Title
MOTION TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE AND TO AWARD RFP # TS-25-01 "NETWORK GEAR INFRASTRUCTURE AV CAMPUS” TO DOF CREATIONS, LLC., IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $666,964.05.
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 a Request for Proposals as “A written solicitation for competitive sealed proposals with the title, date and hour of the public opening designated. A request for proposals shall include, but is not limited to, general information, functional or general specifications, a statement of work, proposal instruction and evaluation criteria. All requests for proposals shall state the relative importance of price and any other evaluation criteria. The city may engage in competitive negotiations with responsible proposers determined to be reasonably susceptible of being selected for award for the purpose of clarification to assure full understanding of and conformance to the solicitation requirements. Proposers shall be accorded fair and equal treatment with respect to any opportunity for discussion and revision of proposals and such revisions may be permitted after submissions and prior to award for the purpose of obtaining the best and final offer.”
- Section 35.18 of the City's Code of Ordinances is titled "COMPETITIVE BIDDING OR COMPETITIVE PROPOSALS REQUIRED; EXCEPTIONS."
- 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 $25,000 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 $25,000, 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 December 18, 2024, the City Commission authorized the advertisement of RFP # TS-25-01 “Network Gear Infrastructure AV Campus”, which was advertised on December 23, 2024.
2. The RFP was drafted with the guidance and assistance of the City’s e-Rate Consultant, Janie Griffith of Janie Griffith Consulting, LLC. The purpose of this solicitation was to find qualified firms to provide the requested Cisco Infrastructure hardware for the City’s Charter Schools while ensuring compliance with the requirements of the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) E-Rate program to receive funding from the Universal Service Fund.
3. The requested hardware will be replacing aged and end of life (EOL) hardware at the City’s Academic Village Charter School Campus.
4. The E-Rate program provides discounts for telecommunications, Internet access, telecom devices, and internal connections to eligible schools and libraries. After the bid goes through a competitive bidding process that complies with FCC rules and state and local procurement requirements, the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) issues funding commitments to eligible applicants. Discounts range from 20 to 90 percent and are based on the poverty level of the schools. Recipients must pay some portion of the costs. The Pembroke Pines Charter Schools qualify for a 60% discount of costs related to data communications and equipment for the FY2025-26. However, to secure federal funding, the City must submit FCC Form 471 and all required documentation by March 26, 2025, at 11:59 p.m. If approved, the awarded vendor would invoice the City for 40% of the total cost related to FY2025-26 and then they would request for the remaining 60% to be paid for by USAC. Similarly, a portion of the costs for future years of service will be billed to the City and the remaining portions will be paid for by USAC. The discounts may fluctuate in future years.
5. On January 21, 2025, the City opened ten (10) bids from the following vendor(s):
|
|
Vendor |
Total |
|
|
PC Solutions & Integration, Inc. |
$263,708.55 |
|
|
Axelliant, LLC |
$654,097.90 |
|
|
Verity Partners Inc |
$654,330.04 |
|
|
DOF CREATIONS, LLC |
$666,964.05 |
|
|
Pawol Tafya, LLC |
$754,088.64 |
|
|
Gerelcom Inc. |
$807,758.64 |
|
|
Questivity |
$821,447.45 |
|
|
Emerging Technology Integrators |
$833,192.71* |
|
|
Howard Technology Solutions |
$844,378.53 |
|
|
MIAMI BUSINESS TELEPHONE CORP |
$968,945.05 |
*Note - Emerging Technology Integrators' price proposal on the bid table was $833,192.71, however, their bid package also included a document stating "Bid Table addendum - 1. Shipping is not included in your quote but can be estimated at $4,030.19. 2. Required parts not listed on the Bid Table are included in the attached ETI quote." The price listed on the formal quote from ETI included the shipping cost of $4,030.19 and had a total of $837,222.58. The Evaluation Committee made a motion to utilize the pricing listed on their quote with shipping cost for the calculation of their cost in the evaluation process.
6. On February 20, 2025, the City convened an evaluation committee to evaluate the qualifications of the proposers based on the weighted criteria provided for in the bid documents and listed below:
|
|
Evaluation Criteria |
Points Available |
|
|
Project Cost |
35 |
|
|
Experience and Capabilities |
21 |
|
|
Firm’s Understanding and Approach to the Work |
21 |
|
|
Previous Experience |
20.5 |
|
|
Veteran Owned Small Business |
2.5 |
|
|
TOTAL |
100 |
7. During the evaluation of this project, it was determined that PC Solutions & Integration, Inc., had submitted an alternative product from Juniper, rather than the Cisco brand originally requested. The Technology Services Department has advised that the Juniper wireless access points cannot be used with our current Cisco wireless controllers and would require the City to procure additional Juniper controllers for the AV campus. This would result in the AV Campus being the only location in the City with different wireless controllers and would require the IT support staff to support two different wireless environments.
This information was presented to the evaluation committee, who subsequently voted unanimously to disqualify PC Solutions & Integration, Inc. from consideration because their bid equipment is not compatible with the City’s current equipment and thereby is not a true equivalent.
The evaluation committee also discussed how some vendors did not submit their E-Rate Certification Form or submitted an incomplete form with no Service Provider Information Number (SPIN) or a possibly incorrect SPIN. The SPIN is necessary for E-rate reimbursement. However, it was discussed that the bid package did not require the form at the time of bid, as the form was set up as a non-mandatory form in the bid package and that the vendor would need the certification if awarded the bid.
8. At the February 20, 2025 meeting, the evaluation committee ranked the vendors as shown below:
|
|
Rank |
Vendor |
|
|
1 |
Verity Partners Inc |
|
|
2 |
Howard Technology Solutions |
|
|
3 |
Emerging Technology Integrators |
|
|
4 |
DOF CREATIONS, LLC |
|
|
5 |
Gerelcom Inc. |
|
|
6 |
MIAMI BUSINESS TELEPHONE CORP |
|
|
7 |
Questivity |
|
|
8 |
Pawol Tafya, LLC |
|
|
9 |
Axelliant, LLC |
*** PC Solutions & Integration, Inc. was disqualified ***
9. However, as this was the City’s first time in utilizing the newly implemented e-Procurement platform (OpenGov) for the evaluation committee process, the Procurement Department conducted a procedural review and identified an oversight in the process. The system initially omitted pre-calculated administrative scores related to Project Cost and Veteran-Owned Small Business, which are objective measures based on the bid package criteria. In an effort to correct the omission, a second evaluation meeting was convened on March 3, 2025.
10. At the March 3, 2025 meeting, the evaluation committee reviewed the vendors’ Service Provider Information Numbers (SPINs) and discussed the verification process conducted by the Procurement Department to ensure that each vendor had an active SPIN listed on the USAC website. The committee also consulted with the City’s e-Rate Consultant, Janie Griffith of Janie Griffith Consulting, LLC, to understand the potential consequences of awarding a contract to a vendor without an active SPIN. Ms. Griffith advised that doing so could jeopardize the Charter School’s federal funding.
Additionally, the committee approved a motion for the Procurement Department to obtain and accept any outstanding standard documents, such as the Vendor Drug Free Workplace Certification Form, from the vendors that had not been submitted with their original bid. These documents would not impact the evaluation scores.
As noted earlier, the evaluation committee also approved a motion to use Emerging Technology Integrators' pricing, as listed in their formal quote (including shipping costs), to determine their bid amount for the evaluation process, as this price was higher than the amount submitted in their bid table.
Subsequently, the committee rescinded their original scoring and ranking and re-ranked the vendors based on the updated information, as shown below:
|
|
Rank |
Vendor |
|
|
1 |
DOF CREATIONS, LLC |
|
|
2 |
Howard Technology Solutions |
|
|
3 |
Emerging Technology Integrators |
|
|
4 |
Gerelcom Inc. |
|
|
5 |
Verity Partners Inc |
|
|
6 |
Axelliant, LLC |
|
|
7 |
MIAMI BUSINESS TELEPHONE CORP |
|
|
8 |
Questivity |
|
|
9 |
Pawol Tafya, LLC |
11. The agreement will be for a three-year period, as the requested equipment and services include three years of licenses and support. In order to receive the discount through the e-Rate program, our consultant has advised that these costs cannot be paid upfront and that payment for the annual services must be made in the respective year for the services. As a result, below are the costs per year:
|
|
Year |
Amount |
|
|
1 |
$589,286.37 |
|
|
2 |
$38,838.84 |
|
|
3 |
$38,838.84 |
|
|
Total |
$666,964.05 |
12. DOF Creations, LLC. has also completed the Equal Benefits Certification Form and has stated that the "Contractor currently complies with the requirements of this section.”
13. Request Commission to approve the findings and recommendation of the Evaluation Committee and to award RFP# TS-25-01 “Network Gear Infrastructure AV Campus” to the first ranked vendor, DOF Creations, LLC., for the amount not to exceed $666,964.05.
Financial Impact
FINANCIAL IMPACT DETAIL:
a) Initial Cost: The total cost is $666,964.05, with $266,785.63 to be covered by the Charter School's funds and the remaining $400,178.42 funded by the Federal government through the E-Rate program. The Federal government is expected to cover 60% of the cost through the E-Rate program, while the remaining 40% will be paid by the Academic Village Charter School. While discounts may vary in future years, they are currently 60% for Fiscal Year 2025-26. As noted in the agenda, the total costs include three years of licenses and support, which will be paid over the three-year period in accordance with the E-Rate program’s requirements.
b) Amount budgeted for this item in Account No: Funds will be budgeted within the 2025-2026 Academic Village Charter School Adopted Budgeted under the Other Equipment account 172-569-5053-664400-7900-648-0000 and accordingly in future years.
c) Source of funding for difference, if not fully budgeted: Not Applicable.
d) 5 year projection of the operational cost of the project: The Pembroke Pines Charter Schools qualify for a 60% discount of costs related to data communications and equipment for the FY2025-26. However, discounts may fluctuate in future years:
|
|
FY25-26 |
Year 2 |
Year 3 |
Year 4 |
Year 5 |
|
Revenues |
$353,571.82 |
$23,303.30 |
$23,303.30 |
|
|
|
Expenditures |
$589,286.37 |
$38,838.84 |
$38,838.84 |
|
|
|
Net Cost |
$235,714.55 |
$15,535.54 |
$15,535.54 |
|
|
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.