Documents Reviewed: - Wa

[Pages:12]

[pic]

Office of State Procurement

Rm. 201 General Administration Building, P.O. Box 4101, Olympia, Washington 98504-101

(360) 902-7400 (

00311 Memorandum:

Evaluation & Award Summary

Department of General Administration

Office of State Procurement

Delivered Fuel: Bulk and Keep-Full / Will-Call

Contract Number 00311

Prepared By:

Michael Maverick, Consultant

(360) 902-7430

michael.maverick@ga.

Date: April 18, 2011

Revision: N/A

Table of Contents

1. Department of General Administration 3

2. Introduction 3

3. Summary 3

4. Purpose 4

5. Evaluation Construct 5

6. Expanded Detail 5

6.1 General 5

6.2 Development 6

6.2.1 Customer Input 6

6.2.2 Strategic Sourcing Team 6

6.2.3 Supplier Input and Forum 7

6.2.4 Biodiesel Manufacturer Forum 7

6.2.5 Market Research 8

6.2.6 Supplier Diversity Considerations 8

6.2.7 Legislative Mandates 8

6.2.8 Environmental Considerations 8

6.2.9 Economic Considerations 8

6.2.10 Geographical Considerations 8

6.3 Peer Review 9

6.4 Procedural History 9

6.5 Bid Opening and Responders 9

7. Evaluation 9

7.1.1 Initial (responsiveness) 10

7.1.2 Competitive Evaluation 11

7.1.2.1 Pricing (competitive) 11

7.1.2.2 Preference and Penalties 12

7.1.3 Responsibility 12

7.1.3.1 Qualifications (qualification - responsibility) 12

7.1.3.2 Responsibility (responsibility) 13

7.1.3.3 References 13

7.1.3.4 Excluded Parties List System 15

7.1.3.5 OSP Databases 15

7.1.4 Evaluation Team 15

8. Minority, Women, or Disadvantaged Business 16

9. Program Manager Consultation 17

10. Increases or Saving 17

11. Recommendation 18

12. Approval – Intend To Award 18

13. Notification Of ASB / Intent To Award / Protest Period 18

14. Negotiation 18

15. Approval – Award 19

16. Bid Award And Protest/Appeal Time Period 19

17. Administrative Functions 19

18. Remuneration 19

19. Attachments 19

Department of General Administration

General Administration (GA) is a central services agency that supports other Washington State Agencies and the Legislative and Judicial branches of government.

GA, through the Office of State Procurement (OSP), is a centralized goods and services contracting program for the state of Washington and operates under the authority of Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 43.19 et seq.

OSP provides procurement leadership and manages the Washington State Purchasing Manual (WPM) that acts as a general goods and services procurement policy for the state of Washington.

OSP has a complement of approximately 45 staff, all reporting to the State Chief Procurement Officer and Director of Purchasing and Material Control.

Contracts administered by OSP will generally have one or more of the following characteristics: statewide application, contract of first impression, high dollar value, potentially litigious vendor community, high political profile, inherently dangerous commodity, and/or unusually complex procurement.

On average, OSP solicits and manages 300 statewide master contracts valued at $400 million (annually) on behalf of all state agencies, institutions of higher education, and hundreds of political subdivisions that are members of the State Purchasing Cooperative.

Introduction

GA, through OSP administers several fuel contracts, including state contract 07705: Fuel – Bulk Deliveries & Keep Full Service. Contract 07705 was scheduled to expire on April 12, 2011 but was extended through August 31, 2011 or until a replacement contract was established, whichever occurs first. This action was deemed prudent given the criticality of fuel and to allow for good organized change management.

In advance of the contract’s expiration, OSP seeked to develop, solicit, and award a replacement contract that meets both the legislative mandates and customer goals.

While day-to-day contract administration does develop commodity expertise within the OSP program, OSP recognized that it does not always have all of the answers. OSP believed that collaboration with its customers is the best way to achieve overall goals and it is GA’s preferred practice and established a strategic sourcing team to advise on this effort.

Summary

Sixteen bids were received with a total of 98 price sheets competing for 16 regions/categories; an average of six bids per region/category. Some bids were submitted with less care than others. However, OSP reserved the right to determine the level of bid compliance and waive informalities. Further, all bids met minimum legal requirements and contained the information that was necessary to perform the evaluation.

I recommend awarding the contract to the ASBs in conformity with RCW 43.19.1911.

The following ASB’s have prevailed in the following region/categories:

|Company |Category |Region |Value |

|Associated PP |Bulk |North Puget Sound (NPS) |$15,770,750.38 |

|Associated PP |Bulk |Peninsula (P) |$1,918,198.04 |

|Associated PP |Keep Full / Will Call |Central Puget Sound (CPS) |$12,009,937.43 |

|Associated PP |Keep Full / Will Call |North Puget Sound (NPS) |$3,013,035.21 |

|Associated PP |Keep Full / Will Call |Peninsula (P) |$4,140,472.50 |

| | | |$36,852,393.56 |

| | | | |

|Company |Category |Region |Value |

|Coleman |Bulk |North Central (NC) |$474,537.16 |

|Coleman |Keep Full / Will Call |North Central (NC) |$1,441,350.43 |

|Coleman |Keep Full / Will Call |Northeast (NE) |$1,517,731.34 |

| | | |$3,433,618.93 |

| | | | |

|Company |Category |Region |Value |

|PetroCard |Bulk |Central Puget Sound (CPS) |$56,290,486.41 |

| | | |$56,290,486.41 |

| | | | |

|Company |Category |Region |Value |

|Seaport PC |Bulk |Northeast (NE) |$4,552,821.53 |

|Seaport PC |Bulk |South Central (SC) |$804,126.18 |

|Seaport PC |Bulk |Southeast (SE) |$1,713,294.40 |

|Seaport PC |Keep Full / Will Call |South Central (SC) |$2,088,349.91 |

|Seaport PC |Keep Full / Will Call |Southeast (SE) |$1,444,506.95 |

| | | |$10,603,098.97 |

| | | | |

|Company |Category |Region |Value |

|Wilcox & Flegel |Bulk |Southwest (SW) |$5,070,499.60 |

|Wilcox & Flegel |Keep Full / Will Call |Southwest (SW) |$804,126.18 |

| | | |$5,874,625.78 |

Purpose

The purpose of this solicitation is to establish contract(s) for the on-going replenishment of state’s network of gasoline, heating oil, diesel (including biodiesel), and other fuels and to establish a contract for the as needed purchase of Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) and delivered fuels, incidentals, and in the following fuel types, categories, or other: (not an exclusive list; other products, other fuel products, additives, incidentals, and services, may be added post award).

A. Gasoline, Unleaded: Regular, Mid-Grade, Premium, and Ethanol (E10)

B. Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel #2 Clear

C. Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel # 2 Dyed

D. Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel #1 Clear (November through February)

E. Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel #1 Dyed (November through February)

F. Biodiesel Clear

G. Biodiesel Dyed

H. Heating Oil (based on ULSD #2 Dyed)

I. Other additives, energy products, incidentals, fuels, and services requested by qualified customers

J. Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF)

Evaluation Construct

The bid was open to any vendor. The evaluation consisted of a price competition and a statutory responsibility analysis in which OSP determines whether or not the Apparent Successful Bidder (ASB) is qualified and has the wherewithal to carry out the contract. The intention was to award all core fuels/products to a single ASB for the given region/category.

Expanded Detail

1 General

• Contract Type: This is a replacement contract for contract 07705. Contract 07705 is scheduled to expire on 8/31/11 or until a replacement is awarded, whichever is sooner in time.

• Contract Duration:

o Initial: two years from the first day of performance (anticipated to be May 15th through May 31st.

o Maximum Life: 10 Years

• MWBE Award

o WBE: 0%

o MBE: Five of 16 bidders are being awarded. Of the five, PetroCard Inc. claims native American status. If considered an MBE for our purposes that means approximately $56 million to this company annually. See the Minority, Women, and Disadvantaged Business section below.

• Contract Worth:

o $226 Million 2-Year

o $113 Million Annual

o Historical Data - Contract 07705: The State of Washington does not represent or guarantee any minimum purchase. The data provided in this section is for informational purposes only. See below.

|Total: (4/13/05 through 6/30/10) |

|$468,945,683.93 |

|Quarter Average: (17 quarters) |

|$27,585,040.23 |

|2006 (3 Qs) |$67,074,887.00 |

|2007 |$107,451,218.00 |

|2008 |$134,675,378.00 |

|2009 |$90,905,697.59 |

|2010 (2 Qs) |$68,838,503.34 |

|Total: |$468,945,683.93 |

| |

|[pic] |

2 Development

OSP generally followed an enterprise contracting plan. This effort meets many of the enterprise characteristics below in either a high level [H], medium level [M], or low level [L].

[H] Statewide Application

[H] High Dollar

[H] High Political Profile

[M] Litigious Potential Supplier Community

[L] Inherently Dangerous Commodity

[L] Contract of First Impression

[M] Unusually Complex

We utilized stakeholder forums and a evaluation team comprised of customers which also doubled as strategic sourcing experts.

1 Customer Input

Early in the process customers were notified by GA’s bi-weekly broadcast of the rebid effort which included an invitation to serve on the strategic sourcing team. OSP received several offers to serve and many were accepted.

2 Strategic Sourcing Team

OSP assembled a diverse strategic sourcing team. Composition consisted of 17 members made up of state and political subdivisions, large and small, east and west, contract staff and fleet managers.

The Team provided definition to their operational needs, technical expertise, document peer review, and out reach to other stakeholders.

The team maintained an on-going dialog by telephone and email and on November 17, 2010 met in person as a group to consider a final document revisions for posting as a draft pre-release for supplier comment.

The Strategic Sourcing Team:

|1 |Hupp, Stacy |Community Transit |stacy.hupp@ |425.438.6147 |

|2 |Raftery, Robert |WA Corrections |rfraftery@doc1. |253.225.6967 |

|3 |McQuillan, Ralph |KC Metro Transit |ralph.mcquillan@ |206.684.1506 |

|4 |Lien, Nancy |Seattle, City of |nanci.lien@ |206.684.3836 |

|5 |Mitchell, Allen |Snohomish County |allen.mitchell@co.snohomish.wa.us |425.388.6061 |

|5a |Torrence, Steve |Snohomish County |steve.torrence@co.snohomish.wa.us |425.388.6066 |

|6 |Castro, Frank |Tacoma Public Utilities |fcastro@ci.tacoma.wa.us |253.502.8885 |

| | | |fcastro@ | |

|6a |Edick, Jon |Tacoma Public Utilities |jedick@ci.tacoma.wa.us | |

|7 |Kahler, Ron |U of Washington |rkahler@uw.edu |206.685.4418 |

|8 |Brodeur |WSDOT Ferries |brodeup@wsdot. |206.515.3863 |

|9 |Hansen, Greg |WSDOT |hanseng@wsdot. |360.705.7862 |

|9a |Case, Christopher |WSDOT (Hansen Alternate) |casec@wsdot. | |

|9b |Perkins, Allen |WSDOT (Hansen Alternate) |perkina@wsdot. | |

|10 |Licht, Jon |Intercity Transit |jlicht@ |360.705.5882 |

|11 |Moulton, Peter |WA Commerce |peter.moulton@commerce. |360.725.3116 |

|12 |Lang, Mary Beth |WA Agriculture |marybeth.lang@agr. |360.902.1812 |

|13 |Rovetto, Dennis |WSU |rovetto@wsu.edu |509.335.9087 |

4 Supplier Input and Forum

Supplier input occurred in the form of ongoing informal dialogue over the course of many months. Suppliers were also provided an opportunity to review a pre-released version of the solicitation which allowed the suppliers to comment and also gave them a “dry run” to become comfortable with the document and process. Several suppliers provided comment and many were adopted into the solicitation.

The Solicitation also allowed for a prebid conference in which a large number of suppliers and biodiesel manufacturers attended. Many issues were brought to our attention and addressed through a solicitation amendment.

5 Biodiesel Manufacturer Forum

GA in partnership with the Departments of Commerce (Peter Moulton) and Agriculture (Mary Beth Lang), hosted a biodiesel manufacture’s forum. The purpose was to brief the group on the state’s needs and to gain insight on whether or not the biodiesel supply was large enough to support solicitation requirements.

The biodiesel manufactures provide good information for our consideration and we learned that the anticipated amounts needed by the 00311 contract can be supplied by the local manufacturers.

6 Market Research

My own personal research and immersion into this commodity was achieved through a multitude of informal meetings with manufacturers and vendors, customers, internet research, site visits, and tapping OSP commodity experts, etc.

7 Supplier Diversity Considerations

Washington state law does not allow evaluation preferences for minority or women. However, consideration was given to regional or category awards to enhance business diversity opportunities. Outreach efforts included, engagement with the vendor community (electronically, telephonically, pre-release opportunity, Washington Electronic Business Solutions (WEBS), pre-bid conference, broadcast, etc.,

8 Legislative Mandates

RCW 43.19.646 encourages that the biodiesel provided to state-level agencies be predominately (51% or more) made from in-state feed stock and/or manufactured in Washington.

This requirement will pose a considerable challenge to suppliers in both availability and record keeping and tracking purposes.

9 Environmental Considerations

Environmental considerations with this commodity include a strong legislative emphasis in the use of biodiesel made from in-state feedstock and biodiesel manufactured in Washington State.

Part of the 00311 Strategic Sourcing Team included Peter Moulton (Commerce) and Mary Beth Lang (Agriculture) both of which are heavily involved in the biodiesel use and renewable fuel standards.

10 Economic Considerations

It is OSP’s intention that the price competition be the sole competitive aspect. A final award included a responsibility analysis that concluded the ASB(s) are both qualified and has the wherewithal to carry out the contract terms. However, our value statement was centered in lowest overall pricing versus a point system that considered non-cost points. Further, OSP continued the regional segmentation of eight regions and two categories per region to maximize savings. The 16 region/categories are in alignment with the way the majority of the industry operates in Washington.

11 Geographical Considerations

Customer and supplier feedback indicated the regional segmentation used in 07705 tracked with what the industry already does in Washington and that it was successful. However, there was one notable deviation. When solicitation 07705 was bid in 2005 it resulted in no award for the North Central Region (NCR) made up of the following counties: Okanogan, Chelan, and Douglass. WSDOT requested transferring Grant county from the South Central region to the NCR in the hopes NCR would be more attractive to the supplier community. That strategy worked because 11 bids were received for NCR bulk and keep full / will call.

3 Peer Review

Per review was accomplished by the use of strategic sourcing team review and supplier comment via pre-release document.

4 Procedural History

• IFB was posted to WEBS on 1/21/2011.

• Prebid scheduled for 2/03/2011 at 9:00 am to 4:00 pm (unless concluded earlier).

• Amendment number 1 posted on 1/25/2011 changing Prebid Conference to 2/4/2011.

• Amendment number 2 posted on 1/25/2011 correcting errors to Amendment 1.

• Amendment number 3 posted on 2/9/2011 replacing entire solicitation.

• Amendment number 4 posted on 2/17/2011 modifying Scope, References, Evaluation, Price Sheet Evaluation, and Bidder Qualifications.

• Amendment number 5 posted on 2/23/2011 modifying Pollution Liability Insurance.

• Bid opening:

o 11/17/2011 at 2:00 pm (original),

o 2/24/2011 at 2:00 pm (amendment #3).

5 Bid Opening and Responders

All bids were received by the bid opening date deadline, signed, sealed, and with no withdrawals prior to the opening.

Ninety Eight bids were received from sixteen companies competing on up to 16 opportunities:

• Allied Fuels

• Associated Petroleum Products (APP)

• Busch

• Byrnes Oil

• Coleman

• Connell Oil

• Don Small & Sons

• IPC USA

• Pelican

• PetroCard

• PNEC dba SC Fuels

• PSE

• Rainier

• Seaport Powell Christensen

• Southern Counties dba SC Fuels

• Wilson (Wilcox & Flegel)

6 Evaluation

Contract award (if any) shall be made to the lowest Responsive and Responsible Bidder based on the evaluation and award criteria established herein and subject to consideration of all factors identified in RCW 43.19.1911.

OSP reserved the right to consider the actual level of Bidder’s compliance with the requirements specified in this solicitation and to waive informalities in a Bid. An informality is an immaterial variation from the exact requirements of the competitive solicitation, having no effect or merely a minor or negligible effect on quality, quantity, or delivery of the supplies or performance of the services being procured, and the correction or waiver of which would not meaningfully affect the relative standing of, or be otherwise prejudicial to bidders.

Phases: The evaluation was divided into four distinct parts. The initial evaluation (responsiveness), price sheet evaluation (competitive), bidder qualification (qualifications), responsibility evaluation (responsibility).

The competition occurred only in the price sheet evaluation phase. Thereafter, the Bidder with the lowest evaluated costs was reviewed to ensure the bidder, in OSP’s discretionary view, was qualified (qualifications) and had the wherewithal (responsibility) to carry out the contract. The solicitation stated: Any Bidder failing to receive a fifty percent pass rate in the Bidder Qualification or Responsibility Evaluation will be disqualified and the Bidder next in line will move forward for the Bidder Qualification and Responsibility Evaluation.

1 Initial (responsiveness)

Evaluation of the bid responses was as follows. Bids were initially reviewed for responsiveness. Including but not limited to, did the bid response arrive before the deadline (also called the Bid Opening), in a sealed container or envelope, with all required submittals substantively completed, and signed with an original signature which is the Bidder’s acknowledgement of obligation of contract if awarded the Contract.

All bid responses were responsive in that each met the minimum statutory requirements and provided enough data and information to make a competitive comparison. Deficiencies, if any, did not prevent comparative analysis.

|Bidder |

|Company |Submitted From |Penalty Applied |

|Associated Petroleum Products |Washington |No |

|Coleman |Idaho |No |

|PetroCard |Washington |No |

|Seaport Powell Christensen |Washington |No |

|Wilson Wilcox & Flegel |Washington |No |

2 Responsibility

3 Qualifications (qualification - responsibility)

The solicitation required the bidder to provide a Qualification statement. The solicitation rules for the Qualification statement were as follows:

Qualification evaluations are discretionary in nature. Does OSP, in its discretionary view, believe the Bidder having prevailed in the competition phase meets the qualifications set out in the solicitation? As stated in section 6.1 OSP reserves the right to “(7) determine the level of Bidder compliance.”

The Bidder’s Qualifications in the form of a five page self-authored narrative will be reviewed to ensure the Bidder meets the qualifications. However, while clarification is not required, OSP may request clarification of the Bidder if the submittal is not clear to OSP. The Bidder’s five (5) page self-authored Qualification Narrative may be evaluated by OSP or an evaluation committee selected by OSP (single or multiple evaluators). The evaluation of the Bidder Qualification is pass/fail. The Bidder must achieve at least a fifty percent pass rate.

All of the Bidders that were under consideration in this phase of the evaluation were qualified:

|Company |Pass / Fail |

|Associated Petroleum Products |Pass |

|PetroCard |Pass |

|Coleman |Pass |

|Seaport Powell Christensen |Pass |

|Wilson Wilcox & Flegel |Pass |

4 Responsibility (responsibility)

The solicitation required the bidder to provide a Performance Plan statement. The solicitation rules for the Performance Plan Statement were as follows:

The Bidder shall provide a single self-authored Performance Plan Statement consisting of no more than ten pages; the eleventh and following pages will be ignored.

Performance Plan evaluations are discretionary in nature. Does OSP, in its discretionary view, believe the Bidder having prevailed in the competition phase have the wherewithal to carry out the terms of the contract? As stated in section 6.1 OSP reserves the right to “(7) determine the level of Bidder compliance.”

The Bidder’s ten (10) page self-authored Performance Plan Statement may be evaluated by OSP or an evaluation committee selected by OSP (single or multiple evaluators). The Performance Plan Statement is evaluated as pass/fail. However, while clarification is not required, OSP may request clarification of the Bidder if the submittal is not clear to OSP. The Bidder must achieve at least a fifty percent pass rate.

All of the Bidders that were under consideration in this phase of the evaluation have the wherewithal to carry out the contract terms:

|Company |Pass / Fail |

|Associated Petroleum Products |Pass |

|PetroCard |Pass |

|Coleman |Pass |

|Seaport Powell Christensen |Pass |

|Wilson Wilcox & Flegel |Pass |

5 References

Bidders were required to provide (7) seven references in their bid response focusing on comparable service, materials, supplies, or equipment similar in scope (i.e. size, volume, type) to this Solicitation. While not required, OSP’s desire is for references for fuel delivery services to government customers in Washington State.

OSP reserved the right to solicit and substitute other references to determine the sufficiency of the Bidder’s level of responsibility.

All ASBs provided seven references. In a few cases the reference was unavailable or felt someone else in its organization was better able to answer the reference questions. All references for all ASBs were contacted and all had positive responses. All references indicated they would engage in future business with the bidder.

|Bidder |Reference |Company |Engage |Phone |

| | | |In Future | |

| | | |Business? | |

|Associated P.P. |Kimberly Boyd |Gordon Trucking Inc |Yes |800.426.8486 x4134 |

|Associated P.P. |Elie Kourdahi |King County Metro |Yes |206.684.2743 |

|Associated P.P. |John Bell |SSA Terminals |Yes |206.654.3770 |

| | | | |206.786.2572 |

|Associated P.P. |Ben Haigh |Skagit Transit Systems |Yes |360.757.8801 |

|Associated P.P. |Linda Jones |WSDOT |Yes |360.357.2635 |

|Associated P.P. |John Werner |WSDOT |Yes |206.768.5820 |

|Associated P.P. |Nick Ignacio |Defense Logistics Agency Energy |Yes |703.767.9526 |

|Coleman Oil |Jeff Yeckel |Tonasket S.D. |Yes |509.486.2126 |

|Coleman Oil |Mike Shrader |Chelan County PUD |Yes |509.663.8121 |

| |Chuck Brooks |BP | |775.849.7910 |

|Coleman Oil |Bob Higgins |Douglas County PUD |Yes |509.884.7191 |

|Coleman Oil |Lisa Fauconner |Dovex |Yes |509.662.8062 |

|Coleman Oil |Yusuf Quidwai |A&Q |Yes |509.422.2576 |

|Coleman Oil |Judy Asmunsen |Pateros Trading Co. |Yes |509.923.2200 x101 |

|Coleman Oil |Jim Thorsberry |Agrimacs |Yes |509.421.3188 |

|PetroCard |Dean Kattler |Waste Management |Yes |425.814.7831 |

|PetroCard |Bill Couch |Donna's Travel Plaza |Yes |360.653.8414 |

|PetroCard |Thommye Jackson |Bow Hill Gas |Yes |360.724.0104 |

|PetroCard |Rachael McNeil |Snohomish County |Yes |425.388.6060 |

|PetroCard |Fred Chun |Tacoma, City of |Yes |253.591.5553 |

|PetroCard |Alison Yamasaki |King County |Yes |206.205.9929 |

|PetroCard |Sherri Ingalls |Tacoma Public Utilities |Yes |253.502.8664 |

| |Patty Gillingham | | | |

|Seaport |Rob Orvis |Ben Franklin Transit |Yes |509.734.5125 |

|Seaport |Claude Cox |Spokane Tribe of Indians |Yes |509.315.6612 |

|Seaport |Robert McMartin |Port of Seattle |Yes |206.787.3000 |

|Seaport |Darryl Reed |Shoreline S.D. |Yes |206.361.4208 |

|Seaport |Monique Bernritter |Bonneville Power Administration |Yes |360.563.3600 |

| |Ron Gore | | |253.631.9153 |

|Seaport |Richard Wonner |Yakima Public Works, City of |Yes |509.576.6412 |

|Seaport |Kathleen Wilson |WSF |Yes |206.515.3958 |

| |Dalrie Hoyle | | |509.836.8747 |

|Wilcox & Flegel |Linda Kenny |Clark County P.W. |Yes |360.397.6118 |

|Wilcox & Flegel |Linda Jones |WSDOT |Yes |360.357.2635 |

|Wilcox & Flegel |Theresa Vaughan |WSDOT - SWR |Yes |360.905.2274 |

|Wilcox & Flegel |Jeff Mathery |L-Tran |Yes |360.906.7370 |

| |Bob Bunn |Stimson Lumber | |503.359.3410 |

|Wilcox & Flegel |Tom Conway |Vancouver S.D. |Yes |360.313.4795 |

|Wilcox & Flegel |Michael Lambrecht |Defense Logistics Agency |Yes |360.356.5320 |

|Wilcox & Flegel |Karen Ellsworth |Kitsap Transit |Yes |360.478.6226 |

| |Mike Durham | | |360.478.6226 |

6 Excluded Parties List System

I performed a search of the bidders and their offered subcontractors/partners on the US Government Excluded Parties List System; no problems found. .

[pic]

7 OSP Databases

I performed a search of the bidders and their offered subcontractors/partners on the OSP Purchasing and Contracts Administration system; no problems found.

8 Evaluation Team

The solicitation rules for the Evaluation Committee were as follows:

OSP may assemble and preside over an evaluation committee. The evaluation committee, if used, may be responsible for reviewing and scoring (pass/fail) applicable Bidder Qualification, Responsibility Submittals, oral presentation, or equipment demonstrations, etc.

If deemed necessary by OSP, committee members may be substituted and/or the evaluation committee may be disbanded and reconstituted.

The committee or committee member will evaluate the submittal consistent with their values. The committee member will primarily focus on the considerations stated in the solicitation.

OSP will not likely evaluate any submittal that is also evaluated by an evaluation committee. However, in addition to presiding over the evaluation committee, OSP may review the submittals, provide input, assemble evaluation aids, or perform other functions helpful to the evaluation committee. The committee may engage in a free flow of discussion with other committee members and the Administrator prior to, during, and after the evaluation.

The evaluation of the submittal may be performed in isolation or together as a group, or a combination of both. Each committee member will give a particular submittal a pass or fail. All of the committee members’ decisions for that submittal will be tabulated. Whether a single OSP representative or an evaluation committee, the Bidder must achieve a fifty percent pass rate or better or be disqualified. If the Bidder is disqualified, this process will repeat using the Bidder next in line until a successful Bidder is identified.

The Evaluation Team consisted of:

|Name |Agency |

|Peter Moulton |Commerce, Dept. of |

|Mary Beth Lang |Agriculture, Dept. of |

|Christopher Case |WSDOT, Dept. of |

|Bill Bloomfield |WSDOT, Dept. of |

|Jon Licht |Intercity Transit |

|Robert Raftery |Corrections, Dept of |

On 3/16/11, the evaluation team assembled at OSP to conduct the evaluation.

|Name |Evaluation |

|separate service fee per customer |One fee per county |

|B1, B2, and B5 available |B1 to B100 available |

|No in-state feed stock required |Required |

|OPIS Bio bench mark is Tacoma B100 Red |Includes all averages |

|No bio source tracking |Tracking required |

|Each service stop is charged |Uses a cluster approach |

|DEF not available |DEF is available |

|No drop Fee |Includes a drop fee |

|Bulk & Keep Full based on tank |Bulk & KF based on order placement |

|Bio based on immature market |Market approaching maturity |

|North Central Region was not awarded (only 14 of 16 |Awards in all regions (16 awards) |

|awards) | |

Primary costs measures for comparison include the OPIS benchmark coupled with the multiplier and the services fees.

OPIS benchmarks: For the most part, 00311 continues using the 07705 benchmarks except in the area of biodiesel. Contract 07705 used OPIS Tacoma B100 red contract average. Contract 00311 uses a Tacoma B99 combined benchmark.

Multipliers: No changes.

Service Fees: Contract 00705 allowed the bidder to assign a service fee for each customer location. Contract 00311 uses a single county wide service fee.

Contract 00311, much like 07705, provided the bidder with a customer tank profile that listed locations, tank size, type of fuel needed, estimated annual volume, etc. The profile formed the framework for determining the amounts of fuel needed and number of deliveries.

The bidder was required to place his multiplier and service fees on to a regional/category price sheet and those multiplier/fees were calculated against the profile data to arrive at an overall cost.

To perform my analysis, I had to average the contract 07705 service fees by county. This was accomplished by multiplying each service fee against the number of deliveries by line and then summing all lines to arrive at a county service fee total. The total was then divide by the number of deliveries to arrive at an 00705 service fee average.

I then took the 07705 awarded contractors known multipliers and service fee average and plugged them into the 00311 price sheets as if the 07705 contractor was a bidder to arrive at a cost to compare to the 00311 costs.

I concluded that of the 14 competitions available under contract 00311, that 00311 is superior in 11 of 14. Further, when viewed globally, contract 00311 will realize a 1.3 percent savings ($1,469,000 savings on a $113 dollar annual contract).

Recommendation

Award of bid 00311 to the ASBs listed above is in the best interest of the state. Upon supervisory review and approval with my evaluation, I will notify the ASBs that they are the apparent successful bidder and pursue negotiation to see if the bid can be improved.

Approval – Intend To Award

On 3/25/11, I discussed this enterprise contract with my supervisor, Dale Colbert; he is supportive of an award to the ASBs listed above and authorized the announcement of ASB and Intent to Award.

Notification Of ASB / Intent To Award / Protest Period

• Notice of Apparent Successful Bidder will be used in this process. The notification was emailed to all Bidders on 3/25/11.

• Pre-award Protest Time Period (WAC 236-48-142): There are no time limits and a pre-award protest or protest notification may be received at any time prior to the award; however, the protesting party must file the protest no later than five business days after notifying the procurement coordinator of the intent to protest.

Negotiation

Per RCW 43.19.1911 (6): After the opening of bids, an agency may not reject all bids and enter into direct negotiations to complete the planned acquisition. However, the agency can enter into negotiations exclusively with the lowest responsible bidder in order to determine if the lowest responsible bid may be improved.

I contacted the least expensive responsive and responsible bidder prior to award to determine if there are any last minute issues that would prevent their ability to perform the contract. I reminded each that the contract has a diverse customer base and that the contract employs flexibility to satisfy the customer’s needs.

All Bidders indicated the following:

Uniformly and across the board, the bidder’s indicated they are anxious to begin the contract and do not anticipate any issues preventing a successful operation.

Approval – Award

On 4/18/11, I discussed this enterprise contract with the other Unit Managers; they are supportive of an award to the ASBs listed above and authorized the announcement of Award.

Bid Award And Protest/Appeal Time Period

Upon award, all bidders will be provided bid results. All participating bidders will be provided with bid results at the same time an Offer and Award document is sent to the ASBs.

Award was made to the successful bidder by [ ] Purchase Order / [X] Letter of Award mailed or emailed on 4/20/11. Notification was also made to all participating bidders by recording the results in WEBS on 4/20/11.

Protest Time Period (WAC 236-48-143): Such protests shall be received by the director, office of state procurement not later than five business days after distribution of the award information by the office of state procurement. The protest period ends at the close of business on Thursday 4/28/11.

Administrative Functions

PCMS: Information entered and remarks made or updated as needed on a continuing basis.

CCI#01: Drafting.

Remuneration

This is a PAF type contract. This is not a management fee contract in that the awarded contractor is expected to periodically submit a check to GA that is based on the amount of spend. Therefore, agencies are charged a fee based on their use of this contract.

In PCMS, within the “Fees” tab, the “Paf Fee” is set to “Y”.

Attachments

Placeholder

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

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

Google Online Preview   Download