Addendum No. 6 Automated Speed Detection for School Zone Page 1 of 7 Safety Enforcement (Annual Contract) – RFP No. 23-0036

FINANCE DEPARTMENT

PURCHASING DIVISION 1111 1st AVENUE - 1st FLOOR, COLUMBUS, GEORGIA 31901

P. O. BOX 1340, COLUMBUS, GEORGIA 31902-1340

706-225-4087, Fax 706-225-4086 www.columbusga.org Date: September 15, 2023

ADDENDUM NO. 6

Automated Speed Detection for

School Zone Safety Enforcement (Annual Contract)

RFP No. 23-0036

Use the form provided in the solicitation to acknowledge receipt of this addendum. Failure to do so may result in your submittal being deemed non-responsive and not receiving further consideration for award.

Vendors are informed that the above subject solicitation is hereby modified, corrected, or supplemented as specified, described and set forth in this addendum:

A. DUE DATE

The due date is extended; proposals must be submitted via DemandStar no later than 5:00 PM

(Eastern) on Friday, September 22, 2023.

B. QUESTIONS & RESPONSES

1. Is the City interested in an automated handheld speed enforcement camera in addition to a fixed solution?

Response: At this time, the Columbus Police Department is not interested in an automated handheld speed enforcement camera in addition to a fixed solution.

2. Please identify the anticipated solution locations/the four school zones that the City would like to enforce and provide any previous speed study data gathered as part of this selection process.

Response: The Columbus Police Department has not identified the locations; the department needs to conduct speed studies to determine the placement.

3. Are the roads on which the speed enforcement solutions will be installed the right-of-way of the

City or of GDOT?

Response: Please refer to the response to Question 2.

4. Based on our experience with schools in Georgia, is the City's intent to start and end enforcement with the flashing light, including during the school day?

Response: Yes.

COLUMBUS CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT

Georgia’s First Consolidated Government http://www.columbusga.org/

Addendum No. 6 Automated Speed Detection for School Zone Page 2 of 7

5. Please confirm that the video requested [on page 21] Section 9, Technical Specifications III, item

G and item L of the video is only for evaluation of the system and not intended to be part of the citation review process.

Response: That is correct.

6. Will the City please identify the individuals on the selection committee and what their roles are in relationship to the school zone safety enforcement program?

Response: The City will not identify members of the evaluation/selection committee.

7. The instructions for DemandStar reference a file size limitation. What are the file size limitations so respondents can plan accordingly?

Response: Please refer to the ‘Resources’ link on the DemandStar website, network.demandstar.com.

Contact information for DemandStar is 866-273-1863, support@demandstar.com, and hello@demanstar.com.

8. It is not clear from the RFP if a Call Center staffed by Customer Service Representatives is in scope of the project. If so, can the City please provide additional details regarding this requirement

(i.e., toll free #, expected volumes, IVR requirement, pay by phone, etc. …)?

Response: A call center staffed by the awarded vendor is expected to handle all processing of payments on a monthly basis. Expectations include paying via check or money order, by phone to a toll-free number, and paying by credit card.

9. Regarding Section E on page 9 of the RFP that states if awarded the proposal submission will be released for public record in its entirety. Please confirm that content marked proprietary will not be released as public record and that the City will reach out to the vendor before releasing any proprietary information.

Response: As noted in Section E on page 5, “After the award, the contract file and the unsuccessful proposals will become subject to disclosure under the Georgia Open Records

Act”. Open Records requests, and applicable documents, are forwarded to the City

Attorney’s Office to review and respond to requesters.

10. Regarding Section III., Item H on page 21 of the RFP requiring a fully web-enabled and fully secure citation processing system, does the City want to provide access via a Web Portal so violators may view their violation evidence, pay the citation, and get answers to FAQs?

Response: Yes.

11. Regarding Section II, Item L on page 20 of the RFP requiring video camera live feed viewing, etc., can the City please confirm if they require both violation video and the ability to do live video camera viewing simultaneously. Meaning does the City require the ability to view live video feeds while the system is still in enforcement mode capturing potential violations?

Response: No.

12. Regarding the statement that the E-Verify form must be included in the sealed proposal, please confirm that this reference is not applicable based on the fact that the proposal is to be submitted electronically on DemandStar.

Response: A completed and notarized E-Verify affidavit must be included with DemandStar submittal.

https://network.demandstar.com/ mailto:support@demandstar.com mailto:hello@demanstar.com

Addendum No. 6 Automated Speed Detection for School Zone Page 3 of 7

13. Does the lowest price get the full 100 points? Does the 2nd lowest price get 80 points and so on? If not, how are the points calculated?

Response: Each voting member of the Evaluation Committee will assign an adjectival rating to each criterion. The point values that correspond to the adjectival ratings will be calculated, by multiplying the point value by the criterion weight. The scores for each criterion will then be averaged to obtain a grand total for each responding vendor. See the below example:

Voting

Committee

Members

XYZ Example Company, Inc.

Qualifications &

Experience

Client

Work History

Approach &

Service Plan Cost Proposal

Total

Rating Rating Weight Rating

Weight Rating

Weight Rating

Weight

40% 30% 25% 5%

Evaluator #1 80.00 32.00 80.00 24.00 60.00 15.00 80.00 4.00 75.00

Evaluator #2 80.00 32.00 80.00 24.00 80.00 20.00 80.00 4.00 80.00

Evaluator #3 60.00 24.00 80.00 24.00 60.00 15.00 60.00 3.00 66.00

GRAND TOTAL 73.67

14. Is the contractor responsible for providing power to the systems or can the contractor tie into existing power sources or is an alternative source like solar required?

Response: The Columbus Police Department prefers solar but does not require solar.

15. There are various forms of lidar available on the market today. These include traditional handheld lidar and scanning lidar. Scanning lidar is a form of detection technology that was specifically designed for automated enforcement, unlike handheld lidar which was originally designed for officer attended enforcement. Scanning lidar has undergone significant testing in many countries and has achieved type approvals in these countries that certifies the effectiveness of these devices.

The U.S. does not currently have a certification process for automated enforcement devices; only for devices that are used in officer attended enforcement. Will you give preference to automated enforcement devices that have type approval from agencies that specifically certify automated enforcement devices?

Response: No, the Columbus Police Department will not give preference to automated enforcement devices that have type approval from agencies that specifically certify automated enforcement devices.

16. As the world leader in technologies for the traffic and security industry, we are confident that we can provide you with the most advanced and precise technology available. However, we do have some concerns regarding the requirement for LIDAR technology in the RFP. While we understand the desire for state-of-the-art technology and high performance, we believe that this requirement may limit the number of service providers who can bid for this project. In particular, we believe that the precision of radar technology is among the highest in the market and should be considered as an alternative to LIDAR. We believe that eliminating radar technology from consideration would only favor a minority of companies and limit the range of offers available to Columbus, GA. The radar technology is capable of providing the same or a higher level of precision and accuracy as LIDAR, while also being more cost-effective and widely available. LiDARs offer superior clarity but are prone to fail in bad weather and don't have a long range. RADARs have a

Addendum No. 6 Automated Speed Detection for School Zone Page 4 of 7 longer range and don't lose their function in poor weather conditions We are confident that we can provide you with a competitive offer that meets your needs and safeguards the precision of speed measurements.

Response: The Columbus Police Department wants to use LIDAR only and not radar.

17. Introduction, page 13, states, “specifically LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) with ALPR

(Automated License Plate Readers) functions to integrate with the existing Flock Safety system for the Columbus Police Department”.

a. Does the city expect a single-device solution, LiDAR with ALPR on the same unit?

Response: No.

b. Will the city accept the use of OCR (optical character recognition) from the LiDAR unit being processed on the server to identify license plates creating an ALPR functionality?

Response: Yes.

c. Will the city accept two units on the same pole?

Response: Yes.

d. If two units, does the city require Flock ALPR or can a third-party ALPR unit be used and feed data into the Flock system?

Response: Any can be used.

18. Statistical Reporting, page 22, Item F, #2, states “# of events not billable, including a breakout of controllable and not-controllable events lost, by location and in total”. What is meant by controllable and not-controllable events?

Response: Controllable/not-controllable events in the RFP speaks of events that are not billable. When it refers to controllable/not controllable, this would be on a non-billable event thus an event that rendered the capture non-billable. An example of non-billable would be a capture that could not be identified, thus non-billable. And controllable event would be a capture that as a matter of choice that is non-billable.

19. In reference to page 18, Introduction, paragraph 3:

a. How many school zones will be a part of the initial deployment?

Response: The initial quantity will be four systems until all school zones can be covered.

b. What criteria will be used to determine if or when additional school zones will be added?

Response: The Columbus Police Department will consider manpower when making that determination.

c. Will the length of school zones be extended, if determined by GDOT, service provider, or others to be too short?

20. In reference to page 19, Item C:

a. What if the local government’s approved design conflicts with GDOT? (also applies to page

20(P))

Response: Adjustments will be made to be compliant with GDOT rules and regulations.

b. What is the local government approval process and turnaround time?

Response: As soon as bid is ready local government is ready to begin process.

c. Are there any specifications/requirements by local government for color or design for equipment installed?

Response: None known.

d. Does the local government have specific requirements for camera pole or signpost design or installation?

Addendum No. 6 Automated Speed Detection for School Zone Page 5 of 7

Response: This would need to be a standard breakaway pole as used by local government now.

21. In reference to page 20, Item Q:

a. Please define if this is business days or calendar days?

Response: Business

b. Define operational and functional?

Response: Operational and functional means that the system would be fully set up and able to be used for it’s intended purpose.

c. For the purposes of the requirement of this section of the RFP has the local government considered the timeline requirements of permitting from the power company, utility locates, weather, GDOT list of roadways updates to reflect automated enforcement, and the updated

Georgia Department of Public Safety’s speed detection device permit process?

Response: Yes.

d. If the answer is no to the item above, would the local government allow that timeline to apply after receiving all necessary permits to supply power and allow for proper operations? The current GDOT process requires updating the list of roadways and obtaining a renewed speed detection device permit.

Response: Timeline is flexible based on the above.

e. Is this timeline negotiable?

Response: Yes.

f. What kind of allowances will the city have for items outside of the service provider’s ability to influence, such as supply chain?

Response: Consideration will be given to this based on the circumstances.

22. In reference to page 20, Item S, please identify/clarify O.C.G.A 40-12-24? That code doesn’t seem to exist.

Response: The current reference is O.C.G.A. 40-12-4

23. In reference to page 21, Section III, Item C, how will the local government review performance of service provider for photographs or video of license plates that use (intentionally or otherwise) glare or materials to obscure license plate from clear view?

Response: Computer.

24. In reference to page 21, Section III, Item D:

a. Does the local government have any design requirements/restrictions with installation of systems to monitor four lanes?

Response: None that Columbus Police Department is aware of.

b. Will the local government allow installation on existing infrastructure?

Response: Yes, on some.

c. What if the design to monitor four lanes is not approved by local government and/or GDOT?

Response: Adjustments will be made.

d. Would the local government allow for installation in the center median?

Response: If necessary.

e. Will the local government allow modification to existing sidewalk, asphalt etc to allow for installation in any of the school zones?

Response: Situational, on a case-by-case basis.

f. What if the location is not suitable for or does not allow for proper installation or monitoring of a particular school zone(s)?

Addendum No. 6 Automated Speed Detection for School Zone Page 6 of 7

Response: If the City cannot meet the rules or regulations the City will not put the system in that zone.

25. Please clarify whether the Hold Harmless clause in Section R of the specifications requires a waiver of any subrogation interest on behalf of an insurer.

Response: The indemnification is an independent obligation separate and apart from the insurance requirements, and it is not limited by the amount of insurance nor can it be reduced by any subrogation rights the insured might have given the insurer.

26. Please clarify the Columbus Consolidated Government’s understanding of the difference between

“experience” and “client work history”.

Response: As it relates to this RFP, respondents shall include the experience information that is listed on page 16, Section 7, Qualifications and Experience of Firm and Staff.

Respondents shall use Form 5 (page 27) to list the last three entities for which similar services have been or are currently being provided, as noted on page 16, Section 11, Client

Work History.

27. Please provide an explanation for what distinct factors are to be considered in evaluating each of these categories as described in Section VIII table of criteria to be evaluated.

Response: The criteria listed on page 17, Section VIII, includes some of the submittal requirements that are listed on pages 15 -17. Listed below the titles of submittal items

(sections) are descriptions of what Columbus Consolidated Government requires. The voting members of the Evaluation Committee will evaluate each respondent’s proposal based on the information the respondents provide for submittal items (sections) that are specifically listed as evaluation criteria.

28. Has the City conducted a traffic study that is available to all vendors or potential bidders?

Response: There were speed studies conducted but they are 1 ½ to two years old now. The speed studies would have to be redone.

29. Will the City make any traffic study of the proposed sites available to all potential bidders?

Response: No, new traffic studies will be needed.

30. In Addendum 1, CCG has said the Police Department will not consider non-LIDAR equipment.

How does CCG intend to resolve the apparent conflict between this RFP clarification and

O.C.G.A. § 40-17-14?

Response: The LiDAR that is clearly requested in this RFP is a subgroup of devices using the speed timing principle of laser. If there are LiDAR technologies that are on the approved list, then the City is entitled to request the technology that works best with its system. The code section simply says these items on the list are self-authenticating in court, but it does not say that a local jurisdiction has to be willing to use any approved device on the list.

31. Please clarify or provide hours of speed zone enforcement for each school location, school calendar and average daily traffic volume for each school.

Response: 0700-0900 and 1400-1600

Addendum No. 6 Automated Speed Detection for School Zone Page 7 of 7

32. Please clarify whether the schools identified, or the District as a whole, have approved participation in the GDOT permit application for each location.

33. Has the School District, or the identified schools, agreed to take over the maintenance of all zone signaling devices (flashing lights) from GDOT as a permit requirement.

Response: Undecided if MCSD or City will.

34. Identify the school official who has agreed to sign the permit application for each school site.

Response: Dr. David Lewis MCSD

35. Does the School Board need to approve the/an ATESD program to authorize permit application for each school location?

Response: Unknown.

36. Is there a Georgia Department of Public Safety approved Lidar manufacturer for this installation/RFP?

Response: There are multiple approved manufacturers for LIDAR for general purposes however there are no specific brands or models listed in this RFP.

37. How is the required FLOCK integration scored?

Response: We can waive the requirement of FLOCK as long as there is a LPR component.

Andrea J. McCorvey, Purchasing Manager