Procurement Department


[PDF]Procurement Department - Rackcdn.com10ba4283a7fbcc3461c6-31fb5188b09660555a4c2fcc1bea63d9.r13.cf1.rackcdn.com...

5 downloads 129 Views 558KB Size

Procurement Department

2 Space Drive • Taylors, SC 29687-6072 • (864) 355-1279 • Fax (864) 355-1283 The School District of Greenville County

September 29, 2014

Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 114-57-8-20 Printer/Copier Program Addendum No. 3

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: The following information becomes part and parcel of Request for Proposal No. 114-578-20 effective this date. Please indicate in the solicitation response that the proposing firm has received this addendum. Firms may have the right to protest this addendum. Removal of Stay The referenced solicitation is no longer on hold, and will proceed according the schedule noted in this Addendum No. 3. All proposals shall be received in the SDGC Procurement Department no later than October 15, 2014 at 3:00 P.M. EDT. Questions/Answers The District received inquiries from interested firms before the inquiry deadline. These inquiries along with the District’s responses are located in an enclosure which by reference is incorporated in this Addendum No. 3. The District’s response (in italics) follows each question. These responses were provided by the District Instructional Technology (IT) Department. Sample Agreements The District received sample agreements from potential proposers. The District’s comparison of proposed agreements to the RFP is located in an enclosure, which by reference is incorporated in this Addendum No. 3. Period of Performance Change: The RFP states on Page 5 under the heading “Period of Performance” the following: The installation of the majority of the equipment is preferred to commence as noted in a later section, after issuance of an award, with installations within the year. An award resulting from this RFP will be for one (1) year from the date of award with the option to extend for one (1) year annually, with a potential total 1

of five (5) years in total, if agreed to by the successful proposer. The award and period of performance is valid for, and shall not exceed five (5) years. To this statement, the following is added: The initial contract term shall commence after issuance of an award and no earlier than June 15, 2015. This contract term revision will allow the successful firm to complete the majority of equipment installation and modifications over the District’s 2015 summer break. End of Period of Performance Section

All other terms and conditions of the solicitation remain unchanged and in force. The Inquiry Deadline has occurred. No further questions or comments will be addressed. Thank you for your interest in the District.

Patricia J. Phillips Procurement Officer

Enclosures: Questions/District Responses Comparison of Proposed Agreements

Copy:

(22 pages) (10 pages)

Eston Skinner, Director of Procurement

2

Questions from Potential Proposers and the District Responses Addendum No. 3 to RFP No. 114-57-8-20 Note: Many of the following questions regard the District’s acceptance of various products and services. Please note that the Request for Proposal process allows firms to propose any solution they wish provided said solution complies with and meets the requirements of the RFP. As stated in the RFP, only proposals that comply with the District’s RFP, including the District’s Terms and Conditions included in the RFP, will be considered as eligible for an award.

Question from Firm “A” Question No. 1: Please explain the reason for mandating PaperCut MF. There are numerous products on the market that provide similar capabilities. Our concern is that for whatever reason PaperCut MF fails, then Greenville County Schools could cancel the contract for lack of performance. District Response: District preference. Question No. 2: Is Greenville County Schools willing to commit to some level of volume to enable vendors to be somewhat assured that the cost of acquiring all the devices could be recouped over the term of the contract? Additionally, with some type of commitment from GCS more aggressive pricing could be \provided and reduce the overall cost of the contract. District Response: Refer to the RFP (page 8, paragraph 3) which clearly states, “Pricing cannot be based on any minimum prints or quotas, and must be consistent regardless of printer output.” Contract pricing shall be a consistent price per page and cannot be based on tiers, quotas, minimums or maximums number of print jobs. 1

Question No. 3: Given there are SLA’s in the contract that if not met would result in termination for cause, would GCS remove the termination for convenience clause from this RFP? District Response: As defined in the RFP, the District fully reserves all rights to terminate for cause and to terminate for convenience.

Questions from Firm “B” Question No. 4: Is the district open to a proposal that would use Ontario Leasing for financing of the opportunity? The basis would be to use a percentage of the historical prints for a base line CPC. The forms for this option are a part of the State of SC leasing contract - so all forms have been approved by SC Procurement Laws. A simple finance agreement from this source would be a part of the final contract. District Response: No, the District will not agree to lease solution for the printer/copier program. The RFP requires a Cost-per-copy solution with all inclusive rates. Proposals which contradict the requirements of the solicitation may be deemed non-responsive. Question No. 5: Is the incumbent provider allowed to leave the current printers in place due to the district being open to used printers being a part of this proposal? District Response: The District does not dictate the vendor’s source of printers for this program. See response to Question No. 15. Question No. 6: With regards to the specification of printing to a specific address does this mean the districts [sic] wants to [sic] user to be able to release documents from any location to print at a device close to the user? Please clarify and expand on this specification. District Response: In the RFP (page 8, under the heading “Pricing Category 1 – Black/White Classroom Printing”), delete the statement “Must be able to secure printing TO a specific address” and replace with the statement “Must be able to secure print FROM a specific address”. 2

The District desires to restrict print jobs from all sources except those specified by IT during printer setup. For example, print jobs should be accepted from the print server but should not be accepted from a rouge user using IP based printing. The desired result would be to ensure that only authorized users would be allowed to print to that device and to ensure that metering would not be bypassed. Alternative methods of achieving this goal would be considered whether hardware or software based. Question No. 7: How many total units are going to be a part of Papercut? District Response: Under the contract resulting from this RFP, all devices will be managed with PaperCut. The exact number of devices is not known but estimates are provided in the Request for Proposal (see e.g., pp. 11 – 12 of the RFP). Question No. 8: Can you please clarify the quantities for Category 1 & 2? District Response: The RFP (page 12, third paragraph) states in part, “It is estimated that there are approximately 5,682 b/w laser printers, 299 MFP devices, and 114 color laser printers required to fulfil this program (+/- 5%).” The RFP (page 12, fourth paragraph) states in part, “It is estimated that there are approximately 51 additional administrative MFP devices…” The RFP (page 12, fifth and sixth paragraphs) states, “There may be other District locations that require printers or MFP devices as part of this program. It is estimated that another 100-200 additional printers would be needed. “With the addition of new schools, administrative offices, or departments, it is required that the vendor remain flexible and be willing to add new devices above the numbers specified in this RFP throughout the term of this agreement as needed to accommodate future printing needs. It is expected that additional devices will be required during the term of this contract. Vendors must be willing to place additional devices to meet these additional needs during the entire course of this contract.”

3

Question No. 9: Are the 51 Category 5 units the same as the Admin units mentioned in the RFP? District Response: The District is unsure what is being asked. Question No. 10: Is the district allowing for state contract preferences for companies based solely in the state of SC? District Response: No.

Questions from Firm “C” Question No. 11: Will bids be evaluated if bidders submit alternate and additional terms and conditions, representative and appropriate for the proposed solution, and inclusive and aligned with the enclosed HP MPS Statement of Work? District Response: All proposals shall be evaluated regarding compliance with the solicitation’s requirements. See Pages Two (2) and Three (3) of the RFP in particular. Proposals which contradict the requirements of the solicitation may be deemed non-responsive. Question No. 12: (Firm “C”) submits the enclosed (Firm “C”) MPS Statement of Work for consideration in the final awarded contract, with terms and conditions representative of the proposed solution, and agrees to negotiate in good faith to meet the mutual interests of the District and (Firm “C”). The MPS Statement of Work is inclusive of a variety of offerings for consideration by the District. It will be refined by the District and (Firm “C”) to the final agreed upon solution options that interest the District during contract negotiations Will the District agree that only a defined, negotiated, and mutually agreed upon contract represents the entire agreement? District Response: No. Question No. 13: If a bidder submits pertinent agreement documents prior to the Inquiry Deadline, can we note “with exceptions” in the Certification submitted with the final bid response?

4

District Response: Proposals shall be evaluated based solely upon what the solicitation states and requires of the proposers. Taking exception to the RFP contents may render the proposal “non-responsive”. Question No. 14: Is the District capable of insuring equipment that resides on District premises where it is within the control of the District to protect from damage or loss? District Response: If the vendor deems it advisable or necessary to insure its equipment, any insurances costs would be paid by the vendor. Minimum insurance requirements for proposers are set forth on pages 42 – 44 of the Solicitation. Question No. 15: Will the District allow statements of work with devices and services that have terms that survive expiration of the then-current contract period when the order is placed? District Response: No. Question No. 16: We request removal of the Source Code requirement on the basis this is not applicable for the commercial products and services contemplated by this award. District Response: The District will not remove the Source Code requirement. Question No. 17: We request removal of the Customized Software requirement on the basis this is not applicable for the commercial products and services contemplated by this award. District Response: The District will not remove the Customized Software requirement. Question No. 18: Estimated installation of devices would occur in the 2014/2015 fiscal year, however approximately 65 MFP devices would not be replaced until October/November of 2014. Does this mean October/November of 2015? Are these 65 part of the 299? District Response: No, this does not mean October/November 2015. As the date of award is anticipated to be after the stated date of October/November 2014, this 5

question is now moot. At the time of the award, the lease will no longer be in force; therefore, this will not be an issue. Yes, the 64 MFP devices that come off lease in October/November 2014 are included in the total count of 299 MFP devices that will be installed during the summer of 2015. Question No. 19: Invoices must be broken down by each District location and device, invoices must be sent to each individual location for approval and payment”. Would the District accept a consolidated invoice broken down into billing groups by individual location? District Response: As detailed in the RFP (page 12, paragraph 9), each District location is responsible for payment of its printing charges out of its own funding; therefore, a consolidated report/invoice is not acceptable. Each District location must receive its own invoice with charges detailed by device. Invoices must be sent to each individual location for approval and payment. Question No. 20: “Pay for any cost related to the relocation of equipment due to low utilization.” Does the [sic] refer to vendor-initiated recommendations for relocation for lowutilization? Please explain. District Response: In the event the vendor determines that a device is drastically underutilized and if agreed to in advance in writing by the District IT representative, the vendor may move this device to another location with a need. The vendor must pay for any cost related to this relocation. Question No. 21: What is the District’s expected delivery time once a toner cartridge request has been placed? Toner is often shipped via UPS or FedEx. District Response: Please refer to the section entitled “Maximum response time for toner” on page 14 of the Solicitation. Question No. 22: If the ability to control and monitor color is provided with the proposed solution will the district accept a workgroup business-class color printer as an option for classroom printing? This would be in consideration of other RFP requirements. 6

District Response: Yes, provided this proposed solution meets all requirements of the Solicitation and provided the proposer clearly states and explains the option being proposed. Any alternates which do not meet the requirements of the RFP will not be considered by the District. Questions from Firm “D” Question No. 23: Can you provide an entire list of devices that are currently in place with the school system? District Response: No, the RFP (page 12) details the District’s best estimates in the section entitled “Volume”. Question No. 24: Can you provide the actual monthly or annual volumes for each device within the school system? District Response: No, the RFP (page 12) details the District’s best estimates in the section entitled “Volume”. Question No. 25: Is there any possibility of awarding this contract to multiple vendors? District Response: No, the District intends to award this contract as one lot to the highest scoring proposer. Revise the RFP (page 1, paragraph 1) to delete the statement, “The District reserves the right to issue a secondary award to the second ranked proposer if needed.” Delete any RFP references to a “secondary award” or “secondary vendor”. As stated in the RFP (page 5, paragraph 2), “It is the intent of the District to have one (1) provider pursuant to this solicitation.” As stated in the RFP (page 17, section entitled “Notification”), the contractual relationship resulting from this solicitation may be awarded to the highest ranked responsible offeror whose responsive proposal is determined to be the most advantageous to the District, taking into consideration the evaluation factors set forth in the RFP.

7

Question No. 26: Will you entertain a substitution for Paper Cut? District Response: No. Question No. 27: Has a full assessment been done for the entire schools system? If so can you share the results of the assessment? Also, who performed the assessment? District Response: The information and expected requirements of the District set forth in the Solicitation (see, in particular, pp. 9 – 13 of the RFP) are based upon the best information available to the District at this time. Question from Firm “E” Question No. 28: In order to provide you the optimal pricing you deserve, can we understand that you will commit to 60% - 70% of stated volumes per band as stated in the RFP? District Response: No, the District does not commit to any volumes. The District’s volume terms and estimates are clearly detailed in the RFP (page 12, section entitled “Volume”). This section states in part, “The District does not obligate itself to purchase the full quantities indicated but the price offered must be allowed should the quantities described above be less.” (emphasis added) The District’s requirement may be less than or may exceed the quantities shown and all orders received by the Proposer during the term of the contract shall be filled in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the RFP. Questions from Firm “F” Question No. 29: Does SDGC currently own PaperCut? District Response: Various District sites do own PaperCut, but this should not be a consideration when responding to the RFP. The Vendor should provide for all new PaperCut licensing information with its proposal.

8

Question No. 30: Does SDGC have Card Readers from PaperCut on current equipment, or does the selected vendor need to order new ones? District Response: No, current equipment does not have card readers. Question No. 31: Will the printers (non MFD) be print release stations? (Additional hardware required) District Response: No, non-MFP devices will not be print release stations. Question No. 32: Pricing Category 3- Color MFP: SDGC specifies 50ppm minimum for black and white, is there a color ppm requirement? District Response: No, there is no color PPM requirement. Question No. 33: Will SDGC have just staff members using PaperCut or will you need the students to be tracked also? District Response: All District staff and students will be tracked. Question No. 34: Page 12. “Estimated installation of devices would occur in the 2014/2015 fiscal year, however approx. 65 MFP devices would not be replaced until October/November of 2014? District Response: As the date of award is anticipated to be after the October/November 2014 date, this question is now moot. At the time of the award, the lease will no longer be in force; therefore, this will not be an issue. Question No. 35: The RFP is very specific to a Cost per Copy program with no minimums. There are several different options that may meet the needs of the School District better. Are you willing to consider an alternative to the Cost Per Copy program that you described in the RFP? District Response: No. Any proposed alternate solutions which do not meet the requirements of the RFP will not be considered. Question No. 36: The State of South Carolina has an approved leasing partner Ontario Leasing. Is the school district willing to accept the state approved lease documents as an alternative bid response? (See Attached Documents)

9

District Response: No, the District will not agree to lease solution for the printer/copier program. The RFP requires a Cost-per-copy solution with all inclusive rates. Proposals which contradict the requirements of the solicitation may be deemed non-responsive.

Questions from Firm “G” Question No. 37: On Page 6, last paragraph, the district states “….reserves the right to award the project and commence operations sixteen days after the Intent to Award as been issued. Can you please clarify if “commence operations” is referring to initial planning and meets to discuss/arrange deployment, or is the vendor expected to begin deployment within sixteen days after the intent has been issued? District Response: In this paragraph, the phrase “commence operations” refers to initial planning and meeting to discuss/arrange program deployment. Note that the initial contract term as revised by this Addendum No. 3 will commence no earlier than June 15, 2015. Question No. 38: On page 8, is it GCSD’s intent for vendor staff to always install new toner into the printer devices? Does this include situations where GCSD staff has requested early delivery of toner, before replacement is needed? District Response: It is the vendor’s choice as to how toner is placed into the printer/copier device. Toner may be supplied to the District end user for replacement or the vendor’s technician may place the toner in the device. If toner replacement is to be performed by District personnel, the vendor must provide training for staff at each location a device is placed. While leaving a supply of toner onsite would be advantageous to uninterrupted District operations, the RFP does not require that the vendor place an inventory of toner at a District location before a low toner alert is received, or before a poor print quality condition exists, or before any other low toner condition is reported by a District staff person. Question No. 39: On page 9, under the classroom printing, GCSD states that new or non-new may be used, but new is preferred. If a vendor chooses to provide a recommendation that includes non-new printers, is there a specific percentage of classroom devices that need to be new? District Response: There is no specified percentage of classroom printers that must be new. 10

Question No. 40: On page 11, GCSD states “District staff will install and manage PaperCut, however the vendor/manufacturer may be engaged in cases where additional support is necessary”. Can GCSD provide an example in which a vendor/manufacturer would be engaged? Also, Is GCSD also requiring the vendor to provide first year premium support for PaperCut? District Response: A vendor/manufacturer would be engaged if District personnel encounters issues integrating PaperCut with the vendor/manufacturer’s equipment and PaperCut support deems this to be a manufacturer’s issue. The District may engage and require the vendor/manufacturer’s input to determine how best to resolve the issue. A proposer may propose any support for Paper Cut, and the rationale and cost for said support, for consideration by the District, provided that such proposal support is consistent with the requirements of the RFP. Question No. 41: On page 11, last paragraph, GCSD states that it solely will determine whether a printer is considered commercial or home/user grade. Can GCSD share what guidelines it will use to make such determinations? District Response: The District reserves the right to review any printer solution proposed before making this judgment. The District cannot anticipate all options which may be proposed; therefore, a definitive list of criteria/guidelines cannot be provided. Question No. 42: Page 12, within the volume section, GCSD lists the estimated volume and printer counts; however, RFP 114-57-8-20 calls for both a b/w and color MFP. Could GCSD please clarify the estimated count on color MFP’s, or clarify the breakdown of the MFP count given by b/w and color? District Response: The District currently does not have a significant number of color MFP devices, so no volume estimates are available. The vendor must take this into consideration and set pricing accordingly for color MFP devices. The majority of MFP devices placed by the vendor will not be color capable. Color capable was listed in this RFP as an option in the event a District location determines the need. Question No. 43: Page 12, within the volume section, Could GCSD please clarify what MFP devices will be needed for the additional 51 devices mentioned at the average 68,000 page count? For example, are these to be B/W, Color, 11x17, or come with the options (options listed on page 11, under pricing category 6) 11

District Response: These devices are located in administrative offices and specifications for these devices are not known at this time. The purpose of this Request for Proposal process is for firms to propose and provide solutions. Question No. 44: Page 12, GCSD states “It is expected that additional devices will be required….vendors must be willing to place additional devices to meet these additional needs….” Could GCSD please indicate situations that would generate the need for additional devices and clarify if this will be a mutual decision by the vendor and GCSD, or a decision solely made at the discretion of GCSD? District Response: An example of “additional needs” would be a new school requiring all new devices or a department experiencing increased printing demands that would warrant additional devices, etc. Under this RFP, the decision to place additional devices belongs to the customer, and the customer is The School District of Greenville County. Question No. 45: Page 12, GCSD states, “estimated installation of devices would occur in the 2014/2015 fiscal year…” What is GCSD’s expectations for the completed installation timeline all devices? District Response: The District is flexible with exact installation timelines, but it may be assumed that the installation schedule will be “Aggressive”. Note the change of earliest initial contract date as stated in the body of this Addendum No. 3. This contract term change will allow the successful firm to complete the majority of equipment installation and modifications over the District’s 2015 summer break. Question No. 46: Page 19, number 12, Is it GCSD’s intent for all service technicians of the awarded vendor be local to the school district? District Response: The District is unsure what is being asked. Technicians are not required to reside in Greenville County.

12

Questions from Firm “H” Question No. 47: In reference to property tax, how does Greenville County School District (GCSD) desire to pay? Is it to be included in the CPCs (cost per copies)? District Response: The District would not own the printer/copier equipment; therefore, no property tax will be paid by the District. Note that Cost-per-copy rates shall be all inclusive with no minimums. No hidden or undisclosed charges will be honored. Question No. 48: Upon award, will GCSD provide an opinion of council or board approval for the contract? Will GCSD require these items state that an approved procurement method was used to produce the award? District Response: The District is unable to interpret the vendor’s questions. To the extent these questions are inquiring about opinions or statements to be provided by the successful proposer, no such opinions or statements shall be required. Question No. 49: In regards to Pricing Category 1 b/w classroom printing, does GCSD have a requirement or preference to limit the number of models during the contract period? District Response: As much as possible and practical, the District strongly prefers a minimum number of models. Proposals that limit the number of models will be considered advantageous to the District and therefore will be ranked accordingly. A vendor may propose different models of the same manufacturer, but each model must be specified in the proposal/ response. The use of one manufacturer’s “universal driver” is strongly preferred. The District will determine if proposed model variations are acceptable. Question No. 50: In regards to Pricing Category 1, will GCSD accept 29ppm? District Response: Firms may propose whatever they wish. Question No. 51: In regards to Pricing Category 1, will GCSD accept discontinue date no earlier than January 1, 2006? District Response: The District will not reject devices based solely on the date of manufacture. Delete Addendum No. 1’s item number one which requires, “All non-new printers proposed must have a manufacture date no earlier than 2006.” 13

The District will accept devices manufactured before 2006 if the device and its supporting software/drivers are supported in Windows ver 8.1 and Windows server 2012 with support for both 32 and 64 bit architecture. The District will evaluate each proposed model to determine acceptability with regards to driver support for current software. During the contract period, in the event that the device no longer supports current software/operating systems, the vendor is expected to rectify this situation with current software/drivers or replace equipment with a more current model that can support current software. If at any time the device no longer supports current operating systems/software, the District may terminate this agreement for those devices. Question No. 52: In regards to Pricing Category 1, will private/secure print from PC to print device be acceptable for secure print to specific IP address? District Response: The statement in Category 1 “Must be able to secure printing TO a specific address” should read “Must be able to secure print FROM a specific address”. The District desires that print jobs be restricted from all sources except those specified by IT during printer setup. For example, print jobs should be accepted from the print server, but should not be accepted from a rogue user using IP based printing. The desired result would be to ensure that only authorized users would be allowed to print to that device and to ensure that metering would not be bypassed. Alternative methods of achieving this goal would be considered whether hardware or software based. Question No. 53: In regards to Pricing Category 2 b/w MFP, may a vendor offer 2 MFP models (one model closest to 50ppm but above 50ppm, and one model closest to 50ppm but below 50ppm) if a 50ppm MFP is not available? District Response: As noted in Addendum No. 1 (item 2), “Alternate submissions shall not be allowed.” “Multiple proposals containing alternate or different approaches or offerings shall not be allowed from one firm or entity. Firms shall not submit multiple, varying proposals.” The District will evaluate each proposed product’s specifications to determine if they are acceptable. 14

Question No. 54: In regards to Pricing Category 2, is an 11x17 scan glass preferred for book copying? District Response: If requested, the vendor shall supply one printer/MFP per school location capable of 11x17 prints. This device could potentially be one of the MFP supplied by the vendor or could be an additional device whose sole purpose is 11x17 prints. Question No. 55: In regards to Pricing Category 2, is an MFP capable of 11x17 printing and copying preferred? Devices that have this capability are generally accepted as more durable devices than A4 (maximum legal size output) devices and capable of handling GCSD high volume MFP usage. Answer: If requested, the vendor shall supply one printer/MFP per school location capable of 11x17 prints. This device could potentially be one of the MFP supplied by the vendor or could be an additional device whose sole purpose is 11x17 prints. Question No. 56: In regards to Pricing Category 2 and 3 and any devices that may have a hard drive, does GCSD have preference for data security? Would it suffice that this data security be end of device usage (hard drive removal or hard drive wipe)? District Response: Each proposer should address security measures in its proposal. The District does require that all hard drives be wiped prior to device being taken off District property. At no time will a device containing a hard drive be removed from District property without assurance to the District that all data have been removed. Question No. 57: In regards to Pricing Category 2 and 3, what type of proximity card does GCSD use? Will GCSD provide a sample card to verify compatibility to card readers? District Response: No, the District will not provide a sample card to potential proposers. Note that the proximity card reader must be able to read HID Corporate 1000 badges and be supported by PaperCut. Question No. 58: As vendors are required to take P-Card, what is the cost to vendors for merchant service fees to accept payment for these cards? Who is the vendor/bank of the P-Card? What type of card is it (Visa, Master Card, etc.)?

15

District Response: Bank of America (BOA) provides P-cards to the District. Acceptance of P-Cards is not required, but is preferred. The District will not conjecture as to amount of any merchant service fees as this is an issue between BOA and the merchant, not the District. The card type is Visa. Question No. 59: Are the proposed CPCs to include sales tax? District Response: Vendor should understand current State/Federal tax laws and charge accordingly in the Cost-per-copy (CPC) rate. Note that Cost-per-copy rates shall include all charges to the District. No hidden or undisclosed charges will be honored. Questions from Firm “I” Question No. 60: Do MFP devices need to support AirPrint? District Response: No, Airprint is not a requirement. Question No. 61: Are you seeking SecurePrint using PaperCut throughout the entire environment including mono and color laser devices, or just MFP’s? District Response: Just MFP must be capable of secure print. Question No. 62: Category 5 – 11 x 17 requirement. Does this printer need to have finishing items? District Response: In the event that the 11 x 17 is provided via a MFP device then a finishing option must be available. Question No. 63: Has a specific card reader been identified that meets requirements using the HID Corporate 1000 badges? If not, we’d need a sample card to determine which reader works best. District Response: No specific make or model card reader is specified.

16

Question No. 64: Would the School District of Greenville County be willing to consider a Cost Per Cartridge program including all services and software or a flat monthly rate proposal versus a Cost Per Page? District Response: No. Question No. 65: PaperCut Questions a. Total number of users in the Directory? District Response: PaperCut MF print management software shall be included as part of the base cost per page. For reference, the District currently has approximately 71,000 students and 10,000 staff members. Every MFP device provided must have a valid PaperCut MF license included in the cost-per-page price as well. b. Number of Print Servers? District Response: One per site (approximately 85 sites). c. How many years of support are required? District Response: Throughout the term of this contract. d. Number of embedded licenses for MFP devices? District Response: Required for all MFP devices. e. We show 299 in RFP. Please confirm. District Response: It is estimated that there are approximately 299 MFP devices. It is estimated that there are approximately 51 additional administrative MFP devices. With the addition of new schools, administrative offices, or departments, it is required that the vendor remain flexible and be willing to add new devices above the numbers specified in this RFP throughout the term of this agreement as needed to accommodate future printing needs. It is expected that additional devices will be 17

required during the term of this contract. Vendors must be willing to place additional devices to meet these additional needs during the entire course of this contract. f. Since card readers are needed, please confirm that HID Corporate 1000 badges are used throughout the environment. District Response: HID Corporate 1000 badges will be used throughout the District. g. Is iPad or other tablet printing required? District Response: Tablet printing and ipad printing are not required. h. Do any printers require a method to authenticate (Secure Print Release)? If so, how many? District Response: Printers do not require a method to authenticate. Question No. 66: In response to the requested 4-hour response time for supplies, in the rare occurrence of an out-of-box failure, is there a central location for the school district that can store surplus toner and be delivered by district personnel as needed? District Response: No District “central location” will be provided for toner storage. For the purpose of responding to this question, an “out-of-box toner failure” is defined as a new toner cartridge being found inoperable/unsuitable upon remove from its original packaging and placement in a District printer/copier. In the rare event that an out-of-box toner failure occurs, the District location will request a new toner cartridge and will allow the vendor an additional 4 hours to respond. Question No. 67: a. What is the estimated replacement schedule for the existing print fleet? How aggressively and under what time frame will these machines be replaced? b. Stated on p. 12 of the RFP, it states that 65 will not be replaced until October/November of 2014. Is this accurate? Please confirm the fiscal year. 18

District Response: a. The District will remain flexible with installation timelines, but it may be assumed that the schedule will be “Aggressive”. Successful Contractor shall meet with the District after award to establish timeline for implementation. b. The 65 leased MFP devices may not be replaced until after the expiration of their lease. As the date of award is anticipated to be after the October/November 2014 date, this question is now moot. At the time of the award, the lease will no longer be in force; therefore, this will not be an issue. Question No. 68: Given the complexities of this RFP and the need to have these responses back before we can complete our response, we would like to ask for an extension of the current RFP due date. District Response: The District has adjusted the proposal due date to allow adequate time for review of this Addendum No. 3 and proposal preparation. Questions from Firm “J” Question No. 69: Will the District make multiple awards ? (Example: Vendor A receives printer contract; Vendor B receives MFP contract) District Response: No, the RFP (page1, paragraph 1) states, “The program will be awarded as one (1) lot. Please refer to the District Response to Question No. 25. Question No. 70: It seems that the District spec of non-new printers potentially favors the two incumbents (Sharp/Kyocera or Lexmark) since they are most likely would be the only vendors capable of supplying 6,000 "non-new" printers, or a significant quantity of "non-new" printers to defray their other proposal costs. Suggestion, it may provide other vendors an opportunity to level the playing field if the District will accept Certified/Remanufactured/"Non-New" MFP units. Will the District accept Certified/Remanufactured MFP units of 2006 vintage or newer if the vendor can provide a description of their Certified/Remanufactured process and cover the Certified/Remanufactured MFP units same as new? If not, why is there a bias against "non-new" MFP units and openness to "non-new" printers? District Response: The District disagrees with the vendor’s inaccurate presumption of District “bias”. The District will not accept remanufactured MFP devices. 19

Question No. 71: Will the District accept a BW printer with 35,000 max monthly duty cycle ? Most classrooms will never achieve this volume and District is already accepting printers of 2006 vintage or newer. District Response: Firms may propose whatever they wish. Question No. 72: On Page 9 - Pricing Category 1 - what does the District mean by "Must be able to secure printing to a specific address" ? District Response: The statement in Category 1 “Must be able to secure printing TO a specific address” should read “Must be able to secure print FROM a specific address”. See Response to Question No. 52 Question No. 73: Page 9 - All MFP devices must be new. Will the District accept Certified/Remanufactured MFP units? District Response: No. Question No. 74: Page 9 - Will the District accept internal finishers that can staple 50 sheets? Example: there are A4 devices not capable of 11x17 paper that have internal finishers, but are at least 50 pages/min. District Response: Yes, internal finishers are acceptable to the District. The proposer may propose whatever device it wishes. Question No. 75: Page 10 - all color MFP devices must be new. Will the District accept Certified/Remanufactured color MFP units of 2006 vintage or newer if the vendor can provide a description of their Certified/Remanufactured process and cover the Certified/Remanufactured MFP units same as new? If not, why is there a bias against "non-new" MFP units and openness to "nonnew" printers? District Response: See District Response to Question 70. No, under this solicitation, the District will not accept remanufactured MFP devices.

20

Question No. 76: Page 10 - Can 11x17 printing option be printer or MFP based? District Response: Yes, the 11x17 option can be one of the MFP devices or a dedicated 11x17 printer. Question No. 77: What is the District's historical 11x17 printing volume on printers? District Response: Unknown, but volume expectations are minimal. Question No. 78: What is the District's historical 11x17 MFP volume on MFP ? District Response: Unknown, but volume expectations are minimal. Question No. 79: Will the District accept Digital Duplicators as a suitable, low cost alternative to BW MFP units ? District Response: The District will not commit to accept a machine not yet proposed. The District may consider digital duplicators if they meet all RFP requirements for MFP devices, including but not limited to: Network capabilities, security capabilities, scanning, faxing, copying, stapling, sorting/ finishing options, and card reader authentication. Digital duplicator must also be capable of being managed by and support the use of PaperCut. Question No. 80: Can the vendor maintain a toner supply at each District location? District Response: Yes. Question No. 81: Does the vendor have to replace the toner or will trained District personnel be allowed to replace toner? District Response: This decision is the vendor’s choice; however, allowing trained District personnel to replace toner is acceptable to the District. If toner replacement is to be performed by District personnel, the vendor shall provide appropriate toner replacement training for District staff at each location a device is placed.

21

Question No. 82: Does the District already own PaperCut MF ? District Response: Various District sites do own PaperCut, but this should not be a consideration when responding to the RFP. The Vendor should provide for all new PaperCut licensing information with its proposal. Question No. 83: Does the District already have experience with PaperCut MF? District Response: Yes Question No. 84: Why would the District not purchase it's [sic] own copy of Papercut MF and require vendors to comply with it? District Response: District preference. Question No. 85: When can vendors get a sample HID badge to perform reads from ? District Response: The District will not provide sample badges to potential proposers. Question No. 86: Page 12 - Estimated installation of devices indicates only 65 MFP units in October/November 2014. What is the estimated number of MFP and printer units to be placed in between September 1st, 2014 and March 31st, 2015? District Response: A. In light of the revised date of contract initiation, the estimated installation of the majority of devices would occur in the summer of 2015. B. The District estimates that there are approximately 299 MFP devices. C. It is estimated that there are approximately 51 additional administrative MFP devices. With the addition of new schools, administrative offices, or departments, it is required that the vendor remain flexible and be willing to add new devices above the numbers specified in this RFP throughout the term of this agreement as needed to accommodate future printing needs. It is expected that additional devices will be required during the term of this contract. Vendors must be willing to place additional devices to meet these additional needs during the entire course of this contract. 22

The School District of Greenville County

Procurement Department 2 Space Drive • Taylors, SC 29687-6072 • (864) 355-1279 • Fax (864) 355-1283

September 29, 2014

Printer/Copier Program Request for Proposal No. 114-57-8-20 COMPARISON OF PROPOSED AGREEMENTS TO RFP TERMS AND CONDITIONS ADDENDUM NO. 3 I. FIRM “A”- MANAGED PRINT SERVICES STATEMENT OF WORK (“SOW”) 

Paragraph 1 – Services Statement – Reference and incorporate the RFP and proposer’s response to the RFP.



Services & Pricing Statement 



Section 2.1, pp. 3 - 4 - Billing Model Table – Revise to conform to requirements contained in the RFP General Information section, pages 7-11 including, but not limited to, the “cost per page copy” Section (p. 7) and the “Invoices” Section (p. 12). Delete all references to Reconciliation Process, Reconciliation Frequency and Early Termination Fees, as these provisions do not comport with the RFP.

Description of Services 

Page 8 – Technical Support Services – Revise times for response to conform to RFP section entitled “Maximum Response Time for Repair,” pages 13-14.



Page 9 – Supplies Management Services – Revise the response time for replacing toner to conform to the RFP section entitled “Maximum Response Time for Toner,” pages 14-15

1





MPS-Specific Terms and Conditions 

Section 3.4 – Invoicing – revise to conform with the requirements of the RFP (page 12).



Section 4.3 – Payment – delete paragraph 4.3



Section 5.1 – Expiration – Revise to comply with the requirements of the RFP.



Sections 5.2. through 5.4 – Delete.



Section 5.5 – Customer Remedies for Breach – Revise to comply with requirements of the RFP.



Section 5.7 – Return of Product, Consumables, and Tools—Revise to comply with RFP section entitled “Termination of Contract/Award” (p. 25).



Section 5.8 – Early Termination Fees – Delete Subparagraph 5.8(i).



Section 7.4 – Publicity – Revise to comply with the RFP section entitled “approval of publicity releases” (page 40).

Part C - General Terms and Conditions 

Section 6 – Invoices and Payment – The periods for payment are to be determined but shall be consistent with the RFP and the Terms and Conditions set forth therein.



Section 17 – Limitation of Liability – Delete first sentence.



Section 20 – Termination – Revise to comply with requirements of the RFP. Insert “60 days’ written notice” into first sentence.



Section 21 – General – Revise to comply with requirements of the RFP. Fill in blank with “South Carolina”.

2

II. FIRM “B” A. Equipment Maintenance Agreement – Terms and Conditions 

Paragraph 3 - Service Calls – Revise to conform with RFP section “Maximum Response Time for Repair” (page 13).



Paragraph 5 – Term – Revise to comply with the renewal/extension requirements of the RFP.



Paragraph 6 – Cancellation Clause– revise to comply with “Termination” provision contained in the RFP General Terms and Conditions beginning on page 38. There will be no right of either party to terminate for convenience.



Paragraph 7 – Charges – The periods for payment and invoicing must be revised to comply with the RFP.



Paragraph 7 – Charges – All charges shall be contained in the cost per page amount defined in accordance with the RFP, pages 7-9.



Paragraph 8 – Breach or Default – Revise to conform the requirements of the RFP, including the requirement of 60 days’ notice for any termination by the District for cause.



Paragraph 9 – Revise to comply with the requirements of the RFP



Paragraph 10 – delete “North Carolina.”

II. FIRM “C” A. Master Equipment Lease Agreement 

Paragraph 3 – Rent; Adjustments – Revise to comply with the requirements of the RFP



Paragraph 5 – Delivery and Installation – Revise to comply with the requirements of the RFP. Per the RFP, Vendor is responsible for all costs associated with installation and removal.

3



Paragraph 6 – Disclaimer of Warranties – Revise to comply with the warranty requirements of the RFP.



Paragraph 11 – Taxes and Fees – Revise to comply with the requirements of the RFP. All taxes and fees shall be borne by proposer



Paragraph 12 – Risk of Loss – Revise to comply with the requirements of the RFP.



Paragraph 13 – Maintenance, Repairs and Attractions – Revise to comply with the requirements of the RFP. Maintenance costs shall be included in cost per page calculation as described in “General Information” on page 7 of the RFP.



Paragraph 15 – Return of Equipment, Restocking Fee – Revise to comply with the requirements of the RFP. Proposer must remove all equipment at its own expense within 45 days of the termination of the contract, see page 25.



Paragraph 16 – Purchase and Renewal Options – Revise to comply with RFP’s “Period of Performance” located on page 5.



Paragraph 17 – Indemnification – Delete.



Paragraph 18 – Event of Default – Revise to comply with the requirements of the RFP. The periods for payment are to be determined but shall be consistent with the RFP and the Terms and Conditions set forth therein.



Paragraph 19 – Remedies – Revise to comply with the requirements of the RFP.



Paragraph 20 – Lessee’s Representations, Warranties and Covenants – Revise to comply with the requirements of the RFP. Delete subparagraphs (h) and (i).



Paragraph 21 – Assignment – Revise to comply with the requirements of the RFP.



Paragraph 25 – UCC Article 2A - Revise to comply with the requirements of the RFP. Revise to clarify that any dispute subject to the laws of the State of South

4

Carolina and any proposer must consent to the jurisdiction of the State of South Carolina and delete waiver of right to jury trial. B. Equipment Schedule 

Overages, Cost Adjustments, Usage and Billing – Increases in costs are limited by RFP section titled “Price Adjustment based on Contractor’s Costs” (page 25).

C. State of South Carolina Standard Equipment Agreement 

Paragraph 4 – Installation – Revise to comply with the requirements of the RFP. Per the RFP, all installation costs are borne by Proposer.



Paragraph 10 – Hold Harmless – Delete.



Paragraph 13 – Termination – Revise to comply with the termination for cause requirements in the RFP.



Paragraph 17 – Assignment – Revise to comply with the requirements of the RFP. Revise to provide that no solicitation, response, contract or any of its provisions may be assigned, sublet, or transferred without the prior written consent of the District.

D. Equipment Lease Agreement 

Paragraph 2 – Lease Term; Automatic Renewal - Revise to comply with the requirements of the RFP.



Paragraph 5 – Indemnification – Delete.



Paragraph 7 – Delivery, Location, Ownership, Use, Maintenance of Equipment Revise to comply with the requirements of the RFP. Maintenance costs included in cost per page pricing described in RFP (pages 7-11).



Paragraph 8 – Loss; Damage; Insurance – Revise to comply with the requirements of the RFP. Proposer must have insurance pursuant to RFP section titled “Insurance,” (pages 42-44).



Paragraph 9 - Assignment – Revise to comply with the requirements of the RFP. No solicitation, response, contract or any of its provisions may be assigned, sublet, or transferred without the prior written consent of the District

5



Paragraph 10 – Taxes and Other Fees – Revise to comply with the requirements of the RFP. Proposer bears all liability for taxes and other fees



Paragraph 11 - Default – Revise to comply with the requirements of the RFP.



Paragraph 12 – Revise to comply with the requirements of the RFP. Return of Equipment – Proposer is responsible for the removal of all property within 45 days of the termination of the contract at its own expense



Paragraph 13 – Applicable Law; Venue; Jurisdiction; Severability – Replace “Iowa” with “South Carolina.” Delete waiver of right to jury trial

E. Preferred Copier Usage Agreement 

Delete contract heading that provides “This is a Non-Cancellable Contract.”



Paragraph 1 – Lease of Equipment – Revise to comply with the requirements of the RFP. (See p. 25).



Paragraph 3 – Lease and Copy Charges – Delete. The RFP requires that the price is subject to no minimums or quotas



Paragraph 4 -- Lease Term; Automatic Renewal – Revise to comply with the requirements of the RFP. Delete automatic renewal provision; delete clause rendering lease non-cancellable during lease term.



Paragraph 5 – Indemnification – Delete.



Paragraph 7 – Delivery – Revise to comply with the requirements of the RFP. Per the RFP, all delivery and installation costs shall be borne by Proposer.



Paragraph 8 – Loss; Damage; Insurance – Revise to comply with the requirements of the RFP. Proposer is required to obtain insurance under RFP (pages 42-45). Coverages must include a provision that provides for 30 day notice to the District of any Cancellation.

6



Paragraph 9 – Assignment – Revise to comply with the requirements of the RFP. No solicitation, response, contract or any of its provisions may be assigned, sublet, or transferred without the prior written consent of the District.



Paragraph 10 – Taxes and Other Fees – Revise to comply with the requirements of the RFP. Per the RFP, the proposer bears all liability for taxes and other fees.



Paragraph 12 – Default - Revise to comply with the requirements of the RFP.



Paragraph 14 – Applicable Laws, Venues, Jurisdiction – Replace “Polk County, Iowa” with “South Carolina.” Delete waiver of right to jury trial.

F. Non-Appropriation Addendum 

Paragraph 7 – change to “laws of the State of South Carolina”.

G. Maintenance Agreement Terms and Conditions 

Paragraph 1 – General Scope of Coverage – Vendor must bear all costs of installation and removal.



Paragraph 8 – Charges – Revise to comply with the requirements of the RFP.



Paragraph 10 – Term – Revise to comply with the requirements of the RFP. Remove automatic renewal provision.



Paragraph 11 – Event of Default and Termination– Revise to comply with the requirements of the RFP.



Paragraph 12 – Indemnity – Delete.



Paragraph 14 – Successors and Assigns – Revise to comply with the requirements of the RFP. No solicitation, response, contract or any of its provisions may be assigned, sublet, or transferred without the prior written consent of the District.



Paragraph 18 – Jurisdiction – Revise to comply with the requirements of the RFP. Clarify that the parties consent to jurisdiction to the Court of Common Pleas for, or a federal court located in, Greenville County, State of South Carolina.

7

H. Safeguard Premier Agreement 

Section 1.2(g) – Response Time – Revise to comply with the requirements of the RFP.



Section 4.3 – Taxes – Revise to comply with the requirements of the RFP. Proposer is responsible for payments of all sales, use, or excise taxes.



Section 4.5 – Payment Terms – Revise to comply with the requirements of the RFP.



Section 5.2 – Price Increase – Any price increase is limited by the RFP’s “Price Adjustment” (page 38).



Section 8 – Limitation of Liability – Delete the three month limitation of liability.



Section 9.2 – Assignment – No solicitation, response, contract or any of its provisions may be assigned, sublet, or transferred without the prior written consent of the District.

III. FIRM “O” A. Service Order 

Page 1, Paragraph 1 – Revise to comply with the requirements of the RFP. Remove automatic renewal provision and change “thirty (30) days” to “sixty (60) days”.



Page 3 – Overages – Revise to comply with the requirements of the RFP.



Page 3 – Freight, Delivery, and Mailing Costs – Revise to comply with the requirements of the RFP. Delivers shall be FOB destination delivered and installed.



Page 3 – Service Level – Revise to comply with the requirements of the RFP. Amend to comply with RFP “Maximum Response Time for Repair” (pages 1314).

8



Page 4 – Repair and Maintenance Service – Revise to comply with the requirements of the RFP. Installation and Removal of equipment may require working non-standard business hours.



Page 4 – Scope of Repair and Maintenance – Revise to comply with the requirements of the RFP. Installation and Removal of equipment may require working non-standard business hours with all costs for such installation and removal borne by the Vendor.



Page 5 – Termination of Services – Revise to comply with the requirements of the RFP. Delete all references to payment of liquidated damages.

B. Master Service Agreement 

Section 2 – Fees and Charges – All taxes must be borne by Proposer;



Section 2 – Fees and Charges – Any price increase is limited by the RFP’s “Price Adjustment” section contained in the RFP (page 38).



Section 3 – Invoicing and Payment – Revise to comply with the requirements of the RFP.



Section 9 – Termination of Services – Revise to comply with the requirements of the RFP relating to termination for default. Delete any reference to termination for convenience.



Section 10 – Default – Revise to comply with the terms of the RFP relating to termination for default.



Section 11.1 – Data Management – Pursuant to the RFP, proposer shall have the obligation to wipe all hard drives prior to taking any device off district property.



Section 12 – Insurance – Revise to comply with the insurance requirements in the RFP (see pages 43-44).



Section 13 – Indemnification – Delete.



Section 14.2 – Limitations – Revise to comply with the terms of the RFP relating to termination for default. Delete the six month limitation of liability.

9



Section 17.1 – Repair and Maintenance Services – Revise to comply with the terms of the RFP relating to termination for default. All costs associated with installation, removal, and repair are borne by vendor and built into the price per page.



Section 17.4 – Scope of Repairs and Maintenance Services – Revise to comply with the terms of the RFP relating to termination for default. Vendor bears all costs of installation and removal of equipment.

 Section 21 – Governing Law – Replace “Commonwealth of Pennsylvania” with “State of South Carolina.”

10