12866_RequestForQuote_Final.pdf

REQUEST FOR QUOTES (RFQ)

Best Value Analysis Process for IQMS

S-73000-00012866 Commercial Vehicle Registration Project IQMS

Issue Date: See “Available Date” for this RFQ in OregonBuys

Authorized Purchaser: Oregon Department of Transportation (“ODOT”) Issuing Office: ODOT Procurement Office

Authorized Representative: Katie Bighill (“Single Point of Contact or SPC”) Address: ODOT Procurement Office 355 Capitol Street NE, MS 33 Salem, OR 97301

Phone: 503-986-2709 E-mail: Katie.Bighill@odot.oregon.gov

Offer Due Date and Time: See “Bid Opening Date” and time for this RFQ in

OregonBuys

Issued to: This RFQ is issued only to MSA Holders in the below list. Proposals received from outside of the below list will be rejected.

iQMS CONSULTANT MPSA # CONTACT EMAIL PHONE #

Berry Dunn, LLC 8292 Kevin Scheirer kscheirer@berrydunn.com and pqcv@berrydunn.com 207.541.2262

Bluecrane, Inc. 8462 Allen Mills allen.mills@bluecranesolutions.com O:

310.793.5000 C: 310.200.8535

CSG Government Solutions 8470 Collen May cmay@csgdelivers.com and 208.371.8193 mailto:Katie.Bighill@odot.oregon.gov mailto:kscheirer@berrydunn.com mailto:pqcv@berrydunn.com mailto:allen.mills@bluecranesolutions.com mailto:cmay@csgdelivers.com

Accessibility: The Oregon Department of Transportation is committed to complying with all statutory requirements to ensure that it is providing information that is more accessible to people with disabilities, as required by Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794d), and 36 C.F.R. 1194 Appendix A. This includes information regarding the solicitation process. Please contact the Authorized Representative identified in OregonBuys (see “Buyer”) to request reasonable accommodation for access, due to a disability, to information related to this solicitation, or the solicitation process, or both. Accommodation requests shall be received by the Authorized Representative 3 business days prior to the Proposal Submission Deadline (see “Bid Ending Date” and time in OregonBuys).

1. Introduction

The Oregon Department of Transportation (“ODOT’’) is issuing this Request for Quote (“RFQ”) seeking a single, qualified and eligible independent Quality Management Services (“iQMS”) Consultant from the affected pool of Consultants to provide iQMS for the Commercial Vehicle Registration (“CVR”) Project (“or “Project”). Interested iQMS Consultants shall develop and submit Quotes in compliance with all RFQ requirements. iQMS Consultant submittals will be deemed nonresponsive if they are providing any other project support services or Information Technology Professional Services on that same Project.

It is anticipated that 1 Consultant (or “Offeror”) will be selected for a contract from this solicitation. The resulting contract will consider each Offeror’s relevant expertise and capacity to rfp@csgdelivers.com

Gartner, Inc. 8480 Heide Cassidy heide.cassidy@gartner.com 206.245.8321

Guidehouse, Inc. fka Grant Thornton 8294 Graeme Finley

Graeme.finley@us.gt.com pubsecstateandlocalgovtcontracts

@us.gt.com 571-242.0478

Hittner & Associates, Inc. 8295 Ron Hittner rhittner@hittnerandassociates.com 503.580.5722

Maximus, Inc. 8471 Brian Shea

Ellen Thompson briandshea@maximus.com StateandLocalMSA@maximus.com ellenthompson@maximus.com 804.510.1325

NTT DATA HCS 8471

Janet Miller

Dave Rudolph janet.miller@nttdata.com

David.rudolph@ntt.data.com 480-481.5946 503.975.6010

Public Knowledge, LLC 8296 Kristin Sparks ksparks@pubknow.com and marketing@pubknow.com

208.863.4217

The North Highland Co. 8477 Jon Burchard Jon.burchard@northhighland.com 916.208.4530 mailto:rfp@csgdelivers.com mailto:heide.cassidy@gartner.com mailto:Graeme.finley@us.gt.com mailto:pubsecstateandlocalgovtcontracts@us.gt.com mailto:pubsecstateandlocalgovtcontracts@us.gt.com mailto:rhittner@hittnerandassociates.com mailto:briandshea@maximus.com mailto:StateandLocalMSA@maximus.com mailto:ellenthompson@maximus.com mailto:janet.miller@nttdata.com mailto:ksparks@pubknow.com mailto:marketing@pubknow.com mailto:Jon.burchard@northhighland.com apply iQMS to the fundamental elements of the Project in the context of Contract and Project requirements.

Please see:

1. Attachment A for the Project Charter,

2. Attachment B for the Project Business Case.

ODOT estimates the length of the Work Order Contract (“WOC”) to be approximately 2 years, with option to extend an additional year for a total of 1 year, or until all Deliverables have been submitted and accepted by ODOT (Final Acceptance as defined in the WOC). Some Deliverables are currently listed as “OPTION RESERVED TO ODOT” and may later be activated through an amendment or change order to the Contract, as appropriate. In addition, as the Project progresses into new phases, some Deliverables may need to be refreshed as more becomes known. The selected iQMS Consultant will need to maintain flexibility and be adaptable to the System Implementation (“SI”) Contractor’s implementation approaches and methodologies.

The purpose of the iQMS Consultant’s work is to comply with all applicable contractual requirements to assure that appropriate levels of quality planning, quality control, quality assurance, and independent solution testing (including monitoring and reporting), are performed for the Project. These Services must provide ODOT with appropriate visibility into the processes being used, and the products being built. They must be sufficient to assure that the Project satisfies the needs for which it was undertaken, and that Project risks are well understood and appropriately mitigated or managed.

ODOT intends to enter into a contract with its selected iQMS Consultant substantially in the form of the Sample WOC attached to Consultant’s Master Price and Services Agreement (“MPSA”), as MPSA Attachment C or Attachment C2, as applicable.

2. DEFINITIONS AND RFQ ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS

A capitalized word has the meaning ascribed to the term in the MPSA and proposed WOC.

Project-centric definitions include:

(a) “Authorized Purchaser” means Agency Name.

(b) “BPT” means Business Project Team

(c) “CCD” means ODOT’s Commerce and Compliance Division

(d) “CICS” means Carrier Information Computer System.

(e) “CVR” means Commercial Vehicle Registration

(f) “DAS” means Department of Administrative Services. For more information about DAS please link to: https://www.oregon.gov/das/pages/index.aspx

(g) “DEQ” means Department of Environmental Quality.

https://www.oregon.gov/das/pages/index.aspx

(h) “DMV” Means Department of Motor Vehicles.

(i) “EIS” means the Enterprise Information Services, previously designated as the Office of the State Chief Information Officer (“OSCIO”) for the State of Oregon. All references in the RFQ-related documentation to “OSCIO” refer to EIS. For more information about EIS please link to:

https://www.oregon.gov/das/oscio/pages/index.aspx

(j) “IFTA” means International Fuels Tax Agreement.

(k) iQMS means independent Quality Management Services

(l) “IRP” means International Registration Plan.

(m) “MPSA” means the iQMS Master Price and Services Agreement that each Consultant currently has in force.

(n) “Notice” means Intent to Award.

(o) “ODOT’’ means Oregon Department of Transportation.

(p) “Offeror” means an iQMS Consultant that submitted a Quote.

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

(r) “RFQ” means Request for Quote

(s) “SaaS” means Software as a Service

(t) “SAP” means Strategic Action Plan.

(u) “SI” System Implementation

(v) “State” means the State of Oregon acting by and through DAS and Authorized Purchaser.

(w) “SPC” means Single point of contact.

(x) “WOC” means Work Order Contract

RFQ ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS INCLUDE:

(a) Exhibit No. 1: RFQ Pricing Sheet (embedded in RFQ).

(b) Exhibit No. 2: Reference Check Form (embedded in RFQ).

(c) Exhibit No. 3: Statement of Work1 (separate document).

(d) Attachment A to Statement of Work, Project Charter

(e) Attachment B to Statement of Work, Project Business Case

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 https://www.oregon.gov/das/oscio/pages/index.aspx https://www.oregon.gov/das/OSCIO/Pages/IndependentQA.aspx

3. DISCLAIMER:

As per ORS 279B.040, neither the Department of Administrative Services nor the ODOT may accept any bid or proposal from the awarded Consultant with respect to any subsequent Request for Proposal(s) for any project related to those for which the services provided by the awarded Consultant are utilized as a result of this RFQ.

4. Background Information

The purpose of this RFQ is to procure an iQMS Consultant to provide iQMS Services related to the replacement of the Carrier Information Computer System (“CICS”), currently in use, with a more versatile and modern enterprise-level platform that will encompass an International Registration Plan (“IRP”), International Fuels Tax Agreement (“IFTA”), motor carrier operating authority and commercial vehicle registration functions. Additionally, this Project will entail providing audit and compliance functionality and maintenance of existing system connections with other state agencies, such as Department of Environmental Quality (“DEQ”); as well as vehicle and financial records. All resulting audits must be uploaded to clearinghouse databases and comply with all required federal reporting mandates and standards.

Furthermore, the Commerce and Compliance Division (“CCD”) will establish a cross-functional Business Project Team (“BPT”) to engage stakeholders, analyze current state, develop a comprehensive set of system requirements, manage testing of the system and associated user training to implement a new system by the end of calendar year 2028 that meets customer and stakeholder expectations. The BPT will include subject matter experts in IRP, IFTA, commercial registration, financial transaction reconciliation, IRP/IFTA audits, roadside enforcement, and Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”) vehicle processes. Based on analysis to-date, CCD will separately either a) procure a Software as a Service (“SaaS”) system, such as a Commercial-Off- The-Shelf or Platform Service, tailored to the State of Oregon’s needs, or b) enter into an intergovernmental agreement or product sharing consortium to utilize a system used by other states.

Replacement benefits of the existing system include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Service Enhancements: Replacing CCD’s current system would upgrade the functionality and oversight of commercial vehicle registration and IFTA account activities. This new system would, in turn, enhance operational efficiencies by eliminating manual application and transaction processing. The new system would also ensure CCD receives accurate vehicle registration, fuel use data and revenues from carriers.

Replacing the existing system is in alignment with ODOTs Strategic Action Plan (“SAP”) the specific goal of investing in and integrating technology to improve transportation services and operations. System replacement also aligns with CCD’s modernization objectives as follows:

• Reduced dependence on aging technologies.

• A more flexible platform to deliver around-the-clock electronic services to carriers.

• Maintaining modern data processing and information sharing.

• Reduced risk of finding appropriate developer resources.

• More robust data protection and presentation.

• Increased stability and resiliency.

5. RESPONSIBILITIES

5.1. iQMS Consultant Responsibilities, in addition to those identified in the MPSA and proposed WOC, as applicable, are as follows:

(1) Utilize an independent and objective approach to review the purpose, documentation, governance, plans, estimates, resources, methodologies, change processes, deliverables and risks for the Project as set out in the resulting iQMS Contract and related Statement of Work; and compare this information and data to the quality standards defined for the Project and industry best practices.

(2) iQMS Consultant shall develop and provide all required Deliverables that will be mutually agreed to by Consultant and ODOT in the resulting Contract and any subsequent Contract Amendments and Change Orders for additional in-scope work or Deliverables.

(3) iQMS Consultant shall be responsible for all travel and other related expenses, including parking, incurred during the term of the resulting Contract.

(4) When required to be on-site, Consultant’s Project team shall work in Salem, OR in a space to be provided by ODOT.

(5) iQMS Consultant shall provide all equipment for their employees with a minimum of the following software requirements: Microsoft Suite that includes 2016 versions or newer of Outlook, Word, Excel, Visio, and Project.

(6) At a minimum, or as otherwise mutually agreed to in writing by iQMS Consultant and ODOT, iQMS Consultant shall participate in the following meetings throughout the duration of the contract:

a. One weekly Project Management Status Meeting;

b. One monthly Project Team Meeting;

c. One monthly Steering Committee Meeting.

5.2. ODOT Activities

(1) Assign a Project team liaison to assist with the coordination of iQMS Consultant’s access to relevant documentation and other artifacts, as well as internal Agency staff, and other stakeholders and partners.

(2) Take all appropriate steps to address risks and issues associated with omissions, gaps, defects, and other quality concerns identified by the iQMS Consultant, or document business reasons for not doing so.

(3) Provide meeting space and make available adequate working space and facility access for any work required by Agency to be completed onsite.

(4) Keep iQMS Consultant apprised of Project status, including any changes in scope, budget, or timeline.

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.

Request for Quote Schedule of Events Date Time

Questions and Requests for Clarifications due

5 business days from RFQ Issue 3:30 PM PT

Answers to Questions/ Requests for Clarification due to Offerors

Within 3 Business Days from deadline for submission of questions.

Opening (Quotes Due) See Bid Opening Date in OregonBuys for this RFQ Review of Proposals (approx.) 2 Weeks

Presentations/Interviews, (approx.) N/A

Consultant Selection (approx.) April 21, 2025

Award Protest Opportunity 7 Calendar Days from Notice of Intent to Award

7. Scope of Services:

The Scope of Services includes the Services outlined in the MPSA 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 shall be submitted in writing 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 6. E-mail subject line must read: iQMS RFQ S- 73000-00012866 Clarification.

ODOT, in its sole discretion, may issue revisions, substitutions, or clarifications of this RFQ. ODOT will send revisions, substitutions, or clarifications, if any, electronically to the above referenced MSA Holders via OregonBuys in the form of an addendum or change order.

9. Quotation Submittal:

Quotes, including all required submittal items, must be received on or before the Offer Due Date and Time at the location identified above to be considered. Quotes will not be accepted after the Offer Due Date and Time. Offers, including all required submittal items, shall be received in a single PDF Format, not including the separate Pricing Sheet referenced in Exhibit No. 2, in OregonBuys on or before the Bid Opening Date and time above. Proposers shall submit only one offer on behalf of their entity. Proposer is solely responsible for ensuring its Quote and all required submittal items are received through OregonBuys in accordance with the RFQ requirements before the Bid Opening Date. Proposals submitted by any other means will be rejected.

Any pages exceeding the limits shown in section 10 Minimal Submittal Requirements will not be provided to the evaluation committee or considered in the evaluation

ODOT may extend the Offer Due Date when it is in the best interest of ODOT.

ODOT may reject all Quotes or to cancel this RFQ if in its sole determination, it is in the best interest of ODOT

ODOT is not responsible for any delays by transmission errors or for any mis-delivery for any reason. Additional information may be found in the OregonBuys Terms of Use.

10. Minimal Submittal Requirements:

Quotes must be submitted via OregonBuys to the Authorized Representative in searchable, electronic PDF format by the Offer Closing Date and Time listed in the RFQ Timeline. Quotes must include the following items:

(a) A detailed description of Consultant’s approach and methodologies for providing the Services in the Statement of Work (“SOW”). iQMS Consultant Offerors must submit their approach to accomplishing the Services, along with a timeline of activities and critical success factors necessary per the Project Timeline. Consultants may choose to submit the required information in draft Quality Management Plan and Baseline Work Plan formats (iQMS Deliverables 1.3 and 1.4), or in some alternative format they believe allows them to clearly and concisely communicate the required information.

Responses must not exceed 14 pages in length.

(b) Identities and resumes for all 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 WOC(s). ODOT prefers Consultant’s deployment of personnel with a minimum of 5 years’ Quality Assurance experience comparable in nature to the services requested in this RFQ. Resumes must not exceed 2 pages each in length. ODOT is particularly interested in Offeror’s experience and level of support with projects involving FAST Enterprise systems, if any. All deployed personnel must be able to pass a certified criminal background check.

(c) A description of past or current comparable projects within the last 5 years for which Offeror has or is providing quality management services that were or are comparable to the Services described in the RFQ. Comparable means similar in nature, complexity, scope and size to the Automated Testing Device Replacement Project.

(d) Client Reference Check Forms (Exhibit 2) for 2 of the comparable projects listed in section 10(d).

Section A of the Reference Check Form must be completed by the Offeror. Section B of the forms must either be completed and signed by the Client Reference, returned to the Offeror and submitted with the quote; or Offeror may submit Exhibit 2 completed in full (Sections A and B) from Offeror’s perspective as depicted below. If Offeror completes Sections A and B, Offeror must not sign the form and must mark the checkbox at the bottom of the form. In either circumstance, the ODOT reserves the right to follow up separately with Client References and may provide additional guidance to the Offeror concerning client reference checks.

(e) 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 Offeror or the Quote will be considered null and void.

1. Offerors may add a signature line to the pricing sheet exhibit, or

2. Include a signed cover letter addressing all submission components, including the Cost Quote.

(f) Work examples of, or detailed Deliverable Expectation Documents (“DED”) for:

1. Deliverable 1.1, Risk Assessment Report,

2. Deliverable 2.6, Periodic or Quarterly Report, and

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

(g) Submitted Quotes are subject to disclosure as public records. If an Offeror includes information and data with its submitted Quote that Offeror regard as proprietary, privileged, or otherwise confidential; Offeror must identify such information in a separate document submitted with its Quote and provide a redacted submission along with the original submission. Otherwise, ODOT will assume that Offeror consents to public disclosure of the original submission.

11. Evaluation and Award:

OODT, in its sole discretion, may reject all Offers or cancel this RFQ at any time.

Quote submissions will be reviewed to determine if all Submittal Requirements have been met. Those meeting the Submittal Requirements will be evaluated to determine the “Best Value” for the State. “Best Value” is based solely on the evaluator’s determination of what best meets the needs of ODOT taking into account price as well as the following considerations:

(a) Independence (no conflict of interest with ODOT or the SI Contractor);

(b) Perceived quality of submitted detailed approach and schedule;

(c) Offeror’s Experience;

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

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

(f) Offeror references; and

(g) Perceived quality of submitted Work Examples or DEDs.

The initial scored evaluation round includes assessment of all required initial submissions. Scoring categories and their related “maximum points” are listed in Figure 1. Each category will be scored based on the information provided in the Quotes in the context of the Rating Scale set out in Figure 2.

OODT may establish additional rounds of evaluation for Interviews and presentations involving 2 or more of the top-ranking Offerors but may determine to award a WOC at the conclusion of the first evaluation round to the highest-scoring Offeror (successful Consultant with the best value quote). The actual number of invited Offerors to any additional rounds of evaluation depends upon scoring results from the preceding round; and the Evaluation Committee may determine not to carryover scores from the preceding round to the additional round. The awarded WOC will be in a form substantially similar to the Sample Contract, iQMS MPSA Attachment C (or Attachment C2 for those Offerors eligible to provide iQMS and other categories of IT Professional Services) and the proposed Statement of Work (RFQ Exhibit 3). ODOT may negotiate contract terms and conditions with the successful Consultant.

ODOT 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 SOW (RFQ Exhibit 3). ODOT 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

ODOT’s CONTRACT AWARD DETERMINATION IS FINAL AND WILL BE BASED ON THE SCORES

PROVIDED BY THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE, SUBJECT TO A TIMELY AWARD PROTEST

SUBMITTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH ORS 279B.410. ODOT will not award a WOC to any Offeror that the evaluation committee determines to have an actual, or apparent, conflict of interest.

The Single Point of Contant (“SPC”) will deliver the Notice of Intent to Award (“Notice”) to all Offerors via email transmission to the Offerors’ named representatives.

AWARD PROTEST OPPORTUNITY CONSISTENT WITH ORS 279B.410. CCD and AP will provide a 7 calendar day period following release of any Notice of Intent to Award (“Notice”) during which an adversely affected Offeror may protest such award. An Offeror who claims to have been adversely affected by the selection of a competing Offeror shall have 7 calendar days from the date of such Notice in which to deliver a signed protest to CCD through the SPC. The SPC will deliver the Notice to all Offeror via email transmission to the Offerors’ named representatives.

Adversely affected Proposers will have until 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time, on the protest deadline date to submit a protest in accordance with the requirements in ORS 279B.410.

The submitted protest must bear the signature of a company official authorized to represent Offeror’s interests. Offerors may use an electronic signature copy via email to satisfy the protest submission deadline, provided they e-mail the original protest to the SPC postmarked no later than the protest submission deadline. To be adversely affected, an offeror must demonstrate that all higher ranked quotes were ineligible for selection. OODT will not consider a protest submitted after the deadline. Protests will be resolved according to Oregon Administrative Rules.

OODT will not consider protests that do not include the information required under ORS 279B.410.

Figures 1 and 2 start on the next page

Figure 1

CATEGORY QUOTE EVALUATION CRITERIA

MAX

POINTS

Independence No actual or apparent conflict of interest No Points

Quality Management Plan and iQMS Baseline Work

Plan

Percentage of Points based upon Figure 1, rating scale (following page).

The Authorized Representative will average the final scores for each Proposal (calculated by totaling the points awarded by each Evaluation

Committee member and dividing by the number of members).

OODT may decide to defer calculation of cost points until Round 2 evaluation, limiting such calculation to the top-ranking Offerors who will compete in that round.

Consultant Experience and

References

Credentials, Qualifications, Expertise and Experience of

Proposed Personnel; and

Staffing Plan

Work Examples 175

Total Cost of Deliverables

Lowest total cost receives all points, higher costs receive fewer points based upon the following formula:

lowest cost of all

Proposers X cost points possible = cost score cost being scored

TOTAL MAXIMUM POINTS POSSIBLE

Figure 2: Rating Scale

This rating scale provides guidance to Evaluation Committee members concerning their required qualitative, subjective assessment of how well an Offeror addresses the elements and essentials prescribed in each scored submission requirement in terms of the Offeror’s demonstrated knowledge and likely capacity and capability to develop, deliver, and perform in the context of the relevant Tasks and Deliverables at issue in a submission requirement.

SCORE EXPLANATION

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.

61 – 89%

GOOD TO VERY GOOD – Response provides useful information, while showing experience and knowledge within the agency program area. Response demonstrates above average knowledge and ability with no apparent deficiencies noted.

50 – 60% SATISFACTORY – Response meets all requirements in an acceptable manner.

Response demonstrates an ability to comply with guidelines, parameters, and requirements, but with little or no additional value provided.

1 – 49% POOR TO FAIR – Proposer meets minimum requirements but does not demonstrate “Satisfactory” knowledge of the subject matter.

0 RESPONSE OF NO VALUE – An unacceptable response that does not meet the minimum requirements.

EXHIBIT NO. 1

RFQ Pricing Sheet

Deliverable

Number Deliverable Description

Due Date NTE Deliverable Cost

Task 1: Risk Assessment

1.1.1 Project Risk Assessment Report - initial

WOC NTP + 30

Business Days

OR

As agreed to and documented in the accepted Task 2, Deliverable 2.4, Baseline QMS Work Plan.

$0

1.1.2

Project Risk Assessment Report – Refreshed after planning with a selected Development Contractor/Solution Vendor has been completed

45 days post NTP of the Development Contractor/Solut ion Vendor

$0

1.1.3 Project Risk Assessment Report – refreshed after planning with selected Development Contractor has been completed

45 days post NTP of the Development Contract

OPTION RESERVED TO

ODOT/ NO COST

SUBMISSION

REQUIRED

1.1.4 Project Risk Assessment Report – refreshed after substantial design has been completed

Upon completion of substantial design

OPTION RESERVED TO

ODOT/ NO COST

SUBMISSION

REQUIRED

1.1.5 Project Risk Assessment Report – refreshed to ensure legacy shutdown/changes can accommodate the rollout

Upon request of the Agency

OPTION RESERVED TO

ODOT/ NO COST

SUBMISSION

REQUIRED

Deliverable Description

Due Date NTE Deliverable Cost

1.2 Ongoing Risk Notification (this is an extension of the Status Reporting under section 3.3 and 4.1)

As needed.

Written report three days after verbal notification from

APM

Price included in periodic Deliverables

3.3 (QC Reports) and

4.1. (QA Reports)

TASK 1 SUBTOTAL $0.00

Task 2: Quality Planning

2.1 Quality Standards – Operational Definitions

Report See 2.3 $0.00

2.2 Quality Checklists for Task 3.1 Deliverables See 2.3

Price included in related Deliverable 3.1 QC Reviews

2.3.1 Quality Management Plan (of iQMS

Contractor)

Deliverable 1.1 Acceptance + 20 Business Days.

The most recent Risk Assessment Report should inform each version of the Quality Management Plan and associated Quality Standards, $0

Deliverable Description

Due Date NTE Deliverable Cost

Quality Checklists and Work Plan.

2.3.2 Quality Management Plan (of iQMS

Contractor) - Refresh

If Deliverable 2.3 is released during the planning and procurement stage, a QMP refresh (deliverable 2.3.1) should be released after the solution vendor comes on board.

2.4.1

Baseline QMS Work Plan (of iQMS Contractor)

(Updated by the parties as needed to reflect mutually agreeable adjustments, if any, to QMS deliverables.)

See 2.3 $0

2.5 Special Requests

TBD by subsequent task release order or

WOC

amendment

OPTION RESERVED TO

OODT NO COST

SUBMISSION

REQUIRED

2.6

Lessons Learned Report –Project Evaluation (See template in SOW Appendix B)

Due at end of project

As agreed to and documented in the accepted Task 2, Deliverable 2.4, Baseline QMS Work Plan.

https://www.oregon.gov/eis/shared-services/Documents/eis-ss-iqms-sow-appendix-a-thru-e.pdf

Deliverable Description

Due Date NTE Deliverable Cost

TASK 2 SUBTOTAL $0.00

Task 3: Quality Control

Deliverable 3.1: Quality Control Review

3.1.1

Review of RFP. Solution requirements related information and data components of the sample contract in the Request for Proposal (RFP) or P3 approved solicitation.

Related information used to support this review may include:

• Requirements supporting RFP (functional & non-functional / technical requirements)

• SOW supporting the RFP

• Agency Project Plan

• Agency Business Case

• Solutions Analysis

Prior to RFP release or P3 approved solicitation

As agreed to and documented in the accepted Task 2, Deliverable 2.4, Baseline QMS Work Plan.

$0

3.1.2

Solution contract SOW review, including solution requirements related information and data components of the proposed contract with the successful Proposer.

Solution requirements related information and data include:

• Requirements supporting the proposed solution contract (functional & non-functional / technical requirements)

• SOW supporting proposed solution contract

• Updated agency Project Plan

• Updated agency Business Case

Prior to Solution Contractor contract execution.

As agreed to and documented in the accepted Task 2, Deliverable 2.4, Baseline QMS Work Plan.

$0

3.1.3

Solution Contractor’s Detailed Requirements (inclusive of functional & non-functional / technical requirements, requirements traceability matrix).

After Requirements Development with Solution Contractor.

As agreed to and documented in the accepted

Deliverable Description

Due Date NTE Deliverable Cost

Task 2, Deliverable 2.4, Baseline QMS Work Plan.

3.1.4

Solution Contractor’s Implementation Plan (inclusive of details relating to design, development, implementation, and hosting)

After contract execution with Solution Contractor.

As agreed to and documented in the accepted Task 2, Deliverable 2.4, Baseline QMS Work Plan.

$0

3.1.5 ODOT’s Project Management Plan, Sub-plans, Scope, Schedule, and Budget.

If deliverable

3.1.5 is completed before Solution Contractor is selected, deliverable 3.1.5 shall be refreshed or updated after Solution Contractor has been selected.

Agency may choose to split this deliverable into multiple deliverables, e.g.

3.1.5a, 3.1.5b, etc.

$0

3.1.6

Documentation necessary to demonstrate compliance with the OSCIO Cloud Policy (Statewide DAS Policy 107-004-150) The deliverable may QC the Solution Contractor’s documentation, as accepted / approved by Agency (ODOT) or Agency’s

As agreed to and documented in the accepted Task 2, Deliverable 2.4, OPTION RESERVED TO

ODOT/ NO COST

SUBMISSION

REQUIRED

(Consult with EIS Cyber Security Services BISO)

Deliverable Description

Due Date NTE Deliverable Cost documentation if such a deliverable does not exist in Solution Contractor’s SOW.

Baseline QMS

3.1.7

3.1.7.1. Solution Contractor system testing

plan

3.1.7.2. Agency (OODT) User Acceptance

Testing plan

As agreed to and documented in the accepted Task 2, Deliverable 2.4, Baseline QMS

3.1.8

Solution Contractor statement of work deliverables.

Relevant deliverables in Solution Contractor’s statement of work may include:

•Functional design documentation •Technical design documentation •Solution architecture

• Software build and release plan

• Data Dictionary

• Data conversion / migration plan & results

• Disaster Recovery Plan

• Training Plan

• Operations and Maintenance Plan

After Solution Contractor contract execution

Deliverable 3.2: Security Code Review

3.2.1 Security Review and Sampling Plan OPTION

RESERVED

OPTION RESERVED TO

OODT/ NO COST

SUBMISSION

REQUIRED

3.2.2 Security Review and Sampling Report(s) OPTION

RESERVED

OPTION RESERVED TO

ODOT/ NO COST

SUBMISSION

Deliverable 3.3: Quality Status Reporting

Deliverable Description

Due Date NTE Deliverable Cost

3.3

Periodic Quality Status Reporting and Tracking

For up to 39 Instances

One instance per month (end of month + 5 business days) except the month when the quarterly is due.

As agreed to and documented in the approved Baseline QMS

($0 per instance)

TASK 3 SUBTOTAL $0.00

Task 4: Quality Assurance Status and Improvements Reporting

4.1

Quarterly QA Status and Improvement Reports / Presentations For up to 15 Instances

*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.

End of Quarter + 10 Business Days*

($0 per instance)

TASK 4 SUBTOTAL $0.00

Task 5: Independent Solution Testing (IV&V)

5.1 Independent Master Test Plan (IMTP) OPTION

RESERVED*

OPTION RESERVED TO

ODOT/ NO COST

SUBMISSION

REQUIRED

5.2 Independent Test Execution and Status

Reports

OPTION

RESERVED

OPTION RESERVED TO

ODOT/ NO COST

SUBMISSION

REQUIRED

5.3 Independent Security-Related Testing OPTION

RESERVED

OPTION RESERVED TO

ODOT/ NO COST

SUBMISSION

REQUIRED

TASK 5 SUBTOTAL OPTION RESERVED TO

ODOT/ NO COST

Deliverable Description

Due Date NTE Deliverable Cost

SUBMISSION

TOTAL COST $0.00

*For systems deemed Mission Critical to State business operations, EIS may require Independent testing and may direct the use of Independent testing data as the main criteria, or among the main criteria, for determining readiness for system launch and placement of system functions into production use. If Independent testing is required by EIS, details of the Independent testing activities must be documented in a master test plan (“MTP”) deliverable.

The MTP may be authorized for development and accepted for use only after prior consent from EIS. Covered Organizations may obtain EIS consent for authorization to develop and acceptance of the MTP after obtaining EIS consent for acceptance of the QMP. Unless the EIS indicates otherwise, testing results must be reported in accordance with applicable IT industry standards to ensure efficient, timely Independent review2

2 Excerpt from Statewide QA Policy 107-004-030, General Requirements, section 10 https://www.oregon.gov/das/Policies/107-004-030.pdf

RATE CARD

Name Position | Skill Set Hourly Rate

EXHIBIT NO. 2

Reference Check Form

Proposer Name: __________________________________________

Reference Entity: __________________________________________

Reference Contact Name: __________________________________________

Contact Telephone Number: __________________________________________

Please respond to the following questions.

Score: 1-5 for each response.

1. Detailed description of Qualifying Engagement.

Score:

Comments:

2. Proposer’s role and functional area of Qualifying Engagement.

Score:

Comments:

3. Description of technical environment and complexity.

4. Description comparing Qualifying Engagement to RFP Scope of Work.

Comments:

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

EXHIBIT NO. 3

IQMS Statement of Work

(Separate Microsoft Word Document)

ATTACHMENT A

To the IQMS Statement of Work

PROJECT CHARTER

12866_ProjectChart er_VehReg.pdf

IT Professional Services Master Price and Services Agreement

WORK ORDER CONTRACT EXHIBIT 3

STATEMENT OF WORK FOR iQMS

Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION TO QA STATEMENT OF WORK

1.1 PURPOSE

1.2 QUALITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES

1.3 DEFINITIONS

2 QUALITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES (“QMS”)

2.1 TASK 1: RISK ASSESSMENT

2.2 TASK 2: QUALITY PLANNING

2.3 TASK 3: QUALITY CONTROL (QC)

2.4 TASK 4: QUALITY ASSURANCE (QA)

2.5 TASK 5: INDEPENDENT SOLUTION TESTING

3 DELIVERABLES AND PAYMENT SCHEDULE

4 APPENDICES

Appendix A – Generic Software Project Quality Standard.............................................. A-2

Appendix B – Project Evaluation Template ..................................................................... A-13

Appendix C – QA Status and Improvement Report Template2 ........................................ A-23

Appendix D – QA Status and Improvement “Sample” Report ........................................ A-28

Appendix E – EIS/OSCIO Project Assessment Report and Project Budget & Schedule Variance Report .......................................................................................................................................... A-34

1 The OSCIO developed the Oregon Quality Standards from review and analysis of the Project Management Institute’s Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) in the context of the International Standards Organization (ISO) standard ISO12207 for system life cycle management and traditional software development projects. Depending upon the nature of an IT project’s underlying solution, these Oregon Quality Standards may be modified, omitted or supplemented with additional, applicable quality standards.

2 Appendices C through E provide guidance for QMS Task 4, Deliverable 4.1, Quality Assurance Status and Improvements Report. Authorized Purchaser will work with Consultant to finalize agreeable format(s).

ATTACHMENT B

To the IQMS Statement of Work

BUSINESS CASE

12866_Business Case_Veh Reg.docx