ESBD_368287_1721085218604_SOLICIEXH_F.11_IT Application SLA Agreement.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 13 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Enterprise Licensing Platform
- Solicitation number
- 405-24R0010718
- Issued by
- Texas
About this file
The provided document is a Service Level Agreement (SLA) exhibit for an IT Application SLA Agreement. It describes the SLA categories, metrics, performance targets, measurement sources, and frequency for various application support and testing services. The critical SLA metrics include application availability, stability, reliability, performance, minor enhancements, defect management, release deployment, and success rate. For application testing, the SLA covers critical defect leakage, defect leakage between phases, defect rejection rate, defect resolution improvement, defect reinjection rate, test case execution ratio, test case efficiency improvement, test case productivity improvement, percentage of automated tests, and code coverage.
The related state and local contract opportunity is for an Enterprise Licensing Platform sought by the Texas Department of Public Safety. The solicitation details are not provided in the given document, but the SLA exhibit suggests this is likely a technology-related contract to implement and support a critical licensing application for the state.
View the file
Other files
Show all 33
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
Sheet1
| SLA Category | SL Title | Critical SLA? | SL Explanation | Performance Target | SL Basis | Sources | Frequency | Remarks |
| Application Support | Application Availability | Yes | Percentage of actual uptime with planned uptime for each application | ≥ 99.9% — Platinum/Mission Critical |
≥ 99.7% — Gold/Critical ≥ 99.5% — Silver/Noncritical
| ≥ 99.0% — Bronze | Architecture | Service Provider or client supplied Incident, Problem, and Change Tool; | ||||||
| May be combined with monitoring tool records and log files (as required) | Monthly | |||||||
| Application Support | Application Stability | Yes | Number of unplanned outages for the same Business-Critical Application | 1 ≥ unplanned outage for the same Business-Critical Application | Architecture | Service Provider or client supplied Incident, Problem, and Change Tool; | ||
| May be combined with monitoring tool records and log files (as required) | Monthly | Critical Applications are identified by the client and updated/confirmed on a periodic (e.g., quarterly, semi-annual, etc.) basis | ||||||
| Application Support | Application Reliability | Yes | Number of unplanned outages on the same Business-Critical Application in consecutive months | Zero unplanned outages for the same Business-Critical Application in consecutive months | Architecture | Service Provider or client supplied Incident, Problem, and Change Tool; | ||
| May be combined with monitoring tool records and log files (as required) | Monthly | Critical Applications are identified by the client and updated/confirmed on a periodic (e.g., quarterly, semi-annual, etc.) basis | ||||||
| Application Support | Application Performance | No | Percentage of transactions completed within the identified timeframe (measured for each critical application) | ≥ 95.0% within identified timeframe for each critical application | Architecture | Performance monitoring tool | Monthly | |
| Application Support | Minor Enhancements | No | Minor enhancements completed within committed timeframe | ≥ 95.0% within identified timeframe | Process | Service Provider or client supplied Incident, Problem, and Change Tool; may be combined with release management tool | Monthly | |
| Application Support | Defect Management | No | Number of defects promoted into production | ≥ 1 defect for critical applications | Process | Service Provider or client supplied Incident, Problem, and Change Tool | Monthly | |
| Application Support | Release Deployment | No | Releases deployed within committed timeframe | ≥ 95.0% within identified timeframe | Process | Service Provider or client supplied Incident, Problem, and Change Tool; may be combined with release management tool | Monthly | |
| Application Support | Success Rate | No | Number of fixes requiring rework | ≤ 2.0% fixes require rework/reopening | Process | Service Provider or client supplied Incident, Problem, and Change Tool | Monthly | |
| Application Support | Velocity | No | Number of mutually agreed features/user stories realized per agreed schedule | ≥ 95.0% within identified timeframe | Process | Service Provider or client supplied Incident, Problem, and Change Tool; may be combined with release management tool | Monthly | |
| Application Testing | Critical Defect |
Leakage to Production Yes Occurrence of severe or high priority defects to issues that made it to production environment Zero critical defects ALM Tool (requirement traceability module) Extended warranty period, where:
Extended warranty period = [X] days after signoff by [customer] of project or development deliverables as documented and agreed in the project initiation document or requirements document [X] = low 30, high 365, average 90. Aim for 180 days
| Application Testing | Defects Leakage to Next Phase | Yes | Defects not identified in specific phase (e.g. unit testing, integration testing, system testing) and continue to leak into the next phase of testing | No common value | |
| Aim for < 5% | ALM Tool (requirement traceability module) | Project or development life cycle phase, defined as: Requirements, Design, Build, Test, User acceptance, Transport to production, or release | |||
| Application Testing | Defect Leakage to Production | No | Instances of defects which were not detected or fixed during testing phase and made it to the live or operational environment | Low unmeasured |
High < 2% Average < 5% ALM Tool (requirement traceability module) Project or development life cycle + warranty period, where:
Project or development life cycle = requirements, design, build, test, user acceptance, transport to production and acceptance by [delivery entity];
Warranty period = [90] days after sign-off by [customer] of project or development deliverables as documented and agreed in the project initiation document or requirements document
| Application Testing | Defect Rejection | ||
| Rate | No | Number of reported defects that are rejected or not accepted by testing team | Low unmeasured |
High < 5%
| Average < 10% | ALM Tool (requirement traceability module) | [Project or development life cycle], or: [Per phase], or [Per rolling period] | |||
| Application Testing | Defects Resolved per Phase | No | Number of defects that have been successfully resolved or fixed during each phase | No common value | |
| Aim for > 95% | ALM Tool (requirement traceability module) | Project or development life cycle phase, defined as: Requirements, Design, Build, Test, User acceptance, Transport to production, or releasee | |||
| Application Testing | Defect Resolution |
Improvement per Phase per Project No Defect Resolution Improvement per Phase per Project No common value Consider > 2% improvement
| project over project | ALM Tool (requirement traceability module) | Project or development life cycle phase, defined as: Requirements, Design, Build, Test, User acceptance, Transport to production, or release |
| Application Testing | Defect Resolution |
Improvement per Phase per Year No Defect Resolution Improvement per Phase per Year No common value Consider > 10% improvement
| year over year | ALM Tool (requirement traceability module) | All projects and development life cycles that have received [customer] sign-off during the measurement intervals within a rolling-year period | |
| Application Testing | Defect Reinjection | ||
| Rate | No | Rate at which defects that were previously identified and supposedly fixed are reintroduced or reappear in the later stage of testing. | Low unmeasured |
High 0%
| Average < 5% | ALM Tool (requirement traceability module) | [Project or development life cycle], or: [Per phase], or [Per rolling period] | |
| Application Testing | Test Case | ||
| Execution Ratio | No | Percentage of test cases that have successfully executed compared to the total number of planned cases | Low unmeasured |
High = 100%
| Average > 90% | ALM Tool (requirement traceability module) | [Project or development life cycle], or [Per iteration] or [Per sprint] |
| Application Testing | Test Case |
Efficiency Improvement No Actions to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of test case creation, execution and management Low unmeasured High > 10%
| Average > 5% | ALM Tool (requirement traceability module) + test case management tool | The time frame to cover 100% of the requirements per: [Project or development life cycle], or [Per iteration] or [Per sprint] |
| Application Testing | Test Case |
Productivity Improvement No Improvements made to focus on optimizing testing workflow to achieve better results with available resources within a timeframe Low unmeasured High > 10%
| Average > 5% | ALM Tool (requirement traceability module) + test case management tool | Project or development life cycle | |||
| Application Testing | Percentage of Automated Tests | No | Total test cases automated against being manually executed | Low unmeasured |
High > 10%
| Average > 5% | ALM Tool (requirement traceability module) + test case management tool | [Project or development life cycle], or [Per iteration] or [Per sprint] | |||||
| Application Testing | Code Coverage | No | Extent to which the source code is exercised by the set of test cases | 92-95% coverage | ALM Tool (requirement traceability module) + test case management tool | [Project or development life cycle], or [Per iteration] or [Per sprint] |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .