VEIP_2023_Addendum_No_4_Final Rev.pdf
PDF 334 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- BPM040130
- Issued by
- Maryland
About this file
This document is Addendum No. 4 to the Request for Proposal (RFP) issued by the Maryland Department of Transportation Motor Vehicle Administration (MDOT MVA) for the management and operation of the Maryland Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program (VEIP). The addendum provides responses to questions submitted by potential proposers regarding the contract requirements, including the rights to records, copyright ownership, and software usage. Key clarifications include that the State of Maryland shall have ownership and control over all documents, materials, and software developed for the contract, and any exceptions or modifications to these terms must be clearly identified in the proposal. Additionally, the addendum addresses an error in the RFP referencing the Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT) requirement, confirming that the VPAT can be included in the Required Forms and Certifications tab of the proposal.
The RFP seeks a contractor to manage and operate the VEIP program for the State of Maryland. The contract term and any renewal options are not specified in the addendum. Pricing terms, set-asides, incumbent information, funding sources, and other financial details are also not provided in this addendum.
View the file
Other files
Show all 24
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
6601 Ritchie Highway NE, Glen Burnie, Maryland 21062 | 410.768.7000 | 800.950.1MVA | Maryland Relay TTY 800.492.4575 | mva.maryland.gov
December 15, 2023
TO ALL PROSPECTIVE PROPOSERS
Addendum No. 4
RE: MVA Solicitation No. V-HQ-24019-S, Addendum #4 Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program (VEIP) Management and Operation
To Whom It May Concern:
A. All Questions received have been answered per this Addendum No. 4.
Very Truly Yours, Jessica Mettle Jessica Mettle, Procurement Officer
THIS AMENDMENT IS ISSUED TO CLARIFY, ADD TO, DELETE FROM, CORRECT
AND/OR CHANGE THE PROPOSAL DOCUMENTS TO THE EXTENT INDICATED AND
HEREBY MADE A PART OF THE SAID PROPOSAL DOCUMENTS ON WHICH THE
CONTRACT WILL BE BASED. THIS AMENDMENT BECOMES PART OF THE
PROPOSAL PACKAGE AND MUST BE ATTACHED TO THE OUTSIDE COVER OF THE
PROPOSAL FORM. FAILURE TO DO SAY MAY RESULT IN THE REJECTION OF
YOUR PROPOSAL. COMAR 21.05.02.08 REQUIRES THAT ALL AMENDMENTS ISSUED
BE ACKNOWLEDGED; THEFORE THE ATTACHED RECEIPT MUST BE RETURNED TO
THIS OFFICE. FAILURE TO RETURN THE RECEIPT ACKNOWLEDGING THE
AMENDMENT MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR PROPOSAL.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
I. The following questions have been submitted via Envirotest on November 3, 2023, to
MDOT MVA for a response:
1. QUESTION: Paragraph 5.1 of Attachment M, “Rights to Records,” states that “The Contractor agrees that all documents and materials including, but not limited to, software, reports, drawings, studies, specifications, estimates, tests, maps, photographs, designs, graphics, mechanical, artwork, computations, and data prepared by the Contractor for purposes of this Contract shall be the sole property of the State and shall be available to the State at any time.” Does this mean that the contractor is not allowed to utilize software or designs developed during work on this contract in other states? And that the State of Maryland will control whether the contractor can use such accumulated know-how elsewhere?
ANSWER: The documents and materials shall be the sole property of the State.
Therefore, the express written approval/permission is required for others to utilize state-owned property.
2. QUESTION: The second sentence of Paragraph 6.1 of Attachment M states that “If any material, including software, is capable of being copyrighted, the State shall be the copyright owner and Contractor may copyright material connected with this project only with the express written approval of the State.” This second sentence does not limit the State’s copyright ownership to software created or generated in connection with this Contract, in contrast to the first sentence of this Paragraph. Is it the State’s position that it shall be the owner of copyright to all software code or written material provided throughout the course of contract performance?
ANSWER: The State shall be the copyright owner of all materials, including software created or generated as a result of this contract. The documents and materials shall be the sole property of the State. Therefore, the express written approval/permission is required for others to utilize or copyright state-owned property.
3. QUESTION: If the contractor develops software code for use under the instant Contract, is that software considered a work for hire under Paragraph 7.2 of Attachment M, and will the contractor be precluded from utilizing that code in other jurisdictions? If the contractor modifies existing software for use under this contract, and subsequently uses similar code in other states or jurisdictions, will the State consider this “copyright infringement” under Paragraph 29.1 given Paragraph 6.1’s copyright ownership provision?
ANSWER: If it is presumed that this hypothetical could happen during the course of the contract with the State, proposers should feel free to propose contract language for negotiation with the State.
4. QUESTION: Paragraph 7.2 of Attachment M states in part, “For all Software provided by the Contractor under the Contract, Contractor hereby grants to the State a nonexclusive, irrevocable, unlimited, perpetual, non-cancelable, and non-terminable right to use and make copies of the Software and any modifications to the Software.” What is the definition of the proper noun “Software” in this language? Does it include commercially available off-the-shelf software such as Microsoft Windows or Adobe Acrobat? If so, how can a contractor provide such broad, perpetual rights to MVA to copy and modify that software? And what is the definition of the term “provided” in this language—does that include installing software on a single computer used in some way to satisfy any requirement of the Contract scope of work?
ANSWER: Software is defined in the solicitation document (see page 139 of 183). Any exceptions to this RFP or the Contract shall be clearly identified in the Executive Summary of the Technical Proposal. All exceptions will be taken into consideration when evaluating the Offeror’s Proposal. The Administration reserves the right to accept or reject any exceptions.
5. QUESTION: Can the State confirm that the term “engineering services” includes software engineering, software coding, and software development for the purpose of COMAR 21.11.15.03 and RFP Attachment L?
ANSWER: COMAR 21.01.02.01(37)(a)(b) & (c) defines “engineering services”.
https://dsd.maryland.gov/regulations/Pages/21.01.02.01.aspx
(a) “Engineering services” means professional or creative work that:
(i) Is performed in connection with utilities, structures, buildings, machines, equipment, and processes, including structural, mechanical, plumbing, electrical, geotechnical, and environmental engineering; and
(ii) Requires engineering education, training, and experience in the application of special knowledge of the mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences.
(b) "Engineering services" includes consultation, investigation, evaluation, planning, design, and inspection of construction for the purpose of interpreting and assuring compliance with specifications and design within the scope of inspection services.
(c) "Engineering services" does not include:
(i) The inspection of construction not requiring engineering training;
(ii) Services provided in connection with an energy performance contract.
6. QUESTION: RFP Section 5.3.2.E.6 states, “The Offeror shall provide a Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT) containing a comprehensive analysis of the Offeror’s conformance to accessibility standards in Code of Maryland Regulations https://dsd.maryland.gov/regulations/Pages/21.01.02.01.aspx
14.33.02 (See RFP §4.33). Failure to supply a VPAT may result in the Offeror’s Proposal being deemed not reasonably susceptible for award.” However, RFP §4.33 refers to “Mercury and Products That Contain Mercury”, not the VPAT. What is the correct reference?
ANSWER: Reference to “RFP §4.33” is to be stricken from this paragraph. The paragraph is corrected to, “The Offeror shall provide a Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT) containing a comprehensive analysis of the Offeror’s conformance to accessibility standards in Code of Maryland Regulations 14.33.02 (See RFP §4.33).
Failure to supply a VPAT may result in the Offeror’s Proposal being deemed not reasonably susceptible for award.”
7. QUESTION: The required VPAT form in RFP Section 5.3.2.E.6 is quite lengthy. The RFP does not state where it goes in the proposal. May we put the completed VPAT form in TAB N, REQUIRED FORMS AND CERTIFICATIONS?
ANSWER: Yes, the VPAT form can be included in Tab N.
December 15, 2023
TO ALL POTENTIAL PROPOSERS:
Addendum No. 4
RE: MVA Solicitation No.: V-HQ-24019-S
Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program Management and Operation
To Whom It May Concern:
It is important that you acknowledge receipt of Addendum No. 4 on the referenced solicitation regardless of whether you will be submitting a proposal or not.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Jessica Mettle, Procurement
Officer, via email at jmettle@mdot.maryland.gov.
Sincerely, Jessica Mettle Jessica Mettle, Procurement Officer
Solicitation No.: V-HQ-24019-S
This acknowledges receipt of the Attached Addendum No. 4.
NAME OF COMPANY DATE
SIGNATURE
mailto:jmettle@mdot.maryland.gov
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .