Presentation on theme: "Learning Technology Initiative 55E - WSCA-NASPO Cooperative Contract Initial Contract Rollout Webinar Mark Lutte"— Presentation transcript:
Learning Technology Initiative 55E - WSCA-NASPO Cooperative Contract Initial Contract Rollout Webinar Mark Lutte (email@example.com)firstname.lastname@example.org State of Maine - Lead Contract Administrator Jeff Mao (email@example.com)firstname.lastname@example.org State of Maine - Learning Technology Policy Director Paul Stembler (email@example.com)firstname.lastname@example.org WSCA-NASPO Cooperative Development Coordinator April 10, 2013Learning Technology Initiative1
Agenda Roll Call and Introductions Concept Sourcing Team Process Results Awardees Current Status Participation Process Questions April 10, 2013Learning Technology Initiative2
Concept What does learning technology mean??? – It means putting a portable computing device into the hands of every student in your states participating schools on a one-to-one basis. – We made multiple awards. Based on the responses to this RFP, the device can be in the form of a tablet or laptop (both Windows and Apple products are available). – This program also includes having wireless networks set up in participating schools, so that classrooms can maximize internet resources as needed. Why give every student a device?? – Overview of Maines experiences and background with this program over the past decade. Why do this as a multi-state cooperative RFP? – Other states were showing interest in Maines existing program. – For many reasons (financial, political, technological), this can be a difficult project for any one state to get off the ground alone. April 10, 2013Learning Technology Initiative3
Concept This is a seat contract – not a purchase of computing devices. This is not the WSCA-NASPO PC contract – its something completely different. You are contracting for every student to have a functional device every day. Spare devices are included in the seat cost (i.e. at no additional cost), provided at 2% to 3% (depending on provider) of school user population at every participating school. – For example, if Jimmys device breaks in math class, on that same day he can swap it with the schools technical specialist (or any designated person) for a functioning device. Warranties are provided for normal wear and tear; a repair process is also provided as part of the providers solutions. – Solutions include strategies to mitigate accidental damage (e.g. spilled drink on device), but are purchased at an additional, optional cost. The devices include software/operating system assurance within the seat cost. – For example, if during the life of the contract Windows 8 is replaced by Windows 9, 10, 11, etc., it will be provided at no additional charge. April 10, 2013Learning Technology Initiative4
Concept Teacher Benefits Teachers also receive a device at the same student seat cost, with all of the same applications and functionality (or more) as the student devices. – States/schools can opt to purchase additional devices for teachers that do not have one-to-one programs in their class. (For example, if laptops are only for 8 th graders, schools can still choose to provide non-8 th grade teachers with devices.) A customizable suite of professional development classes is provided for teachers and included within the seat cost. – The overall goal is to learn/discuss how to better teach with learning technology. The program creates equity of device in the classroom. Everyone has the same device, and teachers can use that for lesson planning. April 10, 2013Learning Technology Initiative5
Concept Tier System for Contract Pricing The Sourcing Team designed a three level tier system for contract pricing. – Contractors could propose pricing at one, two, or all three tiers. – The idea is that Tier 1 would have the lowest price, followed by Tier 2, and then Tier 3. How? Why? April 10, 2013Learning Technology Initiative6
Concept Tier System for Contract Pricing Tier 1 in a nutshell: – Pre-existing, larger-scale, statewide program – High level (Legislative/Gubernatorial) support – Dedicated funding source – Aggregated purchase (one contract, one invoice) – Require less assistance from the contractor to get program off the ground Tier 2 in a nutshell: – Same as Tier 1, but without high level support or dedicated funding source (probably a relatively new statewide program) Tier 3 in a nutshell: – Smaller-scale program (like a smaller, individual school district) Goal behind the tier system: help states with new programs receive high level support and dedicated funding. April 10, 2013Learning Technology Initiative7
Sourcing Team State of Maine – Mark Lutte, Operations Director, Division of Purchases (email@example.com / 207-624-7332)firstname.lastname@example.org – Jeff Mao, Learning Technology Policy Director, Department of Education (email@example.com / 207-624-6634)firstname.lastname@example.org State of Vermont – Peter Drescher, Education Technology Coordinator, Agency of Education (email@example.com)firstname.lastname@example.org – John McIntyre, Purchasing Agent, Office of Purchasing and Contracting (email@example.com)firstname.lastname@example.org State of Hawaii – Stephanie Shipton, Portfolio Manager, Department of Education (email@example.com)firstname.lastname@example.org – David Wu, Chief Information Officer, Department of Education (email@example.com)firstname.lastname@example.org April 10, 2013Learning Technology Initiative8
Process RFP Timeline and Details – Sourcing Team Formed:June 25, 2012 – RFP Advertised: November 20, 2012 – Bidders Conference: November 29, 2012 (44 attendees from 26 organizations) – Bidder Questions Due:December 12, 2012 (140 questions!!!) – Proposal Due Date:January 14, 2013 by 2:00pm (16 proposals received from 12 organizations) – Oral Presentations:January 23-25, 2013 (7 organizations invited to participate, others disqualified) – Award Announcement:February 13, 2013 (5 awards to 3 organizations – details on next slide) April 10, 2013Learning Technology Initiative9
Results - Tier 1 April 10, 2013Learning Technology Initiative10 Awardees Consensus Score (out of 100) Apple (Primary Proposal – tablets)93.0 Apple (Alternate Proposal – laptops)90.8 CTL (laptops)79.4 HP (Primary Proposal – laptops)79.3 HP (Alternate Proposal – tablets)76.3 Average pricing for Tier 1: – Tablet solution: $305.60 – Laptop solution: $315.92 Awards beyond the five proposals listed above were deemed not to be in the states best interests (and there was a clear break in the point values of the final consensus scoring results).
Results - Tier 2 April 10, 2013Learning Technology Initiative11 Awardees Consensus Score (out of 100) Apple (Primary Proposal – tablets)87.3 Apple (Alternate Proposal – laptops)85.3 CTL (laptops)83.1 HP (Primary Proposal – laptops)81.0 HP (Alternate Proposal – tablets)78.0 Average pricing for Tier 2: – Tablet solution: $393.03 – Laptop solution: $392.21 Awards beyond the five proposals listed above were deemed not to be in the states best interests (and there was a clear break in the point values of the final consensus scoring results).
Results - Tier 3 April 10, 2013Learning Technology Initiative12 Awardees Consensus Score (out of 100) CTL (laptops)84.6 HP (Primary Proposal – laptops)81.0 HP (Alternate Proposal – tablets)73.8 Average pricing for Tier 3: – Tablet solution: $397.42 – Laptop solution: $340.51 Awards beyond the three proposals listed above were deemed not to be in the states best interests (and there was a clear break in the point values of the final consensus scoring results).
Awardees Apple, Inc. 1 Infinite Loop Cupertino, CA 95014 POC: Matt Baker Tel. 512-674-6505 email@example.com Hewlett-Packard Company 3000 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304 POC: Ruth Mockus Tel. 508-864-1539 firstname.lastname@example.org April 10, 2013Learning Technology Initiative13 CTL 3460 NW Industrial Street Portland, OR 97210 POC: Michael Mahanay Tel. 800-642-3087 email@example.com
Current Status The Master Agreements with all three awardees have been negotiated, and are in the process of being signed. No Master Agreement is ever perfect. – Please feel free to contact Jeff Mao or Mark Lutte for their thoughts when setting up any part of your program. Were happy to help and talk about our (primarily Jeffs) experiences. April 10, 2013Learning Technology Initiative14
Participation Process Participating Addendum Two levels of Participating Addendum – Single, state (entity) authorized participation CPO executes for the entire state (entity) -- much like we normally do The PA is a billable document, it is the basis for all participation – State managed or tracked participation Will be executed in a state by both the CPO and CEO Both will potentially have adjustments to the document The PA is NOT a billable document, it is a framework document Engagement Addendum – Focus shifts to CEO, in the use and control of access to the contract services – states will decide how they want to roll out engagements, at what level within their organizations, who and how to monitor usage and results – Engagement has not been defined, so it may be broad or narrow April 10, 2013Learning Technology Initiative15
Participation Process Cooperative Contracting 101 A state drafts a proposed Participating Addendum/Engagement Addendum. Shares the draft with the contractor (going through the contractors named point of contact (see earlier slide)). – State and contractor negotiate differences and agree on the final document. State prepares the final document and sends it to the Contractor for signature. Contractor signs document and returns it to the state for signature. State signs the document and sends a PDF file to the WSCA-NASPO Cooperative Development Team (Paul Stembler at firstname.lastname@example.org).email@example.com The file will be renamed (we have thousands of these PAs and related documents running around out there) and then a formal PDF copy will be sent to the state contact and the contractor. The entire process can be done with PDF files, unless a state or contractor requires physical signatures, in which case we suggest sending the PDF files around and then following up with the hard copy – WSCA-NASPO DOES NOT WANT A HARD COPY. April 10, 2013Learning Technology Initiative16
Questions? Contracting/participation questions: Mark Lutte (firstname.lastname@example.org)email@example.com State of Maine – Lead Contract Administrator or Paul Stembler (firstname.lastname@example.org)email@example.com WSCA-NASPO Cooperative Development Coordinator Programmatic/technical questions: Jeff Mao (firstname.lastname@example.org)email@example.com State of Maine – Learning Technology Policy Director April 10, 2013Learning Technology Initiative17