april 20, 2004 ipma presentation state of washington – department of personnel human resource...

April 20, 2004

IPMA Presentation

State of Washington – Department of PersonnelHuman Resource Management System Selection

Deloitte Consulting - Kevin Anderson – (707) 628 9067

© 2004 Deloitte Consulting LP. All rights reserved. 2

Challenges

• Select Vendor for Human Resource Management System in three and a half months

• Coordinate with other Washington Works initiatives• Involve stakeholders across the State


Tools and Enablers

• Used professional help (selected Deloitte)• Leverage prior work (ours and others)• Pre-proposal conference• Multiple teams working concurrently• ProposalLink software• Deloitte On-Line (e-Room web collaboration)• Combined software, services, and hardware

procurement


Project Plan Overview

16 23 30 6 13 20 27 4 11 18 25 1 8 15 22 29

March April May June

Confirm Requirements

Develop Request for Proposal

Issue Request for Proposal

Select Vendor

Evaluate Proposals

Conduct Reference Checks

Conduct Vendor Demos

Final Selection

Finalize Selection


HRMS Selection Project Team

Executive SponsorshipGene Matt, DoP • Marty Brown, OFM

HR 2005 Program OfficeSharon Whitehead, DoP • Wolf Opitz, OFM

HRMS Selection Project SponsorDoug Tanabe, DoP • Tom Miller, DoP

Core Evaluation TeamDoug Tanabe – LeadTom Miller – Co-LeadDennis Jones, OFM

Roy Lum, DISBob FitchettEva Santos

Christina Valadez, DoPMike McVicker, DIS

Functional TeamChristina Valadez – Lead

2345678

Technical TeamMike McVicker – Lead

2345678

Project ManagementTyrone Williams

Brady Jensen, D&T

RFP CoordinatorTammy DobsonPhil Leung, D&T

Engagement PartnerKevin Anderson, D&T

Engagement QAChris Abess, D&T

Subject Matter ExpertsKevin Anderson, D&TBrady Jensen, D&T

Subject Matter ExpertsDavid Sholkoff, D&TJason Philips, D&T

Subject Matter ExpertsPaul Meinardus, D&T


Confirm RequirementsMarch 17 through March 25

Project Team

Core Evaluation Team

Functional Team

Technical Team

Confirm Interface Requirements

Identify Data and Transaction Volumes

Review Technical Requirements

Application Requirements

Review

March 24 – 25

March 18 – 21

March 19 – 25

March 24 – 25

By March 25

By March 25

HRMS Requirements

March 19

Review Feasibility Study and

Background

Feasibility Study

Feasibility StudyReview Technical

Strategy and Architecture

March 17

Review Business Requirements

Confirm Comprehensive


March 24 – 25

March 17 – 18

Technical Requirements

Review


Confirm Requirements

• Scope of work is to confirm business and technical requirements for “clarity, thoroughness, and completeness”.

• Expected to form the basis for the Business and Technical Requirements sections of the Request for Proposal.

• Consider how the requirement can be evaluated.• Ensure that requirements are stated as clearly and

unambiguously as possible, while avoiding unnecessary detail.

• It is the vendor’s task to specify the solution.• Some requirements may be better phrased as questions.


Develop Request for ProposalMarch 31 through April 10

Project Team


Functional Team

Technical Team

Develop Mgmt. Content

Cost, Services, and Vendor

Define Evaluation Framework

Integrate RFP Content

Review and Revise RFP

Request for Proposal

March 31 – April 3

March 24 – 25 April 6 – 10

April 4


Review

Technical Requirements

Review

Develop Functional Requirements

Content

Develop Technical Requirements

Content



Issue RFP

April 11

SMEs

SMEs


Develop Evaluation Framework

• Key and unique requirements define what features the solutions should ideally have.• Modify this concept to match the “Mandatory” and

“Desirable” Qualifications.• Value lies in reducing the potential number of

proposals to evaluate.• Selection criteria define how solutions will be

measured against each other.• Scoring of application functional and technical

requirements.• Overall comparison of solutions considering functional

and non-functional requirements.


Evaluate ProposalsMay 9 through May 16

Project Team


Functional Team

Technical Team

Review Proposals for Fit to Mandatory

Requirements

Review ProposalsCost, Services, and Vendor Viability &

Vision

Review Functional Fit and Summary of

Responses

Develop Summary of Functional / Technical

Responses

Review Technical Fit and Summary of

Responses

Develop Preliminary Evaluation Matrix

Work ShopDevelop Preliminary Scoring and Identify

Finalist

Notify Vendors

May 12 May 16

May 12 - 15

May 13 - 15

May 13 - 15

May 16

May 13 May 15

Work ShopDevelop Vendor-

Specific Questions

Work ShopDevelop Vendor-

Specific Questions

By May 23

By May 23

Vendor Proposals

May 9

SMEs

SMEs

SMEs


Evaluation Teams – Members

Core Evaluation Team Functional Team Technical Team

• Doug Tanabe, DoP – Team Lead• DoP Representative• OFM Representative• DIS Representative• Other Stakeholders

Plus:• Christina Valadez, Functional

Team Lead• Mike McVicker, Technical Team

Lead

• Christina Valadez, CSR and DoP – Team Lead

• Human Resources (2)• Benefits (1)• Payroll (2)• Finance (1)• Budget (1)

• Mike McVicker, DIS – Team Lead• System Administration• Database Administration• System Architecture• Network Administration• Security• Integration• Reporting

Target is 7 to 9 people per Team

Drawn From

• DHSH• ESD• OFM• WSP

• AG• L&I• DoR

• DNR• DoP• DoT

• LEAP• DRS• LSC• HCA

Me

mb

ers


Evaluation Teams – Roles

Core Evaluation Team Functional Team Technical Team

• Responsible for evaluation of Management Issues (Cost, Implementation Services, and Vendor Viability & Vision).

• Integrates evaluation of Management Issues with Functional and Technical evaluations.

• Selects finalists and makes final recommendation.

• Responsible for evaluation of package fit to Functional Requirements.

• Identifies areas of proposals that require further analysis and review.

• Evaluates performance of package in meeting functional requirements through scripted demonstrations.

• Provides detailed evaluation of implementation service provider business process capabilities.

• Responsible for evaluation of package fit to Technical Architecture and Requirements.

• Identifies areas of proposals that require further analysis and review.

• Provides detailed evaluation of technical architecture.

• Provides evaluation of application integration and reporting tools capabilities.

• Provides detailed evaluation of implementation service provider technical capabilities.

• Executive and Management stakeholders from key sponsoring agencies – DoP, OFM, and DIS.

• Representatives of agency, executive, and legislative stakeholders.

• Must be able to commit significant time during vendor evaluation phase.

• Functional representation from agencies.

• Represents both management and operations from both Human Resources and Payroll functions.

• Functional Team Lead is a member of the Core Evaluation Team.


• Technical specialists from agencies.

• Provides expertise in all areas of technology: infrastructure, database, application, and integration.

• Technical Team Lead is a member of the Core Evaluation Team.


Re

sp

on

sib

ilit

ies

Pro

file


Proposals Overview

• Received two proposals through the web on ProposalLink:• Accenture / SAP / Microsoft / HP• IBM Global Services / PeopleSoft / Dye

Management / MAXIMUS / Cognos


Proposals Documents

• Proposals were extracted from ProposalLink as four documents• Summary, Mandatory & Desirable Requirements, and

Strategic Benefits – Core Evaluation Team• Functional Requirements – Functional Team• Technical Infrastructure and Requirements –

Technical Team• Services and Vendor Vision & Viability – Core

Evaluation Team• Proposal documents are available on the eRoom.

• 4 Deliverables – Vendor Proposals


Selection Criteria

• Selection Criteria define how the proposed solutions will be compared against each other.

• Selection Criteria• Strategic Alignment 15%• Functional Requirements 25%• Technical Architecture 20%• Cost 10%• Services 20%• Vendor Viability and Vision 10%


Scoring the Functional Requirements

• Virtually all Requirements are addressed through multiple-choice responses provided by the Vendors.

• ProposalLink will develop a preliminary Functional Requirements score based on the vendor answers, priority of requirements, and the functional weightings developed by the Team.

• Functional Team should review the requirements and vendor answers for reasonability and completeness.


Scoring the Technical Requirements

• Approximately one-third to one-half the Requirements are addressed through multiple-choice responses provided by the Vendors.

• Technical Team is to evaluate the technical infrastructure proposal and responses to the Technical Requirements and develop a preliminary score for each question / requirement.

Score Response

5 Exceeds the requirement by providing exceptional benefit, functionality, or capability.

4 Satisfies the requirement with some additional benefit, functionality, or capability.

3 Satisfies the requirement in all ways.

2 Nearly satisfies the requirement, but fails in some minor respect.

1 Partially satisfies the requirement, but fails in some significant respect.

0 No response or no capability.


Scoring Strategic Alignment

• All sections of the Proposal require evaluation and scoring by the Core Evaluation Team.

• Strategic Alignment reflects “extent to which the proposed solution can achieve the tangible and intangible benefits…”

• Evaluate ability to deliver benefits and likelihood the solution can achieve these benefits.

Score Response

13 – 15 Offers potential to exceed expected benefits by providing exceptional functionality, or capability. References and experience provide high degree of confidence that the solution will deliver the desired benefits.

10 – 12 Offers potential to achieve expected benefits with some additional functional or capability. References and experience demonstrate provide reasonable confidence that the solution can deliver the desired benefits.

7 – 9 Offers potential to achieve expected benefits. References and experience suggest solution can deliver the benefits, although evidence may be ambiguous.

4 – 6 Offers potential to achieve some expected benefits, although not all. References and experience are not conclusive and provided limited support for ability of solution to deliver the desired benefits.

1 – 3 Offers potential to achieve a limited number of expected benefits. References and experience may be negative and may reflect substantive issues left unresolved.


Scoring the Services Proposals

• Services reflects the ability of the solution vendors “to deliver the solution to the State within the required time frame and with suitable management and mitigation of risk.”

• Factors to evaluate include:• Project Approach – how well vendor appears to

understand the vision and goals of the implementation, and extent to which overall implementation approach reflects this understanding.

• Project Organization – to what extent does the vendor team demonstrate the capability and capacity to implement the solution successfully.


Scoring the Services Proposals (cont’d)

• Project Team – level of skill of project team resources as demonstrated through their experience and qualifications.

• Project Risk Management and Control – confidence in project and risk management processes, including specifically management of risks brought by simultaneous business change of CSR, CB, and CC.

• Other Services – extent to which the proposal approaches to business process reengineering, change management, training, testing, post-implementation support, and technical services contribute to the overall ability of the vendor to deliver the solution.


Scoring the Services Proposal (cont’d)

Score Response

17 – 20 Exceptionally well qualified. Project approach demonstrates high likelihood of success; project team resources possess outstanding experience and qualifications. Methodology and tools are uniformly high in quality and exceed expectations. Proposal addresses all areas of requirements with thorough, complete responses that are supported by client references. Project team members assigned to the engagement have participated in most, if not all, of the engagements submitted as references. No substantive issues exist concerning approach, timeline, and project team. Relative risk is low.

13 – 16 Well qualified. Project approach demonstrates likelihood of success; project team resources demonstrate competence in their responsibilities. Methodology and tools are generally of high quality. Proposal addresses all areas of requirements, although a small number of responses may be weak or suggest limited experience. Client references demonstrate most of the promised capabilities. Many of the project team members assigned to the engagement have participated in the engagements submitted as references. Although there may be some issues concerning approach, timeline, and project team, they are not of significant concern. Relative risk is moderately low.

9 – 12 Qualified with reservations. Project approach and project team satisfy requirements. Project team resources demonstrate general competence, but may not have performed in similar roles in the past. Proposal does not address adequately all aspects of the requirements, but the core requirements are satisfied. Client references are ambiguous or indicate substantive unresolved issues. There are some significant concerns about approach, timeline, and the project team, but it is believed these can be resolved. Relative risk is acceptable, but high.

5 – 8 Somewhat qualified. Project approach and project team satisfy many of the requirements, but there is substantial evidence of gaps in experience and capabilities. Core requirements are barely satisfied. Client references are potentially negative or adverse. There are a number of significant concerns. High risk.

1 – 4 Not qualified. Project approach and other responses fail to demonstrate more than a minimal ability to meet requirements. Little confidence in the ability of the team to deliver the solution. References are consistently adverse. Unacceptable risk.


Scoring Vendor Viability & Vision

• Reflects the long-term viability of the software publisher, but also considers other members of the Proposal Team.

• Considers both the financial health of the organization as a long-term partner and the vision of the vendor for continued evolution of the project.• Financial and Operational Viability• Company Vision• Product and Technical Vision• Financial and Procurement Systems

• Note that failure to meet Desired Requirements is to be reflected here.


Scoring Vendor Viability (continued)

• In scoring this category, the financial viability should establish a threshold of acceptability.

• Scoring above the threshold should reflect alignment of the vendor’s product vision and commitment to public sector and to human resources.

Score Response

9 – 10 Vendor demonstrate exceptional leadership in both human resources technology and commitment to public sector functionality. Product suites are rich and robust. Vendor articulates a long-term strategic vision for company, technology, and applications. Vendor has a track record of continuing significant investments in products and demonstrates financial resources to continue doing so in the future.

7 – 8 Vendor demonstrate leadership in certain—but not all—segments, including human resources functionality, technology, and commitment to public sector. Product suites cover all functional areas, although further development and refinement may be required to achieve leadership. Vendor strategy may not be well articulated, but is satisfactory. Vendor demonstrates sufficient financial resources to support continued product investment.

5 – 6 Vendor offers a credible solution, but is not a leader. Vendor demonstrates no long-term product vision. Vendor is financially stable with sufficient resources to maintain current products.

3 – 4 Vendor appears to be struggling financially. There is reason to question ability to make continued investments in core products. Although there is no question of a “going concern,” current financial condition suggests long-term viability may be questioned.

1 – 2 Vendor appear to be at risk of failure.


Vendor DemonstrationsMay 19 – June 13

Project Team


Functional Team

Technical Team

Conduct Reference Checks

Vendor Presentations

Focus on Management Issues

Revise Functional Evaluation

Revise Technical Evaluation

Best and Final Offer Specifications to

Vendors

May 19 – 30 June 13

June 2-3; 5-6; 10-11

June 4, 9, 12 (AM)


Focus on Functional Issues


Focus on Technical Issues

Revise Management Issues Evaluation

and Review Composite Score

June 2-3; 5-6; 10-11

June 2-3; 5-6; 10-11 June 4, 9, 12 (AM)

June 4, 9, 12 (PM)

Develop Best and Final Offer

Specifications

Per Vendor (assumes 3)

SMEs

SMEs


Final SelectionJune 16 – 30

Project Team


Functional Team

Technical Team

Review Best and Final Offers

Recommendations

June 23 (AM) June 27

June 23 – 25 June 26

Present Recommendations

to Steering Committee(s)

Best and Final Offers Revise Evaluation Matrix

June 23 – 25

Work ShopSelect HRMS

June 30


Protest!

• Clearly laid out protest process in the RFP

In conjunction with:

• Public Records Act (FULL disclosure to both parties)

End Result: Protest denied by DOP after independent review


Contract Negotiations

• DOP engaged outside counsel who was involved throughout the process (Rich Wyde, Davis Wright Tremaine)• Developed model contract terms for software license

and implementation services• Reviewed contractual exceptions and developed follow-

up questions for inclusion in the Best and Final Offer• Led State's contract negotiations team

• Lesson Learned: experience counts; model contracts included issues not addressed in standard State contracts and established a strong position for the State at later points in the negotiations


Contract Negotiations cont.

• DOP created a Negotiations Team to conduct the negotiations with the vendors• Team included DOP Director and DOP CIO as the

ultimate decision makers• Included representatives from AGO, DIS, and OFM to

provide domain expertise, plus Deloitte to provide business and technical expertise in ERP and implementation services

• Lesson Learned: multiple perspectives ensured that issues were addressed holistically; team acted as advisors to DOP Director on substantive business and legal issues



• DOP conducted negotiations face-to-face with the vendors' key decision makers• Although very time- and resource-intensive, the five-

to-six weeks of discussions ensured that positions were explored thoroughly

• Process accelerated the negotiations by ensuring that decision-makers were present or available throughout the process

• Lesson Learned: the investment of resources pays off



• Final results• Contracts were completed with both SAP and

Accenture in nine weeks, dramatically less time than typical for deals of this size

• Contract terms were favorable to the State due to the advance preparation and positioning

• Contract terms were fair to the vendors and recognized their legitimate business needs, while protecting the interests of the State in vital areas

april 20, 2004 ipma presentation state of washington – department of personnel human resource...

Documents

deloitte consulting

hrms requirementsmarch

proposalissue request

dop tom miller

dop wolf opitz

dop marty brown

review feasibility study

dopmike mcvicker