Attachment F - Commonwealth Response to Vendors' Written Questions - RFP 758 2700000043.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 16 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Security and Surveillance RFP Rebid
- Solicitation number
- RFP 758 2700000043 3
- Issued by
- Kentucky
About this file
This document is the Commonwealth of Kentucky's Response to Vendors' Written Questions for RFP 758 2700000043, addressing inquiries related to Security and Surveillance Hardware, Software, Systems, and Services. The RFP requires vendors to provide comprehensive support across multiple original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) including Hirsch, Verint, and Velocity, with capability to integrate video surveillance, intrusion detection, and access control systems. Key operational requirements include 99% uptime as a non-mandatory performance standard, 48-hour proposal turnaround times following site surveys (subsequently extended to two weeks for complex projects), five business-day inspection and acceptance periods following installation completion, and 24-hour response times for emergency service calls and replacement parts. The Commonwealth clarified that vendors must support all existing systems manufacturers currently deployed across the state, that unified security platform solutions are not acceptable at this time, and that vendors remain responsible for obtaining all necessary federal, state, and local permits and licenses regardless of site-specific variability.
The Commonwealth provided additional clarifications on technical requirements including definitions of Recovery Time Objective (RTO) and Recovery Point Objective (RPO) for disaster recovery, confirmation that Federal Tax Information (FTI) compliance is in scope due to vendor access to government facilities, and modifications to professional liability insurance requirements to permit Products-Completed Operations and Technology/Cyber Errors and Omissions coverage as alternatives. Regarding pricing, the RFP requires vendors to submit official manufacturer-published MSRP catalogs and provide separate discounts for hardware versus software/licensing; the Commonwealth acknowledged that some OEMs lack published MSRP catalogs and requested clarification on alternative submission methods. The Commonwealth declined to modify the 100% OEM coverage requirement, remove Verint from the manufacturer list, establish maximum reimbursement caps for site cleanup costs, or allow unified platform solutions, maintaining that all requirements must be fulfilled as written. The Commonwealth indicated that inventory requirements for spare parts and replacement hardware would be discussed during negotiation with the highest-ranked vendor(s).
View the file
Other files
Show all 12
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Commonwealth Response
| RFP 758 2700000043 - SECURITY & SURVEILLANCE HARDWARE, SOFTWARE, SYSTEMS & SERVICES | |||||
| ATTACHMENT F - COMMONWEALTH'S RESPONSE TO VENDORS' WRITTEN QUESTIONS | |||||
| # | RFP Section / Requirement Number | Document | Document Page Number | Vendor Questions | Commonwealth Response |
| 1 | Section 3.1.B.2 | Attachment A | 5 | Please clarify whether the 99% uptime language is a mandatory contractual SLA or a desired performance standard. Please define how uptime will be measured and whether outages attributable to COT networks, agency infrastructure, utility failures, scheduled maintenance and third-party systems will be excluded. | The requirement states "should" so it is a non-mandatory requirement. Please provide your best response to Section 6.8 E(6) as it relates to uptime and SLA. |
| 2 | 3.1, C, 1, h | Attachment A | 5 | The current requirements include a broad range of OEMs, and requiring 100% coverage of all listed manufacturers may significantly limit the number of service provider partners eligible to participate. In practice, very few service providers maintain authorization and/or certification across every OEM listed, which could unintentionally reduce competition and limit the Commonwealth’s options. |
Would the Commonwealth consider modifying this requirement to allow reseller partners that are authorized and/or appropriately certified to sell a minimum of 75% of the listed OEMs to qualify? This approach would maintain the Commonwealth’s objective of broad manufacturer coverage while increasing competition, service provider participation, and procurement flexibility.
Alternatively but relevant, if the above language is not modifiable, would the Commonwealth consider allowing awarded service providers 3-6 months time to be certified from 75% - 100% of all OEMs listed?
| The manufacturers listed are existing systems manufacturers in the Commonwealth and support must be provided. The requirement must remain as is. | |||||
| 3 | 3.1, C, 1, h | Attachment A | 5 | Verint’s current business strategy and product focus have increasingly shifted toward the financial services industry, which may limit its applicability within the Commonwealth’s broader public-sector technology requirements. Would the Commonwealth consider removing Verint from the required OEM list or modifying the requirement to allow comparable OEM solutions that are more broadly aligned with state and public-sector use cases? | The manufacturers listed are existing systems manufacturers in the Commonwealth and support must be provided. The requirement must remain as is. |
| 4 | 3.1, C, 1, h | Attachment A | 5 | Velocity is a product/platform offered under the Hirsch portfolio rather than a separate OEM. Is the Commonwealth intentionally listing Hirsch and Velocity as two separate required OEMs? If not, would the Commonwealth consider consolidating these into a single OEM requirement under Hirsch to avoid duplicative requirements? | The manufacturers listed are existing systems manufacturers in the Commonwealth and support must be provided. The requirement must remain as is. |
| 5 | System Support and Manufacturer Compatibility | Attachment A - Terms and Conditions | 5 | Will considerations be allowed for unified security platforms that can provide all video surveillance, intrusion, and access control in one system rather than integrations between multiple systems? As an example, referring back to the Mock Project Scenarios could be utilizing one VMS + Access Control system + Intrusion in one package rather than Hirsch + the proposed VMS + intrusion. Proposed solution would meet all technology, hosting, and policies and standards requirements outlined in Section 4. | Not at this time. Please respond to the RFP requirements as written. |
| 6 | Attachment A | 6 | Regarding the requirement that the “Vendor shall be responsible for obtaining and paying for all necessary permits, licenses, and inspections required by federal, state, and local law,” applicable permit and inspection requirements and associated fees may vary by project location, scope, and the requirements of the applicable Kentucky electrical inspection authority. These costs may also change over time and may not be reasonably determinable by the Vendor at the time a proposal is requested. |
Would the Commonwealth consider modifying this requirement to allow the Vendor to identify applicable permitting, licensing, and inspection requirements in collaboration with the requesting agency once the project scope and site-specific requirements are known, with those costs then incorporated into the overall project cost?
| Alternatively, can the Commonwealth clarify the process by which Vendors are expected to determine and accurately include these variable, site-specific costs when submitting a proposal? Does a master list of all federal, state, and local law permit requirements? | The vendor must comply with the RFP requirements as written. | |||||
| 7 | 3.1, D, 5 | Attachment A | 6 | Would the Commonwealth consider establishing a five (5) business-day inspection and acceptance period following completion of installation? This defined timeframe would provide the Agency sufficient opportunity to inspect the completed work while providing the Vendor with a clear and reasonable timeline for project acceptance and closeout. If no deficiencies are identified and communicated to the Vendor within the five (5) business-day period, would the Commonwealth consider the installation accepted? | See updated Section 3.1(D)(5). | |
| 8 | 3.1, E, 1 & 2 | Attachment A | 7 | A 48-hour turnaround can be challenging for solutions requiring an onsite assessment, as the reseller must coordinate and perform the site survey, document and validate requirements, develop the appropriate technical solution, obtain current OEM and/or distributor pricing, confirm product availability and lead times, and complete internal technical and pricing reviews before submitting a proposal. |
For projects requiring a site survey and solution design, an industry-standard proposal timeline is generally a minimum of 2-4 weeks following completion of the site survey. Allowing a more reasonable response period would help ensure the Commonwealth receives accurate, technically validated, and competitively priced proposals rather than requiring vendors to prioritize speed over solution quality and accuracy.
| Would the Commonwealth consider extending the required turnaround time to a minimum of two weeks following completion of any required site survey, or otherwise establishing turnaround requirements based on the complexity and scope of the request? | See updated Section 3.1(E)(1) and (2). | |||||
| 9 | 3.1, F, 12 | Attachment A | 8 | Can the Commonwealth please confirm what "perform such interface" means and/or consider modifying the language? With hundreds/thousands of OEMs, it's possible an agency has a proprietary access control system that cannot integrate with any other OEM. | See updated Section 3.1(F)(12). | |
| 10 | Sections 3.1.G.4-G.5 | Attachment A | 8 | Please define the non-network wiring and cabling that remains the Vendor's responsibility. Does this include access-control power wiring, card-reader wiring, door contacts, request-to-exit devices, electric locks, panic buttons, fencing sensors, outdoor motion detectors and similar field-device wiring? | Yes | |
| 11 | 3.1, H, 10 | Attachment A | 8 | If the installation needs to be rescheduled because of the agency's failure to prep the site, may the vendor charge the agency a return trip fee? | The correct Section is Section 3.1(F)(10) which states, "The using agency shall prepare the site prior to the scheduled delivery date. If the site has not been properly prepared as specified in the SOW, the Vendor may reschedule the delivery and installation." |
See updated Section 3.1(F)(10).
| 12 | 3.1, K, 3 | Attachment A | 10 | Given current manufacturer lead times, supply-chain constraints, and product availability, replacement parts may not always be available or deliverable within twenty-four (24) hours, despite the Vendor’s best efforts. Would the Commonwealth consider modifying this requirement to require the Vendor to respond within twenty-four (24) hours and provide replacement parts within a mutually agreed-upon timeframe based on OEM availability, shipping requirements, and the criticality of the affected system? | See updated Section 3.1(K)(3). |
| 13 | 3.1, K, 3 | Attachment A | 10 | Given current manufacturer lead times, supply-chain constraints, and product availability, replacement parts may not always be available or deliverable within twenty-four (24) hours, despite the Vendor’s best efforts. Would the Commonwealth consider modifying this requirement to require the Vendor to respond within twenty-four (24) hours and provide replacement parts within a mutually agreed-upon timeframe based on OEM availability, shipping requirements, and the criticality of the affected system? | See updated Section 3.1(K)(3). |
| 14 | 3.1, K, 6 | Attachment A | 10 | Can the Commonwealth please define the requirement for “emergency response service with a guaranteed response time,” including the expected response time, coverage hours, and service-level expectations? Additionally, can the Commonwealth clarify whether this level of support is intended to be required for all projects? |
| A guaranteed emergency response SLA represents an elevated level of support that may result in additional costs to the Commonwealth, particularly when applied to projects or systems that do not require mission-critical support. Would the Commonwealth consider modifying this requirement to make emergency response service an optional, separately priced service that an Agency may elect based on its specific operational and support requirements? | Section 3.1(K)(6) states, "Vendor shall provide emergency response service with a guaranteed response time, location of dispatch by responding party, and process to be followed for a system outage." This requirement is "for a system outage" and not for all projects. | ||||
| 15 | 3.1, K, 8 | Attachment A | 10 | Regarding the requirement for the Vendor to maintain adequate hardware to replace, repair, and/or maintain systems across the Commonwealth, can the Commonwealth provide an inventory of the currently installed systems, including applicable OEMs, models, quantities, and locations, so Vendors can accurately determine the inventory requirements and associated costs? |
Without visibility into the existing installed base, requiring Vendors to maintain replacement hardware and parts for all potential systems statewide creates an undefined inventory obligation that could significantly increase costs ultimately passed on to the Commonwealth.
| Alternatively, would the Commonwealth consider modifying this requirement to allow appropriate replacement hardware and spare-part inventory levels to be established on a project-by-project or Agency-by-Agency basis, based on the installed technology, criticality, and mutually agreed-upon service-level requirements? | This information will be discussed with the highest ranked vendor(s) during the negotiation phase. | |||||
| 16 | 3.1, L, 4 | Attachment A | 10 | Will the Commonwealth consider modifying language to include a maximum reimbursement amount and/or add an escalation process for an agency to dispute site cleanup and repairs with the vendor before utilizing their own third party and invoicing the selected vendor? | See updated Section 3.1(L)(4). The vendor must comply with the RFP requirements as written. | |
| 17 | 4.1 | Attachment A | Regarding the statement "the Commonwealth reserves the right to host any proposed solutions, at any time", "in the event a cloud solution is initially selected" most cloud hosted solutions won't allow those products to be hosted outside of their OEM data centers, "making a pivot after the fact unlikely" . Will the Commonwealth consider revising this requirement?* | Section 4.1 states, "The Commonwealth reserves the right….." This is not a requirement. | ||
| 18 | 4.12, G | Attachment A | 16 | Can Commonwealth please elaborate on the requirements, what is defined as "Recovery Time Objective (RTO) and Recovery Point Objective (RPO)"? | RTO is the maximum acceptable time the system can be offline before it critically impacts an agency. RPO is the amount of data/video footage that must be recovered to resume the normal operations of an agency. These services are included in a vendor's SLA. | |
| 19 | 4.19, I | Attachment A | 19 | Would the Commonwealth please review and confirm if FTI compliance is in scope for this RFP? | Yes. The vendor will have physical access to government agencies in order to install systems. Some of those agencies include Federal Tax Information (FTI). | |
| 20 | 10.32, B, 2 | Attachment A | 46 | Regarding the Professional Liability insurance requirement, technology industry risks are typically addressed through coverage more specifically aligned to the services being performed, including Products-Completed Operations and Technology/Cyber Errors & Omissions (E&O) coverage. Would the Commonwealth consider modifying this requirement to remove the separate Professional Liability insurance requirement and instead permit Vendors to satisfy the requirement through applicable Products-Completed Operations and Technology/Cyber E&O coverage, provided such coverage meets the Commonwealth’s required limits? | See updated Section 10.32. | |
| 21 | Component B | Attachment B | 3 | Regarding the “Minimum % Discount Off MSRP” and “Software/Licensing % Discount” columns, can the Commonwealth please clarify the intended distinction between these two requirements? Specifically, is the “Minimum % Discount Off MSRP” column intended to apply to hardware and related physical products, while the “Software/Licensing % Discount” column applies specifically to software, subscriptions, and licensing? | See updated Attachment B | |
| 22 | Component C: Mock Project Scenarios | ATTACHMENT B - COST PROPOSAL FORM | 04, 05 | Is there a camera model standard for the "Hanwha IP Cameras", "Exterior cameras", and "Centralized Command Center Node" for Vendors to bid to in these mock scenarios? It is understood that the camera model will vary project to project however this is a question about ensuring a comparable bid. | See updated Attachment B | |
| 23 | Vendor Cost Submission Checklist | Attachment B | 5 | Regarding the requirement "Official, unaltered manufacturer-published MSRP catalogs effective as of the RFP release date for all brand categories listed in Component B.", several of the required OEMs do not have published MSRP catalogs. How would the Commonwealth like vendors to proceed with producing this data? | See updated Attachment B |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .