Interoffice MemoRFP #071I0200068

To: / Greg Faremouth, Director
Purchasing Operations
From: / Pamela Platte, Buyer
Purchasing Operations
Date: / October 22, 2010
Subject: / Award of RFP - #071I0200068 – Data Warehouse Platform

GENERAL:

The purpose of this RFP is to obtain proposals from corporations qualified to provide Data Warehouse Platform. The purpose of this RFP is:

  1. To purchase a replacement for the current data warehouse (to include the hardware platform, system operating software, system maintenance, and migration services) to migrate from the existing system to the new system (see section 1.104-A).
  2. To establish a pool of pre-qualified Contractors to provide data warehouse Business Intelligence (BI) services (see section 1.104-B).
  3. To obtain information about optional data analysis tools to enable the use of advanced/predictive analytics along with the training to use them (see section 1.104-A.3).

JOINT EVALUATION COMMITTEE:

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

Voting Members / Non-Voting Members
Pam Platte
Purchasing Operations
DTMB / Darrel Dontje
Enterprise Security
DTMB
Cynthia Edwards
Data Management Division Director
Dept. of Community Health / Linda Myers
Client Service Director
DTMB/AS/DCH
Scott Thompson
Information Officer
DTMB/AS/MDOT, DTMB, CS, SBO / Vivian Sheffield
DTMB
Forrest Cumberworth
Auditor Manager
Dept. of Treasury / Tess Layman
DTMB/DHS
Carol Sherman
DataCenter Operations
DTMB / Virginia Hambric
DTMB
Dan Rewalt
DTMB
Scott Ellsworth
DTMB
Sue Doby
DTMB
Mark Breithart
Enterprise Architecture
DTMB
Rich Burgis
Warehousing Support Manager
DTMB/AS/DHS
George Noonan
Dept. of Human Services

BIDDERS:

RFP was posted on the DMB Website on February, 26, 2010. Four (4) organizations submitted responses to the Platform portion of this RFPby the published due date of May 25, 2010:

  1. Cognizant
  2. Dewpoint
  3. Greentree
  4. Ingenix

3.020Award Process

3.021Method of Evaluation

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

3.022Evaluation Criteria

The following chart represents the scoring of the particular factors:

Data Warehouse Platform

Data Warehouse Platform Bidder’s technical proposal will be evaluated using a three step evaluation process.

Step 1: Mandatory Minimum Requirements

FAILURE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS LISTED BELOW WILL RESULT IN DISQUALIFICATION FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION IN THIS BID PROCESS. BIDDERS MUST SIGN AND RETURN ATTACHMENT N, MANDATORY MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FORM, CERTIFYING THAT THE BIDDER MEETS THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS. FAILURE TO DO SO WILL RESULT IN BIDDER’S DISQUALIFICATION.

To be eligible for consideration, the Bidder must meet these minimum qualifications and conditions. The Bidder must meet the following:

  1. Bidder must have been providing its proposed solution for at least three years and the current version of the platform (hardware/software combination) must have been in general release in its current version for at least six months.
  1. Hardware that has not yet entered the production phase by the manufacturer may not be included in the proposed solution.
  1. Software that has not yet entered the production phase by the manufacturer may not be included in the solution.

Only those Bidders that fully meet the requirements in Step 1 will have their proposal reviewed and scored in Step 2. Bidders that do not fully meet the requirements in Step 1 will be disqualified from further consideration.

Step 2: Technical Proposal Review and Evaluation

Bidders who fully meet the requirements in Step 1 will have their technical proposal reviewed and scored according to the following chart:

Weight
1. / Technical Proposal (All of Article 1 except 1.201-A) / 40
2. / Contractor, Subcontractor Staff Roles (1.201-A) / 15
3 / Company Information (5.011 and 5.012) / 10
4. / Prior Experience (Article 5) / 35
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.

Site Visit

The State may conduct a site visit to tour and inspect the Bidder’s facilities. Purchasing Operations will schedule these visits, if required.

3.023Price Evaluation

Only those proposals receiving a score of (70) points or more of the total maximum possible score will be considered for award.

All price proposals will be opened. However, prices will only be evaluated from those Bidders meeting the minimum point threshold.

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.

3.025Reservations

The State reserves the right to:

  • Consider total cost of ownership factors in the award recommendation (transition costs, training costs, etc.).
  • 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 would be served.
  • 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.
3.026Award Decision

Award recommendation will be made to the Director of Purchasing Operations for review and approval.

3.027Protests

Bidder wishing to protest the award recommendation must submit a protest, in writing, by 5:00 p.m. on the date stated on the notice of award recommendation. Bidder must include the RFP number and clearly state the facts believed to constitute error in the award recommendation along with the desired remedy. More information is available at click on the “Vendor Information” link.

3.028State Administrative Board

The State Administrative Board (SAB) must approve all contracts/purchase orders in excess of $25,000. The decision of the SAB regarding the award recommendation is final. However, SAB approval does not constitute a Contract. The award process is not complete until the Bidder receives a properly executed Contract or Purchase Order from DMB Purchasing Operations.

A. Cognizant (Platform)Pass:  Fail: Points: 95

Data Warehouse Platform
Criteria / Score / Weight
1. / Technical Proposal (All of Article 1 except 1.201-A) / 39 / 40
2. / Contractor, Subcontractor Staff Roles (1.201-A) / 15 / 15
3. / Company Information (5.011 and 5.012) / 10 / 10
4. / Prior Experience (Article 5) / 31 / 35
Total / Total / 95 / 100

Summary:Cognizant provided experiences similar to the size of work the State of Michigan (SOM) required in regard to this RFP. The vendor’s proposed technical solution met the SOM requirements for the purpose of replacing the current data warehouse system (whichwill include -hardware, software, maintenance, and migration services).

1. Technical Proposal (All of Article 1 except 1.201-A)scored _39_ / 40 points).

  • Strength: Vendor proposed additional toolsets for compression, obfuscation, etc.
  • Strength: In the vendor’s proposal in section 2.1.4 Software, the vendor is proposing an encryption tool (Defiance DPS) which also provides data loss prevention controls.
  • Strength: In oral presentations, the vendor demonstrated an in-depth knowledge of the State’s needs from a technical and business perspective.
  • Weakness: Vendor’s proposed systems footprint is physically larger than the RFP requirement. The requirement in Section 1.104 Work and Deliverables, A. Data Warehouse Platform Requirements, 2. Hardware. “g. The hardware must be architected in an energy efficient manner, and not take up more than 10, 24 inch x 24 inch floor tile squares of space in the State’s hosting center.” The vendor proposed, “Each Teradata system and storage cabinet is 48 inches deep and 24 inches wide, plus access and airflow clearances.”

2. Contractor, Subcontractor Staff Roles (1.201-A) scored _15_ / 15 points).

  • Strength: Vendor and subcontractor have established a joint Teradata Center of Excellence and have jointly established a systems integrator partnership.

3. Company Information (5.011 and 5.012)scored _10__/ 10 points).

  • Strength: Vendor has extensive global staffing with strong financials.
  • Strength: Vendor is a solution provider and not only a hardware provider

4. Prior Experience (Article 5)scored _31_ / 35 points).

  • Strength: Vendor provided references with extensive experience in data warehousing in government healthcare in Article 5.014 Prior Experience.
  • Weakness: In Section 5.014 Prior Experience, the vendor did not provide a detailed description of their references; therefore, the SOM could not determine if the references provided were similar in scope of this RFP. One of the requirements for this section of the RFP was for the Bidder to providejustification for stating that this customer is similar in complexity to the State of MI.

Price:

$19,371,068 (5 year Contract)

$17,683,619 (3 + 2 year Contract)

B. Dewpoint (Platform)Pass: Fail:  Points: 64

Data Warehouse Platform
Criteria / Score / Weight
1. / Technical Proposal (All of Article 1 except 1.201-A) / 27 / 40
2. / Contractor, Subcontractor Staff Roles (1.201-A) / 6 / 15
3. / Company Information (5.011 and 5.012) / 10 / 10
4. / Prior Experience (Article 5) / 21 / 35
Total / Total / 64 / 100

Summary: Dewpointdid not demonstrate how their proposedreferences were similar to the scope of work the SOM required in regard to this RFP. The vendor’s proposed technical solution did not meet the minimum criteria; therefore, Dewpoint’s pricing was not evaluated.

1. Technical Proposal (All of Article 1 except 1.201-A)scored _27_ / 40 points).

  • Strength: Vendor is proposing Golden Gate data migration tool including license ownership which provides significant protection to State processes during conversion.
  • Strength: Vendor is proposing a plan to obtain additional training throughout the duration of a contract. The proposed plan includes training to allow up to 10 State staff members a year to train in administrative, development, or designer topics.
  • Weakness: Vendor’s conversion strategy did not meet the RFP requirementwhich stated“at a minimum must include”: “how the conversion will be managed and implemented and what resources will be required from the Contractor staff and State staff. This must include time frames and specific classifications of state staff required for each step.” The requirement went on to say, “please break down state staff by agency policy experts, subject matter experts (identified in section 1.202-D), and technical staff including programmer/analysts and infrastructure staff”. The vendor’s response did not provide sufficient information to show they understand what is involved with the actual conversion. The vendor’s proposal should have shown how the vendor planned toaddressTeradata specific objects including stored procedures, macros, and user defined functions which are heavily used in the system as identified in the RFP attachment B. In addition, converting the large number of Extract Transform and Load (ETL) processes is not described in detail. See page 34 and 85 of the vendor’s proposal.
  • Weakness: Vendor is proposing in their Primary Responsibility, Approval Authority, Supporting Responsibility, Information Only, and Consult (RASIC) Chart that the SOM is primarily responsible for ETL Migration to Existing DataStage, when the RFP requirement in Section 1.104 Work and Deliverables 4. Implementation and Conversion e. states “The Contractor must modify the load processes to use the State‘s ETL standard tool (DataStage), if load processes require significant changes (meaning that the existing load scripts cannot be used with the new platform). The Contractor staff will do the majority of this work”. The RFP required that the Contractor have this responsibility and the vendor’s proposal shifted that responsibility to DTMB Technical Resources.
  • Weakness: The RFP requirement in Section 1.104 Work and Deliverable, 4. Implementation and Conversion e. states “The Contractor must modify the load processes to use the State‘s ETL standard tool (DataStage), if load processes require significant changes (meaning that the existing load scripts cannot be used with the new platform). The Contractor staff will do the majority of this work.” The SOM resources are for support only and will not be available for conversion, based on the vendor’s proposal on page 64, the vendor is proposing to push the responsibility of conversion back on the State; therefore, this conflicts with the stated requirement.
  • Weakness: Vendor proposedtechnical training for a max of 4 people when the RFP requirement was for the bidder to provide technical training for up to 10 people.

2. Contractor, Subcontractor Staff Roles (1.201-A)scored _6_ / 15 points).

  • Strength: Based on a review of the vendor’s resume, the proposed project managers have extensive experience in State government projects.
Weakness:The vendor provided representative key personnel and resumes for the Conversion Designer, Conversion Project Manager, Migration Specialist and Platform Project Managerwhich does not meet the requirement for the RFP. In Section 1.201 Contractor Staff, Roles, and Responsibilities A. Data Warehouse Platform Staff Requirements, “The Bidder must commit that staff identified in its proposal will actually perform the assigned work”.
  • Weakness: The State of Michigan required all key resources named in the bid response to be present in oral presentations. The vendor did not have both of their project managers present.

3. Company Information (5.011 and 5.012)scored _10_ / 10 points).

  • Strength: Vendor, subcontractor and platform vendor have strong experience with the State of Michigan as a prime vendor and as a subcontractor.
  • Strength: Vendor is a solution provider and not only a hardware provider

4. Prior Experience (Article 5)scored _21_ / 35 points).

  • Strength: A review of the vendor’s references indicated that they were of similar size or larger than the State of Michigan request.
  • Weakness: Vendor did not provide begin and end datesas required within the RFP for their references; therefore, the vendor did notdemonstrate how their proposed references met the three years of experience required in Section 5.014Prior Experience of this RFP.
  • Weakness: Vendor’s proposed references in regard to conversion from Teradata did not contain a detailed description; therefore, the SOM could not determine if the conversions referenced were similar in complexity to the SOM RFP. The RFP requirement in Section 5.014 was for the vendor to provide “Justification for stating that this customer is similar in size and complexity to the State of MI.”
  • Weakness: Vendor did not demonstrate in detail in their descriptions of their references how they were similar in scope of work to this RFP. Examples: In Reference #1 the vendor states that the work was larger and more complex than the State of Michigan’s RFP, but did not demonstrate in their description justification of how the work was more complex.

Price:

Did not meet the minimum technical threshold; therefore, the vendor’s price was not evaluated.

C. Greentree Group (Platform)Pass:  Fail: Points: 94

Data Warehouse Platform
Criteria / Score / Weight
1. / Technical Proposal (All of Article 1 except 1.201-A) / 39 / 40
2. / Contractor, Subcontractor Staff Roles (1.201-A) / 15 / 15
3. / Company Information (5.011 and 5.012) / 10 / 10
4. / Prior Experience (Article 5) / 31 / 35
Total / Total / 95 / 100

Summary:Greentree Group provided experiences similar to the size of work the SOM required in regard to this RFP. The vendor’s proposed technical solution met the SOM requirements for the purpose of replacing the current data warehouse system (whichwill include -hardware, software, maintenance, and migration services).

1. Technical Proposal (All of Article 1 except 1.201-A) scored _39_ / 40 points).

  • Strength: Vendor’s training proposal exceeded the RFP requirement by offering on site customized training programs.
  • Strength: Vendor demonstrated a clear understanding of Federal accreditations of State controlled programs.
  • Strength: The vendor’s proposal for Section 1.104-A.3.indicated proposing an encryption tool (Defiance DPS) which also provides data loss prevention controls.
  • Weakness: Vendor’s proposed systems footprint is physically larger than the RFP requirement. The requirement in Section 1.104 Work and Deliverables, A. Data Warehouse Platform Requirements, 2. Hardware. “g. The hardware must include climate saving features, and must be configured for redundancy and resiliency and standardized in the State’s hosting and remote environments. The hardware must be architected in an energy efficient manner, and not take up more than 10, 24 inch x 24 inch floor tile squares of space in the State’s hosting center.” The vendor proposed, “Each Teradata system and storage cabinet is 48 inches deep and 24 inches wide, plus access and airflow clearances. Cabinets are rated at 40 AMP, 200 - 240 VAC, and 50 or 60 Hz. Estimated power consumption is under 21.58Kw.”

2. Contractor, Subcontractor Staff Roles (1.201-A)scored _15_ / 15 points).

  • Strength: Vendor’s proposed project manager is a Teradata Master. A Teradata Certified Master is an individual who has passed the Teradata certification exams

required by Teradata. The exams cover a high level of proficiency in multiple areas of Teradata technology, such as SQL, administration, design, solution development and physical implementation.

  • Strength: Vendor is a solution provider and not only a hardware provider

3. Company Information (5.011 and 5.012)scored _10_ / 10 points).

  • Strength: Vendor demonstrated a long standing relationship with platform vendor (their subcontractor) by referencing their previous work relationship in regard to projects they completed together and are currently working on.

4. Prior Experience (Article 5)scored _31_ / 35 points).

  • Strength: Vendor, as the primary vendor, has managed a Teradata migration for the State of Iowa which has multiple agencies participating on the data warehouse. Article 5
  • Weakness: In Section 5.014 Prior Experience, the vendor did not provide a detailed description of their references; therefore, the SOM could not determine if the references provided were similar in scope of this RFP. One of the requirements for this section of the RFP was for the Bidder to provide justification for stating that this customer is similar in complexity to the State of MI.

Price:

$17,831,669 (5 year Contract)

$16,364,762 (3+2 Contract)

D. Ingenix (Platform)Pass:  Fail: Points: 99

Data Warehouse Platform
Criteria / Score / Weight
1. / Technical Proposal (All of Article 1 except 1.201-A) / 39 / 40
2. / Contractor, Subcontractor Staff Roles (1.201-A) / 15 / 15
3. / Company Information (5.011 and 5.012) / 10 / 10
4. / Prior Experience (Article 5) / 35 / 35
Total / Total / 99 / 100

Summary: Ingenix provided experiences similar to the size and scope of work the SOM required in regard to this RFP. The vendor’s proposed technical solution met the SOM requirements for the purpose of replacing the current data warehouse system (whichwill include -hardware, software, maintenance, and migration services).