EMS - award_letter_and_synopsis.docx

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

The Department of Technology, Management, & Budget’s Procurement office has completed the evaluation of RFP 230000003086 MDHHS - EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES (EMS) System Tools and has recommended an award to biospatial Inc. in the amount of $ 1,286,783.66 and Locality Media Inc. (DBA First Due) in the amount of $ 579,421.09 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 Contractors to provide one or more of four Emergency Medical Services (EMS) System Tools. The term of this contract is three (3) years, with up to five (5) 1-year renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on Tuesday, September 5, 2023 until Tuesday, October 31, 2023. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of 1:00 pm ET, October 31, 2023.

Durham, NC 27703

Austin, Texas 78758

Garden City, NY 11530

Lakeville, MN 55044

Okemos, MI 48864

211 N Robinson Ave Oklahoma City, OK 73102

*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: Mandatory Minimum Requirements This RFP includes four (4) systems. Bidders can submit a proposal for all four systems or select which systems they wish to bid.

System 1: Systems of Care (SoC) Registry System 2: EMS Repository System 3: EMS Documentation Tool System 4: Licensing and Verification To avoid disqualification, any Bidder for System 2 (EMS Repository) or System 3 (EMS Documentation Tool) must provide documentation to support the following Mandatory Minimum:

Mandatory Minimum Requirements

Proposal Instructions: Evaluation Process

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

Kunz Leigh & Associates’ submission was disqualified due to providing a proposal for custom development instead of proposing an existing product (SaaS or COTS).

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

Emily Bergquist, Division Director DHHS/EMS and Systems of Care Tomas Andrades, Project Manager DTMB/Center for Shared Solutions

Sabrina Kerr, EMS Section Manager DHHS/EMS and Systems of Care Emily Baker, EMS Programs Unit Manager DHHS/Emergency Medical Services

Robin Lampert, Buyer DTMB/Central Procurement Services Mike Bartkowiak, Cybersecurity Liaison DTMB/Identity and Architecture

Vinod Narmat, State Administrative Manager DTMB/Agency Services David Blatt, State Administrative Manager DTMB/Agency Services

Lacy Ryal, EMS Systems Analyst DHHS/EMS and Systems of Care John Estill, Digital Information Accessibility Coordinator DTMB/eMichigan

Todd Spencer, Business Analyst DTMB/Agency Services Danielle Green, Integration Specialist DHHS/Strategic Integration Administration

Eileen Worden, Systems of Care Section Manager DHHS/EMS and Systems of Care Sean Hennika, Strategic Integration Team Liaison DHHS/Strategic Integration Administration

Craig Henry, Business Delivery Liaison

Duane Kerkstra, Business Relationship Manager DTMB/Agency Services

Tom McIntire, Technology Manager

Angela Miller, Security and Compliance Liaison

Kevin Putman, EMS Data Manager DHHS/EMS and Systems of Care

Soopriya Razdan, Business Relationship Manager

Katelyn Schaible, Systems of Care Unit Manager DHHS/EMS and Systems of Care

Ashley Sharp, Security and Compliance Liaison

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

III.

Version 2024-2 IV. Evaluation Results EVALUATION SCORING: Part 1. Schedule A – Statement of Work Note: Potential total point value available for each sub-section below is shown in blue in the Technical Criteria column. Points awarded for each section are given in the bidders’ columns.

1.73 Provided own SLA, redacted Disaster Recovery Plan 1.18 Old SLA with no credits.

1.70 Requested rewrites of SLA, and security; DR no team in advance 0.78 DR with no names 1.99

1.05 Struck accessibility in T&C completely and no VPAT 0.00 VPAT missing N/A explanations 1.67

TBD

0.00 VPAT missing content 1.67

2.09

0.52

0.00

1.67

1.67 They delete data, not the State 1.67 2.09

3.66

3.66 3rd party classes identified, not specifics 3.92 Didn’t answer 3rd party components (incorrect) 3.66

1.05

1.31

1.88

0.26 no examples 1.57 2.09

0.00 Transition in with Implementation and project plan. No transition out, but not applicable.

2.09

0.00

0.00

0.52 2.09

0.52

1.05 2.09

0.52

1.88

1.05

1.73 Alternative SOW; Very market re meeting requirements.

1.31 SUITE with no elaboration; vague, high-level WBS 1.88

EVALUATION SCORING: Part 2. Schedule A, Table 1 Business Specification Worksheet

All Four Systems

8.02

2.48 Audit issue for registry 2.28

3.13 Limits to formats and report delivery 3.00 Limits to report delivery 3.13

2.12

System 1

1.22 two future capabilities with no timeline 1.13 patient registry reporting not robust (1.1.5) 1.39

11.67 9 customizations with expense; 2 not available; 2 require additional products/cost 8.43 a future capability; issue with permission choices and tree structure 11.87

0.83 limited announcement capability 1.20

4.53 2 capabilities require HDE for integration; 1 future with no timeframe 3.50 2 future with no timeframe 4.33

6.87

6.20

0.00 Didn’t address the broader integration needs 1.73

System 2

26.88 Customization to export to data warehouse; we can’t adjust the agency tree structure; 1 item on planned roadmap; no hover and multiple configs for tree structure; integration with Stroke & STEMI unclear 25.06 Mostly raw data, not analyzed or easily adjusted. Not a surveillance tool; interface for EMS PCR requires another module 27.75

System 3

3,1 EMS Patient Care Reporting 7.04

Missing validation for schematron and State ability to set validation rules; 1 customization with no timeline; no context sensitive auto-naratives; some interfacility docs on the roadmap; export to user defined endpoint requires support 6.06

6.85

3.2 System Functionality 11.85

No workflow customization; NEMSIS answers and lists require support; 1 future enhancement with date; no highlight of required fields; no score or completeness of PCR; can’t adjust or change PCR forms at the right level; DHHS cannot create PRC forms at the right level; 1 add to roadmap; customized question + not available; no customizable signature narrative; no restrictions by license scope of practice 7.78 Changes from our copy of PCR template are not reflected and cascaded down 11.67 Future capability with no timeline; need for medication module 11.20

3.3 Security Features 4.44

Inconsistent answers about tree structure modifications; rules engine requires support; no real-time monitoring & alerts; missing announcements;

3.56 Audit trail lost if record deleted or new copy submitted; VPN & data feeds to biospatial and NEMSIS issues 3.98 They define the tree; no real-time monitoring & alerts 3.89

3.4 System Administration 2.22

2.04 2.22

3.5a Interface 1.85

1.48 Requires other systems for 3 interface requirements 0.74

3.5b Custom Development 2.22

Have to ask them for Schematron development 2.15

3.6 Environments 0.37

Sub-Total

System 4

4.1 Applications – Admin 4.85

future enhancement for FOIA support; vehicle fee calculation is manual 4.56 pulling data from other systems listed as customization with no description 4.67

4.2 Applications – Self Service 1.85

1.85

1.85

4.3 Applications – Public Portal 0.23

0.23

0.23

4.4 License Renewals – Admin 0.46

0.46

0.46

4.5 License Renewals – Self Service 1.15

1.15

1.15

4.6 License Maintenance – Admin 3.00

Missing FOIA correspondence; CJIS compliance not available 2.65

3.00

4.7 License Maintenance – Self Service 1.38

1.38

1.38

4.8 License Maintenance – Public 0.69

0.69

0.69

4.9 License Payment Processing – Admin 0.92

0.92

0.92

4.10 License Payment Processing – Self Service 1.15

Manual intervention needed to generate invoices; poor UI for shopping cart 1.06

Shopping cart is future enhancement 0.98

4.11 Inspections – Device 0.23

0.23 future enhancement 0.18

4.12 Inspections – Admin 0.69

0.69

0.69

4.13 Inspections – Self Service 0.46

0.46

0.46

4.14 Enforcement & Compliance – Sys Mgmt 0.69

No CJIS compliance; configurable audio and video file upload with possible size enhancement in future 0.29

0.69

4.15 Enforcement & Compliance – Admin 2.31

2 future enhancements with out timeline; report writer not intuitive; requires multiple screens to see entire case history 1.87

2.31

4.16 Enforcement & Compliance – Self Service 0.46

Unsatisfactory ability to understand and explore online complaints with supporting documents; manual fees 0.24

0.46

4.17 Reporting – Report Development 0.92

0.92

0.92

4.18 Reporting – Report Use 0.92

Separate reports rather than combined 0.81

Limits who can run report vs audit trail; no scheduled reports 0.58

4.19 Application & System Mgmt – App Mgmt 1.38

Cumbersome & sometimes requires help to make modifications e.g., branding 1.29

1.38

4.20 Application & System Mgmt – Self Service 1.38

Not committed to fix for blocked or autopopulated fields.

1.15

1.38

4.21 Application & System Mgmt – System Mgmt 1.62

1.62

1.62

4.22 Education – Admin 2.31

Master and sub courses don’t work as desired 2.13

Not generating customizable PDF certificate 2.26

4.23 Education – Public 0.23

0.23

0.23

4.24 Education – Self Service 0.46

0.46

0.46

4.25 Custom Development 0.23

0.23

0.23

Sub-Total

27.60

29.22

EVALUATION SCORING: Part 3. Attachment 1, Resume Templates

2.00 Has implementation and app support, but less experience with project mgmt.

2.00 2.50

2.00 Vague & repetitive “numerous projects” no certification, security training since degree in 2005 2.00 Experience not dedicated to security, no certifications 2.00 Experience not dedicated to security, no certifications 2.00 2.50

EVALUATION SCORING: Part 4. Vendor Questions Worksheet

0.33

0.21 0.42

0.00 notice pre termination; no liquidated damages; other redlines 0.10 0.42

V. Technical Evaluation Summary Total score may have slight difference (0.01) due to rounding.

VI. EVALUATION SCORING: SUMMARY

VII. Oral Presentations/Demonstrations Clarification questions and demonstrations were held. Bidders were given a list of questions and points to demonstrate in advance. The points varied based on issues that arose during the initial technical evaluation.

biospatial – Agreed to credits for liquidated damages and clarified other pricing points. Demonstration was satisfactory, showed requested functionality and did not contradict the written response.

ESO – Clarified who can send announcements. HDE is required for some of the required capabilities, but not others, and it was not included in the pricing. Clarification of other components that were and were not included in the pricing. Confirmed they don’t pre-populate fields. Some requested functions were demonstrated, others were explained satisfactorily. Others (creation of PCR forms and audit features) were not covered or do not meet our needs.

Imagetrend – Explained ADA training. Clarified pricing. Statistical capabilities and integrations to other systems were covered at a high-level, and it looks like they would not meet our needs. Described the Hospital Integration Hub. Identified items that are on the roadmap.Did not commit to MiLogin integration. Demo of registry for stroke and STEMI were too brief to tell. Demo system experienced delays.

Locality – Provided editable copies of redlines and agreed to use this as the basis for the contract. Clarified components included in costs. Explained auditing features and integrations. Capabilities were demonstrated and satisfied requirements.

Thentia – Identified changes in proposed personnel. Added information not provided in the resumes. Explained ADA training. Provided high-level list of third-party software. Listed what is available in the public look-up. Provided CJIS information. Gave roadmap targets. Confirmed handling of multiple licenses and deleting documents. Clarified inspection and enforcement capabilities. Confirmed other capabilities with additional descriptions of how they work. Capabilities were demonstrated and satisfied requirements. Process for ticket resolution was described rather than presented.

ImageTrend’s submission did not pass the technical evaluation based on scores under 80.

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

$ 19,995.00

$ 555,000.00

$19,995.00

$50,000.00

$ 38,025.00

Some prices (especially ESO & Thentia) have volume tiers. Using volume estimate from the RFP.

IX. Negotiations Contract negotiations were successfully completed with biospatial and Locality.

X. 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.

biospatial provided the best value to the State for Systems 1 & 2. Best value factors for Award Recommendation include: high technical evaluation score, good communication planning, providing a full transition plan (in and out), a process that incorporates user input into design, extra value for facilities research by supporting questions that are defined by and unique to a facility, handling of different roles and permissions per facility with a single login, providing ability to export data to other DHHS system at no additional cost, customizable syndromic surveillance reports, fast on-the-fly chart function.

Locality provided the best value to the State. Best value factors for Award Recommendation include: good training options, administrators can customize the patient care forms from a centralized location and can add elements to include in the reporting, defining which elements are required. The use of workflows for PCR allows modification at the EMS agency level in a way that is clear and simple for users. ODBC connector provides direct connections and doesn’t require DataMart.

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 biospatial in the amount of $ 1,286,783.66.

Award Recommendation is made to Locality in the amount of $ 579,421.09.

image1.png