Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

The Department of Technology, Management, & Budget’s Procurement office has completed the evaluation of RFP 250000002514 Labor Exchange Modernization System and has recommended an award to Career Team in the amount of $7,175,220.00, 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 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:

Robin Lampert, Solicitation Manager.

LampertR1@michigan.gov 517-582-2746 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 new labor exchange system where employers can effectively post jobs and search for talent and job seekers can efficiently search and apply for jobs, position themselves for the best career opportunities, and connect to workforce development programs. The term of this contract is 5 years, with up to 3 years renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on July 24, 2025 for 50 days. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of September 12, 2025.

Gaithersburg, MD 20878

Shelton, CT 06484

New York, NY 10016

Palm Harbor, FL 34614

Bingham Farms, MI 48025

Fishers IN 46037

Suite 300, Toronto, ON M5V 1P9, Canada

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

EVALUATION SYNOPSIS

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 The State will evaluate each proposal based on the following factors:

(Provided concise, clear responses, acceptance of Terms & Conditions, explanations of redlines, and followed directions.)

(Schedule D - Service Level Agreement, and Schedule E – Data Security Requirements)

(Vendor Questions Worksheet with Resumes and Schedule A – Statement of Work: Sections 18-20.)

(Schedule C: Insurance, Schedule F: Disaster Recovery Plan, Schedule G: Transition In & Out Plans)

Proposals receiving 80 or more evaluation points will have pricing evaluated and be considered for award.

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

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

Elyse Walter, LEO Aaron Williamson, LEO Julie Freiheit, LEO Kathy Peng, DTMB Robin Lampert, DTMB Michael (Mike) Murray Sara Elmesiri James (Jay) Jenks Rachna Bhatia Heather McBrien Kalyan Murali Krista Johnson Sara Raja, DTMB Matthew (Matt) Shields

Evaluation Results Notes:

· Due to rounding errors some totals may not appear to match the detailed numbers.

· In some places we counted off for not explicitly addressing the question of how a risk would be handled. In other parts of the Business Specifications instead of subtracting from the individual specification scores, we created a consolidated score for the number of times a bidder did not address risk.

· BB indicates the Bidder Box ID of the response. VQW identifies the Vendor Questions Worksheet question.

· Each score reflects both the weight of the item and the degree of deficiency.

Carahsoft Note: Carahsoft proposed 2 alternatives. The scoring for both was mostly the same. Where it was different, the versions are noted.

The Evaluation Team determined that based on a score of 66.02 for Carahsoft/Groove and 67.20 for Carahsoft/TalentLign neither met the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Clarity of Proposal The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Many redlines of Terms & Conditions involving critical elements and written by the sub-contractors. (-1.0)

b. No identification of the relationship between the entities. (-0.5)

c. Separate licensing agreements – a contracting/sub-contracting issue (-0.5)

2. Ability to Comply with State Standards The Evaluation Team determined that the requirements for Schedule D and E were not met.

a. For Schedule D, replaced with theirs, credits are not an acceptable amount, weaker severity levels, and the contact list is N/A. (-5.0)

b. For Schedule E, there were vague disclaimers like “commercially reasonable” and caveats about support and data within the U.S. (-5.0)

3. Bidder Overview The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The Project Manager’s background given was mostly portfolio or delivery management, not project management; missing relevant education and certifications. Gave some points for good labor background. (-0.42)

b. The Functional Lead did not demonstrate 5 years of experience, didn’t have a good description of the skillset, and didn’t answer about the allocated resource. (-0.6)

c. The Testing Lead did not have a good destription to match the skillset, less than 5 years of experience, and didn’t answer the allocation. (-0.6)

d. The Application Architect/Technical Lead did not have a good description to match the skill set; didn’t answer the allocation; listed experience on good project, but didn’t explain what he did on them; didn’t demonstrate the 12 years of experience in the answer. (-0.54)

e. Vendor Questions Worksheet (VQW) section 2: Didn’t answer the question about 25%. Didn’t explain the partnership. (-0.11)

f. VQW section 5: Eightfold doesn’t have the Michigan experience. Explained Eighfold’s role, but not Carahsoft’s. 500 contracts, but no numbers. (-0.56)

g. VQW section 6: Response said there are redlines, but they weren’t given. (State wrote and asked for them.) (-0.22)

h. VQW section 8: One employee + TBD (-0.11)

4. Schedule A: SOW sections 4-17 & 21-24 The Evaluation Team determined that the following deficiencies were noted:

a. BB 4A: Just Production and Sandbox environments with additional available upon request (not included) (-0.1)

b. BB 4G Australia, Atlassian, will need to use a US branch (-0.03)

c. BB4H Substituted a table and it’s not clear about roles & responsibilities (-0.03)

d. BB 4K Missing information about licenses & subscriptions (-0.05)

e. BB 4M Roles & responsibilities not clear (-0.03)

f. BB 4N Listing products in use, not addressing additional information (-0.03)

g. BB 5A No PAT (-0.9)

h. BB 10 F Will identify 3rd party “if requested”. As noted in the pre-proposal meeting, this is a Request for Proposal, and “if requested” is an unsatisfactory response. (-0.3)

i. BB 10 H No list; didn’t answer the question. (-0.3)

j. BB 11 B Too brief, no explanation of how (-0.2)

k. BB 11 C Too brief, no explanation of how (-0.1) Note: not all the BB were worth the same number of points.

l. BB 11 D Didn’t answer the question (didn’t seem to understand it) (-0.59)

m. BB 11E Didn’t answer the question thoroughly (confusion re login) (-0.1)

n. BB 11F Didn’t answer the question thoroughly (-0.2)

o. BB 11K Not completely understood (-0.1)

p. BB 12A “If needed” The answer does not match the complexity of the information provided or show that it was understood (-0.18)

q. BB 12C covered up, but not down; incomplete answer (-0.09)

r. BB 12 E Not a complete answer; not what we asked for (-0.27)

s. BB 14 A

i) Groove: limited details on the training plan; methodology rather than a plan (-0.06)

ii) TalentLign: multiple typos in the picture, lo-fi training prototypes; just instructor led & webinars (-0.06)

t. BB 14 B No examples; generic response (TalentLign provided a link, but it didn’t work.) (-0.06)

u. BB 14 C Both gave responses that didn’t commit actions. That’s ok for optional items, but not for training needs..

iii) Groove “could provide “as needed” (-0.06)

iv) TalentLign “inaccessible link; generic description; no examples; “are available” “additional can be” (-0.06)

v. BB 14 D-F Written for technical expert not for the correct audience; vague; “to be provided”, poor example (-0.11 each)

w. BB 14 G Vague (-0.06)

x. BB 14H

v) Groove was missing the document referred to; no clear instructions or examples (-0.11)

vi) TalentLign was vague and didn’t address testing with no examples (- 0.06)

y. BB 16 A instructional documentation was not palatable; format varies (risk) (-0.47)

z. BB 17 A; didn’t address the question of what we would need to support the solution (-0.47)

aa. BB 22A & C Not enough detail, didn’t say what would be covered in the meetings (no who, when, etc.) (-0.12 each)

ab. BB 22B Missing the agile steps that would be needed in their agile approach (e.g., agile ceremonies like stand-ups) (-0.12)

ac. BB 23A Didn’t address metrics or how they are obtained (-0.47)

ad. BB 24A Didn’t answer the question; no examples of their alternative documents (-0.45)

ae. BB 24B Extremely aggressive timeline; not enough time to handle the data integration or security checks; shorter warranty period (30 instead of 90 days); unclear how they would handle discrepancies between their SaaS and our requirements (-0.15)

af. BB 24C Timeframes not in the WBS and didn’t match the milestones; data ingestions as a State esponsibilities; missing time for State approvals (-0.15)

ag. BB 24 D Missing the HOW for meeting the requirements in their aggressive timeline. (-0.22)

ah. BB 24 E Didn’t mention performance, ADA, or migration testing or monitoring of testing. No dedicated environment without additional cost. (-0.15)

5. Schedule A: SOW – Business Specifications The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 2.3.8 & 2.3.9 Just mentioned the ability to add, not to create or edit. (-0.12 each)

b. 2.3.11 not available (-0.12)

c. 2.3.13 Future Enhancement to bidder’s version; not clear they understand the State has a system for them to connect; didn’t address ours (-0.12)

d. 2.9.2 & 2.9.3 requires customization/integration; it’s not just a link (-0.08 on each)

e. 2.10.2 requires customization for some functionality (-0.04)

f. 2.10.3 Requires customization (-0.08)

g. 3.1.1 Response indicates a misunderstanding of the need for customization (-0.04)

h. 3.1.3 & 3.1.5 Not clear how it will be implemented (-0.04)

i. 4.4 No examples, too vague (-0.08)

j. 4.6 – 4.9 Doesn’t have (-0.12 each)

k. 4.10 Uses browser for spell check. (-0.08)

l. 4.11 No user guide mentioned. Documentation is not clear. (-0.04)

m. 4.12 Doesn’t mention that it’s searchable by employers or that the primary resume is the default one employers will see (-0.04)

n. 5.10.3 Answered about deactivation, not reposting (-0.12)

o. 5.10.10 Describes configuration, but selected current capability. No risk noted. (-0.04)

p. 5.14.1 Limited to native applications? Didn’t address whether employers could see candidates who viewed a posting but did not apply (-0.08)

q. 5.16.2-5.16.5 Answered on the wrong row. (-0.04 each)

r. 5.16.6 Answered on the wrong row. No risk noted. Function should not be through export. (-0.16)

s. 5.16.7-5.16.8 Answered on the wrong row and not available. (-0.06 each)

t. 6.2.1 & 6.2.2 At least configuration is required, but it was marked as a current capability (-0.04 each)

u. 6.3.3-6.3.6 Did not address the PDF format requirement. (-0.08 each)

v. 7.1.1 Current process (via Get help) is not clear (-0.04)

w. 7.1.2 Marked current, but would need at least configuration to manage the specified fields (-0.04)

x. 7.2.1 Says configuration in the description, but marked as current. (-0.04)

y. 7.2.4 Didn’t answer this question (-0.08)

z. 7.3.2 Very brief response that didn’t address the specific items mentioned or examples (-0.04)

aa. 7.3.3-7.3.11 Very brief response and didn’t appear to address all the reports or examples of how (-0.04 each)

ab. 8.1.3 Unclear, access form GetHel, not a secure auto-route, and “available to internal users” doesn’t work for the external users (selected association). (-0.04)

ac. 9.2 No pop-ups or warning (-0.12)

ad. 9.3 as a security issue, it needs to be available, not a future enhancement (-0.04)

ae. 10.1 Too much reliance on State (-0.04)

af. 11.1 Didn’t mention Admins (-0.04)

ag. 11.2 “some functionality”, just email (-0.04)

ah. 15.7 not until the future (-0.08)

ai. 17.1.1-17.4.2 future enhancements, not current (-0.04 each)

aj. 18.1.2 Current, but only as a static page (-0.08)

ak. 18.3.1 & 18.3.2 Does not have Arabic. (-0.12 each)

al. 18.4.1 & 18.4.2 Not available (-0.12 each)

am. 18.6.3 Cannot limit downloads in current system (future/partial) (-0.04)

an. 19.1 Response says it’s a current capability, but it will require customization (-0.08)

ao. 19.2 “if necessary” it is a required business specification; response says current; but it will require customization (-0.08)

ap. 19.3 & 19.4 says current, but will require customization (-0.08 each)

aq. 20.2.2-20.3.1 Vague, too generic and doesn’t mention or refer to the examples (-0.04 each)

ar. 23.1.2 & 23.1.3 answered but not clear about who can post “if necessary” (-0.02 each)

as. 23.1.4 Not clear – which pages are main application pages. (-0.06)

at. 23.1.5 Drag & drop without a true front end. See 23.1.8 & 23.1.10. (-0.18)

au. 23.1.6 Unclear whether it supports both templates. (-0.12)

av. 23.1.8 & 23.1.10 Not available (-0.18 each)

aw. 23.1.13 Not available (also not clear which are main application pages) (-0.06)

ax. 23.2.1 Not available (-0.12)

ay. 23.2.2 Not available (-0.18)

az. 23.2.3 & 23.2.4 Not available (-0.06 each)

ba. 23.2.5 & 23.2.6 Not available (-0.12)

bb. 23.2.7 Limited details (-0.06)

bc. 23.2.8 No mention of how, it’s vague, and we want some safeguards (-0.12)

bd. 24.3.1, 24.3.4, & 24.3.5 Marked as current, but discusses configuration based on roles, lack of detail to explain (-0.04 each)

be. 24.4.1 No explanation of how (-0.04)

bf. 24.4.2 No explanation of how (-0.06)

bg. 24.4.4 Not available (-0.12)

bh. 24.4.5 No warnings (-0.08)

bi. 24.4.6 No explanation of how (-0.06R

bj. 24.4.7 Not available (-0.12)

bk. 24.4.8 Not available (-0.06)

bl. 24.4.10 Not available (-0.12)

bm. 24.5.4 Not available (-0.12)

bn. 24.6.1 Irrelevant response (-0.12)

bo. 24.6.3 No mention of support for sorting and filtering capabilities (0.08)

bp. 24.6.4 Not available (-0.12)

bq. 24.6.5 No explation of how (-0.06)

br. 24.7.3 Not available (-0.12)

bs. 24.8.1 & 24.8.3 Not available (-0.12 each)

bt. 24.8.2 Not available (-0.06)

bu. 24.9.1 CMS only supports aggregation, but not built-in analytics (-0.8)

bv. 24.9.2 Duplicate answer; irrelevant here. (-0.12)

bw. 24.9.3 Does not indicate a bulit-in tool; external analytics (-0.12)

bx. 24.9.4 Missing mention of plug-ins, modules, integrations with third-party (-0.08)

6. Additional Plans Both versions provided satisfactory responses for Schedule F – Disaster Recover Plan.

For Schedule G, the Carahsoft/Groove plan barely referenced the actual transition process, minimal explanations, no transition out. (-2.50) For Schedule G, the Carahsoft/TalentLign defined some terms, but gave no plan (-1.67) Total Score: 66.02/100 for Carahsoft/Groove and 67.20/100 for Carahsoft/TalentLign Cardinality The Evaluation Team determined that Cardinality based on a score of 95.15 met the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Clarity of Proposal The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Too much technical detail in the responses about how things would be done. (-0.34)

b. Redlines on areas that would require work – some business risk with caps (inc cap on data loss) (-0.65)

2. Ability to Comply with State Standards The Evaluation Team determined that the responses to Schedule D and Schedule E were satisfactory.

3. Bidder Overview The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Didn’t have 5 years of financials (-0.11)

b. No experience with MI; all experience with Pairin. Weak – same org for all 3 experiences, didn’t explain enough about the projects to see the relevance and if they are big enough (-1.08)

c. Lots of exceptions/redlines including to data loss, limit of liability, indemnification, Key Personnel credit limited to $1k (-0.22)

4. Schedule A: SOW sections 4-17 & 21-24 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. BB 5 A No PAT provided (-0.47)

b. BB 22 B Missing the agile steps that would be needed in their agile approach (e.g, agile ceremonies like stand-ups) (-0.12)

c. BB 23 A sample report did not include all the items we need; no risk log; metrics were more focused on internal use rather than deliverables/milestones (-0.90)

5. Schedule A: SOW – Business Specifications The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 2.J.3 Didn’t identify choice in column C (current capability vs configured or customized) (Renumbered in response to 2.4.3, but we didn’t count off for that because there was a glitch in the original numbering.) (-0.08)

b. 3.1.1 Expect it needs customization (-0.04)

c. 4.1, 4.3, 4.5, 4.14 Technical language; need to say how will it work for the end users? (-0.04 each)

d. 4.2 Technical language; how will it work for the end users (-0.06)

e. 4.4 Technical language; how will it work for the end users (-0.02)

f. 5.1.1 Probably needs customization. Custom objects needed. (-0.04)

g. 5.2.1 At least needs configuration. (-0.08)

h. 6.2.1, 6.2.2 At least needs configuration (-0.4 each)

i. 19.1, 19.2, 19.3, 19.4, 19.6 Marked as current, but is not integrated. (-0.4 each)

6. Additional Plans The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were for Schedules F & G were satisfactory.

Total Score: 95.15/100 Career Team The Evaluation Team determined that Career Team based on a score of 95.59 met the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Clarity of Proposal The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. Ability to Comply with State Standards The Evaluation Team determined that the responses to Schedule D and Schedule E were satisfactory.

3. Bidder Overview The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Vendor Questions Worksheet (VQW) #8 0 Michigan employees (-0.11)

b. Vendor Resumes – Proposed project manager showed only 1 year of direct experience, no certifications, appears to be a manager of project managers (-0.42)

c. Vendor Resumes – Proposed testing lead showed less experience than requested (-0.21)

4. Schedule A: SOW sections 4-17 & 21-24 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. BB 5A No PAT (-0.47)

b. BB 10A Vague (-0.16)

c. BB 10B Focused on case management, not labor exchange (-0.30)

d. BB 10I Which functions – not listed for mobile or web. (-0.16)

e. BB 11H Unclear (-0.20)

f. BB 11J TBD once details are known is not a satisfactory response (-0.20)

g. BB 24C WBS is not detailed enough, no development; SSP in 4 weeks; didn’t align with schedule dates; no responsibilities listed (-0.15)

5. Schedule A: SOW – Business Specifications The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 2.2.2 Unsure they can handle all the fields based on their response – not explicitly listed or answered. (-0.12)

b. 3.1.1 We expect it needs customization; they acknowledged that if we needed more integration than they understood, it would need customization (-0.04)

c. 5.1.1 Probably needs customization. Custom objects needed. (-0.04)

d. 6.2.2 Did not include risk; answered with the question unadjusted. (-0.12)

e. 23.1.10 Pasted the next requirement into the answer (-0.18)

f. 23.2.2 Pasted the previous question into the response (-0.18)

g. 23.2.6 Minimal explanation/vague (-0.04)

h. 24.3.7 Didn’t answer; no explanation (-0.12)

i. 24.4.4 & 24.4.5 Minimal explanation/vague (-0.04 each)

j. Multiple (16) places where the risk of configuration or customization were not defined (-1.11)

6. Additional Plans The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were for Schedules F & G were satisfactory.

Total Score: 95.59/100 Concourse (Coquina) The Evaluation Team determined that Concourse based on a score of 41.56, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

Note: The bidder left large sections of their RFP blank.

1. Clarity of Proposal The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Didn’t explain the relationships between entities (contractor, reseller, sub-contractors, etc.) (-0.50)

2. Ability to Comply with State Standards The Evaluation Team determined that the responses to Schedule D and Schedule E were satisfactory.

3. Bidder Overview The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. VQW5 Didn’t show the experience, listed smaller, short, irrelevant projects (-1.61

b. VQW8 Avoided explicitly saying how many Michigan employees or their conditions (-0.11)

c. Vendor Resumes – Project Manager has experience overseeing projects, but not as a project manager. Short no/yes answers without support; focus more on data than project (-1.20)

d. Other resume sections not filled in (-2.80)

e. SOW 19 The Key Personnel sections were “TBD” (-0.33)

4. Schedule A: SOW sections 4-17 & 21-24 The Evaluation Team identified the following deficiencies:

a. BB3A Short; mostly just restated the purpose, none of their own take; didn't answer what their product does. (-0.90)

b. BB4P No AI to assist users. (Also see BB10G) (-0.10)

c. BB5A no PAT, some info about design (-0.47)

d. BB6A Didn’t answer how; what’s the scalable architecture? (-2.25)

e. BB6B No times or explanation (-3.37)

f. BB10B Not specific; vague; not good descriptions (-0.30)

g. BB10C-E Generic responses, no depth (-0.16 each)

h. BB10F Mentioned SBOM, but no list (-0.45)

i. BB10G “if AI tools” BB4P said there were none – what is being proposed? (-0.30)

j. BB10H Generic, no depth, no list (-0.30)

k. BB10I Generic, no depth, “all essential functions” – what does the bidder consider essential? (-0.30)

l. BB11D Minimal, lacking detail (-0.20)

m. BB11E Minimal, lacking detail (-0.10)

n. BB11J-P No response (-2.05 for all)

o. BB12A-E Minimal,vague responses (-0.47 for all)

p. Section 14 lacks substantive detail on all responses (-0.90)

q. Section 16 Not provided – no details or attachments (-0.90)

r. Section 23 Vague, nothing on PM tools, “if requested” as stated at the pre-proposal meeting, this is a Request for Proposals, so this is not a satisfactory response (-0.90)

s. BB24A Didn’t answer the question (-0.45)

t. BB24C No WBS (-0.22)

u. BB24D Agreed but did not answer how they will manage the project (-0.15)

v. BB24E Very minimal, no details (-0.15)

5. Schedule A: SOW – Business Specifications The Evaluation Team identified the following deficiencies:

a. 1.1 Response lacks detail, missing roles and responsibilities (-0.16)

b. 2.1.1 Lacks detail; didn’t address public user (-0.12)

c. 2.1.2 Lacked detail; didn’t address MiLogin (-0.12)

d. 2.2.1 – 2.3.12 Same 2 answers; doesn’t address the questions (-2.24 total)

e. 2.4.1 – 5.17.1 Repeated non-responses. Did not address the business specification (-9.90)

f. 6.1 – 6.3.1 Only checked a box with no description or explanation of the capability (-0.47)

g. 6.3.2 – 7.2.4 Repeated non-responses. Did not address the business specification (-1.30)

h. 7.3.2 Didn’t mention key admin functions. The description mentions customizable widgets – that would be at least configurable rather than current. (-0.04)

i. 7.3.3 – 7.3.11 Did not address the question (-1.06 total)

j. 8.1.1– 24.9.4 Did not address the question (-15.91 total)

k. Risk for Configuration & Customization items (-2.13)

6. Additional Plans The Evaluation Team determined that the requirements for Schedule D were met; the responses for Schedule E were unsatisfactory; they were a list of recommendations, not a plan; and didn’t address the transition out. (-2.50) Total Score: 41.56/100 Geographic Solutions, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Geographic based on a score of 91.67, met the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Clarity of Proposal The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Multiple redlines of Terms & Conditions, including intellectual property definition, indemnification and limits of liability, State Data definition, escrow/release, and termination for non-appropriation. (-0.67)

2. Ability to Comply with State Standards The Evaluation Team determined that the responses to Schedule D and Schedule E were satisfactory.

3. Bidder Overview The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Vendor Questions Worksheet (VQW), section 8: Minimal Michigan Economic Impact (-0.11)

4. Schedule A: SOW sections 4-17 & 21-24 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 22 – Meetings was missing some of the steps that would be needed for their agile approach (e.g., agile ceremonies like stand-ups) (-0.12)

b. Section 24 – Project Management was deficient proposing their own process, requiring Change Orders for gaps, not agreeing to SUITE where required, alternative didn’t align with alternative documentation, durations on the WBS didn’t make sense (e.g., 1 day for interface), very limited QA and testing time. (-0.83)

5. Schedule A: SOW – Business Specifications The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 2.9.2 & 2.9.3 require customization & integration (-0.08)

b. 3.1.1 didn’t explain how they would minimize duplication (-0.04)

c. 5.8.2 didn’t address the risk of customization (-0.04)

d. 19.1-19.4 & 19.6 require customization, but the risk was not addressed (-0.21)

e. overall risk level from number of customizations and configurations (-1.11)

6. Additional Plans The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were for Schedules F & G were satisfactory.

Total Score: 91.67/100 Pyramid Solutions The Evaluation Team determined that Pyramid based on a score of 81.51 met the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Clarity of Proposal The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Did not clearly identify the relationship between entities. (-0.50)

b. Didn’t separate the pricing Schedule B. (-0.15)

2. Ability to Comply with State Standards The Evaluation Team determined that the responses to Schedule D and Schedule E were satisfactory.

3. Bidder Overview The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Has Michigan experience, but not Labor Exchange. (-0.56)

b. Resumes – Project Manager – Lack of experience with labor, percentage (-0.42)

c. Resumes – Security Officer – Experience issue – relevance to this project; only 4 years; old certs (-0.28)

d. Resumes – Functional Lead – Not enough experience leading; didn’t address the request; (-0.40)

e. Resumes – Testing Lead – Not enough experience; worked on short projects (-0.21)

4. Schedule A: SOW sections 4-17 & 21-24 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. BB3A Focused more on data capabilities than solving the need; no language to tie the solution to a labor exchange except a nod to 2 roles. (-0.90)

b. BB4A Incomplete answer regarding hosting. (-0.05)

c. BB4B Dev, Test & Prod environments; didn’t offer more even at a cost; that’s not enough (training, data conversion, etc.) (-0.20)

d. BB4K Missing the attachment. (-0.10)

e. BB6B Not specific to different types of loads (page vs report); no historical project cited; “difficult” to project; lack of details (-1.18)

f. BB10G Too vague; “possibly chatbot; not extensive (-0.16)

g. BB10H Just answered at the operating system level & required too new, which our population may not have (-0.30)

h. BB11A Via SAMP & allows SSO (-0.10)

i. BB11B-11O Said they could integrate with data fabric, but didn’t respond to the specific protocols or integration (-2.15 total)

j. BB12A Relying on Appian utilities without describing them enough. Too generic. (-0.09)

k. BB12B Vague. Didn’t fully answer the question. (-0.09)

l. BB12C Azure SQL DB allows for rapid scaling; can easily increase or decrease upon licenses – which licenses? (-0.09)

m. BB12D Too generic to tell if it works with CSV file. (-0.09)

n. BB14A Lacks detail and specifics. Sample writing was pretty basic. “will plan” didn’t demonstrate good experience; no other materials. (-0.11)

o. BB12B-12H Minimal, vague answers, just one example. (-0.79 total)

p. BB16A No examples. (-0.90)

q. BB22A Didn't explain how and lacked sufficient detail; how would they meet the implementation requirements; but liked prior experience with SOM; agreed to cadence & frequency (-0.12)

r. BB22C Still lacking specificity - "as outlined above" where there wasn't enough. Relying on stating that they have experience rather than showing how it affects their plan. (-0.12)

s. BB23A Didn’t address metrics or how they are obtained. (-0.47)

t. BB24C Didn’t assign all tasks (seemed to assume blank were theirs) no dependancies (-0.08)

u. BB24D "Training & knowledge transfer to State's IT team for ongoing support and maintenance" incongruity with maint & support expectations (-0.08)

v. BB24E Regression and data conversion testing not mentioned; performance testing was vague (-0.08)

5. Schedule A: SOW – Business Specifications The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 2.3.6 Doesn't apply; a search tool is not an update capability (-0.12)

b. 2.7.1 Didn’t answer; wrong question. (-0.12)

c. 3.1.1 Expect this needs customization (-0.04)

d. 7.2.1-7.2.3 Managing through MiLogin (-0.04 each)

e. 7.3.2 & 7.3.5 Need to clarify how much is config vs development/customization (-0.04)

f. 8.1.1-8.1.3 The roles are not within MiLogin; authenitcation of the user is (-0.35)

g. 12.1 Missing type-ahead. (-0.08)

h. 18.2.1 Marked as current, but description says customized (-0.04)

i. 19.1-19.6 Require customization (-0.25 total)

j. 20.1 Not available (-0.12)

k. 23.1.5 Missing drag & drop in response. (-0.12)

l. 23.1.7 May require additional customization/structural changes (-0.04)

m. 24.6.4 Does not appear to include automated metadata (-0.04)

n. 24.6.5 Configuration required. No explanation of how the bidder will ensure a baseline level of SEO and social sharing readiness. Bidder does not address the substance of the question in their response, including the feature that supports the automatic generation of default metadata values in the absence of manual input. (-0.04)

o. 24.7.2 remembered our key languages (didn't mention others); not clear about how much work to implement other languages (-0.08)

p. 24.7.3 "when requested via the system or Pyramid?" Spec is for on-demand (-0.12)

q. 24.8.3 Further collaboration required to support this feature rather than it being a native feature of the system. It sounds like the bidder can achieve the desired result, but not without considerable effort. (-0.08)

r. 24.9.4 Didn't respond to specifics, such as A/B testing or reporting, metrics (-0.18)

s. Overall risk descriptions missing for configure and customization (-3.18)

6. Additional Plans The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the response for Schedules F was satisfactory. The response for Schedule G lacked details. It was a description of how to craft a plan, but not a plan; minimal transition out. (-2.50) Total Score: 81.51/100 radianHub The Evaluation Team determined that radianHub based on a score of 77.10, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Clarity of Proposal The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. Did not identify the relationship between entities. (-0.50)

2. Ability to Comply with State Standards The Evaluation Team determined that the requirements for Schedule D were met; the responses for Schedule E were not met.

a. There was no answer in the bidder box and no redlines. (-5.00)

3. Bidder Overview The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. VQW 2 Didn't answer re gross income; Concern about plan to scale up with near & off shore resources. Size, limited number of years of experience and employees. (-0.22)

b. VQW 5 Missing most important parts - what was their role in the projects mentioned. (-1.61)

c. VQW 7 No answer (-0.16)

d. VQW Under 10 employees in Michigan (-0.11)

e. Vendor Resumes – Project Manager time allocations/multiple projects low %; 5 years of experience not shown (just 1); missing ed; no relevant certifications (-0.80)

f. Vendor Resumes – IT Security Officer missing %, missing experience - especially with security (-0.80)

g. Vendor Resumes – Functional Lead, Testing Lead, & Application Architect/Technical Lead all had significant gaps in their submissions (-2.0)

h. SOW Section 19 Missed the testing lead and doesn’t match the resume section (-0.33)

4. Schedule A: SOW sections 4-17 & 21-24 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. BB5A relying on subs for PATS; no PAT; still needs PAT for configured tool (-0.47)

b. BB6B "typical page loads" not specific to us; not enough detail (-1.18)

c. BB10B Vague. Not very descriptive; optional add-on modules (needed); not focused on our business needs; labor exchange rather than case mgmt, employer and program management. (-0.16)

d. BB11A How would the bidder use a CMS structure to pull & push data? What, but not how; vague; did mention SAML (-0.10)

e. BB11B-11J Vague and not addressing this specific question. (-1.64)

f. BB11N No answer (-0.29)

g. BB11O Not clear; doesn’t show understanding of the requirement (-0.20)

h. BB11P Integrated using Mulesoft? Didn’t address CMS (-0.20)

i. BB12A & D CSV or Excel (not SQL) (-0.09 each)

j. BB12E not much detail; not sufficiently outlined (-0.09)

k. BB14A-C Limited details (-0.06 each)

l. BB14D no example; or satisfactory description, lack of detail; too vague (-0.06)

m. BB14E&F not descriptive enough, vague, didn't discuss roles (-0.06 each)

n. BB14G&H too little (-0.06 each)

o. BB16A no examples; insufficient description (-0.90)

p. BB24A Not clearly answered (-0.16)

q. BB24C WBS not provided (-0.22)

r. BB24D No clear explanation of their approach (e.g., waterfall v agile) What does "Our approach combines structured planning with agile adaptability, allowing us to deliver timely results while responding to emerging needs" mean in terms of process? (-0.08)

s. BB24E Not enough detail (-0.08)

5. Schedule A: SOW – Business Specifications The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 2.3.1, 2.3.3, 2.3.4 Vague, how would this be handled? (-0.04 each)

b. 2.4.1 Risk of development (-0.04)

c. 2.4.3 Higher complexity and risk. (-0.04)

d. 2.5.1 & 2.5.2 Implementation time & complexity (-0.04 each)

e. 2.6.1 Confusion about current & configuration (-0.04)

f. 2.9.2 Identified as both current and configuration required – it wasn’t clear what it already has versus what needs configuration; needs customization (-0.08)

g. 2.9.3 Requires customization/integration (-0.08)

h. 3.1.1, 3.1.4, & 3.1.5 Needs customization (-0.04 each)

i. 4.3 basic capability to edit resume - shouldn't need config or custom (0.04)

j. 4.4 Roadmap 2026 (when in 2026?) for functional & combination resumes (-0.02)

k. 4.6 canned - same cut & paste response with nothing about what would be configured; custom objects, but didn't select custom (0.04)

l. 4.7 Roadmap 2026 (when?) 1 template (-0.08)

m. 4.10 Not available (-0.12)

n. 4.12 Selected existing & configuration. Confusing answer for what needed configuration or customization for adding custom objects (-0.04)

o. 4.13 It’s such a basic capability why does it require config?, especially when the next question doesn't require config; customization for adding custom objects (-0.04)

p. 5.1.1 probably needs customization – ask to demo SSO w/out code changes; custom objects may be needed (-0.04)

q. 5.2.1 Custom objects, but marked as current capability & configuration. (-0.08)

r. 5.4.3 Acknowledged it may need customization (custom objects) in comments; didn't mark customization (-0.0.4)

s. 5.5.1 & 5.5.3 Selected current & config, but using custom objects; vague explanation of risk making it unclear whether the bidder understood the request. (-0.04 each)

t. 5.6.1"Community licenses" - didn't make it clear if that's the same thing as a delegated user group (-0.04)

u. 5.6.2 "Community licenses" - didn't make it clear that's the same thing as a delegated user group; What is a partner, community licenses? (-0.04)

v. 5.7.1 & 5.7.2 Custom objects, marked as both current and configuration, not explained. (-0.04 each)

w. 5.16.5 Future enhancement (-0.04)

x. 5.16.6 Answer doesn’t match the specification (-0.24)

y. 5.17.1, 6.2.2, 6.3.1-6.3.6 Answer doesn’t match the specification (-0.12 each)

z. 7.2.4 Didn’t include the formats (-0.04)

aa. 11.1 Focused on case management (-0.08)

ab. 17.2.3 current and configuration; “can” not does or will. (-0.04)

ac. 18.3.1, 18.3.2 & 18.4.2 Just restated the ask; didn’t respond in bidder’s own words (-0.04 each)

ad. 18.4.1 Description says configruation, but marked current (-0.04)

ae. 19.2 Restates request; no explanation. (-0.04)

af. 19.3 response indicates a lack of understanding what Career Explorer does; it's an integration to another system, not just a web site (-0.08)

ag. 19.4 response indicates a lack of understanding; this is not just a dashboard (-0.08)

ah. 20.2.1 abbreviated answer; not clear if they'll meet or how; missing commitment (-0.04)

ai. 20.3.1 vague; missing the how (-0.4)

aj. 23 Both current & Configuration for several responses. Not enough explanation of what Launchpad already does and why if some capabilities were current there was a configuration or customization risk. Only authors get the preview; what about other reviewers? No explicit response regarding editing front end. (-0.50 total)

ak. 23.2.1 Restated specification with minimal explanation. (-0.04)

al. 23.2.3 Wasn’t clear if timing could be controled. (-0.02)

am. 23.2.4 Request, not an answer. (-0.04)

an. 23.2.5 Abbreviated response (-0.04)

ao. 23.2.6 Structured organization” is not enough to satisfy the requirement. (-0.08)

ap. 23.2.7 Vague (-0.06)

aq. 23.2.8 (Unclear description (-0.06)\

ar. 24.3.2 & 24.3.3 Vague with no explanation of how the specification would be met (-0.04 each)

as. 24.3.4 Unclear and didn’t explain the security. (-0.08)

at. 24.3.5 Vague and unclear whether the bidder meets the requirement. (-0.04)

au. 24.3.6 Does not explain how the system is flexible (-0.04)

av. 24.4.1 "quick editing" does not explain how the system will manage content (-0.08)

aw. 24.4.2 Unclear - does the system support the variety of formats and what tools does it provide to manage them (-0.06))

ax. 24.4.4 Minimal explanation (-0.04)

ay. 24.4.5 unclear (-0.04

az. 24.4.8 Didn’t address resizing & compression (-0.06)

ba. 24.4.10 Vague; didn’t say how & didn’t address exporting the reports. (-0.08)

bb. 24.7.2 Further explanation required; how / does it provide presentation in multiple languages (-0.04)

bc. 24.9.3 Capabiliites not well understood - no mention of any specifics like dashboard to track analytics (-0.12)

bd. 24.9.4 More explanation would help to support specific integrations (-0.04)

6. Additional Plans The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were for Schedules F & G were satisfactory.

Total Score: 77.10/100

SGS

The Evaluation Team determined that SGS based on a score of 70.53, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Clarity of Proposal The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory:

2. Ability to Comply with State Standards The Evaluation Team determined that the requirements for Schedule D and Schedule E were satisfactory.

3. Bidder Overview The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Vendor Questions Worksheet (VQW) 1 missing contact information (-0.32)

b. VQW 2 Missing legal name & address (-0.22)

c. VQW5 No experience with Michigan or Labor Exchanges; experience was not relevant (-1.08)

d. VQW8 No MI employees and no plans to hire (-0.11)

e. Resume – IT Security Officer Timeframe of experience - 4 years; CCNP & CCNA security certs? Failed to answer allocated time (-0.28)

4. Schedule A: SOW sections 4-17 & 21-24 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. SOW BB4A no details; no training platform; limited to "as needed" (-0.10)

b. BB4G Blank matrix and response to G (covered in H) (-0.05)

c. BB4H Blank bidder box (BB). Mentions GoGig below in the table. (-0.03)

d. BB5A Explained process, but no PAT (-0.47)

e. BB10A Barely addressed with “regardless of device” at the end. (-0.30)

f. BB10B Didn’t address questions like version. Who is SCDEW? (-0.16)

g. BB10G “Has been used”; vague (-0.15)

h. BB10H Vague, how was it implemented; missing version numbers (-0.30)

i. BB12A Too vague; did not outline their phases (-0.09)

j. BB 16A No examples (-0.90)

k. BB17A No answer (-1.35)

l. BB22B Missing the agile steps that would be needed in their agile approach (e.g, agile ceremonies like stand-ups) (-0.12)

m. BB23A Nothing on implementation; only post-go-live (0.90)

n. BB24A Some "Templates deemed not" relevant. Mentions SUITE (PMM & SEM) want to substitute docs - reason sound ok, but didn't submit copies Template numbers were not correct. (-0.45)

o. BB24B Incongruous with answer above where they said they wanted to substitute documents. (-0.08)

p. BB24C Doesn't address responsibilities; doesn't match milestones; light on SUITE; too short on SSP & DRP (-0.15)

q. BB24E Did not list data migration testing (-0.08)

5. Schedule A: SOW – Business Specifications The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, however too many responses were left blank:

a. 2.10.3 Future enhancement (-0.08)

b. 3.1.1 expect it needs customization; mentioned examples of other implementations where they customized (-0.04)

c. 4.10 On the roadmap, but no date (-0.04)

d. 4.11 Future enhancement; no date (-0.04)

e. 5.10.5-24.9.4 No response (-21.57 total)

6. Additional Plans The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were for Schedules F & G were satisfactory.

Total Score: 70.53/100 Thrive The Evaluation Team determined that Thrive based on a score of 83.06, met the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Clarity of Proposal The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. Left off hosting in the identification of relationships between entities (-0.18)

2. Ability to Comply with State Standards The Evaluation Team determined that the responses for Schedule E was satisfactory. The response to Schedule D had the following deficiency:

a. Adjustments to availability and critical error response. Issue with Critical Resolution Time during non-business hours. (-1.75)

3. Bidder Overview The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. No Michigan employees (-0.11)

b. Resumes – The same person was proposed as Project Manager and Functional Lead. Satisfactory as a Project Manager, but didn’t address the Functional Lead skill needs (-0.60

c. Resume – Testing Lead – Not enough experience as tester (-0.40)

d. Resume – Application Architect/Technical Lead – Not enough experience, didn’t explain which technology stacks they had experienced (-0.28)

e. SOW section 18 Overall shortage of resources (-0.12)

4. Schedule A: SOW sections 4-17 & 21-24 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. BB3A No CMS platform. (-0.47)

b. BB5A No PAT. (-0.47)

c. BB6B Did not provide latency metrics. (-1.18)

d. BB11M Manual process/upload; is frequency “settable” as an automatic process? (-0.20)

e. BB22B Missing the agile steps that would be needed in their agile approach (e.g, agile ceremonies like stand-ups) (-0.12)

f. BB24B Aggressive timeline; sprints and timeframe didn't match evenly; some timeline phases were missing detail. (-0.08)

g. BB24C Missing dates, so didn't align with milestone, no dependencies, durations (-0.08)

h. BB24D Not much explanation of how. (-0.08)

5. Schedule A: SOW – Business Specifications The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 2.2.2 Limited detail; not clear what they are collecting; didn't mention handling of "required" fields (-0.12)

b. 2.3.10 Didn’t check a selection. (-0.12)

c. 2.3.11 Didn't check a selection. 1-way communication. (-0.12)

d. 2.3.12 Didn't check a selection. (-0.12)

e. 2.3.13 Discussed connectin to their system. Could they also connect to ours, which has additional feeds. (-0.08)

f. 2.6.1 Addressed the frequency, but not other user preferences. (-0.04)

g. 2.7.1-2.7.3 Future enhancement risk. (-0.12 total)

h. 2.9.1 Response doesn’t match the specification. (-0.12)

i. 2.9.2 Requires customization/integration; it’s not just a link. (-0.08)

j. 2.9.3 Did not answer (-0.12)

k. 2.10.2, 2.10.3, & 3.1.1 Future enhancement risk (-0.24 total)

l. 3.1.4-3.1.6 Customization expected for integration to OSMIS; not clear the requirement was understood (-0.12 total)

m. 4.4 Vague, minimal answer (-0.02)

n. 4.7 Answer doesn’t mention templates (-0.12)

o. 4.9 Addressed ability to attach, not creation. (-0.12)

p. 5.4.1 Doesn't match - not management, but automation. "must set" not "allows admins" (-0.12)

q. 5.4.4 Not what we asked for, should be automatic, not an email config. (-0.12)

r. 5.7.2 Missing part of the answer; customization not explained. (-0.12)

s. 5.10.3 Requirement is to repost,not mentioned. (-0.12)

t. 5.10.4 Requirement is to save drafts; not mentioned. (-0.12)

u. 5.14.1 Employers can see those who apply, but not those who just view (-0.08)

v. 5.16.2 Didn’t address: Would the bookmark work from another computer? Is it another step? Is it saved externally allowing users who aren't logged in access? (-0.12)

w. 5.16.7 Vague - "The Thrive platform may limit the number of downloads to 100" (0.02)

x. 6.3.2 Limited details and need to work with us to determine the best solution; didn't address automation (-0.04)

y. 6.3.5 Missing admin details; didn't cover posting (-0.08)

z. 6.3.6 Missing details, covers search, but not download. (-0.08)

aa. 11.1 Confusing; where would the inqueries be routed? Could we use the same process during business hours? (-0.04)

ab. 12.1 Didn’t answer regarding type-ahead. (-0.08)

ac. 17.2.1-17.4.2 current marked, but comment "These features would be anticipated to be delivered 6 months after go live as part of a second release schedule" marked down due to delay & mismatch (-1.06 total)

ad. 18.2.3 "Thrive is compatible with all major browsers listed, some features however (browser extensions), are not available outside of Google Chrome." What does this mean? What features are not available with other browsers? (-0.08)

ae. 18.3.1 Incomplete response - "The service will be [insert anme]" (-0.08)

af. 18.4.1 & 18.4.2 Didn’t explain how just repeated back. (-0.04)

ag. 18.6.1 Did not address the question. (-0.06)

ah. 18.