35368 Volume 4 QA~1.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 41 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- S-73000-00007613
- Issued by
- Multnomah County, Portland City, Oregon
About this file
This document is a Request for Proposals (RFP) from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) for a Commercial Back-Office Toll System Integrator and Customer Services Center. The project involves creating a single system of systems, including people, processes, and technologies, to support revenue collection and congestion management for the Oregon Toll Program. The project covers the Interstate Bridge Replacement (IBR) project and the I-205 project (Abernathy bridge and surrounding road infrastructure). Proposers are expected to provide pricing for both projects. The RFP provides detailed requirements for the Commercial Back-Office System (CBOS) and Customer Service Center (CSC) functionality, as well as related exhibits and attachments. Proposals are due 180 days after the bid opening date.
The RFP includes pricing tables for annual direct costs, transactions, and other services. Proposers are required to account for factors such as banking fees, transponder distribution costs, and printing and mailing of customer statements. ODOT will select a single contractor to provide the CBOS and CSC services. The selected firm will be responsible for providing all services and equipment necessary to operate the toll system, with ODOT providing signage and initial public communications. The project is funded by the State of Oregon, and the selected firm will be required to comply with all applicable state and federal requirements.
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 - Project Partnership | We are concerned that amendment 5 is not clear that affiliate experience can be used, even though the Q&A answer is clear. The Q&A states that responses are not binding until an actual amendment of the RFP is issued. Is ODOT willing to modify the Amendment to reflect the Q&A? | |||
| Partnership/joint venture language was added to the RFP in addition to clarifying in response to the question. Together that covers the issue along with the already existing subcontractor language. |
Addenda referenced in Volume 1 QA is "35368 Addendum 5" published addendum. No further addendum or amendment to RFP is needed.
| 2 | RFP - General | NA | Will ODOT be providing a Milestone Payment Schedule (Proposed Payment Terms) for the Implementation Phase of the project or will mutually agreeable payment terms be developed during contract negotiations? | |
| ODOTs preferred terms and the payment schedule are defined in the sample contract Attachment A. Payment terms may be addressed in negotiations with the awarded firm. | ||||
| 3 | Attc E Price Proposal: CSC O&M Price | Tab 2b | Can bidders assume that ODOT will be paying all banking fee’s (Credit card, ACH, lock box, check cashing, bank accounts, etc.) directly and therefore bidders do not need to include these costs in their pricing? | |
| Banking fees should be included in Proposers' Price Proposals as passthrough costs. | ||||
| 4 | Attc E Price Proposal: CSC O&M Price | Tab 2b | Can bidders assume that all tag distribution costs will be paid by ODOT directly (including: cost of tags, Tags kits, any inserts, postage/mailing of tags, tag disposal, etc.)? | Selected firm will be responsible for all Transponder management (see Exhibit J.1 section 4.5). Transponder distribution costs should be accounted for by Proposer in Price Proposal as passthrough costs. |
| 5 | Attc E Price Proposal: CSC O&M Price | Tab 1b | 1) How often will customers be sent a printed statement (monthly, quarterly, etc.)? |
2) Will the CBOS Operator be responsible for all costs related to sending/mailing customer statements (including: printing, envelope stuffing, postage, etc.)?
3) What is the projection for “Misc. Mailing”? Customer statements are generated monthly or quarterly as selected by the customer, per Exhibit R Section 2.14, BR.62.
Proposer should include all costs related to sending/mailing customer statements in the Price Proposal in the Annual Direct Costs section, as direct costs and/or passthrough costs.
ODOT does not have a projection for "Misc. Mailing" but it can be a passthrough unit cost.
| 6 | Attc E Price Proposal: CSC O&M Price | Tab 1b | Would ODOT please update/review “1b – Annual Direct Costs” to allow the bidders to enter “Annual Quantity” on a yearly/annual bases since the annual quantities will vary greatly year-over-year as road-users/accounts grow and patters/usage changes? |
| Years 1 and 2 are implementation period. Some Annual Direct Costs may incur costs during Years 1 and/or 2. |
Years 1 thru 5 are considered the Base Contract period for Price Proposal evaluation, as stated on Attachment E Price Proposal tabs 3a and 3b. Years 6 thru 10 are Optional Extension period costs.
Annual quantities provide an average overall snapshot of anticipated annual direct costs quantities. Annual quantities are to be averaged across years where costs are incurred and entered into the Annual Quantity column for each Annual Direct Cost. Cost changes over time will be reflected in Year to Year Direct Costs entered by Proposer in columns D thru M in the Annual Direct Costs section.
The Agency will leave as stated in Attachment E Price Proposal.
| 7 | Attc E Price Proposal: CSC O&M Price | Tab 2b | Would ODOT please update/review “2b – Annual Direct Costs” to allow the bidders to enter “Annual Quantity” on a yearly/annual bases since the annual quantities will vary greatly year-over-year as road-users/accounts grow and patters/usage changes? |
| Years 1 and 2 are imlementation period. To derive annual quantities and associated dollar amounts to account for year-over-year growth and changes during operational period being evaluated, ODOT recommends averaging quantities for Years 3 through 5 to address, per note in rows 39 and 38 for tabs 1b and 2b, respectively. | |||
| 8 | Attc E Price Proposal: CSC O&M Price | Tabs 1b & 2b |
In the pricing tables of sheets 1b & 2b in years 1 & 2 (columns D & E), it has a comment/note “* Implementation”.
Question: Does Year-1 start at Implementation NPT or at “Go-Live” of the CBOS/CSC Operations (system in revenue service)?
| Price Proposal (Attachment E) tabs 1b and 2b, Year 1 begins at selected firm's Notice to Proceed (NTP) date. | ||
| 9 | Attc E Price Proposal: CSC O&M Price | Tabs 1b & 2b |
In the pricing tables of sheets 1b & 2b under the “Annual Direct Costs” section, the bidders are asked to enter the average annual quantities.
Question: Should bidders assume that they will be paid on a “per-unit” basis on actual monthly quantities?
| Correct, selected firm will be paid for actual quantities on the per-unit price agreed upon during negotiations based on selected firm's proposed price. | ||
| 10 | Attc E Price Proposal: CSC O&M Price | All Tabs |
During the Pre-Proposal conference it was stated that the pricing tables (Attc E) are based on a single facility.
Which Facility/Roadway should bidders base their pricing around (I-205)? or ?
| Proposers shall prepare Attachment E Price Proposals for both the Interstate Bridge Replacement (IBR) project and the I-205 (Abernathy bridge and possible surrounding road infrastructure) project. | ||
| 11 | Exhibit R - General | NA |
For Photo Enforcement roadway users/travelers (non-registered license plate accounts):
•Will ODOT have signage on the roadways directing/explaining to travelers where to pay their tolls “on-line”?
•If not, will toll photo enforcement bills be sent to non-registered accounts roadways users?
•If photo enforcement bills are to be sent to non-registered accounts roadway users, what will the average # of non-reg photo enforcement transactions accumulated be before a bill is sent?
ODOT is responsible for signage and initial public communications regarding the Oregon Toll Program, including account registration and invoice information.
Selected firm is responsible for issuing invoices for unregistered accounts, per business rules and requirements defined in Exhibit J, Exhibit J.1, and Exhibit R.
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.
Invoice cycles for unregistered accounts shall comply with Exhibit R Section 7.2, BR.273. This business rule requires configurability for flexibility in the parameter value and could change over time as the Oregon Toll Program evolves.
12 Attc E Price Proposal: CSC O&M Price Tab 1b For the Annual Direct Cost item “Printing and Mail Insertion”, what should bidder base their pricing on:
•# of pages per mailing?
•Color or Black & White?
•Single sided or 2-sided printing?
| How the Annual Direct Costs for printing and mail insertion are priced and/or broken down to determine price is at the Proposer's discretion, based on Proposer needs to meet defined contractual obligations, requirements, and business rules. | ||
| 13 | Attc E Price Proposal: CSC O&M Price | Tab 1b & 2b |
For Annual Direct Costs in sheet 2b item “NOCP Labor” (and for Postage est. costs in sheet 1b):
1)Will a follow-up letter(s) need to be sent if no response is received from initial NOCP letter sent (initial and on-going collection attempts) ?
2)Will the CSC operator need to support Court Hearings (evidence package support, going to court, etc.)
| Requirements and business rules related to NOCP are documented in Exhibit J and Exhibit R. The NOCP process, including support for hearings, is not a static process and will be coordinated between ODOT and selected firm to identify and implement efficiencies in the process over time. | ||||
| 14 | Attc E Price Proposal: CSC O&M Price | Tab 2b | In the “Cost Per Transaction ($)” table in cell A3 of sheet 2b it states “Monthly Pricing per Trip Volume Tier”, but in cell A10 it states “Estimated Transaction Volume per Month”. Since “Trips” can contain multiple Transactions (toll point reads) can ODOT clarify which #/Volume bidders should use to use (Trips or Transactions) to build-up their pricing? | |
| Attachment E Price Proposal was replaced via Addendum 5 published on 9/25/23. Addendum included revision of Attachment E tab 2b cell A3 to state "Monthly Pricing per range". Proposer should provide estimates based on point transactions, not trips. | ||||
| 15 | Exhibit J.1 CSC Requirements – 5.2.4 Deposit FI.14 | 8 | Please confirm that ODOT will be responsible for hiring and the costs of the armored courier. | The State of Oregon maintains a list of approved armored car services. ODOT will identify and select an approved armored car service and coordinate with the selected firm to implement armored car services for the CSC. Selected firm will be responsible for armored car service costs. |
| 16 | Exhibit J.1 CSC Requirements - 5.3.5 Refunds FI.22 | 8 | "Refunds by check must be facilitated with ODOT" Does this means that all refund checks will be processed by ODOT? CBOS to send file to ODOT and ODOT prints, signs and mail the check? Will final check information be provided back to the CBOS? | Full design of how refunds by check are facilitated with ODOT and selected firm will be defined during Design phase with selected firm. At this time, ODOT anticipates the likely approach will be for selected firm to provide refund check information to ODOT and ODOT will issue refund checks directly, however this statement is not binding and is subject to change during Design phase with selected firm. |
| 17 | Exhibit J.1 CSC Requirements - 5.4.2 Transaction Reconciliation FI.35. | 9 | Will ODOT be responsible for the reconciliation of Interop transactions? | Reconciliation of interoperable transactions are the responsibility of the CSC vendor, according to Exhibit J.1 CSC Requirements FI.33. |
| 18 | Concept of Operations - 3.4.3 Customer Service Operations | 27 | What are the possible CSC portions taken over directly by ODOT? | |
| Attachment A, Attachment N, Exhibit J, Exhibit J.1, Exhibit R, and Exhibit S supersede Attachment D; please refer to those documents to identify CSC functionality and any ODOT-provided services. | ||||
| 19 | Concept of Operations - 4.8 CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTER CONTRACTOR | 32 | Please clarify what is meant by "ODOT may procure CSC staffing services as part of the CBOS TSI procurement." | Attachment A, Attachment N, Exhibit J, Exhibit J.1, Exhibit R, and Exhibit S supersede Attachment D. |
CSC services are included in the CBOS TSI procurement under this RFP.
20 Concept of Operations - 7.3.1.1 Web Host 61 Please clarify what is meant by "CSRs will also log in to the web portal to perform service duties." Attachment A, Attachment N, Exhibit J, Exhibit J.1, Exhibit R, and Exhibit S supersede Attachment D.
Proposers shall refer to Exhibit J, Exhibit J.1, and Exhibit R for web portal requirements and business rules.
| 21 | RFP Section 1.1 | 6 | The RFP states that “A Proposer’s Proposal is a firm offer, irrevocable, valid and binding on the Proposer for not less than 180 days following the Bid Opening Date for this RFP.” | This somewhat contradicts Attachment C, Section 3, which states “Proposal is a Firm Offer for 180 days following the Bid Opening Date identified in OregonBuys.” – For how long is the Proposal open under this RFP? What is the process for extending the offer period, if any, and what comfort do Proposers have that they can approve the offer period beyond 180 days? | Both Attachment C, section 3 and the offer period in the RFP say the same thing. These sections indicate how long a proposers offer within their proposal is valid for. Should the Agency determine the need for an extension on the offer, the Agency will reach out and request the extension but it is up to the proposer (if past the 180 days) if they want to extend the offer or not. |
| 22 | RFP Section 2.3 | 17 | The RFP states that “ODOT may add services to find vendors/contractors to participate in ODOT’s OReGO Program and provide solutions, methods, and technologies for collecting mileage data and processing road usage charges to OReGO participants.” | How will the provision of these services be negotiated, and what would Proposers’/ Contractors’ obligations with respect to these services be? | Selected firm's support for the OReGO program and services are not included in Release 1. Currently expected support for the OReGO Program by selected firm is defined in Exhibit J, Exhibit J.1, and Exhibit R, in respects to integration with approved OReGO commercial account managers, referred to as 'third party account managers' in the defined business rules and requirements. |
Future evolution of services and support for the OReGO Program as described in the RFP "Oregon Account Managers ("OAM") Services" section (page 17) will be addressed in future releases in coordination with ODOT. Definition of and negotiation for these services will be addressed in one or more contingency tasks with selected firm at time of request by ODOT.
For more information on OReGO Program account manager services, ODOT has a published open Request for Qualifications for Road Usage Charge Commercial Account Managers, bid solicitation # S-73000-00004198.
| 23 | RFP Section 4.3 | 32 | RFP states that “Additional rounds of competition may consist of, but will not be limited to “Interviews, Presentations/Demonstrations/Additional Submittal Items, Discussions and submittal of revised Proposals, Serial Negotiations or Simultaneous Negotiations, Best and Final Offers” | How do the results of the additional rounds affect a Proposal, specifically, the obligations to which the Proposer is bound for the Offer Period? Would the Proposals be amended, or would Proposers include addenda? If so, what is the process for these amendments? | Information of additional rounds will be provided at the time any additional rounds of competition take place. Any additional rounds are considered part of their proposal and are bound by the 180 day offer period. | |
| 24 | Sample Contract Sections 8.1 and 8.3 | Sections 8.1 and 8.3 contemplate terms for the Agency’s licensing certain intellectual property from the Contractor and third parties. Such terms will be recorded on Exhibits L and M. | Currently both Exhibits are blank. Will the software licenses and user license agreements, subscription agreements and third party agreements described in Section 3.3.6 of the RFP be used to populate Exhibits L and M respectively? | Yes, some exhibits are intentionally left blank in Attachment A as it is a Sample Contract. These ehxibits will be updated with selected firm's information inserted into the contract. | ||
| 25 | Sample Contract Sections | |||||
| 8.2.3, 8.3, 8.5 | Sections 8.2.3, 8.3, and 8.5 of the Sample Contract refer to “Federally Funded Work Product”. | Such term is not defined. Please clarify what the definition of “Federally Funded Work Product” is. | The definition of Federally Funded Work Product is defined as described in section 8.2.3. | |||
| 26 | Sample Contract Sections | |||||
| 12.7, Exhibit K Section 2.1 | Section 12.7 and Exhibit K Section 2.1 of the Sample Contract refer to “Licensor”. Such term is not defined. Please clarify what the definition of “Licensor” is. | Any sections referencing "Licensor" should be "Contractor." We will correct the two instances in the next Bid Amendment. | ||||
| 27 | Sample Contract Sections | |||||
| 12.9.1 and 12.9.2 | Sections 12.9.1 and 12.9.2 of the Sample Contract requires the Contractor to provide a Performance Bond, a Payment Bond, and an O&M Bond. Please confirm that subcontractors or affiliates can procure required bonds or other instrument instead of directly from the Contractor. | As indicated by the Sample Contract within section 12, subsections 12.9.1, 12.9.2, and 12.9.3, and the applicable bond forms (Exhibit O – Performance Bond, Exhibit P – Payment Bond, and Exhibit Q – Operations and Maintenance Bond), the Contractor is required to obtain and maintain the bonding requirements. These bonding requirements cannot be met by a subcontractor or affiliate on behalf of the Contractor. | ||||
| 28 | Sample Contract, Exhibit I | 173 | Exhibit I includes a searchable database for active certified firms and includes a link: https://oregon4biz.diversitysoftware.com/FrontEnd/VendorSearchPublic.asp; opening this link, we get a “HTTP Error 404 – Not Found” message. What other link should we refer to for the active certified firm database? | We will also provide a revised link in the next bid amendment. https://oregon4biz.diversitysoftware.com/FrontEnd/SearchCertifiedDirectory.asp?XID=2315&TN=oregon4biz. | ||
| 29 | RFP, Sections | |||||
| 3.3.4, 4.10.2.7.3, 4.10.2.8.3 | 22 and 30 | Attachment A defines Key Persons as the Contractor’s Authorized Representative, the Project Manager, and all other contractor personnel designated as Key Persons in a Statement of Work. Exhibit S Defined Terms defines Key Personnel as crucial roles required to execute all phases of a project. |
| RFP Section 3.3.4 allows up to 20 resumes to be included in the proposal. Please clarify how resumes will be scored since proposers may each identify different “Key Persons” / “Key Personnel” roles and may also each submit a different number of resumes. | Points will not be assigned to each resume submitted. Evaluation of Key Personnel will be done holistically, following the evaluation criteria and associated points as defined in RFP sections 4.10.2.7 for CBOS and 4.10.2.8 for CSC. | |||||
| 30 | RFP, Section 4.11 | 31 | Please make the following clarification change: | |||
| “The Purchaser will average all scores for each evaluation criterion for RFP Sections 4.10.2.1 through 4.10.2.8.” | We will leave the language as shown in the RFP, the point table describes points available per criterion. | |||||
| 31 | RFP, Section 4.11 | 31 | This section states “Applicable preferences in section 4.10.3 are applied to the price score as appropriate to determine the final price score.” | Please clarify what is meant by “applicable preferences”, as Section 4.10.3 does not mention anything about preferences. | There are no applicable preferences in this RFP. The language is there should there be any identified in the RFP. | |
| 32 | RFP, Section 4.12 | 32 | Please make the following clarification change: | |||
| “The Purchaser will combine the average score for each evaluation criterion for RFP Sections 4.10.2.1 through 4.10.2.8 Proposal with Proposer’s price score and averaged reference score.” | We will leave the language as shown in the RFP. This language also covers any additional rounds of competition. There is no need to define the evaluation criteria in this section because we can only average scores that points are awarded to. There are no other sections in the RFP that will affect the score other than the evaluation criteria section. | |||||
| 33 | RFP, Section 5.1.1 | 34 | Section 5.1.1 states “Agency may award less than the full Scope defined in this RFP. Agency, in its sole discretion, may make additional award(s) for up to 9 months following the close of this solicitation.” | Please clarify that the selected proposer would be given an opportunity to revise its scope and fee accordingly and would be eligible to be considered for any additional awards for any remaining scope. | The awarded firm will enter into negotiations with ODOT. Once in negotiations the selected proposer may adjust their costs according to revisions made in the SOW or other parts of the porposal through negotaitions. | |
| 34 | RFP, Section 3.3.6 | 22 | This section requires us to 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. It sounds like this info needs to be included in our proposal. We kindly request that this be requirement be modified to provide such licenses and subscription agreements during contract negotiations. | This is required at the time of proposal submission. Any software license agreements are not included in the page limits. The Agency will leave as stated in the RFP. | ||
| 35 | Attachment A, Section 4.1 | 13 | This section says “Contractor's Key Persons shall not delegate performance of their powers and responsibilities they are required to provide under this Contract to another Contractor employee(s) without first obtaining the written consent of Agency” | Please clarify so that Contractor can use designated representatives, as the key personnel will not be available 24/7. There are times when Key Persons will be sick, on PTO, etc. | Attachment A Section 4.1 Key Persons language referring to delegation of performance for powers and responsibilities is not intended to require key persons to be available 24/7, rather it requires key persons to be responsible for powers and responsibilities and not delegate its duties to other personnel without approval. Agency understands other persons may be involved and required in certain instances to assist key persons, however key person is still ultimately responsible for its duties as assigned in the contract. | |
| 36 | Attachment A, Section 4.4 and 5.1 | 14 | Section 4.4 states “Contractor shall not use subcontractors to perform the Services without Agency’s prior written consent.” |
| Furthermore, Section 5.1 says “Although Agency reserves the right to evaluate the quality of the completed performance, Agency cannot and will not control the means or manner of Contractor’s performance. Contractor is responsible for determining the appropriate means and manner of performing the Services.” | Which seems contrary to section 4.4. Please modify section 4.4 to allow the use of subcontractors that will be performing a small discrete portion of the work prior to obtaining written consent from the Agency. This will allow flexibility during the term for the Contractor to find the right solution based on the contract needs and market conditions | Subcontractors are allowed to perform work under this contract. However, the Agency has to be made aware of any subs being utilized to ensure they have approved billing rates with the Agency and that they are registered with the Oregon Secretary of State and do not have any exclusions. Agency will leave langauge as stated in the Sample Contract. |
| 37 | ||
| Attachment A, Exhibit F Part 1, Section 6.3.1 | 16 and 163 | Retainage is 15% for implementation, enhancements, and change orders and that this 15% will be paid within 30 days following final acceptance. |
Attachment A, Exhibit F, Part 1, Section F says the Agency reserves the right to initiate at any time during the contract withholding of payment equal to 5% of the amount of each invoice (and will pay interest on such retainage).
| Is there a conflict between Section 6.3.1 and Exhibit F (15% vs 5%), or is the 15% specific to implementation/enhancements/change orders and there could be an additional 5% on other services/subscriptions/expenses/etc. invoiced? | The 15% retainage in 6.3 is for Implementation Services only. The 5% refered to in Exhibit F is for all other work should the Contractor not be delivering the services as negotiated in the final contract. | ||||
| 38 | Attachment A, Section 8.9 and 9.9.3 | 21 | Would ODOT kindly provide a sample a sample software escrow agreement for review, and/or state an expected fee or fee cap for the escrow agent? | Agency will not provide a sample software escrow agreement or state an expected fee or fee cap for an escrow agent at this time. Selected firm will propose a mutually agreeable, commercially reasonable agreement to escrow to Agency at time of written request from Agency, as stated in Attachment A, Section 8.9.1. | |
| 39 | Attachment A, Exhibit F Part 1, Section H | 163 | This section states “Contractor’s hourly rates applicable to this Contract shall be subject to review and approval by Agency. The hourly rates approved for use under this Contract shall remain in effect throughout the duration of the Contract unless revisions are approved by Agency. Hourly rates and other pricing submitted in a price proposal or rate schedule for evaluation and scoring under the solicitation for the Contract shall remain in effect for not less than the first 12 months of the Contract. Any approved revisions to the hourly rates allowable under the Contract shall not cause an increase in the Contract NTE amount (exceptions may be approved by Agency on a case-by-case basis).” | Does the first sentence give the Agency the right to review and approve the Contractor’s rates after selection, or is this intended to mean that any changes after the first 12 months are subject to review and approval? If the price proposal accounts for annual increases in rates and ODOT selects the contractor based on that proposal, why do annual adjustments that are consistent with the proposal subject to review and approval? | All final rates for a contract have to be reviewed by ODOT's billing rates department. This is a federal requirement. This section is stating that every 12 months (once entered into a contract) should the consultant want their rates reviewed for an increase they have the right to do so. |
| 40 | Attachment A, Exhibit B, Section 4.1 | 147 | The SLA Performance Measure of maintaining an average of 97.5% for resolving all customer contacts upon first contact is extremely stringent. Call centers from other industries typically have an average of 75% first contact resolution rate (banking - 79%, telcom - 69%, utilities - 75%). The national average for toll road operators is approximately 81% (source - MetricNet). We feel that we would be able to meet a first contact resolution rate of 85% and request that reduce this requirement from 97.5% to 85%. | Agency will leave as stated in Attachment A. ODOT is willing to discuss adjustment to this SLA with selected firm during negotiations, given selected firm provides supporting information on adjustment and how it intends to meet customer service operations requirements, business rules, expectations, and satisfaction. | |
| 41 | Attachment A, Exhibit B, section 4.1 | 147 | The requirement to "Respond to and resolve 100% of customer inquiries and disputes within 5 business days of receipt" is not achievable. There will be instances where customer responsiveness delays the ability to resolve an issue. Additionally, it is unlikely that disputes will be resolved in 5 business days unless the definition of "resolve" (not a defined term) includes escalation of the complaint/issue/dispute to the dispute resolution process. We request that the requirement of 100% resolution of inquiries and disputes within 5 business days be reduced from 100% to 95%. | ODOT will consider modification to this SLA during the negotiations period with selected Proposer. | |
| 42 | Attachment E, Tabs 1b and 2b | Row 10 | When estimated transaction volumes are provided, can ODOT please specify what types of transactions are included in these volumes? Specifically, do these volumes include transponder tag transactions, video transactions, exempt transactions, and other (mobile, etc.)? If the volumes include transponder transactions, what is ODOT's expected transponder tag penetration (in percent of total transactions) from Year 3 to Year 10? | Estimated transaction volumes and types will be provided in a subsequent addendum. | |
| 43 | Exhibit J.1, Section 1.3 | 1 | When referencing the "expected growth" should the proposer use the expected volume growth provided in Attachment E to project growth needs or are there other types of growth that should factored in? | Correct, proposers should use expected volume growth as depicted in Attachment E tab 2b to estimate expectations for Exhibit J.1 Section 1.3, F.7. Proposer may also use experience and expertise to supplement these estimations. | |
| 44 | Exhibit J.1, Section 1.5 | 1 | In respect of "noise mitigation solutions", what is the source of the noise to be mitigated and who will be the benefactor of the mitigation? | The intent of Exhibit J.1 Section 1.5, requirement F.15 is for CSR calls, mitigating and reducing surrounding/external noise for the CSR and the customer during an active call. | |
| 45 | Exhibit J.1, Section 2.1 | 1 | The proposer wishes to ensure that all employees, customers, information, assets, and physical property are safe. Could ODOT please provide more detail on what the definition of "protect" envisions the level and nature of protection that needs to be provided? | Exhibit J.1, Section 1.6 address CSC Facility Security requirements in relation to protection. Further definition of facility security and protection will be conducted during Planning phase with selected firm, addressed in Attachment A, Exhibit A.1, Task 2.3 Develop Facility Plan and Design. | |
| 46 | Exhibit J.1, Section 2.5 | 2 | During the delivery of the project, it is likely that some roles will have multiple responsibilities that may overlap with other roles. This is typical and will allow for the optimization of the delivery phase. How will the proposer demonstrate the clear separation of duties and does ODOT envision that roles that have some overlap would be allowed? | The requirement for separation of duties, as stated in Exhibit J.1, Section 2.1, requirement S.5, does not preclude the responsibility assignment and overlap as posed in the question by Proposer. Proposer is expected to follow industry best practice for separation of duties to reduce opportunities for errors and fraud. | |
| 47 | Exhibit J.1, Section 4.1.2 | 4 | Can ODOT provide examples of the types of third party account mangers (other than RUC account managers) that the proposer can expect to interact with on this project? | Per Exhibit J, "Third Party commercial account managers will also be interoperable, Bestpass, RUC account manager […], and others over time." |
The intent of the CBOS/CSC solution is to be scalable and interoperable to allow for future evolution of the Oregon Toll Program, including inclusion of future third party account managers not defined at this time.
| 48 | Exhibit J.1, Section 4.3.3 | 5 | Does ODOT envision providing any requirements in respect of the postage account (e.g. minimum balance, account holder(s), etc.)? | Selected firm will be required to be compliant with all postage/mailing related requirements, business rules, statement of work activities, and service level agreements. Beyond those contractual obligations, ODOT does not intend to impose additional requirements related to a postage account. |
| 49 | Exhibit J.1, Section 4.5.1 | 6 | Can ODOT please provide some details about its vision for a retail transponder program? If the program is very successful in that it sells a lot of transponders that may impact the proposer's ability to carry sufficient transponder inventory. | Transponder inventory expectations, business rules, and requirements are defined in Exhibit J Section 10.1, Exhibit J.1 Section 4.5.2, and Exhibit R BR.4 and BR.22. |
Per Exhibit J.1 CS.68, selected firm shall notify ODOT when inventory levels fall below agreed upon supply threshold and selected firm will coordinate with ODOT to replenish transponder inventory.
| 50 | Exhibit R, Section 2.15 | 7 | Does ODOT actually intend on using hard case transponders? Typically, without the need for a switchable functionality for HOV declaration, many agencies opt for sticker transponders for their low cost, small footprint, ease of installation, ease of inventory tracking, and many other benefits. | ODOT does not anticipate offering hardcase transponders. | |
| 51 | Attachment A, Exhibit A. Task 3.1 | 61 | Is the CBOS required to be PCI DSS compliant if payment processing is handled by a third party? | The selected firm must be PCI-DSS Compliant for its PCI-DSS compliance type, which includes entities that fully outsource all payment processing capabilities, as their environments may impact the security of the cardholder data environment (e.g., through the interface from the CBOS to the payment processing third party). | |
| 52 | Attachment A, Exhibit B, Section 3.1 | 144 | Transaction Processing: The requirement states "The CBOS must process 100% of the transactions within 24 hours of receipt." Would ODOT be able to negotiate this requirement? | ODOT will consider modification to this SLA during the negotiations period with selected Proposer. | |
| 53 | General | We appreciate the extension of time that has already been provided to Proposers. Would ODOT consider an additional extension? | Due to the sensitivity around the timeline of this project the Agency cannot make anymore extensions to the RFP timeline. | ||
| 54 | 35368 Revised Attc N Requirements Tracability Matrix, CSC - REQ | 4.3.1 Inbound Mailroom Processing, CS.36 | Incoming mail received, scanned and uploaded documents must be reconciled | Can ODOT please clarify requirements for document reconciliation? | Incoming mail received are scanned and uploaded as documents into the system and CSC shall reconcile the uploaded documents based on content of incoming mail. No incoming mail shall be received and not handled / reconciled. Reconciliation may include but not be limited to associating to a registered account, processing a new account application received via incoming mail, assigning to an existing or new created case, etc. |
| 55 | 35368 Revised Attc N Requirements Tracability Matrix CSC - REQ | 4.2.3 Escalation Activities, CS.27 | ODOT and the CBOS team coordination must occur when necessary to provide support for registration holds and releases. | Can ODOT Please clarify the extent of coordination required? | CBOS/CSC obligations and coordination with ODOT on registration holds and releases are defined in Exhibit J Section 6.4, and Exhibit R Section 7.7. |
| 56 | 35368 Revised Attc N Requirements Tracability Matrix CSC - REQ | 4.1.3 Community-Based Customer Service Support, CS.16 | A mobile van must operate to support customer service operations including opening accounts, distributing transponders, and responding to general customer inquiries. (Future consideration, not required at Go-Live) | Please clarify if the contractor is responsible for providing the mobile van. If so, please define the specs of the Vehicle. | Selected firm is expected to procure and provide the mobile van to support customer service operations. Note this is a future consideration and not required at Go-Live. Further definition of mobile van requirements will be determined during Attachment A Exhibit A.1 Task 2 Planning with selected firm. |
| 57 | 35368 Revised Attc N Requirements Tracability Matrix CSC - REQ | 4.1.3 Community-Based Customer Service Support, CS.17 | Customer service support must be provided at community-based events in coordination with ODOT. | Please clarify if the intent of this requirement is for the contractor to provide staffing. | CSC support at community-based events in coordination with ODOT may include CSC services, staff, materials, etc. appropriate to properly support the event, to be determine at time of event planning. |
| 58 | 36368_RFP, 6.8 PRINTING, BINDING, AND STATIONERY WORK | 39 | Section 6.8 refers to ORS 282.210(2) with regard to printing services. Our experience so far shows that the in-state bids for these services are not price competitive with our preferred providers. What evidence does the Agency need to receive to substantiate the exception provided for in section 282.210(2)(c)? | 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]
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .