Award Recommendation and Evaluation Synopsis AI Document Processing RFP.docx

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

The Department of Technology, Management, & Budget’s Procurement office has evaluated all bids received from RFP 260000000345 AI Document Processing and Digitization and has recommended a partial award, as the first bidder for whom the State has completed the negotiation stage of the RFP process, to BlueVector AI, LLC in the amount of $1,469,583.65, pending State Administrative Board approval, if applicable. More information on the State Administrative Board can be found at: State Administrative Board. Please note the RFP is not closed, as the negotiation phase with additional bidders is ongoing. Additional awards may be made once further negotiations are complete with other bidders. No additional bids will be considered at this time.

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

Shannon Romein, Solicitation Manager.

Romeins@michigan.gov 517-898-8102

Public copies of all bidder proposals can be found here: DTMB - Bid Proposals (michigan.gov) Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor to provide a AI Document Processing and Digitization Solution. The term of this contract is five base years, with up to five 1-year renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on Wednesday, November 12, 2025 for 62 days. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of January 13, 2026.

*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 evaluation points will have pricing evaluated and be considered for award. Bids will be evaluated based on brevity, clarity, and efficiency of the response. Failure to provide such a response may receive a lower score.

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

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

Brian Pillar, DTMB

David Bandlow, EGLE

Jerry Zorzi, DTMB

Glenn Puro, DTMB

Chip Swieringa, DTMB

III. Evaluation Results A. 22nd Century Technologies, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that 22nd Century Technologies, Inc. based on a score of 90.15, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. SCHEDULE A- STATEMENT OF WORK (21/25)

Section 10: Software (-1) Bidder did not provide a list of all third-party components.

Bidder did not provide a clear plan Section 14: Training (-1) Bidder did not provide examples of training materials as requested Section 24: Project Management (-2) Bidder proposed an alternative to SUITE but did not provide any examples

2. SCHEDULE A – ATTACHMENT 1 – BUSINESS SPECIFICATION WORKSHEET (28.15/30)

Bidder did not indicate yes or no to Business Specification Number PS-4 (-.1) Bidder did not explain the risk to possible configuration/customization needed (-1.75)

3. VENDOR QUESTIONS WORKSHEET (14/15)

Bidder indicated no prior experience contracting with the State of Michigan (-1)

4. RESUMES (17/20)

Bidder experience only spoke to managing two recent projects, rest of experience was consulting focused (-3)

5. SCHEDULE A -2 – STATEMENT OF WORK EGLE (10/10)

Total Score: 91.5/100

B. Anacomp, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Anacomp, Inc. based on a score of 73.05, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. SCHEDULE A- STATEMENT OF WORK (17.25/25)

Section 4: IT Environment Responsibilities (-2) Bidder did not provide a block diagram Bidder did not describe how proposed solution works best within the State environment Section 10: Software (-1) Bidder did not provide additional supporting details (charts, diagrams, etc) to provide clarity in response Section 11: Integration (-.25) Bidder did not answer FTS section and repeated a prior answer Section 14: Training (-1) Bidder did not provide examples of training materials as requested Section 16: Documentation (-1) Bidder did not provide examples of written documentation Section 17: Additional Products and Services (-.5) Bidder response provided ambiguity to overall responses Section 24: Project Management (-2) Bidder proposed an alternative to SUITE but did not provide any examples

2. SCHEDULE A – ATTACHMENT 1 – BUSINESS SPECIFICATION WORKSHEET (29.8/30)

Bidder did not indicate yes or no to Business Specification Number CF-6 (-.1) Bidder did not indicate yes or no to Business Specification Number MR-10 (-.1)

3. VENDOR QUESTIONS WORKSHEET (7/15)

Bidder indicated no prior experience contracting with the State of Michigan (-1) Bidder Experience 1 was not of a similar scope (-2) Bidder Experience 2 was not of a similar scope (-2) Bidder Experience 3 was a pilot only and did not demonstrate a full implementation of a similar scope (-3)

4. RESUMES (10/20)

Bidder did not provide percentage of time resource will be allocated to the project (-1) Bidder did not list any education for Project Manager (-1) Bidder did not demonstrate recent project management experience (-3) Bidder experiences are lacking detail (-1) Bidder did not fill out the experience requirements portion of the resume for the Security Officer (-4)

5. SCHEDULE A -2 – STATEMENT OF WORK EGLE (9/10)

Section 18: Contractor Personnel (-1) Bidder did not complete this section

Total Score: 73.03/100

C. BlueVector AI, LLC The Evaluation Team determined that BlueVector AI, LLC based on a score of 89.5, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. SCHEDULE A- STATEMENT OF WORK (21.75/25)

Section 4: IT Environment Responsibilities (-.5) Bidder's block diagram lacks detail (no ports and protocols) Section 9: End User Operating Environment (-.5) Bidder did not address compliance with the future environment at no additional cost

Section 14: Training (-1) Bidder did not provide examples of training materials as requested Section 22: Meetings (-.25) Bidder response lacked supporting detail on how they would meet this requirement Section 24: Project Management (-1) Bidder proposed modifications to the SUITE process

2. SCHEDULE A – ATTACHMENT 1 – BUSINESS SPECIFICATION WORKSHEET (28.25/30)

Bidder did not explain the risk to possible configuration/customization needed (-1.75)

3. VENDOR QUESTIONS WORKSHEET (9.5/15)

Bidder requested minor edits to the terms and conditions (-1.5) Bidder Experience 1 was a smaller size (-1) Bidder Experience 2 was a smaller size (-1) Bidder Experience 3 was not of a similar scope (-2)

4. RESUMES (20/20)

5. SCHEDULE A -2 – STATEMENT OF WORK EGLE (10/10)

Total Score: 89.5/100

D. C3.ai, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that C3.ai, Inc. based on a score of 87.65, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. SCHEDULE A- STATEMENT OF WORK (19/25)

Section 4: IT Environment Responsibilities (-2) Bidder has provided redlines to Schedule D and Schedule E Section 5: ADA Compliance (-.5) Bidder did not provide supporting details requested Section 9: End User Operating Environment (-.5) Bidder did not address compliance with the future environment at no additional cost Section 10: Software (-2) Bidder did not provide a list of all third-party components.

Bidder did not provide a clear plan Bidder did not provide additional supporting details (charts, diagrams, etc) to provide clarity in response Section 14: Training (-1) Bidder did not provide examples of training materials as requested

2. SCHEDULE A – ATTACHMENT 1 – BUSINESS SPECIFICATION WORKSHEET (29.9/30)

Bidder did not indicate yes or no to Business Specification Number QA-9 (-.1)

3. VENDOR QUESTIONS WORKSHEET (10/15)

Bidder indicated no prior experience contracting with the State of Michigan (-1) Bidder requested major edits to the terms and conditions (-3) Bidder redlined insurance requirements (-1)

4. RESUMES (20/20)

5. SCHEDULE A -2 – STATEMENT OF WORK EGLE (8.75/10)

Bidder response indicates some customization is required to meet the requirements for FLOW 1-7 (-.7) Bidder response is not clear how the requirement will be met for requirement EXT-1 (-.25) Bidder response indicates some customization is required to meet the requirements for EXT 2-4 (-.3)

Total Score: 87.65/100 E. Consultadd Inc The Evaluation Team determined that Consultadd Inc based on a score of 67, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. SCHEDULE A- STATEMENT OF WORK (16.5/25)

Section 4: IT Environment Responsibilities (-2.5) Bidder block diagram lacks detail (no ports and protocols) Bidder did not respond to the final five bidder boxes in this section Section 10: Software (-1) Bidder did not provide a list of all third-party components.

Bidder did not provide a clear plan Section 14: Training (-1) Bidder did not provide examples of training materials as requested Section 16: Documentation (-1) Bidder did not provide examples of written documentation Section 19: Contractor Key Personnel (-1) Bidder responses do not match what was provided in the resume section Section 24: Project Management (-2) Bidder proposed an alternative to SUITE but did not provide any examples

2. SCHEDULE A – ATTACHMENT 1 – BUSINESS SPECIFICATION WORKSHEET (20/30)

Bidder did not explain the risk to possible configuration/customization needed (-1.75) Bidder provided no response or minimal response to how they will deliver business specifications (-8.25)

3. VENDOR QUESTIONS WORKSHEET (10.5/15)

Bidder indicated no prior experience contracting with the State of Michigan (-1) Bidder Experience 1 was not of a similar scope (-2) Bidder Experience 2 was as a subcontractor and does not demonstrate their ability to run a project of this scale (-1.5)

4. RESUMES (15/20)

Bidder Project Manager resume did not list implementations of a similar scope to this RFP (-3) Bidder over responses to the Project Manager section lacked detail (-2)

5. SCHEDULE A -2 – STATEMENT OF WORK EGLE (5/10)

Section 24: Project Management (-1) Bidder responses to the EGLE Business Specifications did not provide sufficient detail on how each requirement will be met (-4)

Total Score: 67/100

F. Deloitte Consulting LLP The Evaluation Team determined that Deloitte Consulting LLP based on a score of 90.65, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. SCHEDULE A- STATEMENT OF WORK (22/25)

Section 4: IT Environment Responsibilities (-2) Bidder has provided redlines to Schedule D and Schedule E Section 14: Training (-1) Bidder did not provide examples of training materials as requested

2. SCHEDULE A – ATTACHMENT 1 – BUSINESS SPECIFICATION WORKSHEET (28.15/30)

Bidder did not explain the risk to possible configuration/customization needed (-1.75) Bidder did not indicate yes or no to Business Specification Number EX-6 (-.1)

3. VENDOR QUESTIONS WORKSHEET (11/15)

Bidder requested major edits to the terms and conditions (-3) Bidder redlined the insurance requirements (-1)

4. RESUMES (20/20)

5. SCHEDULE A -2 – STATEMENT OF WORK EGLE (9.5/10)

Section 18: Contractor Personnel (-.5) Bidder experiences didn't demonstrate experience in this solution or in the scientific data

Total Score: 90.65/100

G. Health Numeric LLC Health Numeric LLC has not met the requirements of being responsive and responsible due to:

Bidder did not follow the proposal instructions to download the RFP Word document and insert responses directly into the locations provided. Bidder was missing responses to all or portions of Vendor Questions Worksheet, Schedule A: Statement of Work, Resumes, Business Specification Worksheet and EGLE Statement of Work.

H. Insight Public Sector, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Insight Public Sector, Inc. based on a score of 82.95, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. SCHEDULE A- STATEMENT OF WORK (19.75/25)

Section 4: IT Environment Responsibilities (-1.5) Bidder has provided redlines to Schedule D Bidder block diagram lacks detail (no ports and protocols) Section 8: Data Retention (-.5) Bidder's did not provide a concisely formatted response Section 9: End User Operating Environment (-.25) Bidder plan to communicate major upgrades or architectural changes 30 days in advance is insufficient Section 14: Training (-1) Bidder did not provide examples of training materials as requested Section 19: Key Personnel (-1) Bidder is not committing to Key Personnel Section 24: Project Management (-1) Bidder proposed modifications to the SUITE process

2. SCHEDULE A – ATTACHMENT 1 – BUSINESS SPECIFICATION WORKSHEET (29.45/30)

Bidder did not address the requirement Business Specification Number SC-8 (-.25) Bidder response lacks detail on how they will meet the requirements CSD 1-3 (-.3)

3. VENDOR QUESTIONS WORKSHEET (7/15)

Bidder indicated structural change of a newly acquired Inspire LLC (-.5) Bidder requested major edits to the terms and conditions (-3) Bidder provided minimal redlines to insurance requirements (-.5) Bidder 1,2 and 3 did not provide information for references. References did not speak to public sector experience (-4)

4. RESUMES (17.5/20)

Bidder Security Officer resume response didn't demonstrate experience with AI security measures (-2.5)

5. SCHEDULE A -2 – STATEMENT OF WORK EGLE (9.25/10)

Section 18: Contractor Personnel (-.25) Bidder technical lead did not demonstrate all the years of requested experience Bidder response to Business Requirement EXT 3 does not describe how they would extract irregular data (-.25) Bidder response to Business Requirement EVAL-9 did not explain how they would meet the requirement (-.25) Total Score: 82.95/100 I. Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc. based on a score of 80.45, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. SCHEDULE A- STATEMENT OF WORK (20.75/25)

Section 4: IT Environment Responsibilities (-1) Bidder has provided redlines to Schedule D SOW Sec 9. End User Operating Environment (-.25) Bidder does not provide a plan to communicate changes to its software and architecture Section 14: Training (-1) Bidder did not provide examples of training materials as requested Section 10: Transition Responsibilities (-1) Bidder is not providing a transition out plan Section 16: Documentation (-1) Bidder did not provide examples of written documentation

2. SCHEDULE A – ATTACHMENT 1 – BUSINESS SPECIFICATION WORKSHEET (29.5/30)

Bidder response indicates customization to meet Business Specifications EX-15, PS-8, QA-8, QA-10 and MR-3 (-.5)

3. VENDOR QUESTIONS WORKSHEET (8.5/15)

Bidder redlined the terms and conditions (-3) Bidder redlined the insurance requirements (-1) Bidder references did not indicate public sector experience (-.5) Bidder reference 2 & 3 were upgrades to existing solutions and did not indicate implementation services (-1) Bidder experience 3 was of a smaller size (-1)

4. RESUMES (12/20)

Bidder did not provide a resume for the Security Officer (-8)

5. SCHEDULE A -2 – STATEMENT OF WORK EGLE (9.7/10)

Bidder training technical lead does not have the requested level of experience Bidder response indicates customization for Business Specifications: EGLE FLOW 3 (-0.1) Bidder response indicates customization for Business Specifications: EGLE DTR 2 (-0.1)

Total Score: 80.45/100

J. Kyndryl, Inc.

Kyndryl, Inc. has not met the requirements of being responsive and responsible due to providing a preliminary estimate for reference only in Schedule B: Pricing and not a firm fixed fee as requested.

K. Maverick Quantum,Inc The Evaluation Team determined that Maverick Quantum,Inc based on a score of 76.1, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. SCHEDULE A- STATEMENT OF WORK (18/25)

Section 4: IT Environment Responsibilities (-.5) Bidder block diagram lacks detail (no ports and protocols) Section 10: Software (-1) Bidder response did not speak to the State of Michigan use case Section 14: Training (-1) Bidder did not provide examples of training materials as requested Section 16: Documentation (-1) Bidder did not provide examples of written documentation Section 17: Additional Products and Services (-.5) Bidder's additional software proposal indicates lack of understanding of the solution needed by the State of Michigan Section 19: Key Personnel (-1) Bidder did not fill out the Key Personnel section Section 24: Project Management (-2) Bidder proposed an alternative to SUITE but did not provide any examples

2. SCHEDULE A – ATTACHMENT 1 – BUSINESS SPECIFICATION WORKSHEET (23.8/30)

Bidder solution uses proprietary software rather than being built with AWS/Google tools (-.25) Bidder did not consistently explain the risk to possible configuration/customization needed for all the requirements (-.75) Bidder response indicates customization to meet Business Specification CF-7 (-.1) Bidder response for Business Specification CF 12 & 13 indicates customization and did not provide supporting details on how it would be achieved (-.5) Bidder did not indicate yes or no to Business Specification Number CF-15 (-.1) Bidder response indicates customization to meet requirement for Business Specification Numbers EX 1, 5, 6 & 8 (-.4) Bidder response indicated not available for Business Specification Number PS-1 (-.25) Bidder response lacks detail on if/how they will meet the requirement for Business Specification Number PS-7 (-.25) Bidder response indicates customization to meet Business Specification INT-2 (-.1) Bidder did not indicate yes or no to Business Specification Number INT 5 & 6 (-.2) Bidder response for Business Specification INT 9 &10 indicates customization and did not provide supporting details on how it would be achieved (-.5) Bidder response for Business Specification QA 6, 7, 8, 10 & 11 indicates customization and did not provide supporting details on how it would be achieved (-1.25) Bidder response indicates customization to meet Business Specification UI 3 & 4 (-.2) Bidder response indicates customization to meet Business Specification WFA 7-9 (-.3) Bidder response indicates customization to meet Business Specification MR 8 (-.1) Bidder response for Business Specification CSD-2 indicates customization and did not provide supporting details on how it would be achieved (-.25) Bidder response doesn't provide supporting details on how the requirement will be met for Business Specification DPI-4 & 6 (-.5) Bidder response indicates customization to meet Business Specification USY-2 & 4 (-.2)

3. VENDOR QUESTIONS WORKSHEET (12.5/15)

Bidder indicated no prior experience contracting with the State of Michigan (-1) Bidder Experience 1 is not complete and still in UAT (-1.5)

4. RESUMES (15/20)

Bidder did not provide percentage of time resource will be allocated to the project for the Project Manager (-1) Bidder did not provide percentage of time resource will be allocated to the project for the Security Officer (-1) Bidder experience did not completely align with a Security Officer role (-1) Bidder did not fill out bidder boxes for references for the Project Manager and Security Officer (-2)

5. SCHEDULE A -2 – STATEMENT OF WORK EGLE (6.8/10)

Section 18: Contractor Personnel (-1) Bidder did not complete this section Bidder response is not clear how the requirement will be met for Business Specifications: EGLE FLOW 1-3 (-0.75) Bidder response indicates customization and did not provide supporting details on how it would be achieved for Business Specifications: EGLE DTR-2 (-0.1) Bidder response indicates customization and did not provide supporting details on how it would be achieved for Business Specifications: EGLE EXT 1-4 (-0.4) Bidder response indicates not available and did not provide supporting details on how it would be achieved for Business Specifications: EGLE EVAL-2 (-0.25) Bidder's response requires some customization for Business Specifications: EGLE EVAL-3 (-0.1) Bidder response indicates not certain and did not provide supporting details on how it would be achieved for Business Specifications: EGLE EVAL-7 (-0.25) Bidder's response requires some customization for Business Specifications: EGLE SOG-4 (-0.1) Bidder response indicates not certain and did not provide supporting details on how it would be achieved for Business Specifications: EGLE SOG-5-6 (-0.25)

Total Score: 76.1/100

L. Naviant, LLC The Evaluation Team determined that Naviant, LLC based on a score of 75.25, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. SCHEDULE A- STATEMENT OF WORK (21/25)

Section 4: IT Environment Responsibilities (-1) Bidder response included non-working links Section 14: Training (-1) Bidder did not provide examples of training materials as requested Section 16: Documentation (-1) Bidder did not provide examples of written documentation Section 24: Project Management (-1) Bidder will be using some alternative documents but did not provide examples

2. SCHEDULE A – ATTACHMENT 1 – BUSINESS SPECIFICATION WORKSHEET (19.50/30)

Bidder solution uses proprietary software rather than being built with AWS/Google tools (-.25) Bidder did not provide supporting details on how the requirements would be met and instead repeated the requirement (-8.25) Bidder did not explain the risk to possible configuration/customization needed to meet the requirements (-1.75) Bidder response indicated not available for Business Specification CF 13 & 14 (-0.25)

3. VENDOR QUESTIONS WORKSHEET (8/15)

Bidder indicated no prior experience contracting with the State of Michigan (-1) Bidder did not fill out the description of the scope for Experience 1& 2 (-4) Bidder Experience 3 is just being implemented and does not demonstrate yet the ability to implement this type of project (-2)

4. RESUMES (18/20)

Bidder references 2& 3 for the Project Manager were short and lacked detail

5. SCHEDULE A -2 – STATEMENT OF WORK EGLE (8.75/10)

Section 10: Software (-.25) Bidder provided a link rather than list third party tools Section 18: Contractor Personnel (-1) Bidder did not provide the requested responses in this section

Total Score: 75.25/100 M. RADcube LLC The Evaluation Team determined that RADcube LLC based on a score of 84, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. SCHEDULE A- STATEMENT OF WORK (19.25/25)

Section 4: IT Environment Responsibilities (-1.5) Bidder has proposed a proprietary solution that will require long term maintenance and support Bidder's block diagram lacks detail (no ports and protocols) Section 11: Integration (-.25) Bidder did not answer FTS question and repeated a prior answer Section 14: Training (-1) Bidder did not provide examples of training materials as requested Section 16: Documentation (-1) Bidder did not provide examples of written documentation Section 24: Project Management (-2) Bidder proposed an alternative to SUITE but did not provide any examples

2. SCHEDULE A – ATTACHMENT 1 – BUSINESS SPECIFICATION WORKSHEET (27.50/30)

Bidder solution uses proprietary software rather than being built with AWS/Google tools (-.25) Bidder did not explain the risk to possible configuration/customization needed to meet the requirements (-1.75) Bidder did not finish the question response to Business Specification for INT-10 (-.25)

3. VENDOR QUESTIONS WORKSHEET (14/15)

Bidder indicated no prior experience contracting with the State of Michigan (-1)

4. RESUMES (20/20)

5. SCHEDULE A -2 – STATEMENT OF WORK EGLE (3/10)

Section 18: Contractor Personnel (-1) Bidder did not provide the requested responses in this section Section 24: Project Management (-2) Bidder did not provide a Work Breakdown Structure Bidder proposed a longer timeline Bidder repeated the same response for Business Specifications Worksheet: EGLE EXT, EVAL, COMPGOV and REVW (-4)

Total Score: 84/100

N. RICEFW Technologies Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that RICEFW Technologies Inc. based on a score of 92.3, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. SCHEDULE A- STATEMENT OF WORK (23/25)

Section 14: Training (-1) Bidder did not provide examples of training materials as requested Section 16: Documentation (-1) Bidder did not provide examples of written documentation

2. SCHEDULE A – ATTACHMENT 1 – BUSINESS SPECIFICATION WORKSHEET (28.05/30)

Bidder did not explain the risk to possible configuration/customization needed to meet the requirements (-1.75) Bidder response does not clearly answer these questions for Business Specification CF 13 & 14 (-.2)

3. VENDOR QUESTIONS WORKSHEET (13/15)

Bidder Experience 3 was not of a similar scope (-2)

4. RESUMES (20/20)

5. SCHEDULE A -2 – STATEMENT OF WORK EGLE (8.25/10)

Section 18: Contractor Personnel (-.5) Bidder did not fill out Technology Related Developers section Section 24: Project Management (-1) Bidder proposed a longer timeline Bidder indicates not current functionality for Business Requirement EGLE EXT 4(-.25)

Total Score: 92.3/100

O. Ricoh USA, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Ricoh USA, Inc. based on a score of 58, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. SCHEDULE A- STATEMENT OF WORK (15/25)

Section 4: IT Environment Responsibilities (-1.5) Bidder did not provide a block diagram Bidder's response indicates only an estimated 96% uptime Section 9: End User Operating Environment (-1) Bidder solution is desktop optimized not web based Section 10: Software (-.5) Portions of bidder solution utilize commercial cloud Section 14: Training (-2) Bidder did not provide examples of training materials as requested Bidder did not provide details on documentation to enable DTMB technical resources to successfully support the Solution for the end-users after implementation.

Section 15: Transition Responsibilities (-1) Bidder is not providing a transition out plan Section 16: Documentation (-1) Bidder did not provide examples of written documentation Section 22: Meetings (-.5) Bidder did not provide a detailed response to this question Section 23: Project Controls and Reports (-0.5) Bidder's response lacked supporting details on how they would meet this requirement Section 24: Project Management (-2) Bidder response lacked supporting detail on how they would meet this requirement

2. SCHEDULE A – ATTACHMENT 1 – BUSINESS SPECIFICATION WORKSHEET (20/30)

Bidder did not explain the risk to possible configuration/customization needed (-1.75) Bidder provided no response or minimal response to how they will deliver business specifications (-8.25)

3. VENDOR QUESTIONS WORKSHEET (8/15)

Bidder redlined the terms and conditions (-3) Bidder Experience 2 did not demonstrate an AI tool implementation of a similar scope (-2) Bidder Experience 3 did not demonstrate an AI tool implementation of a similar scope (-2)

4. RESUMES (9/20)

Bidder provided sample project manager and not an actual resource with the requested letter of commitment so the resource could not effectively be evaluated (-9) Bidder did not fill out the experience portion of the resume section for the Contractor Security Officer (-2)

5. SCHEDULE A -2 – STATEMENT OF WORK EGLE (6/10)

Section 18: Contractor Personnel (-1) Bidder did not provide the requested responses in this section Section 24: Project Management (-1) Bidder did not provide a Work Breakdown Structure Business Specification Worksheet: EGLE (-2) Bidder response provided minimal details in some sections

Total Score: 58/100

P. Slalom, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Slalom, Inc.. based on a score of 77.5, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. SCHEDULE A- STATEMENT OF WORK (20.5/25)

Section 4: IT Environment Responsibilities (-1) Bidder has provided redlines to Schedule E Section 9: End User Operating Environment (-.5) Bidder will only give 5 days’ notice for major releases or architecture changes and 3 days’ notice for maintenance windows.

Section 16: Documentation (-1) Bidder did not provide examples of written documentation Section 24: Project Management (-2) Bidder proposed an alternative to SUITE but did not provide any examples

2. SCHEDULE A – ATTACHMENT 1 – BUSINESS SPECIFICATION WORKSHEET (20/30)

Bidder did not explain the risk to possible configuration/customization needed (-1.75) Bidder provided no response or minimal response to how they will deliver business specifications (-8.25)

3. VENDOR QUESTIONS WORKSHEET (9.5/15)

Bidder did not provide annual gross sales (-1) Bidder redlined the terms and conditions (-3) Bidder did not provide contact information for references (-1) Bidder Experience 1 was of a smaller scope (-.5)

4. RESUMES (19/20)

Bidder did not provide names all of the clients listed in the resume section (-1)

5. SCHEDULE A -2 – STATEMENT OF WORK EGLE (8.5/10)

Section 24: Project Management (-1) Bidder is proposing a longer timeline Business Specification Worksheet: EGLE (-.5) Bidder is missing risks for 2/3s of the responses in the EGLE Business Specifications

Total Score: 77.5/100 Q. Trace 3, LLC The Evaluation Team determined that Trace3, LLC based on a score of 86.05, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. SCHEDULE A- STATEMENT OF WORK (25/25)

2. SCHEDULE A – ATTACHMENT 1 – BUSINESS SPECIFICATION WORKSHEET (28.55/30)

Bidder did not provide many of the risks to possible configuration/customization needed (-1) Bidder response doesn't comfortably address the risk to Business Requirement PS-1 (-0.1) Bidder solution would require a scanning partner which is not included for Business Requirement CSD-1 (-0.25) Bidder response did not fully address the need in this requirement for Business Specification DPI-2 (-0.1)

3. VENDOR QUESTIONS WORKSHEET (10/15)

Bidder redlined the terms and conditions (-3) Bidder Experience 1 was not of a smaller scope (-2)

4. RESUMES (19/20)

Bidder did not provide names all of the clients listed in the resume section for the Project Manager Resume (-1)

5. SCHEDULE A -2 – STATEMENT OF WORK EGLE (3.5/10)

Section 10: Software (-.5) Bidder response lacks detail Section 18: Contractor Personnel (-.5) Bidder did not provide details on past projects Section 24: Project Management (-1) Bidder is proposing a longer timeline Business Specifications Worksheet: EGLE (-4.5) Bidder responses lacked supporting details in key areas for FLOW Bidder repeated the same response for EGLE EXT, EVAL, COMPGOV and REVW

Total Score: 86.05/100

R. Vulcan Technologies, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Vulcan Technologies, Inc. based on a score of 73.4, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. SCHEDULE A- STATEMENT OF WORK (19.5/25)

Section 4: IT Environment Responsibilities (-.5) Bidder block diagram lacks detail (no ports and protocols) Section 10: Software (-2) Bidder architecture diagram and the component list do not reflect the solution being proposed to the State of Michigan

Bidder will only give 5 days’ notice for major releases or architecture changes and 3 days’ notice for maintenance windows.

Section 14: Training (-2) Bidder did not provide examples of training materials as requested Bidder did not provide details on, and examples of clearly written instructions and documentation to enable DTMB technical resources to successfully support the Solution for the end-users after implementation.

Section 16: Documentation (-1) Bidder did not provide examples of written documentation

2. SCHEDULE A – ATTACHMENT 1 – BUSINESS SPECIFICATION WORKSHEET (28.25/30)

Bidder did not explain the risk to possible configuration/customization needed (-1.75)

3. VENDOR QUESTIONS WORKSHEET (9/15)

Bidder did not provide annual gross sales (-1) Bidder indicated no prior experience contracting with the State of Michigan (-1) Bidder Experience 1 was not of a smaller scope (-2) Bidder Experience 3 was not of a smaller scope (-2)

4. RESUMES (8/20)

Bidder experience does not demonstrate the requested 5 years in the Project Manager role (-4) Bidder did not provide a resume for the security officer (-8)

5. SCHEDULE A -2 – STATEMENT OF WORK EGLE (8.65/10)

Section 18: Contractor Personnel (-.85) Bidder technical lead did not demonstrate all the years of requested experience Bidder training technical lead does not have the requested level of experience Bidder project manager does not have the requested level of experience Business Specifications Worksheet: EGLE (-.5) Bidder did not describe risks to potential customization/configuration

Total Score: 73.4/100

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

V. Clarifications & Oral Presentations/Demonstrations Clarifications and oral presentations were conducted with the bidders that passed technical scoring.

VI. Pricing Summary Pricing was evaluated for the bidders who passed technical. The following is a summary of their price proposals:

VII. Partial Award Recommendation This Partial 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.

Blue Vector AI, LLC provided the best value to the State. Best value factors for this Partial Award Recommendation include:

1) Solution directly demonstrated the extraction and criteria scoring that EGLE envisioned in its Statement of Work and conveyed a deep understanding of the requirements.

2) Interface was intuitive and easy to use.

3) Easy to add additional workflows and documents into the system and as result EGLE could leverage this as a foundational tool.

4) Working knowledge of State of Michigan processes and procedures, along with examples of success on other State of Michigan projects. SnapApp Gov Studio platform has already been integrated with SOM-specific integrations including FileNet, MiLogin and MiCJIN in addition to agency-specific integrations such as MiPistol which will reduce time to implementation.

5) Accepted SLA, Data Security and Insurance Schedules as presented

6) Approach to managing tokens and use of AI will help EGLE control costs as it implements this solution.

This Partial Award Recommendation is made to BlueVector AI, LLC in the amount of $1,469,583.65 pending State Administrative Board approval.

Version 2024-2 image1.png