Award Recommendation and Evaluation Synopsis RFP 260000002111.docx

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

The Department of Technology, Management & Budget’s Procurement office has completed the evaluation of RFP 260000002111Electronic Local Government Information & Taxation Evaluation System (ELITES) and has recommended an award to Kyra Solutions, Inc in the amount of $2,975,000 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:

Justin Flegel, Solicitation Manager.

FlegelJ1@michigan.gov 517 246 8301 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 centralized system for managing data related to Michigan Public Acts addressing critical aspects of local government finance and accountability. The term of this contract is two years, with up to eight-one year renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on Friday, May 29, 2026. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of Tuesday, June 23, 2026.

Iselin, NJ 08830

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

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

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

Cassandra Kelly IT Program Management Lead - Treasury Roger Weyersberg, State Administrative Manager - DTMB

Patrick Russell, Solicitation Manager - DTMB

II. Evaluation Results Concourse Tech Inc Concourse Tech, Inc. has not met the requirements of being responsive and responsible due to not completing Attachment 1, Resume Templates.

Consultadd Inc The Evaluation Team determined that Consultadd Inc based on a score of 69.73, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly unsatisfactory, the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Vendor Questions Worksheet Bidder Box 5. State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience.

Deficiency - Bidder did not provide a response. 0/7.5

b. Vendor Questions Worksheet Bidder Box 6 Standard Contract Terms.

Deficiency – Bidder Submitted redlines. Partially Unacceptable 2.5/5

2. Attachment 1 Resume Templates The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Contractor Technical/Product Architect Deficiency – Not enough Salesforce specific experience. The listed experience does not specifically pertain to architecting Salesforce solutions. Unsatisfactory 1.25/5

b. Contractor Lead Business Analyst Deficiency – Experience is not directly applicable to this project. Minimally Acceptable 4/5

3. Schedule A Statement of Work, Section 10 (Software) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Bidder box 1: the software stack was not provided, Does not meet 0/.32

b. Bidder box 3: Mulesoft was not addressed, partially unacceptable .16/.32

c. Bidder box 5: Bidder did not identify any actual AI used in the solution and only offered general statements about possible future use. Partially unacceptable .16/.32.

4. Schedule A Statement of Work, Section 14 (Training Services) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Bidder Box 2: Bidder failed to provide examples or documentation as requested. Partially unacceptable .19/.38

5. Schedule A Statement of Work, Section 16 (Documentation) The Evaluation Team determined that the response was deficient as noted:

a. Bidder Box 1: Bidder failed to provide details or examples as requested. Partially unacceptable .38/.75

6. Schedule A Statement of Work, Section 17 The Evaluation team determined that the response was minimally acceptable as noted:

a. Bidder box 1: The optional capabilities were not listed in the plan. Minimally Acceptable .20/.25

7. Schedule A Statement of Work, Section 24

a. Bidder Box 1: Bidder did not demonstrate how each PMM/SEM requirement will be met as requested. Does not meet 0/1.25

b. Bidder Box 3: Bidder did not provide a Work Breakdown Structure as requested. Does not meet 0/1.25

c. Bidder Box 4: Bidder did not describe how the requirements would be met as requested. A generic approach was described but the specific requirements were not addressed. Does not meet 0/1.25

8. Schedule A Statement of Work, Section 25 The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were deficient as noted:

a. Bidder Box 1: Bidder failed to provide sufficient response. Partially unacceptable 13/.25

b. Bidder Box 2: Bidder did not describe three specific experiences as requested. Does not meet 0/.25

9. Schedule A – Attachment 1 – Business Specifications Worksheet (19.88/30)

a. Requirements 1 – 18, 20 – 21, 24 – 30, 34-165, 170 – 188, 190 – 196, 199 – 203, 207 – 209, 470 – 473, 475 – 479, 481 – 483 were deemed minimally acceptable as they require configuration. (.05/.06 for each deduction).

b. Requirements 19 and 189 were deemed partially unacceptable as they require customization. (.03/.06 for each deduction)

c. Requirements 325-467 were deemed unsatisfactory because the bidder did not provide a sufficient response. (.02/.06 for each deduction)

d. Requirements 197 – 198, 204 – 206, 212 – 213, 232 – 235, 250, and 468 – 469 were all rated as does not meet because the required elements were not addressed. (0/.06 for each deduction)

Total Score: 69.73/100

PruTech Solutions, Inc The Evaluation Team determined that PruTech Solutions, In, based on a score of 95.29, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Bidder Box 5, Bidder does not have Prior State of Michigan experience. Minimally acceptable 6/7.5

2. Attachment 1 Resume Templates

a. No deficiencies were identified.

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

a. Bidder box 4: Event monitoring is an enhancement and not included. Minmally Acceptable .03/.04

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

a. Bidder Box 5: Bidder did not provide a sufficient response Minimally acceptable .026/.32

5. Schedule A – Attachment 1 – Business Specifications Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Requirements 1 – 209, 212 – 213, 215, 217, 219 – 221, 227 – 228, 236 – 237, 244, 246, 248, 265, 271, 375 – 376, 383 – 388, 395 – 396, 398, 405, 453 – 454, and 470 – 483 were rated as minimally acceptable because configuration is required (.05/.06 for each deduction).

Total Score: 95.29/100

Kyra Solutions, Inc The Evaluation Team determined that Kyra Solutions, Inc. based on a score of 94.48, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

6. Vendor Questions Worksheet

a. No deficiencies were identified.

7. Attachment 1 Resume Templates

a. No deficiencies were identified.

8. Schedule A Statement of Work

a. No deficiencies were identified.

9. Schedule A – Attachment 1 – Business Specifications Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Requirements 1- 21, 23 – 115, 119 – 161, 163 – 168, 170 – 222, 225, 228, 230 – 231, 239 – 240, 244, 247 – 249, 256, 258, 265 – 270, 272 – 273, 274 – 280, 284 – 285, 291, 293 – 300, 303 – 402, 406 – 417, 420 – 422, 425, 430 – 431, 434 – 450, and 453 - 478 were rated as minimally acceptable (.05/.06 for each deduction) because configuration is required.

b. Requirements 116 – 118, 162, 169, and 404 were rated as does not meet because the responses do not confirm compliance with the requirements. (0/.06 for each deduction)

Total Score: 94.48/100

III. Technical Evaluation Summary

IV. Oral Presentations/Demonstrations Oral presentations and demonstrations were provided by bidders that passed technical.

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

VI. Negotiations Negotiations were conducted with the intended bidder. Kyra included a reduction of $50,000.00 on implementation and 400,000.00 on support and maintenance costs.

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

Kyra Solutions, Inc. provided the best value to the State. Best value factors for Award Recommendation include:

· Best overall cost to the State

· High level of capable resources to support the project

· Providing the best project outline (WBS)

· Highly detailed documentation

· Proven track record as a vendor with the State

· Accepted the Terms and Conditions of the Contract as presented

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

Award Recommendation is made to Kyra Solutions, Inc. in the amount of $2,975,000.00.

Version 2024-2 image1.png