ATTACHMENT O – Information for Offerors to Submit Response Table

MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS. The Respondent must address all items detailed below and provide, in sequence, the information and documentation as required (referenced with the associated item). The Respondent must also detail the response page number for each item in the appropriate space below.

The Procurement Officer will review the response to determine if the Mandatory Requirement Items are addressed as required and mark each with pass or fail. For each item that is not addressed as required, the Proposal Evaluation Team must review the response and attach a written determination. In addition to the Mandatory Requirement Items, the Procurement Officer will review each response for compliance with all RFP requirements.

Section 1 – Introductory Documents

Section 2 – Proposal Shows Thorough Understanding and Compliance with Business & Technical Requirements. Section 2 of the Offeror’s proposal should be prepared simply and economically, and must include a straightforward, concise description of the Offeror’s ability to satisfy the requirements of the Request for Proposal. Although concise, the proposals should be thorough and detailed so that the evaluators may properly evaluate the Offeror’s solutions, and should include an explanation of proposed methodology, where applicable.

Offerors should thoroughly describe your solutions and methodologies to perform the requirements listed in Section 3, including all sub-items. Offerors should restate each of the items and sub-items listed in Section 3.4 of Section 3. Scope of Work/Specifications and provide its approach to accomplishing each task immediately thereafter. Within this point-by-point response, the Offeror shall specifically provide:

i. Demonstrate the fit/gap of your proposed solution by completing Attachment A (Requirements Definition Document) according to the instructions

ii. Describe in how your solution will meet the requirements detailed in ATTACHMENT B–SNAP_System_Integrity_Review_ Tool.pdf.

iii. Provide a narrative summarizing how well your solution meets the requirements out-of-the-box and the level of effort needed to configure/modify it to meet all requirements.

iv. If there are requirements your solution cannot meet, explain the alternative solution as indicated in your response to Attachment A.

Provide a narrative that illustrates the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements documented in Section 3.4.

Provide a narrative that illustrates how the Offeror will manage the project, ensure completion of the scope of services, and accomplish required objectives in accordance with the Project Schedule. The narrative must illustrate the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements documented in Section 3.4.7 Project Management

Provide a narrative that illustrates the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements documented in Section 3. At a minimum, describe how the Offeror will work with the State’s governance entities and other State teams.

Provide a narrative that illustrates the Offeror’s understanding of the Gate Review requirements. At a minimum, include specific prior experience with similar post UAT and post Pilot Implementation Gate Reviews with state and federal entities, including FNS and Go/No-Go Decision Document support.

Provide a narrative that illustrates the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements documented in Section 3.15.

Provide a narrative that describes your SDLC approach. Note that DSS is not prescribing a specific SDLC methodology (e.g., waterfall, agile, hybrid, etc.) for DDI activities. Please propose a methodology which best meets the needs of DSS based on your experience with similar projects and environments.

Additionally, the response should at a minimum:

· Provide a narrative that describes how the Offeror will incorporate the practices listed in this section and how it will provide the best service to the State.

· Describe how the Offeror has applied this SDLC methodology in other projects.

· Explain the lessons learned and best practices the Offeror has gathered from applying this SDLC methodology elsewhere.

Provide a narrative that illustrates the Offeror’s understanding of Section 3.4.7.10. At a minimum, the response should:

· Explain how the Offeror’s SDLC methodology will be applied for the DDI phases and listed Deliverables. Include the proposed release strategy.

· Confirm the Offeror’s understanding of the Payment Milestones in Section 3.4.7.11.

· Describe if the Offeror has any equivalent Deliverables to propose in place of the Deliverables listed in Table 2 - DDI Phases and Deliverables. Include an explanation of how each equivalent differs from the Deliverable and the justification for using each equivalent.

Provide a narrative that illustrates the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements documented in this section, including but not limited to:

· The Offeror’s overall design approach

· The Offeror’s approach to develop each System design deliverable

· The Offeror’s strategy for supporting the State’s Architecture Team in developing and maintaining the System Architecture Design and Technical Environment and Infrastructure Design

· Provide past examples of reports the Offeror has developed. Sensitive information can be redacted.

Provide a narrative that illustrates the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements documented in this section, including but not limited to:

· Collaboration strategies with the State and other stakeholders

· Evidence of the past ability to complete a system development of this size and scope

· Approach to meeting all security requirements

Provide a narrative that illustrates the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements documented in this section. In addition to addressing all subsections, include:

· The approach to each testing cycle

· How the Offeror will manage testing resources

· The Offeror’s approach to Defect resolution

· How the Offeror proposes to conduct testing for the Pilot Implementation

· How the Offeror proposes to conduct testing for the Statewide implementation

· How the Offeror intends to support Disaster Recovery testing

· The Offeror’s proposed defect tracking tool. If the proposed tool is different from the State’s preferred Test Defect tracking tool, explain why it would be advantageous to the State.

· The Offeror’s approach to facilitating needed Federal review

Provide a narrative that illustrates the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements documented in Section 3.14. In addition to addressing all subsections, include:

· A description of the Offeror’s proposed data conversion, data cleanup, and data migration approaches

· Relevant experience, including lessons learned, from previous data conversions, cleanups, and migrations

· Data Verification and Validation – outlined techniques and processes followed to verify data was properly converted

Provide a narrative that illustrates the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements documented in Section 3.16, including but not limited to:

· The Offeror’s proposed approach to the Pilot Implementation based on their experience and the information in this RFP and why this approach has been selected.

· Descriptions of prior pilot implementations of similar systems and the lessons learned and best practices from those experiences that the Offeror will bring to the Contract.

Provide a narrative that illustrates the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements documented in Sections 3.17 and 3.18, including but not limited to:

· The Offeror’s proposed approach to the Statewide Implementation based on their experience and the information in this RFP and why this approach has been selected.

· Descriptions of prior statewide implementations of similar systems and the lessons learned and best practices from those experiences that the Offeror will bring to the Contract.

· Approach to ensuring a successful implementation with no reduction in benefit payment accuracy (see Section 3.18).

· A sample Operations Manual from one of the Offeror’s previous projects.

Provide a narrative that illustrates how the Offeror will meet all Federal requirements and how the Offeror will support the State in all Federal reviews.

Describe the Offeror’s approach to developing and delivering a comprehensive Training Plan and Knowledge Transfer Plan and providing resources sufficient to support all training activities. In addition to addressing all subsections, include:

· An outline of the Offeror’s proposed Training and Knowledge Transfer Plan, including a detailed description of the Training and Knowledge Transfer methodology.

· How the Offeror will work with the DSS Training Team.

· Sample training and knowledge transfer materials from projects of a similar scope.

· Describe the Offeror’s approach to performing project turnover responsibilities as described in section 3.27.

· An outline of the Offeror’s proposed Turnover plan.

· A description of the Offeror’s proposed activities to ensure that services are turned over smoothly without any adverse effects on the State, its customers, or other stakeholders. Include an example timeline of those activities.

Describe the Offeror’s approach to performing M&O services as described in this section. In addition to addressing all subsections, include:

· The approach you will take to Stabilization M&O and Steady State M&O, including differences in operational approach, responsibilities, staff, etc.

· All proposed tools to support the M&O activities.

· An outline of the Offeror’s proposed M&O Plan.

· An outline of the Offeror’s proposed Account Management plan.

· How the Offeror will meet the response and resolution times for reported incidents.

· Descriptions of prior M&O experience for a similar system and the lessons learned and best practices from those experiences that the Offeror will bring to the Contract.

Offeror shall describe their overall plan and methodology to manage activities and tasks required to meet contract requirements. This should include descriptions of management controls, Quality Assurance (QA) processes, security plans and controls, risk identification and mitigation plans, and reporting requirements that will be put into place to ensure the smooth administration of this contract.

Provide a narrative that illustrates the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements documented in Section 2.8, including how the Offeror proposes to meet or exceed the performance targets.

Section 3 – Familiarity and experience managing and running similar contracts, including the ability to perform the work in a timely manner, company oversight, and ongoing project support and maintenance and references.

i. Full name and address of organization

ii. Ownership (public company, partnership, subsidiary, parent company)

iii. Total number of full-time employees

iv. Name and position of person who will have ultimate responsibility and accountability for this Contract, and act on behalf of the Offeror.

i. The number of years of prior experience providing full life cycle software development and O&M services for Economic Services systems or related human services systems. Provide numbers of years—if any—of experience specifically with Economic Services systems.

ii. Total number of clients, including number of state agency customers.

iii. Total number of Economic Services agencies for which your organization has provided services including the agency name and a description of the services provided.

iv. A list of every business for which Offeror has performed, at any time during the past five year(s), services substantially similar to those sought in this RFP. Business information should include named contacts, telephone number, email address, physical address, and project role.

Section 4 – The qualifications and experience of the persons to be assigned to the contract. Offerors should thoroughly describe your solutions and methodologies to perform the requirements listed in Section 3, including all sub-items. Offerors should restate each of the items and sub-items listed in Section 3.4.8 Staffing of Section 3. Scope of Work/Specifications and provide its approach to accomplishing each task immediately thereafter.

v. Technical Project Management

Section 5 – Assumptions & Risk

Appendix 1 – Offeror Qualifications and Responsibility