Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
March 11, 2015
Ms. Karen S. Boeger
Director, Division of Purchasing and Materials Management
301 West High Street, Truman ...
On May 20, 2014, Periscope posed a specific question to Brent Dixon, Buyer, as our designated contact
for the RFP. The sol...
Perfect Commerce provided the following response to the RFP Section C.2.1:
RFP Section C.2.1: “The offeror should indicate...
clarification in order to afford Periscope the opportunity to offer a proposal on equal grounds to that
of Perfect Commerc...
ATTACHMENT #5 ADDED PER AMENDMENT #001
ATTACHMENT #5 - STATE AGENCIES GOVERNED BY CHAPTER 34 RSMO.
Agency
Code
Description...
Periscope Official Protest Letter - Missouri Contract Award to Perfect Commerce
Periscope Official Protest Letter - Missouri Contract Award to Perfect Commerce
Periscope Official Protest Letter - Missouri Contract Award to Perfect Commerce
Periscope Official Protest Letter - Missouri Contract Award to Perfect Commerce
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Periscope Official Protest Letter - Missouri Contract Award to Perfect Commerce

Breaking News Update: Periscope and BidSync have filed a formal letter of protest regarding Missouri’s award of a contract to Perfect Commerce. This is the official Protest Letter. I will be providing further details and expanded coverage through the Procurement Insights Blog. That said there are suggestions that Periscope is using their NIGP connections both on and off the record, to challenge the award. In short, what I had suggested in my December 11th, 2014 post has moved from speculative musings to likely reality.

Here is the link to that post (and subsequent posts): https://procureinsights.wordpress.com/2014/12/11/up-periscope-examining-periscopes-acquisition-of-bidsync-with-a-survivors-eye-by-jon-hansen/

Twitter Hashtag #missbid

  • Login to see the comments

  • Be the first to like this

Periscope Official Protest Letter - Missouri Contract Award to Perfect Commerce

  1. 1. 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
  2. 2. 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
  3. 3. 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
  4. 4. 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
  5. 5. 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

×