Online South Carolina Education Lottery RFP

Online South Carolina Education Lottery RFP

Questions Received to Date

GTECH Corporation submits the following questions:

Part One, Page 16, Section 1.25 – The language in this section appears incomplete. What is the requirement? Will the signed cover sheet meet this requirement?

Part Three, Table of Contents – Does not contain Section 3.1, Implementation

Part Three, Page 46, Section 3.2 and Part Three, Page51, Section 3.2 - Please note that the section titled Central Systems for Games Support and Terminals both have the same identifying section number (3.2). How should we correctly identify these sections.

Part Three, Page 48, Section 3.1.1 – The section titled Back Up Facilities appears to be numbered out of sequence as it appears after Section 3.2.2.

Part Three, Page 80, Section 16 – Where in the proposal format (Part or Section) should we include the Business Proposal? Is it a separate document?

Is it acceptable to vector between Parts, Sections and Appendices? Is it acceptable to vector between the Questionaire and other response sections?

GTECH Corporation questions to SCEL re: Solicitation 02-S4626

Section 2.1 states, "Contractor agrees to cooperate with SCEL and the next contractor or any other successor provider, including aiding the transition of the System provided for in this contract and providing any and all materials, data, records, databases, software and all other things in the contractor’s possession promptly to the successor at no cost to the SCEL." We understand this provision of the RFP is to provide for a seamless transition to any successor contractor upon termination of the contract. We believe that the referenced materials are those that belong to the SCEL as delineated in Section 2.16, otherwise the clause could be read to mean that the successful bidder must provide its own property to a successor who, most likely, will be a direct competitor. Would the SCEL consider revising the wording to read "Upon expiration or termination of the contract for any lottery gaming system, Contractor agrees to cooperate with the SCEL and the next Contractor or any other successor provider, including aiding the transition of the system provided for in this contract and providing any and all materials, data, records, data bases, software and all other things that are the property of the SCEL in the Contractor’s possession promptly to that successor provider at no cost to the SCEL".

Section 3.2.1.8 states, "In the event of irreparable damage at the primary site, or of an unplanned, system failure at the central site" "host processors and other components necessary to resume operations shall be available one hour after the disaster". Please reconcile this requirement with that of Section 4.3 Backup Data Center.

Section 3.1.2.2 requires the software development system to be of the same architecture and capacity as the production systems. It is typical in the software industry that development take place on smaller, less costly machines than production units. This practice meets standard change control requirements as long as testing occurs on machines identical to production. Can the development system be of a different architecture and capacity provided that the software is tested and accepted on a system with the same architecture and capacity as the production systems?

Section 3.1.3.12 states that "the system shall have the capacity in all hardware and software aspects to allow winning tickets to be retained and validated up to 180 days after the drawings for online games", and in Section 3.4.1 it states that "The serial number assignment method used by the proposer shall account for the fact that transactions resulting from unclaimed winners and possible other causes may reside in the system more than one year". What is the retention period for winning tickets on the system, 180 days or greater than 1 year?

Section 3.5.6 states that "The ICS shall reside on a proposer-provided, state of the art server (20 user license) and populate a database selected by the SCEL". Can the SCEL clarify which database they expect the proposer to supply?

Section 3.4.4 states that "The successful proposer shall be capable of expanding the table or data structure to support two hundred (200) games, without an upgrade of any System hardware components." Since Section 3.7.3 states that, "The SCEL anticipates that it may have up to Fifty (50) instant games for sale at one time…", would the SCEL consider reducing the 200 game limit to 100 games?

Will the lottery employ regional or district offices which would have sufficient space to support ongoing retailer training classes after the online startup?

We believe that Section 6.1 limits the proposer’s retailer training scope to "operation of the retailer terminals." If this reading is correct, can it be correctly inferred that the SCEL will implement their own retailer training program in other areas such as, but not limited to, instant products, retailer accounting, marketing, etc.?

Section 3.4.5.1 uses the phrase "orders from telephone sales". Will telephone sales be a SCEL function and does it generate any proposer hardware requirements?

The Schedule of Key Events has allowed six days from submission of proposals to award notification. Does the SCEL plan to visit any proposers during this period?

Section 3.0 states that "SCEL intends to begin online game sales no later than March 6, 2002". This is different than the March 1, 2002 date stated in Part One, Page 3. Which is correct?

Section 3.2.7 uses the term "Batch 1". Can the SCEL please define the term "Batch 1".

Section 4.4 requires that service centers to "fully support the terminal maintenance and repair program" be located "within the boundaries of South Carolina". It is our terminal repair philosophy to repair all terminal components at any of three large repair facilities located geographically across the United States. These centers service ALL of our domestic lottery customers. We believe that the liquidated damage provisions of Part Two produce adequate performance based incentive for the proposer and protection for the SCEL. Therefore we ask that the SCEL reconsider the requirement to locate repair centers within the boundaries of South Carolina.

Part Two, page 39 states "Class C Terminal: On-line terminal specifically designated by the SCEL as geographically remote". Can the SCEL identify counties and/or outlying areas that would be designated as geographically remote?

In Part One, Section 1.11, entitled "Evaluation Criteria", SCEL has identified three criteria in descending order of importance. Each criterion contains factors within. Would the SCEL provide more detail of the relative weights of the criteria and factors so as to allow bidders to provide you with more relevant detail to evaluate bids.

We find the last paragraph of Part One, Section 1.11, to be confusing. While it may be accurate that a direct comparison of cost is not possible, some comparison of the proposers responses to the "Business Plan" factors should be possible. In what regard is the SCEL saying that these factors don't allow for a comparison? How will "the seven percent resident vendor preference" be utilized.

Part Two, Section 2.39 discusses Liquidated Damages - Vendor Supplied Terminal Maintenance. We believe that the $500 per week sales figure that delineates a Class A retailer from a Class B retailer is low. Typically successful retailers are defined as those selling in excess of $2,000 or more per week. In many cases retailers selling below $1,000 are not entitled to receive an on-line terminal. Because the threshold for sales is so low it appears that a majority of the retailers in South Carolina will be defined as Class A and therefore subject to the two-hour response time. Having most retailers subject to a two-hour response time will drive costs higher for the selected proposer and ultimately the SCEL. We respectfully request that the Lottery either define Class A retailers as those selling more than $2,000 per week or increase the required response time from two to four hours.

Part Two, Section 2.39 discusses Liquidated Damages - Failure to Modify Existing games or to Install Additional Games. Time frames to install new games depend on many factors outside of the control of the Vendor such as advertising campaigns, specification sign-off, and game design approval just to name a few. It is typical that the time frame to modify existing games or add new games be mutually agreed upon by the SCEL and the successful proposer or that a time frame be stated, such as 90 days, so that vendors have a chance to assess whether or not compliance is possible. As it is currently written the successful proposer must comply with the Lottery's time frame no matter how reasonable. We respectfully request that the Lottery modify this section to allow for a mutually agreed upon time frame or a standard period of time such as 90 days.

Section 3.2.3.1 requires that ten sample tickets, "printed on the proposed terminal type, with the proposed printer, shall be included with each copy of the proposal.". Does the lottery require that these sample tickets be printed on the exact paper grade proposed as ticket stock for the SCEL?

Section 3.4.1 requires "Trace-abililty, accountability, identifying the history, use, and location of a component." Could the lottery please specify the entity for which component information tracking is required?

Section 3.4.1 requires the "Ability to produce a configuration status report or listing". Could the lottery please specify the entity for which configuration status or listing is required?

We see no mention of any claims and payment (checkwriting) component of the system in the RFP. How does the SCEL anticipate processing large winners payouts.

Part Two, Section 2.4 provides in part: "To the extent that any preexisting software and/or hardware is proposed as part of any response to this RFP, such hardware and/or software must have been publicly announced, and have been placed in service successfully, by the date of submission of proposals." It is unclear what is meant by the phrase "publicly announced". In the ordinary course of business, we do not make public statements relating to software and hardware. Will the SCEL eliminate the clause "must have been publicly announced, and" since use should afford the SCEL the protection it is seeking?

We ask that the SCEL revise Part Two, Section 2.7 to include the customary limitation of the Contractor’s liability and indemnification obligations to the extent such obligations are the result of the SCEL’s negligence or willful acts or omissions. Also, paragraph two of Part Two, Section 2.7 provides in the fourth sentence the following: "The Contractor shall not settle or compromise any claim without notice to and the consent of SCEL." Since the second paragraph of Section 2.7 relates to indemnification on matters relating to the payment or nonpayment of lottery winnings, we believe that the foregoing sentence was meant to also only pertain to payment or nonpayment of lottery winnings. Accordingly, we ask the SCEL to modify the sentence to read as follows: "The Contractor shall not settle or compromise any claim relating to the payment or nonpayment of lottery winnings without notice to and consent of SCEL."

Part Two, Section 2.9 provides that the proposer secure its performance under the contract with a $10 million standby letter of credit. It is not customary for governmental lotteries in the United States to require standby letters of credit and we believe it is unnecessarily burdensome on the proposers. When lotteries require performance guaranties, they will require annually renewable performance bonds. The effect to the lottery is the same while the cost to the proposer is greatly decreased. Since proposers will need to pass on those costs in their pricing as part of their responses to the RFP, we ask the SCEL to consider removing the obligation for a standby letter of credit, and substituting in its place the requirement of a performance bond. We believe a performance bond was contemplated as other sections of the RFP reference a performance bond rather than a standby letter of credit (see for example, Section 2.39).

Part Two, Section 2.9 also allows the SCEL to seek immediate relief without any opportunity for the Contractor to cure or object to such action. We find this situation to be overly burdensome and we are unaware of situations with other lotteries where we do not have an opportunity to cure. Moreover, the language allows the SCEL to obtain costs to compensate for such breach in addition to liquidated damages. We do not believe the damages were meant to be cumulative. Accordingly, we ask the SCEL to replace the first sentence after clause (3) of Section 2.9 with the following language: "In the event of any condition of breach, and Contractor fails to cure such breach after a 30 day period from the date of written notice to the Contractor of such breach, SCEL shall have the right to draw against the [Performance Bond] such sums as are necessary to make the SCEL whole, and/or for such other sums as may become due to the SCEL pursuant to §§2.7 Indemnification, 2.8 Intellectual Property Liability and Indemnification, 2.17 Duties Upon Termination, 2.20 Warranty, 2.21 Contractor Responsible for SubContractors, 2.26 Termination, 2.30 Attorneys Fees, and 2.36 Liquidated Damages."

Part Two, Section 2.10 provides that: "The Contractor shall not have the right to include the SCEL’s name in its published list of customers without the prior approval of SCEL." Since we are a public corporation, it may be required to disclose the SCEL as a customer in order to comply with securities laws and regulations. Accordingly, we ask that the SCEL consider the following language in place of the language cited above: "Except as required by applicable law or regulation (including, without limitation regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission), the Contractor shall not have the right to include the SCEL name in its published list of customers, without prior approval of SCEL."

Part Two, Section 2.20 provides that the Contractor warrant that its designs, products, services, implementation and all other work performed shall be satisfactory, "and in a first class manner", and comply with all specifications and other terms and conditions set forth in the RFP and contract. We believe that services "be in a first class manner" is not customary and increases the subjectivity of the warranty provisions making them ambiguous to the parties. We believe the ambiguities in the warranties impose additional risk that may result in higher pricing or may limit the number of proposals thereby limiting competition. Accordingly, we ask the SCEL to consider deleting all references in the warranty provisions to "in a first class manner" and substitute in place thereof the phrase "in manner consistent with industry standards". We also believe that the date expressed in the third paragraph of Section 2.20 (permitting the SCEL to terminate the contract if it appears the Contractor is unable to fully assume responsibilities required of it) should be changed from January 1, 2002 to January 7, 2002.

In Part Two, Section 2.23 clause 8, we believe the word "recover" is missing from the last line between the words "SCEL" and "from".

Since the Contractor will be expending significant resources to provide the goods and services under the contract and will base its return on investment over a 5 year term, we request that the termination for convenience provision of Part Two, Section 2.26 be deleted. Alternatively, we believe the SCEL should be permitted to invoke such a burdensome provision only in good faith. To that end, if the SCEL will not agree to removing the clause entirely, we suggest the following modification to the termination for convenience clause: "For convenience- SCEL may terminate by giving ninety (90) days’ written notice to the Contractor. SCEL will exercise such right only in good faith. In the event that the contract is terminated pursuant to this Section, SCEL shall not be required to pay any termination costs to the Contractor."

Also, in Part Two, Section 2.26, language is missing from the first line of the second paragraph beginning with the clause "For cause".

The second sentence of the first paragraph of Part Two, Section 2.31 provides the following: "The Contractor agrees, except where this contract specifically indicates otherwise, that all proposals, specifications, brochures and sales materials presented by the Contractor leading to the contract, and all other Contractor representations, commitments and warranties prior to and in connection with the contract, shall be deemed to be and are, incorporated by reference into and made a part of the contract." We believe that the sentence is unduly burdensome since it incorporates matters not negotiated by the parties and should be deleted. If the sentence remains, it will unnecessarily increase the risk of the bidders which may result in higher bid pricing unnecessarily. Additionally, this provision of the Agreement contradicts Part Two, Section 2.18 which provides that the contract includes certain enumerated written documents. We believe the provisions of Section 2.18 are customary and ask the SCEL to delete the first sentence in Section 2.26.

Part Two, Section 2.33 provides that the SCEL may terminate the services or supplies provided under the contract if there is a delay exceeding three days for reasons under the Force Majeure clause. We believe that the three day grace period for a force majeure event is not customary and ask that the SCEL consider substituting a three day grace period with a grace period appropriate given the event invoking the force majeure provision. We also request that acts of terrorism and war be included among the events excusing performance under Section 2.33.

If a Contractor is required to defer to SCEL’s interpretations under the contract, will the SCEL add the requirement that the SCEL’s interpretations will be made in good faith? We suggest adding the clause "and made in good faith" to the end of the first sentence of Part Two, Section 2.35.

There are two provisions relating to liquidated damages for terminal installation. Which section was intended to be deleted?

The third paragraph of Section 2.39 provides: "Assessment of liquidated damages shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, such other remedies as may be available to the SCEL." As stated in the first paragraph of the same section, the liquidated damages are meant as a reasonable assessment of the damages the SCEL would incur upon the Contractor’s breach. We believe the SCEL would receive an unfair windfall if it is entitled to receive other damages in addition to liquidated damages. Accordingly, will the SCEL delete the language referenced above?

Part Two, Section 2.41 provides that the Contractor provide to a third party escrow agent source and executable code for all proprietary software which will be made "available to the State upon breach, insolvency or failure to continue support for the System or any component thereof." We believe that this provision is too broad in that any breach without regard to its materiality or application would allow the State to have access to proposers’ most valuable asset, its source code. This is not customary and could, we believe, limit the number of proposals submitted and thereby limit competition. We also view this provision to significantly increase bidders’ risk under the Contract which could result in bid pricing increases that far exceed the benefit to the SCEL of keeping the language in the RFP. We ask that the SCEL consider modifying the language to read as follows: "The Contractor shall provide a current copy of the source and executable code for all proprietary software in third-party escrow, available to the State to the extent necessary for the State to continue to support the System or any component thereof upon (i) any material breach of the contract resulting in termination, (ii) insolvency or (iii) failure of the Contractor to continue to support the System or any component thereof."

Section 3.5.7 states that, "A similar, identically configured backup ICS system and database shall be located at the Lottery’s backup site with a dedicated, high-speed link." Is the Lottery’s backup site the same as the proposers backup site? If not, where is this site located? Also, who is responsible for the high-speed link required for this system?

Section 13.1 calls for a "full time Account Representative". We are organized such that our Account Representatives are each responsible for multiple jurisdictions and therefore could not categorized as "full time" to the SCEL. Would the SCEL reconsider it’s requirement for a "full time Account Representative", given the requirement for a resident Site Manager?

Should the Business Proposal contain offers to sell or lease equipment to the SCEL, the proposer will be required to invoice for sales tax. Should this sale tax be included and itemized in the Business Proposal pricing?

Section 3.2.3 refers to Appendices D, E and J, which are not found anywhere in the RFP. Can the SCEL clarify this please?

Scientific Games submits the following questions and comments as set forth in Section 1.2 of the RFP.

Proposal submission cover sheet – "Bidder’s Discount Terms"

Are bidder discount terms allowed under South Carolina Procurement Code?

General Objectives and Requirements for the Lottery Gaming System (page 2 and 51)

Does the SCEL require 3,100 on-line terminals plus 1,000 Instant Ticket Validation Terminals (ITVs) for a retailer base of 4,100 agents? Or does SCEL require 2,100 on-line terminals plus 1,000 ITVs for a retailer base of 3,100 agents?

General Objectives and Requirements for the Lottery Gaming System (pages 3 & 4)

Pages 3 &4 refer to an operational start date of March 1, 2002. Other RFP Sections (2.37, 3.0) refer to operational start date of March 6, 2002. What is the start date required?

RFP Section 2.5 Observation, Audit of Contractor’s Books (page 22)

S.C. Code Section 11-35-2220 requires contractors to maintain books and records related to contract performance for three years from the date of final payment under the contract. Will the SCEL amend this RFP section to require the Contractor to maintain records for three years after final contract payment instead of six years?

RFP Section 2.6 Successorship and Assignment (page 23)

This section requires the proposer to notify the SCEL regarding any sale, transfer or other action resulting in the transfer of the contract to another company or entity at least forty-five (45) days prior to the transaction. Given that some proposers are publicly traded companies, will the SCEL add that this notification is subject to the public disclosure restrictions and requirements of state and federal agencies with jurisdiction over the transfer of securities?

RFP Section 2.9 Security for Performance, Damages (page 24)

S.C. Code Section 59-150-140(A) states "At the execution of the contract with the commission, a lottery vendor shall post a performance bond or letter of credit…". However, this RFP section does not include a performance bond as an option for security for performance and damages. Will the SCEL amend this RFP section to allow vendors to post a performance bond for security for performance and damages?

RFP Section 2.26 Termination (page 31)

If the contract is terminated due to Non-appropriations, what if any, compensation will be paid to the Contractor?

RFP Section 2.26 Termination, (page 31)

Does the thirty (30) day cure period set forth in Section 2.26 regarding "for cause" termination apply to the termination provision set forth in Section 2.20 and if so, does it commence upon receipt of notice by SGI from SCEL?

RFP Section 2.39 Liquidated Damages (page 36)

With respect to liquidated damages related to acceptance testing, from what date are these liquidated damages intended to be imposed?

RFP Part Three (Pages 45 – 59)

Please clarify the numbering scheme for the sections in the specified page range as Sections 3.1 and 3.2 are duplicated.

RFP Section 3.1.2 Testing Hardware (page 49)

Will the SCEL accept a single system that functions as both a test and development system? Such a system would be located at the primary site and could be updated, activated, and function as the primary system in the event of a failure of the duplexed primary system.

RFP Section 3.1.2 Testing Hardware (Page 49)

"Source code not on test or production systems." We assume this refers to the source code which is traditionally compiled and linked resulting in executables, and not to such files as scripts, database stored procedures, and web pages (ASP files).

RFP Section 3.2.3 Retailer On-line Features (page 54)

Please explain what is meant when terminals are required to be capable of supporting an unlimited number of Id’s and passwords for training mode only?

RFP Section 3.2.2 Retailer On-Line Terminal Features (Page 55)

"The terminal shall be capable of tracking instant ticket sales transactions entered by the clerk." We assume this refers not to "sales" but to "cashes". Or does this mean the clerk should be able to enter manually a dollar amount of sales for purposes of drawer balancing?

RFP Section 3.2.8.2 Management Terminal Features & Capabilities (page 59)

The paragraph that begins "The SCEL shall have the ability…" appears twice. Is it safe to assume that the duplicate is only a typo and not there in place of another paragraph that should have been included?

RFP Section 3.3 Communications Network (page 59)

Will the SCEL clarify who will actually "own" the communications network?

RFP Section 3.4.6 Instant Ticket Inventory Control (page 68)

In the RFP the instant ticket inventory control system is referred to as the ICS. Is this correct? This acronym is typically used to describe the Internal Control System.

RFP Section 3.4.7 Instant Inventory Security (page 69)

Items 8 and 9 are duplicates. Is this simply a typo or should another type of security validation have been listed for #9?

RFP Section 3.4.7 Instant Inventory Security (Page 69)

For instant cashing attempts on a dialup terminal where the checkdigit algorithm fails, there seem to be contradictory requirements. In 3.4.7.8 we are required to have the ability to report from the host on failed algorithms. In 3.2.7 (Instant Validator Terminals) "IVT shall perform verification that a valid number has been entered before initiating a call", implying that failed checkdigit algorithms should not be sent to the host. Is our interpretation correct?

RFP Section 3.5 Internal Control System (page 70)

We understand this section to state that the initial cost of hardware and software is the responsibility of the Contractor. Is the SCEL assuming responsibility for the cost of software upgrades and ICS maintenance agreements?

RFP Section 4.2 Proposer’s Offices and Data Center Environment and Security (Page 74)

"Additionally the center shall have video surveillance monitoring where the center can be monitored 24/7 by Lottery Security." Is this requirement mandating that the primary site be monitored at the vendor provided SCEL office(s) at the primary site or the SCEL headquarters (if different)?

RFP Section 17 Possible Gold and Platinum System Functions and Features (page 82)

If a Proposer offers "gold" and/or "platinum" features within its "silver" system, how will SCEL compare costing with a Proposer that only offers "gold" and "platinum" functions/features for an additional charge?

Appendix 2 Questionnaire for Proposers (page 88)

Items 6 and 7 request revenue projections for the present and next business year. This may be considered insider information by the SEC that Proposers cannot disclose. Will the SCEL eliminate these items from the Questionnaire?

Item 9 (proposed changes in ownership or organization) is also considered insider information. Will the SCEL amend this requirement to include only changes already publicly announced, but not yet executed?

RFP Appendix 2 Instructions, Design and Services Proposal (Page 86)

Items A – E indicate the format for the proposal in direct contrdiction to the format that follows beginning on page 87 where Part D is the Business Proposal, not the RFP Term and Certification. Please clarify.

RFP Appendix 2, B.3 Part 3: Specifications (Page 87)

This indicates that we are to complete sections 3.1 through 8, Business Proposal. The Business Proposal is Section 16. Please clarify.

Scientific Games submits the following questions and comments as set forth in Section 1.2 of the RFP.

1. Section 2.23 Insurance (pages 29 & 30).

a. Item 1 -Is this a mistake? It asks for General Liability Insurance with a $5M limit per occurrence and a $2M aggregate.

b. Item 7 should be clarified that our E&O insurance covers SCEL and Contractor for errors "of the Contractor".

c. Item 8 – Please explain what you mean by "assist the retailers and SCEL from a loss"? Is this a general statement that we have a duty to try to mitigate any loss arising from a business interruption event?

2. Section 3.2 Central System for Games Support; 3.1.1 (?) Back Up Facilities; Numbered Paragraphs 1 & 2

The SCEL specified in numbered paragraph 1 the requirements for the system at the back-up facility. The back up system must at a minimum log all gaming transactions. However in numbered paragraph 2 the Lottery appears to extend the specification by stating that the proposer must periodically operate from the back-up site.

A system configuration that will allow the proposer to operate the on-line gaming system from the back-up site is more complex and more costly than a system configuration that will not.

Will the SCEL please clarify if it requires a remote system that will only allow logging of gaming transactions or if it requires a remote back-up system that will allow for total on-line gaming system operation from the back-up site?

3. Section 3.3 Communications Network; 3.3.3 Network Costs

It is unclear in the first paragraph, second sentence of the referenced sub-section if it is the SCEL’s intention to own the On-line communication network.

Recently several Lotteries have undergone on-line lottery network conversions between vendors in which they experienced an escalated risk because the outgoing vendor owned the communication network. Although the contract language specified that at contract termination the network would become the property of the Lottery the outgoing vendor refused to cooperate with the incoming vendor to allow communication network testing. A solution to this situation would have been for the Lottery to own the communication network. The trend for Lottery’s over the last 18 months is to assume ownership for the communication network after the vendor installs it by paying the vendor for the network hardware.

Would the SCEL please clarify if it is their intention to pay the proposer for the network hardware required to implement the on-line communication network.

Scientific Games submits the following additional question as set forth in Section 1.2 of the RFP.

RFP Section 3.3 Communications Network; 3.3.1 Network Design and Related Requirements

Is the customer premise equipment that connects the lottery terminal to the local loop (Modem, DSU, etc) to be considered part of the communications network or part of the terminal?

Is the central site equipment that connects the network to the central system to be considered part of the network or the central system?

We look forward to your response.

On behalf of Automated Wagering International Inc., I submit the following questions and observations concerning Solicitation 02-S4626 Online South Carolina Education Lottery.

Schedule

As the RFP notes, the SCEL’s proposed implementation schedule is quite aggressive. The successful bidder – at best – will not be awarded the contract until November 9 – leaving 48 days to design, test and install the instant ticket validation systems and 101 days to design, test and install a new statewide telecommunications network and test and install a complete on-line gaming system with ICS. The RFP is quite clear that target dates are all "wills" and "musts" and any system failure will result in quite large and significant liquidated damages. The schedule and the burden of liquidated damages alone could control a decision to bid or not to bid on the part of a vendor.

We also note that neither the SCEL nor the Office of Budget and Control have yet to meet a proposed target date for any of its RFPs. These facts trigger a series of questions:

Can the SCEL guarantee that the State Telecommunications Office and system will provide all necessary services under this schedule?

Can the SCEL guarantee that all local telephone exchange companies will provide all necessary services under this schedule?

Please list any circumstances known to the SCEL unrelated to the validation system that could delay the start of instant sales on January 7?

Why is November 9 described as "tentative?"

Will the SCEL guarantee all startup expenditures of the initial successful bidder should that award be protested or litigated and overturned?

Will the SCEL guarantee the legal fees of the initial successful bidder should that award be protested or litigated?

The SCEL is involved in litigation concerning the award of its advertising services contract. Part of that litigation alleges that the RFP is illegal because the SCEL met in executive session to discuss matters that should have been discussed in public session. SCEL agendas indicate that the SCEL has held at least two executive sessions during which this RFP was discussed. Can the SCEL guarantee that this RFP will not become the subject of similar litigation that could delay contract execution?

Schedule

Will the successful bidder be permitted to alter any of the mandatory items in the RFP during contract negotiations?

Part 1 – General objectives

Included in this section is the following section (emphasis added): "SCEL desires that the System, including computer hardware, software, fully duplexed data center, operations and backup data center facilities will be delivered, installed, implemented, acceptance tested, and fully operational by March 1, 2002 or as otherwise agreed with the successful offeror. Earlier or later operational dates will be evaluated on a cost vs. benefit basis."

There are no fewer than 13 other references in the RFP that start-up dates later than January 6, 2002 and March 1, 2002 or March 6, 2002 are not negotiable. Are we correct to assume that the use of the word "later" in this section was a mistake? Or, is the SCEL prepared to negotiate later starting dates with the apparent successful bidder?

1.3 Right To Protest

If an offeror, contractor, or subcontractor protests in writing within 15 days of the award posting, the protest may not be received by the SCEL until November 9 - the scheduled official award date. Assuming the SCEL is unable to resolve the protest within one business day, how will a protest delay affect the launch data of January 7?

1.5 Duty to Advise

State lotteries are increasingly concerned with problem gambling addictions. The RFP appears to be silent on this issue. Does a vendor’s capacity to assist the SCEL in this area of interest to the SCEL? If so, should not the SCEL amend the RFP to review vendor programs and vendor commitment to this important issue?

1.5 Duty to Advise

Generally, it is much faster to install a radio or satellite communications system than a landline system. Is it correct that the SCEL forbids the use of radio or satellite at start-up and requires a complete landline telecommunications system?

1.5 Duty to Advise

The SCEL RFP is quite explicit that "will" and "must" are mandatory conditions that will never be waived. Will in fact the SCEL hold the successful bidder to these conditions and hold the successful bidder responsible for the resultant liquidated damages?

1.6

The section states: "PROPOSERS are cautioned that the words "shall," "must," and "will" denote material and essential requirements. Failure to comply with any material and essential requirement will result in a rejection of the proposal." Will the SCEL also apply this standard to the resulting contract? We would recommend the section be amended to read "will result in a withdrawal of any award resulting from this RFP."

1.9

If a potential bidder does not file a response to this RFP, is that potential bidder in any way prejudiced should the SCEL issue another RFP seeking substantially similar services?

1.20

Who is obligated to "adhere" to the "weighting specified for each factor?" What is the "weighting specified for each factor?"

1.31 and 1.5

The SCEL has wisely required that the litigation bond remain in effect for the duration of the contract. We feel obligated to point out that despite numerous appeals and lawsuits challenging on-line awards in other states, no court has even been asked to declare an appeal "frivolous" or "without merit." The cost of the bond is included as a cost of the contract and is passed on to the SCEL. In effect, the SCEL is paying for an insurance policy that has never been collected on. We would advise the SCEL that litigation has been pursued in different jurisdictions attempting to block contract negotiations and to force contract negotiations. In addition, litigation has been pursued challenging the resulting contract after full litigation of all original RFP award issues. We would suggest the SCEL specifically include those types of litigation. We would further suggest the SCEL strengthen the language on "frivolous" and "without merit."

2.16 Intellectual Property and 1.5

With respect to games, some state lotteries are recognizing that in order to revitalize their product mix, they are willing to provide an incentive to creativity on the part of vendors by agreeing to compensate their particular supplier for the use of specific, non-traditional on-line games. This is an emerging industry trend. This trend will be important for South Carolina, as state law prohibits one traditional avenue (higher sales) for a vendor to recoup its investment in new game designs. This section appears to provide some protection to a vendor by the listing of intellectual properties. Will the SCEL commit to a full discussion of this emerging trend during contract negotiations? Will the SCEL recognize that this development is so new that a full resolution of all issues may not be possible prior to contract signing? And, is the SCEL willing to remit an additional fee above and beyond the base fee for the use of such Intellectual Properties?

2.27

Will waivers/breach need to be approved by the SCEL Commission? Who will be the final authority on waivers/breach?

2.37

Will waivers or reductions in assessed liquidated damages need to be approved by the SCEL Commission? Who will be the final authority on waivers or reductions in assessed liquidated damages?

2.37 and 1.5

The SCEL should be aware that software modifications have been made and then purposefully and willfully hidden by a vendor from several lotteries for several years. The proposed liquidated damage of $100,000 is more than that imposed in other jurisdictions. The SCEL will receive greater protection if it amends the penalty to a daily penalty rather than a per occurrence penalty. Will the SCEL amend this section in this manner?

2.39 Instant Ticket Validation Terminals

Does the SCEL intend not to assess any liquidated damage in any amount for retail outlets not being capable of validating during the period of January 10 through January 12?

Will the liquidated damages under this provision be pro-rated if a retailer can validate tickets at any time during the day? Or will the SCEL assess the full penalty if a retailer cannot validate during any period on any day?

2.39 Failure to Commence Operations

Does the SCEL intend to assess the $250,000 per day liquidated damage for failure to commence operations and to assess the per retailer liquidated damage? For example, assume the entire system is inoperable on January 8 and there are 3,100 retailers. Is the potential liquidated damage $560,000? Or is it capped at $250,000? Please calculate the full potential liquidated damage for an entire system failure for an entire day.

2.39 Liquidated Damages - Central Computer Systems

Some vendors have developed instant and on-line gaming systems that can operate independently. This section appears not to recognize this ability, as it appears to assume the "system" is either "up" or "down." If so, the SCEL would inadvertently be penalizing a vendor that has provided a product with clear beneficial functionality. We would recommend the SCEL assess liquidated damages based on which parts of the system are not functioning rather than declaring the entire system as non-functioning. Will the SCEL amend this section of the RFP and, if so, how?

3.1.2.2

Must the development system be dedicated solely to the SCEL?

3.1.7

Is not Keno specifically prohibited by state statute?

3.3

This section appears to state that the successful bidder will have the responsibility of designing a telecommunications system and managing the system after start-up. Does this section absolve the successful vendor of any and all liability should the telecommunications system itself and alone prevent the validation of instant tickets on January 7?

3.2.3.2 Retailer On-Line Terminal Features

Bullet Item 13 specifics a terminal in which "Downloading…shall not preclude near-24 hour operation…" The system, at start-up, will be required to run for 18.5 hours and the SCEL sees it expanding operations to 20 hours. The terminal requirement – if it is never used – will represent an unnecessary expense to the SCEL. Does the SCEL still desire this terminal requirement?

3.4.5.2

Does telephone sales mean a full telemarketing service?

Is the proposer responsible for manning the telemarketing phone lines and supplying appropriate telephone hardware?

Is the proposer's central system assumed to be providing telemarketing order processing?

Does this section require telephone sales, and walk-in orders at each regional office?

Must each regional office maintain its own inventory of instant tickets?

3.4.5.3

Must the proposer's central system(s) interface to the instant ticket warehouse vendor's packing system or is it expected to perform the shipment creation function?

If an interface is required, can the SCEL provide technical details to allow proposers to gauge development and implementation resources? What are the expected hours of warehouse operation?

3.5.6

We do not believe the ICS provider can price its deliverable product without knowing the "database selected by the SCEL…"

Would the SCEL add the selected database product’s specifications to the RFP?

In the absence of a specific database product, can the SCEL provide a specification of system data interchange standards to be used?

6.1

Should a bidder outline duplicate training programs for the two systems or does the SCEL intend to combine training in the instant validation system terminal and the on-line terminal into one session?

17.1

This section appears to state that wireless, radio and/or satellite technology cannot be used at start-up. Is that correct?

17.3.6

We would recommend to the SCEL that it exclude items currently not permitted under South Carolina statute. It seems to be more financially advantageous to the vendor to include such costs in an overall price now and offer non-permitted terminals as a "free item" later. Keeping non-permitted terminals out of this RFP ensures the SCEL will not be charged for something it may never be able to use. Will the SCEL so amend the RFP?

17.3.11

Is it the opinion of the SCEL that in-lane terminals – typically operated by the customer – are legal under current South Carolina statutes?

Appendix 2 – "Disqualifying Capacities" (3)

Does this requirement disqualify a bidder if the bidder has never managed a domestic lottery startup?

Appendix 2 – "Disqualifying Capacities" (4)

Please clarify this section, particularly "instant ticket…design, implementation." Does this include instant ticket printing? Does the SCEL require that its on-line vendor have instant ticket printing experience and/or instant ticket design experience?

Appendix 2 – Proposal Format – C

Earlier in Appendix 2, the RFP refers a proposer to the Questionnaire section to reply to certain requirements. However, there appears to be no question in the questionnaire that permits a bidder to display how that bidder exceeds the "disqualifying capacities." Will the SCEL include specific questions that would clearly delineate the experiences and talents sought, particularly as those experiences and talents relate to the start-up of lotteries and an on-line vendor’s involvement with instant tickets? Will the SCEL require each bidder to list all domestic lottery start-ups and the year of the start-up?

Appendix 2 – Proposal Format – C

The SCEL should specifically seek the full record of a bidder’s appeals and litigation history in the domestic lottery industry involving all RFPs for the past seven years. Will the SCEL require this disclosure?

Appendix 2 – Proposal Format – C

The SCEL should require each bidder to disclose the amount of assessed liquidated damages and paid liquidated damages from each domestic client for the past seven years. Will the SCEL require this disclosure?

Appendix 2 – Proposal Format – C -- 16

The SCEL should require the listing of all domestic lottery accounts and their relative percentage of a vendors domestic business. Will the SCEL require this disclosure?

Pricing

The SCEL only requires 18.5 hours of service but asks for the vendor to be able to provide 20 hours. We would recommend the SCEL specifically ask for separate pricing for the additional 1.5 hours to ensure it does not pay for a function it is not receiving.

Appendix 4

This section appears to state that it is the SCEL’s intent to negotiate only with respondents to this RFP. Should the SCEL fail to reach a contract with an initial apparent successful bidder or in the case of breach and/or termination of the apparent successful bidder, will the SCEL negotiate with the remaining bidders to this RFP?

Onyx International, Inc.
P.O. Box 160
St. Stephen, SC 29479

We would like to have the following questions addressed at the upcoming RFP Pre Proposal Conference scheduled on October 1, 2001.

1) Will the successful bidder be allowed to warehouse and distribute these consumable supplies from any part of South Carolina?

2) Are there any specific delivery schedules required by the SCELC regarding the quantities of deliveries made for consumable supplies to Retail Vendors within a 1-month period?

International Gaming Consultants

Questions for Solicitation 02-S4626

Schedule of Key Events

Q1.1 We request the State extend the period for submitting questions to the end of the business day October 1, 2001.

Q1.2 The State’s response(s) to the vendor questions can potentially change the requirements and work effort in responding to the solicitation. So as to allow adequate time for the vendors to provide the best possible solution and response for the State, we respectfully request the submission and opening of proposals reflect a date allowing the vendors a minimum of 10 working days following issuance of the State’s response(s) to Vendor questions.

Q1.3 Will the State allow follow-up clarifications as it relates to the State’s responses to Questions and Amendments?

APPENDIX 2, NOTE 1, PAGE 85 has the following language:

The needs of the State, as more fully described in the RFP, require a turnkey System, statewide, to go from concept to reality in less than 90 days for validation services and in 150 days for the online gaming System overall.

Based on past large procurements in South Carolina, delays in the procurement process are quite likely. If any delay(s) occur resulting in the successful CONTRACTOR not having a final Contract Award by November 9 (tentative award date), will the State at a minimum change the validation date to reflect 90 days and the overall online gaming System date by 150 days?

Part Two, Section 2.37, Acceptance Standards, PAGE 34 has the following language:

CONTRACTOR shall fully, completely, and satisfactorily perform all requirements of the contract between date of execution of the contract and until acceptance of the System as follows:

Satisfactory completion by the CONTRACTOR of the installation of instant ticket validation capabilities not later than January 6, 2002, such satisfactory completion being accomplished by absence of any material breach as defined pursuant to §2.27; and

Satisfactory completion by the CONTRACTOR of the installation of computer hardware and software, network, infrastructure and equipment to have a statewide on line lottery game System in place and operating not later than March 6, 2002, such satisfactory completion being accomplished by absence of any material breach as defined pursuant to §2.27.

Thereafter, if by May 1, 2002, the CONTRACTOR has not performed hereunder without a material breach, then the contract may be terminated and all remedies available to the SCEL shall be pursued including, but not limited to, utilization of the security provided for in §2.9, insurance under 2.23 and liquidated damages under 2.39.

Based on the present installation requirements specified, likelihood of any CONTRACTOR successfully meeting the present schedule is extremely remote and most definitely restrictive. Since the State requires unrestrictive procurements and desires a successful implementation of a turnkey Lottery System, we respectfully request the State establish more flexible schedules and performance standards. If this request is acceptable, will the State consider relaxing the requirements to reflect 120 days from final award for validation and 180 days from final award for the overall Statewide Online Gaming System?

What will the CONTRACTOR’S reporting structure be to the State during and after implementation?

Section 3.3, Communications Network, pages 59-70

The RFP requirements are clear relating to using OIR’s contracts and communications networks. Due to the limited time allowed to respond to the RFP, what assurances will the Contractors have that they can receive network cost information from OIR early enough to respond to the required response date (Submission and Opening of Proposals)? Since cost is not included in the evaluation and voluminous interaction with OIR and potential alternate communications carriers is anticipated, would the State consider allowing the PROPOSER(s) the opportunity to recommend a design with network cost to be determined after Final Award?

PART ONE, SECTION 1.11, PAGE 13, EVALUATION CRITERIA has the following language:

Proposer’s Record of Experience, Performance and Integrity including designing, implementing, operating and maintaining gaming systems on time and on budget in other states; and

We assume that the State requires PROPOSER(s) to have individuals meeting all of the qualifications as specified above.

Is this assumption correct? If our assumption is correct, we also assume the State will accept and evaluate (score) any PROPOSER(s) based on the individuals proposed? Is our assumption correct?

PART TWO, SECTION 2.33, PAGE 33, FIRST SENTENCE, FORCE MAJEURE

We respectfully request the State to modify the first sentence to read:

The CONTRACTOR shall not be liable for any excess costs or performance penalties if the failure to perform the contract arises out of causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the CONTRACTOR.

What disaster recovery services and/or plans are required beyond having a primary and backup center in Columbia?

Does the State require the primary and backup data center(s) not being located within any 100-year flood plains?

Since hazardous materials are carried on railroads, what are the restrictions associated with proximity to railroad tracks?

Does the State require the CONTRACTOR to provide offsite storage of tapes or records beyond what is specified?

PART THREE, SECTION 5.4, PAGE 75, RESUMES AND QUALIFICATIONS has the following language:

The PROPOSER shall provide resumes of all management, supervisory and key technical personnel it plans to be involved in the installation, implementation, and operation of the System, and shall provide for each such person:

Most of the potential personnel covered by this requirement are on other assignments and divulging their names prior to final award could be damaging. Would the State allow for blind resumes with the names only being provided to the CIO Buyer (Mike Spicer)?

Part 1 – General objectives	Included in this section is the following section (emphasis added): "SCEL desires that the System, including computer hardware, software, fully duplexed data center, operations and backup data center facilities will be delivered, installed, implemented, acceptance tested, and fully operational by March 1, 2002 or as otherwise agreed with the successful offeror. Earlier or later operational dates will be evaluated on a cost vs. benefit basis." There are no fewer than 13 other references in the RFP that start-up dates later than January 6, 2002 and March 1, 2002 or March 6, 2002 are not negotiable. Are we correct to assume that the use of the word "later" in this section was a mistake? Or, is the SCEL prepared to negotiate later starting dates with the apparent successful bidder?
1.3 Right To Protest	If an offeror, contractor, or subcontractor protests in writing within 15 days of the award posting, the protest may not be received by the SCEL until November 9 - the scheduled official award date. Assuming the SCEL is unable to resolve the protest within one business day, how will a protest delay affect the launch data of January 7?
1.5 Duty to Advise	State lotteries are increasingly concerned with problem gambling addictions. The RFP appears to be silent on this issue. Does a vendor’s capacity to assist the SCEL in this area of interest to the SCEL? If so, should not the SCEL amend the RFP to review vendor programs and vendor commitment to this important issue?
1.5 Duty to Advise	Generally, it is much faster to install a radio or satellite communications system than a landline system. Is it correct that the SCEL forbids the use of radio or satellite at start-up and requires a complete landline telecommunications system?
1.5 Duty to Advise	The SCEL RFP is quite explicit that "will" and "must" are mandatory conditions that will never be waived. Will in fact the SCEL hold the successful bidder to these conditions and hold the successful bidder responsible for the resultant liquidated damages?
1.6	The section states: "PROPOSERS are cautioned that the words "shall," "must," and "will" denote material and essential requirements. Failure to comply with any material and essential requirement will result in a rejection of the proposal." Will the SCEL also apply this standard to the resulting contract? We would recommend the section be amended to read "will result in a withdrawal of any award resulting from this RFP."
1.9	If a potential bidder does not file a response to this RFP, is that potential bidder in any way prejudiced should the SCEL issue another RFP seeking substantially similar services?
1.20	Who is obligated to "adhere" to the "weighting specified for each factor?" What is the "weighting specified for each factor?"

1.31 and 1.5	The SCEL has wisely required that the litigation bond remain in effect for the duration of the contract. We feel obligated to point out that despite numerous appeals and lawsuits challenging on-line awards in other states, no court has even been asked to declare an appeal "frivolous" or "without merit." The cost of the bond is included as a cost of the contract and is passed on to the SCEL. In effect, the SCEL is paying for an insurance policy that has never been collected on. We would advise the SCEL that litigation has been pursued in different jurisdictions attempting to block contract negotiations and to force contract negotiations. In addition, litigation has been pursued challenging the resulting contract after full litigation of all original RFP award issues. We would suggest the SCEL specifically include those types of litigation. We would further suggest the SCEL strengthen the language on "frivolous" and "without merit."
2.16 Intellectual Property and 1.5	With respect to games, some state lotteries are recognizing that in order to revitalize their product mix, they are willing to provide an incentive to creativity on the part of vendors by agreeing to compensate their particular supplier for the use of specific, non-traditional on-line games. This is an emerging industry trend. This trend will be important for South Carolina, as state law prohibits one traditional avenue (higher sales) for a vendor to recoup its investment in new game designs. This section appears to provide some protection to a vendor by the listing of intellectual properties. Will the SCEL commit to a full discussion of this emerging trend during contract negotiations? Will the SCEL recognize that this development is so new that a full resolution of all issues may not be possible prior to contract signing? And, is the SCEL willing to remit an additional fee above and beyond the base fee for the use of such Intellectual Properties?
2.27	Will waivers/breach need to be approved by the SCEL Commission? Who will be the final authority on waivers/breach?
2.37	Will waivers or reductions in assessed liquidated damages need to be approved by the SCEL Commission? Who will be the final authority on waivers or reductions in assessed liquidated damages?
2.37 and 1.5	The SCEL should be aware that software modifications have been made and then purposefully and willfully hidden by a vendor from several lotteries for several years. The proposed liquidated damage of $100,000 is more than that imposed in other jurisdictions. The SCEL will receive greater protection if it amends the penalty to a daily penalty rather than a per occurrence penalty. Will the SCEL amend this section in this manner?
2.39 Instant Ticket Validation Terminals	Does the SCEL intend not to assess any liquidated damage in any amount for retail outlets not being capable of validating during the period of January 10 through January 12? Will the liquidated damages under this provision be pro-rated if a retailer can validate tickets at any time during the day? Or will the SCEL assess the full penalty if a retailer cannot validate during any period on any day?

2.39 Failure to Commence Operations	Does the SCEL intend to assess the $250,000 per day liquidated damage for failure to commence operations and to assess the per retailer liquidated damage? For example, assume the entire system is inoperable on January 8 and there are 3,100 retailers. Is the potential liquidated damage $560,000? Or is it capped at $250,000? Please calculate the full potential liquidated damage for an entire system failure for an entire day.
2.39 Liquidated Damages - Central Computer Systems	Some vendors have developed instant and on-line gaming systems that can operate independently. This section appears not to recognize this ability, as it appears to assume the "system" is either "up" or "down." If so, the SCEL would inadvertently be penalizing a vendor that has provided a product with clear beneficial functionality. We would recommend the SCEL assess liquidated damages based on which parts of the system are not functioning rather than declaring the entire system as non-functioning. Will the SCEL amend this section of the RFP and, if so, how?
3.1.2.2	Must the development system be dedicated solely to the SCEL?
3.1.7	Is not Keno specifically prohibited by state statute?
3.3	This section appears to state that the successful bidder will have the responsibility of designing a telecommunications system and managing the system after start-up. Does this section absolve the successful vendor of any and all liability should the telecommunications system itself and alone prevent the validation of instant tickets on January 7?
3.2.3.2 Retailer On-Line Terminal Features	Bullet Item 13 specifics a terminal in which "Downloading…shall not preclude near-24 hour operation…" The system, at start-up, will be required to run for 18.5 hours and the SCEL sees it expanding operations to 20 hours. The terminal requirement – if it is never used – will represent an unnecessary expense to the SCEL. Does the SCEL still desire this terminal requirement?
3.4.5.2	Does telephone sales mean a full telemarketing service? Is the proposer responsible for manning the telemarketing phone lines and supplying appropriate telephone hardware? Is the proposer's central system assumed to be providing telemarketing order processing? Does this section require telephone sales, and walk-in orders at each regional office? Must each regional office maintain its own inventory of instant tickets?
3.4.5.3	Must the proposer's central system(s) interface to the instant ticket warehouse vendor's packing system or is it expected to perform the shipment creation function? If an interface is required, can the SCEL provide technical details to allow proposers to gauge development and implementation resources? What are the expected hours of warehouse operation?

3.5.6	We do not believe the ICS provider can price its deliverable product without knowing the "database selected by the SCEL…" Would the SCEL add the selected database product’s specifications to the RFP? In the absence of a specific database product, can the SCEL provide a specification of system data interchange standards to be used?
6.1	Should a bidder outline duplicate training programs for the two systems or does the SCEL intend to combine training in the instant validation system terminal and the on-line terminal into one session?
17.1	This section appears to state that wireless, radio and/or satellite technology cannot be used at start-up. Is that correct?
17.3.6	We would recommend to the SCEL that it exclude items currently not permitted under South Carolina statute. It seems to be more financially advantageous to the vendor to include such costs in an overall price now and offer non-permitted terminals as a "free item" later. Keeping non-permitted terminals out of this RFP ensures the SCEL will not be charged for something it may never be able to use. Will the SCEL so amend the RFP?
17.3.11	Is it the opinion of the SCEL that in-lane terminals – typically operated by the customer – are legal under current South Carolina statutes?
Appendix 2 – "Disqualifying Capacities" (3)	Does this requirement disqualify a bidder if the bidder has never managed a domestic lottery startup?
Appendix 2 – "Disqualifying Capacities" (4)	Please clarify this section, particularly "instant ticket…design, implementation." Does this include instant ticket printing? Does the SCEL require that its on-line vendor have instant ticket printing experience and/or instant ticket design experience?
Appendix 2 – Proposal Format – C	Earlier in Appendix 2, the RFP refers a proposer to the Questionnaire section to reply to certain requirements. However, there appears to be no question in the questionnaire that permits a bidder to display how that bidder exceeds the "disqualifying capacities." Will the SCEL include specific questions that would clearly delineate the experiences and talents sought, particularly as those experiences and talents relate to the start-up of lotteries and an on-line vendor’s involvement with instant tickets? Will the SCEL require each bidder to list all domestic lottery start-ups and the year of the start-up?
Appendix 2 – Proposal Format – C	The SCEL should specifically seek the full record of a bidder’s appeals and litigation history in the domestic lottery industry involving all RFPs for the past seven years. Will the SCEL require this disclosure?
Appendix 2 – Proposal Format – C	The SCEL should require each bidder to disclose the amount of assessed liquidated damages and paid liquidated damages from each domestic client for the past seven years. Will the SCEL require this disclosure?

Appendix 2 – Proposal Format – C -- 16	The SCEL should require the listing of all domestic lottery accounts and their relative percentage of a vendors domestic business. Will the SCEL require this disclosure?
Pricing	The SCEL only requires 18.5 hours of service but asks for the vendor to be able to provide 20 hours. We would recommend the SCEL specifically ask for separate pricing for the additional 1.5 hours to ensure it does not pay for a function it is not receiving.
Appendix 4	This section appears to state that it is the SCEL’s intent to negotiate only with respondents to this RFP. Should the SCEL fail to reach a contract with an initial apparent successful bidder or in the case of breach and/or termination of the apparent successful bidder, will the SCEL negotiate with the remaining bidders to this RFP?