Pre-proposal Notes from Smart Card and Mobile Ticketing Procurement August 5, 2015
- Joining vendors were:
- Globe-Sherpa:Stephanie ????
- INIT: Jan Lesser,
Carl Commons
- SPX : Dan Gilfand
- S&B : Eric Reese
Mark Sanger
- TranSystems: Santosh K. Mishra
- ITPRod Ghearing, Project Manager
- Brian Pouget, COO
- Kathy Anderson, Manager of IT
- Scott Walsh, Manager of Finance
- Mark Fedorowicz, Manager of Purchasing
Questions:
Q1Can ITP provide a level-playing field for vendors from cost perspective since proposers have to interface with S&B's FareGo product which is already installed at ITP?
A1The price proposal form provides a line item (# 2.1.3.2) that can be used by proposers to provide the cost of interface with FareGO. Similarly, there are line items for interface with other third party components. These line items will allow the ITP evaluation team to differentiate interface costs from the cost of other items in the proposed solution.
Please note that the evaluation team will take all evaluation criteria into account prior to arriving at a decision and not just the cost.
Q2Will ITP coordinate with S&B so all vendors have the same pricing from S&B for the desired interface?
A2.ITP requires proposers to directly contact S&B to obtain technical details of developing the interface and pricing for that interface. Unfortunately, ITP cannot provide standard interface pricing for the S&B interface since solutions offered by proposers will be significantly different in terms of underlying technologies.
Q3.Will ITP extend the proposal due date?
A3.Yes, a new schedule is being released and is attached in Addendum #1.
Q4.Can ITP provide the sign-in sheet?
A4.Yes, the list at the beginning of this response contains the names of the companies and individuals who were able to participate in the pre-proposal meeting. We regret that we do not have all of the names included but the phone connection was poor.
Q5.In an effort to calculate the wireless requirements for the garage, is it possible to get a drawing showing the layout of the garage and the desired coverage area?
A5Drawing is attached.
Q6.Would it be possible to have an extension to the deadline of the questions past the date of the pre-bid meeting?
A6.Yes, see Addendum #1.
Q7.Would an extension of the deadline of the proposal be possible so that there would be time to properly review the question responses?
A7.Yes, see Addendum #1
Q8.In Section 10.1 it states there is a 2-year warranty period. The price sheet only has a line for 3-year warranty. Please clarify the length of the desired warranty period.
A8.This RFP requires warranty for 2-years. A corrected price form is being provided that addresses that error. The corrected price form also provides line items for warranty years 3, 4 and 5 but those are marked optional.
Q9.In Section 4.2 it states that the central system will include the required number of licenses for all users. Can you please clarify the approximate amount that “all users” includes?
A9.ITP estimates that there will be up to 10 users of the proposed central software for non-reporting modules. ITP will prefer a site license for the proposed reporting module.
Q10.In the RFP, section 9.2.5.2 Vehicle Installation: How many vehicles are available for installation per day?
A10Max of 20 but subject to change”.
Q11.In the RFP section 9.2.5.3 Vehicle Installation: Please specify times and days when vehicles can be installed.
A11Most vehicles are available 12:30 AM TO 4:00 AM, Saturday and Sunday have best availability.
Q12.In the RFP section 9.2.5.4 Vehicle Installation: Please list the components that have to be removed by the vendor, if any.
A12This RFP does not require removal of any equipment from vehicles.
Q13 In the RFP section 3.1.1.3 (Key Stakeholder Needs) is blank. Please clarify if this is to be a section header only (if so, to what section) or if there is missing information.
A13Information is there but the section heading numbers are incorrect. Please see the revised RFP and the compliance matrix.
Q14 in the RFP section 6.3.1.1.2 Transaction Status Indictors - should this be "Indicators"?
A14Yes. Please see changed text in the revised RFP document.
Q15 in the Compliance Matrix, Column EIn the Compliance Matrix, does ITP want vendors to provide a proposal reference to every single line item or only to those that are partial or non-complies?
A15Yes, proposal reference to every single line item shall be provided.
Q16 in the RFPsection.1.2.1.1.5 other than Minimize Maintenance (Section 3.1.2.1.1.5), what objective measurement criteria will be used to evaluate "Reduce the total cost of ownership of fare payment system (Section 3.1.1.2)?
A16Along with qualitative assessment based on information provided by proposers, ITP evaluation team will use the maintenance and warranty cost for five year as asked in the price form to evaluate total cost of ownership for five years.
Q17 in the Compliance List, Line Item 278, 10GB flash storage in the router to store application logs. Is this still necessary when the Validator has flash storage built for 6 months of transaction data?
A17The purpose of this requirement to have the ability to store databy proposed on-board system for a one month period using built-in storage
Q18 in the Compliance List, Line Item 92"Phase 3C: Interface with other third party payment systems." We can't include any efforts without knowing what these interfaces look like. Can we understand this as potential future extension?
A18Yes, this is envisioned to be the future extension of the new fare system. Please see the revised text in the RFP which is modified to say “Phase 3: Interface with other third party payment systems (future enhancement and not in current scope).”
Q19 In the Compliance List, Line Item 170, Cloning of fare media: Bar code cloning can't be prevented. Does this requirement apply to 2D/1D barcodes?
A19ITP understands the difficulty in preventing cloning of barcodes and this requirement is primarily to prevent cloning of other smart media
Q20 in the Compliance List, Line Item 177.Conflicting scope: Contractor shall import from "online fare media purchase system (in use at ITP)", and contractor shall provide web portal. Will the existing portal be deactivated?
A20ITP is looking for a fare media purchase solution that is seamless to its customers and provides a web portal with consistent look and feel with rest of the new payment system. Thus, ITP is asking vendors to propose a fare media purchase web portal in response to this RFP.
Q21 in the Compliance List, Line Item 320It is our understanding that the validator receives this info (login and route position) from Avail MDT. Are there drivers that are not allowed to activate the validator? Please clarify why the validator would have to maintain the list of valid drivers and what the schedule info should be used for.
A21On-board readers may have to contain a valid list of drivers and schedule information for two reasons to complete the driver logon:1) While RFP requires an interface between on-board reader and Avail MDT for “single-point logon,” ITP is willing to consider alternate approach (Requirement # 335); and2)In the event Avail MDT or its interface with the on-board reader is not functional, drivers should still have the ability to logon to the on-board reader and CDMS.
Q22 in the Compliance List, Line Item 323Action list is verbiage for card based systems. We would suggest replacing "action list" with "white list" throughout the document.
A22Proposers may treat “action list” as “white list.” The purpose of this list is to accept or deny fare media and approve transactions without real-time interaction with CDMS in certain situations.
Q23 in the Compliance List, Line Item 332. Conflicting requirement: Overview says vehicle LAN vs. J1708 in the req.; Can we assume LAN?
A23Yes, vehicle local area network (LAN) can be assumed. Please see modified text that says “MDT interface shall be developed using standard interface protocols and connectors (e.g., (SAE) J1708/1587 or Ethernet).”
Q24 in the Compliance List, Line Item 340. Conflicting Requirement: Can we assume to receive Login info via vehicle LAN, no backend communication with Avail. Also allows logon in bad coverage areas.
A24If interface with Avail MDTs is being proposed, vendors can assume that the driver logon information will be available via interface between MDTs and on-board readers.However, please contact Avail regarding any capability within the MDT to meet the interface requirements. Also, please note that the RFP provides proposers the flexibility to not interface with the existing MDTs as far as they meet the driver logon/logoff and other on-board requirements. ITP’s intent is minimizing the number of driver terminals/control heads and prevent operator logon errors.
Q25 in the Compliance ListLine Item 343. We can send messages to the Avail system, however, we are unsure of their capabilities. Could ITP please provide additional technical details on Avail MDT, including the expected interface with the reader (i.e. J1708, Ethernet, etc.)?
A25It is unclear what aspect of this requirement is being referred here. Please note that the text of requirement 345 is now changed to say “Driver logon and logoff events shall be recorded by the on-board reader.” The changed text should not require sending information to Avail MDT. However, please contact Avail regarding any capability within the MDT to meet the interface requirements. Also, please note that the RFP provides proposers the flexibility to not interface with the existing MDTs as far as they meet the driver logon/logoff and other on-board requirements. ITP’s intent is minimizing the number of driver terminals/control heads and prevent operator logon errors.
Q26 in the Compliance List, Line Item 393. Customer database in Avail system: Please provide more details on how this is used and what data is available.
A26ITP currently uses Avail’s real-time information system solution. In this system, riders have the ability to register with ITP using a web portal provided by Avail to create and maintain their profiles and subscribe to real-time information alerts.
The purpose of this requirement is to explore if ITP can provide its riders the capability to register with ITP only once and maintain their profiles for both real-time information system account and fare media account.
Q27 in the Compliance ListLine. Items 501-5043rd party database integration: Transactions are already in our database via API requests, is there still a need for interfacing to 3rd party databases? What information are you looking for?
A27Database-level integration is not required if requirementscan be met with API requests. The purpose of this requirement is to provide a consolidated reporting interface of all fare sale and payment transactions systemwide.
Q 28 in the Compliance ListLine Item 705. What is AVA triggers? What level of data validation is expected?
A28Please ignore this requirement. It does not apply to this RFP and deleted in the revised version.
Q29 in the Compliance List, Line Item 167"configurable number of offline transactions per card". An account based system typically doesn't write transaction data to card. Please clarify.
A29This requirement has been deleted in the revised RFP.
Q30 in the Compliance List, Line Item 704Does the reference to IT in this requirement refer to Integration Testing? Or was this a typo, meaning to have written PT for Pilot Testing?
A30Yes, it is typo and please read “IT” as “Pilot.”
Q31 in the Compliance List, Line Items 389+399. Please clarify the difference between account and profile: "Capability for ITP customers to create and manage their accounts;" vs. "The CSE application shall allow ITP customers to register and create their profiles.”
A31“Account” and “Profile” are used interchangeability in the RFP.
Q32 in the Price Sheet, Section 5, The Price Sheet calls for a 3 year warranty, however, Section 10 of the RFP clearly indicates that the warranty period is 2 years from System Acceptance. Please clarify which warranty length Proposers are to price.
A32This RFP requires warranty for 2-years. A corrected price form is being provided that addresses that error.
The corrected price form also provides line items for warranty years 3, 4 and 5 but those are marked optional.
Q33 in the Price Sheet, Section 2Items GFI Data System, S&B FareGO system and Other (Note 1) are numbered 2.1.3.1-3, however, they seem to pertain directly to item 2.1.2. Are these items meant to be numbered 2.1.2.1-3 instead?
A33Yes. Please see the revised form.
Q34 in the Compliance List, Line Items 255-267Based on information from Cradlepoint, we know that the routers on the Silver Line buses do not meet the requirements listed in the RFP. Can Proposers simply propose something equivalent to the existing router or will we need to provide a fully compliant router solution? If the full requirement needs to be met, should Proposers also assume that the routers on the Silver Line buses are to be replaced?
A34Please note that SilverLine service has off-board fare collection and on-board readers or routers will not be installed on those vehicles. Thus, proposers may propose any commercial routers to meet the RFP requirement since consistency with existing routers is not required.
Q35Req. 426: Who will produce the smart cards that customers can order through the Web Portal? Production means printing, encoding, personalizing with names and pictures etc.
A35 Our current intention is for these cards to be produced by our staff in our Information Center. Vendors are welcome to offer any alternate schemes if they wish.
Q36Req. 426: How will the back office receives pictures, what are the mechanisms to import customer data, what is the process to proof that customer entered data is valid and reasonable (i.e. no “Donald Duck” pictures etc.), what happen to the cards that are produced externally by 3rd party system (if one exists), etc..? Are produced cards shipped to Grand Rapid or directly to the customer? Who takes the costs for mailing? Who takes the risk in case of lost mails with cards and potentially products with value on it?
A36 We do not anticipate that all smartcard media will contain a photograph. The material from which cards are made, however, should be capable of being printed on by common photo-ID card type equipment using dye sublimation printing mechanisms for use by ITP for ADA rider ID/Passes and potentially other instruments and for use by our third party partners for printing of their unique graphics and other data.
Q37Req. 472: This requirement is unclear. Does it mean that retailer POS shall use our back office system to process credit/debit sales?
A37This requirement refers to credit/debit card transactions performed in ITP’s network.
Q38Req. 484: What defines the Card Serial Number? Is it the UID of the physical chip encoded by NXP or is it an artifactual number created by our back office?
A38Card serial number refers to the UID of the physical chip.
Q39Req. 491: The term "Action List" is unclear, what is really expected to be done in our system?
A39Please see response to Q22.
Q40The system shall be redundant as stated in the RFP. Does ITP require one (1) or two (2) locations?
A40Only one physical location is required.
Q41What bandwidth shall be between the systems?
A41This question is unclear.
Q42Who is responsible for Backup, DNS, Domain server? Is anything of these components already available and not necessary?
A42Vendors will be required to coordinate with ITP’s IT department for any IT infrastructure-related requirements.
Q43What are the expected transaction numbers?
A43Question is unclear.
Q44Who is responsible for the network?
A44Not clear which network is being referred to. Vendors will be required to coordinate with ITP’s IT department for any IT infrastructure-related requirements.
Q45Who is responsible for the firewall? Do we need to provide it?
A45ITP will provide the firewall but vendors will be required to coordinate with ITP to ensure proposed solution is compatible.
Q46ITP requests in the RFP Access Point Hardware. Is only the access point or also a data consolidator and workstations required?
A46Software requirements for bulk data transfer are listed in Section 8.2.3 of the RFP. Yes, server/workstation is required as necessary. Please use line items 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 to provide price information.
Q47Req. 254: Proposers shall identify the cellular data bandwidth requirements for their proposed solution and include pricing in the cost proposal.
Where shall be the pricing included? Please specify what exactly shall be priced. There is no line item for this in the price sheet.
A47Please note that this requirement is modified. Proposers are not required to provide pricing information.
Q48Please clarify the warranty part of the price sheet. Does ITP require in line 5,1 Warranty for 3 years and additional one year warranty for year 4 and year 5?
A48Please see response to Q32.
1