Page 1 of 1

RFP ADDENDUM RFP-18 Rev. 3/13/14 Prev. Rev. 10/17/13

STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

RFP NO.:

19PSX0210

Aimee Cunningham Contract Specialist

PROCUREMENT DIVISION 450 Columbus Boulevard, Suite 12N

Proposal Due Date:

1 October 2019

860-713-5250 Telephone Number

HARTFORD, CT 06106-1659 Date Addendum Issued:

12 September 2019

RFP ADDENDUM #4

DESCRIPTION: Business One Stop Initiative FOR: Department of Administrative Services PROPOSERS NOTE: The purpose of this Addendum #4 is to provide:

• Collective Questions and Answers as of September 12, 2019

• Pre-proposal sign in sheet Additional questions may be submitted through September 20, 2019 to Aimee.cunningham@ct.gov and Gregory.mooney@ct.gov .

Page 1 of 5

19PSX0210 Business One Stop Initiative Request for Proposals Questions and Answers as of September 12, 1019

Question number

Date

Received

Questions and Answers

Question #1

8/28/19

What types and/or brands of Software is the RFP referring to? Operating Systems? Management Software? Financial Software? Other?

Answer:

We are looking for a proposal that addresses the overall scenario as laid out in the section 2. As part of the response, we expect a recommendation on the tech stack preferably a combination of cloud-based, enterprise-grade solutions, platforms and services that have widespread adoption, scale easily and are cost-effective to acquire, implement and maintain.

Question #2

9/4/19

We are a start-up company and as such cannot provide previous projects as points of reference for this RFP. This does not in any way mean that we lack experience, since we, as individuals, have extensive experience in both private and public sectors in all aspects of Information Technology. I would appreciate any guidance that can be provided as to how to overcome this obstacle. One solution would be to partner with a firm that can provide these references, but if so, how would that work in terms of the proposal?

Answer:

Thank you for your interest in this RFP. As outlined in section 4 of the RFP document, the evaluation criteria comprises of multiple dimensions listed in order of relative importance. Each proposal will be evaluated across all the listed dimensions. We encourage you to provide your best response possible. We do not have an opinion on partnering with another entity, however, we expect any partnership and/or sub-contracting arrangement to be transparent as it will be subject to our approval. We encourage Proposers to seek creative ways to address our objectives in the best possible manner.

Page 2 of 5

Question number

Date

Received

Questions and Answers

Question #3

9/9/19

Objective 2 in the RFP states that the State's unique constraints and can build the new experiences around the edges or over the top of the existing systems and processes with minimal disruption. Does the scope of the RFP include replacement of the Business Services system that are typically the foundation for Business One Stop Shop initiatives?

Answer:

We are unsure of what you mean regarding Business Services, however, if the Business Services system that you refer to is the Connecticut Business Registry (CONCORD), then the scope of the RFP does not necessarily include or exclude a replacement. We are open to proposals either way. However, we do anticipate a need to substantially enhance, or completely replace CONCORD as one part of the project. We believe decision regarding any other existing systems or services should emerge progressively.

Question #4

9/10/19

RFP Page 66 states that all proposals shall become the sole property of the State and will not be returned. Can the State System confirm that should an Offeror submit trade secret and commercial or financial information as part of its proposal, that it will remain protected from public disclosure, even after it becomes the sole property of the State, as long as the Offeror’s response includes a separate signed written statement, identifying any such information, and the applicable exemption(s) under the Connecticut Freedom of Information Act, Sec. 1-210. (Formerly Sec. 1-19). Access to public records. Exempt records?

Answer:

All data and information that is legally exempt from FOIA disclosure will not be considered public record. Your proposed solution would not be considered trade secret, confidential, etc.

Page 3 of 5

Question number

Date

Received

Questions and Answers

Question #5

9/10/19

Section 7 of the Standard RFP Terms and Conditions states “The successful Proposer shall be bound by the terms and conditions of the form contract that is attached to the RFP, as it may be modified by agreement of the parties.” The BizNet portal does not currently provide the form contract. Can the State please provide the form contract?

Answer:

Rather than spending time red lining terms and conditions, we would rather have the focus be on the proposed solution(s). Contract terms and conditions will be determined at the beginning of contract negotiations with the highest scoring Proposer(s).

Question #6

9/10/19

Standard RFP Terms and Conditions, Section 8 - Would the State be willing to remove the requirement for Bidders to provide proposal or performance bonds as guaranty or surety?

Answer:

Proposal/Performance bonds will not be required.

Question #7

9/10/19

Section 19 of the Standard RFP Terms and Conditions states that an NDC Form is attached. The BizNet portal does not currently provide the NDC form. Can the State please provide the NDC form?

Answer:

The NDC (non discrimination) is a form certification that will be required at the time of contract execution; not a requirement for the solicitation.

Page 4 of 5

Question number

Date

Received

Questions and Answers

Question #8:

9/10/19

We believe adopting user-backed design thinking approach can significantly improve quality of technology delivered and ensure adoption. We have successfully helped other state, local and Federal government departments in defining future state vision without being biased to any particular downstream technology choices. Would the State be looking for dedicated design effort as part of its technology implementation? If yes, would the State be looking at specialized partners for this phase?

Answer:

We believe user research will be essential to understand the various types of business personas, their unique needs and situation. Different agencies will have different sets of needs and constraints as well. We are though not sure what is meant by “dedicated” design effort. We would encourage you to establish your design process through the written response as well as the solution demonstration, if invited.

Question #9

9/10/19

The current pricing structure indicated in the RFP appears to be tailored towards software-as-a-service solutions. Would the state be open to looking at “build operate transfer” type of arrangements?

Answer:

We are not pre-disposed to a SaaS solutions. We need a clear understanding of cost burden on the state to set-up, run and grow the solution. We do not want to pay for software and/or capacity that is not providing value to taxpayers.

Question #10

9/10/19

Is there a known cost expectation driven by budgets for this effort?

Answer:

No. We are hoping to get the cost benchmark established through the RFP process itself. Having said that, we love the concept of “doing more with less”.

Page 5 of 5

Question number

Date

Received

Questions and Answers

Question #11

9/11/19

Once the system has been delivered, does the state intent to take ownership and provide ongoing support or will this be part of the system deliverer’s responsibility? If the system deliverer is to continue the support of the system, should that be included as a separate line item is the pricing proposal?

Answer:

You may provide a separate line item for ongoing support including the scope of the support and any assumptions on State’s responsibility for the same. Either way we definitely want to understand the recommended effort associated with ongoing support.

Question #12

9/11/19

Since some of the information pertaining to any business is confidential, does the state intent to have a “state cloud”, a public cloud, or a combination of both? I am aware that this question is partially answered by Addendum #1, but would like a better clarification if possible.

Answer:

We would expect recommendations from our potential partners based on established trends and practices. We do not have any reasons as of yet to rule out the available options from a cloud perspective.