Transcription
ADDENDUM #3 FOR RFP 107‐1850‐14(Implementation Contractor for DOJ Child Support System Modernization Project)The purpose of this Addendum #3 to Request for Proposals 107‐1850‐14 (“RFP”) is to: (A) respond toadditional questions posed by the prospective Proposers, and (B) extend the Solicitation ProtestDeadline Date by one (1) week to August 13, 2014. Additional requests, questions and protest itemsmay be submitted through this new deadline.A.RESPONSES TO SUPPLIER QUESTIONS1.The purpose of this Section A. is to reflect the completed responses to additional questionsfrom Suppliers. Nearly 100 questions were timely submitted by the submission deadline of July 28,2014. The Agency slightly reduced the total number of questions by appropriately combining relatedquestions into a single question and by eliminating duplicate questions. In Addendum #2, the Agencyresponded to 44 of the submitted questions.2.The responses addressed general questions and questions posed for particular RFP Sectionsand Attachments, including RFP Attachment E, the Sample Contract. Concerning Attachment E, theAgency provided some relief by adding selected provisions for negotiation to the list of negotiableitems reflected in RFP Section 6.2. Agency denied relief on other requests with a brief explanation ora simple “NO”. Many of these denials were the result of insufficient justification or mere referencesto non‐specific relief granted in “other state contracts” with little or no explanation sufficient for theAgency to exercise due diligence in drawing any favorable comparisons to the unnamed “other statecontracts”. Concerning these denials, the submitting prospective Proposers, or any other MPPC‐participating prospective Proposers, are encouraged to resubmit the requests, and any additionalrequests for relief, by the solicitation protest deadline.3.In Addendum #3, the Agency has provided responses to all of the remaining questionssubmitted to date.B.SOLICITATION PROTESTS1.The current solicitation protest deadline is August 6, 2014, by 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time. Throughthis Addendum #3, the Agency is extending the solicitation protest deadline by one (1) week toAugust 13, 2014, at 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time. The extension will provide reasonable time for theprospective Proposers to review new material made available in the Procurement Document Library,and the Agency’s responses to additional questions as reflected in this Addendum #3.2.Additional requests, questions and protest items may be submitted up to the date and timethis new deadline.3.The RFP addresses the manner and means for the submission of protests in RFP Section 2.6.“2.6PROTEST OF RFPThis is prospective Proposers’ only opportunity to protest the provisions of this RFP,including but not limited to, the RFP process, specifications, scope of work,requirements and contract terms and conditions.Prospective Proposers may submit a written protest of anything contained in theRFP. Prospective Proposers must submit protests to the Single Point of Contactidentified on the cover page of this RFP by the deadline specified in Section 1.3 ofthis RFP. DAS‐PS will not consider any RFP protest received after this deadline.Protests must include:(a)The identity of the prospective Proposer;(b)A clear reference to this RFP #107‐1850‐14;(c)The specific document, section and page number of the protest;1 P a g eAddendum #3 to RFP 107-1850-14 CSEAS IM Contractor
(d)Reason for the protest, including the grounds that demonstrate how theprocurement process is contrary to law or how the RFP is unnecessarilyrestrictive, is legally flawed or improperly specifies a brand name andevidence or supporting documentation that supports the grounds on whichthe protest is based;(e)Proposed changes to the RFP provisions, including Statement ofWork or Contract Terms and Conditions or other relief sought; and any otherrequired input set out in ORS 279B.405(4) and OAR 125‐247‐0730.DAS‐PS will address all timely submitted protests within a reasonable timefollowing DAS‐PS’s receipt of the protest and will issue a written decision to theprospective Proposer who submitted the protest; OR to all prospective Proposersthrough Addenda when DAS‐PS determines that such responses are relevant to allprospective Proposers.Protests that do not include the required information will not be considered byDAS‐PS. DAS‐PS will only receive written protests submitted to the Procurement’sSingle Point of Contact via electronic mail transmission.FN13 The Single Point of Contact will confirm receipt of emailed clarification questions and protests via emailreply. Prospective Proposers must follow‐up with the Single Point of Contact via a telephone call in the eventthey do not receive the Single Point of Contact’s confirmation email within one (1) business day fromsubmission.”C.ADDENDUM #3 CONCLUSIONNicholas Betsacon remains as the assigned SPC for this procurement.Nicholas Betsacon, Senior Operations and Policy AnalystOregon Department of Administrative ServicesState Procurement Office1225 Ferry St. SE. U140Salem, OR 97301‐4285Phone: (503) 378‐3052Fax: (503) 373‐1626E‐mail: nicholas.betsacon@oregon.govTHIS ADDENDUM #3 DOES CHANGE THE DATE FOR THE DEADLINE FOR SOLICITATION PROTESTS,NOW AUGUST 13, 2014, BY 5:00 P.M. PT, BUT DOES NOT CHANGE THE CURRENT CLOSING DATESEPTEMBER 17, 2014, AT 3:30 P.M. PACIFIC TIME.‐END‐2 P a g eAddendum #3 to RFP 107-1850-14 CSEAS IM Contractor
CSEAS IM Contractor Prospective Proposer Questions and Answers for RFP #107-1850-14, Addendum #3Section ofthe RFPQuestion PosedState’s Answer1RFP AttachmentC, SOW, SectionC ‐ Tasks, 1.1DeliverableThe first bullet states "Identify the recommended tools to be usedfor ALM and SCM". Could the state please clarify if the IMC isresponsible for conducting a detailed tool analysis to select arecommended tool or does the state already have a recommendedlist of tool in mind?YES, THE IMC IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONDUCTING A DETAILED TOOL ANALYSISTO SELECT A RECOMMENDED TOOL. THE AGENCY CURRENTLY USESMICROSOFT TEAM FOUNDATION SERVER. HOWEVER, ON BEHALF OF THESTATE, THE AGENCY IS RELYING ON EACH PROPOSER TO EXERCISE ITSDISCRETION TO DETERMINE THE TOOLS NECESSARY TO DELIVER THEREQUIRED SERVICES WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE APPLICABLE RFPREQUIREMENTS AND INFORMATION. AGENCY EXPECTS THE PROPOSERS’RECOMMENDATION TO REFLECT THEIR EXPERTISE IN THE INDUSTRY ANDEXPERIENCE IN DELIVERING PROJECTS OF THIS SIZE AND COMPLEXITY.2RFP Section 1.2,RFP AttachmentC, SOWIn Section 1.2(c) on page 12, item 1 indicates that "required servicesshould be completed within five (5) years of contract execution."However, in Section 1.2(h) on page 17, the phases of the project aredescribed as being a four (4) years followed by a two (2) yearwarranty, operations and certification period, totaling 6 years,which also aligns with other schedule references in Attachment C(e.g., paragraph 3 on page 13). Is it correct to assume that thepresumptive total period for the contract is six (6) years?YES, FOR PURPOSES OF PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT AND SUBMISSION, IT ISCORRECT TO ASSUME THAT THE PRESUMPTIVE TOTAL PERIOD FOR THECONTRACT IS SIX (6) YEARS.3RFP AttachmentC, SOW, Task 7 ‐Construction,Task 12 ‐ImplementationIn providing the cost estimates for the Development, Test andProduction Environments for these tasks (deliverables 7.4 and 12.6),are the estimated hardware/software costs to be included or onlythe cost of services associated with the planning, acquisition, andconfiguration assistance for establishing those environments? If theproposer is to provide the estimated hardware/software cost, howshould we do so with the current initial cost template?PLEASE PROVIDE THE TOTAL PROPOSED COSTS, INCLUDING COSTS FORHARDWARE/SOFTWARE. TOTAL PROPOSED HARDWARE/SOFTWARE COSTSHOULD BE INCLUDED ON THE RFP ATTACHMENT H COVER PAGE IN THE CELLENTITLED “PROJECT TOTAL”. THAT CELL WILL REFLECT THE SUM OF ALLCOSTS PROPOSED IN THE WORKSHEETS FOLLOWED BY THE PHRASE “PLUSTHE TOTAL PROPOSED HARDWARE/SOFTWARE COST OF .” THEAGENCY WILL REQUIRE UNBUNDLING OF “TOTAL PROPOSED COST” ITEMSDURING CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE PROPOSER SELECTED FOR3 P a g eAddendum #3 to RFP 107-1850-14 CSEAS IM Contractor
CSEAS IM Contractor Prospective Proposer Questions and Answers for RFP #107-1850-14, Addendum #3Section ofthe RFPQuestion PosedState’s AnswerCONTRACT AWARD, OR WITH COMPETITIVE RANGE PROPOSERS DURING ABEST AND FINAL OFFER PROCESS OR OTHER SUPPLEMENTAL EVALUATIONPROCESS; OR BOTH.4Feasibility StudySection 6.6,RequirementsTraceabilityMatrixReferencing the Imaging and Document Generation requirements,does the State anticipate purchasing/implementing entirely newsoftware solutions in support of these requirements, or is thevendor expected to implement these requirements using existingsolutions already in place (e.g., use of Thunderhead for documentgeneration)? Within the procurement library the DocumentGeneration Description includes the statement "To the extent any ofour existing forms tools can assist in building a new formsgeneration tool they may be used." Without understanding the fullarchitecture, capabilities and capacity of the current solution(s),how will vendors determine whether a new solution is required orwhether an existing solution can be implemented/enhanced tomeet rement1187This requirement dictates that "The solution to all technicalrequirements for the modernized system must conform to State ofOregon standards for architecture, system development andoperations." Please provide a copy of the State of Oregonarchitecture, system development and operation standards to whichthe solution must conform. For example, section 4.1.2.4 of theFeasibility Study (page 52) references the existence of an AppendixC and specifically "The Oregon Technologies Menu".CONCERNING IMAGING, THE AGENCY DOES NOT ANTICIPATE PURCHASING ANEW SOFTWARE SOLUTION. CONCERNING DOCUMENT GENERATION, THESTATE IS RELYING ON THE IMC TO DESIGN, DEVELOP, AND IMPLEMENT ANEW SOLUTION BASED ON THE DOCUMENT GENERATION MODULE FROMTHE MICHIGAN SYSTEM. SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION FOR THE CALIFORNIA,MICHIGAN, AND NEW JERSEY SYSTEMS AT ISSUE ARE AVAILABLE IN THEPROCUREMENT DOCUMENT LIBRARY.Oregon Technologies MenuCategoryOperating SystemOregon options z/OS (Mainframe) AIX (mid-range) MS Windows Server (Wintel)4 P a g eAddendum #3 to RFP 107-1850-14 CSEAS IM Contractor
CSEAS IM Contractor Prospective Proposer Questions and Answers for RFP #107-1850-14, Addendum #3Section ofthe RFPQuestion PosedState’s AnswerHardware Platform Mainframe (IBM z-Series)Mid-range (IBM p-Series)Intel Processor (aka Wintel)Application Server / Framework / ExecutionEnvironment Microsoft .NETOracleJBOSSWebSphereAjax Web-frameworkDatabase Technology DB2 (Mainframe/Mid-range)Oracle (Mid-range)SQL Server (Wintel)Programming Language(s) .NET (C , C# or VB.NET)Java5 P a g eAddendum #3 to RFP 107-1850-14 CSEAS IM Contractor
CSEAS IM Contractor Prospective Proposer Questions and Answers for RFP #107-1850-14, Addendum #3Section ofthe RFP67Question PosedState’s AnswerRFP AttachmentC, SOW, Task11: TechnicalTraining andKnowledgeTransferAttachment C states "At a minimum the following DOJ technicalstaff roles will be included in the Technical Training and KnowledgeTransfer Task." Can the state please provide an estimated numberby role of the required amount of individuals that will need to havetechnical training?EXCEPT FOR THE ROLE OF “TESTER” THE AGENCY PROVIDES AN ESTIMATED“MINIMUM” NUMBER OF PERSONNEL (IN PARENTHESES) BY ROLE nt1252The requirement states that the system must provide a single sign‐on and authentication scheme with a unified user repository for allcore System users (DOJ/DCS and DA) and partners. Could the stateplease clarify if currently there is a unified user repository for allcore System users that the vendor is supposed to leverage, orwhether the state expects the vendor to create one as part of thisproject? Additionally, does the state already have a recommendedtechnology in mind (e.g., LDAP)?TECHNOLOGY TEAM MANAGERS (3)TEAM LEAD ‐ DATA BASE ADMINISTRATORS (2)TEAM LEAD – APPLICATIONS ARCHITECTS (3)PROGRAMMER ANALYSTS (24)TEAM LEAD – SERVER ADMINISTRATOR (1)SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATORS (4)SYSTEMS ANALYST (1)TEAM LEAD – NETWORK ADMINISTRATOR (1)NETWORK ANALYST (1)NETWORK SECURITY ADMINISTRATOR (1)TEAM LEAD CUSTOMER SERVICE/HELP DESK (1)CUSTOMER SERVICE ANALYSTS (10)BUSINESS ANALYSTS (8)THE AGENCY CURRENTLY USES ACTIVE DIRECTORY FOR A UNIFIED USERREPOSITORY. THE AGENCY EXPECTS TO CONTINUE USING ACTIVE DIRECTORYFOR CHILD SUPPORT PROGRAM USERS, IN CONJUNCTION WITH A SINGLESIGN‐ON SOLUTION PROPOSED BY THE VENDOR SELECTED FOR CONTRACTAWARD AS THE CSEAS IM CONTRACTOR.6 P a g eAddendum #3 to RFP 107-1850-14 CSEAS IM Contractor
CSEAS IM Contractor Prospective Proposer Questions and Answers for RFP #107-1850-14, Addendum #3Section ofthe RFPQuestion PosedState’s 264, 1273The system must be capable of routinely monitoring access and useincluding both successful and unsuccessful system access. Theserequirements indicate that the system must facilitate complianceaudit, logging and reporting using standardized mechanisms. Couldthe state please clarify if it currently owns a Security Information &Event Management (SIEM) tool, or whether the state expects thevendor to propose one for this project?THE STATE CURRENTLY OWNS MCAFEE SIEM TOOLS. THE AGENCY’SPREFERENCE IS TO LEVERAGE ITS CURRENT SIEM TOOLS FOR USE WITHTHE NEW 1266The system must accommodate a future implementation of twofactor authentication and be flexible in supporting access tokensand/or biometric information. The state has indicated that two‐factor authentication will be implemented in the future; could thestate please clarify if it expects case workers to be able to accessCSEAS 2.0 remotely from outside the state network?NO, CASE WORKERS WILL NOT HAVE REMOTE ACCESS TO CSEAS 2.0 OUTSIDEOF THE DOJ NETWORK.10RFP AttachmentC, SOW, Task12:ImplementationDoes the state have a System Security Plan (SSP) or a SafeguardSecurity Report (SSR) for the current solution? Are their existinginfrastructure controls from the current solution that will beleveraged in CSEAS 2.0?AN SSP DOES NOT EXIST FOR THE CURRENT SYSTEM.11GeneralQuestionsDoes the State have a preference for the technology stack for thenew system? If so, could we know what this is?THE AGENCY HAS SSR AND CAP (CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN, A DOCUMENTTHAT IS USED TO IDENTIFY HOW THE AGENCY WILL MEET A NOTEDDEFICIENCY) FOR THE CURRENT SYSTEM (WHICH ALL CHILD SUPPORTSYSTEMS MUST HAVE FOR COMPLIANCE WITH IRS AUDIT REQUIREMENTS).THE DETERMINATION OF THE EXISTING AGENCY INFRASTRUCTURE /SECURITY CONTROLS AS APPROPRIATE MEASURES TO LEVERAGE FOR THENEW SYSTEM IS A QUESTION FOR RESOLUTION THROUGH PLANNED JTDSESSIONS WITH THE IM CONTRACTOR.AGENCY DOES NOT HAVE A PREFERENCE BUT WILL RELY ON THE EXPERIENCEOF THE PROPOSER TO PROPOSE A BEST VALUE SOLUTION BASED ON THESYSTEMS WE ARE TRANSFERRING FROM CALIFORNIA, MICHIGAN AND NEW7 P a g eAddendum #3 to RFP 107-1850-14 CSEAS IM Contractor
CSEAS IM Contractor Prospective Proposer Questions and Answers for RFP #107-1850-14, Addendum #3Section ofthe RFPQuestion PosedState’s AnswerJERSEY. AGENCY EXPECTS THE PROPOSERS’ RECOMMENDATION TO REFLECTTHEIR EXPERTISE IN THE INDUSTRY AND EXPERIENCE IN DELIVERINGPROJECTS OF THIS SIZE AND COMPLEXITY.PLEASE SEE RESPONSE TO ITEM # 5 FOR ENTERPRISE IT STANDARDS. THENEW SYSTEM WILL BE DEVELOPED IN N‐TIERED ENVIRONMENT USINGSEPARATION OF CONCERNS THAT FACILITATE A SYSTEM THAT IS FLEXIBLEAND SCALABLE AS DESCRIBED IN THE IAPD.12GeneralQuestionsWhat is CIO's technology vision for the New system ‐ what are theenterprise IT Standards (Hardware, Software,Application/Web/Database Servers, Security, Data/InformationManagement, Application Dev, Network etc.)13GeneralQuestionsWhat is the composition of the IT support group for the ChildSupport Applications? How many resources are allocated, plan to beallocated and what are their skill‐sets/training plansTHE AGENCY DOES NOT BELIEVE THIS INFORMATION IS NECESSARY TODEVELOP AND SUBMIT RESPONSIVE PROPOSALS.14GeneralQuestionsWhat is the most commonly used technology stack in the DOJ. Weare assuming the Child Support is part of the DOJ.CHILD SUPPORT IS PART OF THE DOJ. THE MOST COMMON TECHNOLOGYSTACK IN THE DOJ IS MICROSOFT WINDOWS, .NET AND SQL SERVER.15GeneralQuestionsAt the outset, we wish to state that we do not mean to offend ordisclaim the thoroughness of the process you undertook to createthis RFP. We are sincerely interested in Oregon receiving the bestvalue for the immense effort that will be expended in the building ofthis system. Our concerns, expressed in the following paragraphs,are based on our desire for Oregon to not limit its choices whilelooking to spend several tens of millions of dollars on replacing acertified system.THANK YOU FOR YOUR EXPRESSED CONCERN. WE ACCEPT ITS SUBMISSIONAS A SINCERE DESIRE TO ASSIST THE AGENCY IN THIS PROJECT. AT ITS CORE,THIS SUBMISSION APPEARS TO REQUEST PERMISSION TO SUBMIT ANALTERNATIVE SOLUTION TO THE REQUIRED HYBRID SOLUTION. THE AGENCYHAS ALREADY GRANTED SUCH REQUEST AND INDICATED THE MANNER INWHICH ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS MAY BE SUBMITTED AND CONSIDERED BYTHE AGENCY. PLEASE REFER TO THE AGENCY’S RESPONSE TO ITEM #5 INADDENDUM #3 TO THE RFP.Oregon has selected CCSAS as the baseline transfer system withadditional components from MI & NJ. Top‐notch integrators like uswould like to bid on this. However, our limitations are that we donot know of your understanding of the differences between CCSASTHE AGENCY’S DECISION TO PURSUE THE SUBJECT HYBRID SOLUTION AS THEMEANS TO CREATE CSEAS 2.0 IS WELL DOCUMENTED IN THE FEASIBILITYSTUDY REPORT AND IMPLEMENTATION ADVANCE PLANNING DOCUMENT,BOTH OF WHICH ARE AVAILABLE IN THE PROCUREMENT DOCUMENT8 P a g eAddendum #3 to RFP 107-1850-14 CSEAS IM Contractor
CSEAS IM Contractor Prospective Proposer Questions and Answers for RFP #107-1850-14, Addendum #3Section ofthe RFPQuestion PosedState’s Answerand other prominent Child Support systems in the country. Whenwe respond to your RFP which consists of hundreds ofrequirements, we do not have a point‐of‐reference: as youevaluated CA, MI & NJ, requirement by requirement, which State’sfunctionality did you see as the best fit and why? By looking at yourscores (if made available) we may know which one you chose, butwe also need to know why, in detail. Then we can tell you not onlyhow we plan to implement that specific desirable feature that yousaw in any of these states, but also how we plan to enhance it forOregon.LIBRARY.THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FORAPPROVING FEDERAL FUNDING FOR THE PROJECT, AND FOR OVERSIGHT OFPROJECT SUCCESS, HAS APPROVED THE AGENCY’S PURSUIT OF THE HYBRIDSOLUTION AS A VIABLE MEANS OF CREATING CSEAS 2.0. LIKEWISE, THESTATE OF OREGON CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICE, LEGISLATIVE FISCAL OFFICE,AND PROCUREMENT SERVICES DIVISION HAVE THUS FAR APPROVEDAGENCY’S PURSUIT OF THE HYBRID SOLUTION.WE ARE HOPEFUL THAT YOU WILL CONTINUE TO ENGAGE THE STATE OFOREGON IN THIS OPPORTUNITY.It is here that you can get the best value for your money. If providedwith information about what Oregon specifically liked and dislikedabout various systems, individual vendors could bring more to thetable than an existing system massaged to fit your requirements.They could bring to the table a proposal for a system that will bestimplement the features you need and customize and enhance thesefeatures for Oregon. They could also bring a wide variety of choicesfor such enhancements.By not providing this detailedunderstanding to the vendor community, Oregon risks limiting itselfto vendors who, for instance, have current or prior proximity toCCSAS but may not provide much value otherwise.It may not be adv
solutions already in place (e.g., use of Thunderhead for document generation)? Within the procurement library the Document Generation Description includes the statement "To the extent any of our existing forms tools can assist i
