B-48861 Sole Source Justification Form - Nextalk-Textnet - Agency-SPO Signed.pdf

Sole Source Justification Form

Version 7.01 Page 1 of 6

Bulletin Reference Number 26-448DOIT-ADMIN-B-48861

Requesting Agency/University Department of Innovation and Tehcnology

Sole Source Justification Form - Part I Section I - General Information

Department/Bureau/Section: Telecommunications

Need Identified Date: 5/15/2025 Supply/Service Need By Date: 10/1/2025

Project Title: HITEC Nextalk/Textnet Sole Source - 5 Year

Vendor: HITEC Group International, Inc. dba HITEC

Provide a description of the supplies or services required:

Agency requires a PC/ Internet and Phone based services for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant telecommunication platform designed to provide accessible and reliable messaging services. Services should support real-time text communication, particularly for individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or have speech difficulties. The service should enable seamless exchanges through text-based interfaces while integrating with voice networks, ensuring that communication can happen across different devices and accessibility needs.

Value: Actual Value of Initial Term, this Change Order or Amendment: 567,778.83

Will this Sole Source amend a Professional or Artistic Services contract? Yes No

*Sole Source may not be used for amendments for Professional or Artistic Services if the amendment would increase the value by more than 5% of the initial award or extend the term by more than 60 days.

Type: New Sole Economically Feasible Source

Section II - Proposed Term

One-Time Purchase Term Contract

Estimated Contract Begin Date: 10/1/2025

Estimated Contract End Date: 9/30/2030

Number of Potential Renewals: 0

Length of Each Renewal in Months: 0

Total Value of All Renewals: 0

If a Term Contract, does the term, including renewals, exceed 12 months? Yes No

If yes, provide a detailed justification including any economic benefit received for agreeing to a multi-year term:

The Agency has successfully negotiated a (5) year multi-year term saving the State $53,778.83. The Agency has determined the discount for the 5-year term is a stagnant need for that entire 5-year period.

Section III - Funding Source Select the type of funding to be used (Check all that apply): State Appropriate Funds Federal Funds Other (Explain):

Section IV - Sole Source Justification

This purchase is economically only available from a single source primarily because it is: (If "Other" explain in one sentence)

Compatibility of Equipment, Accessories, Replacement Parts or Service

Version 7.01 Page 2 of 6

Bulletin Reference Number 26-448DOIT-ADMIN-B-48861

Requesting Agency/University Department of Innovation and Tehcnology

Are there secondary justification(s) for this sole source? Yes No

Section V - Purchase History

Has the Agency or University Purchased these supplies or services in the past? Yes No

Term Term From Term To Value Description Contract Number Type

1 Aug 1, 2025 Sep 30, 2025 129,464.6 Nextalk/HITEC TTY Services for the disabled P-69575 Sole Source

2 Aug 2, 2023 7/31/2024 111,605 Nextalk/HITEC TTY Services for the disabled CIT3034380 Sole Source

3 Jan 31, 2023 Jul 31, 2023 55,249.57 Nextalk/HITEC TTY Services for the disabled P-46654 Sole Source

4 Feb 1, 2022 Jan 30, 2023 110,000 Nextalk/HITEC TTY Services for the disabled CIT2025116 Sole Source

5 Jan 1, 2020 Dec 31, 2021 110,000 Nextalk/HITEC TTY Services for the disabled CIT1019577 Sole Source

6 Jan 1, 2019 Dec 31, 2019 110,000 Nextalk/HITEC TTY Services for the disabled CIT9608800 Sole Source

7 Jan 1, 2018 Dec 31, 2018 110,000 Nextalk/HITEC TTY Services for the disabled CIC8085510 Sole Source

8 Jan 1, 2017 Dec 31, 2017 110,000 Nextalk/HITEC TTY Services for the disabled CIC996690 Sole Source

9 Jan 1, 2016 Dec 31, 2016 110,000 Nextalk/HITEC TTY Services for the disabled CIC6958420 Sole Source

10 Jan 1, 2015 Dec 31, 2015 110,000 Nextalk/HITEC TTY Services for the disabled CIC5895070 Sole Source

If more than 10, or if other comments, explain:

1/1/14-12/31-14- CIC4829090 Sole Source 1/1/13-12/31/13- CIC3745680 Sole Source 1/1/12-12/31/12 CIC2658740 Sole Source 1/1/11-12/31/11 CIC1568950 Sole Source 1/1/10-12/31/10 CIC37869A Sole Source 1/1/09-12/31/09 CIC9378690 Sole Source 1/1/08-12/31/08 CMC720930A Sole Source

Section VI - Business Rationale

1. Provide a detailed explanation of the need for the supplies or services:

HITEC provides Nextalk/Textnet Services for the State of Illinois to provide equally effective communication to individuals with disabilities, including hearing and speech impairments. "Equally effective communication" is required of State and local governments through the American with Disabilities Act. The State is legally required by mandate to provide effective equal communications under Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Title II. “Equally effective communication” means that communication with individuals with disabilities must be as effective as communication with others.

2. Provide a list and describe in detail the specifications required to satisfy the need:

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 28 CFR § 35.160(a)(1) requires that Title II entities (State and local governments) communicate effectively with people who have communication disabilities. To provide effective communication DoIT needs a platform which includes Voice type services and Captioning Program services. These services use Software and Call Center Services to convert spoken language into written text. Further more they need to be able to create real-time captionaing. The Agency has the Nextalk-Textnet platform embedded within its infrastructure to meet this requirement. DoIT need's continued software maintenance, port licenses and extending the term of the 800 numbers. The system needs to be scalable to meet the needs of the State. We currently have a total of 580 800#'s assigned and 635 users for all governmental units and qualified not-for-profit entities. DoIT is responsible for procuring the licensing and maintenance of this technology and making it available for use by other agencies.

Version 7.01 Page 3 of 6

Bulletin Reference Number 26-448DOIT-ADMIN-B-48861

Requesting Agency/University Department of Innovation and Tehcnology

3. Provide detail explaining the justification selected in Section IV to explain why the requested supplies or services are the only ones available that can satisfy the agency or university requirements?

DoIT has had Nextalk-Textnet imbedded into it telecommunications system for many years. It has scaled from 48 800#'s to 580 800#s and continues to grow as the requirements of the ADA Title II are met. The system utilized must be a enterprise wide system and meet both Talk to Text and Real-Time Captioning needs. The Nextalk-TextNet system was created as a fully customized system to meet the States various needs in order to be ADA compliant. TextNet allows for accessible communications for both inbound and out bound calls. This is accomplished through additional PBX type services provided by Hitec. TextNet is also owned by Hitec. Once a call comes in Nextalk Software routes it to an agent that initiates a secure text-based chat window. If needed NexTalk Remote Interpreting Joins the call. Any voice is then transcribed into text. For speech disaboilities caller would type the responses and the sytem relays it back to voice. Textnet then performs capture of audio from the agent side, interpreter dialogue if needed,and the text-based converston logs from NexTalk. This allows the callers to receive real time services and has a secure ADA compliant record. Hitec is the only authorized reseller to sell Nextalk to the State and TextNet is owned by Hitec. Additionally HiTec has established call centers for agents to directly connect to callers, eliminating 3rd party needs and creating a real-time solution. To meet the full breadth of needs it would require a new fully customized solution which would cost the State approximately an additional $12million dollars by the time new devices, multiple softwares and new call centers were established.

4. What are the unique features of the supplies or services that are not available in any other product or by any other vendor? Provide specific quantifiable factors/qualifications:

To create a comparable system it would require a fully customized solution involving multiple vendors. Other systems use devices to capture TTY over an IP Network. While that works for some instances it does not work for all calls. Other methods ar ehearing aide devices, screen readers. There are a couple other combinations that could be similar to the Nextalk/Textnet combo but they have shortcomings such as: privacy concerns, undefined workflows,the need for relay operators, no real-time captioning, comletely seperate workflows. Currently the Nextalk/Textnet combo is the only end to end system available without buying multiple disjointed systems to meet the same need.

5. Has the Agency or University considered alternative supplies or services to satisfy their need? Yes No

5a. If yes, name the alternative vendors whose supplies or services were evaluated:

Cisco, Hamilton Captel, UltraTec, Telesommunications Relay Services and CART, UC Connect, Purple CART, Remote CART and Human Editing.

5b. If yes, what were the alternatives for each vendor and why were they unacceptable? Be specific with regard to features, characteristics, requirements, capabilities and compatibility:

The Agency did research on the various platforms through reviewing other Vendor websites and Technology resources. None of the other suppliers have a holistic system and would require a customized system of multiple solutions. Even this path would still create short comings for the features needed due to the disjointed workflows and lack of integration.

5c. Explain how the market evaluation was conducted?

*This evaluation is to determine available options within a market. If the evaluation is to determine quality or best suited option, this is not the appropriate source selection. Under no circumstances shall the evaluation consist of testing alternative options. These activities must be conducted in a competitive transparent environment (i.e. IFB or RFP).

The Agency did research on the various platforms through reviewing other Vendor websites and Technology resources. HITEC is the only licenses provider of Nextalk/ Textnet within the State of Illinois.

6. Are there resellers or distributors?

Yes No N/A

7. What efforts were made to get the best possible price (i.e. did the agency/university negotiate) and how did you determine the price for this purchase is considered fair and reasonable?

HITEC is offering to maintain the same cost as previous contract (P-69575 - $117,067.80) over a five (5) year term without a 2 percent annual increase and providing a three (3) percent discount the extended total paid annually. The discount offered by HITEC will result in a extended total price of $567,778.83 saving the State $53,631.23 from historical pricing.

Version 7.01 Page 4 of 6

Bulletin Reference Number 26-448DOIT-ADMIN-B-48861

Requesting Agency/University Department of Innovation and Tehcnology

8. Will this purchase obligate the State to this vendor for future purchases such as maintenance, licensing or continuing need?

Yes No

9. What will be the financial or other impact to the State if this sole source is not approved and a competitive bid is required?

If we cannot continue to purchase Nextalk/Textnet licenses and maintenance through the only Illinois reseller, HITEC, it would cause the State to be unable to provide equally effective communication services to people with disabilities, making us non-compliant with the American Disabilities Act (ADA). This would not only have a detrimental effect on the millions of Illinois residents who depend on these services, but it would also cause great risk of liability and potential lost of federal funding.

10. Is there any additional information you would like to add to justify this sole source?

Version 7.01 Page 5 of 6

Bulletin Reference Number 26-448DOIT-ADMIN-B-48861

Requesting Agency/University Department of Innovation and Tehcnology

Section VII

Requesting Department Representative

Requesting Department Signature Required

I know and understand the contents of this Sole Source Justification and attest that all statements are true and correct and the fairness and reasonableness of the price was adequately confirmed.

Date Sep 9, 2025

Printed Name Patrick Kelleher E-mail Address patrick.kelleher@illinois.gov

Phone Number 217-557-7303

State Agency Bureau/Division Head or University Purchasing Director Approval and Signature Required

I know and understand the contents of this Sole Source Justification and attest that all statements are true and correct and the fairness and reasonableness of the price was adequately confirmed. (All prior form fields will lock once this e-signature is completed)

E-mail Address christopher.brinkmeyer@illinois.gov

Phone Number 217-524-7057 Date 9/9/2025

Printed Name Chris Brinkmeyer

Agency Bureau/Division Head or University Purchasing Director and Not a Designee

SPO Approval and Signature Required

I have reviewed and understand the contents of this Sole Source Justification and agree with the State Agency or University determination.

I have reviewed and understand the contents of this Sole Source Justification and do not agree with the State Agency or University determination. As a result, the State Agency or University must explore other sourcing methods to satisfy their need.

State Purchasing Officer Signature Phone Number 217-720-4169 Date Sep 9, 2025

Printed Name Bethany Moore E-mail Address Bethany.Moore@Illinois.gov

Version 7.01 Page 6 of 6

Bulletin Reference Number 26-448DOIT-ADMIN-B-48861

Requesting Agency/University Department of Innovation and Tehcnology

Sole Source Justification Form - Part II Section I - General Information

Project Title

Vendor

Initial Date of Procurement Bulletin Posting

Was a Sole Source hearing held per 30 ILCS 500/20-25?

Yes - Complete Section II and III below (Section II will only be visible when this option is selected)

No - Section II not required, go to Section III below Section III - CPO Approval and Signature Required

Based on my review, I authorize the Agency/University to proceed in accordance with the published Notice referenced above.

Based upon my review, I authorize the Agency/University to proceed with the following Changes.

Based on my review, the Agency/University is not authorized to proceed with this sole source as presented and my recommendation is that it be cancelled.

Other

CPO Signature CPO Phone

Printed Name Date

CPO E-mail

Version 7.01 Page of Sole Source Justification Form - Part I Section I - General Information Will this Sole Source amend a Professional or Artistic Services contract?

If yes, what was the original contract value?

*Sole Source may not be used for amendments for Professional or Artistic Services if the amendment would increase the value by more than 5% of the initial award or extend the term by more than 60 days.

Section II - Proposed Term If a Term Contract, does the term, including renewals, exceed 12 months?

If yes, provide a detailed justification including any economic benefit received for agreeing to a multi-year term:

Section III - Funding Source Select the type of funding to be used (Check all that apply):

Section IV - Sole Source Justification Are there secondary justification(s) for this sole source?

Section V - Purchase History Has the Agency or University Purchased these supplies or services in the past?

Term Term From Term To Value Description Contract Number Type Section VI - Business Rationale

1. Provide a detailed explanation of the need for the supplies or services:

2. Provide a list and describe in detail the specifications required to satisfy the need:

3. Provide detail explaining the justification selected in Section IV to explain why the requested supplies or services are the only ones available that can satisfy the agency or university requirements?

4. What are the unique features of the supplies or services that are not available in any other product or by any other vendor? Provide specific quantifiable factors/qualifications:

5. Has the Agency or University considered alternative supplies or services to satisfy their need?

5a. If yes, name the alternative vendors whose supplies or services were evaluated:

5b. If yes, what were the alternatives for each vendor and why were they unacceptable? Be specific with regard to features, characteristics, requirements, capabilities and compatibility:

5c. Explain how the market evaluation was conducted?

*This evaluation is to determine available options within a market. If the evaluation is to determine quality or best suited option, this is not the appropriate source selection. Under no circumstances shall the evaluation consist of testing alternative options. These activities must be conducted in a competitive transparent environment (i.e. IFB or RFP).

5a. If no, why weren't alternatives evaluated?

6. Are there resellers or distributors?

7. What efforts were made to get the best possible price (i.e. did the agency/university negotiate) and how did you determine the price for this purchase is considered fair and reasonable?

8. Will this purchase obligate the State to this vendor for future purchases such as maintenance, licensing or continuing need?

8a. If yes, please provide details regarding future obligations and/or needs:

9. What will be the financial or other impact to the State if this sole source is not approved and a competitive bid is required?

10. Is there any additional information you would like to add to justify this sole source?

Section VII Requesting Department Signature Required I know and understand the contents of this Sole Source Justification and attest that all statements are true and correct and the fairness and reasonableness of the price was adequately confirmed.

State Agency Bureau/Division Head or University Purchasing Director Approval and Signature Required I know and understand the contents of this Sole Source Justification and attest that all statements are true and correct and the fairness and reasonableness of the price was adequately confirmed. (All prior form fields will lock once this e-signature is completed) SPO Approval and Signature Required Sole Source Justification Form - Part II Section I - General Information Was a Sole Source hearing held per 30 ILCS 500/20-25?

Section II - Sole Source Hearing Details The State posted to the Illinois Procurement Bulletin a description of the State's need, the justification for the sole source decision, and information regarding the opportunity to submit comments and testify at a public hearing. Notice of the hearing was also posted outside of the hearing room 48 hours prior to the hearing.

The public hearing was conducted for the purpose of receiving testimony regarding the sole source determination. The Hearing Officer recommends the following:

The following relevant documents are attached:

Section III - CPO Approval and Signature Required 9.0.0.2.20101008.1.734229

disabled

disabled

disabled

disabled

disabled

disabled

disabled

disabled

disabled

disabled

1/1/13-12/31/13- CIC3745680 Sole Source 1/1/12-12/31/12 CIC2658740 Sole Source 1/1/11-12/31/11 CIC1568950 Sole Source 1/1/10-12/31/10 CIC37869A Sole Source 1/1/09-12/31/09 CIC9378690 Sole Source 1/1/08-12/31/08 CMC720930A Sole Source Q1Answer: HITEC provides Nextalk/Textnet Services for the State of Illinois to provide equally effective communication to individuals with disabilities, including hearing and speech impairments. "Equally effective communication" is required of State and local governments through the American with Disabilities Act. The State is legally required by mandate to provide effective equal communications under Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Title II. “Equally effective communication” means that communication with individuals with disabilities must be as effective as communication with others.

State to be unable to provide equally effective communication services to people with disabilities, making us non-compliant with the American Disabilities Act (ADA). This would not only have a detrimental effect on the millions of Illinois residents who depend on these services, but it would also cause great risk of liability and potential lost of federal funding.