RFP # 250000002999 NIA1 #260000000488.pdf

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Version 2024-2 Page 1 of 12

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

Notice of Intent to Award Number: NIA1 171-260000000488

Notice of Intent to Award Date: 5/18/2026

Related to

Request for Proposal (RFP) 171-250000002999

ORS RFP for Atlas Modernization Project

The Department of Technology, Management, & Budget’s Procurement office has completed the evaluation of the above-referenced RFP and has recommended an award to RSM US LLP in the amount of $5,675,674.00, 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:

Angela Wright, Solicitation Manager.

wrighta33@michigan.gov 517-899-4646

Public copies of all bidder proposals can be found here: DTMB - Bid Proposals (michigan.gov)

Background Information: This RFP was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor to provide software development services to modernize ORS IT applications. The term of this contract is 15 months with up to 72 1-month renewal options.

Bidders: The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on 8/27/2025. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of 10/16/2025.

Bidder Address, City, State, Zip Code SDVOB* GDBE**

HTC Global Services, Inc. 3270 West Big Beaver Road, Troy, Michigan 48084

No No

RSM US LLP 30 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60606

No No

Slalom, Inc. 255 S King Street, Suite 1800 Seattle, WA 98104

No No

*SDVOB: Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Business **GDBE: Geographically Disadvantaged Business Enterprise https://www.michigan.gov/dtmb/policies/state-ad-board https://www.michigan.gov/dtmb/policies/state-ad-board mailto:wrighta33@michigan.gov https://www.michigan.gov/dtmb/procurement/contractconnect/bid-proposals https://www.michigan.gov/dtmb/procurement/contractconnect/bid-proposals

Version 2024-2 Page 2 of 12

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.

Technical Criteria Name Weight

1. Vendor Questions Worksheet 10

2. Contractor Key Personnel 15

3. Project Scope Schedule A-Statement of Work Sections 4-9, 11-23 15

4. Project Scope Schedule A-Section 10 15

5. Project Scope Schedule A-Section 24 20

6. Project Scope Schedule A-Statement of Work Section 25 20

7. Acceptance of Software Development Contract Terms & Conditions and Terms of Schedules C-E 5

Total 100

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:

Voting Advisory Angela Wright DTMB Andy Kolp DTMB-ORS Douglas Neil DTMB Meg Skelley DTMB-ORS

Travis Peake DTMB-ORS Shivkumar Singh DTMB Toby Pittman DTMB Venkateshwaran Ramakrishnan DTMB Thasin Sardar DTMB Michael Nichols DTMB

Version 2024-2 Page 3 of 12

Gurpreet Singh DTMB Anitha Japa DTMB Corey Nunnery DTMB Trevor Sweet DTMB Spencer Mathews DTMB Angela Sanborn DTMB-ORS Mark Peckham DTMB Shweta Aurora DTMB Todd Stevens DTMB Paolo DiLernia DTMB Neelima Paleti DTMB Carl Gonyea DTMB David Szarenski DTMB Kelly Wilson DTMB Joshua Potter DTMB Jameel Farooqui DTMB Hariprasad Vecham DTMB Jimmy Isaac DTMB Suhasini Jegadeesan DTMB Anna Scott EPMO Imaad Thasin EPMO Nicole McCastle EPMO Pavan Kunapareddy DTMB Benjamin Southwell DTMB-ORS Marla Milton DTMB-ORS Paula Webb DTMB Elizabeth Harrison DTMB-ORS Anthony Estell DTMB-ORS Allison Wardlaw DTMB-ORS Timothy McCormick DTMB-ORS Joseph Rauschenberger DTMB-ORS Manny Rosales DTMB Anthony Rodgers DTMB William Pemble DTMB Ryan Dickerson DTMB Gary Rogensues DTMB Sarah Humphreys DTMB-ORS Jennifer Cook DTMB Jyotindra Khatri DTMB Dennis Saylor DTMB Carol Souza DTMB Roberick Barretto EPMO Heather Frick DTMB

Version 2024-2 Page 4 of 12

Lauren Lonsbury DTMB John Donovan DTMB Puja Agrawal DTMB Aishwarya KalyanKumar DTMB Timothy LaRue DTMB

Version 2024-2 Page 5 of 12

III. Evaluation Results

The JEC determined three of the three bidders had submitted Responsive proposals:

Bidder Responsive

HTC Global Services, Inc. Yes RSM US LLP Yes Slalom, Inc. Yes

The JEC then evaluated the three responsive proposals and determined that three of the three met the minimum 80 technical evaluation point threshold. The JEC derived the following technical scores from the bidders’ written proposals:

EVALUATION SCORING: DEDUCTIONS SUMMARY

Criteria HTC RSM Slalom Vendor Questions Worksheet -1.25 -3 -2.25

Contractor Key Personnel/Resumes -6.25 -6.5 -4.5

Project Scope Schedule A- Statement of Work Sections 4-9, 11-23

-1.5 -0.5 -3

Project Scope Schedule A-Section

-4.5 0 -3.75

Project Scope Schedule A-Section

-1 0 -3

Project Scope Schedule A- Statement of Work Section 25

-2 0 -1

Acceptance of Software Development Contract Terms & Conditions and Terms of Schedules C-E

-1.5 -1.75 -1

Version 2024-2 Page 6 of 12

Total Technical Evaluation Deductions

-18 -11.75 -18.5

Overall Technical Evaluation Score 82 88.25 81.5

Version 2024-2 Page 7 of 12

EVALUATION SCORING: DEDUCTIONS BREAKDOWN

HTC RSM Slalom

Company Background/Vendor Questions Worksheet Company Background/Vendor Questions Worksheet Company Background/Vendor Questions Worksheet

10 Total Points Available Deduction Reason/Description

Deduction Amount Totals Deduction Reason/Description

Deduction Amount Totals Deduction Reason/Description

Deduction Amount Totals

Prior Experience 1 Failed to provide team structure and sprint cadence -0.25

Failed to demonstrate Agile Scrum Framework, key objectives, team structure, sprint cadence and outcomes within the experience.

-1 Failed to demonstrate Agile Scrum Framework, key objectives, team structure, sprint cadence within the experience.

-0.75

Prior Experience 2 Failed to provide team structure and sprint cadence | Comparatively smaller

SOW ($2.9) -0.5

Failed to demonstrate Agile Scrum Framework, key objectives, team structure, sprint cadence and outcomes within the experience.

-1 Failed to demonstrate Agile Scrum Framework, key objectives, team structure, sprint cadence within the experience.

-0.75

Prior Experience 3 Failed to provide team structure and sprint cadence | Comparatively smaller

SOW ($1.4) -0.5

Failed to demonstrate Agile Scrum Framework, key objectives, team structure, sprint cadence and outcomes within the experience.

-1 Failed to demonstrate Agile Scrum Framework, key objectives, team structure, sprint cadence within the experience.

-0.75

Section Deductions Subtotal -1.25 Section Deductions Subtotal -3 Section Deductions Subtotal -2.25 Contractor Key Personnel/Resumes Contractor Key Personnel/Resumes Contractor Key Personnel/Resumes

15 Total Points Available Deduction Reason/Description

Deduction Amount Totals Deduction Reason/Description

Deduction Amount Totals Deduction Reason/Description

Deduction Amount Totals

Project Manager Failed to demonstrate PMP or Scrum Certification | Failed to demonstrate the required skills and experience to meet the requirements of the position and project.

-0.5 Failed to provide PMP & Scrum Certification details | Failed to provide complete response for references| Failed to provide current references

-0.5 Failed to demonstrate skills and experience to meet the requirements of the position and project.

-0.25

Senior BA Failed to demonstrate Scrum Certification |Failed to demonstrate skills and experience to meet the requirements of the position and project.

-0.5

Failed to provide Scrum Certification details | Failed to provide complete response for references | Failed to demonstrate skills and experience to meet the requirements of the position and project.

-0.75

Failed to meet Certification requirement | Failed to demonstrate skills and experience to meet the requirements of the position and project.

-0.5

HCD Specialist Failed to meet the PMP or Scrum requirement | Failed to demonstrate skills and experience to meet the requirements of the position and project.

