B-52627 SPEAR Sole Source Justification Form signed.pdf

Sole Source Justification Form

Version 7.01 Page 1 of 6

Bulletin Reference Number B-52627

Requesting Agency/University Illinois State Police

Sole Source Justification Form - Part I Section I - General Information

Department/Bureau/Section: Office of Human Resources

Need Identified Date: Mar 3, 2026 Supply/Service Need By Date: Jul 1, 2026

Project Title: SPEAR Application Programming, Reporting, and Technical Support

Vendor: Illuminative Strategies, Inc.

Provide a description of the supplies or services required: SPEAR Application Programming, Reporting, and Technical Support

Value: Not to Exceed Value of Initial Term, this Change Order or Amendment: 150,000

Will this Sole Source amend a Professional or Artistic Services contract? Yes No

*Sole Source may not be used for amendments for Professional or Artistic Services if the amendment would increase the value by more than 5% of the initial award or extend the term by more than 60 days.

Type: New Sole Source

Section II - Proposed Term

One-Time Purchase Term Contract

Estimated Contract Begin Date: Jul 1, 2026

Estimated Contract End Date: Jun 30, 2028

Number of Potential Renewals:

Length of Each Renewal in Months:

Total Value of All Renewals:

If a Term Contract, does the term, including renewals, exceed 12 months? Yes No

If yes, provide a detailed justification including any economic benefit received for agreeing to a multi-year term:

Illuminative Strategies, Inc. is contracted to host the Strategic Performance Evaluation Application for Results (SPEAR) Microsoft Environment Application on its server through June 30, 2028 (B-48240). The sole source justification for the SPEAR application programming, reporting, and support will continue throughout the term of the hosting contract. The vendor will invoice based on an hourly and per report rate. By agreeing to a multi-year term, the vendor will not increase the hourly rate or report rate through June 30, 2028.

Section III - Funding Source Select the type of funding to be used (Check all that apply): State Appropriate Funds Federal Funds Other (Explain):

Section IV - Sole Source Justification

This purchase is economically only available from a single source primarily because it is: (If "Other" explain in one sentence)

Software License/Upgrade/Maintenance

Are there secondary justification(s) for this sole source? Yes No

Version 7.01 Page 2 of 6

Bulletin Reference Number B-52627

Requesting Agency/University Illinois State Police

Section V - Purchase History

Has the Agency or University Purchased these supplies or services in the past? Yes No

Term Term From Term To Value Description Contract Number Type

1 03/17/2026 06/30/2026 19,240 SPEAR Reporting and Support P-93585 Small Purchase

2 07/01/2025 06/30/2028 186,930 SPEAR Technical Platform (Hosting) B-48240 Sole Source

3 01/29/2025 06/30/2025 197,725 SPEAR365 Workflow Analysis P-55771:10

4 01/24/2025 04/23/2025 109,995 SPEAR Emergency Re-Host P-76645 Emergency

5 11/09/2021 01/30/2022 127,170 ISI Project Cleanup P-31282 Sole Source

6 06/10/2019 10/31/2019 397,840 RSM Lean Six Sigma Project P-17:10

If more than 10, or if other comments, explain:

The SPEAR project originally started with RSM US LLP using P-17:10, a release off CMS Master Contract CMS693340. RSM subcontracted the SPEAR development to Illuminative Strategies. A sole source procurement was done with Illuminative Strategies on P-31282 to finish/clean up the application development. An emergency procurement was done on P-76645 to move the SPEAR application from the DoIT server back to the ISI server. A release was done on P-55771:10 to perform a workflow analysis on the SPEAR application.

Section VI - Business Rationale

1. Provide a detailed explanation of the need for the supplies or services:

The Illinois State Police (ISP) requires Illuminative Strategies, Inc. (ISI) to provide programming, reporting, and technical support for the Strategic Performance Evaluation Application for Results (SPEAR). After SPEAR was created by ISI, the Department of Innovation and Technology (DoIT) assumed hosting and maintenance of the application, but was unable to manage changes required in the system to meet ISP's needs, evolving workflow, and data updates. This resulted in an emergency procurement in early 2025, to house the application back on the ISI server. This procurement request is needed for ISI to make programming changes to SPEAR that are required due to recent ISP Merit Board rules changes. ISP has also incorporated policy-directed tasks in SPEAR, eliminating external processes that were less efficient. This and other evolving ISP processes and procedures have resulted in an increased need for SPEAR data management and reporting that are beyond the scope of the SPEAR hosting contract (B-48240) and do not fall under the current statewide master contract for workflow analysis (P-55771). In addition to the programming changes, ISI is needed to provide reports to ISP staff to enable them to effectively manage the sworn evaluation process as the SPEAR application does not have a reporting function.

Version 7.01 Page 3 of 6

Bulletin Reference Number B-52627

Requesting Agency/University Illinois State Police

2. Provide a list and describe in detail the specifications required to satisfy the need:

The following PROGRAMMING work is needed (billed at an hourly rate):

1. Program functionality into SPEAR that will allow ISP Admin roles (Division and HR) to obtain a full dataset dump exportable to excel.

2. Remove all numeric scoring from the system.

3. Remove the letter grade and numerical calculation from the dimensional scoring criteria. Change the options from 4 to 3 (Needs Improvement, Meets Expectations, Exceeds Expectations.)

4. Change the terminology of “Scoring Criteria” to “Evaluation Criteria”.

5. Modify the current challenge process to be an employee rebuttal with a supervisor acknowledgment.

6. Remove the slide bar from the evaluation screens (Self-evaluation, Supervisor Evaluation, and Collaboration Sessions).

7. Enhance the Proxy evaluator process to allow view access for all supervisors in the chain of command within that work unit.

8. Program Graphical User Interface changes to modify text and instructions for the program. (i.e. change “Rater” to “Supervisor” and update instructions/requirements for narrative boxes)

9. Modify collaboration functions to pull in all levels of the chain of command rather than just the employee and supervisor. Allow ISP to set this up for automation based on work unit assignments in “collaboration session rules assignment” rather than requiring manual addition of non “rating” command after sessions are created.

10. Force all users into the Promotional Consideration Yes option and then programmatically hide the functionality to change the promotional consideration Checkbox by the end user.

11. Program that at a designated date/time all personal evaluations for a certain rank close and advance to the supervisor level even if an employee has not marked it as complete. Supervisor will have an option to send back the evaluation to the employee should additional documentation be deemed necessary. This should have programing included that the supervisor would set the number of days the employee has to add information. After x days the evaluation will automatically return to the supervisor for review.

The following REPORTING is needed on a 'as needed' basis (billed per report, approximately 33 times per year):

1. Provide a full dataset dump exported to Excel which will enable ISP staff to analyze as needed for the current step in the process.

The following technical SUPPORT is needed on a 'as needed' basis (billed at an hourly rate):

1. Investigate and resolve processing errors.

2. Back out of “lock out” action (example: When a user submits their evaluation when they did not intend to do so. When a user is on military leave and the system triggered the evaluation to advance but it should not have due to the military status.)

3. Provide support to ISP admin users who are unfamiliar with the SPEAR processes they are able to do.

4. Provide guidance to ISP admin users to ensure they are performing the functions properly.

3. Provide detail explaining the justification selected in Section IV to explain why the requested supplies or services are the only ones available that can satisfy the agency or university requirements?

The Illinois State Police (ISP) requires Illuminative Strategies, Inc. (ISI) to provide programming, reporting and support for the SPEAR application which is housed on ISI's server. Programming changes and reporting capabilities must be made within the SPEAR application. Each script must be written and checked to determine if it will perform as expected in production to ensure the program continues to work efficiently and maintains program integrity. Application changes must be tested for compatibility with other program processes. DoIT and other vendors can not effectively access the SPEAR application to perform the services required.

4. What are the unique features of the supplies or services that are not available in any other product or by any other vendor? Provide specific quantifiable factors/qualifications:

The SPEAR program is a unique application written specifically for the Illinois State Police by Illuminative Strategies, Inc. (ISI) as a subcontractor to RSM US LLP on contract #CMS693400 MC Workforce Analysis, 1/11/2016 - 1/10/2021 (BidBuy release P-17:10). SPEAR is a proprietary program not available from any other vendor. ISI is the only vendor able to provide SPEAR programming, reporting, and technical support. ISP has contracted with ISI to house SPEAR through June 30, 2028. It is not feasible or fiscally responsible to move to a different product until that contract expires.

5. Has the Agency or University considered alternative supplies or services to satisfy their need? Yes No

Version 7.01 Page 4 of 6

Bulletin Reference Number B-52627

Requesting Agency/University Illinois State Police

5a. If yes, name the alternative vendors whose supplies or services were evaluated:

The Department of Innovation and Technology (DoIT) assumed hosting and maintenance of the application for a time; however, they were unable to meet ISP's needs for programming, reporting and support. DoIT did not have control or knowledge of the structure of SPEAR; and therefore, were not able to fix issues as they arose, complete necessary programming changes, provide reports, or assist ISP in a timely manner.

5b. If yes, what were the alternatives for each vendor and why were they unacceptable? Be specific with regard to features, characteristics, requirements, capabilities and compatibility:

The Department of Innovation and Technology (DoIT) was not able to meet ISP's needs when SPEAR was housed with them. It would be unreasonable to expect DoIT to be able to meet ISP's needs now that they no longer have control of the application. Other vendors would not be able to work with ISI's proprietary application, and ISP is not financially or logistically capable of moving away from SPEAR at this time.

5c. Explain how the market evaluation was conducted?

*This evaluation is to determine available options within a market. If the evaluation is to determine quality or best suited option, this is not the appropriate source selection. Under no circumstances shall the evaluation consist of testing alternative options. These activities must be conducted in a competitive transparent environment (i.e. IFB or RFP).

The Illinois State Police (ISP) originally used Master Contract CMS693400 - MC to create the SPEAR application (BidBuy release P-17:10).

This master contract was bid as a multi-agency solution through CMS. RSM US LLP (RSM) who subcontracted with Illuminative Strategies to create the SPEAR application while hosted on their platform. In 2025, ISP entered into a multi year SPEAR application hosting contract with ISI. ISI is solely capable of working within the SPEAR application until this contract expires on June 30, 2028.

6. Are there resellers or distributors?

Yes No N/A

7. What efforts were made to get the best possible price (i.e. did the agency/university negotiate) and how did you determine the price for this purchase is considered fair and reasonable?

The SPEAR application is a proprietary product of Illuminative Strategies, Inc. ISI is the only vendor who can access SPEAR; and therefore the only vendor who is able to provide data programming, reporting, and technical support adequately and cost effectively. The vendor 's billing rate for all services is $150.00 per hour, with a minimum billing of one half hour per request. The hourly rate for systems application work is comparable to industry standards. The Illinois State Police has procured similar services from this vendor at $185.00 per hour (P-93585) and the current rate reflects a substantial discount of almost 19%. For another comparison, the JPMC Micro Focus Proprietary Professional Services contract P-32744 provides on-demand services similar to this procurement: upscaling or modifying current IT systems, advanced troubleshooting, and training for a specific IT product. This contract includes rates for a technology consultant, project manager, and systems architect which range from $231.00 to $312.00 per hour.

8. Will this purchase obligate the State to this vendor for future purchases such as maintenance, licensing or continuing need?

Yes No

9. What will be the financial or other impact to the State if this sole source is not approved and a competitive bid is required?

If this sole source is not approved, the Illinois State Police will need complete a competitive solicitation for the services. This will result in ISI being awarded the bid as the SPEAR application is a proprietary product and housed by them. ISI is not likely to license another vendor to use its product, but if it did, the cost to ISP could be considerably higher. If a competitive bid were required, ISP would miss its policy-directed deadlines to provide scores and evaluation reports for all Sworn officers. In addition, ISP staff would most likely be required to work overtime to review and reconcile SPEAR data without the use of ISI provided reports.

10. Is there any additional information you would like to add to justify this sole source?

Allowing Illuminative Strategies, Inc. (ISI) to provide programming, reporting, and technical support for the SPEAR application is the most efficient and cost-effective solution for the Illinois State Police's continued use of the SPEAR application for the duration of the hosting contract which is effective through June 30, 2028.

Version 7.01 Page 5 of 6

Bulletin Reference Number B-52627

Requesting Agency/University Illinois State Police

Section VII

Requesting Department Representative

Requesting Department Signature Required

I know and understand the contents of this Sole Source Justification and attest that all statements are true and correct and the fairness and reasonableness of the price was adequately confirmed.

Date May 20, 2026

Printed Name Amanda Olinger E-mail Address Amanda.Olinger@Illinois.gov

Phone Number 217-524-8437

State Agency Bureau/Division Head or University Purchasing Director Approval and Signature Required

I know and understand the contents of this Sole Source Justification and attest that all statements are true and correct and the fairness and reasonableness of the price was adequately confirmed. (All prior form fields will lock once this e-signature is completed)

E-mail Address leann.fitzgerald@illinois.gov

Phone Number 217-557-4786 Date May 20, 2026

Printed Name Leann Fitzgerald

Agency Bureau/Division Head or University Purchasing Director and Not a Designee

SPO Approval and Signature Required

I have reviewed and understand the contents of this Sole Source Justification and agree with the State Agency or University determination.

I have reviewed and understand the contents of this Sole Source Justification and do not agree with the State Agency or University determination. As a result, the State Agency or University must explore other sourcing methods to satisfy their need.

State Purchasing Officer Signature Phone Number 217-836-3618 Date May 20, 2026

Printed Name Alyson Moore E-mail Address alyson.r.moore@illinois.gov

Version 7.01 Page 6 of 6

Bulletin Reference Number B-52627

Requesting Agency/University Illinois State Police

Sole Source Justification Form - Part II Section I - General Information

Project Title

Vendor

Initial Date of Procurement Bulletin Posting

Was a Sole Source hearing held per 30 ILCS 500/20-25?

Yes - Complete Section II and III below (Section II will only be visible when this option is selected)

No - Section II not required, go to Section III below Section III - CPO Approval and Signature Required

Based on my review, I authorize the Agency/University to proceed in accordance with the published Notice referenced above.

Based upon my review, I authorize the Agency/University to proceed with the following Changes.

Based on my review, the Agency/University is not authorized to proceed with this sole source as presented and my recommendation is that it be cancelled.

Other

CPO Signature CPO Phone

Printed Name Date

CPO E-mail

Version 7.01 Page of Sole Source Justification Form - Part I Section I - General Information Will this Sole Source amend a Professional or Artistic Services contract?

If yes, what was the original contract value?

*Sole Source may not be used for amendments for Professional or Artistic Services if the amendment would increase the value by more than 5% of the initial award or extend the term by more than 60 days.

Section II - Proposed Term If a Term Contract, does the term, including renewals, exceed 12 months?

If yes, provide a detailed justification including any economic benefit received for agreeing to a multi-year term:

Section III - Funding Source Select the type of funding to be used (Check all that apply):

Section IV - Sole Source Justification Are there secondary justification(s) for this sole source?

Section V - Purchase History Has the Agency or University Purchased these supplies or services in the past?

Term Term From Term To Value Description Contract Number Type Section VI - Business Rationale

1. Provide a detailed explanation of the need for the supplies or services:

2. Provide a list and describe in detail the specifications required to satisfy the need:

3. Provide detail explaining the justification selected in Section IV to explain why the requested supplies or services are the only ones available that can satisfy the agency or university requirements?

4. What are the unique features of the supplies or services that are not available in any other product or by any other vendor? Provide specific quantifiable factors/qualifications:

5. Has the Agency or University considered alternative supplies or services to satisfy their need?

5a. If yes, name the alternative vendors whose supplies or services were evaluated:

5b. If yes, what were the alternatives for each vendor and why were they unacceptable? Be specific with regard to features, characteristics, requirements, capabilities and compatibility:

5c. Explain how the market evaluation was conducted?

*This evaluation is to determine available options within a market. If the evaluation is to determine quality or best suited option, this is not the appropriate source selection. Under no circumstances shall the evaluation consist of testing alternative options. These activities must be conducted in a competitive transparent environment (i.e. IFB or RFP).

5a. If no, why weren't alternatives evaluated?

6. Are there resellers or distributors?

7. What efforts were made to get the best possible price (i.e. did the agency/university negotiate) and how did you determine the price for this purchase is considered fair and reasonable?

8. Will this purchase obligate the State to this vendor for future purchases such as maintenance, licensing or continuing need?

8a. If yes, please provide details regarding future obligations and/or needs:

9. What will be the financial or other impact to the State if this sole source is not approved and a competitive bid is required?

10. Is there any additional information you would like to add to justify this sole source?

Section VII Requesting Department Signature Required I know and understand the contents of this Sole Source Justification and attest that all statements are true and correct and the fairness and reasonableness of the price was adequately confirmed.

State Agency Bureau/Division Head or University Purchasing Director Approval and Signature Required I know and understand the contents of this Sole Source Justification and attest that all statements are true and correct and the fairness and reasonableness of the price was adequately confirmed. (All prior form fields will lock once this e-signature is completed) SPO Approval and Signature Required Sole Source Justification Form - Part II Section I - General Information Was a Sole Source hearing held per 30 ILCS 500/20-25?

Section II - Sole Source Hearing Details The State posted to the Illinois Procurement Bulletin a description of the State's need, the justification for the sole source decision, and information regarding the opportunity to submit comments and testify at a public hearing. Notice of the hearing was also posted outside of the hearing room 48 hours prior to the hearing.

The public hearing was conducted for the purpose of receiving testimony regarding the sole source determination. The Hearing Officer recommends the following:

The following relevant documents are attached:

Section III - CPO Approval and Signature Required 9.0.0.2.20101008.1.734229

1. Program functionality into SPEAR that will allow ISP Admin roles (Division and HR) to obtain a full dataset dump exportable to excel.

2. Remove all numeric scoring from the system.

3. Remove the letter grade and numerical calculation from the dimensional scoring criteria. Change the options from 4 to 3 (Needs Improvement, Meets Expectations, Exceeds Expectations.)

4. Change the terminology of “Scoring Criteria” to “Evaluation Criteria”.

5. Modify the current challenge process to be an employee rebuttal with a supervisor acknowledgment.

6. Remove the slide bar from the evaluation screens (Self-evaluation, Supervisor Evaluation, and Collaboration Sessions).

7. Enhance the Proxy evaluator process to allow view access for all supervisors in the chain of command within that work unit.

8. Program Graphical User Interface changes to modify text and instructions for the program. (i.e. change “Rater” to “Supervisor” and update instructions/requirements for narrative boxes)

9. Modify collaboration functions to pull in all levels of the chain of command rather than just the employee and supervisor. Allow ISP to set this up for automation based on work unit assignments in “collaboration session rules assignment” rather than requiring manual addition of non “rating” command after sessions are created.

10. Force all users into the Promotional Consideration Yes option and then programmatically hide the functionality to change the promotional consideration Checkbox by the end user.

11. Program that at a designated date/time all personal evaluations for a certain rank close and advance to the supervisor level even if an employee has not marked it as complete. Supervisor will have an option to send back the evaluation to the employee should additional documentation be deemed necessary. This should have programing included that the supervisor would set the number of days the employee has to add information. After x days the evaluation will automatically return to the supervisor for review.

The following REPORTING is needed on a 'as needed' basis (billed per report, approximately 33 times per year):

1. Provide a full dataset dump exported to Excel which will enable ISP staff to analyze as needed for the current step in the process.

The following technical SUPPORT is needed on a 'as needed' basis (billed at an hourly rate):

1. Investigate and resolve processing errors.

2. Back out of “lock out” action (example: When a user submits their evaluation when they did not intend to do so. When a user is on military leave and the system triggered the evaluation to advance but it should not have due to the military status.)

3. Provide support to ISP admin users who are unfamiliar with the SPEAR processes they are able to do.

4. Provide guidance to ISP admin users to ensure they are performing the functions properly.