RFP 27 0024 Vendor Questions.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 20 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Snowmobile Grooming Tracking System
- Solicitation number
- RFP 171 270000000024 2
- Issued by
- Michigan
About this file
This file is a vendor questions document for RFP 27 0024 related to Michigan's Snowmobile Grooming Tracking System procurement. The document captures inquiries and clarifications submitted by prospective bidders regarding the request for proposal requirements, scope of work, and technical specifications. The questions and corresponding answers provide guidance to vendors on project expectations, system requirements, deliverables, and evaluation criteria to ensure consistent understanding among all potential respondents. This type of document typically facilitates transparency in the procurement process by addressing ambiguities and providing equal information access to all interested parties before proposal submission.
The vendor questions document serves as an important tool for clarifying procurement terms, technical requirements, pricing considerations, and contractual obligations that may not have been explicitly detailed in the original RFP. By documenting questions and official responses, the document creates a record of amendments and clarifications that become binding to the procurement process and any resulting contract. This approach helps reduce proposal errors, ensures competitive fairness, and can minimize disputes or protests related to misunderstandings of project scope or requirements.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| DNR Snowmobile Grooming Tracker Combined RFP - Software.docx | DOCX document |
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
| RFP 270000000024 DNR - Snowmobile Grooming Tracker System | ||||
| Section | Page # | Vendor Question | State Response | |
| 1 | Schedule A – Attachment 1 – Business Specification Worksheet, Section 9.0 | 84 | Is this specification for the GPS system to track the width of trail groomed by using GPS coordinates or can the GPS be tied to the drag width pulled by that groomer and assume that whenever it is grooming a trail, it is grooming at the width of the drag pulled by this groomer? | The GPS system does not need to track the trail width. The average trail width is 14' with variance. |
| 2 | Schedule A – Attachment 1 – Business Specification Worksheet, Section 27.0 | 86 | Please identify the data fields and reporting parameters that must be configurable. Is configuration expected to be performed by State users through administrative settings or by the contractor upon request? Please also clarify whether this requirement is limited to configuring existing fields and reports or includes creating new fields, calculations, and custom reports. To allow for a defined scope, can the required configuration capabilities be specified? | This relates to configuring existing fields for relevance related to data collection and reporting. |
| 3 | Schedule H Section 4 - Installation, Integration and Configuration | 118-119 | Would the State consider allowing grooming club personnel to install the GPS tracking devices in place of contractor-performed installation? Our devices are designed for straightforward installation by the operator or club, and we provide all necessary mounting hardware, wiring, and installation instructions, along with remote technical assistance and verification that each device is reporting properly. This approach would reduce installation costs and allow clubs to coordinate installation around equipment availability. If acceptable, may bidders propose this approach through tracked changes to Schedule H Section 4, with the respective contractor and club responsibilities clearly defined? | The States preference and expectation is for the vendor to install the GPS units. If a vendor feels that the clubs can install on their own, you can submit that as part of the bid but it may have an impact on the award. |
| 4 | Schedule D - Service Level Agreement (Contractor Hosted) Sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.7 | 99-105 | To align the proposed support model with the program’s operational needs, would the State consider targeted alternatives to the 24/7 unlimited telephone and online support requirements, the required response and resolution timelines, and the associated service-credit calculations? Any proposed changes would be submitted through the tracked-change process with a justification for each change. Please identify which, if any, of these requirements must be accepted as written. | Vendors may submit alternatives for this with their bid response. |
| 5 | Schedule D - Service Level Agrrement (Contractor Hosted) Section 3.1 | 99-105 | Would the State consider 24/7 on-call emergency support for critical incidents, with routine technical support and user assistance provided during defined business hours? Please also clarify whether unlimited support is intended to cover troubleshooting, defect correction, and assistance using existing functionality, with additional training, configuration, and custom development handled under the applicable provisions of Schedule B. | Vendors may submit alternatives for this with their bid response. |
| 6 | Schedule D Section 1 and Section 3.5 — Response and resolution requirements | 101-105 | Would the State consider bidder-proposed response and resolution timelines based on incident severity and operational impact? In particular, would it accept a defined service-restoration or workaround target for critical incidents, followed by permanent correction within an agreed timeframe based on the issue’s complexity? Please clarify whether resolution-time measurement can stop upon documented restoration or correction, subject to subsequent State verification, rather than continuing until written acceptance is received. | Vendors may submit alternatives for this with their bid response. |
| 7 | Schedule D Section 3.5 and Section 7 — Hardware failures | 100-105 | Please clarify whether failure of an individual GPS tracking device is automatically classified as a Critical Service Error requiring resolution within four hours, or is governed by Section 7’s one-business-day repair or replacement requirement. Would the State consider separate hardware service levels based on the number of affected devices, operational impact, device location, and shipping and installation requirements, including an advance-replacement process using spare devices? | Vendors may submit alternatives for this with their bid response. |
| 8 | Schedule D Section 3.7 and Section 4 — Service credits | 103-104 | To ensure consistent pricing and understanding of the service-level obligations, please clarify the applicable fee basis, whether an aggregate monthly cap applies, and how credits are calculated when a single incident affects multiple service-level measures. Would the State consider a fixed, capped service-credit structure proposed through the tracked-change process? | Vendors may submit alternatives for this with their bid response. |
| 9 | U.S. bidding entity and Canadian resources | We reviewed the solicitation and it’s something we would love to submit a response on. We’ve provided similar solutions for many of the 25+ snowmobile/OHV organizations we work with. |
However, the way the “offshore resources” section is worded, while we do have US based infrastructure, it appears that our Canada-based staff would be unable to participate in work related to the solicitation.
| Can you confirm if we’ve interpreted this correctly and if there is a possibility for an exemption to this requirement for this project? | Under Section 3.3(e) of the Software Terms and Conditions, "[u]se of Offshore Resources that have Access to State Data or create Work Product is prohibited." A Bidder's country of origin, would not necessariy preclude it from bidding, provided it can satisfy the preclusion on use of Offshore Resources to provide Contract Activites under the contract. If a Bidder finds it necessary or desirable, they may propose changes to the terms in accordance with the provisions of the RFP. | |||
| 10 | U.S. bidding entity and Canadian resources | Would a proposal submitted by a Canadian company's U.S. subsidiary satisfy the solicitation’s requirements concerning the bidder’s location and legal entity? | Under Section 3.3(e) of the Software Terms and Conditions, "[u]se of Offshore Resources that have Access to State Data or create Work Product is prohibited." A Bidder's country of origin, would not necessariy preclude it from bidding, provided it can satisfy the preclusion on use of Offshore Resources to provide Services under the contract. | |
| 11 | U.S. bidding entity and Canadian resources | May that U.S. entity use its Canadian parent’s existing software, personnel and operating references? Please identify any restrictions concerning development, support, data hosting or access to State data from Canada. | Under Section 3.3(e) of the Software Terms and Conditions, "[u]se of Offshore Resources that have Access to State Data or create Work Product is prohibited." | |
| 12 | U.S. bidding entity and Canadian resources | Please confirm whether the mandatory requirement that the proposed hardware and software system be currently deployed and operational in the United States or Canada may be satisfied through deployments performed by a proposed OEM or subcontractor, provided the prime contractor offers the same integrated technology and assumes full contractual responsibility. What documentation will the State accept as proof? | Under Section 5.3 of the Data Security Requirements, "ensure that the Software and State Data is securely stored, hosted, supported, administered, Accessed, and backed up in the United States or its territories. The use of Offshore Resources is not permitted; " | |
| 13 | Separation of the software platform from tracking hardware | Will the State accept a solution in which Vendors proprietary software serves as the common software platform above third-party tracking devices and cellular or satellite communications services, with the bidding entity remaining responsible for the complete solution? | This is acceptable as long as the vendor remains responsible for the complete solution. | |
| 14 | Separation of the software platform from tracking hardware | May different devices and communications services be proposed for different vehicles, provided that they deliver consistent data and functionality through the same platform? | Yes, this is acceptable by the State. | |
| 15 | Separation of the software platform from tracking hardware | Is replacement of all existing tracking equipment required, or may compatible equipment already installed on groomers be retained and integrated? | The State will request that all existing tracking equipment will be replaced. | |
| 16 | Ownership of existing software and project-specific work | Please confirm that the Vendor would retain ownership of its pre-existing proprietary platform, source code, data-processing methods and reusable software components, with the State receiving the contractual rights necessary to use the service and access its data. | The State will not provide legal advice, Section 7 of the Terms and Conditions provided in the RFP establishes the respective Intellectual Property Rights, as between the State and any prospective Contractor. If a Bidder is not able or willing to accept those terms, it may propose changes in accordance with the RFP provisions. | |
| 17 | Ownership of existing software and project-specific work | For integrations, configurations and other work performed specifically under this contract, please distinguish: | ||
| • | Deliverables that would become State property. | |||
| • | Components that may remain supplier-owned and licensed to the State. | |||
| • | Any requirements for source-code delivery, escrow or transfer. | The State will not provide legal advice, Section 7 of the Terms and Conditions provided in the RFP establishes the respective Intellectual Property Rights, as between the State and any prospective Contractor. If a Bidder is not able or willing to accept those terms, if may propose changes in accordance with the RFP provisions. | ||
| 18 | Ownership of existing software and project-specific work | Could the State identify the applicable contract clauses and confirm whether retaining ownership of the pre-existing platform is compatible with the RFP? | The State will not provide legal advice, Section 7 of the Terms and Conditions provided in the RFP establishes the respective Intellectual Property Rights, as between the State and any prospective Contractor. If a Bidder is not able or willing to accept those terms, it may propose changes in accordance with the RFP provisions. | |
| 19 | MiLogin and MiGrants integrations | Please provide the technical specifications and expected scope for both integrations, including authentication protocols, API documentation, data schemas, transfer frequency and acceptance criteria. | The level of detail provided in the RFP document (Statement of Work, Section 11. Integrations) is all that will be provided prior to execution. The integration with a final Grants Solution has not been approved for use by the State Trails Program at this time but. The final Grants solution is yet to be determined but the final integrations would be similar to those that are detailed in the RFP. | |
| 20 | MiLogin and MiGrants integrations | Will the State provide test environments and technical assistance? For MiGrants, is the supplier responsible for delivering validated grooming activity data, or also for implementing reimbursement calculations and grant-management workflows within its own platform? | MiGrants has NOT been approved for use by the State Trails Program. The State will provide test environments and technical assistance for any and all integrations requested by the solutions selected. | |
| 21 | Thirty-second interval and operation outside coverage | Does the maximum thirty-second interval apply to local GPS acquisition, transmission to the platform, or both? | It would only apply to the local GPS acquisition. | |
| 22 | Thirty-second interval and operation outside coverage | When a groomer is outside cellular coverage, is local recording at the required interval followed by delayed upload acceptable, or must positions also be transmitted by satellite at that interval? | Delayed upload is acceptable by the State. | |
| 23 | Thirty-second interval and operation outside coverage | Please clarify the required maximum delay for displaying positions and alerts, separately for cellular, satellite and offline operation. | We are more concerned with the accuracy than real time location data. | |
| 24 | Mobile applications and the existing-system requirement | What functions must the Android and iOS applications provide: viewing and administration, GPS acquisition, operator input, or all of these? Would a mobile-responsive web application satisfy any of these requirements? | Yes, this is acceptable by the State if there is no loss of functionality when used across any of the specified platforms. | |
| 25 | Mobile applications and the existing-system requirement | For the requirement that the hardware and software already be in use in the United States or Canada, must the exact proposed combination already be deployed, or may an established platform be combined with proven tracking equipment and project-specific integrations? | Yes, the proposed combination must be currently depolyed in the United States or Canada. | |
| 26 | Pilot, deployment quantities and service obligations | Please confirm whether the approximately 180-machine deployment is an estimated potential quantity or a committed purchase, and identify the criteria for proceeding beyond the pilot. | The machine count is 180 at this time but can be treated as a fairly precise estimate in case that number changes. The extent to which the system meets the requirements included in the RFP will serve as criteria for moving beyond the pilot phase. | |
| 27 | Pilot, deployment quantities and service obligations | May proposals separately price the existing platform subscription, tracking hardware, communications services, integrations, installation and support? | Yes, we would prefer separate pricing for each item. | |
| 28 | Pilot, deployment quantities and service obligations | Please clarify whether the hardware repair or replacement requirement refers to initial response, dispatch of a replacement, or restoration of service on the vehicle, including for remote locations. | The hardware repair or replacement requirement refers to all 3 items listed; initial response, dispatch of a replacement, or restoration of service on the vehicle. | |
| 29 | Please provide the anticipated quantities by device type, including active groomers, spare units, replacement inventory, clubs, operators, administrators, and any State-owned GPS equipment that bidders should reuse. Please also confirm whether supplying and installing new GPS hardware is mandatory or optional. | The State will request that supplying and installing new GPS hardware is mandatory. The State anticipates 180 grooming machines and perhaps 10 back up units. | ||
| 30 | Please identify the current tracking solution, if any, and describe the historical data to be migrated, including approximate record volume, retention period, available export formats, existing device inventory, and whether incumbent APIs or technical documentation will be available. | The current tracking system is Verizon Connect. The State does not have a preference if the historic data is migrated into the new system or not. Current device inventory is 180 in-machine units and 2 spare devices. | ||
| 31 | Please clarify the required tracking interval, positional accuracy, cellular or satellite coverage expectations, offline store-and-forward duration, environmental or ruggedization ratings, and minimum operational behavior in portions of the trail network without reliable cellular service. | The State would prefer a short ping rate for better accuracy, to be uploaded immediately when the device is back in range. | ||
| 32 | Please identify the financial, reimbursement, GIS, identity-management, and trail-management systems with which the solution must exchange data, along with the expected interface methods, target production date, and whether the State will provide detailed acceptance test cases before contract execution. | The integrations specified in the RFP include DNR - MiGrants and the State of Michigan Single-Sign-On solution. Those are the only integrations specified. |
The bidder can provide their interfacing capabilities/methods for consideration by the State.
The level of detail provided in the RFP document (Statement of Work, Section 11. Integrations) is all that will be provided prior to execution. The integration with a final Grants Solution has not been approved for use by the State Trails Program at this time but. The final Grants solution is yet to be determined but the final integrations would be similar to those that are detailed in the RFP.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .