260000000021 - Award Recommendation and Evaluation Synopsis.pdf

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Version 2024-2 Page 1 of 5

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

Notice of Intent to Award Number: 260000000021

Notice of Intent to Award Date: 10/15/2025

The Department of Technology, Management & Budget’s office has completed the evaluation of Request for Proposal No. 250000002938 for Radar and Lidar Speed Measurement Equipment and has recommended an award to Applied Concepts, Inc. in the amount of $500,000.00, Kustom Signals, Inc. in the amount of $200,000.00, and Laser Technology, Inc. in the amount of $500,000.00 pending State Administrative Board approval, if applicable. More information on the State Administrative Board can be found at: State Administrative Board.

Bidders who were not recommended for the award are encouraged to schedule a debriefing session with the Solicitation Manager. The debriefing session will provide the bidder with the State’s rationale on why the bidder was not recommended for the award. The Solicitation Manager may be contacted as follows:

Nichole Harrell, Solicitation Manager.

Harrelln@michigan.gov 517-449-9245

Public copies of all bidder proposals can be found here: DTMB - Bid Proposals (michigan.gov)

Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor to provide Radar and Lidar Speed Measurement Equipment. The term of this contract is three (3) years, with up to three (3) additional one-year renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on Wednesday, August 20, 2025. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of Thursday, September 18, 2025.

Bidder Address, City, State, Zip Code SDVOB* GDBE**

Applied Concepts, Inc., dba Stalker Radar

855 E Collins Blvd., Richardson, TX 75081-2251 No No

Laser Technology, Inc 6912 S Quentin Street, Suite A, Centennial, CO 80112 No No

Kustom Signals, Inc. 10901 W 84th Terrace, Suite 100, Lenexa, KS 66214 No No

*SDVOB: Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Business **GDBE: Geographically Disadvantaged Business Enterprise https://www.michigan.gov/dtmb/policies/state-ad-board https://www.michigan.gov/dtmb/procurement/contractconnect/bid-proposals

Version 2024-2 Page 2 of 5

EVALUATION SYNOPSIS

I. Evaluation Process

A Responsible Vendor is a vendor that demonstrates it has the ability to successfully perform the duties identified by the solicitation. A Responsive proposal is one that is submitted in accordance with the solicitation instructions and meets all mandatory

Proposal Instructions: Evaluation Process

Technical Evaluation Criteria Weight

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1. General Requirements and Section

3. Staffing 30

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2. Service Requirements 25

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 4. Pricing, Section 5. Ordering, Section

6. Delivery, Section 7. Acceptance, Section 8. Invoice and Payment 20

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet 25

Total 100

The full evaluation process is stated in the RFP Proposal Instructions.

II. Evaluation Method

Responses to this solicitation were reviewed by a Joint Evaluation Committee (JEC), which consisted of the following individuals:

Voting Advisory Nichole Harrell, DTMB – Procurement Andrew Richards, MSP – Mobile Office Environment Jeffrey Bedell, MSP – Mobile Office Environment

Sergeant Jim McGaffigan, MSP – Mobile Office Environment

III. Evaluation Results

A. Applied Concepts, Inc. dba Stalker Radar

The Evaluation Team determined that Applied Concepts, Inc. based on a score of 100, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Sections 1 and 3 Score 30/30

The evaluation team determined that overall, the responses provided were satisfactory. No deficiencies were noted for these sections.

2. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Section 2 Score 25/25

The evaluation team determined that overall, the responses provided were satisfactory. No deficiencies were noted for this section.

3. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Sections 4 through 8 Score 20/20

Version 2024-2 Page 3 of 5

The evaluation team determined that overall, the responses provided were satisfactory. No deficiencies were noted for these sections.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet Score 25/25

The evaluation team determined that overall, the responses provided were satisfactory. No deficiencies were noted for these sections.

Total Score: 100/100

B. Kustom Signals

The Evaluation Team determined that Kustom Signals, Inc., based on a score of 96, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Sections 1 and 3 Score 28/30

The evaluation team determined that overall, the responses provided were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Pg. 11, Section 3.2. Key Personnel, Bidder failed to provide current chronological resumes for all key personnel listed in their response, as required.

b. Pg. 12, Section 3.3. Organizational Chart, Bidder failed to include an overall organizational chart in bid response, as required.

2. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Section 2 Score 25/25

The evaluation team determined that overall, the responses provided were satisfactory. No deficiencies were noted for this section.

3. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Sections 4 through 8 Score 18/20

The evaluation team determined that overall, the responses provided were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Pg. 15, Section 5.2. Order Verification, Bidder failed to provide a response in Bidder Response box.

b. Pg. 17, Section 7.1. Acceptance, Inspection and Testing, Bidder failed to accept the requirement as presented.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet Score 25/25

The evaluation team determined that overall, the responses provided were satisfactory. No deficiencies were noted for these sections.

Total Score: 96/100

C. Laser Technology, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Laser Technology, Inc. based on a score of 100, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Sections 1 and 3 Score 30/30

Version 2024-2 Page 4 of 5

The evaluation team determined that overall, the responses provided were satisfactory. No deficiencies were noted for these sections.

2. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Section 2 Score 25/25

The evaluation team determined that overall, the responses provided were satisfactory. No deficiencies were noted for this section.

3. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Sections 4 through 8 Score 20/20

The evaluation team determined that overall, the responses provided were satisfactory. No deficiencies were noted for these sections.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet Score 25/25

The evaluation team determined that overall, the responses provided were satisfactory. No deficiencies were noted for these sections.

Total Score:100/100

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

Technical Evaluation Criteria Applied Concepts

Kustom Signals

Laser Technology

Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1 and 3 0 -2 0

Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2 0 0 0

Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 4 - 8 0 -2 0

Vendor Questions Worksheet 0 0 0

Total Technical Evaluation Deductions 0 -4 0

Technical Evaluation Score 100 96 100

V. Pricing Summary

Pricing was evaluated for the bidders who passed technical. The RFP specified estimated 3-year quantities for the following categories: radar (in car), radar (handheld) and lidar. Bidders quoted unit prices for various models in the various categories, as specified below. They also quoted options, extended warranties and parts and accessories.

Bidder Radar and Lidar Speed Measurement Equipment

Total Bid Amount

1 Applied Concepts, Inc. DBA Stalker Radar Radar and Lidar N/A

2 Kustom Signals, Inc. Radar and Lidar N/A

3 Laser Technology, Inc Lidar Only N/A

VI. Negotiations

Second-round pricing clarifications and offers were requested from all bidders.

Version 2024-2 Page 5 of 5

As a result, Applied Concepts and Kustom Signals declined to provide any further updates to pricing. Laser Technology, Inc. reduced the price of their LTI 20-20 TruSpeed S by 1% and LTI 20-20 TruSpeed 100 by 2%.

VII. Award Recommendation

Award recommendation is made to the responsive and responsible Bidder who offers the best value to the State of Michigan. Best value is based on the proposal meeting the minimum point threshold and offering the best combination of the factors stated in the Proposal Instructions Evaluation Process section, and price.

The Solicitation Manager, in collaboration with JEC members, recommend a multiple award to all bidders, providing the best value to the State, in the amounts specified below for the initial three-year term. This recommendation will provide state agencies and MiDeal members with a comprehensive selection of speed measurement equipment that balances performance, functionality and cost, ensuring multiple options for all program area needs and budgets. These estimated contract values are projected expenditures, based on historical purchases.

Awarded Bidder Estimated 3-Year Contract Value

Applied Concepts, DBA Stalker Radar $500,000.00

Kustom Signals, Inc. $200,000.00

Laser Technology, Inc. $500,000.00