Memo to File .gov



Contract No. 08313Contract #Contract TitleContract Period First Termination Date08313Mobile Computer Procurement2014-20192015 DATE \@ "M/d/yy" \* MERGEFORMAT 4/10/14CommentsSylvia Sammons, “CS” Purpose:The purpose of this CCI is: to summarize the procurement and resulting contracts for the Master Contracts for Mobile Computing Solutions. Products vendor will provide under this contract include:Laptop(s)TabletVehicle Docking StationsEffective Date:The term of this Contract will commence on the date of DES signature (the “Effective Date”) and expire one (1) year thereafter. The term of this Contract may be extended by four (4) additional one (1) year terms by Amendment executed by both parties. Executive Summary:Washington State Patrol requested DES to run this procurement in May, 2013 in order to replace the CDW-G Itronix Master Contract. DES agreed to run a new procurement since the Itronix computer line was discontinued.At the time of decision to go out for bid a full discussion had already taken place regarding present and future offerings under the WSCA contract. It was determined that the WSCA contract did not offer the terms and conditions WSP desired and did not have corresponding vehicle mounts. WSP was adamant that the agency wanted to explore “everything out there.” Further, it was determined that the timing of the rebid on the WSCA contract would not coincide with funding deadlines and were not conducive to technological policies regarding consistency in devices, warranties, maintenance, services, certifications and software.The solicitation was in the form of an RFI, following by an RFP. The RFP contained two categories of solutions. “Solution” is defined in the RFP as: “An ambulatory computing device together with an in-vehicle docking station and warranty as specified herein.” In other words, we were asking for laptops, convertible laptops and tablets that could be electronically docked in vehicles, used by motorcyclists and used in office environments. . Category One (1) was for in-vehicle solutions and Category Two (2) was for motorcycle solutions.Award was made by “Solution” and not by Vendor. Multiple vendors worked together on various solutions. There was overlap between vendors working together, i.e., the same vendor might be working with various other vendors on multiple proposals. There were Four (4) initial ASV’s announced based on corresponding solutions under Two (2) Categories:Category One ASV’s:Dell XFR 14PCS Mobile/Getac V110Category Two ASV’s:Nova Mobility/Mobile DemandPCS Mobile/Getac F110Dell’s ASV was revoked as Dell proved non-responsive during acceptance testing. All vendors were given a deadline to ship equipment for testing. Dell was provided and extra five (5) days to ship their equipment. Dell representatives were mostly unavailable during acceptance testing. Dell’s final shipment was incomplete and CS could not communicate with Dell during the time CS needed in order to conduct testing.Estimated Annual Contract Worth:$4,000,000.00 (WSP figure only)Primary Users:Washington State PatrolAll State Agencies, Political Subdivisions of Washington, Qualified Non-profit Corporations, Participating Institutions of Higher Education (College and Universities, Community and Technical Colleges).Timeline of events:John Bruun of WSP was assigned as lead project manager on the WSP side. Scott Smith was assigned to mentor John Bruun as project manager. Project managers Steve Brown and Steve Cole were also involved in mentoring John.WSP supplied a preliminary set of technical specifications, which were used to publish an RFI. The RFI resulted in certain vendors attending a vendor demonstration during the August, 2013, WSP Quarterly Meeting. Vendors attending included HP, Dell, Panasonic and Getac.Classic project management waterfall theory requires three phases of requirements gathering. Scott Smith provided John Bruun and CS with the necessary concepts and framework for such requirements gathering. The first phase is to gather business requirements. This sets up the scope, budget and purpose of the procurement. Second phase to obtain functional requirements. This allows users to describe what the product should be able to function. The third phase is to develop the technical requirements. Each functional requirement should trace back to a business requirement and each technical requirement should trace back to a functional requirement. Requirements tracing ensures the procurement does not stray from business owners’ priorities and purpose. Scott Smith sent John Bruun templates and examples of requirements and traceability.Customer agency’s current mobile computing device was discontinued and customer agency was unsure of the direction it wanted to go. Published a Request for Information (“RFI”) based on minimal technical specifications provided by customer agency. Obtained a market sample of mobile computing devices and chose vendors based on responses to the RFI to attend demonstrations at customer agency’s headquarters. The result was a full day of vendor demonstrations, including Hewlett Packard, Panasonic and Dell Computers, which allowed customer agency to gain traction on requirements development.Customer agency provided a project manager-in-training to gather requirements. Since minimal technical requirements were developed for the RFI, traditional waterfall requirements gathering began backward. In order to determine the expectations of customer agency executives and other agency stakeholders, the project demanded prerequisite business requirement development and adoption prior to finalization of functional and technical requirements. As was necessary, aided project manager-in-training to understand proper business requirement development by writing requirements based on five priorities he provided. Presented to customer agency executives draft business requirements. The result was buy-off on project priorities and requirements at the highest level of customer agency as well as a revelation that the project scope was larger than first communicated.Customer agency wanted statewide representation from a variety of departments to comprise some stakeholder groups for procurement requirements gathering; consequently, stakeholder groups for functional requirements teams were large and meetings were, at first, somewhat unproductive. To remedy this, developed a meeting agenda form in order to organize debate, refocus individuals to specific problem-solving, record decisions and clearly record assigned action items. Implementation of the meeting agenda form resulted in a stream-lined approach to creating functional requirements and saved precious time on the project schedule.Due to large stakeholder group dynamics, full arrival at decisions took more time than the project schedule allowed. Customer agency project manager-in-training was unfamiliar with using Microsoft Project, which was the software used to create and update the project timeline. If the project became late, aided project manager-in-training by sitting with him at his desk to manipulate the schedule to make up for lost time. One strategy used to find extra time was to switch evaluation demonstrations to acceptance testing after award, thereby allowing the debrief and protest period to run simultaneously. As a result, the project remained on time, provided customer agency satisfaction in having fully vetted requirements, and delivered contracts upon a date certain.Customer agency, despite fully vetting all requirements, decided to keep requirements to a minimum in order to determine – at the time of evaluation – which solution to award. In order to preserve the integrity of the competitive process by providing vendors with a clear understanding of requirements, evaluation criteria and methods in the Request for Proposal (“RFP”), complex mechanisms for decision-making were developed. The RFP included mandatory technical requirements, desirable technical requirements, maintenance and warranty requirements, not-to-exceed pricing, percentage discount off MSRP on future technologies falling within the scope of the contract, as well as a sample contract and opportunity for vendors to submit exceptions to the sample contract. The RFP also provided post-award acceptance testing involving: (1) device preparation, (2) in-vehicle solution installation and (3) field testing. As a result, customer agency was satisfied with the RFP, evaluation went as planned, product solutions awarded were deemed to best fit customer agency’s needs and no vendor protested the award.John Bruun required an extra ordinary amount of help managing the project and understanding basic project management and procurement concepts. In order to keep the project afloat, CS drafted several in-depth memorandums, regularly and patiently answered questions repeatedly asked and conformed to every request John made. For example CS drafted a memorandum, “September Summary Memo” reviewed by Scott Smith. In the memorandum, CS made recommendations based on the fact that the project timeline was in jeopardy. Other memorandums included Document Cross-Walks, Pro’s and Con’s on Evaluation Methods, Different Scenarios, and the September Summary Memo Clarification. All memorandums and other customer aids are contained in the G Drive folder for the contract under “Customer Service Documents.”WSP and PCS Mobile would like to add additional equipment within the scope of the contract, but in order to meet today’s deadline, I will create and amendment for that portion.Savings:Contract offers 5-12.5% savings on future technologies falling under the scope of the contract. Conclusion:Procurement successfully awarded to vendors and WSP was delighted with the products offered. No protests were received. ................
................

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

Google Online Preview   Download