Award Recommendation and Evaluation Synopsis - - Ludington Beach House Exhibits.docx

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

The Department of Natural Resources Procurement Office has completed the evaluation of RFP 260000001618 Ludington Beach House Exhibit Design and has recommended an award to FireWatch Design in the amount of $210,702.50, pending State Administrative Board approval if required. More information on the State Administrative Board can be found at: State Administrative Board.

Participating 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

Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor to provide design, fabrication and installation of exhibits at the DNR Ludington Beach House. The term of this contract is One Year, with up to Two 1-Year Options to Renew.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on March 27, 2026, for a period of twenty-one calendar days. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of April 17, 2026.

*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 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 the Solicitation Manager in collaboration with Marketing and Outreach Division Subject Matter Experts, which consisted of the following individuals:

Lisa Crozier-Green, Solicitation Manager Holly Vaughn, DNR Marketing and Outreach Subject Matter Expert Brandon Griffith, DNR Marketing and Outreach Subject Matter Expert

III. Evaluation Results A. FireWatch Design The Evaluation Team determined that FireWatch Design (based on a score of 100), met the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Vendor Questions Worksheet – 25 points

a. No deficiencies were noted.

2. Schedule A – Statement of Work – 25 points

a. No deficiencies were noted.

3. Attachment 1 – Qualifications – 25 points

a. No deficiencies were noted.

4. Attachment 2 – Contractor Experience and Portfolio Examples – 25 points

a. No deficiencies were noted.

Total Score: 100/100

B. Spaces to Experiences The Evaluation Team determined that Spaces to Experiences (based on a score of 59.5), did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Vendor Questions Worksheet – 25 points

a. No deficiencies were noted.

2. Schedule A – Statement of Work – 24.5 points

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

· 3.2 Key Personnel – no contact information was provided.

3. Attachment 1 – Qualifications – 5 points The proposal included an alternate attachment in lieu of Attachment 1, (Mandatory Document). Attachment 1 was not completed and submitted with the proposal, per RFP requirements.

· The alternate attachment did not provide detail on prior experience specific to fostering curiosity, enjoyment and inspiration rooted in Michigan’s stories. or federal governments.

· The alternate attachment did not detail prior experience specific to this project.

· The alternate attachment did not detail experience specific to working with state or federal governments.

· The alternate attachment did not detail prior experience specific to fostering curiosity, enjoyment and inspiration rooted in Michigan’s stories.

· The alternate attachment did not provide a description of how the proposed services would be provided.

· The alternate attachment did not provide a description of experience on past projects similar to the Ludington Beach House Exhibit project.

· The alternate attachment did not provide a description of experience with taxidermy and / or sculpture.

· The alternate attachment did not provide a description of experience developing interactive, LOW-technology exhibits.

· The alternate attachment did not provide a description highlighting exhibit fabrication experience and techniques.

· The alternate attachment did not provide a description highlighting exhibit installation experience.

4. Attachment 2 – Contractor Experience and Portfolio Examples – 5 points The proposal included an alternate attachment in lieu of Attachment 2, which was a Mandatory Document. Attachment 2 was not completed and submitted with the proposal, per RFP requirements.

· The alternate attachment did not provide all information required for each Relevant Project, i.e.:

· Date Completed

· Contact & Email

· Project Projected Budget

· Project Final Cost

· Description of how / why the project is relevant to the Ludington Beach House Exhibit Project

· Describe the approach used for this project, the number of staff members assigned, the roles they filled, and why it was beneficial to the outcome of the project.

· Describe the bidders experience with the project regarding engagement with the Owner or Project Manager, planners, sensitive cultural / economic / environment issues, or outreach / recruitment of storytellers.

· Describe how the team completed tasks and met deliverables.

· Provide a description of how an interpretive plan was used.

Total Score: 59.5/100

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

V. Pricing Summary Pricing was evaluated for the proposals which passed technical evaluation. The following is a summary of the price proposals:

VI. Award Recommendation Award recommendation is made to the responsive and responsible Bidder who passed technical evaluation and offered the lowest price.

Award recommendation to FireWatch Design in the amount of $210,702.50.

image1.png