Addendum #1 BID NO.: ITN

Transcription

1 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION BUREAU OF CONTRACTS, GRANTS AND PROCUREMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES 325 West Gaines Street 332 Turlington Building Tallahassee, Florida Addendum #1 BID NO.: ITN ENTERPRISE GRANTS MANAGEMENT APPLICATION December 22, 2016 This addendum is being issued to revise sections of the Invitation to Negotiate document and provide the Answers to Questions submitted timely by vendors during the Question and Answers period. Changes are coded as: words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions. The Invitation to Negotiate schedule has changed. The following sections of the Invitation to Negotiate are hereby amended: 3.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) is to seek either a Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) or in-house installed software and associated services to acquire, configure, and implement an enterprise grants management system servicing the functions of all grant management organizations within the Department. The solution will support efficient and collaborative processes of staff, managers, leadership, grantees, and selected interfacing systems such as finance. Implementation is phased and shall be fully operational by April 28, 2017 July 27, Critical Event Dates These are tentative dates for critical events, and are subject to change. ITN Addendum #1 Page 1

2 EVENT DATE Invitation To Negotiate (ITN) Released November 3, 2016 Deadline for receipt of Technical Questions (Fax or ed (preferred) November 10, 2016 by 4:00 pm ET Department Response to Technical Questions received by deadline (this date is on or about) November 16, 2016 December 22, 2016 TECHNICAL & PRICE REPLIES ARE DUE (FA & NOT November 30, 2016 January 11, :30 P.M. ET Technical Replies will be opened in Room 332 Turlington Building November 30, 2016 January 11, 2:45 p.m. ET Evaluation of Technical Replies December 2 Begins on or about January 12, 2017 Price Replies will be evaluated by the Bureau of Contracts, Grants and Procurement Management Services staff during the evaluation stage. The Negotiation Committee will start negotiations (this date is on or December 15, 2016 February 6, 2017 about) The Agency Decision will be posted for 72 hours upon completion of the negotiation meeting and a final decision by the Department Technical Reply 3. RESPONDENT S TECHNICAL REPLY The Reply will be evaluated, in part, on the basis of the accomplishing the following tasks, and other factors including total costs, ongoing costs, and the ability of the Respondent to assist in implementation with the required projected timeframes below. All dates subject to negotiations: December 3, 2016 March 1, Project Launch December 14, 2016 March 15, Integrated Baseline Review December 20, 2016 April 14, Project Management Plan and components (See Attachment A for details) December 20, 2016 April 4, GMA Solution Architecture January 15, 2017 May 4, GMA Application Architecture, Deployment Rollout Plan January 21, 2017 May 31, Proof of Technology (technical validation) ITN Addendum #1 Page 2

3 January 16, 2017 June 1, Confidence Test Report (Test Scripts validated for all Phase 1 requirements) January 31, 2017 June 1, GMA Phase 1 Full Grants Life Cycle Customer Demonstration February 15, 2017 June 15, Quality Assurance Report March 1, 2017 June 8, Onsite Training Plan, Service Desk Support Plan March 6, 2017 June 22, Training Class begin March 10, 2017 July 20, Completion of deployment for Title 1-A,C,D; Title II, Title III, Title V, and Title I April 12 July 27, Go Live for Phase 1 April 12 July 27, 2017 June 30, Operational Support for all production deployments April 17 July 5, Phase 2 Completion of the deployment plan for remaining phases (2 & 3) May 31 August 25, Validated Phase 2 Requirements June 1, 2017 September 11, Requirements, Testing, and Training deliverables and deployments for remaining Bureaus, components, and groups June 29, Completion of migration and deployments to all Bureaus, components, and Programs Below are the answers to questions submitted timely by vendors during the Questions and Answers period. Please be advised all questions are keyed as submitted. CJIS Group, LLC. Questions Answers 1. Can you please advise the funding source for this contract? Funding is available, as it supports existing applications. 2. Is there an estimated project cost/cost cap for this? There is an internal estimate of acquisition cost. 3. Questions StreamLink Software Section 3.2 Background: The Department conducted an internal review of products, a needs assessment, and market research in early Marketplace solutions were identified that support enterprise objectives. Please provide a copy of the internal review, needs assessment, and market research. Answers Attached is a copy of the RFI analysis ITN Addendum #1 Page 3

4 Questions StreamLink Software 4. Section 3.2 Background: The Department has decided that in order to streamline the grants management processes, it is essential to implement a common grants management application platform. As part of the Department s efforts to streamline the grants management processes, is there a focus to centralize grants monitoring activities (financial and programmatic)? 5. Section 3.4 Critical Event Dates: The Negotiation Committee will start negotiations (this date is on or about) December 15, Section Technical Reply (Part I), subsection 3 - RESPONDENT'S TECHNICAL PLAN: December 3, Project Launch. Will project launch date and subsequent dates be adjusted to align with actual project initiation? 6. Please provide a list of grants managed by the Department. See attached list of programs 7. Please provide a count and job titles of end-users. 8. Please provide the budget and source of funds (e.g. federal, state) to be utilized for this project. 9. Please provide an estimated count of end-users who will require training. 10. Phase 1 described within Section 6 - Scope of Services describes the migration of systems. What are the names of the Department's current Online Grants and egrants systems and who are the vendors? Are these the same "prior systems" referenced on page 19 of the RFP? What are the limitations of those systems, and the reason for changing systems? 11. In reference to data conversion, what data will need to be converted? What role with the Department play in the extraction and preparation of that data? Answers Although fiscal and program monitoring is not the focus of this application, it is contemplated that this functionality could be added in a later phase of the project. Yes, the Critical Event Dates and Implementation Timeframes from Section have been revised as indicated above. The number of users fluctuates between 1,100 and 1,300. Internal users include program directors, grants specialist, accountants. External job titles would depend on the agency. See Answer to Question #1 All end-users will require some form of training, including inperson or online. Current systems are Online Grants, egrants, Continuous Improvement Management System - CIMS, Charter School Program Grant (with Fluidreview vendor) and 21 st Century Learning Program, each supporting a different subset of grants users. These systems were developed in-house or as indicated above. The primary limitation is the large number of different systems and the lack of consistency across the various systems. Data conversion/migration will focus on lookup, reference, or budget data. Department staff will be available to provide subject matter expert input. ITN Addendum #1 Page 4

5 Questions StreamLink Software ITN Addendum #1 Page 5 Answers 12. Does the Department have a preference in the training delivery No preference, respondents are asked to propose solutions method (online, on site, train the trainer, etc.)? for the best value. 13. Page 19 of the RFP references an interface with the Department's current document management system. What is the name of this The Department currently uses Office 365 SharePoint for internal document management. system and who is the vendor? 14. The Department references "Third party data (not just primary applicants or grantees)" on page 19 of the RFP. What type of data does the Department anticipate uploading to the chosen solution? Data uploads will be directly related to grants, projects, budget, student survey data, and program reporting. Yes, data will be related to grants. Will the data be directly related to grants/projects? 15. How would the Department like vendors to complete the Deliverable due date form? Dates are already provided within the form, so should vendors just confirm that they are able to meet those due Please provide an estimated deliverable date, which enables the vendor to meet the date(s) included in Attachment A, as amended attached. dates? 16. Will the Department only be evaluating responses from vendors that responded to the RFI? No. 17. Can you please provide the Department s number of unique subrecipient Estimated 236 individual recipients/sub-recipients. organizations? 18. Annual awards vary depending on formula or appropriation Can you please provide the Department s average annual grant revenue? amount. Total awards to recipients/sub-recipients for FY16/17 are estimated in excess of $2,021,592, Have you had previous demonstrations and/or conversations with Yes, Leidos Digital Solutions, Inc. demonstrated Intranet grants management vendors? If so, with whom? Quorum. 20. No, demonstrations will not be requested during evaluation. If Does the department expect to have vendor demonstrations during the evaluation period? needed, any demonstrations may be conducted during the negotiations phase. 21. Yes. The Department contracted with Kyra Solutions utilizing Have you had any assistance in preparing this RFP? If so, from whom? the Information Technology state contract # Project Area 4 Staff Augmentation. 22. Has a budget been approved for this project? If so, for how much? See Answer to Question # Does the Department have a preference regarding a SaaS vs. a non-saas solution? The Department has no preference for either SaaS or non- SaaS platforms.

6 Questions StreamLink Software 24. Attachment D is requested in the Preliminary Administrative Review Section, in addition to the Technical Reply (Part I). Should vendors submit a copy of Attachment D in both of these sections? Or should Attachment D be submitted within the Preliminary Administrative Review Section only, with vendors only addressing the following language in the Technical Reply (Part 1).. details regarding all prior relevant experience they have concerning the scope of work described herein, including providing similar deliverables and products which will be part of the Contract work. The Respondent should provide a description of its qualifications and prior experience performing tasks similar to those required in this ITN. The Plan should include a description of the Respondent s background and relevant experience that qualifies it to provide the products and services required by this ITN.? Answers Attachment D may be submitted in the Technical Reply as indicated in Section Respondent s Qualifications and Experience. Questions GCR, Inc. Answers When the state refers to mobile device support, are they looking for a native application or a website whose layout changes depending on the device dimensions? When the state refers to mobile device support, will the application need to work in a disconnected (no internet connectivity) mode and then provided syncing abilities when connected? The Grant Management Application should also be fully operable on mobile devices. No. 27. Will there be 2 separate sites created? One for internal use and one for public use? 28. If there is only one site, how will the state manage security using active directory? There will be one Grants Management Application site Security will be managed through Federation. ITN Addendum #1 Page 6

7 Questions GCR, Inc. Answers 29. Can both sites be written in C# using the Microsoft MVC framework? 30. Is Angular material design an acceptable UI framework? How is the current data stored (Mainframe, Excel, Access, SQL, Oracle)? What is the preferred data storage technology for the new solution? What will be the vendor s responsibility as it pertains to data migration and data mapping? FL DOE is not evaluating the underlying technology but the configured solution. FL DOE is not evaluating the underlying technology but the configured solution. Current grant data is stored in SQL. FL DOE has no preferred data storage technology to successfully meet ITN requirements. The vendor will be responsible for data mapping and migration. The Department will support both, as subject matter experts. 34. What technologies should be used to collaborate with other agencies (print outs, FTP, , web-services, APIs)? Technologies should be either web-services or APIs Are there any onsite requirements that the vendor should be aware of? Will Roles based security be sufficient for both internal and external users? What type of notification does the state envision for the application (modal popups, s, etc.)? Please address all ITN requirements. Yes. s are preferred. 38. What types of formulas need to be inserted/edited? As appropriate, formulas enable data integrity and efficiency. 39. How are statistics from department survey data integrated with the system as it pertains to automatically calculating annual grant allocations? Survey statistics are inputs to factors used for determining eligibility and allocations, consistent with the federal and state formula and other requirements. 40. Are there any unconventional file types that should be allowed? No unconventional file types are used. 41. Are uploaded files stored in a file share on in the database? Uploaded files are stored in the database. ITN Addendum #1 Page 7

8 42. Questions Can the state provide more detail on how new online forms will be utilized within the system? GCR, Inc. Answers Online forms will support an online grants process. Questions HTC Global Services, Inc. 43. Are there any specific product / vendor type decision made based on the internal review of products, needs assessment and market research activities conducted by the department in early 2016? 44. Summary of Requirements (Business Requirements and System Requirements) - are not scored / evaluated? Please clarify. Section page Should the respondents reply to the ITN, include responses to each requirements mentioned in Summary of requirements (Section 6.2) and Deliverables (Section 6.1)? Please clarify. Answers No. The ITN was developed as a result of multiple internal reviews including the information submitted as part of the RFI. The ITN provides the criteria for evaluation. Please address all ITN requirements in the format directed in Section 7. Please address all ITN requirements in the format directed in Section Questions Section 3.2: What type of on-line constitute engagement and outreach does the department anticipate? How often and with whom? Section 3.2 Can you provide examples of federal and state reports for grants administered by the department Entitlements: non-competitive discretionary; competitive discretionary; and cooperative agreements? Microsoft Section a.ii. and 1.b.ii. - How many systems in total are in use currently that have data to migrate? Is the data accessible by ITN Addendum #1 Page 8 Answers The Department works continuously with grantees and subgrantees across the State. See attached examples of reporting outputs: Consolidated State Performance Report for See Answer to Question #10. Yes, data is accessible by Department staff. Yes, there will be documents and file content to migrate

9 Questions Microsoft Department staff? Is there content (e.g., documents and files) to migrate as well? Answers Section This section mentions user account creation and login, and password management capabilities, how does this relate to the federated access and authorization model described in section 6.0 a.v. and b.v.; does the Department's Microsoft Active Directory Service manage account creation, login and password management? Section a.iii. - Password protection and password renewal capability - is this separate from the Department's Microsoft Active Directory Services? Section b.ii. - Can the Department elaborate on what is meant by a Multi-level data structure? Section d.i. - Will the Florida Grants System (FLAGS) continue to be used along with the new Grants Management system for the Department and require continuous data integration between the two systems? Section d.iv. - What software product or platform is used for the current document management system; will the current document management system continue to be used and require continuous integration between it and the new Grants Management system? Section 6.1(2)(d) Please provide examples of configurable Data integrity checks and validations Section 6.1(2) (e) What budget fields need to be automatically calculated? Yes. The federated solution incorporates capabilities of the DOE Active Directory for account access functions such as single signon, account management, authentication, and authorization. Password protection and renewal are not separate from the Department s Microsoft Active Directory. If your solution is unable to Federate with the Department s Active Directory, please describe your account management capabilities, including passwords. As an example, multi-level data structures may apply to hierarchy of groups, roles, and individuals. Yes. Documents are stored in the grants systems: egrants, Online Grants, and FLAGS, which are DotNET platforms. No continuous integration will be required. As grantees submit and documents are processed, validation checks should occur in real time. Each program has specific budget fields which are automatically calculated to allow maximum or minimum constraints. The DOE 101 Budget Narrative form is consistently used across all grant programs. See Department of Education Grant Forms internet ITN Addendum #1 Page 9

10 Questions Section 6.1(2) (e) - What budget fields are included in the financial reporting forms? Microsoft Section 6.1(2) (h) - Does the Department currently use electronic signatures? If so what product is used for electronic signatures or certification? Section 6.1.(4)(d) Please describe formulas created by staff. How often does the formula change? Section 6.1(6)(a) Please provide the current formula calculation and process for proportional allocations Section 6.1(6)(b) Please provide an example of a simulations for proportional allocations process? Section 6.1(8)(b) What data is required for FLAGS to generate DOE 200? ITN Addendum #1 Page 10 Answers page for grant forms, link provided. Each program has specific budget fields which are included in financial reporting forms. The DOE 399 Project Disbursement Report form is consistently used across all grant programs. See Department of Education Grant Forms internet page for grant forms, link provided. No. Formulas are defined based on grant requirements but are generally updated annually. See Answer to Question #58 Pre-Allocation simulations can be performed for students for free and reduced lunch, based on grant-specific formulas and requirements. Data required for FLAGS to generate the DOE 200 includes: Project recipient name, project/program title, project number, authority, authorized funding amount, project dates, reimbursement option, program contact information, reporting timelines and any special conditions. 62. Section 6.1.(9) What does standard award cycle mean? The cycle from grant application to grant award. Systems Requirements: (b)(iv) Please describe Third party 63. Data from other than DOE or grantees/subgrantees. data d.vii provide an example of Smart forms (calculates, During data entry and processing, the validation and cross 64. tables). checking of information so process quality is retained. What is the difference between Grantees, Sub-grantees, Grantee - The government or other legal entity to which a grant is 65. Recipients, and Sub-recipients? awarded. Sub-grantee - The government or other legal entity to

11 Microsoft Questions Answers which a sub-grant is awarded and that is accountable to the grantee for the use of the funds provided. Recipient The entity that receives an award, and is accountable to the grantee. Subrecipient - An entity that receives a sub-award from a recipient or another sub-recipient under an award of financial assistance to carry out a program and is accountable to the recipient or subrecipient for the use of the funds provided by the sub-award. This does not include an individual that is a beneficiary of such a program. A sub-recipient may also be a recipient of other federal awards directly from a federal awarding agency. Guidance on distinguishing between a sub-recipient and a vendor is provided in 2 CFR Estimated total number of internal Bureau users? Can those users be segmented by role? Estimated 170 internal users. 67. Estimated number of applicants by bureau per year? Estimated number of applicants is not maintained by Bureau. Estimated number of external users per year by category: Evaluators, Primary Investigators, Auditors, Technical Assistance The estimated number of external users is not maintained by 68. Providers, Grantees, Sub-grantees, Recipients, and Subrecipients? category. 69. Estimated number of new awards provided by bureau per year? Not available at this time Are there any restrictions around what type of resources are allowed to perform development work not production systems (Offshore Non US Citizens)? Is the data migration from SQL Server only or are there other databases? If so can provide which one? Can we get a list of data tables and sizes for migration estimating? Besides the data migration there is reference of Integration to Flags. What type of database system does it use? What is the data transfer amounts and frequency? 74. Is mobility a requirement? Yes ITN Addendum #1 Page 11 Yes. All services for this project must be located in the United States, all project-related data must reside in the United States, and the customer service call center must also reside in the United States. SQL Server. Not available at this time. FLAGS uses SQL Server. Data transfer is transactional real-time.

12 Questions Microsoft 75. Is integration with Outlook required? No. Our organization has a state level master services agreement with the State of Florida that we use when contracting with entities of the State (including the Florida State Department of 76. Education. If awarded this opportunity, is the Agency amenable to allowing us to perform our services in accordance with the terms and conditions of said Master Services Agreement? If we take exceptions to the terms and conditions of the ITN, or provide alternative language to the DOE s provisions in our Proposal, will our Proposal be considered non-responsive? This organization cannot perform its services on a works for hire basis, where the customer has sole ownership in the intellectual property rights to computer code produced in a consulting engagement. Our software is built on a component model modules can be reused over and over in vastly different applications. As such, we do all consulting work on a joint ownership model. Because the developments are jointly owned, the customer is free to modify and/or further develop them without consulting this organization. Will the Agency agree to joint-ownership of the work product? As written, the Dispute Resolution Section shows that the Agency s Contract Manager is the final authority for disputes. While the provision mentions that Contactor may appeal (if done within a certain time period), is Contractor permitted to eventually appeal to a court of competent jurisdiction for a final ruling? Would the DOE be open to extending the due date by 2 weeks to 80. provide respondents adequate time to provide a quality response? ITN Addendum #1 Page 12 Answers The Department intends to execute a new agreement based on the terms of this ITN. Bidders who reject the terms and conditions of the ITN may be rejected as not responsive bidders. However, after bid award the Department may make minor modifications to the contract that do not impact our interests or give a bidder an unfair advantage over other bidders. In addition, you may raise questions about contract and bid terms for discussion purposes in negotiations. However, you may not reject these terms in your proposal. The Department is open to reviewing all proposed ownership options offered by a respondent, and will evaluate them based on the criteria in the bid. After negotiations the Department will make an award to the responsible and responsive vendor that is determined to provide the best value to the Department. We will make any adjustments to contract terms necessary to reflect this position. Yes. Yes. The Critical Event Date Schedule will be amended as part of this Addendum.

13 Questions Vertiba 81. What is the Department s budget for one-time implementation cost? What is the Department s budget for recurring software license and support cost? 82. What are the anticipated number of the Department's internal users that will require access to the solution? 83. What are the anticipated number of external users that will require access to the solution? Will these users require authenticated access to the solution? 84. Are bidders allowed to provide any exceptions to the RFP requirements, terms or conditions? For example, there are requirements that would not apply to cloud-based solutions or in some case do not fully meet requirements explicitly as written in the RFP. How are bidders to include these exceptions or assumptions with explanation into their proposals for the Department's review and consideration without being noncompliant with the RFP? 85. As a multi-tenant cloud service provider, we do not typically offer a Right to Audit clause as part of the base service offering. As a multi-tenant service, compartmentalization is virtual, not physical. Annual site visits can be arranged at the Department's expense, but in consideration of our other customers, random access cannot be permitted. We have third party auditors that inspect and review our security. We undergo annual audits for compliance with additional frameworks such as SSAE 16 SOC 1, SOC 2, SOC 3, ISO 27001, and PCI-DSS Level 1. The results of these audits can be provided to the Department as desired under ITN Addendum #1 Page 13 Answers These depend on the sustainability plan and costs for the solution. See Answer to Question #66 The number of external users fluctuates between 1,000 and 1,200. Authentication is required. Bidders who reject the terms and conditions of the ITN may be rejected as not responsive bidders. However, after bid award the Department may make minor modifications to the contract that do not impact our interests or give a bidder an unfair advantage over other bidders. In addition, you may raise questions about contract and bid terms for discussion purposes in negotiations. However, you may not reject these terms in your proposal, but respond as your proposed solution addresses the requirement. The Department is open to reviewing all proposed options offered by a respondent, and will evaluate them based on the criteria in the bid. However, see Answer to Questions 78 and 86, concerning ownership of software. Department ownership of the software is not a requirement of the ITN. Many of the audit provisions involve other state agency reviews, who monitor the Department s work and payments, so we cannot guarantee what they will accept as sufficient audit compliance. However, the state is not interested in other company s data. The ability to access and inspect physical and virtual facilities concerning our system will be required.

14 Questions NDA. Is this acceptable to meeting the Department s requirements? Vertiba Answers 86. For PaaS/SaaS solutions, a Cloud Services Provider (CSP) would be responsible for maintaining access in terms of performance and availability to the Department's data. The Department's data would be owned by the Department. The Department would have access to its data and metadata, but not all of the PaaS/SaaS solution source code. The Department would have full rights to extract their data at any time during the subscription service. However, PaaS/SaaS CSP does not typically offer system source code because it is inapplicable to software delivered as a service subscription through a multitenant architecture. While it is possible to provide the source code in an escrow account for a configured solution, the source code would only be able to operate in the CSP's PaaS/SaaS environment. Therefore, can the Department remove the source code requirements? 87. "How many records does the Department anticipate in the data migration effort from the legacy systems to the new system? - Number of Tables (i.e. accounts, contacts, grants, etc.) - Estimated number of records 88. What is the total number of grant applications received annually through the egrants site? ITN Addendum #1 Page 14 Given that the Department seeks a COTS, the source code requirement does not apply. The Department is open to reviewing all proposed ownership options offered by a respondent, and will evaluate them based on the criteria in the bid. We will make any adjustments to contract terms necessary to reflect this position. Not available at this time. The estimated total number of grant applications processed annually through egrants ranges between 300 and Can you list the grant programs that will be migrated in Phase 2? Not yet determined 90. How many documents on average are received or tracked per Data not available at this time. grant? 91. Is the Department looking for a solution that allows you to cut and paste data into individual fields or is the Department looking Both. for a solution that allows you to cut and paste rows of excel data into rows of data in the Grants solution? 92. What types of mobile devices need to be supported? Support should be provided for mobile devices including ios and Windows platforms.

15 Questions Vertiba Answers 93. Is there a requirement for offline capability for mobile devices? No. 94. Integration is required with FLAGS and the mainframe DB2 Does the Department require any integration to third party Automated Student Database for survey data. Please refer to systems? If so, please list them. Section 6.1 #8 95. Will the Department provide a list of reports that will need to be built or migrated to the new system from existing systems? Or, Not yet determined. an estimated count of reports would be helpful if a list is not available. 96. What is the preferred training method? See Answer to Question # Budget Grant Systems Grant Systems Questions REI Systems Based upon other state agency award data to deploy an enterprise grants management system along with our industry and solution experience, this level of project would start with a minimum deployment budget of $2 million to address the multiple grant programs across 12 bureaus, and delivered in two phases that span over 18 months. Can Florida Department of Education (FL DOE) confirm you have an approved budget of at least $2,000,000 for this effort? This would help us to make a bid or no-bid decision considering the effort involved. Can the FL DOE provide the vendor names of the existing grants management systems, Online Grants and egrants, in use at FL DOE? Has FL DOE previously entertained any system demonstrations and/or presentations from vendors? Answers See Answer to Question #1.Although price is an important criteria, there is no price cap at this time. The Department is open to reviewing all proposed options offered by a respondent, and will evaluate them based on the criteria in the bid. After negotiations the Department will make an award to the responsible and responsive vendor that is determined to provide the best value to the Department.. These are solutions that were developed in-house. See Answer to Question #19. Demonstration conducted Spring ITN Addendum #1 Page 15

16 Questions REI Systems Answers If so, which systems were seen and when? 100. Grant Systems Did FL DOE utilize any vendor / SME consultants in defining the sought after functionality and/or scope of work enumerated in the RFP? See Answer to Question # Grant Systems Given the changing grants regulatory environment, does FL DOE prefer vendors who have experience deploying Grants Management Systems at the Federal level? There is no preference Grants Audience/m arket Internal Users Convert data Convert Data Can you provide the annual dollar amount of grant funding you received for the current fiscal year? What volume of these grants are pass-through grants to sub-grantees? What is your estimate of the number of external individuals/companies that will need access to the new system for application submission and any other functions like reviewers that require external user access on an annual basis? How many internal users will require system access in Phase 1, and additional users if applicable in Phase 2? Can you provide an estimate of the volume of data to be converted and migrated into the new Grants Management System? What is the current format of this grant data? Will the import/export of data into the Grants Management System be achieved via a data loading type capability for xls/csv files or through API/web services? See Answer to Question #18. Approximately 75% are pass-through based on entitlement or formula See Answers to Question #17 and #83 See Answer to Question #66 Volume of data not available at this time. Data will be in either SQL Server formats or exported to desktop formats. The FL DOE prefers use of APIs or Web Services. There are no external accounting systems in use. ITN Addendum #1 Page 16

17 107. Programs/P rocess flows 108. Forms 109. Security 110. Software Upgrades Questions REI Systems If the later, can FL DOE provide details on the type and underlying technology of any external agency accounting systems in use today? How many separate grant programs will FL DOE manage though this new grants system? Do the business processes (application, pre-award, award, etc.) vary with each type of program or are all processes standardized? If the processes vary, can you provide the number of variants and the process flows for each? For all grant programs how many forms are currently required to support all steps like application, pre-award, award, etc? Can you provide an example of your average form? Does FL DOE require any cloud-based, SaaS solutions to be provisioned on a FISMA moderate infrastructure? Does FL DOE require its Grants Management System to be updated annually free of charge to keep pace with changing federal legislation? ITN Addendum #1 Page 17 Answers See Answer to Question #6 The FL DOE plans to manage all grants programs through one solution, and is looking to standardize the process. The number of variants and process flows are not available at this time. The FL DOE is looking to standardize and simplify all forms with the new solution; however, examples of existing forms can be found at on the Department of Education Grants Forms internet page, link provided and Section H of the Departments Project Application and Amendment Procedures for Federal and State Programs (Green Book), link provided. Section 8. Please address in your Technical Plan. Department is open to reviewing all proposed options offered by a respondent, and will evaluate them based on the criteria in the bid. Respondents are requested to propose a solution that will meet the needs of the Department as explained in the ITN. The Department expects any proposed system to be upgraded with normally allowable updates as necessary. Normally allowable updates/upgrades should be described in the

18 111. Reviews Phased Timeline Key Personnel Deliverables - Price Sheet Questions REI Systems Do you have a single step review process, if not can you elaborate on your review process and does it vary by grant program? Can you confirm your anticipated schedule for Phase 1 is130 calendar days, and for Phase 2 it is 443 calendar days? What role, quantity and percentage of time will be provided by FL DOE personnel? Most, if not all, of the deliverables and plans will take place in year 1 and 2, therefore we want to confirm there would be no prices listed in subsequent years? If additional year pricing is required can to expound upon those specific requirements? Answers technical response and included in the prices proposed. The FL DOE is standardizing its review processes with the new solution; however there may be variations based on the type of program, e.g., competitive vs. pass through. Yes. FL DOE key staff will be committed approximately at 70%, during implementation. Respondents are to complete pricing per deliverable as indicated on the Deliverable Price Page Supplement, pages 30 and 31 of the ITN. Prices included on Attachment B, Respondent s Price Reply, page 29 will be used in calculating the points awarded. The Deliverable Price Page Supplement is intended to provide a per deliverable price to be used in negotiations and any resulting contract. It is expected that pricing may not apply for every deliverable for every year. Science Systems and Applications, Inc. Questions Answers 115. Is there a demo account available to have access to the current system? 116. Do you integrate with outside systems, and what are your current backend systems? No, See Answer to Question # How many users use the current system? See Answer to Question #7 and #66. ITN Addendum #1 Page 18 No.

19 118. How many grants are in the current system? For FY16/17, to date, there are approximately 1,600 federal and state awards in FLAGS What are the types of reports that are requested? Not yet determined Section 3.2 indicates "Market solutions were identified that supported enterprise objectives" What were the solutions identified, and what preferences arose from this analysis? 121. Are there any specific technical requirements other than integration to MS SQL Server and MS Active Directory that are relevant to the final product (preferred languages, hosting environments etc.)? FL DOE preferences are outlined in the ITN. No. MTW Solutions Questions Answers 122. General 1. Please explain from which vendors the See Answer to Question #19. Department received GMS demonstrations prior to releasing the ITN Page 14, Section 6.0.1, a.ii Migration 2. Please confirm how many LEAs, completed applications which are desired to be migrated, and how many years of history is desired to be migrated. 3. Will the Department technology staff agree to assist in facilitating this migration by extracting this data into ML Templates to be provided by the successful vendor? If not, what alternative method does the Department envision for the successful vendor accessing the data to be migrated? No historical data will be migrated. The Department staff will be available to assist as subject matter experts during migration, which will focus on lookup, reference, or budget data. The respondent should propose the most efficient and accurate methodology for data migration Page 14, 4. Title V is listed as a program for which data See Answer to Question #6 for a list of programs; however Section 6.1, migration is requested. Within the pricing these are programs currently administered by the a.ii Migration matrix on Page 30, the bottom line lists Title Department. As noted, the ESSA changes result in changes IV instead. As both Title IV and V have to the program designations and Title V referenced the recently changed significantly under ESSA, program previously known as Title VI. Title IV references a new program for which there is likely no data migration. ITN Addendum #1 Page 19

20 125. Page 14, Section 6.0.1, b Phase Page 16 Section Page 16 Section Page 16 Section Page 16 Section Page 16 Section Page 17 Section a.iv Questions MTW Solutions please confirm the program names that the department is requesting migration of. 5. Please itemize the programs the Department seeks to have migrated to the new system, including the number of years of data for each. 6. Please provide a prior years example of statistics from Department survey data. 7. Please confirm that the Department is requesting that the GMS calculate Allocations for LEAs for programs, including Title I-A. 8. Regarding Run Simulations, is the Department referring to being able to manipulate factors in the allocation formulas, to determine the resulting LEA allocations. If not, please clarify what the Departments goal is through such scenarios. 9. Please describe under what business events the Department enters into Contracts that the GMS will need to manage. Does the Department use contracts with School Districts, CBOs, etc? 10. Please confirm the nature of the data which the GMS will need to transmit to FLAGS. Does the Department plan to continue to use FLAGS for payments related processing, while the GMS addresses application side processing? 11. Does the Department seek to have LEAs contacting the Vendor Help Desk directly for all system related issues? If not, what types ITN Addendum #1 Page 20 Answers See Answer to Question #6 and #123. Percent of students for free and reduced lunch. Yes, the grants management application should calculate allocations, with the capability for staff to modify and finalize. Yes. No. The system will only be used for grant project applications and awards. It is intended that the system will generate a finalized award document which incorporates all aspects of the original grant application requirements and application submitted by subgrantee, including necessary forms. Contracts are created and managed using a different system. Yes, FLAGS will continue to be used. See Answer to Question #61. Yes.

21 MTW Solutions Questions of issues would be addressed by Department staff? 132. Page Please describe all external system Section d interfaces that the Department is requiring. Are those systems all hosted within the FLDOE? Will they require Web Services for real-time lookups, or, will extracts suffice? Please provide examples of the data to be transferred from the Document Management System Page As the Project launch is listed on December 3 rd, 2016, and the ITN will not be finalized at that time, the project schedule will need to shift. Is April 12 th, 2017 the critical date when the Consolidated ESEA Application needs to be online, or is that date flexible? HMB Questions 134. On page 14, the first scope items under Phases 1 and 2 reference migrating all data, to the maximum extent possible, from the old systems. How many grants? How many years of data? How many applications? Please elaborate on the extent of this task Approximately how many FLDOE users will access the system? How many LEA users? 136. Is FLDOE asking the vendor to provide ongoing first-level support for all users, both FLDOE and LEA, or just FLDOE users? 137. Is the School Improvement grant included in the Phase 1 scope? Page 14 does not include it, but the March 10 deployment on page 27 includes it. ITN Addendum #1 Page 21 Answers Web Services will support real-time transfer of grant-related data with FLAGS. April 12 th, 2017 is the critical date to have the GMA configured and fully operational. Reports may be staggered to occur after April 12 th, Answers Data conversion/migration will focus on lookup, reference, or budget data. No historical data will be migrated. See Answer to Question #7 and #66. Yes for all users. Yes, it is included in Phase 1.

22 138. Please list the remaining grant programs to be included in Phase Are you able to provide editable MS Word, Excel, etc., versions of the documents you would like us to fill in? Not yet determined No Potential proposers have 72 hours from posting of addenda to protest the requirements of each addendum. Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section (3), or failure to post the bond or other security required by law within the time allowed for filing a bond shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. YOUR REPLY MAY NOT BE COMPLETE WITHOUT THIS PAGE SIGNED AND INCLUDED! Vendor Name written: Authorized Signature: Authorized Name written: Mailing Address: City, State & Zip Code: Telephone: Facsimile: Address: ITN Addendum #1 Page 22

23 Attachment for Answer to Question #3 GRANTS MANAGEMENT APPLICATION RFI Analysis Summary MAY 23, 2016 ACCOUNTABILITY, RESEARCH AND MEASUREMENT Page 23

24 Grants Management Application RFI Summary Analysis 5/23/16 Page Intentionally Left Blank i Page 24

25 Grants Management Application RFI Summary Analysis 5/23/16 Introduction The following summary is prepared for vendors responding to DOE Request for Information (RFI) RFI , issued on March 30, Receipt of responses closed April 27, A total of 20 responses were received, of which 19 were formal. One response was an informal e mail, which was not responsive. The report herein summarizes these responses, and provides an opinion of the vendor s responsiveness to the RFI. Disclaimer This RFI is issued for the purpose of obtaining information regarding the availability of Commercial off the shelf software (COTS) application for managing life cycle processes and data for Federal and State Grants administered by the Department. Review of proposals reflects this purpose. Determining Responsiveness Each proposal was read and compared with the requirements outlined in the RFI. In each specific area of the RFI, the proposal was assessed whether it answered the topic or question. In instances, answers were extracted from contents in other sections of the proposal. Three levels were used to communicate if a proposal covered the information desired from the RFI. These levels were: Very Responsive Answered all aspects of the RFI and provided additional useful information Responsive Answered most aspects of the RFI Partly Responsive Answered the RFI, but vague in several areas Not Responsive Did not answer the RFI Summary Results A tally of responses in each category is as follows: Responsiveness Count Very Responsive 2 Responsive 6 Partly Responsive 7 Not Responsive 4 ii Page 25

26 Grants Management Application RFI Summary Analysis 5/23/16 Review of Vendor Responses Vendor Overall Assessment Range of Costs Very Responsive Responsive Partly Responsive Not Responsive Base Cost Subscription (annual) Implement 1. BIZSolutions Consulting 2. Cityspan Technologies, Inc. $ 95K 3. DataBank IM, LLC SaaS 2% 4% of list 4. Dulles Technology Partners $120K $45K (l) $20K (m) $13, ecivis $22 $44K $7.5 $20K 6. Escher Group Ltd $250 $750K $200K $1M $45 $300K 7. Get Control 8. GrantVantage, Inc $7 $100/user 9. Harris, Mackessy, & Brennan $ K $200 $300K 10. Information Strategies 11. LaserFiche 12. Micropact $17 36K (m) 20% of base 13. MTW Solutions $180 $400K $105K $40 $100K 14. Nelnet, LLC $240 $500K $5K/mth (h) 15. REI Systems $4K 5users 16. ROH, Inc $118K $28K (m) $18K 17. STR Grants, LLC $100K 20% of Lic 18. StreamLink Software $125 $275K $250 $650K 19. Vertiba $150 $300K O&M Key: (l) licensing; (m) migration; (h) hosting; iii Page 26

27 Grants Management Application RFI Summary Analysis 5/23/16 Vendor BIZSolutions Consulting Overall Not Responsive Points of Contact Position / Role Name E Mail Owner Mike VonPlinsky mvp@bizolutionsconsult.com Website Telephone Provided an informal e mail response. Consulting company not specializing in Company Overview: Grants systems Similar Experience: Costs None Ownership O&M Licensing Migration 1 Page 27 Notes to Costs No costs provided. None None None None None Review Yes No Comments Security and Access Components Integration with Directory Services Single Sign On Functional Components Sub Recipient Registration Access submissions Internal and External Reviewers External Access by Approvers Collaboration with Applicants Progress reporting Tracking allocation of funds Non Functional Components Online Support capabilities (FAQs) Posting training videos Multi media capabilities Require addition of desktop components Network and Platform Web based Internet accessible Encrypted transactions Encrypted data at rest Prohibit Vendor access to data Solution Modules Approval, workflow, and notification processes supported Collaboration Support N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

28 Grants Management Application RFI Summary Analysis 5/23/16 Vendor Cityspan Technologies, Inc. Overall Responsive Points of Contact Position / Role Name Telephone E Mail Director, Business Development Kara Johnson kara@cityspan.com Website Company Overview: Similar Experience: Established in Located in Caifornia Cityspan provides web based grant software for governments et al. 20 years experience. Annual revenues $3M. City of San Francisco; Chicago; Oakland DHS Division; LA School district; Chicago Public Schools; San Diego; providence After School Alliance Costs PM User Training Licensing Custom Develop Notes to Costs Annually. Hosted at Cityspan covering hardware, software maintenance, internet, security, Help Desk (M F, 8am 5pm PST). $20,000 annual $5,000 annual $50,000 annual $20,000 annual Annual cost of $95,000.These are typical costs. Review Yes No Comments Security and Access Components Integration with Directory Services Uses for password resets Single Sign On Uses user name and password Functional Components Sub Recipient Registration Access submissions Internal and External Reviewers External Access by Approvers Collaboration with Applicants Check status online Progress reporting Tracking allocation of funds Non Functional Components Online Support capabilities (FAQs) Posting training videos Multi media capabilities Require addition of desktop components Network and Platform Web based Internet accessible Encrypted transactions Encrypted data at rest 2 Page 28 Unclear; but likely does not require desktop components Unclear; but likely

29 Grants Management Application RFI Summary Analysis 5/23/16 Vendor Cityspan Technologies, Inc. Overall Responsive Prohibit Vendor access to data Unclear; states that Cityspan protocols are followed,; no protocols identified. Solution Modules Approval, workflow, and notification processes supported Collaboration Support Cityspan Funder: Proposal Review; Grantee Directory; Grants; Budgets; Invoicing and Funds Tracking; Progress Reports; Enterprise Reports Cityspan Provider Participant In Take; Service Management; Program Reporting; Evaluation & Outcomes Cityspan supports a variety of worflows across grant process areas including: grants administration; applicants and grantees; proposals; applications; reviewing; managing grants; budgets and invoices; and performance evaluation. By use of custom roles across communities. Vendor DataBank IM, LLC Overall Responsive Points of Contact Position / Role Name Telephone E Mail Senior Solution Consultant Kathy Will kwill@databankimx.com Website: (cell) Provides recognized paperless government solutions. Cites Federal government recognition as a best practice solution for grants management. Solution uses the Company Overview: OnBase Enterprise Content Management (ECM) platform. Similar Experience: Costs Available as SaaS via the OnBase Cloud or Hosted perpetual licensing. Cites three government experiences. State Department of Environmental Quality; State General Land Office; City Housing and Community Development. Cites over 200 ECM government customers. Ownership O&M Licensing Migration Notes to Costs Recurring monthly based on SLA from 2% 4% of list Total sell price x 4% Review Yes No Comments Single instance; workstation license; concurrent license; named user Security and Access Components Integration with Directory Services Single Sign On Functional Components 3 Page 29 Uses Active Directory Federated Services (ADFS) Requires DOE setup of ADFS, which can be further leveraged for other applications; no VPN required

30 Grants Management Application RFI Summary Analysis 5/23/16 Vendor DataBank IM, LLC Overall Responsive Sub Recipient Registration Access submissions Internal and External Reviewers External Access by Approvers Collaboration with Applicants Progress reporting Tracking allocation of funds Non Functional Components Online Support capabilities (FAQs) Posting training videos Multi media capabilities Require addition of desktop components Network and Platform Web based Internet accessible Encrypted transactions Encrypted data at rest Prohibit Vendor access to data Interactive dashboards; display actions and related documents; export dashboards to Excel Unclear Unclear Assumed, but unclear Assumed, but unclear Not addressed Solution Modules Approval, workflow, and notification processes supported Collaboration Support Deployed onsite or Cloud; includes: Workflow including API, WorkView Case Manager, Application Enabler interface engine between documents and the grants business application. The OnBase Workflow is highly configurable, for any workflow process; no custom development is required. Supports event driven notifications. OnBase Collaboration provides highly configurable user interactions. It also integrates with GoToMeeting (Citrix), for greater flexibility and ad hoc collaboration. Designated users can schedule and host online meetings, using extended workspaces for public customers and partners. Vendor Dulles Technology Partners Overall Partly Responsive Points of Contact Position / Role Name Telephone E Mail 4 Page 30

31 Grants Management Application RFI Summary Analysis 5/23/16 Vendor Dulles Technology Partners Overall Partly Responsive Founder Tom Nyilasi Website: Company Overview: Similar Experience: In business for 15 years. WebGrants was developed in 2001, and upgraded. Provider of grants solutions for Federal and State. 50% of clients are government. Provide support for Federal and State government clients. Provided an extensive list of past and current clients. The list identifies a small number of government customers. Costs Single server. Ownership equates to implementation Ownership O&M Licensing Migration Notes to Costs $120,000 $13,200 $45,000 $20,000 Review Yes No Comments Security and Access Components Integration with Directory Services Described as part of client integration Single Sign On Described as part of client integration Functional Components Sub Recipient Registration Access submissions Internal and External Reviewers External Access by Approvers Collaboration with Applicants Progress reporting Tracking allocation of funds Non Functional Components Online Support capabilities (FAQs) Up to five rounds of reviews Not addressed Posting training videos Not addressed Multi media capabilities Not addressed Require addition of desktop components Not addressed Network and Platform Web based Internet accessible Encrypted transactions Encrypted data at rest Not addressed 5 Page 31 Hosting ranges annually from: $6,600 $10,200

32 Grants Management Application RFI Summary Analysis 5/23/16 Vendor Dulles Technology Partners Overall Partly Responsive Prohibit Vendor access to data Solution Modules Approval, workflow, and notification processes supported Collaboration Support Dashboard; People and Organizations; Distribution Lists; Awards; Funding Opportunities; Submitted Applications; Panel Evaluations; Final Approval; Grant Tracking Describes a systems development life cycle approach that implements the WebGrants product; includes customization phases Not discussed Vendor ecivis Overall Responsive Points of Contact Position / Role Name Telephone E Mail Director of Sales Jennifer Fernandez jfernandez@ecivis.com Website: (877) Company Overview: Similar Experience: Founded in HQ in California; LIC in FL. Enterprise systems for: State of Arizona; Georgia DoL; CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife; AK Dept of Health; various City and Counties including Alachua, Broward, Orange, Palm Beach, City of Miami. Arizona DOE; NY DOE; etc.. 3,500 governments in 45 States, including in Florida. ecivis supports management of $31 billion in grant awards. Regular software improvements 3 12 month cycle; fast innovation. Costs Costs range depending on volume for SaaS subscriptions Ownership O&M Licensing Migration Notes to Costs Included $22, $43, Review Yes No Comments Security and Access Components Integration with Directory Services Single Sign On Functional Components 6 Page 32 FLAGS integration can range from $7,500 $20,000 Does not support external identify management. Good security systems and practices cited. Unclear; but based on above, may not. Sub Recipient Registration Provides program specific solicitation options Access submissions Internal and External Reviewers External Access by Approvers Will be added in Will be added in

33 Grants Management Application RFI Summary Analysis 5/23/16 Vendor ecivis Overall Responsive Collaboration with Applicants Progress reporting Tracking allocation of funds Non Functional Components Online Support capabilities (FAQs) Posting training videos Multi media capabilities Require addition of desktop components On demand; via client services representative Included web based training, telephone support, 1 day onsite every 12 months. Not discussed Uses Outlook and Adobe Reader Network and Platform SaaS; 20,000+ users six 9s up time. Web based Mobile device supported Internet accessible Encrypted transactions Encrypted data at rest Prohibit Vendor access to data Not addressed; likely Solution Modules Approval, workflow, and notification processes supported Collaboration Support SaaS solution Grants Network. Integrates with all "modern" ERPs and financial systems. Yes Yes Vendor Escher Group Ltd. Overall Partly Responsive Points of Contact Position / Role Name Telephone E Mail Public Sector Sales Manager Brian Gorham Website: Company Overview: brian.gorham@eschergr oup.com Founded in HQ in Dublin, Ireland. 165 employees. Global software provider to the Postal sector. Collaboration platform focused on G2C management. Revenues in 2015 $22 million. Similar Experience: Postal customers Ownership O&M Licensing Migration Costs Notes to Costs 7 Page 33

34 Grants Management Application RFI Summary Analysis 5/23/16 Vendor Escher Group Ltd. Overall Partly Responsive Estimates have a very Licensing is $250K $750K $45K 300K $200,000 $1 M wide perpetual spread Security and Access Components Review Yes No Comments Integration with Directory Services IdP module; using ADFS Single Sign On Functional Components Sub Recipient Registration Access submissions Internal and External Reviewers External Access by Approvers IdP module; independent identity provider; also supports 2 factor authentication Collaboration with Applicants Unclear; may reuse e mail Progress reporting Tracking allocation of funds Non Functional Components Disbursement and reconciliation service Online Support capabilities (FAQs) Uses external companies Posting training videos Uses external companies Multi media capabilities Uses external companies Require addition of desktop components Network and Platform Web based Internet accessible Encrypted transactions Encrypted data at rest Prohibit Vendor access to data Solution Modules Approval, workflow, and notification processes supported Collaboration Support Solution is: TrEx. Modules are: IdO for registration, Single Sign On, Directory Service integration; multi phased deployment; Workflow Engine; Notifications Server; Core Grants application; also offered as SaaS. Workflow maps the sequence of states throughout the grants process: draft, submitted, in process, granted supported by different workflows, which can be reused. Mumtiple parties can be triggered during the workflow. Minimal 8 Page 34

35 Grants Management Application RFI Summary Analysis 5/23/16 Vendor Get Control Overall Not Responsive Points of Contact Position / Role Name Telephone E Mail Director Jennifer Arguello jba@getcontrol.net Website: Company Overview: Similar Experience: Costs Consulting in requirements life cycle None cited Ownership O&M Licensing Migration Notes to Costs Review Yes No Comments Security and Access Components Integration with Directory Services Single Sign On Functional Components Sub Recipient Registration Access submissions Internal and External Reviewers External Access by Approvers Collaboration with Applicants Progress reporting Tracking allocation of funds Non Functional Components Online Support capabilities (FAQs) Posting training videos Multi media capabilities Require addition of desktop components Network and Platform Web based Internet accessible Encrypted transactions Encrypted data at rest Prohibit Vendor access to data Solution Modules Approval, workflow, and notification processes supported N/A N/A 9 Page 35

36 Grants Management Application RFI Summary Analysis 5/23/16 Collaboration Support N/A Vendor GrantVantage, Inc. (Microsoft Team) Overall Partly Responsive Points of Contact Position / Role Name Telephone E Mail Senior Account Executive Peter Mezzetti paulmez@microsoft.com Website: Company Overview: GrantVantage is partnered with Microsoft and their solution is built on the Microsoft Dynamics CRM platform. GrantVantage was founded by Quanah Stamps from the US Dept of HHS Similar Experience: Costs Identified 3 non governmental implementations Ownership O&M Licensing Migration Notes to Costs Will require Microsoft Dynamics CRM licenses CRM range $7/user/month $100/user/month Not addressed $15 $49 Licensing based on types of users Review Yes No Comments Security and Access Components Integration with Directory Services Single Sign On Functional Components Sub Recipient Registration Access submissions Internal and External Reviewers External Access by Approvers Collaboration with Applicants Progress reporting Tracking allocation of funds Non Functional Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear 10 Page 36

37 Grants Management Application RFI Summary Analysis 5/23/16 Vendor GrantVantage, Inc. (Microsoft Team) Overall Partly Responsive Components Online Support capabilities (FAQs) Posting training videos Multi media capabilities Require addition of desktop components Network and Platform Web based Internet accessible Encrypted transactions Encrypted data at rest Prohibit Vendor access to data Solution Modules Approval, workflow, and notification processes supported Collaboration Support Points of Contact Unclear Unclear Unclear Outlook Ad on Unclear Unclear Unclear Grant Budgeting; Object Management Module; Funder Portal; Time and Effort reporting; Multi Funder Projects; Sub Recipient Management; Financial Integration; Drawdowns and Reimbursements Not discussed Not discussed Vendor Harris, Mackessy, & Brennan, Inc Overall Responsive Points of Contact Position / Role Name Telephone E Mail Director, Education Group John Mamula education@hmbnet.com Website: Company Overview: Similar Experience: Founded in 1994, HMB is an IT Consulting and software development company 20 years. Solution based on Ohio implementation in Cites experience with 12 State Education Agencies, implementing egrants in Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, North Carolina, Kentucky, Ohio, Delaware, Rhode Island, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, and Alaska. 11 Page 37

38 Grants Management Application RFI Summary Analysis 5/23/16 Vendor Harris, Mackessy, & Brennan, Inc Overall Responsive Costs GOTS paid by Ohio. Source code is offered free. Therefore a sole source is proposed. Ownership O&M Licensing Migration Notes to Costs $100K 160K, hosting and support Review Yes No Comments Security and Access Components Integration with Directory Services Single Sign On Functional Components Sub Recipient Registration Access submissions Internal and External Reviewers External Access by Approvers Collaboration with Applicants Progress reporting Tracking allocation of funds Non Functional Components Online Support capabilities (FAQs) Posting training videos Multi media capabilities Require addition of desktop components Network and Platform Web based Internet accessible Encrypted transactions Encrypted data at rest Prohibit Vendor access to data Solution Modules Solution Modules Adobe Acrobat Reader Implementation estimated at: $200K $300K Planning module, Checklist, grant funding integration, Needs Assessment, Allocation (bulk load), Funding Application, payment processing, Expenditure Reporting, Reporting 12 Page 38

39 Grants Management Application RFI Summary Analysis 5/23/16 Vendor Harris, Mackessy, & Brennan, Inc Overall Responsive Approval, workflow, and notification processes supported Collaboration Support Configurable workflow for creation and submission of applications. Each area can have its own workflow. Triggers enable background processes, while maintaining historical links. Includes built in automatic validation checks, prior to submission for review. Allows collaboration, during various stages of the application and following processes. Vendor Information Strategies Overall Partly Responsive Points of Contact Position / Role Name Telephone E Mail Vice President Tim McCaffrey timm@infostrat.com Website: Company Overview: Similar Experience: In partnership with Microsoft built Microsoft Grants Manager Plus. Deployed at USDA and Peace Corps. Costs Notional costs not presented. Ownership O&M Licensing Migration Notes to Costs Review Yes No Comments Security and Access Components Integration with Directory Services ADFS Single Sign On Functional Components Sub Recipient Registration Access submissions Internal and External Reviewers External Access by Approvers Collaboration with Applicants Progress reporting Tracking allocation of funds Non Functional Components Online Support SAML Page 39

40 Grants Management Application RFI Summary Analysis 5/23/16 Vendor Information Strategies Overall Partly Responsive capabilities (FAQs) Posting training videos Multi media capabilities Require addition of desktop components Network and Platform Reporting Services Active Control Web based Mobile device support Internet accessible Encrypted transactions Encrypted data at rest Prohibit Vendor access to data Not in the CRM 2015 on premise. Once activated, cannot be turned off. Solution Modules Approval, workflow, and notification processes supported Collaboration Support Built on Microsoft Dynamics CRM Microsoft Grants Manager Plus User configurable workflows. Use of MS Dynamics CRM; not specifically presented. Vendor Laserfiche Overall Not Responsive Points of Contact Position / Role Name Telephone E Mail Solutions Manager Will Talbot x156 will.talbot@laserfiche.com Website: Company Overview: Private company providing several services, essentially CRM. Includes an offering for grants management. Similar Experience: Hunter College Costs Costs estimated around 20% of annual licensing costs Ownership O&M Licensing Migration Notes to Costs 14 Page 40 Costs based on # of internal users, external participants, # of grants annually. Review Yes No Comments Security and Access Components Integration with Directory Services LDAP, or mix of LDAP and Laserfiche accounts

41 Grants Management Application RFI Summary Analysis 5/23/16 Vendor Laserfiche Overall Not Responsive Single Sign On SAML 2.0; requires additional user steps. Functional Components Sub Recipient Registration Access submissions Internal and External Reviewers External Access by Approvers Collaboration with Applicants Progress reporting Tracking allocation of funds Non Functional Components Online Support capabilities (FAQs) Posting training videos Multi media capabilities Require addition of desktop components Network and Platform Web based Internet accessible Encrypted transactions Encrypted data at rest Prohibit Vendor access to data Solution Modules Approval, workflow, and notification processes supported Collaboration Support Not addressed Not addressed Not addressed Not addressed Not addressed Not addressed Not addressed Not addressed Not addressed Not addressed Not addressed Not addressed Not addressed Uses the Laserfiche workflow components to configure required workflows; not pre built Supported at multiple points around documents. Vendor Micropact Overall Partly Responsive Points of Contact Position / Role Name Telephone E Mail Senior Business Development Executive Len White len.white@micropact.com Website: Company Overview: Similar Experience: Multi state implementer of compliance and regulatory systems. Experience with Florida agencies. USAID client. Experience with Florida government agencies; has USAID as a client. The solution is entellitrak 15 Page 41

42 Grants Management Application RFI Summary Analysis 5/23/16 Vendor Micropact Overall Partly Responsive Costs Ownership O&M Licensing Migration Notes to Costs Implementation identifies an SDLC; costs will be for labor. Provides hosting of hardware and software. 20% of base cost $17K $36K Most contracts are FFP. One time perpetual license. Suggests 1 concurrent license for every 3 4 users. Review Yes No Comments Security and Access Components Integration with Directory Services Single Sign On Functional Components Sub Recipient Registration Access submissions Internal and External Reviewers External Access by Approvers Collaboration with Applicants Progress reporting Tracking allocation of funds Non Functional Components Online Support capabilities (FAQs) Posting training videos Multi media capabilities Require addition of desktop components Network and Platform Web based Internet accessible Encrypted transactions Encrypted data at rest Prohibit Vendor access to data Not addressed Not addressed Not addressed Not addressed Not addressed Solution Modules Approval, workflow, and notification processes supported Collaboration Support Several modules: Report Builder, Help; Optional: Document Management, efile, escan, Mobile. Limited discussion of the user configuring a dashboard interface. The workflow enables collaboration 16 Page 42

43 Grants Management Application RFI Summary Analysis 5/23/16 Vendor MTW Solutions, LLC Overall Responsive Points of Contact Position / Role Name Telephone E Mail Senior Business Development Executive Dan Carier Dan.Carier@mtwsolutions.com Website: Company Overview: Similar Experience: Costs The GMS focuses on SEAs Illinois, Missouri, Nebrasks, New Jersey, Wyoming, Louisana, Montana, Oklahoma, Washington, D.C., South Dakota Ownership O&M Licensing Migration Notes to Costs Base Year; MTW suggests an enterprise license $180K $400K $105K annual $40K $100K Option Years: $60K $180K Review Yes No Comments Security and Access Components Integration with Directory Services Single Sign On Functional Components Sub Recipient Registration Access submissions Internal and External Reviewers External Access by Approvers Collaboration with Applicants Progress reporting Tracking allocation of funds Non Functional Components Online Support capabilities (FAQs) Posting training videos Multi media capabilities Require addition of desktop components Network and Platform Web based Internet accessible Encrypted transactions Encrypted data at rest Prohibit Vendor access to data Not addressed Not addressed Not addressed Not addressed Not addressed Not addressed 17 Page 43

44 Grants Management Application RFI Summary Analysis 5/23/16 Vendor Micropact Overall Partly Responsive Grant Design tools; Promotion tool; GMS administration; data import; Online Grant Application; Planning tool; workflow management tool; allocation management tool; security system; payment administration tool; monitoring tool; reporting tool and GMS data warehouse. GMS can be phased in by grant program or functional process. Solution Modules Title 1 A breakdown of allocations and comparability; 6123 transferability of funds; REAP Flex, Shchoolwide program budgeting; Equitable Share requirement calculations; Set asides; IDEA Part B CEIS funds; Automatic calculation of Indirect Approval, workflow, and costs, maintenance of effort calculations. Configurable workflows ending with notification processes alert e mails to the LEA upon award. supported Reviewers and program administrators can mark and return sections to grantees for updates. Grantees can submit amendments, which are marked to minimize time for reviewers. Collaboration Support Vendor Nelnet Servicing, LLC Overall Partly Responsive Points of Contact Position / Role Name Telephone E Mail Managing Director Denis Blaine Denis.blaine@nelnet.net Website: Company Overview: Solution experience is with GrantPro. Migrated legacy data from mainframes, MS Access, Excel, and paper. Similar Experience: Student focused platform. Costs Complexity of customization. Ownership O&M Licensing Migration Notes to Costs $240K $500K $5K/mth for hosted Review Yes No Comments Security and Access Components 18 Page 44 Includes training, hardware, 3 rd party software; O/S and SQL Server Hosting also available Integration with Directory Services Uses ADFS. Hosted Nelnet environment Single Sign On Addressed within the application context Functional Components Sub Recipient Registration Student focused Access submissions Internal and External Reviewers External Access by Approvers

45 Grants Management Application RFI Summary Analysis 5/23/16 Vendor Nelnet Servicing, LLC Overall Partly Responsive Collaboration with Applicants Progress reporting Tracking allocation of funds Non Functional Components Online Support capabilities (FAQs) Not addressed Not addressed Posting training videos Not specifically addressed Multi media capabilities Not specifically addressed Require addition of desktop components Network and Platform Web based Internet accessible Encrypted transactions Encrypted data at rest Prohibit Vendor access to data Solution Modules Approval, workflow, and notification processes supported Collaboration Support Not addressed Not addressed Not addressed GrantPro solution, which is student focused. Application; Review/approval; Eligibility and award; notification of awards. Process certification of awards; disburse award; Award adjustments. All stakeholders have appropriate access to the same data Vendor REI Systems Overall Very Responsive Points of Contact Position / Role Name Telephone E Mail Business Development Director Steve Lancaster slancaster@reisystems.com Website: Company Overview: Similar Experience: Formed in Began grants software line in 1996 for governments E Grants. Public sector focus. Solution handles $20 billion annually awarded. 60% is grantrelated business. GovGrants is latest version of system. Solution is built on SalesForce CRM. Implemented in Massachusetts. As MassGrants; phased rollout in Release 1; interfacing with the financial system MMARS. Louisiana Community and Technical College System. Washington, D.C. Dept. of Health. Costs Single license. Internal or external license. Ownership O&M Licensing Migration Notes to Costs $4K Min 5 Data Loader tool CSV files Migration relies on DOE providing data in CSV files 19 Page 45

46 Grants Management Application RFI Summary Analysis 5/23/16 Vendor REI Systems Overall Very Responsive users Review Yes No Comments Security and Access Components Integration with Directory Services Single Sign On UserID and password Functional Components Sub Recipient Registration Online request process Access submissions Internal and External Reviewers External Access by Approvers Collaboration with Applicants Progress reporting Tracking allocation of funds Non Functional Components Online Support capabilities (FAQs) Field level help provided Posting training videos Suggests using the DOE website platform Multi media capabilities Require addition of desktop components Network and Platform Web based Built on SalesForce platform Internet accessible Offered as SaaS; including mobile devices Encrypted transactions Encrypted data at rest Prohibit Vendor access to data Solution Modules Approval, workflow, and notification processes supported Collaboration Support Planning; Opportunity; Application; Award; Award management; Closeout; Business Intelligence; Communication; GovGrants uses three portals: Agency, Grantee, and Reviewer. Agency portal for setup programs, post funding announcements, review grant applications, make award decisions, run reports, amendments, monitor award finances, and progress. Grantee portal: Used by Grantees to find and apply for grants, negotiate awards, communicate with Grantor, and submit progress and financial reports online. Reviewer portal: allows participation in the review process, but not daily involved in grants. Reviewers are assigned applications online for review. Uses SalesForce workflow engine; no coding required. Can be performed by DOE administrative staff. Native support on a social media driven tool Collab. Interaction directly between grantor and grantee on specific applications or 20 Page 46

47 Grants Management Application RFI Summary Analysis 5/23/16 Vendor REI Systems Overall Very Responsive grants. Figure 1 GovGrants Modules (REI Systems) 21 Page 47