· Web viewThe stated purpose of this procurement is to “seek a vendor to provide application functionality to replace several existing internal systems and manual operations so,

STATE OF MAINE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS AMENDMENT

RFP NUMBER AND TITLE: RFP 201507126 - HRMS2 - Maine Human Resources Management System SaaS

RFP AMENDMENT NUMBER: 2AMENDMENT DATE: August 28, 2015

PROPOSAL DUE DATE: September 30, 2015, not later than 2:00 p.m. local time.

RFP ISSUED BY:State of Maine, Department of Administrative And Financial Services - Office Of The State Controller

PROPOSALS DUE TO:

Division of PurchasesBurton M. Cross Building, 4th Floor 111 Sewall Street9 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333-0009

DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES TO RFP (if any):

Amendment #2 – State of Maine answers to vendor RFP questions.

REVISED LANGUAGE IN RFP (if any):

RFP Page 7 of 93, second paragraph is revised to read:

The stated purpose of this procurement is to “seek a vendor to provide application functionality to replace several existing internal systems and manual operations so, that human resource and payroll management applications can be consolidated into an integrated environment. The current annual internal business systems cost is $4,880,000.

Unless specifically addressed below, all other provisions and clauses of the RFP remain unchanged.

RFP NUMBER: (201507126) AMENDMENT (INSERT AMENDMENT #2) PAGE 2 of 53

Provided below are the answers to the questions that were received from interested offerors on or before August 21, 2015, 5:00 p.m. local time.

Question # Question Answer

1

Section 1.1: The RFP states that the current GEAC system was originally built in the 1970s by GEAC Computer Corporation, now Infor Global Solutions. Does Maine have a current active contract for maintenance and support of the GEAC system, or is it using in-house staff to perform these tasks?

The State has a current, active contract for maintenance and support of the GEAC system. The State is also using in-house staff to support this system.

2

Section 2.6.5: The RFP mentions interfacing with the Advantage financials system. Does the state have any plans to replace that system?

The State has no plans to replace its financial ERP system (see Revised Language in RFP section of RFP Amendment – page 1 of this document).

3

General: Does the state anticipate releasing any additional solicitations related to this RFP, such as independent verification and validation?

The State has not prepared any additional solicitations.

4 Approximately how many active employees would be in the system?

The State has approximately 13,000 active employees. See question 46 for a breakdown of employee groups.

5 How many office locations would be utilizing this new system?

Depending on how “office location” is defined, there could be hundreds of locations.

6 Section 1.5, Page 14 - Would the state consider executing two contracts? For example, one with the software / hosting provider and one with the implementation provider?

The State intends to execute a single contract.

7

Section 2.6.5.2, Page 33 - Would the state consider a solution which included a recommendation to maintain the current legacy MS-TAMS system?

The State prefers a solution that would replace the MS-TAMS system.

8How much is the state paying currently to maintain the CGI Managed Advantage financial system?

The State has no plans to replace its financial ERP system (see Revised Language in RFP section of RFP Amendment – page 1 of this document).

9 Section 5.3.7, Page 82 - Would the state consider waiving the $25,000 appeal

The appeal deposit is mandatory. The State will not waive the deposit


deposit requirement if a vendor chose to waive their right to lodge an award appeal at the time of proposal submission?

requirement (see question 27).


10

Has funding been appropriated for the acquisition of the HR Management system? If yes, at what level of funding?

There is no separate appropriation for the acquisition of the HRMS system. The current cost of the system(s) to be replaced is $4,880,000 annually.

11

Section 1.1, Page 7 - $4,880,000 was reference as the cost to support the current internal systems annually. Does that $4.8 Million figure include the CGI Managed Advantage system in addition to cost associated with the GEAC application?

This cost does not include the CGI Managed Advantage system (see Revised Language in RFP section of RFP Amendment – page 1 of this document).

12

Page 10: Section 1.1.2.10 - Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA)

Billing System / Employee Health & Benefits, Division of

Employee Health – Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (“COBRA”)

Billing SystemThe RFP states that this service is in

scope for the RFP.1. Does the SOM prefer to continue services through your

current provider?2. Would the successful vendor

provide billing services only for COBRA? Or, would the SOM

prefer the bidding vendor provide comprehensive COBRA

administrative services?3. Should COBRA administration

services be included in the RFP if able to be provided by the

bidding vendor?

1. Yes. For now the State of Maine will continue to use its current COBRA provider for ADMINISTRATIVE services.2.a.) Yes. The Successful vendor would provide COBRA BILLING services. b.) No. Comprehensive ADMINISTRATIVE services for COBRA are not currently within scope. 3. COBRA ADMINISTRATIVE services should not be included in the bidding vendor’s overall proposal.



13

Page 15: Section 2.1.2 - PrioritiesThe RFP states that the solution can be phased if the State determines that a prioritization provides an advantage, but if so, the process areas indicated below must be included in the first phase. Please provide clarification of your phase timelines.

1. What is the expectation of the first phase completion date?

2. How many phases may the SOM expect for the full implementation of your HRMS system?

The vendor should propose a schedule and strategy that best reflects their proposed implementation timeline. The State does not wish to incur the cost of maintaining parallel systems during the implementation period.

14

Page 16: Section 2.1.2 - PrioritiesThe RFP states, “Bidders are required to propose a solution that meets the requirements of the State’s Time and Attendance application (MS-TAMS).” There is no reference to replacing the three other existing time and attendance systems: One World, Free2000, and TimeTrak/TimeClock. Does the State of Maine intend on retaining these other time and attendance systems?

The State does not intend to replace these systems currently.



15

Page 16: Section 2.2 – Remote Hosting / Item 2.2.1 – Approach

The RFP states that the proposal must adhere to the State of Maine Remote Hosting Policy and Procedures found in Appendix A – Supporting Policy Documents (State of Maine Remote Hosting Policy).

In the SOM Remote Hosting Policy, Section IV – Responsibilities / Item A. Hosting Vendors / Item 8j, the requirements are stated that the vendor must submit the following detailed reports:

j. Any up-to-date third party security audit reports such as:

SSAE 16 SOC 2 Type II FISMA Level 3 ATO FedRAMP CSP ISO/IEC 27001:2005 US-EU Safe Harbor

Framework SkyHigh CloudTrust PCI-DSS

Based on up-to-date third party audit reports; the Contract Administrator may relieve the hosting vendor from some of the reporting requirements enumerated above.

Will ISO/IEC 27001:2005 reporting which qualifies in the Remote Hosting Policy documents satisfy the requirements in Section 2.4 – Security of the RFP document?

Nothing unilaterally relieves the security requirements set forth in the RFP. However, any third-party security certificate contributes toward the full evaluation & scoring.



16

Page 20: Section 2.4 – Security / Item 2.4.2 – Planning

The RFP states that the successful Vendor will be required to provide proof of adherence to industry and government standards including but not limited to SSAE 16 SOC II Type 2, FISMA Level 3, or FedRAMP CSP Examination, etc. Then, in Section 2.5 – Infrastructure Documentation, the RFP states that the vendor will provide documentation including attestation for SSAE 16 SOC II Type 2 or FISMA Level 3 or FedRAMP CSP.

Will SSAE 116 SOC I Type 2, ISO 27001 Certification and voluntary US-EU Safe Harbor Framework qualify in lieu of the SSAE 16 SOC II Type 2, FISMA Level 3, or FedRAMP CSP documentation described?

No.



17

In the SOM Remote Hosting Policy, Section IV – Responsibilities / Item A. Hosting Vendors / Item 8j, the requirements are stated that the vendor must submit the following detailed reports:

j. Any up-to-date third party security audit reports such as:

SSAE 16 SOC 2 Type II FISMA Level 3 ATO FedRAMP CSP ISO/IEC 27001:2005 US-EU Safe Harbor

Framework SkyHigh CloudTrust PCI-DSS

Based on up-to-date third party audit reports; the Contract Administrator may relieve the hosting vendor from some of the reporting requirements enumerated above.

Will ISO/IEC 27001:2005 reporting which qualifies in the Remote Hosting Policy documents satisfy the requirements in Section 2.4 – Security of the RFP document?

Nothing unilaterally relieves the security requirements set forth in the RFP. However, any third-party security certificate contributes toward the full evaluation & scoring (see question 15).



18

Page 75: Part 3 – Related Services / Item 3.1.1. – Functional Area: Related Services

The RFP states that the SOM is interested in receiving information for services related to proposed application functionality, where applicable. Also, services that are provided by the vendor to make these processes more efficient and less costly are requested to be presented.

1. Per the instructions, please confirm that descriptions of related services should be presented in the Workbook 7 – Pricing and Fees, in the narrative portion of our response to Operational Costs and Operational Cost Descriptions. Or,

2. please clarify where such related services should be presented for the SOM’s consideration.

Descriptions of related services should be identified and presented as part of the solution approach presented in Workbooks 1, 3 and 5, as appropriate. The cost of these services should be included in the “Operational Costs” section of the pricing submission in Workbook 7.

19

Workbook 1 – Executive Summary:

Page 3: In Section 2.1 - Vendor Narrative of Solution Overview, there is no specified area to provide a response. Is a response requested in this section?

Yes.



20

Workbook 3 – Response to Technical and Functional Requirements:

Please confirm that the following Req. items are left blank in the Workbook 3 – Response to Technical and Functional Requirements:

Page 10: Req. 29 Page 10: Req. 31 Page 10: Req. 33 Page 24: Req. 206 Page 24: Req. 207 Page 24: Req. 208 Page 35: Req. 318 Page 36: Req. 327 Page 41: Req. 385

Please confirm that these items do not require a response in the Workbook 3 – Response to Technical and Functional Requirements.

Confirmed. These requirements are left blank and require no response.



21

Please clarify whether the State of Maine is interested in a learning management system as part of the solution. While this requirement is not identified specifically within the Table of Contents or the Maine HRMS RFP – SaaS Procurement Document, it is potentially involved in the following items within the Workbook 3 – Response to Technical and Functional Requirements:

Page 45: Section 4 – Functional Requirements / Section 4.9 – Employee Data and Records Management / Section 4.9.1 – Performance Management / Section 4.9.1.1 – Performance Evaluations / Req. 446: Ability to tie training, education, and/or certification to the evaluation.

Page 71: Section 4 – Functional Requirements – Section 4.16 – Employee Communications and Self Service / Section 4.16.1 – General / Req. 707: Provide a Training Module/Scheduler that allows HR to complete the following tasks (including, but not limited to):

1. Build a training session;2. Allow HR to set up: date, time,

location, web;3. Allow users to sign in as self

and sign up for a class/training for a certain date/time;

4. Generate a notice to the supervisor for approval/time; and

5. Allow for a confirmation to be sent.

The State is not requesting a separate Learning Management System. The State is interested in a proposed solution that satisfies each of the requirements listed.



22

Page 40: Section 4 – Functional Requirements / Section 4.7 – Time and Attendance / Section 4.7.4 – Cost Accounting and Labor Cost Distribution / Req. 377:

Approximately how many new projects or cost centers are created annually?

There are hundreds of new projects or cost centers created annually.

23

Page 45: Section 4 – Functional Requirements / Section 4.9 – Employee Data and Records Management / Section 4.9.1 – Performance Management / Section 4.9.1.1 – Performance Evaluations – Req. 441:

What sort of special situations may need to be accommodated regarding performance evaluation schedules? Please clarify your definition of special situation.

Circumstances outside predefined or required schedules. For example, ad hoc evaluations due to special projects, employee development plans or progress milestones.

Special situations that might exist outside of predefined areas might include change in rater during the evaluation period, a change in performance expectations during the rating period, performance improvement plans, or completion of another performance review resulting from a grievance appeal or settlement award.

24

Page 66: Section 4 – Functional Requirements / Section 4.15 – Recruiting, Staffing, and Resourcing / Section 4.15.1 – Recruitment / Section 4.15.1.1 – General – Req. 648:

Please describe the testing process you will ask applicants to complete and whether this will be within the HCM technology, or if this will continue to be a manual process.

In this example, it is anticipated that the testing occurs outside the HRMS solution.



25

Page 68: Section 4 – Functional Requirements / Section 4.15 – Recruiting, Staffing, and Resourcing / Section 4.15.1 – Recruitment / Section 4.15.1.3 – Applicant Access – Req. 676:

Please describe the appeals process applicants can complete regarding application scores.

Any determination of disqualification shall be reported in writing to the person, applicant, or eligible, together with a statement expressing a right to appeal such determination to the Director of Human Resources. Any competitor may appeal to the Director of Human Resources for reconsideration of his/her rating in any examination within thirty (30) calendar days after the date notice of rating is mailed, by written request to the Director for review of such rating. The Director shall grant such review in the event that satisfactory reasons are presented therefor, and may change the rating of the competitor if, upon such review, it is determined that an error was made in the original rating. If such review shall disclose errors affecting the ratings of other competitors, then the review may be extended to the ratings of such other competitors.



26

Page 73: Section 5 – Detailed Solution: The instructions request the vendor provide information for each requirement. Please clarify your definition of each requirement.

1. Does the State of Maine want to see all bulleted information points addressed for each of the 710 Req. items defined in Section 4 – Functional Requirements? Or,

2. does the State of Maine want to see all bulleted information points addressed for each of the major functional areas, as defined in the Maine HRMS RFP – SaaS Procurement Document?

These would include:

Payroll Time and Attendance and Labor

Cost Distribution Human Resources (Executive

Information, Org Chart, Policy) Employee Data and Records

Management Reporting Personnel Actions Position Control Compensation and

Classification Administration Benefits Administration Recruiting, Staffing, and

Resourcing Performance Management Employee Communications and

Self Services

Clarification of the State of Maine’s expectations and requirements for this response is appreciated.

If the Vendor chooses to group related requirements, they may do so, as long as it is clear how each requirement is being satisfied, and a traceability matrix is provided to show how the solution relates to each individual requirement.



27

RFP Section 5.3 Proposal Contents, Subsection 5.3.7 Appeal Deposit:

1. Is the appeal deposit of $25,000.00 presented in the RFP a mandatory item for the RFP submission to be considered?

2. What happens if an appeal deposit is not submitted?

3. Will my RFP response be considered without a check?

The appeal deposit is mandatory. Proposals will not be considered without an appeal deposit (see question 9).

28

After a RFP award is made, and a vendor indicates it will not appeal the award, will the appeal deposit be immediately returned to the submitter?

If a bidder does not request an appeal hearing, the process to refund their appeal deposit will begin immediately after the appeal period has expired.

29

Section 46 of the State’s proposed Contract Terms and Conditions (BP54_IT) describes an irrevocable letter of credit to be placed on file by the Provider for the full amount of the agreement, payable upon demand of the State. This provision represents significant expense and risk to IT services providers and would be both highly unusual and unnecessary in the context of this contract. The cost to the Provider of making the required amount of capital available to the State for the duration of the project is significant. Since the State has adequate contractual mechanisms available to ensure the Contractor’s performance (e.g. review/acceptance of deliverables, warranty, retainage), will the State remove this letter of credit requirement to maximize the pool of bidding vendors?

The State is willing to waive the irrevocable letter of credit requirement since pricing requirements assume that first payment is not due until acceptance of full transition and go-live.

30

In the context of section 2.5, please advise the total number of employees and retirees expected to need access to the HRMS system, so that adequate software licenses can be procured.




31

In the context of section 2.3, would the State please provide an As-Is diagram of the technical architecture, including integration points? Answers to Q31-zipped

32

Assuming the requirements for onshore data (section 3.1, REQ1) and disaster recovery (section 3.1, REQ4) are met, does the State of Maine have any limitations on the type of work, duration, specific location, etc., of non-US work? Can the respondent utilize the resource mix they deem most appropriate from a skill, cost, and risk standpoint?

No limitation on off-shore human resources, as long as ALL data residency within the Continental U.S. and ALL legal stipulations are based on Maine & U.S. laws.

33(RFP Page 8 of 91; Section 1.1.2.1) What is the total number of employees for the HR/Payroll system?


34

(RFP Workbook 3; Section 4.9.1.3 Grievance)What are the total numbers of users who will handle the grievance process? Not including the employee base, but the HR specialists/administrators of the grievance process?

The response to this question will depend on the solution proposed, however it is recommended that HR professionals actively involved in managing grievances should be identified as users. Specific numbers will be provided once solution identified.

35

(RFP Workbook 3; Section 4.9.1.3 Grievance)How many other party contacts for a grievance will need to update the grievance process independently - - or will the HR Specialist/administer of the grievance process handle the grievance details and ownership?

Calculations for grievances could be very complex depending upon nature of grievance or awards issued. It is anticipated that back pay or related expenses would be preliminarily calculated prior to entry into HRMS solution.

36

(RFP Workbook 3; Section 4.9.1.3 Grievance)How complex are the calculation costs for the grievances? The requirement just states that there are costs.

Other than back pay and related expenses, grievance costs should be calculated before entry into the HRMS solution (for tracking purposes).



37

Is the State of Maine considering to separate the Talent Management requirements and address in a RFP at a later time? Or do you expect the HRIS vendors to provide a total solution?

All current requirements related to talent management have been included in the RFP and Workbook 3.

38

Workbook 1, Section 2.1. There is no gray vendor response field to insert the vendor response below the instructions. Is this an oversight?

Yes (see question 19).

39

Workbook 3, Section 5. There is no gray vendor response field to insert the vendor response below the instructions. Is this an oversight? Where would you like these bullets and questions addressed?

The State expects these bullets to be addressed either in this section or directly in the responses to Sections 3 and 4.

40

Workbook 3, Section 5. The State asks for a “traceability matrix” if we choose to group related requirements. Should this matrix consist of the functional requirements in the in section 4 only (specifically, 4 through 4.16), as it looks as if the Technical requirements in section 3 are to be addressed in section 6? Could the State clarify their overall expectations with regard to the request for a traceability matrix.

If the respondent provides detailed descriptions, screenshots, etc. in this section, separate from sections 3 and 4, then a traceability matrix is requested to facilitate our understanding of the proposed solution in the context of the requirements being addressed.

41

Is the Vendor allowed to include an Appendix at the conclusion of the Workbooks with relevant and/or referenced material? Or are all attachments (referenced or otherwise) to be included in Workbooks and count towards page count unless specifically excluded (per notes in the RFP)?

As explained in section 5.2.7, the Vendor may not provide additional attachments beyond those specified in the RFP for the purpose of extending their response. Any material exceeding the proposal limit will not be considered in rating the proposals and will not be returned. Vendors shall not include brochures or other promotional material with their proposals. Additional materials will not be considered part of the proposal and will not be evaluated.



42

Some HCM features not included in the SOM’s list of functional areas (p6 and 7 of RFP) include: Training & Development, Onboarding/Offboarding, Knowledgebase, and Analytics. Is the State interested (and will they consider in the scoring) any additional functionality the vendor can provide or do they only want these specific areas addressed?

The State will consider additional functionality, if proposed; however, the cost of additional functionality and related support must be included in the pricing and fees Workbook 7. Separately priced, additional functionality will not be considered.

43

In Section 2.1.2. (PRIORITIES), it lists functionality that must be included in Phase 1. What does “Other/General” refer to?

Related functionality associated with the areas being implemented; e.g., security, self-service, reporting, etc.

44When does “Package Validation” (Sec 2.6.1.1) occur? Presumably, after the award?

Yes.

45

What weight will be placed on private sector experience?

Preference is given to public sector experience; however, all relevant experience, whether public or private sector, will be scored as part of the consensus scoring model.

46

How many inactive and/or retired employees does the state have and will those employee lives will be managed from the HRMS?

Active employees: 12, 906 - Includes ancillary employer ( i.e. Community College System) employees

+ Dependent records: 12,525

Non Medicare Retirees: 3,283 + Dependent records: 283

Medicare Retirees: 7,981 Dependents are include in

overall retiree headcount as contracts are unique to each enrollee

47

Would the state entertain (as public sector experience) student university teaching hospitals, nonprofit and public health care?

Yes.

48 Sec. 2.4.2 Would the state revisit the The business requirements


business requirements regarding hosting, specifically as it relates to security regulations?

regarding hosting and specifically, security regulations remain unchanged.

49

Sec. 2.2.3.1 Do ADA compliance requirements apply to all aspects of the system, such as back office, employee self service?

Yes. ADA compliance requirements apply to all areas of the system.

50Are there relevant HIPPA documents (medical records)?

Some records will be relevant; e.g., documentation supporting FMLA leave only.

51

Vendors are being asked to provide Dunn & Bradstreet Comprehensive Insight Plus Report. However, some vendors' master agreements w/ Dunn & Bradstreet do not allow vendors to give that out.

The State would like the vendor(s) to request that D&B supply reports directly to the State in these cases. The State does not wish to incur the financial and administrative burden of acquiring these reports.

52

The SOM provided reference to contract documents. Is it appropriate to take exception to them?

The referenced documents are the standard templates for the State. There are provisions in the templates to negotiate and document agreed-upon exceptions to standard terms during contract negotiations.

53

Ref. Wavier Policy - Can the vendor use the waiver policy as part of their solution proposal?

Proposals will not be set aside or excluded from consideration just because a requirement is not met. All failures to meet requirements will be considered as part of the evaluation and consensus scoring process.

54

Why was previous procurement proposal canceled?

The results of the proposals as evaluated did not support the goals and objectives as laid out in our business case.

55

Is the Dunn & Bradstreet Comprehensive Insight Plus Report required for both public and private companies?

Yes, if available.

56Will the list of vendor conference attendees be posted on the web site?

Yes.

57 (RFP Workbook 3: Section 4.8.1; Requirement 401) - Ability to customize the information presented on the EIS. (Can the State please clarify – does this reference customization, i.e., change to the code?)

No, the State is not looking to customize code. The State desires the ability to configure the information presented; e.g., visualizations, data elements, etc. so the information is represented


“customized” to the user requesting the information.



58

(RFP Workbook 3: Section 4.8.1; Requirement 433) - Ability to maintain State-identified organizational structure. (Can the State please provide additional information. Is this in reference to position based org. charting rather than job function?)

The State desires the ability to define its own organizational structure (org charting) in a manner distinct from traditional positon-based org charting; e.g., job function, location, project team, etc.

59

Could the State please provide additional information on the following requirement? REQ. 252: Ability to calculated the remaining annualized payroll costs by month including accruals. (RFP Workbook 3; page 28; Section 4.6.1 Pay Processing)

HR Staff need to be able to predict cost including vacation accrual when asked for budget purposes.

60

Could the State please provide additional information on the following requirement? REQ. 291: Ability to accommodate split-pay cycle changes (ie. Retirement plan changes. (RFP Workbook 3; page 32; Section 4.6.2 Deductions Processing)

The State desires the ability to make changes to employee pay and deduction amounts during a pay-cycle; e.g,. change of retirement plan in the second week of a biweekly pay cycle, either manually or automated.

61

Could the State please provide additional information on the following requirement? REQ 310.4: Assignment and reassignment of employee time entry by a different supervisor. (RFP Workbook 3; page 35; Section 4.7.1 Time Entry/Collection)

The State needs the ability to have time entries made by supervisor(s) on behalf of employees.

62

Could the State please provide additional information on the following requirement? REQ .371: Ability to accommodate split shift rotations. (RFP Workbook 3; page 40; Section 4.7.3 Work Scheduling)

The state does not have split shift rotations.

63

Could the State please provide additional information on the following requirement? REQ. 376: Ability to accommodate user-defined scheduling rules (e.g., leave time cannot be booked for work, overtime eligibility, employee seniority.) - (RFP Workbook 3; page 40; Section 4.7.3 Work Scheduling)

The State desires the ability to configure rules/system edits regarding specific scheduling rules; e.g., limit eligibility for overtime to the most senior employee, followed by the next most senior, etc.



64

Could the State please provide additional information on the following requirement? REQ 383: Ability to have additional pay components allocate at the project level not just the appropriation level i.e., retroactive pays. (RFP Workbook 3; page 41; Section 4.7.4 Cost Accounting and Labor Cost Distribution)

The State desires the ability to have the system allocate all pay components according to pre-defined labor cost distribution rules (not just base pay) and/or define specific pay components to be allocated to projects or defaulted to ‘home’ accounts.

65

Could the State please provide additional information on the following requirement? REQ 393: Ability to flag projects or tasks for GASB51. (RFP Workbook 3; page 41; Section 4.7.4 Cost Accounting and Labor Cost Distribution)

The State desires the ability to flag specific labor cost distribution elements as related to GASB51 (internally developed software); e.g., project manager, developer, etc. to aggregate total costs associated with such projects.

66

Could an example be provided describing what ‘incremental benefits’ verses ‘flat rate benefits’ means in this case? REQ 395: Ability to distribute benefit costs to accounts based on the related time charges. For example, for an overtime shift, accounts are only assessed the incremental benefits associated with working overtime, and not a portion of the “Flat Rate” benefits. (RFP Workbook 3; page 42; Section 4.7.4 Cost Accounting and Labor Cost Distribution)

Flat rate benefits are those for which the amount does not fluctuate, and include health and dental insurances. Incremental benefits, such as retirement, are those that are a percentage of gross pay, and therefore may fluctuate each pay period. In the example of an overtime shift, additional retirement costs are incurred associated with the additional pay, but the health and dental costs remain the same. The State would like the option of only charging the project for the costs associated with it: the overtime pay and incremental retirement costs; no additional health or dental costs were incurred, so none would be charged to the project.

67

Does the following refer to a ‘Reporting’ Dashboard system, if not what is requested? REQ 400: Ability to provide an Executive Information System (EIS) - (RFP Workbook 3; page 42; Section 4.8.1 General)

Yes, a reporting dashboard could be considered an EIS.

68 Could the State please provide more These positions are distinct from


information regarding limited-period and project position codes? REQ 538: Ability to set up and maintain multiple adjustment period codes (i.e., limited- period and project position codes). - (RFP Workbook 3; page 56; Section 4.12.1 General)

‘permanent’ positions in that they have specific start and end dates or durations for authorization, as well as distinct methods of authorization; e,g., legislative authorization versus executive authorization.



69

How many additional covered persons/employees does the following requirement entail? And how many additional benefits plans are used? REQ 614: Ability to maintain, track and report information in the solution for persons who are not state employees, but who must have active records in the solution for benefits administration, such as Active State of Maine employees, ancillary employees (e.g. Main Community College System, Maine Turnpike). City of Portland retired Fire Fighters and Law Enforcement group, COBRA Participants, pre-Medicare retirees and survivors(spouse/children previously covered) and teacher groups who wish to join with the State of Maine (SOM) Health Plan. (RFP Workbook 3; page 63; Section 4.14.1 General)

Approximately 38,000 enrollees’ members are members of the State’s active and retiree benefit programs including ancillary employer members. In addition to benefit plan membership, the State also provides pass-through administrative and billing services for another 30,000 retirees.

70

Based on the State’s response to an earlier question that “the State prefers a solution that would replace the MS-TAMS system,” will a response recommending that TAMS continue to be used for a limited period of time receive a lower score?

Bidders are encouraged to submit a proposal that represents the best value solution to the State of Maine. The proposals will be scored in accordance with the evaluation criteria listed in the RFP on page 85, Section 6.2.1.

71How many retired employees does the State have? How many retired employees does the State have?

Refer to Question #69

72

Regarding the scoring for Section I: Specifications of Work to be Performed and System Usability - Will the 90 points be split evenly among the three Workbooks referenced (e.g., Workbooks 3, 4, and 5)?

The three workbooks will be scored in the aggregate, using the consensus scoring approach.

73

How will System Usability be scored, and what percent of the 90 points will be associated with it?

Scoring will be performed using a consensus scoring approach, as described in the RFP on page 85, Section 6.2.2. A total of 90 points out of 200 have been allocated to “Specifications of Work to be Performed and System Usability”.




74

Answer 10 from Amendment 1 states that “the current cost of the system(s) to be replaced is $4,880,000 annually.” What is the cost to support only TAMS, specifically?

TAMS support is approximately $327,000\year

75

At the vendor conference on 8/13 it was mentioned that the State is currently paying $4.8m annually for your current HR and Payroll system. Could you please provide more information on the breakdown of this amount? How much of the annual costs are for Hardware, Software and labor costs?

Hardware - $1,772,207 Software - $647,140 Labor - $1,415,646 Debt Service - $965,007

76

2.8.1 Pg. 60 - The RFP indicates that the successful vendor will “will work directly with the interface partners and will be responsible for scheduling and coordinating all testing”. Our experience is that the State will have relationships to leverage and will be better able to solicit cooperation with your interface partners than we could acting on your behalf. This will pose a risk to the project schedule if not completed efficiently – please reconsider the responsible party on this activity.

Vendors are asked to respond to the requirement as stated.

77

2.8.5 Pg. 61 - The RFP states that “A state resource will be assigned to assist with this effort (system integrations).” Please clarify whether the State intends to provide more than a single FTE to support the integration work stream and if so, what is the number of resources and level of full/part time commitment to the project?

The vendor should identify assumed/recommended resources to be used in response to this requirement

78 2.8.5 Pg. 61 - The RFP describes the interfaces that are anticipated to be in scope. Please explain the State’s plan for changes to down stream or shadow systems that include HR or employee level data that is likely to change with the new system.

Changes to State of Maine downstream and shadow systems will be the responsibility of the applications teams that currently support those systems.

Vendor must provide:


Project Orientation specifically targeted to Downstream Stakeholders as requested by OIT Applications Teams and Business System Owners as communicated via the SOM Project Manager.

Data Dictionary of all data elements applicable to the downstream/shadow systems as requested by OIT Applications Teams and communicated via the SOM Project Manager.

Consulting regarding HR data and new system processes as requested by OIT Applications Teams and communicated via the SOM Project Manager.

Testing support as requested by OIT Applications Teams and communicated via the SOM Project Manager.


79

2.11.4 Pg. 65 - The RFP indicates that the State will set guidelines on the scope of historical data conversion. This information is required in order to submit a fixed price response. When does the State anticipate making this information available?

The vendor should propose the level of data migration necessary to support the implementation of the proposed system. The State has no predefined number of years of data to be converted. For example, all active employee data is likely to be necessary with any proposed solution; however, all pay history is not likely to be necessary.

80 2.11.5 Pg. 65 - This section seems to imply that the vendor is responsible for all data conversion activities, including extraction and cleansing from legacy systems. Please confirm if this is the

The vendor is asked to propose a methodology for conversion. It is not expected that the vendor will perform all data cleansing and make corrections in the current


expectation and if so, consider the risk and expense that this scenario poses to the State as no vendor will know the State’s data well enough to effectively extract the appropriate records; identify data errors and then make corrections to your current production environment.

production environment unless the data is objectively verifiable; e.g., address validation against postal software, identification of duplicate records, identification of invalid data elements such as dates that don’t exist on the calendar, etc.

81

2.14.2.3 Pg. 70 - This section indicates that the vendor’s organizational change management lead will be interacting primarily with the State’s Project Manager in the conduct of OCM tasks. Does the State anticipate assigning a dedicated resource from the State to be the OCM Lead for the State to interact with the agencies and lead the significant change efforts alluded to in the RFP?

At this time, the Project Manager is intended to be the primary point of contact, which may be solely to coordinate the activities of other resources. The State expects the vendor to propose the transition methodology and assumed number of resources necessary to carry out the transition activities.

82

5.3.9 Pg. 82 - This section makes reference to “ongoing management of the outsourcing relationship”. Please confirm that this is no longer relevant to the current procurement. Please clarify what we are to include in Workbook 5.

The ongoing management of the outsourcing relationship, in this context, consists of hardware, software, implementation, support services delivery, SLA management and any other service to be provided by the vendor.



83

WORKBOOK 4, 7 of 8 - Section 6 Strategic Direction - This section makes reference to describing our “HRO strategic direction” and our “HR & payroll outsourcing strategy”. It also requests our projected capital budget for outsourcing services. Please confirm that this is no longer relevant to the current procurement and clarify what to include in response to this section instead.

This is no longer relevant for this RFP. We will submit an amendment to remove. No answer is required.

84

2.10.2.3, Pg. 63 of 93 - In order to estimate training effort, can the State provide an approximate number of employees in each audience group in the table in Section 2.10.2.3

2.10.2.3 The Training plan should explain how training will be done within each of the following functional areas, and for each user role in each of these areas. The successful vendor will participate in determining the specific roles based on the business process proposed in their response . I’ve underlined the section of this that explains why we did not provide numbers for each group. We may not know all of the groups and certainly so not know how many employees would exist in each. The number we have provided in the RFP is the number of employees.

85

2.10.2.3, Pg. 63 of 93 - Are the group of employees that make up the audience of each functional area listed in Section 2.10.2.3 in a centralized location? If not, in about how many locations throughout the State can the vendor expect to train?

The audience is not in a centralized location. The vendor should propose the recommended training approach and number of locations based on that training approach.

86 6.2.4 Scoring the Cost Proposal(p. 86) - Since the State seeks to award a fixed price contract which provides both cost predictability and evaluation of the total cost of ownership of a given solution, can we assume that the State will be applying the scoring formula listed in this section to the full 21-year period of performance inclusive of

No, the State will apply the scoring formula to the initial period of performance of the contract (6 years), exclusive of renewal periods.


renewal periods and not the 6-year initial period of performance? Please clarify.



87

5.2.5 Document Length (p. 80) - There are various page counts imposed on the workbooks required for submittal. Each workbook contains RFP text. Can bidders assume that the page limits specified are for their written response, and are in addition to the RFP text already included in the workbooks? For example if the workbook provided is 10 pages and the page limit is 20, then the total maximum page count for that workbook would be 30.

The page limit criteria identified in the workbooks includes both the Bidder response material and the RFP text with exclusions described in the RFP (such as title page, table of contents, etc).

88 Regarding the above RFP, Page 14, Item 1.5 - Number of Awards:While vendors are permitted to team with subcontractors

The state intends to ultimately grant only one, fixed fee award as a result of this RFP process. A vendor is expected to complete all workbooks regardless of the solution proposed and will be scored against all requirements in the RFP.


to fulfill the obligations outlined within the RFP, the state intends to ultimately grant only one, fixed fee award as a result of this RFP process.

Question: Although it is the State's intention to award a single contract, does the State also have the option (at its discretion) to award to individual contractors offering solutions for any single part of the project?

89 During the Bidders Conference it was stated that some Agencies and Departments would retain their existing Time and Attendance or Work Force Management Solutions. How many total employees will

Depending on the solution proposed, it is possible that all employees (approximately 13,000) will be covered.


covered by the new WFM/Time and Attendance System replacing the TAMS application during this project.?

90

Does the SOM have an enterprise agreement for an Learning Management System. If so who is the vendor. Would an awarded vendor to the RFP have the ability to use any existing LMS system in place within the SOM in a collaborative effort with the State on this project.

The State does not have a current Learning Management System.


91 The State mentions that there will be approximately 13,000 employees to be paid out of the new Payroll / HR system. Our question is

See question #69


how many other records would need to be stored in the system such as retirees, Portland Fire Department, volunteers, etc.?

92

Do you have a need to track volunteers and the hours that they work?

Yes.

93

How many employees do you feel would need access to the new time and attendance system? We realize that there are a number of legacy T/A system that will remain in place. We’re curious as to the number of employees that will need to use the new system.

Depending on the solution proposed, it is possible that all employees (approximately 13,000) will be covered.

94

Do you require us to propose time clock hardware? Or, should we propose a per unit cost solely and the exact number would be determined at a later date?

If the proposed solution includes hardware, the number of assumed/included devices should be identified and included in pricing assumptions.


95

Does the T/A system need to directly interface to any other systems besides those being proposed by Tyler?

Yes, the current Time and Attendance system interfaces with several major State of Maine systems. For a complete listing of all interfaces in scope for this project, please see the response to question #100 and #115.

96

REQ 11. And 12. Can a specific examples be provided?

#11 Employee name, position, location, benefits, dependents, years of service, home address, work address

#12 For example, under Ethernet connection, the response time must be less than 4 seconds for inquiry/lookup, and less than 7 seconds for data modification transactions.

97REQ 14 is blank (is that intentional?)

This is the requirement: The solution has the ability to conduct ad hoc reporting, including current and historical data for all modules.

98

REQ 44. Can a specific example be provided?

Refer to question #123

99

Is there a defined list of reports that will be needed to be produced out of the new system?

Yes,

HR Payroll Reports -

100

Is there a defined list of interfaces that will be required? If so, is there a preferred method of integration (e.g. real time vs. batch; web service vs. flat file).

Yes. See RFP, Appendix C – Interface Formats

The preferred method of integration for the future state should mimic the current state integration method unique to each interface as defined in the RFP.

Any exceptions should be proposed in the response to the RFP.

101 Can alternative methods of surety (e.g. performance bonds) be

The State is willing to waive the irrevocable letter of credit requirement since pricing requirements assume that first payment is not due until acceptance of full transition and go-live. (See question 29).


accepted by the State instead of an irrevocable letter of credit?


102

On page 15 (of 19) in your RFP Amendment #1, you state that “The State is willing to waive the irrevocable letter of credit requirement since pricing requirements assume that first payment is not due until acceptance of full transition and go-live.” We would consider the payment schedule to be a negotiable item of the contract process. Would that be the State’s understanding as well?

The payment schedule may be negotiable; however the vendor should include their proposed payment schedule in Workbook 7 Pricing and Fees.

103 Pg 64, 2.10.3 - Is there currently a group that provides support and/or training for the State’s current system(s)? If

The State does not have formal training for the current system(s).


so, how many State personnel in this group provide training and/or support to end users?

104

How many agencies in the State will be utilizing the system?

The State 79 Agency codes. (covering 63 Departments)

105

Pg. 63, 2.10.2.1 - Does the State have an existing LMS that the vendor would be expected to use to deliver training?

The State does not have a current Learning Management System.

106 Pg. 81-82, 5.3 - To respond to each Workbook, Vendors are asked to replace the sections indicating vendor response with the appropriate narrative or text. In doing so, most of the response text is in Calibri 14 pt. bold and centered on the page, which is a larger than the Calibri 12pt font used in the requirements

Calibi 12 pt font left justified is acceptable. Present the material in an easy to read/understand manner.


text. Please confirm the size font Vendors should use when responding to each Workbook is Calibri 12pt font and please confirm if the response can be left justified instead of centered on the page to maximize space and readability.

107

Pg. 80, 5.2.3 - Per RFP Section 5.2.3, the Vendor’s name should appear on every page. Please confirm that Vendors can alter the header of each Workbook to add the Vendor’s name.

Yes, addition of a Document Header is acceptable.


108 Pg. 81, 5.3.3 - In Workbook 2 Vendor Organization Background and Qualifications under 1.1.5 Corporate

Files may be embedded.


Financials and Stock Information, Vendors are asked to embed annual audited financial reports for most recent 2 years. Please confirm that Vendors can embed files for these financial reports instead of pasting the report information directly into the Workbook.

109

Pg. 81-82, 5.3.6, 5.3.8 - Workbook 6 Economic Impacts Within the State of Maine and Workbook 7 Pricing and Fees are currently in “track changes”. Please confirm that Vendors can turn off “track changes” to complete these Workbooks.

Track changes may be turned off in all documents.

110 Pg. 82, 5.3.10 - Please confirm where in the proposal response that Vendors

Respond to 5.3.10 Conditions at Contract Termination/Expiration in Workbook 4, Section 7 – Key Assumptions and Dependencies (at the end of the workbook).


should provide a response to Conditions at Contract Termination and/or Expiration, as outlined in RFP Section 5.3.10.

111

Pg. 5, Workbook 2 - Due to confidentiality requirements with our insurer will the State accept a Certificate of Insurance for any required coverage in lieu of a face page of such applicable policies?

Yes.

112

Pg. 60, 2.8 - Do you have any specific requirement around file encryption and file transfer protocol?

FTPS using at least TLS 1.0.

113 Pg. 15, 2.1 - Please provide your Business Cycle Calendar…i.e. Union Contract Negotiations, Performance Review, Compensation Review, Statutory

There is no enterprise-wide business cycle calendar.


Reporting, etc. Please provide as much details as possible.

114

Pg. 22, 2.6.2.2 - How many different approval paths are used in the current systems or manual processes? Are these approval paths maintained in an electronic system?

The only automated approve is for the Time and Attendance System. As for manual approvals there are many for each process and department.


115

Appendix 3 - Are any interfaces required to be real time? If yes, then which ones?

Frequency information for all interfaces is described in Appendix C – Interface Formats, 1.1 Overview State of Maine Comprehensive Outsourcing – Interface Listing, Frequency column.

116

Pg. 18, 2.3.1 - Is middleware being used in current SOM’s architecture? If yes, then which middleware?

Please refer to http://maine.gov/oit/policies/HostingCustomizationPolicy.htm.

117 Pg. 66, 2.13.1 - 1) A qualified technician will respond via phone to address all calls in accordance with the importance and criticality

The vendor should propose their recommended solution for trouble ticket entry and resolution, including any assumptions related to issue triage and client/vendor responsibilities.

http://maine.gov/oit/policies/HostingCustomizationPolicy.htm

http://maine.gov/oit/policies/HostingCustomizationPolicy.htm


of the question being asked and/or the problem being reported. 2) The successful Vendor will address all questions and reported problems related to the technical and functional operation of the system 3) The successful Vendor must provide an email and trouble ticket system that also provides toll-free telephone support as specified in the requirements

Can you confirm If the State will provide the 1st level helpdesk which will act as the first point of contact to end users?

118 Pg. 67-2.13.2 - § Responsibility for provisioning, management, and operations

The vendor is responsible for providing any required software/hardware for all SOM IT workstations used for development purposes during the project.

The expectation is that the vendor will also advise or even assist with the installation of required software/hardware for the duration of the project.


of any client-site development workstations and equipment

What is the expectation from us on this requirement, does it mean we need someone local to work with client IT team?

The list of required software/hardware as well as their purpose should be provided in the response to the RFP.



119 Pg. 82, 5.3.7 - Section 5.3.7 of the RFP describes an Appeal Deposit in the amount of $25,000 to be submitted with each bidder’s response “payable to the ‘Treasurer of the State of Maine’ in the form of a certified, cashier’s or teller’s check.” Some bidders are subject to internal controls prohibiting monetary advances or payments to clients as a condition of bidding on new work. Accordingly, in lieu of a check, would the State accept a standby letter of credit from a bank acceptable to the State undertaking to pay to the State, on simple demand and indication that the bidder has filed an appeal, the amount of

No.


$25,000 at any time during the effective period of the letter of credit.

120

Maine HRMS RFP SaaS Procurement Document – Page 38, Section 2.6.5.6 – Personnel Actions, Description of Current State, New PositionQuestion:

1. How is the position number derived?

2. Is it a random number or manually entered?

Position numbers are recorded on a master list (3 ring binder) with sequential numbers. The next number available is assigned to the new position. This is a manual process.

121 REQ 3 - The solution will be operational on a 24 x 7 scheduled basis.Does this mean that State of Maine will not consider a service which is unavailable periodically for scheduled maintenance, or does the state expect 24x7 availability to accommodate

No, scheduled maintenance will be accommodated with advance notification. This link will take you to the policy regarding downtime.

http://www.maine.gov/oit/policies/RemoteHostingPolicy.htm




scheduled maintenance?



122

REQ 8 - Vendor will perform full DR site test once per year – full testing (outage) not to exceed 4 hours per year. Results will be signed off by the State of Maine.

Does this mean that State of Maine requires that the service provider undertake to perform a full annual DR test using State of Maine’s data? Does this mean that State of Maine requires that the service provider provide a SLA with a recovery time objective (RTO) of 4 hours? Or does this mean that State of Maine requires that the service provider provide a SLA which guarantees no more than 4 hours of total down time per year? Please clarify.

The State requires annual DR testing using Maine’s data.

The State requires that the DR testing period not exceed 4 total hours per year. The RTO requirement in the RFP is not affected by this requirement.

The State requires that the DR testing period not exceed 4 total hours per year.

123

REQ 44 - The solution has the ability to accommodate State-defined limitations on the size of file attachments.Please provide the State-defined limitation on the size of file attachments.

The size limit is 20 MB, inclusive of both the message & attachments.

124

REQ 59 - The solution must provide a secure VPN connection between the State of Maine and the vendor.Does this mean that all of State of Maine’s service users would have to connect first to the State of Maine’s network, and that the State of Maine will direct all traffic destined for the proposed service over a VPN which connects State of Maine’s with the service provider’s Data Center? Please clarify.

All back-office/administrative users will first connect to the State network, and thence to the vendor's network. All front-office users will use the public browser interface.



125

REQ 82 - The solution has the ability to be updated via a private network.Please help us understand what this requirement means.

1. Can you define what sort of updates are referred to in the context of this requirement?

2. Is this another statement of a requirement that State of Maine’s traffic to the proposed service be directed over a VPN (see also REQ 59 above)?

See response to REQ 59, i.e., #124 above.

126

REQ 96 - The solution has the ability to image Outgoing letters and reports.All outgoing letters and reports from the proposed service will be created and sent in PDF format. Is this sufficient to meet this requirement, or is the State of Maine looking for some sort of integration with a document imaging/management system? Please clarify.

Stored electronic documents in pdf format constitute “images” in this context.

127

REQ 101 - The solution has the ability to import and export data from (or to) standard file formats including but not limited to XML, MS Word, MS Excel, and MS Access.Is the State of Maine requiring that the proposed service include the ability to save data in native Microsoft Word and Microsoft Access formats? Or in a format (for example, .CSV) which those desktop applications can import?

Both native Microsoft Office as well as XML.

128

REQ 119 - The solution must have the "built-in" capability to provide support through remote access to the application.In the context of this question, which party is providing support? And which party has remote access to the application? Please clarify.

The HRMS provider would provide support\remote assistance to SOM users of the HRMS application.



129

REQ 173 - Ability to provide integration with the desktop clipboard, with appropriate security permissions, (i.e. disabled for all sensitive fields, like SSN). Please provide a definitive list of fields considered “sensitive” in the context of this requirement.

The vendor is expected to address this requirement and explain whether the solution is configurable, standard or custom. Whether a definitive list of fields is necessary speaks directly to how the requirement is met in the solution proposed.

130

REQ 180 - Ability to add a new value to a drop down table without having to navigate from the table, based on security permissions.Please clarify by providing an example.

Example: If I have a drop down list and it is a list of my employees, but one of them is missing from the list, I want to be able to add the person right into the drop down list without having my security access stop me from entering this information or needing a technical person to add the name into the table.

131

REQ 195 - Service must not alter or disable the functionality of standard quick keys.Please define “standard quick keys” in the context of this requirement.

Example: Things like “CTRL” and F is a standard quick key combination to do a search in a document or web page and the solution shouldn’t block those.

132

REQ.400 REQ.401 REQ.402 REQ.403 - Questions related to the provision of an Executive Information System (EIS).Please define “Executive Information System (EIS)” in the context of these requirements.

These requirements are for executive/ management dashboard that provides real-time reporting on employee information. For example: number of employees in a certain position, open personnel openings, monthly attrition rates etc. Ability for executives/management to modify their own views to fit their position.

133

REQ 464.2 - Dates; Must have the ability to calculate or store at least 20 dates.Can you provide a list of these dates?

We can provide a sampling of dates currently stored in the system. We would need the ability to expand that which is why we requested no less than 20. Examples:Longevity DateAdjusted Service DatePerformance review dateRetirement DateTermination DateLeave Date


134

REQ 503 - Ability to track temporary alternate duty assignments. Does the employee move to another position or is this just for pay adjustments or labor costing? Can you provide an example?

The employee remains in their current position with their pay adjusted. Example: Jane Smith works as a Nurse I and is filling in for a Nurse III who is on leave. Jane remains in her Nurse I position and is paid her nurse I pay as well as the difference between the Nurse I and Nurse III as an auto pay until the temporary assignment end date is reached.



135

REQ 508 - Ability to automatically generate manually updateable user defined dates, in defined date fields, based on personnel actions, including but not limited to: probation, review dates, and retirement plans.Can you provide an example of what would cause the dates to be updated and how you would update them?

Probation end date, automatically calculated and entered by the system as 6 months following hire date, which could be manually updated later based on a desire to extend the probationary period is an example.

136

REQ 516 - Ability to trigger workflow functionality within other modules when personnel information changes.Are you referring to other modules within Workday or outside Workday?

No.

137

REQ 523.2 - Dates; Must have the ability to calculate or store at least 7 dates.Can you provide a list of dates and what they are used for?

This question relates to the position side of the system. Examples: Position end date, Position begin date.

138

REQ.538 - Ability to set up and maintain multiple adjustment period codes (i.e., limited-period and project position codes).Can you explain and provide an example of this?

There are numerous types of positions beyond permanent fulltime. Example: a limited period, project, and we need to be able to maintain codes for these different positions.

139

REQ 623 - Ability to deny flexible spending account duplicate submissions, and print denial on a separate form.What kind of submission are you referring?

Flexible Spending Account administration is outsourced and this function is not currently necessary.

140

REQ 656 - Ability through ESS to track flexible spending registrations for sessions and coordinate administrative leave with those sessions.Can you explain what a session is and how this works?

Session refers to a legislative session where legislators, while not working, are still eligible for benefits. Because paychecks are not received while out of session, unique tracking and billing arrangement for FSAs and other benefits are required (since they do not have 26 pay periods).

141 REQ 681 - Overall system firewall security (employee access outside the firewall).

See response to #124 above.


Please clarify.



142

REQ 697 - Ability to provide new hires self-service enrollment based upon user-defined business rules to include, but not limited to:

Address; Benefits (i.e., health, dental,

voluntary); Phone number(s); Contact information (i.e.,

personal email/home phone, cell phone, work email/phone, etc.);

Emergency contact information; Direct deposit; W4; Voluntary deduction amounts;

and Other user-defined fields or forms.

Can you provide examples of ‘Other user-defined fields or forms’?

If the solution provides user-defined fields, the State desires that these fields are available in self-service portals, subject to the same security as system-defined fields.

143

REQ 698 - Ability to allow employees to update personal information with appropriate verification processes, including (but not limited to):

Address; Phone number(s); Contact information (i.e.,

personal email/home phone, cell phone, work email/phone, etc.);

Emergency contact information; Direct deposit; W4; Voluntary deduction amounts; Benefits Open enrollment at

appropriate dates; and Other user-defined fields or forms.Can you provide examples of ‘Other user-defined fields or forms’?

If the solution provides user-defined fields, the State desires that these fields can be updated in self-service portals subject to the same verification process as system-defined fields.



144

Sect 6.2.1 - Architectural Design If applicable, a list and description of exceptions not adhere to SOM IT Environment, Policies, Standards, Procedures, and Technology Bricks. highlighting how the proposed solution does

Where can we find a description of SOM IT Environment, Policies, Standards, Procedures, and Technology Bricks? Please define “Technology Brick”.

Refer to http://maine.gov/oit/architecture

http://maine.gov/oit/architecture