Attachment 2 SOW Secondary IV&V.pdf

NOTICE OF STATEMENT OF WORK (SOW) CONTRACT AMENDMENT

State Of Missouri Office Of Administration Division Of Purchasing

PO Box 809 Jefferson City, MO 65102-0809 http://oa.mo.gov/purchasing

SOW CONTRACT NUMBER CONTRACT TITLE

MOVERS Quarterly Consultant FY26

AMENDMENT NUMBER

CONTRACT PERIOD

July 25, 2025 through June 30, 2026

REQUISITION/REQUEST NUMBER

N/A

MissouriBUYS SYSTEM ID

MB00026464

CONTRACTOR NAME AND ADDRESS

Guidehouse, Inc.

1676 International Dr., Suite 800 McLean VA 22102

STATE AGENCY’S NAME AND ADDRESS

Office of Administration, Commissioner’s Office Room 125, Capital Building Jefferson City, MO 65101

ACCEPTED BY THE STATE OF MISSOURI AS FOLLOWS:

The MOVERS Quarterly Consultant FY26 SOW Contract is hereby amended pursuant to the attached amendment #02, dated .

BUYER

Stacia Dawson

BUYER CONTACT INFORMATION

Email: Stacia.Dawson@oa.mo.gov Phone: (573) 522- 3052 Fax: (573) 526-9816

SIGNATURE OF BUYER

D

DATE

DIRECTOR OF PURCHASING

D Stacia L. Dawson

January 23, 2026 http://oa.mo.gov/purchasing mailto:Stacia.Dawson@oa.mo.gov

STATE OF MISSOURI

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION

DIVISION OF PURCHASING (PURCHASING)

STATEMENT OF WORK (SOW) CONTRACT AMENDMENT

AMENDMENT NO.: 02 REQ NO.: N/A

SOW CONTRACT TITLE: MOVERS Quarterly Consultant FY26 BUYER: Stacia.Dawson@oa.mo.gov

ISSUE DATE: 1/22/26 PHONE NO.: (573) 522-3052

E-MAIL: stacia.dawson@oa.mo.gov

TO: Guidehouse, Inc.

1676 International Dr., Suite 800 McLean, VA 22102

RETURN AMENDMENT BY NO LATER THAN: 1/23/26 AT 5:00 PM CENTRAL TIME

RETURN AMENDMENT TO THE DIVISION OF PURCHASING (PURCHASING) BY E-MAIL OR FAX:

AMENDMENT RESPONSES SHOULD BE SUBMITTED BY E-MAIL. IF UNABLE TO RETURN AMENDMENT

BY EMAIL, CONTACT THE BUYER OF RECORD TO DETERMINE IF AN ALTERNATE PROCESS IS

AVAILABLE FOR SUBMISSION.

SCAN AND E-MAIL TO: stacia.dawson@oa.mo.gov

DELIVER SUPPLIES/SERVICES FOB (Free On Board) DESTINATION TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS:

Office of Administration, Commissioner’s Office Room 125, Capital Building Jefferson City, MO 65101

SIGNATURE REQUIRED

VENDOR NAME

Guidehouse, Inc.

MissouriBUYS SYSTEM ID (SEE VENDOR PROFILE - MAIN INFORMATION SCREEN)

1000486

MAILING ADDRESS

1676 International Drive, Ste. 800

CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE

CONTACT PERSON

Erik Garr

EMAIL ADDRESS

egarr@guidehouse.com

PHONE NUMBER

(919) 999-8987

FAX NUMBER

N/A

VENDOR TAX FILING TYPE WITH IRS (CHECK ONE)

__X_ Corporation ___ Individual ___ State/Local Government ___ Partnership ___ Sole Proprietor ___IRS Tax-Exempt

AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE

DATE

1/23/2026

PRINTED NAME

TITLE

Partner mailto:stacia.dawson@oa.mo.gov mailto:stacia.dawson@oa.mo.gov

AMENDMENT #02 TO MOVERS Quarterly Consultant FY26

CONTRACT TITLE: MOVERS Quarterly Consultant FY26

CONTRACT PERIOD: July 25, 2025 through June 30, 2026

The State of Missouri requests an amendment to the SOW MOVERS 2025-07-01 to add (1) an initial On-Site Analysis and Advisory Phase, (2) a subsequent Review of MOVERS vendors’ replans, which includes the delivery of a Validation Report to the State, and (3) revise the Quarterly Progress and Status Reports

Performance of the services described herein shall not relieve the contractor of the contractual obligations outlined in the awarded SOW to provide the quarterly progress and status reports.

Pursuant to Section 5.045 of CCS SCS HCS HB 5 (2025) and as outlined in the SOW, all services shall be performed as an independent assessment and reporting and shall not be direct project management. For the purposes of this amendment, the term “Project Executive” means either the Interim Project Executive or any subsequently named permanent Project Executive for the MOVERS Project.

1.0 On-Site Analysis and Advisory Phase (Initial Six-Week Period)

1.1. Purpose. The contractor shall conduct an initial six-week “On-Site Analysis and Advisory Phase.” The purpose of this phase is to provide the Project Executive with intensive, hands-on support and knowledge transfer regarding the findings, data, and recommendations within the previously delivered comprehensive report. During this phase, the contractor's primary responsibility is to distill complex data, findings, and recommendations into clear, actionable insights for the Project Executive and other designated stakeholders. This will be achieved through direct engagement, analysis, and advisory services as detailed in the minimum activities listed below.

