Award Recommendation and Evaluation Synopsis.pdf

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Version 2024-2 Page 1 of 14

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

Notice of Intent to Award Number: 260000000506

Notice of Intent to Award Date: 5/22/2026

The Department of Technology, Management & Budget’s office has completed the evaluation of Request for Proposal No. 260000000795 for Confidential Records Destruction Services and has recommended an award to Kalamazoo X-Ray Sales, Inc. dba Data Guardian in the amount of $2,627,650.00, pending State Administrative Board approval.

The award recommendation is contingent upon the following:

1. Purchase and installation of the required equipment.

2. In-person verification by Records Management Services personnel confirming that the installed equipment is capable of destroying materials to the required particle size.

3. Successful completion of background checks, fingerprinting, and security training by all Data Guardian staff assigned to provide services under this Contract.

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:

Nichole Harrell, Solicitation Manager.

Harrelln@michigan.gov 517-449-9245

Public copies of all bidder proposals can be found here: DTMB - Bid Proposals (michigan.gov)

Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor to provide Confidential Records Destruction Services. The term of this contract is five (5) years, with up to five

(5) additional one-year renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on Thursday, January 15, 2026. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of Wednesday, February 16, 2026.

Bidder Address, City, State, Zip Code SDVOB* GDBE**

Corrigan Record Storage 45200 Grand River Ave., Novi, MI 48375 No No

Friedland Industries, Inc. 405 E. Maple St., Lansing, MI 48906 No Yes

Kalamazoo X-Ray Sales, Inc.

dba Data Guardian

9136 Portage Industrial Dr., Portage, MI 49024 No No

*SDVOB: Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Business **GDBE: Geographically Disadvantaged Business Enterprise https://www.michigan.gov/dtmb/procurement/contractconnect/bid-proposals

Version 2024-2 Page 2 of 14

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

Proposal Instructions: Evaluation Process

Technical Evaluation Criteria Weight

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1. Requirements 40

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2. Acceptance, Section 3. Staffing and Section 4. Project Management 10

3.

Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 6. Ordering, Section 7. Invoice and Payment, Section 8. MDOC Specific Requirements, Section 9. Liquidated Damages and Section 10. Service Level Agreement (SLAs)

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet 40

Total 100

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:

Voting Advisory

Nichole Harrell, DTMB – Procurement Brice Sample, DTMB – Records Management Caryn Wojcik, DTMB – Records Management Andrew Young, DTMB – Records Management Richard Grandy, Treasury Lisa Schaible, MDOC

Edward Freeman, MDOC Lisa Lehnert, MDOC Deb Bemister, MDOC Jessica Savoie, MDOC Scott Kerstetter, MDOC David Bates, Treasury Allison Clark, Treasury Lori Schray, Treasury Ryan McElhone, Treasury Jefferey Cornell, Treasury Corie Weber, MDHHS William Badgero, MDOS Jason Pierce, MSP Lance Gackstetter, MSP David Hicks, DNR

Version 2024-2 Page 3 of 14

III. Evaluation Results

A. Corrigan Record Storage

The Evaluation Team determined that Corrigan Record Storage, based on a score of 81.4, 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 Score 38.2/40

The evaluation team determined that overall, the responses provided were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Pg. 3, Section 1.1. General Requirements # 5, Bidder failed to provide a response in Bidder Response box. Bidder noted that they can do fabric clothing only but did not note to what size.

b. Pg. 7, Section 1.1. General Requirements # 17, Bidder did not adequately describe how they comply with the requirements listed.

2. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Section 2, 3 and 4 Score 8.9/10

The evaluation team determined that overall, the responses provided were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Pg. 16, Section 3.8. Key Personnel letter B, Bidder failed to provide detailed, chronological resumes of all proposed Key Personnel including a description of their work experience relevant to their purposed role as it relates to the RFP.

b. Pg. 20, Section 4.3. Reporting, Bidder failed to adequately detail their reporting capabilities and failed to explain any reporting included in their proposal.

c. Pg. 20, Section 4.3. Reporting, Bidder failed to provide samples of required reports.

3. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Sections 6 through 10 Score 5.3/10

The following deficiencies were noted for these sections:

a. Pg. 23, Section 8. Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) Specific Requirements, subsection A. Correctional Facility, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

b. Pg. 23, Section 8. Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) Specific Requirements, subsection B. Security, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

c. Pg. 27, Section 8. Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) Specific Requirements, subsection D. Vendor Rules and Regulations, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

d. Pg. 27, Section 8. Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) Specific Requirements, subsection E. MDOC Provided Training, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

Version 2024-2 Page 4 of 14

e. Pg. 28, Section 9. Liquidated Damages, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

f. Pg. 29, Section 11. MDOC Service Level Agreement (SLA), Metric # 2, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

g. Pg. 31, Section 11. MDOC Service Level Agreement (SLA), Metric # 3, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet Score 29/40

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly unsatisfactory, and the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Pg. 2, Section 2. Company Background Information, Bidder response did not provide gross annual sales for each of the last 5 years.

b. Pg. 2, Section 2. Company Background Information, Bidder failed to indicate whether this contract would increase gross annual sales by more than 25%.

c. Pg. 4, Section 5. State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience, Experience 1, Bidder failed to adequately detail results obtained.

d. Pg. 4, Section 5. State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience, Experience 2, Bidder failed to provide contact information and failed to adequately detail the services provided and results obtained.

e. Pg. 5, Section 5. State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience, Experience 3, Bidder failed to provide a dollar value and did not specify how many Corrigan branches this includes. Bidder also failed to adequately detail the results obtained.

f. Pg. 6, Section 6. Security Standards, P-7 security level, Bidder failed to provide a date for when equipment would be available, the volume that can be destroyed in 24 hours and the equipment manufacturer and model.

g. Pg. 6, Section 6. Security Standards, P-4 security level, Bidder failed to provide a date for when equipment would be available, the volume that can be destroyed in 24 hours and the equipment manufacturer and model.

Total Score: 81.4/100

B. Friedland Industries, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Friedland Industries, Inc., based on a score of 92.3, 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 Score 39.1/40

The evaluation team determined that overall, the responses provided were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

Version 2024-2 Page 5 of 14

a. Pg. 10, Section 1.3. Additional Requirements # 2, Bidder is currently seeking a SIGMA NAID AAA certification, but it is unclear if/when certification will be obtained and whether Bidder will have the capability to destroy to the P-7 security level.

2. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Sections 2, 3 and 4 Score 9.3/10

The evaluation team determined that overall, the responses provided were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Pg. 23, Section 4.3. Reporting, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

b. Pg. 23, Section 4.3. Reporting, Bidder failed to adequately detail their reporting capabilities and failed to explain any reporting included in their proposal. Bidder only discusses invoicing.

3. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Sections 6 through 11 Score 7.9/10

The evaluation team determined that overall, the responses provided were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Pg. 27, Section 11. MDOC Service Level Agreement (SLA), Metric # 1, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

b. Pg. 28, Section 11. MDOC Service Level Agreement (SLA), Metric # 2, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

c. Pg. 28, Section 11. MDOC Service Level Agreement (SLA), Metric # 2, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet Score 36/40

The evaluation team determined that overall, the responses provided were satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Pg. 2, Section 2. Company Background Information, Bidder failed to indicate whether this contract would increase gross annual sales by more than 25%.

b. Pg. 4, Section 5. State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience, Experience 1, Experience provided is not similar in size or scope and bidder failed to adequately detail results obtained.

c. Pg. 4, Section 5. State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience, Experience 2, Experience provided is similar in scope, but not size and bidder failed to adequately detail results obtained.

d. Pg. 4, Section 5. State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience, Experience 3, Experience provided is similar in scope, but not size and bidder failed to adequately detail results obtained.

Total Score: 92.3/100

Version 2024-2 Page 6 of 14

C. Data Guardian

The Evaluation Team determined that Laser Technology, Inc. based on a score of 94.3, 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 Score 40/40

The evaluation team determined that overall, the responses provided were satisfactory. No deficiencies were noted for these sections.

2. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Sections 2, 3 and 4 Score 10/10

The evaluation team determined that overall, the responses provided were satisfactory. No deficiencies were noted for this section.

3. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Sections 6 through 11 Score 9.3/10

The evaluation team determined that overall, the responses provided were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Pg. 30, Section 10. Service Level Agreement (SLA), Metric # 1, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet Score 35/40

The evaluation team determined that overall, the responses provided were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Bidder failed to agree to Hybrid Contract Terms as presented.

b. Pg. 4, Section 5. State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience, Experience 1, Bidder failed to adequately detail results obtained.

c. Pg. 4, Section 5. State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience, Experience 2, Bidder failed to adequately detail results obtained.

d. Pg. 4, Section 5. State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience, Experience 3, Bidder failed to adequately detail results obtained.

Total Score: 94.3/100

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

Technical Evaluation Criteria Corrigan Records

Friedland Industries

Data Guardian

Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1 -1.8 -0.9 0

Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2, 3 & 4 -1.1 -0.7 0

Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 6 - 11 -4.7 -2.1 -0.7

Vendor Questions Worksheet -11 -4 -5

Total Technical Evaluation Deductions -18.6 -7.7 -5.7

Version 2024-2 Page 7 of 14

Technical Evaluation Criteria Corrigan Records

Friedland Industries

Data Guardian

Technical Evaluation Score 81.4 92.3 94.3

V. Site Visits

The State requested on-site visits to the facilities of each bidder that passed the technical evaluation. The Corrigan facility had the necessary facility security barriers in place, however, doors that should have been locked were open. In addition, it was not apparent how employees who were not authorized from unescorted access would be prevented from accessing the destruction space. The Friedland facility was preparing to install barriers and security systems that would only allow unescorted access to authorized employees. However, they were not installed yet. The JEC believes that the planned barriers would not be as secure as the barriers used by the other bidders. The Data Guardian facility had the required barriers, security systems, and procedures in place and fully operational to ensure that only employees authorized for unescorted access would be in the destruction space.

Version 2024-2 Page 8 of 14

VI. Pricing Summary

Pricing was evaluated for the bidders who passed technical. Bidders had the option of bidding on three separate pricing models: 1) Centralized Pick-Up, 2) Decentralized Pick-up and/or 3) Mobile Shredding. Each bidder submitted a bid for centralized pick-up only. The following is a summary of their price proposals.

BID DAY

PRICING MODEL A: CENTRALIZED PICK-UP FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN RECORDS CENTER

CORRIGAN RECORDS

Deliverable Estimated Number of

Stops

Estimated Pounds Per

Year Stop Charge (if applicable)

Unit Price Per Pound

One-Year Total Cost

P-7 Particle Size 50 400,000 N/A $0.25 $100,000.00

P-4 Particle Size 250 3,000,000 N/A $0.12 $360,000.00

F-4 Particle Size Unknown Unknown No Bid No Bid No Bid

T-4 Particle Size Unknown Unknown No Bid No Bid No Bid

Incineration of Paper & Non-Paper Media

50 50,000 $95/hour dock-to-dock N/A Only Transport TBD

One-Year Total Cost $460,000.00

Five-Year Total Cost $2,300,000.00

Version 2024-2 Page 9 of 14

Friedland Industries

Deliverable Estimated Number of

Stops

Estimated Pounds Per

Year Stop Charge (if applicable)

Unit Price Per Pound

One-Year Total Cost

P-7 Particle Size 50 400,000 $50.00 $0.14 $58,500.00

P-4 Particle Size 250 3,000,000 $50.00 $0.11 $342,500.00

F-4 Particle Size Unknown Unknown No Bid No Bid No Bid

T-4 Particle Size Unknown Unknown No Bid No Bid No Bid

Incineration of Paper & Non-Paper

50 50,000 No Bid No Bid No Bid

One-Year Total Cost $401,000.00

Five-Year Total Cost $2,005,000.00

Version 2024-2 Page 10 of 14

Data Guardian

Deliverable Estimated Number of

Stops

Estimated Pounds Per

Year Stop Charge (if applicable) Unit Price Per Pound

One-Year Total Cost

P-7 Particle Size 50 400,000 $250.00 (FEE WAIVED if 8,000 or more pounds collected per pick-up)

$0.20

$0.40 (if item 2 = less than 100,000 per month

$121,500.00*

P-4 Particle Size 250 3,000,000 $250.00 (FEE WAIVED if 10,000 or more pounds collected per pick-up)

$0.08 (200,000 + per month)

$0.14 (100,000 – 199,999 per month)

$0.20 (under 100,000 per month)

$421,500.00**

F-4 Particle Size Unknown Unknown $250.00 (FEE WAIVED if 8,000 or more pounds collected per pick-up)

$0.20

$0.40 (if item 2 = less than 100,000 per month

TBD

T-4 Particle Size Unknown Unknown $250.00 (FEE WAIVED if 8,000 or more pounds collected per pick-up)

$0.20

$0.40 (if item 2 = less than 100,000 per month

TBD

Incineration of Paper & Non-Paper Media

50 50,000 $250.00 (FEE WAIVED if 8,000 or more pounds collected per pick-up)

$0.90

$1.25 (if item 2 = less than 100,000 per month

$62,500.00

One-Year Total Cost $605,500.00

Version 2024-2 Page 11 of 14

Five-Year Total Cost $3,027,500.00

* One-year total cost includes $1,500.00 in estimated Stop Charges ** One-year total cost includes $1,500.00 in estimated Stop Charges

VII. Negotiations

Second-round pricing clarifications and offers were requested from all bidders. The State also requested that bidders provide a single rate for the Unit Price Per Pound.

