QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS.doc

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

1. Required Forms: Can the Division please provide the “Bidder Mandatory Submission Form” and the “Business Reference Form”? Both of these forms are included on the Submissions Checklist – Appendix A; however, neither is available on the COMMBUYS site with the RFR and other bid documents.

Please find these forms on Commbuys, they have been added.

2. 4.3 Procurement Calendar: According to the procurement calendar, notification to bidders is expected to occur June 12, 2015. The start date of the contract is listed as July 21, 2015. Is July 21, 2015 the anticipated contract award date, with a later program launch date? If so, what is the expected program launch date? Based on our extensive experience in this field, a project of this magnitude will take any bidder other than the incumbent more than a month to prepare effectively for implementation.

See Amended Calendar, part of Amendment to the RFR. At this time, July 21, 2015 is the projected start date. The Division is aware that the successful bidder will require sufficient time to prepare.

3. 2.3.8 Average number of exams, past five years: Is it correct that 12,274 is the total average number of exams annually (and is not the number of Credit Limited Lines examinations)?

Please see RFR Amendment.

4. 2.3.9 Site locations and exams in 2014:

a. Does “All Other” include Lowell and Brockton? Can the Division break down the “All Other” category by city?

“All Other” does not include Lowell and Brockton. “All other” includes any other testing site across the country.

b. Would it be possible to provide volumes by test center location (and/or candidate ZIP code)?

5. 6.1 Evaluation criteria: The Supplier Diversity Program is not listed as a criterion for evaluation. However, under 4.4, the RFR states that the Supplier Diversity Program (SDP) Plan will be evaluated at 10% (or more) of the total evaluation. Will the SDP commitment percentage account for 10% of the evaluation? Or, is the SDP not intended to be a part of the evaluation for this RFR?

SDP is required but will not be weighted in evaluation.

6. Volumes: Could the Division please provide actual 2014 volumes for the following?

a. Testing accommodations

b. Volume of registration by mail and in-person registration

c. Call volume for exam registrations

d. Continuing education call volume

e. Continuing education course approval submissions

f. Continuing education course provider approvals

g. Total credit hours banked

The Division does not have this information available.

7. Active licenses: What is the total number of active licenses currently? 32,077

8. Course audits: Are audits of continuing education courses required? If so, please specify the requirements.

Currently, course providers must agree that representatives of the current vendor, and employees of the Division, may audit classroom course instruction, course materials, instructors’ presentations, course records, records of examination, attendance rosters and other aspects of instruction. Failure to grant access will automatically result in suspension.

9. Intellectual property: In performance of the services under any resulting contract, contractors will utilize significant existing proprietary computer programs, source code, materials, test items, tests and intellectual property that have been previously developed by the contractor or its 3rd party licensor (“Contractor Intellectual Property”), some of which may be trade secret, copyright, patent and trademark protected. We presume the Division understands contractor or its licensors will retain all intellectual property rights to Contractor Intellectual Property including derivative or customized works; is our presumption correct?

Copyrighted materials already owned by the Contractor are proprietary, but any information provided as part of a bid is considered public record. If developed with Commonwealth funds, there is no argument for confidentiality. Contractors cannot own what we pay to develop and then lease it back, even under a free lease. We must have ownership rights in what we pay to develop.

10. The solution we intend to propose for the provision and administration of examinations will include use of: our proprietary item banks for the examinations, software for our delivery platform, and associated materials. Will the State acknowledge and confirm that Contractor’s proprietary test items, tests, software, and associated materials created before, during or subsequent to the term of the agreement that are created for the purpose of conducting its business, and not specifically created for the sole purpose of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts under this Contract are not subject to ownership by the Commonwealth and Department as referenced in the Standard Contract Form, page 3 of 5, Commonwealth and Contractor Ownership Rights, and shall remain fully owned by the Contractor?

Copyrighted materials already owned by the Contractor are proprietary, but any information provided as part of a bid is considered public record. If developed with Commonwealth funds, there is no argument for confidentiality. Contractors cannot own what we pay to develop and then lease it back, even under a free lease. We must have ownership rights in what we pay to develop.

11. Currently, Advisor’s Property and Advisor’s Casualty are delivered as one exam. However, RFR Section 2.1.2, Licensing Examinations, shows Adviser’s Property and Adviser’s Casualty as two separate examinations. Is it the Division’s intention to have these examinations delivered separately going forward, or can they still be a combined exam?

Advisor’s Property and Advisor’s Casualty will continue to be one exam.

12. Regarding RFR Section 4.4, Supplier Diversity Program (SDP): Please clarify the Division’s and/or Commonwealth’s goal, expressed as a percentage of contract revenue, for utilization of M/WBEs and/or SDVOBEs. Additionally, please clarify if not meeting this goal at proposal submission (i.e., on SDP Plan Form #1 – SDP Plan Commitment) would result in disqualification of a Bidder’s Response.

SDP is required but will not be weighted in evaluation.

13. Regarding RFR Section 6.1, Evaluation Criteria: Please provide a scoring rubric for the Evaluation Criteria. If no such rubric exists, please provide a general evaluation approach as to the weights associated with a Bidder’s technical approach/qualifications, proposed cost, and/or use of M/WBEs and/or SDVOBEs.

The scoring rubric for the Evaluation criteria is undetermined at this time. The SDP is required but will not be weighted.

14. Regarding RFR Section 2.4.4, Bid Requirement: Is Bidder required to maintain originals or duplicate (scanned) copies of candidate records, examinations and scores?

Bidders are required to keep copies, they may be scanned copies.

15. Regarding RFR Section 4.4, Supplier Diversity Program: Do M/WBEs and/or SDVOBEs have to be certified with the Commonwealth’s SBPP program to be eligible for evaluation in a Bidder’s Response?

SDP is required, but it will not be weighted.

16. Regarding RFR Section 4.23.3, Important Note: Does the Bidder have the opportunity to note exceptions to the Standard Contract Form in its bid response?

No, there are no exceptions to the Standard Contract Form.

17. Regarding RFR Section 4.24, Submitted Responses: Does the Commonwealth’s reservation of rights here apply to proprietary ideas, concepts or configurations in a Bidder’s Response?

Copyrighted materials already owned by the Contractor are proprietary, but any information provided as part of a bid is considered public record. If developed with Commonwealth funds, there is no argument for confidentiality. Contractors cannot own what we pay to develop and then lease it back, even under a free lease. We must have ownership rights in what we pay to develop.

18. General. Please provide a copy of the current contract for these services, including all amendments, renewals, and/or extensions.

Please submit through a Public Records Request, if this hasn’t already been done.

19. General. Can you confirm that the vendor is not involved in part 2 of the Motor Vehicle Physical Damage Appraiser examination?

This is correct.

20. General. Who owns the current item bank? Will it be provided to the successful vendor upon award, and if so, in what format? How many items are in the bank, and what statistics are available for them?

The bank is owned by the current provider. Therefore, it will not be provided to the successful vendor. The division does not have this information available.

21. General. Is it acceptable for a vendor to use a subcontractor for either service area? Does the Department have specific criteria that will need to be met in the approval process?

See section 4.22 of RFR.

22. General. When does the current contract expire? We assume that an additional contract extension will be implemented to allow for a transition, should a new vendor be selected through a competitive bidding process.

Current contract expires July 21, 2015.

23. General. Are there any statutory fee caps? Are any fees collected by the vendor remitted back to the state?

It is unclear what is being referred to by “statutory fee caps.” No fees are remitted back to the Commonwealth.

24. Page 3, Section 1.6. Estimated Value of the Contract. The Division states that "the estimated value of procurement, including anticipated renewal options, is in excess of $50,000 over the life of the contract." In Section 4.4, it is stated that "the Supplier Diversity Program (SDP) Plan for large procurements greater than $150,000 will be evaluated at 10% or more of the total evaluation" and that "submission of an SDP Plan is mandated only for large procurements over $150,000." Since the estimated value of the contract is below that threshold, please confirm that an SDP Plan is not required for this procurement. Also, if an SDP Plan is submitted, what percentage of the evaluation will it be?

SDP should be submitted, but it will not be weighted.

25. Page 5, Section 2.2.4. With on-line registration as well as telephone registration, is there a need to also receive a paper registration form from each candidate and maintain those paper applications for a specific period of time?

Paper registration must be an option but is not required for every candidate. See Section 2.4.4 for specification of period of time to maintain copies.

26. Page 5, Section 2.2.6. The Candidate Information Bulletin (CIB) is sent to each candidate when they complete their registration, is there a continued need to have an inventory of the CIB at each test center?

It is important that the CIB, or its equivalent, is available to all registrants in a paper and electronic format.

27. Page 6, Section 2.3.8. We appreciate the average numbers for exam volumes, but please provide the actual volumes for 2014 by exam title.

28. Page 7, Section 2.3.9. The website for the current vendor shows eight test centers in Massachusetts. However, the summary in Section 2.3.9 on page 7 only lists three. Please provide the actual candidate volumes by site for all current locations for 2014.

The Boston area includes: two sites in Boston, one in Burlington, North Andover, Brockton and Lowell.

29. Page 8, Section 2.7.4. Please clarify the collection of fees for Auto Damage Appraiser for parts 1 and 2. What is the current fee for part 1? What is the current fee for part 2? What amount, if any, for either part is remitted to the Department and what amount is retained by the vendor? (Please also see the Prometric Licensing Information Handbook page 4, item 5, which refers to application and examination fees paid to the Commonwealth.)

Part 1 exam is provided by the Vendor gratis with no charge to the candidate. Part 2, the Board sets its own pricing, currently $50, none of the fee is remitted to the Division of Insurance.

30. Page 9, Section 3. Continuing Education Administration. Is there a requirement for provider or instructor approvals or renewals by the selected vendor as part of the Continuing Education Administration? If so, what are the annual volumes?

See section 3.1.8. The Division does not have the annual volumes information available.

31. Page 9, Section 3. Continuing Education Administration. Please describe the Provider registration process, if applicable.

Currently there is a Provider Registration Application that must be filled out and submitted to the current Vendor. Bidders may design their own process but the Division has the ultimate approval.

32. Page 9, Section 3. Continuing Education Administration. Regarding the Continuing Education Administration, please provide historical volume data for each continuing education transaction for the years 2012, 2013, and 2014. Please provide paper and electronic numbers separately for each of the following:

· Number of course approvals.

· Number of new course applications received.

· Number of telephone inquiries handled by the current vendor:

· Provider

· Licensees

· Number of credits posted

· Number of rosters submitted The Division does not have this information available.

33. Page 9, Section 3. Continuing Education Administration. Are course renewals a part of the RFR? If yes, please provide the following statistical data:

The Continuing Education Course Review Committee currently requires course renewal; please see Section 3.1.1.

· Number of current approved courses

The Division does not have this information available.

· Number of annual renewals 2013 and 2014

2013 Renewals: 1,075

2014 Renewals: 1,206

34. Page 9, Section 3. Continuing Education Administration. Does the Department intend to move away from paper rosters?

No, but internet roster reporting should also be available.

35. Page 9, Section 3. Continuing Education Administration. Are course audits required by this RFR? If yes, please provide the following statistical data:

· Number of course audits completed in 2013 and 2014.

· Breakdown of audits between on-line vs. classroom courses

Currently, course providers must agree that representatives of the current vendor, and employees of the Division, may audit classroom course instruction, course materials, instructors’ presentations, course records, records of examination, attendance rosters and other aspects of instruction. Failure to grant access will automatically result in suspension.

The Division does not have the number of audits and breakdown of audits available.

36. Page 10, Section 3.2. Please confirm the current pricing:

New course application: $40.00

Course renewal: $40.00/2 years

Provider registration: $0

Rosters: $.75/credit per student/paper submission

$.50/credit per student/electronic submission

This is correct.

37. Page 25, Section 5.10. Cost Proposal Form. Is it correct to assume that for the Cost proposal prospective vendors are to list an applicable fee for each service item proposed within Examination Services and CE Services?

This is correct.

38. Page 28, Appendix A, IV.a. The Bidder Mandatory Submission Form required by the RFR is not on the OSD forms page nor attached to the RFR. Where can it be acquired?

Please find forms on CommBuys, they have been added.

39. Page 29, Appendix A, VI.c. Please confirm that the Certificate of Tax Compliance is the same as a Certificate of Good Standing.

Please find forms on Commbuys, they have been added.

40. General. Given that the amended date of the Division’s response to inquiries only allows for a week to implement any necessary changes, will there be an extension on the submission date?

There is no extension of the submission date, however responses post-marked June 1, 2015 will be considered.