A D DE N D U M #2
Statewide Inmate Telecommunication Services
SOLICITATION NO: DC RFP-13-031SOLICITATION TITLE: Statewide Inmate Telecommunication Services OPENING DATE: April 22, 2014
ADDENDUM NO.: Two (2) DATE: April 8, 2014
PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THE FOLLOWING CHANGES ARE APPLICABLE TO THE ORIGINAL SPECIFICATIONS OF THE ABOVE-REFERENCED RFP:
This addendum includes the following:
1. Responses to Written Inquiries
2. Revises Acknowledgment Form – See Attached
3. Deletes the following sections of the RFP: 1.3, 4.2.10, first sentence of 4.2.11, 5.2.11, 7.6, 7.9.3, 7.9.4, 7.18, and 7.21.
4. Specifies language in Sections 4.3, 7.2.1, 7.2.3, 7.3.1, 7.3.2 , 7.3.5, 7.13, 7.17 and 7.20 takes precedence over the referenced PUR 1001 or 1000 language, as applicable.
5. Revises Section 3.5 second bullet to read: procedures for implementing service/equipment for the video visitation service at four facilities identified;
6. Revises locations identified in Section 3.7.2 to: Wakulla Annex
Gadsden Re-Entry Center
Florida Women’s Reception Center Santa Rosa Annex
7. Revises Section 3.8.3 as outlined in the attached Responses to Written Inquiries.
8. Revises Section 3.8.5, add the following before last paragraph: The Contractor shall provide a refund policy with their response.
9. Revises Section 3.9 second bullet to read: Forensic extraction options: One (1) FTK software plus cell phone option or equivalent and one (1) Encase software plus cell phone option or equivalent; and off site examination of data - maintaining a defendable chain of custody.
10. Revises Section 3.13.1 by adding a 6th bullet as follows:
Forensic Cell Phone Analysts
Two (2) full time equivalent (FTE) positions (40 hours per week) Forensic Cell Phone Analysts trained in cell phone forensic software such as Cellebrite, XRY software, FTK software, Encase software to work in a cell phone forensics laboratory.
11. Revises Section 6.1.5 – under Inmate Telephone Services second paragraph to read:
The Price Proposal with the lowest intralata, interlata, intrastate and interstate per minute telephone rate charge will be awarded 125 points. All other cost responses will receive points according to the following formula:
Where: N = lowest verified intralata, interlata, intrastate and interstate per minutetelephone rate charge of all responses submitted.
X = Respondent’s proposed lowest intralata, interlata, intrastate and interstate per minute telephone rate charge.
Z = points awarded.
Adds new third paragraph to read: The Price Proposal with the lowest local and local extended area per minute telephone rate charge will be awarded 25 points. All other cost responses will receive points according to the following formula:
(N/X) x 25 = Z
Where: N = lowest verified local and local extended area per minutetelephone rate charge of all responses submitted.
X = Respondent’s proposed lowest local and local extended area per minute telephone rate charge.
Z = points awarded.
12. Revises Section 7.3.1 adding the following statement after first sentence: Commissions will be paid in accordance with all Federal, State and Local regulations and guidelines.
13. Revises Attachment 5- Price Sheet - See attached.
14. Revises Timeline - See attached
Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, or failure to post the bond or other security required by law within the time allowed for filing a bond shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
Responses to Written Inquiries DC RFP-13-031
Statewide Inmate Telecommunication Services
Question #1 General. new scope of services for video visitation included in this RFP, we would request the We respectfully request a two-week extension to the submission deadline. With the
additional time in order to provide the best offer to the Department.
Answer #1 The Timeline has been revised, per Addendum #2 – See Attached.
Question #2 General. Will the Department allow for a round of follow-up questions if answers to the first
round of questions require any further clarification?
Answer #2 Yes, the Timeline has been revised, per this Addendum #2 - see attached.
Question #3
Page 23: 3.7.8.8 - Call System Blocking Requirements. Regarding blocking of calls to pre-paid cell phones:
Question 1: Is the blocking of calls to pre-paid cell phones done today?
Question 2: If so, what is the Department’s approved process for verification of post-paid versus pre-paid cell phones?
Answer #3
Question 1: Yes, blocking is performed by the Department’s current contractor.
Question 2: Per Departmental procedure, the approved process for verification is as follows:
The cell phone must be contracted through a wireless telecommunications company licensed by the Federal Communications Commission. It is the responsibility of the contractor to make the determination based on billing number address information provided as to whether or not the telephone provider of the family/friends meets the criteria of not only the contract, but also the provisions listed within this section before approving their ability to accept calls from an inmate.
No calls to pre-paid or pay-as-you-go phones will be allowed.
No calls to business cell phone numbers will be allowed.
The inmate will be responsible for advising family/friends that they must contact the contractor for the inmate telephone system to establish a payment account for calls made to the cell phone number.
Billing information for the cell phone owner must be a physical address. The Department reserves the right to require that a copy of the cell phone contract be provided to the inmate telphone system contractor to verify ownership physical address for billing information, and sections above.
Question #4
Page 30: 3.8.3 - Rate and Call Charge Requirements and Attachment 5 – Blended Call Rates. Regarding the blended rate (inclusive of all surcharges) to be bid – the current wording could be opportunistically misinterpreted in a few different ways:
First in the treatment of per-call versus per-minute fees, based on our understanding, one bidder could possibly offer a flat $1.80 per call fee for non-local inmate telephone calls and claim to have the same blended rate ($1.80/15 minutes = $0.12) as someone bidding $0.12 per minute with no per-call fee. This could occur even though calls average less than 15 minutes (and many calls are less than 10 minutes), meaning these two offers are not comparable in terms of overall cost to family members.
Second, the RFP wording could also possibly be interpreted as allowing a Contractor to set different rates for different call types (collect/prepaid, intraLATA/interstate) and then averaging them using assumptions they define.
Question 1: To minimize cost to family members and make offers comparable, would the Department please explicitly disallow per-call fees for the inmate telephone system (for example, per-call setup charges, per-call surcharges), allowing only a true per-minute rate? Question 2: If no to Question 1, would the Department require separate disclosure of per-call fees and per-minute rates?
Question 3: Would the Department please verify that ALL non-local domestic calls – intraLATA, interLATA, and interstate, for both collect and prepaid – must be charged at an identical rate?
Answer #4
Question 1: Per this Addendum #2, the following revisions will be made to Section 3.8.3:
In 3rd paragraph after first sentence add: The Respondent shall establish a separate single, blended rate per minute inclusive of all surcharges for all local and local extended area calls. These per minute rates delete: which
Delete 4th paragraph beginning withNote.
In 6th paragraph first sentence revised to read: Local call charges for coin-operated telephone calls at the Work Release Centers shall not exceed forty-five cents (.45) per local call plus the Local Exchange Carrier (LEC) charges, which vary between LEC’s.
In 9th paragraph following In addition, the Contractor shall not charge, pass on, or pass through to the customer paying for the collect, prepaid calls or video visitation visits any of the following charges and/or fees: Add Pre-call setup charges, Pre-call surcharges,
Delete last paragraph;
Question 2: Not applicable,
Question 3: Confirmed, per Section 3.8.3 all non-local and local extended area calls must be charged at an identical rate.
Question #5
Attachment 5 – Price Sheet.
Page 30 – Section 3.8.3 states that on the price sheet, the Respondent will provide a “single, blended rate per minute, inclusive of all surcharges…” Attachment 5 states “Blended Telephone Rate for All Calls…” To eliminate ambiguity, would the Department consider changing the language in Attachment 5 to read “Blended Telephone Rate Per Minute for All Calls…”?
Answer #5 Attachment 5 will be revised to include “Blended Telephone Rate Per Minute for All Calls”. Question #6 Page 30: 3.8.3 - Rate and Call Charge Requirements. The fourth paragraph states that “In
12-375; FCC 13-113] – Rates for Interstate Calling Services – effective February 11, 2014, no commission shall be paid on revenues earned through the completion of interstate calls of any type received from the Contract.”
Respectfully, this interpretation of the FCC’s Order is incorrect. The Order, without question, does not prohibit the payment of commissions on interstate calls. Also, rules regarding future cost-based regulation (including consideration of commissions in rate-setting) have been stayed by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and FL DOC interstate rates are well below the FCC rate caps that have been left in place by the Court. This is why most providers have continued to pay commissions on interstate calling, in compliance with their contracts.
Q. Will the State consider removing this paragraph from the RFP in order to ensure revenue for the State and a level playing field across providers?
Answer #6
Section 3.8.3 and Attachment 5 – Price Sheet is amended, per this Addendum to remove the paragraph. In addition, Section 7.3.1 has also been amended, per this Addendum, to state that commissions will be paid in accordance with all Federal, State and Local regulations and guidelines.
Question #7
Page 31: 3.8.3 - Charges for calls to Florida Relay Service. The Florida Relay Service is an independent entity and ITS providers have no control over what charges (if any) they may assess on the called party. Inmates typically call the Relay Service using a speed-dial 800 number, with no charges assessed by the Contractor.
Question: Will the Department consider modifying this requirement to state that calls to the Relay Service simply will not incur a charge from the Contractor?
Answer #7 Per this Addendum, Section 3.8.3 has been amended to remove the last paragraph
Question #8
Page 33: 3.9 - Off-site examination of extracted cell phone data. The Department requires the examination take place off-site. Does the Department prefer the examination to take place outside of Florida, or in-state using Florida-based personnel?
Answer #8 Florida-based personnel is preferred. Data examination is to occur in Cell Phone Forensics
Lab operated by the Office of the Inspector General in Tallahassee, FL.
Question #9
Page 33: 3.9 - Cell Phone Extraction & Detection Units.
Question 1: If a bidder were to offer more cell phone extraction or cell phone detection units than the 6 and 15 required, would evaluators be able to assign additional points in their scoring, or are the six and fifteen units fixed requirements under RFP rules?
Question 2: Alternatively, we assume we are not able to provide more units as a separate optional pricing line item (e.g. a separate reduction in commission for X additional units)?
Answer #9 Question 1: Please see the revisions to Section 3.9, the units remain fixed requirements.
Question 2: Correct.
Question #10
Page 55: 5.2.9 - Disclosure of business dealings and practices. To avoid any misinterpretation of the Department’s intent for this provision, will the Department require disclosure of any instances where a regulatory agency has cited the provider or the provider’s billing practice (e.g. if third parties are used) as being inconsistent with filed tariffs or that agency’s rules? For example, citations in regulatory proceedings, orders to appear in
regulatory dispute hearings, etc.
Answer #10 Yes, the Department intends for these proceedings to be included.
Question #11
Page 56: 5.3.1.3 - Ownership of bidder. As evidence of the stability of ongoing management, will the Department require bidders to disclose each different owner they have had in the past three (3) years?
Answer #11 No, please see requirements in Section 5.3.1.3 of the solicitation.
Question #12
Page 64: 6.1.5 - Review of Price Proposals. The simultaneous scoring of commissions and calling rates takes on renewed importance with this being an RFP versus a negotiated ITN. The reason is that bidders cannot calculate commissions and calling rates simultaneously - to solve for one, we must make a guess and fix the other.
Also, the relationship between commissions and calling rates is not “linear”, meaning bidders are subject to wide and arbitrary variations in scoring based on theirs versus other bidders’ final guesses…and without the ability to further negotiate this relationship with the Department.
Question 1: To avoid this problem would the Department consider a two-part process where bidders offer their recommended combination in round #1? In round #2, the Department would set calling rates as fixed and request a Best and Final Offer based solely on commission rate. This recommendation is based on our experience in other states.
Question 2: If no to Question 1, would the Department consider setting rates as fixed and requiring only commissions to be bid and scored?
Answer #12
Question 1: The State of Florida’s Request for Proposal process in accordance with s. 287.057(1)(b) F.S., does not allow the process described in this question..
Question 2: The Department has set maximum rates that can be charged on the amended attachment 5 – Price Sheet. Respondents shall bid the same per minute charge (inclusive of all surcharges) for local and local extended area calling types not to exceed $0.03 cents per minute. Respondents shall bid the same per minute charge (inclusive of all surcharges) for intralata, interlata, intrastate and interstate calling types not to exceed $0.14 cents per minute.
Question #13
3.8.1 Personal Identification Numbers (PINs)
Question: Would the department consider requiring a technology that would work in conjunction with the ITS' PIN capability to deter PIN fraud, debit fund theft, and PIN sharing? Such technologies would be particularly beneficial where debit funds are available and fund theft is a major problem.
Answer #13 The Department respectfully declines this request at this time.
Question #14
Pages 30 and 84 have the following instructions: 3.8.3. p. 30. Rate and Call Charge Requirements. The fourth paragraph states that “In accordance with Federal Communications Commission 47 CFR Part 64 [WC Docket No. 12-375; FCC 13-113] – Rates for Interstate Calling Services – effective February 11, 2014, no commission shall be paid on revenues earned through the completion of interstate calls of any type received from the Contract.”
stating that the FCC Order which is currently effective and in place, prohibits commissions from being paid on Interstate calling.
b. If confirmed as correct above, can the Bureau please provide documentation being used to support that conclusion?
Answer #14 Please see answer to question #6.
Question #15
Is the DOC currently receiving commissions on Interstate calling?
a. If the answer is “No”, why is the DOC not currently receiving commissions on Interstate calling?
Answer #15
No, we are not currently receiving commissions on Interstate calls. It is currently the Departments understanding that this is prohibited by FCC ruling 47CFR Part 64 [WC docket no. 12-375; FCC13-113].
Question #16
If the DOC is not receiving commissions on Interstate calling and compliance with the current Order does not prohibit the DOC from receiving commissions on Interstate calling, would that make the current phone services non-compliant with the existing contract?
Answer #16
No, we are not currently receiving commissions on Interstate calls. It is It is currently the Departments understanding that this is prohibited by FCC ruling 47CFR Part 64 [WC docket no. 12-375; FCC13-113].
Question #17
Section 3.8.3 – The instructions for coming up with a single blended rate are unclear and can be interpreted in many ways. Following are questions:
a. How many minutes are all vendors supposed to use for coming up with the single blended rate? For example:
i. Vendor A is going to charge a $3.00 surcharge and no per minute rate for making a phone call. That vendor divides the $3.00 by 15 minutes and therefore, inputs $0.20 as the blended rate.
ii. Vendor B wants to charge a $5.00 surcharge and no per minute rate for making phone calls. To make their blended rate look better, that vendor decides to divide their surcharge by 30 minutes and therefore calculates and inputs into the box, $0.166 as the blended rate.
iii. Obviously, Vendor A provides a better value since the average call length is shorter than 20 minutes. However, because the instructions are unclear and are not specific, Vendors are free to use any calculation that makes their blended price appear better than other proposed rates, when in fact they are not.
b. In coming up with the blended rate, will call volumes be factored in? Also, will the different Payment Types and the different bill types (local, intra/interlata, interstate, etc.) be used in coming up with the blended rate? If this is not made clear and specific by the Bureau, as with the problems described in letter “a” above, vendors could interpret this in any way that makes its price appear better than it really is. For example:
i. Vendor A will charge $.15 per minute for all calls, irrespective of payment type or bill type and thus, enters $0.15 as the blended rate.
ii. Vendor B knows that 80% of the calls are Prepaid, InterLATA. Therefore, Vendor B will charge $1.00/minute for Prepaid InterLATA which is 80% of the volume, and then $.01/minute for all the other payment options and LATA’s which make up only 20% of the calling volume (prepaid local, debit local, collect local, prepaid IntraLATA, debit IntraLATA, collect IntraLATA, debit InterLATA, collect InterLATA, prepaid Interstate, collect Interstate, debit Interstate) and thus calculates and enters into the box, a blended rate of $0.0925/minute ($1.00 + .01 +
.01 + .01 + .01 + .01 + .01 + .01 + .01 + .01 + .01 + .01, divided by 12).
iii. Obviously, Vendor A’s pricing is better for 80% of the calling volume. However, without specific instruction in terms of calculating the blended rate, whether or not volumes are included, whether or not by payment and bill type, etc., vendors can interpret in whatever way they desire, including those that may make their bid price appear better than it is.
Answer #17
The following information is being provided for the FY 2012-2013 to establish monthly average calls placed, average single call time and monthly average number of call minutes to assist vendors in determining their single blended rate.
Monthly Average Number of Calls Placed: 737,776.33 Average Single Call Time: 13.23 minutes
Monthly Average Total Number of Call Minutes: 9,761,636.33
a. Vendors should use the average single call time provided above
b. Call Volumes listed in the RFP and above should be used.
Section 3.8.3 of the RFP states that for the price sheet, the Respondent shall establish a single, blended rate per minute, inclusive of all surcharges, for all calls on the North American Dialing plan, including intralata, interlata, intrastate and interstate calls.
To provide additional clarification, the Department is requiring the same blended rate for all calling types listed above regardless if they are prepaid or collect which shall not exceed $0.14 per minute.
Additionally, local and local extended area calling types are required to have the same blended rate regardless if they prepaid or collect which shall not exceed $0.03 per minute.
The Price Sheet – Attachment 5 has been amended to provide clarification.
Question #18
Attachment 5, Price Sheet –
a. Please clarify that the commission entered in the box is not a blended commission or a commission average (as the blended rate is), but instead, is the actual commission rate which must be paid for all calls, irrespective of bill type and payment type, for at least the 5 year base term.
Answer #18 Please refer to section 2.4 of this RFP
Question #19 Requirement 3.7.2 Free Usage of Video Visitation System, page 19
How much usage does the DOC feel will be used for these non revenue activities?
Answer #19
Section 3.7.2 Inmate Video Visitation Services states: “Allow the department free usage of the service, for communication, staff training and Community Corrections use outside agreed upon hours.” If Video Visitation is not open to the inmate population then the video visitation system infrastructure should be made available to DOC. Hours and duration the system is available to department will be agreed upon by the department and the awarded vendor
Question #20 Requirement 3.7.2 Seating for Video Visitation, page 19
Answer #20 A standard metal stool bolted to the floor at the appropriate height located in front of each
station. Specific dimensions should be provided by vendor in bid response.
Question #21 Requirement 3.7.7 Voice Quality of Video Visitation, page 23
Does the DOC have a specific industry standard to comply to for Video?
Answer #21
No. Specific data rate will not be set for the audio portion of Video Visitation. Audio quality should be of acceptable clarity and free of common distortion. Kiosk Screen size should be no smaller than 15” Diagonal. Video Visitation window size may have the ability to adjust sizing but should not be smaller than 50% of the screens pixels and at a minimum 24 frames/sec.
Question #22
Requirement 3.7.10 (e) System Restriction, Fraud Control and Notification Requirements, page 25
Include security capabilities to immediately terminate a call if it detects that a called party’s telephone number is call forwarded to another telephone number. If detection of a call forwarded call is not a capability of a respondent, all remote call forwarding calls will go undetected and then the respondent does not have to terminate any calls. Can the Department elaborate on the intent of this requirement?
Answer #22 See Section 3.7.10 of the RFP.
Question #23
Requirement 3.8.3 Rate and Call Charge Requirements, page 30
Are the specified list of ineligible charges and fees meant to be all-inclusive or are there others not stipulated that may be eligible for vendor reimbursement?
Answer #23 All-inclusive
Question #24
Attachment 4 Evaluation Criteria, 3.8, page 83
The potential point total cites 30 but evaluation range is from 0-50. Please confirm the total value of this section is 30 points.
Answer #24 This was an error, the point range is 0-30, as follows:
(Omitted – 0; Poor – 7.5; Adequate –15; Good – 22.5; Exceptional – 30) 30
Question #25
For Video Visitation, based on the known institutions, can you provide total number of dorms and visitation parks included at each to be included in the trial? Preferably itemized by facility (broken down by CI/Annex/WC, if applicable).
Answer #25
Per this Addendum #2, the locations will be revised to include the following (4) facilities to include the following total number of dorms and visitation parks:
Gadsden Re-Entry
3 Open Bay Housing Units – 6 “wings”
Wakulla Annex
3 Open Bay Housing Units – 6 “wings”
5 Secure Cell Housing Unit – 20 “wings” ** Santa Rosa Annex
4 Open Bay Housing Units – 20 “wings”
4 Secure Cell Housing Units – 16 “wings” ** Florida Women’s Reception Center
6 Open Bay Housing Units – 12 “wings”
2 Secure Cell Housing Unit – 8 “wings” ** There is one visiting park at each of the above units.
** These wings may include multiple wings of segregation housing (confinement/close management)
Question #26 Will Annexes and/or Work Camps be included in Video Visitation trials or just the CI/Main
units?
Answer #26 Please see the revised designated locations in answer #25
Question #27
Answer #27
The Department’s policy does not currently allow non-inmates to initiate calls. The Department may amend policy to accommodate video visitation in the future, as needed.
Question #28
Answer #28
The Department is requesting a solution to enable at a minimum, the same inmate authentication used by phone PIN as well as inmate number or other advanced verification measure. The system would require no scheduling intervention by the Department and scheduling be self sufficient.
Question #29
Answer #29
The Department’s policy does not include a provision for refunds, at this time. Section 3.8.5 has been revised, per this Addendum, requiring respondents to submit a proposed refund policy with their proposal.
Question #30
Answer #30 The Department doesn’t currently have a policy for Video Visitation.
Question #31
Answer #31
The Department doesn’t currently have a policy for Video Visitation. The Department’s intent is that all Video Visitations be conducted from a fixed IP Address that the successful respondent verifies through the setup and login procedure to be established. The Department requests respondents to propose all solutions for the scheduling of Video Visitation.
Question #32
Answer #32 Pricing will be “locked” for the term of the contract.
Question #33
Please clarify in which tabbed section of the bid should our Estimated Implementation Plan and Transition Date Schedule be included: Tab 2 Transmittal Letter & Executive Summary or Tab 6 (Technical Response)? The Proposal Submission Requirements in RFP Section 5 lists the requirement in the instructions for both tabs.
Answer #33 The Estimated Implementation Plan and Transition Date Schedule should be included in Tab 6
of the response.
Question #34 Are visits to be scheduled by the inmate? The visitor? Or Both?
Answer #34 Both. Please see Section 3.7.2 of the RFP.
Question #35
The Timeline on page 7 of the RFP states “Anticipated Independent Evaluation of Proposal April 16-24, 2014. Has the DOC selected an outside agency other than the DOC or FL Procurement to perform the evaluation process? If so who?
Answer #35 No
Question #36
What is the Department’s policy regarding in-person visitation? How many in person visits are inmates permitted each week, month, etc.? Please provide this information for the five identified sites as well as the remainder of the institutions.
Answer #36
The Department complies with the Florida Administrative Codes (FACs) regarding in-person visitation as follows:
33-601.722 Visiting Schedule
33-601.723 Visiting Check-In Procedures33-601.722 Visiting Schedule 33-601.723 Visiting Check-In Procedures.
Question #37
Will the Department allow the contractor to utilize the on-site maintenance staff to install electrically outlets where needed for video visitation units if contractor provides all materials? Or does the Department require the contractor to bring in their own licensed electrical contractor for electric work for video visitation units?
Answer #37
The RFP requires the successful Contractor to provide staff and material. The Department’s Maintenance Supervisor(s) will be available for coordination of installation at the locations identified.
Question #38
In section 3.7.2 it states “a minimum of 5 inmate video visitation stations per institutional Visiting Park such be provided and a minimum of 2 inmate video visitation stations per dorm shall be provided”. However, during the pre-bid site visit it was understood the Department meant that a minimum of 2 video visitation stations be provided in housing area common area. For example a “T” style dormitory has an A & B side both identical both having separate common areas so within that building a minimum for 4 video visitation stations would need to be provided. Or a ratio of 40 to 1 inmate video visitation stations to inmate. Is this summation correct as understood?
Answer #38 The Department’s intent is for there to be e 2 stations per open population ‘wings’ for housing
units and 5 stations per the visitation park.
Question #39 Will the Department provide blueprints or drawings to include inmate populations per building
for purposes of infrastructure planning and installation of the video visitation stations?
Answer #39
The chart below demonstrates the current inmate population by building for each location, as revised by this Addendum.
Dorm Gadsden Re-Entry Center Wakulla Annex Santa Rosa Annex Florida Women's Reception Center A 140 133 B 47 217 C 101 149 D 145 E 145 F 149 G 0 H 108 I 5 J 187 197 K 171 214 L 169 210 M 162 141 N 238 139 O 235 166 P 229 156 Q 233 57
The Department respectfully cannot provide blueprints or drawings. It has been determined by the Department that there is sufficient infrastructure in place at all four of the newly designated locations for implementation of video visitation. There is existing fiber cabling in the housing units and visitation parks; the fiber terminates in a Server Room or other location where the successful respondent’s data circuit and connectivity equipment is to be installed.
Question #40
Section 3.9 one (1) dedicated staff for analyzing investigative data, does the Department have a preference where this staff is located, in the contractor’s office or a Department office? If in a Department’s office which location and will space be provided by the Department?
Answer #40 Staff will be located in IG Office in Tallahassee, FL. The Department will provide space for the Contractor’s staff.
Question #41
Section 3.7, the Department is requesting a total of 60 months storage after expiration of the contract. Would the Department consider less storage time after the expiration of the contract for records and recordings? For example one year one line and one additional year off line.
Question #42 Would the Department allow updates for inmate call list to be collected on-site and data entry
work be conducted off-site with all hard copies being returned upon completion?
Answer #42 Yes
Question #43
If a responder to the RFP is using an entity/subsidiary to qualify and respond to the RFP, how will this approach be evaluated for Sections 3.13,1, 5.2, 5.3.2, 5.3.3 and 5.4.1? Will responders utilizing an approach with no entities and/or subsidiary be more favorably evaluated than a responder utilizing an entity/subsidiary?
Answer #43
Subcontracting will be permitted per Section 7.16 of the RFP; and, respondents intending to provide 100% of services directly will be evaluated the same as Respondents that intend to utilize subcontractors.
Question #44
If a responder elects to address the Project Staff requirements of the RFP, sections 3.1 – 3.15, with a dedicated staff v. a collection of shared resources/staff, will the responder with the dedicated staff be more favorably evaluated than the shared resource/staff approach?
Answer #44 Respondents intending to provide 100% of services directly will be evaluated the same as
Respondents that intend to utilize a collection of shared resources/staff.
Question #45
Section 2.5 What is the current provider’s obligation with respect to providing current blocked # databases, PINs, allowed lists, etc. to the successful contractor to facilitate transition during the transition period?
Answer #45 Per Section 3.5 of the RFP, the current contractor will be required to provide this information to
ensure a smooth and successful transition of service.
Question #46
Section 3.7.17 System Technical Assistance/Contractor Customer Service Center, the RFP asks “contractor shall provide a centralized Customer Service Center”. Will the state allow for this Service Center to be subcontracted out to another vendor or does the Inmate Phone Provider “the Contractor that is awarded the contract” have to have their own call center?
Answer #46 This requirement may be fulfilled by a subcontractor.
Question #47
Inmate Telephone Station Equipment (“ITSE”) It is stated a unique number, physically imprinted on each telephone…
Would the Department consider an imprinted number placard permanently attached to the telephone instrument to meet the unique number imprinted requirement or does the imprinted number have to be directly on the phone housing itself?
Answer #47 No. Per Section 3.10.1 of the RFP, the imprinted number must be directly on the phone housing.
Question #48
Coin-Operated Telephone Equipment “New” coin operated telephones aren’t manufactured
any longer. Would the Department allow for the awarded vendor to either negotiate to purchase the current coin operated Telephones in place as long as they are in working order compliant with all PSC/FCC requirements or install remanufactured coin operated telephones in place of
the “New” requirement?
Answer #48 The Department would prefer proposals include new coin operated telephone equipment, if
possible.
Question #49 2.2 Background: The call data references FY 2012-2013. What is the last month of 2013
included in the call data? Is this data through June 2013?
Answer #49 The call data is through June 2013
Question #50 2.2 Background Please provide call data through February 2014 in the same format
provided in Section 2.2
Answer #50
FY 2013-2014 (July 1 thru January 31)
Call Type Number of Calls Total Revenue Total Minutes
Interlata InterState 598815 $1,101,505.68 7,847,676
Interlata IntraState 3358856 $6,174,452.12 44,607,158
International 676 $10,608.11 8,919
Intra Out of State 1675 $3,181.80 22,344
Intralata IntraState 586638 $1,077,822.00 7,729,698
Local In State 806078 $403,039.00 10,477,095
Data for February 2014 is not currently available.
Question #51
Will the Department permit or allow the winning vendor to implement debit calling for inmates once a contract is signed? If yes, would the department like a description of debit calling in our proposal and where should it be placed?
Answer #51
The Department is not utilizing this feature at this time nor intend to in the near future. However, the Department is interested in obtaining information about this capability and respondents may include this information with their proposal.
Question #52
Page 81 – 83 outline the Evaluation Criteria and associated points for each category. Please provide examples of what constitutes an exceptional response, good response and adequate response.
Answer #52 We do not have examples available.
Question #53
Section 3.8.3 Within the industry, there is a program which facilitates one time calls that are billed to the consumer with the cost of a call and a separate credit card transaction fee. There are two mechanisms for billing the consumer – direct to credit card and via the recipients mobile phone.
o 1) Is this type of program in operation under the current contract? If yes, please provide the number of calls and minutes for the past 12 months.
Answer #53
Question 1: This type of program is not in operation under the current contract.
Question 2: The Department would need more information on this program before it can make a determination if it is permissible. Section 3.8.3 provides a list of prohibit fees and a credit card transaction fee would be considered a prohibited fee.
Page 16 of 18
DC RFP-13-031 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Page
1
of94
pages SUBMIT BIDS TO: Julyn Hussey, Procurement ManagerFlorida Department of Corrections Bureau of Procurement and Supply 501 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 AGENCY RELEASE DATE:
March 7, 2014
SOLICITATION TITLE: SOLICITATION NO:
STATEWIDE INMATE TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES
DC RFP-13-031
PROPOSALS WILL BE OPENED: April 22, 2014 at 3:00 p.m., E.T.
and remain valid for 365 days after such date and time. VENDOR NAME:
VENDOR MAILING ADDRESS:
CITY – STATE – ZIP: *AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE (MANUAL)
PHONE NUMBER: FREE NUMBER:
FAX NUMBER: *AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE (TYPED), TITLE
EMAIL ADDRESS:
FEID NO.: *This individual must have the authority to bind the Proposer.
I certify that this Bid is made without prior understanding, agreement, or connection with any corporation, firm, or person submitting a response for the same services (including materials, equipment and supplies), and is in all respects fair and without collusion or fraud. I agree to abide by all conditions of this Bid and certify that I am authorized to sign this Bid Submittal for the Proposer/Contractor and that the Bid is in compliance with all requirements of the Invitation to Bid, including but not limited to, certification requirements and mandatory attestations. In submitting a Bid to an agency for the State of Florida, the Vendor offers and agrees that if the Bid is accepted, the Vendor will convey, sell, assign or transfer to the State of Florida all rights, title and interest in and to all causes of action it may now or hereafter acquire under the Anti-trust laws of the United States and the State of Florida for price fixing relating to the particular services purchased or acquired by the State of Florida. At the State’s discretion, such assignment shall be made and become effective at the time the Department tenders final payment to the Proposer/Contractor.
NO BID SUBMITTED: Please provide reason for “No Bid” in this Space
VENDOR CONTACTS: Please provide the name, title, address, telephone number and e-mail address of the official contact and an alternate, if available. These individuals shall be available to be contacted by telephone regarding the solicitation and any resulting contract or purchase order.
PRIMARY CONTACT: SECONDARY CONTACT:
NAME, TITLE: NAME, TITLE:
ADDRESS: ADDRESS:
PHONE NUMBER: PHONE NUMBER:
FAX NUMBER: FAX NUMBER:
EMAIL ADDRESS: EMAIL ADDRESS:
The State of Florida’s general contract conditions, Form PUR 1000 (10/06), and the General Instructions to Proposers, Form PUR 1001 (10/06), as
Page 17 of 18
DC RFP-13-031 MANDATORY FORM
ATTACHMENT 5 - PRICE SHEET
DC RFP-13-031
The Respondent shall provide their proposed call and commission rates in the tables below.
NOTE: Blended Telephone per Minute Rates for intralata, interlata, intrastate and interstate calling types shall not exceed $0.14 per minute.
Blended Telephone per Minute Rates for local and local extended area calling types shall not exceed $0.03 per minute.
Respondents shall propose the same per minute rate for local and local extended area calls.
Respondents shall propose the same per minute rate for intralata, interlata, intrastate and interstate calls.
PROPOSED SERVICES PROPOSED RATE
INMATE TELEPHONE SERVICE
Department Commission % Rate Proposed
Blended Telephone Per Minute Rate for local, and local extended area calls (inclusive of all surcharges)
Blended Telephone Per Minute Rate for intralata, interlata, intrastate and interstate calls (inclusive of all surcharges excluding international calls)
VIDEO VISITATION SERVICE
Department Commission % Rate Proposed
Blended Video Visitation Rate for All Calls (inclusive of surcharges)
_______________________________________________ Name of Respondent
_______________________________________________ Signature of Authorized Representative
______________________________________________ Print name of Authorized Representative
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Date
Page 18 of 18
DC RFP-13-031 TIMELINE
Listed below are the important events, dates/times and locations by which the actions must be taken or completed during this solicitation. If the Department finds it necessary to change any of these dates/times, it will be accomplished by addendum. All listed times are local time in Tallahassee, Florida (Eastern Time).
Revised page 7 of 94
EVENT DATE/TIME LOCATION
Release of RFP to
public March 7, 2014
Vendor Bid System:
http://vbs.dms.state.fl.us/vbs/main_menu Non-Mandatory
Proposers’
Conference and Site Visit
March 18, 2014 at 10:00 A.M.
See Section 4.2.7 for specific location information regarding Proposer Conference and Site Visit.
Last day for written inquiries to be received by the Department March 21, 2014 5:00 P.M. SUBMIT TO:
Florida Department of Corrections Julyn Hussey, Procurement Manager 501 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Fax: (850) 488-7189
E-mail: [email protected] Anticipated date that
written responses to written inquiries will be posted on the Vendor Bid System (VBS)
April 8, 2014 Vendor Bid System:
http://vbs.dms.state.fl.us/vbs/main_menu
Last day for written inquiries to be received by Department REVISED April 10, 2014 5:00 P.M. REVISED SUBMIT TO:
Julyn Hussey, Procurement Manager Fax: (850) 488-7189
E-mail: [email protected] Anticipated date that
written responses will be posted on VBS REVISED April 15, 20214 REVISED
Vendor Bid System:
http://vbs.dms.state.fl.us/vbs/main_menu
Proposals Due and Opened
April 22, 2014 at 3:00 P.M.
SUBMIT TO:
Florida Department of Corrections Julyn Hussey, Procurement Manager 501 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500
(Note: No fax or email responses will be accepted)
Anticipated date of evaluation team training
April 30, 2014 at 10:00 A.M.
Florida Department of Corrections 501 South Calhoun Street, Room # 335 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Anticipated Independent Evaluation of Proposals April 30, 2014 – May8, 2014
Individual Evaluation of proposals –Note: any Evaluation Team meetings will be publicly noticed
Anticipated Posting of Recommended Award
May 16, 2014 Vendor Bid System:
