70-00000-26-00005_70-0000026-00000 Q and A.xlsx.XLSX
XLSX spreadsheet 32 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 70-00000-26-00005
- Issued by
- New Mexico
About this file
This file comprises a Questions and Answers document related to two separate State of New Mexico procurement solicitations administered by the General Services Department (GSD) and the Department of Finance and Administration. The first RFP (60-00000-25-00017) seeks vendors for Broadband Planning, Grant Writing, and Infrastructure services across three categories, while the second RFP (70-00000-26-00005) solicits Next Generation 911 (NG-911) call handling systems and related hardware, software, and services for Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) throughout New Mexico. For the NG-911 procurement, offerors may submit proposals for cloud-based systems, on-premise systems, or both, with all systems required to interconnect to the state's existing ESInet and Motorola Next Generation Core Services infrastructure and comply with NENA i3 standards. The procurement targets 44 primary PSAPs with approximately 342 primary call-taking positions handling over 2 million calls annually. The mandatory pre-proposal conference for the NG-911 RFP was scheduled for August 26, 2026 via Microsoft Teams, with a revised proposal submission deadline of September 29, 2026 at 3:00 PM MST/MDT. The resulting statewide price agreements shall be effective for five years from award with an option to renew for an additional five-year term, not to exceed ten years total.
The NG-911 procurement specifies that offerors must provide pricing using Cost Response Forms with separate line items for hardware, software, services, training, and maintenance packages, based on manufacturer suggested retail price (MSRP) catalog listings with guaranteed minimum discounts applied consistently throughout the contract term. Mandatory specifications include manufacturer-certified technicians, a dedicated operations manager physically residing in New Mexico, one-year complete warranty coverage, and post-warranty maintenance and support with defined failure response times of four hours for major failures and 24 hours for minor failures. Offerors must demonstrate financial stability, provide three organizational references from similar projects within the last three years, and maintain New Mexico business registration and federal tax identification numbers. The state makes no volume or purchase commitments; awarded contractors must make all equipment, software, and services available to PSAPs and purchasing entities upon request. Evaluation criteria encompass company description, organizational experience and references, mandatory and desirable specifications, financial stability, and cost, with the state anticipating multiple awards to finalists with highest cumulative scores. The questions and answers document addresses numerous clarifications regarding proposal submission requirements, cost response formatting, technical specifications, certification requirements, and operational support expectations, with all responses previously issued as amendments to the original RFP.
View the file
Other files
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
| Broadband Planning, Grant Writing, and Infrastructure, RFP # 60-00000-25-00017 Q and A | ||
| Question | Answer | |
| 1 | As a privately held company, we would require an NDA to release our prior three years audited financials, which we do not normally release. Would it be possible to receive an executed NDA before the proposal submission deadline? Do you have an NDA that would be acceptable for the State of New Mexico? If so, can you please share for our legal review? | |
| 2 | Please provide clarification regarding what entities would be receiving grant writing services: would the qualifying vendor be expected to support the State of New Mexico? Or is this a blanket contract that entities within the State of New Mexico could use as a pricing point for entities to apply for grants? |
1. If the latter, how many potential applicants do you anticipate being supported?
2. If it is multiple entities, does this apply to both municipal and private entities?
| 3 | We understand that categories 1-3 each receive 100 points towards the 1000 point maximum score. If an entity only applies for one category, the maximum score they could receive would be 800. We further understand that you need a minimum of 700 points to qualify as a finalist. Please confirm. | |
| 4 | We understand that the RFP states that we are not required to submit anything for the References section in our proposal as long as our references send you the form via email. With that in mind, would it be okay to just include the second page of the reference questionnaire form (page 65 of the RFP) for each of our references. And if so, would it be counted towards the page count? | |
| 5 | Is "Technical Specifications" a section (on page 27 of the RFP) that we need to respond to or is it just instructions for the following "Mandatory Specifications" and the overall RFP? We undertstand the Mandatory Specification is where we talk about our qualifications and project approach along with showing our resumes and project sheets so we would like clarification on what to include in the "Technical Specifications" section if it is indeed a section that we need to respond to in our submittal package | |
| 6 | We understand that information regarding project staff and corporate experience is excluded from the 10 page limit but could the department please clarify what constitutes as project staff experience and corporate experience? Would it be org chart and resumes from the Staff Experience section (Page 29 of the RFP) and project sheets section from the Organizational Experience section (Page 28 of the RFP)? | |
| 7 | Are the following sections exempt from the page limit: Response to Contract Terms and Conditions and Offeror’s Additional Terms and Conditions | |
| 8 | Are the following sections exempt from the page limit: Response to Contract Terms and Conditions and Offeror’s Additional Terms and Conditions 2. We understand that information regarding project staff and corporate experience is excluded from the 10 page limit but could the department please clarify what constitutes as project staff experience and corporate experience? Would it be org chart and resumes from the Staff Experience section (Page 29 of the RFP) and project sheets section from the Organizational Experience section (Page 28 of the RFP)? 3. Is "Technical Specifications" a section (on page 27 of the RFP) that we need to respond to or is it just instructions for the following "Mandatory Specifications" and the overall RFP? We undertstand the Mandatory Specification is where we talk about our qualifications and project approach along with showing our resumes and project sheets so we would like clarification on what to include in the "Technical Specificati ons" section if it is indeed a section that we need to respond to in our submittal package | |
| 9 | If we are only submitting for Category 1 services, will we lose 200 points for non-submission of Category 2 or 3? | |
| 10 | If we do not respond to one of the Categories, can we submit pricing at a later date? | No. |
| 11 | Does this vendor approved list limit ISP's, municipalities, tribes, and others from procuring and using other vendors NOT on the list? | |
| 12 | How much detail is required in the design plans for Fiber infrastructure? Does it need to include Layer 1 detail? | |
| 14 | Where can we view or obtain the Rural Map referenced in Appendix G? | |
| 15 | Under HOW IT WILL WORK, states, "Selected Contractors will be part of a Statewide Price Agreement for one or more of the above-mentioned categories where a local public body or procuring agency can contact a Contractor and request a quote for services listed in the price agreement to implement a Work Plan developed by the local public body or procuring agency." |
Can a company apply for this RFP and NOT complete certain sections still be considered if the total evaluation is not below the 700-point threshold? The RFP states "selected contractors will be part of an SPA for one or more of the categories. RFP also states, they are awarding for the "Most advantageous" and NOT the highest score.
| 16 | Where can we find the missing verbiage for page 59 under How It Will Work? | |
| 17 | If a company does not qualify for Category 3 and forfeits the 100 possible scoring, must a Transition Plan be submitted or can we submit a Statement of Concurrence to indicate our agreement to provide a Transition Plan for a project when requested by the Procuring Agency, still receiving credit for a PASS evaluation. According to the Evaluation Criteria on page 31, it is a Pass/Fail item and NOT part of the 100 points on the scoring matrix. | |
| 18 | Given the historical challenges and financial risks of municipality-operated ISP models—contrasted with the demonstrated success and long-term sustainability of public-private, open-access partnerships (e.g., UTOPIA Fiber, Huntsville, AL)—how will this grant program evaluate proposals that balance public ownership of passive broadband infrastructure with private-sector operational expertise? Specifically, how will scoring criteria prioritize approaches that promote consumer choice, competitive last-mile service delivery, and long-term affordability through open-access frameworks?" | |
| 19 | Is a Professional Engineering Certification in New Mexico required for Category 1? | |
| 20 | Is funding available for each Category and if so, in what amounts? | |
| 21 | Could you provide estimated value for this RFP and number of connections, that would be required specifically for Category 3 Broadband Infrastructure and Systems Solutions? | Any eligible entity may use this SWPA to procure services funded by BEAD, NM Disaster Relief, Student Connect, the Grant-Writing/Engineering/Planning (GWEP), the Connect NM Fund, the Connect NM Pilot (ARPA), State Appropriations, or other State or Federal sources, as well as for their own initiatives. |
| 22 | Are these connections primarily residential or for CAI (Community anchor institutions)? | |
| 23 | We would be interested to submit a response on category 3 only; would this be acceptable for the state of New Mexico? Compliance with your RFP is important to us of course and we don’t want to exclude Category 1 and 2 and be disqualified if our solution only supports one Category of the RFP. | You may submit a proposal for one or all Categories. You are not required to bid on 1 and 2, in order to respond to Category 3. |
| 24 | Is there an estimated contract duration (including extension)? | This will be a four-year contract. No extensions. Please refer to page 2 under C. Scope of Procurement. |
| 25 | Is there a service start date? | Servies cannot start until all awarded offerors have executed their individual contracts and the notice of award is sent to the respective offerors. |
| 26 | Is there an RFP evaluation scorecard? | The Evaluation Committee Report is where the scores will be tabulated and recorded for each offeror. When the procurement is complete (All awarded offerors contracts are executed) the procurement file will be made public and can be requested from SPD via IPRA. |
| 27 | Is pricing information required to be submitted along with the service/product description for Category 3? | Yes. See page 60-61 under Cost Response Form. |
| 28 | Will the submitted pricing going to be publicly available? | After award, the Cost will be made public, as it will be available for all NM executive agencies and local public bodies to utilize this contract. |
| 29 | May we include a cover letter with our technical proposal? If so, please confirm whether it counts toward the 10-page maximum limit. | |
| 30 | Could you please clarify which sections are included in the 10-page maximum for the technical proposal? Specifically, are the following sections counted toward the limit: 1. Statement of Capabilities and Available Resources 2. Organizational Experience 3. Staff Experience | |
| 31 | Are resumes considered part of the 10-page limit, or are they exempt as supporting documentation? | |
| 32 | Could you please clarify the intended content for the Technical Specifications section, and how it should be distinguished from the Business Specifications and Mandatory Specifications sections? | |
| 33 | Will payments under the resulting statewide price agreement be milestone-based, deliverable-based, or time-and-materials? | |
| 34 | Will agencies in need of service issue individual task orders under the statewide contract, or will assignments be centrally managed through DoIT? | |
| 35 | Does the State anticipate awarding multiple vendors per category under this solicitation, or a single vendor per category for the duration of the contract? | |
| 36 | The RFP limits the proposal narrative to 10 pages exclusive of attachments. Can attachments such as project case studies, resumes, and reference letters be placed in an appendix without counting toward the limit? | |
| 37 | Will DoIT or the Office of Broadband Access and Expansion (OBAE) provide access to state-maintained datasets that will be pertinent to the work needed (e.g., Broadband Data Collection, OBAE service area maps, fiber routes/KMZ)? | |
| 38 | Will there be a recording of the pre-proposal meeting released before the RFP submission deadline? | No. |
| 39 | Is Appendix D, Cost Response Form, considered a public document? | All RFP documents are not public until the RFP procurement is complete and all awarded contract are fully executed. Once the procurement file is public, inquirers must submit an Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) request to the General Services Depart, State Purchasing. |
| 40 | If not, is it possible for an applicant to submit it as confidential | The offeror should proceed as instructed on pg. 14, C. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS, 8. Disclosure of Proposal Contents. |
| 41 | If yes, where can I find the Cost Response Forms for awarded vendors responding to SPA Number 10-00000-21-00080? | An Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) request must be submitted to General Services Depart, State Purchasing. |
| 42 | Under Category 3, does the State of New Mexico envision potentially funding projects that require buildout and/or operation of carrier-neutral Internet Exchange Points (IXPs)? | |
| 43 | Does the State of New Mexico envision services procured under this RFP to potentially include broadband monitoring and compliance of BEAD and/or CPF projects, including field validation of network builds? If so, which category would those services fall under? |
Sheet2
| NG-911 CALL HANDLING SYSTEMS AND RELATED HARDWARE, SOFTWARE AND SERVICES | |||
| RFP #70-00000-26-00005 | |||
| No. | RFP Section | Offeror's Question | Response |
| 1 | Section I.B. | Section I.B, Background Information explains that the State currently contracts with EDAC to acquire, validate, process, and maintain statewide GIS data. Could the State clarify which GIS responsibilities are expected to be provided by the awarded call-handling vendor versus those that will remain the responsibility of EDAC and/or the State? | "The definition of Maintenance and Support / Post Warranty Maintenance and Support includes vendor responsibility to "provide map server updates by uploading new GIS data on a quarterly or ad-hoc basis" |
The draft contract states the following vendor requirements:
“11. Ensure system support interfaces with NGCS, CAD, RMS, GIS and other required systems."
"12. The Contractor must integrate existing GIS datasets (e.g., street centerlines, address points, jurisdiction boundaries, and emergency response zones) with the call handling system to enable accurate location-based dispatching. Contractor must develop, maintain, and optimize digital maps used by call takers and dispatchers to ensure real-time location identification and routing. Contractor must ensure seamless interoperability with the current Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD or call handling system, adhering to National Emergency Number Association (NENA) standards. The Contractor must provide regular updates and validation of data to ensure accuracy, consistency, and completeness.”
State responsibility includes production of a NENA compliant statewide GIS database, to include address points, road centerlines, and PSAP/ESZ. This data will be provided to the vendor on a monthly basis, for each applicable PSAP.
| 2 | Section I.C. | Section I.C, Scope of Procurement, indicates that the resulting agreement will be available to PSAPs and other purchasing entities statewide. Does the State anticipate any immediate NG-911 call-handling system replacement projects following contract award, or is the resulting agreement intended primarily to serve as a statewide purchasing vehicle for future procurements? | The State anticipates that there will be procurements for call handling system replacements and upgrades immediately following contract award as well as over the course of the contract period. |
| 3 | Section I.C. | Section I.C, Scope of Procurement, states that this procurement is intended to result in one or more Statewide Price Agreements and further notes that the RFP may result in multiple statewide price agreement awards by manufacturer type. Would the State please clarify how participating PSAPs and purchasing entities will utilize the resulting agreements? Specifically, will purchasing entities be permitted to procure directly from any awarded vendor, or will additional competitive processes be required at the local level? | Participating PSAPs will utlize the resulting agreements to purchase new call handling systems as well as to maintain existing call handling systems. State agencies and local public bodies in New Mexico can purchase off an existing Statewide Price Agreement (SPA) under 1.4.1 NMAC and Section 13-1-135 NMSA 1978 without running a new competitive bid. |
| 4 | Section I.C. | Section I.C, Scope of Procurement, states that the procurement is intended to establish one or more Statewide Price Agreements that may be utilized by PSAPs, local governing bodies, and other governmental entities throughout New Mexico. The RFP also notes that there are no volume or purchase commitments associated with the resulting agreement. Would the State please clarify whether it anticipates any immediate NG-911 call-handling system migrations, replacements, or procurement projects following contract award, or if the resulting agreement is intended primarily to serve as a statewide purchasing vehicle for future PSAP procurements and upgrades? | The State anticipates both immediate procurements and procurements over the course of the initial 5 year contract period. The NM911 program maintains a capital equipment replacement cycle and there are PSAPs eligible to request State funding for new call handling equipment projects, while others may not be eligible for State funding for another 1-3 years. |
| 5 | Section I.C. | Could the State please review the option to remove the following language from the agreement: "with options to renew for an additional five (5) year option upon approval of all parties. This Agreement, including all renewals, shall not exceed (10) ten years." | See amendment 4 |
| 6 | Section I.C. | The price agreement term is five (5) years from date of award with an option to renew for an additional five (5) years, and Appendix D.1 requires that minimum discounts off MSRP "remain in effect for the full term of the resulting contract, including any authorized renewal periods." Neither the RFP nor the Draft Contract appears to contain a price adjustment mechanism. Please confirm whether the State will permit an adjustment to recurring subscription and maintenance pricing at exercise of the renewal option, or annually subject to a cap such as CPI, and if so, what process and documentation the State would require. | See amendment 4 |
| 7 | Section II.A. | Sequence of Events, Item 3 identifies the Mandatory Pre-Proposal Conference date as August 26, 2025. Would the State please confirm whether this date should instead be August 26, 2026? | See amendment 4 |
| 8 | Section II.A. | Would the State consider extending the proposal submission deadline? Given the scope and complexity of the solicitation, additional time would help ensure the completeness and accuracy of our response and allow for a more thorough review of the requirements. We respectfully believe that a brief extension would support the submission of a more comprehensive proposal while continuing to meet the State's objectives for a competitive and well-informed procurement process. | See amendment 4 |
| 9 | Section II.A. | We respectfully request an extension to the RFP submission deadline. | See amendment 4 |
| 10 | Section II.A. | Amendment No. 002 revised the Submission of Proposal date to September 29, 2026, but Events 7 through 9 were left unchanged: Initial Proposal Classification (September 21, 2026), Proposal Evaluation (September 22-30, 2026), and Selection of Finalists (September 30, 2026). Each of these now precedes or substantially overlaps the revised proposal due date. Will the State issue a corrected Sequence of Events? Please also confirm that the Deadline to Submit Written Questions (August 28, 2026) and the Response to Written Questions (September 3, 2026) remain unchanged. | See amendment 4 |
| 11 | Section II.A. | Confirm the due dates listed in Section II. A of the RFP, specifically the Initial Proposal Classification and Proposal Evaluation actions, as their due dates are still listed as September 21, 2026 and September 22-30, 2026, respectively, despite Amendment No. 002 extending the Submission of Proposal due date to September 29, 2026. Additionally, the Organizational Reference Questionnaire lists a due date of October 31, 2025 for business references to respond to the SPD buyer by; will this date be corrected in an amendment such that a confirmed deadline can be provided to potential business references? | See amendment 3 and 4 |
| 12 | Section II.C.15. | We request DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION to clarify the yellow highlighted part of the referred RFP section. "Offerors who submit revisions of more than five terms to the Draft Contract will be classified as potentially responsive." | In accordance with 1.4.1.38 NMAC, for the purpose of conducting discussion under 1.4.1.39 NMAC, a proposal may be classified as responsive, potentially responsive (i.e., reasonably susceptible of being made responsive), or non-responsive. Potentially responsive proposals are subject to discussions held to clarify technical or other aspects of the proposals. If, after discussions, it is determined the potentially responsive proposal is non-responsive, the proposal is disqualified and eliminated from further consideration. A written determination in the form of a letter shall be sent to the disqualified offeror setting forth the grounds for the disqualification, and made a part of the procurement file, in accordance with 1.4.1.38 NMAC. |
| 13 | Section III.A. | In the RFP it states, "Offerors may submit a proposal for either Cloud or On-Premise Call Handling Systems OR individual proposals for each option. If submitting a proposal for both options, that MUST BE INDICATED on APPENDIX ____. DO NOT SUBMIT A SEPARATE PROPOSAL." Which Appendix does the customer want the additional proposal added to when submitting for both options? | See amendment 4 |
| 14 | Sections III.A. and III.B. | Section III.A, Number of Responses, states that "Offerors may submit a proposal for either Cloud or On-Premise Call Handling Systems OR individual proposals for each option" and further instructs Offerors proposing both solutions to "DO NOT SUBMIT A SEPARATE PROPOSAL." |
However, Section III.C, Proposal Content and Organization, states that proposals containing both Cloud and On-Premise solutions "must provide a separate submittal of the Technical Specifications (Section IV.B), Mandatory Specifications (Section IV.C), and all associated Appendices ONLY."
Could the State please clarify the intended submission requirements for an Offeror proposing both Cloud and On-Premise solutions? Specifically:
| 1. | Should the Offeror submit a single proposal package containing separate Cloud and On-Premise technical responses and appendices within the same submission, or separate proposal packages for each solution type | |||
| 2. | If a single proposal package is required, which sections and appendices must be completed separately for each solution and which may be submitted once for both offerings? | |||
| 3. | For appendices and response sections where the functionality, capabilities, and compliance responses are substantially the same for both the Cloud and On-Premise solutions, does the State require separate responses for each solution, or may a single combined response be provided? | See amendment 4 | ||
| 15 | Section III.B. | For vendors providing both On-Premise and Cloud options, will it be acceptable that there are two technical response submittals; one for On-Premise and one for Cloud. This is stated as a requirement on page #35 in the PROPOSAL CONTENT AND ORGANIZATION section: “Offeror Proposals containing an offer for both the Cloud and On-Premise solutions must provide a separate submittal of the Technical Specifications (Section IV.B), Mandatory Specifications (Section IV.C) and all associated Appendices ONLY.” | See amendment 4 | |
| 16 | Section IV.B.4.10. | In the RFP it states, "The Offeror must provide an SLA that details the level of service for emergency call handling equipment, performance measures, compliance penalties, and alignment with state regulations. The SLA must be provided as Attachment 1 in MS/Word version for easy review and incorporation to the contract document." Can we also include a version as a PDF, so that is it a part of our entire proposal response we are submitting as a combined PDF? | Offeror may also include a version as a pdf as a part of entire proposal as a combined pdf. See Section III. C. Proposal Content and Organization. | |
| 17 | Section IV.B.4.11.b. | Section IV.B.4.11.b, Dedicated Operations Manager requires the Offeror to propose a Dedicated Operations Manager who physically resides in New Mexico. Must this individual reside in New Mexico at the time of proposal submission, or may the Offeror provide a commitment to assign or hire a New Mexico-based Operations Manager upon contract award? | See amendment 4 | |
| 18 | Section IV.B.4.11.b. | Please confirm whether the Dedicated Operations Manager residency requirement in Section IV.B.4.11(b) applies to both Cloud and On-Premise solutions, or only to solutions requiring on-site/on-premise maintenance support. | See amendment 4 | |
| 19 | Section IV.B.4.11.b. | In order to provide the most cost-effective solution to the State of New Mexico, would it be acceptable to nominate an out-of-state Dedicated Operations Manager? | See amendment 4 | |
| 20 | Section IV.B.4.9. | Section IV.B.4.9 requests a description of software upgrade processes, frequency, costs, downtime, and notification procedures; however, Appendix D does not appear to contain a dedicated software upgrade pricing section. Should software upgrade costs be included within post-warranty maintenance pricing, identified separately in Appendix D, or discussed elsewhere? | The definition of Maintenance and Support / Post Warranty Maintenance and Support excludes software upgrades. Offeror should provide pricing applicable to software upgrades within their MSRP Catalog Listing and any associated labor costs can be captured within the Support Services tab within the revised Appendix D. See amendment 4. | |
| 21 | Appendix C | Does the State anticipate establishing a Statewide Price Agreement with every responsive Offeror meeting the minimum evaluation threshold by manufacturer type, or does the State anticipate limiting awards to a specific number of Offerors/manufacturers? | The State's intention is to award as many vendors on Statewide Price Agreement as possible. Section I.A. states, "As a result of this procurement, the General Services Department (GSD) expects to establish multiple Statewide Price Agreements to provide NG-911 call handling systems, related hardware, software, and services within the State of New Mexico." | |
| 22 | Appendix D | Can you review and change the initial number of positions from 1 to 2. PSAP's normally will have 2 positions as a starting point. One position as a primary and the second as a back up. | See amendment 4 | |
| 23 | Appendix D | For the On-Premise Costs of additional position pricing, can the State offer tiered options? Possibly 2-6 Positions, 7-19 Positions and above 20 positions. Equipment needs can change dramatically between 3 positions and above 6 positions as well as above 20 positions. Server requirements, backroom gateways, switches and numerous other items need to be scaled up according to the positions required. | See amendment 4 | |
| 24 | Appendix D | "Appendix D requires respondents to provide the incremental cost for each additional position beyond the initial position. However, system scaling cannot be accurately represented through a simple per-position multiplier. Back-room hardware, bandwidth, software licensing, redundancy, and supporting infrastructure requirements increase at defined capacity thresholds rather than proportionally with each additional position. |
To support accurate, transparent, and comparable pricing, we respectfully request that the RFP be amended using one of the following approaches:
| 1. | Revise Appendix D to require respondents to provide the total Year 1 cost and total Years 2–5 cost for configurations ranging from the minimum of two positions through 100 positions. | |||
| 2. | Remove Appendix D and evaluate pricing based on each respondent’s minimum guaranteed discount from MSRP for each applicable product category, including hardware, software and maintenance. Additionally, an hourly rate table should be included to provide the professional services hourly rates for the relevant resources that can support this contract. | |||
| Either approach would more accurately reflect the system architecture, capacity requirements, and associated costs of scaling the proposed solution." | See amendment 4 | |||
| 25 | Appendix D | The cost response form currently lists 1 position for the pricing exercise; however, the minimum position count is 2 for any 911 PSAP. We request that the cost response form is amended to include 2 positions for the pricing. | See amendment 4 | |
| 26 | Appendix D | Appendix D specifies "Number of Positions: 1" with a separate line item for "Each Additional Position." Please confirm whether the "Each Additional Position" amount is included in the "Total Year 1 Cost" and "Total Estimated Costs" figures used for scoring, or whether scoring is based on a single position only. Given that the 44 PSAPs identified in Section I.B range from approximately 2 to 60 positions, would the State consider evaluating cost at a representative position count so that per-position scaling is reflected in the comparison? | See amendment 4 | |
| 27 | Appendix D | For respondents that will be including more than one manufacturer, is it acceptable that we amend the Appendix D to include the name of the manufacturer for that specific form? And is it acceptable that we include multiple forms, one for each manufacturer solution being proposed? | See amendment 4 | |
| 28 | Appendix D | In Appendix D, the On-Premise column includes a "Total Estimated Costs" row, but the corresponding Cloud column ends at "Total." Please confirm that Cloud "Total Estimated Costs" is likewise the sum of Total Year 1 Cost plus Total (Years 2-5). In addition, cloud/SaaS solutions are delivered as a recurring subscription that begins at go-live and does not distinguish a "warranty period" from a subsequent maintenance period. Please confirm where the Year 1 subscription fee should be reported for a Cloud offer, and whether the State will accept an explanatory footnote. Finally, will the State make Appendix D available in native Microsoft Excel format? | See amendment 4 | |
| 29 | Appendix D | The cost response form does not account for potential annual license/subscription fees that could be required in years (2-5) after the initial setup depending on the manufacturer. Should those annual costs just be included in the Maintenance/Support (Annual) line for both the Cloud and On-Premise categories? | "Yes, the annual license/subscription fees for years 2-5 should be include in the Maintenance/Support (Annual) line. The definition of “Maintenance and Support / Post Warranty Maintenance and Support” provides clarity to this question for years 2-5. The definition states, ""the Offeror awarded an agreement guarantees the NG-911 system and related hardware, software to include software subscription and renewals, and any labor related services for maintenance and support shall be in Complete Working Order as defined in this RFP during the post warranty maintenance and support period and after the one-year warranty period. The Offeror awarded an agreement shall repair all major and minor failures as defined in the “Failure Prioritization Schedule” to include but not limited to: |
a. Ensuring the latest version of system software is operational.
b. Providing software updates to maintain system functionality.
c. Delivering software patches to address issues and enhance performance."
| 30 | Appendix D | The pricing for both On-Premise and Cloud options will be based on the discount off list being applied to the current MSRP price per manufacturer. Since the manufacturer MSRP price lists change regularly (typically those prices increase), it will affect the future pricing for the Total Estimated Costs on this Appendix. Manufacturers cannot hold the MSRP price indefinitely. If the contract pricing is going to be based on discounts applied to MSRP, the Total Estimated Costs in the responses submitted will not be the same as the Total Actual Costs in the future if/when those MSRP price lists are adjusted. | Offeror should provide the maximum costs by number of positions in Appendix D. This pricing will not be increased over the 5 year contract period. Offeror should include any discont off MSRP in Appendix D.1 | |
| 31 | Appendix D.1 | "We respectfully request that Appendix D.1 is amended to provide a summary discount off list for each manufacturer to show the specific discounts off list for each individual category (see example below). Most manufacturers provide different discounts for different categories /products (not all categories get the same discount level). Rather than provide a complete list of products in the Appendix D.1 for each manufacturer, a link or URL can be provided where the most current MSRP list would always be available. The extended discount off list for each category would be static, while the MSRP list changes at the discretion of the manufacturer. The number of available products for manufacturer can in the thousands and additionally those line items can change over time as technology changes. | ||
| a. | Hardware | |||
| b. | Software | |||
| c. | Maintenance/Support " | Acknowledged. Offeror should list highest minimum discount off MSRP that will apply to the length of the contract, regardless of any changes to list price in the MSRP. | ||
| 32 | Appendix D.1 | Can we amend appendix D.1 with additional lines to accommodate all line items available for each manufacturer? | Yes | |
| 33 | Appendix D.1 | Can we amend appendix D.1 to include an additional column for the “MSRP or List Price” for each product item included? | No. Do not amend the form. | |
| 34 | Appendix D.1 | Can we amend the appendix D.1 to include a URL where all manufacturer MSRP/List Price lists will be saved for the duration of the contract? Having a published URL with all price lists included makes it easier for users to access the price lists and makes it easier for the awarded partner to update those price lists as they are updated by the manufacturer. | Do not amend the form. A URL link to published URL may be provided. | |
| 35 | Appendix D.1 | Appendix D1, Page 80: There are some manufacturers that do not have or publish an MSRP/List price. For those manufacturer’s, would it be acceptable to provide a Cost + percentage vs. the discount off MSRP/list? This could be represented as “Cost + x%” for those manufacturers where it applies. | Cost plus percentage pricing is not allowed. Offeror should list highest minimum discount off MSRP that will apply to the length of the contract | |
| 36 | Appendix D.1 | All manufacturers update their MSRP/List Price schedules at different intervals. Is it acceptable that the manufacturer MSRP/List price lists are updated and saved as those price lists are updated by the respective manufacturers? | It is understood that MSRP/List Price may be updated by the manufacturer over the course of the contract. Offeror should list highest minimum discount off MSRP that will apply to the length of the contract. Any information included in Appendix D.1 or changes to manufacturer MSRP/List price lists shall not impact or change the maximum price within Appendix D. | |
| 37 | Appendix D.2 | If Appendix D-1 is amended per our previous question #9, Appendix D-2 becomes irrelevant because all pricing would be based on the highest minimum discount off lists for options available per manufacturer solution. Additional Options can be comprised of multiple products plus professional services and those options can evolve over the life of the contract. If Appendix D-2 cannot be eliminated, we respectfully request that it is amended to provide a summary discount off list or cost plus for each manufacturer to show the specific discounts off list for each individual category (per the example provided as part of question # 9. | Acknowledged. Offeror should list maximum price for any additional options available at the time of the proposal. | |
| 38 | Appendix D.2 | Is it acceptable for respondents to provide a brief description of Additional Options or Value-Added Options without including specific pricing? Pricing for these options would instead be based on the vendor’s approved minimum guaranteed discount from the applicable manufacturer’s then-current list price, as provided in the vendor’s response. | Per Appendix D.2, Additional Options and Value-Added Options will not be evaluated. If the Offeror is awarded an agreement and the response includes the information required for this specification, the Offerors response may be included in the award at the option of the procuring agency. Offeror may provide a description within the form. Value-added Options provides the option to include minimum discount off or maximum cost plus. | |
| 39 | Appendix F | Appendix F states that references should submit completed questionnaires to Theresa Mendibles by October 31, 2025, at 5:00 PM MST/MDT. Would the State please confirm the correct due date for this procurement and whether Theresa Mendibles remains the designated recipient? | See amendment 3 & 4 | |
| 40 | Appendix F | Appendix F instructs references to submit the Organizational Reference Questionnaire by October 31, 2025, a date that precedes the August 13, 2026 RFP release date, and the questionnaire form itself contains a blank deadline field ("Forms must be submitted no later than ____________"). Please state the correct date and time by which references must submit completed Questionnaires to Theresa Mendibles, and confirm whether that deadline will be adjusted to correspond with the revised proposal due date of September 29, 2026. | See amendment 3 & 4 | |
| 41 | Appendix F | The due date seems to be wrong here. Please revise | See amendment 3 & 4 | |
| 42 | Appendix G | Appendix G, Section 4.1.1 requires that the Offeror be a "certified reseller, manufacturer, and technician" for the proposed NG-911 system and related hardware, software, and services, states that acceptable certifications include those from recognized bodies such as NENA or APCO, and requires that proof of certification be included. |
If an Offeror is the original equipment manufacturer of its proposed NG-911 call handling system. There is no reseller in the delivery chain, and the Offeror certifies its own technicians on its own platform. We respectfully note that NENA and APCO credential individuals and publish standards, but neither organization appears to issue a company-level certification for manufacturers of NG-911 call handling systems, and NGA 911 accordingly holds no such certification.
| Please identify what documentation the State will accept as proof of certification under Section 4.1.1 from an Offeror that is the original equipment manufacturer of its proposed system. Because Section 4.1 is evaluated on a Pass/Fail basis, please also confirm that an Offeror will not be deemed non-responsive solely for lacking a NENA or APCO certification that those organizations do not issue to manufacturers. | See amendment 4 | |||
| 43 | Appendix G | Section I.F.11 includes "onsite project management services; onsite project manager" within the definition of Installation; Section I.F.24 defines the Onsite Project Manager and provides that this individual shall not be the installation technician; and Appendix G, Section 4.1.2 requires that a project manager be provided starting prior to delivery and continuing until system acceptance. Please confirm whether the State requires a separate, dedicated Onsite Project Manager assigned to each PSAP site, or whether a single Onsite Project Manager may manage multiple PSAP deployments, either concurrently or sequentially. Please also clarify whether "onsite" requires continuous physical presence at the PSAP for the duration of the installation, or physical presence at defined milestones such as site survey, staging, cutover, and acceptance, with the remaining project management performed remotely. This requirement is a direct input to the professional services component of Appendix D pricing. | The State does not require a separate, dedicated Onsite Project Manager for each PSAP site. An Offeror may assign a single qualified Onsite Project Manager to manage multiple PSAP deployments, either concurrently or sequentially, provided that the project management resources are sufficient to meet all applicable project requirements, schedules, and acceptance criteria. |
“Onsite” does not require continuous physical presence at the PSAP for the duration of the installation. The Offeror shall provide onsite project management support as reasonably necessary to support the deployment, including, as applicable, defined milestones such as site survey, staging, installation, cutover, testing, and system acceptance. Remaining project management activities may be performed remotely when appropriate.
The specific onsite project management requirements for an individual deployment may be established in coordination with the applicable PSAP Director. The PSAP Director may waive or modify onsite project management requirements when deemed appropriate for the deployment.
| 44 | Appendix G | Appendix G, Section 4.3.3 requires system availability of no less than 99.999%. Please identify the point of demarcation at which availability is measured, and confirm that the calculation excludes outages attributable to elements outside the Offeror's control, including the State ESInet, Motorola NGCS, PSAP local area networks and premises power, third-party carrier facilities, and maintenance performed within an approved window. Please also confirm the measurement period (monthly or annual) and whether availability is measured per PSAP or across the statewide deployment in aggregate. | For purposes of the 99.999% system availability requirement, the designated network handoff for the Call Handling System shall be the interface between the Call Handling System and the external network/infrastructure provided by the State or its designated service providers. The availability requirement applies to the Contractor-provided call handling system and all Contractor-controlled components, software, services, and interfaces necessary for the system to perform its intended call-taking functions. Availability of the State's ESInet, telecommunications/network services, facility power, or other infrastructure outside the Contractor's control is excluded from the calculation, except to the extent that an outage is caused or contributed to by the Contractor or its system. |
| 45 | Appendix G | Section 4.3 requires completion of an IOT test with Motorola NGCS prior to connecting to the ESInet. Please confirm that this interoperability testing is a post-award/pre-deployment requirement and that successful completion of Motorola NGCS IOT is not required prior to proposal submission or award. | IOT Testing is a post-award/pre-deployment requirement. Offeror must comply with requirement to complete IOT testing as part of proposal. |
| 46 | Appendix J | Is it acceptable that for this response we include the current list of software for each manufacturer’s NG-911 system using the current MSRP or published list pricing, assuming the vendor’s highest minimum discount off list would be applied. |
Additionally, we would like to address that because technology will continue to evolve throughout the contract term, respondents cannot reasonably identify or price products/software and options that do not exist at the time of proposal submission.
We recommend that the RFP account for future solutions by allowing newly released products/software, services, features, and licensing models to be added during the contract term. Pricing for these future offerings should be based on the awarded vendor’s guaranteed minimum discount from the manufacturer’s then-current MSRP or published commercial price for the applicable category, including hardware, software, cloud services, licensing, and maintenance. This would most easily be accomplished by allowed respondents to provide a link or URL for each manufacturer’s current MSRP/list price (as requested previously).
| This approach allows the resulting contract to accommodate emerging technologies and manufacturer product changes without requiring respondents to speculate about unavailable solutions or assign pricing to products that have not yet been developed. Any future offering should remain subject to agency review, technical validation, mutually agreed scope and pricing, and written authorization before procurement. | Offeror should provide current list of software available at the time of proposal. Future considerations for new technology may be considered after the initial 5 year contract period. See amendment 4. | |||
| 47 | Appendix J | Section III.C directs that the Technical Proposal must not contain any cost information and that all discussion of proposed costs, rates, or expenses must occur only in the Cost Proposal. Appendix J, however, is submitted under Technical Specification B.4.7 and requires a list of all software including "licensing costs, and renewal terms." Please confirm whether the licensing cost information called for by Appendix J should be omitted from the Technical Proposal and provided in the Cost Proposal instead, or whether Appendix J is to be submitted in both volumes. Please also confirm that following the State's direction on this point will not render a proposal non-responsive under either provision. | See amendment 4 | |
| 48 | Appendix K | Appendix K is requesting a minimum of (2) certified NM technicians for “On-Premise” systems only. However, even with a cloud-native solution, qualified and certified technical support remains necessary because the complete operational environment is not entirely cloud based. Each deployment includes on-premises components—such as call-taking workstations, network switches, routers, firewalls, session border controllers, gateways, cabling, power systems, and peripheral integrations—that must be installed, configured, maintained, and repaired locally. |
For a mission-critical public-safety environment, these services should be performed by technicians who are trained and certified on the proposed solution and supporting technologies. Local technician availability is essential for timely troubleshooting, hardware replacement, network remediation, and service restoration when an issue cannot be resolved remotely. Cloud-native architecture may reduce the amount of back-room infrastructure, but it does not eliminate the need for certified onsite technical expertise.
| We respectfully request that the requirement is amended to include both On-Premise and Cloud systems. | Appendix K is only required for on-premise solutions. | |||
| 49 | Appendix K | The Failure Prioritization Schedule requires that, where an issue cannot be resolved through verbal contact or remote diagnostics, the Offeror provide a manufacturer certified technician on-site within four (4) hours for Major failures and twenty-four (24) hours for Minor failures. Appendix K, by contrast, requires New Mexico-resident certified technicians only for On-Premise solutions. Please clarify how the on-site response requirement applies to Cloud solutions, where faults are ordinarily diagnosed and remediated remotely and the customer-premises footprint is limited to workstations and local connectivity. Please also confirm whether the four-hour on-site response is measured to any PSAP statewide, including remote locations such as Catron, Hidalgo, and De Baca Counties, and whether the State will consider response times tiered by drive distance. | Appendix K is only required for on-premise solutions. The four-hour on-site response is measured to all PSAPs statewide. | |
| 50 | N/A | Request for the Inclusion of Additional Manufacturer Price List Discounts (separate appendix). Can we provide Additional Manufacturer’s price lists to include manufacturers outside of the core NG-911 manufacturer solutions that can be included to enhance or complete a NG-911 solution for our customers? This could include UPS HW, headsets, clocks, security solutions, recorders, etc.. We request that the format would be summary discount off list or cost plus for each manufacturer to show the specific discounts off list for each individual category (HW, SW, Maintenance). | Offeror may only include additional options for NG911 systems within the scope of this procurement. | |
| 51 | N/A | Request for the Inclusion of Hourly Rate Schedule in Cost Proposal (separate Appendix). Typically there are hourly professional services or installation/support services hourly rates that are included in the response to provide the customer the technical and project support hourly rates that can be extended for the life of the contract. Can the response be amended to include a table that allows respondents to include their hourly rate schedules for the relevant resources that can support this contract? This could be included as an additional Appendix. | See amendment 4. | |
| 52 | N/A | "2. | Will the State permit the use of offshore or non-US based personnel or resources in any capacity associated with the implementation, administration, operation, management, maintenance, or support of the State’s NG911 and PSAP systems and services? |
For the purposes of this question, please clarify whether any requirement for US based resources applied to all personnel who may access, support, administer, or receive information related to the State’s NG911/PSAP systems or associated contracts, including but not limited to:
| a. | System Implementation, installation, configuration, testing, migration and deployment |
| b. | Remote or onsite technical services |
| c. | Managed Services, monitoring, maintenance, and system administration |
| d. | Break-fix support, troubleshooting, escalation and engineering |
| e. | Service desk, help desk, ticket creating, ticket triage, dispatch and escalation coordination |
| f. | Access to NG911/PSAP systems, applications, infrastructure, configurations, logs, or system data |
| g. | Contract administration service management |
| h. | Billing, invoicing and financial administration |
| i. | Customer portals, reporting, service-level reporting and performance reporting |
If non-US based resources are permitted for certain functions, please identify which functions are permitted and any applicable security, data access, CJIS, confidentiality, or other compliance requirements. " "Although New Mexico's Enhanced 911 Act (NMSA 1978 §§ 63-9D-1 to 63-9D-11.1) and the freshly repromulgated 911 rules (NMAC Title 10, Chapter 6, Part 2, effective December 23, 2025) are silent on the nationality or location of vendors, contractors, and their personnel, whether offshore personnel may be used is function-specific, and turns on whether a given function touches (1) criminal justice information (CJI), (2) State systems/networks or protected 911 data, or (3) neither:
| • | High-level contract administration and billing/financial administration, so long as no protected 911/PSAP or criminal justice data is processed, are largely unconstrained by existing regulatory prohibitions. |
| • | Implementation, remote/onsite technical services, break-fix, help/service desk, and reporting/portals are permitted, if the work stays clear of CJI. DoIT rules require CIO/ISO-approved remote access, individual vendor accountability, NDAs, encryption, security testing of externally hosted services, and — significantly — bar moving State data ""out of the state's control"" without agency-head authorization. |
| • | Managed services/system administration and any function involving actual access to systems, configurations, logs, or system data are not permitted. Where these touch CJI, the FBI CJIS Security Policy's personnel-security provisions are the decisive constraint and, in practice, exclude offshore personnel. See 28 C.F.R. Part 20 and the Compact Council outsourcing standard add screening and contractual predicates." |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .