Award Recommendation and Evaluation Synopsis.docx

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

The Department of Corrections has completed the evaluation of RFP# 250000002760 – Underground Storage Tank (UST) Inspection and has recommended an award to R. W. Mercer Co. in the amount of $365,553.00, 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:

Arnold Vande Mark, Solicitation Manager.

VandemarkA@michigan.gov 517-335-2083

Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor to provide underground storage tank inspections. The term of this contract is three years, with up to five one-year renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on July 11, 2025, for 48 calendar days. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of August 27, 2025.

*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 Must be a Type B Certified Underground Storage Tank Operator. Contractors must include copies of each operator’s certification with their bid proposal.

Proposal Instructions: Evaluation Process If all mandatory minimum requirements were met the State evaluated each proposal based on the following factors:

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 a Joint Evaluation Committee (JEC), which consisted of the following individuals:

Arnold Vande Mark, Contract Administrator Corrections-PMCD Ed Freeman, Monitoring Manager Corrections- PMCD

Lisa Schaible, Contract Monitor Corrections- PMCD Bethany Preston, Department Analyst DTMB- Financial Services

Gene Wood, Environmental Health Manager Corrections- Physical Plant Jamie Mathews, Department Analyst DTMB- Vehicle and Travel Services

III. Evaluation Results A. Phoenix Environmental, Inc.

Phoenix Environmental, Inc. has not met the requirements of being responsive due to not submitting required documentation to meet the solicitation’s Mandatory Minimum Requirement.

B. R. W. Mercer Co.

The Evaluation Team determined that R. W. Mercer Co. based on a score of 89, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Service Requirements and Staffing- Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1-3 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 2.1 Training, #2: The bidder did not provide detailed information on their training capabilities.

b. Section 2.2 Reporting: The bidder did not explain reporting that is included in their proposal or additional reporting capabilities.

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

a. Section 5- Experience: Bidder listed three experiences on the vendor questions worksheet. Upon evaluation these experiences were A contract, an option year for that contract, and an additional option year for the same contract. The evaluation team found this constituted a single experience as all three were for the same contract, which has option years built in.

b. Section 8- Michigan Economic Impact: Bidder responded N/A to all questions in this section but indicated in previous section that the company is based in Michigan.

Total Score: 89/100

C. Soil Exploration Services, Inc. dba SES Environmental The Evaluation Team determined that Soil Exploration Services, Inc. dba SES Environmental 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 Question Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 5- Experience: Bidder listed three experiences that were not of similar size and scope of the work described and required through this RFP.

Total Score: 97/100

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

V. Pricing Summary Pricing was evaluated for the bidders who passed technical evaluation. Attached is a summary of pricing on an Excel Spreadsheet.

VI. Negotiations Negotiations resulted in no changes to pricing from any of the qualified bidders.

VII. 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 R.W. Mercer in the amount of $365,553.00.

Version 2024-2 image1.png