Kiosk RFP
Questions and Answers
1) Section 2.3, Submitting the Proposal - What format should the electronic copy of the proposal be submitted in (i.e.
Word, PDF)? Word or PDF is fine
2) Section 5.2.5 states all kiosk monitors must be 17” in size across the diagonal. Would the DOC be open to kiosks with
a smaller monitor size provided the vendor can demonstrate the benefits of the kiosk? 17 inch is the minimum being
requested. The DOC is aware of the benefits of a kiosk, if you would like to propose a small monitor than the
requirement you are able to do so but the requirement in 5.2.5 remains
3) Section 5.3.1 – Please clarify if the DOC is open to kiosks with either a touch screen or keyboard?
5.3.1 was
written to allow the vendors to propose what they feel is a quality solution. What we have seen as a standard is the
touch screen.
4) Which vendor provides the DOC's trust accounting system? The trust system is currently DOC owned and
maintained. Eventually working to move to Marquis developed WICS system.
5) Section 5.6.5 - Could the DOC please explain how a catalog vendor would integrate with the vendor? We would
expect the property catalog vendors to be able to work with the contracted kiosk vendor. We are confident that the
vendors who want access to provide goods to the WIDOC will be able to work together should the WIDOC decide to
make property items for sale via the kiosk as well.
6) Section 6.1 states "The price of all services available and desired through the kiosk shall be scored independently with
equal weight assigned to each." In the cost proposal quantities are stated. How will this factor into the cost proposal
scoring to derive the lowest cost? The totals are calculated out by taking the price per unit times the estimated quantity.
The grand total cost will be compared between vendors to assign the 20% totals for the cost portion of the points for
this RFP.
7) The Cost Proposal requests fees for 7” inmate tablets. Can the vendor propose a tablet with a smaller screen? The
vendor can propose a tablet with any screen size they feel is appropriate, sections 5.9 nor 5.10 specify a screen size. The
size is referenced in the cost proposal to make an equal cost comparison between vendors.
8) The Cost Proposal only seeks one transaction fee for funds transfers to inmate accounts. To accommodate increased
costs for credit/debit card transactions, a sliding scale fee structure has been industry standard for remote deposits and
also varies between Internet and Phone. For example, $X.XX for payments up to $20.00 over the Internet and $X.XX for
payments up to $20.00 over the Phone, $X.XX for payments between $20.01-$100.00, $X.XX for payments between
$100.01-$200.00 and $X.XX for payments between $200.01-$300.00. Would the DOC consider changing the fee
structure?
At this point we will not change the fee structure for this proposal. The amounts used for the cost proposal, including
the fee structure, are designed to create a measurable response by the vendors.
It would be very difficult, for example, to compare the following:
a.
$1.00 per transaction for transactions between $1.00-$10.00; $2.00 per transactions for amounts $10.00$20.00; and $3.00 per transaction for amounts $20.00-$30.00
To a response that was
b.
$1.25 per transaction for transactions between $1.00 - $18.00; $2.82 per transaction for transaction between
$18.00 and $30.00, etc…
Even if estimated transaction numbers were included, the vendors would all have to agree on both the scale and the
number of transactions that might occur in that portion of the scale.
9) Please provide a listing of the WI DOC facilities to include address and current inmate population where the Kiosk
services will be required.
Http://doc.wi.gov/home
Is a good location for facility information and doc statistical data.
10) Who provides the current Jail Management Solution (JMS)? Our current inmate account system is WITS and our
current inmate management system is WICS
11) Item 1.8 Contract Term and Funding – Given the amount of capital that will be required to install the requested
Inmate Kiosk solution, at no cost to the DOC, please extend the base term of the contract from the offered two (2) years
to five (5) years with the option to renew for an additional two (2) one-year periods. This will allow vendors the ability
to recover capital over a longer period of time and to offer the solution at a lower cost to the system users.
No, based on our research the WIDOC will not lock into a 5 year commitment from the start with a vendor. All vendors
have the same obstacle to overcome so the bidding field is equal. If the vendor is confident their solution will be the
basis of a good relationship with the WIDOC then they should also be confident the WIDOC would extend the contract.
There is no benefit to the WIDOC to cancel a productive relationship/contract and we certainly have no intention of
binding ourselves to a less than positive experience. Unfortunately, this is based on our research with other states and
their experience.
12) Item 2.3 Submitting the Proposal – Please confirm that the DOC only wants one paper copy and one electronic copy
of the vendor’s response. Confirmed
13) Item 2.5 Multiple Proposals – Please clarify the intent of allowing multiple proposals from a single vendor.
Confirmed
14) Item 3.2 Proposal Scoring – Please clarify if the use of a minority business enterprise is required. Also, confirm that
the additional weighted factors would only apply if the prime contractor is a minority business enterprise. It is not
required. If a vendor is a registered MBE with the State of Wisconsin, that vendor will get an extra 5% added to their
final score for the RFP.
15) Item 4.1 Organization Capabilities – Inmate Kiosk solutions, especially those as requested by the DOC, are relatively
new technologies and as such many qualified vendors may not been providing the solutions for the requested five (5)
years. Additionally, several of the services requested have not been available for 5 years. Because this, please allow
vendors to simply state how long and to what extend the vendor has been providing the requested services.
Vendors can state how long and to what extent they have been providing the requested services however the
requirement will remain. The requirement is asking for kiosk services similar to the size and scope of what WI-DOC is
looking for.
16) Item 5.2.5 – The requirement of a 17” monitor is specific to a single vendor. Please allow the vendor(s) to state the
size of their monitor and show it has been proven in a DOC environment.
The 17 inch monitor isn’t designed to be vendor specific but rather a result of our research with other states. 17 inch is
the minimum monitor size, however vendors may make any statements they feel relevant in their proposals.
17) Item 5.2.12 – It has been proven in multiple application attempts of various technologies that wireless applications
do not function well or with any level of security in a DOC facility environment. Please clarify exactly what DOC systems,
applications and functions the DOC would require from this wireless access request.
As stated in this section, “if required” means that if WI-DOC wants to implement this that the kiosk should have the
capability to supporting wireless access. Our intention isn’t to require a wireless solution but rather to make a wireless
solution an option for a vendor who may have had success with it.
18) Item 5.4 Kiosk User Accounts and Related Applications – The DOC has stated that video visitation and inmate
scheduling applications are desirable applications but not required at this time. While not required, please confirm that
if the selected vendor has the capability to implement the service, the WI DOC will allow implementation of the service
upon contract award.
No, the WIDOC will determine the pace each piece of this solution will roll out. The pace will depend on the physical
layout and security needs of each individual institution and the success of the rollouts at that time.
To be clear, an old maximum security institution does not have the infrastructure or the design to allow for the freedom
of movement a new correctional center does and will need to be on a different timetable; in addition if the rollout of
any portion of this initiative is going poorly at the first 5 institutions, for example, we will not move forward with more
implementation until the issues are resolved.
19) Item 5.5 Email - Item 5.5.9 – If the vendor has the capability to limit inmate initiated e-mail to a pre-approved listing
of recipients, will the DOC allow the inmate to initiate e-mails? This will reduce the amount of written mail and reduce
the work load on the DOC mail room.
No. On implementation the inmate will be able to communicate with an individual who has initiated electronic
communication with the inmate only. In the future, once we have had success with the introduction of technology and a
positive vendor experience the we may be able to open electronic communication up more, but not until we are
confident the investigate tools are in place, they work, and the integrity of the system is sound.
20) Item 5.6.1 – Who currently provides the DOC inmate commissary services? If more than one provider, please provide
names and the facilities assigned to each provider.
For those who have vendor provided canteen, Keefe is the current provider. Many institutions still provide their own
canteen as well.
21) Item 5.6.2– Who is the current provider of the inmate trust system?
WIDOC hosts and maintains the current trust system, Wisconsin Inmate Trust System (WITS).
22) Item 5.7.2 – Does the DOC intend to provide the network bandwidth for the video visitation service?
Once we have determined the required bandwidth needed from the information provided by the vendor then we will be
able to better answer the question The intention is, “yes” however we are aware depending on bandwidth needs some
institutions may not be able to host this function.
23) Item 5.4 states that Inmate Banking is a mandatory functionality of the RFP, while the first line of 5.11 states “if
available”. Please clarify if this is a mandatory requirement of the RFP. Will vendors be given exclusive DOC rights to
provide all friends and family electronic fund transfers? If not, please describe the DOC’s intent.
There is an inconsistency in the RFP. At this time it is not a mandatory requirement, however the ability to provide it
may affect the scoring of the proposal.
DOC does not guarantee exclusive rights in this RFP. The WIDOC understands WITS is outdated and has limitations and
does not interact well with other systems.
At this point we are gathering information and open to solutions that may fit with the other solutions in this proposal. If
you have banking as a function then the points under section 5.11 are what we would like you to provide information
on.
24) Please provide statistical data on the number of inmate electronic fund transfers that are currently processed on a
monthly/annual basis by transaction type.
The current system doesn’t allow for ETF’s. There are a limited number of transactions that are allowed for work release
inmates who are paid electronically. Those transactions go to US bank and are manually reconciled with WITS the
following day.
25) Does the DOC currently accept Money Order deposits from friends and family? If yes, what is the fee, if any, charged
by the DOC to process the Money Orders? Will the process continue to be managed by the DOC or will the vendor be
required to take over this process completely? If the vendor is expected to take over Money Order payments please
provide the statistical data on the number of monthly/annual money order payments processed.
Currently the WIDOC accepts paper money orders from inmate friends/family. There is no fee. WI-DOC will still receive
money sent in directly to the institution, without a fee. There is no way to gather the statistical data with the current
system.
26) Does the DOC currently have on-site Kiosks for friends and family deposit to inmate trust accounts? If yes, who is
providing the service, how many currently exist and what is the average number of monthly transactions? N/A
27) 5.15.1 – This requirement states that any electrical work must be performed by a “DOC approved contractor”. Does
the DOC have a listing of DOC approved electrical contractors that can be accessed by the vendors or is the DOC simply
stating that any electrical contractors must be pre-approved by the DOC?
The contractor would have to be pre-approved by the DOC either on a location to location basis or there are some
contractors who are statewide that we have worked with.
28) 5.17.1 – This item requires that statistical reports be provided for “Phone Time”. This data will likely not be available
to the Kiosk vendor as phone services are under another contract.
We would not expect the vendor to provide data on a service they don’t provide.
29) 5.18.3 – To what extent will the DOC be providing on-site technical support of the systems?
DOC would provide minimal support, similar to what other states do such as allow staff to restart the kiosk, other kept
“spares” on site and would allow a unit to be swapped. Network support is centralized in Madison for WI-DOC locations,
with most support provided remotely.
30) With regard to electronic fund transfers, please confirm that the DOC is expecting 5% on the vendor fee charged and
not the deposited funds. Yes
31) How will the requirements of the approved property catalog vendors be impacted by the proposed use of the new
kiosk system ?
Although there could be a future when the Canteen Property Catalogs are integrated with the kiosks, that not
where we are today. When we do arrive at that points it’s difficult to predict if the result will be an all in one
vendor, or a vendor kiosk that needs to work cooperatively with others.
32) Do we need to plan for implementing the use of Electronic Funds Transfers to work with the kiosk system ?
Not at this time.
33) What kind of data exchange logic system is preferred so that property catalog vendors and other customers can
exchange data with the kiosk system ?

At this point the kiosk vendor has not been selected which means there is not an identified data
exchange technology that must be used for data exchange between the kiosk vendor and the property
catalog vendor. At this time please share the data exchange technologies you have experience using and
any additional technologies you would be able to use if needed.
 DOC prefers SOAP web services for data exchange with DOC owned systems such as our Offender
Management System known as WICS
34) Where and how do you prefer data encryption employed into the exchange of data between property catalog
vendors and the kiosk system ?

At this point the kiosk vendor has not been selected. DOC would not specify the method of encryption
employed in data exchange between the kiosk and property catalog. DOC would require that any inmate
financial and/or PII (Personally Identifiable Information) data be encrypted in transit such as through the
use of an SSL connection for data exchange.
35) How will the software requirements change for property catalog vendors that are required to exchange data with
the kiosk system ?
We would expect the property catalog vendors to be able to work with the contracted kiosk vendor. We are confident
that the vendors who want access to provide goods to the WIDOC will be able to work together should the WIDOC
decide to make property items for sale via the kiosk as well.
36) Will the kiosk vendor be required to provide software modifications and upgrades at no cost to the approved
property catalog vendors, if software enhancements are to be implemented during the term of the contract ? How much
notice will be given to the property catalog vendors regarding these required upgrades ?
WI DOC will work to facilitate agreements between the kiosk vendor and the catalog or other vendors that will have
purchases made via the kiosk. Contracts will be reviewed and adjusted as necessary to facilitate this. Adequate start-up
time will be given.
37) Will the kiosk vendor be required to supply detailed instructions to the approved property catalog vendors regarding
what is required to exchange data with the kiosk system ?
See answer above. We would expect instructions/documentation be shared as necessary to facilitate the data exchange.
38) Will another round of questions be allowed (if necessary) after the pre-bid conference?
We are not anticipating allowing another round of questions.
39) Could site visits be arranged for each facility where kiosks are to be installed? The vendor that is awarded the
contract will be allowed to visit each site prior to the installation of the kiosk.
40) Please provide a diagram of the DOC-supplied network to be available for vendor use at each of the facilities where
these services are to be implemented. Please include data closets where Power over Ethernet (PoE) equipment would
be installed. This will be provided to the awarded vendor at the time that installation is scheduled.
41) If a vendor proposes kiosks using PoE, will AC power needed for PoE equipment be available at no cost to the
vendor? If yes, and it is determined that additional electrical outlets are needed, who would be responsible for the cost
of installing the additional outlets? We will supply AC power for PoE network switches, the vendor will be responsible for
AC power if their PoE kiosk requires AC power. See Section 5.15.1
42) Since the vendor is being asked to indicate the number of kiosks they would propose for the required services, as
opposed to the DOC requesting a particular number, will the DOC-supplied network be able to accommodate the
number of kiosks proposed by the vendor, without limitations? The number of kiosks will be negotiated with the
awarded vendor. This will be discussed at the vendor conference.
43) Can the DOC provide a the following information for each facility where kiosks are to be installed:
a)
Average daily population See question #9
b)
The number of housing units to receive kiosks TBD
c)
The total number of inmates in each housing unit to receive kiosks It is expected that all inmates would have
access to the kiosk, with possible exceptions for segregation, medical.
44) If the DOC opts for the vendor to provide wireless kiosks, thus negating the use of power over Ethernet, would the
vendor still be responsible for providing the AC power, as is being required in section 5.15.1 for proposed kiosk options
that require AC power (unable to work using PoE). Yes, the vendor would be responsible for providing the power.
45) Will video visitation and appointment scheduling be included in the grading process? Yes, it would be considered
46) If video visitation is not mandatory, would the DOC consider removing this from the Cost Proposal? No, for cost
comparison purposes this will remain
47) If video visitation was to be implemented would the DOC desire this service be available to the inmates through the
same kiosk as the other services being requested in this RFP? We are open to ideas/suggestions from the vendors on
this. Proposed solutions should be included in the RFP response.
48) How are inmate trust fund deposits received today? US mail
49) How many trust fund deposit transactions does the WI DOC currently process each month? Please provide the
breakdown by deposit method: Not available
i.
How many were money order? all
ii.
How many were web? none
iii.
How many were cash? none
iv.
How many are phone? none
50) What is the average dollar amount deposited per trust fund deposit? Not available
51) Will the DOC stop accepting deposits from friends and family and require all deposits to go through the awarded
vendor? No
52) On page 11 of the RFP, it states “The DOC does not guarantee that all of the following requirements will be
implemented following an awarded contract”, as the revenue generated on the proposed services will be used to offset
the extensive kiosks expenditures, can the DOC advise as to which requirements will be implemented and which will
not? See answer above
53) With regard to 5.11.5, on average, how many inmates are released per month that would require a disbursement?
We do not have this information.
54) With regard to the Cost Proposal, it lists only one place to provide the transaction fee for Funds Transferred to
Inmate Accounts, as there are various deposit methods (i.e. phone, web, lockbox) will the Cost Proposal be updated to
provide a space to list each various fee? No, costs should be “averaged out” for purposes of the cost report. WI DOC is
not able to give estimates for these various methods. This will be discussed at the vendor conference.
55) Can the Cost Proposal sheet be updated to allow for a sliding scale fee structure? For example, one fee for deposit
amounts of $0.01 - $19.99, another fee for deposits of $20.00 - $100.00, etc. See answer to question #8 above
Example:
Gross Amount Deposited
Web Deposits Phone Deposits Credit/Debit at Lobby Kiosk
Cash at Lobby Kiosk
$0.01 - $15.00
$15.01 - $25.00
$25.01 - $50.00
$50.01 - $75.00
$75.01 - $100.00
$100.01 - $200.00
$200.01 - $300.00
56) With regard to the Cost Proposal, will the Media Players ability to meet the specific DOC requirements as set forth in
5.9, specifically 5.9.4 thru 5.9.6, be considered when evaluating the player’s price? Vendors should only include these
costs in their cost proposals if they meet the specifications required.
57) What are the major languages spoken outside of Spanish and English currently spoken at WIDOC facilities?
Hmong is the only other common language
58) Please provide information on how services are currently being provided for resident’s with disabilities; EX. do
hearing impaired residents have access to TTYs devices on housing telephones or videotext displays available, for
visually impaired residents are large print written materials available, braille printed materials? Each ADA
accommodation is considered independently
59) Will the proposer have to provide any networking equipment to connect inmate housing location kiosks to the
sponsored WIDOC VLAN? If so, what devices will the proposer need to provide? If not, what networking devices will the
DOC be providing and maintaining to connect inmate housing location kiosk?
No, just cabling to the nearest PoE switch
60) Will the proposer be allowed to collocate their server on the WIDOC VLAN that the inmate location kiosks connect
to?
Yes, we would need to work with the vendor on the form factor of the server
61) What is the preference that the DOC has for service providers to be able to connect remotely to server(s) that will be
used to support inmate location kiosks
We do not have a specific preference. We would need to evaluate and approve any suggested vendor protocol.
62) Will the DOC provide all necessary IP, Subnet and Default Gateway information for all of the housing locations where
inmate kiosks will be installed at all DOC facilities, or will the proposer have to provide this information.
Yes
63) What are the support hours for DOC resources that will be tasked with providing the network for vendors?
DOC has 24 hour on call support for the network.
64) Will the DOC provide secured internet access for vendor’s servers is they’re located on the WIDOC network? Or will
the vendor have to provide their own internet access and security to any servers they have set up to connect kiosks?
DOC will provide a secure network tunnel to the internet for any onsite vendor equipment.
65) How will the DOC provide booking information to providers for updating the inmate population data at WIDOC
facilities?
As the account balances are provided from WITS, that will update the population data.
66) Is the DOC currently capable of providing a real time, web based interface for the service provider to receive
booking, housing location and available inmate institutional credits for display on housing locations kiosk?
No
67) Who are the non-commissary vendors that the DOC uses for property? Currently it is JL Marcus and Union Supply
68) Does the DOC only require the inmate kiosk to display items available from non-commissary vendors and bill inmate
account for the sale? Or does the DOC require that the kiosk have some interface to be able to process the order & send
the order detail to the non-commissary vendor for order fulfillment?
Vendors should propose all solutions that are available. WI-DOC is looking for a seamless process for these transactions,
and the evaluation committee will consider this in the scoring process.
69) Will the DOC work in collaboration with the provider to develop customer SQL reporting capabilities?
Yes
70) Secure WIFI to the DOC’s network…will the DOC provide wireless access points or will the proposer need to supply
access points?
WI-DOC will supply
71) If the DOC does provide wireless access points:
•
How many will be provided per housing location to connect kiosks? TBD
•
What is the proposed bandwidth that will be available on DOC provided access points? TBD
•
Will there be a requirement for Video visitation to be connected wireless? No
•
If PoE complaint inmate kiosks are installed and the DOC is providing Secure WIFI to these units, will the vendor
be required have pay for install of electricity to power these wirelessly connected kiosks? Yes
72) Please provide information on how many residents within WIDOC facilities have access to services that assist with:
Not available
•
Magnification and/or larger print
•
Text reader for the visually impaired
•
Assistive keystroke functionality
•
Closed Captioned (if applicable)
73) If video visitation were to be implemented, would it be implemented at all the facilities where the other services are
being implemented? Not guaranteed
74) Would the vendor be providing the network for the video visitation platform or will the DOC allow for the high
bandwidth video visitation traffic do operate on the existing data network? WI DOC will handle all network traffic
75) Will the DOC provide the wide area bandwidth connection to the other facilities or the public WAN or would this be
the responsibility of the vendor? Refer to answer above
76) Please advise of all video visitation options the DOC is considering:
•
visitation between facilities (visitors go to a facility to visit with an inmate at another facility) Not allowed
•
DOC remote visitation (visitors go to a separate DOC facility or public venue to visit with
facilities) May consider in the future
inmates at any of the
•
Visitor’s visiting from home or office using their own computers with a high speed internet connection to the
public WAN? We are considering this, and are asking for information on this with this RFP
77) What are the inmate phone rates at WIDOC facilities? (This information is essential to accurately project the
usage of visitation and email by inmates and thus to determine the appropriate number of kiosks.)
Payment
Call
Initial
Additional
Type
Type
Minute
Minute
Collect
In State
.12
.12
Collect
Inter-State
.18
.18
Prepaid
In State
.12
.12
Prepaid
Inter-State
.18
.18
78) Please clarify that the WIDOC intends for bidders to include the cost of a 5% commission on every line item on
the Cost Proposal.
Yes, vendors should include a 5% commission on every item they would have available. Actual commission
rates will be based on what DOC policy dictates at the time of contract implementation. All vendors should
include the 5% commission in their calculations to fairly compare cost proposals.
79) The Cost Proposal template and evaluation criteria seem to be based on the notion that all vendors are offering
similar products. Will the WIDOC consider allocating some points for the quality of the tablet and digital content
catalogs described in each proposal?
The evaluation committee will award points based on what products and services they feel best meet the
needs for WI-DOC. If a vendor is offering something above what the minimum requirements are, the
committee may consider awarding more points.
80) Where do the projected usages on the WIDOC’s Cost Proposal come from if these services are not currently
deployed at WIDOC?
These numbers do not line up with anything seen in any digital media program ever run in any correctional agency
anywhere*. For instance, WIDOC has 26,000 inmates; if 15% buy a tablet in year one of the contract, that means 3,900
tablets will be in the system 12 months after the contract starts. Each inmate with a tablet would have to buy more than
60 books that year to hit 237,000 Educational E-books and 237,000 Educational E-books. May we ask where these
numbers come from?
•
If the DOC based these numbers on any reports or information provided from other States or from a vendor, will
the WIDOC consider releasing a copy of the estimates or reports used to create these usage projections so that all
proposers can understand the basis for these assumptions? We did not use information from any other states.
Using usage estimates that are this far away from anything ever encountered in the real world will create a massively
unfair bidding process. If Company A has a large catalog of educational content and e-books which sell in small volumes
to inmates but are wildly popular when sold at cost to correctional educators; and if Company B has virtually no
educational content to sell but instead uses a cheaper chip to run a cheaper tablet that is mostly a music player; then
these usage estimates will cause the competing proposals to be evaluated as if the Company A was offering a package
many millions of dollars more expensive than Company B— although in reality they have a better product with a
broader digital content catalog. The only sane decision will be for no company to offer educational content or e-books
so as not to artificially create an evaluated price higher than inmates will spend in ten years. If no company offers any
books or educational programs, that is grossly favorable to the companies have no such programs or content in the first
place and that have not engineered their tablet to be any good for education. This will entirely remove the ability of
proposers with high-quality products to distinguish their offerings and will inevitably lead to a contract award to the
proposer with the least-capable tablet and least versatile digital media program.
*We invite the WIDOC to consult the Pew Library’s comprehensive survey of the “Reading Habits of Americans”
published in April 2012 — available online—to get a more realistic sense of American reading and book buying habits.
The average early adopter of a Kindle was a professional with a $90K/year income and a university degree. They bought
19 e-books each in the first year that they had a Kindle. Americans as a whole read an average of 8 books per year.
These are estimates only. This is a new service for WIDOC. We are confident the vendors who are experts in this area
will have a better projection for actual usage based on the size of our system. The balance of this “question” is really a
complaint about process and not a question. The complaint is duly noted.
81)
Can we see a phone usage report showing how many calls per inmate per month and minutes per inmate per
month are made at WIDOC facilities as well as the rates for those calls— this gives us a much sounder basis to estimate
what our real revenues will be for kiosk-related services.
Facility Name
BRCC
CVCTF
CCI
DCI
DACC
FCCC
FCC
FLCI
GCC
GBCI
JCI
JCBCC
KCC
KMCI
MSCC
MCC
MSDF
MWCC
NLCI
OCI
OCC
OSCI
PDCI
RCI
RYOCF
RGCI
RECC
SPCC
SCCC
SCI
STF
TCI
TCC
WCI
WCC
WSPF
TOTAL CALLS
215
11,176
8,986
26,618
3,916
3,748
1,936
32,632
1,453
10,218
19,364
6,460
2,455
24,451
2,133
2,860
37,846
2,412
20,018
16,308
2,196
11,926
14,189
30,793
7,519
20,537
8,663
2,575
249
29,709
6,660
11,520
2,271
15,629
6,502
1,123
TOTAL MINS
2,807
151,945
112,801
318,048
46,738
49,342
21,544
361,759
16,815
119,700
267,604
71,645
34,268
381,334
26,404
33,879
423,919
24,010
267,411
216,219
28,488
179,193
162,302
401059
99,147
320,010
90,428
29,860
3,450
415,823
85,272
156,147
25,363
282,809
74,309
15,557
TOTAL REVENUE
$
348.06
$
19,237.08
$
14,224.20
$
39,891.90
$
5,769.78
$
6,012.60
$
2,631.06
$
45,346.20
$
2,099.52
$
15,247.80
$
33,577.50
$
8,893.74
$
4,329.90
$
47,206.32
$
3,301.32
$
4,208.04
$
51,946.92
$
2,972.10
$
33,974.04
$
27,215.34
$
3,699.36
$
22,785.78
$
20,323.98
$
50,253.96
$
12,161.04
$
40,383.84
$
11,340.30
$
3,888.06
$
434.34
$
52,111.92
$
10,755.90
$
19,913.52
$
3,181.80
$
35,708.04
$
9,335.22
$
2,076.78
82) How much access will inmates have to the kiosks? How many hours a day? How many inmates are restricted to
cells?
Based on institution, housing unit, and custody level. Some institutions will have a more difficult time with some
proposed kiosk solutions than other, this is a new program so there will be some time to get all of WIDOC
assimilated to the use of technology. The inmates restricted to segregation also range for location to location.
83) Will inmates still be able to receive physical letters once e-mail is deployed statewide? If the WIDOC uses e-mail
to replace rather than to supplement physical mail this will increase e-mail volumes, thus enabling proposers to
offer much lower prices per e-mail and it will save the WIDOC a huge amount of time, labor and trouble caused
by need to keep contraband out of the physical mail process.
Yes, inmates will still be able to receive mail.
84) This RFP requires that proposers provide several million dollars’ worth of new equipment and new infrastructure
for the DOC. If the State commits only to a 2 year contract with 3 potential one-year extensions, and proposers
promise to have all kiosks and network installed in 26 facilities in 90 days (aggressive) that may mean that
proposers only have 20 months of operations to recover their investment. This is likely to prevent many
proposers from offering their best possible pricing to inmates and Wisconsin community members.
Also, since federal tax law only permits capital investments to be depreciated over 5 years regardless of fact a particular
contract may be for 2 years, many proposers will not be able to finance this installation as an investment for accounting
purposes. If proposers are required by GAAP to write a significant portion of the cost of these kiosks off as a marketing
expense or a loss that cannot be recouped through depreciation, no bank will permit this expense to be paid out of a
standard line-of-credit or operating capital facility.
•
Will the WIDOC consider proposals for a 5-year contract with an early termination clause for non-performance
rather than a 2 year contract with 3 optional extensions? This will give the State exactly the same flexibility but will
create a much fairer and more competitive bidding process for proposers who are not owned by large private equity
groups with access to unconventional financing terms and facilities.
Because all vendors will be submitting their proposals with the same concerns, the fact that we are looking at a 2 year
contract shouldn’t give one vendor an advantage over another. The structure of the contract period is intentional and
based on feedback from other states who have entered into longer commitments with vendors from the onset of the
new initiative. In short, if the vendor relationship is good, there is no reason to believe the DOC wouldn’t exercise the
additional 3 years so if your confident in the products and service you bring to the table then you shouldn’t be
concerned about a 2 year cancelation.