Opportunity Detail

Questions and Answers

Child Care CCIDS Project
Document #:  JFSRLBOIS12030

Question:   Can we submit more than one resume for each position, meaning more than one team of PM&BA? Thanks

Answer:   The agency will score according to one resume for each position. We feel it is critical to have one set of experts throughout the project. Having multiple part time staff or those that are engaged for short periods of time and then replaced will not meet our needs.

Date: 5/21/2012

Inquiry: 25702

Question:   Can we propose either the PM or Business Analysts or will it have to be for entire team. Is the Govt open to spilitting the award between multiple vendors or would it be just 1 award to 1 vendor for entire team.

Answer:   A. Both a PM and a set of BAs are required as a proposed team. B. The agency is not open to multiple vendors. One vendor will be selected.

Date: 5/21/2012

Inquiry: 25701

Question:   Section VIII, Selection Process, p14, fourth paragraph -- is the "Total Cost for Evalaution Purposes" equivalent to the Total Fixed Cost in the Cost Summary on page 10? Are rates and/or hours estimated for the work included in determining this factor or are estimated project hours included in determining the vendor technical score?

Answer:   Yes. The total cost for evaluation purposes will be the total fixed cost that the vendor submits on the respective cost summary, which appears on page 10, and as Attachment D. Since this a fixed-price deliverable RLB, the vendor is to determine the number of hours that it will take to perform and deliver each deliverable/task as stated on the cost summary. Points awarded for the cost will be using the following criteria: The offeror with the lowest proposed Total Cost for Evaluation Purposes will receive 300 points. The remaining offerors will receive a percentage of the maximum cost points available based upon the following formula: Cost Summary Points = (Lowest Total Cost for Evaluation Purposes /Offeror’s Total Cost for Evaluation Purposes) x 300 Total Points Score: The total points score is calculated using the following formula: Total Points = Technical Proposal Points + Cost Summary Points

Date: 5/18/2012

Inquiry: 25694

Question:   Section VI, Scope of Work, p 6/7 -- In considering our response to the SOW and pricing the deliverables, we request clarification on the following: a) How will the scope, schedule and resources be managed between the State and vendor? Given what appears to be the evolving nature of the work, how will the specific scope/deliverables be defined/agreed upon? Can vendors assume that an IDA-type deliverable model (or alternative) that could be updated on some periodic basis to specify deliverables by period throughout the project? b) Would the State consider adding a response section to the proposal so that the State can understand and evaluate each vendors proposed approach/deliverable definition for completing the work and include that as part of the evaluation criteria?

Answer:   • A) Vendors can assume that once selected and engaged in this project, a schedule and timeline of deliverables will be established that will include flexibility based on the state resources, overall project movement and is agreed upon by both parties. • B) The agency expects vendors to respond to each item exclusively; a separate response section will not be added. The agency does have the right to ask clarifying questions if necessary upon receipt of proposals.

Date: 5/18/2012

Inquiry: 25693

Question:   Section VIVI, Warranty Coverage Definition, p 7 -- Does the state intend for this Section to refer to warranty on services or deliverables that are not software?

Answer:   The agency intends for the warranty to cover deliverables. If a deliverable submitted is unacceptable, the agency intends to require the vendor to resubmit a corrected deliverable at no cost.

Date: 5/18/2012

Inquiry: 25692

Question:   Section VII -- Format of Submission, Tab I -- Cost Summary (p 8/9) -- The concept of a payment schedule does not appear to be part of this RLB. Can vendors assume that a monthly payment schedule can be negotiated with the State for this engagement, based on deliverable production and acceptance?

Answer:   Vendors can assume that once selected and engaged with this project, a periodic payment schedule can be established. A purchase order will be developed that contains each deliverable and the agency is open to percentage of payment on deliverables as agreed upon by both parties.

Date: 5/18/2012

Inquiry: 25691

Question:   Section I -- Purpose, page 2, last sentence in the second paragraph. We assume that the September 30, 2012 date should be September 30, 2013?

Answer:   This statement refers to any work that is performed on a FY'12 PO prior to June 30, 2012. The vendor has until September 30, 2012, to submit their invoice against the FY'12 PO.

Date: 5/18/2012

Inquiry: 25690

Question:   It appears that the version of the RLB posted to the site as of 5/17 is different from the original version as of 5/16. Does the version posted to the website as of 5/17 include chnages from Addenda 1 and 2? Are there any other changes included?

Answer:   The RLB which was posted on 5/17 does include the changes from Addenda 1 and 2. There are no other changes.

Date: 5/18/2012

Inquiry: 25689

Question:   Is a company certified as a MBE through the federal government but not the state of Ohio be an eligible applicant for this RFP? The company does have an Ohio STS.

Answer:   No. Vendors must have and provide a copy of their MBE certification issued by the Ohio Department of Administration Services (DAS).

Date: 5/18/2012

Inquiry: 25686


Inquiry period ended:  5/21/2012 8:00:00 AM