Addendum to Appendix A.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 21 KB Posted
- Attached to
- iQMS RFQ for OCVR Replacement Project
- Solicitation number
- S-16500-00000046
- Issued by
- Marion County, Oregon
About this file
The provided document is an Addendum to Appendix A.xlsx related to the iQMS RFQ for OCVR Replacement Project, a state and local contract opportunity involving Marion County and the City of Salem, Oregon. The Addendum details Quality Standards for the project, including process standards, project management, project parameters, project team, organization management, customer/user, product content, development process, development environment, technology, deployment, and maintenance considerations. Key details include a well-defined scope, verifiable objectives, experienced project management, sufficient resources and budget, stable commitments, comprehensive testing and change control processes, and appropriate technology and expertise to meet the customer's needs.
The related state and local contract opportunity is for the iQMS RFQ for OCVR Replacement Project, which is only open to consultants that currently hold a State of Oregon Master Price and Services Agreement to perform iQMS services. The project involves Marion County and the City of Salem, Oregon. No additional details about pricing, set asides, incumbents, funding, or other salient information are provided in the given materials.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Amendment_2_SOW_Appendices_A-E.pdf | ||
| MPSA_RFQ_iQMS_Final.docx | DOCX document | |
| Intent to Award Notice for Bid 46 - Signed~1.pdf | ||
| iQMS SOW - Final.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment E_Responsibility Inquiry - Final.docx | DOCX document |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Quality Standards for Ext QA
| QS# | Quality Standard | Low Risk Cues | Medium Risk Cues | High Risk Cues | Include |
| PROCESS STANDARDS | |||||
| 1 | Project Fit to Customer Organization | Directly supports customer organization mission and/or goals | Indirectly impacts one or more goals of customer | Does not support or relate to customer organization mission or goals | No |
| 2 | Project Fit to Provider Organization | Directly supports provider organization mission and/or goals | Indirectly impacts one or more goals of provider | Does not support or relate to provider organization mission or goals | No |
| 3 | Customer Perception | Customer expects this organization to provide this product | Organization is working on project in area not expected by customer | Project is mismatch with prior products or services of this organization | No |
| 4 | Work Flow | Little or no change to work flow | Will change some aspect or have small affect on work flow | Significantly changes the work flow or method of organization | Yes |
| 5 | Goals conflict | Goals of projects within the organization are supportive of or complimentary to each other | Goals of projects do not conflict, but provide little direct support | Goals of projects are in conflict, either directly or indirectly | No |
| 6 | Political Influences | No particular politically-driven choices being made | Project has several politically motivated decisions, such as using a vendor selected for political reasons, rather than qualifications | Project has a variety of political influences or most decisions are made behind closed doors | Yes |
| 7 | Convenient Date | Date for delivery has been set by reasonable project commitment process | Date is being partially driven by need to meet election calendar or other mandate not related to technical estimate | Date is being totally driven by need to meet election calendar or other mandate; little consideration of project team estimates | Yes |
| 8 | Attractive Technology | Technology selected has been in use for some time | Project is being done in a sub-optimal way, to leverage the purchase or development of new technology | Project is being done as a way to show a new technology or as an excuse to bring a new technology into the organization | Yes |
| 9 | Short Term Solution | Project meets short term need without serious compromise to long term outlook | Project is focused on short-term solution to a problem, with little understanding of what is needed in the long term | Project team has been explicitly directed to ignore the long term outlook and focus on completing the short term deliverable | No |
| PROJECT MANAGEMENT | |||||
| 10 | Definition of the project | Project is well-defined, with a scope that is manageable by this organization | Project is well-defined, but unlikely to be handled by this organization | Project is not well-defined or carries conflicting objectives in the scope | Yes |
| 11 | Project Objectives | Verifiable project objectives, reasonable requirements | Some project objectives, measures may be questionable | No established project objectives or objectives are not measurable | Yes |
| 12 | Leadership | Project has active sponsor | Project has sponsor responsible for project, but unable to spend enough time to direct effectively | Project has no sponsor, or project manager concept is not in use | Yes |
| 13 | PM Approach | Product and process planning and controls in place | Planning and controls need enhancement | Weak or nonexistent planning and controls | Yes |
| 14 | PM Communication | Clearly communicates goals and status between the team and rest of organization | Communicates some of the information some of the time | Rarely communicates clearly to team or to others who need to be informed of team status | Yes |
| 15 | PM Experience | PM very experienced with similar projects | PM has moderate experience or has experience with different types of projects | PM has no experience with this type of project or is new to project management | No |
| 16 | PM Attitude | Strongly committed to success | Willing to do what it takes | Cares very little about project | No |
| 17 | PM Authority | Has line management or official authority that enables project leadership effectiveness | Is able to influence those elsewhere in the organization, based on personal relationships | Has little authority from location in the organization structure and little personal power to influence decisionmaking and resources | Yes |
| 18 | Support of the PM | Complete support by team and of management | Support by most of team, with some reservations | No visible support; manager in name only | No |
| PROJECT PARAMETERS | |||||
| 19 | Project Size | Small, non-complex, or easily decomposed | Medium, moderate complexity, decomposable | Large, highly complex, or not decomposable | Yes |
| 20 | Hardware Constraints | Little or no hardware-imposed constraints or single platform | Some hardware-imposed constraints; several platforms | Significant hardware-imposted constraints; multiple platforms | No |
| 21 | Reusable Components | Components available and compatible with approach | Components available, but need some revision | Components identified, need serious modification for use | No |
| 22 | Supplied Components | Components available and directly usable | Components work under most circumstances | Components known to fail in certain cases, likely to be late, or incompatible with parts of approach | No |
| 23 | Budget & Resource Size | Sufficient budget and resources allocated | Questionable budget and resources allocated | Doubtful budget and resources are sufficient | Yes |
| 24 | Budget Constraints | Funds allocated without constraints | Some questions about availability of funds | Allocation in doubt or subject to change without notice | Yes |
| 25 | Cost Controls | Well established, in place | System in place, weak in areas | System lacking or nonexistent | Yes |
| 26 | Delivery Commitment | Stable commitment dates | Some uncertain commitments | Unstable, fluctuating commitments | Yes |
| 27 | Development Schedule | Team agrees that schedule is acceptable and can be met | Team finds one phase of the plan to have a schedule that is too aggressive | Team agrees that two or more phases of schedule are unlikely to be met | Yes |
| PROJECT TEAM | |||||
| 28 | Team Member Availability | In Place, little turnover expected; few interrupts for fire fighting | Available, some turnover expected; some fire fighting | High Turnover, not available; team spends most of time fighting fires | Yes |
| 29 | Mix of Team Skills | Good mix of disciplines | Some disciplines inadequately represented | Some disciplines not represented at all | No |
| 30 | Application Experience | Extensive experience in team with projects like this | Some experience with similar projects | Little or no experience with similar projects | Yes |
| 31 | Experience with Project Hardware and Software | High experience | Average experience | Low experience | No |
| 32 | Experience with Process | Extensive experience with this process | Some experience with this process or extensive experience with another | Little or no experience with a defined process | No |
| 33 | Training of Team | Training plan in place, training ongoing | Training for some areas not available or training planned for future | No training plan or training not readily available | Yes |
| 34 | Team Spirit and Attitude | Strongly committed to success of project; cooperative | Willing to do what it takes to get the job done | Little or no commitment to the project; not a cohesive team | No |
| 35 | Team Productivity | All milestones met, deliverables on time, productivity high | Milestones met, some delays in deliverables, productivity acceptable | Productivity low, milestones not met, delays in deliverables | Yes |
| 36 | Expertise with Application Area | Good background with application domain within development team | Some experience with domain in team or able to call on experts as needed | No expertise in domain in team, no availability of experts | No |
| ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT | |||||
| 37 | Organization Stability | Little or no change in management or structure expected | Some management change or reorganization expected | Management or organization structure is continually or rapidly changing | Yes |
| 38 | Organization Roles and Responsibilities | Individuals throughout the organization understand their own roles and responsibilities and those of others | Individuals understand their own roles and responsibilities, but are unsure who is responsible for work outside their immediate group | Many in the organization are unsure or unaware of who is responsible for many of the activities of the organization | No |
| 39 | Policies and Standards | Development policies and standards are defined and carefully followed | Development policies and standards are in place, but are weak or not carefully followed | No policies or standards, or they are ill-defined and unused | Yes |
| 40 | Management Support | Strongly committed to success of project | Some commitment, not total | Little or no support | No |
| 41 | Executive Involvement | Visible and strong support | Occasional support, provides help on issues when asked | No visible support; no help on unresolved issues | Yes |
| 42 | Resource Conflict | Projects within the organization share resources without any conflict | Projects within the organization schedule resources carefully to avoid conflict | Projects within the organization often need the same resources at the same time (or compete for the same budget) | Yes |
| 43 | Customer Conflict | Multiple customers of the project have common needs | Multiple customers of the project have different needs, but do not conflict | Multiple customers of the project are trying to drive it in very different directions | No |
| CUSTOMER/USER | |||||
| 44 | User Involvement | Users highly involved with project team, provide significant input | Users play minor roles, moderate impact on system | Minimal or no user involvement; little user input | Yes |
| 45 | User Experience | users highly experienced in similar projects; have specific ideas of how needs can be met | Users have experience with similar projects and have needs in mind | Users have no previous experience with similar projects; usure of how needs can be met | No |
| 46 | User Acceptance | Users accept concepts and details of system; process is in place for user approvals | Users accept most of concepts and details of system; process in place for user approvals | Users do not accept any concepts or design details of system | Yes |
| 47 | User Training Needs | User training needs considered; training in progress or plan in place | User training needs considered; no training yet or training plan is in development | Requirements not identified or not addressed | Yes |
| 48 | User Justification | User justification complete, accurate, sound | User justification provided, complete with some questions about applicability | No satisfactory justification for system | No |
| PRODUCT CONTENT | |||||
| 49 | Requirements Stability | Little or no change expected to approved set (baseline) | Some change expected against approved set | Rapidly changing or no agreed-upon baseline | Yes |
| 50 | Requirements Complete and Clear | All completely specified and clearly written | Some requirements incomplete or unclear | Some requirements only in the head of the customer | Yes |
| 51 | Testability | Product requirements easy to test, plans underway | Parts of product hard to test, or minimal planning being done | Most of product hard to test, or no test plans being made | Yes |
| 52 | Design Difficulty | Well defined interfaces; design well understood | Unclear how to design, or aspects of design yet to be decided | Interfaces not well defined or controlled; subject to change | No |
| 53 | Implementation Difficulty | Algorithms and design are reasonable for this team to implement | Algorithms and/or design have elements somewhat difficult for this team to implement | Algorithms and/or design have components this team will find very difficult to implement | Yes |
| 54 | System Dependencies | Clearly defined dependencies of the software effort and other parts of system (hardware, process changes, documentation, ...) | Some elements of the system are well understood and planned; others are not yet comprehended | No clear plan or schedule for how the whole system will come together | Yes |
| DEVELOPMENT PROCESS | |||||
| 55 | Alternative Analysis | Analysis of alternatives complete, all considered, assumptions verifiable | Analysis of alternatives complete, some assumptions questionable or alternatives not fully considered | Analysis not completed, not all alternatives considered, or assumptions faulty | No |
| 56 | Commitment Process | Changes to commitments in scope, content, schedule are reviewed and approved by all involved | Changes to commitments are communicated to all involved | Changes to commitments are made without review or involvement of the team | No |
| 57 | Quality Assurance Approach | QA system established, followed, effective | Procedures established, but not well followed or effective | No QA process or established procedures | No |
| 58 | Development Documentation | Correct and available | Some deficiencies, but available | Non-existent | Yes |
| 59 | Use of Defined Engineering Process | Development process in place, established, effective, followed by team | Process established, but not followed or is ineffective | No formal process used | No |
| 60 | Early Identification of Defects | Peer reviews are incorporated throughout | Peer reviews are used sporadically | Team expects to find all defects with testing | No |
| 61 | Defect Tracking | Defect tracking defined, consistent, effective | Defect tracking process defined, but inconsistently used | No process in place to track defects | Yes |
| 62 | Change Control for Work Products | Formal change control process in place, followed, effective | Change control process in place, not followed or is ineffective | No change control process used | Yes |
| 63 | Lessons Learned | Lessons learned and improvements made at milestones or phases | Lessons learned conducted, improvements not incorporated | No lessons learned conducted, improvements not incorporated | No |
| DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENT | |||||
| 64 | Physical Facilities | Little or no modification needed | Some modifications needed; some existent | Major modifications needed, or facilities nonexistent | No |
| 65 | Hardware Platform | Stable, no changes expected, capacity is sufficient | Some changes under evolution, but controlled | Platform under development along with software | No |
| 66 | Tools Availability | In place, documentated validated | Available, validated, some development needed (or minimal documentation) | Unvalidated, proprietary or major development needed; no documentation | No |
| 67 | Vendor Support | Complete support at reasonable price and in needed time frame | Adequate support at contracted price, reasonable response time | Little or no support, high cost, and/or poor response time | No |
| 68 | Contract Fit | Contract with customer has good terms, communication with team is good | Contract has some open issues which could interrupt team work efforts | Contract has burdensome document requirements or causes extra work to comply | No |
| 69 | Disaster Recovery | All areas following security guidelines; data backed up; disaster recovery system in place; procedures followed | Some security measures in place; backups done; disaster recovery considered, but procedures lacking or not followed | No security measures in place; backup lacking; disaster recovery not considered | Yes |
| TECHNOLOGY | |||||
| 70 | Technology Match to Project | Technology planned for project is good match to customers and problem | Some of the planned technology is not well-suited to the problem or customer | Selected technology is a poor match to the problem or customer | No |
| 71 | Technology Experience of Project Team | Good level of experience with technology | Some experience with the technology | No experience with the technology | No |
| 72 | Availability of Technology Expertise | Technology support and experts readily available | Experts available elsewhere in organization | Will need to acquire help from outside the organization | No |
| 73 | Maturity of Technology | Technology has been in use in the organization for quite some time | Technology is well understood in the organization | Technology is leading edge, if not "bleeding edge" in nature | No |
| DEPLOYMENT | |||||
| 74 | Hardware Resources for Deliverables | Mature, growth capacity in system, flexible | Available, some growth capacity | No growth capacity, inflexible | No |
| 75 | Response or other Performance Factors | Readily fits boundaries needed; analysis has been done | Operates occasionally at boundaries | Operates continuously at boundary levels | No |
| 76 | Customer Service Impact | Requires little change to customer service | Requires minor changes to customer service | Requires major changes to customer service approach or offerings | Yes |
| 77 | Data Migration Required | Little or no data to migrate | Much data to migrate, but good descriptions available of structure and use | Much data to migrate; several types of databases or no good descriptions of what is where | Yes |
| 78 | Pilot Approach | Pilot site (or team) available and interested in participating | Pilot needs to be done with several sites (who are willing) or with one who needs much help | Only available pilot sites are uncooperative or in crisis mode already | No |
| 79 | External Hardware or Software Interfaces | Little or no integration or interfaces needed | Some integration or interfaces needed | Extensive interfaces required | Yes |
| MAINTENANCE | |||||
| 80 | Design Complexity | Structurally maintainable (low complexity measured or projected) | Certain aspects difficult to maintain (medium complexity) | Extremely difficult to maintain (high complexity) | Yes |
| 81 | Support Personnel | In place, experienced, sufficient in number | Missing some areas of expertise | Significant discipline or expertise missing | Yes |
| 82 | Vendor Support | Complete support at reasonable price and in needed time frame | Adequate support at contracted price, reasonable response time | Little or no support high cost, and/or poor response time | Yes |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .