The Texas A&M University System Revised 9/19/2014 Version 1.0
Contents 1 - Objectives... 1 2 - Deliverables... 1 3 - Evaluation Team... 1 3.0 Team Member Responsibilities... 1 3.1 Team Composition... 2 3.2 Team Members... 2 4 -... 3 4.0 Process Overview... 3 4.1 Detailed Process Description... 3 5 - Evaluation Criteria/Scoring... 7 5.0 Mapping of RFP Section 4 responses to scoring criteria... 7 5.1 Weighting for Detailed Requirements responses... 7 5.2 Scoring for Short-list... 8 6 - Evaluation Schedule and Activities... 8 7 - Related Documents... 9 8 Change History... 9 The Texas A&M University System Page i 9/19/2014
1 - Objectives The purpose of this document is to define a structured process to be followed in evaluating proposals submitted in response to the TAMUS RFP for the acquisition of HR/Payroll software. The Evaluation Team may elect to modify selected details of this plan during the evaluation process based on the System s best interest. The objectives of the evaluation process are to: Determine the HR/Payroll software that best satisfies the requirements specified in the RFP. Ensure that the interests of all TAMUS system member institutions/agencies are considered. Conduct a fair and objective assessment of all interested vendors. 2 - Deliverables As a result of the evaluation procedures described in this guide, the Evaluation Team will deliver the following: 1. Vendor Short-list Report This report will identify the top two or three responders who will be asked to provide software demonstrations and participate in site visits and reference checks. It should include a ranked list of all responders who were included in the short-list evaluation along with the final scoring matrix. 2. Presentation to the HR Advisory Group - The Evaluation Team, or selected members, will present the Short-list to the HR Advisory group along with the scoring results and supporting documentation. 3. Final Evaluation Report This report will document the final recommendations that result from the evaluation process. It will summarize the content of the proposals, key points differentiating each, and the scoring each achieved related to the specifications outlined in the RFP. It is anticipated that this document will identify the preferred Responder, the main reasons for selecting the Responder, and will recommend that negotiations begin. 4. Presentation to the HR Advisory Group The Evaluation Team, or selected members, will present the RFP Evaluation Report, including Evaluation Team recommendations to the HR Advisory Group. 5. Presentation to the Steering Committee The Evaluation Team, or selected members, will present the RFP Evaluation Report, including Evaluation Team recommendations to the Steering Committee. 3 - Evaluation Team 3.0 Team Member Responsibilities 1. Each Evaluation Team member should play an active role in the evaluation process, attend Evaluation Team meetings and review each Responder s proposal independently and without bias. 2. During the RFP evaluation process, the TAMUS Procurement Director is the ONLY person authorized to release results or communicate with the Responders. All requests for further information or clarification must be forwarded to the TAMUS Procurement Director Jeff Zimmermann at JZimmermann@tamus.edu. 3. Evaluators must take all reasonable steps to safeguard pertinent evaluation data. Materials should be locked or put away in the office. If portions are taken off-site, they should be treated as confidential data and kept secure at all times. 4. During the evaluation, all proposals and corresponding information are to be considered confidential data and shall be treated in accordance with relevant data practice laws. 5. Team members should not discuss evaluation results with anyone except as part of the evaluation. 6. Evaluation Team members will be required to sign the Texas A&M System Proposal Evaluation Non-Disclosure Statement. While serving as an Evaluation Team member, all possible perceived or actual conflicts of interest or any other perceived or actual irregularities shall be promptly disclosed in writing to the Procurement Director and project manager. 7. It is important that the full expertise and knowledge of System subject matter experts is allowed to enter the evaluation if needed, so evaluators are allowed to ask questions or seek input from subject matter experts within the TAMU System during The Texas A&M University System Page 1 Revised 9/5/2014
the evaluation. Vendor responses or sections of the proposals may be shared during these sessions, but each subject matter expert consulted must first sign the Texas A&M System Proposal Evaluation Non-Disclosure Statement. 8. Evaluation Team members must remember that, upon conclusion of the evaluation process and negotiations, all comments, scores, notes, etc. will become part of the public record, so all of these records must be properly maintained. 9. Team member are expected to maintain the integrity of the RFP process beyond reproach. 3.1 Team Composition The team will have representation with expertise in HR, Payroll, Faculty Administration, Finance and IT. In order to keep the team to a workable size, not all system members will have direct representation on the team, but deliverables from each phase of the project will be reviewed by the full system-wide HR Advisory Committee in order to receive input from that group. 3.2 Team Members Name Title System member Mark Schulz (Chairman) IT Enterprise Architect System Offices Gary Barnes Assoc. V.P. For Finance and Controller TAMU Teresa Bass Comptroller System Offices Dr. Michael Benedik Dean Of Faculties & Associate Provost TAMU Joe Corn Director of Payroll and Benefits Ag Programs Barbara Corvey Chief Human Resources Officer TAMU Commerce Debra Cortinas Director Of Human Resources TAMU Corpus Christi Danny Grimes Director of Payroll TAMU Randy Guillot Manager, B/P/P Operations Center System Offices Lallah Howard Assoc. V.P., Fiscal Affairs & Comptroller TAMU Kingsville Carol Manthei Principal Software Developer System Offices Rayellen Milburn Senior Associate Vice Pres & Controller HSC Damon Slaydon Director, Human Resources TEES DeAnna White Assistant Director Of Human Resources TAMU Also participating in the process will be Mitt Salvaggio of Information Services Group (ISG). ISG consultants helped with the requirements definition and creation of the RFP. Mitt s role in the evaluation will be as an advisor only. He has assisted many public sector clients in similar projects and will be able to guide the team on process, provide input on best practices and help interpret vendor responses as needed. He will not have a vote in any team decisions or assigning vendor scores. The Texas A&M University System Page 2 Revised 9/5/2014
4-4.0 Process Overview The evaluation process will have three phases. Phase 1 Minimum Standards Review The Advantiv project manager will forward all response information and reports for vendors whose submissions are complete. Incomplete submissions will not be included in the evaluation process. The TAMUS Procurement Director will review the responses for minimal standards compliance. All vendor responses that pass that review will be forwarded to the Evaluation Team for the next phase of evaluation. Phase 2 Short-list Decision The Evaluation Team will be provided all vendor responses to the main RFP entered in Decision Director. Responses to the Detailed Requirements portion of the RFP will be reviewed and weighted by subject-area as listed in Section 5.1 and the resulting reports and detailed responses will be provided to the Evaluation Team for review. The Evaluation Team will review all submitted proposals and reports and score each vendor response using mapping and weighting described in section 5. The result of Phase 2 is a short-list of vendors to be invited for software demonstrations and included in reference checks and site visits. Results of the phase 2 evaluation will be presented to the HR Advisory Committee for review and input. After that presentation, the Evaluation Team will make any needed adjustments and finalize the short-list. The short-listed vendors will be provided a notification letter inviting them to demonstrate their software solution, provide references and arrange site visits. Phase 3 Finalist Decision Following software demonstrations, reference checks and site visits, Best and Final Offers (BAFOs) will be requested from short-listed vendors, giving them an opportunity to amend selected portions of their proposals. After receipt of the short-listed vendors BAFO responses, the Evaluation Team will complete its scoring, and the Evaluation Report will be presented to the HR Advisory Committee. After receiving Advisory Committee input, the Evaluation Team will make any final adjustments to the report and present its recommendation and report to the Steering Committee who will make the final decision. 4.1 Detailed Process Description 1. Evaluation Team Orientation Session This is the initial training/planning session for the Evaluation Team. The objective of this planning session will be to ensure that all team members are aware of their roles and responsibilities, and the process to be followed in evaluating proposals received. The team will review the evaluation process and discuss/consider any changes. All team members shall sign and submit a Texas A&M System Proposal Evaluation Non-Disclosure Statement. 2. RFP Closing/Reporting The RFP will automatically close in Decision Director on September 30, 2014. The Advantiv project manager will forward all response information and reports for vendors whose submissions are complete. Incomplete submissions will not be included in the evaluation process. 3. Minimal Standard Review Each proposal will be reviewed by the TAMUS Procurement Director to ensure that all minimal standard proposal requirements have been met. Proposals failing to meet one or more of these requirements may be eliminated from further consideration. The Texas A&M University System Page 3 Revised 9/5/2014
4. Proposal Reporting Advantiv will provide all vendor responses from Appendix A Section 4 to the project manager who will distribute them to the team members. Responses to the Detailed Requirements entered in DD2 will be scored and weighted as listed in section 5.1. Summary reports along with a spreadsheet showing all responses will be provided to the team. 5. Proposals Review The Evaluation Team shall review the proposals and determine if any clarifications are required. Requests for clarification shall be submitted to the Procurement Director. Each Evaluator will conduct their review and come to the short-list workshop ready to discuss the responses. Each evaluator may, at their discretion, utilize subject matter experts to assist in their respective evaluations. Subject matter experts consulted for this evaluation will also be required to sign the Texas A&M System Proposal Evaluation Non-Disclosure Statement. 6. Short-list Workshop After reviewing the proposals and reports, the Evaluation Team members will meet for a short-list workshop to discuss their individual evaluations, score the responses and produce the Vendor Short-list Report. The workshop will be facilitated by the ISG consultant. All scores will be assigned by consensus of the team members after discussion of vendor responses. The first step will be a discussion of the Company Qualifications from which the team will assign a pass/fail score for each responder. All responders receiving a pass score on the Company Qualifications will be reviewed and scored on the remaining evaluation criteria: Software fit, Software toolset, Services (hosting, pre-implementation), Architecture/Strategic Direction, and Cost. Scores for each listed evaluation criteria will be decided by the team based on the responses to the questions in Appendix A, Section 4 which have been mapped to the criteria listed above. Mapping, scoring and weighting of responses for the short-list workshop are detailed in Sections 5. The Software fit score will be based on information from the reports and responses to the detailed requirements in DD2. The final task of the workshop is to identify which members will: Be presenters to the HR Advisory and Steering Committees (2-3), Conduct reference checks (3 4 member sub-committee), and Go on site visits (2-3 member sub-committee). 7. Presentation of Short-list results to HR Advisory Committee A meeting of the full HR Advisory Committee will be held to present results of the short-list workshop and receive feedback. The Vendor Short-list Report will be distributed to the HR Advisory Committee at least one day prior to the meeting. Selected members of the Evaluation Team will lead the discussion, review the scores, and answer any questions presented by the Committee. A scribe will record significant feedback for later discussion by the Evaluation Team. 8. Short-list final meeting The Evaluation Team will meet again to consider adjustments to the short-list scoring based on feedback from the HR Advisory Committee. This meeting will result in the final short-list of vendors to be invited for software demonstrations and included in reference checks and site visits. The Texas A&M University System Page 4 Revised 9/5/2014
9. Selection of Short-list The Steering Team shall be briefed on the team s evaluation and the TAMUS Procurement Director will notify shortlisted Responders of their selection. The schedule of software demonstrations will be determined at this time by the TAMUS Procurement Director. 10. Short-listed Responder Notification Letters The Procurement Director will prepare and distribute individual notification letters. Each letter will notify Responders as to their status in the evaluation to the selected short-listed vendors that will include: The date, time and location of the software demonstrations A request for site visit recommendations Each short-listed vendor will also receive the following information exactly two-weeks prior to their first scheduled software demonstration: Demonstration instructions as may be appropriate for the conduct of the session Demonstration agenda and scripts 11. Software Demonstrations The short-listed vendors shall demonstrate their proposed software solution(s) to the Evaluation Team, SMEs, members of the HR Advisory Committee and other stakeholders. The sessions will be conducted in accordance with the Vendor Demonstration Scripts. The full set of demonstration scripts will be presented at the TAMU campus in College Station. A sub-set of the scripts will be presented at TAMU-Commerce and TAMU-Kingsville. The College Station demonstrations may be attended via web-meeting, but advance registration for that option will be required. 12. Software Demonstrations Scoring Evaluation Team members will be expected to attend all software demonstrations related to their area of expertise. They will be provided with a Software Demonstration Evaluation Worksheet on which to record their observations. Their participation and rating for all other demonstrations is encouraged, but not required. All other demonstration attendees will be asked to sign-in with their email address when they attend a demonstration. Surveys will be sent to all attendees to collect their feedback on what they observed. Surveys will be less detailed than the Software Demonstration Evaluation Worksheet completed by Evaluation Team members, but will ask whether they attended demonstrations from all finalists. Survey results and individual team member demonstration evaluations will be presented to the full Evaluation Team at the Finalist Recommendation Workshop. Survey responses and team member evaluations will only be considered from individuals who attended specific sessions by both finalists. 13. References Check The References Sub-committee will review the references delivered with the proposal, decide which references to call and make calls to verify the information. A Draft Reference Interview Form has been provided for the team to review and modify as the Sub-committee deems appropriate. The final form will be completed during the call, and may be provided to the interviewee prior to the call if desired. The References Sub-committee will meet as a group and make the calls using a speakerphone or conference call line so that all team members participate in each interview. The Subcommittee will present their findings to the full Evaluation Team at the Finalist Recommendation Workshop. 14. Site visits The Site-visit Sub-committee will consider which sites to visit from those recommended by the vendor. They will visit 1 or 2 locations per finalist to gather information about the software and company. At least one visit for each should be to an institution of higher education currently running the software. A second visit to company headquarters or hosting-site could also be done. All Sub-committee members should attend the same site-visits and the equivalent type of visit for each finalist. For example, the team members who visit an institution of higher education for one The Texas A&M University System Page 5 Revised 9/5/2014
finalist should also visit a higher education institution for the other finalist. The Sub-committee will present their findings to the full Evaluation Team at the Finalist Recommendation Workshop. 15. Best and Final Offer Letters Distributed If requested by the Evaluation Team, the Procurement Director will prepare and distribute Best and Final Offer letters to selected Responders. The Procurement Director will receive the Best and Final Offers by a pre-determined due date and distribute them to the Evaluation Team. 16. Finalist Recommendation Workshop After software demonstrations, reference checks, and site visits are complete, and BAFO responses have been received, the Evaluation Team will meet for the Finalist Recommendation Workshop to discuss the results of those activities, determine their final decision-making criteria, and produce the Final Evaluation Report. The workshop will be facilitated by the ISG consultant. All decisions will be made by consensus of the team members after reports from sub-committees and individual team members. Scores assigned from the short-list workshop will be considered and may be adjusted based on information learned from the subsequent activities and BAFO responses. The team will agree on an outline for the Final Evaluation Report. Designated Evaluation Team members, with the help of the ISG consultant, will complete that report and prepare materials for presentation to the HR Advisory Committee. 17. Presentation of Finalist Recommendation to HR Advisory Committee A meeting of the full HR Advisory Committee will be held to present the finalist recommendation and receive feedback. The Final Evaluation Report will be distributed to the HR Advisory Committee at least one day prior to the meeting. Selected members of the Evaluation Team will lead the discussion and answer any questions presented by the Committee. A scribe will record significant feedback for later discussion by the Evaluation Team. 18. Finalist Recommendation wrap-up meeting The Evaluation Team will meet again to consider adjustments to the finalist recommendation based on feedback from the HR Advisory Committee. 19. Presentation to the Steering Committee A meeting of the Steering Committee will be held to present the finalist recommendation and answer questions. The Final Evaluation Report will be distributed to the Steering Committee one week prior to the meeting. Selected members of the Evaluation Team will lead the discussion and answer any questions presented by the Committee. The Steering Committee will make the final decision on the HR/Payroll Software vendor for TAMUS. 20. Notification Letters The Procurement Director will prepare and distribute the award notification letters to all Responders. Evaluation Team members will return all proposal evaluation materials plus any written notes from the evaluation process to the Procurement Director, who shall keep materials as required for public records needs. The Texas A&M University System Page 6 Revised 9/5/2014
5 - Evaluation Criteria/Scoring 5.0 Mapping of RFP Section 4 responses to scoring criteria Responses to Appendix A Section 4 Questions will apply to the Scoring criteria as follows: Scoring criteria Company Qualifications Architecture/Strategic Direction Software Fit Software Toolset Services Cost Section 4 Question Company Profile Information Strategic Direction User Community and Development Partnership Application Architecture Security Application Program Integration (API) Data Management Capabilities Business Intelligence and Data Warehousing Financial Management and Other Functionality Labor Distribution and Time and Effort Certification Key Differentiators Detailed Requirements responses from DD2 reports Proposed Business Software Applications Technology Support Products Software Licensing Integrated Tools, Software adaptability, Business Rules and Automated Workflow Self-Service Capabilities Mobile Devices Global Payment and Tax Support Accessibility Desktop Software Maintenance System Integration Software Upgrades Hosting Services Pricing 5.1 Weighting for Detailed Requirements responses Functional area weight Payroll 5 IT and General 5 Position Control 4 Benefits 4 Time tracking 4 Leave Tracking 4 Faculty Administration 3 HR Administration 3 Applicant Tracking 2 On-boarding/Off-boarding 2 Research Time and Effort 1 Compensation 1 Performance/Talent Management 1 Learning Mgmt/Employee Training 1 The Texas A&M University System Page 7 Revised 9/5/2014
5.2 Scoring for Short-list Scoring criteria Possible points Responder.. Company Qualifications pass/fail Architecture/Strategic Direction 30 Software Functional Fit 20 Software Toolset 10 Services 20 Cost 20 Total 100 6 - Evaluation Schedule and Activities The evaluation schedule is summarized in the Table below. This schedule is subject to change based on the final working schedule for the Evaluation Team. Date Sept. 25, 2014 Oct. 7 Oct. 7 - Oct. 15 Oct. 16 ( Oct. 17 if needed) Oct. 22 Nov. 10 Nov. 17 Dec. 1 Dec. 11 Week of Jan. 5, 2015 Jan. 5 Jan. 16 Jan. 22 (Jan. 23 if needed) Jan. 28 Feb. 11 Description of Event Evaluation Team Orientation Team receives RFP responses and reports Individual team members review all RFP materials Short-list Workshop Short-list Presentation to HR Advisory Committee and follow-up team meeting College Station Vendor Software Demonstrations Regional University Vendor Software Demonstrations Reference Checks Site Visits Finalist Recommendation Workshop Present finalist recommendation to HR Advisory Committee and follow-up team meeting Present finalist recommendation to Steering Committee The Texas A&M University System Page 8 Revised 9/5/2014
7 - Related Documents Texas A&M System Proposal Evaluation Non-Disclosure Statement A signed copy of this form will be required from every Team member of Subject matter expert who reviews Vendor responses or sections of the proposals. Vendor Reference Questionnaire This questionnaire will be used during telephone conference calls to Responder references. Vendor Demonstration Scripts These scripts document the key functionality that will be presented and evaluated during the demonstration process. The demonstration scripts, along with an agenda for the presentations and criteria for the vendor presentation segment, will be distributed to all short-listed vendors. Software Demonstration Evaluation Worksheet Based on the demonstration scripts, this worksheet will provide Evaluation Team members convenient format for recording their observations during vendor presentations/demonstrations. Use of this form is optional for the Evaluation Team member, but if used, it must be retained and turned in to the Procurement Director when the evaluation process is complete. Software Demonstration Survey All demonstration attendees will be sent this survey asking for their input. It will short (10-12 questions) and ask for feedback of a more general nature than the Software Demonstration Evaluation Worksheet. Short-list Evaluation Report This report will provide a ranked listing of all responders with supporting information from which the short-list will be selected. Final Evaluation Report This report will document the final recommendations that result from the evaluation process along with details of the bases of the recommendation. 8 Change History Ver Date Who What 1.0 9/19/2014 Carol Manthei Initial version for review by Evaluation Team The Texas A&M University System Page 9 Revised 9/5/2014