Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

The Department of Corrections office has completed the evaluation of RFP 260000001172 Bulk Chemicals for MSI and has recommended an award to Arrow Chemical Products, Inc. in the amount of $2,193,557.10 and Austin Sales Group, Inc. in the amount of $928,732.27, pending State Administrative Board approval. 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:

Marta Moore, Solicitation Manager.

MooreM42@michigan.gov 517-241-3188 Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor to provide bulk chemicals for Michigan State Industries (MSI). The term of this contract is three years, with up to 2 one-year renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on February 12, 2026. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of March 2, 2026.

*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: Mandatory Minimum Requirements The Primary Contractor must be a manufacturer authorized distributor, directly providing Safety Data Sheet (SDS) and recall notifications.

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

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 in collaboration with the Joint Evaluation Committee, which consisted of the following individuals:

Marta Moore, Buyer

MDOC

Chris Hopcraft, Buyer

MDOC

Curtis White, MSI Industries Supervisor

MDOC

Troy Pawson, MSI Industries Production Leader

MDOC

Brian Mullin, MSI Industries Production Leader

MDOC

Ed Freeman, Contract Manager

MDOC

Lisa Schaible, Contract Monitor

MDOC

III. Evaluation Results A. Arrow Chemical Products, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Arrow Chemical Products, Inc. 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. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1 and Section 2 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and noted the following deficiencies:

a. In Schedule A, 1.1 General Requirements, line 4, the bidder did not complete the location in the table.

b. In Schedule A, 1.1 General Requirements, line 11 Floor Wax, the bidder did not complete the number of gallons.

c. In Schedule A, 1.3 Warranties, Describe the warranties included in the bid, the bidder did not describe the warranty.

d. In Schedule A, 1.6 Incentives, bidder must provide detailed information as requested in the above requirement. The bidder did not provide a response.

Score 26/30

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work- Section 3, Section 4, Section 5 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and did not find any deficiencies.

Score 20/20

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work- Section 6, Section 7, Section 8 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and did not find any deficiencies.

Score 20/20

4. Schedule A, Statement of Work- Section 9, Section 10, Section 11, Section 12 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and noted the following deficiencies:

a. Schedule A, 11.1 Environmental and Energy Efficiency Products Standards, in the bidder box the bidder did not respond to “bidder must provide detailed information required as above-either in this response box or identified here as an attachment to this RFP”.

Score 19/20

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and did not find any deficiencies.

Score 10/10 Total Score: 95/100

B. Austin Sales Group, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Austin Sales Group, Inc. based on a score of 80, 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 and Section 2 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and noted the following deficiencies:

a. In Schedule A, 1.1 General Requirements, Bidder did not provide the PH for multiple products. The JEC deducted 3 points to account for the collective lack of PH for multiple products.

b. In Schedule A, 1.1 General Requirements, the bidder did not fully complete the tables for multiple products. The JEC deducted 3 points to account for the multiple tables that were not completed.

c. In Schedule A, 1.1 General Requirements, line 1 Dishwashing Detergent, f. Gravity, the bidder did not complete the bidder box.

d. In Schedule A, 1.1 General Requirements, Line 11 Floor wax, b. The bidder did not provide a response in the bidder box to describe the long lasting protection.

e. In Schedule A, 1.3 Warranties, Describe the warranties included in the bid, the bidder did not describe the warranty.

Note: Per RFP 260000001172, Schedule A, Statement of work, 1. General Requirements, 1.1A General Specifications-All Products, 10. Each product must be approved by MDOC Fire Safety and Environmental Health to be eligible for award. The SDS provided by Austin Sales Group, Inc. for the Quaternary Ammonium Disinfectant was not approved by MDOC Fire Safety and Environmental Health to be eligible for award.

Score 21/30

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work- Section 3, Section 4, Section 5 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and noted the following deficiencies:

a. In Schedule A, 3.7 Disclosure of Subcontractors, C and D, the bidder did not respond. The table of Subcontractors information was not completed. The JEC deducted 2 points for C and D not being completed fully.

b. In Schedule A, 4.3 Cost Factors, the bidder did not complete cost factors for all products.

c. In Schedule A, 5.2 Order Verification, the bidder did not provide a response in the bidder box to describe how they comply with the above requirement.

Score 16/20

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work- Section 6, Section 7, Section 8 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and did not find any deficiencies.

Score 20/20

4. Schedule A, Statement of Work- Section 9, Section 10, Section 11, Section 12 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and noted the following deficiencies:

a. Schedule A, 11.1 Environmental and Energy Efficiency Products Standards, in the bidder box the bidder did not respond to “bidder must provide detailed information required as above-either in this response box or identified here as an attachment to this RFP.

b. In Schedule A, Statement of Work, 13.4 Brominated Flame Retardants response was not provided.

c. In Schedule A, ADA Compliance, the bidder did not provide details for how they will meet the requirements.

Score 17/20

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and noted the following deficiencies:

a. Vendor Questions Worksheet, 3. Qualified Disabled Veteran/Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Business Program, the bidder did not provide a response.

b. Vendor Questions Worksheet, 4. Participation in RFP Development or Evaluation, the bidder did not provide a response.

c. Vendor Questions Worksheet, 5. State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience, the bidder did not reply to the 3 experiences.

d. Vendor Questions Worksheet, 6. Standard Contract Terms, the bidder did not provide a response.

Score 6/10 Total Score:80/100

Technical Evaluation Summary

IV. Pricing Summary Pricing was evaluated for the bidders who passed technical. Estimated totals were calculated using the estimated 3-year usages from the RFP. The following is a summary of their price proposals:

V. Negotiations All bidders were asked for second round pricing. Estimated totals were calculated using the estimated 3-year usages from the RFP. The recommendations for the awarded products are highlighted in green.

2nd Round Pricing Austin 2nd Round Pricing

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 Arrow Chemical Products, Inc. in the amount of $2,193,557.10 and Austin Sales Group, Inc. in the amount of $928,732.27.

Version 2024-2 image1.png