OLCC RFP S-DASOBO-00008678 AMENDMENT 1 Q&A_FINAL FOR RELEASE.docx
DOCX document 35 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Web-based Software as a Service (SaaS) Solution - OLCC Integrated Distilled Spirits Supply Chain
- Solicitation number
- S-DASOBO-00008678
- Issued by
- Marion County, Oregon
About this file
This document is an amendment to a Request for Proposal (RFP) issued by the Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission (OLCC) for an Integrated Distilled Spirits Supply Chain Solution. The RFP seeks a comprehensive web-based Software as a Service (SaaS) solution, including a Point-of-Sale (POS) system, to be utilized across 285 retail liquor stores in the state of Oregon. The solution must integrate with the OLCC's existing systems and provide functionality for inventory management, ordering, reporting, customer loyalty programs, and eCommerce capabilities. The RFP was amended to provide responses to questions submitted by potential vendors, including details on the expected transaction volumes, number of licensed agents and store users, and integration requirements. A two-week extension to the proposal submission deadline was also granted, moving the due date to February 5, 2024.
Regarding pricing, the RFP indicates that OLCC currently processes approximately $589 million in annual sales, with an average of $1.6 million in daily credit card transactions. The agency is seeking a solution that can handle a range of payment types, including cash, checks, and gift cards. The RFP also outlines various requirements and capabilities related to inventory management, order fulfillment, incident reporting, and agent evaluations, among other functionalities.
View the file
Other files
Show all 19
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
RFP S-DASOBO-00008678 AMENDMENT 1
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY 12-20-2023
| # |
| RFP Reference |
| Question |
| Answer |
| 1. |
| RFP 2.3.2 |
POS End User Vision
| What is the end-user vision for the POS system? Does OLCC want an API to transmit inventory information to third-party POS system? If yes, are there OLCC or enterprise requirements to certify third-party POS providers that may want to connect to the regulatory system and can those requirements be shared during the procurement process? |
| OLCC is looking for a comprehensive Distilled Spirits Supply Chain solution including Point-of-Sale. Any integration from the regulatory system will be a push from regulatory to the Distilled Spirits Supply chain and will not require any public safety related requirements. |
See requirements DTF-01 through DTF-06 in Attachment H regarding Point of Sale Data Transfers. Please see Integration and Interface diagram on page 10 of Attachment I, Scope of Services.
Elavon is the state of Oregon’s merchant card acquirer and currently processes merchant card transactions, credit/debit cards. Check, cash, and gift card transactions are not processed through Elavon. Elavon acts as the card processor and currently provides INgenico countertop terminals to most Retail Liquor Stores but does not support a POS back-end inventory system or other payment options. There are approximately 15 million merchant card (credit/debit) transactions per year. Gift cards/cash/check are handled through a separate process outside of Elavon’s involvement.
| 2. |
| RFP 2.3.2 |
POS Transactions
| What are the total number of annual point of service transactions that would include sales, returns, exchanges, loyalty transactions, deal transactions, gift card transactions, inventory transactions, petty cash transactions, and/or administrative transactions. |
| Liquor Agents currently have a variety of privately contracted point-of-sale (POS) systems implemented in their stores. Because the current agent’s POS systems are independently owned, the OLCC does not have access to their individual POS transactions for non-distilled spirits items. OLCC does not have access to the number of transactions. |
Presently, the agents report daily sales and inventory via a flat file transmission to OLCC. OLCC is seeking a modern POS System as an enterprise-wide system across contract Liquor Stores. In 2021, $589,589,051 in sales were run through State bank card machines by 285 stores which includes both distilled spirits and non-distilled spirits sales. This calculates to $1,615,312.47 daily in credit card sales.
Below are broad estimates of transaction volume.
| Bank Card |
| Cash |
| Check |
| Total |
| 18M |
| 10M |
| 2.5M |
| 30M |
| 3. |
| RFP 2.3.2 |
Licensed Agents
| What is the expected number of licensed agents and store users that would need access? |
| There are 285 retail liquor stores. Employment totals as of June 2021, was an average 6.8 employees per retail liquor store. |
The number of hardware installations at each store varies based on sales volume ranging from one to four. The Agency estimates three hardware installations each for 175 Retail Liquor Stores and 1 hardware installation each for 110 Retail Liquor Stores, however final device counts and prices will be negotiated.
