73448 - Questions_Elearning RFR_After Legal Review.docx

Response for Bid: BD-22-1071-AO-CON01-73448

BRANDED TEMPLATE SET AND CONTENT CONVERSION TO E-LEARNING – RFR

Q1: Schedule. Is the June 30 completion date non-negotiable? I believe this project would need to go past this date as the RFB describes the requirements.

ANSWER: The goal is to have this completed by June 30. For further guidance, see the responses to Questions #8 and #10 below.

Q2: Workflow. It sounds like the request is based on a current workflow. In what form is your current content? Do you always create power points before creating elearning modules?

ANSWER: The items we want to convert are in PowerPoint and we generally use PowerPoint to create the base source file. Additionally, we would expect that the bidder use their expertise to advise on best practices for formatting.

Q3: Module Duration. How many courses are 5-15 hours? What is the average length of each module??

ANSWER: We have about four ‘courses’ currently (which would be on the lower end of the time scale). We are anticipating having other ‘courses’ created which would bring us to the upper time scale (the source files are in development and may/may not be ready as part of this work). An average ‘course’ length is approximately 45-75 minutes.

Q4: Module End Users. Who are the end users for the content? Are the end users different for your SCORM compliant modules vs. modules that can be uploaded to social media sites?

ANSWER: Currently, the end users are the employees of MRC. For this work, one can expect that the two audiences are the same. The challenge we are facing is that our LMS implementation is fairly new and the ability to upload courses is restricted. Therefore, there is a need to have these ‘courses’ available in different formats to be used on different platforms for our employees. Also, these courses may be available later for non-MRC individuals which won’t have access to our LMS.

Q5: Content. Can vendors have access to all or a sample of the existing hours of presentation that MRC will want converted to elearning? This will be critical if vendors are to submit work plans, schedules, and costs?

ANSWER: Yes. A sample can be requested by emailing MRC.Learn@mass.gov. In the Subject Line of the email put Request: Bidder Elearning Sample

Q6: Content. When MRC says ‘Convert between 5-15 hours of presentations into e-learning modules’, does 5-15 hours represent the time that it had taken to give the presentations in their current form, or the anticipated or required duration of the asynchronous, self-paced elearning developed from the material?

ANSWER: That is the approximate time it took to give the presentations in their current form. As responded to in Question #3, the average presentation (e.g. ‘course) length is approximately 45-75 minutes.

Q7: Content. Should vendors assume that the converted elearning will have recorded narrator audio?

ANSWER: Recorded narrator audio would be preferred if it enhances the presentation and absorption of the material and/or the accessibility of the module.

Q8: Cost Proposal. Does MRC have guidance for how vendors should respond if they are not able to provide the template creation, 5 or more hours of converted/accessible learning, and MRC staff training within the $50,000 stated maximum for the project? (One common industry rule of thumb, not necessarily applicable, but for potential consideration, for elearning development when it includes both the instructional design and the produced elearning modules, particularly with Level 2 or higher interactivity and Section 508/504 compliance, is $1,000 per minute, so for five hours of elearning, that would come out to $300,000 for the elearning conversion component alone.)

ANSWER: The guidance would be to focus on the creation of the PowerPoint template set first and then provide how many hours of presentation could be covered by the remaining funds. For example, if the estimate to complete the template set was $10,000. Then how many hours of presentation could be completed with the remaining $40,000?

Q9: Schedule. The RFR outlines a process where bidders providing an eligible response have 14 days to request a debriefing, another 14 days for the debriefing to be scheduled, 14 more days to file an Appeal, 21 days for a hearing to be set, and 60 days for the decision following the appeal hearing. This potential timeline would extend into August, after the requested completion of the project. Does MRC anticipate starting work on the project prior to even the start of the debriefing/appeal process, let alone its completion?

ANSWER: Per the RFR, the purpose of the debriefing is to provide an opportunity for the bidder “to understand the basis for the decision”; it does not affect the award decision. MRC will enter into a contract with the selected bidder in alignment with the schedule described in the RFR.

Q10: Schedule. Does MRC have guidance for how vendors should respond if they do not feel they will be able to complete the conversion of existing learning by the requested June 29 end date of the project? Is there flexibility in the schedule? Given that the starting point is with presentation materials that were not used for elearning, our experience is that it takes time to design the potential interactivities and review them with the client that would make it unlikely to complete the process by the requested date ANSWER: Just to clarify, the due date is June 30, not the 29th as listed in the question. The response to this question is similar to Question #8: The guidance would be to focus on the creation of the PowerPoint template set first and then provide how many hours of presentation could be completed by the June 30th deadline.

Q11: Solicitation and Award Process. With submissions due on April 19, and the outline possibility of oral presentations, what day does MRC expect to announce the award?

ANSWER: Per the RFR, the tentative start date is April 29, 2022. MRC intends to complete the evaluation and award before that date; however, we do not have a target date for the award announcement at this time.

Q12: Solicitation and Award Process. Will prospective vendors’ business proposal and cost proposal be kept confidential to MRC, or will they be made public, so that vendors would potentially see one another’s submissions?

ANSWER: Per the “Public Records” section of the Appendix attached to the RFR, “All responses and information submitted in response to this RFR are subject to the Massachusetts Public Records Law, M.G.L., c. 66, s. 10, and to c. 4, s. 7, ss. 26. Any statements in submitted responses that are inconsistent with these statutes, including marking by bidders of information as confidential during the quote submission process in COMMBUYS, shall be disregarded.”