C.13. Provide in a brief narrative how the proposed System will provide an audit trail of each step the grant has been through. 2 C.14. Provide a brief narrative on how the proposed System will allow for the storage, retrieval, and printing of related grant documents, audio, and video. (Confirm files types/extensions). 1 C.15. Provide a narrative how the proposed System’s attachment functionality works, to include: filename, date/timestamps, descriptions, and search ability. 3 C.16. Describe how the proposed System will have the ability to create standard templates to be used for documentation. 1 C.17. Describe how the proposed System will allow for access rights to be assigned to different application components (multiple agencies utilizing the same System, as well as, access rights within a given agency). 2 C.18. Describe how the proposed System will utilize state approved Authentication protocols (SAML2.0, LDAP, and Kerberos). 2 C.19. Describe how the proposed System will allow ease of query/report writing to allow end users to be able to create as needed. 3 C.20. Provide a brief narrative on how the proposed System handles incoming and outgoing interface files and if the interfaces can be sent for staff review prior to being sent or received. 3 C.21. Provide a brief narrative showing how all exchanges will use a secure means of transmission and show how data will be secure during transmittal. 2 C.22. Provide a brief narrative of user management, both state and non-state users (grantees). 1 C.23. Provide a brief narrative that covers the workflow capabilities of the proposed System. 2 C.24. Provide a brief narrative of the grant application creation process. 4 C.25. Provide a brief narrative of the budget creation process and the different budgeting options available. 3 C.26. Provide a narrative of any in-application messaging and alerts. 1 C.27. Provide a narrative that describes how the proposed Solution will provide for adherence to all federal and state regulations and audit requirements 1 C.28. Submit final versions of the following tables: 2
F.8. In a demo show the ability to assign based on rules and roles. 1 F.9. In a demo show how links to outside databases to check current valid 501c3 and SAM status of applicants and length of 501c3 and SAM status works. 1 F.10. In a demo show how the System will link to outside databases to accurately U.S. Congressional, of TN House and Senate districts for each grant applicant organization. 1 F.11. In a demo show the grant process from solicitation creation/application, to a user filling such out, how it is converted into a contract, then how reporting/management is setup and also the workflow for amending the contract. 1 F.12. In a demo present standard templates and how they can be reused to create new templates with modifications and the capabilities that can be incorporated into the templates. 1 F.13. In a demo show what can be seen from a state user vs. a non-state user perspective. 1 F.14. In a demo show the budget tool and the capabilities that come with the budget tool within the application (match vs. no match. What are the requirements that can be put around these and how the requirements can enforce different actions within the application). 1 F.15. In a demo show how the reporting functionality within the application works and how easy it is to use. 1 F.16. . Present an overview of the Respondent’s policy, procedures, and compliance for storing, exchanging, and protecting confidential data in transit and at rest. 1 The Solicitation Coordinator will use this sum and the formula below to calculate the section score. All calculations will use and result in numbers rounded to two (2) places to the right of the decimal point. Total Raw Weighted Score: (sum of Raw Weighted Scores above) populate
Implementation Propose a single cost to implement the Solution. For the Contract Payment Methodology, the State will apportion this cost across the Implementation deliverables/tasks in accordance with the following percentages: Successful implementation of Solicitation Functionality - 20% of Implementation cost Successful implementation of Contracting Functionality - 20% of total Implementation cost Successful implementation of Amendment Functionality - 20% of total Implementation cost Successful implementation of Invoicing/Edison Functionality - 20% of Implementation cost Conversion of Existing Programs - 20% of Implementation cost 1 Yearly Maintenance fees to be paid upon successful completion of the Sub-recipient Grant Solution and full acceptance by the State $ / YEAR 4 Annual User License fees for 250 users for one year to be paid upon successful completion of the Sub-recipient Grant Solution and full acceptance by the State (if applicable) $ / LICENSE 250 Annual Seat License fees for 250 users for one year to be paid upon successful completion of the Sub-recipient Grant Solution and full acceptance by the State (if applicable) $ / LICENSE 500 Other Technical Support – Hourly Rate $ / HOUR 1500 EVALUATION COST AMOUNT (sum of evaluation costs above): The Solicitation Coordinator will use this sum and the formula to calculate the Cost Proposal Score. Numbers rounded to two (2) places to the right of the decimal point will be standard for calculations. lowest evaluation cost amount from all proposals x 30 (maximum section score) = SCORE: evaluation cost amount evaluated State Use – Solicitation Coordinator Signature, Printed Name & Date: