TULSA COUNTY

MEMOPURCHASINGDEPARTMENT

DATE: MARCH 18, 2015

FROM: LINDA R. DORRELL ~ (≥%JS≥) O~\~3%PURCHASING DIRECTOR

TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

SUBJECT: BID AWARD RECOMMENDATION FOR PRINT CARTRIDGES

IT IS THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE TULSA COUNTY PURCHASING DEPARTMENT AND ALLTULSA COUNTY DEPARTMENTS AND RELATED AGENCIES TO AWARD THE BID FOR PRiNTCARTRIDGES TO THE FOLLOWING VENDOR:

BEYOND TECHNOLOGY

THE LOWEST VENDOR, THE OFFICE PAL, IS NOT AN AUTHORIZED DISTRIBUTOR OF HEWLETT-PACKARD PRODUCTS, WHICH IS A LARGE SEGMENT OF THIS BID. THEREFORE, WE RECOMMENDBEYOND TECHNOLOGY, AN AUTHORIZED DISTRIBUTOR OF HEWLETT-PACKARD PRODUCTS.

THIS BID IS GOOD FOR A ONE (1) YEAR PERIOD BEGINNING APRIL 4, 2015 THROUGH APRIL 3, 2016.

THIS RECOMMENDATION IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED FOR YOUR APPROVAL.

LED arh

ORIGINAL: PAT KEY, COUNTY CLERK, FOR THE MARCH 23, 2015 AGENDA.

COPIES: COMMISSIONER JOHN SMALIGOCOMMISSIONER KAREN KEITHCOMMISSIONER FRED R. PERRYMARK LIOTTA, CHIEF DEPUTYMICHAEL WILLIS, CHIEF DEPUTYVICKI ADAMS, CHIEF DEPUTYGARY FISHER, DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

Form 4363 (Rev. 4-98)

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

~ A DIVISION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERSCarol Crowson Annex Building

T ill (fl (flhIflTII 633WestThirdU 1)41 ~ U U ~fl ~ Tulsa, Oklahoma 741 27-8942F: 918.596.5870

J ~j Gary FisherDirector918.596.5882

MEMORANDUMDATE: March 16, 2015

TO: Linda Dorrell, Purchasing Director

FROM: Gary Fisher, Administrative Services Director

SUBJECT: Bid Award Recommendation for Print/Fax/Copier Cartridges

Administrative Services has reviewed the bids for print/fax/copier cartridges opened March 2, 2015, for purchase via the County Office Supply(COS) program. The attached analysis explains how the bids werereviewed to compare the estimated overall benefit of accepting eachvendor’s offer, taking into account the total for cartridges on the bid listand the discounts for other cartridges ordered through COS.

The totals are:“Beyond Technology (Colorado) $ 207,308.82ABC LaserJet (Georgia) 210,000.45Admiral Express Office Supply (local) 219,874.36Insight Public Sector (Arizona) 234,691.46The Office Pal (New Jersey) 199,123.57

NOTES

The second lowest bid is recommended because Hewlett-Packard Partner Support (HP)reports that the lowest bidder (The Office Pal) is currently not authorized to buy and resellnew HP ink and toner products, a very large segment of the county’s cartridge purchases.

• ABC Laseriet offered “20 to 35” % off list price, contrary to bid tem,s requiring onespecifically stated discount.” For bid comparison purposes, the vendor’s minimum stateddiscount (20%) was applied.

• A sixth bid, from JTF Business Systems, lacked the required filing affidavit and was rejected.

Beyond Technology (W.M. Corp.) provided the best overall bid. They areheadquartered near Denver, Colorado, making a direct meeting impractical. However, we interviewed them by telephone, as well as a userof their service (the Oklahoma County Metro Library System), and believethey will be able to provide the necessary goods and services.

Please accept our recommendation to award the COS cartridges bid for2015 to Beyond Technology, and arrange to have this award placed on theCounty Commission meeting agenda for Monday, March 16. Thank you.

Attachment: 2015 County Office Supply-Cartridges Bid Analysis & ComparisonCopies: Terrisa Hardy, Assistant Purchasing Director

Amanda Hensley, Purchasing BuyerVictoria Wilson, Accountant/BookkeeperChristina Capehart, Bookkeeper IIWaynette Robinson, COS ClerkKen Hargett, Procedures Writer

2015 COUNTY OFFICE SUPPLY-CARTRIDGESBID ANALYSIS & COMPARISON

Assumptions and General Considerations:• Based on previous recent annualized expenditures, it was estimated that about $195,500 total may be

spent on COS cartridges during contract year 2015. Based on a review of recent usage information, itwas estimated for purposes of comparing bids that roughly 45% of this amount — $87,975 — will bespent for cartridges other than those on the itemized, flxed-pnce bidlist and thus subject to the standardpercentage-off-list-price discount offered for cartridges by each vendor.

• Under prior-year contract terms, the cartridge discount that had been applied had been a 37% reductionfrom list price, i.e., paid at 63% of full list once.

• To offset the value received from the above-cited prior-year expiring discount (i.e., re-establish asimulated full list price total) for purposes of bid comparison using vendors’ newly received discountoffers, the $87,975 (paid at 63% of list price last year) was multiplied by 1.5874, for a total$1 39,651.515. To simplify calculations, this estimate was rounded slightly to $139.650.00.

• To provide a weighted comparison of the percentage discount offer from each vendor, their respectivediscount offers were applied to the above (pre-discounted) estimate, then deducted from the estimatedfull list price value of $139,650.00. The results (to the extent effective comparison was possible) areshown in the tables below.

• Three bids contained evident miscalculations affecting those bids’ grand totals. These errors wereappropriately corrected where necessary, as noted in the bid-by-bid review which follows. Neither theerrors nor their correction altered the finding of the lowest and best bid.

vendor’s cartridge Discount savings (est.) $ 27,930.00

Estimated (pre-discount) value for all non-bidlist cartridge purchases $139,650.00Minus vendor’s Cartridge Discount savings (est.) - $27,930.00Estimated non-bidlist expenditure after discounts $111,720.00

vendor’s bid for bidlist items $ 95,588.82Estimated non-bidlist expenditure after discounts +111,720.00

Vendor’s Cartridge Discount savings (est.) $ 27,930.00 *

~-“--‘-“1 tore-discount~ value for all non-bidlist cartridae nurchases $139,650.00Minus Vendor’s~ ~‘“~‘~ ~-~“i”~ (est.) - ~

$111,720.00 *F~tin,~f*,I non-bidlist expenditure after discounts

Vendor’s bid for bidlist items $ 98,280.45Estimated non-bidlist expenditure after discounts +111,720.00 *

BEYOND TECHNOLOGY

Aoolv Vendor’s Cartridae % Discount$139,650.00

x .20Considerations:

• The vendor was the secondlowest bidder and (unlikethe lowest bidder) was confirmed by Hewlett-PackardPartner Support (HP) as “anauthorized supplies (ink andtoner) reseller.”

• An evident miscalculation inthe grand total wascorrected for a net increasein the vendor’s bid of$3,000.00.

• The vendor provided noreferences with the bid, butconversationally gave theMetropolitan LibrarySystem of OklahomaCounty as an in-statereference. The referencewas contacted andconfirmed the vendor istheir current cartridgesupplier and has providedgood service. The vendoraddress is in Colorado.

Total Est. County Cost using this vendor $ 207,308 82

Estimated (pre-discount) value for non-bidlist COS cartridges $139,650.00Apply vendor’s Cartridge % fl~~-n.nt x .20 *

Considerations:- The vendor offered a

discount of “20 to 35” % offlist price, making itimpossible to arrive at afully reliable estimate for faircomparison with other bids.This is in violation of the bidprovisions, Page 3, Item 12:“What is required is onespecifically stated percentage discount applicable toall ... cartridges for whichno itemized price has beenbid.”

• The vendor provided 3references but none in theTulsa area or in Oklahoma.The references are inMaryland, Georgia andWashington, D.C. Thevendor address is inGeorgia.

Total Est. County Cost using this vendor** Figures marked with an asterisk are based on the vendor’s minimumdiscount offer (20%). As noted in the “Considerations” column at left,the vendor’s offer of “20 to 35” % off list price is not consistent with thebid terms, which require “one specifically stated percentage discount”While the 20% discount presumably would reliably apply as a minimum,and thus allowed for comparison with the other bidders who followedthe bid specifications, the actual cost of using this vendor is unknownsince the proposed offer would vary as to what level of discount wouldbe applied by the vendor and the factors affecting such discounts areunknown and evidently left to the vendor’s discretion.

$ 210,000.45 *

r unknown]

PAGE 1

nIJm,nnl- cArncoo ‘JrrI’.c . rn..!

Considerations: Estimated (pre.discount) value for non-bidlist COS cartridges $139,650.00• The vendor is the Apply Vendor’s Cartridge % Discount x .22

incumbent office supply Vendor’s Cartridge Discount savings (eat.) $ 30,723.00vendor, with a good servicerecord.

• The vendor submitted the Estimated (pit-discount) value for all non-bidlist cartridge purchases $139,650.00only locally based bid Minus Vendor’s Cartridge Discount savings (est.) - 30,723.00received for cartridges. Estimated non-bidlist expenditure after discounts $108,927.00

Vendor’s bid for bidlist items $ 110,947.36Estimated non-bidlist expenditure after discounts + 108,927.00Total Est. County Cost using this vendor $ 219,874.36

INSIGHT PUBLIC SECTOR, INC.Considerations: Estimated (pit-discount) value for non-bidlist COS cartridges $139,650.00• One evident line item mis- Apply Vendor’s Cartridge % Discount [NonelBlank]

calculation was corrected, Vendor’s Cartridge Discount savings (ast.) $ 0.00affecting the page total andthe grand total for a netincrease in the vendors bid Estimated (pit-discount) value for all non-bidiist cartridge purchases $139,650.00of $26.00. Minus Vendor’s Cartridge Discount savings (eat.) 0.00

• The vendor left blank the Estimated non-bidlist expenditure after discounts $139,650.00space allocated fordiscount on non-bidlist Vendor’s bid for bidlist items $ 95,041.46

• The vendor provided no Estimated non-bidlist expenditure [unreduced, no discount offer stated] + 139,650.00references, indicating this Total Est. County Cost using this vendor $ 234,691.46is their first toner bid inour area. The vendoraddress is in Arizona.

THE OFFICE PALConsiderations: Estimated (pit-discount) value for non-bidlist COS cartridges $139,650.00• The Office Pal was the Apply Vendor’s Cartridge % Discount x .20

lowest bid received but was Vendor’s Cartridge Discount savings (eat.) $ 27 930.00not considered the best bidbecause Hewlett-PackardPartner Support (HP) Estimated (pit-discount) value for all non-bidlist cartridge purchases $139,650.00reported the vendor’s Minus Vendor’s Cartridge Discount savings (eat.) - 27,930.00“partnership with HP has Estimated non-bidlist expenditure after discounts $111,720.00gone Inactive which wouldbar them from the buyingand reselling of HP Ink and Vendor’s bid for bidlist items $87,403.57Toner.” HP products are a Estimated non-bidlist expenditure after discounts +111,720.00very large segment of the Total Est. County Cost using this vendor $ 199,123.57

chases, and bid termsspecify that all cartridgessupplied must be new OEM(original equipment manufacturer) products.

‘ Four evident line item miscalculations were corrected,affecting two page totalsand the grand total for a netincrease in the vendor’s bidof $1,785.46.

• The vendor provided 3references but none in theTulsa area or in Oklahoma;online sources suggest allare located in the New YorkCity metro area. The vendoraddress is in New Jersey.

JTF BUSINESS SYSTEMSConsiderations:• The vendor’s bid was rejected by the Purchasing Department due to omission of the required Affidavit for Filing with

Competitive Bid and could not be considered.

PAGE 2