RFP # Medicaid Information Technology Architecture (MITA State Self- Assessment Solution (SS-A)

Transcription

1 Department of Health and Social Services Finance and Management Services Grants and Contracts Support Team 3601 C Street, Suite 578 Anchorage, AK Medicaid Information Technology Architecture (MITA State Self- Assessment Solution (SS-A) Amendment #1 Amendment Issue Date: June 9, 2015 Please alter the following language to match the amendment. IMPORTANT NOTE TO OFFERORS: Only the following items referenced in this amendment are to be changed. All other sections of the RFP remain the same. A copy of the amendment is available on the State s Online Public Notice website. Item #1: Section 8.3 Cost Proposal, remove and replace with revised Section 8.3. Item #2: Section 1.4 Budget and all sections that reference budget amount, should now read Department of Health and Social Services, Information Technology Planning, estimates a budget of $333, for one year and three optional Operations and Maintenance renewal years for this project. Proposals priced at more than $180, year one and $50, for each additional renewal year will be considered non-responsive. Item: #3: Section 1.2 Contract Term and Work Schedule length of the contract should now read, The length of the contract will be from the date of award through one year with three optional Operation and Maintenance renewal years to be exercised at the sole discretion of the State of Alaska. Item #4: Add the following documents to section MITA HITECH Operational Planning Workbook 16. MITA HITECH Strategic Planning Workbook 17. MITA HITECH Toolkit use Cases workbook 18. MITA Scorecard_templates Page 1 of 7

2 Questions & Answers 1. Question: Could the State please allow electronic submission of the proposal? Answer: No 2. Question: RFP Section 1.3 and 4.1 state that proposed MITA SS-A solution will integrate with Alaska's existing Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) and Master Client Index (MCI) and not be a stand-alone system. Could the State please clarify this requirement? We do not see MITA SS-A solution integrating with other solutions. Also, Section 5.1 Scope of Work does not discuss integration as an objective. Answer: Section 1.3 & Section 4.1 states: the response to this request must include addressing how and if the proposed product solution will integrate into this environment and not be a standalone system. It is the and if part that is key here. It is standard for all IT solutions DHSS is seeking that the proposer outlines how their solution will meet our Enterprise Roadmap and shared services model and integrate with other solutions within DHSS. DHSS does recognize that integration will not always occur with every solution implementation. 3. Question: Reference RFP Section 5.7, Page 41. Can the State please explain the training requirements? How many users will need to be trained? What should be the training duration? We are assuming that the training can be delivered remotely? Please confirm our understanding. Answer: Training will need to be provided to a limited number of users, most likely less than 20. The duration of the training will depend upon the solution and how robust a solution is or isn t. The State expects the proposer to outline their training model and the duration they would recommend in their proposal. Yes, I would expect that training could be delivered remotely utilizing web conferencing services. 4. Question: Could the State please clarify how many licenses it requires for a SaaS hosted solution? This further refers to the Licensing Agreement articulated in RFP Section Normally, a SaaS hosted solution licensing is based on number of users and does not address all the conditions listed in Section (non-exclusive, royalty-free, irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, authorize others). Answer: The licensing agreement section was written for when DHSS intended to purchase the code such as a COTS, or Modified off the Shelf (MOTS) solutions. DHSS recognize SaaS hosted solutions work differently. The concept for SaaS is that DHSS own the data, and any documentation that was used to get the system configured, tested, test plans, and interfaces that DHSS tailored on our end for connectivity. DHSS would also have the right to who we would allow access. 5. Question: Reference Section 8.3 Cost Proposal, Page 60. For the Cost proposal evaluation, our understanding is that the Total Proposed Cost is the Cost of Phase 1 Design, Phase 2 Page 2 of 7

3 Development/Rollout, Phase 3 Operations and Maintenance to July 1, 2016 (RFP has 2015) and the three Optional renewal years. Please confirm our understanding. Answer: Yes, this is correct understanding. See Revised Cost Proposal. 6. Question: Section Project Management Plan on RFP page 32 refers to Data Conversion Plan. Could the State please clarify what data conversion is in the scope? Answer: There is no data conversion expected for this RFP. The State s RFP utilizes a standard IT template. 7. Question: Section 8.3 Cost Proposal "Consultation and technical assistance to train staff in identification and prioritization of most appropriate activities for the Alaska Birth Defects Registry:" This requirement appears to be from a different RFP and should be deleted or replaced with MITA SS-A specific requirements. Answer: See Revised Cost Proposal 8. Question: Reference Section 1.4 Budget, Page 7. The RFP states that the estimated budget for completion of this project is $180,000. Could the State please confirm that this budget does not include the optional renewal years? Answer: See Item #2 9. Question: How does the State plan to complete the MITA 3.0 SS-A; i.e. use State employees or use a contractor? Answer: Use state employees 10. Question: Has the SS-A team been identified? Can a bidder assume that the SS-A team will be available and ready to start training and using the SS-A software immediately upon contract signing? Answer: The state employees who will use the tool to complete SS-As are not necessarily the same state employees who will lead this project. Yes, a HITECH SS-A needs to be completed as soon as the software is implemented. 11. Question: Has the State defined any State Specific Business Areas/Business Processes not contained in the CMS defined MITA 3.0? If so, please provide information about the State Specific requirements. Answer: There are no state specific requirements; all the requirements are to include the CMS defined MITA 3.0 requirements, the HITECH SS-A requirements and POAMs requirements as outlined in the RFP. Page 3 of 7

4 12. Question: Is the state of Alaska planning to include evaluation of the Medicaid Enterprise Certification Toolkit (MECT) checklists during the MITA 3.0 SS-A? Has the State defined any State Specific MECT requirements not contained in the CMS defined MITA 3.0? If so, please provide information about the State Specific requirements. Answer: This was not included in the RFP. No, The State will utilize the HITECH MITA SS-A toolkit to assist with any HITECH MITA SS-As completed. Four documents produced by CMS associated with HITECH MITA SS-A have been attached to this Question: One individual must have project management experience and current Project Management Professional Certification by the Project Management Institute, or similar (similar is specifically: Prince2, Six Sigma Blackbelt or PMI-ACP (agile certified). A copy of this certification must be submitted. Would the State reconsider this requirement? Our current installation requirements do not necessitate a PMI certified PM. If we are required to meet this qualification the risk for the project is increased since a new PM, who has no experience with our tool, will need to be bid. Answer: No, this is standard requirement for DHSS for IT infrastructure projects and implementations. 14. Question: The Contractor shall train the state staff prior to the commencement of UAT based on the manuals and documentation developed. Please provide the number of State staff who require training? Will the training be delivered in Anchorage, in a state provided space? Is teleconferencing an option for training State staff? Answer: Approximately users maximum. Conference room space can be provided in Anchorage for training but it will not be in a training center with computers to use and/or Web conferencing and teleconferencing can be utilized for training. 15. Question: The following table presents the deliverables that will be required of the contractor. All deliverables will require an official submission by the Contractor to the State project manager. Our software is a COTS that has been developed to meet all CMS SS-A requirements and therefore does not require many of the defined deliverables in RFP Section Our software is much like MS Office, for example MS WORD. MS WORD has been developed specifically for the design, development and product of textual documents. There is no Design requirements for the software, no Development/Modification of the software or UAT of the software. The Configuration of the software is based on the user, the testing is to Page 4 of 7

5 verify and validation the user configuration. The user configuration can be started as soon as the software is loaded. Please provide instruction for responding to deliverables that are not applicable. Answer: Write N/A and provide a detailed explanation why the deliverable is not applicable. 16. Question: The following table presents the deliverables that will be required of the contractor. All deliverables will require an official submission by the Contractor to the State project manager. Our software is a COTS that has been developed to meet all CMS SS-A requirements and therefore does not require many of the defined deliverables in RFP Section The requirements for Individual data, vital statistics and encounter data contain PHI, which should not be included in an SS-A. Please provide instruction for responding to deliverables that are not applicable for an SS-A. Answer: Write N/A and provide a detailed explanation why the deliverable is not applicable. 17. Question: The following table presents the deliverables that will be required of the contractor. All deliverables will require an official submission by the Contractor to the State project manager. The list of Training deliverables is different that the list of training requirements defined in RFP 5.7 Training. Please clarify. Answer: Page 45 outlines the specific training deliverables as: agency input process(s) and operations, abstractor input process(s) and operations, data manager process(s) and operations, query and report process(s) and operations, system configuration and parameters, maintenance process(s) and operations, data purging operations, and on-line help facility Page 41, Section 5.7 doesn t specify the detailed deliverables expected under training. This section is outlining the expectations that training shall address: data manger process(s) and operations, query and report process(s) and operations, system configuration and parameters, all maintenance process(s) and operations, all data purging operations, using the on-line help facilities and weekly and monthly process(s) 18. Question: Cognosante completed the Enterprise Roadmap Phase I in September 2012, which documents the Department s current state or As Is model. What other MITA 3.0 SS-A activities has the State completed since 2012? Are any MITA 3.0 SS-A currently underway? Answer: None Page 5 of 7

6 Revised Cost Proposal by Phase Completion Note: The purpose of the cost formula is to provide a mechanism for offerors to submit costs per each deliverable in a manner that DHSS can evaluate and score and then use to establish billing rates for the resultant contract. Please enter your cost in the spaces provided below for completing each deliverable. The contractor should include in their cost proposal: transportation, lodging, and per diem costs sufficient to pay for 1 person(s) to make 1 trip(s) to Anchorage, Alaska. Travel to other locations will not be required. Upon Completion and acceptance of Project Phases: Phase 1 Design $ Phase 2 Development/Rollout $ Phase 3 Operations and Maintenance to July 1, 2016 $ Total Cost for Phase 1-3 $ Optional Renewal Years: Operations and Maintenance year 2 Total Cost Operations and Maintenance year 3 Total Cost Operations and Maintenance year 4 Total Cost $ $ $ Total Cost for three renewal years $ Total Proposed Cost: $ The Offeror shall submit an hourly rate for each resource type(s) used for the development and Page 6 of 7

7 delivery of the project. These rates will be used as the basis for developing contract amendments for unidentified work/amendments. Hourly Consultant Rate ($ ) This page must be completed and submitted with all offers and received by the State at the time and date set for receipt of proposals. Lois Lemus Procurement Officer (907) (907) Fax lois.lemus@alaska.gov Page 7 of 7