RFP Q&A

2017 Portal Integrator Replacement Costs 
Solicitation #: SIPA 2017-02
RFP Questions and Answers
 
1. What is the extent and accuracy of existing documentation (ex. Service Catalog, Application and Service Information, Integration Architecture) for the current state?  
 
    SIPA has good records for some of this information. The rest will need to be acquired from the Portal Integrator. 
 
2. Is there consistent logging and tracking of incidents and requests?
 
    Yes.
 
3. How are requirements for new services defined?
 
    There are typically a variety of factors that are considered before developing new services. These include: market demand by Government customers, alignment with SIPA’s mission, alignment with industry best practices, capacity and expertise of Portal Integrator, priority compared to other requests in the queue, and whether a project will be self-funded or underwritten by SIPA to prioritize development.
 
4. Can you clarify what is contained in the “Portal Integrator’s Plan” (is it a strategic business plan with costs, charges, road maps, etc)?
 
    Deliverable 3.2.1.7. Receive a review of a Portal Integrator’s plan and/or policies and procedures to ensure continued financial stability was poorly worded. SIPA would like the Offeror to make recommendations (based on industry best practices) for how a future Portal Integrator should be assessed for financial stability and the financial capacity to offer Portal Services. 
 
5. Is Colorado Interactive expected to be a willing party to this effort?
 
    Colorado Interactive is expected to be cooperative in accordance with the Portal Integrator Contract and subject to protecting Colorado Interactive’s proprietary information. 
 
6. (General) Can the Colorado Statewide Internet Portal Authority (SIPA) provide a target budget for this effort?
 
    SIPA did not set a budget for this specific project. While not specified in SIPA’s 2017-2018 Budget, SIPA did anticipate reasonable expenditures for this substantial effort. SIPA encourages respondents to break deliverables down by estimated costs in case SIPA needs to prioritize some line items for future years or projects. 
 
7. (General) Does SIPA have a hard date by which they expect to have the final report delivered?
 
    SIPA would like this work to be completed by June 30, 2018 (end of SIPA’s fiscal year). 
 
8. (General) Can you provide a list of contacts for both SIPA and Colorado Interactive (CI) and their availability in the March and April timeframes?
 
    Contacts will be provided to the successful Offeror. One or two staff members from both SIPA and CI, with adequate availability and expertise, will be assigned to support and coordinate this initiative. 
 
9. (General) Does SIPA anticipate a need to travel outside of the Denver area to complete the list of deliverables for this project?
 
    Travel outside of Denver is not anticipated.
 
10. (General) Will the project and the associated task necessary to complete the project deliverables, be a priority for the current Portal Integrator to support?
 
    Yes. 
 
11. (Section 1.0, 1.3, Page 4 of 29) This section seems to indicate there will be multiple documents associated with the RFP, but we see only one posted to the web. Please confirm.
 
    Appendix A was included in the RFP as a single document. There are no other documents.
 
12. (Section 4.0, 4.1.6.1, Page 9 of 29) What is the expectation as far as the review and assessment of the 225 websites currently supported by the portal?
 
    SIPA does not have an expectation beyond what is noted in section 5.3.1.1.5. Review the current Portal Service offerings in terms of state and local government customer needs and trends. Provide recommendations for terminating out-of-date offerings and/or adding new state-of-the-art service offerings (including cybersecurity and emerging technologies).
 
13. (Section 4.0, 4.4.1, Page 10 of 29) Can SIPA provide a directory of the items currently in escrow to include source code and documentation?
 
    SIPA does not have a directory of the items in escrow. The contract between SIPA and CI requires CI to “deposit on a quarterly basis the Source Code for the most recent version of Contractor Software (but excluding Third Party Software and Electronic Services) together with the available program documentation and programmer’s notes used in the State Portal, in escrow with a neutral third party...”
 
As noted in 3.2.1.3., SIPA would like the contractor to “Determine which applications are present in the Software Escrow file provided to SIPA. Determine what the costs would be to deploy and maintain the applications on new infrastructure.” Similarly, section 5.3.1.1.3. Asks the contractor to “Inventory the applications in the Software Escrow file provided to SIPA. Determine the costs to deploy and maintain the applications on new infrastructure.” 
 
14. (Section 5.0, 5.3.1.1.1, Page 12 of 29) Can SIPA provide some additional details around the Service Desk Support, specifically metrics of the number of calls and backlog over time?
   
    For the calendar year 2017, through December 23, 2017, there were 55,753 Service Desk requests. In general, there are fewer than 5,000 contacts per month (approximately 3,500 email, 1,000 phone, and 500 live chat). 
 
Of the 55,753 Cases, 333 were categorized as Incidents, 39 were Problems, and 33,730 were Fulfillments. More than 55,292 cases have been successfully closed. 
 
15. (Section 6.0, 6.7.3.7, Page 17 of 29) Is the Crime Insurance a requirement for SIPA, or is it something the State is going to start requiring as well?  Assuming that background checks would not address this requirement?
 
    SIPA has mirrored the State’s insurance requirements for Personal Services Contracts in this RFP. See for example: www.colorado.gov/pacific/osc/contractgrant-forms 
 
Background checks would not waive the insurance requirement. Specific insurance requirements may be refined in the final contract. 
 
16. How many Service Level Agreements are there in regards to Section 3.2.1.6?
 
    Service Level Agreements are defined exhibits C and C2 (Attachment 1) in SIPA’s Portal Integrator Contract with Colorado Interactive. 
 
17. In Sections 7.1.1.3.1.1 and 7.1.1.5.1.1, can SIPA please explain how the summaries being asked for differ from each other in regards to the responses they require from the Offeror?
 
    This is summary information SIPA would like to see in both the “Transmittal letter” as well as the”Executive Summary”. Both requirements are the same, but how the offeror chooses to describe the information  may be different. 
 
18. Table 7.1.1.11 provides additional cost sections not addressed in the cost description on page 24, namely “Completed Price Schedules” and “Financial Plan Narrative.” Can you please clarify what it is we should provide for the cost description?
 
    SIPA apologizes that this was not more clear. Please follow the instructions from section 9 on page 24 related to Price. The “Completed Price Schedule” should list the cost of individual components, or milestones to be completed, that were used to determine the total price. The “Financial Plan Narrative” should describe how the costs for each milestone or component were determined. 
 
19. Does each service in Section 3.2.1.2 have a contract?
 
     SIPA has a contract on file for services deployed after July 1, 2014. SIPA may not have complete records for each service deployed between 2005 and 2014. 
 
20. In section 4.1.6.2.1.1 it says, "Of the 250 payment applications, a large majority interact with the State’s financial reporting system. Each application necessitates a web service of some magnitude."  What are the interfaces (e.g., REST APIs) to the State's financial reporting system? 
 
    Colorado Interactive does not use a SOAP based webservice of RESTful APIs for integrating with CORE. Standard interface file formats are used for creating receivable and cash receipt documents. These files are transferred to the CORE SFTP server where the CORE system collects and processes the interface files uploaded daily. 
 
21. In regard to Section 4.2.1, when does SIPA estimate this project will need to end to allow time for the release and award of the implementation RFP?
 
    SIPA would like this work to be completed by June 30, 2018 (end of our fiscal year). 
 
22. In Sections 7.1.1.5.1.1, 7.1.1.5.1.2, and 7.1.1.5.1.3, can SIPA please explain how these sections differ from each other in regards to the responses they require from the Offeror?
 
    SIPA apologizes that this was not more clear. Briefly, 7.1.1.5.1.1 is the WHAT, 7.1.1.5.1.2 is the OUTCOME, 7.1.1.5.1.3 is the HOW you will approach the WHAT to get to the OUTCOME. 
 
23. For Table 7.1.1.11, under “Approach to Scope of Work” it says the Offeror must address the “Transition Phase in Section 15.” Section 15 does not exist in this RFP. Can you please advise?
 
    The reference to Section 15 is a typo. Please address the requirements from Section 5.3, specifically Section 5.3.1.1.1.
 
24. (4.1.5.3. ) Develop and annually update a strategic business plan. | Is this document available to the offerors before the solicitation period submittal? 
 
    SIPA’s Annual Business Plan referenced in 4.1.5.3 is provided as Attachment 2
 
25. (4.1.6.2. ) Payment Processing Solution | What payment processing system, service or software is used?
 
    The current portal integrator has proprietary payment processing software maintained by both Colorado Interactive (e.g. PayPort) and NIC USA (e.g. Transaction Payment Engine (TPE), Checkout, etc.).
 
26. (4.4.1) The programming code for the Portal is owned by SIPA, and copies of the programming code are placed in an escrow account on a quarterly basis to ensure operational code can be accessed by SIPA. | What source code repository is used for the escrow account?
 
    NCC Group receives the software escrow. 
 
27. (5.3.1.1.1) An inventory of third party products for which the licenses will be transferred from Portal Integrator to SIPA. | Is there a current list of third party products available to the offerors before the solicitation period submittal?
 
    A list of third party products will not be available prior to the submittal date.  
 
28. (5.3.1.1.1) An inventory of third party products for which the licenses will be transferred from Portal Integrator to SIPA. | Is there an architecture available showing all integration points impacted by the solicitation available to the offerors before the solicitation period submittal?
 
    An architecture with all integration points will not be available prior to the submittal date. 
 
29. (5.3.1.1.1) Service Desk Operations | What is SIPA looking for in terms of service desk operations? 
 
    Service Desk Operations are defined in the portal integrator contract. Currently the Service Desk is available during normal business hours, but is not available 24/7. Many vendors are moving to 24/7 support, would this be recommended?  At what cost?
 
30. (4.6.2) Employees of Contractor and Subcontractors may be required to complete a background check to perform the Work. | Are there any clearances required for the project? If so, which clearances?
 
    Generally any vendor given direct access to government owned data may be required to show evidence of a recent standard background check.  In addition, NIC/CI will require their corporate NDA with the winning vendor.
 
31. (3.2.1.1) "if Colorado Interactive or its parent company NIC USA were unable to continue to provide Portal services" | Why would Colorado Interactive or its parent company NIC USA be unable to continue to provide Portal services?
 
    There is no specific reason anticipated or expected. 
 
32. (3.2.1.4) Receive an inventory and value assessment of the hardware and software infrastructure at the ViaWest Data Center that would be transferred to SIPA or purchased by SIPA at the end of the Portal Integrator contract. | Does the Colorado Internet Portal Authority have assets owned by incumbent that would not transfer?
 
    The Portal Integrator Contract defines which assets might be transferred to SIPA or might be able to be purchased by SIPA at the end of the contract term. Not all hardware and software applications will be available to SIPA at contract termination. 
 
33. (3.2.1.7) Receive a review of a Portal Integrator’s plan and/or policies and procedures to ensure continued financial stability. |  What financial stability is referenced here?
 
    Deliverable 3.2.1.7. Receive a review of a Portal Integrator’s plan and/or policies and procedures to ensure continued financial stability was poorly worded. SIPA would like the Offeror to make recommendations (based on industry best practices) for how a future Portal Integrator should be assessed for financial stability and the financial capacity to offer Portal Services.