My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
AG 2009 06 15
CabarrusCountyDocuments
>
Public Meetings
>
Agendas
>
BOC
>
2009
>
AG 2009 06 15
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/5/2010 4:01:01 PM
Creation date
11/27/2017 11:25:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meeting Minutes
Doc Type
Agenda
Meeting Minutes - Date
2/5/2010
Board
Board of Commissioners
Meeting Type
Regular
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
446
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
C~ <br />30. QUESTION: <br />Pg 11 Blocking and Catalog Solution <br />How many consecutive business days will awarded offerors have after notification of award to create and <br />implement an online ordering system either a custom catalog (or equivalent) and post it? <br />ANSWER: <br />Tentatively, February 1, 2009. <br />31. QUESTION: <br />Pg 13 Reports <br />The state requires semiannual reports to show the dollar amounts reported to include all items sold from this <br />contract. Does that mean each report should include all items sold from the beginning of the contract to date? <br />Or does that mean each report should include all items sold since the last reporting period? Can the state <br />specify what time line each semiannual report should cover? <br />ANSWER: <br />See revised bid. <br />32. QUESTION: <br />Since most offerors are current vendors with the state, what is the state's expectation for providing a list of <br />every business for which offerors have performed similar work? Will the state consider eliminating this clause? <br />If not, will references of three similar customers suffice? How will this information be kept confidential? <br />ANSWER: <br />See revised bid. <br />33. QUESTION: <br />How will the state evaluate a vendor's catalog with 15,000 items versus 3,000 items? <br />ANSWER: <br />This is not an evaluation factor. <br />34. QUESTION: <br />Since most vendors distribute catalogs that are commonly defined as "Full Line Catalog", we suggest the state <br />require that vendors use a "Full Line Catalog" of at least 10,000 items or more as a requirement for the bid? <br />ANSWER: <br />This is not an evaluation factor. <br />35. QUESTION: <br />Is there a minimum number of items required per vendor catalog? <br />ANSWER: <br />No. <br />36. QUESTION: <br />Since many vendors produce and distribute new catalogs in January of each calendar year, would the state <br />consider letting vendors bid % discounts on their pending catalog and then submit a detail price list in <br />December? If agreeable by the state how should it be written into the RFP response? <br />ANSWER: <br />No. We cannot accommodate this request. <br />Page 36 <br />F-7 <br />7 <br />i <br />~II <br /> <br />i <br />C! <br />C <br />C <br /> <br />i~ <br />~l <br />C <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Attachment number 3 <br />Page 176 of 433 ' <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.