March 11, 2015
Ms. Karen S. Boeger
Director, Division of Purchasing and Materials Management
301 West High Street, Truman Building, Room 630
Jefferson City, MO 65101
Re: Protest Regarding Bid Number RFP B2Z14059
Dear Director Boeger:
Please consider this a formal protest letter pursuant to 1 CSR 40-1.050 (9) by Periscope Holdings
(“Periscope”), a software company specializing in eProcurement solutions that placed an offer and was
considered for and denied an award pursuant to RFP B2Z14059 – eProcurement System (“the RFP”).
Periscope is proud of its reputation in the software industry and has participated in numerous
solicitation opportunities at all levels of government. There has been only one other occasion where
we felt it necessary to contest an award made to another provider. In this case, however, Periscope
feels compelled to raise concerns to the State of Missouri in the form of this protest. The following
clearly outlines the grounds for our protest to the contract award made to Perfect Commerce for RFP
B2Z14059 on March 2, 2015.
Name and Address of Protester:
Periscope Holdings
211 E. 7th
Street, Suite 1100
Austin, TX 78701
(512) 472-9062
Solicitation Number:
B2Z14059
Detailed Statement Describing Grounds for the Protest and Supporting Exhibits:
CONTENTION #1
The State of Missouri, Office of Administration, did not accord fair and equal treatment to both
Periscope and Perfect Commerce in regard to the comparison of pricing.
Missouri Revised Statutes, 34.042.1 provides language related to negotiation with responsible offerors
and revision of proposals. Paragraph 3 of this section states, in part, “Those offerors shall be accorded
fair and equal treatment with respect to any opportunity for negotiation and subsequent revision of
proposals.”
The scope of work related to the eProcurement implementation is clearly defined throughout the RFP:
all agencies and all necessary workflow processes.
211 East 7th Street ∙ Suite 200 ∙ Austin TX 78701 ∙ (512) 472-9062 ∙ www.periscopeholdings.com

On May 20, 2014, Periscope posed a specific question to Brent Dixon, Buyer, as our designated contact
for the RFP. The sole purpose of this question was to clarify if the intent of the State was to have a
contractor implement across all agencies and provide all necessary workflows. Following is our
question and Mr. Dixon’s response in bold:
Periscope question: “We have seen competitors submit proposals (a large Midwestern state project)
that include pricing for a single agency or a pilot group of agencies (not all agencies), so as to keep
their price down or appear as the lowest bidder. According to the Missouri RFP, all agencies are
included in the scope of this project. If a vendor were to propose a solution based on a single agency
(e.g. MO Office Administration) or a pilot group of agencies, would that proposal be deemed non-
responsive? The implementation must be a complete rollout to all state agencies.”
State of Missouri response: See revision to RFP paragraph 2.24.1 via amendment #002 to provide
clarity regarding the requirement.”
The State’s amended requirements (noted below) to the RFP clarified the scope to be all agencies and
all necessary workflows, including the addition of a complete listing of agencies:
• Section 2.24.1 “Contractor shall provide all necessary services to fully implement the solution
and to integrate/interface the solution with the state’s financial system, SAMII, including all
necessary workflow processes. The solution must be fully operational, including all required
integration with the state’s financial system, for use by all state, vendor, and political
subdivision users…”
• Section 1.1.3 “The objective of this RFP is to secure an eProcurement system to automate the
procurement process utilized by the State of Missouri’s state agencies governed by Chapter
34 of the Missouri State Revised Statutes.”
• Section 1.1.3 a. “Attachment #5 identifies the state agencies that are, and are not, governed
by Chapter 34, RSMo and their eligibility to use contracts established by the Office of
Administration, Division of Purchasing and Materials Management.”
• (We have included Attachment #5 for review. Attachment #5 lists the agencies governed by
Chapter 34 RSMo.)
There is no possible way to draw any conclusion other than the scope of work includes all agencies
and all necessary workflows and the contract is to fully manage the eProcurement solution rollout to
all agencies in the State, under Chapter 34 RSMo. Furthermore, the RFP contains no language allowing
for a “set of pilot agencies” rollout to a select group of Missouri agencies, to be followed by a wider
rollout to other agencies that is dependent on Missouri resources, as proposed by Perfect Commerce.
Perfect Commerce’s proposal does not provide all necessary services to implement all necessary
workflow processes for use by all state, vendor, and political subdivision users. This, we contend, is in
clear violation of the requirements of the RFP
211 East 7th Street ∙ Suite 200 ∙ Austin TX 78701 ∙ (512) 472-9062 ∙ www.periscopeholdings.com

Perfect Commerce provided the following response to the RFP Section C.2.1:
RFP Section C.2.1: “The offeror should indicate whether their standard implementation process
includes the implementation of all workflows necessary for each state agency, and the data conversion
of the state’s existing data into the proposed system. If all of the workflows and data conversion is
not included in the standard implementation process, then the offeror must provide all applicable
pricing in the “Additional Customization and Integration Cost” section of the “System Implementation
Costs” worksheet of Exhibit A, Pricing Pages.”
Perfect Commerce response: “Our approach is to fully implement the solution for a set of pilot
agencies, including all data conversion from legacy systems. During Phase IV, we will assist the State
in modifying the existing workflows to include other State agencies and assist with data conversion.”
Perfect Commerce also provided a Gantt chart with their RFP response, clearly supporting their
approach of only fully implementing their solution for a “Pilot Agency”.
Perfect Commerce failed to provide a proposal that clearly contemplated an eProcurement solution
rollout across all agencies and all necessary workflows in Missouri as required by the RFP. The RFP did
not allow for a “set of pilot agencies,” as proposed by Perfect Commerce, nor did any of the
subsequent amendments, requests for additional information (in the form of clarification questions),
or the multiple Best and Final Offer (“BAFO”) processes allow for such a limited scope. Perfect
Commerce did not provide all applicable pricing in the “Additional Customization and Integration Cost”
section of Exhibit A, Pricing Pages.
Because Perfect Commerce failed to fully account for an all agencies and all necessary workflows as
required, the net result is that Perfect Commerce’s implementation price proposal is artificially low.
Its scope only addresses an undefined number of “pilot” agencies. Perfect Commerce re-envisioned
the scope of the project in a manner that dramatically recharacterized the requested project so that
its proposed eProcurement solution is radically different from the project defined in the RFP.
Periscope’s price proposal does fully account for all agencies and all necessary workflows as required
in the RFP and all subsequent amendments and revisions.
The Code of State Regulations, 1 CSR 40-1.050 (18) states, “Awards shall be made to the bidder/offeror
whose bid/proposal complies with – A) All mandatory specifications and requirements of the
bid/proposal.” Based on the details outlined above, Perfect Commerce’s offer and pricing proposal
did not comply with all mandatory requirements.
The State of Missouri’s evaluation committee failed to compare pricing for the same scope of work.
They compared Periscope’s all agencies and all necessary workflows proposal to Perfect Commerce’s
limited scope proposal. Further, the evaluation committee ignored the fact that Perfect Commerce
failed to adhere to the mandatory scope requirement of the RFP. If, at any point during the solicitation
process, the State of Missouri would have determined that a limited scope, or pilot, would have been
an acceptable solution, this should have been made clear in an amendment or other form of
211 East 7th Street ∙ Suite 200 ∙ Austin TX 78701 ∙ (512) 472-9062 ∙ www.periscopeholdings.com

clarification in order to afford Periscope the opportunity to offer a proposal on equal grounds to that
of Perfect Commerce. Failure to communicate this intent led to an inconsistent and unfair evaluation
process. Missouri statute requiring fair and equal treatment was violated.
CONTENTION #2
Within their offer Perfect Commerce made false claims regarding contractual rights with the NIGP
Code.
Perfect Commerce did not properly price in Exhibit A, Pricing Pages, Ongoing System Costs. Perfect
Commerce indicated a “zero dollar” ($0) price. Perfect Commerce does not have the contractual ability
to sublicense the National Institute of Governmental Purchasing (“NIGP”) Code. The Perfect
Commerce response implies a licensing vehicle (sublicense) for the NIGP Code, which they do not have.
The State of Missouri cannot get a state license for the NIGP Code through Perfect Commerce.
Perfect Commerce indicates an affirmative response (“Yes”) to the State’s mandatory RFP requirement
that the contractor provide conversion services from the State’s existing NIGP Code to the current
version of the NIGP Code (RFP paragraph 2.21.7). Perfect Commerce’s Sublicense Agreement does not
give them the right to provide such services. In fact, their Sublicense Agreement expressly prohibits
the creation of “derivate works” by Perfect Commerce. Additionally, Perfect Commerce indicates in
their response an ability to build crosswalks and provide access to all crosswalks provided by Periscope.
Perfect Commerce’s Sublicense Agreement does not give them the right to provide such services or
intellectual property.
For the reasons listed above, we contend that Perfect Commerce is non-responsive (non-compliant)
as they have indicated affirmative responses that violate existing contractual agreements between
Perfect Commerce and Periscope. Please refer to the attached letter from NIGP to Perfect Commerce,
signed by the NIGP Chief Executive Officer and the NIGP Code and Consulting Services President, for
more details.
Summary
Based upon the information submitted in this letter, along with the accompanying exhibits, Periscope
contends that the Missouri evaluation team awarded Perfect Commerce the contract pursuant to the
RFP based upon: 1) an unfair and unequal evaluation of pricing and 2) on false information provided
by Perfect Commerce. Based on the language contained in the Missouri Code of State Regulations in
regard to responsiveness, we request that the Perfect Commerce proposal be declared non-responsive
and that Periscope’s proposal be reconsidered.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit this protest letter and look forward to your response. Please
do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions.
211 East 7th Street ∙ Suite 200 ∙ Austin TX 78701 ∙ (512) 472-9062 ∙ www.periscopeholdings.com

ATTACHMENT #5 ADDED PER AMENDMENT #001
ATTACHMENT #5 - STATE AGENCIES GOVERNED BY CHAPTER 34 RSMO.
Agency
Code
Description of Agency
Falls under Chapter 34 RSMo
Procurement Authority
000 Legislative Branch No
but can purchase off DPMM statewide contracts
100 Judicial Branch No
but can purchase off DPMM statewide contracts
200 Governor Yes
221 Lt. Governor Yes
231 Secretary of State Yes
251 State Auditor Yes
272 State Treasurer Yes
282 Attorney General Yes
300 Office of Administration
Yes
Except for the Division of Facilities Management,
Design & Construction projects.
350 Agriculture Yes
375
Insurance, Financial Institutions and
Professional Registration
Yes
400 Conservation Yes
419 Economic Development Yes
500 Elementary & Secondary Education Yes
555
Higher Education Yes
Univ of MO system, Lincoln Univ, Truman State
Univ, MO State Univ, Univ of Central MO, &
Linn State Tech College
No
Other State funded Colleges and Universities
Yes
But DPMM delegated them the authority for own
purchasing. Can purchase off DPMM statewide
contracts
580 Health and Senior Services Yes
605 MODOT
MODOT falls under DPMM procurement authority
for information technology, telecommunications, and
printing purchases only.
MODOT can purchase off DPMM statewide
contracts.
625 Labor and Industrial Relations Yes
650 Mental Health Yes
780 Natural Resources Yes
812 Public Safety Yes
860 Revenue
Yes
Except the Missouri Lottery uses code 860 and the
Missouri Lottery handles their own procurements but
can purchase off DPMM statewide contracts
886 Social Services Yes
931 Corrections Yes