Deltek has provided insight into the various procurement tactics vendors can utilize when tackling the proposal process for state and local video surveillance contracts. In addition to understanding the overall requirements and procurement timeline, vendors can also can benefit from understanding contracts as a whole. A typical contract for video surveillance technology tends to be as follows: · Contract type: Firm-fixed price · Contract duration: 5-8 years · Contract value: up to $150 million Prior to releasing a solicitation for surveillance technology, some localities establish a separate contract for a project manager or architectural/engineering firm to assist with the development of requirements. Departments look for expertise in infrastructure design and implementation, and support services. Sometimes a project manager becomes a member of the contract negotiation and implementation team. The manager can then assist with the request for proposals (RFP) process and utilize their expertise to ensure that both the long and short-term needs of departments are met, and that equipment is properly installed. Soliciting for a project manager or engineering firm is usually a two-month process. After a contract is signed, specifications for a subsequent RFP are developed within approximately 2-4 months. It is also more common for a city or county interested in pursuing video surveillance to release an initial request for information (RFI) or request for qualifications (RFQ) to evaluate interest and technology suggestions before a formal solicitation is developed. The city of Philadelphia, Penn., the city of Gardena, Calif., and the Massachusetts Port Authority all began their video surveillance initiatives with an RFI process. Analyst’s Take Vendors should note that the value of contracts can vary depending on both the size and infrastructure of the state or locality. In addition, vendors should always take advantage of any RFI/RFQ process in order to get a preview of what the formal solicitation will contain. Sometimes departments will also use these pre-RFP methods to reduce the overall cost of the project by removing any unnecessary or non-targeted specifications.
Back in June 2010, Deltek released its first report on the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). Two of the major technologies highlighted in the report are WIC management information systems and WIC electronic benefit transfer (EBT) systems. Although EBT technology is a staple in the Supplementation Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), it was only recently mandated for the WIC program by the Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act of 2010, which requires the implementation of EBT by WIC programs by fiscal year 2020. The current state of WIC EBT across the nation (March 2012) is pictured below:
April brings the observance of National Child Abuse Prevention Month. As such, Deltek’s Health Care and Social Services team saw this as the perfect opportunity to highlight child welfare reform initiatives occurring nationwide.
Deltek kicked off National Child Abuse Prevention month with a look at Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Oregon, which unfortunately highlighted problems in state child welfare programs. This blog shifts gears and highlights a strong initiative in state of North Dakota: comprehensive education. Although most programs naturally focus on the responsive treatment to child abuse, North Dakota is taking preventative measures to avoid abuse altogether. The state recently awarded coalitions 15 grants to help educate grandparents, parents, community members, teachers, and any others in the path of child development on creating a healthy environment to prevent child abuse and neglect. The state also launched an interactive Web-based training for mandated reporting of child abuse and neglect. The training details how to report abuse, how to identify abuse and neglect indicators, and how to file a report. The goal of embedding early protection habits into the community is to help prevent future child abuse and neglect.
Deltek subscribers can check out the Child Welfare Vertical Profile for a closer look at programs on a state-by-state basis. For the latest news and information, make sure to follow Deltek’s Health Care and Social Services team on Twitter @GovWin_HHS and LinkedIn.
When departments solicit for surveillance technology, they must take many considerations into account, including the cost of the overall system, the requirements and deliverables that must be met, whether the technology can integrate with existing infrastructure, and implementation strategy.
Last Friday, the Texas Office of the Attorney General released a request for information (RFI) for Statewide Victim Notification System Services. The Texas Department of Criminal Justice already has an Automated Victim Notification System through a contract with Appriss, Inc., which is set to expire this year. Louisiana’s LAVNS (Louisiana Automated Victim Notification System) was also contracted to Appriss, Inc., in 2010, and is set to expire next year. Numerous other states also have victim notification systems, but only a few systems have been purchased on the city or county level.
Victim notification systems proactively push information through phone calls and letters to registered users. The systems provide details on the status of any case the victim may be involved in as well as data pertaining to defendants in the case. Each victim is given a personalized victim identification number and a PIN to ensure that only relevant information is relayed. These systems usually allow victims to access updates online and via telephone. Typically, the systems detail future and past court events as well as developments on each defendant involved in a case, including where they are being held, their projected release date, and other release details.
Analyst’s Take:
While some vendors integrate victim notification services into larger corrections projects, such as those for offender or jail management systems, the majority of systems seem to be purchased exclusively for the purpose of keeping victims informed. Vendors who have not done so already should try to capitalize on this under-utilized trend. They should consider partnering with vendors offering more frequently-purchased systems (offender and records management systems). This would allow localities to save time and money because they would not have to utilize resources to release separate solicitations for two different projects, but rather combine both into a single solution. Vendors should also consider scaling down their solutions to decrease costs of purchasing the system. This would make it easier for smaller locations to afford their own system, and make them less reliant on state solutions.