A.RESULT - Amazon Simple Storage Service (S3)



Award Justification StatementSolicitation #CJ18012Contract Name: Wireless Voice, Data, and AccessoriesA.RESULTOverall, the Evaluation Committee determined that the proposal submitted by the following firms provides the best value to the State for Award Categories 1, 2, 3A-3N and 4:Award CategoryFirm NameCategory 1: Wireless Voice and DataAT&T, Verizon Wireless, Sprint, T-MobileCategory 2: Wireless Accessories and EquipmentAT&T, Verizon Wireless, DiscountCell, Sprint, T-MobileCategory 3: Turnkey Wireless Solutions See Below for subcategoriesCategory 3: Subcategory A: Fleet ManagementAT&T, Verizon Wireless, Sprint, T-MobileCategory 3: Subcategory B: Mobile Device Management/Enterprise Mobility (MDM/EMM)AT&T, Verizon WirelessCategory 3: Subcategory C: Mobile Integration/Mobile Substitution SolutionsAT&T, Verizon Wireless, T-MobileCategory 3: Subcategory D: Workforce ManagementVerizon WirelessCategory 3: Subcategory E: Field Service ManagementVerizon WirelessCategory 3: Subcategory F: Mobile Data Collection/Mobile FormsVerizon Wireless, SprintCategory 3: Subcategory G: Traffic Management and Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS)Verizon WirelessCategory 3: Subcategory H: Snow and Ice Removal Route ManagementNoneCategory 3: Subcategory I: Public Safety SystemsVerizon WirelessCategory 3: Subcategory J: IoT ManagementVerizon WirelessCategory 3: Subcategory K: Energy Conservation/ManagementNoneCategory 3: Subcategory L: Building and Facilities AutomationNoneCategory 3: Subcategory M: Enterprise MessagingVerizon Wireless, SprintCategory 3: Subcategory N: Secure LAN AccessVerizon Wireless, SprintCategory 4: Alternate Data TransportHughes NetworkB.EVALUATION PROCESSA request for proposals (RFP) was issued by the State to select vendors to provide Wireless Voice, Data and Accessories services. Pursuant to Utah Code § 63G-6a-702(2), the RFP process was used because criteria other than cost were considered important in determining which vendor’s proposal provides the best value to the State. This RFP was divided into 4 Award Categories with Award Category 3 divided into 13 subcategories (3A-3N). Vendors were welcome to submit proposals for all Award Categories. Proposals were evaluated in accordance with Part 7 of the Utah Procurement Code by an Evaluation Committee composed of central procurement officers from the states of Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Alaska, Connecticut and Utah. A representative from the Division of State Purchasing was consulted throughout the process to ensure compliance with the Procurement Code but was not a voting member of the Evaluation Committee.Following an evaluation of mandatory minimum requirements for each Award Category, 7 vendors advanced to the initial technical scoring stage for the database management. 7 vendors advanced to the technical scoring stage for the applicable Award Categories. A threshold of 70% of the total available technical points was set for the minimum necessary score for contract consideration in all Award Categories. Vendors falling below this threshold would be ineligible to enter into a contract with the State. As such, vendors below this 70% threshold did not move onto the cost evaluation stage of the process.Award Category 1General Technical Scorable CriteriaCriteriaPoints PossibleAT&T VerizonSprint T-MobileVendor ADescribe your Reporting5031.432.931.430.034.3All offerors provided acceptable reporting commitments.Employee number and expertise6046.346.346.346.344.6All offerors who submitted had excellent employee numbers and expertise. They are the leaders in the industry.Years of experience7562.162.162.162.162.1Similarly, the offerors in this category demonstrated excellent experience in the industry.Customer Service5035.738.635.737.132.9All of the offerors demonstrated acceptable customer service commitments in their proposals.Category I Criteria (Wireless)CriteriaPoints PossibleAT&T VerizonSprint T-MobileVendor APlan variety5035.737.130.035.727.1All carriers provided acceptable variety in their plan offerings with AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile perceived as the best.Phones/Devices Offered5040.040.040.040.040.0The committee did not perceive any measurable difference in the devices offered by the carriers. The section was perceived as good.Services (Service Offerings)2520.720.017.120.714.3AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile addressed the service offerings question the best.Apps/MCM7557.957.960.051.451.4All offerors had acceptable proposals for this work Attributes5040.040.040.040.040.0All offerors had acceptable proposals for this criteria.Public Safety Security5032.932.927.127.127.1All offerors had acceptable proposals for this criteria.Services (Security Factors)5038.640.040.037.137.1All offerors had acceptable proposals for this work Infrastructure10085.788.674.377.151.4Percentage off per customer5035.737.137.137.134.3All offerors had acceptable proposals for this criteria.Per bill, data plan, voice plan, etc.?2513.613.614.314.313.6All offerors had acceptable proposals for this criteria.Green Initiative Offerings5030.032.931.438.610.0All offerors Green Initiative offerings were acceptable except for Vendor A.CostVendor A had a technical score of 520.3 and did not advance to the cost stage (567 point threshold). Cost was awarded based on a cost scenario/market basket approach and a discount off of catalog offered. AT&T earned 182.9 cost points, Verizon Wireless earned 203.2 cost points, Sprint earned 194.1 cost points, and T-Mobile earned 241.9 cost points.SummaryWith technical score and cost score AT&T earned 789.2 points, Verizon Wireless earned 823 points, Sprint earned 781.1 points, and T-Mobile earned 836.7 points. With all remaining scores over 70% of the total score AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile represent a best value to the State.Award Category 2General Technical Scorable CriteriaCriteriaPoints PossibleAT&T VerizonDiscountCellSprint T-MobileVendor ADescribe your Reporting5031.432.937.131.430.034.3All offerors provided acceptable reporting commitments.Employee number and expertise6046.346.349.746.346.344.6All offerors who submitted had excellent employee numbers and expertise. They are the leaders in the industry.Years of experience7562.162.164.362.162.162.1Similarly, the offerors in this category demonstrated excellent experience in the industry.Customer Service5035.738.638.635.737.132.9All of the offerors demonstrated acceptable customer service commitments in their proposals.Category 2 Criteria CriteriaPoints PossibleAT&TVerizonDiscountCellSprintT-MobileVendor APublic Safety Offerings2520.020.020.020.020.020.0All offerors had acceptable proposals for this criteria.Catalog Variety5050.050.050.050.050.050.0The committee did not perceive any measurable difference in the devices offered by the offerors. The section was perceived as good.Diversity of Plans3535.035.035.035.035.035.0All offerors had acceptable proposals for this criteria.Plan flexibility2525.025.025.025.025.025.0All offerors had acceptable proposals for this criteria.IRU Discount7545.045.051.445.017.115.0DiscountCell represented the greatest IRU discount to end users. AT&T, Verizon and Sprint were good.CostDiscountCell had cost significantly lower than all other offerors. DiscountCell garnered all cost points.SummaryWith technical score and cost score AT&T earned 350.6 points, Verizon Wireless earned 354.9 points, DiscountCell earned 618.8 points, Sprint earned 350 points, and T-Mobile earned 322.7 points. With all remaining scores over 70% of the technical score AT&T, Verizon, DiscountCell, Sprint and T-Mobile represent a best value to the State.Award Category 3AGeneral Technical Scorable CriteriaCriteriaPoints PossibleAT&T VerizonSprint T-MobileVendor ADescribe your Reporting5031.432.931.430.034.3All offerors provided acceptable reporting commitments.Employee number and expertise6046.346.346.346.344.6All offerors who submitted had excellent employee numbers and expertise. They are the leaders in the industry.Years of experience7562.162.162.162.162.1Similarly, the offerors in this category demonstrated excellent experience in the industry.Customer Service5035.738.635.737.132.9All of the offerors demonstrated acceptable customer service commitments in their proposals.Category 3A Criteria CriteriaPoints PossibleAT&T VerizonSprint T-MobileVendor ATurnkey Offerings200160142.9148.6137.1108.6All offerors represent acceptable turnkey options except Vendor A.Description of Turnkey Planning and Process7553.653.657.951.440.7All offerors had acceptable proposals for this criteria.Service Factors5035.737.14028.621.4All offerors had acceptable proposals for this criteria, with the exception of Vendor A.References503030303010All references received were nominally Acceptable. Vendor A did not provide reasonable references.Training503030303027.1All offerors had acceptable proposals for this criteria.Security15094.394.398.69072.9All offerors provided information regarding security that is effective to varying degrees.CostVendor A scored 454.6 and did not advance to the cost evaluation stage (532 threshold). Cost evaluation is completed by dividing the total points earned in Stage 2 by the proposed cost for the proposal. Proposals with a cost per point ratio of 300% or below represent an acceptible Best Value to the State and will be awarded a contract. In this case the best cost per point was 1690.8 by AT&T. All scores of 5072 or lower will be awarded a contract.SummaryOfferors were allowed to submit as many products in each subcategory as they wished to provide. Because of this if any of their products are awarded, the offeror is awarded all products within this award category. AT&T scored 1690.8, Verizon Scored 4808.6, Sprint scored 2944.0 and T-Mobile scored 1841.5 and all represent a best value to the state.Award Category 3BGeneral Technical Scorable CriteriaCriteriaPoints PossibleAT&T VerizonVendor AVendor BVendor CDescribe your Reporting5031.432.931.430.034.3All offerors provided acceptable reporting commitments.Employee number and expertise6046.346.346.346.344.6All offerors who submitted had excellent employee numbers and expertise. They are the leaders in the industry.Years of experience7562.162.162.162.162.1Similarly, the offerors in this category demonstrated excellent experience in the industry.Customer Service5035.738.635.737.132.9All of the offerors demonstrated acceptable customer service commitments in their proposals.Category 3B Criteria CriteriaPoints PossibleAT&T VerizonVendor AVendor BVendor CTurnkey Offerings200177.1171.4171.4160137.1All offerors had acceptable proposals for this criteria.Description of Turnkey Planning and Process7553.653.657.947.140.7All offerors had acceptable proposals for this criteria.Service Factors5035.737.134.33027.1All offerors had acceptable proposals for this criteria.References503030303010All references received were nominally Acceptable. Vendor A did not provide reasonable references.Training503030303027.1All offerors had acceptable proposals for this criteria.Security15094.394.3102.985.772.9All offerors had acceptable proposals for this criteria.CostVendor C scored 488.9 and did not advance to the cost stage of the evaluation (532 threshold). Cost evaluation is completed by dividing the total points earned in Stage 2 by the proposed cost for the proposal. Proposals with a cost per point ratio of 300% or below represent an acceptible Best Value to the State and will be awarded a contract. In this case the best cost per point was 32.7 by AT&T. All scores of 98.1 or lower will be awarded a contract.SummaryOfferors were allowed to submit as many products in each subcategory as they wished to provide. Because of this if any of their products are awarded, the offeror is awarded all products within this award category. AT&T scored 32.7, Verizon Scored 72. They both represent a best value to the state.Award Category 3CGeneral Technical Scorable CriteriaCriteriaPoints PossibleAT&T VerizonT-MobileVendor ADescribe your Reporting5031.432.930.034.3All offerors provided acceptable reporting commitments.Employee number and expertise6046.346.346.344.6All offerors who submitted had excellent employee numbers and expertise. They are the leaders in the industry.Years of experience7562.162.162.162.1Similarly, the offerors in this category demonstrated excellent experience in the industry.Customer Service5035.738.637.132.9All of the offerors demonstrated acceptable customer service commitments in their proposals.Category 3C Criteria CriteriaPoints PossibleAT&T VerizonT-MobileVendor ATurnkey Offerings200154.3165.7125.7102.9AT&T provided the most comprehensive description of its turnkey offerings. All were acceptable except Vendor A.Description of Turnkey Planning and Process7549.360.047.142.9All offerors had acceptable proposals for this criteria.Service Factors5030.038.627.131.4All offerors had acceptable proposals for this criteria.References5030.030.030.010.0All references received were nominally Acceptable. Vendor A did not provide reasonable references.Training5030.030.030.027.1All offerors had acceptable proposals for this criteria.Security15090.094.398.672.9None of the proposals had excellent security information included. They were nominally acceptable.CostVendor A scored 461 points and did not advance to the cost stage (532 threshold). Cost evaluation is completed by dividing the total points earned in Stage 2 by the proposed cost for the proposal. Proposals with a cost per point ratio of 300% or below represent an acceptible Best Value to the State and will be awarded a contract. In this case the best cost per point was 516.6 by AT&T. All scores of 1549.8 or lower will be awarded a contract.SummaryOfferors were allowed to submit as many products in each subcategory as they wished to provide. Because of this if any of their products are awarded, the offeror is awarded all products within this award category. AT&T scored 516.6, Verizon Scored 807.1, T-Mobile scored 850 and all represent a best value to the state.Award Category 3DGeneral Technical Scorable CriteriaCriteriaPoints PossibleVerizonVendor ADescribe your Reporting5032.934.3All offerors provided acceptable reporting commitments.Employee number and expertise6046.344.6All offerors who submitted had excellent employee numbers and expertise. They are the leaders in the industry.Years of experience7562.162.1Similarly, the offerors in this category demonstrated excellent experience in the industry.Customer Service5038.632.9All of the offerors demonstrated acceptable customer service commitments in their proposals.Category 3D CriteriaCriteriaPoints PossibleVerizonVendor ATurnkey Offerings200148.6120.0All offerors had acceptable proposals for this criteria.Description of Turnkey Planning and Process7553.642.9Verizon was superior to Vendor A in its description of the planning and process.Service Factors5032.922.9Vendor A did not describe service factors satisfactorily.References5030.010.0All references received were nominally Acceptable. Vendor A did not provide reasonable references.Training5030.027.1All offerors had acceptable proposals for this criteria.Security15098.672.9None of the proposals had excellent security information included. They were nominally acceptable.CostVendor A scored 469.6 points and did not advance to the cost evaluation stage (532 threshold). Verizon offered a 23% discount off of its catalog/public price and earned all 84.4 cost points.SummaryVerizon with a score of 657.8 represents a best value to the State.Award Category 3EGeneral Technical Scorable CriteriaCriteriaPoints PossibleVerizonVendor ADescribe your Reporting5032.934.3All offerors provided acceptable reporting commitments.Employee number and expertise6046.344.6All offerors who submitted had excellent employee numbers and expertise. They are the leaders in the industry.Years of experience7562.162.1Similarly, the offerors in this category demonstrated excellent experience in the industry.Customer Service5038.632.9All of the offerors demonstrated acceptable customer service commitments in their proposals.Category 3E CriteriaCriteriaPoints PossibleVerizonVendor ATurnkey Offerings200154.3114.3Verizon’s proposal showed a superior description of their offering in this category.Description of Turnkey Planning and Process7553.632.1Vendor A did not describe planning and process satisfactorily.Service Factors5034.324.3Verizon had a superior description of the service factors for its offering.References5030.010.0All references received were nominally Acceptable. Vendor A did not provide reasonable references.Training5030.027.1All offerors had acceptable proposals for this criteria.Security150102.955.7Vendor A had little information related to security. Verizon was acceptable.Vendor A scored 437.4 points and did not advance to the cost evaluation stage (532 threshold). Verizon offered a 23% discount off of its catalog/public price and earned all 84.4 cost points.SummaryVerizon with a score of 669.3 represents a best value to the State.Award Category 3FGeneral Technical Scorable CriteriaCriteriaPoints PossibleVerizonSprintVendor ADescribe your Reporting5032.931.434.3All offerors provided acceptable reporting commitments.Employee number and expertise46.346.344.646.3All offerors who submitted had excellent employee numbers and expertise. They are the leaders in the industry.Years of experience7562.162.162.1Similarly, the offerors in this category demonstrated excellent experience in the industry.Customer Service5038.635.732.9All of the offerors demonstrated acceptable customer service commitments in their proposals.Category 3F CriteriaCriteriaPoints PossibleVerizonSprintVendor ATurnkey Offerings200148.6137.1114.3Verizon and Sprint gave a superior description of their offerings in this category.Description of Turnkey Planning and Process7553.647.140.7Vendor A did not describe planning and process satisfactorily.Service Factors5032.930.025.7All offerors had acceptable proposals for this criteria.References5030.030.010.0All references received were nominally Acceptable. Vendor A did not provide reasonable references.Training5030.030.027.1All offerors had acceptable proposals for this criteria.Security150102.9124.377.1Vendor A had little information related to security. Verizon and Sprint were acceptable.CostVendor A scored 468.9 points and did not advance to the cost evaluation stage (532 threshold). Verizon offered a 23% discount off of its catalog/public price and earned all 84.4 cost points. Sprint offered 5% off and was awarded 68.4 points SummaryVerizon with a score of 669.3 and Sprint with a score of 642.6 represents a best value to the State.Award Category 3GGeneral Technical Scorable CriteriaCriteriaPoints PossibleVerizonVendor ADescribe your Reporting5032.934.3All offerors provided acceptable reporting commitments.Employee number and expertise6046.344.6All offerors who submitted had excellent employee numbers and expertise. They are the leaders in the industry.Years of experience7562.162.1Similarly, the offerors in this category demonstrated excellent experience in the industry.Customer Service5038.632.9All of the offerors demonstrated acceptable customer service commitments in their proposals.Category 3G CriteriaCriteriaPoints PossibleVerizonVendor ATurnkey Offerings200160.097.1Verizon provided a comprehensive description of its offerings.Description of Turnkey Planning and Process7555.736.4Verizon described its planning and process satisfactorily.Service Factors5037.124.3All offerors had acceptable proposals for this criteria.References5030.010.0All references received were nominally Acceptable. Vendor A did not provide reasonable references.Training5030.027.1All offerors had acceptable proposals for this criteria.Security15098.681.4None of the proposals had excellent security information included. They were nominally acceptable.CostVendor A scored 450.3 points and did not advance to the cost evaluation stage (532 threshold). Verizon offered a 23% discount off of its catalog/public price and earned all 84.4 cost points.SummaryVerizon with a score of 675.7 represents a best value to the State.Award Category 3HGeneral Technical Scorable CriteriaCriteriaPoints PossibleVendor ADescribe your Reporting5034.3All offerors provided acceptable reporting commitments.Employee number and expertise6044.6All offerors who submitted had excellent employee numbers and expertise. They are the leaders in the industry.Years of experience7562.1Similarly, the offerors in this category demonstrated excellent experience in the industry.Customer Service5032.9All of the offerors demonstrated acceptable customer service commitments in their proposals.Category 3H CriteriaCriteriaPoints PossibleVendor ATurnkey Offerings200148.6The Turnkey description was acceptable.Description of Turnkey Planning and Process7555.7Description as exceptable.Service Factors5031.4This criteria was acceptable to the committee.References5010.0All references received were nominally Acceptable. Vendor A did not provide reasonable references.Training5027.1This criteria was acceptable to the committee.Security15068.6The Security description by Vendor A was deficient to the committee.CostVendor A scored 515.3 points and did not advance to the cost evaluation stage (532 threshold). No other offerors were considered.SummaryNo Offerors were considered a best value to the State.Award Category 3IGeneral Technical Scorable CriteriaCriteriaPoints PossibleVerizonVendor ADescribe your Reporting5032.934.3All offerors provided acceptable reporting commitments.Employee number and expertise6046.344.6All offerors who submitted had excellent employee numbers and expertise. They are the leaders in the industry.Years of experience7562.162.1Similarly, the offerors in this category demonstrated excellent experience in the industry.Customer Service5038.632.9All of the offerors demonstrated acceptable customer service commitments in their proposals.Category 3I CriteriaCriteriaPoints PossibleVerizonVendor ATurnkey Offerings200160.0131.4Verizon provided a comprehensive description of its offerings.Description of Turnkey Planning and Process7560.047.1Verizon described its planning and process satisfactorily.Service Factors5038.630.0All offerors had acceptable proposals for this criteria.References5030.010.0All references received were nominally Acceptable. Vendor A did not provide reasonable references.Training5030.027.1All offerors had acceptable proposals for this criteria.Security150102.981.4None of the proposals had excellent security information included. They were nominally acceptable.CostVendor A scored 501 points and did not advance to the cost evaluation stage (532 threshold). Verizon offered a 25% discount off of its catalog/public price and earned all 84.4 cost points.SummaryVerizon with a score of 685.7 represents a best value to the State.Award Category 3JGeneral Technical Scorable CriteriaCriteriaPoints PossibleVerizonVendor AVendor BDescribe your Reporting5032.930.034.3All offerors provided acceptable reporting commitments.Employee number and expertise46.346.346.344.6All offerors who submitted had excellent employee numbers and expertise. They are the leaders in the industry.Years of experience7562.162.162.1Similarly, the offerors in this category demonstrated excellent experience in the industry.Customer Service5038.637.132.9All of the offerors demonstrated acceptable customer service commitments in their proposals.Category 3J CriteriaCriteriaPoints PossibleVerizonVendor AVendor BTurnkey Offerings200148.6114.3102.9Verizon provided a comprehensive description of its offerings.Description of Turnkey Planning and Process7555.740.738.6Verizon described its planning and process satisfactorily.Service Factors5037.127.127.1All offerors had acceptable proposals for this criteria.References5030.030.010.0All references received were nominally Acceptable. Vendor A did not provide reasonable references.Training5030.030.027.1All offerors had acceptable proposals for this criteria.Security150102.981.468.6None of the proposals had excellent security information included. They were nominally acceptable except for Vendor B.CostVendor A scored 499 points and did not advance to the cost evaluation stage (532 threshold). Vendor B scored 448.1 points and did not advance to the cost evaluation stage (532 threshold). Verizon offered a 23% discount off of its catalog/public price and earned all 84.4 cost points.SummaryVerizon with a score of 668.5 represents a best value to the State.Award Category 3KGeneral Technical Scorable CriteriaCriteriaPoints PossibleVendor AVendor BDescribe your Reporting5030.034.3All offerors provided acceptable reporting commitments.Employee number and expertise6046.344.6All offerors who submitted had excellent employee numbers and expertise. They are the leaders in the industry.Years of experience7562.162.1Similarly, the offerors in this category demonstrated excellent experience in the industry.Customer Service5037.132.9All of the offerors demonstrated acceptable customer service commitments in their proposals.Category 3K CriteriaCriteriaPoints PossibleVendor AVendor BTurnkey Offerings200120.0114.3The Turnkey descriptions were acceptable.Description of Turnkey Planning and Process7540.736.4Description as exceptable.Service Factors5027.124.3This criteria was acceptable to the committee.References5030.010.0All references received were nominally Acceptable. Vendor A did not provide reasonable references.Training5030.027.1All offerors had acceptable proposals for this criteria.Security15081.460.0The Security description by neither vendor was sufficient to the committee.CostVendor A scored 504.9 points and did not advance to the cost evaluation stage (532 threshold). No other offerors were considered. Vendor B scored 446 points and did not advance to the cost evaluation stage (532 threshold). No other offerors were considered.SummaryNo Offerors were considered a best value to the State.Award Category 3LGeneral Technical Scorable CriteriaCriteriaPoints PossibleVendor AVendor BDescribe your Reporting5030.034.3All offerors provided acceptable reporting commitments.Employee number and expertise6046.344.6All offerors who submitted had excellent employee numbers and expertise. They are the leaders in the industry.Years of experience7562.162.1Similarly, the offerors in this category demonstrated excellent experience in the industry.Customer Service5037.132.9All of the offerors demonstrated acceptable customer service commitments in their proposals.Category 3L CriteriaCriteriaPoints PossibleVendor AVendor BTurnkey Offerings200114.3108.6The Turnkey descriptions were acceptable.Description of Turnkey Planning and Process7540.740.7Description as exceptable.Service Factors5025.727.1This criteria was acceptable to the committee.References5030.010.0All references received were nominally Acceptable. Vendor A did not provide reasonable references.Training5030.027.1All offerors had acceptable proposals for this criteria.Security15081.460.0The Security description by neither vendor was sufficient to the committee.CostVendor A scored 497.7 points and did not advance to the cost evaluation stage (532 threshold). Vendor B scored 447.4 points and did not advance to the cost evaluation stage (532 threshold). No other offerors were considered.SummaryNo Offerors were considered a best value to the State.Award Category 3MGeneral Technical Scorable CriteriaCriteriaPoints PossibleVerizon Wireless SprintVendor AVendor BDescribe your Reporting5032.931.430.034.3All offerors provided acceptable reporting commitments.Employee number and expertise6046.346.346.344.6All offerors who submitted had excellent employee numbers and expertise. They are the leaders in the industry.Years of experience7562.162.162.162.1Similarly, the offerors in this category demonstrated excellent experience in the industry.Customer Service5038.635.737.132.9All of the offerors demonstrated acceptable customer service commitments in their proposals.Category 3M Criteria CriteriaPoints PossibleVerizon Wireless SprintVendor AVendor BTurnkey Offerings200148.6125.7131.4125.7All Turnkey descriptions were acceptable.Description of Turnkey Planning and Process7553.647.147.142.9Description as exceptable.Service Factors5032.928.628.628.6This criteria was acceptable to the committee.References5030.030.030.010.0All references received were nominally Acceptable. Vendor A did not provide reasonable references.Training5030.030.030.027.1All offerors had acceptable proposals for this criteria.Security15098.698.685.768.6The Security description by neither vendor was sufficient to the committee with the exception of Vendor B.CostVendor A scored 528.4 points and did not advance to the cost evaluation stage (532 threshold). Vendor B scored 476.7 points and did not advance to the cost evaluation stage (532 threshold). Verizon offered a 25% discount off of its catalog/public price and earned all 21.1 cost points. Sprint offered a 100% discount off of its catalog/public price and earned all 84.4 cost points.SummaryVerizon with a score of 668.5 and Sprint with a score of 620 represent a best value to the State.Award Category 3NGeneral Technical Scorable CriteriaCriteriaPoints PossibleVerizon Wireless SprintVendor AVendor BDescribe your Reporting5032.931.430.034.3All offerors provided acceptable reporting commitments.Employee number and expertise6046.346.346.344.6All offerors who submitted had excellent employee numbers and expertise. They are the leaders in the industry.Years of experience7562.162.162.162.1Similarly, the offerors in this category demonstrated excellent experience in the industry.Customer Service5038.635.737.132.9All of the offerors demonstrated acceptable customer service commitments in their proposals.Category 3M Criteria CriteriaPoints PossibleVerizon Wireless SprintVendor AVendor BTurnkey Offerings200142.9131.4137.1114.3All Turnkey descriptions were acceptable.Description of Turnkey Planning and Process7551.445.045.045.0Description as exceptable.Service Factors5034.330.025.727.1This criteria was acceptable to the committee.References5030.030.030.010.0All references received were nominally Acceptable. Vendor A did not provide reasonable references.Training5030.030.030.027.1All offerors had acceptable proposals for this criteria.Security150102.998.681.468.6The Security description by neither vendor was sufficient to the committee with the exception of Vendor B.CostVendor A scored 524.9 points and did not advance to the cost evaluation stage (532 threshold). Vendor B scored 466 points and did not advance to the cost evaluation stage (532 threshold). Verizon offered a 25% discount off of its catalog/public price and earned all 21.1 cost points. Sprint offered a 100% discount off of its catalog/public price and earned all 84.4 cost points.SummaryVerizon with a score of 592.4 and Sprint with a score of 625 represent a best value to the State.Award Category 4General Technical Scorable CriteriaCriteriaPoints PossibleHughesVendor AVendor BDescribe your Reporting5031.410.030.0All offerors provided acceptable reporting commitments.Employee number and expertise5041.146.322.3Hughes and Vendor A demonstrated acceptable employee count and expertise. Vendor B did not demonstrate any expertise of employees in the paperwork.Years of experience7553.662.136.4Vendor A and Hughes demonstrated significant experience in the field with Vendor B lacking support for their experience.Customer Service503035.710.0Hughes and Vendor A both demonstrated acceptable customer service commitments. Vendor B did not support any customer service commitments in their proposal.Category 4 CriteriaCriteriaPoints PossibleHughesVendor AVendor BService Offerings225173.6128.6135.0Hughes offerings were significantly more comprehensive and better described by Vendor A and B.Infrastructure and Coverage150115.785.772.9Hughes adequately described its infrastructure and coverage.References10062.931.420.0All references received were nominally Acceptable. Vendor B did not provide reasonable references.Security150111.485.734.3Hughes addressed security in its presentation.CostVendor A scored 507 points and did not advance to the cost evaluation stage (532 threshold). Vendor B scored 340.9 points and did not advance to the cost evaluation stage (532 threshold). SummaryOfferors were allowed to submit as many products in each subcategory as they wished to provide. Because of this if any of their products are awarded, the offeror is awarded all products within this award category. Hughes scored 183.6 and was the only remaining offeror in the award category. Hughes represents a best value to the state. FINAL CONCLUSIONFor all award categories, the above-recommended offerors presented strong technical experience, demonstrated expertise as reflected in the assigned points. This technical score along with the cost methodology leads the committee to this recommendation. It is the opinion of the State Evaluation Committee that an award of multiple contracts to the offerors listed in Section A, and that they represent best value to the State. ................
................

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

Google Online Preview   Download