Addendum 4.docx
DOCX document 64 KB Posted
- Attached to
- OMV Driver’s Licensing Credentialing - State and local contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 3000026348
- Issued by
- East Baton Rouge Parish, Baton Rouge City, Louisiana
About this file
Summary of Addendum 4 to RFI #3000026348
This is Addendum 4 to a Request for Information (RFI) issued by the State of Louisiana, Division of Administration, Office of Technology Services regarding the implementation of a Motor Vehicle Driver's Licensing Credentialing Solution for the Louisiana Office of Motor Vehicles. The addendum provides clarifications and responses to 28 vendor inquiries received following the RFI publication. The solution must support both Over-the-Counter (OTC) issuance (approximately 70% of 1.5 million credentials issued annually) and Central Issuance (approximately 30%) across approximately 180 field locations, including OMV Customer Service Centers, Public Tag Agents, and DOC/OJJ facilities, with credentials available in more than 75 formats. The State expects integration with its Drive 360 platform (targeted for Q3 2026 go-live), CHAMP systems, and LA Wallet mobile credentials conforming to ISO/IEC 18013-5 standards. Responses are limited to 50 pages, with introductory pages, appendices, resumes, and accessibility reports excluded from the page count. The RFI deadline was extended by two weeks due to proximity to the July 4th holiday, with responses required to be submitted electronically through a Dropbox File Request link.
Key clarifications include that facial recognition is not within scope, full-color photograph printing on credentials is a mandatory requirement under Louisiana RS 32:410, and magnetic stripe technology may be reconsidered in future updates aligned with AAMVA standards. Respondents may propose partial solutions addressing only subsets of requirements; the State will evaluate these accordingly. Vendors must assume responsibility for providing all required hardware (cameras, signature pads, scanners, card printers, and workstations), which must be new equipment. The State has no preference regarding hosting models (State-hosted, SaaS, or hybrid) but prefers U.S.-only data residency while remaining open to alternatives. Vendors should describe supported industry-standard identity federation standards (SAML 2.0, OIDC, SCIM) and authentication assurance levels without assuming specific State infrastructure. Integration specifications for Drive 360 will not be available during the RFI window but only to selected respondents in subsequent procurement phases. The State has not yet determined procurement methodology and indicated that availability through cooperative purchasing agreements like NASPO ValuePoint may be considered favorably but is not a requirement for participation.
View the file
Other files for this state and local contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| OMV Licensing Credentialing Solution RFI.docx | DOCX document | |
| Addendum 3.docx | DOCX document | |
| 3000026348-4.pdf | ||
| 3000026348-3.pdf | ||
| Addendum 3.docx | DOCX document | |
| OMV Licensing Credentialing Solution RFI.docx | DOCX document | |
| 3000026348-1.pdf | ||
| 3000026348.pdf | ||
| OMV Licensing Credentialing Solution RFI.docx | DOCX document | |
| 3000026348-2.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
STATE OF LOUISIANA
Division of Administration Office of Technology Services
Addendum # 4
For: Request for Information (RFI) Related to related to the Implementation of a Motor Vehicle Driver’s Licensing Credentialing Solution for Louisiana Office of Motor Vehicles
RFI #: 3000026348
1.0 Purpose
Addendum # 4 provides responses to questions received from the published RFI.
| Question # |
| RFI Reference |
| Question |
| Response |
| 1 |
| Louisiana Procurement and Contract Network (LaPAC) bid webpage |
| The RFI posting for Solicitation #3000026348 includes PDF documents (Original and Addenda files named 9016400.pdf, 9016401-00.pdf and 9016402-00.pdf) that appear to be vendor cover/signature forms. These forms are not referenced in the RFI’s response instructions (e.g., Response Submission or Format of Response sections). |
Please confirm whether respondents are required to complete and submit any of these forms as part of the RFI response and, if so, which version should be used.
Respondents are not required to complete and submit those forms as part of the RFI response.
| 2 |
| Overall Solution |
| Is facial recognition within the scope of the solution? |
| No. Facial recognition is not within the scope of the solution. |
| 3 |
| Section 1.0 Purpose of the Request for Information (page 3) |
| What is the percentage of 1.5 million cards issued via Central Issuance versus OTC? |
| Approximately 30% of cards are issued via Central Issuance. |
| 4 |
| Section 7.0 Proprietary and/or Confidential Information; and Section 9.0 Response Submission (pages 5-6) |
| Section 9.0 states that electronic submissions are preferred and should be made through the Dropbox File Request link provided in the RFI. For planning purposes, please confirm whether files uploaded through that link are accessible only to the State or whether any other party with access to the link, or otherwise, could access submitted materials. |
If uploaded files may be accessed by any party other than the State, please clarify how the confidentiality of proprietary or otherwise protected information submitted in response to this RFI would be maintained in accordance with the Louisiana Public Records Act (La. R.S. 44:1 et seq.).
Alternatively, would the State accept email submissions of both a full State-reviewable version and a redacted version suitable for public disclosure? If so, please confirm whether responses must be submitted to the RFI Coordinator listed in Section 3.0 (page 4), and whether there are any file size limitations.
Files uploaded through the provided Dropbox File Request link are accessible only to the State and no other party with access to the link, or otherwise, could access submitted materials.
As stated in the RFI, section 9.0 Response Submission, no submissions will be accepted via email.
| 5 |
| Section 11.0 Format of Response (page 6) |
| The RFI response is limited to 50 pages. Please confirm whether introductory pages (e.g., cover page, table of contents, list of figures/tables, glossary of terms) are excluded from the 50-page limit, and that the page count begins with the first page of the narrative response. |
| The following are excluded from the 50-page limit: |
Introductory pages (e.g., cover page, table of contents, list of figures/tables, glossary of terms), section dividers, appendices, resumes, sample artifacts, accessibility conformance reports, SOC reports, and similar evidentiary documents.
Double-sided printing does count toward the 50-page limit – each printed side counts as one page toward the 50-page limit.
| 6 |
| Scope of Services - Section 3, c. Credential Appearance & Production, item ii. (page 13) |
| Requirement 3.c.ii references support for full-color photograph printing directly on the credential. Can Louisiana OMV clarify whether a full-color portrait photograph is a mandatory design requirement for the future credential, or whether this is intended as a supported capability that may be evaluated during credential design development? |
Note that many jurisdictions have transitioned to laser-engraved polycarbonate credentials utilizing grayscale primary portraits due to their enhanced resistance to alteration and counterfeiting, superior durability over the credential lifecycle, compliance with current AAMVA and REAL ID standards, and ability to support advanced security features such as tactile engraving, secondary portraits, transparent window features, and layered security elements. Modern laser engraving technology is available for both Central Issuance and Over-the-Counter (OTC) issuance environments, allowing jurisdictions to achieve a consistent credential design, security posture, and citizen experience regardless of issuance method. Understanding OMV's credential design objectives and security priorities will help respondents provide the most appropriate recommendations regarding credential construction, personalization technology, and long-term program sustainability.
Currently Requirement 3.c.ii is a mandatory requirement as it is required by state law. Louisiana RS 32:410 (2) states: The Department of Public Safety and Corrections shall use such process or processes in the issuance of licenses that prohibit as nearly as possible the ability to alter or reproduce a license or to superimpose a photograph on such license without ready detection. All licenses and photo attachments shall be processed in color.
The State, however is willing to re-evaluate this requirement during credential design development if there is a change in statute to support such a re-evaluation.
| 7 |
| Scope of Services - Section 3, c. Credential Appearance & Production, item iii. (page 13) |
| The current Louisiana credential utilizes a magnetic stripe on the physical credential. However, the 2025 AAMVA DL/ID Card Design Standard explicitly states: "Due to the modern-day limitations of magnetic stripe technology, it is recommended that new card designs not include this technology." |
Given that magnetic stripes represent a legacy technology with high vulnerability to skimming and counterfeiting, and that AAMVA is actively phasing them out, will the State consider removing the magnetic stripe requirement for the upcoming contract to align with modern security standards, reduce production costs, and future-proof the credential design?
The State is working to adopt future changes as AAMVA standards are updated and may consider removing the magnetic stripe in the future.
| 8 |
| Extension (Page 4) |
| Vendor would like to ask for a two-week extension to the due date as the RFI is currently due the Monday after a Holiday weekend (4th of July holiday). |
| The State has updated the Schedule of Events to include an extension of the Deadline for Receipt of RFI Responses. See Addendum 3 for details. |
| 9 |
| Electronic Submissions (Page 6) |
| Dropbox link (https://www.dropbox.com/request/cydehbq7xodb4cejuqkp) is opening to a blank page. Please provide a Dropbox link that the Vendor can use to submit the RFI response. Also, please provide any instructions required for uploading the response to the Dropbox. |
| Currently, the link provided is working for others. Use the following link to troubleshoot: |
https://help.dropbox.com/share/received-file-request#FAQs-about-uploading-to-a-file-request
If the problem persists and the respondent has ruled out the possibility of an issue unrelated to the Dropbox link, contact the RFI Coordinator to receive alternate instructions.
Use the following link for instructions related to uploading a file to Dropbox:
https://help.dropbox.com/share/received-file-request
| 10 |
| Accessibility and User Experience Questions, Item 15 (Page 10) |
| Requirement: If the solution includes custom-developed or highly configurable user interfaces, describe how it can align with the State’s design system, branding, reusable components, content standards, and accessibility expectations. If the solution is SaaS or proprietary COTS and cannot fully adopt State design system components, describe what configuration is available. |
Question: Please describe the "State's design system" and the "reusable components, content standards, and accessibility expectations" the Vendor will need to adopt.
The state design system, Pelican, can be found at https://pelican.ots.la.gov
| 11 |
| Item 3e (Page 13) |
| Requirement: Ability to integrate with Louisiana's current and future Driver License Issuance and Renewal platform (CHAMP/Drive 360) and other State systems as required. |
Question: Please identify the other State systems with which the Vendor solution will be required to integrate.
The vendor's solution will also be required to integrate with Go Validate's LA Wallet application.
| 12 |
| Overview / Scope of Services |
| The RFI describes the solution as a “turnkey Credential Issuance Solution” supporting both Over-the-Counter (OTC) and Central Issuance. Could the State confirm whether respondents are expected to propose a single unified solution that addresses every objective in the Scope of Services, or whether responses that address only a subset (e.g., OTC issuance only) will be accepted and how such partial responses will be considered? |
| The State desires that respondents propose a turnkey Credential Issuance Solution, however, the State will review and may consider responses that propose partial solutions. |
| 13 |
| Overview |
| The RFI references approximately 180 field locations and approximately 1.5 million credentials issued annually across more than 75 credential formats. Could the State share an approximate breakdown of those volumes across (a) OMV Customer Service Centers (CSCs), (b) authorized Public Tag Agents (PTAs), and (c) DOC/OJJ field locations, and any seasonal or peak-period considerations relevant to capacity planning? |
| The State does not currently track the requested breakdown of credential volume across the CSCs, PTAs, DOC & OJJ. |
The State has not identified any seasonal or peak-periods.
| 14 |
| Scope of Services §3.e — Integration / Data Migration |
| The RFI references CHAMP/Drive 360 as Louisiana’s current and future Driver License Issuance and Renewal platform. Could the State indicate the current implementation status of Drive 360 (e.g., in design, in implementation, in production) and whether integration specifications (APIs, message formats, identity model) will be made available to respondents during this RFI window or only to selected respondents in a subsequent procurement? |
| The CHAMP/Drive 360 project is in the implementation stage of the project. Integration specifications will not be made available to respondents during this RFI window. |
| 15 |
| Scope of Services §3.d / §4.b — Data Migration |
| The RFI requires migration of credential holder records, portrait images, and signature data from “the current vendor’s platform.” Without requesting proprietary vendor or contract details, could the State indicate the approximate record volume to be migrated, the available data formats (e.g., AAMVA standard, proprietary), and whether a representative sample/data dictionary will be provided during the procurement? |
| The State has not determined an approximate record volume to be migrated, the available data formats, or whether a representative sample will be provided during the procurement |
| 16 |
| Scope of Services §3.c — Credential Standards |
| The RFI references the AAMVA DL/ID Card Design Standard (2025) and REAL ID. Could the State confirm whether respondents should plan for support of ISO/IEC 18013-5 Mobile Driver’s License (mDL) issuance and verification within the initial contract term, and if so, whether mDL is considered a required, optional, or future-phase capability? |
| Respondents should plan to support an interface with the State’s current LA Wallet mobile credential conforming to ISO/IEC 18013-5 mDL issuance and verification. Respondents are not expected to provide an mDL solution. |
| 17 |
| Scope of Services §3.f — Security & Compliance |
| The RFI requires adherence to the OTS Information Security Policy (https://www.doa.la.gov/doa/ots/policies-and-forms/) and references AAMVA standards and applicable State and Federal data privacy regulations. Could the State indicate which additional accreditation regimes (e.g., NIST 800-53 baseline, FedRAMP/GovRAMP, StateRAMP, IRS Pub. 1075, CJIS, SOC 2 Type II) it expects respondents to support or attest to for the proposed solution? |
| Respondents should describe what they support. Any required attestations will be defined in a subsequent procurement. |
| 18 |
| State Technology Detail and Security Disclosure |
| The RFI states that the State will not disclose internal infrastructure details at the RFI stage. To structure our response appropriately under the “Currently available / Configurable / Custom-developed / Partner-provided / Optional module / Planned for future release” taxonomy, can the State confirm that responses describing identity, monitoring, and integration capabilities should be expressed in terms of supported standards and protocols only, and that no assumption of a specific State identity provider, SIEM, or network configuration should be made? |
| Yes, responses describing identity, monitoring, and integration capabilities should be expressed in terms of supported standards and protocols only. No assumption of a specific identity provider, SIEM, or network configuration should be made. |
| 19 |
| Scope of Services §3.f — IAM/SSO |
| Without disclosing internal configuration, could the State indicate which identity federation standards (e.g., SAML 2.0, OIDC, SCIM) and authentication assurance levels (e.g., NIST 800-63 IAL2/AAL2) the solution should be capable of supporting for State staff and authorized Public Tag Agents? |
| Respondents should describe the standards they support (e.g., SAML 2.0, OIDC, SCIM) and the assurance levels they can meet. Specific required levels will be defined in a subsequent procurement. |
| 20 |
| Scope of Services §3.d — Hosting |
| Does the State have a preference, requirement, or constraint regarding hosting model — State-hosted, vendor-hosted SaaS, or hybrid — and any associated data-residency requirements (e.g., U.S.-only, in-state hosting, GovCloud)? If no preference exists at the RFI stage, please confirm that responses may present multiple hosting options. |
| The State does not have a preference, requirement, or constraint regarding hosting models. The State preferred data-residency option is U.S. only but the State will consider other options. In both cases, respondents should present its available options. |
| 21 |
| Scope of Services §3.d.ii / §4.b — Concurrent Initiatives |
| The RFI references coordination with the State’s concurrent transition to the new Driver License Issuance and Renewal platform. Could the State provide an approximate timeline for that transition (in-flight, expected go-live window, completed) so that respondents can describe a realistic implementation sequencing strategy? |
| The State expects to go-live with Drive 360 in Q3 2026 for driver's license. |
| 22 |
| Scope of Services §4.a / §4.d — Hardware Footprint |
| The RFI requires deployment across all current OMV CSC and PTA locations. Could the State confirm whether respondents should assume responsibility for providing ALL associated hardware (cameras, signature pads, document scanners, card printers, supporting workstations or thin clients), or only specified categories, and whether incumbent hardware may remain in place? |
| Respondents should assume responsibility for providing all required hardware; the hardware must be new so incumbent hardware will not be retained. |
| 23 |
| Scope of Services §5 — Reporting & Analytics |
| The RFI requests operational reporting accessible to State staff with export capabilities. Could the State indicate any preferred reporting/BI tools or data-export targets (e.g., specific data warehouse, ODBC/JDBC endpoints, REST APIs, scheduled file drops) the solution should support, or confirm that respondents should describe supported industry-standard options? |
| The State does not currently have any preferred reporting/BI tools or data-export targets. Respondents should describe supported industry-standard options. |
| 24 |
| Format of Response — 50 pages / 10pt |
| The Format of Response section limits responses to 50 pages in 10pt font or larger. Could the State confirm whether (a) appendices, resumes, sample artifacts, accessibility conformance reports, SOC reports, and similar evidentiary documents count toward the 50-page limit, and (b) whether double-sided printing, table-of-contents pages, and section dividers also count toward that limit? |
| See response to #5. |
| 25 |
| Business Model for Contracting of Services |
| The RFI directs respondents to describe pricing model structure (per-credential, per-seat, subscription, etc.) while excluding specific pricing figures, rates, or cost estimates. Could the State confirm that volume tiers, range bands, or example unit-of-measure structures (without dollar amounts) are permissible in describing pricing model structure? |
| Volume tiers, range bands, or example unit-of-measure structures (without dollar amounts) are permissible in describing pricing model structure. |
| 26 |
| Business Model / NASPO ValuePoint |
| The RFI invites COTS/SaaS respondents to indicate availability through NASPO ValuePoint or similar cooperative purchasing agreements. Could the State indicate whether availability through such a cooperative would be considered favorably in a subsequent procurement, or whether the State expects to issue an independent, full-and-open RFP regardless? |
| The State has not decided which procurement method will be used to procure these services. The ability to purchase via NASPO is an option available to the State. |
| 27 |
| Optional Discussion |
| The RFI reserves the State’s right to conduct structured discussions with respondents. Could the State indicate the anticipated format (in-person at OTS, virtual, or hybrid), expected duration, and whether discussions, if held, would be individual to each respondent or grouped, so that respondents can plan resourcing accordingly? |
| At this time, the State has not decided on details for any future discussions. |
| 28 |
| Question Q19 — AI / Automated Decisioning |
| The RFI’s Question 19 asks about AI, ML, automated decisioning, and similar features. Could the State clarify whether routine image-quality validation conforming to ISO/IEC 19794-5 and REAL ID (e.g., portrait pose, focus, background) is considered an “automated decisioning” feature for purposes of Question 19, or whether the State views such standards-compliance checks as outside the scope of that question? |
| Standards-compliance image checks, as described in Scope of Services 3. b. i., fall outside the scope and intent of Question #19. |
THIS ADDENDUM IS HEREBY OFFICIALLY MADE A PART OF THE REFERENCED REQUEST FOR INFORMATION.
image1.png
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .