Listing of Vendor Questions for ACT RFP through 2-11-19 with Responses Due by 2-13-19.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 15 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- BD-19-1107-1107T-SUP01-34634
- Issued by
- Massachusetts
About this file
This document is a listing of vendor questions and responses related to an RFP for Approved Court Transcribers issued by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The RFP, Ref: BD-17-1107-1107T-SUP01-11433, is seeking approved transcribers to provide services to the Trial Court. The RFP was issued on 1/16/2019, with vendor questions due by 2/11/2019 at 3pm EST and responses to be posted by 2/13/2019 at 3pm EST. The initial contract is anticipated to expire on 6/30/2019, with the potential for a multi-year extension. Transcribers currently on the approved list from 10/12/2018 do not need to reapply, but new applicants must submit the required documentation, including resumes, credentials, and transcripts for each provider party.
Regarding pricing, there is no postage reimbursement for mailing hard-copy transcripts. The RFP does not specify any set-asides or preferences. Current approved transcribers will be considered incumbents, and the RFP clarifies that transcribers selected in a sequential order per SJC Rule 1:07 for fee-generated court appointments. Funding for this contract comes from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
View the file
Other files
Show all 16
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
Vendor Questions
| RFP- Approved Transcribers Ref BD-17-1107-1107T-SUP01-11433 | |||||
| BD-19-1107-1107T-SUP01-34634 | |||||
| Questions Open 1/16/19 | |||||
| Questions Close 2/11/19 3pm EST | |||||
| Reponses Due 2/13/19 3pm EST | |||||
| Question # | Created Date | User Created | Question Subject | Question | Answer |
| 1 | 1/17/19 | LISA PHIPPS/LMP Court Reporting | Bidder List | Would it be possible for you to enable the ?bid holder?s list? option? This option was utilized two years ago when the transcription RFP was issued by OCM and allowed bidders to see who was responding to the RFP. In the spirit of transparency, as an approved transcriber, I would like to see who is responding to the 1/16/2019 transcription bid. | This function has been enabled. |
| 2 | 1/17/19 | LISA PHIPPS/LMP Court Reporting | Duration of contract | My understanding from the memo attachment in the current 1/16/2019 bid is that since I am a transcriber on the 10/12/18 Approved Transcriber List no action is required on my part. The question I have is am I under a different contract duration than the applicants who are applying now? I ask this because the original RFP issued back in December 12, 2016, listed that the new list would be active on June 30, 2017. That RFP stated an anticipated two-year term; however, the updated Approved Transcriber List (ATL) wasn?t issued until 10/12/2018. Would the RFP that was posted yesterday would fall under the contract duration that was stated in the December 2016 RFP? If so, which date controls the expiration of the contract, June 30, 2019, or October, 12, 2020 (two years after the release of the new ATL). Of course, logically, I would say that I didn?t receive any transcription assignments until the 10/12/2018 updated Approved Transcriber List was released by OCM/OTS, the date applicable to would be October 12, 2020. If the date is October 12, 2020, will OCM be issuing a new RFP, or is the plan to consolidate all transcribers once the bidding is closed on this current RFP. I do not want to jeopardize my right to do transcription work in the Commonwealth, and that is why I am seeking clarification on the expiration of my contract. | The initial contract you are on expires on June 30, 2019. |
| 3 | 1/24/19 | Quaverly H. Rothenberg/Q & A Transcripts | Future Assignment-Making Protocol | I've heard that OTS plans to move fully to a rotation-only basis of assigning cases and that coordinators would no longer be able to select transcribers of their choice. Is that so, and when might that change take effect? Thank you. | Per SJC Rule 1:07, for fee generated court appointments, transcribers are selected in sequential order. |
| 4 | 1/26/19 | LISA PHIPPS/LMP Court Reporting | Qualifications | Will the Trial Court be modifying the RFP and recognize the CSR (Certified Shorthand Reporter) MCRA (Massachusetts Court Reporter Association) certification as well as a court reporter who possess an Associate's degree in Court and Conference Reporting; i.e., Mass. Bay. Both of the above, the certification and the degree, surpass the criteria as outlined in the RFP. | No. |
| 5 | 1/26/19 | Linda Kelly/Linda L. Kelly | I have similar questions as Lisa Phipps' questions. Instead of ambiguous language, please state the specific date that transcribers accepted onto the "6/30/17" ACT list, but which was not authorized to be used and didn't become active, in reality, until October 2018. Despite the current ACT list stating that the "6/30/17" ACTs need not reapply now, having a specific date that we can put in our calendars would be far more transparent. We have had experience with conflicting language in the same document so a DATE would alleviate concerns. | July of 2019 | |
