The State of Michigan Issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) to Obtain Bids from Qualified

Inter Office Memo / Office of State Procurement
IT Procurement Division
P.O. Box 30026
Lansing, Michigan 48909-8183
Telephone: (517) 373-0325
To: / Greg Faremouth
Purchasing Operations, IT Division
From: / Reid Sisson
Analyst, Purchasing Operations, IT Division
Date: / June 26, 2012
Subject: / Award Recommendation for Request For Proposal Number RFP-RS-SASS2012
Cyber-Security Awareness Training for Department of Technology Management and Budget (State-wide)

GENERAL:

The State of Michigan issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) to obtain bids from qualified firms to provide a cost-competitive contractual solution to procure a State-wide Cyber-Security Awareness Training Services for the Department of Technology Management and Budget.

The purpose of this RFP is to provide state employees, and also optionally local units of government, and schools with an awareness program relevant to today’s security threats. Michigan is embarking upon creating an educated, cyber-aware workforce that is informed of the cybernetic and information security risks associated with their activities in handling State data assets. Individuals need to be aware of their responsibilities in complying with agency policies, procedures and best practices designed to reduce these security risks. To be effective, a security-awareness program must be ongoing and include continuous training, communication and reinforcement. Making individuals cyber-aware will also make them more informed when managing cyber-security incidents in their personal lives. Statistically 64 percent of all cyber-attacks result from individual behavior. Staff is an organization’s biggest asset and its biggest vulnerability for cyber-security. Training employees in cyber-security methods is the best first step for protecting your network. Cyber-Awareness is the single most effective tool in preventing cyber incidents. Each infection costs $300 to $500. State PCs are infected at a rate of 250 per month. Similar security awareness programs speak to a reduction of up to 50% of future infections.

Bidders:

RFP-RS-SASS2012 was competitively bid via Bid4Michigan, the State of Michigan Bid System. More than seven hundred vendors received the RFP notification via Bid4Michigan. The following five vendors responded to this solicitation:

Securely Yours / Wise (Bullzi Security Technologies)
Wombat / Strait
Security Mentor

Joint Evaluation Committee

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

JEC Members
Reid Sisson, DTMB / Chair (Voting) / Rock Rakowski, DTMB / Voting
Dan Lohrmann, DTMB / Advisor

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. / Statement of Work – Service Capabilities (Article 1.104), including Solution Demonstration / 60
2. / Prior Experience Article 4.014 / 40
TOTAL / 100

After an initial technical evaluation including demonstrations of the proposed solutions and vendor responses to clarifying questions, the JEC determined there was a need to clarify deficiencies in the original proposals. Therefore the JEC prepared a Best And Final Offer (BAFO) Request (see attached) to vendors whose scores pass the technical evaluation, which clarified the schedule for delivery of training. Additionally, the JEC requested the bidders to submit a revised Attachment B Cost Table for pricing.

Evaluation Results:

I. Securely Yours

Pursuant to the technical evaluation, the Joint Evaluation Committee concluded that Securely Yours did not provide a proposal that met the minimum point threshold of 80 points, as detailed within Section 3.022 Evaluation Criteria of the RFP. The evaluation result was determined by analyzing the vendor’s response to the Statement of Work, (Article 1) and to their Qualifications and Prior Experience (Article 4).

1. Statement of Work (Article 1) scored 25/60 points.

Strengths

· Securely Yours provided a clear, well written, and concise proposal for their solution. The proposal clearly detailed the services that the vendor would provide.

Weaknesses

· The Solution Demonstration of the online sample lesson showed only a minimal degree of student interactivity in delivery of content during presentation, with only a couple student selection options in less than one-quarter of the slides and a quiz at the end.

· Graphics for the solution demonstration were of low-quality, very grainy, with no animation. Slides were highly text-based; only two slides had any picture graphics at all.

· Both the audio and video portions of the delivered content failed to load to a standard State PC workstation.

4. Vendor Qualifications and Experience (Section 4.014), scored 38/40 points

Strengths

· Referenced customers provided by Securely Yours who responded to the State’s inquiry reported positive experiences with this vendor.

Weaknesses

· Only one of the three referenced customers responded to the State’s inquiry on their experience with the vendor.

II. Wise (Bullzi Security Technologies)

Pursuant to the technical evaluation, the Joint Evaluation Committee concluded that Wise did not provide a proposal that met the minimum point threshold of 80 points, as detailed within Section 3.022 Evaluation Criteria of the RFP. The evaluation result was determined by analyzing the vendor’s response to the Statement of Work their Qualifications and Prior Experience (Article 4).

1. Statement of Work - Service Capabilities (Article 1), scored 25/60 points.

Strengths:

· Wise provided a proposal that detailed the services that the vendor would provide. In addition, the proposal contained examples of other proposals, including lessons and requirements, which this vendor has provided to other customers.

Weaknesses:

· The Solution Demonstration of the online sample lesson showed minimal student interactivity in delivery of content during presentation and provided a quiz at the end. Of the two lessons provided, one lesson provided two instances where the student was required to click an option on the screen; the other lesson provided no such interaction at all.

· The vendor’s solution requires Adobe Flash as a browser add-on to operate. This limits the number of State devices on which the training solution will run; Adobe Flash is not compatible with Apple iPads.

2. Vendor Qualifications and Experience (Section 4.014), scored 39/40 points

Strengths

· Referenced customers provided by Wise who responded to the State’s inquiry reported positive experiences with this vendor.

Weaknesses

· Only two of the three referenced customers responded to the State’s inquiry on their experience with the vendor.

III. Wombat

1. Statement of Work - Service Capabilities (Article 1), scored 20/60 points.

Strengths:

· Wombat provided a clear, well written proposal for their solution, which did a good job in following the State’s format of the RFP. The proposal clearly detailed the services that the vendor would provide.

Weaknesses:

· The vendor’s solution could not provide all the lesson content required by the State at this time, with one of the required lessons unavailable until June 2012, five of the required lessons unavailable until the third quarter of 2012, and four of the required lesson unavailable until the last quarter of 2012.

2. Vendor Qualifications and Experience (Section 4.014), scored 39/40 points

Strengths:

· Referenced customers provided by Wombat who responded to the State’s inquiry reported positive experiences with this vendor.

Weaknesses:

· Only two of the three referenced customers responded to the State’s inquiry on their experience with the vendor.

IV. Strait & Associates

Pursuant to the technical evaluation, the Joint Evaluation Committee concluded that Strait & Associates did not provide a proposal that met the minimum point threshold of 80 points, as detailed within Section 3.022 Evaluation Criteria of the RFP. The evaluation result was determined by analyzing the vendor’s response to the Statement of Work their Qualifications and Prior Experience (Article 4).

1. Statement of Work - Service Capabilities (Article 1), scored 24/60 points.

Strengths:

· Strait & Associates provided a clear, well written proposal for their solution, which did a good job in following the State’s format of the RFP. The proposal clearly detailed the services that the vendor would provide.

Weaknesses:

· The Solution Demonstration of the online sample lesson showed no student interactivity in delivery of content during presentation, other than a quiz at the end.

2. Vendor Qualifications and Experience (Section 4.014), scored 40/40 points

Strengths:

· Referenced customers provided by Strait who responded to the State’s inquiry reported positive experiences with this vendor.

Weaknesses:

· None noted

V. Security Mentor

Pursuant to the BAFO, the Joint Evaluation Committee concluded that Security Mentor provided an acceptable proposal, based on a technical score of 89 points, which can meet the terms of the RFP. The evaluation result was determined by analyzing the vendor’s response to the Statement of Work their Qualifications and Prior Experience (Article 4).

1. Statement of Work - Service Capabilities (Article 1), scored 49/60 points.

Strengths:

· The Solution Demonstration of the online sample lesson showed a high level of interactivity and animation in delivery of content during presentation, with more than a quarter of the slides having some kind of interactive feature and a quiz at the end, and high-quality graphics. Almost every slide has some degree of animation, including definition pop-ups.

Weaknesses:

· The vendor’s capability to meet ADA compliance is still under development.

· The vendor’s solution cannot currently import users with the directory services of Microsoft Active Directory to aid in population of users. This function is targeted to be available in July 2012.

2. Vendor Qualifications and Experience (Section 4.014), scored 40/40 points

Strengths:

· Referenced customers provided by Security Mentor who responded to the State’s inquiry reported positive experiences with this vendor.

Weaknesses:

· None noted

EVALUATION / AWARD RECOMMENDATION:

TECHNICAL EVALUATION:
Bidder: / Score: / Pass/Fail:
Securely Yours / 63 / Fail
Wise (Bullzi Security Technologies) / 64 / Fail
Wombat / 59 / Fail
Strait / 64 / Fail
Security Mentor / 89 / Pass

Best Value/Combination of Score and Price

The Joint Evaluation Committee reviewed the proposals, responses submitted to clarifying questions, and solution demonstrations, and BAFO Responses from the vendors. The JEC based the recommendation on best value, which is determined by the vendor meeting the minimum point threshold and offering the best combination of the factors stated in Section 3.022 Evaluation Criteria and price, as demonstrated by its proposal.

PRICE EVALUATION
Bidder / Security Mentor
Total Cost / $179,500

Therefore, the JEC recommends establishment of a 30- month contract with Security Mentor, with an estimated value of $179,500.00.

Synopsis Of Award Recommendation - RFP-RS-SASS2012 Page 6 of 6