award_letter_and_synopsis.docx

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

The Department of Natural Resources Procurement office has completed the evaluation of RFP 24*2726 Opinion Survey and has recommended an award to King Media in the amount of $68,600.00, 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:

Kip Conley, Solicitation Manager.

Conleyk1@michigan.gov 517-388-5956 Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor to provide Opinion Surveys. The term of this contract is 2 years, with up to 1 - 1-year renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on 7/16/24. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of 8/16/24.

*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

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

II. Evaluation Method Responses to this solicitation were reviewed by the solicitation manager and subject matter experts, which consisted of the following individuals:

Voting

Kip Conley, Buyer Manager – Solicitation Manager DNR – Finance and Operations Division Drew Rayner, Resource Analyst DNR Forest Resources Division

Marcy Sims, Contract Administrator DNR – Forest Resources Division Susannah Iott, Invasives Species Program Specialist MDARD – Pesticide & Plant Pest Management Division

Vicki Sawicki, Resource Analyst DNR – Forest Resources Division

III. Evaluation Results A. eLearn It All The Evaluation Team determined that eLearn It All based on a score of 45, 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, Section 1 (10/20) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were not satisfactory, the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.1 General Requirements – Bidder did not provide methodology for the survey and only reiterated what was in the bid.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2-3 (5/5) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 4 (10/10) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 4.4 Key Personnel – Staff expertise did not match the needs of the RFP.

4. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 5 (2/25) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were not satisfactory, the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 5.1 Project Plan – The bidder did not provide a project plan.

5. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 6-9 (5/5) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

6. Vendor Questions Worksheet and Experience (15/25) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Experience(s) – Experiences did not correlate with RFP project.

Total Score:47/100

B. King Media The Evaluation Team determined that King Media 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, Section 1 (20/20) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2-3 (5/5) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 4 (20/20) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 5 (25/25) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

5. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 6-9 (5/5) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

6. Vendor Question Worksheet and Experience (25/25) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score:100/100

C. Market Decisions The Evaluation Team determined that Market Decisions 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.

7. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1 (20/20) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

8. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2-3 (5/5) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

9. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 4 (20/20) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

10. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 5 (25/25) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

11. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 6-9 (5/5) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

12. Vendor Question Worksheet and Experience (25/25) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score:100/100

D. Nyaa Health Services The Evaluation Team determined that Nyaa Health Services based on a score of 65, 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, Section 1 (10/20) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.1 General Requirements – Bidder did not clearly define their methodology and had a vague plan.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2-3 (5/5) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 4 (20/20) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 5 (10/25) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were not satisfactory, the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 5.1 Project Plan – The bidder only provided the first 4 quarters of work for the project. This project is to take place over the course of 2 years.

5. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 6-9 (5/5) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

6. Vendor Question Worksheet and Experience (10/25) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Experiences – Bidder did not provide outcomes of experiences and used an experience from a subcontractor.

Total Score:60/100

E. Probolsky Research The Evaluation Team determined that Probolsky Research based on a score of 90, 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, Section 1 (20/20) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2-3 (5/5) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 4 (20/20) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 5 (25/25) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 5.3 Reporting – Bidder provided sample reports but did not provide reports with narratives.

5. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 6-9 (5/5) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

6. Vendor Question Worksheet and Experiences (20/25) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

b. Experience – Bidder failed to tie one of the experiences back into the RFP.

Total Score:90/100

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Version 2024-2 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:

VI.

VII. Award Recommendation Award recommendation is made to the responsive and responsible Bidder who offers the lowest price to the State of Michigan. Low price is determined by the Bidder who meets the requirements and offers the lowest overall price as demonstrated by its proposal.

Award Recommendation is made to King Media in the amount of $68,600.00.

image1.png