| 6 | 1/26/19 | Linda Kelly/Linda L. Kelly | Contract dates | Will there be any review by OTS as to transcripts that are produced by transcribers NOT on the list and did not get vetted and do not have the specific qualifications that it's stated are required by each transcriber? | Not relevant to RFP. |
| 7 | 1/26/19 | Linda Kelly/Linda L. Kelly | Once again, why isn't there an appeal process? Or, feedback to an applicant as to whether there was a computer glitch so their application wasn't received? or if there is a missing qualification? or some other reason for not getting on the list. There is an appeal process for attorneys who don't get on the Bar Advocates list; fairness would suggest that would add to transparency. | Not relevant to RFP. | |
| 8 | 1/27/19 | Quaverly H. Rothenberg/Q & A Transcripts | Proof of Test Registration | For those of us who will be registered for and awaiting certification tests, is proof of registration to be included in our Feb. 27th applications? Thank you. | Yes. |
| 9 | 1/31/19 | LISA PHIPPS/LMP Court Reporting | Postage | If a transcriber mails out a hard-copy transcript, will there be postage reimbursement for doing so? | No. |
| 10 | 2/1/19 | LISA PHIPPS/LMP Court Reporting | Bidder Question | What is the cutoff date for a vendor to submit a question? | Vendor Questions Closed on 2/11/19 3pm EST |
| 11 | 2/1/19 | LISA PHIPPS/LMP Court Reporting | Response | When will vendors be receiving answers to the questions asked? and will we receive notification via email that the answers are available to view? | Answers are to be posted on COMMBUYS by 2/13/19 3pm EST |
| 12 | 2/4/19 | Susan Lobie/Susan Lobie | Purchase of a business on the list | I purchased a business on the list, of which I was an approved transcriber. Do I have to reapply in this RFP, or can my information be substituted for the information of the old owner? | You must reapply in this RFP as the owner of a company. |
| 13 | 2/4/19 | Susan Lobie/Susan Lobie | Purchase of a business on the list | In addition, I applied with my own business when the original RFP came out, along with also applying under the company that I have now purchased. Since I believe that my individual application was mixed up with the application under the business that I now own, why should I have to reapply for this RFP, when the error in my getting on the list as a vendor in the first place was not my error? | Because you are now the owner of a company and no longer a sole proprietor. |
| 14 | 2/5/19 | Tracy Williams/Associated Reporters Int'l., Inc. | Resume portion of RFP | How would you suggest that a company handle the resume submission portion of this RFP? | Vendor firm should have each provider party complete Attachment A, Attachment E, and Attachment F, and include all required documentation, i.e. resume, credentials, transcript, for each provider party. This information should can be submitted as a digital file in response to the RFP. |
| 15 | 2/6/19 | Raymond Catuogno/Raymond F. Catuogno, Jr., Inc. | Alternative to Court Reporting School Certificate | I have been a court reporter since 1984. The school I attended went out of business in the late 1980s and is not available to request a copy of my certificate. I have been in business since 1994, as registered with the Mass Secretary of State, with as many years of service to the Commonwealth. What, if anything, should I supply in substitution? Please inquiry of Sybil Martin for the specific answer as I have inquired of her in the past. Thank you, Ray Catuogno | You must submit a certificate from the school, or you must obtain certification by taking the test given by the National Association for Electronic Reporters. |
| 16 | 2/6/19 | Tracy Williams/Associated Reporters Int'l., Inc. | Vendor Responsibility | If we have completed this form online, do we have to fill it out again on paper for this RFP? | Yes. |
| 17 | 2/11/19 | Quaverly H. Rothenberg/Q & A Transcripts | Alternate Certification | I believe AAERT's CET is the only certification listed in the RFP that is applicable to traditional transcribers who would not qualify as reporters, shorthand writers, etc. Since AAERT's CET testing has been closed since last year due to internal restructuring, and since AAERT has already once delayed reopening registration and could do so again, will the Trial Courts also accept certification from the Transcriber Training Academy? | To the best of our knowledge, registration is currently open for AAERT's April 2019 CET. Registration and contact information can be found on AAERT's website. |
| 18 | 2/11/19 | Quaverly H. Rothenberg/Q & A Transcripts | Full-Time Experience - Verification | Is proof of 3 years' experience working full-time in the field proven by information entered into the Experience section of Attachment A to the application? If further proof is required, what forms of verification would be acceptable? Thank you. | The information provided in the Experience section is sufficient as long as employer contact information is included. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .