The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
MDOC Inmate Network, Applications & Services RFS Request for Solution No. 171-250000002079
State Answers to Vendor Questions: ROUND 1 Document 2 of 3
NOTE: The State will be publishing revised requirements documents to address revisions to the requirements and formatting fixes.
| Q# |
| Document and Section |
| Page# / Requirement# |
| Bidder Question |
| State Answer |
| 102 |
| Schedule A, attachment 1 - NSM 13.0 |
| 9 |
| 2. If so, who is the provider. |
| N/A |
| 103 |
| Schedule A, attachment 1 - NSM 14.0 |
| 9 |
| Does MDOC have existing necessary network/network security device licenses to support application monitoring? If so, what is it? |
| No, the State is currently not doing this. The State is seeking this as part of the solution. |
| 104 |
| Schedule A, attachment 1 - NSM 21.0 |
| 11 |
| 1. Where are the protected application residing? |
| On the network provided via the resulting contract(s). |
| 105 |
| Schedule A, attachment 1 - NSM 21.0 |
| 11 |
| 2. How many applications are being protected? |
| At a minimum it would include all of the services identified in this RFS as well as being able to scale up or down as needed based on State needs. |
| 106 |
| Schedule A, attachment 1 - NSM 22.0 |
| 11 |
| 1. Do you have an existing Firewall? |
| Yes. |
| 107 |
| Schedule A, attachment 1 - NSM 22.0 |
| 11 |
| 2. What is the traffic that is being inspected? And what is the bandwidth capacity required |
| The traffic being inspected would include all traffic being generated by the solutions provided in this RFS. The state is estimating 500MB – 1GBs. |
| 108 |
| Schedula A, attachment 1- NSM 23.0 |
| 11 |
| 1. Does MDOC have a VPN headend? |
| No. |
| 109 |
| Schedula A, attachment 1- NSM 23.0 |
| 11 |
| 2. If not, need to know the VPN use case and tunnel density requirements. |
| At this time the State does not plan to establish a VPN or tunnel for remote in access. |
| 110 |
| Schedula A, attachment 1- NSM 31.0 |
| 14 |
| This is dependent on WIFI provider. Please provide vendor details of the wireless network. |
| Vendor is Cisco, using Cisco Access Points. |
| 111 |
| Schedula A, attachment 1- DM 1.0 |
| 15 |
| 1. What type of existing devices do you have that require MDM? |
| MDOC doesn’t have any existing devices that require MDM. Devices and MDM are components of this RFS. |
| 112 |
| Schedula A, attachment 1- DM 1.0 |
| 15 |
| 2. What is the count of devices? |
| MDOC doesn’t have any existing devices that require MDM. Devices and MDM are components of this RFS. |
| 113 |
| Schedule A, attachment 1 - NSM 3.0 |
| 5 |
| What Infrastructure, software and licensing is existing and in scope for monitoring, detection, alerting, locating and disabling devices and threats? |
| There is no state infrastructure and licensing that could be leveraged for this. |
| 114 |
| Schedule A, attachment 1 - IAM 1.0 |
| 18 |
| Is there an existing Identity and Access Management solution in place that the state would prefer to expand to encompass the inmate population, or does it need to be completely seperate and different? If it needs to be different, please specify the current incumbent. |
| MDOC is looking for a bid for these services. The CETN network currently uses GCP IAM, and the State is not requiring that be used. |
| 115 |
| Schedule A, attachment 1 - IAM 10.0 |
| 20 |
| What are the expected support hours? Please provide the expected days per week and hours per day. |
| The State expects these to be part of the bid and should include normal support hours (i.e Monday to Friday 8am-4:30 EST) and after hours. See RFS Schedule D attachment 2. |
| 116 |
| Schedule A, attachment 1 - NMM 6.0 |
| 38 |
| What are the standard maintenance window timeframes for performing updates, patches, and other routine maintenance tasks? |
| 12am to 6am EST. MDOC would value minimizing the impact on facilities by reducing the number of maintenance events. |
| 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? |
| The State is still reviewing this question and will provide a response soon. |
| 118 |
| Schedule A, Attachment 2 - SS 3.0-6.0 |
| 53 |
| The section outlines requirements for integrating with the existing commissary service - "The Prisoner store or “Commissary” is an existing MDOC service with access to the solution via a Contractor managed kiosk that allows prisoners to purchase personal items." However, Optional Business Specifications 3.0-6.0 look like software features. Are these 1) capabilities that are expected from the device/tablet, 2) new capabilities the bidder could build on top of the existing commissary service, or 3) capabilities as part of a wholesale replacement for the commissary service the bidder can submit? |
| The State is interested in Bidders that are able to provide an interface to the existing Prisoner Store solution. Optional Services 3-6 under Store Services are the functions the state would like to see through that interface. The state is not looking to replace the prisoner store service at this time but provide more access to the current service. |
| 119 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS |
| 89 |
| Can you provide a count of users and type per MDOC facility please? |
| All services under this RFS will be provided at each MDOC facility. Please see response to question #14 on population per location. User type would be limited to the maximum number of prisoners listed per site. |
| 120 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS |
| 90 |
| What is the current and the anticipated ISP bandwidth at the MDOC facilities? |
| Current bandwidth is between 100MB to 500MB and the State is anticipating an upward trajectory of between 500MB to 1GPS. |
| 121 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS |
| 180 |
| Would the state consider hardware that is in "Implementation Under Test List" for FIPS 140-3 compliance given that it will be approved before implementation? |
| Yes, the state would consider if the bidder has a contingency plan included in the bid if the device is not FIPS 140-3 approved. Devices will need to be approved at the point of evaluation. |
| 122 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS |
| 105 |
| I see that training needs to be at each facility. My question is do other services like reporting or authentication need to be physically at each location, or would a centrally managed solution be acceptable? |
| The State will require training. Please provide options for training for the state to consider in your bid response (may include train the trainer). The State is requesting reporting and authentication to be centralized but will need to include facility specific information as needed or requested. |
| 123 |
| SCHEDULE D, ATTACHMENT 2 |
MDOC SPECIFIC SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENT
| 160-176 |
| IS the Vendor only supposed to answer the question on page 160? |
What are all the highlighted sections (per contract section…) throughout the metrics within this section?
Does the vendor need to do anything with pages 161 – 176 as far as responding?
Bidders must answer the question on page 160. The highlighted “(per contract section…)” markings are internal drafting placeholders; Bidders may ignore those when preparing their proposals.
| 124 |
| Proposal Preparation |
| 2 |
| Per the RFP it states – |
RESPONSE REQUIREMENT: Download this RFS Word document, insert responses directly into the locations provided, referencing any external attachments, save under a new name and upload with any attachments. DO NOT BREAK UP SOLICITATION. Please upload completed Pricing Schedule separately.
In addition, it states, Include the bidder’s company name in the header of all documents submitted with your proposal.
Does the state want the vendor to add their company name into the header of the RFS, Attachment 1 and Attachment 2? Please verify since these are the states documents.
Bidders need not add their company name into the headers of submitted documents. Bidders will not be penalized either way, but pragmatically speaking, it is actually easier for the State to work with proposal documents if bidder does not add any info into the headers.
| 125 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS, Schedule A – Statement of Work, 2. Background |
| 81 |
| The RFS states that the MDOC has 26 correctional facilities. Please provide a breakdown of the ADP at each facility. This is important to estimate potential usage. |
| Please provide the state a definition of what ADP is and re-submit your question for Q&A round 2. |
| 126 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS, Schedule A – Statement of Work, 3. Purpose & Problem Statement |
| 85 |
| The RFS document states, “Provide prisoners a way to make phone calls.” Is the MDOC expecting a solution with traditional wall-mounted inmate phones installed in the housing areas? If so, please provide the number of phones installed today at each facility, and the number desired in the new contract (if different). Alternatively, if the MDOC wants bidders to recommend phone quantities, provide the ADP at each facility broken down by housing unit. |
| The State is seeking a prisoner telephone solution. Please provide in your bid response how you would provide a prisoner phone solution including type and number of hardware needed for your solution to work. For number of Hardware deployed currently, please see response to question #16. |
| 127 |
| Schedule A, Attachment 2, Requirements Prisoner Telephone System (TS), requirement no. TS 18.0 |
| 31 |
| TS 18,0 states, “Copper wire/analog telephones must be made available for Prisoner use in the facility yards.” How many such phones are required at each facility? |
| There is no current specific requirement for how many copper wire/analog telephones are required at each facility. Please see document entitled “MDOC Yard Phones by Facility” published with these answers for a break down of current number of yards/areas per facility including number of phones per yard/area. |
| 128 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS, Schedule A – Statement of Work, 3. Purpose & Problem Statement |
| 82 |
| The project aims state, “While the primary focus is on a wireless network environment, the solution must also accommodate services that require wired connections through kiosks.” How many kiosks are required? |
| The State does not require any specific number of kiosks and the solution should accommodate the need if a wired connection is required by your solution or an application on the device that follow industry standards based on population and access needed. See response to question #41. |
| 129 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS, Metric 15: ADA Compliant Communication Technologies |
| 173 |
| The RFS states, “The Contractor shall provide and maintain the following required communication technologies at all MDOC facilities where deaf and/or hard-of-hearing prisoners are housed: 1, TTY or TDD, 2. Telephone Relay Services, 3. Videophones or Person-to-Person Services, 4. Video Relay Services utilizing an established video relay service provider.” |
Will the MDOC accept similar, more advanced solutions that meet the ADA requirements, rather than separate solutions for each of the items listed?
Some of the required technologies were required based on a court settlement (example: Videophones- Which is not VRS). The State would consider all proposed solutions that meet ADA requirements and that allow all deaf and/or hard-of-hearing prisoners to communicate with friends and family effectively and efficiently. The state lists all of the communication technologies currently in use by MDOC on the current prisoner telephone system based on different needs and limitations of some prisoners. Please provide all options for serving this population and differences in costs if any.
| 130 |
| Schedule A, Attachment 2, Requirements Prisoner Telephone System (TS), requirement no. TS 36.0 |
| 34 |
| TS 36.0 states, “System must interface with MDOC-approved intelligence gathering application, and/or allow MDOC to export user activity data into an MDOC-approved intelligence gathering application.” With the MDOC provide details regarding the intelligence gathering application that the system is required to interface with? E.g., what is the name of the system, what is the purpose, what type of interface is preferred, etc. |
| The intelligence gathering application is part of the scope of this bid. The solution will be approved when awarded in a resulting contract. |
| 131 |
| Schedule A, Attachment 2, Requirements Prisoner Telephone System (TS), requirement no. TS 37.0 |
| 34 |
| TS 37.0 states, “Ability to create a link that approved law enforcement entities can access multiple phone calls.” Please elaborate, is the requirement that a system user be able to group calls together, such as by flagging them or adding them to a folder, and then send a link to external law enforcement users to access the group of selected call recordings? |
| Yes, that is what the state is looking for in this requirement. |
| 132 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS Schedule B - Pricing |
| 123 |
| Where in the Pricing section or elsewhere in the RFP response should the deposit fee handling charges (borne by the depositor/sender) be inserted |
| If Bidders need to add pricing info for things not requested, please add that at the bottom of each submitted pricing appendix, i.e., below the Table 6 Rate Card. Please label and explain clearly; you may insert additional tables if appropriate. |
| 133 |
| Sch. A Attachment 2 – Prisoner Services Business Specifications Worksheet – EDRC 2.0 and 21.0 |
| 10 and 15 |
| Please provide the total dollar amount collected in 2023 and 2024 for each deposit method outlined below. a) Gross amount deposited. B) Credit/debit deposits via web/mobile app. C) Credit/debit deposits via phone. D) credit/debit deposits via lobby kiosk. E) Cash deposits via lobby kiosk. F) walk-in retailer. |
a) 2023- $38,088,618; 2024-38,578,872.
b) 2023- $35,163,806; 2024-$35,663588.
c) 2023- $1,725,766; 2024- $1,739,841.
d) 2023- $66,640; 2024- 80,973.
e) 2023- $179,489; 2024- $220,035.
f) 2023- N/A; 2024- N/A
| 134 |
| Sch. A Attachment 2 – Prisoner Services Business Specifications Worksheet – EDRC 2.0 and 21.0 |
| 10 and 15 |
| Please provide the total # of transactions collected in 2023 and 2024 for each deposit method as outlined below. A) Total transaction count. B) Credit/debit deposit via web/mobile app. C) Credit/debit deposit via phone. D) Credit/debit deposit via lobby kiosk. E) Cash deposit via lobby kiosk. F) walk in retailer. G) Money orders. |
a) 2023- 460,815; 2024- 458,796.
b) 2023-428,882; 2024 - 427,803.
c) 2023- 19,611; 2024- 19,281.
d) 2023- 712; 2024- 867.
e) 2023- 2,009; 2024- 2,269.
f) 2023- N/A; 2024- N/A
g) 2023- 8,954; 2024- 7,773.
| 135 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS – 7 – Evaluation Process |
| 7 |
| This section outlines that responders receiving 80 or more evaluation points will have pricing evaluated. In this circumstance, how many points will pricing be worth? Additionally, how will it be evaluated? |
| Pricing is not scored; thus, it is not assigned points. The evaluation process has two parts: |
· Technical Evaluation: Written proposals received at the bid deadline will be reviewed and scored based on the criteria and weights listed in the Proposal Instructions.
· Best Value Analysis: After scoring is completed, those proposals that receive at least 80 points will be further reviewed. At this stage, the State will consider all information received in any manner throughout the entire process (bids, technical info, clarifications, oral presentations, negotiations, etc.) and make a best value determination about what scope to award with which bidders based on the totality of information available.
| 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 is still reviewing this question and will provide a response soon. The state would like to include commissions where applicable and that follow FCC regulations. |
| 137 |
| Sch. A Attachment 2 – Prisoner Services Business Specifications Worksheet – Optional: EDRC 21.0 |
| 15 |
| How many Trust Deposit kiosks does the MDOC currently have available for Friends and Family? |
| Please see response to question #16. |
| 138 |
| Sch. A Attachment 2 – Prisoner Services Business Specifications Worksheet – EDRC 16.0 |
| 13 |
| If the MDOC decides not to approve a cash transaction at the kiosk or through a Walk-In Retailer, who is responsible for returning funds back to the depositor/sender? |
| The awarded Bidder would be responsible for returning funds back to the depositor/sender. |
| 139 |
| Schedule A, Attachment 2 – Gen 3.0 |
| 4 |
| Please expand what all activity means – all transactions, all significant requests, or every keystroke for both inmates and staff officers? |
| When inmates are logging into any applications, sign into device at first, tamper or settings changes would not allow any kind of “Rooting, Jail breaking etc” and provide a full audit trail. |
For Staff usage the logging would be an audit trail of the staff actions in the applications.
| 140 |
| Schedule A, Attachment 2 – Gen 10.0 (and multiple sections GEN 17.0, DM 2.0) |
| 5, 7 |
| The requirement assumes that all devices including inmate devices must be operating under an MDM. Does DOC intend to reject any proposed solution where the tablet firmware is designed to be especially secure and provide the necessary capabilities without using/allowing an MDM. |
| The State is open to options on providing this. Please include options for using or not using an MDM in your bid response. |
| 141 |
| Schedule A, Attachment 2- MS 10.0 |
| 18 |
| Does MDOC intend to allow for a situation where the contractor providing multimedia services is different from the contractor providing PD (prisoner devices)? |
| Yes, the state is open to options on how services and devices are provided. Please include options for consideration in your bid response. |
| 142 |
| Schedule A, Attachment 2- MS 26.0 |
| 21 |
| How will MDOC facilitate the migration of media content from the existing provider(s). Copyright holders will require MDOC to be participant to any content transfer agreement. |
| The State requests that migration of media content from existing providers be completed via coordinated efforts of both the new Contractor and current MDOC Contractor. The State will participate in the transfer when applicable. The State is looking to migrate current purchased media content (Music etc.) that was purchased by the prisoner and would currently be on the prisoner’s owned device or current Contractor’s system. If this is not legal or if there are issues with this process as defined, please include that information in your bid response. |
| 143 |
| Schedule A, Attachment 2- MS 30.0 |
| 22 |
| Who is responsible for providing the printing equipment and managing the supplies. Will MDOC allow offenders to submit print requests electronically, (potentially) be charged for the number of pages, and MDOC staff be responsible for releasing the print queue and delivering output to inmates? |
Please see response to question #38.
| 144 |
| Schedule A, Attachment 2- VV 3.0 |
| 36 |
| Will MDOC reject a video visitation process similar to Inmate Telephone System where inmate makes calls to authorized contacts as desired without having to schedule a call. Like phone system, the VV system will allow MDOC to set time-of-day the service is available, number of concurrent connections, time between calls per offender, etc. |
| Currently only the visitor can request VVs. Please provide the State options via your solution for how VVs can be scheduled. |
| 145 |
| Schedule A, Attachment 2- ME 3.0 |
| 44 |
| “MDOC-approved devices” is this referring to devices used to be staff, or those used by offenders. |
| Primarily used for inmate devices. Devices used by staff as well (laptops). |
| 146 |
| Schedule A, Attachment 2- ME 7.0 |
| 45 |
| Is the MDM and Active Directory mentioned in this requirement, referring to staff or offenders. |
| Staff. MDOC staff need ability to access the system to manage user access and define functions. |
| 147 |
| Schedule A, Attachment 2- ME 16.0 |
| 46 |
| “System must provide a word processing software allowing certain users to create templates for messaging responses.” - Please provide more details as regards this requirement. |
| The state is looking for an offender to be able to access a MDOC form or template that can pre-populate information, allow the offender to add information, and send/submit the form to MDOC. This is different than the word processing requirement from the media services section. Certain users = system administrators. |
| 148 |
| Schedule A, Attachment 2- ES 1.0 |
| 52 |
| Where is CETN hosted? , How do offender device access this/these sites. Does the traffic to the CETN travel over contractor-provided WAN, in which case please provide estimated bandwidth requirements. |
| CETN is hosted within Google Cloud provider. Inmate devices are accessing CETN via State’s network via specific rules for inmate devices. Currently CETN is not provided over a contractor-provided WAN. If you believe your solution will require a specific bandwidth, please provide that in your bid response. |
| 149 |
| Schedule A, Attachment 2- ELL 1.0 |
| 59 |
| Please provide name of the current ELL provider and confirm that this content is accessible via a browser. Does MDOC intend for tablet contractor to assume license fees? |
| Current ELL provider is RELX Inc. ELL content is on the State’s CETN network and is accessible via a browser with only access to the ELL site (Whitelisted). MDOC does not assume the contractor will pay for any license fees associated with the ELL solution. |
| 150 |
| Schedule A, Attachment 2- ELL 3.0 |
| 60 |
| Please advise how MDOC will contractually facilitate that a MDOC prisoner in federal custody have access to MDOC vendor services? |
| This is an optional requirement for ELL that was included to see if any Contractor was able to provide a potential solution to a current MDOC problem. There could be limitations to how this is able to be provided from both a technical standpoint as well as barriers from policy and what may be allowed by the other parties. The State understands there may not be a solution to providing MDOC prisoners in Federal custody with access to MDOC vendor services like ELL, but the State needs to explore all potential options. It may not be contractually enforced either as there would need to be acceptance to the option by the Federal Bureau of Prisons. At this time MDOC is looking for potential solutions that would be considered if applicable. |
| 151 |
| Schedule A, Attachment 1- IAM 13.0 |
| 23 |
| Does MDOC intend to allow prisoners to login into multiple mobiles devices. In other sections of the RFP, it seems to indicate each prisoner will have a dedicated device which only that prisoner may use. There is a requirement that login be controlled by biometrics, please advise if MDOC expects fingerprint reader (or some other hardware) reader on each prisoner device, or is expecting to use face recognition to satisfy this requirement? |
| The State intends for the prisoner to be able to access and log into multiple state-owned devices. Based on a model where MDOC owns the device and the prisoner would check it out, the State would need a solution for the prisoner to be able to log into a device to use it, pull their specific information (if applicable) on that device while in use, and log out without keeping any prisoner specific information on the device. The State would be interested in costs effective solutions to manage access to a device through a login process that may or may not include biometrics. |
| 152 |
| Schedule A, Attachment 1- IAM 14.0 |
| 24 |
| Does MDOC intend to have an IAM vendor whose product will work on various prisoner devices, or will MDOC allow PD vendor to provide IAM services for their specific implementation. |
| MDOC prefers a device vendor to provide IAM services for their specific implementation. Please include all options for MDOC consideration in your bid response. |
| 153 |
| Schedule A, Attachment 1- PD 11.0 |
| 31 |
| This requirement states contractor must offer various devices with minimum size of 10 inches – does this mean all devices offered must be 10” or at least one must be 10”. If former, MDOC will accept prisoners carrying 10” devices around as their primary entertainment device? |
| Any proposed device for any proposed solution must be at a minimum 10”. |
| 154 |
| Schedule A, Attachment 1- ISP 1.0 |
| 33 |
| Does MDOC intend to allow for a situation where MDOC selects a different ISP (internet services) and PD (prisoner handheld device) vendor, and latter has to use the former’s services for connectivity between institution and their data center? |
| Different solutions would be considered by the State, but supporting information related to long term impacts of the options for consideration should be part of your bid proposal. |
| 155 |
| Schedule A, Attachment 1- Requirements Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) |
| 4 |
| In “Requirement for Network Security and Monitoring (NSM)” when MDOC states “The vendor network” does it mean all network equipment (including Vendor WAN) past the SOM-managed firewall at institution? Please also confirm it excludes equipment before the SOM-managed firewall, as that will be managed by SOM. |
All network equipment as illustrated in the attachment “Route Path” document. The SOM does not have a requirement for infrastructure behind the SOM firewall to be managed by a vendor.
| 156 |
| Schedule A, Attachment 1- NSM 2.0 |
| 5 |
| What is the criteria for "sanctioned" devices and who is allowed to use these devices? Will prisoner devices be considered “sanctioned”? |
| Sanctioned devices are MDOC approved devices. Yes, Prisoner devices if MDOC approved would be considered sanctioned. |
| 157 |
| Schedule A, Attachment 1- NSM 26.0 |
| 13 |
| By “keylogging”, does MDOC expect to log all keystrokes for all prisoners and staff users, or does it mean wanting to have record of requests made and whether they were fulfilled or not.? |
| Yes, but only prisoner devices would require “keylogging”. This would not be required for staff. |
| 158 |
| Schedule A, Attachment 1- IDS 10.0 |
| 27 |
| What is MDOC’s SLA expectations for Inmate devices and Infrastructure? |
| Please see Schedule D- Service Level Agreement. |
| 159 |
| Schedule A, Attachment 1- Requirements Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) |
| 4 |
| DTMB Policy 1345.00.05 (Enterprise WLAN Standard), Page 3 indicates "Secure SSID's will not be broadcast". What specification does vendor need to know about the "Secure SSID" by MDOC? Will SOM generate a unique secure SSID for each vendor and will that SSID be same at all facilities. |
Yes, there should be a specific SSID that all vendors would use. This will be the entry point into what will become the inmate network.
| 160 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS- 3. Purpose & Problem Statement |
| 82 |
| In document named DM0010’s “Purpose & Problem Statement” MDOC states “While the primary focus is on a wireless network environment, the solution must also accommodate services that require wired connections through kiosks.”. Please provide details of how kiosks are to used (if tablets deployment does not need them) and how many kiosks in each of the institutions . |
Please see response to #41.
| 161 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS- 12. Migration |
| 103 |
| In document named DM0010’s “Migration” section – Please confirm that the agency will be responsible to give the new vendor all data to be migrated into the new system in an mutually agreed industry standard format. |
The State expects the new awarded Contractor to work with the current Contractor to migrate data to the new solution.
| 162 |
| Schedule A, Attachment 1- Requirements Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) |
| 4 |
| MDOC states “The vendor network and the SOM managed “offender” Wi-Fi network will be physically connected via a SOM managed firewall at each MDOC location.” |
Presume this means vendor must use SOM’s Wi-Fi?
Please advise of the connection speed between AP(s) and local firewall.
Please provide information about firewall’s capacity of packet processing to be able to cater for thousand plus devices concurrently streaming content and real-time traffic such as video visitation.
Does prisoner telephone, video visitation and (maybe) kiosk vendors need to provide their own network(s) in housing units? Will any of these be governed by SOM firewall?
Does SOM Wi-Fi network reach into most cells?
Is SOM Wi-Fi network coverage present in visitor areas for funds collection and/or release kiosks.
Yes, 1GB between AP and local firewalls. If the SOM firewall’s are not able to handle the traffic the state will work with the vendor to resolve this issue. The Wi-Fi network is blanketed across the entire facility.
| 163 |
| Sch. A Attachment 2 – Prisoner Services Business Specifications Worksheet |
| 43 |
| Please provide volume of message sent/received by prisoners and member of family per month (text, photo, video) for the last 12 months, plus average cost of each type of message. |
| MDOC does not have this information broken down by year. The following information is all transactions since 2017: |
1) Emails – 96,431,506
2) Photos – 15,575,956
3) ECards – 2,411,003
4) Snap 'n Send – 13,075,848
5) Inmate stamps purchased – 44,769,002
6) Customer stamps purchased – 123,928,739 Current cost information is not needed for the Contractor to provide a bid response.
| 164 |
| Sch. A Attachment 2 – Prisoner Services Business Specifications Worksheet – |
| 16 |
| Please provide volume of media (music, movies, tv shows, etc) purchased/rented/ subscribed per month for the last 12 months and average cost of each type of content. |
| MDOC does not have this information broken down by year. The following information is all transactions since 2017: |
1) Music users – 69,943
2) Whole Albums – 2,006,966
3) Single Songs purchased – 10,162,661
4) Game users – 76,274
5) Games purchased – 671,372 Current cost information is not needed for the Contractor to provide a bid response.
| 165 |
| Schedule A, Attachment 1- Network Managed Services Business Specifications Worksheet |
| 4 |
| Can additional clarity be created by way of some visual representation for the networking piece of this RFS? It seems like you are saying there is a SOM Managed Network (assuming staff and system network), that has an SOM managed "offender" Wi-FI network already, and that an additional holistic network (switching, wireless, wired, firewalls, etc.) needs created to create access to the other workstreams in this RFS. 1. Is that an accurate summary and 2. can we see a visualizion of existing networks and equipment and future intended state? Has anything been created already that we would be starting from? |
| Please see Route Path Diagram published with these answers. |
| 166 |
| Schedule A, Attachment 1- Network Managed Services Business Specifications Worksheet |
| 4 |
| Its stated that the vendor network will be behind an SOM managed firewall at each location, does this imply that there is a limited physical space that this network will exist, or will the vendor network run through the entirety of each facility? |
| The State has rack space at each facility for the vendor’s network components to occupy. The Network will need to run throughout the majority of every MDOC facility. |
| 167 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS, Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) |
| 84-85 |
| Who is responsible for low-voltage cabling? Is there an internal resource or existing vendor available? Is there a low voltage diagram that can be shared for the sites? |
| It is currently provided via 3rd parties either via state of michigan contracts or current ITS Contractor. This also may be dependent on the service type. For new installations for the new prisoner network, this work is typically done via a State of Michigan Design and Construction bid and contract for specific site(s) or job(s) needed by MDOC. All installation projects require the awarded Contractor to design, install, and provide as built diagrams for the facility. For repairs, State employees would be supporting the cabling and may use 3rd parties as needed. For the ITS, historically the ITS Contractor (sub-contractor) has been responsible for installation or repairs to low-voltage cabling specific to the ITS infrastructure and the state would prefer that to continue with the new contract. Please include in your bid response your ability to provide this service as the ITS Contractor. |
| 168 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS, Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) |
| 84-85 |
| If the vendor network is going to be behind the SOM managed network and firewall, what, if any, internet circuit needs will there be? Can existing internet services being utilizied be shared and what types of circuits/speeds exist? Who will be responsible for ISP contract management? |
| Part of this RFS is for providing ISP. The State prefers that Prisoner traffic does not utilize the existing employee network. The State’s current understanding would be that the ISP service that is awarded from this RFS is managed by a Contractor that would be responsible for managing the ISP agreements. Contractors should provide options for how this could be managed along with the costs for those options. |
| 169 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS, Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) |
| 84-85 |
| In the event of network equipment failure or issues that require manual manipulation, is there onsite staff that can assist in troubleshooting or will the vendor have to provide all "boots on ground." |
| No, there is currently no onsite dedicated IT staff on site that can assist in troubleshooting; however, an initial first level contact with a facility staff that may be able to assist with high level troubleshooting processes. Please include options for MDOC staff responsible for tier one support and the Contractor responsible for escalating support. In Addition, please provide an option where the Contractor is responsible for all support for all. |
| 170 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS, Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) |
| 84-85 |
| How many people will be responsible for ticket entry and communications with vendor? Only IT Users or all staff users, IT users, and facility residents? |
| For network security and monitoring purposes specifically, a subset of State staff at each State location would be responsible for escalating tickets for issues with the prisoner network. |
| 171 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS, Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) |
| 84-85 |
| For Identity Access Management, are you saying that the Residents of the facility don’t already have some IAM in place to get access to various resources and there needs to be an independent solution created or do we just need to be able to pass IAM reqeusts back to an existing IAM Provider? |
| MDOC is looking for a bid for these services. The CETN network currently uses GCP IAM, and the State is not requiring that be used. |
| 172 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS.docx, Section: 20.8 Disclosure of Subcontractors |
| 136-137 |
| Are bidders required to list all of the components that make up their infrastructure as subcontractors and if so, does the 20% GDBE rule apply? If yes, this would mean that 20% of large best-in-class companies that provide network and server hardware or cloud hosting would be required to be located within Michigan. On other State of Michigan contracts, vendors have been required to list cloud providers as subcontractors. For complex, specialized and highly-sensitive work such as required in this RFS, it would be impossible to provide solutions where all subcontractors meet the 20% GDBE rule. Could the State strike this clause to allow vendors to bid with a best in class solution regardless of location and classification? |
| GDBE rules would apply when using subcontractors. Simply supplying the State with a piece of hardware the Bidder bought would not necessarily make the hardware manufacturer a subcontractor. If the hardware provider is providing support services to the State directly or if the Bidder is subcontracting support services, that provider would be considered a subcontractor. |
| 173 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS.docx, Section: 20.8 Disclosure of Subcontractors |
| 136-137 |
| Is this 20% of each subcontractor's work or 20% across all subcontractors combined on our bid? |
| 20% across all subcontractors combined. |
| 174 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS.docx, Section: 20.8 Disclosure of Subcontractors |
| 136-137 |
| Do you consider cloud service providers (Azure, AWS, Google) subcontractors, as they are providing the compute, storage, processing, etc.? If yes, then would you also consider the on-prem infrastructure stack components of a contractor hosted solution provider also a subcontractor - because those servers, networking, etc. are doing the exact same thing as the CSPs are for the SaaS or contractor hosted solution? |
| Cloud service providers are considered subcontractors. Infrastructure hosted directly by Contractor at its own facilities would not be considered subcontracted. |
| 175 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS.docx, SCHEDULE E, ATTACHMENT 1 – PCI COMPLIANCE & CEPAS, 2. CEPAS Electronic Receipt Processing Standard. |
| 183 |
| Would the State provide access to the "PayPoint Merchant Integration Guide" and the "PayPoint Consumer Payments Integration Guide"? |
| The State has uploaded these documents to SIGMA as of 4/25/2025. They are now located with the other attachments and are titled: |
· PayPoint Consumer Paymemts Integration Guide 5.8.22
· PayPoint Merchant Integration Guide 5.8.22
| 176 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS.docx, SCHEDULE A – STATEMENT OF WORK, 23. PROJECT CONTROL & REPORTS |
| 117 |
| The State is asking for a fixed price bid but in Schedule A, 23. PROJECT CONTROL & REPORTS, the State also asks that "All Contractors must submit and enter weekly timesheets into the State of Michigan’s Project Portfolio Management tool, Clarity PPM, for approval and reporting." Could the State strike this from the RFS? |
| Bidders may disregard the weekly Clarity entry requirement. |
| 177 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS.docx, SCHEDULE A – STATEMENT OF WORK, 4. IT ENVIRONMENT RESPONSIBILITIES |
| 86 |
| Should the solution be installed in the State of Michigan's Google Cloud Tenant, would that be considered a Vendor-Hosted Solution? |
| A solution installed into one of the State’s cloud tenants, would be considered a State-Hosted solution for contract purposes and may require different or additional contractual documents than those that were published in this RFS. (e.g., a State-Hosted Service Level Agreement.) |
| 178 |
| Attachment 1, Network Managed Services NSM 32.0 & 33.0 |
| 14 |
| Will the State please confirm that NSM 32.0 and 33.0 are intentionally left blank? |
| Those are intentionally blank. Bidders may ignore these rows. |
| 179 |
| Inmate Services RFS, 6. Delivery of Proposal |
| 6 |
| Based on the level of information required for contractors to provide detailed information in response to the RFS, will the State please allow for larger file size for attachments beyond the 6 MB per document? |
| Due to system upgrades, attachment file size is now limited to 30 MB per document. |
| 180 |
| Inmate Services RFS, Solicitation Timeline |
| 1 |
| Based on the level of information required for contractors to provide detailed information in response to the RFS, will the State please allow for additional time to respond to the RFS with an extended due date of at least 07/11/2025? |
| The State is reviewing whether to extend the bid deadline. If the deadline is changed, the State will publish a revised RFS with new cover sheet dates. |
| 181 |
| Inmate Services RFS, Solicitation |
Schedule A Statement of Work Schedule A, Attachment 1 & 2 14-22 80-120
Entire Document
| Based on the level of information required for contractors to provide detailed information in response to the SOW in the RFS and Schedule A Attachment 1&2, will the State please allow more than 250 word responses? |
| Bidders should adhere to the 250-word limit on each line item. |
Scope
| 84 |
| Is the medical request application required to be HIPAA compliant? |
| Yes, the medical request applic ation required must be HIPPA compliant. |
Scope
| 93 |
| Can the DOC clarify what specifically constitutes "data"? |
| “State Data” is a defined term in the Software Contract Terms and Conditions. |
Section 9
| 95 |
| The Items in section #10 appear to be in line with a purchase of software by the DOC. Since the contractor is only supplying software as a service (SSAS), would the DOC consider altering the requirements for #10 or removing them? |
| Requirements in Schedule A – Statement of Work, Section 10 (Software), apply to SaaS products as much as COTS products. |
Attachment 1
NSM 26.0
| 13 |
| Since the contractor is providing our software as a service and not software purchase for this contract, would the DOC consider removing this requirement? |
| MDOC is not considering removing this requirement. |
Attachment 1
PD 1.0
| 29 |
| Will the DOC allow vendors to offer a wireless tablet that has a screen size of 8" which is industry standard? |
| MDOC is seeking a minimum of a 10” screen size. See Requirement PD 1.0. The bidder can provide information about a variety of sizes of tablets, as least one option must have a 10” screen or larger. |
Attachment 1
PD 2.0
| 29 |
| Would the DOC please clarify what is the purpose of requiring a wireless tablet to function without the Wi-Fi network? |
| Contractor must include device options without Wi-Fi Direct connect functionality to not allow device to device sharing. |
Attachment 2
MS 27.0
| 21 |
| Since each contractor supplies proprietary applications for inmate media playing, which renders the media unusable, would the DOC consider removing this requirement? |
| Please see the answer to question #34. The State is interested in solutions that would prevent any of these types of issues during the next contract transition. |
Attachment 2
MS 29.0
| 22 |
| Would the DOC please clarify what the purpose is for giving the inmates a document creation app? |
| It is getting harder to purchase typewriters and provide writing services for prisoners with disabilities. This would be a solution for prisoners to be able to write legal notes, letters to friends and family, or for other needs. It is getting harder to provide typewriters to prisoner population in general as well as those with limitations. This will allow MDOC to provide more cost-effective and secure access to an application and process that the world is getting more and more access to (example needs for education and job applications). |
Attachment 2
ME 16.0
| 45 |
| Can the DOC please clarify that "users" are DOC officers and staff and not inmates? |
| This is for MDOC staff and not inmates. |
Attachment 2
GR 1.0
| 49 |
| For Item GR 1.0 for creating additional templates, is this requirement for inmate Requests and Grievances Apps on the tablet? |
| Yes, this requirement is for inmate requests and grievances. |
Attachment 2
ES 1.0
| 52 |
| Since there is a chance of causing a security risk by allowing open access to a web browser, would the DOC consider an alternative for access to the education services? |
| MDOC is open to alternative solutions to access educational services besides a web browser. Please see revised requirement ES 1.0. |
| 193 |
| Cost |
| Multi |
| Is the state looking for an agency paid service model for this solution i.e. no cost to incarcerated individuals and their friends and family? |
See answer to Question #1.
| 194 |
| Housing Breakdown |
| N/A |
| Please provide a breakdown of the current number of telephone calls, video visitation sessions, and tablet usage, including the minutes used over the past 12 months. |
Please see question #20.
| 195 |
| Existing Infrastructure |
| N/A |
| Can the existing infrastructure be utilized for use on standard telephone and kiosk device locations? |
Yes, to the extent that the infrastructure is sufficient and in good working order to provide your solution.
| 196 |
| Commission Statements |
| N/A |
| Can you please provide the past 6 months of commission statements with the current vendor? |
| Please define what services you are requesting commission rates for the last 6 months on in the second round of bidder Q&A. |
| 197 |
| Trouble Tickets |
| N/A |
| Please provide the quantity and status of the service/trouble tickets for the current vendor over the past 6 months. |
| This is based on the current contractor's solution and issues specific to their solution. The State does not believe this information is needed to provide a bid response; however, if you need this information, please re-submit for round 2 of Q&A and specify which service you are requesting this information for. |