Vendor QandA 3.18.21~1.docx

Vendor Questions and Answers

State Ethics Commission Online Training Course Development

March 18, 2021

1. The RFQ states the course must be available in multiple languages in accordance with current electronic learning best practices. Which languages do you anticipate needing developed? Should the vendor provide quotes for multiple courses?

We anticipate needing the course to be available in English, Spanish, and Portuguese. We expect there to be one course with translations from English into Spanish and Portuguese provided via subtitles and/or voiceovers. Separate quotations for multiple or additional translations would be encouraged.

2. The RFQ asks for live action video – Is there existing video? Are vendors able to use stock video or are you asking for the vendor to film on-site video?

There is no existing video that we would use in the new training. The vendor would be expected to create new video. While our expectation is that new video would be filmed, there may potentially be limited opportunities for stock video to be used in conjunction with new video.

3. Will the prior course be used as 100% of the content or will the vendor have access to subject matter expert(s) from your staff?

Our expectation is that the prior course will be entirely replaced with new content covering the same subject matter. The vendor will have access to subject matter experts from the Commission. Our expectation is that the vendor will provide guidance regarding the best way to convey our subject matter. We would encourage vendors to describe how they would structure a course to convey a complex statute in a way that is accessible to all end-users. Vendors are encouraged to provide samples previous course materials developed by the vendor, preferably related to ethics and/or compliance.

4. Do you have a projected or estimated “go-live” date?

Our projected go-live date is April 2022.

5. Is there a chance MSEC will not move forward with an LMS this time around?

Please see the Tasks/Deliverables Requested section for more information. Part 2: Content Delivery is optional. At this time, our primary focus is to move forward with the creation of new training course content. While we are interested in exploring new ways to deliver the training course content to end-users, there is a possibility that we may decide not to acquire an LMS at the current time.

6. The one question we have is whether or not the State will, itself, provide the content (conflict of interest law) for the learning modules. Typically, this would be the case but I have not uncovered that specifically in the document.

Our expectation is that the vendor will create the course content in close collaboration with Commission staff. Subject matter experts from the Commission will be available to the vendor to support the creation of the content. The modules may include: Courts & Legal Professionals, Educator, Public Works and Maintenance, Public Safety, State/County Elected Officials, Other State Officials, Municipal Board/Committee, and Other Municipal Employees. The Commission expects the vendor would provide expertise in course structure and design to present the material to end-users in an effective, engaging manner.

7. Does Massachusetts State Ethics Commission prefer an off-the-shelf authoring tool like Articulate Storyline or a custom authoring tool for updating course content in the future?

The Commission would prefer a supportable off-the-shelf authoring tool that could be used by Commission staff and/or a vendor through a maintenance and support agreement.

8. If a custom authoring tool is required to be built, then does Massachusetts State Ethics Commission have server infrastructure to host the authoring tool?

We do not expect that we would require a custom authoring tool to be built.

9. What LMS are you currently utilizing?

We do not administer an LMS because we are a small independent state agency with just two training courses which a very large population of end-users access very infrequently (once every two-years, and within thirty-days of entering into public service). However, our partners at various state and local agencies have LMS (including Cornerstone, Blackboard, Moodle, and EverFi), which deploy the current training program. Ideally, we would have some type of an LMS or similar platform that would allow municipalities to deploy our training at a low cost and provide features such as course completion recordation. The Commission has a limited annual operating budget and will continue to seek partnerships within the Commonwealth to deliver our training more widely.

10. Does Massachusetts State Ethics Commission require SCORM 1.2 or 2004 compliance?

All SCORM packages state and municipal agencies requested from the Commission in 2020 were SCORM 1.2.

11. Under the first bullet in Course Creation, you mention “This additional content could be cycled-through or rotated on an annual basis.” Does this entail creating a question bank from which questions will be randomly delivered to the end-user?

This may entail a random question bank and/or the creation of extra examples or scenarios that could be swapped into the course in a future update.

12. The existing course only has multiple choice questions. Should the updated course also only include multiple choice questions or would you want a variety of interaction types?

A variety of interaction types to increase end-user engagement is desirable.

13. The second bullet says, “There should be 8-12 sections of branched job-specific content, each approximately 15 minutes in length.” So, are we looking at a course with 35-minutes of core content and 150 minutes of job-specific content, a total of 185 minutes (35+(15x10))?

Yes, we expect there will be approximately 35 minutes of core content and approximately 150 minutes of job-specific content, totaling approximately 185 minutes. Each end-user would take only one section of job-specific content, meaning each end-user would view approximately 50 minutes of content when taking the course (35 minutes of core content plus one 15-minute section of job-specific content). The exact structure of the course may be further refined and subject to change, however, we do not anticipate any such changes would affect the total length of content produced.

14. Will you provide all the raw content for the core course and for the branched off job-specifics sections?

We expect the vendor would create this content in collaboration with the Commission’s subject matter experts. The Commission expects the vendor would provide expertise in course structure and design to present the material to end-users in an effective, engaging manner.

15. The existing course that has been shared does not seem to include job-specific content. Can you share an example, if something is available?

We expect the vendor would create this content in collaboration with the Commission’s subject matter experts. This content will address topics and provide examples that reflect conflict of interest law issues that end-users may encounter in their specific occupations. These occupations may include: Courts & Legal Professionals, Educator, Public Works and Maintenance, Public Safety, State/County Elected Officials, Other State Officials, Municipal Board/Committee, and Other Municipal Employees.

16. The eighth bullet mentions that the course “must be available in multiple languages.” Can you provide a list of the languages?

We anticipate the course would be available in English, Spanish, and Portuguese.

17. Would each live action video need to be dubbed in each language or would these just need subtitles?

We have not determined a preference for either subtitles or dubbing for translation of live-video segments. Vendors may provide a quote for each option.

18. Will the end user testing involving users of assistive technology be applicable for the courses in non-English language?

We expect that end-user testing will assess the course for functionality with assistive technology regardless of language.

19. Is it acceptable to engage resources outside US for localization of the course in non-English languages?

Resources outside the United States may perform this work provided they are authorized to do so under Massachusetts state law and federal law.

20. For different languages do you expect a single SCORM package or a separate package for each language?

We have not determined whether we would expect a single SCORM package or a separate SCORM package for each translation. If vendors wish, they may provide a quote for each option.

21. Are the live action videos in the current course provided by the State Ethics Commission? Will you be doing the same for the new course as well?

There is no existing video from the current course that we would use in the new course. We expect the vendor would create new content with support and direction from the Commission’s subject matter experts.

22. If the answer to above question is no, do you expect to see your officials as part of these live action videos? Please elaborate on how this process can be handled.

We do not expect our officials to be part of the live action videos.

23. Stock photos used in the existing course are licenses from Photos.com, BigStockPhotos and Animation Factory. For the new course, can we source the stock photos from other available options or is it necessary to use the same websites?

We do not have a preference for the source of photographs and images.

24. Most of the generic images from the existing course can be reused for the new one. Will Massachusetts State Ethics Commission share the image library for the existing course?

We do not intend to re-use existing images from the current training.

25. [The bidder] understands, the course will involve the development of custom animations with voice over and will make recommendations. Is Massachusetts State Ethics Commission looking for some specific animation style?

We have not identified a preferred animation style. Please see Standard 1.8 in EOTSS Enterprise IT Accessibility Standards.

26. Is the State Ethics Committee open to good faith negotiations of [the bidder’s] MLA & Custom Solutions Addendum (for custom development work) as the governing agreement?

The Commission is open to considering negotiation of a statement of work provided it meets the requirements of the Commonwealth’s standard terms and conditions. Not having reviewed the vendor’s MLA & Custom Addendum, we are not presently able to commit to our willingness to negotiate relative to that specific agreement.

27. Does the State Ethics Committee plan to track content usage from HTML packages?

We have not determined whether we intend to track content usage via HTML packages but are open to the possibility as it is desirable.

28. Is a different course required for state and county employees vs. municipal employees, or do they both access the same course?

We expect there will be one program with approximately 35 minutes of core content and approximately 150 minutes of job-specific content, totaling approximately 185 minutes. Each end-user would take only one section of job-specific content, meaning each end-user would view approximately 50 minutes of content when taking the course (35 minutes of core content plus one 15-minute section of job-specific content). This content will address topics and provide examples that reflect conflict of interest law issues that end-users may encounter in their specific occupations. These occupations may include: Courts & Legal Professionals, Educator, Public Works and Maintenance, Public Safety, State/County Elected Officials, Other State Officials, Municipal Board/Committee, and Other Municipal Employees. The exact structure of the course may be further refined and subject to change, however, we do not anticipate any such changes would affect the total length of content produced.

29. The RFQ states that “The course must be available in multiple languages in accordance with current electronic learning best practices.” What languages are required?

We anticipate the course will be available in English, Spanish, and Portuguese.

30. Will the State Ethics Committee provide Subject Matter Experts to help advise on the custom content needs?

Yes, the Commission’s attorneys and other professionals are fully committed to developing a new training program.

31. [The bidder] conforms with 508/WCAG 2.1 Accessibility standards with some exceptions. We can provide a complete voluntary product accessibility template. Will this be adequate to meet your accessibility standards?

We are seeking alignment with WCAG 2.1 AA and EOTSS Enterprise IT Accessibility Standards. The Commission is also seeking to ensure mobile capability, which may exceed WCAG 2.1 AA standards in certain aspects. The content of the voluntary product accessibility template would determine whether the proposed solution would be adequate.

32. Which LMS is the State Ethics Committee currently using?

We do not administer an LMS because we are a small state agency with just two training courses that a very large population of end-users access very infrequently. However, our partners at various state and local agencies have LMS (including Cornerstone, Blackboard, Moodle, and EverFi), which deploy the current training program. Ideally, we would have some type of an LMS or similar platform that would allow municipalities to deploy our training at a low cost and provide features such as course completion recordation. The Commission has a limited annual operating budget and may seek partnerships within the Commonwealth to deliver our training more widely.

33. Is the organization interested in custom-built training courses (eLearning)?

Given the unique and complex nature of the Massachusetts conflict of interest law, the Commission is interested in either a custom training or an off-the-shelf product that has been substantially modified to meet our requirements.

34. What is the required length/duration for the training course (e.g., 30 minutes, etc.)?

We expect there will be approximately 35 minutes of core content and approximately 150 minutes of job-specific content, totaling approximately 185 minutes. Each end-user would take only one section of job-specific content, meaning each end-user would view approximately 50 minutes of content when taking the course (35 minutes of core content plus one 15-minute section of job-specific content). The exact structure of the course may be further refined and subject to change, however, we do not anticipate any such changes would affect the total length of content produced.

35. If training topics are suggested—Does the organization have a Subject Matter Expert (SME) who suggested the topics?

Yes, the Commission will provide subject matter experts who will work closely with the vendor. The Commission expects the vendor would provide expertise in course structure and design to present the material to end-users in an effective, engaging manner.

36. Does the organization currently have any existing material (e.g., manual, PowerPoint, etc.) that speak to the training topic(s)?

Yes, the Commission has educational materials, advisories, and PowerPoint presentations that speak to various conflict of interest law topics. The vendor will have access to these materials as well as to the Commission’s subject matter experts.

37. Voice-Over/Narration: What is the organization’s preference—high quality text-to-speech or human narration?

The Commission would prefer human narration.

38. Which languages should the eLearning be developed (e.g., English, Spanish, etc.)?

We anticipate that the course will be available in English, Spanish, and Portuguese.

39. Please clarify—Does the organization has its own LMS and a designated LMS administrator to upload eLearning courseware?

We do not administer an LMS because we are a small state agency with just two training courses that a very large population of end-users access very infrequently. However, our partners at various state and local agencies have LMS (including Cornerstone, Blackboard, Moodle, and EverFi), which deploy the current training program. Ideally, we would have some type of an LMS or similar platform that would allow municipalities to deploy our training at a low cost and provide features such as course completion recordation. The Commission has a limited annual operating budget and may seek partnerships within the Commonwealth to deliver our training more widely.

40. Does the organization have a set budget for this RFP? If so, what is the budget amount?

Yes. The Commission has approximately $250,000 remaining in FY 2021 capital funding. The Commission has requested additional capital funding in FY 2022. In evaluating a vendor response, the Commission will prioritize the proposal’s ability to deliver best value for the Commonwealth.

41. What is the anticipated timeline for awarding the contract?

We intend to award a contract in April 2021.

42. Will the organization consider a non-local Massachusetts business?

Yes. We intend to contract with the vendor that delivers best value for the Commonwealth. Familiarity with the Commonwealth is helpful.

43. Does the MSEC plan to provide existing content, narration script(s), and/or source materials for the development of the new course or courses? Is the vendor expected to create all narration scripts needed?

The Commission will work with the selected to develop scripts that are compelling and engaging. The Commission expects the vendor would provide expertise in course structure and design to present the material to end-users in an effective, engaging manner.

44. Will the selected vendor provide all voiceover?

Yes, we expect the vendor will provide all voiceover services.

45. Question: Does the MSEC intend to provide any videos for use throughout the course(s)? Reference: Part 1: Course Creation, “Approximately 35 minutes of core content applicable to all endusers…” and “8-12 sections of branched job-specific content, each approximately 15 minutes in length.” Based on the above, there appears to be approximately 155-215 minutes of original content including, 35 minutes of core content, plus (8-12) 15-minute sections of job-specific content. Can the MSEC confirm this is correct, please?

We expect the vendor, working closely with the Commission’s subject matter experts, will produce videos to be used in the course. We expect there will be approximately 35 minutes of core content and approximately 150 minutes of job-specific content, totaling approximately 185 minutes. Each end-user would take only one section of job-specific content, meaning each end-user would view approximately 50 minutes of content when taking the course (35 minutes of core content plus one 15-minute section of job-specific content). The exact structure of the course may be further refined and subject to change, however, we do not anticipate any such changes would affect the total length of content produced.

46. Per Part 1: Course Creation, MSEC requires a “Solution for updating course content in the future, including an authoring tool.” Question: Is the requirement here for the vendor to identify the authoring tool and provide all source files for MSEC’s maintenance and updates to the course(s) or, does MSEC require the vendor to propose a maintenance plan and pricing?

The Commission would like ability to adjust knowledge-check questions and other basic elements. We seek a long-term partnership that would ensure the training would not become a stale legacy product.

47. Per Part 1: Course Content, “The course must be available in multiple languages in accordance with current electronic learning best practices.” Per Bidder Responses, content creation and management includes the “ability to create content that is accessible with script/PDF supplemental documents for hearing impaired, color coding, languages, etc.” Question: Will the MSEC provide the scope of language services required, to include the required languages and/or quantity of languages, and the scope of language support needed?

We anticipate making the course available in English, Spanish, and Portuguese with translation provided via subtitles and/or voiceovers and on-screen text translated as appropriate.

48. Question: Does the inclusion of translated scripts within the course meet the languages requirement or does the MSEC require additional language support including, on-screen text and/or script translation services, incorporating translated subtitles and/or providing fully translated courses to include localized voiceover and onscreen text?

Our expectation is that on-screen text would be translated and that subtitles would be provided to translate English audio.

49. Reference Part 1: Course Creation, “The course must be able to be accessed by end-users without access to an LMS through their government employers. This could be achieved by hosting the course materials on the Commission’s existing technology or through a comparable delivery method.” Question: Is the “comparable delivery method” mentioned the same as the option outlined in Part 2: Content Delivery of the SOW?

The Commission does not currently have an LMS. The current courses are hosted on a web server, where they are accessible to end-users. In addition, the Commission also provides SCORM packages to other state and local agencies that have their own LMS. The “comparable delivery method” referenced in Part 1: Course Creation refers to a method that is identical or similar to the way some end-users currently access the web-server-hosted program. This is not necessarily the same as the option outlined in Part 2: Content Delivery. In Part 2: Content Delivery, we seek to potentially obtain a new delivery method for end-users who do not have access to an LMS through their own public employers. The solution in Part 2: Content Delivery may include but is not limited to an LMS or similar platform.

50. Reference Bidder Responses, “Vendors are encouraged to address the following in their RFQ responses as applicable.” Items a-m. Question: Is the list of items (a-m) specific to Part 2: Content Delivery?

The list of items is not specific to Part 2: Content Delivery. Vendors responding to both or either Part 1 and Part 2 are encouraged to address as many of items a-m as are applicable to the vendor’s response.

51. Question: Are you willing to share your budget or target award amount for each Part of this contract?

The Commission has approximately $250,000 remaining in FY 2021 capital funding. The Commission has requested additional capital funding in FY 2022 to complete this project. In evaluating a vendor response, the Commission will prioritize the proposal’s ability to deliver best value for the Commonwealth.

52. Should we assume the final content from www.muniprog.eth.state.ma.us and www.stateprog.eth.state.ma.us web links. We would not have to create any new content or source content from other channels.

We expect the vendor will, in collaboration from the Commission’s subject matter experts, create new training course materials to replace the current courses in their entirety. This new content will address the same subject matter as the current courses.

53. Would commission review and be closely involved during development process such as reviewing content online, storyboards, translated content, and courses under development.

Yes, the Commission’s experts will work closely with the vendor to develop content. It is our expectation that the selected vendor would have significant experience working with government agencies developing content, storyboards, etc. The Commission is looking for a talented, creative and thoughtful partner. The Commission expects the vendor would provide expertise in course structure and design to present the material to end-users in an effective, engaging manner.

54. For accessibility, are we looking at WCAG 2.1 A, AA or AAA?

The Commission is seeking alignment with WCAG 2.1 AA and EOTSS Enterprise IT Accessibility Standards. The Commission is also seeking to ensure mobile capability, which may exceed WCAG 2.1 AA standards. Please explain how your solution will meet these standards and our business goal to ensure compatibility with mobile devices.

55. Can you share the browsers on which the course should be compatible with? Also, the mobile and tablets?

The course should be compatible with widely used web browsers including Chrome, Safari, Edge, Firefox, and Samsung Mobile Internet.

56. Can you please share the languages in which the course is to be made available?

We anticipate having the course available in English, Spanish, and Portuguese.

57. Which version of SCORM (1.2 or 2004) support are we looking for?

All SCORM packages state and municipal agencies requested from the Commission in 2020 were SCORM 1.2.

58. If the course is not hosted on LMS, how would you like to track the learner information and certificates? Are you expecting the vendor to implement the database and login system to access the course?

We are not interested in a backend database or a login system outside of an LMS. We have not determined whether we intend to track content usage via HTML packages but are open to the possibility as it is desirable.

59. For offline access – are you looking at the vendor to develop a complete offline player or integration with ready to integrate offline player with annual subscription be fine?

We want the ability to have our SCORM or HTML training package as an executable file. The purpose of this is to make sure areas of Massachusetts with limited broadband access can take the training. Please propose a solution that meet the needs of users with limited access to the internet.