|
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:
|
October 24, 2024
|
|
TO:
|
Office of Commission Clerk (Teitzman)
|
|
FROM:
|
Office of Industry Development and Market
Analysis (Williams, Fogleman)
Office of the General
Counsel (Imig, Farooqi, Harper)
|
|
RE:
|
Docket No. 20240043-TP – Request for
submission of proposals for relay service, beginning in March 2025, 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:
|
11/05/24 – Regular Agenda – Participation is Limited to
Commissioners and Staff
|
|
COMMISSIONERS ASSIGNED:
|
All Commissioners
|
|
PREHEARING OFFICER:
|
Fay
|
|
CRITICAL DATES:
|
Current contract expires on February 28, 2025.
|
|
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 T-Mobile USA, Inc.
(T-Mobile), for the provision of relay service. The existing Florida relay
service provider contract expires February 28, 2025. On March 1, 2024, T-Mobile
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 year.
In response, staff opened Docket No. 20240043-TP to initiate a new Request for
Proposals (RFP) to provide relay service in Florida.
At the July 9,
2024 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 July 16, 2024. 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 August 19, 2024.
A Proposal
Review Committee (PRC) was established that consisted of eight members, one
from the TASA Advisory Committee and seven members from Commission staff. One staff
member reviewed 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 T-Mobile, 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 30 technical aspects of the proposals, with an
assignment of numerical scores for each of the 30 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
October 1, 2024, 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 T-Mobile as the relay service provider and
direct the Commission's Executive Director or designee to: (1) issue the
attached letter of intent to T-Mobile 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 T-Mobile; and (3) finalize and sign a
contract with T-Mobile to provide the relay service. (Williams, Imig)
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 30 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. 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 below shows the results of the scoring.
TABLE
1
|
|
Hamilton
|
T-Mobile
|
|
Technical Points
|
15,214
|
14,861
|
|
Highest Technical Score – Hamilton
|
15,214
|
|
Technical Evaluation
(Bidder’s score/highest score) X 0.5
|
.5000
|
.4884
|
|
Price Per Minute for Basic TRS
|
$4.40
|
$2.58
|
|
Lowest Price – T-Mobile
|
$2.58
|
|
Price Evaluation for Basic TRS
(Lowest Price/Bidder’s Price) X 0.5
|
.2932
|
.5000
|
|
Final Score
(Technical Evaluation + Price Evaluation)
|
.7932
|
.9884
|
Summary
of the Technical and Price Proposals
Analysis
of the Scoring
As presented in Table 1, Hamilton received the highest
technical score with 15,214 technical points. T-Mobile received 14,861
technical points. Five of the six technical evaluators scored Hamilton the
highest, while one evaluator scored T-Mobile the highest. However, the point
margin difference was small for each evaluator resulting in only a 353 higher
technical point total for Hamilton. T-Mobile offered the lowest price per session
minute for basic TRS at $2.58. Hamilton’s basic TRS price per session minute
was $4.40. The $1.82 rate differential between the two price proposals is
significant. While both price proposals represent higher rates than the current
$1.60 rate, Hamilton’s $4.40 rate would result in higher relay service expense
for FTRI. In addition, the $4.40 rate would potentially provide less
flexibility in maintaining or lowering the relay surcharge imposed on Florida
consumers.
As stated earlier, Hamilton’s technical score is only
marginally higher than T-Mobile’s technical score. However, T-Mobile’s relay
service price is considerably lower than Hamilton’s price. Given that both
technical proposals are impressive and responsive to the Commission’s RFP
service standards, T-Mobile’s lower price makes its proposal a better overall
choice for FTRI and Florida consumers.
Highlights
of T-Mobile’s Proposal
·
T-Mobile
makes a commitment to meet and exceed FCC minimum service standards and provide
the Commission with direct support in responding to FCC required filings
including State Relay Program Certification filings, Consumer Complaint filings,
and Multiple Average Rate Structure filings.
·
Communications
Assistants (CA) Qualifications and Testing will remain a priority as it
does in the current contract. T-Mobile has committed to align Florida relay
service users with its Gold Star Relay Operators who T-Mobile states
consistently maintain its highest typing speeds and accuracy. T-Mobile’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). T-Mobile also
acknowledges that all relay CAs receive continuous training and are routinely
evaluated to monitor service quality. Both in-house and third-party testing
will be used to evaluate CAs. Further, T-Mobile 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, T-Mobile 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.
- T-Mobile 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. T-Mobile QA managers coordinate all training
and policies with the call center supervisors and trainers to maintain
quality standards.
- T-Mobile 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 T-Mobile Operations team, and the
Commission.
- T-Mobile will
continue to conduct monthly TRS Quality Compliance Testing using an
experienced third-party evaluator. In addition to T-Mobile’s internal
testing, T-Mobile has committed to use an independent company to evaluate
service quality.
·
T-Mobile
Voice Response Unit (VRU) for Florida’s toll-free numbers help reduce
misdialed calls. Misdialed calls became an issue in 2022. To address the issue,
T-Mobile developed and implemented the VRU on Florida relay service toll-free
numbers allowing voice callers to listen to a message to assist in minimizing
misdials. FTRI is not billed for calls arriving at the VRU. If the caller
remains on the line after listening to the VRU, billing starts once the caller
with a hearing loss or speech disability is connected to the relay CA.
T-Mobile’s VRU should continue to improve service levels and reduce cost to
FTRI.
·
T-Mobile
commits to include 30,000 Relay Conference Captioning (RCC) Service minutes
annually at no charge. RCC was presented in T-Mobile’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. RCC users include individuals, private sector organizations, and
government agencies.
·
T-Mobile
will contribute $20,000 toward a Public Service Announcement to expand
outreach informing consumers about the availability of Speech-to Speech (STS)
service.
Conclusion
Of the two proposals, T-Mobile’s proposal was awarded the
highest final score (see Table 1). As required by Section E of the RFP, staff
recommends the Commission contract with T-Mobile to provide the statewide relay
service in Florida for the next three years (March 2025 - February 2028), 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 T-Mobile 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 T-Mobile
to provide the statewide telecommunications relay service in Florida; and (3)
finalize and sign a contract with T-Mobile to provide the relay service.
FINALIZATION OF THE
CONTRACT
After the Commission’s vote on this recommendation, the
notice of its decision will be posted 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 T-Mobile 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 will
work with T-Mobile to finalize contract language and incorporate T-Mobile’s
response to the RFP, along with the RFP, as the contract. Two copies of the
contract are to be signed by an authorized T-Mobile 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. (Imig)
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.
November
xx, 2024
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 T-Mobile USA, Inc. 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 T-Mobile
USA, Inc., 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. 20240043-TP and addressed to Mr. Adam
J. Teitzman, Office of Commission Clerk, 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee,
Florida
32399-0850,
Attention: Curtis J. Williams.
Respectfully,
Executive
Director or Designee