ESBD_379399_1733947031242_HHS0014749 HHSC Responses to Solicitation Questions.pdf

PCS 134 HHS Responses to Questions

RFO No. HHS0014749 Page 1 of 5 Addendum No. 4

Solicitation Title: Request for Offers (RFO) for Critical Incident Management System (CIMS)

Solicitation Number: HHS0014749

# Reference Question Response

1.

RFO Section

3.5.2 Page Limit and

Supporting Documentation

Does the Company Information section count toward the 150-page limit or does this only apply to the Narrative and Technical sections?

The information provided in response to Section 6.1, Company Information, of this RFO, does not count toward the 150 pages limit set forth in Section 3.5.2. Refer to Section 3.5.2, Page Limit and Supporting Documentation, of the RFO which states that “The narrative/technical proposal should not exceed 150 pages, not including profiles and resumes for key staff...”.

2.

RFO Section

5.2 Technical

Proposal

Would you like us to fill out the Requirements Traceability Matrix (Exhibit N) Tabs 3, 4, 5, and 7 in the actual Excel spreadsheet provided by HHS and include the spreadsheet as a separate document for upload with our submission, or should we copy the questions from each tab and put them in as tables into our response to the Technical Proposal that we are preparing in Word where it references these tabs?

Refer to Addendum No. 3 to the Solicitation.

3. RFO Section

1.1 Introduction

For vendors without TX-RAMP Level 2 Certification, for the benefit of competition, will the state permit bidders who agree to obtain that certification prior to contracting or performance?

Refer to Section 2.1.3, Texas Risk and Authorization Management Plan, of the RFO which states that “Commencing on the Contract Effective Date and during the Contract Term, Contractor shall provide Services that comply with TX-RAMP level 2 certification.”

RFO No. HHS0014749 Page 2 of 5 Addendum No. 4

4.

RFO Section

2.1.5 Service Level

Requirements and Associated Remedies

Regarding Liquidated Damages, will the state agree to provide notice and opportunity to cure prior to assessing a liquidated damage?

Refer to Section 2.1.5, Service Level Requirements and Associated Remedies, of the RFO which states in its last paragraph that “HHSC is not required to provide the Contractor with notice and opportunity to resolve issues prior to assessment of liquidated damages.”

5.

RFO Section

2.1.7 Reduced

Services

Regarding “Unanticipated Change,” does the state intend that it may request that the vendor reduce its bid pricing during the term of the contract if the state for some reason believes that the costs to the vendor of providing its services have been reduced for a reason unrelated to the performance of the contract itself?

If not, please include a statement so stating.

Refer to Section 2.1.7, Reduced Services, which states in Subsection (d) that “[i]f an Extraordinary Event or Unanticipated Change occurs, and if HHSC requests a modification to the Scope of Work to address such an occurrence, the Parties will use the COR process to equitably adjust the fees and other relevant provisions of the Contract to take the changed circumstance into account.”

6.

Exhibit B – HHS Uniform Terms and Conditions

1.1 Definitions and

Section 5.2 Contractor’s Pre- Existing Works

Exhibit D’s definition of “Intellectual Property Rights” at page 5, together with the definition of “Work Product” at page 6, and Section 5.1 “Ownership of Work Product” and Section 5.2 “Contractor’s Pre-Existing Works” appear to work together to state that the System Agency will have a royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual and transferable worldwide license to use as well as SELL the Contractor’s incorporated “Pre- Existing Works.” Unless we misread the State’s intent, this provision would mean that the state may sell contractor’s COTS and/or SaaS Systems even in competition to contractor. We find it hard to imagine that is the State’s intent.

Please clarify. Please remove any such extensive right to sell or license vendor’s own pre-existing work product it sells on the market as a part of its day-to-day business.

Refer to Exhibit E, Exceptions, to record any language that differs, varies from, or contradicts this Solicitation.

RFO No. HHS0014749 Page 3 of 5 Addendum No. 4

7.

Exhibit D – HHS

DUA

5.06 Indemnification

On page 10 of Exhibit D, Section 5.06 provides for certain indemnification. Will the state agree to limit indemnities in this section to instances of contractor breach or negligence that is not associated with or compounded by state employee neglect?

Refer to Exhibit E, Exceptions, to record any language that differs, varies from, or contradicts this Solicitation.

8.

Exhibit D – HHS

DUA

Attachment 1 Subcontractor Agreement Form

Are we required to submit Attachment 1 in Exhibit D – HHS DUA and include with our submission or is this only to be signed by the selected contractor and subcontractors during contract execution?

Respondent is not required to complete and return with its Solicitation Response the Attachment 1, Subcontractor Agreement Form, to the Exhibit D. Refer to Section (C)(3) of the Exhibit D, HHS Data use Agreement (DUA) Version 8.5, to the Solicitation.

9.

Exhibit N – Requirements Traceability Matrix Instructions tab

The instructions indicate that respondents must complete all 'yellow' highlighted cells in Tabs 3, 4, and 5, including the comments column. However, the specific instruction for the comments column states: "Provide comments/explanation on the Respondent's response, where required." Could you please clarify whether the comments column must be completed for every response, or only in cases where additional explanation is deemed necessary?

Respondents are only required to provide additional explanation if necessary.

10.

Exhibit N – Requirements Traceability Matrix 7 Software Maintenance tab

For Req ID:SMT -10,11,15,16, 17, These requirements mention Table 6 – Software Maintenance and Technical Support Response and Resolution Requirements and Table 7- Technical Support Associated with User Accounts (TSU) Requirements. However, these tables are not present in the matrix or in the main RFO document.

HHSC is uncertain as to the question posed in Question No. 10;

however, information regarding Req IDs: SMT-10,11,15,16 and 17 is located in Exhibit N, Requirements Traceability Matrix, Tab 5 to the Solicitation.

11.

Is there any incumbent for this opportunity?

FEI Systems is the current service provider performing these services under HHSC Contract number HHS000888900001 available at:

https://contracts.hhs.texas.gov/contract/hhs000888900001-0.

https://contracts.hhs.texas.gov/contract/hhs000888900001-0

RFO No. HHS0014749 Page 4 of 5 Addendum No. 4

12.

If an incumbent exists, could you clarify the reason for seeking proposals from new contractors? Are there specific areas where the current solution or services have not met expectations?

The requested information pertaining to the current service provider is outside the scope of the Solicitation.

13. Can you confirm whether the incumbent contractor plans to submit a bid for this opportunity?

The requested information pertaining to the current service provider is outside the scope of the Solicitation.

14.

Could you please provide us with the list of participants in the pre-proposal conference?

Refer to Addendum No. 1 to the Solicitation.

15. What is the allocated budget for this project?

A disclosure of internal budget details for this procurement will not be provided.

16.

Page 16, Section 2.1.2.3, Exhibit O (Information Security and Privacy Controls)

Could you clarify if there are additional security certifications or standards beyond TX-RAMP Level 2 that the CIMS must comply with, such as specific NIST frameworks or HIPAA-related requirements?

Refer to Exhibit O, Information Security and Privacy Controls.

17. Page 25, Section 2.2.3

The document references historical compensation of approximately $950,000 per state fiscal year. Is this the anticipated budget for the new contract, or will there be adjustments based on the scope and requirements outlined in the RFO?

Historical compensation set forth in Section 2.2.3, Historical Compensation, of the RFO is not the anticipated budget for the Contract.

A disclosure of internal budget details for this procurement will not be provided.

RFO No. HHS0014749 Page 5 of 5 Addendum No. 4

18.

Could you clarify the requirements for data analytics and reporting using the Power BI and SSRS platforms? Are there specific data visualization preferences or reporting formats required?

Refer to Exhibit N, Requirements Traceability Matrix, RPT 6 and RPT 8. There are no specific data visualizations required.

19.

6.8 HUB

SUBCONTRACTING

PLAN Page 51

What is the required percentage goal for HUB participation in this contract?

Refer to Section 1.2, Statewide Annual HUB Utilization Goal, of the Exhibit H, HUB Subcontracting Plan (HSP) Requirements, of the RFO which states that “This Solicitation is classified as Other Services under the above CPA rule and therefore the HHS HUB utilization goal is 26.0%.”