The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
AWARD RECOMMENDATION
| Notice of Intent to Award Number: 260000000689 |
| Notice of Intent to Award Date: 8/3/2026 |
The Department of Technology, Management and Budget office has completed the evaluation of CEPI Education Data System Modernization Request for Proposal No. 260000001032 and has recommended an award to Applied Enterprise Management Corporation in the amount of $10,984,310.00 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:
Solicitation Manager Name: Angela Wright Direct Phone: 517-899-4646 Email: wrighta33@michigan.gov 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 a Unified Platform for Data Collection and Reporting Application. The term of this contract is 3 years, with up to 7 1-year renewal options.
Bidders:
The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on February 3, 2026. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of March 13, 2026.
| Bidder |
| Address, City, State, Zip Code |
| SDVOB* |
| GDBE** |
| Level Data, LLC |
| 56 Broad St, STE 14018 Boston, MA 02109 |
| No |
| No |
| Applied Enterprise Management Corporation |
| 11951 Freedom Drive, Suite 1100, Reston, VA 20190 |
| No |
| No |
| World Wide Technology, LLC |
| 1 World Wide Way St. Louis, MO 63146 |
| No |
| No |
| Kyndryl, Inc |
| One Vanderbilt Place New York, NY 10017 |
| No |
| No |
| Resultant LLC |
| 111 Monument Circle, Suite 202 | Indianapolis, IN 46204 |
| No |
| No |
| FocalPointK12, LLC |
| 3000 Northwoods Parkway, STE 150, Peachtree Corners, GA, 30071 |
| No |
| No |
*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
| Technical Criteria Name |
| Weight |
| 1. |
| Project Scope Schedule A-Statement of Work Sections 4-16, 25-26 |
| 35 |
| 2. |
| Project Scope Schedule A-Statement of Work Sections 22-24 |
| 20 |
| 3. |
| Contractor Key Personnel |
| 20 |
| 4. |
| Vendor Questions Worksheet-References provided |
| 15 |
| 5. |
| Acceptance of IT Professional Services Contract Terms & Conditions and Terms of Schedules C-E |
| 10 |
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:
Roderick Bernosky, DTMB Michael McGroarty, CEPI Joshua DeBrabander, CEPI Angela Wright, DTMB David Quesada, DTMB Thomas Howell, CEPI Trina Anderson, CEPI Lauren Paluta, CEPI Barry Tiedeman, CEPI Jeremy Avery, CEPI Meghann Omo, CEPI Christopher McLaren, CEPI Molly Wettlaufer, CEPI Sherine Lance, CEPI Garrett Amstutz, CEPI Kimberly Crawford, DTMB Simon Wang, DTMB Joseph Rush, DTMB Don Winans, DTMB Rajender Razdan, DTMB Heather Handley, CEPI Mike Bartkowiak, DTMB Gordie Harkins, State of Mississippi John Kraman, State of Mississippi Padmanabha Dasaiah Venkatachala, DTMB Drew Finkbeiner, MDE David Judd, MDE John Price, MDE Julie Elkins, CEPI Brandon Johnson, DTMB
Michigan.gov/MiProcurement
Michigan.gov/MiProcurement
III.
Version 2024-2 IV. Evaluation Results FocalpointK12, LLC was marked as non-responsive for failure to include a completed Schedule B.
Level Data, LLC was marked as non-responsive for failure to meet the entirety of the State’s licensing requirements for the Solution.
| Applied Enterprise Management Corporation |
| World Wide Technology |
| Kyndryl |
| Resultant |
Possible Points
| Criteria |
| Total |
| Criteria |
| Total |
| Criteria |
| Total |
| Criteria |
| Total |
| Project Scope Schedule A-Statement of Work Sections 4-16, 25-26 |
| 34.75 |
| Project Scope Schedule A-Statement of Work Sections 4-16, 25-26 |
| 29.75 |
| Project Scope Schedule A-Statement of Work Sections 4-16, 25-26 |
| 30.5 |
| Project Scope Schedule A-Statement of Work Sections 4-16, 25-26 |
| 31 |
| Project Scope Schedule A-Statement of Work Sections 22-24 |
| 20 |
| Project Scope Schedule A-Statement of Work Sections 22-24 |
| 20 |
| Project Scope Schedule A-Statement of Work Sections 22-24 |
| 20 |
| Project Scope Schedule A-Statement of Work Sections 22-24 |
| 19.5 |
| Contractor Key Personnel |
| 19 |
| Contractor Key Personnel |
| 7 |
| Contractor Key Personnel |
| 13.5 |
| Contractor Key Personnel |
| 12.5 |
| Vendor Questions Worksheet-References provided |
| 15 |
| Vendor Questions Worksheet-References provided |
| 9 |
| Vendor Questions Worksheet-References provided |
| 7 |
| Vendor Questions Worksheet-References provided |
| 11 |
| Acceptance of IT Professional Services Contract Terms & Conditions and Terms of Schedules C-G |
| 10 |
| Acceptance of IT Professional Services Contract Terms & Conditions and Terms of Schedules C-G |
| 6.5 |
| Acceptance of IT Professional Services Contract Terms & Conditions and Terms of Schedules C-G |
| 4.5 |
| Acceptance of IT Professional Services Contract Terms & Conditions and Terms of Schedules C-G |
| 8 |
| Total Technical Evaluation |
| 98.75 |
| Total Technical Evaluation |
| 72.25 |
| Total Technical Evaluation |
| 75.5 |
| Total Technical Evaluation |
| 82 |
Project Scope Schedule A-Statement of Work Sections 4-16, 25-26
| 35 Total Points Available |
| Section Value |
| Reason/Description |
| Total |
| Reason/Description |
| Total |
| Reason/Description |
| Total |
| Reason/Description |
| Total |
| SOW Sec 4. IT Environment Responsibilities |
| 5 |
| 5 |
| Failed to align attachment Schedule A Inventory List with Doc 8 of 10 Software License 3rd Party Tool List regarding Snowflake. |
| 4.5 |
| SOW Sec 5. ADA Compliance |
| 1 |
| 1 |
| Failed to provide list of tools, methods, or third-party services used to support accessibility testing. |
| 0.5 |
| SOW Sec 6. User Type and Capacity |
| 3 |
| 3 |
| Failed to provide latency response time. |
| 2.5 |
| SOW Sec 7. Access Control and Audit |
| 1 |
| 1 |
| Failed to provide how access control and user authentication requirements will be met. |
| 0.75 |
| SOW Sec 8. Data Retention, Disposal, and Retrieval |
| 1 |
| SOW Sec 9. End User Operating Environment |
| 3 |
| 10 |
| Failed to provide comprehensive description for the proposed solution. Responses were generic and lacked detail. |
| 8 |
| Failed to complete 3rd party tools list. Failed to provide comprehensive approach to how they would accomplish each phase for 10.1 & 10.2. |
| 7 |
| Failed to provide details for deliverables for Phase 2 & 3 other than documentation. Conflicts within proposal and Terms and Conditions for Acceptance. Conflicts between business specifications and number of planned integrations. |
| 7 |
| SOW Sec 11. Integration |
| 5 |
| 5 |
| Responses were generic, lacked detail and not aligned with the State requirements. |
| 4 |
| 2 |
| Responses were generic, lacked detail and not aligned with the State requirements. |
| 1 |
| Responses were generic, lacked detail and not aligned with the State requirements. |
| 1 |
| Failed to include scaling for additional future domains. |
| 1.5 |
| SOW Sec 13. Hardware -Reserved |
| N/A |
| SOW Sec 14. Training Services |
| 1 |
| Failed to follow Proposal Instructions: Bidder provided links to training examples instead of providing information within the proposal. |
| 0.75 |
| 1 |
| Failed to provide examples of clearly written training instructions and documentation. |
| 0.75 |
| SOW Sec 15. Transition Responsibilities--Schedule F |
| 1 |
| SOW Sec 16. Documentation |
| 1 |
| SOW Sec 25. Human Centered Design |
| 1 |
| 1 |
| Response does not fully align with State requirements. |
| 0.75 |
| SOW Sec 26. Additional Information |
| N/A |
| Section Subtotal |
| 34.75 |
| Section Subtotal |
| 29.75 |
| Section Subtotal |
| 30.5 |
| Section Subtotal |
| 31 |
Project Scope Schedule A-Statement of Work Sections 22-24
20 Total Points Available
| Reason/Description |
| Total |
| Reason/Description |
| Total |
| Reason/Description |
| Total |
| Reason/Description |
| Total |
| SOW Sec 23. Project Control & Reports |
| 8 |
| SOW Sec 24. Project Management |
| 10 |
| 10 |
| Conflicts within proposal and Terms and Conditions for Change Request. |
| 9.5 |
| Section Subtotal |
| 20 |
| Section Subtotal |
| 20 |
| Section Subtotal |
| 20 |
| Section Subtotal |
| 19.5 |
Contractor Key Personnel
20 Total Points Available
| Reason/Description |
| Total |
| Reason/Description |
| Total |
| Description |
| Total |
| Description |
| Total |
| 4 |
| Failed to commit Key Resource to the project. Failed to demonstrate number of years of experience in work history. |
| 1.5 |
| Failed to demonstrate 5 year’s experience managing projects of similar size and scope of this solicitation. Failed to provide requested information in references. Failed to provide reference details for relevance to solicitation and results obtained. |
| 2.5 |
| Failed to provide cover letter. |
| 3.5 |
| Cloud Solution and Azure Architect |
| 4 |
| Failed to provide detailed resume. |
| 3 |
| Failed to commit Key Resource to the project. Failed to demonstrate number of years of experience in work history. |
| 1.5 |
| Failed to provide requested information in references. Failed to provide reference details for relevance to solicitation and results obtained. |
| 3 |
| Failed to demonstrate experience with Event Hubs, Service Bus and Identity Management. Failed to provide cover letter. Failed to provide all requested information in reference for critical information. |
| 2.5 |
| Software Solution Architect |
| 4 |
| 4 |
| Failed to commit Key Resource to the project. Failed to demonstrate number of years of experience in work history. |
| 1.5 |
| Failed to provide requested information in references. Failed to demonstrate in references relevant to the subject of this Solicitation and results obtained. |
| 3 |
| Failed to provide cover letter. Failed to provide all requested information in reference for critical information. |
| 3 |
| 3 |
| Failed to commit Key Resource to the project. Failed to demonstrate number of years of experience. Failed to provide requested information in references. |
| 1 |
| Failed to provide requested information in references. Failed to demonstrate experience with Azure Cloud Services. |
| 2 |
| Failed to provide cover letter. Failed to demonstrate 5 years of experience. Failed to provide all requested information in references. |
| 1.5 |
| 3 |
| Failed to commit Key Resource to the project. Failed to demonstrate number of years of experience in work history. |
| 1 |
| Failed to demonstrate relevant skills in the experience provided. Failed to demonstrate five years of experience creating low-fidelity (wireframes) and defining how users interact with the interface and testing designs with real users to identify issues. |
| 2 |
| Failed to provide cover letter. Failed to provide requested information, substantial amount of information not included. |
| 1.5 |
| Security Officer |
| 1 |
| 0 |
| 1 |
| Failed to commit Key Resource to the project. Failed to demonstrate number of years of experience in work history. |
| 0.25 |
| Failed to provide requested information in references. |
| 0.5 |
| Failed to provide cover letter. Failed to provide all requested information in references, key information not provide. |
| 0.5 |
| QA Automation Testing Lead |
| 1 |
| 0 |
| 1 |
| Failed to commit Key Resource to the project. Failed to demonstrate number of years of experience in work history. |
| 0.25 |
| Failed to provide requested information in references. |
| 0.5 |
| Failed to provide cover letter. Failed to provide all requested information in references, key information not provide. |
| 0 |
| Section Subtotal |
| 19 |
| Section Subtotal |
| 6 |
| Section Subtotal |
| 13.5 |
| Section Subtotal |
| 12.5 |
Vendor Questions Worksheet-References provided
15 Total Points Available
| Deduction Reason/Description |
| Total |
| Deduction Reason/Description |
| Total |
| Deduction Reason/Description |
| Total |
| Reason/Description |
| Total |
| Reference 1 |
| 5 |
| 0 |
| 5 |
| Failed to demonstrate using the Agile Scrum framework. Include key objectives, team structure, sprint cadence, and outcomes. |
| 4 |
| Failed to provide requested information. Failed to include Team structure and sprint cadence details. Failed to demonstrate relevance to this RFP. |
| 2.5 |
| Failed to provide team structure and sprint cadence. |
| 4 |
| Reference 2 |
| 5 |
| 0 |
| 5 |
| Failed to demonstrate using the Agile Scrum framework. Include key objectives, team structure, sprint cadence, and outcomes. Failed to provide dollar value of referenced project. |
| 3 |
| Failed to provide requested information. Failed to include Team structure and sprint cadence details. Failed to describe results obtained. |
| 2.5 |
| Failed to provide team structure and sprint cadence. |
| 4 |
| Reference 3 |
| 5 |
| 0 |
| 5 |
| Failed to demonstrate using the Agile Scrum framework. Include key objectives, team structure, sprint cadence, and outcomes. Project scope and amount is not similar. |
| 2 |
| Failed to provide requested information. Failed to demonstrate relevance to this RFP. Failed to include Team structure and sprint cadence details |
| 2 |
| Failed to align reference with Solicitation. Failed to provide team structure and sprint cadence. |
| 3 |
| Section Subtotal |
| 15 |
| Section Subtotal |
| 9 |
| Section Subtotal |
| 7 |
| Section Subtotal |
| 11 |
Acceptance of Software Development Contract Terms & Conditions and Terms of Schedules
10 Total Points Available
| Reason/Description |
| Total |
| Reason/Description |
| Total |
| Reason/Description |
| Total |
| Reason/Description |
| Total |
| IT Professional Services T&C's |
| 4 |
| 0 |
| 4 |
| Failed to accept T&C's as presented, Proposed edits to significant provisions. |
| 2 |
| Failed to accept T&C's as presented, Proposed edits to significant provisions. Failed to follow proposal instructions, significant amount of edits were made without comment with justification. |
| 1 |
| Failed to accept as presented. Failed to follow Proposal Instructions. |
| 3 |
| Schedule C-Insurance |
| 1 |
| 0 |
| 1 |
| Failed to accept as presented. |
| 0.5 |
| Failed to accept as presented. |
| 0.5 |
| 0 |
| 1 |
| Schedule D-SLA |
| 2 |
| 0 |
| 2 |
| 0 |
| 2 |
| Failed to accept as presented. |
| 1 |
| Failed to accept as presented. Failed to follow Proposal Instructions. |
| 1 |
| Schedule E-Data Security |
| 3 |
| 0 |
| 3 |
| Failed to accept as presented. |
| 2 |
| Failed to accept as presented by introducing additional Terms and Conditions via a DPA |
| 2 |
| 0 |
| 3 |
| Section Subtotal |
| 10 |
| Section Subtotal |
| 6.5 |
| Section Subtotal |
| 4.5 |
| Section Deductions Subtotal |
| 8 |
V.
VI. Oral Presentations/Demonstrations & Proposal Pricing Oral presentations were conducted, and pricing was evaluated for the bidders who passed technical evaluation. The following is a summary of their price proposals:
| Applied Enterprise Management |
| Resultant |
Implementation
| Phase 1 |
| $6,058,135.00 |
| $11,796,024.75 |
| Phase 2 |
| $5,104,908.00 |
| $12,212,856.00 |
| Total Base Years Phase 1 & 2 |
| $11,163,043.00 |
| $24,008,880.75 |
Support
| Year 2 |
| $227,180.00 |
| $370,000.00 |
| Year 3 |
| $908,720.00 |
| $1,180,000.00 |
| Total Base Years Support |
| $1,135,900.00 |
| $1,550,000.00 |
| Total Base Contract |
| $12,298,943.00 |
| $25,558,880.75 |
VII. Negotiations Applied Enterprise Management Corporation provided best and final pricing of $10,984,310.00 during negotiations.
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 factors stated in Technical Evaluation Criteria of the RFP and price. The JEC has determined that Applied Enterprise Management Corporation will provide the best value to the State and recommends award be made to Applied Enterprise Management Corporation in the amount not to exceed $10,984,310.00, pending State Administrative Board approval.
image1.png