part I and part II DoIT B-51208.pdf

Sole Source Justification Form

Version 7.01 Page 1 of 9

Bulletin Reference Number 26-448DOIT-INFOT-B-51208

Requesting Agency/University Department of Innovation and Technology

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

Department/Bureau/Section: Department of Innovation and Technology

Need Identified Date: Jan 22, 2026 Supply/Service Need By Date: Aug 19, 2026

Project Title: JPMC SS Microsoft Professional Services

Vendor: Microsoft

Provide a description of the supplies or services required:

The Department of Innovation and Technology is looking to procure Microsoft Professional Services as a JPMC for use by Dept of Innovation & Technology and all governmental units and qualified not-for-profits.

Microsoft products like Azure, Microsoft 365, Dynamic 365 and others are complex and implementing them strategically with the help of Professional Services aligned with our needs can serve the State of Illinois Departments and constituents more efficiently. For the very complex applications and builds services from the product publisher are needed. In addition, the Microsoft Unified Support is delivered directly from the publisher. It provides comprehensive, organization-wide technical support across all Microsoft technologies—cloud (e.g., Azure, Microsoft 365), on-premises, and hybrid environments.

Value: Estimated Value of Initial Term, this Change Order or Amendment: 6,000,000

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 Economically Feasible Source

Section II - Proposed Term

One-Time Purchase Term Contract

Estimated Contract Begin Date: Aug 19, 2026

Estimated Contract End Date: Aug 18, 2029

Number of Potential Renewals: 0

Length of Each Renewal in Months: 0

Total Value of All Renewals: 0

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:

The services can be procured through Microsoft at the MSRP cost or through a reseller (previously Dell) at a 30% markup. No vendors will be able to provide the Microsoft services required for less than Microsoft can. An annual competitive solicitation will therefore not result in any cost savings to the Agency.

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

Version 7.01 Page 2 of 9

Bulletin Reference Number 26-448DOIT-INFOT-B-51208

Requesting Agency/University Department of Innovation and Technology

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)

Compatibility of Equipment, Accessories, Replacement Parts or Service

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

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 Aug 19, 2025 Aug 18, 2026 6,000,000 JPMC SS Microsoft Prof Serv P-84650 Sole Source

2 Aug 18, 2024 Jun 30, 2025 5,148,141 Microsoft Unified Enterprise Support - Release Off Master Contract P-69783 RFP

3 Oct 1, 2020 Jun 30, 2024 10,323,750 Microsoft Unified Support FY23 FY 24 - Release off Master Contract P-17680 RFP

4 RFP

5 RFP

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

The Microsoft Professional Services were procured in two ways under the Dell contract, “Unified Support” and IT Consulting Services. However, during Master Service Agreement negotiations for the current MSA, it was noted the State agreed to items in the previous MSA that should not have been done so. In order to come to an agreement on the MSA DoIT needed to pursue a Sole Source. Additional context is when it was determined that Microsoft had to be a sub-contractor on the Dell contract, but an agreement was not able to be reached without a 30% mark up. At that point, the Agency pursued the Sole Source contract last year. I’ve included on the SSJF the contracts that had Unified Support in them.

Section VI - Business Rationale

Version 7.01 Page 3 of 9

Bulletin Reference Number 26-448DOIT-INFOT-B-51208

Requesting Agency/University Department of Innovation and Technology

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

The Department of Innovation and Technology (DoIT) is requesting the creation of a Joint Purchase Master Contract (JPMC) for Microsoft Professional Services. These services are essential to help the State effectively implement, manage, and optimize Microsoft technologies, including cloud platforms such as Azure and Microsoft 365, especially for complex initiatives that needs the expertise f the publisher.

Microsoft Professional Services provide specialized expertise in areas such as Azure data management, artificial intelligence, Office 365 consulting, and custom application development. This support helps ensure that the State achieves desired outcomes on technically complex projects.

All projects for DoIT managed agencies and additional customer agencies utilizing these services must go through DoIT’s IT Governance process. This review ensures that each project:

Is appropriate for State use, Aligns with broader statewide IT strategies, and Uses the correct resource and contract vehicle based on project complexity.

Furthermore, DoIT's ITPO approvals will also consist of a review to ensure the appropriate contract is being utilized for the complexity of projects. The contract will incorporate language that outlines this process and how the approvals must be documented.

Additionally, Microsoft Unified Support—delivered directly by Microsoft—provides comprehensive, organization-wide technical support across all Microsoft technologies, including cloud, on-premises, and hybrid environments.

In the past, resellers of Microsoft Professional Services have been available, Dell for instance, but the work must still be performed by Microsoft and the reseller added a 30% markup to Microsoft's price. This resulted in the same work done, by Microsoft, with with a 30% markup to the reseller.

Version 7.01 Page 4 of 9

Bulletin Reference Number 26-448DOIT-INFOT-B-51208

Requesting Agency/University Department of Innovation and Technology

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

All titles listed are hourly and a Scope of work (SOW) will be required for each project.

Associate Consultant These Titles are both Onshore and Offshore:

Consultant Technician VIII Senior Consultant Technician VII Principal Consultant Technician VI Associate Project Manager Technician V Project Manager Technician IV Domain Solution Architect Technician III GitHub Services Delivery Technician II GitHub Services PMO Technician I GD Offshore Technician GD Onsite Associate Technician Data Scientist Principal Data Scientist Security Architect Security Consultant Incident Responder Consulting Product Manager Senior Consulting Product Manager Delivery Management Executive Program Director Senior Domain Solution Architect Program Architect

These services provide the following and are needed on complex projects that require the publishers knowledge:

-Expertise and Guidance: Microsoft professional services offer access to specialized expertise in Microsoft technologies, including cloud solutions like Azure, Microsoft 365, and Dynamics 365.

-Strategic Roadmap: Consulting partners can help develop a strategic roadmap to leverage Microsoft solutions for gaining a competitive edge, analyzing market trends, and understanding customer behavior.

-Implementation and Integration: They assist with setting up, configuring, and integrating Microsoft technologies with existing systems, ensuring a smooth transition and optimal performance.

-Custom Solutions: Microsoft professional services can tailor solutions to meet unique business needs, including custom application development and management.

-Security and Risk Management: They prioritize security, providing risk assessments, governance frameworks, and continuous monitoring to protect data and ensure compliance.

-Training and Support: Microsoft professional services offer training programs and ongoing support to empower teams to effectively utilize Microsoft technologies and address any challenges.

-Efficiency and Productivity: By streamlining workflows and improving communication, these services can enhance overall efficiency and productivity across teams.

-Cloud Migration and Management: They help businesses migrate to the cloud and manage their cloud-based solutions effectively, including licensing and resource optimization

Version 7.01 Page 5 of 9

Bulletin Reference Number 26-448DOIT-INFOT-B-51208

Requesting Agency/University Department of Innovation and Technology

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 State of Illinois has long relied on Microsoft products and licensing because of their strong integration, scalability, and ability to support a wide range of government operations. Microsoft’s ecosystem—spanning platforms such as Microsoft 365, Azure, and Power Platform—is designed to work seamlessly together, which enhances productivity, improves collaboration, and reduces the inefficiencies caused by switching between disconnected systems.

To fully leverage the State’s investment in this technology stack, Microsoft Professional Services are critical. These services, delivered directly by Microsoft, include both technical support and specialized consulting. They help agencies uncover underused features, configure tools for agency-specific needs, and implement new technologies, such as AI, advanced data analytics, and automation, in a strategic and secure manner.

Many of the State’s technology projects are highly complex and require deep, proprietary knowledge of Microsoft systems. In these cases, Microsoft Professional Services provide expertise that is not available through third-party vendors. Access to engineers and architects from Microsoft ensures that the State can:

Complete advanced implementations correctly and efficiently, Reduce risk and downtime, Accelerate timelines, and Gain critical knowledge transfer that supports long-term sustainability.

Having a direct contractual relationship with Microsoft allows the State to engage collaboratively with the publisher on complex, mission-critical initiatives. In some instances, this level of expertise is not only beneficial—it is essential to ensure the success and completion of projects.

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:

Microsoft does not authorize any front-facing channel partner or reseller to deliver its Professional Services in the way it does for licensing. These services are provided exclusively by Microsoft and are not available through third-party vendors. What makes Microsoft Professional Services unique is their direct access to proprietary knowledge, tools, and internal engineering teams. This includes:

Escalation capabilities directly to Microsoft product engineering teams, Access to confidential product roadmaps and unreleased features, Expertise in implementing complex, cutting-edge solutions such as Azure cloud architecture, Microsoft 365 enterprise security frameworks, and Dynamics 365 customizations.

No third-party consultant or vendor can replicate this depth of access or insight, as these capabilities are only available internally within Microsoft.

The only alternative to direct engagement would be for Microsoft to act as a subcontractor under another vendor’s contract. The State explored this option; however, Microsoft was unable to reach a subcontracting agreement with the proposed vendor. Additionally, this type of agreement would include an approximate 30% markup over Microsoft’s direct cost to offset the contractual risk associated with Microsoft’s work products.

The State also holds a Master Services Agreement (MSA) with Microsoft that governs professional services engagements. In previous attempts to route Microsoft work through a reseller, the State was asked to assume the risk of non-payment if the reseller defaulted— terms which are not acceptable under current State policies. With out a contractual agreement the State could not assume responsibility.

To uphold the terms of the MSA and access the full benefits of Microsoft’s proprietary services, the State must engage directly with Microsoft through a formal contract. No other vendor can technically provide the same level of service, risk assurance, or strategic access for highly complex projects.

Version 7.01 Page 6 of 9

Bulletin Reference Number 26-448DOIT-INFOT-B-51208

Requesting Agency/University Department of Innovation and Technology

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

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

This is a specific service for a product the state is already utilizing and there are no front facing reseller agreements. The State has other contracts to get resources with knowledge in Microsoft products. However, to get the level of expertise needed for some of the highly complex projects the State works on a contract for services from the software publisher is also needed.

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?

To ensure the State receives the best possible value, the Department explored alternatives to contracting directly with Microsoft. One option involved working through a third-party vendor who offered to provide Microsoft Professional Services as a pass-through.

However, the vendor proposed charging the State approximately 30% more than Microsoft’s direct rate. Under this arrangement, the vendor would not perform any of the work themselves—they would simply purchase the services from Microsoft on the State’s behalf and apply a markup.

In addition to the significant cost increase, this structure introduced legal and financial risks. The State holds a Master Services Agreement (MSA) with Microsoft, which outlines the terms for direct service engagements. If the reseller were to default or fail to pay Microsoft, the State could be held liable for the unpaid services—despite not having a direct contractual relationship with Microsoft.

These risks are unacceptable and inconsistent with the MSA’s intent.

Further analysis showed that relying on this third-party model could increase project costs by $5 million to $9 million for existing initiatives currently underway with Microsoft. This would result in a substantial and unnecessary financial burden for taxpayers.

By contrast, Microsoft has pre-established, government-standard rates for Professional Services offered directly to state and local governments. These rates are competitively set and consistent across jurisdictions, reflecting the highly specialized nature of the services—such as enterprise cloud architecture, cybersecurity, and AI implementations. Procuring directly from Microsoft ensures the State receives these services at the lowest available cost with full accountability and risk protections.

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

Yes No

Version 7.01 Page 7 of 9

Bulletin Reference Number 26-448DOIT-INFOT-B-51208

Requesting Agency/University Department of Innovation and Technology

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 economically feasible source request is not approved, the State could face significant financial and operational impacts.

From a cost standpoint, obtaining Microsoft Professional Services through a third-party vendor would result in a markup of 30% or more. This would increase the overall cost of critical technology projects by millions of dollars, without adding any value—since the vendor would simply act as a middleman and not perform any of the actual work.

Operationally, relying on a reseller introduces unnecessary delays and inefficiencies. When services are routed through a third party, all support requests and project activities must pass through that vendor before reaching Microsoft. This causes communication lags, slows down resolution times, and jeopardizes the success of time-sensitive initiatives—potentially leading to higher downstream costs and delays in delivering services to Illinois residents.

Most importantly, many of the State’s current and future IT projects involve highly complex Microsoft technologies—such as Azure cloud infrastructure, enterprise cybersecurity, and custom application development—that require direct support from Microsoft’s Professional Services team. These projects cannot be effectively completed without access to Microsoft's proprietary expertise, tools, and engineering resources.

Without direct access to Microsoft through a sole source agreement, the State risks the following on highly complex projects:

Higher costs to taxpayers, Project delays and inefficiencies, Reduced effectiveness of critical technology initiatives, and Potential failure of complex, mission-critical systems.

This sole source is necessary to ensure these risks are avoided and the State can complete its most critical IT projects on time, within budget, and to the highest standards.

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

Version 7.01 Page 8 of 9

Bulletin Reference Number 26-448DOIT-INFOT-B-51208

Requesting Agency/University Department of Innovation and Technology

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 Feb 17, 2026

Printed Name Dave Carter E-mail Address dave.carter2@illinois.gov

Phone Number 217-299-9678

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 christopher.brinkmeyer@illinois.gov

Phone Number 217-685-4682 Date Feb 19, 2026

Printed Name Chris Brinkmeyer

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 217-685-9312 Date Mar 6, 2026

Printed Name Joshua Sergent E-mail Address joshua.sergent@illinois.gov

Version 7.01 Page 9 of 9

Bulletin Reference Number 26-448DOIT-INFOT-B-51208

Requesting Agency/University Department of Innovation and Technology

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

Project Title JPMC SEFS Microsoft Professional Services

Vendor Microsoft

Initial Date of Procurement Bulletin Posting Mar 10, 2026

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 217-622-1857

Printed Name Ellen H. Daley Date Mar 27, 2026

CPO E-mail ellen.h.daley@illinois.gov

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 ellen.h.daley@illinois.gov

Microsoft Professional Services provide specialized expertise in areas such as Azure data management, artificial intelligence, Office 365 consulting, and custom application development. This support helps ensure that the State achieves desired outcomes on technically complex projects.

All projects for DoIT managed agencies and additional customer agencies utilizing these services must go through DoIT’s IT Governance process. This review ensures that each project:

Is appropriate for State use, Aligns with broader statewide IT strategies, and Uses the correct resource and contract vehicle based on project complexity.

Furthermore, DoIT's ITPO approvals will also consist of a review to ensure the appropriate contract is being utilized for the complexity of projects. The contract will incorporate language that outlines this process and how the approvals must be documented.

Additionally, Microsoft Unified Support—delivered directly by Microsoft—provides comprehensive, organization-wide technical support across all Microsoft technologies, including cloud, on-premises, and hybrid environments.

In the past, resellers of Microsoft Professional Services have been available, Dell for instance, but the work must still be performed by Microsoft and the reseller added a 30% markup to Microsoft's price. This resulted in the same work done, by Microsoft, with with a 30% markup to the reseller.

Q2Answer: All titles listed are hourly and a Scope of work (SOW) will be required for each project.

Associate Consultant These Titles are both Onshore and Offshore:

Consultant Technician VIII Senior Consultant Technician VII Principal Consultant Technician VI Associate Project Manager Technician V Project Manager Technician IV Domain Solution Architect Technician III GitHub Services Delivery Technician II GitHub Services PMO Technician I GD Offshore Technician GD Onsite Associate Technician Data Scientist Principal Data Scientist Security Architect Security Consultant Incident Responder Consulting Product Manager Senior Consulting Product Manager Delivery Management Executive Program Director Senior Domain Solution Architect Program Architect

These services provide the following and are needed on complex projects that require the publishers knowledge:

-Expertise and Guidance: Microsoft professional services offer access to specialized expertise in Microsoft technologies, including cloud solutions like Azure, Microsoft 365, and Dynamics 365.

-Strategic Roadmap: Consulting partners can help develop a strategic roadmap to leverage Microsoft solutions for gaining a competitive edge, analyzing market trends, and understanding customer behavior.

-Implementation and Integration: They assist with setting up, configuring, and integrating Microsoft technologies with existing systems, ensuring a smooth transition and optimal performance.

-Custom Solutions: Microsoft professional services can tailor solutions to meet unique business needs, including custom application development and management.

-Security and Risk Management: They prioritize security, providing risk assessments, governance frameworks, and continuous monitoring to protect data and ensure compliance.

-Training and Support: Microsoft professional services offer training programs and ongoing support to empower teams to effectively utilize Microsoft technologies and address any challenges.

-Efficiency and Productivity: By streamlining workflows and improving communication, these services can enhance overall efficiency and productivity across teams.

-Cloud Migration and Management: They help businesses migrate to the cloud and manage their cloud-based solutions effectively, including licensing and resource optimization Q3Answer: The State of Illinois has long relied on Microsoft products and licensing because of their strong integration, scalability, and ability to support a wide range of government operations. Microsoft’s ecosystem—spanning platforms such as Microsoft 365, Azure, and Power Platform—is designed to work seamlessly together, which enhances productivity, improves collaboration, and reduces the inefficiencies caused by switching between disconnected systems.

To fully leverage the State’s investment in this technology stack, Microsoft Professional Services are critical. These services, delivered directly by Microsoft, include both technical support and specialized consulting. They help agencies uncover underused features, configure tools for agency-specific needs, and implement new technologies, such as AI, advanced data analytics, and automation, in a strategic and secure manner.

Many of the State’s technology projects are highly complex and require deep, proprietary knowledge of Microsoft systems. In these cases, Microsoft Professional Services provide expertise that is not available through third-party vendors. Access to engineers and architects from Microsoft ensures that the State can:

Complete advanced implementations correctly and efficiently, Reduce risk and downtime, Accelerate timelines, and Gain critical knowledge transfer that supports long-term sustainability.

Having a direct contractual relationship with Microsoft allows the State to engage collaboratively with the publisher on complex, mission-critical initiatives. In some instances, this level of expertise is not only beneficial—it is essential to ensure the success and completion of projects.

Q4Answer: Microsoft does not authorize any front-facing channel partner or reseller to deliver its Professional Services in the way it does for licensing. These services are provided exclusively by Microsoft and are not available through third-party vendors. What makes Microsoft Professional Services unique is their direct access to proprietary knowledge, tools, and internal engineering teams. This includes:

Escalation capabilities directly to Microsoft product engineering teams, Access to confidential product roadmaps and unreleased features, Expertise in implementing complex, cutting-edge solutions such as Azure cloud architecture, Microsoft 365 enterprise security frameworks, and Dynamics 365 customizations.

No third-party consultant or vendor can replicate this depth of access or insight, as these capabilities are only available internally within Microsoft.

The only alternative to direct engagement would be for Microsoft to act as a subcontractor under another vendor’s contract. The State explored this option; however, Microsoft was unable to reach a subcontracting agreement with the proposed vendor. Additionally, this type of agreement would include an approximate 30% markup over Microsoft’s direct cost to offset the contractual risk associated with Microsoft’s work products.

The State also holds a Master Services Agreement (MSA) with Microsoft that governs professional services engagements. In previous attempts to route Microsoft work through a reseller, the State was asked to assume the risk of non-payment if the reseller defaulted—terms which are not acceptable under current State policies. With out a contractual agreement the State could not assume responsibility.

To uphold the terms of the MSA and access the full benefits of Microsoft’s proprietary services, the State must engage directly with Microsoft through a formal contract. No other vendor can technically provide the same level of service, risk assurance, or strategic access for highly complex projects.

In addition to the significant cost increase, this structure introduced legal and financial risks. The State holds a Master Services Agreement (MSA) with Microsoft, which outlines the terms for direct service engagements. If the reseller were to default or fail to pay Microsoft, the State could be held liable for the unpaid services—despite not having a direct contractual relationship with Microsoft. These risks are unacceptable and inconsistent with the MSA’s intent.

Further analysis showed that relying on this third-party model could increase project costs by $5 million to $9 million for existing initiatives currently underway with Microsoft. This would result in a substantial and unnecessary financial burden for taxpayers.

By contrast, Microsoft has pre-established, government-standard rates for Professional Services offered directly to state and local governments. These rates are competitively set and consistent across jurisdictions, reflecting the highly specialized nature of the services—such as enterprise cloud architecture, cybersecurity, and AI implementations. Procuring directly from Microsoft ensures the State receives these services at the lowest available cost with full accountability and risk protections.

From a cost standpoint, obtaining Microsoft Professional Services through a third-party vendor would result in a markup of 30% or more. This would increase the overall cost of critical technology projects by millions of dollars, without adding any value—since the vendor would simply act as a middleman and not perform any of the actual work.

Operationally, relying on a reseller introduces unnecessary delays and inefficiencies. When services are routed through a third party, all support requests and project activities must pass through that vendor before reaching Microsoft. This causes communication lags, slows down resolution times, and jeopardizes the success of time-sensitive initiatives—potentially leading to higher downstream costs and delays in delivering services to Illinois residents.

Most importantly, many of the State’s current and future IT projects involve highly complex Microsoft technologies—such as Azure cloud infrastructure, enterprise cybersecurity, and custom application development—that require direct support from Microsoft’s Professional Services team. These projects cannot be effectively completed without access to Microsoft's proprietary expertise, tools, and engineering resources.

Without direct access to Microsoft through a sole source agreement, the State risks the following on highly complex projects:

Higher costs to taxpayers, Project delays and inefficiencies, Reduced effectiveness of critical technology initiatives, and Potential failure of complex, mission-critical systems.

This sole source is necessary to ensure these risks are avoided and the State can complete its most critical IT projects on time, within budget, and to the highest standards.