Grant Management System Request for Information FAQ

This page will be updated as questions regarding RFI 20-001 are submitted. To view an answer, click on the question.

Is responding to the RFI a requirement for responding to the future RFP that is referenced in the materials?

No, per the Terms and Conditions on p. 18 of the RFI: This RFI shall not be construed as a solicitation or as an obligation on the part of the State to issue a solicitation or award a contract to any vendor. Cost information provided by vendors are estimates for planning purposes only. There is no commitment on the part of either the vendor to the State of Nevada, nor any obligation by the State to the vendor. Vendors must consider that this RFI is different from an RFP. Submissions to this RFI will not be used in lieu of responses to any future RFP.

What is the expected timeline for responses to questions?

Answers to questions submitted to grants@admin.nv.gov regarding RFI 20-001 will be responded to within five (5) business days.

Project Management: Is there a dedicated internal Project Manager on the State of Nevada staff or will you be outsourcing that role to a third party? How many people do you anticipate participating in the “core team” to ensure the joint success of the project?

Per sections 5.1.1.6, 5.2.3, 5.3.1, and 5.3.2 of RFI, the state is asking vendors to specify what state resources are needed. This is an opportunity for vendors to exhibit successes and best practices learned from prior implementations and to highlight the composition of teams that work. The information provided by this RFI will be used to inform the budgeting process and any future RFP.

Deal Structure: Are you open to a joint (two-company) bid or should all bids have one prime vendor?

Questions regarding any future RFP cannot be addressed at this time. Any future RFP will conform to Nevada Division of Purchasing regulations.

Objectives: It does seem that State of Nevada is amidst an IT Modernization effort, in addition to grants management. As such, are you interested in how we can provide advanced services and/or ongoing support as a part of this effort?

Though the State is investing in IT modernization, this RFI is specific to grant management software. Only information specific to grant management software should be submitted in response to RFI 20-001.

Budget: As the last bid/delivery fell through due to allotted budget constraints, would you be able to share with us any details around the budget range based on procurement and/or government parameters?

The information provided by this RFI will be used to inform the budgeting process and any future RFP.

In Section 2: Tools and Portal, you mention interest to demo an integrated solution of grant opportunities to be searched, filtered, and available for the public. We would suggest the storage of information inside our platform, and push via API all data on the opportunities to the current/familiar website. As such, this approach would be challenging to demo. Please confirm that you are comfortable with this approach.

In the Features Matrix (Appendix B), vendors are asked to indicate if their product has (check YES) a feature or not (check NO) and to provide details; a vendor demonstration is not indicated in this section. For any feature in Section 2: Tools and Portals that does not adequately represent the product, check NO and use Section 12: Other to describe the product's feature. RFI Section 2.3.2 asks for the vendor’s level of interest in preparing and delivering a demonstration of the product; any limitations to demonstrations may be indicated in this section.

Is it correct to assume that, under the various department, how many unique programs are open annually? Are there additional program opportunities that would be in scope above those noted programs?

No. Per the RFI, the total number of grant programs to be supported by a grant management system is difficult to estimate. If this is information that the vendor requires to prepare a bid for any future RFP, the vendor should indicate that in its responses to Section 5.1.1, Pre-Contract Project Planning and Preparation.

For each of the program applications, are these application forms minimally or materially different?

Forms and templates, including grant program notices of funding opportunity and application forms, have not yet been standardized across all state agencies. Some departments or divisions may have standardized notices for its agencies’ grant programs. Some departments or divisions may use an application form in addition to a notice of funding opportunity. If this is information that the vendor requires to prepare a bid for any future RFP, the vendor should indicate that in its responses to Section 5.1.1, Pre-Contract Project Planning and Preparation

For each of the program applications, do the Grantee Budget templates (line items) vary minimally or are they materially different? Would you be open to sharing that format and document?

Forms and templates, including grant budgets, have not yet been standardized across all state agencies. If this is information that the vendor requires to prepare a bid for any future RFP, the vendor should indicate that in its responses to Section 5.1.1, Pre-Contract Project Planning and Preparation.

Application Workflow: Are there different approval workflows for each program and/or application type? How do they materially differ?

The RFI process is intended to solicit information from vendors about their grant management products; it is not an RFP. For the RFI, the vendor’s product, not the State, will determine the workflow limitations. In the Features Matrix (Appendix B), vendors are asked to indicate if their product has (check YES) a feature or not (check NO) and to provide details. The item in the question is a product feature listed in Section 7: Workflow. Vendors should indicate whether or not their product includes the workflow features listed in this section and provide details about any limitations to workflow functionality.

