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 101-160
| Q# |
| Document and Section |
| Page# / Requirement# |
| Bidder Question |
| State Answer |
Attachment 1
NSM 26.0
| 13 |
| Would the MDOC please clarity if the requirement is specifying that the behavior analytics are for the inmates or for facility staff? |
| This would be for the prisoner population only. |
Attachment 1
IAM 12.0
| 23 |
| Can the MDOC clarify what the definition of a "tag" is? Are the tags being used for inmate groupings? |
| Disregard “Tag” as a data field identifier. |
Attachment 2
MS 24.0
| 21 |
| Can the MDOC clarify what the refunds are in reference to? I.E. are these for tablet refunds for inmate media purchases? |
| Since the State is now seeking a State purchased tablet solution, this would be for inmate media purchases. |
Attachment 2
MS 25.0
| 21 |
| Can the MDOC please clarify what items are likely to be returned if media from Media apps are what is being discussed here? |
| This could be various types of issues including but not limited to damaged media, incorrectly purchased items, or if something is purchased by a prisoner and they are discharged (parole or expire) before they receive the purchased media. |
Attachment 2
MS 25.0
| 21 |
| Can the MDOC please clarify what items are likely to be returned if media from Media apps are what is being discussed here? |
| See Response to Round 2 Q&A #104. |
Attachment 2
MS 26.0
| 21 |
| Would the MDOC provide the number of active inmate tablets, number of purchased songs, albums, purchased games, emails, photo attachments, videograms, any other media the current inmates may have purchased that the contractor will have to pay for or transition? |
| Please see responses to Round 1 Q&A #s 16, 20, and 24. |
Also see responses to Round 2 Q&A #s 64 and 65.
Attachment 2
MS 29.0
| 22 |
| Can the MDOC clarify that this requirement is perceived to be part of the tablet e-messaging application? If so, would the MDOC allow the contractor to offer an alternative method of messaging similar to SMS texting? |
| This requirement was not solely meant for the e-messaging application, but could be considered for that solution. The Contractor should propose applicable solutions for the e-messaging application with their bid response for the state to consider. 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. |
Attachment 2
MS 29.0
| 22 |
| Is the document the inmates are creating for education or for a legal aspect? If not, please specify. |
| The intent is for mostly education and note purposes but could be used for legal notes as well. The intent of this requirement is also just to allow access to document creation that could be used for letters to friends and families or any other function for writing/typing as needed. |
Attachment 2
MS 29.0
| 22 |
| Is this document required to be created on the tablet or another device? |
| The document creation should occur on the prisoner tablet solution. |
Attachment 2 MS 29.0 - Optional
| 22 |
| The tablet solution does not normally allow for public viewing of movies. Can MDOC please clarify how the movies are going to be displayed to the inmates as a group activity. |
| This optional requirement was not intended for the prisoner device solution, but as a solution for the State in general that will allow the State to purchase movie licenses for public viewings within facilities. Please provide in your bid response applicable considerations for the service if you choose to reply to this optional requirement. The State undersatnds this may be a different price model and a servcie you are unable to offer. |
Attachment 2 ELL 3.0 - Optional
| 60 |
| If MDOC is using LexisNexis as the vendor for ELL. Does the MDOC plan on using this vendor for this contract? |
| Lexis Nexis (RELX) is the current ELL Contactor and will continue to use this contractor through the end of their contract term. The State will continue to manage a separate ELL contract that is specific to Michigan Law and Courts. |
Attachment 2 ELL 3.0 - Optional
| 60 |
| Can MDOC please clarify if MDOC prisoners at a facility other than MDOC facilities, are these other facilities going to be under that same contract with the same contractor as the MDOC contractor for this contract? |
| The State is open to solutions to resolve this issue. It does not need to be the current ELL Contractor, but the content must be the same as what is available to other MDOC prisoners (Must be based on Michigan Law and courts. |
| 113 |
| Inmate Services RFS document |
| 1 |
| Given the breadth of the questions and scope of the bid, would the State consider extending the due date to June 25th as the State responses to the bidder questions are not due back to bidders until 05/23/25 and this only gives 4 business days to respond to all requirements and submit the bid given the Memorial Day holiday. |
| 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. |
| 114 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS |
| N/A |
| In attempt to try and summarize this in a way to help us understand the ask and provide pertinent solutions, we are categorizing system/services into 3 categories. |
1. Network Infrastructure and Security
a. Network Security and Monitoring (NSM)
b. Identity Access Management (IAM)
c. Network Management & Maintenance (NMM)
d. Internet Service Provider (ISP)
2. Device Deployment, Management, and Support
a. Prisoner Handheld Devices and Peripherals (PD)
b. Device Management (DM)
c. Prisoner Device Support (PDS)
3. Inmate Solutions
a. Electronic Deposits and Release Debit Cards (EDRC)
b. Multimedia Services (MS)
c. Intelligence Analysis (IA)
d. Prisoner Telephone System (TS)
e. Prisoner Video Visitation (VV)
f. Requests and Messaging (ME)
g. General Requests (GR) (subsection of ME)
h. Medical Requests (MR) (subsection of ME)
i. Educational Services (ES)
j. Document Repository (DR)
k. Store Services (SS)
l. Electronic Law Library (ELL)
m. Future Considerations (FC) The rest of our questions are based on this assumption. Please correct any misunderstanding if the segmentations above are incorrect.
Not a question. This could be categorized in several ways and the one presented in this question is one way it could be done.
| 115 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS |
| N/A |
| Vendors are going to bid on one or many of the solutions, and it appears that MDOC is looking for a best-in-breed approach paired with ultimate flexibility. With this in mind, it seems like MDOC will likely select multiple vendors based on where their expertise lies. Does MDOC intend to manage and integrate the selected vendors or is that an additional scope of work that should be considered? |
| This would be dependent on the solutions received by the State via this RFS. The State would consider all options in providing these services including multiple awards to contractors. Where applicable the state may integrate solutions where it makes sense to do so and creates a best value to the State. |
| 116 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS |
| N/A |
| We want to bid on the Network Infrastructure and Security Services selection and its unclear where our support would start and MDOC’s ends. Ideally, we would love an opportunity to have another live conversation to understand what the ask actually is, is that an option to have with access to an MDOC enterprise technology architect that’s helping to plan this? If a live conversation isn’t possible, the best attempt to ask relevant questions are below. We are also including a diagram of what we think is included/not included. |
a. Are you asking for a network solution that sits behind MDOC’s network, that utilizes a Cisco Wireless Access Point deployment that’s currently underway? Do we need to assume that all the switching, power, racking, cabling, etc. will all be done as part of that initiative, or is this part of this RFS’s scope? If it is included in the other scope, would our scope increase over time as each site came online? Basically, are we deploying any networking hardware as part of this RFS or are we taking over management of those systems as they are deployed? If we are taking over management as sites are deployed and come online, what is the estimate of firewalls, switches, access points, battery backups, and wireless controllers to be taken over?
b. From a security standpoint, can we assume we can utilize cloud-based systems and applications for log aggregation, security monitoring/alerting, etc.?
c. From an internet circuit standpoint, since the RFS/Question Log states we will be acting behind an MDOC owned firewall, what additional internet circuits will need provided?
The State is not going to provide any further pre-bid live conversations or access to State subject matter experts before bids are due.
A. The proposed network architecture should be implemented beyond the State-owned and managed firewall. However, all traffic will traverse State-operated wireless access points, utilizing distinct SSIDs and VLANs, before passing through the State-managed firewall and entering the newly deployed network under the bidder’s administration. For reference, the “Route Path” diagram illustrates the intended traffic flow. Regarding infrastructure responsibilities, the State will oversee switching, power management, and rack configurations for State-managed access points, including the switching located downstream of these access points. Depending on the bidder’s proposed solution, additional network hardware may be required to support the new inmate network. This hardware would be deployed outside of the State-managed firewall, negating the need for the bidder to assume operational control of the access points or switching equipment behind the firewall.
B. That is an accurate interpretation. Bidders are permitted to propose solutions incorporating cloud-based security monitoring and/or Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) frameworks.
C. The proposed solution should accommodate an ISP-based model. Specifically, the State will relay traffic originating from inmate tablets via the State-managed SSID, through the State-operated firewall, and into a designated ISP before entering the vendor-provisioned network for monitoring, processing, and internet access. Please refer to the route path diagram for additional clarity on traffic routing.
| 117 |
| 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 we 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 visualization of existing networks and equipment and future intended state? |
| Please see Round 1 Q&A # 249. |
| 118 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS, Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) |
| 3-13 |
| Can we assume there is a vendor in place that handles low voltage cabling? |
| Please see Round 1 Q&A # 167. |
| 119 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS, Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) |
| 3-13 |
| Can we assume there is a vendor in place that handles low power needs? |
| Please see response from Round 2 Q&A #118. |
| 120 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS, Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) |
| 3-13 |
| In the event of network equipment failure or issues that require manual manipulation, is there onsite staff that can assist in troubleshooting? |
| Please see response from Round 1 Q&A # 169. |
| 121 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS, Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) |
| 3 |
| What is the current network security architecture for the standalone network? Is there a firewall and IPS for North/South traffic? Is there a DNS security/content filtering solution like Cisco Umbrella? |
| No, this is a new network being develop and installed and these are the services being requested via this RFS. |
| 122 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS, Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) |
| 3-13 |
| How many people will be responsible for ticket entry and communication? |
| Please see response to Round 1 Q&A # 170. |
| 123 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS, Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) |
| 3-13 |
| Is there staff onsite or does the vendor need to staff? |
| Please see response to Round 1 Q&A # 169. |
| 124 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS, Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) |
| All |
| What is the current network security architecture for the standalone network? Is there a firewall and IPS for North/South traffic? Is there a DNS security/content filtering solution in place? |
| Please see response to Round 2 Q&A #121. |
| 125 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS, Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) |
| 3-13 |
| Please confirm the intended management boundary for the Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) and Network Management and Maintenance (NMM) services. Our understanding is that the vendor will be responsible for the inmate-side infrastructure, including MDOC-installed switching and vendor-supplied connectivity to hosted solutions. This infrastructure resides entirely behind the SOM-managed firewall. Once traffic is passed through the SOM-managed firewall, it would terminate at a vendor-managed firewall, behind which would reside core NSM/NMM services—such as DNS, DHCP, monitoring, logging, and SIEM—as well as secure links to hosted SaaS or cloud management systems. Can MDOC confirm or clarify this network architecture and security zone alignment? See included diagram "MDOC_NSM_NMM_Network_Architecture_Diagram_v4.png". |
The bidder’s confirmation aligns closely with the State’s requirements, with key distinctions primarily in the definition of the network boundary. The vendor will assume responsibility for the inmate-side infrastructure, extending outward from the vendor-managed firewall. Conversely, the State will retain ownership and operational control of the access points and switching components situated behind the State-operated firewall.
| 126 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS, Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) |
| 3-13 |
| Does the State permit a third-party–hosted Security Operations Center (SOC) to fulfill the monitoring and incident response requirements defined under the NSM scope, provided that all data retention, access controls, and integration with State incident response protocols are maintained? |
| Yes, the State will permit this. |
| 127 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS, Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) |
| 3-13 |
| We understand that MDOC cannot disclose detailed infrastructure inventories for security reasons, and that wireless access points are State-provided and already deployed. That said, for planning purposes under the NSM and NMM scopes, can MDOC provide any approximate estimates or planning guidance regarding the expected number of access points and network switches to be monitored and managed across the prisoner network? |
| The State does not have this information at this time as this network is currently being installed and some of the sites have not been surveyed yet. If additional APs are needed the State will consider those needs and address accordingly. Contractor should consider the number of inmates at each facility and the number of access points and switches that would be required to provide the services requested in this RFS. |
| 128 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS, Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) |
| 3-13 |
| Given the requirements for logging, maintenance, monitoring, incident response, and NAC enforcement—will the awarded vendor be granted administrative or integration-level access to the wireless controllers, access points, or switching infrastructure deployed and managed by the State, in order to deliver a fully functional NSM and NMM solution? |
| The State will not be granting administrative or integration-level access. |
| 129 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS, Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) |
| 3-13 |
| The QA responses indicate that the State is providing the wireless access points and an inmate SSID that routes through the SOM-managed firewall. They also state that the vendor is expected to provide 'the rest of the network components (switches and routers) where the prisoner applications will live,' which appears to refer to connectivity between the inmate network and the vendor-hosted solution stack. However, it is less clear whether this includes the access-layer switching infrastructure that aggregates the State-supplied access points. While it seems implied that the vendor will be responsible for managing that switching, can MDOC clarify whether the vendor is also expected to procure and physically deploy that infrastructure at each facility? |
| The vendor will assume responsibility for the inmate-side infrastructure, extending outward from the vendor-managed firewall. Conversely, the State will retain ownership and operational control of the access points and switching components situated behind the State-operated firewall. |
The State does not anticipate assigning the bidder responsibility for administering the infrastructure that consolidates State-provided access points.
However, the bidder may be required to deploy network hardware as part of the implementation of the new inmate network, contingent upon the proposed solution.
| 130 |
| Schedule A, Attachment 1 - Network Managed Services Business Specifications Worksheet - ISP 3.0 |
| 34 |
| In the requirement "This must include any steps required to get subcontracted installers approved to access MDOC correctional facilities", what is the process to access MDOC facilities? |
| Please see section 20.4- MDOC Security of the RFS. Essentially, they will need to complete the LEIN process. |
| 131 |
| Schedule A, Attachment 1 - Network Managed Services Business Specifications Worksheet - ISP 3.0 |
| 35 |
| Is MDOC seeking pricing locks for the term of the agreement? |
| Yes. |
| 132 |
| N/A |
| N/A |
| In addition to the extension previously requested by another vendor, one more round of questions would be helpful in order to clarify intent and streamline responses. |
| There will not be a third Q&A for this bid process. |
| 133 |
| Schedule A, Attachment 1: Network Managed Services Business Specifications Worksheet | Requirements Network Security and Monitoring (NSM)- NSM 19 |
| 10 |
| Does MDOC / DTMB have the ability to host in State of Michigan Data Centers the NSM components of the RFS? |
| No, not at this time. |
| 134 |
| The Contractor must provide an identity / access management solution that enables administrators to manage end users (i.e., Prisoners), including but not limited to, user accounts, access control, and authentication. IAM 1.0 |
| 20 |
| Does MDOC / DTMB have the ability to host in State of Michigan Data Centers the IAM components of the RFS? |
| No, not at this time. |
| 135 |
| DM0010_MDOC_Inmate_Services_RFS*.docx”, Schedule E – Data Security Requirements – item 3 |
| 178 |
| Would you please provide a copy of the non-public IT documents or grant access to some other website? |
| Bidders must sign a non-disclosure agreement before the State can share the non-public State IT policies and standards. Bidders seeking this information may email a request directly to the Solicitation Manager requesting the same. |
| 136 |
| DM0014_Schedule A, Attachment 1: Network Managed Services Business Specifications Worksheet - Requirements Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) – 1st paragraph |
| 4 |
| Would you please provide a copy of DTMB Policy 1345.00.05 – (Enterprise Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) Standard)? |
| 1345.00.05 Enterprise Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) Standard.pdf |
| 137 |
| DM0014_Schedule A, Attachment 1: Network Managed Services Business Specifications Worksheet - Requirements Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) - NSM 5.0 |
| 6 |
| When running tablets on the SOM-managed Wi-Fi network, will the vendor have access to the firewall and/or other network and infrastructure logs in order to properly monitor tablet network traffic for security anomalies and events? |
| The State will not grant access to the State-managed firewall. 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. |
| 138 |
| DM0014_Schedule A, Attachment 1: Network Managed Services Business Specifications Worksheet - Requirements Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) - NSM 26.0 |
| 13 |
| On which devices is MDC requesting keylogging? |
MDOC is requesting “Keylogging” on any prisoner assigned device.
| 139 |
| DM0014_Schedule A, Attachment 1: Network Managed Services Business Specifications Worksheet - Requirements Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) - NSM 3.0 |
| 6 |
| MDOC is requiring network monitoring, but the Vendor devices will be on the SOM-managed Wi-Fi network (once deployed). Please clarify the scope, timing, and duration of the network monitoring requirements. |
The vendor device traffic will traverse the state's access points before being directed to the state's managed firewall. Upon reaching this firewall, the traffic will be routed through a vendor-managed Internet Service Provider (ISP) and subsequently into the vendor-controlled network infrastructure, which hosts vendor-administered applications. Continuous monitoring of this data path is essential, encompassing both inbound and outbound traffic to and from the vendor-provided network.
| 140 |
| DM0014_Schedule A, Attachment 1: Network Managed Services Business Specifications Worksheet - Requirements Network Management & Maintenance (NMM) - Intro |
| 37 |
| Is the Vendor expected to fulfill the requirements described in NMM for the SOM-Managed Wi-Fi network? |
See answer to question # 78, Round 2.
| 141 |
| DM0014_Schedule A, Attachment 1: Network Managed Services Business Specifications Worksheet - Requirements Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) - NSM 3.0 |
| 6 |
| How can the contractor participate in the SOM network design, including wireless coverage, technology selection, etc., so that the performance and security desired by the state can be achieved? |
| See answer to question # 78, Round 2. |
| 142 |
| DM0014_Schedule A, Attachment 1: Network Managed Services Business Specifications Worksheet - Requirements Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) - Intro |
| 4 |
| Does the contractor have the ability to install their own firewalls to manage their traffic (e.g., VPN tunnels) over and above the state managed firewall referenced in the intro paragraph? |
Yes, the expectation is that there will be Vendor managed firewalls available to tie into the selected ISP and receive traffic from the SOM Managed firewall.
| 143 |
| DM0014_Schedule A, Attachment 1: Network Managed Services Business Specifications Worksheet - Requirements Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) - - Intro |
| 4 |
| There are references to contractor network and the SOM managed Wi-Fi network. Is the contractor network expected to be a wired network or a Wi-Fi network? |
The SOM is eager to examine all possible solutions you offer to support the SOM's efforts to build an inmate network. Please see “Route Path” document provided during Round 1 Q&A.
| 144 |
| DM0010_MDOC Inmate Services RFS – Software Contract Terms and Conditions - 9. Software Acceptance Testing – 9.4 Failure of Acceptance Tests. |
| 52 |
| Should Section 9.4(b) read as follows “(b) receipt of the State’s notice under Subsection 9.3(a) or 9.3(c)(i), identifying any Nonconformities”? |
Yes, this is a typo. It should read, “(b) receipt of the State’s notice under Subsection 9.3 (a) or (c)(i), identifying any Nonconformities.”
| 145 |
| DM0010_MDOC Inmate Services RFS – Schedule A – Statement of Work - Item 20.4 MDOC Security |
| 111 |
| Does 20.4. MDOC Security apply to the staff who are working on site, or does it include anyone working on this contract including those who are working at the call centers? |
It depends on their level of involvement. Call center staff would be exempt from these requirements. Most certainly would include any staff or sub-contractor staff that came on site to one of the MDOC facilities. Any staff that would be onsite would need to adhere to those requirements and security processes like LEIN clearance and trainings.
| 146 |
| DM0051_Schedule A, Attachment 2: Prisoner Services Business Specifications – Requirements Electronic Deposits and Release Debit Cards (EDRC) – EDRC 20.0 |
| 15 |
| Is this for all channels? Website, Mobile, Kiosk, MG, etc. or all of the above? |
| Yes, this would be for all channels of this solution. |
| 147 |
| DM0051_Schedule A, Attachment 2: Prisoner Services Business Specifications – Requirements Electronic Deposits and Release Debit Cards (EDRC) – EDRC 20.0 |
| 15 |
| Regarding the relationship to the prisoner, is that provided today? |
| Yes, that information is being provided today. |
| 148 |
| DM0051_Schedule A, Attachment 2: Prisoner Services Business Specifications – Requirements Electronic Deposits and Release Debit Cards (EDRC) – EDRC |
| 10 |
| Will gate money also be loaded onto the Release Card? If so, please confirm if this is the current gate money policy of Michigan DOC: https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-791-237 |
| This depends on how the prisoner is leaving custody. Typically, any funds provided to the prisoner that exceeds $25 in total upon leaving a facility will be loaded onto the Release Card. The referenced link in your question is the Michigan Compiled Law that the MDOC policy is derived from. The current MDOC policy can be found at Trust Policy. |
| 149 |
| Questions 1-101, number 20. |
| 15 |
| Would the state please clarify if the number listed for phone calls usage is the actual number of calls or actual call minutes for all calls during the identified time frame of 2018 to present. |
| Correction- the 825,964,890 from Round 1 Q&A #20, is the amount of phone “records” currently held by current Contractor for migration purposes. For more accurate information please see responses to Round 2 Q&A # 64. |
| 150 |
| Schedule A, Attachment 1 and Schedule A, Attachment 2 |
| All pages |
| Can column D be formatted to our standard formatting and font size which is left justified, Opens Sans size 11, with colored headings to separate sections? |
| Please do not reformat the document. |
| 151 |
| DM0051_Schedule A, Attachment 2: Prisoner Services Business Specifications – Requirements Multimedia Services (MS) |
| 48 |
| System must work with MDOC-approved mobile devices. Please clarify what approved mobile devices MDOC has approved. |
| Please see response from Round 1 Q&A # 32. |
| We respectfully request a 2-week extension to address new information provided in round 2 question? |
| 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. |
| 153 |
| Schedule B |
| Tables 1-3 |
| Regarding Schedule B: Pricing. Can you please clarify the instructions for Table 1: Cost Summary? Based Years are identified as Years 1-3, but instructions direct using the total from Table 2, where the total has Years 1-5. Likewise, Table 1: Cost Summary Option Years 1-4 directs using total from Table 3, but table 3 has Years 6-10. |
| Please see RFS version 2 documents for updates to the Schedule B Pricing. |
| Will the MDOC consider purchasing services offered in this RFP using an existing master service agreement with the State of Michigan to make this award, instead of negotiating a new agreement? |
| Bidders must respond to this RFS per its instructions to be considered for an award. The State intends to create new agreement(s) through this RFS but reserves the right to procure through any other vehicle already available to the State. That said, bidders who do not follow the response instructions herein may lose technical evaluation points or be disqualified if deemed non-responsive. |
| 155 |
| RFS Document; Solicitation Timeline |
| 1 |
| Due to the complexity of this project, and the dependency of solutioning on the State's answers to questions, would the State please grant an extension to the deadline? |
| 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. |
| 156 |
| Schedule A, Attch 1 Network MS Business Specifications; Requirements Network Security and Monitoring |
| 5 |
| Is 24x7 network security alert monitoring part of the managed services requirements? if so, who would get the alerts and action them? Ex. A device attempts to access resources not allowed and an alert is generated. |
| Yes, 24x7 security alert monitoring is required for the managed services. Prisoner should have limited access to devices as defined by DOC. The network would need to be monitored for “rouge” devices that should not have access to this network but are either attempting access or have been able to gain access to this network. |
The State is asking the contracted solution to identify security issues, mitigate those issues, and report on the security issues to the MDOC intelligence and MiSOC.
| 157 |
| Schedule A Attch 1 Network MS Business Specifications; Requirements Network Management and Maintenance NMM 1.0 |
| 35 |
| Since the State owns the switches and access points in the prisons, does MDOC want the new Managed Network Service provider to coordinate with DTMB Network Services team to fix switch and access point issues? If yes, please provide some details on that coordination process. For example, when communicating with DTMB Network Services, is there a particular ticketing system that the managed services provider needs to integrate to? |
| Only on the new prisoner network. For this new prisoner network DTMB network Services would not be involved with this network from the demarcation point as identified in the “Route Path” document from Round 1 Q&A. |
| 158 |
| Schedule A Attch 1 Network MS Business Specifications; Requirements Identity Access Management |
| 19 |
| Does the State envision that all 38 prison facilities will be a connected network at some level? As a followup for background on why that question is being asked - will central identity services or other shared network services be able to be accessed no matter what prison you are in, or will there need to be separate instances for each prison? |
| Yes, the State intends to have all facilities be on a connected network at some level. The State would also need the ability to access specific facility detail. With IAM, MDOC prisoners may be transferred between facilities frequently and ability to track these prisoners among multiple facilities will be required. Please note that the MDOC currently only has 27 correctional facilities. |
| 159 |
| General, possibly applies to several solutions |
| N/A |
| Are containerized solutions allowed, such as Docker or Kubernetes? |
| Yes, containerized solutions are allowed. |
| 160 |
| Schedule A Attch 1 Network MS Business Specifications; Requirements Network Security and Monitoring 24.0 |
| 13 |
| What are the export format standards for audit logs (JOSN, STIX, etc.)? |
| The State does not know this until the NSM solution is defined from this RFS. |
image1.png