Government

Important Notice

This document is intended as an example only.

Library and Archives Canada highly recommends that the original IMCC Methodology be used as set out to obtain maximum input from all stakeholders and organization-wide buy-in for planned priorities.

STATEMENT OF WORK

PERFORMANCE OF AN IM CAPACITY ASSESSMENT

For

DEPARTMENT xxx

BACKGROUND

Information has increasingly been identified as a key asset in the Government of Canada, and given the introduction of the Management of Government Information (MGI) Policy; the assessment of an organization's capacity to comply with legislation and policy, support the delivery of programs and services and adopt an approach to measuring IM capacity and setting improvement targets is of some urgency in the GC.

Library and Archives Canada, in cooperation with the central agencies, other departments and agencies and subject matter experts in the private and public sectors, has developed an IM Capacity Check Tool for the Federal Government.

As part of its IM/IT Strategic Plan, the Department of XXXXX wishes to assess Information Management (IM) capacity against generally accepted best practices using the IM Capacity Check Tool.

The IM Capacity Check tool will help the department assess its specific IM capacity, identify the gaps in IM and prioritise an Action plan. Based on International Standards ISO 15489 - Records Management and other related standards and best practices, and reflecting the policy directions of the Government of Canada, the IM Capacity Check tool is a flexible self-assessment tool. It helps measure capabilities in six key areas of information management, and then acts as a guide to help improvements. Based on a five-level maturity scale that allows a gap analysis of the "as-is" state and the "desired" state, an organization can rate their effectiveness in relation to generally accepted best practices. A five-level maturity scale has been developed of each of the 32 criteria recognized as being a key enabler in effective IM delivery.

As part of the knowledge transfer in applying the methodology and for assessing organizational capabilities, a joint project team consisting of participants from the Department of XXX and the Contractor's team will form the core assessment team.

Current IM Environment

Currently, IM across the department would best be described as decentralized featuring key corporate IM capacities being delivered by organization units within Corporate Services Branch and additional unique IM capacities being delivered, fairly autonomously, by individual business units within the department. It is suspected that this management arrangement is not aiding either organization in achieving the greatest benefits from their information assets. The Information Management Capacity Check should help clarify the current state and any remedial steps required.

Expected Benefits

The expected benefits of the IM Capacity Check include the following:

• Information management practices and existing IT infrastructure keep pace with each other to maximize all of the investments in the department's technological and knowledge assets.
• The process provides the ability to look beyond the technological components to continue developing and implementing an information environment that truly reflects the business information requirements of both departments.
• The business requirements become the drivers justifying continued strategic investments in technological solutions.
• An IM Capacity Check will offer the department a comprehensive opportunity to develop overall integrated visions for managing its information.
• An IM Capacity Check will provide the department with an overall framework to guide decisions regarding IM investments and priorities.

STATEMENT OF REQUIREMENT

OVERVIEW OF THE WORK REQUIRED

It is expected that the performance of the IM Capacity Check will be undertaken in five phases as follows:

• Phase 1 - Project Planning
• Phase 2 - Data Collection
• Phase 3 - Consolidation of Findings
• Phase 4 - Validation of Findings
• Phase 5 - Drafting, Development And Production of Departmental Action Plans

Each of the phases should be conducted using a consultative approach. The consultative approach should incorporate facilitation techniques and discovery sessions in gathering inputs and building consensus.

Phase 1 - Project Planning

The contractor is to complete a detailed project work plan so as to be able to effectively manage the project and communicate progress regularly. A detailed project work plan and the notes from interviews and working sessions. Key Phase 1 deliverables will include:

• participation in a half-day training session on the IM Capacity Check Assessment tool and methodology;
• development a high-level communications plans to keep stakeholders advised on the project;
• delivery of a half-day IM Capacity Check Assessment training session to the departmental team.

Phase 2 - Data Collection

The contractor is to collect data for the IM Capacity Check assessment through interviews, document review and interview workshops. The contractor is to manage and facilitate a data collection exercise of sufficient magnitude and rigour so as to gain a solid understanding of the current state of IM in the department. The key Phase 2 deliverable will be the documentation of the IM Capacity Check assessment findings, issues and opportunities for each criterion.

Phase 3 - Consolidation of Results

The contractor is to manage and facilitate an exercise to consolidate what was discovered in Phase 2. The key Phase 3 deliverable will be preliminary project reports encompassing assessments of the current state of IM and tentative observations regarding opportunities and the target "to-be" state. In particular, this phase will:

• Consolidate and synthesize the data collected.
• In a workshop setting, conduct a thorough analysis against the criteria, arriving at an overall department rating for each criterion and a rationale supporting the rating.
• Develop a gap analysis between "as-is" and the "to-be" capacity based on the 1 to 5 IM Maturity scale for each criterion.
• A draft report including the validated findings, issues, opportunities and capacity ratings.

Phase 4 - Validation of Findings

The contractor is to manage and facilitate an exercise to validate Phase 3 work with different stakeholder audiences. This will include further refining opportunities and the target "to-be" state. The key Phase 3 deliverable will be project reports encompassing validated assessments of the current state of IM and refined observations regarding opportunities and the target "to-be" state. A final report for the pilot assessment including the findings, issues, capacity ratings, opportunities for improvement and ultimately a comprehensive picture of the present state of IM practices and capabilities within each department will be produced. This Phase will:

• Validate that the findings, analysis and conclusions reached by the project team are accurate and reasonable.
• Provide recommendations for how the department could improve its IM capabilities.
• Finalize the assessment to incorporate comments received from management and prepare the final assessment report.
• Solicit feedback from the project team and develop a lessons learned report.

Phase 5 - Drafting, Development and Production of an Action Plan

The contractor is to manage and facilitate exercises with executive/senior management to prioritize the IM opportunities and to develop IM action plans, which will essentially be the three-year IM strategic plans of both organizations. The key Phase 5 deliverable will be the:

• A high-level IM action/improvement plan.
• A formal presentation of the results of the assessment, and make a presentation to senior management.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

The IM Capacity Check Assessment Tool may only be used in accordance with the following:

1. The IM Capacity Check assessment tool has been designed for the use of federal departments and agencies, or other parties working on their behalf. This condition does not preclude third party organizations providing chargeable services utilizing this product in support of the federal government capacity check self-assessment. Third parties may utilize the capacity check for self-assessment but no third party may use this product for commercial gain outside the intended use for the federal government.
   
2. Use of the IM Capacity Check assessment tool must acknowledge and identify BearingPoint as the owner of this product. Departments and agencies have the right to adapt the product, and could do a self-assessment on their own or engage the services of consultants to help them carry out an assessment. Any adaptation must still continue to acknowledge and identify BearingPoint as a source of this product.

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

As an early deliverable the contractor is to provide a detailed project plan. Project management is to be based on an appropriate and accepted methodology. Progress is to be reported weekly. The specific deliverables are as follows:

DELIVERABLES

A.	Project Initiation Meeting: (Agenda, Draft project scope statement, Draft Project Plan, Minutes)
B.	Project Plan (Updated as required throughout project)
C.	Data Collection: (Interview guide(s), Workshop guides and agendas, Notes)
D.	Consolidation of Results: (Preliminary assessment)
E.	Validation of Findings: (Validated assessment of current state and refinement of "to be" state and opportunities)
F.	Drafting, Development and Production of an Action Plan
G.	Weekly Progress Reports

PROJECT AUTHORITY

MAXIMUM CONTRACT VALUE

Bidders must propose an all-inclusive firm price for carrying out this work. The mandatory maximum contract value associated with this proposal is $ xxx including GST.

BASIS OF SELECTION

To be considered responsive, a bid must meet all the mandatory requirements of this solicitation. Bids not meeting all of the mandatory requirements will be given no further consideration. The proposal rated with the highest points for the consulting assignment will be recommended for contract award.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

1. Bidders must directly address each of the rated requirements in sufficient depth to permit a complete analysis and assessment. The bidder must provide sufficient supporting detail (dates, clients, projects, etc.) and any other information to substantiate the points awarded. Listing experience without providing any supporting data to describe where and how such experience was obtained will not be sufficient.
   
2. Project/work information should include project / work description, relevance of the project / work to the requirement put forward in this statement of work, name and description of client organization, name and phone number of client, and size in dollars, duration, and dates of the project/work.
   
3. A proposed firm must attain a minimum of 70% of the maximum points for each of the rated criteria (126 points) to be considered.
   
4. The proposed firm with the highest total points based on the evaluation will be recommended for selection.
   
5. Interviews with selected bidders, including a presentation by the bidder of their proposed approach, may be held at the discretion of the Department and the scores may be adjusted on the basis of clarifications resulting from the presentation and interview process. Bidders selected for interview will be required to have available at least 2 members of the team proposed for the work to make the presentation and conduct the interview process. References may be contacted to substantiate knowledge and experience of the proposed resources, and capabilities of the bidder.

 

EVALUATION GRID

COMPANY NAME __________________________

MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS - Company

 

CRITERIA		Met	Not Met
M1.	The bidder must clearly demonstrate completion, within the last three (3) years, of three (3) projects that are similar in scope and nature to the work as described in the Statement of Work above. If more than three (3) projects are submitted, only the first three (3) in order of presentation will be evaluated. The bidder must provide the following information for each project. Name of the client organization; Project relevancy to the SOW requirement should be clearly identified and described; Start and end dates of contract; Contract value; Description of the bidders involvement in the project (e.g. Lead firm, advisory (facilitator) capacity, self-contained tasks (work in isolation on a task). To demonstrate that the Bidder possesses the above required experience, the following mandatory must be met with respect to these projects: The three (3) projects must have been conducted under contract for the federal government; At least one of the projects must have a contract value of over $70,000; The bidder must have been the lead firm (as opposed to a sub-contractor) in two (2) of the projects; and At least one (1) of the projects must have been completed for the federal public sector at the enterprise level.

M2.

Firms must have bilingual capability. To be considered bilingual, the bidder must have available at least one qualified bilingual individual. A bilingual individual is one who is fluent in the written and spoken languages of English and French. Each bilingual individual must be identified in the proposal. An interview and / or written test may be held to confirm the proposed candidate's bilingual capability.

M3.

Security: Each member of the proposed team must have a valid security clearance at the "SECRET" level at time of bid closing. The clearance number is to be provided in the bid.

M4.

Resources: The bidder must propose a team with resources that meet the following mandatory skill certifications: Information Assessment and Framework Development Experience: At least one team member must have a minimum of two (2) years experience in Information Management in a federal government setting in the last five (5) years. Information Management / Governance Experience: At least one team member must have experience in development of IM management models and/or IM governance through at least two assignments at a senior departmental level. Information Management Education: At least one team member must hold a graduate degree in one of the following disciplines: Masters of Library Science (MLS) Masters of Library and Information Science (MLIS) Masters of Archival Science (MAS) Education: At least one team member must hold a graduate degree in Commerce or Business Administration. Certification: At least one team member must hold a Project Management Professional (PMP) designation and/or a Certified Management Consultant (CMC) designation. IM Capacity Check Training: At least one team member must have attended formal vendor training on performing an IM Capacity Check. Privacy Experience: At least one team member must have participated in a privacy-related project in a federal government setting.

 

POINT RATED REQUIREMENTS CRITERIA	RATING SCALE	MAX POINTS
R1.  UNDERSTANDING OF THE REQUIREMENTS (Maximum 25 points) The proposal should illustrate the bidder's understanding of the scope, objectives and service delivery framework applicable to the statement of work described herein as well as the bidder's understanding of the roles, functions, organizational structure and governance processes for the Department. The response should not simply repeat the activities and descriptions as outlined in the SOW.	Poor - vaguely described and not particularly clear. Incomplete understanding of scope and framework. 0-5 pts Fair - Some detail provided but still weak. Some understanding of scope and framework. 6-12 pts Good - Expanded description. Conveys a basic understanding of scope and framework. 13-19 pts Excellent - Clearly conveys a complete and comprehensive understanding of scope and services delivery framework. 20-25 pts	25
R2.  PROPOSED APPROACH/METHODOLOGY (Maximum 30 points (3 x 10 points)) The bidder should outline their comprehensive approach/methodology, including the specific steps proposed to complete all aspects of the SOW activities associated with the two work streams. Sufficient detail should be provided to allow for a complete understanding of the approach and methodology to the Work. Specifically, the following should be addressed and will be rated separately: Approach and Methodology - 10 points maximum Project, Resource and Task management; Quality control - 10 points maximum Risk Management Plan - 10 points maximum	Poor  -  suggest unworkable alternatives to the basic requirements of the SOW 0-2 pts Fair  -  meets the basic requirements of the SOW 3-5 pts Good  -  meets the basic requirements of the SOW 5-7 pts Excellent  -  meet the basic requirements of the SOW plus offers additional service and innovative suggestions beyond the basic service requirement 8-10 pts	30
R3.  BIDDER'S PROJECT EXPERIENCE (maximum 60 points (maximum 20 points for each of the 3 reference projects cited as meeting mandatory criteria above)) Relevance of specific objectives of the project; Nature and complexity of project (e.g. multiple client groups, one large client group with multiple priorities); Nature and complexity of task and resource management (e.g. numerous concurrent tasking, competing priorities); Description of the projects' results, in terms of the objectives sought and the degree of success.		60
TEAM MEMBERS - FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS (65 points maximum based on an aggregate of proposed team members experience)
R4.  Information Assessment and Framework Development Experience: Senior level experience in projects with the Government of Canada.	2 projects=10 points 3 projects=15 points 4-5 projects=18 points 6+ projects=20 points	20
R5.  Information Management Strategic Direction Experience: Demonstrated experience in establishing an organization's IM Strategic Direction.	2 projects=10 points 3 projects=15 points 4-5 projects=18 points 6+ projects=20 points	20
R6.  Information Management: Demonstrated experience with Information Management issues in a Federal government setting within the past three years.	2 projects=10 points 3 projects=15 points 4-5 projects=18 points 6+ projects=20 points	20
R7.  Demonstrated experience in facilitating meetings, preparing and giving briefings involving senior management and in negotiating and mediating resolution of conflicting views.	Points to be allocated based on 1 point per presentation or mediated session	5
TOTAL MAXIMUM POINTS AVAILABLE - TECHNICAL	Total mandatory points required (70%) = 126	180
TOTAL MAXIMUM POINTS AVAILABLE - COST		20*
TOTAL POINTS		200

 

*	Lowest bid multiplied by evaluation point divided by bidder's bid = points awarded
	Example a)	$80,000	$75,000	x	20	divided by	80,000	=18.75
	Example b)	$75,000	$75,000	x	20	divided by	75,000	=20.00
	Example c)	$78,000	$75,000	x	20	divided by	78,000	=19.23