· Web viewThis is incorrect since the RFP required bidders to convert all data, and the use of the word family member is incorrect. This shows a lack of SACWIS understanding, and

Interoffice Memo

To: Greg Faremouth, DirectorPurchasing Operations, IT Division

From: Steve Motz,Buyer, IT Division

Date: 2/9/2011

Subject:Award Recommendation Bid number - RFP-DR-084R0200152Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS) Design, Development and Implementation (DDI)

GENERAL:The State of Michigan (State) through the Department of Human Services (DHS) and the Department of Technology, Management and Budget (DTMB) issued this RFP to obtain proposals from qualified Bidders for the design, development, and implementation of a Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS) that meets the requirements of DHS and supports Michigan’s Child Welfare programs. This system must be ready for pilot by October 2012 and must meet both federal Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS) compliance and meet the State’s business and technical requirements when fully operational. The awarded Contract will be for a period of three (3) years, may be renewed for up to two (2) additional one (1) year periods.

JOINT EVALUATION COMMITTEE:

Voting Members DepartmentJennifer Wrayno Department of Human ServicesLaurie Johnson Department of Human ServicesRich DeMello Department of Technology, Management and BudgetTess Layman Department of Technology, Management and BudgetSteve Motz Department of Technology, Management and Budget

Technical AdvisorsCynthia Eberhard Department of Human ServicesMike Rosenberg Department of Human ServicesWendy Campau Department of Human ServicesAnthony Sessions Department of Technology, Management and BudgetCole Jacobson Department of Technology, Management and BudgetRich Burgis Department of Technology, Management and BudgetSteve Nichols Department of Technology, Management and BudgetTina Symington Department of Technology, Management and BudgetRick Golden Department of Technology, Management and Budget - ContractorSusan Zakrzewski Department of Technology, Management and Budget - Contractor

Page 1 of 71

BIDDERS:

A Request for Proposal (RFP) was posted on the Bid4Michigan website on 9/24/2010 and the State received proposals from the following six organizations by the published due date of 12/07/2010:

1. Accenture, LLP3000 Town Center Suite 2400Southfield, MI 48075

2. Compuware CorporationOne Campus MartiusDetroit, MI 48226

3. Consilience Software, Inc11149 Research Blvd. Suite 300Austin, Texas 78759

4. Deloitte Consulting LLP600 Renaissance Center, Suite 900Detroit, MI 48243

5. Mahindra SatyamOne Gatehall DriveParsippany, NJ 07054

6. Unisys Corporation801 Lakeview Drive, Suite 100Blue Bell, PA 19422

Page 2 of 71

Award Process OverviewProposals were evaluated by a Joint Evaluation Committee (JEC), chaired by the Department of Technology Management and Budget (DTMB) Purchasing Operations. The JEC has made a Contract award recommendation to the Director of Purchasing Operations.

Evaluation CriteriaThe following chart represents the scoring of the particular factors:

PHASE 1: Technical Scoring EvaluationItem Criteria Authority Points

1.Work, Deliverables, and Requirements

Article 1 – Sec. 1.104 Work & DeliverablesAppendix C – Mandatory Requirements 50

2 Bidder Staff Information

Article 1 – Sec. 1.201 Contractor Staff, Roles, and Responsibilities

Appendix E – Personnel Resume and Qualifications

Letters of Commitment

25

3 Bidder Company Information

Article 4 – Sec 4.014 Prior Experience including reference forms 25

Total 100

Price EvaluationOnly those proposals that received a score of 80 points or more of the total maximum possible score were considered for award.

The State reserved the right to consider economic impact on the State when evaluating proposal pricing. This included, but was not limited to: job creation, job retention, tax revenue implications, and other economic considerations.

All price proposals were opened. However, prices were only evaluated from those Bidders that met the minimum point threshold of 80 points or more.

Award RecommendationThe award recommendation was made to the responsive and responsible Bidder who offered the best value to the State of Michigan. The best value recommendation was made to the Bidder that met the minimum point threshold and offered the best combination of the factors stated in the Evaluation Criteria, and price, as demonstrated by its proposal.

ReservationsThe following reservations were included in the RFP:(a) The State reserves the right to consider total cost of ownership factors in the final award

recommendation (i.e. transition costs, training costs, etc.).

Page 3 of 71

(b) The State reserves the right to 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 Purchasing Operations’ judgment, the best interest of the State will be so served.

(c) The State reserves the right to 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) The State reserves the right to consider overall economic impact to the State in the final award recommendation. This includes considering principle place of performance, number of Michigan citizens employed or potentially employed, dollars paid to Michigan residents, Michigan capital investments, economically disadvantaged business, etc.

(e) The State reserves the right to 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) The State reserves the right to 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) The State reserves the right to disqualify any bid based on Sections 1.1 through 4.1 in the general Certifications and Representations (completed at vendor registration).

(h) The State reserves the right to disqualify any bid where the bidder has defaulted on a contract in any state, or is in open litigation with any state.

Additional Considerations/Processes

The following additional considerations/processes were included in the RFP:

3.041 ClarificationsThe State may request clarifications from Bidders and will document the clarifications in writing. This process does not allow Bidder to change its bid. Instead, it provides an opportunity to clarify the proposal submitted.

If the State determines that a Bidder purposely or willfully submitted false information, the Bidder will not be considered for award, the State will pursue debarment of the Bidder. Any resulting Contract that may have been established will be terminated.

3.042 Past PerformanceThe State may evaluate the Bidder’s prior performance with the State as a factor in the award decision.

3.043 Financial Stability The State may evaluate the financial stability of any Bidder. The State may seek financial information from the Bidder and from third parties. If the State determines in its sole discretion that contracting with a Bidder presents an unacceptable risk to the State, the State reserves the right to not award a contract to that Bidder.

Page 4 of 71

3.045 Pricing NegotiationsThe State may enter into negotiations with Bidders on price. No modification to the RFP technical requirements or specifications will be allowed.

3.046 Best and Final Offer (BAFO)If the selection process described in the RFP does not lead to a viable award recommendation but significant deficiencies are identified, the State may prepare a Deficiency Report and Clarification Request (DR/CR) for each proposal determined to be in the competitive range. Bidders will be allowed to respond in writing to the DR/CR with a BAFO. The BAFO may include any changes to the original proposal to address the listed deficiencies, including alterations to the original cost proposal to address correction of the deficiencies. The BAFO must be submitted by the deadline established by Purchasing Operations.

After reviewing the BAFO response, the JEC will re-evaluate the proposals using the original evaluation method or publish an alteration to the originally evaluation criteria to all Bidders as part of the issuance of the DR/CR.

Page 5 of 71

EVALUATION RESULTS:

Accenture, LLPPHASE 1: Technical Scoring Evaluation

Item Criteria Authority Points Score


Article 1 – Sec. 1.104 Work & DeliverablesAppendix C – Mandatory Requirements 50 45





25 23


Article 4 – Sec 4.014 Prior Experience including reference forms 25 23

Total 100 91

The Joint Evaluation Committee (JEC) determined the Bidder, based on a score of 91, exceeded the minimum passing point threshold of the RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their ability to meet the requirements identified in the Work, Deliverables, and Requirements, Bidder Staff Information, and Bidder Company Information.

1. Work, Deliverables, and Requirements (Score: 45/50)

Article 1 – Sec. 1.104 Work & Deliverableso During the Bidder’s oral presentation, the Bidder demonstrated the Georgia SHINES

system. The Michigan SACWIS would be built using assets from the Georgia system. The Bidder demonstrated that the Georgia SHINES system could meet the RFP requirements and demonstrated most of the requested functionality.

Strengthso Activity 1: Project Management: The Bidder clearly articulated their ability to use and

implement the SUITE methodologies.

o Activity 1: Project Management: The Bidder discussed a rigorous project management approach to provide high quality deliverables.

o Activity 1: Project Management: The Bidder discussed effort based scheduling and how they determined their estimates. (Pages 1-3)

o Activity 1: Project Management: The Bidder recognized the governance model needed to be in place and they would use this model. (Pages 1-10)

Page 6 of 71Accenture, LLP

o Activity 1: Project Management: The Bidders approach to the issue and risk management plan differentiated between risks, issues, and change control (Pages 1-14)

o Activity 1: Project Management: The Bidder has proposed using existing state tracking and reporting tools.

o Activity 2: Hardware and Software: The Bidder has proposed many of the current hardware, software and tools that are in use at the State, which would minimize risk.

o Activity 3: Conceptual Design: The Bidder has proposed providing training to assist State staff in the conceptual design process and they have acknowledged the importance of State staff involvement during the conceptual design vs. just reviewing the design.

o Activity 3: Conceptual Design: The Bidder will adapt best practices within the proposed SHINES artifact and also the reporting functionality to assist with the consent decree. This would be beneficial to the State.

o Activity 3: Conceptual Design: Figure 3-6, Page 3-7: The Bidder’s proposal includes a master data management system. While dealing with information coming from multiple systems this will allow the State to obtain and organize information properly.

o Activity 5: Business Change Management: The Bidder provided a comprehensive response to this section, and focused on key business factors such as the impact of integrating policies and new systems training.

o Activity 8: Data Conversion and Migration: The Bidder has acknowledged and planned for the manual conversions and they have provided mechanisms to support this process. For example on 1-9 they acknowledged the need for training on the data conversion activities. This demonstrates their large system experience. They recommend the use of the same criteria for both manual and automated conversions. (Page 8.2)

o Activity 11: End User Training: Page 11-9: Table 11-5 The Bidder provided a good matrix of sample training roles. The Bidder proposed a just-in-time training that was detailed and included examples throughout. They included the Computer Based Training’s (CBT) as part of their training plan. The CBTs included preparation for in class training and the Bidder identified a project risk that included the potential lack of training facilities.

Weaknesseso Activity 1: Project Management: In the Bidder’s response to quality management they

referred to CMMI 4 but did not discuss quality in detail (Page 1-10)

o Activity 7: Development: Page 7-5, 2nd to last paragraph: The Bidder indicated they would establish and document the Acceptance criteria prior to implementation. Acceptance is the sole propriety of the system stewards and the State will be the final say of what the acceptance criteria is.


o Activity 2: Hardware and Software: The Bidder did not provide a detailed justification of their proposed sizing.

o Activity 9: Testing: 2nd Paragraph 9-4: The Bidder would track defects internally within an excel spreadsheet. The State has tools that would be used for this. The documentation should be consistent throughout the project.

o Activity 9: Testing: W: Page 9-10: The Bidder’s proposal indicated the application development team would work with DHS and Office of Child Support (OCS) to clarify any front-end screens that require Performance Test. This is incorrect as they would not work with OCS – Office of Child Support. There was also reference TCG – Technical Control Group – which is not accurate.

o Activity 12: Technical Training: Page 12-6: The Bidders technical training begins too late. Although training and knowledge transfer takes place throughout the project, the final shadow programming, one-on-one sessions, and supervised design sessions would not be completed until within one month of role transition to confirm that DTMB staff have received recent training when they begin their new roles

o Activity 13: Help Desk: Page 13-4; 1.13.5 Task… The system must be available 24X7 for Centralized Intake; the Bidder is only proposing M – F 7a to 6p. This will not support DHS operations.

Appendix C – Mandatory Requirementso The Bidder provided clear detail when they described how the requirements not met by

the proposed solution will be met; layouts of their screen shots showed they followed the standards and/or easy to navigate; Bidder noted they met the SARGe requirements. Response to requirements were very detailed and allowed the State to determine they had an understanding of the requirements and the specific business needs related to Michigan SACWIS.

o For requirements they didn’t meet out of the box, they provided a detailed narrative that allowed the State to ensure compliance.


2. Bidder Staff Information (Score: 23/25)

Article 1 – Sec. 1.201 Contractor Staff, Roles, and Responsibilitieso During the Bidder’s oral presentation the Bidder’s team understood the business

requirements for the Michigan SACWIS and the team presented, was able to perform their assigned roles and responsibilities.

o The Bidder’s proposal demonstrated a commitment to providing resources that have experience with SACWIS implementations, including the assets from the Georgia SHINES system they have proposed for the Michigan SACWIS.

o The Bidder submitted the correct number of resumes for personnel as required in Section 1.201 of the RFP.

Appendix E – Personnel Resume and Qualifications A summary of the Key Personnel Resume and Qualifications is provided below:

1. Manager of overall Design, Development and Implementation

Sean Toole

Three References YSACWIS Experience Y- GeorgiaLetter of Intent YSubcontractor NPMP Certified NPosition experience YMinimum 7 years complex large project management experience. Y+ExceededAdditional Comments 10 year’s position

experience.

2. Deputy Project Manager Troy MyersThree References YSACWIS Experience NLetter of Intent YSubcontractor NPMP Certified YPosition experience YComplex large project management experience YAdditional Comments 8 years PM experience

3. Business Manager Juli BakerThree References YSACWIS Experience Y- GeorgiaLetter of Intent Y


Subcontractor NPMP Certified NComplex large project management experience YPossession of a bachelor’s degree in any major* PHDFive to seven years of professional experience = business manager or 7 years of professional experience = lead business analyst level

3BUSMGR/6PE

Additional Comments The reference for Georgia indicated the individual had some performance issues in the role of Project Manager. She was removed from the Project Manager position at the request of the client.

4. IT Manager Jason LawrenceThree References YSACWIS Experience NLetter of Intent NSubcontractor NPMP Certified NComplex large project management experience YTechnical Architect Experience YPosition experience YApplication Development, Data Migration and Data Warehouse Could not determine DW

experienceAdditional Comments TA Certificate

5. Director of Infrastructure Stephen W. RobertsThree References YSACWIS Experience Y- GeorgiaLetter of Intent YSubcontractor NPMP Certified YComplex large project management experience. YPosition experience YTechnical Architect Experience YEnterprise and the supporting IT systems and architecture experience

Y

Prefers a Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science, Information Systems, or other related field or equivalent work experience and requires 7 to 10 years of IT work experience

BA Computer Science

Prior management, supervisory, or team leader experience PM/S/TLAdditional Comments 4.5 years as Tech Architect


lead and PM.

Georgia reference indicated they were pleased with his performance. Stated he managed a technical team of 40+ for Georgia.

6. Data Migration Coordinator Karl DalleyThree References YSACWIS Experience Y- GeorgiaLetter of Intent YSubcontractor NPMP Certified NComplex large project management experience YPosition experience YAdditional Comments

7. Communications Lead Kirsten ThompsonThree References YSACWIS Experience NLetter of Intent YSubcontractor Y- CompuwarePMP Certified N5-8 years professional experience=technical senior writer position Y+Complex large project management experience. YPosition experience YPreferred experience Page E-49 showed she had

met this (resume did not show this experience)

Possession of a bachelor’s degree in any major* Masters Inst. Syt TechAdditional Comments Has lead experience but #

years not identified

8. Training Coordinator Phyllis Gervais-VossThree References YSACWIS Experience Y- GeorgiaLetter of Intent YSubcontractor Y- WRMAPMP Certified NComplex large project management experience YPosition experience Y


Possession of a bachelor’s degree in any major YPreferred minimum of five years experience as a training manager or between three to seven years of experience as a trainer

1.5 TC/2.5 T

Additional Comments No description of job activities from 2008-presents; List high level activities at a consulting firm.

She was the training coordinator for Georgia, but the current company role was not identified.

9. Requirements Lead Michael ChillmanThree References YSACWIS Experience Y- GeorgiaLetter of Intent YSubcontractor NPMP Certified NComplex large project management experience- YPosition experience Y- TECHBachelors Degree BS MATHMinimum of two years of professional experience in business subject matter area.

Y-TECHThis was not on business related but technical.

Additional Comments Highly technical; Good reference feedback

10: Business Analyst Lead Patrick CooganThree References YSACWIS Experience Y- GeorgiaLetter of Intent YSubcontractor NPMP Certified NComplex large project management experience. YPosition experience Y8 or more years of experience in the field/ related area N-5

This was his 1st job out of college, and was in a lead position less than a year (team of 5)

Manages and directs other DDI Business Analysts with 1-7 years experience

NE


Possession of a bachelor’s degree* BS ENGAdditional Comments Unable to determine

expertise of BAs lead; Less than 1 year experience as a lead and team has 5 people

11. Quality Assurance/Testing Lead Bryant JenkinsThree References YSACWIS Experience Y-GeorgiaLetter of Intent YSubcontractor NPMP Certified Y8 years of QA/ testing experience YPosition experience Y Complex large project management experience. YAdditional Comments Has contiguous testing

lead/management experience but no mention of QA

3. Bidder Company Information (Score: 23/25)

Article 4 – Sec 4.014 Prior Experience including reference forms

1-Michigan Child Support Enforcement System (MiCSES)/State of Michigano Technology is not similar to Michigan since it is not web based or J2EE system. o The scope of this project was similar and the system provides case management,

assignments, interfaces with Michigan and other agencies.o The size for this project is similar size and the volume of clients.o The State conducted a reference check with this client, which was overall positive. They

stated the Bidder provided a strong technology understanding, but had some difficulty getting up to speed on the overall requirements.

2- Georgia SHINES/Georgia Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children Services (DFCS)o This is the asset they have proposed bringing to Michigan.o Technology is similar to Michigan SACWIS and is J2EE web based. o The scope of this project was similar and included: case management, assignments, and

interfaces to other agencies. o The size for this project is similar size (project management relevance) also volume for

this reference is similar (3,700 users) and transactions were comparable.o The State conducted a reference check with this client, which was overall positive. They

found Accenture to be excellent across the board. There were several staff that were involved with this project that are being proposed for Michigan. There was one issue


noted with a particular staff member who is proposed in a different position for Michigan.

3- Texas Information Management Protecting Adults and Children in Texas (IMPACT) and Mobile Protective Services (MPS)/Texas Child & Adult Protective Services (CAPS)o Technology is similar to Michigan SACWIS and is web based. (provided remote access

to data via web and also synchronization)o The size for this project was larger than Michigan in terms of Child Welfare population. o The scope of this project included; Case management, eligibility, also includes adult

(which we do not have – Michigan has this in a system outside, not required in the RFP).

o The State conducted a reference check with this client, which was overall positive. They found Accenture to be very knowledgeable with a deep skill set.

The State contacted additional system users for the bidders that passed the technical evaluation.o The State contacted a user of the Georgia SHINES system who was not identified in the

RFP. The contact indicated the following: System has been statewide for about 2 years Training was done by module for State staff Providers input data into a different web application that interfaces with

SHINES Largest benefit of SHINES is real-time data access and reporting that system

provides User acceptance is continuing to be a challenge based on user friendliness

and/or training issues

Pricing Evaluation:

The Bidder received a technical score of 91 and therefore their pricing was evaluated.


Compuware CorporationPHASE 1: Technical Scoring Evaluation








25 12



Total 100 56

The Joint Evaluation Committee (JEC) determined the Bidder, based on a score of 56, failed to meet the minimum passing point threshold of the RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their ability to meet the requirements identified in the Work, Deliverables, and Requirements, Bidder Staff Information, and Bidder Company Information.


Article 1 – Sec. 1.104 Work & Deliverableso During the Bidder’s oral presentation, the Bidder demonstrated the Ohio SACWIS

system which is proposed as the transfer system for Michigan SACWIS. The Bidder did not demonstrate that the Ohio SACWIS system could meet the RFP requirements and could not demonstrate some of the required system functionality. The Bidder also suggested that the State should review and reduce the requirements as part of the implementation.

Strengthso Activity 1: Project Management: The Bidder recognized the IV&V and CQ contractor

and the need to work with them.

o Activity 1: Project Management: The Bidder clearly articulated their ability to use and implement the SUITE methodologies (various Pages), identified and mapped to the correct SEM documents.

o Activity 1: Project Management: The Bidder outlined a rigorous project management approach in their proposal and included a well presented resource load chart in Appendix G.

Page 15 of 71Compuware Corporation

o Activity 2: Hardware and Software: Much of what they have proposed is consistent with the current environment at the State.

o Activity 4: Security: Page 4-8: The Bidder provided a good description of the Oracle transparent database encryption, and how no production data would be present in test and training environments.

o Activity 4: Security: The Bidder’s discussion of security was detailed (for example role based security went down to the screen level) and covered multiple aspects of security.

o Activity 9: Testing: Page 9-1: The Bidder identified various testing activities and tied them to the SUITE activities.

o Activity 11: End User Training: Page 11-3: The Bidder would provide Computer Based Training’s (CBT) 1 week prior to classroom training.

o Activity 12: Technical Training: The Bidder provided a clear training strategy with matrix and methods and they proposed mentoring and pairing.

o Activity 15: Implementation and Readiness: Page. 15-4: The Bidder discussed conducting a hands-on “dress rehearsal” for intake staff during the week after training and prior to go live, so that these staff will be prepared.

Weaknesseso Activity 1: Project Management: Page 8-12: The following process is PM related and

needs to be combined with PM issues related to many manual processes vs. automated processes. Because our target data model will continue to evolve during the data conversion

effort, the Compuware team knows that some of our work products will be affected. When this happens, the Compuware team will create a Work Product Remediation Request. Using this form, the Compuware team will document the change, investigate and document the impact, and develop a remediation plan for the affected work products.

o Activity 1: Project Management: The Bidder did not include a narrative document (a project plan) as required on Page 72 of RFP. “The project plan must consider all elements of the State of Michigan’s SUITE PMM-03.”

Activity 2: Hardware and Software: The Bidder has computed the Training environment for 4 classes per server and only allotted for 2 servers. This will not be enough to support the Just In Time training prior to roll out where it is estimated that there will be at least 23 classes with 20 people each over 45 days to meet the training need.

o Activity 3: Conceptual Design: The Bidder proposed a transfer system that was implemented in 2008 (3 years old in Ohio) and the technical components would require an upgrade to the latest JAVA technologies.


o Activity 3: Conceptual Design: Page 3-3: The Bidder is proposing 6 teams, and would require significant State participation. As an example, the Bidder requires the deliverables manager to be a part of each of them, which is not feasible or possible.

o Activity 6: Detail Design: Page 6-3: The Bidders team will facilitate contact between ACF and the project.

o Activity 6: Detail Design: Page 6-5: The Bidder anticipated a level of State participation which is incorrect. The State would only have 1 person providing information on a subject area. (see statement below from proposal)

For each of the functional teams and the technical/non-functional team Compuware assumes that there will be a State Lead, one to three (1-3) subject matter experts, and one to three (1-3) technical business analysts.

o Activity 6: Detail Design: Pages 6-2 and 6-3: The Bidder incorrectly included Kickoff and JAD prep in the 10 days for JAD sessions. Lessons learned and architectural round table should be a nightly process the Contractor goes through.

o Activity 7: Development: Page 7-3: The Bidder has indicated “Unit tests are developed as [code is] adjusted…” This statement implies that Unit Test scenarios are not produced until construction ensues. Unit tests should have already been formulated by the construction phase.

o Activity 8: Data Conversion and Migration; Page 8-17; Assumptions: The Bidder incorrectly assumes that all legacy source system code and resource will be static for the duration of the project.

o Activity 9: Testing: Page 9-4: The Bidder proposed Interface Testing that is taking place too late and should be occurring earlier. (see statement below from proposal)

Interface Testing will commence once the Conversion and Data Management development, extract, transformation and load operations are complete. The Test Management Strategy will confirm all of the internal and external interfaces to the Michigan SACWIS system.

o Activity 9: Testing: Page 9-16: The Bidder clearly does not understand that the systems referenced in this paragraph are to be incorporated with SACWIS not interface with SACWIS. These systems will not be converted.

o Activity 9: Testing: Page 9-37 section 9-10: The Bidder’s assumption is not realistic. The performance testing must consider the normal operations of the State. SACWIS will not be the only application running. Realistic views cannot be gained if SACWIS is only tested standalone (see statement below from proposal)

No other State systems are running batch or interfering processes that impact SACWIS performance testing.


o Activity 10: UAT: Page 10-3: Contrary to the Bidder’s proposal, the Contractor’s DBA cannot load this data into the database tables since they will not have access. This will be performed by the build process. (see statement below from proposal)

State UAT testers will identify the test data that will be required to be in the SACWIS system prior to executing UAT Test Cases and, where it is not possible to load the data using the Michigan SACWIS application, the Compuware Quality Assurance/Testing Lead will assist and coordinate with the Compuware DBA to load the data directly in the database tables.

o Activity 12: Technical Training: Page 12-2: The Bidder did not provide sufficient information on their approach to system information documentation.

o Activity 13: Help Desk: The Bidder’s help desk approach lacked details and it did not engage the level of support between the local office and the development staff.

Appendix C – Mandatory Requirementso The Bidder’s response to Appendix C did not address the following requirements:

59069, 59070, 58922, 58929, 58931, 58932, and 58991.

o The Bidder’s response to Appendix C, indicated there may be high effort, despite some prior company experience with SACWIS systems. As examples, the following areas: tracking/merge subordinates, ICPC and Juvenile Justice requirements, service authorization, PPC requirements, un/merge case related data and duplicate person records, alias match, eligibility/financial details.

o Many fundamental aspects that are a part of any SACWIS system were not addressed. They stated they met some requirements, and then immediately after appeared to not meet requirements out the box that should have been met. Responses often showed a lack of understanding of our requirements.

2. Bidder Staff Information (Score: 12/25)Article 1 – Sec. 1.201 Contractor Staff, Roles, and Responsibilities

o The Bidder’s IT manager is the only Key staff with SACWIS experience.

o Many individuals don't have supervisory, management or lead skills; and responses did not always indicate how large the teams were that they led and project size;


o During the Bidder’s oral presentation the Bidder’s team did not demonstrate an understanding of the business requirements for the Michigan SACWIS and the team presented was not able to perform their assigned roles and responsibilities. For example during the presentation, the Bidder’s team was not able to identify where in the application, case notes were located.




Diane Toscano

Three References YSACWIS Experience NLetter of Intent YSubcontractor NPMP Certified NPosition experience YMinimum 7 years complex large project management experience. Y Large dollar project but

complexity cannot be determined

Additional Comments Job description speaks to DDI experience; Indicated she has PMO Experience.

2. Deputy Project Manager Barb MlodzikThree References YSACWIS Experience NLetter of Intent YSubcontractor NPMP Certified YPosition experience YComplex large project management experience Not substantiated in resumeAdditional Comments Could not determine if they

had large project experience

3. Business Manager Thotakura KishoreThree References YSACWIS Experience NLetter of Intent YSubcontractor NPMP Certified NComplex large project management experience YPossession of a bachelor’s degree in any major* YFive to seven years of professional experience = business manager or 7 years of professional experience = lead business analyst level Not substantiated in resumeAdditional Comments Extensive technical and

technical manager Page 19 of 71

Compuware Corporation

experience; No BA experience but DBA experience;

4. IT Manager Vasil HlinkaThree References YSACWIS Experience Y-OhioLetter of Intent YSubcontractor NPMP Certified NComplex large project management experience YTechnical Architect Experience NPosition experience YApplication Development, Data Migration and Data Warehouse YAdditional Comments Vasil was the only

Compuware key Staff that had worked on the Ohio Project.

5. Director of Infrastructure Joseph VargaThree References YSACWIS Experience NLetter of Intent YSubcontractor NPMP Certified NComplex large project management experience. Not substantiated in resumePosition experience Not substantiated in resumeTechnical Architect Experience YEnterprise and the supporting IT systems and architecture experience YPrefers a Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science, Information Systems, or other related field or equivalent work experience and requires 7 to 10 years of IT work experience BA Business Prior management, supervisory, or team leader experience

TLAdditional Comments Resume alleges lead and

mgt skills but job descriptions do not provide that detail; VP Development

6. Data Migration Coordinator Charles BarnumThree References YSACWIS Experience N


Letter of Intent YSubcontractor NPMP Certified NComplex large project management experience YPosition experience Not substantiated in resumeAdditional Comments Most experience as a DBA

7. Communications Lead Gary FarrThree References YSACWIS Experience NLetter of Intent YSubcontractor Y-CourtlandPMP Certified N5-8 years professional experience=technical senior writer position

N Complex large project management experience. YPosition experience YPreferred experience No CW Exp; Child Support

exp;Possession of a bachelor’s degree in any major* BS Criminal JusticeAdditional Comments Has over 4 years as

IMP/Comm/CM Mgr

8. Training Coordinator Tim SowderThree References YSACWIS Experience NLetter of Intent YSubcontractor Y-CourtlandPMP Certified NComplex large project management experience YPosition experience Had a lot of training

experience, but did not indicate training coordinator experience.

Possession of a bachelor’s degree in any major BS EducationPreferred minimum of five years experience as a training manager or between three to seven years of experience as a trainer 10 years as trainerAdditional Comments

9. Requirements Lead Justin Roebuck


Three References YSACWIS Experience NLetter of Intent YSubcontractor NPMP Certified YComplex large project management experience- Not substantiated in resumePosition experience YBachelors Degree MBAMinimum of two years of professional experience in business subject matter area. YAdditional Comments Cannot determine

complexity of projects or responsibility level; Has held PM position

10: Business Analyst Lead Debra CoburnThree References YSACWIS Experience NLetter of Intent YSubcontractor Y-Berry and Singh

ConsultingPMP Certified NComplex large project management experience. Not substantiated in resumePosition experience Not substantiated in resume8 or more years of experience in the field/ related area Not substantiated in resumeManages and directs other DDI Business Analysts with 1-7 years experience Not substantiated in resumePossession of a bachelor’s degree* BA Pol. Sci.Additional Comments Unable to determine

expertise of BAs lead and whether they led a team of BAs

11. Quality Assurance/Testing Lead John PanzoThree References YSACWIS Experience NLetter of Intent YSubcontractor NPMP Certified N8 years of QA/ testing experience YPosition experience Y Complex large project management experience. YAdditional Comments




1- SACWIS Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (ODJFS)o Compuware was not the prime on this contract, they were a subcontractor for the DDI.o Ohio SACWIS is the system they have proposed transferring to Michigan.o Technology is similar to Michigan since it is a web based J2EE system, using Oracle. o The scope of this project was similar and the system provides much of the SACWIS

functionality that will be included in the Michigan SACWIS.o The size for this project is similar to the Michigan SACWIS.o The State conducted a reference check with this client, which was overall very positive

of the vendor. The reference did note problems with reports and business intelligence. .

2- FACTS/WEBFACTS Montgomery County Job & Family Serviceso Technology is dated and different than Michigan SACWIS since this system is .Net

based and they have proposed a J2EE application for Michigan SACWIS. This reference is dated as it ended in December 2002.

o The scope of this project was smaller as this was a smaller county system, but it is a system that is related to child welfare.

o The size for this project is smaller. o The State attempted contact with a reference, but was not successful.

3- FACTS Cuyahoga County Job & Family Serviceso Technology is dated and different than Michigan SACWIS since this system is .Net

based and they have proposed a J2EE application for Michigan SACWIS. This reference is dated as it ended in February 2003.

o The scope of this project was smaller as this was a smaller county system, but it is a system that is related to child welfare.

o The size for this project is smaller. o The State attempted contact with a reference, but was not successful.

Pricing Evaluation:

The Bidder received a technical score of 56 and therefore their pricing was not evaluated.


Consilience Software, IncPHASE 1: Technical Scoring Evaluation








25 8



Total 100 34



Article 1 – Sec. 1.104 Work & Deliverables

Strengthso The Bidder’s proposal included a Communication Plan (Page 283, Appendix N

Communication Plan)

o The Bidder’s proposal included a comprehensive narrative plan to tie the elements of a project plan together (Page 250)

o The Bidder provided a good separation of Risk and Issues by definition (Page 268)

Weaknesseso Consilience is going to host Subversion in the Tier-3 of Maintenance Plan, that is too

late (Page 7); Many of the functions listed in Tier 1 and Tier 2 which Bidder says is the State responsibility, are indeed the services that the State is looking for from the Bidder (Page 248) Examples of services not provided by Bidder include:

Any release into a particular environment (like QA or production). Generally environments outside of Consilience internal development environments are considered Tier 2 (i.e. client/deployment specific environments)

Page 24 of 71Consilience Software, Inc

Any investigation into timing or data quality of realtime or batch imports. Issues related to realtime/batch import configurations that is not an issue of the Maven DataImporter.

o The following statements would limit the State’s ability to modify and control the product as the State’s needs change.

Requirement Change Control Page 272 “As with most software products, Maven is designed, developed and enhanced in a distinct life cycle including periodic releases of new versions of Maven that include a predetermined set of new functionality as determined by Consilience Software to best fit the future direction of the product. Customers may negotiate directly with Consilience Software to have such a change explicitly developed through the change management process. This route would affect schedule and cost of the original contract.”

In addition, Consilience Software has developed a process by which its customers, via the Users Group, can suggest Maven enhancements to be added to a desired “enhancement list” ordered in priority based on User Group voting. An enhancement may be placed on this list by a member of the User Group but Consilience Software does not guarantee that it will be included in any future release.

o GRANT OF LICENSES (Page 242 1.0) of Bidders proposal stipulates license fee and limitations which is not consistent with RFP Section 2.265 Ownership of Work Product by Department of Health and Human Services which states:

“In accordance with Title 45, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 95 - General Administration—Grant Programs (Public Assistance, Medical Assistance And State Children's Health Insurance Programs), Subpart F—Automatic Data Processing Equipment and Services—Conditions for Federal Financial Participation (FFP), Section § 95.617 Software and ownership rights, (b) Federal License, The Department of Health and Human Services reserves a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use and to authorize others to use for Federal Government, purposes, such software, modifications, and documentation.”

o The Bidder is proposing a COTS product; delivery of testing is described at a high level and is significantly underdeveloped in the bid response (see below examples). (Section 1.104 Activity 9: Testing)

Technical Response.doc; Page 30 of 291; Testing The Bidder does not elaborate on the Unit, Integration, and System Test

approaches or how they would integrate State staff. The Bidder does not elaborate on status reporting as it pertains to the testing and

its approval before moving into other testing phases. The Bidder does not discuss or elaborate on automated testing, regression

testing, scripts or development of test scenarios


http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=9b0fa6efd73846938ac6c16b6b9f8f48&rgn=div5&view=text&node=45:1.0.1.1.53&idno=45#45:1.0.1.1.53.4%2345:1.0.1.1.53.4



The Bidder’s Unit testing was minimally described in the strategy and each task was missing individually in the RFP for this task and all others 9.3 to 9.8. 9.9 to 9.11 was not discussed.

o The Bidder had no recognition of the State’s SUITE Methodology. The Project Management approach made no mention on PMBOK or SUITE. (Page. 250-251, Appendix H Project Plan)

o The Bidder made no attempt to incorporate SACWIS Project Structure into their organizational chart (Page 252 Organization)

o The Bidder proposed the Maven Deployment Team, where some individuals are carrying the responsibility of three separate roles and this occurs at least twice, this doesn’t represent the level of service the State will need on a large software project. (Page 255, Resources Composition)

o The Bidder does not appear to have a well thought out or presented resourcing approach/plan to support the schedule, it just says:

“Activity sequencing will be used to determine the order of work packages and assign relationships between project activities. Activity duration estimating will be used to calculate the number of work periods required to complete work packages.”(Page 253, Resources)

o The Bidder’s proposal (Page 257, Resources) states for Onsite and Offsite Work – “Particularly developers may travel during specification work on interfaces and database conversions, but actually perform the necessary coding offsite.” This is not consistent with Page 71 of RFP 1. Location of Work… “The work is to be performed, completed, and managed at the following location: State Facility located in Lansing, Michigan” Furthermore, this Bidder did not agree to have key personnel work Monday-Friday. They would fly in Monday morning and leave Thursday evening. (Page 258)

o The Bidder’s proposal discussion of Project Manager doesn’t recognize the Project Manager in the context of the State of Michigan, only the Bidder’s Project Manager. (Page 252)

o Task 1.4 Project Configuration Management Plan (Page7) : The Bidder had no real approach or scope. Their tool/process for monitoring version control (Task 1.4.3) is their repository (Subversion) and the process of version control is as follows: “ Each time someone needs to edit a configuration file, he/she checks it out for editing and then check it back in to the repository when finished, thus creating a new version of that particular file”.

o Configuration Management Page7: The Bidder only discussed parent code, did not recognize any other configuration management on artifacts around project management, design, development; Referenced Appendix G, Page 245 which did not present a clear method for managing documents, and did not demonstrate a complete understanding of non-code related aspects of Configuration Management.


o Task 1.5 Issue and Risk Management Plan (Page 8): The Bidder was short on detail but did describe the tool as a web based electronic tracker and the screen display in Appendix J appears to be an excel spreadsheet for Risk Register. When a risk becomes an issue according to Bidder’s plan it could be moved into Bidder’s electronic tool JIRA (appeared by screen shot to hold more detail). Did not elaborate or make clear if State has access to JIRA and who’s hardware it resides on.

o The Bidder had very limited discussion or recognition of Governance Model (see Page 271) associated with Risks and Issues. This information was provided in the procurement library and made available to bidders. (Pages 8 and 26)

o Requirement Change Control – p 273 Change Management Approach: The Bidder failed to clearly relate change to Governance Model and how approval would be obtained with all the project players

o The Bidder had no discussion of collaboration with State or other contracting vendors for risk management, no collaboration with other vendor teams. (Page 265)

o The Bidder had no differentiation between change control and change request to contract (Page8, Appendix L - Requirement Change Control) and very limited discussion of how a change control is moved through the project.

o The Bidder did not address if it can/will operate on Oracle 11g R2 see Technical Response.doc; Page 10 of 291; Also Appendix C. Requirement 55332 “The system must support the current supported or higher version of Oracle as the data repository.” Bidder is also indicating “MS SQL Server 2005, 2008 [DHS Preference per RFP]” this is not correct. (Section 1.104 Activity 2: Hardware and Software)

o Technical Response.doc; Page 19 of 291; Activity 3: Conceptual…; 2nd paragraphConducting a 4-day implementation assessment to document gaps would not be sufficient for a project of this size and scope. In the State’s experience with large interagency-software projects (including COTS), this timeframe is not reasonable.

o Technical Response.doc; Page 23 of 291; Activity 5: Business Change Management: The Bidder is implying that more of the configuration will be done apart from the business than with the business. There is an absence of State and vendor collaboration here.

o Technical Response.doc; Page 26 of 291; Development Library; 1st paragraph: The Bidder indicates that “…subversion repository (hosted by Consilience)…” the off-site hosting of configurable items for a State of Michigan/Federally funded solution is not consistent with DTMB’s software management approach. (Section 1.104 Activity 6: Detail Design)


o The Bidder’s proposed tasks 6.1-6.3 on Detail Design will be completed in 10 days with one State SME. In the State’s experience with large interagency-software projects (including COTS), this timeframe is not reasonable. (Section 1.104 Activity 6: Detail Design)

o Task 10 User Acceptance Testing; Page 31 of 291: The Bidder made no mention of the Operation Readiness Plan (10.3) and Weekly UAT Status Reports (10.2). According to proposal the UAT process will be documented in the UAT Plan (subsection of System Test Plan – Task 9.3) created during project initiation.

o Technical Response.doc; Page 31 of 291; User Acceptance Testing; The Bidder’s testing scenarios, results and defects are not being referenced with a Requirements Traceability Matrix.

o Technical Response.doc; Page 34 of 291; 2nd paragraph stated:

“…CBT will be… hosted by CompuWorks” any materials produced for the State remain with the State.

There was no discussion on what will be used to build out the CBTs or how the Bidder will incorporate/collaborate (with) the DHS trainers in producing said deliverables

o The Bidder did not describe specific training for the COTS product, just general technical training. Bidder did not describe the day to day hands on training that would be in place during the project. (Section 1.104 Activity 12: Technical Training)

o The Bidder did not mention reviewing with the State on any specific needs, i.e. reviewing state policies, interviews or by the use of lessons learned. The Bidder just described what was used in the past on other projects. (Section 1.104 Activity 12: Technical Training)

o Technical Response.doc; Pages 37-41 of 291; Training Agenda Matrix:o There is no out-of-the-box solution that the State has that has not been customized in

some way… There is no evidence that there is a period of training that focuses on customizations, which should be broken out into subject areas

o There is no evidence of managing Maven Core upgrades in conjunction with customized code.

o There is no evidence of training subject matter pertaining to integrating context help, user aids or user based error handling (i.e. system metadata and screen capture) for reporting issues

o The Bidder is only providing two help desk support staff, this is not sufficient for a project of this size and scope. (Section 1.104 Activity 13: Help Desk)

o The Bidder’s Appendix G discusses the use of JIRA for production support Help Desk function. The Bidder’s Tier 1 & 2 help desk services are the State responsibility and


Tier 3 is only provided by vendor. Below is a list of Tier 2 services that the Bidder says are the State responsibility, many of the services are what the State would be looking for vendor support on. (Appendix G Maintenance Plan – Page 245)

Examples of Tier-2 Issues: Maven is an extremely configurable product. As a result many areas of Maven can be configured either through

configurations files and/or configuration data. Configuration errors are classified as Tier 2 issues (as opposed to core product issues).

Areas of configuration are: Any data in the Maven Reference Code table (e.g. facility lists, drop-down codes) Maven Model(s) – configured through the Maven Model Manager Workflow XML and/or queries Report XML and/or queries, or report JSPs Any custom JSP file developed or modified by non-Consilience staff (typically done in very advanced

deployments) Any configuration driven by XML files or property files (e.g. Automated Case Processor, Advanced Processing

Modules) developed/modified by non-Consilience staff Any custom notification scheme developed/modified by non-Consilience staff Any sub-classes to the DefaultCaseProcessor (typically done in very advanced deployments) developed/modified

by non-Consilience staff developed/modified by non-Consilience staff Any deployment specific java code/xsl that is written that is not part of the base/core Maven product (e.g. custom

integration code, extractors, importers) developed/modified by non-Consilience staff Any investigation into timing or data quality of realtime or batch imports. Issues related to realtime/batch import

configurations that is not an issue of the Maven DataImporter. Any security configuration related setting Any User/Role/Group related setting Any kind of hardware issues (hard drives burning up, backups/restores that need to be performed). Note that if

hosting is provided by Consilience, depending on the particular hosting agreement, this may be provided by Consilience Software. However, initial investigation is always done by Tier 2

Any configuration that may be performed using the Maven administration module Any release into a particular environment (like QA or production). Generally environments outside of Consilience

internal development environments are considered Tier 2 (i.e. client/deployment specific environments)

o Section 1.104 Activity 14: Pilot would begin June 20, 2012 Task 408 and 410 goes for six months (through December 2012), that is too long and very labor intensive for the business to run parallel systems. Then the Statewide rollout is not until April/May 2013 (Page 263 Appendix I, Project Schedule)

o The Bidder does not indicate versions of IE browsers needed. The Bidder does not show how they ensure that all components will work together and with specific capacity requirements. (Section 1.104 Activity 15: Implementation and Readiness)

The Bidder in the implementation section does not elaborate, describe or reference check lists that would be needed for final readiness (Section 1.104 Activity 15: Implementation and Readiness)

o Task 16.1 Operations and Maintenance Transition Plan (Page 45): The Bidder states “This plan will follow the process we have used to transition Maven to customer staff at other Maven enabled projects. Consilience Software is qualified to create such a plan due to Maven transitions to customer technical teams at other customers.” They did not describe or propose an actual plan.

Appendix C – Mandatory Requirements


o The Bidder’s response to Appendix C did not address requirement 54405 on Page154 of Appendix C.

o The Bidder had many contradictions to the requirements provided in Appendix C. Do not keep the basic person management system, they would have to enhance

their application to provide. They discussed role based security, but would have to get a COTS package to

complete. The Bidder’s narratives consisted of a lot of copy and pasted sections; they did

not demonstrate compliance with the requirements based on their lack of description.


Article 1 – Sec. 1.201 Contractor Staff, Roles, and Responsibilitieso The Bidder did not propose any key resources that had experience with SACWIS

implementations.

o The Bidder submitted the same person in multiple positions that was not in accordance with Section 1.201 of the RFP.

o The Bidder’s proposed Staff did not meet many of the requirements as outlined below.



Chance Campbell

Three References YSACWIS Experience NLetter of Intent YSubcontractor NPMP Certified NPosition experience NMinimum 7 years complex large project management experience. NAdditional Comments Consilience presented the

same person for the following positions:

1) Manager of overall Design, Development and Implementation2) Deputy Project Manager3) Business Manager 7) Communications Lead


2. Deputy Project Manager Chance CampbellThree References YSACWIS Experience NLetter of Intent YSubcontractor NPMP Certified NPosition Experience NComplex large project management experience NAdditional Comments Consilience presented the



3. Business Manager Chance CampbellThree References YSACWIS Experience NLetter of Intent YSubcontractor NPMP Certified NComplex large project management experience NPossession of a bachelor’s degree in any major* BS KinesiologyFive to seven years of professional experience = business manager or 7 years of professional experience = lead business analyst level YPosition Experience NAdditional Comments Consilience presented the



4. IT Manager Glen TarrantThree References YSACWIS Experience NLetter of Intent YSubcontractor NPMP Certified N


Complex large project management experience YTechnical Architect Experience YPosition experience NApplication Development, Data Migration and Data Warehouse No DWAdditional Comments Consilience presented the


4) IT Manager5) Director of Infrastructure6) Data Migration Coordinator

5. Director of Infrastructure Glen TarrantThree References YSACWIS Experience NLetter of Intent YSubcontractor NPMP Certified NComplex large project management experience. YPosition experience Not substantiated in resumeTechnical Architect Experience YEnterprise and the supporting IT systems and architecture experience

Y


BS Comp Science

Prior management, supervisory, or team leader experience Lead Exp/1year mgt.

Additional Comments Consilience presented the same person for the following positions:


6. Data Migration Coordinator Glen TarrantThree References YSACWIS Experience NLetter of Intent YSubcontractor NPMP Certified NComplex large project management experience YPosition experience Not substantiated in resumeAdditional Comments Consilience presented the




7. Communications Lead Chance CampbellThree References YSACWIS Experience NLetter of Intent YSubcontractor NPMP Certified N5-8 years professional experience=technical senior writer position

N Complex large project management experience. NPosition experience NPreferred experience NPossession of a bachelor’s degree in any major* Y Additional Comments Consilience presented the



8. Training Coordinator Pamela ConwayThree References YSACWIS Experience NLetter of Intent YSubcontractor Y-CompuworksPMP Certified NComplex large project management experience YPosition experience YPossession of a bachelor’s degree in any major Y-BA Computer

Information ServicesPreferred minimum of five years experience as a training manager or between three to seven years of experience as a trainer

Y

Additional Comments Compuworks VP and acct manger for training with Staples. 3 people submitted as this resource, but this


individual was cited as key.

9. Requirements Lead Michelle BrazelThree References YSACWIS Experience NLetter of Intent YSubcontractor NPMP Certified NComplex large project management experience Not substantiated in resumePosition experience YBachelors Degree YMinimum of two years of professional experience in business subject matter area. YAdditional Comments Consilience presented the


9) Requirements Lead10) Business Analyst Lead

10: Business Analyst Lead Michelle BrazelThree References YSACWIS Experience NLetter of Intent YSubcontractor NPMP Certified NComplex large project management experience. Not substantiated in resumePosition experience Y8 or more years of experience in the field/ related area N-4Manages and directs other DDI Business Analysts with 1-7 years experience NPossession of a bachelor’s degree* BA PsychologyAdditional Comments Consilience presented the


9) Requirements Lead10) Business Analyst Lead

11. Quality Assurance/Testing Lead Ruel LohrThree References YSACWIS Experience NLetter of Intent Y


Subcontractor NPMP Certified N8 years of QA/ testing experience YPosition experience YComplex large project management experience. Not substantiated in resumeAdditional Comments



1- Massachusetts Department of Youth Serviceso The Bidder did not provide sufficient technical information. They included very high

level discussions on XML, but lacked enough detail which would allow us to determine the required customization.

o The timing of this implementation is current (September 2010).o The size and scope for this project could not be evaluated because the Bidder did not

provide any details on the volume of clients, or size of the application to compare.o The State conducted a reference check with this client, which was overall positive. They

are implementing ahead of schedule. They noted the Bidder was strong within their own product platform, but wasn’t sure how well they would do working with others. Noted the size of the company was small and that they could see resource constraints as a possible issue.

2- Commonwealth of Massachusetts – o The Bidder did not provide sufficient technical information. o This reference does not meet the size or complexity of the Michigan SACWIS and also

does not meet the number of users or clients the Michigan SACWIS system will have. o The State conducted a reference check, which was overall positive. They did note that

there have been some minor issues with losing customization and release notes. They noted this as a possible issue if you are hosting and not them (which is true for this State of Michigan project).

3- State of Connecticut-Disease Surveillance and Outbreak Management (DSOM)o With the exception of the case management program there were minimal similarities

with the Michigan SACWIS. o This reference does not meet the size or complexity of the Michigan SACWIS and also

does not meet the number of users or clients the Michigan SACWIS will have. o The State conducted a reference check with this client, which was overall positive. They

indicated the “Maintenance costs are brutal”; additionally there could be issues with ongoing enhancements since they would have to enhance their product to meet future requirements. The reference indicated they had done multiple other projects with this vendor, and in a couple of instances the reference tried to push the application beyond its capacity which resulted in poor outcomes.


Pricing Evaluation:



Deloitte Consulting LLPPHASE 1: Technical Scoring Evaluation








25 18



Total 100 69




o During the Bidder’s oral presentation, the Bidder demonstrated a prototype with limited functionality. The Bidder also demonstrated some functionality within the Alabama system. The Bidder demonstrated and/or discussed how they could meet the RFP requirements and demonstrated and/or discussed the required system functionality. During their oral presentation they clarified that all they were bringing was business knowledge from their Alabama system and would build a new system using the Bridges framework, which is an eligibility system.

Strengthso Activity 1: Project Management: The Bidder differentiated between a project plan and

schedule.

o Activity 1: Project Management: Issue and Risk Mgt Plan 1.5 Attachment 1, Page1.104-53: The Bidder stated they would use SharePoint and actually showed how they would use SharePoint.

o Activity 6: Detail Design: Page 1.014-194: The Bidder discussed need to involve State functional and technical leads and the need to provide an overview to all staff attending the JAD’s.

Page 37 of 71Deloitte Consulting LLP

o Activity 9: Testing: Page 1.104-302: The Bidder proposes a time travel environment.

o Activity 12: Technical Training: Page 1.104-427: The Bidder states that it has an extensive track record with multiple states where the client has taken over total control of large public sector projects.

Weaknesseso Activity 15: Implementation and Readiness: Page 64 of the RFP required Bidders to

implement via Big Bang vs Phased Rollout. This was further clarified in Addendum #3 (see response to question #32). The Bidder has proposed a phased approach for statewide implementation – 19 months to Pilot, 6 months to fully operational statewide implementation, which does not meet the RFP requirement. The phased approach will lengthen the conversion process roll-out of a child welfare system across Michigan’s 83 counties and will create significant interim business processes for each field office.

The Bidders description provided in their proposal discussing how they met the States requirement for a big bang implementation strategy showed they recommended a phased approach “despite the RFP requirements”.

RFP Requirements – Statewide Implementation Plan

Brief Description of the Requirement

How Our Solution Meets Your Requirements

A “big bang” implementation strategy

Statewide implementation for all staff affected by the roll-out of the new Michigan SACWIS application at one time; not a phased approach.

Despite the RFP requirements, we recommend a “phased” implementation approach to support the State of Michigan requirements. Deloitte believes that this methodology is best suited to meet the goals outlined by this RFP. Discuss with the State the benefits and disadvantages of the “big bang” implementation strategy.

o Activity 1: Project Management: Resource and Staffing Plan, Attachment 1 Page 16: The Bidder didn’t identify actual FTE’s (number of people in different phases). This demonstrates a lack of clarity as to the number of people they believe would be required.

o Activity 1: Project Management: Quality Management: Attachment 1, Page 36: The Bidder’s provided template for communication plan did not identify any adherence to a governance model which was provided in the procurement library and made available to


bidders. Additionally for risk and issues, there is no consistent reference to a governance model (Page 1.104-53, note: we did find one reference within project plan attachment, and performance review)

o Activity 1: Project Management: Page 1.104-130: The Bidder refers to section 1.500 Acceptance for further details regarding their understanding of the review and approval process for project deliverables. In this section 1.501-2 they addressed Article 2 acceptance criteria, but failed to reference back to the SOW specific deliverable criteria.

o The Bidder’s training assumption conflicted with the RFP requirements on Page 53 that required “Delivery of an electronic version of all end user training material, as well as hard copies of this material for review purposes and for classroom sessions” (see Bidder proposal assumptions from Appendix F, Page F-31)

“We have assumed that Deloitte will provide end user training materials, user manuals, desk guides and other such materials electronically whenever feasible”

o Activity 2: Hardware and Software: Page F-28 of Appendix F: The Bidder included the following assumption related to Hardware and Software Upgrades:

“We have assumed that no hardware or software upgrades will take place on any component used by the SACWIS team during the lifetime of this contract.”

This assumption is incorrect. The normal maintenance of the hardware and software will be maintained throughout the project. Section 2.125 (equipment warranty) requires the Contractor to be responsible for this task. Additionally the Bidder stated they would perform the following on Page 545 of Activity 16.

“Provide warranty support (break fix) during the Warranty Period including monitoring system processing and performance”

o Activity 2: Hardware and Software: see below multiple instances where the Bidder claimed to use the Bridges framework, but they are proposing different solutions and technologies.

Page 1.104-75: The State is currently using ISS/SSA in Bridges for search. Deloitte is recommending Netrics Matching Engine, which is not a part of the current Bridges framework, nor has it been proposed. This contradicts statements that they are proposing the Bridges framework.

Page 1.104-75: The proposed Rules Engine JBOSS BRMS DROOLS is not a part of the current Bridges framework, nor has it been proposed. This does meet the requirement for an open source supported rules engine.

Page 1.104-75: IBM WebSphere Process Server 7 to manage workflow which is not a part of the current Bridges framework, nor has it been proposed. The Bridges framework already has this capability.

o Activity 2: Hardware and Software: Page 1.104-83: The Bidder has proposed conducting a one time performance and load test. This will need to occur more than one time.


o Activity 2: Hardware and Software: Page 1.104-100: The following statement is not accurate, the State will be responsible for installing, based on the Bidders recommendations.

“After these activities, the Deloitte team will install application specific software such as Oracle database, WebSphere, ESB, OPCON, Security software and other COTS products. This will include installation of relevant patches and service packs available that are required for the application to function properly.”

o Activity 3: Conceptual Design: Page 1.104-108 and 109: The Bidder’s diagram states they will update requirements document and post in SharePoint in one place. They state on Page 109 that Rational Requisite Pro was used successfully in Bridges and would be used for SACWIS. The following statement on Page 118 does not support the use of the Rational Case tool suite: “Deloitte updates the requirements traceability matrix to map the requirements to the newly created or updated uses cases, activity diagrams, and storyboards.”

o Activity 7: Development: The Bidder’s proposal has several sections in Activity 7 that refers back to 1.501 acceptance criteria, which does not address deliverable acceptance criteria in Article 1.104.

o Activity 7: Development: Page 1.104-229: Quality Assurance Activities during Development, the Bidder does not recognize the State QC staff in their response to this section.

o Activity 8: Data Conversion and Migration: Page F-29, Appendix F: The Bidders proposal indicated:

“We assume that conversion will address open cases and closed cases in which a family member is younger than 22 years of age.”

This is incorrect since the RFP required bidders to convert all data, and the use of the word family member is incorrect. This shows a lack of SACWIS understanding, and does not address the entire population that would need to be converted.

o Activity 11: End User Training: Page 1.104-386: The Bidder has proposed that DHS provide 9 trainers to assist with policy and business process questions in the classroom. This supports the phased rollout approach which does not meet the RFP requirements.

o Activity 12: Technical Training: Page 1.104-434: The Bidder proposed using Timbuktu to remotely access the desktop, which is no longer a State standard tool.

Appendix C – Mandatory Requirementso The phased roll out negatively impacts the feasibility of all requirements. This approach

would increase risk and require additional State resources.


o The Bidder in many instances appeared understand the business need of the requirements but did not describe their approach in detail.

2. Bidder Staff Information (Score: 18/25)Article 1 – Sec. 1.201 Contractor Staff, Roles, and Responsibilities

o The proposal demonstrated a commitment to providing resources that have experience with SACWIS implementations. Although the proposed SACWIS systems experience is relevant, they have proposed building a system that will not be based on any of their existing SACWIS systems and is instead based on the Bridges Technical Infrastructure.

o The team presented had little or no experience with the proposed Technical Infrastructure.

o The Bidder submitted the same person in multiple positions that was not in accordance with Section 1.201 of the RFP.

o During the Bidder’s oral presentation the Bidder’s team as a whole, did not demonstrate an understanding of the business requirements for the Michigan SACWIS. The discussions were led by their proposed Single Point of Contact, and the majority of Key Personnel in attendance did not discuss their proposed solution.



Nicole Fuller

Three References YSACWIS Experience Y-Alabama, D.C., MarylandLetter of Intent YSubcontractor NPMP Certified NPosition experience YMinimum 7 years complex large project management experience. YAdditional Comments

2. Deputy Project Manager Donna WhitmanThree References YSACWIS Experience Y-AlabamaLetter of Intent YSubcontractor NPMP Certified YPosition experience YComplex large project management experience Not substantiated in resumeAdditional Comments Deloitte presented the same


person for the following positions:2) Deputy Project Manager3) Business Manager

3. Business Manager Donna WhitmanThree References YSACWIS Experience

Y-AlabamaLetter of Intent YSubcontractor

NPMP Certified YComplex large project management experience Not substantiated in resumePossession of a bachelor’s degree in any major* BA BusinessFive to seven years of professional experience = business manager or 7 years of professional experience = lead business analyst level 7+ PE=BMPosition Experience

YAdditional Comments Deloitte presented the same

person for the following positions:2) Deputy Project Manager3) Business Manager

4. IT Manager Robert GriswoldThree References YSACWIS Experience NLetter of Intent YSubcontractor NPMP Certified NComplex large project management experience No indication of project size

or number of peopleTechnical Architect Experience YPosition experience Not substantiated in resumeApplication Development, Data Migration and Data Warehouse No DWAdditional Comments Deloitte presented the same

person for the following positions:4) IT Manager5) Director of Infrastructure


The amount of time required for both of these roles could lead to problems with having 1 person perform both.

Cannot determine project size or # of people supervised;

5. Director of Infrastructure Robert GriswoldThree References YSACWIS Experience NLetter of Intent YSubcontractor NPMP Certified NComplex large project management experience. Not substantiated in resumePosition experience Not substantiated in resumeTechnical Architect Experience YEnterprise and the supporting IT systems and architecture experience YPrefers a Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science, Information Systems, or other related field or equivalent work experience and requires 7 to 10 years of IT work experience BS Business Prior management, supervisory, or team leader experience

Team leader experienceAdditional Comments See Concerns noted in Key

Position #4 above.

6. Data Migration Coordinator Karey BowersThree References YSACWIS Experience NLetter of Intent YSubcontractor NPMP Certified NComplex large project management experience YPosition experience YAdditional Comments DM coordinator

7. Communications Lead John MennellThree References YSACWIS Experience Y-Washington, Oregon,

New Jersey:Page 43 of 71

Deloitte Consulting LLP

Letter of Intent YSubcontractor Y-CGIPMP Certified N5-8 years professional experience=technical senior writer position No TSW experience

Complex large project management experience. YPosition experience Title included

Implementation Manager with some communications experience

Preferred experience NPossession of a bachelor’s degree in any major* BS Public PolicyAdditional Comments Had some skills not strong

or well defined experience regarding communication;

8. Training Coordinator Marci WiseThree References YSACWIS Experience Y-Oregon, New Jersey,

Puerto Rico;Letter of Intent YSubcontractor Y-CGIPMP Certified NComplex large project management experience YPosition experience YPossession of a bachelor’s degree in any major BA SociologyPreferred minimum of five years experience as a training manager or between three to seven years of experience as a trainer

Could not determine experience because primary job had all experience lumped together; At least 3 years TM experience:

Additional Comments Some experience listed as lead functional analyst and co-mingled with training experience;

9. Requirements Lead Prabhakar ArularjThree References YSACWIS Experience Y- AlabamaLetter of Intent YSubcontractor NPMP Certified NComplex large project management experience Not substantiated in resumePosition experience Y


Bachelors Degree Masters Computer ScienceMinimum of two years of professional experience in business subject matter area.

Y

Additional CommentsNot able to discern large project experience

10: Business Analyst Lead Susan DrummondThree References YSACWIS Experience Y-WashingtonLetter of Intent YSubcontractor Y-CGIPMP Certified NComplex large project management experience. YPosition experience Not substantiated in resume8 or more years of experience in the field/ related area Y Manages and directs other DDI Business Analysts with 1-7 years experience Not substantiated in resumePossession of a bachelor’s degree* Resume indicated they had

70 hours towards Bachelors, Additional Comments

11. Quality Assurance/Testing Lead Ronald KingThree References YSACWIS Experience Y-Oregon, New Jersey,

Alaska, Wisconsin, Colorado

Letter of Intent YSubcontractor Y-CGIPMP Certified N8 years of QA/ testing experience YPosition experience Y Complex large project management experience. YAdditional Comments




1- Alabama FACTSo Technology is similar to Michigan SACWIS since it is a web based system. Lacks the

specific technical details such as: database used, development language, environment or tools

o The size and scope of this project was similar, included 67 counties but smaller number of caseworkers (2,300), and smaller number of children vs. Michigan SACWIS.

o The State conducted a reference check with this client, which was overall positive. They indicated they have had Federal Review but no report yet. They expect a very favorable report and have had a hard time coming up with any problems. They were pleased with the Contractor’s technical know-how, and understanding of the federal revenue streams. They indicated knowledge transfer for technical staff was problematic.

2- FACES.NETo This is the system that was transferred to Alabama.o It appears much of this was copied and pasted from the above Alabama system, lacking

technical detail. They transferred this system to Alabama in 2007.o The scope of this project was similar and FACES.NET was the first Web system for

child welfare application in United States to be federally mandated – it is SACWIS compliant.

o The State conducted a reference check with this client, which was overall very positive. The reference stated it was the first .net SACWIS system of this scale. They noted that the vendor was qualified but learning as they went (note this is not the same technology that was used for Bridges, and what they are proposing for SACWIS). The reference indicated Deloitte could have improved their documentation (design, development, etc.) after changes were made.

3- Michigan Bridgeso Michigan SACWIS would be based on Bridges framework, which is web based (J2EE). o The size for this project was larger than Michigan SACWIS in terms of number of users

and system complexity.o The scope of this project was eligibility based and not SACWIS.o The State conducted a reference check with this client, which was overall positive.

Pricing Evaluation:



Mahindra SatyamPHASE 1: Technical Scoring Evaluation








25 6



Total 100 29




Strengthso The Bidder developed a base set of risks for the project. (Pages 14-15)

o Activity 12: Technical Training: The Bidder described the toolsets that the Bidder would be training for in the task, it was asked for in the 12.2 Task.

Weaknesseso The Bidder’s proposal repeated back many of the RFP requirements and did not provide

insight as to how the requirements of the RFP would be met. The State recognizes that all answers and solutions cannot be provided in the Bidder’s proposal. However, development and presentation of a comprehensive approach demonstrating the Bidders understanding and ability to deliver the solution is a key element of a successful proposal. This element was lacking.

o Activity 9: Testing: The Bidder does not identify strategy at a level needed to satisfy the requirements. The Bidder indicates the use of Excel spreadsheets for capturing test scenarios, this approach is not reasonable for a large software project of the SACWIS magnitude. The strategy should include the use of the requirements traceability matrix, and the use of the SUITE testing process. Strategy did not include discussion of environments

Page 47 of 71Mahindra Satyam

or the levels of testing. Defect strategies were not discussed in this strategy. The Bidder did not develop an approach on the unit testing. The Bidder did not document or describe the approach for meeting the specific criteria Task 9.2 - Unit and Integration Test Plan and Documentation or 9.3 - System Test Plan.

o Activity 11: End User Training: The Bidder’s cost proposal included End User Training assumptions that are not acceptable (Appendix F. Page 13)

2 – “Training will be provided at single location for all users and medium instruction and materials would be English.”

This assumption is not reasonable, and directly conflicts with the State’s response to Questions 6 provided in Addendum #8, which indicated the following details surrounding End-User Training:

Cadillac Place – 3038 W. Grand Blvd., Suite CC350, Detroit, MI 482025 Computer Rooms: 4 seat 18; 1 seats 12

Lansing – 7109 W. Saginaw Highway, Lansing, MI 48917 6 Computer Rooms: 1 seats 18; 1 seats 16; 4 seat 12

Grand Rapids – 5321 28th Street Court, SE, Grand Rapids, MI 495463 Computer Rooms: 1 seats 18; 2 seat 12

Saginaw – 4901 Town Centre Suite, 109 or 140, Saginaw, MI 486043 Computer Rooms: Each seat 12

Kalamazoo – 322 Stockbridge Avenue, Kalamazoo, MI 490012 Computer Rooms: Each seat 12

Gaylord – 800 Livingston Blvd., Gaylord, MI 497351 Computer Room: Seats 12

Escanaba – 305 Ludington St., Escanaba, MI 498291 Computer Room: Seats 12

Grand Tower, 235 S. Grand Ave, 9th Floor, Lansing MI 489091 Computer Room: Seats 10

One Michigan Building, 120 N. Washington Square, 3rd Floor, Lansing, MI 489331 Computer Room: Seats 45

o Activity 1: Project Management: The Bidder’s proposal contained no narrative plan that binds the sub-topics together. Proposal Section 1.301 Project Management refers back to Task 1.1 Activity 1 for the Project Plan, but this is a schedule not at plan as requested. There was not a comprehensive narrative plan to tie the elements of a project plan together. The related RFP requirement was provided on Page 72 and stated - The project plan must consider all elements of the State of Michigan’s SUITE PMM-03 including, Work Breakdown, Resource Plan, Risk Management Plan, Quality Plan, Communication Plan, Change Management Plan, IT Budget.

o Activity 1: Project Management, Project Management Tools: The Bidder’s assumptions from the cost proposal Appendix F. Page 13: “Project Management - Mahindra Satyam would use in house tools Viz. OPTIMA and ONTIME for Reporting and Planning respectively”


In the Project Management sections the use of these tools was substantially under developed in the proposal.

o Project Management - Assumptions from the cost proposal Appendix F. Page 13:

The State will commit sufficient staff to review and approve deliverables within 5 business days as identified in the Project Schedule. During this ten-day review, deliverables will be subject to no more than two (2) review cycles: one review and one subsequent review of any necessary changes required by the first review. The second review is limited to only those changes and not intended to introduce new feedback.

This is not an acceptable assumption, this would invalidate the RFP Page 15 “Contractor Schedule for Written Deliverable Submittal”

o Resource and Staffing - Page 17: The Bidder provided some insight to the major roles, but no staffing plan below the highest level. The State could not determine from the plan how many FTE’s would be required at the State facility.

o Scheduling Tasks: The Bidder did not discuss why it assumed the Pilot Go Live would be for 5 counties.

Task 179 Cutover for Pilot Counties (5) Fri 9/14/12

Task 180 Activity 14.3: Pilot Testing starts Mon 10/1/12

o Page 15 indicated “The development methodology has built-in measures in place to take care of any slippage in the iterations”---There is no further development of this item to support how this would abate schedule slippage.

o Risk and Issues - Task 1.401 Issue Management refers back to Project Management Activity. Proposal does say Bidder will keep a log and makes reference to SharePoint but does not develop how the tool will be used or how it will be managed, the topic is under developed.

o The Bidder provided good discussion of Risk but no discussion of Issues or the differentiation of Issue and Risk. (Page 14)

o Risk/Issues/Requirements Change Control Plan (Page 14): The Bidder provided no discussion of escalation and relationship to the Governance Model which was provided in the procurement library and made available to bidders.

o Requirement Change Control Plan (Page 17): The Bidder provided limited development of software tracking or a log for tracking who would assign the work, and how the assignment of change controls would be executed. Once again there was no reference to Governance Model.


o Activity 2 – Hardware and Software Plan and Delivery; Page 2; Zone Diagram: The Bidder has a complete zone annotated diagram but, there is a discrepancy here, Bidder does not understand that all sensitive data goes into Zone 3 not zone 2.

o Activity 3 – Conceptual Design; Page 7: The Bidder’s annotated diagram does not include the State of Michigan’s Zone 3 which is where the databases are hosted;

Page 12 of the RFP which describes the SWSS Technical Environment, pointed out that there are multiple infrastructure zones:

“The network is divided into 4 security zones: Zone 0 is the publicly facing internet for consumers and some vendors. The State intranet is located in Zone 1. Zone 3 is the most secure internal zone. External firewalls exist at a DMZ between Zones 0 and 1, and between Zones 1 and 2…”

Additionally the communication protocols need to be secured. Protocols shown in the diagram above are FTP/HTTP, which are not secure. Those protocols need to be SFTP/HTTPS in doing so this puts a level of overhead on transactions that needs to be calculated into the overall transaction timings.

It appears that the Bidder did attempt to understand the States hosting environments as indicated by the following Page C-136:

“…MSat has analyzed the State’s enterprise standards for deploying enterprise applications. Based on our understanding, MSat has identified various network zones and defined which components will be deployed in specific network zones.”


CitizensBusinesses

Ente

rpris

e Fir

ewall

Case Workers and other internal

Employees

PUBLIC

Firew

all

Firew

all

Zone 0 Internet

Zone 1DMZ Zone 2

Internal

Firewall

Zone 1.49Trusted DMZ

Internet IBM HTTP Server

Web Access Manager

Policy AgentSSL

Termination Point

Web Access Manager

Policy Server WebSphere Application Server

IBM HTTP Server

Web Access Manager

Policy Agent

WebSphere Process Server

Adobe LiveCycle WebSphere

Message Broker

Access Manager JEE Policy Agent

Core App(Internal)

Core App (External)

LDAP

Oracle

Rational Tools

FileNet

DataStage

Load balancer

Load balancer

o The Bidder’s proposal states 4.3: DISASTER RECOVERY PLAN Section 1.104.I.4 – Page 9

“….As shown in the diagram, the users will be connected to the application servers running in virtual machines in primary data center. The application servers will be connected to the Oracle RAC setup where SACWIS data will be hosted and managed. The Oracle Data Guard will be continuously replicating the data from the primary database to the secondary database which will be hosted in the DR site. The DR site will also host a set of physical servers which will be in a standby mode ready to accept and run the virtual machines from the primary data center in case of a disaster.”

This contradicts the proposal costing assumptions at Appendix F Cost Tables Page 46 which states.

“…2. DR site will be cold standby, will be activated only during disaster”

o Activity 4 1.104.I.4 – Page 4 -4: The Bidder’s proposal contains the IBM’s Tivoli Identity Manager solution as an additional software tool in addition to the Novell Identity manager. Later the Tivoli Identity Manager is proposed to do the Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) mechanism. The Bidder makes a statement that they can use either solution but the manager is the only proposed software for the RBAC model. Even though it is on the IT roadmap it is an additional cost for the project. The Bidder is assuming we do have licenses for the Novell but no indication of Tivoli’s product.

o Activity 6 – Detail Design; Page 8; 1st paragraph: The Bidder states that reports reside in the Data Warehouse. This is inferred as an all-encompassing statement. There are reports that will need to be operational based reports, which requires the transaction system to produce them.

o Activity 7 – Development; Page 1; 2nd paragraph: The Bidder states, “...team will involve appropriate staff from the State to participate in the review activities.” This implies limited involvement of State development staff in construction of the system. There is little mention of working with DTMB throughout the Bidder’s proposal.

o Activity 7- Software Development: The Bidder’s whole section was 3 Pages and one sentence on a 4th page. Half of their “plan” was a reiteration of the RFP Vendor and State roles. The plan in 7.1 had no approach and this section lacked detail.

o Activity 10: UAT: on Page 8: The Bidder discussed Entry and Exit information. Although the Bidder mentioned passing defects, the details about testing defect severity levels of Critical, High, Medium, and Low, had not been discussed. The Requirements for this are on Page 39 of the RFP. Also, the Bidder doesn’t mention working with the Quality Assurance/Quality Control as required on Page 15 of the RFP – in the Required Quality and Testing Support area.

o Activity 11: End User Training: The Bidder did not discuss the requirement below and how it would be provided in their roles:


Documentation of the necessary hardware and software to support the efficient ongoing operation and maintenance of the Training Environment(s).

o Activity 12: Technical Training: The Bidder did not address the strategy directly, Bidder only mentions that it will be their role to execute training. This topic is underdeveloped. The Bidder did not go into detail on the types of material would be presented. The Bidder did not describe the method of obtaining the information for the training report. The Bidder’s Technical Training proposal lacked methodology for the project staffing plan.

o Activity 12: Technical Training: The Bidder did not describe types of training in the training plan.

o Activity 15: Implementation and Readiness: The Bidder did not describe the implementation strategy for the big bang approach. The Bidder did not thoroughly describe all needed criteria required in the task.

o Activity 15: Implementation and Readiness: The Bidder describes only the roles they will play in developing the implementation plan.

o Activity 15: Implementation and Readiness: The Bidder’s proposal’s contingency planning was not in the final readiness assessment.

o Activity 16: Transition and Maintenance: The Bidder indicated transfer of knowledge would be done at the time of the application support period. Plan does not go into detail on transitioning strategies throughout the project cycle. Minimal information is provided in this plan. There is no mention of the final system turnover assessment in this activity.

Appendix C – Mandatory Requirementso The Bidder has indicated that all of the requirements would be met by ground up

development efforts.

o Activity 3.1/Appendix C: In Appendix C it is evident that Bidder’s SACWIS system design will be built from the ground up. There is no real evidence of business knowledge and nothing was presented to display or describe what the user would use. There were no screen shots or descriptions linking of requirements to a detailed explanation.


Article 1 – Sec. 1.201 Contractor Staff, Roles, and Responsibilitieso The Bidder did not propose any key resources that had experience with SACWIS

implementations.

o The Bidder submitted the same person in multiple positions that was not in accordance with Section 1.201 of the RFP. Additionally the Bidder presented a technical and functional advisor as POS in addition to DDI; and Created additional key positions.


o The Bidder proposed staff did not meet many of the requirements as outlined below.

o The Bidder did not provide any names or titles for most of their references as indicated below.



Dan Ranking

Three References No names/titlesSACWIS Experience NLetter of Intent YSubcontractor YPMP Certified NPosition experience YMinimum 7 years complex large project management experience. YAdditional Comments Resume detail at a very high

level; PM for SC child support project

2. Deputy Project Manager Joe SimmsThree References No names/titlesSACWIS Experience NLetter of Intent YSubcontractor Y - USA Mgt Sol.PMP Certified NPosition experience YComplex large project management experience YAdditional Comments Has a lot of high profile

project work history

3. Business Manager David SimkinsThree References No names, contact infoSACWIS Experience N

Letter of Intent YSubcontractor Y-Cent for the Supt of

Families

PMP Certified NComplex large project management experience Not substantiated in resume


Possession of a bachelor’s degree in any major* MS EducationFive to seven years of professional experience = business manager or 7 years of professional experience = lead business analyst level

2.5 years

Position Experience N

Additional Comments Presented as training manager and functional lead; Most experience as trainer and analyst

4. IT Manager Elangovan ThinagaranThree References YSACWIS Experience NLetter of Intent YSubcontractor NPMP Certified NComplex large project management experience YTechnical Architect Experience YPosition experience YApplication Development, Data Migration and Data Warehouse Could not specifically pick

out these experiencesAdditional Comments High profile experience by

project title no detail: Only 2.5 years of experience documented

5. Director of Infrastructure Venkat MadadiThree References YSACWIS Experience NLetter of Intent YSubcontractor NPMP Certified NComplex large project management experience. Not substantiated in resumePosition experience Not substantiated in resumeTechnical Architect Experience YEnterprise and the supporting IT systems and architecture experience

Not substantiated in resume


M.S. Computer Science

Prior management, supervisory, or team leader experience Cannot ascertain from resume; detail and time worked lumped together


Additional Comments All resume detail from this company is not arranged to clearly highlight skills with work history

6. Data Migration Coordinator Sankar S.Three References No names, titles or recent

experienceSACWIS Experience NLetter of Intent YSubcontractor NPMP Certified NComplex large project management experience Not substantiated in resumePosition experience Not substantiated in resumeAdditional Comments No recent experience, no

specific detail just lists of assignments; Appears may have position experience by titles;

7. Communications Lead Margaret SimkinsThree References YSACWIS Experience NLetter of Intent YSubcontractor Y-Satyam Comp SerPMP Certified N5-8 years professional experience=technical senior writer position

N-3mosComplex large project management experience. YPosition experience NPreferred experience NPossession of a bachelor’s degree in any major* B.S. PsychologyAdditional Comments Most experience as a

recruiter and analyst.

Mahindra Satyam presented the same person for the following positions:7) Communications Lead8) Training Coordinator

8. Training Coordinator Margaret SimkinsThree References Y


SACWIS Experience NLetter of Intent YSubcontractor Y Satyam Computer

ServicesPMP Certified NComplex large project management experience YPosition experience YPossession of a bachelor’s degree in any major BS PsychologyPreferred minimum of five years experience as a training manager or between three to seven years of experience as a trainer

N-Cannot determine because resume did not detail most recent experience.

Additional Comments Mahindra Satyam presented the same person for the following positions:7) Communications Lead8) Training Coordinator

9. Requirements Lead Catherine WelshThree References YSACWIS Experience NLetter of Intent Y

SubcontractorY-Cent for the Supt of Families

PMP Certified NComplex large project management experience Not substantiated in resumePosition experience NBachelors Degree Masters Social WorkMinimum of two years of professional experience in business subject matter area. Not substantiated in resumeAdditional Comments

10: Business Analyst Lead David SimkinsThree References No names, contact infoSACWIS Experience NLetter of Intent YSubcontractor Y-Cent for the Supt of

FamiliesPMP Certified NComplex large project management experience. Not substantiated in resumePosition experience N8 or more years of experience in the field/ related area N-Maybe 2 yearsManages and directs other DDI Business Analysts with 1-7 years N- No evidence in resume


experiencePossession of a bachelor’s degree* MS EducationAdditional Comments Presented as training

manager and functional lead; Most experience as trainer and analyst

11. Quality Assurance/Testing Lead Uday SThree References YSACWIS Experience NLetter of Intent YSubcontractor NPMP Certified Y8 years of QA/ testing experience Identified in statement but

resume does not display 8 years of History

Position experience YComplex large project management experience. Not substantiated in resumeAdditional Comments



1- Family Automated Client Tracking System (FACTS) - New Mexico Children, Youth and Families o The Bidder did not provide sufficient technical information. o The timing of this implementation is dated (April 1996 – April 1997)o No user information was provided to allow the State to determine if it was similar size

or scope to the Michigan SACWIS.o The vendor did not provide reference contact information for this project.

2- Kentucky Document Management System - Commonwealth of Kentucky Department for Income Support Child Support Enforcemento The Bidder did not provide sufficient technical information. o This project began in August 2010 and is ongoing.o No user information was provided to allow the State to determine if it was similar size

or scope to the Michigan SACWIS.o This system is a Document management system, not related to this RFP.o The State conducted a reference check with this client, which was an overall positive

reference but indicated that the Program Manager was not as sensitive to business needs as he should be.

3- Scotia Bank – Multiple Projects


o The Bidder did not provide sufficient technical information or information on the project to allow the State to evaluate the similarity in technology, size, or scope to the Michigan SACWIS. Their description stated that MSat has been working with Scotia Bank for the last 7 years and involved in major IT initiatives of the bank. Currently 220 resources from MSat are working on various projects for Scotia Bank.

o The State conducted a reference check with this client, which was an overall positive. The reference indicated they had “stuck with the vendor” through their problems. Michigan researched this statement further and discovered that in January 2009, the company Chairman resigned after notifying board members and the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) that Satyam's accounts had been falsified. In April 2009, Satyam was purchased through public auction by Mahindra & Mahindra owned company Tech Mahindra and effective July 2009, Satyam rebranded its services under the new Mahindra management as "Mahindra Satyam" with a new corporate website www.MahindraSatyam.com.

4- Oregon SACWIS - Oregon Department of Human Services o The Bidder did not provide sufficient technical information or information on the

project to allow the State to evaluate the similarity in technology, size, or scope to the Michigan SACWIS. Their description stated the MSAT team was responsible for the training strategy, training plan, instructor led training materials, CBT training materials and user manual.

Pricing Evaluation:



Unisys CorporationPHASE 1: Technical Scoring Evaluation








25 22



Total 100 81

The Joint Evaluation Committee (JEC) determined the Bidder, based on a score of 81, exceeded the minimum passing point threshold of the RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their ability to meet the requirements identified in the Work, Deliverables, and Requirements, Bidder Staff Information, and Bidder Company Information.



o During the Bidder’s oral presentation, the Bidder demonstrated the Tennessee system. The Michigan SACWIS would be built using artifacts from the Tennessee system. The Bidder’s subcontractor DRC rolled this system out as prime vendor in Tennessee. The Unisys/DRC Team will work collaboratively with DHS and DTMB to incorporate additional business requirements needed for the DHS to fulfill the State’s mission. The Bidder demonstrated that the Tennessee system could meet the RFP requirements and demonstrated the requested functionality.

Strengthso Activity 1: Issue and Risk Management: The Bidder identified the use of ClearQuest for

issues (IBM Rational tool set was identified)

o Activity 2: Hardware and Software: The Bidder discussed and recommended a document management system.

o Activity 3: Conceptual Design: Page 72: The Bidder provided a good description using an automated tool. The Bidder would customize the Rational Requisite Pro tool to develop a perspective of the RTM that maps the solution design to the gaps identified in the draft gap analysis.

Page 59 of 71

o Activity 7: Development: Page 152: The Bidder addressed their ability to be operable on other technology platforms. (not just Websphere, but also JBoss Enterprise BRMS)

o Activity 8: Data Conversion and Migration: The Bidder took into account the complexity of the task and the need to include the field in this process. Provided a good discussion on the need to be transparent in this section. Additionally they provided detail on their coding standards, which showed they have well established coding standards.

o Activity 10: UAT: Page 254: The Bidder will complete conversion or be close to completing conversion prior to UAT…this is a positive statement however their iterative development approach would suggest that this would be completed on the first iterative cycle.

An important aspect of establishing the User Acceptance Testing environment is to seed the User Acceptance Testing database with conversion data.

o Activity 12: Technical Training: Page 296: The Bidder discussed their shadow programming in detail as it relates to technical training.

o Activity 15: Implementation and Readiness: Page 341: The Bidder discussed in detail the advantages of the Big Bang implementation and presented a rollback plan.

Weaknesseso Activity 1: The Bidder did not provide the proposed project management plan (was

required in RFP). PMM-03 document includes multiple components, not just the project schedule.

o Activity 1: Page 16.4 (also on Page 17) The Bidder indicated they would conduct planned walkthroughs for major deliverables, but did not discuss their plans to do the same for minor deliverables. (see below from proposal)

4) For major deliverables, Unisys will schedule and conduct a walkthrough of a draft version with the State and then incorporate comments and review results in the final deliverable.

o Activity 1: on Page 381 (where they addressed project management): The Bidder did not discuss the development of the management approach.

o Activity 1: Issue and Risk Management: Page 22: The Bidder included defects in their discussion with issues, and made a risk an outcome of an issue. Defects should be associated with the testing effort.

o Activity 1: Issue and Risk Management: Page 25: Bidder discussed escalation, but did not reference to the State’s governance (The State provided this in the procurement library made available to bidders – but they did not recognize the 3 tiers of governance. There was some high level discussion surrounding governance on Page 14 and Page 79. At Subtask 4.1.2 of the bidder’s proposed system governance was addressed by stating that once the Security framework is defined, the Security Team will develop the

Page 60 of 71

appropriate governance model to meet the requirements within the goals of the State and the RFP. However, this system governance is not the project management governance.

o Activity 3: Conceptual Design: The Bidder proposed moving the conceptual database design (Activity 3) to the Detailed Design phase (Activity 6). This would minimize the amount of time the State would have available to make the changes to the transfer system.For example, the following proposal language provided for Activity 3.2 on Page 71 implies the State would not be fully participating in this activity.

For each of the seven functional teams and the technical/nonfunctional team, the Unisys/DRC Team assumes there will be a State lead, one to three subject matter experts, and one to three technical business analysts. For the technical/nonfunctional team, domain subject matter experts will not be required for all sessions and will be scheduled only when necessary. The Unisys/DRC Team also assumes that additional State policy expert resources will participate as needed with each team and assist in the decision-making process. To achieve the target pilot date, we assume that DHS participants will respond to request for feedback and information within 2 business days.

o Activity 6: Detail Design: Page 115: The Bidder has proposed having 15 iterations used by their 8 teams. This would be complicated due to resource overlap. This method would result in 120 sessions (15x8) taking place over 75 weeks (5x15). Comment provided for Activity 7 Page 145 (different activity) states that the plan includes up to 15 cycles that run from 2-4 weeks, depending on the complexity of the use cases identified for inclusion. This is a direct conflict to the earlier statement on Page 115.

o Activity 9: Testing: The Bidder did not provide discussion of QC processes or the integration of the QC vendor. The only 2 reference in the proposal were from our original RFP.

o Activity 11: End User Training: The following issues were noted as they relate to End User Training:

The Bidder proposed task based vs. role based – but the approach was not focused. They proposed the same approach as security (focusing on the task vs. the people)

Just In Time schedule proposing a 2 day classroom training session which is not feasible for end to end delivery. (Page 271)

o Activity 12: Technical Training: The Bidder suggested the State would provide facilities for making copies of training material, and did not discuss updating of training materials.

o Activity 13: Help Desk: The Bidder didn’t provide what was required in the RFP under contractor responsibilities for the Help Desk transition plan in 13.4.

o Activity 13: Help Desk: Page 310: The Bidder will use Remedy to track, but will turn Remedy into incident tickets. (see from response below)

Page 61 of 71

1. On taking a call, the Help Desk will verify what the user is asking for and attempt to resolve the issue immediately.

2. Help Desk staff will use the State-provided Remedy tracking tool to record all calls in an Incident Report.

3. If a problem cannot be resolved immediately, the Incident Report will include all supporting data, such as screen prints of the problem, and complete incident documentation.

4. Incident tracking will include researching the problem and submitting it to the policy team for a decision or to the application team for correction. If the application needs to be modified, Help Desk staff will forward the incident report to the Unisys application team for resolution.

5. An incident will be closed when the incident is resolved, either by delivering the required information to the user or by migrating the fix to the Production environment.

o Activity 15: Implementation and Readiness: Page 337: The RFP requirement is for a 2-second window, they proposed 3-second window.

Activity 15.2.1 provides a discussion on the minimum bandwidth necessary to process and transmit common SACWIS transactions within the 3-second window.

Appendix C – Mandatory Requirementso The response to Appendix C did not address requirement (55379) within the matrix.

Page 21 of Appendix C. However the Bidder provided a description of their compliance within the detailed description box.

o The Bidder’s response to Appendix C, indicated there may be high effort, despite some prior company experience with SACWIS systems. As examples, the following areas: archive/purge solution, linking, multiple concurrent case types, case merge, collateral contacts - share, roles, error reporting.

Page 62 of 71


Article 1 – Sec. 1.201 Contractor Staff, Roles, and Responsibilitieso The Bidder’s proposal demonstrated a commitment to providing resources that have

experience with SACWIS implementations, including the transfer system they have proposed for the Michigan SACWIS.


o During the Bidder’s oral presentation the Bidder’s team clearly understood and demonstrated the business requirements for the Michigan SACWIS and the team presented, was able to perform their assigned roles and responsibilities. Multiple staff members could speak to system functionality and they were able to respond to both business and technical related clarification questions.



Bill Thornton

Three References No-2SACWIS Experience NLetter of Intent YSubcontractor NPMP Certified YPosition experience YMinimum 7 years complex large project management experience. N-5 years, Resume only

provides work history from 2005-2010 w/ no project size info;

Additional Comments

2. Deputy Project Manager Robert PlummerThree References YSACWIS Experience Y-Tenn; Ohio;Wisc;Letter of Intent YSubcontractor Y-DRCPMP Certified YPosition experience YComplex large project management experience Several large SACWIS

projects that were of similar size and scope to Michigan.

Additional Comments Has extensive progressive SACWIS experience

Page 63 of 71

3. Business Manager Timothy A OrientThree References YSACWIS Experience Y-IndianaLetter of Intent YSubcontractor NPMP Certified YComplex large project management experience YPossession of a bachelor’s degree in any major* BS Computer ScienceFive to seven years of professional experience = business manager or 7 years of professional experience = lead business analyst level

Could not discern years because of resume layout

Position Experience YAdditional Comments No work experience listed

since 2008

4. IT Manager Christopher D. CoxThree References YSACWIS Experience Y-IndianaLetter of Intent YSubcontractor NPMP Certified YComplex large project management experience YTechnical Architect Experience NPosition experience Not substantiated in resumeApplication Development, Data Migration and Data Warehouse No DWAdditional Comments Provided three references

from previous project but not current project.

5. Director of Infrastructure Matt FlorianThree References YSACWIS Experience NLetter of Intent YSubcontractor NPMP Certified NComplex large project management experience. Not substantiated in resumePosition experience Not substantiated in resumeTechnical Architect Experience YEnterprise and the supporting IT systems and architecture experience YPrefers a Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science, Information Systems, or other related field or equivalent work experience and requires 7 to 10 years of IT work experience MBA

Page 64 of 71

Prior management, supervisory, or team leader experience<1 year TL of team of 12

Additional Comments Individual has 4-5 years TA exp: Difficult to identify large project or lead experience;

6. Data Migration Coordinator Rebekah DarnellThree References YSACWIS Experience NLetter of Intent YSubcontractor NPMP Certified YComplex large project management experience YPosition experience YAdditional Comments Resume showed experience

as PM, but did not show any data migration experience.

7. Communications Lead Garland KemperThree References N-2, No names. titlesSACWIS Experience Y-IndianaLetter of Intent YSubcontractor NPMP Certified Y5-8 years professional experience=technical senior writer position N

Complex large project management experience. YPosition experience Not substantiated in resumePreferred experience NPossession of a bachelor’s degree in any major* MBAAdditional Comments DDI and Tech Mgr Exp;

Not any Comm Mgr exp

8. Training Coordinator Virginia SmithThree References YSACWIS Experience Y-Tenn;Letter of Intent YSubcontractor Y-DRCPMP Certified NComplex large project management experience Not substantiated in resumePosition experience YPossession of a bachelor’s degree in any major BA Hispanic StudiesPreferred minimum of five years experience as a training manager 4 years TM/ 1 year Instr

Page 65 of 71

or between three to seven years of experience as a trainer DesAdditional Comments Please note that this person

did not commit 100% of time to some positions

9. Requirements Lead John KellyThree References YSACWIS Experience NLetter of Intent YSubcontractor NPMP Certified NComplex large project management experience Not substantiated in resumePosition experience YBachelors Degree Masters JournalismMinimum of two years of professional experience in business subject matter area. Not substantiated in resumeAdditional Comments

10: Business Analyst Lead Mike StubbsThree References YSACWIS Experience Y-Tenn, Wisconsin, OhioLetter of Intent YSubcontractor Y-DRCPMP Certified NComplex large project management experience. Not substantiated in resumePosition experience Not substantiated in resume8 or more years of experience in the field/ related area Not substantiated in resumeManages and directs other DDI Business Analysts with 1-7 years experience Not substantiated in resume Possession of a bachelor’s degree* BS.EconomicsAdditional Comments Application Dev Mgr, BA

for 4 years; No detail on project size or # supervised.

11. Quality Assurance/Testing Lead Juan RibotThree References YSACWIS Experience NLetter of Intent YSubcontractor NPMP Certified Y8 years of QA/ testing experience YPosition experience Y Complex large project management experience. Not substantiated in resume

Page 66 of 71

Additional Comments



The following 3 references were provided for the Prime Vendor Unisys:

1- California- EDD Document Management Refresh and Consolidation (DMRC)o This project was for upgrading and replacing critical business applications and

equipment, including the existing network infrastructure, server and workstation equipment; consolidating applications; and establishing a Microsoft.NET architecture strategy. The description lacked specific technical detail.

o The description indicated the project was of similar complexity, but the system is not related to SACWIS.

o The State conducted a reference check with this client, which was overall positive. They indicated it was a huge project for an archive system as opposed to a transaction system. They indicated that sometimes when coding, the vendor was not always following standards but that this was true for their own staff as well.

2- Indiana Child Welfare Information System (ICWIS)o Technology is 16 years old, and proposal lacked specific detail. o Their contract included 2 additional maintenance and enhancement contractso The scope of this project was similar and included many similar business functions.o The size for this project is similar size but lacked specific detail.o The State conducted a reference check with this client, which was overall positive. They

indicated the vendor was the least expensive and was the most comprehensive bid. They discussed some difficulty dealing with their reporting system.

3- Electronic Eligibility Decision Support System (EEDSS) New Yorko This project is for an Eligibility Medicaid System that consists of using a COTS product

(Siebel e-advisor as the basis for the framework).o The technology is not similar to what they are proposing for the Michigan SACWIS o The size and scope for this project are smaller than this RFP. o The State conducted a reference check with this client, which was overall positive. They

indicated that they were very pleased with their services and do not want to lose them in supporting this system.

The State also reviewed the reference provided for Subcontractor (DRC) for transfer system they have proposed for the Michigan SACWIS:

Tennessee TFACTSo DRC (Unisys proposed Subcontractor) was the prime contractor responsible for the

design, development, and implementation of the Tennessee SACWIS system.o This is the system they are proposing to build upon to create the Michigan SACWIS.o Technology is similar to Michigan SACWIS and is J2EE web based.

Page 67 of 71

o The scope and size of this project was similar to Michigan SACWIS, and they have stated this system meets 78% of mandatory and 65% of optional requirements out of the box

o The State conducted a reference check with this client, which was overall very positive. The reference was able to clarify that another vendor was prime on their project but is assuming DRC is a part of Michigan’s proposed vendor for our project. The reference commented on the satisfactory level of executive management on the project. The reference also noted that sub-contractor relationships led to some problems on the timeliness of some project tasks and activities. It was noted however the DRC team was able to “right the ship” and get those parts of the schedule back under control.

Ohio SACWIS DRCo DRC was the prime contractor responsible for the design, development, and

implementation of the Ohio SACWIS system. This is the system that the Tennessee TFACTS was based on.

The State contacted additional system users for the bidders that passed the technical evaluation.o The State contacted a user of the Tennessee TFACTS system who was not identified in

the RFP. The contact indicated the following: Largest benefit of TFACTS is the amount of information TFACTS can hold

and process is much greater than our old system. Things that were held in paper files can now be stored in the system

Spoke with Regional manager where TFACTS was rolled out in September 2010. She indicated it was continuing to have improvements made and can see staff benefiting from the new system. The additional real-time access to data and reports is a large benefit to the system.

System has good performance and up-time Technology as described, is similar to what Michigan has on their technology

roadmaps Most of the frustration right now is due to a lack of training or different areas of

the system not functioning as designed. Vendor is being responsive implementing changes to address issues

Pricing Evaluation: The Bidder received a technical score of 81 and therefore their pricing was evaluated.

Page 68 of 71

Pricing Evaluation: The State provided bidders with an opportunity to re‐assess their pricing to determine if they were able to provide the State pricing reductions without modifying their technical proposal. Additionally the State requested clarification as to whether bidders could still meet the October, 2012 Pilot Date, assuming a Contract Start date of March 21st.

The State reviewed pricing for the 2 bidders that met the minimum scoring criteria. A summary of this analysis is provided below:

Pricing for Mandatory Requirements and Reserved Bank of HoursEvaluation

ScorePrice for Mandatory

Requirements and Reserved Bank of Hours

(Prior to pricing negotiations)1) Does not include pricing for

equipment or software (Table 5,6)2) Does not include pricing for

Optional features (Table 4,4a)

Price for Mandatory Requirements and Reserved

Bank of Hours (Post pricing negotiations)

1) Does not include pricing for equipment or software (Table 5,6)

2) Does not include pricing for Optional features (Table 4,4a)

Accenture 91 $47,679,563 $47,679,563* Accenture provided an

Alternative ProposalUnisys 81 $40,750,000 $39,600,800

* In response to the States request for best pricing, Accenture’s response included modifications to assumptions that changed the terms of their original submitted technical proposal. This was determined to be an alternative proposal that was not acceptable to the State.

Pricing for Mandatory Requirements, Reserved Bank of Hours, and Additional RequirementsEvaluation

ScorePrice for Mandatory

Requirements, Reserved Bank of Hours, and Additional

Requirements (Prior to pricing negotiations)

1) Does not include pricing for equipment or software (Table 5,6)

Price for Mandatory Requirements, Reserved Bank

of Hours, and Additional Requirements

(Post pricing negotiations)1) Does not include pricing for

equipment or software (Table 5,6)

Accenture 91 $54,360,502 $54,360,502* Accenture provided an Alternative Proposal

Unisys 81 $47,303,560 $45,459,770

* In response to the States request for best pricing, Accenture’s response included modifications to assumptions that changed the terms of their original submitted technical proposal. This was determined to be an alternative proposal that was not acceptable to the State.

Page 69 of 71

Evaluation SummaryBased on the proposals submitted and the terms of the RFP requirements, the JEC recommends to the Director of Purchasing that the award recommendation be made to Unisys Corporation. The Unisys proposal met the requirements of the RFP and offered a substantial cost savings to the State compared to the other passing vendor.

Page 70 of 71

I agree with the Synopsis as written:

_______________________________________________________Jennifer Wrayno DateDepartment of Human Services

_______________________________________________________Laurie Johnson DateDepartment of Human Services

_______________________________________________________Rich DeMello DateDepartment of Technology, Management and Budget

_______________________________________________________Tess Layman DateDepartment of Technology, Management and Budget

_______________________________________________________Steve Motz DateDepartment of Technology, Management and Budget

Page 71 of 71

Documents

· Web viewThis is incorrect since the RFP required bidders to convert all data, and the use of the word family member is incorrect. This shows a lack of SACWIS understanding, and