Award Recommendation and Evaluation Synopsis.docx

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

The Department of Natural Resources procurement office has completed the evaluation of RFP 240000002701 – Consultant – Historic Context for Dam Structures and has recommended an award to Orbis Environmental Consulting, LLC in the amount of $128,404.00.

Bidders who were not recommended for the award may 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 Crozier-Green, Solicitation Manager.

CrozierGreenL@michigan.gov 517-388-6626

Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for selection of a Consultant to provide Historic Context for Dam Structures. The term of this contract is ONE year.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on August 9, for a period of FOURTEEN calendar days. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of August 23, 2024.

Lansing, MI 48933

Maumee, OH 45357

South Bend, IN 46614

Phoenix, AZ 85004

Indianapolis, IN 46254

*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 To avoid disqualification, the bidder must provide documentation to support the following:

· Documentation to substantiate (SOI) Professional Qualification Standards in Archaeology. (Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 – SHPO form).

AND

· Documentation to substantiate (SOI) Professional Qualification Standards in Architectural History. (Attachment 1 and Attachment 3 – SHPO form).

AND

· Key Personnel demonstrated above ground (Architectural Historian) and archaeological (Archeologist) expertise in Michigan or the Upper Great Lakes Region. (Attachment 1).

Proposal Instructions: Evaluation Process Proposals meeting Mandatory Minimum Requirements were evaluated per the following:

· Vendor Questions Worksheet – 50 points

· Schedule A – Statement of Work – 50 points Proposals meeting Mandatory Minimum Requirements and receiving 80 or more technical evaluation points had pricing evaluated and were considered for award. The full evaluation process is stated in the RFP Proposal Instructions.

Section 1 – Contact Information – 10 points

Section 2 – Company Background Information – 10 points

Section 3 – Qualified Disabled Veteran / SDVOB Program – Not Scored

Section 4 – Participation in RFP Development and Evaluation – Not Scored

Section 5 – State of Michigan or Prior Relevant Experience – 20 points

Section 6 – Standard Contract Terms – 5 points

Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 – Combined – 5 points

1.1 General Requirements – 5 points

2.1 Acceptance, Inspection and Testing – 5 points

2.2 Final Acceptance – 5 points

3.1 Contractor Representative – 5 points

3.2 Work Hours – 5 points

3.3 Disclosure of Subcontractors – 5 points

4.1 Project Plan – 5 points

4.2 Meetings – 5 points

4.3 Reporting – 5 points

5.1 Price Term and 5.2 Price Changes – 5 points

II. Evaluation Method Responses to this solicitation were reviewed by a Joint Evaluation Committee, which consisted of the following individuals:

Stacy Tchorzynski, Archaeology Manager DNR Michigan History Center Lisa Crozier-Green, Solicitation Manager DNR Procurement Services

Kathrine Kolokithas, Survey Coordinator State Historic Preservation Office

Robbert McKay, Historical Architect DNR Parks and Recreation Division

III. Evaluation Results Mandatory Minimum Requirements To avoid disqualification, the bidder must provide documentation to support the following:

· Attachment 1 - Key Personnel demonstrated above ground (Architectural Historian) and archaeological (Archeologist) expertise in Michigan or the Upper Great Lakes Region.

· Attachment 2 - Documentation to substantiate (SOI) Professional Qualification Standards in Archaeology.

· Attachment 3 - Documentation to substantiate (SOI) Professional Qualification Standards in Architectural History.

Bidder 1 - GEI Consultants of Michigan, P.C. (GEI) The proposal submitted by Bidder 1 did not meet the requirements of being responsive and responsible due to responses provided in Attachment 1.

· Attachment 1 did not provide information to demonstrate Architectural Historians included as Key Personnel possessed above ground expertise in Michigan or the Great Lakes Region, and therefore Bidder ‘s proposal was not included in the Technical Evaluation process and could not be considered for award.

Bidder 2 – The Mannik & Smith Group, Inc.

The proposal submitted by Bidder 2 did meet Mandatory Minimum Requirements.

Bidder 3 – Orbis Environmental Consulting, LLC.

The proposal submitted by Bidder 3 did meet Mandatory Minimum Requirements.

Bidder 4 – PaleoWest, LLC The proposal submitted by Bidder 4 did meet Mandatory Minimum Requirements.

Bidder 5 – Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.

The proposal submitted by Bidder 5 did meet Mandatory Minimum Requirements.

Technical Evaluation Summary

Bidder 2 – The Mannik & Smith Group, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Bidder 2, based on a score of 98.5, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating proposal responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

Vendor Questions Worksheet – 50 Points Total Section 1 – Contact Information – 10/10 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 2 – Company Background Information – 10/10 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 3 – Qualified Disabled Veteran / Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Business Program

· Not Scored Section 4 – Participation in RFP Development or Evaluation

· Not Scored Section 5 – State of Michigan / Prior Experience – 20/20 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 6 – Standard Contract Terms – 5/5 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 – 3.5/5 Points

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

· Section 7 – Non-responsive

· Section 9 – Prior discrimination claims, one still ongoing.

Schedule A – Statement of Work – 50 Points Total Section 1.1 – General Requirements – 5/5 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 2.1 – Acceptance, Inspection and Testing – 5/5 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 2.2 – Final Acceptance – 5/5 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 3.1 Contractor Representative – 5/5 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 3.2 Work Hours – 5/5 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 3.3 Disclosure of Subcontractors – 5/5 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 4.1 Project Plan – 5/5 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 4.2 Meetings – 5/5 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 4.3 Reporting – 5/5 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 5.1 Price Term and 5.2 Price Changes – 5/5 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Bidder 2 Total Score: 98.5 / 100

Bidder 3 – Orbis Environmental Consulting, LLC.

The Evaluation Team determined that Bidder 3, based on a score of 99, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating proposal responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

Vendor Questions Worksheet – 50 Points Total Section 1 – Contact Information – 10/10 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 2 – Company Background Information – 9.5/10 Points

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

· Proposal did not include company history.

Section 3 – Qualified Disabled Veteran / Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Business Program

· Not Scored Section 4 – Participation in RFP Development or Evaluation

· Not Scored Section 5 – State of Michigan / Prior Experience – 20/20 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 6 – Standard Contract Terms – 5/5 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 – 3.5/5 Points

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

· Section 7 – Non-responsive

· Section 9 – Prior discrimination claims, one still ongoing.

Schedule A – Statement of Work – 50 Points Total Section 1.1 – General Requirements – 4.5/5 Points

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

· Proposal did not include a response to indicate how the Bidder will comply with requirements.

Section 2.1 – Acceptance, Inspection and Testing – 5/5 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 2.2 – Final Acceptance – 5/5 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 3.1 Contractor Representative – 5/5 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 3.2 Work Hours – 5/5 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 3.3 Disclosure of Subcontractors – 5/5 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 4.1 Project Plan – 5/5 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 4.2 Meetings – 5/5 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 4.3 Reporting – 5/5 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 5.1 Price Term and 5.2 Price Changes – 5/5 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Bidder 3 Total Score: 99 / 100 Bidder 4 – PaleoWest, LLC.

The Evaluation Team determined that Bidder 4, based on a score of 97.5, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating proposal responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

Vendor Questions Worksheet – 50 Points Total Section 1 – Contact Information – 10/10 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 2 – Company Background Information – 10/10 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 3 – Qualified Disabled Veteran / Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Business Program

· Not Scored Section 4 – Participation in RFP Development or Evaluation

· Not Scored Section 5 – State of Michigan / Prior Experience – 19/20 Points

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

· Proposal expressed Bidder concern regarding capacity to complete the Contract Activities with other extant DNR contracts.

Section 6 – Standard Contract Terms – 5/5 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 – 4/4 Points

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

· Section 9 – Non-responsive

Schedule A – Statement of Work – 50 Points Total Section 1.1 – General Requirements – 4.5/5 Points

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

· Proposal did not include a response to indicate how the Bidder will comply with requirements.

Section 2.1 – Acceptance, Inspection and Testing – 5/5 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 2.2 – Final Acceptance – 5/5 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 3.1 Contractor Representative – 5/5 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 3.2 Work Hours – 5/5 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 3.3 Disclosure of Subcontractors – 5/5 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 4.1 Project Plan – 5/5 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 4.2 Meetings – 5/5 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 4.3 Reporting – 5/5 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 5.1 Price Term and 5.2 Price Changes – 5/5 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Bidder 4 Total Score: 97.5 / 100 Bidder 5 – Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Bidder 5, based on a score of 98.5, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating proposal responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

Vendor Questions Worksheet – 50 Points Total Section 1 – Contact Information – 10/10 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 2 – Company Background Information – 9.5/10 Points

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

· Proposal did not provide detail on default, i.e., date, contracting entity, type of contract and detail about default.

Section 3 – Qualified Disabled Veteran / Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Business Program

· Not Scored Section 4 – Participation in RFP Development or Evaluation

· Not Scored Section 5 – State of Michigan / Prior Experience – 20/20 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 6 – Standard Contract Terms – 5/5 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 – 4/5 Points

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

· Section 9 – Proposal indicated the Bidder has been subject to administrative penalties, orders, and warning letters.

Schedule A – Statement of Work – 50 Points Total Section 1.1 – General Requirements – 5/5 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 2.1 – Acceptance, Inspection and Testing – 5/5 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 2.2 – Final Acceptance – 5/5 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 3.1 Contractor Representative – 5/5 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 3.2 Work Hours – 5/5 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 3.3 Disclosure of Subcontractors – 5/5 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 4.1 Project Plan – 5/5 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 4.2 Meetings – 5/5 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 4.3 Reporting – 5/5 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 5.1 Price Term and 5.2 Price Changes – 5/5 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Bidder 5 Total Score: 98.5 / 100

Technical Evaluation Summary

The Mannick & Smith Group, Inc.

Bidder 3 Orbis Environmental Consulting, LLC Bidder 4 PaleoWest, LLC Bidder 5 Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.

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

The Mannick & Smith Group, Inc.

Bidder 3 Orbis Environmental Consulting, LLC Bidder 4 PaleoWest, LLC Bidder 5 Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.

V. 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 Orbis Environmental Consulting in the amount of $128,404.00.

Version 2024-2 image1.png