Hosted Contact Center RFQC Questions and Answers

Transcription

1 Hosted Contact Center Q&A s 1-4, Released 4/24/14 1. Appendix A I noticed that on the Appendix A there is only 5 pages and that pages 6 and 7 are not yet provided. Will they be updated soon? 2. Section 1.1 This bid appears to be for the technology backbone (HCC Services) for the various call centers. The bid description reads GTA intends to conduct a competitive procurement to re-procure Contact Center Services and transition support before December 31, ( Does that mean there will be a separate bid for the Contact Center Services [which provides outsourced contact center services for managing the people in the seats and the systems they use]? If so, do you have a timeframe for that bid and will it re-compete? 3. N/A [Could another state agency providing this service approach GTA and then] can this not be contracted to us without bid? 4. Sections and 5.3 Can more than 1 bidder share the volume or will this be awarded to only one business? Q&A 5, Released 4/26/14 5. Section 1.6 [...] in the documents you stated that questions were to be submitted on the 5th and that the answers would be received also on the 5th. Which then only gives us 24 hours to incorporate those answers in the final version which are due on the 6th. Is there any A revised version of Appendix A has been posted to the GPR with the missing pages; replacing Appendix A entirely. This RFQC is for the hosted technology service of Call Centers and does not include any staffing elements. No. This RFQC is to qualify prospective providers to participate in future solicitations. See section 5.3 for how many PSP GTA intends to select. Volume of services work will be awarded through future solicitation. See GTA website for additional information: The Q&A period is from the posting date of the RFQC up to the deadline date and time. Responses to Suppliers' written questions will be provided the same day or the next business day during the Q&A period. May 9, 2014 Page 1 of 9

2 Hosted Contact Center flexibility in turning in our response? GTA urges the submission of questions in a timely manner for incorporation into RFQC responses. Q&A s 6-12, Released 4/29/14 6. Section 1.6 [Our firm] requests an extension given the short time frame associated with responding to the Hosted Contact Center RFQC No Section 1.6 As a follow up to our question on Friday regarding an extension request, [Our firm] specifically requests an extension of at least 2 weeks in order to appropriately to the Hosted Contact Center RFQC No Section 1.6 [Our firm] is requesting a one-week extension on the due date for responses to GTA RFQC for Hosted Contact Center Services. The Georgia Procurement Registry shows a due date of May 6, 2:00 PM. We request the due date be moved to May 13th or later. We are very excited about the opportunity to work the GTA on this project and want to ensure our response is as complete as possible. Since hard copies are also required, this makes the timeline even tighter, especially since the final responses to questions will be published on May 5th, the day prior to the currently published due date. We cannot extend this RFQC phase of the procurement process due to the urgency of the need to implement new service provider solutions prior to the end of this calendar year. The RFQC is asking for description of service provider solutions that already exist. As an RFQC, we are only establishing service providers who are qualified to participate in future solicitations. We are not asking the PSP to respond with specific pricing at this time. We anticipate that this provides sufficient time for providers to respond appropriately to the RFQC request. See Answer to Question 6 See Answer to Question 6 May 9, 2014 Page 2 of 9

3 9. Section 1.1 Would GTA provide additional details on the distinction between the hosted contact center contemplated in this RFQC, and the single point of contact service desk currently managed by IBM? These are two separate services. This RFQC is not the single point of contact service desk which is for the State's IT Service Desk, rather the hosted contact center services are used for interfacing call agents with agency constituents. 10. Section 1.6 Can you please offer an extension of the due date for See Answer to Question 6 this RFQC Response? 11. Exhibit 2, Section 2.2, Master Services Agreement, Page 5 of 29, item 2 Scope In Exhibit 2, Section 2.2, 12, can you clarify the ability to change gate opening or closing? Does this refer to the opening and closing times for a contact center? Or to something else? In the Master Services Agreement, Page 5 of 29, item 2 Scope, the document states that The contractual relationship between Service Provider, GTA and GTA Customer shall be governed by the provisions of this Agreement and the following exhibits attached hereto and incorporated into this Agreement, including: Exhibit 1 (Governance) and its attachments Exhibit 2 (Description of Services) and its attachments Exhibit 3 (Service Levels and Reporting) and its attachments Exhibit 4 (Pricing and Financial Provisions) and its attachments However, Exhibits 1, 3, and 4 are not included in the RFQC package. Are we to assume that these will be provided in any follow-on RFP or can they be provided now? Q&A s 13-23, Released 4/30/14 Yes - in Exhibit 2, Section 2.2, 12 references the Agency to be able to make changes for opening & closing contact centers at the ACD level, changing messaging, routing or scripting The MSA agreement has been included only as an example. The additional documents referenced would be included as part of the follow-on RFP. Since this is only an RFQC to qualify providers, the follow on RFP will provide the additional final documents. May 9, 2014 Page 3 of 9

4 13. [Not provided] The request has asked for specific financial information as well as detailed reference information. In our effort to respect our customers confidentiality as well as ours we won t be able to provide at this time. We would be more than happy to provide you with this information to you if/when we are selected as a finalist or are further along in the process. Please advise us of your disposition of our not providing you with the information mentioned above to that stage. 14. Exhibit Basic Seat pricing should include Exhibit Per Seat Pricing should include all installs, moves, adds or changes(imac What is Georgia Technology Authority's definition of "seat" as referred to throughout exhibit 2? As a business practice we normally view each user as their own individual seat What is Georgia Technology Authority's definition of "seat" as referred to throughout exhibit 2? As a business practice we normally view each user as their own individual seat. 16. [Not provided] Financials As a private company, we require a mutual financial NDA and would also prefer to be further in the cycle to provide this information. 17. [Not provided] SLA information as a vendor, we provide a standardized platform, but in a custom delivery model. So, our SLA s are 100% dependent on how we jointly wish to implement the solution, often based on security/compliance reasons and costs. So, we do not have standards SLAs that we provide out-of-thebox, but we can describe examples of other We understand that some confidentiality agreements or internal practices may not permit public disclosure of reference names or personal contact information. However, understanding the type of work your firm has performed in the past is an important part of our review. Please provide as much detail as possible in the response without naming the firm directly (e.g., type, size, industry, project information, etc.). Also, let us know whom to contact at your firm to arrange a reference check, if we get The seat information provided in Appendix A Current Environment is based on named seats where each seat is associated with an individual. As part of their solution description, Prospective Service Providers should clearly describe what the meaning of seat would be in their experience. See Answer to Question 14 PSP Financials are not required at this stage. In accordance with section the state reserves the right to request them with the future procurement. Please describe your SLA's for a similar engagement with similar size, scope and requirements. May 9, 2014 Page 4 of 9

5 implementations and their respective SLAs. 18. [Not provided] [We...] have active partnerships with most large telcom providers. Being a local company, we wanted to bid on this as the primary and then allow GTA to have the flexibility to choose the best network and telecom provider for your needs as we can bring 19. Exhibit 2, Section 2.2, Exhibit 2, Section 2.2, Exhibit 2, Section 2.2, Exhibit 2, Section 2.3, Exhibit 2, Section 3.2, 2 several to the table. Provide Agency with the ability to adjust wrap time and force calls to agents. What is the Agency s definition of forced calls in this context? Force calls to agents when staffed in without them having to signal to receive a call What is the Agency s definition of forced calls in this context? Provide an alert when an agent is dropped from the ACD queue. Please clarify dropped from the ACD queue Provide 24x7 automated (IVR) support in certain situations, including retrieval/recall. Please explain retrieval/recall Ability to analyze customer interactions. Please provide more details for this question. Q&A s 24-27, Released 5/1/14 See Answer to Question Not referenced We respectfully request that GTA extend its submission date by a minimum of one week. We Strongly believe that GTA should consider providing an extension of the submission date for this critical requirement to enable the state's potential partners to offer the most responsive, thorough, and versatile We desire to have the Hosted Contact Center solution to include all telecom services that are required for complete service. The platform should be configurable to present the next call to the agent without any agent interaction. The platform should be configurable to start routing calls to agents automatically when agents login to the system. (open the queue from after hours mode) If an agent that was scheduled and logged in and subsequently should drop during the scheduled shift an alert should be provided. Provide Support for errors in the IVR. For example, errors with database data retrieval PSP should describe previous experiences with the ability to analyze customer interactions consistent with best practices with workforce management. May 9, 2014 Page 5 of 9

6 solutions. This decision would minimize potential risk and maximize the range of effective offerings for the State to consider, increasing the probability of achievement of the State's and Contact Center User Group's goal of enabling more options to meet diverse Agency business needs and providing for more direct interaction with Agency businesses that use Contact Center services. 25. Not referenced What percentage of eligible entities have elected to procure contact center technologies though this requirement's incumbent contract. 26. Not referenced Please identify GTA and user entity current deployments of and potential preferences for CRM solutions. 27. Page 10/ 2.1.A Table of Documents for Response Please confirm our interpretation to GTA's response to vendor submitted question 12 that the offerors are expected to submit an MSA as Appendix D within this response. Q&A s 28-34, Released 5/2/14 See Addendum1 28. [Not referenced]...could we receive a small extension (1 week or so) in an effort to put together the most robust and complete response possible? More specifically, our legal and compliance departments are requesting a 10 business day extension to complete all financial and legal work associated with the RFQ 29. Appendix C Statement Questionnaire in Section 1.0 question 15 The RFQC seems to be asking for redundant or at least similar information between the Appendix C Statement Questionnaire document and the Attachment 2-B Solution document. [See example The best available information that can be provided at this time is listed in Appendix A for the current environment. The future contracts that are anticipated will be open and available to all state agencies and public sector entities in Georgia. The current CRM deployment within the GTA and State Enterprise include Oracle On Demand. In accordance to section 2.1, the PSP should provide their own company standard MSA as Appendix D. The responses to Appendix C will be evaluated as to the PSP s capability and experience to provide the services covered by this RFQC. The responses to Attachment 2-B will be used for the services under contract for any follow- May 9, 2014 Page 6 of 9

7 Hosted Contact Center and HCC Att 2-B Solution Section 3.3 items 1 and 2 references.] Are you looking for a restatement of the same information in both sections? The Section 2.0 table would be an elaboration (Summary description of experience/service performed) on our answer of yes in the section 1.0 above. And, in the additional document (Att 2-B section 3.3) it asks for information below to address how your solutions meets the requirements listed in that section. 30. Section Are bidders encouraged to seek partners to optimize their solution for GTA? 31. Section If so, is there a time limit, in the procurement process, on when potential partners can be introduced and identified to GTA? Is it allowable to choose partners or subcontractors, after being selected as a prequalified contractor even though the subcontractor was not included in the initial RFQC response? Is there any limitation on the overall role or percentage of work that a subcontractor or partner could perform on this program? 32. Section If GTA were to identify key capabilities that could be supplied by one or more partners that would strengthen or optimize the overall solution, would GTA be able to mention these capabilities and partner companies to prequalified contractors (especially if they were deemed to have less capability in those key areas)? 33. Section If not, will the names and contacts of prequalified See section 5.9 on procurement issued based on the results of this RFQC. Providers may reference material in their response to Attachment 2-B from their response to Appendix C. Providers should not reference Appendix C from elsewhere in their response. The RFQC is seeking a provider to deliver a complete Hosted Contact Center solution, with or without partners. We expect the provider to submit their solution response to the RFQC inclusive of any partner's they may require. No. May 9, 2014 Page 7 of 9

8 contractors be made available to companies that have differentiated capabilities as a subcontractor and are possibly interested in teaming with a prequalified contractor? 34. [Not referenced] Is the response due date still set for May 6? Will GTA See Addendum1 extend the due date to allow for more thorough responses? Q&A s 35-37, Released 5/7/ Given the time delay and today s website difficulties, See Addendum1 can an extension be granted? Working the timing backwards this would require sending all materials by Thursday to ensure a Monday morning delivery which puts legal and executive signature with notary completion by Wednesday. If there is any way possible to push this out again I would greatly appreciate it. 37. We have tried multiple times today to open the link you provided, and I have also gone to this page on your website to try: We have not been able to get the RFQC webpage to load....can a PDF copy of it be sent to us? In addition to the extension of the PSP response due/close date to May 12th at 10:00a, ET, the Addendum 1, item 4 changes the primary delivery method of PSP Response in RFQC Section 2.3 to submission by the 5/12 Due/Closing date and time. GTA expects that the Addendum 1 change to delivery of PSP responses by the deadline will permit PSP Respondents additional time up to, but no later than, 5/12 10:00 AM, ET for submission. Per the Addendum 1, the hardcopies and CDs are now required to be submitted by 4:00 PM, ET on Thursday, May 14th. The GPR system is down under maintenance today until further notice. GTA will provide additional information about access to the RFQC document via or from the Hosted Contact Services Webpage. Note: As of 5/7/14, access to the GPR system was restored. Q&A 38, Released 5/8/14 May 9, 2014 Page 8 of 9

9 38. Addendum 1 In compliance with the original requests and in order to meet the original deadline. Our response was shipped out prior to receiving the extension addendum to insure that the original date was met. This response included the 2 hard copies and 10 CD- ROMs. Is that response still compliant or must we now resend and include an ed version as stated in the addendum? The hardcopies and CDs package submission for Provider s HCC RFQC response has been received by GTA, and is in compliance with the RFQC section submission requirement (ref. Addendum 1, item 4). For compliance with RFQC section (ref. Addendum 1, item 4), submission of the same pre-delivered RFQC response will need to be provided by your company on or before the RFQC PSP Response Due/Close due of 5/12/14 at 10:00 AM, ET. 39. Question 5 Attachment 2B Solution Section 6.1 Pricing Q&A 39, Released 5/9/14 Please confirm that offeror responses to the pricing Provider's solution responses should show how they intend approach requirements indexed to this section in to deliver under the pricing model requirements. Specific Exhibit 2.0 do not include actual and specific solution pricing has not been requested for the RFQC. pricing data. Does GTA intend to receive pricing in the submission? May 9, 2014 Page 9 of 9