External Access: Is there desired visibility and interaction for external reviewers/panels to offer expert opinions and/or validation on the application pool?

The RFI process is intended to solicit information from vendors about their grant management products; it is not an RFP. Section 2 of the Features Matrix (Appendix B) provides two opportunities for vendors to explain product features related to grant evaluations: “includes proposal evaluation functionality and management tools, including scoring,” and “includes a portal for evaluators to access proposals for review.” Vendors should indicate whether or not their product includes these evaluation features and provide details, including the levels of visibility and interaction their product provides for evaluators.

How many different types of Grantee Reports/Requirements forms does State of Nevada require (e.g. quarterly/interim, annual, grant closure/final)? Please provide samples of reports or other reports/requirement forms, if possible.

The RFI process is intended to solicit information from vendors about their grant management products; it is not an RFP. In the Features Matrix (Appendix B), vendors are asked to indicate if their product has (check YES) a feature or not (check NO) and to provide details. The item in the question is a product feature listed in Section 5: Reporting. Vendors should indicate whether or not their product includes the reporting features listed in this section and provide details about the types of reports their product offers.

For grant amendments/modifications, are those requests initially instated by the Grantee through the portal? Or do they route to the program team/s for triage first?

The RFI process is intended to solicit information from vendors about their grant management products; it is not an RFP. If requested in the RFI, vendors should provide information about how their product handles grant amendments or modifications. In the Features Matrix (Appendix B), vendors are asked to indicate if their product has (check YES) a feature or not (check NO) and to provide details. In Section 12: Other, vendors have the opportunity to list product features not listed elsewhere in the matrix.

For the below items in Section 2, please provide business use case examples for the following activities: (1) "Includes timeline and deadline management tools." (2) "Includes project management tools," and (3) "Tracks and monitors special conditions placed on grant awards."

In the Features Matrix (Appendix B), vendors are asked to indicate if their product has (check YES) a feature or not (check NO) and to provide details. Items one through three in the question are product features listed in Section 2: Tools and Portals. Vendors should indicate whether or not their product includes timeline and deadline management tools (e.g., task reminders, etc.), includes project management tools (e.g., resource allocation, etc.), and tracks and monitors special conditions placed on grant awards (e.g., more frequent reporting required, etc.).

How many types of automated email communications are sent to applicants/grantees (e.g. award letters, declinations, payment updates, etc.)?

The RFI process is intended to solicit information from vendors about their grant management products; it is not an RFP. For the RFI, the vendor’s product, not the State, will determine the type of automated notifications sent to users. In the Features Matrix (Appendix B), vendors are asked to indicate if their product has (check YES) a feature or not (check NO) and to provide details. The item in the question refers to product features listed in Section 9: Notifications. Vendors should indicate whether or not their product includes the notification features listed in this section and provide details about the types of notifications their product supports.

How many documents/templates will State of NV need to be generated in the system (e.g. grant agreement, payment letter, etc.)? Do they materially vary in content/copy?

The RFI process is intended to solicit information from vendors about their grant management products; it is not an RFP. In the Features Matrix (Appendix B), vendors are asked to indicate if their product has (check YES) a feature or not (check NO) and to provide details. The item in the question is a product feature listed in Section 6: Document Management. Vendors should indicate whether or not their product has the ability to manage multiple document template types and provide details about the types of document template types their product offers, including any limitations.

Does State of NV have any standard reports that need to be created on a regular basis (e.g. Grant Approval List, List of Approved Grants, List of Payments, etc.)?

The RFI process is intended to solicit information from vendors about their grant management products; it is not an RFP. For the RFI, the vendor’s product, not the State, will determine the standard reports that are available. In the Features Matrix (Appendix B), vendors are asked to indicate if their product has (check YES) a feature or not (check NO) and to provide details. The item in the question refers to product features listed in Section 5: Reporting. Vendors should indicate whether or not their product includes the reporting features listed in this section and provide details about the types of reports their product offers.

Does State of NV use advanced reporting software (such as Tableau, PowerBI, Qlik, etc.)? If yes, does State of NV plan to continue to use this type of software going forward? If not, is there an interest to pursue this option?

Per Section 4.5.2, vendors must expose their product’s API and allow the State’s SAP Cloud Analytics BI tool to access information.

In Section 5: Reporting, you mention "Provides cost allocation services, performance analysis, and methodologies." Again, please provide a use case(s) so that we understand your business objective.

In the Features Matrix (Appendix B), vendors are asked to indicate if their product has (check YES) a feature or not (check NO) and to provide details. The item in the question is a product feature listed in Section 5: Reporting. Vendors should indicate whether or not their product includes reporting functionality such as cost allocation services, performance analysis, and methodologies (i.e. reporting and analysis of assigned costs, or a group of costs, to one or more budgets using direct or indirect methodologies), which is standard to grant management.

In section 6: Document Management, you mention "Provides the ability to retrieve and restore documentation without linking to a system transaction." Please provide an example for this scenario.

In the Features Matrix (Appendix B), vendors are asked to indicate if their product has (check YES) a feature or not (check NO) and to provide details. Vendors should indicate whether or not their product provides the ability to retrieve and restore documentation without linking to a system transaction (i.e., documents can be viewed and accessed outside of a grant-specific record). For example, a division administrator who wanted to ensure compliance for his division’s grant programs could review all the conflict of interest forms completed by grant solicitation evaluators without accessing each grant program’s record to retrieve the conflict of interest forms individually.

To what hierarchy level does State of NV manage budgets (i.e. are budgets decentralized to program strategies or do they sit at a higher or lower level?

The RFI process is intended to solicit information from vendors about their grant management products; it is not an RFP. If requested in the RFI, vendors should provide information about how their product manages budgets and any limitations to managing budgets. As consistent with grant industry best practices and common grant management procedures, each grant award and subaward typically has its own budget.As consistent with grant industry best practices and common grant management procedures, each grant award and subaward has its own budget.

What are requirements for tracking budgets at the award or sub-award level?

The RFI process is intended to solicit information from vendors about their grant management products; it is not an RFP. If requested in the RFI, vendors should provide information about how their product tracks budgets at the award or subaward level and any limitations to managing budgets.

How many varying funding sources does State of NV track?

Per RFI Section 1.1.2, Available Data to Inform Project, the State does not have a centralized system for the collection and management of grant data. The number of unique grant funding sources cannot be estimated at this time. If the vendor requires State-specific information to prepare a bid for any future RFP, the vendor should indicate that in its responses to Section 5.1.1, Pre-Contract Project Planning and Preparation.

Does State of NV do split funding on a grant (funding for a grant coming from multiple programs and/or funds) or is it a 1-1 mapping of fund-to-grant?

The RFI process is intended to solicit information from vendors about their grant management products; it is not an RFP. If requested in the RFI, vendors should provide information about how their product can accommodate various funding streams for grant programs, including cost sharing, which is a common practice for both federal and non-governmental organization grants. In the Features Matrix (Appendix B), vendors are asked to indicate if their product has (check YES) a feature or not (check NO) and to provide details. The item in the question somewhat relates to a product feature listed in Section 10: Tracking and Monitoring. Vendors should indicate whether or not their product tracks and monitors matching funds and provide details about this feature and any limitations.

Data Migration: Can you please estimate roughly how many grant records would need to be migrated from the previous systems? Organizations? People? Reports? Documents?

At this time, the State has made no decision regarding data migration; this RFI is not an RFP. Section 5.1.1.4 provides vendors with the opportunity to outline the benefits and drawbacks of migrating data and Section 6.2.5 asks for the cost to migrate data. Vendors shall provide specific cost information, include variability in pricing, and disclose the factors that affect variability. The State will consider this information when determining the data migration requirements in any future RFP.

What, if any, is your Single Sign On solution? If so, is it currently used for both internal users and external grantees? If not, did you have a targeted partner in mind (Okta, etc)?

In the Features Matrix (Appendix B), vendors are asked to indicate if their product has (check YES) a feature or not (check NO) and to provide details. The item in the question is a product feature listed in Section 10: Administration. Vendors should indicate whether or not their product includes single sign-on capability and provide details about the single sign-on solutions their product supports.

What, if any, is your e-signature solution? If so, is it currently used for both internal users and external grantees? If not, did you have a targeted partner in mind (DocuSign, etc)?

In the Features Matrix (Appendix B), vendors are asked to indicate if their product has (check YES) a feature or not (check NO) and to provide details. The item in the question is a product feature listed in Section 6: Document Management. Vendors should indicate whether or not their product provides the ability to associate digital signatures and approvals with documents and provide details about the e-signature solutions their product supports.

There are numerous integrations required. Do those systems (SAP HANA, CGI, LP2000, FADS, FMIS, CTIPS, CalSMART, AB2252, VIPER etc) have APIs available for integration? Do you have a sense of the API call volumes for each?

Per section 4.5.1, the State intends for the vendor’s product to interface with SAP S/4 HANA; an API will be available for integration. Per the RFI, SAP S/4 HANA will not be implemented until summer 2022; therefore, API call volumes are currently unknown. The other systems listed in this question are not applicable to RFI 20-001.

What email client is currently used? If not MS365 Outlook, please advise what APIs are available for integration.

In the Features Matrix (Appendix B), vendors are asked to indicate if their product has (check YES) a feature or not (check NO) and to provide details. The item in the question is a product feature listed in Section 8: Collaboration and Communication. Vendors should indicate whether or not their product provides workflow tools that integrate with email and provide details about the email clients their product supports.

Ideally, in the consolidation of systems, which platforms do you envision continuing to use versus those where you want to consolidate/deprecate/EOL?

The RFI process is intended to solicit information from vendors about their grant management products; it is not an RFP. Section 5.1.1.2 provides vendors with the opportunity to recommend an approach to the State with regards to existing grant management products in operation. Vendors should note any suggestion or potential concern, issue, or conflict. When possible, vendors shall reflect in their answers any industry standards or learnings from previous grant management solution implementations. The State will consider these recommendations when creating requirements for any future RFP.

Which components of Grants.gov are required?

In the Features Matrix (Appendix B), vendors are asked to indicate if their product has (check YES) a feature or not (check NO) and to provide details. The item in the question is a product feature listed in Section 2: Tools and Portals. Vendors should indicate whether or not their product integrates with Grants.gov for federal proposal submission and submission notifications and provide details as necessary, including any limitations.

In Section 1: User Experience, you mention "Supports hot key combinations and user-defined macro commands." - can you please elaborate a key use case for this functionality so that we understand what your business objective is?

In the Features Matrix (Appendix B), vendors are asked to indicate if their product has (check YES) a feature or not (check NO) and to provide details. The item in the question is a product feature listed in Section 1: User Experience. Vendors should indicate whether or not their product supports hot key combinations and user-defined macro commands (i.e., the ability for a user to use system-defined key combinations to trigger system actions and for a user to define custom key combinations to execute one or more specific system actions). The business objective is to accommodate superusers.

Do you anticipate transparency across the organization to all records (i.e. can each country segment see each others investments/work). If so, to what degree and on what record types are these barriers to visibility established? (i.e. people, organizations, grants, reports, or all)

The RFI process is intended to solicit information from vendors about their grant management products; it is not an RFP. Section 4.1.5 provides vendors with the opportunity to explain how their product could be used to increase visibility and transparency of grant processes to statewide stakeholders. Vendors should note any suggestion or potential concern, issue, or conflict. When possible, vendors shall reflect in their answers their recommended approach, as well as any industry standards or learnings from previous grant management solution implementations.

There are many levels in regards to State and Federal data security. To better understand compliance for this specific agreement we have a few questions: (1) What, if any PII would the State of Nevada be looking to capture in the GMS system?, (2) WCAG 2.0 is an internally recognized standard for accessibility qualifications - does this certification meet the needs?, and (3) Fluxx is fully based on Amazon Web Services, therefore all methods/structures used for encryption (KMS), DNS services (Route 53), data storage (S3) and other AWS products which support full compliance, security access, and continuity for our platform. If any, can you identify the restrictions regarding Fluxx using the full stack of the Amazon Cloud offering?

The RFI process is intended to solicit information from vendors about their grant management products; it is not an RFP. Section 4.8, Security Standards, allows vendors the opportunity to describe the extent to which its product can meet the standards and note any suggestion or potential concern, issue, or conflict with these standards as listed. When possible, vendors shall reflect in their answers their recommended approach, as well as any industry standards or learnings from previous grant management solution implementations.

Do you anticipate including any of the following items: (1) RDS, (2) WAP, (3) Privately Provisioned Instance, or (4) Additional Third-Party Integrations (CRM, ERP, etc)

The RFI process is intended to solicit information from vendors about their grant management products; it is not an RFP. Throughout the RFI, vendors are provided with opportunities to provide additional information for the State to consider when creating a future RFP. Section 5.6.4 allows vendors the opportunity to suggest additional grant project information for the State to consider.

Please provide a working link to State security standards (listed as http://it.nv.gov/governance/state-policy-procedures/).

Considering the COVID-19 situation in New York, we were wondering if you are open to an electronic only submission for the [RFI?] An electronic only submission will make things much easier for us in these unique times.

Per Section 8.3.4 of the RFI, “Submission shall be submitted to the State to grants@admin.nv.gov with “RFI 20-001” in the subject line. Vendors will receive confirmation of receipt.” Note that physical (hard copy) submissions will not be accepted.