CITY

COUNCIL

C!TY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU

H 0 N 0 L U L U,

HAW A ! I

City Council

530 South King Street, Room 202 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

September 23, 2009

Todd K. Apo, Council Chair City Council

530 South King Street, Room 202 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

Dear Council Chair Apo:

This letter is to apprise you of a circumstance that was brought to our attention after an award was made (and contested) as a result of RFP No. CN09-0 1.

Jeff Garland of Community Media Producers Association requested scoring information about RFP No. CN09-01. The Council's administrative office, in compliance with Mr. Garland's request, transmitted score cards and substantiating documentation to him. After receiving this information, he requested individual score cards. The evaluation committee had scored the proposals as a group.

As part of the preparation for RFP No. CN09-0 1, a template of the previous RFP telecasting file (of two years ago; "RFP No. CN07-01") was used. This template provided the steps to follow and included: an advertisement, a minimum number of days for offerors to respond, pre-proposal conference, discussion, "Best and Final Offer," and an evaluation with adherence to the established scoring criteria. The scoring system for RFP No. CN07-01, which scored the proposals as a group, was also followed.

However, as Mr. Garland pointed out, Hawaii Administrative Rules, Section 3-122-52 (c) (1) requires each member of the evaluation committee to explain his or her ranking determination in writing which shall be placed in the procurement file. Although the evaluation committee members did not record their individual explanations during the evaluation itself, the committee produced group score cards and a summary of the group's explanation of evaluation ranking, all of which was the product of each committee member providing independent input into the evaluation. Nonetheless, for the purpose of maintaining a more complete file on RFP CN09-0 1, each committee member now has documented (to the best of his/her recollection) an explanation of his/her ranking of the proposals. These three individual summaries, prepared separately, and attested by each panelist to the accuracy of hislher individual evaluation, are attached to this letter for your review. There was no deliberate intent to circumvent the HAR provision and none of the evaluations were made in a capricious, arbitrary, or unfair manner.

- 2 -

In the future, Council personnel will:

1) inquire with BFS-Centralized Purchasing Division andlor the SPO before

commencing with future requests for proposals.

2) attend workshops offered by the SPO regarding RFPs and competitive bids in

order to be vigilant about new developments/changes.

3) consider the implementation of a multi-step bid process for future procurements (telecasting and others); this encompasses the pre-qualification of offerors in meeting a minimum standard; if passing this requirement, the pool of applicants would then be asked to submit a written competitive bid and the lowest price would prevail.

The evaluation committee went through a lengthy process in conducting a thorough evaluation and reviewing a substantial volume of proposal documentation. The outcome is the result of what we believe was an unbiased assessment of the proposals with the awarding of points in a fair manner.

We recommend your approval and ratification of the results of the evaluation committee if, based on the information provided to you in this letter, you deem that the events as described herein did not lead to an unfair scoring of the proposals and, thus, do not warrant a disqualification of RFP No. CN09-01.

Sincerely,

Clayton Wong

Nestor Garcia

Nanette Saito

attachments

Approved:

. Apo Council Chair & Legis ative CPO

Clayton Wong's Scoring Comments (as an individual) for RFP No. CN09-01 Offerors

Employment History:

ASC.

• Incumbent provider since July 1, 2005.

• Also furnishes similar services for the State Legislature.

• My opinion: maximum number of points under this category.

PPVTV.

• It appeared that PPVTV had sufficient background in meeting this RFP .. requirement .and-it:se.lected, could.perforrn.tbe functionsof Council Telecasting Director (CTD).

• This offeror's employment history was not as substantial as ASC and thus, PPVTV should be graded/scored less than ASC.

OCT.

• I believed that OCT, as a corporate entity, with its resources and personnel, met this RFP requirement and could provide the telecasting services needed by the City Council if chosen.

• When reviewing the documentation for Michael Paz, my assessment was that his background was sufficient but not as good as Glenn Booth of ASC and further, not as good as Peter Planas of PPVTV. Thus, the ranking for OCT under this category would be third place.

Budget:

• The scoring under this category was via a formula as illustrated in the Hawaii Administrative Rules.

Total Scope of Services:

ASC.

• This offeror submitted an impressive list of innovations that would enable the Project to evolve should the Council elect to implement them (funds permitting).

• ASC, under this category, should be awarded the maximum number of points.

- 2 -

OCT.

• OCT's list of innovations was different than ASC's but nevertheless, also impressive.

• For "Total Scope of Services", OCT was on par with ASC and felt that the same number of points should be awarded.

PPVTV.

• No innovations were proposed and this indicated that this offeror may not invigorate/energize the Project.

• The lack of new ideas inferred that PPVTV was not as familiar with the Project as the other offerors.

• This category was a weak one for this offeror and the awarding of points would show a disparity between PPVTV and the other two.

Completeness of the Submitted Proposal:

ASC.

• Because of familiarity with the Council's RFP process (having submitted twice before in the previous four years), ASC easily met this requirement

• The maximum number of points should be awarded.

OCT.

• OCT initially did not include background for Michael Paz.

• Although OCT responded (in a timely manner) with the information about Mr. Paz, I believed that points should be deducted from the cap amount.

PPVTV.

• This offeror did not submit innovations. I felt that a deduction of points (from the cap amount) was in order.

- 3 -

References:

ASC.

• This offeror met the minimum requirements under this scoring category and thus, was awarded the maximum number of points.

OCT.

• Similar to ASC, this offeror received the maximum number of points.

• .. j}udngthe-pce'-propas:almeeting,._.anOCTTepre:sentativeasked if the furnishing of more than the minimum number of points would garner more points. My reply was no.

PPVTV.

• The minimum number of references was provided and consequently, PPVTV received the maximum number of points under this category.

Certification

I hereby certify that to the best of my recollection, the information contained in this document is an accurate representation of my thought process for the scoring of the three submitted proposals for RFP No. CN09-01.

Evaluation Committee Member RFP No. CN09-01

Nestor Garcia

1 , Employment History. Access Service has very strong submittal. Planas has thorough history. Good live experience with spots events. 'Olelo is thorough but need more information on M. paz if he is to be Council Telecasting Director. Can support max points for Access, Planas. Should request more info on Paz from 'Olelo. Recommended order: Access, Planas, 'Oleio.

2. Budget. 'Olelo has best bottom line. Crucial for Council to look at every opportunity to reduce costs. Planas is ok but for price, can't match 'Olelo's total package. Access very high for essentially identical services as 'Olelo, Recommended order: 'Olelo, Planas, Access.

3. Total scope of services. 'Olelo and Access very strong submittals. Access has very good ideas, but added cost of innovations a potential concern. Some of 'Olelo's innovations might only be minor upgrades to current services. Planas a little weak in innovations. Small concern whether Planas can field a full crew complement for each televised event under contract tenus. 'Olelo superior in human infrastructure. Recommended order:

Access and 'Olelo tie, Planas.

4, Completeness of Submitted Proposals. All can be awarded maximum, provided 'Olelo submits more info on Paz. Recommended order: tie,

5. References. Required amount of references submitted by all. Full points for each.

Recommended order: tie.

I hereby certify that the above statements are true to the best of my knowledge.

Nestor

(]) en ..e(]) ...... ()

"Oc co (]) ..el-

I (]) ..E I ~

1

!

(]) o

'~

(]) o: en en (]) o o

I <C

0.

•• I-

...... 0

::'0

"0 .. c'E N<'0

rn Q) ()

c:

Q) tJ)

- o

Q) 0. o () tJ)

s

o .....

s: o :J

E

.......

o c

..e

.......

'3:

c 20 co+:; :J co 0-> Q) 0 "Oc <C,S

(]) o

.~

(])

C/)

en

en Q.l{j)

0..o

<Co

"0- c Q.l co:.::;:

o 0. (]) 0 00

"0

I-

M

~

o

- rn

J:

... C IV

E >.2

0.

E w

s .~ §

Q) Q.l (j)-

C9

en __

en ,..e a.> 0. ....... U .... 0 o 0 0 <cOCO

I I

Q)

E

C'G z

-

cr-