Polygraph Synopsis 3-21-2018.docx

STATE OF MICHIGAN

ENTERPRISE PROCUREMENT

Department of Technology Management and Budget, Central Procurement Constitution Hall

Recommendation of Award

The Department of Technology, Management, & Budget’s (DTMB) Procurement office has completed the evaluation of the Polygraph Examination Services Request for Proposal number 180000000437 for the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) and has recommended an award to the following Bidders:

· Michigan Reliable Polygraph Services, LLC

· Mike Anthony Forensic Polygraph Consulting Services, LLC

· Myatt Polygraph Consulting, LLC

· Myres and Ruffino Polygraph, Inc.

· Secure Polygraph Services, LLC

· West Michigan Polygraph Services, LLC in the amount of $125,000 per Contract, pending State Administrative Board approval, if applicable. More information on the State Administrative Board can be found at: State Administrative Board.

Bidders who were 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 recommended for the award; and address any questions about the award process. The Solicitation Manager may be contacted as follows:

Sarah Walter, Solicitation Manager WalterS6@Michigan.gov 517-256-4237

Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for selection of Contractors to provide Polygraph Examination Services. The term of this contract is three years, with up to five additional one-year renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA on December 6, 2017 until January 10, 2018. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of January 10, 2018:

City, State Zip

SDVOB*

Michigan Reliable Polygraph, LLC

39111 Six Mile Road Livonia, Michigan 48152 No

Mike Anthony Forensic Polygraph & Consulting Services, LLC

P.O. BOX 36641

Grosse Pointe Farms, Michigan, 48236 No

Myatt Polygraph Consulting, LLC

42557 Pond Ridge Lane Belleville, Michigan, 48111 No

Myres and Ruffino Polygraph, Inc.

13704 Farmington Rd. Suite 100 Livonia, Michigan 48150 No

Secure Polygraph Services, LLC

1985 Glen Iris Dr.

Commerce, Michigan, 48382 No

West Michigan Polygraph Services

436 44TH St. SE, Suite C Kentwood, Michigan, 49548 No

*SDVOB: Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Business

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.

Solicitation Instructions, Section 6, Evaluation Process:

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

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

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

II. Evaluation Method Responses to this solicitation were reviewed by an Evaluation Team, which consisted of the following individuals:

Sarah Walter, Category Analyst DTMB – Central Procurement, Services Chelsea Edgett, Category Manager DTMB – Central Procurement, Services

Ethan Todd, Buyer MDOC, Procurement Monitoring and Compliance Division

William Dunham, Parole Probation Specialist MDOC, Field Operations Administration

Julie Goldman, State Administrative Manager MDOC, Field Operations Administration

III. Evaluation Results A. Michigan Reliable Polygraph Services, LLC

The Evaluation Team determined that Michigan Reliable Polygraph Services, LLC, based on a score of 94, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work, All Sections except Section 3 (44/50) The Evaluation Team determined that the overall responses were mostly satisfactory, however, the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.1D – Bidder’s response did not provide detail regarding how assessment of fitness for testing tasks would be performed.

b. Section 1.1F – Bidder acknowledged acceptance to this Section, however, the Bidder stated “MDOC is responsible for providing all testing locations.” The bidder did not describe or state the public examination sites it would utilize.

c. Section 1.5A – Quality Assurance Program: Bidder did not provide a Quality Assurance Plan(s) that is currently in place within its organization.

d. Section 1.8C – Bidder did not provide an example of its professional development plan, nor did the Bidder provide how deficiencies will be evaluated.

e. Section 1.8D – Bidder did not address how training will be provided to supervising agent.

f. Section 4.1 Project Plan - Bidder did not provide a transition plan.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3 – Staffing (25/25) The Evaluation Team determined the responses were satisfactory – No deficiencies were noted.

3. Vendor Questions Worksheet, Section 5 Experience (25/25) The Evaluation Team determined the responses were satisfactory – No deficiencies were noted.

Total Score: 94/100

B. Mike Anthony Forensic Polygraph & Consulting Services, LLC

The Evaluation Team determined that Mike Anthony Forensic Polygraph & Consulting Services, LLC based on a score of 84, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work, All sections except – Section 3 (40/50) The Evaluation Team determined that the overall responses were satisfactory, however, the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.1F – Bidder acknowledged acceptance to this Section, however, alternate testing location will not suffice for all regions bid on.

b. Section 1.1J – Bidder did not provide detail regarding how tasks of this Section would be performed.

c. Section 1.2 – Pre-examination Practices: Bidder did not provide detail regarding how the Examiner would obtain the information sufficient to identify the Examinee.

d. Section 1.3 – Additional Examinations: Bidder did not describe best practices for providing Additional Examination.

e. Section 1.5A – Quality Assurance Program: Bidder did not provide a Quality Assurance Plan(s) that is currently in place within its organization.

f. Section 1.6B – Bidder did not describe its procedure for notification to MDOC concerning confessions to any new crimes or violations of parole conditions since their last examination.

g. Section 1.7 – Product Development: Bidder did not provide its ability to invest in new product development and research.

h. Section 1.8C – Bidder did not provide an example of its professional development plan.

i. Section 1.8D – Bidder did not address how training will be provided to supervising agents.

j. Section 4.1 – Project Plan: Bidder did not provide a transition plan.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3 – Staffing (24/25) The Evaluation Team determined the responses were satisfactory, however, the following deficiency was noted:

a. Section 3.5B – Bidder did not provide detail regarding the company that will be performing background checks, or the scope of the background checks performed.

3. Vendor Questions Worksheet, Section 5 – Experience (20/25) The Evaluation Team determined that the overall responses were satisfactory – the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Experience 1 – Bidder did not provide Results Obtained.

b. Experience 2 – Bidder did not provide Dollar Value, Status, or Results Obtained.

c. Experience 3 – Bidder did not provide Dollar Value, Status or Results Obtained.

Total Score: 84/100

C. Myatt Polygraph Consulting, LLC

The Evaluation Team determined that Myatt Polygraph Consulting, LLC based on a score of 88, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work, All sections except – Section 3 (44/50) The Evaluation Team determined that overall the responses were satisfactory – the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.1D – Bidder’s response did not provide describe how it would meet the requirements of this Section.

b. Section 1.1F – Bidder acknowledged acceptance to this Section, however, the Bidder did not describe or state the public examination sites it would utilize.

c. Section 1.2 – Pre-Examination Practices: Bidder did not provide detail regarding how the Examiner would sufficiently identify the Examinee; or provide detail regarding the notification process that would occur if the Examinee refused testing.

d. Section 1.5A – Quality Assurance Program: Bidder did not provide a Quality Assurance Plan(s) that is currently in place within the organization.

e. Section 1.8C – Bidder did not provide an example of its professional development plan.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3 – Staffing (25/25) The Evaluation Team determined the responses were satisfactory – No deficiencies noted.

3. Vendor Question Worksheet, Section 5 – Experience (19/25) The Evaluation Team determined that that the overall responses were satisfactory – the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Experience 1 – Bidder did not provide how this project experience is relevant to the subject of this RFP, Dollar Value, or Results Obtained.

b. Experience 2 – Bidder did not provide how this project experience is relevant to the subject of this RFP, Dollar Value or Results Obtained.

c. Experience 3- Bidder did not provide how this project experience is relevant to the subject of this RFP or Results Obtained.

Total Score: 88/100

D. Myres and Ruffino Polygraph, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Myers and Ruffino Polygraph, Inc. based on a score of 90, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work, All sections except – Section 3 (41/50) The Evaluation Team determined that the overall responses were satisfactory – the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.1F – Bidder acknowledged acceptance to this Section, however, alternate testing location will not suffice for all regions bid on.

b. Section 1.1I – Bidder did not state their technique and format for single-issue examinations.

c. Section 1.1J – Bidder did not describe how it will meet this requirement.

d. Section 1.2 – Pre-Examination Practices: Bidder did not provide detail regarding how the Examiner would sufficiently identify the Examinee, gain Examinee consent to testing, or how the Examiner will ensure the Examinee has a full understanding of the test issues and questions.

e. Section 1.5A – Quality Assurance Program: Bidder did not provide a Quality Assurance Plan(s) that is currently in place within its organization.

f. Section 1.6A – Bidder did not describe its procedure for notification to MDOC concerning Examinee failure to appear for a scheduled examination or cancellation of appointment by Examinee/parolee.

g. Section 1.6B – Bidder did not describe its procedure for notification to MDOC concerning confessions to any new crimes or violations of parole conditions.

h. Section 1.8C – Bidder did not provide an example of its professional development plan.

i. Section 1.8D – Bidder did not address how training will be provided to supervising agents.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3 – Staffing (24/25) The Evaluation Team determined that the overall responses were satisfactory, however, the following deficiency was noted:

a. Section 3.5B – Bidder did not provide detail regarding the company that will be performing background checks, or the scope of the background checks performed.

3. Vendor Question Worksheet, Section 5 – Experience (25/25)

Total Score: 90/100

E. Secure Polygraph Services LLC

The Evaluation Team determined that Secure Polygraph Services, LLC based on a score of 97, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work, All sections except – Section 3 (48/50) The Examination Team determined that the overall results for this section were satisfactory – the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.5A – Quality Assurance Program: Bidder did not provide a Quality Assurance Plan(s) that is currently in place within its organization.

b. Section 1.8C – Bidder did not provide an example of its professional development plan.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3 – Staffing (24/25) The Evaluation Team determined that the overall responses were satisfactory – the following deficiency was noted:

a. Section 3.5B – Bidder did not provide detail regarding the company that will be performing background checks, or the scope of the background checks performed.

3. Vendor Question Worksheet, Section 5 – Experience (25/25)

Total Score: 97/100

F. West Michigan Polygraph Services, (WMPS)

The Evaluation Team determined that West Michigan Polygraph Services, (WMPS) based on a score of 89, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work, All sections except – Section 3 (49/50) The Evaluation Team determined that the overall responses were satisfactory – the following deficiency was noted:

a. Section 1.5A – Quality Assurance Program: Bidder did not provide a Quality Assurance Plan(s) that is currently in place within its organization.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3 – Staffing (15/25) The Evaluation Team determined that the overall responses were satisfactory, however, the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 3.3 – Key Personnel: Bidder did not provide copies of the Examiners licenses or chronological resumes, in the initial submission.

b. Section 3.4 – Disclosure of Subcontractors: Bidder did not provide a list of Subcontractors and other requested material.

3. Vendor Question Worksheet, Section – 5 Experience (25/25)

Total Score: 89/100

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

(WMPS)

V. Pricing Summary Pricing was evaluated for the bidders who passed technical. Please note: The State of Michigan engaged in three rounds of price negotiations to determine the pricing summary of Services to be performed:

General Rate (Testifying at a parole violation hearing) $50

$50

$50

$50

General Rate (Testifying at a parole violation hearing) $50

$50

$50

VI. Negotiations: The DTMB Procurement engaged in three rounds of price negotiations with the bidders who passed technical. First-round pricing was obtained through the bidding process; each Bidder submitted their initial pricing per select Prosperity Regions of its choosing. DTMB Procurement then engaged in second-round pricing, by contacting each bidder and requesting the bidder to submit their reduced pricing for each Prosperity Region it bid on initially. This information was then reviewed by the Evaluation Team.

DTMB Procurement determined set pricing for the third-round of pricing that bidders must accept and comply to receive an Award from the State of Michigan.

VII. Award Recommendation:

Award recommendation is made to the responsive and responsible Bidders who agreed to negotiated rates in third round pricing and 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 factors stated in Technical Evaluation Criteria, Section 6 Evaluation Process, and price. Award Recommendation is made to the following Bidders:

Michigan Reliable Polygraph Services, LLC

Mike Anthony Forensic Polygraph Consulting Services, LLC

Myatt Polygraph Consulting, LLC

$125,000

5, 6, 7, 9, and 10

Myres and Ruffino Polygraph, Inc.

Secure Polygraph Services, LLC

image1.jpeg