| Question Number | Document or Attachment Name | Section Reference | Question | Response |
1.
| Overall RFP | N/A | What is the budget for this project in terms of initial implementation services AND ongoing annual maintenance? | As a competitive solicitation, this is not information the State wishes to share at this time. While the initial implementation includes only the use by one state agency, the GMS solution is being purchased and implemented centrally with the State Controller. It is anticipated to be utilized as a statewide solution and used by multiple the state agencies, each paying for centralized accounting services to the State Controller. Based on market research for grants management software, the state believes it has sufficient funds to procure, implement, and expand the statewide use of the software solution after initial implementation. |
| 2. | Overall RFP | N/A | Is a cloud-based solution like Salesforce suitable to the Office of the State Controller? | A cloud-based solution is suitable, and actually preferred by the state. The State cannot comment specifically about Salesforce as a solution as it would require an analysis of how it meets the state's requirements as stated in the RFP, Attachment 1. |
| 3. | Overall RFP | N/A | Is there a current/incumbent technology or tool for this (grants management) function? | No. Currently there is no statewide grants management solution. The state agencies that administer grants currently use a combination of Excel, Jotform, Word and PDF tools to manage and award grants. |
| 4. | Overall RFP | N/A | Is there a current/incumbent implementation services provider for this function? | No. State agency's administering grants currently handle and create everything internally. The state anticipates the Apparent Successful Offeror of the software solution will also perform implementation services for the software, or have implementation services included as part of their proposal. |
| 5. | Overall RFP | Integration with agency systems. | On page 6 of the RFP, it states "The solution must provide seamless integration with the state's new ERP solution and other agency-specific systems." - Can you please elaborate on what additional systems the solution should integrate with? Would these system integrations be planned for the initial system rollout or would they be a future need outside of this RFP? | There may be potential additional agency systems that would be a value-add and can be integrated in the future after the initial system rollout. An example would be an archive and retention solution like ECM – a Laserfiche; or to easily upload grant communications, compose grant related files or automate tasks like Microsoft Exchange, Office apps, Power Platform. All of these would be a future need outside of this RFP.
Adobe sign for e-sign solution would be another potential integration. Adobe sign (or other e-signature functionality) would be beneficial to be integrated for initial system rollout. |
| 6. | RFP Requirements – grant document signature | Attachment A – Requirements | Does the state prefer if grant documents are signed electronically within the solution or for the system to produce a downloadable document, such as a PDF, that is printed, signed, and uploaded? | The state prefers the solution to be able to have grant documents signed electronically. Currently, some contracts produced by the Department of Health and Welfare must be uploaded via PDF, however the state would prefer to improve all its processes to allow for e-signature. |
| 7. | RFP Requirements – migration of existing grant data | Attachment A - Requirements | Does the state plan to have existing data such as application /award budgets, grantee profile information, etc. migrated into the new solution by the selected vendor? | Some data migration will have to occur whether it is accomplished by the state or by the chosen vendor. The initial implementation has only 50 funded programs per year. Vendors can assume for the purposes of this RFP that the state will migrate its own data for the initial implementation. Vendors may also propose to migrate the state's data in their proposal. |
| 8. | Attachment A - Requirements | Requirement 1001 | Requirement 1001 in Attachment A states "...Research Councils U.K. Joint Electronic Submission (Je-S) platforms." - What data does the state foresee exchanging with this UK system? | This part of Requirement 1001 is a typo and should be disregarded. There is no data that will be exchanged with any UK platform. The state will amend Attachment A to strike that portion of Requirement 1001. |
| 9. | RFP 2023-01 | General | Have you had any assistance in preparing this RFP? If so, from whom? | The RFP is sponsored by the Idaho State Controller's Office and was primarily prepared by the RFP Lead, with assistance from state subject matter experts from the Office of ITS and ICDVVA to establish requirements. There was also research conducted with consulting partners. |
| 10. | RFP 2023-01 | General | Are local businesses scored favorably for this RFP? | No preference will be given for local businesses. Scoring will be strictly based on the criteria set forth in Section 6 of the RFP. |
| 11. | RFP 2023-01 | General | What is the anticipated number of internal users and external users? | For the initial implementation, there will be 6-8 internal users and approximately 100 external users (2 persons per subrecipient). However, after initial implementation the state anticipates expanding the number of agencies using the solution which will add additional internal and external users. |
| 12. | RFP 2023-01 | General | Have you had demonstrations and/or conversations with grants management vendors? If so, with whom? | No. The state has not had any demonstrations or contract discussions (conversations) with grant management vendors outside of this RFP. There have been prior conversations for the purposes of generally understanding of the market, but nothing specific to this RFP. |
| 13. | RFP 2023-01 | General | Please provide a list of systems currently housing on-going/historical grant information and for each please provide the data schemas and approximate number of records to be extracted, transformed, and loaded into the system. | ICDVVA grant information is currently being stored in Excel documents. ICDVVA is currently managing 50 subrecipients. All fiscal year 2024 grant information, including budget information, can be loaded by staff at ICDVVA since those items do not become finalized until September. However, as the state expands the number of agencies using the GMS solution additional data from those implementing agencies may need to be extracted and loaded into the system. That additional data and the systems in which it resides is unknown at this time. |
| 14. | RFP 2023-01 | General | Would the State of Idaho be willing to extend the due date of April 28, 2023? | The State is not willing to extend the due date of April 28, 2023 at this time. Compelling reasons from more than one vendor would be necessary for the state to consider extending its due date. |
| 15. | RFP 2023-01 | General | Since the State of Idaho is evaluating for a statewide system, should the vendor provide additional details on features and functionality not specifically asked for to support the ICDVVA group? If the State would like additional information, where should we include those details? | Yes. The state anticipates expanding the number of agencies using the GMS solution after the initial implementation for ICDVVA. Therefore, the state welcomes vendors to provide details on additional features and functionality the offeror feels the State may benefit from in administering grants beyond what would be needed to support ICDVVA. That additional information may be included in response to Narrative Question No. 35 regardless of whether there is additional cost associated with the additional functionality. It may also be included in Section 5.3, Tab 3, under 5.3.5 “Optional Costs." Finally, it may also be included under Section 5.4, Tab 4 – Future Expansion of GMS Solution – Narrative Cost Response, whether adds additional cost or it's already part of existing functionality. |
| 16. | RFP 2023-01 | Section 2.8 (Pricing Terms) | Have resources been allocated to participate in the implementation? | The State Controller's Office has functional and technical resources that support its applications. While the specific individuals that will participate in this implementation have not been identified, there are sufficient state personnel resources to allocate to implementation with the chosen vendor. ICDVVA also has sufficient grants management personnel that will be allocated to assist implementation. |
| 17. | RFP 2023-01 | Section 3.5 Project Timing and Implementation Priorities | Any resource constraints or "threats" to grant management system implementation? Additional projects, system enhancement/changes, etc. | The state is in the process of implementing a new ERP system (Luma) with expected go-live July 1, 2023. The state anticipates there will be sufficient resources to support this implementation. |
| 18. | RFP 2023-01 | Section 3.5 Project Timing and Implementation Priorities | Does the State expect or prefer on-site implementation and/or training sessions? | For implementation, the state prefers initially on-site presence, but can sufficiently manage a hybrid implementation strategy. There is no requirement that training must be on-site. The state will provide space for training if that is proposed. Virtual training is also acceptable and may be more cost effective. Vendors can propose either on-site, virtual, or both as options if they wanted. |
| 19. | RFP 2023-01 | Section 3.5 Project Timing and Implementation Priorities | Has the within your organization identified an internal project manager / project management team for this implementation to coordinate with the vendor? | Yes. |
| 20. | RFP 2023-01 | Section 3.5 Project Timing and Implementation Priorities | Is there a centralized grants management department / division within your organization? | There are several different state agencies that administer grants and they operate independently. Since grant disbursements involve the state's fiscal accounting, the State Controller is seeking to provide a centralized grants management solution, integrated into the state's ERP system that state agencies can utilize. The State Controller has recently created a grants support team as part of its sustainment model and will coordinate with grants expertise across the state. |
| 21. | RFP 2023-01 | Section 3.5 Project Timing and Implementation Priorities | Are program applications and procedures standardized? Are there any mitigating factors or simultaneous projects that would mitigate the resource allocation for implementation? | ICDVVA's grant applications and procedures are standardized for the initial implementation. Regarding future expansion of additional state agencies utilizing the solution, the state does not know whether all applications and procedures will be as standardized, however the goal would be for the state to standardize these business processes.
There are no factors or simultaneous projects that would mitigate resource allocation for implementation. |
| 22. | RFP 2023-01 | Section 3.5 Project Timing and Implementation Priorities | What is the scope of the data that needs to be migrated (quantities of recipients, programs, grants, budgets, other data)? | The state does not intend to migrate historical data into the system. Rather, to utilize the system going forward beginning with the October 1st grant year. As provided in response 13. above, there will be profile information for the 50 subrecipients ICDVVA manages, budget information that will not be finalized until September. However, ICDVVA staff intend to load that data into the new system once trained and in preparation for go-live. |
| 23. | RFP 2023-01 | Attachment 3 - Cost Schedules | Can pricing for Year 1, Year 2, Year 3 ext. be assumed the term would be for a 12-month period regardless of the start date or does the contract term need to align to the July 1 – June 30 fiscal year? | Yes. The pricing for subscription costs can be assumed to be for a 12-month period regardless of the start date of the contract. The Attachment 3 – Subscription Costs schedule does state that the Offeror should take into account any discount or partial year subscription costs for the first year/during implementation because a contract may begin mid-year. |
| 24. | RFP 2023-01 | Attachment 1 – State of Idaho System Requirements | Regarding Tracking #502 - Does the State wish to integrate with their current DocuSign or Adobe Signature environments or does the Agency want the grant management tool to have their own electronic signature system embedded into the solution? Or is there no preference? | There is no preference. The state does currently use Adobe Sign for some applications, however an electronic signature functionality embedded into the solution is also acceptable. |
| 25 | RFP 2023-01 | Attachment 1 – State of Idaho System Requirements | Regarding Tracking #609 – Does the State anticipate leveraging an import/export process using a flat-file or an API integration? | Depending on the purpose, the state utilizes both options. However, the more standardized the connection the better for the ongoing support of the system. |
| 26. | RFP 2023-01 | Attachment 1 – State of Idaho System Requirements | Regarding Tracking #1002 – Does the State expect the GMS system to support multiple languages for internal users or is this more so for applicants to review opportunities and respond in multiple languages? | The state does not expect the GMS Solution to support multiple language for internal use. This requirement was intended to inquire whether the proposed solution could reach or accommodate additional external applicants or external users of the system. |
| 27. | N/A | | How does the SCO plan to fund this project? Is it part of the operating budget or the capital budget? | The state has sufficient funding to support this project. |
| 28. | N/A | | Has the SCO previously entertained any system demonstrations and/or presentations from vendors? If so, which systems were seen and when? | No. See Response to Question # 12. |
| 29. | N/A | | Did the SCO utilize any vendor / SME consultants in defining the sought-after functionality and/or scope of work enumerated in the RFP? If yes, please provide the name of the vendor/consultant. | The RFP requirements were gathered and defined by subject matter experts within ICDVVA and the Office of Information Technology Services (ITS). The RFP was created by the State Controller's Office. No outside vendors or consultants were used. |
| 30. | N/A | | Can you provide the annual dollar amount of grant funding you receive for the current fiscal year? | ICDVVA receives approximately $12.6 million. This amount includes 5% allowed for the state to administer the grants. After initial implementation, the state anticipates expansion of this number as additional state agencies implement to utilize the solution. |
| 31. | N/A | | What dollar volume of these grants are pass-through grants to sub-grantees? | ICDVVR passes through approximately $12 million to subrecipients. After initial implementation, the state anticipates expansion of this number as additional state agencies implement to utilize the solution. |
| 32. | N/A | | How many separate grant programs does the SCO manage? Please provide a list if possible. Do the business processes (application, pre-award, award, etc.) and associated forms vary with each type of program, or are all processes and forms standardized? When does each of the programs' application periods begin in a given fiscal year? | The SCO does not manage grant programs, but is the central processing agency for the state's fiscal accounting and processing. ICDVVA manages 6 grant programs.
Currently those are: Victims of Crime Act Victim Assistance (VOCA); Family Violence Services & Prevention Act (FVPSA); State Domestic Violence Fund; State Bridge ARPA Fund; FVPSA ARPA – Sexual Assault Fund; FVPSA ARPA – Testing, Vaccines, & Mobile Health Fund. ICDVVA's grant applications and procedures are standardized. See Response to Question 21. above. ICDVVA application period begins around April 1st and applications are due around June 1st.
Post initial implementation, the solution must be flexible enough to meet varying grant lifecycles for different agencies.
|
| 33. | N/A | | Does the SCO require any data to be migrated into the new system? If yes, please 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? Please provide an example row of data and/or database schema. | The state does not intend to migrate historical data into the system. Rather, to utilize the system going forward beginning with the October 1st grant year. See Response to Question 13. above regarding subrecipient profile data to be loaded by ICDVVA. Post initial go-live as additional agencies with grants implement, there may be need for conversion of some historical data. The data from additional agencies will be in varying formats.
|
| 34. | N/A | | Will any subsequent implementations be individual agencies or cohorts of agencies? | Subsequent implementations will most likely be individual state agencies. |
| 35. | N/A | | Do the grant lifecycle processes vary across agencies or are they the same? | The grant lifecycle process varies across different state agencies. However, depending on need and efficiency of implementation more than one agency may implement at a time.
|
| 36. | Idaho RFP 2023-01 GMS Software Solution | 3.1 Organizational Scope | Is SCO planning to include all state agencies in the new GMS system or just those 20 noted in the RFP? | The state does not currently have a standardized grants management software and SCO will encourage as many agencies as possible to implement and to standardize their grants management business processes. |
| 37. | Idaho RFP 2023-01 GMS Software Solution | 2.2 Estimated Schedule of Procurement Activities | Per the schedule on Page 5, the SCO may not release answers to questions until 4/29. Due to the short time between then and when the proposal is due, would the SCO consider a week's extension after those answers are released? | The SCO will not consider an extension of the proposal deadline at this time. SCO will make every effort to get these responses to vendor's questions as promptly as possible before the deadline. |
| 38. | Idaho RFP 2023-01 GMS Software Solution | 3.7 Organizational Metrics | Is the $50 million Total Grant Money distributed annually the total amount for all 20 agencies? | Yes. The $50 million listed in Section 3.7 is the estimated total annual amount distributed by the 20 agencies estimated in the RFP. |
| 39. | Attachment 3 - Cost Schedules - Idaho RFP 2023-01 GMS Software Solution | Sections 5.3 and 5.4 | Should the cost proposal include the complete cost of integration with Luma that will be shared across agencies? | The Section 5.3, Tab 3 cost proposal should include the complete costs (subscription cost, implementation, and training) for ICDVVA to use the GMS solution beginning October 1, 2023. (“initial implementation") This includes integration with Luma.
Section 5.4, Tab 4 is a Narrative Cost Response regarding the future expansion of adding additional state agencies to use the GMS solution (i.e., additional costs for implementation, subscription costs, and training, if any) This is not part of the cost schedules for initial implementation in Tab 3. Offerors are asked to provide information that will aid the state in further understanding implementation costs over time. It can be presented as any standard or group cost measure.
|