1st round questions received -answers.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 18 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 74BAI-S2436
- Issued by
- Clark County, Nevada
About this file
This document contains questions and answers related to a bid for the State of Nevada's Claims and Regulatory Data System (CARDS) Enhancement Project. The project involves enhancing the CARDS application, which is used by Clark County and the City of Las Vegas. The questions cover a range of topics, including subcontractor requirements, system demonstrations, resume requirements, cloud infrastructure, application architecture, data structure, API documentation, mobile functionality, automated testing, and reporting requirements. The state is open to recommendations for new software, frameworks, and virtual hardware to meet the project's storage and performance requirements. The state will provide training for internal functional units, while external stakeholder training will be handled by the state. The project aims to address gaps in CARDS functionality that are currently filled by user-developed spreadsheets.
The state is seeking vendors with experience developing systems with integrated online payments and external web portal functionality. Vendors will need to provide resumes for all staff engaged on the project, not just key personnel. The state is open to using cloud infrastructure providers such as AWS, Azure, or Google Cloud, and is also open to alternative programming languages beyond .NET. The state currently does not use a full-text search engine, containerization, or Swagger documentation for its API, but is open to implementing these technologies.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 2nd round questions answers.xls | XLS spreadsheet | |
| 74BAI-S2436 CARDS Enhancement RFP~1.docx | DOCX document | |
| Quote Instructions.pdf | ||
| Attachments for Signatures 2023-04-13~1.pdf | ||
| Cost Schedule IT - CARDS Enhancement Project.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| IT Scope of Work RFP 74BAI-S2436.docx | DOCX document | |
| Reference Questionnaire 2023-04-13.docx | DOCX document | |
| Letter of Intent - CapTech.pdf | ||
| Requirements Matrix - Claims and Regulatory Data System Enhancement Project.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Standard Form Contract .pdf | ||
| Terms and Conditions for Services 2023-04-13~1.pdf | ||
| Evaluation Questions - Vendors.docx | DOCX document | |
| Insurance Schedule - RFP.pdf | ||
| Proposed Staff Resume 2023-04-13~1.docx | DOCX document |
Show all 14
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Bid Q&A for Export Report
| Bid Q&A | |||||
| QUESTION_NBR | CREATED_BY | QUESTION_SUBJECT | QUESTION_TEXT | ANSWER_TEXT | |
| 1 | SYNAP22 | Subcontractor developer location restrictions | Are there any restrictions on the use of subcontract software developers that are not US citizens and live in other countries? For example, could we as a primary vendor use software developers from Brazil? If the answer relates to being "key personnel", would software developers working on portions of the application be considered key to the project? | No | |
| 2 | SYNAP22 | Subcontractor background checks | Are subcontractor staff subject to the same Background Check requirements as contractors, listed in section 9.1 of the ?IT Scope of Work RFP? document? | No | |
| 3 | SYNAP22 | Vendor information response form | Does the vendor information response form need to be completed if we are registered on Nevada ePro? | Yes | |
| 4 | SYNAP22 | Demonstration of system with integrated online payments | Regarding Presentation Factor #3, Demonstration of system with integrated online payments and external web portal functionality, under section 7. ?Evaluation? of the ?CARDS enhancement RFP? document, can the State of Nevada please clarify whether they are seeking demonstrated experience developing these systems, or are they seeking a demonstration of such a system? | We are seeking demonstrated experience developing these systems and a demonstration of such a system (if possible). | |
| 5 | SYNAP22 | Required resumes | Is a resume required for all staff engaged on the project, or only for the "Key Personnel": Project Manager, Technical Lead, and Implementation Lead? Do all resumes need to be within the proposed staff resume template? | All staff engaged and key personnel. Yes resumes need to be within the template. | |
| 6 | SYNAP22 | CARDS demo | Can you provide a demo of the most common use cases for CARDS? It's difficult to get an idea of the complexity and UI/UX quality without seeing the application. | We are unable to provide a demo at this time. | |
| 7 | SYNAP22 | Data warehouse | Do you currently use a data warehouse for BI queries, or do you run them against the production database or a copy of the production database? A data warehouse can improve the usability of BI tools. | A data warehouse is not currently used. Queries are run against the production database. WCS is open to further discussion. | |
| 8 | SYNAP22 | Use of cloud infrastructure providers | Would the state consider using AWS, MS Azure, or Google Cloud for the cloud infrastructure? Cloud providers offer far more infrastructure capabilities that would maximize the value delivered. For example, AWS has an amazing Elastic Computing platform which would allow super scalability that would not be anywhere near as easy on in-house Windows servers. They also have low cost object storage, versioning, and archival which would be ideal for all of the documents in CARDS. They have identity management services. They have edge servers which can improve performance. There are many other services that this system would also benefit from. Security would definitely be better using a cloud provider due to the well tested firewalls and security controls. | Yes | |
| 9 | SYNAP22 | Angular update | It's not practical to upgrade from Angular 1.x to the current version of Angular 16. Angular version 2.x introduced major fundamental changes in the architecture. In addition, the current system relies on outdated technologies such as jQuery which are strongly recommended against when developing a frontend Angular app. So our assumption is that this would be a complete rewrite using Angular 16+ and ensuring it's modernized, but that the core business logic is retained/adapted. Is this a correct assumption for bidding purposes? | Yes | |
| 10 | SYNAP22 | Existing code quality | How can we find out about the quality of the current backend server code? If it's poorly architected or if it uses very old technologies, will we have the option to rewrite the server application. For bidding purposes, should we plan for a complete rewrite, but preserving the core business logic? | Plan for a complete rewrite but preserve the core business logic. | |
| 11 | SYNAP22 | Use of .NET | Is .NET a requirement, or would you be open to other languages if the server needed a major rewrite? With the current state of AI tools it would be relatively quick to translate existing .NET logic to a different language thus preserving the investment in the logic while keeping the development firm efficient by allowing them to use their preferred technology stack. | Yes. WCS is open to other languages. | |
| 12 | SYNAP22 | Text search functionality | I would imagine with a tool such as this with so many documents, it would be vital to have a powerful full-text search engine as part of the functionality. Does the current system use ElasticSearch or anything comparable for searching documents and data using stemming, synonyms, etcetera? | The current system doesn't use a full-text search engine. However, WCS is open to such applications. | |
| 13 | SYNAP22 | Resumes for developers | At what point will we need to provide resumes of the engineers who will be dedicated to the project? | At time of submittal. | |
| 14 | SYNAP22 | CI/CD process | Will our team be plugging into existing CI/CD pipelines or can we use our own? | There will be access to existing pipelines, but open to rebuilding these pipelines if needed. | |
| 15 | SYNAP22 | Containerization | Do you use containerization, in particular through the use of Docker? This is a huge improvement in terms of scaling over virtual machines and can run on VMs. All cloud providers use containerization now for improved scalability and as a move toward what is referred to as "serverless". Can we either use a cloud provider or have Docker installed on the state VMs? | Containerization is currently not used, but WCS is open to introducing containerization. WCS prefers to stay within state VM's. | |
| 16 | SYNAP22 | Dev Ops Engineering | Who will be responsible for DevOps engineering tasks? How much control with we as the vendor have over this? | WCS will be responsible for DevOps engineering tasks. As the vendor you will have full access. | |
| 17 | SYNAP22 | UI/UX design | Who is responsible for the UI/UX designs of the application? It's very subjective, so how can we reasonably control the time spent on UI/UX design? | UI/UX designs will be provided by the vendor with input from state subject matter experts. | |
| 18 | SYNAP22 | Quality Assurance Monitor responsibilities | Will the Quality Assurance Monitor be someone who is highly technical and understands software development in depth, or will it be more focused on functionality, usability, performance, etc? | The quality assurance monitor is highly technical and understands software development. | |
| 19 | SYNAP22 | Database | If during the planning process it appears that a document style database (e.g. - MongoDB) would be better suited than a relational database (e.g. MS SQL Server), would there be any issues with that? | As long as WCS's other applications continued to function and could access all data easily. Shouldn't be an issue. | |
| 20 | SYNAP22 | Operating System for the server API | Could the application run in a Linux container (using Docker) even if it had to run on a Windows server? | Yes | |
| 21 | SYNAP22 | Server application architecture | Currently is there only a single API process running on the server or are there additional server application processes or micro services in use? Can you provide an architecture diagram? | There is only a single API process running. No architecture diagrams of these processes exist. A few flowcharts are all that can be produced. | |
| 22 | SYNAP22 | Data structure diagram | Would you be able to provide a data structure diagram for the current system so we could see the complexity of each database currently in use? | Data structure diagrams cannot be provided, we can provide process flow charts for the various processes the system preforms. | |
| 23 | SYNAP22 | Server code struture | Swagger is a widely used tool for documenting RESTful APIs. It allows you to annotate your ASP.NET Web API controllers with attributes that describe the API operations, parameters, and response types. Swagger UI then generates interactive API documentation that can be accessed through a web browser. Would you be able to generate and provide Swagger documentation to help vendors understand the complexity of the current server code base? | No such documentation exists for the API. We would be very interested in adopting our existing API to utilize the Swagger or other RESTful API documentation systems. | |
| 24 | SYNAP22 | Mobile | Mobile responsiveness is obviously necessary, but would you want the app developed such that it could someday turned into an iOS and Android app? | If this capability will have additional cost, we will not want this in the bid as it is outside the SOW. | |
| 25 | SYNAP22 | Progressive Web App (PWA) | A lot of modern apps are being designed as PWAs so that they can be "installed" on mobile devices and desktop machines. They are not true mobile apps, but they allow for a lot of mobile functionality. Would you want the CARDS app to be a PWA? | This is not a functionality WCS has considered but open to further discussion. | |
| 26 | SYNAP22 | API | Historically most apps have used RESTful APIs, but modern apps now more often use GraphQL APIs which more easily allow for selective queries. GraphQL is a query language for an API. Would the vendor be able to use GraphQL APIs? | Yes as long as the benefits from GraphQL outweigh our current RESTful API functionality. | |
| 27 | SYNAP22 | Automated Testing | Is automated testing required? If so, is it required just for services, all core functions, or does the vendor also need to provide automated E2E testing? Or is this at the discretion of the vendor? | It is the responsibility of the vendor to deliver a fully functional product which has been thoroughly tested and ready for deployment to the production environment. | |
| 28 | CSHERRARD | BI Platform (3.4.19) | What Visualization tool(s) are you currently using today? Is there a specific reason for choosing Yellowfin Embedded BI, or are alternatives acceptable (Ex. PowerBI, Tableau)? | WCS is open to any solution which meets our stated reporting business needs in 3.4.19. Internal staff have prior experience using Yellowfin application specfically. | |
| 29 | CSHERRARD | BI Platform (3.4.19) | How many reports do you plan to need in the future? How many standardized? How many ad-hoc? | ||
| How many reports do you plan to need in the future? How many standardized? How many ad-hoc? | The number of standardized and ad hoc reports needed will determined by current business needs which can change over time. | ||||
| 30 | CSHERRARD | BI Platform (3.4.19) | To support the BI solution, are there attribute based security needs? Are there row based security needs? | No | |
| 31 | CSHERRARD | BI Platform (3.4.19) | Are there any complex semi-additive metrics (e.g. balance forward, running aggregation, scenario comparison) or non-additive metrics (ratios, KPIs, etc.) that need to be considered? If so, what do those look like? | ||
| Are there any complex semi-additive metrics (e.g. balance forward, running aggregation, scenario comparison) or non-additive metrics (ratios, KPIs, etc.) that need to be considered? If so, what do those look like? | Here is a public link to the Yellowfin Guide https://wiki.yellowfinbi.com/display/yfcurrent to review desired functionality. | ||||
| 32 | CSHERRARD | BI Platform (3.4.19) | How do you define "publish" reports? | Generated reports will be viewable by internal CARDS users. The report author will be able to define who has access to view the report. | |
| 33 | CSHERRARD | BI Platform (3.4.19) | Does the reporting need to be more ad-hoc or more standardized with various filters/cuts? | ||
| Does the reporting need to be more ad-hoc or more standardized with various filters/cuts? | The reporting functionality needs to be more ad hoc with flexibility to filter report information in multiple ways. | ||||
| 34 | CSHERRARD | Industry Reports (3.4.13) | Do Insurers/TPAs currently have the ability to "flexibly design and create reports based on needs"? If not is this an external user requirement for the BI solution or another existing tool? Can you explain the expectation for "flexibility" designing and creating reports as an external user? | Insurers/TPAs do not have the ability to create any reports currently. "Flexibility" refers to a reporting tool that grants the capability of insurers/TPA's to easily create and customize reports by utilizing any relevent data that is accessible to them. | |
| 35 | CSHERRARD | Language | Can you please confirm that the system will only be required to support English? | Yes | |
| 36 | CSHERRARD | RFP Response | Should the Requirements Matrix be filled out and returned in the Excel attachment, or should it be consolidated into the technical proposal document? | ||
| Should the Requirements Matrix be filled out and returned in the Excel attachment, or should it be consolidated into the technical proposal document? | It can be returned as an Excel attachment. | ||||
| 37 | CSHERRARD | RFP Response | In the RFP document it mentions that the Technical Proposal shall include C. Response to Mandatory Minimum Requirements and D. Response to Critical Items. Please confirm that the Requirements Matrix is the same thing as the Response to Mandatory Minimum Requirements in addition to responding to the Requirements provided in the SOR. Also, please confirm that Critical Items include: Contract Form, Insurance Schedule, Vendor Background. | ||
| In the RFP document it mentions that the Technical Proposal shall include C. Response to Mandatory Minimum Requirements and D. Response to Critical Items. Please confirm that the Requirements Matrix is the same thing as the Response to Mandatory Minimum Requirements in addition to responding to the Requirements provided in the SOR. Also, please confirm that Critical Items include: Contract Form, Insurance Schedule, Vendor Background. | No the requirements matrix is not the same as the Response to Mandatory Minimum Requirements. In regards to Critical Items, this is an overview of state items/documents that need to be read and responded to by vendors. The contract form and insurance schedule do not need to be returned. Vendors either comply or redline. Please see section 10 - Submission Checklist. | ||||
| 38 | CSHERRARD | Stakeholder Engagement (3.4.3 / 4.5.3.4)Stakeholder Engagement (3.4.3 / 4.5.3.4) | Is there a WCS Communications Resource / Team to partner with for external stakeholder communications and onboarding new stakeholders? | Yes | |
| 39 | CSHERRARD | Technology (including 3.4.21) | Will the State consider recommendations to include new software, frameworks, and/or virtual hardware to meet storage and performance requiremetns? For example: NoSQL, Object/BLOB/CLOB storage, server configuration.? | Yes | |
| 40 | CSHERRARD | Training (2.1.4) | Is the requirement to train 5 functional units, plus the additional external stakeholders? Or will the functional units train their external stakeholder groups? | External stakeholder training will be handled by WCS. | |
| 41 | CSHERRARD | Training (4.7.2 F) | Does CARDS have a training repository or way to link and provide access to training documentation / guides for users? | ||
| Does CARDS have a training repository or way to link and provide access to training documentation / guides for users? | CARDS has a help function which connects a user to the PDF user manual. | ||||
| 42 | CSHERRARD | Current State (2.3.3) | Could you describe the "gaps" in functionality that the user-developed spreadsheets are currently filling? | ||
| Could you describe the "gaps" in functionality that the user-developed spreadsheets are currently filling? Are the gaps addressed in the RFP's requirements or will they need to be integrated or incorporated into the CARDS enhancement in any way? | Spreadsheets are being used to track workflow and other activity currently not possible in CARDS. Identified "gaps" are addressed in the RFP requirements under internal enhancements. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .