Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

Interoffice Memo

VIEWS: 3 PAGES: 10

									      Interoffice Memo                                                     RFP #071I0200010


To:               Greg Faremouth, Director
                  Purchasing Operations

From:             Pamela Platte, Buyer
                  Purchasing Operations

Date:             March 9, 2010

Subject:          Award of RFP - #071I0200010 – IT Surplus Recovery



      GENERAL:

      The purpose of this RFP is to obtain proposals from corporations qualified to provide IT
      Surplus Recovery Services to dispose of excess desktops, notebooks, servers, storage
      or networking devices, monitors, printers, projectors, miscellaneous electronic
      equipment, mobile media and computer peripherals such as keyboards and mice for the
      Michigan Department of Information Technology. The term of the contract is for an
      initial 3 year period with two one year options, by written mutual consent of the
      primary contractor and the State.


      JOINT EVALUATION COMMITTEE:

      The Joint Evaluation Committee (JEC) for this RFP consisted of the following individuals:

      Pamela Platte, Buyer                        Michael Breen, DIT
      Department of Management & Budget           Department of Information Technology
      Purchasing Operations                       Contract Portfolio Management
      Mason Bldg, 2nd Floor                       (517) 241-7720
      (517) 335-4804                              BreenM@michigan.gov
      PlatteP1@michigan.gov

      Chad Hardin, DIT                            Darrell Dontje, DIT
      Department of Information Technology        Department of Information Technology
      Depot Maintenance & Logistics               Enterprise Security
      (517) 241-1441                              (517) 335-6490
      HardinC1@michigan.gov                       DontjeD@michigan.gov

      Michele London, DIT                         Mary Ladd, DIT
      Department of Information Technology        Department of Information Technology
      Depot Maintenance & Logistics               Office Automation Services
      (517) 241-1651                              (517) 636-6156
      LondonM@michigan.gov                        LaddM@michigan.gov




                                               1 of 10
BIDDERS:

RFP was posted on the DMB Website on November 6, 2009. Four (4) organizations
submitted responses to this RFP by the published due date of December 4, 2009:

               1.      Global Electric Electronics Processing (GEEP)
               2.      Re.sources Partners
               3.      Native Resources, LLC
               4.      Paragon Green


     3.020     Award Process

3.021 Method of Evaluation
A Joint Evaluation Committee, chaired by DMB Purchasing Operations, will evaluate
proposals.

3.022 Evaluation Criteria
The following chart represents the scoring of the particular factors:

                         Evaluation Criteria                            Weight
               1.        Technical Solution (Article 1)                  50
               2.        Logistics capability (Article 1)                10
               3.        Staffing & Organization (Article 1)              5
               4.        Prior Comparable Experience (Article 5)         35
               Total                                                     100

Oral Presentation
A Bidder may be required to make an oral presentation to the State. This presentation
provides an opportunity for the Bidder to clarify their proposal through mutual
understanding. If required, Purchasing Operations will schedule the oral presentation.

Site Visit
The State may conduct a site visit to tour and inspect the Bidder’s facilities. Purchasing
Operations will schedule these visits, if required.

3.023 Price Evaluation
Only those proposals receiving a score of (70) points or more of the total maximum
possible score will be considered for award.

All price proposals will be opened. However, prices will only be evaluated from those
Bidders meeting the minimum point threshold.

3.024 Award Recommendation
The award recommendation will be made to the responsive and responsible Bidder who
offers the best value to the State of Michigan. Best value will be determined by the
Bidder meeting the minimum point threshold and offering the best combination of the
factors stated in Section 3.022, and price, as demonstrated by its proposal.

3.025 Reservations
The State reserves the right to:



                                          2 of 10
   Consider total cost of ownership factors in the award recommendation (transition
    costs, training costs, etc.).
   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 would be served.
   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.

3.026 Award Decision
Award recommendation will be made to the Director of Purchasing Operations for review
and approval.

3.027 Protests
Bidder wishing to protest the award recommendation must submit a protest, in writing,
by 5:00 p.m. on the date stated on the notice of award recommendation. Bidder must
include the RFP number and clearly state the facts believed to constitute error in the
award recommendation along with the desired remedy. More information is available at
www.michigan.gov/buymichiganfirst; click on the “Vendor Information” link.

3.028 State Administrative Board
The State Administrative Board (SAB) must approve all contracts/purchase orders in
excess of $25,000. The decision of the SAB regarding the award recommendation is
final. However, SAB approval does not constitute a Contract. The award process is not
complete until the Bidder receives a properly executed Contract or Purchase Order from
DMB Purchasing Operations.




                                          3 of 10
A. Global Electric Electronics Processing (GEEP)             Pass:     Fail:   Points: 70

Evaluation Matrix:

                   Evaluation Criteria                         Weight   Score
           1.      Technical Solution (Article 1)               50        31
           2.      Logistics capability (Article 1)             10        7
           3.      Staffing & Organization (Article 1)           5        2
           4.      Prior Comparable Experience (Article 5)      35        30
           Total                                                100       70

Summary:
   GEEP has prior experience similar to the size and scope of work the State of
    Michigan (SoM) requires in relation to IT Surplus Recovery Services to dispose
    of excess desktops, notebooks, servers, storage or networking devices,
    monitors, printers, projectors, miscellaneous electronic equipment, mobile media
    and computer peripherals such as keyboards and mice. The vendor has
    complied with the statement of work and provides a solution in how they plan to
    meet the requirements for this RFP.

Strengths of the Proposal Component:

      Vendor has ADT for security on the building.
      Vendor has procedures for shredding in place
      Vendor will scan serial number and assign their own unique barcode.
      Vendor has low landfill rate.
      GEEP will palletize and package onsite.
      Vendor will provide a designated SoM area.
      Vendor has their own trucking through a joint venture partner, Great Lakes
       Recycling.
      Vendor clearly identified organizational chart and downstream partners.
      Vendor currently holds a national contract with Verizon, Inc.

Weaknesses of the Proposal Component:
      Vendor did not express the knowledge or process for mobile media which is a
       requirement in section 1.104 in General Services of the RFP.
      All employees of GEEP receive training only at hire, but NIST 800-53 requires at
       least once a year.
      GEEP uses its own software which is not NSA certified for wiping software as
       required by NIST.
      Vendor does not have security cameras for their building internally or externally,
       as required in a case where NIST requirements on physical security are not
       followed.
      Vendor could not provide what their complete chain of custody process is, as
       required in section 1.104 in General Services of the RFP.
      Vendor does not have sufficient staffing for the size and scope of work for this
       RFP.
      Vendor was not aware of NIST requirements on physical security.

Pricing:

      Vendor’s price proposal was at a cost to the State of Michigan. The RFP
       requirement was for this to be at no cost to the state.




                                         4 of 10
B. Re.source Partners             Pass:       Fail:    Points: 84

Evaluation Matrix:

                  Evaluation Criteria                        Weight    Score
          1.      Technical Solution (Article 1)              50         42
          2.      Logistics capability (Article 1)            10         9
          3.      Staffing & Organization (Article 1)          5         5
          4.      Prior Comparable Experience (Article 5)     35         28
          Total                                               100        84

Summary:
   Re.source Partners has prior experience similar to the size and scope of work
    the State of Michigan (SoM) requires in relation to IT Surplus Recovery Services
    to dispose of excess desktops, notebooks, servers, storage or networking
    devices, monitors, printers, projectors, miscellaneous electronic equipment,
    mobile media and computer peripherals such as keyboards and mice. The
    vendor has complied with the statement of work and provides a clear solution in
    how they plan to meet the requirements for this RFP.

Strengths of the Proposal Component:
       Vendor provides “scan on site” service.
       Once a month Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) tests the vendors
          hard drives onsite to make certain the hard drives are wiping clean.
       Vendor’s proposal demonstrated awareness that more than PC’s hold data
          and those devices will also need to be wiped.
       Vendor referenced during the evaluation process the SoM expects all
          customer identification labels are recorded and removed.
       Vendor destroys any drive that fails the overwrite in their verification process.
       Vendor has impressive downstream (2trg) and the downstream is a qualified
          e-steward following the Basel Action Network (BAN) regulations, certified in
          e-waste.
       Vendor possessed strong internal policies and procedures.
       Vendor purchases supplies from a persons with disabilities owned business
          (Veterans).
       Re.source Partners will stack and palletize all equipment on site.
       Vendor is zero landfill.
       Vendor authorized by Dell as Dell Partner.
       Vendor provides online reports through iOD web portal at no additional costs
          so SoM can pull all information from the vendor’s web portal.
       Vendor owns their own trucking.
       Vendor audits downstreams and has SLA’s in place with them.
       Vendor has sufficient staff to manage the size and scope of work for this
          RFP.
       Vendor has a contract with Whirlpool Corporation.

Weaknesses of the Proposal Component:
   Vendor does not have a formal process for following the paper chain of custody
     through their transition in becoming the electronic chain of custody.
   Vendor does not sufficiently satisfy the subcontractor section 4.014 of the RFP
     for calling out subcontractor information.
   Vendor can drill a hole in the hard drive, but they cannot tell us how big the hole
     has to be. The state requires a minimum of ¾”, see section 1.104 General
     Services, State policy and regulation.
   Vendor did not provide NSA certification for the wiping software used according
     to NIST requirements.
   Vendor was not aware of NIST requirements on physical security.


                                         5 of 10
Pricing:

      Vendor’s proposed total for the price paid to the State per lot for each of the
       components in the RFP cost table totals $1,220.00.




                                          6 of 10
C. Native Resources, LLC.                     Pass:      Fail:       Points: 21

Evaluation Matrix:

                  Evaluation Criteria                        Weight     Score
          1.      Technical Solution (Article 1)              50          10
          2.      Logistics capability (Article 1)            10          1
          3.      Staffing & Organization (Article 1)          5          0
          4.      Prior Comparable Experience (Article 5)     35          10
          Total                                               100         21

Summary:
   Native Resources, LLC does not have prior experience similar to the size and
    scope of work the State of Michigan (SoM) requires in relation to IT Surplus
    Recovery Services to dispose of excess desktops, notebooks, servers, storage
    or networking devices, monitors, printers, projectors, miscellaneous electronic
    equipment, mobile media and computer peripherals such as keyboards and
    mice. Although, the vendor has complied with the statement of work they have
    not provided a workable solution to meet the requirements for this RFP.

Strengths of the Proposal Component:
       Vendor building is sole occupancy, has security monitoring, security cameras.
          inside and out and is surrounded by a link fence 15 ft in height with barb wire
          at top.
       Vendor has a caged area floor to ceiling locked for SoM equipment.
       Vendor has locked trailers and the SoM has a key along with the contractor
          technician.
       Vendor trucks are unloaded inside the building.
       Vendor is zero landfill.

Weaknesses of the Proposal Component:
      While Native Resources checked the box that they would comply with the
        requirements of A, B, C, and D of the statement of work, they were not able
        to communicate how they would comply.
      Vendor could not clearly identify their business practices and stated they do
        not have formal procedures.
      Vendor did not have an understanding of NIST 800-53.
      Vendor does not have contracts or SLAs in place with their
        subcontractors/downstream partners.
      In section 4.014 the vendor does not list their subcontractors after they
        selected yes to the questions of whether they use subcontractors.
      Vendor does not have a formal chain of custody as required in section 1.104
        General Services of the RFP.
      Vendor will provide shredding through a third party with no chain of custody.
      Vendor does not have the staff, resources and policies to manage a scope of
        work this size.
      Vendor’s organizational chart is confusing – showing double headed arrows.
      Vendor does provide security training policy/awareness, but only upon hiring
        and change in procedures, but NIST 800-53 requires at least once a year.
      As a new company the vendor is unclear in the understanding of the role of
        the SPOC. The job requires more than just paperwork.
      Vendor failed to complete the contact information for their company reference


                                        7 of 10
           of Saturn Electronics.
          Vendor failed to provide three prior experiences, as required in section 5.014.
          Vendor was not aware of NIST requirements on physical security.
          Vendor does not monitor security cameras.
          Vendor does not have cameras in the data sanitization area, as required in a
           case where NIST requirements on physical security are not followed.

Pricing:

      Non-responsive




                                         8 of 10
D. Paragon Green                               Pass:        Fail:      Points: 73

Evaluation Matrix:

                   Evaluation Criteria                         Weight     Score
           1.      Technical Solution (Article 1)               50          30
           2.      Logistics capability (Article 1)             10          9
           3.      Staffing & Organization (Article 1)           5          4
           4.      Prior Comparable Experience (Article 5)      35          30
           Total                                                100         73

Summary:
   Paragon Green has prior experience similar to the size and scope of work the
    State of Michigan (SoM) requires in relation to IT Surplus Recovery Services to
    dispose of excess desktops, notebooks, servers, storage or networking devices,
    monitors, printers, projectors, miscellaneous electronic equipment, mobile media
    and computer peripherals such as keyboards and mice. The vendor has
    complied with the statement of work and provides a solution in how they plan to
    meet the requirements for this RFP.


Strengths of the Proposal Component:
       Vendor has their own trucking.
       Vendor has a hydraulic press to double hole punch the hard drives which is
          currently their process.
       Vendor has a separation of duties.
       Vendor provided additional informative corporate information.
       Vendor has security cameras in their data sanitation area.
       Vendor has GPS software for the trucking.
       Vendor is offering a solution for statewide extra pick ups.
       Vendor pick up is local to Lansing.

Weaknesses of the Proposal Component:
      Vendor did not address section 1.104 D. in regard to what they would provide
        the SOM in reporting.
      Vendor did not demonstrate the knowledge of NIST 800-53.
      Vendor did not have formal chain of custody as required in section 1.104
        General Services of the RFP.
      Vendor did not express the knowledge or process for mobile media which is a
        requirement in section 1.104 in General Services of the RFP.
      Vendor did not provide logistic information as to how their business can
        provide for the Detroit pick ups.
      Vendor’s organizational chart does not show connectivity between SPOC and
        Operational Activity.
      Vendor did not provide sufficient detail in the description of work box for prior
        experiences in section 5.014.
      Vendor provided two prior experiences when section 5.014 required a
        minimum of three prior experiences.
      Vendor was not aware of NIST requirements on physical security.

Pricing:

      Vendor’s proposed total for the price paid to the State per lot for each of the
       components in the RFP cost table totals $685.00.




                                          9 of 10
Evaluation Summary

                          Weight      GEEP      Re.source    Native         Paragon
                                                Partners     Resources      Green
  Statement of Work       50          31        42           10             30
  (Article 1)* Vendor
  Information
  Prior Experience        35          7         9            1              9

  Staffing                5           2         5            0              4

  Logistic Capability     10          30        28           10             30

  TOTAL                   100         70        84           21             73




Award Recommendation:

Award recommendation is made to Re.source Partners as the responsive and
responsible bidder offering the best value (price and technical solution) to the State of
Michigan. Best value was determined by the bidder meeting the minimum point
threshold and offering the best price.


I, ___________________________ Agree with the synopsis as written this day March 9,
2010.

____________________________


____________________________


____________________________


____________________________

____________________________

____________________________




                                           10 of 10

								
To top