RFQ 27-05307 Questions and Answers Final 07.01.26.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 25 KB Posted
- Attached to
- RFQ 27-05307 for Project Health Assessments, Project Management and Strategic Consulting Services
- Solicitation number
- BD-26-1060-ITD00-ITD00-130602
- Issued by
- Suffolk County, Massachusetts
About this file
This is a Questions and Answers document for RFQ 27-05307 issued by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Technology Services and Security (EOTSS) for Project Health Assessments, Project Management and Strategic Consulting Services, Application Development Services, and Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) Services. Vendors are not required to respond to all four service areas; they may indicate which services they are qualified to provide. The RFQ is restricted to current vendors on the ITS81 Statewide Contract for Project Services and GIS. EOTSS expects to utilize services across all categories but cannot commit to a projected percentage or distribution, as assignments will depend on business needs, project priorities, and available funding. The original response deadline was July 13, 2026, which was extended to July 20, 2026 upon vendor request. Questions were due June 24, 2026, with Commonwealth responses posted by July 1, 2026. The Notice of Apparent Successful Bidder(s) is estimated for August 17, 2026. EOTSS has 70+ capital projects across its portfolio, with an estimated total of over 100 projects when including agency-funded projects. The initial contract term is 36 months with renewal or extension options subject to the applicable Statewide Contract maximum. EOTSS intends to award approximately five vendors to provide services across the Executive Branch and eligible secretariats.
Submitted hourly rates are fixed for the full 36-month term and any renewals. EOTSS strongly prefers United States-based resources; however, all personnel performing services under an executed Statement of Work must be physically located and operating within the United States unless otherwise expressly authorized by EOTSS or the Eligible Entity. Bidders must certify compliance with Commonwealth data classification requirements, including PII, PHI, Federal Tax Return Information, CORI, Criminal Justice Information, and Social Security Administration Data; documented capability and willingness to comply is sufficient at the RFQ response stage, with detailed security practices, policies, and procedures to be addressed during the Statement of Work process. Bidders are not required to demonstrate compliance with all listed data types to be responsive, though inability to comply with certain data types may limit an engagement's performance capacity. Evaluation criteria in descending importance are fit to requirements, quality of product functionality, time for delivery, and price. A vendor may not perform a Project Health Assessment for a project on which it is currently providing implementation, project management, consulting, IV&V, application development, or other services that could impair independence. The 30-page limit for sample reports applies to all samples combined and does not include resumes, case studies, architecture diagrams, technical design documents, or other materials requested elsewhere in the RFQ.
View the file
Other files
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
Q&A
| RFQ 27-05307 for Project Health Assessments, Project Management and Strategic Consulting Services, and Application Development Services Questions and Answers | |||
| Question # | Topic | Question | EOTSS Response |
| 1 | Service Area Response Requirements | Could the Commonwealth please confirm whether vendors are required to respond to all four service areas described in the RFQ (Project Health Assessment, Project Management and Strategic Consulting, Application Development, and IV&V Services)? Many qualified vendors who provide IT project health assessments, IV&V, and strategic consulting services do not provide application development services in order to maintain independence, so requiring vendors to respond to all four areas may limit competition. | No, vendors do not have to provide services in all areas - we would ask that they indicate which services they are qualified to provide. |
| 2 | Question Regarding Anticipated Service Mix | Can EOTSS provide additional guidance regarding the anticipated mix of Project Health Assessments, PM/Consulting Services, IV&V Services, and Application Development assignments expected under this contract? | EOTSS expects to utilize services across all categories under this contract. We cannot commit to a projected percentage or distribution, as assignments will depend on business needs, project priorities, and available funding throughout the contract term. |
| 3 | Response Time for Future SOW Requests | The RFQ states that vendors are expected to respond within one week of an Eligible Entity's request for services. Does this one-week timeframe apply to acknowledging availability, submitting a full proposal/SOW, or beginning work? | Acknowledging availability. |
| 4 | IV&V Versus Project Health Assessment Scope | Can EOTSS clarify how it distinguishes IV&V services from Project Health Assessment services under this RFQ, particularly where both involve independent review of project risks, governance, deliverables, and readiness? | While there may be overlap in the activities performed, the distinction is based on the scope and purpose of the engagement. Project Health Assessments are typically point-in-time evaluations of a project's overall health, risks, and readiness intended to identify issues and provide recommendations. IV&V services generally involve ongoing, independent oversight throughout a project's lifecycle to validate project management, governance, deliverables, and risk management. |
| 5 | Application Development Scope and Technology Stack | Can EOTSS identify whether anticipated application development work will focus on specific Commonwealth platforms, cloud environments, programming languages, enterprise tools, or modernization priorities? | Potentially a mix of all - we are including this in the RFQ should we have a need for these services. If application development work is needed, there will be additonal guidance from EOTSS and information requested of the vendor to ensure they are qualified for the specific need of the project. |
| 6 | Evaluation Criteria | The evaluation criteria includes 2. Quality of product functionality; and 3. Time for delivery as metrics. Please explain what is meant by Quality of product functionality and Time for delivery and how those metrics will be evaluated. | "Quality of product functionality" refers to the quality of the respondent's proposed approach to performing the services, including the qualifications and experience of the proposed resources, the demonstrated understanding of the engagement, and the respondent's ability to produce high-quality work products and deliverables that meet the requirements of the RFQ. "Time for delivery" refers to the respondent's ability to provide qualified resources and perform the required services within the timelines established in the RFQ. Evaluation may consider the proposed schedule, staffing plan, resource availability, and ability to meet required milestones and deliverable dates. |
| 7 | Section V. Data Classification | Section V.A identifies several checked data classification types, including PII, PHI, Federal Tax Return Information, CORI, Criminal Justice Information, and Social Security Administration Data. Because the specific scope, systems, data access, and compliance requirements for each engagement will be defined at the SOW stage, can EOTSS clarify what level of detail bidders are expected to provide in the RFQ response regarding information security practices and policies for the checked data types? Specifically, should bidders provide a general description of their enterprise security, privacy, and compliance controls applicable to these data types, or is EOTSS seeking data-type-specific procedures, certifications, agreements, background check processes, and compliance documentation at the RFQ response stage? | At the RFQ response stage, bidders are only required to indicate whether they can comply with the requirements identified for each applicable data type. Detailed information regarding security practices, policies, procedures, certifications, agreements, background checks, and other compliance documentation is not required as part of the RFQ response and, if applicable, will be addressed during the Statement of Work (SOW) process. |
| 8 | Resumes | Resumes are asked for in three of the four service areas of the RFQ. Do resumes have to be placed in that service area content area of the proposal or may they be included in an appendix of the proposal response, grouped by service? | EOTSS has no preference regarding where this information is provided within the response, provided it is included. |
| 9 | Tools | What tools (such as Microsoft Project, Smartsheet, Jira, etc.) is EOTSS using to manage its projects? | Microsoft Project, Smartsheet, JIRA, SPM, but other eligible entities may have additional tools. |
| 10 | General | Is EOTSS' expectation that Bidders respond to all service areas outlined in Section II (Project Health Assessment, Project Management and Strategic Consulting, Application Development, and IV&V Services), or may Bidders submit responses for a subset of services based on their areas of expertise? | Please see response to question No. 1. |
| 11 | General | Does EOTSS permit the use of subcontractors and SDP to meet or supplement required qualifications and experience across one or more service areas? | Yes |
| 12 | References | The RFQ requires submission of three references. Should these references collectively demonstrate experience across all proposed service areas, or does the Commonwealth expect three references per service category included in the Bidder's response? | The references can collectively demonstrate experience across all areas. We do not need 3 per service. |
| 13 | Staffing | Given that services will be delivered through future Statements of Work, what level of specificity is expected regarding proposed key personnel in the RFQ response? * Should Bidders include resumes for a defined core team only, or for all potential roles across service categories? * Is it acceptable to provide representative roles and sample resumes where staffing will vary by assignment? | It would be acceptable to provide sample resumes and represntative roles that would be available as assignments come up. If you have a core team that you would also like to include their resumes, we would accept that as well. However, if the personnel ultimately proposed for a specific engagement differ materially from the representative qualifications and experience presented in the RFQ response, EOTSS may consider those differences when evaluating the bidder for that engagement. |
| 14 | Portfolio view | Does EOTSS have a specific format or tool to be used for the Portfolio view of the project health status and ratings? | No |
| 15 | Scope | Will the vendor be responsible for following up on the recommendations or actions from the Final Report to determine if gaps and problems have been resolved? | This will be dependent on what expectations were outlined in the SOW. |
| 16 | Form 1 IV. Business and Technical Response (A.) | We do not see a Section VIII. Is this a typo? Please confirm response is for Sections (I - VII.) A. A response to each Section (I - VIII) of the RFQ in which Bidder identifies the means by which it shall comply with the terms in each Section. | Yes, this was a typo. The RFQ contains only seven sections. |
| 17 | Form 1 V. Cost Response (A.) | * Form 1 instructs Bidders to include a redline of Form 2 and 'insert pricing... as applicable', but it does not specifically mention Form 2 Attachment D (page 34). Can the Commonwealth clarify if the Form 2 submission should be redlines of the MSA terms only, or must Bidders also populate and include Attachment D (and/or other attachments) with this initial response? * If required, should Attachment D be embedded within the Form 2 document or provided as a separate document? * Do you require Form 1 and Form 2 to be submitted as two separate documents? | Vendors should provide the hourly rates requested in Form 1 in a document separate from the Business and Technical Response. The hourly rates should be submitted as a document apart from the redline of the Master Services Agreement with the understanding that any final negotiated rates will be incorporated into the MSA as Attachment D. |
| 18 | Section II.B - Description of Services: Application Development Services | For Application Development Services, is EOTSS seeking vendors that can perform full application design, development, and implementation work, or will advisory services related to secure SDLC, technical oversight, QA/testing, accessibility, modernization, and implementation support also be considered responsive? | There will potentially be a need for all services mentioned, depending on the project. |
| 19 | Section V.A - Data Classification: Federal Tax Return Information (IRS Publication 1075, Exhibit 7 | For FTI (IRS Pub 1075, Exhibit 7), must this be in place at submission, or is documented capability and willingness sufficient? | Documented capability and willingness is sufficient. |
| 20 | Section V.A - Data Classification | Must a bidder demonstrate compliance for ALL listed data types (PII, PHI, FTI, CORI/CJIS, SSA) to be responsive? | No. Bidders are not required to demonstrate compliance with all listed data types to be responsive. However, a bidder's inability to comply with the requirements for certain data types may limit its ability to perform engagements involving those data types. In addition, where bidders are otherwise substantially similar, EOTSS may consider a bidder's ability to support all identified data types in its evaluation and selection. |
| 21 | Section VII - Form 1: Business & Technical Response, Sample Report Requirements | Does the 30-page limit on sample reports apply per service line or to all samples combined? And does it count only narrative "reports," or also resumes, case studies, architecture diagrams, and technical design documents? | The 30-page limit applies to all sample reports combined, not per service line. The page limit applies only to the sample reports themselves and does not include resumes, case studies, architecture diagrams, technical design documents, or other materials requested elsewhere in the RFQ. Bidders are encouraged to organize their submissions in a clear, concise, and easy-to-review manner. Marketing materials are strongly discouraged and should be limited to information that directly supports the evaluation criteria. |
| 22 | RFQ Extension | Would the Commonwealth consider a 1-week extension until July 20th? | Yes. |
| 23 | Section II, Description of Services - Project Health Assessment Services | What is the anticipated annual volume and size range of Project Health Assessments? | See response to question No. 2. |
| 24 | Section II, Description of Services (all service categories) | Are there minimum onsite/in-person requirements for any service category, or is remote work acceptable? | Remote work is acceptable but please identify the location of the remote resources. |
| 25 | Project Health Assessment Conflicts of Interest | The RFQ states a vendor cannot perform a Project Health Assessment on a project where they are already providing services. Could you please clarify the scope of this restriction? | The restriction applies to the specific project being assessed. A vendor may not perform a Project Health Assessment for a project on which it is currently providing implementation, project management, consulting, IV&V, application development, or other services that could impair the independence of the assessment. This restriction does not prohibit the vendor from performing Project Health Assessments for other projects where no such conflict exists. |
| 26 | Response Page Limit | The RFQ suggests a 30-page limit for "all reports combined." Does this 30-page limit apply strictly to the collective total of the sample work product reports requested, or if it is an all-encompassing limit that also includes the bidder's narrative response, resumes, and other attachments? | See response to question No. 21. |
| 27 | Page Limit | Page 20 of the RFQ states, "The suggested limit is 30 pages for all reports combined." Question: Can MA EOTSS please clarify the sections/items that should be included in these 30 pages? | See response to question No. 21. |
| 28 | Statement of Qualifications and Resumes | IV. Business and Technical Response, Section B. "Include statement of qualifications and resume for each proposed individual." Question: Can the statement of qualifications and resumes be included in an appendix section, and can these NOT be counted against the page count (30 pages)? | See response to question No. 21. |
| 29 | Sample Reports | IV. Business and Technical Response, Section A.1 Health assessments: "The Bidder must provide sample Project Health Assessment reports from similar projects..." Question: Can requested sample reports in Section A be included in an appendix section, and can/are these NOT counted against the page count (30 pages)? This question includes all samples requested in Sections A1, A2, A3, and A4. | See response to question No. 21. |
| 30 | Section III, Estimated Term; Form 1 - Cost Response | Can hourly rates be adjusted annually or are submitted rates fixed for the full 36-month term and any renewals? | Submitted rates are fixed for the full 36-month term. |
| 31 | Section II, Description of Services - Application Development Services | For app dev SOWs, will EOTSS provide access to dev/test environments, APIs, and identity management infrastructure, or must vendors provision these independently? | Depending on the specific project, EOTSS will provide the necessary dev/test environment, API or Infrastructure |
| 32 | RFQ Reference: Form 1 - Cost Response; MSA Form 2 - Attachment E, Section 6.3; Attachment F, Section | The RFQ Cost Response states EOTSS "strongly prefers" U.S.-based resources and provides a table for disclosing non-U.S. locations, implying offshore staffing is permissible with disclosure; however, both SOW templates (Attachments E and F, Section 6.3) require that "all services shall be performed exclusively by personnel who are physically located and operating in the United States" - please confirm which standard governs and whether any offshore staffing is permissible under this contract. | The SOW requirements govern individual engagements under this contract. While bidders may identify the location of their resources in the RFQ response, any personnel performing services under an executed Statement of Work must be physically located and operating within the United States, unless otherwise expressly authorized by EOTSS or the Eligible Entity in the applicable SOW. |
| 33 | Project Health Assessment | How many active IT projects are currently in EOTSS's portfolio across all 125+ agencies, and how does EOTSS prioritize which projects require immediate health assessments vs. routine assessments? | EOTSSh has 70+ capital projects across all agencies; each agency then has additional projects that they fund separately, estlimated count would be over 100. Immediate health assessments are determined when a project has become at risk(not meeting timelines, financial needs change, scope updates, etc). Routine assessments are at the discretion of EOTSS or the Eligible Entity. EOTSS cannot guarantee any minimum volume of work, number of engagements, or distribution of services under this contract. Project Health Assessments will be requested based on EOTSS business needs, priorities, and available funding. |
| 34 | Scope of Services / Bidder Responses | Can you please clarify whether Bidders are permitted to submit responses for a subset of the service categories (e.g., one or more specific service areas), or if Bidders are expected to provide comprehensive responses covering all four listed services? | See response to question No. 1. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .