Enterprise System for:

Pesticide Permitting and Use Reporting

to be deployed in all California Counties

CACASA Request for Proposals #10

Pre-Proposal ConferenceSeptember 10, 2009

Agenda

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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”

3.8 Ongoing Maintenance and Technical Support Activities

• Anticipated contractor resources required

• Technical User Group involvement

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

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

Interactive Q & A