TwitterFacebook

Search:


The State of Poverty
The State of Poverty
The State of Poverty
NASCSP
111 K Street, NE Suite 300 Washington, DC 20002
Phone: 202.624.5866
Request for Proposal

Request for Proposals: CSBG Data Warehouse

The purpose of this solicitation is to develop and implement an ongoing comprehensive CSBG Data Warehouse housed on a public website that will serve as a data repository, a tool for data validation, automatic analysis and dashboard-type reporting for CSBG Annual Report Data.  In 2012, OCS emphasized a focus on Performance Management to help the CSBG network increase accountability and achieve results. Several initiatives were launched including Organizational Standards, State and Federal Accountability Measures, and greater emphasis on the Results Oriented Management and Accountability (ROMA) framework. Under the ROMA initiative a new CSBG Annual Report was developed.

The CSBG Annual Report contains 4 modules with nearly 1,000 different data points. The data needs to be warehoused, verified, work with OCS’s Online Data Collection System and made be public for use among the CSBG network and other interested parties. This solicitation is in response to the need to build a public website for this report.

Download Request for Proposal

  -Only those companies who offer capabilities to build a public website that can store and report on a large amount of data may respond to this RFP.

-All proposals must be received by NASCSP no later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on May 26, 2017.

-All inquiries must be sent to Katy Kujawski at kkujawski@nascsp.org .

-No phone calls will be returned.

All questions and their answers will be posted here (below) within two business days of receiving the questions for the duration of the RFP. 


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Public Opening Information~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Public Opening of this RFP will occur on May 26th at 6 p.m. (EDT) via the online meeting space information below. A recording will be kept by NASCSP and will be made available upon request.

Event address for attendees:

https://nascsp.webex.com/nascsp/onstage/g.php?MTID=ed46dae5d557deac9b7c3f64795da83f4

Audio conference:

US TOLL

+1-415-655-0001

Access code: 663 873 355

 

   

Submitted Questions for CSBG Public Facing Website RFP


05/17/2017

       

GENERAL QUESTIONS

Q: How much total data will be archived in the system? Would you say 1 GB, 10 GB, 50 GB or more? [Note: Data doesn't take up very much space. And, generating graphics on the fly in ad hoc queries takes up almost no space. But, saving pictures and graphics takes a lot of space. Just a guess is OK. ]

A: Estimating 1 TB.

Q: Cost Proposal - Is this going to be a fixed price contract, a time and materials contract, or a cost plus fixed fee contract? Or, might that vary by Task?

A: This will be a time and materials contract with a “not to exceed” limit without prior written approval.

  Q: Some of the compliance questions that you are looking for a response to in the cover letter only apply to building contractors. For instance, compliance with the Davis Bacon Act (RFP page 5).  Since we are a software vendor, is a response that this does not apply appropriate?

A: Davis-Bacon is standard federal contract language. As a software vendor, it does not apply.


TASK 2


The winning Contractor shall arrange for planning, note taking, distribution of materials and logistical support for quarterly meetings at a minimum, with up to 15 members from OCS, NASCSP and, potentially, State offices over the period of performance.   Meetings may occur more frequently as needed at different points in the project. Logistical support includes costs for travel, per diem and hotel as approved by NASCSP.   The quarterly meetings will be held on a federal site in metropolitan Washington, D.C. and through an online meeting space.

The winning Contractor shall arrange for any teleconferences or distribution of materials, as instructed or agreed to by NASCSP.

The scheduling and planning of meetings will be approved by NASCSP.   Within 10 days following each meeting, the winning Contractor shall submit a meeting report summarizing discussion points, recommendations and concerns, names of participants and summary of costs.


There were several questions around Task 2 that might be answered more easily by providing verbiage from the RFP (above).

   

Q: TASK 2 - This task asks for assistance in planning, note taking, materials distribution, and logistical support for quarterly meetings. Are we correct in assuming that these meetings do not require a facilitator? If the meeting does not require a facilitator, should we assume that a NASCSP staff person will facilitate and that the NASCSP staff person will be available to the "notetaker" to consult on the key findings from the meeting?

Q: TASK 2 - There is some uncertainty in the bid specifications for Task 2. It appears that the number of meetings, the number of participants, and the number of participants from outside Washington DC might vary. Is it appropriate to furnish a cost estimate for 4 quarterly in-person two-day meetings with 10 individuals traveling from locations that would require a plane flight? We are interested in the number of meetings, the length of the meetings, and the role of the contractor in the meetings. We were "guessing" that this is a working group meeting since you referenced some members from "potentially, state offices" and the RFP says "logistical support includes costs for travel, per diem, and hotel..." In terms of the 10 people coming in from out of town, we were just suggesting a number for budgeting purposes so that all bidders could use the same assumptions and you could get an apples to apples comparison of proposed costs.

A: NASCSP staff will facilitate meetings and will have a staff person available to consult with Contractor’s “notetaker” on key findings of the meeting. We expect to host a kick-off meeting, at which Contractor attendance on-site is mandatory. Your staff and travel costs should be built into the proposal. It is expected that all other meetings can be attended via an internet platform. We shared number and demographics of full attendance only to give Contractor an idea of who participants in the meetings. Contractor is not responsible for covering the travel costs of any participants other than Contractor staff.


TASK 3

Q: TASK 3 Federal Systems - Will OCS be allowed to consider web-based data collection tools other than OLDC? It was our understanding that all ACF grantee reporting is going to be done through Grant Solutions/OLDC.

A: That is not an option. All data entry of data in the new Annual Report will be made into Grant Solutions/OLDC.


Q:  TASK 3 Development of Data Verification and Report Specifications - Will OCS, NASCSP, or the contractor take the lead role in the development of OLDC data verification tools? Will OCS, NASCSP, or the contractor take the lead role in the development of report specifications?

A: OCS and NASCSP will take the lead role in the development of both the data verification tools and report specifications. The contractor will execute, develop, and program accordingly.

TASK 4

Q: TASK 4 Design: Grant Solutions and OLDC - For LIHEAP, ALL grantee reporting is currently completed through the OLDC module of Grant Solutions. And, we are able to directly access OLDC to examine the status of grantee submissions. However, all data review and cleaning is done outside the Grant Solutions framework because we have a more complete array of data manipulation tools. Have you been told by OCS whether it is a priority to process the data in the Grant Solutions framework. [Note: This would affect proposed costs because of the need to develop skills with Grant Solutions tools. In addition, we have found that current security clearance procedures make gaining access to OIS systems challenging.]

A: All data will be extracted from Grant Solutions/OLDC and all data review and cleaning will be completed by NASCSP in a platform developed and created under this RFP.


Q: TASK 4 Design: Reporting at the Sub-State Areas - Does the grantee report information for sub-state areas? Or, is that just something that might happen in the future?

A: The grantee will report in Grant Solutions/OLDC on behalf of the CSBG Eligible Entities (sub-state areas).


Q: TASK 4 Design: "Automatic" reporting of CSBG Annual Report data at the local, state, territory, and national level - Has the CSBG Annual Report been designed in such a way that it's development can be automated? Are there data available at the local, state, territory, and national level? Is the "report" intended to be an electronic document? Will the number of data elements that require "special handling" be limited? Will OCS, NASCSP, or the contractor specify the format and the consistency checks for the CSBG Annual Report? Will the number of data elements that require "special handling" be limited?” Please define “special handling” and “limited.” In the LIHEAP Report to Congress, each grantee table has up to 20 footnotes. Each of those footnotes represents a "special circumstance" that affects between one and ten grantees. For each of those footnotes, staff must look carefully a notes entered into the grantee reports and extract information from those notes for customized preparation of the footnotes. And, those customized footnotes have gotten special attention from OLAB and have to be prepared in a specific way. That presents a significant barrier to the automation of the development of the LIHEAP report to Congress.

If you are able to "handle" all of the special circumstances in the coding and data entry phase of reporting, it will make the development of reports much more streamlined. But, if individuals with decision making authority want every nuance of a particular measure discussed in exhaustive detail, it complicates the process.

So ... special handling means that the report includes an extensive number of footnotes for each table. Limited means that there is one data collection and processing document that describes how coding and data entry decisions were made and interested readers will have to go to that document to identify those nuances.

 A: In this case, “automatic” refers to prepared/canned reports already built into the system. There data available at the local, state, territory, and national level available. The report is intended to able to download, export and print. OCS and NASCSP will specify the consistency checks for the CSBG Annual Report.

At this point, we are not aware of any “special handling”, extensive footnotes, or exhaustive nuances that will be required. We anticipate limited data entry.


Q: TASK 4 Informational and Progress Reports - Does NASCSP have specifications for the planned reports? Or, will those be developed in response to OCS/NASCSP/Grantee priorities?

A: They will be developed in response to Grantee priorities.


TASK 5 / TASK 6

Q: TASK 5 Development/Testing of Data Warehouse - Assuming that the system design is completed on schedule (i.e., 90 days after contract award), what is the expected time frame for development and testing? Or, is that to be proposed by the contractor? If this is a time and materials contact, is it likely that the system components would be prioritized and that there would be an incremental deployment schedule? Or, would it be necessary to deploy all systems components at one time?

A: There are four modules in the new Annual Report. We will need the first module complete and live in the new website no later than December 31, 2017. The “go-live” dates for the remaining three modules will be discussed during the kick-off meeting.  


Q: TASK 5 Deployment - Are we correct in assuming that there is an ACF CSBG Website and a NASCSP CSBG Website that will be maintained and with which the CSBG Data Warehouse website should be linked?

A: Yes, that is correct.


Q: TASK 5 / TASK 6 - Are you expecting the contractor to reach out to grantees to verify data as part of Task 5? Or, would that only be done as part of IDIQ T&TA in Task 6?

A: The contractor will build tools to complete data verification and testing the website functionality. NASCSP and OCS will conduct data verification. No data verification will be needed by the contractor.

TASK 10

Q#10 - TASK 4 Multiyear Data - Will the contractor be required to import data from prior year reports? Or, is the trend analysis a forward looking task?

A: Data from prior years will be required to be stored. Trend analysis will be a forward looking task.

Q: Appendix 4 the Certification and Registration form states that the RFP is being issued under NAICS code 531190. I logged on to SAM.gov in order to update our NAICS code and found that this code is related to real estate. I am wondering if perhaps the incorrect NAICs code was included in the RFP.

Please advise as to whether you would like applicants to register under this or another code.

A: Please disregard for the purposes of this RFP. The RFP has been updated and can be found in the link above.

 

 

 

 
 
 
© Copyright NASCSP 2017. All Rights Reserved. | Site Designed by: DC Web Designers, a Washington DC web design company