REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL RECORDS MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE CONTRACT NO. P-2589 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Transcription

1 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL RECORDS MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE CONTRACT NO. P-2589 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS QUESTION: In the RFP on page 2, it states the software should be able to communicate with Coakley for the offsite physical storage. Can you please provide the contact information for Coakley so we can contact them to learn what software they are using? ANSWER: The MMSD contact at C. H. Coakley is Ezekiel Gipson, Sales & Customer Service Manager; his phone number is QUESTION: What is the budget proposed for this project? ANSWER: We don t choose to reveal a proposed budget figure for this project. We expect submitters to submit the most cost effective budget that they can. Compensation is a competitive part of the evaluation of proposals. We don t want to lead a submitter toward any set value. QUESTION: What is the timeframe for implementation of this project? ANSWER: We don t choose to reveal an implementation timeframe for this project. We expect submitters to submit the most competitive project plan that they can. The project is a competitive part of the evaluation of proposals. We don t want to lead a submitter toward any set value. QUESTION: Is it required for the firms to be authorized to do business with Wisconsin before submitting the proposal (or) before the contract award? ANSWER: It is required for firms to be authorized to do business in Wisconsin, not with Wisconsin. Our RFP outlines Local Office Preferences, and SWMBE (Small, Women, Minority) business preferences, but they apply to all submitters. QUESTION: Of the 350 Users of the system, how many of those will add documents to the system as opposed to being view-only users? ANSWER: All users should be able to upload a document. 1

2 QUESTION: Does the City have a well-defined Records Taxonomy to be implemented in the new system, or will defining the Records Taxonomy be part of the Implementation Plan? ANSWER: The MMSD will need assistance developing a detailed taxonomy for document classification. QUESTION: In the RFP document, the city itemizes the capability to interface with offsite storage currently provided by Coakley for physical records. Can you elaborate on the level of integration required? For instance, is it anticipated that the new Records Management application will directly interface (programmatically) with Coakley, or might an triggered from a Record request satisfy the requirement? ANSWER: The preferred method of would be to directly interface (programmatically) with Coakley (this software is provided for Coakley by a third party, Andrew Software). The Records Management application will have to interface with this provider. A less acceptable method could also be triggered via from a Record request. QUESTION: Are there existing Electronic Records to be migrated into the new system? ANSWER: There is a group of records that describe the District s current physical record inventory that will need to be migrated over. QUESTION: Please provide clarity on volume of physical records and electronic records that need to be scanned/considered for RMS? ANSWER: There are approximately 30,000 boxes of physical records; the MMSD is not planning to scan these items into the proposed system. Rather we would ask the winning proposer to assist in the migration of the electronic data describing the boxes and their content into the new system. QUESTION: Do you have any existing RMS? If yes, please provide details on the same. ANSWER: Currently the MMSD is using OnBase. QUESTION: Please provide clarity/details on your existing metadata that need to be customized. ANSWER: The MMSD will need assistance developing a classification/taxonomy system to utilize for electronic records. We currently have a series of file codes which 2

3 covers our physical records; we will need to have a means to link these existing codes with the new classification scheme so that searches for information would provide electronic, as well as physical records, that match a search criterion. QUESTION: Please provide your records retention schedule. ANSWER: Current retention schedule is attached to this QUESTION: Please provide your strategy on document archiving. ANSWER: The MMSD does not have a fully developed strategy; it is our hope that staff, as well as Records Center staff, have the ability to archive a document into the new system utilizing a series of developed policies and procedures, as well as applying proper classification scheme and retention schedule for the archived information. QUESTION: What, if any, hardware does Customer currently have for Application Server, Database server, Web Server, Server? If yes, then please provide configuration, server model/type for existing hardware. ANSWER: We currently run MS Exchange 2010 as our server. Servers (Application, Database, and Web) would be proposed, if your application requires them. Our standard servers are HP Proliant DL380s and DL580s. These serve as hosts in a Hyper-V virtual environment. QUESTION: Is scanning hardware and software to be included in the cost proposal? ANSWER: Scanning hardware would not be necessary. We have sufficient stations to do this work. Software would need to be included in this proposal. Scanners are Fujitsu. QUESTION: Will Customer provide us with any specified brand/make for scanning equipment? ANSWER: Fujitsu FI QUESTION: What document types need to be scanned? ANSWER: Document types can be virtually anything the MMSD receives as a hardcopy (i.e. contracts, proposals, invoices, etc.). 3

4 QUESTION: What is the volume of documents and pages to be scanned for day-forward operations? ANSWER: This is unknown at this time. QUESTION: How many scanning work stations does the District need? ANSWER: This would depend on the application need. We have at least 7 scanning stations. QUESTION: Do you plan to setup Disaster-Recovery site? ANSWER: The MMSD already has a disaster recovery site. QUESTION: Is train the trainer model acceptable to Customer? ANSWER: The MMSD will like the winning proposer to train several members of the MMSD staff as subject matter experts (both IT staff and Records Center staff) and then these experts will provide training to other users. QUESTION: Would you allow vendor to provide maintenance & support remotely? ANSWER: Yes. QUESTION: Please provide clarity on Coakley in order to interface with the proposed solution. ANSWER: The preferred method of working would be to directly interface (programmatically) with Coakley (this software is provided for Coakley by a third party, Andrew Software). The Records Management application will have to interface with this provider. A less acceptable method could also be triggered via from a Record request. QUESTION: How many users will access the system concurrently? ANSWER: The MMSD could have up to 100 users at a time. QUESTION: What are the primary drivers of this project? (access, compliance, etc) 4

5 ANSWER: The primary drivers are ease of storage and access to records as well as compliance for litigation needs and open records requests. QUESTION: How many records (boxes) approximately are stored with Coakley? Is there an option for the vendor to convert the records stored with Coakley to digital? What type of files are these? (paper files, architectural diagrams, etc). ANSWER: The District has approximately 30,000 boxes of physical records. We have no intention of converting these to an electronic format, and their types are varied ranging from documents to drawings. QUESTION: What s your current scanning capability (desktop scanners, area bizhubs, etc)? ANSWER: The District has both desktop scanners as well as Xerox copiers capable of scanning documents into an electronic format. QUESTION: Is there a preferred usage/storage format for the open records request (.html,.pdf, etc)? Do you have other eforms requirements? Digital signature? ANSWER: We prefer to store open records requests as.pdf types. We have not yet determined other eforms nor are we currently utilizing digital signatures. QUESTION: Do all of the users use the SharePoint interface for records view/retrieval or are there other interfaces (Outlook, shared drives, etc) that they use? ANSWER: Currently the District plans on using SharePoint as well as Outlook and shared drives for moving information into the new records platform. QUESTIONS: Are there associated/evolving IT requirements associated to this project (ERP, CRM, network growth challenges, etc)? ANSWER: The IT requirements are those specified in the RFP. Our financials are called out there and that would/could be an integration point. QUESTION: Is there an incumbent records management system currently in use? ANSWER: Currently the District has OnBase in place. 5