Award Recommendation and Evaluation Synopsis.pdf

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

Notice of Intent to Award Number: 260000000438

Notice of Intent to Award Date: 4/30/2026

The Michigan Department of Transportation, Purchasing Unit has completed the evaluation of Request for Proposals (RFP) 260000001301 Analysis of Wildlife Vehicle Collision Hot Spots for Planning Future Wildlife Crossings and has recommended an award to HDR Michigan, Inc.

in the amount of $466,331.84, 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:

Ruth Thole, Solicitation Manager TholeR@michigan.gov 517-335-4972

Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor to perform a hot spot analysis to identify specific segments of trunkline as risks for Wildlife Vehicle Collisions. The analysis will focus on a suite of wildlife and will be conducted using wildlife movement, habitat, and landscape data to determine where key crossing locations intersect with trunklines. The contract will be effective approximately May 15, 2026 and will expire on September 30, 2028.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on March 2, 2026 for 32 days. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of April 3, 2026.

Bidder Address, City, State, Zip Code

AECOM Great Lakes, Inc. 3950 Sparks Dr. SE, Grand Rapids, MI 49546

Environmental Solutions & Innovations, Inc. 4525 Este Ave., Cincinnati, OH 45232

HDR Michigan, Inc. 1000 Oakbrook Dr. Suite 200, Ann Arbor, MI 48104

Michigan State University Hannah Administration Building 426 Auditorium Rd. Room 2, East Lansing, MI 48824

Michigan Technological University 1400 Townsend Drive, Houghton, MI 49931

Wildlife Connectivity Institute 1491 Gateway South Road, Gallatin Gateway, MO 59730 https://www.michigan.gov/dtmb/policies/state-ad-board

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 will evaluate each proposal based on the following factors:

Technical Evaluation Criteria Weight

1. Prior Experience – Vendor Questions Worksheet, Section 5. 10

2.

General Requirements – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1.1.

Bidder’s proposal addresses Scope of Work, all tasks, and related past project experience.

3. Functionality Relating to Data – Schedule A, Section 1.3. Bidder’s proposal explains how they meet this requirement. 5

4. Staffing – Schedule A, Section 4. Resumes and staff information provided as requested. 20

5. Project Plan – Schedule A, Section 5.2. Bidder’s sample project plan addresses required information. 25

Total 100

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, which consisted of the following individuals from Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) and Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR):

Voting Advisory

Amanda Novak, Resource Specialist MDOT Bay Region

Ruth Thole, Buyer/Solicitation Manager MDOT Contract Services Division

Jared Duquette, Human-Wildlife Interactions Specialist

DNR Wildlife Division

Tammy Walderzak, Purchasing Manager MDOT Contract Services Division

Daniel Garcia, Safety Programs Engineer MDOT Traffic and Safety

Guy Procopio, Transportation Planner MDOT Bureau of Transportation Planning

Voting Advisory

Joseph Thick, Supervisor – GIS Unit MDOT Bureau of Transportation Planning

Steve Chadwick, Sr. Great Lakes Wetland Advisor

DNR Executive Division

III. Evaluation Results

A. AECOM Great Lakes, Inc. (AECOM)

• Vendor Questions Worksheet, Section 6 (No points deducted): Bidder provided redlines to Standard Contract Terms.

• Schedule A, Section 9 (No points deducted): Bidder provided exceptions to Liquidated Damages.

The Evaluation Team determined that AECOM Great Lakes, based on a score of 90, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Prior Experience – Vendor Questions Worksheet, Section 5. (9/10)

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

a. Bidder’s prior relevant experience was collecting data (biological surveys) rather than using existing data and seems to be focused toward infrastructure design.

2. General Requirements – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1.1. Bidder’s proposal addresses Scope of Work, all tasks, and related past project experience.

(34/40)

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

a. Bidder’s proposal has superfluous details which made it difficult to discern the critical information requested by the RFP.

b. Bidder’s proposal lumps wild turkeys with mammal species rather than addressing bird species separately.

c. Bidder’s proposal does not clearly address prioritization of hotspots and hotspots for species with varying ecological needs.

3. Functionality Relating to Data – Schedule A, Section 1.3. Bidder’s proposal explains how they meet this requirement. (5/5)

The Evaluation Team determined that the Bidder met all requirements in this Section with no exceptions.

4. Staffing – Schedule A, Section 4. Resumes and staff information provided as requested. (20/20)

The Evaluation Team determined that the Bidder met all requirements in this Section with no exceptions.

5. Project Plan – Schedule A, Section 5.2. Bidder’s sample project plan addresses required information. (20/25)

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

a. Bidder’s sample plan is a study area that is on a smaller scale (specific length of highway) compared to the RFP’s statewide study.

b. Bidder’s sample plan is largely involving new data collection (via roadkill surveys and cameras) rather than use of pre-existing data as requested by the

RFP.

c. Bidder does not state if plan was completed successfully.

Total Score: 88/100

B. Environmental Solutions & Innovations, Inc. (ESI)

The Evaluation Team determined that ESI, based on a score of 68, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Prior Experience – Vendor Questions Worksheet, Section 5. (5/10)

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

a. Bidder’s prior relevant experience is not related to the scope of work of this

RFP.

2. General Requirements – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1.1. Bidder’s proposal addresses Scope of Work, all tasks, and related past project experience.

(29/40)

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

a. Bidder’s proposal did not address the species stated in this RFP; did not provide detail or attention to variation in species and caveats.

b. Bidder’s proposal does not address the data they intend to include – such as crash data or how the analysis will be completed using GIS programs.

c. Bidder’s description of the hot spot analysis GIS map is not in line with this RFP task – no description of an interactive GIS tool.

d. Bidder’s proposal did not indicate experience with large mammals, herps, or birds.

e. Bidder proposed work that is not within the scope of this RFP.

3. Functionality Relating to Data – Schedule A, Section 1.3. Bidder’s proposal explains how they meet this requirement. (5/5)

The Evaluation Team determined that the Bidder met all requirements in this Section with no exceptions.

4. Staffing – Schedule A, Section 4. Resumes and staff information provided as requested. (14/20)

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

a. Bidder’s Program Manager does not have experience related to transportation ecology and the scope of this RFP.

b. Bidder’s key personnel lack experience related to the scope of this RFP, specifically no experience with large mammals, herps, or turkeys.

5. Project Plan – Schedule A, Section 5.2. Bidder’s sample project plan addresses required information. (15/25)

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

a. Bidder’s sample plan is not similar scope of work or similar deliverables of this RFP and does not demonstrate they can meet our requirements.

b. Bidder’s sample plan does not mention data resources required.

c. Bidder did not state if plan was completed successfully.

Total Score: 68/100

C. HDR Michigan, Inc. (HDR)

• Vendor Questions Worksheet, Section 6 (No points deducted): Bidder provided redlines to Standard Contract Terms.

• Schedule A, Section 9 (No points deducted): Bidder provided exceptions to Liquidated Damages.

The Evaluation Team determined that HDR Michigan, based on a score of 91, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Prior Experience – Vendor Questions Worksheet, Section 5. (9/10)

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

a. Bidder’s experience with the State of Michigan is not related to the scope of work of this RFP.

2. General Requirements – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1.1. Bidder’s proposal addresses Scope of Work, all tasks, and related past project experience.

(38/40)

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

a. Bidder’s proposal has limited information on mapping habitat/corridors.

3. Functionality Relating to Data – Schedule A, Section 1.3. Bidder’s proposal explains how they meet this requirement. (4/5)

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

a. Bidder’s explanation for meeting this requirement is generalized and does not specifically address discretionary authority of the State.

4. Staffing – Schedule A, Section 4. Resumes and staff information provided as requested. (20/20)

The Evaluation Team determined that the Bidder met all requirements in this Section with no exceptions.

5. Project Plan – Schedule A, Section 5.2. Bidder’s sample project plan addresses required information. (20/25)

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

a. Bidder’s sample plan lacks some details to determine the goals of the sample project and how it applies to the scope of this RFP.

b. Bidder did not state if plan was completed successfully.

Total Score: 91/100

D. Michigan State University (MSU)

• Vendor Questions Worksheet, Section 6 (No points deducted): Bidder is a public university; the State’s alternate Contract Terms are applicable.

• Schedule A, Section 9 (No points deducted): Bidder provided exceptions to Liquidated Damages.

The Evaluation Team determined that MSU, based on a score of 55, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Prior Experience – Vendor Questions Worksheet, Section 5. (8/10)

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

a. Bidder’s prior relevant experience does not indicate experience with the species in this RFP; experience is limited to ungulates.

2. General Requirements – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1.1. Bidder’s proposal addresses Scope of Work, all tasks, and related past project experience.

(28/40)

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

a. Bidder’s proposed tools/products and methods are not thoroughly explained to envision the final product or understand what would be done.

b. Bidder’s proposal lacks the link to the evaluation of MDOT's existing infrastructure and how that relates to wildlife movement and the proposed mitigation measures.

c. Bidder proposed providing products beyond the scope of this RFP.

3. Functionality Relating to Data – Schedule A, Section 1.3. Bidder’s proposal explains how they meet this requirement. (5/5)

The Evaluation Team determined that the Bidder met all requirements in this Section with no exceptions.

4. Staffing – Schedule A, Section 4. Resumes and staff information provided as requested. (14/20)

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

a. Bidder’s Program Manager does not have experience related to transportation ecology.

b. Bidder’s key personnel lack experience related to transportation ecology and transportation infrastructure planning and design.

5. Project Plan – Schedule A, Section 5.2. Bidder’s sample project plan addresses required information. (0/25)

The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were not satisfactory. The following deficiencies were noted:

a. Bidder’s proposal did not include a sample project plan.

Total Score: 55/100

E. Michigan Technological University (MTU)

• Vendor Questions Worksheet, Section 6 (No points deducted): Bidder is a public university; the State’s alternate Contract Terms are applicable.

The Evaluation Team determined that MTU, based on a score of 92, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Prior Experience – Vendor Questions Worksheet, Section 5. (6/10)

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

a. Bidder’s prior relevant experience included only one project related to this RFP;

the relevant project was must smaller than this RFP.

2. General Requirements – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1.1. Bidder’s proposal addresses Scope of Work, all tasks, and related past project experience.

(36/40)

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

a. Bidder’s proposal does not thoroughly explain the habitat/corridor analysis product.

b. Bidder’s proposal does not address field visits in collaboration with

MDOT/MDNR.

3. Functionality Relating to Data – Schedule A, Section 1.3. Bidder’s proposal explains how they meet this requirement. (5/5)

The Evaluation Team determined that the Bidder met all requirements in this Section with no exceptions.

4. Staffing – Schedule A, Section 4. Resumes and staff information provided as requested. (20/20)

The Evaluation Team determined that the Bidder met all requirements in this Section with no exceptions.

5. Project Plan – Schedule A, Section 5.2. Bidder’s sample project plan addresses required information. (24/25)

The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were not satisfactory. The following deficiency was noted:

a. Bidder did not state if plan was completed successfully.

Total Score: 91/100

F. Wildlife Connectivity Institute (WCI)

The Evaluation Team determined that WCI, 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. Prior Experience – Vendor Questions Worksheet, Section 5. (9/10)

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

a. Bidder has no experience in Michigan.

2. General Requirements – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1.1. Bidder’s proposal addresses Scope of Work, all tasks, and related past project experience.

(32/40)

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

a. Bidder’s proposal focused primarily on applying previously used processes to Michigan and did not provide a notable understanding of species-specific needs in Michigan.

b. Bidder’s proposal did not mention where T&E data would come from or indicate a knowledge of potential sources.

3. Functionality Relating to Data – Schedule A, Section 1.3. Bidder’s proposal explains how they meet this requirement. (5/5)

The Evaluation Team determined that the Bidder met all requirements in this Section with no exceptions.

4. Staffing – Schedule A, Section 4. Resumes and staff information provided as requested. (20/20)

The Evaluation Team determined that the Bidder met all requirements in this Section with no exceptions.

5. Project Plan – Schedule A, Section 5.2. Bidder’s sample project plan addresses required information. (22/25)

The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were not satisfactory. The following deficiency was noted:

b. Bidder’s sample plan is basic and lacks examples of deliverables.

Total Score: 88/100

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

Technical Criteria AECOM ESI HDR MSU MTU WCI

1 Prior Experience 9 5 9 8 6 9

2 General Requirements 34 29 38 28 36 32

3 Functionality Relating to Data 5 5 4 5 5 5

4 Staffing 20 14 20 14 20 20

5 Project Plan 20 15 20 0 24 22

Total 88 68 91 55 91 88

V. Pricing Summary

Pricing was evaluated for the bidders who passed the Technical Evaluation. The following is a summary of their price proposals:

Activities/Tasks AECOM HDR MTU WCI

1 Identify and model occurrences of WVCs on MDOT trunkline statewide utilizing existing data

$119,133.17 $28,464.32 $74,745.00 $125,000.00

2 Identify and model wildlife habitats/corridors that intersect MDOT trunkline statewide

$69,985.64 $69,566.48 $81,086.00 $110,000.00

3 Synthesize modeled data into a wildlife crossing hotspot layer and GIS-based web map

$61,263.57 $41,068.04 $87,265.00 $85,000.00

4 Conduct field visits to the top 20 hot spot locations identified

$70,242.68 $87,511.04 $167,454.00 $60,000.00

5 Identify Solutions and develop decision support tools

$89,707.11 $131,188.12 $75,529.00 $116,500.00

6 Participate in public outreach events for top hot spot locations

$86,553.68 $108,533.84 $97,735.00 $35,500.73

Total Price $537,452.85 $466,331.84 $583,814.00 $532,000.73

VI. 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.

HDR Michigan, Inc. provided the best value to the State. Best value factors for Award Recommendation include:

A. Robust and diverse staffing

B. Well rounded experience with transportation ecology and GIS

C. Ecological knowledge of species

D. Knowledge of data and where to obtain it

E. Price proposal is within the grant budget

Award Recommendation is made to HDR Michigan, Inc. in the amount of $466,331.84.