RFP Concept Paper - DOC 10

Document Sample
RFP Concept Paper - DOC 10 Powered By Docstoc
					                                 October 12, 2006 Meeting
                                      3:00 to 5:00 p.m.
                        Hoover Building, 4th Floor Conference Rooms

TGB Attendees:
  Mollie Anderson, Mark Schuling, Nancy Richardson, LeLoie Dutemple, Mike Tramontina,
  Tom Gronstal

TGB absent:
  Jan Clausen, Karen Misjak, Sandy Cowie, Randy Ramundt

A quorum of TGB members was present at the October 12 TGB meeting.

Others attending:
   Mark Uhrin, Greg Fay, John Gillispie, Steve Gast (DOT), Mike Wilkinson (IWD), Arlene
   Franks (IWD), Carl Martin (IWD), Brian Glass (TEK Systems), Corky Allen (Gartner), lots
   of vendors, Rachelle Little (Iowa Interactive)

1. Introductions
   Brief introductions were done, as more attendees were present.

2. Opening comments by the Chair
   Mollie stressed that it was a very full agenda at the meeting.

3. IT Project Concepts for TGB approval:
       A. IT Concept Paper from DOT – Software Applications System for International Fuel
          Tax Agreement (IFTA) and International Registration Plan (IRP)
          Presenter: Steve Gast from DOT
           The goal of the RFP is to obtain an integrated IFTA/IRP processing system that utilizes
           common business processes with Iowa’s Vehicle Registration and Titling system so that
           we can continue to improve customer service and ensure compliance with IFTA and IRP
           processing requirements. IFTA portion will be completed first in the project, and then
           IRP portion.

           Does the project need to be implemented by mid 2008? Yes.

           Outcome: Motion to approve issuing DOT’s IFTA and IRP RFP was made by Mark
           Schuling, Tom Gronstal seconded the motion, motion passed with one abstention (Nancy
           Richardson from DOT).
B. IT Concept Paper from DOT – County Treasurer Priority Team Enhancement
   Request for the Vehicle Registration and Title System (VRTS)
   Presenter: Steve Gast from DOT
   DOT will solicit in this RFP hourly rates for application development staff augmentation
   from qualified service providers. The successful vendor will be given the opportunity to
   estimate the scope of work needed to complete various prioritized enhancement efforts.
   DOT IT staff and the Motor Vehicle Division business unit will review the estimates and
   negotiate final prices before authorizing enhancement work to proceed on VRTS. Initial
   projects will focus on financial processes that interface with the Archon Transaction Money
   Manager (ATM2).
   Comments were raised regarding staff augmentation in general (see later presentation by
   David Yarkin). Is there any applicability between the later presentation and this RFP?
   Steve did not think so with this RFP, as DOT is seeking a product with this RFP. Also
   there is a very narrow window to deliver this application.

   Does John Gillispie agree? Yes, John agreed but Steve and John both thought there was
   an opportunity to save money with this concept on IT staff augmentation.

   Mollie thought there might have been some applicability to this RFP. Her preference
   would be to hold approving this RFP until after this presentation.

   Nancy Richardson gave a brief overview of contracts developed for Penn. One is skill-
   driven, staff managed as agency’s own staff. Other one is deliverable-driven, staff
   managed by provider. Nancy thought this RFP was deliverable-driven.

   Approval of RFP was delayed until after the staff augmentation presentation.

   Later (after David Yarkin’s presentation on staff augmentation) there was more discussion
   regarding the differences between the types of IT staff augmentation being discussed.

   Outcome (after staff augmentation presentation): Motion to approve issuing DOT’s
   County Treasurer Priority Team Enhancement RFP was made by Mike Tramontina,
   LeLoie Dutemple seconded the motion, motion passed with one abstention (Nancy
   Richardson from DOT).

C. IT Concept Paper from IWD – Integrated Adjudication System
   Presenter: Mike Wilkinson from IWD

   This IWD system is moving from a paper-based, labor-intensive and cumbersome system
   to a web-based system to streamline the process. This new system will automate
   scheduling and adjudication portions. Almost all internal processes will be streamlined,
   greatly reducing the amount of paper generated. New system will be an expert system
   and will help take staff through the interview system. Savings will result in the areas of
   cost, time and paper. New system should improve quality performance and issue
   payments faster.
      JCIO and DAS-ITE comments:

      John Gillispie thought this appears to be a fact-finding system. Many agencies have a
      similar need and requirements for the same type of system. What other agencies could
      partner on this? DHS, DIA?

      Is this RFP identified as a sole source? Yes. One vendor can provide this product.

      There is an existing vendor for this product. Can IWD use the same contract that was
      used by the federal entity that developed the initial system?

      Are you buying a system or buying one already developed? Buying one already
      developed by North Carolina. It will need to be changed for Iowa’s needs.

      Have the AG’s Office looked at this? They are working with Jeff Nelson.

      A comment was made that the JCIO/DAS-ITE comments need to be more definitive than
      what was included in this RFP.

      John Gillispie clarified that he did not know whether this already existed within other
      agencies with similar needs.

      $500,000 needs to be spent by end of Dec. 2007.

      Make sure that it can be used by other agencies. LeLoie Dutemple stated Jeff Nelson is
      working with IWD to ensure this can be done.

      Outcome: Motion to approve issuing IWD’s Integrated Adjudication System sole source
      procurement was made by Nancy Richardson, Mark Schuling seconded the motion,
      motion passed with one abstention (LeLoie Dutemple from IWD).

   D. IT Concept Paper from DOT - Legato Software and Maintenance Support for DOT
      Storage Area Network (SAN)
      Presenter: Steve Gast from DOT

      Instead of taking thirteen hours to backup SAN it will now take 4 hours. This product was
      available from other vendors, so it was not done as a sole source procurement.

      Outcome: Motion to approve issuing DOT’s Legato Software RFP was made by Tom
      Gronstal, LeLoie Dutemple seconded the motion, motion passed with one abstention
      (Nancy Richardson from DOT).

General comment was made to limit use of acronyms in future RFP concept papers.
4. Old Business:

      A. Update on ITE solution for DPS (Concept # 3)
         Presenter: Mark Uhrin from ITE

         Testing has gone very well.

         Are there other uses for this? Yes, Department of Agriculture meat inspection might use it.

         What about the cost of the DAS-ITE work as opposed to the original RFP? The DAS-ITE
         development work is staying within the costs outlined in the original proposal.

         Outcome: Informational

      B. Update on ITE response to DED RFP (Concept # 21)
         Presenter: Mark Uhrin from ITE

         Mark did not have an update on this project, as DED had not given an update to Mark.

         Outcome: Informational

      C. Update on ITE response to DHR RFP (Concept # 22)
         Presenter: Michael Tutty from ITE

         Michael gave a brief update on the collaborative work on the CJIS project. Dave Meyers
         and other committee members have been working on the RFP, and the RFP should be
         finished with development by the end of October.

         Outcome: Informational

      D. Update on Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) RFP
         Presenter: Michael Tutty from ITE

         The purpose of the proposal is DAS-ITE would like the TGB to form a SOA Advisory
         Committee as soon as possible.

         This would be an advisory group to the TGB? Yes.

         25% of a person’s time is a huge commitment? IDR does not have someone to give that
         much time.

         Who are the types needed? IT technical types, business leaders are both needed.

         The primary concern from the TGB is a lack of available staff time. What other
         alternatives are there in forming this committee?
   For example, at 25% it would be up and running in within what timeframe, as opposed to
   be up and running within what timeframe at 10%?

   The primary purpose of the committee will be to keep SOA going.

   If it’s an ongoing resource that is needed, then it needs to be staff time. Perhaps volunteer
   staff time is unreasonable. Should the work be funded with dedicated FTEs?

   There will be a large amount of time needed from the business side for data domains.
   Agency staff time is needed for domain work, and it sounds like it will take a large
   commitment of time on an ongoing basis.

   DAS-ITE should suggest a staffing plan for this advisory committee.

   Outcome: Give the TGB a staffing plan to give the board an idea of member types
   needed, staff time needed, how often the committee will meet, etc. Lay out those potential
   names and how many people will be needed. Include a piece on how domain working
   groups would be staffed by business leaders within the advisory committee. Include how
   people can be staffed at different levels (25%, 15%, 10%), include the staff commitment
   time from DAS-ITE. And perhaps prioritize the tasks.

E. Update of ROI process and combined ranking of JCIO and TGB
   Presenter: Wes Hunsberger from ITE

   Final ranking of the eleven ROI projects was distributed for informational purposes.

   Outcome: Informational.

F. Update on scheduling strategic planning sessions for the board (attachment H)
   Presenters: Wes Hunsberger and John Gillispie

   DAS-ITE staff has questions for the board:
   Are they seeing the strategic planning session taking shape as intended? Yes.
   Is this a strategic planning session for developing a TGB strategic plan? Yes, this will be
   the main emphasis of the planning session.
   Is this a strategic planning session for developing an IT strategic plan? There will be some
   discussion of this, but a TGB strategic plan needs to be prepared first.
   Or is this a session for developing both? It will be a session for both, but most of the
   session will be spent on a TGB strategic plan, with emphasis on the statutory
   requirements for the board. How will the board get all of these requirements done and in
   what order?
   Are there questions for Doug Whittle (session facilitator) on the survey sent 10/10? Not at
   this time.
   Gartner will provide a speaker on the future of IT during the lunch break at the strategic
   planning session.
   Outcome: Informational
5. New Business:

     A. Approval of September monthly meeting minutes

        Outcome: See approval of next item.
        Comments were received from Nancy Richardson prior to the meeting on the minutes

     B. Approval of September 19 meeting minutes

        No comments received from board members on September 19 minutes document.

        Nancy Richardson made motion to approve both sets minutes, Mike Tramontina
        Motion to approve both sets of minutes passed unanimously.
        Outcome: Motion to approve both sets of minutes was made by Nancy Richardson, Mike
        Tramontina seconded the motion, motion passed unanimously.

     C. Best Practices in IT Procurement:
        Pennsylvania’s example of centralizing contracts for IT staff augmentation, servers, PCs,
        etc., to save money and improve quality

        Presenter – David Yarkin, Government Sourcing Solutions. Yarkin was formerly the
        Deputy Secretary for Procurement for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

        How do you transfer the costs of going from one vendor to another? It’s a gradual
        process. It doesn’t happen all at once on one day.

        Were the Regents part of it? No. But all executive branch agencies participated in the IT
        procurement process, it was mandatory for them. But it was optional for Treasurer,
        Auditor, retirement system, etc.

        How many agencies are we talking about in Penn.? Around 80 agencies.

        Due to time constraints, Yarkin was then asked to hit the highlights of his presentation and
        to concentrate on the savings gained in Penn and the benefits to customers.

        How much does Iowa spend on IT staff augmentation? Perhaps $4 million is a good
        estimate. This figure needs verification.

        Describe how it is done in other states? Two ways, source it yourself (a year to a year
        and a half process) or use another state’s contract (almost immediate).

        Do we need to know what Iowa’s volume is now? Yes, but it’s not necessary to know that.

        Is Yarkin still with the state of Pennsylvania? No.
          What is the Pennsylvania state vendor network to Iowa? It will not be helpful (for the most
          part). If Iowa gets on Pennsylvania’s contract, Iowa would create their own vendor
          network but use the already negotiated Pennsylvania state contract.

          In the past, Iowa used a great deal of resources from Merit Resources. Merit Resources
          provided staff augmentation with staff benefits. Does CAI staff have benefits or not? CAI
          must provide benefits to their employees. Does CAI guarantee the benefits for its
          employees? Do the subcontractors of CAI provide benefits? They are not required to do

          What are the next steps with this subject?

          The idea seems to be more and more attractive to some board members. How would
          Iowa implement it? Would Iowa use the same percentage of minority and woman-owned
          businesses in their version?

          Four options were stated:
          Explore partnering with the Pennsylvania project.
          Explore partnering with another state’s similar project.
          Make staff augmentation a category of strategic sourcing and do this ourselves.
          Make this a category of the AT Kearney strategic sourcing partner’s project.

          DAS-ITE and DHS are big users of IT staff augmentation. They both would like to
          continue the discussion.

          Next month’s meeting will have a discussion of this subject by the board and how to
          proceed in Iowa. Begin working on an Iowa addendum to the Pennsylvania contract for
          discussion purposes. Develop a list of pros and cons from IT staff and include any unique
          facets regarding Iowa taking part in this project.

      D. Update on security standards
         Presenter: Greg Fay from ITE

          Outcome: Delayed discussion of this agenda item until the November meeting.

6. Comments from the public
   Dawn Connett from Your Government Links mentioned a CIO Forum will be the following week at
   the Hy-Vee Convention Center. She also mentioned many businesses are currently doing
   strategic sourcing in Iowa. Nebraska is also doing this, someone should check with them.

7. Adjournment
   Outcome: Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Nancy Richardson, LeLoie Dutemple
   seconded the motion, motion passed unanimously.

   Approved by   Mollie Anderson