35368 Volume 3 QA.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 40 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- S-73000-00007613
- Issued by
- Multnomah County, Portland City, Oregon
About this file
This document is a Request for Proposal (RFP) issued by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) for a Commercial Back-Office Toll System Integrator and Customer Services Center. The RFP is for the Oregon Toll Program, a comprehensive program for revenue collection and congestion management. ODOT is seeking a single contractor to provide both the Commercial Back-Office Toll System (CBOS) and the Customer Service Center (CSC) services. The RFP outlines the functional and technical requirements for the CBOS and CSC, as well as the scope of work, deliverables, and contractual terms. The selected contractor will be responsible for implementing and operating the CBOS and CSC to support the toll collection and customer service needs for the Oregon Toll Program, which will serve jurisdictions in Multnomah County and the City of Portland.
The RFP details pricing terms, including requirements for the contractor to provide pricing for CBOS and CSC implementation, as well as annual operations and maintenance costs. ODOT will evaluate proposals based on technical and price factors, and intends to award a single contract to the successful proposer. The RFP does not identify any incumbents, and ODOT has stated its intent to manage the contract and minimize its day-to-day involvement in the contractor's activities. The Oregon Toll Program is a legislatively authorized and agency-directed initiative, subject to periodic internal and external audits.
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 | Page # | RFP Language | Question | Response |
| 1 | RFP | 18-19 | Minimum Qualifications | The requirement that proposers must have successfully completed two Commercial Back-Office System implementation projects in the past five years will restrict competition. We respectfully request that this requirement be modified to only require one implementation in the past five years, while the second could have been implemented in the past 15 years. | We have updated the minimum qualifications as shown in Bid Addendum 5. |
| 2 | Exhibit J section 2.2-S.11 | 2 | Staff must pass competency tests prior to assuming job responsibilities. | Is it expected that ODOT will provide competency tests that the Contractor must incorporate for hiring CSC personnel? | No, that is a CSC responsibility, but will be reviewed and approved by ODOT as part of the Staffing Plan tasks, as referenced in RFP Attachment A, Exhibit A.1, Task 2 Planning. |
| 3 | Exhibit J section 2.2-S.12 | 2 | Staff must adhere to the code of conduct and dress code policies. | Is it expected that ODOT will provide code of conduct and dress code policies that must be incorporated into the Contractor's HR program? | No, that is a CSC responsibility, but will be reviewed and approved by ODOT as part of the Staffing Plan tasks, as referenced in RFP Attachment A, Exhibit A.1, Task 2 Planning. |
| 4 | 35368 Attc N Requirement Traceability Matrix - CBOS - Req 1.3.2 | MA.41 | The CBOS must allow transactions with configurable attributes (for example, transactions associated with temporary vehicles) to not display configurable parameters (such as date and time and location) on the statements. | What would be the use case for this requirement? is this related to privacy? Recommend business rules | The CBOS system must have the flexibility to add/change attributes on accounts and statements. |
The example provided relates to the ability to not display date, time, and location elements for privacy reasons.
| 5 | RFP Section 2.3 | 14 | Overview/Purpose | Under CBOS Program Implementation there is a line item listed called, "Desktop Support". What does Desktop Support encompass? Is this in-person IT support services? | The CBOS must provide desktop and technical support for the CSC Operations contractor team, as referenced in Attachment A, Exhibit A, Task 2.4 Develop System Operations Plan, requirement P.56.v. |
| 6 | 35368 Attc N Requirement Traceability Matrix - CBOS - Req 9.3 | CSS.18 | The CBOS must have the capability for self-service customers to review toll images captured by location, and disputes and NOCPs when applicable. | What does the term self-service encompass? Additionally, this requirement notes that this functionality is tied to Release 1. Mobile App is release 2. Is this functionality expected to be in the mobile app? | Customer self-service tools and functionality is defined in Exhibit J Section 5 "Customer Self-Service Tools" and Section 9 "Customer Self-Service". |
The customer self-service website and telephone (IVR) services must be provided in Release 1, and the mobile app in Release 2. Self-service functionality across different platforms is defined in Section 9 "Customer Self-Service".
| 7 | 35368 Attc N Requirement Traceability Matrix - CBOS - Req 12.4.4 | IR.33 | The CBOS must interface with interoperable agencies to receive and process account information (account numbers, transponders and license plates) of their customers. | Odot envision to using account number for posting interoperable transactions | The account information presented in the requirement are examples. The account information required to receive and process through interoperable agency interface(s) will be defined in the ICD(s) during the Design phase. |
| 8 | In reading the IBTTA Tolling news, we noticed an article about ODOT. Do you think this may impact the tolling RFP process or scope? |
| OR tolling: I-205 Improvements Project indefinitely paused (koin.com) https://www.koin.com/news/oregon/odot-indefinitely-pauses-interstate-205-projects-tolling/ | The article published via IBTTA Tolling News related to the Oregon I-205 Improvements Project is related to the construction project(s). This RFP accurately depicts the current toll project being pursued; RFP process or scope is not impacted. | ||
| 9 | Attachment E | Should we price the printed documents based on the assumption of ‘best industry practices’? Or do you have sample documents and volumes you can share? | |
| 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. |
Proposer should use industry best practices in preparing the Price Proposal.
| 10 | RFP 5.3.2 – Bonding | 35 | Would ODOT consider accepting a standby letter of credit from an adequately rated financial institution in lieu of the bonds required in Attachment A - Sample Contract, as might be allowed by ORS 279C.390? | As identified within the sample contract, section 12.9 Bonds, specifically identified bonds are required for this procurement under 279B. The sample contract does not allow for a letter of credit to be provided in lieu of the identified bonding requirements. Please know that this procurement falls under 279B and not 279C. Further, 279C.390 allows for a letter of credit in regards to meeting the bid bond requirement but does not allow a letter of credit in meeting the performance bond or payment bond requirements identified within 279C. | ||
| 11 | Recent articles have stated that Oregon DOT officials have told the state transportation commission they are scaling back the I-205 project. Additionally, we have seen statements that the Oregon governor has directed ODOT to delay tolling until 2026. Question: Can ODOT advise vendors on how these changes impact the project currently under bid, either in timing or scope? | The RFP addresses the Governor's direction and accounts for the current approved project scope. | ||||
| 12 | Attchment F | 2 | "1. As a separate attachment, provide a preliminary draft of the CBOS project schedule, depicting critical milestones, prepared in Microsoft Project. | |||
| 2. As a separate attachment, provide a preliminary draft of the CSC Operations Schedule depicting critical milestones including procurement activities (including real estate leases), facility buildouts, recruiting and onboarding of staff, training, pre-go-live account opening and transponder distribution, and testing go-live readiness. | Clarification: Would the Department accept one master schedule that includes both the CBOS and CSC schedules so interdepencies between the two can be be shown? " | Yes, ODOT will accept one master schedule for both the CBOS and CSC. | ||||
| 13 | RFP | 26 | 4.10.2 Evlauation Criteria | The RFP instructions state to make no modifcations to the response guide styles. Are proposers permitted to use Heading-level numbering to aid in navigation of the responses and enable cross-references through out the response and captions etc.? The current requirement numbering does not use Heading-level numbering, therefore navigation is currently not possible. | No, proposer shall not make any changes to formatting, text styles, or tables in the document. | |
| 14 | Attc A -CSC and CBOS SOW | The CBOS and CSC SOWs appear to have been written under the assumption that 2 difference contractors are providing the services under 2 contracts. Therefore, the CSC contractor has several deliverables that are directly relevant to a separate CBOS contractor when designing the CBOS. With a single contractor some of these tasks prescribe how the contractor is to complete a number of tasks. Can ODOT provide clarity on the CBOS/CSC deliverables given that ODOT’s stated intent (during pre-proposal conference) is to: |
• Use an outcome-based RFP (asking for what and not how tasks are completed) manage the contract and minimize ODOT engagement in day-to-day activities. The CBOS and CSC SOWs in this RFP are designed to be separable between two companies bidding under one proposal or for one company to bid under one proposal. The CBOS SOW focuses on the functionality of the system while the CSC SOW focuses on the functionality of the CSC and CSRs. The two SOWs feed into and off of each other, but are distinctly different statements of work and activities included in the tasks.
ODOT will measure the outcomes of the tasks, regardless of whether the proposer bids to offer both the CBOS and the CSC or opts to sub one of the two functions.
| 15 | CBOS Requirements, 2.1 BR.6 | 2 | Customers are not required to return transponders at account closure. | Does this refer to sticker transponders only? Or are hard-case transponders (internal and external) also not required to be returned by customers upon account closure? | ODOT does not anticipate offering hardcase transponders. If hardcase transponders are procured by ODOT for use in the Oregon Toll Program, customers are not required to return. |
| 16 | CBOS Requirements, 7.3 | 23 | Diagram - Invoice escalation process | Can you please explain the difference between these process activities: “Send to collections” and “Send to Oregon Department of Revenue for collection”. | "Send to Collections" refers to sending the transaction to ODOT Collections. "Send to Oregon Department of Revenue for collection" is a separate activity from sending to ODOT Collections, happening at separate times within the escalation process defined in Exhibit R Section 7.3. |
| 17 | CSC SOW | 115 | 3.1 Deliverables |
a. Input for CBOS design considerations
b. feedback for CBOS designs and parameter configurations During the pre-proposal conference, ODOT stated that the intent of the contract was for ODOT to manage the contract and minimize ODOT engagement in day-to-day activities.
When a contractor is performing the CBOS and CSC services scope, the CBOS design/parameter input and feedback is typically considered internal contractor communications since these are developed over time during planning and development. Deliverables 4.2.a and 4.2.b would therefore be considered contractor internal documents.
a) If a single contractor is providing CSC/CBOS services, are these internal documents required to be submitted to ODOT?
b) Should bidders expect ODOT approval on this input/feedback? Attachment A, Exhibit A.1, Task 4.2.a and 4.2.b are formal contractual deliverables and must be submitted to ODOT for review, feedback, and approval.
ODOT's intent for this review, feedback, and approval is focused on validating the deliverable includes sound, industry best practice content and processes, and that all contractual obligations and requirements are being met.
| 18 | CSC SOW | 115 | 3.1 Deliverables | |
| c. Content for public facing applications and tools | Typically web site content and styling is provided by a marketing partner. This information is combined with instructional type content (how to, FAQ, etc.) for the web site, mobile, app, etc.) | |||
| Is ODOT requiring bidders to engage with a marketing partner for the web site and mobile app content or will ODOT use its own marketing partner? | Per Exhibit J.1, section 1.8, requirement F.27, the CSC will use materials designed by ODOT and branded for the Oregon Toll Program. | |||
| 19 | CSC SOW | 117 | 4.1 Deliverables |
a. Testing/Validation results
b. Anomalies/errors log During the pre-proposal conference, ODOT stated that the intent of the contract was for ODOT to manage the contract and minimize ODOT engagement in day-to-day activities.
However, the CSC Test Support task includes deliverables (test validation results) that would typically be considered internal contractor communications to the CBOS/CSC team.
a) If a single contractor is providing CSC/CBOS services, are these internal documents required to be submitted to ODOT?
b) Should bidders expect ODOT approval on this input/feedback? Attachment A, Exhibit A.1, Task 4.1 contains formal contractual deliverables and must be submitted to ODOT for review, feedback, and approval.
ODOT's intent for this review, feedback, and approval is focused on validating the deliverable includes sound, industry best practice content and processes, and that all contractual obligations and requirements are being met.
20 CSC SOW 118 TSPO.10 Contractor shall support the efforts of internal and external auditors of the Oregon Toll Program. Please provide clarity on the ODOT external audits to be provided as part of Task 4.2. Specifically: a) What information will an external auditor request of the selected contractor?
b) Over what duration (e.g. 2-3 weeks?) are the external audits expected to occur?
| c) How frequently will external audits occur during the implementation phase? | The frequency and duration of an audit(s) will be determined at time of audit(s). The Oregon Toll Program is legislatively authorized and agency-directed, therefore is subject to periodic internal and external audits of all participating entities, systems, and processes. | ||||
| 21 | CSC SOW | 118 | TSPO.10 Contractor shall support the efforts of internal and external auditors of the Oregon Toll Program. | Please provide clarity on the ODOT internal audits to be provided as part of Task 4.2. Specifically: |
a) What information will an ODOT internal auditor request of the selected contractor?
b) Over what duration (e.g. 2-3 weeks?) are the ODOT internal audits expected to occur?
| c) How frequently will ODOT internal audits occur during the implementation phase? | The frequency and duration of an audit(s) will be determined at time of audit(s). The Oregon Toll Program is legislatively authorized and agency-directed, therefore is subject to periodic internal and external audits of all participating entities, systems, and processes. | |||
| 22 | CSC SOW | 118 | 4.2 Deliverables | |
| a. Audit support activities document | During the pre-proposal conference, ODOT stated that the intent of the contract was for ODOT to manage the contract and minimize ODOT engagement in day-to-day activities. |
When a contractor is performing the CBOS and CSC services the audit support activities are typically considered internal contractor communications to the CBOS/CSC team as they are developed over time in coordination with the PCI Auditor. Deliverable 4.2.a would therefore be considered a contractor internal document.
a) If a single contractor is providing CSC/CBOS services, are these internal documents required to be submitted to ODOT?
b) Should bidders expect ODOT approval on this input/feedback? Attachment A, Exhibit A.1, Task 4.2 contains formal contractual deliverables and must be submitted to ODOT for review, feedback, and approval.
ODOT's intent for this review, feedback, and approval is focused on validating the deliverable includes sound, industry best practice content and processes, and that all contractual obligations and requirements are being met.
| 23 | CBOS SOW | 68 | Task 4.1.3 Develop CBOS User Acceptance Test Design and Test Cases. | |
| User acceptance testing phase will require collaboration with ODOT who will determine who executes the test cases. | Execution of test cases are typically completed by the contractor’s staff since this does not introduce unknown variables associated with users with different skillsets and knowledge bases. Please clarify ODOT’s intent for determining who executes the CBOS User Acceptance test cases. Is this the CSC contractor? | As stated in Attachment A, Exhibit A, Task 4.1.3, this is a collaborative activity between selected firm and ODOT. ODOT will be involved in the User Acceptance Test process and execution and will be involved in testing activities. Further definition and roles will be defined during Task 4 with the selected firm. | ||
| 24 | CSC SOW | 117 | TSPO.8 Contractor shall report issues on the ODOT tolling website, IVR, mobile application, and chat functions to the CBOS team for immediate correction. | |
| TSPO.7 Contractor shall log and report CBOS anomalies or errors. | Day-to-day testing activities during implementation identify issues on the website, IVR, mobile application and chat functions together with CBOS anomalies and errors. These are typically addressed before formal testing. |
Based on the formal test steps listed in CBOS SOW Task 4 and ODOT’s pre-proposal conference stated intent to manage the contract and minimize ODOT engagement in day-to-day activities:
| Please confirm that these requirements are intended to address CBOS issues, anomalies or errors during the operations phase? | These requirements address the CSC's involvement in the testing process with the CBOS and its ability to track and report issues to the CBOS for handling during the testing of the collective system and processes. | |||
| 25 | CSC SOW | 121 | 6.1 Deliverables | |
| a. Contributions to the Pre Go-Live End-to-End Test Cases | During the pre-proposal conference, ODOT stated that the intent of the contract was for ODOT to manage the contract and minimize ODOT engagement in day-to-day activities. |
However, the CSC Pre Go-Live End-to-End Acceptance Test Plan task includes deliverables (contributions to test cases) that would typically be considered internal contractor communications to the CBOS/CSC team.
a) If a single contractor is providing CSC/CBOS services, are these internal documents required to be submitted to ODOT?
b) Should bidders expect ODOT approval on this input/feedback? Attachment A, Exhibit A.1, Task 6.1 contains formal contractual deliverables and must be submitted to ODOT for review, feedback, and approval.
ODOT's intent for this review, feedback, and approval is focused on validating the deliverable includes sound, industry best practice content and processes, and that all contractual obligations and requirements are being met.
| 26 | CSC SOW | 121 | 6.2 Deliverables | |
| a. Input to the Pre Go-Live End-to-End Test Report | During the pre-proposal conference, ODOT stated that the intent of the contract was for ODOT to manage the contract and minimize ODOT engagement in day-to-day activities. However, the CSC Pre Go-Live End-to-End Acceptance Test Plan task includes deliverables (input to the report) that would typically be considered internal contractor communications to the CBOS/CSC team and would be included in the test report. |
a) If a single contractor is providing CSC/CBOS services, are these internal documents required to be submitted to ODOT?
b) Should bidders expect ODOT approval on this input? Attachment A, Exhibit A.1, Task 6.2 contains formal contractual deliverables and must be submitted to ODOT for review, feedback, and approval.
ODOT's intent for this review, feedback, and approval is focused on validating the deliverable includes sound, industry best practice content and processes, and that all contractual obligations and requirements are being met.
| 27 | Attachment E - Price Proposal | Tab 1b – CBOS O&M Price, Tab 2b – CSC O&M Price | Price Proposal tabs 1b and 2b request that Contractors estimate an average annual quantity for certain items. | Each Contractor will use assumptions to identify the average annual quantity. These could vary significantly and without an explanation ODOT will not know why a volume and price is different for each Contractor. | ||
| Please confirm that Contractors are permitted to provide a list of assumptions and metrics used in determining the requested estimated price sheet quantities so that ODOT can understand the logic utilized by the Contractor. The document would accompany the Price Proposal. | Yes, contractors are permitted to provide a list of assumptions, however, the list of assumptions will not be taken into consideration at the time of scoring. Price scores will be calculated as described in section 4.10.3 of the RFP. The total cost in Tab 3b will be the only piece considered by the Purchaser when awarding points. Any assumptions listed in the price sheet will only be considered if Contractor is issued an intent to award and can be used in negotiations. | |||||
| 28 | Attachment E - Price Proposal | Various tabs | CBOS and CSC Implementation and Year 1 for CBOS and CSC O&M | Please confirm that Contractors should provide CBOS and CSC Implementation pricing as well as contract year 1 for CBOS and CSC O&M in 2024 dollars and that Contractors must include any CPI/COLA adjustment for the remaining years of the contract. | The fixed fee costs and the transaction costs for years 1-5 will not be adjusted for COLA/CPI. |
Proposers should include COLA/CPI considerations into their price proposals for O&M years 3-5 and 6-10 and indicate if it was included in submission. The sample contract allows for rate revisions every 12 months where COLA and other costs can be reconsidered.
| 29 | RFP Section 4.10 | 25 | Evaluation Process | Will ODOT please provide the names of the Evaluation Committee; both from ODOT and/or any consultants involved? | No, that is not information we can release at this time. |
| 30 | RFP Section 4.10.3 | 30 | Price Evalutation | Will ODOT please confirm that the calculation to determine the price score (maximum 200 points) will take place AFTER the scoring of each of the narrative sections of a Contractor’s proposal? | They will take place at the same time. The technical proposals are scored by the evaluation committee and the price proposal score is done by the purchaser using the formula identified in the RFP. The price proposal score and the technical proposal score are combined for a total score. |
| 31 | Sample Contract, 12.9 | 29 | 12.9 Bonds |
12.9.1 Implementation Performance Bond
| 12.9.2 Operations and Maintenance Bond | From the language in paragraphs 12.9.1 (Implementation performance Bond) and 12.9.1 Operations and Maintenance Bond, it appears that only the value of the Commercial Back Office (CBOS) is to be included in the bond values. | |||||
| Please confirm that the bond values do not include CSC Implementation and CSC Operations and Maintenance. | As identified within section 12.9.1, a performance bond and payment bond are required to cover the implementation of the Commercial Back Office System (CBOS). In addition, as identified within section 12.9.2, an Operations and Maintenance Bond is required to cover the operations and maintenance of the CBOS. To further clarify, the bonding requirements are applicable to the CBOS scope of the contract and are not applicable to the Customer Service Center scope of the contract. | |||||
| 32 | Sample Contract Exhibit F | 156-159 | Compensation Provisions, Section C) Price Per Unit References to “Not-to-Exceed”. | ODOT has provided estimated volumes and requested estimated from Contractor’s for Proposal evaluation purposes only. These should not be used to determine an overall Not-to-Exceed annual or total contract value. | ||
| Please confirm that the references to “Not-to-Exceed” for Price Per Unit items during the Operations and Maintenance period of the contract are not applicable. | The price per unit is one factor to consider when negotiating the overall NTE contract value. The price sheets will be used in negotiations with the awarded firm to help determine the NTE of the project. Exhibit F identifies the different methods of compensation that can be used in the final contract but Exhibit F will be revised based on negotations with the awarded firm. Not all methods of compensation will remain in the final contract. The Not-to-Exceed amount in the Price per unit table will remain if that method of compensation table is used. We cannot have an open ended price per unit table becuase we have to have an NTE for the contract. This section will all be addressed in negotations with the awarded firm. | |||||
| 33 | Sample Contract, Exhibit Q | 188 | Exhibit Q, Commercial Back-Office System Implementation and Operations and Maintenance Bond | The heading for Exhibit Q, appears to have inadvertently carried over the word “Implementation” from Exhibit O as this should only be for Operations and Maintenance. | That is correct, for clarity, we will update Exhibit Q to remove the word "implementation" from the title. An addendum will be issued to revise the title. | |
| 34 | Attachment E, Price Proposal | Tab 1b – CBOS O&M Price, Tab 2b – CSC O&M Price | Annual Direct Costs | Please confirm that Contractors are permitted to add additional rows as needed within the section entitled Annual Direct Costs on Price Proposal forms 1b CBOS O&M Price and 2b CSC O&M Price. | Yes, Proposers are permitted to insert additional rows after row 28 on tabs 1b and 2b as needed to address applicable Annual Direct Costs. Additional inserted rows must remain in the table section with appropriate formulas and accounted for in the total formulas in the green row following the Annual Direct Costs tables (currently row 37 for tab 1b and 36 for tab 2b). | |
| 35 | Exhibit R - CBOS & CSC Business Rules Section 2.18 | Outgoing Correspondence Types | Please provide a list of the letters and notifications requested. | See Exhibit R section 2.18.2 Letters and section 2.18.5 Notifications, as well as several references in Exhibit J. Letters and notifications will be sent to customers for various purposes, including account changes, actions to be taken, and compliance-related activities. Further design of outgoing correspondence types will be defined during the Design phase. | ||
| 36 | Attc A - Sample Contract Final Section 1.4 and 1.5 | 49 | Requirements PM.18 and PM.19, Procurement Plan | |||
| Please clarify the difference between the Procurement Plan listed as part of Requirement # PM.18 and PM.19. Is the Procurement Plan to be considered as part of the Project Management Plan, or a separate submittal? | ||||||
| Attachment A Exhibit A CBOS SOW Task 1.4 Requirement PM.18 addresses how the selected firm will manage the project, including PM.18.i "Procurement Plan" which addresses how the selected firm will acknowledge and manage procurement from a project management perspective, including budget, scope, schedule, and resourcing. |
Attachment A Exhibit A CBOS SOW Task 1.5 Requirement PM.19 "Procurement Plan" specifically documents the selected firm's approach to the procurement process itself, including approach, process, how and what products or services will be acquired, and how vendors will be managed.
| 37 | Attc A - Sample Contract Final Section 2.3 | 57 | Requirements Traceability Matrix | Sub-bullet "c" in 2.3 Deliverables section states the Updated RTM is required. Please clarify whether this is the "Initial RTM" rather than an updated RTM. | The initial RTM is submitted as part of the RFP proposal package; see RFP section 3.2.1 Proposal Submissions. During the Planning phase, the selected firm conducts its first update to the RTM; see Attachment A Exhibit A Task 2, requirement P.54. | |
| 38 | Attc A - Sample Contract Final | |||||
| Deliverable 8.1 | 80 | CBOS Milestone and Deliverable Due Dates |
(d) As-Built Documentation and (I) Updated System Design Documents
| Please confirm that the Updated System Design Documentation is to be provided as part of the As-Built Documentation. | Correct, per Attachment A Exhibit A Task 8.1.d As-Built Documentation includes 8.1.d.i Updates System design documents (and all sub-bullets listed) and 8.1.d.ii Updated RTM. | |
| 39 | Attc A - Sample Contract Final | |
| Deliverable 8.1 | 78/93 | 8.1/CBOS Milestone Chart Requirement O.1 defines FSA following go-live. The CBOS milestone chart depicts 8.1 due NTP + 660 days (22 months). |
| Based on the NTP date, 22 months can occur before the 1/31/2026 go-live. Please confirm the intent is to execute FSA following go-live. | ||
| Correct, Final System Acceptance Testing occurs after Go-Live. The CBOS Milestones and Deliverable Due Dates are expected dates and timeframes that are subject to change based on negotiations and NTP issuance to selected firm. | ||
| 40 | Exhibit R - CBOS & CSC Business Rules | |
| Section 2.9 | BR.106 | USPS interface for return mail. |
| Please confirm this interface may be provided by the mail house. This is typically the configuration. | Per Exhibit J section 3.2 AC.9, the CBOS must provide an electronic interface with USPS for return mail. A proposer may elect to provide this interface via the contractor-provided mail house. | |
| 41 | Exhibit J - CBOS Requirements, Section 5.1 | |
| SST.6 | Configure account attributes for display | |
| please define or further clarify account attributes required for configuration for display. | The CBOS system must have the flexibility to add/change attributes on accounts and statements. |
The example provided relates to the ability to not display date, time, and location elements for privacy reasons.
| 42 | Exhibit J - CBOS Requirements | |||
| Section 12.2 | IR.20 | Configuring interface details | ||
| Please specify the interface details requested for configuration control. | ||||
| The intent of Exhibit J section 12.2 IR.20 is to require the CBOS to be flexible in configuration capabilities for interfaces and interface details. Further definition will be conducted during the Planning and Design phases with the selected firm. | ||||
| 43 | Exhibit J - CBOS Requirements, Section 12.2 | |||
| IR.22 | Manage configurable interface types | |||
| Is the agency expecting provider to write every possible interface type for each interface vendor - such that you can change from batch, to real-time. Meaning all interfaces have all options regardless of the known interface limitations? This will add unneeded costs. Please clarify. | ||||
| Exhibit J section 12.2 IR.22 requires the CBOS to have the capability to configure different types of interfaces, as each interface may require a different type when defined during the Design phase. The intent is not to require the CBOS to be capable of changing a specific interface's type once defined. | ||||
| 44 | Exhibit J - CBOS Requirements | |||
| Section 12.3 | IR.26 | RTS interface for license plate correction | Please provide a use case where the CBOS will send a license plate correction list to the RTS following audit checks or customer disputes. Wont this be handled by TVL/LVL updates. | |
| Plate and Transponder Validation List (PVTL) has been removed from Exhibit J, per addendum 5. Exhibit J section 12.3 IR.26.a addresses functionality required for CBOS to send a license plate correction list to the RTS via interface when corrections are identified from audit checks and customer disputes. | ||||
| 45 | Exhibit J - CBOS Requirements, Section 12.8.1 | IR.70 | Integrate with future systems | |
| This does not appear to be a complete requirement. Please clarify. | Exhibit J section 12.8 requirements IR.71 - IR.81 are intended to be the future systems referenced by IR.70. |
ODOT will revise the requirement references to make this clear in an addendum.
| 46 | Exhibit J - CBOS Requirements | ||
| Section 14.4 | DM.10 - DM.21 | ||
| Data archiving and deletion requirements | |||
| These requirements do not reflect modern cloud based infrastructure which do not require archiving and data deletion to support system performance. Please confirm these requirements are driven by the state statutes and required to price. | |||
| The CBOS must be compliant with State of Oregon data governance and retention requirements and policy. ODOT is willing to discuss different approaches to data archiving and deletion requirements that comply with State of Oregon data governance and retention requirements and policy with selected firm during the negotiations period. | |||
| 47 | Exhibit J - CBOS Requirements | ||
| SEction 15.2 | SP.7 | CBOS must have the ability to receive and monitor status messages of all system hardware and software systems and send automatic alerts to maintenance personnel | We monitor all platforms/systems. The word all implies we must also monitor other provider switches, or a patch panel…please clarify. |
| The CBOS must monitor all system hardware and software systems the CBOS provides as well as interfaces into or out of the CBOS. | |||
| 48 | Exhibit J - CBOS Requirements | ||
| Section 15.2 | SP.8 | l. Inventory and equipment status. | |
| Please expand on Inventory and Equipment status regarding system performance. | |||
| The status and alerts of any inventory or equipment provided by the CBOS not otherwise covered under other sub-bullets of Exhibit J section 15.2 SP.8 shall be addressed in SP.8.l. | |||
| 49 | Exhibit J - CBOS Requirements | ||
| Section 16.1 | N.7 | CBOS must log all network notifications and alarms for the purposes of performance monitoring. | |
| Please clarify if this requirement is at the system level (similar to question related to SP.7, section 15.2). | |||
| The CBOS must log network notifications and alarms for all systems and networks the CBOS provides or relies on, as well as CBOS-side network activity for any interfaces into or out of the CBOS. | |||
| 50 | Attc E - Price Proposal | ||
| 2b | Annual Direct Costs - NOCP Labor | ||
| Please describe the intent for providing separate pricing for NOCP labor in the Annual Direct Costs section, and the intent for proposer to enter the annual quantity. | |||
| Proposer is not required to provide separate NOCP labor pricing in the Annual Direct Costs section. Proposer is allowed to assess ODOT an additional fee, based on actual cost for select activities, such as NOCP labor. |
Based on the proposer's solution, and the numbers provided, the proposer may price NOCP labor as an Annual Direct Cost in Attachment E tab 2b, estimating the average quanity over the first 5 years of operation.
| 51 | RFP Section 6.8 | 39 | Printing, Binding, and Stationary Work | Pursuant to ORS 282.210 -- does ODOT have any local or approved vendors and/or statewide vendor lists (i.e., search portal) that provide printing, binding, and stationary work that could allow the bidder to identify potential vendors? And/or is this a service that the State of Oregon Publishing & Distribution Department of Administrative Services could provide for printing, binding, and stationary work? (see link below) https://www.oregon.gov/das/printmail/pages/services.aspx | |
| No, the state does not have a list of vendors to use for these services. The State of Oregon Publishing & Distibution through DAS is for agencies only and is not for use of vendors. | |||||
| 52 | Addendum #5 | Attachment E – Price Proposal | |||
| Addendum #5 indicates that revisions were made to update headers. | There do not appear to be updates to the headers on Revised Attachment E – Price Proposal. Further, when printing, the footer still indicates “Draft version 1.0” and contains the name of the Consultant, CDM Smith. Highlighting the changes in the Excel document would also be helpful. | The revisions were Cell A3 on tab 2B and Cell A16 of Tab 2B. An addendum will be issued to remove the headers and footers. | |||
| 53 | Addendum #5 | ||||
| 35368 Volume 2 QA | The answers to questions in Volume 2 QA contained in Addendum #5 begin at #1 again in the Excel file. | For reference purposes, it would be helpful that future QA volumes continue sequentially numbering the answers to questions. That is, Volume 1 QA ended with #143. Volume 2 QA should have begun with #144. | Each Question & Answer (QA) Volume is treated as a distinct set of questions in an addendum, and therefore numbering of questions in each volume start at 1. | ||
| 54 | 7.3, TP.5 | 13 | The CBOS must provide the capability to receive and store transactions and images from the RTS. | The cost for storage is driven by image volumes and data retention policies. Since ODOT cannot identify the expected image- based transaction volumes, it appears that storage will be required for the images captured with transactions from the RTS. | |
| Please confirm that BOS storage shall assume all transactions include an image, including those with valid transponder reads. | One or more images and image-related datasets will be transmitted by the RTS to the CBOS for each transaction, including those with valid transponder reads, and may include: front and rear license plate images, automated image review results, manual image review results, overview images, and identification of associated video. |
Image storage and retention requirements and business rules are defined in Exhibit J and Exhibit R.
| 55 | 7.3, TP.5 | 13 | The CBOS must provide the capability to receive and store transactions and images from the RTS. | Please confirm that all images must be stored until archived (per archive rules defined in BR.68) | Exhibit J section 7.3 requires the CBOS to have the capability to receive and store images. Exhibit J section 14.4 addresses data archiving and deletion requirements. Exhibit R section 2.16 addresses records retention (including images) business rules. |
| 56 | 7.3, TP.6 | 13 | The CBOS must provide the capability to receive and store transactions and images from interoperable agencies. | Please confirm that images are included with all transactions, including those with valid transponder reads. | One or more images and image-related datasets will be transmitted by the RTS to the CBOS for each transaction, including those with valid transponder reads, and may include: front and rear license plate images, automated image review results, manual image review results, overview images, and identification of associated video. |
Image storage and retention requirements and business rules are defined in Exhibit J and Exhibit R.
57 7.3, TP.6 13 The CBOS must provide the capability to receive and store transactions and images from interoperable agencies. Please confirm that all images must be stored until archived (per archive rules defined in BR.68) Exhibit J section 7.3 requires the CBOS to have the capability to receive and store images. Exhibit J section 14.4 addresses data archiving and deletion requirements. Exhibit R section 2.16 addresses records retention (including images) business rules.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .