Gaming RFP questions

1,324 views

Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Gaming RFP questions

  1. 1. RFP RFP Requirement Page Question Number 1. General Please clarify the exact format of the pricing proposal in the electronic form (i.e. Inquiry PDF; section breaks etc). RESPONSE: Price quotations shall be delivered in a separately sealed price proposal via one (1) original, two (2) hard copies and three (3) copies on CD pursuant to sections 1.152, 1.15 and 4.1 of the RFP. The method of compilation (i.e. word, excel, PDF, etc.) is at the option of the vendor. The OSL highly suggests that vendors use the OSL provided table formatted in the interactive PDF, in lieu of vendor created tables. The OSL provided tables are available via the OSL web site at www.ohiolottery.com. Vendor’s wishing to create their own price quotation tables shall not include information that would confuse or conflict with pricing information being quoted. For Invited and Offered options that contain variable pricing over the course of the ten (10) year pricing terms and/or contain payment methodologies outside the methodologies provided on the OLS provided tables must be clearly designated on separate tables compiled by the vendor for each year and/or provide clear designation of the pricing methodology (i.e. weekly charge, one time fixed cost, etc.). Please note the Lottery has provided an interactive PDF to assist with pricing preparation. Please also note the Lottery will issue an amendment to the Pricing Sheet, Section II: For Specified Options provided at a cost, vendors must be able to provide Specified Options in additional quantities of one-hundred (100) units for items listed on the pricing table A-E. Quantities obtained beyond one-hundred (100) units must be obtainable at prices equal to or less than the price quoted for the first one- hundred (100) units. 2. General Since the Lottery is after the most advantageous offer for the State we would suggest Inquiry equal point distribution between the technical and pricing proposals. Thus, it will place additional pressure on the Bidders to offer the best blend of technology and price. Additionally, such modification will greatly increase the potential for the State to increase the level of funds available for its own use. RESPONSE: The agency has predetermined the weighting of price and technical components.
  2. 2. RFP RFP Requirement Page Question Number 3. General Would the lottery consider an equal point distribution between the technical and pricing Inquiry proposals? RESPONSE: Per above, this has been predetermined. 4. General Please clarify that the minimum number of terminals the Lottery requires included in Inquiry the base price offer? RESPONSE: The OSL expects 8,800 terminals in the base system available for deployment at Retail. The Selected Vendor must also provide test and privileged terminals in addition. The Lottery will amend the references to terminal quantities. The system must have the ability to support 9,000 terminals as detailed in 3.2.1. 5. General Please provide copies of any research reports for the last two years Inquiry RESPONSE: Research reports are only available in hard copy and are included. 6. General Please explain how the Marketing Research function is currently managed. Inquiry RESPONSE: Market Research is currently provided through our Media Purchase contract. It is also available in the gaming services contracts. The OSL will be issuing procurement for Marketing Services including research in Fiscal 2008. 7. General Please provide samples of current mass media advertising campaigns. Inquiry RESPONSE: Current advertising campaigns are provided on CD. 8. General Please provide details relating to Retailer and player promotions that have been run Inquiry over the past year. RESPONSE: Raffle to Riches II Retailer Incentive Program. The Office of Sales created a Retailer Incentive program which automatically entered retailers who sold 10 raffle tickets during the weeks of March 25 through April 7, 2006. Example: 100 tickets sold equals 10 entries into the drawing. Retailers were only eligible to receive one of the three bonuses offered regardless of how many tickets they sold or entries
  3. 3. RFP RFP Requirement Page Question Number they had in the drawing. There were three prize levels- $5,000, $1,000, and $500. For every 10 Raffle to Riches tickets sold, the retailer’s agent number was automatically entered into a drawing. In February 2006, the agency launched a Lot ‘O Play promotion- Buy X Get Y. The Lottery conducts quarterly direct mail programs. In November 2007, a direct mail coupon will feature “Buy a New Year’s Raffle ticket Get a Free $5 instant Holiday game”. 9. General Please provide details relating to any Retailer incentive programs that have been run Inquiry over the past two years. RESPONSE: Lottery incentive programs: AGENT SALES COMMISSION • Ohio Lottery Agents receive a 5.5% commission on Instant and Online sales. INSTANT AND ON-LINE CASHING BONUSES • The Agent receives a 1% cashing bonus for tickets cashed weekly. If the Cash–to-sales ratio is 50% or greater, the agent receives an additional .5% cashing bonus. The Agent must have sales in order to receive a cashing bonus. This is automatically calculated on the weekly invoice report. Note: From May 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005, the base commission for instant ticket sales was raised to 5.75%. Additional commission levels of 6.0%, 6.25% and 6.5% were available contingent upon retailers reaching certain sales thresholds. The program was discontinued in January 2006. CLAIMS BONUSES • The Agent receives a $5 claims bonus for validating a winning ticket worth $600 to $5,000. A “Pay to Bearer” is generated through the Agent’s
  4. 4. RFP RFP Requirement Page Question Number terminal. The agent then assists the customer in the completion of a Quick Cash Claim form and informs the customer of the bank Cashing Locations. The claims bonus is reflected on the agent’s weekly invoice report. INSTANT TICKETS AND GAME SHOW SELLING BONUS • To qualify for a Selling Bonus, the Top Prize of the Instant Game must be $100,000 or more. The Selling Bonus is 1% of the top prize with a cap of $10,000. • The Game Show Selling Bonus is 1% of the Championship Contestant’s total winnings. ON-LINE SELLING BONUSES • Rolling Cash 5: $500 selling bonus is paid to the Agent(s) for selling a winning (5 of 5) Rolling Cash 5 ticket. • Kicker: $1,000 selling bonus is paid to the Agent(s) per winning $100,000 top prize ticket. • Classic Lotto: $1,000 selling bonus is paid to the Agent(s) per winning jackpot ticket. • Ten-OH!: $1,000 selling bonus is paid to the Agent(s) per $500,000 winning jackpot ticket. If the selling bonus cap of $5,000 is reached, the selling agents of the winning jackpot tickets will equally share the bonus. • Mega Millions: The selling bonus is 1% of (Ohio’s share), the advertised jackpot set at a rate of $1,000 per million. The selling bonus is shared equally by the Ohio’s Lottery Agents who sold winning jackpot tickets for a specific drawing. The minimum bonus is $10,000 with a cap of $100,000 per jackpot. The Agent(s) selling the Mega Millions $250,000 prize will receive a $1,000 bonus per winning ticket. • Raffle to Riches I, II, III: $5,000 selling bonus is paid to the Agent(s) for selling a $1 million top prize Raffle to Riches III game ticket.
  5. 5. RFP RFP Requirement Page Question Number 10. General Please provide copies of current point-of-sales marketing material. Please provide Inquiry information on any regulations or restrictions on point-of-sale materials. RESPONSE: Current POS are provided on CD. We do not have any regulations on our Marketing campaigns; however, we do adhere to the NASPL standards. 11. General Please provide any future plans of the Lottery regarding introduction of new games, Inquiry increase in lottery sales, and participation in multi-jurisdictional organizations. RESPONSE: There are no definitive plans for any multi-jurisdictional initiatives at this time. The Bureau of Online Products will propose a Red Ball promotion for the Pick 3 game to launch February 08. We were approved to launch G3, which is tentatively scheduled for the month of April 08. 12. General What are the Lottery’s forecasted revenues by game for the next ten years? Inquiry RESPONSE: The OSL does not have a specific forecast for the next ten years. A preliminary forecast for fiscal year 2009 was prepared. For fiscal year 2009, online sales are forecasted at $916,215,270 and instant ticket sales were forecasted at $1,384,000,000. Actual sales results may vary due to the possible introduction of G3 games, other new games, along with other factors within and beyond the control of the OSL. 13. General Please provide sales details by game for all on-line games for the last five years. Inquiry RESPONSE: The unaudited financial statements for Fiscal Year 2007 will report total sales of $2,259,396,588. See the following breakdown:
  6. 6. RFP RFP Requirement Page Question Number TICKET SALES Fiscal Year 2007 Sales - Pick 3 $370,853,927 Sales - Pick 4 $182,953,940 Sales - Rolling Cash 5 $72,899,458 Sales - Lot'O Play $21,809,792 Sales - Classic Lotto $21,758,740 Sales - Kicker $21,337,357 Sales - Mega Millions $196,114,517 Sales - Raffle to Riches $17,831,934 TOTAL ONLINE SALES $905,559,665 Sales - Instants $1,353,836,923 TOTAL SALES $2,259,396,588 The OSL’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report was provided with the original hard copy bid document and is available via the Ohio Lottery’s web site at www.ohiolottery.com. Sales information for prior years is available on pages 44-45. 14. General Please provide sales details by price point for all instant games for the last five years. Inquiry RESPONSE: The information is provided below. Instant Ticket Sales Fiscal Year 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 $1               223,653,719                258,400,747               318,907,394           305,163,173           330,840,110 $2               260,034,024                266,047,807               332,296,636           318,528,661           286,771,159 $3                 23,072,787                  42,378,724                 40,167,725             38,030,313             64,379,134 $5               394,508,979                364,469,085               333,513,840           319,786,221           223,514,003 $7 N/A N/A N/A N/A             20,726,848 $10               289,669,947                232,146,436               131,458,010           126,262,682           115,188,190 $12 N/A N/A N/A N/A               5,299,308 $20               162,897,466                110,542,915                 60,860,190             58,247,827             42,291,946            1,353,836,923            1,273,985,715            1,217,203,795        1,166,018,878        1,089,010,696 Numbers mave have been adjusted for Cash vs. Accrual
  7. 7. RFP RFP Requirement Page Question Number 15. General Please provide details relating to any new games or game changes that the Lottery Inquiry plans to implement prior to the conversion date. RESPONSE: See answer for #11 16. General Please provide details relating to any on-line game changes (other than Mega Inquiry Millions matrix changes), additions or cancellations during the last five years. RESPONSE: Online game changes include the following: • Buckeye 5 was changed/replaced with Rolling Cash 5- 10/04 • Super Lotto Plus was replaced with Lot ‘O Play- 10/05 • KICKER was placed on Mega Millions 10/05 • Raffle to Riches was introduced on 7/06 • Lot ‘O Play was replaced with Classic Lotto- 1/07 • G3 Games is tentatively scheduled to launch 4/08 17. General Please provide a listing of the Key Account Retailers, including sales by Key Inquiry Account in an electronic format such as Excel. RESPONSE: Please see attached excel spreadsheet: Sales By Chain. 18. General Please provide a current Retailer’s list in an Excel electronic format that includes Inquiry the Retailer Number, Name, Address (including ZIP Code), Phone Number, and Sales Data. If necessary, the Retailer Name can be blocked out to protect the Retailer in the event this information is considered confidential, or we will be glad to sign a non-disclosure agreement. RESPONSE: Current retailer information was provided on the original CD detailing this information. 19. General Please provide copies of all Lottery Commission meeting minutes for the past two Inquiry years. RESPONSE: Commission Meeting minutes are included on CD.
  8. 8. RFP RFP Requirement Page Question Number 20. General Please provide copies of any minutes from meetings with Retailer groups during the Inquiry last two years. RESPONSE: During the previous two years the Ohio Lottery has hosted a number of retailer meetings in the course of our regular operating, strategic planning and agent communications plan. However there were no formal minutes taken during these meetings, roundtables and discussions. Please note: During the course of the year the Lottery Product and Development and Sales Departments host at our regional offices Ohio Lottery Agent instant ticket review meetings in an attempt to preview upcoming instant tickets for sale. These meetings are utilized to gain input from our retail partners in the development of play style, prize structures, colors and design of instant tickets. Further these meeting allow the lottery to share insights on future lottery plans and provide a sounding board for agent and market issues. The lottery in conjunction with our vendor partners may support focus group testing from agents regarding equipment, games and upgrades and new developments as it applies to the agents. In our continued efforts to re-brand and improve the services and games the lottery provides, agents have participated in roundtable discussions on lottery related issues. 21. General If available, please provide a copy of the 2007 Annual Report. Inquiry RESPONSE: The fiscal year 2007 annual report is currently being audited. We expect to have the report available by December 31, 2007. The report will be posted to the Ohio Lottery’s web site once the auditor’s opinion letter is delivered. 22. General Please provide the most recent Lottery organization chart. Please also provide the Inquiry number of Sales Representatives that are currently servicing the Retailers? RESPONSE: Sales representative 1’s that provide sales support on a daily basis to the agent base currently totals 87 (currently reflect vacancies in 12 districts). Lottery sales rep 2’s total 10 and provide coverage and training for the region. Five executive account reps support and provide chain headquarter and agent services 23. General How are instant tickets delivered to the Retailers? Is this done by courier, by Inquiry Lottery Sales Representatives, or by another method? Please specify. RESPONSE: A courier service is the primary method for delivery of instant tickets and gaming supplies to our retailer base. Lottery Sales representatives have limited instant
  9. 9. RFP RFP Requirement Page Question Number ticket inventory of trunk stock to issue to retailers. 24. General How do the Retailers get more instant tickets? Does the Lottery operate a TelSel Inquiry function for ordering instant tickets? RESPONSE: Scientific Games was awarded the contract for the Ohio State Lottery cooperative warehouse and distribution services. They are responsible to contact the retailers to review inventory, place a ticket order along with gaming supplies. The retailer also may call in if necessary. 25. General Please provide details relating to Retailer settlements (i.e. triggers etc.). Inquiry RESPONSE: The instant tickets are issued to retailers on a consignment basis. Lots are settled several ways at the retail level once the lot is physically sold, the system will auto settle a lot 45 days after activation, the system will lot sell all inventory at retailer locations at the close of a game. 26. General Does the Lottery have automatic reorder functionality for Retailers to get instant Inquiry tickets? RESPONSE: No 27. General Does the Lottery operate with "trunk stock" for servicing the Retailers’ instant ticket Inquiry needs? RESPONSE: Yes, see answer to question 23. 28. General Please identify the Retailers that have more than one Retailer terminal. Inquiry RESPONSE: Retailer equipment was detailed in the Agent File distributed with the original RFP. There are 123 agents today that have more than one terminal.
  10. 10. RFP RFP Requirement Page Question Number 29. General Please provide a copy of the Retailer Manual and Quick Reference Card. Inquiry RESPONSE: The OSL currently does not have a Quick Reference Card. However, a copy of the OSL’s Terminal Reference Manual has been attached. 30. General Please advise us of any pending legislation that may affect the Lottery. Inquiry RESPONSE: While there are a number of bills currently introduced in the 127th General Assembly that reference lottery statutes; all would be characterized as general in nature with regards to taxation disbursements and charges that would apply to income or adjustments to the distribution of lottery proceeds as it relates to education funding, none of which have gaming implications. HB 49 relates to charitable bingo statutes. Recently a consortium identified as MyOhioNow has begun the ‘Initiative Petition’ process to amend the Ohio Constitution to allow casino gambling. While no legislative action is expected in the near future, the Attorney General has rejected the summary to initiate an amendment. 31. General Please provide details relating to the Lottery’s Web site. Does the Lottery host it or is it Inquiry hosted by an outside party? What basic capabilities does it have? RESPONSE: The agency website is hosted by the Department of Administrative Services. The website is informational in nature but does contain dynamic pages for winning numbers, instant game detail, and retail location searches. 32. General Please provide a print quality Lottery logo and print quality game logos, preferably in Inquiry EPS or vector-based format so that we may use them in our bid response. RESPONSE: The logos are provided on CD. 33. General What is the overall blended prize payout percentage for FY05, FY06, and FY07? Inquiry RESPONSE: The unaudited financial statements for fiscal year 2007 will report prize expense at 58.7%. The Ohio Lottery’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for fiscal year 2006 is available via the Ohio Lottery’s web site at www.ohiolottery.com. Prize expense information for prior years is available on page 45.
  11. 11. RFP RFP Requirement Page Question Number 34. General What special events or non-traditional retailer events such as state fairs are supported Inquiry by the Lottery? Please provide the past two years’ event schedules? RESPONSE: The schedules for FY 05, FY 06 and FY 07 are provided on CD. 35. General What is the average monthly in/out movement of retailer’s equipment? Inquiry RESPONSE: The average number of retailers that are added and subtracted including change of ownerships is 91 a week. 36. General How many on-line retailers does the Lottery expect to have at the commercial launch of Inquiry the system? RESPONSE: As indicated in Question 4, the base system must include equipment for 8,800 locations. The current agent base of 8,250 has remained relatively stable. 37. General If the Bidder believes that they can provide offered options for the Lottery, how can Inquiry such options be offered? Please provide clear instructions. RESPONSE: Instructions for submitting Offered Options are contained in RFP sections 1.15 and 1.38. 38. 1.0 2 Section 1.0 states that the Contract will be effective from the award date through 2.4 23 June 30, 2009 and that the OSL intends to renew the Contract for 2 years of productions operations and may extend the Contract for a maximum of 4 additional 2 year periods or any combination thereof. Section 2.4 states that the Contract will be in effect from the Contract effective date, including an implementation period and 2 years of production operations. Section 2.4 further states that the OSL reserves the right to renew the Contract up to a maximum of 4 extensions of 2 years each. These sections appear to contradict each other with respect to the initial contract period. Q: Will the OSL please clarify the initial contract term? Will the OSL please confirm that the total potential period of production operations is 10 years? RESPONSE: The intent was for a one year conversion contract followed by a total of five two year contracts. This would provide a 10 year period of production operations.
  12. 12. RFP RFP Requirement Page Question Number 39. 1.10 7 It is stated that after the Proposal due date and in case the OSL distributes amendments “… the OSL may allow Vendors that have Proposals under active consideration to modify their proposals in response to the amendment”. Q: Please confirm that no price alteration shall be permitted under this process, especially considering that it occurs following the bid opening, except during the BAFO period. RESPONSE: The Lottery cannot confirm what modifications may be permitted under this process. Pursuant to Section 1.10 the Lottery retains the right to limit the nature and scope of modifications. 40. 1.12 8 Q: Please clarify the meaning of … “unacceptable conditional language; unacceptable assumptions or contrary terms…” RESPONSE: No clarification is required. Whether language is “unacceptable conditional language; unacceptable assumptions or contrary terms” cannot be determined until such time as the proposals are submitted. 41. 1.15.1 9 This section states that twelve (12) copies of the Technical Proposal must be submitted along with the original. Q: Given the confidential, personal information contained in the Appendix W Disclosure Form, must the Vendor provide 12 copies of the completed Appendix W, or will one (1) copy in the original Technical Proposal suffice? RESPONSE: One original along with one copy of the Disclosure Forms in Appendix W is acceptable. This section will be amended. 42. 1.15.1 10 Item 6 requires, as a separately tabbed part of the Technical Proposal, a Vendor’s affirmative statement of “Agreement to comply with all terms and conditions (from Part 2 and Appendix C).” Q: Provided that a Vendor does not qualify its affirmative statement of acceptance of all terms and conditions as stated will the Lottery permit a Vendor to submit suggested revisions to one or more such terms and conditions in a separately sealed envelope with its Proposal?
  13. 13. RFP RFP Requirement Page Question Number RESPONSE: Each vendor is required to sign the Affirmative Statement, but a responding vendor may identify terms in Appendix C that the responding vendor believes should be open to negotiation subject to section 5.8.1. 43. 1.15.1 10 In item 10, the requirement states that, “An original and two (2) copies of the required financial information (Section 3.9.9) should be filed with the Proposal original only.” Q: In order to conserve paper and provide an easier-to-read proposal, will the Lottery permit Vendors to submit this information in electronic format on a CD? RESPONSE: The Lottery is willing to accept a single original copy of financial information with an accompanying electronic submission. This section will be amended. 44. 1.15.1 10 Item 13 of the listed response sections states that the Vendor must submit at least one originally signed copy of the Vendor Information Form with the original Technical Proposal, but that "All other copies of the Vendor's Proposal may contain copies of this form." (Emphasis added.) Q: Would the Lottery please confirm that the Vendor is not required to submit copies of its Vendor Information Form with the 12 non-original copies of the Technical Proposal? RESPONSE: The original along with one copy of the Vendor information Form is acceptable. This section will be amended. 45. 1.15.1 10 The vendor is required to include completed disclosure forms within its technical Subsection 7 proposal. Q: As these forms contain sensitive confidential information, including home Volume I address, date of birth and social security numbers, will the OSL modify the RFP to require these completed forms be placed in the original technical proposal volume only or alternatively, presented in a separately sealed envelope? RESPONSE: The RFP details the process for designating confidential information as confidential and responding vendors are instructed to follow the process as outlined in the RFP for designating confidential information as confidential.
  14. 14. RFP RFP Requirement Page Question Number 46. 1.15.1 10 Q: Is the list of Invited and Offered Options (Item 9), noting whether they are provided Volume I within the Base System Price (without separate charge), or at additional cost sufficient for the technical proposal, or is it acceptable for Vendors to additionally note within each applicable section of the technical proposal whether the Invited or Offered Option is included within the Base System Price? RESPONSE: The options provided within the base system price should be noted within each applicable section of the technical proposal. Please see Bolded Text: Whether Invited or Offered Options are no charge (in the Base System) or separately charged must be clearly noted in the technical section. 47. 1.15.1.12 10 The RFP states that: Two (2) terminals in working order…..must be included. Q: Could the Lottery please clarify if the person that is delivering the proposal will be allowed to “set-up” the terminals and peripherals for the Lottery? RESPONSE: Yes, it would be acceptable for a Vendor representative to set up any equipment. 48. 1.22 13 In one paragraph it is requested that the proposals be prepared simply and economically, providing straightforward and concise descriptions. Yet in the next paragraph it states responses semantically equivalent to “Vendor agrees to comply” may be judged as lacking credibility or rejected for non-responsiveness at the discretion of the OSL. There are many requirements within this RFP that simply state you must provide a given function or feature that simply requires a response that you are indicating is not acceptable. By making this statement, the OSL may receive responses that are longer and more verbose than needed. Q: Will the OSL rescind these statements and allow statements of compliance where warranted? RESPONSE: The requirements of this section will not be amended. 49. 1.4, 1.34, 17, 51-55 Regarding the requirement to submit Appendix W forms with the Proposal, we 1.35, 2.30, presume the following: and Appendix W For a Vendor that is a corporation, the officers, directors and any major shareholders who are natural persons will be required to submit Appendix W forms. Officers and directors of subcontractors will not be required to submit Appendix W
  15. 15. RFP RFP Requirement Page Question Number forms. Only those employees described in Section 2.30 as those "key employees who will be performing services under the Contract" will be required to complete Appendix W forms only after the Vendor has been named a Successful Vendor. Since the last sentence of Section 1.35 states that "the OSL may request the above disclosures from the parent entity" (emphasis added), the Lottery will advise the Vendor if any disclosures are required from a parent entity, and unless the Lottery so requests, it is not necessary to submit such disclosures with the Proposal. Q: Will the Lottery please confirm if our understanding is correct or clarify where it may be incorrect? RESPONSE: The understanding set forth above regarding the cited sections is accurate except that background checks of subcontractors and other entities as listed in section 1.35 and section 2.30.1 may be initiated. Also, in accordance with section 2.30.1 background investigations of individuals other than just “key personnel” may be conducted. 50. 1.30 15 Q: It is our understanding that OSL may require additional products; services or equipment to enhance its services to the players and to the State of Ohio. We suggest the successful bidder be consulted prior to any additions of products, services and or equipment provided from any 3rd party and have the right for 1st refusal to supply these products, services and or equipment that will be part of the system and also that compensation be negotiated under the terms of Section 2.25 page 37. RESPONSE: The agency intends to work closely with the successful bidder but will not guarantee right of refusal to supply products, services and or equipment. 51. 1.31 16 Proposal Bid Bond Q: Will the OSL accept a letter of credit as an alternative form of security for the Bid Bond? RESPONSE: Section 1.31 will not be amended.
  16. 16. RFP RFP Requirement Page Question Number 52. 1.32 16 Litigation Bond Q: Will the OSL accept a letter of credit as an alternative form of security for the Litigation Bond? RESPONSE: Section 1.32 will not be amended. 53. 1.32 16 Item 4 - The RFP states the litigation bond of the unsuccessful bidders may be released? Q: Would the Lottery please specify the time frame of when the “Litigation Bond” will be released after the acceptance of the “Covenant Not To Sue” letter? RESPONSE: The time frame for release of the litigation bond will depend upon the circumstances at the time of presentation of and acceptance of a Covenant Not to Sue. 54. 1.35 17 Q: Who pays the cost of these investigations, OSL or the Vendor? If the Vendor, what is the typical cost of the background investigations? RESPONSE: Background investigations are conducted by the Ohio Highway Patrol and are paid by the Ohio Lottery Commission. 55. 1.3.6 17 We presume that the Appendix W requirement to “list any felony or misdemeanor convictions” is limited, per RFP Section 1.36 [Litigation and Investigations], to the Vendor’s disclosures as to whether they or any owners, officers, trustees, board members, subcontractors, agents, or partners have ever been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude or an offense involving illegal gambling or has been found guilty of fraud or misrepresentation in any manner. Q: Would the Lottery please confirm this understanding? RESPONSE: The requirement in Appendix W is not limited as stated in the above Questions. All felony and misdemeanor convictions within the past ten years must be disclosed on the Disclosure Form in Appendix W. 56. 1.34 17 Q: Would the Lottery please specify who is required to complete Appendix W – Disclosure Forms and if Appendix W is required to be submitted with the Vendor’s proposal? RESPONSE: See Question 49 and Answer to Question 49.
  17. 17. RFP RFP Requirement Page Question Number 57. 1.0 & 1.41 1-2 & 19 Lottery Determination of Vendor Responsibility RFP 1.0 [Introduction, Mission Statement and Values – pp. 1-2]: This section states that, “The Responding Vendor is required to have one (1) or more current U.S. client(s) to whom it has supplied a Lottery Gaming System comparable to the functional specifications of this RFP for products and Services, [and that] “Such System and services under this RFP include” (i) Ticket Vending Machines and (ii) a Telemarketing Warehousing and Distribution application.” Q: Will the Lottery please confirm our interpretation of this section? The RFP is ambiguous as to the role a determination of a Vendor’s “responsibility” will play in the Lottery's award decision – e.g., adequacy of financial resources, satisfactory record of performance and integrity, organization, experience, etc. Specifically, is this an “up or down” decision about the Vendor itself, as is normally the case, independent of the responsiveness of a Vendor’s Technical Proposal, or instead will this be evaluated as one of the scored categories in terms of the responsiveness of a Vendor’s Technical Proposal? Both interpretations are supported in the current version of the RFP. As a result, we respectfully request the following clarifications of the Lottery’s intentions. RFP 1.41 [Disqualification for Non-Responsive – p. 19]: Despite the heading, the text describes factors generally used to determine whether a bidder is deemed “responsible.” Will the Lottery please confirm our interpretation of this section: That a Vendor who fails to meet the stated requirements of that term (and any other responsibility factors considered relevant) will be rejected as “non-responsible;” and Consistent with RFP 5.1 [Evaluation Committee and OSL Executive Director – p. 171] and RFP 5.6 [Price Evaluation – p. 176], that the Lottery Evaluation Committee will not evaluate a responsive Proposal submitted by a Vendor deemed non-responsible? RESPONSE: A vendor’s responsibility will be scored in accordance with section 3.9 and other relevant sections of the RFP. 58. 1.41 19 Q: Please clarify in what terms a bidder might have conflict of interest in serving OSL; and what measures are required for a bidder to prove sufficient financial responsibility (other than 3.9.9).
  18. 18. RFP RFP Requirement Page Question Number RESPONSE: Guidance as to whether a conflict of interest may exist may be found at http:// www.ethics.ohio.gov. Whether an actual conflict of interest may exist will be determined at the time proposals are submitted. Vendors are required to submit financial data as outlined in section 3.9.9 which will be used to assess each vendor’s financial condition. As such, other than complying with the submissions and additional requirements outlined in the RPF, no additional items are needed to support financial responsibility. However, certain events may contribute to a vendor’s disqualification. Such events include, but are not limited to, the following: Qualified auditor’s opinion, going concern issues, bankruptcy, receivership, outstanding or settled litigation severely damaging the financial condition of the vendor, loss of major revenue sources, inability to access credit or issue debt, substantial and on-going operating losses, illegal financial reporting activities, credible negative financial assessments from the investment community, negative financial and ethical information made available through the vendor or other sources pursuant to section 5.3 of the RFP (i.e. financial professionals, consultants, law enforcement), failure to comply with section 1.37 of the RFP (Change in Financial Condition), matters presented and disclosed pursuant to sections 1.35 and 1.36 of the RFP and any other matters or conditions presented or disclosed relative to a vendor’s financial condition. Financial statements will be reviewed to assess certain key financial criteria including, but is not limited to, the following: Asset and liability balances, asset to debt ratios, liquidity, retained earnings, operational income/losses, long-term trends, notes to the financial statements, and so forth. 59. 2.5 23 It is stated that in case the subsequent Vendor’s System does not meet the requirements of the OSL then the Lottery reserves the right to further extend the Contract, at the same terms, conditions and pricing then in effect. Q: We would like to propose that in case an extension of the contract is required for the reasons stated in this section, then the conditions and pricing of the extension period shall be negotiated in good faith with the Lottery for a minimum period of 12 months.
  19. 19. RFP RFP Requirement Page Question Number RESPONSE: The requirements in 2.5 will not be changed. 60. 2.7 24-25 “The first audit shall cover a partial year ending with the State’s fiscal year”. Q: Does Subsection 3 this mean the first audit covers the period from the start of acceptance testing through June 30, 2009 (full conversion completed)? RESPONSE: The winning vendor is not responsible to have a SAS 70 performed for activity prior to July 1, 2009. Generally, the SAS 70 covers a period of time agreed upon by the vendor and the OSL (typically the SAS 70 covers a six month period). The most recent SAS 70 reports covered the period of January 1st – June 30th). Alternative time periods may be covered upon agreement with the vendor and the OSL. The current gaming vendor is responsible for the SAS 70 covering the period up to June 30, 2009. 61. 2.8 25 All insurance must provide coverage for all claims arising from activities during the Contract term regardless of the date of the claim. The same requirements apply to any subcontractors working on the OSL’s Contract. Q: Please clarify the meaning of “regardless of the date of the claim”. This claim should be defined by the contract. Both terms of claims and period seems vague. RESPONSE: If “Claims Made” coverage is in effect during the term of the contract, then an “Extended Reporting Period(s)” must be purchased to ensure coverage is in place to facilitate claim(s) that occurred during the policy period, but may be reported beyond the policy period. The length of the “Extended Reporting Period(s)” shall be commensurate with the ultimate exposure that may give rise to a claim under the “Claims Made” policy. 62. 2.9.1 27 General Liability - Regarding General Liability coverage, insurance policies today are written on a Combined Single Limit Basis (CSL) in lieu of Split limits and are also referred to as “Commercial General Liability” and not “Comprehensive General Liability.” Q: Will the OSL accept evidence of $10,000,000 CSL for Bodily Injury and Property Damage per occurrence and $10,000,000 Aggregate written on a Commercial General Liability form?
  20. 20. RFP RFP Requirement Page Question Number RESPONSE: No amendment will be made to this section. 63. 2.11 28-29 The 2nd sentence of the 3rd paragraph would allow the Lottery, at the end of the Contract and subject to the parties’ mutual agreement, to “assume ownership” of the Successful Vendor’s “System source and object codes for the proprietary software used to run such System, and/or computer programs and software used to program functionality of the ITVMs.” Q: Since Vendors generally are not prepared to relinquish ownership of their proprietary materials, will the OSL please revise this sentence, as follows, to delete such potential transfer of ownership rights? “At the close of the Contract or any extensions hereto, by mutual agreement of the parties, the OSL may or may not assume ownership of any or all such items of the System equipment and components that make up the System, and may obtain a license to use and maintain the software and source and object code documentation.” The 2nd sentence of the 4th paragraph of RFP 2.11 would allow the Lottery to “alter” the Successful Vendor’s software programs under the circumstances described in that paragraph. Q: Will the OSL please delete the word “altering” from this sentence? RESPONSE: No changes will be made to this section. 64. 2.12 29 It is stated that “For the duration of the Contract, the Successful Vendor shall grant to, or obtain in the name of the OSL, a perpetual (or uninterrupted and continuous) …” Q: It is in our understanding that the meaning of the term “perpetual” under the context of this section shall be the one described within the parenthesis, i.e. “uninterrupted and continuous” and not extending in terms of duration after the end of the Contract. Please advice or state otherwise. RESPONSE: No clarification is necessary and no amendment will be made to this section.
  21. 21. RFP RFP Requirement Page Question Number 65. 2.14 31 It is stated that “The existence of such causes of delay or failure shall extend the schedule for performance to such extent as may be necessary to complete performance in the exercise of reasonable diligence after the causes of delay or failure have been removed.” Q: In addition to the extension of the schedule in terms of performance, we would like to suggest that in case a Force Majeure event lasts for a period exceeding 6 months, then the OSL shall consider extending the contract accordingly. RESPONSE: No amendment will be made to this section. 66. 2.15 31-32 Q: To resolve an inconsistency with the 1st sentence of this provision, will the OSL please revise the 2nd sentence of this term by adding the underlined text as follows? “If onsite remedial maintenance is not completed within eight (8) working hours after notification by the OSL, or another period of mutually agreed time. . .” Q: So as to resolve the same inconsistency with the 1st sentence of this provision, will the OSL also please revise the penultimate sentence on p. 32 of this term by adding the following underlined phrase within the bolded portion at the end of that sentence?: “. . . except the Successful Vendor shall have only eight (8) working hours, or another period of mutually agreed-upon time, to remedy a default pursuant to this section.” RESPONSE: This section will be amended. 67. 2.23 36 It is stated that “the Successful will grant a license or authority to the OSL to make use of any such Intellectual Property on an indefinite basis with respect to OSL conduct of games and business.” Q: Please consider revising this paragraph as the grant or authority to OSL to make use of any such Intellectual Property shall be only for the duration of the Contract and not on an indefinite basis. RESPONSE: This section will be amended. 68. 2.23 36-37 As drafted, the 3rd paragraph of this Section would require the Successful Vendor to grant a license or authority to the OSL to use any Vendor-developed intellectual property associated with any product or service “on an indefinite basis…. at no additional charge.” This provision appears inconsistent with the aforementioned RFP 2.11.
  22. 22. RFP RFP Requirement Page Question Number Q: Will the OSL please revise this term either to confine the license period to the duration of the Contract including any extensions or, alternatively (and consistent with RFP 2.11), provide that any license beyond the Contract term will be subject to mutually agreed-upon compensation? RESPONSE: This section will be amended. 69. 2.27 38 Performance/Payment Bond - Surety companies require that a Performance Bond be annually renewable. Q: Will the OSL please amend Section 2.27 to include language that the Performance Bond can be renewed on an annual basis? RESPONSE: This section will be amended. 70. 2.27 38 Performance/Payment - Section 2.27, Performance/Payment, includes wording that is similar to Forfeiture language. It is the desire of the Surety Companies to “cure the default” in lieu of strict forfeiture. Therefore, will the OSL please consider replacing the wording, “The bond shall be paid to the Lottery, at its sole discretion, if the Successful Vendor materially defaults in the performance of the Contract” with the following?: “If the Vendor defaults in the performance of its contractual obligations, or if the Lottery incurs damages due to the Vendor’s breach of its duties, the surety shall have the option to cure the default or tender funds sufficient to pay the cost of completion, up to an amount not to exceed the penal sum of the bond. With the concurrence of the Lottery, the surety may assume the remainder of the contract to perform or sublet.” RESPONSE: This section will be amended. 71. 2.27 38 Q: Will the Lottery accept a Letter of Credit as an alternative form of security for the Performance Bond? RESPONSE: This section will not be amended.
  23. 23. RFP RFP Requirement Page Question Number 72. 2.27 38 The third sentence refers to the bond indemnifying against “all direct and consequential damages,” since consequential damages cannot be quantified. Given that, will the Lottery please amend the third sentence as follows?: “The bond shall indemnify the OSL and the state of Ohio against all direct damages suffered by failure of the Successful Vendor to perform according to the provisions of the Contract (including but not limited to payment to any third party subcontractors for services rendered under the Contract).” RESPONSE: This section will be amended. 73. 2.27 38 This provision requires that the Successful Vendor’s Performance Bond indemnify the Lottery and the State “against all direct and consequential damages.” As drafted, this term contains no limit on the Lottery’s/State’s potential recovery of consequential damages for the Successful Vendor’s breach of its obligations. In contrast, legal principles applicable throughout the country regarding the recovery of consequential damages hold that such damages may not be recovered if the breaching party did not have reason to foresee, at the time of the contract, the losses as a probable result of breach [see, e.g., Restatement of Contracts, Sec. 351] Q: Will the Lottery please confirm its intention that, besides direct damages, the indemnity required by this term will be limited to any consequential damages that were foreseeable at the time the Contract became effective? RESPONSE: This section will be amended. 74. 2.28 38 Q: Will the Lottery accept a Certificate of Insurance evidencing Employee Dishonesty, which is the Fidelity Bond section of the Crime policy and is much broader in coverage, in lieu of a separate Fidelity Bond? RESPONSE: This section will not be amended. 75. 2.28 38 A Fidelity Bond and/or Crime Insurance does not extend coverage to agents or subcontractors. As such, we respectfully request that the Lottery please delete the words “agents or subcontractors.”
  24. 24. RFP RFP Requirement Page Question Number RESPONSE: This section will not be amended. 76. 2.28 38 The requirement for the Successful Vendor to have the Fidelity bond obtained by the Successful Vendor prior to Contract Execution (April 2008) is not necessary for a non- incumbent Successful Vendor, since a non-incumbent Successful Vendor does not have access to the existing gaming system and cannot cause loss to the OSL. Furthermore, it is presumed the incumbent vendor already has a Fidelity Bond in effect under the current contract, thereby having an unfair cost advantage – the incumbent vendor will be earning revenue while incurring cost for the Fidelity Bond, while a non-incumbent will earn no revenue prior to June 30, 2009. Q: Will the OSL either: Amend the RFP to require the Fidelity Bond be in place before Full Conversion instead of prior to Contract Execution? OR Clarify the RFP to state that if the incumbent vendor is the Successful Vendor, that vendor must provide a second Fidelity Bond in addition to any bond currently in effect prior to Contract Execution? RESPONSE: No amendment will be made to this section, but for purposes of clarification, all bonds and insurance must pertain to and provide coverage under the new contract. 77. 2.29 39-51 None of the documents comprising the RFP for this procurement contain a stated maximum amount of liquidated damages that the OSL may assess over a given period of time. In order to both comply with Ohio law voiding liquidated damages provisions or assessments that provide for, or amount to, unenforceable penalties, and to eliminate the prospect of arbitrary assessments bearing no relation to the Lottery’s actual damages, will the OSL please agree to add the following terms to the liquidated damages provisions of the new Contract: (a) that, as to any proposed assessment of damages, the Contractor may furnish, and the Lottery will fairly consider, evidence of the facts and circumstances where available to establish that the Lottery’s actual damages were less than the liquidated sum;
  25. 25. RFP RFP Requirement Page Question Number (b) that the Lottery will not assess more than its actual damages for any incident in which the evidence establishes to the Lottery’s reasonable satisfaction that its actual damages were less than the liquidated amount; and (c) that the Lottery will not assess liquidated damages in multiple categories for the same incident if to do so would amount to an unenforceable penalty under Ohio law. The first paragraph of RFP Section 2.29 states that, “any breach by the Successful Vendor will delay and disrupt the OSL’s operations and will lead to damages.” Since many “breaches” may be incidental, non-material, of short duration, or otherwise not giving rise to damages, the Successful Vendor’s agreement to this term could allow the OSL to assess LDs where no damages were incurred. Thus: Q: Will the OSL revise this provision to substitute “certain contract breaches” for the words “any breach” in this paragraph? The third paragraph of RFP 2.29 states in relevant part that the “Assessment of liquidated damages shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, such other remedies as may be available to the OSL.” Similarly, Appendix C [Limitation of Liability and Remedies Cumulative] states that, “liquidated damages shall not be the exclusive remedy available to the OSL for damages caused by the Successful Vendor.” Liquidated damages are meant as a reasonable assessment of the damages the Lottery would incur upon the Successful Vendor’s breach, and in accordance with applicable law, are intended as an alternative remedy for breach – i.e., in lieu of other remedies. This may inadvertently provide the opportunity for the Lottery to receive an unfair windfall if it is entitled to receive other damages in addition to any assessed liquidated damages. Q: Accordingly, will the OSL please delete the above-quoted text from RFP 2.29? Q: Besides the individual damages assessable for specified performance failures, will the OSL agree to include a provision in the new Contract that establishes mutually agreed-upon total maximum damages that may be assessed over a defined period, such as a day, week, month or year? RESPONSE: No amendments will be made to this section.
  26. 26. RFP RFP Requirement Page Question Number 78. 2.29.6 40 This section states that, “In the liquidated damages sections below the damages shall be pro-rated for partial periods.” Standing alone, that statement is clear. However, (i) not all liquidated damages categories involve delayed performance of obligations; e.g., RFP 2.29.18 [Unauthorized Software/Hardware Modifications]; RFP 2.29.19 [Unauthorized Access or Compromise]; RFP 2.29.25 [Failure to Provide Software Testing and Quality Software Turnovers]; and (ii) succeeding sections of RFP 2.29 variously refer to “pro-rated fraction,” or simply “fraction,” or, as with the examples below, do not mention any pro-rating of damages for time-related incidents, e.g., RFP 2.29.13 [Terminal and Peripherals Repair] (last paragraph), RFP 2.29.14 [Terminal Preventive Maintenance], RFP 2.29.15 [Failure to Modify Existing Online Games or to Install Additional Games], leaving unclear the scope of the Lottery's intention to pro- rate damages. Q: Will the OSL please confirm that all categories of liquidated damages involving incidents of delayed performance will be subject to proration? RESPONSE: This section will be amended. At least two categories of LDs do not meet the legal requirements for a valid liquidated damages provision. RFP 2.29.26 [Damages for Non-Conforming Terminals] establishes no liquidated sum, and RFP 2.29.28 [Damages for Mutilated or Destroyed Tickets] does not meet the requirement that the actual damages the OSL would sustain “be extremely impractical and difficult to determine.” Q: Will the OSL please confirm its intent for categories of liquidated damages not involving performance delays to also be pro-rated based on the severity of the incident? RESPONSE: No amendment will be made to this section.. Q: Will the OSL please remove these provisions from RFP 2.29? RESPONSE: In regard to section 2.29.26, responding vendors are advised that nothing in section 2.29.26 precludes liquidated damages from being assessed under section 2.29.13 and other sections of the RFP for non-conforming terminals.
  27. 27. RFP RFP Requirement Page Question Number In regard to section 2.29.28, responding vendors are advised that nothing in section 2.29.28 precludes liquidated damages from being assessed under other sections of the RFP for mutilated or destroyed tickets. 79. 3.0.1 58 It is stated that “The OSL manages and maintains a number of back office client server and mainframe applications integral to the System operation. These applications, developed by Elsym Consulting, are used to process Retailer sales data and history, maintain claims data, execute electronic payments, and perform System-balancing operations for each of the games.” Q: Please specify the present back office client server and mainframe applications that will continue to operate under the new Contract. Please clarify which of these applications will need to be interfaced to the Contractor’s System and which of them need to be provided and maintained by the successful vendor. RESPONSE: The OSL currently uses the Elsym ICS System to feed through customized links its Sales History Database, IRS reporting systems W-2G, 1099 process, Financial Systems Electronic Funds Transfers, Solomon General Ledger & OAKS and Claims Information System, and Cole Order Pad updates. 80. 3.0.1 58 Q: GTECH Lease 1,500 TVM’s. Please provide a copy of the contract(s), lease(s) and any other documents such as amendment(s) which govern the TVM machines currently in use by the Lottery from any of the other vendors. RESPONSE: The current contract with GTECH is provided electronically separately. The RFP refers to Appendix X; however, Appendix X is a floor plan of the building. In addition to the above information please provide information as to the number and model of machines which are currently in use, how many games or bins are configured in each of the machines, and also please provide a list of retailers that have the TVM’s in excel format including their name and address. RESPONSE: The reference to Appendix X will be updated. A list of current Retailers that have ITVMs was provided to all vendors on the CD that was overnight shipped to them and received on October 12th, 2007.
  28. 28. RFP RFP Requirement Page Question Number 81. 3.1.4 62 Q: Would the Lottery please clarify how many ICS systems are desired and their respective locations? RESPONSE: The Lottery is requesting a single ICS. The Selected Vendor will provide the OSL with the software for a production ICS system that will process both Instant & Online and a Test ICS system that will perform the same function. The licensing will allow the OSL to run multiple instances of the ICS systems to support disaster recovery and three production environments simultaneously mainly for a Mega Millions day. The same simultaneously licensing will be required for the Test system to support multiple test environments 82. 3.1.4 62 The RFP states that the Lottery currently uses a DS-3 line for ICS communications. Q: Is the Successful Vendor expected to provide a similar connection under the new contract or will the Lottery be providing the line? RESPONSE: If the SDC is located in Ohio the OSL will provide and cover the cost of the communications link. However, if the SDC is located outside of Ohio the Selected Vendor will be responsible to provide and cover the cost of the communications link. 83. 3.1.3 62 First sentence has a mislabeled reference to a section number. It states Section 3.8.4 for more information on Acceptance testing, but is actually Section 3.8.8. RESPONSE: The reference for Acceptance Testing should have been 3.8.8 & 3.8.9. 84. 3.1.3 62 Q: Are the six retailer terminals at each of the locations (OSL headquarters and PDC) Subsection 2 for a total of twelve retailer terminals, or a total of six combined for the OSL headquarters and PDC? RESPONSE: The Selected Vendor will provide six retailer terminals at each location totaling 12 for the two locations. They will also be responsible to provide above this number of test devices test versions of any deployed equipment. 85. 3.2.1 69 Q: Who pays the cost of third party random play generator testing and certification? Subsection 2.i RESPONSE: The Selected Vendor is expected to pay the cost of random generator testing and certification.
  29. 29. RFP RFP Requirement Page Question Number 86. 3.2.1 72 Q: Since memory upgrades have a cost to the Vendor, should vendors’ price memory Paragraph 2 upgrade(s) as Offered Option(s)? Subparagraph t (iii) RESPONSE: Any cost for memory upgrades will be the responsibility of the Selected Vendor, no separate breakdown is required. 87. 3.2.1.2.dd 73 Q: Branding, Please explain why branding, which is an old technology which slows down the validation and reliability of the scanning process and complicates the steps required for retailers to validate winning tickets and to check winning tickets, is required? dd. Branding. The Retailer terminal must be capable of branding tickets with a programmable message. The circumstance and messages for branding tickets will be worked out in detail between the Vendor and the OSL. For example, when a ticket is validated or canceled, the ticket should be read by the terminal and branded accordingly. Additionally, non-winning tickets may be submitted by players for checking, and these could be branded as non-winners. We recommend that branding be removed from the basic requirements because it involves outdated procedures and it is a very costly requirement, not only in terms of the POS equipment and maintenance required but also in the time and effort this outdated technique adds for the retailers when performing validation and checking of tickets. In order to brand tickets, they must be passed through scanners with moving parts and thermal print heads which causes unneeded wear and additional maintenance requirements and unnecessary additional equipment cost of the Lottery. In addition, the TVM machines will not be capable of branding tickets. RESPONSE: The requirement for branding will not be removed. Vendors may use the Offered Options section of their proposal to propose alternate technologies and pricing.
  30. 30. RFP RFP Requirement Page Question Number 88. 3.2.1.3.a 75 Q: Will the Lottery please clarify the quantity of units (“five hundred” or “100”) 3.2.1.3.c required to be priced in the Specified Options? 3.2.1.3.d RESPONSE: The quantity should be one hundred. This section will be amended. Please also see the response to question 1. 89. 3.2.1 75 Q: Please clarify the Player Jackpot Display Specified Option quantity as either 500 or Subsection 3.a 100 – text says “five hundred (100) additional units”. Price Quotation Sheet (RFP page 168) states 100. RESPONSE: The quantity should be one hundred. This section will be amended. Please also see the response to question 1. 90. 3.2.1 75 Q: Please clarify the Self service Verifier Specified Option quantity as either 500 or Subsection 3.a 100 – text says “five hundred (100) additional units”. Price Quotation Sheet (RFP page 168) states 100. RESPONSE: The quantity should be one hundred. This section will be amended. Please also see the response to question 1. 91. 3.2.1 75 It is stated for paragraphs 3. (a), (c) and (d) that “As a Specified Option, the Subsection Responding Vendor must propose pricing in delivery quantities of five hundred 3.(a),(c),(d) (100) additional units.” Q: Please advise us if the price quotation shall be for five hundred or for one hundred additional units. RESPONSE: The quantity should be one hundred. This section will be amended. Please also see the response to question 1. Q: In paragraphs (3.) (e) and (f) for the Cash Drawers and Store Signage respectively, please clarify the applicable quantities to be reflected in the pricing. RESPONSE: There is no quantity defined for Invited Options. The Vendor may propose pricing for Cash Drawers and Store Signage with for a minimum quantity. Please also see the response to question 1.
  31. 31. RFP RFP Requirement Page Question Number 92. 3.2.3.1 76 The RFP requests that the Vendor describe a hardware/software solution intended to provide a checkout lane alternative for multi-lane locations. Prior offerings by all vendors suggest that the offered solutions can vary greatly in terms of hardware, software and cost. Q: To ensure the Lottery is able to fairly evaluate all offered solutions, would it consider changing this requirement to a "Specified Option" and identify a minimum quantity of units for bidding and pricing purposes, such as one hundred (100) lanes, which the Lottery has used as a minimum for other Specified Options on 4.4.4.II on page 168? RESPONSE: The Lottery is not prepared to provide a quantity for this option. 93. 3.2.3 77 Q: What is the Lottery’s projected timeline for the introduction of monitor games and Keno? RESPONSE: The Lottery does not have a timeline for the introduction of monitor games. 94. 3.2.3 77 Q: What is the projected quantity of Player Activated Keno equipment? Subsection 6.b RESPONSE: The Lottery does not have a plan for deploying Player Activated Keno equipment. Q: Does OSL want the Keno draws displayed on the Vending Machine or a separate monitor? RESPONSE: The Lottery does not have a plan for deploying Player Activated Keno equipment.
  32. 32. RFP RFP Requirement Page Question Number 95. 3.2.3 77 Q: What is the projected quantity of Player Activated Pull Tab Dispensing Machines? Subsection 6.c RESPONSE: The Lottery does not have a plan for deploying Player Activated Pull-Tab Dispensing Machines. 96. 3.2.3 77 Q: For Section 3.2.3 (5) - Please indicate the quantity of the Privileged Cashing Subsection Terminals that OSL wishes to be considered for pricing in the invited options. (4), (6) (a)(b)(c) RESPONSE: The OSL desires to have thirty-nine (39) privileged terminals dedicated for the function to process (validate) winning tickets at the OSL facilities. The OSL does not anticipate this number to increase significantly and does not have any current plans in increasing the number at this time. The OSL plans to have the thirty-nine (39) privileged terminals in addition to the base of 8,800 terminals as required in the base pricing. Due to certain State budget and treasury regulations, the OSL does not have any immediate plans to implement check writing services, but may however desire to use this capability (feature) in future years. Q: For Section 3.2.3 (6) (a) - How many TVM’s (that sell online and instant ticket games) are currently installed? Are there any TVM’s installed at locations which do not have an online terminal? If so, how many of each configuration? RESPONSE: The Lottery does not currently have dual function vending machines. Please also see question 80. Q: For Section 3.2.3 (6) (b) - How many Vending Machines and Display Screens (for an online Keno offering) are currently installed? Please indicate to us the current/near future number of age controlled environments and a listing with full addresses. Please indicate also the quantity of the Player Activated Keno Equipment that OSL wishes to be considered for pricing in the invited options. RESPONSE: The Lottery does not have a current Keno product line. The licensed Retailer base currently has approximately 500 locations which qualify as age controlled.
  33. 33. RFP RFP Requirement Page Question Number Q: For Section 3.2.3 (6) (c) - How many Player Activated Pull Tab Dispensing Machines are currently installed and of what characteristics? Please indicate also the relevant quantity of dispensing machines that OSL wishes to be considered for pricing in the invited options. RESPONSE: The Lottery does not have a current pull tab product line. 97. 3.2.3 77 Q: Please clarify if the privileged cashing terminals can be used for training purposes 3.2.7 79 also. RESPONSE: The privileged cashing terminals may not be used for training purposes. 98. 3.2.4 78 Q: We assume dispensers will be provided for every retailer. Is this assumption correct? If not, what quantity or percentage of retailers is expected to receive the dispensers? RESPONSE: All agents presently have instant ticket dispensers of one type or another; including individual cubes, pre constructed in and on counter units of various sizes, mainly deployed in chain account locations. The Lottery will not commit to a quantity of dispensers due to the variety of retailer configurations. The Lottery is seeking proposed solutions from the Vendors. 99. 3.2.5 78 This subsection requires vendors to propose a solution for LSRs to connect back to the Subsection 3 OSL’s and Gaming System Network. Q: What is the current connection methodology employed by the LSRs? RESPONSE: While in the field they use WiFi where available, If the LSR is in the Regional office the OSL provides both wireless and hardwire connections, many use there personal broadband internet connections from home, for dialup has proven to be ineffective Q: What current systems and networks do the LSRs connect to? RESPONSE: OSL central system
  34. 34. RFP RFP Requirement Page Question Number Q: What is the current security mechanism and architecture used in the remote connectivity scenario? RESPONSE: Cisco VPN into the central system 100. 3.3 79 Q: Is the OSL or the Vendor responsible for the costs of the Communications Network(s) under the contract to be awarded as a result of this RFP? RESPONSE: The Successful Vendor will be responsible for the communications cost for the network. 101. 3.3 79 Q: Please indicate when the current contract expires with the communication provider and provide clarification on what entity will be financially responsible for the current communications contract costs should this contract not expire until sometime after that of the current online system contract? RESPONSE: The contract for the current communications network and gaming system expire at the same time. 102. 3.3.1.5 80 The Claim Center requirement states that the network “must be capable of connecting to all Regional Offices.” Q: Would the Lottery find it acceptable to utilize the Lottery’s existing Wide Area Network (WAN), or is a dedicated, separate circuit to each Claim Center required? RESPONSE: No, the Successful Vendor will be required to supply communications for this terminal. 103. 3.4.1 87 Q: Why is OSL requiring that dynamic pools be maintained for matrix-type games as Subsection 15 this is typically a feature utilized for numbers-type games? Is this a requirement for all matrix-type games or based on a game-by-game basis? RESPONSE: The OSL has made this a requirement for matrix games.

×