Amendment 5 · Web viewConversely can the State provide directions on how to handle these non-valid mandatory requirements and the SII Worksheet that would no longer apply? The State

STATE OF TENNESSEEFINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS # 31701-180420AMENDMENT # 5FOR SUB-RECIPIENT GRANT SYSTEM

DATE: November 30, 2018

RFP # 31701-180420 IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:

1. This RFP Schedule of Events updates and confirms scheduled RFP dates. Any event, time, or date containing revised or new text is highlighted.

EVENT TIME (central time

zone)

DATE

1. RFP Issued 10/16/2018

2. Disability Accommodation Request Deadline 2:00 p.m. 10/19/2018

3. Pre-response Conference 9:00 a.m. 10/24/2018

4. Notice of Intent to Respond Deadline 2:00 p.m. 10/25/2018

5. Non-Disclosure Agreement (“NDA”) Request Deadline (see RFP section 1.1.4) 2:00 p.m. 10/25/2018

6. Written “Questions & Comments” Deadline 2:00 p.m. 11/02/2018

7. State Response to Written “Questions & Comments” 11/30/2018

8. RFP Response Deadline 2:00 p.m. 12/13/2018

9. State Completion of Technical Response Evaluations: RFP Attachment 6.2, Sections B, C, D, and E.

12/20/2018

10. State Schedules Respondent Oral Presentation/System Demonstration 12/27/2018

11. Respondent Oral Presentation(s)/System Demonstration

8:30 a.m. - 3:00 p.m.

1/3/2019 – 1/8/2019

12. State Opening & Scoring of Cost Proposals 2:00 p.m. 1/10/2019

13. Negotiations 2:00 p.m. 1/17/2019

14. State Notice of Intent to Award Released andRFP Files Opened for Public Inspection 2:00 p.m. 1/22/2019

RFP # 31701-180420– Amendment # 3 Page 1 of 19

15. End of Open File Period 2:00 p.m. 1/29/2019

16. State sends contract to Contractor for signature 1/30/2019

17. Contractor Signature Deadline 2:00 p.m. 2/6/2019

2. INFORMATIONAL NOTE 1: In the attached Written Questions and Comments, some questions mention a vendor’s need to invoke third-party systems (e.g., GuideStar, DUNS, and www.knowwho.com), or incorporate third-party software (e.g., Conga Composer), in order to meet the State’s requirements.

The State is hosting the Solution on-premise in the State’s data center. It is acceptable for the vendor’s proposed Solution running in the State’s environment to invoke external third-party systems. However, all costs associated with such functionality shall be included within the existing Cost Items in RFP Attachment 6.3. A vendor shall NOT respond to or propose any requirements/functionality for which the vendor intends to charge fees to the State in addition to the Proposed Costs submitted in response to RFP Attachment 6.3.

With regard to additional Non-State Standard Hardware/Software proposed by the vendor, such as Conga Composer, it is too late to introduce products that do not appear in the State’s technology Architecture. If a vendor did intend to request exceptions to State standards such as this, the vendor was required to do so in accordance with the provisions of RFP Attachment 6.7, section 6.7.8.

At this point, the State has not received any requests for Non-State Standard Hardware/Software. Therefore, neither Conga Composer nor any other Non-State Standard Hardware/Software is acceptable.

3. INFORMATIONAL NOTE 2: Some of the attached Written Questions and Comments seem to indicate that one or more vendors are planning to propose a “cloud-based” solution. The solution the State is seeking through this solicitation must run “on-premise,” within the State’s data center. The State is not seeking, nor will the State accept, a cloud-based solution. If a cloud-based solution is proposed, the response will be disqualified.

4. State responses to questions and comments in the table below amend and clarify this RFP.

Any restatement of RFP text in the Question/Comment column shall NOT be construed as a change in the actual wording of the RFP document.

Item# Question Response

Note: in the questions that follow, any vendor's restatement of the text of the Request for Proposals (RFP) is for reference purposes only and shall not be construed to change the original RFP wording.

1. Whether companies from Outside USA can apply for this? (like,from India or Canada)

Companies based outside of the United States may submit responses. However, some project-related tasks will require vendor staff, at the State's option, to be at the State's project site. In addition, all data obtained from the State must remain at all times within the continental


http://www.knowwho.com/


United States.

The State has modified the requirement in Proforma Section A.6.

2. Whether we need to come over there for meetings?

Yes. Some of the work will need to be done onsite.

3. Can we perform the tasks (related to RFP) outside USA? (like, from India or Canada)

No.

4. Can we submit the proposals via email? No. See RFP Section 3.2 Response Delivery.5. Other than the 82-paged RFP, are there any

other forms or appendices that came with the RFP? If so, can you please email them to me?

All documents can be found at URL:https://www.tn.gov/generalservices/procurement/central-procurement-office--cpo-/supplier-information-/request-for-proposals--rfp--opportunities.html

6. Do you prefer a custom-made solution (made from scratch) or an “off-the-shelf” / “out-of-the-box” platform?

The State is seeking a solution that is out of the box and then customize to the State’s needs. The State does not want to truly build one from the ground up.

7. Does this solution require/demand the vendor to host it?

No. The solution will be hosted by the State.

8. We are a U.S based company with office across the globe. With that said, will you accept offshore development services for this software project?

No.

9. If you are seeking development, will onsite visits be required during development?

Yes. Some of the work will need to be done onsite.

10. Is there an incumbent competing? Is there an internal team currently working on the development, or are you outsourcing current development?

No. This is a new Contract.

11. When is the expected/needed “go-live” date of the project?

See RFP ProForma Contract Section A.5, Project Phases, Implementation.

The State has modified ProForma Section C.3 Payment Methodology.

12. Can you confirm if a bid bond or performance bond is required with our response?

There is no requirement for bid or performance bonds.

13. On page 3, it says “…the State seeks to procure necessary goods and services at the most favorable, competitive prices and to give ALL qualified respondents…” By “All” did you mean that you will award the RFP to multiple vendors? If so, is there a maximize amount of awards you will give?

The State will award one Contract.

14. To the best of your knowledge, are there any circumstances that will cause you to:a. Cancel the RFP?B. Not move forward with the winning bidder?

The State is unable to answer these questions, as these are circumstances that the State cannot predict at this time.


https://www.tn.gov/generalservices/procurement/central-procurement-office--cpo-/supplier-information-/request-for-proposals--rfp--opportunities.html




C. Lower the budget for the project?D. Prolong the evaluation process or reissue the RFP?

15. VENDOR currently provides several state and federal agencies with the software this RFP is seeking, however, as we are actively bidding on new projects frequently, reference requirements like those listed in this RFP present a barrier to entry where we risk burdening our relationships with those agencies by requesting too many questionnaires. We are highly sensitive to this reality and try to avoid lengthy referral requests when possible.

With that in mind, would your organization be open to allowing VENDOR to provide other references and questionnaires previously obtained by the agencies with the ability for you to speak directly with their representatives if so desired? We currently have an MSA with the State of XXX with certified, notarized documents that verify the authenticity of our existing referrals, and the scope of the previous questionnaires is analogous to those questions sought by your requests. Ultimately, our goal is to provide you the reassurance you desire while simultaneously managing our existing vendor relationships.

The State will not agree to this revision.

16. Will the State accept a vendor’s cloud system? No. The State is not seeking nor will it accept a cloud based system.

17. Has the State previously entertained any system demonstrations and/or presentations from vendors?

If so, which systems were seen and when?

Yes. The following demos were held:

Demo of the TDEC GMS system – 7/17/17MH Grants Management Demo - 8/2/17Agate Demo – 8/31/17

18. Enterprise initiatives like this, which span across multiple agencies/programs, may need a considerable amount of funding. From our experience this project may cost up to $5 Million. Has the State set-aside this level budget? Is the reference to $1.5M the existing approved budget or the State’s target for a certain level of initial solution deployment for the first year?

This original budgeted amount is for the limited use of 250 licenses and the limited scope of the initial roll out.

19. When would the State like to go-live with this enterprise system and how many agencies would be going live in the initial release?

See RFP ProForma Contract Section A.5, Project Phases, Implementation.

One agency on initial release20. The requirements identified in the RFP are at a This will all be defined during the discovery



high level, not showing data elements, validation rules, workflow processes, specific interfaces, list of reports, etc. Can the details be provided, or will the details of the requirements be defined in the discovery phase of the contract?

Has the State identified the key business processes across your grants domain or data elements that need to be captured in the system? Is there a logical business and data model identified? If so, can those be shared?

phase and fit gap sessions of the project.

Key business processes are the overall phases mentioned in Pro Forma section C.3. The details of each phase will be defined during the discovery phase and fit gap sessions of the project with the intent of aligning the business processes with the capabilities within the proposed solution.

Reference #31701-180520 Sub-Recipient Grant Attachment 6.2 Section D.

21. Will all TN granting agencies and programs have similar workflows, approvals, forms, reports, and configuration requirements or do you expect them to be quite different?Has the State setup a governance board to build consensus on variations of characteristics between grant programs that need to be standardized?

The State expects similar workflows/ approvals/forms to be utilized by the different agencies. With the limited scope of the initial roll out to one agency, a governance board need has not been identified at this time.

22. Is the State going to provide tools and the resources to integrate with Edison/Peoplesoft & other systems (resources needed for those system interfaces), including the provision of an enterprise service bus (ESB) tool?

Shall we assume any third-party integration tools, like MuleSoft or Oracle-SOA, and required resources are provided by the State to interface with EGMS?

The state already has in place Oracle-SOA and Integration Broker to allow integration with the ERP system. The State expects the vendor to write code to extract the data from their system to integrate with the ERP system using the tools the State has in place. Any tools other than our tools already in place will need to be supplied as part of the cost proposal.

23. Have you implemented PeopleSoft’s Integration Broker as the interface tool on other projects? Please provide the details of available interfaces, functional capabilities and how we can leverage to build interfaces to our system.

Typically, we have seen 8 to 12 interfaces (business process driven) to exchange grants and payments data between EGMS and the ERP system. How many integration points (or interfaces) should we assume in our effort estimation?

These integrations will require the State and

Yes. The State has implemented Oracle-SOA and Integration Broker. The State has modified ProForma RFP attachment 6.10 with anticipated interface information.

Yes. They would all need to be in place upon first release.



vendor to agree on the format, protocol, frequency, triggering event, exception handing, etc. Do you expect all interfaces to be build, tested and put into operation during the first release of EGMS or in a phased approach?

24. Our solution has a set of modules that automates State agencies for “As a Grantee” (grant seeker) to the federal and NGO entities, this allows you to qualify a FOA lead from www.grants.gov, review and approve internally to submit applications electronically to the federal agencies. It also helps you to setup the federal grants details for Edison/PeopleSoft integrations, and the Federal reporting requirements.

Based upon the RFP requirements, it appears the State is not seeking this additional (State as Grantee) scope and is limiting to State as Grantor functionality. Please confirm this assumption for the scope of this project.

This is not in scope for this RFP.

25. Project success will require State resources, can you provide the type and percent availability of State resources that will be assigned to this project? Would there be one dedicated project manager, one technical lead, one functional lead, QA/training lead available from the State?

The State cannot at this time provide a percentage of State resources for this project. Resources will be discussed with the Contractor during the Project Initiation Phase (see RFP Attachment 6.6., pro forma Contract section A.5.a.i.) There will be dedicated resources assigned for each of the roles listed, as well as, several agency SMEs to assist with the configuration and testing.

26. Most State and local governments are requiring their Enterprise Grants Management System (EGMS) be provided as a SAAS (software as a service) solution. The SAAS solutions are hosted on cloud platforms like MS Azure, AWS or Salesforce and are well secured. Is the State open to a cloud based SAAS application for this RFP?

Does the State require any cloud-based, SaaS solution to be provisioned on a FedRAMP certified infrastructure? For example, platforms like AWS, Azure and Salesforce have secured FedRAMP platforms.

Which of these platforms are currently certified for use in TN?

No. The State is not seeking nor will it accept a cloud based SaaS system.

27. Can the State provide more details on the digital signature and e-Notarization

Yes. This will meet the requirement.


http://www.grants.gov/


requirements? Does the State currently use an e-Notarization service or capability to collect wet-signatures using software like DocuSign?

Our solution satisfies the federal electronic -signature compliance by collecting the User ID, date and time stamp of user actions like award acceptance. Will this meet your requirement?

28. If the State will accept a SaaS based solution, most of the hosting based mandatory requirements are not applicable. Does the State want to change these to desired and accept proposals that provide a SaaS based explanation? Conversely can the State provide directions on how to handle these non-valid mandatory requirements and the SII Worksheet that would no longer apply?

The State will not accept a SaaS based solution, so none of the requirements will be revised on the mandatory requirements or the SII Worksheet.

29. Does the State provide the first line end user support, normally referred to as Tier I and the EGMS contractor provides Tier II support or do you want a vendor quote to also provide Tier I support?

