YTC-27-002 - Website Content Management - Amendment 3

Solicitation: YTC-27-002 -Web Content Management
Date Issued: 07/22/2026
Procurement SUZANNE DESROCHERS
Officer: 803-327-8010
Request for Proposal -
Phone: sdesrochers@yorktech.edu
E-Mail Address: YORK TECHNICAL COLLEGE
Amendment 3 - Questions/Answers and Due Date
Mailing Address: Procurement Office
Extension
452 Anderson Road South
Rock Hill SC 29730-7318
DESCRIPTION: Web Content Management
USING GOVERNMENTAL UNIT: York Technical College
The Term "Offer" Means Your "Bid" or "Proposal". Your offer must be submitted in a sealed package. Solicitation Number & Opening
Date must appear on package exterior. See "Submitting Your Paper Offer or Modification" provision.
SUBMIT OFFER BY (Opening Date/Time): 09/23/2026 14:00:00 (See "Deadline For Submission Of Offer" provision)
QUESTIONS MUST BE RECEIVED BY: 08/07/2026 12:00:00 (See "Questions From Offerors" provision)
NUMBER OF COPIES TO BE SUBMITTED: One (1) Original Hard Copy each for Technical & Price Proposals and six (6)
Hard Copies of Technical and Price Proposals marked "COPY"; One (1)
Digital version of the Technical and Price Proposals on separate USB drives;
and One (1) Digital version(s)of Redacted Technical & Price proposals on
separate USB drives (Original Hardcopy Shall Prevail)
CONFERENCE TYPE: N/A LOCATION: N/A
DATE & TIME:
(As appropriate, see "Conferences - Pre-Bid/Proposal" & "Site Visit" provisions)
AWARD & Award will be posted on or before 01/31/2027. The award, this solicitation, any amendments, and any related
AMENDMENTS notices will be posted at the following web address: https://yorktech.edu/about/departments-and-
offices/administrative-departments/procurement/
You must submit a signed copy of this form with Your Offer. By signing, You agree to be bound by the terms of the Solicitation. You agree
to hold Your Offer open for a minimum of one hundred twenty calendar days after the Opening Date. (See "Signing Your Offer" provision.)
NAME OF OFFEROR Any award issued will be issued to, and the contract will be formed
with, the entity identified as the Offeror. The entity named as the
offeror must be a single and distinct legal entity. Do not use the name
of a branch office or a division of a larger entity if the branch or
division is not a separate legal entity, i.e., a separate corporation,
(full legal name of business submitting the offer) partnership, sole proprietorship, etc.
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE DATE SIGNED
(Person must be authorized to submit binding offer to contract on behalf of
Offeror.)
TITLE STATE VENDOR NO.
(business title of person signing above) (Register to Obtain S.C. Vendor No. at www.procurement.sc.gov)
PRINTED NAME STATE OF INCORPORATION
(printed name of person signing above) (If you are a corporation, identify the state of incorporation.)
OFFEROR'S TYPE OF ENTITY: (Check one) (See "Signing Your Offer" provision.)
___ Sole Proprietorship ___ Partnership ___ Other_____________________________
___ Corporate entity (not tax-exempt) ___ Corporation (tax-exempt) ___ Government entity (federal, state, or local)
COVER PAGE - PAPER ONLY (MAR. 2015)

PAGE TWO
(Return Page Two with Your Offer)
HOME OFFICE ADDRESS (Address for offeror's home NOTICE ADDRESS (Address to which all procurement
office / principal place of business) and contract related notices should be sent.) (See "Notice"
clause)
________________________________________________
Area Code - Number - Extension Facsimile
________________________________________________
E-mail Address
PAYMENT ADDRESS (Address to which payments will ORDER ADDRESS (Address to which purchase orders will
be sent.) (See "Payment" clause) be sent) (See "Purchase Orders and "Contract Documents"
clauses)
____Payment Address same as Home Office Address ____Order Address same as Home Office Address
____Payment Address same as Notice Address ____Order Address same as Notice Address
(check only one) (check only one)
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AMENDMENTS
Offerors acknowledges receipt of amendments by indicating amendment number and its date of issue. (See "Amendments
to Solicitation" Provision)
Amendment Amendment Amendment Amendment Amendment Amendment Amendment Amendment
No. Issue Date No. Issue Date No. Issue Date No. Issue Date
DISCOUNT FOR 10 Calendar Days (%) 20 Calendar Days (%) 30 Calendar Days (%) _____Calendar Days
PROMPT PAYMENT (%)
(See "Discount for
Prompt Payment"
clause)
PREFERENCES - A NOTICE TO VENDORS (SEP. 2009): On June 16, 2009, the South Carolina General Assembly
rewrote the law governing preferences available to in-state vendors, vendors using in-state subcontractors, and vendors
selling in-state or US end products. This law appears in Section 11-35-1524 of the South Carolina Code of Laws. A
summary of the new preferences is available at http://www.procurement.sc.gov/preferences. ALL THE
PREFERENCES MUST BE CLAIMED AND ARE APPLIED BY LINE ITEM, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER
AWARD IS MADE BY ITEM OR LOT. VENDORS ARE CAUTIONED TO CAREFULLY REVIEW THE
STATUTE BEFORE CLAIMING ANY PREFERENCES. THE REQUIREMENTS TO QUALIFY HAVE
CHANGED. IF YOU REQUEST A PREFERENCE, YOU ARE CERTIFYING THAT YOUR OFFER
QUALIFIES FOR THE PREFERENCE YOU'VE CLAIMED. IMPROPERLY REQUESTING A PREFERENCE
CAN HAVE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES. [11-35-1524(E)(4)&(6)] Preferences do not apply.
PREFERENCES - ADDRESS AND PHONE OF IN-STATE OFFICE: Please provide the address and phone number for
your in-state office in the space provided below. An in-state office is necessary to claim either the Resident Vendor
Preference (11-35-1524(C)(1)(i)&(ii)) or the Resident Contractor Preference (11-35-1524(C)(1)(iii)). Accordingly, you
must provide this information to qualify for the preference. An in-state office is not required, but can be beneficial, if you
are claiming the Resident Subcontractor Preference (11-35-1524(D)).
____In-State Office Address same as Home Office Address ____In-State Office Address same as Notice Address
(check only one) Preferences do not apply.
PAGE TWO (SEP 2009) End of PAGE TWO

YTC- 27-002 - Website Content Management - Questions and Answers posted on 09/09/2026
The bid due date has been extended to allow more time for vendors to create their bid as a result in the delay of posting
questions and answers. Bids are due no later than 09/23/2026 @ 2:00 PM
1. South Carolina Vendor Registration: We have initiated/are initiating the South Carolina vendor registration process. If
the registration is still being processed at the time of proposal submission, may a bidder submit its proposal with
evidence of the pending registration and provide the assigned vendor number once issued? Or must the vendor number
be active at the time the proposal is submitted?
ANSWER:
Yes
2. Three Completed Projects/References: The RFP requests three completed projects of similar scope. Would York
Technical College consider proposals from a newer firm that does not yet have three completed projects under the
bidding entity, but whose proposed leadership/team members have substantial prior experience delivering comparable
enterprise digital, cloud, AI, and platform implementations? If so, may relevant projects completed by key personnel in
prior professional roles be provided as evidence of experience?
ANSWER:
While we would prefer three completed projects, we would consider proposals from a newer firm with less, and
we would be interested to learn about the experience of the proposed leadership and team members.
3. Ellucian Colleague & Brightspace Integrations - Beyond single sign-on and basic data exchange, are there any specific
workflows or functionality the College expects the new CMS to support with either Ellucian Colleague or Brightspace
(for example, course catalogs, faculty/staff directories, events, calendars, or other data feeds)? If available, are
interface specifications or API documentation available to proposers?
ANSWER:
We do not have specific integrations in mind at this time but would like to hear from vendors what is possible,
and potential examples of what may make sense for our institution. The College is using Coursedog for its
catalog and calendar as well as Element 451 for enrollment purposes.
4. Current Integration Inventory - In addition to the systems identified in the solicitation, are there any other third-party
applications or campus systems currently integrated with the website that the successful proposer should anticipate
migrating or replacing as part of this project?
ANSWER:
Integration with Google Analytics is preferred. Integration with Yuja Equalground is preferred.
5. Current website size and migration volume: Approximately how many webpages, documents/PDFs, images/media
assets, forms, and other content items are currently maintained in Modern Campus and expected to be migrated? Does
YTC expect all existing content to be migrated, or does the College anticipate archiving or retiring content as part of
the project?
ANSWER:
Total pages: Approx 414 || Total documents/PDFs: Approx 860 || Total images: 779 || Total forms: 7 || Total
assets: 64 ||Total page templates: 7 || We do not know total URL redirects, but we would expect those to be
maintained. || We expect all content to be migrated, but certain assets may not be necessary as we discuss what
the vendor offers.
6. Website traffic and capacity: Could YTC provide approximate average monthly page views, unique visitors, peak
concurrent traffic, and any known seasonal traffic spikes? This will help vendors appropriately size hosting, CDN,
database, disaster-recovery, and capacity requirements.
ANSWER:
Average monthly page views: 145,000 || Average monthly users: 33,000 || Approximately 180 to 300 users at any
given time during hours of operation. || August sees increased traffic. March and January also see smaller levels
of increased traffic.
7. Sites and domains: How many websites, sub-sites, domains, and subdomains are expected to be managed through the
proposed CMS? Does YTC anticipate additional sites or domains during the initial contract period?
ANSWER:
3

We have other sites used at the college, but they each belong to their own manager with their own CMS. We do
not anticipate subsites or subdomains during the initial contract period.
8. Content administrators: Approximately how many CMS users does YTC anticipate across administrators, editors,
reviewers, publishers, and departmental content owners?
ANSWER:
We have one person who uses the site daily and a backup for that person. While we only have two people who
work in the site, we do need to option to add many more. Our current user list has 21 people with varying levels
of access as we sometimes expand the team for big web projects.
9. Modern Campus migration access: Will the selected vendor receive administrative/export/API access to the existing
Modern Campus environment to facilitate automated content extraction and migration? Are existing content
inventories or export utilities available?
ANSWER:
Yes they will receive administrative access. The content inventory lives within the site, and the CMS does have
an export function.
10. Integrations: Please identify the integrations considered mandatory for the initial implementation. In particular, should
vendors include production integrations with Ellucian Colleague and Brightspace/D2L in the base proposal, or should
the proposal demonstrate the CMS's capability to integrate with these systems for future implementation?
ANSWER:
The college has shifted to Coursedog and Element 451 as primary systems. Colleague and Brightspace will not
need integration. For implementation, we are more interested in a vendor's ability to integrate. While the
situation may change, we do not anticipate integration being mandatory.
11. Integration interfaces: For integrations expected during initial implementation, can YTC identify available APIs, data
feeds, authentication methods, middleware, or other supported integration mechanisms?
ANSWER:
We do not have specific integrations in mind at this time but would like to hear from vendors what is possible,
and potential examples of what may make sense for our institution
12. Authentication: The RFP references Active Directory/ADFS. Can YTC confirm the identity platform currently used
for CMS administrators and whether SAML 2.0 and/or OpenID Connect integration is available? Is MFA currently
enforced through YTC's identity provider?
ANSWER:
For our current CMS, administrators log directly into the product using separate credentials. For the future
solution, we would prefer administrators to authenticate through Microsoft Entra ID single sign-on (SSO) and
multifactor authentication as we have recently moved away from ADFS.
13. Hosting/data residency: The RFP requires U.S.-based hosting and includes security requirements concerning U.S.-
based data processing and support. Can YTC clarify whether all personnel with potential administrative or support
access to YTC data must be physically located within the United States, including subcontractor and cloud-provider
support personnel?
ANSWER:
Where admin and support personnel are not located within the US, the vendor must identify where support
personnel are located as part of their technical proposal, and if accepted, agree to update YTC when changes
are being proposed. Website and associated data must be located within the U.S.
14. Accessibility baseline: Which accessibility standard should vendors treat as the contractual acceptance baseline at go-
live-for example, WCAG 2.1 AA, WCAG 2.2 AA, Section 508, or another specified standard? The RFP requests
compliance with the most up-to-date accessibility standards.
ANSWER:
The Department of Justice ruling states that by April 26, 2027, we must be compliant with WCAG 2.1, Level
AA.
4

15. Existing accessibility remediation: Does YTC expect the selected vendor to remediate accessibility issues contained
within all migrated legacy content and documents/PDFs, or should vendors identify and report legacy accessibility
issues for prioritization with YTC?
ANSWER:
We do not expect the vendor to remediate, but if that is an option, we would be interested in hearing about the
cost.
16. E-commerce requirement: Please clarify whether e-commerce capability is required or desired/optional for the
proposed solution, and whether implementation of e-commerce functionality is expected within the initial project
scope.
ANSWER:
E-commerce is not required. It is optional and e-commerce functionality is not expected.
17. Forms: Approximately how many existing website forms are expected to be migrated or recreated? Are forms
primarily informational/contact forms, or do any involve payments, sensitive information, authenticated workflows, or
integrations with institutional systems?
ANSWER:
We have 7 forms right now. Forms are primarily interest forms where students submit information about
themselves to learn more about a program or offering. We have one form where students can report tips to our
law enforcement office. No payments are involved. We are looking to have a feature where a form submission
can automatically send an email or emails to specified individuals.
18. Events/calendar: Does YTC currently use an institutional calendar/event-management system that the new website
must integrate with, or should the proposed CMS provide the system of record for website events?
ANSWER:
While our CMS has a calendar, we have recently used Coursedog as an events calendar. We would prefer
integration with Coursedog. However, contracts can change so having an option to have our own calendar is
preferred.
19. Search: Does YTC expect a conventional site-search capability only, or may vendors propose semantic/AI-assisted
search in addition to conventional search? Are there existing search technologies or licensing arrangements that must
be retained?
ANSWER:
We do expect to have a search function. Our current CMS uses google search to show our pages. We would be
interested in seeing how an ai assisted search would function, but a traditional search is expected.
20. AI scope: For the AI capabilities identified in the RFP-accessibility improvement, multilingual translation, SEO
optimization, and content suggestions-does YTC expect these capabilities to be included in the base implementation
price, or may vendors identify certain AI capabilities as optional/add-on services?
ANSWER:
We would like to see an included price versus an optional add on service. Add on service is preferred because it
would enable us to pick and choose what resources we need.
21. Multilingual requirements: Are there specific languages YTC expects the initial website to support? If so, which
languages and approximately what percentage of website content is expected to be translated?
ANSWER:
There are no requirements at this time outside of English. The option for Spanish would be of value, though.
22. Disaster recovery: Does YTC have required minimum RTO and RPO targets that vendors should price against, or
should vendors propose their standard recovery objectives?
ANSWER:
RTO should be three hours or less. RPO should be 24 hours or less.
23. Support outside business hours: The RFP identifies YTC's standard business hours as Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM-5:00
PM EST. For critical production incidents outside those hours, does YTC require 24x7 human support/on-call
response, or may vendors propose an after-hours critical-incident support model?
5

ANSWER:
For critical production issues, YTC desires 24X7X365, call back within 1 hour, work until resolved.
24. Uptime and service credits: Does YTC have a required minimum production uptime SLA and/or required service-
credit structure, or should vendors propose their standard availability commitment and remedies?
ANSWER:
YTC requires a minimum production uptime commitment of 99.9%, measured monthly, excluding approved
scheduled maintenance. Vendors should describe their standard availability SLA, how uptime is calculated,
exclusions, monitoring and reporting practices, incident-notification requirements, and service-credit structure.
Proposed service credits and other remedies will be evaluated as part of the vendor's response.
25. Security testing: Does YTC expect the selected vendor to provide an independent third-party penetration test prior to
production launch and/or annually thereafter, or is vendor-performed vulnerability testing acceptable subject to YTC's
own security testing rights?
ANSWER:
Vendor vulnerability testing is acceptable. YTC reserves the right to perform its own vulnerability tests,
either using in-house resources or third party IT security firms.
26. Sandbox/demo environment: If an Offeror advances to Phase II, does YTC expect the requested sandbox environment
to contain a configured working CMS and representative proposed functionality, including integrations and AI
capabilities, or will representative/demo data and simulated integrations be acceptable? The RFP indicates the two
highest-ranked Offerors may be invited to a 90-minute demonstration.
ANSWER:
Configured working CMS is preferred, but a simulated integration will be acceptable as long as a sandbox
environment exists on the final product.
27. Training: Approximately how many administrators/editors should vendors assume will require training, and does YTC
prefer onsite, remote, or hybrid training?
ANSWER:
Anywhere from 2-5 people will require training, and remote is preferred.
28. Project schedule: Is there a desired production go-live date or academic/calendar event that vendors should design their
implementation schedule around?
ANSWER:
No, there is no go live date, but would want to avoid going live during peak times, including beginning of the
semester, August, January and June.
29. Budget: Has YTC established an anticipated budget range or not-to-exceed amount for the initial implementation
and/or five-year total cost of ownership?
ANSWER:
We do not provide budget information as part of RFPs.
30. Could you please share the primary challenges or pain points currently experienced with the existing Modern Campus
CMS that the College would like the new CMS solution to address?
ANSWER:
Lack of freedom when designing pages. Within our templates, we are constrained to specific options within our
layouts. There are several mid-level accessibility issues within the source code on countless pages. The
opportunity to have more formatting options is critical.
31. Could you please clarify whether you are open to continuing with Modern Campus if the proposed solution meets the
RFP requirements, or whether you prefer to migrate to a different CMS platform, such as WordPress or Drupal? If a
different platform is preferred, are vendors encouraged to recommend the CMS they believe best meets your
requirements?
ANSWER:
We are open to both continuing with modern campus and hearing about different CMS that can meet the needs.
6

32. Could you please provide the anticipated implementation schedule or desired go-live date for the project?
ANSWER:
No, there is no go live date, but would want to avoid going live during peak times, including beginning of the
semester, August, January and June.
33. Could you please share the estimated budget or budget range for this project, if available?
ANSWER:
We do not provide budget information.
34. Approximately how many websites, pages, and digital assets are expected to be migrated to the new CMS?
ANSWER:
Total pages: Approx 414 || Total documents/PDFs: Approx 860 || Total images: 779 || Total forms: 7 || Total
assets: 64 ||Total page templates: 8 || We do not know total URL redirects, but we would expect those to be
maintained. || We expect all content to be migrated, but certain assets may not be necessary as we discuss what
the vendor offers.
35. Are there any required third-party system integrations beyond Google Analytics that vendors should include in their
proposals?
ANSWER:
The College has recently brought Coursedog and Element 451 on board. Integration with those systems is not
mandatory, but is preferred. We have also recently brought on Yuja Equalground and are working to integrate
that for accessibility purposes.
36. Could you please provide any anticipated hosting requirements, such as storage capacity, expected traffic volumes,
uptime expectations, or other hosting specifications that would assist vendors in preparing accurate pricing?
ANSWER:
Average monthly page views: 145,000 || Average monthly users: 33,000 || Approximately 180 to 300 users at any
given time during hours of operation. Hosting needs to include maintaining platform at secure levels of software
without having to receive requests from YTC to update software or apply patches.
37. Is a website redesign expected as part of this project, or should vendors assume the existing design and information
architecture will be retained during the CMS migration?
ANSWER:
No redesign is expected for this RFP.
38. What is driving this project? Is it a routine contract expiration, dissatisfaction with the current vendor or CMS,
regulatory issues, or something else?
ANSWER:
Routine contract expiration and need for greater accessibility compliance.
39. Is there a target launch date? Is it tied to an event or deadline, like a fiscal year or expiration?
ANSWER:
No, there is no go live date, but would want to avoid going live during peak times, including beginning of the
semester, August, January and June.
40. We see similar RFPs with budgets ranging from $50K to six figures. Where in that range are you expecting to fall?
ANSWER:
We do not provide budget information.
41. What is your current annual spend on hosting and support for the site?
ANSWER:
We do not provide budget information.
42. Is there an organizational preference for open source vs. a proprietary CMS?
7

ANSWER:
The College does not have a preference for an open-source or proprietary CMS. Proposed solutions will be
evaluated based on their ability to meet the RFP requirements, including functionality, security, accessibility,
reliability, vendor support, implementation approach, and total cost of ownership.
43. Is there a preference for any specific CMS? If yes, is that preference driven by familiarity, budget, perceived technical
superiority or ease of use, or some other factor?
ANSWER:
No specific preference, but technical superiority and ease of use are important factors we are considering.
44. Google has indexed about 1,900 pages and 100 PDFs on the site. Is that an accurate estimate of the migration LOE?
Does the site search need to index the contents of pdf / Doc files?
ANSWER:
We should only have around 440 pages and 800 PDFs
45. Please describe all third-party systems that integrate with the website via an API or an automated data import/export.
ANSWER:
We are unaware of any at this time.
46. Will single sign-on be used to control administrative access to the site? If yes, please elaborate.
ANSWER:
For our current CMS, administrators log directly into the product using separate credentials. For the future
solution, we would prefer administrators to authenticate through Microsoft Entra ID single sign-on (SSO) and
multifactor authentication.
47. What 3rd party tools, if any, are used to monitor and manage accessibility on the site.
ANSWER:
The College just brought on Yuja Equalground.
48. Please provide average monthly and peak page views over the last year.
ANSWER:
Average monthly page views: 145,000 || Views peaked at 1,912,605 over the last year.
49. What are the data storage requirements (files, database, etc) for the site?
ANSWER:
As our current CMS offering is SaaS & hosted by DataBank, I can only see the hosted portion is consuming
36GB of storage.
50. Do you currently have a CDN and/or a WAF in place in your hosting infrastructure?
ANSWER:
The college does not independently manage a content delivery network (CDN) or web application firewall
(WAF) for the current website. Any CDN or WAF capabilities currently in place are provided and managed as
part of the existing hosted solution at DataBank.
51. How many different structured data types exist in the current site?
ANSWER:
The College has not completed a formal inventory of the structured data types used on the current website. The
selected vendor should evaluate the existing site during discovery and identify the content types, templates,
metadata, and structured-data markup that should be migrated, redesigned, or created within the proposed
solution.
52. Please describe how content is stored in the current CMS. Is content structured in a database with distinct fields in each
content type, or is all the content essentially in a "content" field?
ANSWER:
8

Content on pages is placed into specified content fields. Image and document content that is linked or displays
on pages lives in specific folders elsewhere on the site.
53. Please confirm that one design theme will carry across the entire site. If we need sub-themes of any type, please
specify.
ANSWER:
One design will carry across the site
54. Are there any AI-related policies that we should be aware of?
ANSWER:
We can provide our vision statement but don't believe this is anything we need other than a statement that
states if something is generated by AI.
55. Are you interested in website tools that will enhance the user experience (search, chatbots, etc) using AI?
ANSWER:
We are open to recommendations provided. We currently have a chatbot from on our site powered by
Element451.
Platform and scope
56. The College's intent to replace the incumbent CMS outright, or will proposals that re-implement and modernize on the
current platform also be considered?
ANSWER:
Proposals that re-implement and modernize will be considered.
57. Will proposals built on open-source platforms (WordPress, Drupal) be evaluated on equal footing with proprietary
higher-education CMS products, or does the College have a stated platform preference?
ANSWER:
Yes. Proposals based on open-source and proprietary platforms will be evaluated on equal footing. The College
does not have a stated platform preference. All proposals will be evaluated against the requirements and
evaluation criteria in the solicitation, including functionality, security, accessibility, support, implementation
approach, vendor experience, scalability, and total cost of ownership.
58. Does the current CMS license or hosting agreement expire on a fixed date that constrains the cutover schedule?
ANSWER:
The current contract expires in November.
59. Beyond the main site, which additional properties are in scope - departmental subsites, the Foundation, athletics, or
standalone microsites? A list of in-scope domains and subdomains would help us size the work accurately.
ANSWER:
Any additional sites are on their own contract with their own vendor. There are no subdomains to be included
in this proposal.
Integrations
60. Please confirm the student information system and version. Is real-time integration to the public website required
(program data, application status, account lookups), or is linking to existing portals sufficient?
ANSWER:
We use Element 451. I don't believe it has a specific version. Real-time integration is not required. Linking to
existing portals is sufficient. If real-time integration is possible, we would be interested in seeing what it looks
like.
61. Will CourseDog remain the system of record for programs and courses? If so, is the vendor expected to consume its
API to render program pages natively in the CMS, or will the College continue linking out to the hosted catalog?
ANSWER:
9

Coursedog will remain the system for the time being. We plan to link out to the catalog. If pages can be
rendered natively, we would be interested in seeing what that looks like.
62. Are SimpleSyllabus and the SharePoint employee portal in scope for integration, or explicitly out of scope?
ANSWER:
Out of scope.
63. Which identity provider does the College use for staff authentication, and is SAML or OIDC single sign-on with MFA
required for CMS authors? Is any gated or authenticated content required on the public site?
ANSWER:
For our current CMS, administrators log directly into the product using separate credentials. For the future
solution, we would prefer administrators to authenticate through Microsoft Entra ID single sign-on (SSO) and
multifactor authentication.
64. Is the emergency alert and notification banner in scope, and which system feeds it?
ANSWER:
Yes. This feature is essential. Currently, it is a feature that exists within our current CMS. We create an alert,
publish it, and it appears on our site until we delete it.
65. What platform currently powers site search, and does the College want search delivered by the CMS or retained with
an external provider?
ANSWER:
We use Google for the search function. We are fine continuing with Google, but we would be interested in
seeing how it would work delivered by the CMS.
66. What is the current web forms platform, and do forms need to post to a CRM or to the SIS?
ANSWER:
We currently use forms in Modern Campus CMS. We are looking to migrate those to our Element 451 system
as soon as possible. The plan is to embed them into a webpage. We also use forms through Monday.com for
certain internal requests. We embed those forms into the page. We plan to continue with this structure, but a
forms feature that can integrate with these platforms is a plus.
67. Approximately how many webpages and subsites are included in the migration?
ANSWER:
Approximately 440 webpages included in the migration. I am not sure what subsites references.
68. Will all existing content be migrated, or will York Technical archive or remove content Prior to migration?
ANSWER:
All existing content will likely be migrated. York Tech may remove some files or pages prior to migration, but if
this occurs, it will be a negligible percentage of the overall migration.
69. Can the College provide a list of all systems that will require integration with the new CMS.
ANSWER:
No systems that are required, but Google Analytics, Yuja Equalground, Element 451, and Coursedog are
preferred.
70. Approximately how many CMS administrators and content editors will require training?
ANSWER:
Two at minimum. We do not anticipate more than five.
71. Which WCAG accessibility standard and conformance level is required?
ANSWER:
The Department of Justice ruling states that by April 26, 2027, we must be compliant with WCAG 2.1, Level
AA.
10