Skip to main content

P4771: North Dakota - Letter: Kost To Wolfe Re: Documents Outlining Evaluation Activities For ND ERP Solution

This document is available in two formats: this web page (for browsing content) and PDF (comparable to original document formatting). To view the PDF you will need Acrobat Reader, which may be downloaded from the Adobe site. For an official signed copy, please contact the Antitrust Documents Group.

GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT P4771

April 10, 2001

Mr. Curtis Wolfe
Chief Information Officer
State of North Dakota
600 E. Blvd Ave
Bismarck, ND 58504-6708

Dear Curt,

Per your request, I have attached several documents that outline the activities involved in the evaluation of an ERP solution for the state.

Some key highlights include:

  • Process began in August of 2000 with the generation of a Request for Proposal.
  • Pulling together constituencies from state government, higher education and public education. North Dakota is a leader in the nation with this approach.
  • Over 100 evaluators from the various constituencies have provided feedback and insight into this process.

Please contact me with any questions.

Scott Kost
Webb Information Services

NDI 007095

ERP Evaluation Process

Activity Date(s)
RFP Preparation Begins August 1, 2000
Release of RFP to vendors September 18, 2000
Mandatory Bidder's conference October 3, 2000
Responses to questions from Bidder's conference October 10, 2000
Deadline for written questions October 23, 2000
Responses to written questions completed October 30, 2000
Due date for Proposals November 17, 2000
Proposals opened at 4:00 p.m. CST November 17, 2000
State evaluation of Proposals
(Evaluation Round 1)		 November 20 -
December 15, 2000
Selection of Finalists December 15, 2000
Oral Presentations by Finalists
(Evaluation Round 2)		 Weeks of January 15,
January 22, and
January 29, 2001
K-l2 Presentation February 6-9, 2001
ERP Vendor Follow-up Sessions March 6-8, 2001
K-l2 Follow-up Sessions March 13-14, 2001
Due Date for Revised Bids April 5, 2001
ERP Live Demo Sessions May 2001
Selection of Preferred Vendor May 31, 2001
Contract Negotiations June 2001
Anticipated Project Start Date July 1,2001

NDI 007096

Evaluation Results - Round 1

Criteria Weight Great Plains Jenzabar Oracle People
soft		 SAP SCT
Reputation

25%

            
Implementation Approach

15%

 5 6 1 3 2 4
Functional Fit

30%

 5 6 1 3 4 2
Financial Proposal

15%

 3 4 1 5 6 2
Proposal Excellence

10%

            
Summary Total  

270

 330 60 210 240 150
North Dakota Value

5%

 1 6 2 6 6 6
Overall Total

100%

 275 360 70 240 270 180
Ranking  

5

 6 1 3 4 2

Notes:

The best scoring proposal has the lowest score
Company Reputation was rated as a wash among the vendors
No points awarded for Proposal Excellence
Powerschool and AAL were chosen as the K-12 Student Systems to further evaluate

NDI 007097

Evaluation Results - Round 2

Functional Area SCT People
soft		 Oracle
Enrollment Management
This area addresses the University Admissions process including the ability to manage multiple applications for multiple terms, multiple programs and multiple campuses. The system must provide an integrated and flexible system for processing admission applications for all programs, including undergraduate, graduate, professional, off-campus and continuing education students.		 1.33 2.83 1.88
Financial Aid
This area addresses the University requirements for a fully integrated financial aid system thatmeets all Federal rules and regulations, and as required, is compliant with State rules and regulations. Regulation updates must be provided on a timely basis to allow early processing of student aid applications, packaging and delivery of aid. The system must have the ability to follow current Federal methodology and adapt quickly to changes.		 2.83

2.00

 1.14
Registrars
This area addresses the University Registration processing requiring a system accessible through multiple media including telephone, internet, intranet, kiosk, and operator-led transaction. The system must control the registration process by pre-requisite, major, minor, college, classification, sex, student level, special permission, time conflicts, class size limitations, and co-requisite.		 1.50

2.49

 2.57
Implementation, Training and Support
This area addresses the vendors ability to provide the necessary implementation, training and support services.		 2.00

1.00

 3.00
HECN Finance
This area address the University System's requirements for a financial management system that follows GAAP as defined by the AICPA Audit Guide for Colleges and Universities and will follow GAAP as defined by GASB 35 beginning with fiscal year 2002. The University System requires an integrated suite of financial management products for Accounts Payable, Accounts Receivable (including cashiering and student accounts), General Ledger, Purchasing, Grant and Contract Accounting, Budgeting, Human Resources and Payroll, Fixed Assets, Inventory, Fee Billing, and Job Billing,		 2.70

1.30

 2.00
State Finance
This area addresses the State's requirements for a financial system that maintains its official accounting records following Generally Accepted Accounting Principles {GAAP). The system must accurately process and account for State revenues and expenses, assets and liabilities, and cash flows on cash, accrual and modified accrual bases. The system must apply budgetary and funds availability edits consistent with North Dakota statutes. The system must support the preparation of the State's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), including the ability to conform with published pronouncements that define GAAP for state governments. In addition, the system must support GASB34 and GASB35 reporting requirements.		 2.95

1.53

 1.53
HR/Payroll
This area addresses the needs for a Human Resource system supporting all human resources activities with an integrated application that supports the processing and reporting requirements for payroll.		 2.73

1.67

 1.20

NDI 007098
 

State Technical
This area addresses the overall technology configuration for the application including scalability, reliability, and performance. This area also addresses the solutions capability to lake advantage of current technologies.

3.00

 1.00 2.00
HECN Technical
This area addresses the overall technology configuration for the application including scalability, reliability, and performance. This area also addresses the solutions capability to take advantage of current technologies.

2.20

 2.40 1.40
K-I2 Finance
This area addresses the needs for a Human Resource system supporting all human resources activities with an integrated application that supports the processing and reporting requirements for payroll.

3.00

 2.00 1.00
Summary

2.42

 1.82 1.77
Ranking

3

 2 1

 

Functional Area AAL Power
school
K-12 Student
This area addresses the K-12 requirements far an integrated Student Information System that provides the capability for definition, management, and reporting of administrative and demographic data related to teachers, classes, students, courses, campuses, class schedules, qualifications, and other related data.		 2.00 1.00

NDI 007099

Value to North Dakota

An ERP solution will provide the state with a strategic tool - one that equips the state with the necessary capabilities to integrate and synchronize government functions into streamlined, best business practices.

This is accomplished through:

  • Creating integrated information across government (State government agencies, Higher Education and K-I2)
  • Improving access to information
  • Improving the accuracy of information
  • Enabling streamlined business processes
  • Improving productivity by automating job tasks
  • Enabling e-business and self-service applications

Concerns with Great Plains Proposal

  • Overall, the proposed Great Plains solution was ranked in 5th place (out of six respondents).
  • The higher education component (ABT Software) is a product focused on small and medium sized financial institutions and scored particularly poorly in the evaluation.
  • In the Financial Systems area for Higher Education, the financial solution failed on 62 of 195 critical testing areas. (The highest scoring solution failed on 7 of 195).
  • In the Financial Systems area for State government, the financial solution ranked 5th primarily due to the lack of Appropriation Controls, Cash Management functionality, CAFR functionality, Grant Accounting requirements, and Contract Management functionality.
  • While Great Plains scored reasonably well in the technology area, their proposal failed to address critical areas such as performance and scalability benchmarks and the requirements for on-going system administration.
  • Systems integration is a major requirement for this solution - the Great Plains solution was not fully integrated because third-party products are significantly involved.
  • The Great Plains solution carried higher risk than competing solutions due to the amount of customization that would be required to meet the state's requirements.
  • Total cost of ownership for the solution - while certain components were less expensive, the overall total cost of ownership was similar to or higher than competing solutions.

NDI 007100

 

Updated February 8, 2022