RFQ Addendum 1.pdf

Bid S-25700-00017563 — Addendum No. 1 (Q&A) | Page 1 of 3

OREGON STATE POLICE

ADDENDUM NO. 1 — QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Solicitation: Bid S-25700-00017563 — Statewide GIS Data Maintenance and Tyler CAD Map Roll Services

Issued by: Oregon State Police, Business Services / General Services Addendum Date: 7/31/2026 Issued to: All invited IT Pro MPSA Holders (Deloitte Consulting LLP #8482; Elegant

Enterprise-Wide Solutions, Inc. #8473; The North Highland Company, LLC #8477; Timmons Group #8465)

This Addendum No. 1 provides the Authorized Purchaser’s responses to questions received during the question period for the above-referenced solicitation. This Addendum is incorporated into and made a part of the RFQ. In the event of any conflict between this Addendum and the RFQ, this Addendum controls.

Offer Due Date: The Offer Due Date and Time is extended to August 7, 2026 at 5:00 PM, Pacific Time.

Question 1. Section 6.4(c) requires each Offeror to identify the specific Tyler CAD map data format(s) it will deliver and the process used to produce them. Can OSP identify the specific Tyler product and version in use and provide the corresponding map data format specification or schema that Offerors should target?

Response: OSP’s CAD platform is Tyler Enterprise CAD version 2025.2. Offerors should make recommendations as to what formatting or schemas may be in OSP’s best interest.

Question 2. Will OSP facilitate direct coordination between the awarded Consultant and Tyler Technologies on the required map build/roll workflow?

Response: Yes. OSP will facilitate reasonable coordination between the awarded Consultant and Tyler Technologies as necessary to complete the map build/roll workflow.

Question 3. Will assets developed under Contract #DASPS-1577-19 — including automated QC configurations, production/build scripts or tooling, and the established Tyler map build/roll workflow — be made available to the awarded Consultant as State-furnished materials, or is the Consultant expected to establish these independently?

Response: OSP will furnish the OSP-owned GIS dataset (Agency Data). Automated QC configurations, production/build scripts, and other tooling developed by the incumbent under Contract #DASPS-1577-19 are the incumbent's property and will not be furnished by OSP. An Offeror is expected to provide these capabilities, whether through its own resources or through a teaming or subcontracting arrangement. Under MPSA Section 6.2, subcontracting is permitted subject to OSP's prior written consent. As contemplated by Section 6.4(b), an Offeror that intends to rely on a third party, including the incumbent, must identify the proposed subcontractor and describe the arrangement and how it will secure the necessary access; OSP will consider consent to any proposed subcontractor at award. OSP will facilitate coordination on the Tyler map build/roll workflow as described in the response to Question 2.

Bid S-25700-00017563 — Addendum No. 1 (Q&A) | Page 2 of 3

Question 4. Will any existing data-sharing agreements or access arrangements with ODOT and with contributing local jurisdictions transfer to the awarded Consultant, or must the Consultant establish its own? Is a list of the contributing jurisdictions available?

Response: Source reference layers are obtained from ODOT, and source GIS data is contributed by State agencies and local jurisdictions. Any existing ODOT and local-jurisdiction data-sharing/access arrangements will not transfer to the awarded Consultant. Offerors should identify any assumptions regarding data access in their Section 6.4 response.

Question 5. In what format, schema, and coordinate system will the current OSP-owned dataset (road centerline, site/structure address points, and the sp_ad and co_pl milepost tables) be provided, and does it conform to a recognized NG9-1-1 data model (e.g., NENA)?

Response: The current OSP-owned dataset will be provided in the following formats: .gdb, .aprx and .vtpk. Each layer has a different schema depending on where the info was sourced within the State of Oregon. Current map data uses decimal degrees. The dataset does not conform to a recognized NG9-1-1 (NENA) data model.

Question 6. Are the automated GIS quality-control checks referenced in Section 3.A (configured for CAD and NG9-1-1 requirements) existing assets that OSP will provide, or is configuring them within the scope of this WOC?

Response: Configuring the automated GIS quality-control checks is within the scope of this WOC. Consistent with the response to Question 3, existing incumbent QC configurations will not be furnished.

Question 7. To price the deliverables in Table A responsibly, can OSP provide approximate statewide magnitudes and typical change volume per Map Roll cycle (for example, centerline mileage, number of site/structure address points, number of contributing local jurisdictions, and the approximate volume of additions, deletions, and corrections typically processed per cycle)?

Response: For planning purposes only, OSP provides the following approximate magnitudes:

signed-route centerline mileage: 425,924; site/structure address points 1,757,680. Current vendor manages source data and is both contributor to and recipient of State Department of Emergency Management GIS data. These figures are approximate and are provided for planning purposes only; they are not a representation or warranty of actual volumes.

Question 8. Should the deliverables in Table A be priced as fixed-fee amounts, or as not-to-exceed amounts drawn against the Table B hourly rates?

Response: Table A deliverables shall be priced as fixed-fee (not-to-exceed) amounts per deliverable. The Table B hourly rates establish the basis for those amounts and the rates applicable to any additional or change-order work authorized by OSP.

Question 9. Will OSP provide any environment, access, or licensing needed to produce and validate the map package prior to delivery?

Response: OSP can provide VPN access to our test CAD mapping environment contingent upon Criminal Justice Information Service Security Clearance and training – see the current published FBI CJIS Security Policy. Any Consultant-side software, tooling, or licensing required to produce the map package is the Consultant’s responsibility.

Bid S-25700-00017563 — Addendum No. 1 (Q&A) | Page 3 of 3

Question 10. Because Section 3.E states that OEM MSAG/ALI availability is not guaranteed, how should Offerors treat this data in scope, schedule, and pricing — should Offerors assume it will be unavailable, and would its absence affect the QC pass or Acceptance criteria for a Map Roll?

Response: Offerors should assume statewide MSAG/ALI data may be unavailable and should scope, schedule, and price accordingly. The unavailability of MSAG/ALI will not, by itself, cause a Map Roll to fail QC or Acceptance; if such data is provided, it will be incorporated into the QC process.

All other terms and conditions of the RFQ remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

Issued by: Robert Johnson, Authorized Representative, Oregon State Police