M E M O R A N D U M
TO:Kevin Dunn, Director – Services Division
DTMB - Procurement
FROM:Mary Ostrowski, Buyer
DTMB -Procurement
DATE:October 10, 2012
SUBJECT:Award Summary for RFP 071I2200220 – Statewide Digital Imaging and Microfilm Services
General:
This request is for a five year contract to provide digital imaging/microfilm and related services for multiple State Agencies and local units of government to be used as needed.
The Department of Technology, Management and Budget (DTMB), Office of Support Services (OSS), Records Management Services (RMS) must manage the creation, maintenance, preservation and disposition of the records of all State Agencies. RMS is also responsible for assisting local governments with their records management needs.
State Agencies and local governments may, under certain conditions, choose to convert recorded information to microfilm and/or digital image format. Request for microfilm or digital imaging conversion of State records originate within the individual offices of the various State Agencies. To assure that all administrative, fiscal, legal and historical needs of State Government are provided efficiently and cost-effectively, all requests must be submitted to DTMB, RMS for approval. No microfilming or digital imaging is to be done by the Contractor without this approval. Local government agencies that choose to utilize this Contract must do so under the same terms and conditions as State Agencies.
Many State Agencies and local governments that require microfilm and digital imaging do not have their own imaging capabilities, or they do not possess the resources to perform large back file conversions. They rely, instead, upon another source to provide that service. Providing for the needs of State Agencies on a centralized basis involves a full range of microfilm and imaging services, including but not limited to the operation microfilm cameras, processors, duplicators, paper scanners, microfilm/fiche scanners, CD-R/DVD drives, various digital media recording devices, and other equipment to convert recorded information to microfilm and/or digital images. Turnaround time for job production ranges from same day to several weeks, depending upon the individual job requirements.
Joint Evaluation Committee (JEC):
The JEC for this RFP consisted of the following individuals:
Mary Ostrowski, Buyer (Voting)DTMB
Procurement
Brice Sample,(Voting)
DTMB
OSS, RMS
Kris Morris, (Voting)
DTMB
Office of Retirement Services
Technical Services, Server Services, Server Team 4
Glenn Copeland,(Voting)
Department of Community Health (DCH)
Tammy Braun, (Voting)
Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA)
Worker’s Compensation
Bureau of Investments, Administration
Jennifer Silveus, (Non-Voting)
DTMB
OSS, RMS
Bidders:
The Request For Proposal (RFP) was posted on onJuly25, 2012, for four weeks. The following Bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of August 22, 2012:
Bidder / Address / City, State / Zip / MI Business / SDVOBGraphic Sciences, Inc. / 1551 E. Lincoln Ave. / Madison Heights, MI / 48073 / Yes / No
Pitney Bowes Management Services, Inc. / 1 Elmcroft Road / Stamford, CT / 06926 / No / No
Selection Criteria and Evaluation:
3.022 Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria
The following chart represents the scoring of the particular factors:
Weight1. / Statement of Work (Article 1, excluding 1.031) / 30
2. / Bidder Information (4.011) / 5
3. / Prior Experience (4.012) / 25
4. / Staffing (1.031 & 4.013) / 25
5. / Responses to Case Studies / 15
TOTAL: / 100
Oral Presentation
Bidders who submit proposals may be required to make oral presentations of their proposals to the State. These presentations provide an opportunity for the Bidders to clarify the proposals through mutual understanding. DTMB-Procurement will schedule these presentations, if required.
Site Visit
The State may conduct a site visit to tour and inspect the Bidder’s facilities. DTMB-Procurement will schedule these visits if required.
3.023Price Evaluation
(a) Only those proposals receiving a score of 80 points or more in the technical proposal evaluation will have their pricing evaluated to be considered for award.
(b) Evaluation of price proposals includes consideration for a Qualified Disabled Veteran Preference. 1984 PA 431, as amended, establishes a preference of up to 10% for businesses owned by qualified disabled veterans meeting the minimum point threshold for passing.
(c)The State reserves the right to consider economic impact on the State when evaluating proposal pricing. This includes, but is not limited to: job creation, job retention, tax revenue implications, and other economic considerations.
3.024Award 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.
Evaluation Results:
Graphic Sciences, Inc.
The JEC determined that Graphic Sciences, Inc.,based on a score of 85, could meet the requirements of the RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the selection criteria noted above.
- Statement of Work (Article 1 - excluding 1.031 which was evaluated under Staffing)
Score: 21/ 30
-1.022.A.7: Bidder did not indicate that longer term rentals of viewers would be provided at no cost to the State.
-1.022.B.3: Bidder did not address 16mm jacket in their response.
-1.022.B.9: Bidder did not address splicing in their response.
-1.022.C.1.: Bidder did not include the Contract Compliance Inspector (CCI) in agreeing and signing a SOW for each job application.
-1.022.D.1: Bidder did not address receiving requests via phone or email in their response.
-1.022.E.3: Bidder did not confirm that all testing and job set-up functions will be performed at no charge to the State.
-1.022.F.4: Bidder did not indicate that silver duplicates will be returned in acid free cardboard containers.
-1.022.F.5: Bidder did not confirm that the cost for charting for film produced by the Contractor will be included in the filming and/or processing cost.
-1.022.F.6: Bidder did not confirm they will report immediately to all affected State Agencies and RMS, any downtime or conditions that would prevent the Contractor from providing services in the timeframes specified on a SOW.
-1.022.F.7:Bidder did not address safety and security of the documents and data.
-1.022.H.2: Bidder did not guarantee an accuracy rate of 99.5% or higher; instead, Bidder addressed the 99.5% accuracy rate as a goal.
-1.022.N.3: Bidder did not address periodic backups of production of work.
-1.022.O.1: Bidder did not indicate that vehicles will remain locked at all times while transporting State materials; instead, Bidder indicated only that unattended vehicles are routinely locked.
-1.022.P.4: Bidder did not indicate that backup data will be maintained for a maximum of 60 days. Bidder did not indicate that full restoration can be achieved.
-1.022.Q.1: Bidder did not indicate that the annual affidavit of confidentiality will include a statement of certification that the employee or subcontractor has not committed any acts, since the signing of the previous affidavit, that would result in a change in the results of their existing background check. Bidder did not indicate that any changes in staffing assigned to the performance of this Contract will be reflected in new confidentiality statements on file; instead,Bidder indicates applicants undergo background checks prior to employment.
-1.022.R: Bidder did not confirm the State will not pay any fees for the permanent removal of State-owned records and information other than those normally associated with labor to move and palletize.
-1.071, second section: Bidder did not confirm they will understand and assist Agencies to implement microfilm and imaging systems that comply with the Best Practices documents; instead, Bidder indicates they are familiar and were a vendor participant in the creation of the documents.
- Bidder Information (4.011)
Score: 4/ 5
-Bidder did not provide sales volumes for the last five years.
- Prior Experience (4.012)
Score: 21/25
-Bidder did not provide the costs of the three projects/contractsthey provided as prior experiences.
-Bidder did not provide the start and complete dates of the three projects/contracts provided.
- Staffing (1.031 & 4.013)
Score: 24 / 25
-1.031.1.a:Bidder did not indicate the Project Manager will ensure a quality product is produced per the requirements of Section 1.022. Bidder did not indicate that any change in Project Manager will be filed with the CCI; instead, Bidder indicates that they will notify RMS.
-1.031.2: Bidder did not indicate they will designate a key staff person to be on-site at its production facility on a daily basis; instead, Bidder indicates that the Project Manager assigned is the primary contact available by phone or email, and assistants to the Project Manager are available as a backup.
- Responses to Case Studies
Score: 15 / 15
-The JEC determined the Bidder meets the requirements, for this Section of the RFP, with no exceptions.
Total Score: 85/ 100
Pitney Bowes Management Services, Inc.
The JEC determined that Pitney Bowes Management Services, Inc., based on a score of 64, could notmeet the requirements of the RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the selection criteria noted above.
- Statement of Work (Article 1 - excluding 1.031 which was evaluated under Staffing)
Score: 15/ 30
-1.022 Work and Deliverable Section. Bidder provided little to no detail in their responses to Article 1.
-1.022.A.1: Bidder did not address microfilm in their response.
-1.022.A.3: Bidder did not indicate they will perform indexing; instead, they indicate they will work with the client to define.
-1.022.A.5: Bidder did not address image finishing in their response.
-1.022.A.6 , B.6: Bidder indicated use of UPS ground shipping depending on the location of the State’s location. Bidder’s response did not indicate this requirement will be provided at no additional cost to the State.
-1.022.B.12: Bidder did not indicate they would provide on-site equipment, staff, and microfilm services to a State Agency, on occasion, as needed; instead, Bidder indicated they will work with the Agency in an effort to meet the requirements.
-1.022.D.1: Bidder did not address receiving requests via phone or email in their response.
-1.022.D.3: Bidder did not indicate that they will provide cost estimates.
-1.022.F.6: Bidder did not provide a deep tank processor. Bidder did not confirm they would report immediately to all affected State Agencies and RMS, any downtime or conditions that would prevent the Contractor from providing services in the timeframes specified on a SOW.
-1.022.F.8: Bidder’s response did not indicate that this requirement would be provided at no additional cost to the State.
-1.022.F.10: Bidder does not have Microfilm lab certification or oversight agreement from a major microfilm manufacturer;instead, Bidder states that their subcontractor has NMA/AIIM certifications.
-1.022.H.1: Bidder did not indicate they would provide data entry services to support existing systems; instead, Bidder indicates they will work with the State to define and document the data entry requirements.
-1.022.H.2: Bidder did not guarantee an accuracy rate of 99.5% or higher.
-1.022.N.2 : Bidder did not address Microfilm services in their response for this requirement.
-1.022.O.2: Bidder did not indicate they would maintain records in a secure room separate from the production area; instead, Bidder indicated they would be segmented into large processing areas. Bidder did not address Microfilm services in their response. Bidder did not indicate they would permit random unannounced visits by RMS to monitor security measures in place.
-1.022.P.2: Bidder did not confirm they would monitor and report to the CCI any and all attacks that appear to be deliberate attempts to access State images or data.
-1.022.Q.1: Bidder did not address the following: The Contractor must have on file, affidavits of confidentiality for all individuals that are assigned to the performance of this Contract. At a minimum, affidavits of confidentiality for all staff and subcontractors must be updated annually. The annual affidavit of confidentiality must include a statement of certification that the employee or subcontractor has not committed any acts since the signing of the previous affidavit that would result in the change in the results of their existing background check. Any changes in staffing assigned to performance of this Contract by the Contractor must be reflected in new confidentiality statements on file.
- Bidder Information (4.011)
Score: 5/ 5
-The JEC determined the Bidder meets the requirements, for this Section of the RFP, with no exceptions.
- Prior Experience (4.012)
Score: 18/ 25
-Bidder did not indicate any prior experience with Microfilm Services.
- Staffing (1.031 & 4.013)
Score: 18/ 25
-Bidder provided no detail in their responses to Section 1.031by referring directly to Appendix A,Resumes.
-Bidder’s three proposed Key Staff, the Project Manager and two additional Key Staff, have no relevant prior experience with Microfilm Services.
- Responses to Case Studies
Score: 8/ 15
-Case Study #2: Bidder did not indicate how they would be able to meet timeframe requirements in Case Study 2.
-Case Study #2: Bidder quantities identified on the invoice do not match those as required in the case study.
-Case Study #3: Bidder did not address long term retention concerns in their response for Case Study 3.
-Case Study #3: Bidder identifies a line item for custom programming in the example invoice, but does not indicate how this applies to the project.
-Case Study #5: Bidder did not provide an alternative solution as requested.
-Case Study #5: Bidder’s sample statement of work does not include the following: pick-up and delivery schedule, sample for test methods and results, and State agency information (billing codes) as referenced in Section 1.022.C.2.
Total Score: 64 / 100
Evaluation Summary:
Graphic Sciences, Inc. / Pitney Bowes Management Services, Inc.SOW (30) / 21 / 15
Bidder Info (5) / 4 / 5
Prior Exp. (25) / 21 / 18
Staffing (25) / 24 / 18
Responses to Case Studies (15) / 15 / 8
Total (100) / 85 / 64
Pricing Summary
Bidder / Initial Bid Total / Revised Bid Total / Negotiated % / Prompt Pay DiscountGraphic Sciences, Inc. / $9,060,830.25 / $9,019,526.75 / 0.456% / 1% Net 5
Award Recommendation:
Award recommendation is made to the responsive and responsible Bidder who passed the Technical Evaluation and offered the Best Value to the State of Michigan.
Based on all of the information discussed above, the JEC recommends an award to Graphic Sciences, Inc. in the amount of $9,019,526.75.
1