Opportunity Detail

Questions and Answers

Data Analytics Platforms and Data Analytics Experts
Document #:  0A1199


Question:   If an Offeror is required to note any exceptions, where/how would the State prefer these be noted in the response?

Answer:   Exceptions should be indicated within the Exceptions section of each of the Supplements (Section 3.1) of Supplements 1 and 2 Respectively.

Date: 2/6/2017

Inquiry: 41014


Question:   As outlined in Attachment Three, Proposal Format: "All pages, except pre-printed technical inserts, must be sequentially numbered." Could you confirm if the State expects all pages/content in the Technical Proposal (tabs 1-15) to numbered, or if instead it is expected that certain sections will be omitted from sequential numbering? For example, Tab Section 4. Offeror Certification Form is a pdf form that we intend to include in the response, however is it expected that we number the pages of the Offeror Certification Form? (similar scenario with Supplier Information Form, W-9 form, Independent Contractor Acknowledgement Form)

Answer:   Numbering of pages within tabs is an acceptable format. Offerors need not number forms within response tabs. It is the offerors responsibility to ensure that all copies of their RFP response – both electronic and printed versions – are complete and have no missing pages.

Date: 2/3/2017

Inquiry: 41013


Question:   Does the state use a Master Data Management (MDM) platform for the harmonization of common entity/master data across state agencies and systems, or just within the health and human services integrated eligibility ecosystem (ref. Supplement 3, section 2.7.1)? If not, using MDM for consistent taxonomy across systems would greatly facilitate analysis and semantic consistency.

Answer:   The State does not maintain an MDM platform at the Enterprise Level. Some State agencies may have MDM (or similar) capabilities in place which (if the State determines that the MDM platform or data contained therein is applicable) will be included as part of an Exploratory Project work solicitation.

Date: 2/3/2017

Inquiry: 41011


Question:   As found on the Offeror Certification Form, is the following statement applicable to Supplement 1 only responses: "6. The offeror certifies that its regular, fulltime employees will perform at least 30% of the Work"

Answer:   Yes, as they relate to the scope of work performed by the Offeror.

Date: 2/3/2017

Inquiry: 41010


Question:   Is it a requirement of the RFP to respond to both supplement 1 and supplement 2 - or can we only respond to one of the supplements? For instance, can we only respond to Supplement 1 and still be considered/selected for the pool of pre-qualified Contractors in supplement 1?

Answer:   No, Either or both of Supplements 1 and 2 may be responded to. Should an offeror only submit a response to Supplement 1, they will not be eligible for Qualification for Supplement 2 work. Offerors (should they not have attended the online bidders conference) and STRONGLY ENCOURAGED to download the presentation materials, speakers notes and replay the online conference where this was presented by the State and discussed extensively in the narrative and the Q&A following the session.

Date: 2/3/2017

Inquiry: 41009


Question:   Can you clarify the difference between "Tools, Methods, Data Sources and Firm Proprietary/Unique Approaches" and "Tool and Platform Expertise"? Would "Tools, Methods, Data Sources and Firm Proprietary/Unique Approaches" only apply to Proprietary/Unique Approaches?

Answer:   The State does not offer specific advice on how offerors may choose to develop and respond to this RFP, but offers (for consideration): Tools, Methods, Data Sources and Firm Proprietary/Unique Approaches general refer to those elements that (in the opinion of the offeror) apply to their capability which DIFFERENTIATES them from other firms that may offer similar appearing capabilities. As an illustrative consideration: “What makes your firm special/different/better/unique/more efficient/more skilled/innovative experienced/creative/agile” than others. Whereas Tool and Platform Expertise may be an opportunity to demonstrate a depth and breadth of experience on a variety of the hundreds of tools, platforms, statistical techniques etc. that are prevalent in the marketplace.

Date: 2/3/2017

Inquiry: 41008


Question:   Is the following applicable to a Supplement 1 only response? "Offeror Profile. Each response to a Supplement must include a description of the offeror and/or proposed team capability, capacity, and experience in support of the requirements of each Supplement. The description should include the date the offeror (and/or proposed team) was established, its leadership, number of employees, number of employees the offeror anticipates engaging in work directly related to a Project, and any other background information or relevant experience that will help the State gauge the ability of the offeror to perform work and services related to Exploratory Projects. "

Answer:   The State does not offer specific advice as to how to respond to an RFP from a contents and completeness perspective. Offerors are encouraged to convey the quality, features, functions and capabilities of their platform and attributes in the use of their platform – and the technical and support capabilities - of the firms team, technical support, troubleshooting, problem solving etc. are encouraged as they directly relate to any proposed Analytics Platform.

Date: 2/3/2017

Inquiry: 41007


Question:   To confirm, for Attachment Seven Offeror Profile Supplement 1 the State is not requesting a reference/past performance but instead proof of certification of the appropriate FedRAMP status for the solution proposed in Supplement 1?

Answer:   Correct. Brief details (e.g., Date FedRAMP certification achieved, Service Model, Authorizations etc.) are encouraged.

Date: 2/3/2017

Inquiry: 41006


Question:   With respect to Supplement 1, would a contract awardee be allowed to add additional providers to the States contract should they become FedRAMP authorized at a future date?

Answer:   Yes.

Date: 2/3/2017

Inquiry: 41005


Question:   Please confirm that the State will consider ANY of the service models listed in NIST 800-145.

Answer:   Supplement 3 contains a requirement “All Services must also operate at the [moderate level baseline] as defined in NIST (SP) 800-53 (current, published version) [moderate baseline requirements], be consistent with Federal Information Security Management Act (“FISMA”) requirements, and offer a customizable and extendable capability based on open-standards APIs that enable integration with third party applications.”

Date: 2/3/2017

Inquiry: 41004


Question:   After pre-qualification will there be any effort to establish a contract that will be used for the procurement of any subsequent projects?

Answer:   Yes, this process is included under the Contract Negotiations and Failure to Negotiate section of Part Four of the RFP and Contract Award Section of Part Five of this RFP.

Date: 2/3/2017

Inquiry: 41003


Question:   Will the contract resulting from this RFP necessarily be used or incorporated into any contracts for exploratory projects following this pre-qualification effort?

Answer:   Yes, the contracts arising from this RFP will be the basis for all work performed under an Exploratory Project work solicitation. Such Solicitations will only be made available to those Contractors qualified via this RFP.

Date: 2/3/2017

Inquiry: 41002


Question:   We currently have an approved Affirmative Action Plan (AAP) in place with the State and it is effective until November 2017. Can we reference and/or include the approved AAP letter from the State within our proposal in lieu of completing a new set of forms?

Answer:   Yes.

Date: 2/3/2017

Inquiry: 41001


Question:   Could the state please clarify whether proposed subcontractors need to submit the Affirmative Action Program Verification Form?

Answer:   A subcontractor does not need to submit an Affirmative Action Program Verification Form.

Date: 2/3/2017

Inquiry: 41000


Question:   Duplicate submission.

Answer:   Duplicate submission.

Date: 2/3/2017

Inquiry: 40995


Question:   Supplement 2, page 12 of 21, Section 2.3 Domain Specific Teams and Expertise Proposal Response Requirements, Representative Resumes, paragraph 3: The RFP requests “As part of their response to this Representative Resumes element of their proposal, Offerors should include a statement and a chart that clearly indicates the typical time commitment and level of involvement of their team inclusive of the Project Manager and the Offeror’s proposed team members for similar work during each phase of a projects, within the context of the Offeror’s approach and methodology in performing similar projects” Without more specific information regarding the exploratory projects, vendors will have difficulty estimating resource levels to produce this information. Would the State consider removing this requirement from this response considering this information is more appropriate in the future IQ responses? If the requirement is not removed, can the State provide more guidance regarding the type of information vendor should provide to meet the State expectations for this information?

Answer:   The State acknowledges that the project dynamic of any Exploratory Project may differ from a scope, scale, timing, dataset and other factors perspective that will be highly situational and specific to the project and work solicitation. HOWEVER, offerors must have a well-defined and repeatable project methology that defines and drives the work, ensures that quality and review processes are in place, to make sure that the State in involved and engaged with the execution and oversight of the project at all levels, that a project plan exists and is followed, that risks and issues are identified and to the extent possible mitigated and a variety of other factors that result in a quality project and a successful delivery. The States minimum requirements to this effect are contained in the project elements of Supplement 2, Section 2.8 in its entirety. As this Supplement, as a mandatory requirement, contains verbiage to the effect of “offeror has performed a project”, the State seeks (via this section) to verify that: offerors understand and can execute projects, that they have some form of methodology; that the methodology is repeatable and followed by the offeror team; that the project is measurable (project plan) and produces outcomes (e.g., milestone attainment, deliverable acceptance etc) as well as all of the elements in Section 2.8. Offerors are encouraged to provide the State, via their response evidence that they maintain such elements as to successfully perform a project for the State. Offerors may (perhaps, at their sole discretion) choose to highlight elements of their methodology, use case studies of recent clients or projects to illustrate how their methods of performing projects results in successes, utilize industry standard project methodologies, include their proprietary work methods/accelerators etc. As to the “resource levels” element of this Inquiry, the Offeror should consider providing some indication, based on their experience on what a typical project is (for them) or consider the selection of a few representative projects, and discuss the resourcing considerations in the context of those projects as case studies for State consideration.

Date: 2/3/2017

Inquiry: 40998


Question:   For each exploratory project will RFP contain for that project contain specific terms and conditions, security requirements, HR requirement, etc. or will the terms and conditions in this RFP govern.

Answer:   All Exploratory Projects will utilize the Terms and Conditions (Attachment 4) of this RFP as well as the provisions pertinent to Security, Privacy and State Data Handling of Supplement 3. Should, for whatever reason, the State determine that additional, Exploratory Project-specific Terms or Conditions are required for a project, such terms will be included in any work solicitation and prevail over any Contractor(s) performing the Work.

Date: 2/3/2017

Inquiry: 40997


Question:   To clarify Inquiry: 40981: The Offeror is a Value-Added Reseller and our solution to Supplement 1 utilizes our manufacturers FedRAMP IaaS/PaaS offering. The manufacturer is the cloud service provider. Simply would like to confirm that in this scenario it would NOT be required to obtain Subcontractor Letters with certifications (as identified in Attachment 3) from the manufacturer/cloud service provider (stated otherwise: cloud service providers are not considered subcontractors).

Answer:   Confirmed.

Date: 2/3/2017

Inquiry: 40989


Question:   We are a group of investigators that are interested in doing projects related to Supplement 2 - Life Sciences & Public Health. Specifically, we have previously worked with the state infant mortality data, and also data concerning the state opioid epidemic. I am relatively new to Ohio and have not submitted a response to a state RFP before, so had a few questions. Specifically: 1) What is the cap on the budget for any one application 2) What is the expected time frame for completion of projects and 3) what data are eligible for proposals this RFP. e.g., we have data from PCORI (LHSNet) which we would like to use for this application (we would focus on data and questions that are specific to Ohio).

Answer:   1) the State will competitively bid Exploratory Projects, so there is no effective “cap” (or “floor” for that matter). Depending on the nature of the project work may utilize, time & materials, deliverables, firm-fixed-price or other common methods from a costing and payment perspective. 2) Every project will have different dynamics depending on the nature of the project, “business challenges”, amount of data etc, but in general an Exploratory Project may be of the 3-6 month in duration variety with the opportunity to extend these projects into corollary or related projects to fully analyze the “problem set” and related nuances that become exposed during the project or as a result of State preference. 3) the State is not requesting Data as a result of this RFP, but (Supplement 2) Expert Firms that can perform analyses using a combination of State datasets and (if applicable) external datasets whether they be in private or public domain.

Date: 2/3/2017

Inquiry: 40986


Question:   What proof of insurance is required for this bid?

Answer:   The Proof of Insurance Requirement for Proposal will be removed from the initial proposal response, in the form of Amendment Two to the RFP. There will be detailed Proof of Insurance requirements included Statement of Work Solicitations for individual Exploratory Projects.

Date: 2/2/2017

Inquiry: 40983


Question:   Is at least one reference per domain mandatory?

Answer:   Yes, at least one reference per domain that the offeror seeks to be qualified for must be provided. Offerors need not provide references for those domains that they are not interested in pursuing.

Date: 2/2/2017

Inquiry: 40982


Question:   For the past performance requirements identified in Attachment Seven and Section 2.3 of Supplement 2, please confirm that the respondent may utilize past performance of either a wholly owned subsidiary or a parent organization.

Answer:   The State can confirm this is the case. The relationship of the parties should be made known to the State as part of the response to Supplement 2.

Date: 2/2/2017

Inquiry: 40980


Question:   As identified in Attachment Three, the Technical Proposal, a requirement of the RFP is to obtain Subcontractor Letters. For the purpose of this RFP, please confirm that the Cloud Service Providers (CSP) are not considered subcontractors, and therefore it is NOT required to obtain Subcontractor Letters with the requested information from CSP’s.

Answer:   The State assumes that this inquiry is pertinent to a Supplement 1 response. Should and offeror’s solution be based upon, or utilize a FedRAMP IaaS or PaaS provider to meet the Mandatory Requirement of Supplement 1, the relationship of the Offeror and the FedRAMP provider (e.g., partner, supplier, subcontractor etc) should be made known to the State. Given the brevity of this inquiry, the State suggests the offeror submit a more specific inquiry for State consideration.

Date: 2/2/2017

Inquiry: 40981


Question:   For Supplement 1, will the Prime vendor need to be FedRamp certified?

Answer:   The Mandatory Requirement for Supplement 1 does not require a “Prime” to maintain the FedRAMP certification, but the PROVIDER of such a platform (Mandatory excerpt): “The provider of the proposed Cloud Based Analytics Platform, must possess and maintain either of: a FEDRAMP..”. Offerors may choose to partner, team or subcontract with a PROVIDER of such platforms.

Date: 2/2/2017

Inquiry: 40977


Question:   Due to the complexity of the response for Supplement 1 & Supplement 2 vendors, wed like to ask for an extension to March 17th.

Answer:   The State will not consider extending the due date for the pre-qualification proposals.

Date: 2/2/2017

Inquiry: 40976


Question:   Will subsequent Exploratory Projects possess contract language that accommodates SAAS providers? Or will the language be similar to the contract language in this RFP?

Answer:   Given the brevity of this question and lack of detail regarding the attributes of the “SaaS” elements, the State cannot offer specific guidance, however Exploratory Projects will be performed (depending on the nature of the data contained in the project) on either or both of: 1) a Prequalified Supplement 1 Contractor or 2) The State Private Cloud (on premise).

Date: 2/1/2017

Inquiry: 40962


Question:   This contract is built for services companies, but some respondents will be offering Software-as-a-Service (SAAS) products, which would require several contract exceptions/changes. Given that exceptions are highly discouraged, how do you suggest SAAS vendors proceed with potential changes to the contract?

Answer:   Absent details pertaining to the Offeror’s solution, the State directs this Inquirer to carfefully consider the Mandatory requirements of this RFP, and based on the context of this inquiry, ensure that their “SaaS” offering is built upon a FedRamp IAAS or PAAS moderate or higher platform as per the requirements. Should an offeror take exception to any elements of the RFP, they should be provided as part of their response for State review and consideration. The State does not pre-negotiate contracts via the Inquiry Process.

Date: 2/1/2017

Inquiry: 40962


Question:   Tab 5 requests the Offer Profile (as it relates to the proposed work). Please confirm Tab 5 should include 1) all completed Attachment 7 forms and 2) a summary description of information provided in Tab 6 Supplement section 2.3 Firm Capabilities, Methods and Tools.

Answer:   Confirmed

Date: 2/1/2017

Inquiry: 40969


Question:   Please confirm Tab 6 should include only an inline response to Supplement 2 (which may include some of the same information from Tab 5).

Answer:   Confirmed

Date: 2/1/2017

Inquiry: 40970


Question:   We would like to submit a sample report or deliverable as part of our domain case study. Would the state prefer that it be in-line or added as an exhibit to our response.

Answer:   This is acceptable to the State, with a preference for such materials to be provided inline as opposed to in an appendix. Offerors are cautioned that RFP responses are (following award) subject to Public Records Law and as such Offerors are encouraged not to provide any material that should not be in the Public Domain that may be proprietary to their firms or confidential to their clients.

Date: 2/1/2017

Inquiry: 40967


Question:   If submitting a response to a select few domains (as opposed to all), can the offeror go beyond the 2-3 page suggested limit per project biopic/case study?

Answer:   The State has not included a page limit on this RFP. The 2-3 page is a SUGGESTION but not a firm requirement. Offerors are encouraged to limit highly repetitive language in the formation of their proposals.

Date: 2/1/2017

Inquiry: 40964


Question:   Please confirm that the State will consider ANY of the service models listed in NIST 800-145, and engaged with the FedRAMP PMO for this solicitation.

Answer:   The State is not engaged with the FedRAMP PMO as it relates to this procurement.

Date: 2/1/2017

Inquiry: 40961


Question:   Please confirm that the State will assist with CISO level accreditation for analytical solutions inheriting security controls from CSPs that have an active FedRAMP accreditation at IaaS/PaaS.

Answer:   The State will NOT assist with CISO level accreditation as referenced by this inquiry.

Date: 2/1/2017

Inquiry: 40960


Question:   Please confirm that the State will consider cloud solutions with FedRAMP status that are in-process, ready & 3PAO review & re-accreditation due to the heavy demand placed on the FedRAMP PMO, DISA, JAB & other PMOs for SSP / FedRAMP Package review. This will allow the State to consume new technologies that are innovative, cost effective, efficient and strengthen the overall cyber security posture.

Answer:   The State cannot confirm this. The listing contained on the hyperlink at the time of proposal submission will be utilized to validate Offeror compliance with the Mandatory Requirement for Supplement 1.

Date: 2/1/2017

Inquiry: 40959


Question:   Will the state please allow at least two weeks between the dates that the last questions are answered and the response is due?

Answer:   The inquiry period ends on Friday, February 3, 2017. The proposals are due into the State 2 weeks later, on Friday, February 17, 2017.

Date: 2/1/2017

Inquiry: 40968


Question:   There is no form at the address specified on RFP page 25: Affirmative Action. Before a contract can be awarded or renewed, an Affirmative Action Program Verification Form must be completed. The form is available at: http://das.ohio.gov/Divisions/EqualOpportunity/AffirmativeActionProgramVerification/tabid/133/Default.aspx. Please advise.

Answer:   The link takes the reader to the "Affirmative Action Program Verification" page. There are additional links and instructions on that page for completing and submitting the form via the Ohio Business Gateway.

Date: 2/1/2017

Inquiry: 40966


Question:   Where should the completed Attachment Eight - Standard Affirmation and Disclosure Form, RFP Pages 45-46 be included in the response.

Answer:   See Attachment Three of the RFP for information on the tabbed sections of the in-line Proposal response.

Date: 2/1/2017

Inquiry: 40965


Question:   What are the insurance requirements for this opportunity?

Answer:   The Proof of Insurance Requirement for Proposal will be removed from the initial proposal response, in the form of Amendment Two to the RFP. There will be detailed Proof of Insurance requirements included Statement of Work Solicitations for individual Exploratory Projects.

Date: 2/1/2017

Inquiry: 40963


Question:   Please confirm that past performance from a wholly owned subsidiary and/or parent organization is acceptable.

Answer:   Given the brevity of this Inquiry, the State requests that the Offeror resubmit this Inquiry in a more complete form with the context or concerns of the Offeror for State consideration. It is unclear as to what RFP element, Supplement or requirement the Offeror is questioning. As a general Statement, the Mandatory requirements of this RFP are constructed to allow for Teaming/Partnering. Specifically, Supplement 1 (“The provider of the proposed Cloud Based Analytics Platform, must possess and maintain…”) and Supplement 2 (“The offeror and/or proposed team must have performed…”).

Date: 2/1/2017

Inquiry: 40956


Question:   For the purpose of this RFP, please confirm that the Cloud Service Providers are not considered subcontractors.

Answer:   Given the brevity of this Inquiry, the State requests that the Offeror resubmit this Inquiry in a more complete form with the context or concerns of the Offeror for State consideration.

Date: 2/1/2017

Inquiry: 40955


Question:   For Attachment Seven, Offeror Profile, please confirm that information requested in the Contact information fields is the FEDRAMP point of contact and that the “Describe Related Service Provided” field is requesting information on the types of services being offered.

Answer:   This will be an acceptable form of response, as would any FEDRAMP documentation attesting to the certification, as would a screen shot of the FedRAMP accreditation (using the FEDRAMP webpage) as to demonstrate the required credential(s).

Date: 2/1/2017

Inquiry: 40954


Question:   Will the State consider platforms available via FedRAMP ATO for National Cancer Institute Cancer Cloud Pilots when the platform is otherwise not listed as FedRAMP on the website (https://marketplace.fedramp.gov/index.html#/products?sort=productName)?

Answer:   The State will not alter the mandatory requirement for Supplement 1 for this procurement. Should an offeror gain the FEDRAMP IAAS/PAAS Moderate or higher accreditation at a future date when the State re-opens a qualification process for additional offerors, offerors should seek qualification for Supplement 1 at that time.

Date: 2/1/2017

Inquiry: 40952


Question:   Ref: RFP, Part One, Executive Summary Heading: Scope of Supplement 2 RFP pg: 3 Could the State please clarify the boundaries between Public Safety/Security Crime, Corrections and Recidivism and Transportation. Specifically: (1) whether law enforcement (e.g., the prevention of crime) would fall within the scope of the Public Safety/Security, or Crime, Corrections and Recidivism domain, and (2), whether road safety, or the prevention of road accidents, would fall within the scope of the Public Safety/Security or Transportation domain.

Answer:   The domains, as reflected in the text of Supplements 1 and 2, and as discussed during the bidders conference (offerors should review the materials online pertaining to that event), are constructed to be GENERAL in nature and as to align to common, industry terminology and nomenclature. Offerors are encouraged to align their responses to the MOST APPROPRIATE of the 14 categories and provide the State narrative as to their rationale, considerations and assumptions in doing so.

Date: 2/1/2017

Inquiry: 40951


Question:   In Supplement 2, Section 2.1 you show an example response format on page 8 for each Domain a respondent wants to qualify in. If we are responding to 2 Domains and for the each Domain our responses to all 2 Domains will be the same for the sections i.e. Firm Credentials, Firm Capabilities, Resumes. Instead of being harnessed to the format listed and repeating duplicative language (that the state has requested we refrain from) - Can we respond in a format as follows and not be disqualified: Firm Credentials -- Firm Credentials Overview -- Specific detail how it applies to Domain 1 -- Specific detail how it applies to Domain 2 Methods/Tools Innovations & Outcomes -- Methods/Tools Overview -- Specific how it applies to Domain 1 -- Specific how it applies to Domain 2 Project Biopic Domain 1 Project Biopic Domain 2 Resumes clearly identifying Domain 1 and Domain 2 expertise Other Capabilities Experts/Advisors Or must each Domain responded to stand alone in one full complete response format as shown on Page 8 of the RFP?

Answer:   The State does not seek to ‘harness’ any offeror in the development of their response and suggests that unnecessary or repetitive duplication of identical information be used judiciously by offerors in the development of their proposals. Offerors are advised that the State’s Evaluation process ensures that all proposals are read, cover to cover, and considered in their entirety. As such, and for example, if an Offeror resume is applicable to MULTIPLE domains (e.g., Waste/Fraud AND Abuse and Risk Management – a firm, in this illustrative example, that performed a project to identify fraud in insurance claims) that the resumes CLEARLY INDICATE as such. Similar advisories are offered for all of the other attributes (e.g., firm experience, outcomes etc) that are included in Supplement 2.

Date: 2/1/2017

Inquiry: 40950


Question:   We intend to submit a response to this RFP. (NAME REMOVED) is a firm co-founded by (NAME REMOVED). We have case studies that involve providing data analytic/machine learning services to a life sciences company to predict disease states. Given that one of our co-founders is also (NAME REMOVED), can the same case study be used to submit two different proposals (i.e. one by (NAME REMOVED) and one by (NAME REMOVED))?

Answer:   All firms, should they meet the mandatory requirements of the Supplement(s) they are interested in are encouraged to submit proposals for this RFP. The academic community is encouraged to submit one proposal that represents their institute of higher learning to the extent practicable. Similar case studies may be utilized in proposals on the presumption that the contracting structure (i.e., Contractor, team, or sub-contractor) is clearly made known to the State as part of any proposal.

Date: 2/1/2017

Inquiry: 40945


Question:   Will the state provide a .doc or .docx of Attachment Seven so that we may maintain the required elements of the form intact and add additional text than currently allowed in the box sections Related Service Provided & Related Service Experience, capability, etc. ...... Converting the PDF to Word formatting is not consistent.

Answer:   Attachment 7 is already included in this solicitation as an editable MS-Word Document at https://procure.ohio.gov/ProcOppForm/0A1199_0A1199%20RFP%20Word%20Version.doc

Date: 2/1/2017

Inquiry: 40949


Question:   Page 12 of Supplement 2 states that Contractors performing Exploratory Projects are “required to provide all required tools, external data sources, methods, and personnel in order to complete the work.” Should offerors expect this to extend to provision of hardware? For example, if an offeror proposes services to be performed onsite at the state’s location, can the offeror assume that they will be able to utilize State equipment/hardware in order to perform those services?

Answer:   The State is not seeking to acquire hardware via this solicitation. Teams performing exploratory projects will be permitted and requested to provide their own “hardware” as applicable to the project and their needs to perform exploratory projects via use of either (1) the State Private Cloud platform and/or (2) a Offeror Qualified via Supplement 1. The State, as part of an Exploratory Project solicitation, will indicate its requirements for either or both of such platforms.

Date: 2/1/2017

Inquiry: 40948


Question:   Given that offerors do not know specific scope requirements for future Exploratory Projects, would the State be willing to review or consider any additional legal terms in connection with a response to a specific Exploratory Project? For example, if in connection with an Exploratory Project an offeror thinks a limited license to use software might be beneficial to the state, could the offeror introduce software usage terms in connection with a response to the particular Exploratory Project?

Answer:   The State is not seeking to acquire analytical software tools via this solicitation. Teams performing exploratory projects will be permitted and requested to provide their own tools as applicable to the project and their needs to perform exploratory projects. The State does not negotiate terms and conditions during the inquiry period or inquiry process.

Date: 2/1/2017

Inquiry: 40947


Question:   Date: 1/20/2017 Inquiry: 40771 Question: ... Can we include all CV’s for all domains as an appendix? Answer: ...Yes, that is an acceptable method as well Date: 1/30/2017 Inquiry: 40931 Answer: ....Offerors are advised to refrain from appendix information as the State reads every RFP cover to cover. Please confirm the states intent regarding resumes included in an appendix - can the appendix be a the back of Supplement 2 or should it be placed elsewhere?

Answer:   The State prefers all resumes applicable to supplement 2 to be included within the Supplement 2 response, generally located within Section 2.2 (as opposed to an appendix) and that resume(s) indicate the data domain(s) applicable to the candidate.

Date: 2/1/2017

Inquiry: 40944


Question:   It appears that inquiries: 40928 and 40849 ask basically the same question related to proposal document production, yet the answers (below) to each contradict the other. Can you pleased clarify the State’s position on how you’d like to see the documents packaged? • Answer to 40928 : One binder, with all tabs clearly marked, particularly those that divide each of Supplements 1 2 and 3 is sufficient. • Answer to 40849: To ensure the proposal(s) of an offeror is properly checked-in and recorded on the due date, it would be prudent to submit separately sealed proposals of Supplement 1 and Supplement 2 responses as requested in the RFP.

Answer:   It would be prudent for an offeror to submit separate binders when responding to Supplement 1 and Supplement 2, however, if an offeror decides to submit one binder with both supplement responses, the binders should be very clearly marked as such: “This binder contains a Supplement 1 response and a Supplement 2 response.”

Additionally, if an offeror decides to ship its Supplement 1 responses and Supplement 2 responses in the same shipping package, box or container, the binders should be very clearly marked as either Supplement 1 or Supplement 2.

Date: 1/31/2017

Inquiry: 40941


Question:   Ref: Supplement 2, Section 2.3 - Could the State please clarify if a Supplier will be considered only for the data domains that are included in the Suppliers response ? i.e., if a Supplier submits a proposal which includes experience in Education, will the Supplier will only be considered for Exploratory Projects in Education ? Or will the Supplier be able to bid on any Exploratory Projects that are announced ?

Answer:   That is the case. Contractors will only be eligible for those categories in which they obtain qualification within.

Date: 1/31/2017

Inquiry: 40943


Question:   In supplement 2, section 2.2, how does the referenced framework align with the domains that the State is asking for advanced analytics references in (as an example Agriculture)? Is the State looking for references specific to this framework to the extent that it is different from the 14 domains outlined?

Answer:   The State believes that these 14 categories in section 2.3 are identical to those contained in the Mandatory requirement for Supplement 2 as contained in the Base RFP document. The graphic in Section 2.2 is conceptual and illustrative in nature as to convey a general understanding to offerors on how the State is organized.

Date: 1/31/2017

Inquiry: 40940


Question:   Regarding the Affirmative Action Plan requirement for the response submission: Will the State accept a copy of Ohio DAS’s Affirmative Action Program Verification letter, if the effective dates are valid, to meet the requirement?

Answer:   Yes.

Date: 1/31/2017

Inquiry: 40942


Question:   Are website links acceptable as part of an inline response? For example, in response to a section on supported Compute Operating Systems, the list could be extensive and frequently changing. Or must all content be represented in a printed response?

Answer:   As the State’s requirements, inclusive of Offeror responses comprise a contract between the State and Contractor (should the State qualify the offeror via the RFP), all proposals must include all information that represent a complete proposal and not refer (i.e., web link) to information outside of the proposal. State evaluators read every proposal, cover to cover, and as such offerors should include all information that they wish the State to consider as part of their proposal.

Date: 1/31/2017

Inquiry: 40936


Question:   Our firm will be responding to both Supplement 1 and 2. Per the RFP, the same information from tabbed sections 1-5 and 7-15 will apply to both Supplement 1 and 2, with tabbed section 6 containing information pertinent to the specific Supplement 1 and 2 requirements. Because we are responding to both Supplements, can the information be combined into one sealed binder (total of 8 copies in binders sealed) or will we need to separate the responses into two separate sets of binders (one set for Supplement 1 and one set for Supplement 2) bringing the total to 16 binders with redundant sections for 1-5 and 7-15?

Answer:   One binder, with all tabs clearly marked, particularly those that divide each of Supplements 1 2 and 3 is sufficient.

Date: 1/30/2017

Inquiry: 40928


Question:   In Section 2.3 of Supplement 2, the Firm Credentials and Innovations that Produced Measurable Outcomes sections both request 2-3 page case studies for work that has been completed by the vendor. There is overlap in the information of requested information such as "Business Problem Summary" (Credentials) and "Client Business Problem" (Innovations). Its our interpretation that many of the same projects will be included in both places. Is that a correct assumption? If so, do you want the full description, including the overlapping areas, provided in both sections? If not, in which section would you like us to include the case studies inline? Or, for ease of review, would you like us to combine the information in both sections into one description of each case study and provide in an appendix referenced inline in both sections?

Answer:   This RFP does not include a page limit. Offerors may response to Supplement 2, Section 2.3 as they see fit to demonstrate their capabilities, skills and experiences and how they meet the requirements of the RFP. Case studies may be provided inline. Offerors may include pages in landscape orientation for those elements of their response that do not lend themselves to being represented in portrait format. Offerors are advised to refrain from appendix information as the State reads every RFP cover to cover.

Date: 1/30/2017

Inquiry: 40931


Question:   Regarding Supplement 2: Please provide clarification on Section 2.3 specifically on the differences in Firm Credentials, Firm Capabilities, Methods, Tools, Innovations that Produced Measurable Outcomes Representative Resumes and Other Pertinent Information. Each of these sections request very similar information redundant information which will reduce our ability to be concise. In addition, are we to provide this redundant information for each data domain and specific client reference as we have some clients that span multiple domains?

Answer:   This RFP does not include a page limit. Offerors may response to Supplement 2, Section 2.3 as they see fit to demonstrate their capabilities, skills and experiences and how they meet the requirements of the RFP.

Date: 1/30/2017

Inquiry: 40930


Question:   If responding to Supplement 1 as a bundler of an analytics platform with multiple tools, are the software vendors considered subcontractors to Respondent or simply partner providers of the analytics platform and tools? For example, if we are proposing a solution for Supplement 1 leveraging a platform along with a set of tools, are the providers of the platform and tools considered our subcontracts in which case we would need to provide subcontractor letters etc. for the response?

Answer:   The State does not require Tools to be proposed as part of Supplement One responses, should an offeror wish to attempt differentiate themselves through the inclusion of tools in a Supplement 1 response, such an approach is at the option of the Offeror. The State cautions Offerors that the Mandatory Requirement of Supplement 1 (in this case) MUST be met by the underlying infrastructure or platform and that the provider of such a platform (if different than the offeror) must be included as a subcontractor or team/partner of the Offeror.

Date: 1/30/2017

Inquiry: 40929


Question:   Pursuant to Part 3 – General Instructions, Proposal Submittal, page 8, Offerors are not to include any confidential information in their proposal response. However, Attachment 3 – Requirements for Proposals, Offeror Profile, Item (a) Mandatory Experience and Qualifications, page 25, requires Offerors to provide the contact name, title, phone number, and email address of client references. Since such client information may be considered to be confidential, could the State please advise as to how Offeror’s may protect their confidential client information and simultaneously submit a compliant proposal?

Answer:   The State requires that all offeror experiences as represented in the Attachment Profile Form be validated as references. Should the client of an offeror not wish this information to be in the public domain, such identifying reference details (e.g., name, phone number, email address) can be included in the confidential response portion of the offeror proposal.

Date: 1/30/2017

Inquiry: 40933


Question:   Ref: Supplement 2, Section 2.3, Domain-Specific Teams and Expertise Proposal Response Requirements, Heading: High Level Data Analytics Domains, page 10. In follow up to inquiry 40762, could the State please provide typical use cases specific to the Risk Management (Insurance & Claims Management) domain?

Answer:   This is a duplicative inquiry. Please see previous inquiries and responses.

Date: 1/30/2017

Inquiry: 40934


Question:   Will the State please provide additional information regarding the evaluation team? For example, will the evaluation team comprise data scientists, procurement teams, contract manager, domain experts, etc?

Answer:   The State does not offer additional details as to the membership or composition of the Evaluation Team. Offerors are encouraged to develop their proposals that highlight the capabilities of their firm within the Evaluation Criteria contained in the RFP and the requirements contained in the Supplement(s) the offeror is responding to.

Date: 1/30/2017

Inquiry: 40932


Question:   For Supplement 1, could the State please confirm if Offerors need all qualifications to be met (e.g. FEDRAMP) on day 1 of the contract?

Answer:   FEDRAMP requirements must be in place AT THE TIME OF PROPOSAL SUBMISSION to the State as per the mandatory.

Date: 1/30/2017

Inquiry: 40935


Question:   Are Canadian companies allowed to participate?

Answer:   Yes, with the proviso that all requirements of the RFP are met, and that the requirements of Executive Order 2011-2012K (in particular) are strictly adhered to. The State (given the brevity of this inquiry) offers that Offerors are directed to read the RFP documents in their totality to determine their eligibility for participation.

Date: 1/30/2017

Inquiry: 40916


Question:   Is experience completed under a federal grant -- as opposed to commercial contract -- acceptable to be presented in case studies for 14 domains?

Answer:   The mandatory requirements do not contain considerations pertinent to Federal grant-based work and as such may be permissible. The State (given the brevity of this inquiry) offers that Offerors are directed to read the mandatory requirements in their totality to determine their eligibility for participation.

Date: 1/30/2017

Inquiry: 40918


Question:   Please confirm that case studies citing experience/results from federal contracts and with industry in the 14 domains will be accepted, that is, that cases do not have to be for work done only for the State of Ohio.

Answer:   The mandatory requirements do not contain considerations pertinent to Federal or Ohio-based work and as such may be permissible. The State (given the brevity of this inquiry) offers that Offerors are directed to read the mandatory requirements in their totality to determine their eligibility for participation.

Date: 1/30/2017

Inquiry: 40917


Question:   Is the state willing to discuss 2.0 a. Termination for Convenience during the contracting phase of the procurement? We also request the opportunity to include additional terms and conditions as they relate to the specific technology and services being delivered as part of our response.

Answer:   . The State does not pre-negotiate the provisions of the RFP, particularly those contained in Attachment 4. Should an offeror take exception to any element of the RFP, they should include such exceptions within their proposal response.

Date: 1/30/2017

Inquiry: 40915


Question:   In an effort to provide the lowest cost proposal will vendors be able to provide two pricing options? One that ensures offshore resources are leveraged on a limited basis with appropriate security controls implemented to ensure that these resources do not access client data and another that restricts the use of any offshore resources?

Answer:   This RFP does not contain pricing considerations, nor contains a Cost Workbook. This RFP is for Qualification and Contracting purposes only. Executive Order 2011-2012K (in summary) prohibits the use of offshore resources or storage of State data offshore, Offerors are directed to read and understand this Executive Order in conjunction with the development of responses to this RFP.

Date: 1/30/2017

Inquiry: 40914


Question:   In an effort to provide the lowest cost proposal will vendors be able to provide two pricing options? One that ensures offshore resources are leveraged on a limited basis with appropriate security controls implemented to ensure that these resources do not access client data and another that restricts the use of any offshore resources?

Answer:   This RFP does not contain pricing considerations, nor contains a Cost Workbook. This RFP is for Qualification and Contracting purposes only. Executive Order 2011-2012K (in summary) prohibits the use of offshore resources or storage of State data offshore, Offerors are directed to read and understand this Executive Order in conjunction with the development of responses to this RFP.

Date: 1/30/2017

Inquiry: 40913


Question:   Supplement 2 - We presume ask is also to provide a detail solution approach to cover the domains we plan to align and detail the tools we plan to use with its descriptions etc. In a short, Solution Diagram and respective details. Please confirm

Answer:   The State does not object to this approach.

Date: 1/30/2017

Inquiry: 40912


Question:   The response to Inquiry 40644 said "...The Supplements of this RFP are provided in Microsoft Word formats for offerors to use in the development of their response. Offerors should include their response as an inline format and may use distinctive document formats, fonts, colors and branding as they see fit..." which is understood. However should all other required tabbed sections (i.e. OBM-5657 Attachment 6 etc.) that make up tabs 1-5 and 7-14 but are outside the Supplement 1 or 2 proposals also be in a distinctive font as well?

Answer:   The State does not require such considerations for forms and attachments to this RFP.

Date: 1/30/2017

Inquiry: 40911


Question:   On page 24 of the rfp in the Cover Letter section, the offeror needs to include "A statement certifying the Contractor is a business entity and will not submit the Independent Contractor/Worker Acknowledgement to the ordering agency." On page 26 of the rfp in the Independent Contractor Acknowledgement section, "Unless the offeror is a “business entity” as that term is defined in ORC. 145.037 (“an entity with five or more employees that is a corporation, association, firm, limited liability company, partnership, sole proprietorship, or other entity engaged in business”), the offeror must complete and submit an originally signed Independent Contractor Acknowledgement form in its entirety." Does this definition along with the cover letter requirement mean that entities with less than five employees are excluded from responding to this rfp?

Answer:   No, firms of all sizes are invited to respond to this RFP.

Date: 1/30/2017

Inquiry: 40905


Question:   Would appreciate review and updates on the following questions: From a security standpoint, can the State provide any additional information on how a vendor’s “Platform as a Service (PaaS) authorized platform at a MODERATE or HIGH level suitable for performing Advanced Analytics” will be defined? Are there specific benchmarks for a what constitutes a PaaS platform? How will “moderate to high” level of a PaaS platform be measured?”

Answer:   The State considers FEDRAMP authorization (PaaS or IaaS) a sufficient and objective standard for storage and processing of certain, non-personally identifiable, State data as well as non-State data. Offerors are advised that Supplement 3 contains additional requirements pertaining to Security, Privacy and Data Handling.

Date: 1/30/2017

Inquiry: 40921


Question:   Would appreciate review and updates on the following questions: From a requirement standpoint, we feel the functionality requested in the RFP can be achieved as long as a comparable data platform is utilized which may or may not be a FEDRAMP AUTHORIZED Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) or Platform as a Service (PaaS) authorized platform. Would the State consider a bidder response to be qualified if such a data platform is utilized which may not be FEDRAMP AUTHORIZED as long as the bidder response provides details from past projects and secure processes supporting the claim? With this background, is it possible to make the requirement of FEDRAMP AUTHORIZED Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) or Platform as a Service (PaaS) authorized platform preferred and not mandatory?

Answer:   The State will not consider altering the mandatory requirement for Supplement 1 at this time. Should, at a future date, an Offeror become certified under the parameters of FEDRAMP moderate or higher, the Offeror may submit a revised proposal to the State when the State seeks additional Offerors under another Solicitation for Qualifications.

Date: 1/30/2017

Inquiry: 40921


Question:   Inquiry #40864 (1/26) answer said that “Supplements 1, 2, and 3 require an in-line response.” However, Inquiry #40831 (1/23) answer confirms the approach stated on pg 25 of the RFP which says that “Offerors must include the entire content of Supplement 3....” and “…include a statement at the beginning of the section indicating that the Offeror has read, understands and agrees to the Requirements in Supplement 3.” Please clarify how Offerors are to respond to Supplement 3 – with a statement of agreement at the beginning, or an in-line response to every section, or something else?

Answer:   Offerors must include the entire content of Supplement 3...." and "include a statement at the beginning of the section indicating that the Offeror has read, understands and agrees to the Requirements in Supplement 3.

Date: 1/27/2017

Inquiry: 40904


Question:   Question - If a section of the tabbed binder is not applicable, example being Independent Contractor Acknowledgement since our entity is a C-Corp, should we not include the section? Or include the tabbed section and stipulate "N/A"?

Answer:   The State does not offer advice on “C-Corp” elements of this inquiry, but should in the view of an offeror any tab not apply, offerors should indicate “not applicable” with a brief rationale as to why a tab or section does not apply to their submission.

Date: 1/26/2017

Inquiry: 40881


Question:   Context - "To ensure the proposal(s) of an offeror is properly checked-in and recorded on the due date, it would be prudent to submit separately sealed proposals of Supplement 1 and Supplement 2 responses as requested in the RFP."

Question - Please confirm that entire tabbed binder Including: Cover Letter, Supplier Information Form, Supplement, etc. is to be sealed or if just the completed Supplement (Technical Response) needs to be sealed within binder containing Cover Letter, Supplier Information Form, etc.

Answer:   The State suggests a tabbed binder, inclusive of the offeror’s ENTIRE SUBMISSION to each of Supplements 1 and 2 (which incorporate Supplement 3 requirements respectively as a tab) in a Sealed Sealed Box, Parcel or Envelope (as appropriate) is an acceptable method of sealing proposals.

Date: 1/26/2017

Inquiry: 40881


Question:   Context - As stipulated in the RFP doc - "All Supplements are being provided as Microsoft Word documents through the State's procurement website as a convenience for responding to the RFP. The Supplement's content must not be modified. If the content is modified, reformatted or omitted, the offeror's response may be disqualified. As part of their response, Offerors are to provide native Microsoft Word based documents that comprise the requirements of a Supplement, inclusive of their response."

Question - Please confirm we can respond in format dictated by RFP language in Sections 2-3 and that would not be considered "modifying" the content

Answer:   Confirmed – with the proviso that the State’s requirements are unaltered (wordwise) and are readlilly identifiable as State requirements as opposed to Offeror responses. Offerors may note that common State document drafting formats contain the Microsoft Word Style “RFP” as a prefix that may be of assistance to offerors in document formatting.

Date: 1/26/2017

Inquiry: 40881


Question:   We acknowledge that this was addressed during the live Q&A session but request further clarification: Will the State consider a platform submitted to meet Supplement Ones mandatory requirement that is currently in the process of becoming FedRAMP certified? In addition, will the State consider re-assessing that platforms compliance with Supplement Ones mandatory requirement at a future date within the contracts lifespan?

Answer:   Supplement 1 proposals must meet the mandatory requirement at time of proposal submission. The State will open qualification periodically in the future for proposals that meet the State’s requirements for evaluation and qualification.

Date: 1/26/2017

Inquiry: 40873


Question:   2) Responses to Inquiries 40660 and 40663 dated 1-13-17 point out that all sections of 2.0 have information that should be included in each biopic, but there are no specific response bolded sections or examples to follow for Sections 2.4 through 2.11. Are they considered “As Applicable” information as shown in the Example Response Formats” on page 8 of the Supplement? If not, must there be a response to each of the bolded sections (i.e.: 2.8, 2.8.1, 2.8.2…) within a recommended 2-3 page summary?

Answer:   Offerors may include details as they see fit as narratives, case studies, examples of work, deliverable fragments, graphics, tables, client references and so forth as to demonstrate how their firm is capable of performing the work and meets the State’s requirements of the RFP. The 2-3 page consideration is a SUGGESTION but not a mandate by the State to assist offerors in providing clear, concise and relevant responses to the RFP.

Date: 1/26/2017

Inquiry: 40872


Question:   1) Section 2.3 Innovations that Produced Measurable Outcomes, page 11 says: Offerors are requested to illustrate, preferably as a set of brief (2-3 page suggested) case studies, their demonstrated ability to innovate, including (as applicable) the following aspects of the work, which is followed by several suggested aspects that might apply. Is this 2-3 page set of brief case studies in addition to the 2-3 page project biopics?

Answer:   Offerors may include details as they see fit as narratives, case studies, examples of work, deliverable fragments, graphics, tables, client references and so forth as to demonstrate how their firm is capable of performing the work and meets the State’s requirements of the RFP. The 2-3 page consideration is a SUGGESTION but not a mandate by the State to assist offerors in providing clear, concise and relevant responses to the RFP.

Date: 1/26/2017

Inquiry: 40871


Question:   Can a teammate/subcontractor be added on an exploratory/task order basis post-prequalification of the offeror?

Answer:   Yes, provided they are made known to the State as a project sub-contractor by the Contractor, and all requirements of the State remain in effect for the Contractor as a result of using any sub-contractor.

Date: 1/26/2017

Inquiry: 40869


Question:   Does relevant project experience held by a current employee, gained at a different company, count as domain/tool expertise?

Answer:   Yes, as they directly relate to the work required to perform an Exploratory Project.

Date: 1/26/2017

Inquiry: 40867


Question:   What level of detail (granularity) will be provided at the start of engagement for GFI (i.e. system documentation, metadata, etc.)?

Answer:   The State does not recognize the acronym GFI. However, the State – for an Exploratory Project – anticipates providing data dictionaries/taxonomies, full data as the State deems required to perform a project (current period, historical, row level details) to the extent they exist in State systems and are applicable to the work envisioned by the Project parameters.

Date: 1/26/2017

Inquiry: 40865


Question:   In regards to the in-line response required on pg. 23 of the RFP: Are we only supposed to provide an in-line response to the following items?: 1. Cover Letter 2. Supplier Information Form (OBM-5657) 3. Subcontractor Letters 4. Offeror Certification Form 5. Offeror Profile (as it relates to the proposed work) 6. Proposed Solution Supplement 1 Response Supplement 2 Response 7. Acceptance and Compliance Response to Supplement 3 (Applies to All Responses) 8. Proof of Insurance 9. Payment Address 10. Legal Notice Address 11. W-9 Form 12. Independent Contractor Acknowledgement 13. Standard Affirmation and Disclosure Form (EO 2011-12K) 14. Affirmative Action Program Verification Form 15. Attachment 4: General Terms and Conditions Acceptance If there are other sections of the RFP requiring an in-line response, please indicate this is your response to this inquiry.

Answer:   Attachment 3 of the RFP contains a listing of all required elements. Supplements 1, 2 and 3 require an inline response. All State forms must be completed.

Date: 1/26/2017

Inquiry: 40864


Question:   The Technical Proposal requires in Section 2 the "Supplier Information Form (OBM-5657)". The detailed information on this section states: "Supplier Information Form. The offeror must submit a signed and completed Vendor Information Form (OBM5657). The form is available at: http://ohiosharedservices.ohio.gov/Suppliers.aspx." However, this link is inactive. A simple search links to the form via: https://development.ohio.gov/files/redev/VendorInformationForm.pdf. Is this the proper form for Section 2 of the Technical Proposal?

Answer:   Here is an updated link:

http://www.ohiosharedservices.ohio.gov/SupplierOperations/doc/Supplier_Information_Form_OBM5657.pdf

Date: 1/26/2017

Inquiry: 40882


Question:   Duplicate submission.

Answer:   Duplicate submission.

Date: 1/26/2017

Inquiry: 40870


Question:   Duplicate submission.

Answer:   Duplicate submission.

Date: 1/26/2017

Inquiry: 40868


Question:   Duplicate submission.

Answer:   Duplicate submission.

Date: 1/26/2017

Inquiry: 40866


Question:   We have a question regarding the qualifications for Supplement 2. Specifically, is the State looking to qualify vendors on each data domain or the intersection between data domain and analytic capability?

Answer:   The State’s qualification is at the data domain level.

Date: 1/26/2017

Inquiry: 40880


Question:   In Regard to: Supplement 3 / Section 6.4 Audit Log Reviews / pg 22: Based on the contractor requirements for log reviews, does the State of Ohio require a Security Information Event Management (SIEM) environment or will the RAW logs from each system satisfy the State’s requirements for log reviews?

Answer:   The State described during the Bidders Conference, Supplement 3 are the State’s standard Data Privacy, Security, Data Handling and Architecture Standards for all technology RFPs. As such, Section 2 (in its entirety) is provided for Offeror reference purposes, Sections 3-5 are directly applicable to this RFP. Section 6.4 does not contain SIEM requirements.

Date: 1/25/2017

Inquiry: 40876


Question:   In regard to: Supplement 2 / 2.3 Domain-Specific Teams and Expertise Proposal Response Requirements / Pg 9 May we obtain a brief definition for each of the fourteen High Level Data Analytic Domains listed in Supplement 2 of the RFP?

Answer:   The State has offered general descriptions and use cases for many of these domains in prior inquiries. Additionally, during the Bidder Conference associated with this RFP, the State provided guidance on the identification, consideration and use of these domains. Offerors are encouraged to review the online presentation, speakers notes and narrative associated with these domains.

Date: 1/25/2017

Inquiry: 40877


Question:   As a federal government contractor, we maintain Affirmative Action Plans for each of our locations that are updated annually. Would it be possible to submit our existing plan in lieu of completing the State’s Affirmative Action Program Verification Form online?

Answer:   An Affirmative Action Program Verification must be submitted to the Equal Opportunity Division to comply with the affirmative action requirements pursuant to the Ohio Revised Code 125.111(B). Companies may submit their own plan or adopt the State's plan. The Affirmative Action Program Verification is required on all State Contracts since business is transacted with the Contractor and the state of Ohio.

Date: 1/25/2017

Inquiry: 40878


Question:   In order to reconcile the outline for response on page 8 of Supplement 2 and the requests on pages 9 and 10 of the same supplement, may we combine the responses for both Firm Credentials (qualifications) and Innovations that Produced Measurable Outcomes (case studies) to provide a more complete look at our firm’s experiences in one place and reduce duplication for a specific domain?  If not, can the State please confirm that 2-3 pages are allowed for each domain qualifications and each domain case study?

Answer:   Offerors may propose inline in the areas (e.g., Firm Credentials and Innovations that Produced Measurable Outcomes) as they see fit and as to avoid unnecessary duplication of the same narrative within their response. The 2-3 pages are a SUGGESTION (and presented as such in the Supplements) but not a requirement for this RFP. Offerors are advised that the State reviews every RFP proposal end-to-end, in its entirety and as such should strive to avoid repetitive responses to the State’s requirements wherever possible.

Date: 1/25/2017

Inquiry: 40863


Question:   Will the State of Ohio stipulate a project management methodology, project reporting requirements, and/or tools? Can a vendor use their own project management methodology, with necessary changes to cater to the States reporting requirements?

Answer:   Supplement 2, Section 2.8 (in its entirety) contains the State’s foundational project management requirements. Offerors may propose any methodology to perform projects, so long as these foundational requirements are incorporated within a vendor-specific or general industry methodology.

Date: 1/25/2017

Inquiry: 40861


Question:   If any of the tools are not in the approved list, but are required for the project purpose, will the state procure those tools, or those functions will need to be skipped from project execution. For example Data Quality tools, Defect tracking tools etc.

Answer:   The State has no preference for, nor bias against any analytical tool – nor does the State maintain any “approved list” for analytical tools. All tools will be the responsibility of the Contractor to provide for purposes of performing an Exploratory Project for the duration of the project. The State does not currently anticipate acquiring tools via this RFP. For the avoidance of doubt, the State is tool agnostic as it relates to performing Exploratory Projects. Supplement 1 contains the State’s requirements for the PLATFORM that tools and data may reside on.

Date: 1/25/2017

Inquiry: 40860


Question:   Will the State of Ohio provide masked data for project purpose? Any validations/checks on the masked data would be difficult to gauge. Will the state issue some guidelines regarding that?

Answer:   Should anonymization be required for an Exploratory Project, the State will provide such services.

Date: 1/25/2017

Inquiry: 40859


Question:   Can we provide customer case study and references outside US?

Answer:   Yes. The State welcomes case studies and references that are relevant to the scope of the RFP from anyone Globally.

Date: 1/25/2017

Inquiry: 40858


Question:   Duplicate submission.

Answer:   Duplicate submission.

Date: 1/25/2017

Inquiry: 40862


Question:   Supplement 2:section 2.3, Firm Capabilities, Methods and Tools::Data Scientists on Staff across one or more of, or alignment to Analysis Domains or State Lines of Business (e.g., Agriculture, Environment, Business, Industry, State/Local Government, Commerce, Natural Resources, Public Safety, Energy & Utilities, Education, Finance, and Health) Question: Please provide more details on what the vendor is expected to provide and how different it is from "Firm Size, staffing levels"

Answer:   The State seeks to understand the GENERAL capabilities of the firm (e.g., total number of staff, geographic orientation), those capabilities of the firm in the data analytics space (e.g., all data analytics experts and experiences that the firm may possess) and SPECIFICALLY the capabilities for all categories that the firm seeks to be qualified in (e.g., specific team members, number of staff, depth of experience and capabilities, relevant projects etc) that are directly related to any category the Offeror seeks to be considered for qualification for.

Date: 1/25/2017

Inquiry: 40857


Question:   RFP stipulates - "The package with the technical section of the Proposal must be sealed and contain one originally signed technical section and seven (7) copies of the technical section. Further, the offeror must mark the outside of each package with either “Supplement 1 Response - Multi-Agency Data Analytics Processing (Compute, Storage) Platform” or “Supplement 2 Response - Multi-Agency Data Analytics Expert Firms, Tools and Methods,” as appropriate." Is it OK If we submit both supplements together in one package if we plan to respond to both?

Answer:   To ensure the proposal(s) of an offeror is properly checked-in and recorded on the due date, it would be prudent to submit separately sealed proposals of Supplement 1 and Supplement 2 responses as requested in the RFP.

Date: 1/24/2017

Inquiry: 40849


Question:   Are there any requirements for the prime contractor to retain a certain proportion of the work on an individual task order, or can a pre-qualified subcontractor perform a majority of the work if they are better qualified for a given task order than the prime contractor?

Answer:   This RFP does not have any requirements pertinent to a ‘Prime Contractor’ per se. The mandatory requirement (fragment shown) for Supplement One is “The provider of the proposed Cloud Based Analytics Platform, must…” and for Supplement 2 (fragment shown) “The offeror and/or proposed team must have performed…”. The division (or proportion) of work between Contractors and Su-Contractors is not a requirement of this RFP.

Date: 1/24/2017

Inquiry: 40841


Question:   For Supplement 2, should the bidder duplicate the full Supplement 2 for each domain they respond to? Or should the bidder integrate all domains (using section headers) into a single Supplement 2 submission?

Answer:   A single proposal, inclusive of all domains the Offeror seeks to be qualified under is requested. Multiple submissions are not preferred by the State.

Date: 1/23/2017

Inquiry: 40833


Question:   Please clarify how bidders on Supplement 2 domains should reference the terms of Supplement 3 in our response.

Answer:   Offerors may provide a brief affirmational statement to the effect of “The [Offeror] has read, understands and agrees to abide by the requirements of Supplement 3”

Date: 1/23/2017

Inquiry: 40831


Question:   If a contractor is pre-qualified on a domain, can we team with another contractor who is also pre-qualified on the domain to submit a bid on a specific task order?

Answer:   The State respectfully submits that this inquiry has been answered previously. As such, Offerors are encouraged to review the Q&A Log for answers previously provided.

Date: 1/23/2017

Inquiry: 40830


Question:   Can a contractor be bid as a sub on multiple teams for the same domain?

Answer:   The State respectfully submits that this inquiry has been answered previously. As such, Offerors are encouraged to review the Q&A Log for answers previously provided.

Date: 1/23/2017

Inquiry: 40829


Question:   Can a contractor bid as a prime on some domains and as a sub to another contractor on other domains?

Answer:   The State respectfully submits that this inquiry has been answered previously. As such, Offerors are encouraged to review the Q&A Log for answers previously provided.

Date: 1/23/2017

Inquiry: 40828


Question:   Can a contractor add subcontractors for a specific task order if the vendor was not part of the original response?

Answer:   The State respectfully submits that this inquiry has been answered previously. As such, Offerors are encouraged to review the Q&A Log for answers previously provided.

Date: 1/23/2017

Inquiry: 40827


Question:   Supplement 1 clarification request: Is Supplement 1 requesting a full-breadth data repository (for data from all domains listed in the diagram on page 5? Or is Supplement 1 requesting an enterprise service bus to route data?

Answer:   Neither of these applications are contemplated by the requirements of Supplement 1. Supplement one is for a Analytics Platform (i.e., cpu, memory, storage, networking) to HOST projects that involve either or both of non-State data or non-sensitive data. Supplement 1 DOES NOT CONTAIN requirements for an ESB or “full-breadth” data repository. The State is unclear as to the connotation of “full-breadth data repository”. Should the offeror be able to provide more specifics as an additional inquiry, the State may be able to offer further guidance.

Date: 1/23/2017

Inquiry: 40824


Question:   During the pre-proposal conference, it was mentioned the State already has a private cloud in place and will continue maintain that private cloud for sensitive data. If so, is Supplement 1 only intended for vendors who will be providing a public platform for non-sensitive data?

Answer:   Yes, that is the case. In addition to non-sensitive data, the State envisions public cloud platforms being used to host non-State data for analytics projects as well.

Date: 1/23/2017

Inquiry: 40825


Question:   Duplicate submission.

Answer:   Duplicate submission.

Date: 1/23/2017

Inquiry: 40826


Question:   In Section 2.3 under Representative Resumes, it states the Representative Resumes should include "client summary information for Client Business Sponsors." Can you please elaborate on this requirement.

Answer:   The “client summary information” would include (at a minimum) the nature of the clients business (e.g., “a midwest financial services company” or the name of the firm) the nature of the project (e.g., “fraud analytics to identify consumer identity fraud”) period of performance (e.g., “July 2015 – Present”) the person(s) to whom this project reported (e.g., “Director of Consumer Credit” or “Company Chief Operating Officer) and outcomes as a result of the project (e.g., “reduced identity fraud by 90%). The State finds it acceptable that offerors choose to provide named citations (i.e., the actual names of the Client Business, Contact details etc). The examples in this Inquiry Response are purely for illustration purposes only.

Date: 1/23/2017

Inquiry: 40821


Question:   Duplicate submission.

Answer:   Duplicate submission.

Date: 1/23/2017

Inquiry: 40822


Question:   It seems likely that on a given Exploratory Project, an Expertise-only vendor would need to use a Platform-only vendors hosted data/tools offering because the state agency issuing the Exploratory Project chose to host their data with a given Platform-only vendor. But it is also likely that the most qualified Expertise-only vendor in terms of domain and know-how for the Exploratory Project objectives, is not the most qualified Expertise-only vendor in terms of the analytic tools provided by the Platform-only vendor previously chosen by the agency involved. Can you explain how such situations are expected to work in practice?

Answer:   Depending on the nature of the work, the State may require the use of the State’s private cloud OR a pre-qualified Supplement 1 vendor, or (if applicable to the work) both solutions. Supplement 2 vendors need not have a pre-existing relationship with a Supplement 1 vendor during the pre-qualification phase of this RFP.

Date: 1/23/2017

Inquiry: 40817


Question:   If a vendor is not responding to Supplement 1, do we just omit it in our response, or include it with a statement of “not responding” at the front?

Answer:   Offerors not responding to both Supplements 1 and 2, need not include the Supplement they are not responding to.

Date: 1/23/2017

Inquiry: 40816


Question:   Can the State confirm if it is acceptable for a vendor to submit the bid as a prime while also being a subcontractor on another vendors bid.

Answer:   Yes, this is acceptable.

Date: 1/23/2017

Inquiry: 40807


Question:   Ref: Supplement 2 Section 2.4 Please clarify whether the Offeror needs to have performed a Data Analytics project employing the Tools, Analytics domaind or Domain Specific Applications and Data Sources listed.

Answer:   The Mandatory requirement of Supplement 2 contains provisions for BOTH of “least one (1) project using Data Analytics in at least one (1) of the following Data Domains” and at least one of the data analytics general methods listed in the second bulleted list in the mandatory commending with the text “For purposes of defining the term ‘Data Analytics’ for this requirement, the State offers: Data Analytics includes the use of..”

Date: 1/23/2017

Inquiry: 40795


Question:   Assume "Vendor A" is pre-qualified in a domain through this solicitation. For a future solicitation for an Exploratory Project released under that domain, can Vendor A use a subcontractor that was not included in the team on this response? Many situations may arise that create this scenario, for example: Vendor A has the qualifications necessary to gain pre-qualifictaion, but is not a Minority Owned Business and there is a Minority Owned Business requirement for an Exploratory Project.

Answer:   In this hypothetical example, “Vendor A” (the Contractor) would be required to present to the State why a sub-contractor that was not existent during their qualification proposal is required to perform the work, and seek the State’s written approval to include such sub-contractors in the work prior to any work being performed by the Contractor. All work performed by any sub-contractor will be the responsibility of the Contractor and subject to all of the Terms and Conditions of the RFP in their entirety and any additional provisions applicable to an Exploratory Project work solicitation.

Date: 1/23/2017

Inquiry: 40794


Question:   In the Pre-Proposal Conference you included a slide that stated - there is no minimum or maximum number of vendors that could be approved. In the evaluation for Supplement 1 and 2 both have a maximum of 700 points available to be acheived. Question - is there a minimum number of points a vendor much achieve to become an approved vendor?

Answer:   The State encourages all vendors to develop their responses to each of the Supplements in such a manner as to highlight their capabilities, skills and experiences for the requirements in each supplement and strive to obtain the maximum number of points available (700) for each supplement. The State has not established a minimum threshold at this time for qualification, however offerors are directed to review the Base RFP document for passages pertaining to “non-responsive” offers and the subsection entitled ‘Technical Evaluation’ pertinent to receiving “a significant number of zeros” in the formulation of their proposals.

Date: 1/23/2017

Inquiry: 40793


Question:   Does the entire Supplement Word document (e.g., sections 1.0 - 3.0 for Supplement 2) need to be provided in the Contractors response following Tab 6. Proposed Solution?

Answer:   Offerors not responding to both Supplements 1 and 2, need not include the Supplement they are not responding to. In general, the State’s requirements for each of Supplements 1 & 2 commence at Section 2 of each Supplement. Offerors, at their own discretion, may choose to include their general understanding and experience for each of these Supplements within the section 1 introductory sections of each Supplement.

Date: 1/23/2017

Inquiry: 40775


Question:   When responding to a future exploratory project SOW, must the technology platform needed for a solution come from a pre-qualified Supplement 1 vendor.

Answer:   Yes. Depending on the nature of the work, the State may require the use of the State’s private cloud OR a pre-qualified Supplement 1 vendor, or (if applicable to the work) both solutions. Supplement 2 vendors need not have a pre-existing relationship with a Supplement 1 vendor during the pre-qualification phase of this RFP.

Date: 1/23/2017

Inquiry: 40820


Question:   Due to the complexity of the solicitation and the time needed to establish teaming arrangements with qualified partners to meet domain requirements, will the State consider granting an extension to the due date for this RFP?

Answer:   The State will not consider extending the due date for the pre-qualification proposals.

Date: 1/23/2017

Inquiry: 40812


Question:   Proof of Insurance - What type(s) of insurance is this referring to? If you dont have an exact answer, an example would be appreciated, since the RFP does not go beyond "insurance coverage required by a contract for work and/or services related to an Exploratory Project".

Answer:   The Proof of Insurance Requirement for Proposal will be removed from the initial proposal response, in the form of Amendment Two to the RFP. There will be detailed Proof of Insurance requirements included Statement of Work Solicitations for individual Exploratory Projects.

Date: 1/20/2017

Inquiry: 40791


Question:   Duplicate submission.

Answer:   Duplicate submission.

Date: 1/20/2017

Inquiry: 40808


Question:   Supplement 2, page 9,Multiple or Alternate Proposal Please confirm if a vendor is allowed to submit 2 proposals -One as a prime contractor and one as a subcontractor to another vendor.

Answer:   Offerors should NOT provide multiple proposals to this RFP. Offerors may, within a SINGLE RESPONSE, reply to either or both of Supplements 1 and 2, and any of the 14 categories that comprise the Mandatory Requirement of Supplement 2 using multiple Attachment 7 forms and pages within their Supplement 2 response as they deem prudent.

Date: 1/20/2017

Inquiry: 40802


Question:   As we assemble our team in response to this RFP, will it be acceptable to propose to include individual consultants (external to our organization) as team members, in addition to other organizations as subcontractors? Would the individuals be considered subcontractors also? If so, what information will we need to include for those individuals? Thank you.

Answer:   Yes, this is perfectly acceptable with the proviso that 1) subcontractors should be clearly indicated in the subcontractor form(s) of the proposal and that the Contractor (i.e., firm being awarded the work) is responsible for any subcontractors and their compliance with the totality of State requirements including (as highlights), but not limited to: Attachment 4, Supplement 3, Executive Order 2011-12K and all other requirements of the RFP.

Date: 1/20/2017

Inquiry: 40801


Question:   We are all unable to log into the Web Call. Will slides be available?

Answer:   The entire presentation is available at the "Join Meeting" link. Copy the link into your browser: https://join-noam.broadcast.skype.com/das.ohio.gov/552901713e9e4f98a94a4c24ae28504a. The meeting audio begins near minute twelve. The presentation speaker notes will also be made available on the State Procurement website shortly.

Date: 1/20/2017

Inquiry: 40784


Question:   Would Ohio reject a bid for the qualifying pool if we didnt list a subcontractor for certain areas?

Answer:   The State does not understand this question, there is no “prime/subcontractor” structure pertinent to the mandatory requirements or evaluation criteria for this RFP.

Date: 1/20/2017

Inquiry: 40772


Question:   Could Ohio selectively reject qualifications along prime-subcontractor lines?

Answer:   The State does not understand this question, there is no “prime/subcontractor” structure pertinent to the mandatory requirements or evaluation criteria for this RFP.

Date: 1/20/2017

Inquiry: 40772


Question:   Can subcontractors be brought in for Exploratory Projects?

Answer:   Yes, provided they are made known and agreed to by the State prior to work being performed and adhere to the provisions of the RFP (e.g., Executive Order 2011K, listed subcontractor, confidentiality, etc.)

Date: 1/20/2017

Inquiry: 40772


Question:   Question 4: If the same people are being proposed on multiple domains for Supplement 2, do we have to include their CV more than once? Can we include all CV’s for all domains as an appendix?

Answer:   No, this is not required, but if a candidate has multiple areas of categories expertise, please ensure that these “multi-domain experts are readily distinguishable to the State.

Yes, that is an acceptable method as well, but if a candidate has multiple areas of categories expertise, please ensure that these “multi-domain experts are readily distinguishable to the State

Date: 1/20/2017

Inquiry: 40771


Question:   Question 5: Can you confirm if resumes are required to be submitted for offerors submitting on Supplement 1?

Answer:   Resumes of “key points of contact” for the State on contract/administrative matters, account, relationship and technical matters are suggested for Supplement 1 responses.

Date: 1/20/2017

Inquiry: 40771


Question:   Question 6: Can the past performance of subcontractors count towards meeting the mandatory requirement for Attachment 7 in regards to Supplement 2?

Answer:   Yes

Date: 1/20/2017

Inquiry: 40771


Question:   Question: When responding to Supplement 1 Solution, do in-line responses include all sub-sections of 2 – Data Analytics Compute and Storage Platform Requirements (2.0-2.9) and sub-sections of 3-Offeror Assumptions and Other Considerations (3.0-3.3)? Question: Can you confirm that when responding to Supplement 2 Solution, do our in-line responses include all sub-sections of 2 - Data Analytics Expert Firms and Tools Requirements (2.1-2.11) and sub-sections of 3 – Offeror Assumptions and Other Considerations (3.0-3.3)?

Answer:   Yes, we can confirm both statements.

Date: 1/20/2017

Inquiry: 40770


Question:   If a firm is submitting a response as a prime for BOTH supplement 1 and 2, can they submit their responses for both supplements in one technical volume?

Answer:   If by “one technical volume” the offeror means two tabs, each within one binder, one each for Supplement 1 and Supplement 2 respectively, yes.

Date: 1/20/2017

Inquiry: 40769


Question:   Can the State provide typical use cases for the following data domains: Waste, Fraud & Abuse Crime, Corrections & Recidivism Education and Transportation?

Answer:   This is a duplicative inquiry. Please see previous inquiries and responses.

Date: 1/20/2017

Inquiry: 40773


Question:   Duplicate submission.

Answer:   Duplicate submission.

Date: 1/19/2017

Inquiry: 40792


Question:   Duplicate submission.

Answer:   Duplicate submission.

Date: 1/19/2017

Inquiry: 40774


Question:   Duplicate submission.

Answer:   Duplicate submission.

Date: 1/19/2017

Inquiry: 40763


Question:   Request the State to provide typical use cases for Data domains -Life Sciences & Public Health/ Risk Management (Insurance & Claims Management)

Answer:   The State has grouped our 120+ Agencies, Boards and Commissions into these 14 categories that are intended to be “industry friendly” and represent the needs of many of our Agencies. As EXAMPLE ILLUSTRATIVE use cases, Life Sciences, Public Health and Risk Management would include the totality of State date (e.g., health, medicine, pharmacy, Medicaid, public assistance and other data sources) to assist with driving better patient outcomes (e.g., healthier citizens) and focus State programs on positive outcomes for our citizens, analysis of patient characteristics and the cost and outcomes of care to identify the most clinically effective and cost-efficient diagnoses and treatments, identifying, predicting, and minimizing fraud by implementing advanced analytic systems for fraud detection and checking the accuracy and consistency of claims and analyzing large numbers of claim requests to help reduce fraud, waste and abuse.

Date: 1/19/2017

Inquiry: 40762


Question:   Duplicate submission.

Answer:   Duplicate submission.

Date: 1/18/2017

Inquiry: 40757


Question:   Attachment Four: General Terms and Conditions contains no waiver of indirect damages or consequential damage. As the State may be aware, indirect damages and/or consequential damages can quickly exceed several multiples of the contract price, placing an unreasonable burden on Contractor. If the Contractor will be liable for indirect damages and consequential damages, it needs to be priced into Contractor’s bid. Would the State be willing to include a waiver of indirect and consequential damages in the General Terms and Conditions for the contract?

Answer:   The State does not negotiate Terms and Conditions via the inquiry process. Should an offeror take exception to any requirements of the RFP, they are directed to refer to page 13 of the RFP, the section entitled “Contract Negotiations” for additional details on taking exceptions to State Terms and Conditions.

Date: 1/18/2017

Inquiry: 40756


Question:   2. Pursuant to Section VI.G.1 of Attachment Four: General Terms and Conditions, Contractor will be liable to the State for all actual and direct damages caused by the Contractor’s default. There is no limitation of liability on Contractor’s liability in this regard, which puts an unreasonable burden on Contractor. Unlimited liability for direct damages related to Contractor’s breach of contract is a consideration that would need to be evaluated and, assuming Contractor decided to assume that liability, it would need to be priced into Contractor’s proposal. Would the State consider limiting Contractor’s liability in this regard to an amount equal to the sum of fees paid by the State to Contractor over the previous 12 months, or an amount equal to, or some multiple of, the Contract price?

Answer:   The State does not negotiate Terms and Conditions via the inquiry process. Should an offeror take exception to any requirements of the RFP, they are directed to refer to page 13 of the RFP, the section entitled “Contract Negotiations” for additional details on taking exceptions to State Terms and Conditions.

Date: 1/18/2017

Inquiry: 40755


Question:   1. Pursuant to Section V.B of Attachment Four: General Terms and Conditions, the Contractor will be required to indemnify the State for any claims, damages, etc. that may arise out of, or are related to Contractor’s negligent performance. There is no limitation of liability on Contractor’s indemnification in this regard, which puts an unreasonable burden on Contractor. Would the State consider either (i) raising the standard for liability under this section to “gross negligence or willful misconduct” or (ii) placing a limitation of liability on Contractor’s indemnification obligation under this section equal to the sum of fees paid by the State to Contractor over the previous 12 months (or an amount equal to, or some multiple of, the Contract price)?

Answer:   The State does not negotiate Terms and Conditions via the inquiry process. Should an offeror take exception to any requirements of the RFP, they are directed to refer to page 13 of the RFP, the section entitled “Contract Negotiations” for additional details on taking exceptions to State Terms and Conditions.

Date: 1/18/2017

Inquiry: 40754


Question:   Is there a set, or maximum, number of vendors to be selected for Supplement 1 and 2?

Answer:   No. The State does not have a limit for the number of firms that may be qualified under either or both of Supplements 1 and 2.

Date: 1/18/2017

Inquiry: 40751


Question:   Supplement 2, Section 1.5 last paragraph states: More detailed requirements for the Data Analytics Processing Platform are contained in Section [Error! Reference source not found] of this Supplement. Should this refer to Section 2.3?

Answer:   [Error! Reference source not found] is a broken bookmark which should point to Section 2, in its entirety.

Date: 1/18/2017

Inquiry: 40740


Question:   Duplicate submission.

Answer:   Duplicate submission.

Date: 1/18/2017

Inquiry: 40742


Question:   Good morning: It was posted over a week ago by Ohio that the details of the Jan 19th Pre-Proposal conference will be shared. Please post the details. Will it be a WebEx or some other form of online session?

Answer:   The pre-proposal conference can be joined by clicking (or typing the URL into the browser) the following link: https://join-noam.broadcast.skype.com/das.ohio.gov/552901713e9e4f98a94a4c24ae28504a. No passwords meeting numbers or codes will be needed.

Date: 1/18/2017

Inquiry: 40741


Question:   Has dial-in information related to the Pre-Proposal Conference been released? I cant find it on your web site.

Answer:   The pre-proposal conference can be joined by clicking (or typing the URL into the browser) the following link: https://join-noam.broadcast.skype.com/das.ohio.gov/552901713e9e4f98a94a4c24ae28504a. No passwords meeting numbers or codes will be needed.

Date: 1/18/2017

Inquiry: 40731


Question:   When is the vendor conference WebEx information to be posted?

Answer:   The pre-proposal conference can be joined by clicking (or typing the URL into the browser) the following link: https://join-noam.broadcast.skype.com/das.ohio.gov/552901713e9e4f98a94a4c24ae28504a. No passwords meeting numbers or codes will be needed.

Date: 1/18/2017

Inquiry: 40730


Question:   When is the vendor conference WebEx information to be posted? I dont see anything at https://procure.ohio.gov/proc/viewProcOpps.asp?oppID=13242.

Answer:   The pre-proposal conference can be joined by clicking (or typing the URL into the browser) the following link: https://join-noam.broadcast.skype.com/das.ohio.gov/552901713e9e4f98a94a4c24ae28504a. No passwords meeting numbers or codes will be needed.

Date: 1/18/2017

Inquiry: 40729


Question:   Duplicate submission.

Answer:   Duplicate submission.

Date: 1/18/2017

Inquiry: 40734


Question:   Duplicate submission.

Answer:   Duplicate submission.

Date: 1/18/2017

Inquiry: 40744


Question:   Is the pre-proposal conference still scheduled for January 19th? If so, when will DAS post the information?

Answer:   Yes. The pre-proposal conference can be joined by clicking (or typing the URL into the browser) the following link: https://join-noam.broadcast.skype.com/das.ohio.gov/552901713e9e4f98a94a4c24ae28504a. No passwords meeting numbers or codes will be needed.

Date: 1/18/2017

Inquiry: 40743


Question:   Duplicate submission.

Answer:   Duplicate submission.

Date: 1/18/2017

Inquiry: 40749


Question:   I have tried my best but I cannot seem to find the link to the webex scheduled for tomorrow at 11am. Can you please send it to me or point me to where I can find it, I need to share it with my technical team as well. Thank you

Answer:   The pre-proposal conference can be joined by clicking (or typing the URL into the browser) the following link: https://join-noam.broadcast.skype.com/das.ohio.gov/552901713e9e4f98a94a4c24ae28504a. No passwords meeting numbers or codes will be needed.

Date: 1/18/2017

Inquiry: 40747


Question:   Hi, Per the RFP the pre-proposal conference is scheduled for 1/19/2017 at 11 AM CST and it would be a webex. In response to one of the Q&A the State has mentioned that the details of Webex will be posted online. Since those are not available yet, can you please provide the details of WebEx

Answer:   The pre-proposal conference can be joined by clicking (or typing the URL into the browser) the following link: https://join-noam.broadcast.skype.com/das.ohio.gov/552901713e9e4f98a94a4c24ae28504a. No passwords meeting numbers or codes will be needed.

The pre-proposal conference will be at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) on Thursday, January 19, 2017.

Date: 1/18/2017

Inquiry: 40750


Question:   Did the pre-bid WebEx occur or has it been scheduled? I did not see any notice as expected.

Answer:   The pre-proposal conference can be joined by clicking (or typing the URL into the browser) the following link: https://join-noam.broadcast.skype.com/das.ohio.gov/552901713e9e4f98a94a4c24ae28504a. No passwords meeting numbers or codes will be needed.

The pre-proposal conference will be at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) on Thursday, January 19, 2017.

Date: 1/18/2017

Inquiry: 40752


Question:   Where do I find the Webex meeting information for the bidders conference tomorrow at 8:00 AM EST?

Answer:   The pre-proposal conference can be joined by clicking (or typing the URL into the browser) the following link: https://join-noam.broadcast.skype.com/das.ohio.gov/552901713e9e4f98a94a4c24ae28504a. No passwords meeting numbers or codes will be needed.

The pre-proposal conference will begin at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) on Thursday, January 19, 2017.

Date: 1/18/2017

Inquiry: 40758


Question:   RFP Page 8 - The RFP states "Offerors should not include any confidential information in a Proposal or other material submitted as part of the evaluation process. All Proposals will be open to the public after the State has awarded the Contract." However, in responses to questions (Inquiry: 40720) the State replied to a vendor "...Should the client of an offeror not wish this information to be in the public domain...can be included in the confidential response portion of the offeror proposal." Will the State please provide instructions about how to submit "confidential response portions" of offeror proposals? How should confidential information be marked? Is a redacted, electronic version sufficient?

Answer:   The State requires that all offeror experiences as represented in the Attachment Profile Form be validated as references. Should the client of an offeror not wish this information to be in the public domain, such identifying reference details (e.g., name, phone number, email address) can be included in the confidential response portion of the offeror proposal by preparing such information as a separate page, clearly marked as OFFEROR CONFIDENTIAL on the header and footer of the page.

Date: 1/18/2017

Inquiry: 40726


Question:   Duplicate submission.

Answer:   Duplicate submission.

Date: 1/18/2017

Inquiry: 40725


Question:   Duplicate submission.

Answer:   Duplicate submission.

Date: 1/18/2017

Inquiry: 40724


Question:   RFP Page 31, Attachment Four - General Terms and Conditions, Payment Due Date and Process - The RFP states that "At the time of contract award, Contractor must be able to accept all forms of payment from the State and Contracting Agency." Will the State please identify all of the forms of payment that vendors are expected to accept?

Answer:   The State generally pays Contractors using Automated Check Handling (ACH) transfers from the State’s bank to the Contractor bank account as included on the OBM Supplier Information Form.

Date: 1/18/2017

Inquiry: 40723


Question:   Duplicate submission.

Answer:   Duplicate submission.

Date: 1/17/2017

Inquiry: 40721


Question:   Referring to: Supplement 2, Page 10: For any Data Analytics Domain in which the Offeror wishes the State to consider Offeror qualifications to perform Exploratory Projects, the Offeror, as part of its response to this RFP, will provide brief summaries (2-3 pages suggested) as project biopics or case studies: Name of Client (or, for confidential Clients, a summary description of the nature of the client’s business e.g., “a Midwest Based Regional Health Care Provider” or “a Federal Law Enforcement Agency” etc). Question: In the Attachement 7 Offeror Profile Mandatory Requirements form in the RFP: Does the Offeror need to provide Contact Name, Contact Phone Number and Email address for a confidential client?

Answer:   The State requires that all offeror experiences as represented in the Attachment Profile Form be validated as references. Should the client of an offeror not wish this information to be in the public domain, such identifying reference details (e.g., name, phone number, email address) can be included in the confidential response portion of the offeror proposal.

Date: 1/17/2017

Inquiry: 40720


Question:   Duplicate submission.

Answer:   Duplicate submission.

Date: 1/17/2017

Inquiry: 40718


Question:   Duplicate submission.

Answer:   Duplicate submission.

Date: 1/17/2017

Inquiry: 40700


Question:   Request the State to provide typical use cases for each of the Data domains : Workforce, Public Safety / Security, Government Process Automation / Decision Making, Commerce & Industry

Answer:   The State may have a variety of needs in the requested domains within this inquiry, and many are under early consideration by the State. To provide BRIEF ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES for the requested domains: Workforce – determining how to best align professional development, technical training, secondary and higher education to identify the required workforce of the next decade to create high paying jobs in the State and prepare Ohioans to fill these jobs; Public Safety / Security – improving the safety and security of citizens throughout the State through improvements to the performance and allocation of Public Safety resources throughout the State, use of technology to focus State resources on reductions to crime, accident, fire, theft and other issues that present a threat to the safety and security of Ohioans in our State; Government Process Automation/Decision Making: Automation of highly repetitive transactions to allow (or assist) State workers in processing workloads more efficiently and focus the time and talents of State workers in handling exceptions or complex transactions as opposed to routine or repetitive processing. Commerce and Industry – focusing State workers that inspect and regulate industry on high value, complex, fraud-prone, or problematic regulatory matters as opposed to low risk/value regulatory/inspection matters. Identification on data that indicates (or forecasts) opportunities (or barriers) to doing business or growing business within the State within established regulatory/law frameworks.

Date: 1/17/2017

Inquiry: 40717


Question:   Supplement 2- Section 2.4 : We understand that State would be responsible for providing the required analytics platform( hosting included) for supplement 2 vendor to perform the exploratory projects. Please confirm

Answer:   The State may require the use of: 1) Public Cloud platform or 2) State Private Cloud or 3) a combination of Private/Public cloud depending on: the nature of the Exploratory Project; the Data Protection laws and considerations inherent in the work and the data; use of non-State data sources; degree of 'anonymization' required by the Exploratory Project.

Date: 1/17/2017

Inquiry: 40716


Question:   1) Can the State clarify if the future SOWs arising out of this RFP would be Fixed bid contracts or T&M?

Answer:   Depending on the nature of an Exploratory Project, the State may utilize a variety of payment methods including (but not limited to): firm fixed price; time and materials (T&M); milestone/achievement based; deliverable based; or “proof of concept/demonstration”.

Date: 1/17/2017

Inquiry: 40715


Question:   Ref: Attachment Three - Proposal Format 1. In-line Response: Please confirm that this requirement means that a single document must be submitted, which includes all sections of the entire provided text, from the Executive Summary, Structure of this RFP, through to the blank attachments at the end of the document.

Answer:   State forms and Attachment 7 form(s) should be submitted separately as individual forms. As far as the rest of the offeror’s proposal, the only ‘single document’ required is the Supplement(s) that the offeror is responding to. Attachment 3 contains a listing of all forms and elements that comprise a complete response (bulleted list starting with “Cover Letter” and concluding with “Acceptance of Attachment 4 Terms and Conditions” and all elements in the list).

Date: 1/17/2017

Inquiry: 40699


Question:   Duplicate submission.

Answer:   Duplicate submission.

Date: 1/13/2017

Inquiry: 40681


Question:   Duplicate submission.

Answer:   Duplicate submission.

Date: 1/13/2017

Inquiry: 40678


Question:   The Standard Affirmation and Disclosure Form requires us to specify where our consultants will be working and where the data will be located. However, that information may not be available until we get task order requests. How do we fill that form out as part of our proposal?

Answer:   At this Stage of the Procurement (i.e., Qualification and Contracting) offerors need not specify the actual location where the work will be performed, and may offer “State of Ohio Location” or the Address(es) of the offeror where projects are commonly performed. HOWEVER, the Standard Affirmation and Disclosure Form does contain provisions that MUST be affirmed that no work or data will be conducted or shared overseas. Therefore, offerors should include affirmational Statements within their Form to that effect.

Date: 1/13/2017

Inquiry: 40680


Question:   For supplement 2, the State describes its definition of data analytics, including a bulleted list of different analytical techniques. That description is in the Mandatory Requirement table with columns for reject/accept. Does the State want respondents to accept/delete individual analytical techniques based on whether or not they have qualifications for that technique? Or should we cover that in our qualifications for the domains we are proposing?

Answer:   Offerors need not accept/reject any of the Mandatory requirements. The accept/reject will be completed by State evaluators upon receipt of the Proposals. Offerors need not maintain EVERY element in the bulleted list, but should include and highlight (within their response) the pertinent elements of their capabilities that leverage these bullets (at a minimum). Offerors may (in addition to the aforementioned minimum) include other Statistical, Modeling, Simulation, Analysis, Mathematical, Algorithmic experiences that align with, or extend the bulleted list offered as a minimum level of capability.

Date: 1/13/2017

Inquiry: 40679


Question:   If the State selects a vendor, will the State consider using existing contract vehicles the vendor has with the State (e.g., State Term Schedule) or does the State plan on only issuing new contracts?

Answer:   No, the terms and conditions specific to Analytical Platforms (Supplement 1) and Expert Firms (Supplement 2) will apply to Offerors contracted under this RFP. The State has included (as Attachment 4) terms and conditions applicable to this procurement which differ from a historical terms and conditions contained perspective in other RFP solicitations. Offers are encouraged to read, understand and comply with the provisions and requirements of the RFP in its entirety, inclusive of Attachment 4.

Date: 1/13/2017

Inquiry: 40677


Question:   Section 2.6 of Supplement 1 states “Should a condition occur where the State seeks to leverage high-performance computing capabilities for such data and not leverage State computing/storage infrastructure, Offerors may be requested to provide Federal Risk and Management Program (FEDRAMP) certified platforms…” What condition(s) does the State envision that would mandate a cloud solution?

Answer:   Given the myriad of opportunities contemplated by this initiative specifics would be difficult to offer in full. In general (as an illustrative example) the State may choose to perform a project that unifies agricultural, environmental, geospatial, natural resources datasets (all of which by nature have very-very large datasets and long historical records) – but do NOT contain any personally identifiable information as would exist in health, education and other data domains.

From a size of dataset perspective, incorporation of non-State information (e.g., federal, other states, open source and public domain data) and data protection perspective (e.g., no personally identifiable data) it may be sensible to perform this project on the very large (scalability, cores, memory, storage etc.) capabilities available on a public cloud platform as opposed to utilizing a State computing platform.

Date: 1/13/2017

Inquiry: 40676


Question:   1. The solicitation makes several references to cloud based solutions that seem to contradict themselves and requires clarification: • Section 2.1.2 of Supplement 3 states “Offerors can propose on-premise or cloud-based solutions” • Attachment One of the RFP lists as Mandatory Requirement One – Analytics Platform Provider … “The provider of the proposed Cloud Based Analytics Platform, must possess and maintain either of: a FEDRAMP AUTHORIZED Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) or Platform as a Service (PaaS) authorized platform at a MODERATE or HIGH level…” Is cloud technology a mandatory requirement?

Answer:   Supplement 3 is a State standard template that is not specific to any procurement that contains provisions for architecture, security and privacy, data handling and a variety of topics. As this procurement (Supplement 1 and 2) allows for the use of BOTH public and private (State premise) cloud solutions, section 2.1.2 of Supplement 3 does not apply from a proposal perspective, but data handling, privacy etc matters with this supplement apply to Contractor work. For any offeror developing proposals related to Supplement 1, the requirements of Supplement 1 apply (e.g., FEDRAMP) to those proposals. As a matter of clarification, the State may perform projects exclusively on State premise (private cloud), exclusively on Public Cloud (e.g., FEDRAMP platforms) and as hybrid projects where State data is maintained on State premise and non-State data is maintained on public platforms. See Sections 2.2 – 2.6 of Supplement 1 for more details.

Date: 1/13/2017

Inquiry: 40675


Question:   Duplicate submission

Answer:   Duplicate submission

Date: 1/13/2017

Inquiry: 40665


Question:   Duplicate submission

Answer:   Duplicate submission

Date: 1/13/2017

Inquiry: 40662


Question:   Duplicate submission

Answer:   Duplicate submission

Date: 1/13/2017

Inquiry: 40661


Question:   Duplicate submission

Answer:   Duplicate submission

Date: 1/13/2017

Inquiry: 40659


Question:   Duplicate submission

Answer:   Duplicate submission

Date: 1/13/2017

Inquiry: 40658


Question:   Attachment Three: Requirements For Proposals By in-line response, does the State mean that the offeror must insert their proposal content below each heading in the table of contents provided? If so, how should the identifiable tab sheet be inserted?

Answer:   No, Offerors should insert their narrative response within the State requirements (generally at the end of each section of text) within the Microsoft word document provided. Sections 2 – 3 (and applicable sub-sections) are where offerors should provide their responses. to State requirements.

Date: 1/13/2017

Inquiry: 40656


Question:   Can the State list what sections beyond 2.3 of Supplement 2 need to be included with in line responses in the offerors response?

Answer:   All Sections of Sections 2-3 that are applicable to the Offeror proposal must be responded to. Generally the State has created section breaks and BOLDFACE sub-sections to assist/queue offerors responses (e.g., “Firm Credentials”, “Firm Capabilities, Methods and Tools”, “Innovations that Produced Measurable Outcomes” – the Tool(s) the Firm Used in Section 2.4, the Data Publication elements of Section 2.6, ownership requirements of 2.7 as well as Offeror’s capabilities to successfully plan and execute projects for the State as required by 2.8 to provide a few examples of how offerors may choose to respond.

Date: 1/13/2017

Inquiry: 40660


Question:   Duplicate submission

Answer:   Duplicate submission.

Date: 1/13/2017

Inquiry: 40664


Question:   In response to Question 5 the State says that offerors are to provide representative illustrative project plans. Can the state clarify where in the RFP this is called for and where in the offerors response these should be included?

Answer:   Supplement 2, Section 2.8 contains extensive requirements for offerors to read, understand and comply with in performing projects with the State. Offerors are advised that affirmational Statements to this section (in its entirety) are not well advised. The State believes that healthy projects are well conceived, planned, tracked and managed.

Date: 1/13/2017

Inquiry: 40663


Question:   RFP Page 25, Attachment Three, Proof of Insurance - The RFP requires "a certificate of insurance evidencing the insurance coverage required by a contract for work and/or services related to an Exploratory Project." Please indicate what types of certificates/evidence of coverage the State is seeking (e.g., general liability, E&O, crime, etc.).

Answer:   During the proposal phase of RFPs, offerors generally submit, on insurance provider letterhead, an affirmation statement that the policy (or policies) that an offeror maintains current insurance in the categories and coverage levels required by the State. Alternative approaches that include the cover and coverage pages of the applicable policy have been successful.

Date: 1/13/2017

Inquiry: 40657


Question:   If this is correct should there be a description for each Attachment 7 Form included, or for each data domain, or simply one for the Firm?

Answer:   Offerors should submit at least on Attachment 7 form per client or project they wish to have the State consider for qualification. Should an offeror wish to use a single client or project to qualify for multiple categories, that is permissible. Should an offeror wish to leverage multiple clients and projects, multiple Attachment 7 forms are required, one for each client (required) and one for each project (recommended) as to CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE HOW THE OFFEROR MEETS THE PARAMETERS OF THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENT.

Date: 1/13/2017

Inquiry: 40666


Question:   In addition and outside of the Attachment 7 Form for Section 4 - Offeror Profile, is it correct to understand that there is to be a narrative response as well including a description of the offeror and/or proposed team capability, capacity, and experience in support of the requirements of each Supplement?

Answer:   Attachment 7 forms are required for the offeror to demonstrate experience of the Firm in meeting the MANDATORY REQUIREMENT for the Supplement(s) that the offeror is submitting a proposal for, These are NOT a replacement for the Narrative/Inline response (e.g., project summaries, outcomes, team, tools, approach, resumes etc.) as required by Supplement 2 nor a replacement for the Technical/Platform requirements contained in Supplement 1.

Date: 1/13/2017

Inquiry: 40666


Question:   “ODM has a number of current and future projects that appear to “overlap” with the potential scopes of work that could result from this RFP. Specifically ODM has indicated potential RFP’s for a Medicaid enterprise data warehouse, Medicaid program integrity/fraud, waste and abuse, and healthcare analytics and consulting as part of their MITS procurement cycle. 1) Is it intended that ODM will use this program as a vehicle to procure one or all of these potential projects? Are agencies bound to use this vehicle for all of their prospective analytics projects? Or can agencies release procurements outside of this program?”

Answer:   This procurement is for the State enterprise as a whole, and available to any State agencies who may wish to perform Exploratory Projects. ODM, as a State agency, is anticipated to participate in this program.

Date: 1/13/2017

Inquiry: 40667


Question:   Duplicate submission.

Answer:   Duplicate submission.

Date: 1/13/2017

Inquiry: 40672


Question:   Duplicate submission.

Answer:   Duplicate submission.

Date: 1/13/2017

Inquiry: 40671


Question:   Ref: Proposal Submittal - Included in each sealed package, the offeror also must provide an electronic copy of everything contained within the package on USB Thumb Drive in Microsoft Office, Microsoft Project, or Adobe Acrobat format, as appropriate. If there is a discrepancy between the hard copy and the electronic copy of the Proposal, the hard copy will control, and the State will base its evaluation of the offeror’s Proposal on the hard copy. Does this mean, in conjunction with the in-line response clause from Attachment 3 that all forms available in pdf, must be converted to Word first, or can they be submitted at separate pdf files in the electronic submission ? Also, as forms and attachments exist separate to the RFP document, their page numbers will not line up once printed and inserted into the printed RFP submission. Please confirm if this will be tolerated.

Answer:   State forms may be submitted as scans of PDFs, filled electronically or by hand. Responses to forms provided as native Microsoft Office formats may be submitted in native formats or PDFs at the discretion of the offeror.

Date: 1/13/2017

Inquiry: 40670


Question:   Duplicate submission.

Answer:   Duplicate submission.

Date: 1/12/2017

Inquiry: 40655


Question:   Section 1.2 of Supplement 2 states, “The State believes that leveraging existing and cultivation of new Ohio-based data analytics expertise will form a blended foundation of computer science and applications, modeling, statistics, analytics and math that are essential ingredients to “unlocking” insight into issues across our State.” Question: Is the prospective offeror required to have an office in Ohio?

Answer:   No, this procurement is open to all firms regardless of location.

Date: 1/12/2017

Inquiry: 40654


Question:   Duplicate submission.

Answer:   Duplicate submission.

Date: 1/12/2017

Inquiry: 40649


Question:   As a public institution in the State of Ohio, we cannot agree to the Indemnity section of Attachment 4: General Terms and Conditions. How should we respond to this in our proposal?

Answer:   The State does not negotiate the terms of Attachment Four during the inquiry process. Given existing contract and working relationships between the State and State Institutions of Higher Learning, the State does not anticipate this being an impediment to Contracting.

Date: 1/12/2017

Inquiry: 40642


Question:   Is this RFP directly related to the Ohio Department of Medicaid’s (ODM) Request for Information (RFI), ODM1415901 - "for the purpose of seeking information from vendors of Healthcare Fraud, Waste & Abuse Software", or will a separate RFP come out for that?

Answer:   The State has a myriad of analytics related projects under discussion and consideration. This RFP (0A1199) is not directly related to the RFI that the offeror has inquired about. As the referenced ODM initiative is a Request for Information (RFI) the State does not offer any commitments as to plans for, or timing of any RFP that may arise from this Information Request, but encourages interested vendors to support the ODM information request should they see fit.

Date: 1/12/2017

Inquiry: 40648


Question:   Duplicate submission.

Answer:   Duplicate submission.

Date: 1/12/2017

Inquiry: 40647


Question:   Duplicate submission.

Answer:   Duplicate submission.

Date: 1/12/2017

Inquiry: 40646


Question:   RFP Page 25, Attachment Three, Offeror Profile—The space on the Offeror Profile Form, Attachment Seven may be insufficient to provide the requested information. May vendors add pages following the Offeror Profile Forms, if additional space is required?

Answer:   Yes, vendors may add pages (but maintain the required elements of the form) as part of their response. Additionally, offers may use and submit multiple copies of the form to address different client projects they care to share with the State.

Date: 1/12/2017

Inquiry: 40645


Question:   RFP page 25, Attachment Three: Requirements For Proposals—The RFP states that “The Supplement’s content must not be modified. If the content is modified, reformatted or omitted, the offeror’s response may be disqualified. As part of their response, Offerors are to provide native Microsoft Word based documents that comprise the requirements of a Supplement, inclusive of their response.” In responses to questions, the State indicated that it was acceptable for vendors to submit responses in their own templates as long as the State’s requirements were readily discernable from the proposal response and not altered in any way. (1) Please confirm that a vendor’s entire proposal may be submitted in its own template, including responses to any of the Supplements. (2) If specific portions of the proposal must be submitted in the original RFP format (or “in-line” as originally instructed), please list those required elements.

Answer:   The Supplements of this RFP are provided in Microsoft Word formats for offerors to use in the development of their response. Offerors should include their response as an inline format and may use distinctive document formats, fonts, colors and branding as they see fit, with the proviso that State Requirements are not altered in any way, included in Proposals in their entirety, and that State requirements are readily discernable and distinguishable from the offeror responses within their proposal. Offerors not responding to both Supplements need not respond to the Supplements that they are not responding to.

Date: 1/12/2017

Inquiry: 40644


Question:   Supplement 2 – Pages 8-11—Supplement 2 provides suggests a format for vendors’ responses to include (for each Domain for which they seek qualification): Firm Credentials, Firm Capabilities, Methods and Tools, Innovations that Produced Measurable Outcomes, Demonstrated Ability to Innovate, Representative Resumes, and Other Pertinent Information. However, on RFP page 25, in Attachment Three, the RFP states “The Supplement’s content must not be modified. If the content is modified, reformatted or omitted, the offeror’s response may be disqualified. As part of their response, Offerors are to provide native Microsoft Word based documents that comprise the requirements of a Supplement, inclusive of their response.” Please clarify whether bidders must (1) include the full Supplement document (pages 1-20), in its original format, and provide line-by-line responses to each requirement, or (2) if the suggested format outlined on pages 8-11 of Supplement 2, is a sufficient response to the Proposed Solution – Supplement 2 Response.

Answer:   The Supplements of this RFP are provided in Microsoft Word formats for offerors to use in the development of their response. Offerors should include their response as an inline format and may use distinctive document formats, fonts, colors and branding as they see fit, with the proviso that State requirements are not altered in any way, included in Proposals in their entirety, and that State requirements are readily discernable and distinguishable from the offeror responses within their proposal. Offerors not responding to both Supplements need not respond to the Supplements that they are not responding to.

Date: 1/12/2017

Inquiry: 40643


Question:   Supplement 2, Page 5&7. Is it safe to assume that the interest area titled "Audit, Compliance and Regulatory" would be reflective of a vendor with analytical experience in the field of Taxation? Is the state interested in a proposal from a vendor with deep analytical skills primarily in area of application to Taxation?

Answer:   Taxation, as a general concept, may have applicability to the Audit, Compliance and Regulatory category, as well as Waste, Fraud and Abuse as well as Government Process Automation/Decision Making category. Offerors should align their responses based on the area(s) where their firm maintains analytical skills as appropriate.

Date: 1/11/2017

Inquiry: 40624


Question:   RFPs issued by the State of Ohio usually have an MBE participation requirement included in them. Will future Statement of Work (SOW) Solicitations for Exploratory Projects under this contract have an MBE participation requirement in them?

Answer:   Due to the highly specialized nature of the work associated with Data Analytics Exploratory Projects, the State does not currently have an MBE participation requirement. However, should an Ohio MBE wish to participate in the pre-qualification process for the RFP, interested MBEs are encouraged to submit responses to this solicitation as the offeror or as a proposed subcontractor.

Date: 1/11/2017

Inquiry: 40622


Question:   Subject: Interested in attending the Pre-Proposal Conference Date of January 19th To whom it may concern, With my team at ----------, we are interested in attending the WebEx Pre-Proposal Conference of January 19th, as shown in page 4 of the RFP. Would you please send us a link for the WebEx?

Answer:   The meeting information has not been posted yet. Continue to visit the State Procurement Website often. The information will be posted soon.

Date: 1/11/2017

Inquiry: 40641


Question:   Q2. If there is no separate pre-qualification for MBE companies, we will look for opportunities to become a sub-contractor to another company. However, we did not see any evaluation points assigned to MBE participation. Would the State reconsider it evaluation process to encourage participation by MBE companies?

Answer:   The State has reviewed your request and due to the specialized nature of the work, decided not to revise the evaluation points to include scoring MBE participation.

Date: 1/11/2017

Inquiry: 40613


Question:   Q1. As a State of Ohio MBE company, we are interested in participating in the pre-qualification process. Does the State have plans to pre-qualify MBE companies separately, similar to the DBITS process?

Answer:   No, the State is not planning to pre-qualify MBE companies separately, similar to the DBITS process. Should an Ohio MBE wish to participate in the pre-qualification process for the RFP, interested MBEs are encouraged to submit responses to this solicitation as the offeror or as a proposed subcontractor.

Date: 1/11/2017

Inquiry: 40613


Question:   Does the scope of this RFP include analytics for tax and revenue functions (i.e. Ohio Department of Taxation)? If so, which of the Supplement 2 Data Analytics Domains listed on page 3 should we use for tax and revenue analytics qualifications when filling out Attachment 7? Audit, Compliance & Regulation would apply to tax, but so would Waste, Fraud & Abuse and even Risk Management (for debt collections).

Answer:   Taxation, as a general concept, may have applicability to the Audit, Compliance and Regulatory category, as well as Waste, Fraud and Abuse as well as Government Process Automation/Decision Making category. Offerors should align their responses based on the area(s) where their firm maintains analytical skills as appropriate.

Date: 1/11/2017

Inquiry: 40626


Question:   Duplicate submission.

Answer:   Duplicate submission.

Date: 1/10/2017

Inquiry: 40625


Question:   Q6. Please clarify whether the Attachment 7 form for Offeror Mandatory requirements - Supplement 2, would cater as a client reference for State. For each Data Analytics domain, how many references are mandatory?

Answer:   At least one Attachment 7 is required per project/client reference that offerors may wish to submit for consideration by the State. Should an offeror wish to use a single project incorporate multiple Data Analytics categories (i.e., one of the 14), offerors should indicate as such on the provided form. Offerors are advised that should they possess multiple references (e.g., different projects or different clients) that multiple Attachment 7 submissions are encouraged.

Date: 1/10/2017

Inquiry: 40612


Question:   Q5. Supplement 2 document refers to Representative resume of Proposed Candidates. Does state require offeror's staffing plan and Team's resume to be added with the RFP response?

Answer:   The State requires offerors to provide representative illustrative project plans that demonstrate the scope, level of involvement with the State and Contractor team, highlights of work methods, methodologies, project management capabilities and general roles/responsibilities between the Contractor team and State team in delivering a project (Section 2.8 of Supplement 2). Offerors are encouraged to demonstrate that their approach and delivery of projects are well conceived, well executed, closely tracked, follow a repeatable methodology and followed by the Team in performing projects for the State.

Date: 1/10/2017

Inquiry: 40612


Question:   Q4. We Presume this RFP is to demonstrate the qualification of the Company, however, Technical evaluation process mentions about demonstrating qualifications, skills and work knowledge of candidates. DAS require offeror to propose the candidates, team and their qualifications in RFP response or would that be required post the SOW solicitation?

Answer:   Supplement 2, Section 2.0 requires that offerors propose (section 2.3): Firm Credentials ; Project Summaries and references for each domain they seek to be considered in; Firm Capabilities and Tools; Innovations and Outcomes; Representative Resumes and other pertinent information offerors choose to share with the State as part of their proposal. In addition, experience of the Firm and Team (collectively and individually) with analytics tools (Section 2.4) should be provided as part of the offeror response.

Date: 1/10/2017

Inquiry: 40612


Question:   Q3. Can a Vender be a Subcontractor in one supplemental and be an Offeror in the other?

Answer:   Yes. Offerors must clearly indicate any contracting, partnering or teaming relationships as part of their response.

Date: 1/10/2017

Inquiry: 40612


Question:   Q2. Is it required for the vendor to be re seller/ Channel partner for IaaS or PaaS to perform the scope of services in Supplement 2?

Answer:   No. Supplement 2 is designed for vendors that are partners/resellers of Supplement 1 *OR* independent of Supplement 1. Therefore Supplement 2 is available for all offerors to respond to regardless of relationships with Supplement 1 offerors.

Date: 1/10/2017

Inquiry: 40612


Question:   Q1. Is it possible for an offeror to bid for either of the Supplemental ?

Answer:   Yes, Offerors may submit proposals to either of both of Supplements 1 and 2. Supplement 3 applies to both Supplement 1 and 2.

Date: 1/10/2017

Inquiry: 40612


Question:   Duplicate submission.

Answer:   Duplicate submission.

Date: 1/10/2017

Inquiry: 40608


Question:   RFP Page 2 states: "Once selected for potential prequalification, the term of the Contract evidencing prequalified status will be from the effective date of prequalification until June 30, 2017." Assuming the estimated award date of March 2017, that means a vendor will only be pre-qualified for four months unless the state opts to renew the contract. Is the June 30, 2017 date indeed what the state proposes as the end of the initial term of qualification?

Answer:   June 30, 2017 is correct, State contracts generally conclude at the end of a State biennium the first of which is June 30, 2017. The State, has every intention to renew prequalification status at the start of the new fiscal year 2018-2019 biennial budget period.

Date: 1/10/2017

Inquiry: 40607


Question:   Will the Pre-Proposal conference also be in-person?

Answer:   The Pre-Proposal Conference will not be an in-person event, you will only be able to participate online. Continue to visit the State Procurement Website often. Information regarding the Pre-Proposal Conference will be posted soon.

Date: 1/10/2017

Inquiry: 40609


Question:   The directions for completing Attachment 7 for Supplement 2 state that offerors that seek to be qualified in multiple Data Domains must provide evidence (by completing and submitting multiple forms – see Attachment 7) of their qualifications for each Domain in which the offeror seeks to be Pre-Qualified by the State.

The instructions for the check boxes on Attachment 7 for Supplement 2 call for checking all that apply. Is it therefore correct to assume that the State is expecting multiple Attachment 7s (one for each data domain the offeror wishes to respond to) each with multiple check boxes marked, but then containing data domain specific answers to each requirement listed below?

"Describe Related Service Provided:"

"Describe how the Related Service shows the offeror’s experience, capability, and capacity to meet the requirements and achieve the milestones for this Project:"

Answer:   Should an offeror’s experience for a single referenced project meet multiple domains, please check all that apply. Should an offeror wish to submit multiple projects to meet multiple domains, Offerors should provide each project on a separate copy of Attachment 7. For the avoidance of doubt, please provide each project that the offeror wishes the State to consider on its own form, checking the applicable Data Analytics categories for the project.

Date: 1/9/2017

Inquiry: 40605


Question:   Hi,are you looking for different companies for each domain listed page 16 either the offeror shall cover all domains? We are specialized in cyber security and fraud but not in other domains (life sciences for instance), is the rfp for us?

Answer:   The State will accept proposals from any of (or any combination of) the 14 categories. The State anticipates that some firms may only respond to one category, or a few of the categories, which is perfectly acceptable and welcome by the State.

Date: 1/9/2017

Inquiry: 40603


Question:   On page 23, first paragraph of Attachment 3, Proposal Format. "The offeror’s proposal submission must be submitted using the Microsoft Word® version of the RFP to provide an in-line response to the RFP."

Question 1: Is it acceptable to submit a response in the vendors response template as long as the language from the Microsoft Word version of the RFP is copied verbatim and the requirements in this section are followed?

Question 2: Is Microsoft Word 2013 format acceptable (.docx)?

Answer:   Answer 1: Yes, please ensure that the State’s requirements (generally in black text) are readily discernable from the proposal response and do not alter State requirements in any way.

Answer 2: Yes. The State utilizes Office 365 (2016) file formats (e.g., DOCx, XLSx, PPTx) as well as compatibility with versions going back to Office 2003.

Date: 1/9/2017

Inquiry: 40602


Question:   Good morning, we are definitely interested in providing our proposal. I did search for the addendum to participate in the pre-bid teleconference, but could not find it. Can you please provide this information? Thanks!

Answer:   The addendum has not been posted yet. Continue to visit the State Procurement Website often. The information will be posted soon.

Date: 1/9/2017

Inquiry: 40596


Question:   Duplicate submission.

Answer:   Duplicate submission.

Date: 1/6/2017

Inquiry: 40593


Question:   To whom this may concern, ----------- would like to respond to this RFP. We are in the process of filling out the required New Supplier paperwork as per the guidance of "state staff". Please let us know if there is anything else that we can / need to do in order to be able to bid on this opportunity.

Answer:   Thank you for the notification. Visit the State Procurement Website often. You can view questions and answers that are updated as received; any changes that may made to the document; and possible updates to submission deadlines.

Date: 1/6/2017

Inquiry: 40592


back

Inquiry period ended:  2/3/2017 8:00:00 AM