RFP NUMBER: (201507126) AMENDMENT (INSERT AMENDMENT #2)PAGE 1 of 49

STATE OF MAINE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS AMENDMENT

RFP NUMBER AND TITLE: / RFP 201507126 - HRMS2 - Maine Human Resources Management System SaaS
RFP AMENDMENT NUMBER: / 2
AMENDMENT DATE: / August 28, 2015
PROPOSAL DUE DATE: / September 30, 2015, not later than 2:00 p.m. local time.
RFP ISSUED BY: / State of Maine, Department of Administrative And Financial Services -
Office Of The State Controller
PROPOSALS DUE TO: / Division of Purchases
Burton M. Cross Building, 4th Floor
111 Sewall Street
9 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333-0009
DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES TO RFP (if any):
Amendment #2 – State of Maine answers to vendor RFP questions.
REVISED LANGUAGE IN RFP (if any):
RFP Page 7 of 93, second paragraph is revised to read:
The stated purpose of this procurement is to “seek a vendor to provide application functionality to replace several existing internal systems and manual operations so, that human resource and payroll management applications can be consolidated into an integrated environment. The current annual internal business systems cost is $4,880,000.
Unless specifically addressed below, all other provisions and clauses of the RFP remain unchanged.

Provided below are the answers to the questions that were received from interested offerors on or before August 21, 2015, 5:00 p.m. local time.

Question # / Question / Answer
1 / Section 1.1: The RFP states that the current GEAC system was originally built in the 1970s by GEAC Computer Corporation, now Infor Global Solutions. Does Maine have a current active contract for maintenance and support of the GEAC system, or is it using in-house staff to perform these tasks? / The State has a current, active contract for maintenance and support of the GEAC system. The State is also using in-house staff to support this system.
2 / Section 2.6.5: The RFP mentions interfacing with the Advantage financials system. Does the state have any plans to replace that system? / The State has no plans to replace its financial ERP system (see Revised Language in RFP section of RFP Amendment – page 1 of this document).
3 / General: Does the state anticipate releasing any additional solicitations related to this RFP, such as independent verification and validation? / The State has not prepared any additional solicitations.
4 / Approximately how many active employees would be in the system? / The State has approximately 13,000 active employees. See question 46 for a breakdown of employee groups.
5 / How many office locations would be utilizing this new system? / Depending on how “office location” is defined, there could be hundreds of locations.
6 / Section 1.5, Page 14 - Would the state consider executing two contracts? For example, one with the software / hosting provider and one with the implementation provider? / The State intends to execute a single contract.
7 / Section 2.6.5.2, Page 33 - Would the state consider a solution which included a recommendation to maintain the current legacy MS-TAMS system? / The State prefers a solution that would replace the MS-TAMS system.
8 / How much is the state paying currently to maintain the CGI Managed Advantage financial system? / The State has no plans to replace its financial ERP system (see Revised Language in RFP section of RFP Amendment – page 1 of this document).
9 / Section 5.3.7, Page 82 - Would the state consider waiving the $25,000 appeal deposit requirement if a vendor chose to waive their right to lodge an award appeal at the time of proposal submission? / The appeal deposit is mandatory. The State will not waive the deposit requirement (see question 27).
Question # / Question / Answer
10 / Has funding been appropriated for the acquisition of the HR Management system? If yes, at what level of funding? / There is no separate appropriation for the acquisition of the HRMS system. The current cost of the system(s) to be replaced is $4,880,000 annually.
11 / Section 1.1, Page 7 - $4,880,000 was reference as the cost to support the current internal systems annually. Does that $4.8 Million figure include the CGI Managed Advantage system in addition to cost associated with the GEAC application? / This cost does not include the CGI Managed Advantage system(see Revised Language in RFP section of RFP Amendment – page 1 of this document).
12 / Page 10: Section 1.1.2.10 - Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) Billing System / Employee Health & Benefits, Division of Employee Health – Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (“COBRA”) Billing System
The RFP states that this service is in scope for the RFP.
  1. Does the SOM prefer to continue services through your current provider?
  2. Would the successful vendor provide billing services only for COBRA? Or, would the SOM prefer the bidding vendor provide comprehensive COBRA administrative services?
  3. Should COBRA administration services be included in the RFP if able to be provided by the bidding vendor?
/ 1. Yes. For now the State of Maine will continue to use its current COBRA provider for ADMINISTRATIVE services.
2.a.) Yes. The Successful vendor would provide COBRA BILLING services. b.) No. Comprehensive ADMINISTRATIVE services for COBRA are not currently within scope.
3. COBRA ADMINISTRATIVE services should not be included in the bidding vendor’s overall proposal.
Question # / Question / Answer
13 / Page 15: Section 2.1.2 - Priorities
The RFP states that the solution can be phased if the State determines that a prioritization provides an advantage, but if so, the process areas indicated below must be included in the first phase. Please provide clarification of your phase timelines.
  1. What is the expectation of the first phase completion date?
  2. How many phases may the SOM expect for the full implementation of your HRMS system?
/ The vendor should propose a schedule and strategy that best reflects their proposed implementation timeline. The State does not wish to incur the cost of maintaining parallel systems during the implementation period.
14 / Page 16: Section 2.1.2 - Priorities
The RFP states, “Bidders are required to propose a solution that meets the requirements of the State’s Time and Attendance application (MS-TAMS).” There is no reference to replacing the three other existing time and attendance systems: One World, Free2000, and TimeTrak/TimeClock. Does the State of Maine intend on retaining these other time and attendance systems? / The State does not intend to replace these systems currently.
Question # / Question / Answer
15 / Page 16: Section 2.2 – Remote Hosting / Item 2.2.1 – Approach
The RFP states that the proposal must adhere to the State of Maine Remote Hosting Policy and Procedures found in Appendix A – Supporting Policy Documents (State of Maine Remote Hosting Policy).
In the SOM Remote Hosting Policy, Section IV – Responsibilities / Item A. Hosting Vendors / Item 8j, the requirements are stated that the vendor must submit the following detailed reports:
j. Any up-to-date third party security audit reports such as:
  • SSAE 16 SOC 2 Type II
  • FISMA Level 3 ATO
  • FedRAMP CSP
  • ISO/IEC 27001:2005
  • US-EU Safe Harbor Framework
  • SkyHigh CloudTrust
  • PCI-DSS
Based on up-to-date third party audit reports; the Contract Administrator may relieve the hosting vendor from some of the reporting requirements enumerated above.
Will ISO/IEC 27001:2005 reporting which qualifies in the Remote Hosting Policy documents satisfy the requirements in Section 2.4 – Security of the RFP document? / Nothing unilaterally relieves the security requirements set forth in the RFP. However, any third-party security certificate contributes toward the full evaluation & scoring.
Question # / Question / Answer
16 / Page 20: Section 2.4 – Security / Item 2.4.2 – Planning
The RFP states that the successful Vendor will be required to provide proof of adherence to industry and government standards including but not limited to SSAE 16 SOC II Type 2, FISMA Level 3, or FedRAMP CSP Examination, etc. Then, in Section 2.5 – Infrastructure Documentation, the RFP states that the vendor will provide documentation including attestation for SSAE 16 SOC II Type 2 or FISMA Level 3 or FedRAMP CSP.
  • Will SSAE 116 SOC I Type 2, ISO 27001 Certification and voluntary US-EU Safe Harbor Framework qualify in lieu of the SSAE 16 SOC II Type 2, FISMA Level 3, or FedRAMP CSP documentation described?
/ No.
Question # / Question / Answer
17 / In the SOM Remote Hosting Policy, Section IV – Responsibilities / Item A. Hosting Vendors / Item 8j, the requirements are stated that the vendor must submit the following detailed reports:
j. Any up-to-date third party security audit reports such as:
  • SSAE 16 SOC 2 Type II
  • FISMA Level 3 ATO
  • FedRAMP CSP
  • ISO/IEC 27001:2005
  • US-EU Safe Harbor Framework
  • SkyHigh CloudTrust
  • PCI-DSS
Based on up-to-date third party audit reports; the Contract Administrator may relieve the hosting vendor from some of the reporting requirements enumerated above.
  • Will ISO/IEC 27001:2005 reporting which qualifies in the Remote Hosting Policy documents satisfy the requirements in Section 2.4 – Security of the RFP document?
/ Nothing unilaterally relieves the security requirements set forth in the RFP. However, any third-party security certificate contributes toward the full evaluation & scoring
(see question 15).
Question # / Question / Answer
18 / Page 75: Part 3 – Related Services / Item 3.1.1. – Functional Area: Related Services
The RFP states that the SOM is interested in receiving information for services related to proposed application functionality, where applicable. Also, services that are provided by the vendor to make these processes more efficient and less costly are requested to be presented.
  1. Per the instructions, please confirm that descriptions of related services should be presented in the Workbook 7 – Pricing and Fees, in the narrative portion of our response to Operational Costs and Operational Cost Descriptions. Or,
  2. please clarify where such related services should be presented for the SOM’s consideration.
/ Descriptions of related services should be identified andpresented as part of the solution approach presented in Workbooks 1, 3 and 5, as appropriate. The cost of these services should be included in the “Operational Costs” section of the pricing submission in Workbook 7.
19 / Workbook 1 – Executive Summary:
Page 3: In Section 2.1 - Vendor Narrative of Solution Overview, there is no specified area to provide a response. Is a response requested in this section? / Yes.
Question # / Question / Answer
20 / Workbook 3 – Response to Technical and Functional Requirements:
Please confirm that the following Req. items are left blank in the Workbook 3 – Response to Technical and Functional Requirements:
Page 10: Req. 29
Page 10: Req. 31
Page 10: Req. 33
Page 24: Req. 206
Page 24: Req. 207
Page 24: Req. 208
Page 35: Req. 318
Page 36: Req. 327
Page 41: Req. 385
Please confirm that these items do not require a response in the Workbook 3 – Response to Technical and Functional Requirements. / Confirmed. These requirements are left blank and require no response.
Question # / Question / Answer
21 / Please clarify whether the State of Maine is interested in a learning management system as part of the solution. While this requirement is not identified specifically within the Table of Contents or the Maine HRMS RFP – SaaS Procurement Document, it is potentially involved in the following items within the Workbook 3 – Response to Technical and Functional Requirements:
  • Page 45: Section 4 – Functional Requirements / Section 4.9 – Employee Data and Records Management / Section 4.9.1 – Performance Management / Section 4.9.1.1 – Performance Evaluations / Req. 446: Ability to tie training, education, and/or certification to the evaluation.
  • Page 71: Section 4 – Functional Requirements – Section 4.16 – Employee Communications and Self Service / Section 4.16.1 – General / Req. 707: Provide a Training Module/Scheduler that allows HR to complete the following tasks (including, but not limited to):
  1. Build a training session;
  2. Allow HR to set up: date, time, location, web;
  3. Allow users to sign in as self and sign up for a class/training for a certain date/time;
  4. Generate a notice to the supervisor for approval/time; and
  5. Allow for a confirmation to be sent.
/ The State is not requesting a separate Learning Management System. The State is interested in a proposed solution that satisfies each of the requirements listed.
Question # / Question / Answer
22 / Page 40: Section 4 – Functional Requirements / Section 4.7 – Time and Attendance / Section 4.7.4 – Cost Accounting and Labor Cost Distribution / Req. 377:
  • Approximately how many new projects or cost centers are created annually?
/ There are hundreds of new projects or cost centers created annually.
23 / Page 45: Section 4 – Functional Requirements / Section 4.9 – Employee Data and Records Management / Section 4.9.1 – Performance Management / Section 4.9.1.1 – Performance Evaluations – Req. 441:
  • What sort of special situations may need to be accommodated regarding performance evaluation schedules? Please clarify your definition of special situation.
/ Circumstances outside predefined or required schedules. For example, ad hoc evaluations due to special projects, employee development plans or progress milestones.
Special situations that might exist outside of predefined areas might include change in rater during the evaluation period, a change in performance expectations during the rating period, performance improvement plans, or completion of another performance review resulting from a grievance appeal or settlement award.
24 / Page 66: Section 4 – Functional Requirements / Section 4.15 – Recruiting, Staffing, and Resourcing / Section 4.15.1 – Recruitment / Section 4.15.1.1 – General – Req. 648:
  • Please describe the testing process you will ask applicants to complete and whether this will be within the HCM technology, or if this will continue to be a manual process.
/ In this example, it is anticipated that the testing occurs outside the HRMS solution.
Question # / Question / Answer
25 / Page 68: Section 4 – Functional Requirements / Section 4.15 – Recruiting, Staffing, and Resourcing / Section 4.15.1 – Recruitment / Section 4.15.1.3 – Applicant Access – Req. 676:
  • Please describe the appeals process applicants can complete regarding application scores.
/ Any determination of disqualification shall be reported in writing to the person, applicant, or eligible, together with a statement expressing a right to appeal such determination to the Director of Human Resources. Any competitor may appeal to the Director of Human Resources for reconsideration of his/her rating in any examination within thirty (30) calendar days after the date notice of rating is mailed, by written request to the Director for review of such rating. The Director shall grant such review in the event that satisfactory reasons are presented therefor, and may change the rating of the competitor if, upon such review, it is determined that an error was made in the original rating. If such review shall disclose errors affecting the ratings of other competitors, then the review may be extended to the ratings of such other competitors.
Question # / Question / Answer
26 / Page 73: Section 5 – Detailed Solution: The instructions request the vendor provide information for each requirement. Please clarify your definition of each requirement.
  1. Does the State of Maine want to see all bulleted information points addressed for each of the 710 Req. items defined in Section 4 – Functional Requirements? Or,
  2. does the State of Maine want to see all bulleted information points addressed for each of the major functional areas, as defined in the Maine HRMS RFP – SaaS Procurement Document?
These would include:
Payroll
Time and Attendance and Labor Cost Distribution
Human Resources (Executive Information, Org Chart, Policy)
Employee Data and Records Management
Reporting
Personnel Actions
Position Control
Compensation and Classification Administration
Benefits Administration
Recruiting, Staffing, and Resourcing
Performance Management
Employee Communications and Self Services
Clarification of the State of Maine’s expectations and requirements for this response is appreciated. / If the Vendor chooses to group related requirements, they may do so, as long as it is clear how each requirement is being satisfied, and a traceability matrix is provided to show how the solution relates to each individual requirement.
Question # / Question / Answer
27 / RFP Section 5.3 Proposal Contents, Subsection 5.3.7 Appeal Deposit:
  1. Is the appeal deposit of $25,000.00 presented in the RFP a mandatory item for the RFP submission to be considered?
  2. What happens if an appeal deposit is not submitted?
  3. Will my RFP response be considered without a check?
/ The appeal deposit is mandatory. Proposals will not be considered without an appeal deposit (see question 9).
28 / After a RFP award is made, and a vendor indicates it will not appeal the award, will the appeal deposit be immediately returned to the submitter? / If a bidder does not request an appeal hearing, the process to refund their appeal deposit will begin immediately after the appeal period has expired.
29 / Section 46 of the State’s proposed Contract Terms and Conditions (BP54_IT) describes an irrevocable letter of credit to be placed on file by the Provider for the full amount of the agreement, payable upon demand of the State. This provision represents significant expense and risk to IT services providers and would be both highly unusual and unnecessary in the context of this contract. The cost to the Provider of making the required amount of capital available to the State for the duration of the project is significant. Since the State has adequate contractual mechanisms available to ensure the Contractor’s performance (e.g. review/acceptance of deliverables, warranty, retainage), will the State remove this letter of credit requirement to maximize the pool of bidding vendors? / The State is willing to waive the irrevocable letter of credit requirement since pricing requirements assume that first payment is not due until acceptance of full transition and go-live.
30 / In the context of section 2.5, please advise the total number of employees and retirees expected to need access to the HRMS system, so that adequate software licenses can be procured. / The State has approximately 13,000 active employees. See question 46 for a breakdown of employee groups.
Question # / Question / Answer
31 / In the context of section 2.3, would the State please provide an As-Is diagram of the technical architecture, including integration points? /
Answers to Q31-zipped
32 / Assuming the requirements for onshore data (section 3.1, REQ1) and disaster recovery (section 3.1, REQ4) are met, does the State of Maine have any limitations on the type of work, duration, specific location, etc., of non-US work? Can the respondent utilize the resource mix they deem most appropriate from a skill, cost, and risk standpoint? / No limitation on off-shore human resources, as long as ALL data residency within the Continental U.S. and ALL legal stipulations are based on Maine & U.S. laws.