Procurement and Contracting Services

Request for Proposals for a Learning Management System

ADDENDUM #2

Please mark all proposal submission Envelopes with the following information

Sealed RFP # L191903 Due on November 28, 2018 no later than 2:00 PM, MST

The following questions were received before the technical question/inquiry due date of November 1, 2018 at 12:00PM MST:

1. Is it possible to get an extension? Extension granted – see revised schedule in Addendum 1.

2. What is the intended user population for this system? The potential user population is all employees and could be all students. We have a population of roughly 15,000 FTE employees, 35,000 undergraduate students and 10,000 graduate students, and 15,000 Designated Campus Colleagues (DCCs). All employees and graduate students have training that is required. We don’t have a specific number of undergraduates that require training, but many of them will need to use the system. Most DCCs need to take training of some kind, depending on their role at the University.

3. Can you confirm the user count? On the vendor call it was noted as 15,000 FTE,

with 35,000 additional (students and designated campus colleagues). The potential user population is approximately 50,000 combined employees, students and designated campus colleagues. Not everyone is required to take courses but the potential is there, given whatever the individual’s assigned tasks or job duties might be.

4. Can you confirm the overall count, as well as the split between FTEs and others (who may require sporadic LMS access)? See answers to Questions 2 & 3.

5. DCC would they be using it a couple times a year or less often than grad students? It depends on the activities and responsibilities of the DCC. If they are conducting research, they will be using the system roughly the same amount as graduate students. Generally speaking, DCCs and graduate students working in the health sciences will be required to complete more trainings in the system than DCCs and grad students in the basic and social/behavioral sciences.

6. Some students also have to complete training, how often are they in the system? It varies, depending on whether or not they are a student employee or conducting research. Some students are in it several times a year, some only once in 4 years.

7. Would we say total users around 50,000 employees etc.?

Yes.

8. The University of Arizona will be using the LMS to provide learning content and assist in the administration of this learning content for employees and student-employees. In Section 5.0 of the RFP, it states that there are approximately 15,000 employees and student-employees at the University. In a typical year, what is the fraction of these 15,000 employees who can be expected to make active use of the system?

80-90% of employees will likely use the system each year. Keep in mind, though, that we also have students and designated campus colleagues (DCCs) who also will need to use the system on a semi-regular basis. See response to question #3 above.

9. Does the University of Arizona expect the demands on the system to be continuous throughout the year or seasonal (for example, depending on the on-boarding of new student employees at the beginning of the fall semester and then tapering off during the rest of the year)? We do expect peaks in use around the beginning of each semester as new students and staff arrive on campus. However, we also expect a fairly high level of continuous use throughout the year.

10. Will the University of Arizona Administrators and the individuals responsible for delivering training to employees require access to the reports generated by the system on a year-round basis?

Yes.

11. What is the expected maximum number of users who will need access to the system on a monthly basis?

This will vary. We estimate up to 50,000 potential users of the system. It’s unlikely that all those potential users would need access to the system in the same month. We need a system that can scale with use and the growth of our institution. For FY2018, we had 14,784 distinct users. Many of those users needed access to the system multiple times throughout the year. Keep in mind that only a few departments currently offer training through our LMS, so we expect active user count to grow considerably with a new system.

12. You have about 4 or 5 pages of terms and conditions will those be the terms and conditions be the ones expected to govern the document?

The terms and conditions in 4.0 are ultimately what the University would like to see in an agreement, however, we do negotiate agreements regularly after a vendor has been awarded.

13. Does the University require any content (HIPAA, FERPA)? Not a requirement, open to hearing about what you can offer. Generally, we make our own content.

14. Do you have current content that you are using from various suppliers related to

specific content? Would you expect that content to become part of this agreement? Yes, we currently use several 3rd party content providers but the majority is designed here at the University. We would like the new system to play nicely with what we currently have. See answer to question 19 below.

15. What is the current LMS? Oracle Campus Solutions Peoplesoft ELM system.

16. What are the requirements for integrating any student content? Our academics LMS is D2L. It is not required, but it would be nice if the two systems could integrate.

17. What is the source software solution for historical data? Do you require migration of historical data (if it exists)? If so, what is the anticipated volume of the migration (# of records, # of courses, etc.)? Oracle Campus Solutions Peoplsoft ELM is the source solution for historical data. While migration of historical data is not a limiting criteria of the RFP, it is highly preferred. As of March 2018, we had a total of 353 courses in our LMS, 58,823 class completions, and 22,568 distinct users.

18. Are their internal challenges we should be aware of (budget constraints, other technology implementations that may impact the LMS, any technologies that the implementation of the LMS is dependent on, etc.)?

No.

19. Are there any timeline constraints on the implementation of the new system (for example, a hard stop related to the shutdown of a legacy system)?

No. While we would ideally like to implement the new system in time for our fall semester 2019, we realize that is ambitious and is not a requirement.

20. Since we're bidding on a learning management system, can you share what kind of learning management systems you want to integrate to the PeopleSoft Enterprise Learning Management system?

We don’t fully understand the question. We want to completely replace the PeopleSoft ELM system. We do contract with several external content providers that also function as an LMS, and we would like those systems to integrate with the new system. For example, we want a system that can regularly import completion data from the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI).

21. Based upon our review of the RFP we see integrations for PeopleSoft Campus Solutions, SAML 2.0, and HCM technology. Please name your HCM platform if possible. Please also provide a full list of required integrations if our assumption is incomplete. For instance, is there also integration required with an HR system?

Our HCM Platform is PeopleSoft Human Capital Management. Integrations with HCM and SAML 2.0 would be required at implementation. We are also interested in integrations with PeopleSoft campus solutions and Oracle Business Intelligence Enterprise Edition, but are willing to negotiate when those integrations would be implemented. As mentioned above in #20, we also will require integration with the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) at implementation. CITI is a third party LMS and content provider for research compliance training.

22. How many courses do you estimate each PD user will take on average?

As few as two and as many as 100 or more, depending on how long they are at the university. On average, we estimate about 30 courses per user. We need a system that is flexible.

23. What resources do you have planned to help with implementation?

Our Governance Committee (see answer to #24) will oversee the implementation process. The implementation staff will consist of, at a minimum, a dedicated Implementation Partner (1.0 FTE), a Business Analyst (.5 FTE), and a Systems Administrator (.5 FTE).

24. Can you describe the University governance structure for both the implementation project and the administration of the system post-Go Live?

We have a Learning Management System Governance Committee that is comprised of representatives from each unit on campus that offers training through the LMS. This Committee will oversee the implementation project in collaboration with our IT department and will oversee the administration of the system once it is live.

25. Do you anticipate a roll out period for the PD offering?

We are open to discussing a roll out period. See answer to question 26 below.

26. Is the University seeking to implement university-wide across all units at the outset, or is there interest in a phased implementation?

Our preference would be to make the system available to campus at the outset, but we are open to discussing a phased implementation.

27. Can you identify the separate campuses, schools and/or University units that will be included in the initial implementation? If applicable, which ones would be onboarded in later phases?

Currently, our offering departments include the following: Analytics and Institutional Research Budget Office Campus Recreation Financial Services Office Housing Human Resources Office of Digital Learning Office of Instruction & Assessment Research, Discovery & Innovation Risk Management University Information Technology Services University of Arizona College of Medicine - Phoenix We would want all of the above departments to be a part of initial implementation. We have many additional departments that are interested in being able to offer training through the new system after it is live. As articulated in the answer to question #26, we would ideally like for initial implementation to be available to the entire university, including our major campuses in Tucson, Phoenix, and Sierra Vista, Arizona; agriculture extension offices around the state; and micro-campuses in various international locations. However, we are open to discussing a phased approach to implementation.

28. How many of the separate campuses, schools and/or University units included in the initial implementation require a separate user interface/branding While we would prefer the ability to have each unit decide whether they want their own branding, we are also open to using one University-wide interface at implementation.

29. Will the LMS integrate with any university applications such as an HRIS? If so which ones?

See answer to question #21.

30. How many ongoing integrations with HRIS and other systems do you envision in the initial implementation? Can you identify the relevant systems?

See answer to question #21.

31. How many total system users do you expect to be serving at the start of the initial implementation?

a. How many will be internal users coming in through the HRIS feed? b. How many will be external users (non-employees) self-provisioning or

loaded manually?

a. Currently our system syncs all employee data, regardless of whether they use the LMS. It also syncs with the student system and designated campus colleagues. Therefore, at the start of implementation, we would hope to serve the entirety of our potential user population. See answer to question #3. b. Currently we don’t have a means to offer training to external users. However, we are interested in having such a feature in the new system.

32. Can you provide a high-level description of the amount of learning data and

history that you expect to migrate into the system?

See response to question #17 above.

33. The RFP stipulates that you require printed copies of our response, which we will provide if mandatory, but if not, we would propose submitting an electronic copy only. If hard copies are absolutely essential, we would like to propose that vendors submit the proposal via email by the due date/time and schedule hard copy delivery for the following business day. Please let us know if this is acceptable.

Please follow the instructions listed in section 3.8 of the RFP. The University will not accept emailed copies of the RFP.

34. The biggest thing driving the RFP for a new system? We are looking for a system that facilitates impactful learning experiences, whether online or in-person. We want a system that is user-friendly, both for end-users and administrators, and that is flexible enough to meet the diverse learning and reporting needs of our organization. Our current system, while functional as a means of record-keeping, is difficult and frustrating to navigate and use.

35. Is this a replacement or a first-time purchase of an LMS?

Replacement.

36. How is the University managing professional development programs for employees currently?

Each offering unit creates and manages its own professional development content.

37. Does the University use a content altering tool and do they intend to replace it?

We don’t have any tools on an enterprise level, a majority use the Articulate software but that is not exclusive. We are looking for options. We would be interested in what you offer but it would not be a blanket solution for the campus.

38. Do you require the user interface to be in other languages than English? It is not a requirement, but it would be preferable.

39. Are you able to identify the specific language translations you would like to see outside of English? See answer to #49.

40. Section 4.46(c) - off shore --- can customer support for the proposed LMS be provided offshore, or do you mandate no-offshore customer support (which may increase the annual cost for the LMS)?

Our preference is for on shore support. We will only consider off shore for our Tier One customer response support. We require that Tier One support be available 24/7 and should include contact with live persons. Any administrative support for implementation and management of the system is required to be on shore. Please provide an explanation of your support model, along with pricing structures for both on and off shore if you wish to propose off shore Tier One support.

41. If we are a vendor located in another country can we bid on this? Our

development teams are in India. We will require interactions/meetings with development and project management occur during Arizona time zones. We do not wish to interact by email because of time conflicts. Beyond that, we do not require development to be US based.

42. Section 4.18 Administrative Legal Remedies. Can you provide the link?

https://public.azregents.edu/Policy%20Manual/3-809-Legal%20Remedies.pdf

43. Who are your current 3rd party content providers? Most departments create their own content. However, we currently contract with Wombat and the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) to provide security and research compliance training content, respectively.

44. How much storage is currently in your current LMS?

We currently have 250GB allocated for our LMS and are using about 180GB of that allocation. We anticipate storage needs to grow with the new system.

45. How many user records will need to be imported to the new system? See answer to question #17

46. Section 5.9 - references - the section says references will only be requested if selected as a finalist - can you confirm that we do not need to submit references with the proposal? Correct. You do not need to submit references with the proposal.

47. Section 5.9 - references - if the University will evaluate 4 references, why are we requested to submit 10? For each reference submitted we would need to obtain prior approval, and to discuss this process with them. Obtaining 10 references puts a significant burden on us -especially if the intent is only to use 4. Can this requirement be adjusted to require 4 references? See answer to #22 above. You will only be asked for references if you are chosen as a finalist. As it is a requirement of the RFP please plan to provide the requested references as written.

48. Attachment A - Vendor Questionnaire - row13 - what is the University's mobile environment? The University of Arizona does not have a MDM (Mobile Device Management) application. We do allow employees and students onto applications via their mobile device. Some applications are better prepared to be displayed on mobile devices, some not. Our goal is to purchase applications that perform well on mobile devices. Regarding a new LMS, mobile is important as we would expect any purchased application to be HTML 5. We do have DUO authentication for applications.

49. Attachment A - Vendor Questionnaire - row 17 - what user interface, besides English, are required?

The only required interface is English, although alternative languages are preferred. An option for Spanish would be ideal, and French, Arabic, Japanese, Mandarin, and Cantonese would be preferred.

50. Attachment A - Vendor Questionnaire - row 23 - do you require eCommerce? If so, what are your use cases for selling learning? We do not require eCommerce. It is a preferred option. Our primary use case for eCommerce would be scenarios in which we offer a workshop or training course but need to charge a nominal amount to offset the cost of food and workshop materials.

51. Please describe potential usage scenarios for eCommerce. Who will you be selling training to? Is the purpose to drive revenue or simply recoup training costs?

The purpose would be to simply recoup training costs. We are not interested in this feature for driving revenue. One scenario would be a cohort-based professional development series that requires a significant time commitment from attendees. An offering unit might be interested in charging a small fee to offset costs as well as create a sense of commitment in the attendee.

52. Please elaborate on what you mean by e-commerce features? What are you looking for?

See answer to #51 above.

53. Attachment A - Vendor Questionnaire - row 51 - Do you have a preference between Named User or Concurrent (Unique Login) license model? IF looking for a concurrent model, can you provide an estimate of the monthly number of unique logins to the LMS, in thousands? We would prefer a Concurrent license model if this is beneficial from a pricing standpoint.

54. Attachment A, Vendor Questionnaire 59: Are any of the data fields within your system user definable? If so, which ones, and are they configurable? Please provide examples of fields you wish to be configurable. Specifically, we’d like to know how set-in-stone the terminology is in your system interface. Just as an example, if the default name for your course catalog is “catalog”, but we’d like to call it “offerings”, is that an option? In general, we are interested in knowing how configurable your system is, and who has access to those configurations. Can an end user configure fields, or administrators, or both? Can we control who has access to these configuration options?

55. Attachment A - Vendor Questionnaire - row 60 - can you clarify the

requirements? If ours is the new LMS, what other LMS do you envision integrating with our system? What is the intended data flow - from which system to with system? What are you looking to integrate? The new LMS needs to integrate with any current employee and compliance focused LMS on campus, specifically Absorb, the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) and Wombat. We would highly prefer the option to also integrate with D2L, our academic LMS. Information at least needs to move from the LMS systems already on campus to the new LMS.

56. Attachment A - Vendor Questionnaire - row 75 - can you clarify what you mean by digital badges? Is this in reference to gamification? We are interested in a digital badge feature as a mechanism for validating completion of various trainings, and a way for learners to make visible their areas of expertise.

57. Attachment A - Vendor Questionnaire - row 94 - can you clarify this requirement? What is meant by "identifying criteria"? This refers to how a user is identified in the LMS. For example, if the LMS creates its own unique user numbers can the University choose to use an identifying criterion, such as the unique employee ID created by the university as well as each user’s unique, self-created name that are also and most commonly identified by.

58. What percentage of your employee training is in a Face-to-Face environment? Currently 10 campus departments or business units use the current LMS, which means not all campus training (current or future) is represented at this time. In this current population, the average monthly percentage of face-to-face training is 25%.

59. 3.7.10 on page 9 states that vendors may submit a narrative response. Is it permissible to submit each item in Attachment A as a narrative response (in Word) with a corresponding line number from Attachment A? Please submit your narrative responses in the corresponding cell within the Attachment A Excel spreadsheet.

60. Do you currently use Augmented Reality or Virtual Reality in training? If so, where do you source the content and what format are the simulations in? What system currently drives this type of training for the University? If no such training

is currently provided, please define short and long term expectations for AR/VR training. We do not currently use AR/VR in the trainings offered through our LMS. We would like to have the option to do so within the next 2-3 years.

61. Please define and stack-rank your goals for the new LMS.

Please refer to sections 3.9.8 and 5.0 of the RFP.

62. Please describe your overall content strategy. Your authoring requirements indicate you create your own content, but do you also work with third party providers? What is your current authoring tool? We are interested in learning more about how you source and create content.

We do work with third party providers when necessary. For example, we contract with the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative to offer many of our research compliance trainings given that their content is widely recognized by funding institutions. However, each offering department/unit makes their own decision about whether to create their own content or work with a third party. This decision is usually driven by available resources, whether the department has access to in-house instructional designers, and whether third party content is able to meet our needs. Most of the training we offer through our current LMS is created in-house to meet our specific needs. Different departments use different authoring tools, but the majority use Articulate and Panopto.

63. Is there a mandatory PD course that each of the 15k employees + 45k students will have to take?

No.

64. It appears from the RFP that the University intends for the system to handle the assignment, tracking and reporting for research compliance.

a. Can you describe how research compliance training is currently assigned, tracked and reported on?

b. How does a principal investigator currently track compliance associated with a research grant?

a. Research compliance training is currently tracked through three different LMS systems: Oracle PeopleSoft ELM, the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI), and a native built LMS that tracks completion of lab safety trainings. Training is assigned based on a variety of things: funding source, human subjects or animal subjects protocols, type of materials/chemicals/equipment used in the research, etc.

b. Principal Investigators usually rely on administrative staff to help track compliance. They can look at reports we offer through Analytics, their user dashboard in the native-built LMS for lab safety, or log in to an administrative account in the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative system. Often, they contact the Vice President for Research office for help verifying training completion.

65. Does the University intend to use the system to sell learning? If so, how much of

the learning being sold would be in-person instructor-led classes, web-based training, and/or virtual classes?

We would like the option to sell learning. The vast majority of learning we would be interested in selling would be in-person instructor-led classes. Our interest in this option is simply to offset costs, not to make a profit.

66. How much mobile learning does the University plan to leverage at the initial implementation? Do stakeholders wishing to utilize mobile capabilities already have mobile-ready content developed?

Mobile learning is not a requirement at the outset. Some of our current learning is already optimized for mobile delivery, but not all. While not a requirement for Go-Live, we would want to phase in mobile learning as quickly as possible.

67. Does the University intend to use the system to track Continuing Education credits? If so, can you describe what is envisioned in this regard?

We don’t current have a plan to track CE credits in the system, but we would like the option to do so down the road.

68. Please elaborate on the Payment Card Industry controls that you have asked about.

If we are able to sell learning through your site, we want verification that users’ personal financial information is secure. See this site for more information: https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/pci_security/maintaining_payment_security

End of addendum, all else remains the same.