RFQ NO. S-10000-00015968 - Updated 2-25-26 supersedes original RFQ doc.docx

S‑10000‑00015968 – Updated via Addendum #1. New language is bold and underlined; deleted language is struck through.

REQUEST FOR QUOTES (RFQ) NO. S-10000-00015968

Best Value Analysis Process for IQMS ODHS/OHA H.R. 1 Portfolio

Salem, OR 97301

Services: Independent Quality Management Services Issued to:

1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

This IQMS Request for Quote No. S-10000-00015968 (RFQ) seeks a single, qualified and eligible Consultant from the affected pool of Consultants to provide independent Quality Management Services (IQMS) for the HR1 and SNAP PER Portfolio (Portfolio). Interested Consultants must develop and submit Quotes in compliance with all RFQ requirements. Consultants (and their subcontractors) are NOT eligible if they are providing other project support services or Information Technology Professional Services on one or both of the projects in the Portfolio.

The Consultant selected for contract award (Awarded Consultant) must demonstrate sufficient capacity to provide IQMS services across projects under the Portfolio, as activated by the Authorized Purchaser. Please see:

1. Attachment A for the Medicaid Work Requirements Project Initiative Brief,

2. Attachment B for the Predictive Analytics Project Initiative Brief,

3. Attachment C for the Eligibility Interview Assistant Project Initiative Brief Authorized Purchaser estimates the length of the Work Order Contract (“Contract”) to be two years or until all Deliverables have been submitted and accepted by Authorized Purchaser (Final Acceptance as defined in the Contract). Some Deliverables are currently listed as “OPTION RESERVED TO AUTHORIZED PURCHASER” and may later be activated through an amendment or change order to the Contract, as appropriate. In addition, as the project progresses into new phases, some Deliverables may need to be refreshed as more becomes known. The selected IQMS Consultant will need to maintain flexibility and adapt to the Authorized Purchaser’s oversight needs and implementation context.

The Portfolio of projects relates to implementing federal mandates under House Resolution 1 (H.R. 1). Projects for the initial scope are for Medicaid Work Requirements and Reduction in SNAP Payment Error Rate (PER). This opportunity is scalable and the State may amend the resulting Contract , if any, to include future IQMS work for projects related to implementing H.R 1 mandates. The selected Consultant must demonstrate capacity to scale staffing if projects are added to the Portfolio, as authorized by the Authorized Purchaser. The Authorized Purchaser may add or remove projects from the Portfolio based on oversight needs and applicable requirements.

Additional projects related to H.R. 1 and SNAP PER may be added to the Portfolio by Authorized Purchaser through amendment or change order. Any such added projects are anticipated to include their own set of deliverables, which will likely be reserved as “optional” to Authorized Purchaser and activated only upon written authorization by Authorized Purchaser.

The purpose of the selected Consultant’s work will be to comply with all applicable contractual requirements to assure that appropriate levels of quality planning, quality control, quality assurance, and independent review of solution testing (including monitoring and reporting), are performed for projects under the Portfolio. These Services must provide the Authorized Purchaser with appropriate visibility into the processes being used, and the products being built. Services must assure that the Project satisfies the needs for which it was undertaken, and that project risks are well understood and appropriately mitigated or managed.

Authorized Purchaser intends to enter into a contract with its selected IQMS Consultant substantially in the form of the Sample Work Order Contract (WOC) attached to Consultant’s Master Price and Services Agreement (“MPSA”), as MPSA Attachment C or Attachment C2, as applicable.

2. DEFINITIONS AND RFQ ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS

A capitalized word has the meaning ascribed to the term in the MPSA and proposed WOC. Project-centric definitions include:

(a) “Authorized Purchaser” or “AP” means Oregon Department of Human Services (ODHS).

(b) “DAS” means Department of Administrative Services. For more information about DAS please link to: https://www.oregon.gov/das/pages/index.aspx

(c) “EIS” means the Enterprise Information Services, previously designated as the Office of the State Chief Information Officer (“OSCIO”) for the State of Oregon. All references in the RFQ-related documentation to “OSCIO” refer to EIS. For more information about EIS please link to:

https://www.oregon.gov/das/oscio/pages/index.aspx

(d) “IQMS” means independent quality management services in the context of State’s 5 independent verification and validation Tasks of Risk Assessment and Management, Quality Planning, Quality Control, Quality Assurance, and Independent review of Solution Testing.

(e) “IQMS Consultant” or “Consultant” means IQMS Contractor currently covered under IQMS Master Price and Services Agreement.

(f) “MPSA” means the IQMS Master Price and Services Agreement that each Consultant currently has in force.

(g) “Offeror” means an IQMS Consultant that submitted a Quote.

(h) “PMBOK” means the current edition of the Project Management Body of Knowledge published by the Project Management Institute.

(i) “Portfolio” Projects, programs, subsidiary portfolios, and operations managed as a group to achieve strategic objectives. Group of related projects by operational area or a larger initiative. Includes related projects that may be initiated within two (2) years. Portfolio composition is determined and modified by the Authorized Purchaser and applicable statewide policies.

(j) “Project” means one of the initiatives within this Portfolio, such as Medicaid Work Requirements, Predictive Analytics, and Eligibility Interview Assistant.

(k) “Quote” means an RFQ-responsive submission that describes a Consultant’s approach, experience, proposed personnel and cost for requested Services.

(l) “SI Contractor” means the Authorized Purchaser’s development team or a contractor responsible for solution implementation (SI) in the Project.

(m) “State” means the State of Oregon acting by and through DAS and Authorized Purchaser.

RFQ ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS INCLUDE:

(a) Exhibit No. 1: RFQ Pricing Sheet (embedded in RFQ).

(b) Exhibit No. 2: Client Reference Form (embedded in RFQ).

(c) Exhibit No. 3: Statement of Work[footnoteRef:2] (embedded in RFQ). [2: The Statement of Work includes Appendices A to E, available on the State Chief Information Office Website at: https://www.oregon.gov/das/OSCIO/Pages/IndependentQA.aspx]

(d) Attachment A: Medicaid Work Requirements Project Initiative Brief (embedded in RFQ)

(e) Attachment B: Predictive Analytics Project Initiative Brief (embedded in RFQ)

(f) Attachment C: Eligibility Interview Assistant Project Initiative Brief (embedded in RFQ)

3. DISCLAIMER:

As per ORS 279B.040, neither the Department of Administrative Services nor the Authorized Purchaser may accept any bid or proposal from the awarded Consultant with respect to any subsequent Request for Proposal(s) for any Portfolio projects related to those for which the Services provided by the awarded Consultant are utilized as a result of this Request for Quote.

4. PORTFOLIO OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION

IQMS Offeror Preferred Experience

· Offeror capacity to oversee multiple projects concurrently within the Portfolio.

· Experience working in the industry or with specific regulations.

· Experience working with technology applicable to the project.

· Demonstrated experience delivering IQMS initiatives in fast-moving, high-risk environments, utilizing real-time stakeholder collaboration and rapid feedback loops while producing incremental, formally governed, and audit-ready deliverables.

Portfolio Background The passage of H.R. 1 (the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”) marks the first time Medicaid work requirements have been enacted through federal statute rather than via waivers, establishing uniform federal rules requiring certain adults aged 19–64 in the Medicaid expansion population to verify 80 hours of work, education, or community engagement per month to maintain eligibility.

Implementing H.R. 1 in Oregon requires a coordinated portfolio of interdependent initiatives spanning policy, systems, and operations across Medicaid and SNAP. While the ONE Eligibility System provides a core platform for integrated eligibility and case management, H.R. 1 implementation will not be fully addressed within ONE alone. Instead, the portfolio includes the introduction of modular solution components designed to integrate with existing systems while accelerating delivery, managing risk, and reducing dependency on large-scale ONE enhancements.

In parallel, the SNAP Payment Error Rate (PER) reduction efforts, require system, policy, and operational changes extending beyond Medicaid. Oregon’s current SNAP PER of 14.06% places the state in the highest cost-share tier, creating significant fiscal exposure, up to $438 million in state costs every two years, along with existing federal penalties and increased administrative cost-sharing. To mitigate this risk, Authorized Purchaser’s approach seeks to incorporate the strategic use of AI-enabled capabilities to improve eligibility accuracy, detect error patterns, and support more timely corrective actions, while maintaining compliance with federal oversight and audit requirements.

This Portfolio represents a time-constrained, high-risk delivery environment requiring coordinated governance, rapid implementation of modular solutions, and disciplined execution across multiple programs to achieve statutory compliance, reduce fiscal exposure, and maintain program integrity.

Portfolio Project Overview The enactment of H.R.1 introduces significant changes to Medicaid eligibility, including new federal work and community engagement requirements for a subset of adult enrollees. These requirements create substantial operational, technical, and compliance risk for Oregon’s Medicaid program, particularly given the scale of affected populations, compressed timelines, and the need to coordinate policy, systems, and operations across agencies.

Oregon is pursuing a coordinated approach to support compliance with H.R. 1 requirements that include updates to existing eligibility platforms and complementary solution components to address new operational and reporting needs. The approach is designed to support federal compliance while minimizing unintended coverage loss and administrative burden.

Independent Quality Management Services (IQMS) are required to provide oversight across planning, design, testing, and implementation activities, including monitoring risks, assessing readiness, reviewing testing and compliance artifacts, and supporting visibility into progress and issues across Medicaid Work Requirements initiative. The initiative includes multiple coordinated workstreams, including changes within the existing eligibility system and supporting solution components external to that system.

Portfolio Project Work Areas

· Project 1 Medicaid Work Requirements The enactment of H.R. 1 introduces significant changes to Medicaid eligibility, including new federal work and community engagement requirements for a subset of adult enrollees. These provisions affect individuals aged 19 to 64 who qualify under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Medicaid expansion group or through a waiver that provides minimum essential coverage. To retain their health benefits, affected members must demonstrate compliance with defined employment, volunteer, or training activities. These changes present operational, equity, and communication challenges for Oregon’s Medicaid program, requiring coordinated outreach, robust eligibility systems, and safeguards to prevent unintended coverage loss.

Compliance must be verified by the state at the time of application and renewal, with at least one month of verification within each eligibility period. This will be verified automatically, where possible, before member documentation is requested. This serves to maximize automation, reduce staff workload, and reduce member burden.

Current business processes do not include Medicaid work verification or the necessary data elements to determine whether an individual meets an exception or will need to comply with work requirements, and any additional verification required to support this determination.

· SNAP PER Projects The SNAP Payment Error Rate (PER) measures the accuracy of benefit issuance and is monitored by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Services (FNS). Oregon’s current PER places the state in a high-risk tier, creating significant fiscal exposure and heightened federal oversight.

Addressing SNAP PER requires coordinated system, policy, and operational changes to improve accuracy, reduce errors, and support timely actions while maintaining program integrity.

Independent Quality Management Services (IQMS) are required to oversee activities related to SNAP PER initiatives, including monitoring risks, reviewing corrective action efforts, assessing testing and data quality processes, and providing independent visibility into compliance and readiness. The projects below serve support reduction in the error rates:

· Project 2 Predictive Analytics Oregon faces elevated SNAP Payment Error Rate (PER) risk, resulting in increased federal oversight and potential fiscal exposure. Addressing PER requires coordinated improvements across data quality, eligibility processes, and operational decision-making.

The State is pursuing analytical approaches to better identify error drivers, improve consistency in eligibility determinations, and support timely corrective actions across SNAP operations.

Independent Quality Management Services are required to provide oversight of predictive analytics initiatives, including review of planning, governance, testing, data-quality controls, and risk mitigation activities, and to provide independent visibility into readiness and compliance.

· Project 3 Eligibility Interview Assistant Eligibility interviews for SNAP and related programs require consistency, accuracy, and clear documentation to support program integrity and compliance. Variability in interview processes and documentation can increase error risk and administrative burden.

The State is exploring tools and process improvements to support more consistent eligibility interviews, improve documentation quality, and enhance readiness for federal review.

Independent Quality Management Services are required to oversee planning, testing, and implementation activities associated with interview support initiatives, including review of risks, controls, testing approaches, and compliance readiness.

5. RESPONSIBILITIES

a. Weekly Project Team Meetings.

b. Monthly Project Status Meetings.

c. Monthly Executive Steering Committee Meetings.

d. Documentation reviews for real time feedback, as agreed upon.

5.2. Authorized Purchaser Activities

Authorized Purchaser will:

6. RFQ TIMELINE

The table below represents a tentative schedule of events for this RFQ. All times are listed in Pacific Time. All dates and times are subject to change.

7. SCOPE OF SERVICES:

The Scope of Services includes the Services depicted in the MPSA Sample Contract and RFQ Exhibit No. 3, Statement of Work. Consultant will provide IQMS for projects related to H.R. 1 Medicaid Eligibility Requirements and SNAP Payment Error Reduction IT initiatives.

8. QUESTIONS AND REQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATION:

All questions and requests for clarification regarding this RFQ must be submitted in writing by e-mail to the Authorized Representative and must be received no later than the date and Time identified above in the “RFQ Timeline” section. E-mail subject line must read: IQMS RFQ #S-10000-00015968 Clarification.

When appropriate, as determined by Authorized Purchaser in its sole discretion, revisions, substitutions or clarifications of the RFQ will be sent electronically.

9. QUOTATION SUBMITTAL:

Quotes must be received on or before the Offer Due Date and Time at the location identified above to be considered. Quotes will not be accepted after the Offer Due Date and Time. Quotes will be accepted by e-mail, regular mail or hand delivery to the Authorized Representative identified above. Submittals must be specified using the subject line: IQMS RFQ # S-10000-00015968 Submittal.

Authorized Purchaser may extend the Offer Due Date when it is in the best interest of Authorized Purchaser.

Authorized Purchaser may reject all Quotes or cancel this RFQ if in its sole determination, it is in the best interest of Authorized Purchaser.

10. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS:

Quotes must be submitted via email transmission to the Authorized Representative in searchable, electronic PDF format by the Offer Closing Date and Time listed in the RFQ Timeline.[footnoteRef:3] Quotes must include the following items: [3: Please note that the Authorized Representative’s email system will not accept an email transmission with attachments that exceed 15 MB in size; and will not accept zipped files. Quoting Consultants should separate oversized files for submission in two (2) or more transmissions. Unfortunately, the system does not alert the intended recipient of any email rejection. Therefore, a Quoting Consultant should always include in the transmitted email(s) a request for confirmation of receipt, and is responsible for otherwise following up in the event it does not receive timely confirmation, i.e., within 24 hours of submission.]

(a) Declaration of “No Conflict of Interest”.

(b) A description of Consultant’s approach for providing the Services in the Statement of Work (“SOW”) for the Portfolio. IQMS Consultant Offerors must submit their approach to accomplishing the Services, along with critical success factors for each Project under the Portfolio. Consultants may choose to submit the required information in draft Quality Management Plan and Baseline Work Plan formats (IQMS Deliverables 2.3 and 2.4), or in some alternative format they believe allows them to clearly and concisely communicate the required information. Any alternative format must address the same content areas and level of detail as the referenced iQMS deliverables.

(c) Identities and resumes for proposed personnel (designating which are “key” persons) through whom Consultant intends to deliver the required Services, and a staffing plan explaining how Consultant will maintain the demonstrated personnel credentials, qualifications, expertise and experience throughout the life of the Contract(s). Authorized Purchaser prefers Consultant’s deployment of personnel with a minimum of five (5) years’ experience. All deployed personnel must be able to pass a certified criminal background check.

(d) A description of past or current comparable[footnoteRef:4] projects within the last five (5) years for which Consultant has or is providing quality management services that were/are comparable to the Services described in the RFQ; and Client Reference Check Forms (Exhibit 2) for each. Forms must either be completed and signed by the reference, returned to the Consultant and submitted with the quote; or Consultants may submit Exhibit 2 with Consultant’s name and Client Reference Contact Information entered, and items 1 through 5 completed from Consultant’s perspective as depicted in Exhibit No. 2 Reference Check Form. In either circumstance, The Authorized Purchaser reserves the right to follow up separately with Client References and may provide additional guidance to the Offeror concerning Client Reference Checks.[footnoteRef:5] [4: Comparable means similar in nature, complexity, scope and size to the Next Generation 9-1-1 Project.

] [5: If an Offeror has provided client reference check forms in connection with an IQMS opportunity in the past and intends to use those same client references for this IQMS opportunity, then that Offeror may submit copies of those previous references to satisfy the reference check requirement in this opportunity. Failure to meet the client reference requirement may result in rejection of the subject Quote from further consideration for contract award.

(e) A separate Pricing Sheet (Exhibit No. 1) that lists Fixed Prices by Deliverable and the Hourly Rate Card by personnel position used to develop Fixed Prices. The Pricing Sheet must be signed by an authorized representative of Consultant, or the Quote will be considered null and void.

1. Offerors/Consultants may add a signature line to the pricing sheet exhibit, or

2. Include a signed cover letter addressing all submission components, including the Cost Quote.

(f) Work examples of, or detailed Deliverable Expectation Documents (“DED”) for:

0. Deliverable 1.1, Risk Assessment Report,

0. Deliverable 2.6, Project Evaluation and Lessons Learned Report,

0. Deliverable 3.1, Quality Control Review Report (and related Deliverable 2.2, Quality Checklist) and,

0. Deliverable 4.1, Quarterly QA Status and Improvement Reports.

(g) Submitted Quotes are subject to disclosure as public records. If an Offeror/Consultant includes information and data with its submitted Quote that Offeror/Consultant regards as proprietary, privileged, or otherwise confidential; Offeror/Consultant must identify such information in a separate document submitted with its Quote and provide a redacted submission along with the original submission. Otherwise, State will assume that Offeror/Consultant consents to public disclosure of the original submission.

11. EVALUATION AND AWARD:

Quote submissions will be reviewed to determine if all Submittal Requirements have been met. Those meeting the Submittal Requirements will be evaluated to determine the “Best Value” for the State. “Best Value” is based solely on the evaluator’s determination of what best meets the needs of Authorized Purchaser, taking into account price as well as the following considerations:

(a) Independence (no conflict of interest);

(b) Perceived quality of submitted approach and critical success factors, including demonstrated understanding of oversight responsibilities, risk management, and compliance requirements;

(c) Consultant’s experience;

(d) Credentials, qualifications, expertise and experience of proposed Consultant personnel;

(e) Perceived quality and efficacy of proposed Staffing Plan;

(f) Consultant references; and

(g) Perceived quality of submitted Work Examples or DEDs.

The initial scored evaluation round includes assessment of all required initial submissions. Scoring categories and their related “maximum points” are listed in Figure 1. Each non-price category will be scored based on the information provided in the Quotes in the context of the Rating Scale set out in Figure 2.

Figure 1: Quote Evaluation Criteria

POINTS

The Authorized Representative will average the final scores for each Quote (calculated by totaling the points awarded by each Evaluation Committee member and dividing by the number of members). The calculated average is the final score. Evaluation will focus on oversight approach, risk identification, governance alignment, and compliance support.

Provide the Approach and Critical Success Factors for Medicaid Work Requirements – Project 1 only. All other projects are reserved as options for the authorized purchaser.

2. Deliverable 2.6, Lessons Learned Report,

3. Deliverable 3.1, Quality Control Review Report (and related Deliverable 2.2, Quality Checklist),

4. Deliverable 4.1, Quality Assurance Status and Improvement Report.

Work examples are evaluated for relevance and quality of oversight practices and do not establish contractual deliverable formats.

cost being scored

Authorized Purchaser may decide to defer calculation of cost points until Round 2 evaluation, limiting such calculation to the top-ranking Offerors who will compete in that round. Cost evaluation will consider reasonableness and alignment with the proposed oversight approach.

Figure 2: Rating Scale

90 – 100% OUTSTANDING - Response meets all the requirements and has demonstrated in a clear and concise manner a thorough knowledge and understanding of the subject matter and opportunity. The Offeror provides deep and meaningful insight into its expertise, knowledge, and understanding of the subject matter.

The rating scale at Figure 2 provides guidance to Evaluation Committee members concerning their required qualitative, subjective assessment of how well an Offeror addresses the elements and essentials prescribed in each scored submission requirement in terms of the Offeror’s demonstrated knowledge and likely capacity and capability to develop, deliver, and perform in the context of the relevant Tasks and Deliverables at issue in a submission requirement.

Authorized Purchaser may establish additional rounds of evaluation for Interviews and presentations involving two (2) or more of the top-ranking Offerors. The actual number of invited Offerors to any additional rounds of evaluation depends upon scoring results from the preceding round; and the Evaluation Committee may determine not to carry over scores from the preceding round to the additional round. Alternatively, but may determine to award a Contract at the conclusion of the first evaluation round to the highest-scoring Offeror[footnoteRef:6] (successful Consultant with the best value quote). The awarded Contract will be in a form substantially similar to the Sample Contract attached to the awarded Consultant’s IQMS Master Price and Services Agreement (“MPSA”) and the proposed Statement of Work (RFQ Exhibit 3). Authorized Purchaser may negotiate deliverable costs with the successful Consultant. [6: In such event, State Parties may still conduct an interview/presentation session onsite with the highest-scoring Offeror.

CONTRACT AWARD DETERMINATION IS FINAL, BASED ON THE SCORES PROVIDED BY THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE, AND SUBJECT TO A TIMELY, COMPLIANT AWARD PROTEST FROM AN ADVERSELY AFFECTED OFFEROR. Authorized Purchaser will not award a Contract to any Offeror that the evaluation committee determines to have an actual or apparent conflict of interest.

AWARD PROTEST OPPORTUNITY CONSISTENT WITH ORS 279B.410. Authorized Purchaser will provide a seven-calendar day period following release of any Notice of Intent to Award (“Notice”) during which an adversely affected Offeror may protest such award. An Offeror who claims to have been adversely affected by the selection of a competing Offeror will have seven calendar days from the date of such Notice in which to deliver a signed protest to Authorized Purchaser through the SPC. The SPC will deliver the Notice to all Offeror via email transmission to the Offerors’ named representatives. Adversely affected Offerors will have until 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time, on the protest deadline date to submit a protest in accordance with the requirements in ORS 279B.410.

The submitted protest must bear the signature of a company official authorized to represent Offeror’s interests. Offerors may use an electronic signature copy via email to satisfy the protest submission deadline, provided they mail the original protest to the SPC postmarked no later than the protest submission deadline. To be adversely affected, an offeror must demonstrate that all higher ranked quotes were ineligible for selection. Authorized Purchaser will not consider a protest submitted after the deadline. Protests will be resolved according to Oregon Administrative Rules. Authorized Purchaser will not consider protests that do not include the information required under ORS 279B.410.

EXHIBIT NO. 1

RFQ PRICING SHEET

Medicaid Work Requirements Project 1

TASK 1: RISK ASSESSMENT

TASK 2: QUALITY PLANNING

$0.00

(Updated by the Parties as needed to reflect mutually agreeable adjustments, if any, to QMS deliverables.)

(Funds allocated for special requests may be reallocated to other deliverables through the WOC change control process.)

TASK 3: QUALITY CONTROL

Deliverable 3.1: Quality Control Review

· Architecture design documentation

· Security architecture documentation

· Integration and interoperability documentation

· Scalability and performance documentation

· Change management documentation

Related information used to support this review may include:

· Authorized Purchaser’s Project Plan

· Authorized Purchaser’s Business Case

· Solutions Analysis *For major systems, non-functional / technical requirements would include data model (including entity relations), database design (including tables and the use of primary and secondary keys), interfaces and integration with existing and legacy systems, data conversion and migration of data in existing systems or databases, use of public cloud infrastructure, system redundancy and high availability features, disaster recovery, etc.

Prior to RFP release or amendment execution.

As agreed to and documented in the approved Baseline QMS Work Plan.

$0.00

Related information to support this review may include:

· Updated Authorized Purchaser Project Charter

· Updated Authorized Purchaser Business Case Later of Effective Date of IQMS Contract or Issuance to IQMS Consultant of a Notice to Proceed + 25 Business Days.

Prior to Solution Implementation Contractor contract execution.

As agreed to and documented in the approved Baseline QMS Work Plan.

$0.00

3.1.5.1 – RTM for Workstream 1 or combined workstreams

3.1.5.2 – RTM for Workstream 2 After requirements development or validation has been completed with Solution Implementation Contractor.

As agreed to and documented in the approved Baseline QMS Work Plan.

$0.00

($0.00 per Instance)

Relevant deliverables in Solution Implementation Contractor’s statement of work (up to 10 instances) may include:

3.1.7.1 End-to-End Functional design document inclusive of Workstream 2 (changes outside of ONE)

3.1.7.2 - Technical design document (inclusive of interface and integration information)

3.1.7.3.1 - Data conversion plan

3.1.7.3.2 - Data migration or validation testing results

3.1.7.4 – End-to-End System Integration Testing plan and test cases inclusive of Workstream 2

3.1.7.5 - System testing results for Workstream 1 and Workstream 2

3.1.7.6 - Training plan

3.1.7.7 - Disaster recovery plan for Workstream 2

3.1.7.8 - Operations and maintenance plan

3.1.7.9 – Integrated project management schedule

($0.00 per Instance)

3.1.9.1 – Workstream 1

3.1.9.2 – Workstream 2

($0.00 per Instance)

3.1.10.1 – Workstream 1

3.1.10.2 – Workstream 2 To expedite QC review of test results, the consultant will first provide preliminary comments to AP as an informal deliverable, followed by a formal QC review report.

($0.00 per Instance)

Deliverable 3.2: Security Review (Consult with EIS Cyber Security Services.)

Deliverable 3.3: Quality Status Reporting

Delivered once per quarter at mid-quarter. Reporting period will cover six weeks of the reporting quarter.

Reporting will begin as agreed to and documented in the accepted Deliverable

2.4 Baseline QMS

Work Plan.

Reports are due ten

(10) business days after 15th of the second month of the reporting quarter.

$0.00

($0.00 per instance)

TASK 4: QUALITY ASSURANCE

Deliverable 4.1: Quality Assurance Status and Improvement Reporting

*Note: The exact dates for the reporting quarter will be specified in the accepted Deliverable 2.4 Baseline QMS Work Plan.

Reporting will begin as agreed to and documented in the accepted Deliverable

2.4 Baseline QMS

Work Plan.

Reports are due at the end of the Reporting Quarter* + 10 Business Days $0.00

($0.00 per instance)

TASK 5: INDEPENDENT SOLUTION TESTING

Predictive Analytics Project 2

TASK 1: RISK ASSESSMENT

TASK 2: QUALITY PLANNING

OPTION RESERVED TO AUTHORIZED PURCHASER $0.00

(Updated by the Parties as needed to reflect mutually agreeable adjustments, if any, to QMS deliverables.)

(Funds allocated for special requests may be reallocated to other deliverables through the WOC change control process.)

TASK 3: QUALITY CONTROL

Deliverable 3.1A: Quality Control Review

· Architecture design documentation

· Security architecture documentation

· Integration and interoperability documentation

· Scalability and performance documentation

· Change management documentation

Related information used to support this review may include:

· Authorized Purchaser’s Project Plan

· Authorized Purchaser’s Business Case

· Solutions Analysis *For major systems, non-functional / technical requirements would include data model (including entity relations), database design (including tables and the use of primary and secondary keys), interfaces and integration with existing and legacy systems, data conversion and migration of data in existing systems or databases, use of public cloud infrastructure, system redundancy and high availability features, disaster recovery, etc.

OPTION RESERVED TO AUTHORIZED PURCHASER Prior to RFP release.

As agreed to and documented in the approved Baseline QMS Work Plan 2.4A.

OPTION RESERVED TO AUTHORIZED PURCHASER

Related information to support this review may include:

· Updated Authorized Purchaser Project Plan

· Updated Authorized Purchaser Business Case OPTION RESERVED TO AUTHORIZED PURCHASER Prior to Solution Implementation Contractor contract execution.

As agreed to and documented in the approved Baseline QMS Work Plan.

OPTION RESERVED TO AUTHORIZED PURCHASER

As agreed to and documented in the approved Baseline QMS Work Plan.

OPTION RESERVED TO AUTHORIZED PURCHASER $0.00

Relevant deliverables in Solution Implementation Contractor’s statement of work (up to 68 instances) may include:

3.1A.7.1 - Functional design document 3.1A.7.2 - Technical design document (inclusive of interface and integration information) 3.1A.7.3 - System testing plan and test cases 3.1A.7.4 - System testing results 3.1A.7.5 - Disaster recovery plan 3.1A.7.6 - Operations and maintenance plan

($0.00 per Instance)

Deliverable 3.2: Security Review (Consult with EIS Cyber Security Services.)

Deliverable 3.3: Quality Status Reporting

(Delivered once per quarter at mid-quarter. Reporting period will cover six weeks of the reporting quarter.)

OPTION RESERVED TO AUTHORIZED PURCHASER Reporting will begin as agreed to and documented in the accepted Deliverable 2.4A Baseline QMS Work Plan.

Reports are due ten

(10) business days after 15th of the second month of the reporting quarter.

OPTION RESERVED TO AUTHORIZED PURCHASER

TASK 4: QUALITY ASSURANCE

Deliverable 4.1: Quality Assurance Status and Improvement Reporting

*Note: The exact dates for the reporting quarter will be specified in the accepted Deliverable 2.4 Baseline QMS Work Plan.

OPTION RESERVED TO AUTHORIZED PURCHASER Reporting will begin as agreed to and documented in the accepted Deliverable 2.4A Baseline QMS Work Plan.

Reports are due at the end of the Reporting Quarter* + 10 Business Days

OPTION RESERVED TO AUTHORIZED PURCHASER $0.00

($0.00 per instance)

TASK 5: INDEPENDENT SOLUTION TESTING