Addendum #1
5/28/19
Question: Will the County handle the enabling of hi-res data logging on the controllers if they are not already enabled? (as some controllers require SNMP command to enable logging)
Response: Yes.
Question: Are the Peek controllers ATC Greenwave with hi-res data logging capability? (ie. firmware 03.05.0528 or greater)
Response: Any Peek controllers with firmware capabilities of collecting high-resolution data logging. There are currently no PEEK controllers on our system, but we may have some in the future with expansion.
Question: Is it the responsibility of the Vendor or the County to acquire access to the controller manufacturer's data log decoding software? (if applicable)
Response: Vendor.
5/24/19
Question: Can you clarify what is meant by grouping and provide an example of a group?
Response: Grouping represents a traffic signal coordinated system. An example in Lake County could be Butterfield Rd from IL 137 to Allanson Rd, which includes 9 traffic signals.
Question: What is the expected timeframe to have the current 200 signals transitioned to the cloud-based ATSPM system?
Response: The expected timeframe is based on the vendor’s solution and implementation of any initial set-up tasks.
Question: What is the expected timeframe to have the additional 100 signals on the new cloud-based ATSPM system?
Response: The expected timeframe is based on construction LET projects over the next 1-2 years.
Question: What is the expected timeframe to have all “High” requirements rated as “Partial” on the new ATSPM system?
Response: The expected timeframe is determined on a case by case basis depending on the vendor response and the needs of Lake County.
Question: What is the expected timeframe to have all “Medium” requirements rated as “Partial” on the new ATSPM system?
Response: The expected timeframe is determined on a case by case basis depending on the vendor response and the needs of Lake County.
5/23/19
Question: We would like to respectfully request a three week time extension to June 25th, to allow us to put our best effort forward in responding to your RFP.
Response: No.
Question: Chapter 3: please confirm whether or not the system will directly issue operator commands to signal controllers (as implied in the needs statements), and if so please provide specific commands required.
Response: Chapter 3 is referring to monitoring and manual override control of CENTRACS or TACTICS and control, monitoring and manual override control of any Adaptive Signal Control Technology.
Question: Requirement 5.0-3: please provide details regarding the Lake County Security Policy.
Response: Please see the attached documentation regarding the Lake County Security Policy.
Third Party Access
Acceptable Use
Electronic Communications Policy
Question: Page 4 states that the contract shall be in effect for a one year period with 4 one extensions. The pricing sheet on page 23 asks for 5 year pricing. This appears to be a bit of a conflict. Please clarify. Paragraph 7 on page 14 states that the addition of other agency signals most be at the same cost as in the RFP. Does this correspond to the item 3 on the price sheet on page 23?
Question: This refers to items 2 & 3 on the pricing sheet.
Question: Page 13 states “proposers shall submit a map-based intersection detector plan that will get optimal results with the ATSPM solution”. Please clarify what is meant by this. Are you looking for a typical intersection?
Question: Yes.
Question: Within the Proposal, how/where does the County desire to receive page 2 of the RFP. Page 2 of the RFP asks “If your RFP includes any exceptions, proposers must insert an “X” in the following box indicating a submission with exceptions and provide separately a submission with noted exceptions.”
Response: Please clearly identify in the response any exceptions taken.
Question: Within the Proposal pages 19-21 “Evaluation Criteria” of the RFP. The Evaluation Criteria Section of the RFP asks 4 Mandatory Criteria questions that responders should mark either “Comply” or “Does Not Comply.”
Response: Yes.
Question: May resumes of key personnel be included as an appendix?
Response: Yes.
Question: Per the RFP, page 10, Section “Information Security” – What are the County’s information security policy and privacy standards? Can you provide a copy for review?
Response: Copies of the policies have been included above.
Question: Page 18 askes for a Sample Contract and Service Level Agreement. We understand the SLA, but typically the Agency provides the contract terms and there are draft terms in the RFP . Do you really want a Sample Contract, or are you looking for software licensing terms?
Response: Please provide any sample agreement you would require that Lake County execute.
5/21/19
Question: Please clarify if there is a specific price required for Item 2 in the Proposal Price Sheet. The wording of this item assumes there should be a price noted on the right side of the price sheet, however there is not a space given to enter a price.
Response: Please provide a cost for this item.
Question: Please clarify Item 1 on the Proposal Price Sheet. The line item states “Total cost”, and then outlines Additional Required Costs in items 2-6. Items 2-6 are assumed to be included in the total cost of Item 1 based on the descriptions provided. Please clarify.
Response: Items 2 & 3 are for extra intersections that can be put into the system at a later date. Items 4, 5 & 6 are specific price breakdowns that are included in Item 1.
5/16/19
Question: On the cover of the 19072 RFP Document, there are two conflicting times for Bid submission. One says June 4, 2019 at 11am but in an asterisk footnote, it seems to suggest that responses “shall be time-stamped by 2:00 p.m.”. Please clarify.
Response: RFP #19072 is due on June 4, 2019 at 11:00 a.m. central standard time.
Question: Is there an option to submit the Bid Response electronically, via email to a web portal?
Response: No.
Question: In both the Contact/Questions section of the RFP(p.2) and in the General Terms and Conditions Para. 6. Additional Information (p. 3), you state that questions shall be submitted no less than seven (7) days prior to the RFP opening date, which is stated to be June 4. That would mean May 28th as last day to submit questions. However, in your General Information Section 5 Project Timeline, you state the deadline for submission of questions is May 21st. Please clarify.
Response: The deadline for submission of questions is May 28, 2019 at 5:00 p.m.
5/14/19
1. Chapter 5, Access and Security; Please provide more detail on the following requirements listed in Chapter 5.
a. 5.0-1.0-3 System Monitoring
Response: Define if the ATSPM solution has a security policy that addresses monitoring the ATSPM system in their ATSPM solution as defined by the vendor.
b. 5.0-1.0-4 System Manual Override
Response: Define if the ATSPM solution has a security policy that addresses any manual system overrides in their ATSPM solution as defined by the vendor.
c. 5.0-1.0-5 Development
Response: Define if the ATSPM solution has a security policy that addresses any development of their ATSPM solution as defined by the vendor.
d. 5.0-1.0-6 Operations
Response: Define if the ATSPM solution has a security policy that addresses any system operational capabilities in their ATSPM solution as defined by the vendor.
e. 5.0-1.0-9 Administration of the System
Response: Define if the ATSPM solution has a security policy that addresses system administrators in their ATSPM solution as defined by the vendor.
f. 5.0-1.0-11 Access to classes of Equipment
Response: Define if the ATSPM solution has a security policy that addresses access to different equipment in their ATSPM solution as defined by the vendor.
g. 5.0-1.0-12 Access to equipment by jurisdiction
Response: Define if the ATSPM solution has a security policy that addresses access to equipment or entire intersections by different jurisdictions in their ATSPM solution as defined by the vendor.
h. 5.0-1.0-13 Output Activation
Response: Define if the ATSPM solution has a security policy that addresses outputting data or anything else in the RFP response in their ATSPM solution as defined by the vendor.
i. 5.0-1.0-14 System Parameters
Response: Define if the ATSPM solution has a security policy that addresses changing any system parameters in their ATSPM solution as defined by the vendor.
All element responses are unique to each vendor and may not apply to each vendor based on the system architecture and responses in other sections of the system requirements. Please indicate any clarifications in the description section of the system requirement response.
2. Item 5.0-2.0-3; Please define in more detail the request to provide monitoring and control access at the local controllers via the PASSAGE network.
Response: Define if the ATSPM solution is capable of gaining access to local controllers via the PASSAGE network to get the high-resolution ATSPM data from each traffic signal controller.
3. Item 6.0-10; Please define in more detail the request to log Waze data within the ATSPM solution.
4. Item 6.0-11; Please define in more detail the request to report travel time information via reports and charts.
Answers to Questions 3 & 4: Define if any reporting or chart generation is included in the ATSPM solution (or partially), and if the ATSPM solution is capable of with using a Waze authorized API to store travel times. The API displays real-time travel times which is updated approximately every 2-minutes for routes created by Lake County. The API feed is unique and confidential to Lake County and will only be given to the vendor selected, if applicable.
5. Item 7.0-5. Does the County currently utilize other travel time technology systems, such as Bluetooth or Wi-Fi data collection, to provide real-time and historical travel time data? If so, please provide details on these systems currently in operation.
Response: No.
6. According to the RFP, LCDOT currently has approximately 200 traffic signals currently collecting ATSPM data utilizing the open sourced ATSPM platform originally created by Utah DOT (UDOT). The RFP calls for 300 traffic signals collecting ATSPM data. Are these 300 signals in addition to the existing 200?
Response: The 300 traffic signals are not in addition to the existing 200.
5/7/2019
Question: On Page 19 of the RFP, Mandatory Requirement #2 States: “There must be at least two (2) current operational deployments of the ATSPM system in the U.S.”
Response: Modified to read: There must be at least two (2) current operational deployments of the ATSPM system in North America.
Question: Section 18 of the General Terms and Conditions included in the RFP includes indemnification language that extends to liability beyond that which is covered by our firm’s professional liability insurance. We would respectfully request the ability to submit a modified version of the language included in this section so that it is insurable under our professional liability insurance and confirmation from Lake County that doing so would not result in the automatic disqualification of our firm’s proposal. As this proposal will require a significant amount of effort and the answer to this question will impact our ability to respond to this proposal, we would very much appreciate a response as soon as possible and in advance of the question submittal/response dates identified in the RFP.
Response: Any and all exceptions taken by Proposer to the terms of this RFP are to be identified in writing and included in the list of submittals.