Draft questions for Consideration for submission by Fax 17:00 Tue 05/11/2002 There are 12 draft questions for consideration from the initial review of the tender documents Sat 2002/11/02 and Sun 2002/11/03 Section A - General Conditions of Tender Ab) htm 94 Kb: Part A - General Conditions 12.1.i "a competitive and cost effective cost structure demonstrating value for money" QA1 What criteria will the Evaluation Committee use to "demonstrate value fof money" QA2 12.4 Who are the members of the Evaluation Committee QA3 16.2 What are the yardsticks for deciding "the basis of best value for money" QA4 Has a budget been allocated for the Entire project or for different stages Eg 1 Implementation ? 2 Support eg 1800 help line support ? 3 Enhancements ? QA5 Would Lgov NSW consider this as a project whereby the business process could be licensed to other State Local Government Associations ? QA6 Would Lgov NSW consider this as a project whereby the business process could be licensed to other countries that use the Westminster System of Local Government ? Section B - Specifications 1. e-Services Ab) htm 94 Kb: Part B - Specification QB1 What value would the Evaluation Committee place on a number of existing e-services that Local Councils could use ? Those e-services include: 1 An Electronic Event registration system that back-ends into an Microsoft Access database 2 An E-tenders system that already has over 200 users that access the tenders 3 An E-survey system that provides an analysis of the survey response 4 A generic E-complaints system 2. e-Procurement Da) htm 93 Kb:e-Procurement Brief QB2 Is Lgov-NSW prepared to consider potential Local Government E-procurement standards In Sep 2000 a Syndicate of 9 Councils issued an Expression of Interest [EoI] for an integrated application system based on a standard Name and Address format for multiple contacts including: a Suppliers b Employees c Rate-payers d Property Owners e Developers f Councillors Can this Standard Name and Address Structure be used for the e-Procurement module ? 3 portal development Not able review as word module 1.2Mb would not load 4. e-Security & Standards Dc) pdf 265 Kb:Standards Development Brief QB3 As e-Procurement is so critical for Local Councils and their local Small and Medium size Enterprises [SMEs] are you prepared to confirm that the Extensible Markup Language [XML] is part of the Standards requirement. 6.2 Standards - Table AGLS Metadata Elements The details of the standards are very basic in that the only reference to Standards are: 1 the AGLS Metadata Elements for identify Web pages for search criteria and 2 the Open GIS Consortium [OGC] standards for spatial data (maps) - based on XML QB4 Is the Evaluation Committee enforcing XML Standards for the Customer Transaction Management [CTM] modules ? S6.8 Deliverables states "the development of the following set of High Quality Standards and Policies including 1 Metadata Standards 2 Customer Transaction Management [CTM] QB5 If you are unable to obtain PI Insurance what alternative options would Lgov NSW consider ? s8.1 Selection Criteria Professional Indemnity Insurance $ 10,000,000 Professional Indemnity Insurance $ 10,000,000 is listed as a mandatory requirement in the Selection Criteria. In today's Insurance market it may be difficult or too costly to get Professional Indemnity Insurance for $ 10,000,000 for this type of project. STANDARDS Dc) pdf 265 Kb:Standards Development Brief EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW QS1 Please clarify the Policy Framework in the Executive Summary of the Standards Brief ? Page 3 - Policy Framework PRINCIPLE POLICY STANDARD 1 Web Environment Principles Web Experience Policies AGSL Data definitions standards 2 Content Management Princ's Security Policies XML Standards 3 Workflow Man't Principles Privacy Policies Information exchange/interfacing Other Principles including Acceptable Use Policies Project Management personalising and Business rules Authentication Policies Contract Management Quality Management Help Desk Operation Project Management Use of contract resources Help Desk role and Responsibilities QS2 With the development of XML and XML Registry Standards are X.500 and X.400 still appropriate ? X500 Directory Standard was first approved in 1988. Although it has matured under the aegis of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) and was enhanced in the 1993 edition, implementors have criticized it as being too complex and therefore too difficult to implement. Until recently, there were few "pure" X.500 implementations in operation is considered unusable because it is very difficult and costly to maintain. Ref The National Library of Canada http://www.nlc-bnc.ca/9/1/p1-244-e.html X500 [ISO/IEC 9594-1] was developed before XML Standards and XML Registry Guidelines were in place. X.500 does not define any attributes and is not a schema like XML definitions. X400 has similar limitations to the EDIFACT Standard in that the address lines are not precise enough for effective e-business transaction interchanges with Small & Medium size Enterprises [SMEs] This has been confirmed at ebXML Australia meetings in 2002 - ref Keith FINKELDE Chair EbXML Australia . QS3 CUSTOMER TRANSACTION MANAGEMENT - is LGOV-NSW preprared to review the Intellectual Property Clause of the Conditions of Contract ? The specification for the standards for Customer Transaction Management [CTM] is by itself a major project. There may be considerable research and prototype required to provide all the requirements outlined. Would you clarify the Copyright and Intellectual Property clause s 7 of the Conditions of Contract in relation to developing new E-bizness processes