35368 Volume 6 QA.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 31 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- S-73000-00007613
- Issued by
- Multnomah County, Portland City, Oregon
About this file
This document is related to 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 covers a comprehensive program for revenue collection and congestion management, encompassing a single system of systems with multiple components including people, processes, and technologies. The RFP seeks proposals for the CBOS and CSC services, with an anticipated contract term of 5 years for each. The milestone and deliverable schedule outlined in the sample contract reflects a projected Go-Live during Q1 2026, subject to negotiation with the selected proposer.
The pricing structure allows for flexibility in proposing costs for CBOS and CSC services, including potential cost synergies. ODOT will contract with a single Prime Contractor, who may utilize subcontractors or partnerships to provide the best-in-class teams. ODOT will validate the price proposals to ensure all costs are accounted for, and labor costs can be based on future projected wages. The RFP covers jurisdictions within Multnomah County and the City of Portland.
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 | Bid Amendment 9 - Bid Opening Extension | Given the updated schedule, we anticipate “Notice of intent to award” in January of 2024, after which, we will go through protest period, contract negotiations, then ending with Notice to Proceed (NTP). Can you give some indication of the time we expect to spend between “Notice of intent to award” and “Notice to Proceed”? | This will depend on how long negotiations take with the awarded firm. However, the Agency anticipates negotiations taking 3- 4 months. | ||
| 2 | Bid Amendment 9 | Contract term | Initial contract term has been extended to 5 years for the CSC, and the CBO is also 5 years: What is the proposed calendar? Will the two contracts be signed (and start their term) on NTP date? Or the Call Center 5 years initial term contract is expected to start on Go-Live date? Or should we assume these will be completely unrelated developments and dates? | One contract will be signed and NTP issued for both CBOS and CSC services, as structured in Attachment A Sample Contract. Work for both CBOS and CSC services are to begin once the contract is fully signed and NTP is issued, unless otherwise stated by Agency's Project Manager at that time. Implementation tasks as stated in Attachment A Exhibit A and Exhibit A.1 will begin immediately following NTP of the contract. The proposed contract execution calendar is defined in Attachment A Exhibit A "CBOS Milestones and Deliverable Due Dates" and Exhibit A.1 "Milestones and Deliverable Due Dates" sections. | |
| 3 | General | We envisage some structure costs that will be shared between the CBO and the CSC contracts. Is it fair to assume that both contracts will run in parallel during the whole 5 years term, and thus, materialize the synergies? Or otherwise, we need to cost the CSC on a standalone basis for the time period between the two expiration dates? | One contract will be signed and NTP issued for both CBOS and CSC services, as structured in Attachment A Sample Contract. Attachment E Price Proposal is structured to give proposers flexibility in pricing for CBOS and CSC services, including determining where potential cost synergies could be identified. Price Proposal evaluation will be conducted on "Total Evaluation Calculation" on Attachment E Price Proposal tab 3b, as stated in RFP section 4.10.3. | ||
| 4 | Transaction Volumes | Regarding new transaction volumes, the answer to Q&A process provides a split between “trip transactions” and “point transactions”. Is the contractor going to be paid based on number of trip transactions or point transactions? | For transaction-related payment items, selected firm will be paid based on point transactions. | ||
| 5 | Attachment J - CSC Proposed Solution Response Guide, 4.10.2.5.4.13 Payments, Exceptions, Fees/Adjustments, Returned Payments, and Refunds | Describe processes implemented on other projects to handle unidentified payments. | Could ODOT clarify what is meant by unidentified payments and/or provide examples of what would fall into this category? | "Unidentified payments" as stated in Attachment J CSC Proposed Solution Response Guide refers to payments that cannot be readily associated with a customer account and are posted to the designated system unidentified account, as stated in Exhibit J.1 CSC Requirement FI.16. | |
| 6 | 35368 Attc A Sample Contract, CBOS Milestones and Deliverable Due Dates | 92 | We need additional clarification on the CBOS milestone chart and the expected timeframe of the implementation. When analyzing the schedule, there are some questions that arise from evaluating the timeframes regarding development and operations. Is the expected due date for development and testing meant to be NTP + 380 days or is it meant to be something longer like 480 or 580 days? When considering the deliverables, having development and testing finish at 380 days would leave nearly 7 calendar months for the next task (Training, Task 5, NTP + 600 days) to be completed. Task 5 deliverables seem like they could be reasonably delivered in a couple of months, which would leave 4 or 5 calendar months of downtime that could potentially be utilized for development and testing instead. | The CBOS milestones and deliverable due dates schedule defined in Attachment A is intentional, as Task 4 "Test Planning, Development and Configuration, Testing" must be complete prior to executing Task 6 "Pre Go-Live End-to-End Acceptance Testing" to allow reasonable time to prepare for and execute the pre go-live testing task. |
The CBOS milestones and deliverable due dates schedule in Attachment A reflects ODOT's current projections based on Go-Live anticipated during Q1 2026. The "NTP + XX days" are estimates, based on expected NTP, and are subject to change based on the RFP's 6-week extension and negotiations with selected proposer. ODOT will work with selected firm during the negotiations period to refine the milestones and deliverable due dates schedule based on realistic delivery expectations and the best information available at that time.
The ability for the Proposer to meet the schedule is a major factor in evaluating proposers throughout the RFP selection process.
7 35368 Attc A Sample Contract, CBOS Milestones and Deliverable Due Dates, CBOS Milestones and Deliverable Due Dates 92 We need additional clarification on the CBOS milestone chart and the expected timeframe of the implementation. When analyzing the schedule, there are some questions that arise from evaluating the timeframes regarding development and operations. The Operations task (Task 8) is given a due date of NTP + 660 days. Since Task 8 - Operations, must be completed post Go-Live but is tied to NTP rather than Go-Live, proposers are necessarily constrained to assume a NTP of around April or May of 2024 in order for the schedule to flow as expected. Could Task 8 - Operations be tied to Go-Live instead of NTP? Since Operations must be completed post Go-Live, a due date of Go-Live + 60 or 90 days (as an example) would allow for greater scheduling flexibility and help the schedule flow more easily. Another concern with Task 8 - Operations is that because a ROC (part of deliverable 8.2) generally requires about 6 months of payments to be processed in order to be issued, the completion of Task 8 would likely not be feasible until 6 or 7 months post Go-Live unless payment processing were to start earlier than Go-Live. A self-assessment may be possible within the timeframe expressed in the milestone chart, but likely not a ROC. The CBOS milestones and deliverable due dates schedule in Attachment A reflects ODOT's current projections based on Go-Live anticipated during Q1 2026. The "NTP + XX days" are estimates, based on expected NTP, and are subject to change based on the RFP's 6-week extension and negotiations with selected proposer. ODOT will work with selected firm during the negotiations period to refine the milestones and deliverable due dates schedule based on realistic delivery expectations and the best information available at that time.
ODOT is willing to discuss extension of Attachment A Exhibit A deliverable 8.2.b Annual PCI-DSS Report on Compliance (ROC) due date during negotiations period with selected firm to address operational needs post go-live prior to conducting a PCI-DSS ROC.
8 35368 Attc A Sample Contract, CBOS Milestones and Deliverable Due Dates 92 We need additional clarification on the CBOS milestone chart and the expected timeframe of the implementation. When analyzing the schedule, there are some questions that arise from evaluating the timeframes regarding development and operations. Are the milestones in the sample contract meant to communicate expectations for the schedule and delivery or is there flexibility for proposers to suggest a schedule? The CBOS milestones and deliverable due dates schedule in Attachment A reflects ODOT's current projections based on Go-Live anticipated during Q1 2026. The "NTP + XX days" are estimates, based on expected NTP, and are subject to change based on the RFP's 6-week extension and negotiations with selected proposer. ODOT will work with selected firm during the negotiations period to refine the milestones and deliverable due dates schedule based on realistic delivery expectations and the best information available at that time.
The ability for the Proposer to meet the schedule is a major factor in evaluating proposers throughout the RFP selection process.
| 9 | Attachment E- Price Proposal | Tab 3a O&M Price Summary | Price Proposal, sheet 3a - CBOS Operations &Maintenance Price Summary Section | On Sheet 3a O&M Price Summary, the formula in cell E-4 is incorrectly multiplying the value by 12. Other cells in column E under row 4 are correct. | This is correct. This has been fixed in the new Attachment E - Price Proposal issued via addendum. |
| 10 | RFP 4.10.2 | Page 26 of 39 | Proposers should not make any changes to formatting, text styles, or tables in the document. | The attachment templates for responses indicate to [Provide Required Response Here] in red, italicized 12 point Calibri. Are respondents required to provide all responses in red, italicized 12 point Calibri, which is quite difficult to read electronically? If black text is usable, which would require a change to the template, please confirm that is allowed. | The red text is meant to serve as instructions only. Proposers are not required to provide response in red italicized font. Please provide response in black, non-italicized font. |
| 11 | RFP, Section 2.3 | The RFP states "The CBOS/CSC service will be provided under one contract, but we anticipate the CBOS and CSC may be separate teams our even separate teams." | Would ODOT consider executing a separate contract with the CSC provider to allow for best-in-class teams to be formed while presenting the most optimal pricing? | ODOT encourages proposers to offer best-in-class teams. If the proposer does not offer CBOS and CSC services under one team, rather as subcontracts and partnerships with other firms, ODOT will only contract with one selected firm as the Prime Contractor, with others serving as subcontractors to the Prime Contractor. | |
| 12 | 35368 Attc E Price Proposal~2 | Tab 2b - CSC O&M Price | |||
| Can ODOT confirm where vendors should place fees for CSC labor in the Price Proposal? Should these be included as individual line items as Annual Direct Costs, or should CSC labor be bundled into the Monthly Transaction and Registered Accounts prices? If CSC labor rates are to be bundled into the transaction/registered accounts costs, how will ODOT differentiate between levels of support such as vendor's staffing plan and support resources? How will ODOT ensure that all vendors are providing pricing based on uniform or standardized assumptions for true cost versus value comparison? | |||||
| CSC labor costs should be included in transaction and/or account fee estimates on tab 2b of Attachment E Price Proposal, including any fixed labor-related costs that may not vary based on transaction or account volumes. Direct costs associated with CSC labor can be accounted for in the Direct Costs section of tab 2b, at the proposer's discretion. |
Different proposer solutions may require different levels of staffing; the defined requirements, business rules, and service level agreements will be used to measure performance, rather than staffing levels.
ODOT will conduct a Price Proposal validation during the evaluation process to verify Price Proposals are inclusive of all costs.
| 13 | 35368 Attc E Price Proposal~2 | Tab 2b - CSC O&M Price | ||
| Can ODOT please confirm that costs associated with labor should account for future-state, 2026 projected wages and no wages applicable in the market today? This will ensure that vendors do not underbid wages and request increases prior to Go-Live as part of a low pricing strategy. | Labor costs included in transaction and/or account cost estimates can account for future labor-related costs related to inflation and increases over time. | |||
| 14 | ODOT Tolled Facilities Volume Projections - Correction to Document | After posting the ODOT Tolled Facilities Volume Projections document ODOT found that there was an error in the numbering of the tables, all other information is correct in the document. This document is not part of the RFP so there is no bid amendment to correct the issue. We are providing the correction in this Volume 6 Q&A document. | Table 2b title/header should be ‘Table 1b’, as referenced in text. |
Table 3 title/header should be ‘Table 2’, as referenced in text.
Table 4 title/header should be ‘Table 3’, as referenced in text.
Table 5 title/header should be ‘Table 4’, as referenced in text.
Sheet2
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .