To: / Greg Faremouth, Director
Purchasing Operations, IT Division
From: / Joe Kelly,
Buyer, IT Division
Date: / October 10, 2012
Subject: / Award Recommendation Bid number - #084R2200131
Pre-Qualified IT Services for Project Control Office (PCO)
GENERAL:
The purpose of this Request for Proposal (RFP) was to competitively pre-qualify information technology services vendors for providing Project Control Office (PCO) services. The awarded Contract will be for a period of three (5) years and may be renewed for up to five (5) additional one (1) year periods.
JOINT EVALUATION COMMITTEE:
Voting Members / Advisory Members /Irwin, Jeanne - Department of Technology Management and Budget / Kinnamon, Mark - Department of Technology Management and Budget
Kelly, Joe - Department of Technology Management and Budget / Leyrer, Randy - Department of Technology Management and Budget
Pung, Linda – Department of Technology Management and Budget / Malloy, Pat - Department of Technology Management and Budget
Quintero, Diana - Department of Technology Management and Budget
Walker, Kevin - Department of Technology Management and Budget
BIDDERS:
A Request for Proposal (RFP) was posted on the Bid4Michigan on 6/22/2012 and the State received bids from the following three organizations by the published due date of 7/18/2012:
Computer Aid, Inc. (CAI)100 Main Centre, Suite 17
Northville, MI 48167 / Clarustec - Nous Infosystems
200 Metroplex Drive, Suite 302
Edison, NJ 08817
Compuware Corporation
1 Campus Martius
Detroit, MI 48226 / Dewpoint
1921 E. Miller Rd, Suite B
Lansing, MI 48911
Government Consulting Resources, Ltd. (GCR)
762 S. Pearl Street
Columbus, OH 43206 / Government Solutions, Inc. CSG
180 N. Stetson Ave., Suite 3200
Chicago, IL 60601
HP State & Local Enterprise Services, Inc.
6015 West St., Joseph Hwy, Suite 101
Lansing, MI 48917 / HTC Global Services, Inc.
3270 West Big Beaver Road
Troy, MI 48084
Infojini, Inc
10015 Old Columbia Rd, Ste B215
Columbia, MD 21046 / Informatix, Inc.
1740 Creekside Oaks Drive, Suite 175
Sacramento, CA 95833
Operating Systems Services, Inc. (OSS, Inc.)
481 North Frederick Avenue, Suite 400
Gaithersburg, MD 20877 / OpTech LLC
3290 West Big Beaver Road, Suite 220
Troy, MI 48084
Ramsoft Systems, Inc.
29777 Telegraph Road, Suite 2250
Southfield, MI 48034 / Rose International, Inc.
16401 Swingley Ridge RD, Suite 300
Chesterfield, MO 63017
Technology Resource Services, Inc. (TRS)
103-11 97th Street
Ozone Park, NY 11417
Award Process Overview
Proposals were evaluated by a Joint Evaluation Committee (JEC), chaired by the Department of Technology Management and Budget (DTMB) Purchasing Operations. The JEC has made a Contract award recommendation to the Director of Purchasing Operations.
Evaluation Criteria
The following chart represents the scoring of the particular factors
Evaluation Criteria Categories / Weight1. / Statement of Work and Project Approach
· III-A: Purpose and Qualifications by Tasks (Q1 Responses)
· III-C: Vendor Management Performance (Q3, Q4 Responses)
· Exhibit A - Certification and Assurances
· Exhibit B - Second Tier Work Request Process
· Exhibit D - Examples of Poor Performance / 30
2. / Staffing
· III-C: Vendor Management Performance (Q2 Response)
· III-D Qualified Personnel
· Exhibit C – Resumes / 30
3. / Prior Experience of Company and Subcontractors
· III-A: Purpose and Qualifications by Tasks (Q2 Responses)
· III-B: Required Vendor Information
· III-C: Vendor Management Performance (Q1 Response)
· Attachment B – Subcontractor Letter Of Intent / 40
TOTAL / 100
Price Evaluation
(a) Only those proposals receiving a score of 80 points or more of the total maximum possible score were considered for award.
(b) All price proposals were opened. However, proposal pricing was evaluated only for Bidders that met the minimum 80 point threshold.
Award Recommendation
The award recommendation was made to the responsive and responsible Bidders who offered the best value to the State of Michigan. The best value recommendation was made to the Bidders that met the minimum point threshold and offered the best combination of the factors stated in the Evaluation Criteria and price, as demonstrated by its proposal.
Reservations
(a) The State reserved the right to consider total cost of ownership factors in the final award recommendation (i.e. transition costs, training costs, etc.).
(b) The State reserved the right to award by item, part or portion of an item, group of items or total proposal, to reject any and all proposals in whole or in part, if, in the Director of Purchasing Operations’ judgment, the best interest of the State will be so served.
(c) The State reserved the right to award multiple, optional use contracts. In addition to the other factors listed, offers will be evaluated on the basis of advantages and disadvantages to the State that may result from making more than one award.
(d) The State reserved the right to consider overall economic impact to the State in the final award recommendation. This includes considering principal place of performance, number of Michigan citizens employed or potentially employed, dollars paid to Michigan residents, Michigan capital investments, economically disadvantaged businesses, etc.
(e) The State reserved the right to award to another ‘best value’ contractor in case the original Awardee does not accept the award. This reservation applies for all of our solicitations whether they are quotes, bids, proposals, pre-qualified or pre-registered programs.
(f) The State reserved the right to give a preference for products manufactured or services offered by Michigan firms if all other things are equal and if not inconsistent with federal statute. (See MCL 18.1261)
(g) The State reserved the right to disqualify any bid based on Sections 1.1 through 4.1 in the general Certifications and Representations (completed at vendor registration).
(h) The State reserved the right to evaluate the financial stability of any bidder. The state may seek financial information from the bidder and from third parties. If the state determines in its sole discretion that contracting with a bidder presents an unacceptable risk to the State, the State reserves the right to not award a contract to the State Vendor. (See Section III-G)
EVALUATION RESULTS:
1. / Statement of Work and Project Approach
· III-A: Purpose and Qualifications by Tasks (Q1 Responses)
· III-C: Vendor Management Performance (Q3, Q4 Responses)
· Exhibit A - Certification and Assurances
· Exhibit B - Second Tier Work Request Process
· Exhibit D - Examples of Poor Performance / 30 / 27
2. / Staffing
· III-C: Vendor Management Performance (Q2 Response)
· III-D Qualified Personnel
· Exhibit C – Resumes / 30 / 10
3. / Prior Experience of Company and Subcontractors
· III-A: Purpose and Qualifications by Tasks (Q2 Responses)
· III-B: Required Vendor Information
· III-C: Vendor Management Performance (Q1 Response)
· Attachment B – Subcontractor Letter Of Intent / 40 / 30
TOTAL / 100 / 67
The Joint Evaluation Committee (JEC) determined the Bidder, based on a score of 67, did not meet the minimum passing point threshold of the RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their ability to meet the requirements identified in the evaluation categories identified in the summary table above and described in detail below.
1. Statement of Work and Project Approach (27/30)
The following strengths were identified by the JEC:
The response to the proposal demonstrates the capability to do "Other Services" with in IV&V
The following weaknesses were identified by the JEC:
Portfolio management experience but did not provide PCO experience.
Did not address section III-A (Q2) data management for IV&V.
Excludes production oversight for IV&V in section III-A (Q2)
2. Staffing (10/30)
The following weaknesses were identified by the JEC:
Project Control Office Manager:
One resource did not possess 5 years of recent experience in managing IT projects in a government environment. The experience provided was over 10 years old.
Both resources did not provide documented 3 to 5 years’ experience in successfully managing the establishment and operations of a fully functioning Project Control Office or Project Management Office. A minimum of 2 such “establishments” is required for this particular project position.
Both resources did not possess a professional certification in Project Management, such as Project Management Professional (PMP) certification from the Project Management Institute.
Senior Project Manager:
One resource did not have documented experience in successfully managing Information Technology (IT) projects (full project lifecycle) whose budget was greater than $10,000,000 (excluding hardware/software costs) and whose timeline was greater than 3 years.
Both resources did not have documented experience in successfully managing IT projects (full project lifecycle) whose scope included rewriting a large, complex existing system in mainframe environment.
Both resources did not demonstrate a knowledge and understanding of the Software Engineering Institute's (SEI) Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI).
Both resources did not demonstrate a knowledge and understanding of the IT Governance Framework – COBIT
Both resources did not demonstrate a knowledge and understanding of Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL)
Senior Business Analyst:
One resource did not have documented experience in performing requirements gathering sessions for systems implementations.
One resource did not have documented experience creating technical roadmaps to develop and implement a complex system rewrite in a phased approach.
One resource did not possess 3 years’ experience in systems analysis and design working with a wide range of mobile application development technologies, such as: HTML 5, CSS, JavaScript, .Net and MEAP.
One resource possessed less than 3 years’ experience in systems analysis and design working with a wide range of mobile application development technologies, such as: HTML 5, CSS, JavaScript, .Net and MEAP.
Both resources did not possess 5 years’ experience in Enterprise middleware software like (but not limited to) messaging, workflow and business process automation solutions.
Both resources do not possess 2 years’ experience in Web 2.0 technologies.
Both resources do not possess 3 years’ experience working in a Mainframe environment.
One resource did not demonstrate Knowledge and understanding of the Software Engineering Institute's (SEI) Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI).
Senior Architect:
Both resources did not demonstrate Knowledge and understanding of the IT Governance Framework – COBIT.
3. Prior Experience of Company and Subcontractors 30/40
The following strengths were identified by the JEC:
The response to the proposal demonstrates an understanding of Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) standards.
The following weaknesses were identified by the JEC:
Section III-B req. Vendor info prior experience/past performance response does not demonstrate capability across the range of activity in the RFP
Pricing Evaluation:
Computer Aid, Inc. (CAI) received a score of 67 points or more of the total maximum possible score and was not considered for award.
Page 7 of 55
EVALUATION RESULTS:
Clarustec - Nous Infosystems / Weight / Score1. / Statement of Work and Project Approach
· III-A: Purpose and Qualifications by Tasks (Q1 Responses)
· III-C: Vendor Management Performance (Q3, Q4 Responses)
· Exhibit A - Certification and Assurances
· Exhibit B - Second Tier Work Request Process
· Exhibit D - Examples of Poor Performance / 30 / 24
2. / Staffing
· III-C: Vendor Management Performance (Q2 Response)
· III-D Qualified Personnel
· Exhibit C – Resumes / 30 / 3
3. / Prior Experience of Company and Subcontractors
· III-A: Purpose and Qualifications by Tasks (Q2 Responses)
· III-B: Required Vendor Information
· III-C: Vendor Management Performance (Q1 Response)
· Attachment B – Subcontractor Letter Of Intent / 40 / 30
TOTAL / 100 / 57
The Joint Evaluation Committee (JEC) determined the Bidder, based on a score of 57, did not meet the minimum passing point threshold of the RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their ability to meet the requirements identified in the evaluation categories identified in the summary table above and described in detail below.
1. Statement of Work and Project Approach (24/30)
The following strengths were identified by the JEC:
Per response to section III-A task 5 company demonstrates architectural capability
The following weaknesses were identified by the JEC:
Did not answer question regarding subcontractors in section III-B Vendor Information.
Vendor response did not demonstrate strategic planning capability in section III-A task 5
Did not document how company processes would work but rather just gave high level example in response to section III-C (Q3 and Q4)
Did not provide sufficient information on how the company would perform PCO services or how they would structure and manage teams in section III-C (Q3 and Q4)
Response to section III-A (Q2) does not describe experience in sufficient detail. IV&V section provides examples of actual testing rather than IV&V projects.
Response to section III-A do not provide sufficient detail in satisfying the requirements. The Project Control section focuses on individual resources rather than a PCO. The IV&V section focuses on actual testing rather than IV&V as defined in the requirements. The Strategic and Architectural Technology Services section lists R&Rs but does not describe an approach.
2. Staffing (3/30)
The following weaknesses were identified by the JEC:
Project Control Office Manager:
One resource did not possess documented experience in successfully managing Information Technology (IT) projects (full project lifecycle) whose budget was greater than $10,000,000 (excluding hardware/software costs) and whose timeline was greater than 3 years.
Both resources did not possess 5 years of recent experience in managing IT projects in a government environment. The experiences provided were over 8 years old.
One resource did not provide documented experience in successfully managing a PMO/PCO for complex projects (including multiple stakeholders, PCO staff, multiple vendors, data conversions and multiple technologies).
One resource did not provide documented experience in performing Project Management, Quality Management, or other critical functions within complex Information Technology projects (preferably with budgets greater than $10,000,000 and multi-phase, multiyear implementations).
Senior Project Manager:
One resource did not respond to requirements of the RFP.
One resource had documented experience in successfully managing Information Technology (IT) projects (full project lifecycle) whose budget was greater than $10,000,000 (excluding hardware/software costs) and whose timeline was less than 3 years.