1.2. Stakeholder Meetings. The contractor shall meet with stakeholders not previously interviewed as part of the comprehensive report, who shall be identified in collaboration with the Project Executive.

a. The Project Executive will lead the stakeholder meetings. The contractor's role shall be to:

i. Develop a structured agenda and a consistent set of questions prior to each meeting in collaboration with the Project Executive.

ii. Act as a facilitator during the meetings to guide the discussion, ensure it stays on track, and probe for details on critical issues.

iii. Document the meeting outputs and, within ten (10) business days of the final stakeholder meeting, deliver a Supplemental Findings Memo to the Project Executive. This memo shall outline any new findings, risks, or recommendations and identify whether these meetings substantively change any findings from the Comprehensive Report dated November 20, 2025.

b. The contractor shall understand and agree that the stakeholder meetings and the

Supplemental Findings Memo shall be conducted at no additional cost to the State.

1.3. Focus Groups. The contractor shall plan, facilitate, and report on no fewer than three (3) and no more than five (5) focus group sessions with stakeholders and MOVERS vendors to help those parties understand the recommendations and findings.

a. Each session shall be targeted to a specific stakeholder group (e.g., end-users, technical staff). The contractor and Project Executive will identify the appropriate number of participants for each group.

b. The purpose of these meetings is to allow stakeholders to understand and seek clarification on the contractor’s findings and recommendations.

c. The contractor's responsibilities shall include:

i. Developing a Focus Group Plan for the Project Executive's approval.

ii. Facilitating the sessions.

iii. Delivering a Focus Group Summary Report within ten (10) business days of the final session.

1.4. Executive Steering Committee Restructuring. The contractor shall provide analysis and advisory services to support the Project Executive's restructuring of the Executive Steering Committee (ESC). The contractor's responsibilities shall be limited to providing an independent assessment and expert guidance, and shall include the following activities:

a. The contractor shall review the Project Executive's proposed changes to the ESC's composition, charter, and governance structure.

b. The contractor shall analyze the proposed changes against established best practices for public sector IT project governance to identify strengths and potential gaps.

c. The contractor shall assist the Project Executive in drafting a revised ESC Charter.

This includes providing templates or examples and helping to define the committee's mission, scope of authority, member roles and responsibilities, and decision-making protocols.

d. Upon completion of the review, the contractor shall deliver a formal ESC Restructuring Recommendations Memo to the Project Executive. This memo shall provide a written analysis of the proposed changes and offer specific, actionable recommendations to ensure the new ESC is structured for effective oversight and proactive decision-making.

1.5. On-Demand Analysis and Advisory Services. At the request of the Project Executive, the contractor shall provide on-demand analysis and advisory services. These services may be delivered through two methods, as determined by the Project Executive:

a. Advisory Conversations: For day-to-day questions and informal guidance, the contractor shall be available for discussions. The contractor shall maintain a log of these advisory conversations to be included in their Weekly Progress Report, noting the date, topic, and participants. The Weekly Progress Report shall be delivered to the Project Executive every Friday.

b. Formal Analysis: When the Project Executive determines a request requires formal, documented analysis, the contractor shall provide a Formal Analysis Memo within three (3) business days, unless an alternative timeframe is agreed upon.

c. All analysis and advisory services are strictly limited to assessment and reporting functions and explicitly exclude project management tasks, creating primary project documentation, or making management decisions.

1.6. On-Site Presence and Activities. Key contractor personnel shall be physically on-site at the primary project location for a minimum of 24 hours per week during this phase. When not directly engaged with the Project Executive, on-site activities shall include:

a. Observing project team and governance meetings.

b. Conducting informal interviews with State and other vendor staff.

c. Independently reviewing project artifacts (e.g., risk registers, status reports).

d. Collaborating with the MOVERS Project team to review findings and answer questions.

1.7. Firm, Fixed Price for Phase 1. The contractor shall provide a firm, fixed total price below to provide the On-Site Analysis and Advisory Phase. Except for the stakeholder meetings noted in Section 1.2, all costs, including travel, shall be stated in the total price:

$___ 240,300.00 .

1.8. Option to Extend Phase 1. The State reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to extend this Phase on a week-by-week basis via a formal contract amendment at a pre-negotiated, firm-fixed-price of $_______40,050.00 ______________ per additional week.

2.0 Vendor Replan

2.1. Purpose. The existing MOVERS vendors will be required to develop a replan to align with the contractor’s recommendations and findings, as well as the decisions made by the Project Executive. With time being of the essence, the State will be directing the existing vendors to propose replans no later than Monday, March 2, 2026. The contractor's review and validation activities described herein are anticipated to take place over a two (2) month period following the submission of the vendor replans.

2.2. On-Site Presence and Concurrent Work. The contractor's Project Lead shall be required to be on-site for all replan review workshops and meetings as determined by the Project Executive. It is understood that the activities of the “On-Site Analysis and Advisory Phase” and the “Review of Replan” may run concurrently. The firm, fixed price for each deliverable is inclusive of any and all resources required to manage overlapping tasks and responsibilities.

2.3. Independent "Truth Test" Role. The contractor shall act as the State's independent “truth test,” which is defined as the responsibility to conduct an objective, evidence-based validation of the vendor replans. In the event of a disagreement between the contractor's findings and a replanning vendor, the procedure outlined in Section 2.4 shall be followed.

2.4. Dispute Resolution and Escalation Procedure.

a. Formal Rebuttal: The replanning vendor may submit a formal written rebuttal to the contractor's preliminary findings within five (5) business days.

b. Final Recommendation: The contractor shall review any rebuttal and issue a final, written recommendation to the Project Executive.

c. ESC Adjudication: If a dispute remains, the matter will be presented to the Executive Steering Committee (ESC) for final determination. The presentation to the ESC shall include the contractor's final recommendation and the vendor's rebuttal.

2.5. “Validation Report” Deliverable. As part of the replan review, the contractor shall provide a “Validation Report” based upon the detailed replan documents. The State will approve of the contractor’s “Validation Report” prior to any vendor replans being implemented.

2.6. Minimum Contents of Validation Report. The contractor’s “Validation Report” shall minimally consist of the following analysis and details:

a. A traceability matrix linking every recommendation from the "Comprehensive

Report" to specific action items in the vendor replans.

b. Identification of any hidden constraints not captured in the written vendor replan documents.

c. Validation that the proposed replans are rooted in best practices by citing the specific industry standard (e.g., PMBOK, ITIL) against which the replan was assessed.

d. Validation that the vendor has assigned sufficient personnel with the correct skill sets to execute the replan without burning out existing teams.

e. Validation that the State has assigned sufficient personnel with the correct subject matter expertise or technical skills to support the replan.

f. An independent assessment of the proposed schedule, conducted via a critical path analysis and a schedule risk assessment.

g. An independent assessment of the replan's proposed budget, conducted by reviewing the cost estimation methodology and comparing it against industry benchmarks.

h. Identification and documentation of any unstated assumptions, risks, or external dependencies in the vendor replans.

i. Validation that the replan effectively addresses the root cause(s) of the issues identified in the Comprehensive Report and any subsequent findings.

2.7. Formal Briefing for State Leadership. If requested by the State, the contractor shall prepare and deliver a formal briefing to State leadership. This briefing is a high-level presentation intended to translate the technical findings of the "Validation Report" into clear business risks and strategic decision points.

2.8. Deliverable Acceptance Process

a. The contractor shall submit all deliverables with a completed Project Deliverable

Acceptance Form (PDAF).

b. The State shall have ten (10) business days to review the deliverable against the acceptance criteria defined herein.

c. Rejection and Cure Notice: If a deliverable is unacceptable, the State will provide a written 'cure notice' detailing the deficiencies. The contractor shall have ten (10) business days to correct the issues and resubmit the deliverable at no additional cost to the State.

2.8. Firm, Fixed Price. The contractor shall provide a firm, fixed total price below to provide the review of the replan and the Validation Report. All costs associated with this work, including travel costs, shall be stated in the total price:

$_360,450.00____________________

Quarterly Progress and Status Reports.

The due dates for the three Quarterly Progress and Status Reports shall be revised to the following dates:

• Quarterly Progress & Status Report – Due 2/28/26

• Quarterly Progress & Status Report – Due 4/30/26

• Quarterly Progress & Status Report – Due 6/15/26

All other terms, conditions and provisions of the contract, including all prices related to the quarterly reporting, shall remain the same and apply hereto.

The SOW contractor shall sign and return this document, on or before the date indicated, signifying acceptance of the amendment.

State of Missouri

Division of Purchasing

Contract Amendment Documentation

The following documentation consists of additional contract amendment documentation. The additional contract amendment documentation is not a part of the official contract amendment, but provides supporting information for the official contract amendment.

Office of Administration Division of Purchasing

Post Office Box 809 Jefferson City, Missouri 65102

(573) 751-2387 purchmail@oa.mo.gov

To: File Memo

From: Stacia Dawson

Re: Amendment #02 to SOW MOVERS 2025-07-01

Date: January 22, 2026

Amendment #2 to the SOW MOVERS 2025-07-01 is to add (1) an initial six-week On-Site Analysis and Advisory Phase and (2) a subsequent Review of MOVERS vendors’ replans, which includes the delivery of a Validation Report to the State.

In December 2025 a new interim MOVES program executive was appointed to the project.

Given that the interim MOVES program executive was assigned to the project after the comprehensive report was delivered to the state and the individual had not been a part of the day-to-day operations at MOVERS, there is a need for the interim program executive to have a period of time to get up to speed quickly related to the recommendations from the Comprehensive Report as the director will be responsible for assessing those recommendations and implementation. Additionally, such role was not previously anticipated when the SOW was competitively procured. Allowing for the contractor to provide a 6-week On-Site Analysis and Advisory Phase to the new director will help align the project for success in the future.

Additionally, the existing MOVERS vendors will be required to develop a replan to align with the contractor’s recommendations and findings. This contract amendment will require the contractor to conduct an independent review of those replans to ensure alignment to the recommendations and findings and apply a truth test those replans.

Mike Kehoe Governor

Kenneth J. Zellers Commissioner

Stacia L. Dawson Director mailto:purchmail@oa.mo.gov

Paragraph 2.6.9 of the master contract CS241367 allows for modifications to an SOW after implementation/execution of a SOW.

Additionally, 1 CSR 40-1.050 (8) states, “Contracts awarded as the result of a competitive solicitation may be amended when such an amendment is in the best interest of the state and does not significantly alter the original intent or scope of the contract.” Since the intent of the contract does not change with the amendment, I am proceeding with the amendment to the contract as requested by the state agency.”

NOTICE OF STATEMENT OF WORK (SOW) CONTRACT AMENDMENT

Office Of Administration Division Of Purchasing

PO Box 809 Jefferson City, MO 65102-0809

SOW CONTRACT NUMBER

N/A

SOW CONTRACT TITLE

MOVERS Quarterly Consultant FY26

AMENDMENT NUMBER

SOW CONTRACT PERIOD

July 25, 2025 through June 30, 2026

REQUISITION/REQUEST NUMBER

N/A

MissouriBUYS SYSTEM ID

MB00026464

SOW CONTRACTOR NAME AND ADDRESS

Guidehouse, Inc.

1676 International Dr., Suite 800 McLean, VA 22102

STATE AGENCY’S NAME AND ADDRESS

Office of Administration, Commissioner’s Office Room 125, Capital Building Jefferson City, MO 65101

ACCEPTED BY THE STATE OF MISSOURI AS FOLLOWS:

The MOVERS Quarterly Consultant FY26 Sow Contract is hereby amended pursuant to the attached amendment #01, dated 11/03/2025.

BUYER

Jacqueline Satterlee

BUYER CONTACT INFORMATION

Email: jacqueline.satterlee@oa.mo.gov Phone: (573) 751-4925 Fax: (573) 526-9816

SIGNATURE OF BUYER

J

11/04/2025

DIRECTOR OF PURCHASING

S Karen S. Boeger mailto:jacqueline.satterlee@oa.mo.gov

DIVISION OF PURCHASING (PURCHASING)

STATEMENT OF WORK (SOW) CONTRACT AMENDMENT

AMENDMENT NO.: 01 REQ NO.: N/A

SOW CONTRACT TITLE: MOVERS Quarterly Consultant FY26 BUYER: Jacqueline Satterlee

ISSUE DATE: 10/24/25 PHONE NO.: (573) 751-4925

E-MAIL: jacqueline.satterlee@oa.mo.gov

TO: Guidehouse, Inc.

1676 International Dr., Suite 800

RETURN AMENDMENT BY NO LATER THAN: 10/31/25 AT 5:00 PM CENTRAL TIME

RETURN AMENDMENT TO THE DIVISION OF PURCHASING (PURCHASING) BY E-MAIL OR FAX:

AMENDMENT RESPONSES SHOULD BE SUBMITTED BY E-MAIL. IF UNABLE TO RETURN AMENDMENT

BY EMAIL, CONTACT THE BUYER OF RECORD TO DETERMINE IF AN ALTERNATE PROCESS IS

AVAILABLE FOR SUBMISSION.

SCAN AND E-MAIL TO: jacqueline.satterlee@oa.mo.gov

DELIVER SUPPLIES/SERVICES FOB (Free On Board) DESTINATION TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS:

Office of Administration, Commissioner’s Office Room 125, Capital Building Jefferson City, MO 65101

VENDOR NAME

Guidehouse Inc.

MissouriBUYS SYSTEM ID (SEE VENDOR PROFILE - MAIN INFORMATION SCREEN)

MAILING ADDRESS

CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE

CONTACT PERSON

(919) 999-8987

FAX NUMBER

N/A

VENDOR TAX FILING TYPE WITH IRS (CHECK ONE)

___ Corporation ___ Individual ___ State/Local Government ___ Partnership ___ Sole Proprietor ___IRS Tax-Exempt

11/3/2025 mailto:egarr@guidehouse.com

MOVERS Quarterly Consultant FY26 Page 2

AMENDMENT #01 TO MOVERS Quarterly Consultant FY26

CONTRACT TITLE: MOVERS Quarterly Consultant FY26

CONTRACT PERIOD: July 25, 2025 through June 30, 2026

The State of Missouri hereby desires to amend the above-referenced SOW contract, as follows.

1) By no later than 10/31/25, the SOW contractor shall be required to submit an Interim Findings Report prior to submission of the Comprehensive Technology Review Report.

2) The due date of the Comprehensive Technology Review Report shall be extended to 11/20/2025.

In addition, in accordance with section 2.9 of the SOW contract, the SOW contractor shall not submit an invoice to the Governor’s designee until after deliverable acceptance and approval by the Governor’s designee, and the SOW contractor shall not receive payment until the Missouri House Budget Committee Chair and the Missouri Senate Appropriations Committee Chair receive and provide signed acknowledgement of quarterly technology review reports.

All other terms, conditions and provisions of the contract, including all prices, shall remain the same and apply hereto.

The SOW contractor shall sign and return this document, on or before the date indicated, signifying acceptance of the amendment.

Contract Amendment Documentation

The following documentation consists of additional contract amendment documentation. The additional contract amendment documentation is not a part of the official contract amendment, but provides supporting information for the official contract amendment.

Office of Administration Division of Purchasing

Post Office Box 809 Jefferson City, Missouri 65102

(573) 751-2387 purchmail@oa.mo.gov

To: File

From: Jacqueline Satterlee js 10/24/25

Re: SOW Contract Amendment 01

Date: October 24, 2025

The Office of the Governor, on behalf of the Office of Administration, Commissioner’s Office, has requested the SOW Contract with Guidehouse, Inc. for the MOVERS Quarterly Consultant FY26 services be amended.

Per the attached request from Bill Anderson, with the Office of the Governor, the MOVERS Quarterly Consultant FY26 SOW Contract needs to be revised in order to allow for the extension of the due date of the Comprehensive Technology Review Report and to add a requirement for the SOW contractor to submit an Interim Findings Report prior to the submittal of the Comprehensive Technology Review Report. The requested revisions to the SOW contract do not result in any additional costs to the state.

Because the due date of the Comprehensive Technology Review Report has been extended, in accordance with section 2.9 of the SOW contract, the SOW contractor shall not submit an invoice or be compensated until the Comprehensive Technology Review Report until after deliverable acceptance and approval by the Governor’s designee, and the SOW contractor shall not receive payment until the Missouri House Budget Committee Chair and the Missouri Senate Appropriations Committee Chair receive and provide signed acknowledgement of quarterly technology review reports.

Paragraph 2.6.9 of the master contract CS241367 allows for modifications to an SOW after implementation/execution of a SOW.

/js

Mike Kehoe Governor

Kenneth J. Zellers Commissioner

Karen S. Boeger Director mailto:purchmail@oa.mo.gov

NOTICE OF AWARD

Office Of Administration Division Of Purchasing

PO Box 809 Jefferson City, MO 65102-0809

STATEMENT OF WORK NUMBER

MOVERS 2025-07-01

STATEMENT OF WORK CONTRACT TITLE

MOVERS Quarterly Consultant FY26

CONTRACT NUMBER

N/A

CONTRACT PERIOD

July 25, 2025 through June 30, 2026

REQUISITION/REQUEST NUMBER

N/A

MissouriBUYS SYSTEM ID

MB00026464

CONTRACTOR NAME AND ADDRESS

Guidehouse, Inc.

1676 International Dr., Suite 800 McLean, VA, 22102

STATE AGENCY’S NAME AND ADDRESS

Office of Administration, Commissioner’s Office Room 125, Capital Building Jefferson City, MO 65101

ACCEPTED BY THE STATE OF MISSOURI AS FOLLOWS:

The response submitted by Guidehouse, Inc. in response to MOVERS 2025-07-01 is accepted in its entirety.

STATEMENT OF WORK CONTACT

Jacqueline Satterlee

STATEMENT OF WORK CONTACT INFORMATION

Email: jacqueline.satterlee@oa.mo.gov Phone: (573) 751-4925 Fax: (573) 526-9816

SIGNATURE OF STATEMENT OF WORK CONTACT

J

07/25/25

DIRECTOR OF PURCHASING

S Karen S. Boeger

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (OA)

STATEMENT OF WORK (SOW) – PROJECT-BASED IT CONSULTING

SERVICES AND MANAGEMENT CONSULTING SERVICES

SOW INFORMATION

AMENDMENT NO. 01

SOW NO.: MOVERS 2025-07-01

SOW Title: MOVERS Quarterly Consultant FY26 SOW Issued On Behalf Of: Office of Administration, Commissioner’s Office

Deliver Awarded Services To The Following State Agency Address:

1738 E. Elm Street Jefferson City, MO 65101

SOW DATES

Contract Series and Category: CT242213 series, IV&V Category and CS241367 series SOW Issue Date: 6/27/25 SOW Due Date: 7/10/2025 at 5:00 p.m. Central Time Return SOW To: The SOW must be returned to the email address stated below:

Email Address jacqueline.satterlee@.oa.mo.gov SOW Project Start Date: The latter of SOW Award Date or 7/14/2025 SOW Project End Date: 6/30/2026

STATE POINT OF CONTACT

OA Purchasing SOW Contact:

Jacqueline Satterlee

Phone Number:

573-751-4925

E-mail:

jacqueline.satterlee@.oa.mo.gov

I am authorized to submit a response to the State of Missouri in response to the SOW on behalf of my organization, to provide the services at the prices submitted. The information provided as my organization’s response is true and accurate. The QVL vendor agrees that when the state agency’s authorized official countersigns the SOW, a binding SOW agreement shall exist between the QVL vendor and the State of Missouri.

By signing below, the vendor hereby declares understanding, agreement and certification of compliance to provide the services, at the prices quoted, in accordance with all terms and conditions, requirements, and specifications of the awarded SOW and the awarded contract. SOW Request, SOW Response, and the SOW contractor’s project work must be within the scope of the performance requirements identified in the contract, which the contractor was awarded and must not change any provision of the contract.

QVL VENDOR NAME

Guidehouse Inc.

QVL VENDOR CONTACT PERSON

(919) 999-8987

FAX NUMBER

7/8/2025

For STATE AGENCY USE ONLY:

ACCEPTED BY STATE OF MISSOURI AS FOLLOWS:

STATE AGENCY SIGNATORY APPROVAL (

Awarded SOW Amount: $

Missouri Vital Enterprise Resource System Quarterly Consultant FY26 MOVERS-2025-07-01 Missouri Office of Administration, Commissioner’s Office Guidehouse | 1

1.0 Transmittal Letter

July 10, 2025

Jacqueline Satterlee, Purchasing Missouri Office of Administration 1738 E. Elm Street Jefferson City, MO 65101

Subject: MOVERS Quarterly Consultant FY26 Proposal

Dear Jacqueline Satterlee, Guidehouse Inc. is pleased to submit to the Office of Administration (OA) our proposed scope of work for the Missouri Vital Enterprise Resource System (MOVERS) Quarterly Consultant FY26. Our response is comprised of this technical approach and all required exhibits from the solicitation. We are confident you will find our proposal offers the best value solution to support the implementation of MOVERS to the State of Missouri. We aim to provide an independent and objective perspective on the current and on-going status of the MOVERS program to the Office of the Governor. As the largest, fastest-growing management consulting firm dedicated primarily to serving government clients, we are best equipped to achieve that goal for the following reasons:

We won’t just provide a report. We’ll help you get back on track. The stakes of this initiative’s success are high and our team is more than ready to rise to the challenge. Our team has deep implementation experience, which will ensure this is not just a paper exercise.

We understand how and why public sector technology implementations present unique challenges. Modernizing technology systems for State governments is simply more complex than it is in the private sector. Guidehouse has separately functioned as a strategic planner, system integrator, PMO, IV&V, and sometimes as a combination of these traditional roles during ERP implementations for a wide range of agencies.

We are the best team, led by a consultant and senior executive who has built significant pieces of technology and delight customers every day. The combination of our industry-leading technology experience and traditional management consulting background means Missouri will receive best in class practical advice by seasoned veterans who have a bias towards action and improvement.

We are ready. We have studied, we know the territory and understand the stakeholders.

Our team is uniquely prepared to start on day one and are thrilled to have this opportunity to work on behalf of Missourians.

If you have any questions about the confidential information contained in this response, please contact Joseph Glackin, Associate General Counsel, at (781) 270-8405 (slgcontracts@guidehouse.com) or me at (919) 999-8987 (egarr@guidehouse.com).

Sincerely

Erik Garr, Partner

Missouri Office of Administration, Commissioner’s Office Guidehouse | 2

2.0 Table of Contents

1.0 Transmittal Letter

2.0 Table of Contents

Table of Figures

3.0 Approach and Methodology: Response to Exhibit B

3.1 Our Understanding

3.1.1 Background

3.1.2 Project Overview

3.2 Phase 1: Comprehensive Technology Review Report

3.2.1 Methodology

3.2.2 Report Development Approach

3.2.3 Report Evaluation and Recommendations

3.2.4 Phase 1 Timeline and Staffing

3.3 Phase 2: Quarterly Progress & Status Reporting

3.3.1 Phase 2 Timeline and Staffing

3.4 MBE Partner

4.0 Personnel Qualifications and Biographies: Response to Exhibit C

4.1 Erik Garr, Partner

4.2 Jeff Ratcliff, Partner

4.3 Paul Haggard, Director

4.4 Peter Lanik, Director

4.5 Todd Stinson, Director

4.6 Neil Rosen, Senior Consultant

5.0 Past Organizational Experience: Response to Exhibit D

5.1 Mission, Vision, and Core Values

5.2 Our Partner: William Everett Group

5.3 Guidehouse Case Studies

5.3.1 State of Maryland – PMO Services for the 21st Century Financial Systems Enterprise (21CFSE) Modernization

5.3.2 FEMA Financial Modernization System

5.3.3 State of Maine – Human Resources Management System IV&V

6.0 Pricing: Response to Exhibit A

7.0 Attachments

7.1 Response to Exhibit E: Participation Commitment:

7.2 Response to Exhibit F: Business Compliance, Services Outside the United States

Table of Figures Figure 1. Current Project Status Figure 2. Project Overview Figure 3. TruePMO Methodology Figure 4. Project Timeline Figure 5. Reporting Framework Figure 6. Sample Executive Summary Layout

Missouri Office of Administration, Commissioner’s Office Guidehouse | 3

3.0 Approach and Methodology: Response to Exhibit B

3.1 Our Understanding

3.1.1 Background

In 2018 and 2019, the State of Missouri’s Office of Administration (OA) and Information Technology Services Division (ITSD) began taking initial steps to transform and modernize statewide systems. The OA engaged external vendors to perform a variety of activities ahead of software selection and deployment including: defining the program’s strategy, goals, and objectives; establishing a governance structure to facilitate decision-making; identifying and managing risks; developing stakeholder communication protocols; gathering business requirements; and developing specifications for a Request for Proposals.

Once implementation began, the State engaged a vendor to provide independent validation and verification (IV&V) services such as providing ongoing oversight to the implementation services vendor, supporting cost management, monitoring progress against project plans, and testing software to confirm State objectives are met. We understand that Oracle Fusion Cloud was selected as the State’s ERP software, Accenture serves as the System Integrator, BerryDunn provides PMO services, and ISG conducts IV&V oversight.

Recently, deployment issues with the in-production modules prompted a series of public reactions towards the MOVERS project.

With the passage of House Bill 5 withholding future funding until the completion of this SOW, successfully navigating the project towards a more effective implementation is critical. Our approach is designed with these legislative circumstances in mind and tailored to fulfill the intent established in the legislation.

Successful execution of this initiative will help restore confidence, oversight, and functionality in the MOVERS system.

Figure 1. Current Project Status

3.1.2 Project Overview

The State of Missouri seeks to engage a management consulting firm to provide independent third-party monitoring and compliance for the MOVERS Project through the delivery of multiple structured reports, including a Comprehensive Technology Review Report and three subsequent Quarterly Progress & Status Reports. Through these reports, Team Guidehouse will evaluate the MOVERS implementation’s current state, ultimately identifying points of substantive agreement and substantive conflicts with ongoing courses of action. We will not allow the process to get bogged down in unnecessary disagreements and focus instead on recommendations critical for charting a path forward.

In this role, Guidehouse will collaborate with all project partners, operating within the existing multi-vendor environment and parallel to the multi-layered governance structure to provide objective oversight duties, including but not limited to: monitoring ERP vendor progress against various plans;

attending project team meetings on-site; providing briefings to the Governor, General Assembly, or other elected officials; reviewing system testing and user acceptance testing; and reviewing and evaluating project deliverables to assess whether ERP meets required system specifications.

Guidehouse will comply with all technical environment and data requirements outlined in sections 2.7 and 2.8 of the SOW, including obtaining licenses for Microsoft ADO, JIRA, and any others needed for the duration of the project and hosting, storing, and accessing data only within the United States.

Missouri Office of Administration, Commissioner’s Office Guidehouse | 4

Figure 2. Project Overview

To accomplish this, work will be completed in two phases. The first phase – beginning in July and extending to October 1 – focuses on the development and delivery of the Comprehensive Technology Review Report. This will establish a baseline set of findings and recommendations. The second phase

– beginning after approval of that report through the project end date – concentrates efforts on quarterly reporting of progress toward recommendations outlined in the Phase 1 report, identifying and mitigating implementation risks, and evaluating implementation status overall.

3.2 Phase 1: Comprehensive Technology Review Report

3.2.1 Methodology

During Phase 1, Guidehouse will utilize our methodology, the TruePMO model, to guide our assessment of the overall implementation and the development of the Comprehensive Technology Review Report. This methodology has been developed by our firm to both lead and assess the health of enterprise scale, multi-year technology projects like MOVERS. TruePMO is built on our years of experience overseeing and delivering similar transformative projects including ERP, large IT PMO, and IV&V. On past projects, we have played the role of executive oversight, project management office, and independent validation and verification, as well as full systems integration. This breadth of experience allows us to bring Missouri’s leadership a grounded point of view on the performance of each of the vendor teams and the Office of Administration.

3.2.2 Report Development Approach

The core of our assessment is a holistic evaluation of the program and overall implementation, with specific analyses of modules already deployed, currently in development, and in the backlog. This analysis will not replicate any technical validation performed by the existing IV&V vendor. Rather, through interviews with State and solution staff, review of related contract documents, and evaluation of project artifacts, Team Guidehouse will gauge cross-organizational alignment, strategic collaboration, and commitment to project excellence.

During project kickoff, Team Guidehouse, in collaboration with key project sponsors, stakeholders from the Governor’s office and state legislature, will immediately begin assessing the appropriate number and sequencing of interviews with teams from each vendor, OA, ITSD, and other governmental stakeholders. Interviews will be conducted in both individual and group formats, while some may involve lengthier working sessions as needed. We will also submit a substantial document request for critical project artifacts. Responses for interview and documentation requests are expected to be honored within 72 hours.

Figure 3. TruePMO Methodology

Missouri Office of Administration, Commissioner’s Office Guidehouse | 5

Our analysis will be divided into the following components:

Project Governance and PMO

Decision-Making Structure: Are stakeholder roles clearly defined for both vendor solution teams and governmental staff?

Oversight and Transparency: Are intergovernmental partners and other stakeholders sufficiently leveraged to ensure proper oversight of project activities?

Schedule Management: Do vendor teams, state staff, and other stakeholders meet expected deadlines outlined in project planning artifacts?

Budget Performance: Is the program tracking on its financial projections?

User Adoption and Change Management

Change Management and Stakeholder Communication: Are stakeholders effectively managed and communications plans appropriately tailored to specific audiences?

Training Effectiveness: Are training materials role-based and user-friendly? Did users demonstrate readiness through pre/post assessments?

Knowledge Management: Are system design documentation, SOPs, and information sharing structures adequate?

User Feedback and Adoption: How is user feedback and adoption quantified and managed throughout implementation?

Technical Components

Product Fit: Does the asset meet the State’s needs and requirements established in the early project management processes?

Risk Mitigation: Are risks identified, escalated, and addressed with proactive strategies and processes?

Issue Resolution: How are the volume, severity, and resolution time of issues logged in help desk systems following go-live?

Cutover Execution: Was the deployment of the in-production modules executed according to the cutover plan? Were rollback procedures defined and tested?

System Readiness: Did the system meet all functional and non-functional requirements before go-live? This includes validation through UAT, regression testing, and performance benchmarks.

Data Cleaning & Migration: How are plans and processes for migrating data to the new systems developed?

System Stability and Performance: How are uptime, error rates, and system responsiveness under real-world loads post go-live monitored?

Across these categories, all substantive issues will be identified. The team will approach our work in this phase in a way that is uncritical and recognizes the hard work and investment already committed by the project’s stakeholders. At the same time, it will also be critical to engage in root cause analyses to determine a path forward to correcting issues and mitigate further risks and delays. Such issues may involve technical, functional, or resource constraint challenges.

3.2.3 Report Evaluation and Recommendations

As Team Guidehouse completes these assessment steps, we are always objectively evaluating issues with an eye towards action. Once we have completed our assessment, all identified issues impacting project scope, schedule, cost, quality, or strategic direction will be packaged with a set of recommendations and presented in a way that sets the State up for progress. We frame recommendations not to criticize, but to facilitate addressing root causes.

Missouri Office of Administration, Commissioner’s Office Guidehouse | 6

There will be disagreement. As requested in the SOW, we will escalate these substantive conflicts appropriately to the Governor’s designee for review and resolution. At the same time, there will be common sense improvements that all parties agree to through this process. We also will escalate those through the same path, so that change can happen quickly if warranted.

Our experience is that offering a path for conflict resolution AND a path for agreed upon improvements incents all parties to participate and try to make the right changes for the State.

3.2.4 Phase 1 Timeline and Staffing

During Phase 1, Guidehouse would deploy a team of approximately six FTE resources over the course of approximately 11.5 weeks through October 1, 2025.

Figure 4. Project Timeline

The majority of all proposed services will be performed on-site. Guidehouse is a major firm with sufficient resources to maintain stable, consistent consulting staff throughout the period of performance.

Staff utilized on the project will continue to be engaged through the contract duration to maintain continuity of historical knowledge and context. Each team member will have the requisite experience and skillset needed in complex program management and project governance, complemented by specific knowledge and experience with the Oracle platform. In addition, the team will possess extensive experience in performing IT assessments and conducting IV&V of complex ERP initiatives.

Detailed personnel qualifications and biographies are included in Section 4.0 of this document.

Figure 5. Project Organizational Chart

The project team will be divided into three workstreams, each focusing on different, though interrelated aspects of the MOVERS implementation. The Technical workstream will focus on the technology-specific components while the User Adoption / Change Management workstream will analyze collaboration on training and go-live preparations more broadly. The Governance and PMO workstream will focus on overall project oversight and management. A more detailed description of each team’s analytical responsibilities can be found in Section 3.2.2 above.

It’s important to note that Guidehouse is dedicating a very senior team, including a significant investment of time from our technology practice leader to this effort. You’ll have our best.

Assumptions: Either the State will provide all staff laptops capable of accessing project artifacts or access can be granted using our equipment. Interviews are expected to be capped at 30, with approximately three working sessions per workstream.

Missouri Office of Administration, Commissioner’s Office Guidehouse | 7

3.3 Phase 2: Quarterly Progress & Status Reporting

Following the Phase 1 report, the team will shift focus to tracking project status, assessing progress against recommendations, and evaluating any new risks. To track and monitor progress and risks, Guidehouse created a method for reviewing and assessing aspects of a project through a repeatable framework. Our reporting approach encompasses three stages: Stage 1: Setup & Engage, Stage 2: Fieldwork & Analysis, and Stage 3: Report & Communicate. The activities and deliverables performed within each stage are identified in Figure 5.

Guidehouse will utilize this framework each month to provide updates to the key sections of the Quarterly Progress & Status Report. Each quarter, these monthly updates will roll up into the Quarterly Progress & Status Report, which will be provided to the Governor’s designee, the House Budget Committee Chair, the Senate Appropriations Committee Chair, the OA Commissioner, and any other individuals identified by the Governor’s designee. Specifically, Quarterly Reports will be issued on December 1, 2025; March 1, 2026; and May 1, 2026.

Each Quarterly Progress & Status Report will include recommendations made in the initial Comprehensive Report and subsequent progress reports and current status of each; updates on existing key risks and a listing of any new or emerging risks – including any substantive conflicts or agreements with the current IV&V contractor; a confidence score of the project’s ability to meet its next set of critical milestones; a high-level analysis of project’s financial and timeline health; and an evaluation of the effectiveness of the project’s change management and assessment plans. Figure 6 shows a sample layout for the Quarterly Report’s executive summary, which would be accompanied by a comprehensive narrative for each section.

3.3.1 Phase 2 Timeline and Staffing

Phase 2 will begin after delivery of the Comprehensive Technology Review Report on October 1, 2025 and will continue through project end on June 30, 2026. Six staff members are expected to support Phase 2 activities.

3.4 MBE Partner

Guidehouse is committed to advancing the interests of minority and women-owned business enterprises through its teaming partners. Many MBE/WBE firms we spoke with were already engaged with other firms on the MOVERS project and we determined it was not appropriate for them to be involved in this effort due to the inherent conflicts. We opted to proceed with the William Everett Group, an MBE firm with whom we have worked on many technology projects. We also recognize that since William Everett was not included on the original QVL, we intend to make a good faith effort and we intend to add them during project initiation.

Proposed Subcontractor Name and Address

The William Everett Group 35 E Wacker Dr #3100, Chicago, IL 60601

Service Proposed to be Provided by the

Proposed Subcontractor

Support activities of the User Adoption and Change

Management workstream

Figure 6. Sample Executive Summary Layout

Figure 5. Reporting Framework

Missouri Office of Administration, Commissioner’s Office Guidehouse | 8

4.0 Personnel Qualifications and Biographies: Response to

Exhibit C

Team Guidehouse will be led by senior leaders with extensive experience in management consulting and technology implementations, offering an unparalleled solution for the benefit of Missourians. At project start, Executive Leaders Erik Garr and Jeff Ratcliff will be heavily involved in the initial assessment and development of the Comprehensive Technology Review Report. Paul Haggard, the Project Lead, will handle day-to-day management, monitoring and reporting, supervising the work of three distinct workstreams. Workstreams will be led by Peter Lanik (Technical), Todd Stinson (Governance / PMO), and Neil Rosen (User Adoption / OCM) – each of whom brings a wealth of knowledge and experience to their role. While this does not represent the full project team, senior team biographies are included below.

4.1 Erik Garr, Partner

TEAM MEMBER BIOGRAPHY

Name: Erik Garr

Title: Partner, Technology Management

Proposed project role: Project Sponsor

% of time committed to project:

50%

Education, Certifications, and Other Distinctions

Degree, certification, or other distinctions

Institution Date

MPP, Public Policy University of Chicago 2005

BA, Political Science University of Michigan 1992

Employment History

Organization Role Dates

Guidehouse Partner and leader of Guidehouse Communities, Energy, and Infrastructure technology practice, helping public sector clients build critical digital infrastructure to support their mission.

2023-present

Consolidated Communications/Fidium Fiber

President, Managing Director, and Senior Advisor to the CEO.

Primary executive of PE backed transformation of a near bankrupt phone company to Fidium Fiber, now the top rated internet service provider in New England.

2021-2023

Google Director, and general manager.

First employee east of the Mississippi who built from the ground up five profitable businesses in SE markets that remain in the Google portfolio

2015-2019

Missouri Office of Administration, Commissioner’s Office Guidehouse | 9 today. Also, director of strategy and operations for Google Cloud

PricewaterhouseCoopers

LLC

Principal, providing strategy and technology services to leading agencies and institutions, including multiple ERP oversight and deployment engagements.

2010-2015

Federal Communications Commission

General Manager, National Broadband Plan, delivering the first plan for digital infrastructure to the U.S. Congress in 2010

2009-2010

Diamond Technology Partners

Early employee of venture back startup. Helped grow from small private firm to public company to eventual sale to PwC in 2010. As a practice partner at Diamond, worked on multiple ERP product selections and implementations.

1996 - 2010

Specific Experience Relevant to Project

Project Team/Position Specific Experience or Qualification

Team Member’s Years of Experience

Brief description of team member’s relevant experience (e.g. specific projects; previous employment) including experience required by 2.3.1(a).

State of Maryland ERP Implementation

Project Executive Sponsor

1 Erik is a key leader in the Guidehouse multi-year implementation of the State of Maryland’s ERP system, overseeing all project operations, including IV&V

Diamond / PricewaterhouseCoopers / Guidehouse

Partner 30 Responsible for execution and oversight of large, multi-year technology implementations for public sector clients

Google/Director of Sales, Business Operations and Analytics – Google Fiber

Independent Assessment and Reporting

4 Creation of independent assessment and reporting functionality to measure Google Fiber service across the Southeastern U.S.

Other Experience or Background Information

Former Duke University faculty member where he taught a highly rated course on technology policy.

4.2 Jeff Ratcliff, Partner

TEAM MEMBER BIOGRAPHY

Name: Jeff Ratcliff

Title: Partner, Guidehouse

Proposed project role: Project Sponsor

Missouri Office of Administration, Commissioner’s Office Guidehouse | 10

% of time committed to project:

30%

Education, Certifications, and Other Distinctions

Degree, certification, or other distinctions

Institution Date

MBA, Business Administration

Baker University 2005

BA, Business Administration and Computer Information Systems

University of North Texas 1998

Employment History

Organization Role Dates

Guidehouse Partner, Guidehouse Technology

– Cloud and AppDev

2025-present

CGI Federal Partner and Senior Director for regulatory agency consulting services and cloud service delivery

2016-2024

Enterprise Holdings, Inc. Senior Service Delivery Manager and leader of solutions implementation and buildout of Change, Incident, and Problem offices

2014-2016

IBM Director of service delivery and incident management

201…