Auctioneering Services - Award Letter - Synopsis.docx

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

Notice of Intent to Award Number: 250000000002 The Michigan Department of Treasury’s Unclaimed Property office has completed the evaluation of RFP 240000002823 – Auctioneering Services and has recommended an award to Chuck Cryderman & Associates, L.L.C. in the amount of $180,000, 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:

Kyle Elzinga, Solicitation Manager.

ElzingaK1@michigan.gov; 517-614-0956 Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) is for Auctioneering Services. The Department of Treasury (State), in accordance with Public Act 29 of 1995, disposes of lost, unclaimed or abandoned personal property (Unclaimed Property) in the custody of the State. This is accomplished primarily through sale to the highest bidder via public auction. While most auctions will be online, on rare occasions a live auction may be required.

The term of this contract is three years, with up to two renewal option years.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on Thursday, August 1, 2024. The following bidders submitted proposals in SIGMA Vendor Self Service (VSS) by the published due date of Friday, August 30, 2024.

Capac, MI 48014

Fort Worth, TX 76106

*SDVOB: Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Business **GDBE: Geographically Disadvantaged Business Enterprise

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 requirements identified in the solicitation.

Proposal Instructions: Evaluation Process

Proposals receiving 80 or more technical evaluation points will have pricing evaluated and considered for award.

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:

Terry Stanton, Administrative Manager Treasury/Departmental Services – Unclaimed Property Lance Kingsbury, Departmental Manager Treasury/Departmental Services-Purchasing

Angie Dillon, Departmental Supervisor Treasury/Departmental Services – Unclaimed Property Kyle Elzinga, Departmental Analyst Treasury/Departmental Services-Purchasing

Andrea Grace Treasury/Departmental Services – Unclaimed Property Laura Herrin, Departmental Manager Treasury/Departmental Services – Unclaimed Property

Lindsay Russell Treasury/Departmental Services – Unclaimed Property

III. Evaluation Results A. Chuck Cryderman & Associates, L.L.C.

The Evaluation Team determined that Chuck Cryderman & Associates, L.L.C. based on a score of 97, 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, General Requirements, Section 1 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. General Requirements, Section 1.4. Hosting. Bidder did not provide enough detail in Bidder’s Disaster Recovery Plan.

b. General Requirements, Section 1, A. Online Auction Services – 10. Bidder did not describe how they would agree, with the State’s Program Manager, on a method of shipping or pick up of items for sale on a per event basis (the same method agreed upon prior to the online auction will also be used for the process of returning any items that remain unsold upon conclusion of the online auction).

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2-8, excluding Section 3 The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory, and no deficiencies were noted.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Staffing, Section 3 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. Staffing, Section 3.6. Key Personnel. Bidder has conflicting response to location of staff members. In the Vendor Question Worksheet, Bidder’s response states no staff employed in locations within Michigan; however, response from the Key Personnel chart contradicts this response.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory, and no deficiencies were noted.

Total Score: 94 / 100 B. Lone Star Auctioneering, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Lone Star Auctioneering, Inc., based on a score of 69, did not 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, General Requirements, Section 1 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, many of the responses were not satisfactory and the following deficiencies were noted:

a. General Requirements, Section 1, A. Online Auction Services - 4. Bidder did not satisfactorily describe their presence or availability to answer questions or resolve problems within two hours of the notification of the issue.

b. General Requirements Section 1, A. Online Auction Services - 5. Bidder did not describe how they would notify the Program Manager or their designee at least five days in advance and obtain approval of replacement if the designated auctioneer(s) is unable to conduct an auction.

c. General Requirements, Section 1, A. Online Auction Services - 6. Bidder did not describe how they would conduct auctions in accordance with accepted auctioning standards and instructions of the Program Manager or designee.

d. General Requirements, Section 1, A. Online Auction Services - 7. Bidder provided a response that does not describe their advertising capabilities per the requirements (a-c).

e. General Requirements, Section 1, A. Online Auction Services - 9. Bidder did not describe how they would catalog and take photographs of lots for sale to be placed on Contractor’s website for the online auction.

f. General Requirements, Section 1, A. Online Auction Services - 10. Bidder did not describe how they would agree, with the State’s Program Manager, on a method of shipping or pick up of items for sale on a per event basis (the same method agreed upon prior to the online auction will also be used for the process of returning any items that remain unsold upon conclusion of the online auction).

g. General Requirements, Section 1, B. Live Auction Services - 7. Bidder did not select a checkbox, either agreeing to or taking exception to the requirement. Additionally, the bidder’s response does not describe how they will conduct auctions in accordance with accepted auctioning standards and instructions of the Program Manager or designee.

h. General Requirements, Section 1, B. Live Auction Services - 8. Bidder did not select a checkbox, either agreeing to or taking exception to the requirement. Additionally, the bidder did not describe their advertising capabilities per the requirements (a-e).

i. General Requirements, Section 1, B. Live Auction Services - 9. Bidder’s response did not include how they would provide all printed forms including but not limited to receipts, registration forms, and auction sales listing sheets.

j. General Requirements, Section 1, B. Live Auction Services - 11. Bidder did not select a checkbox, either agreeing to or taking exception to the requirement.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2-8, excluding Section 3 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. Reporting, Section 4.3. Bidder did not provide a sample of the auction reports.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Staffing, Section 3 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Key Personnel, Section 3.6. Bidder did not provide resumes of Key Personnel.

b. Organizational Chart, Section 3.7. Bidder did not provide an Organizational Chart.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory, and no deficiencies were noted.

Total Score: 69 / 100 IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

V. Pricing Summary Pricing was evaluated for the bidders who passed technical. The following is a summary of their price proposals:

Original Pricing:

A. Online Auction Service Pricing Agency/ Auction Type *Buyer’s Premium Percentage

Treasury Unclaimed Property 15 %

B. Live Auction Services Pricing Agency/ Auction Type Estimated Annual Sales *Buyer’s Premium Percentage

(cash or check purchase)

*Buyer’s Premium Percentage

(credit card purchases include additional 3% fee)

Treasury Unclaimed Property

Second Round Pricing:

A. Online Auction Service Pricing Agency/ Auction Type *Buyer’s Premium Percentage

Treasury Unclaimed Property 15 %

B. Live Auction Services Pricing Agency/ Auction Type Estimated Annual Sales *Buyer’s Premium Percentage

(cash or check purchase)

*Buyer’s Premium Percentage

(credit card purchases include additional 3% fee)

Treasury Unclaimed Property

VI. Negotiations After second round pricing was reviewed, Chuck Cryderman & Associates, L.L.C provided a cost savings of 5% on live auction services when paying via cash or check and a 2% savings when paying via credit card.

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.

Chuck Cryderman & Associates, L.L.C. provides the best value to the State.

As part of the best value determination, overall economic impact to the State of Michigan was considered in making this award. Chuck Cryderman & Associates, L.L.C. provides the greatest overall economic impact to Michigan because they will pay Michigan sales tax on all items sold at the auctions.

Version 2023-1 image1.png