RFP - Statewide Travel Administrator Services - Q and A responses.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 19 KB Posted
- Attached to
- STATEWIDE TRAVEL ADMINISTRATOR SERVICES
- Solicitation number
- RFP 171 260000002486 4
- Issued by
- Grand Traverse County, Lansing City, Michigan
About this file
This document contains Question and Answer responses from the State of Michigan regarding its Statewide Travel Administrator Services RFP, which seeks to procure comprehensive travel management services for state employees. The procurement requires the selected contractor to provide online reservation system management, travel booking services through both online and operator-assisted channels, and travel administration support. The current implementation timeline is 10-14 weeks, with a proposed go-live date of October 23, 2026, which the State has indicated is negotiable to allow for a smooth transition. The State maintains approximately 2/3 of reservations are processed through online booking tools with 1/3 requiring operator assistance, and all bookings must be made through the awarded Travel Management Company (TMC) with limited exceptions. The State anticipates average air travel costs of approximately $525 based on April through June 2026 data.
The State has established specific pricing and service requirements for this procurement, though current pricing details with the incumbent vendor, FROSCH – Chase Travel Corporate Solutions, remain confidential. The State is open to various fee structures, including commission-based models, transaction fees, and management fees, with emphasis on obtaining the lowest combined cost option. The State maintains its own per diem rates and does not follow GSA rates. Critical requirements include dedicated staffing with State authority to remove underperforming personnel, security compliance with FedRAMP authorization or SOC 2 Type II audits based on NIST 800-53 MOD controls, and service level agreements that the State notes exceed typical federal government standards. The State operates independently from federal systems and does not currently utilize NASPO Cooperative agreements. Bidders must provide specific justifications for any redlines to security or service level provisions, with exceptions potentially resulting in disqualification.
View the file
Other files
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Q# | Document and Section | Page # | Question | Answer (State Response) |
| 1 | Are "all commissions earned on State Travel" negotiable? I'd imagine that travel management companies rely heavily on those commissions in order to stay in business. | The state maintains the position that commissions be returned to ensure best practice and unbiased bookings. Commissions on State Travel are negotiable. The State is looking for the best combination of commissions and fees to obtain the lowest price. | ||
| 2 | We have an implementation time of 10-14 weeks. With your expected go-live of October 23, 2026 (6 weeks from proposal due date) do you have extension availability or does this disqualify us from the bid? | The October 23, 2026 “Go-Live” date is negotiable. The State is looking into an extension to allow for a smooth transition. 10-14 weeks is reasonable. | ||
| 3 | We assign account staffing with no ability for the State of Michigan to remove or reassign personelle. Does this disqualify us from the bid? | The State prefers to have dedicated staffing – to know whom the State is dealing with. At least a dedicated lead for problems and issues. As the lawyers like to say “one throat to choke”. If someone is not doing their job, the State would like the ability to remove them, the penalty is negotiable. | ||
| 4 | Are you required to follow the GSA per diem for lodging? | The State sets its own rates and does not currently follow GSA rates. | ||
| 5 | Do you need federal government support? IE: required to submit in writing travel movements | We do not have anything to do with federal government. | ||
| 6 | Do you have a third party duty of care partner? | No. | ||
| 7 | 1.1.5 Online Reservation System | 42 | Can you confirm if you are utilizing a direct contract for SAP Concur travel or your current providers reseller agreement? Are you looking to stay with Concur or would you prefer another option for a tool? | We utilize SAP Concur with our current TMC. We are open to another option, however, staying with Concur would be an easier transition. |
| 8 | 1.1.5 Online Reservation System | 42 | What is your online adoption rate? | Our online adoption rate is approximately 2/3. Operator assisted is about 1/3 |
| 9 | Schedule A – Statement of Work | 39 | Regarding commission return and transaction fee reconciliation, would the state be open to a supplemental open-book, management fee financial offering in addition or as an alternative to the transaction fee model? | The RFP follows our current arrangement, but bidders are open to propose any fee structure they would like, knowing that the State is looking for the lowest combined cost option in the best interest of the program. |
| 10 | 5. Protection of State’s Information 5.2 | 82 | Our solution is hosted on AWS us-east-1, which carries a FedRAMP Moderate authorization at the infrastructure level. Please confirm what's required at the application level: (a) must our company obtain its own full FedRAMP Moderate authorization, or (b) will a SOC 2 Type II report mapped to NIST 800-53 Moderate controls be acceptable for our application layer? | Please refer to Section 5.1 and 5.2 of Schedule E: |
5.1 If Hosted Services are provided by a Hosting Provider, ensure each Hosting Provider maintains FedRAMP authorization for all Hosted Services environments throughout the Term, and in the event a Hosting Provider is unable to maintain FedRAMP authorization, the State, at its sole discretion, may either a) require the Contractor to move the Software and State Data to an alternative Hosting Provider selected and approved by the State at Contractor’s sole cost and expense without any increase in Fees, or b) immediately terminate this Contract for cause pursuant to Section 25 of the Contract;
5.2 for Hosted Services provided by the Contractor, maintain either a FedRAMP authorization or an annual SSAE 18 SOC 2 Type II audit based on State required NIST Special Publication 800-53 MOD Controls using identified controls and minimum values as established in applicable State PSPs.
| 11 | 5. Protection of State’s Information 5.4 | 82 | Is full government-grade security compliance (FISMA/NIST) a hard requirement on day one, or would a documented roadmap to achieve it over time be acceptable? | If Bidder takes exceptions to these provisions, bidder must redline these terms as part of its proposal response and must provide a specific, security-related, justification for each redline proposed. Exceptions to the terms may be grounds for disqualification at the State’s discretion. General statements, such as that the Bidder reserves the right to negotiate the terms and conditions, may be deemed non-responsive. |
| 12 | Stateside Travel Administrator Services - Final - Proposal Instruction | 1 | Who is the current travel service management company incumbent? | FROSCH - Chase Travel Corporate Solutions |
| 13 | Stateside Travel Administrator Services - Schedule A Statement of Work | 1 | Are there any major pain points that you'd like us to focus on? | The State is not unhappy with the current vendor, any alternative must work as well, and be competitve on cost. |
| 14 | Stateside Travel Administrator Services - Schedule A Statement of Work | 1 | Is there anything working today that you would like us to continue? | The State is not unhappy with the current vendor, any alternative must work as well or better. |
| 15 | Stateside Travel Administrator Services - Schedule A Statement of Work | 1 | What is the average air travel cost? | For example, April, May, June 2026, the average was $517, $524, $561. So approximately $525 |
| 16 | Stateside Travel Administrator Services - Schedule B Pricing RFP | 1 | What is the current online transaction fee that the State currently pays? | We are not at liberty to discuss current pricing. |
| 17 | Stateside Travel Administrator Services - Schedule B Pricing RFP | 1 | What is the current agent supported fee that the State currently pays? | We are not at liberty to discuss current pricing. |
| 18 | Stateside Travel Administrator Services - Schedule B Pricing RFP | 1 | Does the incumbent charge the State any additional management fees or maintenance fees? | We are not at liberty to discuss current pricing. |
| 19 | Stateside Travel Administrator Services - Schedule B Pricing RFP | 1 | And what is that currently? | We are not at liberty to discuss current pricing. |
| 20 | Misc | N/A | Has the State looked into utilizing the NASPO Cooperative agreement for travel services? | The State has found that our standards are higher than NASPO and it is not a good fit for the State. |
| 21 | Statewide Travel Administrator Services - Scehduel A Statement of Work | 1 | Is there any additional CAF (Cost and Freight) cost that the State collects? For example, we provide a another State with 1% of the transaction fee costs for an administrative cost. | The State recieves all correspondence electronically, not sure how this would benefit the State. |
| 22 | Will the State mandate that its travelers purchase air, hotel and car through preferred partners—i.e., the online booking tool and the awarded TMC? | Yes, booking through the TMC (agent or online) is required but there are exceptions. | ||
| 23 | If bidder is not a 'qualified disabled veteran,' will this be weighted as a disadvantage in the scoring process? | No, not a disadvantage, only a bump in scoring for 'qualified disabled veterans’ as mandated by legislation. | ||
| 24 | If bidder is not a member of the Michigan Voluntary Protection Program, will this be weighted as a disadvantage in the scoring process? | No, this is a legislatively mandated question for statistical purposes only. | ||
| 25 | Since the bidder is based in Georgia but has employees located in Michigan, will failure to file a Michigan Business Tax Corporate Income Tax Return be weighted as a disadvantage in the scoring process? | No, this is a legislatively mandated question for statistical purposes only. | ||
| 26 | Since the Clean Corporate Citizen program is currently paused, does this remain a requirement for the RFP? | No, this is a legislatively mandated question for statistical purposes only. | ||
| 27 | While this bidder provides an exceptional level of service, and agent responsiveness, there are areas outside our control that limits our ability to agree to the current punitive damages and service levels required in Schedule D. Additionally, relating to the SLAs, while we understand the State of Michigan is an independent organization, the SLA requirements are vastly higher than those for the Federal/Government agencies we currently service through the GSA. Would the State agree to 80% of calls answered within 30 seconds based on quarterly metrics, allowing the bidder a period to rectify the situation prior to any consideration of punitive damages? Similarly, would the State agree to alternative penalties instead of punitive damages for other metrics related to critical error management? | Please provide alternative language with your bid. The State reserves the right to say no to any and all changes. However, it is impossible to respond based upon vague references. The State follows NIST and other Standards and holds itself to a higher standard than most States. | ||
| 28 | Relating to the Security requirements, would the State consider a review of bidders SIG in place of the Schedule E? Alternatively, will the State agree to a redline of certin items in the Schedule E? | If Bidder takes exceptions to these provisions, bidder must redline these terms as part of its proposal response and must provide a specific, security-related, justification for each redline proposed. Exceptions to the terms may be grounds for disqualification at the State’s discretion. General statements, such as that the Bidder reserves the right to negotiate the terms and conditions, may be deemed non-responsive. | ||
| 29 | Can you please provide the percentage of reservations currently booked through the online booking tool versus those that are agent-assisted? | Approximately, 2/3 online, 1/3 operator assisted. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .