07/26/16

Recommendation of Award

The Department of Technology, Management, & Budget’s Procurement office has completed the evaluation of

Direct Solicitation # 171-180000002508, Asphalt Patching & Sealing Equipment, and has recommended an award to Multiple Bidders (see list below), pending State Administrative Board approval, if applicable. More information on the State Administrative Board can be found at: State Administrative Board.

Duraco, Inc. dba Durapatcher

Keizer – Morris International, Inc.

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:

Yvon Dufour, Solicitation Manager dufoury@michigan.gov

(517) 249-0455

Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor(s) to provide asphalt patching and sealing equipment for purchase and rental. The term of this contract is four (4) years, with up to two (2), one (1) year renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on www.michigan.gov/SIGMAVSS on 5/11/2018 for twenty (20) days. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of 5/31/2018.

Bidder Address City, State Zip

SDVOB*

Duraco, Inc. dba Durapatcher 2601 Niagra Lane N., Plymouth, MN 55447 No

Keizer – Morris International, Inc. 6561 Bernie Kohler Dr., North Branch, MI 48461

No

Crafco, Inc. 6165 W. Detroit St., Chandler, AZ 85226 No

Southeastern Equipment, Co. 48545 Grand River Ave., Novi, MI 48374 No

*SDVOB: Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Business

STATE OF MICHIGAN

ENTERPRISE PROCUREMENT

Department of Technology, Management & Budget 525 W. Allegan Street Lansing, MI 48933 P.O. Box 30026 Lansing, MI 48909 http://www.michigan.gov/micontractconnect/0,4541,7-225-48756---,00.html http://www.michigan.gov/SIGMAVSS

07/26/16

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.

7. MANDATORY MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS. To avoid disqualification, the bidder must provide documentation to support the following:

• Manufacturer Authorized Distributor

• All “*catalog” pricing must be published and available at all times via website access, and/or electronic/printed price pages. *Catalogs consist of items in Schedule B – Pricing

Only proposals meeting the mandatory minimum requirements will be considered for evaluation.

8. EVALUATION PROCESS. If all mandatory minimum requirements are met, the State will evaluate each proposal based on the following factors:

Technical Evaluation Criteria Weight

1. Warranties/Service Levels/Delivery/Training - Schedule A – Statement of Work, A. EQUIPMENT FOR PURCHASE, All Sections (Equipment for rental/lease shall be evaluated separately). AND/OR Specifications/Availability and Delivery/Maintenance/Service/Training - Schedule A – Statement of Work, B. EQUIPMENT FOR RENTAL/LEASE, All Sections (Equipment for purchase shall be evaluated separately).

2. General Requirements - Schedule A – Statement of Work, C. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS, all sections.

3. Company information/Experience – Vendor Questions Worksheet, sections 1

– 5, 8 and 9.

4. Evidence of a Superior level of “Resources/Capacity” providing service to the entire State – Vendor Questions Worksheet, sections 6 & 7. (The Contractor(s) with the most resources in all areas shall attain the highest score).

Total 100

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

The State may utilize all bidder information, without regard to a proposal’s technical score, to determine fair market value for goods or services sought. The State is not obligated to accept the lowest price proposal. If applicable, the State’s evaluation will include consideration of a bidder’s qualified disabled veteran (QDV) status under MCL 18.1261(8). Additional information on the QDV preference is available at: http://michigan.gov/micontractconnect/0,4541,7-225-48677-123519--,00.html.

The State strongly encourages strict adherence to the Contract Terms. The State reserves the right to deem a bid non-responsive for failure to accept the Contract Terms. Nevertheless, the bidder may submit proposed changes to the Contract Terms in track changes (i.e., visible edits) with an explanation of the bidder’s need for each proposed change. Failure to include track changes with an explanation of the bidder’s need for the proposed change constitutes the bidder’s acceptance of the Contract Terms.

General statements, such as that the bidder reserves the right to negotiate the terms and conditions, may be considered non-responsive.

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/NDF51D9D11A6211E7AF4BCB5D36CD7FBD/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.Search)&userEnteredCitation=MCL+18.1261 http://michigan.gov/micontractconnect/0,4541,7-225-48677-123519--,00.html

The State may conduct an on-site visit to tour and inspect the bidder’s facilities; require an oral presentation of the bidder's proposal; conduct interviews, research, reference checks, and background checks; and request additional price concessions at any point during the 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 in collaboration with a Subject Matter

Expert; which consisted of the following individuals: Yvon Dufour – Solicitation Manager, and Scott Poyer -

MDOT Fleet Specialist.

FOR PURCHASE

A. Duraco, Inc. (Durapatcher)

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

1. Warranties/Service Levels/Delivery/Training - Schedule A – Statement of Work, A.

EQUIPMENT FOR PURCHASE, Sections 1 – 3.3. SCORE 20/20 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. General Requirements - Schedule A – Statement of Work, C. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS, all sections. SCORE 15/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Company information/Experience – Vendor Questions Worksheet, sections 1 – 5, 8 and 9.

SCORE 25/25

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Evidence of a Superior level of “Resources/Capacity” providing service to the entire State –

Vendor Questions Worksheet, sections 6. (The Contractor(s) with the most resources in all areas shall attain the highest score). SCORE 40/40

Total Score: 100/100

B. Keizer – Morris International, Inc. (KMI)

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

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. General Requirements - Schedule A – Statement of Work, C. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS, all sections. SCORE 15/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Company information/Experience – Vendor Questions Worksheet, sections 1 – 5, 8 and 9.

SCORE 25/25

areas shall attain the highest score). SCORE 40/40

C. Crafco, Inc. (Crafco)

The Evaluation Team determined that Crafco, based on a score of 95/100, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. General Requirements - Schedule A – Statement of Work, C. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS, all sections. SCORE 15/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Company information/Experience – Vendor Questions Worksheet, sections 1 – 5, 8 and 9.

SCORE 20/25

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Two of three experiences were provided.

areas shall attain the highest score). SCORE 40/40

Total Score: 95/100

D. Southestern Equipment, Co. (Southeastern)

The Evaluation Team determined that Southeastern, based on a score of 100/100, did meet the

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. General Requirements - Schedule A – Statement of Work, C. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS, all sections. SCORE 15/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Company information/Experience – Vendor Questions Worksheet, sections 1 – 5, 8 and 9.

SCORE 25/25

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Evidence of a Superior level of “Resources/Capacity” providing service to the entire State – Vendor Questions Worksheet, sections 6. (The Contractor(s) with the most resources in all areas shall attain the highest score). SCORE 40/40

FOR RENTAL

E. Duraco, Inc. (Durapatcher)

The Evaluation Team determined that Durapatcher, based on a score of 96/100, did meet the

1. Specifications/Availability and Delivery/Maintenance/Service/Training - Schedule A – Statement of Work, B. EQUIPMENT FOR RENTAL/LEASE, Sections 1 – 4. SCORE 20/20 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. General Requirements - Schedule A – Statement of Work, C. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS, all sections. SCORE 15/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Company information/Experience – Vendor Questions Worksheet, sections 1 – 5, 8 and 9.

SCORE 25/25

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Evidence of a Superior level of “Resources/Capacity” providing service to the entire State – Vendor Questions Worksheet, sections 7. (The Contractor(s) with the most resources in all areas shall attain the highest score). SCORE 36/40 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the

a. Bidder did not provide rental inventory information.

Total Score: 96/100

F. Keizer – Morris International, Inc. (KMI)

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

5. Specifications/Availability and Delivery/Maintenance/Service/Training - Schedule A –

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

6. General Requirements - Schedule A – Statement of Work, C. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS, all sections. SCORE 15/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

7. Company information/Experience – Vendor Questions Worksheet, sections 1 – 5, 8 and 9.

SCORE 25/25

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

8. Evidence of a Superior level of “Resources/Capacity” providing service to the entire State – Vendor Questions Worksheet, sections 7. (The Contractor(s) with the most resources in all areas shall attain the highest score). SCORE 40/40

G. Crafco, Inc. (Crafco))

The Evaluation Team determined that Crafco, based on a score of 95/100, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical

9. Specifications/Availability and Delivery/Maintenance/Service/Training - Schedule A –

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

10. General Requirements - Schedule A – Statement of Work, C. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS, all sections. SCORE 15/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

11. Company information/Experience – Vendor Questions Worksheet, sections 1 – 5, 8 and 9.

SCORE 20/25

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the

a. Two of three experiences were provided.

12. Evidence of a Superior level of “Resources/Capacity” providing service to the entire State – Vendor Questions Worksheet, sections 7. (The Contractor(s) with the most resources in all areas shall attain the highest score). SCORE 40/40

Total Score: 95/100

H. Southestern Equipment, Co. (Southeastern)

The Evaluation Team determined that Southeastern, based on a score of 40/100, did not meet the

13. Specifications/Availability and Delivery/Maintenance/Service/Training - Schedule A – Statement of Work, B. EQUIPMENT FOR RENTAL/LEASE, Sections 1 – 4. SCORE 0/20 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were not satisfactory. The

a. Bidder did not provide required information.

14. General Requirements - Schedule A – Statement of Work, C. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS, all sections. SCORE 15/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

15. Company information/Experience – Vendor Questions Worksheet, sections 1 – 5, 8 and 9.

SCORE 25/25

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

16. Evidence of a Superior level of “Resources/Capacity” providing service to the entire State – Vendor Questions Worksheet, sections 7. (The Contractor(s) with the most resources in all areas shall attain the highest score). SCORE 0/40 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were not satisfactory. The following deficiencies were noted:

b. Bidder did not provide required information.

Total Score: 40/100

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

FOR PURCHASE

Bidder For PURCHASE Selection Criteria

1 2 3 4 Total

A Duraco 20 15 25 40 100

B KMI 20 15 20 40 100

C Crafco 20 15 20 40 95

D Southeastern 20 15 25 40 100

Bidder For RENTAL Selection Criteria

1 2 3 4 Total

E Duraco 20 15 25 36 96

F KMI 20 15 25 40 100

G Crafco 20 15 20 40 95

H Southeastern 0 15 25 0 40

VI. Pricing Summary

Pricing was evaluated for the bidders who passed technical. The following is a summary of a random selection of the bidders’ price proposals:

FOR PURCHASE

BIDDER SPEC # MODEL *PRICING

Crafco Spec #1 Crafco® Magnum™ Spray Injection Patcher $968,987.50

Southeastern Equipment Spec #1 Schwarze Street Max $1,023,821.76

Duraco Spec #1 Durapatcher P2 $775,515.00

Crafco Spec #2 Crafco® EZ Series II™ (47600SC100) $918,157.50

Duraco Spec #2 Cimline M2 $837,200.00

KMI Spec #3 KM T-2 Asphalt Millings Recycler $975,331.50

* Pricing was evaluated per the criteria outlined in the Pricing Schedule as follows: All items for PURCHASE shall be evaluated based on a single purchase at each prosperity region (13 single purchases). If delivery pricing is per mile, the delivery cost shall be calculated from the nearest dealer location to the estimated central location of each region. Mileage is calculated one way. a). (Purchase price x 13) + (Delivery cost at all 13 prosperity regions) + (13 Hours of training) or b). (Purchase price x 13) + (Mileage rate x mileage from nearest dealer to each estimated central prosperity region) + (13 Hours of training).

BIDDER SPEC # MODEL *PRICING

Crafco Spec #1 Crafco® Magnum™ Spray Injection Patcher $133,900.00

Duraco Spec #1 Durapatcher P2 $102,570.00

Crafco Spec #2 Crafco® EZ Series II™ (47600SC100) $133,900.00

Duraco Spec #2 Cimline M2 $110,500.00

KMI Spec #3 KM T-2 Asphalt Millings Recycler $135,850.00

**Pricing was evaluated per the criteria outlined in the Pricing Schedule as follows: All items for RENTAL shall be evaluated based on a combination of a single daily, weekly, and a monthly rental in each prosperity region. Delivery and pickup shall be calculated for each single rental (13 x 3 = 39 single purchases). If delivery/pickup pricing is per mile, the delivery/pickup cost shall be calculated from the nearest dealer location to the estimated central location of each region. Mileage is calculated one way for each pickup and delivery. a) (Daily rental price x 13) +

(Delivery and pickup cost at all 13 prosperity regions) + (Weekly rental price x 13) + (Delivery and pickup cost at all 13 prosperity regions) +

(Monthly rental price x 13) + (Delivery and pickup cost at all 13 prosperity regions) or b) (Daily rental price x 13) + (Delivery and pickup mileage rate x mileage to and from nearest dealer to each estimated central prosperity region) + (Weekly rental price x 13) + (Delivery and pickup mileage rate x mileage to and from nearest dealer to each estimated central prosperity region) + (Monthly rental price x 13) + (Delivery and pickup mileage rate x mileage to and from nearest dealer to each estimated central prosperity region).

VII. Negotiations: Bidders with a passing technical score were asked to submit second round pricing and submit additional catalogue items. None of the bidders submitted pricing revisions or updated their catalog items.

VIII. Award Recommendation:

Award recommendation is made to the responsive and responsible Bidder who offers the lowest price and the best value 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 Multiple

Bidders (see list below).

Award Type Award Amount

Duraco Purchase and Rental $750,000.

KMI Purchase and Rental $250,000.

Total $1,000,000.