As a result, Corrigan Records withdrew its proposal for P-7 particle-size shredding services. When evaluating only the P-4 particle-size shredding costs, Corrigan Records reduced their Five-Year Total Cost by 5.1%. Friedland Industries reduced their Five-Year Total Cost by 3.8%. Data Guardian reduced their Five-Year Total Cost by 14.1%.

The following is a summary of their second-round pricing proposals:

PRICING MODEL A: CENTRALIZED PICK-UP FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN RECORDS CENTER

CORRIGAN RECORDS

Deliverable Estimated Number of

Stops

Estimated Pounds Per

Year

Stop Charge (if applicable)

Unit Price Per Pound (Single Rate)

One-Year Total Cost

P-7 Particle Size 50 400,000 N/A No Bid No Bid

P-4 Particle Size 250 3,000,000 N/A $0.12

(Year 1 and 2) $360,000.00

P-4 Particle Size 250 3,000,000 N/A $0.11

(Year 3, 4 & 5) $330,000.00

F-4 Particle Size Unknown Unknown No Bid No Bid No Bid

Version 2024-2 Page 12 of 14

T-4 Particle Size Unknown Unknown No Bid No Bid No Bid

Incineration of Paper & Non-Paper Media

50 50,000 $95/hour dock-to-dock N/A Only Transport TBD

Year One and Two Total Cost $720,000.00

Year Three, Four, and Five Total Cost $990,000.00

Five-Year Total Cost $1,710,000.00

Friedland Industries

Deliverable Estimated Number of

Stops

Estimated Pounds Per

Year

Stop Charge (if applicable)

Unit Price Per Pound (Single Rate)

One-Year Total Cost

P-7 Particle Size 50 400,000 N/A $0.14 $56,000.00

P-4 Particle Size 250 3,000,000 N/A $0.11 $330,000.00

F-4 Particle Size Unknown Unknown No Bid No Bid No Bid

T-4 Particle Size Unknown Unknown No Bid No Bid No Bid

Incineration of Paper & Non-Paper

50 50,000 No Bid No Bid No Bid

Version 2024-2 Page 13 of 14

One-Year Total Cost $386,000.00

Five-Year Total Cost $1,930,000.00

Data Guardian

Deliverable Estimated Number of

Stops

Estimated Pounds Per

Year

Stop Charge (if applicable)

Unit Price Per Pound (Single Rate)

One-Year Total Cost

P-7 Particle Size 50 400,000 $250.00 (FEE WAIVED if 8,000 or more pounds collected per pick-up)

$0.25 $101,500.00*

P-4 Particle Size 250 3,000,000 $250.00 (FEE WAIVED if 10,000 or more pounds collected per pick-up)

$0.12 $361,500.00**

F-4 Particle Size 1 50 $250.00 (FEE WAIVED if 8,000 or more pounds collected per pick-up)

$0.30 $15.00

T-4 Particle Size 1 50 $250.00 (FEE WAIVED if 8,000 or more pounds collected per pick-up)

$0.30 $15.00

Version 2024-2 Page 14 of 14

Incineration of Paper & Non-Paper Media

50 50,000 $250.00 (FEE WAIVED if 8,000 or more pounds collected per pick-up)

$1.25 $62,500.00

One-Year Total Cost $525,530.00

Five-Year Total Cost $2,627,650.00

* One-year total cost includes $1,500.00 in estimated Stop Charges ** One-year total cost includes $1,500.00 in estimated Stop Charges

VIII. 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.

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.

Kalamazoo X-Ray Sales, Inc. dba Data Guardian provided the best value to the State. Best value factors for Award Recommendation include: Relevant experience and past performance, vendor’s proposal was well aligned with the RFP requirements and included minimal exceptions, capability to deliver all requested services, fully operational barriers, security systems and access-control procedures in place, and competitive pricing.

The award recommendation is made to Kalamazoo X-Ray Sales, Inc. dba Data Guardian in the amount of $2,627,650.00 and is contingent upon the following:

1. Purchase and installation of the required equipment.

2. In-person verification by Records Management Services personnel confirming that the installed equipment is capable of destroying materials to the required particle size.

3. Successful completion of background checks, fingerprinting, and security training by all Data Guardian staff assigned to provide services under this Contract.