CN Amendment 3.pdf

State of South Carolina

COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATIONS

Amendment 3

Solicitation:

Date Issued:

Procurement Officer:

Phone:

E-Mail Address:

Mailing Address:

5400018669 06/05/2020

KIMBER CRAIG, CPPO

803-737-2527 kcraig@mmo.sc.gov SFAA, Div. of Procurement Services 1201 Main Street, Suite 600 Columbia SC 29201

DESCRIPTION: Asset Management Software Solution

USING GOVERNMENTAL UNIT: SC Department of Transportation

SUBMIT YOUR OFFER ON-LINE AT THE FOLLOWING URL: http://www.procurement.sc.gov

SUBMIT OFFER BY (Opening Date/Time): 07/01/2020 at 11:00 am (See Section L - Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors)

QUESTIONS MUST BE RECEIVED BY: 05/22/2020 (See Section L - Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors)

NUMBER OF COPIES TO BE SUBMITTED: On-line Submission

CONFERENCE TYPE: Pre-proposal Conference DATE & TIME: May 13, 2020 at 11:00 am

(As appropriate, see Section L - Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors)

LOCATION: WebEx Meeting Contact Procurement Officer for login information

AWARD &

AMENDMENTS

Award will be posted on 10/9/2020. The award, this solicitation, any amendments, and any related notices will be posted at the following web address: http://www.procurement.sc.gov

You must submit a signed copy of this form with Your Offer. In accordance with the solicitation the undersigned agrees, if this offer is accepted within one hundred eighty (180) calendar days from the date for receipt of offers specified above, to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered at the price set opposite each item, delivered at the designated point(s), within the time specified in the schedule.

NAME OF OFFEROR

(full legal name of business submitting the offer)

Any award issued will be issued to, and the contract will be formed with, the entity identified as the Offeror. The entity named as the offeror must be a single and distinct legal entity. Do not use the name of a branch office or a division of a larger entity if the branch or division is not a separate legal entity, i.e., a separate corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship, etc.

AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE

(Person must be authorized to submit binding offer to contract on behalf of Offeror.)

DATE SIGNED

TITLE

(business title of person signing above)

STATE VENDOR NO.

(Register to Obtain S.C. Vendor No. at www.procurement.sc.gov)

PRINTED NAME

(printed name of person signing above)

STATE OF INCORPORATION

(If you are a corporation, identify the state of incorporation.)

OFFEROR'S TYPE OF ENTITY: (Check one) (See " Section L - Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors)

___ Sole Proprietorship ___ Partnership ___ Other_____________________________

___ Corporate entity (not tax-exempt) ___ Corporation (tax-exempt) ___ Government entity (federal, state, or local)

COVER PAGE – ON-LINE ONLY (MODIFIED)SAP

PAGE TWO

(Return Page Two with Your Offer)

HOME OFFICE ADDRESS (Address for offeror's home office / principal place of business)

NOTICE ADDRESS (Address to which all procurement and contract related notices should be sent.) (See "Notice" clause)

Area Code - Number - Extension Facsimile

E-mail Address

PAYMENT ADDRESS (Address to which payments will be sent.)

(See "Payment and Interest" clause)

____Payment Address same as Home Office Address ____Payment Address same as Notice Address (check only one)

ORDER ADDRESS (Address to which purchase orders will be sent) (See "Purchase Orders and "Invoicing Instructions" clauses)

____Order Address same as Home Office Address ____Order Address same as Notice Address (check only one)

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AMENDMENTS

Offerors acknowledges receipt of amendments by indicating amendment number and its date of issue. (See Section L - Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors) Amendment No. Amendment Issue

Date Amendment No. Amendment Issue

Date Amendment No. Amendment Issue

Date Amendment No. Amendment Issue

Date

DISCOUNT FOR

PROMPT PAYMENT

(See "Discount for Prompt

Payment" clause)

10 Calendar Days (%) 20 Calendar Days (%) 30 Calendar Days (%) _____Calendar Days (%)

PAGE TWO (SEP 2009) End of PAGE TWO

AMENDMENTS TO SOLICITATION (MODIFIED)

(a) The Solicitation may be amended in accordance with Section 11-35-1535(D) and Reg. 19- 445.2099D(2). All actual and prospective Offerors should monitor the following web site for the issuance of Amendments: www.procurement.sc.gov (b) Offerors shall acknowledge receipt of any amendment to this solicitation (1) by signing and returning the amendment, (2) by identifying the amendment number and date in the space provided for this purpose on Page Two, (3) by letter, or

(4) by submitting a bid that indicates in some way that the bidder received the amendment. (c) If this solicitation is amended, then all terms and conditions which are not modified remain unchanged.

QUESTIONS FROM OFFERORS - AMENDMENT (JUN 2017)

THE SOLICITATION IS AMENDED AS PROVIDED HEREIN. INFORMATION OR

CHANGES RESULTING FROM QUESTIONS WILL BE SHOWN IN A QUESTION-AND-

ANSWER FORMAT. ALL QUESTIONS RECEIVED HAVE BEEN REPRINTED BELOW.

THE “STATE’S RESPONSE” SHOULD BE READ WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE

QUESTIONS. THE QUESTIONS ARE INCLUDED SOLELY TO PROVIDE A CROSS-

REFERENCE TO THE POTENTIAL OFFEROR THAT SUBMITTED THE QUESTION.

QUESTIONS DO NOT FORM A PART OF THE CONTRACT; THE “STATE’S RESPONSE”

DOES. ANY RESTATEMENT OF PART OR ALL OF AN EXISTING PROVISION OF THE

SOLICITATION IN AN ANSWER DOES NOT MODIFY THE ORIGINAL PROVISION

EXCEPT AS FOLLOWS: UNDERLINED TEXT IS ADDED TO THE ORIGINAL

PROVISON. STRICKEN TEXT IS DELETED. [02-2A097-1]

1. If pavement management is not a native feature of our platform, Is it acceptable if we respond in collaboration with a partner for integrated pavement management solution

A single vendor may not have an offering for all program areas to be supported by EAMS. It is acceptable for vendors to collaborate to provide a single proposal for EAMS implementation. Submitted proposals must identify a single vendor that is the prime contractor who is responsible for all of the EAMS implementation.

2. Unfortunately, I could not find Attachment K in the document. Was it included in the main document or as a separate attachment on the site?

This was posted as Amendment #1 to the solicitation.

3. What does this part mean:

a. H.1 Offshore Contracting Prohibited

b. No part of the resulting contract from this solicitation may be performed offshore of the United States by persons located offshore of the United State or by means, methods, or communications that, in whole or in part, take place offshore of the United States.

This clause is amended as follows:

H.1 Offshore Contracting Prohibitions

SCDOT requires any application or data hosting must be in a US Government cloud certified platform and be compliant with FedRAMP and Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) requirements (See Attachment C

– Statement of Objectives). There are no other offshore US contracting prohibitions or restrictions.

4. What does the following mean:

a. “provide clear and convincing evidence to determine the proposed system successfully meets ALL requirements in Evaluation Criteria 1”

Evaluation criteria #1 is one of 4 Mandatory Requirements that will need to be met in order for a proposed system to be considered for award.

5. Why is web mandatory? How did you decide?

The preferred EAMS application framework is a web-based user interface that supports modern browsers including IE 11, as well as native mobile applications. Other SCDOT IT standards are included within the solicitation Statement of Objectives (Appendix C) under Hardware and Technical Requirements.

6. Will the State accept local agencies similar in size and scope to that of DOT as project reference(s)?

References as specified in section L.6.1.c. Vendor experience - can be for projects with other transportation agencies of similar size and scope within the last 10 years. However, the Qualifications - Special Standards of Responsibility requirement in section L.3 specifically requires the offeror to have US state transportation agency experience.

7. In regards to the project below, are you able to let me know if (1) there is an previous incumbent contract and if there is (2) provide a copy of that contract, There is not an incumbent contract.

8. Were there any pre-RFPs or RFIs for this current project?

There were not any pre-RFPs or RFIs for this project.

9. Are you able to share the current project’s estimated budget?

We are not able to share the project’s estimated budget, but we have funding identified and committed for the project’s implementation.

10. For this particular solicitation, do I need to submit an LOI for intent to submit a bid? My company does plan to participate and bid on this solicitation 5400018669.

You do not need to submit a Letter of Intent or Interest prior to submission of your bid.

11. Is the form on page 5 of the RFP to be submitted as part of the response to the RFP? The header mentions “at time of award”.

The form on page 5 should be used to develop your Proposed Cost and Assumptions document and should be submitted with Volume 2 as referenced on page 22 of the RFP.

Additional lines may be added to the form as necessary.

12. Can you please clarify exactly how many individual documents are to be submitted, and what they are? On page 20, it appears 3 documents are to be submitted (Letter of Interest, EAMS Qualifications and Technical Proposal, and EAMS Proposed Cost and Assumptions), while on page 3 of Attachment L.1, it is mentioned that there should be 2 parts (a technical proposal and a business proposal). There are also Attachment K, the Cover Page/page 2 form, and potentially a Security Assessment Questionnaire which might be intended to be submitted separately.

Per page 22 there should be two separate documents/volumes. Volume 1 will be comprised of the Letter of Interest, EAMS Qualifications and Technical Proposal, as well as any attachments that are not part of Volume 2, the EAMS Proposed Cost and Assumptions.

13. Attachment K states it is to be included as a “separate exhibit” to the proposal. Is it to be submitted as a separate file, or is it to be included in the technical proposal?

Attachment K is to be included as part of Volume 1 as an exhibit but may be a separate file if necessary.

14. If Exhibit K is to be included in the technical proposal, does it count toward the page limit?

Exhibit K does not count toward the page limit.

15. If the Letter of Interest is to be included as part of the Technical Proposal, does it count toward the 30-page limit?

The Letter of Interest should be part of Volume 1, but will not count toward the 30-page limit.

16. If the Cover Page/page 2 form is to be included in the technical proposal, does it count toward the page limit?

The Cover Page and page 2 are to be included in Volume 1, but do not count toward the page limit.

17. If the Security Assessment Questionnaire is to be included in the technical proposal, does it count toward the page limit? If a firm submits other documentation in lieu of the Security Assessment Questionnaire, does that information count toward the page limit?

The Security Assessment Questionnaire is to be included in Volume 1, but does not count toward the page limit. The Questionnaire must be submitted, and any supplemental information submitted to substantiate the answers or explain them should be provided as an appendix and will not count toward the page limit.

18. Is the insurance information asked for in Section L.2 on page 19 to be attached to the Cover

Page/page 2? If not, where is it to be included and would it count against any page limit?

The insurance information asked for in Section L.2 on page 19 should be attached as appendices and does not count toward the page limit.

19. Where in the RFP is the Security Assessment Questionnaire? If it is not in the RFP or

Amendment 1, would the State allow an extra week following the provision of the questionnaire for firms to ask questions related to the questionnaire? Page 29 of the RFP states “ASK QUESTIONS NOW” but without being able to see the specific questionnaire, we are not sure what questions we might need to ask.

The Security Assessment Questionnaire has been published as Amendment #2 of the solicitation. SCDOT will accept questions only regarding this Security Assessment Questionnaire through June 12, 2020.

20. Is there a target date for when the attendee list from last week’s EAMS Pre-proposal conference will be made available?

The list of vendors who requested login information for pre-proposal conference is included at the end of this amendment.

21. Is there a recorded transcript of the pre-proposal conference that I may be able to get as well?

There is not a recorded transcript of the pre-proposal conference, but the slides from the conference were included with Amendment #1 of the solicitation that has been posted.

22. Data:

a. What database language is currently used

Most existing applications that are hosted by SCDOT are either Oracle or SQL Server.

b. Will legacy data conversion be required

Yes.

c. Approximate number of master data records

The size of each database is different. The data conversion requirements will be better defined after conducting each program area implementation plan.

23. Organization:

a. How many sites

SCDOT has one main headquarters, 7 District Offices, and 46 County Maintenance Offices.

b. How many users

Each program area module will have different numbers of users with different levels of access. For example, Pavement Management may have 30 users, but Maintenance Management may have 3,000 users.

24. Workflow:

a. How many existing workflows

Each program area has its own workflows that will be explored in detail during the EAMS Program Area Implementation Plan done for each area. Vendors will need to make assumptions based on the RFP’s Statement of Objectives (SOO) and its Exhibit 1 information along with their prior experiences with having done this type of implementation for other transportation agencies. It is expected that after each individual program area implementation plan is completed, there will be an opportunity to review the scope based on initial assumptions and the more detailed implementation plan results. If a contract change is needed, the change management process will be followed.

25. Integrations:

a. Which are required to be integrated with the new EAM system?

ArcGIS, RIMS, BrM, BrR, Safety, iHaul, EPPS, OAX, P2S, TAMP, SCEIS SAP, GIS, LRS

The expected integrations with EAMS are illustrated on the diagram on page 4 of Attachment C. The details on each of these integrations will be developed during the EAMS Program Area Implementation Plans.

26. What areas of focus are required to be delivered by the analytics solution? Are there specific use-cases that need to be satisfied with the initial implementation?

The dashboard and reporting aspects of EAMS will be explored during the EAMS Program Area Implementation Plans. A sampling of some of the current analytics are available on the SCDOT web site – Strategic Plan Performance Dashboard.

https://www.scdot.org/StrategicPlanning/Dashboards/SMPlan2018/index.aspx

27. Who are the end-users of analytical dashboards and reports (i.e. logging in to the solution to view dashboards – filter, drill down etc.)?

End users of analytics and reports will span all levels of the organization as well as external entities. Details of those requirements will be explored during each EAMS Program Area Implementation Plan.

28. What types of questions do the end-users need to answer when using a dashboard or report?

Requirements for dashboard analytics and reports will depend on the program area.

Details of those requirements will be explored during each EAMS Program Area Implementation Plan.

29. Are there specific “data-level” security requirements around the data available in the analytics solution (i.e. row-level or column-level security)?

The data published through reports and visible in dashboard analytics will need to abide by end user access security controlled through the EAMS application.

30. Can there be separate contractual agreements for services and software?

SCDOT intends to award a single contract for software, implementation services, as well as maintenance and support.

31. Can the state clarify what documents it is looking for when it refers to "evidence of agent's authority"?

Refer to the “Signing Your Proposal” section in Attachment L.1 - Instructions to Offerors. Upon request, the offeror may be asked to provide proof of the agent’s authorization to bind the principal. If the offeror is a corporation, this may be in the form of a board resolution confirming the authorization to commit the offeror’s firm.

32. Can you provide the number of Roadway Use Permits by area that are in scope for EAMS? Do you have such programs as adopt a highway permit requirements that need to be considered for EAMS Roadway permits?

Existing permit data and the need for integration will need to be explored by program area. Details of those requirements will be explored during each EAMS Program Area Implementation Plan.

33. Can you identify all sources of data that is required for extract and conversion into the new

EAMS?

Each program area has its own existing data and data conversion needs. Details of those requirements will be explored during each EAMS Program Area Implementation Plan.

34. Will SCDOT consider a train the trainer training program?

SCDOT will consider the vendor’s recommended training approach based on their experience and best practices they have refined from having performed the training at other transportation agencies.

35. Does SCDOT desire Organization Change Management / Transformation services from the vendor as part of this project?

As each program area is implemented, SCDOT would want suggestions for business process improvements based on the vendor’s experience at other transportation agencies. SCDOT will evaluate those suggestions and undertake further analysis on their own. No organizational change management services are being requested by SCDOT at this time.

36. GIS Interface and LRS Gateway, Pg. 53,9.

a. Requirement - SC DOT states, “SCDOT has been using GeoMedia/Oracle Spatial but is beginning to work with ESRI ArcGIS and it is expected that EAMS will leverage web map services from the newly deployed ArcGIS platform. The GIS mapping data for the road network is currently within GeoMedia Transportation Manager, but SCDOT is looking to possibly implement ESRI Roads & Highways at some point in the future.

b. Question:

i. The LRS is central to the new EAMS system since assets in the EAMS will have to be updated when a change occurs in the LRS. Has SC DOT set a date to have a decision pertaining to the usage of Roads & Highways? If so, what is the timeframe?

No decision has been made on fully implementing esri R&H. For the purposes of the EAMS project, LRS changes will continue to be maintained within RIMS. Therefore, an LRS interface will need to be developed between RIMS and EAMS. RIMS currently updates a Route Mod Log for completed individual route changes. This and other possible methods will be explored early in the EAMS implementation planning phase once a vendor is under contract.

37. Geographic Information System Requirement, Pg. 57.

a. Requirement - The RFP states, “Currently, the measures on Interstate road features are continuous within South Carolina, but other roads have their route measures reset at county boundaries.” There has been discussion on making primary routes also continuous state-wide, but these road features currently reset their measures at county boundaries.

b. Questions:

i. Is SC DOT maintaining two separate LRM’s in RIMS – a state cumulative for interstates and a county cumulative for all lower classification of roads?

ii. Are the LRS key’s different for the LRM’s? If so, how does SC DOT distinguish between the state cumulative LRM on the interstates and the county cumulative LRM on the other routes? Is this also the case in the GIS system?

iii. Is the expectation for the new EAMS system to support multiple LRM’s?

SCDOT maintains a single LRS/LRM and will continue to do so for the purposes of the EAMS application.

38. Implementation Services, Pg. 62, 2.

a. Requirement - Provide support for the EAMS solution deployment – the delivery and installation, configuration, data conversion, and integration with SCDOT LRS and other systems and applications. This may require collaboration with other parties to interface different systems/applications.

b. Question:

i. Does this imply the LRS will be managed from within the EAMS?

The LRS at SCDOT is maintained within RIMS and the existing Geomedia Transportation Manager application. EAMS will need an interface to this LRS, but will not manage the LRS.

39. Technical Support and Maintenance, Pg. 63, 1.

a. Requirement - Provide vendor project team technical support for each EAMS Program Area implementation during its implementation and 90 days after go-live.

b. Question:

i. Is the expectation that the project technical team will be on-site for the 90-day period after the go-live?

No, the project team will not need to be on-site for the 90-day period after go-live. There will be a short period of having vendor implementation project team resources available on-site, but no more than a week is anticipated. The expectation on the 90-day period after go-live is that the implementation project team will still be engaged and responsible for issue resolution. During this 90-day period, the vendor’s support staff will begin to assume the responsibilities of issue resolution and if all goes well, they will take over full responsibility at the end of the 90-day period after go-live.

40. Roadway Information Management System and Highway Pavement Management Asset, Pg. 65.

a. Requirement - RIMS serves as the primary LRS for most features managed by the Agency and will serve as the foundation for the acquired EAMS until the LRS can be completely transformed and corrected into a GIS/GPS referencing system.

b. Questions:

i. Describe what is meant by a GIS/GPS referencing system? Does this include the network as well as the asset information in the EAMS?

ii. Does this imply that SC DOT will be retiring both the state cumulative and county cumulative LRM’s currently being used in RIMS and the GIS?

RIMS will remain the LRS/LRM source for the purposes of the EAMS implementation.

It is anticipated that some features will potentially have both an LRS reference and a discrete coordinate location. The details of this requirement will be explored in the overall EAMS Implementation Plan as well as individual program area Implementation Plans.

41. What kind of bond would be required?

There is no general performance bond requirement for this contract. However, the Attachment L.1 Eligibility for Award clause on page 6 with regards to the offeror’s financial capability may require some form of security.

42. The Covid19 crisis made challenging to connect with partners to put a proposal together. As such, I request an extension for 60 for the Jul 1 deadline.

Proposal submission deadline remains July 1.

43. Does HMMS, the existing maintenance management system have an underlying COTS system or is it a custom solution?

Exhibit 1 to the Statement of Objectives states that HMMS is an in-house Oracle database system. It was originally a Booz Allen Hamilton application that was acquired by SCDOT and has been maintained by SCDOT for many years without any further vendor support.

44. Does SC DOT have a priority in mind for the systems integrations? Are there any legacy systems facing end-of-support or other risks that would need to be prioritized?

The Maintenance Management component of EAMS has been identified as the priority initial implementation which also includes several sub-components including Supply & Equipment Management, Fleet Management, Sign Management, and Roadway Asset Inventory & Inspection. The remaining implementation priorities and potential for concurrent program area implementations will be explored and decided during the overall EAMS Implementation Plan.

45. Would SCDOT consider parallel program area implementations? Are there identified constraints/risks to parallel program area implementations? Would SCDOT consider a shorter implementation timeline?

SCDOT anticipates that there will be several components of EAMS undergoing implementation at the same time. There are risks and resource constraints to be considered that will be addressed in the overall EAMS Implementation Plan development along with the overall implementation timeline.

46. Can Mandatory Technical requirement #1 be met through two COTs systems integrated to one another?

The proposer should provide clear and convincing evidence that all the Mandatory Requirements are satisfied. Requirement 1 includes asset trade off analysis between multiple program areas, so the integrated solution could potentially include different COTs applications.

47. How would you evaluate pricing of Saas vs perpetual licensing?

Evaluation of pricing is a determination by SCDOT that the vendor proposed pricing is fair, reasonable, and complete. Overall, SCDOT is looking for the best value for the State that includes tradeoffs among price and non-price evaluation factors.

48. p19/p21 of pdf: L.3 Qualifications - Special Standards of Responsibility | The document states, "Offeror has implemented their asset management solution at one or more US state transportation agencies within the last 10 years with multiple program area modules and greater than 200 direct end users."

a. In related content, on p32/p34 of pdf: Section B, General Requirements, Vendor Qualifications and Proposed Staff | The document states, "If project team is comprised of a team of vendors, that team has worked together on projects of similar size and scope."

b. In related content, on Attachment C, p9-10/p53-54 of pdf: Contract Structure | The document states, "It is understandable that a single vendor may not be able to provide the best solution out-of-the-box for all the systems under consideration to meet SCDOT’s needs. SCDOT desires that the successful vendor has the ability to provide, either with its own systems/applications or through a subconsultant, a full suite of systems that can fulfill SCDOT’s requirements. SCDOT encourages offerors to partner with qualified vendors to provide a unified solution to meet the needs of the SCDOT."

c. Question: The EAMS project will involve a variety of application components and system modules to facilitate an effective asset management system for the agency.

The needs across and between the needed components and modules will have both common foundational elements as well as aspects that will vary according to the line of business requirements listed in the RFP. In order to provide the most effective solution to the agency, an approach that leverages a 'best of breed' of softwares and vendors should be considered. It is understood that the SCDOT acknowledges that this may be the best option for EAMS. Please confirm that if the proposed EAMS solution has common foundational elements that meet the requirement of being implemented in one or more US state transportation agencies within the last 10 years with multiple modules and hundreds of users, that this approach will meet the qualification standard.

SCDOT understands and will consider a proposed approach with common foundational elements that provide clear and convincing evidence that it meets the stated Special Standards of Responsibility as well as the Mandatory Requirements. If the proposed approach meets those mandatory requirements, it will be given the same consideration as other proposals that also meet those mandatory requirements.

Offerors should also review the requirements in the “Eligibility for Award” section of Attachment L.1 starting on page 6.

49. p39/p41 of pdf: Regarding the demonstration | The document states, "M.4.4.3.2.2 Demonstration of

Proposed Solution, Capabilities, and Technical Approach. This must be a Live System demonstration (not a slide show)."

a. Question: It is understood that a live demonstration will be required for the short list presentation. Assuming that conditions will allow for the presentation to be in-person (and not online only), will the facility hosting the short list meeting we equipped with the appropriate infrastructure (e.g., network bandwidth, presentation screens, etc.) to provide for an effective demonstration? Will the facility be available for a dry-run/rehearsal prior to the official presentation time?

Facility will not be available for dry-run/rehearsal prior to official presentation time. It will have wireless internet access and projection presentation screens.

b. Question: If conditions do not allow for an in-person presentation by the team, will

SCDOT permit for an online/web-conference to conduct the live demonstration?

If conditions are such that an in-person presentation is not viable, SCDOT will permit online/web-conference for the demonstration.

50. p32/p34 of pdf: Section B, General Requirements, Vendor Qualifications and Proposed Staff | The document states, "Vendor has proposed key technical staff with deep experience on GIS and LRS. That staff should have knowledge and experience from working with other similar agencies on the esri ArcGIS platform and its Roads & Highways application, as well as Oracle Spatial, and Bentley/Geomedia."

a. In related content Attachment C p9/p53 of pdf: #9 GIS Interface and LRS Gateway | The document states, "...SCDOT is looking to possibly implement esri Roads & Highways at some point in the future. The LRS is currently maintained by SCDOT in both the RIMS application and within its Oracle Spatial database. Changes to the LRS are currently updated in both data sources independently."

b. In related content on Attachment C p11/p 55 of PDF, the document states "the proposed EAMS solution must facilitate changes to the SCDOT LRS as defined above and asset records must be updated accordingly. Solutions can offer secondary position referencing systems to work in coordination with the SCDOT LRS (e.g., GPS coordinates). However, the standard method of locating assets by the SCDOT LRS must be properly maintained within each system."

c. Question: It is understood that SCDOT has existing methods and processes to maintain the agency's LRS and road inventory data in seperate systems. It is also understood that the agency is looking to potentially implement Esri Roads & Highways in the future. Is a timeline available for the implementation of Esri Roads and Highways?

For the purposes of the EAMS implementation, the LRS/LRM will be the SCDOT RIMS application. The EAMS proposed solution should include the configuration of an LRS/LRM interface to RIMS.

d. Question: It is understood that EAMS would need to communicate and integrate with the existing LRS and RIMS systems that are utilized by the agency. If the agency requires EAMS to communicate with their existing system, as well as potentially integrate with a future implementation of Esri Roads & Highways, would SCDOT entertain an optional offering to include the implementation of Esri Roads & Highways as part of the EAMS proposal by a qualified vendor team? Given the timeframe of the EAMS forecasted schedule, this is potentially a budget, scope, and schedule saving consideration for the agency.

The implementation of esri Roads & Highways is outside the scope of the EAMS project.

51. Attachment C p17/p61 if pdf: Project Management Approach | The document states, "The successful vendor shall provide services to manage the project successfully over the performance period.

Offerors shall provide their “best practice” project management methodology to enable them to accomplish the objectives of the project."

a. Question: The successful design, development, implementation, and maintenance of the EAMS system over the next several years will require an effective programmatic management approach. Having experience with the implementation and management of similar systems with other transportation agencies, a mix of project management approaches to meet varying business requirements and timelines under a common program management methodology should be considered. This program methodology would enable a multi-threaded approach to while meeting the ongoing agency needs to continue its required data maintenance, analysis and reporting duties and responsibilities. Would SCDOT provide overall PMO guidance and support to achieve this programmatic approach?

SCDOT will have an overall Program Manager and potentially one or more Project Managers to support the EAMS implementation management. It is expected that the vendor will also have dedicated project management resources committed to the project.

52. Is the pricing table shown in Section B.3 to be completed and included in the submittal of

Volume 2 - EAMS Proposed Cost and Assumptions?

See the answer to Question #11.

53. Is Volume 2 - EAMS Prosed Cost and Assumptions due at the same time as the Letter of

Interest and Volume 1?

Yes, the Proposed Cost and Assumptions are due at the same time as the Letter or Interest and Volume 1.

54. Are the Letter of Interest, Volume 1, and Volume 2 all required to be in separate packages?

The Letter of Interest and Volume 1 are to be in one package. Volume 2 should be separate.

55. Will there be additional demonstration requirements, including SCDOT specific data and workflows, distributed to vendors prior to the demonstration phase of this procurement?

If selected for a demonstration, an outline of items to be addressed will be provided.

There will not be the requirement for SCDOT specific data for this demonstration.

56. Is there a specific reason as to why Oracle and MySQL is required for the DB? This seems very limiting as most systems will be able to integrate with SCDOT systems regardless of their backend infrastructure/DB given modernization of RESTful API's, etc.

SCDOT on-premise deployment database requirements are either Oracle or SQL Server.

See Hardware and Technical Requirements starting on page 14 of Attachment C.

57. J.2, Attachment L.2 – Service Provider Security Assessment Questionnaire - Please provide

Attachment L.2.

See the response to Question #19.

58. In Phase 1 will RIMS be the tool where LRS edits are initially made?

For the purposes of EAMS implementation, RIMS will remain the source of LRS data.

59. EAMS Overview of Required Functionality, #9 - Does the vendor bear responsibility for synchronizing the LRS in the Oracle Spatial system with the changes made in RIMS?

The EAMS implementation should include an LRS interface so the LRS location references for assets and work within EAMS can be updated when underlying LRS updates are made. The interaction between the LRS that is maintained within RIMS and the mapping data that is maintained within Oracle Spatial is outside the scope of the EAMS project.

60. Attachment C, Page 9 - The RFP states that the RIMS application “includes route modifications workflows for adjusting LRS referenced features within RIMS”. Can the vendor give details about the edit commands in this route modifications workflow and the parameters of each?

Would the input to those commands be available to the new system so they could be fashioned to update the asset locations in the new system to match changes in the LRS?

For the purposes of the EAMS project, LRS changes will continue to be maintained within RIMS. Therefore, an LRS interface will need to be developed between RIMS and EAMS. RIMS currently updates a Route Mod Log for completed individual route changes. This and other possible methods will be explored early in the EAMS implementation planning phase once a vendor is under contract.

61. LRS/GIS - At what phase is it planned for Roads & Highways to become the LRS editing tool?

Are there any details as to how that will be incorporated into existing systems?

For the purposes of EAMS implementation, RIMS will remain the source of LRS data.

62. L.5 Proposal Preparation - May 8-point font be permitted in tables and charts?

A font smaller than 11-point is acceptable in tables and charts as long as the information is still legible.

63. Will the EAMS be the system of record for facilities?

The plan is for EAMS to provide the functionality to enable it to serve as the system of record for facilities. The details of the plan for facilities will be explored during the development of the EAMS Program Area Implementation Plan - Facilities.

64. N. Section B, #15 - What is the technology stack referenced in the statement “The vendor's solution for reporting works within the agency's current technology stack”?

See Hardware and Technical Requirements starting on page 14 of Attachment C.

65. Will the fleet system of record continue to be SCEIS after implementation?

SCEIS will continue to maintain the basic information of fleet asset inventory. EAMS is envisioned to be the platform for fleet asset usage, maintenance history, etc.

66. What are the criteria used to rank traffic signals for replacement?

The statewide signal ranking process is based on the age of equipment, proximity to interstate, and average daily traffic volume. The age of equipment looks at only the signal controller and cabinet. This initial rebuild candidate list is reviewed by SCDOT District personnel who add their own prioritization and fine tune the annual list. Lower ranked candidates may be bumped up in the list due to the condition of related equipment or if a signal is requiring higher than expected maintenance costs. Higher ranked signals may be moved down on the list if for example the signal is part of a resurfacing project.

67. Pavement - SCDOT wants to perform analysis based on the FHWA performance measures in addition to their own measure PQI. Does the agency have performance models for the federal measures? Or does SCDOT have a crosswalk between the agency measure PQI and the federal measures?

SCDOT does not have performance models for the federal metrics. We have PDI and PSI models only, while modeling the federal metrics will require a model for IRI, Percent Cracking, Rutting, and Faulting. SCDOT does not a crosswalk between PQI and the federal measure because they are so different.

68. Pavement - What types of new deterioration curves are being developed with the University of

South Carolina for forecasting pavement condition?

New/updated deterioration curves are being developed for the currently used treatment types for both flexible and rigid pavements. This is expected to be completed in late 2021.

69. Asset Trade-Off - With the asset trade-off analysis system being separate from the bridge management system, and both systems potentially employing different forecasting mechanisms, is the trade-off bridge deterioration forecasting expected in the bridge management system (BrM) or in the asset trade-off system?

It is expected that the bridge management software will remain AASHTOWare BrM while the Asset Trade Off analysis will be performed within EAMS. The bridge program has not yet decided on deterioration curves/models but expects to do so within the next year. It is expected that the selected offeror will participate in those discussions as part of the EAMS Program Area Implementation Plan – Bridges.

70. Asset Trade-off - What types of deterioration curves/models do you anticipate will be used in

BrM for forecasting bridge condition?

See response to Question #69.

71. Can SC highlight the key agency workflow needs in more detail which require on the fly configuration without a customization approach?

See response to Question #24.

72. Can SC provide details on the agencies current technology stack, data elements, complexity, etc.

which are needed to create granular reports?

See response to Question #64.

73. Is there more specificity regarding the volume, frequency, and complexity of data elements which will need to be integrated, as well as configured and reported?

See response to Question #24.

74. Is there a ceiling or budget for travel or required in person training, implementation, or related initiatives lead by the vendors?

SCDOT intends to negotiate a fixed-price contract for EAMS implementation. Proposed costs are up to the vendor to determine based on their prior experiences and proposed approach.

75. Our solution is very strong in Fleet, Equipment, Asset, and Inventory Management with many references that can meet the requirements laid out in the RFP. The Pavement Management and Right of Way Management requirements are something that would require a partnership and integration. Given our strong background in these other areas, would the State be open to a partnership in order to meet the referenceability requirements?

implementation. Submitted proposals must identify a single vendor that is the prime contractor who is responsible for all of EAMS implementation.

76. Alternatively, is the State willing to award pieces of this RFP to different vendors of the State’s choice with whom we can integrate should we submit without a partner to provide Pavement Management and Right of Way Management?

implementation. Submitted proposals must identify a single vendor that is the prime contractor who is responsible for all of EAMS implementation. SCDOT intends to award a single contract for EAMS software, implementation, and support/maintenance.

77. Section A Mandatory Requirements #2 states that the Offeror’s proposed solution must be built on Oracle or SQL Server as the enterprise database. The State currently runs SCEIS which uses SAP technologies. SAP is migrating to the next generation database technologies called HANA. Will SCDOT consider adding this a possible database choice to the RFP? If the solution that is proposed is hosted in a SaaS environment (not managed by SCDOT), does this requirement still apply? The solution will require the integration of many different products to meet SCDOT’s requirements. Does every component to the solution have to run on Oracle and/or SQL databases?

See Hardware and Technical Requirements starting on page 14 of Attachment C which apply to SCDOT on-premise deployed solutions.

78. Attachment C, page 15: Application Infrastructure Requirements discusses SCDOT’s consideration of SaaS. SaaS solutions are typically hosted off-site by the software vendors and database upgrades and software updates are typically managed by the vendor. This section implies that SCDOT is looking at having the production solution on-site. Please clarify.

SCDOT is looking for the EAMS solution to be implemented on-premise at SCDOT, but will evaluate a vendor hosted solution or hybrid solution and will decide what deployment architecture represents the best value for the State. If a hosted or hybrid solution is decided on, the solution should be in a Government cloud platform and be compliant with FedRAMP and Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) requirements.

79. As shown in Figure #1: EAMS Conceptual View, the solution will include the integration of many different products to meet SCDOTs stated requirements. Does SCDOT currently utilize an Integration Management Platform? Does SCDOT have a business enterprise warehouse in place to facilitate enterprise reporting and dashboards?

SCDOT does not currently utilize an Integration Management Platform. See Hardware and Technical Requirements starting on page 14 of Attachment C that apply to SCDOT on-premise deployed solutions. SQL Server Reporting Services (SSRS) is the reporting platform and SCDOT has recently begun employing Microsoft Power BI for analytics and dashboard views.

80. Attachment C. Page 18 states that SCDOT is looking for full training services and content to be provided by the vendor. Does this RFP also require Organizational Change Management services (organizational realignment, communications, new workflows, etc.)?

No organizational change management services are required. SCDOT will be responsible for organizational change management, but will want recommendations from the selected vendor on best practices with regard to their software implementation and suggestions for improved workflows.

81. Is SCDOT willing and able to leverage the existing SAP State Master Agreement for the procurement of SAP software components or would a new contract need to be drafted if SAP software is selected for this project?

SCDOT through the SC State Fiscal Accountability Authority (SFAA) intends to award a contract for software, implementation services, and maintenance/support of the EAMS solution.

82. Will the EAMS solution be considered an extension of the Statewide SAP ERP – SCEIS or a standalone solution?

EAMS will not be an extension of SCEIS, but it will have interfaces to SCEIS for things like timekeeping/payroll for maintenance work, and purchasing/inventory of equipment and materials.

83. Will SCDOT leverage its existing State SCEIS support team for the EAMS solution or will there be an independent managed services team for ongoing maintenance and support if SAP is selected as the solution of choice?

SCDOT is looking for the EAMS solution to be implemented on-premise at SCDOT, but will evaluate a vendor hosted solution or hybrid solution and will decide what deployment architecture represents the best value for the State.

84. Can an offeror participate as both a prime contractor and a subcontractor?

The prime contractor is ultimately responsible to SCDOT for the successful accomplishment of the entire project. It will be up to the prime contractor to decide on their teams’ responsibilities for the project in their proposal submission.

85. Section L.3 Qualifications – Special Standards of Responsibility states that the offeror must have

“implemented their asset management solution at one or more US state transportation agencies with the last 10 years with multiple program area modules and greater than 200 direct end users”. The requested EAMS solution is very comprehensive and covers multiple business areas. If each of the components proposed by an offeror has been implemented at a State DOT, but not all at the same DOT, will this requirement be met? Otherwise, the qualified vendor pool will be extremely small and will not allow SCDOT to obtain proposals from teams that are bringing innovative new applications and tools to the transportation market.

Section L.3 is looking at the qualifications of the offeror and not at the solutions proposed by the offeror.

86. Section B, Item 11 of Table N – Evaluation Criteria on page 32 of the proposal states that “New or emerging modules in this category should not include critical core functionality such as GIS/LRS integration, Maintenance Management, Pavement Management, and Asset Trade Off Analysis.” Our proposed solution includes a new and emerging asset trade-off analysis product that is being implemented at its first DOT. It is also being evaluated by numerous other DOTs. Is SCDOT open to receiving a proposal that includes this type of product?

Evaluation criteria #11 is very clear on how it will be assessed. The offeror will be rated based on their offering and if a core functionality such asset trade off analysis is not yet implemented at the time of submission of the proposal then the offeror will be rated accordingly for this criteria.

87. Will SC DOT consider a 1 week extension for vendors to submit questions?

No. 3 weeks should be adequate for review of the overall RFP and submission of questions. SCDOT is allowing questions only on the Service Provider Security Assessment Questionnaire until June 12, 2020.

88. Can SC DOT provide the list of attendees from the Pre-Proposal Conference?

See response to Question #20

89. What is the current state of SC DOT’s GIS and LRS infrastructure, and is it in a state that is ready to support the needs of the new EAM system?

Yes, the GIS and LRS are both in a mature state at SCDOT. An LRS interface will need to be configured with the SCDOT RIMS application which is the repository for LRS modifications.

90. What are the expectations for the conversion of legacy system historical data?

See response to Question #32.

91. In addition to a cloud SaaS and on-premise solution, would SC DOT consider a vendor hosted cloud solution on a private cloud / IaaS (AWS, Azure, etc)?

See response to Question #78.

92. Are there security certification requirements, such as FedRAMP, for cloud solutions?

See response to Question #78.

Pre-Proposal Conference Log-In information was provided to the following vendors:

21Tech Advoco, Inc.

AgileAssets Arcadis AssetWorks, LLC Atom BusinessPMO Cartegraph Cititech Systems, Inc.

CJIS Group, LLC Computer Aid, Inc. (CAI) Corus360 Deighton Deloitte Consulting LLP Dataman USA Data Transfer Solutions (DTS) Dologic Gannett Fleming Grant Thornton, LLC JFC & Associates KCI Technologies

KPMG

Labyrinth Solutions, Inc. dba LSI Consulting Maven Asset Management Metro Analytics Meritage Point Consulting Operant, Inc.

Patrick Engineering Plaidypus, Inc.

PMG Software Rizing Stellar Services, Inc.

SAP America, Inc.

WSP USA

zLink