RFP - 190000001266 - AWARD RECOMMENDATION and Synopsis - SW Fingerprinting.pdf

Award Recommendation for RFP#: 19000000001266

Award Recommendation

The Department of Technology, Management, & Budget’s Procurement office has completed the evaluation of

Request for Proposal number 19000000001266 – Statewide Fingerprinting Services and has recommended an award to Idemia Identity & Security USA LLC in the amount of $7,000,000.00, 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, Sarah Walter, will be out of the office until further notice, however, her Supervisor may be contacted as follows:

Chelsea Lugibihl, Central Procurement Services Category Manager

LugibihlC@michigan.gov

517-643-7006

Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor to provide applicant fingerprinting services with data interface capabilities to the end using agency, for current and new hire employees for Statewide use. The term of this contract is five-years, with up to five additional one-year period(s) renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on February 28th, 2019 for 41 days. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of April 9, 2019.

Bidder Address, City, State Zip SDVOB*

Idemia Identity & Security USA LLC

296 Concord Road, Suite 300 Billerica, MA 01821-3180

No

Mosley’s Mobil Notary & Fingerprinting

Detroit, MI, 48221-4822 No

*SDVOB: Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Business

STATE OF MICHIGAN PROCUREMENT

Department of Technology Management & Budget 525 W. Allegan, 1st Floor, Lansing, MI 48913 P.O. BOX 30026 Lansing, MI 48909 https://www.michigan.gov/dtmb/0,5552,7-358-82550_85746_48756---,00.html https://www.michigan.gov/dtmb/0,5552,7-358-82550_85746_48756---,00.html

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 and Vendor Questions, Section 6, Mandatory Minimum Requirements.

A. Data Interface capable with the Michigan State Police (MSP) Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) at the time of bid submission.

B. Data Interface capable with the State of Michigan’s Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) Unique ID# and the Michigan State University (MSU) Michigan Workforce Background Check System at the time of bid submission.

C. Bidder must meet the Federal Bureau of the investigation (FBI) Electronic Biometric Transmission Specifications (EBTS) and the Michigan State Police’s EBTS.

D. Bidder must use Michigan State Police (MSP) API (Automated Print Identification) approved Live Scan equipment. The State will verify the Bidder’s certification with the FBI.

Solicitation Instructions, Section 7, Evaluation Process.

Technical Evaluation Criteria Weight

1. General Requirements – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Excluding

Section 2 and Section 6

2. Interface Requirements & Specifications – Schedule A, Statement of

Work, Section 2

3. Staffing – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 6 10

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet 30

Total 100

Proposals receiving 80 technical evaluation points or more 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 a Joint Evaluation Committee which consisted of the following individuals:

Voting Advisory

Sarah Walter, Solicitation Manager Department of Technology management and Budget (DTMB) – Procurement - Services & Commodities

Scott Blanchard, API Manager Michigan State Police (MSP) – Biometrics and Identification Division

Shery Rosin, Department Manager Michigan State Police (MSP) – Criminal Justice Information Center

Jessica Sweet, Support & Development Manager Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) – Foster & Adoptive Parent Recruitment

Gregory Rivet, Director Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) – Bureau of Finance & Administrative Services

Sarah Gorby, Department Analyst Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) – Division of Child Welfare Licensing

Brue Hanses, Michigan Department of Treasury (Treasury) – Administrator

Sarah Oumedian, Department Analyst Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) – Bureau of Grants and Purchasing

Chelsea Lugibihl, Category Manager Department of Technology, Management and Budget (DTMB) Procurement

III. Evaluation Results

A. Idemia Identity & Security USA LLC

The Evaluation Team determined that Idemia Identity & Security USA, LLC based on a score of 95 technical points, 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 – Excluding Section 2 & 6 (26/30) The Joint Evaluation Committee determined that the overall responses were mostly satisfactory, the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.2.A – Bidder did not indicate in response how the RI-030 form will be completed and returned to the person printed.

b. Section 3.E – Bidder did not indicate in response how quickly each employee can be printed during an onsite Livescan fingerprint service event.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2 – Interface Requirements (29/30) The Joint Evaluation Committee determined that the overall responses were mostly satisfactory, the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 2.1.D – Bidder did not describe current practices to ensure duplicate submissions of successfully sent transmissions will not be sent.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 6 – Staffing (10/10) The Joint Evaluation Committee determined that the overall responses mostly satisfactory, no deficiencies were noted.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet – All Sections (30/30) The Joint Evaluation Committee determined that the overall responses were satisfactory, no deficiencies were noted.

Total Score: 95/100

B. Mosley’s Mobile Notary & Fingerprinting The Evaluation Team determined that Mosely’s Mobile Notary & Fingerprinting based on a score of 25 technical points, did not 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 – Excluding Section 2 & 6 (10/30) The Joint Evaluation Committee determined that the overall responses were mostly unsatisfactory, the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.1.A – Bidder did not describe their current interfacing capabilities with the Michigan State Police (MSP) Automated Fingerprint System (AFIS).

b. Section 1.1.B – Bidder did not describe their current interfacing capabilities with the State of Michigan’s Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) Unique identification Number (ID#), and the Michigan Workforce Background Check System.

c. Section 1.1.C – Bidder did not describe their current or, planned completion of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Electronic Biometric Transmission Specifications (EBT) and the Michigan State Police’s EBTS.

d. Section 1.1.D – Bidder did not describe their current, or planned completion of capability to provide data transmission processes, interface capabilities or indicate which approved fingerprint collection equipment will be utilized to meet this requirement.

e. Section 1.2.A – Bidder did not describe how the prerequisite requirements will be met prior to a fingerprinting capture service or; how verification proof will be maintained or provided.

f. Section 1.2.C – Bidder did not describe how out-of-state applicants will be accommodated.

g. Section 1.2.D – Bidder did not describe how applicates who are hearing impaired or who have limited English proficiency will be accommodated.

h. Section 3.A – Bidder did not provide a location list with permanent office locations and number of mobile unit locations along with availability to service applicant needs as required.

i. Section 3.B – Bidder did not describe how scheduling applicants will be fulfilled within the 24-hour receipt of request period.

j. Section 3.C – Bidder did not describe how print collections will be completed within 10 business days from receipt of request.

k. Section 3.E – Bidder did not describe how on-site fingerprinting services would be conducted, scheduled or how the security of the State facility would be maintained.

l. Section 4.B – Bidder did not describe how applicants of a sensitive nature would be collected and processed.

m. Section 5.1.A – Bidder did not describe how the Implementation/Transition Plan would be carried out under the direction and control of MSP’s and LARA’s Program Manager(s).

n. Section 5.1.B – Bidder did not provide a proposed Implementation/Transition Plan or, describe how implementation would be completed.

o. Section 5.2.A – Bidder did not provide a proposed Project Plan and Business plan or, describe how this plan will be implemented.

p. Section 5.2.B – Bidder did not provide Organizational chart with names and titles of personnel, or a project breakdown showing sub-projects, tasks, and resources required.

q. Section 5.3 – Bidder did not describe training capabilities, or how this requirement will be met.

r. Section 9.2 – Bidder did not describe ability to provide reporting as defined by the State.

s. Section 10 – Bidder did not provide the company who will perform background checks or scope of background check performed.

t. Section 12.1 – Bidder did not provide a sample invoice as required.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2 – Interface Requirements (8/30) The Joint Evaluation Committee Determined that the overall responses were mostly unsatisfactory, the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 2.1.A – Bidder did not describe how applicant fingerprint and demographic capture transmission would be completed.

b. Section 2.1.B – Bidder did not describe their ability to collect State and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) print processing fees.

c. Section 2.1.C – Bidder did not describe their ability to deposit State and FBI fingerprint fees by Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) to a designated account.

d. Section 2.1.D – Bidder did not describe capabilities in-place to track electronic submission and acknowledgement capabilities.

f. Section 2.1.E – Bidder did not describe the Data Gateway or means to connect/interface with the State or proposed host vendor.

h. Section 2.1.H – Bidder did not submit a proposed network diagram with firewalls, or a description of how this requirement will be met.

i. Section 2.1.I – Bidder not provide documentation of FedRAMP security protocols or describe how this requirement will be met.

j. Section 2.2.A – Bidder did not describe the hardware and software what will be utilized to complete this project, nor did the Bidder provide a project plan as required.

k. Section 2.2.B – Bidder did not describe regular calibration and software update practices or describe the maintenance log that will be maintained for maintenance performed.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 6 – Staffing (2/10) The Joint Evaluation Committee determined that the overall responses were mostly unsatisfactory, the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 6.1.A – Bidder did not describe how or identify how the 25- mile radius requirement for printing services will be met.

b. Section 6.2.B – Bidder did not provide a toll-free number for the State to submit customer services requests.

c. Section 6.2.C – Bidder did not provide a response to this requirement.

d. Section 6.2.D – Bidder did not provide a response to this requirement.

e. Section 6.2.E – Bidder did not provide a response to this requirement.

f. Section 6.2.F – Bidder did not provide a response to this requirement.

g. Section 6.2.G – Bidder did not describe ability to respond to high impact issues or ability to resolve issues or provide a workaround within a 24-hour periods.

h. Section 6.2.H – Bidder did not describe how technical support, repairs and maintenance would be handled or, provide a means of contact for the state to submit requests.

i. Section 6.3 – Bidder did not indicate where Key Personnel will be physically located, describe the functions they will perform or provide current chronological resumes.

j. Section 6.4 – Bidder did not provide organization chart that details staff members, that will be assigned to the Contract.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet – All Sections (5/30)

The Joint Evaluation Committee determined that the overall responses were mostly satisfactory, the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 2 – Bidder did not provide an answer to address company’s history and growth.

Bidder did not provide last 5 years gross annual sales or indicate if receiving a contract under this RFP will increase gross annual revenue by more that 25% from last year’s sales.

b. Experience 1, 2 & 3 – Bidder did not provide experience of a similar size and scope.

Total Score: 25/100

Selection Criteria

Idemia Identity & Security

USA LLC

Mosley’s Mobile Notary &

Fingerprinting

1 Schedule A, All Sections – General Requirements; Except Section 2 & 6

26 10

2 Schedule A, Section 2 – Interface Requirements

29 8

3 Schedule A, Section 6 – Staffing

10 2

4 Vendor Questions Worksheet

30 5

Total 95 25

V. Pricing Summary

Pricing was evaluated for the bidders who passed technical. The following is a summary of their price proposals after Second Round Pricing was requested:

Type of Applicant

Fingerprinting Collection

Processing fee per individual Applicant

MSP

Processing fee per Individual Applicant *pre-determined fee

FBI

Processing fee per Individual Applicant *pre-determined fee

Total Price

Sate of Michigan Paid Employee –

Employment/Licensing

$9.50 $30.00 $13.25 $52.75

State of Michigan Paid Employee – Volunteer

$9.50 $30.00 $11.25 $50.75

Non-State of Michigan Paid Applicant –

Employment/Licensing

$21.00 $30.00 $13.25 $64.25

Non-State of Michigan Paid Applicant -

Volunteer $21.00 $30.00 $11.25 $62.25

VI. Negotiations: The Bidder submitted their initial fingerprinting collection/processing fee per individual applicant. DTMB Central Procurement Services then engaged in one round of pricing negotiations. After negotiations, DTMB was able to obtain a cost avoidance in the amount of $0.25 per State of Michigan Paid applicant ($19,089 annually) and $0.25 per Non-State of Michigan Paid applicant ($6,325 annually) from the originally proposed price. In addition, the State was able to negotiate Fingerprint Backup Capture included in the pricing of the Processing fee, no additional cost, if the UEP solution is implemented in the future.

VII. Award Recommendation:

This Award Recommendation was 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 factors stated in the Technical Criteria Section, 7 Evaluation Process, and price.

Idemia Identity & Security USA LLC provided the best value to the State. The Award Recommendation is made to Idemia Identity & Security USA LLC in the amount of $7,000,000.00.