Opportunity Detail

Questions and Answers

Ohio Benefits IV&V RFP
Document #:  0A1261


Question:   Assuming the incumbent is actively participating in the process - what, if any, KT deliverables have been identified from the incumbent to aid the IV&V transition and contribute to the comprehensive IV&V work plan.

Answer:   State is working on ensuring that there is a knowledge transfer period to the new Contractor. No specific KT deliverables have been identified at this time.

Date: 5/4/2020

Inquiry: 75995


Question:   Are there any major risks and challenges with Releases 1,2,3 that can be disclosed?

Answer:   Project risks and issues cannot be shared at this stage of the RFP.

Date: 5/4/2020

Inquiry: 75986


Question:   Center of Excellence (COE) is only mentioned once in supplement 1. COE is not an item in the deliverables or All other deliverables sections. Is there a cost response expected for the work related to the establishment of a Center of Excellence (COE)?

Answer:   In response to this RFP the offeror should propose how their CoE solution will function. See response to inquiry # 74842

Date: 5/4/2020

Inquiry: 75985


Question:   In Supplement 1 section 1.4.1 IV&V Scope of Duties, the first item is to “Establish a Statewide Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V) Center of Excellence and Delivery Capability that can be leveraged across other Enterprise projects in the future.” Can you please provide more detail about IV&V’s specific scope with establishing a Statewide capability? Does that mean establish from the ground up to include infrastructure or provide IV&V capability to an existing statewide COE infrastructure?

Answer:   In response to this RFP the offeror should propose how their CoE solution for IV&V will function if the State decides to leverage this service for other Enterprise projects.

Date: 5/4/2020

Inquiry: 75984


Question:   In Supplement 1 section 1.4.1 IV&V Scope of Duties, the first item is to “Establish a Statewide Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V) Center of Excellence and Delivery Capability that can be leveraged across other Enterprise projects in the future.” Can you please provide more detail about IV&V’s specific scope with establishing a Statewide capability? Does that mean establish from the ground up to include infrastructure or provide IV&V capability to an existing statewide COE infrastructure?

Answer:   In response to this RFP the offeror should propose how their CoE solution for IV&V will function if the State decides to leverage this service for other Enterprise projects.

Date: 5/4/2020

Inquiry: 75983


Question:   On page 50 of 86, for 1. Commercial General Liability, would the State strike “defense costs shall be outside the policy limit” since this makes the State an additional insured with similar rights as the insured Vendor, including legal defense. This should be included in the limit and aggregate as stated.

Answer:   The offeror may submit any exceptions or assumptions as redlines to the terms and conditions for the State to consider at the State’s discretion.

Date: 5/4/2020

Inquiry: 75981


Question:   On 62 of 86, for Confidentiality Agreements, would the State waive the State’s requirements that each Vendor employee and subcontractors enter into a NDA with the State. Please change the language to allow Vendor employees and subcontractors to enter a required NDA with the Vendor and the Vendor can disclose its confidentiality terms and conditions that it requires its employees and subcontractors to agree to upon request by the State.

Answer:   The offeror may submit any exceptions or assumptions as redlines to the terms and conditions for the State to consider at the State’s discretion.

Date: 5/4/2020

Inquiry: 75980


Question:   Cost Workbook, row 14, indicates ‘Total of all IV&V Costs’. In an answer (and within the RFP) it indicates that the offeror should assume columns I, J, and K of the cost template each represent one month, and that actual deliverables and schedules will be governed by the IDA process. Should respondents multiply the one month/quarter costs for the entire 8 years work of engagement and place that total in Row 14 ‘Total of all IV&V Costs’? or should this total only reflect the cost of providing IV&V services over the period of one quarter?

Answer:   Response has been provided in 74842.

Date: 5/4/2020

Inquiry: 75970


Question:   Should we include the cost proposal in the USB submission?

Answer:   The cost proposal must be separate from the technical proposal and should be provided on a separate USB.

Date: 5/1/2020

Inquiry: 75974


Question:   • What is the Enterprise Management approach the State plans to use with the SOW as laid out in Supplement 1? • What Project Management methodologies does the State plans to use with the SOW as laid out in Supplement 1 (Waterfall, Agile, Hybrid)? • What type of Release Management does the State plans to use with the SOW as laid out in Supplement 1 (i.e., Cadence)? • How does the State plan to promote and review code with the SOW as laid out in Supplement 1 and at what cadence? • Once released, how does the State plan to manage O & M with the SOW as laid out in Supplement 1 (i.e., DevOps, ITIL, ITSM)? • We respectively request a clarification of the State’s requirement for vendor to provide “copies of approved Affirmative Action plans. (RFP, pg. 70)” What constitutes and approved Affirmative Action Plan? • Does the State consider having a “drug free workplace policy” as a good faith effort towards ensuring Contractor’s Personnel does not use or is not under the influence of illegal drugs, alcohol or abuses prescription drugs while working on state property, if not then what does? (RFP, pg. 79) • Is the State open to a limitation of liability cap of 2x the total contract value for the vendor’s indemnification obligations under the awarded contract? (RFP, pg. 65) • In light of COVID-19 will the State accept email/upload of the response (Technical and Cost)? • In light of COVID-19 will the State waive any Notary requirement for documents? Can the State accept any notarization after a contract is awarded? • Validation typically requires examining and testing the complete delivered release. Would the State clarify numbers and types of testing that will require validation? • The State is expecting the IV&V Vendor to "establish a Statewide Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V) Center of Excellence". Would the State identify the Sponsors, Champions and Stakeholders involved? Does an an existing organization with a similar scope of duties or charter already exist? • As part of Scope of Duties, how will the remaining IE releases be identified? What is the defined Release Frequency for over the life of the project? Are these identified in an existing project plan or schedule? • As part of Scope of Duties, would the State please identify all regulatory requirements for Child Care (State, Local, Federal, Industry, etc.) warranting IV&V compliance oversight during development and operations? • All Dates and activities in Appendix A: Tentative OB/BI Release Schedule are historical. Does this mean that the Child Care Project is Live and in M&O phase? • Is the State of Ohio applying Medicaid ECL to the Child Care Module or are there other specific standards being applied?

Answer:   1) Question is not clear. Please refer to specific page & section in the RFP that you need clarification on. 2) See response to 74811 3) See response to 74819 & 74940 4) Question is not clear. Please refer to specific page & section in the RFP that you need clarification on. 5) Which section and page of Supplement 1 is this referencing? What clarification about the RFP is requested? 6) The affirmative action plan must be submitted and approved by the State of Ohio Equal Employment and Opportunity (EEO) department. 7) Yes. 8) The offeror may submit any exceptions or assumptions as redlines to the terms and conditions for the State to consider at the State’s discretion. 9) Response has been provided in 74653 10) Response has been provided in 74653 11) In the response to the RFP, the offeror should propose on how they will validate 12) This exists under the current contract, but in response to this RFP the offeror should propose how their CoE solution will function. 13) Future release planning is in progress and cannot be shared at this time. These are done in collaboration with business stakeholders. Also see response to inquiry # 74644 14) This will be done during the Requirements and design phase of the project 15) See the response to inquiry #74855 16) ODJFS is the stakeholder for this effort. If the vendor is aware of any specific standards that need to be followed, please share that in your response. 17) Response has been provided in 74842

Date: 5/1/2020

Inquiry: 74944


Question:   What is the details of the infrastructure refresh for Release 3.7? What are Medicaid Community Engagement Activities? What do the multiple enhancement releases entail? Does OHIO have a defect fix release cadence ( Monthly, quarterly, etc.? And what tool is the state using for defect management * IE: Jira or similar?) What does the self-service reporting entail, is that new functionality or updates to existing functionality? Is child care a new product /module? What does the state mean by " Product upgrade"?

Answer:   Tech Refresh - Project to replace out of warranty infrastructure and software required to support Ohio Benefits Medicaid Community Engagement Activities - Enhance the Ohio Benefits system to support this ODM initiative https://medicaid.ohio.gov/Portals/0/Resources/Budget/ODM-Work-and-Community-Engagement-Requirements.pdf Enhancement releases - Modifications or changes to system design due to policy changes or leadership direction Defect fix releases - Frequency is between every 2 or 3 months Self Service Reporting - Tableau used to provide Reporting capability for end users to download data and write their own queries Child Care module - Module to support JFS child care program.

Date: 5/1/2020

Inquiry: 74940


Question:   Will Ohio consider adding a force majeure clause to the final contract such as, “We will endeavor and use commercially reasonable efforts to complete all work contemplated under this Agreement. However, neither party shall be liable to the other for any failure or delay of performance of any obligation under this Agreement to the extent such failure or delay shall have been wholly or principally caused by acts or events beyond its reasonable control rendering performance illegal or impossible. As used in this section, “force majeure” means any cause beyond the reasonable control of a party including, but not limited to, an act of God, nature, act of aggression, fire, strike, flood, riot, war, delay of transportation, terrorism, pandemics or other widespread outbreaks of infectious diseases or inability due to the aforementioned causes to obtain necessary labor, material, or facilities.”

Answer:   If the offeror feels this exception is required as part of their proposal, they should include it as a redline edit in the assumptions and exceptions for consideration by the State.

Date: 4/30/2020

Inquiry: 74960


Question:   Section 1.3, page 5: Has the State considered the benefit of establishing a pool of qualified vendors to perform IV&V services rather than selecting a single vendor as a result of this RFP? Given the variety of tasks that will likely result on future IDAs, a pool of vendors would allow the State more flexibility on future IDAs in choosing the most qualified and cost-effective vendor for the work.

Answer:   No, this has not been discussed as part of this RFP.

Date: 4/27/2020

Inquiry: 74897


Question:   In OH DAS’ response to Inquiry 74842, there seems to be conflicting information on what offerors need to include in the cost response. The response to Inquiry 74842 states, “…All other deliverables listed in Section 3 are to be produced only upon State request. These are - 1. Periodic independent project quality reviews 2. Go/No go Preparation discussions 3. CMS certification.” However, another part of the same response states, The offeror should submit a one-time cost for the following deliverables: Project Management Workplan, Quarterly Interview Analysis Report, Independent Project Quality Reviews, CMS Certification, and Go/No-Go Preparation and decisions.” Can OH DAS please clarify if we need to include the following in our cost response: Periodic independent project quality reviews 2. Go/No go Preparation discussions 3. CMS certification?

Answer:   See #74851.

Date: 4/27/2020

Inquiry: 74895


Question:   Section 5.2, pg. 22: Please confirm with the IV&V contractor will not need access to PHI. If IV&V is not required to have access to PHI, is the BAA still necessary?

Answer:   As part of the quality review, the IV&V contractor may need access to the system which could have PHI elements.

Date: 4/27/2020

Inquiry: 74894


Question:   Section 7.3, pg. 37: The State’s response to a previous question was that proposers should respond according to the response outline on pg. 37. However, in response to similar questions the State responded that proposers must respond to every section of the RFP. Please clarify if proposers are to follow the outline on pg. 37 or respond to every item in the 86-page RFP.

Answer:   The response to the Base RFP document is encapsulated in the items listed on pg 37.

Date: 4/27/2020

Inquiry: 74893


Question:   Template C: Risk Assessment: Where in the proposal outline provided on pg. 37 should offerors provide Template C?

Answer:   As its own tab at the end of the proposal.

Date: 4/27/2020

Inquiry: 74891


Question:   Template B: General Constraints: Where in the proposal outline provided on pg. 37 should offerors provide Template B?

Answer:   As its own tab at the end of the proposal.

Date: 4/27/2020

Inquiry: 74890


Question:   Supplement 1, Section 3.0, pg. 0: What is the difference between the IV&V Project Work Management Plan required with the proposal response and the Project Management Plan described in Section 5.1.4, pg. 2?

Answer:   They are the same.

Date: 4/27/2020

Inquiry: 74889


Question:   Supplement 1, Pg. 8: The last bullet (Evaluate go/no-go decisions…) is not included in the evaluation criteria listed in Attachment. What are the minimum years of experience for this requirement?

Answer:   This is part of the overall IV&V experience of the offeror.

Date: 4/27/2020

Inquiry: 74888


Question:   Supplement 1 – Supplement 1 has several appendices. Are offerors to provide responses to the supplement appendices?

Answer:   The appendix provides additional information that the offeror must review for preparing their response.

Date: 4/27/2020

Inquiry: 74887


Question:   Section 7.6: Attachment Six, pg. 73: Is this form to be completed by both the prime and subcontractors?

Answer:   Prime only.

Date: 4/27/2020

Inquiry: 74886


Question:   Section 7.3: Attachment Four, pg. 43: Offerors are addressing their exceptions to the General Terms and Conditions during the inquiry period. Assuming that the State makes changes to the T&Cs based on results of the inquiry period, will the State provide an amended Attachment Four prior to proposal submission?

Answer:   The offeror's should include redlines in their proposal.

Date: 4/27/2020

Inquiry: 74885


Question:   Section 7.3: Attachment Two, pg. 43: The outline on pg. 37 lists Tabs 23 and 24 as Attachment Two, Part 1 and Attachment Two, Part 2, respectively. Pg. 43 has the two parts listed as one response. Please clarify.

Answer:   These may be responded to as one.

Date: 4/27/2020

Inquiry: 74884


Question:   Section 7.3: Prohibition of the Expenditure of Public Funds for Offshore Services, Pg. 42: The response outline provided on pg. 37 lists #21 as Data Location Form. Is this the same as Affirmation and Disclosure Form discussed on pg. 42? If so, should the tab read Data Location Form, Prohibition of the Expenditure of Public Funds for Offshore Services, or Contractor/Subcontractor Affirmation and Disclosure Form?

Answer:   Yes it is the same and any of those titles would be acceptable for that tab.

Date: 4/27/2020

Inquiry: 74883


Question:   Section 7.3: Proposed Solution, Pg. 39 and Supplement 1 – It appears that the State wants an item-by-item, response to Supplement 1, provided within the Supplement 1 Word document. There are several sections of Supplement 1 that provide background information and do not require a response from offerors. Are offerors simply to acknowledge these sections or not respond at all?

Answer:   The offeror should acknowledge they have read and understand those sections.

Date: 4/27/2020

Inquiry: 74882


Question:   Section 7.3: Proposed Solution, Pg. 39 – This sections states “Offeror’s must follow the instructions provided in Template A (General Assumptions), Template B (General Constraints), and Template C (Risk Assessment). It does not appear that the instructions in these templates are related to the response for Supplements 1-3 as offerors were instructed to respond to the Supplements directly in the file provided. Please clarify what is meant by follow the instructions provided in the templates with regard to the responses to Supplements 1-3.

Answer:   Based on the instructions within the Templates, the State is unclear as to what is being asked.

Date: 4/27/2020

Inquiry: 74881


Question:   Section 7.3: Offeror Profile, Experience and Qualifications, pg. 39, 4th bullet – Please clarify what is meant by “capacity in which the work was performed.”

Answer:   The offeror's official role on the project.

Date: 4/27/2020

Inquiry: 74880


Question:   Section 7.3: Offeror Profile, Experience and Qualifications, pg. 39, 4th bullet – Is this bullet requiring that, if a project description is longer than 1 page, the Mandatory Requirement, capacity in which the work was performed and the role of Offeror should be repeated at the top of every page of the project description? If this isn’t correct, please clarify what the State means by this bullet.

Answer:   Just expand it as needed.

Date: 4/27/2020

Inquiry: 74879


Question:   Section 7.3: Offeror Profile, Experience and Qualifications, pg. 39 – If offerors are using a project description to meet the requirements of multiple Mandatory Requirements, is the project description table to be repeated under each Requirement OR can offerors use one table per project description and address each Mandatory Requirement within the table?

Answer:   It should be repeated.

Date: 4/27/2020

Inquiry: 74878


Question:   Section 7.3: Offeror Profile, RFP, pg. 38 – Is Attachment Seven also required for subcontractors?

Answer:   No.

Date: 4/27/2020

Inquiry: 74877


Question:   Section 7.3: Offeror Profile, RFP, pg. 38 – Are offerors to use Attachment Seven to also address required evaluation criteria 5-13 of Attachment One?

Answer:   This is a tool used by the State for evaluation of the proposal, it is not to be filled out by the offeror.

Date: 4/27/2020

Inquiry: 74876


Question:   Section 7.3: Offeror Profile, pg. 38 – Attachment Seven only requires a response for Mandatory Requirement #1. Should offerors add the other required evaluation criteria from Attachment One since the 3rd paragraph requires addressing the first four requirements of the evaluation criteria?

Answer:   The State is unclear about what you are asking based upon the text provided on page 38-39.

Date: 4/27/2020

Inquiry: 74875


Question:   Section 7.3: Offeror Profile, pg. 38 – Attachment Seven does not provide space to address the first paragraph of Offeror Profile on pg. 38. Where should offerors address these requirements?

Answer:   These are the sections that the proposal should be responded to in, not the place for the response itself.

Date: 4/27/2020

Inquiry: 74874


Question:   Section 7.3: Cover Letter, pg. 37 – The cover letter requires that offerors state that they are a business entity and will not submit the Independent Contractor/Work Acknowledgement to the ordering agency. The response outline on pg. 37 requires Tab #20 Independent Contractor Acknowledgement. If only business entities are permitted to respond to this RFP, is Tab #20 necessary?

Answer:   If it is not applicable provide a statement affirming that it is not applicable in the proposal response.

Date: 4/27/2020

Inquiry: 74873


Question:   Section 7.3: Proposal Format, pg. 36: Sequentially numbering a proposal from beginning to end overly complicates the process when multiple files, attachments, and signed forms are involved. Would the State consider removing the sequential numbering requirement in this section and allow offerors to simply sequentially number the pages within each section?

Answer:   That is acceptable.

Date: 4/27/2020

Inquiry: 74872


Question:   Section 7.1: Attachment One, pg. 25 – Are offerors to include Attachment One - Offeror Scored Evaluation Form with the proposal? It is not listed in the Technical Proposal outline on pg. 37.

Answer:   This is a tool used by the State for evaluation of the proposal, it is not to be filled out by the offeror.

Date: 4/27/2020

Inquiry: 74871


Question:   Section 5.1: Contract Award, pg. 22: The 2nd paragraph states that the offeror must sign and return two originals of the contract to the Procurement Representative. We assume this should read contractor and not offeror, and that this is not required as part of the proposal response. Is this assumption correct?

Answer:   Correct.

Date: 4/27/2020

Inquiry: 74870


Question:   Section 4.7: Requirements, pg. 17: In what section of the outline on pg. 37 should offerors discuss their proposed staff? Does the State want resumes of proposed staff? If so, does the State have any requirements for the resumes?

Answer:   Yes, the State requires resumes for named proposed staff but does not have a specific format for this.

Date: 4/27/2020

Inquiry: 74869


Question:   Section 3.4, Proposal Submittal, pg. 11: Is the State requesting 2 USBs (one with the Technical Proposal and one with the Cost Proposal) or 1 USB with Technical and Cost files provided in separate folders?

Answer:   Two USBs.

Date: 4/27/2020

Inquiry: 74868


Question:   Section 4.7: Requirements, pg. 17: The 1st paragraph refers to requirements for the Project Manager position and other positions. There doesn’t appear to be any specific experience requirements for a Project Manager or any other proposed positions. Please clarify.

Answer:   The proposed team's experience should satisfy the requirements of the RFP.

Date: 4/27/2020

Inquiry: 74867


Question:   Section 2.3.3 of Supplement 1 describes three types of Milestone Assessments that the State will require: FDDR, PORR, and ORR. Based on the information contained in Supplement 1, it is not clear how many iterations, and when, each of these Milestone Assessments will be required. Can the State please provide the information.

Answer:   The milestone assessment needs to be produced only upon state's request. The explanation for FDDR , PORR & ORR is provided in section 2.3.3. The offeror can assume 1 milestone assessment per quarter for planning purposes.

Date: 4/27/2020

Inquiry: 74850


Question:   Regarding Supplement 1, Section 5.1.10 - Weekly Status Reports. Would the State consider a different cadence for this report and/or it being combined with other reporting deliverables proposed for this project?

Answer:   The weekly status report documents the progress on activities by the IV&V team. This is a standard project expectation for all the vendors. If the offeror wants state to consider a different cadence, they can request it as part of their response to the proposal.

Date: 4/27/2020

Inquiry: 74859


Question:   Regarding Supplement 1, Section 5.1.10 - Weekly Status Reports. Because the IV&V contractor would not perform OCM activities itself, is it the States intent that the IV&V contractor would report on its independent assessment activities (e.g., meetings, interviews, artifact reviews) and its assessment of the status and health of the project/release specific to the OCM work performed by the solution and/or OCM contractors?

Answer:   Yes, the expectation is that IV&V assess the OCM work done to support the project/release.

Date: 4/27/2020

Inquiry: 74858


Question:   The State has indicated that the pricing of the six (6) deliverables listed in the cost workbook are the only deliverables to be priced by the vendors. The requirements surrounding Deliverable 6 – Go/No Go Preparation & Decisions, is not described in Supplement 1 other than being listed in the table in Section 3.0. Can the State please provide the detailed requirements of this deliverable so that vendors can accurately price this deliverable for comparison purposes?

Answer:   IV&V role on the project is to provide an independent assessment of the go/no go preparation, readiness and related decisions. A deliverable expectation review can be set up by the IV&V team after project kick off.

Date: 4/27/2020

Inquiry: 74856


Question:   The State has indicated that the pricing of the six (6) deliverables listed in the cost workbook are the only deliverables to be priced by the vendors. The requirements surrounding Deliverable 5 – CMS Certification, is not described in Supplement 1 other than being listed in the table in Section 3.0. Can the State please provide the detailed requirements of this deliverable so that vendors can accurately price this deliverable for comparison purposes?

Answer:   Vendors responding to this RFP should be familiar with the CMS certification requirements & coordination that would be applicable for Medicaid programs

Date: 4/27/2020

Inquiry: 74855


Question:   The State has indicated that the pricing of the six (6) deliverables listed in the cost workbook are the only deliverables to be priced by the vendors. The requirements surrounding Deliverable 4 – Independent Project Quality Reviews, is not described in Supplement 1 other than being listed in the table in Section 3.0. Can the State please provide the detailed requirements of this deliverable so that vendors can accurately price this deliverable for comparison purposes?

Answer:   IV&V role on the project is to provide an independent assessment of the project quality and provide an objective report with quantified and actionable recommendations to the state.

Date: 4/27/2020

Inquiry: 74854


Question:   Regarding Supplement 1, Sections 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.5, 2.3.6, and the Cost Workbook, can vendors assume that the cost of one (1) iteration of an initial, progress, and follow-up IV&V assessment is not to be included in the Cost Workbook for comparison purposes?

Answer:   vendors can assume that the cost of one (1) iteration of an initial assessment, progress and follow-up IV&V assessment is be included in the cost of Deliverable 2 - Monthly Status Reports

Date: 4/27/2020

Inquiry: 74853


Question:   The State has indicated that the pricing of the six (6) deliverables listed in the cost workbook are the only deliverables to be priced by the vendors. Can vendors assume that the cost of one (1) iteration of an initial, progress, and follow-up IV&V assessment is be included in the cost of Deliverable 2 – Monthly Status Reports?

Answer:   Yes

Date: 4/27/2020

Inquiry: 74852


Question:   Supplement 1, Section 2.3.3 describes requirements around Milestone Assessments. Can vendors assume that one Milestone Assessment will be required each quarter, for the duration of the contract?

Answer:   Yes.

Date: 4/27/2020

Inquiry: 74851


Question:   Where it says "As part of their response, offerors are to provide native Microsoft Word documents that comprise the requirements of a Supplement, inclusive of their response.", can we embed the supplements within the appropriate response area as an MS Word link/icon?

Answer:   No.

Date: 4/23/2020

Inquiry: 74861


Question:   Can the supplements with in-line responses be inserted into the proposal response as images?

Answer:   Yes.

Date: 4/23/2020

Inquiry: 74862


Question:   Item RFP Page 1. Page 4 Page 23 Page 68 Term of Contract - Page 4 of the RFP states the term of the contract is from 12/2020 to 6/30/28 page 23 states the term of the contract is from 7/1/20 to 6/30/28 and page 68 of the RFP states the term of the contract is from 4/28/20 to 6/30/28. Q. Please clarify the actual start date and term for the contract for the IV&V Services Contract. 2. 70 of 86 PART SEVEN: LAW AND COURTS Equal Employment Opportunity. Before a contract can be awarded or renewed, an Affirmative Action Program Verification Form must be submitted to the Department of Administrative Services Equal Opportunity Division to comply with the affirmative action requirements. Affirmative Action Verification Forms and approved Affirmative Action Plans can be found by going to the Ohio Business Gateway at: http://business.ohio.gov/efiling/ Q. We respectively request a clarification of the State’s requirement for vendor to provide “copies of approved Affirmative Action plans.” What constitutes and approved Affirmative Action Plan? 3. 69 of 86 PART SEVEN: LAW AND COURTS “The Contractor must make a good faith effort to ensure that all the Contractor’s Personnel, while working on state property, will not have or be under the influence of illegal drugs or alcohol or abuse prescription drugs in any way.” Q. Does the State consider having a “drug free workplace policy” as a good faith effort towards ensuring Contractor’s Personnel does not use or is not under the influence of illegal drugs, alcohol or abuses prescription drugs while working on state property, if not then what does? 4. 70 of 86 PART SEVEN: LAW AND COURTS Prohibition of the Expenditure of Public Funds for Offshore Services. …That no State Cabinet, Agency, Board or Commission will enter into any contract to purchase services provided outside the United States or that allows State data to be sent, taken, accessed, tested, maintained, backed-up, stored, or made available remotely outside (located) of the United States. Notwithstanding any other terms of this Contract, the State reserves the right to recover any funds paid for services the Contractor performs outside of the United States for which it did not receive a waiver. Q. If a 3rd party provided software were used as part of the tool set used to perform the IV&V services, would the State provide clarification that maintenance and support services provided overseas in connection with a 3rd party supported software is not considered a breach of the this State requirement? 5. 65 of 86 PART FOUR: REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES, AND LIABILITIES Limitation of Liability. Neither party will be liable for any indirect, incidental, or consequential loss or damage of the other party, including but not limited to lost profits, even if the parties have been advised, knew, or should have known of the possibility of such damages. Additionally, neither party will be liable to the other for direct or other damages in excess of two times the Not-To-Exceed Fixed Price of this Contract and, separately two times the most recent twenty- four (24) months of the Managed Services charges paid or payable for such work contained in the Contract. The limitations in this paragraph do not apply to: (i) any obligation of the Contractor to indemnify the State against claims made against it (ii) disclosure/breach of State Data including personally identifiable information or State sensitive information, or for (iii) damages to the State caused by the Contractor’s negligence or other tortious conduct. Q. Is the State open to a limitation of liability cap of 2x the total contract value for the vendor’s indemnification obligations under the awarded contract?

Answer:   The correct start date is anticipated to be December 2020. Please provide the rest of this inquiry as a redline to the appropriate attachment exceptions, as part of the proposal response.

Date: 4/22/2020

Inquiry: 74830


Question:   In Supplement 1, Section 1.4.1 indicates Scope of Duties, and Section 2.2 indicates Summary Requirements. Please clarify if the vendor should respond to these sections or respond to Section 7.1 of Mandatory/Scored requirements within the RFP.

Answer:   The offeror must respond to all parts of the RFP.

Date: 4/22/2020

Inquiry: 74844


Question:   Will the Technical Proposals be scored entirely based on the Offeror’s response to the Evaluation Criteria listed in Section 7.1 Attachment One: Evaluation Criteria?

Answer:   The evaluation criteria is a tool for how the State will evaluate the entire response from each offeror.

Date: 4/22/2020

Inquiry: 74843


Question:   Regarding Section 7.3 of the States RFP, paragraph 2, which addresses proposal format, is it permissible if offerors put each of the States RFP requirements/content in boxes, and then respond accordingly in black font below each box? This approach would make it clear which requirement was being responded to, clearly depict the offerors response, and would not modify the States baseline RFP language.

Answer:   Yes, that is acceptable.

Date: 4/22/2020

Inquiry: 74845


Question:   The Cost Workbook request costs by Activity Area (see cell C6), yet ‘Activity Areas’ are not referenced in the core RFP. Please clarify. How are Offerors expected to provide pricing information when the scope and/or duration of an IDA is unknown?

Answer:   Deliverables listed in Section 3 aligns with the cost workbook as follows - 1. Project Management plan will need to be created at that start of the project with ongoing updates and maintenance through out the life of the project 2. Quarterly Interview analysis report 3. Monthly status report should include the monthly dashboards and the test results validation (if there are testing activities being conducted during the review period) All other deliverables listed in Section 3 are to be produced only upon State request. These are - 1. Periodic independent project quality reviews 2. Go/No go Preparation discussions 3. CMS certification

Additionally, the offeror should assume columns I, J, and K of the cost template each represent one month. Actual deliverables and schedules will be governed by and IDA and defined by the Project Management Work Plan. The offeror should submit a one-time cost for the following deliverables: Project Management Workplan, Quarterly Interview Analysis Report, Independent Project Quality Reviews, CMS Certification, and Go/No-Go Preparation and decisions. The offeror should assume three instances of Monthly Status Reports and submit a cost value in each column. The offeror should refer to Supplement 1 of the RFP to consider the full scope of work assumed by deliverables identified in the cost workbook. The offeror should leave blank the header row titled ""Example IDA (Future Work).""

The offeror should note that the State’s goal regarding the Cost Workbook Template is to compare total offeror’s costs to deliver the services to the State. Specific costs, deliverables and delivery schedule dates will be governed by an IDA and will be defined in the Project Management Work Plan.

Date: 4/22/2020

Inquiry: 74842


Question:   The Cost Workbook request costs by Activity Area (see cell C6), yet ‘Activity Areas’ are not referenced in the core RFP. Please clarify. How are Offerors expected to provide pricing information when the scope and/or duration of an IDA is unknown?

Answer:   Deliverables listed in Section 3 aligns with the cost workbook as follows - 1. Project Management plan will need to be created at that start of the project with ongoing updates and maintenance through out the life of the project 2. Quarterly Interview analysis report 3. Monthly status report should include the monthly dashboards and the test results validation (if there are testing activities being conducted during the review period) All other deliverables listed in Section 3 are to be produced only upon State request. These are - 1. Periodic independent project quality reviews 2. Go/No go Preparation discussions 3. CMS certification

Additionally, the offeror should assume columns I, J, and K of the cost template each represent one month. Actual deliverables and schedules will be governed by and IDA and defined by the Project Management Work Plan. The offeror should submit a one-time cost for the following deliverables: Project Management Workplan, Quarterly Interview Analysis Report, Independent Project Quality Reviews, CMS Certification, and Go/No-Go Preparation and decisions. The offeror should assume three instances of Monthly Status Reports and submit a cost value in each column. The offeror should refer to Supplement 1 of the RFP to consider the full scope of work assumed by deliverables identified in the cost workbook. The offeror should leave blank the header row titled ""Example IDA (Future Work).""

The offeror should note that the State’s goal regarding the Cost Workbook Template is to compare total offeror’s costs to deliver the services to the State. Specific costs, deliverables and delivery schedule dates will be governed by an IDA and will be defined in the Project Management Work Plan.

Date: 4/22/2020

Inquiry: 74841


Question:   The Cost Workbook requests pricing information based on scheduled delivery dates 1, 2 and 3 (see columns I – K). What do these deliverable dates refer to, and what is the basis of these dates?

Answer:   Deliverables listed in Section 3 aligns with the cost workbook as follows - 1. Project Management plan will need to be created at that start of the project with ongoing updates and maintenance through out the life of the project 2. Quarterly Interview analysis report 3. Monthly status report should include the monthly dashboards and the test results validation (if there are testing activities being conducted during the review period) All other deliverables listed in Section 3 are to be produced only upon State request. These are - 1. Periodic independent project quality reviews 2. Go/No go Preparation discussions 3. CMS certification

Additionally, the offeror should assume columns I, J, and K of the cost template each represent one month. Actual deliverables and schedules will be governed by and IDA and defined by the Project Management Work Plan. The offeror should submit a one-time cost for the following deliverables: Project Management Workplan, Quarterly Interview Analysis Report, Independent Project Quality Reviews, CMS Certification, and Go/No-Go Preparation and decisions. The offeror should assume three instances of Monthly Status Reports and submit a cost value in each column. The offeror should refer to Supplement 1 of the RFP to consider the full scope of work assumed by deliverables identified in the cost workbook. The offeror should leave blank the header row titled ""Example IDA (Future Work).""

The offeror should note that the State’s goal regarding the Cost Workbook Template is to compare total offeror’s costs to deliver the services to the State. Specific costs, deliverables and delivery schedule dates will be governed by an IDA and will be defined in the Project Management Work Plan.

Date: 4/22/2020

Inquiry: 74840


Question:   Are the rates to be provided in the rate card intended to be not-to-exceed rates?

Answer:   Yes.

Date: 4/22/2020

Inquiry: 74829


Question:   The table in Section 3 of Supplement 1 provides a list of 8 IV&V deliverables that do not align with the 6 deliverables listed in the Cost Template. Can the State please clarify the IV&V deliverables list and align these sections?

Answer:   Deliverables listed in Section 3 aligns with the cost workbook as follows - 1. Project Management plan will need to be created at that start of the project with ongoing updates and maintenance through out the life of the project 2. Quarterly Interview analysis report 3. Monthly status report should include the monthly dashboards and the test results validation (if there are testing activities being conducted during the review period) All other deliverables listed in Section 3 are to be produced only upon State request. These are - 1. Periodic independent project quality reviews 2. Go/No go Preparation discussions 3. CMS certification

Additionally, the offeror should assume columns I, J, and K of the cost template each represent one month. Actual deliverables and schedules will be governed by and IDA and defined by the Project Management Work Plan. The offeror should submit a one-time cost for the following deliverables: Project Management Workplan, Quarterly Interview Analysis Report, Independent Project Quality Reviews, CMS Certification, and Go/No-Go Preparation and decisions. The offeror should assume three instances of Monthly Status Reports and submit a cost value in each column. The offeror should refer to Supplement 1 of the RFP to consider the full scope of work assumed by deliverables identified in the cost workbook. The offeror should leave blank the header row titled ""Example IDA (Future Work).""

The offeror should note that the State’s goal regarding the Cost Workbook Template is to compare total offeror’s costs to deliver the services to the State. Specific costs, deliverables and delivery schedule dates will be governed by an IDA and will be defined in the Project Management Work Plan.

Date: 4/22/2020

Inquiry: 74807


Question:   Deliverables in Rows 8 – 13 of the Cost Workbook differ from the deliverables provided in Section 3.0 Master IV&V Deliverable List in Supplement 1. Should Offerors ignore the deliverables listed in Section 3 of Supplement 1? In addition, it appears that the cost workbook requests information for an ‘example IDA’ rather than for providing IV&V services over the duration of the project, from 2020 – 2028. Please clarify.

Answer:   Deliverables listed in Section 3 aligns with the cost workbook as follows - 1. Project Management plan will need to be created at that start of the project with ongoing updates and maintenance through out the life of the project 2. Quarterly Interview analysis report 3. Monthly status report should include the monthly dashboards and the test results validation (if there are testing activities being conducted during the review period) All other deliverables listed in Section 3 are to be produced only upon State request. These are - 1. Periodic independent project quality reviews 2. Go/No go Preparation discussions 3. CMS certification

Additionally, the offeror should assume columns I, J, and K of the cost template each represent one month. Actual deliverables and schedules will be governed by and IDA and defined by the Project Management Work Plan. The offeror should submit a one-time cost for the following deliverables: Project Management Workplan, Quarterly Interview Analysis Report, Independent Project Quality Reviews, CMS Certification, and Go/No-Go Preparation and decisions. The offeror should assume three instances of Monthly Status Reports and submit a cost value in each column. The offeror should refer to Supplement 1 of the RFP to consider the full scope of work assumed by deliverables identified in the cost workbook. The offeror should leave blank the header row titled ""Example IDA (Future Work).""

The offeror should note that the State’s goal regarding the Cost Workbook Template is to compare total offeror’s costs to deliver the services to the State. Specific costs, deliverables and delivery schedule dates will be governed by an IDA and will be defined in the Project Management Work Plan.

Date: 4/22/2020

Inquiry: 74839


Question:   Deliverables in Rows 8 – 13 of the Cost Workbook differ from the deliverables provided in Section 3.0 Master IV&V Deliverable List in Supplement 1. Should Offerors ignore the deliverables listed in Section 3 of Supplement 1? In addition, it appears that the cost workbook requests information for an ‘example IDA’ rather than for providing IV&V services over the duration of the project, from 2020 – 2028. Please clarify.

Answer:   Deliverables listed in Section 3 aligns with the cost workbook as follows - 1. Project Management plan will need to be created at that start of the project with ongoing updates and maintenance through out the life of the project 2. Quarterly Interview analysis report 3. Monthly status report should include the monthly dashboards and the test results validation (if there are testing activities being conducted during the review period) All other deliverables listed in Section 3 are to be produced only upon State request. These are - 1. Periodic independent project quality reviews 2. Go/No go Preparation discussions 3. CMS certification

Additionally, the offeror should assume columns I, J, and K of the cost template each represent one month. Actual deliverables and schedules will be governed by and IDA and defined by the Project Management Work Plan. The offeror should submit a one-time cost for the following deliverables: Project Management Workplan, Quarterly Interview Analysis Report, Independent Project Quality Reviews, CMS Certification, and Go/No-Go Preparation and decisions. The offeror should assume three instances of Monthly Status Reports and submit a cost value in each column. The offeror should refer to Supplement 1 of the RFP to consider the full scope of work assumed by deliverables identified in the cost workbook. The offeror should leave blank the header row titled ""Example IDA (Future Work).""

The offeror should note that the State’s goal regarding the Cost Workbook Template is to compare total offeror’s costs to deliver the services to the State. Specific costs, deliverables and delivery schedule dates will be governed by an IDA and will be defined in the Project Management Work Plan.

Date: 4/22/2020

Inquiry: 74838


Question:   Inquiry: In Supplement 1, Section 1.4.1 indicates Scope of Duties, and Section 2.2 indicates Summary Requirements. Please clarify if the vendor should respond to these sections or respond to Section 7.1 of Mandatory/Scored requirements within the RFP. Reference to the relevant part of this RFP: Mandatory/Scored requirements & Supplement 1 Heading of the provision in question: RFP Section 7.1 Attachment One: Evaluation Criteria and Supplement 1, 1.4.1 IV&V Scope of Details, 2.2 Page number of the RFP where the provision can be found: Page 25 of the RFP & Pages 5 and 7 of Supplement 1

Answer:   The offeror must respond to all sections in Supplement 1.

Date: 4/22/2020

Inquiry: 74724


Question:   Inquiry: Will the Technical Proposals be scored entirely based on the Offeror’s response to the Evaluation Criteria listed in Section 7.1 Attachment One: Evaluation Criteria? Reference to the relevant part of this RFP: Technical merits of the proposals Heading of the provision in question: 7.1 Attachment One: Evaluation Criteria Page number of the RFP where the provision can be found: 25

Answer:   The State will evaluate the entire proposal as part of their technical review.

Date: 4/22/2020

Inquiry: 74723


Question:   Is the Cost Template to be used for proposal evaluation purposes only with all IDA pricing to be negotiated as needed based on a required level of effort and the Rate Card?

Answer:   The offeror should note that the State’s goal regarding the Cost Workbook Template is to compare total offeror’s costs to deliver the services to the State. Specific costs, deliverables and delivery schedule dates will be governed by an IDA and will be defined in the Project Management Work Plan.

Date: 4/21/2020

Inquiry: 74825


Question:   Inquiry: The Cost Workbook request costs by Activity Area (see cell C6), yet ‘Activity Areas’ are not referenced in the core RFP. Please clarify. How are Offerors expected to provide pricing information when the scope and/or duration of an IDA is unknown? Reference to the relevant part of this RFP: Cost by Activity Area, Cell C6 Heading of the provision in question: RFP Cost Workbook QA1261 Page number of the RFP where the provision can be found: N/A

Answer:   The offeror should assume columns I, J, and K of the cost template each represent one month. Actual deliverables and schedules will be governed by and IDA and defined by the Project Management Work Plan. The offeror should submit a one-time cost for the following deliverables: Project Management Workplan, Quarterly Interview Analysis Report, Independent Project Quality Reviews, CMS Certification, and Go/No-Go Preparation and decisions. The offeror should assume three instances of Monthly Status Reports and submit a cost value in each column. The offeror should refer to Supplement 1 of the RFP to consider the full scope of work assumed by deliverables identified in the cost workbook. The offeror should leave blank the header row titled "Example IDA (Future Work)."

Date: 4/21/2020

Inquiry: 74722


Question:   Inquiry: The Cost Workbook requests pricing information based on scheduled delivery dates 1, 2 and 3 (see columns I – K). What do these deliverable dates refer to, and what is the basis of these dates? Reference to the relevant part of this RFP: Columns l - K of the cost workbook Heading of the provision in question: RFP Cost Workbook QA1261 Page number of the RFP where the provision can be found: N/A

Answer:   The offeror should assume columns I, J, and K of the cost template each represent one month. Actual deliverables and schedules will be governed by and IDA and defined by the Project Management Work Plan. The offeror should submit a one-time cost for the following deliverables: Project Management Workplan, Quarterly Interview Analysis Report, Independent Project Quality Reviews, CMS Certification, and Go/No-Go Preparation and decisions. The offeror should assume three instances of Monthly Status Reports and submit a cost value in each column. The offeror should refer to Supplement 1 of the RFP to consider the full scope of work assumed by deliverables identified in the cost workbook. The offeror should leave blank the header row titled "Example IDA (Future Work)."

Date: 4/21/2020

Inquiry: 74721


Question:   Inquiry: Deliverables in Rows 8 – 13 of the Cost Workbook differ from the deliverables provided in Section 3.0 Master IV&V Deliverable List in Supplement 1. Should Offerors ignore the deliverables listed in Section 3 of Supplement 1? In addition, it appears that the cost workbook requests information for an ‘example IDA’ rather than for providing IV&V services over the duration of the project, from 2020 – 2028. Please clarify. Reference to the relevant part of this RFP: List of deliverables Heading of the provision in question: 3.0 Master IV&V Deliverable List Page number of the RFP where the provision can be found: Supplement 1 (The page numbering in Supplement 1 goes back to 0 after page 12)

Answer:   The offeror should assume columns I, J, and K of the cost template each represent one month. Actual deliverables and schedules will be governed by and IDA and defined by the Project Management Work Plan. The offeror should submit a one-time cost for the following deliverables: Project Management Workplan, Quarterly Interview Analysis Report, Independent Project Quality Reviews, CMS Certification, and Go/No-Go Preparation and decisions. The offeror should assume three instances of Monthly Status Reports and submit a cost value in each column. The offeror should refer to Supplement 1 of the RFP to consider the full scope of work assumed by deliverables identified in the cost workbook. The offeror should leave blank the header row titled "Example IDA (Future Work)."

Date: 4/21/2020

Inquiry: 74720


Question:   Please describe your expectation as to how a Vendor is to complete the Cost Template.

Answer:   The offeror should assume columns I, J, and K of the cost template each represent one month. Actual deliverables and schedules will be governed by and IDA and defined by the Project Management Work Plan. The offeror should submit a one-time cost for the following deliverables: Project Management Workplan, Quarterly Interview Analysis Report, Independent Project Quality Reviews, CMS Certification, and Go/No-Go Preparation and decisions. The offeror should assume three instances of Monthly Status Reports and submit a cost value in each column. The offeror should refer to Supplement 1 of the RFP to consider the full scope of work assumed by deliverables identified in the cost workbook. The offeror should leave blank the header row titled "Example IDA (Future Work)."

Date: 4/21/2020

Inquiry: 74824


Question:   Is the state planning to use outcomes-based certification or the MEET certification process for this scope of work?

Answer:   The State does not currently have a plan in place to use outcomes-based certification or the MEET certification process for this scope of work. The State will consider proposals from the vendor.

Date: 4/21/2020

Inquiry: 74821


Question:   Does the state and incumbent contractor currently have an end of contract transition plan in place?

Answer:   The State is preparing transition plans.

Date: 4/21/2020

Inquiry: 74817


Question:   Should the price of a monthly deliverable (i.e. Deliverable 2 in the Cost Template) be reflected in the Cost Template by adding columns to the table? If so, this would result in the monthly status report having 90 columns. Is this the intent?

Answer:   No. The offeror should assume each column represents one month. The Cost Template is for comparative purposes and for the State to understand the offeror's pricing structure. If the vendor anticipates a price variance from month to month for any monthly deliverables, please provide an average monthly charge. An extended project budget will be developed based upon the Project Management Plan.

Date: 4/21/2020

Inquiry: 74809


Question:   Is it the State’s intent that the pricing contained in the Cost Template include the pricing for all deliverables from Dec 2020 through June, 2028?

Answer:   No. The offeror should assume each column represents one month. The Cost Template is for comparative purposes and for the State to understand the offeror's pricing structure. A project budget will be developed based upon the Project Management Plan.

Date: 4/21/2020

Inquiry: 74808


Question:   Our organization submitted a proposal in response to Ohio DAS RFP 0A1256 “Business Transformation Services to Support State of Ohio Enterprise Applications” and are currently awaiting the results of that submittal. As it relates to performance of IV&V services under this RFP 0A1261, would the State consider an organization’s performance on both contracts to be a conflict of interest?

Answer:   The State believes this would be a potential conflict of interest. However, the State suggests that any offeror under the RFP 0A1256 who would like to participate in this RFP 0A1261 are encouraged to submit a proposal and if, in the evaluation process this becomes a potential conflict of interest, the State will work with the offeror to determine which proposal should be withdrawn to mitigate that problem.

Date: 4/21/2020

Inquiry: 74834


Question:   Is the current work performed by Maximus being conducted under the IDA process described in the RFP?

Answer:   Work being done by Maximus currently is under a competitive selection process contract which includes the IDA process.

Date: 4/20/2020

Inquiry: 74828


Question:   Section 7.9 of the RFP indicates there is an attachment 9. Where can we go to download this attachment?

Answer:   This is the Cost Summary Workbook included in the RFP package.

Date: 4/20/2020

Inquiry: 74827


Question:   What Integrated Eligibility solution has been implemented for the project?

Answer:   Accenture Benefit Management Solution (ABMS).

Date: 4/20/2020

Inquiry: 74826


Question:   Staffing: As contractors plan appropriate staffing levels for this scope of work, it is our interpretation (according to Attachment A, Supplement 1) that there would require a strong DDI presence during the first 18-months of this contract. Is this assumption correct? If not, please clarify. a. After the initial 18-months, does the state expect the IV&V contractor to support maintenance and operations efforts for the remainder of the contract? Or should the contractor plan ongoing DDI efforts throughout the 8-year contract?

Answer:   ODM & JFS programs are already in Production and being supported by the vendor. Program will have ongoing enhancement releases in addition to initiatives such as the Infrastructure refresh and implementation of the Child Care program along with a product upgrade. Future project roadmap will be refined based on stakeholder needs.

Date: 4/20/2020

Inquiry: 74823


Question:   Will the State consider the following changes to the Limitation of Liability section: Neither party will be liable for any indirect, incidental, or consequential loss or damage of the other party, including but not limited to lost profits, even if the parties have been advised, knew, or should have known of the possibility of such damages. Additionally, neither party will be liable to the other for direct or other damages in excess, two times the most recent twelve (12) months of the Managed Services charges paid or payable for such work contained in the Contract. The limitations in this paragraph do not apply to: (i) any obligation of the Contractor to indemnify the State against claims made against it (ii) disclosure/breach of State Data including personally identifiable information or State sensitive information, or for (iii) damages to the State caused by the Contractor’s gross negligence or willful misconduct .

Answer:   Please provide this as a redline to the appropriate attachment exceptions as part of the proposal response.

Date: 4/20/2020

Inquiry: 74822


Question:   (RFP page 5) Please describe the statement that says: “…this RFP represents a continuation of IV&V work currently being performed by an incumbent Contractor.” Will the incumbent be available upon contract start for transition activities if a new contractor is selected?

Answer:   State is working on ensuring that there is a knowledge transfer period to the new Contractor.

Date: 4/20/2020

Inquiry: 74816


Question:   Has the current IE/BI system that was implemented for scope up to Release 3, gone through any certification processes?

Answer:   System functionality has been approved by CMS and FNS and complies with other certfications as required by the federal & state authorities.

Date: 4/20/2020

Inquiry: 74820


Question:   Releases 1 ,2 and 3 are noted as Complete. Appendix A within Supplement 1 has dates in the past specific to the tentative OB/BI Release Schedule. Are there tentative dates for Release 3.x, Release 4 and Release 5 from the system integrator(s) that can be used for the IV&V proposal to develop a project Work Breakdown Structure?

Answer:   Appendix A shows tentative timeline. Enhancement releases (3.x) are quarterly releases, defect fix releases are every 6 to 8 weeks. Schedule for the Infrastructure release and Child Care release is not finalized.

Date: 4/20/2020

Inquiry: 74819


Question:   Is the same system integrator vendor that implemented the original modules in 2013 currently under contract for M&O (Management and Operations) activities?

Answer:   Yes.

Date: 4/20/2020

Inquiry: 74818


Question:   Can the State clarify how the incumbent vendor is currently staffing this project?

Answer:   The State is unable to provide this specific information.

Date: 4/20/2020

Inquiry: 74815


Question:   Does Ohio DAS expect the IV&V selected contractor to provide their own project repository, or will IV&V use a State, or other contractor-provided project repository?

Answer:   Selected contractor will place all project related deliverables on the State Sharepoint.

Date: 4/20/2020

Inquiry: 74814


Question:   Does Ohio DAS expect the IV&V selected contractor to provide their own project repository, or will IV&V use a State, or other contractor-provided project repository?

Answer:   Selected contractor will place all project related deliverables on the State Sharepoint.

Date: 4/20/2020

Inquiry: 74813


Question:   Will facility space be provided for the IV&V team, or should contractors plan to procure and maintain their own facility?

Answer:   Facility space will be provided to the IV&V team.

Date: 4/20/2020

Inquiry: 74812


Question:   Is the System Integrator planning to use an Agile or Waterfall methodology for the project?

Answer:   Both methodologies are employed as part of this RFP IV&V effort.

Date: 4/20/2020

Inquiry: 74811


Question:   The fourth bullet of Section 1.4.1 in Supplement 1 states “Provide feedback and recommendations based upon Project Management methodologies consistent with the State guidelines and the Project Management Institute (PMI) Project Management Methodologies stated in the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) assure that SI and OCM Contractor quality plans align with this plan and work with the Ohio Benefits Program to provide high level oversight of conformance to quality processes and of project quality”. Can firms assume that the SI and OCM Contractor’s program quality management plan and processes will be the responsibility of and developed by the SI and OCM Contractor? If not, can the State clarify whose responsibility it is to develop the referenced quality management plan and processes?

Answer:   IV&V team needs to have a plan and align with the plans of our SI and OCM contractor plans for high level oversight of conformance to project methodologies and quality processes.

Date: 4/17/2020

Inquiry: 74806


Question:   The fourth bullet of Section 1.4.1 in Supplement 1 states “Provide feedback and recommendations based upon Project Management methodologies consistent with the State guidelines and the Project Management Institute (PMI) Project Management Methodologies stated in the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) assure that SI and OCM Contractor quality plans align with this plan and work with the Ohio Benefits Program to provide high level oversight of conformance to quality processes and of project quality”. Can firms assume that the SI and OCM Contractor’s program quality management plan and processes will be the responsibility of and developed by the SI and OCM Contractor? If not, can the State clarify whose responsibility it is to develop the referenced quality management plan and processes?

Answer:   IV&V team needs to have a plan and align with the plans of our SI and OCM contractor plans for high level oversight of conformance to project methodologies and quality processes.

Date: 4/17/2020

Inquiry: 74805


Question:   The fourth bullet of Section 1.4.1 in Supplement 1 states “Provide feedback and recommendations based upon Project Management methodologies consistent with the State guidelines and the Project Management Institute (PMI) Project Management Methodologies stated in the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) assure that SI and OCM Contractor quality plans align with this plan and work with the Ohio Benefits Program to provide high level oversight of conformance to quality processes and of project quality”. Can bidders assume that this State requirement applies to the IV&V vendor providing feedback and recommendations, following State guidelines, PMBOK, and industry standards, on the SI and OCM Contractor’s program quality management plan, processes, and project quality? Can the State verify if this assumption is correct? If not, can the State clarify this requirement?

Answer:   Yes, assumption is correct.

Date: 4/17/2020

Inquiry: 74804


Question:   The fourth bullet of Section 1.4.1 in Supplement 1 states “Provide feedback and recommendations based upon Project Management methodologies consistent with the State guidelines and the Project Management Institute (PMI) Project Management Methodologies stated in the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) assure that SI and OCM Contractor quality plans align with this plan and work with the Ohio Benefits Program to provide high level oversight of conformance to quality processes and of project quality”. Can bidders assume that this State requirement applies to the IV&V vendor providing feedback and recommendations, following State guidelines, PMBOK, and industry standards, on the SI and OCM Contractor’s program quality management plan, processes, and project quality? Can the State verify if this assumption is correct? If not, can the State clarify this requirement?

Answer:   Yes, assumption is correct.

Date: 4/17/2020

Inquiry: 74803


Question:   The fourth bullet of Section 1.4.1 in Supplement 1 states, in part “. . . assure that SI and OCM Contractor quality plans align with this plan’. Can bidders assume the “plan” referred to is the SI and OCM Contractor program quality management plan. Can the State verify this assumption? If not, can the State clarify what “plan” the State is referring to?

Answer:   IV&V team needs to have a plan and align with the plans of our SI and OCM contractor plans for high level oversight of conformance to project methodologies and quality processes.

Date: 4/17/2020

Inquiry: 74802


Question:   Inquiry: Will all the work under the eventual IV&V contract be driven by the release of IDAs? If so, what is the frequency of the IDAs that will be released? Does the State expect IV&V services to be provided on a periodic, or continuously ongoing basis? Reference to the relevant part of this RFP: The State may use the Interval Deliverable Agreement (IDA) model for future work (e.g. implementation of additional environmental programs) or other work identified during the life of the Contract that cannot be defined to the appropriate level of detail during the RFP process. Heading of the provision in question: 7.2 ATTACHMENT TWO: INTERVAL DELIVERABLE AGREEMENT & SPECIAL PROVISIONS Page number of the RFP where the provision can be found: 29

Answer:   Yes, the IDA process will be utilized to create ongoing statements of work. These will be periodic based on need at the discretion of the State.

Date: 4/16/2020

Inquiry: 74718


Question:   Inquiry: What section of the Offeror’s response should include the IV&V Work Plan? Reference to the relevant part of this RFP: This section references the submittal of an IV&V Project Work Plan in the proposal, which will be updated once the Contractor is onsite. Heading of the provision in question: 2.3.7 Other IV&V Deliverables Page number of the RFP where the provision can be found: Supplemental 1, page 10

Answer:   This should be provided as its own tab in the proposal response.

Date: 4/16/2020

Inquiry: 74717


Question:   Inquiry: Does the State expect Offerors to respond to each and every section of Supplement 1 (e.g., Section 1.1 RFP Narrative, 1.2 RFP Purpose) within the Proposed Solution section of the Technical Proposal? In which section(s) should Offerors describe their ability to meet the evaluation criteria in Section 7.1 of the RFP? Reference to the relevant part of this RFP: Supplement 1 Heading of the provision in question: Supplement 1 - Scope of Work Page number of the RFP where the provision can be found: 1

Answer:   Yes, the offeror must respond to every section of Supplement 1.

Date: 4/16/2020

Inquiry: 74716


Question:   Inquiry: Please clarify if Offerors are to only use Attachment Seven to provide information on those 3 projects, or all IV&V projects within the last 120 months? Reference to the relevant part of this RFP: OFFEROR PROFILE requires that the offeror must have at least 120 months of experience providing IV&V services, with at least 3 projects falling within the last 60 months. Heading of the provision in question: 7.7 ATTACHMENT SEVEN - OFFEROR PROFILE Page number of the RFP where the provision can be found: 76

Answer:   The offeror must provide the 3 projects in last 60 months as a minimum to meet the requirement as stated in the RFP. The offeror may provide more than 3.

Date: 4/16/2020

Inquiry: 74715


Question:   Inquiry:Page 34 of the base RFP appears to state that the State will not reimburse the IV&V Contractor’s expenses, yet on page 47, Reimbursable Expenses seem to indicate otherwise. Please clarify. Reference to the relevant part of this RFP: On page 34: Reimbursable Expenses. None. On page 47: Reimbursable Expenses. The State will pay all reimbursable expenses identified in the RFP Documents, if any, in accordance with the terms in the RFP Documents and, where applicable, Section 126.31 of the Revised Code. The Contractor must assume all expenses that it incurs in the performance of this Contract that are not identified as reimbursable in the RFP Documents. Heading of the provision in question: 7.2 ATTACHMENT TWO: INTERVAL DELIVERABLE AGREEMENT & SPECIAL PROVISIONS and 7.4 ATTACHMENT FOUR: GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS Page number of the RFP where the provision can be found: 34 and 47

Answer:   There are no items the State has identified in the RFP as reimbursable. However, if there are specific items that offeror wants the State to consider, then those items must be included in offeror's response.

Date: 4/16/2020

Inquiry: 74714


Question:   Inquiry: Please clarify whether the State expects the IV&V contractor to perform UAT as opposed to validate the testing and test results? Reference to the relevant part of this RFP: If the IDA so indicates, there will be a period for performance testing in a production environment specific to the deliverables identified in the IDA. Prior to the performance period, the State, with the assistance of the Contractor, will perform user acceptance testing. Specifics of the performance period such as the timeframe, resources, support required, entrance and exit performance criteria, and standards of performance will be determined by the State, negotiated with the Contractor and incorporated in the IDA. Heading of the provision in question: 7.2. ATTACHMENT TWO: INTERVAL DELIVERABLE AGREEMENT & SPECIAL PROVISIONS Page number of the RFP where the provision can be found: Page 29

Answer:   The State will review offeror's proposal and use all the information during their evaluation.

Date: 4/16/2020

Inquiry: 74713


Question:   Given the current global pandemic, there are risks involved with requiring employees to go to an office to produce multiple hard copies of a proposal, as well as risks involved with requiring State employees to be on-site to accept the proposals. While we realize the proposals are not due until June 15th, it is still uncertain whether the Stay-At-Home orders in place in most states will be lifted by that time. Even if some states lift the orders by June, some offerors may be located in “hot spots” still under Stay-At-Home orders. Given this uncertainty, would the State consider allowing offerors to submit the proposals electronically?

Answer:   The Department of Administrative Services (DAS), Office of Procurement Services (OPS) has received several inquiries requesting the ability to submit proposal responses electronically as a result of the COVID-19 emergency.  OPS is continuing to work with our Office of Information Technology to transition responses to solicitations released by our organization to electronic submission. It is recommended that prospective offerors continue to regularly monitor the State Procurement Website for Q&A postings, announcements and/or solicitation amendments containing instructions or guidance for submission of electronic proposals.  Thank you for your patience and support during these uncertain times. 

Date: 4/16/2020

Inquiry: 74719


Question:   Inquiry: Will DAS consider accepting electronic submittals of offeror proposals given the COVID-19 pandemic and statewide ‘shelter-in-place’ orders? Reference to the relevant part of this RFP: The package with the technical section of the Proposal must be sealed and contain one (1) originally signed technical section and six (6) additional copies of the technical section, and the package with the cost section also must be sealed and contain two (2) complete copies of the cost section of the Proposal. Heading of the provision in question: 3.4 Proposal Submittal Page number of the RFP where the provision can be found: Page 11

Answer:   The Department of Administrative Services (DAS), Office of Procurement Services (OPS) has received several inquiries requesting the ability to submit proposal responses electronically as a result of the COVID-19 emergency.  OPS is continuing to work with our Office of Information Technology to transition responses to solicitations released by our organization to electronic submission. It is recommended that prospective offerors continue to regularly monitor the State Procurement Website for Q&A postings, announcements and/or solicitation amendments containing instructions or guidance for submission of electronic proposals.  Thank you for your patience and support during these uncertain times. 

Date: 4/16/2020

Inquiry: 74712


Question:   At the bottom of p. 38 of the State’s RFP it requests that “The Offeror must also use the Offeror Profile Summary Form(s) (Attachment Seven) and fill them out completely to provide the required information to demonstrate experience to meet each of the first four scored requirement(s) evaluation criteria by including the Offeror scored requirement form provided in this RFP.” Can the State Clarify which four scored requirements offerors are to respond to?

Answer:   The evaluation information and scoring matrix provided in the Base RFP are the tools by which the State will evaluate the entirety of the offeror’s proposal including Supplement 1.

Date: 4/16/2020

Inquiry: 74666


Question:   Regarding Section 7.2 of the States RFP and the Cost Worksheet, can the State please provide the number of IDAs (and IDA interval lengths) that will be needed between Dec 2020 and June 2028?

Answer:   Each IDA is valid for one state fiscal year. IDAs are negotiated as needed during the life of the contract based on the State's discretion.

Date: 4/16/2020

Inquiry: 74665


Question:   Section 7.2, p.29 of the States RFP states "and not to exceed hourly rates quoted on the Rate Card on the Cost Proposal". Should vendors add a tab to the Cost Workbook that would include a Rate Card?

Answer:   Yes, Offeror should provide a rate card as reference for potential future IDA negotiations.

Date: 4/16/2020

Inquiry: 74664


Question:   In Section 7.2 of the States RFP, the State describes the Interval Deliverable Agreement (IDA) process. Can the State clarify how an IDA is to be presented in the Cost Worksheet?

Answer:   IDAs are negotiated as needed during the life of the contract based on the State's discretion. As such, no specific IDA cost is included in the Cost Worksheet.

Date: 4/16/2020

Inquiry: 74663


Question:   The release schedule provided in Appendix A of Supplement 1 is in the past as it outlines activities from Oct 2018 through March 2020. Can the State please provide a more current release schedule that provides releases planned from Dec 2020 through June 2028?

Answer:   The table in the section 2.4 identifies the releases that are complete and the releases that are being planned. Self Service Phase 1 is complete. Future release planning is in progress and cannot be shared at this time.

Date: 4/16/2020

Inquiry: 74662


Question:   Section 5.1.10 of Supplement 1 describes a weekly status report to capture OCM activities. Did the State intend for IV&V to produce this report or is it more appropriate to be produced by the OCM contractor?

Answer:   Yes, this was a typo. The status report should be produced by IV&V vendor.

Date: 4/16/2020

Inquiry: 74661


Question:   Is this Schedule Management Plan requirement described in Section 5.1.9 of Supplement 1 to be developed for the Ohio Benefits Program which encompasses schedule management for the IE and OCM contractors?

Answer:   This refers to the IV&V schedule management plan for IV&V work for the program.

Date: 4/16/2020

Inquiry: 74660


Question:   Is this Risk and Issue Management Plan requirement described in Section 5.1.8 of Supplement 1 to be developed for the Ohio Benefits Program which encompasses issue and risk management for the IE and OCM contractors?

Answer:   This refers to the IV&V risk management plan for IV&V work for the program.

Date: 4/16/2020

Inquiry: 74659


Question:   Is this Risk and Issue Management Plan requirement described in Section 5.1.8 of Supplement 1 to be developed for the Ohio Benefits Program which encompasses issue and risk management for the IE and OCM contractors?

Answer:   This refers to the IV&V risk management plan for IV&V work for the program.

Date: 4/16/2020

Inquiry: 74658


Question:   Section 5.1.3 and Section 5.1.6 of Supplement 1 describe a Monthly Status Report. Are these duplicated requirements?

Answer:   5.1.3 & 5.1.7 both describe the monthly status report.

Date: 4/16/2020

Inquiry: 74657


Question:   Is the Quality Management Plan requirement described in Section 5.1.6 of Supplement 1 for ensuring quality of IV&V services and products OR is the IV&V Contractor responsible for developing a Quality Management Plan for the Ohio Benefits Program which encompasses ensuring quality for the IE and OCM contractor services and products?

Answer:   The Quality Management Plan in 5.1.6 refers the IV&V vendor's plan to ensure quality of their deliverables and services.

Date: 4/16/2020

Inquiry: 74656


Question:   Regarding Supplement 1, Section 5.1.5 says the project work plan should be updated biweekly (at a minimum) whereas Section 5.1.4 (bullet 2) states the project work plan is to be updated weekly. Can the State please clarify the requirement for project work plan updates?

Answer:   Project plan should be updated on a weekly basis.

Date: 4/16/2020

Inquiry: 74655


Question:   Regarding Supplement 1, Section 3.0, how many Go/No-Go Preparation and Decisions reports should the vendors plan to produce between Dec 2020 and June 2028?

Answer:   This depends on the nature of the release and is at State's discretion.

Date: 4/16/2020

Inquiry: 74654


Question:   To help promote the safety of both our firm’s staff and the State’s staff in regards to COVID19, will the State accept proposals that are submitted electronically, and thus waive the hardcopy and electronic “searchable” copy response requirements as detailed on p. 11 of the States RFP?

Answer:   The Department of Administrative Services (DAS), Office of Procurement Services (OPS) has received several inquiries requesting the ability to submit proposal responses electronically as a result of the COVID-19 emergency.  OPS is continuing to work with our Office of Information Technology to transition responses to solicitations released by our organization to electronic submission. It is recommended that prospective offerors continue to regularly monitor the State Procurement Website for Q&A postings, announcements and/or solicitation amendments containing instructions or guidance for submission of electronic proposals.  Thank you for your patience and support during these uncertain times. 

Date: 4/16/2020

Inquiry: 74653


Question:   Regarding Supplement 1, Section 3.0, how many Periodic Independent Project Quality Reviews should the vendors plan to conduct between Dec 2020 and June 2028?

Answer:   This is at State's discretion and cannot be confirmed at this time.

Date: 4/16/2020

Inquiry: 74652


Question:   Regarding Supplement 1, Section 3.0, can the State please provide the number of "testing phases" that are planned between Dec 2020 and June 2028 in order to estimate the number of “Test Results Validation” reports that will be required?

Answer:   Future release planning is in progress and cannot be shared at this time. Test results review should be included in the monthly reports.

Date: 4/16/2020

Inquiry: 74651


Question:   Regarding Supplement 1, please clarify the significance of the orange shading in column 1 of the table in Section 3.0?

Answer:   Implies mandatory deliverables. Other deliverables are at State discretion.

Date: 4/16/2020

Inquiry: 74650


Question:   Regarding Supplement 1, Section 2.5, "Organizational and IT Change Management" is not included in the table in Section 2.5, but is included in Section 2.3.6. If this is intentional, please clarify.

Answer:   Offeror needs to demonstrate capability to assess Organizational and IT change Management. Table in Section 2.5 is only a high level overview of delivery artifacts contained in a release.

Date: 4/16/2020

Inquiry: 74649


Question:   Regarding Supplement 1, Section 2.5, please clarify why the N.1 through N.N entries in the table start with an "N".

Answer:   This was a typo and these weren't intentional.

Date: 4/16/2020

Inquiry: 74648


Question:   Regarding Supplement 1, Section 2.5, should the heading above line 27 of the table be "System Design" instead of "Project Initiation and Planning"?

Answer:   Yes.

Date: 4/16/2020

Inquiry: 74647


Question:   Regarding Supplement 1, Section 2.5, entries 21 through 26 in the table in Section 2.5 are missing. Is this intentional?

Answer:   Not intentional.

Date: 4/16/2020

Inquiry: 74646


Question:   Regarding Supplement 1, Section 2.5, entries 21 through 26 in the table in Section 2.5 are missing. Is this intentional?

Answer:   Not intentional.

Date: 4/16/2020

Inquiry: 74645


Question:   Regarding Supplement 1, Section 2.4, please indicate which of the following releases are complete: Release 3.x Scope (Enhancement Releases), Self Service Reporting Releases, Release 4 Scope, and Release 5?

Answer:   The table in the section 2.4 identifies the releases that are complete. Self Service Phase 1 is also complete.

Date: 4/16/2020

Inquiry: 74644


Question:   Can the State please provide an estimated number of plans as described in Supplement 1, Section 2.3.4, that will be produced from Dec 2020 through June 2028?

Answer:   Future release planning is in progress and cannot be shared at this time. Test results review should be included in the monthly reports.

Date: 4/16/2020

Inquiry: 74643


Question:   Supplement 1, Section 2.3.5 describes that a follow-up assessment is required "…and after a response action plan….". Section 2.3.4 describes "Resource Action Plans". Should Supplement 1, Section 2.3.4, be titled “Response Action Plans” instead of “Resource Action Plans”?

Answer:   Yes. 2.3.4 should be retitled to 'Response Action Plan'

Date: 4/16/2020

Inquiry: 74642


Question:   The "areas of focus" listed in Section 2.3.6, Section 2.5, and Appendix B do not align (i.e. Project Governance is missing from Section 2.3.6 and Section 2.5 but is included in Appendix B). Which "areas of focus" list should be used for estimating the number of initial, progress, milestone, and follow-up IV&V assessments?

Answer:   IV&V offeror needs to have capabilities and proven experience on similar efforts and should be able to assess the entire project lifecycle.

Date: 4/16/2020

Inquiry: 74641


Question:   The State references the Enterprise Life Cycle (ELC) in sections 1.4, 2.2, 2.3.3, 3.0, and in Appendix C of Supplement 1, which was published in 2012, CMS has since (2018) published the Medicaid Eligibility and Enrollment Toolkit (MEET), version 1.1, which includes the Medicaid Eligibility and Enrollment Life Cycle (MEELC). In addition, CMS is piloting new approaches to certification and compliance. Would the State consider adopting more recently published guidance for certification and compliance for the Ohio Benefits project and related IV&V work?

Answer:   Yes, the updated guidance from CMS needs to be followed.

Date: 4/16/2020

Inquiry: 74640


Question:   In the State’s RFP in the Scored Criteria table on pages 25-26, there are 13 scored requirements. However, in Supplement 1, Section 2.2 – Summary Requirements, there are 14 items listed which “Offeror experience will also be evaluated under the following set of requirements that are deemed critical to the success of the project and therefore highly important to the State”. The additional item in Supplement 1 that is not in the State’s RFP is “Evaluate go/no-go decisions to comply with FNS 277.18 testing requirements upon the development of major SNAP changes”. Can the State clarify if Offerors will be scored/evaluated on the 13 items in the State’s RFP, or the 14 items in Supplement 1?

Answer:   The evaluation information and scoring matrix provided in the Base RFP are the tools by which the State will evaluate the entirety of the offeror’s proposal including Supplement 1.

Date: 4/9/2020

Inquiry: 74578


Question:   At the bottom of p. 38 of the State’s RFP it requests that “The Offeror must also use the Offeror Profile Summary Form(s) (Attachment Seven) and fill them out completely to provide the required information to demonstrate experience to meet each of the first four scored requirement(s) evaluation criteria by including the Offeror scored requirement form provided in this RFP.” However, the scored criteria table on pages 25-26 of the State’s RFP has 1 mandatory scored item and then 13 additional scored criteria. Are offerors to use Attachment 7 to only respond to the first 4 of the 13 scored criteria or does the State want offerors to use Attachment 7 to respond to all 13 of the scored criteria? In addition, does the State want offerors to include the “mandatory” and/or “scored criteria” tables in their proposal responses?

Answer:   The evaluation information and scoring matrix provided in the Base RFP are the tools by which the State will evaluate the entirety of the offeror’s proposal including Supplement 1.

Date: 4/9/2020

Inquiry: 74577


Question:   To ensure the State receives fully compliant proposals that meet State requirements, does the State desire that proposals include all 86 pages of the States original RFP - including the States RFP cover page, table of contents, etc.? Or, can proposals follow the outline provided on p. 37 and start with item 1 - Cover letter, and continue through to item 25 - Attachment Four: General Terms and Conditions Acceptance. With this approach, the cover letter would be at the beginning of a firms response, as opposed to being around page 37, due to page 37 in the States RFP being the first instance where the cover letter requirement is requested/detailed.

Answer:   Follow the outline provided on p 37.

Date: 4/8/2020

Inquiry: 74571


Question:   PLEASE IGNORE THIS QUESTION THJAT I PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED. I REALIZE THAT THE CONTENT I WAS REFERRING TO WAS JUST AN EXAMPLE OF HOW TO RESPOND. THANK YOU! The text provided for a response to #1 in Supplement 3 is an inserted picture which does not allow you to enter text into the content box. Can the State edit Supplement 3 and reissue so that proposers can insert text into the provided text box, or permit proposers to provide an answer to #1 either outside/below the picture text box?

Answer:   No problem. Thank you.

Date: 4/3/2020

Inquiry: 74486


Question:   The text provided for a response to #1 in Supplement 3 is an inserted picture which does not allow you to enter text into the content box. Can the State edit Supplement 3 and reissue so that proposers can insert text into the provided text box, or permit proposers to provide an answer to #1 either outside/below the picture text box?

Answer:   This graphic is an example.

Date: 4/3/2020

Inquiry: 74485


Question:   On p. 23 of the States RFP, it indicates that the contract will start on July 1, but on p. 4 of the States RFP, it indicates that the contract will start in December 2020. In addition, on p. 7 of the States RFP, it indicates that the start date/work begins date is December 2020. Can the State please clarify when the contract is anticipated to start.

Answer:   The correct start date is anticipated to be December 2020.

Date: 4/3/2020

Inquiry: 74483


Question:   Will there be any consideration (i.e. extra scoring) given to companies headquartered in Ohio? Additionally, will there be any consideration (i.e. extra scoring) given to veteran-owned or veteran-friendly designated businesses? Thank you.

Answer:   No. Scoring will be done as detailed in the base RFP document.

Date: 4/3/2020

Inquiry: 74478


Question:   What is the budget for this bid?

Answer:   Budget has been identified for this project, however, in the interest in allowing the competitive process to work we will not be releasing the budgeted amount at this time.

Date: 3/30/2020

Inquiry: 74455


Question:   How, if at all will, this public procurement process be impacted by Governor DeWines order to halt contracts that are not necessary for the emergency response to the Covid-19 crisis? Is this procurement going to continue and will this work be deemed to be "necessary spending" as it relates to the proposed reduction in spending in FY 21? Can you please advise.

Answer:   Governor DeWine directed agencies to freeze new contract services for the state of Ohio, except for those services that are necessary to maintain critical program operations and to implement the COVID-19 emergency response, and he directed state agencies to control spending for the remainder of this fiscal year and next fiscal year. All spending will be considered on a case-by-case basis by Agency Directors and the Office of Budget and Management.

Date: 3/27/2020

Inquiry: 74391


Question:   Is there an incumbent? Are any vendors disqualified from bidding?

Answer:   Maximus Inc is the incumbent. Per the RFP Base Document the following companies are exempt from bidding: Clustersoft Inc, Accenture LLC, Deloitte Inc. , Advocate Solutions & it’s subsidiaries (including Advocate Consulting Group), TSG Partners Ltd.

Date: 3/25/2020

Inquiry: 74392


back

Inquiry period ended:  5/1/2020 8:00:00 AM