PUBLIC OVERSIGHT ROUNDTABLE
ON
THE STATEWIDE LONGITUDINAL EDUCATION
DATA WAREHOUSE SYSTEM
(DCTO-2008-C-0019)
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
VINCENT C. GRAY, CHAIRPERSON
COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
TESTIMONY
OF
DAVID P. GRAGAN, CPPO
CHIEF PROCUREMENT OFFICER
OFFICE OF CONTRACTING AND PROCUREMENT
OCTOBER 23, 2009
2:00 PM
Good afternoon Chairman Gray and members of the Committee of the Whole. I am David P. Gragan, the Chief Procurement Officer (CPO) and Director of the Office of Contracting and Procurement (“OCP”). I’m here today to discuss the contract for the Statewide Longitudinal Education Data Warehouse System, also known as “SLED”, which was awarded in July 2008 on behalf of the D.C. Office of the State Superintendent of Education (“OSSE”). My prepared testimony will be posted on my agency’s Website after this hearing.
The Request for Proposals. OCP issued a Request for Proposals (“RFP”) on December 10, 2007. The RFP, which was advertised on OCP’s Website and in the Washington Times, required the contractor to develop a turn-key, state-of-the-art data warehouse system for OSSE. The system was to become the main repository of current and historical education data relating to students and teachers in publicly-funded schools and Local Education Agencies in the District.
The primary objectives of the SLED system were to: (1) improve tracking of student mobility and growth over their entire lifespan in DC public education institutions; and (2) compile data required for planning, trend analysis, performance projections, program evaluation and stakeholder empowerment. The contract required the SLED warehouse to be populated with data extracted from a wide variety of information systems disbursed throughout the District.
Pre-proposal Conference, Proposal Submission and Evaluation. A pre-proposal conference was held on December 19, 2007 which was attended by 19 firms. Nine proposals were received by the January 23, 2008 closing date. The Technical Evaluation Panel included representatives from the Office of the State Superintendent of Education, the DC Public Schools, the Public Charter School Board, the University of the District of Columbia, the Office of the Chief Technology Officer, and the Deputy Mayor for Education.
After the initial evaluation, the Contracting Officer determined that there were only three proposals in the competitive range that were eligible for further consideration. The three proposals were from ESP Group, IBM, and Williams, Adley and Company. Those three offerors were invited to demonstrate their proposed solutions between March 25 and 31, 2008. On April 3, 2008, the Evaluation Panel conducted a summary session, and prepared a second round of evaluation results based on their demonstrations.
Evaluation Factors. The initial proposals received were evaluated on factors generally covering product capability, project management, technical support service, price, and past performance.
Best and Final Offers. Two clarification requests were made to the offerors. A BAFO soliciting final pricing was requested from IBM and Williams, Adley, the only two firms determined to be in the competitive range, after the clarifications were evaluated. The two final offers were received on May 14, 2008.
Basis of Award. The award to Williams, Adley was made based on the technical panel evaluation, price, and the Contracting Officer’s determination of responsibility.
Award. The Contracting Officer recommended award to Williams, Adley. The proposed contract was approved by the Council on July 15, 2008. The contract was awarded by OCP on July 22, 2008.
Contract Modification. The contract was modified on December 18, 2008 at OSSE’s request. The modification:
(1) Changed deliverable dates due to scope increase;
(2) Removed Tier 1 technical support but required Williams, Adley to continue providing Tier 2 and Tier 3 support;(3) Added contractor personnel for the Organizational Change Management plan implementation; and(4) Reprogrammed funds to offset the cost of scope changes.
Issues with the Contractor. On April 17, 2009, OSSE notified OCP of the deficiencies in the Contractor’s performance regarding the SLED system. The Contracting Officer and members of OCP’s staff held three meetings with OSSE and Williams, Adley to seek an amicable solution to the numerous deficiencies. On April 23, 2009, Williams, Adley sent an email directly to the Contracting Officer Technical Representative (“COTR”) stating that all of their project resources were being removed as of May 1, 2009, and issued a stop work order to its subcontractors on May 14, 2009. After a month of fact-finding and discussions, the Contracting Officer determined that it was time to officially notify Williams, Adley in writing about its lack of progress.
Notice to Cure. On June 17, 2009, OCP sent Williams, Adley a Notice to Cure detailing its performance deficiencies, and requiring the Contractor to cure its failure to perform certain contractually required services no later than July 2, 2009. That deadline was later extended to July 6, 2009 at the request of Williams, Adley. The deficiencies to be remedied covered eight areas, including:
(1) Software defects;
(2) Key resources or personnel;
(3) System back-up;
(4) Uptime/monitoring;
(5) Operational support;
(6) PowerSchool Integration;
(7) Organizational Change Management (OCM); and
(8) Software requirements.
The Notice to Cure notified Williams, Adley that its failure to remediate these issues and its current lack of progress could result in a Termination for Default of the SLED contract. In its July 6, 2009 response to the Notice to Cure, Williams, Adley failed to correct the deficiencies, further asserted that it would submit a claim for $1,007,953.00 for the defective software it had provided, and advised that it was “. . . willing and eager to work with the District to provide” what was requested but that “by doing so, [it was] not waiving its right to seek additional compensations based on [its] efforts.”
Thereafter, OCP’s Contracting Officer and the OSSE SLED Project Team completed a detailed analysis of the Contractor’s response to the Notice to Cure before deciding to issue the Termination for Default notice.
Contract Termination. The SLED contract was terminated on September 9, 2009 pursuant to the standard contract provisions and the requirements of Title 27 of the D.C. Municipal Regulations because of Williams, Adley’s failure to cure any of the defects cited in the Notice to Cure.
Under the Williams, Adley contract which we have terminated, there has been harm to the District, and therefore to the citizens whose money has been invested in this very important project. As the Chief Procurement Officer, and in consultation with the Attorney General, I feel sure that we will file a claim for damages caused by the non-performance of Williams, Adley under the SLED contract. The details of that claim are currently being discussed, and will be supported by the analysis ongoing within the OSSE.
Conclusion. In conclusion, OCP followed the procedures set forth in the Procurement Practices Act and the DC Municipal Regulations to terminate the SLED contract. The contract’s termination was consistent with the requirements stated within the contract. I am convinced that the termination, while regretful, was in the best interest of the District’s public schools and the taxpayers.
This concludes my written testimony. I will be happy to answer any questions.