Memo to File

[Pages:3]

Memo to File

07510: Lamps and Ballasts

Comments: Bart Potter

|Contract period |The initial contract term for the state Lamps and Ballasts contract will be for two years from Oct. 24, 2011. Maximum |

| |term is eight years. |

|Overview |Solicitation 07510 and the subsequent contract defines the supplier(s) of fluorescent lamps, ballasts, compact |

| |fluorescent lights (CFL), high-intensity discharge (HID) lights, and light-emitting diode (LED) lamps and bulbs for all|

| |state agencies. Political subdivisions, higher education institutions and other members of the Washington State |

| |Purchasing Cooperative are eligible to use the contract. This contract does not include lighting fixtures. |

| |State Contract 07510 will replace State Contract 00802. Since 00802 was awarded in March 2002, there has been |

| |significant improvement in the quality and longevity of lighting products. There has also been a natural progression |

| |toward lighting products that are produced more sustainably, are safer to use and are gentler on the environment at the|

| |end of their useful life. |

| |As technology evolves and improves and manufacturing practices become more efficient, this contract can evolve, as |

| |well, to respond to opportunities to save energy and dollars, to embrace new products and new thinking, to offer better|

| |light at a better value. It is the State’s intention to encourage new or emerging technologies, and therefore the State|

| |reserves the right to add commodity categories or products within categories to the contract. |

|Estimated term worth |$5.4 million |

| | |

| Date |Project developments and milestones |

|May 12, 2010 |Draft project plan |

| |The draft project plan was created by Dale Colbert, with Bart Potter assigned to be project manager and work with David|

| |Scott (contract administrator for 00802), Ken Woodfork and Colbert. |

| | |

| |[pic] |

|July 13, 2010 |Colbert, Potter and Scott met with Karin Kraft of Ecology. She expressed her wish that the solicitation be mindful of |

| |state and federal requirements for mercury and other toxics. |

|Sept. 1, 2010 |Colbert, Potter and Scott met with representatives of Philips by teleconference. |

|Sept. 30, 2010 |Potter attended the Adaptive Lighting Symposium in Seattle, sponsored by the WSU Extension. The presentation focused |

| |mainly on new technology in institutional lighting and controls and the concept of “lighting on demand.” |

|Oct. 13, 2010 |Colbert, Potter and Scott met with Mike Gerard of Eco-Safe Technologies, maker of LED tubes. |

|Oct. 14, 2010 |Presentation by GE and Jack Folger of Grainger. |

|Nov. 8, 2010 |Meeting with Arthur Van Gelder of CED (current contractor for 00802). |

|Nov. 8, 2010 |Second meeting with Mike Gerard of Eco-Safe Technologies |

|Nov. 10, 2010 |Colbert, Scott and Potter met to look at the Oregon and Minnesota lighting solicitation specs. |

|Dec. 6, 2010 |Meeting with Adelina Thelen, Edgar Aponte, Jeff Auter and Dan Radolla of Platt Electric, a big dealer of Philipsg |

|Dec. 8, 2010 |Third meeting with Mike Gerard of Eco-Safe. A possible pilot project for LEDs was discussed. |

|Jan. 12, 2011 |Sourcing team meeting 1 |

| |Initial meeting of the strategic sourcing team for Solicitation 07510 was attended by representatives of |

| |Transportation, Corrections, Ecology, University of Washington (by phone) and OSP staff members. A representative of |

| |King County agreed to be a part of the sourcing team, but was unable to participate in the first meeting. |

| |The agenda covered the objectives and timeline for the solicitation. |

| |Dale Colbert led a discussion about the appropriate value to give toxic materials in fluorescent lamps. |

| |Steve Krueger of OSP introduced an idea toward achieving maximum recycling of spent mercury-containing lamps. He |

| |proposed that the contract price per lamp would include an upfront fee for recycling. The fee would go into a customer |

| |account that would be used to pay for the services of the state’s recycling contract. |

| | |

| |[pic][pic][pic] |

|Jan. 26, 2011 |Meeting with Nick Cockrell (GA Facilities), Darlena Heglund (GA Facilities), David Scott, Ron Major (GA Energy Program)|

| |re a possible demonstration project on the Capitol Campus for induction lighting; it was generally agreed such a |

| |project would not be practical or affordable. |

|Feb. 2, 2011 |Sourcing team meeting 2 |

| |The short timeline before 00802 expires (March 27) was discussed, with some team members suggesting there were too many|

| |unaddressed issues with the 07510 solicitation to feel comfortable about rushing the bid posting. Ecology |

| |representatives urged GA to look at the recent California lighting bid. |

| | |

| |[pic][pic] |

|March 2, 2011 |Sourcing team meeting 3 |

| |The meeting was mainly devoted to a presentation by Steve Krueger of the “total cost of ownership” model that would be |

| |used in the solicitation for evaluating bid pricing and “net mercury” content. The sourcing team was asked to rank the |

| |relative importance of various non-cost factors to their particular agencies. The new bid timeline was presented, and |

| |the team heard some details of the newly awarded Nevada/WSCA industrial supplies contract, which included lighting. |

| | |

| |[pic][pic][pic] |

|March 16, 2011 |Meeting with Steve Greenberg of Gexpro (mainly GE dealer). He said he expected that his company would enter a bid. |

|April 4, 2011 |Distributed the latest draft of the solicitation document in-house, to Colbert, Scott and Michael Maverick. Also |

| |distributed to the sourcing team. |

|April 4, 2011 |Meeting with Colbert, Scott, Potter, with Maverick for a third-eye peer review. |

|April 13, 2011 |[pic] |

| |Darin Rice/Karin Kraft of Ecology weighed in with comments on the solicitation document (embedded above). Their key |

| |suggestions include: |

| |Triple non-cost points in the bid evaluation |

| |Give mercury significantly more points in the evaluation and give mercury the points now given to EPP practices; reduce|

| |points for P-card, online ordering and sales coverage and give the added points to mercury. |

| |Change language to require recycling, rather than just encouraging. |

|April 18, 2011 |In-house review of the bid document, with Scott, Colbert, Potter, Maverick and Mark Gaffney. |

|April 20, 2011 |As part of due diligence for the potential bidding of a contract to replace Contract 00802, OSP compared prices for the|

| |top 10 fluorescent lamps in units sold from the current contract to prices offered by Grainger for the same or |

| |substantially similar products on the lighting segment of the new WSCA MRO contract. The result of the comparison |

| |showed Grainger's prices to be an average of more than 7 percent lower than the current contract. |

| | |

| |OSP management is considering its options in light of the new information. |

|May 5, 2011 |The solicitation coordinator continues to fine-tune the bid document, particularly in sections about evaluation of |

| |environmental factors, mainly mercury. Discussion continues about the relative weight to give other non-cost factors –|

| |recycling plan, retail coverage, RoHS compliance, electronic ordering capability and purchasing card acceptance with |

| |Level 3 reporting – and whether they should be pass/fail while bumping up the value for mercury, essentially giving all|

| |the points to “net mercury.” |

| |Meanwhile, the solicitation coordinator is awaiting the go-ahead to post the bid. |

|May 27, 2011 |Solicitation posted |

| |Solicitation 07510 was posted to WEBS. |

| | |

| |[pic] |

|June 2, 2011 |Solicitation Amendment 1 |

| |Amendment 1 (07510a1) clarifies where bid pricing for items not listed in the Market Basket should be entered on the |

| |Price Worksheet (Appendix D); and clarified the original Bid due date. |

| | |

| |[pic] |

|June 6, 2011 |Solicitation Amendment 2 |

| |Amendment 2 (07510a 2) aligns Appendix C (Bidder Profile) more closely with bidder requirements in the solicitation |

| |document; and allows bidders to enter the name of the manufacturer being bid in Appendix D (Price Worksheet). |

| | |

| |[pic] |

|June 15, 2011 |Pre-Bid Conference |

| |After meeting with vendors at the pre-Bid conference, OSP adjusted the solicitation in several ways: |

| |Made the Bid price the manufacturers’ list price, rather than the Trade Services catalog price, and made the Bid price |

| |fixed for 180 days from June 30, 2011; |

| |Made Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) compliance mandatory for every market basket line item for which the |

| |certification is applicable; |

| |Added the Interstate 90 corridor to the requirement for stores to serve walk-in customers. |

| |[pic][pic] |

|June 17, 2011 |Solicitation Amendment 3 |

| |Amendment 3 (07510a3): |

| |Clarified the source of the manufacturer’s list price to be listed by bidders per line item on the Price Worksheet; |

| |Clarified the state’s requirement for sales coverage for “walk-in” customers; added language requiring bidders to |

| |demonstrate compliance with the Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) directive for lamps and bulbs; a |

| |Allows for the explanation of any “No” answers to RoHS compliance in the Letter of Proposal (Appendix E). |

| | |

| |[pic] |

|June 28, 2011 |Solicitation Amendment 4 |

| |Amendment 4 (07510a4) extended the bid due date to July 21, 2011. |

| | |

| | |

| |[pic] |

|July 7, 2011 |Solicitation Amendment 5 |

| |Amendment 5 (07510a5): |

| |Amended the bid-due deadline to July 28; |

| |Amended the price worksheet to correct the total points available for price; |

| |Reflects the change away from the Trade Services catalog to manufacturer's price, as amended in Amendment 3; |

| |Removed five line items from the price worksheet because they are not universally provided items; |

| |Removed any presupposition of projected equivalencies to the standard of quality; |

| |Furnished a revised price worksheet for bidders; clarified how a Prompt Payment Discount is scored in evaluating bids; |

| |and |

| |Offered a Q&A that clarified that bidders can NOT bid parts that do not meet the listed specification, and CAN bid |

| |parts that exceed specs. |

| | |

| |[pic] |

|July 20, 2011 |Solicitation Amendment 6 |

| |Amendment 6 (07510a6) made language in the "Contract Pricing" section of the solicitation be consistent with the "Bid |

| |Pricing" section; and corrected a part number on the price worksheet. |

| | |

| |[pic] |

|July 20, 2011 |Evaluator resources (bid document, Evaluation Worksheet) were sent to the team of evaluators to help them prepare to |

| |judge non-cost factors of the bid packages. Anthony Miller of UW, Karen Hamilton of King County, Ken Cohrs and Keith |

| |Calais of DOT, and Darin Rice and Peggy Morgan of Ecology agreed to be evaluators. |

| | |

| |[pic] |

|July 28, 2011 |Bid deadline |

| |Three bids were received before 2 p.m. on the bid due date and determined to be initially responsive: Consolidated |

| |Electrical Distributors, Platt Electric, and JozyGee LLC. |

| |A fourth vendor (North Coast Electric) submitted a bid package, but intentionally did not offer a Price Worksheet |

| |because of concerns over price volatility due to fluctuations in the marketplace for "rare earth" minerals, a key |

| |component in many of the products being bid. |

| |A fifth vendor did not submit a bid package, but came to OSP in person to explain that his manufacturer could not |

| |authorize offering a bid because of concerns about clauses in the solicitation about liquidated damages and |

| |indemnification. |

|Aug. 1, 2011 |Potter and Scott ran the formulas for pricing and net mercury, and determined that CED had the lowest net pricing and |

| |the lowest net mercury. |

| | |

| |Bid tab: |

| |[pic] |

|Aug. 2, 2011 |Non-cost evaluators were sent the non-disclosure form to sign and return. |

|Aug. 8, 2011 |Packets of bidder responses for non-cost factors were sent to evaluators. |

|Aug. 12, 2011 |The last of the evaluated non-cost packets were returned to Potter. |

|Aug. 24, 2011 |The bid of JozyGee LLC was determined to be non-responsive for failing to provide a Price Worksheet on a CD-ROM, as |

| |required in Section 5.1 of the Solicitation document. Having only a hard copy worksheet made it impossible to apply the|

| |pricing and net mercury evaluation formulas embedded in the Excel spreadsheet. JozyGee’s bid package also did not |

| |include an electronic Word document of the Solicitation document. |

|Aug. 24, 2011 |Discussion of non-cost evaluations |

| |Two bidders, Platt and CED, were deemed responsive and their ratings by the non-cost evaluation team were considered. |

| |Non-cost results are on Sheet 2 of the bid tab: |

| |[pic] |

| |Platt received a “Fail” grade from one evaluator for not addressing Level 3 reporting in its discussion of |

| |purchasing-card acceptance; OSP did not require Level 3, but expressed a preference for having the capability. |

| |Therefore, Platt is deemed to have earned a “Pass” in that category. |

| |CED and Platt both were given “need more information” ratings by one evaluator in the recycling category. The evaluator|

| |based the rating on a perceived failure by the Bidders to outline a plan for achieving 100 percent recycling of spent |

| |lamps; OSP did not require a plan to get to 100 percent, only a “clear and workable” plan for working with the state’s |

| |recycling contractor. Therefore, OSP deems both Bidders to have earned “Pass” in that category. |

| |After analyzing the non-cost evaluations, OSP finds that neither responsive Bidder earned disqualifying ratings. Both |

| |Bidders satisfactorily met the requirements for compliance with the non-cost requirements of the evaluation. |

|Aug. 29, 2011 |JozyGee was notified by email and regular mail that its bid would not be considered in the competition. |

| | |

| |[pic] |

|Aug. 31, 2011 |OSP issued a Notice of Intent to Award naming CED as the Apparent Successful Bidder. Letters were sent to CED and |

| |Platt. |

| | |

| | |

| |[pic][pic] |

|Sept. 1, 2011 |Meeting with Bruce Goetsch of Platt to discuss disclosable aspects of the bid, which at this point included informing |

| |him that Platt finished second in the bidding in both pricing and net mercury. Mr. Goetsch requested a meeting after |

| |notice of formal award, which can occur no sooner than Sept. 9. He also requested and was provided WAC references to |

| |protest procedures. |

|Sept. 9, 2011 |Award was made through WEBS to CED. Unsuccessful bidders were notified through WEBS. Letters were sent to CED and |

| |Platt. |

| | |

| |[pic][pic] |

|Sept. 9, 2011 |Meeting with Bruce Goetsch of Platt to look at CED’s pricing and mercury bid. Mr. Goetsch said he would closely study |

| |CED’s bid and OSP’s application of its evaluation formulas to see if there would be a basis for protest after award. |

| |He requested and was provided references to language from the Bid document regarding protest requirements and |

| |procedures. Today, Sept. 9, is Day One of the five-day period in which a protest after award must be filed. |

|Sept. 15, 2011 |Platt Electric notified OSP by email (attached) that it was filing an official protest of the award to CED. |

| |Platt claims the values cited as “estimated annual quantity” in Column E of the Price Worksheet for the categories of |

| |compact fluorescents and incandescent lamps did not accurately reflect the state lighting marketplace. |

| | |

| |As a result, Platt claims, the awarded bidder steeply reduced the price of compact fluorescent lamps “knowing that |

| |these numbers were unrealistic and overinflated.” The awardee, Platt claims, was then able to inflate its pricing on |

| |linear fluorescent lamps. |

| |OSP protest manager Steve Krueger is researching the protest. |

| |[pic] |

|Sept. 19, 2011 |Colbert and Potter met with Arthur Van Gelder, sales manager for CED (vendor for expiring contract 00802), to discuss |

| |how to serve the state’s lighting customers while implementation of 07510 is on hold because of the protest. |

| |If the protest is not resolved by the Sept. 27 expiration of the most recent extension of 00802, CED has agreed to |

| |serve contract customers through Dec. 27, 2011, or until 07510 is in place. (00802 contract amendment attached). |

| |During the extension period, CED will offer linear fluorescent lamps at adjusted prices and honor current 00802 prices |

| |for all other products on the contract on a provisional price sheet agreed upon in consultation with OSP. |

| | |

| |[pic] |

|Sept. 27, 2011 |Protest manager Krueger completed a draft response to the protest, which is on the Chief Purchasing Officer’s desk for |

| |approval and signature. |

|Sept. 29, 2011 |Meeting with CED’s Arthur Van Gelder and John Sande to talk about the potential for lower prices on certain market |

| |basket items. CED promised to provide Potter a list of items for which it might be willing to offer prices lower than |

| |offered in its bid. |

|Sept. 29, 2011 |Chief Purchasing Office Christine Warnock sent a letter to Platt Electric officially denying its protest. Customers |

| |for Contract 00802 have been informed through the bi-weekly bulletin and broadcast that they can continue to use 00802 |

| |until all potential issues around the protest are resolved and Contract 07510 is in place and operating. |

| | |

| |[pic][pic] |

|Sept. 30, 2011 |Arthur Van Gelder of CED provided proposed reduced pricing. Dale Colbert is evaluating the proposal. |

| | |

| |[pic][pic] |

|Oct. 6, 2011 |OSP has accepted CED’s pricing proposal. Official start date for the contract is Oct. 24, 2011. |

| | |

| | |

| | |

|Date: |Contract Administrator: ______________________________________ |

| | |

|Date: |Unit Manager: _____________________________________________ |

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

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

Google Online Preview   Download