24-34-KB Safety Management System Addendum 1

Agency:	County of Spotsylvania
State:	Virginia
Type of Government:	State & Local
Category:	70 - General Purpose Information Technology Equipment (including software). D - Automatic Data Processing and Telecommunication Services
Posted:	Apr 17, 2024
Due:	Apr 23, 2024
Solicitation No:	24-34-KB
Publication URL:	To access bid details, please log in.

Attachment Preview

Addendum #1

Spotsylvania County

RFP 24-34-KB

Safety Management System

April 17, 2024

Addendum #1 to Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 24-34-KB is issued in accordance with the RFP

Terms & Conditions and is intended to provide additional information and clarification to

Respondents.

Addendum #1 consists of three (3) items which are listed below, attached hereto and made a part

hereof to RFP No. 24-34-KB.

ITEM 1 _ CHANGES TO RFP

1. Change Proposal Due Date and Time to April 30, 2024 at 2:00 PM.

2. Remove Section III, Letter A in its entirety and replace with the following:

A. Contract Term

Any contract resulting from this RFP shall have a term limit of three (3) years and may

be renewable for five (5) additional one (1) year terms at the option of Spotsylvania

County. Each additional year shall be referred to individually as a “Renewal Period.”

ITEM 2 – Q&A

1. Page 5 of the RFP: “Five (5) copies and one (1) original indicated as “Original” of

Proposals, along with an electronic copy of the proposal and attachments on a virus free

flash drive, either in Microsoft Word or PDF format shall be submitted to the address on

Page 1.” Are you requesting hard copies of the proposal responses or would an electronic

copy sent via email suffice the County?

ANSWER: The Vendor is required to submit hard copies and an electronic copy as

stated on page 5 of the RFP.

2. Because a large contingent of our organization works remotely, making the coordination

of original "wet ink" signatures difficult, will the County accept electronic signatures

where applicable, either in original (e.g., authentic signature) or digital (e.g., DocuSign)?

ANSWER: Electronic signatures are acceptable.

3. We note the request for a 1-year term with 10 option years. Typical industry standard and

Addendum 1

RFP No. 24-34-KB

Page 1 of 13

with other public agencies, the standard is a 3-year base term. Would the County be open

to consideration of a 3-year base term with options to renew annually thereafter?

ANSWER: Please see Item 1, Number 2 of this Addendum.

4. Can you please confirm the option years will be upon mutual agreement of the County

and Vendor to renew for each of these option years?

ANSWER: Yes, the optional renewals are mutual agreements.

5. Is the County planning to develop a custom-built safety management system, or does it

prefer to use a Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) product?

ANSWER: Prefer a solution that is ready to go, and incorporates the functionality

requested. Custom-build is not what we are looking for, but we do want the ability to

customize our checklists, work procedures, dashboards, etc.

6. If opting for custom-build software, what is the timeline for its production launch?

ANSWER: Please see Item 2, Number 5 of this Addendum.

7. Is there an incumbent Vendor supporting the current system? If so, are they allowed to

bid on this RFP?

ANSWER: The County currently does not have a system.

8. What is the estimated budget for the project?

ANSWER: The estimated budget for year one is $40,000. This first year cost includes

product, technical support, and implementation training.

9. What is the expected timeline for this implementation?

ANSWER: Implementation is expected to be begin 60 – 90 days from the vendor

selection.

10. How many users need access to the main SMS application?

ANSWER: Please see Page 4, Section IV Statement of Needs of the RFP.

11. How many employees for the County?

ANSWER: The number of users is identified on Page 4, Section IV Statement of Needs

of the RFP.

12. We note that 450 employees will need access to the system. Do they all need the same

level of access/permissions, or do you envision some will have access to everything,

some just need the ability to review policies, report new incidents, etc.? Can you please

provide a high-level estimate of how many main users there would be who need access to

everything and a user breakdown?

ANSWER: Admin users with full rights would be anticipated for up to 5 persons. We

anticipate the additional roles to include a Manager/Supervisor Level, Crew Leader /

Team Leader Level, and then a bucket for other users. Anticipated totals for Manager /

Supervisor Level which would include visibility to their department data, employee data,

and ability to run reports, investigate incidents, add corrective actions for hazards, sign

Addendum 1

RFP No. 24-34-KB

Page 2 of 13

permits, etc. would be anticipated at about 50 users. Crew Leader / Team Leader Level,

with ability to sign permits, etc. would be anticipated at about 50 employees. Remaining

employees in the other employee bucket would be able to access safety programs,

assessments, SOPs, and other safety documentation. They would also have the ability to

enter a near miss, hazard report, etc., an anticipated total of 345 employees, but not all

employees will use the system.

13. Can you please outline the volume and source of all historical data to be converted from?

Are there spreadsheets and other systems to convert historical data from that each vendor

should include in their respective proposals?

ANSWER: The County will use spreadsheets from our insurance provider to document

injury data for 3-5 years of historical comparison data. We will provide PDF, excel, or

work documents to upload assessments and inspections to include Confined Space

Assessments, Arc Flash Analysis audits, Lockout Tagout Procedures, external inspection

records, etc. Important documents that support our existing safety program will be

uploaded, but for many of the internal inspections and audits it will be new data in and

the County will maintain records of historical data in the existing files.

14. Can you please outline the number of inspections/checklists you would like replicated in

the selected system? Or do you largely plan to utilize the out-of-the-box

inspections/checklists from the selected system?

ANSWER: The County will use a combination of both internal checklists and system

provided checklists. An exact number is not known, we are currently updating all of our

safety programs and the supporting documents to include audits, permits, and inspections

are part of that process. At minimum the County shall need a Confined Space Checklist,

Lockout Tagout Checklist, Housekeeping Checklist, Ergonomics Checklist, Electrical

Checklist, Fall Protection Checklist, Hazard Communication Checklist, Bloodborne

Pathogens Checklist, Job Briefing Checklist, Construction Checklist, PPE Checklist,

Vehicle Pre-Checklist, Forklift Checklist, Boom Truck Checklist, Loader Checklist,

Bulldozer Checklist, Machine Guarding Checklist, Rigging Checklist, Trenching and

Excavation Checklist, Crane Checklist, Emergency Response Checklist, Fire

Extinguisher Checklist, Respirator Checklist, Hot Work Checklist, Space Heater

Checklist, Respirable dust Checklist, Noise Checklist, Scaffold Checklist, Welding

Checklist, etc. All checklist, inspections, and work permits will need to be in a format

that employees can complete, acknowledge, and sign off on electronically. The

employee should have the ability to take pictures documenting that safe procedure or a

hazard identified that needs corrected, or is corrected at the time.

15. What incident types do you envision using the system for? Can you please list all incident

types desired (such as employee injury, auto, near miss, etc.).

ANSWER: Injuries, near misses, property damage, vehicle incidents, equipment

incidents, customer injuries, and a category for claims to track damaged road signs, or

other County property that we need to track down who is responsible for damaging so a

claim can be processed.

16. Safety Program Management – can you please further define? Where do these policies

Addendum 1

RFP No. 24-34-KB

Page 3 of 13

reside today? Are they in a file attachment fashion and do you envision the County

importing those policies into the selected system?

ANSWER: Currently programs are in word and PDF formats. Programs are on our

internal website and housed in a common drive on our computer system. Under this

system all programs will be uploaded into the SMS to include applicable forms. The

County anticipates 46-50 written safety programs. These programs will need a format for

sup-levels to include applicable SOPs, assessments, surveys, etc.

17. Contractor and Vendor management – can you please further define? Is this simply

managing the training records of vendors and contractors? How will this data make its

way into the selected system? Will the training be conducted/delivered outside the

selected system?

ANSWER: The County is seeking a simple system to record in one location by

contractor documentation such as training records, insurance accords, requested safety

programs, other supporting documentation, etc. If your system has the ability to expand

Contractor Safety Management to include contractors accessing the system, providing

requested data, note the ability that it is included or that it would be an added module

option in the future.

18. Reports and Dashboards – do you have current reports that need to be replicated in the

system, or do you plan to largely use the out-of-the-box reports/dashboards of the

selected solution?

ANSWER: The County will want dashboards that show the number of open safety

concerns, current incident rates, number of checklists, inspections, permits completed,

safety program/procedures past due for audit, etc. In addition, the ability to run reports by

department for total incidents, OSHA Recordables, open safety issues, near misses, past

due inspections, program review dates, etc.

19. We note the interface with NEOGOV to bring in employee details. Are there any other

interfaces or data sources to be interfaced with? If yes, can please confirm the name of

the system and the data type to be exchanged?

ANSWER: The County does use City Works for our Asset Management maintenance

but does not expect that it will interface with it for the SMS.

20. Can you please confirm whether you need OSHA 300, 300A, 301 reporting?

ANSWER: Yes, it is needed for internal use. It will not be used for external submitting.

21. There are certain contractual items listed on the RFP which may require review by our

Legal Team and possible negotiations by both parties. Is the County open to having these

conversations after submission of the RFP?

ANSWER: The County will follow the Virginia Public Procurement Act (VPPA) and the

Procurement Policy of Spotsylvania County in regards to negotiations. If the Vendor has

exceptions please indicate in your proposal.

22. Reference: "Incident Management – System shall have the ability to complete incident

documentation including near misses and/or close calls." With respect to the critical

Addendum 1

RFP No. 24-34-KB

Page 4 of 13

functionality for documenting incidents, including the pivotal near misses and close calls

within the Incident Management System, does the County's vision extend to the

incorporation of intelligent and autonomous incident detection mechanisms? Specifically,

I envision a scenario where integrated IoT devices, strategically deployed across

identified high-risk areas, serve not only as passive data collectors but as active

participants in safety oversight. These devices could be configured to detect deviations

from normal operational parameters, such as unexpected temperature spikes or the

presence of hazardous gases, automatically triggering the incident logging process

without human intervention. Moreover, the sophistication of such a system could be

further enhanced by leveraging machine learning algorithms to analyze patterns over

time, progressively improving the accuracy of incident prediction and detection. This

level of automation and predictive capability could profoundly augment the effectiveness

of the incident management process, transforming how proactive safety measures are

implemented. Is the County seeking an Incident Management System with the capability

to integrate such advanced technological solutions, thereby elevating the safety

management protocol to a preemptively responsive framework?

ANSWER: For this proposal we do not plan any implementation of passive data

collectors or other AI technology. The incident management system will be an electronic

solution that is managed through the SMS with input from employee, supervisor,

manager, and EHS team. If you have technologies that are included or can be added on

as modules or hardware at a later time, note the further capabilities.

23. Reference: "Observation Management – System shall provide the ability for all

employees to input/load in safety observations behavioral unsafe conditions and safety

suggestions from their computer, iPad, or smartphone or similar device." Considering the

delineated need for a comprehensive Observation Management System that empowers all

employees to record safety observations behavioral issues, and suggest improvements via

a multitude of devices, a question arises about the system's dynamic response

capabilities. Is there an expectation for the system to not merely act as a collection point

but as an active participant in the safety ecosystem? This would entail the deployment of

a nuanced alert mechanism capable of categorizing the severity of observations in real-

time — for instance, distinguishing entries that denote imminent danger and necessitate

immediate intervention. Such a feature could automate the escalation process, directly

notifying safety officers or relevant personnel when observations of a 'severe' nature are

logged. Furthermore, the implementation of configurable workflow triggers could

facilitate a tailored response strategy, ensuring that the system's reaction aligns with the

specific safety protocols of the County. This approach not only expedites the response to

critical safety observations but also embeds a layer of intelligent prioritization within the

observation management process. Is this level of sophistication and automated

responsiveness a requirement the County seeks in the proposed system, to enhance

proactive safety measures and ensure timely action on critical safety observations?

ANSWER: The observation solution will be initially rolled out as a tool for employees,

managers, supervisors, and EHS to manually enter the observation with a device. All

observations should escalate in the system to the employee’s supervisor, manager, and

EHS Team with the ability to adjust, modify the reporting structure. If you have

technologies that are included or that can be added on as modules or hardware at a later

Addendum 1

RFP No. 24-34-KB

Page 5 of 13

This is the opportunity summary page. You are currently viewing an overview of this opportunity and a preview of the attached documentation. For more information, please visit the Publication URL Web page.

24-34-KB Safety Management System Addendum 1

Attachment Preview

See also