Award Letter and Synopsis.docx

STATE OF MICHIGAN

ENTERPRISE PROCUREMENT

Recommendation of Award The Michigan State Police, Purchasing Unit, has completed evaluation of Request for Quote #180000000212 Heuresis HBI-120 Backscatter X-Ray Imager, Accessories and Extended Warranty for the Special Operations Division and has recommended an award to Heuresis Corporation in the amount of $354,540.00, 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:

Paula Hurst Thomas, Buyer HurstP3@michigan.gov

(517) 284-3305 Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor to provide Heuresis HBI-120 Backscatter X-Ray Imagers, Accessories and Extended Warranty. This is a multi-year agreement.

Bidders:

The RFQ was posted on SIGMA VSS on November 28, 2017. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of December 13, 2017:

City, State Zip

SDVOB*

Troy, MI 48084 Yes

Heuresis Corporation

330 Nevada Street Newton, MA No

*SDVOB: Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Business

Version 1 Revised: 07-28-2017

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, if any.

Solicitation Instructions, Section 7, Evaluation Process.

Technical Evaluation Criteria

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

II. Evaluation Method Responses to this solicitation were reviewed by the Buyer in collaboration with the end users and subject matter experts, which consisted of the following individuals:

Evaluators

Paula Hurst Thomas, Buyer MSP, Purchasing

Sgt. Tim Coolidge

MSP, SOD

III. Evaluation Results A. Fidelis Solutions, LLC

The Evaluation Team determined that Fidelis Business Solutions did not meet the requirements of this RFQ. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Product Quality (Schedule A, Section 1) Vendor submitted an alternate product. MSP requested vendor provide two units for a three- day test period by December 26, 2017. Vendor was unable to accommodate the requested timeline and requested a time extension until January 26, 2018.

2. Service Capabilities (Schedule A, Sections 2-3) The RFQ required vendor to resolve technical support calls within one hour, and if caller’s issue could not be resolved within 24 hours, on-site service must be performed within 72 hours. Vendor indicates standard service does not include resolving caller issues within one hour, and no on-site maintenance is available. Vendor indicates all maintenance and repair work is performed by returning the equipment to the manufacturer.

3. Delivery Capabilities (Schedule A, Section 6) Vendor is unable to deliver product as required in the RFQ (45 days ARO). Vendor proposed delivery of three units in 45 days ARO and the remaining five units 90 days ARO.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet Bidders were to provide at least two relevant experiences from the last two years supporting their ability to successfully manage a contract of similar size and scope for the work described in the RFQ. The vendor did not provide any information regarding any prior experience.

B. Heuresis Corporation

The Evaluation Team determined that Heuresis Corporation did meet the requirements of this RFQ. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Product Quality (Schedule A, Section 1) Vendors proposed product matches the requirements of the RFQ.

2. Service Capabilities (Schedule A, Sections 2-3) The RFQ required vendor to resolve technical support calls within one hour, and if caller’s issue could not be resolved within 24 hours, on-site service must be performed within 72 hours. Vendor agreed with the required timeline but indicated one exception would be the HBI-120 may need to be shipped back to the manufacturer for repair. Vendor indicated a repair would take 24-48 hours.

3. Delivery Capabilities (Schedule A, Section 6) Vendor is able to deliver product as required in the RFQ (45 days ARO).

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet The vendor provided two relevant experiences from the last two years supporting their ability to successfully manage a contract of similar size and scope for the work described in the RFQ.

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

VI. Award Recommendation:

Award recommendation is made to the responsive and responsible Bidder who offers the best value to the State, as determined by the State. Best value will be determined by the bidder offering the best combination of factors stated in Section 6, Evaluation Process, and price, as demonstrated by the proposal. Heuresis Corporation provided the best value to the State. Award Recommendation is made to Heuresis Corporation in the amount of $354,540.00.

image1.jpeg