ODDS DDCM RFP S-DASOBO-00009374 Rnd 3 Proposer Reference Check Survey vClean.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 29 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- S-DASOBO-00009374
- Issued by
- Marion County, Oregon
About this file
This document is a reference survey for the evaluation of proposals received in the third round of an RFP (Request for Proposals) issued by the Oregon Department of Human Services (ODHS) for a Developmental Disabilities Case Management System. The RFP (S-DASBO-00009374) is seeking a comprehensive statewide case management solution to help ODHS achieve compliance with legislative policy and mandates, as well as optimization around program integrity and operational efficiency. The survey contains 32 questions across 6 categories, including system quality, service quality, convenience of operation, long-term reliability, transparency of cost, and contract administration. The survey is intended to gather feedback from the Proposer's client references on their experience and satisfaction with the Proposer's performance.
The related state and local contract opportunity is for the procurement of the Developmental Disabilities Case Management System solution, including the necessary services to install, configure, implement, maintain, and support the solution. The RFP and its attachments are available for download from OregonBuys.
View the file
Other files
Show all 19
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
COVER & INSTRUCTIONS
| RFP S-DASBO-00009374 ODDS CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM RFP |
| Evaluation Round 3 Proposer Reference Survey |
| Proposer: |
| Proposer Client Reference Name: |
| Proposer Client Reference Contact Information (phone/email): |
| Proposer Client Reference's Project Name and Description: |
| Purpose: |
| This document serves as a guide for the collection of pertinent information as part of the RFP S-DASBO-00009374 ODDS CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM RFP, for Round 3 Evaluations. There are a total of 32 questions across 6 categories. |
| Completion Instructions: |
| In the Project Name and Description above, the client provides a brief description of the project the Proposer has performed work for which the client has direct knowledge regarding the Proposer's performance. When possible, please ensure to describe the scope, perceived complexity, estimated cost, and size of the user base for the project. If the Proposer (Contractor) has performed more than one project, please include that information and rate the Proposer's performance as an average. |
The Survey Question tab has questions divided into six areas sections as follows:
Section 1, System Quality: There are 6 questions related to the client’s satisfaction with the Proposer's quality of the system.
Section 2, Service Quality: There are 6 questions related to the client’s experience with the Proposer relating to quality of services.
Section 3, Convenience of Operation: There are 8 questions related to the client’s experience with the convenience of operating the system.
Section 4, Long-term Reliability: There are 6 questions related to the overall experience and satisfaction of the long-term reliability of Proposer's performance.
Section 5, Transparency of Cost: There are 3 questions related to the client’s experience with Proposer's transparency regarding cost of services.
Section 6, Contract: There are 3 questions related to the client’s experience with the Proposer relating to contract negotiation and contract administration.
Each Section is made up of four columns: Question ID#, Question, Response, and Comments. For each Question, please:
Use the drop down menu to select a response that best represents your experience with the Proposer;
Add comments as you beleive appropriate to clarify or support your response.
&P
Survey Questions
| Section 1, System Quality | ||
| ID | Question | Response |
(Please select from
| drop-down menu) | Comments | |
| SY.1 | Are the number of system defects ("bugs") lower than expected given the complexity of the system, about what you expected given the complexity of the system, or higher than expected given the complexity of the system? Please describe the number of system defects and whether the number of defects is trending down, remaining fairly constant, or trending up. | |
| SY.2 | Describe Proposer's approach to testing for changes to system functionality ("enhancements") and how they coordinate and look across functional track areas ("effect on SNAP and Medical, Reports and Dashboards, Rule Sheets and Notices). | |
| SY.3 | Describe Proposer's approach to testing for technology changes and how items are coordinated across functional and technological tracks including other partner interfaces, reporting, disaster recovery, and various environments. | |
| SY.4 | Is Proposer's testing effective for identifying defects prior to implementation into the production environment and maintaining a stable system? | |
| SY.5 | Does the Proposer meet their contractual service level agreements (SLAs)? | |
| SY.6 | Is your system available as scheduled? |
| Section 2, Service Quality | ||
| ID | Question | Response |
(Please select from
| drop-down menu) | Comments | |
| SE.1 | Describe the skill level and knowledge of human services programs (e.g., Medicaid, SNAP, TANF, intellectual/developmental disabilities, employment-related services, housing) demonstrated by the Proposer's staff. |
tc={C9DC15DD-EBD2-408E-9233-AEAB53D7F63E}: [Threaded comment]
Your version of Excel allows you to read this threaded comment; however, any edits to it will get removed if the file is opened in a newer version of Excel. Learn more: https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=870924
Comment:
This is relevant, so I have removed the highlighting and added "intellectual/developmental disabilities" as an example.
| SE.2 | Describe the skill level and knowledge of technology components (e.g., interfaces, configuration management, data management, patch management, server configuration) demonstrated by the Proposer's staff. |
| SE.3 | Describe the Proposer's collaboration and interaction with stakeholders (e.g., staff, leadership, outside entities). How did Proposer modify its communication style and methodology to interact with different people? |
| SE.4 | Conflict resolution is a necessary skillset for successful completion of intricate work efforts. Please describe how the Proposer handled conflict situations. Was the conflict resolved in a manner that assisted the project. Please give examples. |
| SE.5 | What was the quality of advice that the Proposer provided throughout your project? Did the Proposer suggest meaningful improvement to design, business processes, or other relevant topics? Did the Proposer provide examples from other states or other applicable systems to improve your overall experience or assist with your decision making? |
| SE.6 | Did the Proposer provide highly skilled staff for your engagement? How did the Proposer communicate any staffing changes? |
| Section 3, Convenience of Operation | ||
| ID | Question | Response |
(Please select from
| drop-down menu) | Comments | |
| CO.1 | Is the system relatively easy to use ("user friendly")? Is the system efficient for accomplishing the work? | |
| CO.2 | What do system end users like best about the system and what would they like to improve? How does this vary across different types of end users? How did the proposer take feedback from users? | |
| CO.3 | Is the system technology and infrastructe reliable and relatively easy to operate and maintain? (E.g. are batches successfully processed on schedule or is intervention required on a regular basis, are patches applied on a reasonable schedule, is data loaded into non-production environments on a reasonable schedule, are non-production environments maintained and usable, is disaster recovery testing conducted on a regular basis) | |
| CO.4 | What do people responsible for managing the technology, infrastructure, and security aspects of the system like best about the system and what would they like to improve? | |
| CO.5 | Have you been able to modify system functionality to quickly respond to changes in processes, information, federal requirements, and legislative changes? | |
| CO.6 | Have you been able to modify system configuration easily to respond to technology changes (e.g., end-of-support for COTS products / third party software, adding or removing non-production system environments) | |
| CO.7 | Describe the documentation provided by the Proposer to assist end users (e.g., training materials, frequently asked questions, tips and tricks). | |
| CO.8 | Describe the documentation provided by the Proposer for system operations, configuration management, and technology management. |
| Section 4, Long-term Reliability | ||
| ID | Question | Response |
(Please select from
| drop-down menu) | Comments | |
| LT.1 | Has the Proposer's organizational stucture been reasonably stable over the course of your work with them? How has the Proposer communicated organizational changes, if appliable, over that time? | |
| LT.2 | Did the Proposer consistently provide highly skilled and highly experienced persons for key roles within the project ("Key Persons")? When Key Persons needed to be replaced, how did the Proposer communicate those changes and were the suggested replacement persons of equal or better skill and experience? | |
| LT.3 | Did the Proposer consistently provide skilled and experienced subject matter experts for non-Key Person roles? | |
| LT.4 | Did the Proposer consistently provide skilled and experienced technical staff for non-Key Person roles? | |
| LT.5 | Did you have any instances where Proposer staff did not have the necessary skills/experience to successfully complete the work? How did the Proposer respond? | |
| LT.6 | Do you have any concerns regarding the Proposer's ability to attract and retain highly skilled and highly experienced staff for your engagement? |
| Section 5, Transparency of Cost | ||
| ID | Question | Response |
(Please select from
| drop-down menu) | Comments | |
| TR.1 | In your experience, are the costs for the Proposer's services similar to the costs paid by other organizations for similar services? | |
| TR.2 | Has the Proposer provided reasonable insight into the cost model for the services to enable your organization to know what the cost is for each system component or bundle of services? If you want to make a system change or change the services provided, do you have a reasonable sense of what the impact to cost would be, or is it difficult to predict what the change in cost will be until discussions with the Propser? Has the Proposer had to make changes to their costs for items you had previously considered in scope and how were those negotiated? | |
| TR.3 | Has the Proposer provided guidance or advice to your organization to assist with maximizing the value of the services for the dollars paid? If so, what type of guidance/advice was provided and how did it impact your organization's decision making? |
| Section 6, Contract | ||
| ID | Question | Response |
(Please select from
| drop-down menu) | Comments | |
| K.1 | Describe how initial contract negotiations went. Do you have any advice or lessons for us regarding contract negotiations? | |
| K.2 | Have you had any significant contractual issues? If so, what have these issues been, and how would you advise us to avoid them? | |
| K.3 | Describe your experience with the Proposer related to contract administration. Does the Proposer proactively communicate contract status and related issues? |
END OF SURVEY
This is relevant, so I have removed the highlighting and added "intellectual/developmental disabilities" as an example.
&P
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .