THE PURCHASING DIVISION AND THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ABOVE MOTIONS.
MOTION A: This Request for Proposals (RFP) contained accreditation requirements initially deemed necessary for the project. The RFP stated that the vendor must be accredited by the Accredited Center of Excellence (ACE) in addition to accreditation from one of the following: International Academy of Emergency Dispatch (IAED), Association of Public Safety Communications Officials (APCO), National Emergency Number Association (NENA), National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), and/or the Commission of Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA).
There were no questions from any potential vendors about the accreditation requirement during the time the RFP was advertised. Upon opening the single proposal, staff noted that there were no accreditations earned by Replay Systems, Inc., the single proposer. After further research, staff determined that accreditations are earned and possessed by public entities only, not possessed by vendors. Since accreditations are awarded only to public entities, vendors would not be eligible to earn an accreditation and would, therefore not possess accreditations. Vendors would; however, earn certifications for the skills required for their work in the Public Safety Communications field, which would then lead the public entity to earn and maintain accreditations. The appropriate certifications for vendors to possess are: Emergency Medical Dispatch Quality (EMD-Q) issued by the International Academy of Emergency Dispatch (IAED), Emergency Police Dispatch Quality (EPD-Q) from IAED, and Emergency Fire Dispatch Quality (EFD-Q) from IAED; and certifications from the Public-Safety Communications Officials (APCO), Florida State Telecommunicator Certified, and Florida Crime Information Center (FCIC). In response to our specific inquiry regarding certifications, Replay Systems, Inc. indicated that it or its subcontracted workers hold various certifications relevant to the services provided. Replay Systems, Inc. has nine service technicians who are factory-trained and certified on Voice Point International (VPI) system installations and support.
The RFP should have contained a requirement for certifications possessed by the vendor’s staff, rather than accreditations possessed only by a public entity. Since accreditation was a responsibility requirement which no vendor could possess, it is recommended that the accreditation requirement be waived.
MOTION B: The purpose of this solicitation is to engage the services of a qualified firm to provide Independent Quality Assurance and Quality Improvement Services (QA/QI Services) for call handling within the three regional consolidated public service answering points. The request is for the services of quality assurance through evaluation, as well as reporting, gap analysis, training curriculums, and quality improvement recommendations.
On October 3, 2017 (Item No. 31), the Board approved RFP No. A2114901P1, Independent Quality Assurance and Quality Improvement Services (QA/QI Services). One firm submitted a proposal in response to the RFP.
On December 18, 2017, an Initial Evaluation Meeting was held. The Evaluation Committee determined that the firm was both responsive and responsible to the RFP requirements and would proceed to final evaluation.
On January 11, 2018, a software demonstration meeting was held. The project manager and technical team observed Replay Systems, Inc. demonstrating certain tasks related to the RFP scope of services. As a result of the Software demonstration meeting, a Vendor Software Demonstration Fact Finding Report and Matrix was generated and provided to the Evaluation Committee.
On February 15, 2018, a Final Evaluation Meeting was held. The Evaluation Committee named Replay Systems, Inc. as the single ranked firm.
The Evaluation Committee's proposed recommendation of ranking will be posted on the Purchasing Division website from February 16, 2018 through February 20, 2018, which provides an opportunity for any proposer or interested party to present any new or additional information regarding the responsibility of the proposer. Since there was only a single proposer, it is anticipated that no additional information will be submitted within this timeframe.
The Evaluation Committee's final Recommendation of Ranking will be posted on the Purchasing Division website from February 21, 2018 through February 27, 2018, which provides an opportunity for any aggrieved proposer to file a formal protest. Since there was only a single proposer, it is anticipated that there will be no protest filed within this timeframe. Upon conclusion of the protest period, the County will move forward with negotiations with the single proposer.
Additional supporting documentation provided to the Evaluation Committee regarding this procurement can be found on Broward County's Purchasing Division website at:
http://www.broward.org/Purchasing/Pages/Repository.aspx.
The Evaluation Committee consisted of:
Karen Walbridge, Purchasing Manager, Purchasing Division, Finance and Administrative Services Department (Chair and Non-Voting Member)
Gerard Boucaud, Audit Manager, Office of the County Auditor (Non-Voting Member)
Keith Wolf, Information Systems Administrator, Enterprise Technology Services Division, Finance and Administrative Services Department
Michael Nairn, E911 Communications Administrator, Office of Regional Communications and Technology
Angela Mize, Assistant Director, Regional Communications Division, Broward Sheriff's Office (Outside Committee Member)