1. Elizabeth Basso Lead State Connecticut PROCUREMENT SERVICES
IT Vendor Managed Service Provider
CONTRACT
Elizabeth Basso Lead State Connecticut PROCUREMENT SERVICES

2. Tim Hay & Dugan Petty, NASPO ValuePoint
Sourcing Team
Connecticut
Indiana
Len Smith
Mark Hemple
Delaware
Nebraska
Karen Esposito
Connie Heinrichs &
Nancy Storant
New Jersey
Julie McGowan & Josh Descoteaux
Tim Hay & Dugan Petty, NASPO ValuePoint

3. Purpose
Leverage buying power by combining states and participating entities future purchases in information technology contingent workforce and managed services of such.
Reduce and regionalize hourly rates for IT contingent workforce.
Create efficiencies by using one contract for all IT contingent workforce needs.
To establish multiple Master Agreements for the purchase of Parks & Recreation Equipment and Related Services by state governments (including departments, agencies, institutions), institutions of higher education, political subdivisions (i.e., colleges, school districts, counties, cities, etc.), the District of Columbia, territories of the United States, and other eligible entities subject to approval of the Participating Entity’s procurement director and compliance with local statutory and regulatory provisions (“Purchasing Entities”).

4. Scope of Services
Contractors will deliver an end to end technology solution that provides the processes, components, and attributes described within this RFP. Contractors will Perform the overall program management and candidate engagements of an organization's contingent IT workforce.
Contractors will provide program reporting and tracking, and candidate evaluation and selection. Contractors will provide supplier management tool(s), performance oversight, need analysis and consultation, as well as consolidated billing and help desk support.
Contractors will provide IT Professionals, via a VMS System if required by the Participating Entity,
The resulting Contract is intended to establish new, replace and/or supplement current IT temporary staffing contract(s) as they expire or are otherwise terminated. Incorporation of this Contract shall be at the Participating States discretion, though it is understood there will be an overall cost savings.

5. RFP Process RFP Process Date RFP Advertised
Links to posting sent to NASPO and all sourcing team states
August 16, 2016
Pre-Proposal Conference
Meeting held in Hartford. Attendees could listen in via teleconference
September 13, 2016
Question Due Date
September 26, 2016

6. RFP Process RFP Process Date Answers Issued
Answers were posted over three dates:
Sept. 14, Oct. 12, and Oct. 24
Closing (Proposals Due)
November 1, 2016
November 17, 2016
December 1, :00 PM ET
Evaluation Period
December 2, 2016 through January 28, 2017

7. Evaluation Criteria
The Sourcing Team reviewed and scored all proposals that met requirements. The following information, in addition to the requirements, terms and conditions identified throughout the RFP, were considered part of the Selection process and are listed in order of relative importance.
All proposals were evaluated using the following approach:
Proposals were evaluated only to ensure that they adhere to Proposal Requirements. Any proposals not meeting the Proposal Requirements were not considered for evaluation.
The proposals that met the Proposal Requirements were then scored based on the following criteria. All proposals were ranked on the basis of their combined scores. This ranking was used to create a “short list”. Any proposal not making the “short list” was not considered for further evaluation.

8. Evaluation Criteria
Demonstrated Performance, Experience, Capabilities and Resources (Placement History, Government Experience, Top Customers, Supplier Recruitment)
Management and Quality Assessment (Performance, Background Check Process, Escalation Procedures)
Business and Financials (Company Information, Financials)
Approach (Implementation, Assessment)
Technology (System, Narrative, Reporting Accessibility, Disaster Recovery)
Small/Minority Enterprise Subcontractor Commitment (Subcontractors)

9. Evaluation Criteria
The short-listed proposals were then evaluated based on cost.
1. Cost (Fees, Discounts, Rates, Terms)
The selection committee conducted additional rounds of discussions as well as a BAFO round.

10. Evaluation Summary Fourteen (14) Proposals were received
Six (6) Proposals were deemed non-responsive
An individual evaluation of the remaining eight (8) Proposals was completed by each Sourcing Team Member
All Sourcing Team Members met and evaluated the proposals via consensus
Proposals were ranked and three scored well above the remaining five (“natural break”)
The team then scored the top three proposals for costs
BAFOs were requested from the three highest scoring proposers.

11. Evaluation Results Three Master Agreements have been awarded!
All Contractors proposed coverage for ALL 11 regions
Regions are: New England Northeast & Caribbean
Mid-Atlantic Rocky Mountain
Southeast Sunbelt Great Lakes Heartland Greater Southwest Pacific Rim Northwest Arctic Capitol (DC)
Contract Term
September 1, 2017 through September 1, 2020
The Agreements allows for a one year extension

12. Highlights
Increasing the overall availability and quality of a wide range of IT contingent workforce positions
Reducing direct costs associated with IT Professional engagements
Implementation of a web based system increasing efficiencies, that is also customizable to Participating Entities
Adding value in the areas of purchasing, utilization and historical information as they relate to IT contingent workforce
Contractor(s) contractual commitment to small/minority/disadvantaged local business.
Input of Participating State on vendor pool and processes used to determine successful candidate(s)

13. Highlights
Reducing direct and indirect costs associated with invoicing and time sheet verification and processing
Minimizing the time spent engaging IT Professionals and ensuring compliance with the Participating Entities’ policies and procedures.
Tracking, monitoring, and managing Contractor Parties (subcontractors) performance.

14. Master Agreements were awarded on August 25, 2017
Contracts Awarded
Master Agreements were awarded on August 25, 2017
14PSX0338 AA
Uwork dba Covendis
14PSX0338 AB
Computer Aid, Inc.
14PSX0338 AC
Guidesoft, Inc.
dba Knowledge Services

15. At a glance Covendis Computer Aid Knowledge Services 14PSX0338AA
Covendis
Computer Aid
Knowledge Services
14PSX0338AA
14PSX0338AB
14PSX0338AC
VMS solution:
PeopleFluent
dotStaff
States in which Contractor has performed work:
Colorado, Georgia, Nebraska, Oregon
Arkansas, Delaware, Iowa, North Carolina, Virginia
Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Maine, Ohio, Tennessee, Utah
VMS Fee Range
$0.49 to 1.00
$0.99 to 2.68
$1.35 to 1.50
Hourly Rate Range
$9.00 to $183.50
$12.71 to $112.45
$12.83 to $169.65
Implementation
5 weeks
7 weeks
SBE commitment
60%
30 – 45%
Will meet user goals
Direct employee fill rate 5%
10%
1099 employee fill rate 0%
Subcontractor fill rate
90%
80%

16. Master Agreements and Pricing Refer to the NVP website for the most current information

17. Getting Started Start purchasing!!!!
For the best solution for your needs, it is recommended that all three contractors demo their product to your organization.
Plan your Participating Addendum and implement to your plan.
Negotiate with the contractor(s).
Start purchasing!!!!

18. Questions?
Contract Lead: Elizabeth Basso State of Connecticut Department of Administrative Services Procurement Services (860) .

19. Participating Addendum
PROCESS

20. NASPO ValuePoint cooperative Master Agreement
PA Process
All 50 states and The District of Columbia have Memorandum Of Agreement allowing them to be eligible to use any
NASPO ValuePoint cooperative Master Agreement 20

21. Through the Participating Addendum States/Entities may:
Select Contractors
Include their own State Administrative Fee
Include required (unique) terms and conditions
Identify options for States or their political subdivisions
Request state-specific reporting or other requirements

22. Opportunities for Participation
Three Options for Participation
State signs a Participating Addenda for entire state
Every legally eligible entity in the state can participate
State signs a Participating Addenda for non state entities
Every legally eligible entity that is not a STATE agency can participate
State does not sign a Participating Addenda
Political subdivisions wishing to participate may contact the NASPO ValuePoint Cooperative Development Coordinator who will contact the STATE CHIEF PROCUREMENT OFFICIAL asking for approval for that entity to sign their own Participating Addendum.
Entities may be given approval on an individual basis or State CPO may give approval to all entities within the state to execute their own Participating Addendums. 22

23. Participation Opportunity #1
Step by Step:
Participating Addendum templates are available on each Master Agreement page on
States may have submitted Intents to Participate during solicitation, this will provide the information for contractors to contact states interested in signing a Participating Addendum.
States may also contact contractors directly to begin Participating Addendum process.
State Chief Procurement Officials (or designated representative) will be the signatory on the Participating Addendum. They will also be the NASPO ValuePoint point of contact throughout the process.
State completes the draft Participating Addendum for each contractor and then forwards the draft to the contractor. Negotiations will be handled directly between state and contractor. Upon agreement, the state sends a final copy of Participating Addendum to the contractor for signature.
Contractor signs Participating Addendum and sends back to state for signature.
State sends fully executed copy to both contractor and NASPO ValuePoint at
Executed Participating Addendum will be maintained in a repository.

24. Participation Opportunity #2
Step by Step: Same Process as Opportunity #1
Participating Addendum templates are available on each Master Agreement page on
States may have submitted Intents to Participate during solicitation, this will provide the information for contractors to contact states interested in signing a Participating Addendum.
States may also contact contractors directly to begin Participating Addendum process.
State Chief Procurement Officials (or designated representative) will be the signatory on the Participating Addendum. They will also be the NASPO ValuePoint point of contact throughout the process.
State completes the draft Participating Addendum for each contractor and then forwards the draft to the contractor. Negotiations will be handled directly between state and contractor. Upon agreement, the state sends a final copy of Participating Addendum to the contractor for signature.
Contractor signs Participating Addendum and sends back to state for signature.
State sends fully executed copy to both contractor and NASPO ValuePoint at
Executed Participating Addendum will be maintained in a repository.

25. Participation Opportunity #3
Step by Step:
Participating Addendum templates are available on each Master Agreement page on
An request should be sent to from entity ( may also be sent from contractor).
The needs to provide the following details: main point of contact from entity, full name of entity, phone number, address and physical address.
NASPO ValuePoint will State Chief Procurement Officer requesting approval for the entity to execute a Participating Addendum.
NASPO ValuePoint will both contractor and entity with the permission from Chief Procurement Official to proceed to complete the Participating Addendum.
Entity completes the draft Participating Addendum for contractor and then forwards the draft to the contractor. Negotiations will be handled directly between entity and contractor. Upon agreement, the entity sends a final copy of Participating Addendum to the contractor for signature.
Contractor signs Participating Addendum and sends back to entity for signature .
Entity sends fully executed copy to both contractor and NASPO ValuePoint at
Executed Participating Addendum will be maintained in a repository.

26. PA Process Flow Chart

27. State Executed vs Polysub Executed PA’s
If a state has executed a Participating Addendum that allows for Political Subdivision’s to conduct purchases, NASPO ValuePoint discourages individual entities and contractors from executing a separate or additional Participating Addendum.
If a Political Subdivision needs to execute a separate contractual document, that contractual document should be maintained at the political subdivision level. Do not forward to NASPO ValuePoint.

28. Things to Remember
Sample PA’s are located on the NASPO ValuePoint Website under each master agreement portfolio.
Executed Participating Addendum will be maintained on and in a repository.
Participating states and entities will be identified on the map of the USA on each Master Agreement page on
The Lead State and NASPO ValuePoint do not get involved with negotiations.
Only submit completed and negotiated PA’s with signatures from both parties.
Submit completed PA’s in PDF Format. 28

29. QUESTIONS? *Tim Hay THay@NASPOValuePoint.org (503) 428-5705
Contact the Lead State or our NASPO ValuePoint Cooperative Development Coordinators if there are any questions about our expectations!
*Tim Hay
NASPO ValuePoint Cooperative Development Director
(503)
* NASPO ValuePoint Point of Contact for these Master Agreements. 29

30. Thank You!