RFP 240000000377 - Award Recommendation and Synopsis.docx

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

The Department of Technology, Management, & Budget’s Procurement office has completed the evaluation of Request for Proposal – 240000000377 for MiIntegrate (Middleware Solution) Support and has recommended an award to Deloitte Consulting LLP in the amount of $46,007,183.04 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:

Brandon Samuel, Solicitation Manager.

Samuelb@michigan.gov 517-249-0439

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 a Contractor to provide MiIntegrate support for the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS). The term of this contract is 5 years, with up to 5, 1 year renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on May 24, 2024, for 74 days. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of August 5, 2024.

Lansing, Mi 48933

New York, NY 10017

Farmington Hills, MI 48334

*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 evaluation points will have pricing evaluated and be 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 Join Evaluation Committee, which consisted of the following individuals:

Danielle Lefere, Business Delivery Services Director DHHS – Strategic Integration Administration Nathan Buckwalter, General Manager DTMB – Agency Services

Kathy Pabst, State Administrative Manager Behavioral and Physical Health and Aging Services Administration

MDHHS

Elysee Christenson, Business Delivery Liaison

DHHS

Brian Putman, Solutions Architect DTMB – Agency Services Jonathan Dashner, IT Security Architect DTMB – Michigan Cyber Security

Brandon Samuel, SAA, Category Specialist DTMB – Central Procurement Services Ashley Falkner, Departmental Solutions – Program Manager

DTMB

David Golnick, Security Liaison

DHHS

Duane Kerkstra, Business Relationship Manager DTMB – Agency Services

Sudhakar Ramaswamy, Senior Deputy Director

Laura Visser, Security Liaison

Ken Young, Business Delivery Services Strategic Integrator DHHS – Strategic Integration Administration

III. Evaluation Results A. Deloitte Consulting LLP The Evaluation Team determined that Deloitte Consulting LLP based on a score of 96.5, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Vendor Question Worksheet (Except Section 5, Experience) Score 5/6 The following deficiency was noted:

a. Bidder redlined contract terms.

2. Vendor Question Worksheet (Section 5, Experience) Score 25/25 No deficiencies noted.

3. Schedule A – SOW (Sections 19,20 & 21 – Meeting, Projects Score 25/25 Control and Reports, and Project Management) No deficiencies noted.

4. Schedule A – Attachment 1 – Resume Template Score 24/24 No deficiencies noted.

5. Schedule A – SOW (Except for Sections 19,20 & 21) Score 7.5/10 The following deficiencies were noted.

a. Bidder noted exception(s) to Schedule D - Service Level Agreement.

b. Bidder noted exception(s) to Schedule E - Data Security Requirements.

c. Bidder response did not demonstrate sufficient knowledge of security for the Contractor Security Officer candidate.

6. Schedule F – Transition In and Out Plan Score 10/10 No deficiencies noted.

Total Score: 96.5/100

B. Kyndryl, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Kyndryl, Inc based on a score of 59.5, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Vendor Question Worksheet (Except Section 5, Experience) Score 3/6 The following deficiencies were noted:

a. Bidder indicated "...However, we will have staff on-site two days per week in the designated locations as indicated in the solicitation and provided for by the State of Michigan. (NOTE: The State is not providing office space and expects Bidder to be within 30 minutes from Grand Tower Building)

b. Bidder redlined contract terms

2. Vendor Question Worksheet (Section 5, Experience) Score 4/25 The following deficiencies were noted:

Experience 1

a. Bidder did not provide complete contact information, instead the State would need to reach out to the Bidder first.

b. Experience was not of similar scope. Response did not indicate relevant experience in the development, maintenance, and operational support of Middleware solutions for Health and Human Services such as IBM Datapower, IBM ACE, or IBM API Connect.

c. Bidder indicated "The dollar value of the contract with Dow Chemical is not a matter of public record."

Experience 2

a. Bidder did not provide complete contact information, instead the State would need to reach out to the Bidder first.

b. Experience was not of similar scope. Response did not indicate relevant experience in the development, maintenance, and operational support of Middleware solutions for Health and Human Services such as IBM Datapower, IBM ACE, or IBM API Connect.

c. Bidder indicated "The dollar value of the contract with American Honda is not a matter of public record."

Experience 3

a. Experience was not of similar scope. Response did not indicate relevant experience in the development, maintenance, and operational support of Middleware solutions such as IBM Datapower, IBM ACE, or IBM API Connect.

3. Schedule A – SOW (Sections 19,20 & 21 – Meeting, Projects Score 25/25 Control and Reports, and Project Management) No deficiencies noted.

4. Schedule A – Attachment 1 – Resume Template Score 12.5/24 The following deficiencies were noted:

Administrative Executive & Engagement Leadership

a. Proposed candidate did not possess a Bachelor’s degree; for the third Reference (IBM Corporate Agile Implementation), did not provide start and end dates; also listed various Certifications/Affiliations with only 1 date instead of Date Completed and current expiration.

Development Lead

a. Regarding "5 years of experience technically supporting projects of similar size and scope of this solicitation", such experience was not demonstrated (ie. middleware); and response regarding Excellent communication and organization skills….did not include proper description of skills and experience.

Project Manager

a. Did not provide a letter of commitment for Anthony Yates.

Test Lead

a. Did not provide a letter of commitment for Dhiren Kumar Nayak; for the Required Skill (5 years of experience technically supporting projects of similar size and scope managing the security for similar size and scope of this solicitation.) did not demonstrate sufficient skills in middleware testing such as SOAPUI, Postman, or ReadyAPI; for the Required Skill (5 years of experience facilitating compliance for clients & stakeholders.), response only indicated I project for 2 years; response regarding "Excellent communication and organization skills….did not include description of skills and experience, as well as year(s) experience was obtained; 3 client refences was not filled out completely (ie. description, client/project, incomplete dates.

Operations Manager

a. Did not provide a letter of commitment for Maurice French; proposed candidate did not possess a Bachelor's degree.

Architect

a. Response did not indicate if resource was a subcontractor and percentage of time allocated to project; response did not address some of the various Required Skills; Certifications/Affiliations dates not provided; response did not provide at least 3 references.

5. Schedule A – SOW (Except for Sections 19,20 & 21) Score 5/10 The following deficiencies were noted.

a. Page 85, Section 5 IT Environment Responsibilities, Bidder noted exception(s) to Schedule D - Service Level Agreement.

b. Page 87, section 6. ADA Compliance, Bidder noted exception(s). Bidder is responsible for developing code and testing to ensure WCAG 2.1 Level AA specifications are met.

c. Page 88, section 6. ADA Compliance, Bidder did not provide details of how they would meet the requirements.

d. Page 91, section 10. IT Operating Environment, Bidder response indicated number 5 "...As the MiIntigrate application uses third-party software for many functions, it will be the third-party software vendor’s responsibility under State of Michigan license to provide compatibility for such third-party software components.", however, it would be the Bidder's responsibility.

e. Page 105, section 14. Documentation, Bidder noted exception regarding third party software. (No point deduction, due to deduction for section 10. IT Operating Environment)

f. Page 110, section 16. Contractor Key Personnel, Bidder noted exception(s) regarding Contractor Security Officer.

g. Bidder response did not demonstrate sufficient knowledge of security for the Contractor Security Officer candidate.

h. Page 110, section 16. Contractor Key Personnel, Bidder noted exception(s) regarding Contractor Contract Administrator (No point deduction due to deduction already in this section for same noted exception)

i. Page 111, section 16. Contractor Key Personnel, Bidder noted exception(s) regarding Administrative Executive and Engagement Leadership role (No point deduction due to deduction already in this section for same noted exception)

6. Schedule F – Transition In and Out Plan Score 10/10 No deficiencies noted.

Total Score: 59.5/100

C. Kyyba Tech, LLC The Evaluation Team determined that Kyyba Tech, LLC, based on a score of 72, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Vendor Question Worksheet (Except Section 5, Experience) Score 6/6 No deficiencies noted.

2. Vendor Question Worksheet (Section 5, Experience) Score 14/25 The following deficiencies were noted:

Experience 1

a. Experience was not of similar scope. Response did not indicate relevant experience in the development, maintenance, and operational support of Middleware solutions such as IBM Datapower, IBM ACE, or IBM API Connect.

Experience 2

a. Experience was not of similar scope. Response did not indicate relevant experience in the development, maintenance, and operational support of Middleware solutions such as IBM Datapower, IBM ACE, or IBM API Connect; Experience was not of similar size (contract value of $2.3 million per year).

Experience 3

a. Experience was not of similar size (contract value range of $315,000 to $410,000).

3. Schedule A – SOW (Sections 19,20 & 21 – Meeting, Projects Score 25/25 Control and Reports, and Project Management) No deficiencies noted.

4. Schedule A – Attachment 1 – Resume Template Score 9/24 The following deficiencies were noted:

Administrative Executive & Engagement Leadership

a. Did not provide a letter of commitment for Ashley Carleton.

Development Lead

a. Did not provide a letter of commitment for Suresh Somepally; for the Required Skill (5 years of experience facilitating compliance for clients & stakeholders.), response did not indicate if proposed candidate had the required skill; regarding "5 years of experience technically supporting projects of similar size and scope of this solicitation", such experience was not demonstrated (ie. middleware); did not indicate anything regarding: Certification: Must minimally actively hold a Project Management Professional and/or Scrum Master Certification; did not include Year Completed date for listed degrees.

Project Manager

a. Did not provide a letter of commitment for Karthik Subramanian; did not indicate anything regarding: Certification: Must minimally actively hold a Project Management Professional and/or Scrum Master Certification; did not include Year Completed date for listed degree.

Test Lead

a. Did not provide a letter of commitment for Vishnu Nayakudigari; for the Required Skill (5 years of experience technically supporting projects of similar size and scope managing the security for similar size and scope of this solicitation.) did not demonstrate sufficient skills in middleware testing such as SOAPUI, Postman, or ReadyAPI; for the Required Skill (5 years of experience facilitating compliance for clients & stakeholders.), response did not indicate if proposed candidate had the required skill; for the Required Skill (Excellent communication and organization skills required with ability to motivate and guide staff to ensure secure, accurate, efficient, and timely delivery of service.), response did not indicate if proposed candidate had the required skill; did not indicate anything regarding: Certification: Must minimally actively hold a Project Management Professional and/or Scrum Master Certification.

Operations Manager

a. Did not provide a letter of commitment for Manika Agarwal; response missing page regarding Education; Additional Education; Training.

Architect

a. Did not provide a letter of commitment for Aravinth Sridharan; regarding "5 years of experience technically supporting projects of similar size and scope of this solicitation", such experience was not demonstrated (ie. middleware).

5. Schedule A – SOW (Except for Sections 19,20 & 21) Score 8/10 The following deficiencies were noted.

a. Page 106, section 5. IT Environment. Response did not demonstrate Proactive Monitoring of middleware solution.

b. Page 118, section 11. Software, response did not adequately explain how they have supported similar processes.

6. Schedule F – Transition In and Out Plan Score 10/10 No deficiencies noted.

Total Score:72/100 IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Version 2024-2

V. Pricing Summary Pricing was evaluated for the bidder(s) who passed technical. The following is a summary of Deloitte’s price proposal:

Base Contract Years 1-5

Capacity

Capacity

$9,197,965.92

Capacity

$9,569,458.08

VI. 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.

Deloitte Consulting LLP provided the best value to the State. Best value factors for Award 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 Deloitte Consulting LLP in the amount of $46,007,183.04.

image1.png