Lake County Addendum Forum

RFP 15235 DOT Operations Assessment

Addendum 1


The hyperlinks listed in the RFP document have been updated:

  1. LCDOT Home Page
  2. LCDOT Mission, Purpose, and Organizational Chart
  3. LCDOT Five Year Highway Improvement Program
  4. Lake County’s 2040 Transportation Plan
  5. Illinois Route 53/120 Project
  6. Lake County FY2015 Approved Budget


Question 1.Please clarify how Lake County would like to see the pricing submitted for Phase II.  Should it be through a high level estimation or just a submittal of hourly rates?

Response 1.  High-level estimate for Phase II prior to selection.  County and selected consultant will work together to finalize pricing for Phase II based on findings in Phase I.

Question 2.The RFP requests that the Proposer create impartial insight into citizen level satisfaction.  Does Lake County have current citizen survey results or is it the responsibility of the vendor to conduct a citizen survey?

Response 2.  Selected consultant provides ideas for obtaining citizen-level satisfaction, though the County is willing to work with the consultant to gather this info (e.g., DOT has posed questions in County Board member newsletters previously and received great results).

Question 3.Is there a specific timeframe that Phase I should be completed by?

Response 3:  May or June 2016 completion for Phase I; consultants explain whether or not this is feasible in submitted documents and interview.

Question 4.The RFP requests that the Proposer evaluate the existing technology and technology needs of DOT.  Can Lake County provide a listing of all current technology and any proposed new software programs?

Response 4.  Technology includes but is not limited to:

ESRI (GIS mapping)
Bentley Microstation, Inroads, Geopak, etc. (Engineering Design Systems)
Faster Fleet System (Manages Work Orders, Billing, Fleet inventory, etc.)
PASSAGE (Traffic Management Center)
CompassCom (AVL GPS for snow plows along with mechanical requirements)
Vehicle Diagnostics (AllData, WiTech, etc.)
CPMS (Capital Programming System)

(Not meant to be an exhaustive list.)

Question 5.On page 11 of the RFP, under General Terms and Conditions, Number 33, the County asks for the team to provide an organizational chart and resumes of key professionals.  However, on pages 16 and 17 of the RFP, under Submittals, there is no section outlined on where to include the org chart and key personnel resumes.  In what section of the response would the County prefer to receive this information?

Response 5.  Please submit the organizational chart and detailed resumes for key professionals in the Company Background section.

Question 6.  On Page 17 of the RFP, Submittals, under Number 5. Client References, the County asks for, “Three references should be provided that required similar software be provided in the past five years.”  Is the word “software” in this sentence a typo or is the County looking for something specific here regarding software?

Response 6.  Please provide references for similar services that were provided in the past five years.

Question 7.In Phase 1 of the Scope of Work, the county asks for a review of the “existing technology and technology needs”.  What specific technology does the County currently own and utilize that would be subject to this review?

Response 7.Please see the response to question #4.

Question 8.  Is there an established budget for this project?

Response 8.  The anticipated budget for phase 1 is $50,000.

Question 9.  Do current baseline performance measures exist? If yes, what are the current performance metrics?

Response 9.  The County maintains a County-wide performance management program for performance measures.  The County will provide the applicable performance measures to the awarded consultant.

Question 10.  Do you have established process workflows, policies, or procedures documenting your business processes? If yes, can these be provided?

Response 10.  Yes, they will be provided to the awarded consultant.

Question 11.  The RFP mentions that this is a proactive, objective assessment. Are there any other drivers for this project specifically with DOT, such as known service breakdowns, etc.?

Response 11.  No.

Question 12.  Does the City Administrator’s Office (CAO) have specific business areas in mind for focus (e.g., technology based efficiencies, permitting, or pothole reporting)?

Response 12.  No.

Question 13.  What are examples of interim presentations that you envision being needed as well as the audience for these?

Response 13.  The awarded consultant will be required to present to Lake County administration staff and the Public Works and Transportation Committee.

Question 14.  Do you have any fundamental change expectations in the business or organization that you feel are critical?

Response 14.  A proactive, objective operations assessment to understand what is working and what could be improved within LCDOT operations and management.

Question 15.  Does the County have any expectations around how to assess citizen service level satisfaction?

Response 15.  Please see the response to question #2.

Question 16.Will this project be managed by the CAO or by DOT?

Response 16.CAO.

Question 17.  Are there any limitations related to the DOT staff availability for those DOT staff intended to participate in this effort?

Response 17.  Lake County will work with the awarded consultant for staff availability.

Question 18.  Since the scope for Phase II will be determined as a deliverable of Phase I, can we provide hourly rates for Phase II, assuming that the scope for Phase II will be developed to be consistent with the County’s budget?

Response 18.  Please see the response to question #2.

Question 19.  The County anticipates Phase I beginning in January of 2016.  Are there any expectations on when Phase I will be completed?

Response 19.  Please see the response to question #3.