Bid Amendment 01 17DPP00093.docx

DOCX document 97 KB Posted Dec 23, 2016

Attached to: Web Casting Managed Services
Solicitation number: 17DPP00093
Issued by: Mercer County, New Jersey

About this file

Written by GovTribe AI · Apr 3, 2024

This document is a Bid Amendment for RFP #17DPP00093, a Web Casting Managed Services contract solicitation issued by the State of New Jersey Department of the Treasury. The RFP seeks a hosted webcasting solution to provide live-streamed and archived video content from the New Jersey Judiciary. The revised RFP includes answers to vendor questions, an extended bid submission deadline of February 8, 2017, and details on required technical specifications such as file formats, concurrent user capacity, archiving and reporting requirements, and technical support. The contract term and any renewal options are not specified.

The RFP does not provide details on pricing, set asides, incumbent providers, funding sources, or other salient commercial terms. It focuses primarily on the technical and operational requirements for the webcasting services. Vendors are instructed to review the revised RFP document for all changes, deletions, and modifications to the original solicitation.

View the file

Other files

File	Type	Posted
RFP T2746 Web Casting Managed Services 12-20-16.docx	DOCX document	Dec 23, 2016
RFP Price Sheet xlsx.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Dec 23, 2016
Vendor Checklist-112415.pdf	PDF	Dec 23, 2016
OfferandAcceptance~1.pdf	PDF	Dec 23, 2016
REVISED T2746 17DPP00093 Bid Solicitation RFP.docx	DOCX document	Dec 23, 2016

On GovTribe

Work with this file

Download the original file
Contacts named in this file
Similar government files
Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

State of New Jersey

	DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
CHRIS CHRISTIE	DIVISION OF PURCHASE AND PROPERTY	FORD M. SCUDDER
Governor	PROCUREMENT BUREAU	State Treasurer
	33 WEST STATE STREET
	P. O. BOX 230
KIM GUADAGNO	TRENTON, NEW JERSEY 08625-0230 JIGNASA DESAI-MCCLEARY

Lt. Governor https://www.njstart.gov Director

January 25, 2017

To: All Interested Bidders

Re: RFP # 17DPP00093 RFP Web Casting Managed Services

Vendor’s {Bidder’s} Electronic Question Due Date:	January 10, 2017 (2:00 p.m.)
Vendor’s {Bidder’s} Bid Submission Due Date:		February 08, 2017 (2:00 p.m.)

Bid Amendment {Addendum} #01

The following constitutes Bid Amendment {Addendum} #01 to the above referenced Bid Solicitation {RFP}:

· Part 1: This Bid Amendment {Addendum} includes answers to questions;

· Please note Proposal Open has been moved to February 08, 2017 (2:00 p.m.); and

· Please note that for all additions, deletions, clarifications and modifications to the Bid Solicitation {RFP} #17DPP00093, please refer to “REVISED –T2746 17DPP00093 Bid Solicitation {RFP}” under attachments.

It is the sole responsibility of the Vendor {Bidder} to be knowledgeable of all of the additions, deletions, clarifications and modifications to the Bid Solicitation {RFP} and/or the New Jersey Standard Terms and Conditions relative to this Bid Solicitation {RFP} as set forth in all Bid Amendments {Addenda}.

All other instructions, terms and conditions of the Bid Solicitation {RFP} shall remain the same.

Web Casting Managed Services Bid Solicitation {RFP} Number: 17DPP00093

Answers to Questions

Note: Some of the questions have been paraphrased in the interest of readability and clarity. Each question is referenced by the appropriate Bid Solicitation {RFP} page number(s) and section where applicable.

Page #

RFP Section Reference

Questions

Answers

N/A

General

Is there a requirement to migrate into the new platform including the previous 30 days of content?

There is no requirement to migrate the previous 30 days of content.

N/A

General

When there is a break in court proceedings what happens to the H323 stream. Is it terminated, or are the cameras and microphones disabled? Examples to be considered: o Legal matter that is being attended to for a few minutes, e.g.,: between Judge and Legal teams o Court break (e.g., Lunch)

There is no termination of the H323 stream. The cameras and microphones are muted; and a splash screen is displayed with “Court in Recess”.

N/A

General

If vendor is able to offer a solution that is deployed on premise, hosted or cloud based in a US based data center. What is the preference and which factor weighs heaviest in the clients considerations?

The requirement is not for an on-premise solution. The Judiciary requires the Contractor to provide a hosted solution in a US based data center.

N/A

General

How many concurrent court sessions will there be? I.e., how many H323 streams do we need to provision for?

There are no court sessions running concurrently, therefore only one H323 stream is required at each session.

N/A

General

How many individual locations and IP-connections will there be?

Please see answer to question number 4.

N/A

General

What detail in the reporting is required, is there a sample report that can be shared?

Minimum reporting requirements include: number of concurrent users, date, time, and platform used.

N/A

General

Vendor kindly requests NJ Courts to: 1. Provide a visual flow of the current workflow for video?s, to clarify on current roles and responsibilities 2. Provide a visual flow of the desired workflow for video?s, to clarify on desired roles and responsibilities 3. Provide an overview of desired functionality and expected future requirements. E.g., will these video?s be used for educational services as well? Will the court use this platform for internal collaboration as well? 4. Provide an overview of current issues and problems the customer would like to see addressed.

Please see Section 3.0 Scope of Work for the stated requirements.

N/A

General

Will we need to provide microphones and cameras? Also will we need to be on location?

No, please see Section 3.5 Technical Support requirements.

N/A

General

Given the significant scope of the RFP, would the State kindly consider extending the QA period or permitting a second round of QA?

No, the State does not agree to extending the Q&A period or permitting a second round.

10.

3.1 General Requirements

In section 3.1 of the RFP, Microsoft Smooth Services are requested as format. This is an adaptive and progressive download standard not suitable for streaming to mobile devices based on Android and iOS and require Silverlight plugins on Windows and Mac OS. Are other formats, offering the same adaptive and progressive options allowed as well, with the added remark that they will function on all platforms WITHOUT the need for specific plugins?

The Judiciary would consider alternate format; subject to review and approval by the Judiciary.

11.

3.1 General Requirements

In section 3.1 it?s is our understanding that certain parts of the media chain are to be delivered by the vendor (live streams) and certain parts are to be delivered by NJ courts (VoD on website). Would the NJ be open to have both provided as a service, making the vendor E2E responsible for delivery no matter live, VoD, streaming or download?

No, the Judiciary is not open to the Contractor providing both services.

12.

3.1 General Requirements

In section 3.1, it is described to store content on the secure servers of the vendor. What is meant by that, since (most) content will be publically available anyway?

Security of the Contractor’s servers hosting the Webcasting Managed Services shall be minimally configured using Level 1 of the Center of Internet Security (CIS) as a benchmark. The CIS Benchmark can be viewed via the below link: https://benchmarks.cisecurity.org/downloads/browse/index.cfm?category=benchmarks.os

13.

3.1 General Requirements

What is the maximum number of live, concurrent meetings/streams expected?

Please see answer to question number 4.

14.

3.1 General Requirements

Will the NJ Judiciary be hosting the Web page (?Skin?), or be providing Vendor a page to host?

Yes, the Judiciary will be hosting the “Skin” web page, per Section 3.1. General Requirements.

15.

3.1 General Requirements

If NJ Judiciary is hosting, please confirm that Vendor will only be responsible for providing an embeddable player for the live and archived feed.

Yes, that is correct.

16.

3.1 General Requirements

Is the Microsoft Smooth Streaming Format a fixed requirement, or is there room for discussion on stream types that may be more widely accessible?

Please see answer to question number 10.

17.

3.1 General Requirements

Workflow confirmation: The NJ Judiciary will provide Vendor with a recording of the session as well as a closed caption file. Vendor will be responsible for hosting those delivered files and providing a player that will combine the video and closed captions, but will not be responsible for the creation of the original recording or closed captions. Is this correct?

The Judiciary will provide the live stream and closed caption file to the Contractor.

18.

3.2 Webcasting Specifications

In section 3.2, the option for Bridging Services for off-site broadcasts is mentioned. What functional and technical requirements can be described to that particular service?

The Contractor shall provide two H323 streams. (One broadcast stream and one view only stream).

19.

3.2.1 File Format Requirement

In section 3.2.1, content flavors up to HD are defined. Is it the customer's wish to support Full HD (1080p) and in the future 4K streams as well?

The Judiciary may want to support full HD (1080p) in the future, but is not looking at this time to support up to 4K. Please see Section 3.2.1 File Format Requirement.

20.

3.3 Volume Access to Video Streaming

In section 3.3, 2 different sizes of concurrent user-groups are mentioned. Can the customer indicate current use-figures and provide a report over the last 12 months to get a better understanding of size, frequency, concurrent users, peak moments, etcetera?

The Judiciary cannot provide usage figures. Please see Section 3.3 Volume of Access to Video Streaming requirements.

21.

3.3 Volume Access to Video Streaming

In section 3.3 No difference is indicated between authenticated and non-authenticated users. Can the customer indicate if and if so in what quantities these user-types are present?

All users are non-authenticated.

22.

3.4 Archiving Video Records

In section 3.4 there?s a specific mention to SMI and ASX files. Are other (better supported) standards acceptable to the customer as well? Do these files have the role of full transcript or of subtitle?

No, other file formats shall not be accepted. No these files do not have the role of full transcript, but can be set as sub-title.

23.

3.4 Archiving Video Records

Workflow confirmation: Contractor will receive the recording from the NJ Judiciary, perform any transcoding work necessary, and then re-post the final file back to the FTP server as well as provide link to the hosted file? Is this correct?

The Contractor shall receive the recorded session file from the Judiciary and shall host the files for 30 calendar days and provide a link to those hosted files.

24.

3.5 Technical Support

In section 3.5, it is indicated the customer requires 1 person to be primary SPOC. Are other scenarios, with the same or higher service standards acceptable as well?

Please see requirements Section 3.5 Technical Support.

25.

3.5 Technical Support

In section 3.5, different response-times per event are desired. Can it be indicated at what quantity and frequency these events occur on an annual basis?

There are approximately 26 sessions each court year; beginning in September and ending in late April or early May. Occasionally, sessions will be added to the Court calendar to accommodate special cases or events. This is only an estimate and does not guarantee the actual number of webcast sessions.

26.

3.5 Technical Support

In section 3.5, it is indicated the customer requires 1 person to be primary SPOC. Are other scenarios, with the same or higher service standards acceptable as well?

Duplicate question, please see answer to question number 24.

27.

3.5 Technical Support

In section 3.5, different response-times per event are desired. Can it be indicated at what quantity and frequency these events occur on an annual basis?

Please see answer to question number 25.

28.

3.6 Training and Documentation

In section 3.6, it is mentioned the customer wants training to be included in the price. Can the customer quantify the type of training, quantity of training events, quantity of users are trained on an annual basis?

The Contractor shall provide one remote training session for the Judiciary staff after contract award. Please see requirements Section 3.6 Training and Documentation.

29.

3.6 Training and Documentation

Duplicate Question. See above

Duplicate question, please see answer to question number 28.

30.

3.7.1 System Availability

In section 3.7.1 to 3.7.3, requirements regarding stability and reliability are described, yet not fully quantifiable or measurable. Can the customer provide more quantifiable measures for stability and reliability?

No, the Judiciary cannot provide more quantifiable measurements. Please see requirements Section 3.7.2 System Stability.

31.

3.8 Disaster Recovery Plan

In section 3.8, a Disaster Recovery Plan for the service is required. In case of a cloud-based service, would the customer be satisfied with the generic cloud disaster recovery plan instead of a specific recovery plan?

This question is not clear.

32.

3.9 Technology Upgrades

In section 3.9, Technology upgrades are under the approval of the customer. Is this correct and if so: would the customer accept upgrade and lifecycle management by the vendor, as long as the vendor guarantees functionality of the service?

Yes, all technology upgrades require Judiciary approval in advance.

33.

5.9.1 Data Confidentiality

Given that the state in section 5.9.1.1.d, agrees to hold Vendor?s {Contractor?s} Confidential Information in confidence, using at least the same degree of care used to protect its own Confidential Information. We respectfully request and acknowledge the requirement to accept responsibility for notifications resulting from breach of our security obligations. However, it seems to present an inappropriate level of risk and to also indemnify the State for any claims related to another event requiring notification under applicable law that was caused by the State or other third party not under our control. Accordingly, we request the State to please modify this section as follows: The Vendor {Contractor} must comply with all applicable State and Federal laws that require the notification of individuals in the event of unauthorized release of personally identifiable information or other event requiring notification to the extent such other event resulted from the gross negligence or misconduct of the Contractor or from conditions or events beyond its reasonable control. In the event of a breach of any of the Vendor {Contractor}?s security obligations or other event to the extent such other event resulted from the gross negligence or misconduct of the Contractor or from conditions or events beyond its reasonable control requiring notification under applicable law (Notification Event),[...]

No, the State does not accept these proposed modifications.

34.

5.9.1 Data Confidentiality

While contractors are willing to be accountable for their own performance, they should not have to shoulder the state's responsibility for protecting their own data. In addition, liability should only arise if data is actually (or reasonably likely to have been) disclosed in a manner not permitted under the contract. Accordingly, will the State consider revising the second paragraph to reflect this concept? We provide the following language for your consdieration: "The Vendor {Contractor} shall assume financial liability incurred by the Vendor {Contractor} associated with any breach of confidentiality resulting solely from Contractor?s failure to comply with Contractor?s data security obligations under the Contract."

No, the State does not accept these proposed modifications.

35.

5.9.1.1 Vendor's (Contractor’s) Confidential Information

Subpart (g)(ii) conflicts with the language in (g)(iii) and (g)(iv) as it does not factor in the confidential information owner's right as set forth in (e) and (f). Please renumber (iii) and (iv) to (a) and (b) respectively, or remove (ii).

Please see the revised Bid Solicitation {RFP} dated, January 24, 2017.

36.

5.9.1.1 Vendor's (Contractor’s) Confidential Information

Duplicate question, please see answer to question number 35.

37.

37-38

5.9.2 Data Security Standards

While we acknowledge the requirement to accept responsibility for notifications resulting from breach of our security obligations; however, it would present an inappropriate level of risk to also indemnify the State for any claims related to an ?other event requiring notification under applicable law? that was caused by the State or other third party not under our control. Accordingly, we request the State to please modify this section as follows: ? The Vendor {Contractor} must comply with all applicable State and Federal laws that require the notification of individuals in the event of unauthorized release of personally identifiable information or other event requiring notification to the extent such other event resulted from the gross negligence or misconduct of the Contractor or from conditions or events beyond its reasonable control. In the event of a breach of any of the Vendor {Contractor}?s security obligations or other event to the extent such other event resulted from the gross negligence or misconduct of the Contractor or from conditions or events beyond its reasonable control requiring notification under applicable law (?Notification Event?),[...]"

No, the State does not accept these proposed modifications.

38.

37-38

5.9.2 Data Security Standards

In order to have a holistic view of the contractor's indemnification obligations which benefits both the Contractor and the State, we request the State consider the following revision: " and to indemnify, hold harmless and defend the State of New Jersey, its officials, and employees from and against any claims, damages, or other harm arising to third parties related to such Notification Event in accordance with Section 5.17 hereto."

Please see the revised Bid Solicitation {RFP} dated, January 24, 2017.

39.

37-38

5.9.2 Data Security Standards

Duplicate question, please see answer to question number 38.

40.

37-38

5.9.2 Data Security Standards

Duplicate question, please see answer to question number 38.

41.

5.13.3 Remedies for failure to comply with material blanket PO {contract} requirements

A cost of cover provision should be tied to the Contractor's uncured material failure and should be subject to reasonable "In the event that the Vendor {Contractor} fails to comply with any material Blanket PO {Contract} requirements, the Director may take steps to terminate this Blanket PO {Contract} in accordance with the SSTC, and if the Vendor {Contractor} does not cure the breach within the cure period, authorize the delivery of remaining Blanket PO {Contract} items by any reasonable available means, provided however, (1) the State has taken steps to mitigate such costs, (2) the third party scope of work and services are substantially the same as the work and services terminated under the Blanket PO {Contract}, (3) with the difference between the price paid and the defaulting Vendor?s {Contractor?s} price either being deducted from any monies due the defaulting Vendor {Contractor} or being an obligation owed the State by the defaulting Vendor {Contractor} subject to the limits set forth in Section 4.1.1 as modified in RFP Section 17.1.1 limitation of liability, as provided for in the State administrative code, or take any other action or seek any other remedies available at law or in equity."

No, the State does not accept these proposed modifications.

42.

5.16.1 Indemnification

Prudently managed companies must effectively assess and control economic risks in their contracts. Limitation of liability provisions are key to establishing the appropriate balancing of financial risk between vendors and government customers. In accordance with standard commercial practices, and our current experience with the State as well as other similar contracts with other state governments, will the State revise the limitation of liability cap to an aggregate amount of 100% of the fees paid for implementation services and a twelve-month look back for recurring fees for maintenance and hosting?

No, the State does not accept these proposed modifications.

43.

5.16.1 Indemnification

Liability under 4.1.1(a)(ii) and (ii) should only arise if data is actually (or reasonably likely to have been) disclosed in a manner not permitted under the contract. Ascertaining who is at fault can often be difficult or impossible. Therefore it is our preference that these items be subject to the contract limitation of liability. However, we understand that what is more common in the industry these days is a "super cap" which is often 2x the agreed up on limitation of liability. Will the State entertain such an approach?

Please see the revised Bid Solicitation {RFP} dated, January 24, 2017.

image1.png

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated Apr 3, 2024.