reporting structures so that statutory/external reporting requirements can coexist with internal budget, organizational, operational, and management reporting without unnecessary duplication of data structures. Specific statutory and management reporting requirements will be further defined during requirements/design.

How are cost allocations handled today for budgeting/forecasting (drivers, rules, effective dating, manual adjustments), and what allocation capabilities are required in the future solution?

Cost allocations are currently handled through a combination of established allocation methodologies, system-based calculations, and manual adjustments, depending on the type of cost and budgeting process. For the future solution, the County is seeking flexible, configurable allocation capabilities that support driver-and rules-based methodologies, effective-dated changes, allocations across multiple funds, departments, programs, grants, projects, or other dimensions, authorized manual adjustments with audit history, and the ability to centrally update assumptions and trace allocated amounts back to the underlying methodology and source data.

Request for Information

What is the County's forecast cadence today and desired cadence in the future (monthly, quarterly, ad hoc), and what forecast horizon is required (FY-only, rolling 12/18 months, 3-year, 5-year), potentially by process area?

The County’s forecasting cadence varies by process area.

Departments prepare Year-End Estimates monthly through the end of the current fiscal year in SAP S/4HANA.

Additional financial analysis is performed during the Mid- Year process and on an ad hoc basis as needed. For longer-term planning, the County maintains a five-year General Fund forecast.

The future budgeting solution should support annual budget development, Mid-Year and ad hoc financial planning, fiscal-year analysis, and five-year financial planning, with flexibility to accommodate additional planning horizons as County needs evolve.

How frequently do budget, forecasting, and reporting requirements change (organizational changes, chart of accounts changes, new project IDs, new board reporting needs), and how should changes be governed?

Budgeting, forecasting, organizational, master-data, and reporting requirements can change throughout the year due to reorganizations, new funds or accounts or projects, labor and benefit changes, Board direction, and new reporting needs. The solution should support governed, effective-dated changes with role-based approvals, impact analysis, testing, audit history, and controlled propagation to models, security, workflows, and reports

Are there any required "must-match" report formats (rows/columns/headers/layout) that need to be reproduced exactly in the new solution, and which reports have flexibility to adopt best-practice formats?

Certain core budget development, staffing, reconciliation, and review reports will need to retain their established structure, including required rows, columns, headings, calculations, and level of detail. Other management reports, dashboards, ad hoc analyses, and newly developed reports may use best-practice formats and improved layouts, provided they meet County reporting needs and reconcile to the underlying data.

Of the estimated 300+ users, what is the expected breakdown by role (data entry, approver, reviewer, executive viewer, read-only), and what are peak concurrency expectations during budget season?

The 300+ users have access to the budgeting system.

During the annual Budget and Mid-Year processes, the CAO/central budget coordinator opens the applicable data-entry modules so departmental users can enter budget information and run reports. When each process closes, the data-entry modules are hidden and users generally retain report-only access. County Budget staff, DEOs, the CFO, CAO executive leadership (~40 staff) have access appropriate to their review, analysis, approval, and reporting responsibilities.

Does the County use a data warehouse or data lake today, and if so, what platform/vendor is used and how is it intended to be used in the future-state architecture?

The County currently utilizes enterprise data warehouse/data lake and analytics capabilities and continues to evolve its enterprise data architecture. The future budgeting solution should support standards-based integration with County data and analytics platforms. The County is also evaluating and advancing Microsoft Fabric as part of its broader analytics strategy.

Respondents should avoid architectures that

Request for Information unnecessarily restrict data access, integration, or portability.

Does the County require any public-facing transparency outputs/portal capabilities, or is the scope limited to internal reporting with publish-ready exports?

The primary scope is internal budgeting, planning, forecasting, and reporting. However, the solution should support publish-ready outputs and secure APIs, data extracts, or other integration capabilities capable of supporting County transparency and public reporting platforms. Respondents may identify optional public-facing capabilities separately.

What level of internal participation should vendors assume from Finance/Budget, HR, and IT during implementation (SMEs, data/integration resources, testing, change management)?

Vendors should assume active County participation throughout implementation. CAO Finance and Administration/County Budget staff will lead the effort and provide budget process subject-matter expertise, business requirements, configuration review, data validation, and user acceptance testing. The Auditor- Controller/Treasurer/Tax Collector Center of Excellence will have a significant role in system administration, configuration, technical design, data integration, reporting, testing, and ongoing support requirements.

Human Resources will provide subject-matter expertise and data support related to EMACS, positions, compensation, and benefits. The Innovation and Technology Department will support infrastructure, security, identity and access management, environments, integration standards, and technical testing. County staff will also participate in training and change management, with the level of involvement varying by implementation phase.

What is the preferred post-go-live operating model (County-administered vs vendor-supported), including expected responsibilities for configuration, integrations, security, and ongoing enhancements?

The County's preference is a County-administered solution supported by the vendor rather than a permanently vendor-dependent operating model.

Respondents should clearly identify County versus vendor responsibilities for administration, configuration, integrations, upgrades, security, troubleshooting, and enhancements, as well as the skills and staffing required of the County. Optional vendor support or managed-service offerings should be separately identified and priced.

What level of support will the County IT provide during implementation for integration design, build, data access, and technical troubleshooting?

ITD will provide appropriate support for enterprise architecture, cybersecurity, identity, network/connectivity, data access coordination, integration standards, and technical troubleshooting.

Respondents should not assume County IT resources will perform vendor implementation responsibilities.

Request for Information

Respondents should identify required County resources, skill sets, estimated effort, and timing so resource commitments can be evaluated.

Does the County currently have an Enterprise middleware / integration platform? (i.e. MuleSoft, Informatica, Boomi, etc.)

The County utilizes multiple integration and data-exchange technologies across its environment but does not require respondents to assume a single enterprise middleware product for this RFI. Respondents should propose standards-based integration approaches and clearly identify any middleware, proprietary integration technology, connectors, or additional licensing required by their solution.

What level resourcing and capability should we assume from the County for change management, communications, training coordination, and business readiness activities?

Vendors should assume active County participation in change management and business readiness activities.

CAO Finance and Administration/County Budget staff will provide central coordination, business process expertise, communications with departments, training coordination, and readiness validation. Department budget representatives and subject-matter experts will participate in testing, training, and adoption activities. The Auditor-Controller/Treasurer/Tax Collector Center of Excellence will support system administration, configuration, technical readiness, and training support, with Human Resources and the Innovation and Technology Department participating as needed for their respective functional and technical areas. Vendor support should include development of the overall change management approach, training materials, implementation communications, and knowledge transfer in coordination with County staff.

Are there any required integration frequencies, latency expectations, and processing windows for the major data flows?

Integration frequency and latency requirements will vary by interface and business process. Respondents should identify the recommended integration approach and frequency for each major interface and describe support for real-time/near-real-time, event/API-based, and scheduled batch integration. Detailed processing windows and service requirements will be established during requirements and solution design.

Request for Information

Are there specific fiscal milestones, budget cycle dates, or business deadlines that should drive proposed implementation timing and cutover planning?

Yes. Proposed implementation and cutover planning should align with the County’s July 1 through June 30 fiscal year and avoid disruption to the annual Budget and Mid-Year processes. Key milestones include department budget development and submission, central review, Recommended Budget preparation, Budget Hearing and adoption, Mid-Year, and year-end activities.

The County has not established a final implementation or go-live date. Vendors should propose a phased implementation schedule that provides sufficient time for configuration, data conversion, integrations, testing, training, and user readiness, and includes one complete budget cycle of parallel operation with the current budgeting solution before full production cutover.

If the County proceeds to an RFP, what is the target timeframe (quarter/month) for RFP release, vendor selection, and anticipated contract start?

This information is not finalized as of yet and will be communicated at a later date.

Is the County targeting a particular fiscal year for purchase and implementation planning (e.g., FY2027 vs FY2028), or is timing still to be determined?

The County has not established a final implementation or go-live date. Vendors should propose a phased implementation schedule that provides sufficient time for configuration, data conversion, integrations, testing, training, and user readiness, and includes one complete budget cycle of parallel operation with the current budgeting solution before full production cutover.

Is there an approved budget range or funding strategy for this initiative, or will funding/scale be informed by RFI responses and subsequent planning?

The County is not disclosing an approved budget range or funding strategy through this RFI. Budget and scope decisions may be informed by the market information received, internal planning, and any future procurement.

Respondents should provide transparent, modular pricing and clearly state all assumptions and exclusions.

41 Should a demo be requested will the County provide the vendor with a demo script or requirements?

The County will provide an agenda and necessary information to guide the demonstrations when it is available.

Does the County permit demonstrations to be delivered jointly by the software provider and implementation partner?

Yes.

Request for Information

For SAP S/4HANA and Oracle Fusion HCM, please identify the primary categories of data the County anticipates exchanging with the budgeting solution and, where possible, which application is the authoritative system of record for financial, organizational, position, employee, compensation, and benefits information. Please also indicate whether the County anticipates primarily inbound, outbound, or bidirectional interfaces.

Anticipated data from SAP S/4HANA includes actuals, Adopted and Modified Budget data, funds, budget units/fund centers, cost centers, commitment items, projects and related project identifiers, Year-End Estimate data, and other financial reference information. SAP S/4HANA is the authoritative system for financial accounting, budget execution, and Year-End Estimates.

The County currently uses EMACS, an Oracle PeopleSoft system, as the authoritative source for employee and position information, classifications, compensation, benefits, and related Human Resources information.

Organizational information associated with employees and positions is maintained in EMACS, while the County’s financial and budget organizational structure, including budget units/fund centers and cost centers, is maintained in SAP. Oracle Fusion HCM is a future integration point and should be supported by the proposed solution.

Interfaces with SAP are expected to be bidirectional, with financial and reference information flowing into the budgeting solution and approved budget information flowing back to SAP. Information from EMACS/PeopleSoft, and eventually Oracle Fusion HCM, is expected to flow primarily into the budgeting solution to support position and personnel cost calculations, with any required outbound interfaces determined during implementation.

Please identify, if available, the County's current integration or middleware platform(s) and the preferred integration standards or methods for connecting with SAP S/4HANA and Oracle Fusion HCM, including whether existing County integrations or APIs are expected to be reused.

The County's preference is to leverage existing supported APIs, interfaces, and integration services where practical rather than unnecessarily recreate integrations.

Respondents should describe supported integration methods for SAP S/4HANA and Oracle Fusion HCM, including native APIs/connectors, REST/SOAP services, secure file exchange, and any middleware requirements.

Existing County integrations may be reused where technically appropriate and approved through County architecture and cybersecurity review.

Approximately how many years of historical actuals, budgets, forecasts, personnel information, position detail, fixed-asset information, organizational structures, and prior budget versions does the County anticipate converting into the new system, and how much history may instead be retained through an archival or reporting approach?

The final conversion scope and level of historical-data granularity have not been determined. Respondents should provide clearly stated assumptions and tiered options for summary-level, account-level, position-level, and transaction-level history, including the effects on cost, schedule, performance, reconciliation, retention, and archival access. At a minimum, the proposed approach should support the history needed for multi-year trend analysis, forecasting, audit, and comparison of prior budget versions.

Request for Information

Does the County have a preliminary target for implementation commencement, parallel operation, or production go-live, such as a particular fiscal-year budget development cycle or adopted-budget milestone?

The County has not established a final implementation or go-live date. Vendors should propose a phased implementation schedule that provides sufficient time for configuration, data conversion, integrations, testing, training, and user readiness, and includes one complete budget cycle of parallel operation with the current budgeting solution before full production cutover.

For respondents invited to demonstrate, please clarify the anticipated demonstration duration and format and whether vendors should expect to demonstrate all 17 business scenarios identified in Section IV.U or whether the County intends to select a subset of scenarios for each demonstration.

The County will provide an agenda and necessary information to guide the demonstrations when it is available.

Please provide approximate counts, where readily available, for major budgeting dimensions such as funds, departments, programs, cost centers, accounts, grants, projects, and other organizational or financial dimensions expected to be maintained in the budgeting solution.

The County’s current budget structure includes approximately 623 fund codes, 46 departments and other agencies, 716 budget units, 416 Capital Improvement Program projects, and 27,592 budgeted positions. The 716 budget units span General Fund, Restricted General Fund, Special Revenue, Capital Improvement, Enterprise, Internal Service, Special Districts, Fire Protection District, and Other Agency funds. The County’s budget structure captures Requirements, Sources, Net County Cost, Use of Fund Balance/Net Position, and Budgeted Staffing at the applicable budget unit level.

The 416 Capital Improvement Program projects include projects administered by the Project and Facilities Management Department, Real Estate Services Department, Public Works – Transportation, Public Works

– Solid Waste Management, Public Works – Flood Control, San Bernardino County Fire Protection District, and Public Works – Special Districts. Capital Improvement Program data includes the applicable fund, project number, total project cost, annual Recommended Requirements, and project status.

Of the 300+ anticipated users, can the County provide an estimate of expected peak concurrent users during department submission deadlines, central review, executive review, and other peak budget-cycle periods?

The 300+ users have access to the budgeting system.

During the annual Budget and Mid-Year processes, the CAO/central budget coordinator opens the applicable data-entry modules so departmental users can enter budget information and run reports. When each process closes, the data-entry modules are hidden and users generally retain report-only access. County Budget staff, DEOs, the CFO, CAO executive leadership (~40 staff) have access appropriate to their review, analysis, approval, and reporting responsibilities.

Request for Information

For the 25,000+ budgeted positions, can the County provide approximate information regarding the number of compensation plans or pay schedules, benefit structures, bargaining units, and positions requiring allocation across multiple funds, programs, grants, or other funding dimensions?

Compensation is administered through 19 Memoranda of Understanding groupings for represented employees and three primary compensation plan/ordinance structures for County exempt, Special Districts/Fire District exempt, and non-represented employees. Several Memoranda of Understanding cover multiple bargaining units, and the County currently administers 25 bargaining units. Salary schedules are maintained within or in conjunction with the applicable Memoranda of Understanding and compensation plans, with additional Modified Benefit Option salary schedules maintained for eligible employee groups.

Benefits are structured by occupational unit and applicable labor agreement or compensation plan. For the 2026-27 plan year, the County maintains approximately 26 benefit structures across County, Special Districts/Fire District, and CONFIRE occupational units, with Modified Benefit Option structures applicable to approximately 13 occupational-unit categories.

Positions may also be funded across multiple funds, budget units, grants, projects, and other funding sources using percentage-based allocations. The budgeting solution should support position-level funding allocations and changes to those allocations during Budget and Mid- Year.

Please provide general information regarding the County's current budget-book production process, including the primary authoring/publication tools currently used and the approximate size or number of pages of the annual budget publication.

The County’s annual budget-book production process uses budget data exported from SBP into Microsoft Excel spreadsheets, including budget unit information, Requirements, Sources, Net County Cost, and Budgeted Staffing. Narrative and other supporting content are maintained in Microsoft Word documents. Once finalized, these materials are provided to the County Communications group for design and production.

County Communications uses Adobe InDesign to assemble the content and complete the design, layout, formatting, graphics, and pagination of the budget book, which is published in PDF format. To meet accessibility remediation requirements, the County will also incorporate MadeToTag into the InDesign process to support production of an accessible PDF.

The annual budget publication is generally approximately 500 to 600 pages.

Request for Information

Are there specific County-mandated hosting, data-residency, cybersecurity, privacy, or independent certification requirements that respondents should treat as minimum requirements when describing their proposed solutions?

Solutions must comply with applicable County cybersecurity, privacy, records, accessibility, and data-protection requirements. Respondents should identify hosting locations/data residency, encryption capabilities, identity and access management/MFA, logging and auditing, backup/disaster recovery, vulnerability management, incident response, independent security certifications/attestations, and applicable cloud security frameworks. Specific requirements will be based on solution architecture, data classification, and system risk.

Would the County consider extending the RFI response deadline from September 11, 2026, to September 18, 2026, or to the latest date practicable? Given the breadth of functional, technical, implementation, security, and pricing information requested, a modest extension would help respondents provide more complete, accurate, and comparable information for the County's market research and planning purposes.

Yes, please refer to prior Amendments to the RFI.

54 Respectfully requesting a one week response deadline extension to Friday, September 18, 2026 Please refer to prior Amendments to the RFI.

Does the County anticipate issuing a formal RFP following this RFI, and if so, what is the anticipated timeline for RFP release, contract award, project kickoff, and go-live? Is this initiative tied to a specific fiscal year budget cycle or target implementation date?

This information is not finalized as of yet and will be communicated at a later date.

Is participation in this RFI and/or Demonstration Week required to be eligible for participation in a future RFP?

No.

Has funding for this initiative already been approved, or is funding approval contingent upon the outcome of this RFI or a future procurement?

The County is not at liberty to disclose this information.

Does the County intend to pursue a traditional competitive RFP process, or would it consider procurement through an existing cooperative purchasing vehicle (e.g., NASPO ValuePoint, OMNIA Partners, Sourcewell)?

The County has not yet determined the procurement approach for a future budgeting solution. Depending on the outcome of the RFI and subsequent evaluation, the County may pursue a traditional competitive RFP process or consider an available cooperative purchasing vehicle, subject to County procurement requirements and determination of the approach that best meets the County’s needs.

Who are the primary stakeholder groups involved in evaluating responses and selecting a solution (e.g., CAO, Auditor-Controller, HR, IT, departmental budget offices, procurement)?

The County is not at liberty to disclose this information.

Request for Information

What budgeting system(s), applications, or tools does the County currently use for annual budget development and budget management, and what key business, technical, operational, or process challenges with the current environment are driving the County to evaluate a replacement solution?

The County currently uses SBP, its SAP budgeting module, for annual budget development and budget data entry. SAP has notified the County support for the budgeting module will be sunsetting in the coming years.

SAP S/4HANA is used for financial accounting, actuals, budget execution, and Year-End Estimates. EMACS, the County’s Oracle PeopleSoft system, maintains employee, position, classification, compensation, benefits, and related Human Resources information. Excel workbooks, County templates, reports, and departmental applications are also used to support the budget process.

Key challenges with the current environment include slow data entry and report processing, spreadsheet dependence, duplicate data entry, reconciliation of budget, actual, and position information, inconsistent departmental practices, and labor-intensive budget-book updates. The County is seeking a configurable solution that supports annual budget development, Mid-Year, financial planning, personnel cost budgeting, workflow and approvals, version control, audit history, and reporting, while integrating with existing and future County systems.

For integrations with SAP S/4HANA and Oracle Fusion HCM, does the County expect the budgeting solution vendor to design, build, and maintain the integrations, or will County and/or systems integrator resources own portions of the integration development?

The budgeting solution vendor should assume responsibility for designing and implementing integrations required for its solution, working collaboratively with County ITD, application owners, SAP/Oracle resources, and other County-designated partners. County resources will provide access, architecture and security requirements, system knowledge, and coordination.

Respondents should separately identify responsibilities for ongoing integration maintenance and support following go-live.

What integration, middleware, or data exchange technologies are currently available or preferred within the County environment (e.g., SAP BTP, Boomi, MuleSoft, APIs, SFTP, ETL tools)? Does the County currently use any middleware, ETL, data integration, or data warehouse technologies that a future solution would be expected to leverage?

The County supports standards-based APIs, secure file exchange, data/ETL integration, enterprise analytics/data platforms, and application-specific integration capabilities. Respondents should identify which County capabilities they propose to leverage and any additional middleware, agents, gateways, proprietary connectors, or licenses required. Preference should be given to open, supportable interfaces and minimizing unnecessary proprietary dependencies.

Is the County's SAP S/4HANA environment deployed on-premises, in a private cloud, or in SAP public cloud, and is Oracle Fusion HCM fully cloud-hosted?

The County currently operates SAP S/4HANA through RISE with SAP, hosted on Amazon Web Services (AWS). SAP S/4HANA went into production in January 2026. The environment includes SAP Fiori, SAP Work Zone, embedded analytics, and SAP Analytics Cloud (SAC).

Oracle Fusion HCM is a cloud-hosted SaaS solution.

Request for Information

Respondents should describe how their proposed solution would securely integrate with these environments and identify any required connectivity, middleware, agents, gateways, or proprietary components.

For personnel budgeting, which system(s) will serve as the authoritative source for position, compensation, and organizational hierarchy data, and what refresh frequency is expected between source systems and the budgeting platform (real-time, near real-time, daily, or other scheduled updates)?

EMACS, the County’s Oracle PeopleSoft system, currently serves as the authoritative source for position, employee, classification, compensation, benefits, and related Human Resources information. Organizational information associated with employees and positions is also maintained in EMACS. SAP S/4HANA serves as the authoritative source for financial and budget information, including funds, budget units/fund centers, cost centers, grants, projects, and other applicable budget information.

The proposed solution should also be capable of integrating with Oracle Fusion HCM as a future County HCM platform.

Currently budgeted position…