5880-0_ALERTIIIS_IQMS RFQ.pdf

iQMS RFQ 5880-0

REQUEST FOR QUOTES (RFQ) 5880

Best Value Analysis Process for iQMS ALERT IIS Replacement Project

Open Market Bid S-44300-00012812

Authorized Purchaser: OREGON HEALTH AUTHORITY (OHA)

Issuing Office: Office of Contracting & Procurement on behalf of Oregon Health Authority (OHA)

Authorized Representative: RHONDA M. CAMPBELL Address: OREGON DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

OFFICE OF CONTRACTING & PROCUREMENT

500 Summer Street, NE E-03 Salem, OR 97301

Phone: (503) 983-0472 E-mail: Rhonda.M.Campbell@odhsoha.oregon.gov

Issue Date: February 27, 2025 @ 4:00 PM (PT)

Offer Due Date and Time: March 20, 2025 @ 4:00 PM (PT)

Services: Independent Quality Management Services

Issued to:

iQMS CONSULTANT MPSA #

Berry Dunn 8292

Bluecrane 8462

CSG Government Solutions 8470

Gartner 8480

Grant Thornton 8294

Hittner & Associates 8295

Maximus 8471

Public Knowledge 8296 mailto:Rhonda.M.Campbell@odhsoha

1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

This iQMS Request for Quote No. 5880 (RFQ) seeks a single, qualified and eligible Consultant from the affected pool of Consultants to provide independent Quality Management Services (iQMS) for the RFQ 5880 ALERT IIS Replacement Project. iQMS deliverables will be completed in two iQMS phases. The first iQMS phase will provide limited iQMS deliverables during the special procurement project phase. The second iQMS phase will provide IQMS deliverables during the revisiting of procurement with the solution implementation (SI) contractor known as RFP project phase. If the current SI Contractor (Gainwell) is selected as a SI Contractor for the RFP project phase, then the scope of iQMS deliverables will be reduced requiring fewer QC reviews from the Offeror. Interested Consultants must develop and submit Quotes in compliance with all RFQ requirements. Consultants are NOT eligible if they are providing other project support services or Information Technology Professional Services on that same project.

The Consultant selected for contract award (Awarded Consultant) must have enough capacity to apply iQMS to fundamental elements of the Project. Please see:

1. Attachment A for the ALERT IIS Replacement Project Charter,

2. Attachment B for the ALERT IIS Replacement Project Business Case

Authorized Purchaser estimates the length of the Work Order Contract (“Contract”) to be five years, or until all Deliverables have been submitted and accepted by Authorized Purchaser (Final Acceptance as defined in the Contract). Some Deliverables are currently listed as “OPTION RESERVED TO AUTHORIZED PURCHASER” 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 SI Contractor’s implementation approaches 2ethodlogies.

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 the Authorized Purchaser 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.

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

NTT Data Health Consulting Services 9433

The North Highland Co. 8477

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

(c) DAS PS means DAS Procurement Services.

(d) “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

(e) “iQMS” means independent quality management services in the context of State’s 5 independent verification and validation Tasks of Risk Assessment and Management, Quality Planning, Quality Control, Quality Assurance, and Independent Solution Testing.

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

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

(h) “PMBOK” means the current edition of the Project Management Body of Knowledge published by the Project Management Institute.

(i) “Project” means the ALERT IIS Replacement Project.

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

(k) “SI Contractor” means the contractor responsible for solution implementation in the Project.

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

RFQ ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS INCLUDE:

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. DISCLAIMER:

As per ORS 279B.040, neither the Department of Administrative Services nor the Authorized Purchaser 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 Request for Quote.

4. PROJECT OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The Oregon Immunization Program (OIP) works to reduce the incidence of vaccine-preventable disease in Oregon. OIP staff members seek to identify and promote evidence-based public health best practices to both the public and health care professionals throughout the state. In addition to education, the Oregon Immunization Program provides technical assistance and quality improvement for both public and private practices. OIP’s objectives:

• We work to strengthen public health capacity to improve health outcomes by developing and maintaining public and private partnerships that improve community health.

• We assist the Oregon Health Authority in achieving the triple aim: better health, better care, and lower costs, through partnerships, leadership, and innovation.

• We seek to listen to and collaborate with partners and interested parties across diverse communities.

• Promoting health and preventing the leading causes of death, disease, and injury in Oregon.

These objectives directly support OHA goals to strengthen public health capacity to improve health outcomes, improve quality of life, and increase years of healthy life.

Thanks to vaccinations, many of the infectious diseases that gripped past generations such as polio, measles, rubella, diphtheria, and tetanus are rarely seen anymore, but outbreaks can still occur.

Vaccinating our families according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended immunization schedules protects our loved ones and our entire community.

OIP’s ALERT Immunization Information System (IIS) is a confidential, population-based, computerized database that records all immunization doses administered by participating providers in Oregon. Approximately 90% of all Oregon immunizing providers participate in ALERT IIS. This system is a powerful tool for managing immunization records and supporting healthier communities. ALERT IIS is used for clinical decision making and public health interventions. We have learned in the COVID-19 pandemic that to fight systemic bias we must ensure individuals have access to their own immunization data and that more partners are interested in accessing these data to assist the people they serve. A new platform for ALERT IIS will be more robust and include lessons learned from the pandemic to better address emerging events by including consumer access modules and Race, Ethnicity, Language, and Disability (REALD) and Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) data elements. The addition of role-based access will allow communities the ability to easily see their data and use data for public health interventions.

Immunizing providers access ALERT IIS for clinical decision making and can also use built-in functionality to generate a variety of reports on their patient population. They can run reminder recall reports and notices of patients who are current or past due on immunizations.

Additionally, ALERT IIS provides schools and childcare centers with on-line access to students’ immunization records and simplifies the enrollment process for parents to comply with Oregon statutes.

ALERT IIS also plays an increasingly important role in supporting the federal Vaccines for Children (VFC) and adult Vaccine Access Programs. These programs help provide vaccines to eligible individuals throughout their lifetime. This helps ensure that immunization providers have the data at the point of care for all patients to have a better chance of getting their recommended vaccinations on schedule. Vaccines available through these programs are those recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

Immunization Quality Improvement for Providers (IQIP) is another critical CDC program that supports immunization providers and state immunization programs. The IQIP program is an evidence-based continuous quality improvement process that uses ALERT IIS data for improving immunization rates and practices at the provider level. IQIP serves to assist and support health care providers by identifying opportunities to improve vaccine uptake and to help motivate providers to try new vaccination service delivery strategies and incorporate changes into their current practices.

ALERT IIS also plays a critical role in responding to large outbreaks of vaccine-preventable disease, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition to use by medical providers, ALERT IIS also provided vaccination information to a wide variety of interested parties to help meet their needs and pandemic vaccination data to and from ALERT IIS and was one of the biggest drivers of system growth in the last 2 years. Some of the specific ways ALERT IIS was used in COVID-19 response efforts include:

• Medical providers used ALERT IIS to order government-supplied vaccine and to report vaccination information to ALERT IIS.

• The CDC used ALERT IIS data to assess overall vaccination coverage in Oregon.

• Public health entities used ALERT IIS provider-level pandemic vaccine inventory to assess and inform pandemic vaccine distribution.

• Local and State public health entities used ALERT IIS data to identify vulnerable and traditionally underserved populations and direct program outreach to address health inequities.

• Local and State public health entities, medical providers, Coordinated Care Organizations, insurance companies, and others used COVID-19 data to help assess and manage vaccination efforts for people under their care.

• ALERT IIS data is used to populate vaccine availability to the public through the CDC’s vaccines.gov website.

• Oregon’s My Electronic Vaccine Care site used ALERT IIS data to provide consumer access to COVID-19 vaccination status.

ALERT IIS supports many partners and programs by collecting immunization data and generating individual immunization forecasts and aggregate reports, which identify opportunities to improve the health of Oregonians. There are approximately 13,241 active ALERT IIS users among the following interested parties who rely on a highly functioning IIS to perform necessary services and comply with immunization-related statues, rule, and regulations:

• Immunization providers – These providers access individual vaccine histories, forecasts, and report immunizations to the IIS, most of which is via electronic data exchange between the IIS and provider Electronic Health Record systems. They also access various IIS reports that provide immunization summary information for the provider.

Approximate Total Providers: 3,924 o Immunization providers include local health departments, private providers, pharmacies, health plans, electronic health record (HER) vendors, and other non-traditional partners. Approximate Total Other Providers: 3,354, of which 1,136 also provided vaccine for the COVID-19 Pandemic Response.

• Vaccines for Children Program (VFC) and Vaccine Access Program (VAP) – The OIP manages the VFC and VAP programs in Oregon which provide vaccines to vulnerable populations including all people under age 19, on Oregon Health Plan (OHP), uninsured adults, and others. The IIS is used to order and manage federally supplied vaccine to participating providers. State law requires these providers to use the IIS for all vaccine inventory management. OIP provides education to providers using IIS data to improve immunization rates and ensure compliance with federal regulations.

• Oregon Immunization Program – The IIS is used by OIP to manage about 50 million vaccine orders annually that are shipped directly to providers. These users rely on the IIS for the most complete information of vaccinations given and provider vaccine inventory and usage to perform various program purposes, including direct management of the IIS.

• State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)- This program uses IIS data to reimburse OIP for the value of vaccine administered to their enrolled members.

• Oregon Schools and Childcare Facilities – These sites use the IIS to verify that children attending the facility comply with relevant Oregon statutes and rules about immunization status. Approximate Total Oregon Schools 1,855 and Approximate Total Childcare Facilities 1,826

• Local Health Departments – In addition to providing direct immunizations, local health departments use IIS data for other public health purposes, including investigations of vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks, assessing and communicating county population-based immunization rates and managing the annual school immunization exclusion process for their jurisdiction.

• Oregon Tribes and the Urban Indian Health Program – Tribes have the responsibility to ensure the health and well-being of their communities. In addition to providing direct technical assistance and training to tribal clinics, ALERT IIS partners with Tribes by sharing data with Tribes/Tribal Health Directors to inform policy decisions for immunization purposes.

• Acute and Communicable Disease program – This Oregon Public Health Division program uses IIS data in overall health monitoring and surveillance, and in response to vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks.

• Health Security and Preparedness – Working closely with the state Immunization and Acute and Communicable Disease programs, as well as local health departments and other groups, this program also uses IIS data in response to vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks and pandemics.

• Oregon WIC program – This program uses IIS data to inform WIC participants of their children’s current immunization status, including any recommended immunizations.

• Oregon ODHS OR-Kids program – This program uses IIS data to inform parents and the courts of the immunization status of children in foster care, including any recommended immunizations.

• Coordinated Care Organizations – Working with the OHA Health Analytics program, these organizations use IIS data to monitor their overall progress in meeting immunization-related benchmarks.

Oregonians benefit from IIS provided immunization histories and forecasts as they work with their medical providers to meet their health needs. They can also request a copy of their complete immunization history from the IIS.

Important partners who invest and support the technology enhancements supporting the immunization programs are:

• Center for Disease Control and Prevention

• Gainwell Technologies is the ALERT IIS Vendor o Gainwell Technologies will be SI Contractor for special procurement project phase.

o The project will post new RFP and might select a different SI Contractor for the

RFP project phase.

The vision of the ALERT IIS Replacement Project is to modernize OIP’s IIS platform and services to better serve their customers and partners. The scope of the project entails the following:

In Scope: Procurement of, testing of, implementation of a system, including complete data migration.

• New Features/Functionality o Engagement of community, partners, and interested parties to ensure

Organizational Change Management and equity o integrates school law assessment and reporting functionality o includes some functionality from the partner tracking tool, POST o Interoperable with OIP Learning Management System for managing user training o leverages modern technology and process, including:

HL7 and FHIR capable consumer access module user interface WCAG accessibility for any/all modules

Modularity Race, Ethnicity, Language, Disability (REALD) and Sexual Orientation and

Gender Identity (SOGI) data elements Full complement of reporting that schools and childcares are required to complete

• Existing Features/Functionality o Maintains the functionality of our current system(s) at minimum o meets all current confidentiality and security rules and laws in Oregon o Interoperable with OIP systems POST for managing organization enrollment with

OIP programs o is secure, with interoperability with partner systems including, but not limited to:

CDC

Other State or Jurisdiction Immunization Systems Other State of Oregon Public Health Systems Health Information Exchange (HIE) Insurers Student Information Systems

Out of Scope:

• System will not host or store other public health data elements including, but not limited to:

o TB test results, BMI, Lead, Infant Hearing Screening o Other therapeutics

• System will not host or store site visit reports and related tracking

• System will not contain all functionally from the partner tracking tool Post, only some functionality will be integrated to the system through this project

• System will not offer appointment scheduling

• System will not offer public-facing vaccine availability (“Get Vaccinated Oregon” (GVO)) functionality

The future state achieved through this project will impact internal and external partners, and the people of Oregon. The resulting system will continue to provide the current functionality that immunization providers rely on, as well as offer modern features including an accessible platform and a secure consumer access portal where individuals can request their own immunization record.

Internally, there will be changes to process requiring training and change management.

Externally, to our partners, some will have training requirements to use the new system and others using electronic health record systems will need to verify with their vendors that new connections can be prioritized and completed. With this, there may be additional costs with these vendors to configure new end points or update their processes. OIP will work with partners including community partners to better understand all impacts throughout the project to best ensure a smooth implementation.

5. RESPONSIBILITIES

5.1. iQMS Consultant Responsibilities (in addition to those identified in the MPSA and proposed WOC as applicable)

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

(3) 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 in space provided by Authorized Purchaser.

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

(6) At a minimum, or as otherwise mutually agreed to in writing by Consultant and Authorized Purchaser, Consultant shall participate in the following meetings:

a. Weekly Project Management Status Meetings

b. Monthly Project Team Meetings

c. Monthly Steering Committee Meetings

5.2. Authorized Purchaser 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 appropriate steps to address risks and issues associated with omissions, gaps, defects, and other quality concerns identified by the 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 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

Issue RFQ February 27, 2025 4:00 PM PT

Questions and Requests for Clarifications due

1 week from RFQ Issue (March 6, 2025)

4:00 PM PT

Answers to Questions/ Requests for Clarification due to Offerors Within 3 Business Days from deadline for submission of questions.

Closing (March 20, 2025)

3 weeks from RFQ Issue 4:00 PM PT

Review of Proposals (approx.) TBD

Presentations/Interviews, if any (approx.) TBD

Consultant Selection (approx.) TBD

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

7. SCOPE OF SERVICES:

The Scope of Services includes the Services depicted 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 must be submitted in writing by e-mail, regular mail or hand delivery 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 #5880-0 Clarification.

When appropriate, as determined by Authorized Purchaser in its sole discretion, revisions, substitutions or clarifications of the RFQ will be sent electronically.

9. QUOTATION SUBMITTAL:

Quotes 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.

Quotes will be accepted by e-mail, regular mail or hand delivery to the Authorized

Representative identified above. Submittals must be specified using the subject line: iQMS RFQ 5880 Submittal.

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

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

10. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS:

Quotes must be submitted via email transmission to the Authorized Representative in searchable, electronic PDF format by the Offer Closing Date and Time listed in the RFQ Timeline.2 Quotes must include the following items:

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

(b) 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.

(c) 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.

(d) A description of past or current comparable3 projects within the last five (5) years for which Consultant has or is providing quality management services that were/are comparable to the Services described in the RFQ; and Client Reference Check Forms (Exhibit 2) for each. Forms must either be completed and signed by the reference, returned to the Consultant and submitted with the quote; or Consultants may submit the Exhibit 2 with Consultant’s name and Client Reference Contact Information entered, and items 1 through 4 completed from Consultant’s perspective as depicted

2 Please note that the Authorized Representative’s email system will not accept an email transmission with attachments that exceed 15 MB in size; and will not accept zipped files. Quoting Consultants should separate oversized files for submission in two (2) or more transmissions. Unfortunately, the system does not alert the intended recipient of any email rejection. Therefore, a Quoting Consultant should always include in the transmitted email(s) a request for confirmation of receipt, and is responsible for otherwise following up in the event it does not receive timely confirmation, i.e., within 24 hours of submission.

3 Comparable means similar in nature, complexity, scope and size to the ALERT IIS Replacement Project.

below. In either circumstance, The Authorized Purchaser reserves the right to follow up separately with Client References and may provide additional guidance to the Offeror concerning Client Reference Checks.4

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

Rating: Self-assessment, which Authorized Purchaser may “true up” with the Client Reference.

Comments: If matters related to this item are addressed elsewhere in the Quote, make reference to them here.

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

Rating: Self-assessment, which Authorized Purchaser may “true up” with the Client Reference.

Comments: If matters related to this item are addressed elsewhere in the Quote, make reference to them here.

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

Rating: Self-assessment, which Authorized Purchaser may “true up” with the Client Reference.

Comments: If matters related to this item are addressed elsewhere in the Quote, make reference to them here.

4. How would you rate the working relationship with the Client Reference?

Were you easy to work with? Good communications, flexibility, and transparency?

Rating: Self-assessment, which Authorized Purchaser may “true up” with the Client Reference.

Comments: If matters related to this item are addressed elsewhere in the Quote, make reference to them here.

(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

4 If an Offeror has provided client reference check forms in connection with an iQMS opportunity in the past and intends to use those same client references for this iQMS opportunity, then that Offeror may submit copies of those previous references to satisfy the reference check requirement in this opportunity. Failure to meet the client reference requirement may result in rejection of the subject Quote from further consideration for contract award.

Sheet must be signed by an authorized representative of the Consultant or the Quote will be considered null and void.

1. Offerors/Consultants 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, Lessons Learned Report,

3. Deliverable 4.1 and 3.3, Quarterly QA Report and related Periodic Quality

Status Report, and

4. 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/Consultant includes information and data with its submitted Quote that Offeror/Consultant regard as proprietary, privileged, or otherwise confidential;

Offeror/Consultant must identify such information in a separate document submitted with its Quote and provide a redacted submission along with the original submission.

Otherwise, State will assume that Offeror/Consultant consents to public disclosure of the original submission.

11. EVALUATION AND AWARD:

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 Authorized Purchaser taking into account price as well as the following considerations:

(a) Independence (no conflict of interest);

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

(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 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 non-price category will be scored based on the information provided in the Quotes in the context of the Rating Scale set out in Figure 2.

Figure 1: Quote Evaluation Criteria

CATEGORY QUOTE EVALUATION CRITERIA

MAX

POINTS

Independence No actual or apparent conflict of interest No Points

Detailed Approach and Schedule for Project

For all non-price evaluation components, a percentage of available points based upon Figure 2, Rating Scale (following page).

The Authorized Representative will average the final scores for each Quote (calculated by totaling the points awarded by each Evaluation Committee member and dividing by the number of members). The calculated average is the final score.

Offeror Experience and References

Evaluation based on how comparable proffered experience is to current Project opportunity.

Personnel Qualifications and Experience

Credentials, Qualifications, Expertise and Experience of Proposed Personnel;

and Staffing Plan(s).

Work Examples or DEDs

1. Deliverable 1.1, Risk Assessment Report,

2. Deliverable 2.6, Lessons Learned Report,

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

2.2, Quality Checklist),

4. Deliverable 3.3, Quality Status Report; and

5. Deliverable 4.1, Quality Assurance Status and Improvement Report.

Total Cost of Deliverables

Formula applied:

lowest cost of all Offerors X available cost points = cost score cost being scored

Authorized Purchaser 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. The quantum of “available cost points” relates to the percentage of maximum possible points awarded in all non-price evaluation components; e.g., Offeror who receives 80% of maximum possible points in all non-price evaluation components may compete for 80% of the maximum possible cost points (200 points instead of 250 points).

TOTAL MAXIMUM POINTS POSSIBLE 1125

Figure 2: Rating Scale

The rating scale at Figure 2 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.

DAS and AP may establish additional rounds of evaluation for Interviews and presentations involving two (2) or more of the top-ranking Offerors. 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. Alternatively, but may determine to award a WOC at the conclusion of the first evaluation round to the highest-

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 Offeror 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/project 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 – Offeror meets minimum requirements but does not demonstrate “Satisfactory” knowledge of the subject matter.

scoring Offeror5 (successful Consultant with the best value quote). The awarded WOC will be in a form substantially similar to the Sample Contract attached to the awarded Consultant’s iQMS Master Price and Services Agreement (“MPSA”) and the proposed Statement of Work (RFQ Exhibit 3). DAS may negotiate contract terms and conditions with the successful Consultant.

CONTRACT AWARD DETERMINATION IS FINAL BASED ON THE SCORES PROVIDED BY

THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE, SUBJECT TO A TIMELY, COMPLIANT AWARD PROTEST

FROM AN ADVERSELY AFFECTED OFFEROR. AP will not award a WOC to any Offeror that the evaluation committee determines to have an actual or apparent conflict of interest.

AWARD PROTEST OPPORTUNITY CONSISTENT WITH ORS 279B.410. DAS and AP will provide a seven (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 seven (7) calendar days from the date of such Notice in which to deliver a signed protest to DAS PS 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 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. DAS and AP will not consider a protest submitted after the deadline. Protests will be resolved according to Oregon Administrative Rules. DAS and AP will not consider protests that do not include the information required under ORS 279B.410.

5 In such event, State Parties may still conduct an interview/presentation session onsite with the highest-scoring

Offeror.

EXHIBIT NO. 1

RFQ PRICING SHEET

Deliverable Number Deliverable Description Due Date NTE Deliverable

Cost

Phase 1: Special Procurement

Task 2: Quality Planning

2.1.1 Quality Standards – Operational Definitions

Report for Phase 1

Executed contract with IQMS consultant + 15 business days

$0.00

2.2.1

Quality Checklists for Deliverable 3.1.3.1, Solution requirements and related information contained in the proposed special procurement contract selected project-related documentation

Authorized Purchaser Acceptance of Deliverable 2.1.1, Quality Standards + 15 Business Days

$0.00

2.4.1

Phase 1 Baseline QMS Work Plan

(Adapted from portfolio-level Deliverable 2.4.

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

Authorized Purchaser Acceptance of Deliverable 2.2.1, Quality Checklist + 15 Business Days

Price included in deliverables 3.1.3.1

TASK 2 SUBTOTAL $0.00

Task 3: Quality Control

Deliverable 3.1: Quality Control Review

3.1.3.1

Solution requirements and related information contained in the proposed special procurement contract with SI Contractor.

Review may include:

• Requirements supporting the proposed solution contract (functional & non-functional / technical requirements6)

• SOW supporting proposed solution contract

Prior to special procurement execution or P3 approval to proceed

As agreed to and documented in the accepted Deliverable

$0.00

6 For major systems, non-functional / technical requirements would include: data model (including entity relations), database design (including tables and the use of primary and secondary keys), interfaces and integration with existing and legacy systems, data conversion and migration of data in existing systems or databases, use of public cloud infrastructure, system redundancy and high availability features, disaster recovery, etc.

Deliverable Number Deliverable Description Due Date NTE Deliverable

Cost

• Authorized Purchaser’s Project Plan

• Authorized Purchaser’s Business Case and

Project Charter

• Solutions Analysis

2.4.1 Baseline QMS

Work Plan

TASK 3 SUBTOTAL $0.00

PHASE 1: TOTAL COST $0.00

Phase 2: New procurement RFP

Task 1: Risk Assessment

1.1 Project Risk Assessment Report

Later of Effective Date of Contract or Issuance to Contractor of a Notice to Proceed + 30 Business Days.

$0.00

1.2 On-Going Risk Notification Report

As needed.

As requested by Agency, written report three (3) days after verbal notification.

Price included in periodic Deliverables 3.3 (QC Reports) and

4.1 (QA Reports)

TASK 1 SUBTOTAL $0.00

Task 2: Quality Planning

2.1.2 Quality Standards – Operational Definitions

Report

Agency Acceptance of Task 1, Deliverable 1.1, Initial Project Risk Assessment Report + 15 Business Days.

Deliverable Number Deliverable Description Due Date NTE Deliverable

Cost

2.2.2

Quality Checklists for Task 3.1 Deliverables, Quality Control Review Reports for selected Project-related documentation.

Due Dates for Quality Control Review Reports to which they apply, or as otherwise agreed to and documented in the approved Baseline QMS Work Plan.

Price included in related Deliverable

3.1 QC Reviews

2.3.2 Quality Management Plan

Agency Acceptance of Task 1, Deliverable 1.1, Project Risk Assessment Report + 15 Business Days.

$0.00

2.4.2

RFP Phase Baseline QMS Work Plan (Updated by the Parties from time-to-time to reflect mutually agreeable adjustments, if any, to QMS Deliverables)

Agency Acceptance of Task 1, Deliverable 1.1, Project Risk Assessment Report + 15 Business Days.

$0.00

2.5 Internal/External Presentations and

Special Requests

As needed and requested by Authorized Purchaser.

OPTION RESERVED

TO AUTHORIZED

PURCHASER / NO

COST SUBMISSION

REQUIRED

OR COST

SUBMISSION

REQUIRED

2.6

Lessons Learned Report – Project Evaluation

(1 instance at end of Project OR more instances at per instance cost of $0.00)

As agreed to and documented in the approved 2.4.2 Baseline QMS Work Plan

$0.00

TASK 2 SUBTOTAL $0.00

Task 3: Quality Control

Deliverable 3.1: Quality Control Review

Deliverable Number Deliverable Description Due Date NTE Deliverable

Cost

3.1.1.1 Quality Control Review Report of Agency’s

Business Case

As agreed to and documented in the approved 2.4.2 Baseline QMS Work Plan.

$0.00

3.1.1.2 Quality Control Review Report of Agency’s PMBOK-compliant Project Management Plan and Schedule

As agreed to and documented in the approved 2.4.2 Baseline QMS Work Plan.

$0.00

3.1.1.3 to 3.1.1.x

Quality Control Review Report of Additional Named Agency Project-related Artifacts

(Cost per instance = $0.00)

(individual line items)

As agreed to and documented in the approved 2.4.2 Baseline QMS Work Plan.

$0.00

3.1.2

Solution requirements and related information supporting the Request for Proposal (RFP) or approved solicitation.

Related information used to support this review may include:

• Requirements supporting RFP (functional & non-functional / technical requirements7)

• SOW supporting the RFP

• Authorized Purchaser’s Project Plan

• Authorized Purchaser’s Business Case

• Solutions Analysis

Prior to RFP release or P3 approved solicitation.

As agreed to and documented in the accepted Deliverable

2.4.2 Baseline QMS

Work Plan.

$0.00

3.1.3.2

Solution requirements and related information contained in the proposed contract with the successful Proposer.

Review may include:

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

• SOW supporting proposed solution contract

Prior to Solution Contractor contract execution.

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

7 For major systems, non-functional / technical requirements would include: data model (including entity relations), database design (including tables and the use of primary and secondary keys), interfaces and integration with existing and legacy systems, data conversion and migration of data in existing systems or databases, use of public cloud infrastructure, system redundancy and high availability features, disaster recovery, etc.

Deliverable Number Deliverable Description Due Date NTE Deliverable

Cost

• Updated Authorized Purchaser Project Plan

• Updated Authorized Purchaser Business

Case

Baseline QMS Work Plan.

3.1.4

Solution Contractor’s detailed requirements (inclusive of functional & non-functional / technical requirements and requirements traceability matrix)

After requirements development or validation has been completed with Solution Contractor.

As agreed to and documented in the accepted Deliverable

2.4.2 Baseline QMS

Work Plan.

$0.00

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

As agreed to and documented in the accepted Deliverable

2.4.2 Baseline QMS

Work Plan.

$0.00

3.1.6

Documentation necessary to demonstrate compliance with the EIS Cloud Policy (Statewide Policy 107-004-150).

The deliverable may QC the Solution Contractor’s documentation, as accepted by the Authorized Purchaser, or Authorized Purchaser’s documentation if such a deliverable does not exist in Solution Contractor’s SOW.

OPTION RESERVED TO

AUTHORIZED

PURCHASER8

OPTION RESERVED

TO AUTHORIZED

PURCHASER

8 Consult with EIS Cyber Security Services.

Deliverable Number Deliverable Description Due Date NTE Deliverable

Cost

3.1.7x

Solution Contractor statement of work deliverables.

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

• Functional design document

• Technical design document

• Data conversion / migration plan and results

• System testing plan and test cases

• System testing results

• Training plan

• Disaster recovery plan

• Operations and maintenance plan

(Cost per instance = $0.00)

As agreed to and documented in the accepted Deliverable

2.4.2 Baseline QMS

Work Plan.

Parties may choose to split this deliverable into multiple deliverables, e.g., 3.1.7a, 3.1.7b, etc.

$0.00

3.1.8 Authorized Purchaser’s User Acceptance

Testing (UAT) plan and test results

As agreed to and documented in the accepted Deliverable

2.4.2 Baseline QMS

Work Plan.

$0.00

3.1.9 to 3.1.x

Additional Project-centric QC Deliverables.

(Cost per instance = $0.00)

OPTION RESERVED TO

AUTHORIZED

PURCHASER

OPTION RESERVED

TO AUTHORIZED

PURCHASER

Deliverable 3.2: Security Review9

3.2.1 Security Review Plan

OPTION RESERVED TO

AUTHORIZED

PURCHASER

OPTION RESERVED

TO AUTHORIZED

PURCHASER / NO

COST SUBMISSION

REQUIRED

3.2.2 Security Review Report(s)

OPTION RESERVED

TO AUTHORIZED

PURCHASER

OPTION RESERVED

TO AUTHORIZED

PURCHASER / NO

COST SUBMISSION

REQUIRED

9 Consult with EIS Cyber Security Services.

Deliverable Number Deliverable Description Due Date NTE Deliverable

Cost

Deliverable 3.3: Quality Status Reporting

3.3.1 to 3.3.16

Periodic Quality Status Reports

(delivered twice per quarter with one periodic report due at the end of the first two months of the reporting quarter)

(16 instances at $0.00 per instance)

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

$0.00

TASK 3 SUBTOTAL $0.00

Task 4: Quality Assurance Status and Improvements Reporting

4.1.1 to 4.1.8

Quarterly QA Status and Improvement Reports / Presentations

(8 instances at $0.00 per instance)

*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.

End of Quarter + 10 Business Days*

TASK 4 SUBTOTAL $0.00

Deliverable Number Deliverable Description Due Date NTE Deliverable

Cost

Task 5: Independent Solution Testing

5.1 Independent Master Test Plan (MTP) OPTION RESERVED

OPTION RESERVED

TO AUTHORIZED

PURCHASER / NO

COST SUBMISSION

REQUIRED

5.2 Independent Test Execution and Status

Reports OPTION RESERVED

OPTION RESERVED

TO AUTHORIZED

PURCHASER / NO

COST SUBMISSION

REQUIRED

5.3 Independent Security-Related Testing OPTION RESERVED

OPTION RESERVED

TO AUTHORIZED

PURCHASER / NO

COST SUBMISSION

REQUIRED

TASK 5 SUBTOTAL N/A

PHASE 2: NEW PROCUREMENT RFP TOTAL $0.00

TOTAL COST (Phase 1 + Phase 2) $0.00

RATE CARD

Name Position | Skill Set Hourly Rate

EXHIBIT NO. 2

REFERENCE CHECK FORM

Offeror/Consultant Name: __________________________________________

Reference Entity: __________________________________________

Reference Contact Name: __________________________________________

Contact Telephone Number: __________________________________________

Contract Email Address: __________________________________________

PLEASE RESPOND TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS.

1. Detailed description of Qualifying Engagement.

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

3. Description of Services Provided.

4. Description comparing Qualifying Engagement to RFQ Scope of Services.

5. How will Client Reference Likely Rate your performance on a scale from 1 to 5 with 5 being the best?

EXHIBIT NO. 3

iQMS STATEMENT OF WORK

Embedded Microsoft Word Document Object Below

EXHIBIT_3_RFQ_SOW

_ALERT_IIS.docx

ATTACHMENT A

PROJECT CHARTER

Alert IIS_Charter.docx

ATTACHMENT B

BUSINESS CASE

AlertIIS_Business_C ase_2.0.pdf