RP Integrated Public Safety Solution Addendum # 1

Transcription

1 March 7, 2018 ADDENDUM #1 RP Integrated Public Safety Solution Please see the below summation of the questions and answers that have been received regarding the above solicitation. Questions covered here are to clarify, change, delete or add information but will not confirm information already outlined in the solicitation that remains unchanged. Q1. Will the County grant an extension of the proposal open date? A1. The County has chosen not to extend at this time. The proposal open information date and time will remain as stated below: Proposals will be received until 2:50 P.M. local time on Monday, April 2, 2018 at the Gwinnett County Financial Services - Purchasing Division 2nd Floor, 75 Langley Drive, Lawrenceville, Georgia Q2. Some have heard that the County was planning an Integrated Criminal Justice System replacement project. How, if at all, is that project related to this Public Safety Solution RFP? What is the status of the Integrated Criminal Justice System project? A2. This project does not include a replacement of an Integrated Criminal Justice System outside of the components outlined in the documents. At this time there is not an active solicitation underway for an Integrated Criminal Justice System. Q3. Will the County accept an interface to a third-party Fire RMS application or must FRMS be fully integrated in the proposed system? A3. Yes, the County will accept and evaluate solutions that include an interface to a third-part Fire RMS (FRMS). Any subcontractor for FRMS must comply with the criteria defined in the RFP. Q4. Is it the County s expectation that each agency utilizes their own set of parameters and code tables allowing locally driven business rules to be configured? A4. Yes, the County expects that each agency (i.e. Police, Fire, and Sheriff) will have their own set of parameters and code tables allowing locally driven business rules to be configured, based on roles and permissions that may be managed at an Administrative level. Q5. Please clarify does the County want to convert legacy data prior to Tiburon or is the provider converting Tiburon only data? A5. The legacy data that would be subject to conversion by the Offeror exists within the Tiburon CAD, MDS, LERMS and FRMS applications. As indicated in the interrogatory, the County is seeking recommended alternatives to completing any data conversion, but still allowing the County to access to legacy data. Q6. Can the County please clarify what is the difference from Section and (Offeror) Demonstrations? A6. In short, Section refers to on-site demonstrations of the proposed solution that will be required as part of the evaluation process for those selected Offerors who make the short list for these. As 1

2 outlined in Section 7.2.2, scripted scenarios will be provided to these short listed Offerors to demonstrate produce capabilities as defined in the Section. These scripted scenarios will be provided to the short listed Offerors in order for these Offerors to prepare the onsite demonstrations. Section refers to additional onsite presentations including interview time that the County may opt to conduct with selected short-list Offerors, as well as potential customer site visits by County evaluators, that may be conducted following onsite demonstrations. Q7. Can the County please confirm that 50 years of legacy data will need to be converted? A7. The County does require that Offerors proposed system storage will support the retention periods in the excerpt below, i.e. ten (10) years of CAD incident data, as well as fifty years of reporting data from LERMS and FRMS. Page Hardware: Offerors shall propose a hardware configuration with adequate storage capacity to accommodate a minimum of ten (10) years of incident data for CAD, fifty (50) years of associated reporting data for the LERMS and FRMS. The storage capacity should support (50) fifty years of reporting data. Of the (50) fifty years, it is anticipated that approximately (20) twenty years will be converted from the legacy Tiburon systems. In short, on Day 1, the County will have a minimum of (10) ten years of converted incident data, and (20) twenty years of converted digital reporting data and the ability to store and additional (30) years of reporting data. Q8. Who is the LiveScan vendor? A8. Eagle Q9. Does the County s current CAD interface with any existing third-party paging solutions or have inherent paging capabilities related to dispatching law enforcement activity ((e.g. sending automatic or manual pages to SMS or , etc.)? This would be separate from the Mach Alert fire station alerting already mentioned in the RFP. A9. The County uses Vesta Alert and communications products from Airbus for E911 alerting. Q10. Is the County looking for a dedicated/on-site project manager? A10. The County would like the Offeror to propose the most appropriate level of project management support based on the Offeror s experience with other projects of the same size, scope, and complexity as the one outlined in the RFP. Q11. Will the County have a dedicated project manager on their side or will it be 75%, 50%, 25%? All The County expects to have sufficient project management support representing the County onsite for the implementation of the new Public Safety solution. Q12. Does the County have a targeted start and Go Live dates? A12. The County hopes to begin the project within 30 to 60 days of execution of contract with the selected Offeror. The County will determine a Go Live date in collaboration with the selected Offeror and this will be based on the Offeror s responses, as well as, the County s standard practices and schedule. We expect Offerors to provide proposed project activity and timelines (see Section of RP001-18). Q13. For the Functional Requirements with partial compliance, are offerors advised to select Exception and provide an explanation even if compliant with most of the requirement? A13. Yes. 2

3 Q14. Section 1 of proposal response is to include a completed Cover Sheet; has this been provided? Can the County either provide the Cover Sheet or clarify what is to be completed? Q14. This section would better describe what the County is looking for if it said A cover sheet as opposed to The cover sheet. The Cover Sheet should be a Cover Letter/Executive Summary on company letterhead signed by a person with the corporate authority to enter into any contract which results from the proposal. Q15. Does the County want the completed Proposal Compliance Checklist Table (Figure 3) included in both Section 1 and Section 9? A15. No, please include it in Section 1 of the Proposal Response. Q16. Can the County provide native/excel files of the Proposal Response Forms to be included in Proposal Response Section 9? A16. These files are in Excel as part of the documents Offerors can download. Q17. Please clarify or provide the Contractor Affidavit and Agreement to be completed in Section 9. A17. Please see the required document to be completed on page 88 of RP Q18. Is the Contractor Affidavit and Agreement to be completed in Section 9 the same as the Section 25, Contractor Affidavit/E-Verify? And if so, does this also satisfy the Section 9 requirement for 26.0 E-verify? A18. Yes. Q19. There are some discrepancies between the listed forms in Figure 3, Proposal Response Section 9, and RFP Section 19.2, Gwinnett County Standard Forms. A19. Not all forms are required to be turned over to the County at the time of the initial response; an example of this would be the Certificate of Insurance. This proof of insurance would actually only be supplied by the awarded Offeror. Without specifics of the discrepancies outlined further this is the most information the County can provide on this question. If you specifically question a form s inclusion please feel free to contact the buyer, Terri Shirley. Q20. Operations Working Group (Page 9, Governance Structure): Will this team include all the agencies or just the County? Will there be two teams: CAD/RMS? A20. There is one team supporting Gwinnett County CAD/RMS. The Operations Working Groups is an operational level steering committee that was formed in support of the RFP and implementation efforts. The working group has representatives from each of the stakeholder agencies. The County expects the Offeror to make recommendations on agency structure to support implementation of the selected solution. Q21. Are all agencies within the County prepared to Go Live at the same time? A21. Yes. Q22. What is the total Fire and Ems incidents for the last 12 months? A22. Refer to section 2, Table 2 in the RFP for total and average incidents in the last 12 months. The County expects a growth in the number of approximately 5-10% per year. Q23. As a follow-up to Q2 and A2 above, regarding an Integrated Criminal Justice System replacement project, What are the County s plans and how should Offerors respond regarding Integrated Criminal Justice System? How will the goals set forth in this initiative be achieved? A23. As indicated in Q2, the project does not include Integrated Criminal Justice as part of the proposed system. However, the County does have a number of stakeholders involved in the Integrated Public Safety Solution project (RP001-18), including investigators/attorneys from the Courts. 3

4 Offerors should refer to interrogatory which relates to the County tracking of the Criminal Justice E-Filing Project (CJEP). The County is continually monitoring these types of initiatives, is taking a big picture perspective on this project, and is committed to selecting a solution that will meet the needs of public safety today, and well into the future Offerors are encouraged to outline any additional capabilities that the County should consider as part of responding to Exhibit A-4 LERMS Requirements, and other interrogatory questions within RP Q24. What is the Mobile Data System? A24. Tiburon MobileCom, refer to Section 2.6 in the solicitation, Mobile Data System. Public safety uses NetMotion VPN for secure connectivity over the cellular network. Q25. Section 4.4 on page 28 of the RFP mentions that, the offeror shall propose all necessary hardware and system software. How in-depth of a hardware proposal would the County like offerors to provide? For example, should the hardware proposal include rack infrastructure, power distribution units (PDUs), uninterruptable power supply (UPS), storage fabric switches, data archive solution, etc., in addition to host servers, storage and system software? A25. The County expects the Offeror to provide a hardware proposal that will support the system being proposed. Section 4.4 details the desire by the County to have a turnkey solution. Section 11, Hardware, provides both clarity and guidance on the types of hardware and questions relative to the Offeror s approach that the County is expecting. The County is responsible for facilities-related items, e.g., UPS, network, etc. Q26. Does the County require two-factor authentication software? If yes, are hard tokens or soft tokens required? A26. Yes, the County is requiring two-factor authentication software as this is a separate project the county will be working on starting in The Offeror should describe what experience it has with multifactor authentication. Q27. In regard to section (Site Preparation) on page 29 of the RFP, could the County please clarify the scope of services that offerors are being asked to provide? For example: Is the offeror being asked to visit the primary and backup data centers or all sites of all participating agencies? Does the County desire that we, as a commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software vendor, contract with electrical, HVAC and/or low voltage contractors to make the necessary changes (if any)? A27. The County is not requiring Offerors to participate in on-site data center visits whereas evaluators for Gwinnett County wish to may make visits to short-listed Offeror s other customer sites. The County does not wish you to contract with electrical, HVAC and/or low voltage contractors to make any necessary changes. That would be for the County to arrange if needed. Q28. Please identify the number of staff to be trained and the following for all agencies within the County: Call Takers & Dispatchers do these classes need to be separate or are the users cross functional? Supervisors for CAD Patrol Training Officers for train-the-trainer Records Clerks responsible for IBR Detectives Records Trainers for train-the-trainer A28. The County expects the Offeror to provide a recommended training approach based on its experience with other agencies of providing training for all applications, CAD, LERMS, FRMS, Mobile, etc. Please see the chart below for further information. 4

5 Group # Total Type Police Call EUT takers &Dispatchers Police Patrol TTT Officers Police Incl. in 148 TTT detectives patrol officers Sheriff Officers TTT Fire Responders TTT Records EUT Clerks/GCIC DA TTT Animal welfare 3 40 TTT enforcement Solicitors 1 6 TTT IT PS Apps 9 9 UT IT Help desk 0 5 UT IT Sheriff 3 3 UT IT Fire 2 2 UT Leadership E TOTALS Approx Types TTT = Train-the-trainer EUT = End User training E Executive overview Q29. In regard to the Law Tickets and Citations tab of Exhibit A-4 LERMS Functional Requirements: A. How many Mobile units will require ecitation software? B. Are Mobile units currently equipped with printers? If so, is a printer assigned to each officer in the unit? C. Spec ID LTicCit-3 requires an interface of e-citations to the courts. Will this interface need to send data to multiple court systems, i.e., County Court, Municipal Court and/or State Court? A29. A. Current uniform patrol force is 570 of which 10 are motors. The following number of MDDs may require e-citation software: 780 -GCPD 160 -GCSO B. No C. No, only County Q30. In regard to the Law Warrants tab of Exhibit A-4 LERMS Functional Requirements, Spec ID LWant-64 requests an interface of warrants to Clerk of the Courts. Can the County please provide additional clarification? A. Is the exchange of Warrant data desired in real-time or batch mode? B. Is the exchange of Warrant data bi-directional? 1. Warrants created in Courts sent to LERMS? 2. Court-initiated warrant cancellations sent to LERMS? 3. Warrant service / arrests sent to Courts? iv. Does the County desire an interface to coordinate Orders of Protections between Court and LERMS/CAD? 5

6 A30. The County is seeking to understand the capabilities and functionality of the Offerors can provide in response to each of the identified Functional Requirements. The following clarification is provided: A. Currently the data exchange is near real-time with a 15-minute delay, designed to allow for retraction. B. No, it is currently one-way, but the County desires bi-directional capability as described in the following answers: 1. No, but would like to 2. No, but would like to 3. No, by paper now, but would like to have electronic 4. Yes Q31. In regard to the Law Civil Process tab of Exhibit A-4 LERMS Functional Requirements: A. Does the County desire an interface between LERMS and Courts to manage Civil Process? 1. From Courts to LERMS: Summons, subpoenas, evictions, cancellations, etc.? 2. From LERMS to Courts: Service attempts, service status, court fees collected, etc.? A31. A. No 1. No 2. No Q32. In regard to section 2.7 of the RFP (Geographical Information Systems), is the County open to working Its selected vendor to consolidate GIS layers where possible? A32. Users need to be able to select layer as needed and IT needs to be able to administer roles and permissions at a per layer level. Q33. Section on page 66 of the RFP directs vendors to use the quantity of 180 CAD workstations for pricing purposes. Are any of those CAD workstations view-only? If so, please provide the number of CAD workstations that require full CAD functionality and the number that require view-only/read-only access to the software. A33. Price as all workstations being full CAD functionality as Gwinnett County will use roles and permissions to set levels of use such as view-only/read only at the user level. Q34. Table 3: Gwinnett County Interface Descriptions in section 4.3 of the RFP contains a row for that provides the following information: A. Application Requiring Interface: B. Description/Use: using store and forward model used by County agencies. SMTP connection to CAD/LERMS and FRMS solutions is required. C. Exchange: Bi-directional D. System: CAD/Mobile, LERMS, FRMS In this instance, would be synonymous with Chat Messaging? A34. No, the County is asking the Offeror to describe the capabilities of their products to interface with/send messages from the Offerors applications. Q35. Table 3: Gwinnett County Interface Descriptions in section 4.3 of the RFP and several requirements in Exhibit A-2 Interface Functional Requirements request the ability to interface with an AirBus DMS Vesta alert and communications emergency notification system. A. Will this interface connect with the Airbus VESTA Communicator (list-based) solution? B. Is the intent of the interface to provide Call for Service and Unit information to the notification system? A35. A. No B. Not defined at this time. 6

7 Q36. RFP Section 4.3, Table 3, page 27, second row specifies an interface from Multi-housing Crime software to LERMS. Please provide details about the data that is to be transferred via this interface to the LERMS? A36. The County incorrectly identified this as an existing interface. To clarify, the County is asking Offerors to detail functionality included in their systems that would support Multi-Housing Crime programs, what experience they have with Multi-Housing Crime programs, and how the capabilities within the products being proposed, or other third-party products integrated with their software, would support this type of law enforcement initiative. Q37. Section on page 11 of the RFP states that, In August 2017, the Gwinnett County Sheriff s Office cutover to a new Jail Management System (JMS), SmartCOP. However, Exhibit A-2 Interface Functional Requirements, General Interface tab, Spec ID IGen-56 and Exhibit A-4 LERMS Functional Requirements, Law Arrest Records tab, Spec ID LArst-32 ask for the system to interface with the County s Caliber Public Safety JailTracker Offender management solution. Please explain what type of interface is needed with the Caliber JailTracker Offender Management system. What information will be sent to or received from this system? A37. The County uses both Caliber Jail Tracker and SmartCOP for Jail Management. Both software applications are provided by Caliber Public Safety, who recently acquired SmartCOP. Until a final decision is made on functionality, access, and security, the County is asking Offerors to propose an interface to both applications. Currently, SmartCop software is being used for full corrections/inmate management, and Jail Tracker is being used to provide web-based bookings/release information on inmates for the Gwinnett County Police Department, as no interface exists between the legacy Tiburon system and the new SmartCop system. Offerors should describe what capabilities and functionality are available within the proposed interfaces and/or applications to share inmate and booking information with local law enforcement agencies. Q38. Please provide the number of LERMS and Fire RMS workstations that are required. A38. The County has not yet completed a full inventory or deployment of all public safety workstations. As outlined in Section , the County has 180 CAD workstations, and 9 shared FRMS workstations. The County is asking Offerors to propose enterprise licensing for workstation/desktop applications, or, as an alternative, propose the maximum quantity of workstation/desktop licenses that it will support with a fixed price, and any quantity discounts that it provides. Q39. RFP Section Notice of Award and Contract Negotiations, page 41, there is no content in this section, please clarify. A39. The County reserves the right to ask for additional information and clarification from or about any or all firms. The proposals will be evaluated in order to select the firms which rate the highest according to the criteria elaborated in the above items. The selection teams then, at its discretion, may short list the highest scoring firms and open the fee schedule. The County may choose to short list the firms again, and those firms making the short list may be invited to participate in a demonstration/presentation/interview. If required, an optional interview will be performed either onsite with a formal presentation or by telephone with the review team. Invitations will be extended to the highest cost of the proposal preparation and all costs incurred to participate in the presentations/interview/demonstration are to be borne by the proposing firm. Based upon the results, the County will negotiate with the firm ranked highest in an attempt to reach an agreement. If negotiations with the highest ranked firm are unsuccessful, the County may then negotiate with the second ranked firm and so on, until an agreement can be reached Q40. RFP Section 8 Proposal Response Format, page 42, Figure 3 Proposal Compliance Table, states that in Section 3, Hardware & Software, vendors are to include RFP Section 4.0 Scope of Services ( ). While RFP subsection appear to be relevant to Hardware and Software, Subsections 4.5 through 4.15 appear to have more relevance to Proposal Section 4 Implementation Services & Project 7

8 Management as described in Figure 3 Proposal Compliance Table on RFP page 43. Should vendors split their responses to the subsections of RFP Section 4 to place the requirements and responses in the relevant proposal sections? A40. The County understands the perspective, and suggests that as long as the Offeror clearly identifies the information that is being presented in the proposal, by reference to section/number, it is not necessary to repeat it, but instead provide a reference to another section. Q41. RFP Section 11.3 Interfaces, page 56, 4th bullet, states: Where requested, the Offeror is to provide the names for systems where a standard interface has been developed between the proposed component and the identified third-party system. Please clarify the information that is being requested. Does names for systems mean to provide the names of clients or projects where the requested interface was developed or installed? A41. The County is asking the Offeror to identify, by vendor and/or system name, the system(s) where the Offeror offers a standard interface, e.g., Airbus Vesta. Q42. RFP Section 11.3 Interfaces, page 56, states in part In addition to the integration of the proposed System Components, the Offeror will be responsible for providing interfaces to key Gwinnett County and external systems, as defined in Table 3 - Gwinnett County Interface Descriptions. The following applications are listed in Table 3 but there are no corresponding line items for interfaces in the Interface tab of the Pricing Proposal Workbook. Does the County desire vendors to propose an interface to each of these applications and include the costs or does the County only wish to know if the proposed applications are capable of being interfaced to the listed systems? Accela Airbus Emergency Notification System EOC Crisis Management Software (e.g., WebEOC, Common Knowledge Center) Law Enforcement Information Exchange (LInX) LiveScan Motorola - Advanced Messaging and Query, Unit ID and Emergency Button, GPS Responder Location (MCC7500) Pawn (Business Watch International BWI) RapidID WebCAD A42 Whether the Offeror has a standard interface or requires a custom interface for the identified thirdparty system What previous experience the Offeror has interfacing with the identified third-party system Pricing for the interface (if the interface is not listed in the Pricing Proposal worksheet, the Offeror should list the third-party system under Other (specify). Q43. What specific data elements/fields from ESO epcr are to link with the FRMS? A43. All incident related data, to include but not be limited to: receipt, dispatch, status changes, location, location type, call type, property use, actions taken, units, personnel. Q44. What type of interface/connection point is provided from ESO to make this link? A44. ESO provides an API. IF a standard interface with your CAD does not currently exist, it is suggested that the Offeror coordinate with ESO in preparing a proposal response. Q45. RFP Section 14.5, page 66, lists 180 CAD workstations. Please provide a breakdown as to the function of these positions. Of the 180 CAD positions, how many are dispatcher vs. call-taker, production vs. test/training or disaster recovery positions? Are any of these positions to be browser-based only positions? A45. All workstations need to be capable of performing any and all functions based on roles and permissions. There are no browser-based only positions. 8

9 Q46. RFP Section 14.5, page 66, lists 780 MDDs for Gwinnett County Police Department (GCPD), 325 MDDs for Gwinnett County Fire and Emergency Services (GCFES), and 160 MDDs for Gwinnett County Sheriff s Office (GCSO). Of the 780 MDDs for GCPD, 325 MDDs for GCFES, and 160 MDDs for GCSO, how many are production positions, and how many are test/training positions? A46. All of the MDDs identified are production. Q47. RFP Section 28 General Instructions for Proposers, Terms and Conditions, Article IX, page 91, Please clarify whether a bid bond, payment bond, or performance bond is required. A47. There are no bonds required for this proposal. The general instructions are used for all proposals and states bonds must be furnished for any proposal as required in the proposal package or document, and this proposal does not require them. Payment milestones for the contract will be utilized in place of bonds. Q48. Exhibit A-2 Interface Functional Requirements, General Interface tab, the following interfaces appear in the requirements of this tab but do not appear in Table 3 nor do they appear in the Pricing Proposal Workbook. Does the County desire vendors to propose these interfaces and include the costs or does the County only wish to know if the proposed applications are capable of being interfaced to the listed systems? TDD/TTY Electronic Banner Board AirBus DMS Vesta Emergency Notification System Rave Smart911 PawnSight Electronic Medical Dictionary ESO Solutions Fire Incidents and HER Superion CAD to CAD N-Dex IBM i2 Intelligence Analysis Environment Shotspotter Caliber Public Safety JailTracker Offender Crimemapping.com Crime Free Easy Tracking Software Electronic Command Board County Assessor s Office property values access Alpha Paging Camera Interface High Intensity Drug Trafficking external database query Transfer data from ALPR query into FBR Report USDOT Emergency Response Guide A48. The County wishes the Offerors to propose these interfaces and include the costs in the Cost Proposal. Q49. Exhibit A-2 Interface Functional Requirements, General Interface Tab, Requirement IGen-27 specifies Kronos Telestaff and Requirement IGen-28 requests an interface to a third-party staffing and scheduling application. Is IGen-28 also referring to Kronos Telestaff? A49. IGen27 is specific to what the County uses, IGen-28, is asking the Offeror to respond to interfaces with any other staffing solution and/or share with us if the Offeror s proposed solution has that native capability. Q50. Exhibit A-2 Interface Functional Requirements, Forms-Report Writing Interface, row 10 states: The system provides the ability to automate the following Law Enforcement Forms (copies of each form have been attached to the RFP) but the subsequent rows are blank except for the Availability column. Also, we can find no reports attached to the RFP. Please confirm that there are no reports attached to the RFP and 9

10 that requirement IForm-6 is the last requirement to be answered in the tab. Otherwise, please provide copies of the reports and matching requirement descriptions for responses. A50. Copies of these reports were not attached the RFP, and will not be attached at this time. The County asks the Offeror to outline the capabilities within the proposed products for the agencies to develop new reports and automated forms on-demand (refer to Sections 3.4 and 3.6 of RP Q51. What is the County s preference for handling alarm tracking and billing? The County mentions Cry Wolf. Do they want an interface to Cry Wolf, or would they prefer the Offeror provide other products or capabilities that are available in their solutions? A51. The County has identified functional requirements in Exhibit A-4 LERMS Functional Requirements, Alarm Tracking and Billing worksheet. The County recommends that the Offerors provide a response that is based on their capabilities, as well as experience with alarm tracking and billing. The County does not currently use Cry Wolf; it currently uses SAP to handle billing. The County is interested in the Offeror s experience with Cry Wolf and/or other third-party solutions, and any other information they wish the County to consider as part of evaluating alarm billing and tracking. Q52. Does the County have any dates that it can share for the onsite demonstrations for planning purposes? A52. The current target dates for onsite demonstrations at the County for this RFP are between June 11th and June 29th for demos to take place at Gwinnett County for short-listed Offerors. The County emphasizes that this date range is not final and subject to change. Offerors selected for demonstrations will be notified of exact dates. Q53. It is known that the County has recently implemented a new Jail Management System. Does the County have any interest in receiving information on an integrated corrections management solution from a vendor? A53. Replacement of the JMS solution is not within the scope of this bid proposal; however, the County does require an interface to the SmartCop JMS system and JailTracker, refer to Exhibit A-2 Interfaces in RP In addition, the County has a number of requirements in Exhibit A-4 LERMS Requirements that relate to booking functionality, and other corrections-types of capabilities. The County encourages Offerors to provide whatever information they feel is necessary for the County make the most informed decision on their products and capabilities. Q54. The County makes reference to a working group that will work on this project. Will these resources be dedicated to this project? A54. The County intends to have sufficient resources committed to this project. The stakeholder agencies that are included in this project have a high degree of commitment to its success. It is the expectation of the County, that the Offeror will outline in their proposal its recommendation for County resources that will be needed for this project, based on their experience with other projects with the size, scope, and complexity of this initiative. Q55. Is there a timeline for implementing this project? A55. The County has an understanding of what it feels is an appropriate timeline for implementation of this project based on its market research and its experience on other technology projects. However, it is the County s expectation that the Offeror will outline a project implementation schedule that is based on its experience with other projects with the size, scope, and complexity of this initiative. Q56. Is there a current maintenance contract in place for the legacy systems? If so, when does it expire? A56. Yes, there is a current maintenance contract for the existing solution. The current contract term expires on 1/31/19. Q57. With respect to training County Help Desk staff? What is the expectation of the County, will it be train the trainer, train the end-user? How many resources does the County have dedicated to system support? 10

11 A57. The County is currently evaluating how it will approach the Help Desk and support staff issues. The County currently has five (5) resources that provide system support of the legacy public safety systems. It is the County s expectation that the Offeror will outline a suggested maintenance and support, and training approach that is based on the Offeror s best practices, and experience with other projects with the size, scope, and complexity of this initiative. Q58. Vendors had understood that the Public Safety solution would possibly include the replacement of Multi-Housing Crime Software and Alarm Reduction Software (Cry Wolf), yet the RFP does not appear to indicate these items will be replaced. Will these systems be replaced? If so, when and how will they be procured? A58. There is no current automated solution in place for the multi-housing crime or alarm reduction software at this time. The County included mention of these in the RFP so that Offerors responding would be aware of the County s interest in that type of functionality in the future. If Offerors should desire, they can point out functionality they have in the proposed system that might meet those needs, as well as any current integrations they may have with other providers of that type of functionality. No specific timeline for procuring these future capabilities have been determined at this time. Gwinnett County will be considering those as possible projects once the Public Safety Solution is selected. See also A51 for related information. Q59. Have personnel at the County seen any presentations of products related to this RFP in the last 12 months? If yes, what products have you seen? A59. In the past 12 months personnel at the County have not seen any formal demos of CAD systems. Some County personnel have been exposed to various Public Safety solutions at conferences such as IACP. No specific list of which products these personnel may have viewed at such conferences is available. Q60. Does the County have a budget identified for this project? A60. Yes Q61. Would the county be able to provide interface specification documentation for any of the required interfaces? A61. Interface information is outlined in the RFP. As part of the implementation process additional details with regards to interfaces will be available for the selected Offeror. Q62. Please provide sign-up sheets for the pre-proposal conference. A62. Provided as the last 2 pages of this document. Q63. The County mentions a dedicated IT staff to public safety (Page 12). How many DoITS staff (not end users) will need training on the systems of systems for support purposes? A64. The County has 19 IT staff members that support public safety; of those, 14 will require end-user training to support and provide system administration for the new public safety applications. The County will use Train the Trainer for its five (5) Help Desk personnel. Q64. RFP Section 14.5, page 66, second paragraph states that the offer is to include unit and quantity pricing for handheld devices. How many handheld devices does the County expect will initially use the proposed system? A64. The County has not yet completed full inventory or deployment of handheld devices, e.g., IOS, Android, and/or tablet. To provide maximum flexibility in deployment of these types of solutions, the County is seeking an enterprise license for the mobile applications that will support public safety. The County is asking the Offerors to define what IOS, Android, and/or tablet capabilities they offer. Q65. Exhibit A-2 Interface Functional Requirements, General Interface Tab, Requirement IGen-6 and IGen-68. Does the Electronic Banner Board (IGen-6) and the Electronic Command Board (IGen-68) refer to the same device? Please provide requirements and specifications for interfacing to this (or these) device(s). 11

12 A65. The County does not currently have Electronic Banner Board (IGen-6) or Electronic Command Board (IGen-68) hardware. However, it desires to implement these with the new systems. The County is asking Offerors to identify what systems or solutions they have integration experience with, what type of capability/functionality is available, and the cost for an interface to these systems/solutions. Q66. Exhibit A-2 Interface Functional Requirements, General Interface Tab, Requirement IGen-68. Please provide details regarding the information to be passed to the electronic communications board. A66. As noted question 65, the County does not currently utilize Electronic Command Board (IGen-68) hardware. However, it desires to implement this type of system. The County is asking Offerors to identify what Electronic Command Board systems or solutions they have integration experience with, what type of capability/functionality is available, and the cost for an interface to this type of system/solution. 12

13 13

14 14

15 Thank you. Terri Shirley Purchasing Associate II This addendum should be signed in the space provided below and returned with your proposal. Failure to do so may result in your proposal being deemed non-responsive. Authorized Representative Company Name 15