Addendum 1 _ 46_019 Response to Bidder Questi.pdf

Hall County Government

FINANCIAL SERVICES

PURCHASING DIVISION

POST OFFICE DRAWER 1435

GAINESVILLE, GA 30503

t: 770.535.8270 | f: 770.531.6711

FINANCIAL SERVICES DIRECTOR

Taylor Samples, CPA

ASSISTANT FINANCE DIRECTOR

Elizabeth White

PURCHASING MANAGER

Andy Youngblood

ADDENDUM #1

Response to Bidder

Questions August 7, 2025

RFQ/P #46-019 911 Public

Safety Technology Consultant

Q1. Given that this solicitation appears to be for professional consulting services rather than a construction or physical works contract, could the County please confirm whether the performance and payment bond requirements apply to consulting firms? If so, we would appreciate clarification on the specific risks these bonds are intended to mitigate in the context of this engagement. We also respectfully request consideration for waiving this requirement, or allowing an alternative form of assurance (e.g., milestone-based invoicing or insurance-backed performance guarantees) that is more customary for professional services.

A1. Bonds are no longer required for this solicitation. Please refer to Amendment 1 that was issued on July 29, 2025.

Q2. We would like to confirm whether Hall County is seeking a consultant solely to guide the acquisition and implementation of a cloud-based Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) system and to provide strategic evaluation and planning of external systems (such as land mobile radio, NG911, and call handling) only as they relate to the selected CAD solution.

Alternatively, is the County seeking a more comprehensive engagement that includes assisting with both the CAD acquisition as well as conducting a full evaluation and planning effort across all interconnected public safety technologies?

A2. The alternative listed here is the County’s intent for this solicitation.

Q3. Could the County please elaborate on the expectations for providing a “daily work schedule and daily checklist for completed work” in the context of this engagement? As the work will likely include strategic planning, assessments, and phased deliverables, we would appreciate additional insight into the level of detail and frequency being requested.

A3. The County desires that all points mentioned in this question be part of the daily work schedule & checklist for completed work. The County also desires a timeline reflecting regular and reliable communication regarding project milestones and progress.

Q4. Will the selected consultant be expected to coordinate directly with existing

CAD/RMS or NG911 vendors, or serve solely in an advisory capacity to County stakeholders?

A4. The County expects to serve in an advisory capacity to County stakeholders and be able to assist with vendors on an as needed basis. The Consultant will be expected to provide input and recommendations as well as collaborating with the County to guide it through the implementation of new cloud-based CAD/RMS and NG911 systems. See also page 8 of the solicitation under 4.0 SCOPE OF WORK.

Q5. Does Hall County anticipate the consultant will lead or co-author future RFPs for

CAD/RMS and NG911 systems, or simply provide input and recommendations?

A5. See A4 above.

Q6. Are there existing NG911 or ESINET systems in place, or is this engagement part of a first-time implementation strategy?

A6. There is not an existing ESINet system. This is for a needs assessment and strategic planning. See Scope of Work.

Q7. Can the County clarify how past performance with large municipalities (e.g., NYC

DoITT) will be weighted in the evaluation, especially given the 800-point technical scoring?

A7. Of the 17 mandatory questions listed on Exhibit G – Scored Questions, approximately 8 of them allow for an opportunity to address past performance.

Q8. Will the County consider experience delivering direct candidate support for NG911 roles—such as ESINET SMEs and Integration Architects—as relevant to this engagement, even if the firm was not titled “Public Safety Technology Consultant”?

A8. Yes, all relevant experience will be considered as part of the technical evaluation process.

Q9. Can the County confirm whether candidate-based contracts, delivered directly by

Millennium Info Tech Inc. to NYC DoITT, are acceptable as references for past performance—even if not titled “Public Safety Technology Consultant”?

A9. See A7 above.

Q10. Will the County require formal client references as part of the evaluation? If so:

• How many references are required?

• Is there a preferred format (e.g., narrative, contact info, reference letter)?

• Will the County accept a single reference in this category if it meets the scope and relevance criteria outlined in the RFP?

A10. See A7 above and also page 10 of the solicitation under 7.0 SELECTION

PROCESS, subsection 7.5.

Q11. Are there specific Georgia state standards or NENA guidelines that the consultant must align with when evaluating or recommending NG911 solutions?

A11. Georgia does not have a statewide ESINet. Please refer to the NENA standards on their webpage at www.nena.org/page/standards.

Q12. Will the consultant be expected to assess cybersecurity posture or CJIS compliance of existing or proposed systems?

A12. The County expects the consultant to assess cybersecurity posture or CJIS compliance for the proposed system.

Q13. Is there an expectation for the consultant to support grant writing or funding strategy for public safety technology upgrades?

Q13. See A5 above. Hall County has an in-house grants manager that will be leading the grant writing and funding strategy; however, the Consultant will be expected to participate in this effort as well.

Q14. Will the County require formal deliverables such as gap analyses, technical memos, or procurement strategy documents?

A14. Yes, this will be part of the Needs Assessment found on page 8 of the solicitation,

4.0 SCOPE OF WORK under “Responsibilities”.

Q15. Is this engagement structured as a time-and-materials contract, or will specific milestones and deliverables be tied to payment?

A15. The County’s payment terms are net 30 days based on time-and-materials.

http://www.nena.org/page/standards

Q16. Will the County require resumes of proposed team members as part of the submission? If so, are there specific roles or qualifications the County expects to see (e.g., NG911 SME, CAD/RMS Analyst, Project Manager)?

A16. See page 9 of the solicitation under 6.0 RFQ/P RESPONSE PREPEARATION and Exhibit G – Mandatory Scored Questions.

Q17. Is there a budget range or ceiling allocated for this engagement that bidders should be aware of when preparing cost proposals?

A17. The County is not releasing budgetary information for this solicitation at this time.

Q18. Is there an incumbent firm currently providing similar services to Hall County, and if so, will they be participating in this solicitation?

A18. No.

Q19. Can the County confirm whether digital submissions must be on USB, CD, or emailed separately?

A19. See page 3 of the solicitation under “Combined Digital Response” and also under

5.0 SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS.

Q20. Will the County provide a rubric or example of what constitutes “Excellent” vs.

“Good” scoring for technical responses?

A20. The solicitation document lists what documentation and information is required to be contained in your bid packet and how to organize it.

Q21. Will the County allow bidders to include supplemental attachments (e.g., reference letters, resumes) if clearly labeled and relevant?

A21. Yes.

Q22. Will the County require a letter of bondability to be submitted with the proposal, or only upon award?

A22. See A1 above.

Q23. Are there any minimum insurance requirements (e.g., E&O, cyber liability) that must be met prior to contract execution?

A23. See Exhibit B – Contract for Services, ARTICLE #118 – INSURANCE

REQUIREMENTS.

Q24. Will the County accept electronic signatures on the contract documents, or are wet signatures required?

A24. Electronic signatures are acceptable; however, this does not absolve the requirement to submit the appropriate amount of hard copies as stated in the solicitation.

Q25. Will the County publish a list of firms that submitted proposals after the bid opening?

A25. This will be available after the Board of Commissioners votes to award the contract. This can be obtained (after the vote) by emailing orr_financialservices@hallcounty.org.

Q26. Will the County disclose scoring breakdowns post-award (e.g., technical vs. cost scores per bidder)?

A26. See A25 above.

Q27. Can the County confirm the required structure or section headings for the

Technical Qualifications Proposal? For example, should responses be organized under specific sections such as:

• Firm Overview

• Relevant Experience

• Proposed Approach

• Key Personnel

• References

• Compliance Certifications Or is the County expecting responses to follow the sequence of questions provided in the RFP?

A27. See A16 above.

Q28. As noted in Section 7.8.2, the RFP evaluation process includes consideration of how well a respondent “Presents a compelling work plan that yields the desired contract services and deliverables.” Where within our response, or under which question of the Exhibit G Mandatory Scored Questions, does the County want respondents to outline our approach to the Scope of Work described in Section 4.0?

A28. This may be outlined in the executive summary and also assessed in a few of the responses to questions on Exhibit G – Mandatory Scored Questions.

Q29. In Section 4.0 SCOPE OF WORK, the term “may include” does not provide the precise type of information needed to provide an accurate price quote for these tasks. We are not sure what systems need to be evaluated and the level of effort for each system.

mailto:orr_financialservices@hallcounty.org

A29. Please factor in these elements into your bid. If these elements are not required, then the awarded Contractor and the County can discuss a deduction.

Q30. For Exhibit C – Mandatory Cost Proposal, can the Firm Fixed Price (lump sum bid) be just for the “planning through the implementation of a cloud-based CAD system” and a separate cost be provided for evaluation of Next Generation 911 (NG911) infrastructure, radio systems, or any unidentified emerging technologies?

A30. Please factor all costs into the lump sum cost proposal.

Q31. Please provide direction regarding County requirements and/or expectations for consultant personnel be onsite versus onsite.

A31. Please budget on-site visits in your lump sum cost proposal.

Q32. Does the County desire a separate research on cloud-based CAD vendors and solutions or will the development of an RFP be sufficient?

A32. No. Please see A4 above.

Q33. On page 3, the RFQ indicates the bidder must provide 6 copies (one original and five copies) but on page 8 of the RFQ it notes 5 copies (one original and four copies). Which is correct?

A33. Please submit 6 hard copies total: 1 marked “original” and 5 marked “copy”.

Q34. Given that Addendum 1 removes the bid bond requirements, and that a signed copy of Exhibit B – Contract for Services is required with the proposal submittal, is it acceptable to redline Exhibit B to reflect the removal of the bid bond language (Article #123 – Performance Bonds and Payment Bonds) and submit it signed, or will the County be issuing a revised version of Exhibit B reflecting this change?

A34. Redlining this clause is acceptable.

Q35. Will Hall County leverage the state Backdrop contract for terms and conditions, Specifically 99999-SPD-SPD0000208-00 14 dated April 11, 2023 or will there be a separate MSA?

A35. This is a separate MSA.

Q36. Is there an established budget for this effort, can you provide a range?

A36. See A17 above.

Q37. Will this system support other counties, and or be required to integrate into other counties / municipalities / central?

A37. The CAD will need to integrate with other municipalities and that should be covered with the needs assessment.

Q38. How many constituent users are you anticipating supporting?

A38. See A37 above.

Q39. Has there been an architectural review as to how this system will work with other county systems – E.g. – outbound emergency notifications (cell-mobile)?

A39. No.

Q40. What is the desired timeline to issue and select preferred vendor?

A40. The awarded Consultant will be expected to begin as soon as possible upon receipt of the Notice to Proceed.