Opportunity Detail

Questions and Answers

ODOC DOLC Liquor Issuance and Tracking System RFP
Document #:  0A1266


Question:   Given the requirement that the solution will run in the States cloud, can offerors assume that the State will be providing and managing common networking resources such as load balancers, firewalls, and the provisioning of network zones including a DMZ?

Answer:   The solution must be hosted in the State of Ohio public cloud network, therefore, networking resources are part of the State’s (OIT) service price which is the responsibility of the Department of Commerce.

Date: 3/19/2020

Inquiry: 74218


Question:   3. In providing a separate DR/BC solution, the offeror would likely use the same Cloud service providers as SOH, such as Azure or AWS. To provide improved DR/BC over using the geographical replication that is available in the SOH Cloud, the offeror would need their system at different locations from the SOH Cloud, which would require frequent communication between the SOH Cloud and the offeror to maintain geographical separation. This geographical mapping information is generally considered highly confidential.

Answer:   Not applicable due to the response provided above regarding geographical replication. The State cannot interpret the request for information. Please submit a specific question regarding information requested.

Date: 3/19/2020

Inquiry: 74231


Question:   If so, we could provide procedures to conduct an annual DR/BC test and help conduct the test. We would work with OIT to size the replicated site to meet the performance and capacity requirements. Would these procedures meet the intent of this requirement?

Answer:   The State cannot indicate if your proposed scenario meets the RFP requirements through the inquiry process.

Date: 3/19/2020

Inquiry: 74231


Question:   This a follow-up to the response to Inquiry 74172 submitted on 3/4/2020 and a request for more detailed clarification. It is our understanding is that the SOH Cloud can support geographical replication, which allows for a seamless switchover in the event of a location-wide failure - https://das.ohio.gov/Portals/0/DASDivisions/InformationTechnology/IS/Services/DRaaS.pdf Is our understanding correct that the SOH Cloud supports geographical replication?

Answer:   Seamless switchover - if the vendor’s solution/application is written in such a way that it is using geographical replication within the architecture design, such as an active/active design. In the event that one location would go down then the load balancer would then be able to route traffic to one remaining active site for a “seamless switchover” in the event of a location-wide failure. If the application is not deployed or written in a way to take advantage of this type of design, we do not believe that only instituting a geographical replication of data would create the avenue for a “seamless switchover”. The State’s Enterprise Brokered services allow for use of AWS and Azure regions throughout the United States. We do not allow for services to be run outside of the US. Yes, the SOH Cloud supports geographical replication.

Date: 3/19/2020

Inquiry: 74231


Question:   Could the State please describe the current ETL processes in place for the CICS, LITS, ABCS systems?

Answer:   It will be the Vendor's responsibility to create ETL processes for all systems to be incorporated into the resulting software.

Date: 3/19/2020

Inquiry: 74324


Question:   3. The Cost Proposal allows for 9 years of potential Managed Services / Disaster Recovery costs, from FY20 – FY28. Should we plan to take into account the implementation timeline for Phases 1 and 2 as we complete this table? For example, if we anticipate a 2-year timeline for the implementation of Phases 1 and 2, starting in June 2020, should we only plan to provide Managed Service / Disaster Recovery estimates for FY23 – FY28, post the implementation of Phase 2?

Answer:   3. Yes, the implementation timeline for Phases 1 and 2 should be taken into account. Therefore, your example is correct.

Date: 3/19/2020

Inquiry: 74323


Question:   2. Will there be an IV&V vendor assigned to this project? If so, can you identify the vendor?

Answer:   2. DOLC has not determined if an IV&V Vendor will be engaged at this time.

Date: 3/19/2020

Inquiry: 74323


Question:   1. What is the current LITS application built on today? Is it custom?

Answer:   1. The current LITS application is a custom Java-based solution.

Date: 3/19/2020

Inquiry: 74323


Question:   Duplicate Question

Answer:   Duplicate Question

Date: 3/19/2020

Inquiry: 74326


Question:   Duplicate Question

Answer:   Duplicate Question

Date: 3/19/2020

Inquiry: 74325


Question:   10. Who is responsible for mapping end user defined end user roles? Does current state documentation already exist?

Answer:   10. The Vendor is responsible for mapping end user defined roles. This documentation does not exist and could potentially be dependent upon the solution delivered.

Date: 3/19/2020

Inquiry: 74322


Question:   9. Being mindful of the fiscal year, and employee capacity during those times, are planned times when employees will not be available at all?

Answer:   9. There are periods where staff will be unavailable for training. The Vendor and DOLC/ODOC will partner to reach mutual agreement on training dates and attendees.

Date: 3/19/2020

Inquiry: 74322


Question:   8. Does DOLC have training facilities/computer lab for hands-on, instructor-led training?

Answer:   8. There is not a formal training facility however DOLC/DOC will work with the Vendor to set up on premise training areas during mutually agreed upon timeframes.

Date: 3/19/2020

Inquiry: 74322


Question:   7. Who is responsible for maintaining and tracking current training activities at DOLC?

Answer:   7. There is not a current process in place.

Date: 3/19/2020

Inquiry: 74322


Question:   6. Will DOA or DOLC staff be assigned to support training deployment activities (e.g. publishing course materials etc)?

Answer:   6. No, training will be the responsibility of the Vendor.

Date: 3/19/2020

Inquiry: 74322


Question:   5. What learning technologies does the DOLC/DOA keep that would be key in maintaining training materials into the future (e.g. course creation software, other)?

Answer:   5. At this time there is no current learning management tool. The Vendor will be responsible for creation, delivery, and maintenance of all training materials.

Date: 3/19/2020

Inquiry: 74322


Question:   4. Does the DOC or DOLC have an existing Comms/Change Management team who can participate in the change and training efforts? If so, how many people are on that team?

Answer:   4. No.

Date: 3/19/2020

Inquiry: 74322


Question:   3. How many other end users are in the state systems that need to interface with the new LITS software?

Answer:   3. At this time only DOLC staff will have access into the proposed back office software. However, depending on the level of integration provided by the Full Implementation solution with other State stakeholders, there could potentially be State users external to DOLC who require access to the system.

Date: 3/19/2020

Inquiry: 74322


Question:   2. Are DOLC employees unionized, and how should trained hours be worked into their regular working schedules?

Answer:   2. A portion of the staff is unionized. Training hours will be worked in their regular schedule through partnership with the business unit management and mutually agreed upon scheduling.

Date: 3/19/2020

Inquiry: 74322


Question:   1. What is the DOLC BU end user/IT support staff population? (total and break down by BU) and their specific locations?

Answer:   1. At this point in time, the State may have up to 200 distinct internal users from various business units using the system. Internal State users may be located anywhere.

Date: 3/19/2020

Inquiry: 74322


Question:   Requirement 8.1.8 “The system must serve as new database for what is currently being used as OSS Permit log and automatically generate Registration Numbers.“ This requirement falls under the section 2.8 Reporting. Can the State provide detail about what the OSS Permit log is and what Registration Numbers are that need to be generated.

Answer:   The OSS Permit log is also called the Out of State Supplier Permit log. In its current form, it is an Excel spreadsheet in which the Division tracks the registration numbers of suppliers, beer and wine permits, and spirits permits. As stated in Requirement 8.1.8, the solution must serve as a new database for this log and must generate these registration numbers automatically going forward.

Date: 3/19/2020

Inquiry: 74281


Question:   Requirement 2.2.33 “The system must allow the authorized role the ability to override any requirement during data.” Can the State clarify this requirement as it does not seem complete?

Answer:   The requirement should read: "The system must allow the user the ability to override any requirement during data entry as it will be solely based on what was provided by applicant/permit holder via mail." An amendment is forthcoming to note the update to requirement 2.2.33.

Date: 3/19/2020

Inquiry: 74280


Question:   An accurate migration estimate generally requires information about the data sources to be migrated. We understand that the data dictionary of the database fields are not available. For the files to be migrated, would it be possible to provide: • the type (e.g., Access, Excel, flat files) of each of the data sources • a brief description of each source • The number of tables in the databases, rows in the Excel file etc. • Record counts of important tables. We appreciate any sizing information in order to better size the migration effort.

Answer:   To assist with estimation, the following is some additional information related to the systems/processes that are within the scope of this RFP. We are providing a general overview below and it is important to note that it is the Vendor's responsibility to analyze the data and successfully perform the migration out of the legacy systems into the proposed system, and this information may not reflect the full scope of the migration effort. CICS - This is the primary, COBOL-based system of record for all processes within the scope of this RFP. It is unknown how the data storage is structured and how many tables records this may equate to. LITS - This is the primary document repository and contains image files and other data saved in a DB2 database. The format and number of the images is unknown. ABCS - This is a small SQL database with a MS Access front-end that contains data related to Supplier and Label Registration that has 16 known tables. The number of records in the database is unknown. Excel - The Business also leverages MS Excel for storing data related to other processes. The number, size, and composition of these files is unknown.

Date: 3/11/2020

Inquiry: 74230


Question:   If DOC chooses to move forward with Project Stage Two Full Implementation, does the State intend to begin leveraging the functionality delivered as part of Project Stage One POC as part of a production release cycle (prior to the completion of Stage Two Full Implementation)? Or is the intent to only have 1 production release and go-live for the entire solution at the end of Stage Two?

Answer:   Section 8.3 of Supplement 1 refers to POC Environment Setup as a deliverable, however, this is not intended to be in production with an accompanying go-live. Section 7.3 of Supplement 2 refers to Production Environment Setup. This is the only production release and go-live for the solution, and it will occur at the end of Stage Two.

Date: 3/11/2020

Inquiry: 74279


Question:   Our proposal will include software development customization tasks to support specific DOLC requirements. Since the project work must be performed on site, can the State provide resources to support the application development work, such as computing resources for developers, a source code control system, and an electronic agile task board?

Answer:   No, the State will not provide resources to support the application development work, such as computing resources for developers, a source code control system, and an electronic agile task board.

Date: 3/6/2020

Inquiry: 74222


Question:   If the offerors solution is based on platform software such as Microsoft Windows Server, can the offeror assume that the State will be responsible for acquiring the required software licenses since the solution will be running in the States cloud?

Answer:   The state will provide the platform (environment), and while the overall solution is Vendor managed, it is the State’s expectation that if additional software licenses are required to support the solution, and these licenses are for products that the State already utilizes through existing contracts, the State will be responsible for acquiring them.

Date: 3/5/2020

Inquiry: 74219


Question:   AMENDMENT 3 – Opening Date and Inquiry Period End Date

Answer:   AMENDMENT 3 – Update (extension) to the Opening Date and Inquiry Period End Date has been posted.

Date: 3/5/2020

Inquiry: 74223


Question:   Because the responses to the questions are due by March 6th and vendors may not receive responses until March 11, would the state consider providing an extension of two weeks to allow the respondents adequate time to incorporate Q/A feedback into our responses?

Answer:   The State will issue an Amendment to extend the bid opening date to March 27, 2020.

Date: 3/4/2020

Inquiry: 74208


Question:   The time between when the State will publish answers to vendor questions and the Proposal Due date leaves little time for vendors to adequately incorporate the States responses into their bids. Will the State please consider granting a 2-week extension to the Proposal Due Date?

Answer:   The State will issue an Amendment to extend the bid opening date to March 27, 2020.

Date: 3/4/2020

Inquiry: 74191


Question:   The Q&A refers to "the three annual permit renewal periods". Does the offeror need to be concerned with restricting any cutover or data migration activity during these periods? If so, what times of the year do the periods occur

Answer:   Yes, there are concerns that may prevent certain types of data migration or restrict cutovers during these renewal periods, however, their impact would be heavily dependent on the technical solution proposed by any given Offeror. These would have to be mutually agreed to by the Vendor and DOLC. The three permit renewal periods are on the 1st of February, June and October of each year.

Date: 3/4/2020

Inquiry: 74176


Question:   For user authentication in the existing system, do you use OH | ID for Citizens for the External Users and OH | ID Workforce for the Internal Users? If not, is it the States preference to use OH|ID and OH|ID Workforce in the new system?

Answer:   DOLC currently does not use OH | ID for Citizens for the External Users and OH | ID Workforce for the Internal Users, but must leverage this solution for authentication in the new system.

Date: 3/4/2020

Inquiry: 74173


Question:   Regarding Section 2.1.2 - Can the State confirm that it uses US Postal Service Addresses - rather than a coordinate system such as latitude/longitude - to define locations?

Answer:   For the purposes of this requirement, DOLC would currently use USPS Addresses to define locations.

Date: 3/4/2020

Inquiry: 74175


Question:   Regarding 2.1.1 The system must provide address validation services across the board for all permits and account setup. Can the State describe the validation service it envisions? Does the State want confirmation of the existence of the address through an external web service that validates the address?

Answer:   It would be acceptable to the State to leverage any industry standard external web service for address validation.

Date: 3/4/2020

Inquiry: 74174


Question:   Supplement 2, pg 14 - We understand that the application must run in the SOH cloud. However, the RFP states that the contractor must provide a backup location as part of Annual Disaster Recovery and Business Continuity Rehearsal and Testing, rather than using the redundancy available in the SOH Cloud DR/BC capabilities. Could you clarify the scope of this requirement? Must it meet the capacity and performance requirements of the Cloud (e.g., 5K users)? Or do you just want to demonstrate that the application can be initialized on an offsite system from backups?

Answer:   For the purposes of this RFP, "backup location" can be interpreted to mean any generally accepted cloud architecture disaster recovery and business continuity practice that is in alignment with DAS OIT cloud architecture guideline. This solution would have to fulfill the capacity and performance requirements of the production system.

Date: 3/4/2020

Inquiry: 74172


Question:   Is there any redacted or trade secret information in the legacy data that must be preserved in the new system?

Answer:   All data from the legacy systems must be migrated as-is.

Date: 3/4/2020

Inquiry: 74171


Question:   QN.3 Could State explain how this evaluation criteria will help for the successful implementation of the project especially if such PM does not have Agile experience? Did State had an opportunity to interact with vendor and also saw the demo, who have completed such specific integration? If yes, please share details on the vendor. 3. The Offeror must demonstrate experience within the last twenty-four (24) months creating integrations with two (2) or more additional government systems on the same project/solution (e.g. multiple systems sharing quotas based on population reports from another agency).

Answer:   This answer applies to each question from Inquiry #74180: The State is not aware of which Vendor(s) may meet these mandatory requirements. The reason for their inclusion is to ensure the RFP is awarded to a Vendor that can demonstrate direct experience and ability to deliver within the domain of the project subject matter; using a delivery approach, and a technical solution that is in alignment with the COM IT and DAS OIT long-term enterprise architecture goals.

Date: 3/4/2020

Inquiry: 74180


Question:   QN.2 Regarding the mandatory requirements, could State explain rationale behinds such stringent requirements that limits pool of available respondents? A similar effect can be achieved by making them a weighted criteria instead of mandatory. We respectfully request state to share background information on mandatory qualifications and their knowledge of any such companies that do have such qualifications. If State is aware of any vendor/products, please share the vendor details. 2. The Offeror’s proposed PM must have been the assigned PM on one of the 2 projects above (referenced in Offeror Mandatory #1) within the past forty-eight (48) months.

Answer:   This answer applies to each question from Inquiry #74180: The State is not aware of which Vendor(s) may meet these mandatory requirements. The reason for their inclusion is to ensure the RFP is awarded to a Vendor that can demonstrate direct experience and ability to deliver within the domain of the project subject matter; using a delivery approach, and a technical solution that is in alignment with the COM IT and DAS OIT long-term enterprise architecture goals.

Date: 3/4/2020

Inquiry: 74180


Question:   QN.1 Could DAS elaborate in details how DAS has arrived for this mandatory requirements? Did DAS contacted/know any vendor who has these qualifications? If yes please name the vendor. 1. The Offeror or its subcontractors must have experience implementing a licensing and registration solution, and must have completed and successfully delivered two (2) projects within the last forty-eight (48) months.

Answer:   This answer applies to each question from Inquiry #74180: The State is not aware of which Vendor(s) may meet these mandatory requirements. The reason for their inclusion is to ensure the RFP is awarded to a Vendor that can demonstrate direct experience and ability to deliver within the domain of the project subject matter; using a delivery approach, and a technical solution that is in alignment with the COM IT and DAS OIT long-term enterprise architecture goals.

Date: 3/4/2020

Inquiry: 74180


Question:   Could you clarify your expectations for the coding standard Deliverable (Supplement, pg 12, Supplement 2, pg 8). For example, are you requiring changes to an existing product to meet new coding standards, or to document the "as is" standards that exist in the current product?

Answer:   Please include the specific text related to coding standards that the question is meant to address. In general, all changes, to either a new or legacy system should meet the current coding standards.

Date: 3/4/2020

Inquiry: 74170


Question:   There are various plans that must be included in the offeror response. These include, but are not limited to: staffing plan, project schedule, communications plan, contingency plan and work plan Could you identify the section of the response for inclusion of these plans? Should offeror address DR/BC plan in response?

Answer:   Page 32 of the RFP provides a list of what must be included in tabbed sections of your in-line response. This list includes but is not limited to Supplement 1, Supplement 2 and Supplement 3. These supplements include plans and Disaster Recovery (DR)/Business Continuity (BC) referenced in your inquiry.

Date: 3/4/2020

Inquiry: 74169


Question:   In order to better assess the data migration effort, Would it be possible to provide any data dictionaries and schemas for the data that must be migrated from the required legacy data sources, including CICS, Access and any other LITS files?

Answer:   The State is unable to provide a data migration data dictionary or schema overview at this time, as it is the Vendor's responsibility to determine the best approach to migrating all of the State's data in a successful manner.

Date: 3/4/2020

Inquiry: 74168


Question:   4. The requirement states that the Offeror or its subcontractors must submit a solution that is cloud-based and shall be hosted in the State’s cloud (currently AWS and Azure). We use both of those clouds, does that satisfy the requirement or does our solution need to reside within the State enclave? If so, can you provide more information on that?

Answer:   It is a mandatory requirement that the solution is cloud-based and shall be hosted in the State’s Cloud (currently AWS and Azure).

Date: 2/28/2020

Inquiry: 73132


Question:   3. Are you able to provide a sample with all column headings?

Answer:   The State is unable to provide a sample migration template at this time, as it is the Vendor's responsibility to determine the best approach to migrating all of the State's data in a successful manner.

Date: 2/28/2020

Inquiry: 73132


Question:   2. Page 20: ATTACHMENT ONE: EVALUATION CRITERIA Mandatory Requirements: Is the data to be migrated in SQL format or can be provided in .csv format?

Answer:   There are multiple data sets that will need to be migrated and it is the Vendor's responsibility to analyze the data and successfully perform the migration out of the legacy systems into the proposed system.

Date: 2/28/2020

Inquiry: 73132


Question:   1. Page 17 under “Financial Ability” states "This RFP may expressly require the submission of audited financial statements from all Offerors in their Proposals, but if this RFP does not make this an express requirement, the State still may insist that an Offeror submit audited financial statements for up to the past three years, if the State is concerned that an Offeror may not have the financial ability to carry out the Contract. Also, the State may consider financial information other than the information that this RFP requires as part of the Offeror’s Proposal, such as credit reports from third-party reporting agencies." As we hold our financial information in strict confidentiality, we would not be able to comply with providing audited financial statements. Do you plan on requiring audited financial statements in the evaluation process?

Answer:   The State may request financial statements from any vendor under active consideration. If the vendor is a privately held organization, the State may keep the records confidential as permitted under state and federal law.

Date: 2/28/2020

Inquiry: 73132


Question:   Q2: Page 3, The RFP states “The new system must be cloud based . . .”. And, P.17, under mandatory requirements it states that a “solution that is cloud-based and shall be hosted in the State’s cloud (currently AWS and Azure).” • These two statements are a bit contradictory. A cloud based system implies the vendor will manage the system, and regularly update the application by leveraging the multi-tenant environment where the application resides. Therefore, we need some clarification as to exactly what type of license and support the state is expecting the vendor to provide. o If the state wants the system to run in their environment, that implies the state will also need to provide the database software necessary to support the system. Is the state expecting to supply the database? If so, is it the ones listed in Attachment 4, page 15, subheading 3.3.4.1. Database as a Service? o Is the state expecting the vendor to provide all of the managed services to support updates and on-going bug fixes listed in Attachment 2, Section 8.2 on pages 8-11? Will the State’s data hosting personnel be performing any services? o At least one piece of our software is required to run in the vendor operated multi-tenant AWS environment. It is the only way it is currently deployed. It will not be able to be deployed in the State’s cloud environment. Will this fact disqualify our bid? o Because vendors will not have full control of the infrastructure in a State hosted solution, will the State consider waiving the SLA requirements in Attachment 2, pages 11 – 17?

Answer:   Section 1.0 of RFP Supplement 2 describes the software licensing that the State expects the vendor to provide. Section 3.1 of RFP Supplement 1 and Section 8.0 of RFP Supplement 2 describe the support that the State expects the vendor to provide. There is no requirement that a State-supplied database must be used to support the system. However, if the Vendor's design elects to use a State-supplied database, it must be done so in accordance with the guidelines in Attachment 4. Yes, the State expects a vendor managed service. The state will provide the platform (environment), but this solution is vendor managed. It is a mandatory requirement that the solution is cloud-based and shall be hosted in the State’s Cloud (currently AWS and Azure). If Offerors do not meet mandatory requirements, the Offeror’s proposal will not advance to the next part of the technical evaluation phase, also described as the Scored Criteria section of the RFP. The State declines your request to remove Service Level Agreements (SLA) in Supplement 2, Section 9.0 (pgs. 11-17). The vendor will be held to the performance specifications to meet SLA requirements.

Date: 2/28/2020

Inquiry: 72002


Question:   Would the state consider providing an extension of two weeks to allow the respondents adequate time to incorporate Q/A feedback into our responses?

Answer:   The State has no interest in extending the opening date at this time.

Date: 2/28/2020

Inquiry: 74164


Question:   We are diligently working. Producing a quality response is a significant effort. Please extend the Opening Date to March 27, 2020.

Answer:   The State has no interest in extending the opening date at this time.

Date: 2/28/2020

Inquiry: 73147


Question:   • As we understand from the RFP, the Board is requesting that the proposed solution be hosted on the State AWS or Azure Cloud. And, that the vendor would be at risk if service levels are not met. Would the State be willing to allow the solution to be hosted on the Vendor’s AWS Cloud? • The Board will be embarking on a long-term relationship with the software provider solution that will continue for many years after the implementation services have concluded. Would the Board consider signing separate agreements (one with the software provider and one with the services provider)? We believe this arrangement would benefit the Board for a number of reasons. One benefit is that with separate agreements, the Board will gain direct access to the software provider and will be able to begin to build a relationship with them from day one of the project. Additionally, the Board can more easily enforce contract items such as warranties language and SLAs to the party directly responsible for those specific requirements. • Will the Board reasonably negotiate terms and conditions with the awarded vendor?

Answer:   The State declines your request to alter the mandatory requirement : The solution is cloud-based and shall be hosted in the State’s Cloud (currently AWS and Azure). If Offerors do not meet mandatory requirements, the Offeror’s proposal will not advance to the next part of the technical evaluation phase, also described as the Scored Criteria section of the RFP. The State takes into consideration the manner at which the AWS or Azure environment performs and the Contractor will have full access to the AWS or Azure cloud structure. The vendor will be held to the performance specifications to meet SLA requirements. No, the State would not be interested in signing separate agreements. Page 1 of the RFP states the following: "In lieu of taking exceptions to RFP requirements, including but not limited to terms and conditions, scope of work statements, service levels requirements, etc., or providing assumptions that may be unacceptable to the State, offerors are strongly encouraged to use the inquiry process in Part Three of the RFP." Additional details with regards to negotiations can be found on Page 14 of the RFP, section entitled “Contract Negotiations”. The State cannot determine at this time if it will negotiate with an offeror for this project.

Date: 2/27/2020

Inquiry: 72011


Question:   Is the State willing to provide guaranteed service levels by the State AWS or Azure Cloud back to the vendor? Is the State willing to allow the solution to be hosted on the vendor’s AWS Cloud? This would allow the vendor to agree to the prescribed service levels directly?

Answer:   The State takes into consideration the manner at which the AWS or Azure environment performs. The contractor will have full access to the AWS or Azure cloud structure. The State declines your request to alter the mandatory requirement : The solution is cloud-based and shall be hosted in the State’s Cloud (currently AWS and Azure). If Offerors do not meet mandatory requirements, the Offeror’s proposal will not advance to the next part of the technical evaluation phase, also described as the Scored Criteria section of the RFP. The vendor will be held to the performance specifications to meet SLA requirements.

Date: 2/27/2020

Inquiry: 71997


Question:   The second paragraph on pg. 38 states: "Unless expressly excluded elsewhere in the RFP, all hardware, software, supplies, and other required components (such as documentation,conversion, training, and maintenance) necessary for the Project to be complete and useful to the State are included in the Project and the not-to-exceed fixed price." Can we clarify that hardware does not include any desktop workstations or mobile devices such as smartphones/tablets?

Answer:   The State would not expect the end user desktop workstation or mobile devices to be provided by the Contractor.

Date: 2/26/2020

Inquiry: 73064


Question:   We noted that the enquiry period remains ongoing until March 6th and that all questions will be answered within 3 business days. This means any questions submitted by Mar. 6th may not be answered until Mar. 11. The proposal responses are due Mar. 13. We courier proposal responses 2 days in advance of the due date to avoid delivery circumstances that could cause a deadline to be missed. To ensure the Contractor is able to incorporate information provided in DOLCs answers into their proposal response, review, QA, package and print, would DOLC consider the request for an extension of the due date by a minimum of one week?

Answer:   The State has no interest in extending the opening date at this time.

Date: 2/26/2020

Inquiry: 73066


Question:   Re: Agile PM - as noted in previous question - "DOLC is looking for agile project methodologies and will favor responses that demonstrate this approach." An Agile PM methodology implies the need for "continuous change over the life of the project". On pg. 27 of the RFP there is a statement: "The Offeror’s total cost for the entire Project must be represented as the not-to-exceed fixed price." Can the DOLC clarify the expectation for the Contractor to comply with the requirement for agile (continuous change) and fixed price at the same time?

Answer:   It is expected that the Offeror will leverage their own experience to demonstrate how they plan to deliver the project.

Date: 2/25/2020

Inquiry: 73062


Question:   Has DOLC run agile fixed price projects previously? If so, how successful were they from an end user perspective? Does DOLC have a trained, experienced product owner who will be assigned full-time and will be working with the business and other stakeholders to determine answers to important scope decisions, including scope swaps, etc., as appropriate? Has any Lean analysis already occurred?  Is it completed?  If so, is DOLC willing to share the results?  Where is the business at with respect to changing its practices to be in line with Lean practices?

Answer:   DOLC does have previous experience working with vendors in a fixed price capacity using an agile delivery model. DOLC expects that the selected Vendor will work with the Division towards a successful solution from an end user perspective. For the Division's part, a project team will be devoted to engaging with the selected Vendor to ensure the success of this project. All business analysis conducted to-date has been included in Supplement 3 to the RFP, however it should not be expected that this is all encompassing. The Business is open to adopting process based efficiencies, and expects the implementation of the new system to identify them.

Date: 2/25/2020

Inquiry: 73063


Question:   There is a reference in Supplement 1 - Proof of Concept Statement of Work page 3 that "All work performed by the Contractor must be performed at the Ohio Division of Liquor Control’s Reynoldsburg, Ohio headquarters". For previous Azure hosted COTS solutions of this nature delivered successfully and cost effectively in the past, our implementation approach has consisted of a mix of onsite visits as required for face-to-discussions, augmented by video-conference. Do we understand correctly from this statement that any and all work or participation/effort by anyone on the Contractors team must take place onsite?

Answer:   As stated on page 3 of Supplement 1, "All work performed by the Contractor must be performed at the Ohio Division of Liquor Control's Reynoldsburg, Ohio headquarters." This means that any and all work or participation/effort by anyone on the Contractors team must take place onsite.

Date: 2/25/2020

Inquiry: 73061


Question:   Is the State willing to consider changing the mandatory requirement that a solution is cloud-hosted in the State’s Cloud to a desirable requirement? This mandatory requirement may restrict additional viable solution options for the State to consider.

Answer:   It is a mandatory requirement that the solution is cloud-based and shall be hosted in the State’s Cloud (currently AWS and Azure). If Offerors do not meet mandatory requirements, the Offeror’s proposal will not advance to the next part of the technical evaluation phase, also described as the Scored Criteria section of the RFP.

Date: 2/21/2020

Inquiry: 72043


Question:   In the evaulation and scoring sections of the RFP, it is not clear to what extent involving MBE, VBE or EDGE suppliers will impact the scoring. Can DOLC please clarify?

Answer:   A set-aside for MBE and EDGE vendors has not been included as part of this RFP so no additional bonus points are provided for those preferences. With regards to Veteran's Friendly Business Enterprise preference, Attachment One: Evaluation Criteria (pg. 18) states the following: The State of Ohio, Department of Administrative Services will apply the Veterans Friendly Business Enterprise preference as required by ORC 9.318 and OAC 123:5-1-16. The preference procedure detailed within the OAC will be used to determine how much preference will be applied.

Date: 2/21/2020

Inquiry: 73059


Question:   ATTACHMENT ONE: EVALUATION CRITERIA Page 17 3. We appreciate State’s efforts in encouraging VBE participation. However, in most of the previous RFPs led by State, there has always been encouragement on utilization of MBE (Minority Business Enterprise). Would State consider adding an MBE goal to this RFP to encourage inclusion of Ohio based MBE firms?

Answer:   This procurement opportunity is an open solicitation and does not have an MBE Set-Aside component, however, the State always encourages MBE participation. This opportunity is open to all Offerors that meet the requirement of the RFP.

Date: 2/21/2020

Inquiry: 72056


Question:   ATTACHMENT TWO: SPECIAL PROVISIONS Page 30 4. Most of the previous RFPs led by State, there has generally been a State Term Schedule requirement. Would State consider adding State Term Schedule as a possible contracting vehicle to encourage Ohio local businesses and also get advantage of STS pricing?

Answer:   State Term Schedules are not a requirement of State RFPs. The State Term Schedule (STS) is a separate procurement vehicle that includes negotiated price lists.

Date: 2/21/2020

Inquiry: 72056


Question:   Supplement 2 - Full Implementation Statement of Work 6. Is there an expected duration or target delivery date for the full implementation completed by the awarded vendor?

Answer:   There is no explicitly stated expected duration or target delivery date for the Proof of Concept or the Full Implementation to be completed by the vendor.

Date: 2/21/2020

Inquiry: 72056


Question:   0A1266_Supplement 1 - Proof of Concept Statement of Work 5. Is there an expected duration or target delivery date for the Proof of Concept completed by the awarded vendor?

Answer:   There is no explicitly stated expected duration or target delivery date for the Proof of Concept or the Full Implementation to be completed by the vendor.

Date: 2/21/2020

Inquiry: 72056


Question:   ATTACHMENT ONE: EVALUATION CRITERIA Page 17 2. The first mandatory requirement states that “the offeror/subcontractor must have completed and successfully delivered projects within the following parameters: Minimum of 15,000 active permits Of the above 15,000 active permits, each has a minimum of 10 documents, 12 responses, and 40 attributes Minimum of 35 different permit types that have different rules, values, inclusion and exclusion criteria and Experience migrating data from a legacy system.” Can an offeror include future volume in its minimum figures from deployed projects where such projection is limited in future timeframe (6 months) and is verifiable via bona fide reference check?

Answer:   No, this mandatory requirement related to previous project permit volume cannot be fulfilled by future projected volume.

Date: 2/21/2020

Inquiry: 72056


Question:   1. The RFP Evaluation Criteria states “the Offeror or its subcontractors must have experience implementing a licensing and registration solution, and must have completed and successfully delivered two (2) projects within the last forty-eight (48) months.” Would this criteria be met by an offeror maintaining and actively supporting two (2) or more such projects within the last forty-eight (48) months, where such project(s) were initially delivered prior the forty-eight (48) month term? Such a scenario demonstrates not only the Offeror’s ability to deliver, but also offeror’s experience and ability to support DOLC following delivery.

Answer:   It is a mandatory requirement that the Vendor "must have completed and successfully delivered two (2) projects within the last forty-eight (48) months." A project that meets this criterion would be one that demonstrates an initial or Production "go-live" anytime within the previous forty-eight (48) months. If Offerors do not meet mandatory requirements, the Offeror’s proposal will not advance to the next part of the technical evaluation phase, also described as the Scored Criteria section of the RFP.

Date: 2/21/2020

Inquiry: 72056


Question:   Is the State willing to decrease the mandatory experience for agile and use of the product to 12 months instead of 60 months, and make months beyond 12 desirable instead of mandatory? The mandatory requirement of 60 months for agile AND the proposed product will significantly limit the pool of qualified resources, including those with extensive licensing domain experience that could be very valuable to the State in the implementation of this complex project. Alternatively, could the State please separate Agile Development experience from the proposed product and adjust the requirement to be 60 months of Agile?

Answer:   The State declines the request to remove or alter this requirement. Its intent is to ensure that project leadership is experienced in Agile delivery. Mandatory requirements are discussed in Part Four: Evaluation of Proposals – Requirements (pg. 12 of the RFP document). Specific mandatory requirements for this RFP are stated in Attachment One: Evaluation Criteria (pg. 17) with the title: Offeror Mandatory Requirements.

Date: 2/21/2020

Inquiry: 72044


Question:   Are the Project Manager qualification required in that the proposal be disqualified if the proposed project manager does not meet all the Must Haves for this position as listed in the RFP?

Answer:   Mandatory requirements are discussed in Part Four: Evaluation of Proposals – Requirements (pg. 12 of the RFP document). Specific mandatory requirements for this RFP are stated in Attachment One: Evaluation Criteria (pg. 17) with the title: Offeror Mandatory Requirements. The Mandatory Requirements section (pg. 17) explains that if the Offeror’s Proposal meets all of the mandatory requirements, the Offeror’s Proposal may be included in the next part of the technical evaluation phase described in the next table. The technical evaluation phase includes the scored criteria as stated in Attachment One: Evaluation Criteria (pg. 17).

Date: 2/19/2020

Inquiry: 72010


Question:   Very interested in responding to this challenging bid. Would it be possible to get an extension on the opening date? Thank you!

Answer:   The State has no interest in extending the opening date at this time.

Date: 2/19/2020

Inquiry: 72000


Question:   State awarded a contract in 2018 for Liquor Management System (LMS) - Managed services . Would the winner of the LMS above be eligible to bid on this RFP ? Also is this effort be considered a replacement for the above ?

Answer:   Offerors are welcome to submit an offering, regardless of prior contract awards. The License Issuance and Tracking System is not a replacement for the Liquor Management System.

Date: 2/19/2020

Inquiry: 71992


Question:   Q3: Can you elaborate on the various roles of the user groups or departments? I.e. inspectors, admin, case investigators. Etc. And, if possible please provide a use case for each?

Answer:   The specific roles that the system needs to support, that have been identified to date, can be found in the included use cases. It should not be assumed that these are the only roles that will be in scope. Requirement Number 1.2.1 states that "the system must support multiple roles for users". It is expected that part of the analysis effort undertaken by the Vendor would be to determine all of the required user roles.

Date: 2/19/2020

Inquiry: 72003


Question:   Q1: Req Number 20.2.2: The System must support up to 5,000 concurrent users. Can you provide a use case for these 5,000 users? Are these users government employees or external individuals seeking to apply and/or track license applications? During the prototype period will individuals from outside of the government access the system. If yes, can you please estimate how many. Are any of these users field inspectors? If so, how many named field inspectors do you have?

Answer:   Extensive use cases are provided in the requirements document (Supplement 3). An example of a use case when the system may need to support 5,000 concurrent users is during one of the three annual permit renewal periods. During the Proof of Concept (POC), external customers will not access the system, only internal users will. Some of these users may be field inspectors. All necessary information should be provided in the included use cases.

Date: 2/19/2020

Inquiry: 72001


Question:   Regarding this Project Manager requirements "The Offeror’s proposed Project Manager (“PM”) must have a minimum of sixty (60) months of Agile experience." We respectfully request that the 60-months of Agile experience for the Project Manager be removed. From our experience, very few government organization have implemented a licensing and permitting product using an Agile implementation methodology. We request that the Project Manager requirements be changed to 60-months experience implementing the proposed licensing and permitting product. And that a separate position be added for a Scrum Master with 36-months of experience as a Scrum Master.

Answer:   The State declines the request to remove or alter this requirement. Its intent is to ensure that project leadership is experienced in Agile delivery.

Date: 2/14/2020

Inquiry: 71949


Question:   Regarding the mandatory requirement that lists the bullet points for the two previous projects: Do the bullet points apply to the two previous projects in sum total? For example, if project #1 had 10,000 active permits and project #2 also had 10,000 active permits, then the offeror would meet the requirement?

Answer:   Yes, this mandatory requirement related to previous project experience can be fulfilled by two cumulative project totals.

Date: 2/14/2020

Inquiry: 71938


Question:   Can the State clarify the bullet item in the mandatory requirement that reads "...each has a minimum of 10 documents, 12 responses...". . What does the State mean by "12 responses"? Is this referring to public review comments or some other response?

Answer:   For each individual permit application, per Ohio Legislation and other internal Department of Commerce business processes, there are numerous supporting documents that the State requires in addition to just the application. These documents have a variety of questions (requiring responses) and additional required data elements (attributes) on them that must be returned to DOLC for the application to be decisioned and ultimately approved. The intent of this mandatory requirement is to allow Offerors to demonstrate experience in handling permit applications that are similar in complexity to those processed by the Ohio Division of Liquor Control.

Date: 2/14/2020

Inquiry: 71937


Question:   Can the State clarify the bullet item in the mandatory requirement that reads "...each has a minimum of 10 documents, 12 responses...". In many regulatory contexts, a permit is a single document. What does the State mean by "has a minimum of 10 documents"?

Answer:   For each individual permit application, per Ohio Legislation and other internal Department of Commerce business processes, there are numerous supporting documents that the State requires in addition to just the application. These documents have a variety of questions (requiring responses) and additional required data elements (attributes) on them that must be returned to DOLC for the application to be decisioned and ultimately approved. The intent of this mandatory requirement is to allow Offerors to demonstrate experience in handling permit applications that are similar in complexity to those processed by the Ohio Division of Liquor Control.

Date: 2/14/2020

Inquiry: 71936


Question:   We have noted your desire for an Agile-Scrum implementation methodology from the RFP. However, Supplement 3, Section 15 Approval discusses DOLC approval of a System Requirements Document. Is it the States desire to have a Hybrid Waterfall - Agile Scrum implementation methodology where product configuration begins after DOLC has approved a System Requirements Document for a particular permit workflow and then configuration take place during sprints with the Agile ceremonies?

Answer:   The intent of Supplement 3, Section 15 was for internal Department of Commerce approval of the System Requirements document prior to issuance of the RFP. By virtue of the RFP being published, this internal approval has already been provided. Please see the Part One: Executive Summary section of the RFP for additional information related to the State's desired delivery model.

Date: 2/14/2020

Inquiry: 71926


Question:   We are respectfully requesting a 2-week extension to the submission date in order to produce a high quality response. New requested submission is Friday, February 27, 2020

Answer:   Responses are currently due on March 13, 2020. This date exceeds your extension date request. Regardless, the State has no interest in extending the opening date at this time.

Date: 2/13/2020

Inquiry: 71927


Question:   Would the State please provide a MS Word version the Supplement 3 Adddendum

Answer:   A MS Word version of Supplement 3 Amendment 1 is included on the solicitation page (second file) under "Associated PDF Files". The file name is: AMENDMENT 1 - SUPPLEMENT 3 - REPLACEMENT SECTION 2_MS WORD Version.

Date: 2/13/2020

Inquiry: 71951


Question:   AMENDMENT 1 - SUPPLEMENT 3 - REPLACEMENT SECTION 2

Answer:   AMENDMENT 1 - SUPPLEMENT 3 - REPLACEMENT SECTION 2 has been posted to the State's Procurement website for this solicitation. This amendment is a complete replacement for Supplement 3 - Section 2.

Date: 2/12/2020

Inquiry: 71943


Question:   Can the state provide the number of distinct named users who will be using the system during the proof of concept?

Answer:   The State may have up to 200 distinct users using the system during the Proof of Concept stage.

Date: 2/11/2020

Inquiry: 71815


Question:   The RFP states: "The Offeror or its subcontractors must submit a solution that is cloud-based and shall be hosted in the State’s cloud (currently AWS and Azure)." Will the State consider a solution that is hosted in the vendors cloud?

Answer:   The stated requirement is a mandatory requirement, therefore, solutions that do not meet this requirement will not receive further consideration.

Date: 2/11/2020

Inquiry: 71814


back

Inquiry period ended:  3/16/2020 8:00:00 AM