Docstoc

Kenny C

Document Sample
Kenny C Powered By Docstoc
					 Kenny C. Guinn      REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL AMENDMENT                                    Terry Savage
 Governor                                STATE OF NEVADA                                     Director
                         DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
                    505 E. King Street, Room 403, Carson City, Nevada 89701-3702
                                       Telephone (775) 684-5800



                                                        AMENDMENT #1 TO RFP #05-01
                                            Date of Amendment              March 8, 2005
                                            Date of RFP Release            February 18, 2005
                                            Opening Date                   March 31, 2005
                                            Opening Time                   2:00 PM

       For further information ask for   Shawna DeRousse, Contract Administration

                    AMENDMENT #1 TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL 05-01 FOR
                                    HEALTH DIVISION
                                       WEVRRS

 Request for Proposal (RFP) 05-01 for the State of Nevada Department of Information Technology, on
 behalf of the Department of Human Resources, Health Division, is hereby amended by incorporating
 the attached proposer's questions and the State's answers into the RFP. The information in this
 amendment supersedes any related information in the original RFP.

 Pursuant to Section 2.2.4.6 of the RFP, as part of the master copy of the technical proposal, one
 (1) copy of the cover page of this amendment must be returned with an original signature in
 blue ink of an authorized representative able to bind the proposing organization.


Proposer must:         A)       Provide all requested information in Sections A1-A3 below; and
                       B)       Type or print response.


 A1   Name of Proposer



                            Name of Individual Authorized to Bind the Organization
 A2
      Name:                                              Title:




       Signature (Must be in blue ink and individual must be authorized to bind the organization)
 A3
      Signature:                                                       Date:




Health Division: WEVRRS RFP Questions & Answers                                                Page 1
                      AMENDMENT #1 TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL # 05-01

FOX Systems, Inc.

Question 1:    Will the State provide bidders with a copy of Gold Systems‟ requirements phase
               assessment of software products as well as a list of the companies that it evaluated?

Answer 1:      No. Information necessary to respond to the RFP has been provided within the
               RFP.

Genesis Systems, Inc.

Question1:     Please clarify, as it seems that Section 4.4.2.4 is contradictory to Section 5.14.5 of the
               RFP. (RFP Sections provided below.)

               4.4.2.4 The State of Nevada does not support Thin Client technology.

               5.14.5 Accessibility to the system through standard Web browsers is an important
                      feature of the WEVRRS. This will allow all the outside stakeholders who will be
                      given access to the system to do so without special hardware or software
                      installed on their computers. The Web interface must interact with the back-end
                      software and database to create an integrated application capable of performing
                      all required transactions with the necessary security. A successful browser
                      interface will allow the application to run on the Internet or as a local client-server
                      application, depending on the needs of the various users. Please describe the
                      proposed approach to Web access and be specific about any restrictions on the
                      choice of a browser.

Answer:        The State of Nevada does not necessarily consider Web Browser Technology to
               be Thin Client. The State currently does not support the requirement for the need
               for additional servers/software to maintain a non-native (third-party) Thin-Client
               solution. As a direct result Web portal type architecture is a preferred solution
               that utilizes the successful proposer’s direct software, standard native software
               (e.g. database server, Web server, application server), and the capabilities native
               to the operating system platform of the proposed solution.

Gold Systems

Question 1:    Section 2.2.10.18 Tab VIII - Functional Requirements Matrix. Should this be Tab XVIII
               instead of Tab VIII?

Answer 1:      Yes.

Question 2:    Section 4.3.2 Web Services Portal '..... To ensure platform and proposer independence
               and to maximize database flexibility, WEVRRS must be written using JAVA, J2EE or
               other "Standards Based" programming language."

               Our solution is completely web based, thin client, and uses the Oracle database (9i or
               greater) and the Oracle application server (9i or greater). The solution is written in the
               Oracle programming language PL/SQL, and also includes java and javascript code. We
               assume that our solution meets the "Standards Based" programming language
               requirement. Please confirm.

Answer 2:      Based on the information provided in the statement above, Gold Systems’ solution
               is not necessarily excluded. Formal evaluation of the proposed solution is needed
               to determine acceptability.




Health Division: WEVRRS RFP Questions & Answers                                                      Page 2
                     AMENDMENT #1 TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL # 05-01

Question 3:   Section 4.4.2.7 Databases. Does the State already own Oracle licenses (database
              enterprise license and application server enterprise license) or is pricing for these
              licenses to be included in our response? If we are to include pricing for Oracle licensees,
              will the software licenses be part of the $300,000 budget available for death registry or is
              there additional $ available for infrastructure items?

Answer 3:     There are no additional funds available; all license fees must be detailed in the
              proposer’s response.

Question 4:   Section 5.13.1.1 Requests that we provide answers to general questions within Sections
              5.14 through 5.17. Shall we also provide answers to Section 5.18?

Answer 4:     Yes.

Question 5:   Section 5.14.1 Proposed Technical Solution. Q5 of the Exhibit 5 - General Requirements
              Matrix specifies that the Health Division's preference for web application server standards
              is to use Tomcat 4, but WebLogic and WebSphere are also acceptable. Our solution
              uses the Oracle Application Server. Is this acceptable?

Answer 5:     Refer to the State’s response to Question 2 from Gold Systems.

Question 6:   Section 7.10 Proposer Staff Skills and Experience Required. Does this section require a
              response as to how our staff meets the skills and experience required or will the resumes
              that will be included be sufficient?

Answer 6:     The section does not require a response other than the resume(s) of the
              individual(s) that meets the requirements.

VitalChek Network

Question1:    Section 3.1.4.1 - The contractor will be required to have its project team located in
              Carson City for mutually agreed activities.

              A. How and when will “Mutually Agreed Activities” be agreed upon?
              B. What form/scope will these activities have?
              C. Other sections indicate that the successful proposer will be required to spend time in
                 Carson City. How much time do you anticipate proposer personnel will spend in
                 Carson City?

Answer 1:     A. The mutually agreed activities will be determined between the successful
                 proposer and the State during contract negotiations and at the project kick-off
                 meeting. RFP responses should include proposer recommendations of
                 activities and the location of their execution.
              B. Refer to the RFP Section 6, Scope of Work.
              C. This will be determined based on the successful proposer’s project plan and
                 recommended approach.

Question 2:   Section 3.1.12.2 - Most design, development and testing activities will occur in Carson
              City (except those activities mutually agreed to be performed at the contractor‟s facility).
              Does the State of Nevada expect that proposer‟s development staff should temporarily
              re-locate to Carson City?

Answer 2:     Refer to the State’s response to VitalChek’s Question 1.C.




Health Division: WEVRRS RFP Questions & Answers                                                   Page 3
                    AMENDMENT #1 TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL # 05-01

Question 3:   Does the State of Nevada seek complete ownership of the software product, or will
              licensing agreements suffice as long as source code is held in escrow?

Answer 3:     RFP response should include the proposer’s approach to source code ownership.
              Proposers must provide any exceptions and/or assumptions to RFP language
              within their proposal response. Refer to RFP Section 3.5.1, Contract Resulting from
              RFP.

Question 4:   Section 3.4.4.1 - Hold Backs. The State shall pay all invoiced amounts, less a 15% hold
              back, following receipt of invoice and a fully completed project deliverable sign-off form.
              Please provide clarification as to when the hold back amount will be remitted. Will hold
              backs be paid within x number of days of delivery, or held until the end of the project?

Answer 4:     The distribution of hold backs will be negotiated with the successful proposer, per
              RFP Section 3.4.4, Hold Backs.

Question 5:   Section 3.5.10      Insurance Coverage. There will likely be small changes to the
              terms/provisions of the insurance coverage. How flexible is the State in this matter?

Answer 5:     Proposers must provide any exceptions and/or assumptions to RFP language
              within their proposal response. Refer to RFP Section 3.5.1, Contract Resulting from
              RFP.

Question 6:   Section 3.5.10.11 – Performance Security. Can this paragraph be stricken/disregarded
              since it is waived in subsection A?

Answer 6:     The standard State language regarding performance security will not be stricken
              from the RFP.

Question 7:   Section 3.5.15       State Ownership of Proprietary Information. Any reports, histories,
              studies, tests, manuals, instructions, photographs, negatives, blue prints, plans, maps,
              data, system designs, computer code (which is intended to be consideration under the
              contract), or any other documents or drawings, prepared or in the course of preparation
              by contractor (or its subcontractors) in performance of its obligations under the contract
              shall be the exclusive property of the State and all such materials shall be delivered into
              State possession by contractor upon completion, termination, or cancellation of the
              contract. Contractor shall not use, willingly allow, or cause to have such materials used
              for any purpose other than performance of contractor's obligations under the contract
              without the prior written consent of the State. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the State
              shall have no proprietary interest in any materials licensed for use by the State that are
              subject to patent, trademark or copyright protection.

              Again, clarification is needed. Does the state intend to own the software outright, or
              would licensing be sufficient?

Answer 7:     Refer to the State’s response to VitalChek Question 3.

Question 8:   Section 6.10.2.3 Provide On site Assistance During Pilot. Again, please indicate how
              much time proposer staff should expect to spend „on the ground‟ in Carson City?

Answer 8:     Refer to the State’s response to VitalChek Question 1.C.




Health Division: WEVRRS RFP Questions & Answers                                                   Page 4
                      AMENDMENT #1 TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL # 05-01

Question 9:    Section 4.4.2.4 The State of Nevada does not support Thin Client technology.

               Does this mean that the State does not currently support Thin Client technology but is
               open to a new, thin client application? Or does it mean that no thin client application will
               be considered eligible for this RFP?

Answer 9:      The State currently does not support the requirement for the need for additional
               servers/software to maintain a non-native (third-party) Thin-Client solution. As a
               direct result Web portal type architecture is a preferred solution that utilizes the
               successful proposer’s direct software, standard native software (e.g. database
               server, Web server, application server), and the capabilities native to the operating
               system platform of the proposed solution.

Question 10:   From the General Requirements Matrix: C41.

               A. If medical facility data entry clerk logs into a specific facility, can they select the
                  certifier (primary participant) for whom they are entering the case directly on the
                  certifier page? If not, please provide an example of how you see the application
                  supporting this functionality.

Answer 10:     Yes, they can select the certifier and enter all the pertinent information. However,
               they cannot certify for the certifier.

               This is also applicable to funeral homes with multiple locations. A data entry clerk
               can be authorized to enter data for multiple locations within a funeral home
               corporation and enter the personal information of the decedent. However, they
               cannot certify for the authorized funeral home director.

Question 11:   From the General Requirements Matrix: D32. Please provide an example of what is
               meant by “the same formatting as the paper birth or death certificate. This requirement
               seems to conflict with D3 and D4 regarding logical segments and minimized scrolling.

Answer 11:     The objective of this rule is to ensure easy data entry by making the sequence in
               which the data is entered the same as the standard certificate formats. The
               screens can still be broken down into logical segments to minimize scrolling as
               long as the data in each segment follows the flow of the paper document.

Question 12:   A.      From the General Requirements Matrix: E5. Please specify the conditions for
                       which the WEVRRS application would be required to create an HL7 message.

               B.      Does Nevada currently exchange vital record information with external partners
                       in HL7 format?

Answer 12:     A.      CDC reporting or Public Health Emergencies may require HL7 formatting.

               B.      No.

Question 13:   From the General Requirements Matrix: E12. Please provide an example of what is
               meant by “storage of information about the linkage”. What are the storage data
               requirements?

Answer 13:     Per the NAPHSIS Standards and Guidelines, Section 6.2.1 Data Model, the EDRS
               conceptual data model should be based on the CDC Public Health Conceptual Data
               Model (PHCDM) which establishes a common model for linkage of records from
               various public health data systems. Examples of potential links include:

                   Linkage of a death record to the Department of Motor Vehicles.


Health Division: WEVRRS RFP Questions & Answers                                                    Page 5
                     AMENDMENT #1 TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL # 05-01
                  Linkage of a birth record to a record in the immunization registry.
                  Linkage of a death record to a record in the cancer registry or a communicable
                   disease registry.
                  Linkage of a birth record to a record in the putative father registry.
                  Linkage of a death record to voter registration.

Question 14:   From the General Requirements Matrix: E22. Please provide an example of a State
               specific rule for transferring a case.

Answer 14:     A current example: When a deceased is transferred from one funeral home to
               another, the responsibility for filing the death certificate falls with the funeral home
               that handles the final disposition.

               WEVRRS needs the flexibility to change business rules as statutes and regulations
               change.

Question 15:   From the General Requirements Matrix: E23. Please provide an example of user defined
               rules regarding pronouncement of death.

Answer 15:     A current example: in certain cases a nurse may pronounce death, but cannot
               certify.

Question 16:   From the General Requirements Matrix: L56. Is the Coroner‟s/Physicians‟ copy of the
               death certificate a different form than the full death certificate (L49)? Please describe the
               differences.

Answer 16:     Currently, there are no differences.

Question 17:   From the General Requirements Matrix: M21. Please provide an example of what is
               meant by “status fields to identify a specific record or group of records”.

Answer 17:     Section B of the General Requirements describes the various requirements
               regarding “Record Status.” This section describes a variety of different kinds of
               status indicators (e.g., alerts set by users, status of the record in processing, flags
               for transmission to external stakeholders) that can exist in a record. Rule M21
               states that any of these indicators can be used as a filter to select out records for
               the download.

Question 18:   From the Functional Requirements: 4. Death record number. Does this refer to the
               decedent‟s medical record number, WEVRRS case id, or other number. Please explain.

Answer 18:     This refers to the decedent’s medical record number.




Health Division: WEVRRS RFP Questions & Answers                                                     Page 6

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:4
posted:11/25/2011
language:English
pages:6