COMPETITION-IMPRACTICABLE-JUSTIFICATION-FORM-VALORE PARTNERS-IAMPHASE3.PDF

Office of Procurement Services 
GOODS AND SERVICES 
COMPETITION IMPRACTICABLE FORM 
This form is to be used when a department believes an acquisition is considered Competition Impracticable and the acquisition 
dollar amount is above $10,000. The Chief Procurement Officer can approve purchases up to $100,000. Board of Supervisors 
approval is required if the acquisition is over $100,000. This form must be submitted for approval to: Office of Procurement 
Services | 301 W Jefferson Street Suite 700 | Phoenix, AZ 85003. Fax number: 602.506.6766. The signed form must be retained 
in the purchasing file. Unless approved by the Board of Supervisors in a formal agenda item or the Chief Procurement Officer in 
a formal Contract a CI form is valid from July 1 thru June 30th of each Fiscal Year. 
DEPARTMENT NAME 
DEPARTMENT RX# 
PROPOSED CONTRACT VENDOR 
NEED IDENTIFIED Date: 
REQUESTED DELIVERY 
Date: 
QUOTED PRICE:  $750,000
Accounting String: 
100-D410-4126-ENSC-EDNK-LGCY  $450,000 
100-D410-4128-ENET-8123-EDCO: $200,000 
100-D410-4128-ENET-8123-EDC0: $100,000
Company: 
Address: 
City, State: 
Zip/Postal Code: 
Phone: 
Fax: 
Contact Name: 
DESCRIPTION OF GOODS OR SERVICES REQUIRED: 
The estimated cost of this Procurement is: 
≤ $100k 
> $100k
Is this a Technology Procurement? 
Yes 
No 
COMPETITION IMPRACTICABLE CATEGORY (Check applicable box, attach documentation or provide explanation below.)
Maricopa County Procurement Code MC1-351 states: “Competition Impracticable” means an acquisition where, competition is 
impractical because of standardization, warranty, or other factors as approved by the Board of Supervisors. 
NOTE:  The following are unlikely to be sufficient Competition Impracticable justifications: 
• Personal or department preference for a product or vendor
• Department perception that the vendor is the best qualified (this should be determined through a competitive process)
• Lack of department planning resulting in limited time to conduct a competitive procurement
• Special incentive or deal offered (can be assessed in open and competitive solicitation)
• Department  convenience
Grant specified (supporting documents attached) 
Mailing lists, subscriptions or media advertising 
Warranty voided if service provided by other contract vendor 
Other (Provide written explanation below) 
Software license renewals, additions, or upgrades available 
from only one source 
Brand compatibility available from only one source (no other 
distributors) 
Other proprietary situation 
Office of Enterprise Technology
410
Valore Partners
09/26/2022
2801 E. Camelback Road Suite 200
John.Trumble@valorepartners.com
4807296722
85016
Phoenix, AZ
John Trumble
This is an extension of an existing services engagement to support a technology project. 
Approved project and operating funds will be utilized for the project, no new budget is 
requested.  
10/31/2022




SEARCH 
A search was conducted consisting of: (check all that apply) 
Market research 
Public notice given, list 
Other vendors contacted 
Other 
RESULTS 
no alternatives were identified 
no alternatives were deemed acceptable 
because (explain below): 
Describe the search from above in detail: 
PRICE 
MC1-352-B states: The Using Agency requesting a Competition Impracticable Procurement shall provide written evidence 
to support a Competition Impracticable determination containing an explanation of why the proposed procurement 
process is advantageous to the County; and the scope, duration, and estimated total dollar value of the procurement. 
Price has been fairly and reasonably established by: 
Comparison to previous comparable purchases 
from a different vendor 
Independent estimate 
Comparison to public sector contract pricing 
Discount off published catalog pricing 
Market survey 
Other, explain: 
Describe methodology and results (attach any written supporting data, e.g., survey or market analysis): 
THIS IS A COMPETITION IMPRACTICABLE PROCUREMENT BECAUSE (attach additional page if needed): 
The Valore team was chosen in an initial competitive bid process in November 2021 to assist the County in helping to create and implement the 
Identity and Access Management (IAM) program. The initial bid stipulated terms of 12 months and no greater than $1,000,000. As we got into 
the work planning needed to complete the integrations with HR we recognized that the effort would require more time and funding. OET would 
like to retain the momentum of the project by continuing to work with Valore through June of 2023 leveraging the Statement of Work included 
with this submission. The IAM program is a cross-departmental initiative to create a secure identity framework for the County. The scope of 
Phase 2 required Valore to work closely with IT engineers and leadership across many County departments. The work efforts included in-depth 
discovery and mapping of Maricopa County identity data attributes and authentication workflows. Attempting to reacquire this knowledge with 
another vendor would prove a hardship for all IT teams across the County and the HR technical team. The Valore team has extensive 
knowledge of our technologies, identity data, and workflows. This knowledge, coupled with their experience in Okta, Azure Active Directory, and 
Workday, makes them best qualified to ensure the County can continue to work through the identity framework laid out in the Identity and 
Access Management (IAM) program. The IAM Program framework will build a foundation of auditable, secure access to County resources, 
reducing overall risk and enhancing the experience of interacting with the County as an employee and citizen. It is in the best interest of the 
County to continue with a vendor that has knowledge of County processes as well as deep technical skill in the areas of focus.  
During the initial competitive bid process, which was 11 months ago the IAM project team 
reviewed the qualifications of other vendors. The conclusion of this review was that Valore 
Partners was the most qualified in the area of identity as well as our technology platforms, 
Azure and Okta. During Phase 2 they demonstrated their competency through the work efforts 
with each County IT department and County HR. At this time no alternatives have been 
deemed acceptable due to the knowledge Valore gained during Phase 2 in regards to County 
processes, the custom workflows they built and the relationships that have been fostered.  
There has also been market research done via conference exposure to other implementations 
and vendors. This research proved the County partnered appropriately for this effort. 
The rates line up with market rates for individuals with comparable experience. 







CERTIFICATIONS 
I certify: 
1) I recognize that the Maricopa County Procurement Code requires the use of competitive solicitations unless
exempted by law.  I have reviewed the information and materials relevant to this procurement of goods and  services, 
and am requesting approval of an exception to the competitive process for the reasons described; 
2) the price to be paid to the proposed vendor is fair, reasonable, and provides the best value to Maricopa County; and
3) this request for an exception to the competitive solicitation process is not the result of inadequate advance planning
or for purposes of securing the services of a preferred vendor. 
Department Head or Department Head Delegate Signature (Required) 
Printed Name 
Signature 
Date 
Office of Procurement Services 
The CPO can approve procurements up to $100,000.  If this request is over $100,000 it must be submitted as 
an agenda item to the Board of Supervisors for consideration. 
Approved/Recommended for Approval 
Printed Name 
Signature 
Date 
Office of Enterprise Technology (If this procurement is classified as a technology procurement it must be 
forwarded to OET for coordination and/or approval. If this procurement request is not approved by OET, the form will 
be returned to the requestor.) 
Approved. Recommended purchase is in line with Maricopa County's strategic technology plan or currently installed 
equipment or service, and is considered to be a competition impracticable procurement. 
Not Approved. 
Reasoning: 
Printed Name 
Signature 
Date 
Save 


Email
Edward D. Winfield
10/6/2022
10/6/2022
Edward D. Winfield
10/10/2022
Kevin Tyne