Minutes of the second CDAP IT Solution Tender Evaluation Committee (TEC) meeting

In the Eric Williams Medical Sciences Complex Building 39, Conference Room 313

Friday March 4th 2005

Present: / Celia Singh / (CSi) / - / NWRHA
Wazir Hosein / (WH) / - / Pharmacy Board (PB)
Richard Robinson / (RR) / - / NIPDEC
Observers / Maria Vincent / (MV) / - / NIPDEC Pharmaceutical Division
Stephon Stewart / (SS) / - / NIPDEC Pharmaceutical Division

DESCRIPTION

The meeting commenced at 2:50 pm, approximately.

1.Methodology

1.1RR distributed an electronic version of the tender score sheet to TEC members and requested that they submit all scores and comments by Monday 7th March 2005.

1.2RR stated that a report on the tender evaluation would be submitted to NIPDEC’s Tender Committee (NTC). The report would stated how many bids were received, rejected and the number evaluated; scores and comments on each bid and the selection of the first rank bidder. RR continued that the TEC would then request permission from NTC to look at and report on the financial proposal for the first rank bidder.

1.3The Committee agreed that an average of members’ scores for each evaluation category would be tallied to determine the first rank bidder.

1.4When asked by CSi, RR stated that a demonstration of a bidder’s technical proposal might only be requested from the first rank bidder.

1.5Committee members must sign each of their own evaluation sheets.

1.6WH would advise on the acceptability of the pharmacy management software packages being offered.

2.Bid Comments

2.1Infosys Inc.

  • They have already developed a pharmacy management solution.
  • No detailed information on a work plan or the software’s functionality was provided.
  • No details on previous similar projects were provided.
  • A generic hardware platform was proposed.
  • No evidence that the system is expandable to future major stakeholders.
  • No system linking all private pharmacies back to NIPDEC Central Stores (C40) was proposed.
  • No details were provided on how local support would be accomplished.

2.2Advanced Integrated Systems (AIS)

  • They have already developed a pharmacy management solution.
  • All local support provided by non-nationals of Trinidad and Tobago.
  • No support for batched data processing was shown.
  • The proposed system should be linked to the Jamaican site for transaction processing.
  • Relies heavily on partner expertise.

2.3Digi-Data

  • No experience information on previous similar or other projects was stated.
  • No detailed implementation or work plan was provided.
  • No information was provided on the proposed pharmacy management software, which appears to be character based.
  • A good hardware solution was proposed.

2.4Infotech Caribbean

  • The solution offers the ability to easily interface with other software platforms.
  • Infotech recommended using the Allegra Pharmacy Microsoft Software.
  • The hardware recommended could be deployed and replaced quickly and is necessary and was suitable for both high and low volume pharmacies.
  • A complete approach and vision was offered and the proposed solution could easily grow with the introduction of the National Health Insurance System (NHIS).
  • The only bidder to discuss the need for an integration server
  • A consulting partner is currently working with the Government of Trinidad and Tobago (GORTT) on the FastForward initiative.
  • Previous experience working on government projects.
  • A detailed project plan and methodology were provided.
  • Long project implementation timeframe.
  • Authorised partners for Solomon and Microsoft in Trinidad and Tobago

2.5IBM

  • Did not state where else the proposed pharmacy management solution was implemented.
  • Solution supports up to 32 users simultaneously, but the RFP specified that all private pharmacies should be able to log on simultaneously to C40.
  • The type of link to C40 was not specified
  • No local software support. All hardware support would be provided locally.

2.6Illuminat

  • Local experience was quoted, but not with the software solution proposed.
  • No team members were mentioned.
  • No local support was cited.
  • No detailed specifications on connectivity were present
  • RFP Functional requirement number 4 was not answered.
  • Project tasks were not placed into a project timeline, with specific dates.
  • A web-based portal solution.
  • No indication that a batch-processing component was present.
  • Bidder may not have fully understood the tender requirements stated in the RFP.

3.Other Business

3.1RR informed the Committee that NTC has authorized Maria Vincent and Stephon Stewart to observer the proceedings of the TEC.

3.2RR stated that Artie Whittington (AW) would meet with the TEC after they have officially scored all of the accepted bids.

3.2RR requested SS to prepare and distribute to members, meeting notes by Monday 7th March 2005.

With no further business the meeting ended at approximately 4:15 pm.

Page 1 of 3

Date: 28/Oct/2018