| 4. |
| RFP 3.3.1.5 Offshore Resources |
| To allow for prospective vendors to provide the most competitive pricing proposals, will the State consider allowing for off-shore resources to support technical work and other solution activities in solutions where the hosting is resident in a US data center? |
| Perhaps; see RFP Section 5.4.1. The question alone does not provide sufficient information to evaluate if resources outside of the United States or its territories can be considered as a negotiable item. The successful Proposer is expected to know and understand the laws, rules, and policies governing the information and systems that will be impacted by the Services, and the reasoning behind the geographical restriction noted in Section 3.3.1.5 of the RFP. A Proposer who wishes to include, either as its Offer or as an option, Services that are not provided from within the United States or its territories assumes the risks associated with the evaluation of such an Offer under the criteria set forth in the RFP and should be prepared to demonstrate how the Offer complies with the laws, rules, and policies governing the information and systems. |
| 5. |
| Location of Services |
| We have a partner based in Canada with extensive control state experience in eCommerce at Ohio, New Hampshire, and Wyoming. We intend to utilize this partner for this project. The Sample Contract, RFP Attachment A, states at Section 28.1, that “Any proposed use of a subcontractor which is located outside the United States must be called to the specific attention of DAS PS. All Services must be performed by staff physically located within the United States or its territories [This language may be adjusted if portions of the Services are expressly authorized for performance outside of the United States or its territories].” |
Will any exceptions be made for this OLCC project regarding services provided via a Canadian subcontractor?
See the response to question #4.
| 6. |
| Attachment H |
LSO-14
| Does OLCC have an Order Management System (OMS) / Brokering solution that supports Drop Ship (D/S)? what is the OMS in use? |
| OLCC is looking for a comprehensive Distilled Spirits Supply Chain solution. The current systems in use are Robocom/Rims for Warehouse Management System and a myriad of in-house built legacy systems that provide functionality for ordering, tracking, freight management, financial management, claims, transfers, adjustments, etc. Currently, each retail liquor store has their own independent contract with Point of Sale vendors. See Requirements LSO-01 through LSO-19 in Attachment H for Liquor Store Ordering. |
| 7. |
| Attachment H |
E-Commerce
| Are there any CRM or eCommerce integrations expected? What current systems are being utilized for CRM and/or eCommerce? How many eCommerce orders are expected to be supported? |
| OLCC is looking for a comprehensive Distilled Spirits Supply Chain solution that is fully integrated. (See requirements ECOM-01 through ECOM-05 in Attachment H) eCommerce requirements are low priority. The state does not currently provide eCommerce, however, would like to explore eCommerce opportunities. The requirements for CRM (CLP-01 through CLP-03 in Attachment H) identify the state’s desires for customer loyalty program – these are designated as low priority. See requirements DTF-01 through DTF-06 in Attachment H regarding Point of Sale Data Transfers. Please see Integration and Interface diagram on page 10 of Attachment I, Scope of Services. See also the response to question #8. |
| 8. |
| Attachment H |
E-Commerce
| How many CRM Customer/ Agent records? |
| Unknown as Liquor Agents currently have a variety of privately contracted point-of-sale systems implemented in their stores. OLCC estimates hundreds of thousands of store customers – based on Oregon population. Presently, they report daily sales and inventory via a flat file transmission to OLCC. OLCC is seeking a modern POS System as an enterprise-wide system across contract Liquor Stores. In 2021, $589,589,051 in sales were run through State bank card machines by 285 stores which includes both distilled spirits and non-distilled spirits sales. This calculates to $1,615,312.47 daily in credit card transactions. See also the response to question #7. |
| 9. |
| Attachment H |
| AGAC-04: What type of documents and at what quantity do you want to upload? |
| There may be times when a document not generated in the system such as a bank statement, lease, or signed contract may be required. Another example may include evidence provided in an incident report for a claim due to natural disasters or fraud such as photos. |
| 10. |
| Attachment H |
| AGDB-12: How many catalogs? Essentially “B2B Account Catalogs”? |
| The OLCC’s goal is to provide electronic methods for Licensees (such as restaurants or bars) to purchase distilled spirits from Retail Liquor Stores. The Distilled Spirits product catalog and order guides are tools to help facilitate orders based on available products. Order guides are equivalent to a Licensee order profile with the Liquor Store. |
| 11. |
| Attachment H |
E-Commerce
| How many orders will be Buy Online Pick-up in store annual number of direct-to-consumer orders processed through e-commerce or taken in store? |
| OLCC doesn’t currently offer e-commerce. Volume is unknown. See requirements ECOM-01 through ECOM-05 in Attachment H. |
| 12. |
| Attachment H |
| SUGR-01 - Suggested Replenishment Management? How are replenishment parameters managed, established? Replenishment based on Actual or Forecasted Sales? |
| Currently, the bailment inventory is managed by the distilled spirits suppliers. Replenishment needs are determined based on depletions (cases out) volume and item listing status. |
| 13. |
| Attachment H |
| SAR-01 - Sample Request. Who initiates the request? End customer, Agent? Agent - how would this be different that a standard Store Replenishment, Transfer Order? |
| A sample Request comes from a Distilled Spirits Supplier to purchase sample inventory from the OLCC warehouse. |
| 14. |
| Attachment H |
| INFR-01 - Incident Report. How is this different than standard Inventory Adjustment (by Reason Code) which determines the Financial GL Accounting entry. |
| Incident reports are filed for claims to be processed. Not all incidents result in a claim. Incidents can occur at the store level, freight carrier, or warehouse. See also the response to question #9. |
| 15. |
| Attachment H |
| LSO-17 -Transfer POS rights from Outgoing Agent to New. Q: explain this scenario? Sale of Store Location? |
| The distilled spirits inventory is attached to the store. When an outgoing Liquor Agent sells the store, the incoming Liquor Agent will have a contract with OLCC to sell the existing inventory. Inventory levels are validated through audit. |
| 16. |
| Attachment H |
Bailment Withdrawal
| Line 219. Please clarify the ways in which products can be withdrawn from bailment. |
| FSAR-04 is in reference to OLCC’s ability to pay Distilled Spirits Suppliers for product. When product is removed from Bailment, that is the point at which OLCC purchases the product from the Distilled Spirits Supplier. OLCC pays for product when it is removed from Bailment when it is shipped to Liquor Stores. However, product can also be removed from Bailment by delisting, or transferring stock from OLCC warehouse back to the Distilled Spirits Supplier. |
| 17. |
| Attachment H |
License Agent Evaluations
| How does OLCC envision that captured data is to be presented to Liquor Agents for evaluations and what is the frequency? |
| OLCC envisions a real-time or near real-time data view. See Requirements Agent Dashboard AGDB-01 through AGDB-11; Data View DV-01 through DV-04; and Analytics/Reporting ANRP-01 through ANRP-18 in Attachment H. Retail Liquor Agent evaluations are completed annually. |
| 18. |
| Attachment H |
Form Completion
| Column I - Proposer Comments, Descriptions, and Explanation has a cell validation which is identical to Column H - Proposers Response. Our understanding based on the Instructions is that Column I should be a freeform cell for the Proposers to enter their response information. Is it okay to put values into Column I that do not match the cell validations? |
| Yes, Column I should be freeform text. OLCC provides a corrected version via Amendment 1 to the RFP. |
| 19. |
| Attachment H |
Form Completion There are a few requirements in Attachment H that ask about the ability to interface to third party systems. For example ANRP-02, ANRP-03, ECOM-04, and ECOM - 05. Solutions today have a full stack integration framework with robust built in APIs. This gives the base solution the ability to meet the integration requirement. However depending upon the specific integration specification (which are not known) there maybe additional effort from OLCC, the Vendor, or the solution partner.
Can OLCC provide some clarity on how they would like integrations to be classified for Proposers Response (Column H). Where the Requirement description provides the ability to interface, does OLCC consider Integrations base functionality, or requiring new development?
OLCC understands that some work may be required for out-of-the box APIs to be functional. The intent of the requirements is to identify what kinds of integration methods are available in the proposed system(s), which ones are inherent or native, and which ones will need to be created from scratch, with a range of options in between. In Attachment H, please respond to column H based on your knowledge of the proposed system’s functionality and provide more detail in column I to explain how your system supports your response. Please see descriptions of column H options in the Instructions Tab of Attachment H beginning on row 17.
| 20. |
| Attachment H |
Form Completion In Attachment H there are several reporting requirements. Our solution includes a robust reporting framework including base reporting and a Beverage Reporting accelerator. In Proposers Response (Column H), our team is marking those requirements included in base or the accelerator as ""Meets with base system functionality"".
For reporting, which is not in base or the Accelerator, would the item be marked as ""meets with customization"" or ""New Development Required""?
For other requirements there are questions about the ability to filter, sort, query on the information (DIV-01, USIN-02.2, USIN-05, PDCG-14, etc.). These abilities are native to the reporting solution (Power BI) and we are considering those as ""Meeting with base system functionality"". Does this approach align with OLCC's intent for response to reporting requirements?"
Please see descriptions of column H options in the Instructions Tab of Attachment H beginning on row 17. There is a distinction between “Meets with Customization” (Row 20) and “Meets with New Development,” (Row 21).
Customization: Feature/function will be available by the proposed go-live date of the planned phase via minimal changes to the source code.
New Development: Feature/function requires significant new development not provided by out of the box functionality that will be available within the proposed go-live date of the planned phase.
In Attachment H, please respond to column H based on your knowledge of the proposed system’s functionality and provide more detail in column I to explain how your system supports your response.
| 21. |
| Extension Request |
| We have a dependency on a couple of questions being responded to that will impact our staffing and pricing models. In addition, holiday staffing in key areas of our business impact our ability to prepare the solution and pricing models. Therefore, we request a 3 week extension. |
| A 2-week extension is granted. The RFP Opening, i.e., the Proposal submission deadline, is extended from January 22, 2024, to February 5, 2024, by 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time. |
2 | Page
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .