Addendum__2_QA_SE_2-18795.docx

Request for Proposal (RFP) Addendum

Addendum Number: 1 Date of Addendum: October 27, 2026

Proposal Due Date and Time: 4:00 p.m. (noon) Central Time; Sunday, November 8, 2026

Revised Due Date and Time: No change. Same as above.

Agency: Department of Public Safety; Minnesota State Patrol

Reference Number: SWIFT Event 200018795

Title: Minnesota State Capitol Complex Surveillance Audit

SCOPE OF ADDENDUM / QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

The following are questions received by 4:00 p.m. Central Time on Monday, October 26, 2024, and their corresponding answers:

Question 1: Will you please clarify the statement in Section 1 - “Any vendor selected from this solicitation will not be eligible for any future implementation of this assessment.”

Does this mean the selected vendor would not be able to prepare any future design work or does this mean the vendor cannot participate in future procurement of equipment and installation?

Answer 1: The selected vendor for this solicitation cannot participate or will be considered in any future procurement of equipment or installation in connection to this solicitation.

Question 2: The scope under 2.B - Coverage and Operational Assessment, particularly the coverage gap analysis, is very time consuming for 33 facilities.

Can the schedule be flexible?

Answer 2: State Patrol would like a draft ready by January 1, 2027, with the goal of having a final report completed by the start of Legislative session, January 12, 2027.

Question 3: Section 2, 1: Does the State have a comprehensive list of equipment locations, and will this be provided to the selected consultant? What do you estimate the accuracy/validity of this list is?

Answer 3: Minnesota IT Services maintains sufficient documentation to assist with this audit. Admin has a comprehensive list of cameras and their locations which can be made available to all participating vendors.

Question 4: Section 2, 2: Does the Department of Administration use a third party to perform System Administration and program management? If not, who performs these functions?

Answer 4: State employees administer the system and work with a contracted vendor for further support and configuration of the system.

Question 5: Section 2, 2A: Does the Department of Administration manage the cyber-security program for the video surveillance program? If not, who does?

Answer 5: The Department of Administration partners with Minnesota IT Services to manage cyber-security for the application.

Question 6: Section 2, 2A: Does the Department of Administration have and maintain accurate network documentation?

Answer 6: Yes, Minnesota IT Services maintains sufficient documentation to assist with this audit.

Question 7: Section 2: Who will be responsible for conducting the background check? If the selected consultant conducts background checks, what is the required time between the last employer-performed background check and the contract signing?

Answer 7: Background checks may be conducted by the Department of Public Safety or verify by DPS to ensure CJIS compliance.

Question 8: Exhibit B: Can you further explain this requirement? Are you asking for cyber-insurance coverage? If yes, will you accept $1M per occurrence and aggregate?

Answer 8: Insurance coverage will be negotiated with the highest scoring Responder based on proposals, final scope of work and State needs.

Question 9: Please define how many of the thirty-three locations have infrastructure for the video surveillance program. This includes locations that, in addition to cameras, have recorders, network infrastructure, and other components decentralized from the core system?

Answer 9: They all have some infrastructure. All cameras are connected to the network.

Question 10: The sample contract's "Contractor's Duties" provision prohibits subcontracting, while Exhibit A permits approved subcontractors and the RFP allows joint ventures. What team structures are permitted, and will an addendum resolve these conflicting provisions? How would participating specialists' experience and the 120-point targeted-group preference be evaluated when a TG-certified business submits a team response?

Answer 10: The State may allow subcontracting if it provides added value to the State by improving the efficiency of work for the vendor. Subcontractors should be compliant with all backgrounding requirements. If applicable, TGED points will only be awarded if the primary Responder, to who a contract would be entered into, meets the requirements of the State’s TGED program.

Question 11: Does the scope require individual physical inspection and performance testing of all approximately 1,100 cameras across 33 buildings, or may a complete asset inventory and configuration review be combined with a documented, risk-based sample of physical inspections? Please clarify the expected extent of field-of-view, image-quality, night/low-light, and functional testing.

Answer 11: Direct physical assessment of each item is not necessary, but acceptable if needed (per camera / camera location). Cameras can be viewed remotely, along with camera information which can be utilized to make informed decisions on each camera point. The risk-based sample approach is fine as well. We are looking for blind spots, poor low light visibility devices, poor image quality on devices, and the like.

Question 12: What inventories, camera and VMS platform details, network diagrams, floor plans, maintenance records, and retention information will be available, and when? What remote or on-site administrative access, escorts, technical staff assistance, and after-hours access will the State provide? Is a site visit or additional system information available before proposals are due?

Answer 12: Information will be available once a contract has been negotiated and background checks are completed. Minnesota IT Services maintains sufficient documentation to assist with this audit. Preproposal site visits are not part of this solicitation.

Question 13: Which CJIS and other government security standards, versions, and system boundaries should govern the assessment? Is the cybersecurity work expected to consist of documentation, configuration, and control reviews, or does the State also require active vulnerability scanning, penetration testing, or independent compliance certification?

Answer 13: Vendor must be able to provide a high-level security assessment of the system. Minnesota IT can provide existing security assessment documentation, where available, to assist and inform the audit.

Question 14: Is January 1, 2027 the deadline for the final accepted report or for initial submission? When are the asset inventory and stakeholder presentation due, and how many review/revision cycles should be included? How would the schedule be handled if contract execution, background clearance, or State-provided access occurs later than anticipated?

Answer 14: The State would like a draft ready by January 1, 2027, with the goal of having a final report completed by the start of Legislative session, January 12, 2027.

Question 15: Please provide the screening requirements, eligibility criteria, personnel covered, anticipated processing time, and responsibility for screening costs. Can required screening begin before contract execution, and is there a process for obtaining an eligibility determination before committing personnel to a proposal?

Answer 15: The State would like vendor personnel to undergo a criminal background check consisting of biographical information necessary to initiate a CPIC query and fingerprinting. Any remote personnel could only be required to provide biographical information necessary to initiate a CPIC query and a fingerprint card completed by any law enforcement agency.

Question 16: The sample contract permits only one invoice after completion. Will invoices tied to completed and accepted milestones be considered, or is final-only invoicing mandatory? Please clarify the expected timing and process for final acceptance and release of any retained payment.

Answer 16: Resulting contract will be deliverables based. Invoicing schedule will be negotiated with the highest scoring Responder based on proposals, final scope of work and State needs.

Question 17: Please confirm whether all Exhibit B coverages and limits are mandatory for this assessment-only engagement, including commercial automobile, privacy liability, property-of-others coverage, and the professional-liability coverage required after completion. Will the State consider adjustments through Attachment B where a coverage requirement does not correspond to the work or property exposure involved?

Answer 17: Insurance coverage will be negotiated with the highest scoring Responder based on proposals, final scope of work and State needs.

Question 18: Please clarify whether the prohibition on participating in future implementation extends to joint-venture members, approved subcontractors, affiliates, or manufacturers associated with the selected vendor. Are existing manufacturer or reseller relationships permissible when disclosed and managed through a vendor-neutral assessment methodology?

Answer 18: Yes. Any vendor to include subcontractors used by the prime vendor will not be considered if the State solicits in the future to take action on this assessment. As an example, if the state uses this assessment and makes a decision to implement a new design for the system, any vendor associated with this solicitation would not be considered. This is because the Responder awarded a contract from this solicitation would have detailed knowledge of the assessment and it prevents a Responder from possibly providing information they could use later to have an unfair advantage against other Responders to a future solicitation based on this assessment.

Question 19: Is there an anticipated budget range or maximum funding amount for this assessment? What formula or method will be used to allocate the 300 available cost points?

Answer 19: Budget provided is ample for the project. Final budget will be negotiated with the highest scoring responder. Cost scoring is mathematical with the Responder with the lowest cost being allocated the full 300 points. Remaining Responders cost score will be compared to the lowest cost.

Question 20: The RFP identifies approximately 1,100 cameras across 33 buildings and requires evaluation of camera condition, image quality, field of view, low-light performance, health/failure rates and lifecycle status. Please clarify whether the State expects the selected consultant to physically inspect and evaluate each camera and associated device, or whether a representative sampling methodology may be proposed.

Answer 20: Direct physical assessment of each item is not necessary, but acceptable if needed (per camera / camera location). Cameras can be viewed remotely, along with camera information which can be utilized to make informed decisions on each camera point. The risk-based sample approach is fine as well. We are looking for blind spots, poor low light visibility devices, poor image quality on devices, and the like.

Question 21: What existing documentation will be made available to the selected consultant? Will this include camera/device inventories, floor plans, camera location plans, network diagrams, VMS configuration information, server/storage inventories, maintenance records, failure histories and previous security or technology assessments?

Answer 21: Minnesota IT will provide relevant existing documentation to support the assessment, which may include current inventories, configuration information, and network or system records where available. Some materials may require validation as part of the consultant’s work.

Question 22: The RFP anticipates a contract start date of November 16, 2026 and requires the Written Assessment Report by January 1, 2027. Please confirm whether the January 1 deliverable is expected to include all scope elements, including the complete asset inventory, budget estimates, modernization roadmap and final recommendations, or whether any components may be finalized during the remaining contract term through June 30, 2027.

Answer 22: The State would like a draft ready by January 1, 2027, with the goal of having a final report completed by the start of Legislative session, January 12, 2027.

Question 23: The RFP states that responder personnel must pass background checks before work can begin. Please describe the anticipated background-check process and identify whether the State expects background checks to be completed prior to the anticipated November 16 start date. Additionally, will the selected consultant have escorted or unescorted access to all 33 buildings and applicable technology/security spaces?

Answer 23: The State would like vendor personnel to undergo a criminal background check consisting of biographical information necessary to initiate a CPIC query and fingerprinting. Any remote personnel could only be required to provide biographical information necessary to initiate a CPIC query and a fingerprint card completed by any law enforcement agency. Escorts would only be required in non-public areas.

Question 24: Please clarify the intended depth of the cybersecurity review. Is the selected consultant expected to perform a configuration/documentation review and identify cybersecurity risks associated with the surveillance environment, or does the State expect technical vulnerability scanning, penetration testing or other active security testing?

Answer 24: Minnesota IT can provide existing security assessment documentation, where available, to support this review. MNIT is not expecting vulnerability scanning, penetration testing, or other active security testing.

Question 24: The scope calls for evaluation of compliance with CJIS/government security standards. Please identify the specific standards, policies, versions or State requirements against which the selected consultant should evaluate the system, including whether the State expects a formal CJIS compliance assessment or a gap assessment against applicable requirements.

Answer 24: Minnesota IT can provide existing security assessment documentation, where available, to assist and inform the audit.

Question 25: Please identify the State departments and stakeholders expected to participate in discovery and interviews, and whether the State will coordinate stakeholder availability during the assessment period. The RFP indicates that the system is administered by the Department of Administration and operated by the Minnesota State Patrol.

Answer 25: The State will assist and coordinate with getting appropriate stakeholders to interviews/discussions.

Question 26: For the requested budget estimates and lifecycle costs, please clarify the expected level of cost-estimating detail. Are planning-level/order-of-magnitude estimates acceptable, or does the State expect detailed quantities and implementation cost estimates for each modernization alternative?

Answer 26: The State is looking for Planning level with total replacement options, phased in approaches, etc.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ADDENDUM

This addendum shall become part of the RFP and must be returned with, or acknowledged in, the Proposal.

RESPONDER NAME:

SIGNATURE:

TITLE:

DATE: