Interoffice MemoRFP # 071I2200173
To: / Greg Faremouth, DirectorProcurement, IT Division
From: / Mark Lawrence, Buyer
Procurement, IT Division
Date: / August 24, 2012
Subject: / Award of RFP – 071I2200173 – MCOLES Information and Tracking Network
GENERAL:
The State of Michigan (State), through the Michigan Department of Technology, Management & Budget (MDTMB), Print and Graphic Services (PGS), has issued this Request for Proposal (RFP) to obtain proposals from qualified firms for maintenance and support for the MCOLES Information and Tracking Network (MITN).
JOINT EVALUATION COMMITTEE:
The Joint Evaluation Committee (JEC) for this RFP consisted of the following individuals:
Kramp, Hermina / MSP / Non-VotingLawrence, Mark / DTMB / Voting
Mayes, Gordon / DTMB / Non-voting
Lee, David / MSP / Voting
Roach, David / DTMB / Voting
Rosendall-Saucedo, Gina / MSP / Non-voting
BIDDERS:
RFP was posted on the DMB Website on May 25, 2012. One (1) organization submitted a response to this RFP by the published due date of June 22, 2012 and were determined responsive.
- Northrup Grumman Systems Corporation
Award Process
Method of Evaluation
Proposals were evaluated by a Joint Evaluation Committee chaired by DTMB-Procurement.
Evaluation Criteria
The following chart represents the scoring of the particular factors as located in the RFP.
Weight1. / Statement of Work – Service Capabilities Article 1.104 / 35
2. / Statement of Work – Staffing Capabilities Article 1.201, Article 4.015, Attachment 3 – Resume Templates / 15
3. / Project Management Article 1.300, Article 1.400
Attachment 7 – Preliminary Project Plan / 5
4. / Bidder Information – Article 4.010, except 4.014 / 5
5. / Prior Experience/ Past Performance Article 4.014
Attachment 4 – Vendor Experience / 40
TOTAL / 100
Oral Presentation: Oral presentations were not conducted.
Site Visit: Site visits were not conducted.
Best and Final Offer (BAFO):
The State requested a BAFO from each proposal determined to be in the competitive range.
Price Evaluation
Only those proposals receiving a score of 85 points or more of the total maximum possible score were considered for award.
All price proposals were opened. However, prices were only evaluated from those Bidders meeting the minimum point threshold. Evaluation of price proposals includes consideration for a Qualified Disabled Veteran Preference. Public Act 431 of 1984, as amended, establishes a preference of up to 10% for businesses owned by qualified disabled veterans meeting the minimum point threshold for passing.
Award Recommendation
The award recommendation was made to the responsive and responsible Bidder who offered the best value to the State of Michigan. Best value was 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.
Reservations
The State reserves the right to:
(a) consider total cost of ownership factors in the final award recommendation (i.e. transition costs, training costs, etc.).
(b) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) disqualify any bid based on Sections 1.1 through 4.1 in the general Certifications and Representations (completed at bidder registration).
Award Decision
Award recommendation will be as made to the Chief Procurement Officer, DTMB-Procurement, for review and approval.
Protests
A Bidder wishing to protest the award recommendation must submit a protest, in writing, by 5:00 p.m. EST 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.
State Administrative Board
The State Administrative Board (SAB) must approve all contracts and purchase orders in excess of $250,000. 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.
EVALUATION RESULTS:
Northrup Grumman 92 points
Weight1. / Statement of Work – Service Capabilities Article 1.104 / 33
2. / Statement of Work – Staffing Capabilities Article 1.201, Article 4.015, Attachment 3 – Resume Templates / 13
3. / Project Management Article 1.300, Article 1.400
Attachment 7 – Preliminary Project Plan / 4
4. / Bidder Information – Article 4.010, except 4.014 / 4
5. / Prior Experience/ Past Performance Article 4.014
Attachment 4 – Vendor Experience / 38
TOTAL / 92
1) Statement of Work – Software Capabilities Article 1.104, scored 33 / 35 points
Strength:RFP, A. Knowledge Transfer/Transition, p. 14. Because the bidder proposes the same resources and staff as is used in the current contract, there will be very few transition tasks required.
Weakness: RFP, Attachment 13 Warranties, iv, page 126. The minimum warranty period requirement is a minimum of one (1) year. In the proposal, the period is 90 days.
2) Statement of Work – Staffing Capabilities Article 1.201, Article 4.015, Attachment 3 – Resume Templates, scored 13 / 15 points.
Strength: RFP, 1.201 Contractor Staff, p. 22. The Project Manager has PMP Certification, which exceeds the requirements on the resume template.
Strength: RFP, 1.201 Contractor Staff, p. 22. The Technical Lead has 7 years’ experience in an Oracle environment, which exceeds the requirement for some experience in an Oracle environment.
Strength: RFP, 1.201 Contractor Staff, p. 23. The Database Administrator has 10 years’ experience as an Oracle Database Administrator, which exceeds the requirement for some experience in Oracle Database Administration.
Weakness: RFP, 1.201 Contractor Staff, p. 23. There is a requirement in the resume template for the Programmer Analyst – Web, for “MITN experience”. In the proposal, the candidate, Oakley Clark-Snustad, did not meet that requirement.
3) Project Management Article 1.300, Article 1.400
Attachment 7 – Preliminary Project Plan, scored _4 / 5 points
Strength: RFP, Section 1.301 Project Plan Management, section Preliminary Project Plan, p. 28. On the Roles and Responsibilities Matrix, the bidder provided over one hundred specific tasks, which exceeded the requirement.
Weakness: RFP, Section 1.301 Project Plan Management, section Performance Review Meetings, p. 28. There is a requirement that the Contractor attend meetings semiannually in Lansing, Michigan, and that the State shall bear no cost for the time and travel of the Contractor for attendance at the meeting. In the proposal, the bidder reserves the right to renegotiate that requirement, if the use of the Reserve Bank of Hours falls below 1560 annually.
4) Bidder Information – Article 4.010, except 4.014 and 4.015, scored _4 / 5 points
Strength: RFP, section 4.011 Company Information, p. 79. Bidder has been in business for 27 years.
Strength: RFP, section 4.021 Subcontractors, p. 81. Bidder is not using subcontractors.
Weakness: RFP, Section 4.011, Company Information, p. 79. Bidders are instructed to provide the “branch office or other subordinate that will perform or assist in performing the work.” None is identified. However, the cover letter of the proposal shows that the Northrop Grumman office in Helena, Montana will perform the work.
5) Prior Experience/ Past Performance Article 4.014, Attachment 4 – Vendor Experience, scored _38 / 40 points
Strength: RFP, Section 4.014, p. 79. The first prior experience provided by the bidder is MITN, which the bidder has supported for 10 years. This is relevant to the MITN system, in that it would be a continuation of support by the same vendor. This avoids the cost and risk associated with a transition to a new vendor.
Strength: RFP, Section 4.014, p. 79. The second prior experience provided by the bidder is Maine Criminal History Records Information (CHRI), which the bidder supported for 7 years. This is relevant to the MITN system, in that the functionality is for law enforcement and public safety, and the database system is Oracle.
Strength: RFP, Section 4.014, p. 79. The third prior experience provided by the bidder is Montana’s Operation Protect Montana (OPM), which the bidder supported for 7 years. This is relevant to the MITN system, in that the database system is Oracle.
Weakness: RFP, Section 4.011, p. 79. Bidders are instructed to describe 3 prior experiences. Instead, the bidder provided 4 experiences.
Price: $ 2,487,511.50
Evaluation Summary
Weight / Northrop scoreStatement of Work – Service Capabilities Article 1.104 / 35 / 33
Statement of Work – Staffing Capabilities Article 1.201, Article 4.015, Attachment 3 – Resume Templates / 15 / 13
Project Management Article 1.300, Article 1.400
Attachment 7 – Preliminary Project Plan / 5 / 4
Bidder Information – Article 4.010, except 4.014 and 4.015 / 5 / 4
Prior Experience/ Past Performance Article 4.014
Attachment 4 – Vendor Experience / 40 / 38
Total / 100 / 92
Cost ($) / $2,487,511.50
Award Recommendation
The JEC was responsible for interpreting all information submitted, determining the quality of each vendor’s response to the requested information, and determining whether the information submitted demonstrated the bidder’s ability to sufficiently service the State. As specified in the ITB, only those proposals receiving a score of 85or more of the total maximum possible score were considered for award.
The Award Recommendation is hereby made to Northrop Grumman. Although price negotiations were conducted, the cost proposal remained at$2,487,511.50
- 1 -