Interoffice Memo RFP #071I0200030

To: Greg Faremouth, Director Purchasing Operations

From: Mary Ostrowski, Buyer Purchasing Operations

Date: May 24, 2010

Subject: Award of RFP - #071I0200030 – DELEG/OFIR PCO

GENERAL: The purpose of this RFP is to establish a contract for a Project Control Office (PCO) to oversee a complex and comprehensive re-write of OFIR’s three current management information systems into one OFIR Information System (OIS). The PCO consists of a Senior Project Manager (SPM), Senior System Architect/Technical Analyst (SSA/TA), Senior Data Modeler (SDM), *Senior Java Developer (SJD), Senior Business Analyst (SBA), Senior Quality Assurance and Usability Testing Specialist (SQA/UTS), Reports Technical Specialist (RTS), and a Technical Writer (TW).

* Due to the completion of a previously suspended State hiring transaction, the State is exercising its right to not acquire Senior Java Developer services. As a result, the JEC is not evaluating this resource as part of bidder’s proposals.

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

VOTING ADVISORS Mary Ostrowski, Buyer Sara Williams, Contract Administrator DTMB Agency Services Purchasing Operations DTMB/DELEG/DCH

Karen Sage, Department Analyst Steve Hilker, Division Director OFIR OFIR/Office of the Chief Deputy Commissioner Human Resource/Budget Leigh Scherzer, AS IT Manager Martti Gaabo, AS Technical Specialist DTMB DTMB

Vaughn Bennett, Senior Project Manger DTMB

Page 1 of 19 BIDDERS: Proposals were solicited from prospective bidders and posted on the DMB Web site on December 18, 2009. Five (5) vendors submitted responses to this RFP by the published due date of February 1, 2010:

1. Compuware Corporation 2. Dewpoint 3. EDS, HP Enterprises Services 4. JDM System Consultants 5. Systems Technology Group (STG)

3.020 Award Process

3.021 Method of Evaluation A Joint Evaluation Committee, chaired by DMB Purchasing Operations, will evaluate proposals.

3.022 Evaluation Criteria The following chart represents the scoring of the particular factors:

Item Criteria Weight Qualifications and Prior Experience – (Section 5.014, 5.015, 1. 20 Attachment 1, Attachment 2), Approach (Section 1.001 through 1.103, Attachment 4 as it 2. applies to the understanding of the project request, background 10 requirements, deliverables, and outcomes).. Statement of Work and Deliverable Responses – (Section 3. 30 1.104, Attachment 5) * Qualifications of Personnel – (Section 1.200 - 1.201, 4. Attachment 7 and detailed chronological Resumes provided by 30 Bidder) Project Plan (Attachment 8) and Project Management - 5. (Article 1, Sections 1.300 through 1.403, Attachment 3, 10 Attachment 8) TOTAL 100

Oral Presentation A Bidder may be required to make an oral presentation to the State. This presentation provides an opportunity for the Bidder to clarify their proposal through mutual understanding. If required, Purchasing Operations will schedule the oral presentation. The inability of a contractor to meet a schedule for oral presentation may result in the contractor’s disqualification.

A list of contractor participants and copies of the agenda and all presentation materials including, but not limited to, overheads and handouts that accompany the oral presentation, are the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor will be responsible for providing a person to record the oral presentation. This responsibility includes preparing written meeting minutes of the presentation and recording the questions asked by the State and the contractor’s answers to those questions. These minutes and the questions/answers shall be submitted to the State Project Manager within three (3) business days of the presentation. All presentation materials and meeting minutes will be considered part of the contractor’s proposal.

Site Visit

Page 2 of 19 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, pricing will only be evaluated from those Bidders meeting the minimum point threshold.

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.

Page 3 of 19

EVALUATION RESULTS:

A. Compuware The Joint Evaluation Committee (JEC) determined that Compuware, based on a score of 82, could meet all the terms of the RFP. This determination was accomplished based on best value to the SOM based on their Statement of Work (Article 1) responses to, 1). Qualifications and Prior Experience, 2). Approach, 3). Statement of Work and Deliverable Responses, 4). Qualifications of Personnel, 5). Project Plan and Project Management. Compuware agrees to the Terms and Conditions identified by the SOM under Article 2 of the RFP without exception. They will provide a Certificate of Insurance as a condition of award (proposal pg 163).

 Qualifications and Prior Experience, 5.014, 5.015, Att. 1, Att. 2) SCORE: 15 of 20 points

 Section 5.014 – Cited corporate experiences for CEPI, Jeep, and VW are of shorter timeframe than this RFP and did not fully demonstrate the relevance of the experiences as to the vendor’s ability to successfully manage the development portion of the contract as defined in the RFP. The Ohio Workers’ Comp. reference is new development as opposed to system migration.

 Company references (page 15-28) – cited corporate references for Dolphin and EMR are shorter in timeframe than this RFP.

 Compuware has a strong Michigan presence, has been here for over 25 years, and has significant experience working with the State.

 Compuware incorporated the Development/Implementation/Integration vendor teams into the PCO organization structure which facilitates joint development of PCO deliverables. 2. Approach, 1.001-1.103, Att. 4 SCORE: 9 of 10 points

 Page 197- resources- Roll-On and Roll-Off estimates provide no anticipated roll-off dates for key personnel and the BA.

 During orals, the SQA/UTS proposed usage of testing tools (Gomez or Vantage) that were not mentioned in Compuware’s proposal and would represent an additional cost to the State.

 Page 187, Approach- Compuware has articulated a thorough understanding of the potential problems that could be encountered during this five-year project, which will help serve as a reminder to the entire project team and make them cognizant of how to overcome any defined issues.

 Page 194, Approach- Compuware defined a well articulated “Internal Quality Control Monitoring Approach” for the submission of each deliverable. This process will enhance the successful completion of deliverables throughout the project.

 Page 190-192, Approach- Compuware provided a detailed project objectives matrix that addressed how it would achieve them and included PCO, OFIR, and MDIT staff utilizing State SUITE/SEM methodology.

 Page 204, SSA- Compuware delineates a billable staff of more than 1,300 personnel, which indicates a broad depth of skilled labor, as may be needed

3. SOW & Deliverables, 1.104, Att. 5 SCORE: 25 of 30 points

 Pg. 86 F. –Reserve Bank of Hours- Compuware did not provide plan to track utilization of Reserve Bank of Hours.

Page 4 of 19  Pg. 205, SSA, Customer Obligations- “Compuware resources shall have the right of access to the State’s personnel and premises at all reasonable times if required by Compuware for the performance of services”. The vendor shall only be granted access to the State’s premises, and access to the State personnel, as agreed upon, and provided for, between the MDIT Senior Project Manager, OFIR Project Sponsor, and the vendor Senior Project Manager. Access times shall be reasonable and within the designated working schedules of State personnel.

 Page 51, SOW and Deliverable Responses- Compuware conveyed an acute understanding of the aspects needed to create a guiding road map for the entire project.

 Page 55, Compuware provided a detailed chart depicting its proposal for data integrity management; samples of data models, details of its data management processes, and a detailed chart depicting its data normalization process.

 Page 67, SBA- Compuware follows the industry standard BABOK processes for business analysis activities. Compuware provided significant details on the methods and means to provide deliverables.

 Page 73, 74, 79-81, 83-84 – For the SQA/UT, RTS and TW, Compuware provided significant details on the methods and means to provide deliverables. 4. Qualifications of Personnel SCORE: 23 of 30 points

 Sr. Project Manager: *Key Personnel The proposed candidate meets the minimum requirements of the SPM position. During orals, the proposed candidate presented a basic understanding of the tasks and deliverables required of a project manager in this RFP.

 Sr. Systems Architect/Technical Analyst: *Key Personnel The 6 yrs internal experience at Compuware does not provide sufficient detail to enable the JEC to make a determination that they meet the minimum 10 year experience requirement. During orals, the proposed candidate presented a thorough understanding of how the technical roadmap will be developed and implemented, including a sample roadmap.

 Sr. Data Modeler: The proposed candidate does not demonstrate that he possesses the minimum of 32 semester credit hours from an accredited college or university in an IT related field.

 Sr. Quality Assurance/Usability Testing Specialist: *Key Personnel The proposed candidate does not possess the minimum of 32 semester credit hours from an accredited college or university in an IT related field. During orals, the proposed candidate demonstrated a thorough understanding of the processes and techniques related to quality assurance and usability testing.

 Reports Technical Specialist The proposed candidate meets the minimum requirements of the RTS position.

 Technical Writer: The proposed candidate does not possess the minimum of 32 semester credit hours from an accredited college or university in and IT related field. The proposed candidate does not meet the requirement of 2+ years experience in Information Design and Information Architecture. Page 5 of 19 5. Project Plan, 1.300–1.403, Att. 3, Att. 8 SCORE: 10 of 10 points

 Page 267-271, Project Plan- Compuware delineated the project deliverables for each resource making it easier for the project team to track tasking.

The JEC concluded that the Compuware proposal did not offer the best value to the SOM based on their Statement of Work (Article 1) responses to, 1). Qualifications and Prior Experience, 2). Approach, 3). Statement of Work and Deliverable Responses, 4). Qualifications of Personnel, 5). Project Plan and Project Management.

Page 6 of 19 B. Dewpoint The Joint Evaluation Committee (JEC) determined that Dewpoint, based on a score of 63, could not meet all the terms of the RFP. This determination was accomplished based on best value to the SOM based on their Statement of Work (Article 1) responses to, 1). Qualifications and Prior Experience, 2). Approach, 3). Statement of Work and Deliverable Responses, 4). Qualifications of Personnel, 5). Project Plan and Project Management. Dewpoint requests modifications to the Terms and Conditions identified by the SOM under Article 2 of the RFP. They will provide a Certificate of Insurance as a condition of award (proposal pg 11-1).

1. Qualifications and Prior Experience, 5.014, 5.015, Att. 1, Att. 2) SCORE: 14 of 20 points

 Bidder did not provide one of the three required prior experiences considered relevant to their ability to successfully manage the development portion of the contract as defined in the RFP.

 Section 5.014- Cited corporate experiences for MIHIN, MSP, and Department of Agriculture are of shorter time-frame than this RFP, and did not demonstrate the relevance of the experiences as to the vendor’s ability to successfully manage the development portion, and the maintenance and support portion of the contract as defined in the RFP. In addition, the IMAC reference did not provide the required cost information.

 Page 3-5, Corporate Company References- MI MDIT Backup & Recovery is not a comparable project with the same complexity as the OFIR project.

 Dewpoint has experience working with OFIR, has some knowledge of the insurance processes and workflows, and has initiated requirements gathering on some of OFIR’s business areas.

2. Approach, 1.001-1.103, Att. 4 SCORE: 6 of 10 points

 Page 6-10: No reference is made to the Senior Quality Assurance and Usability Testing Specialist creating test scripts, a vital function of this position.

 Page 6-2 and 6-3: Dewpoint’s response citing usage of PMM document set did not demonstrate the usage and intent of the PMM-07 Quality Management Plan.

 Page 6-11: Bidder states that the Technical Writer is responsible for the final writing and publication of RFP material. That is the responsibility of DMB.

3. SOW & Deliverables, 1.104, Att. 5 SCORE: 17 of 30 points

 SSA/TA: As a key personnel resource, the SSA/TA responses did not provide sufficient details on how they would provide deliverables, especially the Technical Roadmap and Technical Oversight.

 The SDM, SBA, SQA/UTS, RTS, and TW did not provide the JEC with sufficient details to evaluate their method and means to produce deliverables.

 SDM: Page 7-30: Bidder did not address the last three Senior Data Modeler documentation deliverables from page 7-27. Proper usage of data management processes (i.e., security reviews, backups, and storage requirements) Recommendation / development / assignment of keys Reduction of data redundancy and improved application performance through normalization / de-normalization of all data Page 7 of 19  SBA: Page 7-39: Bidder did not address the SBA deliverable on “bi-weekly or as agreed upon” status reports on activities.

 SQA/UTS: Page 7-41 and Approach 6-6: During oral presentations, bidder was requested to respond to the following question: Please clarify what tasks will be performed and what deliverables will be developed by the Senior Architect versus the SQA/UTS. While the bidder provided a RASIC (Roles and Responsibilities Matrix) chart during their oral presentation that delineated resource responsibilities, the accompanying narrative to the chart did not support the technical responsibilities required of the SQA/UTS.

 Reserve Bank of Hours Did not provide a plan to track Reserve Bank of Hours Utilization per the RFP. Page 7-50, 7-54: The responses stated that a “complete explanation of the PCO staffing plan, including utilization of the Reserve Bank of Hours is included in Attachment 4.” The text in Attachment 4 (Approach) is a duplication of the text provided in response to this section and did not provide any further details. Did not complete Reserve Bank Table with Bidder/subcontractors total number of personnel.

 Staffing Services Agreement Page 8-2: Bidder did not include a response to Staffing Services Level Objectives.

 Page 8-2, SSA- Dewpoint indicated they will “…fill all new requests within 7 days of the request.” In the case of replacements, this may facilitate the continuation of resource tasking for the project team.

4. Qualifications of Personnel SCORE: 17 of 30 points

 Sr. Project Manager: *Key Personnel Proposed resource did not meet the requirement of 32 semester credit hours from an accredited college or university in Computer Science or an IT related field. Propose resource has a degree in Food Systems, Economics and Management. During orals, the proposed candidate presented a basic understanding of the tasks and deliverables required of a project manager in this RFP.

 Sr. Data Modeler: The proposed candidate meets the minimum requirements of the SDM position.

 Sr. Business Analyst: The proposed candidate meets the minimum requirements of the SBA position. During orals, the proposed candidate presented several slides describing their processes, however they did not demonstrate their ability to fulfill the requirements of the position nor did they provide an understanding of their areas of responsibility.

 Sr. Systems Architect/Technical Analyst: *Key Personnel The proposed candidate meets the minimum requirements of the SSA/TA position. During orals, the proposed candidate presented a basic understanding of the tasks and deliverables required of a SSA/TA in this RFP.

 Sr. Quality Assurance/Usability Testing Specialist: *Key Personnel The SQA/UTS professional experience, education, and resume summary template do not meet the minimum requirements of the position. The provided references do not support senior level experience and qualifications in preparing test cases, test scripts, test plans, and Page 8 of 19 execution and coordination of testing. During orals, the proposed candidate presented several slides describing their processes, however they did not demonstrate their ability to fulfill the requirements of the position nor did they provide an understanding of their areas of responsibility.

 Reports Technical Specialist: The RTS professional experience, education, and resume summary template do not meet the minimum requirements of the position. The proposed candidate did not meet the 5+ years experience requirement in developing and creating technical reports using Oracle Business Intelligence Tools, Business Objects / Crystal Reports. The proposed candidate did not meet the requirement of 5+ years participating in requirements elicitation sessions as they pertain to reporting. The proposed candidate did not meet the requirement of 2+ years experience in Oracle, java, SQL databases and SQL programming languages. The professional experience did not contain sufficient relevant reporting experiences.

 Technical Writer: TW does not meet the 5 years experience in RFP evaluation requirement or the 2+ year experience in information design and information architecture.

5. Project Plan, 1.300–1.403, Att. 3, Att. 8 SCORE: 9 of 10 points

 Section 1.302 – Reports, page 7-75: Dewpoint did not address a timeline to meet this service. In its proposed approach, bidder provided few details, referring the JEC to Attachment 8 (Project Plan & Project Management). However, pages 10-9 and 10-10 of that section provided minimal clarifying information on reports, which did not include types, descriptions, frequency, or distribution.

 Page 10-2, Initiation- The Go Live Setback Timeline matrix provides an approach that will identify the tasks to be completed and assist the team in tracking due dates. :

The JEC concluded that the Dewpoint proposal did not offer the best value to the SOM based on their Statement of Work (Article 1) responses to, 1). Qualifications and Prior Experience, 2). Approach, 3). Statement of Work and Deliverable Responses, 4). Qualifications of Personnel, 5). Project Plan and Project Management.

Page 9 of 19 C. EDS - HP The Joint Evaluation Committee (JEC) determined that EDS-HP, based on a score of 81, could meet all the terms of the RFP. This determination was accomplished based on best value to the SOM based on their Statement of Work (Article 1) responses to, 1). Qualifications and Prior Experience, 2). Approach, 3). Statement of Work and Deliverable Responses, 4). Qualifications of Personnel, 5). Project Plan and Project Management. EDS-HP requests modifications to the Terms and Conditions identified by the SOM under Article 2 of the RFP. They will provide a Certificate of Insurance as a condition of award (Article 2 pg 1).

1. Qualifications and Prior Experience, 5.014, 5.015, Att. 1, Att. 2) SCORE: 20 of 20 points

 Hewlett-Packard has a strong Michigan presence, has been here for over 23 years, and has significant experience working with the State.

 Page 11, Att. 1- The HP Lansing Solution Center has earned the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) Level 5 assessment.

2. Approach, 1.001-1.103, Att. 4 SCORE: 8 of 10 points

 During oral presentation, the EDS-HP was asked to provide a response to the following question: Please clarify tasks and deliverables that warrant the need for a full-time Senior SA for the first year. The information provided did not substantiate the need for this level of staffing during any phase of the project.

 Page 8, Att. 4- Hp indicates system testing is the responsibility of the Development/Implementation/Integration (DII) contractor. This contradicts the State’s response to Question 14 of the Q&A.

 During orals, the SQA/UTS proposed usage of testing tool (Mercury) that was not mentioned in EDS- HP’s proposal and would represent an additional cost to the State.

 Page 2-5, Approach- EDS-HP has a good grasp of the long-term complexities in a project of this size.

 EDS provided a detailed analysis of how they approached internal quality control.

3. SOW & Deliverables, 1.104, Att. 5 SCORE: 22 of 30 points

 The responses for the SSA/TA, SQA/UTS, and RTS did not provide the JEC with sufficient details to evaluate their method and means to produce deliverables.

 SDM- Page 35-37: The responses for the SDM did not provide the JEC with sufficient details to evaluate their method and means to produce their deliverables as it relates to mapping activities and data model documentation.

 SBA- Page 42: The responses for the SBA did not provide the JEC with sufficient details to evaluate their method and means to produce the System Concept of Operations document.

 Staffing Service Agreement- Attachment 5, page 2: EDS/HP’s response did not address the method of assessing performance.

Page 10 of 19  Page 26, SOW- EDS-HP’s proposed use of a Performance Monitoring Threshold matrix would provide at-a-glance project status.

 Page 63-67- EDS-HP provided a detailed matrix of proposed tasks and deliverables for additional Reserve Bank of Hours positions.

4. Qualifications of Personnel SCORE: 23 of 30 points

 Sr. Project Manager: *Key Personnel The proposed candidate does not possess the 10+ years documented recent experience in project management with major experience managing projects with multiple vendor activities. They only demonstrated three (3) years of experience. During orals, the proposed candidate presented a basic understanding of the tasks and deliverables required of a project manager in this RFP.

 Sr. Data Modeler: The proposed candidate exceeded all experience requirements.

 Sr. Systems Architect/Technical Analyst: *Key Personnel The description of the skills and experience for all the experience requirements are insufficient for the JEC to be able to determine if the proposed resource meets these requirements in terms of project size, scope, and complexity; skills and years of experience. During orals, the proposed candidate did not present a thorough understanding of how the technical roadmap will be developed and implemented.

 Sr. Business Analyst: SBA lacks a minimum of 32 semester credit hours in an IT related field. The proposed candidate did not meet the 3 years experience requirement in documenting results of usability testing and facilitating sessions to review usability test results. During orals, the proposed candidate presented a thorough understanding of how they will develop and track requirements.

 Sr. Quality Assurance/Usability Testing Specialist: *Key personnel The SQA/UTS professional experience and resume summary template do not meet the minimum requirements of the position. During orals, the proposed candidate presented a thorough understanding of how they will develop and implement a testing strategy.

 Reports Technical Specialist: Proposed candidate did not meet the 5+ years experience requirements in developing and creating technical reports using Oracle Business Intelligence Tools, Business Objects / Crystal Reports or participating in requirements elicitation sessions as they pertain to reporting based on the chronological resume.

 Technical Writer: Proposed candidate did not meet the minimum requirement of experience in the actual writing of RFPs and ITBs.

5. Project Plan, 1.300–1.403, Att. 3, Att. 8 SCORE: 8 of 10 points

 Page 8-18, Project Plan – In its preliminary project plan EDS-HP did not provide a response to developing the road map for the overall architecture as required by Section 1.301 of the RFP. Page 11 of 19  Page 8-18, Project Plan – In its preliminary project plan EDS-HP did not provide any indication of the time to be allotted for requirements related activities as required by Section 1.301 of the RFP.

 EDS-HP provided a process flow diagram of its risk management processes with a companion table presenting detailed discussion of these processes (Att. 8 – pages 39-40).

The JEC concluded that the EDS - HP proposal did not offer the best value to the SOM based on their Statement of Work (Article 1) responses to, 1). Qualifications and Prior Experience, 2). Approach, 3). Statement of Work and Deliverable Responses, 4). Qualifications of Personnel, 5). Project Plan and Project Management.

Page 12 of 19 D. JDM The Joint Evaluation Committee (JEC) determined that JDM, based on a score of 80, could meet all the terms of the RFP. This determination was accomplished based on best value to the SOM based on their Statement of Work (Article 1) responses to, 1). Qualifications and Prior Experience, 2). Approach, 3). Statement of Work and Deliverable Responses, 4). Qualifications of Personnel, 5). Project Plan and Project Management. JDM requests modifications to the Terms and Conditions identified by the SOM under Article 2 of the RFP. They will provide a Certificate of Insurance as a condition of award (proposal pg 63).

1. Qualifications and Prior Experience, 5.014, 5.015, Att. 1, Att. 2) SCORE: 17 of 20 points

 Section 5.014 –The Delphi cited corporate experience is of shorter time-frame than this RFP and did not demonstrate the relevance of the experience as to the vendors ability to successfully manage the development portion of the contract as defined in the RFP.

 JDM is a 20 yr. old, Michigan–based company.

2. Approach, 1.001-1.103, Att. 4 SCORE: 9 of 10 points

 Section 1.001 Approach was lacking detail. However, during orals, JDM presented that they have a thorough understanding of the tasks and deliverables required in this RFP, especially their aggressive approach to issue identification and resolution and promotion of a no-blame culture for risk occurrence.

 Page 99, Approach – JDM defined a well-articulated internal quality control monitoring approach for pre-release and post-release defect tracking.

3. SOW & Deliverables, 1.104, Att. 5 SCORE: 24 of 30 points

 SPM- Page 38-39: The responses for the SPM, did not provide the JEC with sufficient details to evaluate their proposed approach, assumptions, and timeline to produce deliverables. During orals, the proposed candidate presented a thorough understanding of project management processes, tools and techniques to produce deliverables.

 The responses for the SSA/TA, SDM, SBA, SQA/UTS, RTS, and TW did not provide the JEC with sufficient details to evaluate their method and means to produce deliverables. During orals, bidder presentations by the SPM, SSA/TA, SBA, SQA/UTS provided the JEC with details of all roles, responsibilities, and related tasking as to their proposed method/means to provide all required deliverables.

 Staffing Services Agreement- Page 103-105: JDM’s response did not address any of the required criteria for this section of the RFP. (Discussion of roles and responsibilities, contact information, problem management and escalation, SSA management, SSA document change process, staffing services, staffing service level objectives, communications, bidder obligations, customer obligations, escalation procedures, method of assessing performance, range of services, record keeping, response times, scope, service availability, staff replacement, timesheets, and training).

4. Qualifications of Personnel SCORE: 21 of 30 points

 Sr. Project Manager: *Key Personnel The proposed resource does not meet any of the experience requirements. Page 13 of 19 Education and Training: The proposed resource does not meet the requirement of a minimum of 32 semester credit hours in Computer Science or an IT related field. The proposed resource does possess sufficient technical and professional training and certifications to satisfy this requirement. During orals, the proposed candidate presented a thorough understanding of the tasks and deliverables required of a project manager in this RFP.

 Sr. Data Modeler Education and Training: The proposed resource does not meet the requirement of a minimum of 32 semester credit hours in Computer Science or an IT related field. The proposed resource meets all of the experience requirements.

 Sr. System Architect/ Technical Analyst *Key Personnel The proposed resource does not meet any of the experience requirements However, during orals the proposed candidate presented a thorough understanding of how the technical roadmap will be developed and implemented and satisfied the JEC as to their ability to perform the role of a SSA/TA, emphasizing his vision of the roadmap as a living document.

 Sr. Business Analyst: The proposed candidate does not possess the five years experience conducting peer reviews to validate business and functional requirements. The proposed candidate does not meet the criteria regarding creating usability test plans, test scenarios, and test scripts, documenting the results of usability testing, and facilitating sessions in which clients review usability test results. The proposed candidate does not meet the requirement of five (5) years experience performing complex business tasks analysis to evaluate and document change requests or experience eliciting and documenting business and functional requirements for complex web-based systems. Education and Training: The proposed resource does not meet the requirement of a minimum of 32 semester credit hours in Computer Science or an IT related field. However, during orals the proposed candidate demonstrated his thorough understanding of developing and tracking requirements and presented a detailed sample requirements traceability matrix and companion process flow. The candidate emphasized his participation in every part of the project’s technical and business requirements and working with the outside vendor to ensure they understand and mirror the business user’s mindset.

 Sr. Quality Assurance/Usability Testing Specialist: *Key Personnel The proposed candidate does not meet the experience requirements of 5+ years experience in participating in the requirements elicitation sessions as they pertain to Quality Assurance and Usability Testing for projects similar in size and scope to this project The JEC was unable to determine whether the proposed resource meets the requirement of 5 years experience creating usability test plans, test scenarios and testing scripts, documenting the results of usability testing, and facilitating sessions in which clients review usability testing results. Education and Training: Based upon the information provided, the JEC was unable to determine whether the proposed resource meets the requirement of a minimum of 32 semester credit hours in an IT related field. However, during orals the proposed candidate presented a thorough understanding of how they will develop and implement a testing strategy and user acceptance test plans and satisfied the JEC as to their ability to perform the role of a SQA/UTS. Additionally, the candidate emphasized that you cannot test correctness into processes and programs; you have to be going down the ‘right’ road from the start.

Page 14 of 19  Reports Technical Specialist: Did not provide three references; Vendor provided only two references, as reference #3 was a duplicate of reference #2. The JEC was unable to determine whether the proposed resource meets the requirement of 5+ years experience in participating in the requirements elicitation sessions as they pertain to reporting requirements for projects similar in size and scope to this project. The proposed resource does not meet the requirement of 2+ years experience in Oracle, Java, SQL databases, and SQL programming languages. Education and Training: The proposed resource does not meet the requirement of a minimum of 32 semester credit hours in Business Studies / Administration / Management, Computer Science / Information Technology or a related field.

5. Project Plan, 1.300–1.403, Att. 3, Att. 8 SCORE: 9 of 10 points

 Page 165: For many aspects of the Project Plan, JDM did not provide details describing their proposed approach, assumptions, or state the roles and responsibilities as required for this section of the response. However, during orals JDM provided clarification on their approach and assumptions, and clarified PCO team member roles and responsibilities to the satisfaction of the JEC as to their ability to manage the project.

 Project Plan – JDM incorporated the PMM and SEM templates that would be required over the course of the project into their Project Plan.

The JEC concluded that the JDM proposal offered the best value to the SOM based on their Statement of Work (Article 1) responses to, 1). Qualifications and Prior Experience, 2). Approach, 3). Statement of Work and Deliverable Responses, 4). Qualifications of Personnel, 5). Project Plan and Project Management.

Page 15 of 19 E. STG The Joint Evaluation Committee (JEC) determined that STG, based on a score of 48 could not meet all the terms of the RFP. This determination was accomplished based on best value to the SOM based on their Statement of Work (Article 1) responses to, 1). Qualifications and Prior Experience, 2). Approach, 3). Statement of Work and Deliverable Responses, 4). Qualifications of Personnel, 5). Project Plan and Project Management. STG agrees to each of the Terms and Conditions identified by the SOM under Article 2 of the RFP. They will provide a Certificate of Insurance as a condition of award (proposal pg 150).

1. Qualifications and Prior Experience, 5.014, 5.015, Att. 1, Att. 2) SCORE: 11 of 20 points

 STG did not follow instruction and meet deadlines within the bid process. STG did not submit their responses to the clarifying questions on the due date of March 29, 2010 as required of all bidders. After buyer follow-up, STG submitted their response three (3) business days late. As a result, the JEC was unable to allocate as much time to evaluating STG responses. STG did not submit their written meeting minutes and recorded questions asked by the State along with the bidder’s answers as required. As a result, the JEC was unable to consider STG’s records of their oral presentation.

 Section 5.014 – Cited corporate experiences for SOM Office of Retirement Services, State of Minnesota, and SOM Department of Education are of shorter timeframe than this RFP, and did not demonstrate the relevance of the experiences as to the vendor’s ability to successfully manage the development portion of the contract as defined in the RFP.

 Section 5.014 – The Masterbrand cited corporate experience is of shorter timeframe than this RFP, and did not demonstrate the relevance of the experience as to the vendor’s ability to successfully manage the maintenance and support portion of the contract as defined in the RFP.

 Company references (pages 3-1 through 3-22) - Cited corporate references for One Warranty and GM Owner Center are shorter in timeframe than this RFP.

 STG is a 14 yr, old Michigan-based company with some prior state experience.

 STG has been assessed and certified as a SEI CMMI Level 5 company.

2. Approach, 1.001-1.103, Att. 4 SCORE: 5 of 10 points

 STG’s 34 page response to Approach exceeds the stated not to exceed length of 15 pages as required by the RFP.

 Bidder makes continued reference to the State’s testing, development, and production environments throughout its proposal. During Q&A question #105 clarified that at least Phase I would be a vendor- hosted solution.

 Page 38: STG does not address multiple vendors in its approach to integration.

 Page 40 - 44: User Acceptance Testing: STG only makes reference to interfaces to external systems and did not address the required internal interfaces.

 Page 40 - 44: Throughout its Approach, STG does not include Development/Implementation/Integration and SOM PCO staff in core processes and in the development of deliverables. Page 16 of 19  Page 50: STG has the Technical Writer documenting Use Cases and System Requirements. These are the responsibility of the SQA/UTS and the SBA.

 Page 52-53: STG states that its PCO staff will review DII vendor proposals and evaluating vendor solutions, pricing, and PM plans when this is the responsibility of State staff only.

 STG did not provide details describing their proposed approach, assumptions, or state the roles and responsibilities as required for Phase 2 through 4 Centralized Functionality.

 Page 9 - STG appears to have a deep bench of professionals in all PCO classifications.

 Page 59-60 - STG provided a detailed analysis of how they approached internal quality control.

3. SOW & Deliverables, 1.104, Att. 5 SCORE: 14 of 30 points

 The SPM did not provide the JEC with sufficient details to evaluate their proposed approach, assumptions, and timeline to produce deliverables.

 The responses for the SSA/TA, SQA/UTS, RTS, and TW did not provide the JEC with sufficient details to evaluate their method and means to produce deliverables.

 SDM, Pg. 84-85: Discussion of second deliverable, first bullet, did not address usage and examples of data models or the Phases of / OFIR industries involved in the OIS project.

 SBA, Pg. 94-97: The responses for the SBA did not provide the JEC with sufficient details to evaluate their method and means to produce the current System Concept of Operations document and Business Workflow document.

 RESERVE BANK OF HOURS (1.104.F): Bidder’s did not describe its approach, assumptions, and timeline to address this service.

 Pg. 87: STG provided a detailed list of steps for data migration.

4. Qualifications of Personnel SCORE: 11 of 30 points

 STG did not provide responses to Section 1.200 Roles and Responsibilities and Section 1.201 Bidder Staff, Roles, and Responsibilities.

 STG’s Chronological Resumes exceeds the RFP stated acceptable length of four pages on seven of the eight resumes.

 STG did not use the client reference table provided as part of the resume summary templates. As a result, many pieces of information requested by that template were not provided for the JEC to evaluate.

 The Senior Project Manager, Sr. Systems Architect/Technical Analyst, Senior Business Analyst, and the Reports Technical Specialist proposed resources do not meet any of the experience requirements.

 Sr. Systems Architect/Technical Analyst: During orals, the proposed candidate did not present a thorough understanding of how the technical roadmap will be developed and implemented. Page 17 of 19  Sr. Data Modeler: The proposed candidate does not meet the experience requirements of 5+ years experience in relational/dimensional data modeling or the requirement of 5+ years experience in data requirements gathering, interpretation of process models, and modeling session facilitation.

 Sr. Quality Assurance/Usability Specialist: The proposed candidate does not meet the experience requirements of 5+ years experience in participating in the requirements elicitation sessions as they pertain to Quality Assurance and Usability Testing for projects similar in size and scope to this project or the requirement of 5+ years experience in the fields of quality assurance and usability testing. The JEC was unable to determine whether the proposed resource meets the requirement of 5 years experience creating usability test plans, test scenarios and testing scripts, documenting the results of usability testing, and facilitating sessions in which clients review usability testing results. STG’s SQA/UTS did not attend oral presentations as requested by the JEC. As a result the JEC was unable to clarify the qualifications and deficiencies of this proposed candidate.

 Sr. Business Analyst: Education and Training: The proposed resource does not meet the requirement of a minimum of 32 semester credit hours in Computer Science or an IT related field. STG’s Business Analyst did not attend oral presentations as requested by the JEC. As a result the JEC was unable to clarify the qualifications and deficiencies of this proposed candidate.

 Technical Writer: The proposed resource does not meet the experience requirements of 5+ years experience in writing Request for Proposal (RFP) or Invitation to Bid (ITB) documentation for Information Technology projects whose budget was greater than $5,000,000 or whose timeline was greater than 3 years or whose scope involved the rewrite of a large, complex systems or the requirement of 5+ years experience in participating in the RFP evaluation and selection process for projects similar in size and scope to this project. Based upon the provided client reference, the JEC was unable to determine whether the proposed resource meets the requirement of 2+ years experience in technical and language abilities, research, and writing skills. Education and Training: The proposed resource does not meet the requirement of a minimum of 32 semester credit hours in Business Studies / Administration / Management, Computer Science / Information Technology or a related field.

5. Project Plan, 1.300–1.403, Att. 3, Att. 8 SCORE: 7 of 10 points

 Page 134: Bidder states that it will provide the direction and oversight of DII vendors. This is the responsibility of the SOM SPM.

 Pages 131-133, Project Management: STG primarily reiterated the project management book of knowledge (PMBOK) rather than delineate the steps they would follow in order to manage the project.

The JEC concluded that the STG proposal did not offer the best value to the SOM based on their Statement of Work (Article 1) responses to, 1). Qualifications and Prior Experience, 2). Approach, 3). Statement of Work and Deliverable Responses, 4). Qualifications of Personnel, 5). Project Plan and Project Management.

Page 18 of 19 After review of the document and pricing, it was the determination of DMB Purchasing Operations to request Compuware Corporation, EDS-HP, and JDM System Consultants to provide their Best and Final Offer (BAFO) pricing with the elimination of the Senior Java Developer, line nine (9), Approach, and line ten (10), Project Plan which more accurately reflects the time and materials nature of the RFP.

Upon receipt of the BAFO pricing, it was determined that JDM Systems Consultants provides the best value to the State of Michigan, the Department of Information Technology, and the Office of Finance and Regulatory Insurance (OFIR).

JDM Systems Consultants revised cost for five (5) years, including the additional 4,000 Reserve Bank Hours totals $5,090,700.00.

BIDDERS ORIGINAL BID BAFO BID Compuware $6,945,584.00 $6,456,558.00 Dewpoint $6,038,847.02 Not Applicable EDS-HP $6,763,395.00 $6,192,640.00 JDM $5,591,100.00 $5,090,700.00 STG $3,571,390.00 Not Applicable

Bidder Personnel (Fixed Costs) Original Bid (with deleted SJD, BAFO Bid Sub-total Savings Approach, and Project Plan) Compuware $4,570,832.00 $4,468,558.00 $102,274.00 EDS-HP $4,072,995.00 $4,272,640.00 -$199,645.00 JDM $3,665,100.00 $3,590,700.00 $74,700.00

Bidder Reserve Bank (Variable Costs) Original Bid (with deleted SJD, BAFO Bid Sub-total Savings Approach, and Project Plan) Compuware $2,096,000.00 $1,988,000.00 $108,000.00 EDS-HP $2,206,800.00 $1,920,000.00 $286,800.00 JDM $1,700,000.00 $1,500,000.00 $200,000.00

Bidder Total Original Bid (with deleted Total BAFO Bid TOTAL SAVINGS SJD, Approach, and Project Plan) Compuware $6,666,832.00 $6,456,558.00 $210,274.00 EDS-HP $6,279,795.00 $6,192,640.00 $87,155.00 JDM $5,365,100.00 $5,090,700.00 $274,400.00

Page 19 of 19