00010942 Q&A~1.docx

Section and paragraph number

Response: The deadline will not be extended at this time.

Response: Yes – See Evaluation Item 1 in Section 4.10.2

Response: Yes, digital signatures are allowed

Response: The range for this Project is $800,000 to $1.1 million

Response: There are no incumbents associated with this project.

5.3.1 Insurance

Question 6: Is it required to provide the Certificate of Insurance (COI) alongside the proposal response?

Response: Proposal Submission requirements are listed in RFP section 3.2.1. Requirements of Section 5 of the RFP are only for the awarded firm. A certificate of insurance is not required for proposal submission

Response: Yes, with approval from ODOT. See Attachment A, Sample Contract, Section 5 Contractor’s Personnel and Section 7.1 Subcontracts

Response: A vendor may type responses on the forms rather than using a pen or pencil.

Response: RFP Attachment A, Exhibit A Statement of Work does have some work taking place in person. The Statement of Work will be negotiated with the awarded firm.

Response: RFP Attachment A, Exhibit A Statement of Work does have some work taking place in person. The Statement of Work will be negotiated with the awarded firm.

Response: Please see RFP Section 3.3.2, References must be the same as the project samples in RFP Section 4.10.2. Evaluation Item #4 Project Samples is requesting Project Samples performed by the Proposer’s Firm, not subconsultants.

Response: Yes.

Response: Please see RFP Section 3.3.2, References must be the same as the project samples in RFP Section 4.10.2. Evaluation Item #4 Project Samples requires Proposer to disclose whether the schedule and budget were met for the project sample.

Response: RFP Attachment A, Exhibit A Statement of Work does have some work taking place in person. The Statement of Work will be negotiated with the awarded firm.

Response: Please review RFP Section 2.3, Overview and Purpose. The duration of the work is estimated to be two years from notice to proceed (“NTP”), excluding contingency work for external partner data integration that will take an additional year.

Response: Please see RFP Section 3.2 and 3.3. The RFP does not specify a requirement for items to be individual PDFs or a single PDF with the exclusion of the Price Proposal (See RFP Section 3.3.3 Price Proposal). This decision is at the discretion of the Proposer.

Response: Please review RFP Section 3.3.3 Price Proposal. Submit Attachment E – Proposed Fully-Burdened Billing Rates as a separate file uploaded via the Attachments tab for this RFP in OregonBuys. The pricing on the “Items” tab is disabled for this solicitation so a vendor should not be able to submit pricing via the “Items” tab. Please do not check “No Bid” or “No Charge”.

Response: Please see RFP Section 3.2 and 3.3. The RFP does not specify a requirement for items to be individual PDFs or a single PDF with the exclusion of the Price Proposal (See RFP Section 3.3.3 Price Proposal). This decision is at the discretion of the Proposer.

Response: Please review RFP Section 3.2.1 Proposal Submissions. The items to be required for evaluation are provided here. The required documents are provided in the file attachments section for vendors to download and fill out.

Response: Any description of size that helps the Agency understand the project sample and its relevance to this solicitation may be used, including but not limited to company size or contract value.

Response: The term reserved in this context means that there are no requirements for this section and is set aside for future possible use if needed. In this section ODOT is not requiring any Minimum Qualifications for Proposers to meet in order to submit a proposal. If this were to change there would be an addendum posted to OregonBuys making the change.

Response: RFP Section 4.1 Public Notice does not contain evaluation criteria. RFP Section 4.10 Evaluation Process contains the evaluation criteria for the RFP. Please review RFP Section 3.2.3 Proposal Format. ODOT cannot provide direction to a Proposer on putting together a Proposal.

Response: The data to be migrated is primarily located in an Oracle database and accessed using Bentley’s AssetWise ALIM Linear Referencing Services (AWLRS), formerly Exor.

Response: Agency plans to migrate to Esri Roads and Highways.

Response: Yes.

Response: Agency intends to implement an on-premises system.

Response: This is currently being developed and therefore is not available to be shared. Contractor will participate in finalization of design under Task 3.

Response: Approximately 785,000 records of transportation network data and over 150 assets (events) located on that network will be migrated. This data is primarily housed in a single database with geospatial and tabular data.

Response: A primary concern is the integrity of the data itself during migration; the complete dataset must be migrated with exceptions identified and addressed. Task 3.2 includes Contractor support to establish ongoing quality processes.

Response: Agency requests network updates from local agencies and they are provided in a variety of formats as determined by the local agencies. Future data processing protocols will be determined under Task 7.

Response: Approximately 250 reports, extracts, and integrations will need to be reviewed to determine whether they should be migrated or modernized.

Response: While Agency has some quality assurance protocols in place for our current systems, the work of Task 3.2 will involve planning for quality assurance for the new system’s data entry workflows.

Response: ODOT’s roadway data management needs are changing. We have two parallel network management practices, which is inefficient and confusing to employees and customers. External data reporting requirements (new and existing) are difficult to meet with our current data model and workflows. Our existing software ecosystem is difficult to manage with available resources. Data exchange with external customers and across systems at Agency is complex. Limitations in current software constrain the improvements we’d like to make.

Response: Agency and Contractor will collaborate to define these under Task 2.

Response: Agency and Contractor will collaborate to define these under Task 6.

Response: Agency is drafting a benefits management plan that will define this; Contractor may participate in developing these definitions under Task 2.

Response: Benchmarks have not been finalized. Contractor may participate in establishing benchmarks and support baselining.

Response: Yes, Task 5 includes creating reports and dashboards. The enterprise tools currently in use include Esri applications and extensions and Microsoft Power BI Desktop and Reporting Server.

Response: Some migration activities will be constrained by the deprecation date of our existing software, which is set by the vendor. Otherwise, the timelines for project phases can be mutually agreed on by Agency and Contractor.

Response: The system must support Highway Performance Monitoring System reporting and should be able to support existing and future federal and state data reporting requirements including but not limited to Model Inventory of Roadway Elements.

Response: Security controls for users will follow existing Agency Geographic Information Services (GIS) protocols for data access and privileges. The highest level of data classification to be addressed in this project is State of Oregon’s Information Asset Classification Policy Level 2 and there are no restricted data types. The data will be housed on premises. Subsets of the data will be published externally.

Response: Please see RFP Section 2.3 Overview and Purpose. The duration of the work is estimated to be two years from notice to proceed (“NTP”), excluding contingency work for external partner data integration that will take an additional year.

Response: Agency has identified a project manager, subject matter experts in linear referencing and GIS, asset data owners, information technology support staff, and part-time analyst and developer resources.

Response: The primary risks for this project are associated with the deprecation timeline of our existing software driving the schedule, the scale of change across the organization, and gaps in knowledge about current consumers of the data.

Response: Under Task 2, Agency and Contractor will collaborate to determine the best outreach methods including but not limited to newsletters, webinars, and workshops.

Response: Primary audiences for communication materials will be business units within Agency. The level of detail will vary based on audience from occasional user to daily user.

Response: Agency’s existing process for integrating external partner data will continue as-is until the contingency task for External Partner Data Integration is completed.

Response: A change management process will be mutually agreed upon by Agency and Contractor. Changes that require contract modification will follow amendment procedures defined in the contract.

Response: None have been identified.

Response: The budget will be negotiated with the selected firm.

Response: RFP Attachment A, Exhibit A Statement of Work does have some work taking place in person. The Statement of Work will be negotiated with the awarded firm.

Response: There is not a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (“DBE”) goal requirement or a requirement for Certified Firm Participation for this RFP, Agency encourages the participation of small businesses, certified by the Oregon Certification Office for Business Inclusion and Diversity (“COBID”) in all contracting opportunities.

Response: N/A

Question 54: Can more than 2 references be provided?

Response: Agency would like to see respondent’s two best references if more than two are available.

Question 55: Our understanding is that we will include completed reference forms in our proposal and that ODOT will contact each to validate. Please confirm that references should not be sent directly to ODOT.

Response: Please see RFP Section 3.3.2. Provide two references from current or former client firms for similar projects performed within the last 5 years. List the reference contact information in Appendix 1 of RFP Attachment C. References must be able to verify the quality of previous, related Work and be the same as the project samples as provided in 4.10.2.

Question 56: Can you provide us with an estimate of the number and a description of data sources to be migrated into ODOT’s LRS environment? Is all data to be migrated or will system interfaces be developed for some data sources?

Response: Approximately 785,000 records of transportation network data and over 150 assets (events) located on that network will be migrated. This data is primarily housed in a single database with geospatial and tabular data. Approximately 250 reports, extracts, and integrations will need to be reviewed to determine whether they should be migrated or modernized.

Question 57: Please confirm that no pricing information outside of rates is to be provided.

Response: Please review RFP Section 3.2.3 Price Proposal, Submit Attachment E – Proposed Fully-Burdened Billing Rates as a separate file uploaded via the Attachments tab for this RFP in OregonBuys. Provide the fully-burdened rates (inclusive of labor cost, overhead and profit) for up to 8 key staff proposed to work under the prospective Contract.

The total weighted rate calculated on Attachment E will be used for “Price Proposal” scoring purposes only. Agency reserves the right to negotiate the final price and billing rates under this Contract with the successful Proposer.

Please also see Question 17 for additional information.

In Attachment A Exhibit A, on page 21, Question 58: The document states, "ODOT will conduct prototyping work prior to executing this Scope of Services. Prototyping will develop an initial linear referencing design that is expected to provide a framework...". >> It is assumed that the resulting route definition and initial data model will be made available to the chosen Contractor as part of the Design Consolidation Support task. It is understood that feedback on the preliminary design will be part of the deliverables for 3.1.x. It is expected that the prototyping effort may have resulted in some lessons learned and spawned potentially new or modified approaches to how best define a route and model road inventory and asset data. Is the Agency open to learn about different approaches for defining a route, modeling road inventory and asset data, and the corresponding business processes to support these approaches?

Response: Yes.

In Attachment A Exhibit A, on page 26

Question 59: The document states, "This project will change how users consume linear referencing data. Contractor shall provide change management services in support of users transitioning to new linear referencing system, data sets, workflows, and tools. Contractor shall prepare a Linear Referencing Change Management Strategy in collaboration with subject matter experts at Agency." >> Incorporating the necessary change management processes into this project is commended. For clarification, are these change management processes meant to be inclusive of both consumers of linear referenced data, but also editors and managers of that data? Additionally, can it be assumed that the linear referenced data is inclusive of both routes and asset data? Also, does the Agency have existing Change Management specialty staff with whom the Contractor can work with?

Response: Yes, change management processes will be inclusive of both consumers of linear referenced data, but also editors and managers of that data. Yes, linear referenced data is inclusive of both routes and asset data. Agency has limited existing Change Management specialty staff.

In Attachment A Exhibit A,, on page 28, Question 60: The document states, "To the extent practicable, Contractor shall use automated means to correct errors and conduct quality checks on automatically corrected errors based on a standard to be agreed upon by Agency. Contractor shall true up datasets based on data issues identified during migration (Task 4.1 and 4.2) and address any identified backlog of changes that have happened between initial design and rollout." >> As a result of the prototype effort, the Agency likely expects that data quality items are likely to be found as part of the data modeling and data migration efforts of this project. It is understood that Contractor will apply validation rules to detect and resolve data errors. Some of the data quality items identified might be best addressed before data migration, some may be best resolved during migration, and some may be best resolved after migration. Is the Agency open to learning about the data items that might fall into each of these categories? Additionally, is it expected that the Contractor will resolve data items that require a manual data edit (as opposed to a systematic data item that can be fixed with an automated process)?

Response: Yes, Agency is open to learning about the data items that might be addressed before, during, or after migration. Agency and Contractor can mutually determine whether Agency or Contractor will resolve needed edits based on results of quality reviews.

No reference to document or page number available.

Question 61: Does the Agency have the known or expected hardware, software, licenses, and network to support the desired solution? If the Agency has the hardware, software, and licenses available, will the Contractor have access to a non-production environment for collaborative use with the Agency for this project?

Response: Yes, or the Agency will acquire hardware, software, licenses, and network. Agency plans to make these items available to the Contractor for collaborative use.

No reference to document or page number available.

Question 62: Are third-party software or similar COTS products / solutions able to be procured with this contract vehicle?

Response: Please review RFP Attachment A, Sample Contract, Exhibit A Statement of Work. The services required for this contract are specified in this section. This is a personal services procurement only.

No reference to document or page number available.

Question 63: Are we permitted to use an 11x17 or 11x14 page as part of the 15 page limit to show an organizational chart?

Response: No. Page is defined as follows. An Addendum will be issued for clarification to the RFP.

One (1) page is defined as: one side of a single 8-1/2" x 11" page. Any page over this size will be counted as 2 pages. Any page, partial page, tabs, indexes or table of contents with substantive text, tables, graphics, charts, resumes, etc., will be counted as 1 page.

Question 64: Please confirm that if there is nothing to mark confidential that we do not have to return Attachment B with our proposal.

Response: Attachment B is listed in RFP Section 3.2.1 Proposal Submissions as a document required with submission of the proposal. RFP Section 3.2.3 Proposal Format speaks to the requirement of the form in addition to a fully redacted version of the proposal for anything that is exempt from public disclosure.

Please submit Attachment B with your proposal submission.

Question 65: Does the vendor need to collect R&H-specific requirements and configure and implement Esri Roads & Highways before the network and events get created? Or will the R&H environment already be configured?

Response: Agency will have a configured Roads and Highways environment established during previously completed prototyping activities. Contractor may participate in updating and finalizing Esri Roads and Highways configuration as part of Task 3 and Task 4 if configuration changes are needed based on the final selected design.

This link provided is instructions for vendors submitting a bid via OregonBuys: https://www.oregon.gov/odot/Business/Procurement/Documents/SupplierBidResponse.pdf

This link is the general Contracting With ODOT page with a contact for vendor support:

Oregon Department of Transportation : Contracting with ODOT : Procurement : State of Oregon