ITB 071I7000400
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Lance Kingsbury, Acting Buyer Manager
DTMB - Procurement
FROM: Mary Ostrowski, Buyer
DTMB - Procurement
DATE: March 14, 2012
SUBJECT: Award Summary for RFP 071I2200060 – Equalization Data Collection and Reporting Services
Background Information/General:
This request is for a three year contract with three option years to provide services for State Equalization Data Collection and Reporting for Michigan Department of Treasury.
The Data Collection and Reporting Services include compilation, input, output, and analysis of assessment and equalization data currently submitted via State Tax Commission forms 608 (L-4024), 2163 (L-4023) and 2795 (L-4046) (see Exhibits 1 through 3). The property assessment system is the basis for the collection of over 11 billion dollars in property taxes annually. Currently, most information is supplied to the Assessment and Certification Division (ACD) by the local units and county equalization departments on electronic forms, and reports are produced to provide required summary reports.
If the present system fails, the process of State Equalization, mandated by Public Act (P.A.) 44 of 1911, would be in jeopardy since there is not sufficient ACD staff and no specific, in-house computer program to process the equalization data as required. The risk is that the ACD would be unable to perform the minimum tasks necessary to fulfill statutory obligations and other requirements under State Tax Commission rules 42 and 43 regarding supervision of county equalization and completion of state equalization.
An electronic system (preferably web-based that can electronically receive and process all necessary data) would permit the completion of reports of county equalization prior to the completion of State equalization on the fourth Monday in May. The data produced from forms 608 (L-4024), 2163 (L-4023) and 2795 (L-4046) is also used by many others, including the Treasury Office of Revenue & Tax Analysis Division, the Department of Education, Legislators, researchers, other states, and many individuals. There would be a profound negative public perception if a system failure caused these reports to be unavailable.
The State’s preferred solution will reduce duplication of data entry by both local units and Treasury by: 1. Extracting data directly from equalization software currently being used by local units or 2. Local units electronically entering data into the Contractor’s database using a web-based system. Local units currently use equalization software provided by private companies which may include, but is not limited to: BS&A Software, Manatron, Accucomp, and Resource Software.
Joint Evaluation Committee (JEC):
The JEC for this Request For Proposal (RFP) consisted of the following individuals:
|Mary Ostrowski, Buyer (Voting) |
|Department of Technology, Management and Budget |
|Procurement |
| |
|Kevin VanGieson, Property Analyst (Voting) |
|Michigan Department of Treasury |
|Assessment & Certification Division |
| |
|Lori Parr, Department Tech. (Voting) |
|Michigan Department of Treasury |
|Assessment & Certification Division |
| |
|Jess Sobel, Manager (Voting) |
|Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA) |
| |
|Gregory Pawlak, Purchasing Analyst (Non-Voting) |
|Michigan Department of Treasury |
|Purchasing |
Bidders:
The RFP was posted on on January 9, 2012, for three weeks. The following Bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of January 31, 2012:
|Bidder |Address |City, State |Zip |SDV |
|BS&A Software |14965 Abbey Lane |Bath, MI |48808 |No |
|Morley Companies, Inc. |One Morley Plaza |Saginaw, MI |48603 |No |
Selection Criteria and Evaluation:
The following chart represents the scoring of the particular factors:
| | |Weight |
|1. |Statement of Work (Article 1, excluding 1.031) |50 |
|2. |Bidder Information (4.011) |5 |
|3. |Prior Experience (4.012) |25 |
|4. |Staffing (1.031 & 4.013) |20 |
| |TOTAL: |100 |
Oral Presentation
Bidders who submit proposals may be required to make oral presentations of their proposals to the State. These presentations provide an opportunity for the Bidders to clarify the proposals through mutual understanding. DTMB-Procurement will schedule these presentations, if required.
Site Visit
The State may conduct a site visit to tour and inspect the Bidder’s facilities. DTMB-Procurement will schedule these visits if required.
3.023 Price Evaluation
(a) Only those proposals receiving a score of 80 points or more in the technical proposal evaluation will have their pricing evaluated to be considered for award.
(b) Evaluation of price proposals includes consideration for a Qualified Disabled Veteran Preference. 1984 PA 431, as amended, establishes a preference of up to 10% for businesses owned by qualified disabled veterans meeting the minimum point threshold for passing.
(c) The State reserves the right to consider economic impact on the State when evaluating proposal pricing. This includes, but is not limited to: job creation, job retention, tax revenue implications, and other economic considerations.
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.
Evaluation Results:
BS&A Software
The JEC determined that BS&A Software, based on a score of 56, could not meet the requirements of the RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the selection criteria noted above.
1. Statement of Work (Article 1 - excluding 1.031 which was evaluated under Staffing)
Score: 43 / 50
- 1.022.A.16 Work and Deliverable Section, Pg. 13: Bidder did not agree to provide a warning notice to the Contract Compliance Inspector (CCI) 30 days before data deletion; instead Bidder stated that they would “look into a warning notice for the data deletion, however that functionality is not guaranteed”.
- 1.022.C.3 Work and Deliverable Section, Pg. 17: Bidder did not agree to provide the CCI with the estimated timeframe and programming hours to fulfill the requirements. Also, Bidder did not agree that custom programming will not commence until written approval is provided by the CCI.
- 1.041.1 Project Plan Management, Pg. 18: Bidder did not provide a draft project plan with their proposal.
2. Bidder Information (4.011)
Score: 4 / 5
- Pg. 57: Bidder did not provide sales volume by year for each of the last five years.
3. Prior Experience (4.012)
Score: 2 /25
- Pg. 58: Bidder did not provide two of three required prior experiences, their costs, start and complete dates of projects/contracts successfully completed, contact name, email, and phone number; instead Bidder only provided a summary paragraph referencing one experience. Bidder did not provide costs, start and complete dates, contact name, email, and phone number of the one experience.
- Pg. 58: Bidder did not confirm they have five years’ experience with assessment of real and personal property.
4. Staffing (1.031 & 4.013)
Score: 7 / 20
- 1.031 Contractor Staff, Roles, and Responsibilities and 4.013 Staffing Section, Pg. 18 and 58: The JEC is unable to fully determine competence of personnel whom Bidder intends to assign to the project based on the following reasons:
• Bidder provided minimal detail in their responses for the above Sections.
• Bidder did not provide resumes for personnel.
Total Score: 56 / 100
Morley Companies, Inc.
The JEC determined that Morley Companies, Inc., based on a score of 77, could not meet the requirements of the RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the selection criteria noted above.
1. Statement of Work (Article 1 - excluding 1.031 which was evaluated under Staffing)
Score: 48 / 50
- 1.041.2 Project Plan Management Section, Pg. 30: Bidder did not state their agreement that necessary substitutions due to change in employment status and other unforeseen circumstances may only be made with prior approval of the State.
2. Bidder Information (4.011)
Score: 5 / 5
- The JEC determined Morley Companies, Inc. met this requirement of the RFP with no exceptions.
3. Prior Experience (4.012)
Score: 9 / 25
Please note: Although not all Reference’s comments listed were problematic, the JEC has listed the ones that were of concern.
- Pg. 70: Bidder’s State of Michigan reference is minimally relevant in that it lacks complexity compared to the scope of the RFP.
- Pg. 70: Bidder’s General Motors reference is minimally relevant in that it does not involve the creation of new software as compared to the scope of the RFP.
- Pg. 70: Bidder does not have at least five years’ experience with assessment of real and personal property.
- Reference check question 1 (Ability of Vendor to meet schedules and deadlines) response from State of Michigan reference: Ranked 1, poor. “The vendor has had problems meeting some deadlines for collecting tax roll data. This involves the vendor contacting all of the counties and some local units in order to obtain the correct data to integrate into the PRE Database.”
- Reference check question 2 (How would you rate the quality of the data you receive?) response from State of Michigan reference: Ranked 2, fair. “Upon testing by the Department of Treasury of the collected data, it was discovered that data from some local units were missing. Missing data was also discovered after the data went “live” on two occasions.”
- Reference check question 7 (Describe a situation where the vendor did not meet your expectations. How did they respond?) response from State of Michigan reference: “The contract requires the vendor to collect all of the tax roll data from all 83 counties in Michigan. During the last data collection period, the data was not collected and integrated by the contract due date. Data was provided to the Department of Treasury for testing, but data from some local units were missing. The Department of Treasury provided the vendor with specific examples of missing data. The vendor’s response was that all information was collected. Additional checks of the test data showed that the data was still missing. Numerous, specific examples were emailed to the vendor regarding the missing data. After a parcel count by local unit was conducted by the vendor and calls were made to the local units by the vendor, it was determined that data was missing and the vendor eventually collected the missing data.”
- Reference check question 6 (Have you ever needed to withhold payments for any reason?) response from State of Michigan reference: “Yes, monthly invoice payments were withheld because the data collection and integration did not occur by the due date detailed in the vendor contract.”
- Reference check question 8 (What are some things the Vendor should do differently?) response from State of Michigan reference: “The vendor needs a project plan. Tasks were completed with communication between the vendor and the Department of Treasury. However, no written project plan with dates, tasks, or issues were provided to the Department of Treasury. The vendor did not have a test plan in place. Data was not tested for validity and there were incorrect assumptions made regarding the data.”
- Reference check question 10 (Have you seen any disturbing trends that we should note?) response from State of Michigan reference: “Since the beginning of the contract, we have had two different individuals act as the primary contact person for the Department or Treasury. The change in personnel without an adequate succession plan may have contributed to the issues we had during the latest data collection period. We do have concerns with them meeting the contract due date for the data to go live. Another concern we had with the vendor involved them trying to use State data to enhance business opportunities. They explored collecting PRE data from other states and we had concerns that they would use our data in those efforts. Also, the vendor explored and obtained audit contracts with counties and we again had concerns our data would be used in those efforts. A final concern we had was the vendor’s overall understanding of Michigan statutes and potentially representing themselves as experts when it was clear they lacked an understanding of the PRE statute and the substance of the data being utilized.”
4. Staffing (1.031 & 4.013)
Score: 15 / 20
- Pg. 74: Bidders proposed Project Manager’s prior experience is minimally relevant to that of the RFP.
- Pg. 74: Bidder’s proposed Project Manager has minimal years’ experience as a Project Manager.
Total Score: 77 / 100
Evaluation Summary:
[pic]
Award Recommendation:
Award recommendation is made to the responsive and responsible Bidders who passed the Technical Evaluation and offered the Best Value to the State of Michigan.
Based on all of the information discussed above, the JEC recommendation is no award.
Signatures:
Mary Ostrowski Signature Date
Kevin VanGieson Signature Date
Lori Parr Signature Date
Jess Sobel Signature Date
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.