1

STATE OF WASHINGTON

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES PO Box 45811, Olympia WA 98504-5811

DATE: September 25, 2017 TO: ITPS #1724-654 Bidders FROM: James O'Brien, Solicitation Coordinator

DSHS Central Contracts and Legal Services SUBJECT: Amendment No. 3 – Bidder QA

DSHS amends the ITPS #1724-654 solicitation document to include:

- Bidder’s Questions and Answers

2

Bidder’s Questions and Answers ITPS #1724-654

Question #1: Cost Submittal “…File naming convention: ITPS 1634-615…”

Please note: the solicitation number “1634-615” is not the Work Request

number for this solicitation. Can you please confirm the file name that should

be used for the cost submittal?

A: Section 4.3 Cost Submittals File Naming Convention should read: ‘ITPS 1724-654 Exhibit F – Cost_<bidder name>.pdf

Question #2: Non-Key Staff

Should resumes for non-key staff be included in our response?

A: Resumes for Non-Key staff are not required

Question #3: Section 4.1.1 Letter of Submittal “Bidders must include a signed Letter of Submittal on Bidder’s official business letterhead stationary as the first page of the proposal.”

Does DSHS have a preferred naming convention for the Letter of

Submittal response document?

A: The Letter of Submittal can use the following naming convention: “1724-654_LtrSbmtl_<bidder name>.pdf”

Question #4: Section 4.1.3 Project Organization and Staff Members “DSHS requires the Key Staff Member (Lead Project Manager, Lead Business Analyst and Lead RFP Writer) are 100% on the project for the duration and onsite at DSHS.”

Because we are a local company in Olympia and the majority of our

consultants are located 100% onsite for Washington clients, we plan to

deliver these project services onsite at DSHS or at our office which is

within walking distance from the project site. Given DSHS is asking for

fixed-priced deliverable-based work, we would like to be able to use the

best approach and management to accomplishing the work. We believe it

would be more efficient to allow vendors the ability to include a limited

number of remote staff to bring in the best qualifications for one key team

member (the Lead RFP Writer). Given the duration of the project and the

broad range of activities occurring at any point in time, it seems the best

use of resources and budget would be to bid one key staff at less than

3

100% and plan for onsite participation as needed. Would DSHS

reconsider the 100% onsite requirement for the Lead RFP Writer?

A: DSHS will reconsider the 100% onsite requirements for the Lead RFP Writer position, only. The resultant RFP deliverable is of primary significance to DSHS. Though DSHS is willing to negotiate this requirement, DSHS expects the RFP Writer to be onsite, as necessary, to facilitate and participate in any necessary stakeholder meetings for the development of the resultant RFP and DSHS will reserve the right to require the RFP Writer be onsite for any given work effort or meeting DSHS deems critical.

Question #5: Section 4.2.4 Bidder References and 4.2.7 Staff References “…File naming convention: ‘Exhibit G – Bidder: Customer Reference_’…” “…Exhibit H: XX…”

We use SharePoint as our proposal collaboration tool and cannot upload a

file that uses a colon in the name of document; would it be acceptable to

replace the colon “:” with an underscore “_”?

A: DSHS agrees to replacing the colon “:” with an underscore “_” for all submittal document naming conventions

Question #6: Section 4.2.5 of Exhibit E. BA - Staff Experience, Qualifications and References Template “… skills, abilities, and experience of the proposed Key Staff Lead Project Manager,” and “…listing the work experiences and periods in which the proposed Key Staff Lead Project Manager demonstrated…”

Should this reference to the “Lead Project Manager” be replaced with

“Lead Business Analyst”?

A: Yes, in Exhibit E.BA – Staff Experience Lead Business Analyst Template, the reference in Section 4.2.5 Experience and Qualifications of Key Staff (SR), 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence should be for the Lead Business Analyst

Question #7: Section 4.2.5 of Exhibit E. RFPW - Staff Experience, Qualifications and References Template “… skills, abilities, and experience of the proposed Key Staff Lead Project Manager,” and “…listing the work experiences and periods in which the proposed Key Staff Lead Project Manager demonstrated…”

Should this reference to the “Lead Project Manager” be replaced with “Lead RFP Writer”? A: Yes, in Exhibit E.RFPW – Staff Experience Lead RFP Writer Template, the reference in Section 4.2.5 Experience and Qualifications of Key Staff (SR), 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence should be for the Lead RFP Writer

4

Question #8: Section 4.2.5 of Exhibit E. BA - Staff Experience, Qualifications and References Template, Exhibit E. RFPW - Staff Experience, Qualifications and References Template and Exhibit E.PM - Staff Experience, Qualifications and References Template “…engagement templates below (5 engagements).”

Should “5” be replaced with “10”?

A: Yes, 10 engagements should replace “5” in Section 4.2.5 of: Exhibit E. BA - Staff Experience, Qualifications and References Template, Exhibit E. RFPW - Staff Experience, Qualifications and References Template Exhibit E.PM - Staff Experience, Qualifications and References Template

Question #9: Section 4.2.5.1 Lead PM Mandatory Experience and Qualifications, 4.2.5.2 Lead BA Mandatory Experience and Qualifications, 4.2.5.3 Lead RFP Mandatory Writer Experience and Qualifications, 4.2.6 Work Product Examples, and 4.3 Cost Submittals “…Required Format: Microsoft Word or PDF. Do not use a link. Attach an actual Word or PDF document.

File naming convention: ‘… Example<example name>_<bidder name>.pdf’…

Will DSHS please confirm it is acceptable to submit the documents listed

above in either MS Word (doc/docx) or PDF.

A: Either Microsoft Word (.doc, .docx) or PDF (.pdf) is acceptable.

Question #10: Section 4.2.5.4 Key Staff [Lead Project Manager, Lead Business Analyst, Lead RFP Writer]- Highly Desired Experience and Qualifications "Project Management credentials / certification (e.g. Project Management Professional credentials from PMI or Project Management certificate from an accredited college, university, or organization that has been recognized by PMI as a Registered Education Provider).”

Is it a desired qualification for all three of the key staff, (PM, RFPW and

BA) to be PMP certified, or just the PM?

A: It is a highly desired qualification for the PM to be PMP certified.

Question #11: Section 4.2.6 Work Product Examples

Because RFPs are typically extremely large files with numerous exhibits

and attachments such as sample contracts, requirements, etc.; would it be

acceptable for Bidders to submit the core RFP document only?

A: Yes, the core RFP document is an acceptable submission

5

Question #12: Section 5. Submission Requirements “Files must be formatted in Portable Document Format (Adobe Acrobat PDF) or Microsoft Office 2013 and lower versions of Microsoft Word.”

Is it acceptable to use newer versions of Microsoft Office 2013?

“The Bidder must use a font size of twelve (12) or larger (unless the form provided does not allow).”

The template forms provided by DSHS are formatted in 11-point font. Is

it acceptable to use 11-point font in the response documents, or should

Bidders change the formatting?

A: MS Office 2013 is currently Agency Standard. If a newer version of MS Office is used, it MUST be saved in a compatible format for MS Office 2013. A: Yes, it is acceptable to use 11-point font in the response documents.

Question #13: Exhibit E. BA - Staff Experience, Qualifications and References Template, Exhibit E. RFPW - Staff Experience, Qualifications and References Template and Exhibit E.PM - Staff Experience, Qualifications and References Template “…Attach a resume for the proposed Key Staff Lead…”

Does DSHS have naming convention preference for each of the key staff

resumes?

A: DSHS requests the resumes be submitted as a separate document with the following naming convention: “1724-654_Resume_<staff name>”

Question #14: Exhibit E. BA - Staff Experience, Qualifications and References Template, Exhibit E. RFPW - Staff Experience, Qualifications and References Template and Exhibit E.PM - Staff Experience, Qualifications and References Template

Does checking the checkbox for a mandatory or desirable qualification

indicate that the engagement fully met the requirement of the checkbox or

does it indicate that it contributes to meeting the qualification?

For example, in section 4.2.5.1 of Exhibit E.PM - Staff Experience, Qualifications and References Template, there is a checkbox that reads “Eight (8) or more years’ experience (within the past 10 years) as a Project Manager in contracting, contracting compliance.”

If we check this checkbox, does it indicate that this single engagement was 8 or more years as a Project Manager in contracting, contracting

6

compliance? Or does it indicate that this engagement contributed to the 8-year requirement?

A: By checking the checkbox for a mandatory or desirable qualification, this indicates the engagement “contributes” to meeting the qualification. However, DSHS will count only one unit of credit for each required skill/experience within a timeframe for any overlapping engagements.

Question #15: The % in the Total Possible Points table on page 20 do not add up. Can you clarify? A: Executive Summary 5% Deliverables 30% Bidder Experience 10% Hourly Rate 10% Bidder Engagements 5% Cost Total 40% Staff Experience 20% RFP Examples 20% Non-Cost Total 60% Non-Cost 60% + Cost 40% = 100%

Question #16: Business Case Deliverable The Phase 2 deliverable list includes this: Within the first 90 days of contract start date: Business Case Presentation. The Business Case Presentation will describe the anticipated ESA IT systems transformation and business alignment in clear and understandable terms, backed up by analysis and evidence, to support ESA’s request for appropriate approvals and funding. The materials should include, at a minimum: • Strategic Roadmap to IT Transformation • Business alignment to transformation efforts • Financial strategy to maximize federal revenue / matching • Enterprise Architecture Strategy, capitalizing on a modular and incremental approach • A suggested sequencing plan that considers cost, benefit, schedule and risk of a modular/incremental approach Within Is it your expectation that the winning Bidder will be able to create all of the components of this business case in 90 days? Will there be a DSHS team that will be assigned to assist? It does not appear that 90 days is sufficient to conduct an effective business case unless several of these deliverables already exist? A: DSHS does expect the vendor to develop the Business Case as soon as possible and will help to ensure vendor has access to whatever information is needed from DSHS. Expectations for all deliverables will be reviewed and negotiated as part of the project’s Deliverable Management process.

Question #17: Can you clarify your timeline for the entire IT transformational process? Design, Procurement, and Implementation? A: The timeline for the entire Business and IT Transformation effort is to be completed by 2025. The timelines associated with the Design, Procurement and

7

Implementation phases of STAGE 3 will be better understood through the process of gathering the requirements and writing the RFP in STAGE 2.

Question #18: What other projects related to this are in motion? A: There are multiple modernization efforts occurring throughout the Health and Human Services sector that will help support future projects. While there are no other projects specifically related to this project or to the overall Business and IT Transformation project, DSHS has developed a roadmap of ESA IT projects to help inform ties to current efforts. This roadmap information will be provided to the selected vendor.

Question #19: The required experience for each of the 3 roles doesn't entirely/perfectly match up with the job titles of the roles. Can you clarify whether any of the required qualifications are "preferred"? A: The Mandatory Experience and Qualifications are REQUIRED and not preferred. The Highly Desired Experience and Qualifications are preferred. This RFP Writer effort is critical to ESA pursuing a robust and successful Business & IT Transformation RFP. Therefore, ESA is looking for a thorough understanding and appreciation of Washington’s complex Health and Human Services programs.

Question #20: Has an enterprise architecture for DSHS been created? If so, can you make it available? A: This project will play a major part in helping to inform the Enterprise Architecture for E&E systems within DSHS and the State of Washington. The DSHS Enterprise Architecture (EA) team has aligned with FEAF (Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework) to best serve a federated IT organization. This alignment supplemented with the adoption of MITA will serve as the foundation for loosely coupled or modularized architecture frameworks for all future solutions dealing with CMS. Currently, the DSHS EA team is working diligently to develop the as-is architecture for DSHS. This effort will support, enable, and inform all future architectural efforts.

Question #21: Deliverables incorporated into work order Under 3.5 Deliverables Overview: Deliverable Overview: All deliverables and project artifacts (reports, spreadsheets, etc.), once completed, will be incorporated into the work order (Contract). This sentence is unclear. How would deliverables created during the project be incorporated into the contract or work order?

8

A: DSHS will be the owner of all deliverables and project artifacts created for and related to this contract. These deliverables and project artifacts will be used in the ensuing procurement, work order, and contract.

Question #22: Vendor Invoicing 4.3.1. Submit your company’s fixed-price by Phase for each proposed deliverable. Scoring will be based on the total deliverables cost (Grand Total), as described in Section 6.4 Cost Evaluation. Is it your intent to pay a vendor based on completion of deliverables (which in some cases could take multiple months) or will there be monthly billing available based on incremental deliverables or progress toward the final deliverable? A: This is a deliverables based on contract with a Deliverable Management process to ensure clear expectations and acceptance criteria for the deliverables. DSHS has made an attempt to distribute deliverable payments throughout the duration of the project while maintaining the value/importance of the deliverables to the overall desired end result. Invoicing may be done monthly for deliverable work completed and approved and the two monthly status reports.

Question #23: PM Activities 4.2.5.1 includes the mandatory experience and qualifications for the Lead PM: What activities do you envision the PM to be engaged with - beyond the standard PM deliverables in Phase I? A: DSHS wants the PM to be the face of the project, including:

Status reporting, including appropriate and timely escalation of risks and issues

Leading the team to ensure timely deliverables

Interface with DSHS leadership and other Health and Human Services Leaders

Ensure team resources are sufficient to meet the demands of the project

Provide necessary updates to OCIO, OFM, etc.

Question #24: Do you have any incumbents that are eligible to bid for this work request? A: DSHS does not have any incumbent or vendor currently providing these same services. Therefore, any interested bidder that meets the requirements is eligible to bid for this ITPS Work Request.

Question #25: Please confirm if this solicitation is a reissue of solicitation number 1624-615? A: Yes, DSHS confirms this solicitation is a reissue of solicitation #1624-615

9

Question #26: This RFP is similar to solicitation number 1624-615. Was solicitation 1624-615 awarded to a vendor? a. Who was the ASV for solicitation 1624-615? b. Has any work started for solicitation 1624-615? c. If solicitation number 1624-615 was not awarded, please provide the reason as to why it was not awarded or why it was cancelled. A: This solicitation is a reissue of solicitation #1624-615. North Highland, LLC was the ASB for #1624-615. The contract was not agreed to by DSHS and North Highland and was never executed. No work on solicitation #1624-615 had started.

Question #27: Is there a page limit on resumes? A: There is no page limit on resumes however, DSHS respectfully requests that only pertinent or relevant information be submitted.

Question #28: Are vendors only allowed to submit a “team” (lead PM, Lead BA and RFP writer) or can vendors submit candidates to any of the three positions? A: Each Bidder must propose a complete team to include the three Lead positions identified in the SOW, and any other resources necessary to meet the timelines and deliverables in the Work Request. DSHS intends to award one, single contract in response to this RFP. Each Bidder may not propose more than one candidate responsible for each lead position. In other words, the Bidder may propose one Lead Business Analyst, one Lead Project Manager, one Lead RFP Writer but may supplement the team with however many additional resources they believe will be necessary to have in order to complete the project successfully. All costs for all resources proposed must be included in the total cost proposed by the Bidder.

Question #29: How many contracts does DSHS plan to award for this solicitation? A: DSHS plans to award one contract for this solicitation.

Question #30: Eligibility for future IV&V, QA or PMO Work Will the vendor awarded this work be precluded from bidding on future IV&V, QA or PMO work related to the implementation effort that will be requested from the resultant RFP?

10

A: No. Respondents to this ITPS 1724-654 are eligible to bid on future IV&V, QA or PMO work related to the implementation effort that will be requested from the resultant RFP. Respondents to this ITPS 1724-654 are EXCLUDED from bidding on the resultant Business and IT Transformation RFP, per the NOTE under Section 3. Project Description.

Question #31: Exhibit G Submission clarification Should the bidder submit Exhibit G (blank except for the reference names, company, and contact information) along with its proposal as well as having the references send the completed forms directly to the state? A: DSHS will track for three responses. DSHS does not track which three have been received.

Question #32: Are QA & IV&V Stakeholders on this project Based on our recent experience with State of Washington projects funded by the Centers for Medicare/Medicaid Services, we have spent a significant number of hours supporting the state mandated external Quality Assurance (QA) and the federally mandated Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) services. The Work Request #1724-654 does not appear to mention QA or IV&V for this engagement. On past DSHS ESA projects, both QA and IV&V have required monthly meetings, which will directly impact the level of effort and the number of AD Hoc Briefings (deliverable #17). Question: Are QA and IV&V stakeholders on this project? What is the expectation for the successful vendor to support external QA and/or IV&V efforts? A: The OCIO has determined this project is not an IT project and, therefore, is not subject to QA or IV&V review.

Question #33: RFP Writer Org View and Steering Committee Section 3, Project Description does not provide an organizational view of where the RFP Writer for IT Transformation will fit within the state agency and it does not appear to mention a Steering Committee. On past DSHS ESA projects, the Steering Committee required monthly meetings, which will directly impact the level of effort and the number of AD Hoc Briefings (deliverable #17). Question [1]: Can you please provide a high-level organizational chart that shows all potential project stakeholders agencies? And, can you please provide some narrative on where the successful vendor will fit within the organizational chart? Who owns the project and its deliverables?

11

Question [2]: Is there a Steering Committee? If yes, can you name the stakeholders represented on the Steering Committee, how often they will meet, and what is the expectation for the successful vendor to support Steering Committee meetings? A: [1] This project is a DSHS ESA business project. The deliverables from this project will be managed and owned by DSHS ESA for the purposes of developing the ensuing Business and IT Transformation RFP. DSHS ESA will be working closely with IT partners (DSHS ET, OCIO, etc.) to ensure the resulting information can be capitalized upon to help inform future efforts. [2] The project has identified a project structure, including a project Steering Committee comprised of representatives from the major stakeholders identified above. Given the relatively short duration of the project, monthly meetings are currently anticipated. The vendor PM will work jointly with the state PM to develop the agenda and jointly facilitate the meetings.

Question #34: External Business Partner Agencies Section 3, Project Description states: “To help prepare for this RFP for the future solution, ESA worked in partnership with 4 other health and human services agencies to identify what business necessities this future solution would need to address”. In order to determine the appropriate number of resources to complete the eliciting and documenting requirements in Phase 2, we need to ensure we have a complete understanding of the scope of the project. Question: What 4 other health and human services agencies help identify the business necessities for this RFP #1724-654 scope of work? What is their role in this project? We are very familiar with DSHS ESA’s environment, so can you please identify all the agency’s and stakeholder business groups outside of DSHS ESA that will contribute and participate in the elicitation and documentation of requirements to be included in the RFP for IT Transformation (deliverables #13 and #14)? A: At a minimum, ESA anticipates significant input from

DSHS

Health Care Authority

Health Benefit Exchange

Department of Early Learning (transitioning to the newly formed Department of Children, Youth and Families

Department of Health In addition, there are the many business partners who integrate with many of the ESA systems. These other agencies will involve staff that they deem necessary for successful completion of this critical project.

Question #35: System Replacements

12

Section 3.1 Background only talks about DSHS ESA systems (e.g. ACES, eJAS, and Barcode). Question: Are there any other state systems that are expected to be replaced as part of this IT Transformation initiative? If yes, can you please identify the system name, agency owner, approximate number of users, and a brief description of system functionality? A: There is no specific expectations for system replacement as part of this project. The goal for the RFP Writer Team is to identify, gather and document the requirements to help ESA understand what the best path for transformation will look like.

Question #36: Investment Plan Section 3.5, Phase 1, Solicitation Scope of Work states: “Financial Management. Create funding plans and financial management documents including budgets supporting State Fiscal Year and Federal Fiscal Year. Write investment plans and assist ESA in creating State and Federal financial submission packages (e.g. CMS Advance Planning Documents and Updates, A-87, etc.)”. As you know, writing a State of Washington OCIO approved Investment Plan is a significant task and that activity that could easily take more than 300 hours to complete. Question: In order to complete our staffing model, we need to better understand DSHS expectations around when the Investment Plan deliverable is expected complete? Is the Investment Plan a Phase 1 deliverable which will need to be completed in the first few weeks of the engagement to justify this initiative? Or, is the Investment Plan a Phase 3 deliverable which will need to be completed after the Business Case deliverable is approved to justify the future IT Transformation effort to be procured as a result of the RFP developed in this Work Request #1724-654? A: The RFP Writer project is not an IT project; there is no investment plan deliverable. This will be a requirement of the next stage around the actual Business & IT Transformation project. The Business Case deliverable, as part of this RFP Writer project, will help inform the IT Investment Plan as part of the next phase.

Question #37: RFP Writer Time Commitment Section 4.1.3 Project Organization and Staff Members states: • “DSHS requires the Key Staff Member (Lead Project Manager, Lead Business Analyst and Lead RFP Writer) are 100% on the project for the duration and onsite at DSHS. • Bidder must agree that the proposed project staff for this Work Request will be available to begin work with 10 business days of the start date of a work order resulting from this work request.”

13

We understand the state’s need to ensure vendor proposed key staff are the staff actually performing the work. However, in our firm, we have staff that specialize in the financial, cost benefit, market analysis type work to develop the Business Case deliverable and we have other staff that specialize in eliciting and documenting requirements for RFPs. Question: We fully expect the Lead Project Manager and Lead BA to be 100% on the project for the duration and onsite at DSHS. But, in order to provide the highest quality and most cost-effective solution, we request that DSHS modify the onsite requirements for the Lead RFP Writer in a way that will allow the bidders to propose a higher quality, more cost-effective resource plan to complete the statement of work as defined in the solicitation? Potential Wording Change: • “DSHS requires the Key Staff Member (Lead Project Manager and Lead Business Analyst and Lead RFP Writer) are is 100% on the project for the duration and onsite at DSHS. • DSHS requires the Lead RFP Writer to participate onsite at the Kick-Off Meeting and be at least 25% on the project and onsite at DSHS for Phase 1 and Phase 2 activities; and 100% on the project and onsite at DSHS for the duration of Phase 3 activities. • Bidder must agree that the proposed project staff for this Work Request will be available to begin work within 10 business days of the start date of a work order resulting from this work request.” A: DSHS agrees to the following modification of the proposed potential wording change: MODIFIED Potential Wording Change:

• “DSHS requires the Key Staff Member (Lead Project Manager and Lead Business Analyst and Lead RFP Writer) are is 100% on the project for the duration and onsite at DSHS.

• DSHS requires the Lead RFP Writer to participate onsite at the Kick-Off

Meeting and be onsite, as necessary, to facilitate and participate in any necessary stakeholder meetings for the development of the resultant RFP during the initial requirements gathering work phase. During this time, DSHS reserves the right to require the RFP Writer be onsite for any given work effort or meeting DSHS deems critical, with acceptable advance notice, to accommodate travel time. DSHS requires the RFP Writer onsite 100% during the final phase of the project to support the development of the DRAFT RFP and necessary reviews through the FINAL RFP and necessary reviews for approval.

• Bidder must agree that the proposed project staff for this Work Request will

be available to begin work within 10 business days of the start date of a work order resulting from this work request.”

Question #38: Exceeding Mandatory Requirements

14

Section 4, Exhibits E.XX Staff Experience and Qualifications templates. We don’t want to overburden the proposal evaluation team with pages and pages of relevant experience, so we need to know if exceeding the mandatory requirements and desired qualifications will earn additional points, or will all candidates that meet or exceed the mandatory requirements and desired qualifications will be give the same point value, regardless if their experience is well above the mandatory or desired number of years. Question [1]: If a mandatory requirement requires five (5) or more years’ experience (e.g. 4.2.5.1.2), will proposals be given more points if the proposed candidate has more than six (6) years’ experience? And, even more points if the proposed candidate has more than ten (10) years’ experience? Question [2]: If a desired qualification is three (3) or more years’ experience (e.g. 4.2.5.4.2), will proposals be given more points if the proposed candidate has more than four (4) years’ experience? And, even more points if the proposed candidate has more than six (6) years’ experience? A: [1] No, the proposed candidate receives the same scoring if they have five (5), six (6) or ten (10) years’ experience [2] No, the proposed candidate receives the same scoring if they have three (3), four (4) or six (6) years’ experience

Question #39: Remote Work Question: Can the work be performed as a mix of remote (from contractor’s location) and on-site in Olympia? A: DSHS anticipates there may be opportunities to work remotely during certain aspects of the project. However, given the critical roles of the Key Staff/Leads, DSHS expects the commitment for the Key Staff/Leads to be onsite. There are additional accommodations for the Lead RFP Writer that may allow more remote opportunities. DSHS requires the Lead RFP Writer to participate onsite at the Kick-Off Meeting and be onsite, as necessary, to facilitate and participate in any necessary stakeholder meetings for the development of the resultant RFP during the initial requirements gathering work phase. During this time, DSHS reserves the right to require the RFP Writer be onsite for any given work effort or meeting DSHS deems critical, with acceptable advanced notice, to accommodate travel time. DSHS requires the RFP Writer onsite 100% during the final phase of the project to support the development of the DRAFT RFP and necessary reviews through the FINAL RFP and necessary reviews for approval.

Question #40: Staff References

15

Question: Regarding Section 4.2.7.1, Staff References, do we need to submit 3 references per proposed staff member or simply 3 in total? DSHS requires three references per each proposed Lead staff member (Lead PM, Lead BA, Lead RFP Writer)

Question #41: Postpone Proposal Due Date The delay in responses to questions has impacted our proposal development timeline, and the amount of time our references have respond for this proposal Question: Would DSHS add an additional 1-2 weeks to the proposal due date to allow for vendors and their references to fully respond to this Work Request? A: DSHS agrees to move the Response/Proposal Due Date to 10/12/2017 by 3pm PST

Question #42: Exhibit E Template Links

Templates E for the BA, PM and RFPW take a long time to long, which appears to be associated with the use of document links. Question: Can DSHS confirm that these links can be broken without other consequences to these templates to allow for timely opening, or reissue them without these links? A: DSHS confirms the links in Exhibit E.PM, Exhibit E.BA and Exhibit E.RFPW all can be broken with no impacts to the submission

Question #43: Submission attachments

Question: Are bidders allowed to add attachments to the required Letter of Intent, i.e., Bidders response to the RFP SOW, approach, etc.? A: Yes, Bidders are allowed to add attachments, as long as all requirements for submission are met.

Question #44: 4 Other Health & Human Service Agencies

From the ITPS Work Request - “To help prepare for this RFP for the future solution, ESA worked in partnership with 4 other health and human services agencies to identify what business necessities this future solution would need to address.”

16

Question: Can we have more information on who the 4 other health and human service agencies are and the extent they currently use the ESA systems described in the ITPS Work Request (ACES, WaConn, BarCode and eJAS)? A: The four (4) other Health & Human Services agencies that DSHS partners with include: Health Care Authority – Provider 1 interface with WaConn, ACES complex Health Benefit Exchange – Health Plan Finder interface with WaConn, ACES complex Department of Early Learning – interface with Barcode, ACES complex Department of Health – interface with ACES complex DSHS is the primary user of the BarCode and eJAS systems.

Question #45: Business Vision and Strategy

From the ITPS Work Request - “The initial effort by this group identified key business drivers and developed a strategic business vision for a future solution.” We are interested in getting a picture of the envisioned ESA eligibility and case management solution that will be acquired by the “IT Transformation RFP” and the extent to which this is a replacement of the 4 current systems or more business transformational. Question [1]: Can we have more details on the business vision and strategy and the work that has already been completed on it by ESA and the 4 partner agencies?

Question [2]: Has DSHS developed a high level business case, workflows or use cases as a foundation for this phase of the transformation effort? If so, can DSHS share the work to date in these areas to assist in assessing the go forward level of effort required for this Scope of Work? A: [1] DSHS worked collaboratively with the other 4 Health and Human Services agencies (identified in Question #44) to develop a broad business Vision Statement. Through this exercise, the agencies identified and documented high level, cross-agency requirements. These requirements, along with existing business rules and policies will be provided to the vendor. [2] DSHS has foundational work around existing “AS-IS” state and will require vendor to help develop the “TO-BE” state documentation, as part of the requirements gathering work.

Question #46: Team engagement

From the ITPS Work Request - “This Project is envisioned to be a full time effort. ESA anticipates the project team members will dedicate an estimated 40 billable

17

hours per week per person to the project for the project duration. In addition to core business hours, staff may be required to be on-site to address problems, assist in processes, or any other critical business need.” This is identified as a Pass/Fail requirement. Our team have performed successful requirements and procurement support for integrated eligibility and enrollment for 8 states. Through that work, we have found that having the right resources focused at the right time and allocating full time staffing aligned to project needs is what is required rather than consistent full time staffing. We are committed to dedicating the right team with proven expertise for the key positions identified for the engagement supported by additional SMEs during the life cycle of the engagement as needed. Although, we do have team members based in Washington State, we have found a full time staff augmentation-type of approach is not needed and does increase the cost for the State. A strategic approach to staffing would be, we believe, a more effective approach than mandating consistent full time staffing. Question: Would the State consider changing this requirement from a Pass/Fail requirement to an evaluation criteria focusing on the organizational structure, staffing and approach being proposed by the vendor? A: DSHS will not change the requirement from PASS/FAIL. DSHS does require the Lead PM and Lead BA be onsite 100% for the duration of the project. However, DSHS will consider allowing the Lead RFP Writer to participate onsite at the Kick-Off Meeting and be onsite, as necessary, to facilitate and participate in any necessary stakeholder meetings for the development of the resultant RFP during the initial requirements gathering work phase. During this time, DSHS reserves the right to require the RFP Writer be onsite for any given work effort or meeting DSHS deems critical, with acceptable advance notice, to accommodate travel time. DSHS requires the RFP Writer onsite 100% during the final phase of the project to support the development of the DRAFT RFP and necessary reviews through the FINAL RFP and necessary reviews for approval. Any other staffing strategies beyond this requirement is at the Vendor’s discretion.

Question #47: Mandatory Experience scope From the ITPS Work Request – It is stated that "Five (5) or more years’ Management experience (within the past 8 years) with large (over $10M in scope) cross-functional projects or multi-stakeholder systems" is required. Question: To assist our understanding of the Mandatory Experience 4.2.5.1.2 Management of projects over $10M in scope, please clarify, does this cost criteria of $10M dollars relate to the strategy and procurement support engagement or the value of the systems integrator and implementation work that results from the strategy and procurement support scope of work? A: DSHS is looking for experience that speaks to the complexity and strategy related to a large scale procurement.

18

Question #48: ITPS Language regarding Level of Effort

From the ITPS Work Request - "The RFP […] could include but is not limited to: terms and conditions, scoring criteria, implementation and maintenance cost estimates...” From our experience working in partnership with our clients, we have found that these elements are a critical aspect of supporting our clients in a successful integrated eligibility and enrollment procurement effort. We would wish to include this work and the related level of effort as part of our proposal. The wording of the ITPS would appear to allow vendors to propose varying levels of effort depending on the State's interpretation of this language in the SOW. Question Question: Please clarify how the State will consistently evaluate proposals that vary in scope and level of effort based on this ITPS language. A: Where DSHS deems significant impact or importance, a quantifiable weighted scoring mechanism is in place (refer to Section 6 Evaluation and Award of the ITPS 1724-654 for further information and examples). Scored items will be awarded points by a panel of evaluators, each independently reviewing the proposal packages. Where applicable, points will be awarded consistent with the evaluators’ values and best professional judgement.

Question #49: Submission package

In Section 4 of the ITPS Work Request it is stated, “…All submittals must be attached together in an email prior to the submission deadline.” Question: Please clarify if this language means all Exhibits should be submitted as separate documents/attachments (as described elsewhere in the RFP) and not as one single (attached together) attachment in the email submission? A: Exhibits and other response documents should be saved as individual and separate documents/attachments, as described. The submission of these separate documents should be as one email, per the submission instructions. Unless the submission package is over the 30MB limit of our email system. In such a case multiple emails may be necessary.

Question #50: Submission order

Also in Section 4 it is stated, “…The bidder must respond to every item which appears below. Proposals that do not follow the required order below…” Question: Can the State please clarify what is expected in terms of the “required” order of the proposal submission. Our understanding is we attach all required documents to an email (as instruction) and make sure the email size does not exceed 30MB. A: Required Order of documents is as follows:

19

1. Letter of Submittal 2. Exhibit B: Bidder Certification and Assurances Form 3. Exhibit C: Project Organization & Staff Members, Executive Summary,

Bidder Experience/Continuity of Personnel & Bidder Engagements 4. Exhibit E.#: Lead Staff Experience 5. Exhibit F: Cost Exhibits G & H.# are to be sent to DSHS directly from the Reference and therefore, not included with the submission package.

Question #51: Exhibit C Submission

Sections 4.13, 4.21, 4.22, and 4.23 require the use of Exhibit C in bidder’s response submission. Question: Please clarify that all required responses outlined under these sections are all to be inserted into one (1) single Submission of Exhibit C, and submitted only once with our total submission? A: Exhibit C allows for separate, individual document submissions, depending on the format and requirements of the document and as long as the naming convention clearly identifies the document as part of Exhibit C. For example, 4.1.3 Project Organization will allow bidder to “attach or include a description of the proposed project staffing/organization (e.g. Org Chart).” The same is allowed for in Exhibit C - 4.2.1 Executive Summary, noted in the 2nd paragraph of instructions.

Question #52: Cost Criteria

From the ITPS Work Request – For this procurement effort, DSHS has set a 40% weight on the cost evaluation. From our experience, in working with our clients on “going to market” for high value, strategic engagements, such as this engagement, we see non-cost criteria being evaluated more heavily than 60%. Best practices for these types of engagements where approach and experience are critical success factors is a cost weighting of 20-30%. Question: Would DSHS consider changing the weighting for Cost to the range seen for similar strategic engagements in this domain?

A: DSHS will not consider changing the weighting for Cost.

Question #53: Exhibit H Submission

20

Question: Please confirm that all Exhibit H forms should be sent to Bidder’s client references to complete and sign and that these exhibits are to be sent directly back to the State. A: Yes, DSHS confirms Exhibit H forms should be sent to the bidder’s client reference to complete and sign. The client’s reference will complete, sign and return their Exhibit H form directly to the DSHS contact noted at the bottom of the Exhibit H form.

Question #54: Client Reference naming convention

Question: If a client reference sends back to the State and the file is not named exactly as the RFP states will that be an issue? A: DSHS receives multiple documents for multiple procurements. To the extent the reference is able to follow naming convention protocol will ensure and accurate and appropriate vendor submission.

Question #55: Postpone Proposal Due Date

The answers to the questions will be published on Monday September 25th.

QUESTION: Given that the answers to bidder questions will be published a week

later than the original schedule, would DSHS consider moving the proposal due

date out one week to October 12th?

A: DSHS agrees to move the Response/Proposal Due Date to 10/12/2017 by 3pm PST

Question #56: RFP WRITER Experience timeframes

The RFP Writer experience qualifications (both mandatory and desirable) include timeframes within which the experience must have been obtained (e.g., “three (3) or more years (within the past five (5) years). While many highly qualified RFP Writers have years of large, federal procurement experience, they also most often have development and operations project experience, which is vital to their ability to develop and continuously improve well-informed statements of work, requirements, and other procurement materials. The combination of procurement and project experience, most likely, will not have allowed all of the experience to be obtained within the established timeframes. QUESTION: Would DSHS be willing to remove or extend the parameter of “within the past X years” to allow for the experience to have been gained over a longer period?

21

A: While all relevant experience will be reviewed in the Lead Staff resumes, because federal policies and procedure change over time DSHS wants to keep these experiences recent and relevant.

Question #57: Outside Vendors

Section 3, Project Description: Were any outside vendors involved in the identification of business necessities for the future solution? If so, who was it and may they bid on this project? A: There were no vendors involved in the Strategic Business Vision development effort.

Question #58: Full-Time On-Site for Key Staff

Section 3.4, Location: Is full-time on-site for the three key positions mandatory? If other staff is proposed outside of those three positions, do they need to be full-time on-site or can they be on-site as appropriate? A: DSHS will reconsider the 100% onsite requirements for the Lead RFP Writer position, only. DSHS requires the Lead RFP Writer to participate onsite at the Kick-Off Meeting and be onsite, as necessary, to facilitate and participate in any necessary stakeholder meetings for the development of the resultant RFP during the initial requirements gathering work phase. During this time, DSHS reserves the right to require the RFP Writer be onsite for any given work effort or meeting DSHS deems critical, with acceptable advanced notice, to accommodate travel time. DSHS requires the RFP Writer onsite 100% during the final phase of the project to support the development of the DRAFT RFP and necessary reviews through the FINAL RFP and necessary reviews for approval.

Question #59: Investment Plan Expectation

Section 3.5, Scope of Work/Deliverables: Please provide more detail about the expectation of tasks associated with writing investment plans? A: There is no Investment Plan deliverable associated with the RFP Writing phase of this project. However, the information collected through this effort will be critical to the ensuing Business and IT Transformation effort, which will require an investment plan. DSHS is looking for the vendor to be aware of Investment Plan requirements and where possible, collect and compile the necessary information.

Question #60: Business Case Presentation

22

Section 3.5, Scope of Work/Deliverables (Phase 2): Business Case Presentation – Will we develop and present the business case in conjunction with State staff who were involved in the previous phase of this project - defining the business vision and strategy, referenced in Section 3, Project Description? A: Yes, DSHS and other business partners will collaborate and participate with the vendor in the development and presentation of the Business Case.

Question #61: Business Case Vision & Strategy

Section 3.5, Scope of Work/Deliverables (Phase 2): Business Case Presentation – Please elaborate on the goal of the business case presentation and how it relates to the business vision and strategy. What level of further definition of the business vision and strategy does the state anticipate as the vision and strategy is translated into requirements?

A: Deliverable expectations around the Business Case include providing more defined information and documentation to help better inform DSHS business partners and project oversight/governing authorities. This material will be instrumental in assisting DSHS to garner continued support and funding for the project.

Question #62: Monthly reports

Section 3.5, Scope of Work/Deliverables (Phase 2): Please confirm that this is a 20 month project and that you are only requiring a total of 12 monthly reports (and possibly 2 additional reports).

A: DSHS requires 20 monthly project status reports. In addition, Vendor is responsible for 12 monthly progress review reports (and possibly 2 additional reports) specifically for review of requirements gathering, documenting progress.

Question #63: Letter of Submittal

Section 4, Required Submittals: Should the Letter of Submittal be a separate file? If so, should it follow the naming conventions of the other files being submitted? May it be submitted in PDF?

A: The Letter of Submittal can use the following naming convention: “1724-654_LtrSbmtl_<bidder name>.pdf”

Question #64: Staff Exp & Quals

23

Section 4.2.5, Staff Experience and Qualifications: May we propose a person who can meet the requirements for multiple roles? A: Bidder may propose a person who can meet the requirements for multiple roles. However, because of the criticality and complexity of this effort DSHS will still require three qualifying Lead Key Staff (PM, BA and RFP Writer). DSHS will count only one unit of credit for each required skill/experience within a timeframe for any overlapping engagements.

Question #65: Bidder Cert

Exhibit B, Bidder Cert/Assurance: Should the first line read Exhibit B and not Attachment C?

A: Yes, the first line should read Exhibit B.

Question #66: Staff Acknowledgement

Exhibit C, Bidder Response Template 4.2.2.1: Should we simply agree/acknowledge this statement?

A: Yes

Question #67: Bidder Engagement Discussion

Exhibit C, Bidder Response Template 4.2.3: Should we include a separate document in addition to the matrix that presents the discussion mentioned in 4.2.3b, or should we just elaborate this discussion in the matrix? A: An area for this discussion has been provided in the matrix for each of the 3 engagements: “Engagement Description, Role of Bidder, and End Result”

Question #68: Staff engagements

Exhibit E: the Experience and Qualifications of Key Staff box states that we should provide information for 5 engagements for each key staff but the Engagement response sheets allow for 10 engagements to be submitted for each key staff. Should we only include 5? A: Bidder may provide up to 10 engagements for each Key Staff.

Question #69: RFP Writer experience

24

Exhibit E, 4.2.6: May we provide up to three RFPs that represent our team’s experience in writing RFPs if our Lead RFP Writer was involved in the development of at least one of them?

A: Due to the importance of this resultant RFP and the key leadership position of the Lead RFP Writer, DSHS is requiring the documentation to reflect the experience and qualifications of the proposed Lead RFP Writer.

Question #70: Staff References

Exhibit E, 4.2.7 Proposed Staff References: This section states that we should provide three customer references for each of the proposed staff resources. Please confirm that we only need to provide three customer references for the three key staff positions and not all staff proposed A: DSHS confirms that three (3) customer references per each Lead Key Staff are required. DSHS does not require references for any other staff bidder may utilize.

Question #71: Ad Hoc Reporting

Exhibit F: How should we estimate the number of ad hoc briefings will be conducted during this project? A: DSHS assumes minimum one ad-hoc reporting per quarter and up to seven (7) over the life of this contract.

All other terms and conditions in this Solicitation remain the same.