Deferred Round 1 Questions and Language.docx
DOCX document 26 KB Posted
- Attached to
- MDOC Inmate Network, Applications & Services RFS
- Solicitation number
- RFP-171-250000002079-4
- Issued by
- Alger County, Michigan
About this file
This document is a deferred questions and language file for the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) Inmate Network, Applications & Services Request for Solution (RFS) No. 171-250000002079. The document addresses vendor questions related to data retention requirements, specifically focusing on backup retention periods and compliance regulations for logging solutions. The RFS appears to be seeking a comprehensive inmate network and services solution, with particular emphasis on digital services, communication platforms, and financial transaction systems for prisoners.
The file reveals key pricing and commission considerations, indicating that the state expects commission rates based on services purchased by prisoners and their families. The state prefers commission rates that will adequately fund facility-managed prisoner benefit funds and expects bidders to comply with FCC and other regulatory agency requirements. Commission rates and pricing will be evaluated as part of the best value considerations during the bid assessment. The document suggests that deposit service handling charges may be subject to commission, with a current model of $1.00 being contributed to a Prisoner Benefit Fund. Bidders are expected to provide competitive and compliant pricing structures that align with existing regulatory frameworks.
View the file
Other files
Show all 18
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
MDOC Inmate Network, Applications & Services RFS Request for Solution No. 171-250000002079
State Answers to Vendor Questions that Were Deferred from ROUND 1
| 55 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS |
Schedule A
| 97 |
| In relation to data retention, beyond retaining data for the contract length, are there specific regulatory or compliance requirements that dictate longer retention periods for certain data types relevant to our logging solution? |
| Please see Schedule A (Statement of Work), Section 8: REQUIRED FUNCTIONALITY RELATING TO DATA RETENTION, DISPOSAL, AND RETRIEVAL in the revised RFS version 2 published with Round 2 Q&A responses. |
| 117 |
| Schedule A, attachment 1 - NMM 8.0 |
| 39 |
| What are the requirements for data backup retention periods? Are there specific types of data that have different retention requirements? |
| Please see Schedule A (Statement of Work), Section 8: REQUIRED FUNCTIONALITY RELATING TO DATA RETENTION, DISPOSAL, AND RETRIEVAL in the revised RFS version 2 published with Round 2 Q&A responses. |
| 136 |
| Schedule D Attachment 2 MDOC Specific Service Level Agreement – Metric 16: Sales Commission |
| 174 |
| Is a commission expected on Deposit Services Handling Charges? For example, today, $1.00 is contributed to a Prisoner Benefit Fund. |
| The State did not include any requirements on commissions in the original RFS posting with exception of the SLA reference. Please see revised Schedule B-Pricing. The State expects to have commission rates based on services purchased by prisoners and their friends and families in the resulting contract(s). The State would prefer commission rates that meet current rates to ensure adequate funding of facility managed prisoner benefit funds. Bidder must meet all commission requirements determined by FCC or other regulation agencies. Pricing and commission rates are considered best value considerations for the State during bid evaluation. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .