Replacement Solution for SAP Solution Manager Components

Request for Information

REGARDING: Replacement Solution for SAP Solution Manager Components

RFI BAP-2026-206-RB

Questions Due: April 21, 2026, Wednesday 12:00 P.M. (PT)

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS:

Is there an incumbent vendor? Or is this an entirely new requirement?

A: There is not an incumbent.

Can you provide an overview of current environment\architectural diagram?

A: Not at this time. SAP SolutionManager is hosted in Azure as a private cloud instance; it supports Incident management/CHARM/Document management. Jira and ServiceNow are SaaS products with no connectivity to SAP, currently.

Are you currently or plan to upgrade to S4 HANA?

A: We are on SAP HANA 2023 SPS03

Do you have any contracted outside partner relationships that manage the SAP Solman ChaRM module?

A: We have a managed services provider that manages our production SolutionManager instance. The JCC manages non-productive instances.

Transport Creation Model (F37-F39) - For transport creation, is the expectation that the proposed solution initiates transport requests within SAP, or that transport requests continue to be created within SAP (e.g., via existing processes) and are then integrated with the proposed solution for tracking and governance?

A: The expectation is that the proposed solution will initiate transport requests, as transports are currently initiated in CHARM.

Transport Lifecycle Visibility (F37, F39) - What level of visibility into the SAP transport lifecycle (e.g., creation, release, import to QA, import to PROD) is expected within the proposed solution? Should lifecycle stages be managed within the platform or surfaced via integration with SAP as the system of execution?

A: The expectation is that any proposed solution would have the ability to control lifecycle stages, effectively replacing CHaRM. Lifecycle stages to be managed within the platform.

Transport-to-Change Relationship (F31, F35, F37-F39) - How is the relationship between change requests and SAP transport requests expected to be maintained in the future state (e.g., one-to-one, one-to-many)? Are there existing identifiers or linkage mechanisms that should be preserved?

A: There could be one-to-many relationships between change requests and change documents (i.e. SAP transport requests). Linkage should be preserved between incidents, CRs and Change Documents. Any solution should be flexible to allow a one-to-many relationship between the change requests and associated SAP transport requests.

Handling of Multiple Transports per Change (F37-F39) - For changes that involve multiple SAP transports, what level of grouping, traceability, and reporting is expected within the proposed solution?

A: Solution should be able to show all transports associated with a change. Solution should clearly identify which change a transport is associated with. Provide 'audit trail' of which users (i.e. transport owners) associated with each transport and real-time statuses within each change. A separate dashboard that shows what's pending, failed, completed for all transports within each change.

Transport Administration Scope (F50 - CM_ADM_COCKPIT) - Is there an expectation for the proposed solution to replace SAP transport administration tooling (e.g., CM_ADM_COCKPIT), or should SAP-native administration capabilities be retained while integrating with the proposed solution for visibility and governance

A: CM_ADM_COCKPIT is the CHARM administration tool; hence any proposed solution should replace it. However, SAP-native administration capabilities (at STMS level) should be retained while integrating with the proposed solution for visibility and governance.