QandA_vehicle_inspection_maintenance.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 45 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- BD-16-1030-0R100-0R001-00000006553
- Issued by
- Massachusetts
About this file
This document is a Request for Response (RFR) issued by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) and the Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) for the Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program. The program requires the selected contractor to manage and implement the vehicle emissions and safety testing program, develop and manage the inspection station network, develop and implement inspection protocols, and acquire, provide, and maintain inspection station equipment and data systems. The contractor will also be responsible for training program inspectors and providing communications to the public, inspectors, and repairers. The RFR outlines the specific requirements for the workstations, inspection protocols, data systems, and communications. Responses to the RFR are due by a specific date, and the selected contractor will be awarded a five-year contract with potential extensions.
The RFR provides details on the pricing structure, including the requirement for a security bond and payment bond, as well as the evaluation criteria that will be used to select the winning bidder. The RFR also notes that the current contractor's equipment and data will need to be transitioned to the new contractor at the end of the contract. Additionally, the RFR includes requirements related to accessibility standards, software ownership, and intellectual property rights.
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 80 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
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
Sheet1
| Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | BD-16-1030-0R100-0R001-00000006553 | |||
| Date Rcvd | Bidder | Question Subject | Question | Answer |
| 1/5/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Page 12, Section 1.8, BAR DAD Certification Would the Agencies consider amending the requirement for the use of BAR-certified scan tools to allow BAR certification or equivalent? The required equivalency demonstration could be based on a Bidders demonstration of their proposed scan tool solutions performance in one or more operating I/M programs. | No. |
| 1/5/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Page 21, Section 3.1.1, Agreement with Terms and Conditions This section states that an RFR response means the Bidder agrees to and accept all of the terms, conditions, and requirements set forth in the RFR, the standard contract, the MassDOT and Commonwealth Standard Contract Forms, and the MassDOT and Commonwealth Standard Terms and Conditions. Does this mean that a Bidder cannot take exception to any of the terms and conditions in their response? | Correct. |
| 1/5/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Page 31, Section 3.2.1.5.A, Overview of Database System Bidders must provide a logical data model, including an entity-relationship diagram, for all data in the data warehouse category. | The Agencies are no longer requiring Bidders to submit an entity-relationship diagram, description of entities, and an attribute list for each entity. Bidders shall include an overview of the system architecture and major components in the Database including all redundancies and backup systems. The Agencies will be amending this section of the RFR. |
| 1/5/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Continued Question #3 - This seems excessive for an RFR response. An ERD would typically be developed post-contract award as part of the system design phase, once the selected contractor has an opportunity to gather requirements and develop a full understanding of the project. This requirement also favors the incumbent contractor, who already has an ERD for the current system. Would the Agencies consider eliminating or relaxing this requirement? | [See above.] |
| 1/5/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Page 32, Section 3.2.1.5.D, Plans for Accommodating RMVM Program Since RMVM development appears to be in its early stages, we are unsure what the Agencies mean by asking Bidders to describe their plans for accommodating the new system. Can this be clarified? | Bidders need to have the willingness and ability to integrate with the RMV's new RMVM. |
| 1/5/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Page 34, Section 3.2.1.5.P, Bidders Existing Agreements and Other Documentation This section requires Bidders to submit unlocked, editable versions of any of applicable existing SaaS or PaaS subscriptions, software license and maintenance agreements, nondisclosure, privacy policies, data management policies, technical support descriptions, maintenance descriptions or other boilerplate agreements for products and services included in the proposed solution. Requiring the inclusion of this information in Bidder responses seems excessive. If as asked in another question, all information included in the response is public and nothing can be marked as confidential, this also means that all of the information required under this section would be subject to public disclosure. Would the Agencies consider modifying this requirement to apply post-contract award and provide clarification on how this information could be protected from public disclosure? | No. This RFR requirement provides the Agencies with working and editable copies of the Bidders' baseline products, agreements and policies that each Bidder is proposing in order to support the Program requirements, including but not limited to those IT products that support the proposed Database solution. During the course of Contract negotiations, the Agencies will consider working with the apparent successful bidder to tailor/customize these baseline documents in order to specifically meet/address the Contractor requirements as outlined in RFR section 6.0, and to finalize the terms of the Draft Scope of Services (See RFR Attachment F), which will become the part of the Contract between the parties. With respect to confidentiality, all content contained in each Bidder's response to the RFR will become public record as legally required in Massachusetts pursuant to the Public Records Law. |
| 1/5/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Page 34, Section 3.2.1.6.A, VISITS Bidders are required to describe their plan for migrating data from the existing VISITS to new VISITS. The existing VISITS is described in RFR section 6.6, and Attachment E contains the functional specs for this system. However, neither of these lists the discrete VISITS data elements or technology specs. Detail needed to include specifics in the required migration plan is therefore missing. Can the Agencies provide clarification regarding the level of detail they are looking for in the required migration plan? | The Agencies believe that sufficient data has been provided in the RFR for Bidders to respond to this requirement. |
| 1/5/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Page 35, Section 3.2.1.8, Draft Communications Plan Bidders are to submit a draft communications plan that includes specific activities, implementation schedule, specific methods for delivering messages to target audiences, and how the methods will be implemented. The required amount of detail seems excessive for an RFR response. Would the Agencies consider relaxing this requirement for the response phase since it seems more appropriate for post-contract award? Perhaps a lesser summary of the communications plan could be required for the RFR response. | No, the Agencies will not modify this requirement. The RFR indicates that Bidders should review RFR Section 6 regarding Contractor responsibilities prior to reviewing/responding to the technical response elements in RFR Section 3.2. RFR Section 3.2.1.8. refers to RFR Section 6.8 because Section 3.2.1.8. is the technical response element for RFR Section 6.8. Bidders shall indicate in their draft communications plan required by Section 3.2.1.8. how they plan to meet the communications requirements specified in RFR Section 6.8, including the necessary activities and their schedule for implementation. The Agencies will not consider a lesser level of detail for Section 3.2.1.8. for evaluating how Bidders propose to meet the requirements in RFR Section 6.8. |
| 1/5/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Page 36, Section 3.2.1.8.E, Recall Information This section requires that the draft communications plan describe how the Bidder will integrate safety and emissions related recall information into the program. Federal regulation, specifically 40 CFR Part 51.370, requires States with enhanced I/M program to require owners of vehicles subject to emissions related recalls to have the necessary recall repairs completed in order to complete an annual or biennial inspection process or to obtain vehicle registration renewal. EPA has not enforced this federal requirement to date, since 40 CFR Part 51.370 (a) states that the State shall have an electronic means to identify recalled vehicles based on lists of VINs with unresolved recalls made available by EPA, the vehicle manufacturers, or a third party supplier approved by the Administrator. Up until recently, such electronic means have not been available. However, one vendor publicly announced in 2015 that they are now offering a VIN decoder that includes data on both safety and emissions recall by VIN. Another recent State I/M RFP requires the vendor to make recall campaign data available to the motorist at the time of failure for any unsatisfied or unresolved recall campaigns as they relate to the specific vehicle based upon the failing vehicle VIN. Given these developments, do the Agencies intend under the next program contract to require compliance with emissions recalls as a prerequisite for a vehicle passing its emissions inspection? | All Bidders are required to abide by all local, state and federal laws and regulations as stated in the RFR. |
| 1/5/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Page 47, Section 3.2.2.5, Bidder Experience Bidders must list all previous, current, and pending public contracts held by the Bidder and team members that are similar to the scope of services described in the RFR, including references/contact info for each contract that can be contacted by MA. Bidders must also provide contact information for a state official in each state where the Bidder has operated an I/M Program. Our companys IM program contracts date back over 30 years. Due to personnel turnover, there are no individuals remaining in the customer agencies that have any knowledge regarding our performance or even the basic details of some of our older state contracts. Some of the states where we operated I/M programs have totally eliminated these programs as an emissions control strategy, which means the entire part of an agency that was responsible for overseeing our contract may no longer be available as a point of contact. Can the agencies modify this requirement to a specific period of time (e.g., to perhaps include contracts held by the Bidder currently or during the last 10 years) or otherwise address the issue of contracts and I/M programs where no current contact information is available? | No. Bidders have sufficient information to respond to this requirement. |
| 1/5/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Page 51, Section 3.2.2.8.1, Supplier Diversity Plan (SDP) This indicates that an SDP, with commitments, must be submitted. Both this section and RFR Appendix 4 say the SDP will be rated at 10% or more of total evaluation points. Can the Agencies clarify exactly what weighting will be given to the SDP in the RFR response evaluation process? | The evaluation criteria provided in RFR Section 4.2.2. meet Massachusetts procurement requirements. No additional information is being supplied, other than the requirement that the Supplier Diversity Plan must constitute at least 10% of the score. |
| 1/5/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Page 51, Section 3.3, Cost Response The last sentence of this section states, "The Agencies may evaluate the Bidders Cost Response using any or all of the items listed above." This statement provides no insight into how the Agencies intend to comparatively review Cost Responses from multiple Bidders. Can the Agencies provide further details on how they intend to evaluate the cost responses in order to select the winning Bidder? | Cost Responses from all Bidders will receive the same consideration, as provided in the evaluation criteria in RFR Section 4.2.2. |
| 1/5/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Page 63, Section 4.2.2, Evaluation Criteria Other than indicating the descending order of importance for the listed evaluation criteria, and that the SDP evaluation will be for a mandatory minimum of 10% of the total score, this section provides few details on how Bidder responses will be evaluated. Can the Agencies indicate the respective scoring percentages for each of the listed criteria or otherwise provide additional insight into how the winning Bidder will be selected? | The evaluation criteria provided in RFR Section 4.2.2. meet Massachusetts procurement requirements. No additional information is being supplied, other than the requirement that the Supplier Diversity Plan must constitute at least 10% of the score. |
| 1/5/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Page 73, Section 6.1, Online Inspections This section requires all inspections to be conducted online to ALARS and the VID. Inspections offline to ALARS will be permitted only when expressly authorized by MassDOT/RMV. Is the online requirement also true for the current program or would this be something new? How do the Agencies envision MassDOT/RMV expressly authorizing offline inspections? | Currently, all inspections are required to be online to the VID and ALARS. In the event ALARS is down and the Agencies choose for inspections to continue, MassDOT/RMV notifies the Contractor to allow inspection to occur offline to ALARS. No inspections can ever occur offline to the VID. |
| 1/5/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Page 74, Section 6.1.1.1, Communication Materials This requires the Contractor to develop and provide communication materials to Inspection Stations and reproduce and distribute communications materials developed by the Agencies. Can the Agencies confirm that the materials developed by the Agencies are to also be distributed to Inspection Stations only? What types and quantities of these Agency-developed materials are anticipated to be distributed during the contract? | Communications materials distribution will not be limited to inspection stations. For a more detailed description of communications requirements beyond the general description in RFR Section 6.1.1.1., please see RFR Section 6.8. |
| 1/5/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Page 75, Section 6.1.1.5, Communications A detailed communications program is specified under this section, with several open-ended types of requirements. For example, the section mentions, "to the extent requested by the Agencies," explaining the role of vehicles in creating air pollution and the rationale for the I/M program to vehicle owners. The Contractor is also required to undertake communications projects designed to explain particular program changes to affected audiences or to address specific issues that arise during the course of the Contract, with the specific extent of these projects currently unknown and unspecified. Can the Agencies provide additional clarification that would better allow Bidders to estimate the required scope and cost of the overall program communications effort? Would they consider specifying annual budget figures as a way to ensure an even comparison between multiple RFR responses? Also, can the Agencies provide annual cost data for the amounts that the current contractor has spent on program communications under the existing contract? | For a more detailed description of communications requirements, please see RFR Section 6.8. The Agencies will not specify annual communications budget figures as a way to compare multiple RFR responses. The current Contractor is not required to provide annual cost data for communications-related activities. |
| 1/5/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Page 81, Section 6.1.7, Registration Enforcement This section mentions that registration enforcement has not yet been implemented by MassDOT/RMV and then describes how this may work when implemented. Is registration enforcement expected to be implemented and, if so, when? Can the Agencies also clarify whether the Contractor will be required to make any additional changes if registration enforcement is implemented, and whether those changes are to be implemented at no additional cost to the Agencies or Inspection Stations when this implementation does occur? | The Agencies anticipate that Registration Enforcement will be implemented as part of the RMVM; however, there is no date for full RMVM implementation available at this time. The Agencies do not anticipate that the Contractor will need to make any changes or incur any additional costs as a result of Registration Enforcement implementation. |
| 1/5/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Page 89, Section 6.3.3.1, Documentation Using Cameras This section expresses concern about the size of video files from commercial safety inspections, and how they can be transmitted to the VID without disrupting or delaying inspections, since these may take over 1 hour to complete. The section ends with the statement that, "The Contractor is responsible for ensuring that large video files are successfully transmitted to the VID without interfering with the inspection process." Are collection and transmittal of these video files to the VID part of the current program? If so, can the Agencies provide information on the size of files currently being collected? | Collection and transmittal of video files to the VID are not part of the current Program. |
| 1/5/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Page 89, Section 6.3.3.1, Vehicle Data Entry After entry of VIN, plate state, plate number, and plate type, the workstation must communicate with the VID and ALARS to determine if the vehicle is actively registered before the inspection can proceed. This reinforces the online nature of the network design, but what happens if the station loses connectivity? Are they just out of luck/business until it can be re-established? Can the Agencies clarify this issue? | All inspections are required to be online to the VID. If a connection to the VID cannot be established or maintained, for whatever reason, the inspection cannot proceed. |
| 1/5/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Page 91, Section 6.3.3.3.1, Light/Medium Duty OBD Inspection This is to include a visual tampering check of the OBD system. The specific contents of this check are not listed here nor in Attachment A, although Section 3.6.1.1.7.1, Visual Tampering Check, of the attachment does say that a help menu shall be available to assist the Inspector with identifying such tampering. Can the Agencies provide additional details on the OBD system visual tampering check? | The visual tampering check only requires the inspector to report signs of tampering noticed during the process of performing the OBD test (i.e. while plugging the scan tool into the vehicle's DLC.) Inspectors are not required to perform underhood or under-vehicle inspections to look for OBD system tampering. |
| 1/5/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Page 92, Section 6.3.3.6, Real-Time Inspection QA/Test Interruption This section indicates that, with proper filters applied, the Agencies estimate the number of QA failures for test interruption would range from 250 to 500 per month. The section also states that the Contractor shall not exceed the maximum time to respond to QA failures and the percentage of QA failures that the Contractor agreed upon through its RFR Response. a.For clarification purposes, is it the Agencies intent that the Contractor not exceed the agreed percentage of QA failure (as stated in the RFR) or did the Agencies actually mean the percentage of failures should not fall below the level indicated in the Contractors RFR Response? b. Can the Agencies elaborate on what they mean by the proper filters and/or specify that 250 (or some other number) is a required minimum number of monthly QA failures? | a)The Agencies will amend this section of the RFR to read as follows: |
"The Contractor shall not exceed the maximum time to respond to QA failures or fail to meet the percentage of QA failures that the Contractor agreed upon through its RFR Response, and as finalized in the Contract Award."
