Request for Information / Department of Executive Services
Finance and Business Operations Division
Procurement and Payables Section
206-263-9400 TTY Relay: 711
Advertised Date: January 14, 2016
Request for Information (RFI) Title: / Election Tabulation System – Vote by Mail
RFI Number: / 1008-16-PCR
Due Date: / February 9, 2016 by close of business
Buyer: / Paul Russell, , 206-263-9317
Alternate Buyer / Michelle Poste, , 206-263-9303
Pre-Response Conference:
No pre-Response conference will be held for this RFI.
Questions should be referred to Paul Russell Buyer above / King County Procurement Services Section
Chinook Building, 3rd Floor
401 Fifth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
Office Hours: 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.
Monday - Friday
Company Name
Address / City/State /Postal Code
Signature / Authorized Representative / Title
Email / Phone / Fax
Contact Name: / Phone / Email

This Request for Response will be provided in alternative formats such as Braille, large print, audiocassette or computer disk for individuals with disabilities upon request.

RFI #1008-16-PCR 16

Election Tabulation System – Vote by Mail

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section 1 RESPONSE PREPARATION 3

1.1 Response Submission 3

1.2 Electronic Commerce and Correspondence 3

1.3 Late Responses 3

1.4 Cancellation of RFI or Postponement of Response Opening 3

1.5 Response Signature 4

1.6 Addenda 4

1.7 Questions and Interpretation of the RFI 4

1.8 Cost of Response 4

1.9 Public Disclosure of Responses 4

Section 2 PROBLEM SCOPE 5

2.1 Background 5

2.2 Problem Statement 5

2.3 Purpose Of This RFI 5

Section 3 RFI QUESTIONS 6

3.1 Vendor Information: 6

3.2 Product Overview: 6

3.3 Questions: 6

Section 4 PRICING 13

4.1 Initial Procurement/Solution Price: 13

4.2 Annual Maintenance Cost and Technical Support 13

4.3 Implementation Costs: 13

4.4 Cost of Customization: 13

4.5 Warranty: 13

4.6 Production Support: 13

4.7 Training: 13

4.8 King County Production Support Staff: 13

Section 5 RFI RESPONSE PROCESS 14

Section 6 NEXT STEPS 15

Section 3 PROPOSAL LABEL 16

RFI #1008-16-PCR 16

Election Tabulation System – Vote by Mail

Section 1  RESPONSE PREPARATION

1.1  Response Submission

Respondents are encouraged to use recycled paper in the preparation of additional documents submitted with this response, and shall use both sides of paper sheets where practicable.

Sealed responses shall contain all required attachments and information and be submitted to King County (hereinafter “County”) no later than the date, time and place stated on the front of this RFI or as amended. The responses shall show the title and number, the due date specified, and the name and address of the Respondent on the face of the envelope. Respondents are cautioned that failure to comply may result in non-acceptance of the response. The Respondent accepts all risks of late delivery of mailed Responses or of mis-delivery regardless of fault. Responses properly and timely submitted will be publicly opened.

1.2  Electronic Commerce and Correspondence

King County is committed to reducing costs and facilitating quicker communication to the community by using electronic means to convey information. As such, Requests for Information, as well as related exhibits, appendices, and issued addenda can be found on the King County Internet Web Site, located at http://www.kingcounty.gov/procurement Current bidding opportunities and information are available by accessing the “Solicitations” tab in the left hand column.

King County Procurement Services features an Online Vendor Registration (OVR) program that permits vendors, consultants and contractors to register their business with the County. This OVR system allows interested parties to either directly register their firm by creating a unique User ID, or to visit the website as a guest. Information regarding bid documents will be available to all users; however, site visitors accessing the site as a guest will not be able to document their interest in a project or add their name to the document holder’s list. They will receive no automatic notification of issued addenda. As such, the County encourages full registration in order to directly communicate with document holders regarding any issued addenda or other important information concerning the solicitation.

After submittals have been opened, the County will post a listing of the businesses submitting Responses.

Full information on vendor registration is available at the website.

1.3  Late Responses

Responses, modifications of Responses, received at the office designated in the solicitation after the exact hour and date specified for receipt will not be considered.

1.4  Cancellation of RFI or Postponement of Response Opening

The County reserves the right to cancel this RFI at any time. The County may change the date and time for submitting proposals prior to the date and time established for submittal.

1.5  Response Signature

Each Response shall include a completed Respondent response form, the first page of this document, signed by an authorized representative of the Respondent.

1.6  Addenda

If at any time, the County changes, revises, deletes, clarifies, increases, or otherwise modifies the RFI, the County will issue a written Addendum to the RFI.

1.7  Questions and Interpretation of the RFI

No oral interpretations of the RFI will be made to any Respondent. All questions and any explanations must be requested in writing and directed to the Buyer no later than five (5) Days prior to the due date specified in the solicitation. Oral explanations or instructions are not binding. Communications concerning this RFI with other than the listed Buyer or Procurement staff may cause the Respondent to be disqualified. Any information modifying a solicitation will be furnished to all Respondents by addendum.

1.8  Cost of Response

The County is not liable for any costs incurred by Respondent in the preparation and evaluation of responses submitted.

1.9  Public Disclosure of Responses

King County is a government agency subject to the disclosure requirements per the Revised Code of Washington (RCW 42.56). Information submitted in response to this RFI may be considered public record and may be released upon request. Respondents are encouraged to be open in their support of this RFI, while not providing records that are proprietary.

Section 2  PROBLEM SCOPE

2.1  Background

A.  Combined King and Pierce Counties serve approximately 1,638,000 Washington State voters.

B.  At a minimum, King County and Pierce County Elections (KCE and PCE) are planning to replace their tabulation systems in either 2016 or 2017. Timing of the replacements largely depends on availability of a system or systems that meet or exceed mandatory requirements and each county’s ability to obtain mid-year funding approval for a 2016 implementation well ahead of the general election. Other Washington State Counties may replace their tabulation systems in this timeframe as well.

C.  After reviewing responses to this RFI, King and Pierce Counties plan to submit funding requests through the appropriate channels. A combined or separate Request for Proposal(s) (RFP) will be issued for the procurement of Tabulation System(s). The RFP(s) will either come from the County or State level(s).

D.  King County went live with their current tabulation system in 2009.

E.  Pierce County implemented optical scan voting in 1993. Their central tabulation equipment was upgraded and new tabulation software installed in 2005 using HAVA funds. Touch Screen Direct Recording Electronic Voting equipment was also purchased new in 2005 using HAVA funds.

2.2  Problem Statement

A.  King County is quickly outgrowing its tabulation system. The system runs on a Windows XP platform, which is no longer supported by Microsoft. The system cannot support additional scanners and currently experiences issues with longer ballots.

B.  Pierce County’s system is more than 10 years old and in need of replacement. They are hoping to replace their system in 2016 before the General election.

2.3  Purpose Of This RFI

The purpose of this RFI is to aid the counties in preparing the necessary planning documents to seek funding appropriation for the replacement of the existing tabulation systems. In addition, the responses will allow the counties to determine the readiness of systems by way of meeting our unique requirements as well as in securing certification at the federal and state levels. This, in conjunction with the upcoming Presidential Election cycle, will help us determine the timing in which we will replace our tabulation systems.

Finally, both King and Pierce County are planning to replace their voting center solutions to support in person voting to fully meet the accessible voting needs of their disabled community. Ideally, they would like a tablet or portable type product to meet this need and are hoping they can include this in the replacement of the tabulation system project.

Section 3  RFI QUESTIONS

Include in your response the following information:

3.1  Vendor Information:

Respondent organization or team summary, including:

Company name
Address
Name of primary contact
Phone number for primary contact
Email address for primary contact

Provide a company overview, including your length of time in business.

Has the product completed federal certification? If not, when is the anticipated completion date?

Has the product completed Washington state certification? If not, when is the anticipated completion date?

3.2  Product Overview:

Describe the main purpose of your product(s), what purpose does each serve and how do you differentiate your product from others in the market place.

3.3  Questions:

Please respond to each of the following with yes/no answers as well as a brief description as to how your system satisfies each requirement

A.  Election Definition:

  1. Does your system have the ability to import voter registration numbers separately so numbers can be updated during an election?
  2. Does your system import alternate language versions of all text, if the EMS supports it, including character-based languages?
  3. Does your system import precinct/district, voter registration, contest, candidate, party, etc. data from any EMS? If so, which EMS?
  4. Does your system export election information to AVC equipment (scanners, etc.) so they can be set up for the election?
  5. Does your system adhere to changes in state and federal format rules and regulations? If so, how quickly?
  6. Does your system interface with Washington Election Information system (WEI) to import candidates from and report results to?
  7. Does your system support the ability to make minor changes/corrections to the ballot in the system?
  8. Does your system support multiple imports – adding districts, taking districts away, and picking up changes?

9.  Does your system handle multiple precinct splits?

10. Are there district number limitations in your system?

B.  Ballot Build:

1.  Does your system allow for import of full text with no additional typing required?

2.  Does your system have the ability to set the length of ballots (non-standard)?

3.  Does your system provide the option for configurable mark target (oval, square, triangle, whatever, 3-column format?

4.  Does your system have the ability to read optional text on the ballot (candidate prefers a particular party, etc.) without limit on size (also include measure response)?

5.  Does your system have the ability to have optional text on the back of the ballot (candidate statements)?

6.  Does your system support multiple languages as required by Federal, State and County code?

7.  Does your system support audio creation by speech synthesis or recording?

8.  Does your system support audio in other languages?

9.  Does your system support interfaces with a ballot on demand solution? If so, which solution(s)?

10. Does your system support the use of outside vendors to print ballots? If so, which vendor(s)?

11. Does your system export ballots via PDF to send to print vendors?

12. Does your system have the ability to determine where the ballot is read (left/right-target area)?

13. Does your system export ballots (via PDF or other means) for ballot on demand and/or via an online ballot marking program (OBMP)? Having your own OBMP is an okay option.

14. Does your system allow for shading, colors, and graphic features such as boxes or lines to be used to enhance ballot appearance and readability?

15. Does your system allow the user to save a copy of the ballot format from one election to another?

16. Does your system ballot design software provide English language spell checking and grammar checking?

17. Does your system allow the ballot design to be transferred from your system to a ballot on demand printing system?

18. Does your system support import of ballot title text and contests/candidates?

19. Does your system support split precincts and unique ballot types?

20. Does your system provide export information to support online marking devices and ballot insertion/sorting equipment?

21. Does your system support multiple page ballots?

22. Does your system support flexible ballot layout including the use of fonts, font sizes, shading and the use of graphics?

23. Does your system allow for auditing at multiethnic points including post-election audits to affirm system operating correction?

24. Does your system provide a spell checker for all text blocks – propositions, instructions, headers and contests?

25. Does your system support the use of all major marking devices – whatever color ink the voter decides to use, including pencil? If not, please describe limitations.

26. Does your system allow for the folding of the ballot to support mail in voting? Describe the process to support folds.

27. Does your system allow for multiple fonts?

C.  Scanning:

1.  Does your system have the ability to identify internal batch numbers to the scanner (through an automated interface, not typed by the scan operator) and retention of that number as the batch number through scanning, adjudication and tabulation?

2.  Does your system have the ability to out sort or easily identify ballots that require adjudication within a batch, so physical ballots can be reviewed with the images?

3.  Does your system have the ability to self-define rules for what is identified for adjudication- write-ins, over votes, blank ballot, marginal mark, etc.?

4.  Does your system make available scanned images for adjudication on workstations other than the scanner?

5.  Does your system make it so the scan operator must close a batch before it is available for adjudication or tabulation?

6.  Does your system have the ability for batches to be deleted before or after tabulation so they can be rescanned for whatever reason?