RFP 250000002723 - Award Recommendation and Evaluation Synopsis.docx

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

The Department of Technology, Management, & Budget office has completed the evaluation of RFP 250000002723 - Licensing Inspections and Public Licensing Portal and has recommended an award to Kyra Solutions, Inc. in the amount of $2,995,868.00, 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 may be contacted as follows:

Sarah Platte, Solicitation Manager.

PlatteS3@michigan.gov 517-219-2406 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 Licensing Inspections and Public Licensing Portal. 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 08/14/2025 for 50 calendar days The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of 10/02/2025.

*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

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 Joint Evaluation Committee, which consisted of the following individuals:

Jana Rolston, Portfolio Manager, DTMB EPMO

Mike Bartkowiak, DTMB Cyber Security

Londa Wilkes, DTMB EPMO Portfolio Manager

Jodi Marrah, Business Analyst, DTMB Agency Services

Aishwarya Passi, Business Analyst, DTMB Agency Services

Brittanie Davis, Procurement Specialist, LARA

Megan LeMarbe, Procurement Specialist, LARA

Russell Sherman, State Administrative Manager, LARA

Donald Dine, Procurement Manager, LARA

Cole Thelen, Technology Director, LARA

Laura Kwiecien, Procurement Director, LARA

Daniel Horn, Bureau Director/CFO, LARA

Kevin Kubacki, Deputy Bureau Director, LARA

Nicholas Gobbo, Legal Affairs Officer, LARA

III. Evaluation Results A. Bidder # 1 – Accela, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Accela, Inc. based on a score of 84.39, 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 (not including Business Specifications) - 19.23/30

a. Section 4 – IT Environment

a. Bidder Box 2 – Schedule D – SLA – bidder’s response time to SLA are too long and significant redlines added to the schedule that were deemed unacceptable. (-.08 deduction). Bidder Box 4 – Schedule E – Data Security Schedule – bidder had significant redlines to the schedule that were deemed unacceptable. (-.08 deduction). Bidder Box 5 – Schedule F – Disaster Recovery Plan – bidder failed to provide a detailed disaster recovery plan. (-.17 deduction). Bidder Box 6 – Subcontractor(s) – bidder failed to identify Microsoft Azure as a subcontractor. (-.17 deduction)

b. Section 6 – User Type & Access

a. Bidder Box 1 – bidder did not provide enough detail on how the requirements would be met. (-.24 deduction). Bidder Box 2 – bidder addressed the question in the bidder box incorrectly; up time is not response time. (-.90 deduction)

c. Section 7 – Access Control and Authentication

a. Bidder Box 1 – bidder did not mention and provide details on how they would meet the MiLogin requirement. (-.90 deduction)

d. Section 8 – Data Retention

a. Bidder Box 1 – bidder failed to meet the requirements of meeting and working the State to return or destroy State Data. (-1.50 deduction)

e. Section 9 – End User and Operating Environment

a. Bidder Box 1 – bidder was not able to confirm that other versions of software that the public may be using. (-.10 deduction). Bidder 2 – bidder was not able to provide fixes on our devices. (-.10 deduction). Bidder Box 3 – Bidder not able to provide fixes on our devices. (-.10 deduction)

f. Section 10 – Software

a. Bidder Box 1 – bidder only describes licensing and enforcement functions, no detail on permitting or inspection functions. (-.19 deduction). Bidder Box 5 – Bidder mentions third party products in other sections, but not in this particular section. (-.38 deduction) Bidder Box 7 – Bidder response is inconsistent on iOS 16 vs. 17 and various android versions (-.08 deduction) Bidder Box 8 – bidder failed to reference any public use features for a mobile device. (-.19 deduction)

g. Section 11 – Integration

a. Bidder Box 5 & 7, bidder did not reference the right systems (-.34 deduction.

h. Section 12 – Migration

a. Bidder Box 1 – bidder response was too high level and does not explain how they would get the data (-.20 deduction) Bidder Box 4 – bidder response to the bidder box was not applicable. (-.60 deduction)

i. Section 14 – Training Services

a. Bidder Box 1 – bidder failed to include details on tools or training for non-state users. (-.37 deduction). Bidder Box 2 – bidder response too high level and no detail provided. (-.37 deduction)

j. Section 15 – Transition Responsibilities

a. Bidder Box 1 – bidder referenced the terms but did not provide detail in Schedule G – Transition In & Out and data retention policy not acceptable. (-1.20 deduction)

k. Section 16 – Documentation

a. Bidder Box 1 – bidder failed to provide examples of documentation as required. (-.24 deduction)

l. Section 20 – Contractor Personnel Requirements

a. Bidder Box 2 – Bidder failed to list subcontractors (-.40 deduction)

m. Section 23 – Project Controls and Reports

a. State has strong concerns about limitations that we would have in making decisions and structured to have the bidder making decisions, not the State. (-1.0 deduction)

n. Section 24 – Project Management/Milestones & Deliverables for Implementation

a. Bidder Box 1 – bidder made significant changes to implementation processes that does not align with SUITE. (-.45 deduction) Bidder Box 4 – bidder response lack detail and did not include on-going support. (-.30 deduction)

2. Schedule A – Business Specifications Worksheet – 37.97/40

a. Req. 2.0 – bidder not capable of meeting the requirement (-.11 deduction)

b. Req. 24.0, 26.0 – 27.0, 33.0, 44.0, 55.0, 67.0, 74.0 – 76.0, 105.0, 107.0, 113.0 – 115.0, 125.0 – 128.0, 158.0, 164.0, 168.0, 171.0 - 172.0, 188.0, 190.0 – 191.0, 193.0 – 195.0, 197.0, 199.0 – 200.0, 209.0, 213.0, 215.0 – 216.0, 223.0, 225.0, 230.0, 232.0, 238.0, 250.0, 252.0, 254.0 – 255.0, 260.0 – 261.0, 266.0 – 267.0, 269.0 – 270.0, 276.0, 278.0 – 279.0, 283.0, 291.0, 300.0, 302.0 – 203.0, 307.0, 336.0 339.0, 341.0, 348.0 – requirements required configurations which is minimally acceptable. (-1.6 total deduction)

c. Requirements 13.0 – 14.0, bidder did not fully understand the requirements – SOM wants the user to be able to edit information prior to being “touched” by the State, not any changes in general. (-.04 total deduction)

d. Req. 207 – bidder response did not meet the requirement. (-.11 deduction)

e. Req. 259.0 – bidder response failed to include inspections without charging additional fees or sending notifications. (-.05 deduction)

f. 292.0 – bidder did not address the respondent side of the requirement, only complainant. (-.05 deduction)

g. 344.0, 349.0 – State asked for roles and response only addressed users (-.04 deduction)

3. Vendor Questions Worksheet – 12.95/15

a. Bidder failed to provide more detailed financial information. Did not adequately describe strategic partnerships, just named one. (-.24 deduction)

b. Significant redlines to the Terms & Conditions that put the State at risk and negotiations would not be timely. (-1.12 deduction)

c. Schedule C- Insurance was redlined. (-.45 deduction)

4. Vendor Resumes – 14.25/15

a. Bidder failed to provide references for Contractor Security Officer. (-.75 deduction) Total Score: 84.39/100

B. Bidder # 2 – Accenture LLP The Evaluation Team determined that Accenture LLP based on a score of 89.94, 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 (not including the Business Specifications – 29.27/30

a. Section 4 – IT Environment

a. Bidder Box 2 – bidder had redlines to Schedule D – SLA (-.03 deduction). Bidder Box 12 – bidder failed to identify AWS as a subcontractor in the bidder box (-.17 deduction)

b. Section 12 – Migration

a. Bidder response did not cover JOL migrations and to high level (-.12 deduction)

c. Section 20 – Contractor Personnel Requirements

a. Bidder failed to list subcontractors (-.40 deduction)

2. Schedule A – Business Specifications Worksheet – 31.60/40

a. Req. 1.0 – 4.0, 6.0 – 9.0, 11.0 – 25.0, 28.0 – 30.0, 32.0, 36.0 – 42.0, 44.0 – 51.0, 53.0 – 56.0, 59.0 – 60.0, 62.0. 64.0 – 101.0, 105.0, 110.0 – 188.0, 191.0 – 208.0, 210.0 – 228.0, 230.0 – 252.0, 254.0 – 270.0, 274.0, 276.0 – 282.0, 284.0 – 285.0, 288.0 – 306.0, 308.0 – 335.0, 340.0, 344.0 – 350 – requirements required configurations which is minimally acceptable. (-5.35 total deduction)

b. Req. 5.0, 26.0 – 27.0, 33.0, 52.0, 57.0, 102.0 – 104.0, 107.0 – 109.0, 189.0 – 190.0, 209.0, 229.0, 283.0, 307.0, 336.0 – 339.0, 341.0 – bidder had several customizations for the requirements that were partially unacceptable. (-1.32 total deduction)

3. Vendor Questions Worksheet – 14.07/15

a. Bidder failed to address if they had any contract terminated. (-.24 deduction)

b. Bidder had redlines to the terms (-.45 deduction)

c. Bidder did not answer the average wage paid to MI employees (-.24 deduction)

4. Vendor Resumes -15/15

a. No deficiencies were identified.

Total Score: 89.94/100

C. Bidder # 3 – Gannett Peak Technical Services The Evaluation Team determined that Gannett Peak Technical Services based on a score of 75.52, 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 (not including Business Specification Worksheet) – 19.14/30

a. Section 4 – IT Responsibilities

a. Bidder box 2 – Information provided by bidder contradicts the SLA schedule. (-.13 deduction), Bidder Box 3 – Bidder failed to respond to the bidder box. (-.17 deduction), Bidder Box 4 – bidder failed to respond that they agreed to Schedule E. (-.17 deduction), Bidder Box 5 – bidder failed to include disaster recovery plan. (-.17 deduction), Bidder Box 6 – bidder failed to list Microsoft Azure as a subcontractor. (-.17 deduction)

b. Section 6 – User Type and Capacity

a. Bidder Box 2 – Bidder did not include seconds to standardized reporting and was not state in the bidder box. (-.17 deduction)

c. Section 7 – Access Control & Authentication

a. Bidder Box 1 – bidder response did not have enough detail. (-.24 deduction)

d. Section 8 – Data Retention

a. Bidder Box 1 – Bidder failed to provide detail on how the requirement would be met. (-.38 deduction)

e. Section 10 – Software

a. Bidder Box 3, 4 & 6 – bidder failed to respond to the bidder boxes and just put N/A. N/A is not an acceptable response (-1.14 deduction), Bidder Box 5 – bidder failed to list third party components (-.38 deduction), Bidder Box 7 – bidder did not full respond to the bidder box. (-.19 deduction), Bidder Box 8 – bidder did not indicate if the solution was designed to be mobile (-.19 deduction)

f. Section 11 – Integration

a. Bidder Boxes 1 – 7 – bidder provided very little detail on how they would meet the requirements of integrating systems to their solution. (-.49 deduction)

g. Section 12 – Migration

a. Bidder Box 1 & 4 - bidder provided very little detail on how they would meet the requirements of migrating data into their solution. (-.22 deduction), Bidder Box 2 & 3 – bidder added definitions, but no plan on how the requirement would be met (-.30 deduction)

h. Section 14 – Training Services

a. Bidder Box 1 – bidder response was vague and did not identify the different types of trainings that was listed (-.37 deduction) Bidder Box 2 – bidder failed to provide any details as required by the bidder box. (-.56 deduction)

i. Section 15 – Transition Responsibilities

a. Bidder Box 1 – bidder response was generic and did not provide detail and did not have a developed plan (-.90 deduction)

j. Section 16 – Documentation

a. Bidder Box 1 – bidder failed to provide examples of documentation. (-1.20 deduction)

k. Section 18 – Contractor Personnel

a. Bidder Box 1 - Overlapping roles with the same key resources that would put the project at risk due to overallocation of personnel. (-.11 deduction)

l. Section 19 – Contractor Key Personnel

a. Bidder Box 1 – rating based on resumes. (-.22 deduction)

m. Section 20 – Contractor Personnel Requirements

a. Bidder Box 1 – bidder failed to list subcontractors. (-.40 deduction)

n. Section 22 – Meetings

a. Bidder Box 1 & 2 – Cadence of meeting that bidder proposed is different throughout sections 22-24. Additionally, the bidder did not address all if the meetings that we had listed as requirements. (-.68 deduction)

o. Section 23 – Project Control & Reports

a. Bidder Box 1 – bidder response lacked detail (-.24 deduction)

p. Section 24 – Project Management/Milestones & Deliverables for Implementation

a. Bidder Box 1 – bidder needed to provide more detail. (-.12 deduction)

q. Section 25 -Human Centered Design (HCD)

a. Bidder Box 1 & 2 – bidder did not reference HCD at all, only working with us, and no mention of external engagement. (-.30 deduction)

2. Schedule A – Business Specification Worksheet – 38.68/40

a. Req. 1.0, 8.0, 20.0 – 21.0, 26.0 – 27.0, 32.0, 53.0, 68.0 – 69.0, 90.0, 92.0, 94.0 – 95.0, 203.0, 270.0 -272.0, 294.0 – 296.0, 298.0, 303.0, 309.0, 341.0, 345.0 – 350.0 – requirements required configurations which is minimally acceptable. (-.95 total deduction)

b. Req. 60.0, 98.0, 102.0 - bidder had several customizations for the requirements that were minimally & partially unacceptable. (-.10 total deduction)

c. Req. 2.0 & 103.0 – bidder marked requirement as future enhancement/not available (-.12 deduction)

d. Req 3.0 – bidder response was unclear if they were referring to internal or external users (-.02 deduction)

e. Req. 31.0 – bidder response that the system will allow communication to be sent to emails, but not sure if the response understood it would be more than one. (-.02 deduction)

f. Req. 57.0 – bidder response did not seem to fully understand what the requirement was. (-.02 deduction)

g. Req. 87.0 – bidder response indicated that the bidder did not understand the requirement. (-.02 deduction)

3. Vendor Questions Worksheet – 14.07/15

a. Bidder experience that was provided was not relevant and the dollar values of the project were quite low to compare to the size of the State. (-1.50 deduction)

b. Bidder had not economic impact in Michigan. (-.24 deduction)

4. Vendor Resumes – 4.69/15

a. Key Personnel Role – Contractor Project Manager – individual provided by the bidder only had small project experience. No experience in licensing/regulation/permitting in full scope. (-2.81 deduction)

b. Key Personnel Role – Contractor Security Officer – individual provided by the bidder only had small project experience. No experience in licensing/regulation/permitting in full scope. No certifications and experience was at a CSO level. (-2.81 deduction)

c. Key Personnel Role – Contractor Implementation Manager - individual provided by the bidder only had small project experience. No experience in licensing/regulation/permitting in full scope. (-2.81 deduction)

d. Key Personnel Role – Contractor Business Analyst/Subject Matter Expert - individual provided by the bidder only had small project experience. No experience in licensing/regulation/permitting in full scope. (-1.87 deduction) Total Score: 75.52/100

D. Bidder # 4 – GL Suite, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that GL Suite, Inc. based on a score of 85.76, 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 (not including Business Specification Worksheet) – 29.05/30

a. Section 4 – IT Environment

a. Bidder Box 2 – bidder failed to follow Proposal Instructions to redline document, language that was listed as proposed changes were extensive. (-.13 deduction)

b. Section 9 – End User and Operating Environment

a. Bidder Box 5 – bidder only referenced communication plans for changes/disruptions. (-.24 deduction)

c. Section 10 – Software

a. Bidder Box 5 – bidder failed to provide list of third party provides (-.29 deduction)

d. Section 17 – Additional Products and Services

a. Bidder Box 1 – bidder did not understand the requirement of the bidder box. The request was for additional products and/or services that would be necessary for the project, not optional features. (-.15 deduction)

2. Schedule A – Business Specification Worksheet – 38.65/40

a. Req. 3.0 – 9.0, 11.0 – 12.0, 14.0, 16.0 – 17.0, 19.0, 21.0 – 24.0, 28.0, 30.0, 32.0, 34.0 – 36.0, 47.0 - 48.0, 50.0 – 51.0, 57.0, 77.0, 94.0, 103.0, 107.0, 139.0, 266.0 – 268.0, 271.0, 276.0 – 278.0 - requirements required configurations which is minimally acceptable. (-.92 total deduction)

b. Req. 336.0 – 339.0, 341.0 – State has concerns that the requirements would require new code development to meet the requirement. The ability to meet the requirements out of the box is highly unlikely. (-.11 total deduction)

c. Req. 37.0 – bidder did not mark if it was a current capability, configuration, customization, etc. (-.08 deduction)

d. Req. 60.0 – requirement not available and would not be available (-.11 deduction)

e. Req. 340.0 – bidder did not address the requirement correctly. (-.11 deduction)

3. Vendor Questions Worksheet – 12.44/15

a. Bidder revenue and settlement with a claim with another State are of concern (-.60 deduction)

b. Bidder has no prior experience with the State and concerns about the smaller scale of previous projects. (-.60 deduction)

c. Bidder had some redlines to the terms & conditions and did not follow the instructions if redlining (-1.12 deduction)

d. Bidder had no economic impact in Michigan (-.24 deduction)

4. Vendor Resumes – 5.63/15

a. Contractor Project Manager – bidder’s proposed resource was not dedicated to the project 100% and resource availability because of current workload. Resource also did not have 5 years of experience. (-2.81 deduction)

b. Contractor Implementation Manager – bidder’s proposed resource does not have 100% dedication during implementation which could critically impact the success of the project. Resource also did not have 5 years of experience. (-2.81 deduction)

c. Contractor Business Analyst/Subject Matter Expert – bidder’s proposed resource would only be dedicated to the project 75%. Resource also does not have 5 years of experience and details of the experience were lacking (-3.75 deduction) Total Score: 85.76/100

E. Bidder # 5 – Kyra Solutions, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Kyra Solutions, Inc. based on a score of 89.20, 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 (not including Business Specification Worksheet) – 26.08/30

a. Section 4 – IT Environment

a. Bidder Box 2 – bidder confirmed acceptance of SLAs, but then lists exceptions to them where it concerns deviation from Salesforce. (-.13 deduction). Bidder Box 5 – bidder disaster recovery plan that was provide did not meet the requirements of a DR plan. (-.17 deduction). Bidder Box 7 – bidder failed to include subcontractors. (-.13 deduction).

b. Section 5 – ADA Compliance

a. Bidder Box 1 – bidder is responsible for make sure that the solution is compliant. (-.90 deduction)

c. Section 9 – End User & Operating Environment

a. Bidder Box 2 – bidder response is confusing making unclear who is hosting. (-.36 deduction). Bidder Box 4 – bidder did not provide a timeframe on communication is not provided (-.24 deduction). Bidder Box 5 – bidder response is about changes without collaboration. (-.24 deduction)

d. Section 10 – Software

a. Bidder Box 1 – bidder response still makes hosting confusing. (-.08 deduction) Bidder Box 3 – bidder response on hosting unclear (-.08 deduction) Bidder Box 7 – bidder response does not address versions (-.08 deduction)

e. Section 14 – Training Services

a. Bidder Box 1 – bidder response high level, lacking specifics on public user resources. (-.37 deduction)

f. Section 17 – Additional Products and Services

a. Bidder Box 1 – bidder response did not include products and services that were required for the project, only mentioned optional features. (-.15 deduction)

g. Section 18 – Contractor Personnel

a. Bidder Box 1 – bidder had some overlapping roles and ability to meet time commitments. (-.03 deduction)

h. Section 22 – Meetings

a. Bidder Box 1 – bidder did not add specifics for the types of meetings indicated. (-.22 deduction)

i. Section 24 – Project Management/Milestones & Deliverables for Implementation

a. Bidder Box 1 – bidder response was in agreement but did not describe how it aligns with SUITE. (-.30 deduction). Bidder Box 2 – concerns about being able to meet timelines that they proposed. (-.45 deduction)

2. Schedule A – Business Specification Worksheet – 36.93/40

a. Req. 4.0 – 6.0, 9.0, 22.0 – 24.0, 30.0, 50.0, 57.0, 77.0, 103.0, 107.0, 336.0 – 339.0, 341.0 - requirements required configurations which is minimally acceptable. (-.41 total deduction)

3. Vendor Questions Worksheet – 14.76/15

a. No economic impact in Michigan. (-.24 deduction)

4. Vendor Resumes – 11.44/15

a. Contractor Implementation Manager – bidder resource did not have 5 years of experience. Resource would only be dedicated to the project 50% of the time. (-2.81 deduction)

b. Contractor Business Analyst/Subject Matter Expert – bidder resource experience was not related to scope of this project. (-.75 deduction) Total Score: 89.20/100

F. Bidder # 6 – Spruce Technology The Evaluation Team determined that Spruce Technology based on a score of 78.48, 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 (not including Business Specification Worksheet) – 21.55/30

a. Section 4 – IT Environment

a. Bidder Box 2 – bidder responses to SLA’s are not achievable and does not fully align with the State SLA’s (development part of the SLA’s) (-.08 deduction). Bidder Box 5 – Disaster Recovery Plan was very high level, was not really a plan for a disaster response. (-.13 deduction) Bidder Box 6 – Bidder failed to include all subcontractors in this response. Appian and AWS were missed. (-.13 deduction) Bidder Box 7 – bidder response was not applicable to the question. (-.17 deduction)

b. Section 9 – End User & Operating Environment

a. Bidder Box 4 – bidder response only addressed Appian changes, not Spruce’s. (-.24 deduction) Bidder Box 5 – bidder response to the Help Desk had nothing to do with collaboration. Bidder response did not address the question. (-.48 deduction)

c. Section 10 – Software

a. Bidder Box 1 – Bidder response was lacking. As a critical bidder box, the response was too high level. (-.29 deduction) Bidder Box 2 – bidder response was missing context and information. (-.19 deduction) Bidder Box 6 – bidder response conflicts with Bidder Box 1, which has an AI integral part of the solution. (-.29 deduction)

d. Section 11 – Integration

a. Bidder Box 1 – 7 – bidder response did not adequately explain how the integrations would happen. (-1.20 total deduction)

e. Section 12 – Migration

a. Bidder Box 4 – bidder response was too high level. (-.12 deduction)

f. Section 14 – Training Services

a. Bidder Box 2 – Bidder response did not provide details on how the requirement would be met. (-.15 deduction)

g. Section 15 – Transition Responsibilities

a. Bidder Box 1 – bidder response was not clear and how Transition In & Out would be met. (-.60 deduction)

h. Section 16 – Documentation

a. Bidder Box 1 – Bidder did not provide a response (-1.20 deduction)

i. Section 17 – Additional Products & Services

a. Bidder Box 1 – Bidder did not provide a response (-.15 deduction)

j. Section 18 – Contractor Personnel

a. Bidder Box 1 - Bidder failed to identify a Training Coordinator (-.11 deduction)

k. Section 19 – Contractor Key Personnel

a. Bidder Box 1 – bidder had conflicting information/people compared to the Resume section. (-.22 deduction).

l. Section 20 – Contractor Personnel Requirements

a. Bidder Box 2 – bidder indicated that they had never worked with a subcontractor that they included as part of their proposal. (-.40 deduction) Bidder Box 3 – Bidder did not respond to the section. (-.40 deduction)

m. Section 22 – Meetings

a. Bidder Box 1 – bidder proposed an alternative approach to meetings but did not provide rationale or detail as requested. (-.22 deduction)

n. Section 24 – Project Management/Milestones & Deliverables for Implementation

a. Bidder Box 2 – bidder proposed a shorter implementation schedule that the State proposed (13 v. 16 months), but then stated they believed a long timeline would be more appropriate. Detail was also too high level. (-.45 deduction) Bidder Box 3 – bidder response did not detail or identify State and Contractor responsibilities. (-.45 deduction) Bidder Box 4 – bidder response did not include a definition of MVP but randomly mentions it throughout the bidder box. Bidder did not address the question correctly. (-.60 deduction)

o. Section 25 – Human Center Design (HCD)

a. Bidder Box 1 – bidder response too high level and no deliverables noted as requested. (-.11 deduction) Bidder Box 2 – bidder response was general outline of projects and not clear ties to HCD or success measures. (-.07 deduction)

2. Schedule A – Business Specification Worksheet – 39.68/40

a. Req. 2.0 – would require customization, which is particularly unacceptable. (-.08 deduction)

b. Req. 26.0 & 346.0 – bidder did not describe how this requirement would be met. (-.13 total deduction)

c. Req. 199 – Bidder did not mark what the capability status was. (-.08 deduction)

3. Vendor Questions Worksheet – 13.50/15

a. Bidder had not prior experience with the State & prior experience was not related to licensing. (-1.50 deduction)

4. Vendor Resumes – 3.75/15

a. Contractor Project Manager – bidder resource had conflict of 2 decades of experience, but experience listed was only since 2021. Resource was also listed as being 100% allocated to another project. (-2.81 deduction)

b. Contractor Security Officer – bidder resource was only listed 5% of the time and description of experience was lacking (-2.81 deduction)

c. Contractor Implementation Manager – bidder resource did not have 100% dedication to the implementation, which is critical to project success. Resource lacked experience in relation to this type of project. (-2.81 deduction) Total Score: 78.48/100

G. Bidder # 7 – Tecuity, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Tecuity, Inc. based on a score of 79.96, 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 (not including Business Specification Worksheet) – 22.68/30

a. Section 4 – IT Environment

a. Bidder Box 5 – Disaster recovery plan was too high level and lacking in key elements. (-.13 deduction).

b. Section 9 – End User & Operating Environment

a. Bidder Box 4 – bidder response not related to ongoing software or architecture changes. (-.24 deduction) Bidder Box 5 – bidder describe the internal process for changes but did not describe how the State is able to collaborate. (-.10 deduction)

c. Section 10 – Software

a. Bidder Box 1 – bidder did not mention any licensing functionality. Bidder response not related to licensing, permitting, inspection. (-.29 deduction)

d. Section 11 – Integration

a. Bidder Boxes 3, 6, 7 – bidder did not respond. (-1.02 deduction)

e. Section 14 – Training Services

a. Bidder Box 2 – bidder only provided 1 example of a training manual. (-.15 deduction)

f. Section 15 – Transition Responsibilities

a. Bidder Box 1 – bidder Transition In & Out plan had a lot of unnecessary detail and there were many TBDs. (-60 deduction)

g. Section 16 – Documentation

a. Bidder Box 1 – bidder should have provide more examples of documentation. (-.24 deduction)

h. Section 19 – Contractor Key Personnel

a. Bidder Box 1 – bidder resources referenced for several roles that would be over allocation of the project and not sure if there is a true commitment of the resources. (-.22 deduction)

i. Section 22 – Meetings

a. Bidder Box 1 – bidder did not address specific meetings and how they would be addressed or managed. (-.09 deduction)

j. Section 25 – Human Center Design

a. Bidder Box 1 & 2 – bidder did not respond to bidder boxes. (-.30 deduction)

2. Schedule A – Business Specification Worksheet – 39.58/40

a. Req. 2.0 – bidder response had requirement as a future enhancement. (-.08 deduction)

b. Req. 25.0 & 141.0 – bidder did not describe how the requirement would be met. (-.16 deduction)

c. Req. 344.0 – 350.0 – bidder response did not describe how the requirement would be met. (-.14 deduction)

3. Vendor Questions Worksheet - 13.50/15

a. Bidder revenue was a concern. Bidder did not complete revenue for 2021 and 2022. (-.24 deduction)

b. Bidder has not prior experience with the State and prior experience included was not related to licensing. (-1.50 deduction)

c. No economic impact in Michigan (-.24 deduction)

4. Vendor Resumes – 4.69/15

a. Contractor Project Manager – bidder resource did not have 5 years of experience. Resource was also listed 100% of their time on the project but is still allocated 80% to another project in another State. Education section was not filled out. (-2.81 deduction)

b. Contractor Security Officer – bidder resource resume was not fully completed. (-3.75 deduction)

c. Contractor Business Analyst/Subject Matter Expert – bidder resource resume was not completed. (-3.75 deduction) Total Score: 79.96/100

H. Bidder # 8 – Thentia USA, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Thentia USA, Inc., based on a score of 72.14, 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 (not including Business Specification Worksheet) – 21.03/30

a. Section 4 – IT Environment

a. Bidder Box 2 – bidder response to SLA credits and that being the only remedy to issues was a concern. (-.08 deduction) Bidder Box 6 – Bidder did not list AWS as a subcontractor. (-.03 deduction) Bidder Box 7 – bidder did not respond to the bidder box. (-.17 deduction)

b. Section 9 – End User & Operating Environment

a. Bidder Box 4 & 5 – bidder response did not describe how the requirement would be met. Response lacked detail and no prior notification or input process. (-.48 deduction)

c. Section 11 – Integration

a. Bidder Boxes 2, 4 & 5 – bidder did not indicate how the integration would be accomplished. (-.51 deduction)

d. Section 15 – Transition Responsibilities

a. Bidder Box 1 – bidder had no response to Transition In, and Transition Out was too high level. Additional costs for this on a fixed-price contract is not acceptable. (-.90 deduction)

e. Section 16 – Documentation

a. Bidder Box 1 – bidder did not provide examples of documentation (-.60 deduction)

f. Section 18 – Contractor Personnel

a. Bidder Box 1 – bidder did not guarantee resources for roles. (-.15 deduction)

g. Section 19 – Contractor Key Personnel

a. Bidder Box 1 - bidder did not guarantee resources for roles. (-.30 deduction)

h. Section 20 – Contractor Personnel Requirements

a. Bidder Box 2 & 3 – bidder response conflicts stating that they don’t use subcontractors, but other vendors are mentioned throughout the proposal (-.16 deduction)

i. Section 22 – Meetings

a. Bidder Box 1 – bidder response is not favorable to the customer. (-.09 deduction)

j. Section 24 – Project Management/Milestones & Deliverables for Implementation

a. Bidder Box 3 – bidder response to their WBS was lacking detail, and response only included a timeline. (-.30 deduction) Bidder Box 4 – bidder response lacked detail. (-.30 deduction)

k. Section 25 – Human Center Design

a. Bidder Box 1 & 2 – bidder response does not address end-users. (-.22 deduction)

2. Schedule A – Business Specification Worksheet – 39.29/40

d. Req. 2.0, 268.0 – 269.0 – bidder did not have these requirements available that are critical to the project (-.33 total deduction)

e. Req. 197 – bidder response did not address the requirements. (-.05 deduction)

f. Req. 152.0 bidder did not check the box for what capability. (-.05 deduction)

g. Req. 344.0 & 347.0 – bidder provide an explanation on how the requirement would be met. (-.06 deduction)

h. Req. 4.0 – bidder response had part of the requirement available and partially customized. (-.02 deduction)

i. Req. 124.0 – bidder response state the requirement cannot be accomplished, but this is a requirement of the State. (-.11 deduction)

3. Vendor Questions Worksheet – 11.82/15

d. Bidder response on financials lacked detail. (-.24 deduction)

e. Bidder does not have prior experience with the State and prior experience was not related to the RFP. (-2.25 deduction)

f. Bidder had redlines to the Terms & Conditions (-.45 deduction)

g. Bidder had no economic impact in Michigan (-.24 deduction)

4. Vendor Resumes – 0.00/15

d. Bidder did not commit resources for the project, so the evaluation team could not properly evaluate the resources. (-15.00 deduction) Total Score: 72.14/100

I. Bidder # 9 – True Care Home Health LLC Bidder 9 did not meet the requirements of being responsive and responsible due to failure to actually submit a proposal.

J. Bidder # 10 – Visionary Integration Professionals, LLC The Evaluation Team determined that Visionary Integration Professionals, LLC based on a score of 88.41, 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 (not including Business Specification Worksheet) – 27.51/30

a. Section 4 – IT Environment

a. Bidder Box 5 – Disaster Recovery Plan too high level. (-.03 deduction) Bidder Box 6 – bidder did not list subcontractors (-.03 deduction)

b. Section 10 – Software

a. Bidder Box 1 – bidder response lacked necessary detail and mention subcontractors that were not mentioned in Section 4. (-.19 deduction)

c. Section 11 – Integration

a. Bidder Box 1 – bidder response did not include the public and the public would be using MiLogin as well, not just internal. (-.07 deduction)

d. Section 12 – Migration

a. Bidder Box 4 – bidder response is too high level (-.12 deduction)

e. Section 14 – Training Services

a. Bidder Box 2 – bidder response did not include examples. (-.37 deduction)

f. Section 15 – Transition Responsibilities

a. Bidder Box 1 – bidder did not have a clear data migration step. (-.24 deduction)

g. Section 16 – Documentation

a. Bidder Box 1 – bidder did not provide examples of documentation as required. (-.60 deduction)

h. Section 18 – Contractor Personnel

a. Bidder Box 1 – roles overlapped (-.03 deduction)

i. Section 19 – Contractor Key Personnel

a. Bidder Box 1 – state has concerns with roles not being 100% allocated to our project. (-.15 deduction)

j. Section 22 – Meetings – bidder did not list all required meetings (-.09 deduction)

2. Schedule A – Business Specification Worksheet – 39.93/40

a. Req. 81.0 – bidder response states that configuration would be needed. (-.02 deduction)

b. Req. 99.0 – bidder response marked as configuration, but explanation says it requires customization. (-.02 deduction)

c. Req. 339.0 – bidder response was inconsistent. (-.02 deduction)

3. Vendor Questions Worksheet – 13.47/15

a. Concerns on operations would go, now that a majority stake of the company is with another business. (-.24 deduction)

b. Bidder has no prior experience with the State (-.60 deduction)

c. Bidder redlined the Terms & Conditions (-.45 deduction)

d. No economic impact in Michigan (-.24 deduction)

4. Vendor Resumes – 7.50/15

a. Contractor Project Manager – bidder resource listed as only 25% of their time on the project, but then providing 100% on other projects. Resource is required 100%. (-2.81deduction)

b. Contractor Security Officer – bidder resource seemed more operational. Did not have a proper security certification. Listed as subcontractor and we would only get 55% allocation for the State’s project but is 100% on other projects. (-2.81 deduction)

c. Contractor Implementation Manager – bidder resource not committed 100% of the time for the project. (-1.87 deduction) Total Score: 88.41/100

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

V. Oral Presentations/Demonstrations Oral presentations and demonstrations were provided by bidders that passed technical.

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

VII. Negotiations Many rounds of negotiations were had with the intended bidder. Kyra included a 2% reduction on implementation and support costs.

VIII. 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.

Kyra Solutions, Inc. provided the best value to the State. Best value factors for Award Recommendation include:

· Best overall cost to the State.

· High level of capable resources to support the project.

· Providing the best project outline and support

· Highly detailed documentation

· A clear understanding of the requirements and needs of the project.

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 the responsive and responsible Bidder who offers the lowest price to the State of Michigan. Low price is determined by the Bidder who meets the requirements and offers the lowest overall price as demonstrated by its proposal.

Award Recommendation is made to Kyra Solutions, Inc. in the amount of $2,995,868.00.

Version 2024-2 image1.png