DCYF SSJ Form TrackTech LLC.pdf

Department of Children, Youth, and Families

DES Sole Source Justification 9/11/2019 1

TO: Karena McGovern

CONTRACT #

PR250008

TODAY’S DATE:

1/2/2025

CONTRACT SUB OBJECT CODE:

CZ - Other Pro Serv

CONTRACTOR’S LEGAL NAME TIN/UBI NUMBER

TrackTech, LLC 81-2397211 / 605-653-973

ADDRESS 6295 Greenwood Plaza Blvd. Suite 100, Greenwood Village, CO 80111

CONTRACT PURPOSE

The purpose of this contract is to provide state of the art electronic monitoring technology for DCYF/JR young people participating in Community Transition Services (CTS). CTS is a legislatively mandated program that is JR’s least restrictive option for eligible young people to complete their residential obligation in the community while on electronic monitoring for up to the last 18 months of their sentence.

FUNDING

FEDERAL FUNDING $

STATE FUNDING $70K FIRST YEAR

$60K ANNUALLY THEREAFTER

CONTRACT TOTAL $370,000 OTHER FUNDING $

CONTRACT DATES

START DATE: 1/24/2025 END DATE: 12/31/2030

SOLE SOURCE CRITERIA

What is a sole source contract?

“Sole source” means a contractor providing goods or services of such a unique nature or sole availability at the location required that the contractor is clearly and justifiably the only practicable source to provide the goods or services. (RCW 39.26.010)

Unique qualifications or services are those which are highly specialized or one-of-a-kind.

Other factors which may be considered include past performance, cost-effectiveness (learning curve), and/or follow-up nature of the required goods and/or services. Past performance alone does not provide adequate justification however will not be on its own a sufficient justification.

Why is a sole source justification required?

The State of Washington, by policy and law, believes competition is the best strategy to obtain the best value for the goods and services it purchases, and to ensure that all interested vendors have a fair and transparent opportunity to sell goods and services to the state.

A sole source contract does not benefit from competition. Thus the state, through RCW 39.26.010, has determined it is important to evaluate whether the conditions, costs and risks related to the proposal of a sole source contract truly outweigh for going the benefits of a competitive contract.

SOLE SOURCE FILING JUSTIFICATION

DES Sole Source Justification 9/11/2019 2

SPECIFIC PROBLEM OR NEED

1. What is the business need or problem that requires this contract?

DCYF/JR offers least restrictive residential programming options and parole aftercare services.

Both require the use of electronic monitoring (EM), although Community Transition Services (CTS) requires the use of advanced technologies that can detect the whereabouts of a person on CTS

24/7 for the duration of their participation. As CTS is a form of confinement, per WAC 110-740-

0010:,EM is part of the required programming. In the 2021 legislative session, ESSHB 1186 passed (see pdf below) establishing the CTS program. Part of the legislation includes using advanced technologies that are more trauma informed (i.e., not a traditional ankle unit). In order to accomplish this, JR has done an extensive search to find a vendor capable of providing reliable solutions to meet the needs of the CTS program.

Relevant RCWs and WAC authorizing the use of EM and the CTS program are below.

RCW 13.40.205: Release from physical custody, when—Authorized leaves—Leave plan and order—Notice.

RCW 72.01.412: Eligibility for community transition services.

RCW 9A.76.130: Escape in the third degree.

WAC 110-740-0010:

1186-S2.SL.pdf https://app.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=110-740-0010 https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=13.40.205 https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=13.40.205 https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=72.01.412 https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.76.130

DES Sole Source Justification 9/11/2019 3

PROVIDING COMPELLING ANSWERS TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS WILL FACILITATE THE

EVALUATION

2. Describe the unique features, qualifications, abilities or expertise of the contractor proposed for this sole source contract.

TrackTech is the only US company that offers a tether (watch unit) that communicates with a smartphone to determine the location of a user at any given time. This eliminates the need for an ankle unit and provides increased mobility for the participant. This company has been in business for many years and has established a well-known reputation for customer service and cutting-edge technology. The features available to assist JR staff with monitoring and communication with the CTS and other participants, are second to none. The dashboard is very easy to use, requires little training, and offers advanced flexibility for JR staff to create tailored inclusion and exclusion zones for each participant.

3. What kind of market research did the agency conduct to conclude that alternative sources were inappropriate or unavailable? Provide a narrative description of the agency’s due diligence in determining the basis for the sole source contract, including methods used by the agency to conduct a review of available sources such as researching trade publications, industry newsletters and the internet; contacting similar service providers; and reviewing statewide pricing trends and/or agreements. Include a list of businesses contacted (if you state that no other businesses were contacted, explain why not), date of contact, method of contact (telephone, mail, e-mail, other), and documentation demonstrating an explanation of why those businesses could not or would not, under any circumstances, perform the contract; or an explanation of why the agency has determined that no businesses other than the prospective contractor can perform the contract.

Extensive market research has been done to come to this point where TrackTech is the preferred vendor.

In 2021/2022, shortly after the legislation passed, program creation began including the search for more creative and advanced electronic monitoring solutions. Currently, DCYF has a master contract with Sentinel and JR has used their EM services for years. They have an ankle unit only and it is limited in the features available. This vendor does not meet our current needs for CTS and parole aftercare.

In 2022, JR identified a small start-up company in Arkansas, E-Cell. We engaged them in communication, tested their equipment and started the process of developing IT system design review and statement of work procedures. Along the way, it became clear this vendor was not capable of handling the volume and advanced technologies we needed. The watch did not function correctly, it would glitch out and cause false alerts. Their smartphone system was unreliable, and they did not have enough inventory or staff available for technical assistance, training, etc. We did not pursue an agreement with E-Cell beyond the user testing period.

In 2022/2023, JR learned that Boulder Industries (BI), a well-known offender monitoring company whom we used to contract with in the 1990’s, had developed a watch EM unit that looked promising. They planned to release the first edition of the watch in July of 2023. JR took the

DES Sole Source Justification 9/11/2019 4 opportunity to test the watch out and learn about the other traditional EM equipment, and decided to move in that direction. BI is well established and has a partnership with Washington Association of Sherriff’s and Police Chiefs (WASPC) to provide EM and other offender monitoring equipment to several entities in Washington State and other states. They have a robust customer service department and on-site technical assistance. In the fall of 2023, BI pulled the watch unit due to unreliable service and technical difficulties. This left JR with the traditional ankle unit as the only option. BI’s equipment is bulky and unreliable, in terms of the ankle units. The ankle straps do not hold up to long term wear and often break, causing staff to have to go afterhours to replace the straps. As CTS is a 24/7 monitoring program in the community, this has created a hardship for JR staff and put the program at risk. The customer service with WASPC is acceptable however the troubleshooting that needs to occur, often daily, is not sustainable. JR moved towards establishing a service agreement with BI/WASPC but have not been successful in gaining approvals to implement the advanced technologies that might become available, i.e., a second edition of the watch unit. The data sharing agreement between BI and WASPC has not been updated and JR Contracts and IT departments have had difficulties working with them to get that completed so they could continue with approvals. Additionally, through extensive user testing, our teams have not developed the ability to trust the equipment due to multiple and random failures and difficulty confirming actual locations with the participants. This puts the CTS program at risk with intermittent and unreliable GPS monitoring.

In 2024, after several months of working with DCYF IT/Contracts, not much progress has been made with BI/WASPC to improve the functionality. There is an established service agreement but no contract or IT approval.

In mid-2024, JR reached out to DCYF legal for advice on afterhours monitoring challenges and they suggested we explore other vendors to see if there is anything else on the market for EM equipment and monitoring. JR Assistant Secretary suggested TrackTech as she had heard about them at a conference from talking with colleagues. Upon exploring TrackTech’s website, talking with their representatives, doing field testing of the more advanced equipment, it was determined that they could provide the right equipment, sans ankle unit, customer service, and platform that would meet the needs for CTS, including the 24/7 monitoring and more trauma informed technologies.

In a matter of weeks, TrackTech has responded quickly and nimbly to requests for training and education on the equipment and monitoring functions. Their IT department has been responsive in providing the necessary information for DCYF IT to make significant progress on IT approvals, which are pending.

On November 22, 2024, we sent an email to 25 vendors found in WEBS. We only received three responses. One stating that they are not a monitoring company, another did not verify they could provide the service, and the last one provides monitoring on advertising services only. None of the three responders have the right equipment or technology to meet the program needs for JR.

4. Provide a detailed and compelling description of the costs and risks mitigated by contracting with this contractor (i.e. learning curve, follow-up nature).

The cost of the equipment and monitoring is comparable to other companies JR has contracted with or currently has an established service agreement.

Cost breakdowns for each of the above-mentioned vendors in section 3 are as follows:

DES Sole Source Justification 9/11/2019 5

E-Cell – per piece rate of $4 per day per unit (does not include afterhours monitoring) Sentinel – per piece rate of $3.68 per day per unit (does not include afterhours monitoring) BI – per piece rate of $9.50 per day (includes afterhours monitoring) TrackTech – per piece rate of $7.00 per day per unit (includes afterhours monitoring)

TrackTech is offering the most advanced technologies (watch tethered to a phone) that other vendors cannot. Their cost per unit per day is extremely attractive and reasonable, given the services provided.

5. Is the agency proposing this sole source contract because of special circumstances such as confidential investigations, copyright restrictions, etc.? If so, please describe.

☒ NOT APPLICABLE

6. Is the agency proposing this sole source contract because of unavoidable, critical time delays or issues that prevented the agency from completing this acquisition using a competitive process? If so, please describe. For example, if time constraints are applicable, identify when the agency was on notice of the need for the goods and/or service, the entity that imposed the constraints, explain the authority of that entity to impose them, and provide the timelines which work must be accomplished.

7. Is the agency proposing this sole source contract because of a geographic limitation? If the proposed contractor is the only source available in the geographical area, state the basis for this conclusion and the rationale for limiting the size of the geographical area selected.

8. What are the consequences of not having this sole source filing approved? Describe in detail the impact to the agency and to services it provides if this sole source filing is not approved.

The risk to the agency is program failure. CTS requires the use of 24/7 GPS monitoring to verify the location of the participant at any given time during the entire program length. This vendor has the unique capacity to provide state of the art technology and advanced tracking features other companies do not have. This type of equipment and monitoring capability will enhance safety and security for the CTS participants, community, and JR staff supporting and monitoring the program.

This will enhance the success of the program and help ensure continued availability of this least restrictive option for JR young people serving their residential sentence.

DES Sole Source Justification 9/11/2019 6

9. What considerations were given to providing opportunities in this contract for small business, including but not limited to unbundling the goods and/or services acquired?

As described above, there have been a variety of other vendors JR has worked with to provide electronic monitoring services that meet the needs of the CTS program. None of the other vendors have the advanced equipment needed nor the reliability of the monitoring tools.

REASONABLENESS OF COST

10. Since competition was not used as the means for procurement, how did the agency conclude that the costs, fees, or rates negotiated are fair and reasonable? Please make comparison with comparable contracts, use the results or a market survey, or employ other appropriate means calculated to make such a determination.

As described above, the costs are comparable to other vendors we have had either a contract or service agreement with either currently or in the recent past.