pre-proposal conference september 10, 2009
DESCRIPTION
Enterprise System for: Pesticide Permitting and Use Reporting to be deployed in all California Counties CACASA Request for Proposals #10. Pre-Proposal Conference September 10, 2009. Agenda. RFP Scope of Services Highlights Answers to submitted questions Open questions from attendees - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Enterprise System for:
Pesticide Permitting and Use Reporting
to be deployed in all California Counties
CACASA Request for Proposals #10
Pre-Proposal ConferenceSeptember 10, 2009
Agenda
• RFP Scope of Services Highlights• Answers to submitted questions• Open questions from attendees• Software demonstrations @ 10:30• Finish Q & A• Adjourn
3.1 System Design Services
• Demonstrated consulting skills to work with counties on needs & expectations
• Commitment to thoroughly document the whole solution
• Details about proposed system architecture: engineering, components, deployed infrastructure
• Advantages and rationale for proposed architecture
3.2 System Acceptance Test Plan
• Commitment to thoroughly test prior to deployment
• Experience developing incremental software/system test plans
• Field testing duration, objectives, and benchmark monitoring
3.3 Software Coding & Testing
• Commitment to an organized process that integrates design, coding, testing, and source code documentation
• Strong feedback loops to keep design documentation synchronized with as-built system.
3.4 System Documentation & User Help Sub-system
• Maximize county self-sufficiency to learn, use, and maintain the system
• Engage the community of users to achieve in-depth understanding and a strong sense of system ownership
Summary of Objectives: 3.1 - 3.4
• System development follows an orderly, efficient, and manageable process
• Control and autonomy conveyed to system users and owners
3.5 Implementation / Transition Plan
• Explain the process for converting unknowns to knowns
• Planning details and advance work required for a swift and smooth transition
• Assumptions about CACASA and county participation in both planning and execution
3.6 System Installations
• Anticipated duration to accomplish all county transitions
• Required contractor resources• Assumptions about required CACASA
and county resources• Seasonal timing to minimize Ag.
Department disruptions
3.7 Maintenance and Technical Support One Time Setup Activities
• Describe system monitoring / maintenance procedures and technical support systems that will be planned and/or established in advance of the system going “live”
3.8 Ongoing Maintenance and Technical Support Activities
• Anticipated contractor resources required
• Technical User Group involvement
3.9 Project Management
• Detailed Work Plan & Schedule• Coordination and communication
methods, both internal and external• Change and risk management strategies• Assumptions about CACASA and county
involvement and response times for evaluating deliverables or decision-making
Questions Submitted in Advance:Budget & Funding
• Is there a budget for the project?
• How much funding is secured and guaranteed
given the current financial and budgeting
issues?
• The “Phase I Needs Assessment Report” says
that there is an unspent amount of $1.23M.
How much of this amount will be available to
the current project?
Questions Submitted in Advance:Incumbent Vendors
• Do you want a new solution or will you give preference to the AgGIS/RMMS systems if they include the necessary enhancements?
• What is CACASA’s plan to leverage the past investment of $1.7M?
Questions Submitted in Advance:Data Issues
• Will CACASA provide all of the pesticide data and polygonal configuration of GIS interest areas?
• Is spatial data currently available with all the counties?
• Is there a requirement for data archival?
Questions Submitted in Advance:Project Management
• Does CACASA have any professional IT personnel who will participate in conjunction with the contractor?
• Who will approve the detailed system design, an outside IT vendor or the CACASA staff?
• How many design/vision meetings should we include in our estimate?
Questions Submitted in Advance:Standards and Certifications
• Are there any State IT standards to be followed if CDPR is funding part of the development and implementation of the new system?
• Does the contract require California MSA / CMAS certifications?
Questions Submitted in Advance:Architecture Issues
• Are there any existing co-location services being used by the CACASA where we can house the new system being developed?
• Are you open to using licensed products, such as ESRI tools for GIS? Are there any other licensing considerations for the new system?
• For a centralized approach, would there be a database administrator assigned to resolve internal database replication / synchronization conflict scenarios?
Questions Submitted in Advance:Existing Infrastructure
• Do all counties using this system have access to high speed internet services?
• Can you share some data of installation per county so that we can give a more realistic estimate of installation and transition?
• Currently does the main district office (or county HQ) synchronize its data with the other field district offices of the county?
• Do the counties have remote access for system developers currently?
Questions Submitted in Advance:Miscellaneous Issues (1)
• Is there a mobile component for this service whereby a field technician can input their pesticide usage and take advantage of GIS discovery on the mobile device?
• On page 2 of the “Phase II Final Recommended Solution Report” a Statewide Pesticide Use Reporting System (SPURS) is mentioned. Is this the system that we are developing?
Questions Submitted in Advance:Miscellaneous Issues (2)
• Can some part of the project engineering activities be carried out off-site?
• We expect to team with an overseas developer. Will such a teaming relationship preclude us from winning the project?
• How will the traveling costs be billed to CACASA?
Interactive Q & A