Q&A and Addendum 1 Posted 9.15.26.pdf

Telematic Asset Tracking Services and Related Equipment

Request for Proposals

No. 26-25173107-RFP

Questions and Answers and

Addendum No. 1

Questions and Answers

The Department has received the following questions through MFMP Sourcing, and the Department’s answers are provided in the table listed below:

No. Question Answer

1 Given the large number of documents and time it will take to ensure adequate review and response team consolidation/consensus on potential clarifying questions, we respectfully request a 1-week extension to the question period for bidders, from August 25th to September 1.

The deadline to submit questions in the Business Network was August 24, 2026 by 2:00 PM ET.

The Department does not intend to extend the question period.

To allow Respondents more time to respond, the Department has revised the due date to submit Proposals and all required documents to October 2, 2026, at 2:00 PM.

Refer to Addendum 1 to the RFP, section 1.1, Timeline of Events, attached hereto.

2 In Section 3.2.2. of scope of work the agency mentions "All in-vehicle Hardware and related equipment should withstand the environmental and operating conditions of the applicable Asset, including vibration, temperature, dust, tampering, water, salt, and brine." What type of assets are these trackers going into, as this description is of a ruggedized tracker, which is a specific use case, for part of the fleet and usually have different devices for different vehicles and assets, including ruggedized units as described.

Refer to Revised Attachment A, Scope of Work, section 2, Definitions: Asset - A State-owned or leased motor vehicle, equipment, or other trackable Asset intended to be monitored under a purchase off the Term Contract.

The type of Asset may be contemplated in an applicable Customer-Specific Scope of Work (SOW).

Refer to Revised Attachment A, Scope of Work, section 3.3, Customer-Specific Scope of Work.

3 In Scope of work section 3.2.2, the agency states "Provide integration with Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) and aftermarket telematics devices based on the list of OEM partners as provided in Attachment M, Technical Proposal Response." Are you looking for OEM Telematics with their known limitations and third party fees or device based telematics with robust options?

The Telematic Asset Tracking Services and Related Equipment solution may be delivered as a Turnkey Telematics Solution or a Software as a Service (SaaS) Telematics Solution as defined in Revised Attachment A, Scope of Work, or a combination of both solutions. Regardless of the delivery model proposed, the Contractor shall ensure the solution meets all requirements set forth in Revised Attachment A, Scope of Work.

The Hardware related requirements and deliverables set forth in Revised Attachment A, Scope of Work apply only to Contractors that propose Hardware as part of their proposed solution.

Refer to Revised Attachment A, Scope of Work:

• Section 2. Definitions:

“Software as a Service Telematics Solution” and “Turnkey Telematics Solution.”

• Section 3.1, Description of Scope.

• Section 3.2.2, Hardware and Related Equipment (if applicable).

The telematics type may be contemplated in an applicable Customer-Specific SOW.

4 In the Scope of Work Section 3.2.2, the agency states "Provide a Hardware and related equipment options for vehicles with auxiliary equipment (e.g., plow-up and plow-down controls, emergency lighting, sirens). For vehicles outfitted with specific alarms, the GPS vehicle-mounted device must be able to alert the specified individual(s) or groups when a vehicle alarm event is triggered." Can you provide a vehicle use case or better define vehicles outfitted with specific alarms? Are you asking about PTO detection of activation of lights, sirens, etc., or if not, please define "vehicle alarm event."?

A vehicle alarm event may include but is not limited to:

Emergency equipment activation, unauthorized entry, vehicle theft, unauthorized after-hours use, communications or tracking system tampering, etc.

Refer to Revised Attachment A, Scope of Work, section 3.2.2, Hardware and Related Equipment (if applicable). Bullet point #8.

5 In Scope of work section 3.2.11 the agency mentions "Incorporate optimal route functionality between multiple points, including accepting information from other systems indicating obstructions, traffic, etc., either through a third-party plug-in or natively within the solution."Please elaborate on this ask. Is the state looking for route optimization and/or dispatch response features, as this

Provide optimal (best and fastest) route between multiple locations, including accepting information from other systems indicating obstructions, traffic, accidents, construction, etc., either through integration with a requires additional software and in-cab hardware (such as an Android/iOS connected device to receive dispatch and provide turn by turn navigation)?

third-party plug-in or natively within the solution.

Refer to Revised Attachment A, Scope of Work, section 3.2.11, Real-time Automated Tracking or Closest Industry Standard and Location. Bullet point #17.

6 In Scope of work 3.2.14, the agency mentions "he ability to pull real-time or closest industry standard engine Diagnostic Trouble Codes (DTCs), engine vehicles installed, installations planned, and data quality metrics (e.g., completeness, accuracy, and error rates)" Can you please clarify what is meant by "engine vehicles installed," "installations planned," and "data quality metrics"?

Refer to Revised Attachment A, Scope of Work, section 3.2.14, Notif ication and Reporting. Bullet point #2.

