akhealth / eis-modernization Goto Github PK

Given the number of choices available as far as the technologies go, even among open source, can the State provide any information on how the technology stack is going to be chosen?

[Example of using issues to track risks]

The depth of the vendor pool available that understands agile delivery and can do modular procurement might be limited.

This could particularly be problematic in the early phases of the project.

We continue to investigate the existence of these vendors. As we evaluate this risk, we will update this issue.

Are you open to a hybrid onsite/remote delivery model?

What contract vehicle do you anticipate using for modular procurements (e.g. competitive sealed proposals for a master contract, competitive sealed proposals for each module, State of Alaska Task Order Procurement System (TOPS))?

Can the State provide any additional information on how you would go about the modernization? For example, would it be a strangler pattern and use of microservices architecture similar to the approach being used in California? If not, can you please provide additional information about the strategy?

FYI the Alaska team and 18F are compiling responses to all of the questions we received in response to the RFI, and plan to post our responses on GitHub. We're thrilled with the responses so far - and look forward to continuing to openly share our progress toward the initial procurements.

Note that we won't include the names of individual companies in our GitHub post, just in case you all didn't want to be identified. However, feel free to jump in and submit new questions or respond to our responses when we get them posted.

Thanks again for your interest!

Can you please share with us where the State is with respect to agile adoption within the agency and the readiness of State staff for an agile methodology?

Does the state plan to open source the work developed?

Is Alaska DHSS considering the original legacy system M&O as part of future new vendor scope?

In applying agile development, what does DHSS envision as the team structure for the teams?

Can the State comment on the quality of data in the legacy system? Are there known issues with the data?

Has Alaska DHSS considered "as a service" as a viable model versus acquiring technology?

We understand that ARIES Phase II was already underway. Will any of this work be retained or is this new effort a complete do-over?

Can the State provide clarification on any regulatory requirements, technical drivers, or other factors that may require legacy to be sunset by a given date?

We understand that work was started on a significant number of batch jobs. Did the State get possession of the design documents and code for these batch jobs?

Which types of eligibility are expected to be included in the integrated eligibility system?

It appears system integration is an ongoing strategic concern. What does this mean for the State as far as managing the system integration? If the State will not use system integration how does DHSS vision the integration and workflow management of multiple vendors across multiple procurements and across multiple departmental initiatives?

Will the RFPs/solicitations allow for joint venture responses? The Alaska IT Group is a consortium of Alaska businesses that has served the state for two decades on a wide variety of task orders and we intend to respond through the consortium.

Does the state have an approximate budget for this work?

ARIES Phase I was implemented using a different technology stack than what is listed on GitHub. Is the envisioned end solution going to be a combination of the two different technology stacks or will the current implementation of ARIES be rewritten?

What approach is the State considering for implementation – big bang, phased (in big chunks), or incremental (in small chunks)?

Has the State conducted any user research efforts as part of the discovery that would help prioritize the feature sets that would provide the highest business value? If yes, can the State please share the results of this research with the vendor community?

Does the state plan to procure Amazon Web Services (AWS) or another infrastructure-as-a-service platform?

Will Alaska DHSS share their view on leveraging cloud hosted offerings?

What are the envisioned roles for the modernization effort (e.g. Business analysts, Developers, Network engineers, Change control managers, Production support engineers)?

Can the State share with us the procurement vehicles that would be used to procure the development services? We would be interested in understanding the related terms and conditions and if they would be similar to what is being done in states like California on their CWDS Implementation.

What are the top five modernization goals or priorities that DHSS would want to address immediately?

As a procurement team, we'd like to have an "issues" tab that's focused on gathering feedback/questions from vendors on the broader procurement strategy, so that we can understand have a transparent way of gathering feedback that can be shared with the broader community of interested vendors.

I think this should be housed within https://github.com/18F/acq-alaska-dhss-modernization/tree/master/vendor-info but I'm open to whatever makes the most sense from a design/clarity perspective.

If any of the current code base is retained, will there be a code review for what was delivered for release I?

What is the envisioned relationship between vendors and 18F on the project, if any?

The canvas and roadmap are great starting points. We're interested in learning more about (or possibly helping to shape) the tools/architecture which could support the vision.

Will the state issue solicitations to specific contract vehicles, or will solicitations be released "free and open"? If solicitations will be released to specific vehicles, does the state know which vehicles?

Does the state know if it will require vendor onsite performance?

What is the the plan/timeline for making some of the currently private technical resources for the prototype public? I was hoping to take a look at the repository (the link to which I see was actually just removed in #36) as well as the Trello board, but I see those are private for the moment.

Is the current prototype also fulfilling the role of the MVP defined in the dev ops document, or is that a separate effort? Any plans for further public discussion of the approach, architecture and technology stack outlined there?

Does the State envision a model where multiple vendors/agile teams would be working concurrently and collaborating to develop the various modules? If yes:

The Risks documentation in GitHub does not appear to discuss concerns about Product Owner availability. Does this mean that DHSS has allocated time for Product Owners to fully engage in the development process for each module?

What is the DHSS vision for change management to standup and decommission modules throughout the modernization efforts?

Will Alaska DHSS require vendors to work on site? We have found that the on-site requirement that Sacramento is enforcing makes it much more difficult for us to reply. We encourage DHSS to consider at least a hybrid model, where vendor staff would visit Alaska regularly - especially for design research - while allowing staff to be be based full time at their home base.

What is the anticipated budget level for the total body of work?

Would Alaska DHSS be willing to consider accepting vendor submissions to previous, similar vendor pools? In other words, could we qualify in to Alaska's pool based on our previous submission to California's pool?

Over what timeline does the state expect development to occur?

What are DHSS' vision for a dedicated UX team conducting research and design to help shape direction and development efforts?

Can the State provide technical details on the legacy eligibility system?

Do you already have a technology stack determined, or is that open for discussion?

What are the major impediments to the adoption of a devops/continuous deployment strategy for Alaska?

Can the State share initial thoughts around specific agile methodology that will be required and any related certifications that may be required of staff being proposed?

What is the envisioned timeline for the entire project?

What efforts have been conducted to prepare the State for an agile implementation?

What is the State’s plan for other implementation-related services such as Training and Organizational Change Management?

Can the State share information on high-level procurement timeframes and by when the various high-level feature sets are expected to be implemented?