RFP_Addendum__2.docx

Request for Proposals (RFP) Addendum #2 SWIFT Event #: 2000018420 Agency: Department of Information Technology Services partnering with the Department of Corrections Addendum Number: 2 Date of Addendum: 7/20/2026 Title: MINNCOR eCommerce Solutions

SCOPE OF ADDENDUM

The following are changes to the RFP:

(1) Sharing vendor questions and State’s answers.

1) Vendors’ questions to the RFP and the State’s answers are as follows:

1.1 Question: The RFP requires comprehensive B2C eCommerce capabilities including GovRAMP authorization requirements for High Risk Data on an aggressive timeline. We are not aware of many if any firms in the specialized print production eCommerce and institutional manufacturing workflow vertical that can demonstrate both mature B2C transaction support and timely GovRAMP Moderate compliance. Would the State consider removing the B2C component or adjusting the GovRAMP scope and timeline to encourage broader participation from qualified vendors with relevant vertical experience?

1.1 Answer: The State of Minnesota’s RFP for MINNCOR eCommerce requires comprehensive B2C capabilities and GovRAMP Moderate authorization for vendors handling high-risk data. As of July 2026, the requirement is fixed: all new/renewing IT contracts for high-risk data vendors must achieve GovRAMP Moderate or High authorization by April 1, 2027, with continuous monitoring.

Please Note: There is no published indication that the B2C component or GovRAMP timeline will be relaxed; any changes would require formal amendment to the RFP or contract.

1.2 Question: Please provide additional detail on the real-time integration requirements with Epicor Kinetic. Specifically, identify which data elements must synchronize in real time (such as inventory levels, pricing, orders, order status, and financial postings) and the State’s preferred technical integration approach. Does the State have existing technical integration specifications or documentation (for example, JSON, XML, or cXML schemas) that can be shared with responders? Will a technical integration resource familiar with Epicor Kinetic integrations be available to support the selected vendor during implementation?

1.2 Answer: The RFP specifies real-time integration with Epicor Kinetic for inventory, pricing, orders, order status, and financial postings. Epicor Kinetic REST API v2 is the primary integration surface, supporting OData v4 endpoints for business objects and BAQ queries The State prefers API-driven integration (REST/GraphQL) and event-driven patterns (Azure Service Bus/Event Hub).

Technical integration resources familiar with Epicor Kinetic are not explicitly guaranteed, but vendors are expected to work with MNIT staff for implementation. If you require detailed schemas or documentation, request them via the RFP process.

1.3 Question: Beyond completing the VPAT and achieving WCAG 2.1 Level AA compliance, what specific accessibility validation, remediation, or user testing activities does the State expect during implementation and ongoing operations?

1.3 Answer: The State currently requires compliance with WCAG 2.1 A and AA and Section 508. There are 30 numbered items under WCAG 2.1 Level A and 20 numbered items under WCAG 2.1 Level AA. If the vendor is not in compliance on one of these items, the State wishes to know why it's not in compliance, and what the plan and timeline is to rectify the issues. If the item is Not Applicable for the product, an explanation needs to be given for why it's Not Applicable. If the VPAT is filled out poorly or not at all, that is an automatic zero score for the accessibility section of the grading.

Examples of a poorly filled out VPAT:

All fields marked “Supports” with no explanation of how it supports Vague statements like “We meet WCAG” Missing remarks columns Copying/pasting WCAG/508 language without a product-specific assessment The most important thing a vendor can do is to demonstrate an actual understanding of digital accessibility, both its importance and knowledge of the tools in place to utilize the proffered application, with demonstrated integration of accessibility into design and development, commitment to ongoing maintenance, and a plan of responsiveness to accessibility-related support requests.

1.4 Question: Please provide the approximate total number of A) static products in the current catalog and B) the number of active variable data templates or configurable product designs currently stored in PageFlex and actively used (e.g., orders were placed within past quarter for said template). Can you provide examples demonstrating typical complexity of options per template? Are any of these templates for products having more than 2 pages - if so, how many fit this description?

1.4 Answer: The current static library is about 1000 products. The variable library is about 500 temples of variable and minimal100 double sided variable templates.

Current Common variables are Fname, LName, Email, Adr1, adr2, city , state zip. Title, phone, cell phone other variation do exist but 90% of them will fall in this level of variation.

1.5 Question: How many distinct B2B customer companies or divisions does MINNCOR currently serve, and what is the typical number of user groups and individual users per company or division?

1.5 Answer: About 200 customers, some are singles division, some are multi division up to 25 divisions. With current users at about 2500. We are looking for unlimited growth with this solution.

1.6 Question: What are the current average monthly order volume (by number of unique jobs/items ordered and approved) and total transaction value for B2B operations, and does the State have any projections for expected B2C transaction volumes if that functionality is retained?

1.6 Answer: Currently the system does not surpass 1000 orders per month, and we are looking for much more positive growth in this area. The business is looking at unlimited growth potential.

1.7 Question: Please provide the estimated volume of historical data that would require migration, including the number of orders, customer records, product images, and design files. For each data type, please identify the current primary source system. Additionally, please explain the business purpose for migrating this historical data — specifically, how MINNCOR expects to use historical orders and design files after go-live (for example, for customer re-ordering, reporting and analytics, audit or compliance needs, or archival reference only). Please also indicate the required retention period for historical data and whether any data cleansing, transformation, or selective migration is anticipated.

1.7 Answer: The system should retain the order history and reporting for 3 years minimum, including proofs, quantities, order numbers, job tickets, and complete history of orders retained within an individuals account. The business would like to see unlimited reporting history.

1.8 Question: How many external suppliers or subcontractors does MINNCOR actively manage for fulfillment, and what specific order visibility, assignment, and status update capabilities do they require in the system?

1.8 Answer: If external suppliers mean vendors outside of MINNCOR, it does not apply. MINNCOR will not be using external suppliers to fulfill any online orders. Internal MINNCOR suppliers are unlimited.

1.9 Question: Of the reports listed in Attachment E, which ones are mandatory for initial go-live versus those that may be implemented after launch?

1.9 Answer: the items marked critical need to be met for go live.

1.10 Question: The target implementation completion date is June 30, 2027. Is this deadline fixed, or is there flexibility, and what are the key milestones the State would expect to see in a proposed project plan?

1.10 Answer: The June 30, 2027 deadline date is fixed. All work should be completed and implemented by the target date.

1.11 Question: Does the solution need to support full configuration, proofing, pricing, and ordering capabilities for non-print manufactured goods such as furniture, seating, upholstery, and apparel equivalent to those required for print products?

1.11 Answer: Yes, the solution will need to support full configuration, including proofing, pricing, and ordering capabilities, for non-print manufactured products to include, but not limited to, furniture, seating, upholstery, and apparel equivalent goods.

1.12 Question: Please describe the full scope of shipping and handling requirements for the proposed solution. This should include expectations for real-time carrier rate integration with providers such as UPS and FedEx, LTL freight support and cost calculation for large manufactured goods such as furniture and mattresses, and the required integration with Epicor Kinetic for shipping data, fulfillment, and tracking. Please also clarify any differences in shipping configuration or options between B2B and B2C channels.

1.12 Answer: Ideally the system would able to look shipping quotes, tracking up in for our standard products, Large LTL orders will have to quoted internally so the systems must say some like Shipping to be determined – controlled on the backside with a check box in the item description.

1.13 Question: Please describe any known limitations, pain points, or gaps with the current PageFlex-based system that the replacement solution must specifically resolve to improve operations.

1.13 Answer: Variable data text wraps on current site and prepress needs to correct and proof back to customer, MINNCOR would like templates to auto-correct and let the customer proof on the site and be able to send print-ready PDF files when the order is submitted. MINNCOR would like print-ready files to be able to auto upload to the fiery on our digital presses. Current site has a very generic online order report and individuals pulling orders must manually handwrite the title of each order into the report when pulling orders.

None other than images waps or uploads are not enabled in our version and should be enabled with any new solution. The new system should have a pop-up NOT allowing PO boxes to be entered for shipping locations along with a note stating ‘suite deliveries are not guaranteed depending on shipping vendor’.

1.14 Question: Please describe the expected order approval workflows, including multi-level approvals, spending limits by user or company, PO validation requirements, and how these rules should differ between B2B and B2C channels if applicable.

1.14 Answer: MINNCOR would like to have multi-level customer hierarchy approvals availability from base level of order enterer approval and up the customer hierarchy as needed by the customer. MINNCOR would also like to have internal hierarchy approval for administrative user permissions to be able to be given out by the site administrators.

Multi-level approvals would be by customer profile. For example, if customer “x” wanted to put a spending limit on business card orders of $100 that would be up to them if they allowed a secondary approval beyond the $100.

1.15 Question: What specific capabilities does MINNCOR staff require in the administrative interface, such as bulk product uploads or updates, mass order actions, customer impersonation, and advanced reporting or data export tools?

1.15 Answer: Administer and build products, manipulate inventories, demo accounts for customer trainings to see all products, mass order downloads based on product lines, inventory reports for items, agencies and user level of all owner items, order histories see 3.8

1.16 Question: Section 1.2.1 of Attachment E states the Data Protection Categorization is "Low" and the Data Classification is "Public." However, the RFP (Section 2, Item 3) and Sample Contract Exhibit A, Supplement 1 reference GovRAMP requirements associated with High Risk Data, including PCI, CJIS, HIPAA, FERPA, IRS 1075/FTI, and SSA data.

Given that the solution will process consumer credit card payments (Section 7.7.1) and B2B customer PII, can the State confirm which data classification governs this procurement and whether the GovRAMP/High Risk Data provisions apply?

1.16 Answer: Online order site information is public data and would be considered Low Risk Data classification. Minnesota’s data protection categorization standard defines “High” as highly sensitive, legally protected data (e.g., PCI, CJIS, HIPAA, FERPA, IRS 1075/FTI, SSA). The RFP references both “Low” (public) and “High” risk data. If the solution processes consumer credit card payments or B2B customer PII, PCI and PII protections apply. GovRAMP requirements are triggered for any cloud service handling high-risk data. If unsure, request clarification from MNIT or the contract manager.

1.17 Question: If the High Risk Data provisions do apply, which specific data categories (PCI, CJIS, HIPAA, FERPA, IRS 1075/FTI, SSA, etc.) are expected to be processed by the solution versus being included as standard contractual language?

1.17 Answer: PCI (credit card payments) and PII (customer data) are expected to be processed. CJIS, HIPAA, FERPA, IRS 1075/FTI, and SSA data are referenced as standard contractual language but may not be processed unless the solution specifically handles those data types. Confirm with MNIT if your solution will process any of these categories.

1.18 Question: What is the current version of Epicor Kinetic in use, and is it hosted on-premises or within Epicor's cloud environment?

1.18 Answer: Epicor is using version 2026.100.7 and is hosted on the cloud, specifically by Epicor.

1.19 Question: Does MINNCOR/MNIT currently utilize an integration platform or middleware solution (such as Boomi, MuleSoft, Azure Integration Services, etc.) that the eCommerce platform should integrate through, or should the selected vendor propose and provide the integration layer?

1.19 Answer: As far as we know, we do not have a middleware for any integrations into Epicor.

1.20 Question: Could the State provide a high-level technology stack and reference architecture illustrating the current ecosystem (ERP, CRM, OMS, PIM, payment systems, authentication, integrations, etc.) and how these systems interact?

1.20 Answer: The State operates a cloud-native, microservices-oriented environment aligned with Azure GCC Commercial. Core systems include ERP (Epicor Kinetic), CRM (Salesforce), OMS, PIM, payment systems, authentication (Azure AD/Entra ID), and integrations via API Management and Service Bus.

1.21 Question: Attachment E (Section 1.8.2) references compatibility with EFI PrintSmith. What specific data is expected to flow between the eCommerce platform and PrintSmith? For example:

· Estimate pricing returned to the storefront

· Order information pushed into PrintSmith

· Both directions

· Other integration requirements

1.21 Answer:

· Data flowing in would contain, bill to / ship to information (Product name, Quantity, Date due, Basic item specs, Include ‘Attn:” in the field for ship-to)

· PO Box not allowed for “Ship to” locations.

1.22 Question: Approximately how many active variable-data (templated) products currently exist within PageFlex, and of the overall product catalog, what percentage is comprised of static products versus configurable/variable-data products?

1.22 Answer: This was answered earlier

1.23 Question: Does the proposed solution need to integrate directly with PageFlex, or would the State consider an equivalent native page composition or product personalization solution available within the selected commerce platform?

1.23 Answer: Pageflex is preferred but not required – see 3.1.1.5

1.24 Question: Can the State provide an example of how orders are currently routed to suppliers? For example, is routing determined by product category, geographic location, supplier capacity, contractual assignment, or another methodology?

1.24 Answer: The orders are divided by product line, then location.

1.25 Question: Regarding supplier management, our experience has typically been that supplier administration resides within the ERP, with supplier information exposed to the storefront as needed. Can the State clarify whether a dedicated supplier management module is expected within the front-end commerce application?

1.25 Answer: Supplier administration typically resides within the ERP (Epicor Kinetic), with supplier information exposed to the storefront as needed. The State does not require a dedicated supplier management module in the commerce application unless specified in the RFP.

1.26 Question: Approximately how many historical orders, customer/company records, user accounts, and product records will need to be migrated into the new solution?

1.26 Answer: About 200 customers, some are singles division, some are multi division up to 25 divisions. With current users at about 2500. We are looking for unlimited growth with this solution

1.27 Question: What is the name and vendor of the incumbent eCommerce platform currently being replaced? Will API and/or export access be provided to the selected vendor for migration planning and execution?

1.27 Answer: We utilize Shopify.

1.28 Question: Is historical order data expected to be fully migrated into the new platform (including reorder functionality), or would a read-only archive satisfy the historical data requirements outlined in Attachment E Section 2.1.2?

1.28 Answer: Read only is fine.

1.29 Question: What is the approximate annual order volume and gross merchandise value (GMV) currently processed through the existing commerce solution? Are there projected transaction volumes or growth expectations for the new platform?

1.29 Answer: Value Does not apply - We are looking for unlimited growth with this solution.

1.30 Question: From a technology strategy perspective, is the State primarily evaluating SaaS commerce platforms, open-source/self-hosted platforms, or is the State open to either approach? The state is operating under a “Rent\Buy|build” technology stack initiative.

1.30 Answer: The State prefers SaaS solutions but is open to COTS or custom-built platforms if SaaS does not meet requirements

1.31 Question: Has the State previously implemented SaaS-based enterprise software solutions? If so, are there standard commercial or legal provisions Responders should anticipate during contract negotiations (for example, liability caps, indemnification requirements, intellectual property ownership, Business Associate Agreements (BAAs), insurance requirements, or other mandatory contractual terms)?

1.31 Answer: Yes. Minnesota SaaS contracts typically include liability caps, indemnification, IP ownership, is (for HIPAA), insurance requirements, and mandatory terms for data protection and privacy.

1.32 Question: 17. Silk Commerce typically utilizes Figma throughout the UX/UI design process. Following design approval, would delivering finalized design assets in Adobe InDesign format satisfy the State's documentation requirements?

1.32 Answer: InDesign is acceptable.

1.33 Question: 18. Does MINNCOR currently manage customer inventory on behalf of customers (Vendor Managed Inventory), including inventory releases and replenishment, or do customers manage their own inventory levels?

1.33 Answer: Yes, MINNCOR manages inventory levels, customer can only view them. Customer get notified when inventories get below certain levels.

1.34 Question: 19. If customer inventory reaches a reorder threshold, should the system automatically generate replenishment orders, or are replenishment requests manually initiated?

1.34 Answer: No, the system must notify the MINNCOR account manager and the customer.

1.35 Question: Which accessibility compliance level is required for this project under WCAG 2.0 (Level A, AA, or AAA)?

1.35 Answer: The State currently requires compliance with WCAG 2.1 A and AA and Section 508. There are 30 numbered items under WCAG 2.1 Level A and 20 numbered items under WCAG 2.1 Level AA. If the vendor is not in compliance on one of these items, the State wishes to know why it's not in compliance, and what the plan and timeline is to rectify the issues.

1.36 Question: What internal project team and dedicated State resources are anticipated for this implementation (business stakeholders, project management, IT, QA, etc.)?

1.36 Answer: The State anticipates business stakeholders, project management, IT, QA, and administrative resources. Typically, 2–3 administrators are assigned, but not always full-time. Additionally, the business would like to have at least one user (administrator) per business unit who make edits to their respected business unit areas (i.e. changing product specifications, colors, prices, and so forth).

1.37 Question: Following the initial implementation and the four-year contract term, what is the State's long-term operational strategy for maintaining and enhancing the solution? For example, does the State anticipate ongoing enhancement work, managed services, internal administration, or a future competitive procurement?

1.37 Answer: The State will assume ongoing managed services and administer workflows/configurations after go-live. Enhancement work, managed services, internal administration, or future competitive procurement are possible.

1.38 Question: Would you accept a blended onshore and nearshore delivery team, provided all data remains within the United States, in exchange for a more competitive estimate?

1.38 Answer: The resources should be legally authorized to work in the United States.

1.39 Question: Do you have any preferences for which eCommerce platform should form the foundation of the solution?

1.39 Answer: The platform must meet all requirements listed in the RFP and must be fully compatible with Epicor Kinetic, must be fully accessible and meet all Federally mandated guidelines on accessibility.

1.40 Question: Is there a fixed go-live date driving the schedule, and is a phased rollout acceptable?

1.40 Answer: All work must be completed by June 30, 2027. The go-live date is fixed.

1.41 Question: Is there a budget range or not-to-exceed figure we should design the solution to fit?

1.41 Answer: The State declines to share specific budget details.

1.42 Question: Is your Epicor Kinetic instance deployed on-premise, in Epicor's cloud, or hybrid - and which version is running?

1.43 Question: Is there existing integration middleware between Epicor and other systems, or would this be a new, direct integration?

1.43 Answer: This will be new.

1.44 Question: Requirement 6.3.1 notes that account history such as payments and balances is currently in Salesforce, and MINNCOR would like the option to manage it in the eCommerce system. Do you intend to move this into the commerce platform and display it natively, or retain Salesforce as the system of record and surface the history through an integration? And since it is marked Desired, is it in scope at launch or a later phase?

1.44 Answer: The ecommerce system will not financially retain data.

1.45 Question: For EFI PrintSmith, should the commerce platform send order specifications for estimating, and receive cost estimates back? Or will estimates be entered into the Commerce system’s quote process?

1.45 Answer: The system should have pricing options available and options for a manual quote for complex items.

1.46 Question: Requirement 3.2.2.3 asks that the solution work with Adobe InDesign formatting and design criteria. Can you confirm what this means in practice - that variable-data templates must be authored to InDesign design standards and produce InDesign-compatible output - and are there specific InDesign version or file-format requirements we should design to?

1.46 Answer: Ideally, the most current InDesign version is recommended and should evolve with it for compatibility.

1.47 Question: Your current solution uses PageFlex for variable-data print composition. To size this accurately, we need to understand three things:

a) whether PageFlex is expected to remain a live production system in the new solution, or be retired with its templates carried forward into the new platform;

b) whether your existing PageFlex templates render on PageFlex's native composition engine (NuDoc) or on Adobe InDesign Server, since this determines whether templates can be migrated or must be rebuilt; and

c) approximately how many variable-data templates exist today.

1.47 Answer: PageFlex is desired but not required.

1.48 Question: Is order proofing digital-only, or must the solution also support hard-copy proof requests, and is proof generation fully automated from the submitted variable data?

1.48 Answer: For printing a digital proof must be retained containing the variable data. For hard copy proofs being requests, a custom bid should be required from the Print Shop.

1.49 Question: What is the required production output - for example a print-ready PDF delivered to an FTP location - and are there specific file format or pre-press specifications?

1.49 Answer: Print-ready PDF files to an FTP location are okay for production needs. File names should be specific to each order and not generic.

1.50 Question: How many suppliers or subcontractors will the platform serve, and how are orders routed to them today?

1.50 Answer: The suppliers can be as many as 9 physical locations but up 10 product lines within each location. Orders are currently downloaded by product line.

1.51 Question: Is supplier order routing rules-based, manual, or a combination, and can you share the logic that determines which supplier receives which order or line item?

1.51 Answer: Its done by product line.

1.52 Question: Do suppliers require their own portal with login access and data isolated to only their assigned orders and products?

1.52 Answer: Yes.

1.53 Question: What supplier actions must the platform support - order status updates, pick-list printing, shipment confirmation, inventory updates?

1.53 Answer: Yes, ideally all those, please review the fulfillment section for the required items

1.54 Question: What are the source systems for existing customer, catalog, and order data, and in what formats can that data be extracted?

1.54 Answer: The business cannot provide a full response however, any catalog export could be exported in an XML file or similar format.

1.55 Question: What are the approximate volumes - number of customer accounts, static and variable products, and historical orders?

1.55 Answer: This has been answered.

1.56 Question: Is full historical order migration required, or is a defined cutoff window acceptable?

1.56 Answer: Three (3) years.

1.57 Question: Is full public-facing B2C commerce required at initial launch, or can the B2B and institutional experience launch first with B2C following?

1.57 Answer: Full B2C commerce is required at initial launch; phased deployment is not acceptable. The go-live date is fixed at June 30, 2027.

1.58 Question: For B2C, is credit-card payment and its associated PCI scope required at launch, and is there a preferred payment gateway?

1.58 Answer: Not preferred but must meet Security standards required by Minnesota State and any Federal laws.

1.59 Question: How complex is the RFQ workflow - a single request-and-response cycle, or multi-round negotiation with internal approvals?

1.59 Answer: Single request-and-response cycle. If additional quote edits or adjustments are needed, they can be made via email channels between customer and MINNCOR.

1.60 Question: How many companies, user groups, and individual users do you expect at launch and at maturity?

1.60 Answer: Already answered.

1.61 Question: What is the approximate catalog size, and what share is configurable or variable versus static?

1.61 Answer: Already answered.

1.62 Question: What are expected order volumes, daily or monthly, and any seasonal peaks?

1.62 Answer: Already answered.

1.63 Question: Of the product lines in Attachment F, how many are in scope for the initial launch versus later phases?

1.63 Answer: These should all be available for use.

1.64 Question: Is any data in the solution classified as non-public or restricted, given the correctional-industries context?

1.64 Answer: Correctional-industries data may include private/confidential data on individuals (e.g., offender records, medical, behavioral health, special education).

1.65 Question: Must the MNIT Web Application Assessment be completed and remediated before go-live, and is there an expected remediation timeframe for Critical and High findings?

1.65 Answer: Yes, the MNIT Web Application Assessment must be completed and remediated before go-live. Critical and High findings must be addressed prior to launch, with remediation timelines defined by MNIT policy.

1.66 Question: Is WCAG 2.0 Level AA conformance required to be third-party certified, and must it be met at launch or shortly after?

1.66 Answer: The State currently requires compliance with WCAG 2.1 A and AA and Section 508. There are 30 numbered items under WCAG 2.1 Level A and 20 numbered items under WCAG 2.1 Level AA. If the vendor is not in compliance on one of these items, the State wishes to know why it's not in compliance, and what the plan and timeline is to rectify the issues. If the item is Not Applicable for the product, an explanation needs to be given for why it's Not Applicable. If the VPAT is filled out poorly or not at all, that is an automatic zero score for the accessibility section of the grading.

Examples of a poorly filled out VPAT:

All fields marked “Supports” with no explanation of how it supports Vague statements like “We meet WCAG” Missing remarks columns Copying/pasting WCAG/508 language without a product-specific assessment The most important thing a vendor can do is to demonstrate an actual understanding of digital accessibility, both its importance and knowledge of the tools in place to utilize the proffered application, with demonstrated integration of accessibility into design and development, commitment to ongoing maintenance, and a plan of responsiveness to accessibility-related support requests.

1.67 Question: Does the State require single sign-on or identity federation with a specific identity provider, such as SAML or Azure AD, for administrative or customer access?

1.67 Answer: The State requires SSO and identity federation, typically using Azure AD/Entra ID, SAML, or OIDC. All constituent-facing applications must integrate with the enterprise CIAM solution (LoginMN) by July 1, 2027.

1.68 Question: What are the most important outcomes you hope to achieve during the first year after implementation?

1.68 Answer: Improved/easier online ordering experience for end customers. Also, lower operating costs for MINNCOR.

1.69 Question: Which current pain points are causing the greatest operational burden for staff?

1.69 Answer: Ship to PO boxes being attempted by users. Staff needs to waste time reaching out to customers asking for an actual address. Also, having to reach out to customers for further explanations regarding changes/edits they asked for. The current solution has a very small “production notes” box that does not allow for enough characters to be typed. Also, some customers currently struggle with the user interface of the existing system causing frustration including lost orders.

1.70 Question: What would define a successful implementation from the perspective of executive leadership?

1.70 Answer: All functionality requested working at the time of deployment.

1.71 Question: Are there any known data quality issues that vendors should anticipate?

1.71 Answer: None.

1.72 Question: Which integrations are mandatory at go-live versus desired in later phases (outside of Epicor Kinetic and EFI PrintSmith being named)?

1.72 Answer: The RFP is not configured like that, anything marked with a C is critical and should be available at the time of deployment.

1.73 Question: Are APIs currently available for all required third-party systems?

1.73 Answer: Epicor Kinetic and Salesforce support REST APIs. Other third-party systems may require custom integration; API availability varies and should be confirmed during implementation.

1.74 Question: Which integration represents the highest technical risk?

1.74 Answer: Not specified in policy. Typically, integrations with legacy systems or those lacking robust APIs pose the highest risk. Epicor Kinetic integration is prioritized; consult MNIT for risk assessment.

1.75 Question: How important is modern UX compared to feature parity with the existing solution?

1.75 Answer: Printed products are coming from an approved template; therefore, modern UX would not apply as well as any AI. AI would not be approved for customers to make any design or customization to products without prior agency approval. Additionally, replicating every feature of an older system often risks importing legacy technical debt, outdated workflows, and unnecessary complexity. Our strategic approach prioritizes user value, business outcomes, and conversion optimization over a simple "checkbox" feature comparison.

1.76 Question: Has the State conducted any user research that can be shared?

1.76 Answer: No.

1.77 Question: Are there preferred user journeys or workflows that should remain largely unchanged?

1.77 Answer: See appendix E for the larger picture.

1.78 Question: How many SKUs will the website have?

1.78 Answer: Already answered.

1.79 Question: What's the expected growth of the SKU count over the next five years?

1.79 Answer: Already answered.

1.80 Question: What is the anticipated composition of the products (e.g., simple, bundled, configurable with variants, etc.)?

1.80 Answer: All of these.

1.81 Question: How is the product inventory managed? (e.g. manually, PIM system integration, etc.)?

1.81 Answer: Already answered.

1.82 Question: Are there bulk discounts or special pricing configurations based on the contents of the cart?

1.82 Answer: There can be special pricing configurations based on contents of cart.

1.83 Question: Are there any specific shipping requirements, such as required providers or methods? If so, must that vary based on the products within the order?

1.83 Answer: UPS, speedy Standard carriers are preferred.

1.84 Question: Are there any shipping restrictions based on the products being ordered?

1.84 Answer: LTL shipment will be internally done.

1.85 Question: Are shipping fees dynamically calculated at checkout? If so, what determines the shipment cost (e.g. count, weight, dimensions, etc.)?

1.85 Answer: Size, weight, ship to locations, walk in required, ship from locations.

1.86 Question: Is tax applied to orders? If so, is it dynamic (based on shipping location) or a flat tax?

1.86 Answer: both yes and no to tax being applied to orders. Tax is dynamic.

1.87 Question: What are the required payment methods (e.g., outside of Credit cards and purchase orders)?

1.87 Answer: Credit cards and purchase orders are the payment methods. Paying by cash or check are not allowed.

1.88 Question: Is there an existing payment gateway in place (e.g., Authorize.net, Stripe, Euna)?

1.88 Answer: There is no existing payment gateway in place.

1.89 Question: Can orders be placed using gift cards or payment codes?

1.89 Answer: Orders cannot be placed using gift cards. Orders may be placed using Purchase Orders or a code of ‘Intra-Industry’.

1.90 Question: Are there any requirements to sync order-related data to a third-party? If so, does the third party manage the order status (i.e., requiring a two-way sync)?

1.90 Answer: Not outside partners take orders from us.

1.91 Question: Which internal resources will be assigned full-time to the project?

1.91 Answer: Likely 2 to 3 administrators and but they may not be full time administrators.

1.92 Question: Is the June 30, 2027, implementation date fixed, or is phased deployment acceptable?

1.92 Answer: The June 30, 2027, implementation date is fixed. A phased deployment is not acceptable.

1.93 Question: Would the State consider an agile delivery approach with incremental releases?

1.93 Answer: The State would not consider an agile delivery approach with incremental releases.

1.94 Question: Are there blackout periods when implementation activities cannot occur?

1.94 Answer: Only dates which fall on a Minnesota State or Federally recognized Holiday are considered blackout period dates.

1.95 Question: Is there an identity provider that's preferred for authentication?

1.95 Answer: Azure Entra ID is preferred for enterprise authentication; LoginMN is required for constituent-facing applications.

1.96 Question: What are the expected support hours and SLAs?

1.96 Answer: 6 am central time to 4 pm is most common for business practice; the business is open to extending to 24 hours (12a – 11:59p).

1.97 Question: Will State staff administer workflows and configuration after go-live, or should vendors assume ongoing managed services?

1.97 Answer: The State will assume ongoing managed services and will administer workflows and configurations after go-live.

1.98 Question: What level of administrator training is expected?

1.98 Answer: General expectations include day to day administration roles such as learning product uploads, catalog updates, inventory and order management. Additional training should include setting up user permissions, security settings, payment gateways, and software integrations, learning API management, coding, and advanced troubleshooting.

1.99 Question: Is there a current budget range that you're looking to stay within?

1.99 Answer: The State declines to share specific budget details.

Rev. 07.01.2024

Rev. 07.01.2024

Rev. 07.01.2024