RFP ADDENDUM NO. 2: Date: December 5, 2016 Reference RFP #GMU-1402-17 Title: Data Analytics Reporting Solutions Services RFP Issued: November 11, 2016 Proposal Due Date: December 19, 2016 @ 2:00 PM EST The following are questions asked and the responses. “N/A” means not applicable or not available. “VI” means vendor input, meaning Mason is looking to the vendor(s) for their expertise.

1. Can companies outside the USA apply for this? Yes 2. Will vendor need to come to Mason for meetings? YES

3. Can vendor perform services outside the USA? Yes

4. Can we submit proposals via e-mail? No.

5. Is there any service provider for similar services currently? If yes, please share the name along with last

year expenditure. NA 6. Do you have not to exceed budget limit on this project? Please refer back to Section XI. Cost of Services. 7. Could you please share the historical level of efforts for this current project? N/A 8. Do SWaM subcontractors count towards the 5 point eval criteria plus up or do you get the credit on if the

prime is a SWaM? To receive the 5 points vendor submitting the proposal must be certified with Virginia SBSD at the time of submission.

9. Could you please provide more details around the scope, use cases, and adoption of existing data marts?

Are there needs that are not fulfilled by the existing data marts?

Existing data marts are built to capture current and historical data for various subject areas in

Banner, including Admissions, Student, Finance, AP, Human Resources, and Grants (sponsored

programs). We are currently developing additional data marts such as AR and Financial Aid and

specifically looking to external expertise to guide this development effort. Additionally, we would

like assistance in developing the predictive analytics/models in Deliverable #1 to answer questions

listed in Deliverable #2. 10. Are the business rules, metric definitions and other logic applied to the source data built into the

dimensional data model in the data marts (at the database level), or is it built into the metadata layer within

MicroStrategy (proprietary)?

Yes, we have institutional business rules built into the data mart ETL as well as integrated into the

metadata layer in MicroStrategy. 11. Should the Vendor plan to integrate directly with the source systems or leverage the existing marts? If so,

does this answer apply to both deliverable #1 and deliverable #2?

Data should source from existing data marts to take advantage of the business rules contained within

the ETL logic. Source data can be used if the data is not available in data marts. Additionally, we

would like assistance in developing the predictive analytics/models in Deliverable #1 to answer

questions listed in Deliverable #2. That could involve working directly with the source system. 12. Is the Vendor required to use SAS for predictive models? Or can the vendor leverage leading technologies

in this area (e.g., Python or R)?

Purchasing Department

4400 University Drive, Mailstop 3C5

Fairfax, Va. 22030 Voice: 703.993.2580 | Fax: 703.993.2589

http://fiscal.gmu.edu/purchasing/

Models should be developed with the idea they will be used by both SAS, MicroStrategy and

generated data that can be imported into ODBC source repository. Tools should have the ability to

export into the standard Predictive Model Markup Language (PMML) format. 13. For the "Specific Plan (Methodology)" guidelines, should the Vendor plan to use this format to respond to

both the numbered deliverables and the sub-letters? For example, should the Vendor use the “Specific Plan

(Methodology)” format in response to section X.B.1. Deliverable #1 and sections X.B.1.a. – X.B.1.g?

Vendor is free to choose as long as the methodology addresses the items. 14. You have listed MicroStrategy and SAS as technologies currently in use. Are you planning to utilize only

these technologies during the stated period of performance? VI 15. What do you use for degree auditing? Ellucian DegreeWorks 16. Regarding X.B.1.b (Solution should provide for peer group benchmarking): What benchmarking data does

GMU have access to currently? Mostly IPEDS and NSF data. 17. How complete is your current data warehouse/data marts for answering the broad questions listed in the

RFP. Please specify completion as high, medium, low, if possible:

Finance, specifically detail data for GL - High

Budget, specifically budget vs. actual - High

Marketing, specifically costs for marketing sources by time - NA

Student lifecycle details, specifically pipeline from admissions to graduation – Medium, need VI

18. Are you looking for a pre-built solution that delivers answers to the questions for Deliverable #2 or are you

looking for a vendor to assist you with the development of a solution that will help you answer these and

other emerging questions? Development of a solution, not a prebuilt one. 19. For the pricing, is it Mason's expectation that the cost volume will include pricing for the option years? Yes 20. Is the place of performance for the awarded contract for the awardee's team to be located at Mason facilities

or at their own contractor facility? Contractor Facility VI – Vendor can recommend best practices for team integration.

21. Can we use Inmon top down or DW 2.0 logical frameworks or is the Data Architecture constrained to be be based solely on Kimball methodology IX.A.3. To maintain consistency with Mason architecture, Kimball methodology is preferred, but any suggested methodology that works best for the analytics platform is accepted.

22. Will subscriptions/access to the data sources be furnished licenses, or will do they (or equivalent) sources need to be priced as part of the RFP response? Price as part of the RFP response

23. Will the SAS, Rapid Insight, and other current and in progress software be furnished licenses, or will do they (or equivalent) software need to be priced as part of the RFP response? Previously answered

24. The RFP talks of Mason’s rules and concepts that needs to get integrated during the first 6 months. Would

you provide details about what are these rules? Where do they reside? How are they executed? and How

Mason expects for these rules behave during or after integration? VI – Mason business rules are

articulated within the data marts and design documentation.

25. What Department(s) (Marketing, IT, etc.) within GMU will be responsible for reviewing this solicitation?

Did this group participate in the recent IT BPA Contract GMU-1288-16 which covered similar analytics

capabilities and resources? Enrollment Management, Information Technology, Fiscal Services, Budget

and Planning, IRR. This group is not the same as the previous RFP contract you site. 26. If we have an existing contract for analytics services with GMU, can we modify/extend that contract if

selected? NA

a. Has VCU explored VITA’s NextGen Analytics program which has pre-negotiated terms,

conditions, pricing for firms that supply the services requested in the RFP? Would you consider

using this contract vehicle if a firm was selected from the NextGen contract? NA

27. XII.A.2.d – Should every paragraph in our response be prefaced with “XII.B.1.a” as an example? Not

required, but you are welcome to structure it that way.

28. Mason’s current BI environment is a strong foundation to achieve the core capabilities in the RFP. Have

you already evaluated or reviewed software demos of these products against the short and long term

reporting solutions? If yes, what were the findings/deficiencies? No 29. Has GMU already evaluated build vs. buy value of an additional solution (licensing, O&M, customizations,

etc.) vs. the existing analytics tools? N/A 30. X.B.1.g - How do the users for this project within Mason use the existing Enterprise Data Warehouse? Are

there shortcomings to the cross-functional analysis available within the EDW? EDW is used for reporting

purposes only. Cross functional is available when security and defined mappings are available, such

as Finance to HR data.

31. What interactions will this project have with the existing IT Analytics/ Data Warehouse team? Will this be

separate from their support? This will be a collaborative efforts among IT, enrollment management,

and Institutional research among others. 32. What roles will the in-house Mason staff assigned to support the various deliverables perform (i.e. Project

Management, Data Analysts, Report Development, etc.)? How many of each? VI 33. Will you provide the list of interested vendors in the event companies may wish to team to support this

initiative? It is our intent to award to one vendor. 34. Please elaborate on X.B.1.d and how the University should be able to enhance the data model? What

interaction are you expecting? Add additional fields or data tables to the model. 35. How many users are expected from the system? What are the user types (i.e. Standard, Power, Developer,

etc.)? There may be 5-10 developers and up to 20 power. 36. Do you foresee a need for mobile usage? Which devices must it support? Yes. iOS and Android

operating systems supported devices. We already have available seat licenses for MicroStrategy

mobile. 37. Does Mason already have a statistician in-house to support validation of predictive and statistical

assumptions? Yes.

38. Can you describe the Data Governance process that exists for Mason? What stakeholders participate across the projects? VI. 39. Do you have space on-site for our consultants or do you prefer we work a mix of remote/on-site?

Previously answered. 40. How many firms are competing for this RFP? Unknown.

41. Is there an incumbent vendor? In the RFP Background section IX.B.1. It states that there is currently work

in progress on the SAS platform. There is no incumbent vendor.

42. Would you please explain the current status and objectives of the current work in progress? NA.

43. What are the challenges your organization is facing in achieving the goals set in this RFP? NA.

44. Are there any special circumstances or "hot buttons" of which we should be aware? NA

45. What role will pricing play in the decision? What issues are of concern about pricing? Predictability?

Risk/reward sharing? Cost reduction? NA

46. Are there documents we should review or people we should speak with prior to responding? No.

47. Is your organization strictly tied to SAS or are you open to exploring other options, for example, R. We are

open, but SAS and MicroStrategy must integrate for other reporting and analysis.

48. Is there an Enterprise Data Warehouse (EDW) where all the data we’ll need is already being stored? Some

data may be available from the current EDW and should be used if available.

49. Do you prefer a COTS or Custom solution? See answer to #18, custom solution sought.

50. Are you able to provide documentation of the existing systems & plans? NA

51. How many GMU employees will be working on this project? What are their roles? VI.

52. Who is funding the program? GMU.

53. When will the program receive funding and what profile will it have? NA

54. What is the timeline for implementation? VI

55. Is there an estimate as to how many users of the system will be involved? 5-10 developers and up to 75

power users

56. How do you project user growth over the next four years? VI

57. The RFP states that you have SAS Analytics and few other Data analysis and modelling tools. Is the

intention of this RFP to find a partner to help expand and work with your existing tools or are you looking

for new Analytics tools to replace what you have? We are looking for appropriately organized data to

meet the criteria in the RFP. However, we plan to integrate this data with our existing tools such as

SAS and MicroStrategy.

58. If your intention is to replace your current analytics tools, could you give us an understanding of what is

not working today? We are retaining tools currently in use. See criteria in RFP. Mason is looking for

data organized to meet criteria of RFP.

59. Would you be comfortable moving your data/data warehouse to the cloud? Yes.

60. Is it possible to get an understanding of the percentage data housed in each data source. We’d like to know

how much data is flowing from each source that has been outlined. NA

61. For the predictive and forecasting components of the requirements, do you have your own algorithms or are

you looking for out of the box functionality. VI

62. For consolidating and moving data, is your preference to use and ETL tool, custom integrations, Batch

jobs? VI

63. If you do not have an ETL tool, would you be open to using an ETL tool that we recommend. Mason

currently uses Oracle technologies for its custom developed ETL process. Mason is open to

discussing other ETL technologies.

64. What is the volume of data moving to a consolidated analytics platform? VI

65. What is the complexity of the data? How many Rows and fields can we estimate. Typical of a large scale

research university with an enrollment of close to 35,000 students. VI – vendor will need to provide

estimate once they start investigating Mason’s data sources. Mason can provide the following

information. Mason’s EDW is approximately 700GB with the largest table being Finance

transactions with 100 million records.

66. How many data marts do you envision being needed in the analytics tool? How many data sets would need

to be joined? VI.

67. With regards to section 8 the period of performance, are these renewal periods referring to the analytics

tool subscription. Would you also like a proposal for a yearly support contract, for supporting the

implementation and making changes to it as needs arise? Please include support costs.

68. If our company/proposal is short listed would we be given an opportunity to review your environment and

validated our pricing and timeframes with you in an onsite meeting, before finalizing a contract? Discuss

during negotiations, if so selected..

69. It is indicated that Oracle is the database currently in use. Should we assume that any new data solutions

should also use Oracle as the backend database? Open to other options but will need to be ODBC data

source accessible.

70. Does George Mason envision adding new technologies to their inventory when delivering on the vision set

forth in the RFP? Examples include: Statistical Analysis and Data Mining packages, Planning and

Analysis packages, etc.… Yes.

a. If so, how will they evaluate new technology solutions? VI

71. Will they consider a multi-vendor, consolidated response? No.

72. Will they consider vendor responses that introduce technology requirements falling outside of their current

environment/investments (i.e. Microsoft SQL Server, Analysis Services,) Yes.

73. Will George Mason consider new or additional ETL to either replace/supplement existing ETL

architecture? VI

74. Does GMU have access to all of the data? That is, are the data for the 9 sources either locally hosted, or is

there a means to connect the data if they are SaaS/remote? Yes, Mason has access to the data (but some

of it is indirect for hosted). Mix of hosted and local data sources.

75. Does George Mason wish to continue to build Distinct Data Marts by Functional Area? Not for this

analytics RFP – Mason is looking for vendor recommendations.

76. Does George Mason have a vision of how they wish to integrate data from the Distinct Data Marts? NA.

77. Will George Mason consider a new or complementary Data Warehouse as part of their solution? Mason

would consider a complementary data repository that works collaboratively with existing data marts.

78. The RFP outlines: “PREDICTIVE, PRESCRIPTIVE AND PROACTIVE ANALYTICS” Please share a

breakdown of your current capabilities and future goals in each area. Mason currently has some

dispersed implementation in specific functional areas.

79. It is indicated the Microstrategy is the BI tool in use at GMU. Should we assume that any new solution

will also use Microstrategy as the BI tool of choice, or is GMU open to using a different enterprise BI tool?

MicroStrategy is Mason’s enterprise BI tool and integration is required. However, we would like

assistance in developing the predictive analytics/models in Deliverable #1 to answer questions listed

in Deliverable #2

80. Can George Mason provide more detail on the data that is available from its current environment that

would inform the predictive questions that they are requesting in the RFP? NA.

81. The RFP notes that “Mason has existing plans, and is making good progress towards, new Business

Intelligence and operational reporting capabilities.” Please provide additional detail on your existing plans.

82. NA

83. (Peer group benchmarking), in general, what metrics should be benchmarked? Other than IPEDS-like data,

peer group data might be proprietary. Metrics based on publicly available peer data.

84. Please define: “Provide full access and visibility into the code and logic of predictive models.” See RFP

85. Does GMU expect the solution to automatically and repeatedly answer the questions listed (as opposed to

consulting that will give GMU the capability and knowledge to answer the questions on their own)? VI.

86. Are there questions beyond what is being asked in the RFP that George Mason would expect the vendor to

be able to answer after successful completion of the engagement? Not at this point.

87. Does George Mason view this RFP as primarily a Consulting RFP or a Product RFP?

Mason is looking for data analysis expertise, so this is a consulting RFP with the Product being a

custom solution.

88. Would George Mason prefer an approach based on consulting around their existing technology stack or a

product based approach with pre-built capability? The consulting around existing technology is

preferred, but we are open to other technologies as long as they complement technologies currently

in use.

89. The RFP appears to be asking for assistance in both gathering, transforming and refining historical data, as

well as leveraging data sources to make Predictions on wide array of functional and technical subjects.

Does George Mason envision the vendor of choice delivering the answers to these questions with their

solutions or is it looking for a teaming approach to define and develop answers to the questions? Teaming

approach preferred.

90. Currently Mason has a BI / Analytics platform in place covering admissions, student, HR and finance, and

Mason is looking to enhance it. Kindly confirm. Mason confirms. Mason is looking for data analysis

expertise to meet criteria in RFP.

91. Kindly provide additional details on Mason’s long term BI / analytics plan. NA.

92. As part of the Mason’s long term plan, are there any compliance / standard requirements to be considered for this engagement? If yes, please provide the details. NA.

93. Please confirm if there are preference for execution methodology for vendor to consider - Waterfall, Iterative or Agile etc. Vendor needs to understand Mason environment/corporate culture before committing to a methodology.

94. Is Mason open to Global Delivery model comprising of onsite and offshore resources? If yes, is there a preferred onsite-offshore resource allocation for vendor to consider. VI.

95. Please confirm if Mason provides a data aggregation platform. NA

96. We assume from the RFP document that the period of performance for the current scope of building deliverable 1 is 6 months and deliverable 2 is next 6 months totaling to 12 months. Since there is a mention of renewing the contract after the first year, please clarify on the scope of services Mason anticipates beyond the 12 months period. Beyond 12 months may include expanding the scope of current RFP or adding additional analytics projects.

97. The fixed price proposal requested is for the scope of deliverable 1 and 2 only. For all other additional services, an hourly rate card is required that will be used for any additional services that may be provided. Please confirm this assumption. VI.

98. Please clarify if the vendor can leverage R/Python as well for the Analytics Use Case/Platform Development along with proposed stack. VI.

99. Kindly confirm if the data marts are populating data directly from sources or there are any Data Warehouse/ Staging Area built in? Data marts are populated directly from source systems, and utilize a staging area that is built into our Data Mart ETL solution. This allow for specific business rules to reside in the warehouse, when data is not readily available in the source system.

100. Please provide more information on the role of middleware fusion in current mason environment for business intelligence and reporting. If you are referring to Oracle Fusion, it plays no role.

101. Please clarify if the Unix scripts are used as wrapper scripts for ETL or for any other functionality? If so, kindly list the functionality Use shell scripting and CRON for ETL scheduling

102. What the current number is of reports in the current BI landscape? Please provide the complexity for these reports? NA

103. Deliverable 1: Please confirm if the deliverables listed in this section of RFP are related to Platform

readiness. Also, kindly provide more information on the below use cases: See RFP

a. What/If Scenarios ( Out of Box)

b. Forecast for Individual Academic Units

Platform readiness with forecasting 104. Deliverable 2: Please confirm if defined use cases are to be delivered as part of deliverables. RFP

document states that “Solution should provide for peer group benchmarking.” See RFP

105. Kindly clarify on what data to be benchmarked with? Publicly available peer data.

106. Please confirm if Mason will provide the source and source data for benchmarking? Sources are publicly

available.

107. Please clarify on what “peer” refer to in “‘peer group benchmarking”? It is for students of specific course /

specific program / university wise benchmarking. VI.

108. Please confirm if vendor will have visibility/access to historical student profiles, courses and performance data of students who are currently studying, student who have graduated and of those who have dropped out at various stages? YES.

109. Please clarify if there are any defined priority order for the various modelling requests within the two deliverables? No.

110. Kindly confirm with respect to long terms analytics, do you prefer an automated, semi-automated or more managed service approach to meeting your objectives. Or could it be a combination? Combination.

111. RFP states that “Bridge the gap between enrollment, student success and financial data – include enrollment/ revenue integration” Please clarify if Mason is contemplating different processes to optimize individually or is a joint optimization using some differential valuation criteria envisioned? VI.

112. Please confirm if Mason considers the student life-cycle to end at graduation, or long term outcomes such as graduate school acceptance, job placement, career earnings, alumni relationship strength, donations etc.? Life-cycle continues past graduation. Include placement, alumni etc.

113. Please clarify if the fundamental requirements listed in the RFP documents needs to be built on SAS only and integrated with the current models or is Mason tool antagonistic? VI.

114. RFP states that “Sub-population of students for financial aid offering to maximize revenue” Please elaborate on what do you mean by current year revenue, is it tuition and fees excluding school financial aid contribution (or) are you taking a longer term revenue outlook (until graduation, post-graduation, lifetime)? VI.

115. Please clarify on analyzing the impact of focused marketing efforts in certain regions. Does Mason define the regions or do they need to be developed? Mason defined

116. RFP states that “What is the net revenue gained by the incoming class and how does it compare to previous years”Please clarify on the time horizon for revenue gain. VI.

117. RFP states that “How many students by status do we have at any given time” Please provide more details on “status”, what are your status classifications? Discuss during negotiations. if so selected.

118. Under Retention/Graduation what kind of interventions are you providing as services today? Multiple initiatives; early alert; targeted campaigns

119. RFP states” Who is likely to return (first to second year and second to third year)?” Please clarify, when predicting who likely are to apply, return, or graduate, are there any student characteristics that cannot be used to make the prediction (esp. race, gender)? VI

120. RFP states that “What is our current cash on hand?”Kindly confirm if the cash on hand figure desired for

the entirety of the University, or for a defined subset (e.g., financial aid)? Both.

Please provide the following volumetric details;

Volume of data from each of the source systems Discuss during negotiations, if so selected.

121. Volume of Historical data load that is expected Discuss during negotiations, if so selected.

122. Total number of existing data marts and their subject areas See answer to #9

123. What is the total PL/SQL based ETL used on a Daily/weekly/monthly/yearly loads? All Mason custom

ETL is written in PL/SQL executed daily.

124. How many Stored Procedures are used? Also request Mason to kindly share the lines of code from each

SPs Discuss during negotiations, if so selected.

125. Are there any current or in-progress predictive/prescriptive and proactive models being utilized in the

Mason environment? If so, can Mason share the number and details of these models? Models are built

based on current and emerging business need on an ad hoc basis.

126. RFP document states that “Solution should include the ability to forecast for individual academic units.”

Please confirm if there are any specific metrics to be forecasted during delivery#1 for academic units? If so,

please list. Please confirm will national data for comparable academic programs be provided, such as

through consortia? Metrics are related to enrollment and tuition revenue.

127. RFP states that “Who is likely to apply to Mason after initial prospecting” With respect to initial prospects

operation, how is the prospect data currently stored and how much information is gathered at prospect time,

as compared to application time? Prospect data stored in CRM, Hobsons Connect or Radius.

1 SECTION I – PURPOSE

128. It is stated the solution is for the “Enrollment Management Department”. Is this

also the department funding the solution? NA.

129. Were other university departments besides Enrollment Management involved in

the creation of the requirement for this RFP, including IT, Institutional

Research/Effectiveness, etc.? Yes.

130. Does the university have a dedicated Business Intelligence or Analytics office or staff? Some staff perform BI and analytics work in addition to routine reporting and ad hoc analysis

projects. We have a dedicated Business Intelligence team that develops the data marts, develops

reports for the University and administers our MicroStrategy environment.

131. Is the proposed solution intended only for the Undergraduate school and programs

or also for Graduate? Both.

132. Are there other funds being used from grant(s) or from IT, IR as they are stated

later in the proposal as key stakeholders and participants? N/A

133. What is the target budget for this project? VI

134. Is there an incumbent vendor providing similar services currently or in the last 5

years? (For example Ruffalo Noel Levitz, AACRAO Consulting, among others.) NA.

135. Is the university currently using Civitas or been actively engaged in discussions

with Civitas? NA.

2 SECTION VIII – PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

136. It is stated as one year with four successive one year renewal options as

negotiated. Is the vendor to assume pricing and activities for the response are only to be

provided for the first year based on what we reasonably assume can be mutually

accomplished in the first year? Pricing should include the first year, and the cost for the four one

year renewals. You can break it out year by year.

3 SECTION IX – BACKGROUND, SUBSECTION A

3.1 1, SOFTWARE

137. Is Blackboard Analytics currently under paid maintenance support? N/A

138. Which Blackboard Analytics modules does GMU have in production? (Student,

Finance, FA, Advancement, HR, Learn?) In the early stages of implementation, not yet

integrated with Banner.

139. Has Blackboard Analytics been upgraded from the ProClarity tool to the new

Pyramid BI tool?

140. Which office(s) use the MicroStrategy reporting solution and what are the data

sources? The Entire University uses MicroStrategy for reporting. This is especially true for certain

business processes such as Financial monthly reconciliation.

141. Which office(s) use SAS and what are the data sources? Institutional Research

and data sources are enterprise wide.

142. Do you intend or desire to continue using all of the above BI tools/platforms or

are you expecting the responding vendor to provide a new BI platform? VI

143. Is the university interested in on premise or cloud based solutions? VI

3.2 2, DATA SOURCE SYSTEMS

144. Are any of the systems listed hosted in the cloud? Yes

145. Which Ellucian Banner subsystems are in production? Student? Finance? HR? General, Student, Finance, HR/Payroll, Position control, Accounts Receivable, Admissions, Financial

Aid are in Production.

146. Are Advancement and degree/program evaluation also in Banner or through other

systems such as Advance or DegreeWorks? DegreeWorks

147. Which Blackboard applications are present? LMS? Transact? LMS, Portal and

Analytics

148. What data and in what format are you receiving or storing from EAB? How do

you expect this to be used in the proposed solution? Yes, we have EAB/SSC. Will not be used

in solution.

149. Is historical data available for all of the source systems listed in order to provide

prediction and forecasting? If not, which of the subject areas described in the deliverable

requirements 1 and 2 are missing historical data? NA

3.3 3, DATA ARCHITECTURE

150. Is the dimensional modeling mentioned in the first bullet referencing Blackboard

Analytics? Or is there another dimensional model / data warehouse that must be

considered in the solution? VI.

151. What is the data source of the distinct data marts and how do they function

differently or support the operations/users differently than Blackboard Analytics? Blackboard Analytics sources from Banner and has its own repository.

152. Can you describe the nature of the “inter data mart integration” and what data

specifically is connected or updated between them? Discuss during negotiations, if so selected.

153. Is a diagram of the data architecture available for posting with the RFP? NA

4 SECTION IX – BACKGROUND, SUBSECTION B

4.1 1, SAS ANALYTICS FOR EDUCATION

154. How does the university foresee this BI platform used in comparison to the

software mentioned in the prior section?

a. Is SAS Visual Analytics intended to replace MicroStrategy and

ProClarity/Pyramid? Is it a supplement to it? Supplement with an emphasis on

analytics.

b. Who are the primary target users of SAS Analytics for Education? Institutional

research, assessment and enrolment management, Office of Budget and

Planning, and Finance.

155. Is SAS Data Management intended to replace or supplement the ETL described

above? What is the specific use of this tool’s capabilities in the data architecture? SAS

DM is not currently part of the Enterprise ETL. It will be part of IR analytics.

156. How is Rapid Insight used and who are the target users/audience? What data

sources are used to create predictions/forecasts?

4.2 2, DATA SYSTEMS

157. What is the source of the SAS Census Data? Directly from Banner or from

Blackboard Analytics? Banner.

158. Are the Census date snapshot functions of Blackboard Analytics used?

159. Are the IPEDs files those created internally by the university for submission? Or

are the IPEDs files data downloaded from the Dept of Ed or a combination of both?

Internally.

160. Is the IPEDs data currently being used for benchmark comparisons? Yes.

161. What is the data/subject area of the feed from Radius? From Blackboard

Analytics?

5 SECTION X – STATEMENT OF NEEDS

162. To provide further context to this proposal, will the university provide a summary

of the existing plans including the primary goals and outcomes of the new Business

Intelligence and operational reporting capabilities? No.

163. Are any of the requirements in this section driven by regulatory or state reporting

needs? If so which ones, and can the university provide the source regulatory

requirement? No.

6 SECTION X – STATEMENT OF NEEDS, SUBSECTION A, CORE

OBJECTIVES

6.1 3, RAPIDLY DEVELOP SHORT-TERM ANALYTICAL CAPABILITIES WITHIN SIX MONTHS

164. What is the driving factor with the six month time frame? Is there a business cycle

timing to which the university expects to apply the new analytical capabilities? Our

strategic plan requires that a basic system be in place within six months.

165. (a) Does the university expect the data integrated and validated within the six

month time frame? Yes

166. (b) What is the list of “multitude of questions”? Is this this list identified further in

Section B deliverable 1? Or also all those in deliverable 2? The time frames between

these statements are inconsistent.

167. (b) Does the university expect working predictive models, or just to be able to

apply predictive modeling to various questions? Predictive modeling under deliverables

#1 only and platform able to address deliverable in #2.

6.2 4, THROUGH CONSULTATION, DEVELOP LONG-TERM ANALYTICAL CAPABILITIES OVER

THE NEXT TWELVE MONTHS

168. Does the university intend to perform the majority of analytical work and only use

the consultant for planning, guidance, architecture, and design? Some analytical work

under deliverable #1 is required.

169. Is the university expecting the consultant and the proposal response to include the

effort to perform all data integration work, implementation, modeling, and tool

deployment? Yes

170. Or, does the university expect to buy a prebuilt analytics platform and models?

Custom solution with the ability to build internally in the long term.

171. (a) which of the tools listed in the sections above does the university expect to

leverage and which are to be deprecated, or is it the intent of this proposal to recommend

that to the university as part of the project? VI.

172. (b) does the long term data analytics strategy currently exist and can be shared to

guide the development of the vendor response or is it the intent of this proposal to

document and provide the strategy? NA.

7 SUBSECTION B, FUNDAMENTAL REQUIREMENTS

7.1 1, DELIVERABLE 1:

173. Is there a current model/formula that is used to project net tuition revenue and you

are seeking to automate it, or is this a completely new approach? There is a current

model / formula outside of the system used and we are looking for recommended

solutions that would include automating.

174. Are the measures for Deliverable 1 relating to projection of net tuition revenue?

How does “projecting” net tuition revenue relate to “forecasting” net tuition revenue? VI.

175. Does the “net tuition” analysis described here refer to actual billing or simply

calculated (per full time or part time student) tuition revenue? VI. This would be for

actual billing when projecting and could be calculation when forecasting.

176. Are there data structures in place that allow you to identify revenues down to the

section level including split costs of instructors that span multiple departments/grants or

will these structures and hierarchies and proportional relationships need to be captured

and built? Need to be captured and built.

177. Are there data structures in place to identify shared overhead costs (capital,

rooms, building, heat, support services, etc.) and distribute them at the section or student

level? No and would be looking for solutions

178. What specific measures should be included in peer group benchmarking? If net

tuition revenues, are these metrics available for peer institutions? What peer group data

source does the university expect to use and is it being used today? Use only publicly

available data and related metrics.

179. What is the scope and expectation of the “pre built” infrastructure described? Is

this a pre-built data model? ETL? Most of the requirements to custom-built capabilities

involving existing GMU infrastructure– how does this relate to pre-built components?

Prebuilt data model that is complimentary to current GMU infrastructure.

180. Do you envision that what-if scenario analysis would provide write back

capability? No.

7.2 2, DELIVERABLE 2:

181. The fundamental deliverable is worded to “deliver consultation that will enable GMU to

leverage its analytical capabilities to answer the following questions”. But the previous

requirement is to “Deliver a solution for a long-term data analytics strategy”. One seems

to require the consultant to develop a BI/analytics solution, the other is not clear as to the

involvement of GMU staff in “leveraging the analytical capabilities” to answer questions.

Are you looking for the vendor to create strategies to help the university to answer the

questions or is the intent that the vendor is completely responsible for the creation and

delivery of a solution including data models, ETL, BI tool deployment, report creation,

and analytic model development to answer all items listed in this bullet and sub-bullets

below? Mason looking for custom solution to deliver items listed under deliverables #1 and able to

answer the questions in deliverables #2.

182. What is the priority for the major bullets of inquiry, vis a vis Admissions,

Enrollment, Course Taking Pattern, etc.? VI

183. Are any of these questions currently being answered quantitatively using the data

and tools in the existing BI/reporting infrastructure (e.g. Blackboard Analytics,

MicroStrategy, SAS? If so, which ones? Which questions are NOT being answered at

all?) Mason is looking for data analytics expertise to answer questions posed in RFP.

7.2.1 A, ADMISSIONS:

184. 5 – This sentence does not parse correctly. Is the question referring to specifically

targeting a sub-population of students with increased financial aid offers and the impact

of that? Yes.

185. 10 – “How well are we yielding Students” – does this refer to the percentage yield

of applicants to enrolled students for specific FA awarded? Or is this tracking back to

prospects and the entire funnel? Admit to Enroll.

186. 13 – “What is the net revenue gained by the incoming class” – should this be

“from the incoming class enrollment”? Yes.

7.2.2 B, ENROLLMENT/COURSE TAKING PATTERN

187. In general is the intent for all these questions to be answered based on past

behavior and activity? Yes.

188. 1 – “How does the change in tuition/fees” – is there a change that has occurred

that must be analyzed compared to the past or is this intended as a hypothetical question?

If hypothetical, does the university have a source of data or assumption about price

sensitivity? Is it based entirely on Financial Aid Need and what is met or unmet?

Intended as a hypothetical question with emphasis on financial aid and tuition fee

increase.

189. 10 – is this a rhetorical question or is it being asked as a requirement to provide

enrollment models and projected outcomes to budget? VI

190. 10 – What does the “budget” refer to in this requirement? Is there an expected

baseline for enrollment and retention determined by university leadership? VI

7.2.3 C, RETENTION/GRADUATION

191. 5- It is not clear what this question means. Are “commitments” for FA awarded

that will need to be carried forward into upcoming terms? Yes. What does the

“extended” mean here -- FA Awarded by the university or Accepted by the student? VI.

Does extended refer to students on FA who will take longer to complete than anticipated?

VI.

7.2.4 D, COSTS

192. 2 – Does this refer to aggregate recruiting costs for each student? NA.What are

the costs to be included here and is the data tracked and sourced at a sufficiently detailed

level to divide across the incoming class? NA.

193. 2 - Is there currently a formula that the university uses for this? No.

194. 3 – Do instructional costs include any support costs (indirect), or are they only

teaching (direct) costs? We would be looking for solutions for both indirect and

direct.

195. 3 - Are instructor/faculty salaries allocated across all the courses they teach in

proportion to class and other non-teaching workload? No Allocated by credit hour? No

196. 4 – Is the revenues described here net tuition? Yes (after discount/subtraction of

FA for those students?) Yes Are these actual billed costs per course including all

ancillary and service fees? We would be looking for solutions and data would need to

be captured.

7.2.5 E, PRODUCTIVITY

197. 1 – “While contributing to revenue” - what does this mean in the context of this

question? Does this refer to those with increasing enrollment/completion, but are or are

not profitable after taking above cost/revenue calculations into account? Or are the

programs that require greater completion requirements and which generate more revenue

overall the focus here? NA

198. 5 – This question seems to be a different category compared to the other

requirements in this list. What is the expectation of the consultant with respect to this

question? NA

8 SECTION XI – COST OF SERVICES

199. Based on the requirements stated in Section X, it appears this project would

require significant collaborative effort between the consulting vendor and GMU staff.

Can you give an example of how you identify and define a “sanction for failure to

perform on time” in this context of mutual responsibilities? NA

200. What benchmarks for non-performance have been used in past projects? NA

9 SECTION XII – PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION

REQUIREMENTS, SUBSECTION B, SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS

9.1 2, SPECIFIC PLAN (METHODOLOGY)

201. (a) 1, to provide this plan, what are the current uses and audiences of the various

Business Intelligence tools at the university and listed in Section IX and which are

expected to be maintained or deprecated or consolidated as part of the project? NA.

9.2 5, PROPOSED PRICING

202. Is the pricing expected to be provided in a separate document and sealed envelope

from the main proposal response? NA

10 SECTION XVI – SOLICITATION TERMS AND CONDITIONS,

SUBSECTION B, SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS

10.1 11, RENEWAL OF CONTRACT

203. It is stated that the proposal is to be a fixed price contract. How does this renewal

section apply and the price increases/decreases based on the CPI-U apply if the original

first year is defined a specific set of activities and effort and a contract renewal is

negotiated on a potentially very different set of scope and activities which could result in

an amount significantly higher or lower than the CPI? NA

All other terms, conditions and specifications remain unchanged.

James F. Russell, Associate Director

Procurement Officer