Safe Harbors Steering CommitteeMeetingSummary September 17, 2015

Time: 2:30 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.Location: Seattle Municipal Tower; Room 5882

Members Present:
Sara Levin
Nicole Macri / Mary Bourguignon / Josephine Wong
Karen Ford
Tracy Hilliard / Patrice Frank
Eddy Mahon / Bill Kehoe
Kate Speltz
Dan Wise
/ Members Absent:
Meghan Altimore
Sola Plumacher
Mark Putnam
Others Present: John Hoskins

Vendor Selection Criteria –Patrice started by providing the vendor selection criteria and scores as well as added information that she received from the State. She provided a summary of the GroupScoresby ScoringEventbyVendor:Top scorehighlightedingreenforeachevent reflect that BitFocus received the highest scores and was selected as the new vendor in the state process.

Bill said he felt it was significant that in terms of the Data Integration section, Bitfocus really stood out from Client track. Patrice said that was in part because BitFocus really demonstrated the Data Integration process in a webinar with the group testing. Client track, however only presented their proposed plan.

The committee had also requested scores from site visits at the last meeting. Patrice provided those in the meeting materials. The information also illustrated how Bit Focus scored the highest score possible in many areas. The committee had questions about the site visits. Joh Hoskins walked the committee through what it was like during those site visits. There were also more areas of interest to our continuum that were used in the evaluation to make the final decision. Again it was concluded that Bit Focus aligns with our local criteria.

Patrice then asked the committee to make a recommendation based on the information supplied, to make Bit Focus the new vendor moving forward. The committee unanimously agreed to move forward with the decision of Bit Focus as the new HMIS vendor.

Alternative to HMIS Vendor Management–Sara started by saying that formerly we were part of the States’ contract which posed many challenges. In the last year or two we eventually decided to have our own separate contract with the Vendor in hopes of alieving some of those problems we were having in receiving the attention and assistance we needed. Sara further explained that we are starting new and hopefully entering a situation that is no longer like the one we had with the former vendor. With that being said, her question to the Committee was “Do we feel that we have enough information to make a determination about going along with the state contract as before and should we obtain a separate contract with Bit Focus? Do we need more information?” Patrice added that she spoke with Mary at Commerce and she proposed a plan for all the continuums across the state. That would be for the State to do the hosting and subcontracts individually with Bit Focus for each of the HMIS Continuums. Patrice also asked Mary when we can speak with Bit Focus about the upcoming contract and what that look like. Lastly the $50,000 that we put into the former vendors’contract with us might or might not be enough for the new vendor contract. That is also something we’d like to speak with Bit Focus about. In the meantime however because the State is in the process of contract negotiations, they would like us to hold off on speaking with the new vendor until they are a little bit further along. Patrice said she realizes there are still a lot of unknowns.

Sara asked if there was anything we could do to influence the contract negotiations happening now? Or can we convey some things to Mary so that our voices are heard during these negotiations? Patrice felt that was a great idea. Patrice said she can work on gathering those things which include Data Migration and that Data Integration moving forward. Kate suggested setting up a conference call with Mary and others involved to voice our concerns and interests. The committee agreed. Bill added that there are also project fee’s and training fees, in which we need to know if that is a part of the project or something we have to provide and pay for. We have to analyze the services that will be available and what the base level contract provides us and then can determine if we need to add anything additionally. It is hard to say if we do or don’t without that analysis.

Jon from the County spoke with Mary recentlyand updated the committee on that discussion. He reported that Mary hopes to have the contract in place by November 1st and expects for the first deliverable of that contract to be a work plan for implementation. He added that the relationships between state, county and balance of state continue for a year and that theimplementation expected with the negotiations is to build our King County, state, and balance of state HMIS system. Jon stressed being present during the contract negotiations of the work plan. Mary said she is moving ahead with a comprehensive implementation and that she’s willing to talk with whomever on the subject. Dan Wise asked if it was possible for agencies to have their own contract. Jon answered that the State is working on having a single contract and its first year. Their hope is that those agencies who want a separate relationship will wait a year after everything is up and running.

Josephine worries that there are not enough on the committee involved in speaking with Mary about the contract negotiations and feels it would be imperative that someone from the County also take part in the conversation. Patrice Agreed. Jason alerted the group that the timing is critical in order to have a decision and recommendation to the Coordinating Board early next month. Jason reminded the committee that our partnership with the State has never been the problem. The problem was the vendor. With that he added that the City is comfortable moving forward with Alternative 1which means they would stay with the state and obtain a subcontract with the vendor. The committee agreed. The committee voted for Alternative 1.

Action Item: Patrice will schedule a phone meeting with the City, County and Mary so information can be prepared for next month’s Coordinating Board meeting. Also Patrice will log information on specific issues we’ve had with Adsystech.

Safe Harbors HUD TA – Patrice provided updates on the HUD TA in the agenda packet.

Nicole noted that a lot of the items on the HUD TA will be shifting once we get a new database system. They may become obsolete. Bill suggested calling out more of the current vendor issues, related to these findings as the HUD TA puts a lot of the work and blame on Safe Harbors. The Committee agreed.

Action Item: Sara asked that the Dashboard be presented at the next Steering Committee meeting as well as an update on the Users Group.

Safe Harbors Budget – Sara began by reminding the Committee that it is not their position to approve or deny the Safe Harbors budget. It was on our charter from times past when there were funders included in that committee meeting. As of now, there’s not much that this committee can do in terms of the budget being presented. However we can decide on passing on a vote if we want. Patrice began by presenting the committee with the proposed plan. Patrice provided cost for proposed labor and non-laborfor 2016. Patrice spoke with finance about including grant funding at a later time.

Nicolewondered if the proposed budget supports the 2016 work plan and inquired on clarification on the revenue side in terms of who’s pitching in money for what? Her concern is that the workplan is too ambitiousfor this budget. The committee agreed. Kate added that if we’re going through a whole new system, we may need different positions. Tracy said if we’re ever going to really work on increasing data capacity, it’s going to have to come from changes on that budget. She added that the timing is off but we should be careful about removing the budget off the agenda.

Action Item–The Committeewould like to see a revised budget that reflects the $50,000 for the vendor subcontract with the new vendor as well as any computer cost. Patrice will add the transition to the new vendor costs to the SH budget.

Safe Harbors Work Plan –Patrice reviewed the highlights for the 2016 work plan.

Action Item: Patrice will helpalign the work plan with the SH budget in order to establish whether the budget supports the work plan and how the items are prioritized.

Next Meeting Agenda Items

  1. Revised version of the Work Plan, linking the budget with the work plan.
  2. Dashboard
  3. User Group Update

The next meeting is scheduled to be held in the Seattle Municipal Tower, Room 5882 on October 15, 2:30-4