|
State of Florida
|
Public Service Commission
Capital Circle Office Center ● 2540 Shumard
Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850
-M-E-M-O-R-A-N-D-U-M-
|
|
DATE:
|
September 30, 2021
|
|
TO:
|
Office of Commission Clerk (Teitzman)
|
|
FROM:
|
Office of Industry Development and Market
Analysis (Williams)
Office of the General
Counsel (Murphy, Imig)
|
|
RE:
|
Docket No. 20210049-TP – Request for
submission of proposals for relay service, beginning in March 2022, for the
deaf, hard of hearing, deaf/blind, or speech impaired, and other
implementation matters in compliance with the Florida Telecommunications
Access System Act of 1991.
|
|
AGENDA:
|
10/12/21 – Regular Agenda – Participation is Limited to Commissioners
and Staff
|
|
COMMISSIONERS ASSIGNED:
|
All Commissioners
|
|
PREHEARING OFFICER:
|
La Rosa
|
|
CRITICAL DATES:
|
Current contract expires on
February 28, 2022.
|
|
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
|
Anticipate the need for sign
language interpreters and assisted listening devices. Please place at the
beginning of the agenda to reduce interpreter costs.
|
|
|
|
|
Case Background
The
Telecommunications Access System Act of 1991 (TASA), Chapter 427, Part II,
Florida Statutes (F.S.), requires the Florida Public Service Commission
(Commission) to select a Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS or relay
service) provider and oversee the administration of
the relay system. The Commission currently contracts with Sprint Communications
Company, L.P. (Sprint), a wholly-owned subsidiary of T-Mobile USA, Inc., for
the provision of relay service. The existing Florida relay service
provider contract expires February 28, 2022. On March 1, 2021, Sprint provided
notice to the Commission that when the existing contract in Florida expires it
would not seek to extend the contract into the optional renewal for the second
year. In response, staff opened Docket No. 20210049-TP to initiate a new Request
for Proposals (RFP) to provide relay service in Florida.
At the May 4,
2021 Agenda Conference, the Commission approved the issuance of the RFP.
Accordingly, a Notice of Request for Proposals (Notice) was published in the
Florida Administrative Register on May 11, 2021. Staff also placed the RFP on
the Florida Department of Management Services’ Vendor Bid System, and posted a
link to the RFP on the Commission’s website under Florida Relay. The deadline
for filing proposals was June 17, 2021.
A Proposal Review
Committee (PRC) was established that consisted of nine members, one from the
TASA Advisory Committee and eight members from Commission staff. Two of the
staff members served as accountants reviewing the financial information of the
companies. Five staff members, plus the TASA Advisory Committee member,
reviewed and scored the technical aspects of the proposals. A staff member was
selected by the Director of the Office of Industry Development & Market Analysis
to serve as the PRC Chairman. To remain independent, the PRC Chairman did not
participate in the scoring of the financial or technical proposals. The role of
the PRC Chairman was to coordinate and oversee the procurement process, to
gather materials from references specified in the proposals, to interface with
the RFP respondents regarding clarifications and questions about their
proposals, and to tabulate scores to identify the winning proposal.
Two companies,
Hamilton Relay, Inc. (Hamilton) and Sprint, responded to the RFP and filed
price and technical proposals. Evaluation of the proposals began with a pass/fail
evaluation of 31 technical and 2 financial aspects of the proposals. This was
followed by an evaluation of 31 technical aspects of the proposals, with an
assignment of numerical scores for each of the 31 technical items. The price
proposals were submitted in sealed envelopes separate from the companies’
technical proposals and were opened in the Office of the Commission Clerk on
August 31, 2021, after the technical scoring was completed. As previously
approved by the Commission in the RFP, a weight of 50 percent was applied to
the technical aspect of the proposals and a weight of 50 percent was applied to
the price aspect of the proposals.
This
recommendation addresses which provider the Commission should select as the
relay service provider. The Commission has jurisdiction pursuant to Section
427.704, F.S.
Discussion
of Issues
Issue 1:
Who should be awarded the Florida relay service
provider contract?
Recommendation:
Based upon the RFP evaluation process, staff
recommends the Commission select Sprint as the relay service provider and
direct the Commission's Executive Director or designee to: (1) issue the attached
letter of intent to Sprint and Hamilton (Attachment A); (2) provide notice on
the Florida Department of Management Services Vendor Bid System of the
Commission's decision to award a three-year contract to provide the statewide
relay service in Florida to Sprint; and (3) finalize and sign a contract with Sprint
to provide the relay service. (Williams, Murphy)
Staff Analysis:
The RFP encompassed the criteria in Section
427.704(3)(a), F.S., for the selection of the provider of the
telecommunications relay service by the Commission. Section E of the RFP,
entitled “The Evaluation Method to be Used and Filing Checklist,” provides
specific instructions and guidelines for the evaluation of the proposals. In
accordance with the instructions, each RFP respondent’s weighted percentage
score for its technical proposal and its price proposal were added together to
determine the proposal with the highest score.
Evaluation
of Proposals
The PRC evaluated the technical proposals using a
pass/fail criterion for some items and a point rating system for other items.
Each proposal successfully advanced beyond the pass/fail section. After evaluating the pass/fail items, the
evaluators scored the technical items and the technical scores were calculated.
The price proposals were not opened until after the technical evaluations were
completed.
The evaluators received specific forms on which to record
their evaluations. The forms included an affidavit that each evaluator signed
accepting the conflict of interest provisions in Section 427.704(3)(c), F.S.
Also, each page of the forms included a place for the evaluator to indicate the
date the evaluation was performed, a signature line, and a place to score the
points or enter a pass/fail, whichever was appropriate for the item under
evaluation.
Assignment
of Points
Each technical evaluator independently assigned points within
the RFP allotted range to 31 items. The items rated had maximum point values
ranging from 25 to 200 points. The points from each evaluator were added
together to produce the technical score for each proposal.
The technical and price proposals were evaluated, as
described in Section E of the RFP, using a weighting of 50 percent for the
technical and 50 percent for the price (broken down into 18.14 percent for basic
TRS and 31.86 percent for Captioned Telephone Service (CTS).
The weighted percentage scores for the technical proposal and the price
proposal were then added together to produce a final score for each proposal.
Table 1-1 below shows the results of the scoring.
TABLE
1-1
|
|
Hamilton
|
Sprint
|
|
Technical Points
|
16,080
|
16,005
|
|
Highest Technical Score – Hamilton
|
16,080
|
|
Technical Evaluation
(Bidder’s score/highest score) X 0.5
|
.5000
|
.4977
|
|
Price Per Minute for Basic TRS
|
$2.14
|
$1.60
|
|
Lowest Price – Sprint
|
$1.60
|
|
Price Evaluation for Basic TRS
(Lowest Price/Bidder’s Price) X 0.1814
|
0.1356
|
0.1814
|
|
Price Per Minute for CTS
|
$1.80
|
$1.67
|
|
Lowest Price – Sprint
|
$1.67
|
|
Price Evaluation for CTS
(Lowest Price/Bidder’s Price) X 0.3186
|
0.2956
|
0.3186
|
|
Final Score
(Technical Evaluation + Price Evaluation)
|
0.9312
|
0.9977
|
Summary
of the Technical and Price Proposals
Analysis
of the Scoring
As shown in Table 1-1, Hamilton received the highest
technical score with 16,080 points. By comparison, Sprint received 16,005 points.
Three of the six technical evaluators scored Hamilton the highest, while two
evaluators scored Sprint the highest. One evaluator’s score resulted in a tie. Sprint
offered the lowest price per session minute for basic TRS at $1.60. Hamilton’s basic
TRS price per session minute was $2.14. Sprint also offered the lowest price
per minute for CTS at $1.67. Hamilton’s CTS price per minute was $1.80.
Highlights
of Sprint’s Proposal
·
Communications
Assistants (CA) Qualifications and Testing will remain a priority as it
does in the current contract. Sprint’s proposal states that all CA applicants
are tested before hiring, and CAs in training have proficient typing skill,
call processing knowledge, and interpretation of typewritten American Sign
Language (ASL). Sprint also acknowledges that all relay CAs receive continuous
training and are routinely evaluated to monitor service quality. Consistent
with the current contract, both in-house and third-party testing will be used
to evaluate CAs. Further, Sprint ensures all CAs meet performance
specifications using a Quality Assurance (QA) program. The QA program
encompasses all stages of employee development, including hiring, training,
ongoing performance evaluations, and individual development training. Lastly, Sprint
makes a commitment to continue ethics and diversified culture training.
Throughout the company’s training, CAs receive information and guidelines on
professional conduct with an emphasis on ethics and confidentiality. CAs and supervisors
are required to sign and abide by a pledge of confidentiality. Diversified
training focuses on the needs of the Deaf, Hard of Hearing, Deaf-Blind, seniors
with a hearing loss, and people with a speech disability. Specifically, employees
are trained on the culture, background, and language of relay user communities.
·
Sprint
provides TRS and CTS from 13 call centers to meet its requirements and
goals to provide reliable and cost-effective service. Some of the relay call centers
are operated by Sprint directly and some are operated under contract by CapTel,
Inc., which has a long history of providing advanced assistive technology.
Sprint currently does not operate a call center in Florida, but does provide CTS
through its subcontractor in Orlando and Tampa. Sprint further states in its
proposal that it has strategically placed many of its call centers in locations
that minimize the impact of hurricanes, tornadoes, and other catastrophes. Sprint
also makes a commitment that Florida relay calls will continue to be routed to
Gold Star CAs, which are Sprint’s most experienced and trained CAs. Further, Sprint
states that Florida relay users will benefit from Sprint’s Intelligent Call Routing,
which ensures the next available TRS or CTS CA answers each call. Sprint
commits in its proposal that its Intelligent Call Routing can send calls to any
CA in its 13 geographically diverse call centers. Lastly, Sprint makes a
commitment to continue to develop and include a TRS and CTS CA work from home
solution that supports service delivery during natural or man-made disasters.
- Sprint will
continue to assign a Florida Relay Quality Assurance (QA) Manager to
oversee all areas of training, quality assurance, monthly testing, and
customer feedback in Florida. Sprint QA managers coordinate all training
and policies with the call center supervisors and trainers to maintain
quality standards.
- Sprint will maintain
an in-state Customer Relationship Manager to lead its consumer input
program, coordinate outreach efforts with Florida Telecommunications
Relay, Inc., and address relay user issues. The position also serves as a
liaison between the QA manager, the Sprint Operations team, and the
Commission.
- Sprint will
continue to conduct monthly TRS and CTS Quality Compliance Testing
using an experienced third-party evaluator. In addition to Sprint’s
internal testing, Sprint has committed to use an independent company to
evaluate service quality.
·
Sprint commits
to include 30,000 Relay Conference Captioning (RCC) Service minutes annually at
no charge. RCC was presented in Sprint’s proposal as an unsolicited service
offering. RCC requires a computer, laptop/tablet, or mobile device with
high-speed internet connection. As conference call participants speak, the CA
transcribes the conversation over the internet to the RCC user. The RCC user
can speak or type responses. Transcripts are also available at no additional
charge. After the 30,000 free minutes, RCC users are billed at $3.26 per
minute. RCC users include individuals, private sector organizations, and
government agencies.
Conclusion
Of the two proposals, the one with the highest final score
is Sprint (see Table 1-1). As required by Section E of the RFP, staff
recommends the Commission contract with Sprint to provide the statewide relay
service in Florida for the next three years (March 2022 - February 2025), with
the option of four additional one-year periods upon mutual agreement.
Based upon the RFP evaluation process, staff recommends
the Commission direct the Commission's Executive Director or designee to: (1)
issue the attached letter of intent to Sprint and Hamilton (Attachment A); (2)
provide notice on the Florida Department of Management Services Vendor Bid
System of the Commission's decision to award a three-year contract to Sprint to
provide the statewide telecommunications relay service in Florida; and (3)
finalize and sign a contract with Sprint to provide the relay service.
FINALIZATION OF THE
CONTRACT
After the Commission vote on this recommendation, the
Commission will post the notice of its decision on the Florida Department of
Management Services Vendor Bid System. Persons will have 72 hours after the
posting of the notice to protest the decision. In addition, the attached letter
of intent (Attachment A) to contract with Sprint for relay service will be sent
by certified mail to the two bidders. If no protest is filed in accordance with
Section 120.57(3), F.S., using the electronic posting as the start date, staff
should be directed to work with Sprint to finalize contract language and
incorporate Sprint’s response to the RFP, along with the RFP, as the
contract. Two copies of the contract are
to be signed by an authorized Sprint representative and the Commission’s
Executive Director or designee, with each party receiving an original signed
contract.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
Recommendation:
No. This docket should remain open for the life of
the contract. (Murphy)
Staff Analysis:
This docket will address matters related to the
relay service throughout the life of the contract. Therefore, this docket should
remain open for the life of the contract.
October
xx, 2021
DELIVERED VIA
E-MAIL AND
CERTIFIED MAIL
– RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
(ADDRESSEE)
Dear (addressee):
It is the
intent of the Florida Public Service Commission to award a three-year contract to
provide the statewide relay service in Florida to Sprint Communications
Company, L.P. Please accept our sincere appreciation for participating in the
Request for Proposals process.
You are
reminded that pursuant to Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes (F.S.), any party
choosing to file a protest of the Commission’s intent to award the contract to
Sprint Communications Company, L.P., must file a notice of protest in writing
within 72 hours after the decision is posted on the Florida Department of
Management Services Vendor Bid System. The party is then required by Section
120.57(3), F.S., to file a formal written protest within 10 days after filing
the notice of protest. Such formal written protest shall state with
particularity the facts and law upon which the protest is based. Failure to file a protest within the time
prescribed in Section 120.57(3), F.S., or failure to post the bond or other
security required by law within the time allowed for filing a bond shall
constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, F.S.
All
documents should be filed in Docket No. 20210049-TP and addressed to Mr. Adam
J. Teitzman, Office of Commission Clerk, 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee,
Florida
32399-0850,
Attention: Charles Murphy.
Respectfully,
Executive
Director or Designee