The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0607.000 2000-2002 ~ Phone: (808) 961-8267 GARY SAFARIK -~'~?r.. Fa~c: (808) 961-8912 Caarra~.~ir~rrrlier safa~l:~alinterpav.net ~ ~~J. o.;,_~., County Coun~a . j.- ~ i L_ _ i.. ~.j County of Hawai `i Hawai `i County Building r" 25 Aupuni Street ~1 ~ Hilo, Ffawai'i 96720 April 29, 2002 To: Mr. James Arakaki, Chairman Hawaii County Council From: Mr. Gary Safarik, Chairman Subcommittee on Technology and Communications Please be advised that the Finance Committee's Subcommittee on Technology and Communications will be holding its first meeting on May 14, 2002. The focus of this meeting will be the 1st phase upgrade on the Public Safety "Microwave Network System". The attached memo will provide the points of discussion. Attending the meeting will be Bill Gray, Purchasing Agent; Assistant Police Chief Lawrence Mahuna, Police Major Morton Carter, Leslie Matsumoto, Radio Technician II, Radio Shop, FIawai`i County Police Department; and a Representative from the Gartner group. They will be available for committee discussion. GS/ey Att. cc: Aaron Chung, FC Chairman District V Puna Makai i~ i~~ I~Ta. ~ 6PWf~4m ton fCashare 5950 Canoga Avenue, SuiOe 600 TeteQhone: +1-8~8-7~0-8855 Saaior Consulfan4 Woodland H~ls, CA 91367 fax. +1-a18-T10-1467 Gartner Consulting gattnee.com To: ~alajor Morton Carter Frown: Jon Kashare Cc: John ~mstein, Lance Westerfund Date: March 2002 Subject: Hawaii County Microwave System 'Evaluation and Selection Plan This memorandum summarizes Gartner's recommended Selection Plan for the County of Hawaii {"County") in its process to select a Microwave system vendor. The Selection Plan involves the following phases: ¦ RFP Development and Release ¦ Preliminary Proposal Evaluation ¦ Finalsst Evaluation • Final Selection/Contract 1~Tegotiations DEVELOPI~N'P AND 1tEI,EASE (COIVIPI.ETED) 1. Prior to release of the RFP, Gartner will provide Hawaii County with an initial list of potential qualified vendors. This list will be merged with the Project Team's vendor list and finalized. 2. Issue the RFP to the qualified vendors. As required, publish notices of the RIL P opportunity (e.g., newspaper advertisement, Internet) and provide the RFP to any additional vendors who may request it. 3. Respond to vendor questions regarding the RFP and Hawaii County's requireYnents. If necessary, addenda issued by the County as a result of vendor questions should be submitted to each party that has received the RFP. 4. Accept proposals up to the due date. PRELII~INA~Y PIELOPOSAL EVt~LiTATION In this phase, Gartner and the Project Team will wont independently, but in parallel conducting the preliminary evaluation of the proposals. Typically, purchasing policies on coffipetitive procures$aents require no or gnininzal contact with vendors during the preliminary analysis phase of the evaluation process. This is critical for the integrity of the overall process and the f nal decision. The Project Team, including Gartner, should conduct a preliminary evaluation of the proposals received. The purpose of this phase of the evaluation process is to determine, as quickly as possible, the finalists for further evaluation. In general, teased on our experience, no more than three finalists are selected at this point. Sometimes only one vendor emerges from the initial evaluation and is the sole finalist. Each proposal should be read and analyzed thoroughly. Gartner will complete the evaluation worksheets and facilitate a discussion with County personnel to ensure that all relevant information and issues regarding the vendor proposals are identified. Proposals should be evaluated based on a variety of quantitative and qualitative criteria including, but not necessarily limited to, the following: A. Proposal ¦ Completeness and thoroughness of the proposal. All required information must be provided, in the format specified. ¦ The vendor's understanding of 1`-Iawaii County's purpose, scope and objectives, including the applicability and quality of the vendor's system design and project approach. Contract ¦ The vendor's willingness to negotiate a contract, including payment terms, acceptable to the County. The number of exceptions taken to I~€awaii County's terms and conditions should be noted. C. Costs • One-time costs. Although the low cost bidder may not necessarily be awarded the contract, costs are an important evaluation criteria. • Ongoing costs for maintenance and support. D. Vendor lEzperieaace and lliesoearces ¦ The quality, relevance and number of references. • The vendor's ability to successfully install the system, as demonstrated by installation of a similar system in at least one comparable jurisdiction within the past three years. Emphasis would be given to the specific capabilities required by the County. ¦ The financial stability and resources of the vendor. E. Caestoaeaer Seepport/~Vare°aeety seed 1Vdainteeaaeace ¦ The level of service and responsiveness that the vendor commits to providing the Coumy. ¦ Qualifications, experience and technical expertise of the vendor's Customer Support staff ~Aaa~ ~~r ¦ Ability of the vendor to provide long-term maintenance support to the County. ¦ The vendor's process for providing onsite support. F. Systeffi Specif cati®ns ¦ Design, capability, and functionality of the proposed system, including a quantitative analysis of the vendor's response to the 1~P (i.e., the number of requirements included in the system, the number of requirements met through alternative approaches, and the number of requirements not provided). G. Design/Systern Arehiteeture Approach • Design, capability and functionality of the proposed system, including conformance with the County's conceptual direction. ¦ The vendor's current technological position and future direction. IYnplegnentati®n/Project 1Vlanageinent ¦ Level of assistance to be provided to the County by the vendor during the implementation process. ¦ Feasibility, timeliness and quality of the implementation schedule, and ability to meet the County's implementation deadlines. I. Training, I)®caanflentation and System Adininistrati®n ¦ The amount and extent of user training. ¦ Quality and extent of the documentation to be provided. ¦ The extent of the effort required to perform System Administration fianctions. Gartner, independent of the Project Team, will conduct a complete analysis of the proposals and provide comprehensive documentation of the attributes, strengths and weaknesses of the proposals, and will provide overall ratings for each vendor based on the following criteria: • Vendor Eacperience -experience of firm, relevant operational systems, financial status • System Resign and Capabilities ~ proposed performance guarantees, system functionality, implementation approach, system administration • Services to be Provided ~ training, implementation, project management, warranty, acceptance testing • Costs e one time costs, annual recurring costs, total 10 year costs PARP. Z ~ Overall Rating There are two important products of the Preliminary Proposal Evaluation. The first is the selection of the vendors who will be considered finalists. The second is a thorough list of questions that have been identified by both Project Team members and Gartner. These questions will be distributed to finalists, and used to continue the process of evaluation vendors. FINALIST EVALUt~'I'ION The results of the preliminary evaluation should be reviewed by the Project Team for selection of finalist vendor(s). Finalist vendor(s) should be invited to make presentations and review their proposal with the Project Team and other County personnel. The vendor's representatives attending the presentation should be technically qualified to respond to questions related to the proposed system and its components. Vendors who do not make the finals normally may either be notified of the results of the evaluation process at that time, or not until the winning vendor is selected by the Project Team. In order to obtain the most favorable terms for Hawaii County, while working with vendors in a fair and consistent manner, the Project Team should have the option of requesting revised proposals, including costs, from finalist vendors. Additional evaluation of the finalists should include the following steps: 1. Perform detailed reference checking. Conduct visits to reference sites, if appropriate. The vendors should not actively participate in these site visits. 2. Follow up on ail questions and issues requiring clarification. Changes to the proposals may be requested from the vendors as the most appropriate system configuration and approach is developed. The Project Team should have the option of requesting updated proposals from any or all of the finalists. In addition, the Project Team should have the option of discussing specific budget targets with the finalists. FINALIS'T' SEI.ECTI®lmi/C®NCT NEGO"TIAATIONS Identification of the selected vendor should be made by the Project Team. based upon a thorough analysis of the information obtained during the previous steps, Gartner will work with the County's project personnel to recommend the vendor whose system best satisfies the overall needs of the County. A comprehensive contract is included in the County's RFP. l~iost contract issues will be resolved during flee evaluation and selection process. Working with the County, Gartner will assist in finalezyng any outstanding contract terms, such as completing detailed schedules for site development, hardware implementation, and services to be provided by the PACr~ 4 . finalist vendors. We anticipate that a final contract would be subject to standard County review and approval. PauP. 5