Memo to File - Wa



| | | |

| | |Nathen Hayes / Marci Disken |

|Contract type: New Replacement WSCA General Use Restricted to:_____________ |

|Contract duration: Initial Term: __1___ years months Maximum life: ___6__ Years |

|Estimated term worth: $322,780 Estimated annual worth: $53,796 |

|Number of: Bidders notified: ___318_____ Bids received: ____4___ Bids rejected: ___1______ |

|MWBE award: Small Business%33 , WBE % 0, MBE 0 , Self-identified WBE % 33 , Self-identified MBE % 0 |

|Executive summary: |The purpose of this Contract is to establish a statewide master contract for satellite phone equipment and services. This was |

| |requested by the Washington State Military Department. |

|Special notes: |The original Procurement Coordinator, Nathen Hayes had resigned from state service and his last day of employment with DES was May |

| |1st which was also the bid closing date. At that time the Evaluation process of this solicitation was assigned to Marci Disken. |

|Bid development |

|Stakeholder work: |Nathen held several meetings with Robert Purdom, Roy Benavente, Chris Utzinger, Kurt Hardin, from the Emergency Management Division |

| |of the Washington Military Department and Scott Smith with DES regarding the development of the requirements for this solicitation. |

| |It was decided to add language that would allow multiple awards which will allow more options for customers. |

|Supplier diversity: |Total of 318 vendors were notified of the opportunity and of those, 1 was WBE, 3 MBE, 10 VB, and 46 were Small Businesses (SB). The |

| |RFP voluntary goals were 3% for all WBE, MVE, SB & VB. Additional outreach was conducted through the DES Business Partnership forum |

| |(Vendor Educations event at the Tacoma Convention Center, June 3rd 2015.) |

|Market research: |It appears that Nathen had conducted market research through several avenues. WSCA Contract for Satellite Phone Equipment and |

| |Services DG7520 which was conducted by the state of Utah as the lead state. GSA Schedule 70 Category132 55 which may not have met the|

| |needs of the state of Washington for it appears to not have been competitively bid. Nathen researched through on how and |

| |when to buy a satellite phone. Also with Wikipedia for various definitions of satellite phone terminology. |

| |Military department estimated that a possible need of 100 phones may be purchased from the resulting contract. |

|Bid Development: |The goal is to establish a statewide master contract for satellite phone equipment and services for the various cabinet agencies. The|

| |business need is a reliable communication system in case of catastrophic breakdown of communications. This request for a contract |

| |came from the Washington State Military Department with the intention to award up to three contractors for Satellite Phone Equipment |

| |and Services. Nathen worked with Stakeholder group in developing the needs of the equipment, services and specifications. |

|Peer Review: |Peer review was completed by Neva Peckham and Scott Smith which resulted in a few changes to the RFP. No documentation found. |

|Bid Process |

|RFP 02515 |Posted through WEBS on April 10, 2015 with a bid closing date of May 1, 2015 at 2:00 pm |

|[pic] | |

| | |

|[pic] | |

|Q&A or Complaints |A pre-bid conference was not held however questions or complaints were due five business days prior to the bid closing date. One |

| |question was asked which was answered through solicitation Amendment one (1). |

|Amendment(s): |Amendment one (1) was posted through WEBS on April 24, 2015 and not required for submittal with RFP. The following was for the |

|[pic] |purpose of the amendment |

| |Combine the two categories of the RFP (one for equipment, the other for service plans) into a single category for bid evaluation |

| |and award purposes. |

| |Add additional specifications that require the satellite phone system to be high orbit (geospatial) and provide continuous |

| |connectivity across the continental United States. |

| |Answer potential Bidders questions related to this RFP submitted to the Procurement Coordinator. |

|[pic] |Clarify that the RFP is requesting proposals for the purchase of phone equipment, but that the rental of phone equipment may be |

| |included as an optional (not scored) component in the Bidder’s Price Sheet. |

| |Amendment Two (2) was posted through WEBs on April 28th, 2015 and was also not required for submittal with RFP. The following was for|

| |the purpose of the amendment. |

| |To remove the specification introduced in Solicitation Amendment Number 1 that requires the satellite phone system to be high orbit |

| |(geospatial). |

| |To confirm that the RFP requires that the satellite phone system provide continuous connectivity across the continental United States|

|Bid Evaluation – Responsiveness |

|Bid opening: 2:00PM |Four (4) electronic bids were received which appear to all be on time. No late bids were received |

|Date: May 1, 2015 |The following where the four (4) bidders who responded. |

| |Ocean Coastal Environmental Sensing dba OCENS |

| |Range Global Services |

| |Remote Satellite Systems |

| |NI Government Services |

|Bids sealed and signed? |All four (4) bids were delivered electronically to Nathean.Hayes@DES. inbox and they all singed and submitted the |

| |Certifications and Assurances Appendix A as required in the solicitation |

|Received all required submittals:|The following submittals were required for the RFP |

| |Transmittal Letter- Mandatory(M) |

| |Appendix A : Certification and Assurances-(M) |

| |Appendix F: Price Sheet-Mandatory Scored (MS) |

| |Appendix E: Issue List- (M), if bidder is taking any exceptions to any term or condition of the sample contract. |

| |Executive Summary-Desirable(D) |

| |References-(MS) |

|[pic] |RFP Amendments-(M), if instructed to do so in any such amendments. Even though two solicitation amendments were issued, none of them |

| |were required to be submitted. |

| |OCENS, Range Global, and Remote passed the administrative screening and mandatory Requirements and moved forward in the evaluation |

| |process. NI Government Services submitted three different options for satellite phone equipment and services which were allowed, |

| |however failed to submit any of them in the correct pricing format within Appendix F: Price Sheet which was a requirement and |

| |therefore was rejected. NI Government Services did not move forward in the evaluation process. |

|Specification compliance? |Three proposals were carefully reviewed by DES and the Military Department for specification compliance and all three bidders appear |

| |to be able to provide the satellite phone equipment and services to the RFP expectations. |

|Price sheet compliance? |All three bidders Bid Price Sheets conformed to the requirements of the solicitation. The various categories scored within the price|

| |sheet are: |

| |Basic Satellite Phone service Fees(MS) |

| |Additional Service/Features(MS) |

| |Proposed Equipment cost (MS) |

| |Additional Equipment, Parts, Items (MS) |

| |Bidders were asked to respond to section 8.1.1.1 through 8.1.1.7 which was also incorporated into the pricing evaluation. |

|Bid Evaluation – Responsibility |

|Past performance? |Bidders were required to provide references for their three (3) largest customers that use their satellite phone services, which all |

| |bidders had provided. All references for the three bidders were emailed asking for them to score each bidder on the following five |

| |reference questions, 1-5, 1 being poor, 5 being excellent. |

| |Please rate the bidder’s overall quality and reliability as your Satellite Service Provider. |

| |Please rate the overall quality of customer service you received from this bidder. |

| |Please rate the bidder’s overall quality of the Wireless Satellite phone device. |

| |Please rate the bidder’s overall quality of Network and user device Maintenance. |

| |Please rate the bidder’s service regarding any equipment problems and/or failed equipment. |

| |All three references for OCENS and Remote responded with favorable scores. One out of three references responded for Range Global |

| |which the one appeared to be in favor of Range Global. Three total attempts were made by email and phone to reach the un responsive |

| |references with a notation that a “no response” will cause a Zero (0) score for the bidder. OCEANS scored the highest for |

| |references, Remote scored the next highest and Range Global scored the lowest due to receiving a Zero score for two of the three |

| |references. Reverence scoring identified as 3% of the total overall award. |

|Qualifications? |Bidders were evaluated in determining qualifications by reviewing their proposal content response for subsections 4 through 8 and |

| |verification of dealer authorization upon request. |

|Bid Evaluation – Scoring |

|Evaluation: |Once the Responses were reviewed and passed the administrative screening and mandatory requirements their proposals were then sent to|

|[pic] |the Bob Purdom for scoring of the non-cost factors which were phone equipment, Maintenance, Customer Support and Bidder Profile. The |

| |following scoring was identified within the original RFP in the following relative percentage: |

| |Cost: 40% |

| |Customer Support: 20% |

| |Maintenance Support: 30% |

| |Vendor Profile: 7% |

| |References: 3% |

| | |

| |Cost components were entered into the evaluation score sheet with max 100 points available. Range Global scored the highest for total|

| |combined points within the pricing worksheet which resulted in them receiving the max points and OCENS and Remote receive a |

| |proportionally reduced score. |

| |All three bidders scored the same for Bidder Profile and received max points. |

| | |

| |OCENS received highest total overall scores for Customer Support, Maintenance Support, and References which resulted in them |

| |receiving max points. Remote and Range Global received a proportionally reduced score. |

| | |

| |After final tabulation, OCENS scored the overall highest and was determined the ASB. The solicitation ASB selection process allowed |

|[pic] |for any bidder receiving a bidder response total within 10% of the highest bidder response total score will also be declared an ASB. |

| |The solicitation also allowed for DES to expand the percentage to allow for up to three ASBs. It was determined that it was the best|

| |interest of the state to expand the percentage to 10.5% which resulted in Remote and Range Global within 10.5% of OCENS score. All |

| |three (3) bidders were announced as the ASB’s. |

| | |

|Results and recommendation |

|Savings: |In creating a master contract it has saved all the cabinet agencies time to conduct their own procurements and contracts which has |

| |been calculated to be approximately cost of $3,000-$5,000 per procurement/contract from start to finish. Unfortunately I couldn’t |

| |find another state contract to compare cost savings on equipment and services however it appears to be within the range of online |

| |pricing. |

|Recommendation: |It has been determined that it is in the best interest of the state to award this contract to all three bidders, OCENS, Remote & |

| |Range Global which will allow a selection of products, services and pricing for customers to choose from. |

| | |

|Award Activities |

|Implementation Plan |The implementation of this contract will be in coordination with the Military Department. The Military Department is required to |

| |report to the Governor’s Office the Implementation plan on how the executive agencies will be notified of this requirement and there |

| |instructions on the ordering and set up. |

|WEBS | Notify bidders of the award via WEBS |

| |Archive bid in WEBS after awarded |

| | |

|Communication | Send rejection letter to those bidders to disqualified bidders |

| |Send apparent successful bidder announcement letter |

| |Send Award Announcement letters to all bidders |

| |Email Kerry Bustetter a brief award announcement for Bi-Weekly Broadcast |

|Contract | Model Contract updated to reflect Bid Amendment language |

|PCMS | Populate PCMS Info Tab |

| |Complete PCMS Expanded Description Tab |

| |Add Web remark in the PCMS Remarks Tab announcing the award of the contract |

| |Add at least 5-FAQ remarks in the PCMS Remarks Tab |

| |Complete PCMS Internet Tab to include relevant search terms |

| |Include relevant search terms in the PCMS Internet Tab |

| |Complete PCMS Commodities Tab |

| |Complete PCMS Vendors Tab |

| |Complete PCMS Customer Tab |

| |Complete PCMS Fees Tab |

|Post contract to DES Website |Copy the following files into the G:\Shared Info\INTERNET folder: |

| |Copy Contract file (#####c.doc) |

| |Copy the price sheet (#####p.doc or xls) |

| |Copy the specification (#####s.pdf) if applicable |

| |Copy the bid tab (#####t.doc or xls) |

| |Copy the bid document (#####b.doc) |

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download