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 2 Questions 1-100
| Q# |
| Document and Section |
| Page# / Requirement# |
| Bidder Question |
| State Answer |
| 1 |
| G&L section 5.1 and 5.2 - explicitly requires FedRAMP authorization for any hosted components of the solution |
| 179 |
| Is MDOC requiring that all identity components—including identity governance and lifecycle management—be deployed in a FedRAMP-authorized environment, or is an on-premises or state-managed secure enclave deployment acceptable for governance and lifecycle management? |
| SSAE 18 SOC 2 Type II with updates every 6 months or for the State of Michigan to host it. |
| 2 |
| Schedule A, Attachment 1 - IAM 3.0 The Contractor must allow administrators to allow, restrict, or deny access to applications, websites, and functionalities of external systems via API, web services, and/or other authentication/monitoring methods. |
| 21 |
| We can restrict access to these applications, but permissions and session monitoring would be out of scope for IAM. I’d like to ensure they don’t want the session monitor for the application as well. |
| Confirmed. The permissions and session monitoring would be part of the Network Security and Monitoring requirements. |
| 3 |
| Schedule A, Attachment 1 - IAM 13.0 The Contractor must include the functionality to restrict profiles for use on specified devices. Note: No Prisoner account should be able to log into a device that isn’t assigned to that Prisoner. This must be done via biometrics. |
| 23 |
| This would require the use of a mobile device if biometrics are required by Prisoners. I will note that we are compatible with biometric Yubikeys and other biometric devices that are used in lieu of a static password though.a |
| Not a question. No response required. |
| 4 |
| Schedule A, Attachment 1 - IAM 16.0 The contractor must integrate with MDOC’s Offender Management System for offender demographic and other data as required |
| 24 |
| Additional information on this application. Does it support SAML? RADIUS? I’ve not seen this system so I don’t know where our point of integration would be. |
| Yes, the COMS offender management system does support SSO methods. OIDC and SAML 2.0 are supported methods. |
At this point in the bid process, the state is unaware of what new system integrations will exist for the new solution and can’t determine where the point of integration would be. Currently the data would be provided via FTS.
| 5 |
| Schedule A, Attachment 1 - IAM 18.0 The Contractor may develop a process where certain staff can request changes to Prisoner account attributes. |
| 24 |
| Are they looking for us to administer the system? These two questions seem to indicate that so I’d ask if they’ll be doing their administrative functions while we just host or help them to deploy with PS. |
| The State is looking for options for providing this service with various levels of support. If possible, please include in your bid response options for supporting this service and the various levels of support that can be offered including a breakdown of the pricing for the tiered service options. |
| 6 |
| Schedule A, Attachment 1 - IAM 19.0 The Contractor may fulfill Prisoner account within the timeframes defined in the SLA. |
| 24 |
| Are they looking for us to administer the system? These two questions seem to indicate that so I’d ask if they’ll be doing their administrative functions while we just host or help them to deploy with PS. |
| See response to question #5. |
| 7 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS - Section 2.5 Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) |
| 8 |
| How many knowledge workers do you have? |
| At this time, the MDOC currently does not have any “knowledge workers” working on this project. |
| 8 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS - Section 2.5 Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) |
| 8 |
| How many workstations do you have? |
| Potentially up to the prisoner population ~32,000. |
| 9 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS - Section 2.5 Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) |
| 8 |
| What is the percentage of workstation OS types? |
| TBD by the awarded solution. |
| 10 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS - Section 2.5 Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) |
| 8 |
| How many servers do you have? |
| TBD by the awarded solution. |
| 11 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS - Section 2.5 Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) |
| 8 |
| What is the percentage of server OS types? |
| TBD by the awarded solution. |
| 12 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS - Section 2.5 Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) |
| 8 |
| Is there a centralized ticketing system or alerting system currently in use? |
| No, there is not a ticketing system currently. This is a new system/solution. |
| 13 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS - Section 2.5 Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) |
| 8 |
| Please describe your organization's hours of operation and after-hours support. |
| Please see response to Q&A round 1 Question # 115. |
| 14 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS - Section 2.5 Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) |
| 8 |
| What EDR/XDR platforms are currently deployed (if any)? |
| None, but the State expects these types of toolsets to be part of this type of solution. Please include in your bid response appropriate detection and response solution/tool options for the state to consider as it relates to the new inmate network. Please include pricing options with context on why you would recommend or support any specific option. Bidders should include consideration factors of each model proposed. |
| 15 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS - Section 2.5 Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) |
| 8 |
| Do you currently use a SIEM solution? |
| Please see response to Q&A round 1 Question # 229. |
| 16 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS - Section 2.5 Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) |
| 8 |
| If a SIEM is deployed, what is the platform and log volume per day? |
| SIEM solution is not currently deployed. |
| 17 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS - Section 2.5 Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) |
| 8 |
| What log sources are currently integrated into your SIEM? |
| SIEM solution is not currently deployed. |
| 18 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS - Section 2.5 Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) |
| 8 |
| How long do you retain logs for compliance and operational needs? |
| Standard would be 1 year. |
| 19 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS - Section 2.5 Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) |
| 8 |
| Do you currently have 24x7x365 monitoring? |
| No, the prisoner network is being built out as part of the resulting contract(s). |
| 20 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS - Section 2.5 Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) |
| 8 |
| What alert escalation processes or SLAs are in place? |
| None are currently in place as this would be a new network and service. Please review Schedule D with all attachments and include in your bid response any additional and appropriate alert escalation processes and SLAs. |
| 21 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS - Section 2.5 Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) |
| 8 |
| What compliance frameworks must your environment adhere to? |
| Minimum of NIST 800-53 rev. 5. |
| 22 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS - Section 2.5 Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) |
| 8 |
| Are there specific geographic restrictions for data residency or operations? |
| Within the continental US. |
| 23 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS - Section 2.5 Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) |
| 8 |
| Do you currently have in-house or third-party MDR services? |
| No, this is a new network solution. Please include in your bid response appropriate detection and response solution/tool options for the state to consider as it relates to the new inmate network. Please include pricing options with context on why you would recommend or support any specific option. Bidders should include consideration factors of each model proposed. |
| 24 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS - Section 2.5 Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) |
| 8 |
| What methods of incident containment are preferred (automated, manual, hybrid)? |
| The State has no preference for methods of incident containment. Contractors should propose options for methods of incident containment in their bid responses with applicable pricing. Please include pricing options with context on why you would recommend or support any specific option. Bidders should include consideration factors of each model proposed. |
| 25 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS - Section 2.5 Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) |
| 8 |
| Are there specific forensic or evidence-handling procedures to follow? |
| These standards and procedures are currently being developed by the State. Please follow any current NIST 800-86 requirements for your solution and processes and include any specific information or direction you would need from the State when providing your bid response. This may need to be developed after contract award during negotiations. |
| 26 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS - Section 2.5 Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) |
| 8 |
| Do you require root cause analysis reporting after incidents? |
| Yes, a root cause analysis is required after an incident. Please review SCHEDULE D – SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENT (CONTRACTOR HOSTED) section 3.9- Corrective Action Plan. |
| 27 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS - Section 2.5 Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) |
| 8 |
| Are you using Microsoft Azure or Azure Gov, and if so please provide just a high-level summary about the workloads there. |
| The State is not using these services for the prisoner network as it is not currently in use. |
| 28 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS - Section 2.5 Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) |
| 8 |
| Are you using AWS or AWS Gov, and if so please provide just a high-level summary about the workloads there. |
| The State is not using these services for the prisoner network as it is not currently in use. Contractors should propose options for providers in their bid responses with applicable pricing. Please include pricing options with context on why you would recommend or support any specific option. Bidders should include consideration factors of each model proposed. |
| 29 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS - Section 2.5 Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) |
| 8 |
| How are you purchasing your Microsoft and Azure Consumption today? |
| The State is not using these services for the prisoner network as it is not currently in use. |
| 30 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS - Section 2.5 Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) |
| 8 |
| Do you already have an internal Infosec Team or SOC? |
| Please see response to Q&A round 1 Question # 229. |
| 31 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS - Section 2.5 Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) |
| 8 |
| How many SOC or SIEM team members do you have today? |
| The State does not have this currently in place for the new prisoner network. |
| 32 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS - Section 2.5 Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) |
| 8 |
| Do you have a current MSSP or MDR provider providing this service? |
| Please see response to Q&A round 1 Question # 227. |
| 33 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS - Section 2.5 Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) |
| 8 |
| Are you using a SIEM solution today? If so, which SIEM vendor are you using? |
| Please see response to Q&A round 1 Question # 229. |
| 34 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS - Section 2.5 Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) |
| 8 |
| Are you currently using any Checkpoint technologies in your environment? |
| Please see response to Q&A round 1 Question # 224. |
| 35 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS – Section 8.2 |
| 48 |
| Please provide a comprehensive list of external assets/IP ranges, including web applications, public-facing servers, and network infrastructure, that should be included in the scope of the penetration test. |
| The State is only asking you to pen test the new prisoner network and the existing CETN education network, which will be defined and this information will be provided to the awarded Contractor when the pen tests are to occur. |
| 36 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS – Section 5.9 |
| 45 |
| Would you like us to perform Open-Source Intelligence on the company, including searching for any leaked credentials on the dark web? |
| Please include any optional service like this in your bid proposal with applicable pricing models. |
| 37 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS – Section 5.9 |
| 45 |
| Are there any specific crown jewels (critical assets or sensitive information) that should receive heightened attention during the test? |
| This information is not needed to provide a bid response. This information will be provided to the awarded Contractor when the pen tests are to occur. |
| 38 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS – Section 5.8–5.13 |
| 44–46 |
| Are there any mechanisms or security controls in place that we should take into consideration during the external penetration test? |
| This information is not needed to provide a bid response. This information will be provided to the awarded Contractor when the pen tests are to occur. |
| 39 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS – Section 8.2 |
| 48 |
| Please provide any specific limitations or restrictions we should be aware of when conducting the external penetration test. |
| This information is not needed to provide a bid response. This information will be provided to the awarded Contractor when the pen tests are to occur. |
| 40 |
| (Implied - Scheduling Coordination Required) |
| — |
| What are the preferred hours of work for the external penetration test? Are there any specific timeframes to avoid? |
| The State prefers normal business hours M-F 8am to 5pm. Contractor should avoid State Holidays and weekends. |
| 41 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS – Attachment 1 (Business Specs) |
| — |
| How many servers and endpoints should be included in the scope of the internal penetration test? |
| This is to be determined by the awarded solution and will include the CETN network. |
| 42 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS – Section 5.11 |
| 46 |
| Do you want us to perform authenticated testing (with credentials) on the internal systems? |
| Yes, once the contracts are awarded and penetration testing begins. |
| 43 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS – Section 5.8 |
| 44 |
| Would you like us to conduct unauthenticated testing on the internal systems, simulating an attacker who has connected their computer to any available port in the network, using a Kali Linux machine? |
| Yes, the State is open to using any testing means at your disposal. Please provide any options in your bid proposal with any applicable pricing models. |
| 44 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS – Section 5.9 |
| 45 |
| Are there any specific crown jewels (critical assets or sensitive information) within the internal network that should be prioritized during the test? |
| Please see response to Q&A round 2 Question # 37. |
| 45 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS – Section 8.2 |
| 48 |
| Are there any limitations or restrictions we should be aware of when conducting the internal penetration test (e.g., certain IP ranges to be excluded from testing)? |
| This information is not needed to provide a bid response. This information will be provided to the awarded Contractor when the pen tests are to occur. |
| 46 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS – Section 5.10 |
| 45 |
| Are there any specific areas or systems within the internal network that require extra attention during the penetration test? |
| This information is not needed to provide a bid response. This information will be provided to the awarded Contractor when the pen tests are to occur. |
| 47 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS – Section 5.6 |
| 43 |
| Is it an Active Directory environment, Azure AD environment, or hybrid? |
| This will be determined by the awarded Contractor. The CETN network is GCP-IAM. |
| 48 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS – Section 5.8 |
| 44 |
| If Wi-Fi testing is included, how many SSIDs are there to test? |
| The State has one SSID currently, but this may change based on the awarded contractor(s) solution and future State needs. |
| 49 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS – Section 5.14 |
| 46 |
| How many APIs does your web application have that require testing? If possible, please provide a brief description or documentation for each API. |
| This is not a solution that the State currently has in place. This information will be provided to the awarded Contractor when the pen tests are to occur. |
| 50 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS – Section 5.13 |
| 46 |
| Could you specify the different roles within your web application? For example, do you have roles such as admin, view-only, or any other specific roles that need to be considered during the penetration test? |
| This information is not needed to provide a bid response. This information will be provided to the awarded Contractor when the pen tests are to occur. |
| 51 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS – Section 5.14 |
| 46 |
| How many interactive pages does your web application have? It would be helpful to know the approximate number of pages that require testing to ensure comprehensive coverage. |
| The State will not be able to provide this information until after the contract awards are made. This information will be provided to the awarded Contractor when the pen tests are to occur. |
| 52 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS – Section 5.14 |
| 46 |
| Are you able to provide documentation for the web application, including any relevant architecture diagrams or specifications? |
| The State will not be able to provide this information until after the contract awards are made. This information will be provided to the awarded Contractor when the pen tests are to occur. |
| 53 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS – Section 5.15 |
| 46 |
| Are there any specific compliance requirements or security standards that the web application needs to adhere to? |
| Minimum of all current NIST 800-53 rev. 5, NIST 800-86 and the State’s Policies, Standards, and Procedures. |
| 54 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS – Section 9.4 |
| 49 |
| Do you have any specific concerns or areas of focus for the penetration test? For example, are there particular vulnerabilities or attack vectors you want our team to prioritize? |
| The State will not be able to provide this information until after the contract awards are made. This information will be provided to the awarded Contractor when the pen tests are to occur. |
| 55 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS – Section 8.2 |
| 48 |
| Are there any testing restrictions or limitations we should be aware of? This could include restrictions on testing certain functionalities or specific timeframes during which the penetration test should be conducted. |
| The State will not be able to provide this information until after the contract awards are made. This information will be provided to the awarded Contractor when the pen tests are to occur. |
| 56 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS, Schedule A – Statement of Work, 5. ADA COMPLIANCE |
| 88 |
| RFS p. 88, #5 ADA Compliance, requires bidders to provide details of how they will meet these requirements. |
1. Does the State require that bidders submit a VPAT for each product with their proposal?
2. If Yes to #1, how should the VPATs be submitted? Should the VPAT for each product be uploaded as a separate attachment?
3. Is it acceptable to provide a single VPAT that combines responses for all proposed products?
4. If No to #3, is it acceptable to combine products that are controlled by a single software system and operate using the same hardware – e.g., can bidders fill out a single VPAT for Requests and Messaging (ME), Prisoner Video Visitation (VV), Multimedia Services (MS), etc. if they are all operated by the same software and hardware?
5. If a VPAT is required, must bidders submit Version 2.1, or will a newer version of the VPAT be acceptable?
1. Yes.
2. Bidders may upload separate documents for each product or as a single combined document provided that document answers each question separately for each product.
3. See answer to question 56.2 above.
4. See answer to question 56.2 above.
5. All new and existing digital systems and content must conform to WCAG 2.1 AA at a minimum.
| 57 |
| SIGMAVSS website |
| N/A |
| On the SIGMAVSS website, it appears we are to upload all required documents under Section 4 – Add Attachments, and there is no relevant information that must be submitted other than changing the Response Type to Bid, No Bid, etc. for each product. Is that correct? |
| The SIGMA VSS website also requires bidders to complete certain fields in order to submit proposals. Please refer to the system user guides and other help information on the website for specific instructions. Bidders should open a ticket with the help desk (contact info also on the website) sufficiently in advance of the bid deadline to resolve system issues timely. |
| 58 |
| SIGMAVSS website |
| N/A |
| Since this is not a bulk / purchase type of contract, is it acceptable to leave payment related fields such as “Contract Amount,” “Discount Percentage,” “payments within number of days,” etc. blank? Or, if a response is required in those fields, is it acceptable to enter N/A or $0.00 |
| See answer to question # 57. |
| 59 |
| SIGMAVSS website |
| N/A |
| Is there any limit to the number of attachments that may be uploaded on the SIGMAVSS under Section 4 – Add Attachments? |
| See answer to question # 57. |
| 60 |
| PayPoint Consumer Payments Integration Guide and PayPoint Merchant Integration Guide |
| Entirety of both documents |
| We understand the State’s use of their own Merchant Services arrangement with Fiserv and the PayPoint Gateway. Given our long history of facilitating inmate deposits since 2007, would the state allow [Bidder name redacted] to utilize their own Merchant Services and Gateway, if awarded the contract? As a 3rd Party Provider, our MIDs, Gateway, and proprietary software integrated platform, incorporate extensive fraud prevention parameters, and we cover and assume all chargeback risk. |
| To the extent these are not MDOC or State revenue collected, bidders may propose using their own Merchant Services and Gateway. If the chosen bidder does not plan to use CEPAS, an exception would need to be requested. |
| 61 |
| 20.8. Disclosure of Subcontractors |
| Pages 115 - 116 |
| How can affiliate companies (100% owned by a common ownership) independently respond to a particular non-overlapping set of services of the RFP? How do the affiliate companies then indicate to the MDOC that their independent proposals collectively provide a complete response to all services required by the RFP and are not considered as a “subcontracting” arrangement? |
| Bidders may either (1) submit one bid listing one bidder as the primary contractor and the other as a subcontractor or (2) submit independent bids. If a bidder opts for the latter, the submissions will be considered independently for the respectively proposed scopes. |
| 62 |
| 20.8. Disclosure of Subcontractors |
| Pages 115 - 116 |
| We are affiliate companies who are 100% owned by a common owner – therefore will State agree that services provided by the affiliates is not considered a sub-contractor relationship? |
| No. Bidder must decide which entity is submitting the bid. The submitting entity would be considered the primary entity proposing to enter into a contract with the State. The other entity must be listed as its subcontractor on the proposal. If bidder is awarded a contract, the contract will be written this way. |
| 63 |
| n/a |
| n/a |
| Given the additional information to sort through from Round 2 Q&A, and the missing Round 1 answers the MDOC mentioned were being reviewed, which will be critical to creating competitive offers and ensuring fair competition, will the MDOC grant an extension of at least 1 month? |
| The State is extending the bid deadline from 6/3/2025 to 6/27/2025. Please see RFS v2 published with these answers for further details. |
| 64 |
| State Answers to Vendor Questions ROUND 1, Document 1 #20 |
| 15 |
| The State’s answer provides the number of phone calls and video visitations since 2018 and 2020, respectively. Would the State please provide the number of calling minutes and video visitation minutes for a recent defined period, such as the last 3 months or the last year? Since these services are charged per-minute, it is important to have the number of minutes for a defined time period. The current vendor has access to this information, so distributing the information to other vendors in a timely fashion will ensure a level playing field for all bidders. |
| The number of calling minutes from May 2024 to April 2025 (last year) is 186,311,395.65 minutes. |
The number of Video Visitation minutes from May 2024 to April 2025 (last year) is 2,401,828 minutes.
| 65 |
| State Answers to Vendor Questions ROUND 1, Document 1 #20 |
| 15 |
| The State’s answer provides the number of e-messages sent / e-stamps purchased since 2017. Would the State please provide the total number of emessages/photos for a recent refined period, such as the last 3 months or last year? |
| The following data is the total of each category type from Feb 2025 through end of April 2025 (last 3 months): |
a) Emails- 2,768,203
b) Photos- 464,851
c) e-Cards- 48,588
d) Snap ‘n Send- 354,171
e) Inmate stamps purchased- 923,110
f) Customer stamps purchased- 2,982,870
| 66 |
| State Answers to Vendor Questions ROUND 1, Document 1 #16 |
| 12 |
| The State’s answer provides equipment quantities across all MDOC facilities. Please provide a breakdown of equipment for each facility. This information is necessary for both wiring and network costs. |
| Please see “MDOC Device Count for Phone by Facility” spreadsheet published with these answers. |
| 67 |
| State Answers to Vendor Questions ROUND 1, Document 1 #16 |
| 12 |
| The State’s answer does not address Wireless Access Points. Please provide the number of Access Points needed. If this information is not available, please provide the inmate capacity broken down for each housing unit in each facility. |
| The Contractor will not be responsible for the Wireless access points. The access points are being installed by the State. The new network was built for 100% coverage similar to a small college campus. |
| 68 |
| State Answers to Vendor Questions ROUND 1, Document 1 #16 |
| 12 |
| Regarding the Access Points, is the State looking for tablets to be used inside of the inmate cells? |
| Yes, the State will require the use of tablets inside inmate cells. |
| 69 |
| State Answers to Vendor Questions ROUND 1, Document 1 #41 |
| 31 |
| The State’s response says, “…Video visitation would be an example of a service that would need a dedicated connection as this service should not be available via the awarded device…” Does this mean that video visitation needs to be done on kiosks only, or do you still want video visitation on the Prisoner Device? |
| The State’s current preference would be to have video visitation done in shared areas that would require a kiosk or installed/mounted solution. |
| 70 |
| State Answers to Vendor Questions ROUND 1, Document 1 #1 |
| 1 |
| The State’s response says, “The cost to be covered by prisoners/families would be communication (phones, electronic messaging), entertainment (music/video downloads, etc.) and ancillary services…” Does the State want to replace the pricing sheets to add rates and commissions, where applicable, for services that are paid for by inmates and families? |
| Yes, please see revised Schedule B- Pricing documents for updates. |
| 71 |
| State Answers to Vendor Questions ROUND 1, Document 2 #169 |
| 20 |
| The State’s response says, “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.” Does the State have a preference as to how we present these pricing options for support? |
| Bidders may submit multiple versions of the price schedules depicting alternative proposals. If Bidders do this, Bidders should clearly indicate the details of scope relating to each document. |
| 72 |
| State Answers to Vendor Questions ROUND 1, Document 2 #192 |
| 25 |
| Multiple answers, such as #192, mention revised requirements. When will the revised documents be available? |
| Please see revised documents published contemporaneously with Round 2 answers. |
| 73 |
| State Answers to Vendor Questions ROUND 1, Document 3 #271 |
| 21 |
| The State’s response says, “The State would consider both revenue sharing models or strict fixed-fee pricing for inmate communications…” The pricing sheets do not accommodate revenue sharing models or pricing for public users. Does the MDOC want to revise the cost tables to capture usage rates and commissions, where applicable, for services that are paid for by inmates and families? |
| Yes, please see revised Schedule B- Pricing documents for updates. |
| 74 |
| State Answers to Vendor Questions ROUND 1 |
| N/A |
| Due to the complexity of this RFP, and the fact that some of the ROUND 1 Q&A require clarification, will the State allow for additional follow-up questions to clarify answers to ROUND questions, if needed? |
| No round 2 of the Q&A will be the final round of Q&A. |
| 75 |
| State Answers to Vendor Questions ROUND 1, Document 1 #16 |
| 12 |
| Regarding the Wi-Fi coverage within cells. Please estimate of what percentage of cells’ square footage will have Wi-Fi coverage, or typically how far into the cell is Wi-Fi usable. |
| Our goal is to have 100% coverage. |
| 76 |
| State Answers to Vendor Questions ROUND 1, Document 2 #155 |
| 13 |
| Answer to 155 states SOM is responsible for managing infrastructure behind firewall (AP, switches, etc). But then answers to questions #98 and #101 seem to indicate State wants vendor to provide NAC and NTP solutions to this part of network. |
This will be a shared responsibility between the vendor and the state. The state will be responsible for the state-owned managed firewall and access points. The vendor will be responsible for the end devices on the network e.g. tablets being used by the inmate. These tablets could benefit from a NAC solution being proposed by the vendor.
| 77 |
| State’s answers to Vendor Questions ROUND 1, Document 2 #153 |
State’s answers to Vendor Questions ROUND 1, Document 2 #186
States minimum 10” size for a tablet (presuming this is screen size).
States vendor can provide variety of sizes, one option must have 10” screen.
Is the MDOC intending to allow different size tablets, or will only pick a size greater than 10.” Please advise if inmate will be allowed take the tablet for entertainment purposes to locations outside the housing unit(s).
Inmates will potentially use a device or devices for education, communication and entertainment and may be outside the housing units. Devices could be used outside of the housing units but would be subject to MDOC rules. For instance, devices may be allowed in the school or certain leisure areas but probably couldn't be carried by a prisoner when they are at a job assignment.
The State prefers to have one standard prisoner device for all of their services and needs (with exception to the education laptops). State may consider an alternative device for video visitation as the current direction is to have that device mounted or in a kiosk type solution. MDOC is open to the possibility of a smaller device that is location/use specific. For instance, in segregation the State may want a smaller device that is more “hardened” or “rugged”. The State is concerned with the possibility of incompatible devices though. If a contractor wants to propose a multi-device solution, the preference would be that the devices have the same technical class, so they are comparable in terms of charging and maintenance. The state prefers a standard prisoner device that is at least 10” in size.
| 78 |
| DTMB Policy 1345.00.05 (Enterprise WLAN Standard), |
DM0014_Schedule_A_Attachment_1-_Network_Managed_Services_Business_Specifications_Worksheet
NSM 31.0
DM11.0
| Will MDOC provide some form of read access to the WiFi Infrastructure to assist with the “Device location” functionality desired. |
| The implantation of the isolated offender network will be a partnership between the vendor and The State of Michigan (SoM). Michigan Department of Technology, Management & Budget (DTMB) is responsible for the SoM network at these locations and will work closely with the vendor to meet the requirements set by the Department of Corrections. |
The vendor will be responsible for all logging, maintenance, security and monitoring requirements defined by the Department of Corrections for the offender network. DTMB will be responsible for logging, maintenance, security and monitoring for the SoM network at these locations.
The offender network is defined by any device or traffic after the connection point to the SoM network. This will include any devices that have access to resources on the offender network.
| 79 |
| DM0014_Schedule_A_Attachment_1-_Network_Managed_Services_Business_Specifications_Worksheet |
NSM 21.0
| 11 |
| Please provide more specifics on where Web Application Firewalls usage is required. |
| This is a requirement if the vendor chooses to use a WAF in their solution. |
| 80 |
| Schedule A statement of work |
| 87 |
| Can the State share the total number of Access Points across the facilities? |
| The State does not believe this information is needed to provide a bid response and the State’s goal is to have 100% coverage. |
| 81 |
| General / Proposal Instructions |
| 1 |
| Will the State consider an extension of at least 2-weeks to the RFP due date? The additional time would enable bidders to provide a comprehensive proposal that thoroughly meets MDOC’s requirements and allows time for the results of Round 2 Q&A to be factored into the final proposal. |
| The State is extending the bid deadline from 6/3/2025 to 6/27/2025. Please see RFS v2 published with these answers for further details. |
| 82 |
| Schedule A, Attachment 2 |
| 36 |
| Is the state open to video visitations solutions that do not require funds or charging the visitor or incarcerated person for those visits? |
| The state is open to all options and considerations for an RFS. Contractors should include context on how they plan to provide this service at no cost. |
| 83 |
| N/A |
| N/A |
| In light of the extensive level of detail required for contractors to adequately respond to the RFS, the substantial volume of questions submitted during Round #1, and the timing of the upcoming Memorial Day holiday, we respectfully request that the State consider extending the RFS response deadline, to ensure contractors have sufficient time to prepare comprehensive and responsive submissions. |
| The State is extending the bid deadline from 6/3/2025 to 6/27/2025. Please see RFS v2 published with these answers for further details. |
| 84 |
| Q&A Round 1 - Q #1 - Response Clarification |
| N/A |
| The State indicated that, “The cost to be covered by prisoners/families would be communication (phones, electronic messaging), entertainment (music/video downloads, etc.) and ancillary services that aren’t operationally necessary.” Will the State please provide specific details regarding how/where contractors are to present rates for EACH of the following communication, entertainment and ancillary services to be paid for by a prisoner and/or public user?: Electronic Deposits and Release Debit Cards (EDRC), Multimedia Services (MS), Prisoner Telephone System (TS), Prisoner Video Visitation (VV) and Messaging (ME). |
| See answer to question # 71. |
| 85 |
| Q&A Round 1 - Q #260 - Response Clarification and RFS "Problem Statement" |
| The State indicated, “Vendors will be required to use Wi-Fi as built out at every facility. Cabling, switching and firewalls may be needed depending on the proposed and accepted solutions.” Page #82-83 of the RFS states, “The State is currently installing a dedicated Wi-Fi network in all 26 of its locations across the State of Michigan including the Upper Peninsula (UP) with a timeline for completion in 2026 to early 2027. The State is seeking a [Contractor Hosted Solution] that can provide prisoner services as defined in this RFS while the prisoner network is being installed as well as after the installation of the new Prisoner Wi-Fi Network (Contractor solution can live on this new network once completed). The State must be able to continue providing prisoner services such as phone calls, electronic messaging for friends and family, financial deposits, education and self-help services, and applicable Services to manage the new prisoner dedicated network 24/7/365 to allow prisoners to access applications or services via a standard device once installed.” To allow contractors to develop accurate project cost estimates and an effective implementation plan/schedule, please provide the following information: a). Can the State confirm whether the current Wi-Fi network referenced as “built out at every facility” is the same as the new "dedicated Prisoner Wi-Fi Network" currently being installed and expected to be completed between 2026 and early 2027? b). For facilities where the new Prisoner Wi-Fi Network is not yet installed, what is the expected coverage and capacity of the existing Wi-Fi infrastructure, and will contractors be permitted to assess its suitability for their proposed solution?; c). Will contractors be required to deploy their solutions using the existing Wi-Fi infrastructure until the new Prisoner Wi-Fi Network is fully operational at each facility?; d) Is there a phased implementation plan or rollout schedule available for the installation of the new Prisoner Wi-Fi Network at the 26 locations, and can that information be shared with contractors?; and e). Will the State provide separate VLANs, SSIDs, or dedicated bandwidth for vendor-hosted prisoner services to ensure quality of service and security? |
| A) Yes, confirmed |
B) There is no existing prisoner Wi-Fi Network.
C) Please see response to Round 1 Q&A #277.
D) It is anticipated that by April 2026 all facilities will have wireless services. There is a current schedule for the new prisoner network that is fluid and is dependent on solutions proposed in this RFS and other factors. The State will be able to provide better more detailed schedule once contracts are awarded for implementation and transition planning purposes.
E) Yes, as approved by the State.
| 86 |
| Q&A Round 1 - Q #16 - Response Clarification |
| N/A |
| The State indicated there are a total of 5,461 wall-mounted phones currently installed throughout all 26 MDOC facilities. To allow contractors to develop accurate project cost estimates and an effective implementation plan/schedule, please provide a list of the total number of wall-mounted phones currently installed at EACH individual MDOC facility location. |
| Please see response to Round 2 Q&A #66. |
| 87 |
| Q&A Round 1 - Q #16 - Response Clarification |
| N/A |
| The State indicated there are a total of 21,652 tablets currently deployed throughout all 26 MDOC facilities. To allow contractors to develop accurate project cost estimates and an effective implementation plan/schedule, please provide a list of the total number of tablets currently deployed at EACH individual MDOC facility location. |
| The vendor does not need to know this information to provide a bid response as this is an old model where the prisoners purchased the devices. Currently there are around ~33,000 inmates at all MDOC locations. Please see Legislative Reports for more information on facility capacities and current populations. Contractor should propose solutions that would allow for device access by all prisoners as well as additional units needed for backups etc. |
| 88 |
| Q&A Round 1 - Q #16 - Response Clarification |
| N/A |
| The State indicated there are a total of 424 devices currently installed for video visitation services throughout all 26 MDOC facilities. Please provide a description of each type (e.g. kiosk, laptop, etc.) of video visitation service device installed? |
| All 424 devices are Kiosk. |
| 89 |
| Q&A Round 1 - Q #16 - Response Clarification |
| N/A |
| The State indicated that “the MDOC expects to have between 4,000-5,000 [prisoner laptop devices] available.” To allow contractors to develop accurate project cost estimates and an effective implementation plan/schedule, please provide following information regarding the “expected prisoner laptop device”: a). Will the 4,000-5,000 laptops be furnished/owned and managed by the MDOC; b). Can MDOC provide the technical specifications, age, and condition of the existing devices that will be made available?; c). How will these devices be distributed across facilities? Is there a specific allocation plan by facility or security level?; d). Are the 4,000–5,000 devices currently in service, or is this the projected total once procurement and deployment are complete?; and e). What operating systems and software are currently installed or expected to be supported on these laptops? |
| A) The State currently owns and will continue to purchase the prisoner laptops. Management is one of the Services that DOC is interested in. DOC will help facilitate the distribution. |
B) Dell Latitude 5400 Chromebooks that are generally between 1 and 3 years old.
C) Roughly 4,000-5,000, which will serve as "in-classroom devices". Devices are in use at all 26 facilities, within the schools and law libraries.
D) The majority of these devices are already in service, but more will be added as WiFi becomes available in facility schools.
E) The devices operate on Chrome OS.
| 90 |
| Q&A Round 1 - Q #16 - Response Clarification |
| N/A |
| The State indicated that “the MDOC expects to have between 4,000-5,000 [prisoner laptop devices] available.” To allow contractors to develop accurate project cost estimates and an effective implementation plan/schedule, please provide following information regarding the “expected prisoner laptop device”: a). Are contractors expected to supply the 4,000-5,000 laptops as part of their proposal to this RFS?; b). How will these devices be distributed across facilities? Is there a specific allocation plan by facility or security level?; c). What operating systems and software are expected to be supported on these laptops?; d). What types of activities will inmates be permitted to perform on these laptops (e.g., education, communication, legal research)?; e). Does MDOC anticipate refreshing or replacing these devices during the term of the contract? and f). Is adequate charging infrastructure already in place at all facilities for supporting these laptops? |
| A) See Response to Round 2 Q&A #89. |
B) See Response to Round 2 Q&A #89.
C) See Response to Round 2 Q&A #89.
D) These devices will be used for educational activities, including academic, career and technical education, and post-secondary education activities, including accessing approved curriculums and completing course work.
E) Yes. Devices will likely be refreshed in the next 2-3 years.
F) Facilities have secure charging carts that allow for charging of the previously purchased devices. The Department is still reviewing in-classroom charging options.
| 91 |
| Q&A Round 1 - Q #23 - Response Clarification |
| N/A |
| The State indicated, “Any offender that is housed in a unit that has the Edovo tablet can utilize them.” To allow contractors to develop accurate project cost estimates and an effective implementation plan/schedule, please provide the following information: a). provide a list of the total number of Edovo tablets currently deployed at EACH individual MDOC facility location.; b). were Edovo tablets included in the 21,652 total tablets currently deployed throughout all 26 MDOC facilities as indicated in the State’s response to Q#16?; c). What is the typical timeframe for an offender to have their Edovo account set up after making a request?, Is there a backlog?; d). Once an account is created, do offenders receive unique login credentials, or is access managed through biometric or PIN authentication?; e). Are the programs offered on the Edovo platform accredited or recognized by external educational or vocational authorities?; and f). Who is responsible for providing technical support or troubleshooting issues with the Edovo tablets (MDOC, Edovo, or another party)? |
| A) WHV 210 |
ECF 351
IBC 120
LMF 181
TCF 220
AMF 200
B) No, the 21,652 total tablets are the number of current prisoner owned tablets from the State’s Contractor for media services (JPAY).
C) Typically, within 24 hours. There are no current back logs.
D) Yes, offenders receive unique login credentials, and it asks them to set their own password upon initial login. Local MDOC staff that are set up with admin accounts can go into the portal to reset passwords, or lock/unlock accounts.
E) No F) Currently, MDOC notifies Edovo of the issue and Edovo is responsible. Sometimes they will need local staff to assist with resetting devices/routers/switches, but they are the technical support on the back end and MDOC staff assist locally.
| 92 |
| Q&A Round 1 - Q #23 - Response Clarification |
| The State indicated, “After the initial investment, there are monthly charges for internet service and tablets. Tablet leases, which include access to all content, are $1.48 per tablet per day currently." To allow contractors to develop accurate project cost estimates, please provide the following information: a). What was the total “initial investment” cost?; b). What specifically is included in the “initial investment”? Does it cover infrastructure, installation, networking hardware, or any preloaded content?; c). What is the current monthly charge for internet service? Is it a fixed amount or variable based on bandwidth, usage, or facility size?; d). Does the $1.48/day lease rate apply only when tablets are actively in use, or is it charged per device regardless of utilization?; e). What content is included in the lease rate? Are there any premium features, applications, or content libraries that incur additional fees?; f). Is there a minimum lease term or contract period associated with the $1.48/day rate? Are there penalties for early termination?; g). Does the lease include device maintenance, replacements for damaged or lost tablets, and technical support?; h). Are the tablets ever owned by the facility or the Department after a certain period, or do they remain the property of the vendor throughout the lease?; i). Who is responsible for paying the daily lease charges—the agency, the vendor, or the inmate users?; j). Are tablet lease and internet service charges invoiced separately or bundled together on a single monthly invoice?, k). Is the daily lease charged based on the total number of tablets deployed, or only on the number actively in service or assigned?; and l). Does the lease fee include any bundled services (e.g., updates, analytics, educational platform access), or are those billed separately? |
| A) Several hundred thousand dollars over multiple sites and time. |
B) The upfront cost was for installing secure WiFi in the pilot units, which is moot, as that infrastructure is now being installed in all MDOC facilities. This does not cover "content", which is included in the per day lease amount.
C) Internet service varies by facility but is generally $300-$600 per facility per month.
D) The MDOC pays $1.48 for each tablet for each day they can be used. If a tablet is not used during a specific day, the MDOC is still charged.
E) There are no premium contents that increase the cost of the tablets. Information about the contents can be found on Edovo's website.
F) The current Edovo contract, including terms can be found at 472B7700063 CN 6.
G) Yes, the lease includes device replacement and support, unless the damage is intentional.
H) No, the tablets under this contract are never owned by the MDOC.
I) The agency pays all costs related to the Edovo tablets.
J) Bundled together.
K) It is based on the total number deployed.
L) There is a separate monthly fee of $1,000 for basic audit trail reports, as well as the ability to pay for additional reports. Pricing for services is included in the contract linked above.
| 93 |
| Schedule B - Pricing | Appendix B - Bundled Pricing |
| Multiple |
| Please confirm that proposers are allowed to add rows to the following tables: Table 2: Systems/Services/Hardware, Maintenance, Support & Hosting: Years 1-3; Table 3: Systems/Services/Hardware, Maintenance, Support & Hosting: Years 4-10; and Table 4: Implementation. |
| Bidders may add rows. |
| 94 |
| Schedule B - Pricing | Appendix B2, B3, B4… – Cost Tables: Individual System & Services |
| Multiple |
| Please confirm that proposers are allowed to add rows to the following tables: Table 2: Systems/Services/Hardware, Maintenance, Support & Hosting: Years 1-3; Table 3: Systems/Services/Hardware, Maintenance, Support & Hosting: Years 4-10; and Table 4: Implementation. |
| Bidders may add rows. |
| 95 |
| Attachment 1, Network Managed Services DM 14.0 |
| 20 |
| Will the State please confirm that DM 14.0 was intentionally left blank? |
| It was intentionally left blank. |
| 96 |
| Attachment 1, Network Managed Services IDS 16.0 |
| 29 |
| Will the State please confirm that IDS 16.0 was intentionally left blank? |
| It was intentionally left blank. |
| 97 |
| Attachment 1, Network Managed Services NMM 24.0 |
| 43 |
| Will the State please confirm that IDS 16.0 was intentionally left blank? |
| It was intentionally left blank. |
Attachment 1
NSM 5.0
| 6 |
| What is the number of WAPs for the MDOC wireless network per housing unit at each MDOC facility? These numbers are critical for the contractor to calculate the number of tablets that can be operated in each H.U. |
| See Response to Round 2 Q&A #67. |
Attachment 1
NSM 5.0
| 6 |
| Would the MDOC please list all of the hardware that is provided with the MDOC’s Wi-Fi network (make and model) including the DTMB managed access points and SOM managed firewalls. This is critical for the operation of the contractors tablet solution. |
| The hardware is provided by Cisco. Standard industry hardware and vendors are being utilized for this solution. Specifics can be provided after bid award. |
Attachment 1
NSM 26.0
| 13 |
| Does this requirement pertain to inmate emessages on the wireless tablet? |
| Yes the requirement pertains to inmate messages on the wireless tablets. |