Interoffice Memo RFP #084R3200008 - Bid4Michigan111352/1-S… · Attachment 3 - Resume Templates 20 12 TOTAL 100 72 The bidder has estimated completion of all activities through the

1

Interoffice Memo RFP #084R3200008

To: Greg Faremouth, IT Division Director DTMB Procurement

From: Steve Motz, IT Division Buyer DTMB Procurement

Date: February 20, 2013

Subject: Award of RFP – 084R3200008 – ERP Consulting Services

GENERAL: The State of Michigan (State), through the Michigan Department of Technology, Management & Budget (DTMB) issued this Request for Proposal (RFP) to obtain proposals for consulting services for the strategic replacement of the State's enterprise-wide financial system. JOINT EVALUATION COMMITTEE: The Joint Evaluation Committee (JEC) for this RFP consisted of the following individuals from the Department of Technology, Management and Budget (DTMB):

Voting Members Technical Advisors Evani, Lisa (DTMB) Mikula, Lora (DTMB) Motz, Steve (DTMB) Nichols, Susan (Treasury)

Gabler, David (DTMB) Jain, Nandita (DTMB) MacIntosh, John (DTMB) McDonald, Paul (DTMB) Patke, Sharmila (DTMB) Sharpe, Tom (Treasury)

BIDDERS: The RFP was posted on the DTMB Website on December 3, 2012, with proposals due by January 2, 2013. The following five (5) organizations submitted responsive proposals:

A. Gartner, Inc. B. Grant Thornton LLP C. International Consulting Acquisition Company dba ISG Public Sector D. KPMG LLP E. Plante & Moran, PLLC

One Bidder submitted a timely proposal that was determined to not meet the Minimum Mandatory Requirements:

F. Newport Consulting Group, LLC The State received two (2) late proposal submissions after the 3PM deadline:

G. V2Soft H. Quintel Management Consulting, Inc.

2

AWARD PROCESS: Method of Evaluation Proposals were evaluated by the Joint Evaluation Committee (JEC) chaired by DTMB Procurement. The evaluation consisted of a two-step process. Step one was to determine if Bidders had met the minimum mandatory requirements. The JEC determined that all responsive bidders, except for Newport Consulting, met the stated minimum mandatory requirements, and would be evaluated against the step two proposal scoring factors (Evaluation Criteria) outlined below. Evaluation Criteria All bidders were evaluated against the evaluation criteria outlined in the table below.

Weight 1. Proposed Solution

Article 1 Statement of Work – Bidder Responses Note there are some components of Article 1 that will be a part of the evaluation of Prior Experience and Staffing – see below

Attachment 4 Preliminary Project Schedule

50

2. Prior Experience Article 4 Bidder Responses in Article 1 that are specifically

identified as being evaluated as part of Prior Experience

30

3. Bidder Staffing Bidder Responses in Article 1 that are specifically

identified as being evaluated as part of Staffing Article 1 Section 1.200 Attachment 2 - Organization Chart Attachment 3 - Resume Templates

20

TOTAL 100

Oral Presentation: The State requested that all vendors within the competitive range conduct an oral presentation of their proposal. Price Evaluation Only those proposals receiving a score of eighty (80) points or more of the total maximum possible score were considered for award. All price proposals were opened. However, prices were only evaluated from those Bidders meeting the minimum point threshold of 80 points. Pricing Negotiations and Best and Final Offer (BAFO) As described in Section 3.022 of the RFP, the State requested that bidders who had passed the technical evaluation provide their best pricing. The results are summarized in the pricing evaluation section of this Synopsis.

3

Award Recommendation The award recommendation was made by the JEC to the responsive and responsible bidder who offered the best value to the State of Michigan. Best value was determined by the bidder that met the minimum point threshold and offered the best combination of the factors stated in RFP section 3.022, and price, as demonstrated by its proposal. Reservations As stated in the RFP, in awarding a contract, the State reserves the right to:

(a) consider total cost of ownership factors in the final award recommendation (i.e. transition costs, training costs, etc.).

(b) award by item, part or portion of an item, group of items or total proposal, to reject any and all proposals in whole or in part, if, in the Director of DTMB-Procurement’s judgment, the best interest of the State will be so served.

(c) award multiple, optional use contracts. In addition to the other factors listed, offers will be evaluated on the basis of advantages and disadvantages to the State that may result from making more than one award.

(d) consider overall economic impact to the State in the final award recommendation. This includes considering principal place of performance, number of Michigan citizens employed or potentially employed, dollars paid to Michigan residents, Michigan capital investments, economically disadvantaged businesses, etc.

(e) award to another ‘best value’ contractor in case the original Awardee does not accept the award. This reservation applies for all of our solicitations whether they are quotes, bids, proposals, pre-qualified or pre-registered programs.

(f) give a preference for products manufactured or services offered by Michigan firms if all other things are equal and if not inconsistent with federal statute. (See MCL 18.1261)

(g) disqualify any bid based on Sections 1.1 through 4.1 in the general Certifications and Representations (completed at vendor registration).

Protests A Bidder wishing to protest the award recommendation must submit a protest, in writing, by 5:00 p.m. EST on the date stated on the notice of award recommendation. Bidder must include the RFP number and clearly state the facts believed to constitute error in the award recommendation along with the desired remedy. More information is available at http://www.michigan.gov/micontractconnect; click on the “Vendor Information” link. State Administrative Board The State Administrative Board (SAB) must approve all contracts and purchase orders in excess of $250,000. The decision of the SAB regarding the award recommendation is final. However, SAB approval does not constitute a contract. The award process is not complete until the Bidder receives a properly executed Contract or Purchase Order. EVALUATION RESULTS: See the following pages for evaluation summary:

A. Gartner, Inc.

4

A. Gartner, Inc.

Weight Score 1. Proposed Solution



50 40



30 20



20 12

TOTAL 100 72

The bidder has estimated completion of all activities through the Statement of Work by 9/27/13. This estimate was based on 3,651.8 bidder resource hours for tasks A.1 through A.5.

1) Proposed Solution Article 1 Statement of Work – Bidder Responses

Note there are some components of Article 1 that will be a part of the evaluation of Prior Experience and Staffing – see below


SCORE

40 /50

Strengths:

The Bidder proposed additional activities that may benefit the State including: In-depth Contract Reviews, ERP Center of Excellence, and RFI Development. These were not included in the base contract, but provided as an option. (1.104.B - Reserved Bank of Hours, page 67)

Weaknesses:

The Bidder identified DTMB's roles and responsibilities to include providing project artifacts such as a project organizational structure, guiding principles, critical success factors and subsequent steps rely on this information. The State requires the Bidder to recommend the "project organizational structure." (1.104.A.1 - Governance Structure, page 22, Q1)

Proposal was not clear on how they will address interfaces during the initial analysis. Additionaly, the Bidder did not demonstrate a clear understanding that they are required to assist the State in developing the in scope components. (1.104.A.3 - Initial Analysis / Scope)

Gartner indicates that prior to starting the requirements gathering phase they will conduct planning calls to agree to schedules, roles, deliverables, and project management processes. These items should have already been agreed upon during project planning. (This will impact deadline as it should all

A. Gartner, Inc.

5

be agreed to prior to starting the project) (1.104.A.4 - System Requirements, page 44, Q1)

The response to Project Plan Management is vague as it does not describe the methods and processes used to meet the related requirements. (1.301 - Project Plan Management, page 99)

2) Prior Experience Article 4 Bidder Responses in Article 1

that are specifically identified as being evaluated as part of Prior Experience

SCORE

20 /30

Summary of Prior Experience:

The Bidder provided 3 references that are summarized below:

- Company Reference #1 - California State Teachers Retirement System SAP implementation Scope Comments

This reference included some (13) of the functional areas requested by Michigan.

This reference included some (4) of the deliverables described in the RFP.

Size Comments This was for a State government ERP solution. 1000 users accessed the CALSTRS system, which is

smaller than Michigan. The total value provided by the Bidder for this reference

was $2,500,000 Reference Summary: This reference included more than 50% of

the functional areas requested by the State, but was missing 3 of the deliverables requested by the State. The client was a State, however, it was a smaller system.

(Article 4 - Company Info, page 118)

- Company Reference #2 - Washington State Board of Community and Technical Colleges ERP readiness assessment and vendor selection Scope Comments

This reference included all (19) of the functional areas requested by Michigan.

This reference included all (7) of the deliverables described in the RFP.

Size Comments This was a public sector ERP solution. The ERP solution provided access to 20,000 users. The total value provided by the Bidder for this reference

was $1,400,000. Reference Summary: This reference included all of the

functional areas requested by the State and included all of the deliverables requested by the State. Although this reference was for an ERP client it was smaller than the State of Michigan.

A. Gartner, Inc.

6


- Company Reference #3 - State of California Administrative Office of the Courts Implemented a unified, state-wide human resources and

financial system Scope Comments

This reference included most (18) of the functional areas requested by Michigan.

This reference included most (6) of the deliverables described in the RFP.

Size Comments This was for a government ERP solution. The ERP solution provided 3000 named users access to

the system. The total value provided by the Bidder for this reference

was $2,500,000. Reference Summary: This reference included most of the

functional areas requested by the State, but was missing one of the deliverables requested by the State. Although this was a government solution it did not involve a State of similar size and scope to Michigan.


3) Bidder Staffing Bidder Responses in Article 1

that are specifically identified as being evaluated as part of Staffing Article 1 Section 1.200 Attachment 2 - Organization Chart

Attachment 3 - Resume Templates

SCORE

12 /20

Summary of Bidder Staffing:

Provided 3 organizational charts: Gartner Corporate Management organization; the Proposed Project Team for ERP Strategy & Planning; the Proposed Project Team for IV&V Program Assurance which did not identify State staff. (Attachment 2 - Org Chart, page 132-135)

Bidder did not provide a resume for the Technical Writer role, which was required as Key Personnel.

Bidder provided resumes for the following key and non-key personnel:

Role Key Personnel Assigned

(see bullets below for %’s) Non Key Personnel Single Point of Contact Ivy Anderson Project Manager Phil Ferguson

Rich Bateman

Business Analyst Lynne Gere Sandra Yamashiro

Clarence Mi

ERP Subject Matter Expert Henry Kallimanes

A. Gartner, Inc.

7

Role Key Personnel Assigned

(see bullets below for %’s) Non Key Personnel Lynne Gere

Sandra Yamashiro Timothy Kutz

Technical Writer Did not identify Gartner SME Rob Cohan

Brett Rugroden Research Analyst Jerry Mechling

Pat Phelan Project SME Yukon Yukselen

Single Point of Contact: Ivy Anderson – Qualified for the proposed position,

and prior experience working with the State of Michigan. (Attachment 3, pages 140-146) 1.4% of total hours dedicated to this project.

Project Manager: Phil Ferguson - Met requirements including 'preference' for ERP project experience, and stated he was responsible for managing large-scale ERP implementation projects prior to joining Gartner and larger-scale planning and procurement projects since joining Gartner in 2001. (Attachment 3, pages 147-150) 20% of total hours for PM role.

Project Manager: Rich Bateman - Partially meets the requirements - indicates he has over 10 years of experience, but only provide project experience information to support 3.5 years. Does have ERP project experience and PMP certification. (Attachment 3, pages 151-155) 20% of total hours for PM role.

Business Analyst: Lynne Gere – Does not possess the required 5 years of experience on government ERP efforts. Only has 2 years and then only for Procurement. Has 17 years with private entities. (Attachment 3, pages 156-162) 19.2% of total hours dedicated to this project.

Business Analyst: Sandra Yamashiro - Partially meets requirements with 4 years of experience instead of 5 years and resume does not indicate which Functional Areas this candidate has experience in. She does have ERP experience. (Attachment 3, pages 163-166) 23% of total hours dedicated to this project.

Business Analyst: Clarence Mi – Partially meets requirements. Did not provide project where experience was obtained on first requirement (ERP advisory roles or ERP implementation projects) and does not have 5 years of experience analyzing governmental business requirements related to the ERP Functional Areas identified in this RFP. (Attachment 3, pages 167-173) 17% of total hours dedicated to this project.

ERP Subject Matter Expert: Henry Kallimanes (Proposed as alternate to Timothy Kutz) - Partially meets requirements - has 4 years of experience in developing technical and business strategies, approaches, and recommendations (requirement is 5 years). Has 3 years of experience analyzing governmental business requirements related to the ERP Functional Areas identified in this RFP (requirement is 5 years). Good IV&V experience. (Attachment 3, pages 174-178) 8.4% of total hours dedicated to this project.

ERP Subject Matter Expert: Lynne Gere – The Organization Chart lists Lynne as Team Lead not as ERP SME, but they partially meet the requirements - has 2 years of experience in developing technical and business strategies,

A. Gartner, Inc.

8

approaches, and recommendations (requirement is 5 years). (Attachment 3, pages 179-184) 8.5% of total hours dedicated to this project.

ERP Subject Matter Expert: Sandra Yamashiro – Meets the requirements. (Attachment 3, pages 185-188) 23% of total hours (can be used in multiple places).

ERP Subject Matter Expert: Timothy Kutz – Meets the requirements. (Attachment 3, pages 189-194) 8.4% of total hours.

Additional Resumes (Non-Key): Gartner SME: Rob Cohan - .9% of total hours, used as SME (Attachment 3,

pages 195-196) Gartner SME: Brett Rugroden – as needed, used as SME (Attachment 3,

pages 197-199) Research Analyst: Jerry Mechling – as needed, used as SME (Attachment 3,

pages 200-201) Research Analyst: Pat Phelan – as needed, used as SME (Attachment 3,

pages 202-204) Project SME: Yukon Yukselen – if needed, used as SME (Attachment 3, page

205) Price: The bidder did not meet the minimum point threshold, and pricing was not evaluated.

B. Grant Thornton LLP

9





50 46



30 20



20 15

TOTAL 100 81

The bidder has estimated completion of all activities through the Statement of Work by 9/25/13. This estimate was based on 7,717 bidder resource hours for tasks A.1 through A.5.




SCORE

46 /50

Strengths:

Bidders funding model approach takes stakeholders' needs into consideration - “such as executive branch leadership, legislative staff or consultants, and State oversight and audit bodies. By understanding the specific issues of concern of each of the stakeholders we can better prepare a funding model that addresses stakeholders’ questions". (1.104.A.2 - Funding Model, page 23, Q1)

Bidder included additional research in the Initial Scope Analysis phase such as technical environment, management and leadership environment, financial, procurement, etc… in order to ensure the ERP project success. (1.104.A.3 - Initial Analysis / Scope, page 27, Q1)

Bidder will start with a basic set of requirements from past experience with other public sector clients so that we are not starting from scratch or expected to have requirements started already. (1.104.A.4 -System Requirements, page 33)

Good description on how they will look for business process that can not only take advantage of new technology but also that do not meet ERP best practices. (1.104.A.4 -System Requirements, page 34)

Bidder proposed to train and provide individual help for panel members making the selection as well as negotiation assistance. (1.104.A.6 - Evaluation Support, page 42)


10

Weaknesses:

Governance structure did not describe how the bidder would work with the State to develop a structure that serves our needs and was too high level. Examples of California and New York were generic without specific details on what they were. (1.104.A.1 - Governance Structure, page 20)

Only a high level description of Issue Management and Risk Management was provided. Minimal detail surrounding their processes and procedures. (1.401 - Issue Management and 1.402 - Risk Management, pages 65-66)



SCORE

20 /30



- Company Reference #1 - Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Core Financial System Replacement (CFSR) Project Scope Comments



Size Comments This was for a government ERP solution. The number of users totals about 332. The total value provided by the Bidder for this reference

was $7,057,781.99 Reference Summary: This reference only included 8 of the

functional areas requested by the State but included all but one of the deliverables requested by the State. This project was not for a State ERP solution.

(Article 4 - Company Info, pages 120-123)

- Company Reference #2 - State of California Department of Finance Financial Information System for California (FI$Cal) ERP

Advisory Services. The Bidder was brought in to rescue a failing project. Scope Comments

This reference included many (11) of the functional areas requested by Michigan.


Size Comments This was for a State government ERP solution. The FI$Cal system will have approximately 12,000

internal State users once it is fully implemented. The total value provided by the Bidder for this reference

was $1,173,000.


11

Reference Summary: This reference included more than 50% of the functional areas requested by the State, and included all of the deliverables requested by the State. This reference was for a State ERP solution of larger size but smaller scope than this RFP.


- Company Reference #3 - New Jersey Turnpike Authority ERP System Selection Scope Comments



Size Comments This was for a government ERP solution. The number of users totals about 700. The total value provided by the Bidder for this reference

was $2,400,000. Reference Summary: This reference included all of the

functional areas requested by the State and included all but one of the deliverables requested by the State. This project was not of smaller size than this RFP.

(Article 4 - Company Info, page 127-130)




SCORE

15 /20


Bidder did not provide resource names as requested in this section (1.104.A.5 - Develop SOW, page 40, Q4)


Role Key Personnel Assigned Non Key Personnel Single Point of Contact Brian Eppig (50%) Project Manager Brian Eppig (100%) Business Analyst (Requirements Lead)

Dave Carey (100%)

Business Analyst

Roger Hermodsson (25%)

ERP Subject Matter Expert Howard Cohen (50%) (Subcontractor) E-Calf Consulting

Technical Writer Jen Glazer (50%) Financial Analyst Stephen Coffey (30%) Advisory Panel Member Carlos Otal (5%)


12

Role Key Personnel Assigned Non Key Personnel Advisory Panel Member Graeme Finley (10%) Advisory Panel Member Bob Childree (5%)

Single Point of Contact & Project Manager: Brian Eppig – Experienced as

Project Manager with Six Sigma Certification green belt, but other than NY project, there were no other projects of similar size and scope to the States RFP. (Attachment 3, pages 144-152).

Business Analyst: David Carey – Proposed as full time Business Analyst – experienced with ERP solutions; however the experience is at a smaller scale than SOM is going to pursue. All of his experience is limited to individual colleges and universities (Note this is a key role for obtaining requirements- experience is critical) (Attachment 3, pages 154-161).

Business Analyst: Roger Hermodsson – Proposed as additional Business Analyst – Indicated they had met the requirement for 5 years of experience analyzing governmental business requirements related to the ERP Functional Areas identified in this RFP. Examples listed 2 contracts for 4.6 years. However the answer to another requirement lists 1.7 years on a US Marshal project effort. He appears to be well versed in budget modeling/application. A new component the State will pursue, which will be helpful to the State. (Attachment 3, pages 162-171).

ERP Subject Matter Expert: Howard Cohen – Appears to have met the requirements for this position. (Attachment 3, pages 172-182).

Technical Writer: Jen Glazer – Appears to have met the requirements for this position, including a preference for experience with an RFP of more than $10M or longer than 3 years in duration. (Attachment 3, pages 183-187).

Additional Resumes (Non-Key): Financial Analyst: Stephen Coffey – (Attachment 3, pages 187-190). Advisory Panel Member: Carlos Otal – (Attachment 3, pages 191-194). Advisory Panel Member: Graeme Finley – (Attachment 3, pages 195-197). Advisory Panel Member: Bob Childree – (Attachment 3, pages 198-201).

Price: The bidder met the minimum point threshold, and pricing was evaluated.

C. International Consulting Acquisition Company dba ISG Public Sector

13

C. ISG




50 48



30 30



20 20

TOTAL 100 98





SCORE

48 /50

Strengths:

The Solution will utilize an automated software tool (Decision Director) for the requirements gathering that is designed specifically to help public sector organizations plan for and select ERP as well as assist in the evaluation. (1.001, page 3)

Bidder provided a specific approach to the Governance Structure that was also flexible enough to address SOM needs (1.104.A.1 - Governance Structure, page 12)

Bidder approach to the funding model was thoroughly described and will consider various funding issues including federal requirements and accounting for various models. (1.104.A.2 - Funding Model, page 14)

Proposal included detail on how Bidder would analyze and recommend; ERP packages, 3rd-party and best-of-breed, other, for specific business functional needs. Provided a description of the mapping of Typical ERP Capabilities to Representative Transportation Business Functions, which would be based off of similar experience. (1.104.A.3 - Initial Analysis / Scope, page 14)

Bidder displayed its knowledge in the various functional areas by giving solid examples of functional areas where full integration with the new system may not be ideal such as Time and Labor, and also certain areas within the


14

Michigan Department of Transportation (1.104.A.3 - Initial Analysis / Scope, page 15)

Bidder clearly describes how requirements will be gathered and explains how Decision Director tool helps to ensure a successful result. They emphasized the need to possibly change business processes versus software modifications and would rely on their understanding of the features and functions that are present within the current ERP solutions. (1.104.A.4 -System Requirements, page 20)

Bidder provides the State the option of requiring that ERP respondents use the Decision Director tool to respond to all functional requirements in the RFP. This approach has been tested with other clients of similar size and scope to Michigan. (1.104.A.5 - Develop SOW, page 28)

Bidder provided example of the Comparison Report and Ranking Report that could be automatically leveraged by utilizing Decision Director. The Bidder demonstrated a very substantial role during the phase of the Contract and would provide the State with critical evaluation support as necessary (1.104.A.6 - Evaluation Support, pages 35-36 and Oral Presentation)

Bidder would also include potential system savings include the costs associated with current statewide administrative systems, as well as user-agency administrative systems that could be replaced by a statewide ERP system. Additionally, Bidder is proposing a very detailed process for updating the business case documentation which includes validating the documentation that the State has already started. (1.104.A.7 - Update Business Case, pages 42-45)

Weaknesses:

The Bidder has proposed a methodology that varies slightly from the State SUITE Methodology. In the event that the State requires them to adhere to the full SUITE methodology there are additional costs included in their proposal.



SCORE

30 /30


Throughout the proposal the Bidder demonstrated their past experience and knowledge with statewide ERP solutions that would provide a benefit to the State. (Various Sections)

Bidder provided detailed overview that demonstrated a depth of experience with 16 statewide ERP projects as well as other government entities, including 2 states with ADPICS and R*STARS (Section 1.001, page 5)

The bidder is starting with a basic set of requirements from past experience with other public sector clients (including statewide ERP projects) and knowledge of the ERP packages, which will be loaded into their Decision Director tool, so that we are not starting from scratch or expected to have requirements started already. (1.104.A.4 -System Requirements , page 20)

The Bidder provided 3 references and also included an Appendix C that provided reference contact information for an additional 36 public sector clients. A summary of the 3 references is provided below:


15

- Company Reference #1 - State of Tennessee, Department of Finance

and Administration Project Edison (acquiring a statewide ERP financial,

procurement and human resources system) Scope Comments



Size Comments This was for a State government ERP solution. System users are as follows:

o Employees (ESS access for time entry and travel) 46,000

o Human Resources (core users) 12,000

o Financial/Procurement (core users) 5,000

o Benefits Administration 152,000 (Cities and counties utilize these functions)

The total value provided by the Bidder for this reference was $7,855,955

Reference Summary: This reference included all of the functional areas requested by the State and included all but one of the deliverables requested by the State. This reference was for a State ERP solution of similar size and scope to Michigan.


- Company Reference #2 - State of West Virginia, Enterprise Resource Planning Board wvOASIS Statewide ERP Project Scope Comments



Size Comments This was for a State government ERP solution. System users are as follows:

o Employees (ESS access for time entry and travel; includes higher education) 41,675

o Human Resources (core users) 692

o Financial/Procurement (core users) 4,000

The total value provided by the Bidder for this reference will be $15,000,000 at completion.


16

Reference Summary: This reference included all of the functional areas requested by the State and included all of the deliverables requested by the State. This reference was for a State ERP solution of similar size and scope to Michigan.


- Company Reference #3 - State of Mississippi, Department of Finance and Administration Mississippi’s Accountability System for Government Information

and Collaboration (MAGIC) (SAP implementation) Scope Comments



Size Comments This was for a State government ERP solution. The following approximate user counts are anticipated

upon go-live of the ERP system: o Employees (ESS access for time collection)

20,900 o Human Resources (core users)

1,500 o Financial/Procurement (core users)

2,700 The total value provided by the Bidder for this reference

will be $9,100,000 at completion. Reference Summary: This reference included all of the

functional areas requested by the State and included all of the deliverables requested by the State. This reference was for a State ERP solution of smaller similar and similar scope to Michigan.


The State conducted a reference call with the State of Arizona and the State of Mississippi to discuss their project. It was determined that this was a positive reference, and in both cases the reference indicated the Bidder was very accurate with their budget estimates.




SCORE

20 /20


Bidder has identified areas that typically cause issues with traditional ERP implementations (MDOT business functions) and has included expertise in


17

those areas in their proposed staff. (1.104.A.3 - Initial Analysis / Scope, page 15)

Bidder provided various charts that outlined the required State resources that would be necessary to ensure the project met the stated deadlines. (1.202 - State Staff, page 65)

Individuals proposed have prior experience working with RSTARS & ADPICS and integrating NeoGov into an ERP solution. (Article 4, page 93)

Throughout the proposal, the bidder included detailed breakdown of the roles of each assigned staff member, and included the following table:

Role Key Personnel Assigned Non Key Personnel Single Point of Contact Kirk Teal (100%) Project Manager David Boyd (100%) Business Analyst Jason Beal (25-50%)

Robert Cooney (10-20%) Subcontractor – eVision H. M. “Chip” Julian (100%) Drew Thigpen (50%) John Natteford (100%) Subcontractor – eVision

Marsha Edwards (100%)

ERP Subject Matter Expert Jason Beal (25-50%) Robert Cooney (10-20%) Subcontractor – eVision H. M. “Chip” Julian (100%) Drew Thigpen (50%) John Natteford (100%) Subcontractor – eVision

Marsha Edwards (100%)

Technical Writer David Boyd (100%) Engagement Partner Kirk Teal (100%) Project Advisor Mitt Salvaggio (5%)

Committed multiple Business Analysts to this engagement; each with specific expertise relevant to the State’s ultimate goals.

Single Point of Contact: Kirk Teal - met requirements (Attachment 3, pages 114-116)

Project Manager: David Boyd - met requirements and teaches PMBOK, with multiple governmental experiences. He has experience with the State of Michigan from the Treasury CIT implementation. (Attachment 3, pages 117-124)

Business Analyst: Jason Beal - Exceeded requirements - Mr. Beal was retained by multiple industry leaders (Oracle, SAP, CGI, Kronos, and Microsoft) to provide strategic guidance on their budgeting, performance management, and Business Intelligence solutions. Also, met preference for implementing ERP projects. (Attachment 3, page 125-135)

Business Analyst: Robert Cooney – Met requirements including preference for implementing ERP projects. (Attachment 3, page 136-151)

Business Analyst: Chip Julian - met requirements including 'preference' for implementing ERP projects. (Experience not specific to functional areas in


18

resume template, but other functional areas in RFP) (Attachment 3, page 152-156)

Business Analyst: Drew Thigpen - met requirements including 'preference' for implementing ERP projects. (Attachment 3, page 157-160)

Business Analyst: John Natteford - has continued experience working with RSTARS users - met requirements including 'preference' for implementing ERP projects.

Price: The bidder met the minimum point threshold, and pricing was evaluated.

D. KPMG LLP

19

D. KPMG LLP




50 39



30 10



20 8

TOTAL 100 57





SCORE

39 /50

Strengths:

Bidder proposes weighting, categorizing, and prioritizing requirements so that reviewing proposals will be easier for the State. (1.104.A.4 -System Requirements, page 30, Q1)

Weaknesses:

Roles and Responsibilities for the Governance Structure response were not specific to the task, but were more generic roles and responsibilities for the project. (1.104.A.1 - Governance Structure, page 20, Q2)

Roles and Responsibilities for the Funding Model response were not specific to the task, but were more generic roles & responsibilities for the project. (1.104.A.2 - Funding Model, page 22, Q2)

The Bidder approach didn't address interfaces and what they would do to assist in determining which ones should be included or excluded. Very brief mention of need to determine interfaces but insufficient. (1.104.A.3 - Initial Analysis / Scope, page 25)

Roles and Responsibilities for the Initial Analysis/Scope response were not specific to the task, but were more generic roles & responsibilities for the project. (1.104.A.3 - Initial Analysis / Scope, page 26, Q2)

Bidder’s approach does not mention leveraging existing requirements as a starting point which would imply that requirements would be gathered starting

D. KPMG LLP

20

from scratch which would put the project timelines at risk and require additional work from the State. (1.104.A.4 - System Requirements, page 31, Q1)

Bidder’s response does not address the approach for creating the Statement of Work. This section only focuses on the Evaluation Guide and Demonstration Scripts. (1.104.A.5 - Develop SOW, page 34, Q1)

Roles and Responsibilities for the Evaluation Committee Support response were not specific to the task, but were more generic roles & responsibilities for the project. (1.104.A.6 - Evaluation Support, page 39, Q2)



SCORE

10 /30


Bidder has direct experience with and basic knowledge of the legacy MAIN solution during the early years of use by the State. (1.001 Project Request, page 6)

Bidder proposed partnering with Dewpoint, a Lansing based subcontractor, who has a current understanding of the State environment. (1.001 Project Request, page 11)


- Company Reference #1 - New York Office of the State Comptroller

Statewide Financial System QA/IV&V Scope Comments


This reference included some (3) of the deliverables described in the RFP.

Size Comments This was for a State government ERP solution. The ERP system currently has approximately 30,000

users. It will ultimately have around 60,000 users. The total value provided by the Bidder for this reference

was $8,700,000. Reference Summary: This reference included less than 50% of

the functional areas requested by the State and included less than 50% of the deliverables requested by the State. Although this was a Statewide ERP it was not of similar scope to this RFP.


- Company Reference #2 - Texas Health & Human Services Commission PeopleSoft HR Assessment and Implementation Assistance Scope Comments


D. KPMG LLP

21

This reference included almost none of the deliverables described in the RFP. They did provide the delvierables for each of the 7 functional areas that were within scope but none of the remaining 12 functional areas.

Size Comments This was for a government ERP solution. The Commission has 50,000 employees. Most

employees use the system at one point or another for payroll.

The total value provided by the Bidder for this reference was $308,000.

Reference Summary: This reference included less than 50% of the functional areas requested by the State and included less than 50% of the deliverables requested by the State. Although this was a government ERP it was not of similar scope to this RFP.


- Company Reference #3 - Michigan Department of Community Health/Department of Technology Management & Budget State of Michigan, Health Information Exchange This reference was provided for a subcontractor, Dewpoint Scope Comments

This reference did not include the functional areas requested by Michigan.

This reference did not include the deliverables described in the RFP.

Size Comments This was not an ERP solution. The number of HIE users is unknown, but exceeds 1,000 The total value provided by the Bidder for this reference

was $9,600,000. Reference Summary: This reference did not include the

functional areas or deliverables requested by the State. (Article 4 - Company Info, page 128-130)




SCORE

8 /20


Within the Letter of intent, the Bidder indicates all resources are available for the project but also notes there is the possibility they could become unavailable. This is a concern because they have not provided alternate resources (Attachment 3 - Resume Templates, page 177)


D. KPMG LLP

22

Role Key Personnel Assigned Non Key Personnel Single Point of Contact Andrew Gottschalk, (15%) Project Manager Michael Russell (100%) Business Analyst Joe Mozurkewich (100%)

Subcontractor - Dewpoint

ERP Subject Matter Expert Jeff Williams (50%)

Technical Writer Saadiq Luqman (70%) Financial Analyst Colin Zink (100%)

Single Point of Contact: Andrew Gottschalk – Met the requirements for this

position. (Attachment 3, pages 147-148). Project Manager: Michael Russell – Met requirements including 'preference' for

ERP project experience, but no 'preference' for PMP certification. (Attachment 3, pages 149-159).

Business Analyst: Joe Mozurkewich – Only business analyst listed has zero ERP experience and very limited governmental business process experience. Details do not support their stating that they met this requirement for this individual for “5 years of experience analyzing governmental business requirements related to the ERP Functional Areas identified in this RFP.” They indicated they have implemented and managed but stated nothing about analyzing governmental business requirements related to the ERP. (Subcontractor provided by Dewpoint) (Attachment 3, pages 160-163).

ERP Subject Matter Expert: Jeff Williams – Lacks 5 years of experience analyzing governmental business requirements related to the ERP Functional Areas identified in this RFP. (Attachment 3, pages 164-169).

Technical Writer: Saadiq Luqman – Lacks enough data to support saying that the individual has 5 years of experience writing Request for Proposal (RFP) Documents and does not provide sufficient information to determine duration or size of projects where experience was gained. (Attachment 3, pages 170-173).

Additional Resumes (Non-Key): Financial Analyst: Colin Zink – (Attachment 3, pages 174-176).

Price: The bidder did not meet the minimum point threshold, and pricing was not evaluated.

E. Plante & Moran, PLLC

23





50 44



30 15



20 14

TOTAL 100 73





SCORE

44 /50

Strengths:

Bidder will provide an IT staff assessment to examine how the future roles and staff skill sets of current IT staff will change and will provide organizational assessments to assist the State in restructuring their organization including staff roles and responsibilities. (1.001 Project Request, pages 13-15)

Bidder offers the following complementary services that are above & beyond the RFP requirements: Chart of Accounts development and Application Controls review. (1.001 Project Request, pages 15)

Bidder has proposed an optional work step to conduct an IT Staff Assessment to determine the readiness of the IT organization to provide implementation and on-going support for a new ERP. (1.104.A.3 - Initial Analysis / Scope, page 29, Q1)

Bidder has proposed two additional deliverables/actions: identification of issues and opportunities at the beginning of each function area requirements gathering session and development of up to 10 White Papers. (1.104.A.4 -System Requirements, page 37, Q1)

Weaknesses:

Some funding models are not reasonable; considering that it is the State of Michigan (due to size and complexity as well as the state environment). This


24

included options such as Corporate Donations and Vendors providing free services/software. (1.104.A.2 - Funding Model, page 25)

Bidders proposal does not have a single JEC member/group reviewing an entire vendor response. No one person or group of people will have the full picture of a vendor's response. (1.104.A.6 - Evaluation Support, page 53, Q1)

After ERP solution provider demonstrations, the State provides a list of critical gaps in functionality to the vendor for their response/discussion. Through discussions with the State, the requirements may be determined it is not needed, the vendor changes how they would achieve the desired functionality. This step would be avoided if the Bidder begins the requirement gathering with a standard set of requirements that reflect current ERP solution functionality available in the industry. (1.104.A.6 - Evaluation Support, page 56, Q1)



SCORE

15 /30



- Company Reference #1 - City of Mesa, AZ CityEdge, Provided ERP Needs Assessment, Solution Selection,

Contract Negotiations and Implementation Management assistance

Scope Comments This reference included all (19) of the functional areas

requested by Michigan. This reference included most (6) of the deliverables

described in the RFP. Size Comments

This was for a government ERP solution. This was for a City serving a population of approximately

450,000 people. The number of users totals about 3,970. The total value provided by the Bidder for this reference

was $1,200,000 Reference Summary: This reference included all of the

functional areas requested by the State and included all but one of the deliverables requested by the State. Although this was a government ERP it was not of the same size of this RFP.


- Company Reference #2 - St. Louis County, MO PeopleSoft CAPS ERP Needs Assessment, Solution Selection,

Contract Negotiations and Implementation Management assistance

Scope Comments This reference included all (19) of the functional areas

requested by Michigan.


25


Size Comments This was for a government ERP solution. This was for a County serving a population of

approximately 1,000,000 people. Each month, they have about 4,000 unique users

accessing the site. The total value provided by the Bidder for this reference

was $850,000. Reference Summary: This reference included all of the

functional areas requested by the State and included all but one of the deliverables requested by the State. Although this was a government ERP it was not of the same size of this RFP.


- Company Reference #3 – City of Cleveland Ohio Cleveland Advantage Financial Management Information

System (FMIS) needs assessment, software selection, contract negotiations, statement of work development and implementation management assistance

Scope Comments This reference included many (12) functional areas

requested by Michigan. This reference included most (6) of the deliverables

described in the RFP. Size Comments

This was for a government ERP solution. This was for a City serving a population of approximately

400,000 people. They have about 700 named users. The total value provided by the Bidder for this reference

was $837,000. Reference Summary: This reference included more than 50% of

the functional areas requested by the State, but was missing at least three and included all but one of the deliverables requested by the State. Although this was a government ERP it was not of the same size of this RFP.

(Article 4 - Company Info, page 147) None of the references provided demonstrated experience with

a state ERP solution or solution that would involve working with a department of transportation within a state.




SCORE

14 /20


26


The Bidder proposed staffing team does not have experience with an ERP system of similar size and scope to the State.

None of the Key Personnel assigned to the contract were 100% dedicated to this project, which is of concern provided the aggressive schedule for RFP issuance and continuity of the team.


Role Key Personnel Assigned Non Key Personnel Single Point of Contact Adam Rujan (10%) Project Manager Scott Eiler (30-100%) Business Analyst Mike Riffel (50%)

Mark Warner (15%) Christine Cunliffe (15%)

ERP Subject Matter Expert Scott Eiler (50%) (split between role as Project Manager and ERP Subject Matter Expert)

Technical Writer Mark Warner (15%) (split with role as Business Analyst)

Junior Business Analyst Chris Moshier (20%) Jenny Casler (15%) Mark Carrier (10%)

Technical Lead Dale Vanderford (20%)

Contract Negotiator Doug Wiescinski 50% (during contract negotiations related activities)

Technical Advisor - Funding Model

Doug Wiescinski (5%, or as necessary) 219-221

Process Redesign Lead Christine Andrysiak (TBD based on whether optional services are selected) 222-225

Technical Advisor – Governmental Accounting

Jean Young (TBD based on level of process redesign to be conducted) 239-241 Joe Heffernan (TBD based on level of process redesign to be conducted) 242-244


27

Role Key Personnel Assigned Non Key Personnel Kristin Hunt (TBD based on level of process redesign to be conducted) 245-247

Financial Analyst Not specifically named

Single Point of Contact: Adam Rujan – Met the requirements for this position. (Attachment 3, pages 161-165).

Project Manager: Scott Eiler – Project Manager has extensive ERP experience, however, this experience was obtained with smaller organizations in comparison to the State. Scott is PMP certified. Project manager also has other ERP projects currently in process which leads to a concern over his accessibility on a project of this magnitude. Bidder provided clarification that they would be able to transition Scott from some of these projects. (Attachment 3, pages 166-173).

Business Analyst: Mike Riffel – Met requirements including 'preference' for ERP implementation projects. Experience was obtained with smaller organizations in comparison to the State. (Attachment 3, pages 174-180).

Business Analyst: Mark Warner – Met requirements including 'preference' for ERP implementation projects. Experience was obtained with smaller organizations in comparison to the State. (Attachment 3, pages 181-188).

Business Analyst: Christine Cunliffe – Met requirements including 'preference' for ERP implementation projects. Experience was obtained with smaller organizations in comparison to the State. (Attachment 3, pages 189-195).

ERP Subject Matter Expert: Scott Eiler – Extensive ERP experience in various customers in recent years. (Attachment 3, pages 196-202).

Technical Writer: Mark Warner – Met the requirements. (Attachment 3, pages 203-211).

Additional Resumes (Non-Key): Junior Business Analyst: Chris Moshier (Attachment 3, pages 226-229) Junior Business Analyst: Jenny Casler (Attachment 3, pages 230-234) Junior Business Analyst: Mark Carrier (Attachment 3, pages 235-238) Technical Lead: Dale Vanderford (Attachment 3, pages 212-215) Contract Negotiator: Doug Wiescinski (Attachment 3, pages 216-218) (during

contract negotiations related activities) Technical Advisor - Funding Model: Doug Wiescinski (Attachment 3, pages

219-221) Process Redesign Lead: Christine Andrysiak (Attachment 3, pages 222-225)

(commitment TBD based on whether optional services are selected) Technical Advisor – Governmental Accounting: Jean Young and Joe Heffernan

(Attachment 3, pages 239-241) (commitment TBD based on whether optional services are selected)

Price: The bidder did not meet the minimum point threshold, and pricing was not evaluated.

F. Newport Consulting Group, LLC

28

After reviewing the references provided in the proposal and seeking clarification from the Bidder, the JEC determined that the Bidder did not meet the Minimum Mandatory Requirements listed below.

1. Governmental ERP or State enterprise-wide ERP consulting of more than 4

months duration 2. Governmental ERP or State enterprise-wide ERP consulting to provide the

services requested in this RFP for a financial system with more than 1,000 internal users

Pricing Evaluation

29

The State evaluated pricing for those bidders that scored 80 points or greater

Bidders

Fixed PriceTasks A.1-A.5 and Extras

Total CostTasks A.1-A.7 and Extras

And Reserved Bank of Hours (T&M Estimates)

ISG $ 881,900.00 $ 2,610,260.00 Grant Thornton $ 1,351,594.20 $ 2,874,115.86

Tasks A.1 ‐ A.5 (Fixed Price Deliverables)

Deliverables ISG ISG

(revised) Grant

Thornton

Grant Thornton (revised)

Governance Structure Document $ 50,400.00 $ 49,200.00 $ 58,892.38 $ 56,181.19 Funding Plan Documentation $ 22,320.00 $ 21,760.00 $ 82,449.33 $ 78,653.66 ERP Strategy Document $ 73,800.00 $ 72,000.00 $ 168,824.81 $ 161,052.74 Requirements Document - - - - a. Budget Preparation $ 10,320.00 $ 10,060.00 $ 120,259.40 $ 80,664.80 b. General Ledger $ 11,880.00 $ 11,580.00 $ 51,127.50 $ 50,399.17 c. Accounts Payable $ 11,880.00 $ 11,580.00 $ 50,079.00 $ 42,492.00 d. Accounts Receivable and Billing $ 10,320.00 $ 10,060.00 $ 51,127.50 $ 50,399.17 e. Reporting HR $ 18,120.00 $ 17,660.00 - - e. Reporting - FI $ 13,440.00 $ 13,100.00 $ 51,127.50 $ 50,399.17 f. Procurement $ 15,000.00 $ 14,620.00 $ 50,079.00 $ 42,492.00 g. Budget Control $ 10,320.00 $ 10,060.00 $ 51,127.50 $ 50,399.17 h. Asset Management $ 13,440.00 $ 13,100.00 $ 51,127.50 $ 50,399.17 i. Payroll $ 18,120.00 $ 17,660.00 $ 127,335.00 $ 108,367.50 j. Employee Self-Service $ 10,320.00 $ 10,060.00 $ 25,467.00 $ 21,673.50 k. Grant Management $ 13,440.00 $ 13,100.00 $ 51,127.50 $ 50,399.17 l. Time Collection $ 18,120.00 $ 17,660.00 $ 25,467.00 $ 21,673.50 m. Personnel Administration $ 13,440.00 $ 13,100.00 $ 25,467.00 $ 21,673.50 n. Benefits Administration $ 18,120.00 $ 17,660.00 $ 25,467.00 $ 21,673.50 o. Procurement-Cards $ 11,880.00 $ 11,580.00 $ 50,079.00 $ 42,492.00 p. Project Systems $ 13,440.00 $ 13,100.00 $ 50,079.00 $ 42,492.00 q. Inventory Management $ 13,440.00 $ 13,100.00 $ 50,079.00 $ 42,492.00 r. Manager Self-Service Recruitment $ 15,000.00 $ 14,620.00 $ 25,467.00 $ 21,673.50 1. Request for Proposal $ 82,320.00 $ 80,360.00

$ 255,200.29 $ 243,451.81 2. Evaluation Guide $ 18,480.00 $ 18,040.00 3. Demonstration Scripts $ 61,320.00 $ 59,760.00

Total for Tasks A.1 - A.5 $ 568,680.00 $ 554,580.00 $ 1,497,456.21 $ 1,351,594.20$14,100.00 reduction $145,862.01 reduction

Tasks A.6 ‐ A.7 (Time and Material Deliverables) Evaluation Committee Support $ 300,240.00 $ 292,920.00 $ 179,238.80 $ 174,638.80 Business Case Analysis Update $ 272,160.00 $ 265,440.00 $ 69,755.36 $ 69,755.36

Total for Tasks A.6 - A.7 $ 572,400.00 $ 558,360.00 $ 248,994.16 $ 244,394.16$14,040.00 reduction $4,600.00 reduction

Reserve Bank of Hours

Reserve Bank of Hours $ 1,200,000.00 $1,170,000.00 $ 1,278,127.50 $ 1,278,127.50 $30,000.00 reduction $0.00 reduction

Extras

Extra items added $ 333,800.00 $ 327,320.00 - - $6,480.00 reduction

Total $ 2,674,880.00 $ 2,610,260.00 $ 3,024,577.87 $ 2,874,115.86Fixed Price (A1 through A5 plus Extras) $ 902,480.00 $ 881,900.00 $ 1,497,456.21 $ 1,351,594.20

$64,620.00 total reduction $150,462.01 total reduction

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

30

Award Recommendation: The award recommendation is made to ISG as the proposal offering the best value to the State as described in Section 3.024 of the RFP.