Jul 15, 2008

OR211 Tech Committee Report

7/15/08

 

Request for Proposal:

An RFP was written to identify a contractor who could conduct an impartial, in-depth evaluation of the available I&R software packages.  At the end of the process the contractor would make a recommendation to the OR211 Board regarding the software which most closely met all our needs.

• The RFP was initially released on May 2nd with responses due by May 28th.
• One proposal was received from Integer Research (Mark Neuffer) with a price tag of $25,000 plus expenses.
• Comments were heard regarding the RFP being unclear as to whether we were looking for proposals from contractors or software vendors.
• The RFP was edited to clarify its intent, and re-released on June 5th with responses due by June 25th.
• Two proposals were received.  The first from Jeff Sumner would cost us $19,000 plus expenses.  The second from Mary Hogan would cost us $4,000 plus a maximum of $1,200 for additional expenses.
• Jeff Sumner has been contacted to decline his proposal.
• Mary Hogan was contacted to discuss delaying the time line set out in the RFP until the OR211 Board can re-evaluate its fiscal situation.  She is amenable to a delay, and just wants to be of help in making the service available statewide in Oregon.

 

TMC Solutions report on AIRS networking listserv:

On July 2nd a copy of an “I&A Software Evaluation Report Summary” conducted by TMC Solutions in Santa Monica, CA was circulated on the airsnetworker listserv.

• The study was conducted from 2/1/2008 through 5/31/2008 and focused on the processes required to support aging and 211 call centers.
• The results rated RTM Designs software (ReferNET) well above all others in every category. 
• Although it appeared to provide the information we needed for our own software decision, in careful review there were flaws found in the report. 
• By July 3rd there were three email responses from software vendors who disputed the findings, and one message from a member of California AIRS noting the same study had recently been conducted for several 211s in the San Diego area with different results.
• It is felt this report can serve as another tool in making our own decision, but we are not ready at this time to accept its findings on face value.

 

Items for discussion and next steps:

Many questions remain for the Board to answer.

• Do we want to, and can we afford to move forward with the evaluation process?
• Do we have a sense of where the funding would come from to cover the additional funds needed to hire a contractor for the evaluation project?
• Once a software decision has been made, who will purchase the software and for whom?
• Would OR211 purchase the software for all call centers who have completed the “Application for Designation as a 211 Call Center”?
• Or would all call centers be required to pay a portion of the cost for the software as part of their partnership in the OR211 system of call centers?
• How soon could a decision be made regarding purchasing software?
• How soon could funding be raised for this major purchase?

 

 - Jimi Smith, Tech Committee Chair