July 16, 2010:

Invitation to Bid (ITB# ACCS080210) for System-Wide Administrative Enterprise Resource Planning System:
Contract Documents for a System-Wide Administrative Enterprise Resource Planning System (SWAERPS) (PDF)
SWAERP Exhibit A ACCCS Personnel and Enrollment (XLSX)
Exhibit B SWAS Requirement (XLSX)
SWAERP Exhibit C Cost Breakdown (XLSX)
Exhibit G 2009 ACCS Annual Report (PDF)

Update: July 27, 2010:

Questions for the ACCS ITB# ACCS080210

Q1: Would ACCS please provide clarification regarding the required hosting environment described in the ITB on pages 3-9 through 3-10? What is meant by the ACCS would “own the software and hardware licenses?” Would the vendor or the ACCS be responsible for procuring hardware?

R1: All licenses associated with the software and hardware required to support the solution will be assigned to ACCS (colleges).  The (hosting) vendor will be responsible for the procurement of hardware required to support the proposed solution.  All hardware and software sizing to support the proposed solution must be documented, installed, tested and certified to meet the service level standards outlined in the bid. Hosting and application vendors must verify that system functionality and performance standards are checked and validated.

 Q2: Would the ACCS please describe what is considered to be “small/medium/large” colleges, in terms of enrollment, users, etc.?

R2: Exhibit A: Personnel and Enrollment shows the designation (small/medium/large) for each college and the corresponding enrollment and personnel.

Q3: What are the numbers of end users per business area/department per institution? The column headers provided in the employee chart are not clear in terms of the administrative users. Clarification in this area is desired.

R3: The chart below is provided as a guideline only and should not be used to establish minimum licensing requirements.  Vendors are expected to use the data provided in Exhibit A: Personnel and Enrollment and their experience in implementing systems at colleges with similar enrollment and staffing to provide their best proposal to address ACCS need.  Considerable due diligence is expected by each vendor (and will be done by ACCS) to ensure that this is taken into account in their pricing structure and that their quotes are sound (based on vendors past experiences) and will not result in additional charges (more licenses required, etc.).  Additional personnel information can be found on college’s individual websites.

Estimated System Wide User Count

Exhibit B: SWAS Requirement Document Numbering Sequence

E1: General Accounting Spreadsheet – Accounts Receivables:  Requirements numbering goes from 42 to 49 (43-48 missing).

C1: There is no item 43-48.  Please make note and leave as is.

E2: Purchasing & Accounts Payable Spreadsheet – Purchasing: Requirements numbering goes from 18 to 120 (19 missing).

C2: There is no item 19.  Please make note and leave as is.
E3: Financial Aids Spreadsheet – Award History Transcript: Requirements 10 and 11 are repeated.

C3:  Please remove duplicate.

E4: Human Resources Spreadsheet – Workflow:  The numbering sequence 9, 10, and 11 is repeated.

C4:  Please change the second sequence (9, 10 and 11) to 11.1, 11.2, and 11.3, respectively.

E5: Human Resources Spreadsheet – Set Up:  Requirement 2 is missing.

C5:  Please  add the following

E6: Technical spreadsheet – Portal Support:  The numbering sequence 28 is repeated.

C6:  Please change to 28 and 28.1, respectively.

Update: July 28, 2010:

Q3 (July 26 Questions for the ACCS ITB# ACCS080210: What are the numbers of end users per business area/department per institution? The column headers provided in the employee chart are not clear in terms of the administrative users. Clarification in this area is desired.

R3 update: Please disregard the “Estimated System Wide User Count” table provided in the July 26, 2010 response. All colleges have been requested to provide and update of their estimated user count in relation to the functional areas listed below.  Estimates provided may count one person in more than one area, if their responsibilities cross categories.  If there are areas that colleges feel that have been omitted or if they have staff functions (related to the administrative system) that do not fit into any of the categories they have been requested to add them.  The final report will be provided to vendors (and posted on the web) no later than August 16, 2010.
The revised estimates, the data provided in Exhibit A: Personnel and Enrollment and vendors’ experience in implementing systems at colleges with similar enrollment and staffing should be used to provide the best proposal to address ACCS need.  Considerable due diligence is expected by each vendor (and will be done by ACCS) to ensure that this is taken into account in their pricing structure and system configuration. Vendors are expected to provide sound proposals (based on vendors past experiences and available data) that will not result in additional charges (more licenses required, etc.). 

• Technical (IT related functions)
• Reporting (Institutional Research and Administration)
• Semester & Class Scheduling
• Facility Utilization
• Recruit to Register
• Academic Advising
• Degree Audit, Grades, Graduation
• Financial Aid
• Bursar
• General Accounting
• Purchasing & Accounts Payable
• Budgeting
• Encumbering
• Grants and Contracts
• Human Resources
• Payroll
• Fund Raising
• Fixed Assets
• Point of Sales (to include but not limited to the bookstore)

Update, July 29, 2010:
Q1: How does ACCS define “autonomy and internal control” for individual colleges, as stated in the RFP (page 1-6)?  Does the need for autonomy vary across business & administrative functions – for example, is autonomy particularly important for recruiting and admissions, but less so for finance or HR operations?  Or is it the expectation that each institution will have complete discretion in how it chooses to conduct its business in all areas?

R1: ACCS desire is to implement a single instance of the application in a standardized fashion for the operation of all ACCS colleges based on “best practices”.  In regards to “autonomy and internal control” ACCS desire a solution that has the capacity to respond to different colleges needs, regardless of functional area. Application configuration (not customization) should be possible for tailored responses to unique business & administrative functions.

 

Q2: The RFP also states a desire for a “unified system of institutions” (page 1-3). Given the intent for institutional autonomy noted in the question above, where does ACCS anticipate unification being most critical?

R2: ACCS desire is to implement a single instance of a system-wide electronic resource planning system in a standardized fashion for the operation of all ACCS colleges based on “best practices”.  Application tools provided in the proposed solution are expected to be able to configure a “unified system of institution” that aligns DPE and colleges common purpose. They are also expected to be able to address DPE and the colleges’ distinct but coordinated responsibilities for strategic planning, strategic resource allocation and accountability allowing DPE to maintain focus on statewide priorities and colleges to address its operational priorities. Functionality should be driven (through application configuration) at the college level except where system-wide action yields better client services and substantial cost savings

 

Q3: How does ACCS reconcile conflicts between the desire for institutional autonomy and the goal of a unified system of institutions? What are the criteria and process for arbitrating such decisions?

R3: ACCS does not see a conflict in institutional autonomy and the goal of a unified system of institutions. ACCS does however realize that due to required individual practices and policies some colleges may not be able to adopt (through configuration changes) the “best practice” model in its entirety. In those cases the gap analysis developed by the solution provider in conjunction with the college will be used to identify a workable “solution” for implementation.

 

Q4: Would the System consider releasing the Word version of the ITB in order to facilitate responding to the rest of the ITB?   Obviously we would like to receive this document as soon as possible so that we may begin preparing our proposal to the System.
R4: ACCS will email a word copy of the ITB to all vendors.

Q5: In Section 1.2 - Description of the Project, ACCS requests that the SWAERPS be a single system-wide approach based on one instance of the software.  Does ACCS desire to have only a single instance of the software installed centrally with every institution running within this one physical database instance?   This configuration would result in a very rigid implementation and deployment with limited flexibility for individual institutions.  An alternative approach would be to define and implement a single “application template” of common processes and data which all institutions would follow.  But each institution would be implemented on their own instance of software and dataset which could then be tailored to a greater degree to fit their unique requirements and maintain their individual identity.  The common template would still allow data to be easily rolled up and reported on from the State level and the centralized server hosting models could be fully enabled.

R5: ACCS desire is to implement a single instance of a system-wide electronic resource planning system in a standardized fashion for the operation of all ACCS colleges based on “best practices”.  Application tools provided in the proposed solution are expected to be able to configure a “unified system of institution” that aligns DPE and colleges common purpose. They are also expected to be able to address DPE and the colleges’ distinct but coordinated responsibilities for strategic planning, strategic resource allocation and accountability allowing DPE to maintain focus on statewide priorities and colleges to address its operational priorities.  Although this is ACCS desire, all proposals will be evaluated in terms of how well they provide a cost effective solution (responsiveness) that is capable of delivering required functionality at both at the individual colleges and system-wide.

Q6: To allow for easier proposal set-up, will ACCS kindly provide the document entitled "SWAERP 7-16-10.pdf" in Microsoft Word format?
R6: ACCS will email a word copy of the ITB to all vendors.
Q7: ITB Section 2.4 lists the final day to submit clarification requests as August 27th at 5 PM local time.  Due to the 11:00 AM bid closing time on August 31st, and to alleviate any possible morning delivery issues, our company would prefer to ship our proposal on the afternoon of August 27th.  If an amendment is released by ACCS after the clarification closing time on the 27th, we will be unable to acknowledge that amendment in our proposal (the proposal will already be in transit).  Is this acceptable to ACCS?
R7: ACCS will allow vendors adequate time for vendors to address any amendment that is released on or after the August 27, 5 PM date.
Q8: The "Read Me Vendors" tab in the document entitled "Exhibit B SWAS Requirement.xlsx" explains that vendors are limited by 255 characters per cell.  If necessary, will ACCS permit vendors to add an additional comment cell underneath an existing comment cell to accommodate longer narrative responses?   If not, are vendors permitted to include these longer narrative responses in an Appendix?
R8: Vendors can add an additional comment cell or include longer narratives in an appendix.