NIA1 - 240000000146 - Legal Mail Authentication - Amended 12.05.23.docx

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

Notice of Intent to Award Number: NIA1 240000000146 The Department of Technology, Management, & Budget’s Procurement office has completed the evaluation of RFS 230000002641 – Legal Mail Authentication for MDOC Correctional Facilities and has recommended an award to TextBehind Inc. in the total amount of $1,284,206.40, 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:

Tony Edgecomb, Solicitation Manager.

edgecombt@michigan.gov 517-449-6419 Background Information:

This Request for Solution (RFS) was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor to provide Legal Mail Authentication Software and/or Services. The term of this contract is three (3) base years, with up to five (5) renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFS was posted on SIGMA VSS on June 30, 2023 for 40 days. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of August 9, 2023.

Las Vegas, NV, 89119

Stamford, CT 06926

Phoenix, MD 21131

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

Proposals receiving 80 or more technical evaluation points will have pricing evaluated and considered for award.

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

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

Arnold Vande Mark, Contract Administrator

MDOC, PMCD

Andrew Fotenakes, Contract Manager

MDOC, PMCD

Norma Killough, Administrative Assistant

MDOC, CFA

Shawn Brewer, Assistant Deputy Director

MDOC, CFA

Jared Warner, Senior Policy Executive

MDOC, OLA

Aaron Supianoski, Contract Monitor

MDOC, PMCD

Mary Knapp, Business Analyst

DTMB, AS

David Enslin, Senior Executive Business Relationship Administrator, DTMB, AS

Tony Edgecomb, Category Specialist

DTMB, CPS

III. Evaluation Results A. Pigeonly Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Pigeonly Inc., based on a score of 99, did meet the requirements of this RFS. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Vendor Questions Worksheet 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory:

2. Attachment 1, Resume Templates 09/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. Contractor Project Manager, the bidder did not meet the education requirements.

3. Schedule A: Statement of Work 50/50 The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory for this section.

4. Schedule A table 1 Business Specifications Worksheet 30/30 The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory for this section.

Total Score: 99/100 B. Pitney Bowes Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Pitney Bowes Inc., based on a score of 42, did not meet the requirements of this RFS. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Vendor Questions Worksheet 00/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were unsatisfactory. The following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 5 Experience 1, the bidder did not provide a contract value.

b. Section 6 Standard Contract Terms, the bidder takes exception to all terms and conditions and provides no written exceptions.

c. Section 7 Insurance Requirements, the bidder amended the Insurance Requirements.

2. Attachment 1, Resume Templates 00/10 The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were unsatisfactory for this section. The following deficiencies were noted:

a. Contractor Project Manager, the bidder removed the provided resume template and was found non-responsive regarding the information requested therein.

b. Contractor Security Officer, the bidder removed the provided resume template and was found non-responsive regarding the information requested therein.

3. Schedule A: Statement of Work 26/50 The Evaluation Team determined that multiple responses were unsatisfactory for this section. The following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 8 Data Retention and Removal, the bidder states that all data remains stored in Pitney Bowes hosted environment during the life of the contract.

b. Section 13 Hardware, the bidder does not meet the State requirement for bidder to own and maintain hardware.

c. Section 17 Additional Products and Services, the bidder Solution does not meet the end to end requirements that the State stated in the RFS.

d. Section 20 Contractor Personnel Requirements, the bidder states technical and engineering support may be performed by a supplier outside of the United States. The supplier is not named, nor listed under subcontractors.

e. Section 24 Project Management, the bidder will not agree to the State’s milestones/deliverables for implementation but does not provide an alternative or explain why the bidder cannot adhere to the State’s schedule.

f. Section 26 MDOC Security Requirements, the bidder takes exception but does not specify why or provide redlines.

g. Section 27 Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA), 42 U.S.C. § 15601, the bidder takes exception but does not specify why or provide redlines.

h. Section 28 Vendor Rules and Regulations, the bidder takes exception but does not specify why or provide redlines.

i. Section 29 Reasonable Suspicion, the bidder takes exception but does not specify why or provide redlines.

j. Section 30 Overfamiliarity/Unauthorized Contact, the bidder takes exception but does not specify why or provide redlines.

k. Section 31 Procurement, Monitoring, and Compliance Division, the bidder takes exception but does not specify why or provide redlines.

4. Schedule A table 1 Business Specifications Worksheet 16/30 The Evaluation Team determined that multiple responses were unsatisfactory for this section. The following deficiencies were noted:

a. Specification 2, the bidder did not provide an example of the step by step process.

b. Specification 2B, the bidder Solution does not provide a bidder end to end Solution as communicated by the State in the RFS.

c. Specification 2E, the bidder Solution does not provide a bidder end to end Solution as communicated by the State in the RFS.

d. Specification 14, the bidder takes exception to Schedule D – Attachment 1 – MDOC Service Level Agreement and does not specify any redlines or alternatives.

Total Score: 42/100 C. TextBehind Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that TextBehind Inc., based on a score of 94, did meet the requirements of this RFS. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Vendor Questions Worksheet 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory:

2. Attachment 1, Resume Templates 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory.

3. Schedule A: Statement of Work 49/50 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. Section 26 MDOC Security Requirements, the bidder agreed without exception, but was non-responsive in explaining additional security measures.

4. Schedule A table 1 Business Specifications Worksheet 25/30 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. Specification 13A, the bidder Solution requires the use of mobile devices and does not currently offer barcode scanner compatibility.

Total Score: 94/100

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Version 2023-1 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. The details can be found following the summary:

(Annually) Negotiated Pricing (Annually) Term Pricing (3 years)

*Package 3 would be required to meet MDOC’s authorization needs.

**The initial pricing also included $25 and $15 fees per authorized and reauthorized user, respectively. This was later waived in negotiations.

Pigeonly Inc.

TextBehind Inc.

VI. Negotiations One of two bidders offered price reductions during negotiations. TextBehind Inc. offered an immediate discount on the annual license, an additional 2% discount for any executed Option year, and waived the authorization and reauthorization fees. Additionally, TextBehind Inc. was willing to improve their commitment to develop barcode compatibility into their Solution down from 150 days to 60 days from award recommendation.

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.

TextBehind Inc. provided the best value to the State. Best value factors for Award Recommendation include:

a. A Solution that meets the State’s requirements but is low impact to senders, which should help with adoption.

b. Agreement to Standard Contract Terms with no redlines.

c. The bidder is a strategic partner with several other State contractors.

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 TextBehind Inc. in the total amount of $1,284,206.40.

image2.emf image3.emf image1.png