Thanks for your feedback on GovCMS - RFP available now

Author: 
John Sheridan - CIO & CISO
Category: 

The Department of Finance Archive

The content on this page and other Finance archive pages is provided to assist research and may contain references to activities or policies that have no current application. See the full archive disclaimer.

 

Just wrapping up our discussion on the draft GovCMS Statement of Requirements, firstly let me thank all of you who have taken the time out to read the RFP and provide the comments. It certainly has created quite a buzz, with 57 comments on our blog, and 10 emailed responses.

In addition, the GovCMS proposal has had wide commentary in the media, including Computerworld, ZDNet, TechRepublic, Delimiter, Slashdot, The Register.co.uk, AsiaPacific FutureGov and TechWeek Europe. Thank you all who have commented through those forums as well.

The Request for Proposal (RFP) has been refined to reflect comments and some necessary clarifications where our intent had been confusing to some. A summary of these changes is in the table below:

Changes to the Statement of Requirements

Changes

Section reference in new document

Reasoning

Process to undertake work
Added section “50.1 - Process to undertake work under a Deed of Standing Offer”

50.1

Based on blog feedback - It was unclear how Finance would engage with the preferred vendor following the Approach to Market process

Pricing scenario 1

Updated metrics for Pricing scenario 1

Clarified ‘Number of user accounts’

Added ‘Percentage of traffic from ‘authenticated users’

50.3

Internal update -

  1. Confirmation of metrics is now complete and the updated metrics are available in Pricing scenario 1

 

Based on blog feedback -

  1. Clarified ‘Number of user accounts - now ‘Number of Drupal accounts (administration, content authors, other authenticated users)’.
  2. Added ‘Percentage of traffic from ‘authenticated users’ as requested by numerous vendors

Pricing scenario 2

Clarified reasoning for Pricing scenario 2

Clarified ‘Number of user accounts’

Added ‘Percentage of traffic from ‘authenticated users’

50.3

Based on blog feedback -

  1. It was unclear when Pricing scenario 2 was to occur. Clarified why we are looking for pricing of the hypothetical future state.
  2. Clarified ‘Number of user accounts - now ‘Number of Drupal accounts (administration, content authors, other authenticated users)’.
  3. Added ‘Percentage of traffic from ‘authenticated users’ as requested by numerous vendors

Archiving Requirements

Clarified Archives Act requirements

51.1

Based on feedback from National Archives of Australia

  1. Information in the system should be managed for as long as it is needed for business purposes and in accordance with the requirements of the Archives Act 1983 and the National Archives of Australia. The system should be assessed against the international standard ISO 16175 to support management requirements for records in electronic office environments.

Sharing with the community

Clarified GovCMS intention to share with the community

51.2

Based on blog feedback -

  1. It was unclear whether GovCMS intends to give back to the community - it was always a clear intention of GovCMS to do this, we have made the statement more direct, and the Draft Deed of Standing Offer document clarifies this requirement further.

Solution Requirements

  1. Clarified when the solution would have to be available for use by Finance
  2. Clarified security requirement
  3. Added requirement regarding migration to future version of Drupal
  4. Added requirement regarding standard user and role management
  5. Added requirement regarding content workflow solution

52.1

Based on blog feedback -

  1. It was unclear what was meant by ‘Go Live’ - clarified to advise when Finance will need to start using the solution
  2. It was unclear what is required of vendors around security assessment, and when the assessment would occur - clarified to advise that only the preferred vendor must undergo a security assessment, and that the process will involve the vendor providing evidence of industry better practice to an independent assessor
  3. Added requirement regarding migration to future version of Drupal
  4. Added this based on feedback from blog around standard user and role management ability of Drupal
  5. Added this based on feedback from blog around standard content workflow ability of Drupal

Service Requirements

  1. Added content migration service

52.2

Based on blog feedback -

  1. It was not clear enough whether we were also looking for content migration services - we are - service added

 

Changes to the Vendor Questions

Changes

Section reference in new document

Reasoning

Conformance with conditions and requirements
Restructured the table to make it easier for vendors to respond to the individual conditions and requirements

Conformance with conditions and requirements

To separate out the section where vendors can directly respond to whether their solution and range of services meets the individual requirements , and to make it easier for vendors to see the full list of requirements in one place

Solution Response

4 a) Restructured question

4 g) Added question


6 c) Clarified experience question

Solution Response

4 a) Restructured question to remove statement where vendors would have to repeat how they met conditions and requirements

4 g) Added questions regarding how to manage transition to future versions of Drupal

6 a) Based on feedback from the blog, having not worked with the Australian Government does not rule a vendor out from responding

Other Response

Added section

Other Response

Added section to enable  evaluation of  supplier financial viability, and compliance with draft Deed of standing Offer and contract.

The RFP is now available at https://www.tenders.gov.au/?event=public.atm.show&ATMUUID=20EA5823-AD51-D46C-A7AD72F4E95C2672.The closing date is Monday 30th June 2014 at 2:00pm.

 

Comments on this blog are now closed. Please let us know if you would like to discuss this post or have any general comments.

Comments (3)

John,
Appreciate the effort that you have made to explain your thinking and plans for the Content Management System on the blog.

I think it is pretty clear from your previous posts that all other technical solutions (both Open Source and otherwise) are excluded from the competitive evaluation process.

I just wanted to confirm that it still the case that Agencies won't have to use the CMS (based on drupal) and can use other platforms if they choose to do so?

Michael Cuddihy

Hi Michael,

Thanks for your ongoing interest in this. Your interpretation is correct. We are not mandating Drupal for all sites and all agencies. We are not mandating the use of GovCMS. We are moving two existing sites built in Drupal to a Drupal software as a service environment in the public cloud. Once this is complete, we will offer this CMS solution as a service to other agencies to which it offers a value for money alternative, largely as we do now with GovSpace and WordPress.

Regards

John

Thanks for the update John,

It was really useful understanding that you are moving existing Drupal sites to the cloud, and your GovSpace/WordPress example is really useful.

I was struggling to understand why you excluded Ruby and .Net as software development environments at the start of your CMS quest.

There were are few other choices that I found surprising in your original CMS evaluation criteria, but given that .gov.uk is most of the way through a similar project and migrating onto a Ruby platform found this the most surprising.

However, given that Australia.gov.au is already no drupal, it would be a big change to move off, however it is possible to automate the migraton to another CMS. This discussion looks like it is over, and you will not want to open it up again.

Can we as a bidder propose a more efficent front end to sit in front of your drupal engine. This would reduce our bandwidth, memory, CPU and IO cost as a cloud provider. It would also allow for more integration options and better security and ecommerce integration.

Best regards
Ronald Duncan

Last updated: 19 August 2016