apps.des.wa.gov · web viewfour vendors: lexmark enterprise software llc, opentext llc, compulink...

ECM Award Memo to File 07814

Overview:A new statewide contract is being established in response to and support of the Information Governance Initiative. Proposal evaluations are now complete and we are prepared to issue “Apparent Successful” notifications to awarded vendors. Four vendors: Lexmark Enterprise Software LLC, OpenText LLC, Compulink Management Center, Inc. dba Laserfiche and EMC Peripherals Inc. will be offered to contract.

Background:The state of Washington and its agencies have been accumulating electronic documents and information for more than thirty years without a consistent filing system or defensible approach to retention, retrieval, and disposition. In many cases, employees are left to create their own filing systems to store documents. No system allowed for systemic destruction of data past retention. As a result:

Employees waste a great deal of time searching for and/or recreating mission-critical documents because they are not systematically filed.

They make copies of frequently used or hard to find documents and store them where they can find them, but no one else can.

Documents are isolated in silos and stored in multiple locations unknown to others. There is no practical way to identify and destroy documents that have passed retention and are

eligible for destruction. The amount of redundant, obsolete, and transitory data in our systems grows exponentially. These conditions complicate agency efforts to respond to public

records requests, and increase related costs and exposure to risk.

Purpose for InitiativeThe purpose of this statewide initiative is to remove the major barriers to agency information governance initiatives. This will be accomplished by providing breakthrough information governance principles and the option to select an array of Enterprise Content Management (ECM) systems for agencies to use.

As agencies implement breakthrough principles and guidance with an ECM System in their own initiatives, employees will be able to effectively organize, manage, and use electronic documents and unstructured data as a critical agency asset. Agencies will be able to resolve electronic records disorganization and proliferation issues, and the related problems that flow from those issues.

Expected Outcomes of this Contract:

Enable agencies to choose from a small list of ECM systems that meet state requirements. Save agencies the time and effort to evaluate proven systems and satisfy competition.

Make expert level contractors available to agencies to help them plan and execute Information Governance initiatives in the most expedient fashion.

Save the state and other public sector entities nearly $2 million a year in lawsuits as a direct result of Public Records Acts violations.


Steering Committee Members:Michael Cockrill, State CIONick Brown, General Counsel to the GovernorNancy Krier, Public Record Ombudsman, ATGJoe Shorin, E-Discovery and E-Disclosure, ATGChuck Pfeil, Deputy State Auditor, SAORo Marcus, Assistant Director for Legislative Affairs, OFMKim Wyman, Secretary of StateSteve Excell, State Archivist, SOSLucy Isaki, State Risk Manager, DESJoe Stohr, Deputy Director, DFWJessica Todorovich, Deputy Director, DOHLynne McGuire, Deputy Director, DESChristy Ridout, Deputy Director, CTS

Project Organization:


Development ECM Solution Sourcing Team:

In July 2014, the Information Governance ECM Selection Team came together to establish a multi-agency, multi-disciplinary team. Thirteen agency’s records officers, enterprise architects and legal staff participated to develop requirements for the RFP.

Request for Proposals (RFP)

Development of the RFPo Only DoD 5015.2 Standard for Records Management certified manufacturers were

allowed submit proposals. o Requirements were developed and vetted by subject matter experts including

stakeholders, CIO’s statewide and Gartner.

Release of RFPThe RFP document was finalized by the stakeholder team and released on December 19, 2014. It was posted to WEBS (Washington’s Electronic Business Solutions) website. All registered vendors were notified and encouraged to download a copy from the state’s website. 1925 total vendors were notified of which there were: 30 minority owned businesses, 12 women owned businesses, 8 minority and women owned businesses, 295 Washington small businesses, 2 Washington mini businesses, 39 Washington micro businesses, and 23 veteran owned businesses. Other interested parties notified of the RFP posting included vendors registered by the Joint Interoperability Test Command as being certified by the Department of Defense as meeting Records Management Application Standard (DoD 5015.2).

Bidder Question and Answer PeriodThe question and answer period was open from December 19, 2014 through January 14,2015 and subsequently reopened from February 4-10 to accommodate an amendment to the pricing appendix.

RFP Amendmentso Amendment #1, posted to WEBS January 26, 2015 clarified that the state intended to

only award and contract with manufacturers of DoD certified solutions.. Reference embedded Word document of Amendment #1:

o Amendment #2, posted to WEBS January 29, 2015 amended the RFP document to extend publishing date of answers to vendor questions


o Amendment #3, posted to WEBS January 31, 2015 clarified scope, alerted vendors to forthcoming revised price proposal, extended bid closing date and answered vendor questions. Reference embedded Word document of Amendment #3:

o Amendment #4, posted to WEBS February 4, 2015 amended the RFP document to update Appendix F, Price Schedule and post revised projected procurement schedule. Reference embedded Word document of Amendment #4:

o Amendment #5, posted to WEBS February 17, 2015 provided answers to vendor questions to Appendix F, the Revised Price Proposal and provided Information on demonstration preparation. Reference embedded Word document of Amendment #5:

o Amendment #5, posted to WEBS March 5, 2015 provided clarity on the bid due date vs

demonstration material availability. Reference embedded Word document of Amendment #6:

Proposals: Proposal Receipt:

On March 2015, 2015 at 2:00 PM all proposals received for this RFP were collected from the dedicated ECM procurement email inbox by the RFP Coordinator. Metadata was examine and recorded by the RPD coordinator to ensure timely arrival of proposals. Vendors returned one electronic copy as requested.

ECM Award Memo to File 07814Six (6) proposals were received; none of which were late. Proposals received are listed on the following embedded document.

Initial Determination of Responsiveness:

The following embedded Excel spreadsheet lists all 6 vendors who submitted proposals. Each proposal was reviewed and checked for responsiveness (reference RFP Part 9.5 Checklist of Required Submittals). Issues reviewed and recorded included:, Appendix A; Certification & Assurances, Vendor References, Vendor EULAs, Appendix D; Bidder Profile, Appendix E; Response Requirements, and Appendix F; Price Proposal.

Feith and Perceptive (Lexmark) provided company references but did not provide references for their valued added resellers (VARs). This was determined to be a minor informality as the complexity and scope of the RFP would require further identification of appropriate VARs post award. HP did not include installation costs in their proposal which was a requirement in Appendix F; Price Proposal. HP was afforded the opportunity to provide installation for free but instead after two weeks provided the state with a revised price proposal to include additional charges for installation. HP was subsequently deemed “non-responsive”.

Evaluation Team:

An evaluation team was comprised of multi-agency, multi-disciplinary stakeholders including network architects, an ECM professional and Records and Public Disclosure officers including:

o Cynthia Jones – ECM IT Architect, DFIo Leslie Koziara-Turner – Electronic Records Management Consultant, SOSo Jason Howell, JD – Information Governance Officer, ECYo Michael Birmingham- Enterprise Information Architect, LNIo Dan Francis – Enterprise Architect, DOHo Stephanie Nielson – Barcode Administrator, DSHSo Nagesha Kannadaguli – IT Architect, ECYo Bruce Clark – Forms & Records Analyst, DOLo James Reddick – Program Manager, DSHS/CAo Ginny Schenk – Business Solutions Application Manager, DES

Evaluation o Posting of electronic copy of proposals for evaluation

ECM Award Memo to File 07814The Procurement Coordinator posted the bidder’s submitted proposal to Box.com for review and scoring. Evaluators were provided the following electronic score sheet and Evaluator Guidelines to assist evaluators in scoring bidder’s proposals.

o Evaluation and scoring

Evaluation and scoring of the vendor offerings occurred in two parts. Part one was the written proposal based on mandatory scored and mandatory desirable scored responses to non-cost requirements. Part two included a demo day in which bidders had up to seven (7) hours to demonstrate their product based on a demonstration script of use cases. Each bidder received the same script. Cost proposals were calculated by the RFP Coordinator and the ECM Enterprise Architect on the evaluation team.

o Scoring Methodology:

The weighting of the criteria was based on 1000 total available points and was distributed as follows:

Written Proposal = 35% (350 points) Demonstrated Capabilities = 45% (450 points) Price Proposal = 20% (200 points)

Each of the criteria above had subsections which were weighted as set forth below.

The written proposal was worth 350 points or 35% of the available points and had two subsections; Mandatory & Desirable with multiple categories in both subsections.

The Demonstration portion was worth 450 points or 45% of the available points. The Demonstration was comprised of ten sections. All sections of the Demonstration were weighted evenly.

The Price Proposal was worth 200 points or 20% of the available points based on lowest Price.

Evaluation of Written Proposals:

In accordance with section 10.5.1 of the RFP the following scoring strategy was used by the evaluation team in determining and assigning evaluation points to the bidder’s written response to Appendix E; Response Requirements and Demonstration. As described above the maximum points available for this section was 350.


Scoring Range Matrix – All questions have a maximum score of 10 points

Points Description Discussion

0Discussion Omitted – No Value

The Vendor has omitted any discussion of this requirement or the information provided is of no value.

1-3Poor – Ability was not established and Approach marginal

The Vendor has not fully established the capability to perform the requirement, has marginally described its approach, or has simply restated the requirement.

4-6Average - Solution & Detail are competitive

The Vendor has an acceptable capability or solution to meet this criterion and has described its approach in sufficient detail to be considered competitive.

7-8

Good - Strong and Competitive

The Vendor has demonstrated strong and competitive capability, approach, or solution and has provided a complete description of the capability, approach, or solution.

9-10

Excellent - Solution & Detail are superior and competitive

The Vendor has provided an innovative, detailed, efficient approach or established, by references and presentation of material, far superior capability in this area.

The Mandatory subsection was worth ¾ of the (35%) scoring value and Desirable was worth ¼ of the (35%) scoring value. Within each subsection there were multiple categories with variable weighting as described in the table titled “Written Proposal Section” below.

The questions in each sub-category varied in number. All scores to questions were added together and then divided by the total amount of points available for each sub-category. This created a universal adjusted score based on a maximum score of 100%

All questions in each section were scored and added together to create an aggregate total. That total was then divided by the total amount of possible points in the respective subsection section to determine an adjusted score. Each adjusted score for each section was then weighted.

The total scaling of the weighing for the Written Proposal is set forth in the table below:

Written Proposal Section Worth 35% of the Total Solicitation Score

Mandatory Category Worth 75% of Written Proposal Score

Desirable Category Worth 25% of Written Proposal Score

Subcategories Subcategories

IT Security IT Security

Records Management Records Management

Discovery & Disclosure Discovery & Disclosure

ECM Award Memo to File 07814Architecture Architecture

Managing Digital Media Assets Document Management

Document Management Image Processing Applications

Image Processing Applications Information Access/Search

Information Access/Search Mobility

Workflow/BPM Workflow/BPM

Web Content Management

Social Content Management

TOTAL 100% of 75% TOTAL 100% of 25%

Evaluation of Demonstrated Capabilities

In accordance with section 10.5.2 of the RFP the following scoring strategy was used by the evaluation team in determining and assigning evaluation points to the bidder’s demonstration to Appendix E; Response Requirements and Demonstration.

The evaluation team scored the demonstrated solutions based on the guiding principles of the solicitation which were: solutions that were easy to use; had a single instance of a document; were accessible from anywhere; were easy to store; were secure and reliable; were easy to disclose/share/collaborate and were able to produce a defensible disposition. As described above the maximum points available were 450 based on ten (10) categories.

*Feith opted to withdraw from the solicitation based on concern over ability to demonstrate use cases identified to all bidders and with a conflict with another solicitation that was closer to their location.

Evaluation Scoring of Pricing:

Price Proposals were scored based on the Bidder submitting the lowest per seat Price for a basic ECM Department of Defense 5015.2 V3 package. The package included the modules and all Prices associated with the successful implementation of the ECM solution as detailed in the Price Proposal, Appendix F. The lowest Bidder received 200 points. Higher priced Bidder proposals were scored relative to the lowest Bidder proposal. To establish a fair and equitable process for evaluating cost proposals for a variety of licensing models and delivery methods, the Enterprise

ECM Award Memo to File 07814Content Architect and the RFP Coordinator identified areas of commonality between vendors which included the following base costs: Installation, Software, Maintenance and Training.

Bid Tabulation Summary:

The written, demonstration and cost factors were calculated as specified in the RFP and tabulated in the following imbedded Excel file.

Award Results:

In accordance with RFP Section 10.1 Award Criteria, contract awards were made to multiple bidders for each solution based on a “best value” analysis factoring in evaluation points for: 1) Written response to the proposal (350 points available); 2) Demonstrated Capabilities (450 points available); 3) price (200 points available). There were a maximum of 1,000 evaluation points available for each solution.

Multiple bidder awards were made as a result of this RFP. Awards were based on the Apparent Successful Bidders’ abilities to meet all of the mandatory requirements established in Appendix E. Guiding principles for selection include solutions that are easy to use; enable a single instance of a document; are accessible from anywhere; are easy to store; are secure and reliable; are easy to disclose/share/collaborate and are able to produce a defensible disposition.

Savings:

As this is a new contract, we are unable to identify the cost savings over another contract however the savings to the state in potential cost avoidance is substantial. According to KING 5 2011 report on monies paid for public records lawsuits, public entities around the state were paying almost 2 million dollars annually as a direct result of Public Records Act violations. (See table below)

In the last year, Snohomish County settled two law suits totaling $1,175,000.00 The City of Bainbridge Island settled for $350,000.00 on top of $137,790.00 in legal fees and councilman resignation. The Port of Olympia settled a $187,300.00 suit in December as well as Liquor Control Board paying out $192,000.00 in January of this year. This is not a comprehensive list as there is no central repository for settlements by the state.

200 points = ScoreLowest Vendor $ per Seat

Each Vendor’s $ per Seat