The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
Bid # BD-25-1030-0P100-0P110-116436 – RFQ
PRF84 Designated CTR—Payment Solutions Project
| Number |
| Date Received |
| Question Subject |
| Question |
| 1 |
| 5/13/2025 |
| Payment Channels |
| Is the total dollar volume indicated on page 9 included with this scope, or is any of this volume remaining with the current alternate payment channel interfaces? |
| Answer |
| If the selected vendor is providing the service for a complete year, then the estimated yearly total dollar amount would be in scope. The monthly totals reflect estimated monthly numbers based on the current system’s actual 2024 activity. The totals reflect only “approved” dollar amounts. |
| 2 |
| 5/13/2025 |
| One-cent Approval |
| What is the use case for the one-cent approval, are these required? |
| Answer |
| We will not provide a use case for this. More research is required to determine the full transaction characteristics but not within the timeline for this RFQ as resources are limited. A relatively small number do occur, however, and we process the approvals. |
| 3 |
| 5/13/2025 |
| Transaction Breakdown |
| Please provide a breakdown of transactions by payment method i.e., debit, credit card, American Express. |
| Answer |
| Any debit cards are only processed as a credit card from E-commerce platform (2024 below): |
| PaymentTypeCode |
| TransCount |
| TransAmt |
| Percent of Total |
| AX |
| 236,226 |
| $50,923,677.51 |
| 7.56% |
| DI |
| 104,243 |
| $7,414,554.31 |
| 3.34% |
| MC |
| 1,113,518 |
| $100,008,851.23 |
| 35.65% |
| VS |
| 1,669,875 |
| $167,902,720.25 |
| 53.46% |
| 3,123,862 |
| $326,249,803.30 |
| 4 |
| 5/14/2025 |
| CVV |
| We typically see that transactions which have the wrong CVV are rejected by the issuer, before an approval reaches the payment processor. Can the RMV elaborate on why they want their payment processor / provider to also validate the CVV? |
| Answer |
| Our current interface with WorldPay puts the CVV and AVS code validation on our client side. WP and issuer will approve the dollar amount but will send CVV and AVS status codes along with the approval. Our side evaluates the CVV and AVS codes and will auto-void the approval if the codes are not MassDOT-acceptable codes. We are host data capture thus the requirement to submit real-time reversals (non-Payfac model). |
The requirement mandates only accepting payment authorizations that “pass” both CVV and AVS validation. Since there are numerous CVV and AVS codes, determination of “pass” needs to be evaluated with MassDOT Business to determine acceptance standards. Whether it is handled before approval or after approval can be a system-level dependency and payfac model dependent as well.
| 5 |
| 5/14/2025 |
| WP chargeback data |
| Does the RMV currently import the Worldpay chargeback data (CHARTS) into its systems or does it manage chargebacks via IQ or some other method? |
| Answer |
| Disputes are downloaded from iQ on a weekly basis, 30-days in arrears (to allow the disputes to be final) and the data is uploaded to Atlas, creating Work Items which are then reviewed and, where the dispute is not accepted, a Chargeback action (payment default) is processed. Additionally, weekly reconciliation is completed using both iQ and Atlas data. Transactions are identified where duplicate payments were processed in iQ which need to be refunded in iQ or where the payment posted in Atlas but not iQ for which debt collection is needed. This is a very manual process, using data sets and Excel PV’s. |
| 6 |
| 5/14/2025 |
| E-checks |
| Does the RMV intend to use the payment vendor for e-checks or use FAST’s e-check services via ATLAS? What will be the deciding factors for this decision? |
| Answer |
| Out of scope for this RFQ. Currently, we use FAST for e-check processing. |
| 7 |
| 5/14/2025 |
| Maximum card payment amount |
| Does the RMV expect to continue to have a maximum card payment amount of $100,000, or is this a system limitation that they want to eliminate? |
| Answer |
| Current agreement with WorldPay sets this limit. Typically, Fleet renewals will hit this limit, but customers are able to work around the issue. |
| 9 |
| 5/14/2025 |
| Online payment growth |
| Does the RMV know why they had strong online payment growth in 2021 (89% transaction growth and 108% volume growth)? |
| Answer |
| Current thinking is COVID where RMV Service Centers had very limited operations and constituents were directed to online services to renew their documents. Additional features and policy changes were added online around the same time to make it easier for customers to complete their transactions. The volume has remained consistent. |
| 9 |
| 5/14/2025 |
| E-check returns |
| If known, please supply the number of e-check returns in the last 12 months, and the number of e-check transactions. While e-checks may not be directly in scope for this RFQ, the RMV may want to access the quality of services it may use from the contractor in the future, as a consideration of the contractor’s competencies for different payment methods and channels. |
| Answer |
| Out of scope for this RFQ. |
| 10 |
| 5/14/2025 |
| Chargebacks |
| If known, please supply the number of debit/credit card chargebacks in the last 12 months. |
| 11 |
| 5/14/2025 |
| Value-added services |
| Would the RMV want additional information about value added services appended to our response, in order to determine other future benefits the contractor might bring? |
| Answer |
| Out of scope for this RFQ, but may be included in an addendum to your response. |
| 12 |
| 5/14/2025 |
| one-cent approvals |
| Can the RMV elaborate on what they mean by “one-cent approvals”? Are these small payment approvals used to ensure a card is valid for future transactions, or another use case? |
| Answer |
| Duplicate question, see question #2 |
| 13 |
| 5/14/2025 |
| Models |
| Why is the RMV exploring both a Payfac model and a non-Payfac model? What benefits does the RMV expect with the non-Payfac model over a Payfac model? What benefits does the RMV expect with the Payfac model over the non-Payfac model? |
| Answer |
| Non-payfac model is implemented today. Provides consistent processing in Revenue for all transactions, regardless of payment channel. All channels processed in same host data capture settlement file. Internal Reconciliation report coding effort to port to new settlement solution is eliminated if our tracking keys can be maintained. |
Since the non-payfac model limits vendor responsibility, it might also justify lower transaction rates to fit our fixed fiscal budget.
| 14 |
| 5/14/2025 |
| Integration methods |
| Please provide the Worldpay platform, access gateway, and API spec type/integration method currently used by the RMV for processing payments online, in-person and over the phone. |
| Answer |
| Out of scope for this RFQ. |
| 15 |
| 5/14/2025 |
| Settlement files |
| In addition to using Worldpay iQ for payment reports, does the RMV ingest settlement files provided by Worldpay directly into another system’s reporting (e.g. ATLAS)? |
| Answer |
| Yes, the settlement file from WorldPay is imported and processed for ATLAS Reconciliation reporting. |