Addendum No 3 Final.pdf

6601 Ritchie Highway NE, Glen Burnie, Maryland 21062 | 410.768.7000 | 800.950.1MVA | Maryland Relay TTY 800.492.4575 | mva.maryland.gov

December 8, 2023

TO ALL PROSPECTIVE PROPOSERS

Addendum No. 3

RE: MVA Solicitation No. V-HQ-24019-S, Addendum #3

Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program (VEIP) Management and Operation

To Whom It May Concern:

A. The Proposal Due Date has been CHANGED to January 10, 2024, by or before 1:00 p.m.

(ET)

B. CHANGES to the RFP document have been issued with this Addendum No. 3.

a. Pages 27 to 41

C. ADD to the RFP Extra Work Allowance language to read as follows:

“The contract to be entered into by the MDOT MVA as a result of this RFP will contain an extra work allowance in the amount of $500,000 for the 10-year term. These allowances are to be used for regular and emergency repairs to the VEIP facilities outlined in Section 2.3.1.7.5. The Extra Work Allowances will cover labor hours and materials required to complete the work.

The Extra Work Allowance will become a part of the contract once awarded. Detailed pricing for the repairs must be submitted to and approved by the Project Manager or designee in writing prior to performing any work under the account. The State is in no way obligated to the Contractor for payment of any amount of the extra work allowance which is not needed, expended, requested, or approved by the State during the term of the contract.

Payments will be contingent upon satisfactory completion of the work and the completion of all reports.”

D. A REVISED Financial Proposal Form is issued with this Addendum No. 3.

E. Questions and Answers received have been answered in this Addendum No. 3.

Remaining Questions will be answered on a future Addendum.

Very Truly Yours, Jessica Mettle

Jessica Mettle, Procurement Officer

THIS AMENDMENT IS ISSUED TO CLARIFY, ADD TO, DELETE FROM, CORRECT

AND/OR CHANGE THE PROPOSAL DOCUMENTS TO THE EXTENT INDICATED AND

HEREBY MADE A PART OF THE SAID PROPOSAL DOCUMENTS ON WHICH THE

CONTRACT WILL BE BASED. THIS AMENDMENT BECOMES PART OF THE

PROPOSAL PACKAGE AND MUST BE ATTACHED TO THE OUTSIDE COVER OF THE

PROPOSAL FORM. FAILURE TO DO SAY MAY RESULT IN THE REJECTION OF

YOUR PROPOSAL. COMAR 21.05.02.08 REQUIRES THAT ALL AMENDMENTS ISSUED

BE ACKNOWLEDGED; THEFORE THE ATTACHED RECEIPT MUST BE RETURNED TO

THIS OFFICE. FAILURE TO RETURN THE RECEIPT ACKNOWLEDGING THE

AMENDMENT MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR PROPOSAL.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

I. The following questions have been submitted via Envirotest on November 3, 2023, to

MDOT MVA for a response:

1. QUESTION: The Key Information Summary Sheet in the RFP indicates that the due date for questions is November 10, 2023. This is only 11 calendar days (six business days) before the November 21, 2023, proposal due date. Will the State consider revising the RFP such that Offerors have sufficient time (at least four or five weeks after the State provides its answers/responses to questions submitted) to react to the answers, ask follow-up questions if the provided answers aren't fully understood, and modify the proposal they are developing so that they better target and address the best interests of the

State?

ANSWER: MVA will ensure that Offerors are afforded ample time to receive answers to questions received or changes/clarifications to the scope of work prior to the proposal submittal due date.

2. QUESTION: The RFP references Notice to Proceed (NTP) and Go-live dates. RFP

Section 2.3.1.1.1 also states, “As part of its Technical Proposal response, the Contractor shall provide a proposed Transition Plan that includes a proposed timeline for a single

“transition period” with key milestones (including Go-live date).” In RFP Appendix 1, Abbreviations and Definitions, “Go-Live Date” is defined as “The date, as specified in the Notice to Proceed, when the Contractor must begin providing all services required by this solicitation.”

a. Will the State provide its desired or estimated NTP date?

b. Will the State provide its desired or estimated Go-live date?

ANSWER:

a. The desired NTP date is March/April 2024.

b. The desired Go-live date is Fall 2024.

3. QUESTION: Section 2.3.1.1.1 requires an Offeror, as part of its “proposed Transition

Plan,” to propose a “Go-Live date.”

a. Does this mean that the State expects Offerors to propose different Go-Live dates?

b. Is the proposed Transition Plan and Go-Live date required to be submitted under any specific Tab under RFP Section 5.3.2?

a. As part of its technical response, Offerors should provide their proposed timeline for the Go-Live Date as part of its transition plan.

b. Offeror Technical Response to RFP Requirements and Proposed Work Plan shall be submitted under TAB D.

4. QUESTION: Is the State considering the Offerors proposed Go-Live date in its evaluation of Technical or Financial Proposals, and if so, under which evaluation criteria and/or sub criteria will it be evaluated?

ANSWER: The Offerors proposed Go-Live date is a part of its required Transition

Plan and will be evaluated under Section 6.2.1, Offeror’s Approach and Methodology.

5. QUESTION: RFP Section 2.3.1 B. states that the Contractor’s responsibilities include

“providing and installing ten (10) new kiosks at the existing kiosk locations.” By

“existing kiosk locations,” does this mean MVA prefers the new kiosks to be installed on the footprint of the existing kiosks? This would make sense since power, communications and utilities are already available. If that is the case, the existing kiosks would have to be removed prior to the installation of the new kiosks causing a temporary disruption to availability. Is this acceptable to MVA? If not, bidders would have to consider locations and the associated construction costs other than that of the existing kiosks location and infrastructure.

ANSWER: Minimal disruption is acceptable for kiosk installation. Offerors should outline the expected kiosk outage in their transition plan. An expected downtime exceeding 24 hours should be explained in detail.

6. QUESTION: RFP Section 2.3.1.1.3 states, “The Contractor shall achieve a smooth, fully functioning transition from the existing VEIP Contractor without a full or partial centralized station shutdown.” Does this requirement include the transition from the existing external kiosks to the new replacement kiosks required by the RFP? If so, how does the State envision this being accomplished with the existing kiosks in operation until the transition occurs?

ANSWER: See response to Question 5, above.

7. QUESTION: RFP Section 2.3.1.1.4 A. states. “the Contractor’s work of transitioning from the current program, implementation of the new program and all System

Acceptance Testing (SAT), and Acceptance of central data systems shall be fully completed and approved by the State no later than six (6) months after the Notice to

Proceed (NTP) is issued.” RFP Section 2.3.1.1.5 B. states, the “schedule for test demonstrations must ensure that no more than forty-five (45) calendar days elapse from the completion of the operational readiness demonstration to the start of full management and operation of the network by the Contractor.” Is the new Contractor to assume that the beginning of live testing operations is to commence no later than 7½ months from the

NTP?

ANSWER: No. The Offeror shall propose a transition plan of no more than 6 months which is inclusive of the 45-day SAT testing listed in Section 2.3.1.1.5.B.

8. QUESTION: RFP Section 2.3.1.1.4 H. states: “Every inspection position must include an OBD-only test unit. Contractor shall propose the number of idle test units per lane.”

With the relatively low volume of vehicles in the fleet that require idle testing, can an

Offeror be allowed to propose only a certain lane or lanes at each centralized station be equipped with idle test equipment?

ANSWER: Yes, as long as it meets the other requirements of the RFP.

9. QUESTION: RFP Section 2.3.1.2 A. states, “the Offeror specifically agrees that for any software, hardware or hosting service that it proposes, the State will have the right to purchase such item(s) from another source, instead of from the selected Offeror.”

Because Offerors price a solution based on quotations and experience working with known entities, a better understanding of the State’s intentions would allow Offerors to include adequate contingency for such unknowns. Could the State please provide additional guidance on which proposed software, hardware, or hosting services it would consider purchasing from another source?

ANSWER: This is standard State of Maryland Request for Proposal (RFP) template language. However, this language is included, as the State of Maryland wants to ensure the best cost to the State and if an Offeror offers software, hardware or hosting service that the State may be able to procure at a lower cost, this language reserves it that right.

10. QUESTION: RFP Section 2.3.1.6 A. indicates that RFP Appendix 7 provides the 2022 test volume distribution and wait time data by station. However, the first chart included in

Appendix 7 is labeled as “2019 Testing Volume Distribution” and the notes at the bottom of the chart regarding wait times shown in the chart say they “reflect all individual wait times reported throughout calendar year 2018.” Can the State confirm that the references to 2019 and 2018 in Appendix 7 are inadvertently erroneous, and that the data shown is for calendar year 2022?

ANSWER: Yes, the references are incorrect, the data shown is for calendar year 2022.

11. QUESTION: RFP Section 2.3.1.7.6 states, “Contractor is responsible for all facilities, site, kiosks, and equipment maintenance, and capital replacements or additions up to

$15,000 per unit cost.” Can the State provide actual or estimated total annual costs from the past three years for this “capital replacements or additions up to the $15,000 per unit cost” threshold? Can the State also provide an estimate of how many capital replacement/addition events exceed the $15,000 per unit cost threshold annually?

ANSWER: As the current contract is a set monthly costing structure, the MVA does not have information readily available regarding the actual or estimated total annual costs for capital replacements or additions up to the $15,000 per unit cost threshold.

Regarding the estimate of how many capital replacement/addition events exceeding the

$15,000 per unit cost threshold annually, the MVA has expended approximately

$934,325.00 on capital replacement/addition/improvements in the past 3 fiscal years for items that exceed the $15,000 per unit cost threshold, to include engineering design work and construction.

12. QUESTION: Appendix 6, Item D, regarding payments to the Contractor, states, “Payment for activities at any other public VEIP station or kiosk for which capital repairs or improvements are made above and beyond those encompassed in the Initial Transition and operational services (for such purposes capital payment is defined at $5,000 or more for an item with an expected life of at least one (1) year) shall be in progress payment according to the Contractor’s successful completion of milestones agreed to by the

Contractor and the MDOT MVA in advance of each such endeavor” (emphasis added).

However, RFP Section 2.3.1.7.6 states, “Contractor is responsible for all facilities, site, kiosks, and equipment maintenance, and capital replacements or additions up to $15,000 per unit cost” (emphasis added). Can the State clarify the apparent discrepancy between these two RFP provisions, i.e., $5,000 vs $15,000?

ANSWER: In accordance with Section 2.3.1.7.6, Contractor is responsible for all facilities, site, kiosks, and equipment maintenance, and capital replacements or additions up to $15,000 per unit cost. The clarification between the $5,000 vs $15,000 is that any capital payment of $5,000 or more shall require the Offeror to submit the necessary documentation with its invoice demonstrating the payment of the capital expenditure.

13. QUESTION: RFP Appendix 9, Section VII sets forth that it is the Contractor’s responsibility to remove asbestos-containing materials. This Section also states, “Asbestos data may be available for all MVA campuses, and some survey data exist for

MVA support buildings/structures and equipment. Upon request, MVA will provide copies of existing asbestos information to the Contractor.”

a. Is the MVA aware of any asbestos issues at any of the VEIP sites?

b. Should asbestos be discovered during the contract, is the Contractor responsible for the mitigation costs covered by the $15,000 (or $5,000) contractor repair limit liability?

a. The MVA VEIP stations are asbestos free.

b. For any capital repair up to $15,000 the Offeror shall be responsible for the payment.

14. QUESTION: RFP Section 2.3.3, Scope of Work – Fleet Inspection Station (FIS)

Program, indicates in multiple subsections that the FIS program to be implemented under this RFP is for providing official Maryland VEIP OBD-only inspections. Can the State verify that this is correct and that no idle testing will be done at FIS locations under the new VEIP contract?

ANSWER: If limiting FIS testing to OBD-only testing, Offerors shall propose their solution for working with FIS participants to idle test necessary vehicles at centralized facilities as part of their responses to RFP Sections 2.3.1.1 and 2.3.3.2.

15. QUESTION: Today, Tag and Title Service Agents in Maryland charge the customer the appropriate State fees, but they can also charge a convenience fee on top of the State fees for their efforts. In the contract anticipated by this RFP, will hybrid stations be allowed to charge any fees to motorists in addition to the State’s published VEIP inspection fee schedule (currently $14 or $10 for kiosk tests)?

ANSWER: Offerors shall propose and explain their hybrid station customer pricing approach, including any intent to deviate from the State VEIP fee structure, in their

Technical Proposal, without including any financial amounts in the technical response.

All actual fee amounts related to customer pricing approach variations in the Technical

Proposal shall be included in Offerors’ Financial Proposals, in the Pricing Sheet Section

5: Additional Fees.

16. QUESTION: RFP Section 2.3.4.3.10 L. states that the Contractor shall: “Ensure that

(hybrid) stations charge motorists in accordance with the State VEIP fee schedule for

VEIP tests, retests, and any other services or penalties. Any discounts offered to motorists by the station shall not impact the full amount due to the State for the performance of a

VEIP test. Late fees may not be discounted or waived.” Does this mean that hybrid stations can charge motorists a fee that is lower than the State’s published fee of $14 provided that the State receives the full amount the State is due for the performance of a

VEIP test?

ANSWER: See answer to Question 15, above.

17. QUESTION: RFP Section 2.3.4.1.1 A. states, “Individual participants and any fleets participating in hybrid station inspections . . . are considered motorists/customers who pay the required fees per the State’s published fee schedule, currently $14.00 per inspection. Fees are due to the State for official VEIP tests regardless of any discounts offered to the motorist by an independent station. All late fees, regardless of who collects them, must be remitted to the State in full” (emphasis added). Does the wording related to

“discounts offered” mean that hybrid stations will be allowed charge motorists an inspection fee that is lower than the State’s published fee of $14 even though other sections of the RFP (e.g., Section 2.3.4.3.9) clearly state the customer fee at hybrid stations “shall mirror the State’s VEIP fee structure”?

18. QUESTION: RFP Section 2.3.4.1.1 B. mentions “convenience fees” in the hybrid station program as one of the additional fees that will be evaluated by the State as part of the Financial Proposal Evaluation Criteria. What does the State mean by "convenience fees"? Can the State provide the regulatory and statutory provisions applicable to such

“convenience fees”?

ANSWER: As part of its technical response, Offerors shall propose their hybrid station customer pricing approach including any variations or “convenience fees” it proposes, in detail by cost to the customer and/or subcontractor and approach, that conforms with that conforms with COMAR 11.14.08 and COMAR 11.11.05.06, from the State VEIP fee structure.

19. QUESTION: Do the criteria that are being evaluated in the Financial Proposal

Evaluation as listed below refer to the numbers in the following indicated cells of the

Financial Proposal Form spreadsheet?

6.3.1 Total Cost Price Years 1-10, w/Transition = (Cell D46)

6.3.2 Total per test Cost, for all contract years, for:

a. Centralized Station Tests = (Cell D37)

b. Kiosk test = (Cell D38)

c. Hybrid tests = (Cell D41)

d. FIS tests = (Cell D39)

6.3.3 Transition Costs = (Cell D44)

6.3.4 Additional Fees = (Cell E165)

ANSWER: RFP Section 6.3.2.c Hybrid tests refers to Cell D40 + D41, otherwise all cells are correct.

20. QUESTION: RFP Section 6.3, “Financial Proposal Evaluation Criteria,” sets forth offerors will be “ranked from the lowest (most advantageous) to the highest (least advantageous) price based on the Evaluated Total Proposal Price within the stated guidelines set forth in this RFP and as submitted on Attachment B – Financial Proposal

Form.”

However, the RFP, including the Financial Proposal, uses multiple similar, but not identical, terms for a “Total” or “Evaluated” price, without defining “Evaluated Total

Proposal Price”:

− RFP Section 6.3.1, which the RFP says is the most important financial evaluation criterion, uses the words “Total Cost Price Years 1-10, with Transition, also known as

Total Evaluated Price”.

− The last paragraph of RFP Section 6.3 states that Offerors’ Financial Proposals will be ranked from the lowest (most advantageous) to the highest (least advantageous) price based on the “Evaluated Total Proposal Price” (emphasis added).

− Attachment B, the Financial Proposal Form spreadsheet, uses the term “Total Cost

Price Years 1-10, w/ Transition” in Cell C46.

− RFP Section 4.37.1, Proposal Bond, uses the term “Total Evaluated Price.”

− RFP Section 4.37.2, Performance Bond, uses the term “total amount of the recommended Contract award amount” in subpart B.

− RFP Section 5.3 subsection N, Economic Benefit Factors, uses the term “Total

Proposal Price from Attachment B, the Financial Proposal Form.”

− RFP Attachment B, under the heading B-1 Financial Proposal Instructions, states, “The

Financial Proposal Form is used to calculate the Offeror’s TOTAL Proposal PRICE”

(italicized emphasis added).

Similarly, RFP Section 6.3 has two contradictory paragraphs and interpretations of how

Offeror’s financial proposals will be evaluated. The first paragraph includes the following sentences: “The criteria to be used to evaluate each Financial Proposal are listed below in descending order of importance. Unless stated otherwise, any sub-criteria within each criterion have equal weight.”

The second paragraph of RFP Section 6.3 offers a separate, and second, ranking. It states, “All Qualified Offerors will be ranked from the lowest (most advantageous) to the highest

(least advantageous) price based on the Evaluated Total Proposal Price . . .”

Because of the ambiguities concerning the Financial Proposal Evaluation, Offerors cannot share a clear understanding of how this evaluation will be conducted.

• Is “Evaluated Total Proposal Price” shown on the Financial Proposal Form?

• Is there a formula or calculation by which "Evaluated Total Proposal Price” will be calculated? “Descending order of importance” is a very subjective and vague description of how the State will evaluate pricing criteria which are typically subject to a defined calculation of “Total Evaluated Price.” Can the State explain the exact factor and role of each criterion in determining the ultimate “Evaluated Total Proposal Price”?

• Which of the “Total” or “Evaluated” price definitions above will be used in determining that “Evaluated Total Proposal Price?” What is the difference between “Total Evaluated

Price” (Cell D46 of the Financial Proposal Form) and “Evaluated Total Proposal Price”?

• How will the “Additional Fees” set forth in Section 5 of the Financial Proposal be considered in the evaluation of “Evaluated Total Proposal Price” and the determination of the most advantageous proposal?

ANSWER: RFP Section 6.3.1 defines Total Evaluated Price as Total Cost Price Years 1-

10, w/Transition. Regarding the Financial Proposal, the State intends to evaluate the

Total Evaluated Price to include all elements of the RFP. The State also intends to evaluate the independent pricing elements as demonstrated in the RFP documents and pricing sheet to ensure the best value to the State.

21. QUESTION: Appendix 1, Item GGG, defines Total Proposal Price as “The Offeror’s total price for goods and services in response to this solicitation, included in Financial

Proposal Attachment B – Financial Proposal Form.” Is Total Proposal Price in Appendix

1, Item GGG the same thing as “Total Evaluated Price” in RFP Section 6.3.1, i.e., Total

Cost Price Years 1-10, w/Transition, which is the amount in Cell D46 of the Financial

Proposal Form? Alternatively, is it the “Evaluated Total Proposal Price” that the RFP indicates will be ranked, yet is not defined in the Financial Proposal?

ANSWER: Yes, Total Proposal Price is the same as Total Evaluated Price/Evaluated

Total Price.

22. QUESTION: The information in Pricing Sheet, Section 3 of the Attachment B, Financial Proposal Form, which requires the Offeror to enter cost information for Fleet

Inspection Station, Hybrid Station, and Remote OBD equipment, is not included in any of the four Financial Proposal evaluation criteria/areas that are to be evaluated per RFP

Sections 6.3.1 through 6.3.4.

Pricing Sheet, Section 3 information is also not included in Attachment B’s Pricing

Sheet, Section 1: Unit Costs for Inspections and Transition, which calculates the “Total

Cost Price Years 1-10, with Transition”. Yet, purchase, lease, and maintenance costs included in this section can have a direct impact on the costs in Pricing Sheet, Section 1, which includes the fixed price for the various tests, on a per test basis. That in turn has a direct impact on the portion of the motorists’ fee the State retains and therefore what is most advantageous to the State.

Will the State describe how this required cost information in Pricing Sheet, Section 3 contributes to the Financial Proposal evaluation since these costs are not mentioned in

RFP Section 6.3 Financial Proposal Evaluation Criteria?

ANSWER: Pricing Sheet Section 3 is for informational purposes only and is not part of the evaluation criteria. The State needs a comprehensive understanding of the costs for fleets to participate in the FIS program.

23. QUESTION: The information in Pricing Sheet, Section 4 of the Attachment B, Financial Proposal Form, which requires the Offeror to enter cost information for each deliverable and capital item to be rehabilitated or replaced during both the Base and

Option Period, is not included in any of the four Financial Proposal evaluation criteria/areas that are to be evaluated per RFP Sections 6.3.1 through 6.3.4. Pricing Sheet, Section 4 information is also not included in Attachment B’s Pricing Sheet, Section 1:

Unit Costs for Inspections and Transition, which calculates the “Total Cost Price Years 1-

10, with Transition”.

Will the State describe how this required cost information in Pricing Sheet, Section 4 contributes to the Financial Proposal evaluation since these costs are not mentioned in

RFP Section 6.3 Financial Proposal Evaluation Criteria?

ANSWER: See updated Pricing Sheet. Pricing Sheet Section 4 is for informational purposes only for capital equipment over $5,000 and is not part of the evaluation criteria.

24. QUESTION: It appears that transition costs will be evaluated twice in the Financial

Proposal Evaluation: Once in the consideration of “Total Cost Price Years 1-10 w/

Transition” under RFP Section 6.3.1, and again in the consideration of “Transition Costs” under Section 6.3.3. Will the State clarify why these transition costs will be double evaluated under separate criteria? And because of the “descending order” of these criteria, will transition costs be given more weight under 6.3.1 versus 6.3.3?

ANSWER: Regarding the Financial Proposal, the State intends to evaluate the Total Cost

Price to include all elements of the RFP. The State also intends to evaluate the independent pricing elements as demonstrated in the RFP documents and pricing sheet to ensure the best value to the State. Therefore, the criteria used are to be evaluated in descending order of importance, and 6.3.1 is of higher importance than 6.3.3.

25. QUESTION: RFP Section 6.3’s highest ranking financial evaluation item 6.3.1 “Total

Cost Price Years 1-10, w/Transition, also known as Total Evaluated Price” appears to refer to Cell D46 in the Financial Proposal’s Pricing Sheet, Section 1. That latter total, however, does not include any costs from Required Pricing Sheet Sections 3, 4, or 5.

Pricing Sheet, Section 3 costs (Required Pricing Information for Fleet Inspection Station, Hybrid Station, and Remote OBD Equipment) and Pricing Sheet Section 4 costs

(Equipment Replacement/Rehabilitation costs not itemized in the Pricing Sheet Sections

2 or 3) appear nowhere in costs the Financial Evaluation Committee members will evaluate per RFP Section 6.3. And as also set forth above in the question immediately above, Transition Costs are ranked in total, or in part, twice in RFP Section 6.3.

Will the State resolve the inconsistency and ambiguity between the review and ranking that the Financial Evaluation Committee members will perform under RFP Section 6.3

vs. the Financial Proposal’s various required Pricing Sheet sections? How will Pricing

Sheet Sections 3, 4, and 5 be considered in the determination of “Evaluated Total

Proposal Price?

ANSWER: See answers to Questions 22 and 23, above. Pricing Sheet Section 5 will be evaluated per RFP Section 6.3.

26. QUESTION: RFP Section 6.3 states that the evaluation of the Total per test Cost, for all contract years (Section 6.3.2) for Centralized Station tests, Kiosk tests, Hybrid tests, and

FIS tests are of equal weight/importance as sub-criteria. However, these different test categories have significantly different inspection volumes, and potentially different costs per test, in Attachment B, Pricing Sheet, Section 1.

The Pricing Sheet indicates the following estimated paid inspection volumes for Contract

Years 1-10:

Inspection Type No. of Inspections

Centralized Lane Inspections 11,623,300

Kiosk Inspections 3,585,900

Fleet Inspection Tests (FIS) 41,600

Hybrid Program Station Inspections 318,700

As shown above, there are nearly 280 times as many estimated centralized tests as FIS.

Can the State explain or demonstrate mathematically in a formula how these different inspection types will be evaluated with equal weight/importance in view of the significant differences in inspection volume for each inspection type?

ANSWER: Section 6.3.2 has four per cost testing elements. Although, the inspection volume estimates vary for inspection types, the evaluation will be one overall rating for

6.3.2 to include all proposed cost per test charges.

27. QUESTION: Attachment B – Financial Proposal Form includes $400,000 hard coded in

Cell D42 for additional new external kiosk installations beyond the existing 10 external kiosks should MVA direct some or all of these activities. However, since the RFP also requires Offerors to provide and install 10 new external kiosks to replace the existing 10 external kiosks, where does the State believe Offerors should capture their projected costs for these new replacement kiosks? Does the State believe these costs should be reflected in (1) their proposed Itemization of Transition Milestones and Costs in Pricing Sheet

Section 2; (2) their proposed All Inclusive Fixed Cost Per Test in Pricing Sheet Section 1

(any specific inspection type); or (3) in some other way?

ANSWER: In their proposed Itemization of Transition Milestones and Costs in Pricing

Sheet Section 2.

28. QUESTION: RFP Section 2.5.1, Facility Evaluation, discusses the potential future closing of some centralized VEIP testing facilities if annual calendar-year testing at a centralized facility falls below 30,000 tests. The RFP indicates the Contractor/Offeror is to propose customer convenience thresholds for alternative testing options (e.g., kiosks, hybrid stations, FIS) in a County to replace the centralized testing facility that may be closed. Since kiosk testing in the existing VEIP and hybrid station testing in the current

RFP are limited to MY 2005 and newer light duty vehicles and MY 2008 and newer heavy-duty vehicles weighing 14,000 lbs. and under, what alternative testing options does the State envision for motorists who own vehicles that are outside of those model year and weight parameters, particularly if the closed centralized facility is the only centralized facility in a specific County?

ANSWER: As noted in the RFP, station closure monitoring would commence after contract award based on a station's annual, calendar-year testing volume. Offeror shall propose customer convenience thresholds for alternative testing options (e.g., kiosks, hybrid stations, FIS, MACs) are available in that County to replace the centralized testing facility. If the MDOT MVA moves forward with station closures, the Contractor will be notified in writing, the Contractor will work with MVA and MDE to finalize a list of closing triggers.

29. QUESTION: Are hybrid station participants required to conduct inspections for all customers with MY 2005 and newer light duty vehicles and MY 2008 and newer heavy-duty vehicles weighing 14,000 lbs. and under that are subject to VEIP testing; i.e.,

a. must hybrid stations perform both initial inspections?

b. and customers who arrive for a (potentially free) retest?

c. or only retests?

ANSWER: Hybrid stations are to conduct all required initial inspections and all necessary retests.

30. QUESTION: The RFP is ambiguous as to whether convenience fees or other fees will be allowed to be charged to motorists at hybrid stations. Will the State provide an unambiguous answer in terms of whether fees beyond the initial test fee are allowed, and what categories of fees and fee ranges hybrid stations may charge each motorist separate from the State-mandated VEIP inspection fee?

ANSWER: Convenience and other fees are permitted and will be evaluated in accordance with the RFP.

31. QUESTION: The RFP is unclear as to whether fees may be charged (and the type of fees allowed) to the hybrid stations by the Contractor. For example, a “connection fee” or

“transaction fee.” These fees could be defined by the Contractor in its private contracts, a.k.a., “station agreements,” with the hybrid stations. This lack of clarity does not allow

Offerors to propose on a level playing field. Will the State provide an unambiguous answer as to whether fees may be charged to hybrid stations, the types of fees allowed, and the amount of fees the contractor may charge?

ANSWER: See answer to Question 30, above.

32. QUESTION: Attachment B’s Section 1 Price per test by inspection channel is for the life of the contract. However, could an Offeror change the fees shown on Pricing Sheet

Section 5 that it might charge to Hybrid partners during the term of the contract (up to 10 years)? If this is permitted, how should such information be documented in both the technical proposal and financial proposal?

ANSWER: Although not preferred, it is permitted to have fees that do change over the life of the contract, per RFP Section 2.3.4.1.1. The Offeror's approach should be outlined in their Hybrid Station program plan identified in RFP Section 2.3.4.1.6, and fees should be included in monthly reports under RFP Section 2.3.4.1.5.

33. QUESTION: May an Offeror charge Section 5 fees to Hybrid partners that differ from one partner to the next? For example, can the Offeror charge dealers less than it charges other certified repair facilities? If this is permitted, how should such information be documented in both the technical proposal and financial proposal?

ANSWER: See answer to Question 32, above.

34. QUESTION: RFP Section 4.37.1 states, “Each Offeror must submit with its Proposal a

Proposal Bond or other suitable security, as summarized in 4.48.4, in the amount of five percent (5%) of the Total Evaluated Price.” RFP Section 6.3.1 indicates that Total

Evaluated Price is Total Cost Price Years 1-10, w/Transition, which is the amount in Cell

D46 of the Financial Proposal Form. Can the State confirm that the Proposal Bond requirement is 5% of the cost for a potential 10-year contract period (which includes the

Option period) rather than 5% of the total cost for the base 5-year contract period? (Note:

We believe the reference to 4.48.4 in RFP Section 4.37.1 is an inadvertent error since we cannot find 4.48.4 anywhere else in the RFP.)

ANSWER: Yes, the Proposal Bond is 5% of the Total Evaluated Price, also known as

Total Cost Price Years 1-10, w/Transition. The reference to 4.48.4 should be corrected to

RFP Section 4.37.4.

35. QUESTION: RFP Section 4.37.2 B. states, “The successful Offeror must submit a

Performance Bond, or other suitable security in the amount of 40% of the total amount of the recommended Contract award amount. Will the State reference where in the RFP the

Contractor can find such “recommended Contract award amount”? Is this the amount in

Cell E47 of the Financial Proposal form, which is the Total Period Price for the contract’s

Base Period - Years 1-5?

ANSWER: The Performance Bond shall be for 40% of the total recommended Contract award Amount, which will be for the Base Period – Years 1-5.

36. QUESTION: The RFP alternately forbids Offerors from including pricing information from the Technical Proposal, yet elsewhere requires pricing information in the Technical

Proposal. RFP Section 5.2.2 states, “Provide no pricing information in the Technical

Proposal. Provide no pricing information on the media submitted in the Technical

Proposal.” RFP Section 5.3 similarly states, “Omit all pricing information from the

Technical Proposal (Volume I). Include pricing information only in the Financial

Proposal (Volume II).” However, RFP Section 2.3.4.1.1 B. states, in reference to the

Offeror’s Technical Proposal, “Offerors shall propose their hybrid station customer pricing approach, including any variations, from the State VEIP fee structure,” and also states, “All fees related to customer pricing approach variations in the technical proposal must also be included in Offerors’ Financial Proposals, in the Pricing Sheet

Section 5: Additional Fees.” Can the State eliminate this ambiguity in RFP instructions?

37. QUESTION: In RFP Section 6.2, Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria, the RFP references “§ 5.3.2.F” for all five evaluation criteria in RFP subsections 6.2.1 through

6.2.5. However, RFP § 5.3.2.F is only related to “Experience and Qualifications of

Proposed Staff,” which is set forth only in RFP subsection 6.2.4. Can the State revise the

RFP to indicate which sections of the RFP set forth information considered under each of the five evaluation criteria in RFP subsections 6.2.1 through 6.2.5?

ANSWER: The inclusion of that information was inadvertent and incorrect and has been removed from the RFP.

38. QUESTION: The annual testing volumes for Contract Years 1-10 that the State has provided in the “Insp. Summary 6MY Exemp.” tab of the Attachment B – Financial

Proposal Instructions & Form workbook are remarkably level/consistent, generally reflecting a modest 0.5% annual growth in overall testing volume. Based on this projected consistency and balanced future vehicle inspection distribution as reflected in the RFP, can Offerors be assured that the State has successfully mitigated the fluctuations in test volume caused by the COVID-19 pandemic impact on testing cycles?

ANSWER: MVA has taken measures to limit testing notices to a maximum of 35,000 scheduled tests per week. MVA will ensure that the awarded Contractor will be given ample notice of testing volumes for each Contract year. Ultimately however, testing variations depend on when vehicles are registered and when customers choose to test.

39. QUESTION: If actual inspection quantities experienced once the contract is awarded do not materialize, or greatly exceed, the volume numbers in the Financial Proposal Form, will the State entertain an equitable adjustment to the contract?

ANSWER: The contractor should consider its pricing so that it need not submit a Request for Equitable Adjustment (REA) but may do so and MVA will evaluate the REA if received in accordance with COMAR 21.07.01.15 and 21.07.02.03.

40. QUESTION: RFP Section 2.3.2.9 D. makes clear that the new external kiosks are “to be owned by the State.” RFP Section 2.3.1.1.4 E. makes clear that the new Contractor will own the centralized lane equipment. Therefore, the RFP indicates that the State will own the external kiosks but not the centralized lane equipment. Milestones and correlating costs in Attachment B’s Financial Proposal Form’s spreadsheet will contain both the

State-owned external kiosks and Contractor-owned centralized lane equipment costs.

Are Offerors to include reimbursement amounts by identified milestones regardless of whether the State or the Contractor retains ownership?

Are the costs of Contractor-owned equipment to be exclusively included in Attachment

B’s Financial Proposal Form’s spreadsheet, Pricing Sheet, Section 2: Itemization of

Transition Milestones and Costs phase? For instance, are these Contractor-owned equipment costs to be excluded from Attachment B’s Financial Proposal Form’s spreadsheet, Pricing Sheet, Section 1’s Cost per Test?

ANSWER: Transition Plan. Offeror to itemize equipment costs, regardless of ownership, identified in their proposed Transition Plan.

41. QUESTION: RFP Section 2.3.1.1.4.O directs the new Contractor to provide “MVA with copies of purchase invoices for all equipment purchased.” It further provides “[t]he financial proposals shall include detail, by types and quantities, of the cost of such replacement or additional equipment over a threshold of $1,000 per unit.” RFP Section

2.3.1.1.4 E states “All additional centralized lane equipment and materials will be provided by and owned by the Contractor’’.

a) Is the State requiring the Contractor to include a certain level of detail of itemization

(i.e., by types and quantities) for the applicable milestone(s) in Attachment B’s Financial

Proposal Form’s spreadsheet, Pricing Sheet, Section 2, that encompass the centralized lane equipment to be owned by the Contractor?

b) Is such a level of detail to be included anywhere else in the Financial Proposal Form’s spreadsheet’s pricing sheets for such centralized lane equipment if its value exceeds

$1,000?

c) Should the Contractor list replacement equipment in the Financial Proposal Form if new equipment installed by the Contractor has a potential useful life less than the term of the contract, including extensions?

d) What equipment, beyond the external kiosks, is the State anticipating acquiring per

RFP Sections 2.3.1.1.4.E and. O?

e) What equipment is the State anticipating the Contractor should ship to the MVA warehouse, as RFP Section 2.3.1.1.4.O indicates “[m}ost equipment” is to be sent there for tagging purposes?

a) Yes.

b) No.

c) Yes.

d) Offerors should advise the agency of their needs

e) Any items that are sensitive should be sent to the station and assist the state with tagging.

42. QUESTION: RFP Section 3.3.2 states: “The Contractor shall submit invoice in accordance with the following schedule:

A. For items of work for which there is one-time pricing (see Attachment B - Financial

Proposal Form) those items shall be billed in the month following the acceptance of the work by the Department.”

Attachment B - Financial Proposal Form, Pricing Sheet Section 2 certainly contains some one-time pricing items. The instructions for Attachment B - Financial Proposal Form, Pricing Sheet Section 4, suggest that items which are to be rehabilitated or replaced at any time during the Base and Option Periods should be reflected in Section 4.

Can the State identify the exact Attachment B - Financial Proposal Form, Pricing Sheet

Section(s) it is referring to in its RFP Section 3.3.2’s statement: “[f]or items of work for which there is one-time pricing (see Attachment B - Financial Proposal Form) those items shall be billed in the month following the acceptance of the work by the

Department’?

ANSWER: See RFP Appendix 6 and Pricing Sheet, General Financial Proposal Instructions.

The Transition Plan and any State capital investments, if approved by MVA, are the only one-time fees.

43. QUESTION: RFP Section 3.4.4 in subpart A specifically mentions “subcontractor hybrid stations” related to potential liquidated damages. Are FIS stations and inspectors also subject to the liquidated damages provisions set forth in Section 3.4.4?

ANSWER: FIS stations are not considered “subcontractor hybrid stations” and not subject to liquidated damages. The Vendor is responsible for Section 3.4.4.

44. QUESTION: Does RFP Section 3.4.4.A.1’s statement, “Note that such an infraction may be cause for termination of the inspector” apply to FIS inspectors?

ANSWER: No.

45. QUESTION: With regard to Attachment B’s Financial Proposal Form’s spreadsheet, Pricing Sheet, Section 4: Equipment Replacement/Rehabilitation, the instructions on the

Instruction page state: “Complete columns B through D for each deliverable and capital item to be rehabilitated or replaced during both the Base and Option Period. Add additional pages if necessary.” The Pricing Sheet itself says, for Section 4, “Offeror to itemize all costs for deliverables and capital items (defined as a durable item expected to be in service at least one (1) year and having a value of $1,000.00 or greater), that are not itemized in the Pricing Sheet Sections 2 or 3 and will be included in any VEIP operations.” [emphasis added]

a) Are the equipment costs associated with the Transition Milestones and Costs that are entered into Pricing Sheet, Section 2 also supposed to be entered into Pricing Sheet, Section 4 (Equipment Replacement/Rehabilitation costs during both the Base and

Option Period), or does Pricing Sheet, Section 4 only include equipment costs expected to be incurred after the Transition Period?

b) Do RFP Sections 2.3.1.7.6 and 2.3.2.9.B, and RFP Appendix 6 (Item D. Other

Payments), affect what the Contractor will be reimbursed for Pricing Sheet Section 4 costs?

a) No. See the instructions to Pricing Sheet, Section 4.

b) Pricing Sheet, Section 4 is informational only.

46. QUESTION: The instructions for Attachment B’s Financial Proposal Form’s spreadsheet, Pricing Sheet, Section 4: Equipment Replacement/Rehabilitation, direct the

Contractor to “Complete columns B through D for each deliverable and capital item to be rehabilitated or replaced during both the Base and Option Period.”

a) Are the Section 4 “deliverable and capital item” costs an anticipatory itemization of

“deliverable and capital item” costs that may be incurred during the base and option periods if equipment needs to be replaced or repaired?

b) Are these “deliverable and capital item” costs to be reimbursed by the State?

a) No. See RFP Appendix 6 and Pricing Sheet, General Financial Proposal Instructions.

Offerors shall propose a cost per test and transition which is conducive for them to do business for the life of the contract.

b) See the answer to 46a.

47. QUESTION: Are the “deliverable and capital items” itemized in Pricing Sheet, Section

4: Equipment Replacement/Rehabilitation (of Attachment B, Financial Proposal Form), considered a cost to the State for which the Contractor will be reimbursed?

Will the State confirm that the “deliverable and capital items” which are to be replaced/rehabilitated in this pricing sheet section are considered Contractor-Supplied equipment pursuant to RFP Section 2.3.1.2, and as such, these costs would be passed through to the State with no mark-up per RFP Section 2.3.1.2.C?

ANSWER: None of the costs from Section 2.3.1.2 are direct line-item expenses to be reimbursed by the state, instead Offerors shall propose a cost per test and transition which is conducive for them to do business for the life of the contract, including capital item expenditures at no cost mark-up.

48. QUESTION: Is Appendix 8’s only purpose to provide the information on the square footage that the contractor will be responsible to maintain? Are there any other immediate transition costs that the Offeror is supposed to include in their pricing?

ANSWER: Yes. See RFP Section 2.3.1.7.9

49. QUESTION: Paragraph 5.1 of Attachment M, “Rights to Records,” states that “The

Contractor agrees that all documents and materials including, but not limited to, software, reports, drawings, studies, specifications, estimates, tests, maps, photographs, designs, graphics, mechanical, artwork, computations, and data prepared by the Contractor for purposes of this Contract shall be the sole property of the State and shall be available to the State at any time.” Does this mean that the contractor is not allowed to utilize software or designs developed during work on this contract in other states? And that the

State of Maryland will control whether the contractor can use such accumulated know-how elsewhere?

ANSWER: This will be answered in a future Addendum.

50. QUESTION: The second sentence of Paragraph 6.1 of Attachment M states that “If any material, including software, is capable of being copyrighted, the State shall be the copyright owner and Contractor may copyright material connected with this project only with the express written approval of the State.” This second sentence does not limit the

State’s copyright ownership to software created or generated in connection with this

Contract, in contrast to the first sentence of this Paragraph. Is it the State’s position that it shall be the owner of copyright to all software code or written material provided throughout the course of contract performance?

51. QUESTION: If the contractor develops software code for use under the instant Contract, is that software considered a work for hire under Paragraph 7.2 of Attachment M, and will the contractor be precluded from utilizing that code in other jurisdictions? If the contractor modifies existing software for use under this contract, and subsequently uses similar code in other states or jurisdictions, will the State consider this “copyright infringement” under Paragraph 29.1 given Paragraph 6.1’s copyright ownership provision?

52. QUESTION: Paragraph 7.2 of Attachment M states in part, “For all Software provided by the Contractor under the Contract, Contractor hereby grants to the State a nonexclusive, irrevocable, unlimited, perpetual, non-cancelable, and non-terminable right to use and make copies of the Software and any modifications to the Software.” What is the definition of the proper noun “Software” in this language? Does it include commercially available off-the-shelf software such as Microsoft Windows or Adobe

Acrobat? If so, how can a contractor provide such broad, perpetual rights to MVA to copy and modify that software? And what is the definition of the term “provided” in this language—does that include installing software on a single computer used in some way to satisfy any requirement of the Contract scope of work?

53. QUESTION: Can the State define what scopes of work constitute “services” for the purpose of COMAR 21.11.15.03 and RFP Attachment L? Does this include services to design, develop, and produce inspection equipment (RFP Section 2.3.1.1.4.O) and the

Overall Central Data System (RFP Section 2.3.1.1.5.C.(c))?

ANSWER: The definition for services related to RFP Attachment L is pursuant to Md.

Ann. Code, State Finance and Procurement Article, § 12-111.

54. QUESTION: Can the State confirm that the term “engineering services” includes software engineering, software coding, and software development for the purpose of

COMAR 21.11.15.03 and RFP Attachment L?

55. QUESTION: RFP Section 5.3.2.E.6 states, “The Offeror shall provide a Voluntary

Product Accessibility Template (VPAT) containing a comprehensive analysis of the

Offeror’s conformance to accessibility standards in Code of Maryland Regulations

14.33.02 (See RFP §4.33). Failure to supply a VPAT may result in the Offeror’s Proposal being deemed not reasonably susceptible for award.” However, RFP §4.33 refers to

“Mercury and Products That Contain Mercury”, not the VPAT. What is the correct reference?

56. QUESTION: The required VPAT form in RFP Section 5.3.2.E.6 is quite lengthy. The

RFP does not state where it goes in the proposal. May we put the completed VPAT form in TAB N, REQUIRED FORMS AND CERTIFICATIONS?

57. QUESTION: The link for RFP Attachment H (Conflict of Interest) is broken. Can the

State provide offerors with an updated link that is active for the proper version of this

Attachment?

ANSWER: See link at https://procurement.maryland.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2018/05/AttachmentH-Conflict-of-InterestAffidavit.pdf

II. The following questions have been submitted via Envirotest on November 8, 2023, to

58. QUESTION: As MDOT MVA prepared to implement the 6-model year exemption, MDOT MVA instructed the current contractor to assume 1.2 million scheduled tests each fiscal year (exclusive of retests or used vehicles entering the testing pool).

The specific language is provided here: “Based on an August 2 implementation date, projections for scheduled tests are approximately 1.2M each fiscal year. The projection does not include used vehicles entering the testing pool or retests.”

The contract that was agreed upon by MDOT MVA and the current contractor, and ultimately approved by the Board of Public Works, was based on that guidance.

https://procurement.maryland.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2…