Mailing Address:



|Inter Office Memo | | |Mailing Address: |

| | | |Procurement |

| | | |IT Division |

| | | |P.O. Box 30026 |

| | | |Lansing, Michigan 48909-8183 |

| | | |Telephone: (517) 373-0325 |

| | | | |

|To: | |

| |Greg Faremouth |

| |Procurement, IT Division |

|From: | |

| |Tammi Hart |

| |Analyst, Procurement, IT Division |

|Date: |June 4, 2012 |

|Subject: | |

| |Award Recommendation for Request For Proposal Number RFP-TH-071I2200071 |

| |MDOS BAM Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V) |

GENERAL:

The State of Michigan issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) to solicit proposals for the purpose to obtain proposals from firms qualified to provide Independent Verification and Validation services for the Business Application Modernization project and systems. The term of the Contract will be for three (3) years, with two (2) one-year options for extensions.

Joint Evaluation Committee

A Joint Evaluation Committee (JEC) chaired by DTMB Procurement, evaluated proposals and makes this award recommendation. The members of the JEC are listed below:

|JEC Members |

|Tammi Hart, DTMB Procurement |Chair | |Rose Jarois, MDOS, Director, |Voting |

| |(Non-Voting) | |Department Services Administration | |

| | | | | |

|James McFarlane, MDOS/DTMB Information|Voting | |Chuck Baird, MDOT/MDOS, Director, |Voting |

|Officer | | |User Experience and Agency Support | |

| | | |Services | |

| | | | | |

| |

Bidders:

RFP-TH-071I2200071 was competitively bid via Bid4Michigan, the State of Michigan Bid System. More than five hundred vendors received the notification that the RFP was posted in Bid4Michigan. The following vendors responded to this solicitation:

|SLI Global Solutions, Denver, CO |

|MathTech, Hamilton, NJ |

|GCR Ltd., Columbus, OH |

|CSG Government Solutions, Chicago, IL |

|Public Consulting Group, Sacramento, CA |

|Lazer Technologies, Inc., Southfield, MI |

3.020 Award Process

3.021 Method of Evaluation

A Joint Evaluation Committee, chaired by DMB Procurement, will evaluate proposals.

3.022 Evaluation Criteria

The following chart represents the scoring of the particular factors:

Evaluation Process:

The award recommendation is based on the vendor’s total response that offers the best value to the State. The vendor meeting the minimum point threshold and offering the best combination of the factors stated in the Evaluation Chart below and price determined best value. Evaluations were based upon the bidder’s ability to provide the highest level of quality service and product that met the requirements of the Request For Proposal and the needs of the State as demonstrated in the vendor submitted proposals. The below chart depicts the particular evaluation factors and their significance in the selection process. Only those proposals receiving a score of 80 points or more of the total maximum possible score were considered for an award.

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

|Weight |

|1. |Scope of Work and Deliverables and Project Management – Service Capabilities Article 1.104&1.300 |60 |

|2 |Roles and Responsibilities – Article 1.200 |10 |

|3 |Company Information – Article 4 |5 |

|4 |Prior Experience Article 4.014 |25 |

|TOTAL |100 |

Additional Considerations/Processes

Clarifications

The State requested technical clarifications from Bidders that passed the technical evaluation. The State documented, in writing, the clarifications being requested and forwarded the questions to the Bidders affected. This process did not allow for changes. Instead, it provided an opportunity to clarify proposals.

After an initial evaluation including vendor responses to clarifying questions, the JEC prepared a Pricing Clarification Request (see attached) that required bidders submit revised pricing table.

Evaluation Results:

SLI Global Solutions:

The Joint Evaluation Committee concluded that SLI Global Solutions, based on a score of 85 points, could meet the terms of the RFP. The evaluation result was determined by analyzing the vendor’s response to the Statement of Work (Article 1) and to their Capabilities and Prior Experience (Article 4).

|Weight |Score |

|1. |Scope of Work and Deliverables and Project Management – Service |60 |50 |

| |Capabilities Article 1.104/1.300 | | |

|2 |Roles and Responsibilities – Article 1.200 |10 |10 |

|3 |Company Information – Article 4 |5 |5 |

|4 |Prior Experience Article 4.014 |25 |20 |

|TOTAL |100 |85 |

1. Statement of Work Service Capabilities Article 1.104/1.300, 50 of 60 points

The following strengths were identified by the JEC:

• Bidder has knowledge and experience in Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V) across multiply states.

• Bidder response to Activity 7: Production was detailed and thorough.

The following weaknesses were identified by the JEC:

• Section 1.104 Activity 10 –The bidder’s Software Development process lacked detail and was not complete.

• Article 4.014 – Bidder lacks DMV experience in Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V) directly related to the RFP.

2. Roles and Responsibilities Article 1.200, 10 of 10 points

• RFP requirement were met.

3. Company Information Article 4, 5 of 5 points

• RFP requirement was met, with sufficient detail.

4. Prior Experience Article 4.014, 20 of 25 points

The Bidder provided three company references of similar size and scope, however was not directly related to business application modernization projects.

|Reference 1 |WA Department of Social and Health Services |

| |10th Avenue, SE |

| |Lacey, WA 98503 |

|Reference 2 |Kansas Department of Administration |

| |900 Jackson, Room 651S |

| |Landon State Office Building |

| |Topeka, Kansas 66612-1248 |

|Reference 3 |Alabama Department of Human Resources |

| |50 Ripley Street |

| |Montgomery, AL 36130 |

PRICING EVALUATION:

• SLI Global Solutions received a score of 85 points or more of the total maximum possible score and was considered for award.

Evaluation Results:

MathTech:

The Joint Evaluation Committee concluded that MathTech, based on a score of 95 points, could meet the terms of the RFP. The evaluation result was determined by analyzing the vendor’s response to the Statement of Work (Article 1) and to their Capabilities and Prior Experience (Article 4).

|Weight |Score |

|1. |Scope of Work and Deliverables and Project Management – Service |60 |60 |

| |Capabilities Article 1.104/1.300 | | |

|2 |Roles and Responsibilities – Article 1.200 |10 |10 |

|3 |Company Information – Article 4 |5 |5 |

|4 |Prior Experience Article 4.014 |25 |20 |

|TOTAL |100 |95 |

1. Statement of Work Service Capabilities Article 1.104/1.300, 60 of 60 points

The following strengths were identified by the JEC:

• Bidder has knowledge and experience in COMET Framework.

• Bidder has Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V) experience, similar to the RFP.

The following weaknesses were identified by the JEC:

2. Roles and Responsibilities Article 1.200, 10 of 10 points

• RFP requirement were met.

3. Company Information Article 4, 5 of 5 points

• RFP requirement was met, with sufficient detail.

4. Prior Experience Article 4.014, 20 of 25 points

The Bidder provided three company references of similar size and scope, however was not directly related to business application modernization projects.

|Reference 1 |State of New Jersey, Motor Vehicle Commission |

| |109 New Jersey 36 |

| |Eatontown, NJ 07724 |

|Reference 2 |State of Maryland, Office of the Comptroller |

| |8181 Professional PI, #101 |

| |Landover, MD |

|Reference 3 |Commonwealth of Kentucky Transportation Cabinet |

| |200 Mero Street |

| |Frankfort, KY 40601 |

PRICING EVALUATION:

• MathTech received a score of 95 points or more of the total maximum possible score and was considered for award.

Evaluation Results:

GCR Ltd.:

The Joint Evaluation Committee concluded that GCR Ltd., based on a score of 85 points, could meet the terms of the RFP. The evaluation result was determined by analyzing the vendor’s response to the Statement of Work (Article 1) and to their Capabilities and Prior Experience (Article 4).

|Weight |Score |

|1. |Scope of Work and Deliverables and Project Management – Service |60 |50 |

| |Capabilities Article 1.104/1.300 | | |

|2 |Roles and Responsibilities – Article 1.200 |10 |10 |

|3 |Company Information – Article 4 |5 |5 |

|4 |Prior Experience Article 4.014 |25 |20 |

|TOTAL |100 |85 |

1. Statement of Work Service Capabilities Article 1.104/1.300, 50 of 60 points

The following strengths were identified by the JEC:

• Bidder has government Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V) experience relative to the RFP.

• Bidder has experience reviewing HP/SABER systems and working with HP/SABER.

The following weaknesses were identified by the JEC:

• Section 1.104 - Bidder lacked detailed information describing their approach to the Department of State BAM Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V) project.

2. Roles and Responsibilities Article 1.200, 10 of 10 points

• RFP requirement were met.

3. Company Information Article 4, 5 of 5 points

• RFP requirement was met, with sufficient detail.

4. Prior Experience Article 4.014, 20 of 25 points

The Bidder provided three company references of similar size and scope, however was not directly related to business application modernization projects.

|Reference 1 |Ohio Department of Job and Family Services |

| |4200 East Fifth Avenue |

| |Columbus, OH 43219 |

|Reference 2 |Ohio Secretary of State |

| |180 E. Broad Street |

| |15th Floor |

| |Columbus, OH 43215 |

|Reference 3 |Ohio Department Budget and Management |

| |274 East 1st Ave. |

| |Columbus, OH 43201 |

PRICING EVALUATION:

• GCR Ltd. received a score of 85 points or more of the total maximum possible score and was considered for award.

Evaluation Results:

CSG Government Solutions:

The Joint Evaluation Committee concluded that GSG Government Solutions, based on a score of 77 points, could not meet the terms of the RFP. The evaluation result was determined by analyzing the vendor’s response to the Statement of Work (Article 1) and to their Capabilities and Prior Experience (Article 4).

|Weight |Score |

|1. |Scope of Work and Deliverables and Project Management – Service |60 |40 |

| |Capabilities Article 1.104/1.300 | | |

|2 |Roles and Responsibilities – Article 1.200 |10 |10 |

|3 |Company Information – Article 4 |5 |5 |

|4 |Prior Experience Article 4.014 |25 |22 |

|TOTAL |100 |77 |

1. Statement of Work Service Capabilities Article 1.104/1.300, 40 of 60 points

The following strengths were identified by the JEC:

• Bidder has prior Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V) experience.

• Bidder proposed Project Manager had the skill set and experience to effectively lead MDOS BAM Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V) project.

The following weaknesses were identified by the JEC:

• Section 1.104 – The JEC could not determine the proposed approach as to how the bidder would meet the BAM Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V) Activities.

• Section 1.104 – Bidder primary focus was turning over documents and not proposing their approach as to how they would meet the defined Scope of Work and Deliverables.

2. Roles and Responsibilities Article 1.200, 10 of 10 points

• RFP requirement were met.

3. Company Information Article 4, 5 of 5 points

• RFP requirement was met, with sufficient detail.

4. Prior Experience Article 4.014, 22 of 25 points

The Bidder provided three company references of similar size and scope. However, two of the three references was not directly related to business application modernization projects.

|Reference 1 |Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency |

| |Cadillac Place, Suite 13-650 |

| |3024 West Grand Blvd. |

| |Detroit, MI 48202 |

|Reference 2 |Ohio Department of Job and Family Services |

| |30 East Broad Street, 32nd Floor |

| |Columbus, OH 43215 |

|Reference 3 |Kansas Department of Revenue, Division of Motor Vehicles |

| |915 SW Harrison Street, 10th Floor |

| |Topeka, KS 66612 |

PRICING EVALUATION:

• CSG Government Solutions received a score of 77 points and was not considered for award.

Evaluation Results:

Public Consulting Group:

The Joint Evaluation Committee concluded that Public Consulting Group, based on a score of 75 points, could not meet the terms of the RFP. The evaluation result was determined by analyzing the vendor’s response to the Statement of Work (Article 1) and to their Capabilities and Prior Experience (Article 4).

|Weight |Score |

|1. |Scope of Work and Deliverables and Project Management – Service |60 |40 |

| |Capabilities Article 1.104/1.300 | | |

|2 |Roles and Responsibilities – Article 1.200 |10 |10 |

|3 |Company Information – Article 4 |5 |5 |

|4 |Prior Experience Article 4.014 |25 |20 |

|TOTAL |100 |75 |

1. Statement of Work Service Capabilities Article 1.104/1.300, 40 of 60 points

The following strengths were identified by the JEC:

• Bidder provided a detailed approached to Activity 6 Requirement Management, and Activity 7 Production.

The following weaknesses were identified by the JEC:

• Section 1.104 – Bidder response to the Scope of Work and Deliverables stated in the RFP were not met. Bidder failed to provide proposed approach as to how they would meet the BAM IV&V Activities.

• Section 1.104 Activity 2 Planning Oversight – Bidder failed to propose their approach to meet the activity.

• Bidder lack experience in IV&V directly related to the RFP.

2. Roles and Responsibilities Article 1.200, 10 of 10 points

• RFP requirement were met.

3. Company Information Article 4, 5 of 5 points

• RFP requirement was met, with sufficient detail.

4. Prior Experience Article 4.014, 20 of 25 points

The Bidder provided three company references of similar size and scope, however was not directly related to business application modernization projects.

|Reference 1 |Office of the State Chief Information Chief |

| |1325 J. Street |

| |Sacramento, CA 95814 |

|Reference 2 |Office of systems Integration |

| |2525 Natomas Park Drive |

| |Sacramento, CA 95833 |

|Reference 3 |Office of systems Integration |

| |2525 Natomas Park Drive |

| |Sacramento, CA 95833 |

PRICING EVALUATION:

• Public Consulting Group received a score of 75 points and was not considered for award.

Evaluation Results:

Lazer Technologies:

The Joint Evaluation Committee concluded that Lazer Technologies, based on a score of 65 points, could meet the terms of the RFP. The evaluation result was determined by analyzing the vendor’s response to the Statement of Work (Article 1) and to their Capabilities and Prior Experience (Article 4).

|Weight |Score |

|1. |Scope of Work and Deliverables and Project Management – Service |60 |35 |

| |Capabilities Article 1.104/1.300 | | |

|2 |Roles and Responsibilities – Article 1.200 |10 |10 |

|3 |Company Information – Article 4 |5 |5 |

|4 |Prior Experience Article 4.014 |25 |15 |

|TOTAL |100 |65 |

1. Statement of Work Service Capabilities Article 1.104/1.300, 35 of 60 points

The following strengths were identified by the JEC:

• Bidder has knowledge of the State of Michigan SUITE process.

The following weaknesses were identified by the JEC:

• Section 1.104 – Bidder response was incomplete. The bidder failed to describe how they would accomplish the activities stated in Scope of Work and Deliverables.

• Section 4.014 – Bidder lacks sufficient Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V) experience per the RFP.

2. Roles and Responsibilities Article 1.200, 10 of 10 points

• RFP requirement were met.

3. Company Information Article 4, 5 of 5 points

• RFP requirement was met, with sufficient detail.

4. Prior Experience Article 4.014, 15 of 25 points

The Bidder provided three company references, which were not of similar size and scope which are identified below. Bidder failed to provide sufficient detail to demonstrate the relevance of this experience.

|Reference 1 |State of Michigan, UIA |

|Reference 2 |Wayne County Airport Authority |

|Reference 3 |City of Ann Arbor, IT Department |

PRICING EVALUATION:

• Lazer Technologies received a score of 65 points and was not considered for award.

EVALUATION SUMMARY:

| |Scope of Work and Deliverables and |

| |Project Management – Service |

| |Capabilities Article 1.104&1.300 |

|Bidder: |Initial Value: |Term of Contract |

|SLI Global Solutions |$3,429,340.08 |Three (3) years, with two (2) |

| | |one-year options for extensions. |

The JEC concluded that MathTech and GCR Ltd. Proposal’s did not offer the best value to the State based on their Service Capability, and Staffing Capability, in the Statement of Work in Article 1 and their Prior Comparable Experience in Article 4 and bid prices for three years.[pic]

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

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

Google Online Preview   Download