This question appears to be referring to the Request for Information (RFI) issued earlier this year. The 500 letters were included in the scope of the RFI but are not included in the scope of the RFP, which is limited to Medicaid-related correspondence. The existing Medicaid noticing process is mainframe-based. Daily actions trigger inclusion of one or more paragraphs from a pool of about 900 unique paragraphs, which are combined with a salutation and a closing section to create a single notice. The notice can then be printed on demand by the user. Any unprinted notices are sent to a centralized

mountainromeInternet and Web Development

Oct 31, 2013 (3 years and 5 months ago)

156 views

Amendment
1

RFP
3068

Page
1

of
17

State of Nevada



Brian Sandoval

Department of Administration

Governor

Purchasing Division


515 E. Musser Street, Suite 300

Greg Smith

Carson City, NV
89701

Administrator


SUBJECT:

Amendment
1

to Request for Proposal
3068

RFP TITLE:

Correspondence Management Solutions

DATE OF AMENDMENT:

October 4, 2013

DATE OF RFP RELEASE:

September 11, 2013

OPENING
DATE
:

October 21, 2013

OPENING TIME:

2:00 PM

CONTACT:

Teri Becker
, P
rocurement Staff Member



The following shall be a part of RFP
3068
.

If a vendor has already returned a proposal and any of the
information provided below changes that proposal, please submit the changes along with this
amendment. You need not re
-
submit an entire proposal prior to the opening date and time.



1.

Of the 500
letters, how many are completely unique and do NOT share any text
-

or image
-
based content with other letters? For example, letters do not share any paragraphs, instructions,
logos, signatures, contact information, etc. a. Estimated number of unique letters

templates: ___


This question appears to be referring to the Request for Information (RFI) issued earlier this
year. The 500 letters were included in the scope of the RFI but are not included in the scope
of the RFP, which is limited to Medicaid
-
related c
orrespondence.


The existing Medicaid noticing process is mainframe
-
based. Daily actions trigger inclusion
of one or more paragraphs from a pool of about 900 unique paragraphs, which are
combined with a salutation and a closing section to create a single
notice. The notice can
then be printed on demand by the user. Any unprinted notices are sent to a centralized
printer in a batch stream for mailing


Rather than migrating all of the existing paragraphs to a new solution,
DWSS

want
s

to
consolidate those paragraphs into 20
-

50 expandable templates with variable input that can
be aggregated with other notices related to the same case for mailing in a single envelope.


2.

How many of the 500 letter templates: a. Contain fewer than 25 data

variables and less than 5
conditional rules (e.g., inclusion/exclusion rules)? ___ b. Contain between 25 and 50 data
variables or 6
-
15 conditional rules? ___ c. Contain 51
-
100 data variables or 16
-
30 conditional
rules? ___ d. Contain over 100 data variabl
es or 50 conditional rules? ___


Each o
f the 900 paragrap
hs referenced in the response to Question #1 contain less than 25
data variables and are associated with less than 5 conditional rules.


Amendment
1

RFP
3068

Page
2

of
17

3.

Will all 500 letter templates be provided in MS Word format? _
__


No.


4.

How many letters will be editable? ___


None of the paragraphs referenced in the response to Question #1 are editable;

however, the
solution must allow for free
-
form text.


5.

Are all 500 letter templates and 250 forms actively used? How many are
obsolete and/or should
be excluded from the conversion and development effort? a. Obsolete letters: ___ b. Obsolete
forms: ___


None of the paragraphs referenced in the response to Question #1 or the forms templates
referenced in the response to Question # 8
are obsolete.


6.

The sample letter provided contains pages with variable data. Are all letters identical to the
sample or are t
here letters that contain some pages with fully static content? a. Number of
pages in letters that are 100% static: ___


Less than 20 percent of the pages are static.


7.

Item 8 in addendum says 500 doc types & item 24 says there are 250 forms. Are the 250 fo
rms
in addition to the 500 letter templates? ___


Yes, but the numbers to which you are referring were provided in an amendment to a
previous Request for Information (RFI), which included correspondence for all programs
administered by DWSS. This engageme
nt is limited to correspondence related to the
Medicaid program only.
See answer to Question #1
.


8.

Will all 250 forms be provided in true (i.e., non
-
image based) PDF format?


There are only about 10 forms included in this engagement. Of those, all can be p
rovided in
PDF format.


9.

How many PDF forms are: a. Static: ___ b. Variable: ___ i. Average number of variables per
form: ___ c. Editable:___ i. Average number of editable elements within each form: ___


Of the 10 for
ms included in this engagement, none are

static, none are editable and all are
variable. One large form has 200


300 variables.


10.

How many data files are driving the 500 letter templates and 250 Adobe forms? a. Letter files:
___ b. Form files: ___


There are 10 forms and 900 paragraphs included

in this engagement, which are driven by 5
form files. There are no letter files.


11.

What type(s) of input data files are being used to produce letters and forms? Please list each
(e.g., ASCII comma delimited, XML, etc.): a.


ASCII comma delimited and mainf
rame

input files
.

Amendment
1

RFP
3068

Page
3

of
17


12.

Data displayed in letter samples appears to be grouped (e.g., by MONTH YYYY). Is a sample
data file (cleansed) available for the sample letter to confirm that the input data file structure
supports the data grouping in the letters and th
at no data manipulation is necessary to achieve
the desired output? ___


See answer to Question #1 for explanation of how notices are produced.


13.

Is another output type other than PDF needed for printing? ___


The output types are Printer Command Language
(PCL) and Postscript.


14.

What workflow options are expected for edited letters? For example, 1) Submit for approval, 2)
Submit for production. Are there more than two options expected once letter editing is
completed? ___


Only one option


Submit for Production is needed for this engagement.
However, f
uture
expansion will require other workflow options.


15.

How will the new correspondence solution be expected access the data to place on the
documents? (i.e. direct access of d
atabase tables, data extract files for printing, Web Services,
etc.)


It depends upon the solution.


16.

Does the State have a job scheduling or workflow solution to manage the document
composition production environment?


No.


17.

Does the State have a preferred
OS and platform for the document composition production
environment?


AIX.


18.

How many users will require the ability to edit interactive documents?


2,100 users need the ability to edit documents initially.


19.

Which vendors submitted a response to the R
FI
associated with this RFP?

Carahsoft Technology Corp, Chase Global Services, EMC Corporation, Hewlett
-
Packard
Company, International Business Machines, Perceptive Software, Symplicity Corporation
.

20.

Can we get a copy of the RFI responses that were received by

the State?


RFI responses will be made public once an award for this RFP is made.


21.

In Attachment “O”


System Requirements vendors are required to offer solutions which
possess the ability to support the five (5) most common browsers. Can you please provi
de a list
of the five browsers which state officials view as the five most common?

Amendment
1

RFP
3068

Page
4

of
17

The
solution must support the
most current versions of Internet Explorer, Chrome, Safari,
Firefox, and Opera.


22.

RFP section 5.1.5.2 requires vendors to convert all existing
Medicaid forms and notices. Can
you please provide a listing of existing Medicaid forms and notices? If forms and notice
templates currently exist can you please make these available to help us better understand the
volume and potential complexity of this
requirement.


See answer to Question
s #1 and

#2.


23.

In Attachment “O” there is a requirement for the solution to support the aggregation of forms.
Can you please provide an example of what is meant by this requirement?


The solution must be able to combine m
ultiple notices for the same recipient for mailing in a
single envelope.


24.

RFP section 5.1.3 states “Vendor's response must be limited to no more than five (5) pages per
task not including appendices, samples and/or exhibits. Can you please provide clarific
ation at
to what is considered a task and subject to the 5 page limitation?


Sections 5.4 Planning and Administration,

5.5

Requirements
Validation
a
nd Demonstration
,
5.6

Design, Development
a
nd Implementation
, which start with
“The objective of this task

.


25.

RFP section 4.4.1.13 requires the proposed solution to possess the capability to generate 6,000
forms per hour. Is this a performance benchmark? What is the anticipated volume of generated
correspondence, of all types, per year?


Yes. 6,000 forms per
hour is a benchmark.

DWSS anticipates generating approximately
375,000 notices per year for all DWSS administered programs.



26.

RFP section 5.1.8.5, subsection F states “Describe how the solution can be expanded to
accommodate correspondence for other prog
rams.” Please explain what is meant by this
statement and provide a listing of the other programs for whi
ch expansion is anticipated.


In addition to Medicaid
-
related correspondence,
DWSS

anticipate
s

future expansion of the
solution to include correspondence for all programs administered by DWSS (e.g. TANF,
SNAP, CSEP, EAP, and Child Care).


27.

Upon our review we find no requirement for 508 compliance in the RFP. Is this something you
would be considerin
g, both output of 508 compliant documents (JAWS reader capable) as well
as in the editing environment?


Yes.


28.

It is our understanding that you expecting to generate 6000 forms/hour in batch mode. Is this a
performance bench mark
?


See answer to Question #2
5.


29.

What is the anticipated volume of generated correspondence, of all type, per year?


Amendment
1

RFP
3068

Page
5

of
17

See answer to Question #25.


30.

We do not see 508 compliance in the RFP


is this something you would be considering, both
output of 508 compliant documents (JAWS reader
capable) as well as in the editing
environment?


See answer to Question #27.


31.

5.1.8.5
-
F: Describe how the solution can be expanded to accommodate correspondence for
other programs. Please explain what is meant by this statement


please define ‘other
progr
ams’.


See answer to Question #2
6.


32.

Section 1


Project Overview
-

The State has indicated that it will entertain proposals for a
State
-
owned solution or Software
-
as
-
a
-
Service (SaaS). Would the State entertain a proposal for
a Platform
-
as
-
a
-
Service (PaaS)
solution i.e. vendor hosted and maintained, software and rights
to all configuration owned by the State?


No.


33.

3.1.3
-

Business rules are leveraged to generate outbound correspondence in NOMADS based
upon actions performed by a caseworker during the course of a day. There are at least 1,000
different business rules, 95 percent of which have been automated. What for
mat are these rules
in? Have they been documented? Where are they located? How many effect document
assembly?


All business rules will need to be modified, restructured or rewritten.


34.

4.5.10.1
-

Separate development, test and production environments must
be established on State
systems. Are these environments separated physically or logically? Is virtualized environment
inside single server acceptable? Can form conversion be done remotely?


The environments are separated logically. Yes, a virtualized envi
ronment inside a single
server is acceptable. No, form conversion cannot be done remotely.


35.

4.6.4
-

Respond to all of the requirements by properly coding and indicating how the
requirement is satisfied.
The proposed costs and project plan must reflect the

effort needed to
satisfy the requirements.


Where should the narrative response of how the requirement
response is satisfied be placed in the RFP response?


Section 4 is to be included in Tab VI, Part 1A


Technical Proposal


36.

4.6.5


Requirements Matrix
-

Within our proposed system, all standard functions are
configurable. Some amount of configuration is necessary to provide initial functionality. We
believe this type of menu
-
driven configuration to be “Standard Function”, however the State
definition of
“W” for “system configuration required” seems to encompass standard
functionality. If we believe the configuration required to meet the objective is a standard part of
any implementation, may we use the condition Standard Function when responding to the
re
quirement?


Amendment
1

RFP
3068

Page
6

of
17

Yes.


37.

5.1.5.1
-

The vendor must convert all of DWSS’ existing Medicaid forms and notices. How
many forms and notices are there? What is their current format? Is there a forms library
showing the forms and notices so that we may properly ascerta
in the level of effort required?
How many total pages for conversion? Can you give us a breakdown of how many 1 page, 2
page, etc and relative complexity of business logic for each? Can you provide a representative
sampling of forms? Can you include some A
dobe Forms Templates for our review? Where
does the content currently exist and in what form?


See response to Q
uestions

#1, #2, and #
8.

See the embedded
Adobe forms templates, which require Adobe Output Designer to view.






38.

5.1.9.2
-

Web services must utilize the DWSS web services security policy. Please provide a
copy of this policy.


See embedded document.




39.

Section 5.4


Planning and Administration


This is a single task with multiple activities. For
the purpose of the RFP response, what information and level of detail is required for the Project
Plan, Staffing Plan, Communication Plan, etc?


All information

requested in Section 5.4 is required.


Level of detail should be such that the
vendor clearly describes how the objective
s

will be met.


40.

Sections 4 and 5


Some items are statements which do not appear to require a response. To
ensure that we understand t
he requirement although no response is requested, should we simply
respond “Understand and will comply”?


Yes.


41.

5.6.2.3
-

Data Conversion Plan

(if

applicable): One time conversion or application that
dynamically transforms data? Current location, format and structure of data? Current format of
images and files? Can samples be provided?

Rather than converting data, the conversion effort will be focus
ed on consolidating the
existing notice text on the mainframe into a manageable number of expandable templates as
described in the answer to Question #1.


Amendment
1

RFP
3068

Page
7

of
17

The data format is DB2 on the mainframe.

Images are in PDF format.
DWSS

do
es

not
store images of mainframe notices.


42.

8.4 Holdbacks


Would the State consider the removal of holdbacks on off the shelf products
and services purchased by the vendor on behalf of the state as these are commodities which the
State would own regardless o
f project completion?


No.

Vendors’ technical exceptions and/or assumptions should be clearly stated in
Attachment B, Technical Proposal Certification of Compliance with Terms and Conditions
of RFP. Vendors’ cost exceptions and/or assumptions should be cl
early stated in Attachment
L, Cost Proposal Certification of Compliance with Terms and Conditions of RFP.


43.

8.4. Holdbacks


As the hold back distribution is yet to be negotiated, is there a possibility that
the 15% holdback would not be distributed in a ti
mely manner assuming successful completion
of the project in accordance with documented requirements and sign
-
offs?


Hold backs will be distributed as negotiated betwe
en the awarded vendor and DWSS. P
lease
ref
erence Section 8.4.2 of the RFP
.


44.

10. Timeline


Are there BOE meetings in December and January? Is there a chance the BOE
approval could be obtained at an earlier date?


No.

There is insufficient time to negotiate a final contract and obtain signatures to have the
contract heard at the December or Jan
uary BOE.


45.

11.7.5
-

Email, facsimile, or telephone proposals will NOT be considered; however, at the
State’s discretion, the proposal may be submitted all or in part on electronic media, as
requested within the RFP document. Proposal may be modified by em
ail, facsimile, or written
notice provided such notice is received prior to the opening of the proposals. May we submit
electronically via CD as a tabbed/bookmarked PDF vs printing, copying, binding?


T
he State prefers to receive hard copy proposals.


46.

13.2.1.3.B


Will the contractor be responsible for sending the Civil Applicant Waiver Form to
the employees or will they be sent by the State?


All appropriate forms will be provided to the awarded vendor by the State at the appropriate
time.

The awarded
vendor will be responsible
for distr
ibuting

the forms to the project staff.


47.

13.3.4


This section indicates that the State will provide space for four contractor personnel. It
also indicates that communication line costs must be coordinated with EITS with

costs billed to
the contractor. Are we to understand that the four contractor personnel spaces will not have
access to a network port and a phone line? What would the approximate costs of adding these
communication lines be?


On
-
site contract personnel
will be provided access to the network and a phone at no cost.


48.

Section 4.3


Browsers to be supported


which are those?


See answer to Question #21.


Amendment
1

RFP
3068

Page
8

of
17

49.

Section 4.4.1.16


Be expandable


define other programs


See answer to Question #26.


50.

Section 4.5


do
we need to get a security sign
-
off by the state?


Yes.


51.

How many forms to convert?


S
ee answers to Questions #1 and #8
.


52.

Would you prefer a SaaS model?


Per Section 1
, Project Overview,

of the RFP, Proposals for a State
-
owned solution or
Software
-
as
-
a
-
Serv
ice will be considered.


53.

Can DWSS confirm that: a. the scope of this engagement only includes the installation and
configuration of a COTS product for Correspondence Management that has the capability to
integrate with NOMADS. The integration of the COTS p
roduct with NOMADS is not included
in the scope of this engagement. b. If the scope of work for this engagement includes the
integration of the COTS product with NOMADS, can we respectfully request DWSS to extend
the deadline for the final proposal submiss
ion by 6 weeks from the date when DWSS provides
responses to Questions? This extension will give vendors adequate time to submit a quality
proposal.


DWSS prefers vendors include integration with NOMADS

in their proposals as we are
l
ooking for a complete
solution
.

Please refer to the
amended RFP sections

(below)

for more

information.
DWSS will not extend the deadline for the final

submission of the proposals.



54.

Can you tell us what the budget for this project is?


The State declines to answer.


55.

Can you
provide a specific timeline or go
-
live date for the project?


The vendor is expected to provide an estimated timeline in their proposal.

Please refer to
Section 5 of the RFP.


56.

Is a vendor able to submit multiple proposals (one for hosting, one state hosted
)?


Yes.


57.

Can you provide more information about headers and footers being based on input?


Headers and footers are dynamically built.


58.

Is there a need to store what has been sent to each client in an electronic case file or just a need
to store correspond
ence that has been created? 6. Will the agency accept a COTS solution with
SOA elements?


Amendment
1

RFP
3068

Page
9

of
17

Stored correspondence must be associated with the individual client.

A
n acceptable solution

must integrate with
DWSS’

existing content management system (i.e.
FileNet).


59.

Business Continuance: What is the Recovery Time Objective (RTO) & Recovery Point
Objective (RPO) SLAs for DWSS business stakeholders?


The RTO is 72 hours and the RPO is 24 hours.


60.

From a DWSS point of view, what do you consider to be the ‘top 5

browsers’ to be?


See answer to Question #21.


61.

Would it be possible to get a softcopy sample Correspondence document / Correspondence
template?


See answer to Question # 27 for sample Adobe

form

template
s
.

See embedded documents for
sample documents/templ
ates.





62.

Will all Correspondences documents / templates be migrated from the NOMAD system only?
Or will some documents need to be migrated from the CDMS system?


There will be no migration. All of the notices and forms will need to be recreated.


63.

What is the aggregate number of Correspondence documents & Templates that need to be
migrated?


See answer to Question #62
.


64.

Based on the aggregate number of Correspondences documents & Templates, could you
provide a sense of form complexity? Ie. x% are High complex, x% are Medium complex, x%
are Low complex.


See answer to Question #2.


65.

What is the scope of the FileNet v4.5.1 d
eployment? Does this release of FileNet only support
the Medicaid program or does is support other public assistance programs (TANIF, SNAP,
EAP, etc)?


FileNet v4.5.1 supports all programs administered by DWSS.


66.

The vendor must convert all of DWSS’ existin
g Medicaid forms and notices.


How many
Forms/Notices are there?


See answer to Question
s #1 and #2
.


67.

Is the State willing to upgrade their existing FileNet P8 environment to R 5.x?


Amendment
1

RFP
3068

Page
10

of
17

Yes, the State is will
ing to upgrade FileNet. However,
it may not be
possible to do so in
parallel with this engagement.


68.

What is the existing Footprint of the FileNet P8 deployment?


See answer to Question #65.


69.

Is offline use a requirement?


No.


70.

Will Novell Access Manager be the required WAM platform for SSO and Authenti
cation to the
Forms/ECM solution, or will the State of Nevada consider an IBM Security platform for this
functionality?


Novell Access Manager is the default platform for all DWSS applications.
DWSS

will not
consider another platform.


71.

Will the current Ad
obe Forms need to continue or can be redesigned?


Yes, the Adobe forms can be redesigned.


72.

How many types of data sources(i.e. Flat file, XML, etc.,) are there ?


See answer to Question #11.


73.

Is there an existing output delivery system and if so, does that

need to continue? Can a new
delivery system be developed as part of the solution?


The existing delivery system is report output from the mainframe.
Yes, a new delivery system
can be developed.


74.

Does the end user need to be given access to his notices in

the system or it is only the business
(State users)?


Yes, the end user (i.e. client) will need the ability to access their electronic notices online.


75.

Will Document generation will need to support all 3 modes
-

(1) Batch Process (2) Real time
(3) Interac
tive


Yes.


76.

Do documents get generated daily? What post processing is expected on the outputs?


Documents are generated on demand

or in a daily batch with aggregation and storage in
FileNet
.


77.

Do we need any postal sort requirements, barcodes, special queue requirements, integration
with print service providers? Special
delivery

like folds, inserters etc.,?


Amendment
1

RFP
3068

Page
11

of
17

Yes to all. Documents are sorted by zip code, contain bar codes and are sent to a speci
alized
queue at the State Print Shop where they are printed, folded and mailed.


78.

What is the output format

(eg. PDF
\
Post Script
\
AFP
\
etc..)? Is there any preferred format (to
avoid making changes to the current delivery systems)?


See answer to Question #13
.


79.

Do we need any exception handling (re
-
printing of failed jobs, interactive changes to re
-
prints)
process?


Yes.


80.

Do the archival feeds need to be in any specific format (PDF, TIFF etc.,)


PDF.


81.

What type of printers are used ? Are these in
-
house or vend
or hosted? Are the forms printed on
local printers? What prints on local printers and what goes to batch printers?


See RFP 3.4

Current Computing Environment

for types of printers used. Printers are both
in
-
house and hosted by another State agency. All n
otices/forms can be printed locally or in a
batch. The solution must be flexible.


82.

What language support is needed on the system and on the forms? English & Spanish?


Both English and Spanish must be supported.


83.

Are there custom fonts that need to be used on the forms? If so, will the State provide these and
other
resources

(like images)?


Yes, the State will provide custom fonts if required.


84.

Do we have an inventory of the forms and will they be consolidated as p
art of this exercise?
There is a note on 50,000 notices being generated every month. We would like to know if the
forms count is available. Are new forms expected for supporting the Patient Protection &
Affordable Care Act


See answer to Question #1 for th
e forms count.

ACA correspondence is included.


85.

Does the Correspondence solution interact with the content management system real
-
time?


Yes.


86.

Do we expect history of a correspondence to be maintained for audit purposes?


Yes.


87.

What platform is CDMS
-

Java
\
Dotnet or any product purchased as a whole?


The platform for CDMS is FileNet
; h
owever, CDMS is not included in this engagement.

Amendment
1

RFP
3068

Page
12

of
17


88.

Current notices will have to be migrated to the new system
-

are these images
\
PDFs?


See answer to Question #66.


89.

Does
the Forms engine need to run on Mainframes or we can propose a new configuration?


See answer to Question #1
7.


90.

If needed, can we propose a new database (SQL Server
\
Oracle) to host the forms repository?


No.


91.

A list of documents will be auto generated and
be available for the user to interact and make
changes if needed? This list will be derived from a master set of forms based on the
transaction

information?


Yes.


92.

Is the Client open for Resources working from Offshore for both Development and Support?
Please list the restrictions if any.


DWSS is not interested in offshore development or support.


93.

List the Other systems (Upstream and Downstream) that interact with this Application?


NOMADS, DB2 and FileNet are the only systems.


94.

What is the average numb
er of formally logged problems per month?


DWSS

do
es

not understand the context of this question.


95.

How are

production Problems reported to the Team? Is there any tool? IS there any historical
data available? Is there any escalation procedure already defined?


Production problems are reported to the DWSS helpdesk according to defined procedures.
The helpdesk u
ses a tool to track the problems and historical data is available.


96.

Does this contract include developing updated user documentation?

Does the documentation
follow certain State standards?


Yes, training documentation must be provided per RFP 5.4.2.9. DWSS
will

provide existing
t
raining documentation standards to the awarded vendor.


97.

What are the current level of services (SLAs) delivered


SLAs will be determined based on the solution.


98.

Can
Testing be done from offshore?


No.

Amendment
1

RFP
3068

Page
13

of
17


99.

Will test data be provided ?


Yes.


100.

Are their PHI restrictions to the data that is handled by the Correspondence System? What are
the specific high
-
level system functions where restrictions around HIPAA or Patient Prote
ction
and Affordable Care Act of 2010 come into action?


DWSS is

not currently bound by HIPAA requirements
; h
owever,
DWSS is

required to

secure
PII in accordance with F
ederal and

State standard
s.



101.