The State will provide first line end user support (Tier I).

30. How many internal State users will be required for the turn-over date?

How many external subrecipients are there in the current PeopleSoft system and the expected number within two years? Do you use external subject matter experts to evaluate grants applications, if so typically how many?

40

Agency Accounts – 200, expect this number to grow to about 300 over the next two yearsUser Accounts within Agency Accounts – at a minimum of 3 per agency accountExternal SME’s – 15-20

31. Can the State an estimate of the volume of data to be converted and migrated into the new EGMS?

What is the current format of this grant data?

Around 600 grants with varying amounts of transactions per grant. This number includes continuation grants that cross multiple years.The varying data includes: Federal/State Award data, Invoicing data

Legacy information was provided. Please see section RFP Attachment 6.9. The current format is an access database.

32. Will the import/export of data into the Grants Management System be achieved via a data loading type capability for xls/csv files or through API/web services?

If the later, can the State provide details on the type and underlying technology of any external agency systems in use today that contains this information?

Preferably through API/Web Services. The State has modified RFP attachment 6.10 with anticipated interface information.



33. Enterprise solutions where multiple agencies are involved, which currently have different processes but desire to standardize as much as possible by following industry best practices, requires structured organization change management through communications, orientations sessions, training sessions, hand-holdings, Webinars, etc.

Has the State considered an organizational change management(OCM) process be considered within the project scope to assist with standardization and ensure proper user adoption? Will OCM be managed and delivered by the State or would you desire to add this requirement to the RFP for vendor delivery?

No. The State will be responsible for Organizational Change Management.

34. Does the State expect to us Single-Sign-On for internal State users?

Yes.

The State maintains licenses for Oracle Identity and Access Manager (OIAM). OIAM provides this functionality and the vendor shall use OIAM to meet this need.

Since the State maintains the OIAM licenses, the vendor shall not add cost for OIAM licenses in its Cost Proposal.

See also the State’s responses to items 49 and 51 below.

35. Will the State consider a minimum of a two-week extension to the proposal due date, so the State and vendors can incorporate all modifications based on answers to questions?

The State has determined that there is sufficient amount of time for the proposer to incorporate all the feedback and provide a response in the allotted time provided.

36. Requirement: Must have an outgoing interface to the external state ERP System for invoices (Requests for Funds, Invoices/POs).

What technology is your ERP system, and does it have web-services capabilities to push data to our APIs, as well as published API's for us to push the data?

PeopleSoft. Yes it has web services/API capabilities.

37. Requirement: Must have an incoming interface from the external state ERP System for payments made to the grantees. Data fields include payment amount, date paid, state voucher # and voucher create date.

The state has in place Oracle-SOA and Integration Broker to allow integration with the ERP system. The State expects the Contractor to write code to extract the data from their system to integrate with the ERP system using the tools the State has in place. Any tools other



Does the State provide an enterprise service bus (ESB) solution, like MuleSoft or Oracle-SOA, to manage all these interfaces between these systems?

than our tools already in place will need to be supplied as part of the cost proposal.

38. Requirement: Links to outside database to check current valid 501c3 and SAM status of applicants and length of 501c3 and SAM status [API].

Our solution has built in interfaces to SAM.Gov, GuideStar and DUNS to check for the status. The last two service providers charge a subscription to provide the data through their APIs. Would the State like us to add these subscription costs to our cost proposal at this time or does the State already have those subscriptions?

The State will not provide access to the systems named in the question. If a vendor must interface with system(s) external to the vendor’s System in order to fully meet State requirements, all costs associated with such external systems shall be borne entirely by the vendor. The vendor shall include all costs associated with such external systems, subscriptions or otherwise, within the existing Cost Proposal items, as detailed in RFP Attachment 6.3.The vendor may not add new cost items, or in any way modify the existing cost items.

39. Requirement: System must link to outside database to accurately auto-populate U.S. Congressional, State of TN House and Senate districts for each grant applicant organization. [API].

Our solution can interface to www.knowwho.com which provides congressional district data and other details. This service provider charges monthly subscription fees to provide the data through their APIs. Would the State like us to add this subscription cost to our cost proposal at this time, or does the State already have this subscription available? Conversely are you just asking if our solution can integrate?

With regard to costs associated with any required external systems, see the State’s response to Item 38 above.

40. Requirement: System must have the ability to upload grant information into state accounting System (Edison).

Please provide the list of available/required interfaces for the Edison system to push grants data and pull the expenditure data from Edison. Technical details of existing interfaces would be helpful for to estimate the effort.

The State has modified RFP attachment 6.10 with anticipated interface information.

41. Requirement: Phone support is available.

As part of our solution we provide Tier 2 support for any product or technical issues. Is the State expecting us to also provide Tier-1 help-desk support (for any questions) to the end users by telephone and email? If yes, we



http://www.knowwho.com/


shall we include the cost of Tier-1 end user helpdesk support in the cost proposal?

42. Requirement: Email support is available.

Same as above phone support question.


43. Requirement: System will track data entry and/or changes by user designation and will retain the user designation & changes for auditing purposes.

Our system maintains end-user designations (we call them user persona or profiles) related to the grants business, such as program manager, fiscal manager, executive approver, grants administrator, subject matter expert, etc. Does the State want us to maintain your hierarchical names or standard job titles/designations (such as facilities manager, accounting manager, receptionist, communications officer) in the system?

No. User information / profiles are sufficient.

44. Requirement: System prevents malicious files from being uploaded onto the application or downloaded into the System.

These tools are usually installed on the end user's laptop or desktop. Standard cloud platform vendors do not provide this feature, as the definition and recognition of malicious files change day by day. Can you make this as a desirable feature? If not, we would use an expensive third-party tool and include it in the cost proposal?

The State is not seeking nor will it accept a cloud based system. This requirement has been removed.

45. Requirement: Conforms to International standards Organization (ISO) standard 15408 This standard is also called "common criteria".

Our product and the platform adhere to multiple IT standards/guidance. This ISO document provides high level guidance, but not the exact steps or script to validate. How does the State plan on verifying this conformance and can you share that validation script or checklist? Please provide specifics of your requirements or change this to desirable versus mandatory.

This requirement has been changed to desired.

If the vendor does choose to meet the requirement, the vendor must provide, as a part of its Response, written confirmation from an independent, third-party, certifying body that the vendor is certified as (ISO) standard 15408 compliant.

46. Requirement: grant types and names

Please reconfirm this as a mandatory

The State has changed this requirement to “Desirable.” See revised Excel spreadsheet, as described in RFP Attachment 6.2, Section D.



requirement since it will require customization and corresponding cost considerations. Please note that none of our customers have asked for access restriction by 'grant names'.

47. Requirement: Once a password has expired, System gives the user (with a final warning) one more login attempt to change their password.

This poses a security risk therefore modern-day cloud platform do not allow such exceptions once the password has expired. This is discouraged by security standards approved by Federal government’s FedRamp certification, NIST, and ISO. Can you please reclassify as a 'desirable' requirement rather than a 'mandatory' requirement?

The State is not seeking nor will it accept a cloud based system. This requirement has been removed.

48. Requirement: Provide the ability for security coordinator to log out users when necessary to perform maintenance or other activates that require users to leave the System.

Can the State validate this ability can be restricted to designated State administrators only?

If there is a role within the system for StateAdministrator’s, yes. But there needs to be some kind of designation with the EGMS system that notates who has this level of access.

49. Requirement: Provide ability to limit log-on of user IDs to one workstation at a time.

Please confirm whether this is a mandatory requirement, or can it be reclassified as desired since it requires customization and corresponding cost considerations. Other customers have not asked for such restrictions as our log files provide the data of which browser/user is logged in.

The requirement is mandatory.


See also the State’s responses to items 34 and 51.

50. Requirement: Provide an edit to warn security coordinator of potential security changes based on personnel actions processed in the personnel management module (ex. Employee termination, grant ended or out of funds, employee transfer, etc.).

Employee termination or transfer happens within HR, outside of the system. Our application is administered by the State administrators or security coordinators, who gets notified from the HR system, and they will deactivate such user's account in our system. If State establishes a single-sign-on (SSO)

The State currently has different options of how this is being done today. The State would expect a file of some sort to be able to integrate from our active directory/OIAM software to the EGMS application to inactivate an employee.



with your AD, it automatically takes care of preventing such users access. Integration of State's HR system and our EGMS systems not currently in this project's integration scope. If State wants such integration, then provide that as an explicit requirement. Conversely this can be reclassified as a 'desired' requirement.

51. Requirement: System security will not edit non-employees against the personnel management module to validate employment.

Is the State asking to establish single-sign-on with State LDAP/AD for internal state employees only and native authentication for external users of the system through these two requirements?

The State is seeking single sign-on for both internal and external users.


See also the State’s responses to items 34 and 49 above.

52. Requirement: Issues an alert to the end-user and notifies the System Administrator after a specified number of unauthorized log on attempts.

It does alert the end user that their account is suspended, and System Administrators can see this through the logs. However, a notification is not provided. Can this be reclassified as a 'desired' requirement? If not please reconfirm that email notification is a must, so that we could add effort for additional customization.


53. Requirement: Workstation

Please clarify how the State identifies and classifies workstations today? Is it by MAC address, GUUID or PC Name, also are those maintained at a central State location for each workstation or user. Can this be made desirable requirement? If not, please reconfirm it is mandatory so that we can add additional customization effort/cost for such requirement.

This requirement has been removed. See updated RFP Attachment 6.2 section D excel spreadsheet.

54. Requirement: Transaction type

Please clarify how the State identifies and classifies transaction types today? Is it by it grants records like application or award or payment request? Without knowing all the details of this requirement, it will be difficult to size for the proposal. Can this be reclassified

Transaction type would be solicitations, applications, budgets, contracts, payment requests based off an invoice workbook received by the sub-recipient (pos and invoices).

This will remain a mandatory requirement.



as a desirable requirement?55. Requirement: Document type

Please define what type of document or files the State wants restrictions applied to, so that we can add the customization effort.

Invoice, Purchase Orders, Contract, Certifications, Special Conditions, Reports (Forms) – security needs to be limited to who can do what with each of these different documents.

56. Requirement: Digital certificates

Is the State going to procure digital SSL certificates for this project or do you expect the vendor to add such costs in the proposal?

There is already software in place within the State for this; therefore, the vendor should not add costs to cover this.

57. Requirement: Digital Signatures

Can the State explain the expectation of the 'digital signature' requirement? Our system provides electronic signatures, per federal law, by capturing user ID, password and date and time-stamps. Our understanding of digital signature is capturing the wet-signature online following a third-party notary service, by using third-party products like DocuSign. Is the State expecting electronic signature or digital signature functionality for all users? Please clarify the requirement or reclassify as desirable.

Yes. This will meet the requirement. All users would need this access, and either digital or e-signatures would meet the requirement.

58. Requirement: The System will provide accessibility for persons with disabilities as reflected by consistency with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines WCAG 2.0.

Our product is federal accessibility 508 standards compliant. There are slight differences between WCAG and 508. Is the State okay with 508 compliances and the VPAT for same? Or do we need to produce only WCAG2.0 for compliance?

The State is using 508 but the new standard is WCAG 2.0 and the State plans to move to this. For this reason please deliver WCAG 2.0.

59. Requirement: Ability to return the counter-signed contract to grantee.

Is the State expecting a digital signature from both the parties on contract documents, using 3rd party notary services/software like DocuSign, or is electronic acceptance (UID, Password & time-stamp) satisfactory?

Yes, Electronic signatures are satisfactory.

In addition, the option to allow uploaded documents with “wet signatures” is desirable. The vendor may propose this as a part of its solution. However, any costs for such functionality shall be included within the existing Cost Items in RFP Attachment 6.3.

Do NOT respond to or propose any requirements/functionality for which the Proposer intends to charge fees to the State in addition to the Proposed Costs submitted



in response to RFP Attachment 6.3.60. Requirement: System needs to allow state

users to insert mail-merge data into letters, contracts, agreements and other MSWord documents.

Our system generates mail-merged content into contract agreements and generates a PDF document. MS word documents can only be generated using third-party tools like Conga Composer. Can the MS Word document generation be made as desirable? If not please reconfirm the requirement for us to account for cost and time.


Conga Composer does not appear in the State’s standard technology Architecture. If a vendor intended to request exceptions to State standards such as this, the vendor was required to do so in accordance with the provisions of RFP Attachment 6.7, section 6.7.8. At this point, the State has not received any requests for Non-State Standard Hardware/Software. Therefore, neither Conga Composer nor any other Non-State Standard Hardware/Software is acceptable.

61. Requirement: Print preview contains fit to screen capability.

Our system generates PDF or CSV files which can be sent for printing through your network. You can also use the print functionality of the browsers. Our system does not provide direct 'print' functionality from the application. Can you reclassify this as a desirable feature?


62. Requirement: Allow state users to reopen online applications once they have been submitted if more information is required from the applicant.

This is normally handled through the negotiations process; can the State confirm this to be acceptable?

As long as the application can be sent back to the sub-recipient for revision prior to finalizing the document, it should meet this requirement. The term negotiations tend to lean toward actual contracts, but this is talking about all documents within the system.

63. Requirement: Assignment of grants to outside adjudicators and adjudicator reviews needed.

Does the State want the outside experts (SMEs or adjudicators) to review applications only or provide access to grant contracts and payment requests and invoice records as well? Please clarify as it has an impact on certain access rights or reclassify as desirable.

SMEs would only have access to the applications and scoring tools prior to contracting.

64. Requirement: Supports short-cut keys to move between modules and menus.

Modern web applications don't recommend these short-cut type features. Can this be reclassified as a desirable feature?


65. Requirement: Supports list of recent values for The State has changed this requirement to



each field (current session only).

All browsers support these features if the user enables. Web applications do not save such data for performance reasons. We have other means of showing recently viewed records. Can this be reclassified as a desirable feature?

“Desirable.” See revised Excel spreadsheet, as described in RFP Attachment 6.2, Section D.

66. Requirement: Supports partial queries in fields.

Can the State elaborate the details of this requirement? Is this from the user-interface or the backend operations. Can this be reclassified as desirable, as it does not apply to web-based UI driven applications.

This refers to the ability to search by begins with or contains parameters. This is a requirement. It would apply to user-interface and backend operations.

67. Requirement: Produces AP & AR voucher and approval workflow as applicable.

Can the State provide AP & AR voucher details or explain interfaces (data elements and validations) that are available today?

This would be within the EGMS application prior to sending to the State’s ERP system. This is for invoicing and refunds that need to be approved at the program level within the application prior to being approved within the ERP system by the fiscal team.

68. Requirement: System should automatically route transactions to a workgroup after a specific time of inaction (based upon transaction type).

Does the State intent to use approval queues or custom queues, where the queues have a predefined set of users and any of the users can approve such records for promotion to the next step? Conversely does the State wants to use a user selected approval for all the records?

This is workflow queues based on security roles by document type.

69. Requirement: Provide a "master approver" for each workflow that may approve a transaction at any time whether or not they are included in the normal workflow.

This is possible if the master-approver is classified as a System Administrator profile. Is the State okay for the System Administrator users to play the 'master-approver' role across applications? If not provide the further use case details of this requirements or reclassify as a desirable.

Yes. A system administrator profile would meet this need.

70. Requirement: The System supports federal and state government reporting requirements applicable to all modules/applications.

Can the State elaborate on this requirement,

The agency contracts with Department of Justice and one award with Department of Human Services. However, this is intended to be used by multiple agencies and must be customizable to any federal program.



by providing the federal and State report names/descriptions as we have seen various versions? These can also vary from program to program and can be built as part of the development cycle.

71. Requirement: Word

Our reports can only be saved as CSV/Excel and PDF files. Can this requirement be reclassified as desirable?


72. Requirement: ASCII



73. Requirement: HTML



74. Requirement: XML

Our reports can only be saved as CSV/Excel and PDF files. Can this requirement be reclassified as desirable? Otherwise we will have to add lots of customization effort.


75. Requirement: allows year-to year, month-to-month, period-to-period, year to date, and life to date comparisons on reports

Is the State looking to compare reports content (for change) or just the data in different columns?

This relates to financial data and subrecipient reporting data. The agency is interested in comparing data not content for change.

76. Can milestone payments be broken down to a lower level of granularity so that each module listed above can be detailed to multiple levels of functionality - with milestones at each level. In this approach we can more frequent milestones to monitor progress more effectively.

No.

77. Should we assume that the list of deliverables on page 50 are needed and need to be accepted for each phase or functional area (solicitation functionality, contacting functionality, etc.

All of these deliverables will be provided at the conclusion of the Planning Phase. The deliverables are assumed to be “living documents,” and the Contractor may have to update them, at the State’s request, as additional information is learned.

78. Is a SaaS solution provided by the software vendor acceptable to the State?

See answer to question #26 above.



79. How many administrators/internal staff will you have?

Estimate of 10 administrators and 50 internal users on initial go-live with one agency

80. How many users (internal staff) will use the system MORE that 40 hours per month?

Estimate of 45 internal users on initial go-live with one agency

81. How many users (internal staff) will use the system LESS that 40 hours per month?

Estimate of 10-15 internal users on initial go-live with one agency

82. How many users will be accessing the system LESS than 2 hours per month?

Estimate of 10 internal users on initial go-live with one agency. External user number is hard to determine since the system is not currently available to end users but an overall estimate for the initial go-live with one agency could be around 250.

83. How many users will only access the system for reporting only?

Estimate of 10 internal users on initial go-live with one agency. External user number is hard to determine since the system is not currently available to end users but an overall estimate for the initial go-live with one agency could be around 250.

84. How many external users (applicants/registrants, reviewers) will access the system?

500 or so external users could be using the system after the initial go-live with one agency.

85. Would external users access the system year-round or only during specific times in the year (please specify for each group (applicants and reviewers)?

Year-round

86. Is a conflict of interest also required from a subcontractor?

Yes. See also RFP Attachment 6.2 Section A – A.2 – it is required for any individual who shall cause to deliver goods or perform services under the contract.

87. Is a credit rating also required from a subcontractor?

No.

88. Is section B: General Qualifications and Experiences also required for subcontractor? (Please see specific requirements listed) - B.1. Contact information of respondent - B.2. Respondent’s form of business - B.3. Number of years respondent has been in business - B.4. How long respondent has been providing the good or services - B.5. Respondent’s number of employees - B.6. Statement about any mergers, acquisitions, etc. - B.7. Conviction of felony - B.8. Filed bankruptcy in the last 10 years - B.9. Litigation - B.10. SEC investigations

No.



- B.11. Descriptive statement about Respondent’s ability to deliver services -B.11. Descriptive statement about Respondent’s ability to deliver servicesB.12. Narrative description of proposed project team, org structure and org chartB.13. Personnel roster of key personnel and estimated number of hours (include resume)B.16. Current contracts with State of TNB.17. Customer references

89. Given the following target release schedule, we noticed that the conversion of existing programs is after the go live dates for the functionality. Should we assume that the go live dates for the functionality will be used to manage new grants/contracts and that historical data will be targeted on 12/15/2019?

Solicitation Functionality (Go-Live Date - December 15, 2018)Contracting Functionality (Go-Live Date - April 15, 2019)Amendment Functionality (Go-Live Date - July 15, 2019)Invoicing/Edison Functionality (Go-Live Date - August 15, 2019)Conversion of existing programs (Go-Live Date - December 15, 2019)

The State has revised Section C.3 of the Pro Forma by removing the dates for the individual phases.

90. Is a vendor-hosted, cloud-based solution acceptable for this project? If so, does the State have a preference as to an on-premise (e.g. installed in the State’s environment) vs. vendor-hosted solution?

The State will not accept a vendor-hosted or a cloud based solution.

91. Under item C.3. (page 57) of the RFP, is the Go-Live Date of December 15, 2018 accurate for the Solicitation Functionality component? If so, can you clarify why the 12/15/2018 date precedes the project award date of 1/10/2018 (as specified in the RFP Schedule of Events)?

The State has revised Section C.3 of the Pro Forma by removing the dates for the individual phases.

92. Page 29 of the RFP describes attachment “RFP # 31701-180420 Sub-Recipient Grant Management Solution Functional and Technical Requirements” as having three tabs (named “Instructions,” “Introduction,” and “Grant making System”). The document we

The Sub-Recipient Gran Management Solution Functional and Technical Requirements spreadsheet contains only two tabs. Yes, the version you have is the correct version. The State has revised this section in the Pro Forma.



received is named “RFP 31701-180420 Sub-Recipient Grant Attachment 6.2 Section D.xlsx” and only has two tabs (“Instructions” and “Sub-recipient Grant”). Can you confirm that we have the correct document and/or version?

93. Are you able to provide further detail as to the volume of legacy data to be converted to the solution (e.g. number of years, total GB/TB, etc.)?

4 years of data. 34 GB for program files and 4.5 GB for the federal award files.

5. Delete RFP # 31701-180420, in its entirety, and replace it with RFP # 31701-180420, Release 2, attached to this amendment. Revisions of the original RFP document are emphasized within the new release. Any sentence or paragraph containing revised or new text is highlighted.

6. RFP Amendment Effective Date . The revisions set forth herein shall be effective upon release. All other terms and conditions of this RFP not expressly amended herein shall remain in full force and effect.


Documents

Amendment 5 · Web viewConversely can the State provide directions on how to handle these non-valid mandatory requirements and the SII Worksheet that would no longer apply? The State