January 31, 2022
Q#1: Are e-signatures allowed on the Addendum Acknowledgement Form, General Information Sheet, Vendor Disclosure Statement, and Vendor Certification Form? If not, which forms specifically require an ink signature?
A: e-signatures is allowed for the list of forms mentioned in this question.
Q#2: Should all elements of review address full department, or some only for policing? The scope of the review, as described on pages 13-15 includes the entirety of the LCSO department, including law enforcement, corrections, and administration. However, on page 13, several specific objectives are described as applying to policing. These are: Phase 1 objective b) operational readiness to changing cultural and technology needs, phase 1 objective e) current policies and practices as they align with established standards and best practices, and phase 1 objective g) appropriate staffing levels. Is it a correct interpretation of the scope that these three objectives should be focused only on law enforcement?
A: All elements of review should address full scope of all operations.
Q#3: Further, is it a correct interpretation that where policing is not specified the review should address law enforcement, corrections, and administration?
Q#4: Please clarify which items of the Scope of Work on pages 13-14 are considered tasks for the purposes of responding to the following instruction on page 16: “For each task that is identified in the scope of services outlined in the specifications, please identify your firm’s approach and response to address the desired service outlined in accordance with the Specifications.”
1) Does “each task” refer to each letter under Phase 1 and Phase 2? Only Phase 1?
A: Both phases
2) Can you provide more clarity as to what the County seeks from the following task (p. 13): “Review - Importance of what is done for compliance, standards, and best practice?” What does “importance of what is done” refer to?
A: Review current procedures and technology used for employee compliance with updated policies and training.
3) Page 14 says the Consultant’s review will include a tour and assessment of LCSO’s facilities and infrastructure. Does LCSO and the County anticipate Consultant’s scope of work to include findings and recommendations on the physical plant of LCSO’s facilities?
4) Similarly, does LCSO and the County anticipate Consultant’s scope of work to include findings and recommendations on the physical plant and/or organization of the proposed Consolidated 911 & Emergency Operations Center?
5) Please clarify the number of references requested and specific time frame. Page 17 states 5 references should be provided for work completed in the public sector in the last 5 years. However, the References form on page 22 leaves space for 4 references and requests public sector entities with a preference for work completed in the last 3 years. Is it correct to interpret the requirements as providing 5 references for work completed in the last 5 years? Further, is it correct to understand the form provided on page 22 does not need to be used?
A: The County prefers to have 5 references similar to client size and have similar services in the last five years. Feel free to add an additional sheet for your 5th client.
6) Has the Lake County Board approved funds for this RFP in FY 2022 and/or FY 2023? If so, how much has been approved?
A: The County Board approved funds for FY2022 and pending approval for FY2023.
January 21, 2021
Q#1: Given that "scope, timeline and cost of Phase 2 will be jointly agreed upon between the County, LCSO and the Consultant" how would the County like for respondents to provide a cost proposal for Phase 2?
A: The cost proposal should be in estimate form. The final award of Phase 2 will be approved and awarded upon the conclusion of Phase 1.
Q#2: Does the County have an anticipated project start date?
A: The anticipated start date should be following County Board approval of Phase 1. Page 12 of the RFP provides the Project Timeline with an estimated approval date of April 12, 2022. Please note that the timeline may be subject to change.
Q#3: Regarding the County's recent CAD/RMS acquisition, would the County be willing to disclose the selected system and if it had assistance from a third-party consultant for this effort?
A: The vendor for the CAD/JMS/RMS/Mobile is Tyler Technologies, Public Safety Division. Crowe LLP has been contracted as the County’s project manager for the implementation.