November 2, 2009



May 15, 2019

RFQ 18-01, Streaming Video and Audio Services

Issued by the California Coastal Commission

Addendum 1

Written Questions and Responses for RFQ 18-01

This Addendum is to provide potential vendors with the written questions received by the May 13, 2019, 5:00 p.m. deadline, with the California Coastal Commission’s responses to those questions.

Questions and Answers

1. Question: Whether companies from Outside USA can apply for this? (like,from India or Canada)

Answer: Yes, however the services are provided in person in the coastal areas indicated in the RFQ so having a local company is preferred.

2. Question: Whether we need to come over there for meetings?

Answer: Yes. Please read the RFQ for details of the services that need to be provided at each meeting in person.

3. Question: Can we perform the tasks (related to RFP) outside USA? (like, from India or Canada)

Answer: No.

4. Question: Can we submit the proposals via email?

Answer: No. All quotes must be printed on paper and sealed in envelopes per the RFQ. Please read the RFQ for submittal requirements, in particular the information contained on pages 1 and 5.

5. Question: Page 3, item 1, bullet 2 indicates that the contractor provide “full-service gavel-to-gavel electronic meeting coverage…” Would the State care to elaborate on the meaning of “full-service” ?

Answer: Please reference Section IV- Scope of Work for more information.

6. Question: Page 4, bullet 2/3: Many contractors are now offering to provide data on USB drives. Would the State like to consider the option of receiving USB drives instead of DVDs with meeting data on them, or at least include them in the list of media to be used? If the option is considered, reference to USB should also be added on page 7, item h and page 15, Products, item 1.

Answer: Yes, USB drives are now included in the list of media to be used.

7. Question: Page 4 item B (Availability) and page 7, item 7, and page 8, item 8 all essentially reference ‘contract personnel.’ We believe this language is from RFQs/contracts where the educational and professional experience of a particular person in a particular role are of vital importance. That is not the situation for a vendor providing video-production/webstreaming services. What is being hired is the company, not the various individuals that go out and do the work. Would the State remove this language, recognizing they are contracting with the company, and remove the expectation of contracted personnel?

Answer: At a minimum, the vendor must provide a chart with the Principals and/or Senior Engineers that will be assigned to the project and indicate which roles may have staff that varies during the term of the contract. The names and phone numbers of these key roles also need to be provided.

It is preferred that the vendor provides an organizational chart showing the roles of the proposed team and a brief description of each of those roles. This helps the evaluation team determine whether the company’s assigned staff will have the expertise needed for the company to provide the services.

8. Question: Also, on page 8, item 8, the State requests ‘resumes for each identified member of the contract team.’ Given that a company may have a multiplicity of State agency contracts, as well as the company’s employees having scheduling challenges, a company may not be able to specify a ‘contract team.’ The State may want to request a list of potential crewmembers, with designation of who might be the crew-leaders, all with years of experience providing the services required by this RFQ. However, given that the State is asking for five hardcopies of the proposal, it is a waste of paper to provide resumes for all potential production technicians. Would the State consider removing this item (page 8, number 8)?

Answer: Resumes of staff identified on the organizational chart are needed to assist in the state’s evaluation process. Resumes are not needed for staff that might vary during the project, although it is preferred to have resumes for all staff who will be assigned.

9. Question: Page 6, First full paragraph states that the services ‘cannot be set up in less than 2-3 hours…” This is misleading, as the current vendor averages 6 hours depending on the venue, with the majority of the set-up done the day before. The contractor is on site at least 2 hours before meeting start time in order to complete testing as required. Would the State consider revising those numbers to be more accurate in the amount of time it takes to set-up and test the equipment complement required to provide services?

Answer: It is the responsibility of the vendor to ensure that their equipment is set up and fully tested two hours prior to the meeting start on the first day and one hour prior to the meeting start on subsequent days. Any time estimates of the current process are provided purely on an informational basis. The State understands that different vendors may need more or less time to complete this process.

10. Question: Page 7, item f. references 250 concurrent viewers. Concurrent viewers is an out-of-date concept, held over from the early days of streaming services where each additional viewer did have an impact on content delivery systems. However, that is no longer the case, with CDNs more likely to structure their pricing based on bandwidth usage, usually working with their customers to identify a baseline of bandwidth used per month at a certain cost, with a mechanism in place in case a particular month goes over the maximum amount of bandwidth allotted under the contract. Bandwidth usage is less related to number of viewers and more dependent on the type of device being used, the amount of bandwidth allowed in a certain location and other variables. Would the State consider removing all references to concurrent users (also on page 16 item 6 and on Attachment 3, item 6) and allow the vendors to explain what might trigger a cost for unusual bandwidth usage by the agency and what the cost may be?

Answer: Vendor needs to provide a CDN that can live stream the Commission meetings at a minimum of 250GB, up to 350GB, per day at 650kbps.

11. Question: Page 11, the second sentence just below the bulleted list reads “In cases where the meeting schedule is not specific on location (e.g. LA or Orange County) the higher quote, if applicable, will be used for the cost evaluation.” Would the State please clarify what is meant by this sentence? Where does the higher quote come from when there is only one line item for those counties?

Answer: The quote amount is determined by adding the cost for a three-day meeting in each location listed on the 2019 Meeting Date and Locations contained in Attachment 6.

The Attachment 2 – Cost Sheet has the following locations listed: San Diego, Los Angeles County, Orange County, Ventura County, Santa Barbara County, San Luis Obispo County, Santa Cruz/Monterey County, San Francisco/Bay Area, and North Coast Area (Mendocino/Humboldt/Del Norte/Eureka). The Attachment 6 – Commission Meeting Schedules list locations such as “L.A./Orange County.” If a vendor lists one cost for a three day meeting in Los Angeles County and a different cost for Orange County, then the higher cost of the two will be used when calculating the quote amount.

12. Question: Page 15, Products, number 3. Would the State please change this item to read: “….within 3 business days…”? Given that most meetings end on a Friday, and the crew has to return to the home office with pertinent data, it is difficult for contractor staff to meet the requirement to have the detailed indexing done for three meetings by the Monday after a meeting.

Answer: Yes, this item is now changed to “within 3 business days.”

13. Question: Page 20, Itemized cost detail. Would the State please consider removing this from the RFQ as it is has no applicability to anything. The State is asking for day rates, including all travel expenses to be reflected on Attachment 2. The State is not reimbursing travel costs, which are variable, depending on meeting location, cost of hotel rooms, how much the crew eats, etc. To break down the package of services that are required in order to fit on two lines would be an exercise in futility, having no bearing in reality. It is the package of services the State is requesting, with rates established for one day, two day and three day (plus) meetings. Therefore, only the only pricing list needed for the proposal/contract is page 19 of Attachment 2. (The detail format is a holdover from previous RFOs that were written under CMAS, in which pricing was broken into artificial categories and tied off to vendor’s contracts. Marginally appropriate in that situation, this format is totally unnecessary in this RFQ.)

Answer: The State needs the Itemized Cost Detail sheet to determine whether vendors are including appropriate costs in their Cost Sheet. Vendors can expand and modify the Itemized Cost Detail sheet to add lines as needed. If needed, a Word version of the RFQ is available at or by requesting it by email to jessica.chan@coastal..

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download