Memo to File - Washington



[pic]

Award Memo & Checklist

Contract #01913- Travel Services; Agent Assisted and Internet Based

Procurement Coordinators: Connie Stacy, Sarah Harris and Jessica Smith

Customer Stakeholder Team: Washington State Department of Transportation (Brent Pierson), Employment Security Department (Samantha Salazar), Department of Fish and Wildlife (Laura Burbank), Spokane County (Margaret Smith), Office of Financial Management (Bret Brodersen), The State Investment Board (Rick Holcomb), The Evergreen State College (Alan Smith) and The Childhood Center for Deafness and Hearing Loss (Lorana Myers).

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

| |Restricted to:       |

|Contract Duration: |Initial Term: two years (10/01/13 thru 09/30/15) |

| |Maximum life: six years |

| |Maximum Date: 09/30/19 |

|Estimated Value: |Estimated Term Worth: $3,000,000.00 |

| |Estimated Annual Worth: $1,500,000.00 |

|Bidders: |Number of Bidders notified: 154 |

| |MWBEs notified: 17, Veteran Owned: 3, Small Businesses: 22 |

| |Bids received: 38 (one a “no bid”) |

| |Bids Rejected: 0 |

|Notification Method: | WEBS |

| |Other: |

| |Notified existing contractors for Contracts 00309 and 07406 via email distribution list of the upcoming |

| |opportunity, and also when the actual RFP had been posted to WEBS |

| |Mick Matsumato/OMWBE indicated they had notified the six certified mwbe’s registered as travel service |

| |providers |

|NIGP Commodity Codes: |961-78 |

|Summary: |Replaces 07406 (Internet Based) and 00309 (Agent Assisted), both of which have been extended through |

|[pic] |September 30, 2013. DES Executive Management guidance was sought due to the political nature - see imbedded|

| |doc which was the final version of two previous. Ro Marcus/AD approved the recommendation to continue to |

| |provide customer choice by developing a “qualified vendor pool” (with a regional award designation |

| |component) primarily to continue enabling mbe, wbe, small and veteran owned companies to participate. |

|Bid Development |

|Stakeholder work: | Customer Forum: |

|[pic][pic][pic][pic] |(Previous buyer, Sarah Harris, had conducted a Stakeholder Survey in October, 2012, and team membership was|

| |solicited/ selected from the responses) |

| |We facilitated several meetings with travel advisors from the Washington State Department of Transportation |

| |(Brent Pierson), Employment Security Department (Samantha Salazar), Dept of Fish and Wildlife (Laura |

| |Burbank), Spokane County (Margaret Smith), Office of Financial Management (Bret Brodersen), the State |

| |Investment Board (Rick Holcomb), the Evergreen State College (Alan Smith), Childhood Center for Deafness and|

| |Hearing Loss (Lorana Myers). Although the team originally included representatives from UW, King County and|

| |WWU, those members were unable to participate due to the time commitment. The advisors participated in the |

| |three Vendor Forums and Pre-bid conference. |

| |Vendor Forum: the team conducted three vendor forums in June, 2013; Olympia, Seattle and Spokane. Servando |

| |Patlan, DES Diversity Program Manager, and Mick Matsumoto, OMWBE, participated in each. Overall, approx. |

| |thirty five vendors attended, several being potential new vendors. Meeting minutes were posted on WEBS for |

| |each forum. The team considered vendor input when finalizing the RFP document (providing a “sort” |

| |capability to customers by a variety of criteria, that internet providers should all be required to provide |

| |reports, etc). |

|Market Research: |-Participated in the WSCA-NASPO Webinar regarding the recent award of a Travel Program contract with a |

| |single provider, and the Discount Airfare contract with Southwest Airlines |

| |-Based upon conversations with Delta, Alaska and Southwest Airlines, it appears that an abundance of other |

| |states continue to contract with a variety of service providers for the same reasons our state does. |

| |Therefore, it is a widely adopted practice which is accepted by the airlines, although they offer a no cost |

| |online booking tool which they market to customers. |

| |-During the Vendor Forums, we solicited input from the service providers regarding current industry |

| |standards, customer demand trends, and readily available technology. |

|EPP Strategy: |-Although our standard “Environmental and Economic Goals” clause was incorporated in the RFP, none of the |

| |bidders provided relative information in their responses |

|Supplier Diversity Strategy: |As noted above, three vendor forums were conducted with both DES’s Supplier Diversity Program Manager, |

| |Servando Patlan, and an OMWBE representative on the panel/agenda, providing the participants with |

| |information regarding state goals and assistance with becoming certified. They were also looking for the |

| |participants to identify any barriers in the proposed RFP (none identified). |

| |Is Certification language provided “Up Front” in the solicitation? |

| |Yes, see Section 2.11 (page 8) |

| |Did you include OMWBE in sourcing team? |

| |Yes, please see previous notation |

| |Did you identify and remove barriers on this procurement? |

| |Yes, we used the Vendor Forums to identify any potential barriers and continued with multiple award concept |

| |Is a diversity plan included as part of the bid response prior to award (if certified firms are |

| |subcontractors)? |

| |We are highlighting mwbe/small and veteran owed participation in the CCI (including “self certified”), |

| |including a promotional opportunity to help them market their firm, and conducting a travel agency expo to |

| |allow them additional marketing opportunities, and also providing a “sort” capability for customers seeking|

| |these types of contractors. |

| |Does this procurement offer second tier opportunities and reporting. |

| |No |

| |Did you encourage subcontracting efforts at the Prebid Conference? |

| |Yes |

|Best Value/Savings Strategy | |

| |Because we are continuing to offer customers “choice”, their definition of “best value” may or may not |

| |include actual dollar savings related to the “booking fee” costs. Instead, it could be doing business with a|

| |local firm to help the local economy, doing business with an mwbe to help achieve agency diversity goals, or|

| |doing business with a veteran owned company to assist the state in achieving the governor’s directive in |

| |providing employment to our veterans. |

| |We also offered bidders a “promotional opportunity” (one page or less) that we published in the CCI. This is|

| |seen as a previously unavailable marketing endeavor where they can highlight potential cost savings amongst |

| |other publicity factors such as wmvbe owned, unique service capabilities, etc. |

| |We also counseled the bidders to consider enhancing their websites to be more “contract friendly” since an |

| |increasing number of customers have that expectation. |

| |Finally, we developed a “sort” Excel spreadsheet which is incorporated into the CCI (will be working with |

| |DES Communications regarding the possibility of publishing on the actual contract portal page), which will |

| |allow customers to “sort” by a variety of factors including: mwvbe status, location by city/county/region, |

| |lowest price for both Agent Assisted and Internet based|

| |services, and contractor name. |

|Bid Development: |Geographic considerations: to achieve a “regional award”, we are identifying which contractors are located |

| |in each DOT region/district, and providing a “sort” capability by region, county and city for use by |

| |customers to easily identify contractors by this criteria if needed. |

| Peer Review |Sarah Harris, the stakeholder team and Cheral Jones, UM |

| Fee? |.74% management fee |

|Bid Process |

|Bid Posted to WEBS: |07/12/13 |

|[pic] | |

|Pre-Bid: |Optional attendance pre-bid conducted July 23, 2013 in Olympia with approx. fifteen prospective bidders, as well|

| |as stakeholder team members from OFM, Evergreen State College, DFW, ESD and SIB. |

|Amendment(s): |Amendment One to provide responses to bidder questions, clarification of several service elements and list of |

| |pre-bid attendees. Bid closing date of 07/31/13 – 2:00 pm unchanged |

|[pic] | |

| | |

|Bid Evaluation—Responsiveness |

|Clarifications and acceptance of Bidder submittals, information, and product offerings were applied uniformly for all Bidders. |

|Bid Opening: |July 31, 2013 – 2:00 pm |

|Bids Sealed & Signed? |All thirty seven bids received were signed and sealed. |

|Received all required |Required Submittals: |

|submittals? |“RFQ submittals (checklist) |

|[pic] |The following checklist identifies the hard copy submittals which will comprise a response. Any response received|

| |without a hard copy of the items identified in this checklist and designated as REQUIRED will be rejected as |

| |being non-responsive. Please identify each page of the submittals, as well as any supplemental materials with |

| |your company name or other identifiable company mark. |

| |Signature (REQUIRED): Complete as instructed and return a signed original of the Authorized Offer and Contract |

| |Signature Page. DES prefers blue ink. |

| |Price sheet (REQUIRED): Complete as instructed and return a copy of the Price sheet - Appendix D. Failure to |

| |complete this submittal as instructed may result in a bid being rejected for lack of responsiveness. |

| |Bidder Profile (REQUIRED) Complete as instructed and return a copy of the Bidder Profile - Appendix C |

| |Copy of Registered Seller of Travel License (REQUIRED) issued by the Washington State Department of Licensing |

| |Copy of Airlines Reporting Corporation (ARC) certification/accreditation (REQUIRED) |

| |Copy of International Air Transport Association (IATA) certification/accreditation (REQUIRED) |

| |RFQ amendments (AS INSTRUCTED): If instructed to do so in any amendment to this RFQ, sign and return a copy. |

| |Failure to sign and return any required amendments to this RFQ, may result in a bid being rejected for lack of |

| |responsiveness. When in doubt, sign and return a copy of all RFQ amendments. |

| |Outcome: |

| |All thirty eight bidders provided all required submittals |

|Specification compliance? |No bidders took exception to the “Minimum Service Requirements” specified in Appendix B |

|Price Sheet compliance? |All bidders completed Appendix D, Price Sheets, appropriately, offering pricing for Agent Assisted and/or |

| |Internet Based services. |

| |Four bidders were notified that, for Internet Based Services, set-up/implementation fees were not permitted as |

| |clarified in Amendment One, and offered the option to withdraw the fee or have their bid rejected as |

| |nonresponsive. Three chose to withdraw the fee (emails in hard copy folders), one chose to withdraw from |

| |providing Internet Based services in it entirety. |

|Other Responsiveness |Other than the above specified in the “required submittals”, we checked Dept of Veteran’s Affairs website |

|checks? |“registery” of certified Veteran Owned Businesses as well as their list of those in process of being certified, |

| |and OMWBE’s website of certified mwbe vendors. |

|Bid Evaluation—Scoring |

|Evaluation: |Exert from rfp: |

| |“4.4 Evaluation process |

| |DES and the Travel Stakeholder Team will conduct the following for each response deemed “responsive” in |

| |accordance with Clauses 4.2 and 4.3 described above: |

| |Determine the geographical location of the business submitting the response |

| |Review the price sheets to determine if there appears to be any anomalies in comparison to other rates offered, |

| |and other bidder responses |

| |Determine (if minority, woman, small business or veteran business ownership has been claimed), if the business |

| |has been certified by the Office of Minority and Women Business Enterprises, the US Small Business |

| |Administration, or the Department of Veteran Affairs |

| |Review bidder’s proposed “Stipulations”, “Special Features” and “Promotional Opportunity” language for clarity, |

| |applicability, and reasonableness to the intended purpose and spirit of the contract |

| |4.5 Announcement of apparent successful bidders |

| |Following evaluation as outlined above, an announcement of the Apparent Successful Bidders will occur through |

| |WEBS. Following such announcement, a post-award conference will occur via conference call, WebEx or other |

| |electronic avenue. Should a bidder not be awarded, they may request a debrief conference, please see Appendix # |

| |E, Complaint, Debrief and Protest Procedures. Failure to follow instructions could result in your claim being |

| |denied. |

| |4.6 Award |

| |An award, in part or full, is made by DES signature on the signature page (Authorized Offer and Contract |

| |Signature Page). In some circumstances, DES may include an award letter which further defines the award and is |

| |included by reference to accompany the signature page. |

| |Following the award, all bidders will receive a Notice of Award, through a WEBS notification. |

| |The resulting contract award notice will also be published on DES’s contract website, with the anticipation of |

| |providing in an Excel format the following “sort” capabilities (subject to change): |

| |Agent assisted contractors |

| |Internet based contractors |

| |Alphabetical by contractor’s business name |

| |Numerical by booking fee prices (low to high, and high to low) |

| |Geographical location of contractor by state, region, county and city/town |

| |MWBE, Small and Veteran business ownership” |

|Bid Evaluation—Responsibility |

|Past Performance? |One bidder, Boersma, was a previous contractor who had their internet based contract terminated due to |

| |nonperformance issues (the contract was our first attempt at contracting for an “on line” provider in year 2007).|

| |Because I could find no records indicating permanent removal from the bid list, considered them responsive and |

| |will monitor performance. |

|Qualifications? |As noted above in “required submittals”, bidders were required to provide an ARC and IATA certification number as|

| |well as evidence of being certified by State of Washington’s Department of Licensing as a “seller of travel”. One|

| |bidder provided evidence that he had submitted payment/application to DOL therefore was considered responsive. |

|OMWBE Evaluation: |Proposed contract award includes: |

| |1 mwbe |

| |5 wbes |

| |2 veterans |

| |Approx. 25 small businesses |

| |Out of a total of 37 responsive bids. |

| | |

| |Washington procurement law does not allow for a preference or advantage to minority (MBE) or women (WBE) |

| |businesses. Accordingly, no evaluation preferences were given to this group. |

| |However, we are designating vendors as mbe, wbe, small and/or veteran owned if they indicated they were in the |

| |their responses (and will provide as a “sort” capability). We checked DVA’s and OMWBE’s website for current |

| |certification status (see earlier comments). |

| |Overall, DVA is in the process of certifying one bidder (Veteran’s Technology/JanAir Express), and OMWBE has |

| |current certifications for six wbes (All Ways, Artistic, Journey, Lake City, Scan East West and Travel Leaders) |

| |and a single mwbe (MYO’s). It is unknown if OMWBE is in the process of certifying additional firms. |

| |Although estimated percent of future participation is difficult to project, for the CCI and PCMS purposes, we are|

| |projecting a conservative 10% or $150,000.00/year (eight vendors represent 20% of the total 37). |

|Results & Recommendation |

|Savings: |Although savings (dollar) are unable to be determined at this time, a review of new pricing (see attached cost |

|[pic] |analysis) indicates that there is indeed a potential savings if customers select vendors based upon pricing, |

| |which would include switching from Agent Assisted to Internet Based services which is notably far less expensive |

| |(more than 50%): |

| |For “Agent Assisted” Services: |

| |Although only one of our existing contractors (Travel Leaders) lowered pricing (from $40 to $30) for benefit of |

| |the new contract; |

| |-Of the nine new vendors, two (one a noncertified vbe) offer lower pricing than existing/new lowest priced |

| |contractors (three lowest existing at $18.15/ $19 and $21, while the two new lowest are at $16.50 and $17.80) |

| |For “Internet Based” Services: |

| |Although current contractor, Azumano, lowered pricing from $8.00 to $7.00 for benefit of the new contract… |

| |Of the thirteen new vendors, two (one a noncertified vbe) offer even lower pricing of $2.00 and $6.50 |

| |After the initial year of contract use, we should be able to identify actual savings based upon quarterly sales |

| |reports. |

|Recommendation: |Award contract to the thirty seven responsive responsible bidders with delineation by region, as reflected on the|

| |Contract Award Notice document |

| |With stakeholder team participation, explore possibility of holding one-time Vendor Fair, targeting customer |

| |travel staff. OFM has a distribution list they’ve offered us for communication purposes. We envision each vendor |

| |being given a five minute slot for presentation purposes, and perhaps a table to conduct one-on-one interviews. |

|Award Activities |

|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: |

|PCMS | Populate PCMS Info Tab |

| |Complete PCMS Expanded Description Tab |

| |Add Web remark in the PCMS Remarks Tab announcing the award of the contract |

| |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 Website |Copy the following files into the :\Shared Info\INTERNET folder: |

|Link to: Current Contract |Copy CCI |

|Portal Training |Copy the price sheet |

| |Copy the bid tab |

| |Copy the bid document |

| |Copy the bid amendment |

| |Copy the Award Memo to File bid document |

| |Copy the Frequently Asked Questions |

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

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

Google Online Preview   Download