Title
MOTION TO AWARD IFB # TS-26-02 "SOPHOS LICENSE RENEWAL" TO THE MOST RESPONSIVE/RESPONSIBLE BIDDER, ZONES LLC., IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $128,072 FOR A ONE YEAR PERIOD.
Summary Explanation and Background
PROCUREMENT PROCESS TAKEN:
- Chapter 35 of the City’s Code of Ordinances is titled “PROCUREMENT PROCEDURES, PUBLIC FUNDS.”
- Section 35.15 defines an Invitation for Bid as “A written solicitation for competitive sealed bids with the title, date and hour of the public bid opening designated therein and specifically defining the commodities or services for which bids are sought. The invitation for bid shall be used when the city is capable of specifically defining the scope of work for which a service is required or when the city is capable of establishing precise specifications defining the actual commodities required. The invitation for bid shall include instructions to bidders, plans, drawings and specifications, if any, bid form and other required forms and documents to be submitted with the bid.”
- Section 35.18 of the City's Code of Ordinances is titled "COMPETITIVE BIDDING OR COMPETITIVE PROPOSALS REQUIRED; EXCEPTIONS."
- Section 35.18(A) states, "A purchase of or contracts for commodities or services that is estimated by the Chief Procurement Officer to cost more than $100,000 shall be based on sealed competitive solicitations as determined by the Chief Procurement Officer, except as specifically provided herein."
- Section 35.19 of the City's Code of Ordinances is titled "SEALED COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCEDURE."
- Section 35.19(A) states "All sealed competitive solicitations as defined in § 35.18 shall be presented to the City Commission for their consideration prior to advertisement."
- Section 35.21 of the City's Code of Ordinances is titled "AWARD OF CONTRACT."
- Section 35.21(A) of the City's Code of Ordinances is titled "City Commission approval.”
- Section 35.21(A)(1) states, "An initial purchase of, or contract for, commodities or services, in excess of $100,000, shall require the approval of the City Commission, regardless of whether the competitive bidding or competitive proposal procedures were followed."
SUMMARY EXPLANATION AND BACKGROUND:
1. On April 15, 2026, the City Commission authorized the advertisement of IFB # TS-26-02 “Sophos License Renewal", which was advertised on April 22, 2026.
2. The purpose of the solicitation was to seek bids from qualified firms to provide the requested Sophos renewal licenses for the City of Pembroke Pines Charter Schools.
3. Renewal will be for the following Sophos Endpoint Protection Products:
Sophos Central MDR - Managed Detection and Response Complete - Next-gen Endpoint Protection with threat hunting capabilities, and a fully managed 24/7 Threat Hunting and Response service. Sophos MDR provides the Charter Schools with a 24/7 team of threat hunters and response experts who will proactively hunt for and validate potential threats and incidents, use all available information to determine the scope and severity of threats, apply the appropriate business context for valid threats, and initiate actions to remotely disrupt, contain, and neutralize threats.
4. The IFB included three pricing options:
• Option 1 - One Year Term
o Pricing for a one (1) year service term. If this option is selected, the contract will be for a one-year period only, and the City may re-solicit for services in subsequent years.
• Option 2 - Three Year Term (Lump Sum)
o Pricing for a three (3) year service term with a single lump sum payment covering the full contract period.
• Option 3 - Three Year Term (Annual Payments)
o Pricing for a three (3) year service term structured as three (3) equal annual payments.
In addition, the solicitation stated that all payments will be made directly to the awarded vendor. The City will not remit payments to any third-party financing or leasing entity. Proposers shall not require, include, or condition their proposal on the use of third-party financing, leasing companies, or installment payment agreements. Any proposal requiring the City to enter into a separate agreement with a financial institution will not be permitted.
5. On May 19, 2026, the City opened bids from the following twenty-three (23) vendors listed in ascending order, by each pricing option:
|
Option 1 |
1-Year Term |
Option 2 |
3-Year |
Option 3 |
3-Year |
|
|
Vendor |
Annual |
Vendor |
Lump Sum |
Vendor |
Annual |
Total |
|
SMART IT PROS INC |
$100,402.50 |
SMART IT PROS INC |
$100,402.50 |
Adler Charles Svcs. |
$416.62 |
$1,249.86 |
|
Zones LLC |
$128,072.00 |
New Tech Solutions Inc |
$132,867.50 |
Arif International Corp |
$97,731.83 |
$293,195.49 |
|
Arif International Corp |
$132,818.50 |
Zones LLC |
$278,346.00 |
ABS |
$97,972.50 |
$293,917.50 |
|
Axelliant LLC |
$133,401.00 |
Arif International Corp |
$292,462.50 |
SMART IT PROS INC |
$100,410.17 |
$301,230.51 |
|
ABS |
$133,474.00 |
Axelliant LLC |
$293,747.00 |
Zones LLC |
$101,194.81 |
$303,584.43 |
|
AlxTel, Inc. |
$133,759.50 |
ABS |
$293,917.00 |
TommyTQL LLC |
$106,408.50 |
$319,225.50 |
|
Software Info. Resource |
$133,909.50 |
AlxTel, Inc. |
$294,813.50 |
GHA Technologies, Inc |
$107,015.39 |
$321,046.17 |
|
SCW |
$133,982.00 |
Adler Charles Svcs. |
$294,813.50 |
Wholesale369 LLC |
$110,435.00 |
$331,305.00 |
|
Questivity |
$135,464.50 |
Software Info. Resource |
$294,861.00 |
Velocity1 Technologies,LLC |
$130,000.00 |
$390,000.00 |
|
TECHBRANIUM LLC |
$135,483.50 |
Tech Advanced Computers |
$295,450.00 |
Tech Advanced Computers |
$134,425.00 |
$403,275.00 |
|
vPrime Tech Inc |
$135,605.50 |
GHA Technologies, Inc |
$296,650.00 |
TECHBRANIUM LLC |
$135,475.89 |
$406,427.67 |
|
Tech Advanced Computers |
$135,650.00 |
Questivity |
$298,305.50 |
Universal Adaptive C.S. Inc. |
$136,665.61 |
$409,996.83 |
|
Adler Charles Svcs. |
$136,365.50 |
TECHBRANIUM LLC |
$298,323.50 |
SCW |
$140,681.10 |
$422,043.30 |
|
Kambrian Corporation |
$136,816.00 |
vPrime Tech Inc |
$298,905.00 |
AlxTel, Inc. |
$142,116.87 |
$426,350.61 |
|
Hypertec USA Inc. |
$136,914.00 |
Kambrian Corporation |
$301,253.50 |
Axelliant LLC* |
$0.00 |
$0.00 |
|
GHA Technologies, Inc |
$137,107.50 |
Hypertec USA Inc. |
$301,496.50 |
Software Info. Resource |
$0.00 |
$0.00 |
|
SKKN INC. |
$139,457.00 |
SKKN INC. |
$307,053.00 |
Questivity* |
$0.00 |
$0.00 |
|
Wholesale369 LLC |
$145,200.00 |
TommyTQL LLC |
$319,225.50 |
vPrime Tech Inc* |
$0.00 |
$0.00 |
|
Velocity1 Technologies,LLC |
$147,595.50 |
Velocity1 Technologies,LLC |
$324,962.00 |
Kambrian Corporation* |
$0.00 |
$0.00 |
|
Universal Adaptive C.S. Inc. |
$170,270.00 |
Wholesale369 LLC |
$331,305.00 |
Hypertec USA Inc.* |
$0.00 |
$0.00 |
|
New Tech Solutions Inc |
$292,652.50 |
Universal Adaptive C.S. Inc. |
$374,945.50 |
SKKN INC.* |
$0.00 |
$0.00 |
|
ASIMER TECH LLC |
$293,432.00 |
SCW |
$488,933.50 |
New Tech Solutions Inc* |
$0.00 |
$0.00 |
|
TommyTQL LLC |
$319,225.50 |
ASIMER TECH LLC* |
$0.00 |
ASIMER TECH LLC* |
$0.00 |
$0.00 |
6. Under Pricing Option 3, Adler Charles Services Inc. initially appeared to be the lowest-priced bidder. However, the firm confirmed that its pricing was submitted in error. In addition, the next lowest vendors for Option 3 could not hold their pricing or required the City to enter into third-party financing agreements.
7. Furthermore, during the evaluation process, the Procurement and Sustainability Department attempted to contact Smart IT Pros Inc., the apparent low bidder under Pricing Options 1 and 2, to verify the pricing submitted for the requested items. Smart IT Pros Inc. did not respond or confirm its pricing. As a result, Smart IT Pros Inc. was deemed non-responsive.
Similarly, the Procurement and Sustainability Department also attempted to contact New Tech Solutions Inc., the second lowest bidder under Pricing Option 2, to verify the pricing submitted with its bid. Despite multiple attempts, New Tech Solutions Inc. did not respond or confirm its pricing. As a result, New Tech Solutions Inc. was also deemed non-responsive.
8. The Charter Schools budgeted $140,000 for the Sophos license renewal. While the Charter Schools would have explored budget transfers if the pricing had been reasonably close to the available funding, the lowest responsive price under Option 2 (Three Year Term - Lump Sum Option) was $278,346, submitted by Zones LLC. This exceeded the available budget by $138,346.
9. Accordingly, Pricing Option 1 (One Year Term) is the only feasible pricing structure within the available budget. Under this option, Zones LLC submitted the lowest responsive bid in the amount of $128,072. The Procurement and Sustainability Department along with the Technology Services Department reviewed the bid and determined that Zones LLC is the most responsive and responsible bidder for Option 1.
10. Request Commission to award IFB # TS-26-02 "Sophos License Renewal” to Zones LLC., in the amount not to exceed $128,072 for a one-year period.
Financial Impact
FINANCIAL IMPACT DETAIL:
a) Initial Cost: Amount not to exceed $128,072 for a one-year period.
b) Amount budgeted for this item in Account No:
Funds are available in the following account #‘s for Other Svc - IT:
170-569-5051-534995-7300-359-0000-00550
170-569-5051-534995-7300-359-0000-00551
170-569-5051-534995-7300-359-0000-00552
171-569-5052-534995-7300-359-0000-00553
171-569-5052-534995-7300-359-0000-00554
172-569-5053-534995-7300-359-0000-
173-569-5061-534995-7300-359-0000-
c) Source of funding for difference, if not fully budgeted: Not Applicable.
d) 5-year projection of the operational cost of the project Not Applicable.
e) Detail of additional staff requirements: Not Applicable.
FEASIBILITY REVIEW:
A feasibility review is required for the award, renewal and/or expiration of all function sourcing contracts. This analysis is to determine the financial effectiveness of function sourcing services.
a) Was a Feasibility Review/Cost Analysis of Out-Sourcing vs. In-House Labor Conducted for this service? Not Applicable.
b) If Yes, what is the total cost or total savings of utilizing Out-Sourcing vs. In-House Labor for this service? Not Applicable.