STATE OF FLORIDA FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES FL ACCESS MAILING / SCANNING /INDEXING SERVICES ITN# 01F12GC1

Transcription

1 STATE OF FLORIDA FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES FL ACCESS MAILING / SCANNING /INDEXING SERVICES ITN# 01F12GC1 HISTORICAL PROCUREMENT DOCUMENT Date: 10/23/12 Version: /23/12 Page 1 of 23 ITN # 01F12GC1

2 Contents Section 1 Overview Timeline Proposal Responses... 8 Section 2 Proposal Evaluation and Scoring Overview Respondent Responses Section 3 Preliminary Negotiations and Demonstrations Overview Negotiation Team Round 1 Negotiations Comparative Analysis Vendor Site Visit Interim Revised Proposal (IRR) # Round 2 Negotiations Interim Revised Proposal (IRR) # Round 3 Negotiations Interim Revised Proposal (IRR)# Interim Revised Proposal (IRR) # Interim Revised Proposal (IRR) # Paired Comparison Move Forward public meeting Section 4 Contract Negotiations Section 5 Recommendation for Award Section 6 intent to Award Section 7 Inventory of Procurement Artifacts /23/12 Page 2 of 23 ITN # 01F12GC1

3 SECTION 1 OVERVIEW The purpose of this document is to provide the Florida Department of Children and Families (Department) with an overview of the procurement processes for ITN Number 01F12GC1 - FL ACCESS Mail / Scan Services. This report details the chronology of major events and milestones of the ITN process. 1.1 Timeline The process for initiating the Mail Scan project began in May of A high-level timeline of the key procurement tasks is illustrated below: Exhibit 1: Procurement Timeline A summary description of the major events and milestones achieved during the Mail / Scan project include: May 7, 2012, development of the ITN began. May 24, 2012, The Invitation to Negotiate (ITN # 01F12GC1) was released by the Department, Office of Economic Self-Sufficiency (ESS) to obtain services to implement and manage a centralized mail and scanning operation center that allows for centralized mail and return mail processing, document preparation, scanning, imaging, and document indexing. The document was posted to the VBS at 4:30 p.m. Eastern. June 7, An addendum (#1) was posted to modify Section Notices Regarding the ITN. 10/23/12 Page 3 of 23 ITN # 01F12GC1

4 June 7, An addendum (#2) was posted to modify the Schedule of Events to include a conference call in number. June 8, A Solicitation Conference call was held to discuss the solicitation. June 14, An addendum (#3) was posted to the VBS system naming the new Procurement Manager for this ITN. June 15, Vendor questions were received. One vendor (Iron Mountain) provided ten questions after the required deadline of 3:15 pm on 6/15/2012. Legal stated to answer questions as long as it would not delay the ability of the department to post to VBS by the scheduled date of 6/22/12 at 5pm. The vendor questions were added to the list of questions and answered. June 22, An addendum (#4) was posted to VBS delaying the posting of Department responses to vendor questions until June 25, 2012 and updates to the remaining Schedule of Events table were made. June 25, The Department responses to vendor questions were submitted for posting to VBS. June 26, DCF posted to the VBS the Department responses to questions submitted by potential respondents. June 29, the Department received a Notice of Intent to Reply from four vendors: o o o o Datamatics Pitney Bowes Source Corp Xerox July 2, An addendum (#5) was posted to VBS clarifying a question about a vendors ability to visit the Mail Scan facility in Wildwood. July 6, 2012, The sealed replies from 4 vendors were opened and verified: o o o o Datamatics Pitney Bowes Source Corp Xerox A script was developed for the meeting and the script was reviewed by the Procurement Manager prior to the meeting. The script clearly stated a substantive review would be conducted following the meeting. During the meeting, the Procurement Manager publically announced that the Certificate of Signature Authority was modified by SourceCorp. The SourceCorp response would be reviewed further by legal. All other replies were determined to be responsive after a substantive review was completed immediately following the meeting. July 9, Evaluators were approved by the Deputy Secretary. 10/23/12 Page 4 of 23 ITN # 01F12GC1

5 July 10, The legal review of SourceCorp documentation deemed the vendor modification was non-material and as-such, the response was deemed compliant. July 11, SourceCorp contacted the procurement manager advising that they had inadvertently submitted the wrong pricing sheet with their reply. The spreadsheet had zeros in the top row for cost on 'Mail / Fax / Scan / Image Optimization / Index' for Year 1, Year 2 and Year 3. The Vendor requested to correct the situation by replacing the cost spreadsheet with the correct sheet. The procurement manager responded to the Vendor under advice of legal to resolve the vendor s clerical error. The Department decided to permit SourceCorp to submit a correction of its unit prices, shown on its Cost Proposal as $0.00. The submission had to be made by typing or printing the correct unit prices above those shown on the original. DCF provided a revised pricing template with zero amounts on the top line of the cost sheet struck through. The vendor was further advised to make no other changes to the document except to type or print the date of submission. July 11, Evaluator training was completed. July 16, Revised pricing from SourceCorp was received. July 20, Vendor reference scoring was initiated by the Contract Manager. In doing so, it was identified that Datamatics had not provided their references in sealed envelopes. After further review, only references were provided as part of their ITN response document. After reviewing the ITN instructions relating to references, it was determined that ambiguous instructions were provided to Vendors. Section of the ITN instructed Vendors to provide a minimum of three references utilizing the form provided in Appendix VI. The instructions under Appendix VI stated for the vendor to submit separate and verifiable client references in accordance with the instructions provided in Section of the ITN. Appendix VII also included a reference questionnaire to the Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) for the Florida ACCESS Mailing, Scanning, Indexing Services. As a part of their reply, the vendor was instructed to include a number of completed and sealed reference questionnaires using this form. However, Appendix VII was not referenced anywhere else throughout the ITN other than the Table of Contents and the Appendix document itself. Legal made the determination that the failure to provide references using Appendix VII was a minor irregularity. To ensure consistency when validating references, the Procurement Manager called three references provided by each of the vendors and utilized the questionnaire provided in the ITN for scoring purposes. July 23, Evaluator scoring was collected before 5 p.m. Eastern to complete evaluation of vendor responses. July 24, Evaluator scores were reviewed during a public meeting to ensure they were captured correctly into the scoring workbook by the Procurement Manager. July 24, Follow the meeting, the Programmatic scores were added to the Cost scores to determine the total vendor score as outlined in the ITN. July 27, A meeting took place with the Assistant Deputy Secretary to review the evaluator scoring. After a review of the evaluation data, the Assistant Deputy Secretary signed the short-list memo for two vendors, Xerox and Pitney Bowes, to move forward in the procurement process. July 30, The short-list memo was posted to the VBS. 10/23/12 Page 5 of 23 ITN # 01F12GC1

6 August 6, The first strategy meeting with the Mail Scan negotiators was conducted. A draft agenda was developed for the first round of vendor negotiations scheduled for Thursday, August 16, August 16, Round 1 negotiations were conducted with both Pitney Bowes and Xerox. A draft Comparative Analysis document was provided to all negotiators. After the meeting another strategy session with the negotiators was conducted to determine how to proceed. Negotiators agreed to meet again on August 20 to finalize strategy. August 20, Negotiators met to discuss strategy and next steps. A memo was sent to each Vendor offering a site tour for Thursday, August 23. An agenda for the following week was developed based on an IRR that was to be released after the vendors had an opportunity to visit the Wildwood facility. A clarification document was also created for the purposes of defining what a document was and to also provide additional data. August 23, Vendors conducted a site visit at the Wildwood Mail Scan facility. Pitney Bowes was on-sight from 9 am until 11 am and Xerox was on-sight from 1 pm until 3 pm. The site visits for both vendors followed the Agenda with no exception. August 24, an Interim Revised Reply (IRR) #1 was sent out to the Vendors along with revised Mail Scan data that was included as part of a clarification document and a meeting agenda for round 2 Vendor negotiations scheduled for 8/30/12. August 29, Vendor IRR #1 were received from both Vendors. August 30, Vendors were brought in for Round 2 negotiations. Following negotiations, a negotiator strategy session was held to discuss next steps. September 4, An Interim Revised Reply (IRR #2) was sent to the Vendors. September 5, An addendum (#7) was posted to the VBS appending the Schedule of Events. September 7, Vendor IRR #2 were received from both Vendors. September 11, A negotiator strategy session was conducted to plan for the third round of vendor negotiations. September 12, All negotiators completed a paired comparison analysis to assist them in determining Best Value. September 12, Vendors were brought back for Round 3 negotiations. At the end of this meeting, each Vendor was requested (IRR #3) to provide their Best and Final Offers by 8am on September 13, September 12, Pitney Bowes elected to re-submit their Round 2 pricing as their Best and Final offer. September 13, Vendor IRR #3 responses were due. Xerox responded with a letter stating concerns with the negotiation process. No additional change in pricing was provided by Xerox. September 13, The Public Go-forward meeting was cancelled to support an additional IRR (IRR #4). September 14, The Department responded to the Xerox letter where they proposed that they and Pitney Bowes each waive their public records protection so that Xerox and Pitney Bowes each could examine the other s replies and interim responses. 10/23/12 Page 6 of 23 ITN # 01F12GC1

7 DCF advised Xerox in this letter that this proposal was not consistent with the negotiation process under the ITN and would not be entertained by the Department. The Department also advised that a response to Xerox s public records request would be forthcoming. September 17, In a memo from The Procurement Manager, Xerox was advised that the technical and cost scoring would not be provided at this time. September 17, Vendor IRR #4 was sent out to the vendors requesting confirmation of their understanding of requirements, a review of their proposed solution, their confirmed understanding of best value, confirmation of the DCF Pricing Analysis based on the vendor s previous price response, and an opportunity to resubmit pricing. September 17, An addendum (#8) was posted to the VBS appending the Schedule of Events. September 19, Received Vendor response for IRR #4September 21, A second round of paired comparisons were completed by the negotiators. September 24, Presented finding to Director of Access and Deputy Secretary. September 25, the Public Go-forward meeting was cancelled. September 27, An addendum (#9) was posted to the VBS appending the Schedule of Events announcing a Public Go-Forward Meeting. September 28, IRR #5 was sent out to the vendors related to the availability of DCF leased space for project use. October 1, Vendor IRR s were received back. October 4, A Go-Forward meeting was conducted announcing Pitney Bowes as the vendor to continue negotiations. October 5, Pitney Bowes received the Departments draft Statement of Work. October 8, Negotiator strategy meeting was held before negotiations with Pitney Bowes began. An additional break session with the negotiators was conducted during the day to fine tune the strategy moving forward. October 8, Negotiations with Pitney Bowes began to review the Departments draft Statement of Work. October 10, Negotiations with Pitney Bowes continued to review the Departments draft Statement of Work. A negotiator strategy session was also conducted with the negotiators mid-day to further refine the team s strategy moving forward on liquidated damages. October 12, Negotiations with Pitney Bowes continued over the phone to review the Departments draft Statement of Work. A negotiator strategy session was also conducted mid-way through the meeting to further refine the teams strategy moving forward on liquidated damages. October 12, An addendum (#10) was posted to the VBS appending the Schedule of Events. October 15, Negotiations with Pitney Bowes continued to review the Departments draft Statement of Work and finalize liquidated damages. 10/23/12 Page 7 of 23 ITN # 01F12GC1

8 October 17, Received final comments back from Vendor, material agreement made between DCF and Pitney Bowes on SOW. October 17, Final legal review completed on SOW. October 22, The Recommendation for Award meeting was held and a unanimous vote was made to move forward with Recommendation for Award with efunds. October 22, A memo along with a report was provided to the Secretary/Secretary designee. The Secretary designee approved the Intent to Award to Pitney Bowes. October 23, The Intent to Award the FL ACCESS MAILING / SCANNING /INDEXING SERVICES ITN contract was posted to the DMS VBS website. 1.2 Proposal Responses The Agency posted an Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) # 01F12GC1, on May 24, 2012 at 4:30 pm Eastern. The ITN requested proposing vendors to submit their responses no later than 3:00 p.m. on July 6, The Department sought replies from responsible vendors for: A centralized mail collection, scanning and indexing partner for the State of Florida s ACCESS program The objectives of the Department for benefit delivery are to: Improve customer service with timely and accurate processing of client documentation Enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of program administration and accountability Reduce overall program administration costs incurred by the Department The following four respondents submitted a response to the ITN 01F12GC1: Datamatics Pitney Bowes SourceCorp Xerox At a public meeting on July 6, 2012, four vendor replies were opened. A script had been developed for this meeting and the script was reviewed by the Procurement Manager. The script clearly stated a substantive review would be conducted following the meeting. During the meeting, the Procurement Manager publically announced that Appendix III: Certificate of Signature Authority, was modified by SourceCorp. All other replies were determined to be responsive after a substantive review was completed immediately following the meeting. DCF legal/leadership made the decision on July 10, 2012 that the modified document by SourceCorp would be considered a minor irregularity. The decision was made to hand out all proposals received to the evaluators. Three Evaluator Toolkits were developed for the evaluators (Toolkit 1, Toolkit 2 and Toolkit 3). One of the evaluators was on site and was given their evaluator toolkit and 4 proposals. The other evaluators had their evaluation toolkit and copies of the proposals shipped by courier in a box sealed and signed across the seal so the negotiator receiving the documents would know if the box was tampered with during transport. No reports 10/23/12 Page 8 of 23 ITN # 01F12GC1

9 of tampering were received. A restricted SharePoint site was developed and all four proposals were posted to the site. The site administrator signed a conflict of interest form. On July 11, 2012, SourceCorp contacted the procurement manager advising that they had inadvertently submitted the wrong pricing sheet with their reply. The spreadsheet had zeros in the top row for cost on 'Mail / Fax / Scan / Image Optimization / Index for Year 1, Year 2 and Year 3. The Vendor requested to correct the situation by replacing the cost spreadsheet with the correct sheet. The procurement manager responded to the Vendor under advice of legal to resolve the vendor s clerical error. The Department decided to permit SourceCorp to submit a correction of its unit prices, shown on its Cost Proposal as $0.00. The submission had to be made by typing or printing the correct unit prices above those shown on the original. DCF provided a revised pricing template with a strike through onthe zero amounts on the top line of the cost sheet.. The vendor was further advised to make no other changes to the document except to type or print the date of submission. The revised pricing from SourceCorp was received on July 16, The following criteria were evaluated: Maximum Criteria Points 1. Vendor s articulation of their project approach and solution, and the ability of the approach and solution to meet the Department s needs, the requirements of this ITN and Appendix I, Attachment I Understanding of Statement of Need Vendor s Technical Capability and Approach 210 Project Management 210 Section 1 Subtotal The innovation of the approach and solution Innovation 70 Section 2 Subtotal Vendor s articulation of their project approach and solution, and the ability of the approach and solution to meet the Department s needs, the requirements of this ITN and Appendix I, Attachment I Corporate and Organization Structure Respondent s and Subcontractor s (if any) Organizational Qualifications and Relevant Experience Mail, Scan Systems Development, Implementation, Operations 90 and Management Management of Complex Networks Experience responding to Changing Customer s Needs Government or Commercial Customers Qualifications References 50 Section 3 Subtotal /23/12 Page 9 of 23 ITN # 01F12GC1

10 4. Experience and skills of proposed staff relative to the proposed approach and solution Project Staffing o Proposed Organization and Staffing o Project Staffing Qualifications Section 4 Subtotal 70 Total Programmatic 700 Total Cost 300 Total Points Exhibit 2: Procurement Criteria and Scoring SECTION 2 PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND SCORING This section provides a description of the approach used to review and evaluate the responses. The evaluation process resulted in a ranking of respondents by score to support the selection of vendors for short-listing and continuation into the next stage of the negotiation process. 2.1 Overview This section provides a description of the approach used to review and evaluate the responses. The evaluation process resulted in a ranking of respondents by score to support the selection of the top two highest scoring respondents continuation into the next stage of the process - Preliminary Negotiations. A three member evaluation team was selected from the Florida ACCESS Program for their knowledge and experience in their respective competencies. Prior to receiving and evaluating the proposals, each evaluation team member received instruction on the evaluation rules, processes, tools, and procedures. The evaluators were encouraged to review each respondent s entire proposal and were responsible for evaluating and scoring their assigned sections of the respondent s proposal response. See Exhibit 3 - Proposal Evaluation Scoring Summary for a summary of the evaluation results. The Evaluation Team Members were: LeWayne Salter Liesta Sykes Michael Pogue On July 6, 2012 DCF procurement reviewed each respondent s proposal for compliance with providing all required information as stipulated in the ITN. A mandatory checklist was used to validate whether the respondents proposals contained all of the information required. 10/23/12 Page 10 of 23 ITN # 01F12GC1

11 The evaluators began reviewing respondent proposals on or after July 10, Two negotiators had to receive their responses and evaluator workbooks by courier. Evaluators concluded their evaluations on July 23, On July 20, 2012, the procurement manager began to score references provided by vendors. In doing so, it was identified that Datamatics had not provided their reference in a sealed envelope. After further review, references were only provided as part of their ITN response document. After looking at the ITN instructions relating to references, it was determined that ambiguous directions were provided to Vendors by the Department. Section of the ITN instructed Vendors to provide a minimum of three references utilizing the form provided in Appendix VI. The instructions under Appendix VI stated for the vendor to submit separate and verifiable client references in accordance with the instructions provided in Section of the ITN. Appendix VII also included a reference questionnaire to the ITN. As a part of their reply, each vendor was instructed to include a number of completed and sealed reference questionnaires using this form. Appendix VII was not referenced anywhere else throughout the ITN other than the Table of Contents and the Appendix document itself. Legal made the determination that the failure to provide references using Appendix VII was a minor irregularity. However, to ensure consistency in reference review and scoring, the procurement manager called several references provided by each vendor in the Vendor references section and seal questionnaires provided by vendors using the form from Appendix VI. The evaluators documented their individual scores in their evaluation manuals by respondent and provided their results to the DCF Purchasing Department by 5pm on July 23. DCF Purchasing tabulated the evaluator scores by respondent for the technical response and then calculated the cost score. Each respondent s technical and cost scores were added together to provide a total score for each respondent. Exhibit 3 - Proposal Evaluation Scoring Summary illustrates a summary of the scores. A more detailed breakdown of the scores by respondent is provided in Section 2.2 Respondent Responses. The exhibit below illustrates the cost and technical scores for each respondent. 10/23/12 Page 11 of 23 ITN # 01F12GC1

12 Exhibit 3: Proposal Evaluation Scoring Summary Refer to the ITN Evaluation Summary Worksheet for the detailed evaluation score. 2.2 Respondent Responses Each section and sub-section of each vendor s response (except references), was independently reviewed by three evaluators. The completed evaluation scoring forms were forwarded to the Procurement Office for inclusion in the final score. Evaluations were submitted to DCF Purchasing on or before July 23, The content of each respondent s technical responses was reviewed within 6 main categories as follows: 1. Understanding of Statement of Need; Vendor's Technical Capability and Approach 2. Project Management 3. Innovation 4. Corporate and Organization Structure; Respondent s and Subcontractor s (if any) Organizational Qualifications and Relevant Experience; Mail, Scan Systems Development, 10/23/12 Page 12 of 23 ITN # 01F12GC1

13 Implementation, Operations and Management; Management of Complex Network Experience responding to Changing Customer s Needs; Government or Commercial Customers Qualifications 5. References 6. Project Staffing; Proposed Organization and Staffing; Project Staffing Qualifications The Procurement Manager completed the reference scoring on all respondents. The scores for references were added to the evaluator s score sheets for calculation of the total score. The scores for references were added to the evaluator s score sheets in the electronic document for calculation of the total score. The cost responses from all respondents were awarded a pro rata portion of points based on the formula below. The formula awards points for cost based on two factors. First is the ratio of each respondent s cost versus the lowest proposed cost. The second factor is based on each respondent s technical score. A ratio is created based on the respondent s technical score divided by the maximum available technical points. Each of these ratios was applied to calculate the total cost score as follows: (Lowest Price / Respondent Price) * (Respondent Technical Score / Max Technical Score) * Max Cost Points = Cost Score Where: Lowest Price = Lowest cost of all responsive bids Respondent Price = Cost for a specific respondent Respondent Technical Score = Score of a specific respondent s technical response Max Technical Score = Maximum points available for the technical response (700 points) Max Cost Points = Maximum points available for the cost data response (300 points) Cost Score = Cost points awarded to the respondent The Procurement Manager averaged the total programmatic point scores by each evaluator to calculate the points awarded for each section. The total of Programmatic and Cost points are as follows: Topic Points Programmatic Score 700 Cost Score 300 Total 1000 The exhibit below depicts the summary scores for each evaluated area of the ITN. 10/23/12 Page 13 of 23 ITN # 01F12GC1

14 Maximum Score Datamatics GS Inc. Sourcecorp Xerox Pitney Bowes The exhibit below depicts the summary scores for each evaluated area of the ITN. PROJECT NAME: FL ACCESS Mailing / Scanning / Indexing Services ITN # 01F12GC1 Florida Department of Children and Families Economic Self Sufficiency Services Program Office 1317 Winewood Blvd., BL. 3, RM. 473 Tallahassee, FL Understanding of Statement of Need Vendor's Technical Capability and Approach Project Management Innovation Corporate and Organization Structure Respondent s and Subcontractor s (if any) Organizational Qualifications and Relevant Experience Mail, Scan Systems Development, Implementation, Operations and Management Management of Complex Network Experience responding to Changing Customer s Needs Government or Commercial Customers Qualifications References Project Staffing Proposed Organization and Staffing Project Staffing Qualifications Subtotal 1 (Programmatic) Subtotal 2 (Cost) Total Score Exhibit 4: Detailed Scoring Summary 10/23/12 Page 14 of 23 ITN # 01F12GC1

15 Refer to the Mail Scan ITN Evaluation Summary Worksheet for specifics on the evaluation results. Final evaluation results were provided to the evaluators in a public meeting on July 24, The Procurement Manager provided each evaluator with their individual scores. Each evaluator was asked by the Procurement Manager if their scores had been documented correctly. The evaluators agreed that their scores were captured correctly. The meeting ended once scores were validated. A debrief report was developed for the Assistant Deputy Secretary. The report provided the Assistant Deputy Secretary with the scores and ranking of each respondent. The ITN reserved the right to advance up to four respondents to the next stage of the process. After reviewing the report and based on the scores for each respondent, the Assistant Deputy Secretary made the decision to move forward with two respondents, via a memo. On July 30, 2012, the Procurement Manager provided the selected respondents with a memo, via , stating they had been selected for negotiations. The memo also provided instructions for negotiations and the short list announcement was posted to VBS. The two vendors advanced to the next round of negotiations were: Pitney Bowes and, Xerox SECTION 3 PRELIMINARY NEGOTIATIONS AND DEMONSTRATIONS 3.1 Overview This section describes the process, activities and tools used by Department negotiators and advisors during the negotiation phase of the FL ACCESS Mailing / Scanning /Indexing Services ITN. 3.2 Negotiation Team Following the evaluation phase, a five-member negotiation team represented the Agency. The negotiation team was supported by three subject matter advisors from across the FL ACCESS Program area. The negotiation team was comprised of the following: A Lead Negotiator - Walter Sachs A State of Florida Certified Negotiator - Cameo Collins Two functional representatives - Michael Pogue and Hyung Kim A Certified Program Manager (PMP) - Bill Geiger Prior to starting negotiations, the Agency s negotiators and technical advisors received one-onone training related to the negotiation processes, tools, and procedures. One negotiator was a member of the evaluation team. 10/23/12 Page 15 of 23 ITN # 01F12GC1

16 The negotiation team was supported by advisors. These advisors were comprised of subject matter experts (functional and technical). One of the advisors was involved in the previous proposal evaluation process. 3.3 Round 1 Negotiations The Department defined and communicated a negotiation agenda to each short-listed Respondent, scheduled and conducted sessions consisting of equal time with each respondent, and developed a side-by-side comparison of each respondent s proposed solution. The respondents presented their services and solution proposals during the first round of negotiations according to the agenda provided by the Department. The agenda had been developed at a previous negotiator strategy session conducted on August 6, The negotiation session was attended by negotiators, subject matter expert technical advisors and the Procurement Advisors. The Procurement Advisors provided attendees with a negotiator workbook containing the agenda along with a list of open questions and a section for them to take notes. The goal of the first round of negotiations was to gain a better understanding of each respondent s offering based on specific areas identified in the agenda and begin to differentiate the offering from those of other respondents. These sessions also provided an opportunity for open dialogue between the negotiators and respondents in a public meeting. The table below presents the schedule for the negotiations with each respondent. The order of the negotiation sessions was based on alphabetical order. Dates Thursday, August 16, :30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Thursday, August 16, :30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Respondent Pitney Bowes Xerox The agenda for the first negotiation session with each respondent was: Duration Topic (In Minutes) 1. Introduction Based on the updated information received, describe the 55 impacts to your solution and approach 3. Questions and Answers Break Clarifications and Definitions/Pricing Discuss your understanding of the definition of what constitutes a document (15 min) Based on this understanding, describe the impacts, if any, to your pricing structure (30 min) Questions and Answers Discuss the impacts to the project plan and how 20 implementation will be affected based on the updated data and clarifications provided 8. Questions and Answers 15 10/23/12 Page 16 of 23 ITN # 01F12GC1

17 9. Closing 5 After the meeting a brief strategy session was conducted to determine how to proceed with the vendors. It was agreed to hold another Strategy Session on August 20, During the August 20, 2012 strategy session it was agreed it would be beneficial if the vendors could tour the Wildwood facility first hand. In addition, an IRR (#1) was developed for sending out to the vendors after the Wildwood site visit. Following the Strategy Session, the Procurement Manager sent an invite to both Vendors to tour the facility on August 23. Both Vendors accepted. 3.4 Comparative Analysis The Procurement Advisors developed a comparative analysis using factual information gathered from the respondent proposals. The comparative analysis is a compilation of factual information, by respondent. The information provided in the comparative analysis was documented by each technical area within the ITN. The comparative analysis was provided to the negotiators for reference throughout the negotiation process. 3.5 Vendor Site Visit On August 23rd, 2012, both Vendors toured the Wildwood facility to conduct their own due diligence and gain a better understanding of the scope of services being requested under the FL ACCESS Mailing Scanning and Indexing Services ITN. Vendors were able to walk through the process from end-to-end, ask questions to operations personnel and review technical specifications for current equipment being utilized in the Wildwood facility to process both physical and electronic documents. The table below presents the schedule for the negotiations with each respondent. Dates Thursday, August 23, :00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. Thursday, August 23, :00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Respondent Pitney Bowes Xerox The agenda for the meeting with each respondent was: Duration Topic (In Minutes) 1. Vendor Arrival and Introductions Tour Mail and Scanning Area 45 o Opening Mail o Sorting Mail o Scanning Mail 3. Questions and Answers Tour ADI 30 o Document Imaging o Quality Assurance o o Errors 5. Additional Questions and Answers 15 10/23/12 Page 17 of 23 ITN # 01F12GC1

18 3.6 Interim Revised Proposal (IRR) #1 After the vendor site visit to Wildwood, an IRR was sent out to Vendor s with a return date of August 29, 2012 at 4:00 p.m. Eastern. The IRR outline was developed previously during the August 20, 2012 strategy session. Based on the Negotiation Strategy Session, the negotiators decided on those areas to include within the IRR. The Procurement Advisors developed the IRR requesting further clarification on the following nine (9) areas: 1. Revised Project Plan 2. Revised Pricing 3. Scenario 1-4 hour SLA 4. Scenario 2 - Same Day SLA 5. Reporting Capabilities 6. Impact to Facility Location 7. Cost Drivers 8. Innovations 9. Exchange of Indexed Data Included with this IRR was a clarification document that contained the following additional information: Definitions and defining what a document is How documents are acquired Returned mail data Additional volume data / information The IRR s were due back by August 29, 2012 at 4 pm Eastern. All vendors were responsive and timely with their replies. The Procurement Advisors provided all of this information to the negotiation team for review. 3.7 Round 2 Negotiations The table below presents the schedule for the negotiations with each respondent. Dates Thursday, August 30, :00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Thursday, August 30, :30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Respondent Xerox Pitney Bowes The agenda for the meeting with each respondent was: Topic Duration 10/23/12 Page 18 of 23 ITN # 01F12GC1

19 (In Minutes) 1. Introductions / Kickoff Discuss Revised Project Plan / Open Q & A Discuss Revised Pricing / Open Q & A Discuss Reporting Capabilities / Open Q & A Discuss Impact to Facility Location / Open Q & A BREAK Discuss Cost Drivers / Open Q & A Discuss Innovations / Open Q & A Discuss Exchange of Indexed Data / Open Q & A 20 o Vendor should discuss indexed data exchange and assumptions 10. Closing 5 After the second negotiation sessions, negotiators decided to send out a second IRR to both vendors. 3.8 Interim Revised Proposal (IRR) #2 A second IRR was sent out to the vendors on September 4, 2012 with a return date of September 7, 2012 at 12 Noon Eastern. Xerox requested an extension until 4 p.m. Eastern. DCF granted the request to both vendors. Vendors were asked to address the four (4) focus areas: 1. Cost Effectiveness 2. Revised Pricing 3. Assumptions - Impact on Pricing 4. Staffing Emphasis was placed in this IRR highlighting to the vendors that DCF was looking for best value. It was also stated that the IRR response could be the last time that each vendor had the opportunity to provide revised pricing or terms for this IRR. Vendors were provided with revised volume data from the newly centralized Wildwood facility for July 2012 and August The IRR s were due back by September 7, 2012 at noon Eastern which was later extended until 4 p.m. Eastern. All vendors were responsive and timely with their replies. The Procurement Advisors completed an analysis of the IRR s along with a summary of the cost information provided and provided all of this information to the negotiation team for review. 3.9 Round 3 Negotiations On September 7, 2012 vendors were sent a memo asking them to take note of the revised schedule that was posted to the VBS. DCF had scheduled a public meeting to discuss moving forward on Thursday, September 13, 2012 and the selected vendor(s) would be expected to started negotiations with DCF on Monday, September 17, 2012 at 9am. The Go-Forward meeting of September 13 was later postponed. 10/23/12 Page 19 of 23 ITN # 01F12GC1

20 Prior to the Round 3 negotiations with the vendor, each negotiator completed a paired comparison activity to assist them in determining which vendor provided best value as defined in the ITN by category and which vendor provided best value overall. The table below presents the schedule for the negotiations with each respondent. Dates Wednesday, September 12, :00 a.m. to 12:00p.m. Wednesday, September 12, :00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Respondent Pitney Bowes Xerox The agenda for the meeting with each respondent was: Duration Topic (In Minutes) 1. Introductions / Kickoff 8 2. Discuss Revised Pricing - 4 hour SLA 90 o Cost Effectiveness o Scenario 1 (Blended Pricing) o Scenario 2 (Document Type Pricing) o Assumptions - Impact on Pricing o Open Q & A 3. Staffing 15 o Open Q & A 4. Closing 7 During this session, Xerox was advised that their pricing was three times more than the competition. At the end of each session, the vendors were asked to provide a revised pricing schedule (IRR #3) by noon the next business day Interim Revised Proposal (IRR)# 3 At the end of the Day 3 negotiations, each Vendor was requested (IRR #3) to provide their Best and Final Offers by 8am on September 13, Pitney Bowes responded by close of business on September 12, 2012 that their pricing would not change from their Round 2 pricing. Xerox responded the next business day with a letter stating concerns about the procurement process and maintaining that their current pricing would not change. The September 13, 2012 Public Go-forward meeting was cancelled to support an additional IRR (IRR #4). On September 14, 2012, the DCF responded to the Xerox letter where they proposed that they and Pitney Bowes each waive their public records protection so that Xerox and Pitney Bowes could each examine the other s replies and interim responses. DCF advised Xerox in this letter that this proposal was not consistent with the negotiation process under the ITN and that it would not be entertained by the Department. The Department also advised that a response to Xerox s public records request would be forthcoming. In a memo date September 17, 2012, from the Procurement Manager, Xerox was advised that the technical and cost scoring would not be provided at this time. 10/23/12 Page 20 of 23 ITN # 01F12GC1

21 The Procurement Advisors completed a review of the IRR s along with a summary of the cost information provided and provided all of this information to the Negotiation team for review Interim Revised Proposal (IRR) #4 On September 17, 2012 it was determined in the best interest of the Department to release a fourth IRR to the vendors. In this IRR, vendors were requested to: 1. Affirm understanding of solution requirements 2. Attest that vendor solution as proposed and modified, if at all, meets the solution requirements affirmed in number one above 3. Provide a clear description and understanding of how their solution addresses the best value as enumerated in Section Confirm pricing calculations 5. Submit revised pricing Vendors were further instructed that the DCF was looking for best value. This may be the last time that each vendor has the opportunity to provide revised pricing or terms for this ITN. The IRR s were due back by September 19, 2012 at 4 pm. All vendors were responsive and timely with their replies. The Procurement Advisors completed a review of the IRR s along with a summary of the cost information provided and provided all of this information to the Negotiation team for review Interim Revised Proposal (IRR) #5 On September 28, 2012 it was determined in the best interest of the Department to release a fifth IRR (#5) to the vendors. In this IRR, vendors were requested to address the following focus area: 1. Availability of DCF Space Vendors were further instructed that the DCF was looking for best value. This may be the last time that each vendor has the opportunity to provide revised pricing or terms for this ITN. The IRR s were due back by October 1, 2012 at 12 Noon Eastern. In the morning of October 1, 2012, Xerox requested a twenty-four hour extension which they later rescinded. DCF went ahead and provided the extension to both vendors until noon the next business day. All vendors were responsive and timely with their replies. The Procurement Advisors completed a review of the IRR s along with a summary of the cost information provided and provided this information to the negotiation team for review Paired Comparison Before the third round of vendor negotiations and again before the Go-Forward meeting on October 4, 2012, each negotiator completed a paired comparison of the respondents, 10/23/12 Page 21 of 23 ITN # 01F12GC1

22 measuring each against every other on the basis of the five (5) criteria to be considered when looking for best value; located in Section 5.1 of the Mail Scan ITN. This was an individual exercise and a tool to be used by each negotiator to determine if they were ready to move forward with 2, 1 or none of the respondents. This tool was not shared between negotiators and was a way for each negotiator to make a decision on their next step(s) Move Forward public meeting On October 4, 2012, the negotiation team met publicly to vote by ballot on their decision to move forward with 2, 1 or none of the respondents. The ballots contained three questions for each negotiator. The Procurement Manager passed out a ballot and the lead negotiator asked the negotiators to complete the first question which asked the negotiators if they were ready to move forward. The ballots were collected by the Procurement Manager who counted the results and then returned the results back to the lead negotiator to be read out loud. There were five (5) votes yes to move forward and zero (0) votes for no. The ballots were then returned to each negotiator. The lead negotiator then asked the negotiators to rank the vendors in order of preference to move forward in negotiations. Ballots were handed back out by the Procurement Manager for the negotiators to vote. The ballots were collected by the Procurement Manager who counted the results and then returned the results back to the lead negotiator to be read out loud. Pitney Bowes was ranked first five (5) times and second zero (0) times. Conversely, Xerox was ranked first zero (0) times and second five (5) times. The lead negotiator then asked the negotiators to decide the number of vendors to proceed with based on a majority vote. The ballots were collected by the Procurement Manager who counted the results and then returned the results back to the lead negotiator to be read out loud. There were zero (0)votes to proceed with two (2), five (5) votes to proceed with one (1) and zero (0) votes to proceed with none. Based on a majority vote to move forward with one (1) vendor, the negotiators elected to move forward with Pitney Bowes. SECTION 4 CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS The draft Statement of Work (SOW) was completed and provided to Pitney Bowes for review on October 5, Between October 8, 2012 and October 15, 2012, the negotiation team met with Pitney Bowes to discuss the SOW and develop a final draft contract. The negotiation team and Pitney Bowes came to a material agreement of the SOW on October 15, Minor revisions to the SOW were exchanged with Pitney Bowes and the Department between October 16 and October 18, 2012 based on decisions made and provided back to Pitney Bowes for a final review. SECTION 5 RECOMMENDATION FOR AWARD On October 22, 2012, the negotiation team met publicly for the Recommendation of Award meeting. The Procurement Manager opened the meeting and provided instruction as to the ITN process. The negotiators were then asked verbally if they were prepared to make a recommendation for award. After receiving a unanimous vote from all negotiators, the Procurement Manager then passed out ballots and asked each negotiator to vote on which respondent they believed would bring best value based on the selection criteria in Section 5.1 of the ITN. The ballots were gathered and a unanimous vote was given for Pitney Bowes. The 10/23/12 Page 22 of 23 ITN # 01F12GC1

23 Procurement Manager read the results aloud and then handed the meeting over to the lead negotiator who stated based on majority vote the recommendation was to move forward with an award to Pitney Bowes. The Procurement Manager stated further instruction would be received via the respondent bid system. The meeting was adjourned. Based on the foregoing, the negotiation team recommended that the Department award the contract to Pitney Bowes. The team determined that Pitney Bowes is the best qualified respondent providing the best value based on lowest overall cost, corporate capability and experience, project approach, and added value to the State. SECTION 6 INTENT TO AWARD Based on Section of the ITN, The Procurement Manager prepared a report to the Secretary s designee regarding the recommendation of the Negotiation Team. The Secretary s designee considered the respondent who would bring best value to the State based on the selection criteria in Section 5.1 of the ITN taking into consideration the recommended award by the Negotiation Team and in the report provided by the Procurement Manager. The Secretary s designee recommended posting a notice of intent to award to Pitney Bowes based on the criteria set forth above. On October 23, 2012, the Notice of Intent to Award the FL ACCESS Mailing / Scanning /Indexing Services to Pitney Bowes was posted to the DCF VBS website. SECTION 7 INVENTORY OF PROCUREMENT ARTIFACTS Procurement artifacts have been posted at the following DCF website: 10/23/12 Page 23 of 23 ITN # 01F12GC1