Q&A - #2 - FINAL.pdf

Q&A #2

Issued May 4th, 2023

Project Title: Local Telecommunica�ons Services

Solicita�on Number – 001B2600465

1. Can the due date of proposals be adjusted to give adequate �me to submit a�er reviewing the Q&A document?

Response: The RFP submission deadline has been extended to April 21st, 2023 @ 2 PM via amendment #4. If the State determines that a further extension is warranted, the State will make an adjustment by amendment.

2. Purpose - Sec�on 2.2 - Can the State further define its requirements for diversity?

Response: Diverse rou�ng provides two different cables routed via two different and dis�nct paths from the local central office to the intended site. Dual homing is the ability to connect to two different central offices from the same customer loca�on. The State does not wish to dictate the possible solu�ons.

3. Account Access - Sec�on 2.3.1 - In the current agreement, we cared for CPNI requirements in the Account Access sec�on. Can the State please amend the current Account Access sec�on similarly? Per Amendment #6 to RFP #060B3490013

Response: Yes. See Amendment #6.

4. Performance - Sec�on 2.4.3 - Access and egress GOS are controlled, to a large degree, by the amount of network connec�vity (e.g., PBX trunks) that a user elects to u�lize at the access or egress site – a factor over which the Vendor has no control. Therefore, GOS repor�ng from a PBX would generally be done by an equipment vendor. We can provide GOS reports through the network backbone only. The output would be a busy study report. Therefore, would the State please amend this requirement to remove monthly sta�s�cs and replace with busy study upon request?

Response: See Amendment #6.

5. Out of Scope - Sec�on 2.5.6 - We can block directory assistance calls on dial tone lines with the use of a feature called Call Gate. This feature is not currently on the pricing forms. Would the State please allow a space on the price forms for this service?

Response: No, the pricing forms will not change for this item. The State encourages offerors to fully load all overhead into its pricing. Please see the financial proposal instruc�ons, which define fully loaded.

6. Sec�on 2.6.2 - D – Who will be the DGS Contract Manager?

Response: Currently, Fred Payne. Note, however, that the Department may change the Contract Manager at any �me by writen no�ce to the Contractor.

7. Sec�on 2.6.2 – D – Who will be the Contract Monitor for this contract?

Response: See Response to Ques�ons #6.

8. Sec�on 2.6.4 – D – What are the Contract Monitors roles and responsibili�es?

Response: See paragrapher 37 of RFP Atachment M.

9. Service Order Fulfillment – Sec�on 2.7 - There are exis�ng Tariff/Guide services in use by the State that are not designated on the Financial Proposal forms. We would like to respec�ully request the addi�on of all available services to the Financial Proposal forms. In keeping with Sec�on 2.7.1 and Sec�on 2.8, Procedure for Adding a Service Offering, will the State allow us to add all available services to the Financial Proposal forms for review?

Response: No changes will be made to the pricing form for this request. A�er ini�al proposals are submited the State will determine if a cure is necessary for informa�on that is needed.

10. Service Ordering/Cancella�on on process – Sec�on 2.7.2 – A. Service Order Submission - Is the state reques�ng the capability to place their own orders in contractor's ordering system? Also, is there a requirement to integrate contractor's ordering system with the State's ordering system?

Response: The answer to both ques�ons is no.

11. Service Ordering/Cancella�on on process – Sec�on 2.7.2 – A. Service Order Submission - Please clarify whether the approval will be provided by DoIT or DGS.

Response: Please see Amendment #6.

12. Service Ordering/Cancella�on on process – Sec�on 2.7.2 – A. Service Order Submission - RFP Sec�on 2.1.10 allows other State and local en��es to purchase goods or services covered by this contract. Would those customers place direct orders with the contractor, or would they seek approval and purchase processing through DOIT or DGS?

Response: All State en��es, i.e., a department, board, commission, agency, or a subunit in the Execu�ve branch of State government would go through DGS.

If a local en�ty, that is, a county, municipal corpora�on, bi-county or mul�county agency, public authority, special taxing district, or other poli�cal subdivision or unit of a poli�cal subdivision of this State (note that "local en�ty" also includes boards of educa�on and library boards that receive funding from the State), wanted to purchase goods or services under the Contract, then they would have to enter into their own contract with the Contractor. DGS would not be involved in that.

13. Service Ordering/Cancella�on Process – Sec�on 2.7.2 – B. Service Order Tracking - Our web portal contains a module for Service Order Tracking but does not currently meet all the requirements of this sec�on. Would the State agree to the development of a mutually agreeable Service Order Tracking Plan as a part of the Project Management Plan?

Response: Proposed changes to or devia�ons from the State’s requirements are generally considered during the evalua�on of an Offeror’s Response to the RFP. Specific product offerings or alterna�ves will be evaluated by the procurement officer and the evalua�on commitee.

14. Procedure for adding a service offering, tax or surcharge – Sec�on 2.8.2 – Please confirm whether the approval will be provided by DoIT or DGS?

Response: Please see Amendment #6.

15. Repairs/Trouble Tickets – Sec�on 2.9.2 – H – Will the Contract Manager provide the contractor with a list of TC’s and their contact info in order to facilitate this ac�vity?

Response: Yes.

16. Training and Documenta�on – Sec�on 2.10 - This requirement appears to contradict Sec�on 4.33

– Nonvisual Access, which states: “This solicita�on does not contain Informa�on Technology (IT) provisions requiring Nonvisual Access.” Please confirm which of these sec�ons is applicable.

Response: There is no conflict. Since, per RFP Sec�on 4.33, the State’s nonvisual access requirements are not applicable to this Contract, there are no documenta�on or training requirements imposed on the Contractor.

17. Inventory Reports – Sec�on 2.11.2 – Who will be the DGS Contract Manager?

Response: See Response to Ques�on #6.

18. Invoicing Reports – Sec�on 2.11.3 - The informa�on requested will be available on each invoice.

However, there is no report that will generate this informa�on across all accounts. These types of reports would require a manual effort. Would the State be willing to amend the price forms to include labor hours for this task? Or would the State be willing to remove this requirement?

Response: Repor�ng requirements will remain unchanged. The State encourages offerors to fully load all overhead into its pricing. Please see the financial proposal instruc�ons, which define fully loaded.

19. Invoicing – 3.2.1 – A – We are unclear on what is meant by “signed authoriza�on to invoice to the Contract Monitor.” What form would a signed authoriza�on take?

Response: See Amendment #6.

20. Invoicing – 3.2.1 – A – Is a Purchase Order the same as a signed authoriza�on?

Response: See Amendment #6.

21. Invoicing – 3.2.1 – A – Please clarify the requirement to invoice the "appropriate agency". Is this a requirement for separate individual invoices per agency or just one invoice to the state separated by agency?

Response: Separate individual invoices per agency.

22. Invoicing – 3.2.1 – C – Our system does not currently label invoices with LATA informa�on. Would the State consider removing this requirement?

Response: No. This informa�on needs to be on each invoice.

23. Invoicing – 3.2.1 – F – We will not be able to contract away our back billing rights. Can the State please remove this requirement or amend to be consistent with COMAR and PSC regula�ons?

Response: Please see Amendment #6.

24. Invoicing – 3.2.1 – L – Our accepted procedure for withholding of payments is to do so upon dispute of a charge or deliverable. Is the State agreeable to writen dispute that documents any of the poten�al scenarios that could be covered under this sec�on?

Response: Please see Sec�on 3.2.1 – J and Sec�on 4.15.

25. Security Clearance/Criminal Background Check – Sec�on 3.5.2 – C - If Vendor personnel have already completed a background check, will they need to complete a new one?

Response: Yes.

26. Key Personnel Iden�fied – 3.7.3 - Can a vendor charge for these resources separately from the service rates given that they will be dedicated or designated to the State of MD?

Response: No, they will need to be part of the Offeror’s price for services provided.

27. Con�nuous Performance of Key Personnel – 3.8.1 – C – What is meant by “Task Order proposal and agreement”?

Response: The issuance of task orders is not contemplated.

28. Electronic Transac�on Fee – 3.13 – A – Does the electronic transac�on fee apply to tariff services?

Response: No. Please see Amendment #6.

29. Electronic Transac�on Fee – 3.13 – A – Does the electronic transac�on fee apply to taxes and surcharges?

Response: Yes.

30. Electronic Transac�on Fee – 3.13 – B – What are the Contractor’s op�ons for submi�ng this payment (e.g., electronic, paper check, EFT?)

Response: Vendors can mail a paper check or submit VIA ACH.

31. Electronic Transac�on Fee - 3.13 – Please specify the dura�on of the repor�ng period.

Response: See RFP Sec�on 2.11.2

32. eMaryland Marketplace Advantage ( eMMA) – 4.2 - Our company has more than one affiliate company. Several are registered to do business in Maryland. For the purpose of this RFP and resul�ng contract, will it be required that our proposing affiliate company’s FEIN match to the FEIN in our eMMA account?

Response: Yes.

33. Electronic Procurements Authorized – 4.25.2 - Are Vendors required to use the State of Maryland’s e-signature system, or are we permited to submit electronic signatures by other means (e.g., signed and scanned pages) as we have done previously?

Response: Offerors are required to use eMMA as detailed in this RFP. What is proposed is otherwise acceptable.

34. Nonvisual Access – 4.33 – Does the statement in Sec�on 4.33 that the “solicita�on does not contain Informa�on Technology (IT) provisions requiring Nonvisual Access” mean that sec�ons

4.33.1 – 4.33.4 are not applicable?

Response: Yes, these sec�ons are not applicable. Please see Amendment #6.

35. Offer Technical Response to RFP Requirements and Proposed Work Plan – 5.3.2 - Is it the State’s intent to request hosted services? If so, will the State amend the Financial Proposal form to allow vendors to add hosted services to the form?

Response: No, the State does not intend on reques�on hosted services.

36. Experience and Qualifica�ons of Proposed Staff – 5.3.2 - Are Vendors permited to use their own resume format, or are we required to use the form provided on pages 74-75 of the RFP?

Response: Offerors will need to use the form provided on page 74 and 75.

37. Experience and Qualifica�ons of Proposed Staff – 5.3.2 - Are leters of intended commitment applicable to this RFP?

Response: No, it does not. Please see Amendment #6.

38. Experience and Qualifica�ons of Proposed Staff – 5.3.2 - Please provide the RFP sec�on that iden�fies personnel work hours.

Response: Please see Amendment #6.

39. Volume II – Financial Proposal – 5.4 - The current Local Telecommunica�ons Services contract includes three price forms (Amendment 11, Addendum NR17, and Addendum #18). Services on all of these forms are in place today. Would the State please allow revision to the Local Telecom Service Price Proposal Form to reflect a full list of available services?

Response: The pricing forms have been updated to include all informa�on into one document. If any addi�onal updates are needed a�er proposals are submited, the State will consider a cure if needed. . Please see amendment #6.

40. Atachment M – 5 - Right to Records – Is this subsec�on applicable knowing that there is not likely to be equipment or so�ware to be provided to the Contractor?

Response: If no equipment, so�ware, or other property is provided by the State to the Contractor, then there will be no such items to return.

41. Atachment M – 6 - Right to Records - Because we do not an�cipate crea�ng or establishing any new intellectual property in providing these services, will the state consider including the following addi�ons to the language in Sec�on 6.1:

6.1 The State shall have the exclusive right to use, duplicate, and disclose any data, informa�on, documents, records, or results, in whole or in part, in any manner for any purpose whatsoever, that may be created or generated by the Contractor in connec�on with this Contract. Except for Contractor-owned material and property as set forth in Sec�on 6.2 below, If any material, including so�ware, is capable of being copyrighted, the State shall be the copyright owner and Contractor may copyright material connected with this project only with the express writen approval of the State.

Response: No, the RFP will not be amended.

42. Atachment M – 17.1 – Termina�on for Default - For clarifica�on purposes, what are the Contractor’s rights to terminate the Contract if the State defaults on a material obliga�on?

Response: See Contract sec�on 12 “Disputes”.

43. Atachment M – 19 – of the RFP Template – Does the highlighted text suggest that we cannot recoup any expenses incurred if the Customer is the cause of the delay?

Response: The No Damages for Delay clause, where enforceable, precludes a claim for delay damages.

44. Atachment M – 25 – Right to Audit – For clarifica�on purposes, will the State exclude proprietary cost and margin informa�on from the scope of any audit?

Response: The State cannot make any such commitment. See Contract paragraph 8 with respect to the handling of confiden�al and proprietary informa�on.

45. Atachment M – 25 – Right to Audit - Given the expense to the State and Contractor for audits, would the state consider limi�ng the number of audits to one per year, or in the alterna�ve would the State agree to finance the audit if it exceeds more than one per year?

Response: The State cannot commit to limi�ng the number of audits or to assuming responsibility for any cost the Contractor may incur in the course of an audit.

46. Atachment M – 28 – Subcontrac�ng; Assignment – Will the State please define “Subcontractor”?

Response: Offerors may apply the ordinary meaning to the word “subcontractor”

47. Atachment M – 40 – Parent Guarantee - This sec�on is not applicable. Would the State please remove it from Atachment M?

Response: If the parent guarantee provisions are inapplicable to the awardee, they will be removed from the resul�ng contract.

48. Atachment M – 43 – Hiring Agreement – This sec�on is not applicable. Would the State please remove it from Atachment M?

Response: Yes. Please see Amendment #6.

49. Atachment M – 44 – Limited English Proficiency - This sec�on is not applicable. Would the State please remove it from Atachment M?

Response: Yes. Please see Amendment #6.

50. Sec�on 2.1.4 – Does this mean the state will only accept a complete bid for all services?

Response: Yes.

51. Sec�on 2.1.4 – Can a carrier bid on a por�on of the RFP and s�ll be considered for award?

Response: No.