7 In Scope of work section 3.4, the agency mentions "Total Cost of Proposed Solution Per Asset (Total Cost) for the initial and renewal terms of the Contract."Can you please define "term" for total cost? Most of these are either an initial term of X number of years with a built-in renewal option for Y number of years. In the Prebid you mentioned up to three years renewal and three-year initial term. As we are being scored on cost, can you please define this specific term more clearly?

The initial term of the Term Contract shall be for three (3) years. The Term Contract may be renewed in whole or in part for a renewal term not to exceed three (3) years.

Refer to:

• Attachment E, Enterprise Standard Terms and Conditions, section 4.1, Term.

• Revised Attachment G, Draft Term Contract.

8 In Scope of work section 3.6.2, the agency mentons "Provide Customer-authorized capability, support driver identif ication and vehicle enablement. The solution shall use strong authentication and encryption, maintain complete command audit logs, provide documented local override and fail-safe procedures, and shall not remotely immobilize a moving vehicle" Can you please elaborate on the exact desired functionality, as this would have to be custom quoted and usually involves third-party hardware with limited liability?

Section 3.6.2 is an example of an Add-On Services and Related Equipment, which is optional and not a requirement of the Contractor.

Refer to Revised Attachment A, Scope of Work, section 3.6, Add- On Services and Related Equipment (Optional).

Additionally, Refer to Revised Attachment C, Cost Proposal.

9 General Question - Is the State looking for AI dashcams with built-in GPS or only GPS telematics without dashcams?

Any type of dashcam may be proposed as a solution if they meet the requirements in the Revised Attachment A, Scope of

10 In the Technical proposal instructions document, the agency mentions "The Respondent shall not exceed

The Department revised the Technical Proposal Instructions.

10,000 characters in its description of experience within Prompt 1. This is similarly specified in "The Respondent shall not exceed 20,000 characters in its description of proposed solutions within Prompt 2."

Can the State please clarify or loosen this requirement, as the copying of the specific SOW questions before answers (for reference and formatting) exceeds this amount of characters already. Example from prompt 1 is asking for "detailed description of its experience in delivering Telematic Asset Tracking Services and Related Equipment as defined in section 3.2, Contractor Requirements, of attachment A Scope of work".

In order to offer a detailed description, it would be useful if vendors were allowed to list out the items from the scope of work and provide detailed answers to each question/ask, however as mentioned above, just listing out the "questions" would exceed the character limit. Please advise on this

The Respondent shall not exceed 20,000 characters (approximately 7 to 8 pages) in its description of experience within Prompt 1.

The Respondent shall not exceed 32,500 characters (approximately 11 to 12 pages) in its description of proposed solutions within Prompt 2.

Respondents should input text only into Prompt 1 and Prompt 2.

Respondents shall not submit cover pages, cover letters, or table of contents. Any additional files, tables, links, graphics or other information provided outside the character limits are not permitted and will not be considered for evaluation and will not be submitted to evaluators.

Refer to:

• Revised Attachment D, Technical Proposal Instructions and Evaluation Criteria, section A, Technical Proposal Instructions

• Revised Attachment M, Technical Proposal Response, Section 1 Prompts

11 In the Technical Proposal Instructions, the Agency states

"Respondents should input text only into Prompt 1 and Prompt 2." Can the State please clarify/loosen on this requirement, as these telematic platforms offer robust features, generally showcased in RFPs with the usual inclusion of screenshots of features of the software.

See answer to question #10.

12 In the Technical proposal instuctions item 5 states "For the Proposed Solution portion of the Technical Proposal, the Respondent shall provide a detailed description of its Proposed Solution for delivering the Telematic Asset Tracking Services and Related Equipment, including the capacity to deliver services statewide and offer services that must include, at a minimum, real-time automated tracking, monitoring, and reporting of vehicle usage, See answer to question #10.

maintenance, location, and fuel consumption." Given the limitation of characters and the request to provide "text only" responses, will the agency consider amending these limitations to allow vendors to provide detailed responses with supporting screenshots and detailed answers to questions as requested?

13 Will the Department provide the technical specifications, data schemas, or API protocols for the "unified standard" prior to the proposal submission deadline, or will this standard be finalized post-award during contract execution?

Technical specifications, data schemas, or API protocols may be contemplated after contract execution in an applicable Customer-Specific SOW.

Refer to Revised Attachment A, Scope of Work, sections:

• 3.1 Description of Scope, fourth (4th) paragraph.

• 3.3 Customer-Specific Scope of Work.

14 Will data integration costs with the State’s centralized platform be evaluated as part of the Cost Proposal (Attachment C), or will integration scope be determined at the secondary RFQ stage by individual agencies?

Integration pricing should be provided as an Add-On Service for integration with the State of Florida Fleet Management Information System (FMIS) when included in a Customer-Specific

SOW.

Refer to the following:

• Revised Attachment A, Scope of Work, section 3.6.1, Add-On Services and Related Equipment (Optional).

• Revised Attachment A, Scope of Work, section 3.3, Customer-Specific Scope of Work.

• Revised Attachment C, Cost Proposal

15 3.1 - The State mentions "real-time automated tracking". Is the State expecting location data to populate telematics mapping solutions in real time or is there the expectation that GPS location information is generally not a real-time offering for any telematics solutions? In most cases it's 10- 30 seconds.

The Contractor shall provide continuous, automated, real-time tracking or closest industry standard of each Asset’s position, movement, and status, and reliable historical tracking data.

Refer to Revised Attachment A, Scope of Work:

• Section 3.2.11, Real-time Automated Tracking or

Closest Industry Standard and Location. Bullet point #1.

• Section 2, Definitions, “Telematic Asset Tracking Services and Related Equipment” definition.

16 3.2.2 - For vehicles outfitted with specific alarms, can you clarify if these are alarms installed by OEM or aftermarket that are for theft deterrence? Please clarify.

Refer to Revised Attachment A, Scope of Work, section 3.2.2, Hardware and Related Equipment (if applicable). Bullet point #8.

17 3.2.8 - Is the State requesting bidders to maintain and build an API for them? Or is this to ensure bidders have the option for api and data feeds?

Contractors shall provide a standard set of APIs for data access.

Refer to Revised Attachment A, Scope of Work, section 3.2.8, API Access, Interoperability, and Unified Data Standard. Bullet point #1.

18 3.2.11 - A bullet point only states " Verify VIN and plate information for all vehicle" - Can the State clarify what "verify" means in this case?

Refer to Revised Attachment A, Scope of Work, section 3.2.11, Real-time Automated Tracking or Closest Industry Standard and Location. Bullet point #12.

19 3.2.11 - There is a statement regarding "optional delayed map display" under the topic for enhanced protection for certain agencies. Can you please provide a use case for this?

Optional delayed map display use case: Instead of displaying a law enforcement vehicle’s location in real time, the system could show its location with a 5, 10, or 15-minute delay. This can help protect sensitive operational information.

Optional delayed map display may be contemplated in an applicable Customer-Specific

SOW.

Refer to Revised Attachment A, Scope of Work, section 3.3, 20 Section 1.8 of the RFP provides that Attachment A, Scope of Work, takes precedence over Attachment E, Enterprise Standard Terms and Conditions, in the event of a conflict.

Attachment A, Section 3.2.6 permits Contractor and Sub-processor personnel to remotely access nonpublic

In the event of a conflict between the documents comprising this RFP, the Revised Attachment A, Scope of Work has precedence over the Attachment E, Customer Data from outside the continental United States with prior written approval from the affected Customer and the Department, while Attachment E, Section 13 contains no corresponding approval mechanism. Please confirm that Section 3.2.6 of Attachment A governs, such that remote access from outside the continental United States is permissible where the required prior written approvals have been obtained.

Enterprise Contract Terms and Conditions.

Refer to the RFP document, section 1.8, Order of Precedence for Solicitation.

Additionally, refer to Revised Attachment A, Scope of Work, section 3.2.6, Cloud Hosting, Data Residency, and Business Continuity. Bullet point #2.

21 Attachment G, Section 2 provides that Exhibits are incorporated into the Term Contract, and the RFP's Section

2.12 - Contract Formation states that additional documents submitted by a Respondent may be incorporated only if specifically identif ied, incorporated by reference, and approved by the Department. Please describe the process and timing by which the Department will consider approving a Respondent's standard service and subscription terms (for example, a software-as-a-service subscription agreement) as an additional Exhibit to the Term Contract, and confirm that such consideration occurs after award and does not affect responsiveness or scoring.

Service and subscription terms may be contemplated in an applicable Customer-specific

SOW.

Refer to Revised Attachment A, Scope of Work, section 3.3, Customer-Specific Scope of Work.

22 Attachment A - Section 3.2.8 specifies RESTful APIs documented using OpenAPI 3.x. To ensure our response accurately addresses this requirement, we would like to clarify the Department's intent. Specifically: does §3.2.8 require that the vendor's native API architecture conform to the REST architectural style and be documented in OpenAPI 3.x format, or does it require that all data entities listed in §3.2.8 (assets, vehicles, trips, diagnostics, geofences, alerts, audit records, etc.) be accessible programmatically via a documented, standards-based API with OAuth 2.0 authorization and secure machine-to-machine service accounts?

The Department’s intent is that all data entities identif ied in section 3.2.8 be programmatically accessible through a documented, secure, modern, standards-based API.

Refer to Revised Attachment A, Scope of Work, section 3.2.8, API Access, Interoperability, and Unified Data Standard. Bullet point #1.

23 It is our understanding that only OEM telematics companies are eligible to bid on this solicitation. Could you please confirm if this is accurate?

No, participation in this solicitation is not limited to OEM telematics companies.

Refer to Revised Attachment A, Scope of Work, section 2 Definitions for “Contractor” and “Manufacturer.”

24 Can the State confirm whether the limits for Prompts 1 and 2 in Attachment M are strictly character counts (10,000 and 20,000 characters, respectively) rather than word counts?

Given the comprehensive requirements outlined in Attachment A (Scope of Work) and referenced in

See answer to question #10.

Attachment D, a character limit would significantly restrict the response length compared to a word limit. To help bidders appropriately gauge the expected response depth, could the State provide an estimated page limit equivalent for these prompts?

25 Does a Respondent that develops, owns, hosts and directly sells its own telematics software platform — sourcing hardware from OEM partners under its own brand while retaining prime accountability — qualify as a Manufacturer under this definition?

See answer to question #23.

26 Will DMS accept a Respondent's stated RPO supported by a documented replication design where it differs from 15 minutes, or is 15 minutes absolute?

Refer to Revised Attachment A, Scope of Work, section 3.2.6, Cloud Hosting, Data Residency, and Business Continuity. Bullet point #3.

27 Are regional device outages caused by commercial carrier or network failure excluded from the P2 response obligation and the availability calculation?

It is expected for any outages outside of the Contractors control that notif ication is provided to the Customer or Department within two (2) hours after the Contractor has been notif ied of such outage.

Refer to Revised Attachment A, Scope of Work, section 3.2.9, Service Levels, Monitoring, and Performance. See bullet point for Priority 2 incidents (High).

28 May the 24-month notice obligation be qualif ied where the change is a third-party carrier or network sunset outside the Contractor's control?

Provide up to twenty-four (24) months’ advance notice of Hardware, firmware, carrier, or network end-of-support events, when reasonably foreseeable, or as soon as practicable after the Contractor becomes aware of such events.

Refer to Revised Attachment A, Scope of Work, section 3.2.2, Hardware and Related Equipment (if applicable). Bullet point #11.

29 To confirm our event-based delivery meets the Department's needs: which events does the Department consider "priority events," and what data elements must each delivered event include (for example, location, digital input/output states, and alert types)?

Data elements for event-based delivery may be contemplated in an applicable Customer-Specific

SOW.

Refer to Revised Attachment A, Scope of Work, sections:

• 3.2.8 API Access, Interoperability, and Unified

Data Standard. Bullet point #3.

• 3.3 Customer-Specific Scope of Work

30 Does a stated 95th-percentile horizontal accuracy figure with disclosed environmental limitations satisfy this requirement where it exceeds ten feet?

Refer to Revised Attachment A, Scope of Work, section 3.2.11, Real-Time Automated Tracking or Closest Industry Standard and Location. Bullet point #3.

31 Does SAML 2.0 alone satisfy FL-5.1 where the Customer's IdP supports it, and does a documented API-based provisioning interface with real-time SSO deprovisioning satisfy the SCIM 2.0 requirement?

The solution must support both OIDC and SAML 2.0.

A documented API-based provisioning and deprovisioning interface may satisfy the SCIM

2.0 requirement if it provides equivalent automated user lifecycle functionality. Real-time SSO access revocation alone would not satisfy the SCIM 2.0 requirement unless it also provides equivalent automated deprovisioning of user access.

Refer to Revised Attachment A, Scope of Work, section 3.2.5, Identify and Access Management. Bullet point #1.

32 Will the Department's unified data standard and FMIS format specification be provided before award, given that Respondents are asked to price an all-inclusive integration to an unspecified target?

The unified data standard and FMIS format specification will not be provided before award.

The unified data standard and FMIS format specification may be contemplated in an applicable Customer-Specific SOW.

Refer to Revised Attachment A, Scope of Work, section 3.3, Customer-Specific Scope of Work.

33 Has DMS defined the "unified data standard" referenced in the objective, or will that standard be developed collaboratively with awarded contractors post-award?

The unified data standard may be contemplated in an applicable Customer-Specific SOW.

Refer to Revised Attachment A, Scope of Work, section 3.3, 34 Is installation required to be quoted as part of the cost proposal, and is it expected to be performed by the contractor (not the agency) or will agencies self install or combination? There are many factors that can impact installation costs and these are not necessarily standard per agency.

Installation may be performed by the Contractor, Customer, or a combination of both depending on the proposed Solution.

The Respondent shall submit a Cost Proposal that identif ies the proposed Solution and includes the names of all services, related equipment, and cost components that comprise the Total Cost of the Proposed Solution Per Asset Per Month. Cost components may include, but are not limited to, the software platform, per- Asset costs, Hardware (if applicable), data enablement, and any other services or related equipment required to implement the proposed Solution.

Refer to the following:

• Revised Attachment A, Scope of Work, section 3.2.1, Installation and Warranty.

Bullet point #5.

• Revised Attachment A, Scope of Work, section 3.4, Pricing.

• Revised Attachment C, Cost Proposal.

35 What specific data flows does DMS expect between the telematics solution and FleetWave?

The solution must have the ability to relay identif ied data points at prescribed intervals (e.g., odometer readings, fault codes, etc.).

Refer to Revised Attachment A, Scope of Work, section 3.2.8, API Access, Interoperability, and Unified Data Standard. Bullet point #8.

36 Does DMS want the telematics solution to push data to FleetWave, pull from it, or both?

The solution must have the ability to push data and pull data to FMIS.

Refer to Revised Attachment A, Scope of Work, section 3.2.8 API Access, Interoperability, and

Unified Data Standard. Bullet point #8.

37 Are there existing API credentials or sandbox environments for FleetWave that an awarded contractor could access during onboarding to begin integration development?

The Department has a testing environment that may be accessed by an awarded Vendor during onboarding to begin integration development, subject to applicable Department access and security requirements.

38 Will DMS coordinate a statewide rollout plan once the contract is awarded, or is each agency fully independent in deciding if and when to purchase?

No, the Department will not coordinate a statewide rollout plan.

Customers may issue an RFQs for Telematic Asset Tracking Services and Related Equipment in an applicable Customer- Specific SOW.

Refer to Revised Attachment A, Scope of Work, sections:

• 3.3 Customer-Specific Scope of Work

• 3.9 Request for Quotes Requirement

39 What is DMS's expectation for the contractor's role in agency onboarding — will agencies call the contractor directly, or does everything flow through a DMS contract manager?

Customers shall use a Request for Quotes (RFQ), when making purchases under this Enterprise Wide Agreement.

Refer to Revised Attachment A, Scope of Work, section 3.9, Request for Quotes Requirements.

40 Section 1.8 of the RFP provides that Attachment A, Scope of Work, takes precedence over Attachment E, Enterprise Standard Terms and Conditions, in the event of a conflict.

Attachment A, Section 3.2.6 permits Contractor and Sub-processor personnel to remotely access nonpublic Customer Data from outside the continental United States with prior written approval from the affected Customer and the Department, while Attachment E, Section 13 contains no corresponding approval mechanism. Please confirm that Section 3.2.6 of Attachment A governs, such that remote access from outside the continental United States is permissible where the required prior written approvals have been obtained.

See answer to question #20.

41 Attachment G, Section 2 provides that Exhibits are incorporated into the Term Contract, and the RFP's Section

2.12 - Contract Formation states that additional documents submitted by a Respondent may be incorporated only if specifically identif ied, incorporated by reference, and approved by the Department. Please describe the process and timing by which the Department will consider approving a Respondent's standard service and subscription terms (for example, a software-as-a-service subscription agreement) as an additional Exhibit to the Term Contract, and confirm that such consideration occurs after award and does not affect responsiveness or scoring.

See answer to question #21.

42 Attachment A - Section 3.2.8 specifies RESTful APIs documented using OpenAPI 3.x. To ensure our response accurately addresses this requirement, we would like to clarify the Department's intent. Specifically: does §3.2.8 require that the vendor's native API architecture conform to the REST architectural style and be documented in OpenAPI 3.x format, or does it require that all data entities listed in §3.2.8 (assets, vehicles, trips, diagnostics, geofences, alerts, audit records, etc.) be accessible programmatically via a documented, standards-based API with OAuth 2.0 authorization and secure machine-to-machine service accounts?

See answer to question #22.

43 It is our understanding that only OEM telematics companies are eligible to bid on this solicitation. Could you please confirm if this is accurate?

See answer to question #23.

44 Can the State confirm whether the limits for Prompts 1 and 2 in Attachment M are strictly character counts (10,000 and 20,000 characters, respectively) rather than word counts?

Given the comprehensive requirements outlined in Attachment A (Scope of Work) and referenced in Attachment D, a character limit would significantly restrict the response length compared to a word limit. To help bidders appropriately gauge the expected response depth, could the State provide an estimated page limit equivalent for these prompts?

See answer to question #24.

45 Does the Department have a process by which a Respondent may propose modifications of the kind commonly required to meet a publicly accountable company’s shareholder-protection and disclosure obligations — to terms including, but not limited to, the intellectual-property-ownership provisions in Attachment E, Enterprise Standard Terms and Conditions, Section 12.5, and the liability and indemnification provisions in Attachment E, Section 10.7, and Attachment F, PUR 1000 General Contract Conditions, Section 8.f–g, whether by addendum prior to the Proposal due date, through negotiation with an awarded Respondent as part of

The Department will not accept any unrequested terms or conditions submitted by a Respondent, including any appearing in documents attached as part of a Respondent’s Proposal or hyperlinked therein.

In submitting its Proposal, a Respondent agrees that any additional terms or conditions, whether submitted intentionally or inadvertently, shall have no force or effect.

f inalizing execution of the Term Contract, or through another process the Department deems appropriate?

Refer to the following:

• RFP document, section 2.10, Basis of Award

• RFP document, section 2.12, Contract Formation

• Revised Attachment A, Scope of Work, section 3.3, Customer-Specific Scope of Work

46 Section 3.2.2 (Hardware and Related Equipment) requires vendors to ‘Provide integration with Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM),’ and Attachment M, Prompt 2 requires respondents to provide a list of OEM partners.

Delivering this OEM-embedded telematics solution requires providers to pass through mandatory third-party terms and conditions, including those from OEMs (e.g., Ford, GM), wireless carriers (e.g., AT&T, Verizon), and cloud/mapping providers (e.g., Google, AWS). Could the State please provide guidance on how and where vendors should incorporate these required third-party terms into our RFP response?

Respondents should not include third-party terms and conditions in the Revised Attachment M, Technical Proposal Response.

The Department will not accept any unrequested terms or conditions submitted by a Respondent, including any appearing in documents attached as part of a Respondent’s Proposal or hyperlinked therein.

In submitting its Proposal, a Respondent agrees that any additional terms or conditions, whether submitted intentionally or inadvertently, shall have no force or effect.

Third-party terms and conditions may be contemplated in an applicable Customer-Specific

SOW.

Refer to the following:

• RFP document, section 3.2

Special Instructions, 4. Terms and Conditions.

• Revised Attachment A, Scope of Work, section 3.2.2 Hardware and Related Equipment (if applicable).

Bullet points #4 and #5.

• Revised Attachment A, Scope of Work, section 3.3 Customer-Specific Scope of Work.

47 Attachment A – Section 3.2.8 specifies RESTful APIs documented using OpenAPI 3.x. To ensure our response accurately addresses this requirement, we would like to

See answer to question #22.

clarify the Department’s intent.

Specifically: does §3.2.8 require that the vendor ’s native API architecture conform to the REST architectural style and be documented in OpenAPI 3.x format, or does it require that all data entities listed in §3.2.8 (assets, vehicles, trips, diagnostics, geofences, alerts, audit records, etc.) be accessible programmatically via a documented, standards-based API with Oauth 2.0 authorization and secure machine-to-machine service accounts?

48 Section 3.2.5 specifies customer-enforced MFA, JIT provisioning, automated provisioning/deprovisioning via SCIM 2.0, and IdP group-to-role mapping. To ensure our response accurately addresses this requirement, we would like to clarify the Department's intent

We seek clarif ication on whether IdP-delegated provisioning workflows satisfy the intent of this section, or whether native SCIM 2.0 and JIT endpoints within the vendor's platform are mandatory for award eligibility

The Department’s intent is to ensure the solution integrates with Customer identity and access management systems so Customers can enforce authentication requirements, determine active/inactive account status, automate provisioning and deprovisioning, and map IdP groups to appropriate roles and permissions.

Native SCIM 2.0 and JIT endpoints within the vendor platform are not mandatory if the proposed IdP-delegated or API-based approach provides equivalent functionality. Any alternative approach should be clearly described in Revised Attachment M, Technical Proposal Response.

Refer to Revised Attachment A, Scope of Work, section 3.2.5, Identity and Access Management. Bullet point #3.

Additionally, refer to Revised Attachment M, Technical Proposal Response.

49 Manufacturer and subcontractor structure Does a respondent satisfy the definition of “Manufacturer” when it manufactures and directly sells the tracking hardware and integrated telematics solution to Customers, but uses a disclosed and Department-approved subcontractor to provide the software platform, integration, reporting, support, or other components, with the respondent remaining fully responsible as prime contractor for the entire solution?

Yes.

Refer to Revised Attachment A, Scope of Work, section 2 Definitions. See definitions for “Manufacturer” and “Contractor.”

50 Cost-proposal pricing period Attachment C requests an “Initial Term Unit Cost,” a “Renewal Term Unit Cost,” and a “Total Cost of Proposed Solution Per Asset,” but it does not state the pricing period applicable to those amounts. Should the Initial Term Unit Cost represent the total not-to-exceed cost per Asset for the entire three-year initial term, an annual cost, or a monthly cost? How should respondents present one-time hardware, installation, integration, or implementation charges together with recurring monthly or annual subscription charges? Please also confirm the duration of the Renewal Term for purposes of calculating renewal pricing.

The cost should represent a per unit per month not-to-exceed price.

Refer to Revised Attachment C, Cost Proposal

Refer to Revised Attachment A, Scope of Work, section 3.4 Pricing

51 Subcontractor and key-personnel experience For the Experience portion of Attachment M and its associated evaluation, may the respondent include and receive evaluation credit for the relevant experience, past projects, personnel, knowledge, and capabilities of an identif ied subcontractor or teaming partner that will perform a material portion of the proposed solution?

Respondents should include any relevant experience related to their proposed solution in their Proposal, consistent with Revised Attachment D, Technical Proposal Instructions and Evaluation Criteria. If Respondent's proposed solution includes subcontractors or third-party partners, that information may be included as well.

52 Subcontractor disclosure and approval Attachment E requires prior written Department consent before subcontracting work and defines subcontractors to include partners and teammates. What subcontractor or teaming-partner information must be included with the proposal, and at what point must the respondent request and obtain the Department’s written approval: with the proposal, before contract award, before execution, or before the subcontractor begins performance?

The Contractor shall provide a list of OEM partners in Revised Attachment M, Technical Proposal Response, if applicable to the proposed solution.

Refer to Revised Attachment A, Scope of Work, section 3.2.2, Hardware and Related Equipment (if applicable).

The Contractor shall obtain prior written consent to use subcontractors using the process described on the Department’s website.

Refer to Attachment E, Enterprise Standard Terms and Conditions, section 7.4.1 Subcontractors.

53 Thirty-day hardware requirement Attachment A requires access to a supply of hardware and related equipment sufficient to meet Customer demand and ongoing statewide replacement “within 30 days of

Supply of Hardware and related equipment, delivery, replacement requirements, and timeframes may be contemplated in an contract award.” Does this require the contractor to possess statewide deployment inventory within 30 days after award regardless of whether Customer Orders have been issued, or does it require the contractor to demonstrate supply-chain capacity to fulfill Customer Orders within an applicable delivery period?

applicable Customer-Specific

SOW.

Refer to Revised Attachment A, Scope of Work, sections:

• 3.2.2 Hardware and Related

Equipment (if applicable).

Bullet point #6.

• 3.3 Customer-Specific Scope of Work

54 Section 3.2.2 (Hardware and Related Equipment) requires integration with Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs), and Attachment M, Prompt 2 requests a list of OEM partners. In providing the required integrations and related services, a respondent may be subject to certain third-party terms and conditions that are necessary to deliver components of its proposed solution. Please clarify whether such third-party terms and conditions may be incorporated into a respondent’s proposal and, if so, where and in what manner they should be identif ied or included in the response.

See answer to question #46.

55 Are electronic legal signatures accepted?

Yes. Electronic signatures are acceptable.

56 In section 3.2.2 the following question is asked. “Replace or migrate devices rendered unusable by Contractor-selected technology or carrier changes without imposing unanticipated charges on Customers.” Can DMS please provide some clarity on What would be deemed as “unusable”?

Unusable may include but is not limited to: The device stops working because the Contractor decided to upgrade, switch cellular carriers, or implement new tech that is incompatible with the Customer’s current devices.

Refer to Revised Attachment A, Scope of Work, section 3.2.2, Hardware and Related Equipment (if applicable). Bullet point #12.

57 Is the state interested in understanding if any participating organization (or any of its officers, directors, or principals) ever has been convicted or found liable by a court, arbitral body, or other duly authorized tribunal in connection with claims of fraud, unfair competition, false advertising, or similar allegations?

Attachment B, Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements and Attachment H, PUR 7801 Vendor Certif ication Form requires Respondents to certify whether they have been placed on the Convicted Vendor List and that there is no pending or threatened action, proceeding, or investigation, or any other legal or financial condition that would in any way prohibit, restrain, or diminish the Respondent’s ability to satisfy contract obligations.

Refer to Attachment B, Mandatory Responsive Requirements and Attachment H, PUR 7801 Vendor Certif ication Form.

58 Does the state have a preference that the selected vendor be able to work with individual agencies to add additional products—such as safety dash cameras, maintenance management, and digital forms—within the same platform?

Any in scope Add-On Services and Related Equipment should be included on the Revised Attachment C, Cost Proposal, Add-On Services and Related Equipment (Optional). Awarded Contractors cannot sell items not listed on their Cost Proposal.

Refer to Revised Attachment C, Cost Proposal.

Additional products that are within the scope of this Contract may be contemplated in an applicable Customer-Specific

SOW.

Refer to revised Attachment A, Scope of Work, section 3.3

59 Does the State have a preference or requirement that all solutions procured under this RFP be natively hosted within and accessible through a single, unified dashboard or user interface, as opposed to separate interfaces per solution/module?

The Department does not require all Contractor solutions to be natively hosted within a single unified dashboard or user interface; however, where a contractor offers multiple solution components, a consolidated dashboard or user interface is preferred.

Refer to revised Attachment A, Scope of Work, section 3.2.3 Design, Configuration, and Functionality.

60 Does the State have any preference, requirement, or scoring criteria related to the awarded vendor being U.S.-owned, U.S.-headquartered, or having its financial decision-making based domestically within the United States?

Refer to the RFP document, section 2.7, Preference to Florida Businesses and Attachment I, Principal Place of Business Letter.

61 Does the State have a preference, requirement, or scoring criteria regarding the physical location of the vendor's corporate headquarters, or that of any parent/controlling company, within the United States?.

See answer to question # 60.

62 Does the State have a preference or scoring criteria regarding whether the vendor's primary point of contact (e.g., account manager or client success lead) resides within the State of Florida?

No.

See answer to question # 60.

63 Do you require dual-SIM, multi-carrier failover?

No.

64 Is it important for the camera provider to own the hardware, firmware, AI models, and support experience end to end (For agencies that decide to purchase safety solutions)?

See answer to question #3.

Addendum No. 1

The Department hereby amends RFP No. 26-25173107-RFP as noted within this Addendum. For revisions, highlights and underlines represent additions and strikethroughs represent deletions.

Revisions in Excel documents red font and underlines represent additions and red font and strikethroughs represent deletions. In the event of a conflict between previously posted information and the information contained herein, the information herein shall control. The information included in this addendum is hereby made part of this solicitation.

Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, or failure to post the bond or other security required by law within the time allowed for filing a bond shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Any protest concerning this agency decision must be timely filed with the Agency Clerk. Protests may be filed by courier, hand delivery, or U.S. mail at Department of Management Services, Office of the General Counsel, Attention: Agency Clerk, 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160, Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950. Protests may also be filed by fax at 850-922- 6312 or by email at agencyclerk@dms.fl.gov. It is the filing party’s responsibility to meet all f iling deadlines.

The Procurement Officer should be copied in such filings.

Please note: This addendum does not need to be returned with the proposal.

1. Telematic Asset Tracking Services and Related Equipment RFP, Section 1.1 Timeline of Events is hereby amended as follows:

Timeline of Events

Event

Time (Eastern

Time) Date

Solicitation posted on VIP and in the Business Network

August 10, 2026

Non-Mandatory Pre-Proposal Conference Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950 Conference Room Number 101

Or

Virtual Attendees:

Zoom Meeting Link:

https://us06web.zoom.us/j/84484247064

Dial in by Phone:

Conference Call Number: (305) 224-1968 Conference ID: 844 8424 7064

2:00 PM August 17, 2026 mailto:agencyclerk@dms.fl.gov https://us06web.zoom.us/j/84484247064

Timeline of Events

Event

Time (Eastern

Time) Date

Deadline to submit questions in the Business Network

2:00 PM August 24, 2026

Anticipated date of posting Q&A on VIP and in the Business Network

September 15, 2026

Deadline to submit Proposal and all required documents in the Business Network

10:00 AM

2:00 PM

September 24, 2026 October 2, 2026

Public meeting: Proposal Opening

Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950 Conference Room Number 101

Or

Dial in by Phone:

Conference Call Number: (305) 224-1968 Conference Meeting ID: 835 6351 0484

Any person requiring a special accommodation due to a disability should contact the Department’s Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator at (850) 922-7535 or ADA.Coordinator@dms.fl.gov at least five Business Days prior to the scheduled event.

10:30 AM

2:30 PM

September 24, 2026 October 2, 2026

Anticipated period for evaluations October 20, 2026 - December 4, 2026

Anticipated date to post Notice of Intent to Award on VIP and in the Business Network

December 15, 2026

Anticipated Term Contract start date Upon execution

2. Attachment A, Scope of Work, has been replaced in its entirety. Please see Revised Attachment A, Scope of Work. All references to Attachment A, Scope of Work, contained in the RFP No. 26- 25173107-RFP are hereby amended to refer to Revised Attachment A, Scope of Work.

3. Attachment C, Cost Proposal, has been replaced in its entirety. Please see Revised Attachment C, Cost Proposal. All references to Attachment C, Cost Proposal, contained in the RFP No. 26- 25173107-RFP are hereby amended to refer to Revised Attachment C, Cost Proposal.

mailto:ADA.Coordinator@dms.fl.gov

4. Attachment D, Technical Proposal Instructions and Evaluation Criteria, has been replaced in its entirety. Please see Revised Attachment D, Technical Proposal Instructions and Evaluation Criteria. All references to Attachment D, Technical Proposal Instructions and Evaluation Criteria, contained in the RFP No. 26-25173107-RFP are hereby amended to refer to Revised Attachment D, Technical Proposal Instructions and Evaluation Criteria.

5. Attachment G, Draft Term Contract, has been replaced in its entirety. Please see Revised Attachment G, Draft Term Contract. All references to Attachment G, Draft Term Contract , contained in the RFP No. 26-25173107-RFP are hereby amended to refer to Revised Attachment G, Draft Term Contract.

6. Attachment M, Technical Proposal Response, has been replaced in its entirety. Please see Revised Attachment M, Technical Proposal Response. All references to Attachment M, Technical Proposal Response, contained in the RFP No. 26-25173107-RFP are hereby amended to refer to Revised Attachment M, Technical Proposal Response.