Request For Proposal for a Hosted, Pension Administration System with Enterprise Content Management and Optional Provisions for Workflow

Transcription

1 Request For Proposal for a Hosted, Pension Administration System with Enterprise Content Management and Optional Provisions for Workflow Vendor Pre Bid Questions and Answers 3/20/2017 The responses to questions within this document will serve as an amendment to the FWERF Request for Proposal for Hosted Pension Administration with Enterprise Content Management and Optional Provisions for Workflow, dated 2/9/2017 Page 1

2 SUMMARY Section A-2.4 of the FWERF Request for Proposal (RFP) allowed for the submission of questions from potential Respondents (bidders, vendors, and other interested parties). These questions were due by March 7 th, Five Respondents provided questions. These questions have been consolidated, normalized, and grouped by RFP Section and page. Question # 1 RFP Section Section A.1.1 Purpose and Scope Page # 5 Respondent Question You indicate that FWERF has no IT staff. Can we assume that this statement is only applicable to pension application administration operations and hosted infrastructure? FWERF Response Please see page 16 Figure F1 Organization Chart. There are 2 staff whose primary responsibilities are the pension administration system. There are no IT support staff onsite for any FWERF technical needs. The Business Systems Administrator and the Operations Assistant have basic skills and administrative access to reset passwords, update local software or do initial troubleshooting. As stated in B.2 an outside provider supports systems that are not part of other hosted systems (such as the existing PAS, FWERF website, Northern Trust, etc.) 2 A Does FWERF consider your current vendor as a viable option for the future? Proposals will be evaluated based on the value provided to FWERF and measured by the evaluation criteria listed in E.2.1 p124 3 Section A.2.1 Procurement Schedule and Milestones 10 Given the weekend preceding the due date for the proposals is Good Friday and Easter, would you consider an extension of the due date? Not at this time. Page 2

3 4 A B B B B As indicated in the RFP, Respondent will need to supply up to 5 laptops during the training period. Can FWERF confirm that internet connections and network printing will be available? Section B.2.1 indicates that a fiber internet connection is in use allowing for 20Mbps download and 20Mbps upload. What is the current average load as well as peak load of the existing connection? Do you anticipate any increase in load outside the new Pension Administration system that could impact the current load on the internet connection? Can the SonicWall firewall be configured to utilize a site to site VPN? How many public IP addresses are available for FWERF to use with the new solution? Does FWERF manage their current domain naming service or leverage a 3 rd party company to manage their internet presence? Does FWERF currently procure licenses directly from software vendors for any supporting software required to host the benefits administration system (for example, Oracle or other database tools), or is this a responsibility of the primary benefits administration software vendor on behalf of FWERF? Yes, the internet connections are available and network printing can be made available. Other solutions may be acceptable to FWERF depending on the format of the training. FWERF doesn t have data on the average or peak loads. FWERF does not anticipate an increase in load other than the new Pension Administration System and in particular the Respondent proposed document management solution. No. It has a license for only 2 VPN connections and these are used by the IT Vendor to access systems for service. None. FWERF manages the domain name registration through a registrar service. FWERF s website is hosted on a content management system by a third party. FWERF does not procure any software licenses in relation to the Pension Administration System (PAS). The Respondent of the PAS is responsible for any software licensing as part of their overall bid pricing. Page 3

4 9 Section B.2.8 Disaster Recovery 27 What is the current size of your database? See p. 28. B.3.1 Pension Administration System. FWERF does not have access to the database and does not know its current size. 10 B B C C.2 / C Section C.2.12 Required Deliverables and Deadlines 38 Will FWERF be responsible for all interaction with the current vendor, Tegrit, to facilitate the data conversion process since FWERF does not have administrative rights to the database? Section B.3.3 indicates that the Arrivos Pension solution does not process a reverse feed from Northern Trust. Does FWERF perform any reconciliation between payment data stored in Northern Trust and the Arrivos database? Does FWERF consider the Arrivos database a good source for current and historical benefit payment data, or will the selected vendor need to consider Northern Trust as a second data source for the purposes of data conversion? Were all functions of the existing system used by FWERF to conduct your business included in the RFP and Requirements Matrix? These two sections (page 36 and 67) have a conflict regarding when the Project Plan is due. Can FWERF please clarify which is correct? Is the training for users involved in UAT designed to teach the user what it means to be a tester or is it designed to teach them how to navigate the system and work through business processes? Yes. FWERF plans to manage any necessary transition process and be the point of contact with the current vendor. Yes, there is a reconciliation that is manual. FWERF makes every effort to keep Arrivos and Northern Trust information consistent. Arrivos is a good source for current and historical payment data back to Oct FWERF does not plan to use data from Northern Trust. All functions of both Arrivos and Northern Trust that FWERF contracted for were used to create the RFP and Requirements Matrix. FWERF would like to clarify that a complete detailed project work plan is due 30 days post contract signing. The training is meant to teach the user how to navigate the system and work through business processes so that UAT can be properly performed. Page 4

5 Section C.2.12 Required Deliverables and Deadlines Section C.2.12 Required Deliverables and Deadlines Section C.2.12 Required Deliverables and Deadlines Section C.2.12 Required Deliverables and Deadlines Section C.2.12 Required Deliverables and Deadlines 38 Are you requesting a UAT training initiative in addition to end user training for each phase? 38 How many UAT testers will there be? What is the expected employer training delivery method? Will employers be trained at the end of phase 1? Is the expectation that employers will also have hands on training activities? No. FWERF wants training that can accommodate a more developed user who has the understanding behind the process to test in UAT, as well as a basic user who may just be initiating processes. There will be approximately 7 staff involved in testing benefit functions and occasionally others as accounting functions and third party quality testing are involved. FWERF does not anticipate the need for employer training. See C Employer Reporting and Attachment 8 FWERF Current Process Summary Section 11.1 City of Fort Worth. FWERF anticipates continuing the day to day management of the Employer Reporting process. No. FWERF does not anticipate the need for employer training. See C Employer Reporting and Attachment 8 FWERF Current Process Summary Section 11.1 City of Fort Worth. FWERF anticipates continuing the day to day management of the Employer Reporting process. No. FWERF does not anticipate the need for employer training. See C Employer Reporting and Attachment 8 FWERF Current Process Summary Section 11.1 City of Fort Worth. FWERF anticipates continuing management the day to day management of the Employer Reporting process. Page 5

6 20 C Requirement 81 requires the ability to reduce the monthly benefit, based on 415(b) limitations. Does FWERF have a 415(m) in which they make the excess benefit payment under? If so, is the PAS intended to be configured to make this payment as well or simply allow for manual adjustment based on the amount provided by your actuary? 21 C Staff Plan: Is it a Forward or Back Drop? The PAS must simply allow for manual adjustments based on the amount provided by the actuary. The excess payment is made by the City of Fort Worth through their payroll system. Reference Attachment 3 City Ordinance Article 3. The Staff Plan has the same DROP options as the City plan with both a DROP and AE Lump Sum option (sometimes referred to as back DROP). FWERF does not use these terms. 22 C C C This section requires the respondents to provide a separate cost in their cost proposal for implementing this process, stating that instructions are provided in Section E.1.2. However, there were no instructions provided in Section E.1.2 relevant to this death benefit process. Can FWERF please clarify? Requirements 212, 219, 517, 707, and 708 all reference functionality related to the City Death Benefit. Should these items be included in the separate cost as indicated in notes for this section? Requirement 306 requires the ability to validate that service is consistent with salary. Can FWERF provide an example of how you are validating it today? FWERF would like to clarify that it does not need separate costs for this item. FWERF would like to clarify that it does not need separate costs for these items. This functionality needs separate accounting from the regular benefits administration. FWERF would like to clarify that the validations are done manually today. However, the requirement is necessary for the proposed system to meet section (a) (3) of the City of Fort Worth Retirement ordinance (included in Attachment 3). Page 6

7 25 C C C C Section C Enterprise Content Management (Imaging) 45 Most of the requirements included in this section are for payroll functionality, as well as integration for a third party to perform advice and check printing. Does FWERF intend to use the PAS for advice reprints, payroll reporting, tax reports, and 1099 R processing? Requirements 468, 484, and 510 reference State Withholding. It is our experience that Texas does not allow for state withholding. Does FWERF withhold for other states besides Texas? FWERF envisions documents will be scanned upon receipt. How many scanners does FWERF envision using? The process typically includes scanning and indexing. Does FWERF envision this being done at the same time by the same person when the documents are received, or scanned by one person(s) and indexed by another? Will the same person(s) scan member as well as non member documents? Do you allow other departments users (i.e., Accounting, Investments, Legal, etc.) to search and view documents from the LOB application, or are you expecting a separate web application for those departments? Yes. Yes. FWERF does withholding for any state in which it has retirees. FWERF has 210 members who live in a state other than TX. FWERF envisions one or two scanners. FWERF looks to the Respondents for proposed solutions and has not made a decision about scanning versus indexing as this will be a complete change to the current business process. Staffing decisions and divisions of responsibility will be determined as part of the new process design. It will depend on the content of the document. FWERF looks to the Respondent for proposed suggestions and FWERF will make decisions as part of the design process. It is FWERF s intention that other users in FWERF staff will use the imaging system and that security can be set so they only have access to documents related to their business needs. Page 7

8 30 C C C Requirements 868 and 869 indicate that FWERF wants the ability to maintain and apply updates to the software s online help content themselves. Is that an accurate assumption, or can this be handled by the vendor as part of your ongoing maintenance and support agreement? Requirement 885 indicates that FWERF needs the ability to generate and process at least 150 defined and to be defined reports. Can a listing of the defined reports be provided? If no, can you provide the number of currently defined reports (and can we assume these are being used with the existing software). Requirement 885 indicates that FWERF desires a total of 270 to be defined forms and correspondence. Attachment 8, page 9, states that FWERF maintains all standard letters in Microsoft Word in a shared directory on the file server. Can samples or a listing of these be provided to correlate to the 270 requested? FWERF would like to be able to store FWERFrelated content to the online help. This would not be something the vendor could handle. Updates to the content that FWERF added would need to be maintained separately during a software upgrade where the vendor may update the online help that is general to the system. FWERF has very limited reporting currently but has a list of reporting that came from needs of their current system. These may differ in a new system and depend on online validation and screen access available in the new system. Existing forms and correspondence will be provided as part of the design process. However, FWERF understands that the correspondence and forms will likely change based on the capabilities of the system selected. It is FWERF s desire to make as much of the correspondence and forms a part of the member portal as possible. Respondents should provide an understanding of the ease and flexibility in adding and managing Forms, Reports, and Correspondence as part of their overall proposal. Page 8

9 33 C Section C.4.3 Hosting the Solution Section C.4.3 Hosting the Solution Section C.5.1 Project Management & Section C Relationship Requirement 885 indicates that FWERF desires a total of 270 to be defined forms and correspondence. Does the count include the same or similar correspondence being generated for General, Police and Fire? Can FWERF provide additional information about the number and content of correspondence and forms? For example, are any related to the City Death Benefit that should be cost separately? 48 Is database encryption required? Yes. 48 Is multi factor authentication required? Yes C C If you select an OPM consultant, what would you anticipant the additional workload and/or deliverables be for the selected vendor? Do you want the respondent to include these types of costs in their not to exceed price? Will FWERF be issuing a separate RFP for the Oversite Project Management Consultant? Has FWERF considered the potential for a conflict of interest in having the vendor who drafted the software RFP being financially compensated as the OPM on this project? There is very little difference in forms and correspondence for General, Police and Fire. Almost all are the same. There are separate forms and correspondence for the City Death Benefit. As stated earlier, this does not need to be costed separately. The workload would be the same as outlined and costs should include everything that is outlined in C.5 Project Management and Implementation Services. No. Yes, it has been considered. Page 9

10 39 C C Section C Written Deliverables C What is the compensation plan for the OPM on this project? Are they held to the same deliverable/hold back schedule as the vendor? RFP states the requirement for an automated project management tool. What project management tool(s) does FWERF currently use for internal projects? Can you provide guidance on what you would consider an unusually large quantity of deliverables in a short time period is? For planning purposes, what would you recommend the proportional ratio to be for the number of hours of review and business days for the additional deliverables? Different entities have different definitions of what constitutes Personally Identifiable Information (PII). Can FWERF provide us the list of data items you want us to treat as PII so we make sure we treat them that way? Compensation is based on time and materials with a limit of hours determined by FWERF. No, they are not held to the same holdback schedule since the work is time and materials based. FWERF has no project management tools currently. Internal projects are managed on spreadsheets. Taking into consideration the size of the staff and A.2.9 Facilities and Human Resources to be provided by FWERF during implementation there are limitations to the amount of deliverables the organization can review at one time. In general, Written Deliverables can adhere to a 5 business day review cycle. However, when extensive deliverables are provided within the same week, the Respondent should assume that reviews will potentially be longer and plan accordingly. Reference definition for PPI in the Master Services Agreement Attachment 7 p. 2. Page 10

11 43 Section C Data Conversion Plan C Section C.5.7 Testing Section C FWERF User Acceptance Testing We understand that our data conversion team will get data extracts along with supporting documentation from your current pension vendor. Can we assume that you have an agreement with the current pension vendor to provide the response to all questions / clarifications related to data and related business knowledge on the data extracts as per the project expectations set by us and FWERF? Does FWERF expect the vendor to be responsible for data cleansing along with data conversion? You propose a 4:1 ratio i.e., if the time required for the Respondent to design, build, and vendor acceptance test (VAT) a particular functional rollout phase is eight months, then up to two months must be allocated to FWERF staff for training and performance of user acceptance tests (UAT). What is the expectation for the training and performance breakout of the two month allocation in the example above? For example, X weeks for UAT and X weeks training for a total of 2 months (8 weeks)? You will execute both test scripts provided by the Respondent, scripts built in conjunction with both teams, as well as those which have been built independently by FWERF for ad hoc testing. What is your expectation for the number of ad hoc test scripts and the duration needed for ad hoc testing so that it can be factored into the 4:1 ratio? Yes. There is an agreement in place. No. FWERF will handle any necessary data cleansing. FWERF would like to clarify that in general it expects more time needs to be allocated to UAT testing than to training. However, it depends on the complexity of the module, the quality of the delivered product, and the relevance to the existing system. Users may need more training where the new system is significantly different from the As Is or the functionality is new. As such, Respondents should plan for the 4:1 ratio to include both user testing and training time. In FWERF s experience, it depends on the functionality being tested. Testing benefit calculations needs to have more time than testing payroll output. FWERF is particularly concerned with calculation testing when it comes to ad hoc testing. A high quality deliverable should be expected to pass FWERF ad hoc testing within the 4:1 ratio planning time frame. Page 11

12 47 Section C.5.8 Respondent Transition Support During Cutover C C C C C C.7 92 Will Training be required to have a support plan for after go live? How did the FWERF establish a $7 million budget for this project? Will responding firms be penalized for providing a project fee that is substantially less than the $7 million budget identified in this RFP? Does the $7M price include the post production support as well? Is the five (5) years of Post Implementation, Maintenance and Support as shown in the Cost Proposal included in the $7 million budget? Since section C (Death Benefit Separate City Trust) is to be cost separately, is this included in the $7 million budget? This section requires that the proposers should submit in Schedule 7 of the Cost Proposal items for FWERF to consider removing from scope. Please confirm this should be Schedule 6 Proposed Reductions in the Cost Proposal. See Section C.5.8. As stated, cutover support should be expected for a period of two weeks after the cutover milestone. Respondents should expect to be able to support staff questions and additional on the job training for the system during this period. FWERF sought information from other similar retirement plans and projects. Prior proposal costs from 2015 were reviewed. The Scope of project was taken into consideration as well as advice from the consultant assisting with the RFP. Stated in C.7 p 92. No. Evaluation criteria are listed in E.2.1 page 124. No. No. Yes. It does not need to be cost separately but it is included in the $7 million budget. Correct. It should be Schedule 6 Proposed Reductions in the Cost Proposal. Page 12

13 54 D.1 / D D D.2 96 There is a conflict in these two sections (page 95 and 98) regarding how long the proposal pricing is valid. It is our opinion that it is difficult to maintain pricing with any subcontractors over 180 days. Will FWERF agree to this timeframe? How does FWERF want to handle agreements for items not included in the Master Services Agreement (example: no License Agreement is included)? Should vendors include additional agreements required with their proposed MSA revisions? Is it FWERF s non negotiable position that no limitation of contractor s liability is acceptable? It was the intent of FWERF to have the proposal and pricing valid for one year. FWERF would like to clarify that it will consider additional agreements to the MSA. However, please review carefully the contractual requirements listed in Section D.2 and the criteria. Reference Attachment 7 MSA 9 Limitation of Liability, as well as the process and limitations for suggesting alternative wording for the MSA described in Section D.2 of the RFP. Page 13

14 57 D.2 97 The last sentence in this section states, Prior to award, the finalist(s) will be required to enter into discussions with FWERF to negotiate and finalize the terms of the Master Services Agreement and to resolve any contractual differences before an award is made. Does FWERF intend to conduct negotiations with multiple bidders at this time, or does FWERF intend only to negotiate with the expected winner, understanding that if negotiations break down, that the vendor will not be awarded the contract? If FWERF is negotiating with multiple vendors, will FWERF advise vendors that they are not in sole negotiations? At this time, FWERF intends to only negotiate with one respondent. If any required negotiations breakdown, then FWERF will end negotiations with the top respondent and pursue negotiations with the next highest ranked respondent based on the Section E.2 Proposal Evaluation. 58 D.3 98 The section states, Each invoice for implementation services submitted to FWERF by the Respondent must reflect a 15% holdback amount. Industry standard holdback percentage is 10%. Is this term negotiable? FWERF feels 15% is reasonable. Respondents may submit this in your proposal for consideration, but please note that it will also be considered an exception to the terms and conditions as part of the proposal evaluation process. Page 14

15 59 D C.2, C.4.3 & D.3 99 This section states, Upon the conclusion of the warranty period, the Respondent will submit an invoice which includes the remainder of all holdback amounts (the last 7.5% of the total project cost), for payment by FWERF. Industry standard for release of final holdback is usually 90 days after production delivery. Is this term negotiable? Section C.2, #18 indicates, There will be no separate payment point for any Software License. Section C.4.3 says, FWERF is seeking a software licensing and delivery model in which the software is licensed on an ongoing subscription basis and is centrally hosted. Section D.3 includes an Implementation Payments table that includes a line for Payment of License Fees (No Holdback). For C.2, #18, is this referring to commodity software licensing (such as Oracle)? In this case, there would be no licensing cost to FWERF as that would be part of the hosted environment. Schedule 7 of the Cost Proposal does not match Section D.3 of the RFP (as indicated in the header for that schedule). Based on the Cost Proposal is it FWERF s expectation that LOB software licensing is included in hosting costs, which would meet the subscription basis mentioned in C.4.3. FWERF feels that this is a reasonable request for the warranty period. Respondents may submit this in your proposal for consideration but please note that it will also be considered an exception to the terms and conditions as part of the proposal evaluation process. It is FWERF s expectation that any required software licensing for meeting the project scope and requirements is included in the ongoing hosting costs. To clarify, on Table 12 in D.3 note that Licensing states N/A or Not Applicable in the label. This indicates that a payment point for software licensing is not applicable. Please read the verbiage carefully throughout Attachment 9 Cost Proposal Template. Hosted Hardware and Software are not payment points for the implementation. The exception is for commodity items that are required to be located on site and owned by FWERF such as a scanner or a specialized printer (and the software required for operating such hardware). Page 15

16 61 D D E The table in this section lists one of the payment points as Licensing ; however, Section C.2 (18) of the RFP states there is no separate payment point for license fees. Which is correct? This sections states, Staff members that are assigned by the successful Respondent to this project, such as employees of the Respondent, sub contractors to the Respondent or employees of sub contractors, may be required to sign a FWERF non disclosure statement. Can FWERF provide a copy of the nondisclosure statement for review? Please clarify how many color originals of the Technical and Cost Proposals are required. As stated in Table 12 Licensing Fees are not applicable. This is consistent with C.2. (18) FWERF does not have a completed non disclosure agreement (NDA) at this time but could provide a sample to the top respondent before contract negotiation. The intent of the NDA is to protect PPI and privacy of FWERFs members. FWERF would like to clarify that five (5) copies are needed of both the Technical and Cost Proposals. Question # Attachment 1 - Requirements 64 Attachment 1 Page # Req ID 153 Respondent Question This requirement talks about ability to perform manual COLA calculations. What does this entail? FWERF Response FWERF would need to be able to adjust the periodic payment by a COLA amount calculated outside of the system and indicate the change in the payment was due to the COLA. Page 16

17 Question # Attachment 7 - MSA Page # 65 Attachment Attachment 7 19 of Att. 7 Respondent Question Is FWERF willing to consider different insurance policy limit amounts than those identified in Exhibit A to Attachment 7, specifically for Errors and Omissions insurance? Since first party coverage addresses the contractor s damages rather than FWERF s damages, is first party cyber liability necessary or can the vendor self insure for first party risk? FWERF Response Please review carefully the contractual requirements listed in Section D.2 and the criteria. You may submit your proposed exception. No. This requirement is to protect all parties if such an event occurred. Page 17

18 67 Attachment 7 Master Services Agreement Section One or more bidders requested a clarification and proposed modifications to the definition of PPI in the Master Services Agreement. The request was to strike part (b) of the definition as shown below. The definition of PPI in Section 1.15(b) includes: any other information that is linked or linkable to an individual, such as medical, educational, financial, and employment information. In a relational database, all information is linkable, however only a subset is Personally Identifiable Information. We also believe that Section 1.15(a) reasonably describes the information that would be included in PPI. Can Section 1.15 be revised as follows: PPI means any information about an individual FWERF Beneficiary, FWERF Personnel, or other person that uniquely identifies the person, including but not limited to (a) any information that can be used to distinguish or trace an individual's identity, such as name, address, social security number, telephone number, IP address, financial account number, credit card number, debit card number, driver s license number, date and place of birth, mother's maiden name, or biometric records; and (b) any other information that is linked or linkable to an individual, such as medical, educational, financial, and employment information. FWERF would like to clarify that the definition of PPI can be found in the MSA in Section 1.15(b) and that Respondents may submit a proposed change. However, Respondents are cautioned to comply with Section D.2 of the RFP criteria and the evaluation impacts for making proposed modifications to the MSA. Additional information regarding confidentiality of information may be found in the Texas Government Code Title 5 Open Government Chapter 552 Public Information, Sec PUBLIC RETIREMENT SYSTEMS SUBJECT TO LAW at Page 18

19 68 Attachment 7 Master Services Agreement Section There is no clear time limit to the period in which the Vendor is obligated to answer questions after the end of the Termination Assistance Services period. Will you consider adding a mutually agreed time limit on this obligation? Respondents may submit a proposed change. However, Respondents are cautioned to comply with Section D.2 of the RFP criteria and the evaluation impacts for making proposed modifications to the MSA. If FWERF determines the time frame is reasonable this may be acceptable. 69 Attachment 7 Master Services Agreement Sections 7.1(c) & 7.1(d) 11 We believe that Sections 7.1(c) and 7.1(d) both address non infringement concerns that are addressed in the Section 8 indemnification provisions. Will you consider addressing noninfringement concerns in one provision? We suggest Section 8. Respondents may submit a proposed change. However, Respondents are cautioned to comply with Section D.2 of the RFP criteria and the evaluation impacts for making proposed modifications to the MSA. 70 Attachment 7 Master Services Agreement Section 9 and RFP Section D.2 Contractual Requirements 13 Section 9 does not include an overall limitation on the amount of liability. Will you consider adding a mutually agreeable liability cap? NOTE: Section D.2 on page 96 of the RFP includes the following: 2. In addition, FWERF will not award contracts to and may reject proposals from individuals or entities that attempt to include any of the following in the Master Services Agreement with FWERF: a. Provisions that reduce or diminish the common law or statutory standard of care, make any attempt to limit liability, or reduce responsibility of the contractor for mistake, error, or negligence of any type. b. Provisions that attempt to limit liability for breach of contract or negligent performance to the amount of the payment to the contractor by FWERF. Respondents may submit a proposed change. However, Respondents are cautioned to comply with Section D.2 of the RFP criteria and the evaluation impacts for making proposed modifications to the MSA. Page 19

20 Question # General Page # 71 Full RFP n/a Respondent Question Is this the final RFP? The version that was published on 2/9 has numerous strike marks throughout the entire RFP. FWERF Response Yes, this is the final RFP. The only strikeouts were due to the table of contents, and this occurred when creating the PDF version. This was corrected on the FWERF website Feb. 14, General Question n/a The RFP asks for the proposal to remain valid for two different timeframes, it references both one year and 180 days. Can FWERF confirm that the expectation is that the terms of the proposal are expected to be valid for one year, but that the cost proposal is only expected to be valid for 180 days from the date of submission? FWERF would like to clarify that it intends to follow the schedule described in section A.2.1 Table One, and that the proposal and pricing should be valid for one year from the date of submission. Page 20