Desarrollo de la actividad: Desarrollo de la actividad:

(max = 300) PRICE:

Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. 1 240 $39,835 1

Arti Gupta, Ph.D 2 204 $34,560

CGR Management Consultants LLC 3 146 $50,000

1 _{The agreement’s final $41,349 NTE value includes travel expenses for Jacobs’ key personnel as}

requested by TCA.

EVALUATION CRITERIA MAXIMUM

POINTS Firm 1 Firm 2 Firm 3

Professional capability, demonstrated

competence, and specialized experience of the proposer.

150 125 100 75

Proposer's understanding of the Agency and Project needs and ability to provide services required.

90 72 60 45

Compensation Proposal. 60 43 44 26

Total: 300 240 204 146

Interview Results (shortlisted firms):

CONSULTANT NAME RANK SCORE

(max = 400)

Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. 1 237

Arti Gupta, Ph.D 2 155

EVALUATION CRITERIA MAXIMUM

POINTS

Jacobs Engineering

Group, Inc. Arti Gupta, Ph.D Professional capability,

demonstrated competence, and specialized experience of the proposer

105 78 38

Proposer’s understanding of the Agency and Project needs and ability to provide services required.

120 99 67

Compensation Value 75 60 50

DATE: May 14, 2015

TO: Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency Board of Directors San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency Board of Directors FROM: Jeff Bond, Information Technology Director

SUBJECT: Board Agenda and Meeting Management System

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency Recommendation:

Authorize the CEO to execute a three year contract with JCG Technologies, Inc. (JCG) in the amount not-to-exceed of $21,226.

San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency Recommendation:

Authorize the CEO to execute a three year contract with JCG Technologies, Inc. (JCG) in the amount not-to-exceed of $21,226.

BACKGROUND:

Currently, the agencies process all meeting and agenda related materials by manual methods. The process starts when a report or item is put on the agenda for a future meeting. It is then manually tracked on a spreadsheet by the meeting date for agenda package inclusion. Each item is prepared by the respective author and moved on to the distributed approval process. This is very time-consuming resulting in redundant edits, delay, and difficulty in tracking an items’ flow through the system. The agencies currently capture meeting video with an outdated camcorder in the rear of the meeting room. The captured video is fuzzy with un-optimized video compression resulting in very large file sizes. The stored videos are un-indexed or bookmarked to agenda items or meeting progress. Review of captured video when required is very time consuming. The minutes are generated from audio recordings and transcribed. Roll call, voting, and motions are manually tallied and transcribed and added to the minutes. In an effort to modernize our processes, increase transparency, and improve efficiencies staff developed an RFP to address these issues.

In December 2014, the agencies issued a request for proposals (“RFP”) to 31 potential proposers. The RFP requested proposals for systems that could meet the agencies’ agenda and meeting management needs while providing government transparency in the process. Proposals were received from seven firms in January 2015 with three firms short-listed in March.

DISCUSSION:

In a joint effort of the Administration and Information Technology staff, proposals were reviewed and evaluated based on qualifications, work plan, the system capabilities, and price. While all proposed systems are relatively similar, certain proposers provided a more robust, user friendly system, meeting all of the basic needs of the agencies. Three firms were shortlisted for interviews based on the proposal reviews. Through the interview process, each firm provided staff with a demonstration of their product.

Staff evaluated each firm’s proposed solution and on-line demonstration with the goal of deriving the best fit for the agencies’ agenda and meeting management needs. The experience and quality of the proposer’s staff along with their commitment to the project and implementation plan were also considered. As a result, staff is recommending award to JCG Technologies, Inc. The JCG system provides a user friendly, cloud based system with local support and service.

JCG has significant system and programing experience with the SuiteOne application in addition to specializing in the video components required for meeting management and transparency. It is anticipated that their expertise in these areas will significantly reduce the impact on the agencies’ staff throughout the implementation phase. The user friendly system, in combination with the training provided and ongoing support services, will enable staff to quickly implement and operate the system.

JCG offers the SuiteOne Media Meeting Management solution in multiple modules that will be implemented in phases. SuiteAgenda, to be implemented as the first phase of the project, is a complete web accessed, hosted agenda management solution. It provides an easy system for staff to submit agenda items and for the clerk’s office to create, distribute, and manage the meeting agenda and content. SuiteAgenda handles the entire agenda process, from item submittal, to building the agenda, to creating the meeting minutes (including roll calls, motions, and votes), to publishing all meeting content on the agencies public website.

SuiteView/Cast will be implemented in the second phase. It is an on-demand and live meeting webcasting solution offering a simple way to publish on-demand events, complete with

bookmarks that link the video/audio to the associated agendas, minutes, and documents. SuiteView/Cast is entirely web-based eliminating the infrastructure required for a scalable video/audio platform. It will replace our current manual recording and video conversion methods with an optimized process storing video in the cloud. Meeting video recordings will link to the agenda or meeting item resulting in efficient video review helping to meet the agencies government transparency needs.

The final implementation phase will be the electronic roll call and voting solution. Meeting members will be able to vote electronically with results overlaid on the agencies current board room display and monitors at the dais. The votes will be counted, majorities computed, results displayed, and automatically added to the meeting minutes.

The agenda management module provides the tools to assemble the meeting package more quickly and efficiently than our current manual methods while enhancing our view of the status of each individual item. Staff will centrally manage requests and automatically send agendas on for approval through workflow automation. A built-in audit trail will enforce the proper review and approval procedures. Agendas and minutes will be published to the web or other solutions, and the clerk can track and automate follow-up actions agenda items after a meeting.

Staff negotiated the terms and conditions of the contract with JCG Technologies, Inc. The not- to-exceed authorization value includes all initial set up, training, licensing, hardware, and maintenance for 3 years.

BUDGET:

The first year’s $21,811 cost covers a one-time set up fee, annual support and maintenance, licensing, and required hardware. The two remaining year costs are $10,320 each year covering annual licensing and maintenance. Sufficient funds are budgeted in Fiscal Year 2015 to cover the cost of the first year. Funding for subsequent years will be included for your consideration in future annual budgets.

CONCLUSION:

Currently, the agencies’ agenda and meeting management processes are conducted in a manual and time intensive process. In an effort to improve the efficiency, transparency, and system capabilities, staff researched applications that could support and improve these processes. Upon the conclusion of a competitive procurement process, staff recommends award of a contract to JCG Technologies, Inc. for implementation and annual licensing of a board agenda and meeting management system. The JCG SuiteOne system provides the required capabilities in a cloud based system with local support and service that will enable the agencies’ staff to become more efficient through agenda automation and meeting management while improving transparency.

PROCUREMENT SUMMARY REPORT

File No. 2015J-011

Contract #: K000973

Title: Board Agenda and Meeting Management System Recommend Award To: JCG Technologies, Inc.

Procurement Process

Type: Request for Proposal Award Criteria: Best Value

Negotiated Price: $42,452

Vendor Sourcing: The agencies’ Contracts Department posted RFP K000973 on the agencies’ website and contacted respondents from prior software procurements. Research into similar procurements performed by other public sector organizations resulted in the discovery of additional potential firms. The agencies provided RFP K000973 to 31 firms. Seven firms submitted proposals.

Award Results1_:

CONSULTANT NAME RANK SCORE

(max = 1,000)

JCG Technologies, Inc. 1 883

Granicus, Inc. 2 830

PROVOX Systems, Inc. 3 784

1_{Award based on highest ranked shortlisted firm’s combined total of proposal and interview scores}

A detailed breakdown of evaluation criteria for all proposers is provided on the following pages. Contract Notes:

• Year one total cost of $22,124 includes $1,640 in use tax, $10,164 for the first year’s managed services, and a total one-time cost of $10,320 for hardware and implementation services. The renewal rate for the second and third year is $10,164 per year.

• The contract contains standard indemnification language previously approved by legal counsel.

(max = 500)

Granicus, Inc. 1 425 $135,398

JCG Technologies, Inc. 2 419 $42,452

PROVOX Systems, Inc. 3 399 $50,328

eSCRIBE Software Ltd. 4 331 $77,725 Accela, Inc. 5 328 $102,816 Novusolutions 6 259 $18,505 BoardVantage, Inc. 7 164 $120,084 EVALUATION CRITERIA MAXIMU M POINTS Granicu s JC G PROVO X eScrib e Accel a Novusolution s BoardVantag e Professional capability, demonstrated competence, and specialized experience of the proposer 100 88 80 91 61 70 66 49 Staffing capability, workload and ability to meet schedules 75 65 56 54 51 47 27 20 Education and experience of key personnel 50 41 46 45 38 34 16 12 Nature and quality of completed work for other clients 75 62 57 42 47 50 37 4 Reliability, continuity and professional integrity of the proposer 50 48 46 42 36 34 26 23 Company management structure and commitment to the Project 50 45 45 46 34 31 29 21 Understandin g of the Project needs 50 45 47 46 35 31 32 16 Compensation Proposal 50 31 42 33 29 31 26 19 Total: 500 425 419 399 331 328 259 164 Page 2 of 3