RFP ADDENDUM #8 · stack preferably a combination of cloud-based, enterprise -grade solutions, ... as individuals, have extensive experience in both private and public sectors in

Page 1 of 1

RFP ADDENDUM RFP-18 Rev. 3/13/14 Prev. Rev. 10/17/13

STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

RFP NO.:

19PSX0210

Aimee Cunningham Contract Specialist

PROCUREMENT DIVISION 450 Columbus Boulevard, Suite 12N

Proposal Due Date:

8 October 2019

860-713-5250 Telephone Number

HARTFORD, CT 06106-1659 Date Addendum Issued:

25 September 2019

RFP ADDENDUM #8

DESCRIPTION: Business One Stop Initiative FOR: Department of Administrative Services PROPOSERS NOTE: The purpose of this Addendum #8 is to post the final collective questions and answers.

Page 1 of 30

19PSX0210 Business One Stop Initiative Request for Proposals

Final Collective Questions and Answers

Question # Date Received

Question narrative and answers

Question #1

8/28/19

What types and/or brands of Software is the RFP referring to? Operating Systems? Management Software? Financial Software? Other?

Answer:

We are looking for a proposal that addresses the overall scenario as laid out in the section 2. As part of the response, we expect a recommendation on the tech stack preferably a combination of cloud-based, enterprise-grade solutions, platforms and services that have widespread adoption, scale easily and are cost-effective to acquire, implement and maintain.

Question #2

9/4/19

We are a start-up company and as such cannot provide previous projects as points of reference for this RFP. This does not in any way mean that we lack experience, since we, as individuals, have extensive experience in both private and public sectors in all aspects of Information Technology. I would appreciate any guidance that can be provided as to how to overcome this obstacle. One solution would be to partner with a firm that can provide these references, but if so, how would that work in terms of the proposal?

Answer:

Thank you for your interest with this RFP. As outlined in section 4 of the RFP document, the evaluation criteria comprises of multiple dimensions listed in order of importance. Each proposal will be evaluated across all the listed dimensions. We encourage you to provide your best response possible. We do not have an opinion on partnering with another entity, however, we expect any partnership and/or sub-contracting arrangement to be transparent as it will be subject to our approval. We encourage Proposers to seek creative ways to address our objectives in the best possible manner.

Question #3

9/9/19

Objective 2 in the RFP states that the State's unique constraints and can build the new experiences around the edges or over the top of the existing systems and processes with minimal disruption. Does the scope of the RFP include replacement of the Business Services system that are typically the foundation for Business One Stop Shop initiatives?

Page 2 of 30



Answer:

We are unsure of what you mean regarding Business Services, however, if the Business Services system that you refer to is the Connecticut Business Registry (CONCORD), then the scope of the RFP does not necessarily include or exclude a replacement. We are open to proposals either way. However, we do anticipate a need to substantially enhance, or completely replace CONCORD as one part of the project. We believe decision regarding any other existing systems or services should emerge progressively.

Question #4

9/10/19

RFP Page 66 states that all proposals shall become the sole property of the State and will not be returned. Can the State System confirm that should an Offeror submit trade secret and commercial or financial information as part of its proposal, that it will remain protected from public disclosure, even after it becomes the sole property of the State, as long as the Offeror’s response includes a separate signed written statement, identifying any such information, and the applicable exemption(s) under the Connecticut Freedom of Information Act, Sec. 1-210. (Formerly Sec. 1-19). Access to public records. Exempt records?

Answer:

During the Proposal evaluation period, Proposals are not considered “Public records”, therefore not subject to public disclosure, however once a resultant contract is awarded, all Proposers solicitation documentation records are subject to the FOIA. Should Proposers wish to withhold trade secret/commercial or financial information from public disclosure post contract award (whether an award has been made to them or not), they should note it as such and include a separate signed written statement identifying any such information and the applicable exemptions under the CT FOIA in accordance with the 2018 FOI Act Section 1-210 (formerly Sec. 1-19).

Question #5

9/10/19

Section 7 of the Standard RFP Terms and Conditions states “The successful Proposer shall be bound by the terms and conditions of the form contract that is attached to the RFP, as it may be modified by agreement of the parties.” The BizNet portal does not currently provide the form contract. Can the State please provide the form contract?

Answer:

We chose not to include our standard form contract with this solicitation. Rather than spending time red lining terms and conditions, we would rather have the focus be on the proposed solution(s). Contract terms and conditions will be determined during negotiations with the highest scoring Proposer(s).

Page 3 of 30



Question #6

9/10/19

Standard RFP Terms and Conditions, Section 8 - Would the State be willing to remove the requirement for Bidders to provide proposal or performance bonds as guaranty or surety?

Answer:

Proposal/Performance bonds will not be required.

Question #7

9/10/19

Section 19 of the Standard RFP Terms and Conditions states that an NDC Form is attached. The BizNet portal does not currently provide the NDC form. Can the State please provide the NDC form?

Answer:

The NDC (non-discrimination) is a form certification that will be required when entering into contract with the State. More information can be found here: https://portal.ct.gov/OPM/Fin-PSA/Forms/Nondiscrimination-Certification

Question #8:

9/10/19

We believe adopting user-backed design thinking approach can significantly improve quality of technology delivered and ensure adoption. We have successfully helped other state, local and Federal government departments in defining future state vision without being biased to any particular downstream technology choices. Would the State be looking for dedicated design effort as part of its technology implementation? If yes, would the State be looking at specialized partners for this phase?

Answer:

We believe user research will be essential to understand the various types of business personas, their unique needs and situation. Different agencies will have different sets of needs and constraints as well. We are though not sure what is meant by “dedicated” design effort. We would encourage you to establish your design process through the written response as well as the solution demonstration, if invited.

Question #9

9/10/19

The current pricing structure indicated in the RFP appears to be tailored towards software-as-a-service solutions. Would the state be open to looking at “build operate transfer” type of arrangements?

https://portal.ct.gov/OPM/Fin-PSA/Forms/Nondiscrimination-Certification

Page 4 of 30



Answer:

We are not pre-disposed to a SaaS solutions. We need a clear understanding of cost burden on the state to set-up, run and grow the solution. We do not want to pay for software and/or capacity that is not providing value to taxpayers.

Question #10

9/10/19

Is there a known cost expectation driven by budgets for this effort?

Answer:

No. We are hoping to get the cost benchmark established through the RFP process itself. Having said that, we love the concept of “doing more with less”.

Question #11

9/11/19

Once the system has been delivered, does the state intent to take ownership and provide ongoing support or will this be part of the system deliverer’s responsibility? If the system deliverer is to continue the support of the system, should that be included as a separate line item is the pricing proposal?

Answer:

You may provide a separate line item for ongoing support including the scope of the support and any assumptions on State’s responsibility for the same. Either way we definitely want to understand the recommended effort associated with ongoing support.

Question #12

9/11/19

Since some of the information pertaining to any business is confidential, does the state intent to have a “state cloud”, a public cloud, or a combination of both? I am aware that this question is partially answered by Addendum #1, but would like a better clarification if possible.

Answer:

We would expect recommendations from our potential partners based on established trends and practices. We do not have any reasons as of yet to rule out the available options from a cloud perspective.

Page 5 of 30



Question #13

9/16/19

Referencing Section 1.2 Partnership Goals of the RFP, page 4. The State of Connecticut will partner with a set of successful proposer(s) in a statewide contract for Business One Stop and potentially other state digital initiatives allowing for the execution of multiple Statement of Works in parallel to build a solution that is enterprise grade and buildout new functionality in a phased manner.

• Is the intent of the State to create a qualified master contract list where awarded contractors will then bid on subsequent SOWs?

• How does the State envision "a set of successful proposer(s) in a statewide contract" work together post award?

Answer:

There may or may-not be bids for individual SOWs. Our whole intention is to move with speed with the right set of partners. We expect the pricing models to be flexible and granular enough for us to move fast with incremental and additional work scope.

Question #14

9/17

Are there specific metrics by which the State plans to measure success of this program as it relates to the external end users -- e.g. successful process completion, new business starts, etc.? What about internal goals -- e.g. revenue for SoS office?

Answer:

We do have few outcome metrics like business sentiment, registration time improvements etc. We would appreciate fresh ideas for both outcome and performance metrics.

Question #15

9/17

Are there any existing processes or tools that tie together the multiple agencies that are part of the wide array of existing processes? Should we consider those other agencies (e.g. Department of Labor, Department of Consumer Protection, and Department of Revenue Services) as part of the client team?

Answer:

At present, agencies mostly operate as silos and there is very minimal overlap across agency processes, data and systems. The Business One Stop initiative will require involvement of multiple agencies.

Question #16

9/17

Do the agency or state employees have clearly defined roles in the proposed Business One Stop solution beyond administration activities?

Page 6 of 30



Answer:

We do not understand the intent of this question. The initiative will be led by the State Digital Services team. We will be involved closely with the execution on a day-to-day basis, the exact nature of which will depend on the eventual set of solutions. At a high level expect us to be involved in product management, architecture and standards development as well a liaising with the agencies.

Question #17

9/17

Are there existing interfaces to systems like Concord, eLicense, CITWS that can be leveraged?

Answer:

Concord does not have an API and does not currently interface with any other state system. ELicense does have some limited interfacing, as a Commercial Off the Shelf product from Iron Data (formally Cavu)

Question #18

9/17

For Phase-1, are there any requirements to migrate in-process data (reference and statuses) and shown in the summary page?

Answer:

Not sure what summary page is referred to here. We expect the recommendation about existing data and in-process workflows to evolve through the proposed solution.

Question #19

9/17

Are there any major roadblocks that could delay Phase-2 implementation? Can the agencies be aligned to the overall roadmap and timelines?

Answer:

We do not envision any major roadblocks.

Question #20

9/11

We noted no specific reference to Freedom Of Information laws or the confidentiality of submissions in the RFP documentation. Will the RFP Responses be public? Are they subject to claims of Confidentiality as to certain parts as prescribed by law? If they are public documents, at what point in time will they be available to the public (i.e., after award or immediately?)?

Answer:

Please refer to Answer #4

Page 7 of 30



Question #21

9/18

Would the Department of Administrative Services be able to grant a week’s extension to the current proposal due date? This extension would help us further refine our proposal based on the Q&A.

Answer:

Several potential bidders have requested an extension to the due date. The State will grant a one-time, one-week extension until October 8th. The State will not be extending the due date further. The State is beginning this new journey to transform government to a new way of business. One of our first steps will be to stick to the schedule and deliver results. We will be moving quickly with this project and hope that you will join us in this process. Substantial time remains to complete a submission. Please demonstrate that your team will be able to be keep up.

Question #22

9/18

For the Section 3. Pricing response, we are planning on delivering a rate card for products and services binding for 120 days. In addition, we will be delivering a non-binding Budgetary Estimate for Phase I with the expectation that we will have the ability to deliver a follow-on detailed SOW for this first phase of work. Is this approach consistent with what CT is looking for?

Answer:

Yes it is. We expect to have a pricing framework that helps us to put together SOWs quickly without any confusion as soon as the scope and milestones are finalized. We also want to clarify there is no Phase approach that the State is proposing of its own. Phases or MVPs have to be proposed/arrived at as part of the proposed solution or discussions thereof. We want a pricing framework that can support such an approach. If a proposer is expecting to change rate structures in the future, they should describe how they expect them to change so that the state can fully understand the proposal. The BOS report (attachment 1) in the RFP did refer to a phased approach. We urge you to come up with your own recommendation of the structure of the engagement. The intent of the BOS report was to clarify more on the current situation and highlight some of the problems and not to prescribe any elements of a solution.

Page 8 of 30



Question #23

9/18

Is it expected that the vendor providing the Business One Stop (BOS) solution will implement SSO across all the agencies or is this a separate State initiative that the BOS solution will need to support? These statements seem to contradict one another (from RFP, Single Sign-On paragraph on p.20) : • SSO will be implemented for and supported by all agency systems with no exceptions. • In other words, SSO will not be implemented for some agencies while other agencies maintain a separate login for their system. • All agencies will use SSO as the sole authentication mechanism once the Business One Stop application has been deployed.

Answer:

If your solution envisions SSO as part of a reimagined experience for business owner, we would expect that the details of that to be part of the solution. Also this would be considered as part of the Statewide Context as the state doesn’t have a robust IAM strategy in place. So any solution you propose would need to be able to scale. Any work on this track that does not directly deal with BOS can be a separate SOW as part of developing larger Statewide capability. State also reserves the right to come up with a procurement activity focused on Identity. Also with regards to the BOS report page 20, please refer to our response to Question # 23 as well as Question # 27. Please do not approach the BOS report in terms of a prescribed solution that we need.

Question #24

9/18

Request for a 2 week extension

Answer:

One-week extension granted. Please see answer to question #21.

Question #25

9/18

Per RFP the Business One Stop (BOS) should become the single window for all business registrations. Would there still be cases where any end users have to bypass the BOS and directly access agency systems for any operation; including licenses and permits?

Answer:

We are encouraging proposers to think expansively around these possibilities and bring your innovative ideas to the state. We believe there are certain activities like Professional Licenses that is relevant both in the context of a Business as well as a Citizen. We also believe to be impactful we have to account for a range of usage from novice to expert.

Page 9 of 30



Question #26

9/18

If direct access to agencies is permitted are there specific services that will move to the BOS and some left for the agency systems to handle directly? E.g. there are a lot of services within each agency system other than just registering a business. So do we need to make ALL of these or only a subset available in BOS? I believe this can be part of assessment but just clarify if possible.

Answer:

We are looking at a solution approach that helps us solve these challenges. At the end of the day, the goal is to make the experience significantly better for the Businesses.

Question #27

9/18

It is mentioned that the business registration process has to be completed in a given order/sequence. Then there is a requirement to allow an express path (for agents/attorneys etc.) which seems like picking and choosing licenses and permits in not necessarily a sequential order. Please clarify. E.g. can a user perform different steps of different agencies without waiting for one agency process to complete

Answer:

If this is in reference to the Business One Stop report provided to the legislature last year, proposers should not take that report as a definitive roadmap to this project. The report was provided before the state’s Digital Government services team and direction was formed and we ask proposers to bring their own thinking to the sequencing of activities.

Question #28

9/18

We understand that the individual Agency systems would continue to be the System of record for the data for Agency transactions they own. So, only the user facing Agency front end forms/pages would be ported over and made available within BOS. Please confirm if this is correct.

Answer:

We are open to a variety of solutions. Please describe the merits of your approach in your proposal, including how it might balance the need to maintain agency systems with a central one stop capability. One of the broader goals of Digital Government is to encourage the reusability of data.

Question #29

9/18

BOS would have a fresh feel and branding to provide a unified UI experience. However, for Agency front end forms and pages ported over to BOS, is there a need to preserve the individual styles and theme of each agency system as they are today?

Page 10 of 30



Answer:

We are open to a variety of solutions. Please provide your approach along with the merits

Question #30

9/18

Is there a common administration application for managing the backend data for all the agency systems? Or each one has their own separate Admin Systems?

Answer:

The agency applications are In siloes. We do not understand what is meant by “administrative application”. System Admin services for some of the Databases are provided through a centralized platform team.

Question #31

9/18

You mention the filing path for a self-service user Vs Express path. In Express path would it be possible to jump steps and go directly to a later step? OR is it sequential in the express path as well?

Answer:

Express path personas would have a different expectations from the experience. We do not “think” the sequencing will be different. Also, we do not know if the current process and the current sequencing is optimized.

Question #32

9/18

Related to the Payment gateway integration requirement. What is the maximum dollar transaction (it could be for a license, permit clearance .etc.) that you charge while going through the business registration process. (in RFP it seems to be less than 400 USD)

Answer:

We do not think we can have a theoretical maximum amount. Getting that number from historical data is also a challenge as the transactions are distributed across the agencies.

Question #33

9/18

At the start of the process, for determining of filing path, a series of questions are being asked to define the filing path for a given user. Can we get a sample list of these questions?

Answer:

We do not have a defined list of questions. We have provided some indicative attributes that will define the path – like legal structure of the business, domestic or foreign, etc. For the purpose of the demo, if needed, proposers can assume a logical set of questions based on information that we have provided and proposer’s own domain knowledge and experience

Page 11 of 30



Question #34

9/18

Do you want the user to be able to access the agency applications (to be integrated with BOS) from within BOS by opening them separately (without challenging the user by use of SSO) or do you want the functionality of these applications to be visible to the users within the BOS application and therefore not requiring the user to move outside the BOS application?

Answer:

We are open to a variety of solutions. Please provide your approach along with the merits

Question #35

9/18

Do you intend to use MFA (Multi Factor Authentication) for the BOS portal? If yes, what multi factor modalities (OTP/Bio-Metric/etc.), if any, modalities have been considered?

Answer:

We are open to a variety of solutions. Please provide your approach along with the merits and based on prevalent industry standards applicable for this context.

Question #36

9/18

What are the various SSO (Single Sign-On) protocols (SAML/OAuth/OIDC/WS-Fed/etc.) supported by the current Agency applications to be integrated with BOS?

Answer:

Agencies have a variety of technologies in place today. All of the technologies in the question exist across the agencies. WS-Fed is most prevalent. Some of the agencies do not offer an online mode for some of the services.

Question #37

9/18

What are the user repositories for each of the applications to be integrated with BOS (LDAP/AD/Database/etc.)?

Answer:

All of these! IBM SIM-SAM, Novell e-directory, local application databases, AD etc., all of these exist.

Question #38

9/18

What external regulatory controls govern this project?

Page 12 of 30



Answer:

Generic business registry do not have any special regulatory requirements. The process involves financial transactions. PCI DSS will be applicable. Agencies will have their specific regulatory requirements. Specific applicability on the scope of BOS will have to be discovered.

Question #39

9/18

What is the total number of users that exist across all applications? Is there any data available on the current user sizing and also on the anticipated/projected user sizing for the business users using the portal in 1, 2 and 5 years?

Answer:

There are 507,000 active businesses on the business registry (CONCORD). There are about 38,000 new formations/registrations annually. Business formations data is published publicly at http://ctbusiness.ctdata.org/#/starts-and-stops. LLC formations have steadily risen over the past decade, from 18,000 in 2010 to 28,000 in 2019.

Question #40

9/18

Do we have documentation for the existing agency systems to understand the tech stack details of the current backend systems which would communicate with BOS applications i.e. Application Framework, app/web server, programming language, database etc.

Answer:

No we do not have an exhaustive list. The agencies do have a diverse tech stack predominantly being .Net and Java with SQL Server or Oracle backend. There are mainframe, VB.Net, classic ASP, ACCESS based applications as well.

Question #41

9/18

Do the current agency systems listed in RFP expose any APIs (REST, SOAP) which can be consumed by the BOS application?

Answer:

APIs or interfaces are very limited to non-existent.

Question #42

9/18

Once in production, how often do you foresee the business registration forms and procedures to be changed or updated?

http://ctbusiness.ctdata.org/#/starts-and-stops

Page 13 of 30



Answer:

We would expect a solution that will be simple and flexible to implement change through configurations as opposed to significant coding. One of the challenges we face as a government are the needs to react quickly to federal and state statutory changes as well as business mandates.

Question #43

9/18

Is the application expected to support multiple languages? If yes, can the application be first released with support for English language only followed with these languages being added in an incremental manner to the application?

Answer:

Multi-lingual is expected. We are ok to start with English but would want to understand the process of adding more languages.

Question #44

9/18

Will the application be required to work in offline mode (without connected to the network), if yes what essential operations must be performed in offline mode?

Answer:

As of now, offline mode is not a priority.

Question #45

9/18

Are there any preferences or constraints related to work location during the project? E.g. would you be fine working in an onsite/offshore combination model where most of the development work gets done offshore?

Answer:

We have purposefully not constrained work location. Given the multi-stakeholder nature of this work, we prefer critical meetings and design sessions to be in-person.

Question #46

9/18

Would you have a dedicated team to manage the engagement or would prefer that we manage it entirely. E.g. People, schedule, planning, tracking, monitoring and reporting during the length of the project?

Answer:

We would be providing the product management functions as well as architecture and design review functions.

Question #47

9/18

Are there any hard deadlines or delivery timeframes associated with this project? If yes, a clear guidance on date would help us plan our resources better.

Page 14 of 30



Answer:

We want to start providing incremental value as soon as possible.

Question #48

9/17

During the Pre-proposal Conference on September 9th, the State indicated that a full version of the Business One Stop Report – HB 5440 could potentially be provided to proposers. Can the State please provide an update on if/when proposers can expect to receive the full report?

Answer:

Full version of the report has been provided at the end of the original RFP and is generally available to the public at the following link: https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DAS/Communications/Communications-List-Docs/Annual-Reports/Business-One-Stop-Report.pdf As discussed elsewhere in these questions, the report should be considered as a point of information, not as a definitive direction.

Question #49

9/17

Would the State please consider extending the proposal submission deadline by two weeks? Given that final answers may not be posted until September 24th, and proposers have not yet received the full Business One Stop Report – HB 5440, we want to ensure there is sufficient time to align our proposal with all of your requirements and have sufficient time to complete internal quality and risk reviews. These reviews are not a process which the proposal team has the ability to modify the steps or timeframe.

Answer:

One-week extension granted. Please see answer to question #21 The One Stop report has been available since the RFP was announced.

Question #50

9/17

Is the Connecticut open to extending the proposal due date beyond October 1?

Answer:


Question #51

9/19

Referencing HB-5440, Scope, Page 21 The Report lists Department of Consumer Protection as a Phase 1 Agency, but gives very little information about the nature of the transactions or information that should be available in Phase 1. • Are there any specific forms, filings or categories of static information that the Phase 1 BOS should accommodate for this Agency?

https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DAS/Communications/Communications-List-Docs/Annual-Reports/Business-One-Stop-Report.pdf



Page 15 of 30



Answer:

If this is in reference to the Business One Stop report provided to the legislature last year, proposers should not take that report as a definitive roadmap to this project. The report was provided before the state’s Digital Government services team and direction was formed and we ask proposers to bring their own thinking to the sequencing of activities/phases/MVPs.

Question #52

9/20

Please consider providing an extension of the proposal due date by at least a few weeks since a prototype system platform needs to be developed concurrently as part of proposal response. Moreover, there is another CT state proposal for “System Integrators” which is also due on October 1st of which we’re also working on.

Answer:


Question #53

9/20

Please clarify how the Vendors Financial viability is evaluated? Should the vendors submit financial statements?

Answer:

Please see Attachment b of the RFP, section 6, which reads: “Proposers must be prepared to provide any evidence or experience, performance, ability, and/or financial surety that DAS deems to be necessary or appropriate to fully establish the performance capabilities represented in their proposals”. Proposers should be prepared to provide financial statements upon request.

Question #54

9/20

Referring to “b. The State has recognized ubiquitous identification of Citizens, Businesses, and other personas and identified their overlaps across state systems as a significant strategic goal for the vision of on line and not in line services. State envisions this as a broader identity hub initiative than just access management and single sign on.”, Question: Is the state envisaging the identity hub to be part of the Business One Stop initiative or a separate statewide Initiative.

Page 16 of 30



Answer:

We encourage you to provide a holistic solution for BOS taking the State Constraints and wider State Context into account. If you have thoughts about how to envision identity hub that will work for BOS as well as scale up to larger state Context, we would want to hear that. You can decide if you want to consider identity as part of your core solution or provide that as a strong recommendation or have that as an assumption for the state to develop separately. We may adopt your solution and run an Identity track as part of BOS or may go for a separate procurement activity for another set of problems that will cover identity hub. We do are pretty sure that development of Identity Hub will require a business context and cannot be developed as a stand-alone initiative. That business context may be BOS or another problem that the State would want to solve pretty soon.

Question #55

9/20

Does the state expect the selected vendor(s) to procure the software licenses and hardware / cloud services? Or will the State procure them directly from Software / hardware / cloud service vendor?

Answer:

The state is open to either model, whichever you propose should be most economically advantageous to the state. Please be clear on the model you propose.

Question #56

9/20

What are the scope items the vendor should consider for the total estimated cost?

• Do you want to include the following as part of the estimated cost? o Training and OCM o Hardware o Maintenance and Operation o Help Desk Support

Answer:

Please refer to the pricing methodology as outlined in Section 3, Pricing Proposal to base your proposed solution(s) on.

Question #57

9/20

Referring to the statement “All price offerings must be valid for a period of 120 days from the proposal due date.” Question: does this apply to “(a) Unit cost for all license...” and “(b) Unit cost for all services elements....” only?

Answer:

All pricing offers should be valid for 120 days in order to complete the analysis and negotiations on a firm and objective financial basis.

Page 17 of 30



Question #58

9/20

Please refer to “OBJECTIVE 8 Statewide contract with individual Statements of Work (SOW) to implement the Business One Stop solution in a phased manner as well as potentially engage in other state digital initiatives allowing for the execution of multiple SOWs in parallel.” With the above context, we assume that the total estimated cost requested as part of the submission is for informational purposes only since the state is expecting to operate on SOW model subsequent selection of multiple vendor for the Business One Stop Initiative. Can you please confirm that the estimated cost will not be used as part of the price evaluation?

Answer:

Total estimated costs will be used during the evaluation process to determine viability and competitiveness of all solutions.

Question #59

9/20

Does the state have a preference for a COTS solution or a custom developed solution?

Answer:

The state does not have a preference, however the supportability of any solution is an important consideration for the state.

Question #60

9/20

Are we expected to provide profile resumes for the staffing positions listed on page 50 as part of the proposal response?

Answer:

This question refers to the “suggested resources” section of the Business One Stop report. As answered earlier, this report is not to be considered a definitive guide to the solution we are requesting. Please propose what you believe will be most compelling to the state.

Question #61

9/20

Can we provide a reference that is not in the public sector but in the commercial sector? Are U.S public government sector experience for the solution in the RFP a critical evaluation factor for the vendor award?

Answer:

You may provide whatever reference most closely reflects the work we are requesting in terms of size and complexity. While other state governments do reflect a similarity to our business, that is not a requirement.

Page 18 of 30



Question #62

9/20

In the CT – Business One Stop Report on Page 4, last para – there is a mention of – “A critical first step in implementing a Business One Stop is to assess existing business processes and regulations and revise as needed based on the goals and scope of the Business One Stop solution that a state has chosen to implement.” What part of this effort is completed by the state and is there is clear understanding of what processes are required to be revamped. If not – does the State expect the Vendors to factor in this effort for research, assessment and consulting as well as part of the proposal apart from the actual technological changes?

Answer:

Please consider the Business One Stop Report as directional. If you have other methods to accomplish out stated business goal, please propose your best solution.

Question #63

9/20

Can we propose offshore services (India) for remote location staff’s? Or is the State requiring all the RFP services to be located in Connecticut of which we can of course accommodate within our Hartford Technology and Innovation Hub. Is it an option to locate our resources in the U.S. remotely (other than just in Connecticut) as well?

Answer:

We have purposefully not constrained work location. Given the multi-stakeholder nature of this work, we prefer critical meetings and design sessions to be in-person

Question #64

9/20

Are the vendors required to accept all the Terms and Conditions in the sample contract in order to submit a compliant proposal? Please indicate if the vendors are required to provide their proposed revisions to the sample contract as part of their proposal submission?

Answer:

No formal contract was provided with the RFP. Terms and Conditions will be negotiated with the highest scoring Proposer(s) upon completion of the proposal evaluations and subsequent demonstrations. There is no requirement to propose revisions to any contract language at this time.

Question #65

9/20

What is the average number of transactions which occur - projected on a daily basis for expected solution?

Page 19 of 30



Answer:

We do not have an average number of transactions captured. There are 507,000 active businesses on the business registry (CONCORD). There are about 38,000 new formations/registrations annually. Monthwise Business formations data is published publicly at http://ctbusiness.ctdata.org/#/starts-and-stops. LLC formations have steadily risen over the past decade, from 18,000 in 2010 to 28,000 in 2019. Approximately 76,425 new applications for Licenses and Permits were received for 2018 as well 363,983 renewals. A full dataset can be downloaded from (https://data.ct.gov/Business/State-Licenses-and-Credentials/fxib-2xng) Please note that these professional licenses can be requested by individuals also not associated with any business. We do not have a split though a majority of these will be associated with businesses. Also, apart from these there will be other transactions related to complaints, audits and inspections etc.

Question #66

9/20

How many users does CT state estimate to use this platform?

Answer:

Please refer to the answer for Question # 65 above for an understanding of the volume. We do not have an exact number of unique user count.

Question #67

9/20

Is the single sign-on capability that will grant access to the Business One Stop solution and all other Agency systems part of the phase 1 deliverable? How many agency systems will need to be integrated on the single sign-on?

Answer:

Please refer to Question # 22 for clarification regarding Phases. We do not have an exact count of the agency systems. Also refer to Question # 36.

Question #68

9/20

What is the average association of a CT government representative/user in years and how much historical data is available on an average basis?

Answer:

We do not understand this question.

Question #69

9/20

Is there a current online payment system in place?

Answer:

Yes, there is an online payment system used by some of the agencies. The payment system exposes SOAP based APIs.

http://ctbusiness.ctdata.org/#/starts-and-stops

https://data.ct.gov/Business/State-Licenses-and-Credentials/fxib-2xng

https://data.ct.gov/Business/State-Licenses-and-Credentials/fxib-2xng

Page 20 of 30



Question #70

9/20

What, if any of the current platform built on in terms of their technology platform? What would the proposed future platform we have to integrate with?

Answer:

Please refer to Question # 40

Question #71

9/20

What if any backend technologies support serving a differentiated experience?

Answer:

Please refer to Question # 40. We do not understand the exact intent of this question.

Question #72

9/20

Is the expectation that this platform will be also designed for mobile use? If so what is the mobile platform operating system preference if any?

Answer:

Responsive UI is a minimum. The state website gets 33% of the hits from tablets and handheld devices.

Question #73

9/20

Since the future platform may also be a self-service model, what is the level of customer service expected to help representatives/customers with any issues?

Answer:

The goal is to get the users complete their tasks without any external help. There has to be way to reach to someone as soon as possible to request help. We would expect a solution roadmap that progressively addresses the experience with customer service.

Question #74

9/20

What is the max daily email volume the vendor should expect to see? Also, what is the number of IP addresses that you use today?

Answer:

We do not understand the context. Please refer to question # 65 for some usage information.

Question #75

9/20

Please provide an estimate of the annual number of email deployments which may to be supported as applicable?

Page 21 of 30



Answer:

We do not understand the context. Please refer to question # 65 for some usage information.

Question #76

9/20

On a macro – design - solution basis, What’s working. What’s not working?

Answer:

We already highlighted the challenges and our objectives through the RFP document.

Question #77

9/20

Do you have citizens’/government representative applicable research showing what are their expectations for the ideal engagement with the CT government and applicable agencies?

Answer:

We do not understand the context. If this refers to user research, the RFP document captures the insights we have so far.

Question #78

9/20

Can you share the overall business strategies & objectives for next 3 years for your key agencies organizations specifically for the Digital DNA initiatives?

Answer:

We do not understand the reference to “Digital DNA”. The State’s Context is already mentioned in the RFP. The Governor has also laid out the vision of “Online, not inline”.

Question #79

9/20

As an organization, how do you rate business-IT collaboration culture? Do you see your business & IT teams willing to intensely collaborate with Infosys during the early stages of digital transformation journey?

Answer:

We have strong executive sponsorship and commitment for this initiative. At the same time, State constraints are also laid out in the RFP document.

Question #80

9/20

In last 3 years, have there been any other strategic technology transformation programs that have been executed. Would you rate them as success or failure? What metrics are your using to measuring this. What would you attribute the top-3 reasons for success or failure?

Page 22 of 30



Answer:

Yes, however, we expect this program to operate at a completely new level. Examples of CT’s technology investments can be found online with the Office of Policy and Management - https://portal.ct.gov/OPM/Fin-CFO/ITIM/IT-Capital-Investment-Program. All our investments will add value over time. There is an opportunity to accelerate value quickly in a way that meets citizen and business expectations. For those projects that have delivered less value than intended, the primary issue has been change of business requirements over time that are not adequately captured in the delivery approach.

Question #81

9/20

Are there any strategic constraints covering budgets, business dependencies, in-flight strategic programs, organization change, critical timelines & other dependencies that can influence maybe ‘doing it the right’ this time?

Answer:

Those dynamics will always be in play. Successful proposers should be able to seek solutions and work around these challenges.

Question #82

9/20

Do you perform targeting and NBA (Next Best Action) in your user experiences? And what’s the strategy for targeting and recommendations? What is your current maturity in Recommendation, Analytics?

Answer:

We do not have any significant experience in analytics

Question #83

9/20

What is your current state of Agile feedback loop for your digital initiatives?

Answer:

As we start out journey on Agile, we are open to do things differently in line with modern practices. Feedback driven iterative development will be key to our success with this initiative

Question #84

9/20

Do you support local region targeting with different contents and different content strategy?

Answer:

We look forward to your ideas and solution elements regarding contextualization and personalization.

https://portal.ct.gov/OPM/Fin-CFO/ITIM/IT-Capital-Investment-Program

https://portal.ct.gov/OPM/Fin-CFO/ITIM/IT-Capital-Investment-Program

Page 23 of 30



Question #85

9/20

What type of data analysis/data science/AI is being used today to analyze and personalize content to drive customer interactions?

Answer:

We do not have these capabilities

Question #86

9/20

Should we include a data analytics component to the RFP solution?

Answer:

We look forward to your ideas and solution elements that would help our business owners complete their transactions with the state through a simple, intuitive and frictionless experience

Question #87

9/20

Are you planning on adding a CRM database if one doesn’t already exist and if so which CRM solution?

Answer:


Question #88

9/20

What does the State see as a best-of-breed solution?

Answer:

A solution that meets our objectives per Section 3.4

Question #89

9/20

Who are the critical stakeholders and is there a key decision-maker?

Answer:

The Digital Services team, state agencies and business owners are the key stakeholders. Digital Services team is owning this initiative.

Question #90

9/20

Has the State set up a governance structure and/or work groups with the other State agencies (DOL, DOE, DOR, etc.)?

Answer:

We have a governance structure involving the key agencies in place. We will include more agencies as the work progresses.

Page 24 of 30



Question #91

9/20

Will the State administer this project from a Project Management Office (PMO)? If so, how is the PMO set up and how will it govern?

Answer:

The initiative will be administered by the Digital Services team that is a cross-agency governance team.

Question #92

9/20

Which project roles have been assigned to the project?

Answer:


Question #93

9/20

What are the key gates in the engagement?

Answer:

This will need to be developed and planned at the project kick-off.

Question #94

9/20

By what KPIs is the State being evaluated?

Answer:

The context of this question is overly broad. There are many key performance indicators that agencies use to manage and make decisions. This program is intended to make the easier to work with for business. We would encourage you to describe in your solution how we would measure that based on your experience.

Question #95

9/20

Are offshore resources allowed

Answer:

Refer to Question # 63

Question #96

9/20

We believe in a deeply collaborative and immersive approach to partnering throughout the design thinking process, but especially at the beginning. We also believe in moving fast with a lot of workshops to gather inputs and feedback. This can mean a fairly intense start to the engagement. Is there a team and/or people from the state who are able to devote anywhere from 25% to 50% of their time for the first month or two of the initiative?

Page 25 of 30



Answer:

Yes.

Question #97

9/20

What experiences do the State admire?

Answer:

We do not understand the context. If this refers to user experience, then our focus is to help our business owners complete their transactions with the state through a simple, intuitive and frictionless experience. From a delivery perspective, the State expects to work with partners that understands and can deliver on the RFP objectives per Section 2.4

Question #98

9/20

Can the State provide any survey results with business owner feedback?

Answer:

We have already captured the insights captured through CERC feedback into the RFP and in the BOS report. We did not conduct an extensive user research.

Question #99

9/20

How many of the existing applications and/or functionalities that support current business registration processes, does the State see being remediated as part of the CT BOS program?

Answer:

The Business Lifecycle is already captured in the RFP. Each agency has its own set of applications and systems to manage inspections, audits and other compliance activities. There is a centralized e-licensing application as well as a payment application. The extent of remediation (or not) depends on progressive discovery as we start the initiative.

Question #100

9/20

Does the current enterprise system architecture comprise heterogeneous enterprise software products/tools like SAP, Salesforce, workday and ECM products? If yes, will there be any API integrations required with these systems?

Answer:

Please refer to Question # 40.

Question #101

9/20

Does the State IT uses any API integration tools and technologies? If so, what are the tools in place

Page 26 of 30



Answer:

The state doesn’t have a standardized API technology both in terms of API lifecycle as well as API security. SOAP, middleware technologies like Biztalk, offline batch jobs are used in the agencies for data exchanges. As part of the initiative, we would want to develop the API standards.

Question #102

9/20

What is the payment processor?

Answer:

There is a Payment SOAP Web Service developed in C# using the PayPal Payflow Pro API.

Question #103

9/20

What is your authentication directory vendor and product?

Answer:

Refer to Question # 37.

Question #104

9/20

Is there a middleware that can be used to broker integration between systems?

Answer:


Question #105

9/20

Is there an existing document management system? If so, what is the vendor, product, version, hosting model?

Answer:

FileNet v5.5 hosted on premise. FileNet is not consistently used across all agencies but is the current primary document store. Many agencies store documents locally on network storages.

Question #106

9/20

How many application forms must be configured in the system?

Answer:

This will need to be discovered.

Question #107

9/20

Does the state have an automated system technology? If so, who is the vendor? If so, does the state have trained resources to support automated testing?

Page 27 of 30



Answer:

No.

Question #108

9/20

Does the State IT have Enterprise Master Data Management (MDM) and Enterprise Data Quality (EDQ) tools? If so, what are the vendors and tools in place? What is the solution name, version and hosting model?

Answer:

No

Question #109

9/20

Are taxonomies/schemas available from regulatory/compliance agencies - particularly with respect to industry specifics? For example, USDOA

Answer:

We do not understand the context of this question

Question #110

9/20

Does data need to be migrated? If so, from how many sources? How many tables and estimated records per table?

Answer:

This is to be discovered. At some point of the initiative, data may need to be migrated. Depends on the solution approach.

Question #111

9/20

Is it correct to assume that there will be repeatable process to get updates for the common data until the capability is built to send data in real time?

Answer:

Please provide your solution along with the assumptions

Question #112

9/20

The State mentioned that there are constraints of sharing data among agencies and it will require changes in the State law. Has the State started to work on those changes?

Answer:

Not all data sharing constraints are related to state laws. Challenges are a mixed of perception, policy, and regulatory (State and Federal). Some work has already started. The successful proposer will have to confront these challenges and work on a mitigation strategy for each.

Page 28 of 30



Question #113

9/20

Can the State provide a list of the restricted data that cannot be shared between agencies?

Answer:

We do not have that exhaustive list.

Question #114

9/20

With approximately how many external databases do you interoperate – pull, push or both pull & push?

Answer:

We envision a solution that will allow us to conduct business in a more automated, materially different manner. While today the external integrations are limited to payment services, we ask that you identify where other integrations may make your proposal more attractive.

Question #115

9/20

Can you offer more detail on the "two business registration paths for registrants" that is designated as being part of Phase 1 Scope?

Answer:

The exact feature requirements will need to be discovered. Please refer to Question # 22 regarding phased approach.

Question #116

9/20

Can we leverage existing standards such as UBL (http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/os-UBL- 2.2/UBL-2.2.html)?

Answer:

Please suggest what you think will be best for the BOS adhering to industry standard, best practices and inter-operability.

Question #117

9/20

With what privacy and data standards and regulations should this solution comply?

Answer:


Question #118

9/20

How would the State approach the Change Management for internal stakeholders?

Page 29 of 30



Answer:

Not sure we understand the context or is too broad to answer here.

Question #119

9/20

During the Pre-proposal Conference on September 9th, the State indicated that a full version of the Business One Stop Report – HB 5440 could potentially be provided to proposers. Can the State please provide an update on if/when proposers can expect to receive the full report?

Answer:


Question #120 9/20

Would the State please consider extending the proposal submission deadline by two weeks? Given that final answers may not be posted until September 24th, and proposers have not yet received the full Business One Stop Report – HB 5440, we want to ensure there is sufficient time to align our proposal with all of your requirements and have sufficient time to complete internal quality and risk reviews. These reviews are not a process which the proposal team has the ability to modify the steps or timeframe.

Answer:

1 week extension provided.

Question #121

9/20

The Phase 1 Scope lists Department of Labor Registration as in scope, however the challenges section further below states the Department of Labor is modernizing their backend system and the new system does not support integration with external or 3rd party Systems. • Please clarify the Department of Labor’s participation in the Business One Stop

Answer:

Please think creatively about how we might tackle this challenge. We expect to have the participation of all agencies as noted in the HB 5440 report. As with any initiative the scope and sequence of new capabilities will need to be considered with any projects that are currently in flight.

Question #122

9/20

At the time of writing the report 5440, it was stated that the Departments of Labor and Revenue were both in the process of rolling out new systems in the ensuing 18 months. • Can you please provide a go-live date for these implementations?

Page 30 of 30



Answer:

Target implementations are 2020 for Department of Revenue Services and 2021 for Department of Labor. As highlighted in State Constraints section of the RFP, new priorities for the agencies may come up. The successful proposers, Digital Services team and Agency leadership must work together to work around such situations.

Question #123

9/20

Regarding Section #37 Phase-2 Scope – Capability to review and purchase insurance products (e.g., workers compensation, Commercial insurance) from an approved vendor list - Is the understanding that current agencies facilitate these transactions online and Business One Stop portal will integrate into such system? Or will this be a new functionality where Business One Stop portal will directly integrate with approved vendors? What will be average number of source systems per agency to be integrated? (1-5 or 5+)? What is the anticipated user count, both internal state users and external customers?

Answer:

We expect Phase 2 will be determined in more detail as we execute Phase I. Consider all the phasing as directional. We are looking for creative options to automate and enable the best user experience possible. Prescribing linking and integration requirements for insurance vendors is too specific. We do not have an exact count on the number of systems. Refer to #65 for some guidance on usage information.

Documents

RFP ADDENDUM #8 · stack preferably a combination of cloud-based, enterprise -grade solutions, ... as individuals, have extensive experience in both private and public sectors in