Award Recommendation & Evaluation Synopsis - Carl T. Johnson Exhibits.docx

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

The Department of Natural Resources Procurement Office has completed the evaluation of RFP 260000001267 Carl T. Johnson Exhibit Design and has recommended an award to Graphite Design + Build Limited in the amount of $287,530.00, pending State Administrative Board approval. 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 Carl T. Johnson Hunt and Fish Center. The term of this contract is Three Years, with up to Two 1-Year Options to Renew.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on February 24, 2026, for a period of forty-five calendar days. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of April 10, 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 Theresa Neal, DNR Marketing and Outreach Subject Matter Expert Edward Shaw, 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 98.5), 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 – 24.5 points

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

a. Project Understanding and Proposed Scope of Work. Proposal did not provide a clear understanding of the theme provided by the RFP.

4. Attachment 2 – Contractor Experience and Portfolio Examples – 24 points

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

a. The proposal provided one very high-tech example which was not relevant to this project.

b. The proposal provided a $1m renovation that was twice the size of this project.

Total Score: 98.5/100 B. Graphite Design + Build, Ltd.

The Evaluation Team determined that Graphite Design + Build Limited (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

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

a. No deficiencies were noted.

Total Score: 100/100

C. Potter-Belmar d/b/a Flutter&Wow The Evaluation Team determined that Flutter&Wow (based on a score of 85), 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 – 10 points

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

a. The proposal provided a total of five prior projects, but did not include photos within Attachment 2

b. On the specified additional attachment, only two projects were included and only one included photographs of prior installations.

Total Score: 85/100

D. Riggs Ward Design The Evaluation Team determined that Riggs Ward Design (based on a score of 99.5), met the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Vendor Questions Worksheet – 24.5 points

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

· There appeared to be confusion on the answers required due to location of business.

2. Schedule A – Statement of Work – 25 points

b. 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: 99.5/100 E. Swath Design The Evaluation Team determined that Swath Design (based on a score of 99.5), 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

c. No deficiencies were noted.

3. Attachment 1 – Qualifications – 24.5 points

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

· The exampled provided in the proposal were very generic.

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

a. No deficiencies were noted.

Total Score: 99.5/100 IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

V. Pricing Summary Pricing was evaluated for the proposals which passed technical evaluation and offered the best value to the State of Michigan. The following is a summary of the price proposals:

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.

Graphite Design + Build Limited provided the best value to the State. Best value factors for Award Recommendation include:

· The proposal received a score of 100 out of 100 in Technical Evaluation.

· Responses provided in Attachment 1 – Qualifications and Attachment 2 – Contractor Experience and Portfolio Examples clearly detailed and demonstrated the qualifications required for this project and a strong history of prior experience on projects with other states which were very similar to the scope of work, theme and requirements of this RFP. As part of the best value determination, overall economic impact to the State of Michigan was not a determinative factor in making this award.

Award recommendation is made to Graphite Design + Build Limited in the amount of $287,530.00.

image1.png