Addendum_1.pdf
PDF 204 KB Posted
- Attached to
- 6000001976 - TELEPHONIC INTERPRETER SERVICES
- Solicitation number
- 0000000488
- Issued by
- California
About this file
This is Addendum Number 1 to Invitation for Bid (IFB) Number 6000001976 issued by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) for interpreter services. The document provides questions and answers from the Letter of Inquiry period that ended February 26, 2016. The IFB allows vendors to bid on different regions using individual rate sheets, with vendors able to bid on one or more services. Based on usage data from the past 5 months, approximately 15,500 minutes of telephone interpretation services were used, with anticipated increases in future years.
Key challenges identified include background noise interfering with interpreter audio, unexplained call disconnections, interpreters hanging up at shift changes, and limited language availability including difficulties finding Tagalog interpreters. The department declined to modify requirements for court certified interpreters or their qualification process. No estimated contract value was provided by the department. The document clarifies multiple times that this is an IFB rather than an RFP, directing bidders to review the Scope of Work under Introduction and Basis for Award sections for details on contract structure and execution.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 10._Interpreter_Exhibit_B-1_Rate_Sheet_2-4-16.xls | XLS spreadsheet | |
| 10._Interpreter_Exhibit_B-1_Rate_Sheet_Addendum_2.xls | XLS spreadsheet | |
| Addendum_2.pdf | ||
| IFB_Packet_Minus_B-1.pdf |
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
STATE OF CALIFORNIA —DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION EDMUND G. BROWN JR., GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
OFFICE OF BUSINESS SERVICES
9838 Old Placerville Road, Suite B-2 Sacramento, CA 95827
March 4, 2016
TO: PROSPECTIVE BIDDER
RE: INVITATION FOR BID (FIB) NUMBER 6000001976
ADDENDUM NUMBER 1
IFB Letter of Inquiry period ended February 26, 02016. The following are the questions and answers asked and answered:
The question was asked, “Can we bid on one or more of the services listed in the RFP or is it a requirement to provide all services?”
o The answer is: This is not an RFP it is an Invitation for Bid (IFB).
Please refer to the Rate Sheet (Exhibit B-1) which has individual sheets for each region which allows vendors to bid on different regions.
The question was asked, “Is there a primary reason for this RFP? For example:
existing quality concerns, reduction to current price, or general contract terms requiring renewal?”
o The answer is: This is an Invitation for Bid (IFB). Please review the Scope of Work, to provide the necessary and appropriate level of expertise applicable to the interpreting services.
The question was asked, “Is it your intention to award to multiple vendors or one vender providing all services?”
o The answer is: Please review the Scope of Work under Introduction
The question was asked, “What is the estimated value of this contract?”
o The answer is: The Department has not set an estimated value.
The question was asked, “If multiple vendors are selected, how will the work will divided and what does your current disbursement strategy looks like?”
Prospective Bidders o The answer is: Please refer to the Invitation for Bid under Basis for
Award and Agreement Execution.
The question was asked, “Is there any historical data for court certified telephone interpreter services?”
o The answer is: Not sure why this question came up. The SOW did not mention court certified telephone interpreter services.
The question was asked, “What has been the biggest challenge for fulfilling services under this contract, or if this is a new contract, are there any challenges that you anticipate?”
o The answer is: The most challenge would be the common issues for the services itself. The issues would be the following:
a. Can't hear the interpreter because the noise in the background is extremely loud (talking, laughing, etc, in background).
b. Multiple hang-ups for no reason.
c. Hang-ups because the interpreter's shift is over.
d. Limited languages available (e.g. unable to find an interpreter who could speak Tagalog).
The question was asked, “What is the expected volume of this contract?”
o The answer is: For the past 5 months, there were total about 15,500 minutes telephone interpretation services were used. It is anticipate there will probably more for the follow years.
The question was asked, “Will CDCR consider modifying the requirement for court certified interpreters to reflect qualified interpreters and for proposers to include their qualification/assessment process?”
Prospective Bidders o The answer is: At this time the Department does not feel a need to modify the requirements for the interpreters.
We hope this information has been found useful.
Sincerely, M. M. Hoffman
MICHELE M. HOFFMAN, Associate Contract Analyst Construction Contracts Unit.
Contracts Management Branch
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .