MODIFICATION
B -- RFI for Solution for Accountability of Personnel During Evacuations and Crisis Situations
- Notice Date
- 1/28/2005
- Notice Type
- Modification
- NAICS
- 541990
— All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
- Contracting Office
- United States House of Representatives, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, Office of Finance and Procurement, Room 359, Ford House Office Building, Washington, DC, 20515
- ZIP Code
- 20515
- Solicitation Number
- Reference-Number-USHR02152005
- Response Due
- 2/12/2005
- Archive Date
- 2/15/2005
- Point of Contact
- Emily Tuck, Procurement Specialist, Phone (202) 225-0668, Fax (202) 226-2214, - Lawrence Toperoff, Procurement Director, Phone 202-226-2523, Fax 202-226-2214,
- E-Mail Address
-
emily.tuck@mail.house.gov, Lawrence.Toperoff@mail.house.gov
- Description
- REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) ONLY FOR PLANNING PURPOSES. THERE IS NO SOLICITATION PACKAGE AVAILABLE. Responses to vendor questions: 1. Do the employees currently have an ID card with a bar code, magnetic strip or a smart card of some type? As we design our solution we would like to build if possible upon your current technology. Normally, this approach reduces cost and allows for quicker implementation. Response: Staff members have ID badges (with the exception of Members of Congress themselves) that are the HID type. We routinely use prox card readers for access to select spaces, but not for building entry or exit. 2. The buildings involved include; The Capital Building and the Cannon, Longworth, Rayburn and the Ford Office Buildings. There are no other buildings involved. Response: Yes, those are the primary buildings of interest. We may, if appropriate, employ whatever we select at smaller outlying buildings, but that will be a later consideration. 3. There is currently no method for keeping track of which employees are in the buildings. This includes; badge swipe terminals, biometric units, web-enabled/browser based portal, internal software for entering in/out of office tracking and telephone based call in/out of office system. Response: Correct neither employees nor visitors. 4. Can you advise me if all of the employees that will be covered in the Evacuation Plan are issued ID cards? I of course assume that they do but I need to confirm the fact. Does each employee have a unique ID# or do they use SSN? Is there a database in place that contains the employee?s name and ID#? Is there a database that contains the building number the employee works in plus the building section, floor and room number? Response: We have some of the information requested on all employees, and yes they all have ID badges with unique numbers. We have all of the information for some employees, specifically the office emergency coordinators. We have some databases in use and others under development. However, the responses to the RFI may give us new or better directions to go. 5. Who will manage the deployed system? Response: TBD 6. Where will the servers for the application be located? Response: TBD 7. Is an existing backup power supply available for use by the monitoring system? Response: Possibly 8. Does the backup power supply cover the entire region the application is intended to operate over? Response: Not likely 9. How long is the interval between a loss of power from the usual power source and when power from the backup source is available? Response: That would depend on where it is located and if emergency power will even be available. No definitive answer is available at this time. 10. Is there a requirement that the application operate when the commercial communications infrastructure (i.e., land-line and cellular phones, radios, etc.) is not usable? Response: That would certainly add to the reliability and viability of the system in an emergency situation. 11. Can data communications between the system sensors and server be handled over existing networks (e.g., the one that supports the ?panic buttons?)? Response: Possibly, it would depend on the system requirements. 12. What are the characteristics of those networks (e.g., IEEE 802.11b, custom wireless LAN, etc.)? Response: There is currently no House-wide wireless capability. 13. Are there any exclusions of the frequency bands that can be used for data transmission beyond the normal FCC restrictions? Response: There is a frequency management group that would have to be consulted once frequencies of interest are known. 14. Are there existing first responder/law enforcement hardware or software systems that the solution must be compatible with? Interoperable with? Response: Not currently. 15. What is the acceptable error rate for the system? Response: There is no single answer to that. Different technologies have different inherent errors. Each will be evaluated as submitted. 16. Will there be a requirement for an on-site display capability for first responders in addition to the display in the EOC? Response: There will be a requirement for some degree of display at the Incident Command site, but it may not be the same as is required/desired at the EOC. 17. What restrictions would apply to the installation of RFID portals in interior passageways of the buildings? Are there wire trolleys, wiring conduits, or other wiring options available in the buildings? Response: The Capitol building has severe architectural restrictions. The other buildings have limitations, but they are not as restrictive. All buildings have some current infrastructure, but there is no guarantee that it will be available or compatible with the proposed system requirements. 18. Please provide additional information the relative timing of the two phases. Approximately how long after phase 1 would phase 2 be required? Response: They are both going on in parallel. There is no specific timing specified. 19. Please provide information on the timing of the implementation. When is it anticipated that the service would need to be installed (assuming the project moves forward to purchase and implementation)? Response: As soon as practicable, depending on approval, budgeting, contracting, etc. 20. Who are the expected users of the system? Capitol Police, DC police, DC fire department, and others? Response: Yes to all. 21. Will any others have or need access to information from the system during an emergency? Who are the "Incident Commanders and Emergency Center Operations staff" and approximately how many people do these groups include? Response: Who and how many doesn?t seem particularly relevant at this stage. Suffice it to say that, at a minimum USCP HQ, the Incident command posts and an Operations center will all require access to data to some degree. 22. Would the system be used only in the event of an emergency evacuation or for other purposes as well? Response: This is an emergency system only. 23. In the first phase, is the purpose of the "graphical map" to show the current position of the personnel within and around the buildings during an emergency, or to show status of personnel by assigned office? For example, the occupant of this office has responded that he or she is in a safe location. Response: The example is correct. 24. How much detail is required in the maps? Do you need to know a person is assigned to a room, or only that he or she is assigned a specific location (desk/cubicle) within a room. Response: We are only looking at room occupancy, not individual space within a room. 25. Does the 3D mapping require a view of all buildings and surrounding area simultaneously or merely one building at a time? Response: All affected buildings should be able to be called up, individually. An overall summary table showing all affected buildings status would also be expected. 26. Does this RFI encompass the U.S. Senate as well the House (i.e., the entire capitol building area)? Or will a similar system be required for U.S. Senate offices and buildings? Response: We will be sharing information with the Senate, but there is no guarantee that the House and Senate will move down the same path. 27. Will a sole source provider strategy be pursued? Response: Not necessarily. Multiple providers and a combination of systems is certainly an option. 28. Please define "status" in phase 2: "provide a complete picture of the status of all USHR building occupants"? Response: Safe, not reported, reported as unsafe/trapped, etc. 29. Do visitors to the USHR at the time of the evac need to be accounted for within the system, or are visitors beyond the scope of this project and system? Response: Visitors are currently not tracked at all. A system for visitors is in the foreseeable future, so please address them if you have options. 30. The RFI states that there is no overall maximum volume/size of submittals but there is a 4 page limit on details of systems descriptions. Would the 4 page limit be for the overall system or for each component of the overall system? Does this page limit also cover the description of the use of the system in the 2 phase approach to the accountability process? Response: No, the 4 page limit is not intended to cover the entire system proposal. However, we also don?t want to have to sift through several hundreds of pages per proposal to determine viability. The more voluminous the overall proposal becomes, the more critical the Executive summary is. 31. I read recently that the House will most likely switch to Smart ID cards this coming fall. Did you hear anything about that? It is not significant from the point of view of our response since we will incorporate whatever type of reader is needed into the proposed system. Response: There?s been nothing official at this time. 32. What I am trying to determine is if there are pre-set evacuation gathering sites for employees. If so how many, where are they located etc? What policies are current in place for employees to follow in case of an evacuation and what if any is the notification process to be followed by employees to notify their office that they are ok? What means of communications are in place, i.e. cell phones, Nextel, pagers etc? Response: We do not want to necessarily influence input by what we do today. However, there are some things that will probably not change. For normal evacuations we will continue to rely on the Office Emergency Coordinator (OEC) performing an accounting for his/her staff and then the OEC reports that accountability to a U.S. Capitol Police officer at a designated assembly area. There are two or three designated assembly areas per building, in close proximity to the buildings, where this reporting to the USCP is performed. Offices are responsible for there own internal communications devices and they include blackberries and cell phones, but only for select staff. Beyond that, petty much everything is flexible and open for revision. 33. May we hand in supporting materials (pictures, specs) in the form of power-point slides? Response: That would be fine. 34. Are you having any industry sessions where we might be able to learn a little more about the current systems in place? Response: I encourage you to submit your ideas (which will be held in confidence by the House for our assessment purposes); based on what we receive, we may follow-up with vendor(s) to gather more information. What we currently have is not relevant to what you can offer or where we may end up.
- Place of Performance
- Address: United States House of Representatives, Washington, DC
- Record
- SN00742360-W 20050130/050128212500 (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps.gov Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |