RFP 99SWC-S3474 Electronic Monitoring NASPO Bid Q and A - All 133 Answered.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 43 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Electronic Monitoring (NASPO)
- Solicitation number
- 99SWC-S3474
- Issued by
- Churchill County, Nevada
About this file
This is a Bid Questions and Answers document for RFP 99SWC-S3474, a NASPO ValuePoint electronic monitoring procurement led by Nevada with participation from Hawaii, Idaho, and Connecticut. The solicitation seeks products and services across four categories: Category 1 (GPS Monitoring), Category 2 (Radio Frequency Monitoring), Category 3 (Alcohol Monitoring), and Category 4 (Value Added Services). The RFP contemplates awarding multiple contractors per category based on evaluation of technical and cost proposals. Proposals were evaluated through a multi-stage process including technical evaluation (700 points possible) and cost evaluation (300 points possible), with a minimum technical score of 420 points required to advance to cost evaluation. The Notice of Intent to Award was anticipated for approximately May 2026, with contract execution to follow. The Master Agreement term includes an initial period with potential extension for four additional years at the Lead State's discretion and by mutual agreement. Proposals were submitted through the NevadaEPro system, and all non-confidential proposal documents were to be made public upon posting of the Notice of Award.
Pricing was to be submitted using prescribed Excel templates (Attachments 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, and 9.4) with line items for daily rates, per-call rates, equipment replacement costs, and alert notification services. Offerors were permitted to add supplemental line items for consumable parts, shelf inventory, and value-added services beyond the standard templates. An administrative fee of up to 1% could be imposed at the Participating Addendum level on Nevada contracts. Security compliance requirements included AICPA SOC 2 Type II certification, NIST 800-53 Moderate controls assessment, FedRAMP authorization, GovRAMP authorization, or equivalent, with audits required at least once every two years. The RFP required nationwide service capabilities including Hawaii and Alaska, with offerors to describe ability to provide services outside the United States. Numerous questions from bidders resulted in revisions to hardware and software requirements, including modifications to beacon range settings, charging capabilities, communication methods, uptime availability standards (revised from 99.99999% to 99.99%), identity verification methods, and alcohol monitoring device specifications to promote broader competition and fair evaluation.
View the file
Other files
Show all 20
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
Bid Q&A for Export Report
| RFP 99SWC-S3474 Electronic Monitoring (NASPO) Bid Q&A | |||||
| QUESTION_NBR | CREATED_BY | QUESTION_SUBJECT | QUESTION_TEXT | ANSWER_TEXT | |
| 1 | SENTINEL01 | Company names submitting questions | May we please have a list of the company names who have submitted questions included with the answers to questions? | All vendors and their questions are able to be viewed in NevadaEPro. | |
| 2 | SENTINEL01 | Proposal opening | Is the proposal opening public or accessible virtually/remotely and, if so, will you please provide details? | No, this is not a public meeting. | |
| 3 | SENTINEL01 | Proposal opening | Following the proposal opening, are all Proposer company names recorded somewhere publicly accessible or in response to an email request and, if so, will you please provide details? | All proposals and their documents not marked confidential will be made public when the Notice of Award is posted once the evaluation process is complete. | |
| 4 | SENTINEL01 | Timing for public records access to proposals | When do proposals become public record? | They are made Public when the Notice of Award is posted. | |
| 5 | SENTINEL01 | Public records method/contact | What is Nevada Purchasing Division’s preferred method for interested parties to request access to such public records and who is the contact person/contact details to whom such requests should be submitted? | That information will be provided on the Notice of Award form when it is posted. | |
| 6 | SENTINEL01 | Intent to award/award | Approximately what date are the notices of intent to award(s)/award(s) anticipated to occur? | Approximately May 2026. | |
| 7 | SENTINEL01 | Notice of intent to award/award | Will Nevada Purchasing Division notify all Proposers of intent to award(s)/award(s) and, if so, what method will Nevada Purchasing Division use to notify Proposers (Email? NevadaEPro? Other?) | The Notice of Intent will be posted as an attachment with the other RFP documents. NevadaEPro sends emails to vendors automatically. Suppliers are encouraged to check NevadaEPro regularly to make sure they did not miss the Notice of Intent. | |
| 8 | SENTINEL01 | Cadence for contract execution | Will the review and subsequent contract execution dates be the same for all providers being awarded a contract and if different, what will be the sequence of contract execution for multiple providers? | Lead State review and contract execution with successful Offeror(s) occur concurrently. The effective date will be determined when the Master Agreements are signed. | |
| 9 | SENTINEL01 | States making up Multistate Sourcing Team | What specific states have members on the Multistate Sourcing Team for this RFP? | Nevada, Hawaii, Idaho, and Connecticut. The Lead State reserves the right to make changes to the Multistate Sourcing Team as needed. | |
| 10 | SENTINEL01 | 01 - RFP Terms and Conditions | 01 - RFP Terms and Conditions, IV. PROPOSALS calls out “C. Discussions, Clarifications, and Demonstrations.” Will you please clarify in detail specifically what “Demonstrations” may be required for this solicitation and quantify specifically how they apply to the 03 - RFP Evaluation Plan or confirm that this language is not applicable? | The Lead State reserves the right to hold demonstrations if they so choose. At this time, however, it is not anticipated that demonstrations will be held. | |
| 11 | SENTINEL01 | 02 - Scope of Work | 02 - Scope of Work, IV. Category 1: GPS Monitoring, A. Hardware Requirements calls out “The beacon must have at least three (3) range settings to accommodate various sizes of residences.” Different EM manufacturers offer different solutions to accommodate various sizes of residences (not just beacon variable range). To enable competition and to allow each Participating Entity the ability to evaluate multiple leading approaches, will you please change this mandatory “must” requirement to a desirable “should” requirement, or replace this requirement in its entirety with the following?: “Please describe your specific device capabilities to accommodate various sizes of residences.” | See change to Attachment 02, Scope of Work, Section IV, A. | |
| 12 | SENTINEL01 | 02 - Scope of Work | 02 - Scope of Work, IV. Category 1: GPS Monitoring, A. Hardware Requirements calls out “In addition to standard AC charging, tracking device must have additional ways of charging such as an on-body charger (OBC) and/or USB port.” Many Participating Entities are adverse to on-body chargers and therefore, to allow each Participating Entity the ability to evaluate multiple leading approaches,, will you please change this mandatory “must” requirement to a desirable “should” requirement, or replace this requirement in its entirety with the following?: “Please describe your device charging capabilities.” | See change to Attachment 02, Scope of Work, Section IV, A. | |
| 13 | SENTINEL01 | 02 - Scope of Work | 02 - Scope of Work, V. Category 2: Radio Frequency (RF) Monitoring, A. Hardware Requirements calls out “The equipment must have a minimum of three (3) ways to communicate data to the software, such as landline, Ethernet, Wi-Fi, or cellular.” Incumbent Participating Entities deem landline or cellular as proven and reliable capabilities being sufficient to meet their requirements and needs (without the need for Ethernet or Wi-Fi, that could present other unexpected reliability issues). To allow each Participating Entity the ability to evaluate multiple leading and proven approaches, will you please change this mandatory “must” requirement to a desirable “should” requirement, or replace this requirement in its entirety with the following?: “The equipment should have multiple ways to communicate data to the software. Please describe your RF device’s communication capabilities.” | See revised Attachment 02, Scope of Work, Section V, A. | |
| 14 | SENTINEL01 | 03 - RFP Evaluation Plan | 03 - RFP Evaluation Plan calls out “Stage 4: Cost Evaluation, Cost Evaluation by Category 300 Cost Points Possible” Specifically who will perform “Stage 4: Cost Evaluation, Cost Evaluation by Category 300 Cost Points Possible” – Nevada Purchasing Division alone? Sourcing Team alone? Combination of Nevada Purchasing Division and Sourcing Team? Other? | The Sourcing Team including Nevada Purchasing Division. | |
| 15 | SENTINEL01 | 03 - RFP Evaluation Plan | 03 - RFP Evaluation Plan calls out “Stage 4: Cost Evaluation, Cost Evaluation by Category 300” Specifically how will “Stage 4: Cost Evaluation, Cost Evaluation by Category 300 Cost Points Possible” use the price elements of Cost Proposal Price Schedules 9.1, 9.2, 9.3 & 9.4 to calculate the “Stage 4: Cost Evaluation, Cost Evaluation by Category 300 Cost Points Possible”? | see answer to question #56. | |
| 16 | SENTINEL01 | 03 - RFP Evaluation Plan | 03 - RFP Evaluation Plan, Award Selection Categories 1, 2, 3 calls out “Consideration of the optimal number of Contractors required to successfully supply Deliverables to Participating Entities and Purchasing Entities” The incumbent NASPO contract awarded six (6) Contractors overall – How many Contractors per category will Nevada Purchasing Division award at a minimum? | This is unknown at this time. | |
| 17 | SENTINEL01 | 03 - RFP Evaluation Plan | 03 - RFP Evaluation Plan, Award Selection Categories 1, 2, 3 calls out “Following approval of NASPO ValuePoint and any other approvals required by the Lead State, the Lead State will issue letters of intent to award.” What specific authorities have “other approvals required by the Lead State”? | At this time, there are no additional approvals required by the Lead State prior to Intent to Award. | |
| 18 | SENTINEL01 | 05 - Participation Information | 05 - Participation Information, Nevada State Purchasing Division Terms and conditions for services, 3. CONTRACT calls out “3.2. Administrative fee, 3.2.1. The State may implement an administrative fee of not more than 1% on contracts procured or negotiated by the State Purchasing Division pursuant to NRS 333.450.” Does Nevada Purchasing Division have an Administrative Fee and, if so, what is the value of the Administrative Fee and is it imposed on all Participating Entities on the Master Agreement or only imposed on Participating Entities from within Nevada? | Only imposed at the Participating Addendum level. | |
| 19 | SENTINEL01 | Cost Proposal Price Schedules | Cost Proposal Price Schedules 9.1_Cost Proposal Price Schedule Category 1, 9.2_Cost Proposal Price Schedule Category 2 Radio Frequency, 9.3_Cost Proposal Price Schedule Category 3 Alcohol Monitoring – Upon the basis of the limited character length/formatting of the cells within these MS Excel files, may Proposers please either; a) expand the cell sizes, or b) footnote the response cells in a corresponding footnoted MSWord/PDF format? | Expand the cell size, all costs must be represented in the Cost Workbook associated with the Category(ies) responded to. | |
| 20 | SENTINEL01 | Cost Proposal Price Schedules | 9.1_Cost Proposal Price Schedule Category 1, 9.2_Cost Proposal Price Schedule Category 2 Radio Frequency, 9.3_Cost Proposal Price Schedule Category 3 Alcohol Monitoring - Alert Notifications tabs. May we please edit and complete the Daily Rate (per unit and/or per user) and/or Per Call Rate cells, as applicable (Example: Item 5, Verbal Notification made by Monitoring Center staff to Participating State or Entity or User, on an optional basis on each respective Proposal Price Schedule is commonly priced as a Daily Rate (per unit and/or per user), (NOT a Per Call Rate))? | Yes, Offerors may edit and complete the Daily Rate (per unit and/or per user) and/or Per Call Rate cells. | |
| 21 | SENTINEL01 | Cost Proposal Price Schedules | 9.1_Cost Proposal Price Schedule Category 1, 9.2_Cost Proposal Price Schedule Category 2 Radio Frequency, 9.3_Cost Proposal Price Schedule Category 3 Alcohol Monitoring. Upon the basis that Lost/Damaged/Stolen Equipment Replacement Cost is commonly listed separately for each/every independent device component, to identify all per-component replacement costs, may Proposers please insert additional columns under the headings Lost/Damaged/Stolen Equipment Replacement Cost on each/every respective Proposal Price Schedule? | Yes, Proposers may insert additional columns under the headings Lost/Damaged/Stolen Equipment Replacement Coston each/every respective Proposal Price Schedule. | |
| 22 | GTHALHEIMER | Security Certifications (Attachment 02, Section III) | 1. | The RFP lists several acceptable security standards including "a third-party assessment based on current revision of NIST 800-53 Moderate controls conducted within the last two (2) years." Please confirm that TX-RAMP Level 2 certification, which requires compliance with NIST 800-53 Moderate or High controls, satisfies this requirement. | Per the RFP, the Contractor must be: |
1. AICPA SOC 2 compliant covering all five (5) functional areas (Security, Availability, Processing Integrity, Confidentiality, and Privacy),
2. or a third-party assessment based on current revision of NIST 800-53 Moderate controls conducted with in the last two (2) years,
3. or FedRAMP authorization,
4. or GovRAMP authorization,
5. or equivalent.
Offerors will be required to show how their current certification meets or exceeds one of these 5 requirements.
| 23 | GTHALHEIMER | Security Certifications (Attachment 02, Section III) | 2. | The RFP requires audits/assessments "at least one (1) time every two (2) years." For Offerors relying on TX-RAMP certification, does maintenance of current TX-RAMP status (which requires continuous monitoring and periodic reassessment) satisfy this ongoing audit requirement? | See answer to question #22. | |
| 24 | GTHALHEIMER | Digital Chain of Custody (Attachment 02, Section II) | 3. | The RFP requires a "digital chain of custody" including "digital fingerprint" and "tamper-proof storage." Please clarify whether these requirements are satisfied by: | ||
| o | Encryption at rest for stored data | |||||
| o | Comprehensive audit logging of all data access and modifications | |||||
| o | Role-based access controls | |||||
| o | On-device data buffering and tamper detection | |||||
| o | Proven evidentiary track record with successful court admissions across all 50 states | |||||
| Or does the Lead State require specific cryptographic implementations beyond these controls? | Offerors shall demonstrate how their current system satisfies these requirements. | |||||
| 25 | GTHALHEIMER | GovRAMP and State-Specific Requirements (Attachment 05) | 4. | GovRAMP requirements appear in the Utah Participating Addendum terms. Is GovRAMP authorization required for all Offerors to be awarded the Master Agreement, or only for Offerors who subsequently enter into a Participating Addendum with Utah? | See Attachment 05, Participation Information, last paragraph. | |
| 26 | GTHALHEIMER | GovRAMP and State-Specific Requirements (Attachment 05) | 5. | If GovRAMP is required only for Utah participation, may an Offeror be awarded a Master Agreement without current GovRAMP status and obtain GovRAMP authorization prior to executing a Utah Participating Addendum? | See Attachment 05, Participation Information, last paragraph. | |
| 27 | GTHALHEIMER | GovRAMP and State-Specific Requirements (Attachment 05) | 6. | Does TX-RAMP Level 2 certification provide any reciprocity or expedited pathway for GovRAMP authorization under this RFP, given both programs are based on NIST 800-53 controls? | See answer to question #22 | |
| 28 | GTHALHEIMER | State-Specific Variations | 7. | Participating State requirements in Attachment 05 include varying breach notification timelines (e.g., Connecticut requires notification within 3 business days; the base RFP requires 24 hours). Should Offerors respond to the most stringent requirement across all Participating States, or will state-specific compliance be addressed in individual Participating Addendums? | See Attachment 05, Participation Information, last paragraph. | |
| 29 | GTHALHEIMER | State-Specific Variations | 8. | Several Participating States include state-specific data protection requirements (e.g., Oregon Consumer Information Protection Act, Utah data handling requirements). Should Offerors address compliance with each state's specific requirements in the proposal, or are these addressed during Participating Addendum negotiation? | See Attachment 05, Participation Information, last paragraph. | |
| 30 | GTHALHEIMER | CJIS Compliance | 9. | The RFP references CJIS Security Policy requirements in the context of audit trails. Is CJIS certification required for contract award, or is alignment with CJIS Security Policy technical controls sufficient? If certification is required, does NASPO or the Lead State provide sponsorship arrangements, or must Offerors obtain sponsorship independently? | Certifications is not part of this requirement. | |
| 31 | GTHALHEIMER | Evaluation Criteria | 10. | Attachment 03 indicates proposals will be evaluated on security capabilities. Is evaluation pass/fail against stated minimum requirements, or will proposals demonstrating security capabilities exceeding minimum requirements receive additional consideration in scoring? | This criteria will be evaluated only on a mandatory pass/fail basis. | |
| 32 | GTHALHEIMER | Product Scope | 11. | The RFP covers multiple monitoring categories (GPS, RF, Alcohol). Must security architecture be identical across all categories proposed, or may security controls vary by product category provided minimum requirements are met for each? | The Security Architecture minimum requirements must be met. Offerors are encouraged to expand on how their security measures exceed this requirement (by category if necessary) in Attachment 08, I, D. | |
| 33 | GTHALHEIMER | Product Scope | 12. | For alcohol monitoring systems that use a base station architecture (device communicates to base station, base station communicates to backend), should security controls be described for each communication link separately, or is an end-to-end description sufficient? | Security controls must be described for each communication link separately in addition to an overview of end-to-end security | |
| 34 | GTHALHEIMER | Pricing Proposal | Per RFP Attachment 09, the Cost Proposal format and structure are intended to allow for a fair evaluation of like costs among Offerors, and deviation from the format may result in a proposal being deemed non-responsive. | |||
| For offerings or value-added services that support electronic monitoring programs but are not explicitly reflected in the current Cost Proposal templates, may Offerors include additional pricing line items or supplemental pricing sheets, provided that all required Attachment 09 pricing is completed in the prescribed format? | Yes, Offerors may include additional pricing line items or supplemental pricing sheets. All required Attachment 09 pricing must be completed in the prescribed format. | |||||
| 35 | GTHALHEIMER | Nationwide Services | Regarding Mandatory Minimum Requirements, Item C (Nationwide Services): | |||
| Please clarify what is intended by â??Nationwide Services.â?? Specifically, does this requirement refer solely to the ability to provide electronic monitoring equipment nationwide, or does it also require the provision of specific operational and monitoring services nationwide? If services are required, please identify which service components must be available on a nationwide basis. | At this time, services outside of the United States is not being evaluated. Merly, the question is IF Offeror can provide services outside of US. Pricing for these services will be determined at a later date if there is an interested party. | |||||
| 36 | SENTINEL01 | RFP Overview | “01 - RFP Terms and Conditions pages 1 & 2 refer to an RFP Overview in the following locations however, an RFP Overview does NOT appear to be one of the File Attachments on NevadaEPro – Will you please post the RFP Overview on NevadaEPro or clarify specifically what is being referred to as the RFP Overview?: | |||
| S. | RFP Close Date means the date and time identified in Section II.D.4 of the RFP Overview. | |||||
| T. | RFP Contact means the individual identified in Section II.A of the RFP Overview. | |||||
| U. | RFP Open Date means the date and time identified in Section II.D.1 of the RFP Overview. | |||||
| V. | RFP Q&A Deadline means the date and time identified in Section II.D.3 of the RFP Overview. | |||||
| W. | RFP Website means the website identified in Section II.B of the RFP Overview. | |||||
| X. | Solicitation Number means the number identified on the cover page of the RFP Overview and in the header of each attachment to this RFP.” | Attachment 00, RFP Overview is now visible. | ||||
| 37 | MITZISHILLING | 01 RFP Terms and Conditions, Pages 1-2, I. DEFINITIONS | items S, T, U, V, W, and X reference the RFP Overview. We were unable to locate a document titled â??RFP Overview.â?? Could the Lead State please confirm whether this file exists or advise it is already provided under a different name? | Attachment 00, RFP Overview is now visible. | ||
| 38 | MITZISHILLING | 04 Sample Master Agreement, Page 2, II. Term of Master Agreement, | States, "The term of this Master Agreement may be amended beyond the initial term for four additional years at the Lead Stateâ??s discretion and by mutual agreement and upon review of requirements of Participating Entities, current market conditions, and Contractor performance.â?? Will the Lead State clarify whether the additional four years represent one continuous four-year extension or four separate one-year extensions? | This will be decided closer to the first contract renewal. | ||
| 39 | MITZISHILLING | 04 Sample Master Agreement, 14.8.2 and 14.8.3.3 Liability for Damages and Liquidated Damages | Please clarify whether the Master Agreement provides for any caps or limitations on liability for damages or liquidated damages? We are seeking clarification about the limits of financial liability under the Master Agreement. | Offerors may include a limitation of liability in their proposed modifications to the sample master agreement for consideration and negotiation. Acceptance of any limitation of liability is not guaranteed. | ||
| 40 | MITZISHILLING | 04 Sample Master Agreement, 14.8.2 and 14.8.3.3 Liability for Damages and Liquidated Damages | Please confirm what is intended to be included within the terms "damages" and "liquidated damages", including whether liquidated damages are intended to operate independently of, or in conjunction with, other remedies available under the Master Agreement, Participating Addenda, Orders, or applicable law? | Offerors may include a limitation of liability in their proposed modifications to the sample master agreement for consideration and negotiation. Acceptance of any limitation of liability is not guaranteed. | ||
| 41 | MITZISHILLING | Answers to Questions | We have found that sometimes, perhaps because proposers do not ask a question clearly enough, the answers are unclear. Upon release of the Lead State's initial answers to questions, will proposers be permitted to ask additional clarification questions if they do not fully understand the initial answers? | No, not at this time. However, the Lead State reserves the right to re-open the Q&A period if it is determined in the best interests of this procurement. | ||
| 42 | MITZISHILLING | Answers to Questions | Responses to vendor questions greatly affect each proposer's ability to develop custom solutions and cost-effective pricing. We understand the answers to questions will be provided by an amendment on or around February 6, 2026. If the answers are not posted by Friday, February 13, 2026, will the Lead State please extend the proposal due date to ten (10) days after publishing answers to allow proposers adequate time to draft their responses? | No changes to the schedule are anticipated at this time. | ||
| 43 | INFO@BUDDI.COM | 1. | Attachment 1 â?? Page 5 of 8 â?? Section K. Required Signatures | Could you please share what forms require signatures besides transmittal letter (if included) and Attachment 7? | Attachment 7 is required. Attachment 11 if submitting requests for confidential information also requires a signature. | |
| 44 | INFO@BUDDI.COM | 2. | Attachment 1 â?? Page 6 of 8 â?? Section F. No Exclusivity | In the previous solicitation that resulted in contract #22PSX0021, it was not possible to add additional technologies as they were developed by Original Equipment Manufacturers. Does this section remedy that past issue and if not where in these attachments is that addressed? | Attachment 2, Section 1, part D addresses this. | |
| 45 | INFO@BUDDI.COM | 3. | Attachment 1 â?? Section III.B.4 | Will the Lead State identify whether an amendment is considered â??materialâ?? versus an â??immaterial correction or clarificationâ??? | All changes will be through an RFP Amendment. | |
| 46 | INFO@BUDDI.COM | Attachment 1 â?? Section III.D. | Will the Lead State identify whether an amendment is considered â??materialâ?? versus an â??immaterial correction or clarificationâ??? | All changes will be through an RFP Amendment. | ||
| 47 | INFO@BUDDI.COM | Attachment 1 â?? Section IV.I.3 | If an Offeror identifies a potential ambiguity and submits a question prior to the Q&A deadline, will the Lead State confirm in writing whether the issue is deemed resolved or requires a formal protest to preserve rights? | Offerors must notify the Procurement Officer immediately if there is any ambiguity. There are no restrictions on protests for written requirements. Also see Attachment 06. | ||
| 48 | INFO@BUDDI.COM | Attachment 2 â?? Scope of Work â?? Page 2 of 11 â?? Section III. Information Technology Security | If a public records request is received, will the offeror be notified and given an opportunity to defend confidentiality claims prior to disclosure, where permitted by law? | Documents will become public information after Notice of Award. Those documents marked as confidential will be verified by the Procurement Officer. The Procurement Officer will reach out to an Offeror if confidentiality cannot be verified and allowed for an option to remove confidential claims or remove document from consideration. After this step, Offerors are no longer notified when public records requests are received. | ||
| 49 | INFO@BUDDI.COM | Attachment 1 â?? Section III.D. | Will the Lead State identify whether an amendment is considered â??materialâ?? versus an â??immaterial correction or clarificationâ??? | See answer to question #45. | ||
| 50 | INFO@BUDDI.COM | Attachment 1 â?? Section IV.I.3 | If an Offeror identifies a potential ambiguity and submits a question prior to the Q&A deadline, will the Lead State confirm in writing whether the issue is deemed resolved or requires a formal protest to preserve rights? | See answer to question #47. | ||
| 51 | INFO@BUDDI.COM | Attachment 2 â?? Scope of Work â?? Page 2 of 11 â?? Section III. Information Technology Security | If a public records request is received, will the offeror be notified and given an opportunity to defend confidentiality claims prior to disclosure, where permitted by law? | See answer to question #48. | ||
| 52 | INFO@BUDDI.COM | Attachment 2, Scope of Work, Page 2 of 11, Section III. | Regarding the SOC 2 Type II audits, our provider can disclose and provide the applicable third-party assessment reports; however, disclosure typically requires execution of a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) by the Lead State. Please advise whether the Lead State would like these assessments included as part of the RFP submittal and, if so, whether we should forward the NDA for review and execution at this time. | The Lead State and Sourcing Team will not sign an NDA. However, Offerors should complete Attachment 11 in the case of non-disclosure of a specific requirement, document, response. Failure to provide these audits may result in disqualification. | ||
| 53 | INFO@BUDDI.COM | Attachment 2, Scope of Work, Page 8 of 11, VI. Category 3: Alcohol Monitoring â?? Section A. | This requirement is unnecessarily restrictive as contemplated under Section 1.4.12, Terms and Conditions of Services, and effectively mirrors the specifications of a single original equipment manufacturer (SCRAM). Advances in alcohol monitoring technology have eliminated the need for a dedicated base station to communicate with monitoring analysts. Modern solutions transmit data directly via cellular and/or Wi-Fi technologies without reliance on landline or Ethernet connections. Fewer than 25% of U.S. households maintain landline service, and given the widespread availability of Wi-Fi, Ethernet-based connectivity is no longer practical or necessary. We respectfully request that this requirement be revised from a minimum of three (3) communication methods to two (2) communication methods and that the language be changed from â??shallâ?? or â??willâ?? to â??may.â?? | See revised Attachment 02, Scope of Work, Section VI, A. | ||
| 54 | INFO@BUDDI.COM | Attachment 2, Scope of Work, Page 9 of 11, VI. Category 3: Alcohol Monitoring â?? Section A | This requirement is unnecessarily restrictive as contemplated under Section 1.4.12, Terms and Conditions of Services, and effectively reflects the specifications of a single original equipment manufacturer (SCRAM). Newer alcohol monitoring devices have been admitted as evidence in court proceedings under both Daubert and Frye standards and have undergone side-by-side testing with SCRAM devices. These evaluations have demonstrated equal or greater accuracy in detecting alcohol consumption and improved performance in identifying atmospheric conditions indicative of tampering. As these technologies are newer to the market, they have not had the same opportunity to generate extensive published third-party research as legacy technologies in use for over two decades. While independent, peer-reviewed studies may be limited, the technology has been validated through operational use and internal studies, which can be provided. Excluding effective, court-admitted technology solely due to the absence of long-standing published research would unnecessarily restrict the options available to agencies. We respectfully request that this requirement be revised to state that the proposed equipment must have been tested and deemed effective in detecting ingested alcohol and atmospheric conditions indicative of tampering and that the language be revised from â??shallâ?? or â??willâ?? to â??may.â?? | See edit to Revised Attachment 02, Scope of Work, VI, A, 1. | ||
| 55 | INFO@BUDDI.COM | Attachment 2, Scope of Work, Page 9 of 11, VI. Category 3: Alcohol Monitoring â?? Section 2 | This requirement is unnecessarily restrictive, as contemplated under Section 1.4.12, Terms and Conditions of Services, and effectively describes the specifications of a single Original Equipment Manufacturer (SCRAM). Newer technology uses more common and widely available communication methods such as cellular and Wi-Fi, rather than landline or Ethernet, transmitting data directly from the device without the need for a base station and delivering alerts and location data in near real time rather than with delays of up to 12 hours. As a result, a direct USB connection is no longer necessary because these devices communicate continuously via cellular or Wi-Fi. This same continuous-communication model is already accepted for GPS devices, which do not include a USB direct-connect requirement. We respectfully request that the requirement for a direct USB connection be removed. | See edit to Revised Attachment 02, Scope of Work, VI, A, 2. | ||
| 56 | INFO@BUDDI.COM | Attachment 3, Evaluation Plan, Stage 3: Technical Criteria Evaluation | We appreciate the detail provided for the evaluation plan. We have questions about this: | |||
| a. | Can you share how many evaluators will review the proposals? | |||||
| b. | Could you please share what agencies these evaluators come from? | |||||
| c. | If eight proposers for one product all score above 420 points out of 700, do they all move forward to Stage 4? We ask because on page 2 under Award Selection Categories 1,2,3, bullet point 3 states: â??Consideration of the optimal number of Contractors required to successfully supply deliverables to Participating Entities and Purchasing Entities.â?? | |||||
| d. | Does Nevada/NASPO have a maximum number of vendors that will be awarded by category? | |||||
| e. | Is 700 the maximum number of points that can be given in each category (A, B, and C)? | A. 3 to 5 evaluators. |
B. See answer to question #9 C. All proposers who score more than 420 points will move on to Stage 4. After Stage 4 is evaluated, Award Selection criteria will apply, Attachment 03, last paragraph.
D. No, there are no maximum number of vendors that will be awarded by category.
E. 700 points for technical, plus 300 for cost. 1000 points total.
57 INFO@BUDDI.COM Attachment 3, Evaluation Plan, Stage 4 We are looking for clarification on this requirement:
a. The RFP establishes a minimum technical evaluation score of 420 points. The Evaluation Summary appears to reference a similar requirement for the cost evaluation; however, no calculation methodology is provided. Can NASPO clarify whether a specific cost evaluation model or formula will be used?
b. Will the lowest proposed daily rate within each category receive the maximum available cost points, and if so, what methodology will be used to calculate the cost scores for the remaining Offerors?
c. Is there a minimum scoring threshold for the cost evaluation, similar to the minimum threshold established for the technical evaluation? A. An alternative cost evaluation method will be used.
B. No, the lowest proposed daily rate within each category will not receive the maximum available cost points.
C. After the evaluation of cost, the Award Selection will take place (as described in Attachment 03, last paragraph).
| 58 | INFO@BUDDI.COM | Attachment 4, page 8 of 31, Sample Master Agreement, Section 5.3.4 | We have read this description. Is NASPO requiring contractors to report sales resulting from participating addendums and report on prospects that we have proposed NASPO as a contract option? | Potential Purchasing Entities was included to give NASPO tech team a head start on setting up crosswalks for an entity in anticipation of purchases being made by that entity. Offerors may include edits to this requirement to clarify/narrow the requirement to "Purchasing Entities with an imminent purchase". Acceptance of requested change is not guaranteed. | |
| 59 | INFO@BUDDI.COM | Attachment 4, page 20 of 31, section 11.2 Embedded Software | Does this clause say that software license is transferrable from one purchasing entity to another? | Please use Attachment 10 and submit Proposed Modifications to Sample Master Agreement as noted in Attachment 10. | |
| 60 | INFO@BUDDI.COM | Attachment 4, page 28 and 29, section 14.8.2 and 14.8.3.3 | The Sample Master Agreement references liquidated damages as a remedy against the Contractor in two sections; however, the liquidated damages are not defined within those sections and appear to be addressed elsewhere or not at all. Will the executed Master Agreement include specific definitions and amounts for liquidated damages, or are they intended to remain undefined? | Please use Attachment 10 and submit Proposed Modifications to Sample Master Agreement as noted in Attachment 10. | |
| 61 | INFO@BUDDI.COM | Attachment 5, Participation Information, page 4 of 6, Administrative Fee, 3.2.1 | Does the State intend to assess vendors an additional fee of more than 1%, separate from the 1.5% NASPO administrative fee applied to invoiced amounts for participating agencies? | Yes. Some Interested States have also provided state-specific terms and conditions, included in this attachment, that may apply to a Participating Addendum executed with an Offeror awarded a Master Agreement through this RFP. These terms and conditions are being provided for informational purposes only and will not be incorporated into the Master Agreement or addressed or negotiated by the Lead State. Participation and the terms and conditions applicable to each Participating Entity will be determined by the Participating Entity following negotiation of a Participating Addendum with a Contractor. | |
| 62 | INFO@BUDDI.COM | Attachment 5, Participation Information, page 5 of 6 â?? section 3.7.5 | Please note that most electronic monitoring products are procured on a lease basis, under which the Contractor retains title to the devices and charges a per-day rate while the devices are in use. The referenced contract term is inconsistent with the standard electronic monitoring business model used by vendors in this industry. | Please use Attachment 10 and submit Proposed Modifications to Sample Master Agreement as noted in Attachment 10. | |
| 63 | INFO@BUDDI.COM | Attachment 5 | Is the purpose of Attachment 05 to identify participating entities that may be interested in using the NASPO contract and to provide estimated usage volumes? If the listed terms and conditions apply only to entities that ultimately execute a participating addendum, please disregard questions 15 and 16. | See Attachment 05, Participation Information, last paragraph. | |
| 64 | INFO@BUDDI.COM | Attachment 5, Exhibit 1, sections 11 and on through page 162 of 200 | These seem to be duplicates that are located in Attachment 4 â?? Sample Master Agreement. What is the purpose of the exhibit, and which is prevailing? | See Attachment 05, Participation Information, last paragraph. | |
| 65 | INFO@BUDDI.COM | Attachment 5 â?? Security and Hosting Agreements | The RFP includes multiple references to Oregon and links to Oregon-specific resources, such as the Oregon Statewide Information Security Standards and Plan. Are Offerors required to comply with these Oregon-specific requirements even though Oregon is not the Lead State, or should compliance references instead be aligned with Nevada requirements? | See Attachment 05, Participation Information, last paragraph. | |
| 66 | INFO@BUDDI.COM | Attachment 8, Offeror Response Worksheet | We have several questions on this: | ||
| a. | To confirm, is this the schedule or outline for the RFP response that proposers will complete as one of the response documents? | ||||
| b. | Do proposers complete the responses on this or can we copy to our letterhead? | A. That is correct Attachment 8, Offeror Response Worksheet must be completed as one of the response documents. |
B. Complete responses on Attachment 8. Offerors must follow the format of Attachment 08. Evaluation team members are not required to search through a response to find answers to the questions asked, if not properly labeled.
| 67 | INFO@BUDDI.COM | Attachments 9.1 through 9.3, Lost/Damaged/Stolen | In the past vendors provided daily rates on the product rental that included a percentage of LDS credit (i.e.: 5% LDS credit). Can proposers still do this, and where would we mark this? | Offerors may add a line item to their Cost Proposal. | |
| 68 | INFO@BUDDI.COM | Attachments 9.1 through 9.3, Alert Notifications, item 5 | Can we get this changed to daily rate since it is associated with active units that are billed by daily rate? | This is acceptable. | |
| 69 | INFO@BUDDI.COM | Attachment 8 | 23. | Should information and device specifications specific to the Attachment 02, Scope of Work categories be incorporated into Attachment 08, Offeror Response Worksheet? | Yes. |
| 70 | TRACKGRP | Attachment 1, RFP Terms and Conditions, Section 1, Definitions | The definition of â??RFP Close Dateâ?? (as well as other terms in the Definition section) references a document entitled â??RFP Overviewâ??. Can the State please identify which document is the RFP Overview? | Attachment 00, RFP Overview is now visible. | |
| 71 | TRACKGRP | Attachment 2, Scope of Work, Category 1: GPS Monitoring, A. Hardware Requirements | Regarding Attachment 02, Scope of Work, Section IV, Category 1 â?? GPS Monitoring, Subsection A. Hardware Requirements, which states that the â??Tracking device must not require tools for installation,â?? the Offeror respectfully requests that this requirement be revised or removed. |
As written, this specification is unnecessarily restrictive to fair and open competition. 4 of the 6 electronic monitoring vendors currently listed on NASPO utilize a tool as part of their standard installation process. Such tools are typically used for cut-to-fit straps or to attach a pre-sized strap to the GPS tracking device. Excluding devices that require a basic installation tool unnecessarily restricts participation by most electronic monitoring vendors without a demonstrated operational or public safety benefit, while favoring a limited subset of tool-less solutions. By contrast, tool-assisted installation enables consistent tensioning and a more secure attachment that is less susceptible to wear, degradation, or failure over time. Important to consider for continuous public safety monitoring applications. This requirement also appears inconsistent with other RFP provisions requiring contractors to specify installation tools and procedures.
| The Offeror respectfully requests that the State remove this requirement or revise to simply describe the use of any tools required for installation. | The RFP states no "specially designed tools". Tool-assisted installation is acceptable. | |||
| 72 | TRACKGRP | Attachment 2, Scope of Work, Category 1: GPS Monitoring, B. Software Requirements | Regarding Attachment 02, Scope of Work, Section IV, Category 1 â?? GPS Monitoring, Subsection B. Software Requirements, which requires the system to provide â??99.99999% uptime/availability avoiding any downtime due to hardware or software issues,â?? the Offeror respectfully requests revision on this requirement. |
An availability requirement of 99.99999% (seven nines) permits just 3 seconds of downtime per year and is not a standard that is contractually required, or practically achieved, by enterprise cloud platforms supporting public safety or government workloads. This requirement exceeds what is measurable, enforceable, or commercially supported in real-world SaaS environments.
Recognized public-sector frameworks such as the FBI CJIS Security Policy and FedRAMP do not prescribe specific uptime percentages, instead emphasizing architectural resilience through redundancy, continuity of operations, disaster recovery, and failover. Consistent with this approach, and with what is commonly required in electronic monitoring and other public safety RFPs, state and local procurements typically specify attainable availability targets in the range of 99.9%â??99.99%, supported by documented resiliency controls rather than absolute uptime guarantees.
| Accordingly, the Offeror respectfully requests that the State revise this requirement to reflect an achievable, industry-standard availability target (e.g., 99.9%â??99.99%), while retaining robust continuity of operations and disaster recovery requirements to ensure uninterrupted public safety operations. | This has been revised to 99.99%. See revised Attachment 02, Scope of Work. | |||
| 73 | TRACKGRP | Attachment 2, Scope of Work, Category 3: Alcohol Monitoring, B. Remote Alcohol Monitoring (RAM) | Regarding Attachment 02, Scope of Work, Section VI, Category 3 â?? Alcohol Monitoring, Subsection B, Remote Alcohol Monitoring (RAM), Hardware Requirements, which states that the â??Device must use facial confirmation software to confirm participantâ??s identity,â?? the Offeror respectfully requests revision. |
As written, this requirement prescribes a specific identity verification method rather than the functional outcome of ensuring that the correct participant is providing each breath sample. This approach unnecessarily restricts fair and open competition by excluding alternative, proven identity confirmation solutions that achieve the same program integrity objectives through different means.
The Offeror notes that identity verification for remote testing is an evolving area, and solutions vary in their use of automated technologies, human review, or hybrid approaches. Some solutions utilize real-time or post-test review by trained monitoring center personnel who visually validate each test event, providing an additional layer of oversight and accountability that can mitigate known vulnerabilities associated with fully automated facial recognition technologies.
| Accordingly, the Offeror respectfully requests that the Agency revise this requirement to allow functionally equivalent identity verification methods. For example, the specification could require Offerors to describe their approach to participant identity confirmation and the controls used to ensure accuracy, reliability, and program integrity, rather than mandating the use of a specific technology. | See revised Attachment 02, Scope of Work, VI, B, 1. | ||||
| 74 | TRACKGRP | Attachment 8, Offeror Response Worksheet, II. Response to Technical Criteria | In regards to "SECTIONS A, B, AND C SHOULD BE COMPLETED ACCORDING TO THE CATEGORY(IES) TO WHICH YOU ARE RESPONDING:" - Can the state please identify where in Attachment 08 â?? Offeror Response Worksheet the offeror should input information for Category 4 from the Scope of Work: Value Added Services as it is not currently listed on the response worksheet? | Offerors may add this to Attachment 9.4 Cost Proposal and Narrative for Category 4_Valua Added Services document. | |
| 75 | TRACKGRP | Attachment 8, Offeror Response Worksheet, II. Response to Technical Criteria | Reference to â??Master Agreement Objectivesâ?? identifiable in Attachment 02 â?? Scope of work. Can the State please identify what aspects of SOW qualify to best answer the ORW? How would the State prefer these answers to be structured in the ORW? | See Attachment 00, II, F. See also answers to questions #66 and #69. | |
| 76 | TRACKGRP | Attachment 9.1, Cost Proposal Schedule, Category 1, GPS Monitoring | As presented, the pricing schedule does not provide a mechanism to account for shelf or idle inventory, nor does it address allowances or fees associated with lost or damaged equipment. These cost elements are standard and material components of electronic monitoring programs and are necessary to ensure pricing transparency, comparability among Offerors, and long-term program sustainability. | ||
| The Offeror respectfully requests that the State revise the pricing documents to incorporate line items or guidance addressing shelf/idle stock and lost or damaged equipment allowances or fees or otherwise clarify how Offerors should include these costs within the proposed pricing. | Offerors may add in additional line items to provide the shelf or idle inventory. | ||||
| 77 | TRACKGRP | Attachment 9.3, Cost Proposal Price Schedule, Category 3, Alcohol Monitoring | As presented, the pricing schedule does not clearly distinguish between Remote Alcohol Monitoring (RAM) and device-based alcohol monitoring services. These services involve materially different technologies, operational models, and cost drivers, and combining them into a single pricing structure limits transparency and makes equitable price comparison among Offerors difficult. | ||
| The Offeror respectfully requests that the State revise the pricing schedule to allow separate pricing for Remote Alcohol Monitoring and device-based alcohol monitoring or otherwise clarify how Offerors should accurately reflect these distinct service models within the current pricing format. | Offerors may edit Attachment 9.3 to reflect the different types of Alcohol Monitoring. | ||||
| 78 | TRACKGRP | Attachment 9.1, 9.2, 9.3 Cost Proposal Price Schedule(s) | Regarding the Cost Proposal and associated price schedules provided for Categories 1 (GPS), 2 (RF), and 3 (Alcohol Monitoring), the Offeror respectfully requests clarification regarding the pricing of consumable parts. |
As provided, the pricing documents do not appear to include a dedicated section or line items for consumable components required for the operation of the requested solutions (e.g., straps, clips, backplates, batteries, mouthpieces, or other consumables across GPS, RF, and alcohol monitoring programs). These items represent recurring operational costs and may vary by technology and program design.
| To ensure consistent, complete, and comparable pricing responses across Offerors, the Offeror respectfully requests that the Agency either revise the pricing schedules to include consumable parts or provide guidance on how and where Offerors should include consumable items and their associated costs within the existing pricing structure. | Offerors may add in additional line items to provide consumable components in Attachment 9.1, 9.2, and 9.3 Cost Proposal Price Schedules. | ||||
| 79 | TRACKGRP | Attachment 9.1, 9.2., 9.3 Cost Proposal Price Schedule(s) | The Offeror requests clarification on the required submission format for pricing, to ensure consistency and avoid non-responsiveness. Should all pricing schedules be submitted in Excel/Word format, PDF format, or both? | Excel format for Attachments 9.1, 9.2, 9.3. Word or PDF format for Attachment 9.4 | |
| 80 | TRACKGRP | Attachment 9.1, 9.2., 9.3 Cost Proposal Price Schedule(s) | The Offeror requests clarification on the required submission format for pricing, to ensure consistency and avoid non-responsiveness. Should all pricing schedules be submitted in Excel/Word format, PDF format, or both? | see answer to question #79 | |
| 81 | RVINTILLA | Attachment 2. IV. Hardware Requirements-Tools for Installation | There are two requirements that are contradictory. Will the State please clarify that the requirement is that the tracking device must not require tools for installation? | See answer to question #71. | |
| 82 | RVINTILLA | Attachment 2. IV. B. Software Requirements - Passive Tracking | What are the specifications or parameters the State defines as "passive tracking". | Passive tracking records an offender's location data throughout the day but does not transmit it in real-time. The device stores movement information, which is uploaded to a monitoring center later—typically daily—via a docking station or cellular signal, providing "after the fact" tracking. Definition added to revised Attachment 02, Scope of Work. | |
| 83 | RVINTILLA | Attachment 2. IV. B. Software Requirements-Priority communications | Will the State clarify the requirement of priority communication of location data on a wireless network to ensure continuous communication of location points in high traffic times and critical situations. | See answer to question #108. | |
| 84 | RVINTILLA | Attachment 2 . Scope of Work | â?¢ | The system must provide the functionality and access required with 99.99999% uptime/availability avoiding any downtime due to hardware or software issues. This will include a continuity of operations plan and disaster recovery plan which will ensure the system and services will be available without disruption as required. | |
| Q. Will the State please reconsider the requirement of "Seven nines" for uptime/availability as this level of availability usually requires extreme, specialized hardware-based or parallel software-based fault-tolerant solutions established for specialized military grade systems, space systems, etc. | See answer to question #72. | ||||
| 85 | RVINTILLA | Attachment 08 â?? Offeror Response Worksheet General. | Q. Is the State looking for Offerorâ??s to address, within the items/outline in this Attachment, each of the required items listed in the Categories from the Attachment 02 - Scope of Work? | Correct. See also Attachment 00, II, F. See also answers to questions #66 and #69. | |
| 86 | RVINTILLA | Attachment 08 â?? Offeror Response Worksheet General. | General. Offeror must provide complete and succinct responses to each item below. Insert your responses into this worksheet directly below each question or prompt. |
| Q. Is the State looking for Offerorâ??s to address, within the items/outline in this Attachment, each of the required items listed in the Categories from the Attachment 02 - Scope of Work? | Correct. See also Attachment 00, II, F. See also answers to questions #66 and #69. | |||
| 87 | RVINTILLA | Offeror Response Worksheet | I.C. Offeror must provide Nationwide Services (including Hawaii and Alaska). Offerors must describe their ability to provide services outside of the United States, e.g. US Territories and Canada. Offerors must respond with confirmation of Nationwide Services, and their ability to provide services outside of the United States. |
| Q. Will the State please confirm that â??servicesâ?? in the â??Nationwide Servicesâ?? refers to the expectation that all of the Contractors proposed systems and value-added services can be provided throughout the entire U.S.? | This is correct. See also answer to question #35. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .