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.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- apprenticeship program standards
- memo to file
- higher education coordinating board
- senior year binder system washington state
- washington revised highly qualified teachers state plan
- washington state university
- secretary of state of washington
- community options program entry system washington
- clover park technical college educating tomorrow s
- washington state gear up 2018 partnership application
Related searches
- how to file your own taxes
- how to file a garnishment
- how to file complaint against attorney
- how to file wage garnishment
- sample internal memo to staff
- memo to employees sample
- motivational memo to employees
- policy change memo to employees
- sample memo to staff employees
- memo to employees announcing benefit
- memo to employee
- lunch break memo to employees