SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
       REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
             10005-SCERP01
ENTERPRISE RESOURCES PLANNING SYSTEM

 ...
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
                                                                                  REQUEST FOR P...
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
                                                                               REQUEST FOR PROP...
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
                                                      REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM




Fe...
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
                                                    REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM



Propo...
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
                                                    REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM




SECT...
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
                                                       REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM




C...
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
                                                    REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM




SECT...
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
                                                     REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM




B: ...
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
                                                    REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM



   th...
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
                                                      REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM




E:...
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
                                                     REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM



   T...
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
                                                     REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM



   U...
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
                                                    REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM



   Us...
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
                                                    REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM




SECT...
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
                                                    REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM




   5...
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
                                                      REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM



   ...
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
                                                      REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM



   ...
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
                                                  REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM




SECTIO...
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
                                                     REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM




   ...
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
                                                        REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM




...
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
                                                     REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM



    ...
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
                                                    REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM




SECT...
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
                                                     REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM




B: ...
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
                                                    REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM



     ...
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
                                                   REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM



   For...
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
                                                     REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM



   T...
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
                                                   REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM



   hou...
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
                                                    REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM



     ...
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
                                                              REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTE...
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
                                                    REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM




K: C...
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
                                                   REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM




N: AP...
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
                                             REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM




SECTION VI ...
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
                                                  REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM




      ...
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
                                                REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM




        ...
Request for Proposals - Enterprise Resources Planning System.doc
Request for Proposals - Enterprise Resources Planning System.doc
Request for Proposals - Enterprise Resources Planning System.doc
Request for Proposals - Enterprise Resources Planning System.doc
Request for Proposals - Enterprise Resources Planning System.doc
Request for Proposals - Enterprise Resources Planning System.doc
Request for Proposals - Enterprise Resources Planning System.doc
Request for Proposals - Enterprise Resources Planning System.doc
Request for Proposals - Enterprise Resources Planning System.doc
Request for Proposals - Enterprise Resources Planning System.doc
Request for Proposals - Enterprise Resources Planning System.doc
Request for Proposals - Enterprise Resources Planning System.doc
Request for Proposals - Enterprise Resources Planning System.doc
Request for Proposals - Enterprise Resources Planning System.doc
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Request for Proposals - Enterprise Resources Planning System.doc

976

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
976
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
37
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Request for Proposals - Enterprise Resources Planning System.doc

  1. 1. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS 10005-SCERP01 ENTERPRISE RESOURCES PLANNING SYSTEM Proposal Release Date February 11, 2009 Optional Pre-Bid Meeting March 2, 2009, 10:00 AM Central Standard Time 4th Floor Conference Room 400 Royal Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Proposal Submittal Due Date March 25, 2009 at 5:00 PM Central Standard Time To: Terence Sims Deputy Judicial Administrator Office of the Judicial Administrator Supreme Court of Louisiana 400 Royal Street, Suite 1190 New Orleans, LA 70130
  2. 2. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I.BACKGROUND AND GENERAL INFORMATION........................................... 5 A. ORGANIZATION OVERVIEW................................................................................ 5 B. PROJECT BACKGROUND.................................................................................... 5 C. CURRENT SYSTEMS OVERVIEW........................................................................ 6 D. TECHNOLOGY ENVIRONMENT AND STANDARDS............................................ 6 SECTION II.SCOPE OF WORK .......................................................................................... 7 A. SOFTWARE SOLUTION........................................................................................ 7 B. COURT RESPONSIBILITIES................................................................................. 7 C. PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES................................................................. 8 D. PLANNING............................................................................................................. 9 E. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN...................................................................................... 9 F. SYSTEMS INTEGRATION PLAN........................................................................... 10 G. DATA CONVERSION PLAN................................................................................... 10 H. DATA / SYSTEM INTERFACES PLAN.................................................................. 11 I. TEST PLAN............................................................................................................ 11 J. TRAINING PLAN.................................................................................................... 12 K. DOCUMENTATION................................................................................................ 12 L. SYSTEM DEPLOYMENT PLAN............................................................................. 13 M. PRE AND POST GO-LIVE SUPPORT1................................................................. 13 SECTION III.RFP GUIDELINES AND SCHEDULE............................................................. 14 A. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS................................................................................. 14 B. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS............................................................................ 14 C. THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA SAMPLE CONTRACT.......................... 15 D. PROPOSAL POSTPONEMENT AND ADDENDUM............................................... 15 E. PROPOSAL WITHDRAWAL................................................................................... 15 F. VENDOR’S INVESTIGATION................................................................................. 16 G. AWARD.................................................................................................................. 16 H. NON-COLLUSION AFFIDAVIT............................................................................... 16 I. PROPOSAL CONTENTS....................................................................................... 17 J. SCHEDULE............................................................................................................ 17 SECTION IV.RFP EVALUATION......................................................................................... 18 A. EVALUATION METHOD........................................................................................ 18 B. EVALUATION AND SCORING CRITERIA............................................................. 19 SECTION V.RFP RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS AND FORMAT....................................... 22 A. TITLE PAGE........................................................................................................... 22 B. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL.................................................................................. 22 C. TABLE OF CONTENTS.......................................................................................... 23 D. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................ 23 E. COMPANY BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE.................................................. 23 F. PROJECT UNDERSTANIND.................................................................................. 24 G. PROJECT STAFFING AND ORGANIZATION........................................................ 24 H. PROJECT WORK PLAN AND SCHEDULE............................................................ 25 I. SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND FUNCTIONALITY.................................................. 27 2
  3. 3. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM J. SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE, UPDATES, AND SUPPORT................................... 29 K. COST PROPOSAL................................................................................................. 29 L. CLIENT REFERENCES......................................................................................... 30 M. VENDOR PROFILE................................................................................................ 30 N. APPENDICES......................................................................................................... 30 SECTION VI.THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA SAMPLE CONTRACT................. 32 APPENDICES....................................................................................................................... 43 APPENDIX A.REQUIREMENTS WORKSHEETS........................................................... 43 APPENDIX B.PRICING WORKSHEETS......................................................................... 44 APPENDIX C.CLIENT REFERENCES............................................................................ 45 APPENDIX D.VENDOR PROFILE QUESTIONNAIRE.................................................... 46 APPENDIX E.INTERFACE DIAGRAM............................................................................ 47 APPENDIX F.SAMPLE NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT........................................... 48 3
  4. 4. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM February 11, 2009 SUBJECT: NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING SYSTEM The Supreme Court of Louisiana (hereinafter “Court”) invites proposals from qualified firms that possess outstanding qualifications, experience and knowledge to provide a fully integrated, preferably Windows-based, web-enabled applications information system for an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) System including core financial and human resources/payroll modules. The specific services requested in the Request for Proposals (RFP) are detailed in the attached Scope of Work. It is the goal of the Court to acquire a commercial-off-the-shelf product that will be configured to provide the full range of ERP system functionality (Please refer to Appendix A), using proven state-of-the-art technology that will provide the ability to plan, control and account for the Court’s business activities and resources. Assumptions: • The Contract resulting from this RFP shall include a Licensing Agreement, a Software Maintenance Agreement, and a Service Agreement for implementation, training, project management and software installation. • The Software Maintenance Agreement pricing shall encompass a minimum of five (5) years with annual renewals thereafter. • All communications concerning this RFP shall be submitted to Ms. Iris McGee at Schafer Consulting. Ms. McGee may be contacted via email at imcgee@schaferconsult.com, by phone at 949-276-7272 or by fax at 949-276-7273. Vendors and their representatives shall not make any contact or communicate with any employees or consultants of the Court, other than Ms. McGee, in regard to any aspect of this solicitation. • The Court has established a web site for disseminating information and documentation to Proposers regarding this procurement at http://www.lasc.org, under the heading Court News. The RFP, addenda and all related announcements and documents shall be posted on this web site. All Proposers shall have access to the web site for obtaining key information. Proposers have the responsibility of visiting the web site frequently and keeping themselves apprised of any information relevant to the RFP requirements, timelines, addenda, meetings, and related documents. Proposals must be received no later than 5:00 PM Central Standard Time on March 25, 2009. Late proposals will not be considered. Copies of the proposals should be submitted to both the Court and Schafer Consulting (See Section III (B) for details.) 4
  5. 5. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM Proposals delivered using the U.S. Postal Service (or by other means) shall be addressed as follows: Delivery Address #1: The Supreme Court of Louisiana Office of the Judicial Administrator 400 Royal Street, Suite 1190 New Orleans, LA 70130 Delivery Address #2: Schafer Consulting 9 Red Leaf Lane Ladera Ranch, CA 92694 Attention: Iris McGee Proposals and amendments to proposals received after the date and time specified above will not be considered. Parties interested in obtaining a copy of this RFP may do so by e-mailing their request to imcgee@schaferconsult.com or by either going to the Court’s website at www.lasc.org or the State of Louisiana website at http://www.doa.louisiana.gov/osp/lapac/pubmain.asp. Please include the following information when submitting a proposal: 1. Name of Offeror 2. Address 3. Contact Person 4. Telephone and Facsimile Number All correspondence and transmittals should be clearly marked as “ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING SYSTEM” and should indicate the date and time of RFP closing. An optional pre-proposal conference will be held on March 2, 2009 at 10:00 AM Central Standard Time in the Court’s 4th Floor Conference Room, 400 Royal Street, New Orleans, LA 70130. All prospective vendors are encouraged to attend the pre-proposal conference in person or to arrange to be teleconferenced in. The Court will provide an opportunity for the short-listed firms to demonstrate their software during the period from May 4, 2009 to May 22, 2009. All prospective vendors should keep this period available. Vendors must submit information that shows in detail how their proposed system complies with the Court’s minimum requirements. Vendors are also encouraged to submit any information that indicates how their proposed system would provide the Court with features and enhancements that exceed the minimum system requirements as set forth in this RFP. 5
  6. 6. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM SECTION I – BACKGROUND AND GENERAL INFORMATION A. Organization Overview The Supreme Court of Louisiana (hereinafter “Court”) is a state court of last resort with its principal offices located in the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana. The Court presently employs approximately 231 full-time employees. While a large majority of Court employees are housed in the 400 Royal Street Courthouse or in other New Orleans locations, a minority of Court employees (perhaps 10%) staff offices in Baton Rouge, Thibodeaux, Marksville, Winnsboro, and Shreveport. B. Project Background The Court initiated a Financial Technology Assessment Project to consider alternatives to its current payroll process as recommended by the State Legislative Auditor and to foster an environment of continuous improvement. At the same time, the Court recognizes that its financial/budget/human resources/payroll systems (collectively referred to as “financial systems”) may need to be reviewed to determine if these systems could be more effective and the current processes could be more efficient. Preliminary information indicated that an assessment of payroll alone would not be sufficient to develop alternatives and would be as costly as a total assessment of the entire financial systems. In March of 2007, the Court issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a technology assessor to provide a comprehensive assessment of the Court’s current financial, budget, human resources and payroll systems and to develop a Business Case which would provide alternative options for maintaining, enhancing or replacing the current systems. Upon the review of proposals from various firms, the evaluation committee selected Schafer Consulting to perform the Financial Technology Assessment Project. To support the Business Case, Schafer Consulting conducted a thorough needs assessment of the current systems, business processes, users’ needs, reports and constraints. These current processes were documented in a combination of narrative format and process workflows in Visio diagrams. This information will be provided to the successful bidder. In addition, a requirements analysis was performed to measure the operational gap that exists between the Court’s current state and the “desired” future state, which would ensure: • Compliance with all federal and local government regulations and generally accepted accounting principles • Public trust in the financial statements of the Supreme Court • Fiscal responsibility over public resources • Operational efficiency and effectiveness The result of the Business Case is a recommendation by Schafer Consulting to move forward with the purchase of a new integrated ERP system. 6
  7. 7. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM C. Current Systems Overview Currently, the Court uses Delta Computer Systems for financial and payroll purposes. Delta is COBOL based software implemented in 1988. The human resources software, ABRA, was implemented in 1996 but is not integrated with the financial and payroll systems. In addition, certain sections of the Court use Peachtree or QuickBooks for accounting purposes and InfiniTime for timekeeping. The following table highlights staffing and transactional volume statistics: Financial: Payroll/Human Resources: Category Value Category Value Full-time users* 9 Number of full time employees 726 Part-time users 17 Number of part time employees 3 Number of actively used funds Number of PAF’s processed each 800 93 year Number of legal entities 2 Number of pay codes 143 Number of actively used budget cost Number of deduction codes 218 centers – annual operating 93 Number of actively used budget cost Number of job rate classes 110 centers – multi-year projects 93 Number of asset, liability and equity Number of job applications received 1250 accounts 75 per year Number of revenue accounts 42 Number of Evaluation Cycles 3 Number of transfer accounts Number of Training Classes offered 20 4 per year Number of recurring journal vouchers (daily, weekly and most monthly) 88 Number of A/P checks processed per year 8714 Number of purchase orders created per year 700 Number of fixed assets (currently using the State’s system) 0 Number of grants received 35 Number of grants made 35 Number of vendors 3935 Number of active contracts 70 * The Court estimates 25 concurrent licenses will be needed for the new system, not including access to self-service features by everyone in the organization, including part-time users. D. Technology Environment and Standards For those vendors who wish to obtain a copy of the Court’s “Technology Environment and Standards” document, please sign and fax the Non-Disclosure Agreement provided under Appendix F to Terence Sims, Deputy Judicial Administrator at 504-310-2580. 7
  8. 8. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM SECTION II – SCOPE OF WORK A: Software Solution The Court intends to acquire and implement an integrated suite of enterprise applications that will meet present and future needs. The selected vendor will implement an application that is based on proven solutions that use state-of-the-art technologies. This includes browser-based, server-side architecture, a user-customizable Commercial off the Shelf (COTS) solution, and Court-standard database, operating system and programming platforms. The court will only consider proposals that are compatible with SQL Server 2008 and the .NET3.5 framework. The Court’s technology environment and standards will be provided to qualified vendors upon the execution of a non-disclosure agreement. (As noted earlier, the Non-Disclosure Agreement is provided under Appendix F.) It is the Court’s intention to procure and implement the ERP solution in two phases; Phase one represents the core financial modules and Phase two represents the human resources and payroll modules. At a minimum, the system must provide the following categories of functionality: 1. Core Financials, including: • General Ledger • Grant Management • Budget Management • Purchasing/Contracts • Accounts Payable • Revenue Management (AR/Billing) • Fixed Assets 2. Human Resources and Payroll, including: • Applicant Tracking • Leave Management • Personnel Management • Benefits Administration • Position Control • Payroll • Timekeeping The Court is open to new features and technologies not directly addressed by the requirements matrices detailed in this RFP. Vendors are encouraged to identify and propose enhancements in processes and technology that would be advantageous to the Court. 8
  9. 9. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM B: Court Responsibilities The Court will be responsible for supplying the following items and services, as required: a. Project team consisting of subject matter experts from each functional area/department b. Independent Project Oversight to be provided by Schafer Consulting c. Technical staff to assist the vendor in all phases of the project including design, implementation and training d. Coordination with selected vendor(s) to configure all required hardware and network equipment e. Dedicated office space and user workstations that meet the minimum specifications as recommended by the vendor, connected by a LAN f. Technical staff and support for design and development of system interfaces g. Lead role and technical staff to scrub and convert all legacy data h. Information, database files, data dictionaries, and other related information required to convert legacy data into the new system i. Lead role and subject matter experts in development of “to-be” business processes j. Lead role in configuration and setup of the system, including functionalities and processes k. Review and approval of the vendor’s design, displays and reports, test procedures, and system documentation l. Lead role in development of customized test scripts, and participation in unit, system and user acceptance testing m. Lead role in development of customized training materials and business process documentation n. Participation in training o. Participation and management of cut-over planning, go-live, and post-implementation services The Court has estimated the following level of resources will be dedicated to the project during the various phases of implementation as follows: • Project Management – .5 Full-time Equivalent (FTE) • Technical – 1 FTE for System Administration and 1 FTE for Data Analysis • Core Financial – .75 FTE’s • Human Resources/Payroll – 1.5 FTE’s C: Project Management Services The vendor shall assign a single ½ FTE Project Manager dedicated and available for the entire duration of the project. This Project Manager may only be replaced upon approval by 9
  10. 10. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM the Court. The Court project team, under the direction of a designated Court Project Manager, will work with the vendor’s Project Manager and consultant Project Manager to coordinate all project activities. All communications between the Court, the vendor and the Court’s Project Management consultant shall be coordinated through their respective Project Managers. At a minimum, the vendor’s Project Manager shall be responsible for the following: • Managing the day-to-day activities required to successfully implement the vendor’s solution • Providing periodic updates to the Project Work Plan and Schedule. Minor changes to the plan are subject to approval by the Court’s Project Manager. Major changes must be approved in a written change order to the Contract • Developing a Project Staffing Plan that includes vendor and Court staffing, level of participation in the project, and timing on when the staff members need to be available to work on the project. The Court requires the vendor to staff the project with seasoned professionals with relevant public sector experience • Submitting weekly Status Reports, including periodic reports to the Project Steering Committee • Taking part in status and communication meetings • Working with the Court’s Project Manager and consultant Project Manager to prepare agendas for project status meetings that highlight plans and major issues • Leading the combined project team to identify, manage, and address issues that arise throughout the course of the implementation • Communicating and coordinating the activities of the vendor’s staff • Working with the Court’s Project Manager and consultant Project Manager to ensure that the project stays on-track and within the established budget • Developing a Risk Management Plan that includes risk assessment, project and organizational impact, and mitigating actions. The plan shall be maintained and updated by the Project Manager throughout the entire life cycle of the project • Developing a Project Scope Change Plan to include:  Change Request Recording  Change Request Evaluation  Assessment of impact of the change to the project  Change Request acceptance procedures  Integration of the changes into the implementation  Documentation of the changes D: Planning The vendor shall work with the Court staff and will be responsible for planning and executing all phases of the system life cycle. This includes, but is not limited to Planning, Analysis, Design, System Implementation, Data Conversion, Interface Implementation, Testing, Training, and System and Program Documentation. As part of planning, the vendor shall include an Implementation Plan that includes the implementation strategy, cultural change management plan, and the strategy for transitioning from existing legacy systems to the new ERP modules while considering interim interfaces, and the impact on Court operations, as legacy systems are phased out. 10
  11. 11. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM E: Implementation Plan The Court requires that each bidder prepare a detailed Implementation Plan outlining the required tasks, estimated hours, responsibilities, major deliverables, and timing. At a minimum, the RFP response will cover the following areas: • Implementation approach • Environment installation, including supporting software (OS, DBMS, etc.) and hardware platform installation and configuration. The vendor shall be responsible for assisting the Court with configuring all the required environments, including testing, training, and production; plus assisting in application installation for the Court’s disaster recovery environment. • Installation of proposed application solution in a test, training, production, and disaster recovery environment • Application set-up (tailoring, configuration, end-user set up) • Workflow design and configuration • Forms design and configuration • Application-level security design and configuration • Design and development of customized reports • Backup and recovery Each implementation task should define the level of resources required, timing of resource needs, and deliverables for both the system provider and the Court. F: Systems Integration Plan The Systems Integration Plan shall include: • Integration approach • Approach to phase out legacy applications • Plan to address any custom code and 3rd party integrations included in the vendor’s overall solution • Types of existing interfaces available, including previously built interfaces to other systems identified in this RFP • Methods used to gather and document detailed requirements and translate the detailed business requirements to the design of the software configuration, customization and integration of the business rules, workflow, user interfaces, and reports. G: Data Conversion Plan The vendor shall utilize their data conversion tools/methodology to perform database conversions for the Court’s existing database and other ancillary systems. The Court’s project team has determined the degree of data conversion/migration necessary. For modules that are deemed to need data imported/migrated from existing applications, the Court will be responsible for exporting data fields in a flat file format (e.g. CSV, ASCII) suitable for import into the new system and allow the vendor the ability to develop their mapping and conversion routines. 11
  12. 12. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM The vendor will be required to provide all tables and field mapping, conversion, and import routines to the Court’s technical staff for verification and validation review. The vendor is ultimately responsible for data conversion. The following table is not necessarily all inclusive, but is intended to provide an idea regarding the data the Court anticipates needing to be converted to the new system: Module Data to Convert Financial Modules: General Ledger including Only year end balances if roll out Expenditures, Revenue, is at year end; otherwise only Encumbrances and Transfers. current year activity Budget Fiscal year end totals for 3 years Purchasing/Contracts Only outstanding PO’s and contracts Vendor Master File Only active vendors within the last 3 years HR/Payroll Modules: Human Resources Convert data going back to 1996 in ABRA. Some data may go back to 1984. Data in InfiniTime for timekeeping may also need to be converted. Payroll Only bring in year-to-date totals for employees unless roll out is not at year end, then only current year data. H: Data / System Interfaces Plan It is the Court’s objective to design and implement interfaces which will enable the Court to take advantage of improved processing and technology wherever possible. To this end, the vendor shall include an Interfaces Plan that describes the vendor’s methodology and implementation approach to address required interfaces. Please refer to Appendix E for a copy of the Court’s current interface diagram. Vendors should be mindful that some of the current interfaces (both electronic and manual) will go away with the purchase of an integrated ERP system. I: Test Plan Testing – The vendor shall include a Test Plan covering: unit, system, performance under normal and volume/stress conditions, fail-over, and security. The test plan shall describe the proposed approach taken with each stage of the test, the processes involved, plans to address issues encountered, testing tools utilized, acceptance criteria, and sign-off procedures. 12
  13. 13. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM User Acceptance – The vendor shall include a User Acceptance Test Plan, test data, sample test scripts, plan for maintaining test data, and methods to track reports and fixes for system malfunctions. Final Acceptance – The vendor shall include a Final Acceptance Test Plan, test data, sample test scripts, and methods to track and ensure all detailed requirements of the program are tested and approved by the Court. J: Training Plan The vendor will be responsible for training the Court’s project team, consisting of IT, financial, payroll, and human resources personnel. This core training is required to allow the Court’s project team to understand system capabilities before set-up and configuration activities begin. This team will be responsible for performing and documenting system testing, documenting business processes and procedures and for training end-users. In addition, the team will take the lead in developing the end-user training plan. The vendor may use one or more of the following training methodologies: • Instructor-led hands-on classroom training (on-site) • Public classroom training (offsite) The vendor shall provide copies of all training materials necessary for the vendor-conducted training. The Court retains the right to reproduce training materials for internal training, refresher courses, or sessions for new staff following implementation. On-going training schedules, locations, and costs should also be provided in the event that training is required in the future. K: Documentation Sample documentation does not need to be provided as part of the initial RFP proposal due March 25, 2009; however, short-listed vendors will be asked to provide, at a minimum, the Table of Contents and sample chapters of key user documents, such as the administrative and end-user manuals, systems and application diagrams, etc. Ultimately, the selected vendor must provide complete printable documentation of the vendor's software suite. The documentation shall include standard software materials as well as specific user documents. Standard software is defined as that which fully satisfies the requirements of this RFP without the need for modification. Examples include operating systems, database management systems, and software diagnostic programs. Database design documentation shall completely describe both the logical and physical structure of the system’s database. The documentation shall define and describe the individual elements (files, tables and fields) and the relationships between them. This requirement is for a complete and thorough description of the physical and logical database schematic. This will permit Court staff to develop and maintain interfaces between the vendor’s system database and other applications subsequent to project completion, and will facilitate the development of complex customized reports. 13
  14. 14. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM User documents are those that describe the vendor’s software from a system administrator and end-user’s point of view. All primary users must be provided with printed and online user documentation that ideally includes both a User’s Guide (tutorial format) and a Reference Guide. All future system updates and changes must be accounted for in revised pages for manuals. This must occur simultaneously with distribution of a software patch, system update, or version release. For the selected vendor, the Court will require a copy of all vendor-supplied documentation in a file format compatible with commercially available Microsoft Windows software, such that it can be maintained, customized, and updated. Final documentation shall be easily reproducible by the Court and the Court shall be granted the rights to reproduce any document supplied under the contract awarded pursuant to this RFP for its own needs. L: System Deployment Plan The vendor shall be responsible for deployment of the ERP solution in the Court’s environment. The Deployment Plan shall include a description of the vendor’s methodology including site preparation, roll-out strategy, legacy system transition, system phasing, and other related system deployment requirements. M: Pre and Post Go-Live Support The vendor will be responsible for assisting the Court in such tasks as planning, preparation, pre go-live issue resolution, conversion, post go-live issue resolution, communications, etc. during the weeks leading up to and weeks / months shortly after go-live. The vendor should describe the resources, approach, and plans that will be used to assist the Court during this critical time in the project. Please note that requested information regarding the vendor’s long term Support and Maintenance plans are addressed elsewhere in this RFP. This section should focus specifically on the pre go-live, conversion, and post go-live support offered by the vendor. Please refer to Appendix B – Pricing Worksheets for details on providing cost information for the various Services and Software components identified in this RFP. 14
  15. 15. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM SECTION III – RFP GUIDELINES AND SCHEDULE A: General Requirements • The Court requires a “not-to-exceed” price contract for this procurement. The bidder is expected to complete the statement of work for the negotiated price. • Cash discounts must be shown on proposal; otherwise prices will be considered net. Unless prices and all information requested are complete, proposal may be disregarded and given no consideration. • The Court will retain 15% of service costs from each invoice and will release the retention 90 days after go-live if the go-live is deemed successful by the Court. The retainage will be released incrementally in the event a phased in approach is taken. • The Court will hold the vendor to total contract price. Phase and task cost reconciliation will not be performed. • All prices and proposals must be in ink, typewritten, or computer generated. No pencil figures or erasures are permitted. Mistakes may be crossed out and corrections inserted adjacent thereto and must be initialed in ink by the person signing the proposal. • All proposals must be signed with the vendor’s name and by a responsible officer or employee. Obligations assumed by such signature must be fulfilled. B: Submission of Proposals 1. The vendor’s completed response must be received no later than 5:00pm Central Time, March 25, 2009, at the offices of the Court – Judicial Administrator’s Office, 400 Royal Street, Suite 1190, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 and Schafer Consulting – 9 Red Leaf Lane, Ladera Ranch, California 92694. Late bids will not be accepted. Each proposal must be sealed and submitted with a proposal number, closing date and time on the outside. 2. Vendor’s proposal should be limited to a maximum of 40 pages, with no smaller than a 10 point font. Proposals exceeding the 40 page count may be scored lower than those that comply. Responses to all Appendices sections in this RFP must be completed using the templates provided by the Court – which can be downloaded via a link under the Court News section of the Court’s website. Vendor responses must be submitted in an original with 12 numbered and bound paper copies to the Court and 2 numbered and bound paper copies to Schafer Consulting. The original must be sent to the Court’s address, clearly marked and containing original signatures, and must be easily reproducible on a standard copying machine. 3. In addition to the paper copies requested above, please submit an electronic copy to both the Court and Schafer Consulting of the entire RFP response on CD-ROM utilizing Microsoft Office (e.g. Word, Excel, Schedule), version 2007. 4. Please provide the completed Pricing Worksheets and other pricing-related documents under separate cover, 1 printed and 1 electronic copy on the above mentioned CD- ROM. The Pricing Worksheets are described in Appendix B and are not considered as part of the 40-page count restriction. 15
  16. 16. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM 5. Information must be furnished complete, in compliance with the terms, conditions, provisions and specifications of the Request for Proposals. The information requested and the manners of submission are essential to permit prompt evaluation of all proposals on a fair and uniform basis. The response must follow the RFP Response Outline provided in Section V. 6. Accordingly, the Court reserves the right to declare as non-responsive and reject any proposal in which material information requested is not furnished or where indirect or incomplete answers or information are provided. 7. Proposals and modifications or corrections received after the closing time specified will not be considered. 8. Proposals shall be for the total net price including all applicable taxes, shipping, and charges. 9. All forms and questionnaires must be completed using the electronic versions provided with this RFP. 10. No telegraphic, telephone or facsimile of proposals will be accepted. If a photocopy is to be submitted, it must be signed in original, in ink. 11. The optional pre-bid conference will be held at 10:00 AM Central Standard Time, March 2, 2009, at the 4th Floor Conference Room, 400 Royal Street, New Orleans, LA 70130. Vendors are strongly encouraged to attend. C: The Supreme Court of Louisiana Standard Contract The successful bidder will be asked to sign a contract substantially similar to Section VI - “SAMPLE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA CONTRACT”. Additionally, the final contract terms will also include a copy of this RFP, the bidder’s proposal, including responses to the requirements matrices, and require that the successful bidder’s software is compliant with those responses. Proposals should include a statement indicating the vendor’s willingness/ability to sign this contract “as is,” including proposed insurance requirements and acknowledgement that the bidder’s proposal and responses to the requirements matrices will be included as part of the contract terms, or detailing the reasons why they are not willing or able to do so. D: Proposal Postponement and Addendum The Court reserves the right to revise or amend the specifications or any other part of the proposal up to the time set for opening. Such revisions and amendments, if any, shall be announced by addendum to this solicitation and posted on the Court’s website. Proposers have the responsibility of visiting the website frequently and keeping themselves apprised of any addenda. If revisions and amendments require changes in quantities or prices proposed, or both, the date set for opening of proposals may be postponed by such number of days as in the opinion of the Court shall enable bidders to revise their proposals. In any case, the proposal opening shall be at least five working days after the last addendum; and the addendum shall include an announcement of the new date, if applicable, for the opening of proposals. E: Proposal Withdrawal After the proposals are opened, proposals may not be withdrawn for one hundred eighty 16
  17. 17. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM (180) calendar days. Prior to the date/time set for the proposal opening, however, proposals may be modified or withdrawn by the bidder’s authorized representative in person, or by written notice. If proposals are modified or withdrawn in person, the authorized representative shall make his identity known and shall sign a receipt for the proposal. F: Vendor’s Investigation Before submitting a proposal, each vendor shall make all investigations and examinations necessary to ascertain all conditions and requirements affecting the full performance of the contract and to verify any representations made by the Court upon which the vendor will rely. If the vendor receives an award as a result of its proposal submission, failure to have made such investigations and examinations will in no way relieve the vendor from its obligation to comply in every detail with all provisions and requirements of the contract, nor will a plea of ignorance of such conditions and requirements be accepted as a basis for any claim whatsoever by the vendor for additional compensation. G: Award 1. The Court reserves the right to reject any and all proposals, to waive any informality in the proposals, and to accept the proposal that appears to be in the best interest of the Court. The Court prefers to award the resulting contract from this RFP to a single vendor, but reserves the right to a partial award, including the right for a partial award to multiple vendors. 2. In determining and evaluating the best proposal, the prices will not necessarily be controlling, but quality, methodology, functionality, staffing organization, suitability of the service offered, and the reputation of the service in general use will also be considered with any other relevant factors. 3. If a contract is to be awarded pursuant to this RFP, the Court will make all reasonable efforts to issue notice of intent to award a contract within one hundred and eighty (180) days of opening of proposals. 4. Vendor shall submit to the Court for approval, within ten (10) days from notice of intent to award a contract, all Certificates of Insurance evidencing the required coverage as described under Insurance in the sample contract in Section VI. 5. The vendor shall not commence any work until all Certificates of Insurance have been approved by the Court and vendor has received an executed copy of the contract from the Court. H: Non-Collusion Affidavit The vendor declares, by signing and submitting a proposal, that the proposal is not made in the interest of, or on behalf of, any undisclosed person, partnership, company, association, organization, or corporation; that the proposal is genuine and not collusive or sham; that the vendor has not directly or indirectly induced or solicited any other vendor to put in a false or sham proposal, and has not directly or indirectly colluded, conspired, connived, or agreed with any vendor or anyone else to put in a sham proposal, or that anyone shall refrain from bidding; that the vendor has not in any manner, directly or indirectly, sought by agreement, communication, or conference with anyone to fix the proposal price of the vendor or any 17
  18. 18. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM other bidder, or to fix any overhead, profit, or cost element of the proposal price, or of that of any other vendor, or to secure any advantage against the public body awarding the contract of anyone interested in the proposed contract; that all statements contained in the proposal are true; and, further, that the vendor has not, directly or indirectly, submitted his or her proposal price or any breakdown thereof, or the contents thereof, or divulged information or data relative thereto, or paid, and will not pay, any fee to any corporation, partnership, company or data relative thereto, or paid, and will not pay, any fee to any corporation, partnership, company association, organization, proposal depository, or to any member or agent thereof to effectuate a collusive or sham proposal. I: Proposal Contents This proposal consists of the Request for Proposals, Provisions, Specifications, Attachments and other terms and conditions as are attached or incorporated by reference in the schedule of the Request for Proposals. J: Schedule RFP Issue Date February 11, 2009 March 2, 2009 (10:00 Central Pre-Bid Conference at the Court Standard Time) Final Date for Vendors to Request March 4, 2009 Clarifications to RFP Court Response to Requested RFP March 10, 2009 Clarifications Published March 25, 2009 (5:00 PM Central Proposals Due from Participating Vendors Standard Time) Anticipated Short-List Selection April 14, 2009 Solution Demonstrations by Short-Listed May 4 to May 22, 2009 Vendors (2 to 3 days per short-listed vendor) Anticipated Finalist Selection Early June Anticipated Project Start Date October 1, 2009 18
  19. 19. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM SECTION IV – RFP EVALUATION A: EVALUATION METHOD The Court will evaluate all proposals deemed responsive to this request by a committee consisting of the following individuals. The Court reserves the right to modify the membership of this Committee. NAME TITLE John Olivier Clerk of Court Peter Haas Director of Technology – Supreme Court John White Business Services Manager – Supreme Court Chris Andrieu Deputy Judicial Administrator/CIO - CMIS Anna Paxton Deputy Judicial Administrator – Human Resources Paul Tumminello Information Technology Manager Terence Sims Deputy Judicial Administrator – Accounting Services At the discretion of the Court, a separate Financial and/or Payroll/Human Resources solution(s) may be selected. 1. Short-List Selection: The Court may select 2 or more bidders from the RFP responses to continue with further evaluation. The Short-List will be selected by evaluating the bidder’s response in accordance with criteria outlined in Section IV (B) (1). Additional discovery may be performed to assist in selecting the Short-List bidders. The Short-List bidders will be contacted in writing regarding their status as short-listed bidders. 19
  20. 20. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM 2. Demonstration Scenarios and Site Visits The Court will further evaluate the short-listed bidders’ solutions by utilizing scripted scenarios and site visits. Each short-listed bidder will be provided the scripted scenarios that they are to use to prepare for an on-site 2-3 day solution demonstration. The short- listed bidders will be further evaluated on their performance during the 2-3 day scripted scenario demonstrations, reference checks, additional discovery and, at the option of the Court, organized site visits at bidders’ customer sites. Bidders will provide the Court with a list of five (5) potential customer sites. The Court anticipates that it will select no more than 2 sites to visit per short-listed bidder. Please note that on-site demonstrations for short-listed vendors will be conducted from May 4 to May 22, 2009. Specific days and times for each short-listed vendor will be determined at a later date, but vendors should be prepared to conduct the on-site demonstrations during this timeframe. It is expected that the proposed Project Manager take part in the entire on-site demonstration sessions. 3. Final Selection The finalist will be selected in accordance with the criteria outlined in Section IV (B) (2) and will be the bidder that the Court feels would make the best system provider partner. The Court may, at its discretion, select two finalists if it believes that two bidders are so close as to consider the evaluation a draw. In this case, the two bidders will be taken through negotiations. The vendor with the best-negotiated solution will become the finalist and will be contracted to provide the proposed solution. If agreement cannot be reached with the top ranked bidder, the Court will dismiss the bidder and begin negotiations with the second ranked bidder. 4. Solution Confirmation / Best and Final Offer Upon selection of the finalist(s), the Court and the finalist(s) will conduct a solution confirmation workshop. This workshop will enable both parties to confirm all requirements and representations in order to complete the best and final offer. This workshop may include additional demonstrations, confirmation of the Requirements worksheets, or any additional items that either party requires to be confirmed. The bidder will then complete their best and final offer. The best and final offer will form the basis for contract negotiation. 5. Contract Negotiation At the conclusion of solution confirmation and best and final offer, the Court will enter into contract negotiations with the finalist. The final negotiated contract, along with the best and final offer, will be submitted to the Court for approval. B: EVALUATION AND SCORING CRITERIA The intention of the Court is to procure a functionally complete and cost effective ERP system. 20
  21. 21. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM 1. Responses to this RFP will be evaluated and scored according to the following criteria and a short-List will be selected: Specifications Points Responsiveness of Proposal 5 Company Background and Experience 10 Staffing and Organization 15 Work Plan and Schedule 15 System Functionality and Architecture 35 Cost Proposal 15 Other factors 5 Total 100 • Responsiveness to RFP – The vendor will be evaluated on the quality, clarity, and completeness of proposal in conforming to instructions, conditions and format set forth in this RFP. Examples of non-conformance include exceeding the 40 page limit to the proposal, no table of contents, not using Court provided forms, not labeling the proposal properly, not presenting the proposal in the order requested, etc. • Company Background and Experience – including the firm’s financial and organizational stability, as well as the firm’s experience performing work of a similar nature to that solicited in this RFP. • Staffing and Organization– including the experience level and competence of the proposed consultants and organizational staff in performing similar work for other clients and the comparability of that experience to the business and technical environment of the Court. • Work Plan and Schedule – including the vendor’s demonstrated understanding of the overall scope of work for this project, the proposed project approach and methodology, as well as the thoroughness and completeness of the implementation, integration, testing, training, and deployment plans. Please submit total onsite and offsite time to be dedicated to the project. • System Functionality and Architecture – including how well the system meets the overall needs of the Court. The majority of points will be awarded based on the scoring of the Requirements matrices described in Appendix A. System architecture evaluation will include the maturity of the software solution, the use of current technology that is in line with the Court’s direction (e.g. MS-SQL, Windows and/or browser, .NET, runs in virtual server environment, etc.), the proposed environment, and the overall architecture. • Cost Proposal – Pricing is an important aspect of the overall evaluation of the bidder’s response. Vendors are instructed to use the pricing templates as provided in Appendix B as these templates must be used to provide the cost of the solution. Failure to use the provided pricing templates may characterize the response as non-responsive and preclude the bidder from further consideration in this procurement. Please provide the level of detail as defined in the pricing template. Clarification may be sought for incomplete responses. If clarifications are not received by the specified due date, they will be considered non-responsive and precluded from evaluation. All items not defined in the scope must be shown separately as optional modules or tasks and priced 21
  22. 22. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM separately. o Bidders are being requested to provide on-going product costs for a 5-year period. o The Court also requires each bidder to provide a rate schedule for each type of resource to be used for pricing any out-of-scope work that arises out of the implementation of the bidder’s proposed solution. These rates will remain in effect for the duration of the implementation effort. • Other Factors – including the vendor’s ability/willingness to sign the Court’s contract “as is”; the process and methodologies for software maintenance and updates, as well as the vendor’s methodology, experience, and infrastructure for providing technical support; and the materials provided in the vendor’s appendices, such as training materials, sample implementation timeline, etc. 2. Short-listed vendors will be evaluated based on the following criteria: Specifications Points Software Demonstration 50 References 15 Site Visit 35 Total 100 • Demonstration of Scripted Scenarios – Short-listed vendors will be invited to the Court to provide demonstrations of the proposed solution, based on scripted scenarios provided by the Court. • Client References – including the quality and timeliness of work performed by the vendor and its proposed consultants for previous clients and the comparability of such work to the requirements of this RFP. • Site Visits– the Court will conduct reference calls and site visits of customer sites provided by the short-listed vendors. 22
  23. 23. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM SECTION V – RFP RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS AND FORMAT Please use the following format to structure the RFP response. The response should include each section detailed below in the order presented. The detail represents the items that are to be covered in each section of your response. Failure to address all items will impact the evaluation and may classify the response as non-responsive and preclude it from further consideration. Section Title Included as Part of 40-page Count Title Page No Letter of Transmittal Yes Table of Contents Yes 1.0 Executive Summary Yes Yes, except for 2.0 Company Background and Experience Financial statements 3.0 Project Understanding Yes 4.0 Project and Organizational Staffing Yes Yes, except for 5.0 Project Work Plan and Schedule schedule / Gantt chart Yes, except for 6.0 System Description and Functionality Requirements worksheets 7.0 Software Maintenance, Updates, and Support Yes No – submitted 8.0 Cost Proposal under separate cover 9.0 Client References Yes 10.0 Vendor Profile Questionnaire Yes 11.0 Appendices No A: TITLE PAGE The title page should include, at minimum, the following: • Name of Project – The Supreme Court of Louisiana ERP Project • Submitted by - Company’s Name • Date of Submittal 23
  24. 24. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM B: LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL The transmittal letter will: • Indicate the intention of the Bidder to adhere to the provisions described in the RFP without modification; • Identify the submitting organization; • Identify by name and title, the person authorized to contractually obligate the organization; • Identify the contact person responsible for this response, specifying name, title, mailing address, phone, fax, and email address; • Explicitly indicate review and acceptance of the Court’s sample contract (see Section VI), and provide acknowledgement that the proposal submitted, including responses to the Requirements worksheets, will be included as part of the contract terms, and identify exceptions or "deal breakers"; • Acknowledge the proposal is considered firm for one hundred and eighty (180) days after the due date for receipt of proposals or, if chosen as a finalist, for one hundred and eighty (180) days after receipt of the last best and final offer submitted; • Acknowledge completion of the Pricing Worksheets and that they have been submitted under separate cover; • Provide the original signature of the person authorized to contractually obligate the organization. C: TABLE OF CONTENTS The table of contents should outline Sections 1.0 thru 11.0, as described previously in this section. D: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Bidder will provide an Executive Summary that presents in brief, concise terms a Summary level description of the contents of the proposal response. In addition, the Bidder must clearly and specifically detail all exceptions to the exact requirements imposed by this RFP. E: COMPANY BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE This section of the proposal should establish the ability of the vendor to satisfactorily perform the required work by reasons of experience in performing work of a similar nature, demonstrated competence in the services to be performed, strength and stability of the firm, staffing capability, and record of meeting expectations on similar projects. The Court, at its option, may require a vendor to provide additional support and/or clarify requested information. In addition to completing Appendix D – Vendor Profile Questionnaire, the vendor should also provide: • A brief profile of the company  A brief description of the organization structure and primary products and services provided 24
  25. 25. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM  Other major products or services offered  Company’s strategic direction in software design and support  Company’s dedication and commitment to serve public sector clients • A general description of the company’s financial condition  Provide three years of financial statements  Provide information regarding any pending litigation, contract defaults, planned office closures, impending mergers, bankruptcies, or other conditions related to the financial health of the company • Company’s experience in performing work of a similar nature to that solicited in this RFP  Highlight participation in such work by the key personnel proposed for assignment to this project F: PROJECT UNDERSTANDING This part of the Proposal shall contain a description of how the vendor intends to organize its approach to the project. The vendor should discuss how its software solution meets the Court’s requirement for an integrated system, as requested in this RFP. The vendor shall relate how it perceives its role in carrying out the responsibilities required by this implementation. The vendor shall also provide examples of challenges encountered on similar engagements and discuss their approach in handling some of the specific challenges and opportunities it foresees for this project. G: PROJECT STAFFING AND ORGANIZATION This section shall identify key personnel who will be assigned to the project, assuming an October 1, 2009 start date. An organization chart for the project shall be provided. The chart shall indicate how the vendor intends to structure the project effort, and identify the Project Director/Engagement Manager, Project Manager, Technical Team Members, Trainers and all other key personnel. The Project Director/Engagement Manager designated by the vendor shall have the overall responsibility to the Court. The Project Manager shall have the responsibility for the day-to- day communications with the Court, to coordinate the activities of the installation and implementation team, and to accomplish the scope of work within the contract budget and project schedule. The Project Manager must have at least three (3) years of experience in administering project management services of the proposed software in a public entity. A resume of the Project Manager must be provided detailing the work history for the last 10 years. Each team member included in the project organization chart shall be identified by name, and a resume or profile shall be provided for each key person. Each resume or profile shall be complete and concise, featuring experience that is most relevant to the task responsibility the individual will be assigned. If an individual is assigned to more than one position, the relevant experience shall be indicated for each task assigned. The project technical team must have a minimum of three (3) years of experience with an installation of the current (or one previous) version of the proposed software. 25
  26. 26. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM For all proposed project team members, please also indicate other projects these individuals will most likely be engaged in at the time this project commences, as well as anticipated completion dates for those other projects, and how that may impact the amount of time the individuals will be spending on the Court’s implementation. Please also indicate the anticipated percentage of time each team member will be dedicated to the Court’s implementation throughout the course of the project. The specific staff identified in the original Proposal may not be changed prior to commencement of work or during the course of the project without the specific approval of the Court and two week notice. Replacement candidates must have the same or higher level of similar experience as the original project team member they replace. Resumes of replacements shall be submitted with all applicable information. H: PROJECT WORK PLAN AND SCHEDULE In this part, the vendor is requested to provide details of its methodology and implementation strategy along with a schedule for the performance of the tasks identified in Section II, Scope of Work, of this RFP. The Work Plan shall provide a narrative description of the plan for implementing the work tasks as well as any substantive or procedural innovations used by the vendor on similar projects that are applicable to the services described in this RFP. The Work Plan and Schedule shall take into consideration the Court resources to be provided, including its independent on-site Project Management team. It is anticipated that the Court will assign 4.25 to 5 FTEs project members focused on supporting the project and a 1/2 time Project Manager. In addition, the Court’s Consultant Project Management Team will provide independent project oversight, verification and validation services for the implementation. The Work Plan and Schedule shall address the following (Note: Please reference Section II, Scope of Work, for additional details on the following components): 1. Detailed Implementation schedule, assuming a October 1, 2009 project start date 2. Project Management Services 3. Planning 4. Implementation 5. System Integration Plan 6. Data Conversion Plan 7. Data / System Interface Plan 8. Test Plan 9. Training Plan 10. Documentation 11. System Deployment 12. Pre and Post Go-Live Support The detailed Work Plan and Schedule must be prepared with suggested major tasks and payment milestones. These payment milestones should clearly identify quantifiable, measurable, sub-tasks to allow determination of milestone completion status during all phases of the project. The Schedule should indicate critical path tasks and dependencies between tasks. 26
  27. 27. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM The Work Plan and Schedule should be of sufficient detail to provide the Court the necessary task, resource, and sequence information to allow for logistics and staff allocation planning. The vendor’s Work Plan must state any facilities, data, and other requirements that the Court will be expected to provide. The Court understands that each vendor will have their own implementation methodology derived from their industry experience and software requirements. It is the desire of the Court to have consistency of detail within the Work Plan and Schedule across respondents to allow for an objective determination by staff as to the quality and feasibility of each respondent’s Work Plan and Schedule. The Work Plan should be created in Microsoft Word and the Schedule must be created in Gantt chart format using Microsoft Project. At a minimum, this chart must show phases, tasks, sub-tasks, and staff utilization (including Court and Consultant Project Management resources). The Court may request task expansion or contraction, additional task details, and/or scheduling modifications within the Work Plan or Schedule prior to award of the contract. The vendor’s plan should specify the recommended time period for each phase. The vendor should cite instances of actual implementation time frames (where the proposed strategy was applied) on previous similar engagements. The Work Plan must include the proposed responsibilities of the Project Manager. The Work Plan must describe the vendor's program control methods for demonstrating vendor's performance, adherence to and control of the project schedule and budget. The Work Plan must describe the vendor’s commitment of resources for Technical and Functional-area Team Members. This Team consists of the experts in the various modules of the proposed software for the Court. The Work Plan and Schedule must display the amount and timing of the proposed effort within the project milestones. The vendor’s Work Plan should list any specialized system personnel that would be required at the Court to maintain and operate the proposed system. The Work Plan must include recommendations to revise the Court’s existing practices to best utilize the proposed software’s functionality. The Court recognizes that improvements in structure and processes can be as beneficial as improvements in technology. Accordingly, the vendor’s experience with similar organizations and “Industry Best Practices” is important to the Court and should be reflected in the Work Plan and Schedule. The Project Work Plan and Schedule must include the time and resource commitment for testing and accepting the system components and configuration within the Court’s simulated production environment. The vendor must include the testing and acceptance strategies in the proposed Work Plan. The Work Plan must include the vendor's recommended Training Plan for end users of the selected software and for IT staff responsible for ongoing system maintenance and support. The plan must include detailed listings of training programs for technical staff, configuration staff/core users, senior management and information/end users. Additionally, the Work Plan must state the method of training (instructor-led hands-on classroom training, train-the- trainer, offsite public classroom training, web-based training, etc.), the number of training 27
  28. 28. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM hours to be provided, the size of the recommended number of participants in each training program, and the infrastructure and systems required. The Work Plan Schedule must show the type of training provided and the hours of commitment for each implementation phase. The Work Plan and Schedule must include the vendor’s recommended Deployment Plan for converting from the testing environment to the “live mode” of operation. This effort must describe the final steps of the process and the amount of resources required to successfully complete this task. The procedure must include vendor’s site preparation, roll-out, migration, turnover to production, and organizational transition strategies. It must also include contingency plans for falling back to the old system should there be an unexpected problem with the new system. The Work Plan must include a description of the vendor's post-implementation technical support programs. This must include the types of programs available, the hours and days of operation, and information on response time for urgent and non-urgent assistance requests. I: SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND FUNCTIONALITY Vendors should address the following: Overview of System Description • Identify the supplied software modules, system architecture and development tools. • Discuss how each of the components identified in the table in “Section II / B. Software Solution” will be addressed. Please indicate where modules are available “out of the box” versus modules that would primarily require custom development or 3rd party solutions. • Identify other software that is required for the proposed solution. • Identify the recommended hardware for all environments, including test, training, production, and disaster recovery. • Describe recommended redundancy and fault tolerance guidelines. • Identify any additional recommended operating environments: production, test, training, disaster recovery, etc. • Describe the application security environment. • Describe the User Interface. • Describe the future direction and plans for the software. • Describe how program exits or other external process logic is applied to the system. • Describe all pre-existing interface points. • Describe the approach to writing and managing interfaces. • Identify existing functional deficiencies based on the scope and requirements. • Describe the required skills needed to technically support and maintain the system. • Describe your upgrade policies, frequencies and costs. • Describe software licensing (server, user, processor based, etc.) • Describe warranty and support. Detailed Technical Description This section should contain all pertinent information about the proposed hardware and operating system, utilities, and tools used in the development of the software, the 28
  29. 29. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM database management system, the user interface, and the architecture of the system. At a minimum, the vendor shall discuss the following: • Scalability – analyze current and projected future system volumes • Security – comply with Court’s security protocols and standards that apply • Provide recommendation on Redundancy and Business Continuity/Disaster Recovery to provide full recovery • Describe data storage and archiving capabilities • Required system capacity and performance - recommend the hardware solution to handle the transaction and user load based on the information provided in this RFP and accompanying Requirements worksheets • Application architecture – multi-tier distributed system architecture where screens, report and transactions are provided through a web browser or other technology. Please also indicate the primary programming language(s) used within the proposed solution (e.g. .NET, C++, Java, etc.) • Presentation architecture – technology such as browser based, thin-client, smart- client; client-server; etc. • Application configuration and support components – (application development tool kit, load testing, automated scheduling, utilities to monitor resource utilization, web development tool kit, report generation scripts, audit and system logging, migration/ change control tools, etc.) • Database architecture - utilize utilities for database performance monitoring and tuning that complies with industry standards • Database performance and optimization – load balancing and/or clustering ability for extended scalability and performance • Database integrity – history tracking within the database, logging options, record locking, etc. • Server architecture – include a full description of the recommended and supported hardware solutions for all environments such as test, training, disaster recovery, production, etc. In addition to providing the “Recommended System Requirements”, please also provide the “Minimum System Requirements” for each environment needed by the Court to achieve the requirements detailed in this RFP • Network architecture – include the preferred network topology, hardware and software required to achieve this architecture • Configuration tool kit – include Database Configuration Tools, Business Process Management Tools, User Interface Management Tools, etc. • Any applicable system diagrams to more clearly explain requirements and options. • End user experience – include expected response time benchmark test results based on recommended configuration. Detailed Functional Description This section should address the detailed attributes of the application software. In Appendix A of this RFP, we provide the requirements worksheets that define needs for the new system by functional area. Vendors will be rated on how well they can meet each need by indicating whether they can support the functionality “out-of-the-box”, with modifications, via a third party solution, via customization, in a future release, or not at all. Please see Appendix A for further information. 29
  30. 30. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM INSTRUCTIONS RATING LEGEND SUP Supported as delivered "out-of-the-box" Supported via modifications (screen configurations, reports, GUI MOD Complete the worksheet by tailoring, etc) placing an X in the appropriate 3RD Supported via a third party solution column for each criterion. The X's should represent the current state CST Supported via customization (changes to source code) of a particular product or service. Will be supported in a future release (within 18 months of response FUT date) NS Not supported Vendors are required to complete the Requirements worksheets and include them with their submittal in the following formats: • In hard copy as an Appendix to the proposal. • In electronic format (Microsoft Excel). J: SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE, UPDATES, AND SUPPORT At a minimum, the proposal must include information and pricing associated with all aspects of ongoing support and maintenance activities. This proposed support must include: on-site, software maintenance, product help desk 24/7, product fixes, product enhancements and regular product releases based on a defined on-going maintenance fee. The vendor should discuss its upgrade policies and upgrade history of the proposed solution. The vendor must have the ability to connect to the customer’s system remotely to diagnose and correct problems real-time. The vendor should describe the process for the Court to request future product enhancements. The vendor must propose the on-going costs for product maintenance and upgrades for a 5-year period in the pricing response. The vendor is also requested to provide details of its software maintenance and update methodology, including how software updates are distributed, and recommended approaches for the Court to test and install software updates prior to rolling them into production. The vendor should provide information regarding the types of vendor and Court skill sets required to implement incremental and major updates to the Court’s production environment as well as how the vendor recommends ensuring that custom configuration and custom code is addressed during the upgrade to ensure that no Court-specific changes are lost. The vendor should also describe the Quality Assurance measures in place to ensure code is thoroughly tested prior to releasing it to the Court. Additionally, the vendor should discuss how much influence customers have in product direction, including technology used, enhancements, and new features, including the process used to provide input, feedback, and software roadmap reviews. Vendors should also provide details on their Technical Support and Help Desk infrastructure, staffing levels, organizational structure, and abilities, including hours of operation, issue management and tracking tools, and a general description on how the Court would interact with Technical Support and Help Desk staff. 30
  31. 31. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM K: COST PROPOSAL Pricing is an important aspect of the overall evaluation of the vendor’s response. Included in Appendix B of this RFP are descriptions of the pricing templates that must be used to provide the cost of the solution and submitted under separate cover from the rest of the proposal. Failure to use the provided pricing templates may characterize the response as non-responsive and preclude the vendor from further consideration in this procurement. Please price the solution as accurately as possible as it may become the basis for the solution price. Please provide the level of detail as defined in the pricing templates. Clarification will be sought for incomplete responses. The vendor shall submit a “not-to-exceed” amount in the “Service Cost Worksheet” to perform implementation, integration, roll-out, and other work identified in this RFP. The Court also requires each vendor to use the “Hourly Rate Price Sheet” template to provide a rate schedule for each type of resource being proposed that will be used to price any out-of-scope work that arises during implementation of the proposed solution. These rates will remain in effect for the duration of the implementation effort plus one additional year after go-live of the last module. In addition to using these templates to provide the specific information requested, the vendor is expected to use their own document format to discuss any additional information or supporting schedules that would clarify any ambiguities and assist the Court in obtaining a better understanding of the vendor’s cost philosophy. Please note that the templates must be completed – only additional clarifications to pricing should be discussed outside of the templates. Please Note: The entire Cost Proposal, including all Exhibit B templates plus clarification documents, must be submitted under separate cover. In this section of the main proposal please simply indicate that one copy of the Cost Proposal information has been submitted under separate cover. L: CLIENT REFERENCES Vendors should provide at least five (5) client references where the ERP system was implemented, that most closely reflect similar projects to the scope of work for the Court, as described in this RFP. These references should be sites at which the software has been fully implemented within the past 5 years. List the “breadth” of the software solution (e.g., GL, AP, Grants, Payroll/HR etc.). The Court prefers references for previous implementation of the same base version that will be proposed for the Court (i.e. if the vendor is proposing version 8.5, references for versions 8.0 thru 8.5 would be preferred). Please use the Client Reference form provided under Appendix C of this RFP. M: VENDOR PROFILE Under this section, vendors shall complete the Vendor Profile Questionnaire referred to in Exhibit D of this RFP. If multiple firms or sub-contractors are being proposed, please complete a Vendor Profile Questionnaire for each firm / sub-contractor company as well. 31
  32. 32. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM N: APPENDICES Under this section, vendors shall provide all legal documents and compliance reports, including but not limited to the following: • Software Licensing Agreement • Standard Support/Maintenance Agreement • Professional Services Agreements • Performance Benchmarks for the Proposed Hardware Environment Information considered by the vendor to be pertinent to this project, but not specifically requested in this RFP, may also be placed in an appendix. The vendor is reminded that this is not an invitation to submit voluminous amounts of extraneous material. Examples of documents to be included in this section include: • Sample from Training Manual • Sample Standard Reports • Sample of Actual Implementation Plan (used at previous client sites) 32
  33. 33. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM SECTION VI – THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA SAMPLE CONTRACT Be it Known, that the Louisiana Supreme Court, Judicial Administrator’s Office (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the “LASC-JAO”) and ________________ (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the “Contractor”), do hereby enter into this contract (“Contract”) under the following terms and conditions. 1. Scope of Services Contractor hereby agrees to furnish the following services: 2. Terms of Payment In consideration of the services described above, the LASC-JAO hereby agrees to pay to the Contractor up to a maximum of $________ during the contract period. All payments shall be subject to the approval of ____________. There will not be any additional reimbursement for any travel, rent, meals, equipment or other expenses. When completion to the reasonable satisfaction of the LASC-JAO is obtained, ______ payments are scheduled as follows: 3. Term of Contract This Contract shall begin on _______________ and shall terminate on ______________, unless terminated sooner in accordance with the terms of this Contract. 33
  34. 34. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM 4. Termination for Cause The LASC-JAO may terminate this Contract for cause based upon the failure of the Contractor to comply with the terms and/or conditions of the Contract; provided that the LASC-JAO shall give the Contractor written notice specifying the Contractor’s failure. If within thirty (30) days after the receipt of such notice, the Contractor shall not have either corrected such failure or, in the case of failure which cannot be corrected in thirty (30) days, begun in good faith to correct said failure and thereafter proceeded diligently to complete such correction, then the LASC-JAO may, at its option, place Contractor in default and the Contract shall terminate on the date specified in such notice. 5. Termination for Convenience The LASC-JAO may terminate the Contract at any time by giving thirty (30) days written notice to the Contractor. The Contractor shall be entitled to payment for services rendered, to the extent work has been performed satisfactorily. 6. Termination for Lack of Funding The continuation of this Contract is contingent upon the appropriation of funds to fulfill the requirements of the Contract by the Louisiana Legislature and/or the United States Congress. If the Legislature and/or Congress fails to appropriate sufficient monies to provide for the continuation of the Contract, or if such appropriation is reduced by the veto of the Governor or by any means provided in the Appropriations Act to prevent the total appropriation for the year from exceeding revenues for that year, or for any other lawful purpose and the effect of such reduction is provided insufficient monies for the continuation of the Contract, the Contract shall terminate on the date of the beginning of the first fiscal year for which funds are not appropriated. 7. 34
  35. 35. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS | ERP SYSTEM Force Majeure Neither party shall be liable to the other for any failure or delay in performance under this Contract due to circumstances beyond the party’s reasonable control, including: acts of God; acts of war; accidents; the acts, omissions or defaults of a third party; and judicial action not the fault of the party failing or delaying performance. 8. Notice Any notice required to Contractor shall be delivered as follows: Any notice required to the LASC-JAO shall be delivered as follows: _____________________________ Office of the Judicial Administrator 400 Royal St., Suite 1190 New Orleans, LA 70130-8101 9. Legal Relationship It is expressly understood by the LASC-JAO and Contractor that the Contractor shall not be construed to be, and is not, an employee of the LASC-JAO. Contractor shall provide services to the LASC-JAO as an independent contractor with control over the time, means and methods for accomplishing the services outlined in this contract. Contractor agrees to be solely responsible for the payment of any federal, state, social security, Medicare, local or other applicable taxes from the funds received under this Contract. The Contractor also accepts total responsibility for any liability protection or other insurances as required by law and this Contract. The Contractor further acknowledges that he/she is not 35

×