Request for Proposal Number

A18-RFP-010

For

Zero Based Budget Review

By the

Washington State

Consolidated Technology Services

Released: October 16, 2017

1.INTRODUCTION

1.1Background

1.2Acquisition Authority

1.3Business Objective

1.4Scope of services to be provided

1.5Contract Term

1.6Definitions

1.7Overview of Solicitation Process

1.8Funding

1.9Statements of Work (SOW)

2.SCHEDULE

3.INSTRUCTIONS TO RESPONDING VENDORS

3.1RFP Coordinator (Proper Communication)

3.1Vendor Questions

3.2Vendor Complaints Regarding Requirements and Specifications

3.3Response Contents

3.4Response Requirements

3.5Delivery of Responses

3.6Proprietary or Confidential Information

3.7Waive Minor Administrative Irregularities

3.8Errors in Response

3.9Administrative Clarifications

3.10Amendments/Addenda

3.11Right to Cancel

3.12Contract Requirements

3.13Incorporation of Documents into Contract

3.14Minority and Women’s Business Enterprises (MWBE)

3.15No Obligation to Contract/Buy

3.16Non-Endorsement and Publicity

3.17Optional Vendor Debriefing

3.18Protest Procedures

3.19Vendor Assumption and Dependencies

3.20Selection of Apparently Successful Vendor

4.VENDOR REQUIREMENTS

4.1(M) Vendor Profile(s)

4.2(M) Vendor Licensed to do Business in Washington

4.3(M) Use of Subcontractors

4.4(M) Prior Contract Performance

4.5(MS 200) Client References

4.6(MS 200) Interviews

5.EXPERIENCE, SKILLS AND APPROACH

5.1(MS 300) Minimum Requirements

5.2(MS 100) Specific Experience with Public/Private/IT Sector Financial Consulting Services

5.3(MS 500) Methodology and Approach to Providing the Deliverables

5.4(MS 100) Candidate Resumes

5.5(MS 200) Specific Experience with Technology Market Analysis

5.6(M) Reporting and Oversight

5.7(MS 50) Demonstration of Availability

6.FINANCIAL QUOTE

6.1Overview

6.2(MS 500) Vendor Cost Proposal Form

6.3(M) Responses

6.4(M) Taxes

6.5(M) Presentation of All Cost Components

6.6(M) Price Protection

7.Evaluation

7.1Overview

7.2Administrative Screening

7.3Mandatory Requirements

7.4Qualitative Review and Scoring

7.5Evaluation of Step 2

7.6Step 3 Evaluations – Client References and Interviews (Optional)

7.7Allocation of Points

7.8Vendor Total Score

7.9Selection of Apparently Successful Vendor

7.10Contract Negotiations

SECTION 1

1.INTRODUCTION

Responding Vendors are strongly encouraged to read this RFP thoroughly and completely.

1.1Background

Consolidated Technology Services (CTS) provides telecommunications, computing and digital government services to more than 700 state agencies, boards and commissions, local governments, tribal organizations and qualifying non-profits.

1.2Acquisition Authority

The Department of Enterprise Services (DES) has authority over goods and services under RCW 39.26 and sets processes for procuring information technology based on the policies and standards set by the Technology Services Board.Chapter 43.41A of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) as amended establishes the Washington State Technology Services Board (TSB). While the TSB does not purchase for agencies, it establishes policies and standards addressing how the manner in which state agencies may acquire information technology equipment, software, and services.

RCW 39.26.100(2) provides CTS with an exemption from the Department of Enterprise Services procurement rules and requirements. Specifically, the competitive procurement rules stated by Department of Enterprise Services do not apply to CTSwhen it is contracting for the following:

  1. Services and activities that are necessary to establish, operate, or manage the state data center, including architecture, design, engineering, installation, and operation of the facility, that are approved by the technology services board or
  2. The acquisition of proprietary software, equipment, or IT services for or part of the provision of services offered by the consolidated technology services agency.

This procurement is within the exemption and is performed consistent with CTS’s internal Exempt Procurement Policy.

This RFP is issued in good faith but it does not guarantee an award of contract, nor does it represent any commitment to purchase whatsoever.

1.3Business Objective

Consolidated Technology Services (CTS) is initiating this Request for Proposals (RFP) for consulting assistance related to a zero based budget review of central IT services and programs offered by CTS.

Section 150 (7) within the enacted 17-19 operating budget requires WaTech to conduct a zero-based budget review of the services that are offered to customers. This review will be conducted by an outside vendor and will include:

a.A statement of the statutory basis or other basis for the creation of each program or service and the history of each program or service that is being reviewed;

b.A description of how each program or service fits within the strategic plan and goals of the agency and an analysis of the quantified objectives of each program or service within the agency;

c.Any available performance measures indicating the effectiveness and efficiency of each program or service;

d.A description with supporting cost and staffing data of each program or service and the populations served by each program or service, and the level of funding and staff required to accomplish the goals of the program or service if different than the actual maintenance level;

e.An analysis of the major costs and benefits of operating each program or service and the rationale for specific expenditure and staffing levels;

f.An analysis estimating each program's or service's administrative and other overhead costs;

g.An analysis of the levels of services provided;

h.An analysis estimating the amount of funds or benefits that actually reach the intended recipients; and

i.An analysis and recommendations for alternative service delivery models that would save money or improve service quality.

  • RCW.43.105.006 requires WaTech to offer high quality services at the lowest possible price. It must be able to attract an adaptable and competitive workforce, be authorized to procure services where the business case justifies it, and be accountable to its customers for the efficient and effective delivery of critical business services.
  • RCW.43.105.052 requires WaTech to establish rates and fees for services provided by the agency, to develop a billing rate plan for a two-year period to coincide with the budgeting process. The rate plan must be subject to review at least annually by the office of financial management. The rate plan must show the proposed rates by each cost center and show the components of the rate structure as mutually determined by the agency and the office of financial management. The rate plan and any adjustments to rates must be approved by the office of financial management.
  • RCW.43.105.385 requires WaTech to conduct a needs assessment and develop a migration strategy to ensure that, over time, all state agencies are moving towards using the agency as their central service provider for all utility-based infrastructure services, including centralized PC and infrastructure support. State agency-specific application services shall remain managed within individual agencies.

1.4Scope of services to be provided

Washington State Consolidated Technology Solutions (WaTech) is soliciting proposals from qualified firms to conduct a comprehensive cost of information technology services and rate study. The intent of the study is to independently analyze the cost and benefit of WaTech’s services to inform future decisions regarding rate setting and service delivery.

The Vendor shall perform the following tasks to meet the requirements within Section 150 (7) within the enacted 17-19 Operating Budget.

  1. Prepare and facilitate scope and project work plan to include:
  2. Methodology and approach
  3. Risk or constraints
  4. High level project plan
  1. CTS has done a considerable amount of work to document and provide financial analysis for the service offerings provided to customers. The Vendor shall consolidate and finalize the inventory of services and provide additional analysis of CTS service offerings to include:
  2. Service description;
  3. Statutory basis for creation of service or program;
  4. How the service fits into the CTS strategic plan and goals;
  5. Document any performance measures used to measure effectiveness and efficiency of service or program;
  6. Current cost to maintain the service. This must include staffing levels, direct costs, indirect costs and any overhead costs;
  7. Current state rate structure that CTS is charging for service or program;
  8. Analysis whether this service is currently cost recoverable;
  9. What level of service is provided today;
  10. Customers that are receiving this service.
  1. Analyze and develop recommendation report for each service to answer the following strategic questions:
  2. Should CTS provide the service to customers?
  3. Provide the rationale why and the expected benefits customers should receive if CTS must provide the service;
  4. If CTS does not provide the service, what are the reasonable service delivery alternatives and associated transition costs?
  5. Is the service adequately resourced financially and do we have sufficient staffing to support the service?

The agency has done a considerable amount of work to identify

1.5Contract Term

It is anticipated that the Initial Term of the resulting Contract will be through April 30, 2018 commencing on the effective date of the Contract.

1.6Definitions

“Apparently Successful Vendor” (ASV) shall mean the Vendor(s) who: best meets all the requirements of this RFP and is selected to provide the service.

“Business Days” or “Business Hours” shall mean Monday through Friday, 8 AM to 5 PM, local time in Olympia, Washington, excluding Washington State holidays.

“Contract” shall mean the RFP, the Response, Contract document, all schedules and exhibits, and all amendments awarded pursuant to this RFP.

“CTS” shall mean Consolidated Technology Services.

“Desirable Scored” or “(DS)” shall mean that answering is optional, and the Response will be scored.

“Mandatory” or “(M)” shall mean the Vendor must comply with the requirement, and the Response will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis.

“Mandatory Scored” or “(MS)” shall mean the Vendor must comply with the requirement, and the Response will be scored.

“Purchaser” shall mean the Consolidated Technology Services.

“RCW” means the Revised Code of Washington.

“Response” shall mean the written proposal submitted by Vendor to CTSin accordance with this RFP. The Response shall include all written materialsubmitted by Vendor as of the date set forth in the RFP schedule or as further requested by CTS. The Response shall be in the English language, and all measurements and qualities will be stated in units required by law in the United States.

“Services” includes Purchased Services and shall mean those Services provided by Vendor relating to the solicitation, deployment, development and/or implementation activities that are appropriate to the scope of this solicitation.

“Software” shall mean the object code version of computer programs Licensed pursuant to the Contract. Software also means the source code version, where provided by Vendor. Embedded code, firmware, internal code, microcode, and any other term referring to software residing in the Equipment that is necessary for the proper operation of the Equipment is not included in this definition of Software. Software includes all prior, current, and future versions of the Software and all maintenance updates and error corrections.

“State” shall mean the state of Washington.

“Subcontractor” shall mean one not in the employment of Vendor, who is performing all or part of the Products under the resulting Contract under a separate contract with Vendor. The term “Subcontractor” means Subcontractor(s) of any tier.

“Solution” shall mean a product, combination of products, services, or a mix of products and services that an original equipment manufacturer, vendor, service provider or value added reseller offers to customers to address a specific business problem or scenario. The requirements stated must be part of the Solution that is commercially available at the time of the Vendor’s response to the RFP. Functionality and requirements may not be on the Vendor’s roadmap or soon to be released.

“Vendor” shall mean the company, organization, or entity submitting a Response to this RFP, its subcontractors and affiliates.

1.7Overview of Solicitation Process

The evaluation process applies successive rounds of evaluation that will narrow the pool of competitors to assure only the highest scoring finalists’ move to the next Round in the evaluation process. CTS, at its sole discretion, will determine the number of top scoring competitors to move to the next Round.

Step 1: A preliminary examination of the completeness and validity of responses. All responsive vendors will move to Round 2.

Step 2: An evaluation to determine compliance with requirements and financial evaluation. Only the top scoring vendors will move to Round 3. The financial review will look at commercial risk and cost analysis of all pricing, project schedules, terms and conditions contained within the Response. CTS, in its sole discretion, will determine if it will conduct a Step 3, and the number of topscoring to move to the next Round.

Optional Step 3: Interviews and reference check.

Step 3 is discretionary. If CTS chooses to move forward with a Step 3, CTS will interview the top scoring finalists and representative staff who will work on the project, and conduct a reference check of the top scoring vendors.

Step 4: Announce Apparently Successful Vendor.

After completing the evaluation phases of the process as set forth above, CTS plans to enter into contractual negotiations with one Apparently Successful Vendor (“ASV”) with a view to finalizing a contract. Award of contract will depend on a satisfactory outcome to these negotiations.

1.8Funding

Any contract awarded as a result of this procurement is contingent upon the availability of funding.

1.1.

1.2.

1.3.

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9Statements of Work (SOW)

Any services performed for a Purchaser under the resulting Contract shall be documented in a Statement of Work (“SOW”) established between the Purchaser and the Vendor. The SOW will reference the Contract by number, the SOW term, provide a description of the scope of work to be performed, and provide the estimated total cost of the project. Multiple SOWS may be entered into between the parties to document the activities necessary to perform the work herein.

SECTION 2

2.SCHEDULE

This RFP is being issued under the following schedule. The Response deadlines are mandatory and non-negotiable. Failure to meet any of the required deadlines will result in disqualification from participation. All times are local time, Olympia, WA.

EVENT / DATE
RFP Issued / October 16, 2017
Final Vendor Questions and Comments due / October 23, 2017
State’s Final Written Answers issued / October 25, 2017
Responses due by NOON / November 7, 2017
Evaluation period / November 8-30, 2017
Top finalists interviews and reference check (optional) / November 15, 2017
Announcement of ASV / November 27, 2017
Vendor Request for Optional Debriefing due / November 28, 2017
Optional Vendor Debriefings / November 29, 2017
Contract Negotiations / November 28, 2017
Contract available for work to begin / December 31, 2017

CTS reserves the right to revise the above schedule.

SECTION 3

3.INSTRUCTIONS TO RESPONDING VENDORS

2.

3.

3.1RFP Coordinator (Proper Communication)

All communications relevant to this RFP must be addressed in writing to the RFP Coordinator at the contact information below:

Contact Name:Diane Vernon

E-mail Address:

Phone: 360-407-8770

3.1Vendor Questions

It is the Vendor’s responsibility to remedy any ambiguity, inconsistency, error or omission within this document before submitting their Response. Vendors shall submit all requests to the contact above no later than 5:00 p.m. on the closing date stated in Section 2. An official written CTS response will be provided for Vendor questions received by this deadline. Written responses to Vendor questions will be posted on the CTS web site at:

3.2Vendor Complaints Regarding Requirements and Specifications

Vendors may submit specific complaints in writing to the RFP Coordinator, if Vendor believes requirements exist that unduly constrain competition. The complaint must be made in writing to the RFP Coordinator before the Response due date. The complaint must state how the requirement unduly constrains competition and provide the relevant facts, circumstances and documentation. The solicitation process may continue.

Except as otherwise stated below, the Chief Legal Services Officer will review protests on behalf of the agency. Vendors may appeal the Chief Legal Service Officer’s determination, on purchases over $100,000, by submitting an appeal in writing to the Director. An appeal shall be filed no later than five (5) business days after the Chief Legal Service Officer’s decision. Decisions made by the Director or designee are final.

3.3Response Contents

The Response must contain information responding to all Mandatory Requirements, a signed Certification and Assurances, and must include the signature of an authorized Vendor representative on all documents required in the appendices.

The Response should be submitted in two (2) separate files containing what is listed below. This separation of documentation protects the integrity of the State’s evaluation process. No mention of the cost response may be made in Volume 1.

File entitled --Volume 1:

  • Vendor’s cover letter explicitly acknowledging receipt of all RFP revisions issued, if any; and
  • The Response to Section 4, Vendor Requirements and Section 5, Technical Requirements

File entitled--- Volume 2:

  • The cost response in a completed Appendix E, Cost Proposal Form
  • Vendor’s signed and completed Appendix A, Certifications and Assurances
  • Vendor’s exceptions and/or proposed revisions to Appendix B, Proposed Contract
  • Vendor’s Appendix C, MWBE Certification, if applicable

Failure to provide any requested information in the prescribed format may result in disqualification of the Vendor.

3.4Response Requirements

The signature block in Appendix A, a representative authorized to bind the company to the offer must sign Certifications and Assurances.

Vendor must respond to each Requirement. Failure to comply with any applicable item may result in the Response being disqualified. In each requirement title is a designation indicating how the Response will be evaluated, as set forth in Section 5.

3.5Delivery of Responses

All proposals must arrive via an attachment to e-mail to the RFP Coordinator at the email address above, on the proposal due date, and time stated in Section 2. Responses arriving in the RFP Coordinator’s in-box after the time stated in Section 2 will be disqualified. The "receive date/time" posted by CTS’ email system will be used as the official time stamp but may not reflect the exact time received.

Vendors should allow sufficient time to ensure timely receipt of the proposal by the RFP Coordinator. Late Responses will not be accepted and will be automatically disqualified from further consideration.

CTS assumes no responsibility for delays caused by Vendor’s e-mail, network problems or any other party. Zipped files cannot be received by CTS and cannot be used for submission of Responses.

3.6Proprietary or Confidential Information

Any information contained in the Response that is proprietary or confidential must be clearly designated. Marking of the entire Response or entire sections of the Response as proprietary or confidential will not be accepted nor honored. CTS will not accept Responses where pricing is marked proprietary or confidential, and the Response will be rejected.