DMV IQMS RFQ_Final.docx

REQUEST FOR QUOTES (RFQ)

Best Value Analysis Process for Independent Quality Management Services

OregonBuy®s Bid Number: S-73000-00017868

Independent Quality Management Services for the Oregon Driver & Motor Vehicle Service’s Driver License/Identification System Replacement Project

Issue Date: See “Available Date” for this RFQ in OregonBuys®

Authorized Representative: Katie Bighill (“Single Point of Contact” or “SPC”)

Offer Due Date and Time: See “Bid Opening Date” and time for this RFQ in OregonBuys®

Accessibility: The Oregon Department of Transportation is committed to complying with all statutory requirements to ensure that it is providing information that is more accessible to people with disabilities, as required by Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794d), and 36 C.F.R. 1194 Appendix A. This includes information regarding the solicitation process. Please contact the Authorized Representative identified in OregonBuys® (see “Buyer”) to request reasonable accommodation for access, due to a disability, to information related to this solicitation, or the solicitation process, or both. Accommodation requests shall be received by the Authorized Representative 3 business days prior to the Proposal Submission Deadline (see “Bid Ending Date” and time in OregonBuys®).

Note - Protecting OregonBuys® Offerors and Vendors from Scams: Scammers have been spoofing email addresses for Purchaser/Single-Point-of-Contact listed on a solicitation and sending emails from domains other than the legitimate “@odot.oregon.gov” domain. In these emails, the scammers are attempting to convince Offerors to make payment(s) in order to submit a bid or be considered for an award. The State of Oregon and the Oregon Department of Transportation will never ask for, or demand, payment to submit a bid or to be considered for an award.

1. Introduction

The Oregon Department of Transportation (“ODOT’’) is issuing this Request for Quote (“RFQ”) seeking a single, qualified and eligible Independent Quality Management Services (“IQMS”) Consultant from the affected pool of Consultants to provide IQMS for the Driver License/Identification System Replacement Project (the “Project” or “DISR”). Interested IQMS Consultants shall develop and submit Quotes in compliance with all RFQ requirements. IQMS Consultant submittals will be deemed nonresponsive if they are providing any other project support services or Information Technology Professional Services on that same Project.

It is anticipated that 1 Consultant (or “Offeror”) will be selected for a contract from this solicitation. The resulting contract will consider each Offeror’s relevant expertise and capacity to apply IQMS to the fundamental elements of the Project in the context of Contract and Project requirements.

Please see:

ODOT estimates the length of the Work Order Contract (“WOC”) to be approximately 2 years, with option to extend an additional year for a total of 3 years, or until all deliverables have been submitted and accepted by ODOT (Final Acceptance as defined in the WOC). Some deliverables are currently listed as “OPTION RESERVED TO AUTHORIZED PURCHASER” and may later be activated through an amendment or change order to the WOC, as appropriate. In addition, as the Project progresses into new phases, some deliverables may need to be refreshed as more becomes known. The selected IQMS Consultant will need to maintain flexibility and be adaptable to the System Implementation (“SI”) DISR Contractor’s implementation approaches and methodologies.

The purpose of the IQMS Consultant’s work is to assure that appropriate levels of quality planning, quality control, quality assurance, and independent solution testing (including monitoring and reporting), are performed under the DISR Project. These IQMS Services must provide ODOT with appropriate visibility into the processes being used, and the products being built under the DISR Project. The IQMS Services must be sufficient to assure that the DISR Project satisfies the needs for which it was undertaken, and that DISR Project risks are well understood and appropriately mitigated or managed.

Authorized Purchaser intends to enter into a contract with its selected IQMS Consultant substantially in the form of the Sample WOC attached to Consultant’s Master Price and Services Agreement (“MPSA”), as MPSA Attachment C or Attachment C2, as applicable.

2. Definitions and RFQ Attachments and Exhibits A capitalized word has the meaning ascribed to the term in the MPSA and proposed WOC. Project-centric definitions include:

(a) “Authorized Purchaser” means Oregon Department of Transportation

(b) “DAS” means Department of Administrative Services. For more information about DAS please link to: https://www.oregon.gov/das/pages/index.aspx

(c) “DISR” means Driver License/Identification System Replacement Project

(d) “DMV” means Driver & Motor Vehicle Services

(e) “EIS” means the Enterprise Information Services, previously designated as the Office of the State Chief Information Officer (“OSCIO”) for the State of Oregon. All references in the RFQ-related documentation to “OSCIO” refer to EIS. For more information about EIS please link to:

https://www.oregon.gov/das/oscio/pages/index.aspx

(f) “IQMS” means independent quality management services in the context of State’s 5 independent verification and validation Tasks of Risk Assessment and Management, Quality Planning, Quality Control, Quality Assurance, and Independent Solution Testing.

(g) “MPSA” means the Master Price and Services Agreement that each Consultant currently has in effect.

(h) “Notice” means Intent to Award.

(i) “ODOT’’ means Oregon Department of Transportation.

(j) “Offeror” means an IQMS Consultant that submitted a Quote.

(k) “Quote” means a responsive RFQ submission that describes a Consultant’s approach, experience, proposed personnel and cost for requested Services.

(l) “RFQ” means Request for Quote

(m) “SI” means System Implementation

(n) “State” means the State of Oregon acting by and through DAS and Authorized Purchaser.

(o) “SPC” means Single Point of Contact.

(p) “WOC” means Work Order Contract

RFQ ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS INCLUDE:

1. Exhibit #1: RFQ Pricing Sheet (included in RFQ)

1. Exhibit #2: Client Reference Check Form (included in RFQ)

1. Exhibit #3: Statement of Work[footnoteRef:1] (separate document) [1: The Statement of Work includes Appendices A to E, available on the State Chief Information Office Website at: https://www.oregon.gov/das/OSCIO/Pages/IndependentQA.aspx]

1. Exhibit #4: Disclosure Exemption Affidavit (included in RFQ)

1. Attachment A to Statement of Work, Project Charter (embedded in RFQ)

1. Attachment B to Statement of Work, Project Business Case (embedded in RFQ)

3. Disclaimer:

Pursuant to Section 4 of the MPSA and as set forth in ORS 279B.040, ODOT may not accept any bid or proposal from the awarded Consultant with respect to any subsequent Request for Proposal(s) for any project related to those for which the services provided by the awarded Consultant are utilized as a result of this RFQ.

4. Background Information

ODOT, Driver & Motor Vehicle Services (“DMV”) has a legislative mandate to issue driver licenses and identification cards. In order to fulfil this mandate, ODOT utilizes a Digital Photo Licensing (“DPL”) solution.

The purpose of the Project is to evaluate vendor(s) products and services, procure products and services then implement a new DPL solution/system to replace the existing system and provide “end to end” continuity for this mission critical process of taking customer photos, performing biometric identity checks, and applying data to an American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (“AAMVA”) compliant Driver Licenses/Identification (“DL/ID”) cards. Services will also include the production and distribution of DL/ID cards from a centralized location to the DMV customer(s).

The contract with the current vendor (Veridos) is set to expire on December 30, 2027. There is an option in the current contract to extend this mission critical service for up to three years to December 30, 2030; however, beyond this date there is no guarantee service will be provided by the vendor. Without contracted services the DMV will not be able to fulfil the legislative mandate for issuing driver licenses or ID cards.

5. Responsibilities

a. 1 weekly Project Management Status Meeting;

b. 1 monthly Project Team Meeting; and

c. 1 monthly Steering Committee Meeting.

6. RFQ Timeline

7. Scope of Services

The Scope of Services includes the Services outlined in the MPSA Sample Contract and RFQ Exhibit #3, Statement of Work, attached.

8. Questions/Clarifications and Addenda:

All questions and requests for clarification regarding this RFQ must be submitted in writing by e-mail to the SPC and must be received no later than the date and time identified in Section 6, “RFQ Timeline.” The e-mail subject line must include the OregonBuys® bid number S-73000-00017868.

Answers to questions Authorized Purchaser receives will be posted in OregonBuys to ensure that all prospective proposers base their Quotes on the same information. Authorized Purchaser response to questions provides clarifications and interpretations but does not change RFQ requirements. When appropriate, as determined by Authorized Purchaser in its sole discretion, revisions, substitutions, or clarifications of this RFQ or attached terms and conditions will be issued as official addenda to this RFQ. Changes or modifications to this RFQ shall be binding on Authorized Purchaser only if in the form of written addenda published on OregonBuys®.

Addenda or modifications, if any, to this RFQ will be published in OregonBuys as “Amendment”(s). Prospective proposers are solely responsible for checking OregonBuys to determine whether or not any addenda have been issued. Addenda are incorporated into this RFQ by this reference.

9. Quote Submittal:

Quotes (which include all required submittal items) must be submitted via OregonBuys on or before the Bid Opening Date and time, submittals by any other means will be rejected.

Quotes will not be accepted after the Bid Opening Date and time.

Quotes, including all required submittal items, must be submitted as a single PDF document, not including the separate Pricing Sheet referenced in Exhibit #1 (to be submitted as a separate PDF document).

Offeror shall submit only 1 offer on behalf of their entity. Offeror is solely responsible for ensuring its Quote and all required submittal items are received through OregonBuys in accordance with the RFQ requirements before the Bid Opening Date.

If Offeror submits a Quote exceeding the maximum number of pages specified in Section 10 (Minimum Submittal Requirements), Authorized Purchaser will only consider the pages up to the allowable page limit and discard all subsequent pages. Excess pages will not be provided to the evaluation committee or considered in the evaluation.

Authorized Purchaser may extend the Bid Opening Date if it determines it is in the best interest of Authorized Purchaser.

Authorized Purchaser may reject all Quotes or to cancel this RFQ if in its sole determination, it is in the best interest of Authorized Purchaser.

Authorized Purchaser is not responsible for any delays, transmission errors, or for any mis-delivery for any reason. Additional information may be found in the OregonBuys Terms of Use.

10. Minimum Submittal Requirements Quotes must be submitted via OregonBuys® and include the following items:

(a) A declaration of “No Conflict of Interest.”

(b) A detailed description of Consultant’s approach and methodologies for providing the Services in the Statement of Work (“SOW”). IQMS Consultant Offerors must submit its approach to accomplishing the Services, along with a timeline of activities and critical success factors necessary per the Project Timeline. Consultant may choose to submit the required information in draft Quality Management Plan and Baseline QMS Work Plan formats (IQMS Deliverables 2.3 and 2.4), or in some alternative format it believes allows Consultant to clearly and concisely communicate the required information.

(c) Identities and resumes for proposed personnel (designating which are “key” persons) through whom Consultant intends to deliver the required Services, and a staffing plan explaining how Consultant will maintain the demonstrated personnel credentials, qualifications, expertise and experience throughout the life of the Contract.

Moreover, regarding the staffing plan, explain the manner and means of securing and deploying qualified staff for possible future Services in connection with the Project.

Authorized Purchaser prefers Consultant’s deployment of personnel with a minimum of five (5) years’ experience. All deployed personnel must be able to pass a certified criminal background check.

(d) Work examples of Deliverable Expectation Documents (“DED”) for:

1. Deliverable 1.1, Risk Assessment Report,

2. Deliverable 2.6, Lessons Learned Report,

3. Deliverable 3.1, Quality Control Review Report ,

4. Deliverable 3.3, Quality Status Report; and

5. Deliverable 4.1, Quality Assurance Status and Improvement Report.

(e) A description of 2 past or current comparable[footnoteRef:2] projects within the last 5 years for which Consultant has or is providing quality management services that were/are comparable to the Services described in the RFQ; and Client Reference Check Forms (Exhibit #2) for each. Consultant to complete and submit the Exhibit #2 with Consultant’s name and Client Reference Contact Information entered, Authorized Purchaser reserves the right to follow up separately with Client References and may provide additional guidance to the Offeror concerning Client Reference Checks.[footnoteRef:3] [2: Comparable means similar in nature, complexity, scope and size to the IQMS DISR Project.

] [3: If an Offeror has provided client reference check forms in connection with an IQMS opportunity in the past and intends to use those same client references for this IQMS opportunity, then that Offeror may submit copies of those previous references to satisfy the reference check requirement in this opportunity. Failure to meet the client reference requirement may result in rejection of the subject Quote from further consideration for contract award.

1. A separate Pricing Sheet (Exhibit #1) for the Project that lists Fixed Prices by Deliverables and the Hourly Rate Card by personnel position used to develop the Fixed Prices. Submit a quoted price for each Deliverable line item with “$0.00” depicted in the NTE Deliverable Cost column. The Pricing Sheets must be signed by an authorized representative of the Offeror, or the Quote(s) will be considered null and void and will be rejected.

2. Offers may add a signature line to the Pricing Sheet exhibit, or

3. Include a signed cover letter addressing all submission components, including the Pricing Sheet.

(f) Public Records. If a Quote contains any information that may be considered exempt from disclosure as a trade secret under either ORS 192.345(2) or ORS 646.461(4), or under other grounds specified in Oregon Public Records Law, ORS 192.311 through 192.478, the Offeror must clearly designate on or with the Quote the portions of its Quote which Offeror claims are exempt from disclosure, along with a justification and citation to the authority relied upon. Identifying the Quote in whole as trade secret, confidential or otherwise exempt from disclosure is not acceptable. In such circumstances Authorized Purchaser will require Offeror to submit a memorandum citing the statutory justification for each specific area of the Quote that Offeror claims to be exempt.

If Offeror fails to identify, on or with the Quote, the portions of the Quote that Offeror claims are exempt from disclosure and the authority used to substantiate that claim, Offeror is deemed to have waived any later claim of an exemption or request for nondisclosure of that information.

11. Evaluation and Award Quotes will be reviewed to determine if all submittal requirements have been met. Quotes meeting the submittal requirements will be provided to an evaluation committee and evaluated to determine the “Best Value” for the State. “Best Value” is based solely on the evaluator’s determination of what best meets the needs of ODOT, taking into account price as well as the following considerations:

(a) Independence (no conflict of interest with ODOT or the DISR Contractor);

(b) Perceived quality of submitted detailed approach and schedule;

(c) Offeror’s experience;

(d) Credentials, qualifications, expertise and experience of proposed Offeror personnel;

(e) Perceived quality and efficacy of proposed staffing plan;

(f) Offeror references; and

(g) Perceived quality of submitted work examples and DEDs.

The initial scored evaluation round includes assessment of all required initial submissions. Scoring categories and their related “maximum points” are listed in Figure 1.

Authorized Purchaser, in its sole discretion, may establish additional rounds of evaluation for interviews and presentations involving 2 or more of the top-ranking Offerors but may determine to award a WOC at the conclusion of the first evaluation round to the highest-scoring Offeror (successful Offeror with the best value quote). The actual number of invited Offerors to any additional rounds of evaluation (if any) depends upon scoring results from the preceding round; and the evaluation committee may determine not to carryover scores from the preceding round.

Authorized Purchaser may award a WOC to the highest-scoring Offeror (best value quote) in a form substantially similar to the Sample Contract, IQMS MPSA Attachment C and the proposed SOW (RFQ Exhibit 3).

Authorized Purchaser may negotiate contract terms and conditions with the successful Consultant, except those listed as follows:

· Choice of law;

· Choice of venue;

· Constitutional requirements; and

· Requirements of applicable federal and State law.

Any Quote that is received and is conditioned on Authorized Purchaser’s acceptance of any other terms and conditions or rights to negotiate will be rejected.

Authorized Purchaser’s award determination is final and will be based on the scores provided by the evaluation committee, subject to an award protest submitted in compliance with ORS 279B.410. Authorized Purchaser will not award a WOC to any Offeror that the evaluation committee determines to have an actual, or apparent, conflict of interest.

The SPC will issue the Notice of Intent to Award (“Notice”) to all Offerors via email transmission to the Offerors’ named representatives, and will post the Notice to OregonBuys.

AWARD PROTEST OPPORTUNITY CONSISTENT WITH ORS 279B.410. Authorized Purchaser will provide a 7 calendar day period following release of any Notice during which an adversely affected Offeror may protest such award. An Offeror who claims to have been adversely affected by the selection of a competing Offeror shall have 7 calendar days from the date of such Notice in which to deliver a signed protest to Authorized Purchaser through the SPC. The SPC will deliver the Notice to all Offerors via email transmission to the Offerors’ named representatives, and will post the notice to OregonBuys®. Adversely affected Offerors will have 7 calendar days to submit a protest in accordance with the requirements in ORS 279B.410.

The submitted protest must bear the signature of a company official authorized to represent Offeror’s interests. Offerors may use an electronic signature copy via email to satisfy the protest submission deadline, provided they mail the original protest to the SPC timestamped no later than the protest submission deadline. To be adversely affected, an Offeror must demonstrate that all higher ranked quotes were ineligible for selection. Authorized Purchaser will not consider a protest submitted after the deadline. Protests will be resolved according to Oregon Administrative Rules. Authorized Purchaser will not consider protests that do not include the information required under ORS 279B.410.

Figure 1: Quote Evaluation Criteria

POINTS

2. Deliverable 2.6, Lessons Learned Report,

3. Deliverable 3.1, Quality Control Review Report (and related Deliverable 2.2, Quality Checklist),

4. Deliverable 4.1, Quality Assurance Status and Improvement Report.

cost being scored

Authorized Purchaser may decide to defer calculation of cost points until Round 2 evaluation, limiting such calculation to the top-ranking Offerors who will compete in that round.

Each non-price category will be scored based on the information provided in the Quotes in the context of the Rating Scale set out in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Rating Scale

90 – 100% OUTSTANDING - Response meets all the requirements and has demonstrated in a clear and concise manner a thorough knowledge and understanding of the subject matter and opportunity. The Offeror provides deep and meaningful insight into its expertise, knowledge, and understanding of the subject matter.

The rating scale at Figure 2 provides guidance to Evaluation Committee members concerning their required qualitative, subjective assessment of how well an Offeror addresses the elements and essentials prescribed in each scored submission requirement in terms of the Offeror’s demonstrated knowledge and likely capacity and capability to develop, deliver, and perform in the context of the relevant Tasks and Deliverables at issue in a submission requirement.

The Purchaser will average the final scores for each Quote (calculated by totaling the points awarded by each Evaluation Committee member and dividing by the number of members). The calculated average is the final score.

EXHIBIT #1

RFQ Pricing Sheet

List Fixed Prices by Deliverable and the Hourly Rate Card by personnel position used to develop the Fixed Prices. The Pricing Sheet must be signed by an authorized representative of the Consultant, or the Quote will be considered null and void and will be rejected.

TASK 1: RISK ASSESSMENT

OR

As agreed to and documented in the approved Baseline QMS Work Plan.

$0.00

TASK 2: QUALITY PLANNING

(Updated by the Parties as needed to reflect mutually agreeable adjustments, if any, to QMS deliverables.)

(Funds allocated for special requests may be reallocated to other deliverables through the WOC change control process.)

TASK 3: QUALITY CONTROL

Deliverable 3.1: Quality Control Review

· Architecture design documentation

· Security architecture documentation

· Integration and interoperability documentation

· Scalability and performance documentation

· Change management documentation

Related information used to support this review may include:

· Authorized Purchaser’s Project Plan

· Authorized Purchaser’s Business Case

· Solutions Analysis *For major systems, non-functional / technical requirements would include data model (including entity relations), database design (including tables and the use of primary and secondary keys), interfaces and integration with existing and legacy systems, data conversion and migration of data in existing systems or databases, use of public cloud infrastructure, system redundancy and high availability features, disaster recovery, etc.

Prior to RFP release.

As agreed to and documented in the approved Baseline QMS Work Plan.

$0.00

Related information to support this review may include:

· Updated Authorized Purchaser Project Plan

· Updated Authorized Purchaser Business Case For up to 3 instances Prior to Solution Implementation Contractor contract execution.

As agreed to and documented in the approved Baseline QMS Work Plan.

$0.00

($0.00 per Instance)

As agreed to and documented in the approved Baseline QMS Work Plan.

$0.00

For up to 3 instances

($0.00 per Instance)

Relevant deliverables in Solution Implementation Contractor’s statement of work will include:

· Status Report (includes review of report format, frequency, and process)

· Functional design document

· Technical design document

· Data conversion / migration plan and results

· System testing plan and test cases

· System testing results

· Training plan

· Disaster recovery plan

· Operations and maintenance plan As agreed to and documented in the approved Baseline QMS Work Plan.

Parties may choose to split this deliverable into multiple deliverables, e.g., 3.1.7a, 3.1.7b, etc.

$0.00

($0.00 per Instance if split into multiple deliverables)

· Integration / System Testing

· User Acceptance Testing

· Performance / Load Testing

· Integration / System Testing

· User Acceptance Testing

· Performance / Load Testing

Deliverable 3.2: Security Review (Consult with EIS Cyber Security Services.)

Deliverable 3.3: Quality Status Reporting

For up to 9 Instances

End of quarter + 6 weeks, (mid-quarter between 4.1 Quarterly QA Status and Improvement Reports). Reports will be used during Execution stage of project, with option to begin sooner as needed by Authorized Purchaser and/or required by EIS.

($0.00 per Instance)

TASK 4: QUALITY ASSURANCE

Deliverable 4.1: Quality Assurance Status and Improvement Reporting

For up to 9 Instances *Note: The exact dates of the End of Quarter will be specified in the Baseline QMS Work Plan.

End of Quarter + 5 Business Days*

$0.00

($0.00 per Instance)

TASK 5: INDEPENDENT SOLUTION TESTING

Assumptions:

Type of test: <XXXX> Duration in weeks or months:

Report Cadence: <weekly, bi-weekly, monthly> Number or Reports:

Assumptions:

Type of test: <Ex. Penetration Test: black box, white box, gray box> Areas tested: <Ex. Network, Application, Web Application> Testing Duration: <# of weeks or months> Final Assessment Report

RATE CARD

EXHIBIT #2

Reference Check Form Respond to the following questions using this form.

Offeror/Consultant Name: __________________________________________ Name of Entity Providing the Reference: ________________________________________

· Consultant Project/Contract Title:

· Consultant Project/Contract Start Date: End Date:

· Provide a description of your engagement with the Consultant, along with the services provided by Consultant:

· How does the Consultant’s Project and services compare those described in this RFQ #S-73000-00017868?

· Who were the Consultant’s Key Persons (and their role) involved in the Project?

Reference: Please provide comments and a corresponding rating to the following questions on a scale of 0-10:

0 = Not satisfied 5 = Moderately satisfied 10 = Extremely satisfied.

1. Did the Consultant deliver what was required per contract, was it on time, and did the deliverables meet your firm’s quality standards?

Score:

Comments:

2. How would you describe the Consultant’s responsiveness to issues and special requests (e.g., reported problems, scheduling adjustments, etc.)?

Score:

Comments:

3. How would you describe the working relationship with the Consultant? Were they easy to work with? Describe the Consultant’s communication, flexibility, and transparency.

Score:

Comments:

4. How would you describe the Consultant’s overall quality of services provided and your firm’s overall relationship with the Consultant?

Score:

Comments:

Total Score: ____________ Reference Contact Signature Job Title Date

Exhibit #3 IQMS Statement of Work Embedded Microsoft Word document icon below.

This SOW is also uploaded to OregonBuys as a separate attachment.

EXHIBIT #4

DISCLOSURE EXEMPTION AFFIDAVIT

____________________ (Affiant), being first duly sworn under oath, and representing [insert Offeror Name] (hereafter “Offeror”), hereby deposes and swears or affirms under penalty of perjury that:

1. I am an employee of the Offeror, I have knowledge of the RFQ referenced herein, and I have full authority from the Offeror to submit this affidavit and accept the responsibilities stated herein.

2. I am aware that the Offeror has submitted an Offer, dated on or about [insert date] (the “Offer”), to the State of Oregon (State) in response to RFQ #S-73000-00017868 for independent quality management services and I am familiar with the contents of the RFQ and Offer.

3. I have read and am familiar with the provisions of Oregon’s Public Records Law, Oregon Revised Statutes (“ORS”) 192.311 through 192.478, and the Uniform Trade Secrets Act as adopted by the State of Oregon, which is set forth in ORS 646.461 through ORS 646.475. I understand that the Offer is a public record held by a public body and is subject to disclosure under the Oregon Public Records Law unless specifically exempt from disclosure under that law.

4. I have reviewed the information contained in the Offer. The Offeror believes the information listed in Exhibit #4- Attachment A is exempt from public disclosure (collectively, the “Exempt Information”), which is incorporated herein by this reference. It is my opinion that the Exempt Information is exempt from disclosure under Oregon’s Public Records Law under the specifically designated sections as set forth in Exhibit #4 – Attachment A or constitutes “Trade Secrets” under either the Oregon Public Records Law or the Uniform Trade Secrets Act as adopted in Oregon because that information is either:

A formula, plan, pattern, process, tool, mechanism, compound, procedure, production data, or compilation of information that:

· xxxx is not patented,

· is known only to certain individuals within the Offeror’s organization and that is used in a business the Offeror conducts,

· has actual or potential commercial value, and

· gives its user an opportunity to obtain a business advantage over competitors who do not know or use it.

Information, including a drawing, cost data, customer list, formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique or process that:

· Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to the public or to other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and

· Is the subject of efforts by the Offeror that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.

5. I understand that disclosure of the information referenced in Exhibit #4 – Attachment A may depend on official or judicial determinations made in accordance with the Public Records Law.

________________________________________________ Date: _____________________ Affiant’s Signature State of ___________) ) ss:

County of ________) Signed and sworn to before me on ___________ (date) by ______________________ (Affiant’s name).

Notary Public for the State of _________________ My Commission Expires: _________

ATTACHMENT A

PROJECT CHARTER

Embedded Microsoft Word Document Object Below (Also Uploaded to OregonBuys as a Separate Attachment)

ATTACHMENT B

PROJECT BUSINESS CASE

Embedded Microsoft Word Document Object Below (Also Uploaded to OregonBuys as a Separate Attachment) image1.png image2.emf

S-00017868 Statement of Work_Final.docx

Exhibit 3 to OregonBuys Bid #S-73000-00017868

Table of Contents

1. Introduction to Quality Management Services 2

1.1 Purpose 2

1.2 Quality Management Approach 2

1.3 Definitions 3

2. Quality Management Services (“QMS”) 4

2.1 Task 1: Risk Assessment 4

2.2 Task 2: Quality Planning 7

2.3 Task 3: Quality Control (QC) 12

2.4 Task 4: Quality Assurance (QA) 14

2.5 Task 5: Independent Solution Testing 16

3. Appendices 17

Appendix A – Oregon Quality Standards[footnoteRef:2] A-1 [2: The OSCIO developed the Oregon Quality Standards from review and analysis of the Project Management Institute’s Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) in the context of the International Standards Organization (ISO) standard ISO12207 for system life cycle management and traditional software development projects. Depending upon the nature of an IT project’s underlying solution, these Oregon Quality Standards may be modified, omitted or supplemented with additional, applicable quality standards.

Appendix B – Project Evaluation and Close-out Report Template A-16

Appendix C – QA Status and Improvement Report Template[footnoteRef:3] A-27 [3: Appendices C through E provide guidance for QMS Task 4, Deliverable 4.1, Quality Assurance Status and Improvements Report. Authorized Purchaser will work with Consultant to finalize agreeable format(s).]

Appendix D – Status and Improvement “Sample” Report A-31

Appendix E – OSCIO Project Assessment Report and Project Budget & Schedule Variance Report A-40

IT Professional Services Master Price and Services Agreement

WORK ORDER CONTRACT EXHIBIT 1

STATEMENT OF WORK FOR QMS

Introduction to Quality Management Services

Purpose

The purpose of the QMS Consultant’s work is to assure that appropriate levels of Quality Management Services are performed for the Driver License/Identification System Replacement Project . These Services must provide the Authorized Purchaser with appropriate visibility into the processes being used, and the products being built. They must be sufficient to assure that the Project satisfies the needs for which it was undertaken, and that Project risks are well understood and appropriately mitigated or managed.

Quality Management Approach

The approach to ensure that the appropriate quality management and risk management activities are conducted must be based, as necessary and appropriate in the context of a particular project, on the Project Management Institute’s (PMI) Standard described in the current edition of the Project Management Body of Knowledge (“PMBOK” https://www.pmi.org/pmbok-guide-standards); and the International Standards Organization standard ISO12207 for system life cycle management. This includes Quality Management Services that determine the quality policy, objectives, and responsibilities; and implements them by means such as quality planning, quality control, and quality assurance.

Quality Management is a subset of project management that includes the process required to ensure that the Project satisfies the needs for which it was undertaken. Quality Management consists of activities in quality planning, quality assurance, quality control (including independent testing) and risk management. Together, these activities constitute the Authorized Purchaser’s independent verification and validation (IV&V) requirements. They are independent in the sense that they are conducted independently of the development Consultant or systems integrator.

The term “Quality Standards” refers to a project’s “process” and “product” quality standards. “Process” quality standards cover organizational influences, management support, decision drivers, project management, scheduling, resourcing, experience, and so on. “Product” quality standards cover product content, design, development, deployment, environment, technology, security, maintainability, and so on.

The quality management approach for the Project must adhere to and include, but not be limited to, work activities in support of the following Quality Management Services that constitute the Authorized Purchaser’s IV&V requirements:

1. Task 1 - Risk Assessment

2. Task 2 - Quality Management Planning

3. Task 3 - Quality Control

4. Task 4 - Quality Assurance

5. Task 5 - Independent Solution Testing

Together, the satisfactory performance of these Tasks by the QMS Consultant helps ensure the application of best practices in project management, including quality management, and the delivery of technical work products that meet or exceed project requirements for schedule, cost, functionality, reliability, security, and other relevant quality standards.

Definitions

“Independence” or “Independent”: The delivery of services by a third party free from real or perceived conflict with the interests of the Authorized Purchaser and its contractors involved in project planning, design, development, implementation, deployment and operational activity, and as otherwise defined in Statewide Policy 107-004-030.

“Independent QA Act”: Chapter 77, A 2014 ACT HB 4122, codified at ORS 291.035.

“Independent QA Program”: The program that uses the group of pre-qualified IT Quality Management Services providers under statewide Master Price and Services Agreements for delivery of diverse, Independent Quality Management Services. DAS and the OSCIO cooperatively administer the program. Each Independent QA Program consultant has executed a Master Price and Services Agreement with the State that includes negotiated provisions, such as standard contract terms and conditions, established hourly rate cards, and the Independent QA Program enterprise Scope of Services.

“Independent Verification and Validation” or “IV&V”: Interchangeable terms that have the meaning set out in the latest edition of ISO 12207. “Verification” relates to evaluation that establishes the compliance of project work products with approved business requirements, technical requirements, architecture, and design. “Validation” relates to determining that project work products fulfill intended business needs. “Independent” has the meaning set out above in connection with the defined term, “Independence” or “Independent”.

“Information Technology Initiative” or “IT Initiative”: A project to develop or provide, with an Authorized Purchaser’s own personnel and resources, or to obtain by means of a procurement or set of related procurements: (i) New hardware, software or services for data processing, office automation or telecommunications; (ii) An overhaul, upgrade or replacement of a substantial portion of the hardware or software in an existing data processing, office automation or telecommunications system; or (iii) A substantial expansion of existing data processing, office automation or telecommunications services.[footnoteRef:4] [4: Information Technology Initiative does not include: (i) A procurement for preliminary quality assurance services or quality management services; (ii) A routine update to or purchase of hardware or software within an existing data processing, office automation or telecommunications system; (iii) A renewal of an existing contract for data processing, office automation or telecommunications services under terms and conditions that are substantially the same as in the existing contract; or (iv) A replacement of a component of an existing data processing, office automation or telecommunications system that is not essential for the system to function as designed or that occurs at the end of the component’s anticipated life cycle.]

“Preliminary Quality Assurance Services” means a set of services in which a Consultant provides an independent and objective review of an Authorized Purchaser’s plans, specifications, estimates, documentation, available resources and overall purpose for an information technology initiative, including services in which the Consultant evaluates a proposed information technology initiative against applicable quality standards and best practices from private industry and other sources.

“Quality Management Services” or “QMS” means a set of services in which a Consultant provides an independent and objective review and evaluation of a state contracting agency’s, a public corporation’s or another Consultant’s performance with respect to an information technology initiative, such as services in which the Consultant: (A) Identifies quality standards that apply or should apply to the information technology initiative; (B) Suggests methods and means by which the state contracting agency, the public corporation or the other Consultant may meet quality standards identified in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph; (C) Reviews and evaluates the state contracting agency’s, the public corporation’s or the other consultant’s performance regularly as the information technology initiative progresses from start to finish; (D) Identifies omissions or gaps in the state contracting agency’s, the public corporation’s or the other consultant’s planning, execution, control, methodology, communication or reporting as the information technology initiative progresses from start to finish; (E) Identifies risks in the state contracting agency’s, the public corporation’s or the other consultant’s plans or approach to designing, developing or implementing the information technology initiative and suggests methods to reduce, mitigate or eliminate the risks; (F) Assists the state contracting agency or the public corporation in testing or otherwise evaluating the hardware, software or services that are developed, provided or obtained as part of an information technology initiative to determine whether the hardware, software or services conform with the quality standards identified in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph; (G) Advises the State Chief Information Officer, the state contracting agency or the public corporation as to…