Att B - RFI Q&A State Responses - HFI B & A Tracker.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 21 KB Posted
- Attached to
- HFI Budget & Operational Activities SolutionBid Documents State and local contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- RFI 25-83755
- Issued by
- Indiana
About this file
The document is a Request for Information (RFI-25-83755) from the Indiana Department of Health (IDOH) seeking vendors to develop a comprehensive budget and operational activities solution for Health First Indiana (HFI) Local Health Departments (LHDs). The RFI aims to create an efficient, scalable, and secure digital platform mandated by Senate Enrolled Act 4-2023, requiring LHDs to report metrics on core public health services. The solution must provide integrated modules for activities tracking, budget planning, financial reporting, and KPI management, supporting two annual reporting periods in June and December. Critical deadlines include a written questions deadline of April 25th, 2025, and a response submission deadline of May 23rd, 2025 at 3 PM ET.
The proposed system will integrate with Access Indiana and support multiple user roles, including LHD Contributors, IDOH Administrators, Finance Administrators, and Quality Coordinators. The solution will support budget allocations with specific requirements: minimum 60% for preventative core services, maximum 40% for regulatory services, and maximum 10% for capital outlays. Currently utilizing an in-house PowerApps solution with limitations in customizability, user interface, and reporting, IDOH seeks a cloud-based deployment aligned with StateRAMP requirements. The system will accommodate 157 current users, with potential expansion to 300, spanning 95 local jurisdictions. No specific incumbent vendor is mentioned, and the total budget or contract value is not explicitly stated. The primary goal is to streamline reporting, reduce administrative burden, and provide strategic insights for public health resource allocation across Indiana's local health departments.
View the file
Other files for this state and local contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Att B - RFI Q&A Template.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Att C - HFI Requirements Document.docx | DOCX document | |
| Att A - RFI Response Template.docx | DOCX document | |
| RFI 25-83755 - HFI Budget & Operational Activities Solution.docx | DOCX document |
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Q&A
| Attachment B |
| Questions and Answers Template |
Please submit your questions in the blue shaded areas by the date and time established in the RFI.
| # | PAGE # AND/OR SECTION # | RESPONDENTS QUESTION | STATE'S RESPONSE |
| 1 | 4 | What are estimated user quantities for each user type? | There are currently 157 users that include both staff at IDOH and local health departments. We may anticipate adding more users for both groups but this number shouldn't inflate past 300. |
| 2 | 3 | Which aspects of the legacy PowerApps system are considered most problematic? Is it scalability, usability and/or reporting? | Yes, all three aspects (scalability, usabilty, and reporting) were identified issues of the legacy system. There was also a change in scope after initial implementation that motivated us to move to a new system instead of trying to enhance and completely redesign the legacy system. |
| 2 | 3 | What is the expected frequency and method of data exchange with Access Indiana and other state systems? Does IDOH anticipate real-time integrations, batch uploads, or API-based syncing? | Access Indiana will be considered for integration with user login. We currently do not anticipate direct integration with other state systems however, API-based integration would be a nice to have feature. |
| 3 | 4 | Does the IDOH anticipate all three budget-related forms (Budget Plan, Carryover Plan, and Financial Report) to be live in the first release? | Yes, the preference would be to have all three ready by first release; however IDOH is open to suggestions once a more definitive project timeline has been identified. |
| 4 | 4 | How does the State envision variance tracking between proposed and actuals? Will KPIs need to be tied to budget compliance thresholds in real time? | These considerations have not been fully assessed; however any KPI related fundtionality that may already be included in the product or would be easy to implement would be a nice to have feature. |
| 5 | 4 | Will a UAT (User Acceptance Testing) environment be needed for all stakeholder roles during pilot deployment? | Yes we anticipate UAT to be considered for all roles. |
| 6 | 4 | What are the archiving and data retention policies that need to be built into the solution? | Adherance with standard state and federal requirements per StateRAMP and NIST 800-53, should be considered. |
| 7 | 4 and 5 | What data governance or audit trail standards (SOC 2) must the system meet? | Adherance with standard state and federal requirements per StateRAMP and NIST 800-53, should be considered. |
| 8 | 3 and 4 | What authentication methods are required for Access Indiana integration (e.g., SSO, MFA)? | Both SSO and MFA are requirements for authenrication with Access Indiana |
| 9 | 3 | What is IDOH’s vision for user training? | Training will need to be tailored to our multiple stakeholder groups, and should incorporate a phased roll-out plan for both internal state users as well as users from the Local Health Departments. Typical trainings should consider a recorded/hybrid approach with user guides and FAQ sheets to accompany those trainings and then re-used for future user training. |
| 10 | 3 | Is there an internal change management team that will collaborate with the selected implementer? | While we don't have a definied change management team, any change management approach that is necessary will be conducted in partnership with key stakeholders from the Local Health Services commission, the Office of Data & Analytics, and the Office of Technolog & Cybersecurity. |
| 11 | 3 | Does IDOH anticipate releasing an RFP after the RFI? If so, what is the expected timeline? | IDOH is currently still evaluating funding capacity and responses from the RFI before making a final decision on RFP release. If released, the RFP would likely come before end of calendar year. |
| 12 | Page 3, Background and Objective of the RFI | Can the State elaborate on the existing PowerApps application's limitations in terms of flexibility, usability, and integration to better understand specific pain points the new solution should address? | See answer to question #2 above. Limitations in customizability, user interface for data entry, data export and report viewing, as well as back-end administration were some of the known limitations of the current system. |
| 13 | Page 3, Background and Objective of the RFI | Are there any current data sources or third-party tools that the new solution will need to integrate with besides Access Indiana? | Outside of backend database access for data and analytics purposes and connection with our Microsoft Azure cloud environment there are no other current requiremnts for integration with other state systems outside of Access Indiana. Tableau integration would be a nice-to-have element. |
| 14 | Page 3 | Background and Objective of the RFI | Could the State clarify if the future RFP will require a cloud-based deployment or if on-premise options will be considered? | Cloud-based deployment is preferred and needs to align with StateRAMP requirements. State hosted cloud solutions are recommended. |
| 15 | Page 3 | Background and Objective of the RFI | What is the total number of Local Health Departments (LHDs) expected to use the system concurrently? | There are 95 local jurisdictions (LHDs) that are required to report into the system as well as subject matter experts and progarm area users from IDOH. Per question #1 - the user quantities shouldn’t exceed 300 total. |
| 16 | Page 4 | Functional Insights – Budget and Financial Management | Will the State require the solution to support multi-year budgeting and fiscal forecasting? | This requirement has not yet been considered and may be a nice-to-have feature. |
| 17 | Page 4 | Functional Insights – Activity Tracking and Task Management | Are there any expectations for workflow automation and notifications within the task management module? | Yes, any automation for workflow within the task management system would be considered in the DDI phase in collaboration with the primary system stakeholders and users of this module. |
| 18 | Page 4 | Functional Insights – Dynamic Reporting and Analytics | Can the State confirm if any reporting frameworks (e.g., Power BI, Tableau) are preferred or currently in use? | Tableau is currently the preferred reporting mechanism for state use. PowerBI is only considered for internal data visualization at this time. |
| 19 | Page 4 | Technical Insights – Versioning | Will the auto-save and conflict resolution functionality be required at both form and field level? | This will be evaluated in the DDI phase. It would be a nice-to-have feature to have this at both a form and field level dependant on the build in funcationality of the proposed solution. |
| 20 | Page 4 | Technical Insights – Security and Compliance | Is there a particular regulatory framework or standard (e.g., HIPAA, NIST, CJIS) that the solution must comply with? | While this system is not expect to collect HIPPA data, that is considered a nice-to-have feature. StateRAMP is the primary requirement and aligns with NIST standards. |
| 21 | Page 4 | Administrator Configuration | Will there be different administrative roles (e.g., state-level admin vs. LHD admin), and will their access to configurations vary? | We only anticipate having state-level administrative role at this time. An LHD admin role could be considered in the future and would have different configuration access. |
| 22 | Page 5 | Response Format and Attachments | Will the State provide additional detail or examples in Attachment C to guide the solution design or wireframe expectations? | There currently are no plans to add additional details outside of what is already inluded in Attachment C. |
| 23 | Page 5 | Response Format and Attachments | Can vendors include screenshots, diagrams, or architecture illustrations in their 15–20-page narrative response? | Yes |
| 24 | Attachment C Pg 4 | Can you detail limitation of PowerApps you have experienced? | See answers to question 2 and 12 above. |
| 25 | Attachment C Pg 4 | Is it expected that PowerApps is completely migrated to the new solution? | Yes, the goal would be to migrate the majority if not all of the current data from the current solution in to the new solution. |
| 26 | Attachment C Pg 4 | Are there any parts of the PowerApps that you want to keep? (or is it complete rip and replace). | This would be considered a completely new solution implementation and will be guided by the requirements of Attachment C. |
| 27 | RFI Pg 3 | Other than PowerApps are there any other systems or technology stack that the reporting system needs to integrate with? | See answer to question #13 above. |
| 28 | RFI Pg 3 | Does the state have Enterprise strategy for the technology stack it seeks to use and support? | Alignment with StateRAMP requirements will be mandatory, with a state-hosted cloud based solution preferred. |
| 29 | RFI Pg 4 | How many users types and users are expected to use the system? | User types: IDOH/System Admin, LHD User, IDOH User. There should also be consideredation for role based access in each of these user types with each of the different modules (financial, activity tracking, etc.) |
| 30 | RFI Pg 1 | Can the state extend the submission deadline? | Given current time constraints, we will not be able to extend the submission deadline at this time. |
| 31 | RFI Pg 1 | Is there an existing vendor that supported the PowerApps, and would there need to be cut over transition coordinated with the prior vendor? | No the initial solution was developed in house. |
| 32 | RFI Pg 1 | Would the state explore fixing of the existing PowerApps solution - or has it already been determined that the solution will not and cannot meet the state requirements? | The solution currently is not able to meet our requirements and we would like to consider replacement vs fixing or reconfiguration. |
| 33 | |||
| 34 | |||
| 35 | |||
| 36 | |||
| 37 | |||
| 38 | |||
| 39 | |||
| 40 | |||
| 41 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .