RFP 202510141 Selection Package.pdf

State of Maine RFP 202510141 1 Rev. 10/1/2025 – DAFS/Office of State Procurement Services

JANET T. MILLS

GOVERNOR

DALE DOUGHTY

ACTING COMMISSIONER

DEPARTMENT OF

Transportation

RFP 202510141

Traffic Count Software as a Service

1. Purpose Through RFP 202510141, the Maine Department of Transportation (“MaineDOT”, “Department”) sought Traffic Count Software as a Service (SaaS) to support the Department’s annual gathering of traffic count data to monitor traffic flow and changes in traffic patterns as well as generate annual statistics.

2. Evaluation Process The evaluation team was composed of four evaluators: three traffic management subject matter experts from the Department and one technical subject matter expert from MaineIT.

The Department received proposals from two Bidders. The evaluation team determined the eligibility of each Bidder, performed individual evaluations of each eligible proposal, recorded individual notes, and then met as a team to document the team’s consensus notes. The evaluation team also received input based upon MaineIT’s technical assessment performed by three staff including the MaineIT scoring team representative (the same as above), one MaineIT Security Architect, and one MaineIT Solution Architect.

Following the team consensus meeting, the evaluation team, via the RFP Coordinator, scheduled a 90-min webinar demonstration with each Bidder. The evaluation team also requested reference checks for both Bidders via the RFP Coordinator. The evaluation team then assigned scores for 1.)

each Bidder’s Qualifications and Experience and 2.) each Bidder’s Proposed Services.

Demonstrations, technical assessments, and references were not scored separately, however, were considered as part of the scoring for number 1 and 2 above.

Following RFP Part V Proposal Evaluation and Selection, sub-section B. 4, the evaluation team reviewed the completeness of each Bidder’s cost proposal to confirm it met the full requirements of the RFP and then used a mathematical formula to determine points. The awarded Bidder’s cost proposal met the RFP requirements and was scored.

file://atlas/tmlbran$/Word%20documents/images/seal.gif

State of Maine RFP 202510141 2

3. Conditional Awards As a result of the evaluation process, the evaluation team announced its conditional contract award to the following vendor:

Service/Category Vendor Name Traffic Count Software as a Service Drakewell, Inc.

Below are the key factors that resulted in the award selection(s) made through this evaluation process:

4. Qualifications & Experience

• Longevity and Specialization in Traffic Monitoring: 45 years of traffic monitoring expertise, established in 1979, with only three staff departures in the past 25 years, while sustaining nearly 10% annual growth. Supports eight state DOTs, in addition to MaineDOT, demonstrates the ability to support program growth and evolving needs.

• State DOT/HPMS Program Leadership and Experience: Subject matter expertise includes state DOT program leadership in traffic monitoring and HPMS reporting following TMG guidance and HPMS requirements.

• Traffic Monitoring Field and Program Expertise: Engineering resources with 10 to 25 years of relevant experience and field technicians with 20 years of experience installing, configuring, and maintaining traffic monitoring equipment.

• Mature Product: The proposed solution has evolved over 22 years and has built on the awarded Bidder’s qualifications and experience with traffic monitoring workflows. The awarded Bidder has certified its software development processes, ISO 27001 and ISO 9001 certificates included with the proposal as evidence.

State of Maine RFP 202510141 3

5. Proposed Services

• Low implementation and migration risk with high flexibility: The proposed solution requires minimal configuration and supports modular rollout of enhancements that can run in parallel with the existing system as prioritized to MaineDOT needs. Prior migration experience with the Weigh in Motion solution used by the Department. Licensing model meets current requirements and future growth.

• Strong operational and technical capability: The proposed solution demonstrated robust processing, reporting, long-term (6-year) scheduling, and strong integration with required equipment. Field application offline capability for both CCS and SDC locations includes GPS support, photo capture, notes entry, and test value entry. Field application includes the ability to add count setups at a location in the field.

• QC Workflow: The solution provides a robust, automated QC workflow that is intuitive, visual, and well documented. QC checks support daily or full-duration validation with minimum-hour requirements. QC failures are clearly flagged with graphical diagnostics and support historical context. Staff can classify issues (good/bad/outlier) by data type (volume/class/speed) and changes are captured in an audit log.

• End-of- Year Processing: The solution supports the Department’s current end-of-year processes including factoring and control count workflows, as well as AASHTO and FHWA methodologies. The solution provides full audit trails for all actions and decisions and allows notes to be published for warnings tied to HPMS reporting which strengthens documentation for FHWA reporting.

• Public Reporting: The solution includes extensive public site reporting functionality. The solution supports public access to reporting outputs and enhances transparency, making traffic data accessible for internal and external stakeholders.

• Spatial Data Integration: The Bidder’s proposed approach to reconciling count station information with the Department’s spatial data through an API aligns with the needs of the Department. This approach meets the Department’s spatial reconciliation needs while avoiding the complexity and burden of implementing full GIS integration.

State of Maine RFP 202510141 4

6. Cost Proposal The awarded Bidder’s cost proposal of $1,922,180.00 met the RFP requirements including the Department’s current count sites (130 CCS sites, 16 WIMs, and 104 CTM sites, for a total of 250).

The Bidder’s cost proposal also included support for the Department’s planned CTM site expansion (for a total of up to 400).

7. Conclusion Out of 100 possible points, the evaluation team awarded a total of 88 points to Drakewell, Inc. The evaluation team determined that the proposal submitted by Drakewell, Inc. represents the best value to the State of Maine in terms of qualifications and experience, proposed services, and proposed cost.

Bidder/Applicant Name Midwestern Software Solution, LLC

Date of Team Evaluation (1/15/2026)

State of Maine RFP # 202510141 pg. 1 Revised 10/01/2025 – DAFS/Office of State Procurement Services

State of Maine

Department of Transportation

Traffic Engineering Division-Traffic Monitoring Section

RFP# 202510141

TEAM CONSENSUS EVALUATION NOTES

RFP

Coordinator

Name Robert Dwyer Title Contract Grant Specialist Email Robert.Dwyer@maine.gov

Evaluation Team

Name Aaron Buotte Name Alexander Hanscom Name Kara Aguilar Name Jonathan Ives mailto:Robert.Dwyer@maine.gov

State of Maine RFP # 202510141 pg. 2

SUMMARY

Points Available Points Awarded File 1 Preliminary Information N/A N/A

File 2 Organization Qualifications and Experience 20 19

File 3 Proposed Services 50 36 File 4 Cost Proposal 30 Not scored Total: 100 Total: 55

State of Maine RFP # 202510141 pg. 3

File 1 Preliminary Information

Team Notes Appendix A (Proposal Cover Page) • Provided document meets requirements of the

RFP.

Appendix B (Responsible Bidder Certification)

• Provided document meets requirements of the

RFP.

State of Maine RFP # 202510141 pg. 4

File 2 Organization Qualifications and Experience

Points Available Points Awarded 20 19

Section Team Notes Overview of the Organization Appendix C (Organization Qualification and Experience Form)

• P- Represented on FHWA TMG expert panel and involved in NCHRP initiatives.

• P- Integrated with ArcGIS and Google Maps.

• P- Support 260 agencies including 28 state DOTs.

• P- Projects listed include spatial integration and similar products.

• P- Projects demonstrate solution scales to large projects equal to or greater than the Department’s project needs.

• I- Data sharing ability with other New England states through the product.

Subcontractors (Subcontractors Form)

• P- No subcontractors identified.

Organizational Chart • P- High number of technical staff with field experience.

• P- Organization structure simple and easy to follow.

• P- Dedicated project team includes project manager with project management certification.

Litigation • P- No litigation cases within the last 5 years.

Financial Viability • P- Provided Dun & Bradstreet assessment. High stability and low risk.

Licensure/Certification • P- 3 certified engineers (PE and PTOE licenses) and 1 certified project manager.

Certificate of Insurance • P- Includes the current Certification of Insurance.

• P- Includes specific reference to cybersecurity.

References • This section was not scored separately but was considered as part of the scoring for Organization Qualifications and Experience.

State of Maine RFP # 202510141 pg. 5

File 3 Proposed Services

50 36

Appendix F (Proposed Services)

Category 1- Implementation Plan Q1.1- Implementation alignment with Count Season

• P- Able to support the 2026 count season.

• P- Training would be conducted in March ahead of the

2026 count season.

• P- Proposed a phased approach.

• I- Prerequisite legacy data and data dictionary need to be provided.

• Q- For Phase I of the proposed plan, can further details be provided on the timeline for implementing support equipment and file formats?

Q 1.2- Implementation Milestones and Deliverables

• P- Proposed a phased approach.

• P- Milestones, Deliverables, roles and responsibilities, and key assumptions clearly identified.

• N- Milestones need further descriptions.

Q 1.3- Implementation Customization Effort

• P- Listed the number of days for each item and dependencies.

Q 1.4- Data Conversion

• P- Response demonstrates experience on and understanding of data conversion.

Q 1.5- Training Approach

• P- Clearly stated. Comprehensive and customizable training approach by user type.

• P- Includes online guides.

• P- Flexible. Remote or in-person.

• P- Use of test environment.

Q 1.6 - Solution Deployment

• P- Dedicated test environment to validate new features.

• P- Outlines the Department’s responsibilities.

State of Maine RFP # 202510141 pg. 6

• Q- If data is loaded into production as part of implementation, is data visible to the Public prior to going live?

Q 1.7 - Post-Go-Live Implementation Support and Warranty Fixes

• I- Shared solution supporting multiple DOTs.

• I- Continuous integration with frequent releases.

Category 2- Proposed Solution

Q 2.1- Solution Overview

• P- Modular traffic data platform with extensive functionality.

• P- Shows all available modules and also identifies specific modules included in this proposal. Includes module launch year history.

• Q- Proposal states unspecified number of updates as of 11/28. Please specify the number of updates that have been applied to the system.

Q 2.2- Solution Licensing

• Q- Proposal states five connections for fixed IP addresses for the Publication Database. Please clarify what these licenses allow the Department to do.

• P- Meets the Department’s current licensing needs.

Q 2.3- Continuous Count Site Data Processing Workflow

• P- The workflow is clearly defined.

• Q- Can the workflow between the screenshots be included in the demonstration?

Q 2.4- Continuous Count Site Equipment Integration

• P- Proposal states the use of API for most equipment.

• Q- Gridsmart camera noted as not using API, any plans to move to an API?

• I- Currux support to be added.

Q 2.5- SDC Data Processing Workflow

• P- The workflow is clearly defined.

• P- CCS and SDC are well aligned with each other.

• Q- Can the workflow between the screenshots be included in the demonstration?

State of Maine RFP # 202510141 pg. 7

Q 2.6- SDC Scheduling

• P -Proposal includes an existing scheduling model.

• Q- Can counts be scheduled for more than a year?

• Q- Can the workflow be included in the demonstration?

Q 2.7- CCS and SDC Data Disaggregation

• Q- For turning movement counts, what lane-level details are supported?

Q 2.8- Quality Control (QC)

• P- Supported through configurable rules and workflows.

Q 2.9- Caveats and Limitations

• P- No caveats and limitations in the proposal.

Appendix G (Proposed Services Worksheet

1. Project Implementation Requirements

• P- Meets all requirements.

• P- SOC II Certification nearly complete.

• P- Unlimited post-implementation training refreshers.

• I- FedRAMP authorized.

2. Software Technical Requirements

• P- Meets most requirements.

• P- Have SLA and BCDR plan.

• P- Includes support for SSO.

• N- Requirement 2.5 requires change.

3. User Role and Permission Requirements

• P- Meets all requirements.

4. Count Station Requirements

5. Continuous Count Requirements

• N- Requirement 5.1 requires change.

• Q- Requirement 5.7- Planned use of Gridsmart API.

(Same as noted in question 2.4).

• N- Requirement 5.8- Adding the mobile tool requires change.

6. Short Duration Count General Requirements

• N- Requirements 6.10, 6.11, 6.15 require change.

State of Maine RFP # 202510141 pg. 8

7. Short Duration Count Mobile Functionality

• N- Requirement 7.5 requires change to add additional fields.

8. Data Import Processing and Quality Control Requirements

• N- Requirements 8.1 and 8.15 require change.

9. Annual Processing Requirements

• I- Requirement 9.3 requires change but is included.

10. Equipment Maintenance

11. Reporting Requirements

• I- Requirements 11.1, 11.2, and 11.7 require change but are included.

12. Spatial Requirements

• I- Requirement 12.2- Currently uses Roads and Highways but can integrate with the Department’s LRS.

• I- Optional requirement 12.3 requires change.

Attachment 1- Implementation Schedule for Initial Period of Performance

• P- Clearly documented schedule aligns with requirements. Schedule includes detailed, easy to read work breakdown structure and a summary includes GANTT chart.

Attachment 2- Proposed Technical Architecture

• P- Visual depiction of system components and interface protocols.

• P- Includes technical description of system components.

Attachment 3- SaaS Service Level Agreement (SLA)

• P- Includes workflow diagram and descriptions.

• P- Identifies priority and response times.

• P- Identifies contact and escalation process.

• P- Includes performance metrics.

Demonstration • This section was not scored separately but was considered as part of the scoring for Proposed Services.

State of Maine RFP # 202510141 pg. 9

File 4 Cost Proposal

30 No points awarded (See Team Notes below)

Scoring Formula Lowest Submitted

Cost Proposal / Cost Proposal Being Scored x Score

Weight = Pro-Rated Score

N/A / N/A x N/A = N/A

Team Notes

Summary:

The RFP Part I states that the Department currently has 16 WIMs and approximately 130 CCS.

RFP Appendix F, Question 2.7 identifies 104 current CTMs. The total count for existing count locations is 250. The RFP also identifies the potential future increase up to 500 CTMs in Part I and Appendix G, Requirement 5.2.

The Bidder’s Cost Proposal (File 4) includes pricing for “up to 146 CCS/WIM/TM sites,” which is less than the 250 existing count locations identified in the RFP as per above. In the Proposed Services response (File 3), the Bidder also explicitly acknowledges the existence of 104 CTM locations; however, the Cost Proposal pricing does not align with the total number of required existing count locations. In addition, required implementation fees were not explicitly included in the Cost Proposal. Because not all required locations and implementation costs were priced, the proposal does not reflect the full scope of work and cannot be scored.

Justification:

RFP Part I, Introduction, Section A (Purpose and Background) states that the Department currently maintains sixteen (16) Weigh-In-Motion (WIM) sites and approximately 130 Continuous Count Station (CCS) sites and further notes the Department’s plans to expand the program to include additional CCS sites and up to 500 Continuous Turning Movement (CTM) sites. Additionally, RFP Question 2.7 (CCS and SDC Data Disaggregation) states that the Department has 104 CTM locations. Based on the information provided in the RFP, the Bidder was required to account for 250 existing count locations, consisting of 16 WIM sites, approximately 130 CCS sites, and 104 CTM sites. All Bidders had a chance to ask questions. No questions were received regarding the existing count locations.

• The Bidder’s proposal identified Auto Polling “up to 146 CCS/WIM/TM Sites” in the Cost

Proposal Worksheet, Section 1 – Fixed Annual Costs. The Bidder’s response to Question 2.7 explicitly acknowledges the 104 CTM locations, stating: “Turning Movement Count (TMC) / 104 CTM Locations.” While the Bidder acknowledged the 104 CTM locations, the Cost Proposal

State of Maine RFP # 202510141 pg. 10 includes pricing for only 146 sites, which does not align with the 250 existing count locations identified above.

• Cost Proposal Worksheet, Section 2 – All Other Fixed Costs, states to “List all other fixed costs necessary to fully comply with the contract terms and conditions and RFP requirements such as one-time implementation fees”. Implementation fees were not included in this section.

The Cost Proposal does not include pricing for all required existing count locations, nor cost of implementation fees, it does not reflect the full scope of work described in the RFP and therefore cannot be scored.

STATE OF MAINE

TEAM REVIEW NOTES - TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

RFP #: 202510141

RFP TITLE: TRAFFIC COUNT SOFTWARE AS A SERVICE

BIDDER NAME: Midwestern Software Solutions, LLC

DATE: 12/16/2025

TA REVIEWER NAME: Jonathan Ives, Joshua Ames, Matthew Backus TA REVIEWER DEPARTMENT: MaineIT

REV 4/4/2023

Consensus Comments - Technical Assessment Team:

Consensus Decision: Not Met

Overall quality of response and evidence: Bidder mentioned some key components but provided limited evidence. Additional evidence would be needed to support the explanations provided; such as, internal procedures or policy documents.

Data Compliance Publicly available information

NIST 800-

Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak Explanation: Broadly compliant but provided no evidence.

Maine FOAA Quality of Response: ☐ Provided a Response ☒ Did not provide a response Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☐ Weak Explanation: No response.

Bill of Materials (BoM) (Product Name)

Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☒ Strong ☐ Adequate ☐ Weak Explanation: Listed 13 products and provided URLs.

MaineIT H1 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response

Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak Explanation: Bidder states compliance but provided no evidence.

H2 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak Explanation: Bidder states compliance but provided no evidence.

H3 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response

BIDDER NAME: Midwestern Software Solutions, LLC

DATE: 12/16/2025

Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak Explanation: Bidder states compliance but provided no evidence.

A1 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak Explanation: Bidder states compliance but provided no evidence.

A2 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak Explanation: Bidder states compliance but provided no evidence.

A3 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak Explanation: Bidder states compliance with all but one provision (4.25) notes the hosted sites might not be greater than 100 miles. No evidence provided.

A4 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☒ Adequate ☐ Weak Explanation: Bidder states they will comply.

Information Security Standards S1 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response

Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☒ Adequate ☐ Weak Explanation: Bidder states compliance and references security policy. No reference to NIST or regulatory requirements.

S2 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak Explanation: Bidder states they will comply but provided no evidence.

S3 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak Explanation: Bidder states they will comply but provided no evidence.

S4 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response

BIDDER NAME: Midwestern Software Solutions, LLC

DATE: 12/16/2025

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak Explanation: Bidder mentions key components but provided no evidence.

Cloud Service Provider Reqs CSP1 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak Explanation: Bidder states compliance but provided no evidence.

CSP2 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response

Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☒ Adequate ☐ Weak

Explanation: Bidder confirmed SAML 2.0 integration available.

CSP3 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak Explanation: Bidder states compliance but provided no evidence.

CSP4 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response

Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak

Explanation: Bidder states compliance but provided no evidence.

CSP5 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak Explanation: Bidder states compliance but provided no evidence.

CSP6 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response

Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak

Explanation: Bidder states compliance but provided no evidence.

CSP7 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response

BIDDER NAME: Midwestern Software Solutions, LLC

DATE: 12/16/2025

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak

Explanation: Bidder states compliance but provided no evidence.

CSP8 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak Explanation: Bidder states compliance but provided weak evidence.

CSP9 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response

Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak

Explanation: Bidder states compliance but provided no evidence.

CSP10 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak Explanation: Bidder states compliance but provided no evidence.

CSP11 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response

Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak

Explanation: Bidder states compliance but provided no evidence.

CSP12 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☒ Adequate ☐ Weak Explanation: The provided information security policy covers vulnerability management.

CSP13 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response

Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak

Explanation: Bidder states compliance but provided no evidence.

CSP14 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a

BIDDER NAME: Midwestern Software Solutions, LLC

DATE: 12/16/2025

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak

Explanation: Bidder states compliance but provided no evidence.

CSP15 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak Explanation: Bidder states compliance but provided no evidence.

CSP16 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response

Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☒ Adequate ☐ Weak

Explanation: Bidder states not applicable. States no gen AI used.

CSP17 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak Explanation: Bidder states compliance but provided no evidence.

CSP18 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response

Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak

Explanation: Bidder states compliance with SAML 2.0 but provided no evidence.

CSP19 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response

Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak

Explanation: Bidder states compliance but provided no evidence.

NIST Requirements N1 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak

BIDDER NAME: Midwestern Software Solutions, LLC

DATE: 12/16/2025

N2 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response

Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak

Explanation: Bidder states compliance but provided no evidence.

N3 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak Explanation: Bidder states compliance but provided no evidence.

N4 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response

Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak

Explanation: Bidder states compliance but provided no evidence.

N5 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak Explanation: Bidder states compliance but provided no evidence.

N6 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response

Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak

Explanation: Bidder states compliance but provided no evidence.

N7 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak Explanation: Bidder states compliance but provided no evidence.

N8 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response

Explanation:

BIDDER NAME: Midwestern Software Solutions, LLC

DATE: 12/16/2025

N9 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response

Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak

Explanation: Bidder states compliance but provided no evidence.

N10 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak Explanation: Bidder states compliance but provided no evidence.

N11 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response

Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak

Explanation: Bidder states compliance but provided no evidence.

N12 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak Explanation: Bidder states compliance but provided no evidence.

N13 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response

Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak

Explanation: Bidder states compliance but provided no evidence.

N14 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☒ Adequate ☐ Weak Explanation: Bidder states no other relevant comments.

Bidder/Applicant Name Drakewell, Inc.

State of Maine RFP # 202510141 pg. 1

Traffic Engineering Division-Traffic Monitoring Section

TEAM CONSENSUS EVALUATION NOTES

RFP

Coordinator

Name Robert Dwyer Title Contract Grant Specialist Email Robert.Dwyer@maine.gov

Evaluation Team

Name Alexander Hanscom mailto:Robert.Dwyer@maine.gov

State of Maine RFP # 202510141 pg. 2

SUMMARY

Points Available Points Awarded File 1 Preliminary Information N/A N/A

File 2 Organization Qualifications and Experience 20 16

File 3 Proposed Services 50 42 File 4 Cost Proposal 30 30 Total: 100 Total: 88

State of Maine RFP # 202510141 pg. 3

File 1 Preliminary Information

Team Notes Appendix A (Proposal Cover Page) • Provided document meets requirements of the

RFP.

Appendix B (Responsible Bidder Certification)

• Provided document meets requirements of the

RFP.

State of Maine RFP # 202510141 pg. 4

File 2 Organization Qualifications and Experience

20 16

Appendix C (Organization Qualification and Experience Form)

• P- 45 years of experience.

• P- Subject Matter Expert with Traffic Monitoring and

HPMS experience.

• P- Proposal states incumbent vendor since 2018.

• P- Utilized by 8 other state DOTs.

• P- Engineers with 10-25 years of experience.

• P- Projects listed include state agencies and spatial integration.

• P- 99.9% uptime.

• P- Projects demonstrate scalability.

• Q- Please clarify what spatial integrations were used for each of the three projects.

Subcontractors (Subcontractors Form

• P- No subcontractors identified.

Organizational Chart • P- Proposal includes named resources.

• P- MaineDOT will be supported by high-level personnel in the company.

• P- Simple and easy to follow.

Litigation • P- No pending or previous litigation.

Financial Viability • P- Provided Dun & Bradstreet report. Moderate risk.

Licensure/Certification • P- ISO 27001 and ISO 9001 certified, certificates included with the proposal as evidence.

Certificate of Insurance • P- Current Certificate of Insurance included.

• I- Cyber liability is held at company group level.

References • This section was not scored separately but was considered as part of the scoring for Organization Qualifications and Experience.

State of Maine RFP # 202510141 pg. 5

File 3 Proposed Services

50 42

Appendix F (Proposed Services)

Category 1- Implementation Plan Q1.1- Implementation alignment with Count Season

• P- Limited configuration needed. Already operational.

• P- Continuity of counts operations will have low schedule risk.

Q 1.2- Implementation Milestones and Deliverables

• P- Meets RFP requirements.

• P- Implementation of new features would follow a phased approach.

• P- Meets RFP requirements as stated.

• P- Historical data already on the platform.

• P- Experienced in migrating data from current WIM incumbent.

• I – Data migration will focus on new areas.

• P- Role-based training approach.

• P- Refresher and new functionality training available.

• P- Customizable.

• P- Flexible. Remote and in-person training.

Q 1.6 – Solution Deployment

• P- Much of the solution is already in production.

• P- New functionality will be tested in a separate test environment prior to deploying to production.

• P- Maintains parallel test environment.

Q 1.7 - Post-Go-Live Implementation Support and Warranty Fixes

• P- Maintenance and enhancements have a pre-scheduled monthly release.

• P- Bidder helpdesk documents and tracks status of fixes and enhancement requests.

State of Maine RFP # 202510141 pg. 6

• I- Some updates go to all customers, while other updates go to clients requesting the change.

• P- Platform already in use.

• P- Modular design. Allows implementation as whole or any combination of modules.

• I- Monthly releases except for December.

• P- No user seat restrictions.

• P- No third-party licenses for the software.

• I- Equipment licensing (see 2.4).

Q 2.3- Continuous Count Site Data Processing Workflow

• P- Platform already in use

• P- Polls data directly.

• P- Unchecked data can be configured not to display.

• P- Ability to mark data with traffic events and holidays allows the Department to include or exclude from calculations.

• Q- Do raw files stay on the server indefinitely?

• P- In most cases the solution uses API.

• I- Use of equipment API requires licensing from the equipment vendor.

• N- ECM HERA and ECM HESTIA- Do not have existing integration.

• P- Multiple ways to report on and to visualize data in charts and tables.

• P- Solution polls SDC data directly.

• P- Detailed description of the process.

Q 2.6- SDC Scheduling

• P- Includes program schedule to cover longer term count (6 years).

• P- Field technicians can use the application online and offline.

State of Maine RFP # 202510141 pg. 7

Q 2.7- CCS and SDC Data Disaggregation

• P- Solution can support both disaggregating and aggregating data across multiple devices.

• P- Proposal explains the workflow well.

• P- Thorough.

• P- Multiple QA tools available.

• P- Field application allows photos and GPS location to be collected and viewed in the field.

• I- Licensing: Proposed solution will support at least 70 users, if substantially more needed implementation will need to be scaled up.

• P- Data Export: Data retained until confirmation received all data transferred successfully.

• I- Data Archiving: Number of configured data export for JSON limited to 3.

Appendix G (Proposed Services Worksheet

1. Project Implementation Requirements

• P- Meets all requirements.

• N- Bidder states assumption of 1/5 kickoff, prior to the anticipated contract start date in RFP.

• P- ISO certified. Prepared to complete SOC II.

• P- Experience using SAML based SSO.

• I- Public interface may meet many internal read only user needs.

• P- Roles are configurable.

• P- Can incorporate extensive historical data.

• P- Site visit notes can be entered in mobile application and in desktop application.

State of Maine RFP # 202510141 pg. 8

6. Short Duration Count General Requirements

• P- Meets all requirements.

• P- Additional file types listed for requirement 6.5.

• P- Schedule editor in 6.4 has multiple functionalities.

• N- 6.8, 6.9, 6.17 the response meets the requirements, but the Bidder did not specifically indicate that in the Proposal Meets column (no impact to score).

• P- Includes mobile functionality to support SDC field activities.

• P- 7.5 Ad hoc count set up at a location.

8. Data Import Processing and Quality Control Requirements

• P- Well established data import processing and QA/QC capabilities.

• P- 8.7 Detailed description of data editor.

• P- 8.9 Graphical representation easy to follow.

• P- 8.13 Full audit log for edited data includes rollback capabilities.

9. Annual Processing Requirements

• I- Requirement 9.5 Interesting approach to ramp balancing.

10. Equipment Maintenance

• N- 11.4, 11.5, and 11.7 the response meets the requirements, but the Bidder did not specifically indicate that in the Proposal Meets column (no impact to score).

• P- Supports current file formats.

• P- Extensive public site functionality detailed.

• P- 12.2 Bidder states preference for reconciliation tool implemented via API (rather than file comparison).

• I- Map includes clustering feature.

State of Maine RFP # 202510141 pg. 9

• N- 12.2 the response meets the requirements, but the Bidder did not specifically indicate that in the Proposal Meets column (no impact to score).

• I- Included an example live site JSON record.

Attachment 1- Implementation Schedule for Initial Period of Performance

• P- Schedule supports the 2026 count season.

• P- Most of the product is already in production.

• N- Visual representation of project schedule difficult to read.

• I- Most work in the second and third phases will occur concurrently.

Attachment 2- Proposed Technical Architecture

• P- Diagram depicts major system components identified in the proposal.

• P- Topology diagram represents geographical location of environments.

• P- Descriptive text identifies components and connectivity.

Attachment 3- SaaS Service Level Agreement (SLA)

• P- Included a standard SLA and will work with the Department to refine it.

• P- Ticket Response Time aligns with requirements.

• Q- Did the Bidder intend to attach a different document other than the Master Agreement template?

Demonstration • This section was not scored separately but was considered as part of the scoring for Proposed Services.

State of Maine RFP # 202510141 pg. 10

File 4 Cost Proposal

30 30

Scoring Formula Lowest Submitted

Cost Proposal / Cost Proposal Being Scored x Score

Weight = Pro-Rated Score

$1,922,180.00 / $1,922,180.00 x 30 = 30

Team Notes

Summary:

The RFP Part I states that the Department currently has 16 WIMs and approximately 130 CCS.

RFP Appendix F, Question 2.7 identifies 104 current CTMs. The total count for existing count locations is 250. The RFP also identifies the potential future increase up to 500 CTMs in Part I and Appendix G, Requirement 5.2.

The Bidder’s cost proposal accounts for all required existing count locations identified in the RFP— 16 WIM sites, approximately 130 CCS sites, and 104 CTM sites (250 total)—and additionally includes pricing for expanded CTM quantities (total up to 400). Because the proposal exceeds the minimum required scope and includes all required elements, it reflects the full scope of work and is eligible for scoring.

Justification:

RFP Part I, Introduction, Section A (Purpose and Background) states that the Department currently maintains sixteen (16) Weigh-In-Motion (WIM) sites and approximately 130 Continuous Count Station (CCS) sites and further notes the Department’s plans to expand the program to include additional CCS sites and up to 500 Continuous Turning Movement (CTM) sites. Additionally, RFP Question 2.7 (CCS and SDC Data Disaggregation) states that the Department has 104 CTM locations. Based on the information provided in the RFP, the Bidder was required to account for 250 existing count locations, consisting of 16 WIM sites, approximately 130 CCS sites, and 104 CTM sites. All Bidders had a chance to ask questions. No questions were received regarding the existing count locations.

• In response to the Evaluation Team’s request for clarification, the Bidder identified quantities used to calculate costs in the Cost Proposal Worksheet Section 1 – Fixed Annual Costs, as being aligned with information provided in RFP Part I, Introduction, Section A (Purpose and Background). In their clarification, the Bidder stated that Section 1 pricing was developed using the following quantities:

State of Maine RFP # 202510141 pg. 11 o 130 Continuous Count Station (CCS) locations, including 22 bi-directional sites, totaling 152 devices o 16 Weigh-In-Motion (WIM) sites o 400 Continuous Turning Movement (CTM) locations

• The Bidder’s Cost Proposal includes pricing that accounts for all existing required count locations and additionally incorporates the expanded CTM quantities identified in the RFP.

The Cost Proposal includes pricing that meets and exceeds the minimum existing count location requirements described in the RFP and does not omit any required elements of the existing scope of work, including implementation costs. The proposal reflects the full scope of work described in the RFP and can be scored.

BIDDER NAME: Drakewell, INC

DATE: 12/16/2025

Consensus Comments - Technical Assessment Team:

Consensus Decision: Met

Overall quality of response and evidence: Bidder demonstrated mature explanations even though provided evidence was lacking for some controls.

Overall, bidder demonstrated strong controls with their ISO certifications in reference to those provided. Bidder would need to provide a written security policy.

Data Compliance Publicly available information

NIST 800-

Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak Explanation: Bidder states will compliance but provided no evidence.

Maine FOAA Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak Explanation: Bidder states will compliance but provided no evidence.

Bill of Materials (BoM) (Product Name)

Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak Explanation: Bidder listed a single product URL, which cannot be accessed.

MaineIT H1 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response

Explanation:

Explanation: Bidder stated compliance and provided city location for data center.

BIDDER NAME: Drakewell, INC

DATE: 12/16/2025

H2 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☒ Adequate ☐ Weak Explanation: Bidder states compliance and provided city name of second data center.

H3 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak Explanation: Bidder states compliance but provided no evidence.

A1 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak Explanation: Bidder states compliance but provided no evidence.

A2 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak Explanation: Bidder states compliance but provided no evidence.

A3 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak Explanation: Bidder states compliance and provided some key components.

Insufficient evidence provided.

A4 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak Explanation: Bidder states compliance but provided no evidence.

Information Security Standards S1 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response

Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☒ Adequate ☐ Weak Explanation: Bidder states compliance but provided insufficient evidence.

Demonstrated a security program through their ISO certification. A stronger response would have included a written security plan.

S2 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response

BIDDER NAME: Drakewell, INC

DATE: 12/16/2025

Explanation: Bidder states compliance. No planned use of sub-contractors.

S3 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak Explanation: Bidder states compliance but provided no evidence.

S4 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☒ Adequate ☐ Weak Explanation: Bidder states compliance and included cyber risk appetite statement.

Cloud Service Provider Reqs CSP1 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☒ Strong ☐ Adequate ☐ Weak Explanation: Bidder states compliance. Bidder responded to each of the architectural principles listed in the policy.

CSP2 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response

Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☒ Adequate ☐ Weak

Explanation: Bidder states compliance and support for Microsoft Active Directory and Okta.

CSP3 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response

Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☒ Adequate ☐ Weak

Explanation: Bidder states compliance and no PII or credit card information stored.

CSP4 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response

Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☒ Strong ☐ Adequate ☐ Weak

Explanation: Bidder states compliance and responded to each of the deployment certification tests in the referenced policy.

BIDDER NAME: Drakewell, INC

DATE: 12/16/2025

CSP5 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response

Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☒ Adequate ☐ Weak

Explanation: Bidder states compliance and described accessibility testing process.

CSP6 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response

Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☒ Adequate ☐ Weak

Explanation: Bidder states compliance and commitment. Bidder referenced certifications and summarized publications.

CSP7 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response

Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak

Explanation: Bidder states compliance but provided no evidence.

CSP8 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak Explanation: Bidder states compliance and references certificates, but did not provide the information security policy.

CSP9 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response

Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak

Explanation: Bidder states compliance and references certificates, but did not provide the information security policy.

CSP10 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response

Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak

Explanation: Bidder states compliance and describes user access controls, but provided no evidence.

BIDDER NAME: Drakewell, INC

DATE: 12/16/2025

CSP11 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response

Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak

Explanation: Bidder states compliance but provided no evidence.

CSP12 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak Explanation: Bidder described retesting frequency but did not describe testing further.

CSP13 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response

Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☒ Strong ☐ Adequate ☐ Weak

Explanation: Bidder states compliance and referenced certifications.

CSP14 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak Explanation: Bidder states compliance and describes patching frequency and monitoring, but provided no additional evidence.

CSP15 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response

Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☒ Adequate ☐ Weak Explanation: Bidder states compliance. Described alignment with referenced policy.

CSP16 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response

Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☒ Adequate ☐ Weak

Explanation: Bidder states compliance. No gen AI in proposed solution.

CSP17 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a

BIDDER NAME: Drakewell, INC

DATE: 12/16/2025

Explanation: Bidder states compliance but provided no evidence.

CSP18 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response

Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak

Explanation: Bidder provided a response about logging but not about vendor identity system integration policy.

CSP19 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response

Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☒ Adequate ☐ Weak

Explanation: Bidder states compliance and demonstrates understanding of the policy.

NIST Requirements N1 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☒ Strong ☐ Adequate ☐ Weak Explanation: Bidder states compliance, and provided ISO 27001 and ISO 9001.

N2 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response

Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☒ Strong ☐ Adequate ☐ Weak

Explanation: Bidder states compliance, and provided ISO 27001 and ISO 9001.

N3 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response

Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☒ Strong ☐ Adequate ☐ Weak

Explanation: Bidder states compliance, and provided ISO 27001 and ISO 9001.

N4 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a

BIDDER NAME: Drakewell, INC

DATE: 12/16/2025

Quality of Evidence: ☒ Strong ☐ Adequate ☐ Weak Explanation: Bidder states compliance, and provided ISO 27001 and ISO 9001.

N5 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response

Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☒ Strong ☐ Adequate ☐ Weak

Explanation: Bidder states compliance, and provided ISO 27001 and ISO 9001.

N6 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response

Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☒ Strong ☐ Adequate ☐ Weak

Explanation: Bidder states compliance, and provided ISO 27001 and ISO 9001.

N7 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response

Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☒ Strong ☐ Adequate ☐ Weak

Explanation: Bidder states compliance, and provided ISO 27001 and ISO 9001.

N8 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response

Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☒ Strong ☐ Adequate ☐ Weak

Explanation: Bidder states compliance, and provided ISO 27001 and ISO 9001.

N9 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response

Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☒ Strong ☐ Adequate ☐ Weak

Explanation: Bidder states compliance, and provided ISO 27001 and ISO 9001.

N10 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a

BIDDER NAME: Drakewell, INC

DATE: 12/16/2025

Quality of Evidence: ☒ Strong ☐ Adequate ☐ Weak Explanation: Bidder states compliance, and provided ISO 27001 and ISO 9001.

N11 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response

Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☒ Strong ☐ Adequate ☐ Weak

Explanation: Bidder states compliance, and provided ISO 27001 and ISO 9001.

N12 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response

Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☐ Strong ☐ Adequate ☒ Weak

Explanation: Bidder states compliance but provided no evidence.

N13 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response Explanation:

Quality of Evidence: ☒ Strong ☐ Adequate ☐ Weak Explanation: Bidder states compliance, and provided ISO 27001 and ISO 9001.

N14 Quality of Response: ☒ Provided a Response ☐ Did not provide a response

Explanation:

Explanation: Bidder states annual review of security policies.

Evaluator

Title Senior Technician Department Transportation

Bidder/Applicant Name MS2

Date of Individual Evaluation 12/10/2025

Traffic Engineering Division-Traffic Monitoring Section

INDIVIDUAL…