DRUPAL WCM RFP VENDOR Q&A

Transcription

1 DRUPAL WCM RFP VENDOR Q&A Q: Given that we have been approached by multiple hosting providers for partnership on this engagement, should the proposing prime submit one proposal with multiple hosting options/prices, or submit separate proposals with one hosting provider on each? A: The prime proposer should submit a separate proposal with each hosting vendor given that each proposal will be the basis of an agreement the City would enter with a specific set of vendors partnering together to deliver the services outlined in the commonly agreed Response matrix. Q: Is it acceptable to use some of our offshore resources for the support engineer positions? If so, do the same health insurance requirements apply to these resources? A: Unfortunately, it would not be acceptable to use your offshore resources/personnel for the two support engineer positions because it could lead to significant delay in completing the tasks within City s normal business hours. Q: Can companies from Outside USA apply for this? A: The City and County of San Francisco requests proposals from any qualified respondents that are interested in providing professional services to assist CCSF in setting up and supporting a Web Content Management (WCM) cloud-based solution. For minimum qualifications to be considered, please refer to Appendix F in RFP documents package - Minimum Qualifications Worksheet. Q: Do we need to come to CCSF for meetings? A: Given the initial term of four years for this contract, it is highly likely that there will be multiple in-person meetings in San Francisco, CA with the selected partner during the requirements discussion sessions, development sessions and on-going support sessions. Q: Can we perform the tasks (related to RFP) outside USA? A: City's normal business hours are based on pacific standard time zone. In case the personnel performing tasks are outside the US, and if there are clarifications needed, it could lead to significant delay in completing the tasks. Therefore, our business preference for the tasks related to RFP is to be completed within US for normal response and delivery times. Q: Can we submit our proposals via ? 1

2 A: Proposers must submit their proposals in both electronic AND hard copy as stipulated on p.3 of the 16 page RFP Main document. Proposals by only will be deemed incomplete. Q: Is CCSF looking for the winning vendor of this RFP to write content or simply managing content? A: the vendor is expected to migrate all the websites and content to the new platform. City departments own and write content but the winning vendor will have to support the websites from a technical standpoint. Q: Will we receive the template as an install profile? A: We will deliver the vendor an initial baseline including features, modules and configuration. The vendor will use this package to create the standard profile. Q: Will the template be utilizing a modules/contrib and modules/custom folder structure? A: We are utilizing both modules/contrib and modules/custom folder structures. Q: Will features be used to capture structure configuration of the template? A: Yes we will use features to capture structure configuration of the template. Q: Will the site transitioning have data migration performed, or manual entry? A: Site transition will include automated data migration with only the site home pages including manual entry. Q: Does the current CMS have a API, or export feature to assist in migrating data? A: There is no API but we will be providing database exports and outline a migration process. Q: If so, what type of data exports is available? A: We will provide database exports and static data files. Q: Will we have access to current production site/data, or a developer instance of the production setup? A: We will provide access to a developer instance of the production setup. Q: How many different layouts will be available for page templates and rendering? A: We will provide one standard theme that includes a responsive design layout. As mentioned in the RF, custom websites are out of scope. Q: Do you have an automated deployment for the Vision CMS? 2

3 A: No. Currently the City relies on the technical support team at Vision Internet for deployment and support. Q: When deploying updates on OpenPublic, do you have an automated deployment workflow? A: No, there is no automated workflow, we are using Git. Note however that OpenPublic websites, beyond security patches, have not been updated because as mentioned in the RFP, we intend to completely retire OpenPublic and migrate those legacy sites to Drupal core. Q: Is automated testing part of your current development workflow? A: Currently there is no automated testing but we would like to see the vendor support team introduce those practices as needed. As mentioned in the RFP, we expect the Web content management environment to include development, staging and production environment to facilitate these efforts. Q: Is coding standard automation review part of your current development workflow? A: Currently there is no automatic review but we would like to see the vendor support team introduce those practices. Q: Is there a shared sign on, shared user accounts, shared content, or anything else shared between the sites. I understand there are to be 3 site templates, but those are effectively copies. What we are curious about is if these sites are standalone, or if they have some sort of integration between them? A: We envision single sign on for administrators. The only shared content are global SF content header & footer components such as the City wide SFGov and Accessibility links that you see at the top of City web sites (see 2 tabs on the top right at ) and footer (ex. City seal and SF image). To clarify there are 3 Drupal environments (Standard, Custom and OpenPublic legacy) not 3 templates. All standard sites will share the same standard template. All legacy OpenPublic sites share the existing template until they are converted to standard sites. Custom websites on the contrary will each have their own unique template and potentially separate codebases that will be created as a result of separate projects with each City department that wants to build a custom sites (as noted these additional projects are out of scope). Bottom line each site is standalone. Standard sites share a common template and a common codebase. All OpenPublic based websites will use the existing template and codebase until they are transitioned to standard. In addition all SF websites will share global SF header & footer content components mentioned above. 3

4 Q: How many of the sites require SSL? We are assuming with their references to security and access control that it will probably be all of them? A: All sites will need SSL to authenticate users when they login to the web content management authoring environment. Q: Web page response time of 150ms -- backend or frontend? If front end, what is current front end response time? If users tend to have slow internet/devices then this will impact front end response time of course. A: The 150ms refers to the web server response time and will be measured using a 3 rd party monitoring tool such as NewRelic. Current response time varies between the Drupal and Visionbased sites. Q: Is this 99.95% for the entire year, a month, some other unit? A: The metric applies to the performance measured on a quarterly basis as outlined in the Service Level Agreement included in the RFP. Q: Malicious physical intrusion or electronic as well? The part about "secured data center with controlled access" implies physical intrusion. The closest that can come on the website side of things would be to enforce a policy that all public facing servers serve only static content and utilize read-only file systems. A: Secured access applies to both physical and electronic intrusion. All public facing servers serve static content and we do not process any financial, personal or credit card transactions through these public websites. Clearly in an environment where web content authors are publishing and updating content read only file systems are not feasible. We expect the vendor lock down all configuration files and take any other measures required to ensure the delivery of a secure environment. The RFP also includes requirements addressing user authentication security leveraging SSL, and NIST electronic access guidelines. Q: Requirements state for development server to have 18GB and 8GB of RAM for the production. Why the difference? A: The production environment will include multiple servers (with 8GB and higher RAM) while the development and staging environments each include a single server setup with at least 18GB, which is cumulatively less than production reflecting a lower workload. Q: In terms of what server requirements will be required largely depends on this. Serving anonymous users is simple. Serving authenticated content editors could be problematic sessions, no problem, but what is the frequency of page loads of authenticated users? If we need to support 1100 authenticated page loads in 1 second, this is very different from 1100 throughout the course of a day. We realize that it's unlikely to be more than a few authenticated page requests per second, but with how specific some of these performance requirements are, we think it makes sense to narrow this down. A: We expect the solution to support 1100 concurrent sessions for authenticated users over the period of half hour with an inactive session time out of 30 minutes. 4

5 Q: What is your historical data transfer each month and anticipated transfer amount in the future? A: The requirement is to support unlimited bandwidth with the understanding that the solution will support only static files with no video or audio streaming allowed. The City uses a separate vendor for audio and video streaming services. Q: Solr or Elasticsearch can certainly provide complex search result scoring and some features that google provides, but what is meant by "Google search quality? A: As stated in the requirements the search should return results for both pages and text-based documents. This applies not only page and file names but search results, like with Google, should include the content within both the page and static files (something like this could be easily accomplished leveraging open source tools such as Apache Tika). Q: How is priority of an incident determined? By the client? By type of issue? What happens if client repeatedly falsely reports low priority issues as priority 1? A: The City s team will serve as the primary point of contact for issues during business hours and we will determine the priority of incidents based on the problem severity matrix outlined on page 9 of the Service Level Agreement included in the RFP. The City s web technical team will be able to determine the severity of all issues including those that may be reported repeatedly by a customer. We will work in close partnership with the vendor dedicated support team. Q: Do we get to select the 3rd party service? What will they be monitoring? Only uptime and page response time? A: On page 10 of the Service Level Agreement we outline how availability is calculated. The monitoring service will be reporting on uptime availability. The vendor will be able to choose any independent reputable service such as NewRelic and provide full access to the City s technical team. Q: Based on Section VI. Terms and Conditions for Receipt of Proposals, Section N. item 1. LBE Subcontractor Participation Goals are waived for this project. The instructions state we would then only be required to submit Form 3 titled CMD Non-Discrimination Affidavit. The title of Form 3 in the RFP Package is CMD Compliance Affidavit. Is this the correct form to submit? A: Yes, the CMD Compliance Affidavit is the correct Form 3 in the RFP Package to complete at the time of RFP Submission. Q: Does this City have a preferred Contract approach/vehicle? A: Yes, the City s standard Agreement for Professional Services (Appendix C to the RFP) and the Service Level Agreement (Appendix E to the RFP) are the City s required contract vehicle for the proposed Drupal project. 5

6 Q: In Appendix D, Section 1.2.3, CCSF reports web traffic of at least 2M monthly unique visitors serving 10M pageviews. Are these aggregated metrics across all CCSF web properties that will be hosted? Also, what percentage of that 2M represents authenticated users? A: Yes, these are the aggregated numbers for current traffic but we expect the solution to scale as traffic grows. The 2M represents public traffic and does not include any authenticated users which are a very small fraction. To be clear we are not authenticating any public website visitors. The only authenticated users are the City s web content authors. Q: In Section 1.2.4, CCSF reports over 2,000 web editors with 1,100+ concurrent authenticated sessions. Are the 1,100+ concurrent sessions specific to the 2,000 editors (over half of them logged in at any given time), or is that a metric of all types of authenticated users (which may include your constituent user base) accessing your websites across the entire web platform at any given time? A: The two thousands web content editors are the only authenticated users across all CCSF web sites. There is no constituent authenticated user base at this stage although this is something that may be introduced later as a part of custom web site. The system will need to able to support 1,100+ concurrent sessions for those 2,000 authenticated users. Q: Please clarify what CCSF means by Drupal-core based solution able to support existing City websites as stated in Appendix D, Section 2.1.1? Does this mean that the solution should include all functionality currently available on the front- and back-ends of these websites and that this functionality should be installed and configured to work as it does currently? A: This requirement applies to existing City websites hosted on the Vision platform. These websites will share the standard template and the City will provide the vendor both the initial template and initial base configuration. The vendor dedicated support team will use this codebase to configure the code, create the profile and setup all standard websites within the new Drupal core-based cloud environment using the common standard functionality and design template. Q: In Appendix D, Section 2.1.2, CCSF states that the vendor s dedicated support staff will be responsible for migration of the old Vision WCM sites. Does CCSF assume that these are the only resources needed for these migrations? If additional resources are needed to migrate all sites, will additional funding be provided or will CCSF reset priorities to migrate at a slower pace? A: The City will be providing the vendor the initial codebase and the database exports to aid in the migration process. Given that the conversion period can extend up to one year, and all standard websites use a common template and functionality, the vendor dedicated support staff will have ample time to complete this migration in phases (no additional funding will be provided for this effort). On the contrary custom web sites will be treated as separate projects outside this scope of work. Q: Please clarify what CCSF means by Setup up Drupal Core-based solution so that can host and accommodate all City agency websites that share a standard design and a common functionality in Appendix D, Section Does this mean that the Drupal 6

7 application should have all necessary themes and content types configured such that migrations can happen without the need for additional development? A: To clarify there are 3 Drupal environments (Standard, Custom and OpenPublic legacy) not 3 templates. All standard sites will share the same standard template. All legacy OpenPublic sites share the existing template until they are converted to standard sites. Custom websites on the contrary will each have their own unique template and potentially separate codebases that will be created as a result of separate projects with each City department that wants to build a custom sites (as noted these additional projects are out of scope). Q: Appendix D, Section indicates that the vendor should move at least 3 small websites during the initial setup. Can CCSF indicate which websites it considers small or, preferably, which three websites specifically should be moved? A: The City will finalize the list once the contract is awarded because each department will evaluate whether to adopt a standard or custom template once the Drupal solution is setup by the vendor. To give an example of a typical City website that will need to be converted you can refer to the existing City Attorney s Office website ( ). Q: Do the content author groups referenced in Appendix D, Section have the ability to create, edit, publish, archive and delete content from their site or section of a site but not from any other section of the site? A: To clarify Appendix D Section refers to hosting common elements. You are probably referring to Section which covers content author groups. The base configuration will define different user roles (for example Admin versus Editor) and we will be leveraging workbench to manage permissions to assign each user the ability to update content within the specific section of a website. Q: Can CCSF state the requirements in Appendix D, Section as a business requirement rather than a technical requirement? In other words, what business objective are you trying to achieve by requiring the integration of node accessibility module? If a vendor is able to achieve that business requirement in a different way, is that an acceptable solution? A: The Node accessibility module is the best recommended solution to scan the content of a website and ensure it is compliant with Section 508 accessibility standards. We are open to alternative solutions as long as they offer at least equivalent or better functionality. To be clear the node accessibility module provides feedback about the specific location of errors and examples of how to remediate them. An alternative solution would need to offer at least this kind of functionality and potentially better visual integration with the authoring environment. Q: In Appendix D, Section 2.2.1, CCSF states web site administrators will be allowed to add multiple sub sites without any page limit or restrictions. Please clarify if the microsites will require unique domains (e.g., 2015conference.sfgov.org or sfgov2015conference.org) or simply themed subsections within an existing domain (e.g., sfgov.org/2015conference)? A: The City has several sub-sites that are part of a parent agency but are currently setup either as independent sites or sub-sites of an independent agency. These sub-sites can have either their separate domain name or be reachable via a simple redirect off of sfgov.org. Bottom line the architecture needs to be able to support a hybrid solution. 7

8 Q: In Section 2.4.2, you state that Search should return results for both pages and textbased documents comparable to Google search quality. Where are these text-based documents stored? Will these documents be attached to Drupal content, or stored in an external datastore? Also, is search limited to per-site search results, or is it expected that search indexes span multiple web properties? For example, should searches for inspections on sfgov.org return results from indexed pages on sfdbi.org? A: We have both text-based documents attached to the Drupal system (for example uploaded via the Media module) or uploaded directly to the file system. As stated in the requirements the search should return results for both pages and text-based documents. This applies not only to web pages and file names but search results, like with Google, should include keywords identified within the content of both web pages and static files (something like this could be easily accomplished leveraging open source tools such as Apache Tika). The solution needs to allow the public to search both city-wide content and within each website as we currently do. For example a search on sfgov.org for permits will return results on both indexed pages within sfdbi.org and across all other websites that contain relevant results. On the contrary a search entered within a single agency website (for example searching for permits on the DBI website at sfgov.org/dbi) should not include results from other City websites. Q: Please clarify the difference between requirement and A: Requirement refers to the migration of Drupal OpenPublic websites AS IS within the new managed cloud hosting environment. While requirement refers to the initial setup of the OperPublic based solution using the existing modules and configuration. As mentioned this is a transitional solution to allow the vendor dedicated support team enough time to migrate those sites to Drupal core and then completely retire the OpenPublic environment. Q: Please clarify the difference between 2.1.7, and 2.8. Does one of the requirements assume a shared codebase and another assume separate codebases? Or is that still to be decided? A: Since there are 3 Drupal environments (Standard, Custom and OpenPublic legacy) let s address each separately. The Drupal core standard websites will share the same template and codebase. All legacy OpenPublic websites will share the existing template and codebase until they are converted to standard sites. Custom websites on the contrary will each have their own unique template and potentially separate codebases that will be created as a result of separate projects with each City department that wants to build a custom site (as noted design and development for these additional projects are out of scope). Q: With regard to Section 2.8.1, please validate that the custom solutions that are expected to be hosted are Drupal-friendly. In other words, will your highly customized solutions require any non-drupal applications to be hosted on our platform (e.g, Java)? A: The Drupal custom sites environment will be dedicated to hosting Drupal only websites and will not require any non-drupal applications. The cloud hosting environment is not meant to be an all-purpose hosting environment beyond the City s Drupal websites. 8

9 Q: Please clarify what is included in full ongoing support as stated in Are 4.1.2, 4.1.3, 4.1.4, and the definitions of full or is more expected? A: The scope of dedicated ongoing support services is defined not only in RFP Section 4.1 but it includes the requirements laid out in sections 4.2 and 4.3 and in the Service Level Agreement. Q: In 4.1.4, please define what should be covered by application maintenance, troubleshooting, and applying fixes. Is this break-fix work on the Drupal application only? Does this envision maintenance resulting from a third party change, e.g., a change to a third-party API used in the application that requires new development to retain existing functionality? Does this maintenance apply to Drupal applications developed outside the scope of this contract, such as envisioned in 2.7.1? A: The vendor dedicated support team will provide ongoing support for the Drupal WCM solution and all City websites. This includes support for and fixes to APIs, modules, components including retention and enhancements to functionality of City websites regardless of whether they are standard or custom websites. The support services exclude support for City s custom built applications (such as a custom permit processing app) whether or not it uses Drupal software. Q: Does the support envisioned in include applications developed prior to or outside this contract? A: The vendor dedicated support team will provide ongoing support for all City websites regardless of whether they are standard, custom or legacy OpenPublic. To be clear the design and development of custom websites is outside the scope of this engagement. Q: Does CCSF anticipate that the dedicated engineering staff will be responsible for requirement or is this requirement separate from their efforts? A: The dedicated vendor support team will provide ongoing support for all City websites regardless of whether they are standard, custom or legacy OpenPublic (the latter, until retired). We expect the vendor dedicated support team to fully cooperate and integrate with the cloud hosting support team. The senior engineer on the dedicated support team will act as the City s main point of contact for all issues related to both support of the City Drupal WCM software and the cloud hosting environment. We expect all partners to work together acting in unison as if they are a single service provider to the City. Q: Is the City open to other approaches besides firm fixed price/fixed scope? A: The City expects vendors to deliver a solution that will meet all requirements laid out in the project scope included in Appendix D. The City expects vendors to submit a fixed annual subscription cost as part of their cost proposal applicable to the entire life of the contract. We are not interested in any time and materials based proposals as that pricing model will be applicable to the design and development of custom websites that are outside the scope of this engagement. 9

10 Q: Does the main scope of the engagement include website redesign, or only migration to a new solution? A: The scope of the City RFP does not include web design services. The purpose of the RFP is for the City to acquire both setup and support services for a Drupal solution in a cloud hosted environment. Please refer to the RFP Appendix D for a detailed list of services and requirements. Q: Will the vendor be responsible for applying the responsive template provided by client to particular sections and pages of the sites? A: The City will provide the responsive template and baseline configuration that will be used on standard websites. The vendor dedicated support team will be responsible to apply, setup and migrate the City websites using the provided responsive design template and standard configuration. Q: When can we see designs of the new template provided by client to estimate working with it? A: The responsive design template is currently being designed and developed and will be provided to the vendor once the contract is awarded. To be clear the City will not be providing the template design just as a Photoshop file, we will be providing the vendor the entire theme and codebase. We do not expect the vendor to provide any web design services as part of this engagement. Q: Can you provide us with the full list of websites, including the small sites and sub-sites? A: The RFP Appendix D Reference Section 1 lists out current Vision WCM and Drupal OpenPublic WCM web sites. These websites and subsites can also be accessed via the City s online agency directory ( ). Q: Which of these are assumed to be under separate scopes of work? A: The new Drupal WCM solution to be setup as part of this project needs to accommodate all City websites regardless of whether they are standard or custom. Each department will evaluate which option to choose once the new Drupal solution is setup. As mentioned the design and development services for custom websites are outside the scope of this engagement. Q: The document requests support for existing Vision WCM websites on a Drupal-core based solution, while also saying that these websites will be migrated to Drupal within year 1 of the contract. Does this mean the vendor will have to setup Vision WCM within a Drupal solution before the migration happens? A: The goal of the project is to setup a Drupal WCM cloud managed solution that will accommodate all City websites. The websites will be migrated by the vendor dedicated support team over the course of the first year of the contract and during this transition period the City will continue to use the Vision WCM solution until the last City website is migrated to Drupal. There is no expectation that the selected vendor will setup and support the Vision WCM solution which will remain external of the Drupal cloud environment. 10