Memo to File



AWARD MEMO & CHECKLIST

Contract 04913 – On-Line File Storage

Procurement Coordinator: Dale Colbert

|Contract Type: |

|New Rebid Replacement WSCA Enterprise General Use |

|No restrictions. For use by Washington State Agencies, Institutions of Higher Education, Political Subdivisions, and Non-Profit Corporations. |

|This contract will also be available for use by Oregon’s Department of Administrative Services Cooperative Purchasing Program (ORCPP) based on|

|Contractor’s acceptance. |

|Contract Duration: |

|Initial Term: 2 Year |

|Maximum life: 3 Years |

|Estimated Value: |

|0Estimated Annual Worth: $400,000 |

|Bidders: |

|Number of WEBS registered Bidders notified: 3000 |

|MWBE’s notified: 9 |

|Small Business records notified: 41 |

|Veteran owned records notified: 7 |

| |

|Bids received: 6 |

|Bids Rejected: 0 |

| WEBS was used to notify bidders |

|Summary: |This contract was requested by numerous IT CIOs. Their effort was centralized and coordinated by the OCIO. Dave|

| |Kirk acted as sourcing team master in the development and evaluation phases. Regular meetings were held to |

| |develop requirements and about a dozen agencies played a role. |

| | |

| |The resulting Contract is for use by Washington State Agencies, Institutions of Higher Education, Political |

| |Subdivisions, and Non-Profit Corporations. |

| | |

| |The awarded will be tested for security through a design review to be conducted by CTS. Current plans call for |

| |this service to be rolled out to users in November. |

| |There is no estimate for future volume. At present about 1300 users are on systems similar to this without |

| |contract protection. |

| |The RFQQ document was developed with input from technical advisors at OCIO, LNI, DES, CTS, DSHS,DOC, SIB, DFI, |

| |ATG, and ECY. |

|Bid Development |

|Stakeholder work | |

| |Customer Forum: |

|Customer |Several such meetings were held as the requirements were developed. I |

|Forum | |

| |2. Vendor Demos |

|Vendor Demos |Technical advisors from the industry were engaged via in-person as well as |

| |Telephone in live demonstrations of proposed services. |

| | |

| |3. Vendor Forum: |

| |No vendor outreach meeting was held. |

|Vendor Forum | |

|Strategy: |It was MCC’s intention that this solicitation might provide some experience in using a competitive process for |

| |technology software as a service. In the past, these have been treated as sole source suppliers and directly |

| |negotiated contracts were established. |

| |The problem being addressed was the issue of competing unlike services. Apple-orange competitions are always a |

| |challenge. In this case our work-plan consisted of: |

| |Developing a very robust “requirements” document |

| |Parsing it into pass/fail, mandatory, and desirable elements |

| |Establishing a solid evaluation team |

| |Establishing a tiered evaluation with each step reducing the total number of active participants |

| |Ending the process with a demonstration by the most likely |

| |Skewing the scoring toward the demo to allow evaluators to award demonstrators for actually having the |

| |capabilities they claimed in earlier phases |

| |Treating cost like a “non-cost factor” by: |

| |Not doing a direct cost versus cost spend analysis |

| |Instead doing a “value analysis” comparing cost to delivered value and having evaluators report a “score” |

| | |

| |All of this worked well. The requirements quickly narrowed the field. |

| |US Archive presented a nice proposal, but the OCIO had required the awarded system to currently be capable of |

| |enforcing its password requirements. The next step was to be a system test which would have had to show that |

| |USA could meet all requirements as of the day the bid was submitted. US Archive is capable of developing such a|

| |capability, but a conference call with them clearly established it was not in place on bid due date. They were |

| |not invited to the demonstrations. |

| |Chaves presented a plan that called for CTS to act as host. This was in conflict with several requirements in |

| |the bid, which were designed to attract on off-premis solution. No doubt they could provide such a system but |

| |did not detail it in the submission …. no details, no pricing. Chaves was not invited to participate in the |

| |demonstrations. |

| |The evaluation team also determined that EMC did not meet minimum specifications. EMC was not invited to |

| |participate in the demonstrations. |

|Bid Development: |CIOs identified this service as a candidate for a contract due to the rapid adoption by agency staff, which was|

| |occurring without appropriate screening. |

| Fee |Yes Contract Administrative Fee .74% |

|Bid Process |

|Q and A |Through August 22, 2013 – COB |

|Amendment(s): | |

| |Four |

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

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

|Bid Evaluation—Responsiveness |

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

|Bid Opening: |September 4, 2013 – 4:00 PM |

|[pic] |This bid was open to any vendor. Six bids were received, none were untimely. |

| |Vendor |

| | |

| |Date & time received |

| | |

| |US Archive |

| | |

| |9-4-13 @ 3:56 p.m. |

| | |

| |EMC |

| | |

| |9-4-13 @ 3:42 p.m. |

| | |

| |CenturyLink |

| | |

| |9-4-13 @ 2:40 p.m. |

| | |

| |Chaves |

| |Box |

| |Cloud Power |

| | |

| |One bid was later found to have been sent to the wrong email box. It was not |

| |found in time for consideration. |

| |“Accerillion” |

| | |

| | |

| |9-3-13 @ 4:41 p.m |

| |9-3-13 @ 3:17 p.m. |

| |9-3-13 @ 1:55 p.m. |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

|Bids Signed |Bids were received signed and on time. |

|Received all required |Required Submittals Per Section 9.5: |

|submittals |Signature |

| | |

| |Appendix A: Certifications and Assurances |

| | |

| |Appendix D: Bidder Profile |

| | |

| |Appendix E: Price Sheet |

| | |

| |Signed Amendment #4 |

| | |

|Specification compliance |Outcome: |

| |Bidders provided the requested Technical Specification data with their bid and/or through clarification. One |

| |bidder was determined to not meet all requirements. He was not rejected as we did not know the status of others|

| |for certain. EMC was kept in the evaluation until the demo established there was an awardable bidder. |

|Price Sheet compliance? |Outcome: |

| |Bidders provided the requested Price Sheet data with their bid and/or through clarification. No responsive |

| |issues were noted (All responsive). |

|Bid Evaluation—Scoring |

|Evaluation: |AWARD CRITERIA |

| |EVALUATION |

| |Contract award may be made to the highest scoring Responsive and Responsible Bidder(s) based on the evaluation |

| |and award criteria established herein and subject to consideration of all factors identified in statute. |

|Bid Evaluation—Scoring-cont |

| |Cost Evaluation: |

| |Cost Review |

| |Twenty per cent of the award consideration will be based on value, i.e. cost versus deliverable functionality |

| |as determined by a panel of subject matter experts. |

| |Non-Cost Evaluation: |

| |Non-cost factors were scored in two processes. In a written submission evaluation, 30 percent of the award |

| |consideration was based on a review of these submissions by a panel of subject matter experts. |

| |In a subsequent process, finalists were scored in a demonstration of functionality. In the demonstration, the |

| |panel awarded points worth 50 percent in the final consideration. |

| |No rejection notice will be sent to unsuccessful Bidders. Bidders whose Bids are determined to be |

| |non-responsive will be rejected and will be notified of the reasons for such rejection. |

| |Bidders not initially invited to the demonstrations were still under |

| |consideration until the ASV determination was made. |

|Bid Evaluation—Responsibility |

|Past Performance? |The bid language allowed for requesting references. These have proven positive |

|Qualifications? |The ASV underwent a design review and was found to meet requirements |

|Other |The ASV sought revisions to the published Ts and Cs. These were reviewed and at a customer’ s request, the |

| |OCIO, the draft was sent to their ATG, Mark Lyon. Mr. Lyon’ s advice was reviewed and in many cases accepted. |

| |The issues were worked down to a very few and then advise was sought. Our normal counsel, Greg Tolbert was |

| |involved with another project and was unavailable. The project sought advice from Jim Gayton. Jim advised that|

| |while the level of liability was inadequate to our wishes, it was probably the best we could hope foe given the|

| |low value of the contract as a whole. |

| | |

| | |

| | |

|Award Activities |

|Communication | Send apparent successful bidder announcement letter |

| |Send Award Announcement letter |

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

| |Provided Debriefings as requested |

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

|Tech-mall Website |Create an entry in the Cloud piano Key |

| |Provide a Logo and info |

| |Provide a Contract file as a link |

| |Provide a price sheet as a link |

| |Provide a user Guide |

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

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

Google Online Preview   Download