FLHSMV-ITB-032-27 ADDENDUM 1.pdf

FLHSMV-ITB-032-27 Page 1 of 14

FLHSMV-ITB-032-27

Law Enforcement Night Vision Binocular Kit with Mount System

Addendum No. 1

October 19, 2026

FAILURE TO FILE A PROTEST WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED IN SECTION

120.57(3), FLORIDA STATUTES, OR FAILURE TO POST THE BOND OR OTHER

SECURITY REQUIRED BY LAW WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED FOR FILING A BOND

SHALL CONSTITUTE A WAIVER OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER CHAPTER 120,

FLORIDA STATUTES.

Note: Additions to the ITB are shown in underlined text; deletions are shown in stricken text. All terms and conditions of the ITB, not modified by Addendum No. 1, shall remain in full force and effect.

Item No. 1

FLHSMV-ITB-032-27 Attachment E, PRICE SHEET is hereby replaced in its entirety with the revised version dated October 15, 2026.

Item No. 2 Section 1.1 of FLHSMV-ITB-032-27 is revised in its entirety to read as follows:

1.1 Purpose

The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (Department or HSMV), Division of Florida Highway Patrol (FHP) is issuing this Invitation to Bid (ITB) to obtain competitive bids for the purchase and delivery of Law Enforcement Night Vision Binocular Kit with Mount Systems. The Department may accept bids from Bidders offering approved equivalent products that meet or exceed the specifications of this ITB, as more fully described in Section 3.1 and in

ATTACHMENT B, SCOPE OF WORK.

Item No. 3

Section 1.2, Definitions, I., Equivalent, of FLHSMV-ITB-032-27 is deleted in its entirety.

I. Equivalent: A product comparable in value, purpose, and quality that meets or exceeds the ITB specifications.

FLHSMV-ITB-032-27 Page 2 of 14

Item No. 4

Section 3.1 of FLHSMV-ITB-032-27 is revised in its entirety to read as follows:

3.1 Price Sheet Instructions

The Bidder must submit a completed electronic copy (Excel) and a signed pdf copy ATTACHMENT E, PRICE SHEET as provided by the Department, if both versions are not included the bid may be deemed non-responsive. Hardcopy/paper submissions will not be accepted, EMAIL ONLY.

A. The Bidder shall provide a Unit Price in each yellow cell for both the Initial Term and Renewal Term of ATTACHMENT E, PRICE SHEET below the words “Unit Price”. Failure to provide a Unit Price in each yellow cell for both the Initial Term and Renewal Term of the Price Sheet may deem the Price Sheet non-responsive.

B. When bidding on the Law Enforcement Night Vision Binocular Kit with Mount System as specified in the “Description Column”, Bidders shall provide the manufacturer’s name, product number, and unit pricing for the Law Enforcement Night Vision Binocular Kit with Mount System for the Initial Term and Renewal Term in the yellow cells beneath each respective column for that information.

When bidding on an approved equivalent product, Bidders shall provide a description, the manufacturer’s name, the product number, and the unit price for the proposed approved equivalent Law Enforcement Night Vision Binocular Kit with Mount System units for both the Initial Term and Renewal Term in the yellow cells beneath each respective column for that information.

A product will be considered an approved equivalent product only if the bidder has sought and obtained approval from the Department for each such product through the question-and-answer process set out in Section 2.4 of this ITB and therewith submitted appropriate catalog materials, literature, specifications, test data, or other reference materials regarding such products. See, Section 2.1 of ATTACHMENT B, Scope of Work.

A bidder may propose unit pricing for either the Law Enforcement Night Vision Binocular Kit with Mount System, as specified, or an approved equivalent Law Enforcement Night Vision Binocular Kit with Mount System, but not both.

C. The Bidder shall use legible handwriting, if applicable, when completing the price sheet(s).

D. All price sheet calculations will be verified for accuracy by the Department. If mathematical error(s) in a Bidder’s Price Sheet calculations are identified, Unit Prices submitted by the Bidder will be used to determine the “Initial Term Subtotal”, FLHSMV-ITB-032-27 Page 3 of 14

“Renewal Term Subtotal”, and “Grand Total Price” for that Bidder, unless determined otherwise by the Department.

The “Initial Term Subtotal”, “Renewal Term Subtotal”, and “Grand Total Price” on the Price Sheet will be final based on Department verification. Department-corrected price sheets will be made available upon written request to the Bidder as permitted by state law.

E. Shipping and Delivery

In accordance with subsection 672.319(1)(b), F.S., Bidders must include the cost of shipping in their prices. The Department will not pay any separate packing, freight, shipping, or delivery charges. Please refer to ATTACHMENT B, SCOPE OF WORK, Section 7.0, Packing, Shipping and Delivery for more information.

F. The Department will not agree to caveat language for pricing within ATTACHMENT E, PRICE SHEET. A bid submittal that includes caveat language for pricing will be viewed as a conditional bid and the Department will reject the Bidder’s bid submittal. (See, also subsection 3.4, Non-Responsive Bids, Non- Responsible Bidders, below.)

G. ATTACHMENT E, PRICE SHEET shall be labeled and tabbed separately and should be included with the original copy of the submission.

Item No. 5

Section 4.8 A. of FLHSMV-ITB-032-27 is revised in its entirety to read as follows:

Florida Department of State Registration

Item No. 6

Section 5.1 of FLHSMV-ITB-032-27 is revised in its entirety to read as follows:

Out-of-state business entities (i.e., corporations, limited liability companies, etc.)Pursuant to section 607.1501, F.S., out-of-state corporations are required to obtain a Florida Certificate of Authorization pursuant to subsection 607.1503(1), F.S., from the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, to transact business in the state of Florida. The Bidder agrees to attain such authorization, if applicable, no later than seven (7) business days after notice of award, should the Bidder be awarded the contract. Website:

https://dos.myflorida.com/sunbiz/ https://dos.myflorida.com/sunbiz/

FLHSMV-ITB-032-27 Page 4 of 14

5.1 Basis of Award

The Department intends to award to the one (1) responsible and responsive Bidder that submits a responsive bid with the lowest “Grand Total Price” or “Grand Total Price

– Approved Equivalent Product(s)”, shown on ATTACHMENT E, PRICE SHEET.

The Department reserves the right to award as determined to be in the best interest of the state, and to accept or reject any or all bids, or separable portions, and to waive any minor irregularity, technicality, or omission if the Department determines that doing so will serve the best interest of the state.

Item No. 7

FLHSMV-ITB-032-27, ATTACHMENT B, SCOPE OF WORK, Section 1.0 Purpose is revised in its entirety to read as follows:

1.0 Purpose

The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (Department or FLHSMV), Division of Florida Highway Patrol (FHP) is issuing this Invitation to Bid (ITB) to establish a contract for Law Enforcement Night Vision Binocular Kit with Mount Systems intended for helmet-mounted use. The Department will consider other Law Enforcement Night Vision Binocular Kit with Mount Systems that are equivalent to the specifications as more fully described herein.

Item No. 8

FLHSMV-ITB-032-27, ATTACHMENT B, SCOPE OF WORK, Section 2.0 Services and Products to be Provided by the Contractor is revised in its entirety to read as follows:

2.0 Services and Products Provided by the Contractor

The Contractor shall furnish and deliver a complete Law Enforcement Binocular Kit with Mount System, or equivalent units to the Department’s Division of the Florida Highway Patrol (FHP) in accordance with the terms and conditions of this ITB. The Contractor shall be responsible for all costs associated with shipping and delivery of the Law Enforcement Night Vision Binocular Kit with Mount Systems to the Department. The Contractor shall be responsible for reading and understanding the specifications contained herein and must comply with the specifications as written.

FLHSMV-ITB-032-27 Page 5 of 14

The specifications of the Law Enforcement Night Vision Binocular Kit with Mount System are intended to be descriptive, not restrictive. The Contractor may provide an equivalent product that meets or exceeds the applicable specifications.

Item No. 9

FLHSMV-ITB-032-27, ATTACHMENT B, SCOPE OF WORK, Section 2.1 Technical Specifications is revised in its entirety to read as follows:

2.1 Technical Specifications

Each Law Enforcement Night Vision Binocular Kit with Mount System intended for helmet-mounted use, or approved equivalent unit provided pursuant to this ITB must meet or exceed the following minimum requirements to ensure durability, imaging performance, and operational suitability for law enforcement use:

a) Housing Requirements:

1. Binoculars with U.S. made housing.

2. Total housing weight: 115 grams or less.

b) Image Intensifier Tube Requirements:

Each binocular system must incorporate Elbit or L3 Harris Generation (G) 3 or Generation 3+ intensifier tubes including the following:

1. Figure of Merit (FOM): 1984 2000 or greater.

2. Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR): 31 or greater.

3. Resolution: 64 line pairs/per millimeter (lp/mm) or greater.

4. Equivalent Background Illumination (EBI): 0.5 or lower.

5. Halo: 0.8 or lower.

c) Optical Lens Requirements:

• Carson or Noctis military specification (mil spec) objective lenses.

d) Mounting System Requirements:

• A4 Ultralight Mounting System or G24 Wilcox Mounting System.

e) Storage and Protection Requirements:

1. A hard storage case must be provided for each binocular system

2. Case must be suitable for transport, storage, and environmental protection

f) Counterweight System Requirements:

FLHSMV-ITB-032-27 Page 6 of 14

• A helmet counterweight system designed to improve balance during night vision use

Contractors who intend to bid an equivalent product(s) shall demonstrate the equivalence of the alternate product(s) by providing appropriate catalog materials, literature, specifications, test data, or other reference material, and shall seek approval by the Department of each such product through the question-and-answer process for this ITB set out in Section 2.4 of the ITB Process Overview.

The Department has sole discretion in determining if equivalents are acceptable and reserves the right to accept or reject any bid not meeting the specifications outlined herein.

Item No. 10

FLHSMV-ITB-032-27, ATTACHMENT B, SCOPE OR WORK, Section 3.0 Estimated Quantities is revised in its entirety to read as follows:

3.0 Estimated Quantities

The Contractor must have the ability to provide the Department approximately thirty-five (35) Law Enforcement Binocular Night Vision Kits with Mount System or equivalent units during the Initial Term.

Additional units may be purchased on an as-needed basis during the initial contract term and any renewal or extension term, if applicable, at the unit prices in the awarded Contractor’s bid.

Quantities are estimated and for informational purposes only and should not be construed as representing actual, guaranteed, or minimum purchases to be made under a contract. In addition, any quantities are subject to change depending on the Department’s annual legislative approved budget. The Contractor should be prepared therefore, to provide increased or decreased numbers of items during any contract year.

Item No. 11 Questions and Answers

Note: All written questions are reproduced in the same format as submitted by the Vendor.

Question(s) received on 10/7/2026 from Low Light Innovations LLC.

1. Question: Attachment E, Price Sheet: Estimated quantities are listed only on the first line of each section (35 for the Initial Term and 10 for the Renewal Term), FLHSMV-ITB-032-27 Page 7 of 14 while the five component lines (intensifier tubes, objective lenses, mounting system, counterweight system, and hard storage case) contain required Unit Price cells with no estimated quantity. Should the first line reflect the unit price of the complete kit, with the component lines showing component unit prices for reference only? Or should bidders enter a quantity on each component line so that each component is included in the Total Price?

Answer: Please see Item No. 1 above, the Department revised ATTACHMENT E, PRICE SHEET in its entirety.

2.

Question:

Attachment B, Section 2.1(a): Please confirm that a binocular housing designed and assembled in the United States by the bidder, meeting the 115 gram total housing weight requirement and furnished with all other components as specified in Section 2.1(b) through (f), will be considered the specified product and not an equivalent requiring prior approval under Section 3.1.B.

Answer:

Any binocular housing designed and assembled in the United States that meets the 115-gram housing weight requirement and incorporates all components specified in Sections 2.1(b) through (f) is a product compliant with the specifications in the ITB.

Please note Item No. 9 above the revised ATTACHMENT B, SCOPE OF WORK, Section 2.1.

As no Bidder proposed any equivalent products through the question-and-answer process for the ITB, references to equivalent products have been removed from the ITB. Please see Items Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 above.

3.

Question:

Attachment B, Section 2.1(a)(2): Please confirm that the 115 gram total housing weight excludes the image intensifier tubes, objective lenses, eyepieces, batteries, and the mounting system.

Response:

The Department confirms the 115-gram total housing weight refers only to the housing itself and does not include the image intensifier tubes, objective lenses, eyepieces, batteries, or the mounting system.

4. Question: Attachment B, Section 6.0: Please clarify the expected scope and frequency of inspections under the lifetime maintenance program, and confirm whether inspections and service may be performed by the Department shipping units to the Contractor's facility.

Answer: Section 6.0 Maintenance and Support Requirements of ATTACHMENT B requires the Contractor to provide a lifetime maintenance program for the entire binocular system. The Department will determine when maintenance on individual units of the complete binocular system are required. When the Department determines that maintenance is needed for individual units of the complete binocular system, those individual units will be shipped to the Contractor’s facility for inspection, service, and any repair work necessary to sustain operational performance over the complete binocular

FLHSMV-ITB-032-27 Page 8 of 14 system’s lifetime. Testing must confirm compliance with all specifications contained in ATTACHMENT B.

5. Question: ITB Section 4.5 lists PUR 2023 (Provision of Commodities Produced by Forced Labor) and PUR 2024 (Use of Coercion for Labor and Services) as attached, but neither form is included in the solicitation package. Please provide the versions of these forms the Department requires.

Answer: Please refer to the attachments included in the posting for Solicitation No.

FLHSMV-ITB-032-27 in VIP. Bidders may access and download the required forms directly from that section for completion and submission as part of their bid response.

6. Question: ITB Section 4.8.A: The bidder is a limited liability company organized outside of Florida that will ship products to the Department through interstate commerce and has no office, employees, or inventory in Florida.

Please confirm whether a Florida Certificate of Authority under section 605.0902, F.S., is required for award of this contract.

Answer: Please see Item No. 5 above for revisions to Section 4.8 A. of the ITB.

Section 605.0902, F.S., provides a foreign limited liability company may not transact business in this state until it obtains a certificate of authority from the Florida Department of State.

As revised, Section 4.8 A of the ITB now requires that an out-of-state business entity must obtain a Florida certificate of authority from the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, to transact business in Florida within seven (7) business days after notice of award.

Thus, a certificate of authority is not necessary to submit a bid. However, if a foreign limited liability company is the successful Bidder, it must obtain a Florida certificate of authority, not later than seven (7) business days after the notice of award is posted by the Department.

Question(s) received on 10/9/2026 from US Night Vision Corp.

7. Question: 1. Mathematical Contradiction in Figure of Merit (FOM) vs.

Component Minimums

• Reference: Attachment B, Section 2.1(b) mandates a "Figure of Merit (FOM): 2000 or greater," an "SNR: 31 or greater," and a "Resolution: 64 line pairs/per millimeter (lp/mm) or greater".

• Context/Issue: FOM is mathematically calculated by multiplying Resolution by SNR. If a tube meets the exact minimum requirements outlined in the bid (64 lp/mm) \times (31SNR), the resulting math equals only 1984 FOM. This falls short of the separate mandatory requirement of 2000 FOM. A tube with an

FLHSMV-ITB-032-27 Page 9 of 14

SNR of 31 cannot satisfy both the individual component minimum and the FOM minimum simultaneously.

• Question/Request:

How can the Department require a minimum 2000 FOM while simultaneously permitting component specs (64 lp/mm and 31 SNR) that mathematically fail to reach that threshold? Who authored these specifications, and how were they approved without proofing the underlying math or verifying market validity?

Answer: Please see Item No. 9 above. The Department revised ATTACHMENT B, SCOPE OF WORK, Section 2.1 Technical Specifications.

8. Question: 2. Commercial Impossibility and Specification Error of Elbit Systems EBI Limits

• Reference: Attachment B, Section 2.1(b) specifies "Elbit or L3 Harris Generation (G) 3 or Generation 3+ intensifier tubes," and Section 2.1(b)(4) mandates an "Equivalent Background Illumination (EBI):

0.5 or lower".

• Context/Issue: The solicitation explicitly lists Elbit Systems as an acceptable image tube manufacturer. However, Elbit Systems does not manufacture or offer any image tube that meets a maximum EBI of 0.5 on its own. DoD Mil-Spec EBI ranges allow for 0.0 to 2.5, and even specialized military forces accept up to 2.5. Because the named manufacturer does not provide tubes meeting this 0.5 threshold, no vendor can legally or commercially purchase them on the open market, forcing an anti-competitive dynamic where a bidder must rely on extreme statistical luck or potentially compromised technical data (falsified datasheets).

• Question/Request:

How can the Department justify enforcing a 0.5 EBI specification when the named manufacturer (Elbit Systems) does not produce or sell a tube meeting this parameter, and even specialized military forces accept up to 2.5? Will the Department amend this spec to align with standard Mil-Spec ranges (e.g., 2.5 or lower) to allow fair access to parts everyone can actually buy?

Answer: The Department revised portions of ATTACHMENT B, SCOPE OF WORK, Section 2.1 Technical Specifications, all other information remains the same.

9. Question: 3. Unreasonably Restrictive Halo Specification

• Reference: Attachment B, Section 2.1(b)(5) – "Halo: 0.8 or lower".

• Context/Issue: A maximum Halo of 0.8 restricts standard factory systems that are widely fielded and proven. For example, the Elbit

FLHSMV-ITB-032-27 Page 10 of 14

PVS-31D—a factory system utilized by the U.S. Marine Corps— uses tube series (such as 9415M24MH-3) that allow for a Halo of 0.0 to 0.85 and an EBI of 0.0 to 2.5. Restricting the Halo to 0.8 arbitrarily excludes standard factory systems that even the military relies on.

Question/Request: Why does the agency require a Halo of 0.8 or lower when factory systems like the Marine Corps PVS-31D allow up to 0.85? Will the Department revise this requirement to 0.85?

Answer: Please see the answer to question No. 8 above.

10. Question: 4. Sourcing Contradiction: "Made in America" Housing vs. Chinese Replica Mount

• Reference: Attachment B, Section 2.1(a)(1) requires "Binoculars with U.S. made housing," while Section 2.1(d) mandates an "A4 Ultralight Mounting System".

• Context/Issue: Basic logic fails in this juxtaposition. The bid strictly demands domestic ("Made in America") manufacturing for the optical housing to ensure quality and origin integrity, yet simultaneously mandates the A4 helmet mount—which is widely known in the industry to be a Chinese-manufactured replica of the American-made Wilcox G24. Mandating domestic housing while forcing a foreign replica mount for the hardware holding it is contradictory and a potential risk to law enforcement safety.

• Question/Request:

How can a bid outline strict "Made in America" requirements for the housing while simultaneously mandating a Chinese replica mount (the A4)? Will the Department remove the A4 mount requirement and permit a duty-proven, U.S.-made mount (such as the Wilcox G24)?

Answer: Please see the answer to question No. 8 above.

11. Question: 5. Warranty Vulnerability and Reliance on "Luck" as a Procurement Strategy

• Reference: Attachment B, Section 5.0 (Warranty) requires the contractor to repair or replace defective units within thirty (30) days.

• Context/Issue: Because the required image tube specifications do not exist as a standard product offering from the named manufacturer, sourcing replacement or warranty tubes relies entirely on a statistical anomaly ("extreme luck") rather than standard supply chain inventory. If a warranty claim or tube failure occurs during the contract term, the Agency risks being left without operational systems for an unspecified, prolonged period because replacement parts meeting these parameters cannot be regularly procured on the open market.

FLHSMV-ITB-032-27 Page 11 of 14

• Question/Request:

How does the Department expect contractors to fulfill strict 30-day warranty replacement timelines when the underlying tube specifications cannot be reliably purchased from any manufacturer?

Why is relying on statistical luck being approved as an operational and procurement strategy for law enforcement safety equipment?

Answer: Please see Item No. 9 above.

The Department revised ATTACHMENT B, SCOPE OF WORK, Section 2.1 Technical Specifications.

Accordingly, the issues identified in the question are resolved and should present no obstacle to the warranty required in Section 5.0 of ATTACHMENT B, Scope of Work.

Question(s) received on 10/9/2026 from GPNVGS

12. Question: 1. Discrepancy Between Overall Figure of Merit (FOM) and Baseline Component Specs

• Reference: Attachment B, Section 2.1(b) (Mandating FOM ≥ 2000, SNR ≥ 31, and Resolution ≥ 64 lp/mm).

• Technical Issue: Figure of Merit is calculated via a direct formula:

FOM=Resolution (lp/mm)×Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR). Applying the minimum baseline parameters allowed by the solicitation (64 lp/mm×31 SNR) yields a calculated FOM of 1984, which fails to meet the stated overall minimum of 2000. A component that meets both baseline criteria individually cannot satisfy the overall system performance threshold.

• Formal Inquiry: How does the Department reconcile offering minimum threshold parameters that mathematically fail to meet its own mandatory FOM benchmark? We request that the agency clarify whether the individual component minimums or the overall FOM threshold will take precedence, or update the baseline numbers to ensure mathematical consistency across all GPNVGs and binocular offerings.

Answer: Please see the answer to question No. 7 above.

13. Question: 2. Commercial Unavailability of Specified Elbit Systems EBI Criteria

• Reference: Attachment B, Section 2.1(b) & Section 2.1(b)(4)

(Specifying Elbit or L3Harris Gen 3/3+ tubes with Equivalent Background Illumination [EBI] ≤ 0.5).

• Technical Issue: While Elbit Systems is explicitly listed as an approved manufacturer, Elbit does not commercially offer standard image intensifier tubes with a maximum EBI ceiling of 0.5. Standard

FLHSMV-ITB-032-27 Page 12 of 14 military specifications (Mil-Spec) for high-performance units permit EBI levels up to 2.5, a standard accepted across US Department of Defense contracts for multi-tube systems and GPNVGs. Setting an arbitrary limit of 0.5 for an Elbit-designated requirement creates a commercial impossibility, preventing vendors from sourcing off-the-shelf components through standard, repeatable distribution channels.

• Formal Inquiry: Will the Department adjust the maximum allowable EBI threshold to align with established military standards (up to 2.5) so that vendors can source verified, commercially available components from the approved manufacturers?

Answer: Please see the answer to question No. 8 above.

14. Question: 3. Restrictive Halo Parameter Excluding Proven Military-Grade Systems

• Reference: Attachment B, Section 2.1(b)(5) (Mandating Halo ≤ 0.8).

• Technical Issue: Capping maximum Halo at 0.8 disqualifies field-proven, standardized systems currently deployed across US Armed Forces. For example, the US Marine Corps PVS-31D (utilizing Elbit tube series such as 9415M24MH-3) operates under performance envelopes allowing Halo values up to 0.85. The current threshold artificially excludes standardized factory systems, including specialized multi-channel GPNVGs, without providing any operational advantage.

• Formal Inquiry: What is the operational justification for restricting Halo to 0.8 when standard defense-issue systems (such as the USMC PVS-31D) permit up to 0.85? We request the Department update this threshold to 0.85 to permit standardized factory configurations.

Answer: Please see the answer to question No. 8 above.

15. Question: 4. Origin Contradiction: Domestic Housing vs. Overseas Mount Selection

• Reference: Attachment B, Section 2.1(a)(1) (Requiring US-made optical housing) vs. Section 2.1(d) (Mandating A4 Ultralight Mounting System).

• Technical Issue: The solicitation strictly requires US manufacturing origin for the binocular housing to ensure domestic quality control, yet specifically mandates the A4 mounting assembly—a known overseas clone of the domestic Wilcox G24 helmet mount. Requiring American-made optics while mandating an imported replica mount for critical helmet attachment creates a direct conflict in procurement

FLHSMV-ITB-032-27 Page 13 of 14 philosophy and introduces potential structural reliability concerns for field units carrying tactical goggles or GPNVGs.

• Formal Inquiry: Why does the solicitation enforce strict US-origin standards for optical housings while mandating an imported knockoff mounting system? Will the Department revise Section 2.1(d) to allow or require proven, US-manufactured mounting hardware (e.g., Wilcox G24)?

Answer: Please see the answer to question No. 7 above.

16. Question: 5. Supply Chain Risk Impacting 30-Day Warranty Compliance

• Reference: Attachment B, Section 5.0 (Mandating 30-day repair or replacement turnaround for warranty claims).

• Technical Issue: Because the specified tube parameters do not exist as standard production items from the listed manufacturers, fulfilling replacement claims cannot be supported by regular inventory. Acquiring replacement tubes that happen to meet these specific out-of-spec parameters relies on yield anomalies rather than structured supply chains. This exposes the agency to long periods where defective GPNVGs or binocular systems cannot be serviced within the required 30-day window due to non-existent replacement stock.

• Formal Inquiry: How will the Department evaluate warranty compliance given that the replacement parts required to honor the 30-day turnaround time are not standard production items?

Answer: Please see the answer to question No. 11 above.

Question(s) received on 10/9/2026 from GPNVGS

17. Question: 1. It appears on the price sheet attachment E that the request has gone from 34 units to 35 units is that correct? on page 2 of attachment B it says aprox. 35 please advise.

Answer: As indicated in Section 3.0 of ATTACHMENT B, SCOPE OF WORK, as revised by Item No. 10 above, “the Contractor must have the ability to provide the Department with approximately thirty-five (35) Law Enforcement Binocular Night Visions Kits with Mount Vision System.”

Furthermore, that section expressly provides “quantities are estimated and for informational purposes only and should not be construed as representing actual, guaranteed, or minimum purchases to be made under a contract.”

The quantities shown on ATTACHMENT E , PRICE SHEET, as revised in Item No, 1 above, are shown and intended to be used only for purposes of calculating the “Initial Term Subtotal”, “Renewal Term Price”, and “Grand Total Price (Initial Term + Renewal Term)” on ATTACHMENT E and should

FLHSMV-ITB-032-27 Page 14 of 14 not be construed as representing actual, guaranteed, or minimum purchases to be made under a contract.

18. Question: 2. On attachment E the lenses the dept is requesting are incorrect quantity as well as only listing objective lenses each binocular system will require 2 objective and 2 ocular each. please advise how to proceed.

Answer: Please see Item No. 1 above.

The Department revised ATTACHMENT E, PRICE SHEET in its entirety.

19. Question: 3. Is the dept expecting a lifetime warranty on the intensifier tube as well as the housing and lenses or just the housing and lenses? this isnt defined in attachment B.

Answer: Yes. ATTACHMENT B, Section 5.0 Warranty, requires “an original limited lifetime manufacturer’s warranty against defects in material workmanship and mechanical function for each binocular unit.”