Award Memo & ChecklistContract 01714 – TRANSLATION SERVICES – DSHS & HCA Systems Generated Client Letters (non-supported Languages)

Procurement Coordinator: Connie Stacy

Contract Type: New Rebid* Replacement WSCA Enterprise General UseRestricted to: DSHS and HCA (*replaces #10106 which has been super extended and

expires 12/31/14)

Contract Duration:

Initial Term: Two year period commencing 01/01/15 through 12/31/16Maximum life: Not to exceed 8 yearsMaximum Date: 2023

Estimated Value of RFP:

Estimated Term Worth: $2,434,120Estimated Annual Worth: $1,217,060 (based upon past usage reports)

Bidders: WEBS Vendor Summary:

Total Veteran Owned 3

Total Minority Owned 8

Total Minority & Woman Owned 9

Total Woman Owned 13

Total Washington Small Business 91

Total Vendors 416

Bids received: 14

Notification Method:

WEBS Other: Current Contract Contractor (Dynamic Language) was notified of the rebid via

email.

NIGP Commodity Codes:

961-17, -46 and -75

Summary: This is a rebid of existing Washington State Contract 10106 which expires 12/31/14. The contract is restricted for use by DSHS and HCA only (no other requests for this type of service has been requested by other agencies).The RFP requires that a vendor(s) provide an automated system to generate client letters regarding medical assessments, recommendations, etc. in a minimum of fifty-two languages, with other languages being given additional points during the evaluation process. The commonly utilized documents/templates are provided to the vendor (see Appendix J of sample docs) who builds a data base in their system, then transposes letters/documents into a requested language and mails out to the client. The languages were published in Appendix H. There is also a “per word” charge for documents other than client letters that need to be translated.The majority of the required translations are Spanish, Russian and Cambodian. The team chose to make the costs all inclusive; i.e. did not want a cost “per language” which would have been extremely difficult to manage.

Bid Development

The contract file contains documentation of bid development and work completed with the stakeholders, DSHS and HCA, including confidentiality statements, meeting agendas, input to the RFP, etc.Major change from current contract in that we adopted two pricing categories (Category One for ACES/ProviderOne medical programs, and Category Two for CARE) due to the differing service requirements/potential changes in costs thereof, primarily as follows:

Category One requires physical pick-up and drop-off on a daily basis of the documents needing to be translated, Category Two facilitates electronically.

Category One requires fewer languages than Category Two. Category Two requires a higher level of “electronic capability” than Category One.

Hard copy of RFP and Amendments contained in white binder, attached.Bidder questions in writing/oral were accepted for the initial two weeks after RFP posted, and were addressed via Amendment #2. Pre-bid Conference conducted July 1, 2014. Amendment #3 contains list of attendees.

EPP Strategy: While Economic and Environmental Goals were included in the contract per paragraph 2.14, this is a service contract and while bidders are encouraged to reach for these goals, there is no guarantee of compliance. None of the bidders responded with any type of proposed EPP strategy.

Supplier Diversity Strategy:

Is Certification language provided “Up Front” in the solicitation? Yes, see paragraph 2.14 Did you include OMWBE in sourcing team? Is a diversity plan included as part of the bid response prior to award (if certified firms are

subcontractors)? No, however it is standard to the industry for this service to “subcontract” and due to the nature of the services required, both the employees and the subs are typically minorities

Does this procurement offer second tier opportunities and reporting? No Did you encourage subcontracting efforts at the Pre-bid Conference: Yes

Peer Review Cheral Jones, Unit Manager, Bart Potter and Marci Disken, DES and various stakeholders as follows:DSHS: Patty McDonald, Ro Raphael, Jason Reed and Cliff RobertsHCA: Elena Safariants

Fee Yes, Program Administrative Management Fee .74% per paragraph 2.8 “Management Fee”

Bid Process

Bid Posted to WEBS:

05/22/14

Pre-Bid: 07/01/14 - 8:00 am to 11:00 am (list of attendees published in Amendment #3). Also in attendance was DSHS and HCA staff, including their IT program staff, who assisted in responding to bidder questions.

Amendment(s):

Overview:

Amendment #1 Extended pre-bid date from 06/17/14 to 07/01/14, and closing date from 07/02/14 to 07/22/14

Amendment #2 Provide list of Bidder questions and responses, and sample documents for Appendix J

Amendment #3 Publish list of pre-bid conference attendees, provide list of additional bidder questions and responses, and RFP clarifications

Amendment #4 Publish another list of bidder questions and responses

Amendments #5 & #6 Correct which programs represented which category

Bid Evaluation—ResponsivenessClarifications and acceptance of Bidder submittals, information, and product offerings were applied uniformly for all Bidders.

Bid Opening: July 22, 2014 – 2:00 pm

Bids Sealed yes

Rejection letters none

Received required submittals

yes

Specification compliance

No bidder took exception to any of the bid requirements, including those specified in Appendix F “Service Requirements”

Price Sheet compliance

All bidders complied by providing bid pricing for both elements within each category (cost per letter, and cost per word). Of the fourteen responses, two bidders bid only Category Two.

Other Responsiveness checks

see below

Bid Evaluation—Scoring

Evaluation: The bid responses were evaluated in phases:1. Determination of Responsiveness was the First Phase (see “responsiveness checklist”

attached to each bid response)2. Price Evaluation was the Second Phase (worth 600 points)3. Non cost factors represented the Third Phase (worth 400 points), which included:

scoring of six “general” questions that pertained to both categories (200 points)

scoring of two additional “category specific” questions (100 points) the potential of being requested to respond/ scored for an additional nine

question (90 points) teleconference with selected highest scorers for discussion regarding

implementation if awarded

possible contact of references (10 points)

Scoring: Cost and elements of non-Cost were scored as described below. DES calculated the “cost” points, while stakeholder teams (one team for each category) scored the non-cost factors, with the exception of Management Question #6 which was scored by DES (bidders received credit/points for the number of interpreters by language that they could provide, therefore points assigned were not subjective).

“COST” (600 points):As noted in the RFP, bidders were to provide pricing for the two elements specified in Appendix B “Price Sheet” for the categories they wished to bid; 1) a cost per letter, and 2) a cost per word.The two prices were added together, then discounted by any prompt payment discount offered if 30 days or more. The resulting total was the amount used for scoring purposes (lowest amount received maximum points available (600), with successive bids then receiving points proportionate to their relationship with the bidder offering the lowest amount.Score Sheet for “Cost”:

Note: In Category One, most of the bidders received points in the 500 area, with an average price per letter of $9.75. However, for Category Two, one bidder (Linguilinx) bid significantly lower ($4.00 per letter versus an averaged price per letter of $9.75) therefore the spread of points with the remaining bidders is significant. The price of $4.00 was clarified via email (contained in the folder) and again via telecon (see notes).

For example: Lingualinx bid $4.00/letter = 600 points for cost CTS (next lowest) at $9.07/letter = 270 points for cost

FOR “NON-COST” (400 points ): A significant portion of points (300) represented the portion of the RFP where bidders were to provide written responses to six “management questions” (as noted earlier, question 6 was a numbers issue based upon credits awarded for how many interpreters per language could be provided); two of which were “category specific”, questions 5 and 6 (reference Appendix G).The remaining one hundred points were left in reserve for “additional information” (see below).The process was as follows:

1) Questions One thru Five : The two teams (Team One for Category One lead by Elena Safariants/HCA, and Team Two for Category Two lead by Patty McDonald/DSHS) were provided copies of the bid responses, and score sheets. Team members initially scored independently, the team members then reconvened, discussed their results and prepared a team consensus score, which was then provided to DES. At a subsequent meeting, all members then averaged the scores of the two teams for point assignment purposes.

2) Question Six : see above (Connie calculated), points awarded were added to those

awarded for 1 thru 5.3) For Category One, the eight bidders who received a score of at least 187 (or 62.5%)

points for the questions 1-6, an opportunity to respond to an additional nine questions was provided, which the team scored for the additional 100 points available. The 187 was chosen because it was the break-off point for anybody below that point being able to “catch up” with the additional 100.

4) For Category Two, it was determined that because the point spread was already so significant for “cost” ,there was no way any bidder other than Linguilinx could “catch up” with the potential additional 100 points. Therefore the team determined it appropriate to bypass this phase, and instead, conduct a telecon with Linguilinx regarding implementation and other factors (which was not scored, but determined acceptable). Interestingly, when Linguilinx was asked again to verify “cost”, they not only confirmed but indicated would be willing to hold firm for two years in lieu of the required one year, in addition to confirming that they understood how price increases would be considered.

5) For Category One, a telecon with Linguisita regarding implementation was also conducted by the team, which again, was not scored, but determined acceptable

TOTAL POINTS – “COST AND NON-COST”The embedded score sheet reflects the final scores awarded to each bidder, with the ASVs for each category orange highlighted (Linguisita for Category One with 883.5 points, and Linguilinx for Category Two with 844.5 points). The next highest scorers were for Category One, CTS with 872.5 points, and for Category Two, CTS with 528 points. Dynamic, current provider, received 839.05 and 495 points respectively. While cost was clearly the driving factor for Category Two, it was also very much a factor for Category One for the majority of the other bidders, as reflected on the spreadsheet. If asked by an unsuccessful bidder for other clear delineations, it differs vastly in the “non-cost” section, but “translator qualifications” (question four) stands out.

Bid Evaluation—Responsibility

Past Performance

Not a consideration, Dynamic is the current contractor and has performed well for the last 13 years according to HCA and DSHS.Did, however, contact the references provided for Linguilinx (Category Two) at the team’s request, were glowing (see file). Because Linguisita currently provides similar services to six states and numerous other governmental type agencies, no request for references was deemed necessary. References were considered as “pass/fail”.

Qualifications This was addressed via the “non cost” questions.

OMWBE Evaluation:

Because Washington procurement law does not allow for a preference or advantage to minority (MBE) or women (WBE) businesses, RFP#01714 did not give any evaluation preferences for MWBE Certifications although goals were incorporated (see Clause 2.14): 3%MBE and 3%WBE as well as 3% for small Businesses and 3% for Veteran-owned businesses.By its nature, this service is provided primarily by minorities, however business ownership by mwbes is not the standard; although six of the 14 responses received indicated mwbe or small business ownership only two have been certified by the state of Washington.

CONCLUSION: As noted previously, for Category One: Linguisita received the highest score for Category One and has been deemed the most responsive, responsible bidder. They work with over 3500 translators to provide services, the majority within the USA. Linguisita indicates certified by the SBA as a Hispanic Small Business.For Category Two: Lingualinx received the highest score for Category Two and has been deemed the most responsive, responsible bidder. They will be working with three subcontractors to provide services. Neither Lingualinx or the three subcontractors indicated mwbe ownership.

Results & Recommendation

Savings: Current Contract #10306 costs are $10.33 per letter, and $.22 per wordCategory One: Award at $9.15/letter & $.085/word. Savings unknown but based upon the projected volume of 90,000 client letters per year, a minimum savings of $212,500/two yearsCategory Two: Award at $4.00/letter and $.18/word. Savings unknown but based upon the projected volume of 32,000 client letters per year, a minimum savings of $384,000/two yearsPotential Savings: $596,000/two years

Recommendation:

It is the team’s opinion that it is in the best interest of the State to award contractsto the following bidders:Category One (DSHS & HCA’s “ACES/PROVIDERONE” program): Linguisita InternationalCategory Two (DSHS’s “CARE” program): Lingualinx Solutions

Award Activities NOT TO OCCUR UNTIL AFTER MANAGEMENT REVIEW/APPROVAL AND ANNOUNCEMENT OF ASB/DEBRIEF AND PROTEST PERIOD CONCLUDED

Implementation Plan

1. Solicitation document has been amended as follows to create the contracts:

o o

2. Model Contract has been updated to reflect the following: Cover Page: Document Header: Summary of Award and Contract Signatures:

3. Capture above changes and applicable specifics in Award Letters Obtain Contract Signatures.

4. Countersign w/Manager

5. Make electronic copies.

6. Email to Contractors.

7. File originals in Contract File (electronic).

8. File original signatures in Contract File

WEBS Notify bidders of the apparent successful bidder/award via WEBS Once contract award has been finalized, archive bids in WEBS

Communication Send rejection letter to disqualified bidders. Send apparent successful bidders announcement letter to all bidders Conduct any debriefs requested Send Award announcement to all bidders Email UM a brief award announcement for Bi-Weekly Broadcast

PCMS Populate PCMS Info Tab Populate PCMS Management Fee Tab Complete PCMS Expanded Description Tab Add Web remark in the PCMS Remarks Tab announcing the award of the contract Add at least 5-FAQ remarks in the PCMS Remarks Tab Complete PCMS Internet Tab to include relevant search terms Complete PCMS Commodities Tab Complete PCMS Vendors Tab Complete PCMS Customer Tab Complete PCMS Fees Tab Complete PCMS WBE/MBE Percentages Include relevant search terms in the PCMS Internet Tab

(Tip: For best results, ask your contractor(s) to provide search terms)

Post Contract to GA WebsiteLink to: Current Contract Portal Training

Copy the following files into the G:\Shared Info\INTERNET folder: Copy Contract file (01714c.doc or pdf) Copy the price sheet (01714p.doc or xls or pdf) Copy the specification (01714s.doc or xls, or pdf) if applicable Copy the bid tab (01714t.doc or xls or pdf) Copy the bid document (01714b.doc or xls, or pdf ) Copy the bid Amendment (01714a.doc or pdf ) Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document (01714f.doc or xls or pdf) Copy the award memo to file & checklist document (01714m. doc or xls or pdf)