Award Recommendation and Evaluation Synopsis - HGTI Exhibit Design Fabrication Installation.docx

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

The Department of Natural Resources procurement office has completed the evaluation of RFP 240000002662 – Heart of the Great Turtle Island – Gchi Mshiiken Deh Minising Project Exhibit Design, Fabrication and Installation and has recommended an award to Potter-Belmar Labs, LLC d/b/a Flutter & Wow Museum Projects in the amount of$355,660.00, pending State Administrative Board approval.

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 an exhibition design firm to develop a 2,500 square foot exhibition space at the Learning Commons at Straits State Park, St. Ignace, Michigan. The term of this contract is ONE (1) Year with Three (3) 1-Year Options to Renew.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on July 31, 2024 for a period of TWENTY-THREE calendar days. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of August 23, 2024.

Sterling, VA 20166

Ann Arbor, MI 48108

Canonsburg, PA 15317

Marne, MI 49435

*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 Proposals 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 – 5 points

Section 2 – Company Background Information – 5 points

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 – 5 points

Section 6 – Standard Contract Terms – Not Scored

Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 – Various State of Michigan / Vendor Questions – 5 points

1.1 General Requirements – 4 points

1.2 Interpretive Strategy – Not Scored

2.1 Acceptance, Inspection and Testing / 2.2 Final Acceptance – 2 points

3.1 Contractor Representative – 2 points

3.2 Work Hours – 2 points

3.3 Disclosure of Subcontractors – 2 points

4.1 Project Plan – 2 points

4.2 Meetings – 2 points

4.3 Reporting – 2 points

5.1 Price Term and 5.2 Price Changes – 2 points

Project Understanding and Proposed Scope of Work – 10 points

Contractor’s Exhibit Design Experience – 10 points

Contractor’s Exhibit Fabrication Experience – 10 points

Contractor’s Exhibit Installation Experience – 10 points

Key Team Member Qualifications, Education, and Experience – 10 points

Contractor’s Portfolio Examples – 10 points

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

Voting

Sandra Clark, Director, DNR Michigan History Center

Tobi Voigt, Director of Museums, DNR Michigan History Center

Meagan Papineau, Exhibits Manager, DNR Michigan History Center

Hillary Pine, Northern Lower Peninsula Historian, DNR Michigan History Center

Advisory – Lisa Crozier-Green, Solicitation Manager

III. Evaluation Results Technical Evaluation Summary

Bidder 1 – EXPLUS, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Bidder 1, based on a score of 95, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating proposal responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

Vendor Questions Worksheet – 20 Points Total Section 1 – Contact Information – 5/5 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 2 – Company Background Information – 5/5 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 – 5/5 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 6 – Standard Contract Terms

· Not Scored Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 – 5/5 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Schedule A – Statement of Work – 20 Points Total Section 1.1 – General Requirements – 4/4 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 1.2 – Interpretive Strategy

· Not Scored Section 2.1 – Acceptance, Inspection and Testing / 2.2 Final Acceptance – 2/2 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 3.1 Contractor Representative – 2/2 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 3.2 Work Hours – 2/2 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 3.3 Disclosure of Subcontractors – 2/2 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 4.1 Project Plan – 2/2 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 4.2 Meetings – 2/2 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 4.3 Reporting – 2/2 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 5.1 Price Term and 5.2 Price Changes – 2/2 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Attachment 1 – Contractor Experience and Portfolio Examples – 60 Points Total Project Understanding and Proposed Scope of Work – 7.5/10 The Evaluation Team determined that, overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, however, the following discrepancies were noted:

· The response provided did not demonstrate the Bidder’s understanding of the complexity of the work required.

· The response provided did not demonstrate the Bidder’s ability to foster curiosity.

· The proposal did not demonstrate sufficient experience or knowledge specifically to Michigan.

Contractor’s Exhibit Design Experience – 9/10 The Evaluation Team determined that, overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, however, the following discrepancies were noted:

· The examples provided are similar, however the design examples appear to be “information crowded” or traditional case and panel work, with the Evaluation Team found uninspiring.

Contractor’s Exhibit Fabrication Experience and Techniques – 10/10

· No deficiencies were noted.

Contractor’s Exhibit Installation Experience – 10/10

· No deficiencies were noted.

Key Team Member Qualifications, Education, and Experience – 9/10 The Evaluation Team determined that, overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, however, the following discrepancies were noted:

· The proposal provided Key Team Member titles, but did not explicitly state which role each Key Team Member would serve on this project.

Contractor’s Portfolio Examples – 9/10 The Evaluation Team determined that, overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, however, the following discrepancies were noted:

· The proposal demonstrated consultation, without demonstrating the Bidder’s collaborative expertise.

Bidder 1 Total Score: 95 / 100

Bidder 2 – Potter-Belmar Labs d/b/a Flutter & Wow Museum Projects The Evaluation Team determined that Bidder 2, based on a score of 85.5, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating proposal responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

Vendor Questions Worksheet – 20 Points Total Section 1 – Contact Information – 5/5 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 2 – Company Background Information – 3.5/5 Points

· No response provided on whether there has been a recent change in organizational structure.

· No response on whether the Bidder has been a party to litigation against the State of Michigan.

· No response describing partnerships / strategic relationships that will bring significant value to the State.

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 – 5/5 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 6 – Standard Contract Terms

· Not Scored Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 – 4/5 Points

· No response provided for Clean Corporate Citizen question.

· No response provided for Convict Labor question.

Schedule A – Statement of Work – 20 Points Total Section 1.1 – General Requirements – 4/4 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 1.2 – Interpretive Strategy

· Not Scored Section 2.1 – Acceptance, Inspection and Testing / 2.2 Final Acceptance – 2/2 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 3.1 Contractor Representative – 2/2 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 3.2 Work Hours – 2/2 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 3.3 Disclosure of Subcontractors – 2/2 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 4.1 Project Plan – 2/2 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 4.2 Meetings – 2/2 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 4.3 Reporting – 2/2 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 5.1 Price Term and 5.2 Price Changes – 2/2 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Attachment 1 – Contractor Experience and Portfolio Examples – 60 Points Total Project Understanding and Proposed Scope of Work – 8/10 The Evaluation Team determined that, overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, however, the following discrepancies were noted:

· The response provided did not provide detail on how services would be provided.

· The proposal did not demonstrate multiple design options and appeared to assume writing labels.

Contractor’s Exhibit Design Experience – 8/10 The Evaluation Team determined that, overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, however, the following discrepancies were noted:

· The examples provided appeared heavy on natural resources.

· Lack of detail across the proposal. Proposal demonstrated what could be done, not how it would be done.

Contractor’s Exhibit Fabrication Experience and Techniques – 8/10 The Evaluation Team determined that, overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, however, the following discrepancies were noted:

· The proposal was unclear on how much fabrication would be contracted out.

· Lack of detail across the proposal. Proposal demonstrated what could be done, not how it would be done.

Contractor’s Exhibit Installation Experience – 8/10 The Evaluation Team determined that, overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, however, the following discrepancies were noted:

· The proposal was unclear on how much installation would be contracted out.

· Lack of detail across the proposal. Proposal demonstrated what could be done, not how it would be done.

Key Team Member Qualifications, Education, and Experience – 8/10 The Evaluation Team determined that, overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, however, the following discrepancies were noted:

· The proposal did not provide educational background for all Key Team Members.

· The proposal included Key Team Member titles, but did not explicitly state which role each Key Team Member would serve on this project.

Contractor’s Portfolio Examples – 8/10 The Evaluation Team determined that, overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, however, the following discrepancies were noted:

· The proposal demonstrated the Bidder’s background which is heavy on science museums.

· The proposal included a large number of examples, with emphasis on projects that are not relevant to this project.

Bidder 2 Total Score: 85.5 / 100

Bidder 3 – Kerestes-Martin Associates The Evaluation Team determined that Bidder 3, based on a score of 58.5, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating proposal responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

Vendor Questions Worksheet – 20 Points Total Section 1 – Contact Information – 5/5 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 2 – Company Background Information – 3.5/5 Points

· No physical address provided for the business that would have primary responsibility for this contract.

· No response describing partnerships / strategic relationships that will bring significant value to the State.

· Based on gross annual sales for each of the last 5 years, it appears receiving a contract under this RFP would increase gross revenue by more than 25%, with no response provided as to how the company would “scale up” to manage the increase.

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 – 2/5 Points

· Prior State of Michigan experience was presented as three contracts; however, the Bidder has only been awarded one contract by the State of Michigan which is not relevant to the scope of work for this RFP. No additional relevant experience was provided to demonstrate the Bidder possesses relevant experience for this project.

Section 6 – Standard Contract Terms

· Not Scored Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 – 5/5 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Schedule A – Statement of Work – 20 Points Total Section 1.1 – General Requirements – 0/4 Points

· The proposal noted eight exceptions to General Requirements.

· The proposal provided no commitment to live within a fixed price on anything except signs.

· The proposal cited there was inadequate detail in the RFP to provide a firm price.

Section 1.2 – Interpretive Strategy

· Not Scored Section 2.1 – Acceptance, Inspection and Testing / 2.2 Final Acceptance – 2/2 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 3.1 Contractor Representative – 2/2 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 3.2 Work Hours – 2/2 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 3.3 Disclosure of Subcontractors – 2/2 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 4.1 Project Plan – 2/2 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 4.2 Meetings – 2/2 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 4.3 Reporting – 2/2 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 5.1 Price Term and 5.2 Price Changes – 2/2 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Attachment 1 – Contractor Experience and Portfolio Examples – 60 Points Total Project Understanding and Proposed Scope of Work – 2/10 The Evaluation Team determined that, overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, however, the following discrepancies were noted:

· The proposal submitted contained multiple examples which were more architectural than museum.

· The scope of work included in the proposal appears insufficient for the project.

· The proposal did not demonstrate museum quality exhibit design experience.

· The proposal did not demonstrate experience with Indigenous People in a museum setting.

· The proposal did not demonstrate sufficient experience or knowledge specifically to Michigan.

· The proposal specifically states the Bidder is not including artifact cases, touch screens, or audio / visual solutions in their scope.

Contractor’s Exhibit Design Experience – 4/10 The Evaluation Team determined that, overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, however, the following discrepancies were noted:

· The examples provided were mostly corporate signage or wayfinding, or flat graphics, not museum exhibits.

· The proposal did not demonstrate experience with designing interactive technological exhibits.

· The proposal did not demonstrate experience with designing interactive mechanical exhibits.

· The proposal did not demonstrate experience with designing audiovisual materials.

· The proposal did not demonstrate experience with designing scenic exhibits.

· The proposal did not demonstrate experience with designing interpretive exhibit signage.

Contractor’s Exhibit Fabrication Experience and Techniques – 5/10 The Evaluation Team determined that, overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, however, the following discrepancies were noted:

· The proposal did not demonstrate experience with fabricating interactive technological exhibits.

· The proposal did not demonstrate experience with fabricating interactive mechanical exhibits.

· The proposal did not demonstrate experience with fabricating audiovisual materials.

· The proposal did not demonstrate experience with fabricating scenic exhibits.

· The proposal did not demonstrate experience with fabricating interpretive exhibit signage.

Contractor’s Exhibit Installation Experience – 5/10 The Evaluation Team determined that, overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, however, the following discrepancies were noted:

· The proposal did not demonstrate experience with installing interactive technological exhibits.

· The proposal did not demonstrate experience with installing interactive mechanical exhibits.

· The proposal did not demonstrate experience with installing audiovisual materials.

· The proposal did not demonstrate experience with installing scenic exhibits.

· The proposal did not demonstrate experience with installing interpretive exhibit signage.

Key Team Member Qualifications, Education, and Experience – 7/10 The Evaluation Team determined that, overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, however, the following discrepancies were noted:

· The proposal did not provide enough relevant information to demonstration Key Team Members are qualified to provide the Contract Activities required.

· The proposal did not demonstrate Key Team Members possess the relevant experience to provide the Contract Activities required.

· The proposal did not demonstrate relevant museum project representation.

Contractor’s Portfolio Examples – 4/10 The Evaluation Team determined that, overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, however, the following discrepancies were noted:

· The proposal did not include examples of projects that were similar in scope to this project.

· The proposal did not include specific museum project examples.

· The proposal did not include examples of prior interactive technological exhibits.

· The proposal did not include examples of prior interactive mechanical exhibits.

· The proposal did not include examples of prior audiovisual materials.

· The proposal did not include examples of prior scenic exhibits.

· The proposal did not include examples of prior interpretive exhibit signage.

Bidder 3 Total Score: 58.5 / 100

Bidder 4 – Spaces to Experiences, LLC The Evaluation Team determined that Bidder 4, based on a score of 82, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating proposal responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

Vendor Questions Worksheet – 20 Points Total Section 1 – Contact Information – 5/5 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 2 – Company Background Information – 4/5 Points

· The proposal did not provide gross annual sales for the last 5 years.

· The proposal did not include a response to describe partnerships or strategic relations which will bring significant value to the State.

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 – 0/5 Points

· Non-Responsive.

· The proposal did not include prior State of Michigan contract information in the Vendor Questions Worksheet.

· The proposal did not include prior State of Michigan contract information in the referenced attachment.

· The proposal did not include relevant experience in the Vendor Questions Worksheet.

· The proposal did not demonstrate how prior experience in the referenced attachment was relevant to this project.

Section 6 – Standard Contract Terms

· Not Scored Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 – 5/5 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Schedule A – Statement of Work – 20 Points Total Section 1.1 – General Requirements – 4/4 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 1.2 – Interpretive Strategy

· Not Scored Section 2.1 – Acceptance, Inspection and Testing / 2.2 Final Acceptance – 2/2 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 3.1 Contractor Representative – 2/2 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 3.2 Work Hours – 2/2 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 3.3 Disclosure of Subcontractors – 2/2 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 4.1 Project Plan – 2/2 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 4.2 Meetings – 2/2 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 4.3 Reporting – 2/2 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Section 5.1 Price Term and 5.2 Price Changes – 2/2 Points

· No deficiencies were noted.

Attachment 1 – Contractor Experience and Portfolio Examples – 60 Points Total Project Understanding and Proposed Scope of Work – 7/10 The Evaluation Team determined that, overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, however, the following discrepancies were noted:

· The proposal did not follow the naming format required.

· contained multiple examples which were more architectural than museum.

· The proposal did not demonstrate experience with Indigenous People in a museum setting.

· The proposal did not demonstrate sufficient experience or knowledge specifically to Michigan.

Contractor’s Exhibit Design Experience – 4/10 The Evaluation Team determined that, overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, however, the following discrepancies were noted:

· Of the seven examples provided, five were outsourced for design.

· The proposal did not demonstrate experience with designing interactive technological exhibits.

· The proposal did not demonstrate experience with designing interactive mechanical exhibits.

· The proposal did not demonstrate experience with designing audiovisual materials.

· The proposal did not demonstrate experience with designing scenic exhibits.

· The proposal did not demonstrate experience with designing interpretive exhibit signage.

Contractor’s Exhibit Fabrication Experience and Techniques – 10/10

· No discrepancies were noted.

Contractor’s Exhibit Installation Experience – 10/10

· No discrepancies were noted.

Key Team Member Qualifications, Education, and Experience – 9/10 The Evaluation Team determined that, overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, however, the following discrepancies were noted:

· The proposal did not provide enough relevant information to demonstration Key Team Members are qualified to provide graphic design expertise.

· The proposal was not clear on which Key Team Members would be included in the design, fabrication, and installation teams.

Contractor’s Portfolio Examples – 8/10 The Evaluation Team determined that, overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, however, the following discrepancies were noted:

· The proposal did not include adequate examples of prior design expertise.

· The proposal did not include adequate examples of prior graphic design expertise.

Bidder 4 Total Score: 82 / 100

Technical Evaluation Summary

EXPLUS, Inc.

Bidder 2

Potter-Belmar Labs d/b/a Flutter & Wow Bidder 3

Kerestes-Martin Associates Bidder 4

Spaces to Experiences, LLC

IV. Pricing Summary Pricing was evaluated for the proposal passing technical evaluation. The following is a summary of their price proposals:

Bidder 2

Potter-Belmar Labs d/b/a Flutter & Wow Bidder 4

Spaces to Experiences, LLC

V. Negotiations The Solicitation Manager entered into negotiations with the low bidder which resulted in a reduction in the price proposal.

Bidder 2

Potter-Belmar Labs d/b/a Flutter & Wow Bidder 4

Spaces to Experiences, LLC

VI. 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 Potter-Belmar Labs, LLC d/b/a Flutter & Wow Museum Projects in the amount of $335,660.00.

Version 2024-2 image1.png