Propiedades de la tecnología

We compared the way Illinois structured its evaluation of proposals to other states that have done recent procurements. We also compared rates charged in Illinois to seven states that have eliminated commission payments.

Procurements in Other States

In early February 2012, prior to issuing its invitation for bids, Illinois contacted other states to see how they were handling inmate collect calling services. CMS obtained responses from six states: Alaska, California, Colorado, Idaho, North Dakota, and Wisconsin. We used these states to compare to Illinois. However, for two states, Colorado and Wisconsin, not enough information was provided to make comparisons. In addition, we were able to obtain information on recent procurements from two other states: Montana and Maryland.

Exhibit 5-2 compares Illinois’ procurement with the procurements in six other states.

Illinois and California were the only procurements that were issued as an invitation for bids.

Since an invitation for bids was used, Illinois and California were the only states that did not assign any weight to the evaluation of the vendors’ technical proposal and/or evaluate

components other than price. Illinois was the only procurement that did not require vendors to submit information on experience and qualifications.

Exhibit 5-2

PROCUREMENT COMPARISON BETWEEN ILLINOIS AND OTHER STATES

Illinois Alaska California Idaho Maryland Montana

North Dakota

Type of procurement: IFB RFP IFB RFP RFP RFP RFP

Date issued: 03-29-12 12-19-07 07-07-11 9-29-05 07-12-12 07-28-10 02-09-09 Did procurement require Contract awarded to: Securus Securus Global Tel*

Link Unknown Global Tel*

Link Telmate Securus

Commission percentage:

Source: OAG analysis of Illinois and other states’ procurements.

The evaluation of price varied significantly. All of Illinois’ points went towards price and were split between the cost to the consumer (45%) and the commission revenue to the State (55%). All of California’s points also went to price but unlike Illinois, all of the points went to the cost to the consumer. The other states divided points between the technical evaluation and price. Looking at just the pricing component of these states, the methods differed. In Alaska, all of the pricing points went to the amount of revenue to the State. Conversely, in Montana, all of the pricing points went to the cost to the consumer. Some states combined these factors.

The commission rates in the states that made their figures publicly available, ranged from a variable rate of 0 percent to 32.1 percent (depending on revenue) in Alaska to 42 percent in Idaho. At the time of the contract’s award, Illinois’ commission rate of 87.1 percent was more than double that of Idaho’s. Illinois’ rate was later lowered to 76 percent by an amendment to the contract.

Illinois’ decision to utilize an invitation for bids for the procurement did not allow it the flexibility to consider any factors other than cost, and within those constraints, it did not place as high an emphasis on cost to the user as it did on commission to the State.

States that Have Eliminated Commission Payments

According to the FCC Order and Rulemaking Notice on Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services released on September 26, 2013, there were seven states (Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, and South Carolina) which collect no commissions on their inmate collect calling services. The FCC excluded California stating:

“Although California expressly does not include commission payments in its ICS rates, analysis of its ICS contract indicates its ICS rates recover the costs of significant in-kind contributions that, under the contract, the ICS provider is required to make, in addition to the costs of ICS.”

The states without commissions charged significantly less for a 15 minute call compared to Illinois. Exhibit 5-3 compares the seven states without commissions to Illinois. The exhibit shows the rates for each state and the cost of a 15 minute collect call for calls within the state (intrastate). This includes calls both within the calling area (IntraLata) and outside the calling area (InterLata). We excluded prepaid and debit calls as not all states offered both services. The exhibit shows the cost for a 15 minute call, in the states that do not use commissions, ranged from $0.49 for New Mexico to $1.75 for Missouri. This is a range of $1.80 to $3.06 less for the non-commission states compared to Illinois.

Exhibit 5-3

COLLECT CALL PHONE RATES –

ILLINOIS COMPARED TO NON-COMMISSION STATES Description Illinois Michigan Missouri Nebraska

New

Note: Rates are for intrastate collect calls for calls both within the calling area (IntraLata) and outside the calling area (InterLata). Rates are from the most recent contracts available.

Source: OAG analysis of Illinois and other states inmate collect calling contracts.

How New York Addressed High Rates for Inmate Calls

The State of New York passed a law that took effect April 1, 2008, which dealt with what the bill’s supporting documentation described as excessive costs of collect calls made from inmates to their families and friends. That law, New York Correction Law, Article 22, Section 623, addressed inmate telephone services as follows:

“Telephone services contracts for inmates in state correctional facilities shall be subject to the procurement provisions as set forth in article eleven of the state finance law provided, however, that when determining the best value of such telephone service, the lowest possible cost to the telephone user shall be emphasized... The department shall

not accept or receive revenue in excess of its reasonable operating cost for establishing and administering such telephone system services....”

The rate from the most recent contract available for all local and long distance inmate calls from New York state correctional facilities is $0.048 (less than five cents) per minute with no connection fees; a 15 minute call costs $0.72 (less than a dollar).