RFP No. 27-6284 - Financial Budgeting Software Solutions.pdf

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) NO. 27-6284

TO

PROVIDE A COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL BUDGETING,

PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE SOLUTION

UNIVERSITY OF HAWAIʻI SYSTEM

HONOLULU, HAWAIʻI

OCTOBER, 2026

BOARD OF REGENTS

UNIVERSITY OF HAWAIʻI

HONOLULU, HAWAIʻI

TABLE OF CONTENTS

RFP No. 27-6284 to Provide a Comprehensive Financial Budgeting, Planning and Management Software System for the University of Hawaiʻi System, Honolulu, Hawaii

NOTICE TO OFFERORS

SECTION 1

ADMINISTRATIVE OVERVIEW

SECTION 2

SCOPE OF WORK

SECTION 3

PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

SECTION 4

CRITERIA TO EVALUATE PROPOSALS

SECTION 5

SPECIAL PROVISIONS

APPENDIX A

PROPOSAL LETTER

APPENDIX B

BUSINESS CLASSIFICATION CERTIFICATION STATEMENT

APPENDIX C

PRICE NARRATIVE AND COST PROPOSAL

APPENDIX D

TECHNICAL PROPOSAL FORMAT

APPENDIX E

MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS

APPENDIX F

EXPERIENCE & QUALIFICATIONS / REFERENCES

APPENDIX G

REQUIREMENTS COMPLIANCE MATRIX

IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF ALL OFFERORS TO CHECK THE TABLE OF CONTENTS TO

CONFIRM THAT ALL PAGES LISTED THEREIN ARE CONTAINED IN THEIR RFP PACKAGE.

NOTICE OF OFFERORS

NOTICE TO OFFERORS

The University of Hawaiʻi RFP No. 27-6284, to Provide a Comprehensive Financial Budgeting, Planning and Management Software System for the University of Hawaiʻi System, Honolulu, Hawaii, is issued and will be awarded through the State of Hawaiʻi’s electronic procurement system (HIePRO). All proposal responses must be submitted electronically through HIePRO no later than 2:30 p.m., November 23, 2026. Proposals received after the due date and time or received in a form other than electronically through HIePRO will not be considered.

Offerors are advised that they should not wait until the last minute to submit their proposal through HIePRO. Offerors are solely responsible for ensuring that their electronic submission through HIePRO is complete and all necessary files are attached to their offeror prior to the RFP due date and time. The University shall not be responsible for any delay or failure of any Offeror to submit any materials updated through the RFP process on a timely basis.

Electronic Procurement Offerors interested in responding to this electronic solicitation must be registered on HIePRO. To register, visit the following link: https://hiepro.ehawaii.gov/videos/video/vendor_registration.html.

Reference the Vendor Quick Reference Guide for additional information at https://hiepro.ehawaii.gov/static-resources/VendorQuickReferenceGuide.pdf.

HIePRO will be the system of record for the issuance of the RFP, to receive the proposal requirements, issue Amendments, and make award for the RFP. Amendments and other information and materials provided through HIePRO, may include additions or changes with respect to the due date and time.

Special instructions in HIePRO related to this solicitation are incorporated herein and made a part of this RFP through reference. Offerors shall review all special instructions located in HIePRO.

Questions and Clarifications All questions and requests for clarifications must be submitted electronically through HIePRO.

Questions must be submitted by October 28, 2026. Responses will be posted on November 4, 2026.

The University may refuse to answer any questions received outside of HIePRO or after the Questions/Answers deadline.

Luis P. Salaveria Chief Procurement Officer University of Hawaiʻi

Posting Date: October 19, 2026

Vendors are responsible for notifying Karlee Hisashima (e-mail: karlee@hawaii.edu) for accessibility concerns related to this RFP.

ADMINISTRATIVE OVERVIEW

SECTION 1

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The University of Hawaiʻi (University or UH) is soliciting proposals from qualified vendors to provide a comprehensive cloud-based financial budgeting, planning and management software solution designed specifically for higher education institutions. The solution must provide robust, secure, and user-friendly functionality that supports strategic decision-making, enhances operational efficiency, and aligns financial planning with institutional goals.

The University’s annual operating budget process must account for requirements and resources across a wide variety of institutions – from an “R-1” research institution to regional baccalaureate institutions to community colleges. This process is grounded in multi-year financial planning, using revenue and expenditure projections across six (6) fiscal years. Core funding sources include State of Hawaiʻi general funds, tuition and fee revenues, auxiliary revenues, and extramural research funds. Budget development varies by campus but is generally driven by program reviews, departmental planning, and campus-wide and system-wide assessment to ensure alignment with the mission, vision, and strategic plan of the individual campuses and the entire University system.

Budget Drivers. Budget decisions are shaped by external and internal factors. State-level influences include the Governor, Legislature, and regulatory mandates, while federal, county, and community considerations also affect planning. Within the UH System, Board of Regents (the Board) policies and system-wide strategic directives guide priorities. At the campus level, campus-specific strategic plans, program review outcomes, and student needs serve as primary drivers. Budget parameters establish both constraints and aspirational targets for resource allocation.

Campus and Unit-Level Planning and Budgeting. The ten campuses of the UH System, plus the centralized Systemwide Administration, formulate their respective operating budgets using their own processes while following overall strategic direction from UH leadership. These organizations are further divided into various schools or units, with their own governance structures and budget and planning processes.

Board of Regents Approval. Once the individual campuses (plus Systemwide Administration) have created their operational expenditure plans, they are aggregated into a single document for review and revision by the UH Executive team before submission for approval by the University’s Board of Regents. After approval, quarterly budget-to-actual reports are provided to the Board.

Multi-year Financial Forecast. The Board of Regents also review a six-year financial forecast for the University. This multi-year forecast is based off of the current fiscal year expenditure plan as well as additional assumptions made by systemwide and campus leadership.

Need for a Software Solution. Currently, much of the budget process relies on manual data consolidation, spreadsheets, and decentralized tools, which limits efficiency, transparency, and real-time analysis. A modern financial budgeting, planning, and management software solution is needed to streamline workflows, improve data accuracy, support multi-year forecasting, enhance scenario modeling, and strengthen communication across units. Such a system will enable UH to make more informed, timely, and strategic financial decisions while increasing accountability and alignment with institutional priorities.

This Request for Proposal (RFP) outlines the University’s expectations for a cloud based, single integrated platform, with multiple end-user interface options that are intuitive, accessible, and specific to higher education institutions. The selected vendor shall collaborate closely with the University stakeholders to deliver timely, accurate, and trusted results, reflecting best practices in budget methodologies, forecasting, and strategic financial planning for higher education institutions.

The intent of this RFP is to award a three-year contract to a responsible offeror, whose proposal, conforming to this RFP, best meets the University’s requirements, and is most advantageous to the University, price and other factors considered.

The University intends to award a contract with an initial term of three (3) years. For evaluation purposes only, Offerors shall provide a five (5)-year total cost of ownership, inclusive of the initial term and optional extensions. Evaluation will be based on the total evaluated cost as defined in this RFP.

1.2 AUTHORITY

This RFP is issued under the provisions of the Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes, Chapters 103 and 103D. All prospective Contractors are charged with presumptive knowledge of all requirements of the cited authorities. Submission of a valid executed proposal by any prospective Contractor shall constitute admission of such knowledge on the part of such prospective Contractor.

1.3 RFP ORGANIZATION

This RFP is organized into the following sections:

Section 1, Administrative Overview -- Provides Offerors with general information on the objectives of this RFP, procurement schedule, and procurement overview.

Section 2, Scope of Work -- Provides Offerors with a general description of the tasks to be performed, delineates University and Contractor’s responsibilities, and defines deliverables.

Section 3, Proposal Requirements -- Describes the required format and content for the Offeror's proposal.

Section 4, Criteria to Evaluate Proposals -- Describes how proposals will be evaluated by the University of Hawaiʻi.

Section 5, Special Provisions -- Provides Offerors the additional, special terms and conditions under which the work will be performed.

1.4 SCHEDULE OF KEY DATES

The schedule of key dates set forth herein represents the University's best estimate of the schedule that will be followed. Any of the dates listed below may be changed at any time at the sole discretion of the Director, Office of Procurement Management:

RFP Advertised and Issued October 19 , 2026

Closing Date for Submission of Questions October 28, 2026

University Response to Offeror's Questions November 4, 2026

Closing Date for Receipt of Proposals November 23, 2026

Proposal Review Period November 23-December 1, 2026

Contractor Short List Announcement December 2, 2026

Demonstrations & Presentation (if required) December 3-24, 2026

Closing Date for Submittal of Best and Final Offers To be determined (if required)

Best and Final Offer Review Period (if required) To be determined

Offeror Selection and Start of Award Process January 2027 (tentative)

Contract Start Date To be determined

1.5 SUBMISSION OF QUESTIONS

Offerors may submit questions via HIePRO. The deadline for submission of questions is no later than 2:30 p.m., Hawaiʻi Standard Time, on October 28, 2026.

Responses to questions submitted via HIePRO will be made no later than 4:30 p.m., Hawaiʻi Standard Time, on November 4, 2026.

1.6 SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS

Offerors shall read, complete, and submit all required information as specified in the Request for Proposal. All proposals must be submitted via HIePRO by the date and time specified on the NOTICE TO OFFERORS. No hardcopy proposals will be accepted.

1.7 COSTS FOR PROPOSAL PREPARATION

Any costs incurred by Offerors in preparing or submitting a proposal shall be the Offeror's sole responsibility.

1.8 DISQUALIFICATION OF PROPOSALS

The University reserves the right to consider as acceptable only those proposals submitted in accordance with all requirements set forth in this RFP and which demonstrate an understanding of the scope of the work. Any proposal offering any other set of terms and conditions contradictory to those included in this RFP may be disqualified without further notice.

An Offeror may be disqualified and the proposal may be automatically rejected for any one or more of the following reasons:

1. The proposal shows any noncompliance with applicable laws.

2. The proposal is conditional, incomplete, or irregular in such a way as to make the proposal indefinite or ambiguous as to its meaning.

3. The proposal has any provision reserving the right to accept or reject award, or to enter into a contract pursuant to an award, or provisions contrary to those required in the solicitation.

4. The Offeror is debarred or suspended.

1.9 PROCUREMENT OFFICER

This RFP is issued by the Office of Procurement Management, University of Hawaiʻi. The Procurement Officer responsible for overseeing the contract is Karlee Hisashima, Interim Director of the Office of Procurement Management.

1.10 TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PROCUREMENT OFFICER (TRPO)

The individual listed below is the Technical Representative of the Procurement Officer

(TRPO):

Belinda Johnson Director of Budgeting Administrative Services Building 1 Room 101 2442 Campus Road Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 Telephone: (808) 956-7323 Email: Belinda.johnson@hawaii.edu

1.11 ISSUING OFFICER

The individual listed below is the issuing officer and the official contact for all communication regarding this RFP:

Karlee Hisashima, Interim Director Office of Procurement Management University of Hawaiʻi 1400 Lower Campus Road, Room 15 Honolulu, Hawaiʻi 96822

Phone: (808) 956-8687 Email: karlee@hawaii.edu

1.12 CHANGES TO CONTRACTOR'S FEE

If any invoiced amount is determined to be improper or unsupported, Contractor shall refund such amount within thirty (30) days of written notice.

1.13 RFP AMENDMENTS

The University reserves the right to amend the RFP any time prior to the closing date for best and final offers.

1.14 AWARD ON INITIAL PROPOSALS

The University may award a contract on the basis of initial offers received, without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror's best terms.

1.15 AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS

Offerors are advised that the award of this contract is contingent upon availability of funds. If funds are not available, the University reserves the right not to make an award of this contract.

1.16 NOTICE TO PROCEED

The University shall not be responsible for work done, even in good faith, prior to the University's Notice to Proceed unless specific provisions are made in the contract.

1.17 RFP SUBMITTALS BECOME PROPERTY OF THE UNIVERSITY

All proposals and other material submitted shall become the property of the University and may be returned only at the University's option.

SCOPE OF WORK

SECTION 2

SCOPE OF WORK

2.1 PURPOSE

To obtain the services of a CONTRACTOR to provide a comprehensive cloud-based financial budgeting, planning and management software solution designed specifically for higher education institutions and capable of being integrated with the University’s Kuali Financial System, and Oracle PeopleSoft System. The solution must provide robust, secure, and user-friendly functionality that supports strategic decision-making, enhances operational efficiency, and aligns financial planning with institutional goals.

2.2 BACKGROUND

The University of Hawaiʻi (University) is the State’s system of public post-secondary education, including ten (10 campuses and seven (7) education centers located across the islands of Kaua‘i, Lāna‘i, O‘ahu, Moloka‘i, Maui, and Hawai‘i. Total student enrollment is approximately 50,000, with about 10,000 faculty and staff distributed throughout various statewide locations.

The 2023–2029 University of Hawaiʻi Strategic Plan outlines the system’s guiding imperatives:

● Fulfill kuleana (responsibility) to Native Hawaiians and Hawaiʻi

● Develop successful students for a better future

● Meet Hawaiʻi’s workforce needs for today and tomorrow

● Diversify Hawaiʻi’s economy through UH innovation and research

To effectively advance these imperatives and ensure responsible stewardship of its resources, UH requires a modern financial planning and reporting infrastructure that supports informed, strategic decision-making. As the university continues to expand educational access, strengthen Native Hawaiian success, meet evolving workforce needs, and drive research and innovation, its financial system must provide timely insights, operational efficiency, and the ability to model complex scenarios. A comprehensive cloud-based financial budgeting, planning and management software solution designed specifically for higher education will enable UH to align its budgeting processes with institutional goals, enhance transparency, and support long-term financial sustainability in alignment with the University’s Strategic Plan.

The University utilizes the Kuali Financial System (KFS or Kuali) as its systemwide financial management system. KFS was purpose-built by a consortium of higher education, and is currently supported by Kuali, Inc. together with the current set of institutional KFS partners.

While KFS has some capability to support systemwide budget planning and management functions, the limitations of the budgeting portion of KFS, along with inconsistent implementation, has resulted in the current budget preparation and execution process that is mostly manual.

The University also utilizes Ellucian Banner for its student information system and Oracle PeopleSoft for its human resources. The budgeting and planning software solution should be communicative if not integrated with these systems.

2.3 DEFINITIONS

A. CONTRACT – The written agreement between the parties, including but not limited to the Request for Proposal (“RFP”) and its specifications, terms, and conditions; solicitation addenda and contract amendments, if any; and will be the resulting Contract for the software solution.

B. CONTRACTOR – The person or the Organization with whom the UNIVERSITY has contracted to provide services and receive rights pursuant to this CONTRACT.

C. OFFEROR – Any respondent to this RFP. The successful OFFEROR becomes the

CONTRACTOR. Statements referring to the term “Offeror” generally indicate requirements by any respondent, which must be included in its proposal. Statements referring to “Contractor” generally indicate requirements that will become contractual obligations.

D. PROPOSAL – The OFFEROR’S response to the RFP.

E. RFP – The University of Hawaiʻi System request for proposal 27-6284 to provide a comprehensive cloud-based financial budgeting, planning and management software solution.

F. UNIVERSITY/UH – The corporate entity known as the University of Hawaiʻi, inclusive of all ten campuses.

G. VENDOR – A company contracted or subcontracted to provide services to the UNIVERSITY and/or to receive DATA from the UNIVERSITY, including all its officers, employees, agents, and representatives.

2.4 MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS OF OFFEROR

This RFP seeks to provide a comprehensive financial budgeting, planning and management software system solution. Accordingly, prospective Offerors must conform to the following minimum qualifications and provide the required information to be considered for award.

Offerors shall complete Appendix E, Minimum Qualifications, to establish that all minimum qualifications have been met.

Proposals should demonstrate:

A. A minimum of five (5) years of continuous experience in providing financial budgeting, planning and management software solutions for higher education institutions of comparable size and scope to the UH system.

B. Demonstrated experience integrating financial or planning systems with enterprise resource planning (ERP) and/or human resource systems in higher education or similarly complex environments. Experience with Kuali Financial System (KFS) and/or Oracle PeopleSoft is preferred but not required.

The proposed solution must support integration with the University’s enterprise systems environment, including KFS and Oracle PeopleSoft, through commercially reasonable methods such as APIs, middleware, flat-file exchange, or other standard integration approaches.

Native or prebuilt integrations are preferred but not required.

Offerors shall clearly describe:

● Integration approach

Required tools or middleware

● Data dependencies

● Implementation timeline

● Any additional costs

C. Evidence of compliance with secure data transfer protocols, user authentication and data encryption, and applicable data privacy regulations.

D. Examples of ease of use for both financial staff and non-financial budget “end users”.

E. Examples that feature native, interactive data visualization tools (e.g., dashboards with charts, graphs, and heat maps) that allow non-financial end users to interpret department budgets without manual manipulation.

2.5 TECHNICAL / FUNCTIONAL / OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS

The selected Offeror (CONTRACTOR) will be responsible for providing software, implementation services, training, documentation, and ongoing support for a cloud-based software solution that includes, at minimum, the following key components:

A. General Requirements

1. Ability for the system to be modified, maintained and run primarily by the University’s finance staff, with minimal coding requirements, and minimal IT intervention and support.

2. Ability to adapt to institutional change, including end-user or administrator control over budget and strategic modeling structures (e.g., entities, accounts, hierarchies, and calculation methodologies) without vendor reconfiguration or redevelopment.

3. Ease of use for both financial staff and non-financial budget “end users”.

4. Ability to integrate budget automation, workflow, short- and long-range financial planning, and financial reporting in one solution.

5. Role-based user access (approximately 400 fiscal administrators throughout the campuses, plus 30 supervisors at the campus administration level, and another 10 at the system administration level)

6. Approval routing and audit trails.

7. Commenting or notes functionality for collaboration.

8. Strong provider support for initial implementation and project mapping, and ongoing technical support.

B. Key Features

1. Budgeting and Forecasting

a. Deliver a budgeting platform with built-in workflows to support request and approval processes, task assignments, and notifications. The workflow should be configurable and include the ability to lock out changes based on workflow, time line, and permissions.

b. Utilize existing chart of accounts and trees from the University’s system to build bottom-up models, plans and budgets. Able to synchronize with financial and personnel structural data from KFS and PeopleSoft.

c. Forecast future years of financial performance based on previous actual results and current/working budgets.

d. Provide role-based security to ensure appropriate access to budget data and functionality.

e. Enable the automation of budgeting processes, reducing reliance on manual spreadsheets.

f. Ability to integrate budget automation, workflow, short- and long-range financial planning, and financial reporting in one solution.

g. Enable forecasts based on actual trends and/or user defined assumptions.

h. Ability to create assumption sheets/guidelines to develop multi-year forecasts.

These assumptions may or may not be based on prior or current assumptions.

i. Provide performance to ensure iterative “what if” analysis results are quickly accessible even when scenarios are performed on large data sets.

j. Provide user-friendly input functionality for department budget specialists, deans, division/department chairs, campus budget offices, vice chancellors, chancellors, and systemwide management.

k. Facilitate collaboration across departments, enabling decentralized budget entry with centralized oversight.

l. Operating and capital budgeting capabilities.

m. Line-item detail and account-level tracking. Account structures and coding structures currently supported under KFS should be directly supported without the requirement for translation nor transformation.

n. Multiple fund types, means of financing, and sources of funds for units and for individual positions.

o. Ability to create and manage multiple budget versions (original, revised, forecasted).

p. Ability to adjust assumptions and variables system-wide and within an institution.

Support for fringe benefit rates and indirect cost elements.

q. Scenario modeling and multi-year forecasting (minimum six (6) years).

r. Ability to import actual expenditure data from KFS. Integration with historical actuals for trend and variance analysis.

s. Create and manage budgets at multiple organizational levels (campus, school, department, program, etc.) with the ability to “roll up” or aggregate budgets up the organizational structure, including to the campus and systemwide level.

Conversely, also be able to drill down from any aggregate level to the lowest (budgeted) organizational level.

t. Support for capacity and workload budgetary measures that Banner or other data sources may be provided that may be useful to support budget construction and implementation.

u. Support transfers between various organizational units, including workflow approvals for the providing and receiving entities.

2. Reporting and Analytics

a. Integrate financial, general ledger, and human resources data for a comprehensive view of institutional finances from KFS and PeopleSoft. To the extent possible and practical, this should also include integration with data systems and sources related to extramural research efforts supported by the Research Corporation of the University of Hawai‘i (RCUH).

b. Capable of developing a full range of financial reports, including statement of activities, balance sheet, and statement of cash flows. Reports should be configurable by UH users without significant, if any, support by the vendor.

c. Provide a delivery system for reports and the ability to “push” reports to specified users on a scheduled or as-needed basis.

d. Support real-time or near real-time data refreshes to improve decision-making.

e. Reporting capabilities for budget-to-actuals, summaries, and variance analysis.

f. Ability to easily drill down through reports to source data.

g. Workflow management capabilities.

h. Provide dashboards and visualizations that promote transparency and accessibility of financial data.

i. Ability to generate reports by fund, organization, and account hierarchy.

j. Enable end-user visibility to budget status, expenditure activity, and other, user defined “dashboard” metrics.

k. Streamline financial reporting to reduce manual data compilation and support compliance requirements.

l. Budget to actual variance reports using KFS as the source for actuals.

3. Strategic Financial Planning

a. Provide tools for multi-scenario financial modeling and develop mid- and long-term financial plans that are stress tested to align plans with strategic priorities.

b. Provide capability to track multiple “what-if” scenarios with reports available to compare differences, including parameter differences.

c. Enable the creation of driver-based models for revenue and expense forecasting.

d. Support GAAP-based financial statement development.

e. Calculate and display the Composite Financial Index (CFI) to assess financial health.

f. Deliver executive-level dashboards to communicate long-term financial plans and key performance indicators.

g. Model effects of changing internal assumptions, and mix and match assumptions and initiatives to compare different scenarios.

h. Ability to manage multiple scenarios and conduct “what if” analysis

4. Tuition Revenue Planning

a. Align tuition and fee data to create accurate tuition and revenue projections.

b. Model the financial impact of variables such as enrollment changes, tuition rates, discount rates, and the introduction of new programs.

c. Enable scenario analysis to understand the sensitivity of revenue to multiple factors.

d. Provide dashboards to communicate projections to stakeholders.

5. Labor Planning

a. Integrate with the University’s human resources and position control data in Oracle

PeopleSoft to support detailed salary and benefit planning.

b. Incorporate assumptions for future rates and other drivers into labor cost forecasting.

c. Support integration of labor costs into the broader budget and forecast models.

C. Technical / Integration Requirements

The proposed solution must support integration with the University’s current enterprise environment, including Kuali Financial System (KFS) and Oracle PeopleSoft, through standard APIs, flat-file exchange, middleware, batch import/export, or other commercially reasonable integration methods. Prebuilt native integration is preferred but not required.

Offerors shall describe their proposed integration approach, required middleware or third-party tools, implementation assumptions, data dependencies, timing, and any additional costs.

1. Support secure data transfer protocols and comply with all applicable data privacy regulations.

2. Provide data integration with external sources or sub-models (e.g. general ledger, payroll system, Excel, Ethos).

3. Ensure system scalability and performance to support growth in users and data volume.

4. Cloud-based solution (SaaS).

5. Accessible from mobile devices, to the extent that system capabilities are functional given the limitations of mobile device display size.

6. Accessible from Microsoft Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X end user environments.

7. System performance suitable for quarterly and year-end closing procedures.

8. Configurable data transformation and validation processes.

9. Secure user authentication and data encryption.

10. Web-based access with secure authentication and role-based permissions. Access levels should be sufficiently granular to define and authorize access consistent with the responsibilities of the individual end user.

11. SOC 2 Type II compliance for any SaaS or hosted solution.

12. Support for single sign-on (SSO) using the University’s ID management system. The system shall not require the creation and use of independent sign-on credentials. The system should obtain the appropriate role@campus data from the University’s ID management system and enforce security policies that will segregate data by campus and role.

13. Exportable data formats (Excel, PDF, CSV).

14. Support for importing and exporting data via Excel and CSV for select use cases.

15. Browser- and device-agnostic web interface.

16. Audit trails to record users’ and administrators’ activities and be protected from tampering and deletion of both the application and database layer.

D. Implementation, Training, and Post-Implementation Support Requirements

1. Provide a detailed implementation plan, including timelines, key milestones, and resource requirements. The plan should be based on a three-year agreement.

2. Provide an implementation delivery model that includes whether implementation services are provided directly by the software vendor or through third-party partners.

3. Description of how accountability, knowledge transfer, and long-term success will be supported through implementation and post-go-live support.

4. Description of user training for finance, department-level, and executive users.

5. Provide comprehensive system documentation for administrators and end users.

6. List data feeds required from University data systems.

7. Proposed project staffing and University resource requirements.

8. Overview of change management and user adoption strategy.

9. Description of availability of backup, redundant, and disaster recovery/business continuity plans and facilities.

10. Description of ongoing technical support services, and regular software updates to maintain functionality and security.

11. Description of operational exit provisions available to the University at termination or end of the contract term, including assurances for data export and archive.

E. Deliverables

1. Fully implemented financial reporting and planning solutions integrated with Kuali Financial System, and Oracle PeopleSoft System.

2. Documentation of workflows, configurations, and integration points.

3. User training materials and sessions.

4. Post-implementation support plan.

2.6 REFERENCES

A. Offeror shall provide THREE (3) references from higher education institutions comparable to the University in overall student headcount and workforce, and have benefited from financial budgeting, planning and management software solutions provided by the vendor.

The various funding streams available to UH should also be considered: state general funds, tuition revenue, auxiliary operations, and extramurally funded research activities.

The Offeror is highly encouraged to select references whose institutions utilize Kuali Financial System (KFS) and Oracle PeopleSoft as their financial and human resources management systems. The Offeror shall provide the name of the institution, address, contact persons and positions, phone numbers, email address, and full-time equivalent of the institution.

The University may at its sole discretion contact the references to determine the Offerorʻs expertise and knowledge in providing a comprehensive, cloud-based financial budgeting, planning, management software solution for public systems of higher education institutions of similar size.

PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

SECTION 3

3.1 INTRODUCTION

This section indicates the proposal requirements for this RFP which shall be submitted by the deadline set for submission of proposals. Fulfillment of all proposal requirements listed is mandatory for consideration of proposals.

The Proposal shall include the following subsections.

Appendix Purpose

A Proposal Letter B Business Classification C Price Narrative and Cost Proposal D Technical Proposal E Minimum Qualifications & Experience F Qualifications/References G Requirements Compliance Matrix

Offeror’s proposal should include each of the appendices and shall be placed in the order provided in sections 3.2 through 3.8 below.

3.2 PROPOSAL LETTER (Appendix A)

The Proposal Letter shown in Appendix A shall be signed by an individual authorized to legally bind the Offeror, dated, and be affixed with the corporate seal (if a corporate seal is available). If said individual is not the corporate president, evidence shall be submitted showing the individual’s authority to bind the corporation. The fully executed proposal letter shall be submitted along with the proposal.

3.3 BUSINESS CLASSIFICATION (Appendix B)

Offerors shall complete and submit the Business Classification Certification Statement document with the proposal.

3.4 PRICE NARRATIVE AND COST PROPOSAL (Appendix C)

Offerors shall submit Appendix C (Price Narrative and Cost Proposal) which shall provide a detailed explanation of pricing assumptions, cost drivers, escalation rates, optional services, and pricing dependencies.

3.5 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL (Appendix D)

The Offeror shall provide details on how their solution meets the proposal requirements of the University as referred to in Section 2.5, and shall also address specific requirements as follows:

A. Proposed Solution Summary

Describe how the Offeror will address all of the requirements by outlining the functionality of the system, including but not limited to:

1. Basic system design and operation.

2. Description of how high-level administrators, budget office, colleges, and departments interact with the system to conduct annual budgeting, multi-year planning, scenario planning, analytics and reporting.

3. Estimate the University resources and skill level necessary to maintain the system.

4. Provide how departmental users will interact with the system to access and use reports and/or dashboards.

B. Implementation

Describe the implementation process and support, including, but not limited to:

1. Description of Offeror’s implementation process, including work breakdown structure with a timeline and milestones.

2. List typical policy and procedure decisions needed by the University to complete implementation.

3. List data feeds required from University data systems.

4. Identify key Contractor and University staff required for the implementation and their relevant qualifications and experience.

5. Describe how you will staff the implementation using partners or internal resources.

6. Estimated schedule for completion of implementation from contract award and notice to proceed.

7. Estimate University resources and skill level needed to maintain the system.

8. Identify who is responsible for post implementation support, and how this is determined.

9. Describe whether features can be upgraded, and types of upgrades released.

10. Describe whether platform features can be upgraded with new features and describe the types of upgrades released.

11. Note any intention to use a subcontractor for system implementation.

C. Architecture and Integration

Describe in detail how the University’s data will flow through the application, and the key advantages of your technical application architecture.

D. IT Security and Risk Management

1. Describe approach to system security.

2. Describe how security incident responses are handled.

3. Describe approach to disaster recovery.

4. Describe audit capabilities of the system.

5. Describe approach to data encryption.

6. Confirm proper handling of protected and regulated classes of data per University of

Hawai‘i Data Governance policies, e.g., employee data, Protected Health Information

(PHI).

7. Confirm the system is PCI compliant.

8. Describe approach to secure single sign-on.

9. Describe how updates and upgrades are managed.

E. Training

Describe training required for University staff (both finance and non-finance) in order to effectively administer, use, and support the system, including, but not limited to:

1. Training for the project implementation team. Specify where and when the training will be provided during the implementation process.

2. Initial or required training for system administrators, database administrators, “power users”, and end users.

3. Describe proposed training plan, and provide estimates of how long it typically takes users in the various roles to become comfortable with your product based on previous implementations for other higher education clients.

4. Note any intention to use a subcontractor for system integration or training.

F. Support and Maintenance

Provide a detailed description of the nature and levels of support channels available during and after the implementation, including, but not limited to:

1. Options for telephone, email, and online support.

2. Response times for each channel.

3. Support escalation path for unresolved or emergency issues.

4. Delivery method and frequency of future upgrades/product enhancements.

5. Services for adding data elements and corresponding reports.

6. Specify nature, costs, and conditions of any post-implementation support.

G. License and Maintenance Agreements

Append sample license and maintenance agreements/contracts to the proposal for all components and recommended solution.