b) Currently, the Agencies manually review 250 - 500 suspect inspections from the previous month that are flagged using extensive criteria developed by the Agencies. It is anticipated that applying the same criteria real-time will yield approximately the same number of QA failures at the beginning of the new program.
| 1/5/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Page 92, Section 6.3.3.6, Real-Time Inspection QA/Test Interruption This section states that the Contractor shall not exceed the percentage of QA failures that the Contractor agreed upon through its RFR Response. However, RFR Sections 3.2.1.3.K and 3.2.1.4, on pages 29 and 32 respectively, actually specify that Bidders indicate what percentage of test interruptions they shall respond to for weekday and Saturday Help Desk hours. Nowhere in the RFR are Bidders explicitly required to specify the number or percentage of QA failures that they project or propose to target under this program element, instead they are only required to indicate what percentage of the QA failures to which they propose to respond. We suggest that the Agencies clarify this issue. | Please see the Agencies' answer to the prior question. |
| 1/5/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Page 93, Section 6.3.6, Inspection Software This section states that all inspections must be performed with the Workstation connected to the VID; no offline inspections shall be allowed. It then indicates that the Agencies therefore anticipate that most, if not all, of the inspection software can reside on the VID instead of the Workstation and lists multiple advantages for this approach. Other questions we submitted ask about possibly relaxing the DAD certification requirement and what happens if the station loses connectivity vis-୶is the online nature of the network. This is a follow-up to those questions depending on how the Agencies answer them. If a decision is made that offline operation may need to be allowed in certain situations, can or should Bidders propose a solution that includes having at least some level of inspection software onboard the workstations rather than reside on the VID? | All inspections are required to be online to the VID. |
| 1/5/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Page 94, Section 6.3.6, Software Hours The Contractor is required to provide 5,000 hours of software programming over the 5-year contract period for software enhancements and all tasks related to implementing the changes, such as testing, updating relevant documentation, etc., exclusive of time required to fix software bugs. a. It would be helpful for assessing the amount of needed resources if the Agencies could provide any estimate of how the 5,000 programming hours might be used over the contract period. For example, should we assume these are spread evenly across the 5-year period or can the Agencies provide some other projection of estimated annual hours? b. Nothing is mentioned about any additional required enhancement hours during the contract extension periods, if exercised by the Agencies. Can this issue be clarified? | a. The 5,000 hours would be used to revise Program software in response to currently unanticipated Program changes at the request of the Agencies. Since these changes are currently unanticipated, there is no way to anticipate whether these changes would be evenly distributed throughout the Contract term. |
b. Any additional required software hours would be negotiated by the Agencies and the Contractor for that contract extension period.
| 1/5/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Page 95, Section 6.3.8, Stickers and VIRs, and Attachment A, page 50, Section 3.6.6.2.2, Sticker Sales Are stickers currently sold only at the station level in Massachusetts or can one company that owns multiple stations buy stickers to use at any of the stations? This could potentially have an impact on the cradle to grave sticker tracking system that the Contractor is required to implement under RFR Section 3.2.1.3.L on page 30. | Test Authorizations are sold to the stations by the Contractor. Stickers are provided free of charge to the stations by the Contractor. Stickers are assigned at a station level. Regardless of how many stations an individual or company may own, stickers are assigned to a particular station ID and cannot be shared with any other stations. |
| 1/5/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Page 95, Section 6.3.8, Stickers and VIRs The Contractor is required to employ a detailed reporting mechanism to promptly report all stolen and/or otherwise unaccounted for or missing sticker stock to local law enforcement authorities and MassDOT/RMV. How is the Contractor supposed to report this to local law enforcement authorities? | It is the station's responsibility; however, the Contractor is required to track this information and cooperate with law enforcement. |
| 1/5/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Page 97, Section 6.3.9, Acceptance Testing The Contractor must demonstrate that the VID, including but not limited to the software, meets specifications, security requirements (including, if required, penetration testing through a 3rd party vendor hired by the Contractor and approved by the Agencies), and performance standards. What is "if required" penetration testing by a 3rd party vendor hired by the Contractor? How will Bidders know whether this is required, so that they can budget for it? Can the Agencies clarify this issue? | Penetration testing (also called pen testing) is the practice of testing a computer system, network or Web application to find vulnerabilities that an attacker could exploit. As indicated in RFR section 6.3.9, the Agencies reserve the right to have a 3rd party vendor conduct penetration testing on the Contractor's Database, at the Contractor's expense. All Bidders should assume that penetration testing will be a component of Acceptance Testing for purposes of addressing this requirement. |
| 1/5/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Page 98, Section 6.4.1, Addressing Improper Inspections This requires the Contractor to implement the QA measures for inspections specified in Attachment A. The only mention in Attachment A about minimizing improper inspections is related to QA Failure Test Interruptions. This is assumed to mean using triggers to identify possible inspection fraud/false passes on a real-time basis. Can the Agencies confirm that this section is focused specifically on the QA Failure Test Interruption process and isn't referring to anything else in Attachment A? | Addressing improper inspections only applies to the OBD Test QA checks described in Attachment A, section 3.6.1.1.7.9. |
| 1/5/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Page 98, Section 6.4.1, Addressing Improper Inspections This requires the Contractor to periodically, or upon request of the Agencies, provide reports summarizing the Contractors efforts to monitor for and eliminate improper safety and emissions inspections and other breaches of the standard Inspection Station agreements. This is a somewhat open ended requirement, with no insight into how often the Agencies might request such reports. Can the likely level of estimate for this program element be clarified? | The Agencies anticipate that reports will be required on a regular basis, to be determined during Contract negotiations. |
| 1/5/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Page 98, Section 6.4.3, Safety and Environmental Management This requires the Contractor to develop and implement an environmental management plan to ensure clean and safe operation of workstations, which among other things must include addressing occupational safety measures associated with the use of inspection equipment and corrective measures for any occupational safety problem that may result from proper or improper use of the Workstations. We have a concern that these requirements could potentially expose the Contractor to legal liability due to occupational safety claims by inspectors; e.g., they could potentially claim an injury because the Contractor did not take adequate corrective measures. Can the Agencies respond to this concern and clarify this issue? | The Contractor is required to develop a safety and environmental management plan. No further clarification is necessary. |
| 1/5/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Page 99, Section 6.5.1, Offline ALARS Tests The Contractor is required to maintain a vehicle registration data file that is updated from ALARS, at minimum, on a daily basis. Can the Agencies confirm that the daily (or other frequency) update would just involve receipt of a delta file rather than the entire vehicle registration data file, and can they provide an approximate size for this file? | Daily updates consist of 3 "delta" files that only contain changes and typically total 1 to 2 MB. Once per year, the entire registration file (20 - 25 MB) is transmitted to the VID to ensure consistency between the VID files and ALARS. |
| 1/5/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Page 100, Section 6.5.2, VID/ALARS Interactions This section indicates that, to begin an inspection, the VID sends ALARS vehicle information plus the station and inspector IDs. For the inspection to proceed, ALARS must confirm the vehicle is actively registered, or is an out of state registration, and the station and inspector licenses are active. At the end of the inspection, the VID sends inspection results to ALARS and ALARS must confirm receipt of the results before the inspection is considered valid and a sticker and VIR is printed. These interactions mean the Contractor will be dependent on ALARS performance in order to meet VID response-related requirements or service level agreements. Can the Agencies confirm that the Contractor will not be responsible for a failure to meet any VID response requirements if the failure is caused partially or wholly by an ALARS performance issue? | The Contractor will not be responsible for performance-related problems resulting from an ALARS performance issue. |
| 1/5/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Page 103, Section 6.5.4.2, Inspection Data The web-based application specified in this section must provide the Agencies with access to specific data (such as an individual test record) with average response times of less than 5 seconds, not including internet connection time. While this response time requirement would not be an issue for providing individual test records, it might be for some of the other data elements listed in this section such as videos associated with inspections (i.e., particularly the hour-long commercial safety inspections) due to their large file sizes. Can the Agencies clarify which specific types of data would be included under the specified 5-second response time? | Access to all detailed information listed in RFR section 6.5.4.2 shall occur with an average response time under 5 seconds except for video files. |
| 1/5/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Page 103, Section 6.5.4.3, Maintenance and Help Desk Issue Tracking When the Agencies or an Inspector reports a VID problem to the Contractor, Contractor must provide the following within two hours: explanation of the problem; proposed solution; and time it will take to correct the problem. In some cases, a full investigation into the problem may not be completed within two hours, making it difficult or impossible to fully explain the problem and/or proposed solution, and/or estimate the time needed to correct the problem. Can the Agencies modify this requirement to take such a situation into account? | No. The Agencies will not modify this requirement. |
| 1/5/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Page 105, Section 6.5.5, Data Transfer This section states that the VID may also be used to track heavy-duty interstate diesel vehicles subject to roadside emissions inspections. This may be accomplished, in part, through data exchange with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and one of its roadside inspection programs, such as the Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks (CVISN). RFR Section 3.1.3 on page 24 states that, "Where the RFR uses the terms Bidder(s) may or Bidder(s) should, the item identified is optional." So does the use of "may" in section 6.5.5 mean that this is an optional requirement? Can the Agencies clarify this? | Section 3 of the RFR refers to items that all Bidders are responsible for including in the RFR Responses. Section 6 of the RFR refers to Program responsibilities of the chosen Contractor. The use of 'may' in RFR Section 6.5.5 means that the chosen Contractor may, or may not, be required by the Agencies to track heavy-duty interstate diesel vehicles subject to roadside emissions through the VID inspections during the term of the Contract. |
| 1/5/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Page 106, Section 6.5.6, Data Access This section states that the Contractor must ensure that VID access does not compromise the performance of the Agencies LANs and WANs. This includes the ability to view and download any portion of the data, including images and video. How can Contractor ensure that viewing videos will not compromise any Agency LANs or WANs when we don't have control of these or know anything about their capabilities? Can this be clarified? | Bidders should propose data access solutions (e.g. video file format) that would have the least impact on the performance of Agency LANs and WANs. |
| 1/5/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Page 108, Section 6.5.9, Reporting Many different types of reports are listed in subsections 6.5.9.1-4, with these referred to as the "minimum" to be provided. This results in an open ended requirement regarding how many individual reports need to be developed and implemented. Can the Agencies provide clarification on this issue, in terms of how many total reports are required, the deadline for when these reports need to be available, and whether additional reports are chargeable against the 5,000 hours of software programming specified in RFR Section 6.3.6? | The reports listed in RFR section 6.5.9 are critical to monitoring the effectiveness of the Program and are required to be operational for the October 1, 2017 start date. Any additional reports requested by the Agencies shall be chargeable against the 5,000 hours of software programming specified in RFR section 6.3.6. |
| 1/5/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Page 110, Section 6.5.10, Data Migration Given the requirement that the Contractor must migrate all vehicle inspection data generated from January 1, 2010 through September 30, 2017, what obligation does the current program contractor have to share legacy data? | The currrent Contractor is required to transfer "legacy data," the inspection data it has generated under the current Contract. |
| 1/5/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Page 111, Section 6.5.11, Physical Location of Database This section states that the Agencies will consider cloud solutions, either hosted by the Contractor or by identified and preapproved third-party vendors. However, RFR Section 3.0.1 states that, "the Database must be hosted in a dedicated facility under the control of the Contractor, and not in the 'public cloud.' This is to hold the Contractor responsible for the operation of the VID, and to ensure the security of the data without it being in the possession of a third party cloud provider." These two sections appear to be contradictory. Can the Agencies clarify this issue? | The Agencies will amend RFR Section 3.0.1 to delete the first two sentences of this paragraph to correct this inconsistency. The Amended RFR section 3.0.1 will read as follows: "Finally, the Contractor must remain fully responsible for the operation of the VID, and must ensure the security of the data and the performance of the System, whether or not the System is hosted by a third party cloud provider." |
| 1/5/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Page 111, Section 6.5.11, Software Ownership This section states that hardware and software used to store and manage the Database will be the property of the Commonwealth, managed and operated by the Contractor. The Contractor must purchase software licenses and hardware in the name of the Commonwealth or utilize any Commonwealth contracts to be determined during Contract negotiations. Our companys approach in successfully completing a large number of I/M programs and other technology projects for State customers over the last 30+ years has been to own the hardware and software used for these projects. In particular, we consider the software we deploy in our I/M programs to be core corporate intellectual property. This software reflects extensive hours of invested developer time, contains proprietary concepts we have developed over the years, and is a key element in why our company has been a successful IM contractor for more than three decades. It might be argued that the software developed for the NG System would be new and therefore a work for hire under this contract that should therefore be Commonwealth property. However, a large portion of the software will not be all new, since much of what we will build for this project will be based on already existing software code and concepts, previously developed for other projects. Turning over ownership of this software code to the Commonwealth, who in turn might share it with one or more of our competitors, would expose our intellectual property to those companies. This would give them a huge competitive advantage, which in our opinion is both unfair and anti-competitive. | Answer a): The RFR Section 6.5.11 requirement applies to both commercial software and Bidder developed software for the Program. Answer b.: With respect to software ownership, the Bidder should refer to RFR Attachment F: IM RFR Draft Scope of Services, Article X, entitled "Title and Intellectual Property Rights," which addresses both Commonwealth and Contractor IP ownership of software utilized/developed during the course of a Contract. As stated in Article X, Bidder retains ownership of “Contractor Property,” which includes pre-existing Bidder intellectual property developed for other clients. In addition, the intellectual property language in Article X excludes software developed by Bidder for the open market. During Contract negotiations, Bidder may negotiate the definition of Contractor Property to include clarifications about what constitutes pre-existing Bidder intellectual property. Bidders should note that the Article X terms constitute the baseline legal terms regarding IP rights as developed by the Commonwealth's Massachusetts Office of Information Technology. (MassIT). While the terms of Article X may be subject to contract negotiation between the Agencies and the Apparent Successful Bidder, the alteration of these terms are subject to and contingent upon the review and approval of the MassIT Legal Department. Answer c.: With respect to cloud hosted solutions, the data is subject to the terms of Article X of the Draft Scope of Services; therefore, the Bidder should refer to the IP division of Commonwealth and Contractor rights as set forth in this Article. |
| 1/5/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Continued Question #40 - While we respect the Commonwealths desire to own the NGDatabase hardware and software, we strongly believe, and have a documented track record to support this, that Contractor ownership of system hardware and software can result in a highly successful program. a. Our issue is not with commercial software (e.g., Oracle licenses) that might be purchased for this project, but rather our core intellectual propertyi.e., Bidder developed and owned software. Can the Agencies clarify whether this requirement applies to just commercial software or also Bidder developed software? b. If this requirement does apply to both commercial and Bidder-developed software, will the Agencies consider modifying the RFR both here and elsewhere to allow Bidders to propose an alternative approach of Contractor ownership of non-commercial system software? c. Can the Agencies clarify how this requirement applies to a Bidder who proposes a cloud solution; how would ownership of any applicable software be transferred to the Agencies? | [See above.] |
| 1/5/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Page 111, Section 6.5.11, Hardware Ownership While we are less opposed to Commonwealth ownership of Database hardware, we see this as another issue where Contractor ownership can deliver as good or better contract performance. By the end of a contract term, server and other Database hardware is typically at the end of its useful life, has been surpassed by multiple generations of technological advances, and has limited utility for continued use. This section does require the Contractor to maintain hardware to current technology levels, which might argue that deployed hardware at the end of the contract would be current and therefore be useful for the next contract. However, we would argue that if a Contractor does not own the hardware, they are more likely to only keep it upgraded to the most minimal required to meet contract requirements. Conversely, if the Contractor owns the hardware, they are more likely to pursue voluntary upgrades to ensure it provides maximum utility both during the contract and also afterwards for other projects. In addition, almost all procurements we have seen have required the Contractor to deploy new server hardware. If the Commonwealth were to own the NGDatabase servers, we find it doubtful that the Agencies would simply direct the next Contractor to use these in the next program; instead, new server hardware would most likely be required. We therefore think owning the NGDatabase hardware would simply leave the Commonwealth with the need to dispose of largely outdated equipment at the end of the contract. a. Will the Agencies allow Bidders to propose an alternative approach of Contractor ownership of system hardware? b. Can the Agencies clarify how this requirement applies to a Bidder who proposes a cloud solution; how would ownership of any applicable hardware be transferred to the Agencies? | Answer a.: The Bidder should refer to Attachment F, Draft Scope of Services, Article X, Subsection F., entitled "Equipment," which refers to the baseline requirements for hardware equipment acquired and maintained by the Contractor for this Contract. As indicated in the prior Answer regarding software ownership requirements of RFR Section 6.5.11, while these terms may be subject to negotiations between the Agencies and the Apparent Successful Bidder prior to finalizing the Contract Award, alteration of these terms would be subject to and contingent upon the review and approval of MassIT's Legal Department. Answer b.: With respect to the transfer of hardware at the conclusion of the Contract, the Bidder should refer to Attachment F, Draft Scope of Services, Article XX, entitled "Transition," which addresses the transfer of hardware at the conclusion of the Contract. To the extent that there is an alteration of hardware ownership rights through negotiations, these alterations would be contingent upon and subject to the review and approval of MassIT's Legal Department. |
| 1/5/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Page 111, Section 6.5.11, Current Technology Hardware and Software The Contractor is required to maintain all hardware and software up to the current state of technology. We have two questions regarding this requirement: a. What exactly does up to the current state of technology mean? At the most extreme, this could be interpreted to mean that the Contractor has to upgrade deployed hardware and software whenever the manufacturers of these release updates. We doubt this is the Agencies intent, so we are seeking clarification on how they view this requirement should be interpreted. To avoid the potential for misinterpretation, we suggest the requirement be modified to include more specifics. b. The requirements in Section 6.5.11 are mostly specific to the Database portion of the NGSystem. Because of this, the use of all for this requirement could be interpreted to mean all Database hardware or software, or alternatively, all NGSystem hardware and software (e.g., to also include NGWorkstation hardware and software). Can the Agencies clarify which of these interpretations is the correct one? | Answer a.: The "current state of the technology" with respect to both software and hardware means that the Contractor is expected to maintain and upgrade, on a regular basis, both software and hardware components of the Database so that the system reflects the evolving needs and changes associated with emerging IT requirements and needs. Answer b.: As utilized by the Agencies, the term "Database" in RFR Section 6.5.11 is utilized in the broadest context possible; in addition see RFR Appendix 2, where the term "Database" is defined as follows: Database, Inspection Database, and Vehicle Inspection Database (VID) depending upon the context in which these terms are utilized throughout this RFR, these terms can mean either the entire database computer system or a subset of the computer system required to operate and maintain the I&M Program, including but not limited to, all communication devices and hardware and software established and maintained by the Contractor to collect, store, analyze and report all data pertaining to the Program. These terms shall, depending upon the context, include, but are not limited to, the transactional database that interacts with the Workstations, any databases needed to back up the transactional database, and the data warehouse. However this definition does not include the Workstations required for vehicle inspections. |
| 1/5/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Page 111, Section 6.5.11, Software Releases The Contractor is required to maintain software at current release levels. We are unclear what this requirement means in terms of how often software would need to be upgraded. Does this mean whenever a new version is released or just when the old version is no longer supported? Can the Agencies clarify this requirement? | While the Contractor must provide software at current release levels as required by RFR Section 6.5.11, the frequency of these software upgrades will dependent upon the software involved, and will be part of the more detailed negotiations between the Agencies and the Apparent Successful Bidder during the course of Contract negotiations, as part of finalizing the Draft Scope of Services. |
| 1/5/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Page 111, Section 6.5.11, Current Technology Hardware and Software The Contractor is required to reimburse the Commonwealth for periodic out-of-state travel by Agency employees or designees to out-of-state Contractor facilities, as deemed necessary by either Agency.. We understand that the Agencies may want to inspect an out-of-state Data Center if this is where the NGDatabase hardware and software is located, but this is a fairly open ended requirement as worded. We have the following questions related to this issue: a. Can the Agencies clarify the likely scope of inspections of out-of-state Data Centers where NGDatabase hardware and software is located, including the estimated number of annual trips during the contract duration, how many staff or designees would be involved in the inspections and the estimated period of the inspection visits (e.g., would these just be day trips)? b. This requirement is not necessarily limited to Data Center inspections given the RFR wording. For example, would this also require the Contractor to reimburse the Commonwealth for travel of Agency staff or designees to a Contractors out-of-state corporate headquarters for periodic face-to-face meetings with Contractor corporate staff? Can the Agencies clarify this issue? c. How will this requirement be applied to a Bidder who proposes a cloud solution? | Answer a.: The frequency and scope of the Agencies' inspections of out of state Contractor facilities will depend upon finalizing the details regarding the location of the Contractor facilities, which will be part of the negotiations between the Agencies and the Apparent Sucessful Bidder prior to finalizing the Contract Award. Therefore, this question cannot be answered at this point in the procurement process. Answer b.: The intent of this requirement is for the Agencies to travel to inspect the Contractor's out of state facilities, not to travel to the Contractor's corporate headquarters. Answer c.: Since any third-party cloud provider must be a subcontractor to the contractor, the contractor will be required to provide travel reimbursement for any necessary travel to any third-party data facility that the subcontractor uses to house any aspect of the database. |
| 1/5/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Page 112, Section 6.5.12, ALARS modernization Insufficient information is currently available to identify the needed level of effort on the part of the Contract to integrate with the new RMVM. Will this integration effort therefore be covered under the 5,000-hour allotment of software programming hours specified under RFR Section 6.3.6, subject to a contract amendment, or is the Contractor expected to include this cost as part of their cost proposal? | The ALARS modernization effort is NOT part of the 5,000 hours. The bid submitted will include the transition and post RVRM implementation. |
| 1/5/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Page 117, Section 6.6.2.5, VISITS reports This section requires the Contractor to provide, through the proposed VISITS application, a reporting and analysis tool for MassDOT/RMV staff to generate comprehensive ad hoc reports. It may be that this tool could be delivered most efficiently through the required Management Console rather than through the separate VISITS application. Can the Agencies clarify whether this would be an acceptable alternative? | The Agencies are willing to consider alternatives as long as the solution is web based. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .