1 / 22

Pre-Proposal Conference September 10, 2009

Enterprise System for: Pesticide Permitting and Use Reporting to be deployed in all California Counties CACASA Request for Proposals #10. Pre-Proposal Conference September 10, 2009. Agenda. RFP Scope of Services Highlights Answers to submitted questions Open questions from attendees

iman
Download Presentation

Pre-Proposal Conference September 10, 2009

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Enterprise System for:Pesticide Permitting and Use Reportingto be deployed in all California CountiesCACASA Request for Proposals #10 Pre-Proposal Conference September 10, 2009

  2. Agenda • RFP Scope of Services Highlights • Answers to submitted questions • Open questions from attendees • Software demonstrations @ 10:30 • Finish Q & A • Adjourn

  3. 3.1 System Design Services • Demonstrated consulting skills to work with counties on needs & expectations • Commitment to thoroughly document the whole solution • Details about proposed system architecture: engineering, components, deployed infrastructure • Advantages and rationale for proposed architecture

  4. 3.2 System Acceptance Test Plan • Commitment to thoroughly test prior to deployment • Experience developing incremental software/system test plans • Field testing duration, objectives, and benchmark monitoring

  5. 3.3 Software Coding & Testing • Commitment to an organized process that integrates design, coding, testing, and source code documentation • Strong feedback loops to keep design documentation synchronized with as-built system.

  6. 3.4 System Documentation & User Help Sub-system • Maximize county self-sufficiency to learn, use, and maintain the system • Engage the community of users to achieve in-depth understanding and a strong sense of system ownership

  7. Summary of Objectives: 3.1 - 3.4 • System development follows an orderly, efficient, and manageable process • Control and autonomy conveyed to system users and owners

  8. 3.5 Implementation / Transition Plan • Explain the process for converting unknowns to knowns • Planning details and advance work required for a swift and smooth transition • Assumptions about CACASA and county participation in both planning and execution

  9. 3.6 System Installations • Anticipated duration to accomplish all county transitions • Required contractor resources • Assumptions about required CACASA and county resources • Seasonal timing to minimize Ag. Department disruptions

  10. 3.7 Maintenance and Technical Support One Time Setup Activities • Describe system monitoring / maintenance procedures and technical support systems that will be planned and/or established in advance of the system going “live”

  11. 3.8 Ongoing Maintenance and Technical Support Activities • Anticipated contractor resources required • Technical User Group involvement

  12. 3.9 Project Management • Detailed Work Plan & Schedule • Coordination and communication methods, both internal and external • Change and risk management strategies • Assumptions about CACASA and county involvement and response times for evaluating deliverables or decision-making

  13. Questions Submitted in Advance:Budget & Funding • Is there a budget for the project? • How much funding is secured and guaranteed given the current financial and budgeting issues? • The “Phase I Needs Assessment Report” says that there is an unspent amount of $1.23M.  How much of this amount will be available to the current project?

  14. Questions Submitted in Advance:Incumbent Vendors • Do you want a new solution or will you give preference to the AgGIS/RMMS systems if they include the necessary enhancements? • What is CACASA’s plan to leverage the past investment of $1.7M?

  15. Questions Submitted in Advance:Data Issues • Will CACASA provide all of the pesticide data and polygonal configuration of GIS interest areas? • Is spatial data currently available with all the counties? • Is there a requirement for data archival?

  16. Questions Submitted in Advance:Project Management • Does CACASA have any professional IT personnel who will participate in conjunction with the contractor? • Who will approve the detailed system design, an outside IT vendor or the CACASA staff? • How many design/vision meetings should we include in our estimate?

  17. Questions Submitted in Advance:Standards and Certifications • Are there any State IT standards to be followed if CDPR is funding part of the development and implementation of the new system? • Does the contract require California MSA / CMAS certifications?

  18. Questions Submitted in Advance:Architecture Issues • Are there any existing co-location services being used by the CACASA where we can house the new system being developed? • Are you open to using licensed products, such as ESRI tools for GIS?  Are there any other licensing considerations for the new system? • For a centralized approach, would there be a database administrator assigned to resolve internal database replication / synchronization conflict scenarios?

  19. Questions Submitted in Advance:Existing Infrastructure • Do all counties using this system have access to high speed internet services? • Can you share some data of installation per county so that we can give a more realistic estimate of installation and transition? • Currently does the main district office (or county HQ) synchronize its data with the other field district offices of the county? • Do the counties have remote access for system developers currently?

  20. Questions Submitted in Advance:Miscellaneous Issues (1) • Is there a mobile component for this service whereby a field technician can input their pesticide usage and take advantage of GIS discovery on the mobile device? • On page 2 of the “Phase II Final Recommended Solution Report” a Statewide Pesticide Use Reporting System (SPURS) is mentioned.  Is this the system that we are developing?

  21. Questions Submitted in Advance:Miscellaneous Issues (2) • Can some part of the project engineering activities be carried out off-site? • We expect to team with an overseas developer.  Will such a teaming relationship preclude us from winning the project? • How will the traveling costs be billed to CACASA?

  22. Interactive Q & A

More Related