Vendor_-_Q_and_A_Set_2_-_3-19-2024_-_Addendum_2_-_FINAL.docx
DOCX document 56 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 0000029823
- Issued by
- Sacramento County, Sacramento City, California
About this file
This document is a Question and Answer Set #2 related to the State of California's Request for Proposal (RFP) 3213 for the Employment Development Department (EDD) Shared Customer Portal (SCP) Maintenance and Operations and Enhancements project. The RFP seeks professional services to assist with maintenance and operations of the existing SCP portal as well as enhancements to the platform. The document provides clarification on various aspects of the project, including expectations around maintenance and operations handoff, data analytics and reporting requirements, performance and security testing, key staff qualifications, and the current SCP architecture. The RFP covers a statewide project with participation from jurisdictions such as Sacramento County and Palo Alto City.
The RFP evaluation will assess functional and non-functional requirements on a pass/fail basis as well as scored criteria. Bidders must meet certain experience requirements related to enterprise architecture, government/public sector work, and project values. The RFP also outlines formatting and submission requirements, including page limits and font sizes for the narrative response. Addenda to the RFP have been issued to provide revisions to various attachments and forms.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| EXHIBIT_C_-_Cost_Workbook_SCP_Enhancements_-_Addendum_4.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Vendor_-_Q_and_A_Set_3_-_3-27-2024_-_Addendum_4_-_FINAL.docx | DOCX document | |
| EXHIBIT_B-_FUNCT_AND_NON-FUNCT_REQs-Addendum_4.xlsm | XLSM spreadsheet | |
| Exhibit_L_-_Confidentiality_Agreement_-_Addendum_4.docx | DOCX document | |
| Shared_Customer_Portal_Enhancements_RFP-Addendum_4.pdf | ||
| Vendor_-_Q_and_A_Set_1_-_2-29-2024_-_Final_for_Addendum_1.docx | DOCX document |
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
| State of California | RFP 3213 |
| Employment Development Department | Shared Customer Portal |
| Maintenance and Operations | |
| and Enhancements |
QUESTION AND ANSWER SET #2
| # |
| Section /Documents |
| Page # |
| Question |
| 1 |
| Attachment 14 Narrative Response, Question 5 |
| Page 136 |
| Narrative Response Question 5 ask vendors to “…describe their plan to assume maintenance and operations for an existing Salesforce platform…” Additionally, at the vendor conference the State indicated that EDD staff will provide knowledge transfer (KX) about the current portal and its operation to the winning vendor. |
Is it the expectation of the State that the winning vendor will take over all M&O activities of the existing portal on the first day of the new contract (August 28th) before KX has occurred? Alternatively, will EDD staff complete KX to the new vendors’ staff for a set period after August 28th (e.g., 4 weeks) while EDD, or the current vendors’ staff, are responsible for executing M&O activities?
Please refer to revisions in RFP 3213 Shared Customer Portal Enhancements, Addendum 2, Attachment 15 - Statement of Work, Section 12. Maintenance and Operations (M&O).
| 2 |
| Attachment 14 Narrative Response, Question 7 |
Attachment 15 SOW, Section 8.5.17.3. Enhanced Data Analytics
7. Bidder shall describe how they will help EDD build a more robust reporting and analytics service via the data warehouse
In the section “8.5.17.3. ENHANCED DATA ANALYTICS ", it says “Standardized Reporting - Implement standardized, customer and ad hoc reporting leveraging the EDD data warehouse and tools like Tableau to create meaningful reports and dashboards.”
Can the State confirm that the vendor will be required to create data structures in the data warehouse for all SCP data, in addition to building Tableau reports?
Vendor is not responsible for creating data structures in the data warehouse or building Tableau reports.
Vendor will provide custom reporting and data analytics out of the Salesforce platform including identity proofing data.
Additionally, vendor will collaborate with EDD Data Warehouse staff. to design data structures and create data exchanges between Salesforce and the data warehouse. EDD staff will provide reports and data analytics from the Data Warehouse.
| 3 |
| Exhibit B Functional and Non-Functional Requirements, Requirement 55 |
| Requirement 55 states: “Solution must provide reports which are either real time or near-real time.” How much lag is acceptable from source to report? |
| Vendor will collaborate with EDD staff for the Data Warehouse to define requirements for recency of data needed (web services and/or batch processes). |
Please refer to revisions in RFP 3213 Shared Customer Portal Enhancements, Addendum 2, Attachment 15 - Statement of Work, Section 32. Service Level Agreements, 2. Portal Solution Response Time: Production Environment.
| 4 |
| Exhibit B Functional and Non-Functional Requirements, Requirement 24 |
| Requirement 24 states: Solution must support federated data searches.” How many systems are involved for federated data search? |
| There are 6 systems. |
| 5 |
| Exhibit B Functional and Non-Functional Requirements, Requirements: 43, |
104, 106,107, 108,
| What are performance and security testing expectations? |
| Please refer to revisions in RFP 3213 Shared Customer Portal Enhancements, Addendum 2, Attachment 15 – Statement of Work, Section 27- System Testing and Acceptance Procedures. |
| 6 |
| Attachment 13 Qualifications Instructions |
| Page 93 |
| As per the instructions for key staff, the reference person must have been: |
· An end user of the cited project;
· In a management or supervisory role for the project;
· Not be from another contractor or contracting company of the project;
· Not be an employee of the bidding company
For staff being bid who didn't serve in a client-service environment (e.g., an internal engineer at Salesforce), could that employee's supervisor at the former employer (Salesforce in this example) be used as a reference?
See Box 5 of Attachment 13 – Key Staff Qualifications Form: “Identify the name of a person at the company in which the project was completed. Include person's contact information. The person identified is/was employed by the company identified in box 4 during the time the project was being worked.”
| 7 |
| Attachment 13.1 Engagement Manager Qualifications, Requirement 11.d |
Attachment 13.3 Project Manager Qualifications, Requirement 13.d
Page106
| Can EDD confirm that the years of experience required for a staff qualification applies to all of its sub-bullets? For example, Attachment 13, PM Qualification 13, specifies 5 years experience. Does sub-bullet (d), which doesn't have a year qualifier, default to the 5 year requirement? |
| Please refer to revisions in RFP 3213 Shared Customer Portal Enhancements, Addendum 2, Attachment 13.1 - Engagement Manager-Qualifications Form and Attachment 13.3 - Project Manager-Qualifications Form. |
| 8 |
| General |
| Can the state provide documentation regarding the current SCP architecture, ideally including an architecture diagram and current capabilities that the winning vendor will be responsible for maintaining? |
| Documentation regarding the current SCP architecture will be shared to winning Bidder upon award of contract. |
| 9 |
| Attachment 10: Bidder Qualifications Form – Instructions – Boxes 5 and 6, Start Date and End Date |
| 84 |
| Would EDD consider changing the calculation for ongoing contracts for work performed up to the solicitation release date (1/11/2024) to the solicitation due date (4/9/2024)? This would provide full credit for ongoing projects. |
| Please refer to revisions in RFP 3213 Shared Customer Portal Enhancements, Addendum 2, Attachment 10 - Bidder Qualifications Form-Instructions. |
| 10 |
| Attachment 11: Bidder Qualifications Form - #12 |
| 87 |
| Would EDD consider changing the “Experience performing Enterprise Architecture that includes interfacing technologies like Microsoft .NET , Java, Mainframe, external cloud-based SaaS applications like Identity Management (e.g. Okta), API Management (e.g. Red Hat 3scale), and ID Proofing solutions that provide fraud detection” from a Minimum of 5 years to a Minimum of 4 years to facilitate more competitive bids? |
| Please refer to revisions in RFP 3213 Shared Customer Portal Enhancements, Addendum 2, Attachment 11 - Bidder Qualifications Form. |
| 11 |
| Attachment 11: Bidder Qualifications Form - #13 |
| 87 |
| Would EDD consider changing the “Experience with Government or Public Sector as Primary Contractor” from a Minimum of 5 years to a Minimum of 4 years to facilitate more competitive bids? |
| Please refer to revisions in RFP 3213 Shared Customer Portal Enhancements, Addendum 2, Attachment 11 - Bidder Qualifications Form. |
| 12 |
| Attachment 11: Bidder Qualifications Form - #14 |
| 87 |
| Would EDD consider changing the “Project Contractor for a project where the contract value is at least $5,000,000” from a Minimum of 5 years to a Minimum of 4 years to facilitate more competitive bids? |
| Please refer to revisions in RFP 3213 Shared Customer Portal Enhancements, Addendum 2, Attachment 11 - Bidder Qualifications Form. |
| 13 |
| Attachment 13: Key Staff Qualifications Form – Instructions – Boxes 6 and 7, Start Date and End Date |
| 94 |
| Would EDD consider changing the calculation for ongoing contracts for work performed up to the solicitation release date (1/11/2024) to the solicitation due date (4/9/2024)? This would provide full credit for ongoing projects. |
| Please refer to revisions in RFP 3213 Shared Customer Portal Enhancements, Addendum 2, Attachment 13 – Key Staff Qualifications Form-Instructions. |
| 14 |
| Attachment 13.1: Engagement Manger Qualifications Form – 11D |
| 96 |
| Would EDD consider changing “d. Experience must be from a qualifying Software as a Service (SaaS) development project(s) each with a total contract value of at least $5,000,00” to allow for additional technologies such as .NET, Java, and Mainframe? These technologies are accepted in the Bidder Quals form. |
| The State has reviewed and considered this request and no change will be made. |
| 15 |
| Attachment 13.7: Technical Architect – Qualifications Form – 15 |
| 122 |
| Would EDD consider removing the MS requirements for “Experience as a Technical Architect directly responsible for architecting and consolidating multiple integrated IT systems into a single solution. Experience must be from a qualifying project(s) defined as: |
A minimum of 5,000 users and A minimum of 75-100 million data records”?
The State has reviewed and considered this request and no change will be made.
| 16 |
| 3.2.1 Incorporation of eVAQ Requirements |
| 25 |
| Could you please elaborate on the specific requirements for presenting evidence of our eVAQ certification. The RFP states, "Verification of an STP-approved eVAQ certification to the Procurement Officer." I've been informed by a DGS representative that there isn't an eVAQ certificate; instead, we receive an email confirmation from DGS upon approval of our eVAQ. Would this confirmation email suffice as proof? Additionally, do we need to submit our eVAQ proof to the procurement official before the RFP is due? Also, could you provide instructions on incorporating our eVAQ proof/evidence into our cover letter?. |
Per RFP 3213 Shared Customer Portal Enhancements, Addendum 2, Part 1, Section 3.2.1, Incorporation of eVAQ Requirements “Verification of an STP-approved eVAQ certification shall be submitted to the Procurement Officer stated in SECTION 2.2.1. PROCUREMENT OFFICER and included on ATTACHMENT 5: COVER LETTER.”
Please refer to revisions in RFP 3213 Shared Customer Portal Enhancements, Addendum 2, Attachment 5 – Cover Letter.
| 17 |
| 7.3.6.2 of the RFP |
| 54 |
| Exhibit B is described as being evaluated on a Pass/Fail basis, but also described as containing Mandatory Scored and Desirable Scored components. Can EDD please clarify how Exhibit B will be evaluated, and if scored, how are the points allocated and how many total points are available in the evaluation of this Exhibit? |
| Please refer to revisions in RFP 3213 Shared Customer Portal Enhancements, Addendum 2, Section 4.2.1-Functional and Non-Functional Requirements (M & D) and section 7.3.6.2.1-Functional and Non-Functional Requirements Evaluation. |
| 18 |
| Attachment 10 of the RFP |
| 83-84 |
| Will the State please revise the cutoff date for current, ongoing projects to be the submission due date? By having the cutoff date be the solicitation release date instead of submission due date, vendors would be forced to remove three months—a whole fiscal quarter—of valid, recent, applicable experience. |
| Please refer to revisions in RFP 3213 Shared Customer Portal Enhancements, Addendum 2, Attachment 10 - Bidder Qualifications Form-Instructions. |
| 19 |
| Attachment 2 of the RFP |
| 70 |
| Option 2 in Attachment 2: Intent to Bid instructs bidders to document and submit concerns on Attachment 1 and submit them by the deadline established in Section 2.3. Are all bidders who submit questions for clarification using Attachment 1 required to select the second option for Attachment 2? |
| No, per Attachment 2 – Intent to Bid, in RFP 3213 Shared Customer Portal Enhancements, Addendum 2, Bidder must select all the appropriate boxes that apply. |
| 20 |
| Attachments 11, 13.1, 13.3, 13.5, 13.7, and 13.9 |
| 85-88, 95-99, 103-107, 111-114, 118-124, and 128-132 |
| Given the limited space provided in the PDF version of these attachments to provide the requested descriptions of services related to the qualifications, will EDD allow vendors to reformat these forms within Word? This will allow vendors to provide the requested information without sacrificing relevant, necessary details or impacting accessibility with smaller font sizes. |
| No, per Attachment 15 – Statement of Work in RFP 3213 Shared Customer Portal Enhancements, Addendum 2, Section 6.4 – Formatting “…The proposal must be in Microsoft Office version 2013 or higher.” |
Please refer to revisions in RFP 3213 Shared Customer Portal Enhancements, Addendum 2, Section 6.4 - Formatting.
| 21 |
| Attachment 14 Narrative Response |
| 136 |
| “The narrative response shall not exceed thirty (30) pages, using Century Gothic font type with maximum 11-point font size. If the requirement specifically calls for the submission of a specific document (e.g., staffing chart, organizational chart, RACI matrix, etc.), that document will not be counted against the narrative response page limit.” |
We have a question about the font size, are we allowed to use larger size fonts for headings etc. Any clarification on this would be appreciated.
Please refer to revisions in RFP 3213 Shared Customer Portal Enhancements, Addendum 2, Attachment 14 - Narrative Response.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .