11-R-0017 Bingo AMEND 00002.docx

HDQMWR-11-R-0017

Amendment 0001

HDQMWR-11-R-0017

Amendment 0001

6. ISSUED BY CODE

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

COMMANDER NAVY INSTALLATIONS

MILLINGTON

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE, BLDG 457

MILLINGTON, TN 38055-6500

SAME AS BLOCK 6

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

2 AUG 2010

CODE

FACILITY CODE

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

|X| The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning

submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACT/ORDERS,

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

A. This amendment is issued to provide Questions and Answers that followed the pre-proposal conference conducted August 26, 2011. The list on page(s) 2 through 4 provides all questions and their respective answers pertaining to this acquisition.

B. The proposal due date is extended to October 7, 2011. Location and time for submissions remain the same.

C. All other terms and conditions of the solicitation remain the same.

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

BY

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

PREVIOUS EDITION UNUSABLE

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

QUESTION 1.) There were other questions that were asked during the conference call that did not come out in the clarifications. I do not recall all of them but thought those questions would have come in the written format as well. However, the bigger problem is with deciphering what product will fulfill the requirement. The closest information given was on the "Minnesota style program".

Additional, detailed, information on the "Minnesota" type game that the Navy would like to emulate would be most helpful. Primarily because the Minnesota style game that was being developed never materialized. So, is this strictly based on that idea or a compilation of ideas? Or on specific equipment?

This is a very critical question in helping to determine what to propose. It appears that there is nothing on the market currently that matches your criteria. So if it is something that is to be developed that is a different avenue from something that you've actually seen and can be modified to fit. This is a very important question that we feel needs to be addressed.

We apologize and really would like to submit satisfactory proposal but really are not clear what equipment and/or program to look at.

ANSWER 1.) I would answer that the game we are seeking is an electronically linked bingo game. The definition used for bingo is the one included in the solicitation.

The description of the Minnesota style game was in reference to a game that was developed for roll out in the state. Interested parties could Google for information on the development of that product, readily found online and on You Tube. They could also read background on the development by the state legislature to get a familiarity with the issues. Our product is innovative; the Minnesota reference was for information, not for guidance.

The concept is unambiguous and is purposely not limited: We seek a vendor who can develop a game meeting our definition of bingo that is played by individual's linked to a location server, with locations linked to a base central server, and link all bases in a region to a Region server, and link all Regions for an accumulative reporting system. Vendors who understand the definition of bingo and are familiar with the technology to fulfill our need will be able to submit. Vendors who either do not understand the game of bingo or the technology will not. This is not as a replacement of traditional bingo on locations where traditional bingo is played; it is an entirely separate product for use in multiple locations on each installation.

Each vendor has the opportunity to propose their design of a system that meets these requirements. Exactly what bingo games are played, the frequency, the amount paid, is to be proposed by the vendor. The vendors will have their submissions considered and evaluated. If we have multiple vendors offering systems that meet all our criteria, it may result in multiple awards. With multiple awards, the region will select one vendor from the approved list.

The author is correct that the item is innovative. There is some history to assist and we have provided as much direction as possible.

QUESTION 2.) We have a question regarding the language pasted below from the RFP. We want to ensure the responsiveness of our bid. If the technical and price volumes are to be submitted separately, in which section should we include the "listings, by installation, of the facilities and quantity of units proposed for each facility and the revenue sharing basis for the region"? It seems to us that the "listings" will contain both technical (number of units) and pricing (revenue sharing) information. Again, we don't want to be considered Non-Responsive and want to make sure we submit the technical and pricing information separately as requested.

The Solicitation states on Pg. 30 that "The technical and price volumes must be submitted separately in separately sealed envelopes..."

However, it states on Pg. 32 that "Additional data: A listing, by installation, of the facilities and quantity of units proposed for each facility and the revenue sharing basis for the Region."

ANSWER 2.) The Pricing is to be separated from the Technical proposal. The basis for the revenue sharing is an approach that the individual firm takes to provide for revenue sharing; as the amount of systems management, oversight, servicing, and technical interaction that is your baseline to provide these units to the regions and the individual installations.

The price proposal should separate the cost of administering the system from the monies/percentages anticipated for Player Payout and the Revenue Sharing.

QUESTION 3.) Can you provide a list of interested bidders or a list of who received the amendment and information from the conference call?

ANSWER 3.) No

QUESTION 4.) Player interaction: how is the gaming experience delivered to the player, what does it look like from “outside the system”

Various System operations:

Live call, the internet model, the lottery model, Linked Prizes, Flashboard Games *And of course the business model including Demographics:

*Number of sites and players *Enrolling sites, per system? Or per region?

ANSWER 4.) The gaming experience is delivered by an electronic device (card or tablet or touch screen). The game can be played by live call, or by internet. The game is a single game played simultaneously in a region among the installations and locations in each installation in the region. The players are playing for the same prize in the same game in each region. If their designed system can offer the flashboard games in each location simultaneously to each participant, they should state so. If their system requires large boards to be mounted in each location, they should state so. If the large board system is not appealing to the region or the installation, they will choose another system. If their system does not offer the same option to each player in the region, it would be like selectively denying a game to some participants in a traditional bingo session. The game may be different in one region to another. Each region will make the ultimate choice of the system they will utilize. CNIC will ascertain the offering is compliant with the stated requirements.

The available sites are stated in the RFP, as are the Regions. The number of locations in each site is not determined. As this is a new concept, there is no historical data to be able to comment on the number of players.

QUESTION 5.) Per Amendment #1 of this RFP, there are currently five (5) known electronic bingo locations. These locations had a total of $554,883 in play last year. We visited one of these locations in North Charleston. This location was operating (5) terminals. Assuming the other locations were operating (5) terminals as well this would equate to $60/terminal/day in play.

Can you clarify if this was total $ in or just total play including replay?

ANSWER 5.) Charleston is no longer under the Navy flag; it was transferred in 2010 to the Air Force under BRAC.

QUESTION 6.) There is no "delivery schedule" in the RFP. Are we supposed to propose a delivery schedule as part of our bid, will it be negotiated after award(s) are made, or will the delivery schedule(s) be done on a case by case basis with the CO or COR once a delivery order is received?

ANSWER 6.) This will be an ID/IQ requirements contract. Individual Delivery Orders will be placed by the Regions (as listed in Section J, Attch # 2).