-0.75

Failed to meet the PMP or Scrum requirement | Failed to demonstrate skills and experience to meet the requirements of the position and project.

-0.75 Failed to meet Certification | Failed to demonstrate skills and experience to meet the requirements of the position and project.

-0.75

Functional Architect

Failed to demonstrate skills and experience to meet the requirements of the position and project. | Failed to provide references that are specific to this role

-0.75 Failed to demonstrate skills and experience to meet the requirements of the position and project.

-0.5 Failed to demonstrate skills and experience to meet the requirements of the position and project.

-0.5

Solution Architect Failed to provide references that are specific to this role

-0.5 Failed to demonstrate skills and experience to meet the requirements of the position and -0.75

Failed to demonstrate skills and experience to meet the requirements of the position and project.

-0.5

Version 2024-2 Page 8 of 12 project | Failed to provide responses to in references

Azure Cloud Architect

Failed to provide responses to all questions.

-0.5

Failed to provide responses to in references | Failed to demonstrate skills and experience to meet the requirements of the position and project.

-0.75 Failed to demonstrate skills and experience to meet the requirements of the position and project.

-0.5

D365 CRM

Architect Technical Lead Failed to provide references that are similar is size projects

-0.5

Failed to meet the certification requirements | Failed to provide responses |Failed to demonstrate skills and experience to meet the requirements of the position and project.

-0.75

UI UX Designer Failed to demonstrate skills and experience for a project of this scope.

-0.5 Failed to provide response to references| Failed to demonstrate skills and experience to meet the requirements of the position and project.

-0.75

Training Lead Failed to demonstrate skills and experience for a project of this scope.

-0.5 Failed to demonstrate skills and experience to meet the requirements of the position and project.

-0.5 Failed to demonstrate skills and experience to meet the requirements of the position and project.

-0.5

QA Automation Testing Lead

Failed to provide reference details and responses. Failed to demonstrate skills and experience for a project of this scope.

-0.75 Failed to demonstrate skills and experience to meet the requirements of the position and project.

-0.5 Failed to demonstrate skills and experience to meet the requirements of the position and project.

-0.5

Security Officer Failed to provide details in references | project allocation is not realistic

-0.5 Failed to include Scope of role in phases 2-5 -0.5

Section Deductions Subtotal -6.25 Section Deductions Subtotal -6.5 Section Deductions Subtotal -4.5

Project Scope Schedule A-Statement of Work

Sections 4-9, 11-23 Project Scope Schedule A-Statement of Work Sections 4-9, 11-23 Project Scope Schedule A-Statement of Work Sections 4-

9, 11-23

15 Total Points Available Deduction Reason/Description

Deduction Amount Totals Deduction Reason/Description

Deduction Amount Totals Deduction Reason/Description

Deduction Amount Totals

SOW Sec 4. IT Environment Responsibilities

Inconsistency in approach throughout the

RFP submission.

-1

SOW Sec 5. ADA Compliance

SOW Sec 6. User Type and Capacity

The response focuses on Dynamics 365 and Dataverse, which only represent a portion of the overall solution. Vendor response omits custom-built application, which is the majority of the solution.

-1

SOW Sec 7. Access Control and Audit

Version 2024-2 Page 9 of 12

SOW Sec 8. Data Retention, Disposal, and Retrieval

SOW Sec 9. End User Operating Environment

SOW Sec 11.

Integration

SOW Sec 12.

Migration

SOW Sec 13.

Hardware

SOW Sec 14.

Training Services

Failed to provide training options to support the ORS Phased approach. -0.5

SOW Sec 15.

Transition Responsibilities

SOW Sec 16.

Documentation

Failed to provide examples -0.5 Failed to provide examples -0.5 Failed to provide examples -0.5

SOW Sec 17.

Additional Products and Services

SOW Sec 18.

Contractor Personnel

SOW Sec 19.

Contractor Key

SOW Sec 20.

Contractor

Requirements

SOW Sec 22.

Meetings

SOW Sec 23.

Project Control & Reports

Failed to demonstrate the bidder’s ability to deliver actionable insights and maintain alignment with ORS’s Agile practices.

Section Deductions Subtotal -1.5 Section Deductions Subtotal -0.5 Section Deductions Subtotal -3 Project Scope Schedule A-Section 10 Project Scope Schedule A-Section 10 Project Scope Schedule A-Section 10

Version 2024-2 Page 10 of 12

PROPOSAL

SECTION Deduction Reason/Description

Deduction Amount Totals Deduction Reason/Description

Deduction Amount Totals Deduction Reason/Description

Deduction Amount Totals

Failed to provide a collaborative approach

Inconsistent descriptions of infrastructure solution, software solution, and Data Modeling amongst the overall proposal and this section.

-3.75

Failed to provide examples of how similar phased implementations have been successfully executed.

Failed to follow ORS DevOps Workspace -0.5

Story Point based pricing not Increment pricing is not consistent with ORS approach

-2

Section Deductions Subtotal -4.5 Section Deductions Subtotal 0 Section Deductions Subtotal -3.75 Project Scope Schedule A-Section 24 Project Scope Schedule A-Section 24 Project Scope Schedule A-Section 24

Deduction Reason/Description

Deduction Amount Totals Deduction Reason/Description

Deduction Amount Totals Deduction Reason/Description

Deduction

Failed to demonstrate how each PMM/SEM requirement identified in the Milestones/Deliverables will be met.

Failed to demonstrate how each PMM/SEM requirement identified in the Milestones/Deliverables will be met.

Conflicting response to Agile Delivery Model Approach, ORS vs Slalom Agile methodology

-2

Section Deductions Subtotal -1 Section Deductions Subtotal 0 Section Deductions Subtotal -3

Project Scope Schedule A-Statement of Work

Section 25 Project Scope Schedule A-Statement of Work Section 25 Project Scope Schedule A-Statement of Work Section 25

Deduction Reason/Description

Deduction Amount Totals Deduction Reason/Description

Deduction Amount Totals Deduction Reason/Description

Deduction

Failure to demonstrate HCD specialist support for Phase 4 & 5

Failed to demonstrate how process will be sustained over time. -1

Inconsistency in response as it relates to the project dynamics between HCD and subcontractors

Section Deductions Subtotal -2 Section Deductions Subtotal 0 Section Deductions Subtotal -1

Acceptance of Software Development Contract Terms & Conditions and Terms of Schedules C-E

Acceptance of Software Development Contract Terms & Conditions and Terms of Schedules C-E

Acceptance of Software Development Contract Terms & Conditions and Terms of Schedules C-E

Version 2024-2 Page 11 of 12

PROPOSAL

SECTION Deduction Reason/Description

Deduction Amount Totals Deduction Reason/Description

Deduction Amount Totals Deduction Reason/Description

Deduction Amount Totals

Software Development T&C's

Failed to accept as presented -1

Failed to accept as presented -1

Failed to accept as presented -1

Schedule C Insurance

Failed to accept as presented -0.25

Schedule D SLA Failed to accept as presented -0.5 Schedule E Data Security Exhibit

Failed to accept as presented -0.5

Section Deductions Subtotal -1.5 Section Deductions Subtotal -1.75 Section Deductions Subtotal -1

Version 2024-2 Page 12 of 12

IV. Oral Presentations & Pricing

Oral presentations were conducted, and pricing was evaluated. The JEC requested and received price concessions from two bidders. The following is a base Contract cost summary of the proposals that passed technical evaluation:

Base Contract HTC RSM Slalom Total Implementation Fees Phase

$1,175,341.00 $749,229.00 $1,433,516.00

Total Implementation Fees Phase

9,959,835.00 $4,926,445.00 $4,016,480.00

Base Contract Total $11,135,176.00 $5,675,674.00 $5,449,996.00 V. 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 factors stated in Technical Evaluation Criteria of the RFP and price. Past performance with the State was also a factor in determining best value. The JEC has determined that RSM US LLP, will provide the best value to the State and recommends award be made to RSM US LLP in the amount not to exceed $5,675,674.00, pending State Administrative Board approval.