page 1 of 1 pw, rfp 16-09 accenture response to rfi ... · pdf filesuite of application and...

of 1

From:Sent:To: PW, RFP 16-09Cc:Subject: Accenture Response to RFI Regarding RFP 16-09Attached for your consideration is the Accenture response to the Request for Information regarding the draft RFP 16‐09. Should you have any questions or concerns regarding this submission, please do not hesitate to contact me at

Regards,

This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any other use of the email by you is prohibited.

November 6, 2009

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare Division of Procurement Room 525 Health and Welfare Building Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120

Re: Request for Information Regarding RFP 16-09

Accenture is pleased to present our response to the Request for Information (RFI) regarding the soon to be issued RFP 16-09 – Information Technology Services for DPW’s Strategic Business Systems. We carefully reviewed the documentation provided and have prepared our response in conformance with the requirements of the RFI. Accenture appreciates the strategic importance of this procurement to DPW and the citizens of Pennsylvania and we appreciate the opportunity to share our perspectives with you.

Our objective in responding to your RFI request is to provide you with insight and perspective from our global portfolio of Human Services clients, many of whom find themselves facing very similar business and service challenges. Based on that experience and with our exposure to a wide variety of procurement and project strategies, we hope you will find our response helps you to:

Increase the likelihood that you receive bids that provide the service you want and need

Consider solution elements that can positively impact your business outcomes

Structure a procurement which:

o Increases competition

o Reduces overall cost of your program, reducing both contractor and state costs

o Improves the quality and adequacy of responses and services proposed

Accenture brings decades of public and private sector experience providing program management, planning and performance management, auditing and compliance, and management support for organization-wide programs throughout federal, state, and local governments. Accenture employs a disciplined project management approach that has been successfully used and refined throughout thousands of our prior engagements. Our approaches have proven effective in helping clients monitor, track and communicate project status, maintain the timeliness and quality of programs, and identify and resolve issues so that project scope, schedule, and budget are not impacted.

Accenture’s qualifications to support DPW in this effort are based on the combination of the following capabilities:

Understanding of and commitment to DPW’s vision, strategic and operational objectives, and culture

Experience of working collaboratively with state and county-level human service agencies in prior engagements to deliver quality work products

Extensive experience responding to a wide variety of procurements for similar services, with some key lessons learned regarding the structure and planning options

Extensive knowledge of human service information technology system requirements, including hands on experience with implementation and support of eligibility, child welfare, provider management, child support, and case management information systems

Commitment to improving outcomes and providing DPW with strategic insight into some of the best thinking from our global client base

Suite of application and infrastructure outsourcing (AO/IO) assets and tools designed to help improve effectiveness, reduce risk, and support performance management and accountability

Development and execution of a Family-Centric, Integrated Human Services delivery vision and framework that allows organizations to move beyond debating how and if delivery stovepipes can be broken down and focus on pragmatic solutions that can actually start the journey

Experience with project governance mechanisms and an established ability to develop, manage, and track complex organization-wide programs and outcomes

We are committed to support DPW to effectively achieve information technology project objectives and improve outcomes for Commonwealth citizens. We are confident that we have the scale, experience, tools, people, methodologies, and most importantly, the passion to help DPW successfully manage these activities.

We have provided several specific recommendations after our review of the draft RFP. Generally, we believe the RFP is clear and transparent in regards to the method of evaluation and the requirements of the vendors who would be responding. We believe that there are several modest, but important, changes that would increase competition, reduce cost, and improve quality, and our comments are very focused towards those issues.

RFP Section I-4 – Scope of Work

The division of responsibilities between the five lots as currently depicted in the RFP appears to offer limited incentive for the vendor for Lot 5 to achieve efficiencies. Additionally, the Statement of Work does not require strategic planning related to improved performance. Conversely, the IT consultant(s) for Lots 1-4 do not have an incentive to deliver efficiencies for a number of activities in their scope of work because they may not be directly responsible for implementing the solutions they design. For example, it appears that the Lot 5 vendor would be responsible for addressing defects produced by the Lot 1-4 vendor(s). We recommend that DPW request vendors to address their approach for realizing long-term efficiencies associated with the services provided in each lot. This approach provides DPW with insight into the vendor’s commitment to continuous improvement and ability to drive towards long-term efficiencies, increased enhancement capacity, and lower overall cost.

Help Desk operations are apparently siloed in each of the first four lots. Accenture recommends that DPW consider a more centralized Help Desk approach that seeks to gain synergies and improve customer service through consolidated operations and skill-based call routing where needed to address detailed end user questions. This could be included in Lot 5, or separated completely. While specific knowledge may be needed from Lot 1-4 vendors, it could be through a Tier 2, or Tier 3 responsibility, not a Tier 1 contact center responsibility.

RFP Section I-5 - External Factors

Accenture recommends that the Commonwealth reconsider contractual terms that reserve the right to terminate without cause, without penalty. Such an approach requires a responsible vendor to build in termination costs within their base pricing to protect against the risk of unplanned project termination. Personnel, infrastructure, and facility costs associated with unplanned termination can be significant. We recommend that DPW address this topic during contract negotiation. We have seen successful contracts structured around a reasonable notification timeframe, for example, that allows for demobilization to occur without increased billings. This could reduce total cost to DPW, without increasing risk, as termination without cause generally doesn’t happen overnight.

RFP Section I-7 - Type of Contracts

Overall, we see the application support market shifting away from simple cost reduction through labor arbitrage to an outcome driven approach. As a result, we are seeing our clients place a stronger focus on growth tied to their overall business priorities. We have seen this shift in focus with Accenture clients including State of Georgia, State of California, Diageo, Telus, Microsoft, Qinetiq, Telenor, and Ocean Spray. Accenture recommends that RFP respondents be required to address their vision for how their services are tied to achievement of overall business priorities.

Accenture also recommends that DPW move away from time and material, rate card pricing and move towards a service-level, outcome-based pricing schedule. Such an approach improves the alignment between vendor and DPW priorities and enables achievement of increased capacity for long-term application support. It incents the right behaviors from your vendor in achieving your business outcomes.

For example, Accenture provides application support services for the State of Texas Medicaid system. Accenture is supporting Texas Medicaid in increasing performance levels and controlling costs for the technology that supports the end-to-end processing of claims. This includes development and maintenance for more than 300 applications, along with data center operations, hardware and software procurement, network operations, and project management.

At contract inception, Accenture initially reduced outsourcing costs for the Texas Medicaid program by 20 percent, primarily with an optimized organizational structure that raised the quality of services and reduced rework through the Capability Maturity Model (CMMI) process. Through research and collaboration with state and federal groups, Accenture keeps abreast of impending legislation and proactively works with Texas Medicaid in planning technology changes, to help meet new requirements on time and cost-effectively. Utilizing an outcomes-focused pricing model, Accenture brought Texas Medicaid in compliance with requirements for national provider identification numbers ahead of deadline. Accenture also developed an integrated performance and portfolio management software platform to track testing, performance and time, as well as issues and risks. As a result, Texas Medicaid has full access to this real-time information on the status of all projects underway.

Finally, the envisioned contracting term of three years followed by the potential for two one-year extensions is a good contracting term that allows the vendor to amortize mobilization and de-mobilization costs over the term of the project. The Commonwealth may consider longer maintenance terms to allow the vendor to take advantage of efficiencies gained through process streamlining and standardization. This further reduces the cost to the Commonwealth and increases the throughput capacity of the team for application enhancements.

RFP Section I-18 – Economy of Preparation

We recognize that due to the potential for multiple awards, RFP requirements are replicated across Lots 1–4. Therefore, the RFP requires a vendor to duplicate responses for many similar requirements across Lots 1-4 should a vendor wish to propose on multiple lots. Accenture requests clarification about the intended requirement response structure for vendors who wish to propose on multiple lots. One suggestion is to have one section on general requirements that all respondents must respond to, such as PMO functions, and then have specific scope requirements for Lots 1-4 following the general section. Such an approach should streamline both proposal preparation and review.

Service Level Objective Expected Service Level

Minimum Service Level

% Projects on Schedule

Resolution Time Performance – Severity 1 Issues

% Successful Changes

This metric illustrates the percentage of projects which are completed on schedule or

prior to the scheduled completion date. The goal is to increase the percentage of 'on time' projects over time.

95% 90%

Resolution Time Performance by Severity measures the percentage of problems that are resolved within the pre-established targets for Severity 1 issues. The goal is to increase the percentage of problems resolved 'on time'.

90% resolved within 4 hours

85% resolved within 4 hours

% Successful Changes measures the percentage of the time that change requests are successfully implemented without the need for back out. This quality metric demonstrates the organizations ability to implement change without the need for back out, therefore minimizing overall costs associated with each change.

95% 90%

Page 5

RFP Section II-3.13 – Contract Standards

This section of the RFP places a strong emphasis on achievement of contractual Service Level Agreements (SLAs) and Service Level Objectives (SLOs). Accenture agrees that it is very important to have objective measures against which to assess project performance over time. SLAs and SLOs help to align provider priorities and behavior to DPW’s business priorities.

Based on our review of the SLAs and SLOs found in RFP Appendix UU, the scope of SLAs and SLOs are not sufficient to adequately assess the overall performance of the project and ensure the appropriate alignment of priorities. For example, the measures currently associated with Lots 1-4 do not address quality or the vendor’s ability meet the approved project schedule. Specific examples of SLA and SLO measures Accenture has used previously include:

Accenture recommends that vendors be asked to address the specific SLAs and SLOs they would envision providing within the scope of their services as part of their proposal. We wouldwelcome the opportunity to meet with DPW to discuss outcome-focused service level metrics we have used with other clients. Should DPW desire to review additional specific examples of SLAs and SLOs, we could provide them upon request.

RFP Section II-5 – Cost Proposal

Application Maintenance/Enhancement Services for the Child Welfare system in Lot 5 are specified to be 3,000 hours over a three year contractual term. If this does represent the required level of effort, as a practical matter, it will be difficult to align and manage skills for a ½ FTE commitment over the period. Accenture recommends that DPW readdress the anticipated level of application maintenance staffing devoted to the Child Welfare legacy system.

Overall, the current RFP pricing approach could be structured to more clearly focus on achievement of outcomes and long term efficiencies. As noted previously in our RFI response, Accenture’s experience shows that these types of arrangements can generate significant financial and non-financial benefits to DPW. The RFP, as currently written, seems to indicate a rate-driven pricing approach. Under such an approach, it would be difficult for a respondent focused on delivering high value to compete against a provider focused primarily on driving towards a low-cost per hour. Accenture recommends a pricing approach where rates and hours of effort are variables used in arriving at a price required to achieve a required business outcome.

A pricing approach tied to achievement of DPW’s business outcomes better aligns IT spend to achievement of agency mission and offers the following benefits:

Flexibility - Enables the vendor to access industry-leading people at the right place, at the right time, for a lower cost. This approach does not dictate the “how”; it gives vendors the opportunity to bring the best they have. It promotes less of a “vendorclient” relationship and more of a strategic partnership focused on strategic priorities.

Continuous Improvement and Innovation - Encourages the vendor to focus on continuous improvement and innovation and reduce investment in non-core processes and initiatives. This results in less rework, reduced cycle times, and long-term cost savings.

Leverages Industry Best Practice – Utilizes proven tools and processes of the provider and takes advantage of their ability to spread costs across their entire client base and leverages years of research and development (R&D) and integration.

Issue Avoidance - Improved visibility, transparency, reporting, forecasting, and planning enables the vendor to spot and address problems early before they become serious issues.

Improved Efficiency - High performing providers spend less time fixing and devote more time to building. Under this approach, the vendor is better able to support DPW’s achievement of strategic initiatives.

RFP Section III-4 – Criteria for Selection

As currently described, it is unclear from the RFP what DPW’s expectations are concerning use of off-shore and near-shore resources. For example, if a vendor is able to offset the 3% bonus for use of Pennsylvania resources through the use of lower cost off-shore/near-shore resources, it is unclear if this is an acceptable approach. With cost being a very high percentage, 35%, of the evaluation, it is highly likely that vendors will bid off-shore/near-shore resources in order to gain more points than the 3% bonus offers. In our experience, it is better for an RFP to be more specific about requiring onshore resources. For example, the State of Michigan requires the work to be performed in the state in their recent RFPs. Pennsylvania’s requirement needs to be clearly stated to the vendor community for an equitable evaluation.

Additionally, the current RFP appears to provide a significant advantage for the incumbent. Specifically:

Technical Skills - Required technical skills in the RFP are specified at the individual software package level of detail. Depending on the lot, this list of required team member technical skills can run on for multiple pages. Given the sheer number of packages identified, it will be difficult for a non-incumbent to identify sufficient numbers of skilled, available resources with the exact skills to unseat an incumbent who must currently have full coverage of all packages through their existing team. We recommend that the list be viewed as representative, and allow vendors to show how they can provide the service with a blended team that covers the skills needed to provide the service, aligned to the existing packages, but not view each one as a requirement for assigned staff. There are many code migration tools, for example, and staff that have used one, can easily pick up the changes from one package or version to another. We recommend you ask prospective vendors to provide their plan and approach for identifying and transitioning in key resources from the existing application portfolio. The organizational focus and approaches for personnel transitions should be part of the evaluated capability of vendors.

Key Resources - Key resources are identified in the draft RFP as first level managers. Theoretically, there is nothing preventing an incumbent from designating their entire delivery team as key resources. Furthermore, the skill set match of an incumbent’s key resources to their intended project role would be an exact fit because they are currently staffed in the role today. Competitors could be at a distinct proposal scoring disadvantage if they propose a lesser number of key resources in their response and the resources would not demonstrate the skill match of an incumbent’s key resources. We recommend that a pre-defined list of key resources be provided in the RFP that bidders are required to propose. These roles should be focused on the roles with the greatest impact on achievement of desired project outcomes. Vendors should be required to

provided a description of how they would source and select resources to populate the remainder of the project team.

Mobilization Costs – The incumbent will not have mobilization costs. According to the RFP, the successful vendor must establish a project location including office space, furniture, computers, office network infrastructure, copiers, and printers. Establishing a new office location presents a considerable up-front investment of time and expenses. It is assumed that the incumbent already has their facilities established and their furniture and equipment is probably fully expensed. Accenture recommends that DPW allow a new vendor to take over existing project facilities through the use of a transferable lease by the incumbent.

Transition Costs – The incumbent will have no transition cost which will enable them to deliver a comparable amount of non-transition work hours at a higher hourly rate for the same overall cost. Accenture recommends that DPW establish a pre-defined set of transition activities and require all bidders to cost these activities in their proposal or explain why there would be no costs. Also, we recommend that DPW de-emphasize transition costs in the overall cost evaluation weighting.

RFP Section IV-5 - Leveraging Existing Methodologies and Processes

The RFP currently states, “DPW is not seeking to add new services or to adopt new operational processes that an Offeror may want to introduce.” Accenture recommends DPW clarify this statement to be certain vendors understand the intent. Accenture’s application outsourcing experience gained at over 600 client organizations has resulted in development of many industry best practices and offerings that help to differentiate the quality and scope of services we are able to provide to organizations like DPW, and are essential for us to be able to commit to the service levels and outcomes required. We are very willing to use existing governance and oversight processes. We request DPW clarify more specifically what DPW does not want to change and the role in which vendor offerings and best practices may be proposed and leveraged on this project.

Conclusion

Accenture appreciates the opportunity DPW has provided for vendors to review the draft RFP. This review process helps to promote a fair and open procurement process that strives to provide excellent value to the citizens of Pennsylvania. We welcome ongoing discussions with DPW regarding the specific comments provided in our response so that vendors can provide the most appropriate pricing and value proposition for the subsequent procurement.

We look forward to discussing our response and answering any questions at your convenience. We will also be working with you in the coming weeks to schedule formal visits to review the information stored in the bidders’ library, and may provide additional suggestions of items to

include in that library before the formal RFP is released. If you have any questions or concerns, or would like us to clarify any aspect of our response, please do not hesitate to call me at

, or on e-mail at will also be available to answer any of your inquiries. She can be reached at , or on e-mail at

.

Sincerely,

Accenture

│ │ │ │

From: Sent: To: PW, RFP 16-09 Subject: ACS RFI Respsonse for RFP 16-09 Terry – Attached is ACS’ response to the RFI for RFP 16-09. We’re pleased for the opportunity to compete. -

ACS Government Solutions

October 29, 2009

Ms. Teresa Shuchart RFP Project Officer, RFP 16-09 Bureau of Information Systems Department of Public Welfare Willow Oak Building Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105

RE: Request for Information (RFI), Information Technology Services for DPW’s Strategic Business Systems, RFP Number: 16-09

Dear Ms. Shuchart:

The technical and program staff at ACS State & Local Solutions, Inc. (ACS) appreciate the opportunity to ask questions and submit comments regarding the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare’s (“DPW”) Draft RFP for Information Technology Services for DPW’s Strategic Business Systems, RFP Number 16-09. Attached please find a matrix, from ACS, containing a series of questions/clarification requests.

We understand that this draft RFP is issued for informational and planning purposes only and does not constitute any type of procurement solicitation or an obligation on the part of DPW to acquire any products or services. Additionally, we understand that the information provided in the draft RFP is not intended to convey any predisposition to a particular solution, method, or service delivery methodology and is subject to change.

The ACS contact for this proposal, and all matters relating to the proposal, is may be reached as follows:

ACS State & Local Solutions, Inc. 3496 Dawn View Drive Lancaster, PA 17601 Office: Cell: Fax:

e-mail:

Again, we appreciate this opportunity and look forward to the release of the formal RFP in December.

Sincerely,

ACS State & Local Solutions, Inc.

ACS State & Local Solutions, Inc. 8260 Willow Oaks Corporate Drive • Fairfax, VA 22031 Telephone: (703) 891-8700 • Fax: (703) 891-8800

Questions/Comments from


Question No.

Page Number(s) Section Question/Comment/Clarification

1. 5 Parts I, II, III Final

Draft: Section I-6, Method of Award

The following question was raised at the vendor meeting: Can a vendor be awarded a contract as a prime contractor on Lot 5 and be part of the winning team as a subcontractor on Lots 1 through 4? Or can a prime vendor be awarded a contract on Lots 1 through 4 and be part of the winning team as a subcontractor on lot 5?

The draft RFP is structured in such a manner which allows the entire program to be divided into five lots. Lots 1 through 4 covers IT consulting services for four areas—Eligibility Systems, Provider Management, Case Management, and Child Welfare. Lot 5 is designated as the Application and Technical Support Services area covering all four subjects. Further the RFP states that the vendor who is awarded Lot 5 or is a subcontractor on Lot 5 cannot be a prime vendor or subcontractor on any of the other four lots.

As we understand, this approach ensures that there will be at least two vendors selected: one vendor for Lot 5 and up to four vendors for Lots 1 through 4. This signals to the vendor community that the Commonwealth is committed to a check and balances approach for the ongoing effort of this project.

Simply stated, the vendors in Lots 1 through 4 participate in the Requirements Definition and General Systems Design components of the systems development life cycle (SDLC) that becomes the blueprint upon which the Lot 5 vendor must prepare their staffing and cost estimates for enhancements. Further, the design documents and Use Cases/Testing Scenarios provided by the Vendor for Lots 1 through 4 will then be the means by which the Lot 5 Vendor must prove that the enhancements meet the requirements. The QA manager is the quality control agent ensuring that both teams are doing their work appropriately. The Commonwealth’s approach ensures better accountability by using one vendor for the design and another for implementing that design. We strongly hope that the Commonwealth maintains its intent of not allowing the prime on Lot 5 to be a subcontractor on Lots 1 through 4, which would eliminate the checks and balances approach to managing the contract.

2. 5 I-6, Method of Award The RFP states the following:

“Offerors may propose one or more lots but no Offeror will be awarded a contract for services in both the IT Consulting Services service type (Lots 1-4) and the Application and Technical Support Services service type (Lot 5). ……. An Offeror or sub-contractor can only participate in one (1) awarded contract (multiple awards in Lots 1-4 would be one (1) contract.)”

Please consider the following scenario. Offeror A is prime bidder on Lot 5 and a subcontractor to

1



Question No.


Offeror B, who is the prime on Lots 2 and 3. Offerors A and B are rated as the top scorers for their respective prime bids.

Since A and B cannot participate in both contracts, how will this situation be resolved? Will the Commonwealth choose to eliminate the top scorer for Lot 5 or Lots 2 and 3? What other resolution mechanism will be used?

3. 25 II-3, Technical

Response Requirements

Would the Commonwealth please confirm the number of technical proposals an Offeror must submit when bidding on more than one Lot? For example, if an Offeror is bidding on Lots 1, 3, and 5, should the Offeror submit one, two, or three technical proposals?

If the answer is that one technical proposal covers more than one Lot (e.g., Lots 1 and 3), please confirm whether information for all Lots is covered under the respective Tab(for example, Tab 5, Executive Summary, summarizes approach for both Lots 1 and 3 in the five pages.)

4. 25 II-3, Technical

Response Requirements

If the response to Q 3 above is a separate technical proposal for each of the Lots, are there any restrictions on resources (personnel, equipment, software, real estate, other) that can be used across multiple Lots?

5. 39, 69, 101, 146 Part IV, F Required

Activities/Tasks For Section b. “Knowledge Transfer” in each Lot, the RFP indicates that “The respondent’s transition plan should effectively leverage the outgoing vendor’s Turnover Plan”. Provided as Appendix P, the Integrated Strategic Systems Turnover Plan describes activities to maintain the functionality contained within the Integrated Strategic System.

Contained within Appendix P are multiple references to an attachment titled “Appendix A: System Turnover Work Plan”. However, this plan is not provided as an attachment to Appendix P. Will the Commonwealth please provide this detailed work plan as an attachment to Appendix P?

6. IV-39 Section F Required

Activities /Tasks, Subsection b. Knowledge Transfer

In order to ensure successful transition from the incumbent, can the Commonwealth share the process and measurements that will be in place to hold the incumbent accountable for a successful transition?

7. IV-65 IV-66

Section D, Ongoing and Planned Activities for FY 2009-2010

What is the Commonwealth’s expectation for enhancements that are still in progress at time of award/start date? Is the incumbent expected to complete them, or will they all transition to new vendor?

2

Question No.


If the enhancements will transition to the new vendor, we request that the RFP include information about the enhancements.

8. IV-23 IV-40 IV-147

Section IV-6, Work Statement, General

Requirements for all Lots,

B. Equipment and Facilities

With Equipment and Facilities being the responsibility of each Offeror, and the certainty of two or more Offerors, there are numerous questions that arise regarding three distinct areas—economies

of scale, security (includes audit trails and the overall cost of duplicate tools), and operating system compatibility (includes the cost of incompatibilities and failures).

Is there any possibility of shared resources and facilities provided by the Commonwealth in a

singularly secured environment that could be the model for using multiple suppliers?

9. IV-37 (Lot #1) IV-66 (Lot #2)

IV-99 (Lot #3) IV-129 (Lot # 4)

F. Staffing Requirements

In the draft Work Statement, for each Lot description for Section F, Staffing Requirements, the mix of state employees and contracted staff to support the work of the respective DPW application

system is cited along with the appropriate Appendix for that DPW application system.

Regarding the “contracted workers”, there is no direct association of the contracted workers and consulting service versus the technical support activities on each application. DPW will receive

much more uniform and competitive pricing if the RFP is able to designate these contract workers as being either consulting or technical support staff.

10. IV, pages 39, 68,

101, 131 Required

Activities/Tasks For “Required Activities/Tasks” under each of the Lots 1-4, there does not appear to be sufficient

information about the actual expected work to estimate effort and resources. The RFP provides good information on process and expected reports to be generated, but the actual work is slightly vague or TBD, with references to “Work cooperatively with key State staff….”

The RFP does list planned activities by each FY but states that funding is not finalized in some

cases. For others, it is likely each would be completed by contract execution.

Any additional detail about the actual scope of work required for consulting services for Lots 1-4 would help ensure accurate pricing.

11. N/A Appendix UU, Draft

SLA/SLOs

Grid Section: Lots 1-4 IT

Consulting Services

Help Desk requirements are outlined within Lot 2, Provider Management IT Consulting Services to a certain extent and Lot 3, Case Management IT Consulting Services to a much greater extent.

There were no Help Desk requirements observed for Lots 1 and 4.

However, within Appendix UU, Draft SLA/SLOs, the “Help Desk – First Call Resolution” is included and encompasses Lots 1-4 as a Service Level Agreement requirement.



3

Question No.


Should the Help Desk requirements and SLAs be expected among each of the four lots? If so,

how?



4

From: Sent: To: PW, RFP 16-09 Subject: Comments RFI 16-09 Attached are questions and comments for RFI 16-09 with corrected contact information.

Regards,

CGI l l State & Local l Bridgewater Corporate Center 11325 Random Hills Rd. Fairfax VA 22030 cell: l office: email:

CGI Questions – PaDOR Federal/State Personal Income Tax 1 of 3 Modernized e-File System Implementation; RFQ #6100013162; Due 10/27/09

Sent via email: [email protected]

From: CGI Email:

Ph:

Date: November 9, 2009

SUBJECT: RFI 16-09 Questions/Comments - CGI

We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments via the Request for Information process on the Information Technology (IT) Services for DPW’s Strategic Business Systems (RFI 16-09). We particularly find important and want to commend the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, both the Department of Public Welfare and the CIO, for their interest in ensuring fair and open competition for this procurement.

We have presented here a few considerations which may provide clarification to the intended request for procurement.

Question/Comment Number

CGI Question/Comment

1.

In the RFP 16-09, there are two applicable sections for Standard Terms and Conditions (Appendix A, Standard Terms and Conditions and Appendix B, DPW Addendum to Standard Terms and Conditions). We encourage the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to clarify if it intends to prohibit or allow negotiation of these Terms and Conditions during the Best and Final Offer activities outlined I-23 or at any other juncture in the procurement process. Within the Technical Response Requirements, II-3, identifies the “Tab 12 Objections and Additions to Contract Terms and Conditions”, the Tab only addresses Appendix A. Clarification regarding Appendix B, the DPW Addendum, would be beneficial.

2.

We appreciate the intent of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in dividing the current information technology service needs into discreet areas where the responsibilities can clearly be defined. We encourage the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to provide some additional clarification on these divisions of services. In particular, the discussion within I-6 METHOD OF AWARD could be enhanced with the inclusion of Lot #5 in the example of requesting priority order.

mailto:[email protected]



3.

The I-6 Method of Award section seems to indicate both the Offeror and the subcontractor will be limited to providing services under only one resulting contract from this procurement. While we recognize this ultimate result, it is unclear if the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania will review multiple proposals from Offerors (and subcontractors). For example, should an Offeror, with skills in both IT Consulting Services (Lot #1-4) and in the Application and Technical Support Services (Lot #5), submit one proposal identifying the priority preferences for consideration or two proposals (one for the IT Consulting Services area and a separate one for Application and Technical Support Services area)? Does the limitation on participating in only one resulting contract apply to all subcontractors, regardless of the level of involvement in the offer or status under I-15, I-16 or I-17?

4.

We appreciate the discussion and information provided in Part IV of the RFP regarding the intent of the division of services, the current governance processes in DPW for IT activities and the expected division of system development life cycle activities to the IT Consulting Services category or the Application and Technical Support Services. Given the current RFP places responsibility for General System Design activities with the IT Consulting Services and the Detailed System Design with the Application Services, the State may wish to provide clear examples of division documentation. These items could be included in the procurement library. The State is to be commended for recognizing the tension within the proposed division and placing themselves in the role of arbiter. Also, the State rightly footnotes additional support services may be necessary to maintain this position.

5.

With regards to Lot 4, the child welfare information technology consulting services, the State makes the following statement: “DPW recently commissioned a feasibility study for an automated Child Welfare system that will meet Federal, State and County business needs. It was determined that a SACWIS solution was not feasible for Pennsylvania. Instead, DPW will look to leverage existing technology assets to provide an automated and distributed child welfare system for the Office of Children, Youth, and Families.”




6.

It is unclear from the subsequent language if the State intends to use the Lot 4 to define the requirements already identified from the feasibility study to the level of detail needed for a subsequent procurement of services, to the level of detailed needed to identify how current systems can be enhanced to support child welfare or some combination of both. Clarity on the level of documentation needed to support this activity would be helpful.

7.

Related to comment 6, the narrative describing the current operations within child welfare identified some areas that are in need of immediate assistance and modification apart from the results of the feasibility study. It is unclear how much support the State will need from the child welfare information technology consulting services to support this effort, whether efforts already in place have defined the high level business requirements or if the allocation of hours to child welfare in the Lot 5 fully addresses the immediate needs for services for FY 2009 – 2011.

8.

We appreciate the State intends to make the feasibility study available in time for this procurement. While the State does not anticipate pursuing a SACWIS solution, the State must still adhere to the federal Advance Planning Document regulatory process if the project includes federal financial reimbursement for the relevant programs covered under 45 US Code of Federal Regulation PART 95 Subpart F (45 CFR 95.605 - 617). The regulations apply to child welfare information systems that are not SACWIS, when the project cost exceeds $5,000,000 (or the contract costs exceed $5,000,000) and any portion of the costs is reimbursed by federal Title IV-E funds.

We support the State making all relevant supporting materials available from now through the end of the procurement period for our review. We would also appreciate an ongoing communication mechanism that can request information to be added into the library.


From: Sent: To: PW, RFP 16-09 Subject: DPW RFP 16-09 Comments - CIBER Dear Ms. Shuchart,

Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments regarding the draft version of RFP 16-09 (IT Services for DPW’s Strategic Business Systems). We appreciate your willingness to help improve the RFP prior to its release and to encourage multiple IT vendor engagements with the Department.

CIBER has carefully reviewed the draft RFP, and based on this review, we have prepared the attached document which details our comments. To assist the Department in reviewing our response, we have included page numbers and RFP section numbers as applicable.

Tel: Cell: Fax:

We understand that the deadline for our submissions was recently extended to Friday, November 6th. Should you have any questions or need clarification of any information, please do not hesitate to contact me. We will be happy to meet with the Department to discuss any of our comments.

Respectfully Submitted,

www.ciber.com

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND NOTICE REGARDING NO ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE: The materials in this electronic transmission (including attachments) may be subject to attorney-client or work product privilege, may be private and confidential and are the property of the sender. The information contained is intended only for the named addressee(s) and should not be considered evidence of intent to be bound to any agreement. The taking of any action in reliance on the contents is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please immediately notify the sender and promptly delete this message.

http://www.ciber.com/

Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare

IT Services for DPW’s Strategic Business Systems

Request for Information for RFP 16‐09

Prospective Offeror

Comments

CIBER. Inc. 717-691-5500 650 Wilson Lane Suite 200 Fax: 717-691-7102 Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055 www.ciber.com

October 30, 2009

Ms. Teresa Shuchart RFP Project Officer, RFP 16-09 Bureau of Information Systems Department of Public Welfare Willow Oak Building Harrisburg, PA 17105 [email protected]

RE: Review and Comment for Draft RFP 16-09

Dear Ms. Shuchart,

Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments regarding the draft version of RFP 16-09 (IT Services for DPW’s Strategic Business Systems). We appreciate your willingness to help improve the RFP prior to its release and to encourage multiple IT vendor engagements with the Department.

CIBER has carefully reviewed the draft RFP, and based on this review, we have prepared the attached document which details our comments. To assist the Department in reviewing our response, we have included page numbers and RFP section numbers as applicable.

Should you have any questions or need clarification of any information, please do not hesitate to contact me. We will be happy to meet with the Department to discuss any of our comments.

Respectfully Submitted,


PA Department of Public Welfare Prospective Offeror Comments Information Technology Services for DPW’s Strategic Business Systems RFI for RFP# 16-09

October 30, 2009

COMMENTS

1. Section I-4, Scope of Work, page 3. The term “implementation” can have multiple meanings. Can the Department clarify the extent of implementation services required in the IT Consulting Services service type? Can we assume there will be no “technical” implementation of code? Note that the “Implementation Support Services” is not consistently maintained in other instances of the RFP (page 6 refers to “Application Support Services,” as does page 42).

2. Section I-6, Method of Award, page 5. To encourage greater diversity and number of IT support vendors, will the Department consider awarding no more than one or two lots from Lots #1-4 to any one single vendor? If a single vendor can be awarded all four lots in Lots #1-4, it is possible that a maximum of two vendors will be awarded contracts through this RFP. This would not be a significant change in diversity or number of IT support vendors currently engaged by the Department.

3. Section I-7, Type of Contract, page 6. In the table at the top of this page, the fourth bulleted item under IT Consulting Services (Lots 1-4) is listed as “Fixed Price for Application Support Services.” Should Application Support Services be included in Lot #5 instead, as listed in Figure 1.4.1 on page 3?

4. Section I-7, Type of Contract, page 6. The length of contract is detailed in Section I-30, Term of Contract and is repetitively listed in the Type of Contract section. Although both contract periods match, it may be better practice to only list this once in the RFP and only in the Term of Contract section.

5. Section I-23, Best and Final Offers, page 14. Will the Department consider a more quantifiable methodology for determining which vendors will be invited to a Best and Final Offer? Other Commonwealth procurements, for example, invite vendors to BAFO who scored within 70% of the highest scoring proposal. This would be a more quantifiable rationale than being “reasonably susceptible of being selected for award.”

6. Section I-29, Key Staff Diversions or Replacement, page 15. Throughout the RFP when referring to “days,” it would be helpful if these were more specifically defined as either “business” days or “calendar” days. Perhaps at the outset of the RFP, it could be stated that all references to “days” are calendar days unless specifically noted as business days.

7. Section I-32, Notification of Selection, page 18. This section states that Offerors whose proposals are “most advantageous to the Department” will be selected for award and notified. However, on page 45 in the Evaluation Section, it states that selection will be based upon those proposals that are “most advantageous to the Commonwealth.” As the underlined words are not mutually exclusive terms, please clarify this discrepancy.

8. Section I-44, Liquidated Damages, page 21. Will the Terms and Conditions provide greater detail on the extent, form and limits of potential liquidated damages?

3

PA Department of Public Welfare Prospective Offeror Comments Information Technology Services for DPW’s Strategic Business Systems RFI for RFP# 16-09

October 30, 2009 4

9. Section II-3.9, Tab 9 Corporate Qualifications and Experience. “Offerors must disclose any contracts cancelled in the past five years including the reasons, suspensions or disbarments in the past 5-10 years, and suits for non-performance.” This sentence is too loosely defined and open to multiple interpretations. What is the timeframe for suits for non-performance? Does this apply for IT contracts only? Why the past 5-10 years for suspensions or disbarments (why not just the last 10 years)? Does this requirement apply to all vendor subcontractors as well?

10. Section II-3.10, Tab 10 Personnel and Staffing, page 32. Please define more specifically what is meant by the term “staffing chart.” Include an example if possible.

11. Section II-3.11, Financial Capability, page 34. What is the definition of a “related party?”

12. Section II-3.13, Contract Standards, page 35. Regarding Service Level Agreements (SLAs) and Service Level Objectives (SLOs), it is important to note that although SLAs and SLOs both define vendor service expectations, they also differ in that SLAs involve the payment of penalties when service levels are not met, while SLOs are merely objectives without financial consequences.

13. Section II-5, Tab 15 Cost Submittal, page 42. Note in this section that the 303,000 hours are for contract year one, as further clarified on page IV-160. The contract year one reference is not included in this section. Does the Department plan on only approximately 1.5 FTE of contracted support per year in Lot #5 for the entire child welfare effort? Can the Department indicate how many Commonwealth FTE will continue to support the child welfare systems?

14. Section II-8 Tab 18 Innovative Solution(s) Submittal, page 44. The term “Innovative Solution Submittal” seems to indicate that any innovative ideas should not necessarily be included in the vendor’s main technical proposal, as there would be no extra value given if it is not included in the Innovative Solution Submittal. There is no incentive or value to a vendor to be innovative in the technical proposal. The term “Innovative” is inappropriate. Perhaps consider something like “Additional Out of Scope Solutions,” or “Optional Value Solution,” or “Alternative Value Solution.” In addition, Innovative Solution bonus points favor incumbent vendors who have a much greater knowledge of the Department and its needs, thus awarding bonus points has a great potential to skew a truly competitive bid. The idea of this being an “optional” submittal is impractical, as no vendor would leave potential bonus points on the table. Consider dropping this altogether as it does not align with Commonwealth procurement best practices. If this remains, we would suggest that this be limited to items that are strictly outside the scope of services included in the RFP. Otherwise, an “apples to apples” comparison of vendor solutions and pricing will not be possible.

From: Sent: To: PW, RFP 16-09 Cc:

Subject: Response to RFI Regarding RFP 16-09

Importance: High

Ms. Shuchart,

On behalf of and Computer Aid, Inc., please accept the attached document, RFI_Response_20091109_CAI.doc, as our comments on the upcoming RFP 16-09.

Thank you for this opportunity to review and comment on the draft RFP. We look forward to receiving the final version upon its release.

Respectfully submitted,

Computer Aid, Inc.

Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare

Response to Request for Information Regarding RFP 16-09

Information Technology Services for DPW’s Strategic Business Systems

Submission Date: November 9, 2009 5:00 p.m.

November 9, 2009

Teresa Shuchart, RFP Project Officer Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare Division of Procurement Room 525, Health and Welfare Building Harrisburg, PA 17120

Ms. Shuchart,

It is our pleasure to have the opportunity to respond to your Request for Information (RFI) regarding the soon to be released RFP 16-09 – Information Technology Services for DPW’s Strategic Business Systems.

Computer Aid, Inc. is very interested in responding to the upcoming RFP, as we have analyzed and considered the draft RFP included with this RFI. We are offering a few observations that will enhance Offerors’ ability to provide competitive solutions, thus providing an increased opportunity for cost savings.

Please feel free to contact us to discuss our comments. We look forward to the release of RFP 16-09 and to working with you in the future.

Respectfully submitted,

PA Department of Public Welfare Response to RFI Regarding RFP 16-09 November 9, 2009

Page 1

PA Department of Public Welfare Page 2Response to RFI Regarding RFP 16-09 November 9, 2009

RFP Structure Computer Aid, Inc. (CAI) commends the department for its intended new direction for procuring Information Technology Services for DPW’s Strategic Business Systems and we believe the department’s stated objective will be met by this approach. As stated in the RFP…

“…Through this RFP, DPW seeks to buy the best services at the most favorable, competitive prices and to give ALL qualified businesses, including those that are owned by minorities, women, persons with a disability, and small business enterprises, opportunity to do business with the state as contractors and sub-contractors…”

We believe this RFP will affect a more openly competitive outcome by separating the needed services into IT Consulting and Applications and Technical Support Services and by applying the Method of Award as stated in the RFP. These changes will result in a reduced reliance upon a single vendor, and more importantly, more cost effective support to the departments mission critical programs.

“…Offerors may propose on one or more lots but no Offeror will be awarded a contract for services in both the IT Consulting Services service type (Lots 1-4) and the Application and Technical Support Services service type (Lot 5). Offerors are required to rank the lots in order of preference for award…”

CAI also envisions the following specific benefits from this new RFP Structure:

� Optimization of vendor staff by aligning appropriately skilled staff to the specific contract task thus yielding the best cost effective return on the department expenditures.

� The partitioning approach will enable the department to learn aspects about their systems that are not visible under the current arrangement thus improving knowledge transfer, program effectiveness and cost reductions over time.

� Minimize or eliminate “opportunism” that naturally arises from engaging a single vendor vs. multiple vendors from the new approach.

� Strengthening DPW’s internal system understanding by lessening dependence upon a sole vendor.

There are many other advantages to this procurement approach but suffice it to say, the structure of this RFP will definitely result in a better outcome for the department and its programs and is significantly compatible with industry best practices which have been used successfully in government and commercial accounts over the past 20+ years. We believe a significant number of vendors will now have a strong interest in proposing their respective solutions when the RFP is finally issued.


Points of Clarification After a thorough review of the RFP provided, we have determined that the following information would be helpful to allow Offerors to assemble the best possible solution. In order to receive the most competitive proposals for evaluation, Offerors need to understand:

� How many resources, or hours, are currently allocated (Resource Requirements)

� What those resources are doing by Lot and services within the Lot (Separation of Responsibilities - SDLC Phase and PMO)

� The details surrounding infrastructure support (Separation of Responsibilities for Enterprise Shared Services and Technical and Infrastructure Support Services)

We understand this could be a challenge to provide offerors, but it is critical to know this information if DPW is searching for fixed price responses.

The following sections further highlight the importance of these details and we provide some examples of how to present the information.

Resource Requirements Incumbents always know the number of resources they currently have on their engagement and the specifics surrounding the applications they support. This RFP should ‘level the playing field’ and offer every respondent an equal knowledge of your current project organization and resource requirements such as Application Size (number of files, screens, batch jobs, etc.). In order to facilitate a competitive fixed price solution, it is important to know the current number of resources or hours by Lot. In addition to number of resources or hours, it would be beneficial to DPW to supply as much of the following information (by application) to aid in further refining the team size, determining areas where productivity could be improved, and where efficiencies may be gained. All of this contributes to a more competitive fixed price proposal for evaluation.

� Number of Support Resources

� Number of Users

� Percentage of time (or total hours) spent doing maintenance

� Percentage of time (or total hours) spent doing development

� Skill Sets of the Support Resources

� Backlog of projects

� Planned Migrations

� Each application’s criticality to the business

� Complexity of business processes within each application


� Does the application require 24 x 7 support?

� Number of Interfaces

� Age of the application (in years) and how much customization has been done

� Number of installations

� Amount of documentation available

We recognize that it may be a challenge given your current environment to provide all the information requested above. We sincerely believe that “The more data that you can share, the better the responses will be.” At a minimum, DPW should consider presenting fiscal year ’08-‘09 staffing levels, i.e. hours or FTEs by application (list taken from Turnover Plan), in a manner to our example shown in Figure 1. This information is the most critical component to providing a fixed priced and a performance-based response to DPW.

FTES OR HOURS SPENT IN FISCAL YEAR JULY 1, 2008 – JUNE 30, 2009

LOT 5: APPLICATION AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES LOTS 1-4:

TECHNICA PROGRAM SYSTEM IT CONSULTING APPLICATION APPLICATION ENTERPRISE SHARED TINFRASTRUC SERVICES MAINTENANCE MODIFICATIONS SERVICES

SUPPORT

iCIS CIS IEVS

HCSIS MCI COMPASS SSI

eCIS TPL LIHEAP

MCI MPI

CIS PROMISe COMPASS SAMS SISOnline SAIS ELN PWIM

PELICAN CHILD CARE WORKS CERTIFICATION PA PRE-K COUNTS PA KEYS TO QUALITY EARLY LEARNING NETWORK CIS COMPASS

MCI

PA Department of Public Welfare Page 5

Response to RFI Regarding RFP 16-09

November 9, 2009 Figure 1: Sample Staffing Level Chart


Separation of Responsibilities - SDLC Phase and PMO We are encouraged by the separation of IT Consulting Services and Application and Technical Support Services. As with any future change in structure, it can be difficult to clearly separate into discreet groups a team that has been contracted as a whole in the past. We suggest that you include more detail with regard to the separation of responsibilities and resources between these two service types and within each Lot. This will allow offerors to determine the right number of resources required to provide DPW with a competitive fixed price.

One of DPW’s objectives (Page IV-16, #3) is to

“separate the capture and definition of the business requirements from the development and deployment of those requirements”.

Given the breakout of support services into different Lots, there is the possibility of overlapping responsibilities that can lead to an overestimation of effort. For instance, this kind of overlap could result in allocation of resources for the same Requirements or Design tasks in two different Lots. In summary, we suggest that DPW further illustrates their vision of the separation of SDLC task responsibilities across all the Lots by adding two columns to Figure L5.3 DPW System Development Methodology (SDM) Deliverable in Work Plan IV-161. This would show offerors which Lots have responsibility for each Phase of the SDLC. We have included an example of a modified RACI chart in Figure 2.

There are several mentions of a Program Management Office (PMO), yet we cannot determine which Lot, if any, includes the PMO. This should be clarified.

SDLC PHASE WORK

PRODUCT/ DELIVERABLE

COMPONENTS (INCLUDED AS APPLICABLE) LOT 1-4 LOT 5

Design Detailed System Design (DSD)

1. Physical Data Model 2. Data Dictionary 3. Updated Screen Shot Details 4. Interface Specifications 5. Application Blueprint 6. Program Specifications (Mainframe) or Class &Sequence Diagrams (Open Systems) 7. Final Conversion Plan 8. Final Capacity Plan 9. ECSA (Electronic Commerce Security Assessment) 10. Updated Key Considerations 11. Updated Traceability Matrix 12. Updated Work Plan 13. Updated Training Plan (if applicable) 14. Updated Implementation Plan (if applicable) 15. Data Acquisition Plan (if applicable) 16. Detail Report Requirements (if applicable) 17. Metadata Management Plan (if applicable) 18. Backup and Recovery Plan (if applicable)

Development Development Report

1. Unit Test Checklist Summary (reference code and individual checklists in VSS) 2. Updated Traceability Matrix 3. Updated Work Plan 4. Integration Test Scenarios

System Integration Test

Integration Test Work Products

1. Documentation of Integration Test Complete (Scenario Results) 2. Updated Traceability Matrix 3. ADA Compliance Statement (see template, applies to open systems only)

Implementation Production 1. Production Readiness Reports and Work Products (Pre Readiness Reports • Final Production Ready Prototype Build and and • User Acceptance Test (UAT) Progress Report and results Post Work • Implementation Playbook Implementation Products • Implementation and Training Report (if applicable) Activities) Operational

Work Products

• ADA Compliance Statement (if not submitted w/ Integration Test Results; applies to open systems only, not mainframe) • Security Vulnerability Report (does not apply to mainframe)

2. The following Operational Work Products will be submitted as applicable:


PA Department of Public Welfare Page 8

Response to RFI Regarding RFP 16-09

November 9, 2009

SDLC PHASE WORK

PRODUCT/ DELIVERABLE

COMPONENTS (INCLUDED AS APPLICABLE) LOT 1-4 LOT 5

Production Readiness Notification

■ Batch Operations Manual ■ Load Test Report ■ End-User Documentation ■ Training Manuals

3. Production Readiness Notification (end of UAT and ARB IV approval) (Note: without approval, final product implementation is not permitted)

Production Deployment Report Final Production Software Product

1. Production Deployment Report (submitted on the last planned day of TFP) 2. Implementation Playbook (if applicable, Excel spreadsheet) 3. Security Certificate (If applicable) 4. Final Production Software Product

Completion Completion Letter Section Completion (Submit after each section other than final WO section) 1. Work Order with Completion Details 2. Completion Letter 3. Hour/Cost Variance Summary Final Completion Letter (Submit after Warranty is completed) 1. Work Order with Completion Details 2. Completion Letter 3. Hour Variance Summary 4. Business Outcomes

Figure 2: Sample RACI Chart

Separation of Responsibilities for Enterprise Shared Services and Technical and Infrastructure Support Services The RFP also discusses infrastructure resources that could be considered as part of the Data Powerhouse, Server Farm, Lots 1-4, and/or Lot 5 Support. Similar to the breakdown of the SDLC tasks, it would be beneficial to have a more thorough understanding of what is included in Enterprise Shared Services, Technical and Infrastructure Support Services, and Direct Technical Support Services.

The RFP does include some valuable information on your current environment. However, it would be beneficial for offerors to further understand the boundaries between these contracts and the support provided by the Data Powerhouse and Server Farm. Many of the contract responsibilities discussed in Lot 5 seem to overlap what we would expect to be provided by Data Powerhouse and Server Farm teams, and it would be beneficial to know what roles and responsibilities are included in Lot 5, so that we can appropriately scope the effort. We suggest the following two additions to the RFP:

� A current organizational chart of the Server Farm support team and the teams that support Enterprise Shared Services and Technical and Infrastructure Support Services

� A RACI chart that describes all infrastructure-related tasks and the level of responsibility of the teams (Enterprise Shared Services, Technical and Infrastructure Support Services, and Server Farm). An example of a RACI chart is shown in Figure 3.


The following definitions regarding the RACI matrix. The activities listed in the left column are defined below the RACI matrix. R - Responsible - Person/group liable for performing or completing the work activity A - Accountable - Person/group answerable for the completion of the activity C - Consults - Person/group participating in, confirming or acknowledging the activity I - Informs - Person/group needing to be enlightened/educated regarding the activity

Activity Test Case Development Process

1 X delivers individual Use Cases to Y. R I Y Test Team develops Test Case Descriptions from 2 A R Use Cases, recording Test Case on Test Case form. Test Case forms are compiled into Software Test 3 A R Description (STD). Once all Use Cases have been received and Test

X4 Cases have been developed, STD is reviewed and R A

finalized. Te

am Y

Qua

lity

STD is delivered to Quality Assurance (QA) for A

ssur

ance

5 I A review.

Team

Y P

M/T

est

After QA review STD is delivered to X for Te

am L

ead

6 I R acceptance/approval. Te

am Y

Tes

ters

R=Responsible C=Consulted A=Accountable I=Informed

Figure 3: Sample RACI Chart



Points of Consideration

Pricing Pricing will be most comparable when pricing sheets match stated deliverables or requirements. A pricing sheet that incorporates the format of Figure 1: Sample Staffing Level Chart, or another similar approach chosen by DPW, would ease the evaluation of pricing.

Economy of Preparation It may be advantageous to both the evaluators and the Offerors to have page limits set on some of the sections, particularly the responses to requirements in the Work Plan.

From: Sent: To: PW, RFP 16-09 Subject: Questions/commentary Please accept the attached questions under this RFI to help provide for clarification for the proposed RFP. Thank you.

Danko Consulting

1. We suggest you clarify the domestic workforce utilization?

After careful review of the RFI, we had the following questions:

• Can we assume that Appendix K, Domestic Workforce Utilization Form, while not included in the current list of forms available for download from emarketplace will be consistent with the form currently utilized by DGS?

• Will the Commonwealth consider options of Off-Shore or Near Shore support for any portions of this procurement? We understand that DOC has recently extended such an accommodation to a vendor to support lower pricing?

• Will the Commonwealth require work be performed in Harrisburg?

• Would the Commonwealth consider allowing support staff to work outside of Harrisburg, while keeping management staff within the 15 mile radius of the Commonwealth?

2. In view of the division of responsibilities, that would be across at least two contracting organizations, which lot will control the application architecture of the systems?

• Will the control reside with the vendor managing Lot 1 thru 4 (Functional Support) or the vendor managing Lot 5 (Technical Support)?

• Which team can suggest architectural changes, Lots 1 thru 4 (Functional Support) or Lot 5 (Technical Support)?

3. The process envisioned by DPW to manage and maintain the application architecture of the systems should be clearly defined. This will significantly affect systems operation and development time.

• The current award template will result in an awarded vendor(s) providing the services in Lots 1 thru 4. The vendor awarded Lot 5 will provide the application development services in support of the awarded vendor(s). Is this correct?

• Will DPW seek to allow the awarded Lot 5 vendor to utilize innovative technologies such a rapid application development tools and other methodologies or will DPW seek to maintain the current paradigm for development?

• Will alternate technology approaches like Agile Methodology acceptable to DPW and DGS for the IT Service contract? How will the Commonwealth allow the approved vendor(s) to implement or use Rapid Application Development of Systems or use of New Tools?

4. Can you please clarify the language under “Method of Award” on page 5 section I-6 of the document “02 RFP 16-09 Parts I II III FINAL DRAFT.pdf”? The first line in the section says that one vendor cannot win any contract in Lots 1 thru 4 and the contract for Lot 5. But the examples cited at the end of the section, need to be more explicit to indicate that the Commonwealth will engage in:

a. A minimum of 2 contracts with at least 2 separate vendors (1 contract with vendor A for Lots 1 thru 4 and a separate contract with vendor B for Lot 5).

b. A maximum of 5 contracts with 5 vendors (1 contract with each vendor for Lots 1 thru 5)

From: Sent: To: PW, RFP 16-09 Subject: Comments on Draft RFP 16-09 Deloitte Consulting LLP (Deloitte Consulting) is pleased to submit this response to Request for Information (RFI) regarding the soon to be issued RFP 16-09, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES FOR DPW’S STRATEGIC BUSINESS SYSTEMS. The Department of Public Welfare has been and continues to be a very important and valued client to Deloitte Consulting. We appreciate this opportunity to provide DPW with information that may assist you in procuring the services you require to support the citizens of the Commonwealth. Should you have any questions about this proposal or its content, please do not hesitate to contact at , or by email or at , or

.

Sincerely

Deloitte Services, LP

This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message.

Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. [v.E.1]

Deloitte Consulting LLP 2601 Market Place Second Floor Harrisburg, PA 17110 USA

Tel: 717 651 6300 Fax: 717 412 9700 www.deloitte.com

November 6, 2009

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare Division of Procurement Room 525 Health and Welfare Building Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120

RE: REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) REGARDING THE SOON TO BE ISSUED RFP 16-09 – INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES FOR DPW’S STRATEGIC BUSINESS SYSTEMS

To Whom It May Concern:

Deloitte Consulting LLP (Deloitte Consulting) is pleased to submit this response to Request for Information (RFI) regarding the soon to be issued RFP 16-09 – INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES FOR DPW’S STRATEGIC BUSINESS SYSTEMS. The Department of Public Welfare has been and continues to be a very important and valued client to Deloitte Consulting. We appreciate this opportunity to provide DPW with information that may assist you in procuring the services you require to support the citizens of the Commonwealth.

Should you have any questions about this proposal or its content, please do not hesitate to contact me at or my email or

at , or

Sincerely,

Deloitte Consulting LLP

Member of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu

www.deloitte.com

Copyright © 2008 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare

RFI 16-09

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION: RESPONSE TO DRAFT RFP 16-09 – INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES FOR DPW’S STRATEGIC BUSINESS SYSTEMS

Introduction Deloitte Consulting sincerely appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft RFP 16-09- Information Technology Services for DPW’s Strategic Business Systems. Deloitte Consulting commends the effort the Commonwealth has put forth in soliciting comments from the vendor community through this draft RFP process in order to develop a RFP that will result in a scope of service to meet the needs of the Commonwealth. We respectfully have provided the following comments and/or questions for your consideration.

We have organized the information in our response as follows:

• RFP reference – identifies the section of the Draft RFP upon which the comments are based

• Comment – describes our presented comments for your consideration


Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare RFI 16-09

Comment # 1

RFP

Ref

eren

ce I-4 Scope of Work

Based on commonly accepted industry standards and consistent with established federal guidelines from FNS, CMS and ACF, states such as yours organize work into Planning and Implementation components. Planning includes business related work identified in Lots 1 through 4 covering Business Vision, Business Requirements, Traceability Matrix and Business (User) testing. Implementation (Lot 5) includes systems related work aligning with SDLC cycle for systems requirements, system (general, detailed) design, systems testing,

men

t

acceptance testing, training materials development, systems training, and systems

Com

implementation activities. This time tested federal method of division of work also allows states to increase competition across lots, hold vendors accountable for end to end critical path SDLC phases, activities, tasks, and deliverables while reducing critical path dependencies for fixed price services being provided by different vendors. This approach has been used in numerous state government Health and Human Service procurements to eliminate duplicative work, provide clarity for resource skill sets being acquired, and reduce transition points between several vendors that are being held accountable for project scope.

Comment # 2

RFP

Ref

eren

ce Lot 1.G Required Work Skills, page IV-37

Lot 2.G Required Work Skills, page IV-67 Lot 3.G Required Work Skills, IV-99 Lot 4.G Required Work Skills, IV-129

Com

men

t

Since the Lot 5 work is Systems and SDLC related, then the skill set listed in the above sections seems more appropriate for Lot 5 than Lots 1 through 4 and does not explicitly cover the business skills and knowledge areas that are required by staff to successfully complete these work assignments relating to Business Requirements and Business visioning. In addition, typically in the industry states require experience levels for key staff in the 5 to 10 year range in order to ensure the right skill sets of staff are made available. The Department may wish to consider providing clarifications for the required skill sets for Lot 1 through Lot 4.


RFI 16-09

Page 3 Copyright © 2008 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.

Comment # 3 Lot 1, Pg IV-45, Figure L1.5 Lot 2, Pg IV-75, Figure L2.3 Lot 3, Pg IV-108, Figure L3.6 Lot 4, Pg IV-132, Figure L4.1

nce • Recruit and develop a core team of dedicated SMEs who will become the product

fere champions.

Re o Seek a balance of knowledge areas representing the spectrum of services

RFP

o Co-locate SMEs with project team and vendor resources o Integrate SMEs in project deliverables o Train SMEs in areas such as functional work flows, use cases, test case o scenarios, and presentation skills o Manage SMEs with performance reviews reflected back to the lending o organization o Provide SMEs with career planning options beyond the project life cycle

The Department may consider providing clarifications as to whether these SMEs are to be

men

t

project resources hired/employed by the vendor or state resources expected to be

Com integrated with the vendor’s project team.

Comment # 4 Lot 1. Section F.2.c, page IV-48 Lot 2. Section G.2.d, page IV-78

nce Lot 3. Section H.2.d, page IV-111

fere

Re

Lot 4. Section H.1.d, page IV-135

RFP

The Offeror is responsible to provide a bi-weekly software changes and enhancements report for each functional area. This report must describe the status, progress, and/or problems related to all software modification and enhancement work that is currently in process.

Given the roles and responsibilities assigned to the vendors in Lots 1 through 4, the

Com

men

t selected Offeror may not have the appropriate insight or visibility to provide this level of information that is managed by the Lot 5 vendor. Given the potential for duplication (i.e. 5 status reports), how does the state envision the Lot 5 vendor information provided is aligned with the information provided by the vendors in Lots 1 through 4? The Department may wish to consider providing clarifications regarding this report.

Comment # 5

ce Lot 1. Section F.3.a, page IV-50

RFP re

n Lot 2. Section G.3.a, page IV-80 Lot 3. Section H.3.a, page IV-113

Ref

e

Lot 4. Section H.2.a, page IV-136


ning is not listed as an implementation support services deliverable. Please clarify the red scope of services in regards to training planning, materials development, materials tenance, learning management system maintenance, training execution, training monitoring

Com

men

t training reporting.

The Department may wish to provide clarification as to whether training is for end users or for train-the-trainer activities, and anticipated number of hours to be provided. Also, to eliminate a critical path dependency for fixed price services across vendor lots these training activities are typically included with the design, development, and implementation vendor.

ce

Pages (IV-38, IV-67, IV-100, IV-130)

RFP

n

Ref

ere

The Department may wish to clarify the scope of required skills related to training tools and

Com

men

t experience. Training tools include but are not limited to: - Captivate - Robohelp - Learning Management System

- ToolBook (SumTotal product)

Section A. Strategic Planning and Budgeting, page IV-11 Through DPW’s annual IT planning process, BIS will provide a clear list of project

nce priorities and anticipated deadlines for the following fiscal year. From this, the

fere selected Offeror(s) will provide the DPW Contract Administrator with an annual work

Re order detailing the resources, hours, cost, deliverables, and work products

RFP

necessary to achieve the DPW business plan for that year. The selected Offeror(s) must submit its work order estimates by May of the prior fiscal year to allow

adequate processing time. The DPW management team will continue to measure the performance of the selected Offeror against deliverables identified during these planning sessions and reflected in work orders.

The Department may wish to clarify in Section A. Strategic Planning and Budgeting the

Com

men

t Offeror of which Lot is being referred to for each scope of services, and which Lot vendor will ultimately be responsible to provide an end to end SDLC estimation for the Department’s initiatives. For example under the current division of work would the Lot 1 thru 4 vendors provide business requirements for all Department initiatives to the Lot 5 vendor with adequate time for the Lot 5 vendor to meet the May deadline?


Comment # 6

Comment # 7


RFI 16-09


IV-6.A.1, page IV-18

ce The selected Offeror’s overall contract management plan must include the

fere

n activities required to successfully complete this project within budget and the defined schedule throughout the term of the contract. The approach may

FP R

e need to be tailored or adjusted in order to address the specific requirements of each Lot. The Offeror’s contract management function must include:

R • Project management including development and maintenance of detailed work plans for specific projects or functions and status tracking

The Department may consider providing a clarification as to whether it is the Department’s

men

t

intention for vendors to include separate project management services in each of the Lots

Com

1 through 5. Or clarify that the Department will serve as the Systems Integrator and be responsible for the integration of work plans from the vendors to provide a comprehensive project plan.

Lot 1.A, page IV-26

nce The systems included in the iCIS suite are: Client Information System (CIS); Third Part

fere Liability (TPL); Income Eligibility Verification System (IEVS); Supplemental Security Income

RFP

Re (SSI); Commonwealth of PA Access to Social Services (COMPASS); Master Client

Index(MCI), eCIS (Web AP), and Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP).Where there is a reference in this section to CIS, iCIS, Eligibility Systems or Eligibility and Benefit Delivery Portfolio, it represents the collection of these systems.

Com

men

t The Department may consider providing additional details regarding all the functional subsystems included within iCIS.

Comment # 8 ce

IV-6.A.1, page IV-18 The selected Offeror’s overall contract management plan must include the

fere

nR

e

activities required to successfully complete this project within budget and the defined schedule throughout the term of the contract. The approach may

RFP

need to be tailored or adjusted in order to address the specific requirements of each Lot.

Com

men

t The Department may consider providing clarifications regarding the list of Department standard tools that must be used as part of ongoing project management, project monitoring, and portfolio management. In addition, the Department may also wish to clarify those tools that are expected to be used as part of the Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC).

Comment # 9

Comment # 10



II-5 Tab 15, page 42 A Blended hourly rate for Application Maintenance/Enhancement Service Requests for: • 100,000 hours applied to the Eligibility System (Lot 1). • 100,000 hours applied to the Provider Management System (Lot 2) • 100,000 hours applied to the Case Management System (Lot 3) • 3,000 hours applied to the Child Welfare System (Lot 4)

e

fere

ncR

e

Lot 5.C.3, page IV 160 Hours required for applications modifications/enhancements are distinct from

operational support and maintenance hours. For Year 1 of the contract, the number of allotted hours for application modifications/enhancements will be as

RFP

follows � � � �

: iCIS – One hundred thousand (100,000) hours PELICAN – One hundred thousand (100,000) hours HCSIS – One hundred thousand (100,000) hours Child Welfare – Three thousand (3,000) hours

The Department has identified specific hour requirements on page 42 for Application Maintenance/Enhancement Services but page IV-160 of the RFP, states that the same hour allocation is to be used for application modifications/enhancements and not application operational support and maintenance.

men

t

Com

The Department may consider providing clarifications regarding the number of hours that should be allocated for maintenance and the number of hours that should be allocated for modifications including the breakdown for HelpDesk services. The Department may also consider clarifying the number of hours to be proposed for Enterprise Shared Services and BIS Direct Support Services.

Comment # 11


RFI 16-09


Lot 2.G 2.f, page IV-84 The PELICAN applications utilize one of two models for help desk services, either utilizing the BIS help desk for first tier resolution or an email account monitored by OCDEL business analysts. In both cases, issues are reported

ce by designated users who will research the problem and determine the

necessity and appropriateness of escalating the issue for further

fere

nR

e

troubleshooting.

RFP

If the super user is unable to resolve the issue, the super user submits a PCR. The PCR then proceeds through the normal processes to resolution. In addition, regardless of the outcome, the super user enters the details of the call into the Automated Tracking System (ATS) for tracking purposes. ATS tracks all calls, both resolved and unresolved. Help desk calls average 106 per month.

The Department may consider providing clarifications relating to implementation support

Com

men

t services scope for Lot #2, and provide a list of the Help Desk activities that is being requested. Also, the Department may want to consider which Lot vendor based on their scope of services will have the most qualified resources to provide super user problem resolution.

ce Lot 3.H.3.d, page IV-116

RFP en The selected Offeror must provide the ability for Help Desk staff to scan, save, and

efer electronically route documentation. This applies to documents that,

R by procedure, are required to be routed or escalated to another group for resolution. The Department may want to consider providing additional details relating to who must

men

t

procure scan equipment, including the details regarding the standard of the software and

Com

tools for scanning. In addition, the state may want to provide a description of the type and an estimate of the volume of documentation required to be electronically processed and routed via the Help Desk.

ce Lot 3.H.3.f, page IV-117, Figure L3.8

RFP re

n The Help Desk Report will be a regular report that will include a summary of the number of calls received, the number of unresolved

Ref

e

calls, weekly notes, provider clearance data, and PCR information.

Com

men

t The Department may wish to clarify the tool that is planned for Help Desk defect tracking and reporting.

Comment # 12

Comment # 13

Comment # 14



ce

Lot 5.C, page IV-151 Required activities/tasks for the application maintenance phase include, but are not

fere

nR

e

limited to, technical requirements analysis and validation; project management; detailed system design (DSD); programming; testing; technical documentation; installation;

RFP

implementation support (if needed); and, technical training as required for modifications and enhancements to components of the in-scope systems.

Since the Lot 5 vendor will develop a solution based on the designs completed by the Lot 1

Com

men

t through 4 vendor(s), the Department may wish to provide clarifications as to which vendor will be responsible for the end to end SDLC solution (systems requirements through systems implementation). In addition, if the Lot 5 vendor changes the DSD during detailed design and/or development phases, the Department may wish to clarify who is responsible to communicate, and make the required changes to the corresponding General Systems design and systems requirements deliverables.

Lot 5.C.3, page IV-160 Hours required for applications modifications/enhancements are distinct from operational

e support and maintenance hours. For Year 1 of the contract, the number of allotted hours

fere

nc for application modifications/enhancements will be as follows:

Re • iCIS – One hundred thousand (100,000) hours

RFP • PELICAN – One hundred thousand (100,000) hours

• HCSIS – One hundred thousand (100,000) hours • Child Welfare – Three thousand (3,000) hours

The Department has identified a scope of services for Lots 1 through 4, but has not

men

t

currently provided information for those initiatives or hours that should be used to

Com

determine the amount of this scope of services. Similar to Lot 5, the Department may want to provide information on the number of hours or scope of services separated into base

services and modifications services.

RFP

R

efer

ence Figure L5.4 DPW’s Shared Services Functional Tasks, page IV-170 and IV 171

Enterprise Shared Services tasks do not include application security services for SDLC,

men

t

specifically security vulnerability testing and application integration with the Department’s

Com

Identity and Access Management system. The Department may wish to clarify if these security services should be part of the shared services scope of work in order to create the appropriate work products and deliverables defined on page IV-161.

Comment # 15

Comment # 16

Comment # 17


RFI 16-09


I-4 Scope of Work, page 2 The scope of work in RFP #16-09 is partitioned into two (2) service types – 1) IT Consulting Services; and, 2) Application and Technical Support Services. Reference Figure 1-4.1.

Service type 1 - IT Consulting Services includes direct support to DPW’s programs in the following areas:

• Strategy/Business Planning

o Strategy/Business Planning o Business Process Redesign (BPR)/Business Process Modeling (BPM)

• Application Services o Business Requirements Definition o General Systems Design (GSD) o Traceability Matrix

ce

o Performance Metrics

fere

n o Use Cases/Testing Scenarios

RFP

Re o Business Solution Life Cycle

• Implementation Support Services o Implementation and Field Support o Communication Management o Application Help Desk Services o System Reports

Service type 2 - Application and Technical Support Services includes application maintenance, application modifications/enhancements, integration, testing, technical training; enterprise shared services, technical and infrastructure support services, and direct technical support to BIS.

• Application Support Services o Application Maintenance and Operational Support Services o Application Modifications/Enhancements

• Enterprise Shared Services • Technical and Infrastructure Support Services • Direct Technical Support Services

Com

men

t The Department may consider providing further clarifications regarding the warranty obligations for Lots 1 – 5.

Comment # 18R

FPR

ece

fe

ren F. DIRECT TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES, page IV-173

Com

men

t Given the enterprise nature of the IT support, the Department may wish to clarify whether the enterprise shared services and direct support are planned at an enterprise level within the department.

Comment # 19

III-4.g Innovative Solution(s) Submittal, page 49 Offeror’s will receive a maximum of 400 bonus points based on the feasibility for the

nce Commonwealth and cost savings associated with the Innovative Solution(s). Multiple

fere Innovative Solution(s) Submittals will be scored independently but in no case will the score

Re for all Innovative Solution(s) Submittals exceed 400 points. Solution(s) where savings or

RFP

revenues generated are less than or equal to five percent of the total contract value can receive a maximum of 200 points. Submittals where cost savings or revenues generated are greater than five percent (5%) of the total contract value can receive a maximum of 400 points.

Com

men

t The Department should consider providing the total points for each section of the evaluation criteria. In addition, provide clarification as to which score component (e.g. technical or cost) the bonus points will be added. If the Department chooses to not provide the total points by section then they should consider clarifying the percent available

for Innovation Solution bonus points.



ce

I-6 Method of Award, page 5 Offerors are required to rank the lots in order of preference for award. For example,

fere

n

Lot Rank

Re Offeror A Lot 1 3

RFP

Lot 2 1 Lot 3 2

Com

men

t This requirement does not provide insight into a vendor’s ability to perform the services required nor does it obtain additional information on a company’s qualifications or their personnel experience and certification. The Department should provide clarification on how this ranking will be used in the evaluation and selection process.

Lot 5.C.3.a, page IV-162 The Department will initiate all systems modifications through a written request for a High Level Estimate (HLE) – (reference Appendix U.) The selected Offeror must respond, in

nce writing, to DPW-initiated system change orders within five (5) business days of receipt. The

fere response shall consist of an acknowledgement of the request, and a preliminary estimate

RFP

Re of the effort required to complete the change and the preliminary proposed approach.

Upon receiving a copy of the DPW approved general system design (GSD),the selected Application and Technical Support Services Offeror is required within five (5) days to provide the DPW Contract Administrator with a final estimate, including number of hours, budget and implementation date, for the Work Order.

Comment # 20

Comment # 21

Comment # 22


RFI 16-09


Com

men

t

Depending on the scope of services requested, it may be difficult for a vendor to provide: • A High Level Estimate within 5 business days • A Final Estimate within 5 days of receiving the General System Design

To be prepared to submit the HLE in this timeframe, the Lot 5 vendor may need to attend the business requirements and systems related SDLC phase activities such as systems requirements and general system design sessions and be familiar with training and implementation commitments. Can the Department clarify whether this level of participation and allocation of the planned number of maintenance, modification and enhancement hours for Lot 5 vendor towards these tasks are envisioned?

R

FP R

efer

ence

II-3.9 Tab 9 Corporate Qualifications and Experience, page 30 The Commonwealth requires that Offerors have prior experience providing relevant and comparable IT services. Offerors are asked to describe their current and previous client experience in providing IT services to other client(s) of similar size and complexity as the Department along with any prior experiences with client(s) belonging to the government sector.

Com

men

t

Given the strategic and critical nature of these Department’s initiatives and the need for relevant industry and business experience, the Department may want to further clarify the experience requirements: • Relevance to the business • Whether it is within the last 2 years • Active projects or completed • If the experiences are in a prime capacity.

The Department may also wish to clarify the program specific and engagement size qualifications that are required to bid on this scope of work.

Comment # 23

About Deloitte Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, a Swiss Verein, and its network of member firms, each of which is a legally separate and independent entity. Please see www.deloitte.com/about for a detailed description of the legal structure of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu and its member firms. Please see www.deloitte.com/us/about for a detailed description of the legal structure of Deloitte LLP and its subsidiaries.


http://www.deloitte.com/about

http://www.deloitte.com/us/about

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

From: Sent: To: PW, RFP 16-09 Subject: Comment for DPW RFP/RFI Dear

We were happy to learn that DPW has released a RFI to solicit new ideas and possibilities from the vendor community regarding the Strategic Business Systems RFP. As a small, PA-based MBE/WBE, we remain eager to respond to appropriate opportunities as a Prime vendor providing direct services to the Commonwealth.

We have analyzed all the five lots that are described in the draft RFP, and respectfully submit the following:

• The required services as defined in Lots 1-4 are disparate, large, and complex; • Lots 1-4 require a tremendous amount of specific business/program knowledge;

• In some cases the IT Consulting Services required in Lots 1-4 require specific application knowledge experience, and fall more in the realm of Application and Technical Support Services (Lot 5) – as a vendor that will be responsible for requirements and design (Lots 1-4), can DPW please explain how we can support implementation for modifications and enhancements that were performed by a third-party? It seems to us that several “technical” services are being required of the “business” vendor (s) that will be selected for Lots 1-4.

• A current example of how business and technical services were split is the DLI BWC Automation & Integration System (6100013597) – in that procurement, DLI had the requirements and use cases defined for the new system. The business vendor was not required to develop the General System Design, provide implementation support services, etc.

We respectfully request DPW to consider ‘reducing the scope of work’ in Lots 1-4 that will allow smaller-sized MBEs and WBEs the opportunity to respond as Prime contractors.

Thanks & Regards

Dunston Solutions | 2217 Eaglesmoor Lane, Enola, PA 17025

Email: | Tel: | Direct: Fax:

Disclaimer:This message is for the named recipient(s) above and may contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information of Dunston Solutions. If you have received this message in error, please immediately delete all copies of it, and notify the sender. Do not disseminate this message to anyone if you are not the intended recipient.

From: Sent: To: PW, RFP 16-09 Subject: RFI - RFP 16-09 - IBM Comments and Questions

IBM looks forward to participating in the Commonwealth's process for selecting information technology services in support of DPW's strategic business systems. Upon review of your draft for RFP 16-09, we are pleased to provide the questions and comments included in the attached file below.

Please feel free to contact me if I can be of assistance, or if you require additional information from IBM at this time. Thank you for your consideration of our input.

Sincerely,

IBM Global Government Solutions 2020 Technology Park Mechanicsburg, PA 17050

1

Request for Information (RFI) RFP 16-09–Information Technology Services for DPW’s Strategic Business Systems

IBM Comments and Questions – November 9, 2009

Existing Contract

To improve insight into the scope and work effort associated with the requested IT services, it is requested that the Commonwealth provide more detail on the services and related resources included in the existing DPW IT services contract. This additional information will also provide potential Offerors with a basis for reasonably sizing the substantial investments that will be required in staff and facilities, and in differentiating the activities to be performed within each lot. We understand that much of this information may be available via the Right to Know Law or through your procurement library. However, this information is readily known by your incumbent vendor(s) and it would be more expeditious and accurate if you could provide it directly to Offerors.

1. Over the last three fiscal years, how many hours have been allocated annually for activities defined within each lot of the RFP? During this period, how much has DPW spent annually on the activities specified for each lot? How much of the work has been done on time and material versus fixed price?

2. Can the Commonwealth provide past work orders under the current contract with level of effort for typical work aligned with Lots #1-#5?

3. To help establish a basis for resource planning, will the Commonwealth provide the incumbent vendor’s current staffing plan for each lot and the level of effort and rate for each position? If so, please indicate which roles and resources are allocated across more than one lot. Can you provide the number of DPW staff assigned to activities in each lot?

4. How much of the current contract workload is being performed offshore? What specific types of roles and activities have been assigned to offshore resources for each lot and what are the rates by type of resource? How will the Commonwealth evaluate the use of offshore resources for the new RFP?

5. Successful Offerors will be required to make a significant fixed-cost commitment in contract startup and any project facilities. To assist in accurately planning for space requirements, will the Commonwealth specify the amount of contractor space currently dedicated to project activities identified within each lot? Has the Commonwealth defined a minimum amount of space that Offerors will be required to provide for each of the lots? Are there any Commonwealth facilities currently used by contractors?

6. The procurement library includes a comprehensive range of documents related to the systems supported under the current contract. To facilitate access to this extensive

2

volume of material, will the Commonwealth provide electronic copies of documents upon request? Will the Commonwealth consider providing Offerors with remote online access to the library?

7. Will the existing contract reach end of term on June 30, 2011, or are additional optional periods available to the incumbent beyond this date? Is the Commonwealth committed to not extending the contract by end of term or creating a new contract to continue services outside of this RFP?

8. Commonwealth contracts generally have a provision for subcontracts to be available to the Commonwealth upon request. Can you please provide those for the incumbent’s subcontractors including any non-compete provisions that may be in those subcontracts?

Child Welfare Requirements

Although the Commonwealth has determined that a SACWIS solution is not feasible for Pennsylvania based on the recently completed study, the RFP indicates that DPW will address child welfare requirements with an automated and distributed system. It is understood that the Lot #4 services team will be responsible for high level system requirements activities and General System Design (GSD) for OCYF legacy systems as well as for the new distributed system functionality. However, while the RFP states that the ongoing maintenance and modifications of legacy systems is included in requirements for Lot #5, it is not clear how development activities for new distributed child welfare functionality will be handled.

1. Please clarify the Commonwealth’s strategy and plans for developing new child welfare functionality. Is development of the new distributed child welfare functionality within the scope of this RFP, or does the Commonwealth plan to address development as a separate lot or future procurement?

2. If the Commonwealth plans to include new development as part of Lot #5, how should Offerors respond to development requirements? Does the Commonwealth expect Offerors to propose a specific level of effort for new development, or will the Commonwealth handle this work on a Time and Material basis by allocating additional hours under Lot #5?

3. Will the Commonwealth provide the results of the SACWIS feasibility study to prospective Offerors?

Staff Resources and Capabilities

1. To facilitate the evaluation and comparison of Offeror teams, would the Commonwealth consider identifying by position mandatory key staff resources and minimum staffing requirements to be proposed for each lot?

3

2. The Statement of Work includes a list of required work skills for each lot. Contained within this section is a recap of mandatory minimum number of years experience in specified platforms and programs required for key resources. Will the Commonwealth expect all key resources (management, business and IT) to meet the defined mandatory minimums?

3. How will the Commonwealth determine if there is sufficient key staff proposed for each lot? How will this be measured?

4. What are the Commonwealth’s expectations regarding the work location for resources identified as key staff? Will all key staff be required to work at the vendor facility within 15 miles, or can they work at another location?

5. Can “on-shore” competency centers outside the Commonwealth be used for any of the project activities, or to provide periodic “bubble” resources? This would provide both cost advantages and delivery best practices for the Commonwealth.

6. To facilitate a comprehensive qualification of Offeror teams and their capabilities, it would be advantageous for the Commonwealth to promote interaction with Offerors as part of the procurement process. This could be accomplished through vendor fairs, project scoping exercises, or other sessions that would enable Commonwealth officials to establish early working relationships with Offerors. These sessions would provide opportunities for additional clarification of requirements and discussion of potential solution approaches, and would allow the Commonwealth to observe how the Offeror teams interact with Commonwealth staff members. Will the Commonwealth consider implementing this type of approach as part of the procurement process?

Technology and Architecture

As referenced in sections IV-7 through IV-10, the RFP recognizes the value of component web services that are integral to SOA, the need for flexibility in responding to required program and system changes, and the ongoing reliance on contracted resources to augment the DPW information technology staff. However, the RFP structure and approach could continue service delivery methods and operational processes that could limit the Commonwealth’s ability to more fully address these issues. Evolution to a service-oriented architecture (SOA) will afford the Commonwealth an opportunity to address the classic trade-off between the cost of labor and cost of tools. Given that the most expensive component of IT is people (both employees and consultants), we encourage the selection and use of higher level tools which can save development time and cost while resulting in applications and services which are more responsive, flexible, and agile.

4

1. Given the strategic benefits associated with a common set of tools that will promote common processes, shared resources, and reduced contractor requirements, will the Commonwealth consider a parallel effort for software vendors to openly compete for the selection of pre-integrated tools that complement the requested services and facilitate the implementation of SOA? We suggest that the following areas be addressed in any tool selection effort: a) .Net application development tools, b) a pre-integrated suite of SOA Infrastructure Tools, and c) a suite of Information Management tools that address DPW’s challenges in data quality and single view of its recipients. We also recommend that any new tools complement the Commonwealth’s existing SAP financial suite and DPW’s database standards and co-exist with the OA Portal and Microsoft Exchange implementation.

2. If a successful Lot #1-#4 vendor recommends a new technology or tool, how will the Commonwealth address the need of the Lot #5 vendor to amend their contract to support this new technology or tool? Under this RFP, rates for Lot #5 work are based on the tools the Commonwealth presently has in place. If the development environment changes or if a new tool is selected, it could impact the rates charged by the Lot #5 vendor.

3. We understand that the Commonwealth is not looking for new service delivery approaches and operational processes to be introduced in this effort. However, we would encourage some flexibility in this area and suggest that the Commonwealth consider additional credit in the evaluation model for innovative ideas in these areas. This is an opportunity to foster differentiation among Offerors, especially relative to the incumbent’s current service delivery approaches.

4. Would the Commonwealth consider adding a new Lot for Analytics and content management? These issues impact each program area and it could be more cost effective to have a Lot that drives consistency and shared services across these functions. In addition, it may assist the Commonwealth in enhancing recipient services while meeting compliance and social service practice goals.

Project Transition

1. How will the Commonwealth evaluate transition costs? There is an inherent advantage for the incumbent since they have been located here for an extended period of time and will have no transition costs for the transition period. Any new Offeror will need to make investments to the market and will be at a disadvantage if transition costs are part of the evaluation, especially for Lot #5.

2. Will there be a “takeover allowance” as part of the evaluation model that covers the transition period? In other words, will the state calculate a not to exceed transition dollar allowance and take that amount out of the pricing evaluation for all Offerors other than the incumbent? We have seen other states use this approach where there is a similar objective of creating a level competitive playing field and promoting a multi-vendor environment.

5

3. Will there be a requirement or opportunity for the Offerors to “stand-up” the existing systems and demonstrate that certain services can be performed by an Offeror? This could be achieved through sample scenarios and data provided by the Commonwealth, with results compared to actual Commonwealth results. We have seen this approach effectively used to demonstrate best practices, and to validate an Offeror’s qualifications and ability to support the application(s).

4. Relative to the incumbent, are any of the subcontracts or facility leases assumable to minimize transition time and cost and preserve knowledge were appropriate?

5. Would the Commonwealth consider extending the Lot #5 transition to nine months? This would help the Commonwealth to ensure that there is adequate time to address knowledge transfer from the incumbent. What knowledge transfer or transition assistance is required of incumbents under your current contract?

General Questions and Comments

1. The RFP calendar of events provides only seven days for Offerors to submit questions subsequent to the release of the final RFP. Will the Commonwealth consider extending the question submission deadline until December 29, 2009 to allow Offerors more time to develop questions and to consider information provided at the pre-proposal conference?

2. The RFP indicates that Offerors should answer each question based on the lot(s) on which they are proposing. What are the Commonwealth’s preferences for presenting the responses? Shall a separate proposal volume be submitted for each lot to which an Offeror responds, or shall multiple answers be provided to each question within a single volume?

3. Are unique client references required for each lot to which an Offeror responds?

4. Will the Commonwealth provide a draft of the missing Appendices for this RFP? If so, when?

5. To assist Offerors in developing their staffing plans and project cost structures; will the Commonwealth publish the Cost Submittal template prior to the release of the final RFP?

6. Section I-6 of the RFP states that an Offeror or subcontractor can only participate in one awarded contract. We strongly encourage this approach and believe that it will promote competition and result in a greater number of qualified prime contractor responses. Please clarify whether an Offeror can participate in one awarded contract as a prime contractor, and another awarded contract as a subcontractor. Specifically, if an Offeror is selected as a prime contractor for IT Consulting Services (Lots #1 - #4), can that Offeror also participate as a prime or subcontractor for Application and

6

Technical Support Services (Lot #5)? Conversely, if an Offeror is selected as prime contractor for Lot #5, can that Offeror participate as a subcontractor on Lots #1 - #4? During the recent vendor forum the verbal response was “no” to each of these questions.

7. Are references to time periods in the RFP, such as the approval timeframes for staff replacement as stated in Section I-29, expressed in terms of calendar days unless otherwise noted?

8. We would suggest an initial contract term of longer than three years. We recommend a five-year initial contract term with two one-year options. For the non-incumbents, this will reduce the relative impact of the transitions costs and result in lower overall costs to the Commonwealth.

9. Section I-41 states the Commonwealth retains the right to employ the services of a third party to perform the work required in any change order. If the Commonwealth elects to utilize a third party to complete this work, how will the Commonwealth ensure that this will not harm the Offeror in meeting their contractual obligations for service levels and other performance metrics?

10. Would the Commonwealth consider a radius larger than 15 miles from the Willow Oak building for the project facility location if it provides a significant cost savings to the Commonwealth?

11. For the components of Lot #5 titled “Technical Infrastructure Support Services” and “Direct Technical Support Services”, can the Commonwealth provide some additional guidance on how these scopes of services are sized and mapped into the Cost Submittal section? Are these skills part of the “blended rate”; are they included in the “Enhancement” hours? We understand the skill sets and roles, but did not see additional detail to size this effort or whether this is another type of time and materials support that will be part of the Offeror’s responsibilities.

12. The Statement of Work provides sub-component service offering expectations for both the IT Consulting Services and the Application and Technical Support Services Lots. Contained within the sub-component offering expectations are references to end-user training and field support. However, no specific details have been included regarding forecasted number of users expected to be trained and supported, preferred training delivery method (ILT, CBT, WBT, etc.), and logistic requirements. Will the Commonwealth be providing additional details with the final RFP release?

13. There are a few references to Part 1-29 in the Part IV Work Statement that appear to actually be referring to Part I-29.

14. There do not appear to be standard deliverables review and acceptance timelines and durations defined for either the Offeror or the Commonwealth in Appendix Q Draft Deliverables Management Guideline. Will deliverables review and acceptance

http://www.emarketplace.state.pa.us/FileDownload.aspx?file=RFI%2016-09/Solicitation_2.pdf_blank_

timelines and durations expectations be defined in the final version of Appendix Q or the contract? If not, will the Commonwealth be open to considering recommendations from Offerors?

15. The Process Flow Diagram referenced on Page 14 in Appendix Q Draft Deliverables Management Guideline did not convert to .pdf in a readable format. Could the Commonwealth provide this diagram as a separate attachment?

16. It is our understanding that current sub-contractors and consultants may be contractually precluded from competing against the incumbent prime contractor. This could limit the ability of prospective Offerors to build teams that reflect specific experience with the DPW systems outlined in this RFP. How will the Commonwealth compare and evaluate an Offeror’s staffing model that includes personnel with specific DPW systems experience versus Offerors who propose qualified staff with related expertise, but without direct experience in the DPW systems environment?

17. Would the Commonwealth consider making the pre-proposal conference mandatory? This would permit the Commonwealth to understand its potential pool of Offerors prior to proposal submission and proactively address any issues which may appear to limit sufficient competition.

18. Would the Commonwealth consider accepting electronic submissions of the Corporate Reference Questionnaire similar to the approach used in the current ITQ qualification process?

7

***********************************************************************

***********************************************************************

KPMG Response to RFI re: RFP 16-09

From: Sent: To: PW, RFP 16-09 Cc: Subject: KPMG Response to RFI re: RFP 16-09

Dear Ms. Schuchart,

Attached please find KPMG’s response to DPW’s RFI related to RFP 16-09. Thank you for the opportunity to provide early comment on the draft RFP. We are following the opportunity with interest and hope some of our thoughts and suggestions are helpful. Please feel free to contact us if we can provide any clarification or assistance relative to this response.

Thanks and have a great weekend

<<KPMG Response to DPW RFI 16-09.pdf>>

KPMG LLP - Information Technology Advisory Services 345 Park Ave. 39th Floor New York, NY 10154-0102 Phone: Fax:

The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged.It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else isunauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying,distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, isprohibited and may be unlawful. When addressed to our clients any opinions oradvice contained in this email are subject to the terms and conditionsexpressed in the governing KPMG client engagement letter.

1

KPMG LLP 345 Park Avenue New York, NY 10154

Telephone 212 758 9700 Fax 212 758 9819 Internet www.us.kpmg.com

Dear Ms. Schuchart,

On behalf of KPMG LLP (KPMG), I want to thank you for your invitation to attend the October 16th Vendor Forum regarding the Request for Proposals for Information Technology (IT) Services for DPW’s Strategic Business Systems (RFP 16-09). The session was very informative and I am pleased to respond to your RFI with some of our Firm’s thoughts and suggestions relative to DPW’s pre-draft. I should mention that we provide the strategy, requirements definition, and change management services to be found in the IT Consulting Services section of this RFP as well as Project Management/Quality Assurance (PMQA) Services for large states and municipalities. In reviewing the pre-draft we tried to keep both perspectives in mind. We hope some of our thoughts and suggestions are helpful as you move forward with this exciting initiative.

1. Opportunities to provide information to help vendors provide more accurate bids

Question 1: Would DPW consider adding a specific section to the master RFP document highlighting any System Development Lifecycle Standards it will require? Publishing these SDLC standards and expectations more specifically should help vendors understand what processes and specific deliverables they are required to perform or produce. In addition, potential respondents to Service Type 2 can have consistent expectations about what kinds of artifacts they will receive from the Service Type 1 Vendor(s). The more information that can be provided, the more accurate and consistent bids will be across your competitors. Even if you are looking to judge each vendor on the quality of the internal SDLC processes they propose, it may still help to provide your minimum expectations to help prevent extreme variations in price, approach, or scope. (RFP location: General Comment)

Question 2: Would DPW consider providing more information on what the State’s expected level of co-staffing will be for Service Types 1 and 2? This should help clarify for potential respondents the level of interaction they will have with DPW staff and the types of activities and roles the State will fill. This information should lead to better quality and more consistent bids from respondents. (RFP Location, General)

2. Clarification relative to project lifecycle coordination and the relationships and handoffs between Service Type 1, Service Type 2, and QA.

Question 1: Would DPW consider clarifying its model for the transition of work from Service Type 1 to Service Type 2 Vendors? The three tiered model proposed by DPW offers many advantages but some challenges as well. In our experience with this type of model in New York, one of the greatest areas of complexity and risk is around the successful and clear transition of work, project requirements, and design artifacts from a Service Type 1 Vendor to a Service Type 2 Vendor. There is normally an additional built in phase of work for transition between vendors which we know DPW has anticipated. We suggest that DPW make clear that each vendor should build in the required time for this transition phase into its proposed methodology and schedules. In addition, in our experience, there are two other things that can be done up front to help minimize the risk of a delay or failure in the transition process. The first is to explicitly define in as much detail as possible the transition process, artifacts, and protocols vendors will need to abide by. In our experience, spending additional time getting this process right and defined in the RFP can be very

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Bureau of Information Systems

Department of Public Welfare October 30, 2009

helpful and greatly reduce risk. The second and related point is to make sure the process and parties responsible for resolving inevitable conflicts and “finger-pointing” between transitioning vendors are clearly defined along with the benefits and penalties of compliance or non-compliance with any transition protocol. We have found that the more formally this process is constructed and defined in an RFP the better. (RFP Location, General)

Question 2: Would DPW consider clarifying how responsibilities for performing Service Type 1 functionality will be allocated when functional changes overlap multiple systems? In much the same way as transition between a Service Type 1 and Service Type 2 vendor introduces complexity and risk, initiatives that may impact several systems at once (for example interface development between a Welfare Management and Child Welfare System) could rely on coordination between multiple Service Type 1 vendors. We suggest defining a protocol for coordinating Service Type 1 activities up front in your RFP and/or asking each respondent to define their process for helping to ensure smooth and cooperative development activities with other teams. This can be helpful even if a single vendor is awarded slots 1-4 as companies can have trouble coordinating internally between their own project teams or with State partners at DPW or other agencies. (RFP Location, General)

Question 3: Would DPW consider clarifying its vision and expectation for how the five parallel work streams across Service Types 1 and 2 should be coordinated in terms of schedule management, risk management, and cross project dependencies? It will be important for vendors to understand what kind of Program wide management and control activities DPW will be providing up front in terms of a Program or Project Management Office or function. We also believe that defining the program and project management and coordination functions you expect your vendors to provide in a proposal results in better quality responses, more successful project start up, and smoother project execution. In addition to laying out the State’s Program Management approach and responsibilities, we suggest making the production of a Project Management Plan an initial deliverable for each vendor. This plan would define for DPW all areas of project control each vendor would use throughout the contract’s lifecycle. The presence and comprehensiveness of a plan like this for any complex IT project is one of the first things we look for as an indication of project quality. (RFP Location, General)

Question 4: Would DPW consider clarifying the involvement of any State Enterprise Architecture function to help ensure solution and technology compliance across vendors and programs? Enterprise Architecture can help reduce the risk of disjoint and incompatible development activities by different parties across different work streams. It would help potential respondents to understand what kind of Enterprise Architecture processes and protocols will be used to help guide consistent development across projects and vendors. (RFP Location, General)

3. Clarification in Terminology or Semantics

Question 1: Would DPW consider renaming Lots 1-4 in Service Type 1? The clarification and association of each lot with a particular Human Service Domain in the Vendor Forum was very helpful. Renaming each lot according to its domain (Welfare Management, Home Care, Child Care, and Child Welfare) may be more intuitive to your potential respondents especially when many likely develop systems that handle eligibility determination, case management, and/or provider management within a single application. (RFP Location: Section I-4 and Figure 1.4-2)

Question 2: Would DPW consider defining in more detail the deliverables/activities in Figure 1.4-1? The diagram seems to depict services in some cases and deliverables in others. This may confuse some respondents. It would be helpful if the diagram illustrated them consistently perhaps by depicting services first and then subordinate deliverables by service. The clarification of certain terms would also be very helpful to help ensure respondents understand them and provide a response in the same context. (RFP

2

Cc:

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Bureau of Information Systems

Department of Public Welfare October 30, 2009

Location: Section I-4 and Figure 1.4-1)

Two in particular that stand out are General System Design (GSD) under IT Consulting Services and Arbitration under Quality Assurance and Control. In KPMG’s methodology, we are used to thinking of both Functional and Technical Design as two separate documents. Functional Designs typically describe how the requirements will be translated into system functionality and describe in language that both business owners and developers understand what the system will do. Technical designs, in comparison, address how functionality should be translated into code. We mention this because we suspect the creation and transition of a functional design created by a Service Type 1 vendor to the Service Type 2 vendor so they can complete technical design will be a particularly important and sometimes contentious process. In our view, explicitly defining your design document approach and expectations relative to what a GSD will contain will help DPW receive more consistent responses and help lay the groundwork for the critical transition period between Service Type 1 and Service Type 2 vendors. (See also Question Group 2, Question 1)

In terms of Arbitration, KPMG is assuming that DPW’s QA function will have a role in brokering conflicts between Service Type 1 and Service Type 2 vendors. It would be very helpful for the RFP to define exactly what is meant and expected of QA’s Arbitration function (see also Question Group 2, Question 1)

Question 3: Would DPW consider clarifying its definition of Application Modification/Enhancements for Service Type 2? We assume that the Service Type 2 vendor will be supporting any system development across the four identified Human Service Domains. It is a small comment but the current title implies that no new development will be done for any of these domains and that only modification and enhancements will be made to existing systems. If there is a possibility that any completely new system development will be done for any of the domains, it may be worth updating the diagrams and text in this section. (RFP Location: Section I-4 and Figure 1.4-1)

4. Clarification Regarding Bidding Rules

Question 1: Would DPW consider clarifying the bidding rules for vendors that may wish to bid on both Service Type 1 and any potential Quality Assurance opportunity DPW may issue in the future? Specifically, it would be helpful to understand if a vendor who bids for Service Type 1 or 2 Services would be precluded from bidding on a future PMQA opportunity? In addition, would DPW also clarify whether a vendor actually selected to perform Service Types 1 or 2 could also successfully bid for a future PMQA opportunity? (RFP Location I-6 Method of Award)

Thank you again for the opportunity to contribute to this process. The opportunity to provide candid feedback on a potential solicitation definitely aids us in providing a better quality response. If you have any questions about our feedback, please feel free to contact me at or

Sincerely,

3

-Office -Cell -Fax

PA DPW – IT Services DPW Strategic Business Systems (Draft RFP 16-09)

From: Sent: To: PW, RFP 16-09 Cc:

Subject: PA DPW - IT Services DPW Strategic Business Systems (Draft RFP 16-09)

Importance: High

Ms. Shuchart:

Please find attached to this email Northrop Grumman’s questions for the aforementioned draft RFP.

If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Cordially,

<<PA DPW Questions for Draft RFP 16-09.pdf>>

Northrop Grumman Information Technology, Inc. 3975 Virginia Mallory Drive, 3012 Chantilly, VA 20151

3975 Virginia Mallory Drive Chantilly, VA 20151

November 9, 2009

RFP Project Officer, RFP 16-09 Bureau of Information Systems Department of Public Welfare Willow Oak Building Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105

Re: PA DPW – IT Services DPW Strategic Business Systems (Draft RFP 16-09)

Dear Ms. Teresa Shuchart:

In response to the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare (DPW) request for input and comments on its Draft RFP 16-09, Northrop Grumman submits its detailed suggestions, as an attachment to this letter contained in section Comments and Questions on DPW RFP Requirements.

Northrop Grumman greatly appreciates the opportunity to provide input into this important procurement. Publishing a Draft RFP is a procurement best practice that fosters greater understanding of the Pennsylvania DPW requirements and improves the quality of vendor responses. It is clear from our reading that a great deal of effort went into creating this draft. We offer our questions and comments on this version in hopes of assisting DPW in their procurement efforts and to gain additional insights into DPW requirements.

Northrop Grumman appreciates the effort that went into defining the scope of the Pennsylvania’s Strategic Business Systems at DPW and looks forward to responding to the final version of the DPW RFP. If the Department has any questions or concerns regarding this response, please feel free to contact at and or at

Sincerely,

Northrop Grumman Corporation 2 of 8

November 9, 2009 Response to IT Services DPW Strategic Business Systems (Draft RFP 16-09)

Comments and Questions on DPW RFP Requirements In reviewing the PA DPW Draft RFP it is apparent that a tremendous amount of time and effort stands behind this comprehensive document. This section represents a very good start to describing the many detailed business and technical requirements needed to support DPW’s Strategic Business Systems.

This section includes our detailed questions and comments to the business requirements component of the Draft RFP. Each RFP comment and question contains a reference to the DPW document with page number and section included. We present our questions in the order of RFP section and begin our response with general formatting comments.

General Formatting 1. It appears that the Table of Contents for RFP Section Part IV, Work Statement is missing. Please

include in the Final RFP release. 2. We recommend double checking the RFP section heading numbering as we found a number of

repeated section headings. For example, RFP Section IV, page 39, F, "REQUIRED ACTIVITIES/TASKS” should begin with "H" and RFP Section IV, page 172, E, “TECHNICAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT SERVICES” should begin with an “F” and subsequent letter titles need to be shifted accordingly to accommodate RFP section sequence.

Specific RFP Comments and Questions

File “02 RFP 16-09 Parts I II III FINAL DRAFT.pdf”, Page 27, RFP Section II-3.7

II-3.7 Tab 7 General Requirements

The Offeror should provide a description of its approach to meeting the requirements outlined in the RFP. Where possible, the Offeror should provide specific examples of methodologies or approaches that will be used to fulfill the various requirements, how these methodologies will be adapted for this contract and implemented, and examples of the Offeror’s similar experience and approach on comparable projects. This discussion should include a description of Offeror’s experience with large-scale, complex system takeovers, implementations, maintenance and operations, and turnovers, as appropriate.

3. The narrative in this section instructs the offeror to “provide specific examples of methodologies or approaches that will be used to fulfill the various requirements, how these methodologies will be adapted for this contract and implemented” seems to be in conflict with RFP Section IV-5, Leveraging Existing Methodologies & Processes. Section IV-5 states “DPW is not seeking to adopt new operational processes that an Offeror may want to introduce. It is required that prospective Offerors leverage existing tools, processes and methodologies in use by DPW while providing recommendations for updates and changes that DPW may evaluate for later approval.” And, later “DPW is not seeking to add new services or to adopt new operational processes that an Offeror may want to introduce.”

Since DPW requires Offeror’s to use existing methodologies and processes, then requiring vendors to describe processes that they have used provides an unfair advantage to the incumbent who is already using DPW’s established processes. Recommend that the narrative for Tab 7 General



Requirements be changed to “All Offerors must agree to use established DPW methodologies and processes.” This should be a pass/fail requirement.

File “02 RFP 16-09 Parts I II III FINAL DRAFT.pdf”, Page 42, RFP Section II-5, bullet #2

Application and Technical Support Services: For this service area, the following pricing must be provided.

4. This section presents the total number of hours for Application Maintenance/Enhancement Service Requests. Can DPW provide from the last 2 years detailed hours or Level of Effort metrics pertaining to non-Application Maintenance/Enhancement Service Requests including the following deliverable fixed price components identified in this requirement:

o Application Maintenance Phase o Enterprise Shared Services

File “02 RFP 16-09 Parts I II III FINAL DRAFT.pdf”, Page 45-46, RFP Section III-4

III-4 CRITERIA FOR SELECTION

The following criteria will be used, in order of relative importance from the highest to the lowest weighted factors, in evaluating each proposal within the two service types:

Consulting Services (Lots 1-4): � Technical– 45% � Cost 35% � Disadvantaged Business Participation – 20% � Domestic Workforce Utilization– 3% Bonus � Contractor Partnership Program – 5% Bonus � Innovative Solution(s) Submittal – 4% Bonus.

Application and Technical Support Services (Lots 5): � Technical– 40% � Cost 40% � Disadvantaged Business Participation – 20% � Domestic Workforce Utilization– 3% Bonus � Contractor Partnership Program – 5% Bonus � Innovative Solution(s) Submittal – 4% Bonus

5. A 40% weighting on Cost for LOT 5, Application and Support Services seems excessive and discounts the importance of technical expertise in performing these activities. Recommend that Technical be increased to 45% and Cost reduced to a 35% weighting.



File “03 RFP 16-09 PART IV Work Statement FINAL DRAFT.PDF”, Page IV-15, RFP Section IV-C

In order to address some of the complexities inherent in a multi-sourcing strategy, the Department will work with all of the selected Offerors during contract negotiations to develop and implement bilateral Operational Level Agreements (OLAs) in order to:

� Identify and address cross-vendor dependencies across the areas and processes of the outsourced services; � Identify and resolve contractual gaps, in the area of service provision and associated service levels, across vendors; and, � Identify and resolve tooling and process gaps, with respect to the holistic contractual obligations across vendors.

6. Does the Department intend to negotiate Operational Level Agreements (OLAs) in an open non-confidential forum with all selected vendors present?

File “03 RFP 16-09 PART IV Work Statement FINAL DRAFT.PDF”, Page IV-16, RFP Section IV-4

With the issuance of RFP 16-09, DPW is seeking to achieve the following:

1. Lessen DPW’s reliance on a single vendor by using a multi-sourcing model for the future provision of required IT services.

7. This objective speaks to lessening DPW’s reliance on a single vendor. We concur that this approach is a good first step in fostering competition and potentially reducing IT costs in the long run. DPW facilitates this objective in Section 1-6, Method of Award, by prohibiting one vendor from being awarded a contract for IT Consulting Services (LOTs 1-4) and being awarded a contract for Application and Technical Support Services (LOT-5).

While DPW’s strategy will in fact yield a minimum of 2 vendors being awarded a contract it needs to go one step further and prohibit one vendor from submitting proposals for both IT Consulting Services and Application and Technical Support Services in order to ensure increased competition. Presently, both types of services are being provided by Deloitte Consulting, who can be expected to bid for all lots knowing they cannot be awarded all offerings. If Deloitte is selected for award for some combination of LOTs 1-4 and LOT 5, they can then make a decision based solely on their best business interests as to if they want to accept the LOTs 1-4 award or the LOT 5 award.

While this scenario may be in the best interest of Deloitte Consulting, it is not necessarily in the best interest of DPW or the local IT community serving DPW. By allowing the long-term incumbent to bid on both categories of services there is a high probability that qualified local subcontractors with experience working with DPW will be signed to exclusive agreements to the incumbent and unavailable to join another prime’s team. Section I-6 of the RFP prohibits subcontractors from being on more than one awarded contract. In the event of multiple awards to Deloitte that requires Deloitte to pick and choose which awards they accept, DPW is put in the position of contracting with another team to perform on the award that Deloitte declines and that team will not include the best qualified local IT resources from smaller firms. In effect, the best



qualified local IT firms will be shut out of the contract that Deloitte declines.

We believe that DPW is sincere in its objective to procure technical services from other sources. However, given Deloitte’s dominance in the Harrisburg IT community serving DPW we also believe that DPW needs to take every possible step to ensure open competition that is in the best interest of DPW.

We respectfully request that DPW modify Section 1-6, Method of Award, to prohibit Offerors from submitting proposals for LOTs 1-4 and LOT 5.


Figure 3.7 – Annual Scoping and Maintenance Service Request and PCR Processes

8. There appears to be references missing in Figure 3.7. Please confirm references for Annual Scoping and Maintenance Service Request and PCR processes.


4th to last bullet – Monitor workloads and inventories and manage throughput and maintain any backlogs at acceptable levels

9. Can DPW define what is meant by “inventories” in this statement?


Last Bullet – Maintain up-to-date complete system documentation

10. Can we assume that system documentation will be up to date at the start of the contract? Are there procedures in place today that support the updating of system documentation for each and every PCR deployed into production?

File “03 RFP 16-09 PART IV Work Statement FINAL DRAFT.PDF”, Page IV-23, RFP Section IV-6 (B)

Equipment and Facilities Offeror Responsibilities

11. Northrop Grumman certainly understands the vendor should be responsible for providing furniture, office supplies, computer equipment, LAN, facilities, etc. we suggest that these costs are not included in the evaluated cost proposal as it would give the incumbent an unfair advantage having already procured equipment for this engagement.

In addition, this section requires offeror to provide a project site to house project staff within 15 miles of DGS Annex Complex. Does this mean that all vendor staff must work at this project site? Are off-site staffing models allowed? The requirement further states that Offerors “Present a plan that demonstrates an understanding if the equipment and facilities responsibilities of the Commonwealth and the Offeror”. This requirement provides an advantage to the incumbent who has years of working with DPW. Recommend that the RFP clearly state what the equipment and facilities responsibilities of the Commonwealth and the Offeror, as they do for multiple



requirements elsewhere in the RFP. Require Offerors to state that they understand and will comply. This should be a Pass/Fail requirement.

File “03 RFP 16-09 PART IV Work Statement FINAL DRAFT.PDF”, Page IV-38, RFP Section LOT #1 (G-4)

Provide résumés of all Key Staff, as defined in I-29 Key Staff Diversions or Replacement. Key Staff must have a minimum of two years experience in the following platforms and programs

12. The technology lists on page 38, 67, 100, 129 and 181 contains very specific products that most likely only the incumbent (or partnering subcontractors) would have 2 years experience in this entire list. Responding vendors might be able to obtain talent with these skills, but to reiterate our concern in our comment #7, the incumbent will most likely lock-in subcontractor resources possibly not providing alternative vendor responses. In addition, is it required that all key staff have this background or can the Offeror assume that the proposed key staff collectively contains experience with the products contains in the LOTs the Offeror is responding to?

We recommend that the list be limited to industry standard products with the legacy specific components listed as preferred and allow the vendor community describe their approach on how they intend to support requirements needing these products and that statements are included that allows the Offeror to propose key staff that collectively can satisfy this requirement.

In addition, the Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) dashboard documents nicely present software products used for each application component and we noticed proprietary components associated with the incumbent solution offering verses industry standard frameworks. Is it the intention of DPW to continue to move forward with these proprietary frameworks and if so does DPW require resources with specific experience using these tools (i.e., ITASCA framework)?

File “03 RFP 16-09 PART IV Work Statement FINAL DRAFT.PDF”, Page IV-39, RFP Section LOT #1 (F)

1. Knowledge Transition

“Transition” is defined as those activities that must take place between the effective date of the contract and the selected Offeror’s start date. This includes all required project management activities.

The primary objectives of the Transition Phase are the following:

� Ensure a smooth transition of responsibilities; � Complete knowledge transfer; � Establish strong accountability controls; � Mitigate risk to the Commonwealth, DPW, clients and taxpayers; and � Establish facilities and appropriate infrastructure.

13. Transition is a particularly difficult set of tasks in which to have a level playing field between the incumbent and challengers. One way of addressing this is to have the technical and cost evaluations of a vendors transition tasks as separate from the rest of the contract’s scope of work. We would appreciate the final RFP addressing how DPW intends to address the built-in advantage



of the incumbent on transition activities.

Along these same lines, including the incumbent’s assumption as to the level of preparedness of the Transition To offeror in the body of an RFP sets a tone that the incumbent, rather than DPW, is setting the requirements for this task. We would prefer that DPW clearly state their requirements for transition.

We also have some concerns that DPW is introducing subjective transition acceptance criteria. Using terms like focusing the design, be seen as credible, perceived by stakeholders as believable, justify the processes and conclusions of their transition plan blurs the acceptance criteria. Recommend that RFP clearly state the requirements for an acceptable transition plan.

File “03 RFP 16-09 PART IV Work Statement FINAL DRAFT.PDF”, Page IV-151-168, RFP Section LOT #5 (C, “APPLICATION SUPPORT SERVICES “)

14. Can DPW provide hours from the last 2 years that detail the activities contained in section Application Maintenance (IV.C.1, page IV-151), Production Operations Maintenance Support (IV.C.2, page IV-155), Application Software (IV.C.4, page IV-167) and Operational/Application Support (IV.C.5, page 168) at a level of detail to what DPW provided for Application Modifications/Enhancements (IV.C.3, page IV-159)?

15. Within the Application Maintenance section, the following statement is made (page IV-155), “The Offeror shall provide sufficient dedicated staff to perform all systems maintenance responsibilities. These individuals shall be separate and distinct from those defined in RFP Part IV.C.3 for support of the Modification Phase.” Can DPW identify the other sections within Application Support Services where this statement is applicable?

16. Can DPW clarify what is meant by Application Software (IV.C.4, page IV-167) and perhaps include examples pertaining to this level of support?

File “03 RFP 16-09 PART IV Work Statement FINAL DRAFT.PDF”, Page IV-153, RFP Section LOT #5 (C-1b)

The Offeror must propose a methodology to address emergency situations that must be resolved immediately

17. This section asks Offerors to “propose a methodology to address emergency situations that must be resolved immediately.” This appears to be in conflict with RFP Section IV-5, Leveraging Existing Methodologies and Processes. Recommend that DPW publish their methodology for handling emergency situations and require Offerors to state that they understand and will comply. This should be a pass/fail requirement.



File “03 RFP 16-09 PART IV Work Statement FINAL DRAFT.PDF”, Page IV-164, RFP Section LOT #5 (C-3a, Application Modifications/Enhancements Overview)

An automated tracking system must provide reports for tracking and management of Work Orders, including the flexibility to produce reports with varying content, format, sort, and selection criteria to meet both DPW and the Application and Technical Support Services Offeror’s reporting needs. All completed Work Orders must be maintained on the system file for analytical purposes throughout the life of the contract. The system and its data will be part of the system turned over to a subsequent contractor during the Turnover Task.

18. Narrative refers to an automated tracking system for tracking and managing Work Orders. Does DPW currently use an automated system for managing Work Orders? If yes, please provide details.

File “03 RFP 16-09 PART IV Work Statement FINAL DRAFT.PDF”, Page IV-169, RFP Section LOT #5 (E, ENTERPRISE SHARED SERVICES), Page IV-172 (E, TECHNICAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT SERVICES) and Page IV-173 (F, DIRECT TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES)

19. Are the staffing requirements for the areas referenced above included in the 303,000 hours referenced on page IV- 160?

We recommend that DPW clarify the scope contained in this section and provide clear delineation of Offeror and DPW responsibilities and include “DPW Responsibilities” and “Offer Responsibilities” sub-sections similar to previous sections. In addition, if the scope contained in this section is not in 303,000 hours, can DPW provide Level of Effort estimates for each of the items contained in this section?

File “03 RFP 16-09 PART IV Work Statement FINAL DRAFT.PDF”, Page IV-181, RFP Section LOT #5 (I, REQUIRED WORK SKILLS)

20. The skill sets referenced listed in RFP Section IV-I.2 (page IV-181) appear to be subset of skill sets requirements referenced in LOTs 1 to 4 as there are some products or skills missing from skill sets in LOT 5 (for example, COBOL is not listed). Can DPW confirm these are the skills required to support LOT 5? Other LOT skills are included on the following RFP pages; IV-38 (LOT 1), IV-67 (LOT 2), IV-100 (LOT 3) and IV-129 (LOT 4).

l

From: Sent: To: PW, RFP 16-09 Cc: Subject: Comments on RFP 16-09 We respectfully offer the attached comments on your draft RFP 16-09.

If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

Best,

NWN Corporation office l mobile l fax

271 Waverley Oaks Road, Waltham, MA 02452 l http://www.NWNit.com/industry/Smart%20Government.asp

Note: This message and any attachments is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, legally privileged, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or return email and destroy or delete this message along with any attachments immediately.

http://www.nwnit.com/industry/Smart%20Government.asp

271 Waverly Oaks Road, Waltham, MA 20452 781-474-3400 www.nwnwit.com Page 1 of 2

November 9, 2009

To whom it may concern:

We have read your RFP 16-09 with great interest, and we really appreciate the opportunity to

comment on it before it is released.

1. Your RFP shows a unique commitment to an approach that many health and human

services organizations talk about, but few put into practice. It relies on sound architecture,

emphasizes interoperability, and embraces incremental change. We believe this approach

requires a culture of continuous innovation to keep up its momentum, both at the “Lot”

level and across the board. We would recommend adding this as a requirement in the RFP.

You would ask that vendors describe how they would provide continuous innovation.

This is actually a bit of a trick question—but a good one. Why? Innovation means change,

and change is the enemy of reliability. But your “reliable” systems and processes will

atrophy quickly if they cannot incorporate change. The best answer will convince you the

vendor knows how to balance the two to get the benefits of both

2. Picture your operation after you let contracts for five lots of services. Your organization will

have a central group that handles strategy, program management, contract management,

and architecture. From time to time, you will need to bring your key vendors together for

strategic planning. You will want to combine your own big picture perspective with their

everyday, grounded one. We recommend you include in the RFP a requirement for

participation in annual, cross-Lot strategic planning.

This requirement will invite vendors to consider how they will bring their wealth of multi-

client experiences to bear on your challenges and opportunities. It’s not a trivial problem

because the consultants with the everyday experience in your operation will not be the

ones who have the strategic-level experience of other clients. Vendors readily promise that

you get the benefit of their many engagements, but you will want to learn how they actually

intend to provide it.

3. If you contract with a number of vendors, you run the risk that they will not cooperate with

each other across the Lots in a nicely zippered fashion—Oracle developers with Oracle

developers, Microsoft experts with Microsoft experts, business process experts with

business process experts, and so on. We recommend that your final RFP ask vendors how

of 2

they plan to make that cooperation happen. You might also want to understand their

approach to conflict resolution.

The structure you are creating can certainly work with the correct people, incentives, and

management. By asking your vendors how they propose to create the cooperation, you

invite them to offer their best ideas, and you pull them into being part of the solution.

Best regards,

NWN Corporation

Address: 271 Waverley Oaks Road Waltham, MA 02452

Contact: Telephone:

NWN Corporation provides clients with a complete range of information system services and solutions.

As a substantial corporation with seven offices throughout the East Coast and Texas, we have the depth

of expertise to take on our clients’ most pressing challenges. We offer an end-to-end set of services that

range from business systems strategy and design to IT architecture, implementation, and remote

management. In other words, we help clients articulate their business system objectives, put the right

process and technology solutions in place, then make sure these are working around the clock.

Our clients include private and public sector organizations in almost every line of work. We provide

solutions to major banks, universities, manufacturers, hospitals, and state and local government

agencies. Our clients operate locally, nationally, and internationally.

From:Sent:To: PW, RFP 16-09 Cc:Subject: RFI response to the draft PA DPW ITS RFP To Whom It Concerns:

Please see the attached response from Public Consulting Group, Inc. to the Request for Information (RFI), regarding the soon to be issued RFP 16-09 – Information Technology Services for DPW’s Strategic Business Systems. If you have any questions, please contact me at this email address or .

Thank You,

cid:image001. [email protected]

148 State Street, Tenth Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02109 PublicConsultingGroup.com


148 State Street, Tenth Floor, Boston, MA 02109 PublicConsultingGroup.com 617 426 2026 tel 617 426 4632 fax

October 30, 2009

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare Division of Procurement Rm 525, Health and Welfare Building Harrisburg, PA 17120

RE: Request for Information: RFI 16-09, Information Technology Services for DPW’s Strategic Business Systems

Dear :

Public Consulting Group, Inc. (PCG) is pleased to respond to this RFI. In brief, PCG supports the overall structure of the services detailed in the draft RFP, and we believe that it will result in contracts advantageous to the Commonwealth. In particular, PCG supports the use of a multi-source model for procuring the required IT services and the exclusion of the Application and Technical Support Services vendor from acting as the vendor for any of the IT Consulting Services lots. Structuring the procurement this way has two main benefits:

1. Competition and Qualified Vendors: PCG predicts that DPW will receive more bids from a wider breadth of qualified vendors. In particular, vendors with specialties in either IT Consulting Services (Requirements Analysis, General System Design, etc.) or Application and Technical Support Services will be more likely to bid.

2. Efficient Systems: A vendor who is entrusted with both evaluating options for system enhancements and then implementing those enhancements may have too much control over its own scope of work, leading to making recommendations that are more to the benefit to the vendor than to the Commonwealth. By dividing the work, the Commonwealth is more likely to achieve efficient systems.

We appreciate this opportunity to submit our comments on the draft RFP, and we look forward to the final RFP being released.

Sincerely,

From: Sent: To: PW, RFP 16-09 Subject: RFI regarding the soon to be issued RFP 16-09 - Information Technology Services for DPW's Strategic Business Systems Thank you for the opportunity to review this draft RFP prior to the official release. As requested in this RFI, we have attached our general comments and observations.

Thank you again for this opportunity and we look forward to continuing our service to the Department of Public Welfare.

Unisys

3605 Vartan Way Suite 101 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: Fax: E-Mail:

THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and its attachments from all computers.

REQUEST FOR INFORMAITON (RFI), regarding the soon to be issued RFP 1609 – INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES FOR

DPW’S STRATEGIC BUSINESS SYTEMS.

Unisys would like to thank the Department for the opportunity to review the draft RFP prior to the official release.

As requested, the following is intended to offer some general observations and comments regarding possible options for the Department related to RFP 16‐09. We have analyzed the Department’s current approach and, for comparison, offered two additional options. We first define the approach and then offer some general Pros and Cons for each option. We then offer some general observations and comments about each of the possible approaches.

Current RFP 1609 Approach (Pros and Cons) This is the current option as described in RFP 16‐09 and is defined as 1 to 4 separate vendors doing business requirements, a separate vendor doing maintenance, development and deployment, and the department or separate vendor doing Quality Assurance. (Number of vendors, 2 ‐ 6)

Pros• Potentially higher individual expertise level as the lots have specific skill

requirements and there may be a niche firm offering a specific skill without qualifications in other functions.

• Because each firm is theoretically specialized, and has more experience, their riskmay be lower in an individual lot, which may lower their pricing.

Cons• No economies of scale = higher total price due to:

o No resource sharing / no leverage to cover peaks and low periods in anindividual area ‐ elasticity to cover these periods is lost.

o No risk mitigation – there is less opportunity to cover unforeseen issues witha smaller overall piece.

o No workforce stability – less FTEs that are more costly to administer than part timers.

• Exponential growth in management requirements from DPW (and QA function) as the number of vendors grows (2 to 5 vendors and maybe a QA vendor).

• Depth of experience may vary, making it more difficult to change the work scope (for example to add a QA function) if one or more vendors don’t have that expertise.

• The more vendors, the more communications and interpretation issues that will drive change order costs up.

• Little or no opportunity for cost savings associated with enterprise shared services.

Alternative Approaches

Single Vendor Option This option is defined as having a single vendor doing the business requirements as well as the maintenance, development and deployment. Quality Assurance would be provided by the department or a separate vendor. (Number of vendors, 1 or 2)

Pros• Maximum leverage of enterprise shared services.

• Economies of scale = lower total price because of:

o Resource sharing / leverage to cover peaks and low periods in an individual area.

o Risk mitigation – there is more opportunity to cover with a bigger overall piece.

o Workforce stability – more FTEs that are less costly to administer than part timers.

• Consistency of process across all lots and associated business interfaces.

• Single management structure for DPW to deal with.

• Typical communications and interpretation issues that drive change order costs up are eliminated with a single vendor.

Cons • Reduced likelihood of being able to deliver top talent in all lots.

Manageable Multiple Vendor Option (Pros and Cons)This option is defined as a single vendor doing business requirements for Lots 1 ‐ 4 and a separate vendor doing the maintenance, development and deployment (lot 5), and the department or separate vendor doing Quality Assurance. (Number of vendors, 2 – 3)

Pros• Leverage cost savings associated with enterprise shared services.

• Potentially higher expertise level for defining business requirements based on higher levels of domain knowledge.

• A single firms specializing in HHS domain knowledge potentially offers better business requirements definition and are theoretically specialized with more experience, reducing risk which may lower their pricing.

• Economies of scale = lower total price for Lots 1 – 4 by allowing:

o Resource sharing / leverage to cover peaks and low periods in an individual Lots.

o Risk mitigation – there is more opportunity to cover with a bigger overall piece for all Lots.

o Workforce stability – more FTEs that are less costly to administer than part timers doing the business requirements for lots 1 – 4.

• Consistency of process across all lots and associated business requirements.

• Single management structure for DPW to deal with for defining the business requirements.

Cons• Reduced likelihood of being able to deliver top domain talent in lots 1 – 4.

• Although greatly reduced, communications and interpretation issues will drivechange order costs up.

MultiVendor Approach

There can be advantages to employing a multi‐vendor approach within the softwaredevelopment lifecycle (SDLC) for any software project. The current RFP approach separatesthe business requirements from the development and deployment of those requirements.

As previously communicated in our response to the RFI in April, one natural division is to have a vendor responsible for the business requirements and test cases development/execution and another vendor responsible for the design, coding, and deployment of the software solution. By separating the business specification of the software product from the design and coding of the software project, a healthy conflict between the two organizations ensures an increased degree of rigor across key points in the SDLC, namely requirements specification and acceptance testing. The business requirements vendor could also be retained to accomplish a level of oversight for the implementation and rollout to increase the probability of these activities meeting business user requirements, should a formal quality assurance vendor not be retained.

Based on best practices, be aware that the RFP (as currently drafted) has certain responsibilities not typically found in the business requirements definition vendor’s area of responsibility. All aspects of the design, including the General Systems Design, GSD are typically provided by the development and deployment vendor (lot 5). Although there are many advantages to having all design responsibilities with a single vendor, we cannot think of a single advantage of splitting the general design from the detail design. We believe the biggest advantage to moving the GSD to lot 5 is the department’s ability to leverage enterprise shared services as well as being able to clearly separate responsibilities that will minimize change order work related to miscommunication or interpretation issues between the two vendors. If not changed, the potential for this problem to get completely out of hand is exacerbated by the possibility of having 4 separate vendors (lots 1 ‐ 4) doing the design for business requirements with no ability to leverage anything.

Single Vendor ApproachAny option to reduce the possibility of 6 overall vendors will provide increased value to thedepartment. As previously communicated in our RFI response in April, we believe anintegrated approach will provide the best value to your business users and the Department.This integrated approach, similar to the one in place today, offers an end to end solutionthat is the best approach for collecting, defining, developing, and deploying applicationsystems since a single vendor is doing all of the work. This approach provides the bestopportunity to accurately capture the business requirements and ensure that they aredelivered in the form of an application system. This approach also offers an enterpriseview of all application systems to ensure consistency between the various programs whileproviding the best opportunity for creating shared services and reusable code to beleveraged at a later time. To control costs in this environment, it is incumbent upon DPW toimplement a strong change management board to adequately assist in controllingrequirements “runaway” fueled by aggressive end users and determining the properutilization of the budget allocations.

The current approach of multiple vendors that capture and define the businessrequirements and a separate single vendor to develop and deploy those requirements couldprovide savings in terms of dollars. However, the dollar savings could be at the expense of

not properly developing and deploying the business requirements as defined by the othervendor. This can happen easily since there is always communications and or interpretationissues that occur between the two separate vendors. When this happens, the chance ofadditional change order type work begins at an additional cost to the Department erodingpotential savings or if no change order work is approved, then dissatisfied business users.Now consider the possibility of 5 different vendors and maybe one more doing qualityassurance. How does anyone determine the total price to manage and handle all the fingerpointing and change order work that will be needed to resolve all the communication andinterpretation issues inherent with 5 or more vendors.

SummaryRegardless of the approach, the better the true and pressing business requirements arecaptured and defined, the less likely additional change order work will be needed offeringthe lowest price, best value solution.

Without proper contract oversight, both the integrated and separate vendor approach cansometimes lead to requirements that drive resulting development/implementation coststhat are out of line with budget expectations.

With proper management, a sound methodology, and the right toolset, the downside risksfor either an integrated or separate vendor approach can be overcome.

page 1 of 1 pw, rfp 16-09 accenture response to rfi ... · pdf filesuite of application and...

Documents