Answer 22: Percentages for each evaluation category will not be provided. Lake County encourages vendors to put an equal amount of consideration into the responses for every aspect of the proposal.
Question 23: Regarding page 13 – Submittal Requirements – A. Detailed Submittal Requirements – 3. Scope of Services – The County states, "Proposals should be prepared as simple as possible and provide a straightforward, concise description of the proposed products and services to satisfy the requirements of the RFP.” Does the County seek point-by-point responses to the section II. Scope of Services criteria on pages 4-13. Conciseness is emphasized, so we wanted to clarify.
Answer 23: Responses don't necessarily need to be point by point according to the scope, and the order is left to the discretion of the vendor.
4/13
Question 24: Answers to questions will significantly impact responses to Lake County's RFP. To accommodate additional information detailed in answers to the questions, we respectfully request the County provide an extension to the proposal submission deadline by two weeks, modifying the due date to May 11, 2026. This extension will give vendors adequate time to incorporate answers to questions into their proposal responses since questions can be submitted up to April 20, 2026.
Answer 24: Vendor responses are due April 27, 2026 at 11:00am CDT, and Lake County will not be extending the deadline.
Question 25: Page 1 indicates that all submittals should be labeled with the provided label shown. Since the responses are required to be an electronic upload rather than a mail-in submission, can the County please clarify if the page 1 label needs to be included on the uploaded submission, or can the vendor omit the inclusion of this label?
Answer 25: Vendor responses must contain the information within the label on page 1 to help identify submittals. It is not necessary to specifically use the label on page 1.
Question 26: Beginning on page 4, Section II Scope of Work, item A - Monitoring Services, this section details duties to be performed by the awarded vendor’s central monitoring service center including: receiving enrollment information from the County and enrolling participants in the monitoring system; changing curfew schedules for program participants; removing program participants from the monitoring system; responding to predetermined alarms to troubleshoot and resolve; and providing a toll free telephone number for participants to contact for alarm resolution. Additionally, page 6, item D Local Technician, indicates that the vendor shall provide a local representative located in Lake County working Monday through Friday from 8am to 5pm Central time. We have the following questions to ensure we understand fully the new contract requirements and to ensure the appropriate number of staff are being provided.
A) Currently Lake County Probation utilizes two full-time, onsite vendor employees who work the above-mentioned hours and work in the Adult Probation facility. Can the County please clarify if the awarded vendor will be required to have two full-time, employees as is currently provided, or can the awarded vendor provide a single, full-time employee for the program, Can the County please clarify if office space for the vendor’s representative will continue to be provided or if the vendor must seek an alternative work location for the local employee?
Answer 26A: The County expects a minimum of one vendor employee on duty every day during the above business hours and understands this may require more than one employee to allow coverage for a single employee's PTO.
B) Would the County be opposed to the vendor’s local representative performing the services outlined above in lieu of those services being performed by the vendor’s central monitoring service center, i.e., enrollment and removal from the monitoring system, receiving and entering curfew schedules, responding/troubleshooting alarms during office hours, and providing telephone support for participants regarding alarm resolution?
Answer 26B: The County is willing to consider alternatives regarding this service.
C) On Page 8, item H Reporting, indicates that the vendor’s system shall provide standard reports in addition to requiring the vendor to provide other special reports as requested or include special reporting parameters as may be required by the County. Currently the County requires the vendor’s local onsite employees to provide specialized reports for transdermal alcohol monitoring participants. Since these specialized reports factor heavily in staffing allocation and time requirements, can the County please confirm the continued need for the current specialized transdermal report as well as provide details of any other types of non-standard reporting which may be required?
Answer 26C: If a client test positive for alcohol – the vendor provides an automated alert and a page report verifying that the client was positive for alcohol.
D) Currently the County requires the vendor’s local employees to provide case management services which include daily non-compliance reports for each alert violation and status reports for participant updates/changes as well as provide daily notices for program enrollment, completions, terminations, absconds, etc. None of these current reporting requirements are mentioned within the RFP. Can the County please clarify if these case management services will be required for the new contract term and awarded vendor?
Answer 26D: If a client is out and it is not approved the vendor will notify the probation officer directly – through an automated email (EHM clients)
E) Currently the County requires the vendor’s local employees to provide fee collection services for a small participant pay population. There is no mention of fee collection or participant pay population within the RFP. Can the County please clarify if there will be a participant self-pay population that requires fee collection services provided by the vendor? Will the current participant pay population be phased out prior to the execution of a new contract if these services are no longer required?
Answer 26E: The only vendor client direct pay is for clients sentenced to probation. All pre- trial cases are paid for by the county.
F) Currently the County requires the vendor’s local employees to provide a full program orientation for each new enrollment explaining the County’s requirements in addition to installing the equipment and providing instructions regarding the maintenance of the equipment. Can the County please clarify if the vendor will be responsible for full program orientation as a part of the new contract award, or will the vendor only be responsible for installation of the equipment and orientation as relates to maintaining the equipment?
Answer 26F: The onsite technician reviews the program with the client, explains how to maintain the equipment enters all information on the client including schedules and any other schedule changes. The onsite technician calls clients in to trouble shoot issues with the equipment.
Question 27: Currently the County receives an annual allowance for Lost/Damaged/Stolen equipment at no cost equivalent to 8% for GPS equipment and 5% for Scram alcohol monitoring equipment. In the last 12 months, the County has lost 11 GPS units equivalent to 35% of the active devices, 18 CAM bracelets equivalent to 10% of the active bracelets, 31 Wireless Base Stations equivalent to 31% of the active bases and 1 Remote Breath Pro equivalent to 17% of the active units. Given these lost equipment numbers, is the County open to accepting proposals that provide an allowance for Lost/Damaged/Stolen equipment at no cost with payment for losses that exceed this allowance, or should vendors factor these losses into their proposed daily monitoring rates for each equipment/service type?
Answer 27: The County expects the awarded vendor to manage the installation, removal, and inventory of equipment; and does not expect to be held responsible for lost, stolen, or damaged equipment.
Question 28: Page 5, item A xiv of Monitoring Services, indicates that the vendor shall have the ability to write files to a server and allow the County to retrieve the files daily through secure FTP or other secure transmission method. Can the County please clarify what types of files and/or data they wish to be able to retrieve on a daily basis via file transfer?
Answer 28: The only reports the county runs and will need access to is the “point reports.”
Question 29: Page 10, Section II Scope of Work, item N ii Radio Frequency, details the requirements associated with the use of Radio Frequency monitoring equipment. Since the County does not currently utilize Radio Frequency monitoring equipment, can you please confirm that the County does wish to have Radio Frequency monitoring equipment available through this RFP solicitation?
Answer 29: The County does not anticipate using radio frequency
Question 30: Currently the vendor is responsible for manual telephone calls to victims and law enforcement agencies for certain alerts and in certain cases as relates to Public Act 95-773, also known as the Cindy Bischoff Law, and Diane’s Law House Bill 958 which provides for monitoring of certain domestic violence offenders using GPS technology.
A) Since these notifications and required manual telephone calls go beyond standard monitoring center services which can include calls to program participants, and since these notifications require specialized handling/prioritization, can the County please confirm if these additional services will continue to be required as a part of the new contract award for certain cases?
Answer 30A: yes – answer to the question is outlined in question 5 – these are only for GPS clients with exclusion zones.
B) Additionally, if these services are required with the new contract award and since these specialized procedures require more extensive handling of alerts from the vendor’s monitoring center, will the County allow modification of the Price Sheet and Proposed Price table in order to include pricing for Victim Notification Protocol/Procedures?
Answer 30B: No
Question 31: Page 27 contains the Proposal Price Sheet information and utilizes a table with “Action Item” and “Proposed Price” columns. We have a few questions regarding this table.
A) In the column labeled “Proposed Price,” is the County requesting vendors indicate the per unit per day rate associated with each “Action Item” or Service Type? If a per unit per day price is not the intent of the “Proposed Price,” can the County please clarify what pricing information is requested for this column?
Answer 31A: Enter Per Unit / Per Day Rate. The revised RFP has been modified to reflect this change within the Price Proposal Table.
B) In the column labeled “Action Item,” the County has listed Active, Passive and/or Hybrid GPS Tracking altogether. Are vendors allowed to modify the table in order to include separate pricing information for each level of GPS Tracking?
Answer 31B: For the purposes of comparing prices amongst vendors, please include a total for this item. Vendors are welcome to include additional lines that further break down pricing.
C) In the column labeled “Action Item,” the County has listed Video and Voice Tracking in a single row/entry. Are vendors allowed to modify the table in order to include separate pricing information for various Video and Voice Tracking service options?
Answer 31C: Disregard this line as Video and Voice Tracking has been removed from this RFP.
D) In the column labeled “Action Item,” the County has listed Alcohol Monitoring (including Transdermal detection) in a single row/entry. Are vendors allowed to modify the table in order to include separate pricing information for breath alcohol monitoring and transdermal alcohol monitoring?
Answer 31D: For the purposes of comparing prices amongst vendors, please include a total for this item. Vendors are welcome to include additional lines that further break down pricing.
E) In the Proposed Price table, the County has indicated that vendors should provide a “Total” which serves as a fixed fee for all services delineated in this RFP. Since some vendors may offer multiple options for each Action Item/Service Type, such as multiple price points for the three individual GPS tracking services, this Total would vary drastically based on services proposed thus preventing unbiased evaluation based on the Total. Would the County be willing to modify the table to remove the row labeled “Total” given the large discrepancy that could exist dependent upon services offered by each vendor and thus evaluate pricing based on each individual service level?
Answer 31E: The "Total Line" has been removed from this RFP and is reflected in the revised RFP.
Question 32: Will the County consider alternative approaches to specified requirements that achieve core objectives provided the proposed solution meets or exceeds the defined performance, security, and reporting standards, and may offer greater cost efficiency?
Answer 32: Yes