To: Greg Faremouth, IT Division Director GENERAL108104/1...Staffing (Article 1) • Section 1.201 Contractor Staff, Roles and Responsibilities • Staffing Plan Matrix and Organization

- 1 -

Interoffice Memo RFP #071I2200107

To: Greg Faremouth, IT Division Director DTMB Procurement

From: Steve Motz, IT Division Buyer DTMB Procurement

Date: June 21, 2012

Subject: Award of RFP – 071I2200107 – Central Reservation System

GENERAL: The State of Michigan (State), through the Department of Technology, Management and Budget (DTMB) in partnership with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) to solicit bids from qualified firms to host a solution currently known as the “Central Reservation System” CRS. JOINT EVALUATION COMMITTEE: The Joint Evaluation Committee (JEC) for this RFP consisted of the following individuals:

Voting Members Technical Advisors • David Borzenski - DTMB • Denise Gruben - DNR • Harold Herta - DNR • Steve Motz - DTMB

• Syed Ahmed - DTMB • John Baer DTMB • Mark Breithart - DTMB • Scot Ellsworth - DTMB • Theresa Griffin - DNR • Sharon Maynard - DNR • Linda Pung - DTMB • Rajender Razdan - DTMB • Lee Sayles - MDOT • Christa Sturtevant - DNR • Brenda Vincent - Treasury • Mark Zehner - DTMB

BIDDERS: RFP was posted on the DTMB Website on March 12, 2012. Three (3) organizations submitted responses to this RFP by the published due date of April 24, 2012:

A. Camis USA Inc B. The Active Network C. US eDirect

Award Process

Method of Evaluation Proposals were evaluated by a Joint Evaluation Committee chaired by DTMB Procurement. Step 1: Minimum Mandatory Requirements

- 2 -

To advance to Step 2 of the evaluation process, bidders had to meet the Minimum Mandatory Requirement. The State determined that all three (3) bidders met the following minimum mandatory requirement:

The Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) CRS being proposed must currently be in production in at least one (1) governmental entity.

Step 2: Weighted Evaluation Following the determination of the pass/fail review of the mandatory minimum requirement, all Bidders were evaluated against the Evaluation Criteria outlined in section 3.022 of the published RFP.

Oral Presentation: The State requested that all vendors within the competitive range conduct an oral presentation of their proposal. Price Evaluation Only those proposals receiving a score of eighty (80) points or more of the total maximum possible score were considered for award. All price proposals were opened. However, prices were only evaluated from those Bidders meeting the minimum point threshold. Evaluation of price proposals included consideration for a Qualified Disabled Veteran Preference. Public Act 431 of 1984, as amended, establishes a preference of up to 10% for businesses owned by qualified disabled veterans meeting the minimum point threshold for passing. Pricing Negotiations The State entered into negotiations with Bidders on price. No modification to the technical proposal was allowed. The State requested that all vendors within the

Weight 1. Statement of Work (Article 1)

• Section 1.103 Environment • Section 1.104 Work and Deliverables • Business/Technical Requirements (Appendix A) • Hardware Requirements (Appendix B) • Service Level Agreement (Appendix C)

40

2. Staffing (Article 1) • Section 1.201 Contractor Staff, Roles and Responsibilities • Staffing Plan Matrix and Organization Chart (Appendix F) • Personnel Resume Templates (Appendix G)

20

3. Project Management (Article 1) • Preliminary Project Plan (Appendix H) • Section 1.301 Project Plan Management • Section 1.302 Reports • Section 1.401 Issue Management • Section 1.402 Risk Management • Section 1.403 Change Management

10

4. Prior Experience (Article 4) • Required Bidder Information

30

TOTAL

100

- 3 -

competitive range submit updated pricing to reflect any pricing reductions they were able to provide the State at this time. Award Recommendation The award recommendation was made to the responsive and responsible Bidder who offered the best value to the State of Michigan. Best value was 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. Reference Calls The State contacted references for those vendors within the competitive range. Reservations The State reserves the right to: a. consider total cost of ownership factors in the final award recommendation (i.e.

transition costs, training costs, etc.). c. award by item, part or portion of an item, group of items or total proposal, to

reject any and all proposals in whole or in part, if, in the Director of DTMB Procurement’ judgment, the best interest of the State will be so served.

d. 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.

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

f. 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.

g. 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)

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

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

State Administrative Board The State Administrative Board (SAB) must approve all contracts and purchase orders in excess of $250,000. The decision of the SAB regarding the award recommendation is final. However, SAB approval does not constitute a contract. The award process is not complete until the Bidder receives a properly executed Contract or Purchase Order.

Camis USA Inc.

