RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RECEIVED by pengxuezhi

VIEWS: 7 PAGES: 34

									                     RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RECEIVED
                             AS OF July 3, 2008
                  APPLICATION MAINTENANCE/OPERATIONS
                                    &
                         ENHANCEMENT SERVICES
                            OTHS/OTHS-08-005-S


1. RFP Section 3.4.14 – Page 70; Will DHR provide the servers and COTS software
   licenses associated with the development and system test environments at the
   Contractor’s facility and in the DHR data center environment? (REVISED RESPONSE)

   No, the Contractor shall provide the servers and the COTS software licenses associated
   with the development and test environments at the Contractor’s facility. DHR and the
   data center/hosting vendor will manage the licenses and servers in the data center
   environment.

   The hosting contractor will provide UAT, training, and production environments for all
   applications listed in the scope of work, including the necessary licenses for those
   environments. The hosting contractor will also provide the development
   environments/regions for the mainframe applications including any associated licenses.
   The hosting contractor will not provide the development regions for non-mainframe
   applications.

   The application maintenance contractor will provide the development and any other
   regions/environments it requires to meet the requirements of this RFP at its off-site
   development facility. The licenses that will be required for the environments at the
   application maintenance contractor’s development facility are the responsibility of the
   application maintenance contractor and should be included as part of its fixed price
   proposal for this RFP.

   For major enhancements or new systems, any new licenses that would be required would
   be priced as part of the SOW submitted under Level II optional services. Please see
   Amendment 1 for further information.

   RFP Section 3.4.14 – Page 70; Will DHR provide data communications support (links,
   routers, firewalls) between the M&O Contractor’s facility and the DHR Network, or must
   these be provided by the M&O Contractor?

   No, the Contractor shall propose a comprehensive approach to providing application
   maintenance and enhancement services including establishing communications between
   their facility and the DHR network. The solution will include standard security measures
   and protocols to connect to the DHR network.
2. APPENDIX D-2 – Page 242; For systems hosted at Indiana please provide a list of the
   hosted equipment, software, indicating which DHR systems under development and those
   in system test. (REVISED RESPONSE)

   The successful Offeror will receive information regarding in-flight work during the
   Transition-In phase of the contract. Please refer to section 3.4.9.B and 3.4.9.1.F.

   SAIL, CERTS, WORKS and MARE are hosted in Indiana. None of these systems is
   under development or in system test. They are operational systems in maintenance and
   operation mode.

   SAIL: Dell 2950 x 2 / Microsoft Windows Server 2003, IIS , MS SQL
   Server 2005,.Net Framework 2.0

   WORKS: Dell 2950 x 1/ 6950 x1 / Microsoft Windows Server 2003, IIS , MS SQL
   Server 2005,Net Framework 2.0

   CERTS: Dell 2850 x 2/ Microsoft Windows Server 2003, IIS , MS SQL Server
   2005,Net Framework 2.0

   MARE: Dell 2850 x 2 / Microsoft Windows Server 2003, IIS , MS SQL Server
   2005, .Net Framework 2.0

   All other available hardware and software information has been provided in appendix D.

3. Who currently maintains the DHS systems?

   Affiliated Computer Services (ACS) State and local Solutions currently maintains the
   systems at the Department of Human Resources (DHR). The company that maintains the
   systems for the Maryland Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is not known and
   that question would need to be directed to DHS.

4. Who implemented these systems?

   Please specify which systems and the purpose of the request. Multiple contractors and in
   house staff have developed and maintained DHR systems over 20 years. For the major
   systems:

   Systemhouse and Accenture implemented CIS (CARES and CSES)
   Deloitte implemented MD CHESSIE
   ACS implemented WORKS, MARE and SAIL

5. Who is the incumbent on this contract?

   Affiliated Computer Services State and Local Solutions
6. Has their performance been satisfactory?

   The purpose of this RFP is to define the requirements for the new contract, it is not the
   venue to discuss current contractor performance nor is it germane.

7. Is their contract coming to an end?

   The current contract ends on June 30, 2009.

8. On pages 42 and 43 of the RFP in sections 3.2.1, Baseline Operations, Level I and Level
   II Services Support, and 3.2.1.1, Baseline Operations and Level I Support Services:

   RFP section 3.2.1, Baseline Operations, Level I and Level II Services Support, defines
   the contract as consisting of two components. Component 1, Baseline operations or “keep
   the lights on” and Level I support services, and Component 2, Level II support services.
   The table in RFP section 3.2.1.1, Baseline Operations and Level I Support Services,
   contains historic Level I hours by year.

   Do the hours in this table represent total hours for Level I services only or are they
   inclusive of baseline operations as stated in Section 3.2.1, Baseline Operations, Level I
   and Level II Services Support?

   The hours in the table represent only those hours related to code changes (define SOW,
   design, test, implement, correct defects) for Level I “keep the lights on”. They do not
   include Level II services nor do they include hours for UAT, Requirements Definition or
   other ancillary services such as production support, security etc.

9. On Page 60 of the RFP in section 3.4.11, Help Desk Support:

   Is the vendor responsible for resolving Level II Help Desk tasks under direction of the
   State’s Level II Help Desk personnel?

   Yes, as assigned by the Level II help desk. The Level II Help Desk is currently staffed
   with 6 state positions; however, some of these positions remain vacant due to the State
   hiring freeze. In addition, new systems have been brought online over time but additional
   positions for the help desk have not been provided. It is DHR’s desire to supplement the
   current staffing levels with contractor staff to provide an adequate Level II support.

10. On page 67 of the RFP in section 3.4.12.1, Service Level Metrics, some of the system
    metrics included within the table do not appear to relate to applications maintenance
    operations and enhancements.

   Can the State please clarify how these service level metrics will be measured during this
   contract?
   Each incident will be investigated to determine the root cause of the issue. Please refer to
   section 2.28.4 Liquidated Damages – Service Levels for more information.

   The Contractor shall not be liable for liquidated damages when, in the opinion of DHR,
   incidents or delays result from excusable failure. The Contractor will bear the burden of
   providing evidence, of explaining and describing what the delay is attributable to, and
   determining what the responsibility was of another entity outside and independent of the
   custody, control, supervision and/or direction of the Contractor, its officers, agents or
   employees. Failure to provide such proof will result in the Contractor being responsible
   and liable for all liquidated damages described in the RFP.

11. On page 86 of the RFP in Section 3.4.18.4.a, the requirement states, “Providing on-site
    staff to perform UAT.”

   Is the vendor responsible for providing staff to perform user acceptance testing or does
   vendor staff facilitate and support DHR end users that will execute UAT scripts?

   The contractor shall provide staff to perform user acceptance testing as well as support
   the DHR end users that will execute UAT scripts. DHR currently has 7 UAT testers,
   however, some of these positions remain vacant under the hiring freeze. It is DHR’s
   desire to supplement with contractor staff to ensure an adequate number of testers to
   perform UAT during the course of the contract. This core group of contractor and State
   testers would work in conjunction with end users from the local departments that may on
   occasion be brought in to perform testing.

12. On page 90 of the RFP in section 3.4.20, Training, and its subsections:

   For Level I training, does the State expect the vendor to be responsible for train-the-
   trainer or formal end-user training or both as defined throughout RFP section 3.4.20,
   Training and its subsections?

   Both. Training may also be provided through Web-Ex or other appropriate means.

13. On page 91 of the RFP in section 3.4.20.H.1, the requirement states, “Provide classroom
    training at sites designated by the State.”

   Would the State provide the number and location of the State-designated training sites
   where the vendor will conduct on-site training?

   Training sites are located through out the State. While the majority of training may be
   conducted at 1100 Eastern Blvd, Essex MD for the introduction of major modifications,
   training sessions may also be held regionally at four of the regional training sites.
   Training may also be provided through Web-Ex or other means.

14. Can you share existing ACS staffing levels for Baseline Operations?
   No

15. How serious is DHR about possibly moving Application Maintenance/Operations from
    ACS to another provider? Has this been migrated previously?

   DHR is competitively bidding this contract. Yes. Maintenance and Operations have been
   previously migrated.

16. Will more than one contractor received NTP (Notice to Proceed)?

   No. A single award will be made. Only one contract will be awarded as a result of this
   RFP. A NTP is issued after award and during the term of the contract as formal notice to
   begin a project.

17. Does Contractor selected get “right of first refusal” on optional Level 2 support services?

   No. The contractor does not have the “right of first refusal”. Level 2 optional services
   are part of this contract and assuming the Statement of Work meets with DHR’s
   approval, the services would be performed under the contract as awarded.

18. Or will Level 2 support services be competitively bid?

   Level 2 support services are part of the scope of the contract that will be awarded from
   this RFP.

19. Who is Hosting/Data Center services contractor (p.52)?

   The prime contractor is Affiliated Computer Services, State and Local Solutions.

20. Where is their hosting/data center located?

   Systems are hosted in Maryland, New Jersey, and Indiana.

21. Does DHR have software testing tools today (p.85)? If yes, which tools do you use?

   Yes. DHR has Rational Robot. Use of this tool is limited.

22. Will DHR entertain an on-site/off-shore blended staffing solution?

   No. The RFP clearly states off-site operations must be within the US.

23. In section 3.4.14.1 E - Wouldn't scheduling procedures and applying necessary number of
    initiators and priorities for timely job execution be more of a "Hosting" activity with the
    Mainframe applications? If not, will the winning Application vendor have "control" over
    the Hosting resources to make this happen?
   No, the requirements outlined in 3.4.14.1.E are considered part of the Application
   Maintenance scope of work. The successful Offeror shall coordinate this activity with
   the Hosting vendor to assure production support.

24. There was a question asked and answered that stated the following:
    RFP Section 3.4.14 – Page 70; Will DHR provide the servers and COTS software
    licenses associated with the development and system test environments at the
    Contractor’s facility and in the DHR data center environment?

   I am not clear as to whether a mainframe development environment is needed in the
   contractor’s facility for maintenance and enhancement of the DHR Mainframe
   applications or if the mainframe resources provided by the Hosting contractor can/will be
   used?


   No, the application maintenance contractor shall provide the servers and the COTS
   software licenses associated with the development and test environments at the
   Contractor’s facility. DHR and the data center/hosting vendor will manage the licenses
   and servers in the data center environment.

   The hosting contractor will provide UAT, training, and production environments for all
   applications listed in the scope of work, including the necessary licenses for those
   environments. The hosting contractor will also provide the development
   environments/regions for the mainframe applications including any associated licenses.
   The hosting contractor will not provide the development regions for non-mainframe
   applications.

   The application maintenance contractor will provide the development and any other
   regions/environments, such as system test, it requires to meet the requirements of this
   RFP at its off-site development facility. The licenses that will be required for the
   environments at the application maintenance contractor’s development facility are the
   responsibility of the application maintenance contractor and should be included as part of
   its fixed price proposal for this RFP. Please note UAT and training must be conducted in
   the hosted environment to ensure there are no anomalies introduced into production.

   For major enhancements or new systems, any new licenses that would be required would
   be priced as part of the SOW submitted under Level II optional services. Please see
   Amendment 1 for further information.

   It is up to the contractor to propose an approach that meets the requirements of this RFP.

25. Section 3.4.18 Software Testing - In Sub-Section A under this section it states "Providing
    staff for each initiative, regardless of size, scope or budget, capable of completing all
    activities necessary to support the following testing processes:" and included in the list is
    User Acceptance Testing. Under section 3.4.18.4 Regression and User Acceptance
    Testing it states in the second sentence "This process provides users with the opportunity
   to assure themselves that all of their approved requirements are met."
   The question I have is will the Applications contractor be providing UAT testers as part
   of this contract or will DHR still maintain that responsibility? If the contractor is
   supplying this staff, will there also be State staff supporting this function and if so to
   what level?

   The successful offeror shall provide staff to perform user acceptance testing as well as
   support the DHR end users that will execute UAT scripts. DHR currently has 7 UAT
   testers, however, some of these positions remain vacant under the hiring freeze and
   additional systems have been added overtime. It is DHR’s desire to supplement with
   contractor staff to ensure an adequate number of testers to perform UAT during the
   course of the contract. This core group of contractor and state testers would work in
   conjunction with end users from the local departments that may on occasion be brought
   in to perform testing. It is up to the contractor to propose an approach that meet the
   requirements of this RFP.

26. Section 3.4.19 - Is the Removal of GRNDS to be considered part of Level I or Level II
    support?

   Section 3.4.19 Removal of the GRNDS tool is not part of Level I or Level II and is to be
   priced separately. Please refer to Appendix L, the Financial Proposal/Price Sheets.
   Please note an amendment will be issued that clarifies that the expected deliverables that
   will be produced and priced as part of this fixed price proposal will be confined to items
   3.4.19 requirements A-F. Requirements G-M will be executed as part of the SOW that
   will be done under Level II services.

27. Section 3.4.20 Training - How much does training does DHR anticipate the Applications
    Contractor will be actually performing vs the current DHR Training areas?

   The successful Offeror shall perform training as described in Section 3.4.20.A – H.
   These requirements present DHR’s needs regarding technical training. It is up to the
   Offeror to propose a training solution that satisfies the requirements. DHR typically
   requires classroom training for major system enhancements (new functionality on
   existing systems) and new systems. This training is generally conducted at 1100 Eastern
   Blvd or on a regional basis. The Contractor may also propose alternative training
   methods for system enhancements such as WebEx or CBT based training.

28. Is the vendor allowed to use their Global Service Delivery Model, i.e. also be able to use
    their facilities in another country, to provide the services for this proposal.

   No. The RFP clearly states off-site operations must be within the US.

29. Is there an incumbent and if so, who is it?

   Affiliated Computer Services, State and Local Solutions, however, please note the scope
   of services is not the same for the existing contract.
30. Paragraph 2.47.2 – software warranty could potentially exceed end of contract if
    something were to be installed near end of contract. Should a price for warranty be part
    of the price bid?

   Please refer to section 2.47 – Software Warranties. The final line reads “Warranty
   resolution is performed at no additional cost to DHR.”

31. Paragraph D1 on page 105 – Is specific HR system experience required or large complex
    application experience?

   By “HR” the Department assumes the questioner means “Human Resources.” The
   answer is no, Human Resources system experience is not required, as the Department of
   Human Resources is Maryland’s Health and Human Services agency. Please refer to
   page 39, Background, for high-level information on the agency, and www.dhr.state.md.us
   for further reading.

   Section D clearly articulates the reference requirements. Section 4.3.D.1, states that
   large-scale human services systems is a reference requirement.

32. Paragraph 3.4.12.1 – Specifies a SLA for mainframe and network response times of .5
    seconds. a) Is this the current response times respectively, and b) what methodology
    is used to produce these response time measures?

   The SLAs outlined in Section 3.4.12.1 are DHR’s current SLAs. Please refer to Section
   3.4.12 of the RFP which states “The Contractor shall recommend additional standards
   and corresponding means of measurement and reporting. DHR is desirous of having
   performance level measurements and accountability for major arrears of impact that have
   a significant impact on the project’s success.

   The Contractor shall have a comprehensive approach to measuring service levels in the
   application maintenance and operations area, and defined specific methodologies utilized
   to achieve the service level metrics outlined in Section 3.4.12.1. “

33. RFP Section 2.11 – page 12; 2.11 State Supplied Services and Facilities DHR’s
    Information Systems (DHRIS) building is a secure facility located at 1100 Eastern
    Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland, 21221. DHR shall provide workspace for the
    Contractor’s core Team.

   How many core management staff will DHR provide workspace for @ the 1100 Eastern
   Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland, 21221 address?

   How many core management staff will DHR provide workspace for @ the DHRIS
   facility?
   It is up to the Offeror to propose the appropriate mix of staff in response to the scope of
   work. DHR will provide workspace for the Contractor’s core team.

   DHRIS is located at 1100 Eastern Blvd. Baltimore, MD 21221.

34. RFP Section 2.28.2 – page 25; For any failure by the Contractor to meet a critical project
    Deliverable due date, DHR may require the Contractor to pay liquidated damages in the
    amount of $2,500.00 per day per Deliverable, each and every day thereafter up to the
    maximum until such Deliverable is completed and accepted by the DHR Project
    Manager.

   Does the state mean that LD’s will be assessed at $2500 per calendar day or business
   day?

   Calendar Day.

35. RFP Section 2.28.4 – page 26; For each SLA that is missed, the Contractor shall pay the
    State liquidated damages in the amount of 5% of the total monthly invoice if the
    responses do not meet or exceed the performance requirements as a result of the
    randomly performed tests.

   RFP Section 2.28 – page 24; In addition, a single event of failure on the part of the
   Contractor or its subcontractors will only result in the imposition of damages in one
   liquidated damage category.

   The statement “For each SLA that is missed …” seems to be in conflict with Section
   2.28, First paragraph, last sentence, where “a single event of failure … will only result in
   the imposition of damages in one liquidated damage category.” Can DHR please provide
   clarification?

   DHR does not detect a conflict. A single event of failure will result in the imposition of
   liquidated damages in one category, even if one event triggers multiple failures. For
   example a malicious error on the part of one of the Contractor’s employees results in
   outages for multiple systems that exceed the performance threshold. If DHR imposed
   liquidated damages it would only impose them in one category and would treat the outage
   as a single failure even though multiple systems and services levels were breached. DHR
   would not impose liquidated damages for each system, it would only impose liquidated
   damages for the outage. Total damages would be limited as outlined in the RFP.

   Total damages will be limited as out-lined in Section 2.27 Limitations of Liability and
   any liquidated damages assessed will count against the limitations of liability threshold.
   A single event of failure on the part of the Contractor or its subcontractors will only result
   in the imposition of damages in one liquidated damage category. In the event of a failure
   to meet performance requirements, other than an excusable failure, the maximum amount
   for Liquidated Damages will not exceed 10% of the total charges invoiced in an average
   monthly period or 1/12 of the total annual value of the Contract, whichever is less.
36.   RFP Section 2.49 – pages 36 – 37; Paragraph 2 states

      On behalf of DHR and under DHR’s direction, the Contractor shall manage and maintain
      all software licenses for software purchased, installed, and operated for the services
      described in this RFP. The Contractor shall act as DHR’s agent to purchase and
      administer software licenses including third-party mainframe software products, unless
      DHR makes the decision to purchase the licenses under a separate procurement vehicle.

      The L1 Price Proposal Worksheet includes a row for Software Licenses. The RFP ID for
      that row is 2.5.1.

      Please confirm that the RFP ID should actually be 2.4.9.

      What costs does the State expect to be included under Software Licenses? Our
      understanding is that the software listed in Appendix D (“Mainframe Third Party
      Software” and “DHR Software Inventory”) is provided by DHR's Hosting Services
      provider. Is our understanding correct? If not, please specify which licenses are expected
      to be provided by DHR's Hosting Services provider, and which licenses are to be
      provided through the Applications M&O contract.

      Correct. The RFP ID for that row should be 2.49.

      The hosting contractor will provide UAT, training, and production environments for all
      applications listed in the scope of work, including the necessary licenses for those
      environments. The hosting contractor will also provide the development
      environments/regions for the mainframe applications including any associated licenses.

      The hosting contractor will not provide the development regions for non-mainframe
      applications.

      The application maintenance contractor will provide the development and any other
      regions/environments such as system test that it requires to meet the requirements of this
      RFP at its off-site development facility. The licenses that will be required for the
      environments at the application maintenance contractor’s development facility are the
      responsibility of the application maintenance contractor and should be included as part of
      its fixed price proposal for this RFP. The application maintenance contractor will,
      however, be required to conduct UAT and training in the hosted environment to identify
      any anomalies before they are introduced into production.

      For major enhancements or new systems, any new licenses that would be required would
      be priced as part of the SOW submitted under Level II optional services. While DHR
      prefers that new software be licensed to DHR, if the cost of the software is more if
      licensed to DHR, the Contractor shall retain ownership of the licenses. Offerors shall
      propose an approach that is most economical and most advantageous to DHR. Please see
      Amendment 1 for further information.
37.   RFP Section 2.49 – page 37; Any new software will be licensed to DHR.

      Last Sentence – Does the requirement that “Any new software will be licensed to DHR”
      apply to desktop s/w such as MS Office, Visio, etc.?

      The Department assumes that the questioner’s inquiry regarding MS Office and Visio
      applies to the Contractor’s facility and software loaded onto the developers’ PCs or the
      laptops as specified for the Contract staff on-site with DHR provided by the Contractor.
      With that assumption, the answer to the question is no.

38.   RFP Section 2.49 – pages 36 – 37; Paragraph 2 - second sentence says: The Contractor
      shall act as DHR’s agent to purchase and administer software licenses including third-
      party mainframe software products, unless DHR makes the decision to purchase the
      licenses under a separate procurement vehicle.

      In its role as DHR's agent to purchase the Software licenses and products, does DHR pay
      these vendors directly through DHR's purchasing system, or does the contractor use the
      contractor's purchasing system and then get reimbursed by DHR?

      The Contractor uses its own purchasing system and providing the necessary,
      authentications and paperwork, including documenting the purchase as part of the
      Monthly Status Report to accompany the invoice.

      The hosting contractor will not provide the development regions for non-mainframe
      applications.

      The application maintenance contractor will provide the development and any other
      regions/environments, such as system test, it requires to meet the requirements of this
      RFP at its off-site development facility. The licenses that will be required for the
      environments at the application maintenance contractor’s development facility are the
      responsibility of the application maintenance contractor and should be included as part of
      its fixed price proposal for this RFP.


      For major enhancements or new systems, any new licenses that would be required would
      be priced as part of the SOW submitted under Level II optional services. While DHR
      prefers that new software be licensed to DHR, if the cost of the software is more if
      licensed to DHR, the Contractor shall retain ownership of the licenses. Offerors shall
      propose an approach that is most economical and most advantageous to DHR.


39.   RFP Section 3.1.2.2 Level II Support Services – page 43; Paragraph 4 states
      Upon acceptance of the SOW, DHR will issue a NTP to the Contractor. Invoicing and
      payment shall be based on task order completion. The work request process will govern
      the completion of Level II support services tasks.
      Would the State be willing to negotiate milestone payments on large task orders, where
      clear development life cycle milestones exist that assure the State of satisfactory
      progress?

      Yes, the state would consider milestone payments for task order issued under Level II
      optional services, as long as the SOW/task order was fixed price and the
      deliverables/milestones were clearly identified and priced. DHR would make the
      determination based on the SOW at the time of issuance as to whether milestone
      payments would be acceptable.

      With regard to invoicing and payments under Level II Support Services, has the State, in
      the past, authorized milestone payments to the contractor for large development task
      orders?

      Yes

40.   RFP Section 3.2 – page 41; “DHR reserves the right to require a Contractor to implement
      a new technology,”

      Can the Contractor assume that such tasks would all be issued under a Level II scope of
      work, and thus reimbursable under separate Task Orders?

      No.

41.   RFP Section 3.2.1.1 Baseline Operations and Level I Support Services – page 42;
      Baseline operations entails simply maintaining the applications and assuring that all
      systems continue to function, benefits are issued, and daily operations at DHR continue
      to occur without interruption and according to State-defined SLAs (refer to section 3.4.12
      – Service Level Agreements). Baseline operations are further defined in section 3.4.16.

      The State defines Level I support services as any change, edit, or enhancement to any of
      the above applications (and the applications defined in detail in Appendix D) that does
      not exceed 500 hours per task. Level II support services are defined as those changes that
      exceed 500 hours. The DHR Project Manager authorizes all work through the use of its
      work request system and process. Level I support services are further defined in section
      3.4.16.

      The following chart illustrates the historical level of effort annually for Level I services
      for CIS (CARES, CSES, and Services) and Datawatch. Please note that in 2006, MD
      CHESSIE, SAIL and WORKS were implemented, which increased maintenance and
      operation hours. In addition, for planning purposes, maintenance and enhancements to
      DHR’s smaller cottage applications have not been tracked historically. In 2004, cottage
      applications began to be more closely managed by OTHS, and therefore the State
      estimates that the combined Level I efforts for cottage applications did not exceed 15,000
      hours in the last two years. Offerors should consider both hours estimates when
      developing their proposals.
      To be able to accurately size the level of effort and the level of resource skills required
      for the Level I work, will the DHR please provide the following information?
       A current vendor project organization chart for Level I work
       The number of hours worked in the last 12 months of each type of vendor resource
         working on each DHR application. That is,
                o How many hours have been worked in the last 12 months for each type of
                    vendor resource working Level 1 work on the CHESSIE application?
                o How many hours have been worked in the last 12 months for each type of
                    vendor resource working Level 1 work on the CARES applications?
                o How many hours have been worked in the last 12 months for each type of
                    vendor resource working Level 1 work on the CSE application?
                o How many hours have been worked in the last 12 months for each type of
                    vendor resource working Level 1 work on the Cottage Applications?

      Under section 3.2.1.1, hours have been provided for Level I Support Services for the last
      four years for both CIS/MD CHESSIE and Cottage Applications.

      DHR will not provide the current contractor’s staffing information. It is up to the
      Contractor to propose an approach that meets the requirements of THIS RFP. It should
      also be noted the current contract is vastly different in scope.

42.   RFP Section 3.4.1P – page 48; The Contractor shall work with the DHR Project Manager
      and the QA/QC and IV&V/ Enterprise Architecture contractor, using
      standard/commercially available software tools to define hardware requirements,
      including capacity confirmation and volume analysis; during system modification
      activities to confirm that necessary capacity are available to DHR for operation of the
      system. The Contractor shall adhere to the DHR IT Roadmap.

      Will DHR provide the list of software tools used by DHR and the QA/QC and IV/V
      Enterprise Architecture contractor to define hardware requirements, including capacity
      confirmation and volume analysis; during system modification activities to confirm that
      necessary capacity are available to DHR for operation of the system.

      Can DHR provide access to the IT Roadmap?

        An amendment will be issued to strike requirement 3.4.1.P

43.   RFP Section 3.4.1R – page 48; The Contractor will work with the DHR’s EPMO Director
      to ensure that the Configuration Management Plan adheres to the published OTHS
      EPMO Change Management standards and conforms to DHR standards.

      Can DHR please provide access to the OTHS EPMO Change Management standards and
      DHR standards?
      The EPMO is based upon the project management methodologies and principles of the
      Project Management Institute (PMI). While processes and templates have been
      customized for DHR, information can be found on PMI standards and principles at
      www.pmi.org. DHR standards are referenced throughout the RFP.

      Upon NTP, the successful Offeror will be oriented to the EPMO.

44.    RFP Section 3.4.14.1 – page 70; 8. Monitor and resolve operational performance issues
      9. Monitor on-line and batch systems for operational performance issues

      Can DHR distinguish between paragraphs 8 and 9?

      Monitor and resolve operational performance issues encompassing the continuum of
      operation issues. This would include online and batch systems, which is called out
      specifically in 9.

45.   RFP Section 3.4.14.3 – page 72; A. Providing secure, remote access to the Contractor’s
      facility for applicable DHR staff.

      Can DHR define the business need for this requirement?

      DHR staff may require access to work in progress at the Contractor’s facility.

46.   RFP Section 3.4.14.3 – page 72; B. Maintaining and supporting all development and test
      environments including system test environments within the Contractor’s facility for
      developers, testers and business subject matter experts to create maintenance releases and
      work on enhancements for all applications.

      In a previous response to questions from DHR, DHR stated that “…the Contractor shall
      provide the servers and the COTS software licenses associated with the development and
      test environments at the Contractor’s facility”. In the same response, DHR said “…the
      hosting contractor will, at a minimum, provide production, testing, development, and
      training images”. These comments seem to be in conflict.

      Can the State confirm that selected M/O & E vendor will not have to acquire, install, and
      provide hosting services for servers or mainframe resources?

      If hosting services ARE required, can the State clarify what the selected contractor will
      need to provide related to supporting development and test environments (including
      system test environments)

      Can DHR please also provide some clarification regarding where the development and
      testing environments physically reside for each of the technical platforms (mainframe,
      client server ad web) that are utilized by DHR applications? For example CIS Mainframe
      applications, is the maintenance contractor required to have a CIS development and
      system test environment on a mainframe in their facility? This seems to be redundant to
      the requirements on the data center services and hosting contractor.

      The hosting contractor will provide UAT, training, and production environments for all
      applications listed in the scope of work, including the necessary licenses for those
      environments. The hosting contractor will also provide the development
      environments/regions for the mainframe applications including any associated licenses.

      The hosting contractor will not provide the development regions for non-mainframe
      applications.

      The application maintenance contractor will provide the development and any other
      regions/environments, such as system test, it requires to meet the requirements of this
      RFP at its off-site development facility. The licenses that will be required for the
      environments at the application maintenance contractor’s development facility are the
      responsibility of the application maintenance contractor and should be included as part of
      its fixed price proposal for this RFP. Please note, UAT and Training will be conducted in
      the hosting contractor’s environment to ensure no anomalies are introduced into
      production.

      For major enhancements or new systems, any new licenses that would be required would
      be priced as part of the SOW submitted under Level II optional services. Please see
      Amendment 1 for further information. While DHR prefers that new software be licensed
      to DHR, if the cost of the software is more if licensed to DHR, the Contractor shall retain
      ownership of the licenses. Offerors shall propose an approach that is most economical
      and most advantageous to DHR.

      Providing that the Contractor has an offsite development facility, then it stands to reason
      that the technical infrastructure as described in the scope of work exists, to some degree.
      Therefore, the Contractor is responsible for maintaining its offsite facility and providing
      connectivity between that facility and the appropriate DHR entities – DHRIS, SSC, and
      the hosted data center facility (hosting vendor), as needed, to meet the requirements in the
      scope of work.

47.   RFP Section 3.4.18.4 – page 86; A. Providing on-site staff to perform UAT.

      Please clarify this requirement.

      The Contractor will provide staff to perform user acceptance testing as well as support
      the DHR end users that will execute UAT scripts. DHR currently has 7 UAT testers,
      however, some of these positions remain vacant under the hiring freeze. DHR intends to
      supplement its staff with contractor staff to ensure an adequate number of testers to
      perform UAT during the course of the contract. This core group of contractor and state
      testers would work in conjunction with end users from the local departments that may on
      occasion be brought in to perform testing.
48.   RFP Section 3.4.20 – Training – page 90; The Contractor shall have clear approaches to
      providing the blend of on-site and remote staff to address the following:

         1. Can the Contractor assume that the majority of training will be provided under the
            Level II scope of work, and consequently is priced on separate Task Orders?

                     No. See additional information provided below.

         2. Can DHR provide metrics that define the number and type of classes (including
            Train-the-Trainer) in the baseline for Level I, so that we can estimate the
            resources required for total training support?

                     OTHS does not track that information. Currently, state training is
                     provided centrally or by Program staff (non-technical staff).

         3. Can DHR identify the number and location of DHR trainers that would require a
            Train-the-Trainer approach?

                     No. See #2 above.

         4. Can DHR please provide access to the current training material and user
            documentation?

                     No. Access to these materials may be provided to the successful Offeror.

         5. Does the current vendor provide all system training for new staff and for
            enhancements made to the system? If so, can the State provide a training calendar
            for the past year to show the number, duration and specific courses that were
            offered?

                     No, not all.

         6. Does DHR currently use a CBT solution? If so, which one?

                     No.

      The successful Offeror will perform training as described in Section 3.4.20.A – H. These
      requirements present DHR’s needs regarding technical training. It is up to the Offeror to
      propose a training solution that satisfies the requirements.

      DHR typically requires classroom training for major system enhancements (new
      functionality on existing systems) and new systems. The sort of training data sought by
      the questioner is not available, as the training requested in the RFP is specific to new
      functionality/new system roll-out. It is not ongoing, new employee training. Typically
      the volume of classroom trainees is in the several hundreds (500+) for new systems and
      large-scale enhancements. DHR does not utilize CBT alternatives or Web-Ex at present;
      however, DHR is not opposed to those options.

49.   RFP Section 3.4.9.1 D, Appendix J – pages 55, 300 & 308; Within fifteen (15) calendar
      days of Contract start date, the Contractor shall submit a draft project work plan to the
      State outlining an approach to the transition activities. The transition work plan shall be
      written in Microsoft Project 2000 or compatible version. Within thirty (30) calendar days
      of N.T.P., the final transition project work plan shall be submitted to DHR.

      Contract Start Date - Date when contract is authorized to commence performance by
      State following Board of Public Works (BPW) approval.

      NTP -Notice to Proceed

      Are the terms Contract Start Date and N.T.P Date synonymous for planning purposes? If
      so, are they both estimated at January 10, 2009?

      No. The “Contract Start Date” is January 10, 2009 or the date the Contract is approved
      by the Board of Public Works. See RFP Section 2.12.

      The “Notice To Proceed” (NTP) is the date that the DHR Project Manager gives formal
      notice to the Contractor to begin a project or task during the term of the Contract.

50.   RFP Section 3.5.1 Project Deliverable Delivery Schedule; Pricing Tables L1 – Services
      Sheet – page 101; Table of project Deliverables

              3.4.1.O   Deliverable          Sign-Off
                        Procedures and Templates
              3.4.1.R
                        Risk Management Plan
              3.4.1.S   Configuration    Management
                        Plan
              3.4.1.T   QA/QC Plan
              3.4.1.U   Security Plan

      The RFP IDs in the project Schedule and Price Tables appear to be inconsistent with the
      RFP SOW Ids; please clarify.

      Please be more specific. DHR does not detect inconsistencies where the questioner
      indicates.

51.   RFP Section 3.5.4.1 Key Personnel – page 99; Paragraph 2 states…
      Certain senior and managerial personnel are essential for successful Contractor
      performance. The Offeror shall provide resumes and the included Personnel
      Qualifications form for each person and identifying the position for which they are
      proposing that individual.
      We have assumed the Personnel Qualifications Form in Appendix C-3 is to be employed
      only for Key Personnel. Is our assumption correct, or should all resumes provide use the
      Personnel Qualifications Form?

      Yes.

52.   Appendix D DHR Software Inventory – pages 231 – 241; DHR Software Inventory
      The following matrix details the current DHR software inventory as of March 2008.
      Although not all information is complete, this is the most updated information available
      at this time.

      Is the DHR planning to update the so that it provides all of the inventory, expiration dates
      and quantities?

      The question is unclear. If the question relates to DHR owned software and the quantities
      and updated list can be provided under separate cover.

53.   RFP Section Appendix D Mainframe Third Party Software – pages 225 – 230;
      Mainframe Frame Third Party list.

      Can DHR please provide expiration dates and quantities of these software products?

      The matrix details the current DHR software inventory as of March 2008. Although not
      all information is complete, this is the most updated information available at this time.
      DHR can provide, under separate cover, a list of DHR owned software and renewal dates.

54.   RFP Section 3.4.13 – page 242; A. Accompanying staff to the site locations of the
      various DHR local offices, statewide, to assist in resolving application issues

      Can DHR please identify the average monthly number of visits that are required to DHR
      local offices?

      Can DHR please identify the percentage of those monthly visits that are made outside
      Baltimore County?

      This is need-based and dependent upon the business and system requirement DHR/OTHS
      currently supports.

      The average number of visits made by contractor staff in the last calendar year were 35.

      More than 50% of those visits were made beyond Baltimore County.

55.   RFP Section - Key Information summary Sheet and other Various Appendix J Glossary
      and Terms – page 3; Anticipated Contract Award Date, Contract Start up, Contract Start
      Date, and Notice to Proceed.
      Please clarify whether these terms are interchangeable.
      If not, please provide definitions and expected dates for each.

      The “Anticipated Start Date”, “Contract Start Up,” and “Contract Start Date” are
      interchangeable. This date is January 10, 2009 or the date the Contract is approved by
      the Board of Public Works. See RFP Section 2.12.

      Notice to Proceed is not interchangeable. The “Notice To Proceed” (NTP) is the date that
      the DHR Project Manager gives formal notice to the Contractor to begin a project or task
      during the term of the Contract.

56.   RFP Section III – 3.5.3 Incurred Expenses – page 102; DHR will not reimburse any
      expenses for the Contractor or its designees.

      Does this sentence only refer to proposal preparation expenses, or to other expenses? If
      other expenses, could DHR please clarify which specific expenses are being referred to
      here.

      This is a fully loaded, fixed price contract. This means that all contractor expenses (tolls,
      parking, hotels, etc.) related to the contract, will not be reimbursed separately.

57.   Does the current contract have similar SLA's to the ones stated in this RFP? If so how
      many times have liquidated damages been assessed for missing the SLA's, and in what
      specific areas?

      Yes for some systems. The scope of this RFP is broader so there is not a one-to-one
      correlation. DHR has not assessed liquidated damages under this contract.

58.   RFP Section Transition In RFP 3.4.9.2.F – page 58; F. Other tasks required to
      successfully complete the Transition In effort.

      DHR’s approval and acceptance of the Transition In effort shall be given after conference
      between DHR and the management-consulting contractor. Reviews of the

      Contractor’s performance on item shall be conducted to determine an acceptable level
      of accomplishment.

      Can the Contractor expect to develop acceptance criteria regarding Transition In
      deliverables during Contract negotiations prior to NTP to mutual agreement with DHR?

      No. The Acceptance Criteria outlined in the RFP constitutes DHR’s acceptance criteria of
      the Transition In.
59.   RFP Section 3.4.22.3 - Business Continuity Plan - Last paragraph – page 94; In addition,
      the Contractor's Disaster Recovery Plan shall meet or exceed all audit specifications
      listed in the disaster recovery documents available on DBM's website.

      Is it accurate to assume that the DR Plan is the responsibility of the Data Center Hosting
      Vendor and the Business Continuity Plan is an application Maintenance/Operations and
      Enhancement Services Vendor deliverable?

      As outlined in Section 3.4.22, it is the Contractor’s responsibility to work with DHR and
      the Hosting vendor to meet the requirements stated.

      In Section 3.4.22.3, the Contractor shall support DHR by creating and updating a
      Business Continuity Plan during the contract period. While the hosting and data center
      services vendor is primarily responsible for disaster recover and continuity of operations,
      the Application Maintenance Contractor possesses key knowledge of application
      performance criticality, technical nuances as well as existing back-up/restore procedures
      in place at present to ensure limited data loss in the event of an unforeseen occurrence.

      The last paragraph of 3.4.22.3 refers the Contractor to DBM’s site to assure conformance
      to audit standards.

60.   RFP Section IV.4.3.D – page – 105; “In order to demonstrate that the Offeror has
      successfully provided services on contracts that were similar in nature, size and
      scope to this contract, the Offeror shall complete the form included in Appendix C

      ‘The Offeror shall provide a minimum of two (2) references, only one (1) reference shall
      be a Maryland Department of Human Resources project or government entity
      engagement of similar size and scope occurring within the last three (3) years.”

      This requirement says,”…only one (1) shall be a Maryland Department of Human
      Resources project or government entity.”
      Is one and only one Maryland DHR reference required?

      At present, all of our proposed references are non-Maryland government entities. Does
      this meet the requirement as stated?

      Only one of the references may be from the Department of Human Resources. The other
      reference must be from another project of similar nature, size, and scope. This can be
      from another Maryland agency or other project external to Maryland. None of the
      references are required to be from the state of Maryland. Non-Maryland references
      would satisfy this requirement assuming they met the criteria of similar nature, size and
      scope.

61.   RFP Section Appendix L – Pricing Proposal Format; May we request that the State
      clarify the purpose of the "Average Hourly Rate" in cell E45 in the "L2 - Rate Sheet" and
      cell C10 in the "L3 - Summary" in Appendix L – Pricing Proposal Format?
      Instruction # 10 in Appendix L – Pricing Proposal Format requires that the Offeror
      provides a Rate Sheet (Attachment L2 - Rate Sheet) that lists the rate for each labor
      category proposed by the Offeror for each base year and option year of the contract.
      However, "L2 - Rate Sheet" only requires 1st contract year hourly rates to be provided.
      Does the State desire separate hourly rates of each year of the base and option years?

      The Average Hourly Rate is a blended rate for evaluation purposes.

      On the L-2 rate sheet only one rate is required. This rate represents the maximum, fully
      burdened rate that can be charged for each labor category for the base contract and all
      option periods. The contractor may charge a lower rate for labor categories when pricing
      SOWs for Level II services, but they may not charge more.

62.   The L1 Price Proposal Worksheet includes a row for Software Licenses. The RFP ID for
      that row is 2.5.1.

             A) Please confirm that the RFP ID should actually be 2.4.9.

             B) What costs does the State expect to be included under Software Licenses? Our
             understanding is that the software listed in Appendix D (“Mainframe Third Party
             Software” and “DHR Software Inventory”) is provided by DHR's hosting
             provider. Is our understanding correct? If not, please specify which licenses are
             expected to be provided by DHR's hosting provider, and which licenses are to be
             provided through the Applications M&O contract.

      Correct. The RFP ID for that row should be 2.49.

      The hosting contractor will provide UAT, training, and production environments for all
      applications listed in the scope of work, including the necessary licenses for those
      environments. The hosting contractor will also provide the development
      environments/regions for the mainframe applications including any associated licenses.

      The hosting contractor will not provide the development regions for non-mainframe
      applications.

      The application maintenance contractor will provide the development and any other
      regions/environments it requires to meet the requirements of this RFP at its off-site
      development facility. The licenses that will be required for the environments at the
      application maintenance contractor’s development facility are the responsibility of the
      application maintenance contractor and should be included as part of its fixed price
      proposal for this RFP.

      For major enhancements or new systems, any new licenses that would be required would
      be priced as part of the SOW submitted under Level II optional services. While DHR
      prefers that new software be licensed to DHR, if the cost of the software is more if
   licensed to DHR, the Contractor shall retain ownership of the licenses. Offerors shall
   propose an approach that is most economical and most advantageous to DHR. Please see
   Amendment 1 for further information.

63. RFP Section 2.12; Appendix B-5 Contract Sample Item 3 Time for Performance – Will
    DHR consider adding language that will allow for DHR and the vendor to mutually agree
    to renew the Contract for up to two additional two-year periods?

   No. Options will be exercised at the sole discretion of the State, with the approval of the
   Board of Public Works.

64. RFP 2.24, last paragraph - We acknowledge that DHR should have the right to withhold
    payment for services or deliverables that are not in compliance with the Contract. The
    language in this provision, however, goes much further and provides an unreasonable
    right to withhold payment for work that is in compliance or even unilaterally reduce the
    fees without any limitations. Will DHR consider a modification to the sentence such as
    the following:

   Department reserves the right to withhold any payments for any Deliverable(s) for which
   Contractor does not provide the Department with such Deliverable(s) within the time
   frame specified in the Contract or in the event the Contractor otherwise materially
   breaches the terms and conditions of the Contract. Such amount shall continue to be
   withheld until Contractor performs as required by the Contract, or, if the matter is a
   Dispute, the Dispute is resolved. During the such time the Department shall continue to
   make payment for services and Deliverable that are not in dispute. Nothing in this
   paragraph shall act as a limitation of the rights of the Department to receive any damages,
   including Liquidated Damages, associated with a material breach by Contractor.

   DHR does not desire to amend Section 2.24. However, DHR does admit that during the
   time Contractor payments are being reduced or withheld for any of the reasons set forth
   in Section 2.24, DHR will continue to make payments for services that are otherwise
   payable.

65. RFP Section 2.29; Appendix B-5 Contract Sample; Item 29, Limitations of Liability

   While we are willing to accept responsibility for damages that arise directly from our
   actions, up to the limitation of liability, consequential damages are unforeseeable and
   outside of our control. It is customary for government and commercial IT contracts to
   include a mutual disclaimer of consequential damages.

   Will DHR consider adding language to address consequential damages to protect the
   State and the Contractor? For example:

   In no event shall either party be liable for any consequential, incidental, indirect, special
   or punitive damage, loss or expenses (including but not limited to business interruption,
   lost business, lost profits, or lost savings) even if it has been advised of their possible
   existence.

   An amendment will be issued indicating that the Contractor and the State mutually agree
   to disclaim the right to consequential and incidental damages.

66. RFP Section 3.6; Appendix B-5 Contract Sample, Item 2.2 Change Orders -
    The RFP includes a change order process. Will DHR consider further defining this
    change order process with procedures for the parties to agree on scope, pricing, schedule
    and other factors for additional work?

   No. This mandatory State contract provision gives the State the unilateral right to request
   changes within the general scope of the contract. The change may result in a decrease or
   increase in the pricing. Therefore, the Contractor is permitted to make a claim for an
   increase in price, which will be considered by the State.

67. Appendix B-5 Contract Sample; Item 5 Rights to Records We acknowledge and agree
    that the State should be the owner of the intellectual property that is being developed for
    it with taxpayer money. We do not require any ownership rights in such work product,
    but rather request that the State provide a license back in such work product to allow us
    to continue to bring the same level of value to future clients that we intend to bring to
    Maryland.

   Will DHR consider replacing the language in item 5.2 with language similar to the
   following? For example:

   Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Contract, Contractor shall have the right
   to retain a copy of all its workpapers and administrative records but shall not be entitled
   to use any State Confidential Information contained in such documents except for the
   benefit of the State of Maryland or the Contractor’s internal record keeping requirements.

   Yes. The RFP will be amended to include language that will permit the Contractor to
   retain its Workpapers for the purposes indicated above. However, written permission
   from the State will be required if the Contractor intends to use the Workpapers for any
   other purpose.

68. Appendix B-5 Contract Sample; Item 2 Scope of Work
    The order of precedence puts the RFP ahead of the proposal. Will DHR consider revising
    the order of precedence so that the proposal precedes the RFP, since it is the later
    prepared document?

   No. The order of precedence of the documents will not be changed.

69. Appendix B-5 Contract Sample; Item 8.1 Press Releases We acknowledge and agree
    that the State should have the right to approve Contractor statements about the Project. In
    giving such rights to the State Contractors should have confidence that the State must act
   reasonably in the exercise of its discretion. Will DHR consider adding language that
   “Such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld” after the first sentence?

   Yes. Section 8.1 of the Contract will be amended to include the referenced or similar
   language.

70. Appendix B-5 Contract Sample; Item 11 Disputes The language in this Section is the
    “short form” of the alternative language provided under COMAR 21.07.01.06. Will
    DHR consider using the “long form” alternative, which provides greater specificity and
    understanding of the process for dispute resolution?

   No. The “short form” provides the relevant stautory and regulatory references and
   indicates the relevant time frames associated with the filing of Disputes.

71. Appendix B-5 Contract Sample; Item 18 Delays and Extension of Time The current
    Contract language would require the Contractor to bear the risk and cost of delays that
    were caused by events outside of its reasonable control, including delays caused by the
    non-performance of the State. Will DHR consider clarifying these provisions to indicate
    that Contractor is not entitled to any changes to price or schedule for delays caused by
    Contractor or its subcontractors or suppliers?

   No. The State will not pay any costs that the Contractor may incur in the event there is a
   delay in the performance of the services under the Contract. However, the State will not
   impose liquidated damages or withhold payment in the event a delay is excused or caused
   by factors outside of the control of the Contractor, as indicated in Section 18 of the
   Standard Contract and the RFP. In the event there is an excusable delay, the Contractor
   will be granted an extension of time to perform the services under the Contract.

72. Appendix B-5 Contract Sample; Item 19 Suspension             Will DHR clarify that in the
    event that it suspends performance for its convenience the Contractor shall be entitled to
    an equitable adjustment to its fees to account for the unavoidable costs associated with
    deployed resources?

   No. The State will not pay any costs that the contractor may incur as a result of the State
   suspending work under Section 19 of the Contract. The Contractor will be compensated
   for its reasonable costs incurred up to the time of the suspension.

73. Attachment L.1 – Price Proposal Sheet; Software Licenses -        Attachment L1 Price
    Proposal Sheet references RFP ID 2.51 in respect to Software Licenses. It appears from
    the RFP however that the correct RFP ID is 2.49. Please confirm the correct RFP ID
    reference.

   Correct. The RFP ID should be 2.49. An amendment will be forthcoming.

74. RFP Section 2.49       Does the price for Software Licenses include the actual cost of the
    software or only the labor cost for the individual to maintain and manage the software
   license usage? What licenses are in the scope of the Hosting Contractor as opposed to the
   scope of this RFP? What new software licenses are being contemplated? Will DHR
   provide use of existing software development and maintenance tools and DHR
   Application Software licenses such as PowerBuilder? If so, how many licenses?

   The hosting contractor will provide UAT, training, and production environments for all
   applications listed in the scope of work, including the necessary licenses for those
   environments. The hosting contractor will also provide the development
   environments/regions for the mainframe applications including any associated licenses.

   The hosting contractor will not provide the development regions for non-mainframe
   applications.

   The application maintenance contractor will provide the development and any other
   regions/environments it requires to meet the requirements of this RFP at its off-site
   development facility. The licenses that will be required for the environments at the
   application maintenance contractor’s development facility are the responsibility of the
   application maintenance contractor and should be included as part of its fixed price
   proposal for this RFP.

   For major enhancements or new systems, any new licenses that would be required would
   be priced as part of the SOW submitted under Level II optional services. While DHR
   prefers that new software be licensed to DHR, if the cost of the software is more if
   licensed to DHR, the Contractor shall retain ownership of the licenses. Offerors shall
   propose an approach that is most economical and most advantageous to DHR.
   Please see Amendment 1 for further information.

75. RFP Section 3.2.1.1 The hours by year table for Level 1 services combine Mainframe
    and CHESSIE hours. Can you provide a more detailed breakout between applications
    (CIS, CHESSIE, CARES, other)? In addition, the data provided shows 103,200 hours in
    Level 1 support services for FY 07. Please provide a further break down of hours by high
    level Task Description. Also, please provide a breakout of Help Desk tickets by severity
    level and application.

   The information provided in the RFP is the most accurate information available and
   further breakdown is limited. For calendar year 07 Level I services for CHESSIE were
   approximately 36,000 hours. Please note this was the first year CHESSIE was in
   maintenance and operation mode.

   All available help desk information has been provided in Appendix I.

76. Attachment L.1; RFP Section 5           COMAR regulation 21.04.01.02A provides general
    direction to the procuring agency to avoid any specification or requirement (such as
    requiring that the costs of transition be included as part of the technical or financial
    evaluation criteria in an offeror’s proposal) if that specification or requirement would
    favor a single vendor over other vendors. Additionally, COMAR 21.05.03.03F states that
   upon completion of all discussions and negotiations, the procurement officer shall make a
   determination recommending award of the contract to the proposal that is determined to
   be the most advantageous to the State, considering the price and the evaluation factors set
   forth in the request for proposals. In order to permit the maximum practicable
   competition for this effort would DHR consider revising the evaluation factors to consist
   of technical and price factors, with the price factor only being evaluated on the offeror’s
   price proposal exclusive of transition costs? This would still require DHR to request a
   separate statement of the offeror’s transition cost pricing, which all offerors would use if
   selected, but this cost would not be ‘scored’ against other offers.

   The requirements of the RFP apply to all prospective Offerors. Transition costs will be
   evaluated as part of the overall best value to the State. Not evaluating Transition costs
   could allow for inflated transition costs or not provide the State with a true and accurate
   contract price. In making the most advantageous Offeror determination, technical factors
   will be given greater weight than price factors.

77. RFP Section 2.15     May a Corporate/Parental Guarantee be provided in lieu of the
    Fidelity and Performance bonds? The Parental Guarantee provides a similar level of
    commitment to performance but reduces cost. Would DHR consider this option?

   No. In accordance with COMAR 21.06.07.01 B, “Acceptable security for bid,
   performance and payment bonds is limited to: (1) A bond in a form satisfactory to the
   State underwritten by a surety company authorized to do business in this State; (2) A
   bond provided by an individual surety that meets the requirements of this chapter; (3) A
   bank certified check, bank cashier’s check, bank treasurer’s check, cash, or trust account;
   (4) Pledge of securities backed by the full faith and credit of the United States
   government or bonds issued by the State; (5) An irrevocable letter of credit in a form
   satisfactory to the Attorney General and issued by a financial institution approved by the
   State Treasurer.” In accordance with COMAR 21.06.07.03, a corporation, partnership, or
   other unincorporated association or firm may not act as an individual surety.

78. RFP Sections 3.4.11.1.I and 3.2        Maintenance and upgrade of Remedy Help Desk
    software is not listed in Section as 3.1 as being in scope of the RFP however section
    3.4.11.1.I has the following statement “ Providing application support for the Remedy
    Software to fix issues and install upgrades to new versions”. Please confirm whether the
    maintenance of Remedy is in the scope of the Application Maintenance vendor.

   Yes, the Application Maintenance Contractor shall support the DHR Help Desk including
   facilitating the maintenance and upgrade of Remedy, as outlined in Section 3.4.11. DHR
   will bear the cost of the Remedy licenses.

79. RFP Section 3.4.11.3 The Service Level Expectations in this section apply to Hardware
    issues (e.g. “System Hardware Trouble Resolution”) which would seem to fall under the
    responsibility of the Hosting Vendor or desktop services. Please elaborate on the
    statement: “It is DHR’s expectation that the Contractor shall observe the same level of
   responsiveness as DHR employees when assigned Level II Help Desk requests for
   research and report”.

   The statement the questioner quotes (“It is DHR’s expectation that the Contractor shall
   observe the same level of responsiveness as DHR employees when assigned Level II
   Help Desk requests for research and report.”) means that the Contractor shall respond to
   Level II Help Desk requests that they have been assigned with a sense of urgency and be
   held to the same set of SLA requirements and workflows, policies, and procedures to
   which DHR employees adhere.

80. RFP Section 3.4.12.1 Many of the Service Level Metrics listed in the table in pages 66-
    68 appear to be impacted by the Hosting Vendor’s scope and potentially outside the
    scope of the Application Maintenance Vendor (e.g. Network Availability,
    Move/Add/Change (Hardware/Communication), LAN Availability, Backups, others).
    Please clarify which and/or the scope of the Service Levels that DHR OTHS believes is
    the responsibility of the Application Maintenance Vendor.

   The Department has provided the comprehensive list of SLAs as there may be instances
   when incident resolution involves various groups (hosting vendor, application
   maintenance vendor, OTHS network staff) working together to determine root cause(s)
   and solutions. The Contractor will bear the burden of providing evidence, of explaining
   and describing what the delay is attributable to, and determining what the responsibility
   was of another entity outside and independent of the custody, control, supervision and/or
   direction of the Contractor, its officers, agents or employees. Failure to provide such
   proof will result in the Contractor being responsible and liable for all liquidated damages
   described in the RFP.

81. RFP Section 3.5.4.5 Paragraph 3.5.4.5 G. (page 101) requires a minimum of three (3)
    and a maximum of five (5) projects for state government entities of a similar nature. The
    last paragraph of IV.D (page 105) asks for a minimum of two (2) references, only one (1)
    reference shall be a Maryland Department of Human Resources project or government
    entity engagement of similar size and scope.

       1. Can we assume that the only one (1) Maryland government entity engagement can
          be used as a reference and references from other government entities can be
          provided as long as they are not entities of the Maryland State Government?

       2. Can we assume that we can provide more than five (5) references in response to
          IV.D while limiting to five (5) references in response to 3.3.4.5 G?

   Only one of the references may be from the Department of Human Resources. The other
   reference must be from another project of similar nature, size, and scope. This can be
   from another Maryland agency or other project external to Maryland. None of the
   references are required to be from the state of Maryland. Non-Maryland references
   would satisfy this requirement assuming they met the criteria of similar nature, size and
   scope.
82. RFP Section 3.4.1.V Can you provide an example of what type and the amount of data
    that the Contractor is expected to put into Clarity for project management and portfolio
    management?

   DHR uses Clarity to facilitate project reporting. Risks, issues, action items, deliverable
   tracking, and other basic project functions are recorded and tracked in Clarity. In
   addition, project work plans are managed via Clarity including at a higher level for
   planning purposes, hours expended.


83. RFP Section 3.4.9.2 Please provide the current Transition Out requirements and plan
    for the incumbent and clarify the expectations that you have with the Transition Out
    contractor for another vendor’s Transition In. Is the incumbent’s Transition Out plan
    consistent with the State’s Transition-In requirements defined in this RFP?

   The incumbent vendor shall provide a comparable level of Transition support as depicted
   in the Transition Out section of the RFP.

84. RFP Section 2.10.1    What constitutes an inspection and what is involved?

   DHR reserves the right to visually inspect the Contractor’s development facility to
   validate that at a minimum, the methodologies, plans, and practices set forth in the
   Contractor’s proposal are in effect. Further, DHR reserves the right to (including but not
   limited to) randomly interview development staff to validate worker productivity,
   process, and conducting security audits.

85. RFP Section 3.4.13 Please provide an estimate of the number of site support visits that
    are expected per year.

   The average number of visits made by contractor staff in the last calendar year were 35.

   More than 50% of those visits were made beyond Baltimore City and County.

86. RFP Section 3.4.14 Are onsite personnel required for Production support such as batch
    processing as appears to be indicated in 3.4.14 or could personnel do remotely?

   It is up to the Contractor to propose the appropriate mix of staff to meet the requirements
   of the RFP, location would be determined by the Contractor.

87. RFP Section 3.4.12 Are all service levels requested in the RFP being met today?
    Please provide a copy of the past 6 months service level measurements including planned
    and actual performance.
   Service levels in the current contract while similar are not the same as in the RFP. The
   scope of this RFP varies from the current contract. Service levels under the current
   contract are being met.

   No, DHR will not provide internal working documents on an active contract.

88. RFP Section 3.4.20 Please further describe user training or provide a historical break-
    out of training that is provided on an annual basis. An example of information we are
    looking for includes: How many users were trained, what type of training, how was the
    training administered? Are training hours considered Level 1 or Level 2 hours?

   The successful Offeror shall perform training as described in Section 3.4.20.A – H.
   These requirements present DHR’s needs regarding technical training. It is up to the
   Offeror to propose a training solution that satisfies the requirements.

   DHR typically requires classroom training for major system enhancements (new
   functionality on existing systems) and new systems. The sort of training data sought by
   the questioner is not available, as the training requested in the RFP is specific to new
   functionality/new system roll-out. It is not ongoing, new employee training. Typically
   the volume of classroom trainees is in the several hundreds (500+) for new systems and
   large-scale enhancements. DHR does not utilize CBT alternatives or Web-Ex at present,
   however, DHR is not opposed to those options.

   Both. Training is considered level I for those items that require training under level I.
   Training for level II enhancements/modifications or new system development should be
   included in the hours and cost associated with the SOW.

89. RFP Sections 5.4 and 5.5       Can you further describe the weighting criteria for proposal
    evaluation?

   Technical Proposals will be given more weight than financial proposals and be ranked
   from highest to lowest with the highest ranking proposal receving a # 1 ranking and the
   second highest being that of #2 and so forth. For this specific procurement, the
   evaluation criteria listed below are in descending order of importance with A being the
   most importance and then B and so forth:

                 A.      Technical Response to Section III
                 B.      Offeror Qualifications
                 C.      Key Personnel
                 D.      References (RFP being amended to include)
                 E.      Financial Responsibility Stability (RFP being amended to include
                         the term “Stability”)

90. Section II – General Information     Will DHR please clarify the citizenship
    requirements for offeror personnel on this effort? It is our understanding that all
   personnel assigned to the project be a US citizen or document of lawful permanent
   residency, as was required in a recent Maryland RFP (Office of Comptroller RFP 0804).

   No. That narrow requirement was an IRS requirement for anyone who touches federal
   tax information, which was subject of that RFP. This RFP does not have the same
   requirement.

91. We are not yet registered to do business in Maryland. Our office is located in Delaware.
    Do we still qualify to bid? Can we furnish evidence of registration with the State of
    Maryland after Contract Award or when called upon during the Evaluation Process?

   Maryland law require that all corporations doing business in Maryland must be registered
   with the State of Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxation Comptroller’s
   Office as well as with the Department of Labor Licensing and Regulation and must have
   a resident agent prior to award of a contract. It is strongly recommended that you begin
   the registration process prior to the proposal due date. Based on the registration process,
   it could take up to 60 days to complete registration.

92. Under Section C. SOLICITATION AND CONTRACT FORMATION
    An Offeror must include with its offer:

   A.    A completed Certified MBE Utilization and Fair Solicitation Affidavit (Appendix
         B 7.2) whereby the Offeror acknowledges the certified MBE participation goal or
         requests a waiver of some or all of the goal, commits to make a good faith effort to
         achieve the goal, and affirms that MBE subcontractors were treated fairly in the
         Solicitation process.

   B.    A completed MBE Participation Schedule (Appendix B 7.4) whereby the Offeror
         responds to the expected degree of Minority Business Enterprise participation as
         stated in the RFP Section 2.35, or in Appendix B 7.4, by identifying the specific
         commitment of certified MBEs at the time of submission. The Offeror shall
         specify the price and/or the percentage of contract value associated with each MBE
         subcontractor identified on the MBE Participation Schedule.

   We are a WMBE company, how do we go about answering questions relating to Section
   C?

   The Prime Contractor must complete the Certified MBE Utilization and Fair Solicitation
   Affidavit, thereby acknowledging that they will meet the MBE goal established for the
   procurement or their intent to request a total or partial waiver of the MBE goal.

   A company must be certified by the Maryland Department of Transportation to be a
   Maryland State Certified MBE. If a vendor is not certified, it cannot be counted toward
   meeting MBE goals. Similarly, a subcontractor or vendor which apparently meets the
   definition of an MBE but who is not certified by MDOT at the time of compliance
   submittal, can not be counted as meeting an MBE goal.
   A prime contractor – including a Certified MBE prime contractor – must meet the same
   requirements of the MBE subcontract goal with certified MBE subcontractors as
   established in the RFP.

93. Section 2.15 - We just talked to a Surety Bond Company and based on their response,
    they will not guarantee a $1 million dollars. Their usual practice is 10% of the Proposal
    Amount and not to exceed 14 days. As a WMBE company, I do not believe this is a
    realistic requirement. Please let us know if this section can be waived if WMBE
    companies are encouraged to bid and respond.

   The State is not willing to waive this requirement and has determined that the amount of
   the bond is customary and standard considering the size and scope of the requested
   services.

   COMAR 21.07.06.01 specifies the different types of security that is acceptable to the
   State. They include: (1) A bond in a form satisfactory to the State underwritten by a
   surety company authorized to do business in this State; (2) A bond provided by an
   individual surety that meets the requirements of this chapter; (3) A bank certified check,
   bank cashier’s check, bank treasurer’s check, cash, or trust account; (4) Pledge of
   securities backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government or bonds
   issued by the State; (5) An irrevocable letter of credit in a form satisfactory to the
   Attorney General and issued by a financial institution approved by the State Treasurer.”

   Small businesses and certified MBEs are encouraged to contact the Office of Minority
   Business Enterprise, www.mdot.state.md.us, for additional information and assistance
   with obtaining the required security.

94. In regards to RFP # OTHS/OTHS-08-005-S, Application Maintenance /Operations
    and Enhancement Services, I just wanted to verify, is this based on the current contract
    with ACS (# OTHS/OTHS-06-001-S)? A solicitation was (RFP # OTHS/OTHS-06-001-
    S) was issued in August 2005 and a contract was awarded to ACS in 2006. So is RFP #
    OTHS/OTHS-08-005-S to renew the services of the current contract with ACS? When
    does the ACS contract expire? I believe you mentioned 2009, is this correct? ? Will
    there be another RFP issued to renew those services or is the RFP that was issued on
    06/13/08 (RFP # OTHS/OTHS-08-005-S) to renew these services? I hope this clarifies
    my question.

   The current contract with ACS includes both hosting and application maintenance
   services. This contract expires on June 30, 2009. The Department has made the decision
   to split this contract into two separate RFPs. The hosting RFP was issued and closed on
   June 16, 2008. The application maintenance RFP is the current RFP. While the scope of
   services differs, the contract awarded as a result of this RFP and the contract awarded
   from the hosting RFP will effectively replace the existing ACS contract.
95. Appendix D – Pages 204 – 206; References to “Sunset” and “Twilight” throughout the
    application description text.

   Appendix D makes reference to the terms “Sunset” and “Twilight”.
      1. Please clarify the terms “Sunset” and “Twilight”.
      2. Please indicate the anticipated time frame that these applications will be retired.

   These are internal designations used to identify technology that is nearing “end of life” or
   vendor support.

   There is no timeframe identifed for the retirement of these applications.

96. Appendix D – Page 205; Reference to application HRDT

   Please identify the acronym HDRT and its OS, SW/Environment and associated database
   information.

   There is no acronym on page 205 listed as HDRT. Assuming the acronym in question is
   HRDT it stands for Human Resource Development and Training.

   HRDT is not listed under Section 3.2 Scope of the Project, therefore your question is not
   germane.


97. Appendix D – Page 202; OVS (Office of Victim’s Services)

   Please identify the application and data base environment that supports OVS.

   In 2007 and early 2008, OTHS, working with the Community Services Administration
   (CSA), analyzed options for a web-based system that allows the Grantees to submit all
   necessary reporting requirements concerning services delivered and the individuals
   served. The data submitted will be utilized by OVS to submit programmatic progress
   reports to state and federal partners, and the system will have the ability to generate
   monthly and quarterly formatted reports, as well as the ability generate ad-hoc reports.

   However, the initiative was put on-hold when the CSA was abolished and the various
   functions including OVS was consolidated into various DHR agencies during the DHR
   re-structuring effort.

   Currently OVS is a series of forms posted on the Intranet, with a backend database that
   produces limited statistical reports.
98. 3.2.P.1 – Page 41; State Verification Exchange System

   Please identify the application and data base environment that supports the State
   Verification Exchange System.

   The State Verification Exchange System includes the SVES as well as the online
   companion of the system the State On Line Query (SOLQ) which is a real-time version
   of the SVES.

   SVES is a COBOL/CICS mainframe system used to verify the welfare and child support
   applicants’ Social Security Number (SSN), as well as, receiving other added information
   that the Federal Social Security Administration (SSA) have on their database. Daily
   verification requests submitted, on-line, by the welfare and child support workers are sent
   to the Federal SSA in a file via nightly batch process. Workers can check the verification
   results from the Federal SSA next day, on-line. Aside from the verification of the SSN
   submitted, the Federal SSA provides, for valid SSN; SSA (Title II), SSI (Title XVI),
   Prison, Deceased, and Immigrant with 40 Quarters of employment information if any.

   SVES
   Operating System:   IBM ZOS
   Application Server: IBM Mainframe 9672 – R56
   Database Management:        VSAM
   Other Software:     Sterling Connect:Direct, and Netview FTP

   The State On Line Query (SOLQ) system is a real-time version of the SVES (State
   Verification Exchange System). This COBOL/CICS mainframe system allows the
   welfare workers real-time verification of the applicants’ Social Security Number (SSN)
   via real-time interface with the Federal Social Security Administration (SSA) database.
   The content difference between the SOLG and SVES is that the information provided via
   SOLG is limited to the verification of SSN and any SSA (Title II) and SSI (Title XVI)
   information available for valid SSNs. At the moment, system access is limited to
   primarily FIA workers only.

   SVES
   Operating System:     IBM ZOS
   Application Server:   IBM Mainframe 9672 – R56

99. 3.2.P, Appendix D – Page 41 and Appendix D

   Does DHR anticipate Level 1 support to be focused only on those applications and
   systems that are identified in 3.2.P and further explained in appendix D?

   Please refer to Section 3.2 Scope of the Project A- P. All applications listed under
   Scope of the Project will be supported under baseline operations and Level 1 services.
   Should all other applications referenced in the RFP be considered as out of scope for
   Level 1 support?

   Please refer to Section 3.2 Scope of the Project A- P. All applications listed under Scope
   of the Project will be supported under baseline operations and Level 1 services.

100.Please define of "Key Personnel" whose resumes need to be submitted with the
    proposal? Is this every team member or only certain senior and managerial personnel?
    (The references on page 99 section 3.5.4.1 and page 105 section 4.3 C are not clearly
    understood).

   Please refer to Section 3.5.4.1 which states “Certain senior and managerial personnel are
   essential for successful Contractor performance. The Contractor shall provide resumes
   and the included Personnel Qualifications form for each person identifying the position
   for which they are proposing that individual.” It is up to the contractor to identify those
   individuals it believes are key personnel, however, at a minimum senior positions (for
   example team leads, Senior DBA, architect, lead developer etc.) and managerial positions
   (for example Program and Project Managers) must be identified as key.

101.Is this same definition of "Key Personnel" to be used for Liquidated Damages (page 26,
    section 2.28.5)?

   Yes. Those individuals the contractor identifies as key personnel in its proposal will be
   subject to the provisions of section 2.28.5.

102.Please define "Resident Agent" (page 16, section 2.16). My company is registered with
    SDAT and DLLR. Does this fulfill this requirement or is something else needed?

    A Resident Agent is a person that a sheriff can walk up to and hand a summons to in
    order to get jurisdiction over the entity for court. It may or may not be one of the owners
    or officers. In some cases this can be a Maryland corporation. In all cases the address
    must be a physical address (no P.O. boxes).

    In order to be awarded a contract, the successful offeror must be in Good Standing with
    its Maryland obligations. An entity is deemed to be in good standing if all reports,
    filings and penalties due to the Department of Assessments and Taxation (SDAT) are up
    to date and paid and the entity has a valid, active resident agent. More information can
    be located on the SDAT website http://www.dat.state.md.us/.

								
To top