35368 Volume 5 QA.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 38 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- S-73000-00007613
- Issued by
- Multnomah County, Portland City, Oregon
About this file
This document is a Q&A response regarding an RFP for a Commercial Back-Office Toll System Integrator and Customer Services Center (CBOS/CSC) issued by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). The RFP covers the Oregon Toll Program, which is a comprehensive program for revenue collection and congestion management. The RFP seeks proposals to provide a single system of systems with components including people, processes, and technologies to meet the program's objectives. The RFP covers an initial 3-year term for the CSC component with options for two 5-year renewals, for a cumulative maximum of 13 years. The RFP has a revised bid opening date of November 15, 2023 and ODOT has provided responses to various clarification questions from potential bidders regarding the RFP requirements, contract terms, and pricing.
The RFP includes pricing sheets and instructions, with pricing to be submitted for the CBOS Implementation and CSC Implementation. ODOT has provided projections for transaction and account volumes to be used by bidders in preparing their proposals. The RFP also outlines contract terms regarding performance standards, service level agreements, and retainage. ODOT has a Quality Assurance contractor, Public Knowledge, that the selected contractor will be required to work with during implementation and operations.
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 | Attachment E, Price Proposal | Tab 1a CBOS Implementation Costs and tab 2a CSC Implementation Costs | Could ODOT please clarify when they expect to provide evaluated transaction and account volumes for the O&M tabs? Furthermore, to properly size and price this project, we would like to request a 2 week RFP extension following the release of the statistics to allow us ample time for evaluation and best pricing. | The bid opening date has been extended as shown in OregonBuys, per Bid Amendment 9. |
ODOT Tolled Facilities Volume Projections were published on 10/18/23 in OregonBuys. Attachment E Price Proposal tabs 1b and 2b will not be updated, and is the formal RFP submission document to evaluate price against.
Transaction and account volumes will vary over time, based on a variety of variables, including determination of which of the identified toll facilities will be implemented first.
Attachment E Price Proposal was designed for Proposers to address and handle variations in transaction and account volumes. Proposers should use the estimated transaction and account volumes presented in Attachment E Price Proposal as well as the "QA Response for ODOT Toll Facilities Volume Projections.pdf" document to size and price the project.
2 Attc A Sample Contract Final section 1
Exhibit J CBOS Requirements Row 75 2
Row 75 “Business Support Hours” means Monday through Friday, 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Pacific Time, on Business Days.
Hours of Operation Monday – Friday 7am-7pm Saturday – 8am to 12pm
Clarification: Will ODOT please describe the difference between Business Support Hours and Hours of Operation? Exhibit J.1, section 4.1.1 Hours of Operation, CS.2 defines the operations hours for the Customer Service Center, including all customer support channels.
Attachment A Sample Contract defined term "Business Support Hours" refers to contractual business support hours for "Business Day" related contract management aspects as referenced throughout the Sample Contract, outside specific requirements for the Customer Service Center.
3 C+C4:I8BOS CSC_Attc A Sample Contract Final, Section 6.3.1 16 Retention Amount for Implementation Services Agency may hold back an amount (the "Retention Amount") of not more than fifteen percent (15%) of any amount that is payable by Agency to Contractor for Implementation or for an Enhancement or Change Order, other than amounts attributable to the purchase of equipment, hardware, or license of any Third Party Intellectual Property.
Clarification: This section indicates Agency “may” hold back retention.
1) For bidder planning purposes, will ODOT please explain under what circumstances the Agency will or will not hold back retention?
2) Will ODOT please confirm that any potential retainage held would only apply to the Implementation phase?
NOTE: During the Operations phase, the vast majority of operational cost is directly related to labor. Any retention during the Ops phase could place an undue burden on the Contractor to pay its payroll, fringe, burden, and incentive cost. Attachment A section 6.3 "Retention" 15% retainage is for Implementation Services only, should the Contract not be delivering Implementation Services as negotiated in the final contract.
Exhibit F section F "Withholding/Retainage" 5% is for all other work should the Contractor not be delivering the services as negotiated in the final contract.
Examples of Agency enacting retainage may include, but is not limited to: Attachment A Exhibit I section 1.h Failure to comply with DBE Provisions; Attachment A Exhibit D section 1 Agency's Use of Performance Evaluation corrective action for poor performance; Attachment A Agreement section 15 Contractor fails to performance in accordance with Contract; or Attachment A Exhibit F section E Services or associated Deliverables are unacceptable.
4 Attc A Sample Contract Final, Section 6.3.3 and Exhibit F 16 and 163 Withholding/Retainage
Retention Amount for Implementation Services “Agency reserves the right to initiate, at any time during the Contract, withholding of payment equal to 5% of the amount of each invoice …”
“Agency may hold back an amount (the "Retention Amount") of not more than fifteen percent (15%) …”
Clarification: Will ODOT please confirm maximum retainage is capped at 5% based on the language in Exhibit F? Attachment A section 6.3 "Retention" 15% retainage is for Implementation Services only, should the Contract not be delivering Implementation Services as negotiated in the final contract.
Exhibit F section F "Withholding/Retainage" 5% is for all other work should the Contractor not be delivering the services as negotiated in the final contract.
5 Attc A Sample Contract Final, SLA Performance Measurements and Adjustments 147 Call Center Operations
Maintain an average call abandoned rate of less than 5% of total incoming calls waiting 45 seconds or longer. Clarification: If the call answer rate SLA is 85% of calls in 60 seconds, it would make sense for the abandon rate measurement to begin upon exceeding 60 seconds. Otherwise the Contractor is penalized for one metric even though they are in compliance on another one and the SLAs are competing.
| Will ODOT please consider changing this requirement to an average call abandoned rate of less than 5% of total incoming calls waiting 60 seconds or longer. | ODOT will consider making adjustments during negotiations period with selected Proposer. | ||||
| 6 | RFP, Introduction | 6 | “…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.” | Clarification: Over the life of the Contract, facility lease costs will be a significant expense for Agency. Upfront, the lease term can have a major impact on the landlords willingness to provide renter incentives. It is bidder’s intention to aggressively pursue these incentives such as free rent, significant contribution to facility buildout costs, etc. The longer the lease the higher the incentives which, if negotiated and managed correctly, could amount to many hundreds of thousands of dollars or more. |
Will ODOT please consider extending the initial operations phase by two (or more) years and shortening the first or second extension by the same amount?
| NOTE: As an example, the contract term could be the 2 year implementation period plus 5 (or more) years operations plus one 5 year renewal and one 3 year renewal for a total of 15 years under contract. Changing the initial operations period should have minimal impact on the RFP documents and process, but would provide significant potential cost efficiencies amounting to several hundreds of thousands dollars. | The initial contract term for the CSC component has been extended from 3 to 5 years, per Bid Amendment 9. | |||||
| 7 | Attachment A, Definitions | 4 | “Help Desk Services” means all necessary activities to assist the users to effectively and efficiently use the Subscription Services. Support will be negotiated with the successful Proposer. | Clarification: Does the statement "Support will be negotiated with the successful proposer" mean that bidders don't need to price the support? | Proposers must include Support in the Price Proposal as part of the RFP response submission. |
"Support will be negotiated with the successful Proposer" intends to indicate that the Agency understands each Proposer's approach to Support may vary, therefore how Support is addressed to meet requirements will be negotiated between Agency and selected Proposer based on Proposer's specific approach and methodology to meet Support related requirements.
| 8 | Attachment A, section 3.1.2 | 6 | "Contractor shall cooperate with Agency and its designated third parties, including its Quality Assurance contractor,..." | Clarification: Will the Agency please provide the name of its Quality Assurance contractor? | Public Knowledge is the Agency's Quality Assurance contractor. |
| 9 | Attachment A,Order of Precendnece | 36 | "This Contract consists of the following documents that are listed in descending order of precedence: …" | Clarification: Will the ODOT please clarify where Contractor's proposal falls in the Order of Precedence? | Proposals are not part of the final contract so they do not fall under this order of precedence. The awarded firm will enter into negotiations with ODOT using the sample contract but will revise sections based on negotiations using the submitted proposal but the proposal itself does not become incorporated to the final contract. |
| 10 | Attachment A, TDCT.22 | 67 | …"Contractor shall develop simulated environments to test the interfaces and validate data exchanges. " | Clarification: Will the Agency please provide the names of the interoperable agencies that need to have interface testing? | Interoperable agencies required to interface test for Release 1 are defined in Exhibit J section 12.4. Third party service providers required to interface test for Release 1 are defined in Exhibit J section 12.6.1. Future interfaces with other interoperable partners are acknowledged as a Future Release requirement in Exhibit J section 12.8. |
| 11 | RFP Bid Amendment #5, Schedule of Events Table | 3 | Questions due 21 calendar days prior to the Bid Opening Date |
Clarification: 21 days prior to the bid opening date (of November 8, 2023) is Wednesday October 18, 2023.
Will ODOT please provide bidders one additional week to ask questions, i.e. through October 25, 2023?
| NOTE: There are still a number of outstanding questions, and it would be very helpful if bidders had one more week to ask questions related to the RFP and related to the responses to questions. | The bid opening date has been extended as show in OregonBuys. Questions and ODOT Answers have therefore been extended accordingly. | ||||
| 12 | RFP Bid Amendment #5 | 3 | Bid Opening Date | Bid Opening Date is currently 11/8/23 |
Clarification: Will ODOT please extend the Bid Opening Date one additional week to November 15, 2023?
| NOTE: At this time, there are still a number of questions that have not been answered and many of those responses are required to continue developing bidders pricing model which can take considerable time. | The bid opening date has been extended as shown in OregonBuys. | |||
| 13 | Attachment H, CBOS Proposed Solution Response Guide, section 4.10.2.3.4.13 - Data Management | 8 | Clarification: The second bullet in section 4.10.2.3.4.13 - Data Management contains a typo/cutoff sentence. |
"Explain how the solution ensures data integrity, data privacy, and compliance with data protection regulations. Please d ...".
| Please review and confirm if there was additional instruction not included. | Attachment H has been updated to remove "Please d" from section 4.10.2.3.4.13, bullet #2. Revised Attachment H is included in Addendum 9. | |||||
| 14 | RFP Bid Amendment #5, Section 3.2.3 | 6 | "Proposals must use 12-point minimum font size for the substantive text (including text in tables). Proposers may use their discretion for the font size of other materials that do not include substantive text (e.g. graphics, picture or graphics captions, and organizational charts)." | Clarification: The proposer requests that ODOT note that the TRG includes only two styles that meet the 12 point font requirement, but excludes bullets, numbering,and other formats required to publish a well organized proposal. The remaining TRG styles are not compliant with response instructions. We kindly ask that based on the limited page count, ODOT consider allowing modification of the compliant fonts to include bullets and numbering as well as the use of ten point font for tables. | The agency will not make revisions to the solicitation. | |
| 15 | Attachment A Sample Contract, Section 3.1.2 | 6 | Section 3.1.2 states “Contractor shall cooperate with Agency and its designated third parties.” | Please specify who these designated third parties are and clarify what obligations the Contractor will have to meet in order to “cooperate” with them. | ODOT is contracted with two General Toll Consultants ("GTCs") to support the Oregon Toll Program. Currently, ODOT has active GTC contracts with CDM Smith and Stantec, each with subcontractors under their respective contracts. The contracted GTCs work on behalf of ODOT, at ODOT's direction, to support the Oregon Toll Program, including this contract. | |
| 16 | Attachment A Sample Contract, Section 3.1.2 | 6 | This section seems to indicate that ODOT will have its own Quality Assurance Contractor that the successful proposer must work with, but QMP deliverables seem to indicate that the successful proposer should have its own QA system, methodology and staff. It is ODOT's intent to have multiple layers of Quality Assurance? Please clarify. | ODOT's Quality Assurance Contractor is evaluating and monitoring quality assurance across the entirety of the Oregon Toll Program, including program and project management and implementation across multiple sub-projects. |
The selected firm must have its own Quality Management Plan, including quality assurance and control, for all aspects of the Contractor's delivery of contractual obligations, including system planning, design, implementation, testing, and operation of CBOS/CSC systems and services.
| 17 | Attachment A Sample Contract, Section 3.6.3 | 9 | Section 3.6.3 states “For the CSC Services, acceptance of 2 monthly progress reports.” | Please clarify what the standard for acceptance is and how will Contractors know if a report has been accepted. | Acceptance of CSC monthly progress reports will follow Attachment A section 3.3, with deliverables meeting all requirements and acceptance criteria as defined in Attachment A Exhibit A.1 section 8.2. |
| 18 | Attachment A Sample Contract, Section 3.6.4 | 10 | Section 3.6.4 states “Agency has notified Contractor that State of Oregon authorizations to Accept the Services have been received.” | Please clarify what these authorizations are and what remedies the Contractor may have if an authorization is withheld not due to the fault of the Contractor. | The authorizations are further explained in 16.1 and the remedies can be found in section 15.5. |
| 19 | Attachment A Sample Contract, Section 3.7.2 | 10 | Please clarify that the use of the term “upgrade” in Section 3.7.2 is intended to mean the defined term “Upgrade” despite it not being capitalized. If so, please capitalize it. | The term "upgrade" is Attachment A section 3.7.2 refers to the defined term "Upgrade". The term has been capitalized in section 3.7.2 to address, in Bid Amendment 9. | |
| 20 | Attachment A Sample Contract, Section 8.2.3 | 19 | “Federally Funded Work Product” is referenced throughout the Sample Contract, beginning in Section 8.2.3 as a defined term but does not include a definition. Please provide a definition. If there is a specific definition in a code, rule or statute that defines this term, please provide a direct citation to the applicable code, rule or statute and its section(s). | Under certain conditions, a federal funding agency may require certain licensing requirements for original work product developed with federal funds. “Federally Funded Work Product” refers to any such work product subject to such federal funding requirements. ODOT is willing to negotiate language in the contract regarding federally funded work product with an awardee that is consistent with federal funding requirements. | |
| 21 | Attachment A Sample Contract, Section 11.1.3 | 24 | Section 11.1.3 requires the Contractor be “professionally competent.” | Please clarify what the standard for professional competence is. | There is no additional meaning we can provide. The standard in 11.2.1 is the standard in which the awarded firm will represent. |
| 22 | Attachment A Sample Contract, Section 15.2 | 31 | Please define “Repetitive” in “Agency Remedies for Repetitive Service Level Agreement Failures.” For example, will a mere two incurrences of Service Level Remedies give rise to ODOT’s right to seek breach of contract remedies? | Per Attachment A section 15.2, "repetitive" refers to "a material breach of performance standards includes repeated or excessive failures to meet any individual or combination of performance standards or Service Level Agreements." |
The severity and subsequent impact one or more failures may have on implementation and operations will vary, therefore Agency will not define a specific number of failures that must be incurred to be considered repeated or excessive.
Agency is willing to discuss further during the negotiations period with selected Proposer.
| 23 | Attachment A Sample Contract, Section 16.5 | 33 | Section 16.5 states: “State may extend the effective period of the Contract one or more times as it elects in its discretion . . . .” | Please clarify how the effective period differs from the Term or provide a definition of “effective period”. | This is just intended to say that a the contract will remain effective during the unilateral state extension. ODOT is willing to negotiate this section with the awardee. |
| 24 | Attachment A Sample Contract, Section 17 | 33 | Section 17 states that “Agency may, at any time, by written notice to Contractor, require Contractor to stop all or any part of the Services required by this Contract for a period of up to ninety (90) days.” | Please clarify whether the Agency can issue multiple written notices simultaneously or in immediate succession. | ODOT is willing to further discuss this section with the awarded firm. |
| 25 | Attachment C | Page 2 | Paragraph 9 requires the Proposer to make representations about its third party agents and subcontractors without limitation. As Proposers may conduct business in addition to providing services to ODOT, please limit this inquiry to Proposer’s third party agents and subcontractors, who provide or are contemplated to provide services to ODOT on this project. | We will leave this section as is. This statement is made for any potential participants in the Project. | |
| 26 | Attachment O | Page 1 | Paragraph 5 requires Proposers to make representations about third party subcontractors without limitation. As Proposers may conduct business in addition to providing services to ODOT, please limit this inquiry to third party subcontractors, who provide or are contemplated to provide services to ODOT on this project. | We will leave this section as is. This statement is made for any potential participants in the Project. | |
| 27 | Attachment A Sample Contract, Exhibit S | 1 | The first definition has no associated term. Please clarify. | Revised Exhibit S is included in Bid Amendment 9. | |
| 28 | RFP, Section 3.3 | 21 | Section 3.3 states that “A Proposal that merely offers to provide the Goods or Services as stated in the RFP may be considered non-Responsive to this RFP…” | As Proposers put together their Proposals, what more is required to avoid this determination? Are Proposers expected to offer more or different services than described in the project description, or does this mean that a proposal may be rejected if only (1) goods, or (2) services are provided instead of both? | A Proposer that simply states it will offer to provide Goods and/or Services to be performed, without describing the Goods and/or Services to be performed in accordance with RFP Section 3.3, Criteria and instructions set forth in RFP Section 4.10, and other RFP submission requirements defined in the RFP may be deemed non-responsive. |
| 29 | RFP, Section 4.9 | 25 | Please confirm that the fifth bullet point (“Proposer attempts to influence a member of the Evaluation Committee”) does not encompass the submission of a Proposal, which inherently is an attempt to convince the committee that the Proposer has met the evaluation criteria and should be awarded the project. | Submission of a proposal is not seen as influencing the evaluation committee. | |
| 30 | Attachment A Sample Contract, Section 4.4 | 14 | Can the proposer outsource services, including tag logistics, mailhouse services, call center services. If this is the case, is there any restriction for the successful proposer in using them other than Section 4.4 of the Sample Contract (prior written consent)? Is there a process that ODOT uses for this? | Proposer may outsource services to subcontractors (includes vendors), as long as Proposer follows all subcontractor requirements defined in Attachment A, including but not limited to sections 4.4 and 28. | |
| 31 | Attc N Requirements Traceability Matrix; CBOS Req | Can you elaborate the type and extent of the validations to be performed on the transaction once it is received in the CBOS coming from the RTS? | Validation for transmitted data will be defined in the Interface Control Document(s) (ICDs) during the Design phase with the selected firm. | ||
| 32 | Attc N Requirements Traceability Matrix; COB -Req | What is the current volume and projected traffic per year and when it’s expected to reach the 2 million transaction volume? | See "QA Response for ODOT Toll Facilities Volume Projections.pdf" published to OregonBuys on 10/18/23. | ||
| 33 | Attachment A Sample Contract, Section 11.2.4; Exhibit A Task 2.1, Requirement p.5 | Can ODOT confirm that that two websites (https://www.oregon.gov/das/Pages/policies.aspx#IT; and https://www.oregon.gov/eis/cyber-security-services/Pages/guidance-for-state-agencies.aspx) contain all the current IT and Information Security Policies applicable to the project. A different URL appears in Task 2.1, Requirement 5 of Exhibit A to the sample contract, but it appears to redirect to the second URL listed above. | Three websites referenced in Attachment A Exhibit A Task 2.1 requirement P.5 contain the current information and cyber security standards and IT security policies: |
https://www.oregon.gov/eis/cyber-security-services/Pages/guidance-for-state-agencies.aspx https://www.oregon.gov/das/OSCIO/Pages/SecurityGuidance.aspx https://www.oregon.gov/das/Pages/policies.aspx#IT
The second link (https://www.oregon.gov/das/OSCIO/Pages/SecurityGuidance.aspx) currently redirects to the first link (https://www.oregon.gov/eis/cyber-security-services/Pages/guidance-for-state-agencies.aspx), however the State of Oregon Enterprise Information Services (EIS) manages this website and any redirects, therefore what the website linked or redirects to may change at its discretion. Therefore, ODOT does not state the first and second links are the same, as EIS may update the redirect or content managed at this website in the future.
| 34 | Volume 3 Q&A, Item 27 | ODOT has indicated that proposers can include a list of assumptions upon which pricing and proposals were based that will be used during negotiations. Where should this list be included in the proposal? | Assumptions can be added as a new tab in attachment E. | ||
| 35 | CSC Requirement, Section 5 | 7 | Replenishment and invoice payments will be processed by ODOT’s lockbox at U.S. Bank and credited to customer accounts through a file interface with the CBOS | Please confirm if checks and money orders are expected to be mailed directly to the lockbox by customers, or are they expected to be sent by the customers to the contact centers and then have the team at the contact center sort and mail them to the lockbox for processing. | Checks and money orders for payments are expected to be sent by customers directly to the lockbox. Exceptions to this will be handled in the Standard Operating Procedures. |
| 36 | Price Sheets | The solicitation has the following dates listed: |
• 11/8/23 Proposal Due Date
• 1/31/24 (approx.) Notice of Intent to Award - 12 weeks after due date
• 1/31/26 Go-Live During the pre-bid ODOT identified that there will be some negotiations after Notice of Intent to Award. This indicates that NTP (and Year 1 on the Price Sheets) will start sometime after February 2024.
The price sheets list Year 1 and Year 2 as implementation and have zero (0) transactions per month listed. However, based on the schedule above, operations will start in Year 2.
| Can ODOT clarify whether year 3 is the expected start of operations or if operations is expected to start earlier (and in what month of year 2) | Proposers should assume two full years of implementation. If negotiation and notice to proceed for selected firm extends beyond reasonable time in 2024, ODOT will evaluate the impacts and negotiate implementation and operations periods and start dates with the selected firm accordingly to deliver a successful Go-Live. | |||
| 37 | Sample Contract, section 12.9 | 29 | 12.9 Bonds |
12.9.1 Implementation Performance Bond
| 12.9.2 Operations and Maintenance Bond | Please confirm that Contractors are required to provide proof of bond ability with their proposal based on the Implementation price and CBOS Operations and Maintenance price. | The RFP states in section 5.3.2 that proof of bonds are only required by the awardee. You can find the requirments of the bonds in section 12.9 of Attachment A. | ||||
| 38 | Sample Contract, Exhibit B, service Level Agreement | 146 | SLA Requirement, Monthly Project Management Deliverables During Implementation, $250 for each artifact not delivered for each business day past the due date. | Please define what is meant by “artifact”. | Contractual Task 1 deliverables as defined in Attachment A Exhibits A and A.1. | |
| 39 | Sample Contract, Exhibit B, service Level Agreement | 148 | SLA Requirement, Finance, Process eligible refunds within 10 business days of the customer request and/or closure of a customer account. | It is noted that the 10-day requirement does not provide sufficient time for away agency toll transactions to post or payments in transit (i.e., checks) to post to the customer account. Will ODOT please consider changing this requirement to 20 business days? | ODOT will keep the expectation that the refund must be processed within 10 business days. Exception handling can be defined during the design phase. | |
| 40 | Q&A Volume 1 | Q&A set #1, question #11 | ||||
| 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. | When will ODOT be providing the transaction volumes by facility and registered vehicle data? | See "QA Response for ODOT Toll Facilities Volume Projections.pdf" published to OregonBuys on 10/18/23. | ||||
| 41 | Q&A Volume 4 | #11 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. | ||||
| #42 'Estimated transaction volumes and types will be provided in a subsequent addendum. | The due date for clarifications is Oct 18. Volume 4 of the Q&A was released on Oct 18 and indicated an addendum with transactions will be released. |
1. If the future addendum requires clarifications how will this be handled by ODOT?
2. The transaction details are a key component in every bidder’s price models and as such time is required to understand the implications of volumes and complete all internal proposal governance. When will the addendum be released? The bid opening date has been extended as shown in OregonBuys ODOT Tolled Facilities Volume Projections were published on 10/18/23 in OregonBuys. Attachment E Price Proposal tabs 1b and 2b will not be updated, and is the formal RFP submission document to evaluate price against.
Transaction and account volumes will vary over time, based on a variety of variables, including determination of which of the identified toll facilities will be implemented first.
Attachment E Price Proposal was designed for Proposers to address and handle variations in transaction and account volumes. Proposers should use the estimated transaction and account volumes presented in Attachment E Price Proposal as well as the "QA Response for ODOT Toll Facilities Volume Projections.pdf" document to size and price the project.
42 RFP, Section 1.2 Schedule Can you clarify if ODOT plans to allow Q&A and protest submissions,. 14 days in advance and 7 days in advance respectively, of the new Bid Opening Date?
| The revised table from Bid Amendment 5 remains unchanged with the latest extension which means that the Q&A period remains at 21 days prior to bid opening and the RFP protest period ends 7 calendar days prior to bid opening. | ||
| 43 | Attachment E and Bid Amendment 9 | In the most recent Addendum 9, the following was referenced regarding an updated Pricing File: |
Our review of the available Attachment E on the website shows no changes in headers nor any changes to the pricing volumes. Can you please confirm that there is (or will be) an updated pricing file released? And if so, when?
There was an update made but it is not obvious unless you print the excel sheet.
It was brought to our attention that if you print the document there is a head or footer that appears that still has the name of the consulting firm helping to prepare the solicitation documents. We have removed that from the document via bid amendment 9.
Sheet2
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .