Q & A Lacombe County EDRMS Development and Implementation RFP

Transcription

1 Q & A Lacombe County EDRMS Development and Implementation RFP As stated in Section 1.9 of the Lacombe County EDRMS Development and Implementation RFP, the question period closed on June 6, 2017 at 4:30 PM Mountain Standard Time. All questions and answers are compiled in this document, with duplicates removed. You will notice some redundancy of questions and answers as I have included all instances where slight variances exist; we look forward to receiving your proposals. Q1: Can companies from outside Canada apply for this RFP (e.g. from India or USA)? Yes, companies from outside Canada can apply, however all price proposals must be submitted in Canadian dollars (RFP Section ) and all work completed using Lacombe County information must be processed in Canada in respect of our data sovereignty requirements (RFP Section 6.5). Q2: Does the selected vendor need to come to Lacombe County for meetings? While some work may be completed remotely, it is expected the selected proponent will also work closely with staff on-site. Q3: Can the selected vendor perform tasks (related to the RFP) outside of Canada? Yes, however, Lacombe County is subject to data sovereignty requirements and therefore all County information must remain in Canada at all times (RFP Section 6.5). Q4: Can we submit the proposals via ? The electronic version of the proposal can be submitted via , however, a hard copy proposal is also required (RFP Section 5.1). Q5: Can you confirm the County has already installed SharePoint, RecordPoint and Harmon.ie and therefore we are not required to provide software licencing pricing with our response? (As per page 3, intro paragraph ready-installed software components ) Yes, the County has already installed SharePoint 2016, RecordPoint, and Harmon.ie, so software licensing pricing is not necessary. The only exception is if SharePoint Online is recommended by the vendor in place of, or in addition to, SharePoint 2016; SharePoint 2016 is currently installed in a test environment and is not in production. Q6: We have a partner, Collabware, that provides a product that provides the same solution as the RecordPoint and Harmon.ie products. Is there a chance that if Collabware could meet the requirements outlined for records management that it could be a solution that Lacombe would consider? Lacombe County is looking to develop and implement our EDRMS using our existing products (SharePoint 2016, RecordPoint, and Harmon.ie) the only exception we are considering at this time is a recommendation for SharePoint Online instead of, or in addition to, SharePoint 2016.

2 Q7: The cost of software solutions can vary widely depending on budget. Our firm has delivered successful projects across various budget ranges. To help us best meet the goals of your solicitation, can you please approximate a budget range for this project? For example, is the anticipated budget range or maximum budget: a. Less than $100,000 CAD - Phase 1-3, 2017 b. $100,000 - $150,000 CAD c. $150,000 - $250,000 CAD d. $250,000 - $350,000 CAD e. $350,000+ CAD The above indicates the budget for Budgeting for successive years/phases of the project has not been completed, however, budgeting for 2018 must be prepared by September 1, Q8: What, if any, specific qualifications are you looking for in an implementation partner? For example, we have multiple Microsoft Gold and Silver Competencies, Certified Masters and MVPs, RIMTech Certification, etc.; will the proposal scoring take our credentials into account? Lacombe County does not require any specific certifications for this project, however we do require a high level of expertise to be demonstrated by the vendor in respect of the two core competencies required for this project: 1) Records Management; 2) Information Technology (specifically SharePoint). Though we do not require specific certifications, all credentials will be taken into consideration as a component of the proposal evaluation process as we seek to ensure the core competency requirements have been met. Q9: Do you anticipate a mix of on-site and remote project delivery? In our experience, we generally find it useful to be onsite during discovery meetings, installations, etc. however we can keep project expenses down by utilizing remote delivery for parts of the project. Yes, we anticipate a mix of on-site and remote project delivery. It is critical the system configuration, coaching/training and change management components of the project are met, however the County understands some of this work may be completed remotely by the vendor. Q10: On a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 represents An on-premises solution housed in your facility, managed and maintained by you and 5 represents An entirely cloud-based solution managed by you, what best represents the desired solution on this continuum? 3 The County is currently working in an on-premises environment, however, we are open to recommendations for a cloud-based solution. We understand SharePoint 2016 will be the last version of SharePoint offered on-premises, and that there are benefits and drawbacks to both the on-premises and cloud-based solutions. That said, we understand a hybrid solution may be in our best interest, however, we are looking to the vendor to provide those recommendations.

3 Q11: Regarding the plan to migrate documents and associated metadata from file shares: a. Approximately how many documents reside on the file shares? Total # of documents on main file share = 200,000 Phase 1 (Finance) = 28,788 Phase 2 (Planning) = 45,831 b. What is the total size in GB/TB of the content residing on the file shares? Total volume of main file share = 175 GB Phase 1 (Finance) = 5.2 GB Phase 2 (Planning) = 50.4 GB NOTE: The County anticipates only records identified as having value will be migrated from the file shares as we do not wish to migrate redundant, obsolete or transitory information; the remaining information will remain available in the file shares, however the file shares will be made read-only. Also, RecordPoint has the ability to process dispositions on the file shares, so records that have met their retention requirements will likely not need to be migrated. Q12: Can you please provide detailed requirements and use cases for the requirement stated as Automated metadata capture for business templates/forms? Automated metadata capture for business templates/forms is not required, but is desired. The intent is to have Lacombe County business templates added to SharePoint sites/libraries so that the business templates are available for selection as new documents in the respective SharePoint site/library. A second-level component of these templates/forms would require the fields in the form to be linked to the SharePoint metadata fields for the assigned content type, eliminating the need to duplicate data entry in the form and the required SharePoint fields. For example, an accounts receivable library would have an accounts receivable content type assigned and may have an invoice template available for selection as a new document. Some fields in the template would relate to the document metadata fields required by the pre-defined SharePoint content type (e.g. invoice number, invoice date, customer name, $ amount, etc.). Through automated metadata capture, the metadata fields would be captured through completion of the template rather than requiring duplicate data entry to complete the template fields and the associated metadata fields (i.e. customer name field may be a drop-down selection list within the template, selecting a customer name would add the name to the form and to the associated SharePoint metadata field). Q13: Regarding the requirement stated as Integration with Lacombe County s core existing business systems : a. Can we assume that the intent is limited to explaining how the system handles integration with other software? At this stage, integration is optional as indicated in Sections 3.2 and 3.5 of the RFP. We are interested specifically in a Case System Integration (CSI) with our WorkTech/Pearl database (Phase 1) as well as document-level integration with GIS (Phase 2).

4 b. If actual integration is in scope, what level of integration is anticipated (e.g. hyperlinks only, document-level integration, unidirectional/read only, bidirectional data updates, functional integration)? Section 3.5 provides information relating to the Case System Integration (CSI) option the County is seeking in relation to its WorkTech/Pearl database. WorkTech is used for asset management and the County desires to have unidirectional data updates for asset-related information fields maintained the WorkTech/Pearl database (e.g. asset name, asset class, end of life date). Q14: Regarding your current use of and experience with SharePoint: a. What versions of SharePoint are you currently licensed for (e.g. SharePoint 2016, SharePoint Online G3, etc.) SharePoint 2010, SharePoint 2016 b. Do you already own the requisite SharePoint licensing for the number of anticipated users of the new system? Yes, we own the requisite licensing for the number of anticipated users. c. Do you already own any SharePoint-related products (e.g. ShareGate, Nintex, etc.) and if so, which ones? Harmon.ie and RecordPoint are the only two SharePoint related products we currently own. d. On a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 represents None and 5 represents Expert, can you please indicate what SharePoint skills you currently have in house in terms of: i. SharePoint Infrastructure, Administration and Maintenance - 4 ii. Information Architecture Design and Implementation - 3 iii. Content Owner/Authorship - 4 iv. PowerShell and C# Development - 4 Q15: The RFP indicates that there are approximately 100 targeted end-users and that the initial endeavor is to deploy to two pilot areas (approximately 20 users) ; how many users should we account for as related to product licensing, etc.? Licensing is already in place for SharePoint, RecordPoint and Harmon.ie. As such, licensing for these products is not required as a component of the proposal. Q16: Regarding your Records Management requirements: a. Can you please provide details about your retention and disposition policies and/or provide us your detailed File Plan including: Records series title and description see File Plan Location and medium (e.g. paper or electronic) File Plan applies to all records, regardless of media type Disposition authority (i.e. legal actions taken when records are no longer needed to conduct agency business) see File Plan The official retention schedule see File Plan

5 NOTE: The File Plan is in draft form and is undergoing legal review. If you would like a copy of Lacombe County s File Plan, please send a request by to Lisa Rangen at lrangen@lacombecounty.com. b. How are Physical Records currently managed? Physical records are currently managed in excel spreadsheets. These spreadsheets were compiled through two means: 1) export from a custom-built access database (FileTracker) which has been decommissioned; 2) manual inventory. The physical records are not barcoded and do not have any unique identifiers on the physical files, however, system-generated File ID s and Document ID s captured during the export process are required to be maintained for integrity purposes. c. Can you please provide details about the storage of Physical Records (e.g. # of locations, cabinets, containers, folders, documents, etc.)? There are four (4) physical file rooms, two (2) of which are active/semi-active. All file rooms are currently open-access with file sign-out sheets provided for staff. Staff record the file check-outs on the sign-out sheets and these are recorded in the physical file spreadsheets by records staff; all returns are processed by records staff and are checked-in on the spreadsheets prior to being returned to shelf. The core of our physical information is open-shelving with end-tab file folders and shannon files, however some files have been indexed and boxed (approximately 50 boxes). The County does not have any information holdings in offsite storage facilities; all County information sources are stored within County facilities. Q17: Regarding external access to the system: a. What audiences will require external access (e.g. other agencies, vendors, employees accessing the system remotely, the public at large) and how many users comprise each audience? Employees may need to access the system remotely when working outside of the office or at our remote site locations. Remote access is definitely required for one (1) employee and may be required for additional employees, however this has not yet been established. b. Will audiences that need external access have AD accounts? Yes, all audiences requiring external access will have AD accounts. c. Will all external audiences need to login/authenticate in order to access the system or does anonymous access need to be supported as well? External audiences will need to login/authenticate in order to access the system. d. What features of the system will external access users be permitted to use (e.g. access to certain documents only, all features, etc.)? All features a user is permitted access to should be available for external access.

6 e. Is mobile support a requirement? Yes, mobile support is a requirement. Q18: Regarding the mention of intelligent SharePoint workflow design and the requirement stated as Ability to define workflows in the RFP: a. Are the required workflows limited to those associated with records management (e.g. disposition policies) or do they include process workflows to automate line of business functions? Some workflows will be required to automate line of business functions. Disposition policies will be established in RecordPoint using rules-based-recordkeeping (RBR) formulas. b. If process workflows are within scope: i. Can we assume that the workflows are very simple in nature? Yes, the required workflows are expected to be simple in nature; it is expected the required workflows will be identified through the business process improvement (BPI) component of the project. ii. Do you anticipate that the required workflows can be addressed with using SharePoint s built-in workflow capability or SharePoint Designer? Yes, we anticipate the required workflows can be addressed using SharePoint s built-in workflow capability or SharePoint Designer. An exception to this would be cases where e- signatures are required; the County is open to vendor recommendations for e-signature solutions to support process improvements, however this is not a requirement. iii. How many workflows are required? The number of required workflows is unknown; it is expected the required workflows will be identified through the business process improvement (BPI) component of the project. Q19: On a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 represents an onsite comprehensive instructor-led training solution with labs and workbooks (i.e. highest cost) and 5 represents basic solution-specific knowledge transfer sessions conducted by technical resources and delivered remotely (i.e. lowest cost), what represents your vision of training for the following audiences? Audience Score # of Students Administrators 2 2 Power Users 3 6 End Users 5 20 Q20: If onsite training is desired, how many students can your training room facilitate? As indicated in Section 3.4, the maximum class size is to be 15 participants. A train the trainer format will also be considered where Lacombe County is responsible for providing the core of the training to the staff.

7 Q21: Is it acceptable for SOP s to be delivered as video content as opposed to written documentation? Yes, Standard Operating Procedures (SOP s) may be delivered as video content as opposed to written documentation. It is expected, however, that all SOP s will relate specifically to Lacombe County EDRMS configuration/process requirements and will not be generic user guides. Also, the video content must not be proprietary as it will become a record of Lacombe County. Q22: As an environmentally-friendly / Green company, we strive to reduce our consumption of paper; to that end, can respondents submit proposals electronically via in lieu of hardcopy proposals? As stated in Section 5.1, the County wishes to receive one (1) hard copy and one (1) electronic version of the proposal. Upon special request, alternate considerations may be made in this regard should the County determine the request for exclusion from this requirement is warranted. Q23: To confirm, are proposers supposed to bid on all three phases as outlined in the RFP or just the initial phase? The County wishes to receive proposals for all three (3) phases as outlined in the RFP. The County s initial commitment in response to this RFP will include Phase 1 only, however, successive phases may be awarded to the successful proponent upon the County s acceptance of deliverables for each phase. Q24: In the proposal instructions, page 18, Section Company Background and History. The instructions listed request the second and fourth tab of the proposal. Is the instruction for fourth tab requirement an error? Should we include the Office locations, etc. in the second tab? Section Company Background and History The second tab of the proposal should include a comprehensive history of the firm, including the development of its experience in providing services similar to those described in Section 3.0, Project Scope. At minimum, the following points should be addressed in the fourth tab of the proposal: 1) Office locations; 2) Total number of employees; 3) Total number of active clients; 4) Total number of active government clients; 5) Total number of active government clients in Alberta; 6) Total years offering Information Technology solutions; 7) Total years offering Records Management/Information Governance solutions; Yes, Company Background and History should be the second tab of the proposal, reference to the fourth tab is an error. Q25: Re: Migration - How much SharePoint data is currently in the SP2010 farm? Approximately 50% of our file shares were migrated over to the SP2010 farm, the total volume of information currently existing in SP2010 is 145 GB. The finance department (Phase 1) continues to work exclusively from file shares, whereas the planning department (Phase 2) is currently working in a hybrid environment.

8 Q26: Re: Migration - How much unstructured data is in file shares? The current volume of information existing in our main file share is 175 GB. Finance (Phase 1) = 5.2 GB Planning (Phase 2) = 50.4 GB Q27: Re: Harmon.ie - What requirements/functionality does Harmon.ie provide for SharePoint 2010? Harmon.ie provides full-featured support for SharePoint 2010 through the Microsoft Outlook interface, enabling users to upload documents and s to SharePoint as well as search and retrieve documents stored in SharePoint directly from Outlook. Q28: Re: Harmon.ie - Is the current purchased version compatible with Office 365 SharePoint Hybrid? Yes, the current purchased version is compatible with Office 365 SharePoint Hybrid. Q29: Re: Harmon.ie - Our assumption is that Harmon.ie is fully configured and we will not need to include a level of effort to configure or test Harmon.ie. Is this correct? Correct, Harmon.ie is fully configured, the selected vendor will not need to configure Harmon.ie, however it should be included as a component of user acceptance/testing. Q30: Re: SharePoint 2016/SharePoint Online - What security framework does the county for the SharePoint 2010 farms? I.E. Is or something else Kerberos? Claims-based identity and authentication. Q31: Re: Infrastructure and Existing Environment - Is the County using Active Directory or LDAP for account management? Is the County syncing it with County SharePoint farm? The County is using Active Directory, which is currently synced with the County SharePoint farm (i.e. no secondary log-on is required for SharePoint). Active Directory is currently managed in the County s domain controller and is not managed through SharePoint. If yes, is the system integrated with the HR system? No, the system is not integrated with the HR system. Q32: Re: Infrastructure and Existing Environment - What version of Office is the County on? Office 2010? Office 2013 and Office Q33: Re: Infrastructure and Existing Environment - What version of Windows desktop O/S does the County use? Windows 7, some stations have migrated to Windows 10.

9 Q34: Re: Infrastructure and Existing Environment - What browser and version of browser and supported alternatives does the County use? Internet Explorer 11.0 (recommended to ensure full SharePoint functionality) FireFox (Current Version: ) Google Chrome (Current Version: )