Exposure Notification RFR Responses to Bidder Questions_Final 002.docx

Exposure Notification Application RFR Questions and Answers

1) The RFR says that the due date for Bids is 12/1/20, but the CommBUYS page on which the RFR appears refers to a due date of 12/21/20 instead. Which is correct?

The date listed on CommBUYS should be ignored. Through an amendment to the RFR, posted in conjunction with these responses, we have extended the deadline for Quotes/Bid Responses to be submitted via email and mail from December 1, 2020 to 5:00pm on December 4, 2020.

2) Will the Commonwealth consider extending the deadline for Quotes/Bid Responses?

Through an amendment to the RFR, posted in conjunction with these responses, we have extended the deadline for Quotes/Bid Responses to be submitted via email and mail from December 1, 2020 to 5:00pm on December 4, 2020.

3) Will the state be open to considering electronic device contact tracing technology that is outside of EN Express? Can other technology solutions be proposed?

Yes. As the RFR’s description of Workstream #2 makes clear, Bidders may propose Third Party EN Applications that would be used in lieu of ENX, as well as Third Party Companion Applications as defined in the RFR.

For purposes of clarification, none of the technologies addressed in the RFR comprise “contact tracing.” Contact tracing is a manual, people-to-people process for which exposure notification is not a substitute, but a potential adjunct.

4) Would you be open to using a more advanced protocol than GAEN in terms of security and privacy?

We assume for purposes of answering this question that by “GAEN” you mean the Google/Apple Exposure Notification System, referred to in the RFR as “ENS”.

Each Workstream of the RFR is focused on use of applications reliant on or designed to be used with ENS.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, for purposes of the Commonwealth’s information only, interested parties are welcome to submit information about non-ENS solutions outside the context of this RFR and for the Commonwealth’s reference to the following email address: HealthConnector.Responses@mass.gov. Such information will not be considered a Bid with respect to the RFR and will not be scored.

5) Would you be open to a solution that also would give MA information on the number of people alerted and the number of people declared infected?

Possibly, and in part. Such a solution would have to be limited to giving MA information about the number of people who reported a positive result through ENS and the number of people alerted that they had been proximate to an infected person, and protect the privacy of the individual users. Such a solution would need a thorough data protection, security, and privacy examination. Massachusetts would consider a solution that can be used in combination with ENS that would give DPH aggregate, de-identified information on the number of people alerted that they had been exposed.

The Commonwealth already has a system, MAVEN, that records the number of people infected, and no substitute system, or other system that would notify the Commonwealth about the number of people “declared” infected, is within the scope of this RFR.

6) Would you be open to a solution that also would be used by labs to deliver certified tests while protecting user privacy? The validity of the tests could then be stored in the app and verified by any third party with a simple QR code.

Such a solution is outside the scope of the RFR.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, for purposes of the Commonwealth’s information only, interested parties are welcome to submit information about non-ENS solutions outside the context of this RFR and for the Commonwealth’s reference to the following email address: HealthConnector.Responses@mass.gov. Such information will not be considered a Bid with respect to the RFR and will not be scored.

7) Would you be open to a solution that also would potentially measure temperature and asymptomatic coughs for COVID?

In the context of Workstream #2, Bidders may propose Third-Party Companion Apps that can be useful in supporting user awareness of symptoms potentially indicating infection. Such Third-Party Companion Apps must work with ENS and are subject to the same requirements regarding data protection, security, and privacy protection.

8) Are you looking at wearable solutions as well?

Wearable solutions compatible with ENS are within consideration for this RFR under Workstream #2. The Commonwealth is interested in understanding how wearable solutions may enhance any digital exposure notification effort.

9) When responding to Workstream #1 (specifically in the case of bringing an app for workstream #2 also), are we expected to bring our own community?

Yes.

10) Does the Dept of Public Health have the exposure notification application API in hand or do they still need to request it?

The ENS API is publicly available.

11) Is there a Google Cloud Platform environment already set up?

Massachusetts is supportive of bidders using the APHL servers, including the verification server and national key server, in deployment of exposure notification technology.

12) If the Google environment is set up already, what infrastructure has already been procured?

Please see the response to question 10.

13) Once built, does DPH expect the bidder to host the application?

DPH is supportive of bidders using APHL servers for all hosting needs associated with this RFR.

14) Do you have a preferred length of the RFR response and MSA; are there any minimum/maximum lengths?

There is no minimum or maximum response length. However stronger responses in Workstream #1 will be absent general marketing materials and provide comprehensive but succinct information regarding the purpose(s) and scope of the response. We would anticipate that Bidder responses to the RFR be 50 or fewer pages.

15) Do you have any examples or suggestions for a proposal layout, beyond the submission requirements and guidelines provided in the RFR and appendices?

As long as they meet the RFR’s submission requirements, Bidders may structure their responses using formats that they feel best convey the information they wish to present.

16) Given the low adoption rates of Bluetooth enabled tracking apps in the U.S., is this RFR also considering alternative technologies if proven to have significantly higher adoption rates by the public?

The RFR is centered around Apps that rely on or complement ENS. Notwithstanding the foregoing, and solely for the Commonwealth’s information, interested parties are welcome to submit information about non-ENS exposure notification solutions outside the context of this RFR to the following email address: HealthConnector.Responses@mass.gov. Such submissions will not be considered Bids and will not be scored.

17) Is there an incumbent technology provider that the Commonwealth plans to augment in the 2-3 vendor selection?

No.

18) Would you like Bidders to focus on any particular age and/or other socio-economic priority groups?

No, but we are interested in Bidders’ thoughts and experience regarding the degree to which technologies referenced in their Bids could be implemented equitably to support access to, uptake of, and use of, exposure notification technologies as broadly as possible.

19) Is there a critical threshold of the number of pilot users you wish for the bidders to test?

There is no critical threshold for the number of pilot testers. Bidders are encouraged to state the (approximate) number of pilot users they propose including in the pilot and provide the rationale for using that pilot population.

20) Will pilot test users be bound to the same confidentiality guidelines as winning Bidders?

No. However, please be aware that winning Bidders who administer pilots must obtain informed consent from pilot testers/users.

21) Would we be working with Google/Apple directly to configure and assess different parameters to optimize the technology for the Commonwealth?

No.

22) Is MA open to collaborating with neighboring states to pool COVID-19 exposure notification "keys” to enable better, broader coverage, capturing individuals who travel across state lines?

Yes.

23) Will winning Bidders be able to engage with states that have previously piloted/adopted the technology to evaluate their experience?

Bidders may elect to engage, on their own behalf, with states where the bidder has previously piloted/adopted this technology in order to evaluate their experience. Bidders may not represent Massachusetts nor share confidential information produced through their contract with the state, except when granted explicit case-by-case permission by the MA Health Connector, and where such engagement is coordinated through DPH or the Health Connector.

24) Would it be possible for us to share information about this RFR with Google?

Yes. The RFR is a public document.

25) Several bidders asked specific questions related to specific products that are not ENS -based.

As a general response, as noted above, this RFR is centered around ENS Apps. Interested parties are welcome to submit information about non-ENS solutions outside the context of this RFR and for the Commonwealth’s reference to the following email address: HealthConnector.Responses@mass.gov. Such submissions will not be considered Bids and will not be scored.