M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Lance Kingsbury, Buyer Manager
Department of Technology, Management, & Budget (DTMB) - Purchasing Operations
FROM: Mary Ostrowski, Buyer
DTMB - Purchasing Operations
DATE: July 14, 2011
SUBJECT: Award Summary for RFP 071I1300125 – Development & Administration of Licensure Examinations
Background Information/General:
This request is for a five year contract with a one year option to provide services for the development and administration of licensure examinations for insurance and debt management occupations, and for additional processes related to the administration of the pre-licensing and continuing education programs for the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA), Office of Financial Insurance Regulation (OFIR). The funding for the service is 100% Restricted Funds, Insurance Licensing Fees-Index 80730.
The State has the authority to utilize an outside Contractor for the development and administration of licensing examinations for the insurance occupations pursuant to the Michigan Insurance Code (Code) 1956 PA 218, MCL 500.100 et. seq.
Joint Evaluation Committee (JEC):
The JEC for this RFP consisted of the following individuals:
Mary Ostrowski (Voting)DTMB
Purchasing Operations
Paige Colley (Voting)
LARA
OFIR
Bidders:
The Request for Proposal (RFP) was posted on www.bid4michigan.com on April 13, 2011 for five weeks. The following two Bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of May 18, 2011:
Bidder / Address / City, State / Zip / SDVPearson Vue / 3 Bala Plaza West, Suite 300 / Bala Cynwyd, PA / 19004 / No
PSI Services, LLC. / 2950 N. Hollywood Way, Suite, 200 / Burbank, CA / 91505 / No
3.022 Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria
The following chart represents the scoring of the particular factors:
Weight1. / Statement of Work (Article 1) / 45
2. / Bidder Information (4.011) / 5
3. / Prior Experience (4.012) / 25
4. / Staffing (1.031 & 4.013) / 25
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. Purchasing Operations will schedule these presentations, if required.
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.
3.023 Price 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.
3.024 Award 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:
Pearson Vue
The JEC determined that Pearson Vue, based on a score of 76, could not meet the requirements of the RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the selection criteria noted above.
1. Statement of Work (Article 1 - excluding 1.031 which was evaluated under Staffing)
Score: 23 / 45
· 1.022 Work and Deliverable: Examination Development Section (page 16), Job Analysis (new & existing) Section (page 20), Use of Existing Examinations Section (page 23), Examination Content Specifications Development Section (page 25): Bidder proposed use of their existing re-validated national job analysis for the duration of the Contract including use of their existing examination. The use of existing examinations, for the national examination content exceeds the one year timeframe for which the State will consider the use of existing examinations. Bidder anticipates conducting another national job analysis in 2013-2014. Bidder analyzes their results in a different manner than outlined in the RFP due to the fact that they use focus groups to conduct their national job analysis. The JEC does not consider focus groups a true sampling of geographically balanced licensees. Bidder’s proposed national job analysis does not meet the State’s requirement of not being older than two years, as the Bidder defines job analysis in a different manner than outlined in the RFP.
· 1.022 Work and Deliverable: Joint Copyright of Job Analyses Section (page 22): Bidder did not agree to joint copyright of all job analysis surveys and resulting summary reports; instead, they state “Pearson Vue will be the exclusive owner of pre-existing job analysis surveys and resulting summary reports”.
· 1.022 Work and Deliverable: Joint Copyright of Items Section (page 40): Bidder did not agree to joint copyright of items; instead they stated “Pearson Vue will be the exclusive owner of existing examination items and banks of items, including the statistical analysis of the items, provided or derived from its general and state item banks”.
· 1.022 Work and Deliverable: Candidate Information Bulletin Section (page 86): Bidder provided minimal detail on the timeframe in which the bidder will process changes to the Candidate Information Bulletin; instead they stated “regular basis”.
· 1.022 Work and Deliverable: Confidential Candidate Information Section (page 108): Bidder did not describe the procedure to dispose of confidential candidate information that may have accumulated throughout the everyday use of such information.
· 1.022 Work and Deliverable: Observation of Examination Administrations Section (page 119): Bidder did not allow unannounced visits; instead they require notice of their impending visit due to security.
· 1.072 Contract Termination/Conclusion Section (page 176): Bidder limits banks of items they will provide, to what the bidder deems to be State-owned.
2. Bidder Information (4.011)
Score: 5 / 5
· The JEC determined Bidder met this requirement of the RFP with no exceptions.
3. Prior Experience (4.012)
Score: 25 / 25
· The JEC determined Bidder met this requirement of the RFP with no exceptions.
4. Staffing (1.031 & 4.013)
Score: 23 / 25
· 1.031 Contractor Staff, Roles, and Responsibilities Section (page 163): Bidder did not define who the three insurance program coordinators are, which were provided as key personnel.
Total Score: 76 / 100
PSI Services, LLC.
The JEC determined that PSI Services, LLC., based on a score of 83, could meet the requirements of the RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the selection criteria noted above.
1. Statement of Work (Article 1 - excluding 1.031 which was evaluated under Staffing)
Score: 33 / 45
· 1.022 Work and Deliverable: General In-State Site Selection Criteria Section (page 49): Bidder did not address the Contract language in this Section; instead they only addressed the specific requested information where the RFP states “Bidder is to…”
· 1.022 Work and Deliverable: Security Measures Section (page 56): Bidder did not address that the State must approve all security measures.
· 1.022 Work and Deliverable: Site Location Changes and Closures Section (page 97): Bidder did not address that they would notify the State as soon as the decision is made to change any location or close any or all sites.
· 1.022 Work and Deliverable: Examination Results Section (page 125): Bidder did not address the following:
- Candidate scores must be maintained for five years following completion or termination of the Contract.
- Candidate passing results are valid for one year from the date of passing the examination.
- Candidate passing notice must not include numeric score or diagnostic profile.
- Documents submitted to both passing and failing candidates must be prepared and printed at the cost of the Contractor.
· 1.022 Work and Deliverable: Reporting of Examination Results Section (page 126): Bidder did not address the following:
- Costs associated to coordinate with JAVA are the responsibility of the Contractor.
- Transmission of examination results are to be accomplished at no cost to the State.
· 1.022 Work and Deliverable: Manage Pre-Licensing Education Provider and Course Approvals Section (page 136): Bidder did not directly address processing filings for pre-licensing education programs of study, maintaining files of submitted materials, submitting files to State for retention, determining approval or denial within 15 business days of submission, transmitting or maintaining providers and courses in State database, or working with the Michigan Agent Education Advisory Council (AEAC) to develop educational content outlines for pre-licensing education course work.
· 1.022 Work and Deliverable: Manage Continuing Education Provider and Course Approvals Section (page 140): Bidder provided minimal detail in their response for this Section. Bidder also did not address processing filings for continuing education programs of study, maintaining files of submitted materials, submitting files for retention, determining approval or denial within 15 business days of submission, transmitting or maintaining providers and courses in State database, or submitting filing fees to State.
· 1.041 Project Plan Management Section (page 151): Bidder provided minimal detail in their response for this Section.
2. Bidder Information (4.011)
Score: 5/ 5
· The JEC determined Bidder met this requirement of the RFP with no exceptions.
3. Prior Experience (4.012)
Score: 23/ 25
· Bidder did not provide costs for the three required prior experiences (page 162).
4. Staffing (1.031 & 4.013)
Score: 22 / 25
· 1.031 Contractor Staff, Roles and Responsibilities Section (page 145): Bidder did not address they will communicate any change in personnel to the State in advance of the change whenever possible.
· 1.031 Contractor Staff, Roles and Responsibilities, Advisory Committees Section (page 147): Bidder does not provide honorarium as requested in the RFP; instead they reimburse 100% of expenses.
· 4.013 Staffing Section (page 166, 172): Bidder’s response does not indicate if staff member Mary Gevorkian meets the five-year experience requirement.
Total Score: 83 / 100
Pricing Summary:
A reduced price proposal was requested from the Bidder who passed the technical evaluation. The Bidder was able to provide the reduced pricing as shown in the table below. The overall 2.45% savings provided totaled $106, 360.00 of which $65,700.00 was State savings and $40,660.00 was Candidate savings.
Total Estimated 5-Year Contract Value / Total Revised Estimated 5-Year Contract value / Total Estimated 5-Year State Expenditures / Total Revised Estimated 5-Year State ExpendituresPSI Services, LLC. / $4,342,900.00 / $4,236,540.00 / $525,600.00 / $459,900.00
Award Recommendation:
The 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 award is recommended to PSI Services, LLC. in the amount of $4,236,540.00 of which $459,900.00 is estimated State Expenditures.
Signatures:
Mary Ostrowski Signature Date
Paige Colley Signature Date
Lance Kingsbury Signature Date