Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03062007 - D.2 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS s '� Contra FROM: WARREN P. RUPF, SHERIFF-CORONER o - Costa �a DATE: FEBRUARY 26 2007 County SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION FOR TELEPHONE EMERGENCY NOTIFICATION(RINGDOWN) SYSTEM PROVIDER SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee,to negotiate terms with Honeywell, Inc.,to provide the County telephone emergency notification system services and to return to the Board with a contract proposal on March 13,2007. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of the TENS contract is funded completely through Certified Unified Program Agency(CUPA) fees. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: ✓RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR „RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE A--'APPROVE OTHER r SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOAR O APPROVE AS RECOMMENDED _ OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN UNANIMOUS(ABSENTS AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE AYES: NOES: SHOWN. ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTESTED: MARCH 6,2007 CONTACT: JULIE ENEA(925)335-1077 JOHN CULLEN,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR CC: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE STAFF SHERIFF-EMERGENCY SERVICES DIVISION. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR HEALTH SERVICES-HAZARDOUS MATERIALS PROGRAM GENERAL SERVICES DIRECTOR �- GSD-PURCHASING SERVICES MANAGER DEPUTY Recommendations for Telephone Emergency(Ringdown) System February 26,2007 Board of Supervisors Page 2 BACKGROUND: The current contract for telephone emergency notification system(TENS) services is due to expire on March 31,2007. The General Services Department on November 17,2006 issued, on behalf of the Office of the Sheriff, a Request for Proposals(RFP)to provide TENS services. The Board of Supervisors approved the RFP and set forth the following conditions on the final selection of a vendor: 1. If technologically feasible, RFP finalists shall participate in a system test to be designed by the Office of the Sheriff in order to demonstrate the capabilities and reliability of their systems, and the results of this test shall be reported to the Board of Supervisors prior to the award of a contract for services. I The ability of the system to be activated independently by a refinery facility and the County shall be included in the aforementioned test. 3., Reference checks shall be made on each of the finalist to assess past performance with other clients on comparable systems. Results of the reference checks shall be reported to the Board of Supervisors prior to the award of a contract for services. The Office of the Sheriff, in consultation with the General Services Department, established a proposal screening committee consisting of Randy Sawyer, Hazardous Materials Program Director, Health Services Department; Tony Semenza,Executive Director of Contra Costa County CAER; Cindy Shehorn, Purchasing Manager,Department of General Services;Li Sheng, Information Systems Administrator II, Office of the Sheriff; Art Botterell, Community Warning System Manager, Office of the Sheriff; and Lt. Jeff Hebel, Emergency Services Division, Office of the Sheriff. The committee reviewed a total of eleven responses to the RFP and selected three vendors for further consideration based on the quality of their proposals and their demonstrations of capability in delivery of telephone notification services: AT&T, WARN Inc., and Honeywell. The committee conducted in-depth interviews with those three vendors and is recommending Honeywell on the basis of its track record and mature product offerings. If selected,Honeywell has agreed to undertake the testing and provide the references required by the Board. The Sheriff was scheduled to make a presentation to the Internal Operations Committee on the results of the RFP process but the Committee did not have a quorum on March 5 and, in the interest of time, the Committee Chair directed the Sheriff's Office to make its presentation directly to the Board of Supervisors. The Sheriff will continue to work with the Committee on TENS activation protocols as previously requested by the Board. ADDENDUM to D.2 March 6, 2007 On this day, the Board of Supervisors considered accepting a status report from the Office of the Sheriff on the Telephone Emergency Notification System Request for Proposals (RFP), and authorizing the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to enter into negotiations with the top-ranked bidder. Lieutenant Jeff Hebel and Art Botterell, Office of the Sheriff, presented a status report on the RFP process for the Telephone Emergency Notification System. Lt. Hebel said the Sheriff's Office would like to return to the Board next week, at the March 13, 2007 meeting, with a contract proposal if the contract negations with the top-ranked firm, Honeywell, Inc., are successful; and, if not, to return to present another option. Supervisor Gioia said an important element of the RFP was a test of the system. He asked if there was any possibility that a test would be done before this item is returned to the Board next .week. Lt. Hebel said he did not think it was likely that a test could happen within the week. Supervisor Gioia said that if the test is not done,that would be falling through on one commitment the Board made. Supervisor Gioia mentioned other components of the proposed system, such as the ability to be activated independently by refineries or the Sheriff, and asked if that would be a component of the test. He also asked about the multi-lingual component, asking about the Laotian project. Mr. Hebel said the system does have those components. Supervisor Gioia said it is important for the Board to see the contract. Supervisor Glover said that, in addition to the preliminary test, it is important to have periodic system checks, something the Board may want to consider adding into the agreement. Supervisor Gioia said that cellphone technology should be explored, where alerting messages could be sent to phones basked on where the phones are at that moment. Lt. Hebel said that cellphone technology is separate and won't be done through this contract. Supervisor Bonilla said that the Internal Operations Committee would appreciate a report on the cellphone notification technology as soon as it is available. By a unanimous vote with none absent, the Board of Supervisors took the following action: ACCEPTED a status report from the Office of the Sheriff on the Telephone Emergency Notification System Request for Proposals, and AUTHORIZED the Sheriff-Coroner, or I esignee, to enter into negotiations with the top-ranked bidder. 925 335 1898 MAR-07-2007 87:24 Contra Costa. County 925 335 1898 P.81i18 JULIE EN EA Senior Deputy County Administrator 65'1 Pine Street, 11th floor ESSEN Voice: (925)335-1077 FAX: (525) 335-109$ E-mail. jenea@cao.ccaounty_us RECEIVED FM7AR00 20 Fax CLERK BOARD OF SUP!C]O CONTRA COSTA To: Board of Supervisors Members Fromm Julie f nea ftva Various PSOMW _19, , including transmittal P'hona Vaatea 1131107 1: Item D.2 for 3113107: Emergency ca� Clerk&the Board Telephone NMificatlon System 0 UrSeM 0 For RwIlaw ❑Plemse Conment 0 PlGMW Reply O Meese tel' Transmitted herewith are the materials for Item D.2 on "T'uesday's agenda, the emergency telephone notification system. The contract itself is still undergoing legal review and modification. We will provide you the contract document as soon as it becomes available. I'lPR-07-2007 b7:24 Contra r..osta Countq 525 335 1088 P.02%18 TO: BOARD OF SUP'ER'VISORS Contra . -- Costa FROM- W�AR.RE�T P_ ;(Z�l'PF, ST�R�'F-CORONER DATE: MARCH 8,2 007 uountiff SUBJECT: (CONTRACT FOR TELEPHONE EMERGENCY NOTIFICATION (RTNGDOW-N) SYS'T'EM PROBER SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMtMIENDATON(S)S BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION ECOM WNDA1I0P3: APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff Coroner, or designee, to execute a contract with Honeywell,Inc., in an annual amount not to exceed$97,155 to provide telephone emergency notification systcm services, subject to approval by the County Counsel and County Administrator, for a period of up to five yem beginning April 1,2007, FISCAL IMPAC:: The cost of the TENS c.ontt-act is funded completely through Certified Unified Program Agency(CUPA) .fees. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YF.S SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _____RE=COMMENDATION OF BOARD r.OMMMEE -yaPPROVE OTHER r r SIGNATURE(S): :] ACTION OF HO D N APPROVE AS RECOMMENDEECI OTHER VOTE OF St1PERV$ORS I HEREBY CERTIFY TWr THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN UNANIMOUS(A SEN1 � _ 1 AND ENTERED ON THE MIiNLITES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE AYES: NOSS: SHOWN. ASSENT: .-- ABSTA►N: ATTESTED., MARCH 93.2007 CONTACT: JUUF--ENEEA(825)33i-1071 JOHN GULLEN,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR CC: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE STAFF SHERIFF-EMERGENCY SERVICES DIVISION COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR HEALTH SER\firE.S•HAZARDOUS MATERIALS PROGRAM GENERAL SERVIr,ES DIRECTOR GSO-PURCHASING SERVICES MANAGER ay� _��,DEPUTY MAR-07-2oo7 b7:24 Contra Costa County 925 335 1095 P.03/19 Telephone Emergency Notification System Contract Authorization March 8, 2007 Board of Super fors Page 2 BACKGROUND: On March 6,2007,the Board of Supervisors authorized the Office of the Sheriffto negotiaU with Honeywell, Inc.,for the provision of Telephone Emergency Notification System (TENS) services with specific direction that Honeywell's system should be tested and deemed satisfactory before a contact is executed and that vendor references be pro-vi ded to the Board by March l3,along with the key contract provisions. The key contract provisions will include: Specification of the features of the service and a commitment by the vendor to a minimum of 99.9% system availability; Retention by the County of an annual incentive reserve amounting to 15% of the annual fee,payable only if the service meets the performance standards set forth in the Service bevel Agreement; and, ® provision for prompt termination of the contract by the County in case of failuxe by Honeywell to perforin in accordance with the Service Level Agreemem. The pre-contract test will verify: Interoperability of the vendor's "SOAP APr'interface with the County's integrated alerting control system utilizing the Common Alerting Protocol standard; Automated activation of the TINS from a refinery control center by way of the County's integrated alerting conA system to a test group of telephone numbers; and, ■ Capability to include in all messages the control tones required for the Automated Translation Devices currently being tested in the Lao eommimity. Reference checks have been conducted and the results are attached. Utial agreement language has been received and provided to County Counsel for review. The Sheriff will continue to'work with the Intemal Operations Committee on TENS activation protocols as previously requested by the Board_ MAR-07-2807 E?7 � G nt.ra C: s:ta County 191-5 335 1098 P.04/18 Telephone EMrrgeUcy IVOtWtgtion System trontimct Authorization March S,2007 Board of Supervisors Page 3 Reference Questionnaire for Potential TENS Vendor 2JGMI Vendor: Hor►eywBD Customer. Appiled Materials, Inc_ Contact: Raelene Wong Phone: 408-663-6783 Interviewer. Jeff Hebei ®ate: March 7,2007 X. Hogs long have you been using this vendor's services? Two years. 2. On about bow :any occasions have you ,actually used their system for emergency public notification? Approximately )00 limes, 3. About how large was the largest (in terms of numbers called) single unscheduled public notEc2tion you've performed using their serAce? ' 'hat would you say has been the average size of suclx notincations? Approximately 500. 4. Based on that experience, would you describe the reliability of their system ass: a) perfect, b)superior, c) acceptable, or d)less than acceptable? Suoerior_ S. (If not"perfect") Can you describe the nature of any problems you've experienced? In the development stage th,=were minor problems. MAR-071?887 b-( 25 Contra. Costa. County 925 335 1898 P.85%18 Telephone Emergency Notification System Contract Author tion Lerch 8,2007 Board of Smrvisars gage 4 6. Compared with other vendors of technical products or services, would you describe their customer support, including troubleshooting and training, as. a) extraordinary, b) superior,e) stamdard, or d)other? Standard.Tbey have also used Dialogic and were not.happy with the service, 7. Compared %ith other vendors of til products or services, would you describe their business practices, including responsiveness to customer needs and business ethics,as: a)extraordinary, b)superior,c) standard, or d) other? Superior. They are so pleased they are expanding the program to their international units and will have 15,000 conte in their database. 8. Could you please briefly describe any regular testing of the system that you perform, or that the vendor performs and reports to you.? Tested quarterly. 9. Could you please briefly describe any performance incentive or penalty arrangements you have with this vendor? NA 10. If you were re-evaluating vendors today, are there any other particular vendors you'd consider? Wbat draws your interest in those vendors? They are not considering other vendors- 11. e dors.11. What lands of 9eMcc do you this vendor (e.g., emergency notification, planned community calls,gtmff calls)? Staff'notification. MAR-87-2007 b7:25 Contra Costa County 925 335 1098 P.06/18 Telephone Emergency Notification System Contract.authorization I1fanh 8,2007 Board of Supervisors Page S 12.Have you used the vendor for multiple la age calls? h so,has this service been: a) extraordinary,b) superior, c) staudard, or d) other? Na 13.How well has the vendor been wilbi g to work with you on any special requests that you have requested? Very willing to work with them on numerous special requests. 1.4,If the vendor stated any exceptions to the terms and conditions of the contact and/or service agreement, were they wOng to negotiate to reach a mutually acceptable outcome? If so, Ow you elaborate as to what this vendor had exception with and the result of that discussion? No issues. IS.Thi you. IhUY we contact you again with any follow-up questions? Yes. IIRR-07-200-f 07:25 Contra Costa Cou_:nta 925 335 1898 P.87/18 Telephone Emergency Notification System Contract Authorization March 8,2007 Board of Supervisors page 6 Reference Questionnaire for Potential TENS Vendor 216107 Vendor. Honeywell Customer: Pacific Gas and Electric Contact: Mike Clark Phone: 415-973-7455 interviewer.- Jeff Rebel Date: March 5,2007 1. How long have you been using this vendor's services' Since 2001 2. On about how many occasions have you actually used their system for emergency pub.tic notification? Regularly used during summer months,weekly. I About horn large was the largest (in teras of >aumbers called) single unscheduled Public notification you've performed fusing their service? What would you say has been the average size of such noti icatiions? 3000. about the,arae a. Based on that experience, would you describe the reliability of their system as: a) perfect,b)superior,c) acceptable, or d)less tbam acceptable? Superior S. ().f not"perfect'] Can you describe the nature of any problems you've experienced? No problems of note. MAR-07-2007 07:25 Contra. Co----t.a County 925 3735 1098 P.08/18 Telephone Emergency Notification Systew Contract Authori=tion March 8,2007 hoard of Supervisors Page 7 6. Compared with other vendors of tecbnical products or services, would you describe their customer support,including troubleshooting and training, U-. a)extraordinary, b) superior,c)standard, or d) other: Superior 7. Compared with other vendors of technical products or services,would you describe their business practices, including respoosrveness to customer needs and business ethics,as: a) extraordinary,b) superior,c)standard, or d) other? Superior S. Could you please briefly describe any regular testing of the system that you perform, or that the:vender performs and reports to your 9. Could you please briefly describe any performance incentive or penalty arrangements you have with this vendor? 10.If you were re-evaluating vendors today, are there any other particular vendors you'd consider'' What draws your interest in those'vendors? MAR-07--2887 87:25 Contra Costa County 925 355 1898 P.09i18 Telephone Emergenery Notification System Contract Authorization March S,2007 Board of Supervisors gage g 11.Wbat kinds of service do you this vendor (e.g., emergency notilksttion, planned community CJs,std calls)? Notify*medically fragile citizens when a rolling power outage may affect their medical a naratus 12.Have you used the vendor for multiple language caalls? 1s so, has this service been; a)ertraordinary, b) superior,e) standard,or d!) other? 13. How well bas the vendor been grilling to work with you on any special requests that you have requm.ted? 14. If the vendor stated any exceptions to the terms and conditions of the contact and/or service agreement, were they wiffing to autgotiate to reach a mwtual]y acceptable outcome? 1.l•so, can you elaborate as to what this vendor had exception with and the result of that discussion? 15.Thank you. NUy we contact you again with any follow-up questions? Yes MAR-87-2007 07:25 Contra Costa. Count. 925 J35 1898 P. 18/18 Telephone Emergency Notification System Con&act Authorization March 8,2007 Board of Smtrvfsors Page 9 Reference Qtee"onn2ire for Potential TENS Vendor 7Jsl67 Vendor: Honeywell Customer: State of California Department of Hoalth Services Contact: Dr. Jeff Farrar Phone: 916-650-8590 Interviewer: Jeff Rebel mate: March 6, 2007 1. How long have you been using this vendor's services? Five years 2. On about how many occasions have you actually used their system for emergency public notification? Approximately once per month. 3. About how large was the largest (in terms of numbers wed) single unscheduled public Sao cation you've performed using their service? What would you say has been the average size of such notifications? 2000 4, Based on that experience, would you describe the reliability of their system as: a) perfect, b)superior, c) acceptable,or d)less than acceptable? "Extremely successful" S. [If not"perfect"] Can you describe the nature of any problems you've experienced? MAR-07-200-7 67:26 Contra Costa County 925 3.35 1098 F. 11/18 Telephone Emergency Notification System Contract Authorization March 8,2007 Board of Supervisors Page 10 6. Compared with other vendors of technical products or serviccs, would you describe thein customer support,iveluding troubleshooting and training, as. a) extraordinary,b) superior,c) st-Andard, or d) other? Superior 7. Compared with other vendors of technical products or services, would you describe their business practices, including responsiveness to customer needs and business ethics, as: a) extraordinary, b)superior, e) standard, or d) other? Superior 8. Could you please.briefly describe any regular testing of the system that you perform,or that the vendor performs and reports to you? 9. Could you p1 me briefly describe any performance incentive or penalty arrangements you have with(his vendor? 10.If you were re-evaluating vendors today, are there any outer particular vendors you'd consider? What drawn your interest in those vendors? 11. What kinds of service do you this vendor (e.�., emergency ,notification, planned community calls, staff calls)? Community cads to notify of food contamination events. C MAR-07-2007 07:26 Contra Costa County 925 335 1098 P. 12%18 Telephone Emergency Notification System Contract Authorization March S,2007 Board of page 1 12.Have you used the vendor,for multiple language calls? Is so, has this service been: a) extraordinary, b)superior,c)standard, or d) other`' 13.How well has the vendor been willing to work with you on any special requests that you have requested? 14.If the vendor rotated any cXceptions to the terms and conditions of ibe contact and/or service agreement, were they willing to negotiate to reach a mutually acceptable outcome? If so, can you elaborate as to what this vendor had exception with and the result of that discussion? 15. Thank you. May we contact you again with any fouow-up questions? Yes MAR-07-21-007 07:26 Contra Costa County 925 335 1098 P. 13/18 Telephone Emergency Notification System Contimct Authorization March 8,2007 Board of Supervisors Page 12 !Reference Questionnaire for Potential TENS Vendor Vendor; Honeywell Customer. Wayne County School District Contact: Mr. Sprunt Hill Phone, (919)731-5900 Interviewer: Eve Ridgers Date; March 8,2007 1. How long have you been using the vendor's services` This is the 4'h year. 2. On about how many occasions have you actually used their system for emergency public notification? In the winter they use it about oncelmnrth for snow and toz'oado warnings. But it is used for information in addition to emergencies. 3. About how large was the largest (in tennis of numbers called) single unscheduled public notification you've performed using their service? 'What would you say has been the average size of such notifications? Approx 19,300 is the largest—used for the entire school district. On average, it's used for one school—approx 800-1000 homes. 4. Based on that experience, would you describe the reliability of their systems as: a) Perfect, b)superior, e) acceptable, or d)less than acceptable? Superior S. [Jf not"perfect"] Can you describe the:nature of any problems you've experienced`. Wasn't thrilled 1xitih the computer voice, love the option to use their own human voice. Takes only 15-20 minutes to get out 19,000 calls. MAR-07-2007 07:26 Contra Costa County 925 335 1098 P. 14/18 Telephone Emergency Notification System Contract Authorization March 812007 Board of Superisors Page 13 6. Compared with other vendors of technical products or services, would you describe their customer support,including troubleshooting and training, as: a) extraordinary, b) superior, c) standard,or d) other? Superior,nothing is perfect. Very customer friendly, and Honeywell wanted to farm a paxinuxsbip,which they have. 7. Compared witbt other vendors of technical products or services, would you describe their business practices, including responsiveness to customer needs and business ethics,as: a)extraordinary, b)superior, c) standard, or d) other? Superior. Honeywell will do whatever they tell you they will. Would like a quicker turn-around, but understand that it is a business they nut. S. Could you please briefly describe any regular testing of the system that you perform, or that the vendor performs and reports to you? 3-4 tests were run before signing ofcontract Plus, dad not begin service charge until after testing was completed satisfactorily. 9. Could you please briefly describe any perforv=ce incentive or penalty arrangements you have with this vendor? If Homywell failed, Wayne County School District could opt out with 30 day notice. 10.If you were re-evaluating vendors today, are there any other particular vendors you'd consider? VVhat draws your interest in those vendors? A company endorsed by the High School Principal's Assoc.,Dr Cosby was in charge. Maybe `:Connect Ed"? NoWly N17 r Tonnect-E.d"product;they responded ro our,RF?but were unable to meet ora requiremer t,for texi to--speeeh capability. -AC'B] 11.What kinds of service do you this vendor (e.g,, emergency notification, planned community calls, staff calls)? Information,PTA, Bus Drivers, Staff',tornados, scow days, etc. MAR-87-2887 ©7:25 Contra Costa County 925 335 1898 P. 15/18 Telephone Emergency N'od cation S►sftIn Contract Authorization March S,2007 .Board of Superviaors Page I4 12.Have you used the vendor for mvdtiple hmguage nulls? Is so, has this service been: a) extraordinary, b)superior,c) standard, or d) other? Have had Spanish system for I year. ®k, but not perfect. 13. How well has the vendor been willing to work with you on any special requests that you have requested? They will do anything when asked. 14.If the vendor stated any exceptions to the terms and conditions of the contact and/or service agreement, were they wiling to negotiate to reach a mutu$lly acceptable outcome? If so, can you elaborate as to wbat this vendor bad exception with and the result of that discussion? Yes. Very negotiable! 15. Thank you. May was contact you again with any follow-up questions? Yes,of coluse. MAP.-07-2007 07:27 Contra Costa County 925 335 1098 P. 16/18 Telephone Emergency Notffication System Contract Authorization larch 8,2007 Board oSupervisors ]Page 15 Reference Questionnaire for Potential TENS Vendor 216!67 Vendor. Honeywell Customer: Real Unified School District Contact; Charlie Kry Owski Phone: 415-924-8050 interviewer_ Ede Ridgers Date, March 8, 2047 1. How long have you been using this vendor's services' 2 years 2. On about hove many occasions have you actually used their system for emergency public notification? 3-4 emergencies,plus other uses 3. About how large was the largest (m terms of numbers called) single unscheduled public notification you've performed ung their service? What would you say has been the average size of such notifications? 700 is largest and avg. 4. Based on that experience, would you describe the reliability of their system as: 8) perfect, b) superior, c)acceptable,or d)less than acceptable? Superior S. (If not "perfect"] Can ,you describe the nature of any problems you've experienced? 11AR-07-2007 07:27 Contra Costa County 925 335 1098 P. 17/18 Telephone Emergency Notification System Contt•kct Authorization March g,2007 hoard of Supervisors � Page 1.6 6. Compared with other vendors of tecWcaI products or services, would you describe their customer support, including troubleshootiag and training, as: a) extraordinary,b)superior, c) standard,or d) other? Customer support extraordinary,tr�superior 7.. Compared with other vendors of technica.i products or services, would you describe their business practices, including responsiveness to customer nee& and business ethics, as: a) extraordinary, b) superior, c) standard, or d) other? Superior 8. Could you please briefly describe "y regular testing of the system that you perform,or that the vendor performs and reports to yore? llmonth to staff' 9. Could you please briefly describe arty performance incentive or penalty arrangements you have with this vendor? Don't know 10.If you were re-evaluating vendors today, are there any other particular vendors you'd cowsider? 'What draws your interest in those vendors? NO 11.What kinds of service do you this vendor (e.g., emergency notification, planned community calls,staff calks)? Emergencies,geneiO info,bus is late,etc.. MAR-07-2007' n-7:27 Contra. Costa. County 925 335 1098 P. 18/18 Telephone Et mergency Notification System Contract Authorization March 8,2007 Board of Supervisors Page 17 12.gave you used the vendor for multiple language calls? Is so, has this service been: a)ertraordinmI,b)superior, c) staxadard,or d) otber? Yes, Spanish,has been very successful and receivers say it's very clear 13. How well his the vendor been willing to work with you on any special requests that you have regpested? Really helpful! 14.If the vendor stated W exceptions to the tercets and conditions of the contact and/or service agreement, were they willing to negotiate to reach a mutually acceptable outcome? if so, can you elaborate as to what t6 vendor had aceptron with and the result of that dbeussion? They seem to be very willing to negotiate, and offered to lower price when more schools were considering contvrting with them. 15.Thank you. May we contact you again with any follow-up questions? Yes TOTAL P. 18