In case this work is done from offshore, will there be
needs for data masking to facilitate PHI
restriction from going out of US territory?


Offshore work will not be accepted. See answer to question #92.


102.

Will there be a need to change / update current mainframe
-
based interfaces once the new
solution is ready

for implementation? Are there plans to run NOMADS and the new system
parallel for some time?


Mainframe interfaces may need to be modified based on the solution. Whether
DWSS
will
run the new system in parallel with NOMADS has yet to be determined.


103.

Can
the data in the Correspondence system categorized from a functional perspective, like Case
data, Eligibility data and so on? How many such categories can be applicable?


The data resides in NOMADS. The Correspondence Management Solution is expected to
pul
l data from the source and is not expected to contain data.


104.

Is there a dependency on business rules with other applications, preferably MMIS? Can such
dependency be specified?


There is no dependency by business rules with other applications.


105.

Are
role
-
based security restrictions on data, output already provided in the existing mainframe
application? If yes, can this be documented before the security
-
specific design can be made in
the application architecture?


Yes, role
-
based security restrictions
exist and can be documented before the application
architecture is designed.


106.

Should we consider similar growth in user base and location for another 2 years or based on the
efficiency provided by the solution, we might actually not expect user growth but
might see a
location growth


This is unknown at this time
.


107.

"50K notices / month for Medicaid with 50% increase in 2014. o What is the estimated increase
in volume year on year post 2014 o What about the volumes for other notices like the
Amendment
1

RFP
3068

Page
14

of
17

Temporary Assista
nce for Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP) "


Volume increases after
2014 are unknown.

Per Section 1, Project Overview of the RFP, this
RFP pertains to Medicaid notices only.


108.

"Section 3.2.3 talks about 8 programs unde
r DWSS o Does this mean that outgoing
correspondence will be applicable for each of these programs o If so, what are the monthly
volumes for each of the programs "


Per Section 1, Project Overview of the RFP, this RFP pertains to Medicaid notices onl
y.



109.

"Section 4.3.2


5 most common browsers o What are they o What versions of each of these
browsers "


See answer to Question #21.


110.

Requirement talks about Conversion of existing forms and notices? Please provide a list of how
many unique forms and notices n
eed to be converted?


See answer to Question #1.


111.

How many unique templates across all outgoing docs needs to be created


See answer to Question #1.


112.

Please list all the key features/
flexibilities

that is provided by CDMS and not offered by
NOMADS?


CDMS
information
is not applicable to this project
.


113.

The RFP states that out of 1,000 different business rules, 95 percent have been automated. Does
the scope include automating the remaining 5% business rules.


No.


114.

"Our understanding is that IBM Operational
Decision Manager is used as the Rules Engine.
Are there any limitations with the current implementation? Is this used by any other
application/system within the organization or can the vendor propose a different product if
required as part of the solution?
"


Yes, the current implementation must utilize IBM Operational Decision Manager as the
Rules Engine, which is used by other applications within the organization. No, a different
product will not be considered.


115.

The RFP states that the
workflow processes
currently used to generate outbound
correspondence need to be redesigned. Can you specify what are the key limitations or
painpoints of the current workflow
implementation



Amendment
1

RFP
3068

Page
15

of
17

The current process in NOMADS is obsolete and
needs to be replaced
.
DWSS

require
s

a
new solution that will work for both NOMADS mainframe applications and Web Server
applications by utilizing an SOA technology.


116.

How many workflows exists in the current system? What are the average number of steps per
workflow?


There are no workflows i
n the existing system.


117.

"Our understanding is that IBM Business Process Manager is used as the BPM platform .

Are
there any limitations with the current implementation? Is this used by any other
application/system within the organization or can the vendor propose a different product if
required as part of the solution?"


See answer to Question #114.


118.

The exisitng

landscape includes WebSphere Application Server (WAS) ND V7.0 , V8.0 &
WebSphere Portal Server V6.1.5? Is this the preferred application server within the firm?


Yes.


119.

Are changes to the existing indexing attributes or changes to system properties in scop
e?


This is dependent upon the proposed solution.


120.

"Our understanding is that IBM FileNet is currently only used as the Content Repository. Can
you please specify what all high level features of FileNet

are used? E.g. Content storage,
versioning, search, indexing, audting ,etc."


DWSS uses s
ubscriptions for content

and work flows for specific applications (i.e. Compass
and AMPS).


121.

Are all the current DWSS program
-
related outgoing correspondence stored in

FileNet? I
s

there
an migration of data from legacy systems in scope?


No, all DWSS program
-
related correspondence is not
currently
stored

in FileNet. Data will
continue to be stored on the mainframe.


122.

The existing landscape includes BusinessObjects XI.
Are changes

to business intelligence in
scope for this RFP?


No.


Section 5.6.2.3 of RFP 3068
shall be replaced in its entirety with the following
:


5.6.2.3
Data

Conversion Plan
(if applicable):


The contractor shall provide a
Data

Conversion Plan that
des
cribes the contractor’s strategy and methodology to
cleanse and convert existing data.

consolidate
existing notice text (approximately 900 paragraphs) in NOMADS into 20
-
50 expandable templates
with variable input.


The plan must be updated, as necessary.


In addition, the plan must provide a
walkthrough of the Conversion Plan before submitting to the State for approval.

Amendment
1

RFP
3068

Page
16

of
17


The minimum requirements for the Conversion Plan are:


A.

A description of the
data

conversion strategy and conversion schedule;


B.

Detailed methodology for cleansing CHIP recipient data;


C.

A detailed plan for conversion
of all files and images
;


D.

Methods for user validation of
converted data and final conversion of files

the
conversion
;


E.

Definition of all
files to be converted

system changes
;


F.

Personnel resources assigned to the conversion
of each file
;


G.

A discussion of the management of the conversion effort, including strategies for
dealing with delays, contingencies, data reconciliation procedures, backup plan, backup
p
ersonnel, process verification, and other issues impacting
data

conversion;


H.

A detailed contingency plan to identify and mitigate risks that may be encountered
during conversion;


I.

Procedures for tracking and correcting conversion problems when
encountered and for
documenting any revised procedures in the conversion plan


J.

Specifications for manually converting data and capturing missing or unreliable data
elements that cannot be converted;


K.

Layouts of the reports produced as a result of
conversion;


L.

A definition of the metrics that will be generated by the conversion process.


These
metrics will be used to measure the completeness of the conversion;


M.

Data element mappings, including values, of the old system data elements to the new

system data elements, and new data elements to old data elements (Source Fields to
Target Fields), to ensure all data elements are addressed;


N.

Identification of default values, where necessary;


O.

Inputs for conversion;


P.

Steps for conversion;


Q.

T
imeline for data clean
-
up and conversion;


R.

Expected results;


S.

Templates, procedures, and schedules for all conversion reporting; and


Amendment
1

RFP
3068

Page
17

of
17

T.

Provide for walkthroughs with conversion test results displayed in all screens of the
prop
osed system for state
approval.


Section 5.6 Design Development and implementation Deliverable shall be replaced with the
following:



















Project Costs
-

Attachment K to RFP 3068 shall be replaced with the following:





ALL ELSE REMAINS THE SAME FOR RFP
3068
.



Vendor
must

sign and return this amendment with proposal submitted.


Vendor Name:


Authorized Signature:


T
itle:


Date:







5.6


DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION


DELIVERABLES

DELIVERABLE
NUMBER

DESCRIPTION OF DELIVERABLE

ACTIVITY

STATE'S ESTIMATED

REVIEW TIME

(WORKING DAYS)

5.6.3.1

Detailed Design Document (DSD)

5.6.2.1

15

5.6.3.2

Test Management Plan

5.6.2.2

N/A

5.6.3.3

Data

Conversion Plan
(if applicable)

5.6.2.3

5

5.6.3.4

Release Management Plan

5.6.2.4

10

5.6.3.5

Defect Management Plan

5.6.2.5

10

5.6.3.6

Configuration Management Plan

5.6.2.6

10

5.6.3.7

Change Management Plan

5.6.2.7

10

5.6.3.8

Implementation Plan/Site Readiness
Report

5.6.2.8

10

This document must be submitted in the “State
Documents”
section/tab of vendors’ technical proposal.