Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRFP - P847 COMPUTER AIDED DISPATCH (5)CITY OF FORT COLLINS ADDENDUM No. 5 P-847 COMPUTER AIDED DISPATCH SPECIFICATIONS AND CONTRACT DOCUMENTS Description of Bid P-847 Computer Aided Dispatch OPENING DATE: August 16, 2002, 2:00p.m. (Our Clock) To all prospective bidders under the specifications and contract documents described above, the following changes are hereby made. Q: Could you clarify the meaning of the term NEARLINE? A: Nearline data is data that has been archived from the active database to some type of archival server (tape or CD or ??), but that is still available to the user without the intercession of a system administrator or the need to run different software (as with off-line data). Nearline data should be transparently (and automatically) available to the user after a short delay during which time the archived data is accessed and reloaded to the active database and all references to the old archive are destroyed. The reload is necessary as it is highly likely that additional data would be added and it is desired that all data of a type be stored together whenever archived. The reloaded data would stay in the active database as long as it was being actively accessed and modified. After the data sits idle for a system administrator defined period of time it would be re-archived to the archival database. Q: Should all interfaces be considered as two-way? A: No, it depends on the interface as follows: 2-5.2 Computer Aided Dispatch - One way - If the CAD is a different vendor then the interface only needs to be one way CAD to RMS/JMS. 2-5.3 E911 Interface - One way - From E911 to CAD. 2-5.4 ProQA Interface - Two way - CAD would pass through the questions from the ProQA server and the answers would be sent back to the ProQA server. OR - One way - All functionality of the ProQA EMD system for call evaluation would be resident in the CAD system and only the responses to an incident would be sent to the ProQA server. In either case the EMD questions and responses are expected to be a part of the incident audit trail in CAD. 2-5.5 TDD Interface - Two way - CAD to Vesta. 2-5.6 Master Timing Source - One way - Time Sync all servers and applications. 2-5.7 CCIC/NCIC Interface - Two way - CAD/RMS/JMS/Mobile to and from CCIC/NCIC. 2-5.8 SunPro Fire Records Management System - One way - CAD to SunPro. 2-5.9 Toning/Pager Interfaces - One way - From CAD/RMS to all Zetron toning and paging systems. 2-5.10ColoradoIBRSandNIBRS-One way - From RMS to CCIC. 2-5.11 Document Imaging (FCPS and LCSO) - One way - Index feeds from the CAD/RMS/JMS to the respective imaging system for image retrieval. 2-5.12Municipal Court System Interface - Two way - RMS/JMS to Full Court and Full Court to RMS/JMS. 2-5.13Voice - Two way - RMS to and from Voice AND - One way - From JMS to Crisco. 2-5.14 Livescan - One way - From RMS/JMS to Digital Biometrics. 2-5.15Certex-One way - From JMS to the Certex check writing software. 2-5.16Commissary-Two way - JMS to Swanson and Swanson to JMS. Q: What is meant by the word FORM (i.e.3-5.1(17)) p.13? A: Depends on context. In this context it means an on screen input mask. Q: Should AVL be priced as a standard/optional part of this bid response or not at all? A: The intent is to purchase an AVL solution however we need to seed the pricing for AVL in both of the requested configurations (see pricing response spreadsheet). Q: Will the City please provide a copy of the network diagram of the existing WAN, referenced on page 6, section 1-3.10 Computer Room and Network Description – All Agencies? A: To be provided. Q: Given the electronic format dictated by the RFP, how would the City like vendors to submit authorized, binding signatures as required by the City’s RFP Cover Letter? A: In Section 1-14, paragraph 4 the RFP states “Original proposals must show the company name and indicate the company officer or employee who has the authority to bind the company or firm by their signature.” No signature is required. Q: In reference to RFP section 1-14 Terms and Conditions, of the City’s RFP, will the City indicate how vendors are to respond in the case where a requirement accompanied by a blank space in the Excel document is actually a preface for another requirement or set of requirements? For example, in the Global System Specifications, requirement 2-3.1 (1) states, “The vendor shall supply comprehensive documentation for the proposed CAD/RMS/JMS and associated applications which covers at least the following subjects:” In this case, the requirements that follow (2-3.1 (1.1-1.7)) seem to be the actual requirements whereas 2-3.1 (1) seems to be a preface to the actual specifications. Similar examples exist in requirements 2-3.5 (5), 2-4.1 (3), 2-5.7 (7), and 2-7.1 (1), among others. A: We would recommend a “Yes” answer to the preface if there will be any “Yes” answers in the following related fields, a “No” if there will be only “No” answers and so on. Q: In reference to RFP Section 2-6, will the City define all data elements to be converted? A: Most of the data to be converted exists on either the Fort Collins Police Services PRC Tri-fox system or the Larimer County Sheriffs Office’s Unisys system since all of the participating agencies have been sharing to some extent for several years. There may, however, be some stored data held at the smaller agencies to be transferred but as stated in paragraph 2-6, these file conversions will be on a case by case basis. Data elements will be defined by the respective agencies dependant on the database schema of the chosen vendor and the final data sets to be converted. Q: Do the Participating Agencies expect the full compliment of proposed hardware to be installed and tested during the initial 30 day evaluation period? If yes, are the Agencies willing to pay for the hardware upon delivery? If no, what configuration will be considered representative of the proposed system? A: The Participating Agencies expect that all servers and software needed for the system as proposed will be installed and tested before the initial 30 day evaluation period. It is not required that the client environment be fully installed before or during the evaluation period (the participating agencies will be providing the client computers in any case). If the system fails the evaluation, then the vendor will be expected to remove all server hardware and all software. The Participating Agencies will not purchase any hardware used for the evaluation if this failure occurs. The only payment that would be made is for the reasonable cost for staff time and basic setup costs (documentation of all expected expenses must be provided prior to the evaluation). This process is detailed in the RFP in paragraph 2-3.12. If the system is acceptable then payment for hardware would be made as agreed in the contract. It is not acceptable to use different hardware for the evaluation, it must be the hardware that will run the system upon acceptance. Q: As the Excel specifications document currently stands, there is no word wrap enabled and the sheet is protected, to facilitate editing of comments, will the City release an unprotected version of the sheet or a protected version that allows word wrap in the Comments column? A: The comments column on the response spreadsheet is not intended to allow word wrap to avoid lengthy response comments expanding the spreadsheet. As stated in paragraph 1-7, it is intended that vendors attach a separate Word document with the reference number (i.e. 2-16.1 (1)) if comments exceed the column space provided. Q: Regarding points 2-13.1 (2) and 2-13.1 (3) Please elaborate on the intent of these points and how the user would interact. Please provide an example for each of the two points. Please elaborate on the differences between the two points, and the differences in how the user would interact with the feature(s). A: The intent of these specifications are to ensure that the system automatically creates messages to other entities/individuals as needed and as defined by the process being completed by the user at the time. For example the system would notify classification personnel with both an internal message and an external e- mail that an individual had been booked and was waiting the classification process. The reason for the capability for both an internal and external message is so that a user need not sign on to know of pending work and so that actions could be prompted by entities/individuals who do not use the system. Q: In section 5-1.1 WORKFLOW PROCESS Please define your use of the term “workflow”. Does this refer to processes from one user to another or is this the management of tasks for a single user from one screen of information to another? A: Workflow process is defined as the steps (taken in the order defined by each agency) needed to complete a task (such as a booking or case report entry) by one or many individuals. As such the answer to the second part of the question is “Both”. Q: General workflow questions To what extent do you see the need to manage the flow of work from one person to another? Will you be managing work both inside and outside of the organization? How much tracking of multi-person work do you require? Do you need reporting tools to show the amount of work processed and through which steps? A: Management of workflow is seen as vital both for a single person and from person to person. Work processes could extend beyond the system but it is not our expectation that the system track anything beyond what is requested in the RFP. A high level of tracking is desired, however reporting is desired for the status in a process more than quantity of work processed in most cases. Q: Several areas of the RFP refer to an Appendix. Please provide the Appendix. A: Sorry, it was left out through an oversight. It will be provided. For your information the forms are being provided as a reference of current work processes and the data captured by each. It is not the intent that the vendor match exact format or content of many of the forms (some must match due to state reporting requirements). Final look and content of forms output will be negotiated at the time of award and contract. Q: Section 2-14.1 (11): The vendor shall describe any reports offered as part of their proposed CAD/RMS/JMS application that are not required hereafter. What does "hereafter" mean? A: Badly written. What this means is that we want to know of any reports that come with the system in addition to the reports that have been specifically requested later in the RFP. Q: Section 2-14.2(n): Is the City asking for a list of predefined reports other than the ones implied by the requirements? A: No Q: Section 3-5.6(5): Please clarify the term "business rules?” A: As defined by the context of the RFP specification it is “the ability to define variables (business rules) to adhere to current protocols.” In other words, configure the system to the way we currently do business in regards to this function. Q: Section 3-5.7 (20): Please provide clarification regarding the following requirement. The proposed application shall allow the user to configure the system to recognize which ambulance unit is first or last call in reference to time of day and/or day of the week. A: The intent is to be able to configure the dispatch order of ambulances based on the priority of the call at a particular time of day or day of week and not have the system limit the dispatcher to only the closest ambulance. (i.e., for a non- emergency call the system could be configured to recommend an ambulance from a lower call area during certain days/times and retain a central ambulance for emergencies.) If you have any questions please contact Keith I. Ashby, CPPO, buyer, at 970-416-2191. RECEIPT OF THIS ADDENDUM MUST BE ACKNOWLEDGED BY A WRITTEN STATEMENT ENCLOSED WITH THE BID/QUOTE STATING THAT THIS ADDENDUM HAS BEEN RECEIVED.