New Mexico Child Support Enforcement Business Assessment Review, RFP #14-630-6000-0001 RFP - Questions and Answers
# / RFP Reference / Question / Response1 / Section I.B., Information Technology Division (p3-4): / What is the anticipated role of the Information Technology Division in the proposed engagement? / ITD may participate, as necessary, in the sessions during the Business Assessment review.
2 / Section I.C., introduction (p5) and Section III.IT Development (p30): / Has the State selected a contractor for planning for the new automated system development? If not, is the successful vendor for this Business Assessment Review eligible to compete for the work on system planning and/or implementation? What is the projected start date or tentative schedule for the replacement system effort? / The State is currently in negotiations with Project Management Vendors. The CSES/MMIS-Project Management Office (PMO) RFP was posted on 12-17-13 and has closed.
3 / Section I.C.2 (p5) / Is the State able to make changes to the SDU contract to accommodate implementing changes that may be identified and approved as part of the proposed project? If no, when will the next issuance of an RFP for the SDU be issued? / The State Disbursement Unit is administered by the State of New Mexico and is a part of the Administrative Services Division (ASD).
4 / Section I.C.9. (p5) and Section xiii. Pilot Project (p31) / Has the State selected a pilot project site? If so, can you provide characteristics of the pilot site that would assist us in determining staffing levels, travel, etc. for assisting in the implementation of the pilot? This would include approximate size of the office, distance from a major airport, etc. If a site has not been chosen, does the State have a preference? / CSED has not selected a pilot site(s) for the project, but will work closely with the successful vendor in identifying appropriate site(s) for the pilot project. The NM CSED is comprised of office locations in both large population centers and rural areas throughout New Mexico. CSED Central Office, SDU, the Administrative Services Division (ASD) and a field office is located in Santa Fe, NM. Additionally, we have two large offices in Albuquerque one that focuses on Establishment cases and one that focuses primarily on Enforcement cases, and are located in close proximity to one another (within 15 minutes apart)
The International Airport is located in Albuquerque, NM. Santa Fe has limited air service, but is approximately a one hour drive from Albuquerque.
5 / Section I.C., last paragraph (p5) / How does the State envision the work to be divided among the project years? / The initial vision is to complete the BAR in one year. CSED would like to reserve the option to renew the contract based on the results for each term.
6 / II.B.9 & II.C.15-17 (p12 & 16) / Several paragraphs of RFP Section II, including subsections B.9 and C.15-C.17, indicate that the State will consider the proposed contractual revisions included in the Offeror’s proposal.
(a) Is it accurate to assume then that the Offeror will be under no obligation to sign the final Agreement unless both parties mutually agree on all of the terms and conditions?
(b) If an Offeror is selected for negotiations, how will the negotiation process proceed? / (a) Yes, both parties must agree upon the terms and conditions of the agreement.
(b) In accordance with the State of New Mexico’s Procurement Code.
7 / II.B.9-10 (p12-13) / The RFP says, “The most advantageous proposal may or may not have received the most points.” The RFP does explain that, “In the event that mutually agreeable terms cannot be reached within the time specified, the Agency reserves the right to finalize a contract with the next most advantageous Offeror.”
Please provide any other circumstances in which the proposal that receives the most evaluation points would not be selected as the most advantageous proposal? / The State refuses to engage in speculation on “other circumstances” that may warrant a contract award to an Offeror that received the most evaluation points.
Notwithstanding the previous sentence, the State reviews all proposals on a “best value” versus “best cost” criteria; therefore, the points awarded factor all components, i.e., technical and cost, into awarded points. This recognizes that Offeror’s may attempt to “buy the contract” by submitting an extremely low cost and thereafter submit change requests that require the State to expend more funds. This risk is minimized using the formula set forth in the RFP.
8 / III.B (p21) / The RFP says the one (1) electronic copy of the proposal must contain all Binder and Confidential Information separately.
Should the Binder 1 (Technical) and Binder 2 (Cost) be on the same CD or on separate CDs? / Binder 1 (Technical) and Binder 2 (Cost) should be on separate CDs.
9 / III.C.a.xiv,
Appendix M (p22,
78) / The RFP lists “xiv. New Mexico Based Incentive (Section II.C.40; Section V.B.20)” as an item to include in Binder #1, but there is no Section II.C.40 and no Section V.B.20. Please confirm that we can ignore this requirement in Section III.C and in Appendix M: Mandatory RFP Requirements Checklist. / Offerors can strike the requirement regarding the New Mexico Based Incentive (Section II.C.40; Section V.B.20).
10 / IV.B.2.a.ii (p24) / The Reference Questionnaire instructions say to send the reference form in Appendix L. Please confirm that the instructions should say Appendix K. / See Amendment 1
11 / Section IV.B.4.a (p25) / “Offerors shall agree to commit a cohesive, dedicated, highly skilled core team lead by a Project Manager, preferably on-site.”Does the “on-site” refer to the Project Manager only or the entire core team? / CSED is interested in a core team with a strong project manager, dedicated to the project, and is open to proposals on this subject.
12 / IV.B.4.a.iii. (p25) / Please describe the “experience categories” required to be included for each individual in the organization chart. / The proposed team member’s experience that relates to the scope of work outlined in the RFP.
13 / Section IV.B.6.a.ii (p27) / “Offerors shall agree to review and assess CSED’s business processes and procedures.” Would the State discuss the process used to document the functions—was it through staff interviews, review of policy manuals, etc? Does the State envision these flows to be the starting point for the BPR Project? What was the process used to validate the workflows in the attached Visio documents? / The Visio flows were produced via interviews with subject matter experts as well as existing documentation. The State views these Visio diagrams as the starting point. The subject matter experts and management reviewed and revised the Visio diagrams as necessary to reflect how processes are completed.
14 / IV.B.6.a.ii (p27) / Will the State make all of the approximately 100 completed business flows documenting the majority of CSED functions available for review and analysis, rather than just the three samples in Appendix N, so the Offeror can appropriately estimate the proper time allocation and resources needed for modification to improve efficiency of these business flows? / CSED will make the business flows available to the successful vendor. Meanwhile, attached is a copy of the Business Flow Titles organized by business categories.
15 / IV.B.6.a.ii (p27) / As part of the Business Process Review, will the State make appropriate State and county staff (including the authors of the 100 flows) available to the Offeror to walk through the existing 100 flows so that Offeror has a comprehensive understanding of existing processes? / CSED will make subject matter experts available to the successful vendor.
16 / IV.B.6.a.ii (p27) / The end of the instructions for Business Process Review say, “examples are attached in Appendix___.” Please confirm that this should say Appendix N. / See Amendment 1
17 / IV.B.6.a.iv-v (p27-28) / (a) Do the 100 completed business flows developed reflect specific variations in processes across individual County Offices?
(b) If so, does the recommendations report need to provide tailored process recommendations for each County Office, or can the report group recommendations by county office size/function as appropriate? / The business process flows developed for Establishment and Enforcement cases differentiate by rural and urban offices. The majority of other business flows are standardized.
18 / Section xi. Bi-lingual Service (p28): / Would the State identify the languages for review of the process and procedures for non-English speaking customers? / New Mexico serves a large population of individuals’ where English is a second language.CSED will work with the vendor to identify the processes and procedures for services to non-English speaking customers. Currently, CSED staff provides limited Spanish translation services.
19 / Section xii, Workshops, paragraph 1 (p28) / “Offerors shall agree to conduct on-site workshops to a group of experienced personnel (Teams), to review identified systems for process improvement.” Is the State able to provide any further details (such as anticipated job titles and descriptions or roles) regarding these referenced Teams? / Below is a list of titles which may be added or deleted as needed:Caseworkers for Establishment and Enforcement and their supervisors, SDU personnel, Attorneys, File clerks, Central office staff and management, CSES replacement team, financial specialists, I.T. staff, and staff from Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC).
20 / IV.B.6.a.xii (p28-29) / (a) For the workshops, please provide the State’s primary goals.
(b) How many workshops are expected?
(c) How many Teams are expected?
(d) How many participants are expected in each Team?
(e) What is the expected duration of each workshop?
(f) Will the on-site workshops all be held in Sante Fe or in other locations? / CSED is looking for recommendations from the proposals submitted on best practices for conducting business process reviews. CSED will work with the successful vendor on identifying appropriate number of workshops, staff, primary goals, duration, and locations.
21 / Section xii, Workshops, paragraph 5 (p29) / “Offerors shall agree to ensure key processes are selected for improvement and ideas are understood and implementation is supported at all levels of CSED.” Would you please provide us with examples of how you will be measuring that this see Amendment 1ance is achieved? / CSED Management and the selected vendor will agree upon a management method by which this requirement will be implemented and measured throughout the organization to ensure successful support and understanding of process improvements. CSED is looking for buy-in and ownership from front-line workers prior to the implantation of any process improvements.
22 / IV.B.6.a.xii, 7th paragraph (p29) / The RFP says, “Offerors shall agree to observe the Teams presentations on process improvements and critique their results.” (a) To whom are the Teams presenting?
(b) How many presentations total will the Teams make and how long will each presentation be?
(c) Are there different teams for Child Support and for the Judicial Courts? / The teams will be presenting process improvements to CSED and AOC management as appropriate.
23 / V.B.6.a (p29-31) / (a) For the Judicial Court Process Review, will the State please describe what it hopes to accomplish through the consultant’s work with the Courts.
(b) What work products and/or deliverables does the State anticipate coming from this Review for each individual task (i.e., I. Process Flows, II. Human Capital, III. IT Development, IV. Stratification Plan, and V. Recommendations)? / In addition to the response set forth above, the Offeror should include deliverables, such as flow charts and recommendations that take into consideration current and recommended use of human capital, process flows, or stratification processes that will improve CSED’s interaction with the judicial districts. Specifically, CSED wants to improve its process of establishing child support cases within six months after a petition is filed. In the Offeror’s response, the Offeror should consider how technology, such as e-filing of documents, will enhance CSED (and the Court’s) productivity.
24 / IV.B.6.a (p29-31) / (a) For the Judicial Court Process Review, is the Offeror expected to develop as-is and to-be process models for each judicial district?
(b) Will the as-is and to-be modeling be performed at each of the 13 districts or is the State looking for a single normalized best practice model for all districts? / Yes, the vendor is expected to develop an as-is and to-be process model to support the recommended best practice model for each district and how the judicial district interacts with CSED offices.
25 / IV.B.6.a, Appendix L (p29-31, 77-78) / The State lists a “Judicial Court Process Review” as one of the Project Requirements. As described, this work is being done by an “outside consultant” and not the Offeror. Additionally, the State does not include this Review in Appendix L: Mandatory Requirements Response Form.
(a) What are the Offeror’s responsibilities with respect to this task?
(b) Please confirm that “Judicial Court Process Review” should NOT be a line item included in Appendix L, and requires no response from the Offeror. / The Offeror is intended to be the outside consultant that will look at how CSED interacts with each judicial district court. The Offeror is expected to provide guidance as to how CSED can improve processes relating to human capital with the use of technology and other tools as recommended. This will include working with the Administrative Office of the Courts and, as needed, how each CSED field office currently interacts with the judicial districts. For example, Albuquerque North and South interact with the Second Judicial District Court, including CSED on-site hearings before judicially appointed child support hearing officers.
The Offeror should include a line item for this requirement.
26 / IV.B.6.a.xiii (p31) / (a) For the Pilot Project, does the State expect the Offeror to conduct the pilot prior to the implementation of the new computer system?
(b) If yes, then the business processes modified would be limited to those not requiring system modification. Is this a correct assumption?
(c) What is the expected duration of the pilot? / (a) Yes, CSED expect the successful vendor to conduct the pilot prior to the implementation of the new computer system.
(b) Yes, however, if small modifications to the existing system can provide tangible benefits will be implemented.
(c) The expected duration for the pilot will be determined by overall project timeline and the scope of proposed changes or process improvements.
27 / IV.B.6.a.xiii (p31) / (a) Will the Judicial Courts be part of the pilot project?
(b) If not, will there be a pilot(s) in the Judicial Districts to test the re-engineered business processes? / The Judicial Courts may be a part of the pilot project.
28 / IV.B.6.a.xiii (p31) / Would the State be open to a proposed schedule that implemented the pilot in the second year of the contract? / CSED would like the pilot to be scheduled in the first year of the contract.
29 / Section IV.B.6.a. (page 32) / Will the State provide caseload data on all of its cases, including payment transactions? The caseload data does not need to have specific names, addresses, SSN or other confidential information, such as IRS or domestic violence, only a unique case identifier accompanied by the data dictionary. / CSED can provide data as needed in compliance with SSA and IRS guidelines. Public information that is already available, i.e., caseload, collections, obligated case percentage, etc.
30 / V.B.7,Appendix C
(p34-35, 57) / As the cost proposal evaluation equation is based on the four-year contract cost, please clarify the following:
(a) Does the State anticipate the Offeror to complete all the work in the base contract year?
(b) If no, what work does the State anticipate the Offeror will complete in year 2, year 3, and year 4?
(c) If yes, then what does the Offeror price for years 2, 3, and 4?
(d) Please confirm our assumption that the denominator of the cost proposal evaluation formula is simply the sum of the estimated costs for each of the four years. / (a) Yes, The initial vision is to complete the BAR in one year. CSED would like to reserve the option to renew the contract based on the results for each term.
31 / V.B.7.a (p35) / Please provide more detail regarding the CPI in Step 1 of the Cost Proposal Evaluation:
(a) Which Consumer Price Index will the State use and what timeframe of the CPI will the State use?
(b) Will the CPI Adjustment Factor be the same for estimating all four years of contract costs, or will it vary for each year?
(c) What is the State’s logic for applying a CPI Adjustment Factor to the costs for year 1?
(d) Why is the State applying a CPI Adjustment Factor to the costs when proposed costs are fixed and any annual increase should already be considered by bidders and reflected in each year’s price submission? Please explain this logic further.
(e) Will the CPI Adjustment Factors used for evaluation purposes in years 2, 3, and 4 compound from prior years? Please explain. / Because this is a public procurement, the State takes into consideration that the Offeror’s cost proposal is usually submitted months in advance of the contract award date. The State also takes into consideration that the first-year cost projection, when added to the pre-award timeframe, may be as long as eighteen (18) months. Therefore, the State includes a CPI Adjustment Factor and requires the Offeror to include this factor as part of their fixed rate.