Award Rec and Eval Synopsis - DS 25-0012 Improving Business Requirement Gathering and Market Research Process Improvement Support.docx

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

Notice of Intent to Award Number: NIA1 250000000843 Notice of Intent to Award Date: 8/15/2025 The Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) Bureau of Grants and Purchasing (BGP) has completed the evaluation of Direct Solicitation (DS) Number 250000000012 Public Health Administration Improving Business Requirements Gathering and Market Research Processes Operational Consulting Services Tier Two and has recommended an award to netlogx, LLC in the amount of $618,080.00, pending State Administrative Board approval, if applicable. More information on the State Administrative Board can be found at: State Administrative Board.

Bidders who were not recommended for the award are encouraged to schedule a debriefing session with the Solicitation Manager. The debriefing session would provide the bidder with the State’s rationale on why the bidder was not recommended for the award. The Solicitation Manager may be contacted as follows:

Nathaniel Oliver, Solicitation Manager.

OliverN@michigan.gov 517-241-0084 Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for selection of an Operational Consulting Services Tier-Two Contractor to recommend, develop, and guide the implementation of standardized, efficient, and consistent processes and supporting tools for gathering business requirements and conducting market research for MDHHS public health business areas pursuing Information Technology (IT) procurements. The term of this contract is one year.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on April 16, 2025, for 29 days. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of May 15, 2025.

*SDVOB: Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Business **GDBE: Geographically Disadvantaged Business Enterprise

EVALUATION SYNOPSIS

I. Evaluation Process A Responsible Vendor is a vendor that demonstrates it has the ability to successfully perform the duties identified by the solicitation. A Responsive proposal is one that is submitted in accordance with the solicitation instructions and meets all mandatory requirements identified in the solicitation.

Proposal Instructions: Evaluation Process

Proposals receiving 80 or more technical evaluation points would have pricing evaluated and considered for award.

The full evaluation process is stated in the DS Proposal Instructions.

II. Evaluation Method Responses to this solicitation were reviewed by Joint Evaluation Committee, which consisted of the following individuals:

Theresa Anderson, Data Strategy Administrator MDHHS Public Health Administration Data Modernization Simon Baldwin, IT Sourcing Director DTMB Central Procurement Services

Danielle Lefere, State Division Administrator MDHHS Strategic Integration Administration Jennifer Bronz, Category Manager, Information Technology DTMB Central Procurement Services-

Soopriya Razdan, Business Relationship Manager Michigan Department of Technology, Management, and Budget DTMB) Agency Services Matthew Buck, Data Modernization Director MDHHS Strategic Integration Administration

Alison Von Buchwald-Wright, State Assistant Administrator MDHHS Public Health Administration Kristy Karasinski, Data Strategy Administrator MDHHS Public Health Administration Data Modernization

Matt Weiss, Category Manager, Information Technology DTMB Central Procurement Services Connie Lyon, State Assistant Administrator, DTMB Agency Services

Abhinav Nalla, Data Strategy Administrator MDHHS Public Health Administration Data Modernization

Nathaniel Oliver, Contract Analyst MDHHS Bureau of Grants and Purchasing

Nick Schembri, Data Strategy Administrator

Krystal Schramm, Data Strategy Administrator

Jordan Sellers, Operations Manager DTMB Agency Services

Ken Young MDHHS Strategic Integration Administration

III. Evaluation Results A. Daniel Penn Associates, LLC The Evaluation Team determined that Daniel Penn Associates, LLC based on a score of 70, did not meet the requirements of this Direct Solicitation. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Vendor Questions Worksheet Prior Experience Section 20/35 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Experiences 1 and 2 demonstrated experience with multiple operational processes, but did not demonstrate experience with pre-procurement IT process improvement. Bidder did not describe how these experiences are relevant to the subject of this solicitation.

b. Experience 3 did not adequately describe the scope of the project nor describe how this project experience is relevant to the subject of this solicitation.

2. Schedule A Statement of Work, All Sections except Section 4 35/50 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.1B, Bidder did not describe how they would gather industry standard market research processes, tools, and roles and responsibilities. Bidder did not describe how they would create tools and processes that would result in full elucidation of business requirements and market research findings.

b. Section 1.1D, Bidder did not describe how they would validate the performance of the revised business requirements gathering and market research tools, processes, and roles and responsibilities.

c. Section 1.1G, Bidder did not describe how the continuous improvement plan would support ongoing monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of the revised processes, tools, roles and responsibilities to support ongoing improvements of the revised approaches.

d. Section 1.2F, Bidder did not propose specific indicators and measures that would be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the revised business requirements and market research processes, tools, and training curricula.

e. Section 1.2G, Bidder did not describe how they would provide a detailed standardized template, a step-by-step guide, or clearly defined measurable success criteria.

f. Section 1.2 H, Bidder did not describe how they would include remediation approaches to address deficiencies in the ongoing use of any processes and tools into their revised set of business requirements and market research processes.

g. Section 1.2 J. Bidder did not describe how they would develop a plan for implementing and managing test pilot activities. Bidder did not describe how they would determine or include the amount of time necessary to run pilot testing, how they would provide support to implementing teams, how they conduct monitoring or how they would document the implementation for validation and refinement.

h. Section 1.2 K. Bidder did not describe how they would develop an IT product categorization methodology, how they would provide existing categorization GFI that can be used in discovery, nor describe how this would be designed and implemented in a manner to be easily maintained after project closeout.

i. Section 1.2 L. Bidder did not describe how they would ensure revised tools and processes would be accessible to varying levels of expertise.

3. Schedule A Statement of Work, Section 4 Staffing 15/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 70 /100 B. IBM Corporation Consulting The Evaluation Team determined that IBM Corporation Consulting, based on a score of 85, did meet the requirements of this Direct Solicitation. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Vendor Questions Worksheet Prior Experience Section 25/35 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Experiences 1 and 2 describe gathering business requirements and conducting market research but not guiding or showing others how to conduct related tasks as is required in this solicitation for improvements to business requirements gathering and market research processes.

b. Experience 3 provided the State of Tennessee’s Medicaid program with a comprehensive, modern data platform. Bidder did not demonstrate how this experience relates to IT pre-procurement business requirements gathering and market research process improvements.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, All Sections Except 4. 45/50 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.2C, Bidder did not describe how they would provide a business requirements gathering brief.

b. Section 1.2E, Bidder did not describe how they would comply with proposing clear standards to evaluate the completeness of output resulting from the use of the revised business requirements or how they would ensure they are accessible to all parties involved in business requirements gathering and market research activities.

c. Section 1.2G, Bidder did not describe how they would provide a detailed standardized template, step-by-step guides, or clearly defined measurable success criteria that elevates the role of subject matter experts in assessing public health needs.

d. Section 1.2H, Bidder did not describe nor describe how they would include remediation approaches to address deficiencies. Bidder did not describe how they would include a mechanism to objectively identify issues and enable clear, actionable remediation steps that are accessible to business areas who may not be technology, business requirements gathering, or market research experts.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 4. Staffing 15/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 85/100 C. netlogx, LLC The Evaluation Team determined that netlogx, LLC based on a score of 90, did meet the requirements of this Direct Solicitation. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Vendor Questions Worksheet Prior Experience Section 25/35 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Experiences 1 and 2 describe gathering business requirements and conducting market research but not guiding or showing others how to conduct related tasks as is required in this solicitation for improvements to business requirements gathering and market research processes.

b. Experience 3 was for an Enterprise Project Management Office (EPMO) and is not relevant to this scope of work because it does not include IT pre-procurement process improvement work.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, All Sections Except 4. 50/50 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 4. Staffing 15/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 90 /100

D. Public Consulting Group, LLC The Evaluation Team determined that Public Consulting Group, LLC based on a score of 82, did meet the requirements of this Direct Solicitation. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Vendor Questions Worksheet Prior Experience Section 25/35 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Experiences 1 and 2 do not address work related to the IT pre-procurement process required in this solicitation about guiding or showing others how to conduct related tasks as is required in this solicitation for improvements to business requirements gathering and market research processes.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, All Sections Except 4. 42/50 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.1D, Bidder did not provide details for how they would measure outcomes.

b. Section 1.2B, Bidder provided a table but did not adequately address items #1 and #2. Bidder focused less on business requirements gathering and more on procurement and market research. Bidder needed to detail how it would meet the requirements of the RFP and how pilot results would be measured.

c. Section1.2C, Bidder did not describe how they would provide a business requirements gathering brief to be reflective of the State’s needs and how they would meet them or make recommendations as to which tools, processes and approaches would best meet the State’s need.

d. Section1.2D, Bidder did not describe how they would provide a market research brief that would be reflective of what constitutes standard market research processes, who has which roles and responsibilities, or clearly define measurable success criteria. Bidder did not provide details about measurable success criteria.

e. Section 1.2E, Bidder did not discuss the type of standards to be used. Specifically, Bidder did not describe how evaluation standards would be accessible to all parties involved in business requirements gathering.

f. Section 1.2G, Bidder did not provide a detailed response about how it would meet the requirements. Bidder did not describe how they would provide comprehensive business requirements gathering tools and processes that would include templates, step-by-step guides, or clearly defined, measurable success criteria and objective evaluation methods.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 4. Staffing 15/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 82/100

E. ReEngine Consulting, LLC The Evaluation Team determined that ReEngine Consulting, LLC based on a score of 76, did not meet the requirements of this Direct Solicitation. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Vendor Questions Worksheet Prior Experience Section 20/35 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. State of Michigan Experience Section. Bidder did not include Contract Numbers.

b. Experiences 1 and 3 were not similar in size and scope to this solicitation and did not address how the experiences were similar to the IT pre-procurement process of improving business requirements gathering and market research.

c. Experience 2 was with actual procurement process not the IT pre-procurement processes of improving business requirements gathering and market research.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, All Sections Except 4. 46/50 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.1C, Bidder described a pilot test simulating a real-world scenario, but it does not show they are using a real example. The requirement requested the revised tools, process and roles be applied to MDHHS IT pre-procurement for the pilot.

b. Section 1.1E, Bidder did not demonstrate an understanding of IT pre-procurement market research.

c. Section 1.2J, Bidder did not describe the number of pilots needed, or the amount of time necessary to run pilot testing. Bidder did not describe the number and duration of pilot activities proposed.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 4. Staffing 10/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 4.6 A., Bidder did not identify all Contract Personnel that would be assigned to this contract in the table included in the Statement of Work. Bidder also did not include responses for the following:

1. Name and Title.

2. Years of Experience in Current Classification.

3. Role(s)/Responsibilities.

4. Direct/ Subcontract/Contract, FT, PT.

5. Percentage of Work Time.

6. Physical Location.

Total Score: 76 /100

F. Slalom The Evaluation Team determined that Slalom, based on a score of 64, did not meet the requirements of this Direct Solicitation. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Vendor Questions Worksheet Prior Experience Section 25/35 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Experiences 1 and 2 were not similar in size and scope to the solicitation and did not address how the experience was similar to the IT pre-procurement process of improving business requirements gathering and market research. Experiences did not address guiding or showing others how to conduct related tasks as required in this solicitation.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, All Sections Except 4. 28/50 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.1D, Bidder did not address how they would validate the performance of the revised business requirements gathering and market research tools. Additionally, Bidder did not describe how they would evaluate the success of the pilot activities by measuring specific outcomes, capturing participant feedback, and identifying previously unknown challenges.

b. Section 1.1E, Bidder did not describe how they would refine and optimize the final market research tools, processes and roles and responsibilities based on pilot findings prior to formal full-scale implementation of the recommended changes.

c. Section 1.1F, Bidder did not describe how they would create a detailed plan for implementing the new business requirements gathering and market research tools, processes, and roles and responsibilities within MDHHS and DTMB.

d. Section 1.2B, Bidder did not describe how they would deliver a Project Workplan which proposes how it would develop the tools and processes, how it would pilot and test them, how it would validate and refine them, how it would train State teams to use them, and the time needed to accomplish each of these steps.

e. Section 1.2C, Bidder did not describe how they would deliver the business requirements gathering brief or how it would reflect what the State need is and how to meet it, what industry standard best practices to include, and recommendations as to which tools, processes, and approaches would best meet the State’s need.

f. Section 1.2D, Bidder did not describe how they would deliver a market research brief which would include standard market research practices, reflection on who has which roles and responsibilities (MDHHS business areas and DTMB), and clearly defined, measurable success criteria.

g. Section1.2E, Bidder did not describe how they would propose clear standards to evaluate the completeness of output resulting from the use of the revised business requirements and market research tools and processes.

h. Section 1.2F, Bidder did not describe how they would propose specific indicators and measures that would be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the revised business requirements and market research processes, tools, and training curricula.

i. Section 1.2 G, Bidder did not describe how they would provide a set of revised comprehensive business requirements gathering tools and processes that include but are not limited to a detailed, standardized template, a step-by-step guide, and clearly defined measurable success criteria.

j. Section 1.2 I, Bidder did not describe how they would provide a revised, comprehensive market research process that includes, but is not limited to the following: a detailed, standardized template for capturing market research needs, a step-by-step guide, and clearly defined, measurable success criteria.

k. Section 1.2 J, Bidder did not describe the amount of time necessary to run pilot testing, the support the Bidder would provide to implementing teams, the monitoring it would conduct to ensure compliance with the revised processes, or how they would systematically document the pilot implementation for validation and refinement.

l. Section 1.2 L, Bidder did not describe how they would ensure the revised tools and processes were accessible to varying levels of expertise – i.e. not-technical business areas must be able to engage meaningfully with business requirements gathering and market research activities.

m. Section 1.2 M, Bidder did not describe how it would ensure revised tools and processes were clear and visible to all involved parties at any point in time.

n. Section 1.2 O, Bidder did not describe how the development of its Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, and Informed (RACI) Chart would result in a roles and responsibilities matrix that informs pilot testing and training needs.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 4. Staffing 15/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 68/100

G. The Boston Consulting Group The Evaluation Team determined the Boston Consulting Group, based on a score of 83, did meet the requirements of this Direct Solicitation. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Vendor Questions Worksheet Prior Experience Section 20/35 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Experience 1 indicated Bidder worked as subcontractor rather than the prime contractor. The State cannot be 100 percent certain for which work the Bidder was responsible.

b. Experience 2 was incomplete citing confidentiality reasons for limiting disclosure of information. Bidder’s incomplete response failed to respond as required.

c. Experience 3 was more procurement focused than IT pre-procurement focused. The response described the Bidder “Leveraging our intellectual property and extensive industry resources, to conduct rigorous market scans.” Bidder’s response did not provide how it trained the customer to do this without their tools.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, All Sections Except 4. 48/50 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.2G, Bidder did not describe how they would provide a set of revised comprehensive business requirements gathering tools and processes that would include but not be limited to a detailed, standardized template, a step-by-step guide, and clearly defined measurable success criteria

b. Section 1.2 I, Bidder did not describe how they would provide a revised, comprehensive market research process that includes, but is not limited to the following: a detailed, standardized template for capturing market research needs, a step-by-step guide, and clearly defined, measurable success criteria.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 4. Staffing 15/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory.

Total Score 83/100

H. The Efficiency Group The Evaluation Team determined The Efficiency Group based on a score of 30, did not meet the requirements of this Direct Solicitation. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Vendor Questions Worksheet Prior Experience Section 5/35 The Evaluation Team noted the following deficiencies:

a. Experience 1 – 3 did not provide the name of the entity Bidder worked with. Bidder provided limited details, which made it difficult to determine if the Bidder had the required experience for work of this size and scope.

b. Bidder describe each experience as productivity and efficiency work using Lean Six SIGMA and Kaizen strategies, not IT pre-procurement process improvement work.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, All Sections Except 4. 17/50 The Evaluation Team noted the following deficiencies:

a. Section 1.1A, Bidder described how they perform the work for a client, not how they would help the State to take on doing the work. Bidder did not describe how they would provide the two required briefs for business requirements gathering and market research.

b. Section 1.1B, Bidder described how they perform the work for a client, not how they would help the State take on doing the work. Bidder did not describe how they would gather industry standard market research processes, tools, and roles and responsibilities. Bidder did not describe how they would create tools and processes that would result in full elucidation of business requirements and market research findings.

c. Section 1.1D, Bidder did not address how they would validate the performance of the revised business requirements gathering and market research tools. Additionally, Bidder did not describe how they would evaluate the success of the pilot activities by measuring specific outcomes, capturing participant feedback, and identifying previously unknown challenges.

d. Section 1.1E, Bidder did not describe how they would refine and optimize the final market research tools, processes and roles and responsibilities based on pilot findings prior to formal full-scale implementation of the recommended changes.

e. Section 1.1F, Bidder did not how they would create a detailed plan for implementing the new business requirements gathering and market research tools, processes, and roles and responsibilities within MDHHS and DTMB.

f. Section 1.1G, Bidder did not describe how the continuous improvement plan would support monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of the revised processes and tools.

g. Section 1.2B, Bidder did not describe how it would develop the tools and processes, how it would pilot and test them, how it would validate and refine them, how it would train State teams to use them, and the time needed to accomplish each of these steps.

h. Section 1.2C, Bidder did not describe how they would deliver the business requirements gathering brief or how it would reflect what the State need is and how to meet it, what industry standard best practices to include, and recommendations as to which tools, processes, and approaches would best meet the State’s need.

i. Section 1.2D, Bidder did not describe how they would deliver a market research brief which would include standard market research practices, reflection on who has which roles and responsibilities (MDHHS business areas and DTMB), and clearly defined, measurable success criteria.

j. Section 1.2E, Bidder did not describe how they would use clear standards to evaluate the completeness of output resulting from the use of the revised business requirements and market research tools and processes.

k. Section 1.2F, Bidder did not propose specific indicators and measures that would be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the revised business requirements and market research processes, tools, and training curricula.

l. Section 1.2 G, Bidder did not describe how they would provide a set of revised comprehensive business requirements gathering tools and processes that include but are not limited to a detailed, standardized template, a step-by-step guide, and clearly defined measurable success criteria.

m. Section 1.2 I, Bidder did not describe how they would provide a revised, comprehensive market research process that includes, but is not limited to the following: a detailed, standardized template for capturing market research needs, a step-by-step guide, and clearly defined, measurable success criteria.

n. Section 1.2 J, Bidder did not describe the amount of time necessary to run pilot testing, the support they would provide to implementing teams, the monitoring they would conduct to ensure compliance with the revised processes, or how they would systematically document the pilot implementation for validation and refinement.

o. Section 1.2 L, Bidder did not describe how they would ensure the revised tools and processes were accessible to varying levels of expertise – i.e. not-technical business areas. Various areas must be able to engage meaningfully with business requirements gathering and market research activities.

p. Section 1.2 M, Bidder did not describe how it would ensure revised tools and processes are clear and visible to all parties involved at any point in time.

q. Section 1.2 O, Bidder did not describe how the development of its Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, and Informed (RACI) Chart would result in a roles and responsibilities matrix that informs pilot testing and training needs.

r. Section 1.4, Bidder did not describe a training plan.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 4. Staffing 8/15 The Evaluation Team noted the following deficiencies:

a. Section 4.3, the Bidder did not complete the Program Manager response box.

b. Section 4.6 A, the Bidder did not include staff titles in the Contract Personnel Table, the proposed Program/Project Manager did not have Market Research Best Practices expertise in the table the Bidder provided. Additionally, the Bidder stated all of its staff are engaged in other projects and if they are unavailable to support this project, the Bidder would identify and hire staff in support of this project with similar skills and expertise.

c. Section 4.6 B, the Bidder’ did not include Resumes for Contractor Personnel.

Total Score: 30/100

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Version 2024-2

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

V. Oral Presentations/Demonstrations The JEC requested oral presentations from the four bidders who passed Technical Evaluation. Bidders were asked to prepare and present the following:

1. Bidder Introductions and Overview A. Explain why your company is a good fit for this project B. Introduce Key Personnel

1) Describe and, to the extent feasible, showcase your experience in:

a. State government experience

b. Facilitating virtual group discussions with appropriate technical tools

2. Project Management Plan A. Please describe your methods for conducting requirements development and market research. Please also provide insight into industry best practices in these areas and how they can be adapted to the public sector of State government.

B. Clearly articulate how the Bidder would identify root causes at the State for insufficient market research and business requirements to help better streamline approaches.

C. Describe your approach to help the State adopt the processes and tools proposed for improvements in business requirements gathering and market research.

D. Consistency. What are some tools for measuring amount of business requirements gathered and market research done/ metric? How do we know when ready to move to next steps?

E. How did you develop the timeline and structure of the proposed pilot? Please describe your approach and how it would be most beneficial to the State.

F. Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) – how did you develop proposed timelines for work completion?

3. Tool Demonstration (Up to Fifteen Minutes) A. Please demonstrate any tools you are proposing for the State to use during and after this engagement.

B. How would the State be able to continue using these tools?

4. Questions and Answers (Up to Ten Minutes) VI. Pricing Summary Pricing was evaluated for the bidders who passed Technical Evaluation. The following is a summary of their price proposals:

Price Reduction – One-Time BCG Investment, $900,000.00

VII.

VIII. Award Recommendation Award recommendation is made to the responsive and responsible Bidder who offers the best value to the State of Michigan. Best value is based on the proposal meeting the minimum point threshold and offering the best combination of the factors stated in the Proposal Instructions Evaluation Process section, and price.

netlogx, LLC provided the best value to the State. Best value factors for Award Recommendation include:

A. Bidder met all the State’s requirements and had the lowest overall price at $618,080.00.

B. Bidder’s proposal included conducting a pilot with dual workstreams to test revised business requirements gathering and market research tools, processes and roles and responsibilities as applied to an MDHHS IT procurement. One work stream would be using the revised tools, processes, roles, and responsibilities, while the second work stream would use the current tools, processes, roles, and responsibilities, to provide a direct comparison of results.

As part of the best value determination, overall economic impact to the State of Michigan was considered and is not a determinative factor in making this award.

Award recommendation is made to netlogx, LLC in the amount of $618,080.00.

image1.png