RFP 250000002051 - Award Recommendation_ NIA1 260000000289.docx

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

Notice of Intent to Award Number: 260000000289 The Department of Technology, Management, & Budget’s Procurement office has completed the evaluation of RFP # 250000002051 Identity Management and Single Sign On Solution, and has recommended an award to Deloitte & Touche, LLP., in the amount of $39,787,500.00 pending State Administrative Board approval. 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 reached at:

Lauren Stempek, Solicitation Manager StempekL@michigan.gov 517-243-4008

Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor to provide a professional services managed team in support of an existing on-Premises, Vendor SaaS, and State Cloud solution that achieves the below:

1. Provide operational support for Enterprise Identity and Access Management (24x7)

2. Perform centralized administration of the MiLogin platform, tools and subscriptions

3. Manage incidents from start to closure per State of Michigan SLA establishment

4. Maintain scalability of MiLogin infrastructure

5. Perform integration of new Identity concepts and onboarding of State Services

6. Perform development of continuous improvement initiatives

7. Perform security technology stack market/industry evaluation and provide solution recommendations and best practices for improvement to obtain potential cost efficiencies, security improvements and others, not currently realized

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 22nd, 2025. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of July 3rd, 2025.

*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.

Proposal Instructions: Evaluation Process 1.

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

The State may utilize all Bidder information, without regard to a proposal’s technical score, to determine fair market value for goods or services sought. The State is not obligated to accept the lowest price proposal. If applicable, the State’s evaluation will include consideration of a bidder’s qualified disabled veterans/service-disabled veteran owned business(QDV/SDVOB) status under MCL 18.1261(8). Additional information on the SDVOB preference is available at: Michigan.gov/SDVOB.

The State strongly encourages strict adherence to the Contract Terms and Schedules. The State reserves the right to deem a bid non-responsive for failure to accept the Contract Terms and Schedules. Nevertheless, the Bidder may submit proposed changes to the Contract Terms and Schedules in track changes (i.e., visible edits) with an explanation of the Bidder’s need for each proposed change. Failure to include track changes with an explanation of Bidder’s need for the proposed change constitutes the Bidder’s acceptance of the Contract Terms and Schedules. General statements, such as that the Bidder reserves the right to negotiate the terms and conditions, may be considered non-responsive.

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

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

Karthihk Narayanan, DTMB

Dustin Hartigan, DTMB

Amanda Brunger, DTMB

Mike Bartkowiak, DTMB

Bryan Holland, DTMB

Duane Kerkstra, DTMB

Connie Lyon, DTMB

Corbin Montry, DTMB

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Version 2021-1

III. Evaluation Results Evaluation Scoring Breakdown Vendor Question Worksheet – Every Section, Except for Section 5, State of Michigan and Prior Experience

-0.07

-0.07

-0.07

-0.035

-0.035

-0.07

Vendor Question Worksheet – Section 5, State of Michigan and Prior Experience

Bidder withheld dollar value for Experience 2.

-0.01

-0.03

-0.03

-0.03

-0.03

-0.03

-0.03

-0.03

-0.03

-0.03

-0.03

Schedule A - Statement of Work -, except for Attachment 1 – Resume Templates

-0.46

Section 4: IT ENVIROMENT RESPONSIBILITES:

Bidder Box 2 Bidder did not include the requested details around how the Bidder will meet the requirements of Schedule D – Service Level Agreement.

-0.46

Section 4: IT ENVIROMENT RESPONSIBILITES:

Bidder acknowledged agreement with Schedule D – Service Level Agreement, but then provided redlines to Schedule D, resulting in contradicting answers having been provided to the State.

-0.46

Section 4: IT ENVIROMENT RESPONSIBILITES:

Bidder acknowledged agreement with Schedule D – Service Level Agreement, but then provided redlines to Schedule D, resulting in contradicting answers having been provided to the State.

-0.46

Section 4: IT ENVIRONMENT RESPONSIBILITIES:

Bidder Box 3 Bidder did not include the requested details for how they will meet the requirements of Schedule D – SLA, Section 5.6 Perform System Disaster Recovery Requirements as requested.

-0.46

-0.46

-0.46

-0.23

-0.46

-0.23

-0.46

-0.46

-0.23

-0.23

Section 18:

CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL:

Bidder Box 1 Bidder did not provide a Contractor Contract Administrator resource and left it blank.

-0.1

Section 18:

CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL:

Bidder did not provide Personnel for Contractor Project Manager and instead responded that it algins closely with Bidder’s Engagement Manager or Project Manager position.

-0.1

Section 18:

CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL:

Bidder did not provide a Personnel for Java Programmer Analyst and instead responded with Bidders own roles that it aligns with.

-0.1

Section 18:

CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL:

Bidder Box 4 Bidder did not provide a Personnel for Lead Testing manager and instead responded with Bidders own roles that it aligns with.

-0.1

Section 18:

CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL:

Bidder Box 5 Bidder did not provide a Personnel for Quality Assurance Testing Analyst and instead responded with Bidders own roles that it aligns with.

-0.1

Section 18:

CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL:

Bidder Box 6 Bidder did not provide a Personnel for Senior Systems/Business Analyst and instead responded with Bidders own roles that it aligns with.

-0.1

Section 18:

CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL:

Bidder Box 7 Bidder did not provide a Personnel for Database Administrator and instead responded with Bidders own roles that it aligns with.

-0.1

Section 18:

CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL:

Bidder Box 8 Bidder did not provide a Personnel for Google Kubernetes Support Engineer and instead responded with Bidders own roles that it aligns with.

-0.1

Section 18:

CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL:

Bidder Box 9 Bidder did not provide a Personnel for Cloud Engineer and instead responded with Bidders own roles that it aligns with.

-0.1

Section 18:

CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL:

Bidder Box 10 Bidder did not provide Personnel for DevSecOps Engineer. Bidder duplicated the answer from the previous Cloud Engineer they provided.

-0.23

Section 18:

CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL:

Bidder Box 11 Bidder did not provide a Personnel for Angular Developer and instead responded with Bidders own roles that it aligns with.

-0.1

Section 18:

CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL:

Bidder Box 12 Bidder did not provide a Personnel for Microservices Developer and instead responded with Bidders own roles that it aligns with.

-0.1

Section 18:

CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL:

Bidder Box 13 Bidder did not provide a Personnel for Terraform SME and instead responded with Bidders own roles that it aligns with.

-0.1

Section 18:

CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL:

Bidder Box 14 Bidder did not provide a Personnel for Security Engineer and instead responded with Bidders plan to embed security expertise across its solutions architecture, delivery, and governance teams.

-0.1

Section 20:

CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL REQURIEMENTS:

Bidder stated that they may or may not engage Subcontractors for this project. This can only be decided at a later stage, if and when “downselected” or a deal is finalized. Bidder not responsive, this should be decided at the time of submittal.

-0.1

Section 22:

MEETINGS:

Bidder Box 1 Bidder responded “TBD”. Bidder did not describe how they will meet the meeting requirements or note any exceptions.

-0.46

Section 23:

PROJECT CONTROL & REPORTS:

Bidder Box 1 Bidder response missing several subject areas of information requested and responded in a different format, making it difficult to determine if all requested information included.

-0.46

Section 23:

PROJECT CONTROL & REPORTS:

Bidder response is missing the requested details around planned releases, ticket summary, calendar and batch, Vulnerability, MiLogin Metrics, and Quarterly performance as requested per the requirements

-0.23

Section 24:

PROJECT MANAGEMENT:

Bidder did not provide a response in the bidder box and left it blank.

-0.46

Section 24:

PROJECT MANAGEMENT:

Bidder did not provide a response in the bidder box and left it blank.

-0.46

Schedule A - Statement of Work (SOW) Specifically, Attachment 1 – Resume Templates

-10

-0.8

-0.8

-0.8

-0.8

-0.3

-0.8

-0.4

SCHEDULE D – SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS 5.9 - Provide Development

Schedule D: Bidder Box 1

Bidder provided the response for Schedule D, Section 5.8, Auditing in this part of Schedule D, Section 5.9 Provide Development, making the Bidder unresponsive to Section 5.9 – Provide Development. Bidder did not respond to this section.

-15

SCHEDULE D – SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS – with the exception of Section 5.9

-1.9

Deduction Summary

IV. Pricing Summary Pricing was evaluated for the bidders who passed technical. The following is a summary of their price proposals:

1st Round of Pricing:

Deloitte

1-5 totals

$22,362,132.00

Kyndryl

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Year 7

Year 8

Year 9

Year 10

$18,388,610.00

2nd Round of Pricing:

Deloitte

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

1-5 totals

Year 6

Year 7

Year 8

Year 9

Year 10

Total

Kyndryl

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Year 6

Year 7

Year 8

Year 9

Year 10

Final Pricing:

Deloitte

Kyndryl

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Year 6

Year 7

Year 8

Year 9

Year 10

V. Negotiations The RFP Pricing included the 4 listed areas below for fixed pricing to be included by bidders, as well as a rate card for the State to pull from for any additional needs throughout the life of the contract.

· any one-time or set-up charges

· planned monthly resource capacity hours

· monthly fixed fee costs known needed

· monthly fixed fee development costs known needed The State conducted demos with the two passing vendors and requested a second-round pricing after further clarifications. Both Bidders provided second round pricing.

Deloitte’s second round lowered their proposed resource capacity hours for 10 years by 6,120 hours. Their fixed fee costs were lowered by $20,694,876 and they included a fixed fee development annual cost of $16,218,936.

Kyndryl’s second round clarified the details for the years 6-10 and increased their proposed resource capacity hours by 135,542 hours for years 1-5. Their fixed fee costs were clarified for years 6-10 and increased by $360,308 for years 1-5. Their fixed fee development costs were clarified for the years 6-10 and increased by $360,308 for years 1-5.

Final Pricing:

The State engaged both Deloitte and Kyndryl in terms negotiations and requested another round of price reductions. After negotiations, Deloitte was able to reduce their proposal by $5,188,308.00 when compared to their initial price. The new proposed price is $39,787,500.00.

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 provided the best value to the State via an estimated $6,514,837.62 in savings and $2,900,000.00 in cost avoidance. These values are calculated from the enhanced team of experienced engineers and an additional 24,786 hours in resource capacity over the 10 years saving the State an estimated value of $4,564,837.62, the value added services being provided at no cost to the State for the MiLogin “Usability Study” (~$750K) and the “Deloitte Digital Transformation and Digital Greenhouse” Lab (~$1.2M) for a total of $1,950,000, and finally the absence of a need for transition costs saving the State an estimated $2,900,000. Deloitte also provides the best value to the State via their extensive relevant experience in enterprise digital identity authentication solutions and their ability to leverage the experience from other States for Michigan’s benefit and improvements.

Best value factors for Award Recommendation include:

1) Deloitte demonstrated extensive relevant experience in deploying and supporting 21 States directly in Enterprise Digital Identity solutions covering web browser and mobile app based authentication methods, internal and external user bases, and next generation step up authentication methods such as two factor authentication, FIDO compliant passkey authentication, and ID verification which is utilize in SOM. They have also implemented emerging identity technologies such as Digital wallet and Mobile Driver’s License. Deloitte’s Government identity experience is strongly aligned with web based identity solutions like MiLogin to include external authentication, extending far beyond internal identity authentication within the scope of Mainframe as a Service and simple high speed cloud compute services.

2) Deloitte’s ability to leverage experience. Deloitte’s experience in Enterprise Digital Identity solutions provides the State of Michigan unique insight into technology trends other states are adopting as well as connections to business owners in those states. State of Michigan MiLogin can utilize these connections to obtain firsthand knowledge on solution capabilities, benefits, lessons learned, and implementation efforts. Deloitte has demonstrated that they have been able to leverage previous experience with other States to reduce integration lead times from 8 weeks to being on demand and reduced onboarding costs by 50%. This allows for faster time-to-market for State online services as Agencies identify needs.

3) Enhanced Resources/Engineers for Maintenance and Operations Integration. Deloitte enhanced the proposed team with experienced security engineers specializing in application integration engineering and support, full-time allocated resources for critical roles, and tied additional resources into the fixed fee M&O cost, providing an additional 24,786 hours in resource capacity over 10 years (an estimated value of $4,564,837.62). These additional team members will facilitate application integration and promote the timely resolution of integration-related support tickets.

4) Transition cost. The State estimates $2,900,000 in cost avoidance as the Deloitte solution requires no transition in plan and the State will not require the use of additional resources or internal costs to facilitate the transition.

5) Additional Value-Added Services at no cost ~$1.95m

~$750K value - MiLogin “Usability Study”. Deloitte will conduct a comprehensive usability study in Year 1 of the program at no additional cost, which is estimated to be a ~$750k value, to the State to support ongoing effectiveness and user adoption of the MiLogin platform. This study will assess the end-user experience, identify areas for improvement, and provide actionable recommendations that align with the State’s digital identity objectives.

~$1.2M value – “Deloitte Digital Transformation and Digital Identity Greenhouse” Lab. This “Visioning and roadmap workshop” brings together multiple areas of the business in a purpose-built environment to accelerate alignment, surface blind spots, and co-create a clear, actionable transformation roadmap. After the first Lab, another lab will be held every 24-36 months for shared vision, prioritized use-case backlog, and 90-day action plans.

6) Financial Reliability. Deloitte brings a proven record of financial reliability, transparent reporting, and mature internal controls that support consistent service delivery. Deloitte’s stability provides the bid review team with confidence in the accuracy and dependability of the firm’s proposal—an important factor given the scale and criticality of the services being procured. The firm’s established leadership structure, predictable financial performance, and strong compliance posture ensure continuity, reduce operational risk, and position Deloitte as a dependable partner capable of delivering and sustaining high‑availability, enterprise‑wide services for the State of Michigan.

7) Strong Security Posture. Deloitte provides the strongest avoidance of cyber security risk to the State as well as financial reliability. The value-added services will address the States Cyber & Identity Vision to roadmap planning, the enhanced integration support team address the gaps that Deloitte identified for the States growth of applications and possible required increase in application support, and the demonstrated experience as well as ability to leverage it solidifies the State’s confidence and Deloitte’s alignment with States zero risk initiatives.

image1.png