ADDENDUM 5 SBM Instructions for Round 2 .docx

OregonBuys Bid Number: S-DASOBO-00010624 – OREGON STATE-BASED ACA-COMPLIANT INSURANCE MARKETPLACE (“SBM”) SOLUTION Addendum No. 5

OregonBuys bid number: S-DASOBO-00010624

OREGON STATE-BASED ACA-COMPLIANT INSURANCE MARKETPLACE (“SBM”) SOLUTION

ADDENDUM 5

September 27, 2024

PURPOSE

The purpose of this addendum is to detail the Round 2 Evaluation Process and Submission Requirements:

ROUND 2 EVALUATION PROCESS AND SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

ADDITION OF ATTACHMENT E, REVISED PRICE PROPOSAL- EXCEL SPREADSHEET

ADDITION OF ATTACHMENT L, USE CASE SCENARIOS- EXCEL SPREADSHEET

ADDITION OF ATTACHMENT M, CYBER SECURITY REQUIREMENTS- EXCEL SPREADSHEET

ROUND 2 EVALUATION PROCESS AND SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

See Page 2 for instructions related to Round 2.

ATTACHMENT E, REVISED PRICE PROPOSAL

Attachment E, Revised Price Proposal is hereby added to the above referenced RFP.

PROTEST

Protests to this addendum must be submitted in the manner required in RFP Section 4.5.2 and are due seven (7) calendar Days from the publish date and time of this Amendment to OregonBuys.

ATTACHMENTS

ROUND 2 EVALUATION PROCESS AND SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

The following outlines the process and submission requirements for those Proposers in the Competitive Range for Round 2.

A. OVERVIEW

Round 2 will consist of the following components:

1. Narrative Submission

2. Revised Price Proposal- Excel Spreadsheet

3. Cyber Security Oregon Requirements- Excel Spreadsheet

4. Demonstration and Interview

5. Sandbox Environment and Logons

Full participation in Round 2 is mandatory to remain competitive for Contract award. The following sections outline the Round 2 components in more detail, including submission deadlines, in addition to evaluation criteria and submission information.

Refer any questions to the Single Point of Contact (SPC) via e-mail by noon Pacific Time on October 7, 2024.

Julie Curry, State Procurement Analyst Julie.a.curry@das.oregon.gov

(971) 446-8169

B. DEMONSTRATION AND INTERVIEW AGENDA

During Round 2, Proposers will each be provided a 4-hour opportunity to demonstrate their solution and answer interview questions. Within the time permitted, Proposers shall demonstrate an overview of each topic while covering each subtopic. The allotted time for each session includes 30 minutes of Q&A. Proposers shall present virtually and through the named Key Persons who will staff the Project. Proposers must demonstrate scenarios in a production-like environment. A high-level agenda template for each Proposer’s session is provided:

Please see Appendix 1 for detailed information regarding Solution demonstration and interview requirements.

Online demonstrations (“Demonstration Day Webinars”) blocks are available as follows:

Each Proposer must reply by noon Pacific Time on October 1, 2024, to the SPC via email with its list of Demonstration Days in order of most to least desirable. Efforts will be made to avoid scheduling a Proposer on its least desired Demonstration Day; however, preference will be given in order of Round 1 Proposer ranking.

Each Proposer is responsible for setting up, hosting, and conducting its respective Demonstration Day Webinar. Webinar connection details must be submitted to the SPC via email at least one Business Day in advance of the scheduled Webinar to test the connection. Each Proposer shall bear the cost of its scheduled Demonstration Day Webinar.

C. SANDBOX ENVIRONMENT

Proposer must provide access to a Sandbox Environment from October 17, 2024 through October 30, 2024 and supply logon access to allow for five (5) user roles identified in Attachment L, to run User Case Scenarios after Demonstrations. Multiple users may need access to the Sandbox Environment at the same time. Access for the following user roles must be submitted to the SPC via email by noon Pacific Time October 17th, 2024:

· Consumer – up to 25 unique reviewers

· Issuer/Carrier/Plans – up to 20 unique reviewers

· Broker/Agent – up to 20 unique reviewers

· Assister/Community Partner – up to 20 unique reviewers

· Oregon Staff – up to 25 unique reviewers

D. NARRATIVE SUBMISSION

Proposers shall submit a narrative that responds to the question set below. This information requests additional information and/or clarification to what was submitted as part of a Proposer’s Round 1 submission. Proposer should review its previous responses and respond with a narrative that updates or provides more detailed information. The Round 2 narrative submission is limited to 10 pages (not including the completed Disclosure Exemption Certificate, data conversion plan, or response to security questions).

1. Which state/s did your company provide the full suite of SBM platform and CAC services for the individual market and how many years did you provide these services for? If you only provided partial services, what were those services?

2. Provide additional details on your consumers' satisfaction with your platform and with assistance received from the CAC in languages other than English and Spanish.

3. Which languages are your automatically generated system notices (ex. password reset notices) available in?

4. Will the platform and shopping tool meet WCAG 2.2 accessibility standards by July 1, 2026 (Platform Operational Readiness)?

5. Is the solution able to create ad hoc reports from plan data, such as showing all the primary care visit cost-sharing for all plans in the bronze tier?

6. What is the average unscheduled downtime (time and percentage) of your SBM solution(s) in the past 5 years? Of your CAC(s) in the past 5 years? What was your worst outage, it’s cause and duration?

7. Share lessons learned from your SBM platform implementation and provide a detailed plan for data conversion (ex. data identification, data cleansing, data harmonization, and data validation approaches and planned activities).

8. Do you envision any changes will be required in your current company structure, location, and/or workload processes based on any forthcoming changes in regulation, industry, or the need to support Oregon’s SBM in particular? If so, what are those changes?

9. Describe your approach and plan on how you will work with Agency's independent quality management services (iQMS) vendor.

10. How will your technical team engage with the State? In particular, how will you implement your (vendor) project methodology (Agile, Waterfall, etc.) with the State Product Owner and backlog?

Disclosure Exemption Certification: If Proposer believes any of its Round 2 submission is exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law (ORS 192.311 through 192.478), Proposer shall complete and submit Attachment B, Disclosure Exemption Certification. Proposer shall also mark as “Confidential” in OregonBuys all attachments to its submission that Proposer believes are exempt from disclosure and provide a fully redacted version of its Round 2 submission, clearly identified as a redacted version.

E. REVISED PRICE PROPOSAL

Proposer shall review, complete, and submit, Attachment E, Revised Price Proposal for its Solution and related services as part of its Round 2 submission. Instructions for completion can be found on the Instructions tab. Please submit as an Excel workbook and separate file from the rest of the Round 2 submission.

F. CYBER SECURITY OREGON REQUIREMENTS SPREADSHEET

Proposer must review, complete, and submit, Attachment M, Cyber Security Oregon Requirements Excel Spreadsheet as part of its Round 2 submission.

G. ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION

Proposers must corroborate required demonstrations and interview responses, as reasonably appropriate, with written material electronically provided to the SPC along with the required responses to the Revised Price Proposal, Narrative Submission, and Cyber Security Oregon Requirements spreadsheet. DAS PS regards such submissions as “preliminary” Demonstration Day Webinar submissions, and DAS PS may require each Proposer to provide supplemental Demonstration Day Webinar submissions to capture any additional matters presented during a Demonstration Day Webinar.

H. PROPOSAL DELIVERY

Required Round 2 submissions must be uploaded in OregonBuys via a Quote Revision. Round 2 Proposers will get a notification from OregonBuys when the Quote Revision is available. All components of the Round 2 proposal must be uploaded by noon Pacific Time October 14, 2024. For questions or issues related to submission in OregonBuys, please contact the OregonBuys Supplier Help Desk at support.oregonbuys@das.oregon.gov or 1-855-800-5046.

I. EVALUATION

DAS PS will facilitate the Round 2 evaluation in the context of State’s procurement practices and rules, including the Round 2 screening and selection criteria; and through observations, review, and analysis of Proposer responses to specific Round 2 and including any related follow-up that DAS PS may require.

The Evaluation Committee (“Committee”) will distribute points based on Appendix 2.

APPENDIX 1

ROUND 2 DEMONSTRATION AND INTERVIEW DETAILED AGENDA AND REQUIREMENTS

1. INTRODUCTIONS AND PROJECT SUMMARY

Proposer will introduce proposed three (3) Key Persons who will briefly describe their roles and responsibilities on the project. Proposer must provide a brief overview of its Solution, covering its project methodology, schedule, staffing, and factors critical to the success of the project.

Proposer must address the following items:

1. Describe the manner and means through which Proposer will ensure appropriate staffing through the life of the Project, noting items such as managing staff capacity across multiple engagements and Proposer’s track record of keeping Key Persons with a project for the project’s duration.

2. Describe what Proposer regards as the primary risks to a project of this nature or that Proposer has experienced on other projects, and a detailed, actionable list of related mitigating strategies.

2. SOLUTION OVERVIEW Proposer will address the following questions:

1. How do you believe your approach and your Solution provides exceptional value and potential best fit? In what practices do you engage to create and maintain this value?

2. Describe the process for a situation that arises where functionality developed or configured within the Solution does not meet business needs. Consider two cases:

a. In one case the requirement was not identified, and

b. In another where the requirement was identified, and the Solution is working according to your design but is not meeting our business needs.

Proposer will provide a brief overview of its Solution architecture, covering items such as:

1. History of the proposed Solution. How long has the Solution been in production and what updates have been implemented to keep it current?

2. How the architecture will support long-term maintainability and the ability to adapt to evolving business needs (e.g., new functionality, enhancements, new users, legislative/federal mandates, etc.).

3. INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

Proposer must be prepared to answer the following questions during the demonstration day. The questions will be asked in an interview style. The State may ask additional follow up questions.

1. How many of your leadership team members have been with the company for more than 5 years? What do they say they like about working in your company?

2. Provide details on a project within the last 5 years that you have worked on with the sub-contractors you listed. What was that working relationship like and why did you choose them for this project?

3. Provide details on a project within the last 5 years that you have worked on with the sub-contractor you where the working relationship didn’t work, how did you resolve the issue?

4. In relation to interfacing with a specific state’s Medicaid system, describe your SBM's methodology and top 3 lessons learned.

5. What payment structures or schedules have you used with other SBM states and what do you recommend for Oregon?

4. SYSTEM DEMONSTRATIONS SESSION (Demonstrate the capabilities of the proposed Solution) Proposer must present a series of examples of Use Case Scenarios, Attachment L in the production environment ready software that clearly demonstrate the capabilities of the proposed Solution. Examples should demonstrate features that will provide significant benefits in enhancing OHA’s ability to meet its current and future business needs. The demonstrations should cover at least the items described below, but Proposer has discretion to sequence the demonstration in the manner it deems most appropriate in the context of its proposed Solution and within the time allowed.

Proposer must demonstrate how the proposed Solution demonstrates user interface and experience for the list below using the following. Attachment L, Excel spreadsheet attached has the detailed information for each role:

1. Consumer

2. Issuer/Carrier/Plans

3. Broker/Agent

4. Assister/Community Partner

5. Oregon Staff

-END OF APPENDIX 1-

APPENDIX 2

Table 1.1: Scoring Guidelines

ROUND 2 SCREENING AND SELECTION CRITERIA

All Round 2 components will be independently evaluated by members of an Evaluation Committee (“Committee”). The Committee is comprised of scoring members (“Scorers”) and several technical and business subject matter experts (“Advisors”). Advisors will not score but will observations during the demonstration and interviews. Table 1.1: Scoring Guidelines. Scorers will have access to any Advisers notes for their discretionary reference before completing their scoring of Round 2 Proposer submissions, interviews, and demonstrations.

Committee members may change, and there may be additional or fewer evaluators for different aspects of Round 2 demonstrations and interviews. Scorers will assign a score from 0 to 100% based upon the guidelines listed above in Table 1.1: Scoring Guidelines. This table provides guidance to the Committee concerning their required qualitative assessment of how well a Proposer addresses the elements and essentials prescribed in each scored submission requirement.

The SPC will average all scores for each evaluation criterion. The average score becomes the final score and will be used as a percentage multiplier of the maximum possible points for that criterion. The SPC may request further clarification to assist the Committee in gaining additional understanding of Round 2 submissions. Unless requested, clarifications will apply to all Proposers. A response to a clarification request must be to clarify or explain portions of matters already submitted and may not contain new information not included in the original submission.

Specifically, Evaluation Committee will:

1. Evaluate Proposer’s proposed Key Persons and other personnel for demonstrated and perceived experience, expertise, performance, and potential fit.

2. Evaluate the proposed Solution’s technical quality, including without limitation demonstrated and perceived flexibility, ability to be scaled, maintained, and updated to evolve with technology, and configurability to meet Oregon-specific needs.

3. Evaluate Proposer’s proposed Key Persons and other personnel for the skills and background to elaborate OHA’s requirements.

4. Evaluate the proposed Solution’s usability (e.g., how a user interacts with the system, navigates pages, performs tasks, including self-service opportunities and automated tasks) and ability to improve service delivery.

5. Evaluate the maturity and suitability of Proposer’s approaches to development, project management, collaboration, and long-term relationship with the State.

a. Maturity (i.e., defined, optimized, and repeatable processes).

b. Suitability (includes without limitation alignment with State standards and applicable oversight requirements).

6. Partially validate Solution functionality as stated in Proposer’s Technical Proposal.

7. Evaluate the suitability and fit of Solution regarding long term operations and maintenance.

8. Evaluate the perceived quality of Proposer’s overall performance and potential best fit during its scheduled Demonstration Day Webinar.

9. DAS PS will:Evaluate Attachment E, Revised Pricing Proposal utilizing the following formula:

“L” divided by “X” times “A” = “B”…where:

A = Available Price Proposal points for the Proposer being scored (see example below);

L = Lowest Price Proposal submitted;

X = Price Proposal being scored;

B = Awarded Price Proposal score

Summary of Points Possible for RFP:

Example: Available Price Proposal Points will be based on the percent of points a Proposer is awarded for all other Round 1 and Round 2 combined points available. So based on the summary of Points Possible above, if Proposer ABC receives a score of 4,400 (80% of points possible) for Round 1 and Round 2, Proposer ABC can receive up to 1,760 points for its Price Proposal, which is 80% of the 2,200 total points available for price.

No.

There are 5,700 total points available for Round 2. The maximum available points are distributed in the listed fifteen scoring components.

-END OF APPENDIX 2-

09/26/2024 Page 1 of 2