B-42592 Amendment 3 - GPS And Electronic Monitoring IFB Q and A 8.15.24.docx

Bid #B-42592 – Amendment #3 IDJJ GPS & Electronic Monitoring IFB Questions and Answer

1. Amendment 2, Question 93 states that some of the technologies in the IFB are outdated and irrelevant to modern electronic monitoring solutions. As an example, IFB Section 1.2.4, Remote Monitoring Units/Drive-By Units, was replicated from Section 3.2.4 of the State’s 2013 solicitation #13-75998 for Electronic Monitoring/Global Positioning System Monitoring. The same can be said for many other specifications in the current IFB. Monitoring technologies have advanced since that time. And while vendors could attempt to build solutions to be compliant with older technology specifications, it would require development efforts to seemingly go backwards and hard to support given many components are obsolete.

In the first round of questions, the State was asked to accept more contemporary solutions with alternative components that will serve the State’s electronic monitoring needs. The State declined, answering “No, IDJJ cannot look at other solutions outside of the IFB”. In response to Question 102, the State reiterated, “This is an IFB solicitation. Cannot allow alternative solutions”.

While IFB Section B.18, EXCEPTIONS, does in fact allow exceptions to the State’s IFB language or requirements, Section B.18 expressly states, “The State discourages taking exceptions” and “Exceptions may result in rejection of Bidder’s Bid”.

To the best of our knowledge, no single vendor in the industry can meet every required specification in the IFB. To avoid potential rejection of all bids or the likely unintended result of the State receiving no responsive bids, will the State please allow vendors to propose alternative solutions that meet the general intent and purpose of each IFB client monitoring equipment category (i.e. Active GPS, Passive GPS, Landline RF, Cellular RF, Group Home RF, and Remote Monitoring) without having to meet every single specification within those categories? This would provide the State with responses that include the latest technologies while promoting open competition.

The IFB Section B.18 Exceptions, it is for the Exception page at Section 3 Part C.1. The exception is for Standard Terms and Conditions.

1. Per Section 1.2.3, Requirements For RF Electronic Monitoring, please confirm that the State requires equipment designed categorically for the purpose of monitoring presence or absence of a person’s specified location (e.g. youth’s home) rather than for tracking movement via GPS location monitoring on an ongoing or continuous basis as described in Section 1.2.2, Requirements For GPS.

Yes, the EM requirement needs would need to monitoring leaves and enters to host locations in addition to the alerts for issues with the equipment. EM does not continuously track location movement and points.