Att G - Q&A .xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 32 KB Posted
- Attached to
- CMHW Case Management System (Tobi)Bid Documents
- Solicitation number
- RFP 26-86873
- Issued by
- Marion County, Indiana
About this file
This is a Question & Answer template document for RFP 26-86873, issued by the Indiana Department of Administration on behalf of the Family and Social Services Administration Division of Mental Health & Addiction, soliciting management, triage, enhancement, and training services for the Tobi case management system. The Tobi system, built on Microsoft Dynamics 365 and Power Apps with Dataverse backend, supports the 1915(i) Child Mental Health Wraparound program and serves youth enrollment and provider management across Indiana. The contractor must deliver end-user training conforming to WCAG 2.1 Level AA and Section 508 accessibility standards; help desk support via Jira with 48 business-hour response time; software enhancements including project management and architecture; and system administration. The solution must integrate with Access Indiana single sign-on, comply with MuleSoft API Management and GoAnywhere Managed File Transfer standards, and meet Indiana's Information Security Framework. Written questions were due August 27, 2026 at 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time, with responses posted by September 9. Proposals are due September 16, 2026 at 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time. A pre-proposal conference is scheduled for August 26, 2026 from 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. at the Indiana Government Center South (virtual attendance available). The contract term is four years with two optional one-year renewals (potential six-year total), with an Award Recommendation targeted for November 2026.
The document contains 96 numbered questions submitted by prospective bidders addressing critical ambiguities across multiple RFP attachments, including undefined terminology (Attachment A1 reference), scope clarification for data location restrictions, undefined Service Level Agreement uptime percentages and maintenance windows, missing current system volumes and user counts, unclear responsibility splits between the contractor and Microsoft-managed platform services, undefined cost line items in the proposal template, and gaps between the Resource Usage Matrix implementation phases and the Cost Proposal payment milestone structure. Key clarifications sought include the status of existing interfaces versus MuleSoft/GoAnywhere platform migration requirements, Access Indiana SSO implementation scope, tiered help desk priority SLAs versus flat 48-business-hour response requirements, specification of enhancement budget and historical volume baselines, location and residency expectations for the required FTE Project Manager, ownership of development and production environments, data migration scope given the system's potential platform residency, and methodology for the "modified Net Promoter Score" KPI. The questions reveal substantial gaps between the Scope of Work specifications, cost proposal structure, and resource planning templates that require State clarification prior to proposal submission.
View the file
Other files
Show all 24
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
Question & Inquiry Form
| Attachment G | ||||||
| Question and Answer Template | ||||||
| RFP 26-86873 | ||||||
| Please submit your questions in the form below (yellow shaded area) per RFP Section 1.24. | ||||||
| Click the dropdown in the RFP Document Column to select topic. | ||||||
| No. | RFP Document | Section Number | Page | Topic | Question | Answers |
| 1 | RFP Main Document / Attachment J | RFP §2.6.3; Attachment J §5.0 | 27 (RFP); 3 (Att J) | Undefined "Attachment A1" reference | RFP Section 2.6.3 (Subcontractors) requires identification of "all subcontractors including those not submitted in Attachment A," but Attachment J, Section 5.0 asks for "additional subcontractors/those not submitted in Attachment A1." No "Attachment A1" appears in the solicitation's attachment list (RFP Section 1.5 outline). Please confirm whether this is a reference to Attachment A (IVOSB Commitment Form) or whether a separate Attachment A1 was inadvertently omitted from the posted solicitation package. | See Addendum 1. |
| 2 | Attachment B1 - IOT IaaS Terms (also applicable via B2/B3) | §3 Data Location, p.2-3 | 2-3 | Scope of US-only data/service-delivery restriction | Section 3 requires that Data at rest be stored solely in US data centers and that Services be provided to the State and its end users solely from locations within the United States. For a case-management engagement with a large administrative/care-coordination workforce, please confirm whether this restriction applies only to systems and data hosting, or to all labor performed under the Contract, including remote support or QA functions performed by staff with no access to unencrypted PHI/PII. | |
| 3 | Attachment B1 - IOT IaaS Terms (also applicable via B2/B3) | §16 Responsibilities and Uptime Guarantee, p.6 | 6 | "Available at all times" standard with no defined SLA percentage or maintenance window | Section 16 states the Services "shall be available to the State at all times," subject to the SLA, but no SLA with a specific uptime percentage or scheduled-maintenance exclusion is included in these attachments. Please confirm whether a defined uptime target (e.g., 99.9%) and standard maintenance-window exclusions will be specified in a separate SLA prior to contract execution, and whether service credits (rather than termination) are the intended primary remedy for missed availability targets. | |
| 4 | Attachment K - Scope of Work | §II Background and Current State, p.1 | 1 | No current system volumes provided | Attachment K does not state the current number of active Tobi/PMA end users, Wraparound Provider Organizations, or enrolled CMHW participants, nor annual help-desk ticket volume or enhancement-request volume. Can the State provide current user counts, participant/case volume, and historical ticket and enhancement volumes for the past 12 months to support accurate staffing and cost proposals? | |
| 5 | Attachment K - Scope of Work | §III Scope of Work (Data Exchange and File Transfer Standards), p.4 | 4 | Status of existing interfaces vs. MuleSoft/GoAnywhere migration | Attachment K states the Contractor's solution "must support" MuleSoft API Management and GoAnywhere MFT. Are the existing bi-directional interfaces with the CMHW portal, DARMHA, and COREMMIS already built on these platforms today, or would migrating existing interfaces to MuleSoft/GoAnywhere be in scope as a new deliverable? | |
| 6 | Attachment K - Scope of Work | §III Scope of Work, p.4 | 4 | Access Indiana integration status | Attachment K states the solution "is expected to integrate with Access Indiana." Is Access Indiana SSO already implemented in the current production system, or is integrating/migrating authentication to Access Indiana a new deliverable under this Contract? If new, what is the target timeframe? | |
| 7 | Attachment K - Scope of Work | §III Scope of Work (Help Desk Support), p.2 | 2 | Flat 48-business-hour SLA vs. differentiated priority | Attachment K sets a help-desk response requirement of "48 business hours," yet elsewhere requires the Contractor to relay critical issues and outages with urgency. Please clarify whether 48 business hours is a single flat SLA for all ticket priorities, or whether tiered priority levels (e.g., critical/high/normal) with differentiated response and resolution targets apply. | |
| 8 | Attachment K - Scope of Work | §III Scope of Work (Software Enhancements), p.2 | 2 | No enhancement budget or historical volume provided | No annual budget, hours allocation, or expected volume of enhancement requests is specified in Attachment K. Will the State provide a target annual enhancement budget or historical run-rate of enhancement hours to inform level-of-effort pricing in the Cost Proposal (Attachment D)? | |
| 9 | Attachment K - Scope of Work | §III Scope of Work (multiple subsections), p.2-4 | 2-4 | Undefined "reasonable timeline" SLA language | Several deliverables (e.g., training delivery, documentation requests) are governed only by "a reasonable timeline according to the burden of the request," with no measurable target. Can the State define specific turnaround-time SLAs (in business days) for these categories, or confirm these will be negotiated post-award? | |
| 10 | Attachment K - Scope of Work | §III Scope of Work (Objectives of Engagement), p.1 | 1 | Location/residency expectations for the required FTE Project Manager | Attachment K requires the Contractor to appoint an FTE project manager for the entire contract duration. Please confirm whether this role (and other Key Persons/Other Project Staff) must be based onsite at the Indiana Government Center, work remotely, or work a hybrid schedule, and whether Indiana residency is required given access to minors' behavioral health data. | |
| 11 | Attachment K - Scope of Work | §II Background and Current State, p.1 | 1 | Environment ownership and hosting responsibility | Please confirm who owns/hosts the Dev, QA, Training, and Production tenants (a State/IOT-owned Azure/Dataverse tenant vs. a Contractor-hosted environment) and who currently holds System Administrator rights, as this affects the Contractor's proposed operating model and the applicability of Attachments B1/B2/B3. | |
| 12 | Attachment K - Scope of Work | §III Scope of Work (Additional Equipment), p.4 | 4 | Equipment reimbursement model unclear | The Additional Equipment clause states the Vendor must reimburse the State for equipment/access costs if equipment is needed to access the State's network. Please clarify whether Contractor staff are expected to use State-issued equipment (with associated seat/security fees reimbursed to the State) or Contractor-owned equipment, and under what circumstances State equipment would be required. | |
| 13 | Attachment K - Scope of Work | §VII Business Continuity-Disaster Recovery Plan, p.9 | 9 | DR/BC responsibility split on a Microsoft-managed platform | Given the solution is hosted on Microsoft Dynamics 365/Dataverse (a Microsoft-managed cloud service), please clarify which DR/BC responsibilities fall to the Contractor versus Microsoft's platform-level SLA, and whether the State separately maintains a DR agreement with Microsoft that the Contractor's plan must align to. | |
| 14 | Attachment K - Scope of Work | §VIII Key Performance Indicators, p.10 | 10 | "Modified Net Promoter Score" methodology undefined | Attachment K states the State will use a "modified Net Promoter Score" as a KPI, with low scores potentially constituting default. Please provide the methodology, survey population, frequency, and passing threshold for this metric so it can be reasonably proposed against. | |
| 15 | Attachment L - AI Technical Proposal Questions | p.1 | 1 | Scope of developer AI-tool disclosure | Attachment L asks whether developers use AI to "augment their work" but does not define what constitutes reportable AI use (e.g., code-completion tools vs. autonomous code generation vs. AI applied directly to State data/repositories). Should Respondents disclose all AI-assisted development tooling regardless of whether it processes State data, or only tools with access to CMHW-related code or data? | |
| 16 | Attachment M - Infrastructure Overview | p.3 | 3 | Referenced IOT Services Catalog not included in solicitation package | The "Hosting" section of Attachment M repeatedly references IOT-Services-Catalog.pdf as the source of applicable service levels and cost expectations for on-premises solutions, but this document is not included in the RFP package. Please provide it or a direct link. | |
| 17 | Attachment N - Resource Usage Matrix | Instructions tab, Section I | N/A | M&O hours excluded, but SOW scope is largely M&O | The Instructions tab states "Maintenance and Operational hours are NOT in scope of this request," yet the SOW's core scope (Help Desk Support, Software Enhancements, Training, monthly reporting) is largely ongoing M&O work. Please clarify what the "Project Resourcing"/"Project Hours" columns should capture if steady-state Help Desk, Enhancement, and Training support hours are excluded — is this matrix limited to initial implementation/transition-in only? | |
| 18 | Attachment N - Resource Usage Matrix | Team Resourcing tab | N/A | No corresponding cost-proposal line item for implementation hours | The Team Resourcing tab collects detailed hours by role across 11 project phases (Requirements, Design, Configuration, Development, Testing, Training, Data Conversion, Interfaces, OCM, Go-Live, Stabilization), but Attachment D contains no line item for implementation/project labor costs. Please clarify how the hours reported in Attachment N should be translated into priced costs in Attachment D — should implementation labor be embedded in Year 1 of the existing line items, or is a separate cost line needed? | |
| 19 | Attachment D Cost Proposal Template | Deliverables tab, rows 16-20 | N/A | Undefined cost line items | The line items "Equipment Reimbursement Cost," "Enhancement Development & Implementation Cost," "Data Migration Support Cost," "Release Management and Testing Support Cost," and "Help Desk Ticket Volume Scaling Cost" do not appear anywhere in the Scope of Work with a defined scope, unit of measure, or pricing basis. Please define what each line item covers and its unit of measure, and — for "Help Desk Ticket Volume Scaling Cost" specifically — the baseline ticket volume against which "scaling" would be measured. | |
| 20 | Attachment D Cost Proposal Template | vs. Attachment K, §V Payment Milestones | N/A / 6 | No implementation-phase milestones or cost lines | The SOW ties payment milestones only to acceptance of monthly reports and the year-end report — all M&O deliverables — with no milestone tied to implementation phases (design, build, testing, go-live) that Attachment N asks vendors to staff and estimate hours for. Please clarify how/where implementation-phase milestones and associated payments should be reflected, since neither Attachment D nor the SOW milestone structure currently accommodates them. | |
| 21 | Attachment F Technical Proposal Template | Data Migration | 7, 8 | Data Management/Migration | What data do you expect to migrate for this effort? How many migrations are currently planned? | |
| 22 | Attachment F Technical Proposal Template | Data Migration | 7, 8 | Data Management/Migration | What systems (and any subsystems or modules) will be involved in planned migrations? Who owns each major data domain in TOBI, PMA, CMHW Portal and COREMMIS? What roles are currently assigned, in addition to owner? | |
| 23 | Attachment F Technical Proposal Template | Data Migration | 7, 8 | Data Management/Migration | WHat is the size and scope of the data sets targeted for migration? Are these datasets coming from external sources or within/between DMHA applications? | |
| 24 | Attachment F Technical Proposal Template | Data Migration | 7, 8 | Data Management/Migration | What is the current state of the datasets to be migrated (for example, are there known issues with the current datasets that will need to be addressed prior to migration) | |
| 25 | Attachment F Technical Proposal Template | Data Migration | 7, 8 | Data Management/Migration | Will the state provide the data dictionaries and other business information regarding the to-be datasets? | |
| 26 | Attachment F Technical Proposal Template | Data Migration | 7, 8 | Data Management/Migration | Are there authoritative sources of data for youth, provider, referral, assessment, authorization and status? Are there agreements to data formatting, picklists, metrics formulas or other shared data elements? Will the vendor need to estabilsh these agreements? Are there duplicate sets of data across the applications? | |
| 27 | Attachment F Technical Proposal Template | Data Migration | 7, 8 | Data Management/Migration | What types of protected information (PII, PHI, others) will we need to manage and secure during migrations, enhancements and during day-to-day support activities? Is that data classified/labeled? | |
| 28 | Attachment F Technical Proposal Template | Data Migration | 7, 8 | Data Management/Migration | Are current integrations documented, regularly tested and governed with data sharing agreements? | |
| 29 | Attachment F Technical Proposal Template | Data Migration | 7, 8 | Data Management/Migration | Does TOBI (and other systems) require support for legal holds, records retention, audit and other compliance activities? How determines what data will be impacted and how updated? | |
| 30 | Attachment F Technical Proposal Template | Data Migration | 7, 8 | Data Management/Migration | For data migrations, will unstructured sources (such as attachments or SharePoint documents) also need be migrated? What is the approximate size of unstructured documents that could be migrated? | |
| 31 | Attachment F Technical Proposal Template | Data Migration | 7, 8 | Data Management/Migration | Are there currently external dashboards, reports or other data assets connecting, utilizing or exporting data from TOBI and related DMHA systems? | |
| 32 | Attachment F Technical Proposal Template | Data Migration | 7, 8 | Data Management/Migration | Does TOBI (and other systems) require support for legal holds, records retention, audit and other compliance activities? How determines what data will be impacted and how updated? | |
| 33 | Attachment F Technical Proposal Template | Data Migration | 7, 8 | Data Management/Migration | Are there any achival systems in place that we will need to take into account for migrations? | |
| 34 | Attachment F Technical Proposal Template | Data Migration | 7, 8 | Data Management/Migration | How are record-level, field-level, role-based, team/business unit based security configured in Dataverse (based on users, State, other entities) | |
| 35 | Attachment F Technical Proposal Template | Data Migration | 7, 8 | Data Management/Migration | What data quality rules exist for completeness, validity, consistency, timeliness and referential integrity? How are these rules enforced and what methods are currently in place to cure the data? | |
| 36 | Attachment F Technical Proposal Template | Data Migration | 7, 8 | Data Management/Migration | For bi-directional interfaces, what data objects, direction, triggers, frequency, protocol, transformation, acknowledgement, retry and ownership rules apply? Are these standardized, ad hoc or system specific? | |
| 37 | Attachment F Technical Proposal Template | Data Migration | 7, 8 | Data Management/Migration | What Federakm State abd nabagenebt operational reports or data extracts depend on the data and are critical fields/measures docuemnted? | |
| 38 | Attachment F Technical Proposal Template | Data Migration | 7, 8 | Data Management/Migration | What are the current and projected data volumes, unstructured data volumes, users, API loads, transaction volume and storage growth? | |
| 39 | Attachment F Technical Proposal Template | Data Migration | 7, 8 | Data Management/Migration | What recovery point and recovery time objectives apply to Dataverse data, documents, integrations, configuration, and audit records? | |
| 40 | Attachment F Technical Proposal Template | Data Migration | 7, 8 | Data Management/Migration | How will duplicate, invalid, orphaned, missing and others | |
| 41 | Attachment K Scope of Work | Help Desk Support; Software Enhancements | 2 | Platform Stewardship | What areas of TOBI currently require the most manual effort from DMHA staff to keep operating as intended, even though the system itself is functioning correctly? | |
| 42 | Attachment K Scope of Work | Background and Current State; Software Enhancements | 1-3 | Platform Risk | If no enhancements were approved for the next twelve months, what platform risks would concern DMHA the most? | |
| 43 | Attachment K Scope of Work | Solution Configurability and Customization Preference | 3 | Customization and Upgrade Risk | Which existing customizations create the greatest hesitation when planning upgrades or platform changes? | |
| 44 | Attachment K Scope of Work | Help Desk Support; Software Enhancements | 2 | Work Classification | How does DMHA currently distinguish among a support issue, training need, process issue, defect, and enhancement request? | |
| 45 | Attachment K Scope of Work | Help Desk Support | 2 | Operational Efficiency | What recurring support activities consume significant effort today but provide limited long-term value to the CMHW program? | |
| 46 | Attachment K Scope of Work | Software Enhancements; Additional Conditions | 2-4 | Enhancement Governance | What types of enhancement requests tend to require the longest review or decision cycle, and what typically causes the delay? | |
| 47 | Attachment K Scope of Work | Software Enhancements | 2-3 | Enhancement Definition | What information is most frequently missing when DMHA evaluates a proposed enhancement? | |
| 48 | Attachment K Scope of Work | Software Enhancements; Additional Conditions | 2-4 | Backlog Barriers | Are there enhancement requests that have remained unresolved across multiple years? If so, what business, technical, funding, ownership, or dependency barriers have prevented progress? | |
| 49 | Attachment K Scope of Work | Document Management; End of Contract Transition and Turnover | 7, 10-11 | Architecture and Transition | If the current architecture documentation were used tomorrow to onboard a completely new support team, what areas would require the most verbal explanation? | |
| 50 | Attachment K Scope of Work | Document Management | 7 | Architecture Knowledge | What areas of the current TOBI architecture are least understood by current stakeholders? | |
| 51 | Attachment K Scope of Work | Software Enhancements; Service Level Agreements and Release Management | 2-3, 8 | Requirements Traceability | When an enhancement goes live successfully, what evidence gives DMHA confidence that the original business need was met? | |
| 52 | Attachment K Scope of Work | Service Level Agreements and Release Management | 8 | Production Risk | Which types of defects create the greatest operational disruption when discovered after deployment? | |
| 53 | Attachment K Scope of Work | Background and Current State | 1-2 | Critical Regression Coverage | Which TOBI business processes are considered too critical to fail regardless of the size of the enhancement being released? | |
| 54 | Attachment K Scope of Work | Testing and Quality Assurance | Sensitive Workflows | Are there business processes that are routinely revalidated before every release because prior changes have shown them to be especially sensitive? | ||
| 55 | Attachment K Scope of Work | Independent Validation and Verification | 8 | Review Evidence | What testing evidence has historically been most useful to State reviewers, auditors, or independent validation teams? | |
| 56 | Attachment K Scope of Work | Independent Validation and Verification | 8 | IV&V Readiness | If Independent Verification and Validation oversight were introduced at contract start, which current testing artifacts or evidence would require the most improvement before external review? | |
| 57 | Attachment K Scope of Work | Background and Current State; Data Exchange and File Transfer Standards | 1, 4 | Integration Risk | Which integration failures create the greatest business impact even when users are not immediately aware of the issue? | |
| 58 | Attachment K Scope of Work | Background and Current State; Data Exchange and File Transfer Standards | 1, 4 | Reconciliation | How are reconciliation issues currently detected between TOBI and connected systems, and which party owns confirmation that the issue is resolved? | |
| 59 | Attachment K Scope of Work | Training | 1-2 | Successful Adoption | Which user groups appear most proficient in TOBI today, and what training, experience, or support practices contribute to their success? | |
| 60 | Attachment K Scope of Work | Training; Help Desk Support | 1-2 | Support Demand | Which user groups require the greatest support effort despite having access to training resources? | |
| 61 | Attachment K Scope of Work | Training | 1-2 | Training Lifecycle | What events or evidence currently trigger an update to TOBI training content? | |
| 62 | Attachment K Scope of Work | Training; Help Desk Support | 1-2 | Repeat Learning Needs | What topics continue to generate repeat questions after formal training has occurred? | |
| 63 | Attachment K Scope of Work | End of Contract Transition and Turnover | 10-11 | Knowledge Continuity | When experienced users or support staff leave the program, what knowledge is most difficult to replace? | |
| 64 | Attachment K Scope of Work | Training; Document Management | 1-2, 7 | Self-Service Knowledge | What information do users most frequently seek that is not readily available in current documentation or self-service resources? | |
| 65 | Attachment K Scope of Work | Help Desk Support | 2 | Recurring Issues | What recurring ticket category has generated substantial discussion but the fewest permanent solutions? | |
| 66 | Attachment K Scope of Work | Help Desk Support; Software Enhancements | 2 | Trend to Enhancement | How often do Help Desk trends become formal enhancement requests, and what evidence makes a trend-based request more likely to be approved? | |
| 67 | Attachment K Scope of Work | Help Desk Support | 2 | Helpful Support | What support interactions do TOBI users find most helpful today? | |
| 68 | Attachment K Scope of Work | Help Desk Support | 2 | Support Friction | What support interactions create unnecessary effort for both users and support staff? | |
| 69 | Attachment K Scope of Work | Help Desk Support; Software Enhancements | 2-3 | Cross-Workstream Improvement | If DMHA could eliminate one recurring TOBI issue entirely during the next contract term, which issue would create the greatest positive effect for users? | |
| 70 | Attachment K Scope of Work | Deliverables and Deadlines; Key Performance Indicators | 5-6, 10 | Platform Sustainability | What operational measure best indicates whether TOBI is becoming easier or harder to maintain over time? | |
| 71 | Attachment K Scope of Work | Training; Help Desk Support; Software Enhancements | 1-3 | Systemic Issue | Which recurring issue appears in support discussions, testing discussions, training discussions, and enhancement discussions at the same time? | |
| 72 | Attachment K Scope of Work | End of Contract Transition and Turnover | 10-11 | Transition Readiness | If a new contractor assumed responsibility tomorrow, which platform areas would present the greatest learning curve? | |
| 73 | Attachment K Scope of Work | Key Performance Indicators | 10 | Success Definition | At the end of the next contract period, what would need to be noticeably better for DMHA to consider the engagement highly successful? | |
| 74 | Attachment K Scope of Work | Training; Help Desk Support; Software Enhancements | 1-3 | Issue Routing and Governance | When a recurring issue is identified through support activity, what process determines whether the appropriate response is training, testing improvement, process change, technical remediation, or a formal enhancement? | |
| 75 | Attachment K Scope of Work | Document Management; End of Contract Transition and Turnover | 7, 10-11 | Institutional Knowledge | What platform knowledge exists primarily with experienced individuals rather than in architecture documentation, training materials, test assets, or operational procedures? | |
| 76 | Attachment K Scope of Work | Help Desk Support; Software Enhancements; Service Level Agreements and Release Management | 2-3, 8 | Post-Release Learning | When a release creates unexpected support demand, how is that information currently incorporated into testing strategy, training updates, knowledge articles, and future enhancement planning? | |
| 77 | Transition Readiness and Knowledge/Training | What training materials currently exist (guides, videos, FAQs, job aids, presentations, LMS content, train-the-trainer materials)? | ||||
| 78 | Transition Readiness and Knowledge/Training | Where are training assets stored? | ||||
| 79 | Training Materials | Is there an approval process for new or updated training materials? | ||||
| 80 | Training Materials | What training content is currently planned but not yet developed? | ||||
| 81 | Help Desk | Please provide current annual ticket volumes, ticket categories, severity levels, average response metrics, and any available support trend reporting for the TOBI Help Desk. | ||||
| 82 | Training | Please identify the approximate number of TOBI users by audience type (DMHA staff, WPO users, supervisors, Help Desk personnel, administrators, and other stakeholders) | ||||
| 83 | Training | Are training effectiveness metrics currently collected (attendance, assessments, satisfaction surveys, adoption measures, or support trends), and if so, please identify available measures and reporting. | ||||
| 84 | Transition Readiness/Training | Are there known adoption challenges, recurring training gaps, or support themes affecting TOBI users today that should be considered during transition and operations planning? | ||||
| 85 | Attachment F Technical Proposal Template | Data Migration | 7, 8 | Data Management/Migration | Which migration artifacts must be delivered, including strategy, inventory, profiles, mappings, rules, code, runbooks, test evidence, error logs, reconciliation, approvals, and lessons learned? | |
| 86 | Attachment F Technical Proposal Template | Data Migration | 7, 9 | Data Management/Migration | What historical period must be migrated for each data domain, and what may be archived, summarized, or excluded? | |
| 87 | Attachment F Technical Proposal Template | Data Migration | 7, 10 | Data Management/Migration | Which data-management KPIs should be reported, such as data quality pass rate, interface success rate, unresolved data defects, reconciliation exceptions, and metadata completeness? | |
| 88 | Attachment F Technical Proposal Template | Data Migration | N/A | Data Migration | Is the Tobi system moving to a new platform and thus requires a data migration ? If the system is not moving to a different platform, can the State declare that Data Migration in Attachment F is not to be completed/filled out? | |
| 89 | Attachment F Technical Proposal Template | Security and Continuity | 10 | Disaster Recovery Plan. | If the Tobi application is being hosted by IOT, as well as all of the supporting data and technical environments, Dev, Test, UAT , is it necessary for the Vendor to supply a separate Disaster Recovery and Business Continuity Plan ? | |
| 90 | Attachment D Cost Proposal Template | Tab "Deliverables" | N/A | Formulas | The formulas for Row 23 do not add up the entire column. Should the respondent fix the formula ? Does IDOA need to amend the RFP with an updated Attachment D ? | See Addendum 1. |
| 91 | Attachment D Cost Proposal Template | Attachment K - Project Management Plan | 7 | This question refers Attachment N - Reource Usage and Attachment K which neither are available in the drop down in Column B of this template | Attachment K specified the contractor shall appoint a FTE project manger for the entire duration of the project. How many hours per year does the state define as an FTE ? (e.g. 1,800 hours is considered a FTE for the State) | |
| 92 | Attachment D Cost Proposal Template | Attachment K - Project Management Plan | 7 | The question refers Attachment N - Resource Usage and Attachment K which neither are available in the drop down list in Column B of this template | Under Project Management Plan. Is the state requiring the vendor to provide a vendor's FTE for the duration of the project or is the State requiring the vendor to provide a Project Manager as an FTE (e.g. 1,800 hours) for the duration of the project? | |
| 93 | Attachment E Business Proposal Template | 2.3.11 a. | 3 | Disaster Recovery Plan. This same ask is included in Attachment F - Secucrity and Continuity | The Disaster Recovery plan is asked to be attached in two different locations. Please specifiy where the DR plan is supposed to be attached in the Response. | Please attach the disaster recovery plan as a separate attachment in your RFP submission. It is not "attached" to Att E or Att F, but is a separate document in your submission. |
| 94 | Attachment D Cost Proposal Template | Tab Deliverables | N/A | Additional Equipment | What amount should the respondent use for the annual charge, per team member, for FSSA User Account Access Fee ? | |
| 95 | Attachment D Cost Proposal Template | Tab "Deliverables" | N/A | Data Migration | if Tobi is staying in place, will the state issue an updated Att D with the Data Migration ommitted? | |
| 96 | ||||||
| 97 | ||||||
| 98 | ||||||
| 99 | ||||||
| 100 |
| Attachment A - IVOSB Commitment |
| Attachment B Sample Contract |
| Attachment C Indiana Economic Impact Form |
| Attachment D Cost Proposal Template |
| Attachment E Business Proposal Template |
| Attachment F Technical Proposal Template |
| Attachment H Reference Form |
| Attachment I Pre-Proposal Network Opportunities Form |
| Attachment J Attestation Form |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .