Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

The Michigan Department of Corrections Procurement office has completed the evaluation of RFP #250000002612 for Optical Lenses and Frames and has recommended an award to Eighty to Eighty, Inc in the amount of $42,113.70, Hart Specialties, Inc. in the amount of $62,188.00, and Precision Optical Group, Inc. in the amount of $215,719.10 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:

Marta Moore, Solicitation Manager.

MooreM42@michigan.gov 517-241-3188 Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor to provide optical lenses and frames for Michigan State Industries (MSI). 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 Thursday, August 7, 2025. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of Friday, September 12, 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

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 Joint Evaluation Committee (JEC), which consisted of the following individuals:

III. Evaluation Results A. Eight to Eighty The Evaluation Team determined that Eight to Eighty, based on a score of 96, 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 and Section 2 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and did not find any deficiencies.

Score: 30/30

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work- Section 3, Section 4, Section 5 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and did not find any deficiencies.

Score: 20/20

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work- Section 6, Section 7, Section 8 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and did not find any deficiencies.

Score: 20/20

4. Schedule A, Statement of Work- Section 9, Section 10, Section 11, Section 12 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and did not find any deficiencies.

Score: 20/20

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and noted the following deficiencies:

a. In Vendor Questions Worksheet, Section 5, State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience, the vendor provided names but did not provide any other details or contact information for references.

b. In Vendor Questions Worksheet, Section 6, Standard Contract Terms, the vendor did not confirm acceptance of State of Michigan Contract terms.

Score: 6/10 Total Score: 96/100 B. Hart Specialties, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Hart Specialties, Inc based on a score of 100, 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 and Section 2 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and did not find any deficiencies.

Score: 30/30

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work - Section 3, Section 4, Section 5 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and did not find any deficiencies.

Score: 20/20

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work – Section 6, Section 7, Section 8 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and did not find any deficiencies.

Score: 20/20

4. Schedule A, Statement of Work – Section 9, Section 10, Section 11, Section 12 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and did not find any deficiencies.

Score 20/20

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and did not find any deficiencies.

Score 10/10 Total Score:100/100 C. Precision Optical Group, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Precision Optical Group, Inc., based on a score of 99, 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 and Section 2 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and did not find any deficiencies.

Score: 30/30

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work - Section 3, Section 4, Section 5 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and did not find any deficiencies.

Score: 20/20

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work – Section 6, Section 7, Section 8 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and did not find any deficiencies.

Score: 20/20

4. Schedule A, Statement of Work – Section 9, Section 10, Section 11, Section 12 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and did not find any deficiencies.

Score 20/20

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and noted the following deficiency:

a. In Vendor Questions Worksheet, Section 6, Standard Contract Terms, the vendor did not confirm acceptance of State of Michigan Contract terms.

Score 9/10 Total Score: 99/100 D. Prison Rehabilitative Industries and Diversified Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a PRIDE Enterprises The Evaluation Team determined that PRIDE Enterprises, based on a score of 84, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

4. Schedule A, Statement of Work - Section 1 and Section 2 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and noted the following deficiencies:

0. In Schedule A, Section 1.6, Incentives, the vendor did not provide a response.

0. In Schedule A, Section 1.8 Return Policy and Procedure, the vendor did not provide a response.

0. In Schedule A, Section 1.10 Quality Control, the vendor referenced the process in additional attachments C & D, the quality control process is not clear in the additional attachments referenced.

0. In Schedule A, Section 2.1 Timeframes G, the vendor referenced separate attachment “D”. The vendor did not provide a shutdown schedule.

0. In Schedule A, Section 2.1 Timeframes J, the vendor referenced a separate attachment, and the ordering process was not clear in the separate attachment.

Score: 25/30

4. Schedule A, Statement of Work - Section 3, Section 4, Section 5 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and noted the following deficiency:

0. In Schedule A, Section 4.3 Cost Factors, the vendor confirmed the cost factors in schedule C were completed. The cost factor tables were not completed.

Score: 19/20

4. Schedule A, Statement of Work – Section 6, Section 7, Section 8 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and noted the following deficiency:

0. In Schedule A, Section 6.5 Delivery Programs, A, the vendor referenced Attachment D. Attachment D did not clearly explain in detail the delivery programs including any limitations such as quantity.

Score: 19/20

4. Schedule A, Statement of Work – Section 9, Section 10, Section 11, Section 12 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and noted the following deficiencies:

0. In Schedule A, Section 11.1 Environmental and Energy Efficiency Product Standards, the vendor did not provide a response.

0. In Scheduled A, Section 11.2 Hazardous Chemical Identification, the vendor did not provide a response.

0. In Schedule A, Section 11.3 Mercury Content, the vendor did not provide a response.

0. In Schedule A, Section 11.4 Brominated Flame Retardants, the vendor did not provide a response.

0. In Schedule A, Section 11.5 PFAS, the vendor did not provide a response.

Score 15/20

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

0. In the Vendor Questions Worksheet, Experience, the vendor did not provide contact information for all 3 references.

0. In the Vendor Questions Worksheet, Section 4, Participation in RFP Development or Evaluation, the vendor did not complete all sections.

Score 6/10 Total Score:84/100

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

V. Pricing Summary Pricing was evaluated for the bidders who passed technical. The following is a summary of their price proposals:

Lenses: See the attached spreadsheet lenses tab for the pricing summary.

Eight to Eighty, Inc did not bid on lenses.

Hart Specialties, Inc. did not bid on lenses.

Frames: See the attached spreadsheet frames tab for the pricing summary.

VI. Negotiations All bidders were asked for second round pricing. During negotiations, Eight to Eighty confirmed that lowering the price would provide a different quality of frame. The alternate frames did not meet the RFP requirements. Please see the attached spreadsheet for the pricing summary.

During negotiations, bidder Precision Optical was asked to clarify on frame lines 8, 13, 15, 20, 22, 23, and 25 if their sizing and color specifications were an exact match to the RFP required specifications. Precision clarified that lines 8, 15, 22, and 23 match the size specifications, but the colors specified do not match the RFP requirements. Lines 13, 20, and 25 do not match the RFP requirements in Schedule A-Statement of Work requirements. Therefore, their pricing was removed on the pricing table for those lines.

VII. Notice of Deficiency A Notice of Deficiency was issued to all bidders for the frames.

A. Schedule A -Statement of Work, Product Specifications, Letter B, Optical Frame item #30 had additional sizes added and revised the estimated 3-year usage.

B. In Section 1.1, Product Specifications, Letter B, Optical Frames Specifications, the State provided a specification table for frames. Lines 31-40 have been removed from this RFP.

C. In Section 1.1, Product Specifications, Letter B, Optical Frames Specifications, the State provided a specification table for frames. Lines 74-76 were added.

The attached pricing summary spreadsheet tab for frames includes the deficiency changes and pricing. Bidders were asked to provide refreshed pricing due to RFP process exceeding 180 days after the RFP was posted.

VIII. 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 Eighty to Eighty, Inc in the amount of $42,113.70, Hart Specialties, Inc. in the amount of $62,188.00, and Precision Optical Group, Inc. in the amount of $215,719.10.

Version 2024-2 image1.png