search

akhealth / RFP-ORCA-Dashboards

Draft RFP for the State of AK OCS to provide mobile access to initial assessment workers.
1 stars 0 forks source link

Review Similar Experience Requirements #18

Closed mheadd closed 6 years ago

mheadd commented 6 years ago

In Section 4.07, we need to review the similar experience section.

randyhart commented 6 years ago

@waldoj @mheadd and Joe - this is similar to the minimum qualifications questions. What similar experience would we want these vendors to have? What are some things they can provide that shows they've worked on similarly scoped projects as the mobility project?

waldoj commented 6 years ago

I want to see experience with progressive web apps. That means experience with service workers, Web Storage, IndexedDB and developing for bandwidth-constrained environments.

waldoj commented 6 years ago

I want to see experience building software atop APIs, but I'm not sure how to express it. As in, building a program with the sole purpose of putting a front-end on an existing API, as opposed to having created a storefront website that interfaced with a payment processor, AWS, and Google Maps.

randyhart commented 6 years ago

Those things make sense to me. If @joe and/or @sztaylorakgov agree I think you should go ahead and make these changes, @waldoj .

DanaPenner commented 6 years ago

@waldoj can you please propose changes?

waldoj commented 6 years ago

I'm not sure what happened in § 4.07, but this in § 4.07(i) doesn't make sense:

At a minimum, provide...[r]ecent and similar technical scope is past experience with building usable, responsive, consumer facing website built within the past three (3) years.

If you read it out loud, you'll see that there are at least two problems with this. Perhaps it should be this?

At a minimum, provide...examples of experience building usable, responsive, consumer-facing websites within the past three (3) years.

waldoj commented 6 years ago

In § 4.07(i) we duplicate some of the language from § 1.04, as discussed in #3. I will leave that language alone for now, but once we figure out what it should look like in § 1.04, let's also update it here.

Note that #3 includes discussion of API-based development, so I'm going to wait to settle that there before we move that language into § 4.07(i).

waldoj commented 6 years ago

Well, since #3 was closed, I'm back to proposing those changes here. I'll update the PR accordingly.

susanjabal commented 6 years ago

I have reviewed your changes Waldo, and they look fine to me. But I want to be clear here - that section 1.04 is distinctly different than this section 4.07.

Section 1.04 is listing the bare minimums that will allow a vendor to move to the evaluation portion of this procurement. Reviewed by me, these establish that a vendor is 'responsive and responsible'. The intent is to prevent a completely unqualified offeror from being awarded because they have lowballed the price. These minimums protect the State - but are not provided evaluation points.

Section 4.07 is where a technical evaluation is done and points are scored based on how well prior experience and qualifications align with the goals of this project. This scoring is done by the evaluation team.

Language in each should be distinctly different. Section 1.04 should be broader, but still listing the absolute minimums for consideration by the eval team, while section 4.07 should further describe what the State will be looking for and scoring on from the offeror.

I believe section 1.04 is adequate as it stands to meet its very limited purpose, stating that an offeror must have done work on 2 similar projects within the last 3 years.

waldoj commented 6 years ago

Yup, we've left § 1.04 alone, per #3.

susanjabal commented 6 years ago

sorry I missed/forgot that one in the closed issues. thanks Waldo!

randyhart commented 6 years ago

I'm going to close this issue based on the above. If I'm wrong in doing so please feel free to re-open.