301 North Lamar Street
Jackson, MS 39201-1495
David L. Litchliter, Executive Director Fax: 601-354-6016
Memorandum for General RFP Configuration
To: Vendors with a current valid proposal for RFP Number 3421 for
Windows/Apple/UNIX Hardware and Software and Micro EPL RFP Number 3410,
including HP equipment
From: David L. Litchliter
Date: March 2, 2005
Project Number: 35706
Contact Name: Melinda Simmons
Contact Phone Number: 601-359-9535
Contact E-mail Address: Melinda.Simmons@its.state.ms.us
The Mississippi Department of Information Technology Services (ITS) is seeking the hardware
described below for purchase by the Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT). Our
records indicate that your company currently has a valid proposal on file at ITS in response to
RFP Number 3421 for Windows/Apple/Unix Hardware/Software and/or Micro Express Products
List (EPL) RFP Number 3410 for Windows-based desktops, notebooks, printers, projectors, and
peripherals, including HP equipment. We are requesting your configuration assistance, if
appropriate, for the components described below.
1. General Letter of Configuration (LOC) Instructions
1.1 Beginning with Item 4.1, label and respond to each outline point as it is
labeled in the LOC.
1.2 The Vendor must respond with “ACKNOWLEDGED,” “WILL COMPLY,”
or “AGREED” to each point in the LOC.
1.3 If the Vendor cannot respond with “ACKNOWLEDGED,” “WILL
COMPLY,” or “AGREED,” then the Vendor must respond with
“EXCEPTION.” (See attached instructions regarding Vendor exceptions.)
1.4 Where an outline point asks a question or requests information, the Vendor
must respond with the specific answer or information requested.
Board Members – David G. Roach, Chairman Stephen A. Adamec, Jr., Vice- Chairman Derek Gibbs John Hairston Cecil L. Watkins
Legislative Advisors – Representative Gary V. Staples Senator Billy Thames
1.5 In addition to the above, Vendor must provide explicit details as to the manner
and degree to which the proposal meets or exceeds each specification.
2. General Overview
The Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT) is requesting eight (8) HP
DesignJet 815 Multifunction devices for division and district offices. MDOT has
standardized on HP printers, with at least 95% of their current printers manufactured by
HP. The requested devices will replace several large-format, engineering sized scanners
that are no longer serviceable and have reached their end of life. The new multifunction
devices will be used to scan and print engineering drawings. Servers and workstations
will connect the devices to the network. The MDOT division and district offices that will
received these devices are located in Tupelo, Batesville, Yazoo City, Newton,
Hattiesburg, and Jackson, Mississippi.
3. LOC Project Schedule
Deadline for Vendor’s Written Questions March 7, 2005
ITS Addendum with Vendor’s Questions March 9, 2005
Proposals Due March 16, 2005
Proposal Evaluation March 17 - 25, 2005
Notification of Award March 31, 2005
4. Statement of Understanding
4.1 Vendors are required to propose new equipment.
4.2 Vendor must propose equipment that is 100% functionally equivalent to the
equipment detailed below.
4.3 Vendor must be aware that ITS reserves the right to purchase this equipment
from multiple Vendors if advantageous to the State.
4.4 Vendor must be aware that ITS reserves the right to make additional
purchases at the proposed prices for a six (6) month period.
4.5 Vendor must be aware that the specifications detailed below are minimum
requirements. Should Vendor choose to propose equipment that exceeds the
requirements, Vendor must indicate in what manner the proposed equipment
exceeds the requirements.
5. Technical Specifications
5.1 Vendor must answer or acknowledge each specification listed below.
5.1.1 Eight (8) HP DesignJet 815mfp (#Q1279A) with network
configurations (#H4518E) and installation (#H7604E).
5.2 Vendor must include technical specifications (specification sheets) for
6. Delivery, Installation, and Training Requirements
6.1 The vendor will be responsible for shipping the equipment to the different
division and district offices.
6.2 The vendor will be responsible for installation at each division or district
6.3 MDOT will coordinate setup/installation/configuration of the devices between
each end user location and the vendor. Each location will have a separate
6.4 The vendor must provide end user orientation (i.e., how to use the device) to
one designated MDOT employee at each location.
MDOT District 1 MDOT District 2 MDOT District 3 Headquarters
Headquarters Headquarters 1240 Highway 49 W
1909 N Gloster Street 150 Highway 51 N Yazoo City, MS 39194
Tupelo, MS 38803 Batesville, MS 38606
MDOT District 5 MDOT District 6 MDOT Central Laboratory
Headquarters Headquarters Building
7759 Highway 80 W 6356 Highway 49 N 412 E Woodrow Wilson Ave.
Newton, MS 39345 Hattiesburg, MS 39401 Jackson, MS 39216
MDOT Administration MDOT Shop Complex
Building 2567 N West Street
401 N West Street Jackson, MS 39216
Jackson, MS 39201
7. Equipment Warranty/Maintenance
7.1 Warranty for the devices must be HP Next Business Day Response for three
(3) years (#U2006E).
7.2 Vendor must indicate whether warranty service is available past the three
years for each item proposed. Specify annual cost, if any, and period of
7.3 Vendor must provide the warranty service directly and/or coordinate these
services between the customer and the manufacturer to the degree that the
process to activate the service call is transparent to the customer. Therefore
the customers will not have to fend for themselves with remote 1-800 support.
7.4 Is Vendor an authorized HP Plotter Service Provider?
7.5 When the Vendor receives an initial service call on products, who makes the
initial on-site call? Does it depend on the client location?
7.6 Describe response time for initial call response, on-site personnel response,
and resolution. Include average time as well as a not-to-exceed time frame for
each type of response.
7.7 If manufacturer, not the winning Vendor, is providing warranty, Vendor will
ensure the warranty, regardless of manufacturer or manufacturer’s warranty.
How does the proposing Vendor provide or coordinate with the
manufacturer(s) for seamless service?
7.8 Who performs Vendor’s warranty work? In-house staff or third parties?
7.9 Under what conditions would third party support be used in lieu of in-house
7.10 Describe Vendor’s procedures for exchange warranty or warranty after the on-
site warranty expires.
7.10.1 Who pays for shipping to the manufacturer or repair facility?
7.10.2 Who pays for shipping from the manufacturer or repair facility?
7.11 Vendor must specify if service is available on a call-out basis. Vendor must
further detail the hourly rate for time, materials, and mileage for a repair call
outside of the prime shift contract. Vendor must also specify the minimum
number of hours charged.
7.12 Vendor must indicate if MDOT personnel will have to be certified to make
repairs to the equipment without affecting the warranty. If certification is
required, Vendor must include any and all costs associated with certifying up
to ten (10) MDOT personnel.
8. Manufacturer Direct Maintenance
Section 8 does not have to be completed if proposed items have a three-year warranty or
if the cost to upgrade the standard warranty to three years is included in Vendor’s
8.1 ITS understands that the maintenance requested in this LOC may be provided
directly by the manufacturer. If Vendor is the named manufacturer and will
be supplying the maintenance services directly, Section 8.1.4 – 8.1.13 does
not have to be completed.
8.1.1 Responding Vendor must clarify whether they are the named
manufacturer and will be supplying the maintenance services
directly or whether they are a third party reseller selling the
maintenance services on behalf of the manufacturer.
8.1.2 Responding Vendors must explain their understanding of when or
whether the manufacturer will ever sell the maintenance services
directly and, if so, under what circumstances.
184.108.40.206 If the responding Vendor to this LOC will only
be reselling manufacturer’s maintenance
services, it is ITS’ understanding that this is
basically a “pass through” process.
220.127.116.11 Please provide a detailed explanation of the
relationship of who will be providing the
requested maintenance, to whom the purchase
order is made, and to whom the remittance will
be made. If there is a difference in the year one
maintenance purchase versus subsequent years
of maintenance, the responding Vendor must
clarify and explain.
8.1.3 Manufacturer Direct Maintenance when sold directly through the
manufacturer: Fixed Cost
18.104.22.168 If responding Vendor is the direct manufacturer,
he must propose annual fixed pricing for three
years of the requested maintenance. Vendor
must provide all details of the
maintenance/support and all associated cost.
22.214.171.124 It is ITS’ preference that the Manufacturer’s
proposal is a not-to-exceed firm commitment.
In the event that the manufacturer cannot
commit to a fixed cost for the subsequent years
of maintenance after year one, Manufacturer
must specify the annual maintenance increase
ceiling offered by his/her company on the
proposed products. Vendor must state his
policy regarding increasing maintenance
charges. Price escalations for Maintenance shall
not exceed the lesser of 5% increase per year or
an increase consistent with the percent increase
in the consumer price index, all Urban
Consumer US City Average (C.P.I. –u) for the
8.1.4 Manufacturer Direct Maintenance when sold through 3rd Party:
Fixed Cost-Plus Percentages
126.96.36.199 In the case of a third-party “pass-through” ITS
realizes that the responding reseller may not be
able to guarantee a fixed price for maintenance
after year one since their proposal is dependent
on the manufacturer’s pricing or possibly on a
188.8.131.52 It is ITS’ preference that the responding reseller
work with the manufacturer to obtain a
commitment for a firm fixed price over the
requested maintenance period.
8.1.5 In the event that the responding reseller cannot make a firm fixed
maintenance proposal for all the years requested, the responding
reseller is therefore required to provide a fixed percentage for their
mark-up on the manufacturer direct maintenance that they are
selling as a third party reseller in lieu a price ceiling based on a
percentage yearly increase.
184.108.40.206 In this scenario, Resellers must include in the
Pricing Spreadsheets the price the Vendor pays
for the maintenance and the percentage by
which the final price to the State of Mississippi
exceeds the Vendor’s cost for the maintenance
(i.e. cost-plus percentage).
220.127.116.11 Alternatively, Resellers may propose a fixed
percentage for their mark down on the
manufacturer’s direct maintenance based on a
national benchmark from the manufacturer, such
as GSA, Suggested Retail Price (SRP) or the
manufacturer’s web pricing. This national
benchmark pricing must be verifiable by ITS
during the maintenance contract.
8.1.6 The cost-plus/minus percentage will be fixed for the term specified
in the LOC or RFP. To clarify, the State’s cost for the products
will change over the life of the award if the price the Vendor must
pay for a given product increases or decreases. However, the
percentage over Vendor cost which determines the State’s final
price WILL NOT change over the life of the award.
8.1.7 ITS will use this percentage in evaluating cost for scoring
8.1.8 The cost-plus/minus percentage applies to new products added in
the categories covered by the Cost Matrix as well as the products
that are listed.
8.1.9 Periodic Cost-Plus Verification
At any time during the term of this contract, the State reserves the
right to request from the awarded Vendor, access to and/or a copy
of the Manufacturer’s Base Pricing Structure for pricing
verification. This pricing shall be submitted within seven (7)
business days after the State’s request. Failure to submit this
pricing will be cause for Contract Default.
18.104.22.168 Vendor Cost is defined as the Vendor’s invoice
cost from the distributor or manufacturer.
22.214.171.124 The Vendor’s Proposed State Price is defined as
the Vendor Cost plus the proposed percentage
8.1.10 Vendor must also indicate how future pricing information will be
provided to the State during the term of the contract.
8.1.11 Vendor must indicate from whom they buy the maintenance:
directly from the manufacturer or from what distributor.
8.1.12 Vendor must be aware that only price increases resulting from an
increase in price by the manufacturer or distributor will be
accepted. The Vendor’s proposed percentage markup or
markdown for these items, as well as the Vendor’s percentage
markup or markdown for any new items, MUST stay the same as
what was originally proposed. Vendor must provide ITS with the
suggested retail price.
8.1.13 Pricing proposed for the State MUST equal the Vendor’s invoice
cost from the distributor or manufacturer plus the maximum
percentage markup that the reseller will add OR the manufacturer’s
national benchmark minus the cost percentage proposed.
9. Additional Requirements
9.1 Installation, setup, configuration, and training are required prior to MDOT
9.2 If any component necessary for operation of the requested systems is omitted
from Vendor’s proposal, Vendor must be willing to provide that component at
no additional cost. This includes, but is not limited to, all cabling, connectors,
and interfaces to render the configuration fully operational.
9.3 Vendor must specify the delivery interval proposed by his/her company.
9.4 Vendor must specify the discounted price for each item. Freight is FOB
destination. No itemized shipping charges will be accepted.
9.5 ITS may require a contract with the winning vendor. A sample Purchase
Agreement has been attached for reference. If the winning Vendor has a
Master Agreement with ITS, a Supplement may be negotiated instead of a
new Agreement. If the winning vendor is a Micro EPL #3410 vendor, the
contract resulting from this process will be a Supplement to the Micro EPL
#3410 Purchase Agreement executed by all Vendors validated on Micro EPL
9.6 Winning vendor must be willing to sign the attached Purchase Agreement or
Supplement to the Micro EPL #3410 Purchase Agreement within 15 working
days of the notice of award. If the Purchase Agreement or Supplement is not
executed within the 15 working day period, ITS reserves the right to negotiate
with the next lowest and best vendor in the evaluation.
9.7 Vendor must provide the state of incorporation of the company and a name,
title, and address for the “Notice” article of the contract.
10. Proposal Exceptions
10.1 Return the attached Proposal Exception Summary Form with any exceptions
listed and clearly explained or state “No Exceptions Taken.” If no Proposal
Exception Summary Form is included, the Vendor is indicating that he takes
10.2 Unless specifically disallowed on any specification herein, the Vendor may
take exception to any point within this LOC, including a specification denoted
as mandatory, as long as the following are true:
10.2.1 The specification is not a matter of State law;
10.2.2 The proposal still meets the intent of the LOC;
10.2.3 A Proposal Exception Summary Form is included with Vendor’s
10.2.4 The exception is clearly explained, along with any alternative or
substitution the Vendor proposes to address the intent of the
specification, on the Proposal Exception Summary Form.
10.3 The Vendor has no liability to provide items to which an exception has been
taken. ITS has no obligation to accept any exception. During the proposal
evaluation and/or contract negotiation process, the Vendor and ITS will
discuss each exception and take one of the following actions:
10.3.1 The Vendor will withdraw the exception and meet the specification
in the manner prescribed;
10.3.2 ITS will determine that the exception neither poses significant risk
to the project nor undermines the intent of the LOC and will accept
10.3.3 ITS and the Vendor will agree on compromise language dealing
with the exception and will insert same into the contract;
10.3.4 None of the above actions is possible, and ITS either disqualifies
the Vendor’s proposal or withdraws the award and proceeds to the
next ranked Vendor.
10.4 Should ITS and the Vendor reach a successful agreement, ITS will sign
adjacent to each exception which is being accepted or submit a formal written
response to the Proposal Exception Summary responding to each of the
Vendor’s exceptions. The Proposal Exception Summary, with those
exceptions approved by ITS, will become a part of any contract on
acquisitions made under this LOC.
10.5 An exception will be accepted or rejected at the sole discretion of the State.
10.6 Prior to taking any exceptions to this LOC, ITS requests that, to the extent
possible, the individual(s) preparing this proposal first confer with other
individuals who have previously submitted proposals to ITS or participated in
contract negotiations with ITS on behalf of their company, to ensure the
Vendor is consistent in the items to which it takes exception.
11. Scoring Methodology
11.1 ITS will use the following items to score proposals received.
11.1.2 Exceeds Technical Specifications
11.1.3 Exceeds Warranty Specifications
11.1.5 Added Value
11.2 Each of these categories is assigned a weight between one and 100. The sum
of all categories, other than Added Value, will equal 100 possible points. An
Added Value rating between 0 and 5 will be assigned based on the assessment
of the selection committee. These points will be added to the total score. All
information provided by the Vendors and other information available to ITS
staff will be used to evaluate the proposals.
11.3 ITS requests that Vendors provide details on the features and functions of the
proposed system that may provide a distinct value to ITS, distinguish your
company and its offering from the group, and facilitate our selection process
of the lowest and best proposals. In the event that ITS agrees that such
features, functions, or other considerations do provide a distinct benefit, the
State reserves the right to give the Vendor additional consideration. ITS will
make the sole assessment of the relative merits of each added-value proposal
to the agency.
12. Instructions to Submit Product and Cost Information
Please use the attached CP-6: RFP Information Form to provide cost information. Follow
the instructions on the form. Incomplete forms will not be processed.
13. Delivery Instructions
Vendor must deliver his response to Melinda Simmons at ITS by Wednesday, March 16,
2005, by 3:00 P.M. (Central Time). Reponses may be delivered by hand, via regular
mail, via email, or by fax. Fax number is (601) 354-6016. ITS WILL NOT BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR DELAYS IN THE DELIVERY OF PROPOSALS. It is solely the
responsibility of the Vendor that proposals reach ITS on time. Vendors should contact
Melinda Simmons to verify the receipt of their proposals. Proposals received after the
deadline will be rejected.
If you have any questions concerning this request, please e-mail Melinda Simmons of
ITS at Melinda.Simmons@its.state.ms.us. Any questions concerning the
specifications detailed in this LOC must be received by Monday, March 7, 2005, by
3:00 P.M. (Central Time).
Enclosures: CP-6: RFP Information Form
Proposal Exception Summary Form
Sample Purchase Agreement
CP-6: RFP INFORMATION FORM – 3410
Please submit the ITS requested information using the following format.
Send your completed form back to the Technology Consultant listed below. If the necessary
information is not included, your response cannot be considered.
ITS Technology Consultant Name: Melinda Simmons RFP# 3410
Company Name: Date:
Contact Name: Phone
Contact E-mail: Number:
MFG MFG #* DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT COST EXTENDED
HP Q1279A HP DesignJet 815mfp 8
HP U2006E HP 3-year NBD Response 8
Other (please specify)
If any of the items below are included in Vendor’s proposal they must be detailed below.
*Manufacturer model number, not Vendor number. If Vendor's internal number is needed for purchase order, include an
additional column for that number
PROPOSAL EXCEPTION SUMMARY FORM
ITS LOC Vendor Proposal Brief Explanation of ITS Acceptance (sign
Reference Reference Exception here only if accepted)
(Reference (Page, section, items in (Short description of
specific outline Vendor’s proposal where exception being
point to which exception is explained) made)