QandA_vehicle_inspection_maintenance_Round2~1.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 18 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- BD-16-1030-0R100-0R001-00000006553
- Issued by
- Massachusetts
About this file
This document contains questions and answers related to a Request for Response (RFR) issued by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) and the Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) for a Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program. The RFR seeks a contractor to manage and implement the vehicle emission and safety test program, including developing and managing the inspection station network, developing and implementing inspection protocols, and acquiring, providing, and maintaining inspection station equipment and data systems. Key details include the requirement for BAR-certified diagnostic scan tool hardware, the use of the CAL BAR diagnostic scan tool communication specification, and the need for the contractor to potentially modify the scan tool firmware or software to perform OBD testing on heavy-duty vehicles over 14,000 lbs GVWR. The contract term is not specified, but the RFR notes that changes to the BAR-certified scan tool required for re-certification in California must also be implemented in Massachusetts.
The RFR does not specify a budget or funding source, but indicates the contractor will be responsible for training program inspectors, providing communications to the public, inspectors, and repairers, and developing a new VISITS database system to interface with the ALARS and ALARS replacement systems. Bidders are permitted to submit redacted versions of existing software licenses, maintenance agreements, and other documents to maintain confidentiality during the bid process.
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
Round 2 Questions
| Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | BD-16-1030-0R100-0R001-00000006553 | |||
| Date Rcvd | Bidder | Question Subject | Question | Answer |
| 2/10/16 | Parsons Environment & Infrastructure Group | 3.1.2 - Cost Response | In RFR Section 3.1.2, the instructions for the cost response ask us to submit bidder financial qualifications required in sections 3.3.6 and 3.3.7. We do not find a section 3.3.7 in the RFR. Are all of the Bidder Financial Qualification requirements included in Section 3.3.6? | Correct. The Agencies will amend RFR Section 3.1.2 to say "The Cost Response shall also include Bidder Financial Qualifications required in RFR Sections 3.3.6." |
| 2/10/16 | Parsons Environment & Infrastructure Group | 5.3 - Where to send response and sample equipment | The "Ship-to" address listed on COMMBUYS (10 Park Plaza) is different than the instructions in the RFR (One Winter Street). Please confirm which is correct for delivery of proposal hard-copies and sample equipment. | Please use the "Ship-to" address in RFR Section 5.3. The 10 Park Plaza address is an artifact of the COMMBUYS system and should not be used as the location to send the RFR Responses. |
| 2/11/16 | SGS Testcom Inc. | 3.2.2.5 - Breakdown of Inspection Fees | In some project instances the inspection fee is shared between the state and the Prime contractor, where the subcontractor is not privvy to this information. In this case should contractors put the State's inspection fee which was charged and then an N/A for the Contractor's share and the Government's share? | While it seems unusual that the fee a state pays to a contractor would not be a public record, if a bidder is reporting their relevant experience as a subcontractor, and the bidder is unable to discover the fee paid to the contractor because it is not public record, then the bidder should indicate the fee paid to the contractor and the amount retained by the state are Not Available. This will avoid confusion created by the abbreviation "N/A" also being used to mean "Not Applicable." |
| 2/11/16 | SGS Testcom Inc. | 3.2.2.4 - Contractor Resource Authorization | Could the Government please provide an example of what would best demonstrate this assurance? Would a letter expressing this from Corporate suffice? | The information required is clearly outlined in RFR section 3.2.2.4. How it is presented is up to the Bidder. |
| 2/11/16 | SGS Testcom Inc. | 3.2.2.4 - Time Allocation Analysis | Could the Government please provide an example of this? Would a work break down structure be sufficient? | The information required is clearly outlined in RFR section 3.2.2.4. How it is presented is up to the Bidder. |
| 2/11/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Page 12, Section 1.8, BAR DAD Certification We previously asked if the Agencies would relax/remove the DAD requirement. They answered No. This, our second round of questions, started with that answer. No, the DAD requirement will not be relaxed/removed. So, with the DAD requirement in place, we looked at the implications of using a California BAR-certified DAD in Massachusetts. Our second round questions initially were intended to focus on the DAD Communications Specification, BAR OIS and the California NWA. In preparing our second round questions (as shown below) we came across other considerations that prompted us to ask additional questions about the DAD requirement. We are asking these questions not to antagonize, but for clarification at what we believe to be the applicable point in the procurement process. We do not want you to think that we are unable to understand the word No. BAR-certified DADs are explicitly designed to work with proprietary communications software developed and owned by BARs current VID contractor, SGS Testcom. Please see the document posted at http://www.bar.ca.gov/pdf/DADQnArev3.pdf, which contains comments, questions and answers issued by BAR for BAR OBD Inspection System (OIS) DAD Design, for information related to this issue. The following answers contained in the referenced document are particularly relevant to this issue: Comments section, answers to #2, 3 and 13. Questions and Answers section, answers to Q014, Q022, Q029 and Q077. BARs answers document that the DAD Communication Specification, which specifies how the DAD must communicate with the BAR OIS Software (which partially runs on the workstations in the participating stations and partly on the server/VID side), is the property of, and only available from, SGS Testcom, the BAR-OIS Software Contractor. | This Question references RFR Section 1.8 on page 12. The Agencies' Answer to this Question and the series of Questions referencing BAR DAD certification issues are set forth in the Answers below. |
| 2/11/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | In the California program, SGS Testcom and BAR send commands to the DAD devices via the protocols specified in the DAD Communication Specification and receive responses from the DAD devices per the communication specification. In that role, SGS-BAR are the interrogators (via BAR-OIS software) and the DADs are the interrogated entity. To communicate with a DAD device, the new Massachusetts network contractor needs to be the interrogator. In order to enable a DAD to talk to the next generation Massachusetts VID, the contractor will need access to the DAD Communication Specification. The DAD by itself is a dumb device, which only functions when commanded by the BAR OIS. This is documented in multiple provisions of the BAR DAD Specification, which can be found at http://www.bar.ca.gov/pdf/DADSpecification.pdf). For example, section 3.2.37 of the specification states, The DAD shall NOT request data from the vehicle unless the specific data is requested by the NWA. A recent discussion with BAR staff confirmed that attempting to use any DAD device without the DAD Communication Specification/software would not work. BAR noted that the DADs are certified for use in California only and that BAR has a contractual relationship with SGS Testcom regarding the communications software. They also indicated they were unsure whether BAR would even agree to certify DADs for use in another state. Given the above background, our review of the available DAD Communications Specification, BAR-OIS, Ca NWA documents, and a re-review of the BAR DAD Specification, we have the following series of questions: | The Agencies will amend RFR section 1.8 and Attachment A section 2.2.4 of the RFR to clarify that the Contractor shall provide BAR-certified DAD hardware. The Agencies disagree that the DAD itself is a "dumb device." As used in the CA program, the DAD is programmed with default capabilities, and may be instructed by the NWA/OIS software to override its default programming when performing some OBD emissions tests. (NOTE TO BIDDERS regarding terms: NWA = BAR’s Next Generation Electronic Transmission Web Application; and OIS = BAR OBD Inspection System.) The SGS Communication Specification details how the DAD communicates with the NWA/OIS software. The Massachusetts IM RFR and its Attachments define how the OBD test is expected to perform under the next Contract. Detailed specifications will be completed jointly by the parties following execution of the contract. The Contractor will be expected to provide software so that the BAR-certified DAD hardware performs as specified for the Massachusetts program. This may require changes to the DAD firmware or software. The Agencies will neither require nor prohibit the use of the DAD Communication Specification for the Massachusetts program. |
| 2/11/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Is the DAD Communication Specification in the public domain with free public use licensing? | Questions regarding the BAR DAD Communication Specification's availability in the public domain should be directed to BAR. As stated above, Massachusetts is neither requiring nor prohibiting the Contractor to use the DAD Communication Specification, provided the OBD emissions test is performed as specified. |
| 2/11/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Depending upon answers to other questions, does SGS Testcom ownership of the DAD Communication Specification represent a challenge to the Agencies desire for an open, competitive bid process? | No. As stated above, Massachusetts is neither requiring nor prohibiting the Contractor to use the DAD Communication Specification, provided the OBD emissions test is performed as specified. |
| 2/11/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Based on conversations with the BAR, it currently seems unlikely that they will certify the DAD for use in another state. BAR certification is conditioned on a vendor intending to use the DAD in the CA Smog Check program. Was it the Agencies intent to only allow currently certified DAD vendors to participate as scan tool providers in the MA program? | Yes. Bidders are required to submit the BAR certified DAD hardware they propose to use in the Massachusetts program. |
| 2/11/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | If BAR will certify the DAD for use in another state, will the Agencies extend the timeframe for submitting a proposal (since BAR DAD certification will likely require at least a year to complete, but even that is not clear since BAR has not yet published their 2016 certification schedule)? | No. The Agencies will not extend the timeframe for submitting a proposal. |
| 2/11/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Does anyone (including, but not limited to, the Massachusetts network contractor, any CA BAR-certified DAD manufacturer, and even SGS Testcom) have the legal right to use the DAD Communication Specification outside of the California program? a. Certified DAD manufacturers may have access to the DAD Communication Specification as part of the certification process, but are they legally allowed to use it in the next generation Massachusetts program as the interrogator/initiator? Are currently certified DAD manufacturers legally allowed to use the DAD Communication Specification in a role other than as a DAD manufacturer for use exclusively in California? b. While SGS Testcom has ownership of the DAD Communication Specification, does their contract with BAR legally allow them to use this, or to provide it for use by another party, in the Massachusetts program? | A. (a-b): The Agencies have not sought or obtained the legal rights for the use of the DAD Communications Specification outside California. Questions regarding the legal rights for use of the DAD Communications Specification outside California, including whether any party has requested or been granted such legal rights, should be directed to BAR. As stated above, Massachusetts is neither requiring nor prohibiting the Contractor to use the DAD Communication Specification, provided that the OBD emissions test is performed as specified. |
| 2/11/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Is the DAD Communication Specification available from SGS Testcom for use by non-DAD manufacturers? A Massachusetts bidder that proposes to use a certified DAD provided by a third-party supplier will still need the communication specification in order to design the next generation VID to communicate with the DAD. | BAR has indicated that the DAD Communication Specification has already been made available to 13 different parties to date. |
| 2/11/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | Is it the Agencies expectation that Massachusetts bidders and/or the winning contractor must sign an NDA with SGS Testcom, per the answer to Q029 in the first of the above referenced documents, to use the DAD Communication Specification? | No. As stated above, Massachusetts is neither requiring nor prohibiting the Contractor to use the DAD Communication Specification, provided the OBD emissions test is performed as specified. |
| 2/11/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | DAD Specification A large number of the provisions of this specification, the second of the documents referenced above, are specific to the California program. Many reference sending data to BARs Next Generation Electronic Transmission Web Application (NWA), which has now been replaced by the OIS acronym, or performing an action upon NWA request. Others specify additional California program-specific requirements. This includes sections 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.1.8, 3.1.10, 3.1.11-3.1.14, 3.1.16-3.1.20, 3.2.7.1.1, 3.2.7.2.1, 3.2.8-3.2.11, 3.2.12-16, 3.2.18, 3.2.19, 3.2.29, 3.2.30, 3.2.31.2, 3.2.31.3, 3.2.32, 3.2.33, 3.2.34.2-3.2.34.6, 3.2.36-3.2.49, 3.2.51-58, 3.2.60, 3.2.60A, 3.2.61, 3.2.64, 3.2.65, 3.2.70, 3.2.79, 3.2.81 and 3.2.82. Do all of these requirements apply to the Massachusetts program? | NOTE TO BIDDERS REGARDING QUESTION REFERENCE: the Bidder's reference to "DAD Specification" numbering refers to the California BAR DAD Communication Specifications. The IM RFR and its Attachments define how the OBD test is expected to perform under the next contract. The Agencies are amending RFR Attachment A section 3.6.1.1.7.7 to include a list of minimum OBD data elements to be gathered during the OBD emissions test. More detailed specifications will be completed jointly by the parties following execution of the contract. |
| 2/11/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | DAD Specification, Section 3.2.9 This section states that the DAD shall access the OBDII SAE J1979 defined data from all diesel fueled vehicles required to have OBDII systems, including passenger, light and medium duty trucks 1998 and newer up to and including fourteen thousand (14,000) Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR). The 14,000-lb GVWR limitation is inconsistent with RFR section 6.3.3.3.2, which requires Heavy Duty Workstations to be equipped to perform an OBD test on model year 2014 and newer heavy-duty vehicles (>14,000 lbs. GVWR). This also means that there is no guarantee that a BAR-certified DAD device will be able to perform an OBD test on these vehicles. How do the Agencies want to address this issue? | The Agencies understand that the Contractor may need to create custom firmware and software enabling the DAD hardware device to perform OBD emissions tests of heavy-duty OBD vehicles >14,000 lbs. GVWR. |
| 2/11/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | DAD Specification, Sections 3.2.12-15 These sections require that the DAD will maintain connectivity rates, initially set at 99.9% for both priority one and priority two data, for the listed vehicle categories. BAR may adjust these connectivity rates in 0.10% increments to ensure uniform and consistent tests. Will the BAR connectivity rates, including adjusted rates, apply in Massachusetts? | No. The Agencies are modifying RFR Attachment A section 2.2.4 to define connectivity rates for the Massachusetts program. |
| 2/11/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | DAD Specification, Section 5.1.8-5.1.11 DAD certification requires beta testing involving at least 50 deployed units at Smog Check stations in California and collection of at least 20,000 inspection records. With initial rollout of DAD devices to the California stations complete, there is no incentive for stations to participate in beta testing with a new DAD manufacturer who now wants to obtain DAD certification from BAR. This will likely have the effect of limiting certified DAD vendors to only those who received initial certification from BAR. Is this desired by the Agencies? | It is the Agencies' intent to allow only BAR-certified DAD hardware for the Massachusetts program. |
| 2/11/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | DAD Specification, Section 5.2 A change in California that becomes a required change for DAD re-certification could require the Massachusetts DAD device providers to also be changed regardless of whether or not it is in the best interest of the Massachusetts program. Is this desired by the Agencies? | Yes. Any changes to BAR-certified DAD hardware required for re-certification by California shall also be required in Massachusetts. |
| 2/11/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | DAD Specification, Section 5.2 A change in California that becomes a required change for DAD re-certification could require the Massachusetts contractor to change their system to accommodate the changes that BAR requires of the DAD devices. Such a change may be reasonable to expect of DAD manufacturers as part of what they signed up for as part of the BAR DAD certification process, but the Massachusetts contractor has no way to anticipate and plan for the cost of what could be a massive overhaul required by a different state. Is this desired by the Agencies? | Yes. Any changes to BAR-certified DAD hardware required for re-certification by California shall also be required in Massachusetts. |
| 2/11/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | DAD Specification, Section 5.3 If a BAR-certified DAD is de-certified by BAR for the California program, is it likewise de-certified for the Massachusetts program? Does the entire Massachusetts program shut down if a responsive, winning bidder proposed the use of a single, currently certified DAD which at some time in the future becomes de-certified or out of business? How do the Agencies want to handle this situation? | The Agencies expect BAR-certified DAD hardware to be provided by and supported by the Contractor for the duration of the contract. In the event the DAD hardware provided by the Contractor is de-certified by BAR, the Agencies expect the Contractor to replace the de-certified DAD hardware at Contractor expense with a BAR-certified replacement using an implementation schedule that is mutually agreed upon by the Agencies and Contractor. |
| 2/11/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | DAD Specification, Section 5.3 The Citation subsection of this section describes DAD manufacturer rights under California law, timelines, and other California-specific provisions. Other than any direct actions that California takes under this subsection, how would these provisions be applied to the Massachusetts program? | The California-specific provisions of the DAD specification would not apply to the MA program. |
| 2/11/16 | Gordon-Darby | Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program | DAD Specification, Appendix B This appendix consists of a Disclosure Agreement form that the DAD manufacturer must provide to an inspection station that purchases a DAD. Is the Massachusetts contractor required to provide Massachusetts stations with a similar form? If so, how should this form be modified to be relevant to the Massachusetts program rather than the California program? | The Contractor is required to develop and execute Standard Inspection Station Agreements as described in section 6.2.6 of the RFR. California's Disclosure Agreement would not be required for the Massachusetts program. |
| 2/11/16 | Parsons Environment & Infrastructure Group Inc | Page 34, Section 3.2.1.5.P, Bidders Existing Agreements and Other Documentation | Would the Agencies allow bidders to submit redacted versions of 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 in their bid response in order to maintain the contractual and/or legal confidentiality of those vendor agreements? | The intent of RFR Section 3.2.1.5.P. is for the Bidders to provide the Agencies with any applicable baseline documents/license/policies, etc., that the Bidders propose to utilize in order to meet the RFR’s technical requirements, so that these baseline documents can then be modified or tailored by the Agencies during contract negotiations with the Apparent Successful Bidder to meet the specific needs of the IM Program. Therefore, the Agencies will permit the Bidders to submit redacted versions of these documents as required to preserve the contractual or legal confidentiality of the vendor agreements, as long as the Bidder’s submission includes all required applicable baseline substantive document contents, in an editable form, for use by the Parties in connection with the contract negotiation process. |
| 2/11/16 | Opus Inspection | Public vehicle inspection station licenses | RFR section 6.2.5 indicates that DOT/RMV will limit the number of public vehicle inspection station licenses. Do you have in mind a particular number for the limitation? | The interests are clearly outlined in RFR section 3.3.1.1C |
| 2/11/16 | Opus Inspection | VISITS database | RFR section 6.5.1 indicates that the VISITS database is Oracle and RFR Attachment E section 1 indicates the winning contractor is to develop a VISITS database according to the Attachment E requirements. Do DOT/RMV have a preference that the new VISITS database should also be an Oracle database, or will it be left to the vendor to decide? | There is not a preference as long as it meets the requirement of being able to interface with ALARS and the ALARS replacement system |
&D Page &P of &N
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .