40DHHS-S3547

CLIC’S SOFTWARE SYSTEM

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

1. Who currently provides these services for the state today?

Advanced GRC (Aithent)

2. Does the current system have challenges or issues that the state hopes to address with a new system?

Yes, Modality selected should stick until the operator changes it.

3. For the payment processing, is the state working with a payment processor with whom the system should integrate?

CyberSource’s Wells Fargo

4. How many internal FTE's will need access to the system?

30 people

5. How many individuals will need to authenticate and be able to access the system externality via logging in?

6. What kind of offline inspection data is the NBPH system expected to ingest? (Ie. XML/JSON from an offline application, word/pdf documents) (RE: 3.3.2.B)

SQLEXPRESS

7. Does the State have a preferred cloud hosting environment (e.g., AWS GovCloud, Azure Government), or may vendors propose their own U.S.-based compliant hosting solution?

AWS GovCloud

8. Is the State seeking a fully vendor-managed SaaS solution, or will any infrastructure, cloud services, or shared platforms be provided or managed by the State?

See question 7

9. Does the State require single sign-on (SSO) integration for internal users (e.g., Azure AD, Okta), or is local authentication acceptable?

YES AZURE AD

10. Are there specific system availability or uptime requirements the solution must meet?

24/7

11. Please confirm the Recovery Point Objective (RPO) and Recovery Time Objective (RTO) requirements for this system.

1-hour of data loss will be fine and 2 hours to restore data

12. Is a separate Disaster Recovery (DR) environment required as part of the base solution?

YES

13. Beyond U.S.-based hosting and encryption, are there any State IT security standards or formal security assessments vendors must complete prior to production use?

Please refer to the attachment “Cloud Checklist” on the Attachments Tab.

14. Please provide estimated counts of internal State users by role (e.g., inspectors, supervisors, administrators, finance staff).

30 Supervisor Inspectors Management Analyst Admin Assists

15. Is there an estimated number of external registrant accounts expected to use the system?

See question 6

16. Are there expected peak or concurrent user volumes the system should support?

100 at a time

17. Are there seasonal or renewal-driven peak usage periods that vendors should consider for scalability and performance planning?

End of Month and Beginning of the month registration and fees for renewals

18. For offline inspections performed on laptops, will the State accept either a locally installed client or a browser-based offline solution?

From locally installed data base client

19. Is there an estimated maximum number of inspections or forms an inspector may store offline before synchronization?

No maximum because it depends on the number of machines to be inspected at the facility

20. Are inspectors using State-issued laptops, tablets, or a mix of devices, and what operating systems should be supported.

Yes, laptops and tablets Operating system Window 11

21. Is there an expectation for conflict resolution rules when multiple inspectors modify inspection data offline prior to synchronization?

YES

22. Does the State prefer or require use of an existing document management system, or may vendors propose an integrated document repository as part of the solution?

Integrated system within the new Radiation Control Program system

23. If an existing document repository is in use, will the State provide details regarding technology, structure, and migration expectations?

No exist document repository in use currently

24. Does the State have a preferred e-Signature solution, or may vendors propose their own compliant e-Signature capability?

We use DocuSign but not opposed to the vendor solution

25. Does the State have preferred integration, middleware, or ETL tools (e.g., ESB, API gateway) that vendors should align with?

NO

26. Please identify any known systems that the CLIC’s Software System must integrate with at go-live or in future phases.

Nothing interfacing going forward it’s a stand alone system

27. Is the solution required to integrate with State financial, accounting, or payment gateway systems, or should vendors propose a standalone payment solution?

Comply with the State Financial accounting system

28. Will the State provide details on the existing CLIC’s system(s), including technology stack and data structure, to support migration planning?

Yes the state will support where we can

29. Is historical data migration required as part of this procurement, and if so, what historical depth is expected?

YES, already migrated into the current system

30. Can the State provide estimated data volumes and note any known data quality issues (duplicates, incomplete records, inconsistent formats)?

Duplicate serial numbers on active machines and several incomplete records

31. Are there document repositories (e.g., scanned inspections, correspondence, historical licenses) that must be migrated into the new system?

YES

32. Does the State have a preferred Business Intelligence or reporting platform, or may vendors propose embedded reporting and analytics tools as part of the solution?

We would like to have analytical vendor who can recommend a solution.

33. Are there existing regulatory, audit, or management reports that vendors should replicate rather than redesign?

YES

34. Are audit logs required to be exportable for compliance or public records requests?

YES

35. Will the State provide standardized scenarios or data for vendor demonstrations, or should vendors prepare representative scenarios?

Vendor can provide the recommended scenarios for the presentation The RFP has what we would like demonstrated during the presentation.

36. For evaluation of offline inspection capabilities, will a recorded demonstration be acceptable if live offline simulation is not feasible?

YES

37. Will vendor presentations be conducted virtually, in person, or in a hybrid format?

Virtually

38. Will DPBH provide specific use cases or scripts that vendors must demonstrate during presentations?

It is part of the RFP the expectation no additional case

39. Please confirm that the Cost Schedule is expected to represent the total cost for the full four-year contract term.

YES

40. If pricing includes annual increases, should those be reflected directly in the Cost Schedule or described in the cost narrative?

YES

41. Should pricing assume unlimited public/registrant users, with costs driven by State staff usage, or should vendors price based on total user counts?

YES

42. Approximately how many DPBH staff and inspectors will require system training at go-live?

See Question 4

43. Does the State prefer live instructor-led training, recorded training, written SOPs, or a combination?

Recorded training will work and written SOP’s would be appreciated

44. Please confirm whether Level 1 (Tier 1) help desk support will be provided by the State or the vendor, and clarify expected support hours and channels.

By Vendor

45. Is a phased implementation acceptable, or does the State expect full functionality at initial go-live?

State expects full functionality

46. Does the State anticipate parallel operations with any existing system during transition?

YES

47. For Scope of Work Sub-section 3.4.1. Is the requirement that the software record the instances of “paper payments” received by 3rd party payment processors (e.g. a bank) or, that the software is physically capable of receiving paper payments? If the software needs to be capable of physically accepting “paper payments”, can you please provide a complete definition and examples of â “paper payments”?

Online payments system is used. We do not take payments mailed in. CyberSource Wells Fargo

48. For Scope of Work Sub-section 3.4.1 Is the requirement that the software maintain records of payments & refunds done by 3rd party payment processors (e.g. a bank) or, is the requirement that the software perform the actual “banking activities”of sending & receiving of those funds as well.

See Question 47

49. Please provide the number of current internal users by functional role (licensing/registration, inspectors/investigators, supervisors/management, finance/billing, reporting/analytics, IT/system administrators) and the number of external/public users (registrants/licensees) expected to use the portal, including active account counts and typical monthly login volume if available.

AA staff 5, Inspectors 10, Management Analyst 2 Supervisor manager 5

50. Please provide the number of staff who perform on site inpections and the number/type of devices used (laptops/tablets/phones), including whether offline use is required and the expected offline duration before synchronization.

See Question 4 Laptop and tablets

51. Has the agency evaluated, reviewed, or engaged with comparable commercial solutions within the past 24 months? If so, please identify the vendor(s), approximate dates/timeframe, and the nature of the engagement (e.g., demos, pilots, references), including whether pricing discussions occurred.

NO

52. Please clarify the State’s security and hosting compliance expectations, including any required attestations/certifications (e.g., SOC 2, StateRAMP, FedRAMP) and any other State IT/security standards that must be met.

FedRAMP is preferred with SOC2 at minimum due to the sensitivity of data

52. Please confirm the source(s) of funding for this project (e.g., federal grant, state-appropriated funds, other) and whether the funding source imposes timing constraints or deliverable requirements.

Self-Funded by Fees collected

53. Please provide the approximate legacy database size and number of tables/entities and identify any major external repositories (shared drives/SharePoint/ECM) whose content is considered in-scope for migration into the new solution.

No legacy database

54. Please provide the number of distinct forms/templates currently used (applications, inspections/checklists, correspondence/letters/notices) and the number of variants by program area.

No of credential types: 35+ , Inspection forms:20+, Certificates for every cred. Type, 3- letter notification template

55. Please provide annual volumes (most recent full FY available) by transaction type: new applications, renewals, amendments/changes, inspections completed, invoices generated, payments received, refunds issued, and enforcement/corrective actions initiated/closed

No don’t track by FY / Calendar year see question 69

56. Please identify all required interfaces/integrations and, for each, provide (a) system name/owner, (b) directionality (one-way/two-way), (c) method (API, file exchange, SFTP, etc.), (d) frequency (real-time/batch), and (e) approximate record volumes per cycle where known.

57. Please confirm whether there is an established budget range or not-to-exceed amount for implementation plus ongoing subscription/support, and whether the State has a preferred pricing basis (e.g., named users, concurrent users, transaction volume, or other).

YES but not able to share

58. For vendor demonstrations, please confirm the expected attendee groups/roles (program staff, inspectors, finance, IT/security, leadership) so vendors can align appropriate team members.

7 2 Supervisor 2 Management Analyst HCQC IT Procurement

59. Please confirm whether the State has a desired production go-live date (or target window); if so, indicate whether it is mandated by budget/funding timelines or other external drivers, and whether a phased rollout would be acceptable if needed to meet those constraints.

As soon as possible

60. Due to the scope of requirements and the need to develop an accurate, compliant response (including solution sizing, integration assumptions, and cost), will the State consider extending the proposal submission deadline by two (2) weeks?

Responses are Due February 12 at 1PM

61. What are the most frequent pain points or inefficiencies in your current system that you want to prioritize fixing?

* Supervisor is notified when inspection is offline for more than 3 days * Duplicate serial numbers for active machines * prevent registrant from creating new accounts when they only need to register a new machine(s) * Let operator know when applications are ready for review (MAMMO or RAD TECH) Georgina and Bill

63. Can the State confirm the full functional scope for the CLIC Software System beyond what is listed in the RFP (e.g., licensing, inspections, offline inspections, complaints)?

No it is Proprietary information

64. Are there any workflows or program areas currently managed outside of the existing CLIC solution that must be included in the new system?

YES RAM WBL-NRC Stored machine and Terminations and Print certificates

65. Does the State expect the vendor to redesign business processes, or should the system replicate existing workflows?

Replicate existing workflow

66. Are there additional program modules or integrations under consideration for future phases that vendors should account for in architecture recommendations?

None at this time

67. How many forms in total are in scope as part of Ethics Complaints, Advisory Opinions, Ethics Acknowledgments and Requests for Public Records?

Handled by PIO

68. Is document generation in scope? How many document templates approximately will need to generate from the system?

Yes. Document generation is in the scope. Will need to generate documents in the form of certificates and reports like registration and storage certificates, application summaries, payment receipts, inspection reports, monthly reports etc.

69. What is the number of applications received per year and by types?

No. of renewals/New registrations for Radiation Producing machines = 7200 No. of renewals/new registrations for Mammography machines, Radiology Techs and mammographers=1400

70. Because the inspections are performed offline on laptop computers, the software needs to have the capability to work offline capturing inspection data from inspections with the ability to transfer the information to the online system. Does the support device include laptops, ipads and mobile ?

YES all three

71. "What is the number of expected internal and external users accessing the system? How many employees will be accessing and using the new system and what will their roles be? (Number of administrators, number of inspectors, number of case processors, etc.).

See Question15

72. Please confirm the programs and transaction types in scope on day one (licensing, registrations, renewals, inspections, complaints, enforcement, invoicing, appeals); which are Phase 2+ candidates?

All in phase 1

73. Will the solution need to support facility and individual licensing, and should these be treated as separate lifecycles with shared data (e.g., inspectors, owners, locations)?

YES

74. What seasonal workload peaks (renewal cycles, inspection blitzes) should we plan for in sizing, batch windows, and scheduling?

See Question 17

75. Please confirm external stakeholder groups (licensees, consultants, public requestors) and whether each requires portal access with distinct roles including the volume.

Licensee (registrants) need access Public Access for Credential Verification

76. Are there any statutory timelines (e.g., application clock, inspection windows, notice periods) that must be tracked and reported for compliance?

YES

77. What accessibility standards must be met (e.g., WCAG 2.2, ADA compliance)?

YES, ADA compliant but not withing the CLIC’s system

78. Will the new system include a public-facing licensing or permit portal, and should it support multi-language accessibility?

Public Facing and should support multi language capabilities

79. What is the current data model & volume of records stored in the legacy CLIC system?

Data model is a relational model. Record count in the CLICS System = 40,000 + records.

80. Will the State provide data dictionaries, ERDs, or codebooks to support migration planning?

NO

81. Are there any known data quality issues (duplicates, missing fields, inconsistent formats) that vendors need to accommodate in migration estimates?

YES

82. Does the State expect a one-time full conversion, phased migration, or hybrid/parallel run?

Phased migration is what has worked in the past.

83. Please confirm legacy data sources, record counts (applicants, licenses, inspections, complaints), and availability of data dictionaries or ERDs for each system.

Duplicate see Question 6

84. Are there statutory retention schedules for radiation control records (applications, inspection artifacts, images) and rules for sealed or expunged items?

YES

85. Do you require an extract for Open Records requests (search/export with redaction rules), and if so, what redaction standards apply?

YES

86. Is data cleansing in scope for this project?

Not part of the project

87. Are you expecting an enterprise data warehouse solution implemented as part of this project?

Not at this time

88. What external systems (State systems, 3rdâ??party platforms, inspection tools, payment processors, GIS, etc.) must the new system integrate with?

Just CyberSource Wells Fargo interface payment system

89. Are any federal systems or reporting interfaces required for radiation control compliance?

No

90. Does the State mandate a hosting model (cloud, SaaS, State-managed infrastructure)?

Duplicate see Question 7

91. Are there preferred cloud providers (AWS, Azure, GCP) or State enterprise standards vendors must follow?

Yes, see Question 9

92. Should vendors include options for both SaaS and PaaS/COTS platform approaches?

YES

93. What are the peak concurrent user expectations (portal) and transaction throughput targets (e.g., renewals per hour)?

See Question 15

94. Are there batch windows reserved for nightly jobs (ETL, statements, sync with State data warehouses/BI)?

YES, nightly Jobs and runs

95. Will vendors need to support role-based access control (RBAC), MFA, or State-managed identity integration?

YES

96. Please list required regulatory reports (State, federal, NRS/NAC citations) and the cadence (monthly/quarterly/annual).

NAC 457, 459 NRS 457, 459, 653

97. Do you require self-service dashboards for program leads and public transparency pages (e.g., facility lookups, inspection outcomes)?

YES

98. Should vendors propose itemized pricing for each module (licensing, inspections, complaints, reporting), or a bundled solution?

NO

99. Will the State accept any limited exceptions to the standard Terms and Conditions, or is full acceptance required?

Full acceptance required

100. Is the State open to a brief deadline extension of the RFP response, if the Q&A window closes close to the due date, to incorporate responses into a more accurate submission?

Duplicate see Question 61

101. Please confirm required service hours (State business hours vs 24x7) and incident SLAs (response/resolution by severity).

Duplicate see Question 10

102. For ongoing M&O years, what are the expected SLAs (response, resolution, uptime)?

Mirror Athient

103. What level of State staff participation (PM, SMEs, testers) is anticipated during implementation?

SME all of the above

104. Please confirm expectations for UAT roles, test data, and defect SLAs (critical/major/minor).

UAT will be used by database admin to test new enhancements before rollout to production, provide a training environment for new users and will mirror the configuration of the production database. SLAs will be the same as that for production.

105. Should the vendor provide release management with a fixed cadence (e.g., monthly) and an emergency hotfix path with rollback?

YES hotfix path and rollback

106. Do you require CI/CD tool support (build, test, deploy logs) and what are the tools in place?

We do not require the tool support, but we would be open if included

107. What payment provider / payment solution do you use today? Are you happy with your current payment solution or looking for a change, assuming the new platform can integrate with many different payment providers?

Duplicate see Question 3

108. Can you share the approximate number of business processes in scope? What documentation exists about the current as is processes and desired future state processes?

Each module has it’s own business process. On average a module may have 8 or more business processes. Documentation that exists is in the form of .ppt files that have been created for the registrants/licensees. It would be nice if documentation were provided.

109. Will DCFS consider Low code platforms like Salesforce as a potential platform for the new system?

We would consider it if it met our needs

110. Are you looking for training capability directly to end users?

YES

111. Are you looking for Change Management and adoption support as well?

YES

112. Are there any other pain points apart from the ones mentioned related to the existing technology?

Decommissioning Plan

113. What is the expected response for the "Vendor response" column of the pricing sheet?

To fill out the information as best as possible.

114. Are you expecting the ongoing maintenance cost to be mentioned on a yearly basis?

Yes

115. Can you clarify the response to be provided for 'Community Outreach & Agreements'?

Not sure what you are asking

116. Our costs are typically separated between licenses and services cost. Is it acceptable to provide licenses cost separately for the software?

That work if both cost can be separated out are presented for the overall proposal

117. Our costs typically include the modules and personnel required to implement them. Is it an acceptable response if we combine the module and personnel cost?

See Question 116

118. Are there any current systems/tools expected to be in use in future?

NO

119. How many key personnel must we provide resumes for?

NO

120. Can you confirm whether the cost proposal should or should not be marked as confidential in Nevada ePro?

This will be public information and should not be marked as confidential.

121. On an average, how many documents are generated/requested per application?

Depending on the application certain documents are required.

122. Do you have a content management system in place or do you expect the new system to provide the capability.

New system should be provided.

123. Do you need to store PII data in the new case management system?

YES

124. Is DBPH open to the services team / development team being partly located offshore?

Support will need to be in the USA since there is confidential information that needs to be protected.** Per state policy, state data must be contained within the continental United States. The state does allow development of applications offshore but at no time can they house actual data. What has happened in the past, for cloud based systems, is that the offshore staff need to work in the cloud hosted area but could not download any data.

Please reference S.5.06.01: Cloud Services Policy section 6.5.A https://it.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/itnewnvgov/content/Governance/Security/FINAL_S_5_06_01_H_Cloud_Services.pdf for the above information.

125. What is the number of reports generated in the system currently? Are there any complexities?

See Question 69

126. To ensure accurate software licensing, exactly how many internal State staff members will need access to the system? Please break this down by role (e.g., Administrative/Office Staff vs. Field Inspectors).

Duplicate see Question 4

127. Of the total staff count, how many are Field Inspectors who require the offline capability mentioned in the Scope of Work?

See Question 4

128. What is the estimated number of active external registrants (public users)? Additionally, what is the anticipated volume of logins per month or year for these users? What is the estimated annual volume of new applications and renewals across all license types (machines, radioactive materials, technologists, etc.)?

Duplicate see Question 6

129. The RFP states that inspections are performed offline on laptop computers. Is the State open to inspectors using tablets (iPad/Android) for field inspections, or is the use of Windows laptops a mandatory requirement?

It is strongly preferred/recommended to use Windows based tablets in lieu of an iPad or Android tablet. Windows based tablets provide the ability for devices to be properly tracked in DPBH inventory with State ID Tags and also allows the devices to be assigned to users.

130. Regarding the offline requirements: Do inspectors only need to complete forms/checklists offline, or do they need full database access (viewing historical records/attachments) while disconnected?

YES

131. Is there a legacy system from which data must be migrated? If so, what is the system, and what is the estimated volume of records (number of registrants, historical inspections, and licenses) to be migrated? What is the estimated total size (in GB/TB) of the historical documents that need to be migrated? What is the expected monthly growth of file storage?

Not legacy only the current CLIC’s system being used.