Att G - Q&A.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 41 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 and Answer 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 system is built on Microsoft Dynamics 365 and Power Apps with a Dataverse backend and serves Indiana's 1915(i) Child Mental Health Wraparound program. The RFP requested proposals by September 16, 2026 at 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time, with a pre-proposal conference held on August 26, 2026 from 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. at the Indiana Government Center South. The contractor must deliver four primary service streams: end-user training conforming to WCAG 2.1 Level AA accessibility standards, help desk support with a 48 business-hour response time for standard issues and priority-level incident handling during non-business hours, software enhancements including approximately 280 hours per month, and system administration. As of August 2026, the system actively supports 27 Wraparound Provider Organizations, 281 active Tobi users, and 982 active participants, with help desk ticket volumes ranging between 160 and 230 submissions monthly. The contract term is four years with two optional one-year renewals for a potential six-year total, with an award recommendation targeted for November 2026.
All proposed staff, including subcontractors, must be located within the United States, and all data must be stored exclusively in US-based data centers. The State will provide access to conference rooms for onsite meetings as needed, with the majority of work completed remotely; no separate travel reimbursement will be provided. The State will discuss environment details and hosting responsibilities for development, quality assurance, training, and production tenants with the awarded contractor at the appropriate time. Contractors are expected to use State-issued equipment for all State-related work; IOT has announced that all vendors must use IOT-issued laptops with an estimated cost of approximately $200 per user per month, including the laptop, security services, and Office 365 license. No data migration is planned as part of this effort, though vendors must demonstrate their migration process and strategy. The State retains responsibility for enterprise-level business continuity and disaster recovery governance, with the contractor responsible for supporting disaster recovery and business continuity for in-scope systems and services, including maintaining and executing applicable recovery procedures in coordination with the State. No equipment will be supplied by the project, and no separate data migration budget or implementation-phase milestones are included; the State anticipates vendors will claim hours under three buckets: enhancements, training, and help desk, documented through monthly and year-end reports.
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. | All proposed staff, including subcontractors, are required to work within the United States. All data must be stored in the United States. |
| 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. | The required uptime targets and consequences will be in the contract. |
| 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? | As of August 2026 are currently 27 Wraparound Provider Organization, 281 Active Tobi users and 982 Active participants being actively partnered with. In 2026, the monthly count of submitted helpdesk tickets were between 160-230. |
| 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? | Tobi may have intergrations using Mulesoft and goanywhere already built and working. If an intergration needs to happen, then either MuleSoft or Goanywhere will be required. Exsisting intergrations, not using MuleSoft or GoAnywhere, may be required to migrate to these plateforms. |
| 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? | Tobi does not use Access Indiana. There are no plans at this time to intergrate Access Indiana at this time. |
| 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. | The awarded Contractor shall have a process in place for handling Priority Level 1 incidents during non-business hours. Respondents should propose a plan in their Technical Proposal, |
| 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)? | Historically, roughly 280 hours are utilized for enhancements per month. |
| 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? | Due to the unique demands of the system, there are not designated timelines for training or documentation requests. DMHA works mutually with the contractor to create timelines for these items. |
| 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. | The Project Manager shall be available to meet onsite at the State's request. The State will provide access to a conference room for use by the Contractor when on-site precense is required. The notice provided for onsite meetings or incident support is up to the State's discretion and is circumstantial, however, the vast majority of work will be completed remotely as it is today. No separate reimbursement for travel will be provided. |
tc={A258BA81-851B-426E-81BC-9B970242B424}: [Threaded comment]
Your version of Excel allows you to read this threaded comment; however, any edits to it will get removed if the file is opened in a newer version of Excel. Learn more: https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=870924
Comment:
This is what we said on another RFP. Probably up to DMHA and how they want the support to look.
| 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. | The State-designated environment details will be discussed with the awarded Contractor at the appropriate time. |
| 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. | Contractors are expected to use State issues equipment for all state related work. |
| 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. | The State retains responsibility for enterprise-level business continuity and disaster recovery governance. The Contractor is responsible for supporting disaster recovery and business continuity for the in-scope systems and services under this contract, including maintaining and executing applicable recovery procedures in coordination with the State. System-specific recovery time objectives (RPOs) will be established and/or maintained in accordance with the State requirements and approved continuity and disaster recovery plan. |
| 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. | Net Promoter Score (NPS) is a customer‑experience metric that measures how likely individuals / agencies are to recommend a service, product, or organization to others. The State may collect at its discretion to evaluate vendor performance under the contract. |
It is normally based on a single question: “How likely are you to recommend the vendor to a friend or colleague?”
NPS is calculated: NPS =% of Promoters – % of Detractors. Scoring will be done at the State's discretion.
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? Attachment L states: "Does the proposed solution utilize any form of artificial intelligence (AI), as defined by IC 4-13.1-5-1 (https://iga.in.gov/laws/2024/ic/titles/4#4-13.1-5-1)?" IC 4-13.1-5-1 states "Sec. 1. As used in this chapter, "artificial intelligence" means computing technology that is capable of simulating human learning, reasoning, and deduction through processes such as:
(1) acquiring and analyzing information for the purpose of improving operational accuracy through improved contextual knowledge;
(2) identifying patterns in data; and
(3) improving operational outcomes by analyzing the results of a previous operation and using the analysis to modify the operation to achieve an improved result." Disclose any use of AI that falls under these guidelines.
| 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. | https://www.in.gov/iot/files/IOT%20Services%20Catalog%20FY27_pub91626_MB.pdf |
| 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? | That was an error. Maintenance and Operational hours are in scope of this project. |
| 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? | We anticipate having three buckets for claiming hours (enhancements, training and help desk). |
| 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. | This project will not supply any equipment. |
| 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. | We anticipate having three buckets for claiming hours (enhancements, training and help desk); the monthly and year-end reports document the hours claimed. |
| 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? | No data migration is planned as part of this effort. |
| 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? | No data migration is planned as part of this effort. |
| 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? | No data migration is planned as part of this effort. |
| 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) | No data migration is planned as part of this effort. |
| 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? | No data migration is planned as part of this effort. |
| 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? | No data migration is planned as part of this effort. |
| 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? | No data migration is planned as part of this effort. |
| 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? | No. |
| 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? | Yes, the state provides guidance on what data is needed. |
| 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? | No data migration is planned as part of this effort. |
| 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? | The reports are built in CRM. |
| 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? | Duplicate question with 29 |
| 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? | No data migration is planned as part of this effort. |
| 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) | Access is defined by roles. |
| 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? | Most fields have defined parameters. |
| 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? | No data migration is planned as part of this effort. |
| 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? | No data migration is planned as part of this effort. |
| 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? | No data migration is planned as part of this effort. |
| 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? | No data migration is planned as part of this effort. |
| 40 | Attachment F Technical Proposal Template | Data Migration | 7, 8 | Data Management/Migration | How will duplicate, invalid, orphaned, missing and others | No data migration is planned as part of this effort. |
| 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? | Several DMHA staff manually review all documents submitted by WPOs on a daily basis. This typically takes several hours per staff member to complete per day, pending submission count. |
| 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? | Unlikely to not have enhancements in a year. |
| 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? | The state is concerned that our eligiblity criteria is not impacted. |
| 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? | The state team decides. |
| 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? | As mentioned above, several DMHA staff manually review documents submitted by WPOs on a daily basis. Part of that review process involves providing feedback for future submissions. Much of the time, this feedback is ignored. This often creates unneeded feedback loops for submission in which DMHA staff end up reviewing the same plan several times without feedback being taken into account by the WPOs. |
| 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? | The CMHW is bond by the state plan amendment so changes may not be able to be done or it takes months to get approved. |
| 47 | Attachment K Scope of Work | Software Enhancements | 2-3 | Enhancement Definition | What information is most frequently missing when DMHA evaluates a proposed enhancement? | The length of time needed to complete the 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? | No. |
| 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? | The biggest challenge is learning the business language and CMHW program details. |
| 50 | Attachment K Scope of Work | Document Management | 7 | Architecture Knowledge | What areas of the current TOBI architecture are least understood by current stakeholders? | Creating or updating intervention plans. |
| 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? | Prior to going live there is a demo and ability to test. |
| 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? | Anything that impacts the providers. |
| 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? | Anything that impacts payment or service delivery. |
| 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? | No. | |
| 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? | Real life examples |
| 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? | IV&V will be a part of contract negotiations and review. At that time they will review current testing artifacts and evidence and determine which need the most improvement. |
| 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? | Issues with Medicaid data or MMIS |
| 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? | The team has a working relationship with Medicaid to resolve any issues. |
| 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? | There is an even spread. |
| 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? | New users |
| 61 | Attachment K Scope of Work | Training | 1-2 | Training Lifecycle | What events or evidence currently trigger an update to TOBI training content? | When functionality or enhancement affects providers |
| 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? | Not applicable |
| 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? | Not an issue |
| 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? | The Medicaid CMHW Manual |
| 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? | The largest ticket categories are often requests to "return" records (those that were submitted to DMHA and not yet reviewed by DMHA staff) as well as deletion of records accidentally created by end users. |
| 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? | DMHA consistently reviews helpdesk trends to assess needs of end users. If there is an appropriate enhancement that can be brainstormed between DMHA and the contractor, it is often implemented, pending other higher priority enhancements. |
| 67 | Attachment K Scope of Work | Help Desk Support | 2 | Helpful Support | What support interactions do TOBI users find most helpful today? | Tobi users find step by step instructions, training, videos and 1:1 meeting to provide support helpful |
| 68 | Attachment K Scope of Work | Help Desk Support | 2 | Support Friction | What support interactions create unnecessary effort for both users and support staff? | NA |
| 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? | NA |
| 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? | None |
| 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? | The DMHA team is always making efforts to improve Tobi based on business needs as well as end user functionally |
| 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? | The new contractor would need to have some knowledge and understanding of the program to be able to manage Tobi effectively. |
| 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? | DMHA hopes Tobi management and capabilites will grow as the program's business needs contiue to grow and evolve. |
| 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? | DMHA and the contractor will discuss concerns in the weekly meetings as outline in the documentation. During these discussions, the appropriate response will be ultimately determined by DMHA. |
| 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? | The DMHA program team has knowledge of the program and the business needs. This vendor is expected to have experise in systems management to be able to operationalize the program business needs |
| 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? | The team plans an anticipate increased support demands when new enhancments are released. The team plans enhancement rollout to accout for any potential increase in needed support |
| 77 | Transition Readiness and Knowledge/Training | What training materials currently exist (guides, videos, FAQs, job aids, presentations, LMS content, train-the-trainer materials)? | There are various trainings that exist for various aspects of Tobi. These trainings are in multiple platforms including guides, videos, FAQs, job aids, presentations, LMS content. | |||
| 78 | Transition Readiness and Knowledge/Training | Where are training assets stored? | Some training is stored within Tobi and various external platforms like Sharepoint that exist outside of Tobi | |||
| 79 | Training Materials | Is there an approval process for new or updated training materials? | Approval of new or updated training materials lies with DMHA. | |||
| 80 | Training Materials | What training content is currently planned but not yet developed? | No training is currently planned | |||
| 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. | In 2026, the monthly count of submitted helpdesk tickets were between 160-230. | |||
| 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) | As of August 2026 are currently 281 Active Tobi users. Information by user type is not readily available | |||
| 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. | Not currently collected | |||
| 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? | None | |||
| 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? | No data migration is planned as part of this effort. |
| 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? | No data migration is planned as part of this effort. |
| 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? | No data migration is planned as part of this effort. |
| 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? | Although data migration is not part of this effort, the state wants to know the vendors' migration process and strategy. |
| 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 ? | The vendor will be responsible to review, modify, or create a DR and business continuity plan with the direct involvement from IOT's DR and BC team. |
| 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) | 1,950 hours minus state holidays |
| 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? | A fulltime project manager is required. |
| 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 ? | IOT has announced that, moving forward, all vendors will be required to use an IOT‑issued laptop when accessing State resources. The estimated cost is approximately $200 per user per month, which includes the laptop, security services, and an Office 365 license. This cost may be reduced if an Office 365 license is not necessary. Additional cost‑saving opportunities may exist, but those will need to be evaluated after the RFP has been awarded. |
| 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? | Although data migration is not part of this effort, the state wants to know the vendors' migration process and strategy. |
| 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 |
This is what we said on another RFP. Probably up to DMHA and how they want the support to look.
https://www.in.gov/iot/files/IOT%20Services%20Catalog%20FY27_pub91626_MB.pdf
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .