Q: Regarding Section 5, page 8 “The preferred product should produce a final program document that may be submitted to SUNY administration for approval as an official program. A preferred option would be a flexible document format such as .pdf or .docx.”: Is the export to PDF from your current system sufficient to meet the requirement for a document to be submitted to SUNY administration approval? Will this document need to be passed on to the State of New York and align with state format requirements?

A: No, the pdf export from our current system is not sufficient to meet official SUNY document format requirements. This Docx or pdf export is not mandatory but would be helpful for interoffice distribution. Being able to create our own templates would be ideal.

I don’t think we need any type of PDF export of the final document for SUNY since we are currently required to use their specific forms until they fully implement their new system for submissions.  Once SUNY has their system in place, there might be more options for us to create templates that mirror what they are asking for so we can easily pull them together into one organized document for internal distribution (e.g., governance).  If these templates could be exported and include the dates various parties approved them in the system, that would be ideal. 

Q: "Service," question 14, we are asked if Kuali CM gives a role the ability to "request and receive multiple workflow approvals simultaneously." Can you expand on a use case where a user might "request" to be an approver for something? 

A:  This is not a user requesting to be an approver, but rather the proposal “requesting” (there is probably better language for this) multiple approvers at once at a particular step, and moving on to the next workflow step once all approvals at that step are received.

An example is when a course is being reviewed for multiple general education areas – say DEISJ and American History. We’d like for the system to be able to have both approvers to be notified that they have a proposal ready for review at the same time and be able to enter their approvals independently of one another. The proposal would not move to the next step in the workflow until BOTH approvals have been recorded.

Q: The Request for Proposal does not mention or reference the University Catalog. Synchronizing curriculum management with the University Catalog offers significant benefits to the University's academic operations.

• Is there an expectation that proposed solutions should integrate with Empire State University's (ESU) current course catalog provider? 
  • If not, would it be acceptable to submit a proposed solution that encompasses both curriculum and catalog management, and extends beyond the stated scope of work (RFP Pg. 4, Section 5)?

A: The Courseleaf University Catalog product is working well

The expectation is that the course catalog portion of this Curriculum Management system will synchronize with our Banner SIS.  The Banner SIS course catalog (source-of-truth) will then synch with our existing University Catalog product.                  

Curriculum Management software <--------->  Banner SIS  ------>  University Catalog

Q: Is Ellucian Ethos an integration option between proposed solution and ESU’s Ellucian Banner environment?

A: Yes

Q: Our development center is based in central part of India, So if we can apply please let me know. Our development center is based in central part of India, So if we can apply please let me know.

A: Provided that a contractor can meet our specifications and abide by the terms and conditions of the state of New York and SUNY, there is no restriction based on the vendor’s origin or current location.

Q: This is our first time participating in RFP. Could we go ahead and prepare the quote/estimation and share it with you directly here?

A:  If you wish to submit your proposal prior to the due date of September 30, that is your decision.  However, be aware, other bidders might ask questions which are posted to the website for all to see.  You might find some of their questions and our responses insightful which will inform your proposal.   However, if you wish to submit early, be aware the team will not begin their evaluation process until October.

As a reminder, please submit your proposals to John Meaney and follow all instructions on how to submit.  On page 10 provides how to submit and what format.  There are other "submission" requirements that must be completed before sending to John Meaney at John.Meaney@sunyempire.edu

1. Submit one (1) hard copy of your proposal and one (1) flash drive containing all necessary elements. Proposals must be received by the due date and time and to the primary contact provided on the Summary Information Form.  Bidders mailing their proposals must allow sufficient time to ensure receipt by the due date and time.  Bidders are cautioned that even when using a trackable mailing/courier/messenger service, proposals must be received by the due date and time.  While proposals may be signed for by personnel at SUNY Empire prior to the due date and time, this does not guarantee that the identified office will receive the proposal by the due date and time. 

Q: In reviewing the reissued RFP ESU-24-20, we noticed that Exhibit A Standard Contract Clauses is an older version dated March 17, 2020; however, the previous RFP ESU-24-09 used Exhibit A Standard Contract Clauses dated June 21, 2023. Please clarify whether the contract terms will be using the Exhibit A Standard Contract Clauses dated March 17, 2020 or June 21, 2023 (as referenced in item 7 of Exhibit C, SUNY Empire Proposal Submission Guidelines).

A: The wrong Exhibit A was inadvertently posted to this RFP and New York State Contract Reporter advertisement.  An update will be made to the NYSCR ad.  The correct Exhibit A should be dated June 21, 2023. 

Q: Could you please clarify the factors that led to the reissue of the RFP?   Were there updated requirements or timelines, or was it due to an inability to complete a contract with a vendor from the first RFP?

A: It was a minor oversight regarding system uptime which was in conflict with some other contracts and bids.  We needed to make that change from 99.9 to 99.5 in order to not impact other RFP/RFQs.

Q: Is SUNY Empire open to replacing the current University Catalog? This change could offer significant benefits to academic operations, especially by using the Catalog as a data source for both the Curriculum and CMS systems.

A: As for the catalog, we currently are under contract, which will be expiring 2/20/26.  At that time, we will be looking to go out to bid again for this solution.

Q: Based on the posted Q&A exchange provided, I would like to request a specific example of the document(s) or the type of content and information that must be submitted to SUNY for program approval. To ensure we comply with SUNY’s requirements, could you please provide an example of the currently required document format or specific form used for these submissions?

A: An example of documents will not be provided.  The response to SUNY Empire should include a completed version of the Technical Specifications Response Form (TSRD), keeping in the Excel format.  Your proposal should also address all specifications in the RFP in either a PDF or MS Word format.  Please include all referenced documentation mentioned in the RFP.  All requirements and required documentation should be self-explanatory.