- 4 -

EVALUATION RESULTS: A. Camis USA Inc

1. Statement of Work (Article 1) – 38/40 Points Possible • Section 1.103 Environment • Section 1.104 Work and Deliverables • Business/Technical Requirements (Appendix A) • Hardware Requirements (Appendix B) • Service Level Agreement (Appendix C)

Strengths: • The Bidder demonstrated a clear understanding of DNR field staff's need to

provide very fast transaction processing at the park. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A - Section 1, Page 12)

• Provided good description on the ability of the solution to query sites at multiple park locations, and drill down. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A - Section 1, Page 14)

• The solution allows for broad search capability for the web user when looking for available dates and sites. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A - Section 2, Page 14)

• The Bidder demonstrated an understanding of the diverse connectivity and hardware needs for the many different types of locations where a system set-up would be required. The approach was not a one size fits all concept. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A - Section 3, Page 18)

Weight Score1. Statement of Work (Article 1)


40 38


20 20


10 10

4. Prior Experience (Article 4) • Required Bidder Information 30 25

TOTAL 100 93

Camis USA Inc.

- 5 -

• The solution provides for automated diagnostic functions and full monitoring is provided by the Bidder. Remote monitoring was well described and the Help desk can remotely view the field screen for troubleshooting. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A - Section 1, Pages 25-27)

• The solution includes peak season dedicated network connection monitoring. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Page 25)

• Technical solution allows the Vendor to increase the web servers’ clusters through the use of virtual servers. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A - Section 4, Page 28, Requirement)

• The solution uses two factor authentication to provide secure remote access. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A - Section 2)

• The Bidder is actively researching a Michigan based call center and head office for CAMIS, USA. Although they currently do not have one, they indicate that they "will" have one that will also include help desk staff, if awarded the Michigan contract. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A - Section 7, Pages 44 & 58)

• Call center plan meets or exceeds specifications. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A - Section 7, Page 44-57)

• The Bidder provided a detailed response outlining how they would recruit for the call center and their response showed a familiarity with key concepts that are critical to its success. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Pages 53-54)

• The proposed help desk solution offers three different reporting channels for the field user: toll free number, web portal, or assistance from the reservations website. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A - Section 8, Page 59)

• Helpdesk plan provided exceeds the required specifications. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A - Section 8, Page 63)

• Proposal included annual spring visits to parks and personalized equipment setup, which exceeded the State requirements. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Pages 64 and 100)

• The Bidder provided a description surrounding the solution’s ability to exchange data with other systems in the vendor module. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Page 73)

• The solution is currently PCI Certified and they agreed to assist with related audit requirements. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Pages 80-81)

• Provided a good description of how locally cached data can keep the park in operation when a connection is lost but outside bookings cannot be made when the connection fails. This approach could be implemented at the State’s request. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A - Section 9)

• Smartphone compatible, and will display on the native web browser of both Android and iOS mobile operating systems. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A - Section 14, Page 85)

• Approach to marketing provided thoughtful answers and innovative concepts, personalized with Pure Michigan campaign. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Page 91)

• The vendor describes an initial training plan that comes complete with on-site training, user guides and workbooks that are vendor-provided. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part B - Section 5, Page 106)

• In the proposed solution, the vendor provides a testing plan for all testers to use in order to be consistent and thorough with testing results. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part B - Section 5, Page 108)

• Provide a sufficient hardware replacement schedule. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Page 114)

Camis USA Inc.

- 6 -

• Bidder demonstrated a good understanding of System Voucher requirements and they provide many of these features out of the box. (Appendix A - (Business/Tech) Req, System Vouchers, Page 190, Requirement 226)

• Bidder demonstrated a good understanding of the Harbor screen. They have indicated that many of the features requested are currently available in their application. (Appendix A - (Business/Tech) Req, Harbor screen, Page 206, Requirement 311)

• The Bidder is providing Interactive mapping functionality out of the box. (Appendix A - (Business/Tech) Req, Interactive maps, Page 231, Requirement 443)

• Stated they would meet the hardware requirements. (Appendix B - (Hardware) Req, Page 297)

• Stated they would meet the Service Level Requirements as written. (Appendix C - Service Levels, Page 298)

• The Oral Presentation by CAMIS followed the outlined format and covered all of the requested demonstrations of functionality. Questions were answered completely and clearly stated whether the functionality being discussed was available in their current application or whether it would require development (as per the format of Appendix A). In all instances, the items requiring development were stated to be deliverable by the go live date noted in the RFP.

• During the oral presentation, and the follow up demonstration, the presenters and support programmers demonstrated knowledge of the work (deliverables, environment, hardware requirements, and reservations systems) from a field user level.

Weaknesses: • Although in progress, a true ad-hoc reporting system is not in place yet. (1.104

Work and Deliverables, Part A - Section 6, Page 42, Requirement 66) • The requirement asking that all monthly telephone bills be sent to and paid for by

the contractor throughout the reservation system was not responded to. The State obtained clarification and the Contractor will pay for monthly bills used by and for the reservation service. (Appendix A - (Business/Tech) Req, Page 154, Requirement 38 – Clarification Response #27)

• Managing serialized permits requires development. (Appendix A - (Business/Tech) Req, Pages 221-222, Requirement various)

• The proposed system does not currently collect or use driver's license information. It was clarified that they will add additional fields to the customer record as necessary to meet these requirements and, further, to use these fields to provide validation to identify duplicate account creation attempts. (Appendix A - (Business/Tech) Req, Page 210, Requirement 337 – Clarification Response #29)

• The system currently does not support serialized permit assignment down to an employee level. (Appendix A - (Business/Tech) Req, Pages 221-221, Requirements 381-393)

• Gift card process requires development. (Appendix A - (Business/Tech) Req, Pages 227 & 242-244, Requirements 419 & 508-517)

• System broadcast alerts require development. (Appendix A - (Business/Tech) Req, Pages 228-229, Requirements 424-429)

Camis USA Inc.

- 7 -

2. Staffing (Article 1) – 20/20 Points Possible

• Section 1.201 Contractor Staff, Roles and Responsibilities • Staffing Plan Matrix and Organization Chart (Appendix F) • Personnel Resume Templates (Appendix G)

Strengths: • Provided a well-documented and detailed Staffing Plan Matrix and Organization

Chart. (Appendix F) • Key Personnel appear to have extensive experience. (Appendix G (Resumes),

Pages 314-348) • The project team that demonstrated the CAMIS solution to the State was very

knowledgeable of their project and understood the State’s business needs and requirements. The team seemed willing to provide good customer service. (Oral Presentation)

Weaknesses: • No weaknesses were identified.

3. Project Management (Article 1) – 10/10 Points Possible • Preliminary Project Plan (Appendix H) • Section 1.301 Project Plan Management • Section 1.302 Reports • Section 1.401 Issue Management • Section 1.402 Risk Management • Section 1.403 Change Management

Strengths: • The project schedule provided by Camis was very detailed and identified all

project tasks and phases. (Appendix H) • Provided appropriate responses to the various Project Management Sections in

Article 1. (Article 1, Section 1.301, 1.302, 1.401, 1.402 and 1.403)

Weaknesses: • No weaknesses were identified.

Camis USA Inc.

- 8 -

4. Prior Experience (Article 4) – 25/30 Points Possible

• Required Bidder Information

Reference 1 - Ontario Parks (Ministry of Natural Resources)

• This reference was of similar size and scope to this RFP. • Annual spend is similar to the State of Michigan’s anticipated spend. ($3,900,000

annual). • Have provided the services for multiple years and are currently in maintenance. • They are utilizing the Everest product that is being proposed for Michigan. • Reference noted that they had employed this vendor in the past, left due to

unspecified issues and then came back to a good experience in their current contract. (Reference Call)

Reference 2 - Washington State Parks • This reference was of similar size and scope to this RFP. • Annual spend is similar but less than the State of Michigan’s anticipated spend

($1,400,000 annual). • Have provided the services for multiple years and are currently in maintenance. • They are utilizing the Everest product that is being proposed for Michigan. • Very satisfied with the system, staff, level of professionalism and product

maturity. (Reference Call) Reference 3 – British Columbia (BC) Parks

• This reference was of similar size and scope to this RFP. • Annual spend is less than the State of Michigan’s anticipated spend ($825,000

annual). • Was awarded the Contract recently and is in Maintenance Mode. • They are utilizing the Everest product that is being proposed for Michigan. • Reference indicated a positive relationship working with CAMIS.

Summary of all References – • References were favorable for the product, personnel and customer service.

One reference had experienced issues with the vendor in the past but has since come back and is satisfied.

• Each reference indicated that the vendor had a strong understanding of their business needs and responded in an acceptable amount of time if changes ever needed to be made.

• When updates are made to the system, each reference felt that this vendor provided complete documentation and delivered a thoroughly tested product for their clients to review.

• Each reference commented that training is very thorough and meets or exceeds their needs.

PRICING EVALUATION • The bidder met the minimum point threshold, and pricing was considered.

The Active Network

- 9 -

EVALUATION RESULTS: B. The Active Network


Strengths: • Both of the proposed solutions (ActiveNetwork Outdoors – “AWO” and

ReserveSuite – “RS”) are real-time systems via a centralized database. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A- Section 1, Page I-9)

• Provided a good description of their rules definition. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A- Section 1, Page 1-16)

• The Bidder’s AWO solution incorporates the single reservation ID with multiple transaction IDs under it to account for the many different changes that could occur to a reservation. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A- Section 1, Page I-17)

• Group web portal provides for greater customer exposure to sites. (AWO only) (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A- Section 1, Page I-19)

• Provided good overview on mobile app for AWO. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A- Section 1, Page I-20)



40 33


20 18


10 8


TOTAL 100 80

The Active Network

- 10 -

• Functionality includes blind cash drawer which is currently being used for many clients. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A- Section 3, Page 1-23)

• Field manager within AWO includes enhanced feature for searching. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A- Section 3, Page 1-24)

• The proposed RS solution includes Ad-hoc reporting. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A- Section 3, Page I-44)

• Data center has backup, redundancy failover, etc. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A - Section 4, Pages 1-33 and 35)

• Includes dual DS3 connections so that in the event one fails, the other will take over and from two separate ISP’s. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A - Section 4, Page 29)

• Parameter based configuration - business rule can be met without code-level changes. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A - Section 4, Page 30)

• Active uses Aletsite for web response time and availability and Groundwork for monitoring the servers. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A - Section 4, Page 31)

• The proposed solutions provided the State with several different call center options to consider with primary front-line operators in Michigan. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A - Section 7, Page I-46)

• Help desk support hours were broad and exceeded the States requirements. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A - Section 8, Page I-54)

• Tier III Data Center for both Primary and Secondary. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A - Section 10, Page 35)

• AWO Inventory Manager may be made available to selected DNR staff at the States option. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A - Section 11, Page I-61)

• Supports Serialized permits (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A - Section 11, Page 1-63, Requirement )

• The Bidder agrees to give DNR admin read only access to the extent that it does not violate security regulations. As well as provide DNR audit staff with unrestricted access to servers, circuits, data storage and retrieval systems. (Appendix A - (Business/Tech) Req, Page IV-11, Requirement s74 &161)

• The AWO solution will accommodate contiguous reservations at multiple locations for a defined period of time in a single transaction. (Appendix A - (Business/Tech) Req, , Page IV-25, Requirement 184)

• With the growing need for the DNR to expand its pricing structure to include multiple types of pricing, the AWO solution would fulfill this requirement to do so. (Appendix A - (Business/Tech) Req, Page IV-40, Requirement 310)

• Solution includes the ability for sales in real time and also offline was offered. (Appendix A - (Business/Tech) Req, Requirement 410)

• The AWO solution provides this feature out of the box. (Appendix A - (Business/Tech) Req, Online Mapping Services, Page IV-56, Requirement 439)

• Good description of the solutions ability to provide multiple photos. (Appendix A - (Business/Tech) Req, Requirement 455)

• Active AWO provides most of the Gift card functionality out of the box. (Appendix A - (Business/Tech) Req, Gift Cards, Page IV-64, Requirement 504)

Weaknesses: • The proposed recommendation was that the State adopts the existing

ReserveSuite System and that the State converts at our leisure to the future product AWO. While this approach is flexible, the Bidder did not provide a clear

The Active Network

- 11 -

transition plan to the new solution. (1.103 Environment, 1.001 and 1.002 and others, Page 1-5, 1-30 and others)

o For example “ReserveSuite, which we propose to continue in the new contract." (1.103 Environment, , Page 104, 1-4)

• Mentions licensing in the answer, which appears to be a cut and paste error since this does not apply to this proposal/RFP. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A- Section 1, Page 1-11)

• Indicated "No security breaches in the life of the service". This could be true for the AWO product which the Bidder is ultimately suggesting the State move to, however there have been Security Breaches in the RS product which has been proposed initially during implementation. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A- Section 1, Page 1-19)

• Home-based call center agents take calls for other Active clients. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A - Section 7, Page I-46) – References indicated that some of the home based call center agents were the best they had but the same references did not recommend using home based agents and were clear about having made both statements sequentially.

• Current application does not support tracking of serialized permits, vouchers or part-day reservations.

• AWO is currently missing a marina application. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A - Section 11, Page I-58)

• The Bidder stated they would comply with the COBIT requirement but wanted the opportunity to discuss the timeframe. The State attempted to clarify this statement; however Active indicated “we do not have a clear understanding of the anticipated duration of the associated activities or the number of hours that our staff would be required.” (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A - Section 13 (II) (B) COBIT, - Clarification Response #19)

• Both of the proposed solutions do not describe a consistent documented test plan with scenarios that are verified with every deployment. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part B - Section 4, Page I-84)

• The current ReserveSuite application does not, in its current form, meet the needs and requirements identified in this RFP (serialized permit tracking & complete gift card program functionality). The Bidder proposed that DNR would stay with ReserveSuite until a later date and then change over to AWO. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part B - Section 5, Page I-89)

• The Bidder indicated that the “Replacement of hardware will be determined by the functionality of the equipment for its intended use, its performance and predetermined agreed-upon schedule.” This leaves a lot of room for performance degradation/getting behind in current technology and does not meet the requirement to replace hardware based on the manufacturer’s warranty. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part C - Section 2, Page I-97)

• The bidder identified an exception to the “Chat” timeframe. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part C - Section 7)

• Many of the requirements in the RFP are marked M or N for RS and Y for AWO, so based on this approach and timing, the initial proposed product can't meet many of these requirements. (Appendix A - (Business/Tech) Req, Multiple Requirements)

• The proposed AWO solution does not allow for customization of pages. (Appendix A - (Business/Tech) Req, Page IV-5, Requirement 28)

• DNR may have to adapt its business process to the processes of AWO. AWO does not allow for customization of screens or allow DNR to control Page

The Active Network

- 12 -

Navigation. (Appendix A - (Business/Tech) Req, Ease of Use, Page IV-5, Requirement 28)

• The solution cannot meet the requirement for a 3 second load time. (Appendix A - (Business/Tech) Req, Requirements 31and 39)

• The solution indicated that “commercially reasonable connectivity will be agreed upon between Active and DNR”. There was not a strong commitment to meeting the State requirement. (Appendix A - (Business/Tech) Req, Requirements 40,41)

• Audit trail is missing for all user activities in current application. (Appendix A - (Business/Tech) Req, Page IV-17, Requirement 129)

• Response indicated that in order to meet the requirement, customization would be required to ReserveSuite, however they indicated it could be met out of the box "Y". (Appendix A - (Business/Tech) Req, Requirement 277)

• Multiple requirements did not include bidder explanations which was a requirement for all methods of compliance that would be met through modification to the solution. (Appendix A - (Business/Tech) Req, Requirements 399-407, 424-435, etc.)

• Multiple issues (exceptions and rewrites) identified in Appendix C, Service Level Agreement:

o Bidder indicated the Contract could be terminated but noted exceptions to the meeting the SLAs. This is an unacceptable answer as it would be difficult to terminate when DNR has an investment in inventory, reservations taken and seasons pending. (Appendix C - Service Levels, , Page , Requirement 2.1.1 Uptime)

o Suggested revision to abandon call SLA standard dilutes the outcome and lowers the standard for peak call periods where call center staffing levels are critical. Diluting or changing the SLAs on the part of the bidder, does not give the State of Michigan confidence that the vendor can meet the contractual requirements. (Appendix C - Service Levels, 2.2.1, Page VI-7, Requirement ).

o Bidder indicated “…cannot ensure a minimum of 10 Mbps given the nature of rural connectivity at this time” Bidder did not present a plan on how to improve this in the future. (Appendix C - Service Levels, Requirement 2.3.2 Response Time)

• The product demonstration showed crowded and complex screens of fillable fields, with many tabs and buttons.



Strengths: • Provided a well-documented and detailed Staffing Plan Matrix and Organization

Chart. (Appendix F) • Key Personnel appear to have extensive experience. (Appendix G (Resumes),

Pages 314-348) • The Bidder demonstrated a thorough understanding of their product during the

oral presentation.

The Active Network

- 13 -

Weaknesses: • The Active “Manager of Customer Support” presented during the Oral

Presentation is not mentioned in the written proposal nor in the resumes. Her functions appear to overlap that of the persons noted in the written proposal.

• During the oral presentation the project manager did not lead the discussions as required nor participate in providing information towards the understanding of the two products proposed or the services to be provided.

3. Project Management (Article 1) – 8/10 Points Possible

• Preliminary Project Plan (Appendix H) • Section 1.301 Project Plan Management • Section 1.302 Reports • Section 1.401 Issue Management • Section 1.402 Risk Management • Section 1.403 Change Management

Strengths: • Provided appropriate responses to the various Project Management Sections in

Article 1. (Article 1, Section 1.301, 1.302, 1.401, 1.402 and 1.403)

Weaknesses: • Project plan is completely generic and did not demonstrate the sufficient level of

detail tailored to Michigan. (Appendix H (Preliminary Project Plan), X-1-11) • Various levels and subcategories of Project Managers were introduced in the oral

presentation but the lines of responsibility were not obvious.

4. Prior Experience (Article 4) – 21/30 Points Possible

• Required Bidder Information

Reference 1 – California Department of Parks and Recreation

• This reference was of similar size and scope to this RFP. • Annual spend is similar to the State of Michigan’s anticipated spend ($6,100,000

annual). • Have provided the services for multiple years and are currently in maintenance. • They are utilizing the AWO solution that is being proposed as the long term MI

Solution. • They were overall happy with the Contractor; however they commented that they

experience hardware issues on a regular basis. (Reference Call) Reference 2 – New York Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation

• This reference was of similar size and scope to this RFP. • Annual spend is similar to the State of Michigan’s anticipated spend ($2,700,000


Solution.

The Active Network

- 14 -

• Reference indicated they had bad years in the distant past (2004) but things are much better now and have grown with the company. Indicated they like the product and it serves them well. (Reference Call)

Reference 3 – New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources State Parks Division • This reference was of similar size and scope to this RFP. • Annual spend is less than the State of Michigan’s anticipated spend ($175,000


Solution, and have recently converted to the new product in 2010.

Active provided a significant number of other government clients who are using the ReserveSuite and AWO products that were proposed for Michigan (Article 4, 4.015) and encouraged the State of Michigan to consult with States who had experienced a more-recent conversion to the AWO product (Active noted that the later conversions went well). Toward that end, the State of Michigan called the following 2 additional references: Additional Reference A – Wisconsin • This reference is of similar size and scope to this RFP. • Annual Spend is $275,000 from reservation fee to vendor. • Was a longtime customer of the ORMS system and resigned in 2011 with Active • UAT functions perform differently than in production. • PM is real responsive but she is a high level manager. • There have been glitches during testing which the customer has learned to live with. • There have been glitches in their financials. But the vendor is responsive to their

needs when they have problems. • Wisconsin provides their own connectivity. • Field users are happy for the most part but there are too many steps to transactions. Additional Reference B – North Carolina • This reference is of similar size and scope to this RFP. • Their conversion went okay. But there were bugs that were eventually corrected. • They get positive feedback relating to the public facing site. • The call center gives bad information sometimes. • They enjoyed working with their last PM but he resigned. • The merger of the company produced some good and some bad things. There was

a change in responsiveness upon merger where answers were elevated for corporate response vs. customer service oriented.

• Testing of new releases is pretty good in advance of the state receiving the product. The majority of it is received in good working order the first time.

• The help desk is pretty responsive. • They feel they receive a pretty good value. • They have other units that want to start using the system, however they have been

unable to add them prior to obtaining Contract extension. • PCI issue was identified- an open word document or notebook will capture credit

card information when swiped.

Summary of all References – • The reference calls were generally favorable as to the customer usability of the

reservation product. Two of the references were satisfied with the overall system

The Active Network

- 15 -

and 2 mentioned problems in the area of customer service by the project team, testing and reliability of new releases, and the dedication of the company to them as a client.

Documented Vendor Performance Issues in Michigan Contract 071B0200161 • Active has multiple documented vendor performance issues and is continuing to

address the first one issued in 2009 at this time (June 2012).

PRICING EVALUATION • The bidder met the minimum point threshold, and pricing was considered.

US eDirect

- 16 -

EVALUATION RESULTS: C. US eDirect


Strengths: • Briefly discussed some features that DNR would be interested in such as lottery,

permitting and loyalty programs. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, several, Page , Requirement)

• The proposed solution will be able to incorporate licensing. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A - Section 1)

• Provided multiple references to ensure no overlapping reservations or double bookings. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A - Section 1)

• Provided good detail on how to increase occupancy through referrals. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A - Section 1)

• The Bidder has proposed a Michigan based call center. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A - Section 1, Page , Requirement )

• The Bidder provided a good description of their remote load monitoring. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A - Section 3, Page , Requirement)



40 25


20 15


10 5


TOTAL 100 60

US eDirect

- 17 -

• An Activity Dynamics Class and Events module is described in this solution. This module could be used for handling DNR events, such as the Rec 101 classes and Explorer programs. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A - Section 3)

• The proposed solution offers more than 100 standard reports. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A - Section 3)

• Solution includes high availability VMWare cluster and Failsafe instance of each of these servers exist at the data center. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A - Section 4, Electronic Page 54)

• The hot site can go online in 30 minutes. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A - Section 4, Electronic Page 55)

• Provided a good description of the solutions ability to include a popup when a possible duplicate is detected. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A - Section 10)

• The proposed solution describes serialized permit that is printed from the system. This could replace the majority of the DNR's pre-printed daily permits. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A - Section 11)

• Provide good overview of the blind cash drawer. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A - Section 11)

• The proposed application is PA-DSS validated and provides an audit trail of all financial transactions. Provided a good discussion on internal auditing and the application audit trail rather than external audit but agree to meet PCI and all audit requirements. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A Section 13)

• Provided detailed test cases. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part B - Section 4) • The solution utilizes 256 bit encryption and provides a good explanation of the

protocols used. (Appendix A - (Business/Tech) Req, Requirement 122) • The Bidder can perform application penetration testing. (Appendix A -

(Business/Tech) Req, Requirement 134) • The Bidder has listed all serialized permits requirements as available in their

current system. (Appendix A - (Business/Tech) Req, Serialized Permits, Requirement 380)

• US eDirect provides Gift card functionality out of the box. (Appendix A - (Business/Tech) Req, Gift Cards, Requirement 504-517)

Weaknesses: • Bidder response indicated “The campgrounds have access to a standard

desktop, LAN and internet connection provided by the DNR.” In section 1.104 C 2 they say they will provide a cash drawer. This response is repeated from a previous answer verbatim throughout the proposal. Through the clarification process, the Bidder indicated these statements were incorrect. (PDF Page 29 and various other locations in the proposal and Clarification response #12)

• Insufficient detail provided on how this task would be accomplished. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A - Section 1)

• The Bidder did not provide any information for the Subcontracted roles (left them blank), but later on in 1.104 A 7 indicated they are using HP to provide the call center. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A - Section 4)

• Did not provide specifics on HP Experience, and could not relate the relevancy of this experience to the project. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A - Section 7)

• Help Desk hours are listed from 8AM - 6PM daily. Harbor and Campground offices are open through 10PM with peak registration hours between 3PM and 8PM on Friday/Sunday evenings. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A - Section 8)

US eDirect

- 18 -

• The Bidder responds that when an inventory selection is entered into a cart through any channel, that inventory is no longer available until the unit has expired either by the person releasing the unit or cancelling the booking. The DNR does not want customers to be able to hold campsites or harbor slips indefinitely in the system without completing the transaction. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A - Section 11)

• There was minimal mention of the harbor component throughout Bidders proposal. For example, in the discussion on reservable inventory the discussions only pertained to camping and other reservable inventory. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A - Section 11) The clarification response stated that RD provides robust features for marinas processing, and that it is existing functionality being used by current customers. Another response talked about the fact that the State could do a number of tasks “on their own” and that USeDirect could provide training for the field staff. No additional level of detail was provided on how that would be accomplished or with what frequency. Another answer was noted as initially “incorrect”. USeDirect clarified (in 20) that they would work with the DNR to indentify training sites workstations, and other factors.

• The Shopping Cart description was limited with no mention of CEPAS integration, which is a critical component of the RFP. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part A Section 16)

• This vendor will provide training and certify the necessary technical staff at a designated Customer facility in order to configure, maintain, operate, support and use the software with little support from the US eDirect. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part B - Section 5)

• The proposal indicated “The Customer staff shall be responsible for system administration and on-going training to support the Software”. This was a requirement of the Contractor. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part B - Section 5)

• The response provided in Part B, Section 5 contradicts Appendix A (Business rules and requirements). In Part B, they describe a system sign-off of responsibility from the Contractor to the "County" (Should be State), yet in Appendix A where the DNR lists requirements about annual training by the Contractor and support by the Contractor, they agree to it. Training and support is a very significant portion of this RFP and the Bidder did not demonstrate an understanding of the magnitude. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part B - Section 5) – Clarification indicated that USeDirect has signoff by the customers before updating the production servers.

• Proposal indicated that DNR is responsible for costs associated with facility rental for training purposes. There were other tasks assigned to DNR that should have been responsibilities of the Contractor. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part B - Section 5)

• Bidder indicated that acceptance is 5 days within this section, however this conflicts with the Article 2.254, which outlines 5 to 10 days based on the nature of the deliverable. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part B - Section 6)

• The Bidder response provided in 1.104 C 1 does not indicate how they will approach meeting the requirements of Maintenance and Support. (1.104 Work and Deliverables, Part C - Section 1)

• Requirement 152 requires the contractor to be level 1 service provider and perform quarterly scans and report any deficiencies to the DNR. Bidder response indicates "project" volume only makes them a level 1 service provider. Bidder must include all volume, including volume from other customers. Level 1 service

US eDirect

- 19 -

providers are required to have annual third party audits and quarterly scans. Level 3 only provides self evaluation. (Appendix A - (Business/Tech) Req, Requirement 152)

• Solution cannot span seasons. (Appendix A - (Business/Tech) Req, Requirement 174)

• In response to the requirement for contiguous reservations, the vendor states that they do not understand. They were provided with 2 Question and Answer periods to seek clarification on this. (Appendix A - (Business/Tech) Req, Requirement 184)

• Requirement 202 (Field Staff check in portable terminals) response is missing the last part of the response relating to payment by remote handheld terminals. (Appendix A - (Business/Tech) Req, , Page , Requirement 202)

• In response to the requirement for check in screens, the vendor states that they do not understand. They were provided with 2 Question and Answer periods to seek clarification on this. (Appendix A - (Business/Tech) Req, Requirement 207)

• The response provide to the requirement surrounding vouchers did not match the question that was asked. (Appendix A - (Business/Tech) Req, Requirement 226)

• Bidder indicates they could provide Kiosk for vouchers after discovery of requirements. This question should have been asked during Question and Answer periods. (Appendix A - (Business/Tech) Req, Requirement 235)

• Bidder should have clarified requirement 252 and 253 during the Question and Answer periods. (Appendix A - (Business/Tech) Req, Requirement 252, 253)

• The response provided did not demonstrate an understanding of the workings of the Harbor screen (partially available slip concept. (Appendix A - (Business/Tech) Req, Requirement 311)

• Response indicated solution does not allow for the management of multiple boats in a slip. (Appendix A - (Business/Tech) Req, Requirements 316-318)

• Bidder should have clarified requirement 316 and 318 during the Question and Answer periods. (Appendix A - (Business/Tech) Req, Requirement 316, 318)

• Bidder does not allow multiple shopping carts and has not provided a plan to mitigate this. (Appendix A - (Business/Tech) Req, Requirement 415)

• CEPAS cannot split payments into multiple payment methods as mentioned in Bidder response. CEPAS cannot accept gift cards as payment. (Appendix A - (Business/Tech) Req, Requirement 498)

• Did not respond to Requirement 502. Clarified that it was met prior to the 2014 go live date. (Appendix A - (Business/Tech) Req, Requirement 502 and Clarification Response 26)

• Did not provide explanation of the modifications "M" that were necessary to achieve compliance. (Appendix A - (Business/Tech) Req, Requirement 526)

• Response indicates that much of the system setup, maintenance and ongoing support are expected to be DNR's responsibility. (Appendix A - (Business/Tech) Req, Requirement 797)

• The vendor lists the hardware they will provide but does not provide the details on the laser printer. The deposit scanner was not mentioned at all. (Page 252) (Appendix B - (Hardware) Req, Electronic Page 252)

US eDirect

- 20 -



Strengths: • USeDirect provided references and an organization chart.

Weaknesses: • Proposal included notes that should have been removed prior to submitting

proposal to the State. (Appendix F Staffing Matrix/Org Chart) • Staff experience was minimal in managing large statewide deployments.

(Appendix F Staffing Matrix/Org Chart) • The summary staffing chart percentages in Appendix F, do not match the

individual resume percentages. (Appendix G (Resumes)) • In the resume for Madhu Gupta the Bidder did not indicate the percentages to

project or past education. (Appendix G (Resumes))

3. Project Management (Article 1) – 5/10 Points Possible • Preliminary Project Plan (Appendix H) • Section 1.301 Project Plan Management • Section 1.302 Reports • Section 1.401 Issue Management • Section 1.402 Risk Management • Section 1.403 Change Management

Strengths: • 1.401 Escalation process described is good. (1.400 (Project Management))

Weaknesses: • Significant DNR responsibilities for networking and system support reiterated.

(1.300 (Project Plan Section), 1.301) • All of Appendix H was cut and paste with no effort to correct the inclusions to

make it pertain to the DNR and our project schedule. They call us "Commonwealth" and "Department of Conservation and Recreation (DNR)". The timelines begin in 2011 for another governmental agency's project and they are not offered as examples, but as our project's schedule. "We have identified our resources and planned out all activities which will allow us to start on or around Jan 20th 2012 and complete the project to go live by 31st March 2012". Schedules not only have wrong dates but cut off columns so they can't be read fully. (Appendix H (Prel Project Plan), , Page , Requirement )

• No specific mention of CEPAS integration or testing in Project Plan. (Appendix H (Prel Project Plan) )

• Appendix H - Sandbox testing does not refer to testing harbor apps. (Appendix H (Prel Project Plan))

• Appendix H - last sentence is incomplete and it looks like there might be more missing. (Appendix H (Prel Project Plan))

US eDirect

- 21 -

4. Prior Experience (Article 4) – 15/30 Points Possible • Required Bidder Information

Reference 1 – United States Department of Agriculture • This reference was not of similar size and scope to this RFP. • Annual spend is less than the State of Michigan’s anticipated spend ($100,000

annual). • Have provided the services for multiple years and are currently in maintenance.

Reference 2 – Minnesota State Parks • This reference was of similar size and scope to this RFP. • Annual spend is similar but less than the State of Michigan’s anticipated spend

($650,000 annual). • Was awarded the Contract recently and is in Maintenance Mode.

Reference 3 – Suffolk County Parks, Recreation and Conservation • This reference was not of similar size and scope to this RFP. • Annual spend is less than the State of Michigan’s anticipated spend ($75,000

annual). • Have provided the services for multiple years and are currently in maintenance.

PRICING EVALUATION • The bidder did not meet the minimum point threshold, and pricing was not considered.

PRICING EVALUATION

- 22 -

The State evaluated pricing for those bidders that scored 80 points or greater. The Active Active provided 3 Pricing Options for review with variable pricing based on the call center model for Scenario 1. While the State reviewed all scenarios, in determining best value, the State utilized the Lansing Call Center Option proposed by active and the Michigan Call Center proposed by Camis.

SCENARIO #1 – Fixed Fee per Net Paid Camp/Harbor Night and Camping Cancellation Basis

The Active Network

The Active Network Camis Camis

Lansing Call Center

Lansing Call Center

REVISED Michigan Call

Center

Michigan Call Center

REVISED

SCENARIO #1

B. 4-year Estimated Volume for

Term

A. Per Unit Fee from

Scenario #1


Scenario #1


Scenario #1


Scenario #1

1. Web net paid nights 2,054,408 $2.50 $2.30 (avg) $2.30 $2.302. Call center net paid nights 968,628 $2.75 $2.30 (avg) $2.50 $2.503. Field generated net camp night

710,875 $2.50 $2.30 (avg) $2.50 $2.50

4. Camping Cancellation 178,829 $10.00 $7.00 $10.00 $10.005. Harbor Cancellation 7,153 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.006. Total $11,365,225 $9,839,798

$1,525,427 reduction

$10,712,186 $10,712,186

Reserved Hours for Enhancements: Active = $350,000 for 1500 Hours. Camis = $350,000 for 1,500 Hours For both bidders, the average hourly rate was $233.33

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

- 23 -

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

Documents

To: Greg Faremouth, IT Division Director GENERAL108104/1...Staffing (Article 1) • Section 1.201 Contractor Staff, Roles and Responsibilities • Staffing Plan Matrix and Organization