Title
MOTION TO AWARD IFB # TS-25-19 "SHAREFILE SOFTWARE LICENSING RENEWAL” TO THE MOST RESPONSIVE/RESPONSIBLE BIDDER, NEW TECH SOLUTIONS INC., IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $71,115.
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 15 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 $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 35.19(E) is titled "Bid opening procedure."
- 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 October 15, 2025, the City Commission authorized the advertisement of IFB # TS-25-19 “ShareFile Software Licensing Renewal”, which was advertised on October 21, 2025.
2. The purpose of the solicitation was to seek bids from qualified firms to provide the requested annual ShareFile Software Licensing Renewal for the City of Pembroke Pines, in accordance with the terms, conditions, and specifications contained in this solicitation.
ShareFile is the City’s secure file storage and sharing platform, designed to protect sensitive information while ensuring compliance with regulatory requirements. It allows staff and external partners to safely exchange large files that cannot be sent through email, while also providing encryption, access controls, and audit tracking for added security.
3. On November 18, 2025, the City opened bids from the following eight (8) vendors listed in ascending order:
|
Vendor |
Total |
|
New Tech Solutions Inc. |
$71,115.00 |
|
vCloud Tech Inc. |
$71,492.50 |
|
Questivity |
$72,515.00 |
|
Salvant Technologies, Inc. |
$72,517.50 |
|
ASIMER TECH LLC |
$75,127.50 |
|
Adler Charles Services Inc. |
$75,305.00 |
|
Vinsys Information Technology Inc. |
$77,625.00 |
|
I2 VISIONS INC. |
$82,625.00 |
4. The Procurement and Sustainability Department contacted the lowest priced vendors to verify pricing for the requested item. All vendors contacted confirmed their pricing, and the lowest-priced bidder was New Tech Solutions Inc.
5. Although New Tech Solutions Inc. is the lowest-priced vendor, Salvant Technologies Inc., is registered as a local Broward County vendor.
6. Per section 35.36 Local Vendor Preference of City’s Code of Ordinance, Salvant Technologies Inc. qualified for Local Vendor Preference, as a Broward County Vendor. Its price was within 2.5% of the lowest price submitted. The policy states that “if a local Broward County vendor submits a bid/quote that is within 2.5% of the lowest price submitted by any vendor, the local Broward County vendor shall have an option to submit another bid which is at least 1% lower than the lowest responsive bid/quote. If the local Broward County vendor submits a bid which is at least 1% lower than that lowest responsive bid/quote, then the award will go to the local Broward County vendor.”
The Procurement and Sustainability Department reached out to Salvant Technologies Inc. to offer them the option to submit a second bid that is at least 1% lower than the lowest responsive/responsible bid.
7. Salvant Technologies Inc. declined the option to submit a second bid under the terms of the local vendor preference; therefore, the Technology Services Department deemed New Tech Solutions Inc., to be the most responsive/responsible bidder.
8. In addition, New Tech Solutions Inc. has also completed the Equal Benefits Certification Form and has stated that the Contractor currently complies with the requirements of this section.
9. Request Commission to award IFB # TS-25-19 "ShareFile Software Licensing Renewal" to the most responsive/responsible bidder, New Tech Solutions Inc. in the amount not to exceed $71,115.
Financial Impact
FINANCIAL IMPACT DETAIL:
a) Initial Cost: Amount not to exceed $71,115
b) Amount budgeted for this item in Account No: Funds are available in Account # 001-513-2002-552652-0000-000-0000- Non-capital Software & License
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.
|
|
Year 1 |
Year 2 |
Year 3 |
Year 4 |
Year 5 |
|
Revenues |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expenditures |
$71,115 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net Cost |
$71,115 |
|
|
|
|
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.