Award Recommendation and Evaluation Synopsis RFP 26-1603.pdf

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

Notice of Intent to Award Number: 260000000514

Notice of Intent to Award Date: 5/26/2026

The Michigan Department of Transportation Purchasing Unit has completed the evaluation of Request for Proposal (RFP) 260000001603 Pump Station Inspection, Maintenance and Repair, Statewide, as Needed and has recommended an award to Northern Pump and Well in the amount of $10,353,550.00, 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:

Anna Swanson, Solicitation Manager

Swansona1@michigan.gov

517-230-2063

Background Information:

This RFP was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor to provide as needed inspection, maintenance or repair services for pumps and motors. The term of this contract is three (3) years, with up to two (2) one-year renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on March 25, 2026, for 30 days. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of April 24, 2026.

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

Northern Pump and Well 6837 W Grand River Ave, Lansing, MI 48906 No No

Trojan Development Co. Inc PO Box 534, Oxford, MI 48371-0534 No No

*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

The State will evaluate each proposal based on the following factors:

Technical Evaluation Criteria Weight

1. Services Specifications- Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1-6 40

2. Project Plan – Schedule A, Section 8 20

3.

All required documents are completed, and responses are acceptable (Confidential Treatment Form, Vendor Questions Worksheet, and Schedule A)

Vendor Questions Worksheet-Section 5-State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience

Total 100

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:

Voting

Justin Droste, Roadway Maintenance Engineer MDOT Bureau of Field Services, Transportation Systems Management and Operations Division, Maintenance Services Section

Shawn Wigent, Master Electrician MDOT Bureau of Field Services, Transportation Systems Management and Operations Division, Maintenance Services Section, Electrical Services

Robert McDaniel, Maintenance Mechanic MDOT Metro Region Maintenance

Anna Swanson, Buyer MDOT Contract Services Division, Purchasing Unit

Advisory

Ruth Thole, Buyer MDOT Contract Services Division, Purchasing Unit

Tammy Walderzak, Manager MDOT Contract Services, Purchasing Unit

III. Evaluation Results

A. Northern Pump and Well

The Evaluation Team determined that Northern Pump and Well, based on a score of 94, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Service Specifications-Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1-6.

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. Bidder failed to explain additional reporting capabilities.

2. Project Plan-Schedule A, Section 8.

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. Bidder’s Project Plan failed to include subcontractor for motor repair.

3. All required documents are completed, and responses are acceptable (Confidential Treatment Form, Vendor Questions Worksheet, and Schedule A.

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. Vendor Questions Worksheet, Section 11 Response to State Requests, Bidder failed to indicate agreement to response deadlines.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet, Section 5-State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience.

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. Prior Experience provided is similar in scope but not size and Bidder did not have prior State of Michigan Experience.

Total Score: 94/100

B. Trojan Development Co. Inc

The Evaluation Team determined that Trojan Development Co. Inc based on a score of 92, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Service Specifications-Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1-6.

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

a. Section 1.2. Warranties, Bidder’s failed to clearly detail their warranty and warranty process; bidder’s response indicates warranties are not included in the bid which contradicts other responses.

b. Section 2.1. Timeframes, Bidder failed to accept the requirement as presented.

c. Section 2.3 Reporting, Bidder failed to explain additional reporting capabilities.

d. Section 3.5 Disclosure of Subcontractors, Bidder’s reliance on subcontractors to perform a large percentage of work may adversely affect timeline for completion of contract activities.

2. Project Plan-Schedule A, Section 8.

The Evaluation Team determined the responses were satisfactory with no deficiencies noted.

3. All required documents are completed, and responses are acceptable (Confidential Treatment Form, Vendor Questions Worksheet, and Schedule A.

The Evaluation Team determined the responses were satisfactory with no deficiencies noted.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet, Section 5-State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience.

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

a. Prior experiences 1 through 5, Bidder failed to identify the company, contact information, and company address for their prior work experience.

b. Prior experience 4, MDOT’s experience with contract 220000001152 does not align with bidder’s results obtained.

Total Score: 92/100

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

Selection Criteria Northern Pump and Well

Trojan Development Co. Inc

1 Services Specifications-Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1-6

39.5 34

2 Project Plan-Schedule A, Section 8 18 20

3 All required documents are completed, and responses are acceptable (Confidential Treatment Form, Vendor Questions Worksheet, and Schedule A)

4.5 5

4 Vendor Questions Worksheet, Section 5-State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience

32 33

Total 94 92

V. Pricing Summary

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

Deliverable Northern Pump and Well

Trojan Development Co.

Inc

1 Statewide Inspection, Maintenance and Repair of Pump Stations

$10,353,550.00 $27,636,335.00

Total Price $10,353,550.00 $27,636,335.00

VI. 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.

Northern Pump and Well provided the best value to the State. Best value factors for Award Recommendation include: agreement to meet timeframes for contract activities, percentage of work completed directly by the vendor, acceptable equipment inspection and references, and overall pricing.

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.

The award recommendation is made to Northern Pump and Well in the amount of $10,353,550.00.