CCWIS IVV Questions and Answers - Round Two - Updated 12.13.21.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 48 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 21-418DCFS-PROCU-B-24914
- Issued by
- St. Clair County, Illinois
About this file
This document is a set of questions and answers related to a Request for Proposal (RFP) issued by the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) for Enhanced Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V) Services for the Comprehensive Child Welfare Information System (CCWIS) project. The RFP includes requirements for traditional IV&V services as well as expanded services such as quality assurance, strategic planning, project advisory/consulting, risk management, and IT auditing. The contract will have an initial term of 6 years with options to renew for up to 10 years total. Responses to the RFP are due on January 6, 2022.
The pricing for this contract will include hourly rates for key personnel that will be multiplied by an estimated 250 hours and added to the offeror's lump sum pricing to determine the total evaluated price. There is a 20% Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) goal for this contract. The RFP indicates that the System Integrator and Modules Implementation RFP award is expected to be announced prior to the due date for this IV&V services RFP, but that timeline is not guaranteed. The RFP also provides details on the current development environment, programming languages, and hardware/software requirements.
View the file
Other files
Show all 21
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
Q&A Round One 11.29.21
STATE OF ILLINOIS
ATTACHMENT F: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS - ROUND ONE - POSTED 11/29/2021
Illinois Department of Children and Family Services Enhanced Independent Verification & Validation Services for CCWIS Project DCFS PO19-165 – BidBuy Bid# B-24914 & B-24915
| ID | RFP or Attachment Section Number | Page Number | Topic | Specific Question/Inquiry | Department Answer |
| QaA.001 | N/A | N/A | General | As an IV&V vendor, we will need access to certain program-related documentation from the SI and other workstreams to support our evaluation of the program, will a common document repository be used to support such collaboration (e.g. State of IL SharePoint site)? | Yes. Although the format and location of the documents will not finalized until the System Integrator is on-boarded. The System Integrator RFP has a mandatory term, among other requirements, pasted below, all offerors agreed to. |
MR.002: Offeror agrees to work extensively with Department's independent OCM/BPR Vendor, IV&V Vendor, and Program Management Vendor, enterprise solution(s) technical staff, and all Department personnel, and agrees to provide unrestricted access to all necessary Parties as determined by the Department. Offeror agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the IV&V Vendor for all recommendations provided to the Department on the Offeror's performance of the resulting Contract. Offeror certifies they will comply with this requirement.
DCFS recommends all offerors completely read the CCWIS System Integrator and Modules Implementation RFP to best inform proposal/offer. The SI RFP can be found on BidBuy Bid# B-16539.
| QaA.002 | RFP Section 1.A/A.7 | 7 | Offeror Questions and Agency Response | Will questions raised at the Pre-Submission Conference be captured and responses included in Response to Offeror Questions posted on or before December 13, 2021? | Yes. |
| QaA.003 | RFP Section D | 50 | Technical Response | The end of Section D states that it and related attachments should be provided in Packet 1. However Section C.6 (pg. 19) shows only response to Attachment A is required in Packet 1. Likewise, throughout Section D, any required responses state that they should be addressed in Attachment A. Are vendors to return Section D with the proposal response? If so, please clarify what response to Section D is expected if responses are addressed in Attachment A. | No. Section D is not required to be returned in Packet One. This is standard template language that should have been removed as there is no information requested in Section D. This was an oversight on our part. |
| QaA.004 | RFP Section F | 64 | Technical Response | The end of Section F states that it and related attachments should be provided in Packet 1. It appears that all of the requirements from Section F are addressed in response to Attachment A. Are vendors to return Section F with the proposal response? If so, please clarify what response to Section F is expected if responses are addressed in Attachment A. | See answer to Q&A.003 above. Section F is not required to be returned in Packet One. |
| QaA.005 | RFP Section F.2 | 63 | Technical Response | Are resumes for key personnel in addition to or the same as the "biographies" required in Attachment A, Section D.3? | All mention of the word "resume" in the RFP should be interpreted as the "BIOGRAPHIES" requested in Section D.3 of Attachment A. Biographies are requested in leu of resumes to provide a standardized response to aid the evaluation teams effort. Additionally, there is project specific information requested in Section D.3 which is not ordinarily represented on a resume. |
| QaA.006 | RFP Section I | 68 | Terms & Conditions | Section 1.2 in the Standard Terms and Conditions indicates that the State has the option to renew the contract for 12 months, however page 2 in the RFP indicates that state has the option to renew the contract for 24 months. Please clarify if the renewal period is 12 months or 24 months. | Please see DCFS PO19-165 - CCWIS Enhanced IVV Services RFP v.2 Updated 11.29.21 attached to the Bid Amendment. Page 2 has been updated to reflect a 12 Month optional renewal. |
| QaA.007 | Attachment A, Section D.3 | 32 | Technical Response | The biographies require a description of the position and how the position fits into Offeror’s approach and methodology. Given that biographies are limited to 2 pages each, it is important for vendors to have the opportunity to adequately address the experience requirements of the proposed staff. Would the State consider either (1) increasing the page limit for the biographies or (2) allowing vendors to address the position description and how it fits into our approach outside of the 2 page limit? | Yes. Biographies are to be kept to 2 pages maximum. However, one additional page may be added for offerors to address how the position fits into Offeror's approach. Offerors may also include this information within their narrative response in the applicable questions in Sections B and C. |
| QaA.008 | General | N/A | Technical Response | When responding to Attachment A, can offerors use their own formatting or, at a minimum, include their own headers/footers? | No. Attachment A is intended to provide evaluators a standardized format for evaluation. The format in Attachment A mirrors their evaluation scoring sheet. Without this format, it will take evaluators considerably more time to find and locate information from offeror's proposal and increases the risk they will miss valuable information for scoring purposes. Offerors may insert relevant information within their response to Attachment A (non-sales material), but the overall format/structure and footers shall remain the same or offeror's will risk evaluators missing key information. |
| QaA.009 | Attachment A, Section C.2.3.1 | 24 | Technical Response | This section states to provide templates for the named reports/deliverables and identify the assigned team member role / title responsible. These templates are not listed in RFP Section C.7. Are these templates only for any extra deliverables proposed by the vendor? | Yes. Per Attachment A Section C.2.3.1, and the RFP Section 1 E.1 (language provided below for emphasis); DCFS requests vendors identify any and all relevant deliverables DCFS has not identified based on Offeror's experience. This is DCFS' attempt to learn from IV&V industry leaders experience to help ensure a successful CCWIS Implementation. See Attachment A, Section 1 A: This is very important: Failure to include any task or billable service does not absolve the Offeror from completing the tasks or billable services at their own expense. Any additional deliverables will be used to document and demonstrate an offeror's knowledge and experience and will be evaluated in conjunction with the rest of the information provided in the narrative. |
The IV&V Vendor will identify additional deliverables and reports that may be required based on their experience and expertise. The IV&V Vendor will expand the high-level list of deliverables with their recommended additions, provide templates for the named reports/deliverables, and identify the assigned team member role / title responsible.
| QaA.010 | Attachment A, Section D | 25 | Technical Response | This refers to "Section XX." Please clarify what section this is directing bidders to. | Please see CCWIS IVV Attachment A - IVV Narrative v.2 Updated 11.29.21 attached to the Bid Amendment. Page 25 has been updated to reflect additional information can be found in the RFP Section 1.F. | |
| QaA.011 | General | N/A | N/A | Were any vendors involved in the planning phase of the CCWIS Implementation Project? If so, are they precluded from bidding on the IV&V or Project Management solicitations? | Public Consulting Group (PCG) aided the Department with the required CCWIS Feasibility Study, various ACF planning documents and initial draft of the System Integrator and Modules Implementation RFP. PCG did not aid DCFS with any version of this RFP and therefore is not considered a Prohibited Bidder as defined by the Illinois Procurement Code 30ILCS 500/50-10.5 (subject to the Chief Procurement Officer's concurrence). A copy of the Department's feasibility study can viewed on the System Integrator Bid B-16539. | |
| QaA.012 | Attachment A, Section D.3 | 32 | Technical Response | Biographies are only required for key personnel? Experience summaries are not required for non-key personnel? | Correct. Key Personnel represent the Offeror's prime resources for evaluation purposes and are under strict replacement terms and conditions. While a Biography is not required for non-key personnel, offerors are welcome and encouraged to submit a biography for each non-key person to enhance evaluators understanding of the Offeror's proposal. | |
| QaA.013 | D.3.1 | 27 | IV&V Project Management (Mandatory Tasks) | Can an IV&V team member be in multiple teams? | Yes. But, Offeror will be starting in a trust deficit to document and demonstrate how their traditional IV&V compliance verifications and validations will be sufficiently independent from the nontraditional IV&V services as required by the Administration for Children and Families (ACF). ACF requires total independence of the service provider, where the IV&V service provider must maintain organizational independence and autonomy from the project’s organization. | |
| QaA.014 | RFP under Brief Description | 3 | Brief Description | When do you expect to release the PMO and OCM/BPR RFP's and will they be released for competitive bid? | Yes. OCM/BPR RFP was released 11/22/2021 at ~11:30AM CST. See BidBuy Bid # B-25618. The PMO RFP will be released later this week on BidBuy Bid# B-25970. | |
| QaA.015 | RFP Sec.: D-3.3 | Attachment A | 33, 34 | Phase 2 and 3 - Project Management | Requirements PM-53 through PM-58 from the scope of work document are not referenced in Attachment A narrative. Please clarify whether we should respond to them at the end of Section B.1.2 in Attachment A? | Yes. Thank you for identifying this oversight. These tasks and related deliverables were late additions to the RFP and DCFS failed to capture these in Attachment A. Please see CCWIS IVV Attachment A - IVV Narrative v.2 Updated 11.29.21 attached to the Bid Amendment. These tasks have been added starting on page 9. | |
| QaA.016 | RFP Sec.: D-3.3 | 29 | Phase 2 and 3 - Project Management, item PM-5 | In our experience, maintenance of a Master Contract Schedule, and ensuring no unauthorized changes are made to it, lies with the PMO organization. Would the State consider shifting responsibility for maintenance of the Master Contract Schedule to the PMO organization? | No. The Master Contract Schedule is a term of art as used in the CCWIS RFPs and plays a significantly larger role than traditional IT projects due to milestone incentives of up to 8% of the total award offered in the System Integrator's Contract. Please see DCFS System Integrator and Modules Implementation RFP, Section 1 D.6 for a complete list of incentives DCFS is offering the awarded SI vendor. The IV&V Vendor is expected to have extensive expertise to evaluate, verify, and make recommendations on the technical information the SI presents to DCFS, acting as a Trusted Advisor. The IV&V Vendor will also play a large part in Release Acceptance, which triggers the incentives. DCFS understands this arrangement is not the industry standard for IV&V scope of work on IT implementation projects, however it's DCFS' attempt to address our numerous weaknesses and internal expertise deficit and minimize other known and unknown risks. As DCFS' Trusted Advisor for the CCWIS Project, the IV&V Vendor is required to have significant technical skillsets not traditionally associated with PMO vendors. See SI RFP attached to BidBuy Bid# B-16539. | |
| QaA.017 | RFP Sec.: D Specifications/ Qualifications/ Statement of Work | 34 | D-3.3 Phases 2 and 3 – Project Management, Item PM-57 | Is there a preferred software tool or platform to be used in creating the IV&V Dashboard? | No. | |
| QaA.018 | RFP Sec.: D-3.3, E.1 | 31, 53 | D-3.3 Phases 2 and 3 – Project Management, Item PM-27 | E.1 Description of IV&V Contract Deliverables | In our experience change request management is typically a PMO activity and IV&V monitors the change request process and plans. Would the state consider shifting responsibility for developing the change request plan to PMO and limit IV&V scope to reviewing this plan and monitoring ongoing change request activities? | No. See answer to QaA.016 above. This is not a traditional IV&V RFP. This is an enhanced IV&V RFP, or a Trusted Advisor and IV&V RFP. The awarded vendor is going to be DCFS's right hand and will be expected to counsel DCFS throughout the entire CCWIS Project with extensive technical expertise and skillsets. See SI RFP attached to BidBuy Bid# B-16539 for more information. | |
| QaA.019 | RFP Sec.: F.2 | Attachment A: D.1 | RFP: 27 | Attachment A: 24-25 | RFP: Qualifications/Key Personnel| Att. A: Proposed Project Staffing | Cost Worksheet | The RFP states in Section F.2 “The Vendor’s Key Personnel must fulfill the following roles: IV&V Engagement Executive, IV&V Program Manager, CCWIS Project IV&V Lead, and Technical Lead.” The cost worksheet, tab “Task-Resource List”, lists many additional positions under the “Key Personnel” banner on row 5. | ||
| Would the State please clarify that the Key Personnel roles are limited to the IV&V Engagement Executive, IV&V Program Manager, CCWIS Project IV&V Lead, and Technical Lead (which are also shown on the sample org chart in Attachment A Section D.1), and that the Data Architect, Business Architect, Cloud Architect, Security Architect, and IT Auditor positions are not considered Key Personnel? | No. For the same reasons identified in DCFS's answers to QaA.016 & QaA.018. | |||||
| QaA.020 | Attachment A Section D.4.1 Facilities Plan | 33 | On-site requirements during COVID | The RFP specifies various on-site presence requirements for IV&V staff. Will the State consider exceptions for State- or Vendor-imposed COVID-19-related staff protection measures? | No. Not at this time, March 2022 is too far off to predict COVID status. But, DCFS will always abide by IDPH and the Governor's COVID safety directives and will adjust all on-site requirements as needed when needed. As noted in the RFP, on-site presence is limited to active engagement during applicable tasks and deliverables for applicable staff. As such, this is not a full-time on-site requirement for all staff and DCFS does not believe this to be an onerous request. | |
| QaA.021 | Attachment A | 1 | Response Format | The instructions on Page 1 of Attachment A state "Items within curly-brackets {} are notes to assist in providing the sought for information. Items within {} should be removed before submission." In order to clarify response organization, would the state find it acceptable to leave the text in curly brackets {} in the response? | Removing the brackets and information within provides a cleaner response, but either is fine. Evaluators are given Attachment A and their evaluation sheet closely mirrors Attachment A. | |
| QaA.022 | DCFS PO19-165 - CCWIS Enhanced IVV Services RFP_1 | 2 | Brief Description | On page 2 of the solicitation: “The resulting contract with the awarded Offeror shall have an initial term of six (6) Years. In no event will the total term of the contract, including the initial term, any renewal terms, and any extensions exceed ten (10) years. 30 ILCS 500/20-60. Subject to the maximum total term limitation, DCFS has the option to renew for the following terms: 24 Months” but under Section 3 Standard Terms and Conditions the renewal is listed as: “ 1.2. RENEWAL: Subject to the maximum total term identified above, the State has the option to renew for the following term(s): 12 Months”. Could the State please clarify the renewal term? | Please see answer to QaA.006 above. This discrepancy has been corrected. | |
| QaA.023 | DCFS PO19-165 - CCWIS Enhanced IVV Services RFP_1 | 43 | Testing | Section D-3.10 “System and Acceptance Testing” states that the IV&V vendor will “perform tests to ensure system performs according to documented results.” All other references to testing in the RFP and in CCWIS IVV Attachment A – IVV Narrative require evaluating and verifying testing plans, approaches, and activities. Please clarify the scope of IV&V testing requirements. Does it include performing tests? | Traditional IV&V services are not allowed to perform any pre-implementation reviews or testing, however, post-implementation testing may be required to independently undertake unit, system, and integration testing activities, to confirm that the system components are working as designed. This testing activity does not substitute for the System Integrator's testing role. IV&V industry standards seem to conflict on whether the IV&V vendor should conduct unit, system, and integration testing activities or if their role is to simply verify and validate the developer or integrator's testing results. This is an area DCFS wishes to learn from offeror's knowledge and experience and request applicable information on offeror's approach in Attachment A. | |
| QaA.024 | DCFS PO19-165 - CCWIS Enhanced IVV Services RFP_2 | 29 | Schedule | Three types of schedule are mentioned on the is page; "The Master Contract Schedule", "The System Integrator Detailed Project Schedule", and the "System Integrator development environment schedule". Does the State have a definition for each of these? | No. But, DCFS offers the following to inform offerors proposal: The Master Contract Schedule is the same as the Detailed Project Schedule only at a higher-level with more limited detail on each required task. As indicated above, the Master Contract Schedule controls milestone incentives in the System Integrator's Contract. Offeror's are strongly encouraged to read the System Integrator and Modules Implementation RFP for a more complete understanding of DCFS' CCWIS Implementation approach. See BidBuy Bid# B-16539. An excerpt is provided below to provide more context on the Master Project Schedule. The development environment schedule is not a term of art, but is a typical document created during the Software Development Lifecycle process. |
Prior to Contract execution, the Department, with assistance from the IV&V vendor, and Vendor shall agree on a Master Contract Schedule using the Vendor’s High-Level Project Schedule as a guide. Once the Master Contract Schedule is executed and signed by both Parties, it shall be monitored and maintained by the Department’s IV&V Vendor and it shall not be amended unless significant extra work, as determined by the IV&V Vendor and Department, is added to the Contract via a Change Order or use of Unforeseen Work Funds.
QaA.025 DCFS PO19-165 - CCWIS Enhanced IVV Services RFP_2 18 Attachment B Pricing Table Form The Pricing Table Form in Attachment B includes the Task-Resource Tab. How are the vendor proposed hourly rates provided in this tab factored into the cost evaluation? Please see the first tab of Attachment B - Pricing Table, Worksheet Information, Offeror's rates will be multiple by 250 hours and the total added to the Offeror's lump sum pricing to determine Offeror's Total Price for evaluation purposes. This is intended to represent an estimate of the additional hours (see also 10% Contingency Fund) that may be required due to unforeseen work germane to the Contract and allow for an evaluation of each offeror's hourly rates to ensure they are fair and reasonable.
For the purposes of determining each Offeror's Total Price and evaluating each Offeror's pricing for task resources: the Department will estimate 250 hours for each Key Personnel at the 15 years or more of experience level the Department has identified on the Task Resource List tab. The Department will multiply the on-site hourly rate for each Key Personnel for years 1, 3, and 5 by 250 hours and add the sum to the Offeror's Lump Sum amount to determine Offeror's Total Price.
| QaA.026 | DCFS PO19-165 - CCWIS Enhanced IVV Services RFP_2 | 18 | Attachment B Pricing Table Form | The Worksheet Information Tab of the Pricing Table includes the assumption "Implementation work will be complete within 3.5 to 4 years from March 1, 2022." This means implementation work will complete by February 28, 2026. In order to better understand staffing and pricing requirements, what activities will the IV&V vendor be performing from March 1, 2026 through February 28, 2028? | Minimal work is expected post implementation. However, limited tasks and deliverables could include but are not limited to; assistance with ACF CCWIS compliance documentation, numerous Final reports, monitoring and applicable work for any system updates or changes by the System Integrator, monitoring of all System Integrator warranty and Service Level Agreement terms prior to system turn-over to DCFS, and monitoring and applicable work for any work requested by DCFS' private not-for-profit community based partners to implement or integrate CCWIS within their agency's or with their case management systems. |
| QaA.027 | RFP | 24 | Section D.2.1. | Will we will be prohibited from OCM/BPR RFP if we win the IV&V RFP as either a prime or subcontractor? This includes the PMO RFP too. If we're on anyone of the 3 RFP’s, are we precluded from the other 2? Need to know since both the IV&V and OCM/BPR RFPs are due the same day. | Please see RFP Section 1 D.2.1 on page 24 for more information. There is a blanket exemption for prime contractors being awarded more than one of the four CCWIS contracts and for subcontractors on any of the four contracts to be awarded as the prime on another contract. However, the prohibition on being a subcontractor on more than one contract is more nuisanced and situational. In general, the prohibition exist to prevent a vendor from overseeing or monitoring their work on another contract. Due to federal IV&V independence requirements, the nature of the services requested in the IV&V RFP, and DCFS' intended use of the IV&V vendor, subcontractors on the awarded IV&V contract will likely be prohibited from performing subcontract work on any of the other 3 contracts. DCFS accepts there could be exceptions to this rule, but is unable to identify a scenario at this time and will have to review the subcontractor's scope of work on the contracts before making a final determination for concurrence by the Chief Procurement Officer. |
Pre-Bid Meeting 12.3.21
STATE OF ILLINOIS
ATTACHMENT F: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS - Pre-Bid Meeting (12/1/20) - POSTED 12/3/2021 Illinois Department of Children and Family Services Enhanced Independent Verification & Validation Services for CCWIS Project DCFS PO19-165 – BidBuy Bid# B-24914 & B-24915
| ID | RFP or Attachment Section Number | Page Number | Topic | Specific Question/Inquiry | Department Answer |
| QaA.028 | General | BEP | Hello, my company is a certified BEP vendor and we wanted to see how can be on the list of certified BEP vendors that was sent out through BidBuy? | After review, the BEP vendor in question is on Attachment E - BEP Directory. The list referred to in this question is from outreach conducted by the Chief Procurement Office for General Services staff. This list and outreach is not conducted by DCFS. List is developed from responses received back from BEP vendors listed in Attachment E and is intended to represent BEP vendors that indicated interest in this specific solicitation to help prime vendors narrow the list of potential BEP vendors. Again, prime vendors are not required to use the vendors on either list, but must use CMS certified BEP vendors found in the CMS BEP Portal and the vendor must provide a commercially useful function on the project as indicated in the prim vendor's U-Plan. The vendor's inquiry was sent to the CPO-GS staff for review. | |
| QaA.029 | General | System Integrator | Will the System Integrator and Modules Implementation RFP award be announced prior to this RFP due date? | DCFS hopes so, that is our intention. However, due to dozens of circumstances outside our control, that may not be a possibility. We're currently in the price evaluation process for all vendors that met the minimum technical scoring requirements. | |
| QaA.030 | Pre-Bid | Attendance Sheet | Will we be able to get a complete list of attendees? | Yes, both the WebEx Chat Record and Attendance Record has been published with this Q&A. | |
| QaA.031 | RFP D-3.3. | 33 | Dashboard | Is there a preferred dashboard platform, e.g.. Tableau, PowerBI, custom HTML/JS etc.? | Reponses will be evaluated against the requirement which do no have a preference stated. Within the Attachment P of the System Integrator RFP Power BI is a tool currently used and planned to be used in the future and part of the Data Analytics Platform which all SI vendors must integrate. DCFS is aware that some solutions, primarily third party components may have dashboards implemented in a different manner which is acceptable. |
| QaA.032 | RFP | Contract Prohibition | If we are a BEP on other CCWIS bids, are we still allowed to be a BEP partner on this bid? I have a question about multiple bid scenarios for prime vendors/vendor? | Please see response to QaA.027 on Q&A Round One tab. | |
| QaA.033 | RFP | Contract Prohibition | Can you be a prime on one bid and a sub on another - OCM/BPR and PMO? | Please see response to QaA.027 on Q&A Round One tab. | |
| QaA.034 | RFP D-3.3. | 30 | Development Platform | Is there a preferred development platform, e.g. Azure/AWS Devops, Jira, GitHub, etc.? Or is it up to the SI? | DCFS development staff are and will continue to use Jira as the development platform. Some SI vendors have indicated that Azure Devops will be used. DCFS will use Jira Connector technology to integrate and sync the Jira development platform with Azure Devops. Third party components may involve additional development platforms. |
| QaA.035 | RFP D-3.9. | 41 | Programming Language | I'm assuming this is up to the SI but going to ask anyway... What programming languages are used? | DCFS development staff use C#, VB.Net, and ASP.NET for development work. All proposals for the SI RFP are built upon the Dynamics platform. Within the SI RFP it is indicated that Dynamics configuration and complex configuration will be the majority of the work to adapt solutions to the specific needs of DCFS. Third party components and custom extensions for the solution may include any language. |
| QaA.036 | General | RFP Due Date | Based on the size, complexity and critical nature of this procurement, will DCFS please issue an extension to the deadline to submit making Jan 11th the new deadline to submit date (tied to the PMO RFP deadline)? | Not at this time. DCFS is open to an extension, but not into January. DCFS will make a final due date determination when we respond to the Round Two Q&A on or before December 13th, 2021. If DCFS decides to extend the due date, it will only be extended to December 30, 2021. We'll update the RFP and BidBuy posting if an extension is approved. | |
| QaA.037 |
Q&A Round Two 12.10.21
STATE OF ILLINOIS
ATTACHMENT F: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS - ROUND TWO - Updated 12/13/2021 Illinois Department of Children and Family Services Enhanced Independent Verification & Validation Services for CCWIS Project DCFS PO19-165 – BidBuy Bid# B-24914 & B-24915
| SPECIAL NOTE ONE: | The Department is extending the Offer Due Date to Thursday January 6th, 2022 @ 3:00PM CST. This will be the only extension provided. Please see updated Section 1.A.6. SCHEDULE OF EVENTS AND DEADLINES and Section 1.A.9 OFFER DUE DATE, AND TIME FOR SUBMISSION OF OFFERS for more information. The RFP and all applicable Attachments have been updated with the new Due Date and to address the Q&A below. | ||||
| SPECIAL NOTE TWO: | Due the Offer Due Date extension above, the Department has added a third round of Questions and Answers due December 20th, 2021. Please see updated Section 1.A.6. SCHEDULE OF EVENTS AND DEADLINES for more information. | ||||
| ID | RFP or Attachment Section Number | Page Number | Topic | Specific Question/Inquiry | Department Answer |
| QaA.037 | Attachment A, B.1.6 Operating Environment | 13 | System Hardware (Reference Scope of Work OE-1, OE-2, OE-3) | "State’s hardware configuration management plans and maintenance and operations procedures"- are mentioned in the question. Are there specific hardware configuration management plans and maintenance and operations procedures the State would like the Offeror to consider? | No. We should have touched on this during the pre-bid meeting. In short, DCFS will have the SI reviewing software compatibility, the OCM/BPR vendor will evaluate policy/procedure, and we're asking the IV&V vendor, as part of the overall CCWIS investment and DCFS' desire to maximize ROI, minimize TCO, and to conduct on-going comprehensive review of DCFS' entire IT hardware infrastructure. We'd like to learn more and hear expert opinions on ideas to improve our current hardware environment and ensure we're maximizing our CCWIS investment while maintaining the lowest TCO for our hardware infrastructure. |
| QaA.038 | Attachment A, B.1.6 Operating Environment | 13 | System Software (Reference Scope of Work OE-4, OE-5, OE-6) | In reference to the question, {Describe the Offeror’s approach to evaluate current and projected vendor support of hardware and State’s hardware configuration management plans and maintenance and operations procedures.}, is this a duplicate from the "System Hardware (Reference Scope of Work OE-1, OE-2, OE-3)" section? | No. First question in B.1.6 is asking about evaluating the hardware. The 3rd question in B.1.6 is asking about evaluating the "support" of said hardware. Obviously support is critical to M&O and we want to ensure we do not have a blind spot in our support program. This is another example of DCFS' desire to learn from offeror's experience and ensure a more thorough or complete review is conducted on the entire CCWIS/DCFS implementation. |
| QaA.039 | Attachment A, B.1.7 Development Environment | 14 | Development Hardware (Reference Scope of Work DE-1, DE-2, DE-3, DE-4) | In reference to the question, {Describe the Offeror’s approach for evaluating development hardware configurations and determining hardware is maintainable, upgradeable, and compatible with the State’s existing development and processing environment.}, what is the State's existing development and processing environment? | Please see Attachment P of the CCWIS System Integrator RFP. Attachment P has been added to this RFP for convenience. |
| QaA.040 | Attachment A, B.1.11 System Integration | 19 | System Integration (Reference Scope of Work SI-01, SI-02, SI-03) | In reference to the question, {Describe the Offeror’s approach to identifying issues or flaws with interfaces between each CCWIS component or between CCWIS components and external systems that may impact CCWIS Certification and providing recommendations to eliminate or mitigate flaws or issues.} , are there specific CCWIS components of interest to the State of IL the Offeror should consider? | No. This is a broad overarching question. DCFS is seeking a more thorough or complete review than ordinarily provided by a traditional IV&V services contract. |
| QaA.041 | RFP, D.3.1 IV&V Project Management (Mandatory Tasks) | 27 | Independence (Reference IVVM-1) | Is there an expectation that the non-traditional IV&V trusted advisor personnel and the traditional IV&V service personnel are separate resources or is it acceptable for these resources to be co-mingled as long as independence between the services offerings is demonstrated and maintained throughout the engagement? | Please see QaA.013 for more information. Reminder, the vendor must be able to demonstrate compliance with the ACF requirement for IV&V staff to be independent, DCFS does not wish to comment further about if or how this can be achieved. |
| QaA.042 | RFP, F.2 Qualifications / Key Personnel; Attachment B, Task-Resource List | 57 | Key Personnel Years of Experience requirements | The RFP and Attachment B specify different required years of experience (YOE) for several of the key personnel positions: |
IV&V Engagement Executive: RFP specifies minimum of three (3) years' experience leading IV&V engagements of public sector implementation projects; Attachment B states "15 or More" YOE.
IV&V Program Manager: RFP specifies minimum of five (5) years' experience directly related to large public sector projects that includes industry-standard and best practices related to quality, quality assurance, and quality control principles and techniques, Preferred ten (10) years’ experience in project management in a leadership role in CCWIS implementations, public system implementation or specifically human services implementation; Attachment B states "15 or More" YOE.
CCWIS Project Lead: RFP specifies minimum of five (5) years’ experience directly related to public sector implementation projects that includes industry-standard and best practices related to quality, quality assurance, and quality control principles and techniques, preferred eight (8) years’ experience in a leadership role on a large-scale implementation project, inclusive of five (5) years’ IV&V experience over public sector system implementation projects and three (3) years’ IV&V experience over human services system implementation projects; Attachment B states "15 or more" YOE.
Technical Lead / Lead Architect, Data Architect, Business Architect, Cloud Architect, Security Architect: RFP states "preferred eight (8) years' experience" for each of these roles; Attachment B contains two rows for each, one stating "15 or More" YOE and the second stating "10 or Less."
IT Auditor: RFP specifies minimum of 5 years of auditing or 2 years of IT Auditing; Attachment B contains two rows for this role, one stating "15 or More" YOE and the second stating "10 or Less."
Will the State please clarify that the experience requirements are as stated in the RFP and amend the Years of Experience column in Attachment B: Pricing Table, Task-Resource List accordingly? Please see Attachment B, Worksheet Information tab for an explanation of the years listed on the Task Resource List tab. Relevant information is copied below for convenience.
"The Department believes not all additional assistance will require a resource with extensive experience, as such the Department request hourly rates for 2 different experience levels. The years provided are meant to represent inexperienced (10 or less) and experienced (15 or more), these are not meant to be literal years of experience."
| QaA.043 | General | Due Date | So that the State will receive the best possible proposals reflecting a thorough understanding of the extensive CCWIS SI and Modules RFP as well as the IVV RFP, we respectfully request an extension of the proposal due date to at least December 30. | Please see response to QaA.51 below. | ||
| QaA.044 | Requirement PM-5 | N/A | QA | In the PMO RFP, Requirement PM-5 states that the PMO is responsible to “Develop, execute, and maintain a combined, integrated master project schedule that links to or integrates the CCWIS PMO, SI, IV&V, and OCM/BPR vendor schedules into one uniform, centralized location.” In the round 1 QA, QaA.16 asked whether responsibility for maintenance of a master contract schedule might be shifted to the PMO, and the answer was “No”. These items appear to be in conflict with each other. Please clarify specifically the responsibility of IV&V for the master schedule. | Incorrect. IV&V is required to maintain the System Integrator's Master Contract Schedule. The PMO is tasked with taking the Master Contract Schedule and the other 3 awarded vendor's schedule and creating an integrated master project schedule which they will maintain to ensure they are able to provide coordination, scheduling, and schedule resolution for all vendors and the State. The PMO will update the integrated project schedule as requested by the IV&V and/or the State as changes in the SI's Master Contract Schedule are approved. | |
| QaA.045 | CCWIS IVV Attachment A, Section C.2.3 | 25 | Project Deliverables | We recognize that the State has provided a list of required deliverables in DCFS PO19-165 – CCWIS Enhanced IVV Services RFP_1, in the table in Section E. Many of these deliverables are project management deliverables that will be provided as part of the engagement. Please clarify the request in Attachment A, Section C.2.3: does the state wish us to list the project management deliverables from the table in the RFP plus any additional deliverables and work products, or just additional items? Also, how does this request differ from Section C.2.3.1 to identify additional deliverables? | C.2.3 is asking for the offeror to provide specific information related to the reports identified in the RFP Section E, and only those reports identified. This question is asking how they will be used to support the offeror's approach and methodology, and how they will identify when one is missed. C.2.3.1 is asking for similar information, but for "additional" deliverables and reports other than those identified in the RFP Section E based on the offeror's experience providing these services. | |
| QaA.046 | CCWIS IVV Attachment A | 26 | IVV Narrative, Section C.2.4 | What is the scope of reports that the state wishes to have described, Trusted Advisor reports, project management reports, IV&V reports, or all three? | Apologies, this question could have been written more clearly. While the question was intended to explore "additional" deliverables associated with a more thorough or complete CCWIS/DCFS review by the Quality Assurance and Trusted Advisor roles requested, DCFS asks that offeror's proposal includes plans/checklist/reports from any and all roles identified within the RFP (Traditional IV&V, Trusted Advisor, Quality Assurance, Project Management, etc.). DCFS considers this an opportunity for the vendor to exhibit deep understanding of providing actionable, decision informing information by all key roles requested. It's also another opportunity for DCFS to learn from offeror's experiences. The examples provided are indicative of reviews focused on ROI and TCO to find operational and business risks, benefits, and hidden cost and opportunities. | |
| QaA.047 | Attachment A | 10 | ACF CCWIS Compliance (Reference Scope of Work PM-58) | Please clarify if individual staff member experience with Federal compliance will count towards the additional points referenced in the ACF CCWIS Compliance criteria (PM-58, “{…Additional points will be awarded to offerors with relevant recent experience with Federal compliance in a health and/or human services sector IT project implementation.}”) | Confirmed. Individuals form the offeror's team, the team is what is being evaluated. This question and requirement demonstrates DCFS' desire to work with a vendor that has completed similar projects requiring Federal certification/compliance. DCFS has provided maximum flexibility for offerors to meet this requirement. The more recent, relevant, and engaged the experience is will receive the highest points for this question, assuming the rest of the offeror's response meet the requirements of the question. | |
| QaA.048 | RFP Section F.2 | 57 | Key Personnel | Can the state identify how much work would be done in Springfield vs. Chicago? | No. However, DCFS is willing to provide that we believe the majority of on-site work will be performed in Springfield. Chicago was provided as an option to allow for offeror's staff to be in Illinois without having to be in Springfield at all times. Note, vendor monitoring of UAT and training is required for each Release, which will necessitate periodic travel to numerous testing and training sites around the State. | |
| QaA.049 | RFP Section F.2 | 57 | Key Personnel | Is the work required to be on site full time for the duration of the project? | Please see RFP Section 1 D.3. "A significant portion of the tasks and deliverables below require a portion or all of IV&V vendor staff to be on-site throughout Illinois during applicable phases of the CCWIS implementation." Applicable vendor staff are only required to be on-site for applicable scope of work requiring them to be on-site. Additionally, see Attachment A D.4.1 for more information about Key Personnel required to be on-site. | |
| QaA.050 | RFP Section F.2 | 57 | Key Personnel | Is on site work required for only Key Personnel or all personnel on the team? | Please see response to QaA.049 above. | |
| QaA.051 | RFP Section A.6 | 6 | Schedule of Events | Will the state consider an extension for Offeror Proposal submission dates? | Yes. Please see Special Note One above and updated DCFS PO19-165 - CCWIS Enhanced IVV Services RFP v.3 Updated 12.10.21 attached to this Bid Amendment. | |
| QaA.052 | N/A | N/A | General | Are vendors allowed to bid on more than one project and, if so, what happens if they are determined the winner of more than one contract? For example, if Company X is the highest scored vendor for IV&V and OCM/BPR, is it up to Company X to decide which contract they prefer? Or, since IV&V is awarded first, does the State remove Company X from consideration for the OCM/BPR and PMO awards? | Please see response to QaA.027 on the Round One tab. Additionally, for sequencing: 1) IV&V proposals will be evaluated and awarded first, 2) if company X wins the IV&V Contract, but also has proposals for the OCM/BPR and/or PMO RFPs, DCFS will request company X withdraw their proposal(s) for the OCM/BPR and/or PMO RFPs from consideration, 3) if company x refuses to withdraw their proposal(s), DCFS will request the Chief Procurement Officer for General Services find company X non-responsive based on the prohibition explicitly stated in all four CCWIS RFPs. | |
| QaA.053 | N/A | N/A | General | We appreciate that the State does not want to extend this into January. However, the level of effort is for this RFP is significantly greater than typical IV&V RFPs due to the expanded responsibilities and response requirements. We request that the proposal due date be extended to January 10, 2022. | Please see response to QaA.051 above. | |
| QaA.054 | Attachment A, Section B.2 | 21 | Experience | This section states "Provide a description of projects of a similar size and scope, a detailed assessment of what the primary factors contributing to successful projects, as well as a detailed assessment of lessons learned and identified risk factors." We are assuming the success factors and lessons learned is meant to be an overall discussion based on our experience and not meant to be addressed for individual project descriptions. Is this assumption correct? | Either method is acceptable, as with a lot of questions in Attachment A, DCFS wishes to learn from offeror's experience and hear your thoughts on the value this role will bring to the project. | |
| QaA.055 | Attachment B – Pricing Tables | N/A | Pricing | The years of experience that is noted in the Task-Resource List tab in the CCWIS IVV Attachment B – Pricing Tables spreadsheet for some positions are greater than the years of experience cited in Section F.2 Qualifications / Key Personnel. For example, the Pricing Tables note the IV&V Program Manager having 15 or more years of experience where Section F.2 indicates 10 years-experience is preferred. Is there a reason why the years of experience are different? Which number should be used to ensure our resources meet the requirements? | Please see response to QaA.042 above. | |
| QaA.056 | RFP Section A.25 | 14 | BEP Plan | It is understood that the BEP goal is 20%. If a bidder has BEP resources in their bid, but is unable to reach the 20% goal, is the bid considered non-compliant or will evaluation points be reduced? | Failure to meet the BEP Goal necessitates the offeror request a Good Faith Effort Waiver as indicated in the RFP, and further outlined in the BEP Utilization Plan. Failure to receive a Good Faith Effort Waiver will render the Offer non-responsive and the Offer will not be evaluated. | |
| QaA.057 | RFP Section F.2 | 63 | Staffing | System Training Manager - The description of tasks for this position indicate that they will “Coordinate training with all stakeholders.” Does “coordinate” mean that the System Training Manager will be responsible for providing training or only providing support to help organize the training? If the intent is for the IV&V team to provide training, could the State provide more information about the expectations of they types of training that the IV&V team will be provided? While training support is not typical in IV&V projects, it is understood that the scope of this project involves expanded services. In order to identify the appropriate resources for this task, it would help to have more information about the scope and content of the expected training. | The System Training Manager is a subject matter expert (SME) and is anticipated to periodically provide reviews during implementation. Similar to DCFS' response to QaA.040 above, DCFS is looking for a more thorough review from an independent Trusted Advisor to ensure all system training to all applicable stakeholders is appropriate and adequate to ensure adoption. This SME will not provide any actual training, actual training is provided by the SI, but the SME is tasked with providing coordination (support) to ensure all applicable stakeholders receive assistance with the training effort. | |
| QaA.058 | Attachment A, C.1 Program Management Methodology and C.2 Project Management Methodology | 25 | Technical Response | Could the State provide clarification on how in the context of this project it views the differences between Program Management and Project Management? Is the State expecting bidders to provide the description of their IV&V methodology as part of the Program Management Methodology? | DCFS views Program Management as project portfolio management in the CCWIS context. CCWIS will of course have many projects in flight simultaneously. Program Management provides coordination and oversight of the multiple projects that make up the program. |
DCFS is expecting a description of the IV&V methodology as part of the Program Management Methodology.
| QaA.059 | RFP Section E.1 Description of IV&V Contract Deliverables | 51 | Technical Response | Is there any significance to the bold text in the table of deliverables. For example, D-3.3 Project Management Report is bold. Are the non-bold deliverables that immediately follow D-3.3 (PM-2 Project Executive Sponsorship Report through PM-56 Scope Management Plan) components of the Project Management Report? If so, how should vendors address the variety of deliverable submission frequencies. | Yes. Bolded deliverables indicate a complete plan/checklist/or report. Unbolded deliverables belong within, or are a part of, the complete plan immediately above that is bolded (when applicable). DCFS took this approach to breakdown larger plans into smaller deliverables and to allow offerors to provide additional plans/checklists/reports, or parts of plans/checklist/reports based on their experience providing these services. Please also see response to QaA.045 above for more information about providing "additional" plans/checklist/or reports. |
| QaA.060 | RFP Section E.1 Description of IV&V Contract Deliverables | 51 | Technical Response | Could you identify which deliverables that you are associating with traditional IV&V support and those associated with non-traditional IV&V support? | No. Please see responses above. Using a Trusted Advisor is new to DCFS, and while we can recognize the role and value a Trusted Advisor will bring to the project, we're unable to completely define the deliverables associated with this role. This is another area we're looking to learn from offeror's experiences providing the DCFS defined services and "additional" services the offeror defines for this role throughout their response to Attachment A. |
| QaA.061 | Attachment A, Sec C.1 Program Management Methodology | 25 | Program Management Methodology vs. Project Management Methodology. | There are no direct IV&V deliverables or tasks associated with IV&V vendor providing program management services. Can DCFS clarify that Program Management should be interpreted as evaluation of program management of all CCWIS related contracts (SI, PMO, OCM and IV&V) as opposed to the IV&V Vendor being responsible for delivery of Program Management? | Confirmed. Please see also response to QaA.058 above. While Program Management is the responsibility of the PMO vendor, all CCWIS vendors are asked to always consider the entire CCWIS program and DCFS' best interest while performing their duties. This team and DCFS centric approach is indicated in hundreds of places and ways throughout all four CCWIS RFPs and is intended to promote CCWIS success. |
| QaA.062 | RFP, Sec D-3.15 IT Audit | 49 | IT Audit | What is the planned frequency DCFS expects to have for the IT Audits? | DCFS expects a pre-implementation review to be completed for the Solution as a whole and each major Release within the program. That includes major modifications to systems interfacing into CCWIS. |
| QaA.063 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .