Mass Notification Proposals

Introduction

This page is in place to provide information on Gallatin County Emergency Management’s Request for Competitive Sealed Proposals for Mass Notification Systems.

Questions & Answers

Question #1, 3/15/16

Question:

XXXXXXXXXXX is respectfully submitting a formal request for the following documentation regarding Gallatin County’s current Mass Notification System:

  • Copies of all previous proposals from all vendors submitted for previous RFP bids in their entirety
  • Copies of all final scoring sheets from previous bids
  • A copy of the current awarded contract

If it would facilitate the agency’s fulfillment of this request, we would be happy to receive electronic copies of the requested information. Thank you very much for your help. And please let me know if you have any questions regarding this request.

Answer:

Good Afternoon XXXX,

The Mass Notification Project is currently out for bid.  Your requests can’t be responded to at this time.

Information on the current Competitive Sealed Proposal is available at https://www.readygallatin.com/mass-notification-proposals/.

Thanks-

Patrick

Question #1B, 3/22/16

Question:

Mr. Lonergan,

Thank you for your response. To clarify, I was looking for documentation regarding any previous RFPs for the County’s current Mass Notification System. Are these documents also on hold while the County goes through the bid process?

Thanks,

Answer:

Good Morning XXXX,

We understand what you are requesting, but my direction is that we can’t respond to requests like this while we have an open Request for CSP.

Thank you for your understanding.

Patrick

Question #1C, 3/28/16

Question:

Mr. Lonergan,

On behalf of XXX, I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to respond to Gallatin County’s RFP for a Mass Notification System. As we review the RFP, we have identified the following questions:

  • Please detail the system usage over the last 12 months (e.g., number of notifications, minutes used, etc.).
  • What is the annual cost of the current system?
  • What is the amount budgeted for this project?
  • Will the County be providing 9-1-1 data? Does the County wish to have vendor-supplied data?
  • Should the vendor proposal include responses to both Exhibits A & B or is Exhibit B purely a score card for vendor demonstrations?
  • Regarding RFP page 2, Section 7. Financials, please clarify the information being requested by the County.
    • What insurance is required for this project?
    • Should the vendor include AE BEST/Moody’s ratings for insurance carriers? Please clarify.
  • Regarding RFP p. 7, Item 3, the County states that the “Vendor is an approved IPAWS vendor for Wireless Emergency Alerts and Emergency Alert System. To clarify, does the County require a fully functioning IPAWS tool to include are all five (5) of the alerting protocols, as recognized by FEMA (e.g., WEA, EAS, NWEM, COG to COG, and the public alerts feed)?
  • Should the proposal need to provide proof of verified testing by IPAWS?
  • Does the County require proof in the proposal that the vendor’s IPAWS system has been utilized successfully in real world emergencies?
  • FEMA recommends that COGs test and simulate IPAWS launches regularly through the Joint Interoperability Test Command (JITC) by using an assigned Test COG Credential. Is it a requirement that the selected IPAWS origination tool vendor participate with FEMA to provide the JITC testing capability?
  • Does the County require the IPAWS tool to be fully integrated within a single user interface without the need to log in to a separate program?
  • Does the County require call-outs to be made simultaneously to reach the most number of recipients in the shortest amount of time?
  • Does the County require the ability to send geographically targeted alerts directly from the vendor’s smartphone application?
  • Does the County require unlimited access to vendor technical support and live trainings at no additional charge?
  • Does the County require a system-wide test call to all records in the database to be completed upon implementation?
  • Does the County require a custom geo-coder supplied directly from the Vendor’s in-house team of GIS Analysts in order to provide the County with the most up-to-date geographic information?
  • Does the county require the incorporation of the counties address point and centerline GIS data sets into the geocoding process for individual opt-in records and mass batch files?
  • Should the vendor provide a toll-free number that message recipients can call to hear the last message delivered to their phone number?
  • Should the vendor provide the option for residents to launch a test call to registered devices during the enrollment process?
  • Should the vendor provide registrants the options to enroll with or without using a managed account?

Thank you for your assistance in answering these questions. We look forward to hearing from you.

Best regards,
Answer:

Hi XXX,

  • We have initiated less than six reverse phone call events in the past year.  We do not believe this is relevant to our current CSP as what we have does not offer similar features to what we are requesting.
  • The cost of our current tool is not germane to this CSP as they are not the same products.
  • The SFY17 budget has not been set for this project.  Budgets will be set in June.
  • The county will provide MSAG data (E911 Data).  CSP’s provided by vendors should outline available options to include supplied data options.
  • Exhibit A must be responded to and certified.  Exhibit B is what will be evaluated during vendor demonstrations.
  • Proof of liability insurance coverage should be included.
  • AE BEST / Moodys rating should be included for the vendor if available, not for the insurance carriers.
  • As specified in the Request for CSP, the vendor must support initiation of WEA and EAS through IPAWS, we are not concerned about the other three.
  • We do not require written proof of  IPAWS testing, you will certify that capability in Exhibit A.
  • We don’t need proof of system utilization on an incident.
  • It is not a requirement to participate in JITC.
  • The county does prefer a single interface for initiating all alerts.
  • Evaluation of “call-out” method will be conducted in the demonstration.  We do not have a pre-set preference.
  • Per the Request for CSP, we require the vendor to support complete activation of the system from a smart device.
  • The county does not have a set level of support and training, we expect the vendors to provide that as part of their CSP based on their experience.
  • We do not require a system wide test call. Vendor should provide available options and their recommendations in their CSP.
  • We do not intend to supply custom geo coded information other than our MSAG information.
  • Gallatin County does not intend to provide a custom structure layer.
  • Gallatin County does not have a pre-defined preference on a toll-free call in number.  Vendor should provide available options and their recommendations in their CSP.
  • Gallatin County does not have a pre-defined preference on residents launching a test call to registered devices.  Vendor should provide available options and their recommendations in their CSP.
  • Gallatin County does not have a pre-defined preference on registration enrollment options with managed versus unmanaged accounts.  Vendor should provide available options and their recommendations in their CSP.

Question #2, 3/17/16

Question:

Hello Mr. Lonergan,

May we ask your team: Do the procurement rules governing this RFP process dictate that the County purchase the lowest cost compliant bidder?  Or are the rules such that the County must purchase the lowest cost bidder?

Thank you in advance for your response,

Answer:

Good Morning XXXX,

Gallatin County does not have to take the lowest price, our selection is based on the scoring criteria outlined in the Request for Competitive Sealed Proposal.

Thanks-

Patrick

Question #3, 3/24/16

Question:

Dear Mr. Lonergan-

It will be our intention to provide a proposal for the current outstanding RFP.

I would like to ask you a clarification question:

Is the Exhibit A (pass/fail)  a ‘must’ meet at the time of the CSP submission or at the time when the contract/service is expected to start (July 1st)?

If one item is currently being developed, but not necessarily in production today, but it will be in July, would you still consider that acceptable?

Answer:

Hi XXX,

Good Question.  The capability/ feature must exist at the time of submission of a CSP.  A capability/ feature that is under development and not available until July 1, 2016 is not acceptable.

Thanks-

Patrick

Question #3B, 3/24/16

Question:

Thank you for your prompt response. If I can ask a follow up one..

You state that ‘ ALL  criteria’ must be met to be considered and move forward to the second step….  are you strict about that, independent of what the specific criteria is? Or you will evaluate based on all responses…

Just want to make sure that we can appropriately consider if to submit or not..

Best regards,

Answer:

Hi XXX,

Gallatin County feels that the criteria listed Exhibit A is a minimum capacity that must be met for further consideration.  As such, a vendor must meet all of the criteria in Exhibit A in order to be considered.

Thanks for the question.

Patrick

Request for Competitive Sealed Proposals