COORDINATING COMMITTEE

Transcription

1 COORDINATING COMMITTEE PUR-1254 ADDENDUM NO. 2 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS REGARDING QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE AND PRICE PROPOSALS PEOPLESOFT CONSULTANT SERVICES REQUIREMENTS CONTRACT DATE: Friday, August 22, 2014 PROPOSALS DUE: Wednesday, September 3, :00 P.M. To Proposers: This Addendum is hereby made a part of the Contract Documents on which all proposals will be based and is issued to correct and/or clarify the original Request for Proposal (RFP) documents. Please acknowledge receipt of this Addendum in your Qualifications and Experience Proposal and Price Proposal. This Addendum consists of four (4) pages. ITEM NO. 1: Inquiry: We like to know that is there any incumbent for this project? If yes, kindly provide the details of the same. Response: The County does not have a consultant incumbent obligation because the consultant services contract has expired (April 2014). The previous designated responsive-responsible consultant (primary) and four stand-by(s) were as follows: Primary: Peak Performance Technologies Inc. Alpharetta, GA Stand-by: Clarris Group, LLC Lanham, MD Navigator Management Partners, LLC Clarksville, MD efusion Consulting, LLC Atlanta, GA Cherry Road Technologies, Inc. Parsippany, NJ ITEM NO. 2: Inquiry: Page ii of the RFP states that the county will make positive efforts to utilize Disadvantaged Business Enterprises. Are there any set-asides for small business and/or DBE s? Response: There are none. (NOTE: The wording of all Inquiries submitted are displayed exactly as received.) 100 West Washington Street, Room 320 Hagerstown, MD P: F: Hearing Impaired:

2 ADDENDUM NO. 2 PeopleSoft Consultant Services PUR-1254 Page 2 ITEM NO. 3: Inquiry: Section 7 of the RFP lists initiatives, lettered a through f. Are each of these projects to be awarded as individual task orders to one consulting firm or is it anticipated that the tasks would be apportioned amongst multiple firms? Response: On a case-by-case basis (funding permitting) and at the leisure of the newly elected Board of County Commissioners (December 2014), these initiatives (assignments) would be initially offered to the designated responsive-responsible consultant with the lowest proposal price as specified in the Project Assignment Sequence outlined in Section V. PROJECT ASSIGNMENT SEQUENCE, pages 5-7. ITEM NO. 4: Inquiry: Are operations and maintenance tasks anticipated postimplementation for each or all initiatives outlined in section 7? Response: Post production support (30 60 days) would be specified in each individual assignment s Statement of Work (SOW). ITEM NO. 5: Inquiry: What is the current employee base of the application? Do you anticipate growth or attrition of the employee population? Response: The County currently has approximately 750 full-time and 250 part-time employees; therefore the employee count is slightly over ITEM NO. 6: Inquiry: What is the current size of the administrative/functional users within each application? Response: The County has approximately 200 financial and 12 HR system functional users. Administrative users are limited to two (2) users per system. ITEM NO. 7: Inquiry: Is it possible to attain a list of all module/components used for each of the ERP silos, i.e. HCM, Financials, EPM? Response: The County is licensed for Human Resources, Payroll, Benefits Administration, E-Services, General Ledger, Receivables, Payables, Asset Management, Projects, Budgets, Billing, Purchasing, Inventory and EPM Budgeting. The County will be phasing out and discontinuing use of Receivables and Billing by October 1, ITEM NO. 8: Inquiry: Are there any new modules/components that are on the wish-list for implementation? Response: Position Management and Time & Labor (which may or may not be a PeopleSoft/Oracle licensed product). (NOTE: The wording of all Inquiries submitted are displayed exactly as received.)

3 ADDENDUM NO. 2 PeopleSoft Consultant Services PUR-1254 Page 3 ITEM NO. 9: Inquiry: Regarding position management, is full or partial position management anticipated? Response: Full position management. ITEM NO. 10: Inquiry: Is position budgeting or project costing anticipated? Does the county have any preferences in terms of how budgeting is implemented? Response: The County anticipates implementing position budgeting; the County has already implemented project costing. At this time, the County does not have any preference on how budgeting is implemented. ITEM NO. 11: Inquiry: Is payroll performed in-house using PeopleSoft HCM? Is Payroll for North America implemented? Response: The County uses Payroll for North America and processes payroll in-house. ITEM NO. 12: Inquiry: Is it anticipated that the PeopleTools upgraded be performed concurrently with the upgrades of the HCM and Financial systems? Response: If upgrades to the HCM or Financial systems dictate that PeopleTool upgrades are required then there would be assignment SOW specifications established to address this need. ITEM NO. 13: Inquiry: Does the IT Department have it s own Software Quality Assurance (SQA) or Independent Validation and Verification (IV&V) testing teams? Response: No. The IT Department has two (2) staff members providing primary operational support using Oracle Customer Support. ITEM NO. 14: Inquiry: system? Is there an incumbent consulting form maintaining the current Response: See Item No. 1 above. ITEM NO. 15: Inquiry: Is there an anticipated timeline when the county would like each of the initiatives outlined in section 7 completed by? Response: No anticipated timeline has been established. Also, please refer to Item No. 3 above. ITEM NO. 16: Inquiry: We do not have the capability to accurately predict the man hours needed on project and would bill Washington County on a Time & Material basis. We are able to provide a consultant at an hourly rate, on a shall not exceed basis (with the pretense that shall not exceed pertains to our proposed (NOTE: The wording of all Inquiries submitted are displayed exactly as received.)

4 ADDENDUM NO. 2 PeopleSoft Consultant Services PUR-1254 Page 4 rate cap submitted with our RFP). My question pertains to V. Project Assignment Sequence A & B - #3. Are we able to bid on this opportunity with our business model since we will not be providing and held to certain project duration estimates that we would provide? Response: Project (assignment) duration estimates are developed and specified by the consultant for each and every project assignment. These estimates are then documented in the consultant s respective response to each assignment s SOW specification. The RFP price proposal (PUR-1254) is soliciting best price hourly rates for each consultant discipline identified (onsite and remote) which are subsequently used by the consultant to prepare their responses to project assignment s SOW. ITEM NO. 17: Inquiry: Can an example of a potential task order be provided? Response: Yes. See the HRMS 9.1 Ben Admin PDF attachment. ITEM NO. 18: Inquiry: Will task orders be on a per consultant basis or per requirements, such as analyze and update existing 3 rd party interface? Response: Assignments (task orders) are based on requirements that are described and specified in the SOW and are initially offered to the designated responsive-responsible consultant for their response. Also, please refer to Item No. 3 above. ITEM NO. 19: Inquiry: Have periods of performance or length of assignments per task order been identified? Please give an example or estimate. Response: The periods of performance or length of assignment are determined by the consultant(s) in their respective response to the project assignment SOW per the project assignment sequence. The SOW may propose preferred target dates but these dates are not mandatory. By Authority of: Karen R. Luther, CPPO Director of Purchasing BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND (NOTE: The wording of all Inquiries submitted are displayed exactly as received.)

5 June 4, 2012 Attn: RE: Peak Performance Technologies, Inc. Clarris Group, LLC Navigator Management Partners, LLC efusion Consulting, LLC w/css International, Inc. Cherry Road Technologies, Inc. Request for Proposal HRMS 9.1 Mentoring and Assistance Request for Price Proposal under Dear Vendor: The Board of County Commissioners of Washington County Maryland ( County ) is requesting written price proposals to provide public sector PeopleSoft functional and technical consultant services for HRMS 9.1 Benefits Administration Implementation Assistance. It has been determined by the County that the expected fee for this project assignment is in excess of $25,000 and therefore, is offering this solicitation to the County s responsive-responsible designated consultant* and the four (4) stand-by list consultants, as specified in, PeopleSoft Consultant Services and awarded by the Board of County Commissioners on April 14, Consultants eligible to participate in this solicitation are as follows: 1. Peak Performance Technologies, Inc. * 2. Clarris Group, LLC 3. Navigator Management Partners, LLC 4. efusion Consulting, LLC w/css International, Inc. 5. Cherry Road Technologies, Inc. As specified in, this assignment (HRMS 9.1 Benefits Administration Implementation Assistance) shall have a defined scope of work and shall be distributed to each of the five (5) firms. All firms shall have the opportunity to submit a proposal to complete the work defined. The assignment value shall be determined when the consultant applies the necessary man-hours and its quoted applicable rates (rates quoted in response to ) to the assignment. A. Overview For the purpose of preparing a response to this request for proposal, the following is presented as a typical project assignment sequence. Page 1 of 8

6 Regardless of the value of the professional fee, the consultant shall submit a proposal within three (3) weeks of issuing the request. In order to remain on the stand-by list, each and every consultant must respond to the request for proposals by either submitting a proposal or a letter indicating no interest or lack of available manpower for the respective assignment. Failure to provide a response by the designated deadline may be just cause for the County to remove the consultant from the stand-by list. Project assignments with a professional services fee equal to or greater than $25,000: 1. The County will develop a scope of work and forward it to the designated responsiveresponsible consultant with the lowest price proposal and all consultants designated on the stand-by list. The County will designate if liquidated damages will apply to this project as part of the scope. 2. The County may hold a scoping meeting with the consultant s to further explain any specifics regarding the project or provide documents and information necessary to prepare a reasonable proposal. 3. The consultants shall estimate the number of man-hours necessary to complete the scope defined. The consultant shall prepare man-hour summary and proposal submission to the County for review and comment. The consultant shall not deviate from the stated hourly rates in the original price proposal throughout the duration of the contract including any extensions, unless specifically authorized in writing by the County. At a minimum, the proposal must include a detailed summary of the work to be completed, a specific man-hour (by job classification) summary of the positions used on the assignment, and a schedule that includes estimated time of completion (including reasonable and customary expectations for County reviews). The County shall designate an on or before date and time to receive the proposals from the consultants. The County will publicly open the proposals at the designated location, date and time. 4. The County shall review the proposals to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of this RFP and the contract. Assuming all contractual matters are in compliance, the County shall award the project assignment to the overall responsiveresponsible consultant with the lowest price proposal. In unique situations where time is of the essence, the County may award the project assignment based upon the consultant s schedule. This may only be exercised on project assignments where liquidated damages apply. 5. The County awards the project assignment. The County will issue a notice to proceed (NTP) to the consultant. In the event that the County and none of the consultants can come to an agreement on the professional fee and/or schedule for completion, the County may elect, and reserves the right, to prepare and advertise the project independent of this contract. 6. The consultant shall commence with the work defined in the scope of services. The Page 2 of 8

7 consultant may not commence with any work without a written NTP from the County. Any deviation from this typical sequence will be determined prior to issuing the Notice to Proceed. Regardless, the conditions relating to the fee limitations shall apply throughout the duration of this contract. The consultant shall plan for County reviews. A typical review period is between one (1) and two (2) weeks in duration depending on the complexity of the assignment. After issuing a scope of work and request for proposals, the County will entertain questions or a request from the consultant for clarifications to the scope of work, up until ten (10) calendar days prior to the deadline for submission of the proposals. The County will issue a response to the questions or clarification to all the consultants from which proposals have been sought. No response to questions or clarifications will be considered by the County less than ten (10) calendar days within the date and time of the submission. The County, at its discretion, may postpone the deadline to submit proposals if additional time is necessary to clarify a complex issue or provide additional guidance to the consultants. B. Terms and Conditions 1. All proposals shall be based solely on, Primary or Stand-by Agreement, this RFP and any written Addenda. 2. This Request for Proposal (RFP) does not commit Washington County to award a contract, issue a purchase order, or to pay any costs incurred in the preparation of a proposal in response to this RFP. 3. The proposal shall become part of Washington County official files without any obligation on Washington County s part. 4. Proposer shall not offer any gratuities, favors, or anything of monetary value to any officer, agent, contractor, or employee of the County for the purpose of influencing consideration of a proposal. 5. Proposer, their authorized representatives, and their agents are responsible for obtaining, and will be deemed to have, full knowledge of the conditions, requirements, and specifications of this RFP. Page 3 of 8

8 6. The proposer must promptly report to the County any conditions, transactions, situation, or circumstance that would impede, impair or delay the proper and timely performance of their work. 7. The County reserves the right to cancel this RFP or to reject any proposal received prior to contract award. 8. The County reserves the right to request clarification of any proposal. The request can be in the form of oral presentation or personal meetings. 9. The County reserves the right to reject any and all proposals and waive irregularities and informalities in any proposal that is submitted and to be sole and final judge of all proposals. 10. The County reserves the right to discontinue its evaluation of a proposal from any respondent who submits false, misleading or incorrect information. C. Scope of Work Washington County Maryland is seeking functional and technical consulting assistance during the County s implementation of the Benefits Administration (Ben Admin) feature of PeopleSoft s HRMS 9.1 using PeopleTools , per the Primary Agreement. This assignment consists of two phases. The County s preference is for remote site assistance (work to be performed remotely). Consultant cannot invoice for more than the estimated hours contained in their proposal and consultant may only invoice for actual hours provided to County. Consultant s invoice(s) shall provide a detailed list of actual hours billed in order that they may be verified and confirmed by appropriate County staff. Current Environment/Status PeopleSoft HRMS 9.1 PeopleTools HRMS 9.1 Demo, Production and Test databases created on Microsoft SQL Server 2005 All application bundles and updates applied using Change Assistant HRDMO91, HRPRD91, HRBEN91, HRTAX91 and HRTST91 domains are operational Approximately Twenty six (26) defined Benefit plans. Approximately 775 full time employees. Page 4 of 8

9 Special Consideration or Exception Several County employee groups (e.g. court bailiffs, part-time, seasonal or temporary workers) are not to be included in any of the defined benefit structures. The assignment will be broken into two distinct phases with specific tasks, deliverables and milestones: Phase 1 Tasks (Benefits Administration) Perform Requirements Gathering Design Action Reasons Code Table Design Event Rules and Eligibility Rules Design FMLA model Configure Open Enrollment Process o Benefit Programs and Plans o Rates and Coverage Codes o Event and Eligibility Rules tied to Programs/Plans/Options o Configure FMLA Provide assistance, guidance and testing of the Benefits Administration System for Open Enrollment Processing Provide post production support and training assistance that shall include any applicable training or knowledge transfer for County technical/functional staff and the successful remediation of any post production issues or errors Phase 2 Tasks (COBRA, e-services, HIPAA EDI 834) Configure Event Maintenance Processing Configure COBRA Processing Configure e-benefits, e-profile, Self Service Functionality Setup and configure HIPAA EDI 834 file. Assist with testing, verification and debugging efforts Train and mentor client on how to properly utilize Event Maintenance and COBRA processing Provide post production support and training assistance that shall include any applicable training or knowledge transfer for County technical/functional staff and the successful remediation of any post production issues or errors Tentative Phase 1 & 2 Targets Target Start Date: July 16, 2012 Target Production Date: March 1, 2013 Target Post Production Support Date: April 30, 2013 Page 5 of 8

10 D. Interpretations, Discrepancies and Omissions Should the proposer find discrepancies in or omissions from the documents or be in doubt of their meaning, he should at once request in writing an interpretation from: Angela Poffenberger, Database Administrator Washington County Information Technology Department 100 W Washington Street, Room 334 Hagerstown, Maryland, Phone: FAX: apoff@washco-md.net All necessary interpretations will be issued to the proposer in the form of addenda to the specifications, and such addenda shall become part of the contract documents. No request received after 9:00 am, Monday, June 18, 2012 shall be considered. Every interpretation made by the County will be made in the form of an addendum which, if issued, will be sent to each proposer, and such addenda shall become part of the contract documents. The respondent must submit three (3) copies of their proposal, each signed by an authorized representative of the firm. The proposal must be submitted to arrive no later than 4:00 pm (local time) DST, Monday, June 25, 2012 to: Angela Poffenberger, Database Administrator Washington County Commissioners 100 W Washington Street, Room 334 Hagerstown, Maryland, The Board of County Commissioners of Washington County reserves the right to reject any or all proposals, to waive technicalities and to take whatever action is in the best interest of Washington County. Inquiries regarding this request shall be directed to: Angela Poffenberger, Database Administrator Washington County Commissioners 100 W Washington Street, Room 334 Hagerstown, Maryland, Phone: FAX: apoff@washco-md.net Page 6 of 8

11 E. Detailed Work Summary The Vendor s written response shall include the following: Not-to-Exceed Assignment Costs Form (Attachment A) A detailed summary of the work to be completed A specific man-hour summary of the positions used in each phase (1 & 2) of the assignment A proposed assignment schedule that includes an estimated time of completion for each phase Page 7 of 8

12 Attachment A HRMS 9.1 Benefits Administration Implementation Assistance Not-to-Exceed Assignment Costs Firm Name: Address: Hereby agrees to provide the requested services defined in the proposal, attachments thereto, and Addenda No., Dated ; No., Dated ; for the following amounts. The written Grand Total Not-to-Exceed Assignment Cost shall govern. Total Hours/Cost on-site (Example: 40 hrs * $100 = $4000) for Phase 1 & 2 a. HRMS Functional: b. HRMS Technical: Total Hours/Cost remote (Example: 40 hrs * $100 = $4000) for Phase 1 & 2 a. HRMS Functional: b. HRMS Technical: Grand Total Not-to-Exceed Assignment Cost: (Written) $ (Figures) Signature of Officer of Firm: Printed Name and Title: Date: Page 8 of 8