SUNY RFP C004305 eTranscript Vendor Questions with SUNY responses.pdf

eTranscript RFP C004305 Vendor Questions

1. Could you kindly confirm the expected start date of the project?

SUNY: The project is expected to begin immediately following contract approval by the New York State Office of the State Comptroller (OSC). While the exact start date is contingent on this approval, SUNY anticipates initiating implementation activities shortly thereafter, in alignment with the proposed 18-month project timeline.

2. What is the target go-live date or phased rollout plan (if any)?

SUNY: The project is structured as an 18-month implementation following contract approval. SUNY anticipates a phased rollout to support staggered campus onboarding and allow for adequate testing and validation. Specific go-live milestones will be finalized during implementation planning, in coordination with the selected vendor and campus stakeholders.

3. Is there a tentative schedule of dates by which each of the 17 deliverables has to be completed?

Section 5.3, pg 24

SUNY: No fixed delivery schedule is provided in the RFP. SUNY expects bidders to propose a delivery schedule as part of their implementation plan. The schedule should support an 18-month implementation timeline and align with the deliverables listed in Section 5.3, taking into account SUNY's decentralized environment and institutional readiness.

4. Are there any critical academic or administrative deadlines we need to align with?

SUNY: Yes. Key timeframes to consider include academic year start and end dates, graduation processing periods, and financial aid disbursement windows. Additionally, SUNY campuses experience heightened transcript activity in January, May/June, August, and December.

Implementation should aim to avoid major cutovers during these peak periods.

5. Can you provide approximate annual volumes for the following document types:

a. Official Transcripts

b. Certificates (e.g., graduation, diplomas)

c. Digital Badges,

d. Micro-Credentials

e. Any additional document types issued regularly

SUNY: This data is not currently collected. The expectation is to obtain this information in the discovery phase.

6. What is the anticipated total transactions per year? How much of that volume will be PDF transcripts?

SUNY: Total annual transactions are estimated to exceed 1.2 million, including both transcript and credential requests. A significant portion of this volume—particularly transcript fulfillment— continues to be in secure PDF format. However, SUNY is prioritizing a shift toward structured data exchanges under the SUNY-NGTE model. Vendors should anticipate a hybrid environment during the transition period.

7. Is it possible to share sample redacted versions of:

a. Single-page transcript

b. Multi-page transcript

SUNY: There is not a standardized format.

8. What is the current system used for transcript and certificate issuance (PeopleSoft, Parchment, something else)?

SUNY: Many SUNY campuses currently use Parchment for electronic transcript issuance under the existing optional SUNY-wide contract. Other campuses may utilize PeopleSoft, Ellucian Banner, or custom in-house systems for transcript generation and fulfillment. The process for certificate issuance is selected by each campus and the data on such campus selections are not tracked centrally by SUNY.

9. Is there any active contract with an incumbent vendor? If yes, could you name them and indicate the scope?

SUNY: Yes, SUNY has an active contract with Parchment (contract numbers CM0385A/XM0385A) for eTranscript services. The contract supports secure PDF and printed transcript exchange across SUNY’s 64 campuses and external institutions. It expires on November 30, 2025. This RFP seeks a replacement solution to support transcript exchange and broader credentialing needs. See also SUNY’s answer to Question 8 above.

10. Are PeopleSoft and Slate the core SIS and CRM platforms across campuses, or are these used selectively? Are there any other systems that we need to be aware of.

SUNY: Campuses across the system use different SIS and CRMs including, without limitation, Ellucian Banner, PeopleSoft, Jenzabar EX and TE, Workday, Power Campus, CAMS and Colleague.

Vendors should propose flexible integration strategies to accommodate this diversity.

11. Are you using a document generation engine (like DocuSign, Conga, Adobe Sign, or something else)?

SUNY: This varies by campus. There is no single solution for all campuses.

12. Do you already have a digital signature vendor (e.g., GlobalSign, DocuSign)? If yes, who is it?

13. Do you currently use any credential wallet for students? If yes, can you please let us know.

14. What is the estimated volume of historical records (transcripts, certificates, etc.) that will need migration?

SUNY: Historical record volumes vary significantly by institution. Vendors should plan for millions of transcript records system-wide, including both structured and unstructured formats. Migration strategies should be flexible and scalable, allowing each campus to define scope, timing, and format for historical data import.

15. Are these documents stored in a digitally portable format (e.g., XML, JSON, PDF) or scanned images?

SUNY: Documents are stored in multiple formats including, but not limited to, PDF’s and scanned images.

16. Are legacy records structured or do they vary in format across campuses?

SUNY: Legacy record structures vary across campuses, reflecting the decentralized nature of the SUNY system.

17. Is historical credential reissuance expected, or will only archiving / view access be provided?

SUNY: Both may be required. Some campuses will expect reissuance capabilities for historical credentials, while others may require read-only access. The proposed platform should allow campuses to define their own policies for archival access, reissuance, and transcript regeneration based on local practices and regulatory requirements.

18. Would SUNY prefer a centralized delivery model or campus-level decentralized model for onboarding?

SUNY: SUNY envisions a coordinated but phased onboarding approach, leveraging a centralized platform while supporting campus-level implementation planning. The vendor should propose a model that supports campus autonomy with shared infrastructure and rollout coordination to maximize efficiency and adoption.

19. The Excel-based RFP response format limits the ability to present visual elements. Will SUNY accept a separate annexure (PDF based) for flowcharts, dashboards, or screenshots?

SUNY: Yes. Vendors may submit a separate annex or appendix in PDF format containing visuals such as workflows, screen mockups, and dashboards, as long as the core response remains in the Excel templates where specified.

20. For questions with complex explanations, can we provide an external link to a secure visual walkthrough or video demo?

SUNY: SUNY will accept static PDFs or attachments, but cannot accept links to video demonstrations.

21. What is the expected UAT process — centralized or campus-specific?

SUNY: User Acceptance Testing (UAT) is expected to be phased and involve both centralized and campus-level components. SUNY will define baseline acceptance criteria, but individual campuses may participate in UAT for locally-configured workflows, branding, and SIS integrations.

22. RFP page 34, section 7.1b, final sentence, states: “Bidders must complete Attachment 15: Letter of Transmittal.” Attachment 15 does not appear within the solicitation; is it still required to be included in vendors’ submissions? If so, please provide a copy of the document or the URL where vendors may locate it.

SUNY: The Attachment 15 reference was included in error. It’s been removed as part of Addendum 1 to the RFP.

23. If vendors do not choose to include Exhibit F, Extraneous Terms Template (RFP pages 95-96), in their responses, will SUNY allow contractual exceptions to be negotiated with the selected vendor during the contract negotiations period? Or is submitting Exhibit F vendors’ only opportunity to indicate desired areas of negotiation?

SUNY: No. Vendors must include any proposed exceptions to SUNY’s standard terms by properly completing and submitting Exhibit F: Extraneous Terms with their proposal. This is the only opportunity to request contract modifications. Bidders are also reminded to review the conditions around the use of Exhibit F as described in the RFP itself.

24. How should vendors who are not proposing subcontractors complete Form 7557-104: Equal Opportunity Policy Statement?

SUNY: Vendors who are not utilizing subcontractors must still complete and submit Form 7557-104 as part of their proposal, affirming their Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) policy.

25. How should vendors who are not proposing subcontractors complete Form 7564-107: SDVOB Utilization Plan?

SUNY: Vendors should complete the SDVOB Utilization Plan (Form 7564-107) indicating “N/A” or “Not applicable – no subcontracting planned” in the appropriate sections. The form must be submitted even if no SDVOB participation is planned.

26. RFP page 30, section 5.5.1, paragraph 1b, describes the requirement for vendors who have completed a VPAT in-house to engage an independent third party to verify the VPAT’s information. We are in the process of having our VPAT updated and certified by a third party in advance of the federal regulation timeline for higher education institutions; however, our VPAT will not be ready before the proposal deadline. How should we respond to the requirements in

5.5.1 given that our certified VPAT is still in progress? Would providing a copy of our current (non-certified) VPAT be sufficient at this stage of the procurement?

SUNY: No. Providing a copy of your current in-house VPAT/Accessibility Conformance Report without the third-party verification does not satisfy the requirements of the RFP nor is sufficient at this stage of the procurement. SUNY will only evaluate the Vendor's submission if the comprehensive accessibility evaluation from an objective, independent, third party verifying the findings made in the in-house VPAT is provided on or before the bid submission date. As noted in the RFP, SUNY reserves the right to determine that such third-party accessibility evaluation services are equivalent or better.

[SUNY notes the question concerns the use of a non-verified VPAT in the submission and no other facts.]

27. May vendors include additional services relevant to digital credentialing in their responses?

SUNY: Yes. Vendors are encouraged to include value-added or complementary services related to digital credentialing, provided they are clearly delineated from core deliverables and priced separately where applicable.

28. May vendors include additional services relevant to transcripts in their responses?

SUNY: Yes. Additional transcript-related services may be included. These should align with SUNY’s goals (e.g., automation, analytics, accessibility), and be clearly described and optionally priced.

29. Is there additional information available regarding SUNY’s larger Digital Transformation Project (“DTP”) that you could provide or direct us to?

SUNY: This information is not required for a bidder to submit an RFP response.

30. RFP page 8, second to last bullet, states that the solution must feature “exchange of transcripts as structured data IntraSUNY.” What is the preferred format of “IntraSUNY” for machine readable data? Does it differ by receiving campus?

SUNY: SUNY supports structured transcript exchange using standardized formats such as XML, JSON, EDI or PESC XML. While individual campus preferences may exist, the RFP seeks a system-wide standard schema that supports flexibility through user-defined extensions.

31. Based on the description of the "existing contract," how many high schools are currently integrated or actively exchanging student information with SUNY colleges/universities? Are those high schools located within New York or nationwide?

SUNY: Under the current contract, hundreds of New York State high schools have exchanged transcripts with SUNY institutions, primarily via Parchment. Some participation exists from out-of-state high schools, but the majority are within New York. The proposed solution should support scalability for future expansion to additional institutions.

32. During the 18 months of work, prior to final implementation of the new system, who will be maintaining the current system?

SUNY: The current contractor will continue maintaining the current system.

33. To better understand where greater customization may be needed, can you provide more details on how SUNY-NGTE fits into the larger Digital Transformation Project (DTP) strategic initiative?

SUNY: This information is not required for a bidder to submit an RFP response.

34. How many institutions are expected to have surcharges?

SUNY: SUNY expects that many campuses will continue to apply surcharges for transcript fulfillment.

The platform must support variable surcharge models, with each campus controlling its own fee schedules and billing logic.

35. What Student Information Systems (SIS) are in place in the 64 campuses today?

SUNY: PeopleSoft Campus Solutions, Ellucian Banner, Ellucian Colleague, Jenzabar EX and TE, Workday, Power Campus, and CAMS platforms.

36. Is it acceptable to implement multi-language support in a phased approach? Is there a priority order to the 12 that need to be supported?

SUNY: Yes, a phased approach to implementing multi-language support is acceptable. Spanish should be prioritized first, with the sequence of additional languages to be mutually determined at project initiation based on user demographics and institutional priorities.

37. What does multi-language support include? Website, Product Fulfillment, Customer Service, other?

SUNY: Multi-language support should span all components of the student and alumni experience, including the website, ordering and fulfillment workflows, order tracking, customer service, and help resources. This includes multilingual interfaces, translated system communications, and support channels capable of assisting users in their preferred language of the 12 languages described in Section 5.2.1.C. of the RFP. SUNY expects a consistent experience across all major touchpoints.

38. For the requirement to "define a SUNY-wide standardized data schema" is there an existing SUNY-based schema? Do institutions leverage a PESC standard with user-defined extensions?

Does a standardized schema not currently exist across the SUNY schools?

SUNY: There is no currently enforced SUNY-wide transcript schema, though some campuses use PESC XML, EDI, and JSON standards with local extensions. The proposed solution should support adoption of a unified schema while providing tools for mapping campus-specific data elements.

39. Is the desire to define a SUNY-wide standard schema that aligns to a newer standard? If so, which one?

SUNY: Yes. SUNY is interested in aligning with PESC XML standards and emerging CLR frameworks where applicable. Bidders should demonstrate familiarity with recognized transcript exchange and learner record standards.

40. Will each campus' transcript need to be customized with distinct watermarks?

SUNY: Yes, the platform must support campus-specific branding and watermarking, allowing each institution to configure transcript templates, seals, and layout while maintaining compliance with system-wide requirements.

41. "Real time status tracking must be available for students and administrative staff..." Can you define "real-time"? Section 5.1.1., RFP pg 11

SUNY: “Real-time” refers to status updates that are refreshed automatically or with minimal delay (e.g., seconds to a few minutes) as the user progresses through the transcript request lifecycle. This includes submission, approval, processing, and fulfillment milestones.

42. For the bullet "The platform should enable real-time synchronization with campus systems...", do you expect degree changes to managed within the SIS?

SUNY: Yes. Degree conferrals and academic record updates will continue to be managed in the SIS.

The platform should synchronize transcript data with the SIS to ensure that recent changes (e.g., grades, degree postings) are reflected accurately during transcript generation.

43. Can you provide a count of the number of campus-specific payment processors and a list of them?

SUNY: Payment processors vary across the system. Commonly used platforms include Touchnet, BMTX, Transact Campus, Nelnet, Flywire, PayPal and Authorize.net. The vendor should support integration with multiple payment gateways and accommodate campus-specific configurations.

44. For Multi-Institution Ordering does platform need to combine (merge) disparate transcripts formats (EDI, XML, PDF) into a single transcript standard/format?

SUNY: The platform must be able to consolidate transcript data from multiple institutions into a unified delivery package, but not necessarily a single merged file. It should preserve campus-specific formatting while allowing combined ordering and tracking across institutions.

45. Can you describe in greater detail requirements to reconcile data across institutions (and distinct SIS or other platforms) to ensure consistency in student records, and prevent duplication in records or errors? Section 5.1.3., pg 12

SUNY: The platform should include tools for Matching student records across campuses, resolving discrepancies between SIS data, preventing duplicate orders or profile mismatches and logging cross-institutional activity for audit. This may include use of unique identifiers, fuzzy matching logic, or deduplication rules defined by SUNY.

46. Under the bullet to "Provide dedicated tools and resources to assist campuses in configuring the platform for data exchange...", are you planning to leverage any SIS consultants to perform SIS configurations and integration requirements?

SUNY: SUNY anticipates that some campuses may engage SIS consultants during implementation.

However, vendors should not assume centralized provisioning of SIS configuration resources and should include appropriate support in their proposal.

47. For the bullet "Provide built-in tools to facilitate the transformation of "local data into the SUNY schema", please define "local data". Section 5.1.4, pg 14

SUNY: “Local data” refers to campus-specific SIS fields, transcript layouts, and internal data structures that may not align directly with a SUNY-wide schema. The platform should support mapping and transformation of these into the common data exchange format.

48. Seamless migration for historical transcript records and workflows - How far back in history do we need to support this? Is current provider going to be providing those records or SUNY? What format will they be in?

SUNY: There is no fixed cut-off date; each campus will define how far back to migrate. SUNY anticipates working with the incumbent vendor (Parchment) to retrieve records in PDF or XML/CSV formats where available. Vendors should propose tools to ingest both structured and unstructured data.

49. Is the reference to technical support in this section for end-user support for school users, students/alumni, or both?

SUNY: Both. The platform must support:

• Administrative support for campus staff (e.g., registrars, admissions)

• End-user support for students and alumni

Support channels and service levels should reflect the needs of both groups.

50. Does SUNY assign a universal identifier for each student? Can you provide some examples of de-duplication of student records?

SUNY: SUNY maintains a Global ID for students and employees across the system. The Global ID is intended to support cross-campus identity resolution and centralized data integration, especially for students who attend or transfer between multiple SUNY campuses. Campuses do provision students with Campus IDs as well in some cases, most commonly for use of campus-specific tools and processes.

De-duplication is handled both centrally and locally with SUNY system administration running periodic exception processing to detect and resolve duplicate records which could occur because of different names or variations, Global ID used in one instance and Campus ID in another and data entry errors resulting in incorrect or missing identifiers like DOB.

51. Can you provide a list of the ERP tools utilized across SUNY?

SUNY: ERP systems in use include:

• Oracle PeopleSoft

• Ellucian Banner

• Ellucian Colleague

• Homegrown or legacy systems

Integration strategies must accommodate this diversity.

52. What are the SUNY standards for Recovery Time Objective (RTO) and Recovery Point Objective (RPO) for disaster recovery?

SUNY: Vendors must propose disaster recovery solutions that meet or exceed the following targets:

• RTO (Recovery Time Objective): ≤ 4 hours

• RPO (Recovery Point Objective): ≤ 1 hour

Higher standards are encouraged, particularly for core transcript processing functionality.

53. Can you provide some insight regarding the SUNY Global ID Verification system? Is this a proprietary system or is it leveraging a commercially available tool?

SUNY: SUNY has developed a system-wide identifier, but there is no single proprietary “Global ID Verification System.” Identification and authentication protocols are managed at the campus level.

Vendors should support integration with campus-specific identity systems and single sign-on (SSO) standards such as SAML and OAuth.

54. Can you provide a list or examples of the workflows and compliance items that are desired to be configurable by each campus?

SUNY: Examples include:

• Transcript hold policies (e.g., financial or academic holds)

• Approval chains

• Delivery methods (e.g., print vs. digital)

• Processing windows

• Custom messaging or branding

Compliance configurations may relate to FERPA, local privacy policies, or accessibility standards.

55. Can you provide a list of the LMS products that would require integration to pull the MCI data, or quantify the different number of LMS platforms in use?

SUNY: Some examples of LMS products that could require integration are Canvas, Banner and Ellucian. The number of platforms is in the single digits.

56. Other than students who are studying abroad, is there any other scenario under which SUNY would anticipate EU GDPR and other international statutes, rules and/or regulations having jurisdiction over the subject matter in this contract? Will the underlying contract relevant to this RFP designate the winning bidder as a processor (not a controller)?

SUNY: Yes. Students and alumni residing abroad and/or certain data exchange with non-U.S. partners may invoke the GDPR, Personal Information Privacy Law, or other international data privacy laws based upon certain jurisdictional requirements. The winning bidder will generally be designated as a processor, not a controller, under these frameworks unless the applicable law requires otherwise.

57. Our company has multiple "Procurement Lobbying Act Certification" documents on file with the state of New York related to other contracts (for a number of SUNY campuses). Do we need to submit another one?

SUNY: Yes, a completed procurement lobbying form is required as part of a responsive RFP submission. The certification is specific to each procurement so previously completed forms do not apply to the eTranscript RFP.