3.6 MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS (Appendix E)

The Offeror Minimum Qualifications shown in Appendix E and referred to in Section 2.4 shall be submitted together with all of the required supporting documentation to establish that all minimum qualifications have been met.

3.7 EXPERIENCE & QUALIFICATIONS (Appendix F)

Offeror shall provide organizational information relevant to the University’s decision-making process to support Offeror’s ability to deliver a comprehensive cloud-based financial budgeting, planning and management software solution designed specifically for higher education institutions.

Offeror shall provide THREE (3) references from higher education institutions comparable to the University in student headcount and workforce, and have benefited from a comprehensive cloud-based financial budgeting, planning and management software solutions provided by the vendor. The various funding streams available to UH should also be considered: state general funds, tuition revenue, auxiliary operations, and extramurally funded research activities. The Offeror is highly encouraged to select references whose institutions utilize Kuali Financial System (KFS) and Oracle PeopleSoft as their financial and human resources management systems. The Offeror shall provide the name of the institution, address, contact persons and positions, phone numbers, email address, and full-time equivalent of the institution.

The University may at its sole discretion contact the references to determine the Offeror’s expertise and knowledge in providing a comprehensive, cloud-based financial budgeting, planning and management software solution for higher education institutions of similar size.

3.8. REQUIREMENTS COMPLIANCE MATRIX (Appendix G)

Offerors shall complete the Requirements Compliance Matrix (Appendix H) to clearly indicate the extent to which the proposed solution meets each requirement specified in this RFP. For each requirement, Offerors must identify whether they comply (“Yes” or “No”), provide a concise description of how the requirement is met, and reference the specific section(s) of their proposal supporting the response.

The Compliance Matrix will be used by the evaluation committee to validate technical responsiveness, ensure consistency across proposals, and support a fair and transparent evaluation process. Failure to complete the matrix in its entirety, provide sufficient detail, or accurately represent compliance may result in a lower evaluation score or the proposal being deemed non-responsive.

3.9 SOLUTION DEMONSTRATION

At the University’s option, up to FOUR (4) of the Offerors, based on highest initial proposal evaluation score, shall be invited to provide an in-person demonstration to the evaluation committee, to demonstrate each Offeror’s proposed system, and demonstrate how its solution provides the best available option for the University. Offerors may, at its option, include one or more remote participants in the demonstration although Offerors shall ensure that any key customer relationship and service delivery leads are available in-person. Each offeror demonstration shall be allowed up to a half-day, subject to the schedule of the University’s evaluation committee. Additional time may be allotted for questions and answers if the University’s evaluation committee deems it to be in the University’s best interest.

CRITERIA TO EVALUATE PROPOSALS

SECTION 4

The evaluation of proposals received in response to the RFP will be conducted comprehensively, fairly, and impartially. A contract will be awarded to the responsible Offeror whose written proposal is determined to be the most advantageous to the University, taking into consideration the evaluation factors set forth in this RFP.

Proposals will be examined for quality of recommendations to determine the effectiveness of the proposal in meeting University requirements for a comprehensive financial budgeting, planning and management software system, including but not limited to the proposals responsiveness to all specifications, quality of the Offerors products or services, ability to perform the services, and general responsibility as evidenced by past performance. Price and discounts, although a factor, will not be the sole determining factor in award of the contract.

4.1 REVIEW OF MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS

In order to be considered for evaluation, a submitted proposal must be complete and meet all required components.

The purpose of this phase is to determine whether an Offeror’s proposal is sufficiently responsive to the RFP to permit a complete evaluation. Each proposal will be reviewed for responsiveness. Failure to meet the minimum requirements will be grounds for deeming the proposal nonresponsive to the RFP and rejection of the proposal. Only those proposals meeting the minimum requirements will be considered for evaluation.

A. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPOSAL

Appendix A, Proposal Letter Appendix B, Business Classification Appendix C, Price Narrative and Cost Proposal Appendix D, Technical Proposal Appendix E, Minimum Qualifications & Experience Appendix F, Qualifications/References Appendix G, Requirements Compliance Matrix

4.2 EVALUATION PROCESS

The evaluation of proposals received in response to the RFP will be conducted comprehensively, fairly, and impartially. A contract will be awarded to a responsive, responsible Offeror whose proposals are determined in writing to be the most advantageous to the University taking into consideration the evaluation factors set forth in this RFP.

A committee will conduct an evaluation of all proposals which meet the minimum requirements and will collectively score each proposal submitted.

An initial evaluation of all proposals received shall be conducted based on the criteria set forth below in Section 4.2.1, Initial Evaluation. Each individual on the evaluation committee will provide scores for each Offeror not to exceed the maximum number of points allowed for the initial evaluation. The University will select the top FOUR (4) Offerors receiving the highest total score for the initial evaluation.

The top FOUR (4) Offerors as determined by the initial evaluation shall be required to give a live presentation of their proposal to the evaluation committee. The University shall contact the top three offerors of the initial evaluation to schedule a date and time for the web-based presentations.

The final evaluation shall be based on the criteria set forth below in Section 4.2.2, Final

Evaluation. Each individual on the evaluation committee will provide scores for each Offeror not to exceed the maximum number of points allowed for the final evaluation. The score of the evaluation committee will be totaled for each Offeror).

The University reserves the right to bypass the initial evaluation and move straight into the final evaluation in the event that only three proposals or less are received.

4.2.1 INITIAL EVALUATION CRITERIA AND POINT ALLOCATION:

Proposals will be initially evaluated based on a total of 100 points as follows:

A) Technical Solution and Approach – 30 points

Evaluation will be based on the Offeror’s demonstrated ability to meet the functional and technical requirements of the RFP:

- Alignment with budgeting, forecasting, and financial planning requirements

(10 points)

- System architecture, scalability, and configurability (5 points)

- Integration capability with enterprise systems (e.g., KFS, PeopleSoft, or equivalent) (5 points)

- Data management, reporting, and analytics functionality (5 points)

- Implementation methodology, including timeline, milestones, and risk mitigation (5 points)

B) Experience and Qualifications – 20 points

Evaluation will be based on:

- Experience implementing similar systems in higher education and/or public sector environments (5 points)

- Strategic commitment to higher education (5 points)

- Qualifications and experience of proposed key personnel (5 points)

- Demonstrated success with comparable project size, scope, and complexity

(5 points)

C) Project Management and Support – 15 points

- Project governance structure and communication approach (5 points)

- Staffing plan and resource availability (5 points)

- Ongoing support model, including help desk, training, and maintenance (5 points)

D) Data Security and Compliance – 10 points

- Compliance with industry security standards (e.g., SOC 2, ISO 27001) (4 points)

- Data protection, privacy controls, and access management (3 points)

- Disaster recovery and business continuity capabilities (3 points)

E) Cost Proposal – 15 points

Cost proposals will be evaluated using the Total Evaluated Cost identified in

Appendix C.

The University reserves the right to:

Adjust evaluated cost for completeness Reject incomplete or unclear pricing Require clarification

Formula:

Points will be awarded using the following formula:

(Lowest Responsive Cost ÷ Offeror Cost) × 15 = Score

(Lowest Responsive and Responsible Total Evaluated Cost ÷ Offeror’s Total Evaluated Cost) × 15 = Cost Score

The Offeror with the lowest responsive and responsible Total Evaluated Cost will receive the full fifteen (15) points.

Example:

Offeror A Total Cost: $10,000 (Lowest Cost) Score: (10,000 ÷ 10,000) × 15 = 15.00 points

Offeror B Total Cost: $15,000 Score: (10,000 ÷ 15,000) × 15 = 10.00 points

Offeror C Total Cost: $25,000 Score: (10,000 ÷ 25,000) × 15 = 6.00 points

F) Past Performance and References – 10 points

Evaluation will be based on:

- Quality and relevance of references for similar projects (5 points)

- Demonstrated record of successful implementation and customer satisfaction (5 points)

Total Possible Points for Initial Evaluation: 100

4.2.2 DEMONSTRATION AND FINAL EVALUATION:

The University’s evaluation committee will select the top FOUR (4) Offerors receiving the highest total score for the initial evaluation. If fewer than FOUR (4) Offeror proposals are acceptable, then the University may, at its option, proceed with fewer than FOUR (4) Offeror proposals through the remainder of the evaluation process.

Those Offerors selected shall be required to provide a live demonstration of their proposal to the evaluation committee, as set forth in Section 3.10. Up to 20 points may be awarded in addition to the initial evaluation to determine an Offeror’s final score.

A) Initial Evaluation Score – Maximum 100 points

B) Solution Demonstration (20 Points)

- Ease of use by end users and administrators (5 points)

- Responsiveness (5 points)

- Other factors as may be determined by the evaluation committee (10 points)

4.3 AWARD OF CONTRACT

Award of the contract, if awarded, shall be made to the Offeror receiving the highest total score after the final evaluation. The University reserves the right to bypass the initial evaluation and move straight into the final evaluation in the event that only three or fewer acceptable proposals are received.

SPECIAL PROVISIONS

SECTION 5

5.1 SCOPE

Providing a comprehensive financial budgeting, planning and management software solution for the University of Hawaiʻi, shall be in accordance with the terms and conditions of RFP No. 27-6284 and the General Provisions dated September, 2013 included by reference.

Copies of the General Provisions are available at the Office of Procurement Management, University of Hawaiʻi, 1400 Lower Campus Road, Room 15, Honolulu, Hawaiʻi 96822 or the General Provisions may be viewed at: https://www.hawaii.edu/procurement/vendor-info/terms-and-conditions/general-provisions-for-goods-and-services/

5.2 REFERENCES

The University reserves the right to contact the references named in Appendix F, REFERENCES, and to reject a proposal submitted by any Offeror whose performance on other projects has been unsatisfactory.

5.3 TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PROCUREMENT OFFICER (TRPO)

The Technical Representative of the Procurement Officer is Belinda Johnson, Director, University of Hawaii Budget Office, University of Hawaiʻi System, Email:

Belinda.johnson@hawaii.edu

5.4 OPENING OF PROPOSALS

Proposals will be opened at the date and time specified in Section 1, Subsection 1.4, SCHEDULE OF KEY DATES, or as amended, at the…