Memo to File .gov



|#07412 |On-Site Document Destruction Services |Kevyn L. Davidson |

|Contract Type: New Rebid Replacement WSCA Enterprise General Use Restricted |

|Contract Duration: Initial Term: 2 years with 4 one-year possible contract extensions Maximum life: 6 years |

|Estimated Initial Term Worth: $1.3M Estimated Annual Worth: $65,000 |

|Number of: Bidders notified: 2,305 MWBE’s notified:164 Washington Small Businesses Notified: 275 |

|Veteran Owned Business notified: 35 Bids received: 12 Bids Rejected: 2 |

| WEBS was used to notify all bidders |

|WEBS listed the following commodity codes: 990-28 Document Recovery Services, 962-27 Document Shredding Services, 990-48 Identity Theft Protection/Security Services, |

|and 958-82 Records Management Services |

| |The purpose of this contract is to establish a mandatory statewide Contract for the “as needed” purchase of On-Site |

|Contract Overview: |Document Destruction Services. This is a replacement Contract for #05906 which is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2013.|

|Purpose/ Intent/Description of the On-site |The Contract resulting from this IFB will be a mandatory use Contract for all State Agencies. |

|Document Destruction Services Contract |This contract will provide for the continuous confidentiality of sensitive documents and digital media, to ensure |

| |compliance with state and federal privacy laws and will serve to mitigate risk to user agencies across the state of |

| |Washington by providing a program focused on safeguarding confidential information from being accessed and used for |

| |fraudulent purposes. |

| |While all destroyed documents will be recycled by the successful Contractor(s), this contract is not a recycling |

| |service contract. Agencies are encouraged to consider destruction of all documents. There is an increased risk of a |

| |breach of public privacy laws and of exposing the agency to liability when agency staff members are charged with making|

| |daily decisions whether to recycle or to destroy. |

| |This contract is for On-Site Document Destruction Services, however, the awarded Contractor(s) will also have the |

| |capacity to provide for off-site document (paper) destruction services and off-site destruction services for digital |

| |media (computer tapes and discs, hard drives, Blackberry devices, x-rays, etc.) While on-site document destruction |

| |services are the recommended service, some agencies may require limited off-site services. It is anticipated that |

| |off-site document destruction services will constitute less than 5% of the total sales for this contract. The |

| |destruction price for digital media will be on a flat rate, “per pound” basis. The successful Contractor(s) will |

| |provide specially marked, locking, security containers for digital media collection purposes. On-site document |

| |destruction pricing will be on a per-bin basis, by bin size, multiplied by the service frequency per month, as |

| |established by the individual customer requirements. The cost for off-site document destruction services will be |

| |negotiated with the successful vendor(s) prior to award. |

| |The user agencies will partner with the Contractor(s) to establish any special security requirements, limited hours of |

| |operation, access issues such as stairs or barriers, etc. It is assumed that most agencies will provide a staged |

| |environment for bin servicing, however, smaller agencies may utilize a different method whereby the Contractor will |

| |walk through the facility collecting documents from smaller bins. Contractor will assist and advise user agencies in |

| |determining their collection bin requirements (type, size and quantities) as well as their appropriate service types |

| |and schedules. Successful Contractor(s) will be NAID Certified™ in Mobile Operations prior to execution of the |

| |Contract(s) and will provide the user agencies with a Certificate of Destruction at the time each document destruction |

| |service is completed. Contractor will provide an aauditable chain of custody. Eelectronic tracking reports will be made|

| |available at the request of the individual agencies as well as DES. |

| |The primary users of the current Contract are Department of Corrections, Department of Revenue, Department of Social |

| |and Health Services (Health and Recovery Administration), Department of Licensing, Department of Health and Department |

| |of Labor and Industries. |

| |The initial term of the Contract will be for one (1) two (2) year period after the effective date of the Contract, with|

| |the option to extend, by mutual consent, for additional term(s) or portions thereof. The total Contract term, |

|Contract Overview: |including the initial term and all extensions, will not exceed six (6) years. |

|Continued | |

| | |

|Stakeholder Work: |Phase I: Prior to Extension: Initial Stakeholder work began in late August. I was unsuccessful putting together a |

| |committed sourcing team due to vacation/work schedules and staff shortages at most state agencies through the summer |

| |months. I invited participation from our primary users, Department of Health, Department of Revenue, Department of |

|[pic] |Licensing, Health Care Authority, and Labor and Industries. (See embedded e- mail) On August 28, 2012 I submitted a |

| |draft IFB, including individual appendices to Doug Taylor of DOH, Francine Spar of LNI and Susan Davis of DOR for |

| |review and comment. After some days of discussion and clarification, I incorporated most of their initial comments into|

| |the IFB and followed up on technical questions with the vendor community, making specification changes where necessary.|

| |Once the formatting process was completed, and the IFB was in final draft form, it was turned over for peer review (see|

| |below) Many minor revisions were made and formatting was adjusted accordingly. (see Peer/Management Reviews, below) |

| | |

| |Phase II: Post Extension: I included an invitation in both PCMS remarks for contract #05906 and #07412 for stakeholder |

| |input and included a further invitation for participation on the stakeholder team and/or participation in an upcoming |

|[pic] |user survey in the Bi-Weekly broadcast on 11/7/12. (See embedded document).Response was minimal. I abandoned my plan to|

| |send out a user survey and worked instead to develop my vendor survey. I worked primarily with stakeholder Shannon |

| |Kingsley from DOL during phase II. Shannon provided great input, and thorough reviews and comments as the IFB evolved. |

|Stakeholder Work: |She also provided valuable assistance with the bid opening. Special appreciation is extended to Shannon for her |

|(continued) |enthusiasm, passion, and commitment to serving the people of the State of Washington in this capacity. |

| | |

| |Vendor involvement began very early in the bid development process. I “met” with most all of the eventual Bidders over |

|Vendor Community Involvement: |the phone a number of times and several came to DES to meet with me in person. They made recommendations regarding |

| |correcting deficiencies in the current contract and provided some great insight into their industry as a whole. Many |

| |provided informational brochures and website links for further information. Almost all agreed to provide any |

|[pic] |information we might need. When queried whether they would participate in a vendor survey including providing state |

| |agency usage over the past 2 years, all were agreeable as applicable. Several vendors were eventually queried through a|

| |formal vendor survey (See embedded document)and they provided me with usage data as well as input regarding their |

| |preference for award between a single statewide contract or contract award by region and their very best advice going |

| |forward. I found the vendors, my commodity experts, to be a very engaged, passionate group of professionals who were |

| |more than happy to share their wealth of knowledge with me. It was a valuable and enlightening experience. Very sincere|

| |thanks go out to them all for their willingness to partner with us in this statewide endeavor. |

| | |

|Bid Development: | |

|Phase I |Phase I - Prior to Extension: Bid development began in August 2012. I familiarized myself with the previous IFB, |

| |reviewed the entire contract file and held 2 meetings with the current vendor, DB Secure Shred. My primary focus for |

| |the new IFB was to research and present a more precise scope of work so the Bidders would have a more reasonable |

| |expectation of their level of effort. Working on the premise that a well-defined scope and more precise specification |

| |would most certainly lead to more savings to the user agencies, by eliminating or at least reducing the unknown risks |

| |to the Bidders, I was striving for a more comprehensive service package at a substantial savings over the previous |

| |contract. |

| | |

| |I researched the NAID requirements and updates to the federal privacy laws to be certain the IFB requirements were |

| |current. I met with vendors to discuss their adopted policies included excerpts into the IFB documents as appropriate. |

| |I continued to develop and refine all appendices. |

| |Early into the bid development process I determined there was not enough hard data to consider utilizing an RFP method |

| |of Solicitation. The current contract was being utilized by only (approximately) 60% of the state agencies. It had not |

| |been utilized as a mandatory contract and there was a great deal of rouge spend with non-contract vendors across the |

| |state. Anticipating the time involved in data capture and analysis, I chose to utilize the IFB process of Solicitation.|

| |As a result of my findings, I also began developing a procurement strategy that would achieve the most optimum outcome.|

| |as referenced in paragraph 1 above. (Please refer to Peer and Management Review/Phase I) |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

|Bid Development: | |

|Phase I (continued) | |

| | |

|Contract Extension: |Contract #05906 was put out to bid on the assumptive basis of (1) 64-gallon bin per month for every state agency, with |

| |a pick-up frequency of once per month. The scope of work and level of contractor effort was completely non defined. No |

| |usage data was provided to the vendors and the resulting contract was then utilized as a “convenience” contract. Based |

| |on the monthly usage reports from the contract vendor, it became clear the contract was not picking up the potential |

| |revenue stream for the state as many agencies had entered into service contract agreements with various other vendors. |

| |By extending the contract, we gained the time to provide hard data for bidding purposes by adding in the non-contract |

| |service information, the opportunity to notify all potential Bidders and user agencies well in advance of the mandatory|

| |designation for the replacement contract, and the opportunity for input from all stakeholders regarding the bid |

| |development of the new contract. With the increased sales volume potential, and a more well-defined scope of work and |

| |technical specifications, I anticipated much better pricing on Contract #07412. |

|[pic] | |

| |Upon Dale’s concurrence , on January 10, 2013 I submitted a request to extend contract #05906 for a period of 6 months |

| |in order to provide for proper data retrieval and analysis, better lead time for contract transition for current and |

| |new users agencies, and time to conduct additional stakeholder work. (See embedded document). On October 18, 2012, Dale|

| |submitted, for management approval, an Executive Summary justifying a super extension of contract #05906. It was later |

|[pic] |approved. I issued a 6-month extension through contract amendment with D.B. Secure Shred and established “Phase II” of |

| |this procurement. |

| | |

| | |

| |Phase II – Post extension phase - Data Recovery – |

| |In an effort to reach out to all state agencies (and not just the ones that subscribe to our broadcast messages), I |

| |searched for a distribution list for the current procurement staff within all our state agencies. I was miserably |

|Bid Development: |unsuccessful locating such a thing so I contacted OFM to see if they could share their distribution list for the |

|Phase II |state’s financial officers, assuming that would get the information to the individuals who work in supervisory |

| |capacities for the procurement and contracting staff. While OFM was reluctant to share their list, they did agree to |

| |host a one-time e-mail correspondence on behalf of DES. (See imbedded document).Within the body of the Courtesy |

| |Notification, I requested contact information from the procurement staff. From that information I created our own |

|[pic] |distribution list for future use. Smooth transitions from our remaining “convenience” contracts to mandatory contracts |

| |will require as much advance notice as possible, both to the user agencies as well as to the vendor community. Many |

| |agencies have entered into private service contracts with non-contract vendors and they need to be advised to not renew|

| |those contracts. |

| | |

| |I researched to find the larger non-contract document destruction vendors throughout the state of Washington and |

| |through a 9-vendor spend query (through AFRS) I was able to determine the total “rogue spend” for total services, based|

| |on the state agencies’ accounts payable activity over a 2 year period of time. (Note: Because AFRS does not utilize a |

| |commodity based system, there is a potential for errors and omissions and it is possible that the data collected is not|

| |necessarily indicative of total usage across the state.) I then contacted the top 3 vendors, based on state agency |

| |sales and working with their financial and customer service staff determined which of the line items on the AFRS report|

| |reflected their document destruction services business line. I then sent those 3 vendors a survey (see embedded |

| |document) in which I requested usage data, including the agencies served, physical addresses of service locations, |

| |sizes and types of bins, and frequency of service. This data was then incorporated into the Bid price sheets, along |

| |with the data I had collected from the current contract vendor.    |

| | |

| |As a component of Phase II Bid Development, I reviewed and revised all final documents to ensure they incorporated the |

| |contract language changes in accordance with the new RCW 39.26, which resulted from the passage of the Procurement |

| |Reform bill in January of 2013.Live links were all changed and language was revised as necessary. |

| | |

|Peer & Management Reviews: | |

|Phase I |Phase I – prior to extension: During the first week of September 2012, the IFB was submitted for internal peer reviews |

| |by Bart Potter and Corinna Cooper. By September 20, 2012 their recommended revisions had been incorporated into the |

| |body of the IFB, formatting was finalized and the IFB was prepared for DES management review by Unit Manager, Dale |

| |Colbert. During the review period I expressed a concern regarding the accuracy of the data provided in the bid price |

| |sheets. Dale and I were in agreement that a contract extension request was in order. (Please refer to Contract |

| |Extension) |

| | |

|Peer & Management Reviews: |Phase II – post extension: During the first week of March, 2013, the final draft IFB was submitted to Sourcing Team |

|Phase II |members for final review and comment. The second week of March the amended IFB was submitted for final peer reviews by |

| |Connie Stacey and Cathy Moxley. Their recommended revisions were considered and final revisions and formatting were |

| |finalized on March 13, 2013. Documents were submitted for review and comment by Dale Colbert. Unit Manager’s revisions |

| |were incorporated and the Solicitation documents posted to WEBS on March 18, 2013. |

| | |

|Written Bidders’ Questions / Pre Bid Conference:|Written Bidders’ Questions were received as a follow up to the Pre-Bid Conference that was held on March 25, 2013. |

| |Vendors submitted written questions by the cut-off date. The answers to all questions were memorialized by |

|[pic] |Solicitation Amendment #1, (see below). |

| | |

|Solicitation |One Solicitation Amendment was issued. |

|Amendments: | |

| |Amendment #1 was issued on March 28, 2013 and was posted to WEBS. |

|[pic] | |

| |It included: |

|[pic] |1) Bid submittal due date change from 4/1/2013 to 4/3/2013 |

| |2) Revision from hard copy to electronic copy shall prevail |

| |3) 4-page Response to Bidders’ Questions – included responses from the |

| |3/25/2013 Pre-Bid Conference and written submittals from vendors |

| | |

| |(See embedded documents) |

| |

| | |

|Bid Submittal and Bid Opening: |Twelve sealed bids, submitted by ten vendors, were received in response to the Invitation for Bid (see embedded WEBS |

| |Bid Log) Bids were checked in and registered by the Bid Clerk on 4/3/2013. |

|[pic] | |

| |Bids were officially opened on 4/4/2013 by myself and sourcing team member Shannon Kingsley and were subject to the Bid|

| |Responsiveness Checklist. One Bid submitted by Frontline Shredding was immediately rejected as being non responsive as |

| |it did not contain a hard copy of the Solicitation Amendment #1, nor was it included in their electronic submittal. One|

| |Bid submitted by D.B. Secure Shred (as their Bid #2) was eventually also deemed non responsive. While it at first |

| |appeared to be a cost rebate, after clarification was received from the Bidder, the Bid was deemed non-responsive. (See|

| |Responsiveness, below.) |

| | |

|Bid Evaluation: |All Bids were found to be responsive to the Solicitation except for two, as noted above. One Bid did not contain a copy|

| |of the Solicitation Amendment #1. One Bid was not a “stand alone” Bid and was contingent on another successful Bidder’s|

|Responsiveness: |submittal (see embedded Executive Summary). This rejection decision was challenged by the Bidder. A telephone |

|[pic] |debriefing was conducted with Mr. John Luger of DB Secure Shred by Dale Colbert and Kevyn Davidson on the afternoon of |

| |April 25, 2013. |

|[pic] | |

| |Both Non-responsive Bids were rejected by written notification sent via electronic and First Class mail. (See embedded |

|[pic] |documents) |

| | |

| | |

|Bid Evaluation: |All Bid calculations and extensions were re-checked for accuracy by the Procurement Coordinator and again by a Contract|

|Pricing: |Assistant. |

| | |

| |As per the Solicitation, pricing was evaluated on a statewide basis and on a regional basis. |

|[pic] | |

| |4 vendors provided statewide pricing (every county in every region): |

| | |

| |Pacific Northwest Shredding’s bid was $55,331.80 per month |

| |Enviro Shred Northwest’s bid was $41,913.52 per month (Bid Submittal #A) |

| |DB Secure Shred’s bid was $32,716.00 per month (Bid Submittal #1) |

| |Iron Mountain’s bid was $19,935.50 per month |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| |6 vendors provided regional pricing: |

| | |

| |Accu-Shred Northwest |

| |American Data Guard |

| |DeVries Records Management |

| |Enviro Shred Northwest (Bid Submittal #B) |

| |La May Mobile Shredding |

| |Recall Secure Destruction |

| | |

| |When evaluating for each of the six regions, DeVries Records Management provided the best pricing for the Eastern |

| |Region, the South Central Region and the North Central Region. Their total monthly price for the three regions was |

| |$5,080.50. LeMay Mobil Shredding provided the best pricing for the Olympic Region, the Southwest Region, and the |

| |Northwest Region. Their total monthly price for the (remaining) three regions of the state was $10,899.10. The combined|

| |cost represented in these two Bids is $15,979.60 per month. That amount represents a cost savings to the State of |

| |$3,955.90 per month and $47,470.80 annually, when compared to the lowest statewide Bidder. |

| | |

| |After reviewing Bid responsiveness, best Bid pricing and Bidder responsibility factors, I recommend both of these |

| |vendors be declared Apparent Successful Vendors. (See embedded Bid Tabulation Form) |

| | |

| |Bidders provided (Appendix E, Bidder Profile) a minimum of three commercial or government references for firms or |

| |agencies for whom they had delivered goods and/or services similar in scope as described in this IFB. Both Apparent |

|Responsibility: |Successful Vendors received very high praise for their quality, efficiency, timeliness, customer service and technical |

| |abilities. |

| | |

| |The IFB included a requirement for the Bidders to provide supplemental Bidder responsibility information (Appendix F) |

| |in addition to the Bidder Profile. Bidders were instructed to speak to the following: |

| | |

| |Their auditable chain of custody system |

| |Their capacity and process for destruction of digital media |

| |Their shredding facility(ies) |

| |Their mobile operations vehicles – safety and security features |

|[pic] |Their staff training and certifications |

| | |

|[pic] |Both Apparent Successful Vendors provided information that is satisfactory and meets or exceeds the requirements of the|

| |Solicitation. (see embedded document) |

| | |

| |The embedded spreadsheet is a cost comparison between the current contract (#05906) pricing, per region, by county and | |

|Cost Comparison: |the pending contract (#07412) pricing, per region, by county. I utilized the Bid pricing from the two Apparent | |

| |Successful Vendors. I inserted DB Secure Shred’s pricing from the current contract into a blank bid tabulation form to | |

|[pic] |determine comparative costs. I then plugged those totals into the cost comparison spreadsheet to show savings over the | |

| |2006 contract pricing, based on the new contract’s anticipated usage. DeVries costs for the Eastern, South Central and | |

|[pic] |North Central regions represent a monthly savings of $23,330 over the current contract pricing. LeMay’s costs for the | |

| |Olympic, Southwest and Northwest regions represent a monthly savings of $56,988.99 over the current contract pricing. | |

| |When compared to current extended unit pricing for the new estimated bid quantities, this new contract will reap a | |

| |savings of 84% on the West side of the state and 82% on the East side of the state. The cost savings statewide | |

| |represents nearly $5.8 million over the life of the contract. | |

| | |

|Award Recommendation: |Per Section 1.27 of the #07412 Solicitation documents: “The State reserves the right to make a single statewide award |

| |or a combination of awards to multiple vendors based on regional price submittals if it proves to be in the State’s |

| |best interest to do so”. |

| | |

|[pic] |It is the considered opinion of this Contract Specialist that it is in the best interest of the State of Washington |

| |to award this contract to the lowest, responsive, responsible Bidder, by regional category, per the following: |

| | |

| |LeMay Mobile Shredding – Olympic, Southwest and Northwest Regions |

| | |

| |De Vries Records Management – Eastern, South Central and North Central Regions |

| | |

| |(See embedded Regional Map for list of covered counties within the regions) |

|[pic] | |

| |Authorization is respectfully requested to immediately move forward with the issuance of letters of Intent to Award to |

| |the above-named Bidders and to post an “Intent to Award Notification” to WEBS. (See embedded document) |

| | |

|Management Fee: |The new (7/1/13) management fee language was included in this Solicitation. Per Section 1.37 of the IFB, management fee|

| |payable to DES for this contract shall be .74% of total sales. |

| | |

|Award Activities |

|Implementation Plan | |

|WEBS | Notify bidders of the award via WEBS |

| |Once contract award has been finalized, archive bid in WEBS |

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

| |Send apparent successful bidder announcement letter |

| |Send Award Announcement letters to all bidders |

| |Email UM a brief award announcement for Bi-Weekly Broadcast |

| |Provided Debriefing to: _ _____________________________________ |

|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 |

| |Complete PCMS Commodities Tab |

| |Complete PCMS Vendors Tab |

| |Complete PCMS Customer Tab |

| |Complete PCMS Fees Tab |

| |Complete PCMS WBE/MBE Percents |

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

| |(Tip: For best results, ask your contractor(s) to provide search terms) |

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

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

|Link to: Current Contract Portal Training |Copy the price sheet (#####p.doc or xls or pdf) |

| |Copy the specification (#####s.doc or xls, or pdf) if applicable |

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

| |Copy the bid document (#####b.doc or xls, or pdf ) |

| |Copy the bid Amendment (#####a.doc or pdf ) |

| |Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document (#####f.doc or xls or pdf) |

| |Copy the award memo to file & checklist document (#####m. doc or xls or pdf) |

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

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

Google Online Preview   Download