The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
Michigan.gov/MiProcurement
Michigan.gov/MiProcurement
AWARD RECOMMENDATION
| Notice of Intent to Award Number: 260000000807 |
| Notice of Intent to Award Date: 9/11/2026 |
The Department of Technology, Management, & Budget’s Procurement has completed the evaluation of RFP 250000002675 Additional Tax Types and has recommended an award to Fast Enterprises, LLC in the amount of $25,216,708.33, 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 will 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:
Kristine Mills, Solicitation Manager.
Millsk11@michigan.gov 517-242-6402 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 tax solution. The term of this contract is 5 years, with up to 5, 1 year renewal options.
Bidders:
The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on July 18th, 2025, for 31 days. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of August 29th, 2025.
| Bidder |
| Address, City, State, Zip Code |
| SDVOB* |
| GDBE** |
| Fast Enterprises, LLC |
| 7229 S. Alton Way, Centennial, Colorado, 80112 |
| N/A |
| N/A |
*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
| Technical Criteria Name |
| Weight |
| 1. |
| Schedule A – Statement of Work |
| 20 |
| 2. |
| Vendor Questions Worksheet |
| 35 |
| 3. |
| Schedule A – Attachment 1 – Business Specification Worksheet |
| 40 |
| 4. |
| Schedule A – Statement of Work – Attachment 1 – Resume Templates |
| 5 |
The full evaluation process is stated in the RFP Proposal Instructions.
II. Evaluation Method Responses to this solicitation were reviewed by Solicitation Manager in collaboration with Subject Matter Expert, Joint Evaluation Committee, which consisted of the following individuals:
Kristine Mills - DTMB Tim Gajda - Treasury Kimberly Koppsch-Woods - DTMB Katina Litterini - Treasury Patrick Russell - DTMB David Bates - Treasury Julie Collins - Treasury Christopher Rose - DTMB Nichole Shultz - Treasury Ryan McElhone - Treasury Pratik Tandel - DTMB Andrew Dickenson - DTMB Lucy Pline- DTMB Kelly Raymor- DTMB Jessica Bus - Treasury Mike Bartkowiak - DTMB Simon Baldwin - DTMB Matt Weiss - DTMB Pamela Platte - DTMB Ken Osborne - Treasury Kavita Kale - Treasury Dave Mefford - Treasury Matthew Clark - Treasury Susan Nichols - Treasury Heather Frick- DTMB Rachael Eubanks - Treasury Lance Wilkinson - Treasury Corey Grant - Treasury Tiziana Galeazzi - DTMB Shohn Johnson - DTMB Steve Rigg - DTMB Joe Oconnell - Treasury Roger Weyersberg - DTMB Adam Zanetti - Treasury Justin Flegel - DTMB Anna Krupka - DTMB Dustin Hartigan - DTMB Ann Good - Treasury Anne Cram - Treasury Latrice Russell - Treasury Eric Bussis - Treasury Theresa Newton - Treasury David Foos - Treasury Julie Jensen - Treasury David Matelski - Treasury Ron Leix - Treasury Danelle Gittus - Treasury Elizabeth Collins - Treasury Robin Norton - Treasury Sara Keel - Treasury Michael Wilbur - Treasury Jon Slaughter - DTMB Logan Mathews - DTMB Katherine Kratz - Treasury William Howland - DTMB- Contractor
III. Evaluation Results The Evaluation Team determined that FAST Enterprises, based on a score of 90.55, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.
1. Vendor Questions Worksheet – Deficiencies
| Section |
| Sub-Section |
| Element |
| Requirement |
| Point Value |
| Type |
| Comment |
| JEC Rating |
| Bidder Score |
| Schedule A – Statement of Work |
| Vendor Questions Worksheet |
| Bidder Box 6 |
| Standard Contract Terms |
| 6.30 |
| Deficiency |
| Bidder did not agree to meet Contract Terms and Conditions as presented. |
| Unsatisfactory |
| 1.58 |
| Schedule A – Statement of Work |
| Vendor Questions Worksheet |
| Bidder Box 7 |
| Insurance Requirements |
| 4.90 |
| Deficiency |
| Bidder did not agree to the requirements as presented. |
| Unsatisfactory |
| 1.23 |
Total Vendor Questions Points: 35.00 FAST Enterprises Score: 26.60
2. Statement of Work – Deficiencies IT Environment – Section 4
| Requirement |
| Point Value |
| Type |
| Comment |
| JEC Rating |
| Bidder Score |
| Confirm and describe how bidder will meet SCHEDULE D – SLA |
| 0.13 |
| Deficiency |
| Bidder did not agree to the proposed SLAs. |
| Unsatisfactory |
| 0.03 |
| Meet all State PSPs (SCHEDULE E – Data Security) |
| 0.13 |
| Deficiency |
| Bidder did not agree to the proposed Data Security Requirements. |
| Unsatisfactory |
| 0.03 |
| Provide block diagram of data flow (State-hosted cloud) |
| 0.13 |
| Deficiency |
| Bidder did not provide the requested information. |
| Minimally Acceptable |
| 0.11 |
| Provide inventory list of all components (State-hosted cloud) |
| 0.13 |
| Deficiency |
| Bidder did not provide the requested information. |
| Minimally Acceptable |
| 0.11 |
Project Management / Milestones – Section 24
| Requirement |
| Point Value |
| Type |
| Comment |
| JEC Rating |
| Bidder Score |
| Explain alternative timeframes if State’s schedule is not feasible |
| 0.50 |
| Deficiency |
| Bidder did not agree to the State’s proposed deliverables. |
| Partially Unacceptable |
| 0.25 |
| Provide Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) |
| 0.50 |
| Deficiency |
| Bidder did not provide enough detail. |
| Minimally Acceptable |
| 0.40 |
| Describe how requirements will be met and note exceptions |
| 0.50 |
| Deficiency |
| Bidder did not provide enough detail. |
| Minimally Acceptable |
| 0.40 |
Total Statement of Work Points: 20.00 FAST Enterprises Score: 19.30
3. Business Specifications – Proposal Section Details
| Requirement |
| Points |
| Type |
| Comment |
| JEC Rating |
| Bidder Score |
| 4.(g) |
| 0.15 |
| Deficiency |
| Bidder did not answer how they can meet the requirement. |
| Partially Unacceptable |
| 0.08 |
| 53.(b)(2) |
| 0.15 |
| Deficiency |
| Bidder did not provide how they can meet the requirement. |
| Minimally Acceptable |
| 0.12 |
| 53.(b)(3) |
| 0.15 |
| Deficiency |
| Bidder did not provide how they can meet the requirement. |
| Minimally Acceptable |
| 0.12 |
| 53.(b)(4) |
| 0.15 |
| Deficiency |
| Bidder did not provide how they can meet the requirement. |
| Minimally Acceptable |
| 0.12 |
| 53.(e) |
| 0.15 |
| Deficiency |
| Bidder did not provide applicable response and current capability. |
| Partially Unacceptable |
| 0.08 |
| 54 |
| 0.15 |
| Deficiency |
| Bidder did not explain how they can meet the requirement. |
| Minimally Acceptable |
| 0.12 |
| 59 |
| 0.15 |
| Deficiency |
| Bidder did not provide how they can meet the requirement. |
| Partially Unacceptable |
| 0.08 |
IV. Technical Evaluation Summary
| Technical Evaluation Criteria |
| FAST Enterprises, LLC |
| 1 |
| Schedule A – Statement of Work |
| 19.30 |
| 2 |
| Vendor Questions Worksheet |
| 26.60 |
| 3 |
| Schedule A – Attachment 1 – Business Specification Worksheet |
| 39.65 |
| 4 |
| Schedule A – Statement of Work – Attachment 1 – Resume Templates |
| 5.00 |
V. Pricing Summary Pricing was evaluated for the bidders who passed technical. The following is a summary of their price proposals:
| 1 |
| Implementation |
| $22,200,000.00 |
| 2 |
| License Fee |
| $2,000,000.00 |
| 3 |
| Maintenance and Support |
| $1,016,708.33 |
| Total Price |
| $25,216,708.33 |
VI. Negotiations
Through negotiations, it was determined that the most efficient solution was to incorporate the scope of this RFP into MA 240000001157. The State engaged FAST in contract discussions and successfully updated the Terms and Conditions to reflect the increased contract value. The State also negotiated a phased rollout approach, ensuring it was not obligated to begin additional implementations immediately. Rollouts can be initiated as funding becomes available, with pricing locked in. Additionally, FAST agreed to a total contract reduction of $1,000,000.
VII. Award Recommendation The State issued a Request for Proposal and received only one bid. After review the proposal meets all requirements and aligns with the State’s existing contract and Tax System. Leveraging the current contract provides best value by reducing costs, avoiding system transition risks, maintaining continuity with a proven vendor, and allowing the State to meet project timelines. Given these advantages, The JEC recommends award be made to FAST Enterprises, LLC. in the amount not to exceed $25,216,708.33 pending State Administrative Board approval.
Version 2024-2 image1.png