Summary Eprocurement 2012RFP-CM-071I2200108phase II Technical, Demonstration, Clarification

Summary eProcurement 2012 RFP-CM-071I2200108 Phase II – Technical, Demonstration, Clarification and Best Value

RP Article 3, 3.011 Pre-Bid Conference

A Recommended Pre-Bid Meeting conference was held on 4/16/2012 at the Michigan Library & Historical Center, Forum auditorium. At this conference the pilot agencies and representatives were introduced, the contents of the RFP were reviewed and the process for Online response explained in detail. All materials and a copy of the sign-in sheet from this meeting were posted on Bid4Michigan via Addendum #3 & #4 to the RFP.

RFP Article 3, 3.012 Communications The State will not respond to telephone inquiries or visitation by Bidders or their representatives. Bidder’s sole point of co ntact concerning the RFP is the Buyer named on the cover page of this RFP. Any communication outside of this process may result in disqualification or debarment or both.

RFP Article 3, 3.013 Questions Questions concerning the RFP must be submitted, in writing, no later than the time and date specified in the Solicitation N otice published in Bid4Michigan for this project.

Multiple rounds of questions were responded to via Addendums #2, #5-#19; along with an additional due date for question submission, an extension to the bid due date and the re-scheduling of the week for demonstrations.

RFP Article 3, 3.021 Method of Evaluation A Joint Evaluation Committee, chaired by DTMB Procurement, will evaluate proposals.

RFP Article 3, 3.022A TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA 1 The following chart represents the scoring of the particular factors:

Weight

1. Proposed Solution and Project Plan (Articles 1 & all attachments 50 and exhibits) 2. Change Management - People 10 3. Prior Experience (Attachment 1) 20 4. Staffing (Org Chart & Resume Templates Attachment 2 & 3) 15 5. Other Considerations: 5 Financial Stability Past Performance Place of Performance () Business owned by persons with disabilities Vendor Information TOTAL 100

Only those proposals receiving an initial technical score of 90 points or more of the total maximum possible score from the technical review (see 3.022A above) and meeting a preliminary assessment of best value, will be invited f or demonstrations.

Prior to completion of the initial technical review: In the interest of increasing competition and to provide a more relevant range for Best Value Assessment in the final review phase; the threshold for passing the initial technical phase was changed from 90 to 85 for passing.

2 RFP Article 3, 3.022B Demonstration Requirements (100 Points Possible) Provide electronic copy of all demonstration materials for incorporation into the Contract. It is anticipated that demonstrati ons will be up to 8 hours in length. An agenda will be provided, but at a minimum will include the following:

Demonstration Component Points P ossible 1 Vendor Management 10 2 Contract Management Capabilities 15 3 Approval and Workflow 15 4 Business Rule / Policy Changes 10 5 Specific Procurement Workflows 15 6 Catalog Maintenance and Purchases 5 7 Report Configuration 10 8 Project Work Plan 5 9 Change Management Process (people) 10 10 Overall Demonstration Preparedness 5 Total 100

Only those proposals receiving a demonstration score of 80 points or more of the total maximum possible score from the Demonstration review (see 3.022B above) will continue to the next step for final price evaluation.

RFP Article 3, 3.023 Price Evaluation Only those proposals meeting the thresholds for passing in both the technical and demonstration reviews will be further co nsidered in the final pricing review and best value assessment for award recommendation.

Although all price proposals will be submitted through Bid4Michigan, prices will only be evaluated from those Bidders mee ting the minimum point thresholds. 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 qualifie d disabled veterans meeting the minimum point threshold for passing.

RFP Article 3, 3.024 Award Recommendation The award recommendation will be made to the responsive and responsible Vendor who offers the best value to the State of Michigan. Best value will be determined by the Vendor meeting the minimum point thresholds and offering the best co mbination of the factors stated in Section 3.022 as demonstrated by its technical proposal 3.022A, the demonstration 3.02 2B above, and price 3.023.

3.040 Possible Additional Considerations/Processes

RFP Article 3, 3.041 Clarifications The State may request clarifications from Bidders. The State will document the clarifications in writing and forward to the Bidder. This process does not allow Bidder to change its bid. Instead, it provides an opportunity to clarify the proposal su bmitted.

If the State determines that a Bidder purposely or willfully submitted false information, the Bidder will not be considered for award, the State will pursue debarment of the Bidder. Any resulting Contract that may have been established will be termi nated.

Clarifications may be sought at any point in the procurement process up to the point of issuance of a Notice of Recommendation letter in Bid4Michigan, and continuing through negotiations if necessary. As additional information is sought, if required and assessed, scores are updated by the scoring team members accordingly. Final results of evaluation materials are confirmed, approved and signed off on by all scoring evaluators, or their delegates who have signed the Evaluation Code of Conduct, prior to publication on Bid4Michigan.

Items to Consider while reading the evaluation summary Initial & Phase II Technical Detail spreadsheets:

3  Comments are not included in the Initial & Phase II Technical Detail spreadsheets for each individual requirement as there are well over 200 requirements in the attachments, which required a response. (Technical, Functional, EA Assessment, SLA, RFP, etc.)

 Comments focus on items noted as, “Exceed”, “Partially Compliant”, “Fails to Meet”, and “Implementation Concern”. Requirements designated as “Meets” are thus not all identified in the detailed spreadsheets.

 Statements included in the Initial & Phase II Technical Detail spreadsheets are phrases, and thus may not follow the traditional grammatical and punctuation structure of literary documents, thus sentences may not always be complete.

Due to the volume of information involved in this project, the compiled results and final evaluation documents have been published on different dates. The results of the bidders, who did not pass the Initial Technical review, were published via a Comment in Bid4Michigan on August 2, 2012. The posting of this document represents the conclusion of the evaluation process, resulting in the publication of a Notification of Recommendation on Bid4Michigan.

Results for Phase II bidders are as follows:

# Source CGI Perfect Periscope SciQuest Commerce

1 Initial Technical 88.5 87.6 91.4 85.0 Scores

2 7-Exceeds 5-Exceeds 7-Exceeds 3-Exceeds 40-Meets 11-Meets 52-Meets 21-Meets 32-Fails to Meet 55-Fails to Meet 31-Fails to Meet 79-Fails to Meet # of each 23-Partial Compliance 29-Partial 30-Partial 67-Partial 87-Vendor Questions Compliance Compliance Compliance category 9-Implementation Concerns 50-Vendor 46-Vendor Questions 40-Vendor Technical 1-Best Value Questions 10-Implementation Questions 2-Statements 3-Implementation Concerns 3-Implementation Concerns 4-Best Value Concerns 1-Best Value 3-Statements 0-Best Value 4-Statements 1-Statement 3 Demonstration 92.1 70.71 91.94 84.26 Scores

4 27-Exceeds 1-Exceeds 12-Exceeds 7-Exceeds 107-Meets 63-Meets 105-Meets 72-Meets 2-Fails to Meet 26-Fails to Meet 5-Fails to Meet 8-Fails to Meet # of each 2-Partial Compliance 12-Partial 7-Partial Compliance 11-Partial category 1-Implementation Concerns Compliance 20-Implementation Compliance Demonstration 10-Best Value 6-Implementation Concerns 4-Implementation Concerns 12-Best Value Concerns 1-JEC Discussion 11-Best Value 2-JEC Discussion

5 Technical Score No Change 87.0 No Change No Change Updates w/Clarification

6 Final Combined 180.6 157.71 183.34 169.26 Total Score (#3+#4)

4 6 Proposed $22,359,091 – 5Yr Total + N/A $16,238,243- $12,814,538 Pricing $6,724,981 – Main.&Support.= Standard $9,005,613- $29,084,072 Alternate

7 Pricing $20,591,265 – 5 Yr Total + N/A $14,273,803- $8,617,540 5yr Clarification $6,248,817= Standard w/no licensing cost + Results $26,840,082 change $2,011,913 This number includes 17,000 $11,167,971- implementation= users based on an employee Standard w/review $10,629,453 count for pilot agencies only. time & hosting rqrmnt adjust For any users in excess of 17,000 an increase of $11,658/month for $9,005,613-Alternate hosting up to a maximum 30,000 users will be applied.

Additional licensing fees over 17,000 are as follows:

1,000 employees for $47,928 5,000 employees for $229,221 30,000 employees for $1,141,111

Phone calls were made to the representatives noted in Attachment 1 by each company passing the Initial Technical and Demonstration Phases of the project for confirmation of experience and results.

Recommendation: Recommendation is made to Periscope Holdings as representing the best value for the State of Michigan. The Standard response has been recommended.

5 Signatures

The signatures below indicate concurrence with the above results and associated detail provided in the evaluation documents posted on Bid4Michigan with this signature document. The results include initial technical review; demonstration; clarifications; scores, comments and best value assessment. Upon approval by the Chief Procurement Officer for the State of Michigan, Jeff Brownlee, this document will be published on Bid4Michigan with a Notice of Recommendation. The award recommendation will then be submitted to the State Administrative Board for approval.

LeAnn Droste Lisa Evani

Tom Falik Nandita Jain

Sharon Maynard Christine Sanches

Natalie Spaniolo Shelley Warstler

Carla Wintz Christine Mitchell CPPB, Buyer Specialist