Interoffice Memo



Interoffice Memo RFP #071I1300053

|To: |Greg Faremouth, Director |

| |IT Division |

| |Purchasing Operations |

| | |

|From: |Joe Kelly, Buyer |

| |IT Division |

| |Purchasing Operations |

|Date: |March 25, 2011 |

|Subject: |Award of RFP - 071I1300053 |

| |FieldManager Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Services |

GENERAL:

The State of Michigan (State), through the Michigan Department of Technology, Management & Budget (DTMB) has issued this Request for Proposal (RFP) for the purpose of obtaining proposals from qualified firms to provide FieldManager Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Services. This includes FieldManager Software License renewal, FieldManager Read-Only Software License renewal, and FieldManager Contractor Software License renewal for Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT).

The term of the contract is for an initial 3 year period with two one-year options, by written mutual consent of the primary contractor and the State.

JOINT EVALUATION COMMITTEE:

The Joint Evaluation Committee (JEC) for this RFP consisted of the following individuals:

|VOTING |ADVISORS |

|Joe Kelly, Buyer |Martin Foster |

|DTMB, Purchasing Operations |DTMB |

|Kellyj11@ |FosterM@ |

|Phone:  517-373-3993 |Phone: 517-322-6552 |

| | |

|Nick Sundberg, Voting | |

|MDOT | |

|SundbergN@ | |

|Phone:  517-241-4806 | |

| | |

|Diane Jadzinski, Voting | |

|DTMB | |

|JadzinskiD2@ | |

|Phone:  517-322-6074 | |

BIDDERS:

RFP was posted on the DTMB bidding website on December 17, 2010. Two (2) organizations submitted responses to this RFP by the published due date of January 25, 2011.

1. Integrated Systems Design, Inc.

29128 Chateau Suite 9

Farmington Hills, MI 48334

2. Info Tech, Inc.

5700 SW 34th Street Suite 1235

Gainesville, FL 32608

3.020 Award Process

3.021 Method of Evaluation

Proposals will be evaluated by a Joint Evaluation Committee chaired by DTMB, Purchasing Operations.

3.022 Evaluation Criteria

The following chart represents the scoring of the particular factors as located in the RFP.

|Weight |

|1. |Article 1.100 Scope of Work and Deliverables |80 |

|2. |Article 4.014 Company Information |10 |

|3. |Article 4.014 Prior Experience |10 |

|TOTAL |100 |

Oral Presentation: A Bidder may be requested to make an oral presentation. Oral presentations provide an opportunity for the Bidder to clarify their proposal. If required, Purchasing Operations will schedule the oral presentation.

Site Visit: The State may conduct a site visit to tour and inspect the Bidder’s facilities. Purchasing Operations will schedule these visits, if required.

3.023 Price Evaluation

Only those proposals receiving a score of 80 points or more of the total maximum possible score will be considered for award.

All price proposals will be opened. However, prices will only be evaluated from those Bidders meeting the minimum point threshold. Evaluation of price proposals includes consideration for a Qualified Disabled Veteran Preference. Public Act 431 of 1984, as amended, establishes a preference of up to 10% for businesses owned by qualified disabled veterans meeting the minimum point threshold for passing.

3.024 Award Recommendation

The award recommendation will be made to the responsive and responsible Bidder who offers the best value to the State of Michigan. Best value will be determined by the Bidder meeting the minimum point threshold and offering the best combination of the factors stated in Section 3.022, and price, as demonstrated by its proposal.

3.025 Reservations

The State reserves the right to:

• Consider total cost of ownership factors in the award recommendation (transition costs, training costs, etc.).

• Award by item, part or portion of an item, group of items or total proposal, to reject any and all proposals in whole or in part, if, in the Director of Purchasing Operations’ judgment, the best interest of the State would be served.

• Award multiple, optional use contracts. In addition to the other factors listed, offers will be evaluated on the basis of advantages and disadvantages to the State that may result from making more than one award.

3.026 Award Decision

Award recommendation will be made to the Director of Purchasing Operations for review and approval.

3.027 Protests

A Bidder wishing to protest the award recommendation must submit a protest, in writing, by 5:00 p.m. EST on the date stated on the notice of award recommendation. Bidder must include the RFP number and clearly state the facts believed to constitute error in the award recommendation along with the desired remedy. More information is available at buymichiganfirst; click on the “Vendor Information” link.

3.028 State Administrative Board

The State Administrative Board (SAB) must approve all contracts and purchase orders in excess of $25,000. The decision of the SAB regarding the award recommendation is final. However, SAB approval does not constitute a contract. The award process is not complete until the Bidder receives a properly executed Contract or Purchase Order.

EVALUATION RESULTS:

A. Info Tech, Inc.

|Weight |

|1. |Article 1.100 Scope of Work and Deliverables |80 |

|2. |Article 4.014 Company Information |10 |

|3. |Article 4.014 Prior Experience |10 |

|TOTAL |100 |

The Joint Evaluation Committee (JEC) determined that Info Tech, based on a score of 100 met all the terms of the RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their response to the Scope of Work and Deliverables, Company Information, and their Prior Experience in Article 4.

1. Responses to Scope of Work and Deliverables (Section 1.100, Work and Deliverables) -– scored 80/ 80 points).

• Strength: Provided samples of all agreements (licenses, support, etc.) in section 2 appendix on pages 7 through 18 of bid per RFP Section 1.100 page 9.

• Strength: Provided acknowledgment of maintenance and service requirements in Sections 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3, pages 5 and 6 of bid response per RFP Section 1.100 pages 8 and 9.

• Strength: Provided Call Center Disclosure in Section 2.4 page 6 of bid response per RFP Section 1.100 page 9.

2. Company Information (Section 4.014) -– scored _ 10/ 10 points).

• Strength: Provided all required information in Section 4.0, pages 29 and 30 of bid per section 4.011, on page 52 of the RFP.

3. Prior Experience (Section 4.014) -– scored _ 10/ 10 points).

• Strength: Provided 3 past experiences considered relevant to successfully manage a contract in section 4.0 pages 30 and 31 of the bid per the page 52 of the RFP.

Experience 1 in section 4.0 pages 30 and 31 of the bid was to develop enhancements to the FieldManager suite for Michigan Department of Transportation.

Experience 2 in section 4.0 page 31 of the bid was to provide blocks of licenses and service and maintenance for the FieldManager suite for Michigan Department of Transportation Office of Equal Opportunity.

Experience 3 in section 4.0 page 31 of the bid was to perform a Business Process Analysis and Implementation Planning for the FieldManager suite for Maine Department of Transportation.

The JEC concluded that the Info Tech proposal does offer the best value to the State based on their response to the Scope of Work and Deliverables, Company Information, and their Prior Experience in Article 4.

B. Integrated Systems Design Inc.

|Weight |

|1. |Article 1.100 Scope of Work and Deliverables |0 |

|2. |Article 4.014 Company Information |9 |

|3. |Article 4.014 Prior Experience |0 |

|TOTAL |9 |

The Joint Evaluation Committee (JEC) determined that Integrated Systems Design Inc., based on a score of 9 could not meet all the terms of the RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their response to the Scope of Work and Deliverables, Company Information, and their Prior Experience in Article 4. Integrated Systems did not use the response format specified in Section 3.055 page 50 of the RFP. Although the response did include the biographical summaries of the companies officers it did not provide examples of 3 relevant prior experiences.

1. Responses to Scope of Work and Deliverables (Section 1.100, Work and Deliverables) -– scored 0/ 80 points).

• Weakness: Did not use format specified in Section 3.055 page 50 of the RFP.

• Weakness: Article 1 of proposal did not provide a support phone number per Section 1.1, page 8 of the RFP.

“Contractor must provide a support telephone number to call help on the Covered Software. The support number shall be in operation during State business hours, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding State holidays.”

• Weakness: Article 1 of proposal did not provide a Call Center disclosure per Section 1 page 9 of the RFP.

• Weakness: Did not provide Article 2, a statement agreeing to Terms and Conditions per Section 3.055 page 50 of the RFP.

Article 2 – Terms and Conditions – Bidder must include a statement agreeing to the Terms and Conditions.

• Weakness: Did not provide samples of license agreements per section 1.1 page 9 of RFP.

Bidder must provide a detailed response as to how the requirements in Section 1.104 will be met. Bidder must attach samples of all agreements (license, support, etc.) to the response.

2. Company Information (Section 4.014) -– scored _ 9/ 10 points).

• Strength: Provided all company information on page 14 of Bid that was required in Section 4.014 on page 52 with the exception below.

• Weakness: Did not provide Sales volume for last 5 years per Section 4.014 on page 52 of the RFP.

3. Prior Experience (Section 4.014) -– scored _ 0/ 10 points).

• Weakness: Did not provide examples of 3 relevant prior experiences to successfully manage a contract per Section 4.014 page 52 of the RFP.

The JEC concluded that the Integrated Systems Design, Inc. proposal does not offer the best value to the State based on their response to the Scope of Work and Deliverables, Company Information, and their Prior Experience in Article 4.

Evaluation Summary

|Weight |InfoTech |Integrated System Design |

|Article 1.100 Scope of Work and Deliverables |80 |80 |0 |

|Article 4.014 Company Information |10 |10 |9 |

|Article 4.014 Prior Experience |10 |10 |0 |

|TOTAL |100 |100 |9 |

Price Evaluation

| |Info Tech |Integrated Systems Design |

|First Year License Costs |$55,600.00 |Did not meet minimum Requirements |

|(Maintenance and Service Included) | |Not Evaluated |

|Second Year License Costs |$55,600.00 |Did not meet minimum Requirements |

|(Maintenance and Service Included) | |Not Evaluated |

|Third Year License Costs |$58,300.00 |Did not meet minimum Requirements |

|(Maintenance and Service Included) | |Not Evaluated |

|Total Costs |$169,500.00 | |

Award Recommendation

The JEC was responsible for interpreting all information submitted, determining the quality of each vendor’s response to the requested information, and determining whether the information submitted demonstrated the bidder’s ability to sufficiently service the State. As specified in the ITB, only those proposals receiving a score of 80 points or more of the total maximum possible score will be considered for award.

Award Recommendation is made for Info Tech, Inc. based on the evaluation of their response to Scope of Work and Deliverables, Company Information, and their Prior Experience in Article 4 and bid price for three years of $169,500.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download