00011290_CDSR_RFQ_Final.docx

REQUEST FOR QUOTES (RFQ) # S-7300-0011290

Best Value Analysis Process Independent Quality Management Services for Crash Data System Replacement (CDSR)

Issued to:

1.

INTRODUCTION

Authorized Purchaser is issuing this Request for Quote (RFQ) to solicit the affected pool of Consultants to develop and submit quotes to provide independent Quality Management Services (iQMS) for the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Crash Data System Replacement (CDSR) Project. ODOT is seeking an IT solution (CDSR) that will interface with other IT systems utilized in ODOT, consolidate ODOT’s and other agencies numerous sources systems into a single crash reporting tool, authoritative information management system, enhance collaboration between internal and external customers, and support a connected ODOT-wide approach to crash data tracking, distribution and reporting.

The opportunity outlined in this RFQ is intended to select a Consultant with sufficient capacity to apply iQMS to fundamental elements of the CDSR Project as a whole.

The length of the overarching WOC is estimated to last through 2026, or until all Deliverables have been submitted and accepted by Authorized Purchaser.

2. DEFINITIONS AND RFQ ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS

A capitalized word has the meaning ascribed to the term in the MPSA and proposed WOC. Program-centric and Project-centric definitions include:

“CDSR” Means Crash Data System Replacement “ODOT” means the Oregon Department of Transportation, the Authorized Purchaser.

“Project(s)” means one or more initiatives launched within the Program.

“Quote” means a RFQ-responsive submission that describes a Consultant’s approach, experience, proposed personnel and cost for requested Services.

“EAS” means Oregon Department of Transportation, Enterprise Application Services “PDAD” means Oregon Department of Transportation, Policy, Data and Analysis Division “CRU” means Oregon Department of Transportation, Crash Reporting Unit

RFQ ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS INCLUDE:

(a) Attachment A – Sample Work Order Contract (“Contract”) (MPSA Attachment C or Attachment C2 depending upon the Proposer’s MPSA).

(b) Exhibit No. 1 – RFQ Pricing Sheet (embedded in RFQ).

(c) Exhibit No. 2 – Client Reference Form (embedded in RFQ).

(d) Exhibit No. 3 – Statement of Work[footnoteRef:1] (separate document). [1: The Statement of Work includes Appendices A to E, available on the State Chief Information Office Website at: https://www.oregon.gov/das/OSCIO/Pages/IndependentQA.aspx

3. DISCLAIMER:

As per ORS 279B.040: By providing the Oregon Department of Transportation a complete Request for Quote, the awarded Consultant is prohibited from participating in any subsequent Request for Proposal(s) to which the Services provided by the awarded Consultant are utilized as a result of this Request for Quote.

4. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Crash data in Oregon is used in a wide variety of ways, from solving complex engineering problems to answering media requests, to supporting in-depth safety planning and crash analyses. It serves a critical role in decision-making across all levels of state and local governments, including where and how to invest in transportation improvements. It is critical for decision makers to have access to timely crash data, and for several years the existing processes and systems have been unable to meet expected deadlines.

The current crash data processes and systems in use at ODOT hinder the timely collection and dissemination of this data, and the self-service crash data tools make it difficult to consume the data. Due to the lack of electronic submission options, the crash reports received can be incomplete and difficult to comprehend. Driver and Motor Vehicle Services (DMV) Crash Reporting Unit (CRU) processes can be time-consuming, resulting in a delay in the transfer of crash reports to the Crash Analysis and Reporting (CAR) Unit which can negatively impact the ability for key CAR Unit staff to meet federal crash data reporting requirements.

The Crash Data System (CDS) is the main system used for crash data coding, management, and reporting. The system is based on aged, unsupported technology that prevents any meaningful system improvements from being implemented. There is difficulty in identifying and acquiring resources to make system updates and perform maintenance on the system. The current systems in use scarcely meet current business needs and have no way to meet the business needs of the future.

As a result, the CAR Unit and other key Transportation Data Section staff is seeking a replacement system through a competitive Request for Proposal (RFP) process. The new system would modernize systems and processes to improve the overall timeliness of the release of crash data for distribution and reporting.

(6) Consultant shall provide all required meeting tools needed when remote meetings are to be conducted. This includes but is not limited to conference phone numbers and webinar tools for collaboration/sharing (for example Skype, WebEx, Zoom or MS Teams)

6. RFQ TIMELINE

The table below represents a tentative schedule of events for this RFQ. All times are listed in Pacific Time. All dates and times are subject to change.

7. SCOPE OF SERVICES

As depicted in the Sample Contract, and RFQ Exhibit No. 3, Statement of Work.

8. QUESTIONS AND REQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATION

All questions and requests for clarification regarding this RFQ must be submitted by e-mail, to the Authorized Representative and must be received no later than the Date and Time identified above in the “RFQ Timeline” section. E-mail subject line must read: iQMS RFQ # ODOT-34209-20 Clarification.

When appropriate, as determined by TAD, any revisions, substitutions or clarifications of the RFQ will be sent electronically via the Authorized Representative.

9. QUOTATION SUBMITTAL

Quotes must be received on or before the Offer Closing Date and Time identified above in the “RFQ Timeline” section to be considered. Quotes will not be accepted after the Offer Closing Date and Time. Quotes will be accepted by e-mail to the Authorized Representative identified above. Submittals must be specified using the subject line: iQMS RFQ # ODOT-S-7300-00011290 Submittal.

The Authorized Purchaser may extend the Offer Closing Date when it is in the best interest of the Authorized Purchaser, and a notice will be issued via the Authorized Representative.

The Authorized Purchaser may reject all Quotes or cancel this RFQ if the Evaluation Committee believes it is in the best interest of the Authorized Purchaser to do so.

10. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

Quotes must be submitted in electronic PDF format to the Authorized Representative by the due date and time listed in the RFQ Timeline. Quotes must include the following items:

(a) Declaration of “No Conflict of Interest”;

(b) A draft Deliverable 2.3, Quality Management Plan and related Deliverable 2.3, iQMS Baseline Work Plan, which describe Consultant’s approach and methodologies for providing the Services described in the Sample Contract and related Statement of Work. iQMS Consultant proposers are asked to submit their approach to accomplishing the Services, along with a timeline of activities and critical success factors necessary per the CDSR Project Timeline outlined in Figure 1.

(c) A description of past or current comparable[footnoteRef:2] projects within the last five (5) years for which Consultant has or is providing quality management services that were/are the same or similar to the Services described in the RFQ; and Client Reference Check Forms (Exhibit 2) for each. Forms must be completed and signed by the reference, returned to the Consultant and submitted with the quote, or in the alternative that the forms be partially completed by the Offeror and submitted with the quote (for example, first 5 lines of the form identifying the Offeror, the Client Reference, the Client Reference’s Contact Person and that person’s contact information. The Authorized Purchaser will follow up separately with the Client Reference and may provide additional guidance to the Offeror concerning Client Reference Checks). [2: Comparable means similar in nature, complexity, scope and size to the ODOT iCERT Project.

(d) Identities and resumes for proposed personnel (designating which are “key” persons) through whom Consultant intends to deliver the required Services, and a staffing plan explaining how Consultant will maintain the demonstrated personnel credentials, qualifications, expertise and experience throughout the life of the Contract(s). Authorized Purchaser prefers Consultant’s deployment of personnel with a minimum of five (5) years’ experience. All deployed personnel must be able to pass a certified criminal background check.

(e) Work examples of, or comparable to:

1. Deliverable 1.1, Risk Assessment,

2. Deliverable 2.6, Project Evaluation/Lessons Learned Report, and

3. Deliverable 3.1, Quality Control Review (and related Deliverable 2.2, Quality Checklists).

(f) A separate Pricing Sheet (Exhibit No. 1) that lists Fixed Prices by Deliverable and the Hourly Rate Card by personnel position used to develop the Fixed Prices. The Pricing Sheet must be signed by an authorized representative of the Consultant or the Quote will be considered null and void.

11. EVALUATION AND AWARD

Quote submissions will be reviewed to determine if all Submittal Requirements have been met. An Evaluation Committee will evaluate those meeting the Submittal Requirements to determine the “Best Value” for the State. “Best Value” is based on the Evaluation Committee’s determination of what best meets the needs of the Authorized Purchaser, taking into account price as well as the following considerations:

(a) Independence (no conflict of interest);

(b) Perceived quality of submitted draft Quality Management Plan and related iQMS Baseline Work Plan;

(c) Consultant’s Experience;

(d) Credentials, qualifications, expertise and experience of proposed Consultant personnel;

(e) Perceived quality and efficacy of proposed Staffing Plan;

(f) Consultant references; and

(g) Perceived quality of Work Examples.

Authorized Purchaser’s determination is final based on the scores provided by the Evaluation Committee. Each category will be scored based on the information provided in the Quotes. No award will be made to any Proposer that the Evaluation Committee determines to have an actual or apparent conflict of interest.

POINTS

Consultant Experience and References

Credentials, Qualifications, Expertise and Experience of Proposed Personnel; and Staffing Plan

Work Examples

cost being scored

TOTAL MAXIMUM POINTS POSSIBLE

Authorized Purchaser may award a Contract to the highest-scoring Consultant (best value quote) in a form substantially similar to the Sample Contract, iQMS MPSA Attachment C and the proposed Statement of Work (SOW) (RFQ Exhibit 3). Authorized Purchaser may negotiate contract terms and conditions with the successful Consultant, except those listed as follows:

· Choice of law Choice of venue Constitutional requirements Requirements of applicable federal and State law

90 – 100% OUTSTANDING - Response meets all the requirements and has demonstrated in a clear and concise manner a thorough knowledge and understanding of the subject matter and opportunity. The Proposer provides deep and meaningful insight into its expertise, knowledge, and understanding of the subject matter.

RATING SCALE

EXHIBIT NO. 1

Description Due Date NTE Deliverable Cost

Task 1: Risk Assessment

2. (This is an extension of the Status Reporting under section and 4.1)

Task 2: Quality Planning

(If needed upon approval of solution vendor’s approach, plan, and schedule deliverables.)

(Updated by the Parties from time-to-time to reflect mutually agreeable adjustments, if any, to QMS Deliverables)

(1 Instance: Project Evaluation at completion of project)

Task 3: Quality Control

Deliverable 3.1: Quality Control Review

Project Charter, Budget, Budget Management Plan, Communications Plan, Change Control Plan, Change Management Plan, Communications Plan, Contract Management Plan, Quality Management Plan, Procurement Management Plan, Procurement Management Plan, Risk Management Plan, Schedule, Schedule Management Plan, Scope Management Plan, Staff Management Plan, Governance Plan, Interface Plan, System Security Plan.

Functional Design Document Technical Design Document Test Completion Report Training Plan Implementation Plan Transition Plan

Upon receipt of Solution Vendor’s statement of work deliverables as part of the deliverable reviews

TBD

Deliverable 3.2: Security Code Review

Deliverable 3.3: Quality Status Reporting

Example: Reports to be used during Execution stage of project as needed by Authorized Purchaser and/or required by EIS (Up to xx instances / $xx.xx per instance)

(NTE $,$$$.$$)

Task 4: QA Status and Improvements Reporting

(Up to xx instances / xx per Instance)

4.1.01 Quarterly Status Report

4.1.02 Quarterly Status Report

4.1.03 Quarterly Status Report

4.1.04 Quarterly Status Report

4.1.05 Quarterly Status Report

4.1.06 Quarterly Status Report

4.1.07 Quarterly Status Report

4.1.08 Quarterly Status Report

*Note: The exact dates of the End of Quarter will be specified in the Baseline QMS Work Plan. These dates will take into account and include but not be limited to, Contractor start date, and Oregon’s Joint Legislative Committee on Information Management Technology hearing dates.

As agreed to and documented in the approved Baseline QMS Work Plan

TBD

Task 5: IV&V Testing

Description Due Date NTE Deliverable Cost

Task 1: Risk Assessment

6. (This is an extension of the Status Reporting under section and 4.1)

Task 2: Quality Planning

(If needed upon approval of solution vendor’s approach, plan, and schedule deliverables.)

(Updated by the Parties from time-to-time to reflect mutually agreeable adjustments, if any, to QMS Deliverables)

(If needed upon approval of solution vendor’s approach, plan, and schedule deliverables)

Task 3: Quality Control

Deliverable 3.1: Quality Control Review

Program Charter, Project Charter, Budget, Budget Management Plan, Communications Plan, Change Control Plan, Change Management Plan, Communications Plan, Contract Management Plan, Quality Management Plan, Procurement Management Plan, Procurement Management Plan, Risk Management Plan, Schedule, Schedule Management Plan, Scope Management Plan, Staff Management Plan, Governance Plan, Interface Plan, System Security Plan.

Solution Vendor’s statement of work deliverables as part of the deliverable reviews

TBD

Deliverable 3.2: Security Code Review

Deliverable 3.3: Quality Status Reporting

(Up to 10 instances / $18,000 per instance)

TBD

Task 4: QA Status and Improvements Reporting

RFQ Pricing Sheet

For the pricing evaluation, proposals must include amounts in the fields that contain $$$$.$$. These are considered required deliverables under the contract and must contain pricing.

RATE CARD

This section is to be updated to match the proposed personal under the RFQ and the rate at which the agency would be charged for their services.

EXHIBIT NO. 2

Reference Check Form

Please respond to the following questions.

Score: 1-5 for each response (5 being high)

1. Provide a description of your engagement with the Consultant, along with the services provided.

Score:

Comments:

2. Who were the Key Persons involved in the contract work with the Consultant?

Score:

Comments:

3. Did the Consultant deliver what was required per contract, was it on time, and did the deliverables meet your quality standards?

Score:

Comments:

4. How would you rate the working relationship with the Consultant? Were they easy to work with? Good communications, flexibility, and transparency?

Score:

Comments:

5. If given the opportunity, how likely would you use Consultant’s services again?

EXHIBIT NO. 3

iQMS Statement of Work

See Attachment A - Sample WOC Section 2. Quality Management Services(QMS) image1.png