MDSIS BPM042413 Vendor Question and Answers 1 - March 20th.pdf

Wes Moore Governor

Aruna Miller Lt. Governor

Cassie Motz

Chair

Sanjay Rai, Ph.D.

Acting Secretary

MARYLAND HIGHER EDUCATION COMMISSION

6 N. Liberty Street • 10th Floor • Baltimore, MD 21201

T 410.767.3300 • 800.974.0203 • F 410.332.0270 • TTY for the Deaf 800.735.2258 www.mhec.maryland.gov

Questions and Answers #1 Solicitation No. BPM042413

Maryland Student Information System (MDSIS)

The following question regarding the subject RFP have been submitted by vendors.

The answer provided by MHEC are intended to clarify the RFP’s requirement and do not constitute an amendment.

Questions MDSIS - BPM042413 Responses

1) Will MHEC consider republishing this solicitation in a Request for Information or Draft Request for Proposal state to collect feedback from Industry?

The procurement does not lend itself to an RFI

2) The current development timeline prescribed in Attachment P – Payments vs Milestones and SDLC Deliverables Schedule limits competition. While Vendor understands the State’s legislative date for a Production date of July 1, 2025 for a new system, we believe it may be better suited for industry to propose a timeline for review and evaluation by MHEC. The schedule prescribed in Attachment P is extremely aggressive and does not align with modern agile development standards. Vendor believes this will limit competition to the point of eliminating small business participation due to time required to staff up for an effort of this magnitude.

This is the State of MD’s accelerated timeframe. Please share any concerns regarding the timeline in your technical proposal.

3) Will MHEC revise the RFP to include page limits on each second of the Technical Volume?

Currently, there are no page limit restrictions for the Technical Volume. Unrestricted proposals are limiting to small businesses such as Vendor that have limited resources to research, author, edit and publish a compelling proposal in comparison to a larger company that support a larger Business Development staff.

This isn’t in consideration for this RFP. This is an open solicitation for all companies to submit a proposal.

http://www.mhec.maryland.gov/

T 410.767.3300 • 800.974.0203 • F 410.332.0270 • TTY for the Deaf 800.735.2258 www.mhec.maryland.gov

4) What approach does the state plan to take for importing Legacy Data from the current Maryland College Aid Process System (MDCAPS) that is created, updated, or deleted after the December 20, 2024 end date of the milestone task (Fully Legacy Data Import) and the July 1, 2025 launch date? i. Per the schedule in Attachment P, the new MDSIS will not have current data that is created, updated, or deleted after December 20, 2024. This will include a significant portion of awarding and FAFSA data that occurs within MDCAPS during the March to June timeframe.

Additionally, this will lead to a gap in audit records for this timeframe. Alternatively, does MHEC plan to operate MDCAPS and MDSIS in parallel for some period? If so, for how long, and what operations are expected to occur in each system during that overlap period? Based on our experience there will need to be a parallel data migration period with both systems running for at least a full academic cycle. This will limit risks to students, the state, and MHEC by ensuring that critical awarding, reconciliation, payments, and service obligation efforts are not interrupted.

MHEC plans to import all legacy data from the current Maryland College Aid Processing System (MDCAPS).

Attachment P provides a framework for development.

It is anticipated that when a vendor is on boarded and engaged there will be modifications to the Attachment and appropriate data timelines will be determined that will ensure there will be no processing gaps and activity will continue. Yes, to limit risk to students, the state, and MHEC, it is anticipated that there will be parallel systems prior to final cutover.

5) Key Personnel—Senior Software Architecti. Would it be possible to remove the Technical Skill “C.

Routinely writes and publishes technical articles, papers, reports, journals or books on software engineering”? i. We do not believe this skill is directly applicable to the Senior Software Architect’s ability to provide the necessary services required to MHEC for MDSIS development, and as such, will be unnecessarily restrictive to the resources that may be submitted for this Key Personnel position. ii. Would it be possible to add the required experience to the Senior Software Engineer and Quality Assurance Analyst of at least two years of equivalent Financial Aid experience? i. We believe that due to the complexity, breadth, and scope of Maryland’s Student Aid programs require both the Business Analyst and the lead Software Architect to have suitable Financial Aid experience.

Agreed, we will address in an Amendment

6) Will MHEC clarify the “MBE Subcontracting Goal:

29%, with no sub-goals” as listed on the Key Information Summary Sheet? a. Does this mean the 29% MBE applies to the prime or must be subcontracted to an MBE subcontractor?

The 29% MBE goal means that 29% of the contract must be subcontracted out to a certified MBE vendor or vendors and up to 50% of the 29% goal can be met by an MBE prime, if awarded the contract.

T 410.767.3300 • 800.974.0203 • F 410.332.0270 • TTY for the Deaf 800.735.2258 www.mhec.maryland.gov

7) Will MHEC consider lowering and/or eliminating the MBE goal in favor of a Maryland SBR goal? Not at this time in the process

8) A 29% MBE + 1% VSBE goal is very restrictive to competition for a project with such an aggressive schedule. This will require the awardee to not only have their 5 Key Personnel ready upon contract award, but also for an MBE teammate to be available on project kick-off to meet the required goal with the first year.

Not at this time in the process

9) Would MHEC consider striking all usage of Commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) terminology? i. By using this terminology MHEC is limiting competition to only vendors with a fully developed pre-existing product. ii. We would however suggest that all language relating to custom software, source code, and source code escrow (3.14.1, 3.14.2, and 3.14.3) remain. During the transition from the previous vendor to our current state contract, having the source code is of utmost importance to the system's reliability, stability, and longevity. This should include both source code for custom developed and source code for the core COTs product.

It would not be advantageous to MHEC as an agency to remove these references. While a COTS solution is a goal, it is not a requirement. Sections 2.1.5 and 2.1.6, states (insert language from RFP)

10) Would MHEC consider changing the contract type from Firm Fixed Price to Time and Materials or Cost Plus? a. By using a Firm Fixed Price contract type with the current listed requirements there is a significant risk on the contractor such that the only mitigating solution will be to propose a much higher cost.

MHEC believes the fixed-price contract is suitable for the scope of work that is being required. It is suggested that each vendor provide an annual set price to maintain the system, complete enhancements, and develop and implement new programs as guided by legislation. We encourage each vendor to provide a set price sufficient enough to cover expected and unexpected costs based on materials and labor for such a project.

11) What are the evaluation criteria for the proposal?

a. We suggest a best value evaluation criterion in which both Cost and Technical evaluation criteria are looked at.

Section 6.2.1 references the evaluation criteria that is available for vendors at this time. The State prefers the Offeror’s Technical Proposal to illustrate a comprehensive understanding of work requirements and mastery of the subject matter, including an explanation of how the work will be performed.

Proposals which include limited responses to work requirements such as “concur” or “will comply” will receive a lower ranking than those Proposals that address and demonstrate an understanding of the work requirements and include plans to meet or exceed them.

T 410.767.3300 • 800.974.0203 • F 410.332.0270 • TTY for the Deaf 800.735.2258 www.mhec.maryland.gov

12) Will you consider adding a past performance criteria to include experience within the Higher Education, Financial Aid, or similar industry within Maryland? a. Given the complexity, diversity, and extent of the State’s financial aid programs experience with the State’s needs. From our research Maryland has the most extensive financial aid programs in the entire country, experience with these programs and their nuance will be critical for each phase of the implementation, migration, and success of the MDSIS.

Past performance is desired but not a requirement.

13) Will MHEC want this application to be hosted on State of Maryland managed IT systems? (DoIT or alternative State managed/maintained cloud system)

Yes

14) Given the sensitive nature of the system, data, and workflows we would suggest that the solution (COTS or otherwise) be able to be hosted on a cloud system managed by the State. This could include clouds such as AWS, Azure, or internal DoIT cloud.

Yes

15) Will MHEC consider language to ensure if a COTs solution is implemented, that the vendor must implement any/all changes requested by MHEC? a. It is our experience that COTS vendors can/do refuse changes to their system that would be costly, Time prohibitive, or not usable by their other customers.

We believe that any COTS solution should include this as part of the evaluation process.

Yes

16) Will MHEC consider expanding the evaluation criteria applied to the economic benefit factors to include some percentage of the work being completed within the State of Maryland by Maryland companies and residents? a. We believe that given the mission of MHEC and OFSA, and Maryland’s technology centric workforce, this opportunity should be implemented by Maryland constituents and that part of the proposal evaluation criteria should account for this economic and societal benefit to Marylanders.

Section 6.1 lists no requirements for this RFP indicating that this solicitation is open to all qualified vendors.

Evaluation of Proposals will be performed in accordance with COMAR 21.05.03 by a committee established for that purpose and based on the evaluation criteria set forth below. The Evaluation Committee will review Proposals, participate in Offeror oral presentations and discussions, and provide input to the Procurement Officer. The Agency reserves the right to utilize the services of individuals outside of the established Evaluation Committee for advice and assistance, as deemed appropriate.

17) How long are they giving the vendor to complete the dev work prior to full launch?

MHEC is looking for the vendor to provide a realistic timeframe on when development will be completed and the timeframe for a full launch.

18) How many users do they expect to use the system at a time?

It is estimated that over a 100,000 users could be using the system at the same time.

T 410.767.3300 • 800.974.0203 • F 410.332.0270 • TTY for the Deaf 800.735.2258 www.mhec.maryland.gov

19) How much data do they expect to be retained on the system and for how long?

We need to know if the question refers to how much data or a specific data set?

20) Any idea of the range of price for the system? MHEC is currently in the process of collecting bids which will be evaluated in response to the RFP.

21) What are all the systems or portals that will need to accessed through this system (e.g. FAFSA portal)

Federal Student aid portals, College Board Portal, Comptroller's office and other external 3rd party systems related to business processes.

22) Will the grants be disbursed and managed through the system or just used for the applications?

Yes, Grants will be disbursed and managed through the system.

23) Other than the students, who else will be using the system?

Legislators ie Senators and Delegates, Financial aid offices, Non profit agencies, Internal staff, Local education agencies and High school administrators.

24) When does the first draft of the system need to be made available to the customer to review?

The first draft's timeframe will be based on when the RFP bidders put in their anticipated development and implementation timeframes.

25) At each level how many supervisors, teachers, staff administrators and overhead individuals will be expected to be able to access the system at any given time?

The system should be able to accommodate over a 100,000 users accessing the system at the same time.

26) What is the current expected budget for this project?

MHEC is currently in the process of collecting bids which will be evaluated in response to the RFP.

27) Has there been a previous provider for a statewide education system of this magnitude? Yes

28) What does the monthly by weekly and weekly support look like?

Submission of support tickets and check support request status, notes, comments, and more, 24/7/365.

29) What does the turnaround time need to look like for patch work and system improvements need to be? 7 days turn around time maximum

30) Does there need to be 24/7 support provided once the system has been implemented? Yes

Shirlita Lee – Procurement Officer