S-44300-00012349 QandA SWAN RFP 5957.docx

RFP S-44300-00012349 – SWAN Maintenance and Enhancements

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

Q&A Part I

1. The scope mentions that the Contractor is responsible for maintaining SWAN availability 24-7-365. However, it also states that the Contractor is not responsible for application server or network infrastructure. Could you clarify who is responsible for infrastructure-related issues impacting system availability?

The Agency’s Office of Information Services is responsible for maintaining access to the server on which the SWAN FileMaker database system fits. If the server is down and not accessible, OIS is responsible for getting the server back online and accessible. The Contractor is responsible for maintaining the SWAN FileMaker database system so staff can access it. The Contractor is responsible for attending to FileMaker software issues or database function issues so the database system is accessible and able to be used by Agency staff outside of server down time or any agreed upon database system downtime such as implementing FileMaker software updates.

2. Could you provide more details on server access protocols for performing remote maintenance? Will the Contractor require VPN access or a specific toolset provided by the Agency?

Contractor will access via Citrix and VDI, which requires multi-factor authentication.

3. How will roles and responsibilities be split between the Contractor and Agency’s IT team regarding security patch management and server configuration changes?

For servers hosted by State, operating system-level patching is managed by internal State IT teams. Application-level patching could be managed by a contractor and must follow State policies and procedures.

4. Regarding Table A-1.1 (Potential SWAN Enhancements), how will the Agency prioritize which enhancements to implement first?

Primarily Agency staff will discuss with one another how the implementation of enhancements are to be prioritized. Designated Agency staff will then consult with the Contractor for their input. For example, Agency staff may prioritize Enhancement 1 over Enhancement 2 and notify the Contractor for their perspective. If the Contractor with their expertise were to feel Enhancement 2 or another enhancement all together would be better or perhaps even necessary to prioritize over Enhancement 1, they would inform the designated Agency staff for reconsideration.

5. Can you provide examples of typical use cases the Agency anticipates for the first year?

Some typical use cases the Agency anticipates is creating various automated reports identified by Agency staff that would support program quality assurance efforts to improve data quality and provide training and technical assistance. Another use case the Agency anticipates wanting to implement is creating automated processes to generate and email various reports directly to program providers or billing agencies.

6. Will the Contractor be allowed to propose alternative technical solutions if certain enhancements can be achieved more efficiently with a different approach?

Yes.

7. Could you clarify the expected response times for addressing critical defects, medium defects, and low-priority defects?

Critical defects are expected to be corrected within 24 hours from when the Contractor is notified. Medium defects are expected to be corrected within 3 business days from when the Contractor is notified. Low-priority defects are expected to be corrected within 10 business days from when the Contractor is notified.

8. Could you provide a more detailed process for User Acceptance Testing (UAT)?

When the Contractor has completed the development of an enhancement requested by Agency staff in the test environment, appropriate Agency staff will operate the database system using the enhancement to ensure the enhancement does what it is intended to do. Agency staff will also operate related functions to ensure the enhancement does not impact other functions. In the case where an enhancement involves the generation of a data report or data file, Agency staff may compare the generated data report or data file to a previous version of a data report or data file if applicable to ensure all necessary information is contained in the report or file. For enhancements that generate data files, Agency staff may also run the file through an edit file to ensure all necessary data are included and in the proper format.

9. Could you provide more details on the reporting frequency and format for status reports and requirement analysis reports?

The reporting frequency for status reports is anticipated by the Agency to be monthly. Requirement analysis reports will be primarily driven by individual enhancements and are anticipated to be provided monthly while an enhancement is being developed. The Agency has no specific format for these reports. The Contractor will be required to develop the reports in a manner agreed upon between the Agency and Contractor.

10. What specific metrics does the Agency expect in the monthly or quarterly reports?

At this time, there are no specific metrics expected by the Agency in the monthly or quarterly reports. The Agency may develop specific metrics over time as agreed upon by the Agency and Contractor.

11. Is there a requirement to use specific project management tools (e.g., Jira, Trello) for reporting progress and managing the backlog of use cases?

No.

12. Can you provide more details on existing Agency systems such as Orpheus and OSCaR that SWAN may need to integrate with?

For the purposes of the ScreenWise program, Orpheus is a database system containing required data on all reportable HPV cases in Oregon. OSCaR is the Oregon State Cancer Registry database system containing required data on all reportable cancer cases in Oregon. The purpose of linking SWAN breast and cervical cancer data with OSCaR data is to help OSCaR identify additional reported cancer cases not reported to OSCaR otherwise. The purpose of linking SWAN data with HPV data is to identify areas of the state where preventive screening could reduce HPV cases. Linkage between these systems is currently being done by exporting data files from each database and matching records using analytic software with limited case identifiers. The concept of interoperability between these database systems is to automate case matching processes.

13. What data formats and APIs are currently used for data exchange with these systems?

SWAN and OSCaR have used XL files to share information. SWAN does not currently share information with the Orpheus system.

14. Are there any external systems (e.g., OCHIN Epic) that SWAN will need to integrate with in the near future?

The Agency anticipates piloting integration with external systems such as OCHIN Epic to automate breast and cervical cancer screening data reporting.

15. What are the biggest challenges the Agency has experienced with the current SWAN system?

The primary challenge is that there is little automation in the system. Many processes are manual and require a lot of staff time to complete. For example, to send providers reports on data that are missing and they need to report, individual files for each provider are exported and then attached to an email to be sent to the provider. An automated function that could generate these reports and email them to the providers would save a lot of staff time. Another example is that there is not an automated report within the system to identify which providers have not enrolled a patient in the past 12 months. A data file must be exported and then analysed by a data specialist to obtain the information. It would be more efficient if any staff could generate a report that would provide this information.

16. What are the key pain points related to maintenance and support services provided by the current vendor?

The key pain points related to maintenance and support services is working with a complex data set. Some data fields are uniquely related to others which can complicate how data can be extracted from the system. Additionally, data reporting requirements have changed over time, so the data set contains both new and irrelevant fields that need to be maintained.

17. Who is the incumbent vendor currently providing maintenance and support for SWAN?

Direct Impact Solutions USA, Inc.

18. Is the incumbent vendor eligible to participate in this bid?

Yes.

/continued on next page

Q&A Part II

1. RFP - General - Can the agency further describe the meaning of a successful partnership?

A successful partnership will require a commitment to working together toward shared success, open communication between the Agency and Contractor including regular updates and status reports, accessibility to the right team members, and flexibility to handle unexpected issues.

2. RFP - General - Aside from the 190 Active Providers in the contract management system, how many other users are using the current system? Does the 190 include personnel managing program operations, claims processing, and reporting?

The “190 active providers in the contact management system” are not users of the system and do not have access to the system. They are contained in the system as contacts. Consequently, they are not included with the nine personnel managing program operations, claims processing, and reporting.

3. Att A-1 - Sec. 3.3-4 - Can the code programs and modifications be provided once the work for the enhancement is concluded?

“Code programs and modifications” means the Contractor would develop the code or script in FileMaker so the enhancement functions can be tested by users. No “code” needs to be provided to the Agency. It will exist in the FileMaker system only.

4. Att. A-1 - Sec. 3.3-4 - To what degree of detail do code updates need to be reported?

The Contractor will need to provide status updates on enhancements in terms of how close an enhancement is ready to be tested by users. No details on the code itself need to be provided.

5. Att. A-1 - Sec. .5-1 - Are hours reported by the use case as a whole sufficient for status reports?

Status reports would include a breakdown of hours spent by key personnel and a brief description to distinguish between enhancements, if multiple enhancements are in process, as well as distinguishing hours for meetings, software updates, etc.

6. Att. A-1 - 3.5 – 3 - Are there official Oregon Health Authority documents that must be filled out, or is the contractor responsible for producing these?

The Contractor is responsible for producing documentation. There are no official Agency documents the Contractor will need to use.

7. Att. A-1 - 4.5 - Is there an existing user manual for SWAN or will the contractor be responsible for creating it?

There is no existing user manual. The Contractor will be responsible for creating it.

8. Att. A-1 - Table A-1.1 - How are Google-analytics used currently and what information is tracked?

9. Att. A-1 - Table A-1.1 - What is the motivation behind reducing the number of table occurrences in the graph? If implemented correctly with an Anchor Buoy model, creating TOs is more performant than ExecuteSQL functions. Sorting directly on a portal is always slower than through the relationship.

The intent is to optimize the functions of the database system to avoid slow processing of the information of the database when queried. The Agency is open to other ways a Proposer may have of enhancing the function of the database system.

10. Att. A-1 - Table A-1.1 - Are you open to restructuring of the relationship graph to Anchor Buoy and eliminating unreferenced TOs to optimize performance?

Yes.

11. Att. A-1 - Table A-1.1 - Do the internal OHA systems have an API or allow ODBC connections?

OHA has API capabilities to support this work.

12. Att. A-1 - General - How many records do you envision this application will be handling? This will impact the user interface/user experience of design.

We anticipate 2,000 – 6,000 records for new enrollments, and 12,000 – 36,000 new claims to be entered into SWAN each year.

13. Att. A-1 - Table A-1.1 - Can the agency provide sample data or templates for claims adjudication and reporting requirements to ensure compatibility with current workflows?

Claims are currently received from providers in three different formats. These claims are hand-entered into SWAN by program staff. Common data elements (e.g., service codes, diagnosis codes, patient identification number) are found on each format. A FileMaker claims adjudication script has been completed but will require on-going editing as program requirements change.

14. Att. A-1 - General - Are there specific KPIs or metrics you will use to measure project success?

There are no specific KPIs or metrics to be used to measure success. The Agency may develop specific KPIs or metrics over time as agreed upon by the Agency and Contractor.

15. Att. A-1 - General - What challenges are you facing with your current system that this project aims to address?

The primary challenge is that there is little automation in the system. Many processes are manual and require a lot of staff time to complete. For example, to send providers reports on data that are missing that they need to report, individual files for each provider are exported and then attached to an email to be sent to the provider. An automated function that could generate these reports and email them to the providers would save a lot of staff time. Another example is that there is not an automated report within the system to identify which providers have not enrolled a patient in the past 12 months. A data file must be exported and then analyzed by a data specialist to obtain the information. It would be more efficient if any staff could generate a report that would provide this information.

16. Att. A-1 - General - What type of active directory, if any, are currently used by IT?

Active Directory can mean many things. OHA IT may use combination of on-prem and Azure AD, depending on the purpose.

17. Att. A-2 - Exhibit C - Please confirm whether all specified insurance requirements, including the Technology Errors & Omissions policy, must be active during proposal submission or only upon contract award.

Insurance policies must be active before a contract is executed.

18. Att. F - General - If a Proposer is not a COBID-certified firm but plans to subcontract with such firms, are there specific minimum subcontracting goals or reporting requirements?

A Proposer must certify it has taken “reasonable steps” to ensure Certified Firms are provided an equal opportunity to participate in any subcontracts resulting from the award of a contract to the successful Proposer’s firm. More information about COBID can be found at https://www.oregon.gov/biz/programs/COBID/Pages/default.aspx

19. Att. F - General - How are offers evaluated based on demonstration of participation in the COBID subcontracting initiatives?

Proposers must fill out Attachment F and submit it with their proposals. Completion of this step is pass/fail. The form is not evaluated.

20. Att. F - General - How are the key stakeholders involved, and what role will they play in the project?

We are unclear on what is being asked in the context of Attachment F, and would need more information to answer this question.

21. Att. F - General - Please walk us through how user input will be incorporated into the development process.

We are unclear on what is being asked in the context of Attachment F, and would need more information to answer this question.