Summary eProcurement 2012RFP-CM-071I2200108
RP Article 3, 3.011 Pre-Bid Conference
A Recommended Pre-Bid Meeting conferencewas held on4/16/2012 at the Michigan Library & Historical Center, Forum auditorium. At this conference the pilot agencies and representatives were introduced, the contents of the RFP were reviewed and the process for Online response explained in detail. All materials and a copy of the sign-in sheet from this meeting were posted on Bid4Michigan via Addendum #3 & #4 to the RFP.
RFP Article 3, 3.012Communications
The State will not respond to telephone inquiries or visitation by Bidders or their representatives. Bidder’s sole point of contact concerning the RFP is the Buyer named on the cover page of this RFP. Any communication outside of this process may result in disqualification or debarment or both.
RFP Article 3, 3.013Questions
Questions concerning the RFP must be submitted, in writing, no later than the time and date specified in the Solicitation Notice published in Bid4Michigan for this project.
Multiple rounds of questions were responded to via Addendums #2, #5-#19; along with an additional due date for question submission, an extension to the bid due date and the re-scheduling of the week for demonstrations.
RFP Article 3, 3.021Method of Evaluation
A Joint Evaluation Committee, chaired by DTMB Procurement, will evaluate proposals.
RFP Article 3, 3.022a TECHNICALEvaluation Criteria
The following chart represents the scoring of the particular factors:
Weight1. / Proposed Solution and Project Plan (Articles 1 & all attachments and exhibits) / 50
2. / Change Management - People / 10
3. / Prior Experience (Attachment 1) / 20
4. / Staffing (Org Chart & Resume Templates Attachment 2 & 3) / 15
5. / Other Considerations:
Financial Stability
Past Performance
Place of Performance ()
Business owned by persons with disabilities
Vendor Information / 5
TOTAL / 100
Only those proposals receiving an initial technical score of 90 pointsor more of the total maximum possible score from the technical review (see 3.022A above) and meeting a preliminary assessment of best value, will be invited for demonstrations.
Prior to completion of the initial technical review:
In the interest of increasing competition and to provide a more relevant range for Best Value Assessment in the final review phase; the threshold for passing the initial technical phase was changed from 90 to 85 for passing.
RFP Article 3, 3.022B Demonstration Requirements (100 Points Possible)
Provide electronic copy of all demonstration materials for incorporation into the Contract. It is anticipated that demonstrations will be up to 8 hours in length. An agenda will be provided, but at a minimum will include the following:
Demonstration Component / Points Possible1 / Vendor Management / 10
2 / Contract Management Capabilities / 15
3 / Approval and Workflow / 15
4 / Business Rule / Policy Changes / 10
5 / Specific Procurement Workflows / 15
6 / Catalog Maintenance and Purchases / 5
7 / Report Configuration / 10
89 / Project Work Plan
Change Management Process (people) / 5
10
10 Overall Demonstration Preparedness / 5
Total / 100
Only those proposals receiving a demonstration score of 80 pointsor more of the total maximum possible score from the Demonstration review (see 3.022B above) will continue to the next step for final price evaluation.
RFP Article 3, 3.023Price Evaluation
Only those proposals meeting the thresholds for passing in both the technical and demonstration reviews will be further considered in the final pricing review and best value assessment for award recommendation.
Although all price proposals will be submitted through Bid4Michigan, prices will only be evaluated from those Bidders meeting the minimum point thresholds. 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.
RFP Article 3, 3.024Award Recommendation
The award recommendation will be made to the responsive and responsible Vendor who offers the best value to the State of Michigan. Best value will be determined by the Vendor meeting the minimum point thresholds and offering the best combination of the factors stated in Section 3.022 as demonstrated by its technical proposal 3.022A,the demonstration 3.022B above, and price 3.023.
3.040Possible Additional Considerations/Processes
RFP Article 3, 3.041Clarifications
The State may request clarifications from Bidders. The State will document the clarifications in writing and forward to the Bidder. This process does not allow Bidder to change its bid. Instead, it provides an opportunity to clarify the proposal submitted.
If the State determines that a Bidder purposely or willfully submitted false information, the Bidder will not be considered for award, the State will pursue debarment of the Bidder. Any resulting Contract that may have been established will be terminated.
Clarifications may be sought at any point in the procurement process up to the point of issuance of a Notice of Recommendation letter in Bid4Michigan, and continuing through negotiations if necessary. As additional information is sought, if required and assessed, scores are updated by the scoring team members accordingly. Final results of evaluation materials are confirmed, approved and signed off on by all scoring evaluators, or their delegates who have signed the Evaluation Code of Conduct, prior to publication on Bid4Michigan.
Items to Consider while reading the evaluation summary Initial Technical Detail spreadsheet:
- Comments are not included in the Initial Technical Detail spreadsheetfor each individual requirementas there are well over 200 requirements in the attachments, which required a response. (Technical, Functional, EA Assessment, SLA, RFP, etc.)
- Comments focus on items noted as, “Exceed”, “Partially Compliant”, “Fails to Meet”, and “Implementation Concern”. Requirements designated as “Meets” are thus not all identified in the detailed spreadsheet.
- Statements included in the Initial Technical Detail spreadsheet are phrases, and thus may not follow the traditional grammatical and punctuation structure of literary documents, thus sentences may not always be complete.
Due to the volume of information involved in this project the compiled results and final evaluation documents will be published on different dates, beginning with the results for those bidders who did not pass the Initial Technical review.
Results for these bidders are as follows:
BidSync / Dunn & Bradstreet / Elcom / e-Procurement Services, LLC / NetlinkInitial Technical Scores / 55.1 / 10 / 61.9 / 39.9 / 47.6
# of each category / 4 Exceeds
122 Fails to Meet
6 Meets
36 Partial Compliance
21 Vendor Questions
5 Statements / All Fails to Meet / 0 Exceeds
6 Meets
74 Fails to Meet
39 Partial Compliance
38 Vendor Questions
15 Implementation Concerns
5 Statements / 0-Exceeds
0 Meets
134 Fails to Meet
15 Partial Compliance
11 Vendor Questions
11 Implementation Concerns
2 Statements / 0 Exceeds
175+ Fails to Meet
4 Meets
10 Partial Compliance
4 Vendor Questions
9 Implementation Concerns
8Statements
Demonstration Scores / N/A / N/A / N/A / N/A / N/A
Totals / 55.1 / 10 / 61.9 / 39.9 / 47.6
Signatures
The signatures below indicate concurrence with the above results and associated detail provided in the evaluation documents posted on Bid4Michigan with this signature document. The results include initial technical review, scores and comments. The project is now in the Best Value Pricing review phase. Once the best value review, remaining clarifications, and all other related processes, (BAFO, negotiations, etc.if utilized) are completed, a Notice of Recommendation will be issued in Bid4Michigan.The award recommendation will then be submitted to the State Administrative Board for approval. Results for bidders, who were invited to conduct demonstrations, will be posted with the Notice of Recommendation when issued within Bid4Michigan.
LeAnn DrosteLisa Evani
Tom FalikNandita Jain
Sharon MaynardChristine Sanches
Natalie SpanioloShelley Warstler
Carla WintzChristine Mitchell CPPB, Buyer Specialist