Memo to File



|03010 |Genetics Testing Services |Tariq Ohab |

|Contract Type: New Replacement WSCA Enterprise General Use Restricted to:_____________ |

|Contract Duration: Initial Term: ___2__ years months Maximum life: ___6__ Years |

|Estimated Term Worth: $__900,000____ Estimated Annual Worth: $____$450,000____ |

|Number of: Bidders notified: 201 Bids received: 3 Bids Rejected: _____1___ |

| WEBS was used to notify bidders. |

|List the WEBS (not PCMS) commodity Codes were used? __9755__ |

|% MWBE Award: WBE% ___0__ MBE%__0___ Self Identified WBE% _0__ Self Identified MBE% 0__ |

|Executive Summary: |Procurement Coordinator Tariq Ohab worked with DSHS’s Division of Child Support (DCS), to develop this bid document and revise |

| |specifications. This is a re-bid of contract #02504 which is due to expire on 8/31/10. |

|Bid Development |

|Stakeholder work |Procurement Coordinator Tariq Ohab worked with DSHS’s Division of Child Support’s Kathy Jenkins and Sally De Laive in the development|

| |of this IFB. Input from DCS indicated that the contract was working well and that DCS has a critical need for the service. |

|Customer Forum? | |

|Vendor Forum? |The IFB was drafted taking into consideration the needs of DCS and current specification updates from DCS and current vendors on |

| |contract. |

| | |

|Market Research: |Research found that DCS has a critical need for this service. It was also determined that either of the two current providers was |

| |capable of handling all needs, and there were no regional issues or service interruptions. |

|EPP Strategy: |This commodity is for services and it does not have recycled content. |

|Best Value Strategy: |Utilizing best value strategy, the new contract will be awarded to a single vendor, as opposed to the previous contract, with |

| |multiple awardees. Based on this strategy, vendors offered a significant price decrease for competition purposes. |

|Diversity Strategy: |201 vendors were notified of this solicitation. 2 were Minority Owned and 7 were Women owned. 1 was minority and woman owned. |

|[pic] | |

|Bid Development: |This bid was developed by the Procurement Coordinator with input from DSHS Division of Child Support |

| Peer Review |Steve Jenkins, Michael Maverick |

| Management Fee? |There is no management fee for this contract. There is a PAF agreement in place. |

|Bid Process |

|Bid Release Through WEBS: |Upon Unit Manager approval, IFB was published in WEBS on 5/20/10. |

|Date: ___5/20/10__ | |

|[pic] | |

|Pre-Bid Conference: |A pre-bid conference was held on 6/3/10. There were 2 vendors in attendance. A variety of issues were discussed. The main issue |

|Date:____6/3/10__ |revolved around the single award clarification. The Pre-bid resulted in the publication of Amendment no. 1 |

|Amendment(s): |Amendment 1 was posted on June 3, 2010. |

|Date:_6/3/10 | |

|[pic] |The amendment clarified that it is the State’s intent to establish a single award contract that will allow any State Agency or its |

| |representative to participate in this contract. |

| |At this time, bid opening remained unchanged for June 17, 2010 |

|Amendment(s): |Amendment 2 was posted on June 14, 2010. |

|Date:_6/14/10 | |

|[pic] |This amendment was to answer several questions asked by a bidder. |

|Amendment(s): |Amendment 3 was posted on June 15, 2010. |

|Date:_6/15/10 | |

|[pic] |This amendment was to clarify licensing requirements and change the Bid Due Date to June 29, 2010. |

|Bid Evaluation—Responsiveness |

|Bid Opening: |Three bids were received. 1 was not on time, GGC Labs/MediPro, it was 8 minutes late, and thus, the bid was rejected. Therefore |

|Date 6/29/10 |leaving 2 on time bid submittals; 1)Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings and 2) Orchid Cellmark Inc. |

|Bids Sealed & Signed? |Both on time bids were sealed and signed. |

|Received all required submittals?|Both on time bidders submitted the required submittals. |

|Specification compliance? |Both on time bidders submitted all required specification submittals |

|Price Sheet compliance? |All bidders submitted their price sheets correctly. No math errors were found and the Procurement Coordinator was able to determine |

| |the apparently successful bidder easily. |

|Bid Evaluation—Responsibility |

|Past Performance? |All bidders provided the requested submittals to be evaluated. The apparently successful bidder has provided this service to DCS for|

| |the existing contract. DCS has been satisfied with the service provided by the incumbent and provided good reports on the vendor |

| |report cards. |

| | |

|Qualifications? |All bidders provided copies of their accreditations, list of medical doctors, and evidence of years of service that they have been |

| |doing genetics testing services, along with all other required responses within the IFB. |

| | |

| | |

| | |

|Bid Evaluation |

|Evaluation: |The evaluation was based on the lowest responsive responsible bidder that can service all Counties within the State of Washington at |

| |the contracted rate. |

|[pic] | |

| |Bidders were to use a price per test multiplied by an estimated usage figure for a total estimated cost per line item. The |

| |Procurement Coordinator checked for errors and found none. The Procurement Coordinator found that the pricing submitted was |

| |competitive and that Orchid Cellmark’s total cost was less than the competitor and also substantially less than the pricing on the |

| |current contract. Based on past usage, the new contract will be saving the Division of Child Support an estimated $320,000 per 2 year|

| |term. |

| | |

| |The Procurement Coordinator has determined that Orchid Cellmark Inc. is responsive, responsible and has submitted the lowest pricing |

| |to the State for Genetics Testing Services. |

|Results & Recommendation |

|Savings: |The Procurement Coordinator has determined that the state will realize a 35.6% savings when compared to the existing contract. |

|[pic] | |

|Recommendation: |It is in the best interest of the state to award this contract as it has been evaluated. |

|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 |

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

| |Complete PCMS Commodities Tab |

| |Complete PCMS Vendors Tab |

| |Complete PCMS Customer Tab |

| |Complete PCMS Fees Tab |

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

| |Copy Contract file 03010c.doc or pdf) |

|Link to: Current Contract Portal |Copy the price sheet 03010p.doc or xls or pdf) |

|Training |Copy the specification 03010s.doc or xls, or pdf) if applicable |

| |Copy the bid tab 03010t.doc or xls or pdf) |

| |Copy the bid document 03010b.doc or xls, or pdf ) |

| |Copy the bid Amendment 03010a.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