Award Recommendation and Evaluation Synopsis.docx

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

The Department of Treasury’s Procurement office has completed the evaluation of Request for Proposal (RFP) 250000001492 for Infrastructure Asset Management Champions and Elected Officials Training Programs and has recommended an award to icInfrastructure Corporation in the amount of $801,640.00, 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:

Lance Kingsbury, Solicitation Manager.

KingsburyL@michigan.gov 517.614.6458 Background Information:

This RFP was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor to provide Infrastructure Asset Management Champions and Elected Officials Training Programs. The term of this contract is three years, with up to two, one-year renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on February 21, 2025, for 21 days. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of March 14, 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: Evaluation Process The State evaluated each proposal based on the following factors:

Proposals receiving a score of 80 or more technical evaluation points had their 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:

Nathan Hamilton, Manager of Planning, Outreach and Training Department of Treasury, Michigan Infrastructure Council Lance Kingsbury, Departmental Manager Department of Treasury, Purchasing

Ryan Laruwe, Executive Director Department of Treasury, Michigan Infrastructure Council

Erin Kuhn, Executive Director West Michigan Shoreline, Regional Development Commission

III. Evaluation Results A. eLearn It All, LLC The Evaluation Team determined that eLearn It All, LLC (eLearn) based on a score of 67, did not 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, Sections 1-3 Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Schedule A, Section 1.1.A.2. The Contractor must possess experience in developing and delivering training programs on infrastructure asset management principles. eLearn did respond that they have experience in this; however, they did not expand on this experience as they stated: “Our expertise in instructional design, multimedia training, and leadership development enables us to create engaging, accessible, and compliance-driven learning programs tailored to diverse audiences”.

b. Schedule A, Section 1.1.A.4.B. eLearn did not provide that they have experience developing and delivering infrastructure asset management education materials.

c. Schedule A, Section 1.1.B.1. The Contractor must possess experience in developing and delivering training programs on infrastructure asset management; eLearn responded “While we have not yet developed specific infrastructure asset management training, our expertise in instructional design, workforce development.”

d. Schedule A, Section 1.1.B.2. eLearn did not provide that they have experience working with either Michigan local governments, tribes, elected officials and local and State government decision-makers.

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

a. Schedule A, Section 4.3. Key Personnel. The resumes provided did not reflect subject matter expertise or experience in infrastructure asset management or any public sector/government experience.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 5-10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Schedule A, Section 5. Project Plan. The tentative Project Plan did not account for the additional contractor that they plan to hire to assist with this project.

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

a. Overall, eLearn lacked infrastructure asset management experience.

Total Score: 67/100 B. IC Infrastructure Corporation The Evaluation Team determined that IC Infrastructure Corporation (ICI) based on a score of 94, 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, Sections 1-3 Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Schedule A, Section 1.2.A.iv.c. (Phase 2). ICI did not explain how they would: 1.Verify completeness and accuracy of applications to ensure only qualified applicants are approved; 2.Reach out to the applicant to correct errors/omissions for incomplete applications or additional application inquiries; or iii.Schedule live group learning sessions (learning pods) with qualified and enrolled students.

b. Schedule A, Section 2.2.A. Response lacked detail.

c. Schedule A, Section 2.2.B. Response lacked detail.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 4 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory, and no deficiencies were noted.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 5-10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Schedule A, Section 5. Project Plan. The tentative Project Plan lacked detail overall.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory, and no deficiencies were noted.

Total Score: 94/100 Scoring Summary

IV. Oral Presentations/Demonstrations N/A V. Pricing Summary Pricing was evaluated for the bidders who passed technical. The following is a summary of their price proposals:

Original AM Champion Program Price:

Original Elected Official and Decision-Makers Program Price:

Overall Pricing

Quick payment terms: 2% discount off invoice if paid within 15 days after receipt of invoice.

VI. Negotiations The following pricing tables are from second round pricing.

AM Champion Program Price:

Elected Official and Decision-Makers Program Price:

Overall Three-Year Pricing (before discount)

Overall Three-Year Pricing (after discount)

*Pricing Notes: For the AM Champion Program, there will be five iterations of the cohorts throughout the three-year contract term. Additionally:

· The $160,500.00 first year price has various one-time service elements built into it, Phase I Design Integration and part of Phase II Promotion and Enrollment (subsequent cohort delivery costs are lower given the processes and materials would be built in first cohort and can be reused), which is priced to be $65,756.00 as the initial build and setup and $94,744.00 for the one cohort.

· The three-year total cost is for the $65,756.00 each year for the program and $94,744.00 for the four cohorts needed in years two and three.

· By awarding both training programs together, icInfrastructure Corporation offers a discount of $100,000.00. With this discount applied between both training programs ($50,000.00 each), this brings the per cohort cost down to $86,411.00 for the AM Champions for years past the initial setup.

· Each program will have a discount of $16,667.00 applied at the end of each contract year.

· Quick payment terms: 2% discount off invoice if paid within 15 days after receipt of invoice.

VII. Award Recommendation Award recommendation is made to the responsive and responsible Bidder who offers the best value to the State of Michigan. Best value is based on the proposal meeting the minimum point threshold and offering the best combination of the factors stated in the Proposal Instructions Evaluation Process section, and price.

icInfrastructure Corporation provides the best value to the State. Best value factors for Award Recommendation include: their proposal meets the minimum point threshold and offers the best combination of the factors stated in the Proposal Instructions Evaluation Process section, and price.

As part of the best value determination, overall economic impact to the State of Michigan was considered and is not a determinative factor in making this award.

Version 2024-2 image1.png