ACCESS Florida System Replacement -...

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.

December 4, 2012

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) #2 Document

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

ITN # 03F12GC1 - ACCESS FLORIDA System Replacement Page 1

December 4, 2012

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 Interim Revised Response (IRR) #2 to the Department of Children and Families’ IRR request of November 27, 2012 in relation to the Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) 03F12GC1 for the ACCESS Florida System Replacement project. As requested, our response provides the requested information on our original proposed approach as well as the “standalone” phase approach based on the questions’ instructions. Our response for standalone phases assumes that each phase – Phase 3, Phase 4A, and Phase 4B – is a complete project by itself and includes the resources, time and costs uniquely required for each Phase. Accenture appreciates the opportunity to highlight the differentiated value of our proposal.

The Accenture Public Service Platform (APSP) Commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) based solution is an excellent fit that meets your requirements for large state eligibility processing. The scope updates requested in IRR #2 removed 19 software customizations. This change further improves the fit of our solution and reduces the effort and risk for the implementation.

Accenture’s Key Resources for the ACCESS Florida System Replacement project have

been carefully scheduled and are committed to begin work as proposed to you. This is our “A” Team for DCF and they are ready to start.

The hardware and software detailed in the Bill of Materials (BOM) are industry

leading products that are architected and integrated to help the Department move to the next level of human service delivery excellence. Our solution is designed and sized to meet your processing needs based on the applicable approach – original and standalone. Our solution includes products that enable secure and responsive processing while supporting large state volumes. We are confident that careful scrutiny of the detail in our solution will expose needed capabilities and value that may not be found in lower priced solutions.

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


Our approach uses Department resources efficiently and effectively to implement the new system within the proposed timeframes. Our cost is based on DCF providing resources to perform the Department responsibilities specified in the ITN and zero days of effort performing the vendor tasks outlined in the ITN. The response also provides insights and clarifications on potential Department participation techniques that have been proven to streamline implementations in other enterprise system implementations.

The Accenture solution enables business flexibility and we are able to adapt the

implementation timing of capabilities to support DCF’s requirements. Our response provides the deadline for starting phases based on the current proposed solution and approach. The capabilities of our solution and our team provide considerable flexibility to adapt to DCF’s timing constraints.

Accenture has the track record and capacity to continue successful delivery on our eligibility system project commitments. Accenture has carefully selected the eligibility system opportunities we are pursuing. We view the DCF ACCESS System Replacement as an extremely important eligibility system opportunity. While the effectiveness of Florida DCF is already the envy of many other states, we believe by implementing our solution using the team we proposed, that together we will create a tremendous value for Florida, DCF and DCF’s clients. We have proposed and reserved our most experienced and innovative eligibility processing leadership team and have ample resources to fulfill our current commitments without impacting the successful delivery of DCF’s ACCESS Replacement project. In fact, we have declined bidding on eligibility projects in many states to make sure that we are able to successfully deliver on our current and proposed commitments.

Accenture continues to be excited 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 your questions and instructions in the format provided by the Department and have included updated Cost forms as requested. Our response has been developed to be fully responsive 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 LEGACY OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE – ADDITIONAL

INFORMATION Vendor Instructions Please submit detailed Legacy O&M proposed hours and resources based on your proposed costs. Data must include role, rate and hours on monthly basis for the entire Legacy O&M period. All information should be based on the scenario of receiving only the contract for Legacy O&M (ITN - Attachment II). Ex. Table

Role Rate Jan 2013 Feb 2013…. ….Final Month Ex. Role $100 165 150 165

Vendor Response:

Accenture has provided the requested information for Legacy O&M services in the attached Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Please note the following:

Transition costs were excluded from these costs The Rate provided is an average rate over the life of the contract for the role specified. In

total, the costs resulting by multiplying the Rate by the Hours for a given month across all months is close to the Legacy O&M pricing provided in the first IRR response. The product of the Rate by the Hours for a given month may not be equal to an individual month due to the fact that we are using an average rate across the support period.

2.2 UPDATED SCOPE & PRICING Vendor Instructions The requirements in Section 3 – Appendix A of this IRR have been removed from scope. Using the electronic “hours” and “costs” forms attached, please update your solution pricing and hours. Three forms have been provided:

One for updated pricing based on the vendor’s original proposed approach; One for updated pricing based on the standalone approach; One for updated hours based on the vendor’s original and standalone approach.

Vendors are reminded that this may be the final opportunity for the vendor to submit pricing to the Department.


Vendor Response:

We have provided the attached electronic forms to provide pricing updates based on the new scope.

Accenture reviewed the requirements to be removed from scope and reduced the effort and associated costs associated with this reduction. We reduced the effort and cost from the Phase 4A section of this IRR as this phase is where we anticipate implementing these requirements. We appreciate DCF’s effort to focus the requirements for this project to those that will produce the best value for the State of Florida. While numerous requirements were removed, the bulk produced limited or incremental reductions to our effort and associated costs. As we move forward, we are committed to continue to work with DCF to refine the overall solution for the project, and we are confident there are numerous ways make significant reductions in our price while adhering to the goals outlined in the Schedule IV-B Feasibility Study.

All answers to the following questions should be based on the updated scope provided in 2.2 Updated Scope & Pricing.

2.3 VENDOR KEY RESOURCES Vendor Instructions Please provide the proposed project involvement for the following key personnel. Also please provide the project they are currently working on and the expected end date of the project. If a person is covering more than one role below, list their name in both places.

Phase Involvement – List the Project Phases for which each resource’s involvement is planned in (3, 4A, 4B).

Start – Provide Phase and sub phase. Sub phases include (Planning, Design, Development, Testing, Implementation, Operations)

Finish – Provide Phase and sub phase. Sub phases include (Planning, Design, Development, Testing, Implementation, Operations)

Vendor Response:

Accenture’s proposed team, and specifically our key personnel, is one of the significant indicators of our commitment to the success of the ACCESS Florida System Replacement project. We have hand-selected a highly skilled team that is primarily Tallahassee-based – people who live here and want to work here. This team also demonstrates strong eligibility experience and the most qualified resources to deliver your vision. They are invested in the results you are seeking to achieve, committed to the State of Florida and ready to go on Day 1 of the project.

We have used the table below to provide the requested information.


Role Phase Involvement

Start Finish Current Project

Cindy Hielscher, Project Manager

All Phases (3, 4A, 4B)

Beginning of Phase 3 Planning

End of Phase 4B Implementation and part-time through Operations

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and Food and Drug Association (FDA) Projects – Role ends December 2012

Tim Murray, Project Mobilization Lead



End of Phase 3 Implementation

Accenture Florida Business Development activities – available January 2013

Danielle Klayman, Requirements Lead



Phase 4B Design

Accenture Software supporting multiple projects – available immediately

Kevin Hogg, Data Conversion Lead

(not designated as key personnel)


Phase 3 Design

End of Phase 4B Implementation

North Carolina Families Accessing Services through Technology (NC FAST) Project – Role ends December 2012

Zhen Zhu, Interface Lead




Walgreens Health Care WellConnected – Role ends December 2012

Jina Braynon, OCM Lead

Phases 4A and 4B Phase 4A Design


Partners HealthCare Epic Implementation – Role ends January 2013

Jim Burns, Training Lead

(not designated as


Phase 4A Design

Phase 4B Training

Actium Business Development activities – available January


key personnel) 2013 Arasu Dakshin, Application Development Lead




Kansas Eligibility and Enforcement System (KEES) Project – Role ends January 2013

Paul Moore, Technical Lead




Accenture Eligibility Technical Architect Domain Lead available January 2013

Henry Wu, Lead Architect




New York City DHS CARES Project – Role ends January 2013

Shanna Wiley, Testing Lead


Phase 3 Build

Phase 4B Testing

Accenture San Antonio Delivery Center supporting multiple projects – available immediately

Kim Koegel, Implementation Manager




Florida My Florida Market Place (MFMP) Project – Role ends December 2012

Mike Jackman, O&M Lead (New System)


Beginning of Phase 3 Operations

End of Phase 4B Operations

Currently on Accenture Personal Leave of Absence

2.4 BILL OF MATERIALS (BOM) Vendor Instructions Using the electronic BOM templates provided please provide the appropriate information on the hardware and software components of your proposed solution. Two BOM’s should be submitted, one for the vendor’s original proposed approach and one for the standalone phase approach. Vendor Response:

We have provided details of our proposed hardware and software in the attached BOM templates.


Original Proposed Approach Response BOM

Our original proposal features the use of the Oracle ExaData and ExaLogic infrastructure appliances which are a significant solution differentiator, providing performance, scalability, security, integration and reduced maintenance that reduces overall enterprise infrastructure costs.

Standalone Approach Response BOM

Our standalone solution proposed hardware is different from our original submission. In the standalone proposal, our solution changed from using the ExaLogic platform to blade servers so as not to overburden standalone Phase 3 costs with the higher upfront fixed costs of the ExaLogic platform in the event subsequent projects are not performed. The effect of using the blade server approach for our standalone solution carried through to Phase 4A and Phase 4B is that the total hardware price decreased slightly and the software price increased since more licensed CPUs were needed to achieve the equivalent performance. In total for all Phases, the total hardware and software cost of the standalone is higher than our original proposal. If a standalone approach is used, we would work with the Department to determine your preference as to whether the ExaLogic platform should be used.

Notes on BOM Field Contents

GSA Price per License – We have provided the GSA price for the products (hardware and software) proposed in our solution. GSA prices are supplied to Accenture from vendors and manufacturers based on their current GSA Schedules or a manufacturer’s GSA Schedule holder. These GSA Schedule price points are updated often without notice being passed on to technology partners like Accenture. We have indicated “N/A” for items for which we did not find a GSA price.

Proposed Price per License – This is the unit cost for each listed item. Accenture is able to achieve substantial discounts from the list price for our clients by leveraging our strong vendor alliances. Through these alliances, Accenture is able to provide very large discounts off of the list price of the products for the full term of the contract.

Date of Procurement – This field represents the purchase month for the quantity of each item purchased throughout the life of the contract. We have staggered product purchases such that hardware and software are available “just in time” to meet the project needs. Staggering purchases can reduce the total maintenance payments over the life of the project. The BOM shows separate lines for each specific item when the product is purchased at different times.

Total Purchase Price – The value in the “Total Purchase Price” field is the “Proposed price per license” value multiplied by the value in the “Qty” field for each item. The Total Purchase Price includes only the cost for product / license. This field does not contain annual maintenance costs. Most products require purchase of the first year of maintenance with the purchase of the product. Required maintenance costs incurred at the time of product purchase are not included in the total purchase price column. Our pricing sheets are structured this way as well. The totals for “Initial Purchases” include product and


license costs. The required year one product maintenance is included in the lines labeled “Renewals / Upgrades”.

Licensing Renewals Price – This is cost for vendor maintenance of hardware and software products for the specified period of renewal. Licensing renewals for most products are calculated as a percentage of initial product purchase price. The significant purchase price discounts from the list price that result from our strong vendor alliances result in lower maintenance prices which save the Department money in ongoing maintenance.

Upon execution of a contract with the State, Accenture will work with our vendors to confirm and update any hardware and software products previously proposed to ensure all products are available for purchase. Accenture may propose that the State acquire an equivalent or better substitute of a product if the product is no longer available because the manufacturer has discontinued (or plans in the near future to discontinue) its production, or if a newer or upgraded release, model or version of a product has become available from the manufacturer. Such changes may have an impact on price, where the new products have a higher or lower price point than what was originally proposed.

2.5 DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES Vendor Instructions Outside of the responsibilities defined in the SOW (ITN - Attachment I), what responsibilities, if any, are you assuming DCF will own by Phase (3, 4A and 4B). Vendor Response:

Accenture has assumed the State would perform the State tasks outlined in the ITN. We have assumed State resources will provide zero days of effort performing the vendor tasks outlined in the ITN.

Department Responsibility Recommendations

In implementing Department responsibilities, we would recommend DCF consider performing responsibilities using the following techniques that have been proven to streamline implementations in other enterprise system implementations.

Establish a formal business team that is responsible for decision making on business processes and policy of DCF.

Provide a small core set of business team representation who participates in all conference room pilot sessions. We have seen benefits from involving a core set of participants throughout as a “common thread” as opposed to involving a changing set of participants representing different perspectives in each session.

It is a common interest to have an efficient and timely deliverable review process. The latest version of Microsoft Office allows concurrent review, comment and editing of documents. Traditional deliverable review processes are sometimes paper based, involve sequential


passing of a document, or require an effort to validate and consolidate reviewer comments -- all of which increase the elapsed time. We recommend that Deliverable reviewers use the collaborative features of MS Office to concurrently review and comment on deliverables. Additionally, for minor corrections, we would encourage the reviewer to enter the change with track changes enabled. If access is provided to Provider personnel to participate in review deliverables, Provider personnel can begin to address deliverable review issues and concerns as they are identified, resulting in a shorter elapsed time to approving the deliverable.

Outside of the responsibilities in the SOW, Accenture assumptions about Department responsibilities are listed below and are organized and referenced by SOW section:

8.1 Project Management

Clarification – 8.1.2.5. Define reporting structures between various participants in the Project (Project Governance). – We assume this includes defining a strategy for geographic stakeholder representation and participation and that the Department will communicate that strategy to stakeholders.

Clarification – 8.1.2.6. Monitor the Availability and Participation of State Staff – We interpret this to mean the Department will include Department and non-provider and subcontractor staff, their activities, and availability for inclusion in the Integrated Master Schedule. Relevant non-provider and non-subcontractor staff will record and track availability in the Integrated Master Schedule.

Clarification – 8.1.2.17. Provide a SharePoint repository for Project documents and deliverables. – We assume this includes supporting the SharePoint repository and providing SharePoint development resource(s) that can implement relevant SharePoint based tools and processes.

Missing - Manage and direct Department personnel and external (other agency) personnel (non-Provider or subcontractor staff) to complete Department activities.

8.2.2 Phase Gate Reviews

Clarification – 8.2.2.2 – Review and comment on deliverables submitted for phase gate reviews. – We assume the Department will be able to review completed portions of Phase Gate Acceptance deliverables and provide informal comments for portions provided prior to the completion of all components to the deliverable.

Clarification – 8.2.2.3 – Approve or reject phase gate acceptance deliverables. – We assume for any rejected phase gate deliverable, the Department will provide specific actions required for acceptance and will provide timely accessibility to review revised deliverables.

8.5 – Disaster Recovery

Clarification – 8.5.2.3 –Coordinate and assist with the testing of the disaster recovery process. - We assume the testing relates only to the new system and related support processes. The testing process may use a simulation test approach to validate


understanding of disaster recovery processes prior to operational use of the system.

Missing – Department is to contract for or provide the disaster recovery hosting service.

9.2.2 Define Phase Responsibilities

Clarification – 9.2.2.1 – Review and approve requirements elaboration schedule […] within 10 days - We assume Department personnel will perform define phase orientation activities (e.g. Web based training) prior to the first scheduled elaboration session.

Clarification – 9.2.2.3 – Provide comments [..] with 15 business days … - We assume the need for 15 business days is based on completion of all requirements (Phase 3, 4A, and 4B). We would expect a significantly faster turnaround if the stand alone project approach is used.

9.9.2 Develop Forms and Correspondence

Clarification 9.9.2.1 – Work with Provider to design and develop forms and correspondence – We assume Department personnel will provide and validate translation of forms and correspondence content that are not produced in English.

9.12 – Test Phase – User Acceptance Test

Clarification – 9.12.2.1 – Review and approve UAT Plan – We assume the Department will provide user input on desired plan, and test scenarios at the initiation of Provider’s work to generate the UAT plan and test scenarios.

9.14 – Data Conversion

Clarification - 9.14.2.2 – Provide support to enable the Providers staff to write and execute data extract programs … - We assume the Department would be responsible for logistics, tools and environments involved in providing access and enabling Provide staff to write and execute data extract programs. We would like to discuss the potential overall net benefits of using Department resources to perform a basic data extract of information from legacy sources.

Clarification - 9.14.2.7 – Determine level of manual effort... – We assume Provider will participate and consider input in the Department’s determination of the level of manual effort.

9.15 Implement Phase - Training

Clarification - 9.15.2.1 - … Provider will be expected to provide resources[…] to participate in procedure training – We assume content would be incorporated into training curriculum (WBT or instructor led sessions) in a way that could leverage proposed sessions and Provider training staff.


11. Operations and Maintenance

Clarification – We assume the Provider help desk will only receive initial contacts related to the new system. The Department would provide help desk support for non-system items like policy, procedures, Department learning management system (LMS), user desktops, other Department systems, and other Department functions.

14. Operations Transition

Clarification – On request of the department […] – We assume the Department will provide advance notice of request to develop an Operations and Maintenance Transition Plan at least 90 days prior to desired transition completion.

2.6 DEADLINES FOR STARTING PHASES Vendor Instructions Please provide the “drop-dead” start date in order for Phase 3 to meet the October 2013 and January 2014 ACA deadlines. Also please provide the “drop dead” start date in order for Phase 4A to be completed in time for the December 2015 enhanced funding deadline. Vendor Response:

In the event of a delay in the project start date, Accenture will work collaboratively with the Department to determine the most “value added” approach to completing the project and most importantly, meeting the ACA federal deadlines. Our current proposal assumes a January 14, 2013 start date. We feel confident in our ability to work quickly through the negotiation process with the Department to be able to meet the current plan. We know that sometimes there are delays that are unavoidable due to other factors such as the legislative budget approval processes, and we are ready to work with the Department to alter our work plan and solution approach if this happens.

Our view of the “drop-dead” start date for Phase 3 to meet the October 2013 and January 2014 ACA deadlines is two-fold. To meet these deadlines as we proposed them with our solution, the “drop-dead” start date is February 4, 2013. However, given that we bring both the proven ability to rapidly implement mission critical solutions in months, not years, coupled with the fact that we bring a proven technical architecture, portal application, and the ability to jump start the project by leveraging existing assets found uniquely within the Accenture Software Product Suite (ex. development environments, databases, network connectivity, etc.) delays beyond this point are not insurmountable. We are confident that if further delays occur, we can work with you to adjust the scope to meet these ACA deadlines while positioning the State to achieve the goals outlined in the Schedule IV-B Feasibility Study.

The “drop dead” start date for Phase 4A to meet the December 2015 enhanced funding deadline while not altering our current proposal is January 6, 2014. Similar to Phase 3, we would work with the Department to determine alternate solutions and project approaches which could still meet the enhanced funding deadline.


2.7 INFORMATION ON CURRENT AND PLANNED ELIGIBILITY PROJECTS

Vendor Instructions Please provide an update for all current and planned eligibility projects the vendor is currently involved in. Current Phase - Proposing, Proposal Submitted, In Contracting, Awarded, Planning, Design, Development, Testing, Implementation, Operations Vendor Response:

Accenture has been very targeted and selective in our pursuit of similar Integrated Eligibility work across the country. We have carefully pursued those opportunities that are most synergistic between the solution and value Accenture offers and the solution the State or government entity desires. Our market strategy has been one of focus instead of responding to every Request for Proposals (RFP) published. As a long-term Florida business partner, we have spent time understanding DCF’s strategies, goals, and expected outcomes for the ACCESS Replacement Project. We know that DCF is not interested in the “B” or “C” team proposed by a vendor spread too thin chasing work all over the country…or who might promise the same “A” team proposed to several states. We have been very thoughtful in who we have proposed for the Florida ACCESS Replacement System program, so that we can deliver our “A” team…ready Day 1 with eligibility and Florida-specific experience.

The table below indicates the project in which we are currently implementing an IE program or have an active IE bid in review. Accenture has ample resources to fulfill these commitments without impacting the successful delivery of DCF’s ACCESS Replacement project. In fact, we have declined bidding on IE projects in Maryland, Illinois, Indiana, Rhode Island, Georgia, Arkansas, Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, Virginia, and Tennessee in order to prepare ourselves for opportunities such as Florida’s.

We have used the table below to provide the requested information.

Project Name Type (O&M, Enhancement or Implementation)

Related to ACA (Yes/No)

Current Phase Planned Project End Date / Go Live Date

California Consortium IV (C-IV)

O&M Yes Operations October 2013

North Carolina Families Accessing Services through Technology (NC FAST)

Implementation and O&M

Yes Various August 2015

Kansas Eligibility and Enforcement System (KEES)


Yes Development, Testing, Implementation, and Operations

Final Go Live October 2013


Iowa Eligibility System (ELIAS)


Yes Design, Development and Testing

May 2014

Los Angeles County LEADER Replacement System (LRS)


Yes Planning October 2023

Ohio Integrated Eligibility and HHS Business Intelligence

Proposal Submitted

Yes Proposal Evaluation

To Be Determined

ACCESS Florida System Replacement -...

Documents

Transcript of ACCESS Florida System Replacement -...