addendum-1-rfp-doit-2025-036-state-responses-to-early-vendor-inquiries.pdf

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

BUREAU OF TRAFFIC 18 SMOKEY BEAR BOULEVARD P.O. BOX 483 CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03302-0483 TELEPHONE: 603-271-2291 FAX: 603-271-6083 TDD ACCESS: RELAY NH 1-800-735-2964 INTERNET: WWW.NHDOT.COM

David Rodrigue, P.E.

Assistant Commissioner

Andre Briere, Colonel, USAF (RET) Deputy Commissioner

William Cass, P.E.

Commissioner

February 12, 2025

NHDOIT RFP 2025-036

Traffic Data Management System (TDMS) Responses to Vendor Inquiries (Early Submissions)

DATE AND TIME OF PROPOSAL SUBMISSION: MAY 15, 2025 3:00PM ET

To All Qualified Proposal Teams, At the conclusion of the first inquiry period, NHDOT has received multiple questions regarding the RFP.

The following documents all questions asked and NHDOT’s responses.

Question 1: Will the presentation from the Mandatory Pre-Proposal Vendor Conference be provided on the New Hampshire Department of Administrative Services (DAS) website?

State Response: Yes, the presentation has been uploaded to the DAS website as Attachment 14.

Question 2: Are the Vendors required to already have their own Traffic Data Management System (TDMS) software?

State Response: Yes, a qualified Vendor should have an existing commercial off the shelf TDMS product. The TDMS shall have been implemented in two jurisdictions within the United States.

Question 3: Is Table B-2.2 only in PDF form in the RFP main document?

RFP Reference: RFP Pages 30-36, Table B2.2 State Response: Table B-2.2 has been uploaded to the DAS website in Excel format for use by the Vendors. See new Attachments.

Question 4: Can you provide an API or other documentation referencing the Bureau of Turnpike data?

RFP Reference: Table B2.1, Requirement B1.13.2 State Response: Bureau of Turnpikes vehicle count data will not be available to the TDMS Vendors via API. Uploads of Turnpike data shall require a manual upload process. If Vendor has had success in integrating tolling data into the TDMS via Autopolling, API, or other method, NHDOT would be interested in learning more.

Question 5: Could you please clarify the expectations for the cluster analysis process? Specifically: Since cluster analysis is typically iterative and collaborative, are there specific guidelines, tools, or levels of automation you envision? How would you prefer the back-and-forth interactions to be structured to align with your goals?

RFP Reference: Table B2.1, Requirement F7.15 State Response: The Traffic Monitoring Guide (TMG) provides a framework for conducting cluster analysis in traffic data monitoring. NHDOT is open to the Vendor’s experience with implementing cluster analysis into the TDMS software. NHDOT expects that the solution will have an automated and manual review associated with the cluster analysis. NHDOT has not used cluster analysis in the past.

Question 6: What is the “Edit form” in the list of reports required?

RFP Reference: Table B2.1, Requirement C6.5.8, C6.5.10, C6.5.13 State Response: These three requirements are not independent standard reports, but a requirement to allow an Authorized User to edit the immediately preceding standard reports (C6.5.7, C6.5.9, and C6.5.12).

Question 7: The Proposed Solution must export a “Station Header” file as a .csv with one record for each Station ID. What is the “Station Header”?

RFP Reference: Table B2.1, Requirement C6.19 State Response: The Station Header report is a report of all count stations with the eight digit station number.

Question 8: Is there an expectation that the system will have an archiving service?

RFP Reference: Table B2.1, Requirement C1.3, C1.3.1 State Response: The RFP has requirements associated with data archiving in the Data Storage section of Table B-2.1 starting with Requirement C4.1. Requirement C4.1 states that the Proposed Solution shall have data archiving and report archiving capabilities. Requirements C4.1.1 through C4.1.6 provide more context on the data archiving that is expected. Note that C4.1.3, C4.1.4, and C4.1.5 state that the Proposed Solution shall provide archiving of all data, provide an archive service for performance measures, an archive service for analysis and studies, and an archive service for planning and operations research.

Question 9: What does “on call” and “enhanced on-call” mean?

RFP Reference: Table B2.1, Requirement J1.5, K3.10.1 State Response: “On-Call” technical support is defined as telephone/email assistance during regular business hours (Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM ET) and the Vendor shall respond within 24 hours of the outreach. “Enhanced On-Call” technical support is defined as telephone/email assistance during extended business hours (Monday-Friday 7AM-7PM ET) and the Vendor shall respond within 4 hours of the outreach.

Question 10: Could you provide information on what the Partner UI expectations are?

RFP Reference: Table B2.1, Requirement B1.12.2 State Response: The Partner UI is expected to be used by authorized users who are not employees of NHDOT, for example Regional Planning Commissions and authorized consultants. See Appendix B-

2.1.2 (Attachment 4) for a list of the Regional Planning Commissions. The Partner UI should allow Partners read-write access to upload data (See requirements C1.9, C2.1.3, and F8.19). The Partner UI shall have access to the Data Collection Scheduler (See requirements F11.1 – F11.4).

Question 11: Can you provide NHDOT Formats?

RFP Reference: Table B2.1, Requirement C5.1 State Response: NHDOT is willing to work with the Vendor to determine suitable customized formats for export.

Question 12: Please verify that NHDOT wants both Physical and Electronic proposals to be submitted?

RFP Reference: RFP Page 8 State Response: Yes, NHDOT requires both Physical Proposals and Electronic Proposals to be submitted by May 15, 2025 3:00PM ET. The Physical Proposal shall meet the requirements in RFP Section 2.1.1, and Electronic Proposals shall meet the requirements in RFP Section 2.1.2.

Question 13: Can the expected partner agencies be listed?

RFP Reference: Table B2.1, Requirement C1.11 State Response: The expected Partner agencies include, but are not limited to, the nine Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and Regional Planning Commissions (RPCs) of New Hampshire (See Appendix B-2.1.2 for a list of the Regional Planning Commissions).

Question 14: A cloud-based system will not need to be moved to the NHDOT network. Please clarify.

RFP Reference: Table B2.1, Requirement D1.1 State Response: The system shall meet/pass all security requirements and be accepted by NHDOT and NHDoIT prior to any connection to the NHDOT network, including weblinks available on the NHDOT website. The Vendor is responsible for maintaining the cloud-based system and ensuring that the security requirements are maintained.

Question 15: Please explain this requirement in more detail.

RFP Reference: Table B2.1, Requirement F8.9 State Response: The requirement states that “The Proposed Solution must apply edits made to volume data intervals to corresponding class and speed data intervals.” If NHDOT makes edits or updates to a count station interval for any reason (such as miscounting, bad data, etc.) the corresponding class and speed intervals associated with the site shall be adjusted and updated.

Question 16: Please explain why 1-minute intervals is needed here.

RFP Reference: Table B2.1, Requirement F10.13.8 State Response: The MVDS can output and bin data to 60-second intervals. NHDOT would like the ability to review data at the 1-minute granularity if available.

Question 17: Can the following in bold be inserted so that it says “Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, all obligations of the State hereunder, including, without limitation, the continuance of payments hereunder, are contingent upon the availability and continued appropriation of funds. The current appropriated funds are set forth in block 1.8. . . . “ RFP Reference: P-37 Standard Contract, Section 4 State Response: The following would be acceptable to add in Section 4:

“Appropriated funds currently meet or exceed the amount set forth in block 1.8.”

Question 18: Can the clause be mutual (see bold) – “The Parties’ liability under this Agreement shall be limited to monetary damages not to exceed the total fees paid. The Parties agree that they have an adequate remedy at law for any breach of this Agreement by the State and hereby waive any right to specific performance or other equitable remedies against each other.

RFP Reference: P-37 Standard Contract, Section 5.4 State Response: No. The State will not agree to such limitations on the Contractor’s liability, nor will it agree to waive a right to specific performance or other equitable remedies.

Question 19: Can the following sentence be added at the end: “For clarity, Property does not include Contractor’s SaaS software that will be used for performance of this Agreement.”

RFP Reference: P-37 Standard Contract, Section 10.1 State Response: The requested language to be added in Section 10.1 is acceptable.

Question 20: Can NHDOT include the following language: “These obligations are contingent on the State giving prompt notice to the Contractor of any indemnified claim and permitting Contractor to intervene in the defense of that claim.”

RFP Reference: P-37 Standard Contract, Section 13 State Response: The language requested be added to Section 13 is not acceptable. The indemnification obligations of the Contractor under Section 13 are for claims, demands, etc.

asserted against the State, to the extent they arise from death, injury, damage, etc. caused by the Contractor’s negligence, reckless or willful misconduct, or fraud.

Sincerely, Michael O’Donnell, PE State Project Manager