2014 - MGC_CMS_RFR_Questions and Response 11-10-2014.docx

Questions to & Resposnses from the Massachusetts Gaming Commission’s Procurement Management Team

As such, in the event that the Commission awards a contract for a Central Monitoring System, could the Procurement Management Team (PMT) please confirm that the vendor will be subject to licensing in accordance with Chapter 31 of the Act?

Additionally, could the PMT please confirm whether system development activities can begin prior to completion of the licensing process?

If the Commission awards a contract for a central monitoring system, the vendor will not be subject to licensing as a result of payments from this procurement. Payments will be made directly to the CMS vendor from the MGC, and not one of the licensees. However, the vendor will be subject to a background check as referenced in 5.7.7.1 and 5.9

Similarly, Section 5 provides that “the qualified bidder will have no current or on-going work with a gaming licensee in Massachusetts.”

Potential vendors for the CMS are likely to market other gaming technology goods and/or services that would be desirable to gaming licensees (e.g., Electronic Gaming Devices [EGDs] and casino management systems). Thus, the preceding language could be interpreted to prohibit the qualified bidder/vendor from supplying such gaming technology goods and services to licensed gaming facilities.

As such, could the PMT please confirm that, consistent with practices in other jurisdictions where a CMS is deployed (such as Rhode Island, Maryland, West Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania and Kansas):

(i) the vendor will not be precluded from offering gaming technology goods and services (such as EGDs and casino management systems) to the Category 1 and Category 2 licensed facilities;

(ii) no affiliate of the vendor will be precluded from offering such gaming technology goods and services to the Category 1 and Category 2 licensed facilities;

(iii) the prohibitions on conflicts of interest stated above do not extend to relationships between the vendor and any gaming licenses, affiliates or partners/contractors/subcontractors; and

(iv) the prohibitions on conflicts of interest stated above do not extend to relationships between any affiliates of the vendor and any gaming licenses, affiliates or partners/contractors/subcontractors?

This question is being reviewed by the Commission's legal division under the state conflict of interest laws. An updated response will be posted shortly.

3.

"The initial duration of the possible contract that may results [sic] from this RFR shall be ten (10) years from the date that the first EGD Facility is connected to the CMS."

Yes

4.

This was corrected in amendment 1 in CommBuys

5.

Appendix B1, page 96, states that the maintenance/support will be required for 120 months starting from an estimated start-up date June 2015. Can you please confirm the 10 year contract duration will start upon award or upon the first facility going live?

Yes, It is from the date the first facility is connected.

Section 2.1 states “Technical proposals must be separately packaged from the financial proposal and the financial proposal must be in a separately sealed envelope”.

Could the PMT please clarify?

Section 1.4.2 is the correct wording. The documents should be submitted electronically thru CommBuys and the technical and financial proposals should be separate attachments uploaded to the CommBuys system.

In the event the vendor submits their Technical and Financial Proposals electronically via email:

Q: Will the Commission please specify if there is a size limitation for submissions sent to the mgcprocurements@state.ma.us inbox?

Q: Will an email receipt notification be issued from the above email address once the MGC Procurements receives the Proposals?

A: The size limitation for inbound emails to state.ma.us destinations is 15MB. Submission of multiple emails from a respondent in order to accommodate a response larger than 15MB is acceptable, and will be permitted.

A: An email receipt will be provided by the system

9.

Q: Is that a correct interpretation?

If this is a valid interpretation, we estimate the following required Technical Proposal pages:

• Statements of intent to comply with Sections 5 and 6

• Attestation to deliver required forms at a future time

2.2.8

A: Your interpretation is incorrect – The limitation of 50 Pages is intended to provide the PMT with a succinct description of all the technical components of the proposal. The 50 page limit does not include technical charts and appendices

The second bullet of 2.1.1 calls for the Technical Proposal to not exceed 50 pages. Is this 50-page limit inclusive of the entire Technical Proposal, including the Table of Contents, the Confidential Information Summary, and Vendor’s Organization, Background and Financial Stability, or is the 50-page limit restricted to the Technical Response Section 2.2.3, where the RFR states that “Specifically, in this Section the Vendor’s Proposal should address, but not be limited to, the following and not exceed a maximum of 50 pages.”

A: No, the 50 page limit is not inclusive of Table of Contents, the Confidential Information Summary, and Vendor’s Organization, Background and Financial Stability .

The Technical Response component of the vendors reply, with a limit of 50 Pages, is intended to provide the PMT (a number of whom are non technical) with a succinct description of all the technical components of the proposal . The 50 page limit does not include technical charts and appendices, and is not restricted to what is asked for in Section 2.2.

Could the PMT please verify that this bullet is punctuated correctly, or consider changing the bullet level so that it is not included with the format of a complete response?

We are going to strike this bullet.

Please confirm numbering convention and paragraph formatting as it appears to be in error.

Yes section 2.2.2(3) is missing.

Participation games are EGDs where the Vendors place specific EGDs into a licensed Facility and receive a machine rental or lease fee for such placement, rather than an outright purchase of EGDs.

and participation fee accounting and reporting.”

Please elaborate on what is included in “participation games Participation games are EGDs where the Vendors place specific EGDs into a licensed Facility and receive a machine rental or lease fee for such placement, rather than an outright purchase of EGDs.

5.2.10.3

Section 2.2.3.2.h implies that the asset tracking system can be “. . . a separate system . . .”, but Section 5.2.10.3 specified that it must be integrated with the CMS.

Q: Must the asset tracking system be integrated within the CMS?

Q: Should 5.2.10.3 be added as a line item in the Appendix B requirements checklist?

A: Yes, the asset tracking and signature validation must be fully integrated with the solution

A: Yes, item 5.2.10.3, “Asset Tracking must be integrated with the CMS” can be added to Appendix B. The ability to track and monitor every Electronic Gaming Device, operating in any property in MGC’s jurisdiction is a key required functionality of the solution, and one of the primary benefits to using a CMS model to regulate.

5.14

2.2.3.13 - “Describe the CMS's capabilities for centrally storing, distributing, installing, activating, monitoring, authenticating and reporting regarding Server Based Downloadable Gaming.

5.14 – Delete the paragraph beginning with “Server Based Gaming solutions..” and substitute “The CMS functionality will include the ability to centrally store, distribute, install, activate, monitor, authenticate, and report on changes to EGD configurations based on implementation of Server Based Downloadable Gaming.

The corporate structure of this potential bidder is such that the resources of various affiliate companies work closely and collaboratively to deliver goods and services to customers.

That being said, this potential bidder believes that that it can offer the most compelling bid to the PMT by describing its experience in conjunction with that of its affiliate companies.

As such, would the PMT deem this requirement satisfied if the bidder’s description of experience includes that of both the bidding entity and its relevant affiliate companies?

Experience of an “affiliate company” would be allowed as long as both companies are part of the same corporate structure / have a parent company in common.

Q: Can MGS provide relevant data for ROI model calculations e.g.

· expected staffing levels required to monitor gaming activity manually without CMS been in place and average cost for enforcement staff

· gaming tax regime i.e. % of Gross Gaming Revenue or flat tax per machine

· estimated tax revenues

· employment generated by each casino

· estimated other non-gaming tax revenue generate by general casino activity i.e. employment taxes and sales taxes

· Staff conducted a very brief comparison in a commission meeting on July 24th. The materials presented can be found under item 3 d. at the following link: http://massgaming.com/wp-content/uploads/Commissioners-Packet-7-24-14-UPDATE.pdf

· The MGC will tax the category 2 facility (slots only) at 40% of GGR and the category 1 facilities at 40% of GGR.

· Annual tax revenues from gaming at full competition are expected to be $300M-$400M.

· Total full time positions are expected to be ~8,000 to 10,000 positions for the two category 1 facilities and one category 2 facility.

The following links , sections 3.14-3.23, will give the estimated other non-gaming revenue generated by general casino activity.

http://massgaming.com/wp-content/uploads/3B-Region-A-ECONOMIC-DEVELOPMENT-Report.pdf http://massgaming.com/wp-content/uploads/4B.-Economic-Development-Report.pdf http://massgaming.com/wp-content/uploads/Economic-Development-Report-to-Commissioners.pdf

Please clarify Please describe if there is any evidence to support the statement that having independent meter readings, independent game inventory and independent game play analysis will deter individuals from trying to manipulate the software or outcomes of game play.

21.

of this RFR, and provide a complete description of the roles these sub-vendors will have in the Contract performance. The Commission reserves the right to require background investigations on any sub-vendor it deems to have a critical role in the Contract activities.

Q: We would normally only sign contracts with preferred sub-contractors (e.g.data centre and LAN cabling providers) when we are awarded a contract to provide monitoring services. We will identify all sub-contractors and provide supporting details. We assume this approach is fine and we are not required to have contracts in place during the RFR process?

A: Yes

22.

In case sub-vendor selection is not final, will a candidate sub-vendor list be accepted?

A: Yes

forms attachment”

It is standard in the industry that the vendor retain ownership rights of any deliverable, including copyrighted or copyrightable works created exclusively by the vendor after the effective date of the Contract, except for those deliverables that:

(i) first originated under the Contract,

(ii) are created exclusively for the Commission pursuant to the Contract,

(iii) are unique to the Commission and

(iv) were paid for by the Commission.

Could the PMT please confirm that the vendor retain ownership rights, except as provided in (i)-(iv) above?

The Contract should detail all Commonwealth deliverables and ownership rights and any Contractor proprietary rights. (5.1?) We can include or exclude certain items.

We assume, but please confirm, that compensation would include the cost of the entire capital invested by the vendor as of the date of termination, as well as the cost of the implementation services provided in connection with such capital investment?

The MGC will pay for start-up equipment and cabling called out for each facility in Appendix B in the normal monthly billing process. For any other significant capital investments incurred that are incorporated into the flat monthly fee, the MGC will not guarantee that compensation would include the cost of the entire capital invested.

26.

27.

Industry-standard storage requirements for records are generally no greater than three (3) years after contract termination/ completion.

As such, would the PMT be willing to revise this requirement to provide that the Contractor is only required to retain the records under the contract for three (3) years after completion or termination?

A: PMT cannot change Commonwealth Terms and Conditions Cannot change. These are Commonwealth record retention requirements.

(i) any act or omission of the Commission, the Facilities, or their respective officers, directors, employees or agents; or

(ii) the successful bidder’s acts or omissions if requested by or in compliance with the Commission’s or any Facility’s requirements;

(iii) any act or omission of a third party that is not a subcontractor of the successful bidder?

No, the provision speaks for itself and the commission is not at liberty to modify it. These requests for clarification are really modifications. These type of issues are fact specific and would have to be addressed on a case by case basis in the event a claim were to arise.

If not, would the PMT consider similar limitations on contractor liability to apply to the contract resulting from the RFR (i.e., the greater of $100,000 or two times the value of the product or service that is the subject of the claim)?

A: Yes

30.

Q: If a vendor elects to submit the forms after selection will it receive a lower evaluation than if it had included the forms with the RFR response?

Q: Are included forms counted against the Technical Response page count?

A: No A: No

31.

32.

Q: Will the Commission consider providing a minimum of seven (7) days’ notice prior to the date of the oral presentation/interview to assist vendors with travel planning?

A: Yes

bullet point one states that all prices must… if a percentage. Appendix C (A) states “Flat Fee (Monthly)”. Can 1) some prices be stated as fixed flat fees? and 2.) Some prices be submitted as a fixed percent of Gross Gaming Revenue (GGR)?

A: All prices must be fixed flat fees.

Can MGC provide information on the numbers or percentages of SAS EGDs and G2S EGDs that will be installed? If such information is not available at this stage, is it possible for MGC to provide indicative numbers or percentages that all proponents can use solely for price evaluation and comparison purposes?

A: MGC Regulations require EGD’s to operate using G2S as of January 2017. Up to 1200 Electronic Gaming Devices to be installed by Penn National Gaming, the operator of the slot parlor at Plainridge, could be SAS machines.

35.

5.1

36.

5.1

5.1.9 The RFR states that: “5.1.1. The Commission may decide to enter into a contract with a qualified Vendor to provide the design, development, implementation, lease, operation, and maintenance of a Central Monitoring and Control System (“Central Management System or CMS”) for Electronic Gaming Devices (EGD’s) which includes, but is not limited to, a central computer system located at the Commission's designated location, a hot back-up system located off-site, software, and a secure Wide Area Network that will connect each Commission regulated facility and all EGDs to the Central System as described more fully in this RFR.”

The RFR states that: “5.1.9. The Commission requests that Vendor’s proposals include an Operational Model and cost structure that would allow for transition of operational support for the CMS application and/or network monitoring to MGC staff.”

Q: Is it the intent of the Commission that the selected CMS vendor will operate the system for the entirety of the contract?

Q: If the Commission intends to assume operational responsibility for the CMS, what is the project timeframe for the transition?

A: MGC’s wants the option of transitioning operations of the Network Operations Center and the CMS to MGC staff. The Commission is requesting a proposal that allow for that transition and considers the cost implications. MGC does not desire to maintain the underlying infrastructure layers including application version upgrades, operating systems upgrades and patches.

A: MGC would like the vendor to propose a transition plan that would provide the option to transition operations support to MGC staff, starting in year 3, and with the option to transition open every two years for balance of the contract.

5.4.2

Q: What is the actual requirement for BDC location?

A: PMT will modify the language to “MGC highly prefers that the Back-up site be located at MGC’s Backup Data Center for other platforms. MGC’s Backup Data Center will be the Commonwealth’s Springfield Data Center, which satisfies the conditions in 5.4.2.

The PMT leaves open the option for vendor to propose a “VPN / cloud” solution to provide a Back-up Site, but the issues of data security and sovereign immunity would have to be addressed.

Could the PMT please confirm that it will consider proposals that offer an out-of-state primary site and/or an out-of-state backup site, as long as the vendor can address concerns about data security and sovereign immunity?

A: See # 38.

Q: What are the fees associated with housing the vendor’s PDC and BDC within the Commission’s Primary and Back-up facilities?

Q: Will there be a portion of the infrastructure maintenance costs that will be passed on to the vendor?

Q: Does each of the Commission’s Primary and Secondary Data Centers have the ability to house the vendor’s operators?

A: Secure Data Centers, with N+1 Redundancy, redundant high speed (10GB) connection, and standard rack hosting and co-location space.

A: Vendor can assume standard industry fees for co-location / hosting services. A rack fee, or percentage of a rack, and additional costs for electricity/environmental and network connectivity.

A: The vendor will only be responsible for the monthly costs that cover the rack, as well as the costs for electricity / environmental and network connectivity.

A: Yes, MGC would prefer the vendor to co-locate at the facilities where MGC currently has primary and backup data center infrastructure.

Please Note: MGC Primary Data Center – Markley / One Summer Street, Boston; MGC Backup Data Center – SDC (Commonwealth’s Springfield Data Center) operational target February 2015. MGC plans to move its primary operations into the Commonwealth’s Data Center (MITC / Massachusetts Information Technology Center) in Chelsea in the next two years.

5.2.7.3 5.7.5 5.10.1

45.

5.1.6.3

A: No

46.

John/paragraph 3

In some jurisdictions (Pennsylvania, Maryland and Kansas), the CMS is responsible for polling and recording accounting transactions, including a record of Ticket-in/Ticket-out transactions, but each facility’s system is responsible for the actual validation of Ticket-in/Ticket-out transactions.

In other jurisdictions (Rhode Island), the CMS is responsible for polling and recording accounting transactions, including a record of Ticket-in/Ticket-out transaction and the actual validation of those Ticket-in/Ticket-out transactions. Assigning responsibility for validation of Ticket-in/Ticket-out transactions to the facilities’ systems typically results in lower operating costs for the regulator while still maintaining a record of all accounting and Ticket-in/Ticket-out transactions.

Which system will be responsible for the validation of Ticket-in/Ticket-out transactions in Massachusetts: the CMS or the facilities’ individual systems?

A: The facilities individual systems will be responsible for Ticket-In/Ticket-Out Operations.

48.

5.1.10

“Vendor must provide in its proposal a statement of intent to comply.” Does this mean that detail for these sections is not required for RFR by November 17, 2014?

A: It is not required for submission as long as the vendor agrees to comply.

51.

A: See # 50.

Q: Does the Commission lack the authority under 801CMR 21.07 to modify or clarify certain portions of the standard contract form and terms and conditions?

Q: If so, which portions?

A: Yes. The Terms and Conditions as well as changes to the Standard Contract Form cannot be amended without written authority from the State Comptroller

53.

Please elaborate?

PMT will revise to:

The Vendor shall provide a CMS with comprehensive functionality which shall include, but not be limited to, gaming activities, inventory management, and information management reporting. The Vendor shall provide the following to the Commission on a lease basis for the duration of this Contract and any extension thereof:”

Item 4

55.

Please elaborate. This is a very open and general statement.

A: This is intended as an open and general statement to account for anything that may have been missed below. The scope of the project and requirements are very specific and we cannot ask for substantial differences from the scope, but this clause is intended to account for any minor omissions this RFR may have made

C: SAS is only mentioned in this section.

As all gaming venues will be new, it would make sense for the MGC to require all VLT Vendors to have G2S compliant machines. This would reduce the cost and complexity of CMS roll out. Most VLT Vendors now have G2S enabled machines.

C: If SAS is used to connect EGMs, some functionality will be seriously degraded (GAT, progressive tracking, ...).

Q: Is SAS therefore still an option to be considered?

Q: Is the CMS Vendor required to supply SMIBs converting SAS to G2S?

Q: Who is going cover the SMIB costs as this is significant cost?

A: See #34

A: Yes, CMS vendor would be required to provide system management interface boards to connect SAS protocol EGD’s to the CMS system

A: The cost of the SMIB’s need to be included in the start up cost for the Penn National Gaming slot parlor that will have a maximum of 1200 SAS EGD’s.

C: Warnings on meter readings (changes) over some threshold must be provided. There may be expected transient incorrect meter readings from EGMs especially when SAS is used to connect machines. Normally CCS/CMS filter such a transient readings and only generate notifications when meter move was over threshold and change persists.

Q: Is such a behavior permissible?

A: Yes

C: Meter adjustments should be kept in system as deltas and evaluated in reporting as it is required that system handles only RAW machine maters (MGC-CMS).

Q: Is such an approach acceptable?

A: Yes

60.

Q: What is to be understood under (virtualization) platform refresh?

A: Assuming that the servers that house the CMS application are running on a virtualization platform (i.e.VMWare), that the platform be kept current with the most recent supported release, within a year of general availability.

Additionally, could the PMT please clarify if the vendor equipment located at the facilities is part of the CMS refresh and, if the equipment is part of the refresh, should the cost for that refresh be captured in the one-time start-up fee for vendor equipment and wiring for each facility, or will there be a separate method for pricing a refresh of vendor equipment at each facility?

Finally, if the vendor equipment at each facility is part of the refresh, what refresh schedule would be followed for the venues, as equipment located at a facility that opens at the end of 2017 would be much newer than equipment located at a facility that opens in June of 2015?

The system refresh is only required at years five and ten and the second refresh is only required in the event MGC exercises its right to extend the Contract for the maximum 15 year term.

Vendor equipment at the facilities is part of the CMS refresh according to the same schedule. Vendor will determine how the costs of the refresh shall be allocated to the Facilities.

The refresh schedule would for Facility equipment would be 5 years from initial installation date, provided that equipment installed in the Facility is new. If used equipment is used, the refresh schedule shall follow the initial established timeline.

Base Cost which is being added to attachment C

63.

Please confirm whether this cost should be included in the central system fee (Appendix “B”, section A) with a possible extension of monthly payments, or quoted separately in another section of the document.

A: The refresh should be presented as a separate line item, with the cost of the hardware and software components individually identified.

C: Protocol Simulators shall be provided.

Q: Does this request cover external to CMS protocols like G2S, S2S or also all internally used connections?

A: The request covers only external to CMS protocols such as G2S and S2S.

65.

5.2.7.1

C: Unauthorized Changes to SW Q: Are (Security) Critical OS updates excluded from requirement to acquire pre-authorizations for SW updates on CCS?

Yes

Ref: MGC-CMS 5.2.7.4, Statement 3 (b) C: Software Validation with pre-calculated signatures: Nowadays EGMs are based on OSes like Linux, Windows, and other RTOS. Method to calculate signatures vary largely between EGM vendors. Therefore it is not possible to use single utility program to calculate verification vectors for all vendors. Vendors might consider such information proprietary and private and might not be willing to share information with CCS vendor(s). Therefore integration of software utility program from vendors might be needed.

Q: Would such an approach be acceptable?

A: The PMT would require the technical details of the integration between the CMS and the third party “software utility program” to make a determination.

67.

5.2.8.1

C: Required information list contains in 16. and 17. to be able to identify who accessed cash and logic areas. G2S requires for such purpose fully implemented and supported idReader and employee classes. Alternatively this information must be tracked by operators CMS and reported to CCS through other protocol(s). In any case it is necessary to be able to query operator staff database.

Q: Is it clear that operator need to provide interface to their employee database over (MGC preferred) GSA S2S protocol?

A: No we do not need it integrated.

68.

5.2.8.3

C: ...read and report using full set of actual EGM meters. Most CMS (and CCS as well) system operate and report on normalized metering information that filters out meter and transaction anomalies received from EGMs. Normalized meters are produced based on RAW EGM meters movements.

Q: Shall this be interpreted that CCS MUST use RAW EGM meters instead of normalized?

A: Yes it must use RAW EGM.

Please specify the credit/payment methods that will be utilized by the EGDs Under current regulations regarding debit and credit: Credit cards will not be allowed to be used.

70.

Please specify how the CMS will be able to identify a player given that no player tracking functionality will be available. Does the MGC contemplate an interface with the Operator System in order to obtain such information?

A: The PMT will remove this requirement since the CMS will not know user information on the EGD.

How does MGC invision the CMS getting information on each person who is accessing the logic area (item 16) and the cash door (item 17) in cases the EDG does not collect or report this information through its protocol port?

A: The PMT will remove this requirement since the CMS will not know user information on the EGD.

Person identification will require the use of personal card and player tracking capability. Does the MGC contemplate an interface with the Operator System in order to obtain such information?

A: The PMT will remove this requirement since the CMS will not know user information on the EGD. The MGC does not contemplate an interface with the operator system to obtain the information. That would be the responsibility of gaming agents to validate the ID with the player management system.

Each person who accessed the cash door and the date and time it was accessed;”

Person identification will require the use of personal card and player tracking capability. Does the MGC contemplate an interface with the Operator System in order to obtain such information?

A: The PMT will remove this requirement since the CMS will not know user information on the EGD.

The MGC does not contemplate an interface with the operator system to obtain the information. That would be the responsibility of gaming agents to validate the ID with the player management system.

Is the Vendor’s system expected to provide Promo Credits functionality or only to monitor and report transactions and values generated by 3rd party systems?

A: Vendor’s systems shall be required only to monitor and report transactions and values generated by third party systems.

Q: How frequent such a comparison MUST be provided?

Q: Is it already known which CMS(s) casino operators are going to use? (as custom integration will be needed and need to be planned and estimated for)

A: No

Q: Does the term ‘operator meter reads’ refer to information obtained by facility player tracking system?

Q: Does ‘Cash Count’ refer to Amount Played/Amount Won per device and game or does it refer to $$ inserted into the EGD?

A: Yes, operational meter reads are information obtained by the facilities casino management system.

A: Cash count refers to actual monies dropped and counted from the EGD.

Will files containing ‘operator meter reads’ and ‘actual cash count’ be provided by the Commission?

Please elaborate how data sourcing, separation, comparison and reporting is invisioned.

A: The Commission will require operators to provide a daily report of their projected and reconciled meter reads to cash counts to the CMS vendor in the format specified by the CMS vendor, and the CMS vendor will be responsible for generating a report that does a comparison and reports variances.

Does this include progressive jackpots not controlled by the CMS? Is the CMS required to monitor all progressive jackpots and controllers? Is the commission going to require all jackpot controller manufacturers to update their controllers to communicate with the CMS in order to be able to be monitored?

If the above understanding is correct, then items 5.2.9.4, 5.2.9.5 and 5.2.9.6 seem irrelevant to the CMS. Please confirm or state otherwise.

A: Yes, this is correct.

A: The CMS will not be required to provide jackpot functionality to the Facilities or to directly monitor jackpot controllers.

5.2.9.4, 5.2.9.5 and 5.2.9.6 do not apply to this RFR and will be removed.

79.

5.2.9.1

5.12.2

Q: Is there a requirement for CMS to undergo third party testing and certification?

A: Yes, CMS will be required to be tested by one of MGC’s Certified Independent Testing Laboratories.

81.

Q: Are progressive controllers deemed part of CCS or operated by casino operator?

A: Casino Operator

82.

83.

A: Yes

84.

85.

Q: Will the Commission delete line item 5.2.11.2(15) from the CMS checklist?

A: Yes, it will be deleted

“The Vendor shall operate a Primary Site including but not limited equipment and staff (24x7x365) which shall be used exclusively to support the Commission's Contract and shall be co-located in the Commission's new headquarters building at 101 Federal Street, Boston, MA 02019.”

This requirement seems contradictory to section 5.1.2 can you please clarify?

Clarification the response should include provisions for:

NOC - Network Operations Center – Staffed with personnel (24x7x365) tasked with operating the CMS, and located at the MGC headquarters at 101 Federal Street, Boston, MA 02019.”

MGC/Vendor Primary Data Center – Markley / One Summer Street, Boston; MGC

MGC/Vendor Backup Data Center – SDC (Commonwealth’s Springfield Data Center) operational target February 2015.

MGC plans to move its primary data center operations into the Commonwealth’s Data Center (MITC / Massachusetts Information Technology Center) in Chelsea in the next two years.

Q: If primary system is a duplex configuration, is it necessary for test system to be duplex or is simplex configuration sufficient?

A: Simplex is sufficient.

Item 3

Does this mean that the MGC will be onsite for the entire duration of the test?

Also, could the PMT please clarify what it means by “include full performance and end to end testing of all business processes and procedures?”

A: Yes, MGC will be onsite for the entire duration of the test.

A: Full performance and end-to-end testing means a test of the ability of the primary system to fail over to the backup system with no disruption of the gaming operations. Full performance and end to end testing incorporates the demonstration of an automatic and immediate failover to the backup instance of CMS. It does not require shutting down of the operational system and will not include testing for an extended period of time.

Item 3

Could the PMT please provide further information regarding the extent of the testing? Also, does this include shutting down of the operational system with failover?