STATE OF VERMONT
MAY 10, 2018
RFP – Health Care Paper Application Usability (HCAU)
Bidder’s Conference Call – Questions/Responses
HCAU RFP Questions / Responses:
Q1: With only one form do you anticipate still having to enter it into two systems or how will you determine which system it will go into?
A: It will still need to be entered into the two systems, the goal is that the form will be clearer for the applicant and they won’t have to complete multiple forms for a household. They will be able to pick a program they want to apply for or ask for a full benefits screening to determine which program(s) they are eligible for. It will also decrease data entry for staff.
Q2: Do you foresee there being an upfront discovery and research as well as feasibility testing in terms of understanding the exact content?
A: Yes, there will be ongoing updates and communications with Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) to ensure that things are flowing and there will be routine check-ins.
Q3: Do you expect the Vendor to be onsite for engagement the whole time?
A: No, not the entire time. The expectation is that they would be onsite for the design, usability and focus groups. The development work can be done off-site, but routine check-ins will be scheduled.
Q4: Will there be an opportunity to ask questions after this conference, before posting?
A: No, due to the tight deadline for this procurement. However, questions can always be sent to John Kohlmeyer nd he will respond as quickly as possible.
Q5: Will this paper application tie into the larger roadmap and vision for VT? Will there be room for the delivery team to build software or is this only about the paper form?
A: This procurement is only about the paper form. It is a CMS requirement to have these five applications combined into one. At this point in time, SoV is still building the roadmap and it can change at any time. It is unknown what the specifications will be for an online application. It is premature to say that this will be the end solution.
Q6: If policy improvements are identified as part of the work at the beginning of the project, is SoV open to making those changes?
A: We expect that could occur and we may be able to make some changes, but we are not planning on policy changes as a result of this work. There will be internal process changes as SoV shifts from five forms to one, but the changes should be minimal. As we go into discovery there will be things that aren’t anticipated. The documents will be received at the Applications Document Processing Center (ADPC). They would need to easily decide which system to scan the document into. The ADPC will be included in the design sessions.
Q7: Where does 18F play within the scope and engagement of the strategic plan and how would the vendor interact with them if at all?
A: 18F is providing an advisory and counseling role to the SoV. We do not foresee any direct involvement between the Vendor and 18F in this work.
Q8: The links in the RFP aren’t working and to the CMS alternative application from June 8th aren’t working. Can you provide links?
A: We will verify and upload separately or post a revised version of the RFP. Note: The revised RFP was uploaded to the website Thursday afternoon on May 10th.
Q9: The RFP has two different time frames, a 2-3-monthperiod for the work and a 9-month contract term. How long will the contract take?
A: The design of the application should not take more than a couple of months, but the 9-month contract term allows extra time in case it is needed. The prototype should be completed by September 1st.
Q10: If research exposes the need for two applications instead of one, is it possible to create two applications?
A: No, CMS requires one streamlined application.
Q11: Is the Vendor expected to provide end users for testing?
A: The SoV will provide resources for testing. There is a possibility we would engage real users for testing, and if so SoV will facilitate identifying the testers.
Q12: It sounds like there will be several other RFPs to build an Integrated Eligibility and Enrollment (IE&E) system, can you elaborate on those?
A: The IE&E system is moving toward an Agile methodology from the traditional Waterfall approach. Doing work in smallmodular procurements allows to course correct if problems are encountered. Modules within the roadmap can change, as they have already since the process has started. There will be RFPs put out for these future modules, however these RFPs will first be directed to our Statewide IT Retainer contracts. If the request is not able to be fulfilled, it will be opened to a wider audience. The IT Retainer RFP is currently open. If anyone is interested in reviewing the IT Retainer RFP, it can be found on the BGS website at this link:
Q13: Will the product owner be available for fulltime engagement.
A: Yes
Q14: Does the State have a projected budget for this project?
A: That information is not going to be disclosed at this point.
Q15: You spoke about implementing a prototype, what if at the September 1st deadline there is still a need for revisions or a decision to transition to something else. The RFP indicates an option for a 6-month extension. What would trigger an extension?Would you start a new procurement?
A: We do not expect to need the extension, but we want to have the contract term sufficient to complete the work and not have to go out to bid if the initial term expires.
Q16: Will there be a need for field testing for any other languages?
A: No, the SoV is only requiring an English version.
Q17: The deadline is September 1stIf we learn something in user research, is that date flexible?
A: September 1st is a target date, it isn’t mandatory but the SoV is anxious to get this project completed. There will be flexibility if there are good reasons behind extending the date.
Q18: Are travel expenses enumerated separately or not at all?
A: How expenses are expected to be incorporated is provided in the RFP under the pricing section.
Q19: In the pricing schedule, there are two tables. The top table lists phase 1-4 under T&Mhourly rate. Would a successful bidder be signing a T&M? Should we take hourly rates and multiply them by the time for each Phase?
A: Yes, the intent is T&M. You should aggregate the anticipated hours for each resource supporting a phase multiplied by the appropriate hourly rates (as defined in the second table) to provide a projected cost for each phase and factor in any anticipated expenses.
Q20: Is there a cap on hours? If it takes longer/shorter would we refer to the pricing sheet?
A: When the contract is completed there will be language that says that the contract will not exceed a certain dollar amount. The SoV is expecting fairly accurate pricing but will work with the chosen Vendor if changes are required.
Q21: Phases 1-4 are listed; can the Vendor propose adding phases if needed?
A: Yes, and that is just an illustrative table.
Q22: The first table would satisfy everything that the vendor needed to submit, in looking at the second table below it seems redundant or not necessary. Is there additional information you are looking for?
A: Table two is for actual staff the Vendor would be using on the project. The first table is to disclose the aggregated cost, and the second table is for specific resources.
Q23: In terms of production of the form, will there be standard sizes we need to adhere to and contact with the printer, so we have a good sense of the production restraints?
A: The ADPC will be working alongside the Vendor on the design and implementation. They will be able to provide that information.
Q24: When do you intend on making a decision and announcing the winning bidder?
A: As soon as is practical but no later than the second week in June. The SoV will move as quickly as possible but it’s dependent on the number of respondents and how long it takes to review the proposals.
Q25: In regard to submission and how to submit, the RFP states to provide 5 attachments, would the redacted copy count as a sixth copy?
A: Yes.
Q26: Should we submit two separate cover letters, one for each attachment and then one for the redacted copy?
A: For the redacted copy you may either submit a separate cover letter or it may be included within the redacted copy itself.
Page 1 of 2