250000000142- Bidder Questions with State Answers- 2-12-25-w ADM 4..pdf

Quest. # Document & Section Page # Bidder Question State's Response

1 General N/A

Is there an approximate cost the state would be paying a winning bidder for this RFP? I know a prior RFP for this third-party towing management for a smaller portion of the state was $750,000.

The cost to the State will be nothing. All costs will be paid by Michigan citizens. See Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1.1.B.8), Section 7.1. Invoice Requirments, and Section 7.3. Payment and Methods. Contract value will be estimated based on Bidders quoted rates.

Citizens will be charged the same rated quoted, based on district, regardless of which Service Provider is dispatched.

2 General N/A What is the anticipated volue of tows/dispatches requested by MSP in each region?

Total volume of Dispatched Services in 2024 were 27,207. See Revised Schedule B- Pricing Worksheet and Usage Data document provided with Addendum 1. The State can not and will not guarantee volume for this contract.

Schedule B- Pricing Worksheet

N/A

In the pricing worksheet you are asking for all different fees for each zone:

fees?

Contractor sets contract fees based on provider costs, administration (overhead) and profit). See Revised Schedule B- Pricing Worksheet tab and the added Table 2. Bidders will be required to enter percentage breakdown of the fees they are proposing.

Schedule B- Pricing Worksheet

Does MSP use any roation scheme in any of the zones?

The Contractor will be required to determine their rotation scheme, bearing in mind that they will always dispatch from the nearest Provider whenever possible.

Schedule B- Pricing Worksheet

Can we get a boundary map of each district? See Schedule F published with this RFP.

6 General Can we get a list of current towers in each district?

The State does not have this information.

See Revised Schedule B- Pricing Worksheet and Usage Data, Historic Data, tab for location information, per ADM 1.

Schedule B- Pricing Worksheet

With regard to pricing, how will you address that Heavy Duty recovery which is very difficult to forecast with set amounts?

* Example Scenarios:

* Water Recovery

* Semi Rollover with Hazardous Materials

* Multi-Vehicle Pile Up

The Contractor will have the reasonable ability to quote rates for services, events, and circumstances. See Revised Schedule B- Pricing per ADM 4.

STATE OF MICHIGAN

RFP 25000000142

Statewide Towing Dispatch and Services- MSP Questions Due: January 16, 2025

First Round Answers Provided: January 14, 2025

Aniticipated date the state will post answers to bidders questions: February 12, 2025

This RFP doesn't address MCL law 257.252(a) for Abandoned Vehicles, however it clearly states on pg. 42 Item 4a.

that the contractor should follow all laws from MCL law 257.1 to mcl 257.923. which includes the abandoned vehicle law listed above. This law clearly defines that the custodian of the vehicle must collect the $40.00 abandoned vehicle fee for the State of Michigan. The state has defined the custodian of the vehicle as the entity that has the vehicle in it's custody. The RFP requires a 3rd party contractor to collect fees without physically having custody of the vehicle. How does this RFP address this conflict?

Nothing in this RFP is intended to or will superceed applicable law or regulations.

The State will not provide legal guidance.

Abandoned Vehicle disposition and proceedures are handled outside of this contract. See Revised Schedule A, Section 1.1.C. per ADM 2.

This RFP doesn't address MCL law 257.252(a) for Abandoned Vehicles, however it clearly states on pg. 42 Item 4a. the contractor should follow all laws from MCL law 257.1 to mcl

257.923. MCL law 257.252(a) for Abandoned

Vehicles spells out that the Police Department and the Towing company must respond to civil court in the event a charge or fee is contested.

This is also stated on state form TR-52L. The RFP specifies that the third party contractor must handle disputes between the public and towing companies. A quote from the law "If the court finds, after a hearing on reasonableness of the towing fee and daily storage fees, that the owner(s) or the secured party's challenge was frivolous, the court may award reasonable attorney fees to the custodian of the vehicle".

The requirements as stated in the RFP, and the requirements laid out in the law seem to conflict. Can you explain how both requirements are expected to be met?

See Response to Question 8

Schedule A, Section E (Now Section F)

The RFP on pg. 45 #E states that MSP will not be involved with disputes between service providers and vehicle owners. MCL 257.252(a) states that in court under the provision of this state law the police agency must respond to the civil summons and state why the vehicle was towed away from owner as part of the case of proofs. This is also stated on state form TR-52L. How will you address this issue?

Nothing in this RFP is intended to or will superceed applicable law or regulations.

The State will not provide legal advice.See Revised Schedule A, Section 1.1.F per ADM

MCL 257.252(a) also addresses private property tows with consent of the property owner to have a towing company of their choice remove the vehicle and this must be within 15 miles of the police agency. How will this be addressed by the RFP?

Nothing in this RFP is intended to or will superceed applicable law or regulations.

The State will not provide legal guidance.

The state mandated abandoned fee of $40 must be collected. $25 goes to the state of Michigan and $15 goes to the towing company. The $25 that the state collects is turned over to the state through the Tow Trucks and Vehicle Custodians website (https://dsvsesvc.sos.state.mi.us/TAP/_/#1 ).

MCL 257.252(a) references a custodian as the entity holding possession of the vehicle. The law is clear that the tower has to be paid their fees.

Fees can include inspection of vehicle ($75.00) and TR-52L ($40.00). The law seems to conflict with the RFP requirement stating that payments cannot be made directly from the vehicle owner to the towing company. This RFP has the towers under contract with a third party, while holding possession of the vehicle. Based on the RFP, payment will be made to the contractor, not the custodian of the vehicle. Can you explain how the RFP will operate within the current state law?

See Response to Question 8

On average, 15%-25% of vehicles impounded by MSP will not be redeemed by the owner or the secure party. Based on the towing volume in 2024 this would amount to at least 5,000 towed vehicles (based on 15% rate of abandonment) which would be processed using the abandoned auto law 257.252(a). The RFP and law 257.252(a) conflict, leaving these vehicles without a clear process. Can you address an expectation of how these vehicles will be handled?

See Response to Question 8

The police department(s) by law are mandated to enter vehicles deemed abandoned in the SOS through LEIN. A third-party contractor cannot complete this entry. We will be reporting impound information to MSP. How are you planning on reporting back to towers and handling the TR-52L forms with towers after they have expired, and a new title is issued?

MSP will follow currently established workplace policy and report back to the Wrecker/Tower Service Provider.

Nothing in this RFP is intended to or will superceed applicable law or regulations.

Law Enforcement is required to be involved in the auction process. How will that be handled?

See Response to Question 8

The state is responsible for notifying the vehicle owner and the last secured party that their vehicle was towed and is impounded by a towing company that has been deemed abandoned. The state form (TR-52L) lists the police department that ordered the tow, and the address for the towing company with specific instructions on how to have their vehicle released. How will the contractor manage this process?

This task is not part of this RFP scope.

The above questions spell out the RFP is already not in compliance with existing state law. The RFP, as stated on pg. 37 #42 requires compliance with existing state and federal law.

How will the conflicts spelled out above be addressed?

The TR-52 process remains in effect under this RFP. Nothing in this RFP is intended to or will superceed applicable law or regulations.

Will the state motor carrier division certify the towers that are contracted to meet the requirements spelled out in the RFP?

See Revised Schedule A, Section 1.1.B.3).d. per ADM 2.

19 How do you handle heavy and medium tows? See Response in Question 7.

20 How do you handle towing of boats? See Response in Question 7.

Hybrid Terms, Section

This contract is a large commitment of capital and resources in order to perform this contract.

Yet Section 28 of the contract says it can be terminated for convenience at any time as a result of a lack of funding or if the funds are not appropriated. Which Senate or House Committee will appropriate the funds for this contract? Please identify whether adequate funds or an adequate appropriation have been made to pay for this contract? How much is the State or MSP allocating for the funding for this contract?

The State is not allocating any funds to this contract. The work on this contract is being paid by the service fees charged to vehicle owners.

22 Schedule A, Section B 43

If a proposal contains only an administrative fee for each tow assessed solely to the citizen (and nothing else), the State pays nothing and so would this contract require approval of the State Administrative Board (it would be $0 so under the $250k)? At the Pre-Proposal conference DTMB stated that this contract requires approval by the State Administrative Board but under this approach, the State pays zero?

Yes, this contract will require approval of the State Administrative Board. The contract's value will be well in excess of $250,000.00. The State will be auditing the amount paid to the Contractor, and the contractor must accurately report. See revised Schedule A, Section 4.3.B. Annual Sales/Service Report.

23 Schedule A 43

Schedule B contains no fee structure for the towing and recovery of heavy-duty fees and the other actions that must be performed when towing a heavy-duty vehicle.

The contractor is free to quote additional rates in Schedule B, including for heavy-duty fees. See Revised Schedule B- Pricing per ADM 4.

Vendor Questions Worksheet- Section 2

If a Contractor has not been “debarred, suspended or disqualified” from bidding but has had a similar (towing management software) pilot-program terminated or shut down by another state’s law enforcement agency, where must that be disclosed? Must it be disclosed in response to this question at p.

13?

Disclosure is not necessary.

Schedule A, Section 1.1., B.1) and2)

What rules or standards are Contractors to use to select and choose vendors and develop how the service providers must fuction: must Contractors use Order 48 (available online) or some other guidelines established by MSP?

MSP will not be providing guidelines to the Contractor on how to select and choose vendors outside of the requirements set forth in this RFP.

26 Schedule A, Section 7 43

If a fee is charged per towing transaction (and added to each citizen’s invoice and paid by the citizen), does it matter whether it is termed or called an “administrative fee” or “management fee”? Neither of these fees are prohibited, correct?

See Revised Schedule B- Pricing per ADM

4. Nothing in this RFP is intended to or will superceed applicable law or regulations.

27 Schedule A, Section 7 43

For vehicles deemed abandoned, a $40 fee must be paid by the owner as a matter of state law. Currently, service providers collect and pay this fee to the State of Michigan. Does the RFP require a change in this requirement by making the Contractor collect and remit a portion of the fee to the State of Michigan? The RFP is silent.

See Response to Question 8

Schedule A, Section 1.1., B., 3) & 4)

In the event there are issues with Service Providers, are there any rules or system of progressive discipline the MSP requires the Contractor to use with respect to (e.g., discipline, fined, suspended, etc.) Service Providers?

MSP will not be providing guidelines to the Contractor on how to deal with issues with service providers.

29 Schedule A, Section 1.4. 47

Must a bidder’s access, use and disposal of information contained or received in any LEIN and/or NCIC extract (or extract thereof) under this contract meet the standards outlined in the federal CJIS Security Policy, the Michigan CJIS Security Policy and the CJIS Policy Council Act, 1974 PA 163?

Yes, if that access is required and allowed.

Nothing in this RFP is intended to or will superceed applicable law or regulations.

The State will not provide legal guidance.

Schedule A, Section B,

3) & 4)

42-43

In addition to the standards established by the MSP, is the Contractor tasked with developing additional rules and standards governing the Service Providers and towing and recovery of vehicles under this RFP, rather than MSP?

Yes, however all Service Providers must have proper licencing as well meet any other standards required by law. See Revised Schedule A, Section 1.1.3.d.

31 Schedule A, Section 7 43

Official Order 02-17-1 (Wrecker Administrative Fees) establishes MSP policy providing that a MSP post or any worksite (thus, the MSP) shall not profit from the towing of any vehicle. The Order prevents the receipt of any administrative fee or other cost outside of a dollar-for-dollar costs reimbursement for expenses paid in advance by the post, MJTF or other worksite in conjunction with the towing of a seized vehicle (excludes forfeiture, court ordered, etc.).

Doesn’t this Order conflict with the terms of the RFP since the MSP/State is receiving fees (e.g., a profit with no investment) from the Contractor?

No. Your administative costs are to be included as part of the fees you are charging the Vehicle Owners to recoup your outlay. No funds being paid to the State.

Vendor Question Worksheet (VQW), Section 14

At the Pre-Proposal Conference, DTMB directed every bidder to put not applicable in response to whether a bidder consulted with DTMB because she stated that she drafted the RFP and worked with no one. Bu tsuch a comment or answer is only partly accurate and completely ignores the obvious: if a bidder consulted with MSP in reviewing its products/services so that the MSP could use same to develop this RFP, must this be disclosed in Section 4? Will the RFP beamended to require any bidder that previously consulted with MSP since 2022 to disclose this fact and the facts of same?

Fairness and transparency require this.

The State did not seek consultation with any non-state entities to assist in the creation of this RFP.

Hybrid Terms, Section

26-27

The Contract requires a fingerprint background check of all of the Contractor’s employees and subcontractors. But are fingerprint background checks required to be performed of each of the Service Providers’ employees and subcontractors (as Service Providers are referred to as subcontractors in the RFP)?

Per this section it says "upon request".

Hybrid Terms, Section

26-27

Schedule A, Sec. B 3&4 Pg. 42 Are there any crimes that a Contractor MUST prevent a Service Provider employee from being able to perform services at a MSP towing scene under this contract? Examples: auto theft, VIN alteration, domestic violence, drugs, felony within the last 7-10 years, etc. Please advise.

Background checks will be performed per Public Act 427 of 2018 if requested by the State or as the Contractor deems necessary. Reasonable crimes related to service of this contract could be a reason for the Contractor to preclude individuals from performing work under this contract.

Schedule A, Section 1.1 B. 8, and E (Now F)

43 and 45

If as a Contractor, it can totally manage the operation, can it implement a policy that requires all complaints by citizens against Service Providers regarding the propriety of the tow or the reasonableness of the fees be first submitted to arbitration or mediation?

The bidder is asked to address this in the response boxes included under Revised Schedule A, Section 1.1.F per ADM 2.

Vendor Questions Worksheet, Section 4.

If a bidder has not been “debarred, suspended or disqualified” from bidding but has had a similar (towing management software) pilot-program terminated or shut down by another state’s law enforcement agency, where must that be disclosed? Must it be disclosed in response to this question at p. 13?

See Response to Question 24.

37 VQW, Section 4 15

If a bidder, an employee, agent or representative of a bidder such as a lobbyist or senior personnel, previously provided (within the last five years) a demonstration of its towing management system to members of the MSP, is that considered “participating in developing any component” of the RFP?

No.

38 VQW, Section 4 15

Same question as No. 3 but does the answer change (irrespective of whether the MSP or DTMB utilized or purchased the towing management solution), if the general requirements of the RFP (from a technological basis) appear remarkably similar to the essential operating functionality of one towing management system? Is that considered “participating in developing any component” of the RFP?

No. See Response to Question 32.

39 VQW, Section 4 15

In the interest of transparency and fairness, will the MSP and/or DTMB publicly disclose the identity of all companies, entities or individuals who made presentations or demonstrations of towing management solutions/systems to the MSP and/or DTMB within the last five (5) years?

This information is obtainable through a FOIA request, unless the information requested is subject to an exemption from disclosure, in accordance with applicable law.

40 VQW, Section 2

13-14

With respect to Section 2 at p.

12, does a majority investment (e.g., control transaction) by a private equity firm in a bidder require disclosure?

Yes.

41 VQW, Section 4

What are the Contractor’s responsibilities to interface with and share information with the Michigan Department of Transportation (“MDOT”)- Emergency Road personnel as part of the scope of work (it 4 is undefined; please clarify)? Must MDOT personnel be given remote access (or a license) to the bidder’s towing management system?

That is not required as part of this RFP.

42 VQW, Section 4

Please clarify whether MDOT personnel participated in developing any component of the RFP? If not, why?

No.

43 Schedule A, Section C. 44

Can a bidder operate a call center to handle customer inquiries (both MSP and citizen) physically located outside of the State of Michigan? Or must it be located somewhere within the Second District?

The call center may be located anywhere inside of the United States.

Schedule A, Section 3.2?

55-56

If a bidder can operate a call-center outside of Michigan to handle customer inquiries (both MSP and citizen), can it be staffed with Returning Citizens (a/k/a convict labor) from another state to perform any work required by this proposal?

The only restrictions on this are in the RFP and state and federal law.

45 VQW, Section 11 18

If a bidder does not have 100 or more employees and is therefore not required to file an EEO-1 report, will the MSP or State of Michigan Office of Civil Rights require another type of report be filed?

It is unclear what is intended to be included as "another type of report" However, for clarity, the State does not anticipate any reporting requirements, other than those expressly required under the terms of any resulting contract, applicable law, or regulation.

46 VWQ, Section 9 18

If a bidder’s platform is entirely cloud-based and maintains a “click-through” presence or an economic nexus, and nearly all transactions are performed online, will the bidder be subject to Michigan use and/or sales tax?

Yes. All invoicing is made to the Vehicle Owners and are not Michigan Sales tax exempt.

Proposal Instructions, Section 7

The RFP (Section 7 at p. 5) provides that the “State” will evaluate the responses but what is the number of individuals that comprise the evaluation team and from what State departments are they derived?

To Be Determined

48 VQW, Section 11 18

This RFP does not require any specific portion of the towing management technological solution be performed by minority-owned businesses or otherwise include provisions for the accommodations of subcontracts and joint ventures to minority owned businesses contrary to MCL 450.772? Will this be amended to match other like projects and comply with MCL

450.771 et seq.?

Nothing in this RFP is intended to or will superceed applicable law or regulations.

Schedule A, Section 1.1.2

Will the use of the a GPSenabled “closest wrecker” system be determined from the wrecker company’s physical building location within a District to the incident or tow scene or literally from whichever wrecker of authorized providers is closest? (Example:

Company A has headquarters on 8 Mile Rd. and Gratiot in Detroit; overturned semi on 94 at Cadieux; does the MSP desire the system find/dispatch the closest wrecker from Company A’s location (which is the closest company) or is it the closest wrecker between Company A 5 (Truck 54) and Company B (Truck

195) both of which are in the area near 94 and Moross)? Please advise.

That will be up to the Contractor to determine when implementing their system. See Revised Schedule A, Section 1.1.A. 4) per ADM 4.

50 VQW, Section 11 18

Can a bidder hire or utilize Returning Citizens (a/k/a convict labor)(for technological work) in Michigan to perform work required by this proposal?

See Response in Question 44.

51 Schedule E, Section 5 52

Whether Hosted Services are provided by the bidder or by a Hosting Provider (assuming that each has FedRamp authorization), must both disclose any prior breaches or intrusions of data privacy and/or information security programs on similar or like projects, as there does not appear to be any required disclosures of known or discovered system vulnerabilities?

Yes.

52 Section 7 5

If a system possesses the data replication to a transaction in extremely short intervals as a Recovery Time Objective (RTO) (which blisters the competition), will a bidder be awarded or scored extra or additional points?

This would be a best value consideration and would be taken into consideration until after technical evaluation has been concluded.

53 Schedule A, Section 1.1. 22

If the 24/7 customer support is web-based, can it be an artificial intelligence (AI) application or program (or bot) to answer questions or must it be a live-person in the event a question cannot be answered by the web-based support?

It must be answered by a live person.

Schedule B- Pricing Worksheet

There are absolutely no distinctions being made for the towing or recovery of different classes of vehicles? Why are there no distinctions of rates for Class A, B and C vehicles?

See Response to Question 23

Schedule A, Section 1.1., B.

Will the contractor be expected to oversee police auctions? Can the auctions be conducted solely online?

See Revised Schedule A, Section 1.1., C.

per ADM 2

Schedule A, Section B., 1.1.

Is it possible for us to select the tow contractors if a bid is awarded?

Yes. The Contractor will be responsible for creating the Roster of Wrecker/Towing Service Providers.

57 RFP 1

Why are bidders not allowed to own or operate a towing company, towing service, impound lot, body shop or any other towing -related enity within the State of Michigan. What is difference if someone just outside the state line owns one of the above? The Michigan Towing Association protests this RFP and in particular this requirement that exludes in state towers but allow neightboring state towers to bid.

This does not appear to be a question directed at understanding the provisions of the RFP. The State will not provide legal guidance.

MCL 18.1261(1). The statute states “all other things being equal, preference shall be given to products manufactured or services offered by Michigan-based firms. ...” It appears this RFP violates this statute.

This doesn't appear to be a quesiton. The State will not provide legal guidance.

59 RFP 1 Define towing related enity

Any entity providing roadside/at scene services, direct towing services, services tangential to towing, impounding/ storage of vehicles, or body/repair shops.

60 RFP 1 Define towing service Industry standard definition.

61 RFP General Why is a RFP being requested when prior RFP is still in litagation?

This RFP is the only active RFP proposed by the State, related to the provision of the services described in this RFP.

62 RFP 1.1A 41

Towers should be protected as to not being forced to violate Michigan law of operating a device while driving

This does not appear to be a question. The State will not provide legal guidance.

63 RFP 1

Will towers dispatch centers receive an alert so drivers aren't required to break the law and interact with app while driving? Dispatcher would use tow way radio to notify driver of call to conform with Michigan law.

This will be determined by the Contractor.

The State will not provide legal guidance.

64 RFP 1.1 41

This provision would create a hazardous situation on Michigan roads. Towers would be incentized to park trucks

This does not appear to be a question.

around accident seens and lead to accident chasing which is in violation of Michigan law.MCL 257.676c(2)(a)

This does not appear to be a question.

66 RFP 1.1B 42

How are rosters determined under what standards? What appeal process is there?

TBD by Contractor.

67 RFP 1.1B(1) 42

What prevents a roster spot from being obtained by unethical acts?

This does not appear to be a question designed at better understanding the provisions of the RFP. However, to be clear, State and federal laws may be implicated by any unethical activity under any resulting contract.

68 RFP 1.1b(7) 42 How are fair and reasonable towing fees determined?

Fees are to be provided by Bidder in Schedule B and Schedule B- Pricing Worksheet

69 RFP 1.1 41

This provision would create a hazardous situation on Michigan roads. Towers would be incentized to park trucks around accident seens and lead to accident chasing which is in violation of Michigan law.MCL 257.676c(2)(a)

This does not appear to be a question.

70 RFP 1.1B 42

How are rosters determined under what standards? What appeal process is there?

See Revised Schedule A, Section 1.1.,B. per

ADM 2

71 RFP 1.1B(1) 42

What prevents a roster spot from being obtained by unethical acts?

State and federal laws.

72 RFP 1.1b(7) 42 How are fair and reasonable towing fees determined?

See Response to Question 68

73 RFP 1.1B(8) 42

Vehicle Owners have a duty under law to pay towers for their fees. Why does the RFP provide a means for state statue not being followed?

This is a violation of Michigan Law and hte MTA protests this RFP as such. Vehicle owners and courts are required to send payments to towers/custonians not to third party vendors that are taking charging an additional fee to the vehicle owner.

This does not appear to be a question related to better understanding the provisions of this RFP. The State will not provide legal guidance.

74 RFP 1.1(B)(8) 42

257.252a(14), 257.252a(15), 257.252a(17), 257.252b(9), 257.252b(10, 257.252e, 257.252F(3)(c) states that towing agencies must be paid by state if violation occurs in process of vehicle taken into custody. How does this proposal not violate this state statue?

The State will not provide legal guidance.

75 RFP 1.1(B)(8) 42

please explain how 257.252i is not violated under this section

The State will not provide legal guidance.

76 RFP 1.1(b)(8) 42 this is in violation of 257.618a(1)(7) The tower can't be precluded from not receiving payment from direct payments from vehicle owner

This does not appear to be a question. The State will not provide legal guidance.

77 RFP 1.1. 41

257.618a(1)(7) The owner or carrier, if any, of a motor vehicle, cargo, or personal property removed or disposed of under subsection (5) shall reimburse the public agency, departments, street railway, and towing companies, if any, for all documented reasonable costs incurred in that removal and disposal. MCL

257.252 authorizes a ‘police agency or a governmental agency designated by the police agency” to remove a vehicle from public or private property in the event of an accident or crime. When law enforcement summons a tower to the accident scene, the MSP, as the law enforcement agency, distances itself from all aspects of selecting authorized towers, establishing processes and procedures, setting prices, determining which wrecker to respond and all else to do with the towing process, the tower is working for, with and under the direction and authority of the Contractor, not MSP, and the authority and direction conferred by MCL 257.252d gets quite blurred. If a trooper on scene gives a direction to a tower contrary to an established Contractor procedure, who does the tower obey.

Further, where does the right for the tower to be on scene come from, as that right comes from law enforcement through 257.252d and 257.676c. And if something goes wrong because of conflicting Contractor policies and MSP directions, how is the tower shielded from liability for following one or the other?

This does not appear to be a question related to better understanding the provisions of this RFP. The State will not provide legal guidance. Nothing in this RFP is intended to or will superceed applicable law.

78 RFP General

During performance of the contract, will the contractor be cosidered the towing agency, towing service or custodian under the Special Anit Theft Laws, MCL 257.252 et seq.?

The State will not provide legal advice.

Nothing in this RFP is intended to or will superceed applicable law.

79 RFP 1.1.E. 45

How can a dispute process not involve the MSP when the work of the towing providers is for the MSP and the Program Managers are overseeing the day-to-day operation of the contract pursuant to Section 3.3? What standards, rules and regulations of the MSP can be used in the resolution of disputes between authorized towing providers? Can a bidder require the towing companies submit to arbitration? Does an appellate process have to be given to towers?

See Revised Schedule A, Section 1.1.F per ADM 2. See Response to Question 35.

80 rfp 1.1d 45

Please provide additional information concerning the types of disputes that may arise between authorized towing providers. If there is no role for MSP in this process, what is the anticipated appeal process if the Contractor is unable to resolve the dispute.

See Response to Question 35.

81 RFP NONE

Section 1.1.1 of the RFP addresses the establishment of standards for towing operators. MSP Official Order #48, which set out the rules, regulations and requirements for towers providing service toMSP was ruled void by the Court of Claims in December, 2020, because those rules, regulations and requirements were not properly promulgated under the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”). Will the standards (rules) established by the third party administrator, acting in the shoes of the MSP, be required to be properly promulgated under the APA?

Nothing in this RFP is intended to or will superceed applicable law or regulations.

82 RFP NONE

If the Contractor is setting fees for towers, will those, as regulated fees, need to be properly promulgated through the APA?

The Contractor is not expected to "set" fees, but rather negotiate fees with the Service Providers that will be agreeable to all.

Nothing in the RFP is intended to superceed applicable law or regulation.

83 RFP 1.1.B(1) 42

Is a Contractor going to be subject to the same restrictions imposed on unit of government from requiring a towing service to pay a fee for responding to the scene of an impound, accident, disabled vehicle or abandoned vehicle and providing towing services under MCL 257.676d(1)? And will towers be precluded by MCL 257.676d(2) from paying a fee to the contractor in order to induce the Contractor to put them on the towing list? As the Contractor is not a local unit of government, it would appear immune, and could require fees or accept inducements. How will that be dealt with?

The RFP does not require a Service Provider to pay a fee. Service Providers must not be required to pay a fee to be included on the Roster of Wrecker/Towing Service Providers. Nothing in this RFP is intended to or will superceed applicable law or regulations.

84 RFP ENTIRE

MCL 257.676c(1) prohibits a person, including a tower, from traveling to the scene of a motor vehicle accident. MCL 257.676c(2)(a) provides an exception to a law enforcement agency or a tower requested to the scene by the vehicle owner. It assumes that law enforcement may summon a wrecker to the scene through subsection (3), but does not provide for a third party administrator acting independently. How will this be justified?

The Contractor will not be acting independently. Dispatch requests are sent to the Contractor by MSP to arrange the dispatch. Nothing in this RFP is intended to or will superceed applicable law or regulations.

85 RFP General

Has MSP/DTMB reached out to other agency/committee partners both inside the State and outside the State? Has the Michigan Traffic Incident Management committee been consulted?

This does not appear to be a question related to better understanding the provisions of this RFP.

86 RFP 1.1.d. 42

How can the dispute process not involve MSP, when MSP is the authority at the accident scene and MCL 257.252d does not allow a law enforcement agency to delegate their authority to a third party, only to governmental agency designated by the police.

This does not appear to be a question related to better understanding the provisions of this RFP. The State will not provide legal guidance. Nothing in this RFP is intended to or will superceed applicable law.

87 RFP 7.3 62

How is this legal? 257.252F(3)(c) states that towing agencies must be paid by state if violation occurs in process of vehicle taken into custody. please explain how 257.252i is not violated under this section? Explain how a towing service or custonian can be resticted from their rights under 257.252i(1) It states: (1) A towing service, custodian of a vehicle, or both, shall not be precluded from the recovery of towing fees or, subject to subsection (2), storage fees from the last titled owner of a vehicle deemed abandoned under section 252a or section 252b, or removed under section 252d. this is in violation of 257.618a(1)(7) The tower can't be precluded from not receiving payment from direct payments from vehicle owner 257.618a(1)(7) The owner or carrier, if any, of a motor vehicle, cargo, or personal property removed or disposed of under subsection (5) shall reimburse the public agency, departments, street railway, and towing companies, if any, for all documented reasonable costs incurred in that removal and disposal. This RFP seeks to violate 257.252g(2)(a) Accrued towing and storage charges. However, if the money received from the public sale does not satisfy the accrued towing and storage charges, the towing company may collect the balance of those unpaid fees from the last titled owner, subject to section 252i. The Michigan Towing Association protests the fact that money can't not be collected directly from the owner of the car. Does this proposal, outsourcing to a third party violate state this statue?

This does not appear to be a question related to better understanding the provisions of this RFP. Nothing in this RFP is intended to or will superceed applicable law or regulations. The State will not provide legal advice.

88 Schedule B (4) 64 Can Contractor meet with towers prior to proposal submission?

Yes

89 Schedule B (4) 64 Can Contractor meet with towers after proposal submission?

Yes

90 RFP General Has Incident Clear management had meetings with MSP regarding this proposal

This does not appear to be a question related to better understanding the provisions of this RFP. No third parties had input into the drafting of this RFP.

RFP 7 Evaluation Process

5 Who is Evaluting the bids specifically?

TBD. This information will be disclosed in the Award Recommendation and Evaluation Synopsis.

92 RFP 10. Reservations 6

How can State consider number of Michigan citizens employed when it prohits many Michigan citizens from potentially placing a bid?

Nothing in this RFP precludes a Michigan based company from bidding, provided they do not financially gain from any dispatches, vehicle storage/impoundments or vehicle repairs, other than their admin fee/overhead and profit

93 Schedule B Pricing Schedule B Pricing Schedule

How are rates determined by Contractor? Is contractor allowed to meet with towers to discuss rates for proposal submission?

Rates are to be determined by the Contractor and yes, Contactor are free to determine rates in consulation with the potential Service Providers.

94 Schedule B Pricing Schedule B Pricing Schedule

What about medium and heavy duty rates? See Revised Schedule B-Pricing per ADM 4

95 Schedule B Pricing Schedule B Pricing Schedule

Clean up charges are not listed. Why? See Revised Schedule B-Pricing per ADM 4

96 Schedule B Pricing Schedule B Pricing Schedule

Define Basic tow The Contractor is being asked to define this.

See Revised Schedule B- Pricing Worksheet per ADM 4

97 Schedule B Pricing Schedule B Pricing Schedule

Define right-of-away

The RFP would use the common legal definition, unless another definition is identified by the Bidder for pricing purposes.

98 Schedule B Pricing Schedule B Pricing Schedule

Why are there no EV storage, and recovery rates?

See Revised Schedule B-Pricing per ADM 4

99 Conflic of Interest Attesta 2 What are definitions of towing company, towing service, impound lot, body shop, towing related enity

Industry Standard. See Response to Questions 59 and 60

Conflic of Interest Attestation

This is against State of Michigan law and resticts the rights of small business owners.

The MTA protests this requirement.

This does not appear to be a question.

Conflic of Interest Attestation

MCL 18.1261(1). The statute states “all other things being equal, preference shall be given to products manufactured or services offered by Michigan-based firms. ...” It appears this RFP violates this statute.

See Response to Question 58

Conflic of Interest Attestation

What are definitions of towing company, towing service, impound lot, body shop, towing related enity

See Response to Question 99

Conflic of Interest Attestation

This is against State of Michigan law and resticts the rights of small business owners.

The MTA protests this requirement.

This does not appear to be a question.

Conflic of Interest Attestation

MCL 18.1261(1). The statute states “all other things being equal, preference shall be given to products manufactured or services offered by Michigan-based firms. ...” It appears this RFP violates this statute.

See Response to question 58

Conflic of Interest Attestation

Again, why does this RFP restrict small business owners rights to bid on state taxpayer proposals? The MTA protests this RFP due to it's unfair bias against tax paying small business owners within the State.

This does not appear to be a question related to better understanding the provisions of this RFP.

Conflic of Interest Attestation

Does this mean that a tower, body shop, or towing related enity can't engage in deals for towing services or rates with Contractor prior to RFP being awarded?

Bidder is free to discuss rates with proposed Service Providers prior to submitting to establish pricing.

Conflic of Interest Attestation

6 Define nominal value It is a value that is not of a significant amount.

Conflic of Interest Attestation

It this statement who are competitors to the bidder? Is this refering to bidder and towers?

Can a bidder meet with towers prior to the award to discuss pricing and towing services in exchange for support of their bid?

See Responses to Question 88 and Question 105

Conflic of Interest Attestation

What contracts with towing companies is this referring to? Who decides and approves contract language?

"Contracts with towing companys" refers to any contracts developed between the Contractor and towing companies to fulfill obligations under the RFP. Unclear what is meant by "approves" contract language.

State will not provide legal advice.

110 RFP, Section 10 6

Does this proposal violate Executive Directive 2019-08. The directive states by March 31, 2019, the director of the Department shall adopt policies and procedures consistent with this directive with the objective of increasing purchases from and contracts with Geographically-Disadvantaged Business Enterprises for supplies, materials, services, insurance, utilities, third-party financing, equipment, printing, and all other items needed by state departments or agencies, including contracts for the construction, alteration, repair, or demolition of a facility. The policies and procedures also must apply to departments and agencies exercising procurement authority delegated by the Department.

This does not appear to be a question related to better understanding the provisions of this RFP. Nothing in this RFP is intented to or will superceed or violate applicable law or regulation.

111 RFP, Section 10 6

Why does this RFP exclude Michigan business based towing related entities that operate in geographically-disadvantage areas of the state?

A business in Toledo that tows can bid on this but a business in Luna Pier can't? How can this RFP justify limiting tax paying Michigan citizens from submitting a proposal?

Nothing in this RFP is intented to or will superceed or violate applicable law or regulation.

112 RFP 1.1.B

What is requirement for Contractor to select towing company's that protect those they are serving? How are towing companies vetted to make sure public is safe, how are they selected in order to make sure their actions don't create hazzards at an emergency scene, what experiance levels are the Contractors tasked to select towers with? What is reprocussions if Contractors selects towers that endanger the public, emergencey responsdors?

The process will be determined by the Contractor. All Service Providers put on the Contractor's roster must meet State law and applicable licensing.

113 RFP

Does this violate MSP order to not allow profit of admin fees?

Nothing in this RFP is intented to or will superceed or violate applicable law or regulation.

RFP- 250000000142-

Statewide Towing Dispatch and Services- Final 12-19-24, Regarding General Requirements, Section B, Subsection 8:

“Payment for services rendered will be made by the Vehicle Owners to the Contractor, not to the Service Providers directly.”

Prelude to Question 1: It appears the intent of this requirement is to ensure adherence to the Contractor's Schedule B pricing. However, requiring Service Providers to release vehicles to Vehicle Owners and the Contractor to invoice for future payments, instead of the Service Provider collecting payments at the time of vehicle release, is atypical in the industry. This approach would likely lead to a significant percentage of unrecovered payments, jeopardizing the program's success. To our knowledge, no City, County, or State agency, or Service Provider in the U.S., implements such a model. Best practice solutions exist that can be implemented to ensure that Service Providers adhere to the Schedule B pricing with full transparency, auditing mechanisms, and penalties for violations.

Question 1:Would the State consider revising this requirement to allow Service Providers to collect fees directly from Vehicle Owners at the time of vehicle release?

Yes, it could be considered, provided that doing so would be in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.

Schedule B: Pricing

Worksheet and Usage Data

Question 2:Based on feedback from the Statewide towing industry would the MSP consider the pricing framework to be applied to all districts?

Attachment labeled: MSP Pricing Proposal

Contracors may choose to apply pricing statewide, for multiple districts or for individual districts. See Revised Schedule B-Pricing per ADM 4

Vendor Questions Worksheet

Please provide the names of all companies, employees, agants or representatives of companies or affiliated entities that particpated in developing components of the RFP

The RFP was developed internally by the State.

Vendor Questions Worksheet

Please provide the names of all companies, employees, agants or representatives of companies that will participate in the evaluation of proposals received in response to the RFP.

All responses/proposals resulting from the RFP will be reviewed internally by the State.

118 Schedule A - 1. Requirem 40

Why are bidders not allowed to own or operate a towing company, towing service, impound lot, body shop or any other towing -related enity within the State of Michigan. What is difference if someone just outside the state line owns one of the above? The Michigan Towing Association protests this RFP and in particular this requirement that exludes in state towers but allow neightboring state towers to bid. See MCL 18.1261(1). The statute states “all other things being equal, preference shall be given to products manufactured or services offered by Michigan-based firms. ...”

This does not appear to be a question directed at understanding the provisions of the RFP. The State will not provide legal guidance.

Schedule A - 1.

Requirements

40 Define "towing related entity" See Response to Question 59

Schedule A - 1.

Requirements

Define "towing service" and explain how it differs from "towing company" or "towing related entity"

Industry standard definitions. See Responses to Questions 59 and 60.

Schedule A Section 1.1.A(1)

Section 1.1.2 of the RFP requires the Contractor to use the “5. Section 1.1.2 of the RFP requires the Contractor to use the “closest wrecker” system for dispatching authorized wreckers.

Doesn’t placing competing authorized service providers in “closest wrecker” situations place those providers in violation of MCL 257.676c, for approaching accident situations prior to being called by law enforcement to assist?

This does not appear to be a question directed at understanding the provisions of the RFP. The State will not provide legal guidance.

Schedule A Section 1.1.A(1(a))

Define "same geographic region" - is it city, county, MSP district?

It could be any of those depending on how the rates are developed based on how the geographic business area is tied together.

Schedule A Section 1.1.B

Section 1.1.B of the RFP addresses the establishment of standards for towing operators. MSP Official Order #48, which set out the rules, regulations and requirements for towers providing service to MSP was ruled void by the Court of Claims in December, 2020, because those rules, regulations and requirements were not properly promulgated under the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”). Will the standards (rules) established by the third party administrator, acting in the shoes of the MSP, be required to be properly promulgated under the APA? requirements for towers providing service to MSP was ruled void by the Court of Claims in December, 2020, because those rules, regulations and requirements were not properly promulgated under the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”). Will the standards (rules) established by the third party administrator, acting in the shoes of the MSP, be required to be properly promulgated under the APA?

This does not appear to be a question related to better understanding the provisions of this RFP. The State will not provide legal guidance. Nothing in this RFP is intended to or will superceed or violate applicable law or regulation.

124 Schedule A Section 1.1 42 If the Contractor is setting fees for towers, will those, as regulated fees, need to be properly promulgated through the APA?

The State will not provide legal advice.

Nothing in this RFP is intended to or will superceed or violate applicable law or regulation.

125 Schedule A Section 1.1 42

Is a Contractor going to be subject to the same restrictions imposed on unit of government from requiring a towing service to pay a fee for responding to the scene of an impound, accident, disabled vehicle or abandoned vehicle and providing towing services under MCL 257.676d(1)? And will towers be precluded by MCL 257.676d(2) from paying a fee to the contractor in order to induce the Contractor to put them on the towing list? As the Contractor is not a local unit of government, it would appear immune, and could require fees or accept inducements. How will that be dealt with?

The State will not provide legal advice.

Nothing in this RFP is intended to or will

126 Schedule A Section 1.1 43

What process will be used to create the tow roster? Has MSP proivded rules and procedures to follow? What are the rules and procedures that a Contractor must adhere to when developing said rules and procedures.

What procedures are in place to prevent these spots from being auctioned?

MSP will not be providing guidelines to the Contractor on how to select and choose vendors outside of the requirements set forth in this RFP. Also see Responses to Questions 25, 30 and 67

127 Schedule A Section 1.1 42

MCL 257.676c(1) prohibits a person, including a tower, from traveling to the scene of a motor vehicle accident. MCL 257.676c(2)(a) provides an exception to a law enforcement agency or a tower requested to the scene by the vehicle owner. It assumes that law enforcement may summon a wrecker to the scene through subsection (3), but does not provide for a third party administrator acting independently. How will this be justified?

The State will not provide legal advice.

Nothing in this RFP is intended to or will superceed or violate applicable law or regulation.

128 Schedule A Section 1.1 42

Has MSP/DTMB reached out to other agency/committee partners both inside the State and outside the State? Has the Michigan Traffic Incident Management committee been consulted?

See Response to Question 85

129 Schedule A Section 1.1 42

How will MSP dispatching work in areas where a local or county wide 9-1-1 dispatch is…