35368 Volume 1 QA.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 3 MB Posted
- Solicitation number
- S-73000-00007613
- Issued by
- Multnomah County, Portland City, Oregon
About this file
This document is a Request for Proposals (RFP) issued by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) for a Commercial Back-Office Toll System Integrator and Customer Services Center for the Oregon Toll Program. The program encompasses revenue collection and congestion management across multiple jurisdictions, including Multnomah County and the City of Portland. The RFP outlines requirements for a Commercial Back-Office System (CBOS) to handle transaction processing, customer account management, financial management, customer communications, self-service tools, payment processing, customer service, inventory management, and reporting. It also includes requirements for a Customer Service Center (CSC) to provide in-person services. The RFP has a phased approach, with an initial term of 5 years for the CBOS and 3 years for the CSC, each with two 5-year renewal options.
The RFP provides detailed pricing forms for implementation and operations/maintenance costs, with the first 5 years of pricing to be evaluated. ODOT will provide general transaction volume estimates by facility and registered vehicle data in an addendum. The selected contractor will be required to comply with Oregon state laws, including those related to printing, binding, and stationery work. The RFP also includes service level agreements, business rules, and technical and functional requirements for the CBOS and CSC.
View the file
Other files
Show all 38
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Disclaimer: Statements made in this document will not modify the solicitation unless an addenda is issued in OregonBuys. | ||||
| Item | RFP Section | RFP Language | Question | Response |
| 1 | For purposes of compliance with applicable tax, employment, and other law, many companies create different legal business entities to conduct their business in different jurisdictions. Recent solicitations in the tolling industry have recognized this fact and allowed proposers to rely on the experience of affiliates, subsidiaries, parents, and predecessor entities (e.g., see the attached excerpt from Florida Turnpike Enterprise’s 2023 RFP for Customer Service Operations). To increase competition and secure a contractor that is the most advantageous for the State of Oregon, will the Department please confirm that a proposer may use the relevant experience of its affiliates, subsidiaries, parents, and/or predecessor entities to satisfy the RFP requirements? | Yes, proposers can rely on the experience of affiliates, subsidiaries, parents, and predecessor entities. It just must be clear in the proposal how proposer intends to use any affiliates, subsidiaries, parents, and predecessor entities in the project. Additionally, the Contract issued to the awarded firm will be entered into with the legal entity that submitted the proposal. We will issue an addenda to add language to the RFP about joint venture/partnership information. | ||
| 2 | RFP Section 1.2 | Answers to Questions / Requests for Clarification Issued (approx.): Estimated 7 calendar days prior to Bid Opening Date in OregonBuys for this RFP | If answers to submitted questions are not clear or raise further issues there is no additional opportunity to resolve these questions before the bid is due to be submitted. |
In addition, it may not be possible or practical to address the answers to some questions due to the complexity of this RFP if answers are received 7 days before the bid is due.
Both of these situations will lead to bidders making assumptions to address risks and increases the price to ODOT.
Would Oregon consider extending the due date for bids to provide bidders the opportunity to:
a) request follow up questions if ODOT’s answers may be unclear?
b) fully assess the answers to questions and make an informed determination on how to incorporate the response into technical and price proposals? ODOT's goal to provide answers, and clarification, to Proposer's to allow them to provide accurate proposals. ODOT will extend the response time but will not be prohibited from answering questions or providing clarification within 14 days of the Bid Opening Date but cannot guarantee a response outside of that time frame. ODOT will endeavor to respond to questions as they are received to allow time for Proposer's to request clarification, if needed. In addition, ODOT may respond to a request to clarify an answer after the Question and Clarification period has ended but, again, cannot guarantee a response will be provided.
ODOT intends to amend the question submittal and response timeframes and publish in an addendum.
| 3 | RFP Section 1.2 | Issuance of Notice of Intent to Award: Estimated 12 weeks following Bid Opening Date in OregonBuys for this RFP | Given the Bid Opening date is Oct 11, 2023, the schedule identifies the Intent to Award would occur on Jan 3, 2024. | |
| Please confirm that if the bid opening date is extended, that the Intent to Award date (and NTP) will also be extended? | The bid opening date has been extended in OregonBuys. | |||
| 4 | RFP Section 4.14 and 4.15 | The interviews/follow-up questions/product demonstrations will have a maximum score of 200 points. |
4.14.1 Interviews/Follow-up
| Questions/Demonstrations 300 | Sections 14.14 and 14.15 included different points for the interviews/follow Questions/Demonstrations. | |
| Please clarify which section is correct. | The correct interviews/follow-up questions/product demonstrations point is 300. An addendum will be issued to correct the discrepancy. | |
| 5 | Att A: Sample Contract | |
| Exhibit A and A.1 Milestones | CBOS Task 8, Deliverable 8.2 PCI-DSS ROC: NTP + 660days | |
| CSC Task 8, Deliverable 8.1 PCI-DSS ROC: Go-Live + 90days | CSC deliverable 8.1 identifies the PCI ROC is expected to occur on Apr 30, 2026 (90 days after Go-Live on Jan 31, |
2024).
CBOS deliverable 8.1 identifies that the PCI ROC as due NTP+660 days.
| a) Can ODOT clarify if these milestone dates (except for Go-Live) are required or if there is flexibility in when they occur? b) | If these dates are consistent is ODOT expecting a NTP date of 7/10/24? | |
| c) | If they are not consistent, can ODOT please confirm when NTP is expected to occur and/or provide an updated milestone table with consistent dates? | CBOS and CSC completion of PCI ROC are separate tasks and are not tied to the same delivery dates. |
Delivery dates in Attachment A Sample Contract can be discussed with selected proposer during negotiation period.
ODOT cannot confirm estimated NTP date at this time; based on proposer selection and negotiation periods, anticipates NTP to be issued to selected and contracted firm in the first half of 2024.
| 6 | RFP 4.10.2.3 | The total points for row 4.10.2.3.4 is listed as 180. | When totaling the sub-rows below row 4.10.2.3.4, the sum is | |
| 190. Row 4.10.2.3.4 should be 190. | The correct total is 190 points. An addendum will be issued to correct the discrepancy. | |||
| 7 | RFP 4.10.2.5 | The total points for row 4.10.2.5.4 is listed as 200. | When totaling the sub-rows below row 4.10.2.5.4, the sum is | |
| 190. Row 4.10.2.5.4 should be 190. | The correct total is 190 points. An addendum will be issued to correct the discrepancy. | |||
| 8 | CBOS |
Requirements,
| 14.5 Data Center | DM.22 | |
| The CBOS environments must be located at one or a combination of the following locations: hosted at a Tier 3 data center facility, on-premise and/or hosted by a well-established Cloud service provider. | Please provide a definitions or guidance on what ODOT considers a well-established Cloud Service Provider. | A Cloud Service Provider used by the Proposer for this project must meet the requirements set forth in the Oregon Statewide Cloud Computing Policy, as obligated for the Contractor under the Contract as referenced in RFP Attachment A Exhibit K 1.2.3. |
| 9 | CBOS |
Requirements,
| 14.5 Data Center | DM.22 | |||
| The CBOS environments must be located at one or a combination of the following locations: hosted at a Tier 3 data center facility, on-premise and/or hosted by a well-established Cloud service provider. | If a private cloud is proposed using a vendor’s own data center, will this be considered an on-premise solution by ODOT? | A private cloud proposed using a vendor's own data center is considered cloud-based and must meet the requirements set forth in the Oregon Statewide Cloud Computing Policy, as obligated for the Contractor under the Contract as referenced in RFP Attachment A Exhibit K 1.2.3. | ||
| 10 | Attachment E, Price Proposal | Fully Loaded Hourly Rates for Change Orders | Price forms typically include a tab for contractors to enter fully loaded hourly rates for change order work. The hourly rates are normally entered for year 1 of the contract and an annual COLA/CPI adjustment is applied for subsequent contract years. | |
| For this contract, how will the cost of future change orders be calculated? | There are several contract payment methods in the contract. Inflation related changes can be applied by various methods. Hourly rate information will be collected during future evaluation steps. Hourly rates can be reneogtiated at each renewal time frame. ODOT also has a process for evaluating rate increase requests annually. | |||
| 11 | Attachment E, Price Proposal | Tab 1a CBOS Implementation Costs and tab 2a CSC Implementation Costs | Per the RFP and as noted by the substantial increase in |
evaluated transaction and account volumes on the O&M tabs, ODOT is expecting to add new tolled facilities in the future (ex. years 5 and 6).
| To adequately size IT equipment and determine when additional staff need to be hired, can ODOT please provide the planned month/year that each of the new tolled facilities will Go Live? | ODOT will provide general transaction volumes by facility and registered vehicle data to provide potential expected transactions from the RTS to the CBOS in an addendum to be issued. | |||
| 12 | Attachment E, Price Proposal | Tab 1a CBOS Implementation Costs and tab 2a CSC Implementation Costs | Per the RFP and as noted by the substantial increase in evaluated transaction and account volumes on the O&M tabs, ODOT is expecting to add new tolled facilities in the future (ex. years 5 and 6). |
How will the Contractor be compensated for the future one- time costs as each additional tolled facility goes live (i.e.
| RSS integration, testing, staff hiring costs, etc.)? | There is a contengency task associated with new facilities. Costs and compensation methods of this will be part of the contract negotiations process with the selected Proposer following Intent to Award. | |||
| 13 | RFP Section 1.1 | The initial term of the CBOS component is anticipated to be 5 years with option of 2 renewals of 5 years for each renewal (renewal dates may be more or less than 5 years as negotiated with Contractor) for a cumulative maximum of 15 years and an initial term of 3 years for the CSC component with option of 2 renewals of 5 years for each renewal (renewal dates may be more or less than 5 years as negotiated with Contractor) for a cumulative maximum of 13 years. | If the initial term referenced in this paragraph starts at NTP, which appears to be expected to occur in Q1 2024, this provides for an initial O&M period of approximately 3 years for the CBOS and 1 year for CSC. | |
| Please clarify if the initial 5 year and 3 year terms start at Go-Live or whether this includes the implementation period | ODOT will negotiate the terms of the CBOS and CSC with the selected proposer during the negotations period. | |||
| 14 | RFP Section 1.1 and Attachment E Price Proposal | The initial term of the CBOS component is anticipated to be 5 years with option of 2 renewals of 5 years for each renewal (renewal dates may be more or less than 5 years as negotiated with Contractor) for a cumulative maximum of 15 years and an initial term of 3 years for the CSC component with option of 2 | ||
| renewals of 5 years for each renewal (renewal dates may be more or less than 5 years as negotiated with Contractor) for a cumulative maximum of 13 years. O&M pricing listed for Years 3 to 10. | The timeframes listed in the price sheets cover a 10 year period for both the CBOS and CSC. They are not consistent with the expected contract durations and optional renewal periods. Refer to rows 3, 16 & 28 on Tab 1b CBOS O&M Price and Tab 2b CSC O&M Price. |
a) For clarity, can ODOT please revise these price form rows such that the headings clearly indicate base period vs any option period that ODOT is requesting pricing for. b) Can ODOT also clarify how the 10 years of requested pricing correlates to the CSC terms of 3 year base, plus two 5-year options. The Price Proposal will be evaluated on the first 5 years (Years 1 through 5) as stated on tab 3b of Attachment E. The extension of costs on tabs 1b and 2b for Years 6 through 10 are intended to show continued evolution of the Oregon Toll Program with additional facilities coming online.
ODOT will negotiate the terms of the CBOS and CSC with the selected proposer during the negotations period.
| 15 | Attachment O | Agency will determine responsibility of a firm prior to award and execution of a contract. In addition to this form, Agency may obtain any information Agency deems necessary to make the determination. Agency will notify the firm of any other documentation required, which may include, but is not limited to, Oregon Department of Revenue Letter of Debt Compliance, recent profit-and-loss history; current balance statements and cash flow information; assets-to-liabilities ratio, including number and amount of secured versus unsecured creditor claims; availability of short and long- term financing; bonding capacity; insurability, credit information; material; equipment; facility and personnel information; record of performance under previous contracts; etc. Agency may postpone the award of the Contract in order to complete its investigation and evaluation. Failure to promptly provide requested information and clearly demonstrate Responsibility may result in offer rejection and ineligibility of contract award. | Please confirm that this information is not required with the proposal but only upon award/request. | Correct, Attachment O is only required by the apparent successful proposer at Intent to Award. | |
| 16 | Attachment J, Section 4.10.2.5.4 | The CSC Requirements in Exhibit J.1 of Attachment A – Sample Contract, the Business Rules in Exhibit R of Attachment A – Sample Contract, and the Service Level Agreements in Exhibit B of Attachment A – Sample Contract contain the expected requirements, services, and agreements to be met and provided by the Proposer. The proposer should provide a comprehensive response to each of the tasks in the CSC Requirements and Business Rules using the information sought below. | Please confirm we that ODOT is not requesting a response to the sections in Exhibit R separately. | That is correct. There is no response required directly related to Exhibit R. The Exhibits have been called out in this section to reference while preparing responses in the appropriate response guides. | |
| 17 | RFP Section 3.3.2 | Provide references as instructed in Exhibit K – Firm Qualifications Response Guide. References must be able to verify the quality of previous, related Work. Agency may check to determine if references provided support Proposer’s ability to comply with the requirements of this RFP. Agency may use references to obtain additional information, or verify any information needed. Agency may contact any reference (submitted or not) to verify Proposer’s qualifications. | Please confirm the reference to Exhibit K as it relates to Firm Qualifications should be Attachment K. | Exhibit K in section 3.3.2 should be attachment K. An addendum will be issued to correct the discrepancy. | |
| 18 | RFP Section 3.3.6 | 3.3.6 Software Licenses; End User License Agreements, Subscription Agreements, Third Party Agreements, Support and Maintenance Agreements Proposer shall provide copies of any software licenses, end user license agreements, subscription agreements and any third party agreements required for ODOT to use Proposer’s proposed System. Proposer shall provide its proposed support and maintenance agreement forthe proposed System. ODOT is collecting this information for informational purposes only. Proposals received contingent upon acceptance of terms or conditions other than those identified in the Attachment A Sample Contract shall be deemed Non-Responsive and will not be evaluated. | Shall proposers provide the requested licenses and agreements as a separate attachment? | Yes, please provide licenses and agreements as a separate attachment and clearly label what the attachment is. | |
| 19 | RFP Section 4.10.2 | Proposers must use the response guide forms to respond to Evaluation Criteria | |||
| 4.10.2.1 – 4.10.2.8 and upload to OregonBuys as a separate PDF attachments | Are Bidders allowed to modify headers and footers of our proposal response to include project and bidders’ information (i.e., title of RFP, bidders’ name, page number, confidential markings)? | No, proposer shall not make modifications to the headers or footers in the response guides. ODOT will update the response guide attachments to include page number and file name in the footer, which will be included in an addendum to be issued. | |||
| 20 | RFP Section 4.10.2 | Proposers should not make any changes to formatting, text styles, or tables in the document. | Provided all RFP text and formatting is preserved and all responses are readable, can Bidders use their own font types and sizes to provide our responses within our proposal responses (i.e., larger font size for paragraph headings or smaller font size for table text and graphic captions)? | ODOT will issue an addendum to address text font types and sizes for proposer responses. | |
| 21 | RFP 3.2.2 | ||||
| Proposal Page Limits | Proposal page limits are identified in the table below | Can requirements text be considered exempt from page limitations? If not, would the state consider extending page limitations to account for requirements text? | ODOT will issue an addendum to extend page limitations for proposer responses. | ||
| 22 | General | In order to properly incorporate all answers to questions into bids/pricing, would ODOT please extend the proposal due date by four weeks? | The bid opening date has been extended in OregonBuys. | ||
| 23 | RFP Section 3.3.2 | RFP Section 3.2.1 Proposal Submissions states: |
"To be considered for evaluation, Proposal must contain each of the following elements (further detailed in Proposal Requirements section below):
• Proposer Information and Certification Sheet (Attachment C)
• Disclosure Exemption Certification (Attachment B) – submit only 1 copy if applicable - see Proposal Format and Quantity section below)
• Price Proposal Form (Attachment E)
• Key Persons and Resumes (see section 3.3.4)
• Technical Proposal (includes Attachments F-N response guides, Key Persons and Resumes, and Requirements Traceability Matrix)
• References (included in Evaluation Criteria 4.10.2.6)
| • Executive Summary (5 Pages Max)" | Attachment K (included in the technical proposal) includes references. Does ODOT want the references in both Attachment K and a separate section for references? Or would the inclusion in Attachment K suffice? | References should be included in attachment K. | |||
| 24 | RFP Section 3.2.3 | Proposer shall submit a completed and signed Disclosure Exemption Certification (Attachment B) and a fully redacted version of its Proposal, clearly identified as the redacted version. | The instructions say to upload the Attachments as single files. For the redacted version, does ODOT prefer single redacted files or one rolled version of the proposal that is redacted? | Please upload redacted version as a single file. | |
| 25 | RFP Section 3.2.4.1 | Proposers shall make reasonable efforts to minimize the file size of attachments so the total for all submittal files does not exceed 6 megabytes (for tips on reducing file size, see: How to reduce PDF file size (https://www.wikihow.com/Reduce-PDF-File-Size); How to reduce the size of Word documents that contain images (https://www.howtogeek.com/255379/how-to-reduce-the-size-of-microsoft-office-documents-that-contain-images/). | Would ODOT specify if the 6MB upload requirement is per individual file uploaded or for the total of all files? | The 6 megabyte file size referenced in RFP section 3.2.4.1 is per uploaded file and is only a request for the Proposer to make reasonable efforts to minimize the file size to 6 megabytes or less. This is not a hard requirement. |
OregonBuys requires that the Proposer's total submission must be 100 megabytes or less in total.
| 26 | Exhibit G | The Attachment states: As a separate attachment, provide a preliminary draft of the CSC Operations Schedule" | Are preliminary schedules (submitted separately) outside of the page limitation? | Yes, the preliminary draft of the CSC Operations Schedule requested as a separate attachment in Attachment G 4.10.2.2.5.1 is excluded from the CSC Understanding and Approach Response Guide page limits. |
| 27 | RFP Section 6.8 | PRINTING, BINDING, AND STATIONERY WORK Except as provided in ORS 282.210(2), all printing, binding and stationery work, including the manufacture |
of motor vehicle registration plates and plates required to be affixed to motor carriers, for the State or any county, city, town, port district, school district, or other political subdivision, must be performed within the State. Are there any exceptions to this requirement other than a lower price? The exceptions are listed in ORS 282.210(2).
282.210 Performance within state of public printing, binding and stationery work; stipulation in request for bids and in contracts; exceptions. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all printing, binding and stationery work, including the manufacture of motor vehicle registration plates and plates required to be affixed to motor carriers, for the state or any county, city, town, port district, school district, or other political subdivision thereof, shall be performed within the state. All requests for bids and all contracts for such work shall so stipulate.
(2) The work referred to in subsection (1) of this section may be performed outside the state if it is established that:
(a) The work cannot be performed within the state;
(b) The lowest price for which such work can be procured within the state exceeds the charge usually and customarily made to private individuals and corporations for work of similar character and quality; or
(c) All bids for the work, or any part thereof, are excessive and not reasonably competitive. [Amended by 2003 c.758 §2] 28 RFP Section 3.1.1 Two tolling CBO System implementation projects in the past 5 years. This is a restrictive minimum qualification that limits competition in a public procurement to the detriment of ODOT and the State of Oregon. We respectfully request the State change the requirement to the following:
“Proposer, serving as the Prime Contractor or System Provider, must have successfully completed two tolling Commercial Back‐Office System implementation projects in the last 10 years; with 1 of those implementations being within the last 5 years.”
Rationale: As written, the requirement will limit competition by applying the ultimate penalty – Exclusion – to multiple firms that currently maintain modern tolling CBOs implemented prior to five years ago and have continually upgraded technology, performance, or functions to the satisfaction of their clients. We believe it is in ODOT’s and the State of Oregon’s best interest to allow the
| maximum qualified vendors to respond to this important procurement. | ODOT is considering modification to RFP section 3.1 Minimum Qualifications. If any modification(s) is made, ODOT will issue an addendum to the RFP. | |||
| 29 | RFP Section 4.10.2.7 | RFP Section 4.10.2.7 includes sub‐section 4.10.2.7.3 Key Staff Resumes (See Section 3.3.4) which has an evaluation criteria of 10 points | This section is not included in Attachment L. |
Can ODOT please update Attachment L to include this section or confirm that all resumes should be
| submitted in a separate single attachment? | Yes, all resumes are to be submitted in a separate single attachment as stated in RFP Section 3.3.4. | ||||
| 30 | RFP Section 4.10.2.8 | RFP Section 4.10.2.8 includes sub‐section 4.10.2.8.3 Key Staff Resumes (See Section 3.3.4) which has an evaluation criteria of 10 points | This section is not included in Attachment M. Can ODOT please update Attachment M to include this section or confirm that all resumes should be submitted in a separate single attachment? | Yes, all resumes are to be submitted in a separate single attachment as stated in RFP Section 3.3.4. | |
| 31 | RFP Section 4.14.2 | Will vendors who meet the Competitive Range criteria have a Q&A period to clarify activities associated with future phases of the procurement. If not, please clarify how the 200 points awarded during BAFO will be evaluated? | Yes, proposers who move on to subsequent rounds of competition will be able to ask questions in those rounds. | ||
| 32 | Attachment A Sample Contract Final (19.3) | Will ODOT provide an order of precedence for the various RFP exhibits and attachments, so that proposers know which provisions supersede in the event of a conflict? For example, does Exhibit R – Oregon Toll Program – Back Office Rules take precedence over Attachment D – Concept of Operations? Does Exhibit J take precedence over Attachment D Concept of Operations? Does Exhibit J take precedence over Exhibit J.1? Section 19.3 of Attachment A Sample Contract Final lists an order of precedence for the contract, but since it only lists some of the RFP attachments and exhibits, it does not address or clarify the question above. | Attachment N, Exhibit J, Exhibit J.1, Exhibit R, and Exhibit S supersede Attachment D. |
For all other attachments and exhibits within the RFP, each document stands on its own, therefore there is no order of precedence for the RFP attachments and exhibits. If a proposer finds conflicting information between the RFP, attachments, and/or exhibits, please submit questions requesting clarification during the RFP question / request for clarification period.
| 33 | Attachment A Sample Contract Final (Exhibit B) | Will vendors have the opportunity to negotiate different SLA strategies as volumes are currently unknown for this opportunity? (i.e., the number of registered vs unregistered customers in the first year of operation) | Yes. ODOT is willing to discuss different strategies that meet the same objectives with the Proposer selected to enter into negotiations. |
| 34 | Attachment D (7.3.1.3) |
Exhibit R (BR.221)
| Exhibit J (SST.12) | Will the website provided by the vendor also serve as the ODOT Tolling home page to provide general information, links, photos, and videos for customers without an account? | ODOT will host a separate web page related to the Oregon Toll Program for general and non-operations specific information. The Proposer will host the operations-related website for customer self-service. | |
| 35 | Attachment D (7.3.1.3) |
Exhibit R (BR.221)
| Exhibit J (SST.12) | Does ODOT expect the CBOS self‐service website to be linked within the existing ODOT Tolling page (https://www.oregon.gov/odot/tolling/pages/default.aspx) for account access? | Yes. | |||
| 36 | Attachment N Requirements Traceability Matrix | The RFP desires a Release 2 for specific requirements. Does ODOT have a specific timeframe when it desires Release 2 to be completed? | Release 2 requirements and business rules are expected to be delivered after the Go-Live date. Timing of Release 2 delivery will be negotiated with the selected Proposer during negotiations to determine Release 2 delivery timing based on when Release 2 elements are needed to successfully operate the solution (e.g., escalation functions related Release 2 elements must be delivered before initial escalations are conducted after Go-Live). | ||
| 37 | Attachment N Requirements Traceability Matrix | In several response guides, when requirements in Attachment N are either met with modifications, or not met, vendors are required to provide a response describing either the necessary modifications to meet the requirement/business rule or offer a proposed revision. With the space limitations being imposed by the RFP, will ODOT consider allowing vendors to provide these responses directly in Attachment N rather than the response guides? | No. Proposer response in Attachment N is intended to be simple - Compliant, Compliant After Modification, or Not Compliant, as referenced in Row 1 of each tab within Attachment N. Proposer must provide information in the appropriate response guide(s) to clarify and provide context as to how the modification(s) addresses the associated requirement or business rule within the Proposer's proposed solution. |
ODOT will issue an addendum to extend page limitations for proposer responses to accomodate this contextual information from the Proposer.
| 38 | Attachment N Requirements Traceability Matrix, Business Rules | Does ODOT expect cash to be accepted at the two in‐person centers? The business rules in Attachment N indicates cash is accepted for in‐person service, but section 7.3.2.2 in Attachment D states that in‐person centers "will not accept cash." | In-Person Centers must accept cash payments. |
| 39 | Exhibit J | ODOT specifies they are providing a lockbox vendor. Can ODOT provide more information about what services will be provided to the tolling vendor by the lockbox vendor? For example, would the lockbox vendor be required to forward customer non‐payment correspondence that is received at the PO Box maintained by the lockbox vendor? | Oregon State Treasury Cash Management Manual information regarding lockbox services is provided here: |
https://www.oregon.gov/treasury/public-financial-services/banking-with-treasury/pages/cash-management-manual.aspx#section-9
Lockbox payment exceptions and non-payment correspondence will be sent to the CSC for further follow-up. Further definition of lockbox services will be defined during the design phase.
| 40 | Exhibit J, Section 5.3, SST.18 | As Microsoft stopped supporting Windows Mobile in December 2019, is the vendor still required to provide Windows Mobile apps? | No. ODOT will modify Exhibit J section 5.4 requirement SST.18 to reference "Android and iOS operating systems" only, removing the reference to Windows. ODOT will issue an addendum to address the modification. |
| 41 | Exhibit J, Section 7.3, TP.5 | Can ODOT please confirm how many images should be received and stored per transaction and at which physical size? | The RTS OBOS may provide multiple images per transaction of various sizes dependent of image type. The CBOS will determine the number and type of images required to successfully process the associated transaction, per defined requirements and business rules. Further detail will be determined during the design phase. |
| 42 | Exhibit J, Section 8.2.3, CSR.11 | Is there an expectation that attachments are handled within these received emails? If so, what would be the size limit of such attachments? | Yes. Attachment sizes may vary. ODOT will work with the selected proposer to define the limits (if any) during the design phase. |
| 43 | Exhibit J, Section 1.3.1 | What is the expected number of invoices issued by the system? | ODOT will provide general transaction volumes by facility and registered vehicle data to provide potential expected transactions from the RTS to the CBOS in an addendum to be issued. |
Percentages for registered versus unregistered toll accounts is not defined nor anticipated to be defined at this time.
| 44 | Multiple Attachments | With the space limitations being imposed by the RFP and the granular nature of the questions in the response guides, will ODOT consider increasing those page limitations so vendors can describe their solution in more detail providing ODOT the information they need to effectively choose their right vendor? | ODOT will issue an addendum to extend page limitations for proposer responses. | ||
| 45 | Exhibit J CBOS Requirements, section | ||||
| 7.3. Receive Transactions from the RTS, page 13 of 36 | How many images are included in each transaction from RTS to CBOS? What is each image size? | The RTS OBOS may provide multiple images per transaction of various sizes dependent of image type. The CBOS will determine the number and type of images required to successfully process the associated transaction, per defined requirements and business rules. Further detail will be determined during the design phase. | |||
| 46 | Exhibit J CBOS Requirements, section |
12.4. Interface to Interoperable Toll Agencies, page 23-24
of 36 For BreezeBy, Good to Go! and Interoperability with E-ZPass, could we assume the transaction does not have images attached from them to CBOS? If there are images attached, please provide the expected number of images per transaction and each image size. See Exhibit J CBOS Requirements, IR.36.
Interoperable agencies may provide multiple images per transaction of various sizes dependent of image type. The CBOS will determine the number and type of images required to successfully process the associated transaction, per defined requirements and business rules. Further detail will be determined during the design phase.
| 47 | In-Person Centers must accep+B48:F48t cash payments. A48:E48 | For transactional data, (1) how many months required for data to be stored in hot online access storage? (2) how many months are required for offline access storage? (3) how many months are required for archive storage? | Requirements state data storage requirements,A48:E48 further detail will be determined during the design phase. | ||
| 48 | Exhibit J CBOS Requirements, section | ||||
| 17.3 Disaster Recovery for Business Continuity, page 35 of 36 | To support recovery point objective (RPO) of zero, when DR happens, could we assume the RTS and third-party account management can resend transactions when DR site is actively available within RTO < 8 hours? | Yes. The RTS will require an acknowledgement of receipt from the CBOS, and will send transactions once the site is available. ODOT's desire is for third party transactions to be redirected to the hot standby. Proposers can propose alternatives. | |||
| 49 | Exhibit J CBOS Requirements, section 17.1, SE.1, page 34 of | ||||
| 36 | To handle approximately 2 million transactions per day in CBOS, please provide an answer for: | ||||
| (1) | How many transactions daily from RTS to CBOS? | ||||
| (2) | How many transactions daily from OReGO Road Use Charge Program to CBOS? | ||||
| (3) | How many transactions daily from BreezeBy Toll Program in Oregon to CBOS? | ||||
| (4) | How many transactions daily from WSDOT Good To Go! Toll System to CBOS? | ||||
| (5) | How many transactions daily from California Hub (CTOC FasTrack Toll Account Program) to CBOS? | ||||
| (6) | How many transactions daily from Transit (TriMet Portland Transit) to CBOS? | ||||
| (7) | How many transactions daily from Parking to CBOS? | ODOT will provide general transaction volumes by facility and registered vehicle data to provide potential expected transactions from the RTS to the CBOS in an addendum to be issued. ODOT will not provide estimated transactions by collection entity (e.g., OReGO, BreezeBy, Good to Go! transactions). | |||
| 50 | Exhibit J CBOS Requirements, section 16.1, N.3, page 33 of | ||||
| 36 | N.3. Connectivity to the RTS must include communications lines to demarcation points approved by ODOT, as well as the required communications equipment to establish connections to the CBOS. | As RTS is in separate RFP bid and its site location unknown, the required network equipment (e. g. routers and switches) will be estimated at this time, we will need RTS host vendor and ODOT support in related network equipment and network connectivity setup, configuration and integration, could ODOT confirm this? | The CBOS is responsible for the CBOS network. Connectivity between the CBOS and ODOT and the RTS is assumed to be over the internet. |
The RTS vendor and ODOT will be required to work with the CBOS provider on connectivity, further defined during the planning and design phases.
51 Not in RFP Can the proposer offer their own merchant services solution? The Oregon State Treasury cash management policy FIN 214 "Third Party Vendor Requirements" sets forth state requirements related to merchant card acceptance services, obtained directly through Treasury or, under certain circumstances, via a third party with Treasury oversight of the qualification.
If desired, the selected Proposer may discuss this item with ODOT during the negotiations period.
| 52 | Not in RFP | Is the CSC supposed to provide collection services as well | The Proposer's CSC is expected to follow the compliance waterfall and related collections requirements referenced in Exhibit R section 7, in coordination with ODOT, other state agencies, or their designees as needed to complete final collections activities. | ||
| 53 | Not in RFP | Is the proposer required to have an office in Oregon for this project? | Per Exhibit J.1 section 1.1 Geographical Requirements, the CSC has requirements for being geographically located in Oregon. The Proposer is not required to host a non-operational office in the State of Oregon for this project. | ||
| 54 | Not in RFP | Is the proposer required to offer site options for the CSC? | The Proposer must follow requirements set forth in Attachment A Exhibit A.1 CSC Task 2.3 Development Facility Plan and Design for sites evaluated for the CSC MPC and In-Person Centers. ODOT will approve the Facility Plan and Design, therefore will be involved in any site option evaluation performed. | ||
| 55 | Not in RFP | Does the CSC need to be located in Oregon? | Per Exhibit J.1 section 1.1 Geographical Requirements, the CSC has requirements for being geographically located in Oregon. The Proposer is not required to host a non-operational office in the State of Oregon for this project. | ||
| 56 | Not in RFP | Is the proposer allowed to staff the CSC with work-from-home agents for remote service? | Yes, see Exhibit J.1 CSC Requirements section 2 Staffing Requirements. | ||
| 57 | Not in RFP | Will there be any KPIs where the proposer has to assume revenue loss risk? | See Attachment A section 12.6 Lost Revenue. Several KPIs listed in the SLA (Attachment A Exhibit B) relate to the potential for revenue lost and therefore result in Contractor risk. | ||
| 58 | Attachment E, Price Proposal, Tab labeling | Tabs 1a and 2a contain the word “costs”, while tabs 1b and 2b contain the word “price”. | The Excel workbook is named “Price Proposal”. To be consistent, it is suggested that the word “price” be utilized on all Excel tabs and column headings. | ||
| With the exception of identified pass-through items on tab 1b, Contractors are providing prices to ODOT. | No change will be made to the RFP. | ||||
| 59 | Attachment E, Price Proposal, Tab 1a | ||||
| CBOS Implemen tation Costs | Cell B13 heading states “Other Up-front Costs”, cell B14 states, “Add equipment and other upfront costs”. | For tab 1a CBOS, will ODOT please confirm that the “Other Up-front costs” listed are for milestone payment information and that Contractor will retain ownership of all equipment and assets for this Contract. | The other upfront costs are additional costs the Proposer wants added to the implementation milestone payment table. Yes, the intent is that the selected firm will retain ownership of all equipment and assets for this Contract. | ||
| 60 | Attachment E, Price Proposal, Tab 2a | ||||
| CSC Implemen tation Costs | Cell B13 heading states “Other Up-front Costs”, cell B14 states, “Add equipment and other upfront costs”. | For tab 2a CSC, will ODOT please confirm that the “Other Up-front costs” listed are for milestone payment information and that Contractor will retain ownership of all equipment and assets for this Contract. | The other upfront costs are additional costs the Proposer wants added to the implementation milestone payment table. Yes, the intent is that the selected firm will retain ownership of all equipment and assets for this Contract. | ||
| 61 | Attachment E, Price Proposal, Tab 1b CBOS | ||||
| O&M Price | Excel row 30 – Postage (Pass-through) and Excel row 31 – DMV Lookup (Pass- through). Mixing Pass-though items with non-Pass-Through items under section for Annual Direct Costs. | Can the Pass-through items identified on Excel rows 30 & 31 be segregated from the other Annual Direct Costs (i.e., Printing and Mail Insertion, Skip Tracing, Email, etc.) and that a separate summary column be added to tab 3a O&M Price Summary for Pass-Through items. | Pass through items should be clearly indicated on Attachment E tabs 1b and 2b. Summary for pass through items are included in the total summary for Annual Direct Costs, no additional summary column for pass through items will be added. | ||
| 62 | Attachment E, Price Proposal, Tab 1b – CBOS | ||||
| O&M Price | Section beginning at row 14 entitled – CBOS Operations & Maintenance Monthly Registered Account Price, Monthly Pricing per range. | This sheet includes one line item (row 4) for fixed costs associated with transactions. We assume that this is for transaction processing costs that do not scale as the transaction count changes. |
However, there may also be fixed costs associated with registered accounts that do not scale as the number of accounts change.
| Consistent with the section beginning with row 1, CBOS Operations & Maintenance Monthly Transaction Price, it is suggested that a row be added to the Monthly Registered Account price for a Fixed Fee like row 4. | Combine fixed fees for both transaction processing costs and registered accounts on Tab 1b row 4 Fixed Fee. | |||
| 63 | Attachment E, Price Proposal, Tab 2b CSC O&M Price | Section beginning at row 14 entitled – CSC Operations & Maintenance Monthly Registered Account Price, Monthly Pricing per range. | This sheet includes one line item for fixed costs (row 4) associated with transactions. We assume that this is for transaction processing costs that do not scale as the transaction count changes. |
However, there may also be fixed costs associated with registered accounts that do not scale as the number of accounts change.
| Consistent with the section beginning with row 1, CSC Operations & Maintenance Monthly Registered Account Price, it is suggested that a row be added to the Monthly Registered Account price for a Fixed Fee like row 4. | Combine fixed fees for both transaction processing costs and registered accounts on Tab 2b row 4 Fixed Fee. | ||||
| 64 | Attachment E, Price Proposal, Tab 2b CSC O&M Price | The headings in cells B2 and C2 contain the word “Transaction” while cell A3 has the word “Trip”. | Consistent with tab 1b CBOS O&M Price and elsewhere in the Excel workbook, please confirm that cell A3 should state, “Monthly Pricing per Transaction Tier. And not “Trip”. | Attachment E Price Proposal will be updated to reflect on tab 2b CSC O&M Price, cell A3 to state "Monthly Pricing per Transaction Volume Tier". ODOT will issue an addendum to address this discrepancy. | |
| 65 | Attachment E, Price Proposal, Tab 2b CSC O&M Price | For the items beginning on row 29 (1b Annual Direct Costs), ODOT is requesting the Contractor to input annual quantities in column C and unit pricing in columns D thru J. | Over the contract term the transaction volume and account volumes are expected to increase as listed in rows 10 and |
11. Based on the operations concept and RFP, it appears that this is due to introducing tolls on the Interstate Bridge and for the Regional Mobility Project.
This increased transaction and account volume will also result in increased annual quantities for all of the items summarized in the Annual Direct Costs line (row 37).
Consistent with the ODOT estimated transactions in row 10 and estimated account volumes in row 22, it is suggested that ODOT provide estimated annual quantities for rows 29 thru 34. This will enable ODOT to:
| • | identify an expected contract price for each year included in the price proposal | |
| • | effectively evaluate and compare the various Contractor price submissions using the same volumes/basis of estimate | ODOT does not intend to revise Attachment E Price Proposal to address this requested change. |
| 66 | Attachment E, Price Proposal, Tab 1b – CBOS | |
| O&M Price | Row 29 on this tab 1b requests that Contractors provide a single unit price by year for Printing and Mail Insertion. | There are various types of physical mailings that will occur, each containing different insertions. For example: |
| 1) a transponder-based customer statement might contain a single page or multiple pages (if transaction details are listed and the account has a large number of associated tags/vehicles) 2) | an image-based invoice might contain several pages, a perforated coupon and a return envelope. | |
| 3) | NOCP communication may contain only a single sheet of paper with printing on both sides | |
| 4) | Communication with customers when DMV registration holds occur might contain information on a single page |
Without knowing the blend of the various types of mailings, it is not possible to provide a single unit price for Printing and Mail Insertion.
| Would ODOT please provide estimated annual volumes for each type of mailing and/or provide additional rows denoting the various mailing types. | ODOT will provide general transaction volumes by facility and registered vehicle data to provide potential expected transactions from the RTS to the CBOS in an addendum to be issued. | |||
| 67 | Attachment E, Price Proposal, Tab 2b CSC O&M Price | Row 29 of this tab requests annual quantities and pricing for NOCP labor. | The definition for the abbreviation “NOCP” is not contained in either the RFP (page 9 of 39) or the Sample Contract (pages 42 and 99 of 191). | |
| Please confirm that NOCP stands for “Notice of Civil Penalty”. | Correct, as defined in Exhibit S, "NOCP" definition is "Notice of Civil Penalty". This term will be added to the glossary in the RFP and Attachment A, issued in an addendum. | |||
| 68 | Attachment E, Price Proposal, Tab 2b | |||
| CSC O&M Price | Row 29 of this tab requests annual quantities and pricing for NOCP labor. | 1.Requirements related to NOCP are not captured in the CSC requirements document (Exhibit J.1). |
NOCP requirements are included in the CBOS requirements (exhibit J) and Att A Sample Contract, Exhibit B CBOS Service Level Agreements.
2. To enable Contractors to provide a unit price for NOCP related labor, would ODOT please provide the CSC Scope of Work and estimated annual volumes? The CSC vendor will support the escalation process defined in the Business Rules. (See Attachment R sections 7.3 - 7.7).
The CSC vendor will support the escalation process as required in the Operations Plan (See Attachment A Exhibit A.1 section 2 Planning P.21.n). The process is included in training (See Attachment A Exhibit A Task 5 item b). Escalation process analysis is required during Operations (See Attachment A Exhibit A.1 Task 8 O.3.f).
NOCP labor should also include the time for the CSC team to create evidentiary packages for administrative hearings for the subset customers who request a hearing to dispute the NOCP. (See Exhibit J.1 requirement CS.28).
| 69 | Attachment E, Price Proposal, Tab 2b CSC O&M Price | Section 1b – Annual Direct Costs | Where should Contractors provide the mailing price and postage costs related to Transponder mailings? | Mailing price and postage costs related to Transponder mailings should be accounted for in Price Sheet 1b (for CBOS) and/or Price Sheet 2b (for CSC). |
| 70 | Attachment E, Price Proposal, Tab 2b CSC O&M Price | Section 1b – Annual Direct Costs | To properly size the storage space necessary for sticker tags and hard case transponders, can ODOT please provide their estimate for the distribution, by year, for both sticker tags and hard case transponders? | ODOT will provide general transaction volumes by facility and registered vehicle data to provide potential expected transactions from the RTS to the CBOS in an addendum to be issued. ODOT does not have nor intend to issue an estimate for transponder expectations. |
| 71 | Attachment E, Price Proposal, Tab 1b CBOS O&M Price |
Tab 2b, CSC O&M
| Price | Row 22 Estimated Account Volumes per month. | Please confirm that the definition of registered account includes both a registered transponder account as well as a registered license plate account. | Correct, the CBOS must allow for a registered account to have either or both a transponder(s) and license plate(s) on the same account. |
| 72 | Attachment E, Price Proposal, Tab 1b CBOS | ||
| O&M Price Tab 2b, CSC O&M Price | Row 22 Estimated Account Volumes per month. | Please provide a breakdown of the ODOT estimated account volumes on row 22 in terms of transponder and license plate accounts. | ODOT will provide general transaction volumes by facility and registered vehicle data to provide potential expected transactions from the RTS to the CBOS in an addendum to be issued. |
| 73 | Attachment E, Price Proposal, Tab 1b CBOS | ||
| O&M Price | CBOS - Monthly Transaction and Monthly Account Unit Pricing | The O&M price sheets appear to address the following prices; | |
| • | Rows 3-8: costs to process transactions | ||
| • | Rows 17-20 costs associated with providing account management services (web site/IVR usage, correspondence storage, security, payment processing, etc) to registered accounts | ||
| • | Rows 29-32 costs to identify an unregistered account (DMV and skip tracing), send an invoice/statement (printing/mailing and postage) | ||
| • | Rows 33-34 cost for outbound email and SMS |
However, there are no rows for costs associated with providing CBOS management services for unregistered license plate accounts.
Can ODOT revise the price sheets to include additional rows for unregistered account and include estimated monthly volumes for each year listed in the price proposal? Combine fixed fees for unregistered accounts with other fixed fees on Tab 1b row 4 Fixed Fee.
Tab 1b rows 29 thru 34 can be changed by Proposer to appropriately address expected Annual Direct Costs. Fees associated with unregistered accounts that are not addressed in row 4 Fixed Fee are expected to be accounted for in section 1b - Annual Direct Costs on rows 29 thru 37.
| 74 | Attachment E, Price Proposal, Tab 2b CSC O&M Price | CSC - Monthly Transaction and Monthly Account Unit Pricing | The O&M price sheets appear to address the following prices; | |
| • | Rows 3-8: costs to process transactions | |||
| • | Rows 17-20 costs associated with providing customer service to registered accounts | |||
| • | Row 29 costs for NOCP labor •Rows 30-32 costs for facilities |
However, there are no rows for costs associated with providing customer service (phone calls, correspondence processing, payment processing, invoice disputes, etc) for unregistered license plate accounts.
| a) | Can ODOT revise the price sheets to include additional rows for unregistered account and include estimated monthly volumes for each year listed in the price proposal? | |
| b) | If the price sheets are not revised, where should bidders allocate costs for customer service to unregistered accounts? | Combine fixed fees for unregistered accounts with other fixed fees on Tab 2b row 4 Fixed Fee. |
Tab 2b rows 29 thru 34 can be changed by Proposer to appropriately address expected Annual Direct Costs. Fees associated with unregistered accounts that are not addressed in row 4 Fixed Fee are expected to be accounted for in section 2b - Annual Direct Costs on rows 29 thru 37.
| 75 | Attachment E, Price Proposal, Tab 1b CBOS | |
| O&M Price and tab 2b CSC O&M Price | In cells A5-A8, there is a pop-up notation that says, “Note: these ranges can be changed as part of your proposal. Yellow boxes can be updated.” | In order to properly compare Price proposals from the various Contractors, it is strongly suggested that ODOT lock values of the tiers minimum and maximum tiers for monthly Transactions and Registered Accounts. |
By locking down the tier ranges this provides ODOT with the following benefits:
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .