JuvareSoleSourceJustification Final.docx

Sole Source CONTRACT Filing Justification Template

Use the following justification template for preparing to file sole source contracts in the Sole Source Contracts Database (SSCD). Once completed, copy and paste the answers into the corresponding SSCD question and answer fields. You will also need to include a copy of this completed form in the documents you post to your agency website and in WEBS.

What is a sole source contract?

"Sole source" means a contractor providing goods or services of such a unique nature or sole availability 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 for a sole source contract. Time constraints may be considered as a contributing factor in a sole source 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 forgoing the benefits of a competitive contract.

Providing compelling answers to the following questions will facilitate DES’ evaluation.

Specific Problem or Need

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

WebEOC is the information technology platform the Emergency Management Division uses to share information with state agencies, local jurisdictions, and tribes during emergencies and disasters contributing to a statewide common operating picture. WebEOC is used to track and store information from emergency management incidents and is the primary tool used for constructing incident action plans (IAPs) and processing resource requests. WebEOC is highly customizable and constantly adjusted to continually meet the needs of the state and contains and organizes a significant amount of data and has been continuously built on for years to meet the needs of the state. There are 135 agencies outside of the Washington Military Department who depend on the state’s WebEOC instance. Every county in the state uses or connects to WMD’s WebEOC instance and it is used as a document repository for incident information and is subject to and capable of complying with WMD’s records retention policy. The contract with ESI Acquisition, Inc. (DBA Juvare) provides support for connecting instances of WebEOC via WebEOC Fusion, which we rely on for our connection to King and Pierce counties.

Sole Source Criteria

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

a. Integrated Public & Alert and Warning System’s (IPAWS) integration

b. Custom code development

c. The ability to seamlessly share live data between WebEOC instances using WebEOC Fusion, allowing us to sync data with King County, Pierce County, and other states that use WebEOC

d. Retaining our current contract allows us to retain the capability of adding unlimited users without additional fees. We now rely on this capability to support counties, cities, tribes, etc.

e. Access to a developer/non-production instance that allows us to test major changes to the site without altering the production instance, improving our ability to conduct maintenance and ensure stability of our core WebEOC platform.

*While some vendors may provide some of the above features and qualifications, WMD must have a solution that meets items a-e.

· 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. Use DES’ Market Research Template if assistance is needed.

WMD first checked the list of DES approved sole-source vendors, and there were no options for Emergency Management (EM) Software. WMD then contacted other state agencies to review their EM software solutions (Alaska and Oregon). WMD staff also researched WebEOC alternatives on the internet and compiled a list of notable EM software companies. WMD scheduled product demos with three vendors and reviewed capabilities of their software. The software demoed did not provide the same level of service WMD is currently receiving from WebEOC and key features were missing that are a requirement for our agency.

· As part of the market research requirements, include a list of statewide contracts reviewed and/or businesses contacted, 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.

WMD submitted requests for demos to Veoci, D4H, IAP Software, and DisasterLAN on 2/19/2025. Demo dates were:

Veoci: 02/26/2025 D4H: 02/27/2025 IAP Software: 03/06/2025 DisasterLAN: No response

During the demonstrations it was confirmed that no EM software options on the market were capable of meeting all of WMD’s needs that are currently provided by WebEOC. For DisasterLAN, research was done on information from their public website as they did not respond to the request for demo.

a. Veoci:

i. Does not have seamless integration with other agencies that use WebEOC

ii. Does not allow for an unlimited number of user accounts

iii. Does not have a developer instance

iv. Does not have IPAWS integration

b. D4H:

i. Does not allow for an unlimited number of user accounts (charged per user)

ii. Does not have seamless integration with other agencies that use WebEOC

iii. Does not have IPAWS integration

iv. Does not allow for custom programming

c. IAP Software:

i. Does not have a developer instance

ii. Does not allow for custom programming

iii. Does not have seamless integration with other agencies that use WebEOC

iv. Does not have IPAWS integration

d. DisasterLAN (Did not respond to request for demo, going off their website)

i. Does not appear to have custom programming

ii. Mass notification including IPAWS is only available as separate software

i. No mention of an API or seamless integration with other agencies that use WebEOC

Demos were requested through links or contact forms provided on each vendor’s website.

· Per the Supplier Diversity Policy, DES-090-06: was this purchase included in the agency’s forecasted needs report?

Yes, WebEOC was listed on our FY25 forecasting document posted to our website.

· Describe what targeted industry outreach was completed to locate small and/or veteran-owned businesses to meet the agency’s need?

This was not applicable for this procurement. There are very few vendors in this market space and none that are Washington small and/or veteran-owned businesses.

· What considerations were given to unbundling the goods and/or services in this contract, which would provide opportunities for Washington small, diverse, and/or veteran-owned businesses. Provide a summary of your agency’s unbundling analysis for this contract.

. Unbundling would not be an option for this service, it needs to be one software solution.

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

WMS has has been satisfied with the service Juvare has provided and they have been reliable throughout the time of service. By contracting with Juvare for WebEOC, we will maintain our existing EM software infrastructure, knowledge of the software, custom development work, and documentation, and we will continue working with a reliable vendor.

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

No

· 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 within which work must be accomplished.

No

· 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.

Other software options are not able to provide all of the required capabilities needed by the state. Impacts would include:

a. Weakened communication between the state EOC and the EOCs of counties using their own instance of WebEOC. WMD would lose the ability to seamlessly communicate disaster information through emergency management software with King County and Pierce County.

b. Loss of custom developed pages for the state and various state agencies.

c. Without the ability to develop custom code there would be increased difficulty in the development of specific features in the software

d. Inability to easily provide access to counties, cities, tribes, and colleges as adding users would change licensing costs. WMD relies heavily on having as many agencies using the software as possible, and this would significantly impact that ability.

e. Inability to test large changes to the platform without risking stability as WMD may not have access to a test instance of the software.

f. WMD cannot move forward with plans to use IPAWS alert messaging in our emergency management software

Sole Source Posting

· Sole Source Posting on Agency Website - Provide the date in which the sole source posting, the draft contract, and a copy of the Sole Source Contract Justification Template were published on your agency’s website.

· 4/8/2025

· Provide the date in which the sole source posting, the draft contract, and a copy of the Sole Source Contract Justification Template were published in WEBS.

· 4/8/2025

· Were responses received to the sole source posting in WEBS?

· If one or more responses are received, list name of entities responding and explain how the agency concluded the contract is appropriate for sole source award.

Reasonableness of Cost

· 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 a comparison with comparable contracts, use the results of a market survey, or employ some other appropriate means calculated to make such a determination.

It is difficult to get exact software prices for services like this as many vendors do not share pricing between customers. During the demonstrations, vendors only shared their pricing models and were hesitant to provide real pricing numbers.

WMD’s current pricing model with Juvare allows us to pay a flat rate for our instance. This is not offered to new customers, who are required to pay by usage on a SAAS license. The vendors researched all charged by usage or total number of users, where Juvare charges a flat rate and allows for unlimited users.

Department of Enterprise Services – C&P Page 1 of 2 June 2024 image1.png