Award Recommendation - Treas Acct Mgmt System.docx
DOCX document 89 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Treasury Investment Portfolio System
- Solicitation number
- NIA1 171 180000000372 1
- Issued by
- Michigan
About this file
This is an Award Recommendation document from the State of Michigan Department of Technology, Management & Budget's Procurement office for RFP #171-180000000378 regarding an Investment Accounting and Portfolio Management Software as a Service System. The solicitation was posted on December 7, 2017, with a proposal due date of January 19, 2018. Three bidders submitted proposals: Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc. (a subsidiary of QED Financial Systems, Inc.), Eagle Investment Systems LLC, and SimCorp USA Inc. The contract term consists of five base years with five additional renewal option years. The award recommendation has been made to QED Financial Systems, Inc., pending State Administrative Board approval.
The total contract award amount is $3,366,310.78 over the five-year base term, comprised of $3,251,296.00 for software license, maintenance, and optional annual onsite training, plus $115,014.78 in estimated market data subscription fees. The evaluation process required all bidders to meet mandatory minimum requirements including SOC 1 and SOC 2 Type II certifications. Two of the three bidders met these requirements; however, only Broadridge/QED achieved the minimum technical evaluation score of 80 points, scoring 88 points compared to SimCorp's 63 points and Eagle's disqualification due to missing SOC 2 Type II certification. The Joint Evaluation Committee determined that QED Financial Systems, Inc. offers the best value to the State based on technical merit and pricing.
View the file
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
STATE OF MICHIGAN
ENTERPRISE PROCUREMENT
Department of Technology Management & Budget
525 W. Allegan Street, PO Box 30026, Lansing, MI 48909
Recommendation of Award
The Department of Technology, Management & Budget’s Procurement office has completed the evaluation of RFP # 171-180000000378 for an Investment Accounting and Portfolio Management Software as a Service System and has recommended an award to QED Financial Systems, Inc. (QED) in the amount of $3,366,310.78 pending State Administrative Board approval. More information on the State Administrative Board can be found at: State Administrative Board. The term of this contract is five base years, with five additional renewal option years.
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:
Jarrod Barron, Solicitation Manager Barronj1@michigan.gov 517-284-7045 Bidders The RFP was posted on SIGMA on 12/7/2017. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of 1/19/2018.
| Bidder |
| Address |
City, State Zip
SDVOB*
| Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc., subsidiary of QED Financial Systems, Inc. |
| 5 Dakota Drive, Suite 300, Lake Success, NY 11042 |
| No |
| Eagle Investment Systems LLC |
| 45 William Street, Wellesley, MA, 02481 |
| No |
| SimCorp USA Inc. |
| 1 State Street, New York, NY 10004 |
| No |
*SDVOB: Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Business
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.
Per the Proposal Instructions, Section 8, the following were the Mandatory Minimum Requirements:
To avoid disqualification, the bidder must provide documentation to support the following. Failure to provide documentation will result in disqualification.
1. SOC 1 certification
2. SOC 2 Type II certification Only those proposals that meet the mandatory minimum requirements will be considered for evaluation.
Per the Proposal Instructions, Section 9, Evaluation Process, the following describes the evaluation steps:
If all mandatory requirements are met, the State will evaluate each proposal based on the following factors:
STEP 1 – TECHNICAL EVALUATION
| Technical Evaluation Criteria |
| Weight |
| 1. |
| Vendor Questions Worksheet |
Schedule A – Statement of Work Appendix B – Preliminary Enterprise Architecture Solution Assessment
| 2. |
| Schedule E – Requirements Matrix |
Appendix A – Safeguard Requirements
| 3. |
| Schedule C – Resume Templates |
| 15 |
| 4. |
| Schedule D – Preliminary Project Plan |
| 10 |
| Total |
| 100 |
Proposals receiving 80 or more technical evaluation points will have its pricing evaluated and considered for award.
STEP 2 – SAMPLE REPORTS (PASS/FAIL) Proposals receiving 80 or more technical evaluation points will be evaluated on their sample reports. The table below states the criteria upon which the reports will be evaluated.
| Structure |
| Reports are clear and logical. |
Reader can easily follow line of reasoning. Logical connection of points.
| Style |
| Writing is free of errors in grammar, punctuation, and spelling. Flows smoothly. |
| Content |
| Reports accurately reflect results from information acquired from various sources. |
| Use of Figures and Tables |
| Strong supplement to the text. Information is clearly presented. If taken from other sources, appropriate reference is given. Can stand alone without reference to text. |
STEP - 3 – PRICING. Proposals receiving 80 or more technical evaluation points (Step 1) and the proposed system sample reports having passed evaluation (Step 2) will have pricing evaluated and considered for award.
II. Evaluation Method Responses to this solicitation were reviewed by Joint Evaluation Committee, which consisted of the following individuals:
| Voting |
| Advisory |
Jarrod Barron, DTMB Karen Stout, Treasury Semone James, Treasury Kristen Robel, Treasury Darrell Hill, DTMB David Conarton, II, DTMB
III. Evaluation Results The JEC determined that two of the three bidders’ proposals met the mandatory minimum requirements:
| Broadridge/QED |
| Eagle |
| SimCorp |
| MM # |
| MM Description |
| COMPLIANT? |
| COMPLIANT? |
| COMPLIANT? |
| 1 |
| Provide SOC 1 certification documentation |
| Yes |
| Yes |
| Yes |
| 2 |
| Provide SOC 2, Type 2 certification documentation |
| Yes |
| No |
| Yes |
| Result |
| Pass |
| Fail |
| Pass |
The JEC determined that one of the two bidders’ proposals met the minimum 80 technical evaluation point threshold. The JEC derived the technical scores below from the bidders’ written proposals:
EVALUATION SCORING SUMMARY
| Weight |
| Criteria |
| Broadridge/QED |
| SimCorp |
| 50 |
| Vendor Questions Worksheet |
Schedule A – Statement of Work Appendix B – Preliminary Enterprise Architecture Solution Assessment
| -11 |
| -16 |
| 25 |
| Schedule E – Requirements Matrix |
Appendix A – Safeguard Requirements
| 0 |
| -6 |
| 15 |
| Schedule C – Resume Templates |
| -1 |
| -15 |
| 10 |
| Schedule D – Preliminary Project Plan |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| Total Deductions |
| -12 |
| -37 |
| Technical Evaluation Score |
| 88 |
| 63 |
EVALUATION SCORING BREAKDOWN
Vendor Questions, Statement of Work, EASA
RFP SECTION
| Broadridge/QED |
| SimCorp |
| Vendor Questions |
| Only provided 2 of the requested 3 prior experiences currently in production |
| -2 |
| Vendor Questions |
| Failed to provide any prior experiences |
-6
| Vendor Questions |
| Did not provide 3 relevant experiences for proposed Project Manager |
| -2 |
| -2 |
| Vendor Questions |
| Failed to provide principal place of business |
| -1 |
| Statement of Work |
| Did not explain issue management process |
| -1 |
| Statement of Work |
| Did not explain risk management process |
| -1 |
| Statement of Work |
| Did not explain change management process |
| -1 |
| Statement of Work |
| No Disaster Recovery plan submitted |
| -2 |
| Statement of Work |
| Failed to agree to State's Certification and Accreditation requirement |
-1
| Statement of Work |
| Failed to agree to Separation of Duties |
-1
| Statement of Work |
| Failed to agree to States change control |
-1
| Statement of Work |
| Proposed solution relies on Citrix presentation layer as opposed to a pure web-based solution. |
-1
| Statement of Work |
| Failed to detail how proposed solution meets the design requirement. |
-1
| Statement of Work |
| Failed to detail how proposed solution meets the training requirement. |
| -1 |
| -1 |
| Statement of Work |
| Proposed solution relies on third-party hosting |
-1
| Statement of Work |
| Failed to agree to State's Project Management Plan requirements |
-1
| Subtotal Deductions |
| -11 |
| -16 |
Requirements Matrix, Safeguard Requirements
RFP SECTION
| Broadridge/QED |
| SimCorp |
| Requirement A8 |
| Failed to agree to ADA standard |
-3
| Requirement A10 |
| Nonresponsive answer |
-1
| Requirement A28c |
| New transaction types - is not and will not be met |
-1
| Requirement A28d |
| Customized screens - is not and will not be met |
-1
| Subtotal Deductions |
| 0 |
| -6 |
Resume Templates
RFP SECTION
| Broadridge/QED |
| SimCorp |
| Lead Tester Resume |
| Did not answer question involving leading stress/load testing |
| -1 |
| All Resumes |
| Failed to provide any resumes |
-15
| Subtotal Deductions |
| -1 |
| -15 |
Preliminary Project Plan
RFP SECTION
| Broadridge/QED |
| SimCorp |
| Subtotal Deductions |
| 0 |
| 0 |
V. Sample Reports The JEC determined that the sample reports of the one bid meeting the minimum 80 technical evaluation point threshold met the State’s evaluation criteria.
VI. Pricing Summary Pricing was evaluated for Broadridge/QED, the bidder that passed technical evaluation. The following is a 5-year cost summary of this proposal:
| ITEM |
| TOTAL |
| Software License, Maintenance and Optional Annual Onsite Training |
| $3,251,296.00 |
| Estimated Market Data Subscription Fees (may vary based on actual consumption) |
| $115,014.78 |
| Total |
| $3,366,310.78 |
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 factors stated in Technical Evaluation Criteria of the RFP and price. The JEC has determined that QED Financial Systems, Inc. will provide the best value to the State. Therefore, the JEC recommends award be made to QED Financial Systems, Inc. in the amount of $3,366,310.78.
image1.jpeg
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .