None of the products really do version control from one ...



Schedule of Key Events

Proposals are Due at 2:30 PM, May 18, 1999

The anticipated posting date is June 1, 1999

Schedule of Demonstration

The State will schedule demonstrations at a later date.

Questions from SCT

GENERAL

1. Is there a commitment by any of the South Carolina Technical Colleges to acquire administrative applications system(s) during FY99?

Answer:

|Aiken TC |No |Orangeburg-Calhoun TC |No |

|Central Carolina TC |No |Piedmont TC |No |

|Chesterfield-Marlb TC |No |Spartanburg TC |Yes |

|Denmark TC |Yes |Tech Col of Lowcountry |No |

|Florence-Darlington TC |Yes |Tri-County TC |No |

|Greenville TC |No |Trident TC |Yes |

|Horry-Georgetown TC |No |Williamsburg TC |No |

|Midlands TC |Yes |York TC |Yes |

| | | | |

2. Is there a commitment of any of the South Carolina Technical Colleges to acquire administrative applications system(s) during FY 2000?

Answer:

|Aiken TC |Possibly |Orangeburg-Calhoun TC |Yes |

|Central Carolina TC |No |Piedmont TC |No |

|Chesterfield-Marlb TC |No |Spartanburg TC |Yes |

|Denmark TC |Yes |Tech Col of Lowcountry |No |

|Florence-Darlington TC |Yes |Tri-County TC |No |

|Greenville TC |No |Trident TC |Yes |

|Horry-Georgetown TC |No |Williamsburg TC |Possibly |

|Midlands TC |Yes |York TC |Yes |

| | | | |

3. How many South Carolina Technical Colleges anticipate acquiring new administrative applications system(s) during the next 2 Fiscal Years?

Answer:

|Aiken TC |Possibly |Orangeburg-Calhoun TC |Yes |

|Central Carolina TC |No |Piedmont TC |No |

|Chesterfield-Marlb TC |Yes |Spartanburg TC |Yes |

|Denmark TC |Yes |Tech Col of Lowcountry |Yes |

|Florence-Darlington TC |Yes |Tri-County TC |No |

|Greenville TC |Yes |Trident TC |Yes |

|Horry-Georgetown TC |No |Williamsburg TC |Yes |

|Midlands TC |Yes |York TC |Yes |

| | | | |

4. Has money been budgeted by any institution for the acquisition of administrative applications system(s) during this FY?

Answer:

|Aiken TC |No |Orangeburg-Calhoun TC |No |

|Central Carolina TC |No |Piedmont TC |No |

|Chesterfield-Marlb TC |No |Spartanburg TC |No |

|Denmark TC |Yes |Tech Col of Lowcountry |No |

|Florence-Darlington TC |No |Tri-County TC |No |

|Greenville TC |No |Trident TC |No |

|Horry-Georgetown TC |No |Williamsburg TC |No |

|Midlands TC |Yes |York TC |Yes |

| | | | |

5. Has any institution planned for, budgeted for or committed to the acquisition of administrative applications system(s) in the FY’00 budget preparation?

a. If so, which College or Colleges?

Answer:

|Aiken TC |No |Orangeburg-Calhoun TC |Yes |

|Central Carolina TC |No |Piedmont TC |No |

|Chesterfield-Marlb TC |Yes (Tentative) |Spartanburg TC |Yes (In Process) |

|Denmark TC |Yes |Tech Col of Lowcountry |Yes (Partially) |

|Florence-Darlington TC |Yes |Tri-County TC |No |

|Greenville TC |No |Trident TC |Yes |

|Horry-Georgetown TC |No |Williamsburg TC |Yes |

|Midlands TC |Yes |York TC |Yes |

| | | | |

b. What dollar amount has been planned or budgeted?

Answer:

|Aiken TC |-0- |Orangeburg-Calhoun TC |In Process |

|Central Carolina TC |-0- |Piedmont TC |-0- |

|Chesterfield-Marlb TC |176,500 |Spartanburg TC |In Process |

|Denmark TC |300,000 |Tech Col of Lowcountry |130,000 |

|Florence-Darlington TC |500,000 |Tri-County TC |-0- |

|Greenville TC |-0- |Trident TC |310,000 |

|Horry-Georgetown TC |-0- |Williamsburg TC |600,000 |

|Midlands TC |500,000 |York TC |500,000 |

| | | | |

c. Have budgets for FY’00 been approved?

Answer:

|Aiken TC |No |Orangeburg-Calhoun TC |No |

|Central Carolina TC |No |Piedmont TC |No |

|Chesterfield-Marlb TC |No |Spartanburg TC | No |

|Denmark TC |No |Tech Col of Lowcountry |No |

|Florence-Darlington TC |No |Tri-County TC |No |

|Greenville TC |No |Trident TC |No |

|Horry-Georgetown TC |No |Williamsburg TC |No |

|Midlands TC |No |York TC |No |

| | | | |

d. What are the plan dates for budget approval?

Answer:

|Aiken TC |6/99 |Orangeburg-Calhoun TC |8/99 |

|Central Carolina TC |Summer ‘99 |Piedmont TC |Summer ‘99 |

|Chesterfield-Marlb TC |Summer ‘99 |Spartanburg TC |Summer ‘99 |

|Denmark TC |Summer ‘99 |Tech Col of Lowcountry |6/99 |

|Florence-Darlington TC |6/99 |Tri-County TC |Summer ‘99 |

|Greenville TC |Summer ’99 |Trident TC |8/99 |

|Horry-Georgetown TC |Summer ‘99 |Williamsburg TC |6/99 |

|Midlands TC |5/99 |York TC |6/99 |

| | | | |

6. How will the evaluation of the cost be accomplished since the request is for: individual institution pricing (and the institutions vary widely in size and budget), multiple institution – but no commitment to multi institutions with-in any defied time frame? And other?

Answer: Cost is to be included in the Offeror’s Business Proposal as defined in Section I-9 of the RFP and will be evaluated in accordance with Section G-3.

7. Has any institution planned for, budgeted for or committed to the expense associated with the implementation of new administrative applications system(s) in the FY’00 budget preparation?

Answer:

|Aiken TC |No |Orangeburg-Calhoun TC |In Process |

|Central Carolina TC |No |Piedmont TC |No |

|Chesterfield-Marlb TC |Yes (Tentatively) |Spartanburg TC |In Process |

|Denmark TC |Yes |Tech Col of Lowcountry |No |

|Florence-Darlington TC |Yes |Tri-County TC |No |

|Greenville TC |Yes |Trident TC |No |

|Horry-Georgetown TC |Yes |Williamsburg TC |Yes |

|Midlands TC |Yes |York TC |Yes |

| | | | |

8. The RFP states that the RFP and the vendors response, and any amendments to the RFP or vendors response will be a part of any award and contact agreement coming out of the RFP process.

a. Is this the normal procurement practice in SC?

Answer: Yes.

b. Are there any exceptions to this?

Answer: The RFP identifies the State’s requirements and the Offeror’s proposal identifies its solution to the State’s requirements and any associated costs. In addition, there may be a third, negotiated, document that more closely aligned the RFP and proposal. For these reasons, the State will not waive the requirement that the RFP and proposal be part of the contract.

c. Are any waivers available to this requirement?

Answer: No.

d. Can this requirement be negotiated or otherwise removed and still finalize an Agreement with the State and the South Carolina Technical Colleges?

Answer: No.

DATA BASE

9. Under the GENERAL SCOPE REQUIREMENTS, item 2, the RFP requires an integrated database. Industry practice is that this requirement means a single database holding all application systems and the respective data. For example, a single database will have all student records, all HR/personnel information and the needed finance detail for the institution. Is this the intent of this RFP requirement – a single database for all applications?

Answer: No, in this instance the term ‘integrated’ means cross compatible i.e. a column for department means the same thing in all databases, e.g. Computer Programming Technologies (CPT) is identified the same in all systems.

If the answer to the preceding was yes, please skip the following question.

10. Do the required base line application systems (Student records, Financial Aid, Finance and HR/Payroll) need to reside on a single instance of the required relational data base, or can the systems reside on different data bases with the commitment from the vendor that the data bases will “talk” to each other?

Answer: No, it is not a requirement for the applications’ data to reside in a single instance. However, all systems should use a common RBDMS platform determined by each institution. For example, Oracle at Midlands, MSQL at Florence-Darlington, and Sybase at Spartanburg. Each application should “talk” to each other in a real-time, on-line manner. Batch updates should be kept to an absolute minimum amount.

11. Does the required database need to have the same file structure, data dictionary and common information retrieval logic for all base line applications?

Answer: Yes, the applications all should use a common standard method of data access, i.e. Structured Query Language (SQL).

12. The RFP demands that the database be ANSI-standard. Would a “data base” such as Unidata be acceptable to the South Carolina Technical Colleges? Information: Unidata is not an ANSI-standard database. It uses proprietary constructs like the Nested Relational Model, multi-valued data types, etc.

Answer: Yes.

13. Does the proposed higher education administrative system need to be operational on the proposed database at colleges and/or universities?

Answer: Yes, It is important for the vendor to give evidence that a significant portion of their enterprise systems are operational, taking into account that new features/modules, etc. may not be “live.”

14. Does the system need to be, and is it a requirement of the State of South Carolina, and /or the South Carolina Technical Colleges, that any proposed system must be operational on the database as proposed?

Answer: Yes. A significant portion of the base enterprise systems should be operational on the database being proposed.

15. Are the South Carolina Technical Colleges requesting an Enterprise Solution where database revisions do not have to be applied with each release from the software vendor?

Answer: No, there should be a version control tool in place that will track in-house revisions and allow us to determine if we wish to carry them forward into the latest release of the product.

16. Are the South Carolina Technical Colleges looking for a product which provides a version control tool to show where the differences are so that they can reapplied?

Answer: No. However, the presence of such a tool would be essential to effectively manage changes to the baseline product; the application of these changes would require a minimal amount of manual coding.

17. Do the South Carolina Technical Colleges require a developer toolkit that provides an automatic API enabling Version Control Software?

Answer: No.

OTHER

18. There is only one company involved with higher education administrative systems that claim to offer "Enterprise" solutions. Enterprise is generally used a term referring to corporate America. Vendors committed to higher education will provide an “Institution Wide” or “Institutional” application system to serve the needs for an integrated campus wide record keeping system. To insure a full understanding of the intent of the South Carolina Technical Colleges, please provide a definition of "Enterprise Solution" as viewed by the South Carolina Technical Colleges.

Answer: “Enterprise Solution” refers to a software product set that collectively meets the requirements defined within this RFP.

19. How will this need be measured in the evaluation?

Answer: See sections F.2 and F.3 of the RFP.

20. Are application systems that need multiple separate databases for different applications be judged as an enterprise system in the definition of the South Carolina Technical Colleges?

Answer: An enterprise system should be judged in terms of providing application solutions for the five areas stated in the RFP (i.e. Financial Record, Human Resources/Payroll, etc.)

21. Must a vendor be able to demonstrate the use of a single database to meet the bid requirements?

Answer: No.

22. Must a vendor supply the South Carolina Technical Colleges with a list of operational sites, at colleges and universities in America? (Operational site refers to a college or university where all base line systems have been through a year-end close of books and a subsequent audit that was approved.) How many sites must have accomplished this? Does the size of the institutions need to parallel the diversity of the South Carolina Technical Colleges?

Answer: Refer to Section G.7 of the RFP.

23. The South Carolina Technical Colleges have requested information on the staff required supporting the enterprise system. Is it acknowledged that a minimum of one DBA will be required to support the demanded RBDMS client/server enterprise system on every campus? If an Enterprise Solution has multiple databases (one per product), is it understood that there will need to be a minimum of 2 DBAs on site at the institution.

Answer: No.

24. Client/Server sometimes dictates three-tier architecture. Is three-tier architecture a requirement of the RFP? If not, what is the definition of Client/Server required to meet the RFP?

Answer: No. Refer to Sections I.7 and I.8 of the RFP.

25. The RFP indicates that the vendor must be committed to the higher education environment. Will a measure of this commitment be judged by the percentage of corporate revenues that are earned from higher education? If not, what measurements will be used?

Answer: Other criteria such as the number of higher education customers, number of state system customers, number of recently signed customers in the last twelve (12) months, etc., are also indicators of commitment. It is also important to understand the research and development commitment to higher education for future products and services.

26. Is it a requirement that a minimum of six higher education institutions, similar in enrollment – from 1,000 to 9,000, be provided as references? Do the reference accounts have to have the 4 baseline systems (Student Records, Financial Aid, Finance and HR/Payroll) operational, including a year end close of books and audit? If not, how will the South Carolina Technical Colleges determine that proposed systems are actually operational, regulatory compliant and proven in a college environment?

Answer: No; refer to Section G.7 of the RFP.

27. The area of information access, information retrieval and report generation is a known need of the South Carolina Technical Colleges. Does the proposed system need to have multiple tools / report writers available to enable an institution to select the best systems for the needs of that specific institution? Does any proposed report writer need to be ODBC compliant or will proprietary system(s) meet the requirements of the RFP?

Answer: OBDC compliance is acceptable, however any proprietary system that meets the requirements of this RFP is acceptable.

28. Does the programming language for the higher education system proposed need to be an industry standard or will proprietary language(s) be acceptable?

Answer: Either is acceptable.

29. The RFP comments on the Key Event Dates …these are understood to be:

a. Pre-Proposal meeting – February 4, 1999 at 10am

b. RFP due – February 25, 1999 at 2:30 PM

c. Award date – March 24, 1999

Answer: See page 2 of this amendment.

30. Are there an additional dates that should be detailed?

Answer: See page 2 of this amendment.

31. On the RFP item – ITEM SUBSTITUTION – it details that the institutional Purchase Order will not be changed. Will the contract agreement terms and conditions associated with this award prevail over any institutional Purchase Order Terms and Conditions?

Answer: Yes.

32. On the RFP item – PRICE ADJUSTMENT – the contract agreement terms and conditions associated with this award prevail?

Answer: Yes.

33. On the RFP item – Source Code – will a vendor receive favorable evaluation consideration for the inclusion of the source code as a part of the Agreement?

Answer: No.

34. Please provide the Non-salary, Non-capital budget (1997-1998) and the Capital Budget (1997-1998) for each of the 16 institutions and for the State Tech Board.

Answer:

| |Non-Salary |Capital Budget | |Non-Salary |Capital Budget |

| |Non-Capital |97/98 | |Non-Capital |97/98 |

| |97/98 | | |97/98 | |

|Aiken TC |3,043,045 |576,386 |Orangeburg-Calhoun TC |2,653,925 |1,034,435 |

|Central Carolina TC |3,240,018 |279,942 |Piedmont TC |7,490,845 |1,360,414 |

|Chesterfield-Marlb TC |2,925,528 |598,398 |Spartanburg TC |5,074,459 |123,211 |

|Denmark TC |1,574,500 |-0- |Tech Col of Lowcountry |2,761,724 |652,113 |

|Florence-Darlington TC |6,026,664 |1,632,100 |Tri-County TC |7,601,985 |980,035 |

|Greenville TC |11,125,160 |2,908,470 |Trident TC |12,196,563 |1,811,721 |

|Horry-Georgetown TC |8,003,408 |2,975,981 |Williamsburg TC |2,658,669 |158,701 |

|Midlands TC |13,800,000 |25,872,000 |York TC |7,260,000 |537,000 |

| | | | | | |

35. For Item C. GENERAL SCOPE REQUIREMENTS … it says that the “… successful vendor must provide and/or facilitate data up-loads ”. What file format, transmission protocol, and detailed specifications must a vendor meet to enable this transmission to the required organizations?

Answer: Standard file formats such as ASCII fixed length, transmission protocols such as TCP-IP, and standard data element definitions in both the transmitting and the receiving systems must all be supported by the selected software. Refer to sections D.7.3 and D. 7.11 in the RFP.

36. The RFP, in different areas, makes reference to 1 year, 5 year and 10 year needs. What is the evaluation based on? Is the total life cycle cost for this period a consideration of the RFP evaluation?

Answer: Primary consideration will be given to the availability of product today with an understanding of its flexibility to meet the changing needs of tomorrow.

37. If not, what number of year’s costs will be included in the evaluation?

Answer: As the RFP indicates, the number of years desired is five (5).

38. Under the GENERAL SCOPE REQUIREMENTS, item 5, the RFP requires “… data warehousing and decision support capabilities ”. What is the definition of “data warehouse” as it would differentiate from the required system database? With a relational database required in the RFP, what benefits do the South Carolina Technical Colleges envision from a data warehouse?

Answer: Warehousing is viewed as a central repository where census data from each of the colleges is stored for state-wide reporting purposes, longitudinal studies, performance indicators, etc.

39. Under the GENERAL SCOPE REQUIREMENTS, item 6, the RFP requires “limited customization”. Please define how the South Carolina Technical Colleges will evaluate “limited customization? Will operational higher education institutions, of a comparable size, be interviewed to learn how much local enhancement had to be accomplished to meet the institutions needs? Are the South Carolina Technical Colleges willing to change their historical way of doing “things” when a vendor’s system provides the same result through a different practice? If not, how will the South Carolina Technical Colleges evaluate the amount of system enhancement needed with a specific vendor’s system to match the institutional desires?

Answer: Refer to sections F.3 and G.1 of the RFP.

40. Under the GENERAL SCOPE REQUIREMENTS, item 7, the RFP requires “Provides State and Federal information requirements.” What specific State and Federal requirements does this refer to? No system provides specific reports that may be required by South Carolina today, or would require tomorrow. How will this requirement be evaluated? Are absolute requirements of the Federal Department of Education and the Department of the Treasury mandatory requirements of the RFP? Does this include the mandatory Financial Aid and Employee reporting to the DOE?

Answer: Federal requirements would be those that are broad-based and required of all institutions of higher education. State requirements would be those things that are common among states, and usually are of a nature required for accreditation. The evaluation would be based on existing functionality and the extendibility of the database and application. Yes, this would include the DOE and IRS. Refer to section F.2 of the RFP.

41. Under the GENERAL SCOPE REQUIREMENTS, item 8 – Customer Focused. Please define what is required here as the proximity of the staff and students to the computer center. Does this refer to the accessibility of information, and the ability to do institutional functions such as apply for admission, apply for financial aid, apply for employment, register, accomplish drop/add, retrieve grades, input grades, do a degree or certificate audit, take a class offered on a DL or remote instruction basis?

Answer: It means closest to the Source or the Owner of the data.

42. Under the GENERAL SCOPE REQUIREMENTS, item 9. What are the type “existing investments” … does this include current hardware, networks, desktops, curriculum that may be taught on a DL or remote basis? What are the respective investments of the South Carolina Technical Colleges? What are the servers currently being used by the South Carolina Technical Colleges? Do the desktop units at all the South Carolina Technical Colleges meet Y2K requirements? Are the desktops at the South Carolina Technical Colleges capable of operation in a client/server architecture (32 Mb with 1 GB of disk)?

Answer: Current hardware/software/network infrastructure and operating environment defines “existing investments.” Other question are college specific and germane to this RFP.

43. Under the GENERAL SCOPE REQUIREMENTS, item 12. Does the word “instruction” indicate that the administrative record keeping system required by this RFP must also accommodate the “class room” for Distance Learning? Does this requirement include the actual course material?

Answer: No.

D. SOFTWARE REQUIREMENTS

44. What is the definition of “integrated workflow” as used in the RFP in paragraph 1: “ …and would also included integrated workflow”?

Answer: Workflow means taking a business process and breaking it down into different logical steps to facilitate the flow of work through the process.

45. As a part of 1.3 and 1.2 … Is the vendor to provide employees of the vendor’s organization to accomplish this requirement?

Answer: No.

46. 1.5 - Does this require a common data dictionary, stored procedures and single relational database?

Answer: No, but there should be a means to update all associated dictionaries, procedures without requiring a single database.

47. 2.3 – The South Carolina Technical Colleges all have licensed a common EDI system. Will use of this system satisfy this requirement providing the vendor’s higher education administrative record keeping system will operate seamlessly with it?

Answer: Each vendor’s solution to this requirement will be assessed. If the vendor has a better EDI system as part of its solution, this alternative will be considered.

48. Should the Finance system meet the NACUBO standards?

Answer: Yes.

49. Does the integration of the Purchasing and Requisition elements need to be integrated in the finance systems and must the processing of POs, requisitions be accomplished in on-line real-time so that the institution and its users and management can continually monitor budget performance and encumbered dollars?

Answer: Yes.

50. 3.2 – Does the proposed system have to have a “contract pay” element as a native, vendor supplied and supported part of the vendor’s system?

Answer: No.

51. 3.5 – What is the South Carolina Technical Colleges definition of “automated time sheet processing”? Is this requirement based on the current methodology for entering time sheets or is a vendor permitted to implement the process that minimizes or eliminates manual process – even though this means changing the way the institution process the data?

Answer: Automated means “not manual.”

52. 4.2 -- What process is needed for the institutional implementation of “wait lists”?

Answer: Vendor is to propose one or more solutions to the requirements in the RFP.

53. 4.3 – Do these access capabilities need to be integrated with different vendors IVR, Kiosk or Web systems? Does the vendor need to provide a single maintenance interface and contract agreement with the institution for each of these access capabilities? Are the institutions willing to have multiple agreements for support and maintenance with several vendors responsible for their individual parts of a Kiosk (for example) implementation?

Answer: Yes the access capabilities can be integrated with different vendors IVR, Kiosk, or WEB systems. The answer to the second question is no. the answer to the third question is yes.

54. 4.14 – The South Carolina Technical Colleges all have licensed a common EDI system that is SPEEDE compliant. Will use of this system satisfy this requirement providing the vendor’s higher education administrative record keeping system will operate seamlessly with it?

Answer: Yes.

55. 6.5 – Should this area require INTEGRATION vs. the stated “interface”? It would seem consistent with the RFP detail on the desire for the South Carolina Technical Colleges to have a “enterprise” system that the Development systems would be integrated with the total system. A development candidate may be a student – current or former – and it should be in the institution’s interest to reduce redundant information and have all data on the single database. Equally, the integration of the financial reporting would seem to be an absolute mandatory requirement in lieu of needing a separate finance system for development that then must be interfaced, up-loaded and supported in addition to the institutional finance system.

Answer: No.

56. 7.5 – What is the required “work flow” as related to e-mail? Does the vendor need to supply an e-mail system as part of the response to the RFP? Does the e-mail system need to have the ability to carry attachments in standard industry utilities such as Word, Excel, Word Perfect?

Answer: Integration of E-mail with workflow refers to the ability to send e-mails to students, vendors, alumni, staff, etc. based on the triggering of certain events. E.g. A class is cancelled, A bill is past due, reminders of upcoming events, mid-term grades are due, etc. The vendor would not be required to supply an e-mail system, only to interface with it.

57. 7.13 – What criteria or measurement is this RFP using to evaluate: “Ability to develop job workflows.”? It would seem more appropriate to focus on institutional workflow. Are the South Carolina Technical Colleges concerned with institutional workflow, departmental workflow or just job workflow? Is the proposed system required to implement workflow across systems (i.e. employment to financial aid to student and also finance)?

Answer: The selected software should have workflow capability and should be adaptable to different business processes or an individual’s job. Refer to Section I.1 of the RFP.

58. What are the weighted value to the South Carolina Technical Colleges of functional requirements and the life cycle cost? Example:

Answer: The RFP evaluation criteria are listed in section G of the RFP in order of relative importance. The most important criteria is listed first.

Vendor A Vendor B Vendor C

Meets requirements 76% 90% 100% (impossible but what if)

Implemented references 100% 100% 40%

Cost 2.6 million 1.7 million 5.2 million

59. Is there any way that Vendor C can win?

Answer: This question is not germane to the RFP since the evaluation criteria listed do not reflect the criteria that will be used to evaluate the RFP. See Section G of the RFP.

60 Is the intent and requirement of the RFP to have a complete fully operational system that provides a current on-line real-time level of service to the students, faculty and staff of the South Carolina Technical Colleges?

Answer: See Section C, first paragraph of the RFP.

61. Is the higher education administrative system requested in the RFP to be a fully integrated relational database technology current system that is in its implementation with all elements of the system (such as in the student system – recruiting, admissions, registration, degree audit, housing, on-line transcripts) installed in a representative number of higher education institutions?

Answer: Refer to Section D.1 of the RFP.

62. Is the South Carolina Technical College, and the State requirement, to have a single vendor responsible for the full obligations and responsibilities of the anticipated Agreement to include:

all applications software

detailed requirements of hardware

with an emphasis of using the existing hardware servers at each institution

implementation – as a part of the single agreement

3rd part separate Agreements are not acceptable for implementation training, support, education or consulting

providing Web systems, Kiosk systems and IVR systems under the single Agreement and the single vendor accept institutional orders for Web, Kiosk and / or IVR systems, provide the integration of the systems and provide a single support point-of-contact for all systems?

All subsystems within any of the application systems … such as IPEDS reporting for financial aid and the Contract Pay system within HR/Payroll

Answer: There are only three Offerors qualified to respond to this RFP; SCT, PeopleSoft, and Datatel. The successful Offeror will be considered the prime contractor and will be responsible for the performance of the system as presented in its proposal.

63. In the financial aid system, does the vendor have to have currently on-line real-time “packaging” for the financial aid office and on-line real-time interface with EDE?

Answer: No.

64. Is the financial aid system required to have on-line real-time integration with the vendors finance system, student accounts receivable and HR/Payroll systems?

Answer: No.

65. Will all aspects of the winning vendor’s Proposal, Amendments, attachments, and the actual contract be available as a part of public record after the award is made?

Answer: State procurement documents and contracts are subject to the Freedom of Information Act and like provisions of the Consolidated Procurement Code. Both sets of laws provide guidelines regarding which information must be released and types of information may be withheld.

PeopleSoft QUESTIONS REGARDING

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TERMS AND CONDITIONS

GENERAL INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

Proposal Constitutes Offer

1. Is it acceptable to the Materials Management Office of South Carolina ("MMO") that PeopleSoft is not, by submitting this proposal, accepting all provisions of the RFP, nor is PeopleSoft agreeing to perform all work or supply all licenses specified in the RFP? PeopleSoft is offering to perform as described in the proposal. It is likely that in the proposal, PeopleSoft has described several areas where its software does not meet all of the specifications of the RFP. MMO must expect to receive the software as described, not as requested in the RFP.

Answer: No.

Offeror's Duty to Inspect and Advise

PeopleSoft is providing sample contract documents at the Bidders Conference.

Questions

2. Please clarify “Key Event Dates.”

Answer: See page 2 of this amendment.

CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS

The Contract Document

PeopleSoft proposes the following alternative language:

3. Any contract resulting from this solicitation shall consist of, in order of precedence, the Software License and Services Agreement and any schedules thereto.

Answer: The Software Licenses and Services Agreement may be added to the order of precedence to the extent that they do not conflict with the specifications, terms and conditions of the RFP in which case the terms and conditions of the RFP shall prevail.

4. PeopleSoft cannot include the solicitation or like documents in the final contract because there are portions of that document to which PeopleSoft has not agreed. PeopleSoft is willing to discuss during negotiations the inclusion of the functional checklist portion of the proposal in the final contract.

Answer: See answer to SCT question 8b.

Patent and Copyright Liability

PeopleSoft proposes the following changes to this paragraph:

5. PeopleSoft shall indemnify and defend Licensee against any claims that the Software infringes any United States or Canadian patent or copyright, provided that PeopleSoft is given prompt notice of such claim and is given information, reasonable assistance, and sole authority to defend or settle the claim. In the defense or settlement of the claim, PeopleSoft shall, in its reasonable judgment and at its option and expense: (i) obtain for Licensee the right to continue using the Software; (ii) replace or modify the Software so that it becomes non-infringing while giving equivalent performance; or (iii) if PeopleSoft cannot obtain the remedies in (i) or (ii), as its sole obligation, terminate the license for the infringing Software, and upon receipt of the infringing Software, return only the license fees paid by Licensee for such Software, prorated over a seven (7) year term from the applicable Schedule Effective Date. PeopleSoft shall have no liability to indemnify or defend Licensee to the extent the alleged infringement is based on: (i) a modification of the Software by anyone other than PeopleSoft; (ii) use of the Software other than in accordance with the Documentation; or (iii) use of the Software outside the Territory where such claim is brought under the law of such country or countries.

Answer: This language is not acceptable to the State.

Ownership of Data

6. How does MMO define the phrase "data and other records"?

Answer: The information, data, images, intellectual property, or records belonging to the State, or that are entered into the system by the State, or on behalf of the State, exclusive of the programming language of the system itself.

Taxes

7. PeopleSoft proposes the following additional change as underlined:

Prices are exclusive of all sales, use and like taxes. Any tax CONTRACTOR may be required to collect or pay upon sale, use or delivery of the products shall be paid by the State, and such sums shall be due and payable to the CONTRACTOR upon delivery of an appropriate invoice.

Answer: The law requires the State to receive and accept the goods or services and present to the Comptroller General a proper invoice before payment can be made. The act of delivering an invoice is not sufficient to initiate payment.

8. Applicability of Uniform Commercial Code

Assuming that hardware is not included in this solicitation, the UCC is inapplicable to licensing software. Accordingly, PeopleSoft requests removal of this paragraph.

Answer: This provision is deleted.

9. Attorneys Fees

PeopleSoft requests the elimination of this clause altogether, but PeopleSoft will not agree that only the State can obtain attorneys' fees for being required to litigate.

Answer: This provision is deleted.

10. Records Retention & Right to Audit

Securities laws require PeopleSoft to prevent uneven disclosure of confidential company records, as do various confidentiality agreements with other customers and partners. Additionally, PeopleSoft offers a perpetual, non-exclusive, non-transferable license to its customers and if the customer continues to purchase software support, the final payment under this contract could be decades from now. Also, PeopleSoft is contractually required to restrict use of certain software to a limited number of users. Accordingly, PeopleSoft proposes, the following changes:

PeopleSoft will maintain or cause to be maintained all records, books or other documents relative to charges, including charges for extra work, alleged breaches of Agreement, settlement of claims or any other matter involving PeopleSoft's demand for compensation by Licensee for a period of not less than five (5) years from the date of the final payment for licenses, products, or work performed under this Agreement.

Answer: The requirement, as stated, is a requirement of law and cannot be waived by this document.

11. Latent Defects

This section is essentially an unlimited warranty, to which PeopleSoft cannot agree. This software will be subject to extensive testing during implementation, therefore, any defect discovered after acceptance would meet the definition of latent. PeopleSoft proposes the following warranty:

PeopleSoft warrants that it has title to the Software and/or the authority to grant licenses to use the third party software. PeopleSoft warrants that the Software will perform substantially in accordance with the Documentation for a period of one (1) year from the date of initial installation and that the Software media is free from material defects. PeopleSoft does not warrant that the Software is error-free. PeopleSoft's sole obligation is limited to repair or replacement of the defective Software in a timely manner, provided Licensee notifies PeopleSoft of the deficiency within the one-year period and provided Licensee has installed all Software updates provided pursuant to PeopleSoft's Software Support Services. PEOPLESOFT DISCLAIMS ALL OTHER WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Answer: This request is denied. The State is simply asking that the products perform in accordance with the requirements of this RFP and the Offeror’s proposal.

12. Year 2000

PeopleSoft cannot warrant third party equipment. Because PeopleSoft warrants its software to the most current published documentation, PeopleSoft proposes the following Year 2000 language:

As part of the warranty of substantial conformity to Documentation contained in the Software License and Services Agreement, PeopleSoft warrants that the Software is Year 2000 compliant and will correctly address and operate accurately: (1) the change of the century in a standard compliant manner, including both the Year 2000 and beyond; (2) the existence and absence of leap years; and (3) date related operations. Compliance means that the Software operates and correctly processes in a manner that: (i) calculations using dates execute utilizing a four digit year; (ii) the Software functionality, including but not limited to, entry, inquiry, maintenance and update (whether on-line, batch or otherwise)supports four digit year processing; (iii) successful transition to the Year 2000 using the correct system date occurs without human intervention; (iv) after the transition to the Year 2000, processing with a four digit year shall occur without human intervention; (v) all leap years shall be calculated correctly; and (vi) correct results shall be produced in forward and backward date calculation spanning century boundaries (there are no years stored as two digits). As this warranty is part of the warranty of substantial conformity to Documentation contained in the Software License and Services Agreement, the same conditions apply to it.

Answer: This request is denied. The State requires the system proposed by the Offeror and Offeror’s subcontractors to comply with this provision.

18. Indemnification

Liability for Damages

PeopleSoft proposes the following language to be used in place of the Indemnification and Liability for Damages sections:

EXCEPT FOR VIOLATIONS OF PEOPLESOFT’S INTELLECTUAL OR PROPRIETARY RIGHTS, NEITHER PARTY WILL BE LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOST DATA OR LOST PROFITS, HOWEVER ARISING, EVEN IF IT HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. EXCLUDING DAMAGES INCURRED BY LICENSEE UNDER THE ARTICLE ENTITLED, "PATENT AND COPYRIGHT INDEMNITY" AND EXCEPT FOR CLAIMS FOR BODILY INJURY OR TANGIBLE PROPERTY DAMAGE TO THE EXTENT CAUSED BY PEOPLESOFT, PeopleSoft'S liability for damages under this Agreement (whether in contract or tort) shall in no event exceed the amount paid by LicenSee to PeopleSoft for the Software module or the services FROM which the claim arose. the parties agree to the allocation OF LIABILITY RISK set forth in this Section.

Answer: Denied.

19. Compliance with Codes, Ordinances, Industry Standards

PeopleSoft proposes to eliminate the reference to "industry standards" from this paragraph. That term is indefinable and therefore inherently problematic.

Answer: Delete the phrase “and industry standards”

20. Insurance

How does MMO define "throughout the performance of its obligation under this Agreement?" PeopleSoft's license is providing a perpetual, non-transferable, non-exclusive license and this would require PeopleSoft to maintain the same insurance forever, which PeopleSoft cannot commit to do. Also, PeopleSoft will need a clarification of the phrase "limits sufficient to cover any loss or potential loss from this contract." "Any potential loss" does not provide sufficient definition or limitation. PeopleSoft proposes the following clause:

PeopleSoft will secure, pay for and maintain such insurance as will protect it for claims under Workers' Compensation Acts, claims for damages because of bodily injury, including personal injury, sickness or disease or death of any person as a result of the nature of its work under the terms of this Agreement, and from all claims for damages because of injury to or of destruction of property, including loss of use resulting therefrom which may arise out of the services provided pursuant to this Agreement.

PeopleSoft agrees that, prior to executing this Agreement, it will provide Licensee with proof that it has general liability insurance in the minimum amount of one million dollars, and that within thirty (30) days of execution of this Agreement and prior to performing any work on Licensee's site, it will provide Licensee with a certificate of such insurance in a form which is standard for reputable insurers within the industry.

Answer: In order to be eligible for receipt of award, Offerors must be authorized to conduct business in the State of South Carolina and must comply with any laws relative to maintaining that authorization. The laws of the State of South Carolina dictate what insurance a business must maintain and under what conditions. This requirement is only intended to make the OFFEROR aware of these requirements.

21. Risk of Loss

PeopleSoft cannot agree to assume the risk of loss after delivery of the product. PeopleSoft proposes to eliminate this clause or to further discuss this during negotiations.

Answer: The State’s insurance does not allow the State to assume responsibility for risk of loss until the goods are delivered, received, and accepted, except that the State must exercise due diligence to secure and protect goods in its physical possession.

22. Contractor Solely Responsible for Performance

PeopleSoft is prepared to submit several alternative proposals that we believe will meet the State's needs regarding a single source of contact. Will a proposal with a structure proven elsewhere to manage complex implementation efforts be considered by the State?

Answer: The State will consider any proposal the meets the requirements of this RFP.

23. Assignment

PeopleSoft cannot agree to this limitation, but proposes the following clause:

Neither party shall assign this Agreement without the prior written consent of other. Provided, however, PeopleSoft may assign this Agreement without Licensee’s consent in the event of an internal corporate reorganization where the assignee is adequately capitalized by generally accepted accounting standards or in the event of a merger or acquisition of a majority of PeopleSoft shares. No subsequent transfer of this Agreement by PeopleSoft shall have any effect upon Licensee’s right to use the Software in accordance with this Agreement, and any assignee shall be bound by the terms of this Agreement as if it had executed the Agreement.

Answer: The State can only contract with entities that meet the State’s standards of responsibility which in part require that a contractor be authorized to conduct business in the State of South Carolina and have a satisfactory record of integrity and past performance. The State can not accept the suggested language.

24. Multi Term Contracts

Term of Contracts/Option to Renew

PeopleSoft will require a clarification that the license for PeopleSoft's software is perpetual.

Answer: Goods and services may be acquired under this contract for a period of 5 years after which time, the State agency must execute another procurement activity, except that software license renewals are exempt from this requirement of the Procurement Code and can be renewed by the agency in perpetuity.

25. Price Adjustment

PeopleSoft understands the need for predictable increases for software support and will agree to an annual maintenance increase for a limited number of years, but PeopleSoft cannot agree to limit those increases to the PPI or the CPI.

Answer: Offerors may propose a fixed price for each component of its proposal for each year of the contract in lieu of a price increase tied to these indices.

26. Contract Violation

PeopleSoft will require a clarification defining "using agency." If agencies other than the technical colleges are going to use PeopleSoft software, the price will be different for each agency based on the number of modules licensed and the particular agency's licensed level of use. Accordingly, if those terms or associated terms change, PeopleSoft is not in violation.

Answer: This is a multiagency state term contract for the SC Board for Technical and Comprehensive Education and the Technical Colleges.

27. Termination by State

PeopleSoft proposes the following language to address the appropriate termination situation:

28. Termination for Non-Appropriation

Licensee may terminate this Agreement because of a failure to appropriate funds. However, no funds already paid pursuant to this Agreement will be returned to Licensee. Licensee agrees that it will not execute a Schedule unless the funds to pay for the license on that Schedule are appropriated and encumbered for payment of the software license fee. At Licensee’s request, the parties will work together to align Licensee’s Software Support Services year with its fiscal year, so that Licensee will not have a Software Support Services term which falls into more than one fiscal year.

Answer: This is an acceptable alternative to the State’s language.

29. Termination for Cause

default and termination

X.1 An event of default is: (i) a failure by either party to comply with any material obligation under this Agreement; and (ii) such non-compliance remains uncured for more than thirty (30) days after receipt of written notice thereof.

X.2 If an event of default occurs, the non-defaulting party, in addition to any other rights available to it under law or equity, may terminate this Agreement and all licenses granted hereunder by giving written notice to the defaulting party. Except as otherwise specifically stated herein, remedies shall be cumulative and there shall be no obligation to exercise a particular remedy.

X.3 Within fifteen (15) days after termination of this Agreement, Licensee shall certify in writing to PeopleSoft that all copies of the Software in any form, including partial copies within modified versions, have been destroyed or returned to PeopleSoft.

Answer: This is an acceptable addition to the language in the RFP.

30. Termination for Convenience

PeopleSoft proposes to add a clause clarifying that any license fees for software agreed to in the agreement are non-cancelable and non-refundable.

Answer: Denied.

SOFTWARE LICENSES

PeopleSoft proposes the following changes:

Proprietary Software

31. 1) Definition

“Software” means all or any portion of the global version of the binary computer software programs and updates and enhancements thereto, (including corresponding source code, unless specifically excluded herein) and Documentation delivered by PeopleSoft to Licensee as listed in the Schedule. Software includes the third-party software delivered by PeopleSoft as specified in the Schedule, and modifications made to the Software. Software does not include source code to: (1) Tools; (2) third party software; (3) PeopleSoft’s supply chain software; or (4) PeopleSoft’s merchandise management software. Unless specifically stated otherwise, all Software is delivered to Licensee only if and when generally commercially available.

This definition is more nearly accurate and includes several important distinctions involving source code.

Answer: This is acceptable.

2) License

PeopleSoft proposes the following clauses:

32. license

X.1 PeopleSoft grants Licensee a perpetual, non-exclusive, non-transferable license to use the Software (including PeopleSoft’s extended enterprise capabilities) on one or more servers at Licensee’s facilities located in the Named Country/Region, solely for Licensee’s internal data processing operations per the Operating Metrics specified in the Schedule(s). Licensee shall use any third party Software products or modules provided by PeopleSoft solely with PeopleSoft Software. Licensee may modify or merge the Software with other software, provided, however, that no modification, however extensive, shall diminish PeopleSoft’s title or interest in the Software or constitute a waiver of moral rights in the Software.

X.2 PeopleSoft grants Licensee the right, to permit Software access to a Designate for Licensee’s Internal data processing operations only, provided such access does not include permitting Designate to copy the Software or access the source code.

X.3 PeopleSoft shall provide Licensee with the number of Software copies as specified in the Schedule. Licensee may make a reasonable number of copies of the Software solely for Licensee’s internal use, including back-up and archive purposes, in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, provided all copyright and proprietary notices are reproduced.

Answer: This is acceptable.

33. license exclusions

X.1 Except as otherwise provided here, Licensee shall not:

a. Cause or permit reverse compilation or assembly of all or any portion of the Software;

b. Distribute, disclose, market, rent, lease or transfer to any third party any portion of the Software (including Tools) or use the Software in any service bureau arrangement, facility management, or third party training;

c. Disclose the results of Software performance benchmarks to any third party without PeopleSoft's prior written consent;

d. Transfer the Software to a different database platform or operating system, or use the Software outside the Named Country/Region, without Notice to PeopleSoft and payment of any additional fees that may be due;

e. Export Software in violation of U.S. Dept. of Commerce and other applicable export administration regulations; or,

f. Use Tools except with the licensed PeopleSoft applications.

X.2 No license, right, or interest in any PeopleSoft trademark, trade name, or service mark is granted.

Answer: The State will accept items a, c,d,e, and f. The State will accept item b modified as follows :

b. Distribute, disclose, market, rent, lease or transfer to any third party any portion of the Software (including Tools);

Trade Secrets

PeopleSoft proposes the following clauses:

34. nondisclosure obligation

X.1 Each party (“Recipient”) shall protect the other party’s (“Discloser”) Confidential Information with at least the same degree of care and confidentiality, but not less than a reasonable standard of care, that Recipient uses for its own Confidential Information. Licensee may provide Software access and use to third parties that: (1) need to use and access the Software to provide services to Licensee for its Software use; and (2) have agreed to Licensee’s non-disclosure obligations substantially similar to those contained in these sections.

X.2 Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Agreement and its terms, conditions and pricing are confidential and shall not be disclosed orally or in writing by Licensee to any third party without PeopleSoft’s prior written consent. If Licensee is a government entity subject to disclosure obligations under a public records statute or similar regulation, Licensee agrees that the terms, conditions, and pricing under this Agreement shall be disclosed only pursuant to requests made in accordance with such statute or regulation, and that any other information marked "confidential" under this Agreement, including the Software, shall be treated as confidential, trade secret, and commercially sensitive, and shall not be disclosed without affording PeopleSoft a full opportunity to establish such information’s exemption from disclosure.

X.3 Recipient has no confidentiality obligation with respect to information it establishes by legally sufficient evidence: (1) was in the possession of, or was rightfully known by Recipient without a confidentiality obligation prior to receipt from Discloser; (2) is or becomes generally known to the public without this Agreement’s violation; (3) is obtained by Recipient in good faith from a third party having the right to disclose it without a confidentiality obligation; (4) is independently developed by Recipient without the participation of individuals who have had access to the Confidential Information; or (5) is required to be disclosed by court order or applicable law, provided Recipient (a) ensures a proper request has been made in accordance with the relevant statute and promptly notifies Discloser, (b) diligently undertakes to limit disclosure providing Discloser a full opportunity to establish such information as exempt from any disclosure obligation.

Answer: This is acceptable.

35. Additionally, PeopleSoft cannot agree to allow the transfer of the license to just any entity. However, if the State wishes to create a master contract that state agencies other than the South Carolina Technical College System could use to contract for additional licenses, PeopleSoft is willing to further discuss this opportunity.

Answer: This is a multiagency state term contract for the SC Board for Technical and Comprehensive Education and the Technical Colleges.

36. 4) Source Code

PeopleSoft can agree to the following clause:

PeopleSoft maintains an escrow of its source code to PeopleTools with FileSafe, Inc., doing business as SourceFile. Licensee shall become a beneficiary of the escrow. PeopleSoft shall deliver to Licensee the documents necessary for Licensee to become a beneficiary, at no additional cost to Licensee. Licensee’s right to be a beneficiary shall terminate if Licensee is not receiving Software Support Services.

Answer: The State would accept the following:

PeopleSoft maintains an escrow of its source code for the products it provides under this proposal with FileSafe, Inc., doing business as SourceFile. Licensee shall become a beneficiary of the escrow. PeopleSoft shall deliver to Licensee, within 2 weeks of licensure, the documents necessary for Licensee to become a beneficiary, at no additional cost to Licensee. Licensee’s right to be a beneficiary shall terminate if Licensee is not receiving Software Support Services.

CUSTOMIZED SOFTWARE

37. Definition, Title

PeopleSoft proposes the following clause:

PeopleSoft (or its third-party providers) retains title to all portions of the Software, derivative works, and any copies thereof. If Licensee creates a Software modification (“Licensee Modification”), Licensee shall have a perpetual, royalty-free license to use Licensee Modification in accordance with this Agreement. Licensee may, at its option, disclose Licensee Modification to PeopleSoft or PeopleSoft customers through PeopleSoft Customer Connection. PeopleSoft shall have no obligation to support Licensee Modification.

Title to Software physical media vests in Licensee upon delivery. PeopleSoft represents that Software contains valuable proprietary information. Software has been developed at private expense and is provided to U.S. Government agencies/ subcontractors subject to applicable restrictions of FAR 52.227-19(c) or DFAR 227.7202-32, for defense-related agencies.

PeopleSoft cannot agree with the provision whereby the title of software modifications is vested solely in the State.

Answer: This is acceptable.

38. MULTI TERM CONTRACTS

Is the South Carolina board of Technical and Comprehensive Education (SCBTCE) asking for a cost proposal response in the form of an offer which is a fixed bid or which is to be negotiated?

Answer: It is important that, to the maximum extent possible, any financial obligations to the State be identified and fixed for the term of the contract so the evaluation committee can properly evaluate the impact of cost on the Business Proposal and the agencies can include that information in their budgets.

39. If the proposal contains implementation services that exceed one (1) year, how will such an extended commitment be handled after the first year?

Answer: The effective dates of this contract reflect the time during which an agency may place orders against this contract number. If an agency places an order for goods or services while the contract is in force, the completion of that work can survive the expiration of the contract effective dates.

GENERAL INFORMATION

40. Does the 3,873 FTE employees include instructors associated with the non-credit courses/programs at the colleges? If no, please provide an estimate of the total FTE employees involved in these activities.

Answer: The 3,873 FTE employees do not include the part-time temporary adjunct faculty. FTE employees represent permanent full-time administrative personnel that work twelve months and full time permanent teaching faculty that work nine months. The adjunct referenced in the chart provided as a response to Oracle Question #1 identifies an annual headcount (in addition to the previously stated FTE) of all part-time temporary faculty in both the credit and non-credit programs. From a standard production calculation based on an average of 15 student FTE’s produced per term per FTE faculty, the credit program faculty measure is 2,739 and the non credit program faculty is 372 for a total of 3,111. The standard production calculation is useful only for comparison to the headcount and the 12-month/9 month defined FTE.

41. Does the 40,000 FTES figure include students involved in non-credit courses/programs? If no, please provide an estimate of the total FTES enrolled in these activities.

Answer: No. There are approximately 6,000 non-credit program FTE’s in addition to the 40,000-credit program FTE.

42. In reference to the $60,161,311 non-capital budget, please provide a total budget figure for the SCBTCE and its colleges that includes salaries and wages.

Answer: The FY 1997-98 Current Funds expenditures for the Technical Education System was $345,214,880.

43. Please provide the potential number of users at each of the colleges and the SCBTCE for purposes of costing the database management system.

Answer:

|Aiken TC |125 |Orangeburg-Calhoun TC |160 |

|Central Carolina TC |200 |Piedmont TC |178 |

|Chesterfield-Marlb TC |80 (25-30 Concurrent) |Spartanburg TC |200 (25 Concurrent) |

|Denmark TC |100 |Tech Col of Lowcountry |140 |

|Florence-Darlington TC |300 |Tri-County TC |300 |

|Greenville TC |560 (300 Concurrent) |Trident TC |700 |

|Horry-Georgetown TC |200 |Williamsburg TC |65 |

|Midlands TC |1200 |York TC |100 |

| | | | |

GENERAL SCOPE REQUIREMENTS

44. Will the application software and database environment be implemented at each of the sixteen (16) colleges or is there some flexibility to consider organizational alternatives?

Answer: There is some flexibility to consider organizational alternatives.

45. Will the SCBTCE provide a central implementation project manager and some level of centrally- coordinated in-house functional and technical staff resources to support the implementation process?

Answer: No. This has not been considered.

46. Has a target implementation completion date for each or all of the systems been established or is the SCBTCE open to the vendors suggestions for process and time lines?

Answer: No. Each college will set dates acceptable to their implementation intentions.

47. Is hardware to be included in the proposal or is the SCBTCE asking for general information on hardware sizing?

Answer: No. General information is being sought in order for each college to determine what would be required, if anything, outside its existing environment.

SOFTWARE REQUIREMENTS

48. In reference to item 4.3, is there an expectation for the proposals to include telephone (IVR) hardware and software to the sixteen (16) colleges?

Answer: No, this is not an expectation.

49. EVALUATION PROCESS

Two weeks advance notice is not enough time to schedule the demonstrations. Since the overall time period of March 8-19 is already established, would it be possible to schedule each vendor now?

Answer: See page 2 of this amendment.

50. EVALUATION CRITERIA

Reference is made several times in this section about hardware. Please clarify whether hardware is to be included in the proposal, and if so, for each site?

Answer: See response to question 48.

51. Reference is made to “Preference is that it run on the existing hardware/operating system platforms currently used by the technical colleges.” Please define this environment at each of the colleges and the SCBTCE.

Answer: The environment includes various combinations of Vax/VMS, Windows 95/98, Windows NT, etc.

52. Organization Vendor Response

Vendor Addendum: The RFP requests sample reports and documentation. Please clarify the expectation about this information. The inclusion of any such information will require the signing of a non-disclosure agreement prior to the submission of the proposal. This agreement will limit the use of the material to the Evaluation Committee and its designees.

Answer: The evaluators would like access to this information as an aid in the evaluation the proposed solutions. This procurement falls under the guidelines of the Freedom of Information Act and the Consolidated Procurement Code which provide limitations on the types of information that the State can release as well as the types of information that must be released. The State will not sign a non-disclosure agreement as a condition for obtaining this information.

53. Is the vendor expected to provide an IVR solution?

Answer: No.

Questions from Datatel, Inc.

1. On the second page of “General Information and Instructions to Offerors”, there is a section entitled “Offeror’s Duty to Inspect and Advise”. The second paragraph of this section states that may contractual language that differs from or supplements contractual language contained in the State’s solicitation must be submitted to the Information Technology Management Office in the time period allowed for questions and answers. Because Datatel’s General Terms and Conditions Agreement and those from our third party suppliers, include some language that either differs somewhat or supplements what is found in the RFP, I am submitting a sample copy of those agreements at this time. In the event Datatel is the successful vendor in this solicitation, we would like to reserve the right to negotiate with the State any areas where terms differ, and to include portions of those agreements not in the State’s RFP. I am confident this can be accomplished as Datatel is already under contract with a South Carolina State University (Coastal Carolina).

Answer: Nothing is asked of the State.

2. "Cost information provided must be sufficient to allow the various colleges to evaluate the cost of procurement for their individual needs and must provide for a multi-year (5 year) term contract."

What is meant by the multi-year (5 year) term contract ? The way we read it, is that the colleges will be evaluating the 5 year cost of ownership". Is this what is meant by the 5 year contract. Or does it mean that you need 5 year maintenance costing?

Answer: The length of time for which the State can be contractually obligated, without special approval, is set by the Procurement Code at 5 years. The State needs the ability to purchase from this contract at any time during this 5 year period. The State anticipates a wide variety of potential business solutions, each of which might have varying importance to an individual institution. A direct comparison of cost between these various potential solutions does not seem practical, therefore cost not an initial evaluation criteria. The evaluation committee will evaluate the various options presented in the Business Proposals. To set a baseline for comparison, each business proposal should reflect the potential financial obligation to the State for the full 5 year term of the contract. This would include maintenance.

Questions from BIT

1. Can a third party implementation partner such as BIT be considered the prime contractor?

Answer: No.

2. Is it possible to have PeopleSoft be the software contractor and BIT be the contractor for implementation? In other words separate contracts for software and implementation.

Answer: Under the structure of this solicitation it is not possible for any vendor, other than the three authorized to respond, to be awarded a contract.

Questions from IBM

1. In response to this RFP, will the State of S.C. MMO accept a 3rd party implementation partner as prime with software provider as subcontractor?

Answer: No.

2. Since turn key data conversion is a requirement of this RFP, will vendors receive details on what the data looks like, i.e. file count, structure, fields?

Answer: Yes.

3. Is college development (fund raising) a requirement or a desirable?

Answer: This is a desirable.

4. Is it preferred/required that the proposed software run on existing hardware? If so, do we have access to install vase at technical colleges?

Answer: It is preferred that the proposed software run on existing hardware however this is not a requirement.

5. Are the data warehousing requirements noted under C. General Scope Requirements #5 defined?

Answer: Refer to the response to Question 25 in the SCT section.

Questions from Oracle

1. Under the institution sizing chart in A. General Information, please provide the split by institution between faculty and staff.

Answer:

| |Faculty FT |Adjunct* |Staff FT |Staff PT |Total FT |Total PT |

| | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

|Aiken TC |55 |116 |79 |1 |134 |116 |

|Central Carolina TC |84 |103 |96 |7 |180 |110 |

|Chesterfield-Marlb TC |26 |41 |45 |3 |71 |44 |

|Denmark TC |29 |55 |57 | |86 |55 |

|Florence-Darlington TC |96 |201 |108 |1 |204 |202 |

|Greenville TC |241 |443 |332 |8 |573 |451 |

|Horry-Georgetown TC |99 |235 |128 |1 |227 |236 |

|Midlands TC |222 |435 |333 |7 |555 |442 |

|Orangeburg-Calhoun TC |76 |72 |103 |3 |179 |75 |

|Piedmont TC |95 |161 |164 |2 |259 |163 |

|Spartanburg TC |98 |165 |118 | |218 |165 |

|Tech Col of Lowcountry |40 |65 |86 | |126 |65 |

|Tri-County TC |93 |167 |147 |5 |240 |172 |

|Trident TC |228 |269 |299 |3 |527 |272 |

|Williamsburg TC |13 |80 |44 | |57 |80 |

|York TC |97 |145 |151 |2 |248 |147 |

| | | | | | | |

|TOTALS |1592 |2752 |2290 |43 |3882 |2795 |

*Adjunct represents an annual number.

2. On which hardware and operating systems do the institutions intend to operate these systems? (e.g. DEC Alpha OpenVMS, Intel Windows NT, etc.)

Answer: Alpha, Risc, Intel-based platforms, Unix, NT, etc.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download