RFP #08ITZ0040 Web Content Management

2,931 views

Published on

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,931
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

RFP #08ITZ0040 Web Content Management

  1. 1. STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 101 East River Drive East Hartford, CT 06108 RFP #08ITZ0040 Web Content Management July 7, 2008 AMENDMENT # 3 provides the following: 1. Answers a Vendor question that was inadvertently missing from the Question and Answer document attached to Amendment #2 as follows: Q. Page 99, Section 3.2 of the RFP , states, "All Web Servers must use Windows 2003 or higher as the Operating System, and they must use IIS 6.0 or higher. The servers must support the ASP.Net 2.0 or higher framework as well." Is the State open to bids with platforms that run on Windows 2003 or higher Operating System but do not use IIS or support ASP.Net 2.0 or higher? (IE: another Web Server such as IBM WebSphere, supporting Java)? A. IBM WebSphere and Java is an acceptable solution. To clarify; if ASP is used in the solution it must be ASP.Net 2.0 or higher. Also if IIS is used it must be IIS 6.0 or higher. NOTE: A signature line has been included below. A copy of this page signed in ink is required with the Proposal to show that vendors have received this Amendment. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ VENDOR’S SIGNATURE ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT (This page should be signed and returned WITH PROPOSAL. If vendor fails to submit signed Amendment, vendor will still be responsible for adhering to its content) APPROVED:___________________________________________ JACQUELINE SHIRLEY DIRECTOR CONTRACTS AND PURCHASING DIVISION
  2. 2. STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 101 East River Drive East Hartford, CT 06108 RFP #08ITZ0040 Web Content Management July 3, 2008 AMENDMENT # 2 provides the following: 1. The Vendor Questions and Answers 2. A revised Appendix 2 3. Clarification of the following terminology: Please note that the current WCMS is an application written in classic ASP. All HTML (static) pages in the WCMS are stored in an SQL database and presented as dynamic ASP pages. Please note that the HTML pages, while presented as ASP and stored in SQL are to be considered as static HTML pages for the purposes of this RFP. There are some dynamic elements within the WCMS such as navigation, workflow, eAlerts, etc. but there are no external dynamic applications hosted within the WCMS. For the purposes of this RFP, the term State Agency refers to any State of Connecticut agency, institution, office, department, commission, council or instrumentality. NOTE: A signature line has been included below. A copy of this page signed in ink is required with the Proposal to show that vendors have received this Amendment. ____________________________________________________________________________ VENDOR’S SIGNATURE ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT (This page should be signed and returned WITH PROPOSAL. If vendor fails to submit signed Amendment, vendor will still be responsible for adhering to its content) APPROVED:_________________________________________________________________ JACQUELINE SHIRLEY DIRECTOR CONTRACTS AND PURCHASING DIVISION
  3. 3. AMENDMENT #2 RFP #08ITZ0040 - Web Content Management Vendor Questions and Answers 1. Q. The RFP mentions the current WCMs platform as IIS web server and MS SQL 2000 database. Is there any WCM and authoring tool currently being used? A. The State of Connecticut currently has a WCMS called Dynamic Site Framework (DSF), which it uses to author the static content on most of the State Agency websites. 2. Q. The RFP “Background” information states: “The State of Connecticut, Department of Information Technology currently supports 112 websites using the existing WCMS, which includes approximately 35,000 html pages and 131,000 non-html files”. How many of these pages will be published through web content lifecycle (For example: authoring-reviewing-publishing)? A. While not all of these pages are utilizing web content lifecycles as described above, we expect that potentially all of the content could use this methodology. 3. Q. What is the approximate volume of content which will reside in the WCM system apart from web pages (in terms documents, images, video files, etc.)? A. As described in Section 1.4 of the RFP document, the State currently has approximately 131,000 files in their current WCMS. The State expects this number to increase as new files are added to the system. 4. Q. What volume of traffic does the State expect to these websites included in the scope of the RFP? What is the anticipated peek? A. Based on WebTrends data, there were approximately 210,000,000 pages viewed amongst all WCMS sites in 2006. The State does not have statistics for 2007, but expects the traffic will have increased. 5. Q. How much of the existing static content is mixed with dynamic content? The better the separation of static content from dynamic content, the easier it will be to migrate. A. The majority of content is static, however, there are dynamic elements (Navigation, Workflow, Calendar, etc.) that will need to be migrated. The current WCMS does not host any external applications. 6. Q. How much of the content which is currently hosted outside of the current WCMS is dynamic? A. Much of the content hosted outside of the WCMS is dynamic, however, there are still a few websites which have not migrated to the current WCMS. Currently, there are no plans to migrate those sites into the current or future WCMS. 7. Q. Is a web crawler an acceptable solution for migrating content? A. The State is currently open to any ideas on the migration methodology, and each proposed solution will be evaluated based on how well it fits the State’s needs.
  4. 4. 8. Q. Is there a current content template? If so, could we get some example wireframes? A. The current content within the WCMS is a template. The majority of sites on the current WCMS are using the same template (www.ct.gov, www.ct.gov/drs, www.ct.gov/dot for example). The State is currently in the process of implementing a new template (e.g. www.ct.gov/governor and www.charteroakhealthplan.com). 9. Q. Are the calendar items static or dynamic content? If dynamic, what language/framework is being used and how clean is the content to code ratio? A. The Calendar feature is a dynamic module of the current WCMS which is written in classic ASP with a SQL Server database. The specific content to code ratio would be evaluated with the selected vendor. 10. Q. What will be the approximate number of locations from where content will be published? A. The current WCMS is a single installation which allows publishing of content from any location with Internet access. The administrators’ primary work sites are located in approximately 40 different buildings. 11. Q. Is there any additional information that can be provided on the way in which the existing users and roles are stored in the existing SQL Server database? A. Any additional information in this area will be provided to the awarded vendor. 12. Q. In Cost Worksheet 2, please clarify what information the State is requesting in item 1 and 2 and the timeframe for which this pricing is valid. A. The State is requesting information about purchasing additional maintenance and licensing costs beyond those listed in Cost Worksheet #1 (if applicable). The format was left up to the vendor to determine based on each vendor’s pricing structure. (For example, if a vendor has a per-seat license, how much do extra seats cost?) These prices are expected to be valid through July 31, 2009 at a minimum. 13. Q. The RFP states “All Web Servers must use Windows 2003 or higher as the Operating System, and they must use IIS 6.0 or higher. The servers must support the ASP.Net 2.0 or higher framework as well.” From the above requirements it appears that the proposed solution must have support for Web Services for Remote Portlets (WSRP). Is this assumption correct? How many portlets currently connect to the existing WCMS/ Portal? A. WSRP Support is required as stated in Section 1.6 Required Functionality 1.6.24.2. Web Services for Remote Parts (WSRP). There are no portlets connected to the existing WCMS/Portal. 14. Q. Is portal branding within the scope of this RFP? A. No. 15. Q. The RFP states- “Vendors must provide three (3) Client references with installed systems comparable to that being proposed for the State of Connecticut”. Are references of the Vendor outside the United States acceptable? Also, would references in a sub-contractor role be acceptable? A. All Vendor references are acceptable provided they comply with all are RFP conditions, and those references should be for work done by the Prime vendor, not the subcontractor alone. References for projects done by the Prime in conjunction with the Sub contractor are acceptable.
  5. 5. 16. Q. The state has already trained a large number of user groups on WCM. Is it expected that the Vendor train the same numbers (130 System Administrators and 570 Content Administrators) of users on the new WCMS? A. All users of the current WCMS will need to be trained on the proposed solution. The State has requested (in Attachment 1, Section 3.7) information on how a vendor would train all users on the proposed solution. The State and the selected vendor will discuss the best delivery method (based on several factors including cost, location, time, etc.) for this training after a vendor has been selected. 17. Q. Is the content management project focused on the needs of a single department/ workgroup/ business unit, or multiple? A. The WCMS will service all Executive Branch Agencies, with potential to expand to other Branches of State Government (see Section 1.4 for more information). 18. Q. Would it be acceptable to proposal evaluators if a live demonstration is shown via internet access from DOIT, or via WebEx? A. Only written responses to the RFP will be accepted. After written responses have been evaluated, participating vendors may be asked to conduct a live demonstration of the solution presented in their written proposal. 19. Q. What is the allocated budget for this project? A. The State does not release internal budget information during a competitive procurement process. 20. Q. What are the major business objectives which you hope to achieve via the WCM system? e.g. a. Reduce costs through web-enabling of paper-based processes b. Improve employee productivity c. Simplify corporate-wide communication and collaboration d. Speed publishing while reducing operational costs etc. A. All of the above. 21. Q. Are there any pain areas/shortcomings/performance issues that you are trying to address through this? A. There are no specific issues. In general, we are looking for a more robust system on a strategic platform. 22. Q. Please provide a holistic picture of the product suites/applications to be covered under this study and subsequent implementation. A. The State expects vendors to provide product suites/applications that they feel best fit the defined requirements of this RFP. 23. Q. What are the major trends within your business, and how are you addressing/planning to address these trends via the WCM system? A. Please refer to Section 1.5.
  6. 6. 24. Q. What technology standards have you adopted, and what are the company’s plans for technology standards over the next 3 years? A. The State has defined its technology standards in Appendix 1. 25. Q. Please provide a holistic understanding of the various stakeholder groups for the solution. What is the size of various stakeholder groups (mentioned below)? Geographical dispersion? Which Businesses? a. Internal Users b. Customers c. Other Stakeholders A. The State does not feel that providing this level of detailed information is necessary for response to this RFP. 26. Q. What will be the roles and responsibilities between your company and the vendor? A. The State will be involved in all aspects of installation and maintenance of the proposed solution. The vendor will provide the solution, along with technical support for all phases in varying degrees as determined by the State. The RFP defines these roles and responsibilities in more detail. 27. Q. Please elaborate on the kind of architectural/framework support that is expected from the vendor for the WCM system. A. The vendor is not expected to maintain the architecture for the State, however, they are expected to comply with all DOIT architecture standards and policies at all times. 28. Q. If multiple business units (BU) are involved, please describe the contribution envisaged from these BUs. Also what would be the operating model for eliciting and collating such contributions in your organization? A. The State does not expect the vendor to interact with the various business units directly (with the exception of the project team), therefore, the contribution and operating model for eliciting these contributions is not relevant to the RFP response. 29. Q. For the following requirement from the RFP, since the responsibility may or may not be that of the vendors, what scope would the vendor use to use in estimating the appropriate effort? As this is expected to be a staggered migration, the State reserves the right, on a site-by-site basis, to choose whether the vendor or the State will perform the data loads/migrations. Therefore, documentation, demonstration, and training must be sufficient for Product Administrators to perform the bulk data loads/migrations. A. Vendors should provide estimated effort based on performing all aspects of the migration, and the State may choose to perform some of those items at a later date. The State is looking for a reusable process, created by the vendor, which the State would be trained on, so they could migrate sites on the State’s schedule. Then, based on budget, staffing levels, and other considerations, the State would decide its role in the process.
  7. 7. 30. Q. Is the Vendor expected to utilize existing hardware if possible? What are the configurations of existing hardware currently being used? A. Vendors will not be expected to utilize existing hardware. The State will purchase hardware for this solution based on vendor specifications. The State does not feel that providing existing configurations is necessary for response to this RFP. 31. Q. Do you want to have the flexibility to switch hardware and software without having to re-enter all the content i.e. do you need the WCM System to be portable? A. Yes 32. Q. What type of settings will need to be migrated from the existing WCMS? A. The State wants the proposed solution to function as outlined in the RFP. Given the differences between the current WCMS and the proposed solutions, the exact settings will not be determinable until after a product is selected. As examples, however, the State will need to have IP filtering settings, Users, Roles, navigation, and functionality settings migrated to the new system. 33. Q. What are the data sources for the data migration to the new system? A. All of the data for the current WCMS is stored in SQL databases. This includes, but is not limited to, content (HTML pages), navigation, users and roles, eAlerts, settings, and calendar items. The only exception is the non-HTML files (images, PDFs, Word, Excel, etc.), which are stored in a Windows file directory on IIS servers. 34. Q. How are the existing navigations stored? Is there any code interspersed with the content or is it static content? Is it in HTML format, ASP, etc.? A. Existing navigations are stored within a SQL database. It is content that is placed (via the WCMS) within the templates. The navigation elements display as part of an ASP page and can change based on settings. Navigations can also be changed based on conditions, which implies the WCMS handles this with code. 35. Q. What are the internal and external sources of information for the WCM system? A. All of the data for the current WCMS is stored in SQL databases. This includes, but is not limited to, content (HTML pages), navigation, users and roles, eAlerts, settings, and calendar items. The only exception is the non-HTML files (images, PDFs, Word, Excel, etc.), which are stored in a Windows file directory on IIS servers. 36. Q. What is the approximate number of templates that need to be designed and created? A. The State currently uses approximately 10 different templates, some with multiple color schemes available. The State will re-evaluate the quantity of templates when a vendor has been selected. 37. Q. When you refer to the routing profiles needing to be migrated, are these for workflows or what is being referred to? A. Routing profiles refer directly to workflows.
  8. 8. 38. Q. How many workflows are anticipated to be supported by the system? On an average how many levels of task assignment are required (e.g. level of approvals) for each of these workflows? A. The State expects the proposed solution to be able to create and maintain multiple workflows on each site. Currently, State websites use between 1-40 workflows per site and have between 1-5 levels of approval per workflow. The current workflow is for content approval only. More robust workflow solutions may increase this number. 39. Q. We need clarification on Appendix 2, 1.13.10 Ability to have a workflow queue. What type of workflow queue is being referred to? Is it a queue of all workflows? Is it a queue/inbox of one user’s workflow tasks? Something else? A. The workflow queue is intended to be a queue of all workflow tasks per site. The State would prefer to have the ability to designate and/or apportion this queue to individual users and users and groups of users tasks. 40. Q. Is the content unique i.e., is it needed only once or is it likely to be re-used across the website? A. The majority of the content is unique, however, there are a few instances where an agency may want to re-use content within its own site or across multiple sites. 41. Q. How often does the content need to be changed a. Real Time? b. Daily? c. Weekly? d. Monthly? Any other? A. Currently, content can be modified in real time. The State expects to keep that ability in the new solution. 42. Q. What will be the frequency of the bulk upload – daily, weekly, monthly, yearly? A. Currently, bulk uploads can be performed in real time. The State expects to keep that ability in the new solution. 43. Q. Will it be necessary to have versions of content for archiving and/or auditing? What will be the frequency of updation and removal of the content items from the repository for archival and purge purposes? A. Yes. The State deems it necessary to have versions of content retained for archival and auditing purposes. Each State Agency may have different frequency needs and will be determined on a case-by-case basis. 44. Q. Does the content need to be 'personalized' for the individual viewing the page? A. No. 45. Q. Does the State need a system that automatically generates and removes page links? A. The State would need more information on this functionality before it could determine its value.
  9. 9. 46. Q. Does the State need a consistent, branded 'look and feel' to their site? A. Yes. 47. Q. Oracle 9i, Oracle 10g, Microsoft SQL Server 2000 SP4 and Microsoft SQL Server 2005. Is there any future plan to incorporate some other database? A. From the Technology Standards section: 3.3. Database: DOIT supports SQL 2005 or Oracle as their database platforms, however, SQL is preferred. At this time the State has no future plans to incorporate other databases. 48. Q. Does the State have a search engine already in place? A. Yes, but the State is looking to explore other options with the proposed solution. 49. Q. Does the content need to be viewed across other devices such as Digital TV and PDAs? A. The State would prefer this functionality, however it is not required. 50. Q. Is there any plan to use clustering for the publication targets (presentation server)? A. Yes. 51. Q. Is the State using any load balancers in the current system? Is there any plan to use load balancing services in the new application? A. Yes, the State uses load balancers in the current system. The State intends to use load balancing in the new system. 52. Q. Is there any legacy system in the existing environment? Is there any future plan to integrate CMS with any of the legacy systems? A. There are no legacy systems integrated with the current WCMS. There are no definitive plans to integrate in the future, but the State would want that feature available. 53. Q. Is the 'client' environment purely windows based? NT? 98? 2k? A. Yes, the client environment is Windows based with a wide range of Windows operating systems. 54. Q. How many environments are existing currently or are required in future WCM system – a. Development b. Staging c. QA d. Production Any other A. The State requires a Development, Staging, and Production environment.
  10. 10. 55. Q. Please provide the detailed infrastructure diagram of the current system in place (Dev, QA and Production environments) – what applications is it interacting with, what application and web servers are being used, hardware and software used, etc. A. The State does not feel that providing this level of detailed information is necessary for response to this RFP. 56. Q. Does the State have an internal IT team which can maintain/maintains web applications in-house? Are there any processes / methodologies defined for development or support at present? (SDLC processes, support processes like Help Desk, Incident Management, and Problem Management). If yes, how is adherence to these methodologies ensured (quality organization, audits)? A. Yes there is an internal IT team which maintains web applications in-house. There are processes defined for development and support at present. System Development: Executive Order 19; requiring the use of DOIT System. Development Methodology (SDM). DOIT policy requiring the use of the SDM. Problem Management/Change Management: Required procedures managed by the Change Advisory Board (CAB). Help Desk/Incident Management: DOIT help desk staff tracks and manages incidents. 57. Q. Does the State’s internal IT team need support for specific design tools (e.g. Frontpage, Photoshop, and Dreamweaver)? A. No. 58. Q. Right now, Internet Explorer is the only browser that supports Tridion Content Manager Explorer. What will be the future browser requirements for Tridion Content Manager Explorer? A. The State has no knowledge of Tridion Content Manager Explorer, but please refer to Appendix 1 for Standards For Web-Based Applications. 59. Q. What database repositories are available e.g. Oracle, Sybase, Informix? Or is it going to be a flat file system? Does the State already have a license for the database? A. Standard database repositories are preferred over a flat file. From the Technology Standards section: 3.3. Database: DOIT supports SQL 2005 or Oracle as their database platforms, however, SQL is preferred. No licenses have been procured specifically for any proposed WCMS/Portal solution. 60. Q. Which directory / membership services does the State use (NDS, LDAP, Microsoft Active Directory)? A. Products/Services/Protocols related to directory/membership services that the State uses are NDS, Novell eDirectory, LDAP, and MS Active Directory. 61. Q. Can the State provide some more information regarding the ability to restrict the access at section level? A. Currently, the State has areas of their websites which are restricted (from a viewer’s perspective). “Section” refers to the group of content from a viewer’s perspective without regard for the back-end organization.
  11. 11. 62. Q. Please provide information regarding your high availability and business continuity requirements. For example, what are the availability service levels for the WCM? Is there a requirement to support business continuity through a disaster recovery site? A. The system is expected to be available 24/7 with the infrastructure to support that availability. The State coordinates its own business continuity but the Vendor may be called upon for support if needed. Disaster recovery testing is performed on a regular basis. 63. Q. In addition to a production environment, is the State requesting that estimated number of units in the Cost Worksheets also take into account other environments such as development, test, and/or disaster recovery? A. In the Cost Worksheet, the State is requesting information on any environment for which there is a charge. For example, if a development, test, and/or disaster recovery environment is included in the production environment implementation, the vendor would not be required to account for those costs on the Cost Worksheet. If, however, there is an additional cost for a development environment, the State requires those figures to be included in the Cost Worksheet. 64. Q. With regards to the State’s E-Government Strategy and security, is there a requirement for citizens or business partners to authenticate and be authorized to view content or perform transactions? If so, please provide more information on this requirement as it relates to the WCM. A. The State expects solutions to have the ability to authenticate and authorize citizen users. The State has requested in the Questionnaire (Attachment 1, 3.11.2.6) for the vendor to provide their solution for this idea. The vendor should provide their best solution(s), and the State will evaluate those solutions based on its needs. 65. Q. What are eAlert subscriptions? How are those stored? A. eAlert subscriptions are a method in the State’s current WCMS to push information on content, calendar events, or manually generated email to users of the site. Users can self-register for topics, which are determined by System Admins on a site-by-site basis. A System Admin can then send an email notification to a topic group, and those users who have registered will receive the email. This information is stored in a SQL database. 66. Q. Is the information requested in Attachment 1, 3.6.1 required of the prime and all known subcontractors? A. Attachment 1, section 3.6.1 states the following: “The State of Connecticut requires the following organization and client profile information, including their resellers or implementation partners relative to this RFP.” The Prime contractor is being asked to submit this information as it pertains to their business. The Prime contractor is also being asked to provide a listing of its resellers or implementation partners if they will be working on this project with the Prime contractor. 67. Q. For the following requirement from the RFP, will the work be done on a time and material basis should the state decide to include this within the scope of the project? Some State Agencies also have content that could not be hosted in the current WCMS. This content includes small applications, forms, etc. This content is hosted on Windows 2003 servers, using IIS 6.0. The applications are primarily built using ASP and ASP.Net, and the databases are either Microsoft Access or SQL (both 2000 and 2005 versions). Users utilize either Microsoft FrontPage or FTP to maintain that content. As part of the data migration, this content will be evaluated, and, if appropriate, migrated to the proposed WCMS.
  12. 12. A. Yes. It will be done on a time and materials basis. 68. Q. For the following requirement, is the State just looking to verify that the link points to a valid url? Describe how internal and external hyperlinks are verified in the proposed solution. A. Yes, although enhancements and capabilities beyond this functionality will be considered and evaluated. 69. Q. Can the State elaborate on what the use cases are for the requirement: Support for .Net Web Parts. A. The State cannot provide use cases at this time. At a minimum, however, rendered pages must have the ability to support .Net Web Parts as a container. 70. Q. For the requirement “Ability for users to self-subscribe and unsubscribe from topics.” Can the State provide examples of the types of topics they would like users to self-subscribe to? A. Every agency has different topics. The main goal is to have more than one topic area so users only receive email on topics they are interested in. For example, one site in our system has subscription options for a Calendar of Events, a Certification Newsletter, and Legislation. 71. Q. Are Podcasts a required or optional feature? They are combined with RSS feeds in Appendix 2 but listed as an optional item in 3.12.1.3. A. Generating RSS Feeds is a required functionality; podcasts are preferred. Our definition of “podcast” is “having the ability to distribute digital-media files.” 72. Q. Please provide clarification on Appendix 2, 1.3.13 Ability to support metadata schemas out of the box and 1.3.13.1 Content administrators should have ability to suppress updating of last modified date (For example, when fixing typos). Is this type of functionality be the same as a last modified date. It seems like there should be another metadata field on the content object besides last modified date. A. The Last Modified Date referred to in 1.3.13.1 is a part of a content page that is visible to the viewer of that page. This feature is not necessarily part of the metadata, although it could be. 73. Q. Please provide clarification on Appendix 2, 2.10 Ability to Assign and Track Tasks. What type of tasks are being referred to here? Workflow tasks? Developer tasks? A. The State is looking for the ability to track all tasks related to the development and maintenance of the site so it includes but is not limited to workflow, developer or administrative tasks. 74. Q. Please provide clarification on Appendix 2, 3.1 Metadata and 3.1.1 Ability to support metadata schemas out of the box. Is this referring to the delivery environment or content contribution? How are the schemas expected to be consumed? A. The State is referring to the ability to utilize metadata schemas with structured or rich formats. For example the Dublin Core Metadata Element Set. The system would need to support adding customized terms and an easy way for content administrators to enter the data. The best way to consume the data has not been determined at this time.
  13. 13. 75. Q. When the State is trying to integrate all the agencies on the single platform, every agency has a separate work flow that they're following. Are vendors expected to in integrate the workplace together, based on some services that the State is going to require. There are multiple ways of doing that across different areas. And then there is a customization requirement based on those work flows that the State would need to provide or develop, along with the software that the State would need. Is the State considering that as part of this particular proposal? Because it seems it would be required once you're doing the configuration management. A. Each Agency would have a website on this solution, the responsibilities and decisions about that website would reside with the Agencies. The State is not requiring the vendor to integrate State Agencies’ websites or work flows together. 76. Q. There are a few services identified in the RFP yet the substructures of those services are not identified. Also not identified are the people who will be performing the services and the process by which they'll be performed. It seems that evaluating the time estimate over how long it will take to customize might not be possible. The only thing possible would be: this will be the project, this will be the certification, this will be the introduction which would have to be followed. Even the entry of the team, exact people would not be identifiable. The State would need, let's say, ten people in this job role and fifteen people in this job role. That even might not be identifiable, unless vendors are provided with a process estimate or set of processes which need to be changed. Is this the way the State intended it to be? A. The State cannot tell you how to craft your response. The State has given as much information as they can. Additional information is provided in this Amendment, but how a vendor chooses to present their solution is completely up to them. It is a business decision on the vendor’s part. There are some variables and unknowns that have to be taken into consideration when preparing a response. Also, if a vendor has one solution that they want to offer that adheres directly to the RFP requirement, and then they also have an alternative solution that they want to offer the State, they can do that. If the vendor chooses to do this, they are advised to make sure the alternative solution is included in the same response. Do not submit a separate response. 77. Q. Why did the State choose to replace the old system now? What challenges is the State facing in transferring from an old system to a new system? A. . The State is looking to upgrade for several reasons. The current system is written in classic ASP and the vendor has no plans to upgrade. The State would like to ensure they are working with a vendor dedicated to continually improving their product and has a strong enough customer base to ensure continued support. The State is also looking for improved functionality and value-added features. 78. Q. In the RFP vendors have the option of responding to items in Appendix B. Is there a specific format that the State would like to see in response to that section? Should vendors respond to that section? A. The State does not expect vendors to respond to the Appendicies at all. These are informational for the vendors to review and determine if their solutions will fit with what the State is looking for. Specifically, Appendix 2 and Appendix 3 are intended as guidelines. Appendix 2 is a list of things the State would prefer a solution to have; while Appendix 3 is a list of value-added features the State is interested in.
  14. 14. 79. Q. What is the status of the Invitation To Bid that was released in December 2007 that was similar to this RFP? A. That invitation to bid was cancelled. It has nothing to do with this RFP. Any vendors interested in responding to this RFP, must do so in the manner in which it is instructed. 80. Q. How would the State like to see the Data Load (Data Migration) cost represented? For a fixed- price bid, how would the State like to see that represented within a fiscal packet? A. The State is looking for a time and materials estimate. Ideally, the State is looking for an hourly rate and an estimate of how many hours the vendor expects this process to take, based on past experience. The State has written language in the RFP that they will not hold the vendor to that estimate, but they would like a reasonable idea of the cost for performing this process. 81. Q. What is the actual project timeline for this project? A. The exact timeline for this project will be determined by the State and the selected vendor. In the State’s current project plan, a six month implementation window has been allocated to install the system, develop the migration process, and train the Product Admins, but the State fully expects to re-evaluate this when the vendor comes on board. Until that migration process is defined, the State cannot develop an accurate complete project timeline. 82. Q. In reference to Section 3.11.2.2, the VPAT that is requested. In Appendix 2 (1.1.9.3), it indicates that 508 compliance is a requirement, but a VPAT is not. Is a VPAT required? A. Yes, a VPAT is required. The State will amend the RFP to reflect that the VPAT as mandatory. 83. Q. What's the estimated number of internal and external concurrent users of the portal? A. The State currently has no statistics on how many users utilize the current system concurrently. The State has already stated that there are over 600 users trained to use the system, but there is no data on how many are concurrent users. The State would like to have multiple stages of concurrent licenses (if applicable) up to the 600 users described in the proposal, but decisions will be made once information is available. 84. Q. In the RFP it says that there will be 112 Web sites which are to be hosted. Are these in a central location or are they in a multiple departmental locations? A. The majority of the sites are hosted in the current WCMS, and the data is housed in a central location. 85. Q. Are the Vendor Certifications found in Attachment 4 required for the prime only or the prime and subcontractors? A. OPM Ethics form #6 must be completed by both prime contractors and subcontractors. The remainder of the Vendor Certifications are only required to be completed by the prime contractor. The State of Connecticut does require a vendor, if they are going to sub with another company on this project, to disclose that sub-contractor in the response. The State will also see any contract the vendor has established with the sub-contractor per Connecticut General Statutes 40-32.
  15. 15. 86. Q. One of the questions was around Section 3.6.1 which required all prime and all subcontractors. And then Section 3.2 is asking for financial statuses. Is that required for the prime or the prime and the sub? A. The requested financials are for the Prime contractor only.
  16. 16. STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 101 East River Drive East Hartford, CT 06108 RFP #08ITZ0040 Web Content Management June 26, 2008 AMENDMENT # 1 provides the following: 1. Changes the RFP Response due date to Tuesday, July 15, 2008 @2:00 PM EST 2. Vendor Questions and Answers will be distributed in a subsequent Amendment. NOTE: A signature line has been included below. A copy of this page signed in ink is required with the Proposal to show that vendors have received this Amendment. _____________________________________________ VENDOR’S SIGNATURE ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT (This page should be signed and returned WITH PROPOSAL. If vendor fails to submit signed Amendment, vendor will still be responsible for adhering to its content) APPROVED:_________________________ JACQUELINE SHIRLEY DIRECTOR CONTRACTS AND PURCHASING DIVISION
  17. 17. RFP #08ITZ0040 Web Content Management Vendor Conference Attendee List NAME & TITLE COMPANY NAME COMPANY ADDRESS E-MAIL ADDRESS TELEPHONE NUMBER Laurissa Toigo Crown Partners, LLC 4 Research Drive ltoigo@crownpartners.com (203) 610-0009 Account Executive Shelton, CT 06484 Jason Troiana EMC 175 Capital Boulevard, Suite 201 jason.troiano@emc.com (860) 614-4424 Solutions Principal Rocky Hill, CT 06067 Brenda Rode EMC 175 Capital Boulevard, Suite 201 rode.brenda@emc.com (203) 265-9287 Staff System Engineer Rocky Hill, CT 06067 Jeff Macca EMC 175 Capital Boulevard, Suite 201 macca_jeffrey@emc.com (860) 616-5216 Technical Consultant Rocky Hill, CT 06067 Richard Reynolds Front Line Logic 700 E. Firmin Street richard.reynolds (888) 212-2828 Senior Consultant Kokomo, Indiana 46902 @frontlinelogic.com Alan Kannally HCL America, Inc. 400 Crown Colony Drive akannally@hcl.in (617) 510-6905 Business Development 2nd Floor, Suite 203 Manager Qunicy, Massachusetts 02169 Jerry Baseel IBM One Financial Plaza gbaseel@us.ibm.com (860) 275-5570 Client Executive Hartford, CT 06103 Suresh Mani ITEK Solutions, Inc. 300 Crown Colony Drive, Suite 520 suresh@itek.com (781) 389-6540 CEO Qunicy, Massachusetts 02169 David Reilly Microsoft 201 Jones Road dreilly@microsoft.com (617) 201-9150 Account Executive Waltham, Massachusetts 02451 Leslie Tan Microsoft 201 Jones Road leslieta@microsoft.com (603) 325-2599 Technology Specialist Waltham, Massachusetts 02451 Brian Buckler Microsoft 201 Jones Road bbuckler@microsoft.com (717) 903-8320 Service Executive Waltham, Massachusetts 02451 Sean Williams QSCEND Technologies 231 Bank Street sean.williams@qscend.com (203) 757-6000 Account Executive Waterbury, CT Ext. 312 Javeed Mirza Taj Software Systems Corp. 1711 60th Street javeed@tajsoftware.com (718) 259-1933 President Brooklyn, New York 11204
  18. 18. Kashif Riaz Baig Taj Software Systems Corp. 1711 60th Street kashif@tajsoftware.com (718) 234-6986 Chief Technology Officer Brooklyn, New York 11204 Ext. 15 Adil Mirza Taj Software Systems Corp. 1711 60th Street adil@tajsoftware.com (718) 234-6986 Business Development Brooklyn, New York 11204 Manager
  19. 19. State of Connecticut, Department of Information Technology Request for Proposals #08ITZ0040 Web Content Management STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (www.ct.gov/doit) REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS RFP # 08ITZ0040 Web Content Management Date Issued: May 28, 2008 Date Due: July 7, 2008 @ 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time Send all sealed responses to: State of Connecticut Department of Information Technology Contracts & Purchasing Division Attn: Jacqueline Shirley 101 East River Drive East Hartford, CT 06108 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL APPROVED__________________________________________ Jacqueline Shirley Director, IT Contracts & Purchasing Division (Original Signature on Document in CPD Files) 1
  20. 20. State of Connecticut, Department of Information Technology Request for Proposals #08ITZ0040 Web Content Management Table of Contents 1 Foreward ......................................................................................................................................................... 4 1.1. Preface..................................................................................................................................................... 4 1.2. Objective ................................................................................................................................................. 4 1.3. Scope....................................................................................................................................................... 4 1.4. Background ............................................................................................................................................. 4 1.5. E-Government Strategy (as referenced in RFP Section 1.3 – Scope)..................................................... 5 1.6. Required Functionality............................................................................................................................ 5 1.7. Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................... 6 1.8. Implementation of RFP........................................................................................................................... 6 2 Administrative Requirements ......................................................................................................................... 6 1.9. Vendor Instructions................................................................................................................................. 6 1.9.1. CONFORMITY TO INSTRUCTIONS.......................................................................................... 6 1.9.2. PROPOSAL RESPONSES TO THIS RFP (RFP RESPONSE FORMATTING) ......................... 6 1.9.3. IDENTIFYING RFP COMMUNICATIONS................................................................................. 6 1.9.4. VENDOR QUESTIONS AND STATE REPLIES......................................................................... 6 1.9.5. ACCEPTANCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS ..................................................... 7 1.9.6. DEVIATING FROM RFP SPECIFICATIONS ............................................................................. 7 1.9.7. EXCLUSION OF TAX FROM PRICES........................................................................................ 7 1.9.8. VENDOR CONTACTS.................................................................................................................. 7 1.9.9. VALIDATION OF PROPOSAL OFFERINGS ............................................................................. 7 1.9.10. PROPOSAL COMPLETENESS .................................................................................................... 7 1.9.11. RESTRICTIONS ON CONTACT WITH STATE PERSONNEL................................................. 7 1.10. Other Conditions................................................................................................................................. 7 1.10.1. OTHER RIGHTS RESERVED ...................................................................................................... 7 1.10.2. REMEDIES AND LIQUIDATED DAMAGES............................................................................. 8 1.10.3. SYSTEM NON-ACCEPTANCE.................................................................................................... 9 1.10.4. CONTROL OF RFP EVENTS AND TIMING .............................................................................. 9 1.10.5. PROPOSAL EXPENSES ............................................................................................................... 9 1.10.6. OWNERSHIP OF PROPOSALS ................................................................................................... 9 1.10.7. ORAL AGREEMENT OR ARRANGEMENTS............................................................................ 9 1.10.8. HOLDBACK REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................................. 9 1.10.9. VENDOR PRESENTATION OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCE/SURETY.................................... 9 1.10.10. VENDOR DEMONSTRATION OF PROPOSED PRODUCTS ............................................... 9 1.10.11. VENDOR MISREPRESENTATION OR DEFAULT ............................................................... 9 1.10.12. STATE FISCAL AND PRODUCT PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS.............................. 9 1.10.13. CONFORMANCE OF AWARDS WITH STATE STATUTES ............................................... 9 1.10.14. ERRONEOUS AWARDS .......................................................................................................... 9 1.10.15. CORPORATE REPORTING ................................................................................................... 10 1.10.16. JOINT VENTURES.................................................................................................................. 10 1.10.17. PREFERRED USE OF LOCAL CONSULTING RESOURCES ............................................ 10 1.10.18. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT ................................................................................... 10 1.10.19. SECURITY CLEARANCE ...................................................................................................... 11 1.10.20. AUTHORIZED TO WORK ON PROJECT............................................................................. 11 1.10.21. KEY PERSONNEL .................................................................................................................. 11 1.10.22. OWNERSHIP OF THE SYSTEM............................................................................................ 11 1.10.23. RIGHTS TO AUDIT ................................................................................................................ 12 1.10.24. WARRANTY ........................................................................................................................... 12 1.10.25. INDEPENDENT PRICE DETERMINATION ........................................................................ 12 2
  21. 21. State of Connecticut, Department of Information Technology Request for Proposals #08ITZ0040 Web Content Management 1.10.26. OFFER OF GRATUITIES ....................................................................................................... 12 1.10.27. READINESS OF OFFERED PRODUCTS.............................................................................. 12 1.10.28. INSPECTION OF WORK PERFORMED............................................................................... 12 1.10.29. DATE/TIME COMPLIANCE .................................................................................................. 13 1.10.30. CORPORATE GOVERNANCE .............................................................................................. 13 3 Typical Activities Conducted After RFP Issuance ....................................................................................... 14 3.1 Vendor Communication........................................................................................................................ 14 3.1.1 PROCUREMENT SCHEDULE................................................................................................... 14 3.1.2 VENDORS’ CONFERENCE ....................................................................................................... 14 3.1.3 VENDORS’ QUESTIONS ........................................................................................................... 14 3.1.4 QUESTION RESPONSES ........................................................................................................... 14 3.2 RFP Response Coordination and Review ............................................................................................. 14 3.3 Proposal Evaluation .............................................................................................................................. 15 3.3.1 EVALUATION TEAM. ............................................................................................................... 15 3.3.2 EVALUATION PROCESS .......................................................................................................... 15 3.3.3 ESTABLISH AND CONDUCT APPLICABLE VENDOR BENCHMARKS ………………...15 3.3.4 BENCHMARKING PURPOSE AND SCOPE ............................................................................ 15 3.3.5 UNMONITORED VENDOR-DOCUMENTED BENCHMARKS……………………………. 15 3.3.6 LIVE DEMONSTRATION OF BENCHMARKS TO STATE. .................................................. 16 3.4 IMPLEMENT NECESSARY AGREEMENTS ................................................................................... 16 3.5 NOTIFICATION OF AWARDS .................................................................................................................... 16 4 PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................................................. 16 4.1 PROPOSAL FORMAT OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................... 16 4.2 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION ......................................................................................................................... 18 5 STATE PROJECT TEAM ............................................................................................................................ 19 5.1 MANAGEMENT TEAM ............................................................................................................................. 19 5.2 PROJECT ADVISORY PANEL ……………………………………………………………………………19 Attachment 1 - Primary Response Document Attachment 2 - Mandatory Vendor Questionnaire Attachment 3 - Vendor Proposal Validation and Authentication Statement Attachment 4 - Vendor Certifications Attachment 5 - Cost Worksheet Templates Attachment 6 - Vendor’s Checklist Attachment 7 - Information Processing Systems Agreement Attachment 8 - Contract Compliance Regulations and Notification to Bidder Appendix 1 - Architecture Guidelines for Web-Based Applications Appendix 2 - WCMS Preferred Functionality Appendix 3 - Optional Items Appendix 4 - Evaluation and Selection Criteria 3
  22. 22. State of Connecticut, Department of Information Technology Request for Proposals #08ITZ0040 Web Content Management 1 FOREWARD 1.1. PREFACE The Department of Information Technology (DOIT) is responsible for “the purchase and provision of supplies, materials, equipment, and contractual services, as defined in section 4a-50” (CGS Sec 4a-2). Within DOIT, the Contracts and Purchasing Division (CPD) is responsible for processing and authorizing all procurement activities for information technology and micro-graphic hardware, equipment, software, and contractual services. The DOIT Vision is “that the State of Connecticut’s information technology is integrated, eliminating duplication and redundancy, while allowing for the sharing of information and the consolidation of reports throughout all the State Agencies.” This Vision is the umbrella under which all State purchases will be governed. 1.2. OBJECTIVE The State of Connecticut’s Department of Information Technology (DOIT), IT Contracts & Purchasing Division (CPD), is issuing this Request For Proposal (RFP) on behalf of all State of Connecticut agencies for the purposes of user license purchase, software installation, configuration, data migration, and technical support for a Web Content Management System (WCMS). 1.3. SCOPE The Department of Information Technology (DOIT) is seeking proposals on a Web Content Management System (WCMS) to manage all Executive Branch Agencies’ websites within the State of Connecticut. The WCMS plays an important role in the overall State of Connecticut E-Government Strategy as the public-facing “look-and-feel” for many of the planned initiatives roadmapped by the E-Government program. (See below for more details on this strategy.) The Web Content Management System (WCMS) is expected to be a commercial off-the-shelf product which requires minimal customizations to install and integrate with State of Connecticut and DOIT standards. Customizations should not include any alterations of the product code, any modifications that are not supported by the vendor or the service agreement, or any changes that will require re-implementation after upgrades, patches, or service pack releases. Customizations can include modifications to templates and template design, integration with other DOIT applications and/or appliances, and specific changes requested by DOIT. 1.4. BACKGROUND The State of Connecticut, Department of Information Technology currently supports 112 websites using the existing WCMS, which includes approximately 35,000 html pages and 131,000 non-html files. The existing WCMS is managed by six (6) full time State of Connecticut employees with the assistance of the CMS vendor. It is hosted on IIS Web Servers and SQL Server 2000 database servers, which are expected to be upgraded to SQL 2005 servers in the near future. It utilizes an appliance for load balancing, and user information and roles are stored in a proprietary application and separate database. DOIT’s supporting staff are considered “Product Administrators” of the system. Each website also has one System Administrator, one backup, and as many Content Administrators as needed, which are located at the responsible agency. The System Administrator is the primary point of contact with DOIT staff and supports all Content Administrators on their site. DOIT performs all level 1-3 support and relies on the vendor for level 3 escalation. DOIT has trained approximately 130 system administrators and 570 content administrators. The Content administration training has been primarily outsourced to a training vendor, while system administration training was done one-on-one with DOIT staff. The state is anticipating the same support structure with the new system. Over the next two (2) years, two (2) additional staff members will be hired to assist with the support and application integration of the new system. 4
  23. 23. State of Connecticut, Department of Information Technology Request for Proposals #08ITZ0040 Web Content Management 1.5. E-GOVERNMENT STRATEGY (AS REFERENCED IN RFP SECTION 1.3 – SCOPE) The State of Connecticut EGOV program has been established to create a common electronic interface for state services and to provide more consistent access to public information. The intent is to reduce governmental bureaucracy while also reducing citizen and business travel time and expense. A citizen or business may be able to inquire of state services, apply and receive licensing credentials, report sightings of common interest to the community, and receive feedback in the form of images or information files. Desktop media may be enhanced to include mobile service for field inspections, law enforcement and citizen based inquiries and reporting. Citizen based services may be enhanced to permit reporting of potential law violations, accidents, animal sightings, and significant weather and environmental events (fire, flood, power lines). The traditional transaction service may be enhanced to be instructive and tutorial in nature (e.g., utilizing drop- downs, window-boxes for context-sensitive help) and support a multi-language format. Permits and license fees may utilize credit card and E-checking for payments. Where legally permissible, forms may be translated to electronic media. Subscription services may be available to the citizen community for storing a variety of digital media that promotes community, business, and cultural activities. Subscription services may also be available for specific notifications (Sex Offender Registry, Public Health notices, Beach and Park closings). In this era of doing more with less, compromised electronic services, and confidentiality, the state EGOV program will take the lead in ensuring offered activities are secure and reliable. Common, standards-based practices will be employed and constantly upgraded for identity management, encryption and electronic commerce for all state electronic business functions. 1.6. REQUIRED FUNCTIONALITY The State of Connecticut (State) requires certain functionality to be available in any proposed solution. If a proposal does not accommodate the requirements listed below, they will not be considered. The proposed solution is expected to have the ability to: 1.6.1. Limit access to update and/or view content to a granular level (including, but not limited to, folder, subfolder, section, and content) 1.6.2. Update websites from anywhere with internet access 1.6.3. Update content using Microsoft Internet Explorer 1.6.4. Easily apply formatting and basic HTML functions to content using an Editor interface (for non-technical staff) 1.6.5. Support scripting languages 1.6.6. Allow users to stage content prior to publishing 1.6.7. Create Print Versions dynamically (without manually creating them) 1.6.8. Create multiple workflow processes on a site-by-site basis 1.6.9. Create and apply predefined templates to State of Connecticut websites 1.6.10. Create multiple navigations which can be applied on a site-by-site basis 1.6.11. Create and apply style sheets to State of Connecticut websites 1.6.12. Incorporate Flash files into content 1.6.13. Create custom error pages 1.6.14. Comply with Section 508, Subpart B, Part 1194.22 1.6.15. Create online forms through an easy interface (for non-technical staff) 1.6.16. Provide End User Notifications about website updates 1.6.17. Generate RSS Feeds 1.6.18. Create multiple calendars of events on a site-by-site basis 1.6.19. Provide security measures to protect all facets of the solution 1.6.20. Support multiple host headers per site 1.6.21. Require passwords be a minimum of eight (8) characters long and can contain case-sensitive letters, numbers, and symbols 5
  24. 24. State of Connecticut, Department of Information Technology Request for Proposals #08ITZ0040 Web Content Management 1.6.22. Replace the solution’s authentication module, if needed (for future single sign-on integration) 1.6.23. Support SSL 1.6.24. Support portlet standards 1.6.24.1. Java Specification Request 168 (JSR168) 1.6.24.2. Web Services for Remote Parts (WSRP) 1.6.25. Create and maintain internets, intranets, and extranets 1.7. EVALUATION An evaluation team will review all vendor responses to this RFP. The Evaluation Team shall review the entire Primary Response Document (Attachment 1) first, without reference to the Cost Proposal. Evaluation areas are established through a weighting scheme, as detailed in Appendix 4. The Cost Proposal will only be scored for vendors whose evaluations achieve a predetermined minimum score. The State reserves the right to infer or add costs, which in the State’s opinion, have not been included in the vendor’s proposal that may contribute to the State’s total cost of ownership. 1.8. IMPLEMENTATION OF RFP As a result of the evaluation process, if the proposal of a given vendor is found to be most advantageous, the State shall select that vendor to negotiate a contract with the State for the implementation of the vendor’s proposal. 2 ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS 1.9. VENDOR INSTRUCTIONS 1.9.1. CONFORMITY TO INSTRUCTIONS Vendors must conform with all RFP instructions and conditions when responding to this RFP. The State, at its discretion, may reject any nonconforming proposal. 1.9.2. PROPOSAL RESPONSES TO THIS RFP (RFP RESPONSE FORMATTING) Vendors desiring to participate in this RFP process must submit proposals with the format and content as detailed in Section 4.1 – Proposal Format Overview. Vendors must respond to all requirements set forth in this RFP. All Appendices are informational only, and the vendor is not expected to respond directly to these documents. The vendor, however, is strongly encouraged to review these documents to assist in the preparation of their proposal. All Attachments require the vendor to provide some information and/or a signature. 1.9.3. IDENTIFYING RFP COMMUNICATIONS All proposals and other communications with the State regarding this RFP must be submitted in writing in sealed envelopes or cartons clearly identifying: ♦ The appropriate RFP reference, such as “RFP #08ITZ0040”, ♦ The applicable proposal due date and time – July 7, 2008 @2:00 PM Eastern Time ♦ The name and address of the originating vendor , and ♦ An indication of the envelope contents (e.g., "BUSINESS & TECHNICAL PROPOSAL," "NEGATIVE RESPONSE," "QUESTIONS," “COST PROPOSAL”, and so forth). Any material received that does not so indicate its RFP related contents will be opened as general mail, which may not ensure timely receipt and acceptance. 1.9.4. VENDOR QUESTIONS AND STATE REPLIES The DOIT Contracts and Purchasing Division will reply to any written vendor questions which it receives in 6
  25. 25. State of Connecticut, Department of Information Technology Request for Proposals #08ITZ0040 Web Content Management accordance with Section 3.1 and no later than the Vendor Questions Due date specified in Section 3.1.1. Copies of this RFP will be made available only on the Internet, from the DOIT web page (www.ct.gov/doit). Access the RFP by selecting the IT Contracts & Purchasing tab and then click on Bid/Proposal Notices. The State may, in its sole discretion, orally communicate responses to vendors if it is likely that written responses will not reach them prior to the proposal due date. However, oral communications notwithstanding, the State shall be bound only by the written document which follows. 1.9.5. ACCEPTANCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS Vendor proposals must include unequivocal statements accepting the administrative requirements of this RFP, and must reflect compliance with such requirements. Any failure to do so may result in the State's rejection of the proposal. These statements must be included in the Transmittal Letter. 1.9.6. DEVIATING FROM RFP SPECIFICATIONS The State will reject any proposal that deviates significantly from the specifications of this RFP. Vendors submitting proposals with any minor deviations must identify and fully justify such deviations for State consideration. Failure to accurately identify such deviations may cause the State to reject the proposal. 1.9.7. EXCLUSION OF TAX FROM PRICES The State of Connecticut is exempt from the payment of excise and sales taxes imposed by the Federal Government and/or the State. Vendors remain liable, however, for any other applicable taxes. 1.9.8. VENDOR CONTACTS The proposal must provide the name, title, address, telephone number and email address of the contact person(s) responsible for clarifying proposal content and for approving any agreement with the State. This information must be included in the Transmittal Letter. 1.9.9. VALIDATION OF PROPOSAL OFFERINGS The proposal shall be a binding commitment which the State may include, at its sole discretion, by reference or otherwise, into any agreement with the vendor. Therefore, each proposal copy must be validated by signature of a person having such authority to commit the vendor. The signer's authority in this regard must be authenticated by a signed statement to that effect by an appropriate higher-level company official. A Vendor Proposal Validation and Authentication Statement, attached to this RFP as Attachment 3, must be used for this purpose. 1.9.10. PROPOSAL COMPLETENESS To be acceptable, proposals must contain all required information and statements in the form requested by this RFP. Vendor proposals must submit "none" or "not applicable" responses to any RFP question and information request, when such a response is the only appropriate response. Please see Attachment 1 for additional detail on responding to requirements. 1.9.11. RESTRICTIONS ON CONTACT WITH STATE PERSONNEL From the date of release of this RFP until the right to negotiate a contract is awarded as a result of this RFP, all contacts with personnel employed by or under contract to the State of Connecticut are restricted. During the same period, no prospective vendor shall approach personnel employed by or under contract to the State, any other State agency participating in the evaluation of proposals, or any other related matters. An exception to this restriction will be made for vendors who, in the normal course of work under a current and valid contract with other State agencies, may need to discuss legitimate business matters concerning their work with the contracting agency. Violation of these conditions may be considered sufficient cause by the State to reject a vendor's proposal, irrespective of any other consideration. 1.10. OTHER CONDITIONS 1.10.1. OTHER RIGHTS RESERVED The State, at its sole discretion in determining that its best interests would be served, reserves the right to: 1.10.1.1. Amend or cancel this RFP at any time prior to contract award, 7
  26. 26. State of Connecticut, Department of Information Technology Request for Proposals #08ITZ0040 Web Content Management 1.10.1.2. Modify deadlines through amendments to this RFP, 1.10.1.3. Refuse to accept, or return accepted proposals that do not comply with procurement requirements, 1.10.1.4. Reject the proposal of any vendor in default of any prior contract or for misrepresentation of material presented, 1.10.1.5. Reject any proposer’s response that is received after the deadline, 1.10.1.6. Reject any proposal which is incomplete or in which there are significant inconsistencies or inaccuracies, 1.10.1.7. Accept or reject any or all proposals submitted for consideration in whole or in part; and to waive technical defects, irregularities, or omissions, 1.10.1.8. Allow no additions or changes to the original proposal after the due date specified herein, except as specifically requested and authorized by the State, 1.10.1.9. Require organizations, at their own expense, to submit written clarification of proposals in a manner or format that DOIT may require, 1.10.1.10. Require organizations, at their own expense, to make oral presentations at a time selected and in a place provided by DOIT. Invite vendors, but not necessarily all, to make an oral presentation to assist DOIT in their determination of award. The DOIT further reserves the right to limit the number of vendors invited to make such a presentation. The oral presentation shall only be permitted for purpose of proposal clarification and not to allow changes to be made to the proposal, 1.10.1.11. Negotiate separately any service in any manner necessary, 1.10.1.12. Contract with one or more vendors who submit proposals, 1.10.1.13. Consider cost and all factors in determining the most advantageous proposal for DOIT, and 1.10.1.14. Contract for all or any portion of the scope of work or tasks within this RFP. 1.10.2. REMEDIES AND LIQUIDATED DAMAGES Remedies associated with nonperformance, substandard performance, or unacceptable performance will include liquidated damages and non-financial remedies. Examples of remedies include, but are not limited to: 1.10.2.1. Corrective action plans to be developed and implemented by the vendor, subject to Department approval 1.10.2.2. Accelerated monitoring of vendor performance by DOIT or its designee, including access to vendor facilities, records, and personnel 1.10.2.3. Additional or ad hoc reporting by the vendor, at no cost to DOIT, to address performance issues 1.10.2.4. Pass-through of a proportional share of federal disallowances and sanctions/penalties imposed on the State and resulting from the vendor’s performance or non-performance under the system services agreement 1.10.2.5. Liquidated damage 8
  27. 27. State of Connecticut, Department of Information Technology Request for Proposals #08ITZ0040 Web Content Management 1.10.3. SYSTEM NON-ACCEPTANCE Failure of the System to be accepted by the State as proposed by the vendor may result in the forfeiture of the Holdback by the vendor to the State, as specified below, or other remedies or measures permitted by contract or by law. 1.10.4. CONTROL OF RFP EVENTS AND TIMING The timing and sequence of procurement events associated with this RFP will be determined solely by the State. 1.10.5. PROPOSAL EXPENSES The State of Connecticut assumes no liability for payment of any costs or expenses incurred by any vendor in responding to this RFP. 1.10.6. OWNERSHIP OF PROPOSALS All proposals submitted in response to this RFP and upon receipt by the State shall become the sole property of the State. 1.10.7. ORAL AGREEMENT OR ARRANGEMENTS Any alleged oral agreements or arrangements made by vendors with any State agency or employee will be disregarded in any State proposal evaluation or associated award. 1.10.8. HOLDBACK REQUIREMENTS Payments for deliverables accepted by the Department of Information Technology (DOIT) shall be subject to a twenty percent (20%) holdback. DOIT shall hold ten percent (20%) until the Department has accepted the deliverable and, thereafter, will release that half of the holdback. Once the warranty period has expired, in accordance with the provisions of Attachment 7 – Information Processing Systems Agreement, the Department will release the remaining holdback. The successful vendor will be required to complete milestones by due dates presented in the vendor’s response to the RFP requirements. If the Vendor fails to complete a milestone by the agreed upon due date, DOIT shall have the discretion to withhold any payment due until the vendor has completed a subsequent milestone in accordance with its proposed due dates or DOIT has accepted the deliverable, whichever occurs first. 1.10.9. VENDOR PRESENTATION OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCE/SURETY Vendors must be prepared to provide any evidence of experience, performance ability, and/or financial surety that the State deems necessary or appropriate to fully establish the performance capabilities represented in their proposals. 1.10.10. VENDOR DEMONSTRATION OF PROPOSED PRODUCTS Vendors must be able to confirm their ability to provide all proposed services. Any required confirmation must be provided at a site approved by the State and without cost to the State. 1.10.11. VENDOR MISREPRESENTATION OR DEFAULT The State will reject the proposal of any vendor and void any award resulting from this RFP to a vendor who materially misrepresents any product and/or service or defaults on any State contract. 1.10.12. STATE FISCAL AND PRODUCT PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS Any product acquisition resulting from this RFP must be contingent on contractual provisions for cancellation of such acquisition, without penalty, if the applicable funds are not available for required payment of product and/or service costs or if the product and/or service fails to meet minimum State criteria for acceptance. 1.10.13. CONFORMANCE OF AWARDS WITH STATE STATUTES Any award resulting from this RFP must be in full conformance with State of Connecticut statutory, regulatory, and procedural requirements. 1.10.14. ERRONEOUS AWARDS The State reserves the right to correct inaccurate awards, including cancelling, an award and contract, 9
  28. 28. State of Connecticut, Department of Information Technology Request for Proposals #08ITZ0040 Web Content Management resulting from its clerical errors. 1.10.15. CORPORATE REPORTING Upon request by DOIT, the vendor must provide: 1.10.15.1. A certificate of Authority, Certificate of Legal Existence, or Certificate of Good Standing, as applicable, from the Connecticut Secretary of the State’s Office, prior to the execution of the contract; 1.10.15.2. A tax clearance statement from the Department of Revenue Services within sixty (60) days of the execution of the contract; and, 1.10.15.3. A statement from the Department of Labor regarding employee contributions within sixty (60) days of the execution of the contract. 1.10.16. JOINT VENTURES Proposals requesting joint ventures will not be accepted. The State will only enter into a contract with a prime vendor who will be required to assume full responsibility for the delivery/installation of equipment, wiring, software, and related services identified in this RFP whether or not the equipment, products, and/or services are manufactured, produced, or provided by the prime vendor. The prime vendor may enter into written subcontract(s) for performance of certain of its functions under the contract only with written approval from the State prior to the effective date of any subcontract. The prime vendor shall be wholly responsible for the entire performance of the contract whether or not subcontractors are used. 1.10.17. PREFERRED USE OF LOCAL CONSULTING RESOURCES As referenced in Section 2.2.16 – Joint Ventures, in responding to this RFP, responding vendors may, as a prime vendor, desire to enter into contractual relationships with other vendors to secure the availability of appropriate resources with the necessary skills and expertise required to fulfill the requirements of this RFP. The State will give a preference to responding vendors who elect to augment their staff with local, Connecticut-based resources, obtained from any of the four (4) approved vendors currently part of the State’s master IT Professional Services Agreement (04ITZ0007). Responding vendors who are seeking to augment their technical resource pool are strongly encouraged to use this existing agreement to augment their staff. Responding vendors who choose to rely on resources obtained through any of the vendors approved as part of #04ITZ0007 must do so at the State approved rate schedule. The approved rates may be obtained through any of the four approved local vendors. 1.10.18. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT Due regard will be given for the protection of proprietary information contained in all proposals received; however, vendors should be aware that all materials associated with the procurement are subject to the terms of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and all rules, regulations, and interpretations resulting there from. It will not be sufficient for vendors to merely state generally that the proposal is proprietary in nature and not therefore be subject to release to third parties. Any proposal that makes such a general or overreaching claim may be subject to disqualification. Those particular sentences, paragraphs, pages, or sections which a vendor believes to be exempt from disclosure under the Act must be specifically identified as such. Convincing explanation and rationale sufficient to justify each exemption consistent with the Act’s Section 1-210 of the Connecticut General Statutes, must accompany the proposal. The rationale and explanation must be stated in terms of the prospective harm of the vendor that would result if the identified material were to be released and the reasons why the materials are legally exempt from release pursuant to the above cited statute. Please refer also to Section 2.2.22 – Ownership of the System. Between the vendor and the State, the final administrative authority to release any or all material so 10
  29. 29. State of Connecticut, Department of Information Technology Request for Proposals #08ITZ0040 Web Content Management identified rests with the State. All such material must be submitted in a separate sealed envelope and marked “Confidential”. This includes any information requested in an electronic format. 1.10.19. SECURITY CLEARANCE A vendor receiving an award from this RFP must understand that all employees, including subcontracted personnel, shall be subject to all applicable Federal, State, and participating agency security procedures. 1.10.20. AUTHORIZED TO WORK ON PROJECT A vendor receiving an award from this RFP must certify that all personnel are legally authorized to work on the project, pursuant to State and Federal guidelines, policy, mandates, and statutes, and further attest, under penalty of perjury, that all proposed project staff, whether named in the proposal or not, are one of the following: A citizen or national of the United States A lawful permanent resident An alien authorized to work until all project responsibilities have been fulfilled The vendor must agree that each individual proposed at any time to perform activities on the project will be subject to an individual certification of authorization to work on the project. Any individual on the proposed project team that is eligible to work in the United States under an H1B Visa must have sufficient time remaining on their Visa to ensure that such an individual is able to complete the requirements of this RFP before their Visa expires. For submitted personnel to be eligible to actively participate in the project, they must be able to successfully pass a U.S. or Canadian background check, a State background check, and must complete a Department background check. 1.10.21. KEY PERSONNEL The vendor must certify that all personnel named in their proposal shall actually work on the contract in the manner described in their proposal. No changes, substitutions, additions, or deletions, shall be made unless approved in advance by the State, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. In addition, these individuals shall continue for the duration of the Contract, except in the event of resignation or death. In such cases, the substitute personnel shall be approved by the State. During the course of the Contract, the State reserves the right to approve or disapprove the vendor’s or any subcontractor’s staff assigned to the Contract, to approve or disapprove any proposed changes in staff, or to require the removal or reassignment of any contractor employee or subcontractor employee found unacceptable by the State. Replacement of personnel who leave the Project shall be made within thirty (30) days. Replacement of any personnel shall be with personnel of equal ability and qualifications and subject to approval by the State. Any key personnel assigned by the vendor tasked with management of the project must employ the use of MS Project for the purposes of reporting project status to the State of Connecticut. 1.10.22. OWNERSHIP OF THE SYSTEM (Please refer to http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2002/octgtr/45cfr95.617.htm) The proposed solution must conform to federal software and ownership rights as specified in 1999 CFR Title 45 Part 95-617. Therefore, the vendor, upon acceptance by DOIT of any computer code developed as a result of this RFP, shall relinquish all interest, title, ownership, and proprietary rights (collectively, “Title”) in and to the computer code and transfer said Title to the State and its designated agencies. Responding vendors grant the Federal Government a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use and to authorize others to use for Federal Government purposes, software, modifications, and documentation developed and/or obtained through this acquisition. 11
  30. 30. State of Connecticut, Department of Information Technology Request for Proposals #08ITZ0040 Web Content Management 1.10.23. RIGHTS TO AUDIT Responding vendors agree to provide the United States Department of Health and Human Services and/or their representatives access to State agency documents, papers, or other records pertinent to the grant in order to make audits, examinations, excerpts, and transcripts. 1.10.24. WARRANTY The vendor shall represent and warrant in the proposal that the System shall function according to the RFP requirements and vendor’s written specifications and that it shall be free from defects in materials and workmanship for a minimum period of one year after the Department’s acceptance of the System. The vendor shall represent and warrant that the vendor shall modify, adjust, repair, and/or replace said System as DOIT deems it to be necessary or appropriate to have it perform in full accordance with the terms and conditions of the RFP. 1.10.25. INDEPENDENT PRICE DETERMINATION The vendor must warrant, represent, and certify in the Transmittal Letter that the following requirements have been met in connection with this RFP: 1.10.25.1. The costs proposed have been arrived at independently, without consultation, communication, or agreement for the purpose of restricting competition as to any matter relating to such process with any other organization or with any competitor. 1.10.25.2. Unless otherwise required by law, the costs quoted have not been knowingly disclosed by the vendor on a prior basis directly or indirectly to any other organization or to any competitor. 1.10.25.3. No attempt has been made or will be made by the vendor to induce any other person or firm to submit or not to submit a proposal for the purpose of restricting competition. 1.10.25.4. The vendor did not participate in the RFP development process, had no knowledge of the specific contents of the RFP prior to its issuance, and that no employee of DOIT participated directly or indirectly in the vendor’s proposal preparation. 1.10.26. OFFER OF GRATUITIES The vendor must warrant, represent, and certify in the Transmittal Letter that no elected or appointed official or employee of the State of Connecticut has or will benefit financially or materially from this procurement. Any contract and/or award arising from this RFP may be terminated by the State if it is determined that gratuities of any kind were either offered to or received by any of the aforementioned officials or employees from the vendor, the vendor’s agent(s), representative(s), or employee(s). 1.10.27. READINESS OF OFFERED PRODUCTS The vendor must warrant, represent, and certify in the Transmittal Letter that all System products (software, hardware, operating system, etc.) offered to the State in the proposal must be currently manufactured and available for general sales, lease, or licenses on the date the proposal is submitted. Any proprietary products must be identified as such. 1.10.28. INSPECTION OF WORK PERFORMED The vendor will prepare and maintain all financial records and records of services performed as are necessary to substantiate claims for payment under this award/contract. The State of Connecticut, the Auditors of Public Accounts or their duly authorized representatives, shall have the right, at reasonable times, upon reasonable notice to the vendor, to examine all books, records, and other compilations of data which pertain to the performance and/or charges applicable to the provisions and requirements of this award/contract. The vendor will preserve and make available such books, records, and data for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment under this award/contract. The vendor will further retain such documents which are pertinent to any actions, proceedings, or appeals 12
  31. 31. State of Connecticut, Department of Information Technology Request for Proposals #08ITZ0040 Web Content Management commenced during the three (3) year period or until they have reached final disposition. The vendor shall also make this a requirement of any subcontractors whom the vendor engages and, accordingly, this requirement shall be included in the contract and shall survive the termination or expiration of the contract. During and after the installation of the products and System, the State, and its authorized representatives, shall be allowed access to inspect all vendor materials, documents, work papers, equipment or products, deliverables, or any such other items which pertain to the scope of work for this RFP and contract. This requirement also applies to any subcontractors who may be engaged by the vendor. 1.10.29. DATE/TIME COMPLIANCE The contractor warrants that hardware, software, and firmware products or each developed, modified, or remediated item of hardware, software, firmware (“item”) or each service delivered under this contract shall be able to: 1.10.29.1. Accurately assess, present, or process date/time data (including, but not limited to, management, manipulation, processing, comparing, sequencing, and other use of date data, including single and multi-century formulae and leap years) before, during, and after January 1, 2000; 1.10.29.2. Properly exchange date/time data when used in combination with other information technology, provided that other information technology not covered by this contract is Year 2000 Compliant; 1.10.29.3. Perform as a System, as so stipulated in the contract, and the warranty shall apply to those items as a System; 1.10.29.4. Where appropriate, respond to two-digit date input in a way that resolves the ambiguity as to century in a disclosed, defined, and predetermined manner. 1.10.29.5. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in any warranty or warranties, the remedies available to the State under this Date/Time Compliance Warranty shall include the obligation to repair or replace any Product and/or item whose non-compliance with this Warranty or defect is discovered by the contractor or the State, all at the expense of the contractor. If the State becomes aware thereof, it must be made known to the contractor in writing. This Warranty remains in effect through the 365 days following the termination of this contract. This provision shall not be construed to extend the Warranty Term of this contract, except as services for defect to the System and all Products shall be required under any Maintenance Term. Nothing in this Warranty shall be construed to limit any rights or remedies the State may otherwise have under this contract with respect to defects. In addition, the contractor warrants that Products or items modified or remediated to achieve Date/Time Compliance shall remain unaffected with respect to their functioning or performance except for processing and exchanging date data. The contractor further warrants that Products or items not being modified or remediated directly shall remain unaffected with respect to their normal functioning and performance. 1.10.30. CORPORATE GOVERNANCE The vendor must state in the Transmittal Letter whether it complies fully with the August 2002 corporate governance rules proposed by the New York Stock Exchange (www.nyse.com/pdfs/corp_gov_pro_b.pdf). Any non-compliance must be identified and explained. 13

×