DS 250000000027 Award Recommendation and Evaluation Synopsis.docx

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

The Department of Technology, Management, and Budget Financial Services office has completed the evaluation of DS 250000000027 MCDA Operational Consulting and has recommended an award to McKinsey and Company, Inc. Washington D.C. in the amount of $249,000.00, 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:

Bethany Preston, Solicitation Manager.

PrestonB2@michigan.gov Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor to provide a comprehensive, statewide data strategy to enhance evidence-based decision making. Key elements of this strategy will include open data, data literacy, data analytics, data governance, data management, data access, and data sharing. The term of this contract is six months.

Bidders:

The DS was posted on SIGMA VSS on June 6, 2025. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of June 30, 2025.

NIA

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.

II. Evaluation Method Responses to this solicitation were reviewed by the Solicitation Manager in collaboration with Subject Matter Experts in a Joint Evaluation Committee which consisted of the following individuals:

III. Evaluation Results A. Accenture The Evaluation Team determined that Accenture, based on a score of 82, did meet the requirements of this DS. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Prior Experience The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Five points were deducted from this section due to the strong focus on AI as opposed to data strategy. It was determined that the most relevant experience listed was Experience 3.

2. Service Capabilities – Schedule A, All Sections, Except Section 5 The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Ten points were deducted from this section due to the data literacy focus on IT, which missed the mark on what was being requested. There was not enough information regarding implementation and the timeline was shortened from six months to eight weeks.

3. Schedule A, Section 5 , Staffing The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Two points were deducted from this section for a lack of description regarding the project manager and the IT focused background.

Total Score: 83/100 B. Boston Consulting Group Use this section if the proposal was responsive or responsible and delete above responsible and responsive section.

The Evaluation Team determined that Boston Consulting Group, based on a score of 82, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Prior Experience The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Five points were deducted from this section due to the experience provided. Experience 1 was still ongoing with no known result at this time, Experience 2 was more IT focused, narrow in scope, and less relevant to this request.

2. Service Capabilities – Schedule A, All Sections, Except Section 5 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Twelve points were deducted from this section due to the timeline being reduced from 6 months to 12 weeks, a lack of focus on the stakeholders, and the heavy focus on use case prioritization.

3. Schedule A, Section 5, Staffing The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. One point was deducted from this section due to the experience being heavily private section.

Total Score: 82/100 C. Data Meaning Services Group Data Meaning Services Group has not met the requirements of being responsive and responsible due to not providing resumes for the Staffing section. Without these resumes the State was unable to properly evaluate Criteria 3, resulting in Data Meaning Services Group being automatically eliminated.

D. Deloitte The Evaluation Team determined that Deloitte, based on a score of 96, did meet the requirements of this DS. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Prior Experience The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Two points were deducted from this section due to experience 1 being light on evidence-based decision making and more focused on IT.

2. Service Capabilities – Schedule A, All Sections, Except Section 5 The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Two points were deducted from this section due to high focus on use case.

3. Schedule A, Section 5 , Staffing The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 96/100 E. Expleo Technology The Evaluation Team determined that Expleo Technology did not meet the requirements of this DS. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Prior Experience The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were unsatisfactory, the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Twelve and a half points were deducted from this section for lack of experience with government projects and the ability to handle a project of this caliber.

2. Service Capabilities – Schedule A, All Sections, Except Section 5 The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were unsatisfactory, the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Thirty points were deducted from this section due to insufficient overall response, a misunderstanding of what was being requested, a shorter timeline, and bidder boxes that were left blank in favor of utilizing a separate document without properly directing the committee to the response.

3. Schedule A, Section 5 , Staffing The Evaluation Committee determined that the bidder did not pass technical evaluation after scoring the first two criteria and at this point the bidder was eliminated without further review.

F. G2O, LLC

The Evaluation Team determined that G2O did not meet the requirements of this DS. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Prior Experience The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were unsatisfactory, the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Twelve and a half points were deducted from this section for lack of experience with government projects and the ability to handle a project of this caliber.

2. Service Capabilities – Schedule A, All Sections, Except Section 5 The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were unsatisfactory, the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Fifteen points were deducted for a heavy focus on IT and no discussion of data strategy; there was not a good understanding of government operation applied to the proposal.

3. Schedule A, Section 5 , Staffing The Evaluation Committee determined that the bidder did not pass technical evaluation after scoring the first two criteria and at this point the bidder was eliminated without further review.

G. IBM

The Evaluation Team determined that IBM did not meet the requirements of this DS. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Prior Experience The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were unsatisfactory, the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Seven points were deducted from this section for the relevance of the experience that was provided.

2. Service Capabilities – Schedule A, All Sections, Except Section 5 The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were unsatisfactory, the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Fifteen points were deducted from this section for IT focus and less focus on data driven concepts, and a data maturity model that was disconnected and not tailored to the requirements.

3. Schedule A, Section 5 , Staffing The Evaluation Committee determined that the bidder did not pass technical evaluation after scoring the first two criteria and at this point the bidder was eliminated without further review.

H. McKinsey and Company The Evaluation Team determined that McKinsey and Company, based on a score of 89, did meet the requirements of this DS. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Prior Experience The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. One point was deducted for the second experience for relevancy of the second experience provided.

2. Service Capabilities – Schedule A, All Sections, Except Section 5 The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

b. Ten points were deducted from this section for the shortened timeline and the relevancy of some of the response for compliance.

3. Schedule A, Section 5 , Staffing The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 89/100 I. Plante & Moran Plante & Moran has not met the requirements of being responsive and responsible due to not providing a response that referenced the requirements of this project. The state was unable to evaluate Criteria 2, resulting in Plante & Moran being automatically eliminated.

J. Sabot The Evaluation Team determined that Sabot, based on a score of 73, did not meet the requirements of this DS. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Prior Experience The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Five points were deducted from this section due to the lack of relevance of experience 1.

2. Service Capabilities – Schedule A, All Sections, Except Section 5 The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were unsatisfactory, the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Twelve points were deducted from this section for IT focus and a lack of focus on evidence-based results for what this project is trying to accomplish.

3. Schedule A, Section 5 , Staffing The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses unsatisfactory, the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Ten points were deducted from this section for the lack of relevant experience of the lead data strategist and the exception listed to the staffing section.

Total Score: 73/100 K. Slalom The Evaluation Team determined that Slalom, based on a score of 98, did meet the requirements of this DS. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Prior Experience The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Two points were deducted from this section for relevancy of Experience 1.

2. Service Capabilities – Schedule A, All Sections, Except Section 5 The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Section 5 , Staffing The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 98/100

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

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

VI. 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.

Award Recommendation is made to McKinsey and Company in the amount of $249,000.00.

Version 2024-2 image1.png