Rev. 07.01.2024

Request for Proposals (RFP) Addendum #3 SWIFT Event #: 2000018382 Agency: MNIT/MN Board of AELSLAGID (AELS) & MN Board of Accountancy (BOA) Addendum Number: 3 Date of Addendum: 07/13/2026 Title: RFP ITN Licensure and Compliance System (LCS)

SCOPE OF ADDENDUM

The following are changes to the RFP: (A) Revisions to the RFP language (B) Sharing vendor questions and State’s answers

A. Revisions to the RFP language are as follows:

Changes to the original RFP language will use underlines for insertions and strikethroughs for deletions;

or the section will describe what is changing or being added to the RFP language.

Revision 1. Attachment C is replaced in its entirety with the document “Replaced Attachment C.”

Revision 2. Item 3.4.13 is amended as follows:

3.4.13 Integrations: Provide integrations between the solution and external State and payment systems.

The Solution will support the external integrations with applications and agencies listed:

• Integrate with State of MN LoginMN enterprise SSO/MFA.

• Integrate with external payment gateway (US Bank).

• Integrate with Commerce department to send Treasury batch reports.

• Integrate with Management & Budget (MMB) for compliance reporting.

• Integrate with Secretary of State for firm ownership registrations.

• Integrate with National Association of Boards of Accountancy to receive exam participants, records, scores, dates and transcripts.

Revision 3. Item 4.5, “B, vi,” is amended as follows:

B. Describe how you will verify the integrations listed below:

i. Integration with State of MN LoginMN enterprise SSO/MFA.

ii. Integration with external payment gateway (US Bank).

iii. Integration with Commerce department to send Treasury batch reports.

iv. Integration with Management & Budget (MMB) for compliance reporting.

v. Integration with Secretary of State for firm ownership registrations.

vi. Integrate with National Association of Boards of Accountancy to receive exam participants, records, scores, dates and transcripts.

Revision 4. The heading in Attachment E, “cell E1” is amended as follows:

Provide additional details and description for the selection in column GD.

Revision 5. Item 3.4.5 are amended as follows:

3.4.5 Payments & Treasury Reconciliation: Payments are electronically processed (including voids/refunds) interfacing seamlessly with the State’s approved merchant payment/gateway, reconciled, with reporting or audit capabilities. The Solution’s payment and reconciliation should have the following:

o allow users to make credit card, debit card, and e-check payments and request refund.

o allow for real-time payment confirmation via the State’s approved merchant payment processor/gateway, enabling payments and refunds without delays or errors.

o configurable and customizable to interface with the State’s approved merchant payment processor/gateway.

o process, store, or transmit Cardholder Data shall comply with the most recent version of the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (“PCI DSS”) promulgated by the PCI Security Standards Council, currently available online. Addition o Payment and refund transaction status and history should be logged and readily accessible in the proposed solution for reporting, reconciliation, and auditing purposes.

o handle payment issues (e.g., insufficient funds) directly utilizing the features in the State’s approved merchant payment processor/gateway.

B. Vendors’ questions about the RFP and the State’s answers are as follows:

1. Question: Does the State expect a single system instance with logical partitioning of each Board's data, security, and business rules, or separate environments per Board? If a shared instance, what are the requirements for Board-level administrative autonomy (e.g., each Board independently managing its own fee schedules, workflows, and templates)?

1. Answer: The expectation is that there would be a single instance with logical partitioning of each Board’s data, security, and business rules. It is a shared instance. Each Board will have administrative autonomy. We will provide the requirements for the Board-level administrative autonomy to the selected responder.

https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/document_library/

2. Question: Can the State provide a summary of license types, renewal cycles, fee structures, and CE/PDH/CPE rule variations across the eight professions, or make current board rules and fee schedules available to responders to support accurate configuration scoping?

2. Answer: 12 license types in total. For AELS, there are eight: Professional Architecture, Professional Engineer, Professional Land Surveyor, Professional Landscape Architect, Professional Geologist, Professional Soil Scientist, Certified Interior Designer, Professional Firm. For BOA, there are four:

Certified Public Accountant, Registered Accounting Practitioner (RAP), CPA Firm Permit, RAP Firm Permit.

Renewal Cycles: AELS: Every two years on 6/30. Eight across both. Two paths (State and OOS). BOA renewal cycle: BOA is yearly on 12/31.

AELS Fee structures: Initial: $120 for AELS initial and renewal. Application: $75. Approved: $120 for license.

BOA Fee Structures: The board shall charge the following fees: (1) initial issuance of certificate, $150;

(2) renewal of certificate with an active status, $100 per year; (3) initial CPA firm permits, except for sole practitioners, $100; (4) renewal of CPA firm permits, except for sole practitioners and those firms specified in clause (16), $35 per year; (5) initial issuance and renewal of CPA firm permits for sole practitioners, except for those firms specified in clause (16), $35 per year; (6) annual late processing delinquency fee for permit, certificate, or registration renewal applications not received prior to expiration date, $50; (7) copies of records, per page, 25 cents; (8) registration of noncertificate holders, non-licensees, and non-registrants in connection with renewal of firm permits, $45 per year; (9) applications for reinstatement, $20; (10) initial registration of a registered accounting practitioner, $50;

(11) initial registered accounting practitioner firm permits, $100; (12) renewal of registered accounting practitioner firm permits, except for sole practitioners, $100 per year; (13) renewal of registered accounting practitioner firm permits for sole practitioners, $35 per year; (14) CPA examination, fee determined by third-party examination administrator; (15) renewal of certificates with an inactive status, $25 per year; (16) renewal of CPA firm permits for firms that have one or more offices located in another state, $68 per year; and (17) temporary military certificate, $100.

CE/PDH/CPE Rule variations: We will provide the Board-specific rule variations to the selected vendor.

The data provided in “2. Answer” is subject to change and configurations created from this data may be impacted.

3. Question: Do the Boards require automated integration with examination and CE registries (e.g., NCEES records for AELS exam authorization, NASBA/CPE audit data for BOA), or will exam eligibility and CE evidence be applicant-submitted and staff-verified within the Solution?

3. Answer: AELS does not require automated integration with examination and CE registries. BOA does receive exam participants, records, scores, dates and transcripts via sFTP from NASBA.

4. Question: What integration pattern does the State expect for the Microsoft Outlook requirement in Section 3.4.8: outbound notifications relayed through State email infrastructure (e.g., Microsoft Graph/Exchange Online), bidirectional correspondence capture against case records, or both? Are system-generated communications subject to State records retention schedules requiring retention within the Solution?

4. Answer: Bi-directional is the integration pattern for correspondence within the State email infrastructure. Yes, we need to retain system-generated communication.

5. Question: Are all legacy permits and documents referenced in Section 3.4.9 already in digital form, or is scanning/digitization of physical records part of vendor scope? If already digital, what is the approximate repository size and file count? If physical scanning is in scope, what are the estimated volumes?

5. Answer: The vendor would not need to scan. The State provide in a digital format. The estimated volume of documents is over 100K documents and repository size will be provided to the selected responder.

6. Question: Is the State open to a phased go-live (e.g., one Board first, or licensing and renewals ahead of enforcement and audit modules), or must all functionality for both Boards deploy simultaneously by June 30, 2027?

6. Answer: All of the functionality must be deployed by June 30, 2027. However, the Board is open to phasing the deployment by licensing functions and could do it on a per Board basis.

7. Question: For LoginMN constituent SSO/MFA, which federation protocol will be used (OIDC or SAML 2.0), and is a non-production LoginMN environment available during implementation? Is identity matching between LoginMN identities and the approximately 40,000 migrated licensee records expected to be handled within the Solution (e.g., a one-time account claim and verification workflow), or does MNIT's Constituent IAM provide identity resolution services?

7. Answer: Either OIDC or SAML 2.0 can be used for the federation protocol, but OIDC is recommended. LoginMN has a non-production test environment. LoginMN provides identity resolution services. The identity resolution would not be handled within the Solution.

8. Question: Which specific US Bank product is designated as the State's approved payment gateway?

Does the State prefer hosted or redirect payment pages so the Solution remains out of PCI DSS scope for cardholder data (SAQ-A posture), and will daily settlement and funding files be made available to support automated reconciliation to control totals within the Solution?

8. Answer: US Bank has the contract with the State of Minnesota for the payment gateway. Elavon has the credit card clearing contract with the State. The Board solution doesn’t hold any PCI data.

The State will work with the selected vendor to decide on hosted or redirect payment pages. Daily settlement and funding files will be made available for the selected vendor.

9. Question: Can the State describe the legacy LCS technical environment, including the database platform behind the WinForms/.NET application, approximate record counts by core entity (people, licenses, firms, orders and disciplinary actions, documents), total document repository size, and any known data quality issues? Is a current data dictionary available to responders or at award?

9. Answer: Database platform: SQL Server. Stored procedures are used for all DB interactions through ADO.net. FileNet for documents. Question 5 has answered the approximate number of documents. Approximate record counts by core entity are not available. A data dictionary will be provided to the selected vendor.

10. Question: Are both Boards served by a single legacy LCS instance and database, or separate systems requiring consolidation and cross-Board deduplication (e.g., individuals licensed by both Boards) during migration?

10. Answer: There is a single legacy LCS instance.

11. Question: Where the responder is a systems integrator implementing on a third-party SaaS platform, do the GovRAMP Snapshot and Authorization requirements attach to the SaaS platform provider, the integrator, or both? Will the State accept a platform holding FedRAMP Moderate (Rev.

5) authorization with GovRAMP continuous monitoring enrollment within 12 months, with the integrator providing ATO artifacts for the implemented configuration?

11. Answer: To be addressed in Addendum 4.

12: Question: Which High Risk Data categories does the State anticipate the Solution will store or process, noting SSN collection is anticipated to be statutorily required for individual licensure (e.g., Minn. Stat. ch. 270C tax clearance)? Does the State require field-level encryption at rest for designated data elements beyond platform-level encryption?

12. Answer: Please refer to 3.4.17 Security in the RFP. High Risk Data categories anticipated:

• Payment Card Information Data Security Standard (“PCI DSS”)

• Government issued ID Numbers (e.g., Social Security Numbers, Driver’s license numbers / State

ID Card numbers, Passport Numbers)

• Bank account numbers excluding State-owned bank account numbers.

• BOA may have some tax returns as evidence on enforcement evidence.

Field-level encryption is required at rest and when transmitted.

13. Question: Given that Section 3.4.14 references WCAG 2.2 AA conformance while Sections 3.4.18 and 4.6 reference WCAG 2.1 A and AA, which conformance level governs evaluation and the resulting contract? Should the VPAT be completed against WCAG 2.1 as stated in Section 4.6?

13. Answer: This is addressed in the posted Addendum 1. The VPAT should be filed against WCAG 2.1.

14. Question: Should Year 1 in Attachment C reflect implementation plus first-year subscription costs, with Years 2 through 5 representing the optional extension years (subscription and support)? What is the anticipated invoicing basis: milestone or deliverable-based payments for implementation and annual subscription in advance, or another structure?

14. Answer: Please refer to Revision 1 of this Addendum. There is a replacement to Attachment C.

Please include cost for all 5 years in total to be evaluated. There is no strong preference to milestones or deliverable-based payments for implementation for any anticipated basis.

15. Question: In Attachment C, should configuration effort required to meet the Section 3 deliverables be priced under Implementation Costs, with the Customizations line reserved exclusively for custom code beyond configuration as defined in the Attachment E Vendor Solution Legend?

15. Answer: Yes. The configuration effort required to meet the Section 3 deliverables should be priced under Implementation Costs with the Customizations line reserved exclusively for custom code beyond configuration as defined in the Attachment E Vendor Solution Legend. Additionally, please refer to Revision 1 for a replacement to Attachment C.

16. Question: What are the anticipated dates for Tier 2 interviews and demonstrations, and the target award and contract execution date relative to the July 2026 contract start? Will demonstration scenarios or scripts be provided to Tier 2 responders in advance?

16. Answer: The State is unable to give any definitive dates around the RFP process. We anticipate a couple weeks to evaluate the proposals and scheduled the Tier 2 evaluations. Additionally, we anticipate conducting those over a couple of weeks’ period. Finally, we anticipate entering into ITN and finalizing a contract over a several week period. Yes, demonstration scenarios or scripts will be provided to Tier 2 responders in advance.

17. Question: Peak Concurrent Portal Volume: The background data notes a combined public community of approximately 40,000 active applicants and licensees across both Boards. To ensure our cloud-hosted environments are structurally optimized for responsive elastic scaling, could the State provide the historical peak volume of concurrent external portal users experienced simultaneously during seasonal renewal surges?

17. Answer: Please refer to section 3.2 Background of the RFP. The Boards serve Minnesota’s public community of estimated 40,000 applicants and licensees, by 12 staff and 30 appointed board members.

The administration of licensure, certification, and compliance for firms and individuals consist of eight professional fields. End users of the current system are staff, licensees/applicants, firms, board members, and the public.

18. Question: Board Member Activity Cycles: Section 3.2 indicates the system will support 30 appointed board members, with subsequent deliverables highlighting workflow tasks such as reviewing investigation materials and approving enforcement orders. Do these 30 board members require continuous, daily system access, or are their review and signing activities grouped onto a predictable monthly/quarterly meeting cadence?

18. Answer: There is not a predictable access cadence.

19. Question: Firm-to-Individual Account Relationships: Regarding individual and firm licensing, does the State require firm/corporate entities to have a corporate master profile that allows them to manage, renew, and view real-time tracking dashboards for multiple individual practitioners concurrently, or should corporate filings be treated as standalone sub-forms?

19. Answer: It is not a business requirement. The State is open to vendor-suggested solutions.

20. Question: LoginMN Ingestion Boundaries: Section 3.4.13 mandates a formal integration with the State of MN LoginMN enterprise SSO/MFA platform. Will LoginMN handle identity management exclusively for unauthenticated public portal intakes, or will it also serve as the authentication method for historical self-service profile account updates?

20. Answer: LoginMN will also serve as the authentication method for the historical self-service profile account updates as well handling the exclusive identity management.

21. Solution model & platform eligibility

No. RFP ref. Question

21.1 Question 3.1, 3.4.12, 3.4.20

Section 3.1 calls for a “cloud-based, vendor managed, hosted, SaaS” solution while Sections 3.4.12 and 3.4.20 emphasize “configuration over code.” Will the State consider a solution built and configured on a commercial government cloud platform (e.g., a case-management/CRM platform with licensing capabilities) as meeting the SaaS requirement, or does the State require a pre-existing, productized commercial off-the-shelf licensing application?

21.1 Answer

The State may consider a solution built and configured on a commercial government cloud platform depending on what is proposed in consideration of cost and timelines and meeting the needs of the RFP scope.

21.2 Question 3.3

Do the Boards or MNIT have existing enterprise platform investments or license agreements (e.g., Salesforce, Microsoft Dynamics/Power Platform, ServiceNow, Tyler) that the State would prefer or require the Solution to leverage?

21.2 Answer No.

21.3 Question 3.1 Is there an incumbent LCS vendor, and is the incumbent eligible to respond to this solicitation?

21.3 Answer Yes, and they are welcome to respond.

21.4 Question 3.1, 3.4

Does the State have a preference for a single integrated product versus a platform configured and integrated by a system integrator, where the underlying platform is provided as a SaaS component?

21.4 Answer

The State may consider a solution built with a single integrated product versus a platform configured and integrated by a system integrator, depending on what is proposed in consideration of cost and timelines and meeting the needs of the RFP scope.

22. Prime, subcontractors & teaming

No. RFP ref. Question

22.1 Question Sec 6 ·4–·5 The solicitation permits joint ventures and references subcontractors “at all levels.” Will the State permit a prime responder to subcontract portions of the

No. RFP ref. Question scope (including to the SaaS platform provider), and are there limits on the share of work that may be subcontracted?

22.1 Answer

Yes, the State will permit the responder to subcontract portions of the scope. No, there are no limits on the share of work that may be subcontracted.

22.2 Question 4.4

For the desired three (3)+ comparable project examples, may a responder include relevant experience from proposed subcontractors and the underlying platform provider in addition to the prime’s own experience?

22.2 Answer

The selected Responder is desired to have three (3) or more project examples leading, implementing and administering. If administering includes management of subcontractors, then the State does not have any objections.

22.3 Question 3.4.17

How does the State expect security/GovRAMP obligations to flow down to subcontractors — must each subcontractor independently hold GovRAMP Authorization, or may subcontracted application components inherit authorization from the prime’s/platform’s authorized hosting environment?

22.3 Answer To be addressed in Addendum 4.

23. Security, GovRAMP / FedRAMP & data residency

No. RFP ref. Question

23.1 Question 3.4.17

If the Solution is hosted on a platform that already holds FedRAMP Moderate (or High) Authorization, will the State accept that platform’s authorization as satisfying the GovRAMP Moderate requirement for the hosting/infrastructure layer, with the responder responsible only for an application-layer GovRAMP Snapshot?

23.1 Answer To be addressed in Addendum 4.

23.2 Question 3.4.17

The RFP requires a GovRAMP Snapshot within 60 days of execution and Authorization by April 1, 2027. For a solution built on an already-authorized platform, does the April 1, 2027 Authorization milestone apply to the platform, the application configuration, or both?

23.2 Answer To be addressed in Addendum 4.

23.3 Question 3.4.17

The RFP states the State will accept FedRAMP Moderate/High with enrollment in GovRAMP continuous monitoring within 12 months. Will a FedRAMP-authorized SaaS with that enrollment be considered fully responsive, or is GovRAMP Authorization ultimately required regardless?

23.3 Answer To be addressed in Addendum 4.

23.4 Question 3.4.17

Will the Boards’ data include any of the enumerated “High Risk Data” categories — FTI/IRS-1075, CJIS, HIPAA, FERPA, or SSA data? Confirming which actually apply materially affects the required control set and scope.

23.4 Answer This is answered in the answer to Question 12.

No. RFP ref. Question

23.5 Question 3.4.17

Where licensing and CE/CPE data do not include High Risk Data, does the NIST 800-53 Moderate baseline apply uniformly to the entire Solution, or only to components that process/store High Risk Data?

23.5 Answer

The NIST 800-53 Moderate baseline applies only to components that process/store High Risk Data.

23.6 Question Sec 6 ·4

Please confirm the scope of the U.S.-only data residency/processing requirement as it applies to the SaaS platform provider’s standard operations, support personnel, and sub-processors at all tiers.

23.6 Answer

Section 6.4 addresses this answer: All storage and processing of information shall be performed within the borders of the United States. This provision also applies to work performed by subcontractors at all levels.

24. Data migration

No. RFP ref. Question

24.1 Question 3.4.10 Approximately how many records exist per core entity (individuals, firms, licenses, orders/enforcement, complaints, documents), including historical and inactive records?

24.1 Answer This has been addressed in Question 5.

24.2 Question 3.4.10

What is the legacy system’s underlying database/technology, and will the State provide schema documentation and a representative data extract to responders during the procurement, or only to the selected vendor after award?

24.2 Answer SQL Server. The documentation will be provided to the selected vendor after award.

24.3 Question 3.4.9, 3.4.10

Approximately how many legacy documents require migration, in what formats are they stored today, and is physical-document scanning/digitization in scope or are documents already electronic?

24.3 Answer This is addressed in Question 5.

24.4 Question 3.4.10 Who is responsible for source-data cleansing and de-duplication prior to migration — the State/Boards or the selected vendor?

24.4 Answer State/Boards are responsible.

24.5 Question 3.4.10 How many mock-migration cycles and what cutover/rollback window does the State anticipate, and who must sign off the migration audit package?

24.5 Answer We anticipate one or two mock cycles and the State does signoff.

25. Licensing scope, rules & volumes

25.1 Question 3.2, 3.4.4

Across the eight professional fields and both Boards, approximately how many distinct license/credential types exist for individuals and for firms?

25.1 Answer This is answered in Question 2.

25.2 Question 3.4

Are current application, renewal, and reinstatement forms, fee schedules, and workflow/business rules documented, and will that documentation be made available to responders (during the procurement or post-award)?

25.2 Answer

All forms exist on the current Boards respective websites. Fee schedules are addressed in Question 2. All additional information and specifications will be made to the vendor selected.

25.3 Question 3.4.7 How many distinct CE/PDH/CPE rule sets exist across the Boards, and do they include variables such as rolling periods, ethics minimums, category caps, or carryover?

25.3 Answer We will provide the Board-specific rule variations to the selected vendor.

25.4 Question 3.4.7 Is continuing-education provider/course pre-approval or a managed course catalog in scope, or is the system limited to tracking and validating licensee-submitted evidence?

25.4 Answer No catalog. System is limited to licensee-submitted evidence.

25.5 Question 3.4.6

Approximately what annual volume of complaints/investigations must the system support, and are there confidentiality or Data Practices Act classification requirements that govern records during active investigations?

25.5 Answer

Approximately, AELS has ~100 complaints/year, and BOA has ~2,000 complaints per year. Every complaint is investigated. Yes, there are confidentiality and Data Practices Act classification requirements that govern records during active investigations.

25.6 Question 3.2, Sec

6 ·7

To price consistently, can the State provide the approximate split of the ~40,000 licensees between the two Boards and typical annual transaction volumes (applications, renewals, reinstatements) and peak concurrency?

25.6 Answer

Approximately, AELS: 24K licenses; BOA: 16K licenses. For any remaining, transaction volumes will be provided to the selected vendor if applicable to the scope of services.

26. Integrations

No. RFP ref. Question

26.1 Question 3.4.13

For each named integration (LoginMN SSO/MFA, US Bank gateway, Commerce Treasury batch, MMB compliance reporting, Secretary of State firm ownership), will the State provide interface specifications/ICDs and non-production test environments, and at what stage — during the procurement or after award?

26.1 Answer

Yes, the State will provide information on the integrations after award to the selected responder. The State will provide non-Production test environments for the implementation of the integrations. Vendor will need to supply the non-Production Solution test environment.

26.2 Question 3.4.13, 3.4.17

For LoginMN / MNIT Constituent Identity & Access Management, what authentication protocol(s) are supported (SAML 2.0, OIDC), and is a test environment available for integration verification?

26.2 Answer Same answer as Question 7.

26.3 Question 3.4.13 Is integration middleware (e.g., a State enterprise integration/iPaaS platform such as MuleSoft) State-provided, or is the integration tier the responder’s responsibility?

26.3 Answer The integration tier would be the responder’s responsibility.

26.4 Question 3.4.13

For the Secretary of State firm-ownership integration, is a real-time API available, or is the exchange batch/file-based? Likewise, are the Commerce and MMB exchanges real-time or scheduled batch?

26.4 Answer

Secretary of State is a real-time API. LoginMN is a real-time API. Commerce and MMB are a daily, scheduled batch. US Bank gateway is a batch. The NASBA integration is also an unscheduled batch of approximately 2 to 4 per month or when requested.

27. Payments & PCI

No. RFP ref. Question

27.1 Question 3.4.5

Will an integration to the US Bank gateway using a hosted payment page and/or tokenization (limiting the responder to PCI SAQ-A scope) be acceptable, or does the State require the Solution to process cardholder data directly?

27.1 Answer The State does not require the Solution to process cardholder data directly.

27.2 Question 3.4.5 Who holds the merchant account and primary PCI DSS compliance responsibility — the State, US Bank, or the responder?

27.2 Answer

Elavon holds the merchant account and is responsible to be PCI DSS compliant based on their merchant declaration. Responders are responsible for their own PCI DSS compliance as it pertains to their solution proposed and the scope of this RFP.

28. Accessibility

No. RFP ref. Question

28.1 Question

3.4.14, 3.4.18, 4.6

The solicitation references both WCAG 2.1 A/AA and WCAG 2.2 AA. Can the State confirm the single target conformance level the Solution and the VPAT/ACR must meet?

28.1 Answer This is the same answer as Question 13. It should be WCAG 2.1.

28.2 Question 4.6

For solutions with separate administrative and public-facing interfaces, does the State require a separate VPAT/ACR per interface, and will platform-provided VPATs be accepted for the underlying commercial platform components?

28.2 Answer

One VPAT should be sufficient for the whole solution. Platform-provided VPATs would be acceptable for the underlying commercial platform components.

29. Cost scenarios, attachments & schedule

No. RFP ref. Question

29.1 Question 4.2, Sec

6 ·7

Will the State publish the estimated usage/transaction scenarios it intends to use for pricing evaluation so all responders price on a common basis?

29.1 Answer

Pricing information is contained in Attachment C and evaluated based on the total amount submitted for five years. Please see Revision 1 for the replacement of Attachment C.

29.2 Question Attach

ments

Please confirm that Attachments A–F and Sample Contract Exhibits A–D are posted in SWIFT, and that Attachment E (Functional Requirements & Self-Assessment) is the definitive, scored requirements list.

29.2 Answer

Please refer to the Section 4 of the RFP for what will be scored. Submit all requested documentation, including, but not limited to, the following documents:

1. Attachment A: Responder Declarations

2. Attachment B: Exceptions to State's Terms and Conditions

3. Attachment C: Cost Detail

4. Attachment D: Responder Forms

1. Workforce and Equal Pay Declaration Page (Workforce portion required if the anticipated contract and all extensions exceed $100,000; Equal Pay Certificate Form (required if the anticipated contract and all extensions exceed $500,000)

5. Attachment E: Functional Requirements and Self-Assessment

6. Attachment F: Accessibility

Any evaluation scoring will be performed as described in SECTION 5 – EVALUATION

PROCEDURE AND CRITERIA.

29.3 Question 2.1, 3.3, 3.4.17

Given the anticipated term (July 2026–June 2027), the June 30, 2027 go-live, and the April 1, 2027 GovRAMP Authorization milestone, can the State clarify expected implementation sequencing and whether a phased go-live by professional field or Board is acceptable?

29.3 Answer This has been addressed in Question 6.

30. Question: Tier 2 interview format and expectations: Section 5 identifies “Interviews” as a separately scored Tier 2 evaluation component worth 250 points, in addition to the Demonstration and Cost Detail evaluation components. Please clarify what the State means by “Interviews,” including whether interviews will be separate from the product demonstration, the anticipated format and duration, expected vendor participants, whether proposed project personnel must attend, whether references or key personnel may be interviewed separately, and the criteria or topics that will be used to score the interview portion.

30. Answer: The interview will be separate from the product demo anticipated to be conducted in the same meeting session. The interview questions will be the same for each vendor and provided ahead of the second round as well as the demo scripts that they will be asked to demonstrate. The vendor should have the staff necessary to address the interview questions and perform the demo. Proposed project staff do not need to attend. There will be no separate interviews for key personnel.

31. Question: Given the short timeline between the questions due date and the response due date, without a stated date that answers to questions will be provided, can the response due date be extended by at least 2-3 weeks?

31. Answer: This question has been addressed in Addendum 2.

32. Question: Does BOA/AELS have a required or desired page limit for responses?

32. Answer: No. However, the preference is to limit the content of the Responder’s proposal to the requested items in Section 4 – Proposal Content.

33. Question: Are BOA/AELS open to a phased implementation approach? If a phased implementation approach is acceptable, what is the desired order for which BOA/AELS board, programs or functions are to be implemented?

33. Answer: Yes, we are open to a phase approach. There is currently no desired order between Boards for which Board could go first. Additionally, there could be a phasing by licensing functions. The deployment (all functionality for both Boards) must be completed by June 30, 2027.

34. Question: Please elaborate upon any timing considerations for when specific programs / areas / functions will need to be fully transitioned to the new solution and if it is acceptable for projected deployment dates extend past June 30, 2027.

34. Answer: There is no specific timing consideration for specific programs/areas/functions. The deployment must be completed by June 30, 2027.

35. Question: What costs has BOA/AELS incurred for the initial set up, ongoing maintenance, hosting, software licensing, support, and enhancements (i.e., “change orders”) over the lifetime of the current systems to be replaced by the new solution?

35. Answer: The State declines to answer this question. Any questions outside of the scope of this RFP can be requested via an open data request.

36. Question: What presentations, software demonstrations and/or estimates / quotes have BOA/AELS programs received related to this project and from whom?

36. Answer: Decline to answer.

37. Questions: For data conversion requirements, please inventory all data sources, file formats, and size of the current data sets for both boards to be converted and migrated into the new system.

37. Answer: This is addressed in Question 5.

38. Question: What is BOA/AELS’s budget for the initial system implementation?

38. Answer: Decline to answer.

39. Question: What, if any, amount of the budget is subject to expire by a certain timeframe and when?

Please elaborate.

39. Answer: Decline to answer.

40. Question: What amount is being budgeted for ongoing support, software licensing, hosting, and support of the new system?

40. Answer: Decline to answer.

41. Question: Does BOA/AELS desire to have the option for staff to be trained in application administration to make changes, updates, and add new capabilities to the system after go-live? Or are BOA/AELS anticipating the vendor to perform future updates and changes (such as addition of new license types, form configuration, business rule changes, etc.) to the system?

41. Answer: BOA/AELS is anticipating the selected responder’s solution will be vendor managed post-implementation with support and maintenance and a service level agreement as indicated in 3.4.15-16.

42. Question: To allow respondents to properly scope the effort and provide accurate cost estimates, please either quantities or a comprehensive list of the following:

a. License and permit types

b. Initial application forms

c. Renewal forms

d. Reinstatement forms

e. Correspondence templates (including mailed letters and emails)

f. Reports required at go-live

42. Answer:

a. License and permit types are answered in Question 2.

b. Initial application forms: The list of the current application forms will be provided to the selected vendor.

c. Renewal forms: The list of the current renewal forms will be provided to the selected vendor.

d. Reinstatement forms: The list of the current reinstatement forms will be provided to the selected vendor.

e. Correspondence templates (including mailed letters and emails): The templates will be provided to the selected vendor.

f. Reports required at go-live: The reports that will be required for go-live will be provided to the selected vendor.

43. Question: For each of the integrations identified on Pages 8 and 9 of the RFP, please provide the following information:

a. Available integration methods (e.g., REST API, batch flat file transfer)

b. Frequency of exchange (e.g., real-time, nightly, weekly)

c. Direction of exchange (i.e., outbound, inbound, or bidirectional)

d. Scope of information to be exchanged

43. Answer:

a. This is answered in Question 26.4.

b. This is answered in Question 26.4.

c.

• LoginMN: bidirectional

• US Bank gateway: bidirectional

• Commerce department: Treasury batch files are emailed to Commerce financial management on a daily basis.

• MMB: outbound from application to MMB

• Secretary of State: bidirectional

• NASBA: inbound from NASBA

d. Some information is in 3.4.13 of the RFP. Additional interface information will be provided to the selected vendor.

44. Question: Page 8 notes that the Solution must “Integrate with Management & Budget (MMB) for compliance reporting.” Can the State further describe the scope of this integration, so that it is clear what data is exchanged with MMB, and how this differs from the Treasury integration?

44. Answer: Treasury is a division in MMB that accepts and reconciles incoming funds. The Solution needs to accept daily remittance file back from US Bank.

45. Question: Page 8 states that the Solution should "handle payment issues (e.g., insufficient funds) directly utilizing the features in the State’s approved merchant payment processor/gateway." Can the State clarify which functions are available in the approved merchant payment processor/gateway to handle payment issues that are available to the awarded Solution vendor (e.g., specific APIs for handling payments marked insufficient funds)?

45. Answer: The State will clarify which functions are available in the approved merchant payment processor/gateway to the selected vendor.

46. Question: Please provide the annual number of applications / renewals processed by BOA/AELS.

46. Answer: This is answered in Question 25.6.

47. Question: Please provide a breakdown of the number of BOA/AELS employees that will be using the new solution by BOA/AELS program and role.

47. Answer: This information will be provided to the selected vendor.

48. Question: Per page 6 of the RFP, “Board Support” is listed as a supportive functionality required in the delivered Solution. This need can vary dramatically in scope depending on the specific functional requirements needed. Can the State provide additional details on the Board Support functions required by BOA/AELS, so that respondents can size and scope the effort to deliver these functions appropriately?

48. Answer: Actually, page 6 describes the current system’s functionality for Board Support. It does not represent the requirements of the new system.

49. Question: If a vendor’s status for either the Workforce or Equal Pay certification is listed as “Pending” on the official MN “State Contractor Status” webpage, can the vendor provide these certifications prior to award, rather than with their response?

49. Answer: The Workforce and Equal Pay Declaration Page is required if the proposed cost exceeds $100,000.

50. Question: Regarding the anticipated June 30, 2027, deployment date, and the timeline involved to finalize the procurement process, award, finalize a contract, and kickoff the project, it may be unrealistic to achieve. Will proposals projecting a “Go-Live” date beyond 6/30/27 be disqualified?

50. Answer: No.

51. Question: We would additionally like to submit the following questions for clarification:

a. How many Departments are there?

b. How many Business Licenses are there per Department?

c. How many Professional (individual) Licenses are there per Department?

d. How many Permit Types are there per Department?

e. How many Certification Types are there per Department?

f. How many Continuing Education Types are there per Department?

g. What are the volumes of the above per year?

h. Do the Departments share data?

i. People Records.

j. Property Records.

k. Investigations across Departments.

l. Do the departments allow access to Folders between Departments?

m. How many current Portals are there for the Public to access and/or input requests?

n. Is there a separate Portal for Contractors versus the General Public ?

51. Answer:

a. There are no departments. There are two Boards: AELSLAGID and BOA. Question 2 has the answer for license types.

b. Question 25.6 has the answer to this question.

c. Question 2 has the answer to license types per Board.

d. Question 2 has the answer to the permit types per Board.

e. Question 2 has the answer to the number of certification types per Board.

f. There is a one-to-one relationship between Continuing Education types and license types.

g. Transaction volumes will be provided to the selected vendor if applicable to the scope of services.

h. The Boards do not share data.

i. Question 25.6 has the answer to this question.

j. Question 25.6 has the answer to this question.

k. Question 25.5 has the answer to this question.

l. The Boards do not share data. The different license types do not share data.

m. There are two public websites; one for each Board. The current LCS application is used by the Board staff.

n. Not enough information to provide a response.

52. Question: Please provide the name and a high-level description of the current licensing and compliance system, including whether it is a custom-developed application or a commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) solution?

52. Answer: LCS is the custom-built Windows-based application used by board staff. Access is via internal network or VPN. Exam score data is imported from NASBA for Board of Accountancy exams.

Data is downloaded from NASBA SFTP site. Payment settlement data is imported from US Bank. Data is downloaded from US Bank SFTP site. Reports are created using Crystal Reports as external reports and integrated using Report Viewer.

53. Question: Can the State provide approximate record counts for the primary data entities expected to be migrated, including but not limited to:

a. Applicants

b. Licensees

c. Firms

d. Complaints

e. Investigations

f. Enforcement Orders

g. Continuing Education Records

h. Associated Documents/Attachments

53. Answer:

a. This is addressed in Question 25.6.

b. This is addressed in Question 25.6.

c. For AELS, the number of firms is approximately 500. For BOA, the number of firms is approximately 1300.

d. This is addressed in Question 25.5.

e. This is addressed in Question 25.5.

f. This is addressed in Question 24.1.

g. This is addressed in Question 24.1.

h. This is addressed in Question 24.1.

54. Question: Please describe the source systems and repositories containing data to be migrated, including database technologies, document repositories, and any anticipated access that will be provided to the selected vendor for migration analysis and execution.

54. Answer: The data is stored in SQL Server. Filenet is used as a document repository. The selected vendor will be provided with access to analyze the current system and develop a migration strategy.

The vendor will have the required access to execute the data migration.

55. Question: For historical documents and records, does the State anticipate migration of all available historical data, or only records associated with active licenses, firms, and compliance cases?

55. Answer: All historical data.

56. Question: How many mock migrations and/or data validation cycles does the State anticipate prior to production cutover?

56. Answer: This is addressed in Question 24.5.

57. Question: Can the State provide an inventory of the credential types administered by AELS and BOA, including:

a. Individual Licenses

b. Firm Licenses

c. Registrations

d. Certifications

e. Application Types

f. Renewal Types

g. Reinstatement Types

Additionally, please identify any profession-specific business rules that materially differ between credential types.

57. Answer: The number of credential types is answered in Question 2.

a. This is answered in Question 25.6

b. This is answered in Question 53.c.

c. This is the combination of answers to a and b from above.

d. This is answered in Question 2.

e. This is answered in Question 2.

f. This is answered in Question 2.

g. This is answered in Question 2.

We will provide the Board-specific rule variations to the selected vendor.

58. Question: Are there significant differences between AELS and BOA business processes that require separate workflows, security models, approval processes, or configuration within the proposed solution?

58. Answer: Yes.

59. Question: Can the State provide additional details regarding profession-specific Continuing Education (CE), Professional Development Hours (PDH), and Continuing Professional Education (CPE) requirements, including:

a. Audit selection methodology

b. Audit volumes

c. Compliance validation rules

d. Evidence submission requirements

e. Any external provider reporting or integrations currently utilized

59. Answer: Both Boards have profession-specific, audit, and validation rules. Details are to be provided after vendor selection.

60. Question: Can the State provide a high-level overview of current complaints, investigations, and enforcement workflows, including:

a. Annual complaint volume

b. Typical investigation volume

c. Enforcement action types

d. Board member participation requirements

e. Any confidentiality or restricted-access requirements associated with case records

60. Answer: The selected vendor will be provided with the high-level requirements for the complaints, investigations, and enforcement workflows.

a. This is answered in Question 25.5

b. This is answered in Question 25.5.

c. This is answered in Question 24.1.

d. Board members participate in the current process manually.

e. This is confidential data both during the investigation and private data post.

61. Question: Can the State provide available technical specifications, interface documentation, file layouts, API specifications, or testing environment details for the following integrations?

a. LoginMN (SSO/MFA)

b. U.S. Bank Payment Gateway

c. Secretary of State Business Verification Services

d. Treasury Reporting Interfaces

e. Minnesota Management & Budget (MMB) Compliance Reporting

f. National Association of State Boards of Accountancy

61. Answer: The state will provide the information necessary to develop the listed interfaces to the selected vendor.

62. Question: Can the State provide examples or additional details regarding the desired public roster functionality, including:

a. Search capabilities

b. Publicly visible fields

c. Export requirements

d. Public verification requirements

e. Any anticipated enhancements beyond current functionality

62. Answer: The State will provide examples and additional details of the public roster functionality to the selected vendor.

63. Question: Section 3.4.14 references WCAG 2.2 AA conformance, while Attachment F references WCAG 2.1 A and AA standards. For evaluation purposes, which accessibility standard should vendors use as the primary compliance target?

63. Answer: This has been addressed by Addendum 1.

64. Question: Will accessibility evaluation be based solely on submitted VPAT/ACR documentation, or will accessibility testing and/or accessibility-related demonstration scenarios also be included in the evaluation process?

64. Answer: As stated in section 4.6, the responders must complete and submit Attachment F. There will be no Accessibility testing in the evaluation process. There will be no Accessibility-related demonstration in the Tier 2 round of evaluations.

65. Question: Beyond the manual processes described in the solicitation, are there specific operational challenges, audit findings, compliance concerns, or strategic business priorities that the Boards consider particularly important for the replacement solution to address?

65. Answer: There are no compliance concerns or audit findings. This is about a website modernization.

66. Question: For vendors advancing to Tier 2, will demonstration scenarios and evaluation scripts be provided in advance of the demonstration sessions?

66. Answer: Yes.

67. Question: Does the State have a preference or requirement on cloud platform (GCP, AWS, Azure) for this project?

67. Answer: No.

68. Question: Given the nature and complexity of the open questions we’ve submitted, would the State consider any extension in this RFP submission deadline beyond the published 6/22 date to provide more time to incorporate the State’s responses?

68. Answer: This has been addressed in Addendum 2.

69. Question: Contract exhibits and order of precedence: The Sample Contract identifies Exhibit C as “Specifications, Duties, and Scope of Work” and Exhibit D as “Price and Payment Schedule.” Please confirm whether Exhibits C and D will be populated after award/negotiation using the selected Responder’s proposal, negotiated scope, and Attachment C pricing, and whether Responders should take exceptions now only to the provided Sample Contract, Exhibit A Contract Terms, Exhibit B Insurance Terms, and any currently provided exhibit language.

69. Answer: The Sample Contract is a sample and will be further discussed through negotiations with the selected responder. Exceptions for the Sample Contract may be directed towards the Contract Terms.

70. Question: License and credential inventory: Please provide the current number of license, certification, registration, firm, and permit types by Board and by profession, including active, inactive, retired, expired, suspended, revoked, and pending statuses.

70. Answer: This question has been addressed in Question 2 and Question 53.c. Information on the inventory will be provided to the selected vendor if applicable to the scope of services.

71. Question: Annual transaction volumes: Please provide annual volumes for new applications, renewals, reinstatements, firm applications/renewals, complaints, investigations, orders, CE/PDH/CPE audits, public roster updates, and payments/refunds.

71. Answer:

a. For applications and renewals, this has been addressed in Question 25.6.

b. For firms, this has been addressed in Question 53.c.

c. For complaints/investigations, this has been addressed in Question 25.5.

d.…