Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

The Department of Corrections office has completed the evaluation of RFP 260000001299 Fabrics, Clear Vinyl, Bed and Bath Linens for Michigan State Industries and has recommended an award to Focus Sales & Marketing Group in the amount of $422,609.62 and Spec-Tex, Inc. in the amount of $3,240,966.00, 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:

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 Fabrics, Clear Vinyl, Bed and Bath Linens for Michigan State Industries. The term of this contract is 3 years, with up to four one-year renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on February 27, 2026. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of March 31, 2026.

*SDVOB: Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Business **GDBE: Geographically Disadvantaged Business Enterprise

Charm-tex, Inc. submitted pricing in SIGMA but did not submit a written proposal and is therefore deemed non-responsive.

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 Joint Evaluation Committee, which consisted of the following individuals:

Brian Rowell, MSI Factory Supervisor

MDOC

Chris Hopcraft, Buyer

MDOC

Emileigh Neve, MSI Factory Supervisor

MDOC

Valarie Wireman, MSI Factory Supervisor

MDOC

Pennie Clymer, MSI Factory Supervisor

MDOC

Wayne Devenbaugh, MSI Supervisor

MDOC

Lisa Schaible, Contract Monitor

MDOC

Ed Freeman, Contract Manager

MDOC

Marta Moore, Buyer

MDOC

Jessica Savoie, Assistant Business Manager

MDOC

Stacey Radka, Assistant Business Manager

MDOC

III. Evaluation Results A. American Textile Systems The Evaluation Team determined that American Textile Systems based on a score of 85, 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 mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. In Schedule A, 1.2 General Requirements, D Terry Washcloths and E. Wool Material, the bidder did not respond to the question of whether there was an incentive for bale quantities.

b. In Schedule A, 1.2 General Requirements, L Terry Bath Towels, the bidder did not describe how they comply with the above requirements.

c. In Schedule A, 1.10, Minimum Order, the bidder did not provide detailed information on the minimum order quantity.

d. In Schedule A, 2. Service Requirements, 2.1 Timeframes, the bidder did not provide a detailed response to A, C, D, J, K, and L.

e. In Schedule A, 2. Service Requirements, 2.1 Timeframes, E., the bidder took exception but did not list exception(s).

Total: 20/30

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3, Section 4, Section 5 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. In Schedule A, 3.3 E, the bidder did not complete the subcontractor, manufacturer, or major supplier table.

b. In Schedule A, 4.3 Cost Factors, the bidder did not complete the subcontractor sections on the cost factors tables.

c. In Schedule A, 5.2 Order Verification, the bidder did not describe their internal controls to verify abnormal orders and ensure that only authorized individuals place orders.

Total: 17/20

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 6, Section 7, Section 8 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. In Schedule A, 6.5 Delivery Programs, B., the bidder did not explain the transportation method.

Total: 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 mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. In Schedule A, 12.1 Environmental and Energy Efficiency Product Standards, the bidder did not provide detailed information as required.

Total: 9/10

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total: 20/20 Total Score:85/100

B. Chemtick Coated Fabrics The Evaluation Team determined that Chemtick Coated Fabrics based on a score of 83, 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 mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. In Schedule A, 1.2 General Requirements H, g., the bidder did not describe how they comply with the requirement.

b. In Schedule A, 1.2 General Requirements H, i., the bidder did not describe how they comply with the requirement.

c. In Schedule A, 1.4 Warranties, the warranty information supplied was not for the product that was bid on. The length of the warranty, process for reporting, how repairs and replacements are made, and contact information for the warranty were not completed.

d. In Schedule A, 2.1 Timeframes, A and D, the bidder did not describe how they comply with the requirements.

e. In Schedule A, 2.3 Meetings, the bidder did not reply to A, B and C.

Total: 21/30

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3, Section 4, Section 5 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. In Schedule A, 3.2 Customer Service Number, the bidder did not provide customer service availability.

b. In Schedule A, 4.1 Price Term, H, the bidder did not provide a response for how they intend to maintain pricing for the length of the pricing period.

c. In Schedule A, 5.2 Order Verification, the bidder did not describe their internal controls to verify abnormal orders and ensure that only authorized individuals place orders.

Total: 17/20

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 6, Section 7, Section 8 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. In Schedule A, 6.4 Delivery Restrictions, F, the bidder did not reply.

Total: 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 mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. In Schedule A, 12.1 Environmental and Energy Efficiency Product Standards, the bidder did not provide a detailed explanation.

b. In Schedule A, 13 ADA, the bidder did not provide a detailed explanation for how they would meet the requirements.

Total: 8/10

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

a. In the Vendor Questions Worksheet 2. Company Background Information, the bidder did not describe their partnerships and strategic relationships that would bring value to the State.

b. In the Vendor Questions Worksheet, 5. State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience, Experience 2, the bidder did not reply to the results obtained.

Total: 18/20 Total Score: 83/100

C. DAF Products, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that DAF Products 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 mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. In Schedule A, 2.1 Timeframes, C., the bidder did not reply.

Total: 29/30

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3, Section 4, Section 5 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

d. In Schedule A, 5.2 Order Verification, the bidder did not describe their internal controls to verify abnormal orders and ensure that only authorized individuals place orders.

Total: 19/20

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 6, Section 7, Section 8 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total: 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 mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. In Schedule A, 12.1 Environmental and Energy Efficiency Product Standards, the bidder did not provide detailed information as required.

Total: 9/10

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

a. In the Vendor Questions Worksheet 2. Company Background Information, the bidder did not provide 5 years of gross annual sales.

Total: 19/20 Total Score: 96/100

D. Elite Textile Trading, LLC The Evaluation Team determined that Elite Textile Trading, 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. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1 and Section 2 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. In Schedule A, 1.2 General Requirements, G. Athletic Mesh, g. the bidder did not describe how they comply with the packaging requirements.

b. In Schedule A, 1.2 General Requirements, G. Athletic Mesh, h. the bidder did not provide where the product is manufactured.

c. In Schedule A, 1.2 General Requirements, G. Athletic Mesh, i. the bidder did not describe how they comply with the fabric standards.

d. In Schedule A, 1.2 General Requirements, G. Athletic Mesh, j. the bidder did not provide laundering instructions.

e. In Schedule A, 1.2 General Requirements, H. Clear Vinyl, g. the bidder did not describe how they comply with the packaging requirements.

f. In Schedule A, 1.2 General Requirements, H. Clear Vinyl, h. the bidder did not provide where the product is manufactured.

g. In Schedule A, 1.2 General Requirements, H. Clear Vinyl, i. the bidder did not describe how they comply with the fabric standards.

h. In Schedule A, 1.2 General Requirements, K. Broadcloth, g. the bidder did not describe how they comply with the packaging requirements.

i. In Schedule A, 1.2 General Requirements, K. Broadcloth, i. the bidder did not describe how they comply with the fabric standards.

j. In Schedule A, 1.2 General Requirements, K. Broadcloth, j. the bidder did not provide laundering instructions.

k. In Schedule A, 1.4 Warranties, the bidder did not describe the warranties and what products the warranties apply to. The bidder did not explain how repair and replacements are made for warranties.

l. In Schedule A, 1.6 Quality Assurance Program, the bidder did not explain the quality control process and/or quality assurance program.

m. In Schedule A, 1.9 Return Policy and Procedure, the bidder did not explain their return policy and procedures.

n. In Schedule A, 1.10 Minimum Order, the bidder did not reply to B and C.

o. In Schedule A, 2.1 Timeframes, A, the bidder did not describe how they comply with the requirements.

p. In Schedule A, 2.1 Timeframes, C, the bidder did not describe capabilities for expedited shipping.

q. In Schedule A, 2.1 Timeframes, D, the bidder did not provide detailed information for how they will make reasonable efforts to deliver products within the timeframes.

r. In Schedule A, 2.1 Timeframes, E, the bidder did not provide detailed information for orders that cannot be delivered within the timeframes.

s. In Schedule A, 2.1 Timeframes, I, the bidder did not provide circumstances such as holidays or plant shutdowns that may affect delivery time frames.

t. In Schedule A, 2.1 Timeframes, J, the bidder did not supply subcontractor, manufacturer or major suppliers shut down schedules.

u. In Schedule A, 2.1 Timeframes, K, the bidder did not supply subcontractor, manufacturer, or major suppliers lead times.

v. In Schedule A, 2.1 Timeframes, L, the bidder did not describe their plan for guaranteeing the deliverables will be met within the timeframe.

Total: 7/30

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3, Section 4, Section 5 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. In Schedule A, 3.1 Contractor Service Number, the bidder did not identify their customer service availability days and hours.

b. In Schedule A, 4.3 Cost Factors, the bidder did not complete the cost factors tables for each time bid on.

c. In Schedule A, 5.2 Order Verification, the bidder did not describe their internal controls to verify abnormal orders and ensure that only authorized individuals place orders.

Total: 17/20

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 6, Section 7, Section 8 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total: 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 mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. In Schedule A, 12.1 Environmental and Energy Efficiency Product Standards, the bidder did not provide a detailed explanation.

b. In Schedule A, 13. ADA, the bidder did not provide detail for how they will meet the ADA requirements.

Total: 8/10

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

a. In the Vendor Questions Worksheet, 2. Company Background Information, the bidder did not provide their gross annual sales for each of the last 5 years.

b. In the Vendor Questions Worksheet, 2. Company Background Information, the bidder did not describe partnerships and strategic relationships that will bring significant value to the State.

c. In the Vendor Questions Worksheet, 5. State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience, the bidder did not reply if they have experience working with the State of Michigan.

d. In the Vendor Questions Worksheet, 5. State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience, the bidder did not provide the role the company played in the project, and how the project is relevant to the subject of the RFP.

Total: 16/20 Total Score: 68/100

E. Focus Sales & Marketing, LLC The Evaluation Team determined that Focus Sales & Marketing, 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.

Total: 30/30

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3, Section 4, Section 5 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total: 20/20

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 6, Section 7, Section 8 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total: 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.

Total: 10/10

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total: 20/20 Total Score:100/100

F. Healthcare Wholesale Linen Corporation The Evaluation Team determined that Healthcare Wholesale Linen Corporation based on a score of 76, did not 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 mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. In Schedule A, 1.2 General Requirements, Laundering instructions were not provided in C. thermal fabric, D. Terry Washcloths, E. Wool Material, I. Twill (light), J. Twill (heavy), K. Broadcloth, L. Terry Bath Towels, M. Pillowcases.

b. In Schedule A, 1.2 General Requirements, the bidder did not list the city, or State/Province in the manufacturer location for C. thermal fabric, D. Terry Washcloths, E. Wool Material, I. Twill (light), J. Twill (heavy), K. Broadcloth, L. Terry Bath Towels, M. Pillowcases.

c. In Schedule A, 2.1 Timeframes, C., the bidder did not describe their capabilities for expedited shipping options.

d. In Schedule A, 2.1 Timeframes, L. the bidder did not describe their plan to guarantee that deliverables will be met within the timeframes.

Total: 12/30

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3, Section 4, Section 5 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. In Schedule A, 3.2 Customer Service Number, the bidder did not identify customer service availability hours and days of the week.

b. In Schedule A, 4.1 Price Term, H. the bidder did not provide how they intend to maintain pricing for the length of the pricing period.

c. In Schedule A, 4.3 Cost Factors, the bidder did not complete cost factors for the products bid on.

d. In Schedule A, 5.2 Order Verification, the bidder did not describe their internal controls to verify abnormal orders and ensure that only authorized individuals place orders.

Total: 16/20

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 6, Section 7, Section 8 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total: 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 mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. In Schedule A, 12.1 Environmental and Energy Efficiency Product Standards, the bidder did not provide a detailed explanation.

b. In Schedule A, 13 ADA, the bidder did not provide a detailed explanation for how they would meet the requirements.

Total: 8/10

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total: 20/20

Total Score: 76/100

G. JAG Textile Company The Evaluation Team determined that Jag Textile Company, 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.

Total: 30/30

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3, Section 4, Section 5 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total: 20/20

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 6, Section 7, Section 8 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total: 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.

Total: 10/10

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total: 20/20 Total Score:100/100

H. Mangata Lifestyle, LLC Mangata Lifestyle, LLC has not met the requirements of being responsive and responsible due to the bidder submitting potentially false or misleading information on the references. Reference checks were conducted, and it was found that the references did not know who the vendor was and had not worked with them previously. Based on the result of the reference checks, the bidder was found to be not responsive and responsible. Therefore, this vendor was not considered for award.

I. Now Linens LLC The Evaluation Team determined that Now Linens, LLC 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.

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

a. In Schedule A, 1.2 General Requirements, laundering instructions were not provided for A. Rib Knit Fabric, B. Flat Jersey Knit Fabric, C. Thermal Fabric, D. Terry Washcloths, I. Twill (light), J. Twill (heavy), L. Terry Bath Towels, M. Pillowcases

b. In Schedule A, 1.2 General Requirements, D. Terry Washcloths, the bidder did not provide a response on whether there was a bale quantity available and if there were any discounts with a bale quantity.

c. In Schedule A, 2.1 Timeframes, C., the bidder did not provide expedited shipping options.

d. In Schedule A, 2.1 Timeframes, I., the bidder did not list known circumstances such as specific holidays, plant shutdowns that will affect delivery timeframes.

e. In Schedule A, 2.1 Timeframes, L, the bidder did not describe their plan for guaranteeing the deliverables will be met within the timeframes.

Total: 18/30

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3, Section 4, Section 5 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. In Schedule A, 3.5 Training, the bidder did not explain the transportation method.

b. In Schedule A, 4.1 Price Term, the bidder did not explain how they intend to maintain pricing for the length of the pricing period.

c. In Schedule A, 4.3 Cost Factors, the bidder did not complete cost factors tables for each product they bid on in the RFP.

Total: 17/20

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 6, Section 7, Section 8 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total: 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.

Total: 10/10

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

a. In the Vendor Questions Worksheet, 2. Company Background Information, the bidder did not provide their gross annual sales for each of the last 5 years.

Total: 19/20 Total Score: 84/100

J. Ragold Corporation The Evaluation Team determined that Ragold Corporation, 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.

Total: 30/30

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3, Section 4, Section 5 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total: 20/20

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 6, Section 7, Section 8 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total: 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.

Total: 10/10

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total: 20/20 Total Score:100/100

K. Spec-Tex, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Spec-Tex, Inc., based on a score of 98, 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.

Total: 30/30

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3, Section 4, Section 5 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. In Schedule A, 4.3 Cost Factors, the bidder did not complete Cost Factors tables for each product bid on.

Total: 19/20

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 6, Section 7, Section 8 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total: 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 mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. In Schedule A, 12.1 Environmental and Energy Efficiency Product Standards, the bidder did not provide a detailed explanation.

Total: 9/10

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total: 20/20 Total Score: 98/100

L. Tabb Textiles Co., Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Tabb Textile 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.

Total: 30/30

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3, Section 4, Section 5 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total: 20/20

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 6, Section 7, Section 8 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total: 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.

Total: 10/10

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total: 20/20 Total Score:100/100

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

V. Pricing Summary Pricing was evaluated for the bidders who passed technical. Please see the attached spreadsheet for the summary of price proposals.

VI. Negotiations All vendors were asked for second round pricing. Please see the attached spreadsheet for the second-round pricing results.

VII. 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 Focus Sales & Marketing Group in the amount of $422,609.62 and Spec-Tex, Inc. in the amount of $3,240,966.00.

Version 2024-2 image1.png