Sole_Source_Notification_20250553.pdf

It is the intent of Washington State to promote open competition and transparency for all contracts for goods and services. In accordance with Department of Enterprise Service (DES) policy #DES-

140-00, all intended sole source contracts must be made available for public inspection for a period of not less than fifteen (15) working days before the start date of the contract. This Sole Source

Notification satisfies the requirement.

This Sole Source Notification is available at the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction

(OSPI) website and at the Department of Enterprise Services, Washington Electronic Business

Solution (WEBS) Procurement website under the following commodity codes: 208-10-

Accounting/Financial: Bookkeeping, Billing and Invoicing, Budgeting, Payroll, Taxes, etc.; 208-11-

Application Software, Microcomputer; 208-12-Architectural Software; 208-18-Bar Code Software

(Microcomputer); 208-19-Biometric Authentication System Software for Microcomputers; 208-20-

Business Software, Misc.: Agenda, Labels, Mail List, Planning, Scheduling, etc.; 208-27-

Communications: Networking, Linking, etc. (Includes Clustering Software); 208-30-Computer

Aided Design and Vectorization Software; 208-32-Customer Relationship Management Software

(CRM); 208-36-Data Processing Software, Microcomputer; 208-37-Database Software; 208-42-EDI

(Electronic Data Interchange) Translator Software, Microcomputer; 208-45-Expert System

Software; 208-46-E-Commerce Software (Microcomputer); 208-53-Integrated Software; 208-54-

Internet and Web Site Software for Microcomputers; 208-61-OCR and Scanner Software; 208-63-

Personnel Software; 208-65-Point of Sale Software; 208-66-Professional: Computer Training, Hospital/Pharmacy, Legal, etc; 208-67-Programming: Basic, Assembler, Computer Assisted

Software Engineering Tools (CASE), Libraries, etc.; 208-68-Project Management; 208-77-Recycled

Microcomputer Software; 208-80-Software, Microcomputer (Not Otherwise Classified); 208-81-

Software For Computer Software Training; 208-88-Software, Monitoring; 209-11-

Accounting/Financial: Bookkeeping, Billing and Invoicing, Budgeting, Payroll, Taxes, etc.; 918-29-

Computer Software Consulting; 920-02-Access Services, Data; 920-03-Application Service

Provider (ASP) (Web Based Hosted); 920-07-Applications Software for Microcomputer Systems:

Business, Mathematical/Statistical, Medical, Scientific, etc.; 920-15-Assessment and Profiling

Services of Software.

The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) intends to award a $988,000 sole source contract to Anchor Data Systems, Inc. for the period of July 1, 2025, through June 20, 2030.

The purpose of this contract is for development, enhancement, and maintenance of the existing

E-Certification system in response to changes and amendments of statutes and rules. This E-

Certification system allows OSPI’s Professional Certification department to manage the educator

Sole Source Notification

Maintenance of E-Certification System https://www.k12.wa.us/about-ospi/contracting-ospi/competitive-procurements https://www.k12.wa.us/about-ospi/contracting-ospi/competitive-procurements https://fortress.wa.gov/ga/webs/ https://fortress.wa.gov/ga/webs/

OSPI Sole Source Contract 20250553 Page 2 of 8 and paraeducator certification applications and reporting processes. This contract is aimed at achieving the following business objectives:

• Ensure the delivery of thousands of certificates to educators and paraeducators each year with various specifications and qualifications at the highest quality and speed possible.

• Efficiently collect and exchange data with other systems.

• Deliver a wide array of data and information for decision-making analysis and insight.

• Fulfill service requests to legislative staff, educators, agencies, and researchers.

• Reduce processing time for certification applications.

• Improve educators' and staff's ease of use of the E-Certification system.

• Deliver Legislative and PESB policy changes within planned timeframes.

Consultants contemplating the above requirements shall submit capability statements detailing their ability to meet the state’s requirements no later than 3:00 pm on Tuesday, April 15, 2025.

Capability statements must address the following state requirements:

• Expert level experience building, maintaining and enhancing large-scale, customer-focused application systems.

• Experience with successful management of code revision and modernization, enhancing custom, complex technical applications while maintaining existing legacy code.

• Familiarity with educator certification rules and requirements and how to structure IT business rules to support those requirements.

• Capacity to perform services as a sole provider and have availability to address emergency outages or system failures outside of regular business hours.

• Experience successfully collaboratively developing a schedule of deliverables and monitor progress as program needs are realized.

• Experience the identification, resolution, testing, and implementation of system defect solutions that function according to customer requirements

In the absence of other qualified sources, and pending approval by the Department of Enterprise

Services, it is OSPI’s intent to make a sole source award of the contract mentioned above to

Anchor Data Systems, Inc.

Although this Sole Source Notification is not an invitation to bid, if you feel your firm is able to provide the goods or services listed above, you may submit a capability statement to:

Kyla Moore

Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction

Email: contracts@k12.wa.us mailto:contracts@k12.wa.us

OSPI Sole Source Contract 20250553 Page 3 of 8

In accordance with DES Sole Source policy process #PRO-DES-140-00A, the following documents are attached:

• Attachment 1 – A copy of the Sole Source Contract Filing Justification

• Attachment 2 – A copy of the proposed draft sole source contract in significantly final form

Attachment 1 – Sole Source Contract Filing Justification

Specific Problem or Need

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

In the 2011 Legislative session, Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1449 was passed, which moved the processing of Washington educator certifications to an online system. The ongoing development and maintenance of the E-Certification system is necessary to streamline and assist educators in viewing and managing their certification process and providing better information to policymakers.

The E-Certification system was enhanced to collect a processing fee to manage and operate the Professional Certification department and eliminate state-funded support

(RCW 28A.410.062). This contract is necessary to continue development, enhancement, and maintenance of the E-Certification system in response to changes and amendments of statutes and rules.

Sole Source Criteria

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

While the system was initially vendor-owned and an ongoing licensed product, it was purchased by OSPI and customized to meet our agency's business and policy requirements. The complexity of policy, laws, and rules has been integrated to the extent that the Contractor must be familiar with standard coding and specific business rules relating to the delivery of Washington state educator certificates. This blend of policy and state rules that interact with many components in the system requires a very specialized understanding of the system and the operation of the Professional

Certification department.

The proposed Contractor was employed and working with this system since its inception.

After OSPI purchased the vendor system, this Contractor competitively won the procurement under the requirements and qualifications of OSPI's RFQQ. Since 2016, this

Contractor has acquired expert knowledge and understanding of the original and enhanced E-Certification system and Washington state certificate types and requirements. This system is a narrow blend of business rules and particular requirements found only in educator certification systems nationwide. This Contractor has been instrumental in the maturation of this system by designing and implementing thousands of change and service requests to accomplish the ongoing changing

OSPI Sole Source Contract 20250553 Page 4 of 8 environment of policy and operational needs. Thus, it proves to be essential in the success of the E-Certification system and its positive effect on users of Washington state.

Our E-Certification system reflects OSPI's commitment to supporting educators in a streamlined and efficient process.

• 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.

At the onset of procuring the work for building and maintaining the E-Certification system, an essential part of reviewing alternative sources must first and foremost ensure that the source has the exact skills and talents that OSPI demands to develop and perform ongoing enhancements and maintenance for the Washington state educator certificate system. We have investigated other systems comparable to what we have built in Washington state. Due to the complexity and number of certificate types for various multiple educator roles, our search was reduced to the state educator certificate systems found in the other 49 states. They are the only viable comparable systems. To that end, our findings have revealed that there is no other system or any other contractor who has more knowledge of not only the original system we purchased but also our current system, which has been transformed and enhanced due to several years of policy and rule changes and upgrades needed to meet the specific Washington state statutes, requirements, and standards.

The National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification

(NASDTEC), comprised of all states' educational certification and standards programs, hosts many conferences and symposiums where our OSPI team has presented on the effectiveness of the current E-Certification system. Consistently, Washington has led the nation in its system's ingenuity and integrity that is unmatched by other states. The specificity of electronic systems for educator certification and reporting is a narrow and specialized field where experience and deep knowledge of the education certification process are paramount in building and maintaining the standard Washington state has reached.

Our previous review of other state’s certification systems found that Illinois, New

Hampshire, Oklahoma, Maine, Montana, and Arizona operated most similarly. Of these states, it appeared that the most specific customization took place in Washington. This review found differences that motivated our decision to continue with our contractor candidate. Further analysis revealed that the state of Oklahoma employs a team of developers to run its electronic certification system, Illinois has a team of four developers and one Business Analyst to keep its system going and is was in the process of doing a total rewrite of its electronic system and was spending more than $800,000 per year for

OSPI Sole Source Contract 20250553 Page 5 of 8 maintenance of their licensing product, which is based on the same platform as

Washington’s. Other findings in our state-by-state review show that Arizona only uses its system as a public lookup.

In a recent review of states who are changing to an entirely new online certification system, Connecticut, Nevada and Wyoming all expressed concerns and challenges caused by this change. Connecticut’s new system integration has been fraught with delays and design challenges. Their cost of acquisition for this system was approximately

$3 million dollars, with an annual maintenance cost of $500,000. Their state issues approximately 100,000 certificates each year. Compared to Washington, Connecticut issues about twice as many certificates, but at nearly three times the cost per certificate.

Additionally, because the Certification Department at OSPI is self-funded through application fees, our department does not have the ability to spend millions of dollars on the acquisition of a new product. This reality further limits the benefit of potentially switching to a new vendor.

• As part of the market research, include a list of statewide contracts review 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.

It is evident that there are a number of web application developer options publicly available, but the cost to build a new system is not currently viable without state funding assistance that is extremely unlikely to be offered. Additionally, the risk to continued, seamless operations by switching to a new vendor, who is unfamiliar with our system, its business rules and operational needs, is extremely high. OSPI considered the following vendors:

o Coolsoft, 12/20/2024, Cannot meet business needs. Cost exceeds current vendor.

Not a small business.

o Epic Operations, 12/20/2024, Cannot meet business needs. Cost exceeds current vendors. Small business/veteran owner.

o Mars Tech Solutions, 12/20/2024, Cannot meet business needs. Cost exceeds current vendor. Not a small business.

o NexTurn Inc., 12/20/2024, Cannot meet business needs. Cost exceeds current vendor. Small business/veteran owner.

o Quadyster, 12/20/2024, Cannot meet business needs. Cost exceeds current vendor. Not a small business.

o Sophus IT Solutions, 12/20/2024, Cannot meet business needs. Cost exceeds current vendor. Small business/minority owner.

o Swartek Corporation, 12/20/2024, Cannot meet business needs. Small business/minority owner.

OSPI Sole Source Contract 20250553 Page 6 of 8 o V3iT Consulting, 12/20/2024, Cannot meet business needs. Cost exceeds current vendor. Not a small business.

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

Yes

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

The proposed contractor’s WEBS profile indicate the business is a certified by the US

Department of Veterans Affairs as a Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses

(SDVOSB). We researched 15 businesses that were registered with the Office of Minority and Women's Business Enterprises (OMWBE) and all 15 could not meet our business needs and lacked experience in critical business operations.

• 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.

Attempting to unbundle the services needed to support the work of the Certification

Department and our E-Certification system would be complex and likely lead to confusion regarding whose responsibility it would be to maintain key aspects of our system. The added risk of systems failure associated with this possibility is too great to justify the value of unbundling the services provided within this contract. The continuity provided by maintaining a single provider for these services adds incredible value to the tens of thousands of users of this system, through consistent vision, stable product structures and immediate expert level operational support when a issue surfaces.

• 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).

By procuring services with this contractor, OSPI will have continuous, seamless progress in the successful development of the E-Certification system. The time and effort it would take to acquire a new developer and train them in the necessary skills and Washington state-specific certification knowledge necessary to be successful, would not be the most cost-effective solution. To bring another developer up to the level of expertise OSPI and its stakeholders expect and need, we estimate this would require at least 4 to 6 months of training post contract initiation and well over $100,000 in expenses to be at a minimum knowledge level.

To meet the demands of changing policy, new educator data collection, responsiveness to legislative and stakeholder needs, and in support of the Professional Certification department production improvement plans, the learning curve of bringing on another developer would put the quality and turnaround time of OSPI's high demand of

OSPI Sole Source Contract 20250553 Page 7 of 8 certifications at risk. This risk will be mitigated by retaining the current contractor who has provided coding services and expert knowledge of the system prior to going live in

2014. Further, the Contractor has accumulated tremendous knowledge about

Washington state educator certification policy and processes. In addition, the contractor deeply understands the agency's data systems that are connected to and impacted by the E-Certification system. The Contractor understands and has been integral to how various procedures and work processes are incorporated into the system. This provides significant savings in not only a learning curve and interaction with staff, but also in history, policy, procedures, and interagency interactions.

• 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.

Because this current contractor was working as a developer of the original system before being hired by OSPI in 2016, this contractor has successfully enhanced and maintained our electronic system to meet the demands of new data collection, data reporting, and streamlined processing for more efficiencies for external users and our certification department staff. A novice developer could not perform at the speed and quality our department and agency need. The state has come to expect and rely on our fully functional system. Adding a novice developer would take months, if not years, to fully develop a knowledge base of the E-Certification system and a deep understanding of the complexities of Washington state certification. Finally, and perhaps more importantly, the service levels of our system could be compromised due to the lack of knowledge and expertise of a different contractor.

Our department is a critical link in the employment chain for educators in the state of

Washington. If our department loses operational capacity to issue certificates timely, then the entire state’s educational system could lose integrity and be at risk of collapse.

Educators cannot be placed into classrooms without an active certificate. Any action that puts our ability to issue those tens of thousands of educator certificates each year, represents a risk to those educator’s ability to show up in a classroom and be available

OSPI Sole Source Contract 20250553 Page 8 of 8 to educate students in our state. This is simply too much risk to justify switching to a new developer, who is unfamiliar with our system and our needs, without significant failings being identified and attributed to our current provider or system. No such failings have been identified.

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.

An examination of the costs of various systems shows that our system's continual development and maintenance is significantly less than most other state educator systems cost. This is a tremendous value that is not found in different state education systems. In procuring the original system, part of the decision to purchase the services of the original vendor was that the cost was far below that of other companies who responded to the RFQQ, combined with the value delivered in the system's overall functionality. This decision has provided economic benefits and system stability that other states do not have.

In a recent review of states who are changing to an entirely new online certification system, Connecticut, Nevada and Wyoming all expressed concerns and challenges caused by this change. Connecticut’s cost of acquisition for this system was approximately $3 million dollars, with an annual maintenance cost of $500,000. Their state issues approximately 100,000 certificates each year. Compared to Washington, Connecticut issues about twice as many certificates, but at nearly three times the cost per certificate.

Attachment 2 – Proposed Draft Sole Source Contract

See next page

Page 1 of 9 Contract 20250553 between OSPI and Anchor Data System, Inc.

(Rev. 09/24)

CONTRACT FOR SERVICES

Contract No. 20250553 between

SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,

STATE OF WASHINGTON

(hereinafter referred to as Superintendent/OSPI)

Old Capitol Building, PO Box 47200 Olympia, WA 98504-7200 and

ANCHOR DATA SYSTEMS, INC.

(hereinafter referred to as Contractor)

14226 Orchard Road Virginia, IL 62691

Federal Identification #47-3571239

Unified Business Identifier #603-605-363

In consideration of the promises and conditions contained herein, Superintendent and Contractor do mutually agree as follows:

I. DUTIES OF THE CONTRACTOR

I.A. General Objective. The general objectives of this Contract are as follows:

Contractor shall provide development, defect repair, and maintenance support under the direction of the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) Information Technology Leadership, Educator Growth and Development Division, and the Director of the Professional Certification Department. The Contractor shall provide services in support of any OSPI Educator Application Processing to meet Washington state law, Professional Educator Standards Board (PESB) policy in law, and anything necessary for internal and external user operational efficiency. Perform defect repair and development efforts to ensure the system is operational and enhanced to accommodate required laws. The work includes but is not limited to the e-Certification system and related data, and work needed to connect with other systems to assist with application processing and reports.

This contract is being established to complete and maintain the system which allows OSPI Educator Certification to manage the educator and paraeducator certification application and reporting processes to achieve the following business objectives:

• Efficiently collect data and exchange data with other systems.

• Fulfill service requirements to legislative staff, educators, agencies, and researchers.

• Reduce processing time for certification applications.

• Improve educator and OSPI staff ease of use with the e-Certification system.

• Deliver Legislative and PESB policy changes within a planned timeframe.

Page 2 of 9 Contract 20250553 between OSPI and Anchor Data System, Inc.

I.B. Scope of Work. To accomplish the general objectives of this Contract, Contractor shall perform the following specific duties to the satisfaction of the OSPI Contract Manager:

Within the existing technical environment, infrastructure and framework, provide maintenance and enhancement development under the direction of the OSPI Information Technology Leadership in support of any OSPI educator data collection and data reporting processes. Maintenance and enhancement efforts will include but are not limited to the following systems: e-Certification application and necessary interfaces to provide data to other systems that require coupling to educator certification data. Typical systems that may need to be coupled are the Comprehensive Educational Data and Reporting System (CEDARS), Professional Educator Standards Board (PESB) data stores, Highly Effective Teacher data, School Financial and Apportionment System (SAFS) Educator data, transaction interface with the external pdEnroller data, and other data or systems that become apparent.

The Contractor shall provide one (1) expert level developer to:

• Work with the OSPI system to understand the architecture and design principles of the educator certification system.

• Provide the following application technical services for all deliverables:

o Architecture and design o Estimation o Planning o Development o Unit and integration test plans o Testing o Deployment, and o Support.

• Gather and analyze program requirements with OSPI staff and business analysts so that program processes are developed in the system to meet Washington state and PESB policy requirements.

• Analyze and document work requested by the contract manager or an assigned project manager.

• Design, develop, and test system modifications using a pre-approved design document.

• Conduct unit testing, integration testing, and recursive testing of system modules to reduce development errors by using test driven development.

• Document testing results for review by OSPI staff.

• Provide query support to assigned business analysts.

• Correct system defects that prevent the system from being used or reduces system functionality.

• Recommend IT solutions that maximize operational efficiency and effectiveness.

• Work with OSPI e-Certification staff and vendors to integrate functionality required by the OSPI Program Sponsor.

• In collaboration with OSPI Program staff, develop a schedule of deliverables and monitor progress as program needs are realized.

• Use the Team Foundation Server (TFS) system to submit, accept, and track work items. Otherwise provide a system to submit, accept, and track work items.

• Develop the system using Microsoft development tools and frameworks: ASP.Net, .Net Framework 4.5, VB.Net and Microsoft SQL Server 2012.

Page 3 of 9 Contract 20250553 between OSPI and Anchor Data System, Inc.

• Participate in bi-weekly work prioritization meetings.

• Provide technical support to the OSPI Customer Support Team as directed.

• Provide a technical code review and document results that describe the security and quality state of the application.

• Develop the plan that describes the standard being used and how the review will take place.

• Complete the federal data security training assigned by the Contract Manager.

• Read and sign OSPI policies assigned by the Contract Manager.

• Develop a service agreement to outline work hours, service performance, and issue and risk management.

o Once approved by the OSPI Contract Manager, the service agreement will be incorporated into this contract by this reference. Any changes shall be approved in writing by the OSPI Contract Manager.

o Document all development work in accordance with the defined work management process.

o Be available during agreed upon business hours to deliver technical services.

Transition Services:

• In the event resources (staff, subcontractor, etc.) are removed from this contract for any reason, or if additional resources are added to this contract, the Contractor is required to provide no less than three (3) qualified resources from which OSPI may choose.

• In the event the Contractor resources are removed from this contract for any reason, the Contractor is required to provide no less than twenty (20) hours of transitional services at no cost to OSPI.

o When an accepted resource has performed eighty (80) hours of work within this contract and is removed or leaves for any reason within the term of this contract or any extension, the Contractor must provide twenty (20) hours of transitional services at no additional cost (free of charge).

o OSPI may provide twenty (20) hours of on-site training as transition services, or the Contractor may require the exiting resource available at no cost to OSPI for mentoring and training the new resource, or any other transitional plan proposed by the Contractor and accepted by OSPI.

I.C. Deliverables. The Contractor shall provide the following deliverables to the OSPI Contract

Manager by the dates indicated below:

Deliverable 1: Technical Code Review Plan of Action

The Plan of Action will include the following headers and information:

• Overview of how the contractor will perform the Technical Code Review (TCR).

• Standards, methodologies, and tools the contractor will use to perform TCR and how these standards, methodologies, and tools will be applied.

• Communications and reporting the Contractor will use to report findings, including deliverable reviews, and reporting to the OSPI Contract Manager.

• Resource Allocation and management for the TCR.

• Planned Evaluations and how the Contractor will handle random requests for security reviews. (includes focus, frequency, estimated planned and start dates, and dependencies)

Page 4 of 9 Contract 20250553 between OSPI and Anchor Data System, Inc.

• Independently verify the e-Certification code is built and maintained in a manner that processes information securely with current security practices. On an ongoing basis, analyze, assess, and report on the state of code security, risks that might impact future development, and deployment and collaborate with OSPI on possible risk solutions. A comprehensive review of the code will be performed once annually during this contract. Deliver the report to the Contract Manager.

Deliverable 2: Comprehensive Security Assessment Report

The Comprehensive Security Assessment Report includes the following headers and information:

• Standards, methodologies, and tools used to determine the software code is secure.

• Detailed Review of the software’s architecture and code for feasibility, consistency, and adherence to software security standards.

• Risk Assessment associated with code security will indicate the risk and perceived impact to future development and project schedule and budget.

• Recommendation on any actions needed to secure the code. The estimated cost to refactor code and mitigate security risks. Note: This is not an infrastructure security review; it is specifically a code review.

• Independently validate the quality of code. Analyze, assess, and report the application code quality and risks associated with future development. This report will occur once during the first twenty-five (25) business days after the contract start date.

Deliver the report to the Contract Manager.

Deliverable 3: Independent Quality Assessment

The Independent Quality Assessment includes the following headers and information:

• Standards, methodologies, and tools used to determine the code built in a manner that uses current software coding standards and facilitates maintenance.

• Detailed Review of the software will include:

a. Architecture and code for feasibility, consistency, and adherence to industry standards.

b. Software configuration, compatibility, and obsolescence issues.

c. Determine if the software is maintainable and easily upgradeable.

d. Code documentation for quality, completeness (including maintenance history) and accessibility.

e. Evaluate the database design for maintainability, scalability, concurrence, normalization (where appropriate) and any other factors affecting performance and data integrity.

• Risk Assessment associated with code quality will indicate the risk and perceived impact to future development and project schedule and budget.

• Recommendation on any actions needed to secure the code. The estimated cost to refactor code and mitigate security risks. Recommend improvements to existing database designs to improve data integrity, reporting, and system performance.

• Prepare in collaboration with OSPI e-Certification staff and deliver formal presentation(s) on the status of the TCR. Presented within fourteen (14) business days of related deliverable.

Page 5 of 9 Contract 20250553 between OSPI and Anchor Data System, Inc.

Deliverable 4: Present the Findings

• Orally present the written findings and recommendations from Deliverable 2 to the Contract Manager.

• Orally present the written findings and recommendations from Deliverable 3 to the Contract Manager.

A security verification will occur when code is prepared to promote into the test environment.

Independently verify the e-Certification code is built in a manner that processes information securely with current industry security practices. Analyze, assess, and report on the code’s state of security and risks found when code is promoted into the test environment. OSPI reserves the right to schedule a Security Assessment, after the Comprehensive Security Assessment. Deliver the report to the Contract Manager.

Deliverable 5: Promote Security Assessment Report

The Promote Security Assessment includes the following headers and information:

• Standards, methodologies, and tools used to determine the software code is secure.

• Detailed Review of the software’s architecture and code for feasibility, consistency, and adherence to software security standards.

• Risk Assessment associated with code security will indicate the risk and perceived impact to future development and project schedule and budget.

• Recommendation on any actions needed to secure the code. The estimated cost to refactor code and mitigate security risks.

Compliance with OSPI Standards

• Policies: The Contractor shall comply with all appropriate OSPI process standards (Requirements for Development and Management, Project Management Methodology, configuration management, Solutions Delivery Lifecycle, etc.) and division policies (ethics, Internet / email usage, security, and harassment). Failure to comply on a continuing basis shall result in contract termination. OSPI shall supply a copy of all such policies to the Contractor.

o Contractor shall complete the Cyber Awareness Challenge and submit the certificate of completion to the Contract Manager within one (1) week of contract commencement.

o Contractor shall comply with the Superintendent’s Technology Acceptable Use Policy. A signed copy of the policy shall be submitted to the Contract Manager within one (1) week of contract commencement.

o Contractor shall comply with the Superintendent’s Email Retention Policy. A signed copy of the policy shall be submitted to the Contract Manager within one (1) week of contract commencement.

o Contractor shall comply with the Superintendent’s Student Data Confidentiality Policy and Data and Information Handling and Disposal Policy.

A signed copy of the policies shall be submitted to the Contract Manager within one (1) week of contract commencement. Contractor shall also sign and return Statement of Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure, and Certification of Data Destruction, as applicable.

https://public.cyber.mil/training/cyber-awareness-challenge/ http://insideospi/sites/PoliciesForms/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=/sites/PoliciesForms/Policies/Technology%20Acceptable%20Use%20Policy.pdf&action=default http://insideospi/sites/PoliciesForms/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=/sites/PoliciesForms/Policies/Technology%20Acceptable%20Use%20Policy.pdf&action=default http://insideospi/sites/PoliciesForms/RecordsManagement/Pages/default.aspx http://insideospi/sites/PoliciesForms/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=/sites/PoliciesForms/Policies/Confidentiality%20of%20Student%20Data%20Policy.pdf&action=default http://insideospi/sites/PoliciesForms/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=/sites/PoliciesForms/Policies/Confidentiality%20of%20Student%20Data%20Policy.pdf&action=default http://insideospi/sites/PoliciesForms/Policies/Data%20and%20Information%20Handling%20and%20Disposal.pdf

Page 6 of 9 Contract 20250553 between OSPI and Anchor Data System, Inc.

• Work Location: Contractor shall work remotely, unless determined necessary by OSPI. If required on-site, the Contract Manager will notify the Contractor and provide sufficient time to make travel arrangements. Contractor shall be provided with connectivity to the OSPI Team Foundation Server for the purpose of configuring, delivering, and managing application code, and issues.

• Document Retention: Per Washington state public disclosure and document retention policies, and provision #33 of Attachment A – General Terms and Conditions, the Contractor shall maintain all important communications (i.e. direction, decisions, contract information, or other emails that may demonstrate project milestones), for six

(6) years following termination of this contract, when using OSPI-provided contractor email addresses.

• Security: Services and solutions implemented during this contract must be compliant with the Washington State OCIO Network and Security Requirements outlined in the OCIO, Securing Information Technology Assets Standards. The contractor shall be required to attend a security and design review with the OCIO and take corrective measures to make the service or solution comply with security requirements.

https://ocio.wa.gov/policies/141-securing-information-technology-assets

SCHEDULE OF DELIVERABLES

Deliverable Due Date

1. Completion and signature on OSPI policies and required trainings.

Within one (1) week of contract commencement

2. Identification, resolution, testing, and implementation of system defects that functions according to customer requirements.

By assignment date from the contract manager.

3. Application code that functions according to customer business requirements.

By assignment date from the contract manager.

4. Documentation of application code, defects, and modifications in OSPI Office 365 e-Certification Maintenance Log or Team Foundation Server (TFS) as required by project processes.

While working on assigned items.

5. Written application requirements analysis.

Upon request and agreed upon delivery date.

6. Written recommendations for process or system improvements.

Upon request and agreed upon delivery date

7. Application Knowledge transfer with OSPI development staff.

Within ten (10) days after the application is complete.

II. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

Contractor shall not commence performance, or be entitled to compensation or reimbursement for any services rendered, prior to the occurrence of each of the following conditions: (1) This Contract must be executed by a representative of the Contractor and the Superintendent; (2) Provisions of Chapter 39.26 RCW require the Agency to file this sole source Contract with the Department of Enterprise Services (DES) for approval; no Contract so filed is effective nor shall https://ocio.wa.gov/policies/141-securing-information-technology-assets

Page 7 of 9 Contract 20250553 between OSPI and Anchor Data System, Inc.

work commence under it until the fifteenth (15th) working day following the date of filing, subject to DES approval. In the event DES fails to approve the Contract, the Contract shall be null and void; and, (3) Contract Manager must confirm the occurrence of conditions number one (1) and two (2) and notify the Contractor to commence performance.

The schedule of performance of Contractor’s duties is as follows subject, however, to the three

(3) prior conditions to commencement of performance set forth immediately above:

July 1, 2025, date of approval by DES, or date of execution, whichever is later, through June 30, 2030.

Year 1: Contract commencement, through June 30, 2026 Year 2: July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2027 Year 3: July 1, 2027, through June 30, 2028 Year 4: July 1, 2028, through June 30, 2029 Year 5: July 1, 2029, through June 30, 2030

III. INVOICING & PAYMENT

III.A.1. Compensation Amount. In consideration of Contractor’s satisfactory performance of the duties set forth herein, Superintendent shall compensate Contractor at an hourly rate of ninety-five dollars ($95) for services rendered, not to exceed a total of one hundred ninety-seven thousand, six hundred dollars ($197,600) yearly, and nine hundred eighty-eight thousand ($988,000) during the life of this contract, inclusive of travel and all other contract-related costs. Payment for satisfactory performance shall not exceed this amount unless the parties mutually agree to a higher amount prior to the commencement of any work, which will cause the maximum payment to be increased.

III.A.2. Funding Source. Professional Certification processing fees provide funds for the payment of this Contract, as established in RCW 28A.410.062

III.A.3. All expenses necessary to the Contractor’s performance of this Contract not specifically mentioned in the Contract shall be borne in full by the Contractor.

III.B.1. Billing Procedure. Payment shall be made to the Contractor as follows:

Contractor shall submit invoices to the OSPI Contract Manager monthly in accordance with the Schedule of Deliverables. Invoices will be paid only after approval by the OSPI Contract Manager and Agency Financial Services, OSPI.

III.B.2. Invoice Requirements. The invoices shall document to the OSPI Contract Manager’s satisfaction a description of the work performed and payment requested. Within approximately thirty (30) calendar days of the OSPI Contract Manager receiving and approving the invoice, payment will be mailed or electronically transferred to the Contractor by Agency Financial Services, OSPI.

The invoices must be emailed to the OSPI Contract Manager and shall include:

• OSPI Contract number

• Contractor name, address, telephone number, and email address for billing issues if someone other than the Contractor’s Contract Manager

• Contractor’s Federal Tax Identification Number

Page 8 of 9 Contract 20250553 between OSPI and Anchor Data System, Inc.

• Contractor’s Statewide Vendor Number

• Description of Services and Deliverables provided

• Date(s) of Service, if applicable

• Invoice amount for each Service or Deliverable, including applicable taxes

Contractor’s invoices for payment shall reflect accurate Contract prices. Invoices will not be processed for payment until receipt of a complete invoice as specified herein. OSPI shall have no obligation to pay Contractor for any services that do not comply with this Contract.

III.B.3. Errors. If errors are found in the submitted invoice or supporting documents, the OSPI Contract Manager will notify the Contractor. In order to receive payment, it shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to make corrections in a timely manner, resubmit the invoice and/or supporting documentation as requested, and notify the OSPI Contract Manager.

III.B.4. Final Payment. Final payment shall be made after acceptance by the OSPI Contract Manager if received by within sixty (60) days after the Contract expiration date, unless negotiated with the OSPI Contract Manager and the Fiscal Budget Analyst. There will be no obligation to pay any claims that are submitted sixty-one (61) or more calendar days after the expiration date (“Belated Claims”). Belated Claims will be paid at OSPI’s sole discretion, and any such potential payment is contingent upon the availability of funds.

IV. CONTRACT MANAGEMENT

The following shall be the contact person for all communications and billings regarding the performance of this contract. Any changes to this information shall be communicated to the other party in writing as soon as reasonably possible.

Contractor OSPI

Intentionally left blank Intentionally left blank

Page 9 of 9 Contract 20250553 between OSPI and Anchor Data System, Inc.

V. INCORPORATION OF ATTACHMENTS AND ORDER OF PRECEDENCE

Each of the attachments listed below is by this reference hereby incorporated into this Contract.

In the event of an inconsistency in this Contract, the inconsistency shall be resolved by giving precedence in the following order:

• Applicable Federal and state of Washington statutes and regulations

• Special Terms and Conditions as contained in this basic contract instrument

• Attachment A – Contract for Services, General Terms and Conditions

• Any other provision, term or material incorporated herein by reference or otherwise incorporated.

VI. APPROVAL

This Contract shall be subject to the written approval of the Superintendent’s authorized representative and shall not be binding until so approved. The Contract may be altered, amended, or waived only by a written amendment executed by both parties.

We the undersigned agree to the terms of the foregoing Contract.

Anchor Data Systems, Inc. Superintendent of Public Instruction

State of Washington

Signature Kyla L. Moore, Contracts Administrator

Printed Name Date

Title

Date

Who certifies that he/she is the Contractor identified herein, OR a person duly qualified and authorized to bind the Contractor so identified to the foregoing Agreement.

Approved as to FORM ONLY by the Assistant Attorney General

Page 1 of 14 Contract 20250553 Attachment A – General Terms and Conditions between OSPI and

FORM SPI D-283 (Rev. 12/23)

Attachment A Contract for Services

GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Definitions. As used throughout this Contract and General Terms and Conditions, the following terms shall have the meaning set forth below:

“Contract” or “Agreement” means the entire written agreement between OSPI and the Contractor, including any attachments, exhibits, documents, or materials incorporated by reference. Contract and Agreement may be used interchangeably.

"Contractor" shall mean that firm, provider, organization, individual, or other entity performing service(s) under this Contract, and shall include all employees of the Contractor.

“Services” means all work performed or provided by Contractor pursuant to this Contract.

“Statement of Work” or “SOW” or “Scope of Work” means a detailed description of the work activities the Contractor is required to perform under the terms and conditions of this Contract, including the deliverables and timeline.

"Subcontractor" shall mean one not in the employment of the Contractor, who is performing all or part of those services under this Contract under a separate contract with the Contractor. The terms " Subcontractor" and " Subcontractors" means Subcontractor(s) in any tier.

"Superintendent" shall mean the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) of the State of Washington, any division, section, office, unit or other entity of the Superintendent, or any of the officers or other officials lawfully representing the Superintendent. Superintendent and OSPI may be used interchangeably.

1. Access to Data. In compliance with Chapter 39.26 RCW, the Contractor shall provide access to data generated under this Contract to the Superintendent, the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee, and the State Auditor at no additional cost. This includes access to all information that supports the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Contractor’s reports, including computer models and methodology for those models.

2. Alterations and Amendments. This Contract may be amended only by mutual agreement of the parties. Such amendments shall not be binding unless they are in writing and signed by personnel authorized to bind each of the parties.

3. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, Public Law 101-336, also referred to as the “ADA” 28 CFR Part 35. The Contractor must comply with the ADA, which provides comprehensive civil rights protection to individuals with disabilities in the areas of employment, public accommodations, state and local government services, and telecommunications.

4. Assignment. Neither this Contract, nor any claim arising under this Contract, shall be transferred or assigned by the Contractor without prior written consent of the Superintendent.

5. Assurances. The Superintendent and the Contractor agree that all activity pursuant to this

Contract will be in accordance with all applicable current federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations.

Page 2 of 14 Contract 20250553 Attachment A – General Terms and Conditions between OSPI and

FORM SPI D-283 (Rev. 12/23)

6. Attorney’s Fees. In the event of litigation or other action brought to enforce contract terms, each party agrees to bear its own attorney’s fees and costs.

7. Audit Requirements. If the Contractor is a Subrecipient of federal awards as defined by the

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) CFR, Part 200, Subpart F, and expends seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($750,000) or more in federal awards (does not apply to contracts for goods and services) from all federal sources in any fiscal year beginning on or after December 26, 2014, the Contractor shall procure at their expense a single or program-specific audit for that year. The Contractor shall incorporate OMB CFR, Part 200, Subpart F audit requirements into all contracts between the Contractor and its Subcontractors who are Subrecipients of federal awards. The Contractor shall comply with any future amendments to OMB and any successor or replacement Circular or regulation.

8. Budget Revisions.