OLIS RFP questions~1.docx
DOCX document 31 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Information Systems Transformation
- Solicitation number
- S-15600-00010924
- Issued by
- Marion County, Oregon
About this file
This document is a Request for Proposals (RFP) issued by the State of Oregon's Legislative Administration (LA) for the Oregon Legislative Information Systems Transformation (OLIS-T) Pre-Project Exploratory Analysis. The purpose of the RFP is to obtain a vendor to perform an exploratory analysis of the legacy systems used throughout the lifecycle of a bill and recommend the best approach to assist and prepare the Legislature prior to initiating the full OLIS-T Project. The scope of work includes analyzing current processes, providing suggestions or recommendations for modernizing the processes, describing options and a recommended approach for the modernization, estimating the resourcing, cost, and timeline for each option, and providing a high-level project plan for the recommended option. Proposals are due by August 23, 2024, and the contract term will run through June 13, 2025.
The RFP does not mention any set-aside designations or restrictions on the types of organizations that can respond. It also does not provide information on any incumbent vendors or current contractors, or any existing infrastructure or technology that requires integration. Additionally, the RFP does not specify a possible award value or budget range for this opportunity, but LA is scoring the proposals based on cost.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| S45-ITB BID Q&A.pdf | ||
| RFP OLIS-T.pdf |
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
OLIS-T Pre-Project Exploratory Analysis RFP Pre-Proposal Conference Questions and Answers
Q1: Regarding bullet three on page four describing the deliverables, is there an expectation of the number of options to be presented?
A1: The assumption is there will be more than one viable option that results from the pre-project exploratory analysis. The assumed factors are time, money, and tolerance of risk. There is not a particular number of options expected.
Q2: Paragraph five of page four states, "Participation in this RFP does not exclude the proposer from participating in future RFPs related to the OLIS-T project or related work efforts." Since this sentence only references RFP proposers, out of an abundance of caution, we wanted to confirm that the vendor awarded the exploratory analysis project would also be eligible to bid on (and work on) the implementation project for OLIS-T.
A2: Yes, the intent is that vendors participating and/or being awarded this RFP are eligible to participate and/or be awarded future RFPs (or other procurement vehicles as applicable) related to the OLIS-T project(s).
Q3: Bullet three on page 10 indicates that the public facing website is in the list of systems targeted for modernization. For the actual implementation of the OLIS-T project, what is the anticipated scope of the modernization for the public website? For example, is it just modernizing the public site's integrations or is an entire public site redesign expected?
A3: The OLIS subsite on the oregonlegislature.gov website that provides transparency to the legislative process is part of the scope. https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz
Q4: Based on the role list in section 3.1.2 on page 13, can you confirm that there is no programmer role expected for this project? Also, is it safe to assume that the "architect" role is expected to be a technology architect?
A4: Yes, there is no direct programmer role expected because there is no development. However, the architect role with a level of technical understanding of development may be beneficial.
Q5: In section 3.3.4 on page 15, it seems that a separate, dedicated document is requested for the Cost Proposal. Can you confirm that?
A5: Yes, please submit your cost proposal as a standalone document.
Q6: Are you looking at this as a custom project or a custom laced together with off the shelf components?
A6: Our standard is first, to reuse what we currently have; second, to buy; and third, to develop. This project will likely be some combination.
Q7: What technologies is the state invested in?
A7: From a development standpoint, we are a Microsoft shop. This includes .NET and SQL server. The DPMS project is the start of the process. It currently uses an Angular front end and uses “Decisions” workflow tool. The end solution must interface with our external streaming service and GovDelivery bulk mail service.
Q8: Any sense of budget for this exploratory work and for the future implementation project?
A8: Our timeframe is to complete this exploratory work in June 2025 to be able to go to the legislature and ask for funding for the project. We are scoring this RFP on cost and thereby not sharing budget information at this time.
Q9: Do you expect this exploratory work to start around October?
A9: Yes.
Q10: How many vendors participated in this pre-proposal conference?
A10: Four.
Q11: Is Exhibit D - Contractor Certification Form required to be included in the RFP response? It is in the RFP as an exhibit, but there are no references to it elsewhere in the RFP.
A11: Yes, include Exhibit D in the RFP response. Complete only Part A, as any software corporation is authorized to do business related to software analysis in Oregon without additional licensing.
Q12: Is Exhibit F - COBID Participation and Outreach Plan required to be included in the RFP response? It is not clear to us because it is not listed on the Submittal Checklist/Cover Sheet and is not listed in the 3.3 Proposal Requirements, but it is referenced as an evaluation item in 4.10.2 Evaluation Criteria.
A12: Yes, include Exhibit F in your RFP response.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .