Award Letter and Synopsis Home Appliance RFP 24-0760.docx

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

Notice of Intent to Award Number: 240000000380 The Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy’s Procurement office has completed the evaluation of RFP# 240000000760 for Michigan Home Electrification and Appliance Rebate Planning and has recommended an award to Accenture LLP in the amount of $1,584,208, 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:

Lisa VanOstran, Solicitation Manager vanostranl@michigan.gov

(517) 599-7680 Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor to provide Michigan Home Energy Efficiency Rebate Planning. The term of this contract is two years, with up to one one-year renewal option.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on December 21, 2024, for 42 days. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of February 1, 2024.

Detroit MI 48226

Grand Rapids MI 49504

Detroit MI 48226

Tallahassee FL 32311

Detroit MI 48209

Nashville TN 37206

*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 the Solicitation Manager in collaboration with Subject Matter Experts, which consisted of the following individuals:

Lisa VanOstran, Procurement Manager EGLE/Finance Division Julie Staveland, Assistant Division Director EGLE/Materials Management Division

Jake Wilkinson, Manager EGLE/Materials Management Division

III. Evaluation Results A. Bidder # 1 – Accenture LLP The Evaluation Team determined that Accenture LLP 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. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Bidder took exception with Standard Terms and Conditions.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1 Requirements The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2 Staffing The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

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

a. Bidder’s project timeline indicated that the RFP for implantation would post before obtaining DOE approval.

Total Score: 97/100

B. Bidder # 2 – Crowe LLP The Evaluation Team determined that Crowe LLP based on a score of 68, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Bidder’s experience was not relevant to the size and scope of work described in the RFP.

b. Bidder took exception with Standard Terms and Conditions

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1 Requirements The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Bidder does not have experience with rebate programs in Michigan.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2 Staffing The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Bidder indicates that they will employ a subcontractor but does not provide the required details.

4. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3 Project Management The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 68/100

C. Bidder # 3 – Guidehouse LLP The Evaluation Team determined that Guidehouse LLP 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. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1 Requirements The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2 Staffing The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

4. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3 Project Management The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 100/100

D. Bidder # 4 – Indelible Health Solutions LLC The Evaluation Team determined that Indelible Health Solutions LLC based on a score of 95, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1 Requirements The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2 Staffing The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

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

a. Bidder did not provide adequate detail when describing their project plan.

Total Score: 95/100

E. Bidder # 5 – MCL Jasco Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that MCL Jasco Inc. based on a score of 70, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1 Requirements The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Bidder did not provide adequate detail when describing how they would meet the requirements.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2 Staffing The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

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

a. Bidder did not provide adequate detail when describing their project plan.

Total Score: 70/100

F. Bidder # 6 – Milepost Consulting SPC The Evaluation Team determined that Milepost Consulting SPC based on a score of 61, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Bidder did not provide a response to question #6 Standard Terms and Conditions.

b. Bidder’s experience was not relevant to the size and scope of work described in the RFP.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1 Requirements The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Bidder did not provide adequate detail when describing how they would meet the requirements.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2 Staffing The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Bidder did not provide Contractor Representative Name or Customer Service Phone Number.

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

a. Bidder did not provide adequate detail when describing their project plan.

b. Bidder did not include required sample reports.

Total Score: 61/100

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:

VI. 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 Accenture LLP in the amount of $1,584,208.

Version 2024-1 image1.png