This site features highlights from San Francisco's first RFP to transform how the City hires and retains its most valuable resource: its people.
San Francisco is pleased to begin contract negotiations with SmartRecruiters
Overview

The Hiring Modernization Project is a City-wide initiative that seeks to modernize San Francisco’s hiring practices by taking an integrated and modular approach to procuring technology and implementing it.

The City and County of San Francisco (“CCSF”) Department of Human Resources (“DHR”) invites Proposals from qualified firms to provide a cloud- based applicant tracking system (“ATS”) solution to support the large volume of applications and positions processed and filled each year.

 
Schedule

RFP Issued: May 15, 2019

 

Pre-Proposal Conference Question Deadline: May 31, 2019 2pm PT

 

Pre-Proposal Conference: June 5, 2019 1:30pm PT

 

Deadline for RFP Questions: June 14, 2019 2pm PT

 

Deadline for Proposals: July 3, 2019 2pm PT

 

Projected Interviews: Week of August 12, 2019 

 

Projected Contract Awarded: August 21, 2019 

Desired Start Date: October 1, 2019

 

 

Each date subject to change. All hours are Pacific time zone. Check the San Francisco Supplier Portal for the latest schedule.

 
1. Introduction
1.4. Background

The Department of Human Resources (“DHR”) for the City and County of San Francisco (“CCSF”), is soliciting qualified Proposers who offer a modern, user-friendly, and integratable cloud-based applicant tracking system (“ATS”) solution to ensure CCSF 1) is improving its hiring practices to reflect today’s technology and workforce and 2) has an infrastructure that will make it easy to continue to adapt over time.

CCSF wants to offer intuitive, user-friendly tools to help candidates find the right opportunities in government, while helping hiring managers and HR professionals effectively recruit, track, and hire the right talent.

The reality is that today:

 

HR leaders are asked to be a data-driven strategic partner critical to the organization’s success

 

  • Using new technology to streamline existing processes: The compliance and administrative tasks still need to get done but, using new technology, more and more of those types of tasks can be streamlined freeing up HR teams to focus on strategic questions.

  • Data-driven decision-making: Using data to ensure that HR practices and civil service rules are putting people first and providing the best experience for applicants, hiring managers, and HR analysts while remaining true to the values and goals of the merit system.

 

Job seekers search, find, and apply for jobs differently

 

  • People search online and are increasingly using their mobile devices: “Finding a City job” is the number one search on CCSF’s website and CCSF expects that an increasing number of visitors will be looking to find and apply to jobs from their mobile devices.

 

  • People expect personalized experiences: Whether it be helping people understand what positions might be best for them (instead of them needing to know the positions for which they might be a good fit) or providing applicants with ongoing communication once they have applied, the relationship between applicant and potential employer is looking more and more like a customer relationship and CCSF therefore needs to be treating it that way.

 

Governments are seeing their hiring needs grow only more complex

 

  • An aging workforce and a large wave of retirements on the horizon: The average employee at CCSF is nearly 46 years old and CCSF expects 30% of the current workforce to retire over the next 10 years.

 

  • New talent needs, a changing workforce, and competition from the private sector as government services are delivered using new technology: By 2025, millennials will make up 75% of the workforce and this is a talent pool governments are having trouble hiring.iii There are also differences between how millennials perceive work as compared to older generations (average tenure in a job, benefits, etc.) to which employers need to adapt.

 

With this evolving landscape in mind, CCSF is not only looking to modernize hiring, it is looking to modernize HR practices across the board. This is likely the first of several RFPs that CCSF will issue to transform the way CCSF hires and retains its most valuable resource: its people.

1.5. Context

CCSF has 52 departments, with over 35,000 employees working in over 1,100 different job classifications. CCSF receives about 150,000 job applications and makes about 9,000 hires annually. CCSF is one of San Francisco’s largest employers and must hire for a wide range of roles in order to effectively provide critical services to San Francisco residents while building the next generation of public servants.

 

There are many essential stakeholders who play a key role in ensuring CCSF’s hiring process is merit- based, fair, and unbiased. DHR and various decentralized human resources teams from numerous departments work together with hiring managers, unions, and CCSF’s Civil Service Commission to ensure that CCSF hires the individuals best suited for the position. At a high-level these tasks and responsibilities include: ​​​

  • Developing, providing training on, and ensuring compliance with best practices in hiring

  • Selecting and onboarding candidates

  • Administering all hiring processes, including examinations

  • Managing and updating job classifications

1.6. Common challenges

The government hiring process is long and complex with many challenges experienced by candidates, hiring managers, and HR professionals/recruiters.

Some of the most common challenges for HR professionals/recruiters include:

 

  • The use of inefficient systems resulting in duplicative data entry throughout the process: CCSF’s research has demonstrated that there are almost 100 points in the process where HR professionals identified excessive processing in their work with one of the main causes being manual data entry. Systems do not speak to one another and prevent key data from seamlessly flowing from one system to another.

  • Lack of consistent and easily accessible data reporting: Current reporting provides little insight into where inefficiencies lie in the hiring process and, as a result, how bottlenecks should be addressed. Similarly, initiatives and policies are difficult to track and measure giving the teams limited ability to make data-driven decisions.

  • Poor user experience resulting in the need for a lot of training to understand how to use systems: Users assume that any updates will involve a steep learning curve, resulting in a resistance to change.

 

Some of the most common challenges for hiring managers include: 

 

  • Very little knowledge, visibility, or consistency in the hiring process: Information, resources, and processes are separated, listed in various places and understood differently by different people.

  • Inability to hire the talent needed: Hiring managers struggle to find the right talent for the right role at the right time, and many have expressed frustration with their inability to compete for talent when current processes and civil services rules are not optimized for speed.

 

Some of the most common challenges for candidates include: 

 

  • Feeling as if their applications fall into a “black box”: Many talented individuals accept other positions simply because the application and hiring process was too lengthy, with little communication, and no visibility into next steps.  

  • A poorly understood process: The government hiring process is insufficiently explained to candidates and, when it is, the explanations contain many jargon-filled terms. This makes it difficult to get a job in government without the help of a colleague, friend, or mentor to walk the candidate through the different steps.

1.7. Hiring Modernization Project overview

The Hiring Modernization Project is a City-wide initiative that seeks to modernize San Francisco’s hiring practices by taking an integrated and modular approach to procuring technology and implementing it.

This approach is the result of a year-long discovery phase that focused on 1) reviewing current rules, policies, and practices, 2) understanding and mapping current processes, and 3) understanding Pain Points experienced by different Users. Though this RFP is specifically focused on seeking a cloud-based ATS solution, CCSF knows that hiring does not happen in isolation, and CCSF is constantly keeping the larger picture in mind. This means recognizing that in order for CCSF to successfully modernize its hiring practices, it needs to be thinking about HR holistically and plan for other areas that touch hiring such as onboarding, succession planning, performance reviews, learning and development, etc.

 

With this approach in mind, CCSF expects the ATS solution to be modular and extensible to add “spokes” that address other needs down the road--so that CCSF can continue to build on and improve its HR infrastructure in an iterative manner.

1.8. Applicant tracking system solution overview

At this stage, CCSF seeks a cloud-based ATS solution to support the large volume of applications and positions processed and filled each year. Government hiring process rules, especially for San Francisco, are complex. Based on CCSF’s research and the 20 responses to CCSF’s Request for Information (“RFI”) published in Spring 2018 (see Attachment A for a list of RFI respondents), CCSF does not expect Proposers to meet all of the complex government hiring requirements “out-of-the-box” and understands that vendors may not have all required functionality natively. Therefore, CCSF expects Proposers to demonstrate their ability to think creatively to extend their ATS to meet these complex requirements. CCSF is open to vendors working together to obtain an ATS solution as a part of this RFP.

CCSF expects the Proposer to work closely with the Hiring Modernization Project team at CCSF. For that work, CCSF expects to adhere to the basic practices of agile software development.

1.9. Agile development and
user-centered design principles

CCSF will follow a frequent, iterative implementation cycle in accordance with agile best practices and user-centered design principles. The Proposer will work collaboratively with CCSF, and potentially other vendors, following an agile methodology. All parties will work in short, regular intervals (called “sprints”), each two to four weeks long depending on CCSF’s preference. CCSF will be mindful of all users and will work with the Proposer to deliver impactful changes and improvements as soon as possible.

 
3. Pre-Proposal conference

CCSF hosted a Pre-Proposal conference on June 5, 2019. Questions and answers as well as recording of the session will be posted on the City's supplier portal and can also be found here.  

3.1. Pre-Proposal conference questions

To ensure the Proposer’s RFP questions are addressed at the Pre-Proposal Conference, CCSF recommends that potential Proposers email questions to the RFP Contact by the Pre-Proposal Conference Question deadline. CCSF will also answer live questions, time permitting.

3.2. Location and time

1:30 p.m. PT on Wednesday, June 5, 2019
Department of Human Resources
1 South Van Ness Ave, 4th Floor (x Market Street), San Francisco, CA 94103

This location is accessible by BART (Civic Center Station) and a number of MUNI routes.

3.3. Remote attendance

For Proposers who cannot attend the Conference in person, CCSF will provide a link to connect. Make sure to register, so that CCSF can provide this link.

3.4. Post-conference summary

A summary of the information shared at the Pre-Proposal Conference will be posted on the City and County of San Francisco’s Supplier Portal located online

 
How to respond
5.1. Time and place for submission of proposals 

Proposals (both emailed and mailed/hand-delivered) and all related materials must be received by Deadline for RFP Proposals. Proposals must be both emailed and mailed/hand-delivered to:

 

Email:

Michael Hirai: michael.hirai@sfgov.org

 

Mail/Hand-delivery:

Michael Hirai

Department of Human Resources

1 South Van Ness Avenue, 4th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94103

CCSF requires mailed/hand-delivered materials to ensure the evaluation team can have a printed copy of all Proposals to facilitate the review process. The Proposal must be clearly marked Applicant Tracking System Solution HRD-RFP#2019-02.

Late submissions will not be considered, including those received late due to mail or delivery service failure. Please take notice, postmarks will not be considered in judging the timeliness of submissions.

5.2. Items to include in the Proposal

Proposals should be complete and provide a straightforward, concise description of the Proposer’s capabilities to satisfy the requirements of the RFP.  Marketing and sales-type information should be excluded. All parts, pages, figures, and tables should be numbered and clearly labeled. The following items must be included in the Proposal:  ​​

  • Mail/Hand-deliver: 

  • One (1) original set copy of signed CMD forms described in Sections 8, 9, and 12 of the full RFP:

  • ​​Form 2A-CMD Contract Participation Form

  • Form 3-CMD Non-Discrimination Affidavit

  • Form 4-CMD Joint Venture Form (if applicable)

  • Form 5-CMD Employment Form

  • One (1) original printed response (with original signatures) labeled as “Original.”  The pages should be bound by a method in which the sheets may be easily separated (e.g., 3-hole binder, binder clip, etc.).

  • RFP Template A-Submission Checklist

  • RFP Template B-Acknowledgment and Forms

  • RFP Template C-Minimum Qualifications

  • RFP Template D-Summary

  • RFP Template E1-Core Competencies

  • RFP Template E2-Core Competencies

  • RFP Template F1-Culture Fit

  • RFP Template F2-Culture Fit

  • RFP Template G1-Integrations

  • RFP Template G2-Integrations

  • RFP Template G3-Integrations

  • RFP Template H1-Creativity and Problem Solving

  • RFP Template H2-Creativity and Problem Solving

  • RFP Template I-Technical Abilities

  • RFP Template J-Cost Estimate

  • RFP Template K-Release and Waiver Agreement

  • Seven (7) additional complete printed copies of RFP Template D-Summary through RFP Template J-Cost Estimate for the evaluation team. The pages should be bound by a method in which the sheets may be easily separated (e.g., 3-hole binder, binder clip, etc.).​​​

  • RFP Template D-Summary
  • RFP Template E1-Core Competencies

  • RFP Template E2-Core Competencies

  • RFP Template F1-Culture Fit

  • RFP Template F2-Culture Fit

  • RFP Template G1-Integrations

  • RFP Template G2-Integrations

  • RFP Template G3-Integrations

  • RFP Template H1-Creativity and Problem Solving

  • RFP Template H2-Creativity and Problem Solving

  • RFP Template I-Technical Abilities

  • RFP Template J-Cost Estimate

  • Email: 

  • All RFP templates in unprotected PDF or Excel format (with scanned or digital signatures). Electronic files for each Template must include all documents submitted for that Template in one, separate, complete, electronic file. Each file must be titled with RFP number, Proposer’s name, and Template number/letter (e.g., HRD-RFP#2019-02 ABC Company Form 2A, HRD-RFP#2019-02 ABC Company Template A) , in that specific order.

 

  • ​​Form 2A-CMD Contract Participation Form

  • Form 3-CMD Non-Discrimination Affidavit

  • Form 4-CMD Joint Venture Form (if applicable)

  • Form 5-CMD Employment Form

  • RFP Template A-Submission Checklist

  • RFP Template B-Acknowledgment and Forms

  • RFP Template C-Minimum Qualifications

  • RFP Template D-Summary

  • RFP Template E1-Core Competencies

  • RFP Template E2-Core Competencies

  • RFP Template F1-Culture Fit

  • RFP Template F2-Culture Fit

  • RFP Template G1-Integrations

  • RFP Template G2-Integrations

  • RFP Template G3-Integrations

  • RFP Template H1-Creativity and Problem Solving

  • RFP Template H2-Creativity and Problem Solving

  • RFP Template I-Technical Abilities

  • RFP Template J-Cost Estimate

  • RFP Template K-Release and Waiver Agreement

6.3. Types of proposers and minimum qualifications

Any Proposal that does not demonstrate that the Proposer meets these minimum qualifications by the response deadline will be considered non-responsive and will not be evaluated or eligible for award of any subsequent contract(s). To be deemed eligible for Proposal evaluation, each Proposer is required to complete the requirements and submit the forms described in Templates A-K as part of its Proposal.

6.3.1. Types of proposers

6.3.1.1. Defining Prime Proposer and Lead JV Partner(s)

 

Any Prime Proposer with subconsultants responding to this RFP must clearly identify the lead Proposer (referred to hereafter as Prime Proposer). A Proposer cannot be a Prime Proposer on more than one (1) Proposal. In addition, if a Prime Proposer intends to be listed as a subconsultant on another competing Proposal, this should be fully disclosed to the impacted parties.

Any Joint Venture (JV) responding to this RFP must clearly identify the lead Proposer (referred to hereafter as the Lead JV Partner). A Proposer cannot be a Lead JV Partner on more than one (1) Proposal. In addition, if a Lead JV Partner intends to be listed as a subconsultant on another competing Proposal, this should be fully disclosed to the impacted parties.

 

6.3.1.2 Anticipated Prime Proposer and Lead JV Partner(s)

CCSF requires that the Prime Proposer or Lead JV Partner be the ATS provider. In order to provide a solution that meets CCSF's needs, CCSF expects the Prime Proposer to be extending their existing solution to meet the needs outlined in Section 2.2. Any custom work required (including any custom integrations) as well as implementation could be done by the Prime Proposer or a subconsultant or by the Lead JV Partner or JV Partner.

 

6.3.2. Minimum Qualifications

 

For Sections 6.3.2.1. and 6.3.2.2., Proposers must provide a prior project reference demonstrating their ability to meet each minimum qualification listed. Proposers should include no more than three (3) total references. In other words, at least one of the projects referenced has to meet multiple minimum qualifications. For Section 6.3.2.3., in lieu of references, Proposers must acknowledge their ability to meet the minimum qualification listed.

6.3.2.1. The Prime Proposer or Lead JV Partner must possess the following qualifications:  

 

  • 6.3.2.1.1. Experience providing and implementing a cloud-based ATS to an organization (other than the City and County of San Francisco) that processes at least 100,000 job applications per year or has at least 10,000 employees

 

  • 6.3.2.1.2. Implemented a product that handles personally identifiable information

 

  • 6.3.2.1.3. Implemented a product that meets Gov Sec 508 and WCAG 2.0 or 2.1 guidelines as periodically amended or updated

 

  • 6.3.2.1.4. Implemented a product that integrates with PeopleSoft HCM

 

  • 6.3.2.1.5. Implemented a product that uses an API to interface with other core HR systems as well as smaller integration points or subsystems

 

6.3.2.2. The Proposed Project Manager must possess the following qualifications: 

 

  • 6.3.2.2.1. Experience working with agile development processes and investing in feedback cycles to improve products and processes in an iterative way

​​

6.3.2.3. Geographic limitations:

 

  • 6.3.2.3.1. CCSF data must be hosted on servers located within the continental United States

 
Evaluation criteria

Proposers that pass Section 6.3.2. Minimum Qualifications will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria below. This portion will consist of five components plus a summary and a cost estimate (Sections 6.4.1. through 6.4.7.), each measuring and assessing aspects that are key to the success of the Project, both short-term and long-term. As the evaluation team is made up of both technical and non-technical staff, CCSF recommends the use of visualizations, diagrams, mock-ups, and clickable prototypes where indicated.

6.4.1. Summary (10%)

Proposer must complete Template D-Summary.

 

Proposers shall submit a summary of the Project approach and team structure. Proposers shall describe how the proposed solution will accomplish CCSF’s goals. What expertise/skills does each vendor bring to the Project and, if there are multiple vendors, what role will each vendor play? Summary is limited to two pages (single-sided).

6.4.2. Core competencies (20%)

Meeting scope of work requirements

Proposer must complete Template E1-Core Competencies Response Template.

 

For each of the "Getting the Word Out," "Assessing Skills," "Determining Fit," "Data," "Communication," and "User Experience" modules, choose one of the options below to describe how the Proposer’s product addresses each requirement:

- Natively
- Is offered through an existing Ecosystem of pre-built integrations with SaaS products

- Requires customization

- Is roadmapped for the future

- Not feasible

 

Proposers who offer features natively or through an existing ecosystem of pre-built integrations will be given the most points.

 

As noted above, CCSF has distinguished between elements that are core to building a strong foundation versus those CCSF currently defines as enhancements that would help CCSF modernize its practices. Proposers will be given points if they can provide enhancements, though the enhancements will be weighted lower than the elements defined as being core to building a strong foundation.

 

Showcasing Functionality Most Valued By Users

Proposer must complete Template E2-Core Competencies Response Template.

 

Describe one piece of functionality that is most valued by the Proposer’s current users (candidate, hiring manager, or HR professional) for each of the following modules: RFP Section 2.2.1. Getting the Word Out, RFP Section 2.2.2. Assessing Skills, RFP Section 2.2.5. Determining Fit, RFP Section 2.2.6. Data, RFP Section 2.2.7. Communication, and RFP Section 2.2.8. User Experience. Describe the functionality and the value it adds. Feel free to include screenshots and/or data analyses that might help CCSF get to know your product. Please do not include sales materials. Answer is limited to twenty pages total (single-sided).

6.4.3. Culture fit (10%)

6.4.3.1. Articulating CCSF's needs

Proposer must complete Template F1-Culture Fit Response Template.

 

As outlined in Sections 1.4. and 1.6., there are many Pain Points experienced by different Users throughout the hiring process. Given all the work the Hiring Modernization Project team has completed, the Proposer shall synthesize and articulate the problem CCSF is looking to address, the solution CCSF is trying to procure, and how CCSF should determine what a subsequent RFP could focus on. Answer is limited to one page (single-sided).

6.4.3.2. Approach to project implementation 

Proposer must complete Template F2-Culture Fit Response Template.

 

Describe your approach implementing this large Project (given CCSF’s size of 35,000 employees with 9,000 hires per year across 1,100 job classifications). Provide an implementation timeline. Provide an example of an implementation that could have gone better (e.g., what did the Proposer learn from it that would inform how the Proposer would implement a solution with CCSF?) Answer is limited to two pages (single-sided).

6.4.4. Integrations (20%)

It is CCSF’s goal to move closer to a world where automation reduces manual errors and expedites processes. Central to this philosophy is the need for a coherent plan for integrating with other systems.

The first system to integrate with is CCSF’s human capital management system, PeopleSoft 9.2. It is where the hiring process starts and ends (positions get approved in PeopleSoft and hired candidates become employees in PeopleSoft). In addition to those two key points in the process, additional information will need to flow between PeopleSoft 9.2 and the Proposer’s system, so it will be essential to be able to interface with PeopleSoft for the hiring-related purposes outlined in the RFP (and more over time).

As part of CCSF’s modular approach, CCSF plans to integrate with additional systems going forward. The implemented product will have integration points with PeopleSoft, and be extensible to appropriately add spokes that address other needs down the road such as handling assessments, auditing, and onboarding.

With this in mind, the questions below ask the Proposer to provide high-level architecture diagrams with accompanying explanation that demonstrate the Proposer’s vision for their ATS solution as part of a much larger integrated system. The response must include explanations of data flows and architecture decisions.

6.4.4.1. Include and discuss the PeopleSoft integration solution

Proposer must complete Template G1-Integrations Response Template.

 

Explain which integration method (outlined in RFP Section 2.4.) the Proposer intends on using and why. Describe how the architecture decisions balance trade-offs between extensibility, flexibility, and simplicity. Answer is limited to three pages (single-sided) including diagrams.

6.4.4.2. Discuss interfacing with additional modules

Proposer must complete Template G2-Integrations Response Template.

 

Describe how the Proposer sees their approach scaling over time to account for additional “modules” or hiring tools CCSF might want to integrate with and for which data will need to be pushed to and/or pulled from PeopleSoft. Will a hub-and-spoke architecture be required? Should CCSF build a central app that handles all data flows or should one-off connections be built between systems that need to communicate? Describe how the various systems might connect over the next few years and make sure to highlight the respective roles of the Proposer’s ATS and PeopleSoft. To help frame the Proposer’s response, choose two of the three following modules—which CCSF will be working on next—and include them in your diagram. Answer is limited to nine pages (single-sided) including diagrams.

 

  • Assessments: CCSF foresees using many different exam platforms to appropriately assess for the varied skillsets that are needed across the 1,100 different job classifications CCSF hires for. Something approximating an assessments API to ensure CCSF is bringing in data consistently and does not have to build one-off integrations for every new exam platform will be necessary.

  • Auditing: As a public entity, CCSF has many auditing responsibilities. CCSF needs to be able to quickly and easily access when system actions were performed in the ATS and who performed them. How would the Proposer expose that data to CCSF systems?

  • Onboarding: An employee’s journey starts before their first day on the job. CCSF wants to enhance the experience of a candidate who has accepted an offer and help shepherd them through a process that will put them in the best position to thrive as an employee. This module would need to interface with PeopleSoft as well as the Proposer’s ATS.

 

6.4.4.3. Include a diagram and discussion of any existing relationships the Proposer has with an ecosystem of HR tools

Proposer must complete Template G3-Integrations Response Template.

 

Describe the Ecosystem, how it was built, how users (organizations who have procured the ATS and developers/companies wanting to add tools to it) access it, and the Ecosystem’s vision for the future. Answer is limited to two pages (single-sided).

6.4.5. Creativity and problem solving (20%)

Government hiring process rules, especially for San Francisco, are complex. CCSF does not expect Proposers to meet all of those requirements “out-of-the-box.” CCSF expects Proposers to demonstrate their ability to think creatively to extend their ATS to meet complex requirements over the coming years.

The creation of the eligible list (based on exam scores) as well as the certification and referral processes are unique parts of CCSF’s hiring process and are prime examples of requirements CCSF eventually wants to meet using this extensible approach. Provide a high-level roadmap and accompanying discussion for how the Proposer’s ATS could be part of a solution to address these requirements.

 

6.4.5.1. Extending the Proposer’s ATS to address the “eligible list” feature set 

 

Proposer must complete Template H1-Creativity and Problem Solving Response Template.

 

The roadmap shall include extending the Proposer’s ATS to address the “eligible list” feature set. After reviewing the deep dive on the exam scoring and eligible list creation in Sections 11.1. and 11.2., use the examination data and additional instructions attached to create an eligible list, which takes into account the Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities (KSAs) and weights of each component to determine each candidate’s raw exam scores. Use Template H1 to fill in the values obtained for all score values. If any section does not apply to a specific candidate, enter “N/A.” Describe the process for calculating the scores for each component. There is no page limit. Answers must be thorough, yet concise.

 

6.4.5.2. “Cert/referral” minimum viable product (“MVP”) and phased implementation plan

 

Proposer must complete Template H2-Creativity and Problem Solving Response Template.

 

Use the eligible list created in RFP Section 6.4.5.1. or create your own to answer the following:

The roadmap shall include a “cert/referral” MVP. After reviewing the deep dive on the certification and referral processes in Section 11.3., describe what a “cert/referral” minimum viable product would look like. Include screenshots, service diagrams, or a link to a demo. Include any relevant milestones to build this MVP.

The roadmap shall also include a phased implementation plan. How would the Proposer help CCSF move towards automating the certification and referral processes? Where would the Proposer start? How would the Proposer build the process out over time? How would the Proposer address the dynamic nature of these processes? There is no page limit. Answers must be thorough, yet concise.

6.4.6. Technical abilities (15%)

Proposer must complete Template I-Technical Abilities Response Template.

 

This RFP and the subsequent awarded Proposer are key building blocks for helping CCSF build out a larger HR infrastructure that is more modern, data-driven, and intuitive. In order for CCSF to deliver on this vision, Proposers must be able to execute RFP Section 6.4.5. Creativity and Problem Solving with a high level of technical expertise.

Proposers shall write a mock technical brief to the Proposer’s engineering team explaining the work that needs to get done to complete the “cert/referral” MVP (as outlined in RFP Section 6.4.5. Creativity and Problem Solving). Answer is limited to fifteen pages total (single-sided).

 

  • 6.4.6.1. Include “The how.” - Explain how the work shall be carried out. What is the technical implementation plan? Provide specific API endpoints and documentation of them. Will webhooks be used to push data? If so, provide the specific hooks, data formats, and their documentation. Will an Extract, Transform and Load (ETL) tool be used? If so, which one and at what step in the process? Briefly describe language, frameworks, and other tools you would direct the engineering team to use as part of the solution.

  • 6.4.6.2. Include “The who.” - How would the Proposer resource this Project (skills, team members, head-counts, etc.)? Would the Proposer work with outside collaborators? Describe the team’s relevant experience and plan to engage with CCSF to ensure Project success.

  • 6.4.6.3. Include “The when.” - Include a rough timeline for the development of the MVP. Will the Proposer work iteratively? How will the Proposer deliver features and engage CCSF to test functionality? How will the Proposer incorporate initial user feedback? How long will the total effort take?

6.4.7. Cost estimate (5%)

Proposer must complete Template J-Cost Workbook. 

 

It is the responsibility of the Proposer to ensure spreadsheet calculations are correct. Please note CCSF reserves the right to reduce scope should the highest ranking/winning Proposal exceed CCSF’s budget.

 
6.5. Selection process

Following evaluation of the written Proposals, CCSF may elect to invite up to the five (5) highest scoring Proposers to interview with the Evaluation Team. CCSF has sole and absolute discretion over whether interviews will be conducted or whether ranking and selection will be based solely on the evaluation of written Proposals.

6.5.1. Selection interviews

If interviews are pursued, interviews will consist of standard questions and be worth 100 points. Interviews are projected to take place the week of August 12, 2019.

Each Proposer should ensure that its Key Personnel and lead staff of proposed subcontractors to be assigned to the Project attend interviews. Key Personnel must include the proposed Account Manager or the proposed point of contact responsible for managing Project resources, budget, timeline, key deliverables, and completion. The Proposer’s named project manager must be present and lead the Proposer’s presentation and responses. Resumes of each team member who will be working with CCSF will be required. CCSF reserves the right to only allow Prime Proposers to attend the interviews in the event that the same subcontractor is listed on more than one Proposal. 

Points awarded for interviews will be evaluated separately from the points awarded for evaluation of written Proposals. If CCSF elects to conduct interviews, average interview scores (rounded to zero decimal points) will be the sole determinant for ranking the interviewed Proposers. The Proposer with the highest interview score, therefore, will be issued an “Intent to Award Contract” notification.

In the event of a tie or an average panel score total differential of 1 point or less, CCSF will utilize a tie- breaker method. The method that shall be used as a "tie-breaker" in the event of a two-way (or more) tie of the responsive/responsible Proposers will be to place the names of the Proposers in a container. The first name drawn will be the proposed awardee. The remaining Proposer(s) name(s) will be drawn sequentially and noted in case negotiations with the first Proposer fail and CCSF opts to move to negotiate with the next Proposer. All affected Proposers will be invited to attend the drawing of the names.

 

We are committed to providing consistent updates on this project. For updates check out our blog!

©2019 City and County of San Francisco