iQMS_RFQ S-63400-00008570 w Exhibits 1-2.pdf

REQUEST FOR QUOTES (RFQ)

Best Value Analysis Process for iQMS OregonBuys Bid# S-63400-00008570

Issuing Office: Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (Authorized Purchaser)

Authorized Purchaser Nameun House Contact Information Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (Authorized Representative):

Address: 725 Summer St. NE, Suite C Salem, Oregon 97301 Phone: 971-375-8289 E-mail: Nameun.House@oprd.oregon.gov

Offer Due Date and Time: December 8, 2023, 03:00 PM, Pacific Time

Issued to: MPSA Holders name and MPSA # iQMS CONSULTANT MPSA #

Berry Dunn, LLC 8292

Bluecrane, Inc. 8462

CSG Government Solutions, Inc. 8470

Gartner, Inc. 8480

Grant Thornton LLP 8294

Hittner & Associates, Inc. 8295

Maximus, Inc. 8471

Public Knowledge, LLC 8296

NTT Data State Health Consulting, LLC 9433

The North Highland Co. 8477 mailto:Nameun.House@oprd.oregon.gov

1. Introduction

Authorized Purchaser is issuing this RFQ for Independent Quality Management Services (“iQMS”) (hereafter the “Services”).

The length of the Work Order Contract (“WOC”) is estimated to be 1-2 years.

This iQMS Request for Quote No. OregonBuys S-63400-00008570 (RFQ) seeks a single, qualified, and eligible Consultant from the affected pool of Consultants to provide independent Quality Management Services (iQMS). The QMS Consultant’s work aims to ensure that appropriate levels of Quality Management Services are performed as the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD) continues with the Outdoor Recreation Solution (ORS) Project. Interested Consultants must develop and submit Quotes in compliance with all RFQ requirements.

The Consultant selected for contract award (Awarded Consultant) must have enough capacity to apply iQMS to fundamental elements of the Project. Please see:

1. Attachment A for the Project Charter, and

2. Attachment B for the Project Business Case

Authorized Purchaser estimates the length of the Work Order Contract (“Contract”) to be estimated 12- 24 months, which coincides with the completion of the OPRD’s ORS Project, or until all Deliverables have been submitted and accepted by the Authorized Purchaser (Final Acceptance as defined in the Contract).

Some Deliverables are currently listed as “OPTION RESERVED TO AUTHORIZED PURCHASER” and may later be activated through an amendment or change order to the Contract. 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 ORS SI Contractor’s implementation approaches and methodologies.

The iQMS Consultant’s work aims to comply with all applicable contractual requirements to assure that appropriate levels of quality planning, quality control, quality assurance, and independent solution testing (including monitoring and reporting) are performed for the Project. These Services must provide the Authorized Purchaser with appropriate visibility into the processes and 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.

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

2. Background Information

OPRD is legislatively mandated to manage the use of state parks and resources "in a manner that upholds their scenic, historic, natural, cultural, and recreation values" (OAR 736-010-0005, ORS 390.111, ORS 390.121). The reservation system helps our agency do this, and it is our single most important technology investment. A robust Outdoor Recreation Solution is necessary for a park system of our popularity (3rd in day-use attendance and 7th in overnight attendance nationally). We use this system to process over $22 million in revenue annually, representing over 400,000 nightly reservations. This system affects more than 220,000 customers and external partners, such as the Oregon Department of Forestry, Metro Parks, and the stand-alone regional government.

This system is vital to a variety of customers: individuals, families, groups, and small business providers who use our parks to recreate or as a staging place for delivering outdoor recreation activities. At a high level, the system supports Oregon's tourism industry by connecting people with outdoor resources and bringing tourists into local communities. In the long run, this system could be leveraged across the public campground system and provide a centralized location for county, city, and state outdoor recreation.

The reservation system has been in place since 1996; the vendor has tried to evolve with new and emerging technologies with limited success. New vendors in the marketplace have shown there is untapped potential for innovation in this market. Given the constant and ever-changing technology landscape, finding a vendor that can anticipate, adapt, and change in a manner consistent with societal technology changes is paramount to OPRD's continued success. This technology flexibility will allow OPRD to align current business needs with an Outdoor Recreation Solution and adapt to unforeseen business challenges. While the OPRD has a solid customer base, the key to engaging future generations of OPRD customers is a technology experience they are both familiar with and expect.

For an extensive park system like ours – about 6,000 individual and group campsites, meeting halls, boat moorages, horse sites, and picnic shelters – an Outdoor Recreation Solution not only meets a strategic need, it is also a necessity. The Outdoor Recreation Solution helps us efficiently manage customers, securely collects and adequately accounts for revenue, and implements changes to enhance operations.

For customers, an Outdoor Recreation Solution is invaluable. The system allows a way to search campgrounds and facilities; reserve desired sites, receive updates affecting their trip, and provide feedback about their stay. A robust electronic, web-based Outdoor Recreation Solution is expected in today's camping and tourism industry. Even small camping providers find it challenging to operate without one. The OPRD Outdoor Recreation Solution supports Oregon's tourism industry by connecting people with outdoor resources and bringing tourists into local communities. In addition, OPRD provides campground reservation services to Portland Metro parks and the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF).

OPRD's Outdoor Recreation Solution is shared across internal policy areas and externally with our partners. We believe an innovative Outdoor Recreation Solution will provide greater value by engaging other OPRD customers who don't currently camp, attracting new audiences to state parks, and managing these relationships to ensure OPRD remains fiscally sound in the future. Externally, the system will connect us to new partners, and together, we will deliver a better experience to OPRD's customers and, potentially, to visitors in the local community. In the long run, this system could be leveraged across the public campground system and provide a centralized location for county, city, and state outdoor recreation.

3. Definitions and RFQ Attachments

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 Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD).

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

(c) “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-https://www.oregon.gov/das/pages/index.aspx related documentation to “OSCIO” refer to EIS. For more information about EIS, please link to:

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

(d) “Employee,” pursuant to the Governor of the State of Oregon’s Executive Order 21-29 (EO- 21-29), means any person employed by the Executive Branch but does not include individuals whose only work for the Executive Branch is as a volunteer board, commission, or council member, and whose compensation is limited to a stipend or per diem.

“Employee” does not include elected or appointed District Attorneys or Workers.

(e) “MPSA” means the iQMS Master Price and Services Agreement that each Consultant currently has in force.

(f) “Offeror” means an iQMS Consultant that submitted a Quote.

(g) “PMBOK” means the current Project Management Body of Knowledge edition published by the Project Management Institute.

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

(i) “SI Contractor” means the contractor responsible for solution implementation in the Project.

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

(k) “Worker,” pursuant to EO- 21-29, means an individual who is not an Employee and is engaged to provide goods or services to the Executive Branch through any formal or informal agreement, whether compensated or uncompensated. Individuals are exempt from the definition of Worker unless any provision of the agreement to provide goods or services requires work to be performed in person and on-site at an Executive Branch worksite, regardless of frequency, whether other persons are present, or any contingent nature of that requirement.

RFQ Attachments and Exhibits Include:

(a) Attachment A: Project Charter (a separate document).

(b) Attachment B: Project Business Case (a separate document).

(c) Exhibit No. 1: RFQ Pricing Sheet (embedded in RFQ).

(d) Exhibit No. 2: Client Reference Form (embedded in RFQ).

(e) Exhibit No. 3: Statement of Work (a separate document).

4. Responsibilities

4.1. iQMS Consultant Responsibilities (in addition to those identified in the MPSA and proposed WOC as applicable)

(1) Utilize an independent and objective approach to review the purpose, documentation, governance, plans, estimates, resources, methodologies, change processes, deliverables, and risks for the Project as set out in the iQMS Contract and related Statement of Work; and https://www.oregon.gov/das/oscio/pages/index.aspx compare this information and data to the quality standards defined for the Project and industry best practices;

(2) Consultant shall develop and provide all required Deliverables that Consultant and Authorized Purchaser mutually agree to in the resulting Contract and any subsequent Contract Amendments and Change Orders for additional in-scope work or Deliverables.

(3) Consultant shall be responsible for all travel and other related expenses, including parking, incurred during the term of the resulting Contract.

(4) When required to be on-site, the Consultant’s project team shall work in Salem in space provided by the Authorized Purchaser, subject to the Authorized Purchaser’s facilities and network access and security policies and procedures.

(5) Consultant shall provide all equipment for their employees with a minimum of the following software requirements: Microsoft Suite that includes 2016 or newer versions of Outlook, Word, Excel, Visio, and Project.

(6) Consultant shall participate in the following meetings (unless otherwise mutually agreed to in writing):

a. One (1) weekly Project Management Status Meeting (30 minutes)

b. One (1) monthly Project RAIDs Meeting (length TBD)

c. One (1) monthly Steering Committee Meeting (length TBD)

4.2. Authorized Purchase Activities

(1) Assign or act as the Project Manager and Project team liaison to assist with coordinating the iQMS Consultant’s access to relevant documentation and other artifacts as well as internal OPRD staff and other stakeholders and partners.

(2) Take appropriate steps to address risks and issues associated with omissions, gaps, defects, and other quality concerns identified by the Consultant, or document business reasons for not doing so.

(3) Provide meeting space and adequate working space and facility access for any work required by OPRD to be completed onsite.

(4) Keep the Consultant apprised of Project status, including any scope, budget, or timeline changes.

5. RFQ Timeline

The table below represents a tentative schedule of events for this RFQ. All times are listed in Pacific Time. All dates and times are subject to change.

Request for Quote Schedule of Events Date Time

Issue RFQ November 15, 2023 3:00 PM

Questions and Requests for Clarifications due November 27, 2023 5:00 PM

Answers to Questions/ Requests for Clarification due to Offerors December 1, 2023 5:00 PM

Closing (Offer Due Date) December 8, 2023 3:00 PM

Review of Quotes (approx.) December 11 – 14, 2023

Consultant Selection (approx.) December 15, 2023 TBD

Notice of Intent to Award Protest Opportunity December 18 – 22, 2023

6. Scope of Services:

The iQMS Scope of Services applies to this RFQ. An iQMS Work Order Contract (“WOC”) Template with Statement of Work modified for the underlying IT initiative is attached, with instructions for Offeror response at selected points in the WOC and its SOW. Offerors responding to the RFQ must comply with any additional WOC & SOW instructions and return the modified WOC & SOW along with other required submissions set out at item No. 8 and item No. 9.

7. Questions and Requests for Clarification:

All questions and requests for clarification regarding this RFQ must be submitted in writing by e-mail, to the Authorized Representative Nameun.House@oprd.oregon.gov and must be received no later than November 27, 2023 at 05:00 PM.

When appropriate, as determined by Authorized Purchaser in its sole discretion, revisions, substitutions or clarifications of the RFQ will be sent electronically.

8. Quotation Submittal:

Quotes must be received on or before the Offer Due Date and Time at the location identified above to be considered. Quotes will not be accepted after the Offer Due Date and Time. Quotes will be accepted by OregonBuys https://oregonbuys.gov/bso/view/login/login.xhtml . Authorized Purchaser may extend the Offer Due Date when 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.

9. Minimum Submittal Requirements:

9.1. Quotes must include a description of Offeror’s approach for providing the Services; and a draft Quality Management Plan based upon the Scope of Services above. A detailed description of the Consultant’s approach and methodologies for providing the Services in the Statement of Work (“SOW”). iQMS Consultant Offerors must submit their approach to accomplishing the Services, along with a timeline of activities and critical success factors necessary per the Project Timeline. Offeror may submit the required information in draft Quality Management Plan and Baseline Work Plan formats (iQMS Deliverables 1.3 and 1.4) or in some alternative format that allows them to clearly and concisely communicate the required information.

9.2. As applicable based upon the Scope of Services, Quotes must include a description of Offeror’s Key Persons, other staff, and their experience.

9.3. 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 mailto:Nameun.House@oprd.oregon.gov throughout the life of the Contract(s). 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.

9.4. As applicable based upon the Scope of Services, Quotes must include a description of past or current iQMS Offeror has successfully provided that are similar in scope to what is being requested in this RFQ (Comparable Services) within the last three (3) years for which the Consultant has or is providing quality management services that were/are comparable to the Services described in the RFQ.

(1) Describe your engagement with the Client Reference, along with the services provided.

(2) Who were the Key Persons involved in the contract work with the Client Reference?

(3) Did the Consultant deliver what was required per contract, was it on time, and did the deliverables meet the Client Reference’s quality standards?

(4) How would you rate the working relationship with the Client Reference? Were you easy to work with? Good communications, flexibility, and transparency?

9.5. Work examples of, or detailed Deliverable Expectation Documents (“DED”) for:

(1) Deliverable 1.1, Risk Assessment Report,

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

(3) Deliverable 4.1, Quarterly QA Status and Improvement Reports.

9.6. Quotes must include submission of a separate Pricing Sheet (Exhibit No. 1). The Pricing Sheet must be signed by an authorized representative of the Offeror.

9.7. Quotes must include three (3) references using the Reference Check Form (Exhibit No. 2). The forms must be partially completed by the Offeror and submitted with the quote (for example, first five (5) lines of the form identifying the Offeror, the Client Reference, the Client Reference’s Contact Person and that person’s contact information. The Authorized Purchaser will follow up separately with the Client Reference and may provide additional guidance to the Offeror concerning Client Reference Checks). References should be from customers for whom Offeror has provided Comparable Services within the past three (3) years.

9.8. In a separate document, list the submitted information and data that Offeror regards as proprietary, privileged, or otherwise confidential; and provide a redacted submission along with their original submission.

9.9. Quotes must be submitted via OregonBuys https://oregonbuys.gov/bso/view/login/login.xhtml in searchable, electronic PDF format by the Offeror Closing Date and Time listed in the RFQ Timeline.

9.10. Declaration of “No Conflict of Interest.”

10. Evaluation and Award:

Quote submissions will be reviewed to determine if all Submittal Requirements have been met. Those meeting the Submittal Requirements will be evaluated to determine the “Best Value” for the State. “Best https://oregonbuys.gov/bso/view/login/login.xhtml

Value” is based solely on the evaluator’s determination of what best meets the needs of Authorized Purchaser taking into account price as well as the following considerations:

10.1. Independence (no conflict of interest)

10.2. Perceived quality of submitted detailed approach and schedule (including the ability to meet

Project deadlines);

10.3. Consultant’s Experience;

10.4. Credentials, qualifications, expertise, and experience of proposed Consultant personnel;

10.5. Perceived quality and efficacy of proposed Staffin Plan;

10.6. Consultant’s references;

10.7. Perceived quality of submitted Work Examples or DEDs;

10.8. Availability and resource capacity.

The Offeror with the most advantageous quote will be awarded a contract in a form substantially similar to the Work Order Contract attached as Attachment C to the MPSA. Authorized Purchaser may negotiate contract terms and conditions with the successful Offeror.

AUTHORIZED PURCHASER’S DETERMINATION IS FINAL.

Figure 1: Quote Evaluation Criteria

CATEGORY QUOTE EVALUATION CRITERIA MAX

POINTS

Independence No actual or apparent conflict of interest No Points

Detailed Approach and Schedule (e.g., Quality Management Plan and iQMS Baseline Work Plan)

1.The Authorized Representative 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.

Consultant Experience and References

Credentials, Qualifications, Expertise, and Experience of Proposed Personnel; and Staffing Plan

Work Examples or DEDs 175

Total Cost of Deliverables

The lowest total cost receives all points; higher costs receive fewer points based on the following formula:

Lowest cost of all Offerors X cost points possible cost score cost being scored

Total Points 1000

Figure 2: Rating Rubric

The rating scale in Figure 2 guides 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

SCORE EXPLANATION

81 –

100%

Exemplary: The proposal goes above and beyond expectations. It not only covers all aspects of quality management services but also offers innovative and advanced strategies. It provides a detailed plan for continuous improvement and offers insights into potential challenges and solutions. The proposal is exceptionally well-written, clear, and persuasive, demonstrating a deep understanding of quality management principles and practices outlined in the RFQ and SOW.

61 – 80%

Accomplished: The proposal is comprehensive and thorough. It presents a well-structured plan for quality management services, including the deliverables and requirements outlined in the RFQ and SOW. It addresses the specific needs of the client and provides evidence of experience and expertise in this area.

41 – 60%

Proficient: The proposal adequately covers the essential aspects of quality management services. It provides a clear and well-structured explanation of the proposer's approach, including the deliverables and requirements outlined in the RFQ and SOW. The proposal demonstrates an understanding of the client's needs.

21 – 40% Developing: The proposal partially addresses the critical components of quality management services but lacks depth and coherence. It provides some insight into the proposer's approach but is missing critical details.

0 – 20%

Inadequate: The proposal lacks essential components and information required to assess the completeness of the Quality Management Services. It fails to explain the proposer's approach to quality management or the proposed strategies for ensuring quality.

in a submission requirement.

Authorized Purchaser may establish additional rounds of evaluation for Interviews and presentations involving two (2) or more of the top-ranking Offerors. The actual number of invited Offerors to any further rounds of evaluation depends upon scoring results from the preceding round, and the Evaluation Committee may determine not to carry over scores from the preceding round to the additional round.

Alternatively, it may determine to award a WOC at the conclusion of the first evaluation round to the highest-scoring Offeror (successful Consultant with the best value quote). The awarded WOC will be in a form substantially similar to the Sample Contract attached to the awarded Consultant’s iQMS Master Price and Services Agreement (“MPSA”) and the proposed Statement of Work (RFQ Exhibit No. 3). Authorized Purchaser may negotiate contract terms and conditions with the successful Consultant.

EXHIBIT NO. 1 RFQ PRICING SHEET

[Offeror shall replace “$0.00” with (1) Deliverable Description for an item for each instance and (2) NTE Deliverable Cost for each Deliverable]

Deliverable

Number Deliverable Description

Due Date

NTE Deliverable Cost

Task 1: Risk Assessment

1.1 Project Risk Assessment Report

Later of Effective Date of Contract or Issuance to Consultant of a Notice to Proceed + 30 Business Days.

$0.00

1.2 On-Going Risk Notification Report

As needed.

As requested by the Authorized Purchaser, written report three (3) days after verbal notification.

Price included in periodic Deliverables

3.3 (QC Reports) and

4.1. (QA Reports)

TASK 1 SUBTOTAL $0.00

Task 2: Quality Planning

2.1 Quality Standards – Operational Definitions Report

Agency Acceptance of Task 1, Deliverable 1.1, Initial Project Risk Assessment Report + 15 Business Days.

$0.00

Deliverable Description

Due Date

NTE Deliverable Cost

2.2

Quality Checklists for Task 3.1 Deliverables, Quality Control Review Reports for selected Project-related documentation.

Due Dates for Quality Control Review Reports to which they apply, or as otherwise agreed to and documented in the approved Baseline QMS Work Plan.

Price included in related Deliverable 3.1

QC Reviews

2.3 Quality Management Plan

Authorized Purchasers Acceptance of Task 1, Deliverable 1.1, Project Risk Assessment Report + 15 Business Days.

$0.00

2.4

Baseline QMS Work Plan (Updated by the Parties from time to time to reflect mutually agreeable adjustments, if any, to QMS Deliverables)

Authorized Purchaser’s Acceptance of Task 1, Deliverable 1.1, Project Risk Assessment Report + 15 Business Days.

$0.00

2.5 Internal/External Presentations and Special Requests

As needed and requested by Authorized Purchaser.

OPTION RESERVED TO

AUTHORIZED

PURCHASER / NO COST

SUBMISSION

REQUIRED

2.6

Lessons Learned Report – Project Evaluation (one report after all other contract activities)

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

TASK 2 SUBTOTAL $0.00

Deliverable Description

Due Date

NTE Deliverable Cost

Task 3: Quality Control

Deliverable 3.1: Quality Control Review

3.1.1

Solution requirements related to information and data components of the sample final solution contract in the Request for Proposal (prior to solicitation release)

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

OPTION RESERVED TO

AUTHORIZED

PURCHASER / NO COST

SUBMISSION

REQUIRED

3.1.2

Solution requirements related to information and data components of the proposed final solution contract with the successful Offeror (prior to contract execution) approved Baseline QMS Work Plan.

$0.00

3.1.3

Solution Requirements (Requirements Traceability Matrix) approved Baseline QMS Work Plan.

$0.00

3.1.4 Solution Consultant’s Implementation Plan

approved Baseline QMS Work Plan.

$0.00

3.1.5

Authorized Purchaser’s Project Management Plan, which includes:

Project Charter Change Management Plan Communications Plan Cost Management Implementation Management Issue Management Procurement Management Quality Management Plan

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

OPTION RESERVED TO

AUTHORIZED

PURCHASER / NO COST

SUBMISSION

REQUIRED

Deliverable Description

Due Date

NTE Deliverable Cost

Requirement Management Resource Management Risk Management Schedule Management Plan Scope Management Stakeholder Management

3.1.6

Documentation necessary to demonstrate compliance with the EIS Cloud Policy (Statewide DAS Policy 107-004- 150) approved Baseline QMS Work Plan.

OPTION RESERVED TO

AUTHORIZED

PURCHASER / NO COST

SUBMISSION

REQUIRED

3.1.7 SI Contractor System Testing and User Acceptance Testing approved Baseline QMS Work Plan.

OPTION RESERVED TO

AUTHORIZED

PURCHASER / NO COST

SUBMISSION

REQUIRED

3.1.8 SI Contractor statement of work deliverables

approved Baseline QMS Work Plan.

$0.00

3.1.9 to 3.1.x

Additional QC Review

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

OPTION RESERVED TO

AUTHORIZED

PURCHASER / NO COST

SUBMISSION

REQUIRED

Deliverable 3.2: Security Review

3.2.1 Security Code Review and Sampling Plan

OPTION RESERVED

OPTION RESERVED TO

AUTHORIZED

PURCHASER / NO COST

SUBMISSION

REQUIRED

3.2.2 Security Code Review and Sampling Report(s)

OPTION RESERVED

OPTION RESERVED TO

AUTHORIZED

PURCHASER / NO COST

SUBMISSION

REQUIRED

Deliverable Description

Due Date

NTE Deliverable Cost

Deliverable 3.3: Quality Status Reporting

3.3.1 to 3.3.10

Periodic Quality Status Reports

(Initially provided at the end of each of the first two (2) months in each quarter. Authorized Purchaser may subsequently require such reporting only once each quarter by mid-quarter)

(Up to 10 instances at $0.00 per instance)

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

OPTION RESERVED TO

AUTHORIZED

PURCHASER / NO COST

SUBMISSION

REQUIRED

TASK 3 SUBTOTAL $0.00

Task 4: Quality Assurance Status and Improvements Reporting

4.1.1 to 4.1.6

Quarterly QA Status and Improvement Reports / Presentations (Up to 6 instances at $0.00 per instance)

*Note: The exact dates of the End of the Quarter will be specified in the Baseline QMS Work Plan. These dates will take into account and include, but not be limited to, the Consultant start date and Oregon’s Joint Legislative Committee on Information Management Technology hearing dates.

End of Quarter + 10 Business Days*

TASK 4 SUBTOTAL $0.00

Deliverable Description

Due Date

NTE Deliverable Cost

Task 5: Independent Solution Testing

5.1 IV&V Master Test Plan (MTP) OPTION RESERVED

OPTION RESERVED TO

AUTHORIZED

PURCHASER / NO COST

SUBMISSION REQUIRED

5.2 Periodic Test Execution and Status Reports

OPTION RESERVED

OPTION RESERVED TO

AUTHORIZED

PURCHASER / NO COST

SUBMISSION REQUIRED

5.3 Independent Security-Related Testing

OPTION RESERVED

OPTION RESERVED TO

AUTHORIZED

PURCHASER / NO COST

SUBMISSION REQUIRED

TASK 5 SUBTOTAL

OPTION RESERVED TO

AUTHORIZED

PURCHASER / NO COST

SUBMISSION REQUIRED

TOTAL COST $0.00

RATE CARD

Name Position | Skill Set Hourly Rate

EXHIBIT NO. 2 REFERENCE CHECK FORM

[Offeror partially completes the first five (5) lines of the form by identifying the Offeror, the Client Reference, the Client Reference’s Contact Person and that person’s contact information. The Authorized Purchaser will follow up separately with the Client Reference and may provide additional guidance to the Offeror concerning Client Reference Checks]

Proposer Name:

Reference Entity:

Reference Contact Name:

Contact Telephone Number:

Contract Email Address:

PLEASE RESPOND TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS.

Score: 1-5 for each response.

1. Detailed description of Qualifying Engagement.

Score:

Comments:

2. Proposer’s role and functional area of Qualifying Engagement.

3. Description of Services Provided.

4. Description comparing Qualifying Engagement to RFQ Scope of Services.

5. If given the opportunity, how likely would you use Proposer’s services again?