The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
Bid Q&A
| QUESTION_NBR |
| CREATED_BY |
| QUESTION_SUBJECT |
| QUESTION_TEXT |
| ANSWER_TEXT |
| 4 |
| KAREN.OGRADY@ENTRUSTDATACARD.COM |
| Requesting Bid Extension to October 30, 2018 |
| So that EDC can provide a complete and thoughtful response to this RFP, we request an extension to October 30, 2018. |
| Due to the expected length of implementation and the contract end date, regretfully, we cannot push out the questions period. We are also working under the same time constraints and preparing for our upcoming legislative session. We will work with all vendors to respond as quickly as possible. |
| 5 |
| CBNSTIVIRGINIA |
| NASPO certification |
| RFP Section 3.5.13.1 and 3.5.14.1 state that the primary and secondary CIPS facilities must be NASPO certified. 3.5.12.1 requires facility compliance with NASPO security standards (this is also repeated in Section 5.2.7.7). |
We would like to ask for clarification as to why NASPO is the only acceptable facility certification. While NASPO certification is one option for demonstrating a minimal level of commitment to securing document production processes, there are several other more comprehensive, internationally accepted standards that are widely accepted within the AAMVA community of central issuance jurisdictions, including REAL ID compliant jurisdictions. These include Visa/Mastercard, ISO 27001, and other similar standards.
Will you consider amending the requirement to allow NASPO certification or another applicable standard that has been successfully used by a REAL ID compliant jurisdiction in the United States?
Our current card vendor is NASPO compliant and as such, our Real ID certification was approved based on this level of security. We are unable to amend the RFP, however, as long as the security standard is equal to or greater than NASPO and can be certified to maintain the Real ID status, this is negotiable.
| 6 |
| CBNSTIVIRGINIA |
| Proposal submission deadline |
| Considering the importance of this RFP and the complexity of the requirements, we respectfully suggest that three weeks is insufficient time for vendors to prepare a comprehensive proposal response. The time available for adaptations required following the posting of answers to vendor questions is also very short. |
Will you please consider granting a four (4) week extension to the proposal submission deadline, to October 31, 2018?
Due to the expected length of implementation and the contract end date, regretfully, we cannot push out the questions period. We are also working under the same time constraints and preparing for our upcoming legislative session. We will work with all vendors to respond as quickly as possible.
| 7 |
| NICKLARTER |
| Extension |
| Given the short time period allotted to respondents to provide a detailed and comprehensive proposal, would the State consider an extension of the closing date until October 30, 2018? |
| Due to the expected length of implementation and the contract end date, regretfully, we cannot push out the questions period. We are also working under the same time constraints and preparing for our upcoming legislative session. We will work with all vendors to respond as quickly as possible. |
| 8 |
| CBNSTIVIRGINIA |
| deadline for questions |
| Further to our request for an extension of the proposal submission deadline, we also suggest that an extension to the deadline for submitting questions is necessary. Will you please consider extending the question submission deadline by two (2) weeks, to October 2, 2018? |
| The new timeline moved the question due date to 10/9/2018. |
| 9 |
| CBNSTIVIRGINIA |
| Cost schedule 17.2 and Cost evaluation |
| The RFP cost schedule section 17.2 includes 18 line items that make up the "per card" subtotal. Is this "per card" subtotal as calculated in 17.2 the figure that will be the basis for the cost criteria being evaluated as shown in section 24.1? |
| We included all activities that we thought would make up the cost “per card”. We realize there are more activities out there we are unaware of that will play a part in the card cost. These are all negotiable elements. |
The cost schedule is a guideline to help in the “per card” cost breakdown. Please include the cost breakdown with minimum requirements of a card. We will evaluate how certain aspects of card production impact the overall cost of a card.
| 10 |
| CBNSTIVIRGINIA |
| Electronic credential cost and Cost evaluation |
| RFP section 4.3.4 indicates indicates that the cost for an electronic credential is a projection and may not be part of the original contract. The projected cost for electronic credential is to be shown in cost schedule 17.2 as item #6. Since electronic credential standards, use cases and other potential requirements are not yet determined, cost projections may vary widely. To ensure a fair comparison of proposals, can you please clarify that the projected costs for electronic credential shown in section 17.2 item #6 are not part of the cost criteria being evaluated in section 24.1? |
| Absolutely. |
We are unable to amend the RFP, however, we will ensure this element is not considered in the cost evaluation criteria for any vendor submission.
| 11 |
| NICKLARTER |
| 3.5.12.1 General Security Requirements |
| Please confirm that a facility that is accredited for High Security Card Production & Personalization for government ID and transit cards, and Visa, MasterCard, and Discover financial cards, and meets quality certification ISO 9001, 27001, 14001 is acceptable in lieu of NASPO certification. |
| Our current card vendor is NASPO compliant and as such, our Real ID certification was approved based on this level of security. We are unable to amend the RFP, however, as long as the security standard is equal to or greater than NASPO and can be certified to maintain the Real ID status, this is negotiable. |
| 12 |
| NICKLARTER |
| Primary photo on credential |
| Please confirm if the primary photo on the credentials must be printed in color or if black and white laser engraving is acceptable. |
| We changed Nevada law to allow for black and white as well as color photos. |
| 13 |
| GEMALTO |
| Pg. 107, 20. RFP Timeline, |
| We respectfully would like to request a 3 week extension from the current submission deadline |
| Due to the expected length of implementation and the contract end date, regretfully, we cannot push out the questions period. We are also working under the same time constraints and preparing for our upcoming legislative session. We will work with all vendors to respond as quickly as possible. |
| QUESTION_NBR |
| CREATED_BY |
| QUESTION_SUBJECT |
| QUESTION_TEXT |
| ANSWER_TEXT |
| 14 |
| GEMALTO |
| Pg. 3, Exhibit C, Section 10.A. |
| Can the State please confirm that the Awarded Contractor will be entitled to payment for products, work and services received prior to the effective date of termination, non-cancellable costs incurred in anticipation of performance, and costs incurred in terminating the contract? |
| The nature of this contract allows for a self-funded process. Costs are collected from the applicant by the State and then payable to the vendor. No payments can be made until money is collected and cards are produced. |
In the event of contract termination, there would be a process to determine if costs are to be paid by the State to the vendor and vice versa.
| 15 |
| GEMALTO |
| Pg. 4, Exhibit C, Section 12 |
| Can the State agree to a reciprocal limitation of liability for damages that may be incurred by the Awarded Contractor? |
| The State could consider a reasonable limitation of liability depending upon the final terms of the contract. |
| 16 |
| GEMALTO |
| Pg. 4, Exhibit C, Section 12 |
| Will the State agree to a reasonable cap on liability under this Contract, and exclusions of indirect or consequential damages? |
| The State could consider a reasonable limitation of liability depending upon the final terms of the contract. |
| 17 |
| GEMALTO |
| Pg. 4-5, Exhibit C, Section 14 |
| Will the State allow the Contractor to control the defense of any such claim? |
| The State could consider a reasonable limitation of liability depending upon the final terms of the contract. |
| 18 |
| GEMALTO |
| Pg. 4-5, Exhibit C, Section 14 |
| Will the State agree that damages will be apportioned in the event that the Contractor is only partially liable for the relevant damages? |
| The State could consider a reasonable limitation of liability depending upon the final terms of the contract. |
| 19 |
| GEMALTO |
| Pg. 9, 3.1 |
| Are vendors required to answer this section and submit the response as part of the Technical Proposal as described in Section 21? If so please can the State define where the response must be placed in the Technical Proposal as there are no instructions except to answer Section 4 SoW and place it in Section V of the proposal. |
| I understand your confusion in re-reading how this section is written. |
Please follow Section 21 in your responses. Please include section 3 and 5 as part of your technical proposal in addition to the requirements in section 21.
| 20 |
| GEMALTO |
| Pg. 24, 3.5.13.2 & 3.5.14.2 |
| Card production is typically divided into two processes - card manufacturing and card personalization. Card manufacturing involved the production of the card bodies. This process does not involve any personal identifiable information (PII). Card personalization is the application of PII onto the card. In order to ensure the State has the opportunity to solicit bids from all of the companies that support this market, we ask that the State rephrase the requirement to say "card personalization". |
| We can change the verbiage in the amendment to cover both card manufacturing and card personalization. |
Thank you for this recommendation.
| 21 |
| GEMALTO |
| Pg. 30, 4.2.2.1 / 4.2.3.2 |
| Do you accept a black and white portrait in a polycarbonate credential? |
| We changed Nevada law to allow for black and white as well as color photos. |
| 22 |
| GEMALTO |
| Pg. 37, 4.2.7.2 |
| Are these design changes linked to legislative changes? |
| Design changes are not however they could be in the future. Cost of the card and the information (PII) displayed on the card are the only legislative requirements right now. |
| 23 |
| GEMALTO |
| Pg. 41, 4.7 |
| Does the Department envision presenting or capturing any other information, (e.g., applicant affirmations, Motor Voter registration/acknowledgements, acknowledgement of adult acceptance of financial responsibility for a minor applicant) on the signature pad/tablet? |
| Yes. We do expect evolution and going completely electronic in this manner would be something we wish to consider as an option. |
| 24 |
| GEMALTO |
| Pg. 41, 4.7.4 |
| Please can the State detail what customer information is to be displayed in the ICC, and what type of department provided paperwork would be referenced as the secondary step? |
| The current information displayed on the ICC is minimal (anything that goes on the card such as address, full name, type of license, driver license number, restrictions, endorsements, date of birth, sex, height, weight, eye color…etc.) and not expected to increase, however, this is negotiable. As for the paperwork/2nd step, could you please clarify your question? |
| 25 |
| GEMALTO |
| Pg. 41, 4.7.7 |
| Does the State require the vendor to procure photo backgrounds or will these be provided by the State in each office? |
| We will need to procure photo backgrounds. |
| 26 |
| GEMALTO |
| Pg. 44, 4.7.24 |
| For the ICC, are vendors expected to also procure the Computer Workstation and Monitors or will these workstations be provided by the State? |
Which operating system will the State require to be installed on the Workstation in January 2020?
Will these workstations be joined to the State Windows Active Directory Domain or should it be the vendors machine domain?
If the Workstations are provided by the State and joined to the State Domain, will the State be providing the operating system updates and patches?
Q1: Workstations and Monitors will be provided as part of the ICC solution.
Q2: Windows 10.
Q3: The capture stations will be part of the DMV Domain.
Q4: Updates and patching will be the vendor’s responsibility.
| 27 |
| GEMALTO |
| Pg. 45, 4.8.2 |
| Does the State expect these Mobile Capture Clients to be connected "Online" via cellular communications and secure VPN back to the State Data Center? |
| We anticipate only capturing the applicant’s photo and documents needed for scanning (via photo). Once complete, the technician should “dock” the device at the assigned DMV location to upload images and delete when finished. No VPN or “online” connection is needed. |
| 28 |
| GEMALTO |
| Pg. 48, 4.12 |
| Please can the State elaborate on the term "1:record", does this mean a comparison scan of a probe photo against all the photos that have been previously captured for one drivers license record number? |
| Here is a more precise depiction of our classification for FR scanning related to this question. |
1:1 – This search compares the newly captured image to the most recent image on file for the same record. If the image does not match at a high enough rate, the technician is required to perform an override to upload the image in the system.
1:record – This search is done as needed in the facial recognition system. This will compare the image for one person to that same person’s historical set of images.
| 29 |
| GEMALTO |
| Pg. 48, 4.12.1.5 |
| Please can the State list the number of existing case management systems and also a description of the interfaces available as well as the existing software? |
| Case Management: i-Sight |
Existing software: CARRS
I-Sight does not interface with any other system. CARRS interfaces with our current image system.
| 30 |
| GEMALTO |
| Pg. 48, 4.12.1.6 |
| Which criminal justice agencies does the State require data exchange to and what interfaces will be available to perform the exchange? |
If any interfaces have proprietary exchange formats, will the State provide the tools and algorithms to do so?
This referenced section opens the door for any unseen/future data exchange as mandated by federal or state statute.
| QUESTION_NBR |
| CREATED_BY |
| QUESTION_SUBJECT |
| QUESTION_TEXT |
| ANSWER_TEXT |
| 31 |
| GEMALTO |
| Pg. 50, 4.12.2.4 |
| Will the State provide all the legacy data to be migrated in a Relational Database Management Format? |
Is the FR system storing proprietary file formats for photos?
Yes, we will stage our data in a relational DB for the data migration.
The photo images are in JPEG that is encoded in Base64 and contained in an XML-based “folio” stored on the current vendors Microsoft SQL database system
| 32 |
| GEMALTO |
| Pg. 68, 5.1 |
| The requirement details that a "A Preliminary Project Plan needs to be accompanied with the bid", hence in which section of the Technical Proposal submission described by Section 21 must vendors place the Preliminary Project Plan? |
| Please include all technical requirements in section 3 and 5 in addition to the already included section 4 in your response to Section 21. Do not concern yourself with section 27 in your response. |
Please include section 3 (System requirements) and 5 (Preliminary Project Plan) with the Technical Proposal.
| 33 |
| GEMALTO |
| Pg. 69, 5.2.7.1 |
| In order to correctly size the solution for legacy data and future growth, please can the State provide details on the following: |
1. Photo Images to be migrated What is the average file size of the photos, how many photos need to be migrated and what is the total expected data volume in Terabytes?
Is the photo file a proprietary format or can the State please detail what type of file e.g. JPEG?
2. Photo Quality Are all the legacy photos of high quality and to ICAO/ISO/IEC 19794-5 photo standards?
3. Signature Images to be migrated What is the average file size of a signature file, how many signature files need to be migrated and what is total expected data volume in Terabytes?
Is the signature file a proprietary format or can the State please detail what type of file e.g. JPEG?
4. Audit Data What type of audit data will need to be migrated, the expected number of records and also the data volume in Terabytes?
5. PII Data Please can the State elaborate on the types of PII data that the vendor is expected to host and the expected data volume to migrate in Terabytes?
6. Essential Key Files and Signatures In what context is the reference to "Key Files", is this cryptographic keys and signatures? If so please can the State elaborate on requirements in more detail in this respect?
1. The DMV does not have access to the vendor’s system to determine the current number of photos or what the overall storage size might be.
The DMV believes the final, post processed JPEG photo image is 540x720 at 96dpi at 24-bit depth. This assumes the DMV technician operating the ICW does not adjust the photo selection marquee and change the width x vertical dimensions.
2. The current card vendor either meets or exceeds those photo standards.
3. The DMV does not have access to the vendor’s system to determine the current number of signature image files.
4. DMV does not have access to the vendor’s system to determine the total number of records or storage size.
I believe most of the audit data is contained in the current card vendor’s XML-based “folio”. It contains audit data of every operation during the course of the transaction. From the ICW name, the office, the operator, and time stamps of when folio is sent to the ICW, every ICW gate operation (e.g. signature capture, photo capture, 1:1 comp, and upload) and every Gated Issuance gate operation.
5. Any PII data that is sent by CARRS and any PII data that is contained on a DL/ID is stored by the current card vendor. This may contain a variety of other identifiers such as organ donor status, RealID compliance, etc.
6. Context is public / private key pairs to decrypt any encrypted data necessary for data migration.
| 34 |
| GEMALTO |
| Pg. 72, Section 6 |
| Are vendors required to address this section on an RFP question, statement and response basis? Or is this section for information and instruction only and vendors are not required to submit a response as part of the Technical Proposal? |
If a response is required please can the State define where the response must be placed in the Technical Proposal as there are no instructions except to answer Section 4 SoW and place it in Section V of the proposal.
This portion is informational. This section will apply to whomever receives the contract in which they must follow these steps as part of the deliverable sign-off process.
Response not required.
| 35 |
| GEMALTO |
| Pg. 76, Section 7 |
| Are vendors required to address these sections explicitly on a RFP question, statement and response basis? Or are these sections for information and instruction only, with vendors not requiring to provide explicit responses and submission in a specific section in the Technical Proposal? |
If a response is required please can the State define where the response must be placed in the Technical Proposal as there are no instructions except to answer Section 4 SoW and place it in Section V of the proposal.
Informational. Just to provide the expectation of key events in the project.
Response not required.
| QUESTION_NBR |
| CREATED_BY |
| QUESTION_SUBJECT |
| QUESTION_TEXT |
| ANSWER_TEXT |
| 36 |
| GEMALTO |
| Pg. 100, Section 11 |
| Are vendors required to address these sections explicitly on a RFP question, statement and response basis or include these plans as part of the Preliminary Project Plan? |
| We would prefer this section be included in the Preliminary Project Plan, within the QA Plan, with statement in the RFP section that this was addressed in the Preliminary Project Plan. |
| 37 |
| GEMALTO |
| Pg. 103, Section 16 |
| Where must the response be placed in the Technical Proposal as there are no instructions except to answer Section 4 SoW and place it in Section V of the proposal. |
| Include the response to this section in the appropriate plan in section 5 (Preliminary Project Plan) and include it in the Technical Proposal (Section 21) section as its own item. |
Include section 3 (System requirements) into your response of Section 21, technical proposal, if you have not already done so.
| 38 |
| GEMALTO |
| Pg. 107, Section 20 |
| Can the State confirm that the contract will start 01/01/2019 as opposed to 2020? If the contract start date is indeed 2020, can the State elaborate on the 1 year delay between vendor selection and contract commencement? |
| Page 107, the date is inaccurate. The contract start date will be contingent upon approval of Board of Examiners meeting February 13, 2019. Upon approval contract will start. This will be amended, thank you for bringing this error to our attention. |
| 39 |
| GEMALTO |
| Pg. 115, Section 25.1 |
| Is there any limit on the number of renewal options that the Department can exercise? How long will each renewal option be? |
Can the State also confirm that any renewal of the contract must be on mutual consent of the Department and the Awarded Contractor?
The State is limited by any renewal options and the reason we are requesting a 10 year 9 month contract. Contract extensions can only be done when an extenuating circumstance arises and approved on many levels.
Mutual consent is preferred, however, in the event of an extenuating circumstance, the State would respectfully request vendor cooperation to avoid interruption of this vital service.
| 40 |
| GEMALTO |
| Pg. 118, Section 26.3.11.1 |
| Can the State agree to limit the license to the term of the contract only, and not "thereafter"? Can the State agree that any modification, derivatives and use of the Credential Print Solution for purposes other than production of DL/IDs is expressly excluded from the license? |
| As we understand it, there could be a possible need to hold a license past the contract. We are more than happy to negotiate this if need be. |
| 41 |
| GEMALTO |
| Pg. 123, Section 26.3.11.1 / 26.3.12.1 |
| Does this provision mean a respondent must relinquish proprietary source code to the State? Would the State accept source code escrow agreement? If so, can the State please elaborate. |
| All source code and executable programs not developed specifically for the State shall remain the property of the awarded contractor. The State will not require a source code escrow agreement. |
| 42 |
| GEMALTO |
| Pg. 119, Section 26.3.11.3 |
| Can the State agree that all source code and executable programs which are not developed specifically for the State shall remain the property of the Awarded Contractor? |
| The State agrees all source code and executable programs not developed specifically for the State shall remain the property of the awarded contractor. However, the State will require the source code and executable programs specifically developed for the State. |
| 43 |
| GEMALTO |
| Pg. 120, Section 26.3.12.1 |
| Can the State agree that information furnished by the Awarded Contractor should be used solely in furtherance of the Contract and not for any other purpose? Can the State agree that such information will not be shared with competitors of the Awarded Contractor? |
| This is a reasonable request the State can agree to. |
| 44 |
| GEMALTO |
| Pg. 121, Section 26.3.14 |
| Will the State agree to a reasonable cap on liability under this Contract, and exclusions of indirect or consequential damages? |
| The State could consider a reasonable limitation of liability depending upon the final terms of the contract. |
| 45 |
| GEMALTO |
| Pg. 121, Section 26.3.14 |
| Will the State agree that damages will be apportioned in the event that the Contractor is only partially liable for the relevant damages? |
| The State could consider a reasonable limitation of liability depending upon the final terms of the contract. |
| 46 |
| GEMALTO |
| Pg. 121, Section 26.3.14 |
| In the event of indemnification claims related to intellectual property infringement, can the State agree to reasonable exceptions, such as modification of the IP other than by the Awarded Contractor or combination claims? |
| The State could consider a reasonable limitation of liability depending upon the final terms of the contract. |
| 47 |
| GEMALTO |
| Pg. 121, Section 26.3.14 |
| Will the State allow the Contractor to control the defense of any such claim? |
| The State could consider a reasonable limitation of liability depending upon the final terms of the contract. |
| 48 |
| GEMALTO |
| Pg. 129-135, Section 28 |
| Would the State be amenable to a reasonable monetary cap on liquidated damages? |
| The State could consider a reasonable limitation of liability depending upon the final terms of the contract. |
| 49 |
| GEMALTO |
| Pg.5, Attachment 6, Section 16.B - Deductibles shall not exceed $50k per occurrence |
| Will the State accept a deductible of $150k or greater per occurrence? |
| This is acceptable. |
| 50 |
| IDEMIA |
| 2.6.3: Development Software |
| Does this statement of State responsibility for license procurement apply to the Awarded Contractor?s hosted solution and Image Capture solution on desktop computers in the Department sites/field offices? |
| The standard practice is the vendor should procure and own any and all licenses necessary for the development, testing, hosting and operation of their software solutions. They should pass any and all software licensing audits, whether performed by the Department or upon an agreed 3rd party. |
That software, whatever it may be, should be approved by the Department.
| 51 |
| IDEMIA |
| 3.3.1.3: System Requirements and Application SW Interface |
| Does the State consider its current Central Issuance solution to be vendor-hosted? |
| Yes. Their software solution operates from equipment owned and hosted by the vendor. |
| 52 |
| IDEMIA |
| 3.3.1.3: System Requirements and Application SW Interface |
| Has DMV adopted a specific service oriented architecture (SOA) (e.g., Open Group, OASIS, ASRA, IBM, other) with which the vendor is expected to be compatible? |
| No. The DMV has not adopted to one specific Service Oriented Architecture. |
| 53 |
| IDEMIA |
| 3.3.1.3: System Requirements and Application SW Interface |
| Is DMV planning to migrate the existing system of record or other applications that will interact with the vendor?s systems into the cloud? |
| The cloud is a possibility and vendors should be prepared to migrate. |
| 54 |
| IDEMIA April started back up |
| 3.3.1.4: System Requirements and Application SW Interface |
| How will the DMV integrate vendor-provided services with its governance methodology? Will DMV provide requirements for the governance process, including automation and alignment with DMV EA? |
| Please clarify your question and define EA |
| QUESTION_NBR |
| CREATED_BY |
| QUESTION_SUBJECT |
| QUESTION_TEXT |
| ANSWER_TEXT |
| 55 |
| IDEMIA |
| 3.3.1.8: System Requirements and Application SW Interface |
| Is the State requiring the Central Issuance Processing System (CIPS) to be provided on the State-provided computing infrastructure described in sections 2.4 (servers) and 2.5 (desktop)? |
| No. The current CIPS operates on equipment provided and supported by the existing vendor. |
| 56 |
| IDEMIA |
| 3.5.4: Security Standards |
| Can the State share its currently established security requirements with the bidders? |
| The project will be subject to the Information Security Policies of the State of Nevada and the NV DMV. The State of Nevada Information Security Policies are located at http://it.nv.gov/governance/state-policy-procedures/. In addition to State IT security Policies, the NV DMV is subject to Federal statute data protection laws and requirements as well. These include, but are not limited to Real ID Act, Drivers Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), Federal Trade Commission Act, and Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards (PCI-DSS). State Partner data exchanges additionally require compliance consideration with respect to Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS) security policy and Social Security Administration (SSA) security policy. The vendor’s proposed solution shall ensure the NV DMV remains compliant with the above Federal statutes. To achieve compliance across a broad range of Federal and State requirements, the NV DMV uses the NIST 800 series framework to measure compliance controls for information systems and establish a risk management framework. The vendor shall be expected to provide a System Security Plan (SSP) and corresponding NIST 800-53 security control validation artifacts that meets or exceeds the requirements for IT systems and data with respect to these laws. |
| 57 |
| IDEMIA |
| 3.5.5: Security Standards |
| Is the State asking RFP respondents to include security requirements and evaluation/test procedures in the RFP response? Please clarify. |
| Yes. They should be included in the Preliminary Project Plan in the appropriate plans. This would be included in Section 21 in the technical proposal. |
We apologize this was not stated.
| 58 |
| IDEMIA |
| 4.8.1: Mobile Capture Client |
| Can the State confirm that the mobile capture solution must (1) comply with ISO/IEC 19794-5 (as per 4.7.11), (2) guarantee captured digital image quality can be used in computer-automated face identification and verification (as per 4.7.12.3 and 4.7.12.4), and (3) perform ISO/IEC 19794-5 compliance checking (as per 4.7.13, 4.7.13.1 and 4.7.13.2)? |
| Mobile Capture Clients would be subject to the same requirements as ICCs. We understand that the workflow might have to change to perform each separate function and we are willing to work with the vendors on this. |
| 59 |
| IDEMIA |
| 4.7.22: Image Capture Client |
| Can the State confirm that existing desktop computing platforms that will host the Image Capture solution are equipped with TPM models and whole disk encryption mechanisms such as Bit Locker? |
| Computing platforms will be provided as part of the ICC. As a result, we cannot guarantee this. |
| 60 |
| IDEMIA |
| 4.7.24: Image Capture Client |
| Is this requirement dictating that the Image Capture solution provided by the Awarded Contractor must use State-provided computing infrastructure (e.g., desktop systems) in the Department sites/field offices? Is it to be understood that the Awarded Contractor need not provide the computing platform for the Image Capture solution and need only supply other hardware for the Image Capture functionality? |
| The vendor will include the Desktop System and Monitor as part of the ICC Solution. |
| 61 |
| IDEMIA |
| 4.9.4: Image Retrieval Client |
| Is it the Department?s request to make those transactions that have not been through the Facial Recognition System available to the Department?s operators of the Image Retrieval Client? |
| Yes, not all images go through the Facial Recognition System. For example, business ID cards and expedited service permits do not go through the system but would need to be available for retrieval. |
| 62 |
| IDEMIA |
| 4.9.10: Image Retrieval Client |
| Please confirm that all of your clients support HTML 5 or later and TLS 1.2. |
| Yes |
| 63 |
| IDEMIA |
| 4.13.2: Expedited CIPS Processing |
| Is the vendor responsible for paying expedited postage? |
| No the DL/ID/DAC card holder will be responsible for paying the postage. |
| 64 |
| IDEMIA |
| 21.2 and 27: (Proposal Layout) |
| RFP Section 21.2.2 breaks out the content sections of the vendor?s Technical Proposal. There are 8 sections (I ? VIII) specified. RFP Item 27, ?Submission Checklist? provides a table that shows Sections I through XI (1 ? 11) for the Technical Proposal. The Section headings do not appear in the breakdown for the proposal provided in Section 21.2.2 ? there appears to be 3 sections missing. Should we be following the set up in requirement 21.2 or in 27? |
| Please follow Section 21 in your responses. Please include section 3 and 5 as part of your technical proposal. |
Please disregard section 27.
| 65 |
| KAREN.OGRADY@ENTRUSTDATACARD.COM |
| 4.8.2 The Awarded contractor shall provide a mobile capture solution to allow the Department the abi |
| Is the State requesting a mobile solution that operates in an offline mode, where the mobile system will not have secure Internet connectivity while being used to capture photos and signatures? |
| This is correct |
| 66 |
| KAREN.OGRADY@ENTRUSTDATACARD.COM |
| 4.12.3.2 Fraud Case Management solutions provided by the Awarded Contractor must interface with any |
| What FCM solution are you currently using and what is the current interface to the government software? |
| i-Sight, no interface |
The current FCM/FRS client, is a Microsoft .NET One-Click Deployment based application that accessible by a web browser. The client was developed by the existing vendor and connects to their Image Server.
| 67 |
| KAREN.OGRADY@ENTRUSTDATACARD.COM |
| 4.12 Facial Recognition System |
| How many images are in the current image repository? |
How many of those images are required to be migrated into the new system?
The DMV does not have access to the system to determine the number of photos and signatures or their size.
All images.
| 68 |
| KAREN.OGRADY@ENTRUSTDATACARD.COM |
| 4.12 Facial Recognition System |
| How many adjudication workstations are required? |
| There are 48 computers (adjudication workstations) which access the FR system, |
| 69 |
| KAREN.OGRADY@ENTRUSTDATACARD.COM |
| 4.12 Facial Recognition System |
| Does the State participate in any multi-state facial recognition solution? |
If so, is the new vendor expected to participate in the multi-state facial recognition solution?
If yes, the following questions apply:
- Will the State describe the interface that the new vendor will need to integrate to in order to exchange photos and other data with the other states?
- Will the State please provide volume information for the expected incoming and outgoing requests?
- What is the format of the data required in this exchange? Is it a proprietary format or a simple jpeg or bmp?
NV does not currently participate in a multi-state FRS process. However, vendors should be capable of doing so should the need arise.
Should NV need to participate, we will work directly with the vendor, provide the necessary information and formulate a project plan.
| QUESTION_NBR |
| CREATED_BY |
| QUESTION_SUBJECT |
| QUESTION_TEXT |
| ANSWER_TEXT |
| 70 |
| KAREN.OGRADY@ENTRUSTDATACARD.COM |
| General |
| Would the State please consider adding a 2nd round of questions so respondents have the ability to more thoroughly review the documents? |
| Yes. If the time allows. |
| 71 |
| GEMALTO |
| Pg. 109, Section 21.2 Part 1A - Technical Proposal |
| There seems to be a conflict between Section 21.2 and section 27 Submission Checklist. Which section should be used for building the vendor's response. |
| Please follow Section 21 in your responses. Please include section 3 and 5 as part of your technical proposal. |
| 72 |
| GEMALTO |
| Pg. 228, Section 27 Submission Checklist |
| Section X "Requirements Matrix" does not seem to be referenced in the RFP. Could you explain what is required in this section? |
| The reference to this matrix was not removed before this RFP was posted. Please disregard. |
| 73 |
| IDEMIA |
| 20: RFP Timeline |
| Depending on the RFP solution complexity, most states allow up to 8 weeks from RFP release to submission. This allows bidders sufficient time to provide thorough, thoughtful responses. Would the State please consider extending the date of this submission? |
| Due to the expected length of implementation and the contract end date we cannot push out the questions period. |
| 74 |
| CBNSTIVIRGINIA |
| Contract term start |
| RFP section 25.1 specifies that the term of the Contract contemplated by the RFP is ten (10) years and nine (9) months. May we please request clarification of the intended start event/date for this term based on the RFP timeline events/dates listed in section 20? |
| Implementation will start with BOE approval in February 2019 with go live date of 1/1/2020 |
| 75 |
| NICKLARTER |
| Technical Response Requirements |
| Requirement 21.2.2.5 would indicate that prospective vendors shall respond in their Technical Response only to the Requirements contained within Section 4. Scope of Work. However, Section 3. System Requirements and Section 5. Vendor Response to Proposal contradict the earlier requirement by stating Vendors shall provide responses to the extensive content requested by both sections. Can the State please clearly confirm if Vendors, as part of their Technical Response to this RFP, must directly respond to the requirements of Sections 3 & 5? |
| Please follow Section 21 in your responses. Please include section 3 and 5 as part of your technical proposal. |
| 76 |
| KAREN.OGRADY@ENTRUSTDATACARD.COM |
| 4.3.2.6 of RFP |
| Section 4.3.2.6 states the credential will conform to the NIST SP 800-157 standard. The NIST SP 800-157 standard requires an authorized PIV or CAC cardholder to use their smart card to authenticate to a Derived Credential Management System to request their new PKI Derived PIV Credential, which shall be issued from a US Federal Common Policy CA. This credential is then only authorized for use to authenticate to a US Federal network for application access, such as authentication to email. If the requirement is to provide a credential that truly conforms to the NIST SP 800-157 standard, the majority of Nevada's population would be unable to obtain a credential, since they do not currently possess a valid PIV or CAC card. Additionally, we are not certain US Federal PKI Policy would allow the issuance of these credentials from a US Federal Common Policy rooted Certificate Authority, as Nevada?s use case appears to be outside of the allowable use cases defined in NIST SP 800-157. If possible, could the state elaborate on what the requirement is behind requiring conformance to this standard? Alternatively, would the state remove the requirements pertaining to the NIST SP 800-157 standard and leave the more applicable ?4.3.2.7 Must comply with current and future AAMVA standards? requirement for the Electronic Credential? |
| As long as the vendor can comply with current and future AAMVA and federal Real ID standards, this should suffice. |
| 77 |
| KAREN.OGRADY@ENTRUSTDATACARD.COM |
| References - Attachment E |
| On Attachment E, it reads that "The completed Reference Questionnaire MUST be received no later than 4:30 PM PT 10/2/18." Now that the due date for the RFP is extended, can the State also extend due dates for this deliverable and other deliverables? |
| Yes |
| QUESTION_NBR |
| CREATED_BY |
| QUESTION_SUBJECT |
| QUESTION_TEXT |
| ANSWER_TEXT |
| 78 |
| KAREN.OGRADY@ENTRUSTDATACARD.COM |
| 4.18.1 |
| The requirement reads, "Meetings between the Awarded Contractor and Department will be held to discuss new and upcoming equipment, hardware, software, updates or any other advancement in technology, at no cost to the Department." (1) Does the term ?at no cost to the Department? apply to the meetings themselves, or is it meant that any refreshes or replacements to hardware or software will need to be included within the initial RFP response so as to come at no additional cost to the Department? (2)If the above is meant only to apply to the meetings themselves, then please confirm that any ?technology upgrade? (i.e., replacement) of hardware during the initial 10 year/9 month contract period is not to be included with the RFP response, and will be agreed-to and proposed at additional cost during the contract period as per the defined change control process. (3) Alternatively, if the Government does want the cost of refreshing field office equipment included in the pricing now, what year would this take place? |
| (1) The State will work with vendor to host meetings which eliminate the need for travel. In the event an in-person meeting is necessary, the State is unable to cover any associated travel costs to the vendor (airfare (if applicable), lodging, ground travel, food…etc). |
(2) Upgrades in technology (i.e. hardware, software, applications, or otherwise) are expected as part of the contract at no cost.
Additional cost systems as referenced in the second part of your question, will be for new and complete systems for new offices or locations.
(3) Refreshing of hardware will be conducted halfway through the contract.
| 79 |
| KAREN.OGRADY@ENTRUSTDATACARD.COM |
| 4.4.1, 4.4.2 |
| Does the Department require the ability to produce a color photo on this Document, or would a monochrome laser printer meet the requirement? |
| Both are acceptable, however, vendor printing a photo on the Interim Document was not intended in this RFP but is negotiable. |
| 80 |
| KAREN.OGRADY@ENTRUSTDATACARD.COM |
| 4.4.3 |
| (1) Does the Department intend to provide the printers themselves as part of "producing" the interim documents, or is the contractor expected to provide and maintain them? (2) Does the Department intend to provide the blank Interim ID Document stock, or is the contractor expected to provide that stock? |
| (1) Yes the documents will print from Department printers on standard paper. |
(2) The Department will handle the stock
| 81 |
| IDEMIA |
| 20: RFP Timeline |
| Amendment One moved the second round question submittal date to 10/9 and the proposal due date to 10/29. Would the state consider moving the due date of the reference question to the day prior to the bid due date (10/28) to align with the original timeline? |
| Due to limited resources and time constraints the State is unable to amend the due dates. |
| 82 |
| KAREN.OGRADY@ENTRUSTDATACARD.COM |
| 21.2 |
| Sec 21.2, subsection 21.2.2, lists the documents to be included in the technical proposal. It reads that Section V is to include written responses to Section 4, Scope of Work. Can the State please confirm that responses to Section 3 System Requirements are not required for the Technical Proposal. Can the State also please confirm that responses to Section 5 Vendor Response to Proposal are not required for the Technical Proposal. |
| Please follow Section 21 in your responses. Please include section 3 and 5 as part of your technical proposal. |
| 83 |
| LAURA.ECKSTEIN@VALID.COM |
| Extension? |
| There are only 7 business days between when questions will be answered and ship date for RFP. Will the State consider an extension to provide bidders time to make adjustments to content based on answers provided? |
| Unfortunately not. The Department will process all questions quickly to allow for more time to hit the 10/29/2018 but we cannot move this date as we are working under the same time constraints. |
| 84 | |
| CBNSTIVIRGINIA | |
| Electronic submission process | |
| 1. | For electronic submission of the proposal as required in Section 23, are there any file size constraints that apply for upload to the Nevada epro system? |
| The State is not aware of any file constraints so it should be fine. | |
| 85 | |
| CBNSTIVIRGINIA | |
| Number of offices | |
| 2. | 5.2.7.16 indicates 18 offices, 4.7.23.1 indicates 25 offices. Please clarify how many office locations apply. |
| There are only 18 offices, however, some of the metro offices have multiple ICCs for a total of 25. | |
| 86 | |
| CBNSTIVIRGINIA | |
| Submission format/checklist - sections requiring response | |
| 3. | Regarding the RFP submission format guidelines in Section 21 and the submission checklist in Section 27, it appears that many sections of the RFP are not addressed in the guidelines for submission of technical proposals. For example, RFP Sections 1,2, 6-9 and 13-16, 18-28 are not identified as sections requiring a response in the submission guidelines. Can you please provide clarification as to how vendors should address each section that is not identified in Sections 27 and 21 (especially 21.2)? |
| Please follow Section 21 only in your response. | |
Please include section 3 and 5 in addition to the other requirements detailed in section 21.
| 87 | |
| CBNSTIVIRGINIA | |
| Response format | |
| 4. | Regarding section 21.1.9, we understand that for ease of evaluation it is important to ensure the written responses be placed immediately after the corresponding RFP element, and that the responses be easy to differentiate visually. Instead of using bold/italics to enable this easy review and visual differentiation, would it be acceptable for us to use a method other than using bold/italics to accomplish this objective? |
| Absolutely. Use whatever format so long as it is easily recognizable and easy to read. | |
| 88 | |
| CBNSTIVIRGINIA | |
| Personalized labels | |
| 5. | Regarding the personalized labels in section 4.5, will every credential issued carry a personalized label? In what sense are they ?personalized?, i.e. does that mean that each label will contain variable information specific to the person the credential is being issued to? Or on a different basis? |
| Personalized label may be a misleading term. We simply mean that the Department may customize the label to include but not limited to current events, advertising campaigns and personalized expiration reminders for card holders (upcoming expiration dates for individual related services such as registrations). | |
| QUESTION_NBR |
| CREATED_BY |
| QUESTION_SUBJECT |
| QUESTION_TEXT |
| ANSWER_TEXT |
| 89 | |
| CBNSTIVIRGINIA | |
| Card PDFs | |
| 6. | Regarding card PDFs referred to in sections 11.1.7-11.1.11, are these PDF images of cards released to cardholders? Is the expectation that the vendor shall retain these for on demand retrieval by the Department, or transfer them to the department for retention in a separate Departmental system? |
| These PDFs are for testing only and not released to customers. These will coincide with department and/or vendor changes. The PDFs are needed during the TEST and/or UAT process in order to allow approval to move to PROD. In some cases, this could be fixing error in our code and PDFs are needed the same day or within the hour. The Department would prefer an on-demand retrieval from vendor, however this process is negotiable as long as they are available as needed. | |
| 90 | |
| CBNSTIVIRGINIA | |
| Electronic submission process | |
| 1. | For electronic submission of the proposal as required in Section 23, are there any file size constraints that apply for upload to the Nevada epro system? |
| The State is not aware of any file constraints so it should be fine. | |
| 91 |
| CBNSTIVIRGINIA |
| FR legacy images |
| To enable vendors to estimate the data migration and sizing of the future state facial recognition solution, can the Department please indicate the total quantity of legacy images for import, the average and maximum file size for individual images, and the total file size of the current Nevada image repository. |
| The DMV does not have access to the system to determine the number of photos and signatures or their size |
| 92 |
| CBNSTIVIRGINIA |
| Interfaces |
| Section 4.12.1.5 requires interfaces with existing and future software. For existing software, can the Department please provide more specific information about supported interfaces, for example is there an API supported by the exiting software, does it support web services? |
The State could provide an example of how our system interacts with the Image Server collector services during negotiations.
Even though the current API is proprietary to the vendor the concept should be fairly standard.
| 93 |
| CBNSTIVIRGINIA |
| Interfaces |
| Section 4.12.1.6 requires interface and information exchange with criminal justice agencies. Is there any more specific information available about the supported interfaces compatible with the criminal justice systems? |
| This is a conversation that can take place during negotiations. Currently, we interface with Criminal Justice agencies concerning sex offenders and other identity and driving elements. |
We also need to consider possible future implications of new federal or state data sharing requirements.
| 94 |
| CBNSTIVIRGINIA |
| Cost schedule format |
| Can you please confirm how card feature options are to be presented in the cost schedule described in section 17.2 and Attachment I? |
| Please list out the options available and the associated cost (or average cost if the costs vary) with the option, to the best of your ability. The Department understands the complexities with card features, however, the State Purchasing division requires this cost breakdown. |
For example a menu at a restaurant.
| 95 |
| CBNSTIVIRGINIA |
| Mailing |
| Can you please confirm that all other credential types described in 4.2.3 are also to be mailed as described in 4.13? If not, please clarify which credentials are not mailed? |
| All credentials will be mailed. |
Credentials requested for custom pull will be sent to the Department, this will include undercover (white list) credentials. This process is open for negotiation with vendor.
| 96 |
| CBNSTIVIRGINIA |
| Signature of amendments |
| RFP amendments 1 and 2 have been issued electronically, and not in the form of a document with a signature page. Section 21.2.2.4 A requires vendor signature on ?the signature page from all amendments?. Please clarify how vendors should proceed to comply with this requirement? |
| Vendors must acknowledge amendments in NevadaEPro. |
| 97 |
| CBNSTIVIRGINIA |
| Credential changes |
| Regarding requirement 4.2.7, can you please provide historical information about how many credential design changes and non-design changes have taken place per credential type over the past few years? |
| Credential changes (design/non-design) will typically coincide with legislation or a project. We attempt to make all necessary changes at one time but that is not always the case. The Department generally implements projects Jan 1, Jul 1 & Oct 1, it could be possible to make changes during any of those times, although it is rare to make more than one change per year, if at all. Example: we made a change to a specialty ID card which included the new Chief’s name and signature in June 2018, prior to that, the last change made was in Spring 2016. |
| 98 |
| CBNSTIVIRGINIA |
| Insurance notifications of change |
| Contract Form Section 16(B)(5) Insurance ? insurance companies will not agree to include in the policy an obligation to notify the State of a material alteration in coverage. Will you please consider removing the requirement for notices related to material change? |
| Yes – the State would consider revising language to require contractor to notify that State of material changes. |
| 99 |
| CBNSTIVIRGINIA |
| Vendor presentations |
| Section 20 indicates an indicative date for vendor presentations. Can you please provide a revised indicative date for vendor presentations given the RFP amendment change to the proposal submission date? Will the Department consider visiting a vendor location for the presentation to achieve the best possible understanding of how the vendor will perform as promised in their proposal? |
| A new timeline should have been disseminated and the new estimated presentation dates should be 11/14/2018-11/16/2018. |
The Department does not have the budget to send the committee members to visit locations.
| 100 |
| CBNSTIVIRGINIA |
| References |
| Where a proposed subcontractor and the contractor are affiliated business entities, such as a parent company and its wholly-owned subsidiary, can you please clarify that the requirement 10.2.5 references may be met by supplying five (5) references from either of the affiliated entities? |
| Yes this is acceptable so long as they are customers with similar or relatable projects. |
| 101 |
| CBNSTIVIRGINIA |
| FR enrollment growth |
| The number of new images enrolled for facial recognition is often different than the number of cards issued. To estimate the size of the FR system over the term, can you please project how many images will be added to the FR system per year, and also provide historical annual number of images enrolled for past years? |
| No data available before 2015 |
2015 – partial data (which also includes legacy data) unusable for statistical purposes.
2016 – 671,580 2017 – 667,508 2018 – 633,943
The data available shows a downward…
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.