Request for Qualifications with Cost Proposals
ADDENDUM #1
RFQ/P #46-010
May 7, 2025
For the provision of
INMATE TELEPHONE SYSTEM & SERVICES – C.I.
Hall County, Georgia, (herein “County” or “Owner”) a municipal entity of the State of Georgia, Public Works and Utilities Department, located at 2875 Browns Bridge Road, Gainesville, GA 30504, hereby gives this Addendum #1 on the project known as Inmate Telephone System & Services for the Hall County Correctional Institution (herein “Services”) located at 1694 Barber Road, Gainesville, GA 30507.
The following questions were submitted by various vendors. The answers are provided in bold lettering.
Please provide the average daily population for the last three months, broken down by month, if possible. Jan – 125, Feb – 123, March – 125
Please provide a breakdown of the inmate population, in percentages or actual numbers, by local, DOC, or other agency. Aside from the state inmate population above, we currently have 14 inmates that are Jail inmates and are housed here.
Please provide a copy of each agreement/contract and all amendments (if applicable) the County has executed with its incumbent inmate Telephone System (ITS), Video Visitation System (VVS) and Tablet provider(s). We do not have a copy.
How many inmate telephone stations are currently installed? (13) total, (3 per each dorm and 1 for jail).
How many inmate telephone visitation handsets are currently installed? None.
How many inmate multi-function/video visitation kiosks are currently installed? (4) total (1 per dorm)
How many public user video visitation kiosks are currently installed? None.
Who is the County's current Jail Management System (JMS) provider? Eagle.
Who is the County's current commissary service provider? Keefe.
Who is the County's current inmate banking/trust fund services provider? Truist.
Is the inmate banking/trust account managed through the commissary system or the Jail Management System (JMS) or other system? If other, please specify. Commissary System.
Please provide the current service and commission rates associated with each of the following inmate services: a). ITS, b). VVS, c). Electronic Messaging (aka Email) and d). Phone commission 75%, Tablet 25% and Commissary 25%.
If County is not relevant to the RFP, please mark the appropriate service item response as "not applicable."
To allow a vendor to present their best possible offer, it is very important to have historical information regarding revenue data for current inmate services. Will the County please provide copies of Service Usage/Revenue/Commission reports for the past three months for the following County services:
a). ITS – Not Applicable
b). VVS – Not Applicable
c). Electronic Messaging (aka Email) – Not Applicable
d). Entertainment/Media – Not Applicable
What limits does the County place, if any, on use of the services in this RFP such as maximum number of ITS calls, onsite visits allowed per week (or other interval), remote visits per week, calls per week, minutes per call/visit, etc.? Business hours restricted – 15 min phone calls.
Do you currently have an inmate tablets program? If so: a.) Who is the current tablet manufacturer/provider?, b.) How many tablets does the County have today? C.) Do inmates share the tablets? d.) How do they check them out? e.) What services are currently available on the tablets (i.e., education, electronic messaging, entertainment, video visitation, etc.) and f.) How many tablet charging stations are currently installed? We have Education, Electronic Messaging and Entertainment. 4 ( 1 per dorm) we need 15 slot charging stations.
The “Tablet Charging Station” section of the RFP states that vendors are to provide 15 charging stations per dorm, for a total of 60 charging stations. Is it acceptable for vendors to offer wall-mounted tablet charging stations that are capable of simultaneously charging up to 10 tablet devices simultaneously; if we provided 2 charging stations/dorm? Yes.
“Exhibit C - Mandatory Cost Proposal Worksheet” of the RFP features a column in which vendors are to provide the “% of Gross Revenue Offered“ for inmate phone services. However, the recently passed Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Order 24-75, prohibits Incarcerated Peoples’ Communication Service (IPCS) providers from entering into contracts allowing or requiring for the payment of site commissions for inmate telephone and video visitation services. Will the County please consider removing this column to allow vendors to submit a proposal that abides by current IPCS rules and regulations? Yes.
“Exhibit C - Mandatory Cost Proposal Worksheet” of the RFP does not feature any rows or columns for vendors to provide and commission data for other required services such as Electronic Messaging and Entertainment. Will the County please advise as to how vendors should go about providing this information? However is fine.
The RFP makes no reference to the provisioning of inmate Video Visitation System (VVS) services. Will the County please advise of the following:
a). Should vendors propose VVS services? No.
b). Should the VVS services proposed include both on-site and remote video visitation options? No.
After the first round of questions is answered, will the County accept additional questions if clarification is needed for any of the County’s responses? No.
Will the County allow for a proposal to present multiple pricing options for the County’s consideration? Yes.
The Inmate Tablet System Requirements on page 6 requires a “Tablet Subscription program with optional premium content.” Would the County consider alternate tablet models to meet the County’s tablet needs? For example, with a per-minute pricing structure, inmates only pay a low rate for the minutes they use, resulting in better value to inmates. Yes.
On page 8, #B.1 requires a “complete, signed copy of the Request for Proposals.” In lieu of returning a signed copy of the entire RFP, will it be acceptable to return signed copies of just the forms and addenda that require signature, along with direct responses to the RFP sections that require information? Yes.
On page 3 under the scoring figures (poor through excellent), the instructions state: “Bidders may expand their answers to the questions onto separate pages if needed, with the question repeated at the top of each page.”
-
Is Exhibit G, Mandatory Scored Questions (in Excel), exempted from this requirement? Yes.
-
Would the County consider deleting this requirement in general? Yes.
On pages 5 – 12, we are provided with an outline. We assumed that was the outline of the response. But on page 10, we are told that the proposal should be organized as follows:
Section 1 – Cover Letter and Executive Summary
Section 2 – Answer all Mandatory Scored Questions (Excel, Exhibit G)
Section 3 – Cost Proposals submitted in a separate sealed envelope.
Would the County please clarify if we are to respond to:
-
the entire RFP? No.
-
to pages 5-12 of the RFP following that outline? No.
-
only respond with these three sections described on page 10 (and including all the mandatory Exhibits)? Yes.
Evaluations says financial stability will be part of the evaluation, but the County does not stipulate what they will accept as demonstration. Will Audited Financial Statements be acceptable? Yes.
The instructions say the response should be Unbound. Does the County only want rubber bands or binder clips? No.
Three ring binders are not bound in the sense of being glued or stapled. Are they acceptable? Yes.
Is the County requiring FCC-compliant responses? Yes.
The RFP requires: “Summarize key points at the beginning of each answer.” Does this apply to short answers? No. We assume this does not apply to simple compliance statements? Correct.
Pages 1-5 on the RFP, and ending before the Table of Contents listing on page 5; do we include those pages in the response? If so, where do we place that information? No.
On the final page of the RFP, it shows the list of Exhibits and Attachments (Section 10.0) which includes Exhibit C – Mandatory Cost Proposal. On page 3 of the RFP, under Bidder Response/Cost Proposal, the cost proposal is to be submitted separately from the Technical Proposal. We assume we are NOT to include Exhibit C – Mandatory Cost Proposal in the Technical Qualifications response. Is that correct? Yes.
When the County says to sign the contract and return it, is there an execution date we apply? No.
Does the County intend vendors to sign the contract before it is negotiated? Yes.
On page 6, first bullet under “Inmate Tablet System Requirements, the requirement states: “Must provide 15 tablets per dorm with that being a total of 60 tablets”. Can the County confirm a total count of 60 tablets or is the County looking for a 1:1 ratio between inmate and tablet? We need 15 per dorm which is a total of 60. We are not looking for a 1:1 ratio.
The non-collusion requirement provides limits for contact with the County during the RFP process. In order to support ongoing services and operations, are vendors allowed to continue communications as normal throughout the RFP process? Do we correctly assume this restriction only applies to communications regarding the RFP, itself? Yes.
Can the County provide an estimate of the date when the bonding instruments would be needed? N/A, no bonds are required for this project.
ARTICLE #123 – PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT BONDS (if required).
