ACCESS Florida System Replacement - dcf.state.fl.us · Accenture continues to be enthusiastic about...

Copyright © 2012 Accenture. All Rights Reserved. Accenture, its logo, and Accenture High Performance Delivered are registered

trademarks of Accenture and/or its affiliates in the United States and other countries. This document may make reference to trademarks

that may be owned by others. The use of such trademarks is not intended to imply the existence of an association between Accenture and

the lawful owners of such trademarks. Accenture acknowledges application of Article I, Section 24, of the Florida Constitution, and Section

119.011 of the Florida Statutes. Only to the degree applicable, if Accenture has submitted information it claims is proprietary and

confidential to Accenture, such information should not be disclosed outside of or used for any purpose other than for the State of Florida to

evaluate this Proposal.

January 30, 2013

Submitted To:

Peggy Claborn, Procurement Manager Florida Department of Children and Families 1317 Winewood Boulevard, Building 2, Room 306 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Email: [email protected]

Submitted By:

Accenture LLP Federal Tax Identification Number: 72-052904 John G. Martin, Senior Executive 2002 Old Augustine Road, Suite E45 Tallahassee, FL 32301 (850) 513-3534 Email: [email protected]

STATE OF FLORIDA

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

Office of Economic Self-Sufficiency

ACCESS Florida System Replacement

ITN # 03F12GC1

Interim Revised Response (IRR) #6 Document

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

ITN # 03F12GC1 - ACCESS FLORIDA System Replacement Page 1

January 30, 2013

Ms. Peggy Claborn Procurement Manager Florida Department of Children and Families 1317 Winewood Boulevard, Building 2, Room 306 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700

Dear Ms. Claborn:

Accenture is pleased to submit the attached response to the Interim Revised Response (IRR) #6 request provided on January 25, 2013 in relation to the Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) 03F12GC1 for the ACCESS Florida System Replacement project. In this response, we provide as requested our comments and suggested changes to the Phase 3 Design, Development, and Implementation (DDI) Performance Measures/Liquidated Damages and updated Statement of Work (SOW). We are supportive of the Department’s effort to quickly and efficiently finalize the scope and approach to implement the new system components needed to meet Affordable Care Act (ACA) guidelines. While the delayed contract signing and project start have compressed the project schedule, we are confident the Accenture team, working collaboratively with DCF, can adapt and implement the solution to successfully meet the important ACA deadlines. The solution components and team we have proposed seek to provide best value in addressing both the Department’s immediate deadlines and the broader goals defined in the Feasibility Study. We expect the capabilities implemented in the scope defined in this SOW will provide an excellent foundation for further modernization and improved outcomes for the Department and its stakeholders, allowing you to begin with Phase 3 as the first priority and eventually into Phase 4 functionality and beyond as a longer term goal. To quickly and efficiently complete the negotiation process, we would recommend face-to-face meetings to finalize Performance Measures/Liquidated Damages and Statement of Work (SOW) comments. Accenture continues to be enthusiastic about the ACCESS Florida Replacement System project. As DCF prepares for and evaluates this response for further discussions and negotiations, Accenture is available to answer questions and further discuss the best approach and value for DCF and the State of Florida. We have provided the responses to

2002 Old St. Augustine Road, E-45 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 PH: (850) 513-0620 FAX: (850) 513-3500


your questions and instructions in the format provided by the Department. Our response has been developed to be focused to your request. Please do not hesitate to call me at (850) 591 – 5364. I look forward to working with you in this very important endeavor. Sincerely,

ACCENTURE LLP

John G. Martin Senior Executive


2.1 PHASE 3 DDI PERFORMANCE MEASURES / LIQUIDATED DAMAGES Vendor Instructions Using the tables in Appendix A, please provide feedback to the performance measures and liquidated damages in the tables.

Vendor Response: We have used the table in Section 3 Appendix A below to provide feedback to the performance measures and liquidated damages.

Accenture has successfully negotiated performance measures with State of Florida departments and agencies, sister agencies of DCF in other states and local governments, and with commercial clients. We monitor our market related to vendor performance measures closely. We are willing to place portions of our monthly fees at risk for critical performance measures that are consistent with current market trends.

We look forward to engaging with the Department in discussions on the topic of performance measures and innovative techniques to create best value. Accenture brings insight based on current and past experience with performance measures and how to target them to motivate parties to exhibit desired behaviors without creating unintended behaviors that might undermine outcomes for the Department.

2.2 PHASE 3 DDI SOW Vendor Instructions Using the tables in Appendix B, please provide feedback to the changes that were made in the SOW to reflect the updates in scope that have been discussed in negotiations. If the vendor has no issues with the changes that have been made please make note of it below. Vendor Response: We have used the table in Section 4 Appendix B below to provide feedback to the changes that were made in the SOW. Because the project start has been delayed, the reduced project duration to meet federal deadlines is a significant risk and area of concern for all of us. As we discussed in IRR #3, if the project start date was delayed, it would be necessary to alter the approach and/or scope to be able to meet critical federal deadlines. In thinking through how to best meet the DCF needs and ACA requirements, we recommend utilizing a hybrid System Development Life Cycle (SDLC) approach that takes advantage of streamlining the work and targeting flexibility in the process to achieve the DCF desired outcomes. We believe the rigorous phase gated SDLC may actually increase the risk of failure to meet critical deadlines as opposed to helping to reduce risk. An example of a specific change is to modify the development process to reflect a more significant overlap of activities than originally anticipated, and a reduction in formal deliverables and an acceleration of deliverable review. Given the short project duration, it will be especially important to tightly manage work to deadlines and stay focused on the critical path. We would like to discuss an approach with the end in mind that includes a reduced number of tangible milestones and checkpoints that are more aligned to federal deadlines than the typical SDLC process phases. We would expect that liquidated damages and performance measures are


aligned around these critical outcomes and dates in the project. The SOW language provided by the Department also implies there could be areas that require further clarification about the solution we have proposed. Specific examples include conversion, training, reports, and warranty. We look forward to clarifying these and other items as required. Given the reduced project scope and duration as defined in the SOW, we would also like to discuss potential adjustments to the project team structure and proposed role realignments. Lastly, the project governance structure appears complex and our experience delivering projects in Florida indicates that it does not provide a sound framework for effective and timely decision making. In the SOW, all key decisions are made by the Executive Steering Committee which includes representatives from other Agencies which given the tight timeframes for this project, will create delays putting all of us at risk. We would recommend that the decision framework for the project should be revised to include a single project sponsor as primary decision maker, with some decision making authority pushed down to lower levels of the project including the Project Director.


SECTION 3 APPENDIX A

Ref# Measure Description Measure

Metric(s)

Frequency of

Measurement

Will this measure

decrease,

increase or not

impact the

vendor’s price?

If the measure will increase the

vendor’s price, provide

alternative language that will not

increase the vendor’s price.

1 90% of the Project’s deliverable

documentation shall be approved within

the first iteration of a standard review

cycle (Contractor submit, Department

evaluate and comment, Contractor

update, Department review and accept)

based on deliverable acceptance criteria

mutually agreed upon by the

Department and the Contractor before

creating each deliverable.

The Department is responsible for

compiling feedback and resolving

conflicts in comments. All input will be

incorporated in the Department

comments in the first review.

Remaining 10% of the Project’s

deliverable documentation shall be

approved within the second iteration.

Calculated as

“{(Number of

deliverables

approved within

the first iteration

of standard

review

cycle)/(Total

number of

deliverables

submitted)}X100

%”.

Quarterly No impact on price

2 100% of any data needed from the

legacy systems databases shall be

converted and loaded accurately into the

new system.

Data to be converted, if any, shall be

mutually agreed upon.

Calculated as

“{(Number of

records

converted from

the legacy

systems and

loaded into the

new system) /

(Total number of

records to be

converted within

the legacy

systems)X100%}

”.

Prior to

implementation

during final

mock

conversion and

at final load

prior to

implementation

.

Potential increase

in price

In order to avoid a price increase,

the following open points require

confirmation:

The data to be converted

The cleanliness of the data to be converted

Data manually converted by DCF is excluded from this measure

How accuracy is determined

Target is 95%.

3 99.5% of the converted data from the

legacy system shall be available to the

users within the new system on the day

of go-live.

Remaining 0.5% of the converted data

from the legacy system shall be

available to the users within the new

system within 10 Business Days of go-

live.

Data to be converted, if any, shall be


Calculated as

“{(Number of

converted

records available

in the new

system) / (Total

number of

converted

records)

X100%}”.

Prior to go-live

during final

mock

conversion.

After go-live.

Potential increase

in price

In order to avoid a price increase,

the following open points require

confirmation:

The data to be converted

How availability is determined

The cleanliness of the data to be converted

Data manually converted by DCF is excluded from this measure

Target is 95%



Metric(s)

Frequency of

Measurement

Will this measure

decrease,

increase or not

impact the

vendor’s price?





4 The Solution shall have 0 (Zero) “Fatal”

defects for entering “go-live”.

The assignment of defect type shall be


Note: For “Severe” and “Trivial” defects,

the decision for entering “go-live” shall

be mutually agreed upon.

Calculated as

“Total number of

defects classified

as Fatal”.

Prior to go-live. No impact on price Assumptions for no price increase:

Assumes that a Fatal defect equals

Accenture definition of a Severity 1

Test defect:

A Severity 1 Test Defect

significantly impacts ongoing test

execution and productivity, and if

deployed to production would likely

result in a loss of a critical business

function that disrupts business

resulting in a financial loss, or

prevents the client from conducting

business.

5 100% of the functional and non-

functional requirements shall be

traceable throughout the software

development life cycle (i.e.

Requirements Validation, Functional

Design, Technical Design, Coding, Unit

Testing, System Integration Testing,

User Acceptance Testing,

Implementation)

Calculated as

“{(Number of

requirements

included in the

life cycle

phase)/(Number

of requirements

scheduled for the

life cycle

phase)}X100%”

At the end of

each phase

within the

SDLC.

No impact on price Assumptions for no price increase:

The target is 95%.

Assumes that requirements which

are not clear or cannot be validated

shall be excluded.

Assumes only requirements

included in Phase 3 are included in

this measure.

Assumes we mutually agree upon

the approach to attain traceability.

6 100% of Solution Support requests

classified as “High” shall be resolved or

an agreed upon plan of action is in place

(i.e. fixed, closed, ready for

implementation) within 4 business

hours.

For issues not resolved within 4 hours of

such outage, status updates shall be

provided every 2 business hours until

resolved and a Root Cause Analysis

shall be provided within two (2)

Business Days.

Calculated as

{(Number of

“High” issues

resolved within

the stipulated

time)/(Total

number of “High”

issues)}X100%.

Monthly Potential increase

in price

Assumptions for no price increase:

Assumes the definition of High

Priority aligns to our standard

definition of Severity 1:

Complete loss or significant

degradation of a critical business

function in production that disrupts

business resulting in financial loss,

or prevents the client from

conducting business.

Assumes request can be resolved

once service is restored (including

via workaround).



Metric(s)

Frequency of

Measurement

Will this measure

decrease,

increase or not

impact the

vendor’s price?






classified as “Medium” shall be resolved

or have an agreed upon plan of action in

place within 1 (one) Business Day.

For issues not resolved within 1 (one)

Business Day of such outage, status

updates shall be provided every 4 hours

until resolved and a Root Cause

Analysis shall be provided within three

(3) Business Days.

Calculated as

{(Number of

“Medium” issues

resolved within

the stipulated

time)/(Total

number of

“Medium”

issues)}X100%.


in price


Assumes the following targets:

Expected Service Level equals 95%

within 1 (one) Business Day.

Minimum Service level equals 90%

within 1 (one) Business Day.

Root Cause Analysis shall be

provided within five (5) Business

Days.

Assumes the definition of Medium

priority aligns to Accenture’s

standard definition of Severity 2:

Partial loss of critical business

function in production and/ or

moderate degradation of ability to

provide service to the customer

such that business can be

conducted with no financial loss or

at a reduced level of performance,

or complete or partial loss of an

internal function.

Assumes request can be resolved

once service is restored (including

via workaround).



Metric(s)

Frequency of

Measurement

Will this measure

decrease,

increase or not

impact the

vendor’s price?






classified as “Low” shall be resolved or

have an agreed upon plan of action in

place within five (5) Business Days.

Calculated as

{(Number of

“Low” issues

resolved within

the stipulated

time)/(Total

number of “Low”

issues)}X100%.


in price



Expected Service Level equals

95%.

Minimum Service level equals 90%.

Assumes the definition of Low



Degradation or loss of non-critical

business functions in production.

Users can continue operating with

the results being adequate to

perform needed functionality

(although the process or format may

be less than desirable). Problems

which degrade system functionality

or business performance; but major

functions of the application still

work. Problems affecting a single

user – preventing completion of a

critical task.



Metric(s)

Frequency of

Measurement

Will this measure

decrease,

increase or not

impact the

vendor’s price?






classified as “Trivial” shall be resolved

within eight (8) Business Days or on an

agreed upon plan of action. .

Remaining 5% of Solution Support

requests classified as “Trivial” shall be

resolved within two (2) additional

Business Days.

Calculated as

{(Number of

“Trivial” issues

resolved within

the stipulated

time)/(Total

number of

“Trivial”

issues)}X100%.


in price



Expected Service Level equals 95%

within thirty (30) Business Days or

As Agreed (based on priority and

capacity).

Minimum Service level equals 90%

within thirty (30) Business Days or

As Agreed (based on priority and

capacity).

Assumes the definition of Trivial



Degradation or loss of production

functionality that affects individuals

or small workgroups, minimal

impact, preventing completion of a

non-critical task but NOT impacting

other aspects of the user’s

workstation.

Problems which do not degrade

system functionality (tolerable or

deferrable problems) or are

cosmetic in nature; major functions

of the application still work.

Change requests, modifications,

enhancements, user queries, and

ad hoc requests not included and

would have a different request

category/ ticket type.


Liquidated Damages Clause:

Liquidated Damages Clause

Will this clause increase

or not impact the vendor’s

price?





If the Contractor fails, for reasons within its control, to gain approval for the Final

Deliverable associated with any Phase by the approval date for the Phase as

defined in Section 8.2 of the SOW, the Department shall assess against the

Contractor liquidated damages in the amount of Fifteen Thousand Dollars

($15,000) for each Business Day between the approval date for the Phase and any

later date the Contractor gains approval for the Final Deliverable associated with

the Phase provided that the total assessment of liquidated damages under this

section shall in no event exceed $10,000,000. Liquidated damages for missing

Final Deliverable approval dates associated with a Phase will not be cumulative

(e.g. if a Final Deliverable approval date associated with a Phase is missed by 10

Business Days, and each successive Final Deliverable approval date associated

with a Phase is not missed by an incremental number of Business Days, no

additional liquidated damages will be assessed).

To the extent that the Contractor misses a non-Implementation Final Deliverable

approval date associated with a Phase, but achieves the original Final Deliverable

approval date associated with the Implementation Phase, as may be adjusted from

time to time, the Department will refund 50% of the liquidated damages previously

assessed.

Potentially, subject to

discussions with the

Department.

Accenture looks forward to

discussions with the Department to

include language in the Contract/

SOW that would address the

following topics:

Clarity concerning exclusive responsibility for liquidated damages triggering events

An agreed upon form or mechanism for the imposition of liquidated damages

Opportunities for notice and cure of any liquidated damages trigger including subsequent modification of the schedule

Evaluation of the total cap and penalty amounts in light of other performance metrics in the Contract.

Establishment of a Service Credit Pool whereby liquidated damages would be deducted against an available total number of flexible hours to achieve Departmental Milestones.


SECTION 4 APPENDIX B

SOW Section Number and Text

Vendor Comments/Suggested Changes

2. Problem Statement – “…the State of Florida has determined that it will retain

the existing public assistance eligibility system, the ACCESS Florida System”

We would like to engage in a discussion on the Department’s strategy and

direction for use and eventual replacement of the ACCESS Florida System

beyond the requirements of the ACA.

3. Contract Objectives – Department Goal #1, Department Goal #2 Provider new system components and services may be contributors toward

Department goals, but are the not only responsible factors and considerations

of achievement of Department business goals.

6. Project Governance – Roles Given proposed scope for statement of work, we would like to discuss project

team structure and proposed role realignments.

7.1 DDI Performance Periods – Project Phases Given the expected start for the scope of work, we are concerned that

attempted implementation of system components using traditional SDLC

phases does not allow for sufficient elapsed time to meet project milestones.

At a minimum, we anticipate the need for phase overlap and the initiation of

activities prior to completion of predecessor phases.

7.1.2 DDI Performance Periods – Define Our proposal is based on configuration, customization and use of “out of the

box” functionality as opposed to custom building to specifications. We expect

strict scope control to ensure elaborated requirements align with COTS

capabilities and focus on ACA requirements.

7.1.3 DDI Performance Periods – Design We intend to use “out of the box” functionality to maximize the COTS and avoid

costly changes that could be difficult to maintain. As such, design will

emphasize the configuration and customizations to COTS products that

provide the new system components capabilities.

7.1.6 DDI Performance Period - Implement We have described our expectations that the system components defined in

this statement of work are primarily public (client) facing and that we

anticipated no conversion of client data. We want to clarify with you

expectations about end users to be trained and requirements for conversion

and cleansing of existing data.

8.1 Project Management We want to discuss expectations of Project Manager to “have overall

responsibility for success of the Project and the Department achieving its

goals.”.

We want to clarify the PM is to manage integration and coordination as

opposed to managing Department and NSRC resources, tasks and activities.

8.1 Project Management – NSRC It is reasonable to expect the PM to plan and manage risks related to NSRC.

We expect the Department would be responsible for resolving issues with

NSRC that could impact the project.




8.1. Project Management Plan We want to clarify that PMP will be a living document that may have varying

levels of detail sufficient to manage the overall work. We anticipate there will

still be a lot of significant changes and direction coming from the Feds that will

require flexibility in the planning process to minimize rework and inappropriate

distraction of management resources.

We would expect the DDI Project Director would be responsible for providing

inputs and updates related to resources, tasks and activities of Department and

NSRC, CMS, and other Partner resources.

8.2 Phase Gate Reviews Given the late project start, expected need for phase overlap and short project

duration, we request discussions and clarification on phase gate reviews.

8.4 Knowledge Transfer We request need clarification of Department expectations and prioritization of

this item relative to the objective of meeting project deadlines and the best time

for knowledge transfer.

8.5 Disaster Recovery Based on statement of work approach of adding new system components, we

suggest clarification that scope is to update existing disaster recovery plan

incorporating the new system components.

8.7 Staffing Requirements Given proposed scope for statement of work, we would like to discuss project

team structure and role realignments.

8.7 Staffing Requirements - Work location We are committed to provide full-time dedicated resources. We expect our key

resources to work in the location that best enables completion of SOW

activities. We suggest work location site and time of day be relaxed to

accommodate work at the software vendor location(s), work from our eligibility

delivery center of excellence, or other locations as appropriate based on the

role and the best way to achieve project needs.

9.2 Define Phase We need request clarification on the following addition: “The Provider shall

facilitate a process to gather requirements from Department and Partner

subject matter advisors in order to achieve the goals of the Project. The

Provider will facilitate requirements sessions to build a solution that meets the

Department’s needs without increasing the cost or delaying the schedule of the

Project with over-engineering the work.”

9.5 Design Phase – Business Process Reengineering As our solution is a COTS based solution that provides business processes,

we may need additional information on the scope of business processes that

need to be reengineered.

9.8 Develop Reports We need to verify the number and complexity of reports included in the

Requirements Definition Document for Phase 3 specifically.

9.10 Master Test Plan We expect that master test plan may need to support iterative test planning

and testing. We expect some testing such as ACA required testing of new

system components from a production environment as early as May 2013 may

need to be accommodated before other types of test planning are complete.




9.13 Data Conversion Using the solution approach we have described, there would be no or minimal

data that would be stored in the new system components. We consider

mapping of data movement that is transactional in nature (e.g., from the legacy

system to the new system components) to be interface definition work. We

would benefit from clarifications of the Department’s expectations for data

conversion.

9.14 Training The scope section describes training a large user population. As the new

system components are primarily client facing, we have scoped training for a

small number of personnel that have support interactions with clients. Also,

this section describes training being provided via classroom training sessions

for all end users. We would benefit from clarifications of the Department’s

expectations for training.

10. Warranty – Performance Period We would like to discuss the warranty period, confirm that warranted items

relate to capabilities of the developed new system components implemented in

Phase 3, and verify services do not include warranty of third party software and

hardware.

10.1 Warranty - Provider Warranty Support Responsibilities We would like to clarify that we will provide and pass-through the warranty of

commercial products.

10 Warranty Exhibit D: 4.a. & 4.c We believe the Warranty Language in the Special Provisions should reflect

either (i) specific Warranty obligations for overarching performance; or (ii)

Warranties and Representations concerning specific facts. Accenture

proposes removal of those provisions that are appropriately captured in other

Contract provisions, including performance metrics or Deliverable Obligations.

10 Warranty Exhibit D: 4.e. Although we agree to the general principle of this provision (with respect only

to software, code or documentation it controls), it is more appropriate when

included in a Section of the Contract concerning Deliverables standards and

requirements.

11. Deliverables We are concerned that the deliverable review and approval timeframes are not

aligned with the turnarounds that would be needed to meet overall schedule

deadlines. We would like to discuss a process to disconnect potential

bottlenecks and delays in formal deliverable approval from delaying progress

and/or payment.

Date post:	28-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lamdang
View:	220 times
Download:	0 times

ACCESS Florida System Replacement - dcf.state.fl.us · Accenture continues to be enthusiastic about...

Documents