The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
Questions and Responses For Request for Quotes (RFQ) #S-DASOBO-00013325 iQMS for Oregon Teacher Standards and Practices commission (TSPC) Educator Data System (EDS) Project
| Section |
| Page |
| RFP Text |
| Question |
| Response |
| 1 |
| 4. PROJECT OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION |
| 4 |
| The selected iQMS Consultant will need to maintain flexibility and be adaptable to the SI Contractor’s implementation approaches and methodologies. |
| Has the TSPC awarded a contract for system development/ implementation services? If not, when is an award anticipated? |
| The RFP for the project’s SI vendor is under development and review by DAS Procurement and DOJ. The RFP is expected to be released through OregonBuys in July 2025, and a contract executed with the chosen SI Contractor by September. |
| 2 |
| 4. PROJECT OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION |
| 4 |
| The selected iQMS Consultant will need to maintain flexibility and be adaptable to the SI Contractor’s implementation approaches and methodologies. |
| Can the State provide any details on the planned development approach or methodology? Does the TSPC plan to follow an agile approach? |
| The overall project is being conducted in a conventional Waterfall method; aligning to the State of Oregon StageGate oversight model. However the State is open to the SI Contractor proposing hybrid methodology during the Implementation Phase. An iterative approach would be considered during such activities such as system configuration and unit testing. |
| 3 |
| 5. RESPONSIBILITIES |
| 5 |
| At a minimum, or as otherwise mutually agreed to in writing by Consultant and Authorized Purchaser, Consultant shall participate in the following meetings: |
a. Forty-eight (48) weekly Project Management Status Meetings
b. Twelve (12) monthly Steering Committee Meetings
| How does the meeting frequency align with the estimated 16-month project duration noted in Section 1 (Introduction & Background)? We would assume 16 monthly Steering Committee meetings and more weekly Project Status Meetings. |
| The number of Steering Committee and weekly project meetings stipulated in Section 5.1 (6) reflect a frequency of 80% of the estimated weeks/months of the project schedule. It is expected that there will be a limited number of meetings that will not take place. |
| 4 |
| 6. RFQ TIMELINE |
| 6 |
| N/A |
| Does the TSPC have a desired or planned start date for the iQMS engagement? If so, when does the State anticipate the TSPC program to begin? |
| Task 1 (Risk Assessment) and Task 2 (Quality Planning) work is expected to begin upon execution of a contract. It is anticipated this work could start in the first or second week of July. Upon conclusion of SI Contractor proposal submissions and evaluations, the IQMS consultant is expected to be in a position to then start execution of Task 3.1.3 (SI Contract Review) |
RFQ PRICING SHEET
| 14 |
| 3.1.1 – QC Review of Authorized Purchaser’s project management plans |
| This deliverable states “OPTION RESERVED TO AUTHORIZED PURCHASER”. However, the table seems to request a proposed cost ($0.00). Is the State seeking an itemized cost for this RESERVED deliverable? |
| Yes. The proposing Contractor should provide a cost estimate for this deliverable. The option whether or not to execute the work associated with the deliverable will be made at a later point in the project. |
RFQ PRICING SHEET
| 16 |
| 3.1.6 – Documentation necessary to demonstrate compliance with the EIS Cloud Policy (Statewide Policy 107-004-150). |
| This deliverable states “OPTION RESERVED TO AUTHORIZED PURCHASER”. However, the table seems to request a proposed cost ($0.00). Is the State seeking an itemized cost for this RESERVED deliverable? |
| Yes. The proposing Contractor should provide a cost estimate for this deliverable. The option whether or not to execute the work associated with the deliverable will be made at a later point in the project. |
RFQ PRICING SHEET
| 18 |
| 5.1 - Independent Master Test Plan (MTP) |
| This deliverable states “OPTION RESERVED TO AUTHORIZED PURCHASER”. However, the table seems to request a proposed cost ($0.00). Is the State seeking an itemized cost for this RESERVED deliverable? |
| Yes. The proposing Contractor should provide a cost estimate for this deliverable. The option whether or not to execute the work associated with the deliverable will be made at a later point in the project. |
RFQ PRICING SHEET
| 18 |
| 5.3 – Independent Security-Related Testing |
| This deliverable states “OPTION RESERVED TO AUTHORIZED PURCHASER”. However, the table seems to request a proposed cost ($0.00). Is the State seeking an itemized cost for this RESERVED deliverable? |
| Yes. The proposing Contractor should provide a cost estimate for this deliverable. The option whether or not to execute the work associated with the deliverable will be made at a later point in the project. |
| 9 |
| Attachment A – Project Charter |
| 4 of 7 |
| Summary Schedule |
| The planned schedule states the system was intended to go live in February 2025. Is this project substantially delayed? |
| The February 2025 Go-Live indicated in the Project Charter reflects a very preliminary estimate. Based on extensive planning conducted in Stage 2, the scope, requirements, and project processes have been defined and appropriately modified. The project schedule will be baselined as part of Stage 3 activities and the project documentation updated at that time. |
| 10 |
| Section 10f |
| 9 & 10 |
| Work Examples |
| It cites 3 examples; in Figure 1 it lists 5 work examples. Which is correct? |
| There are five (4) required Work Examples. The work examples listed in Section 10 (f) (Submittal Requirements) is missing deliverable 2.6; deliverable 3.3 or 4.1 can be submitted. Figure 1: Quote Evaluation Criteria 3.3 should have “or: instead of “and” at the end. |
| 11 |
| Deliverables 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 |
| 15 |
| Quality Control Reviews of SI Contractor RFQ and SI Contractor proposed contract |
| Should the Authorized Purchaser’s Project Plan and Authorized Purchaser’s Business Case be included as part of the 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 QC Reviews? |
| Deliverable 3.1.2 is wholly optional and if executed would involve a review of the Project Plan and/or Business Case. |
The main objective of Deliverable 3.1.3 is to verify the sound alignment of the Authorized Purchaser’s RFP, SOW, and Requirements with the SI Contractor’s proposal, and to ensure that the proposed contract language accurately reflects the stated goals of the engagement. As such, the Authorized Purchaser’s Project Plan and Business Case may be used as inputs for evaluating SI SOW, but QC review of Project Plan and Business case is not part of the 3.1.3 deliverable.
| 12 |
| Exhibit 2 |
| 8 |
| Reference Check Questions |
| We note that the Reference Check questions on page 8 do not match the questions on Exhibit 2. Which set of questions is correct? |
As per the language in Section 10 (d), the proposing Consultant has two options for providing reference project/client information.
The first option is that reference clients complete the Exhibit 2 form in its entirety and the proposing vendor includes those signed references with their quote.
The second option is that the proposing vendor answer the four questions in Section 10 (d) from their perspective and ALSO use the Exhibit 2 for to provide the reference client contact information. In this case, the questions on Exhibit 2 are not answered.
| Final Penetration Testing Report |
| Does the State intend for the iQMS vendor to (1) conduct penetration testing using vendor provided tools (which can cost up to $100,000 or even $50,000 per “black box” scan) or (2) provide independent verification and validation of the results of the agency’s penetration testing which will use State-licensed software testing tools? |
If this deliverable is executed, the intent is to utilize option 1.