Award Recommendation & Evaluation Synopsis.pdf

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

Notice of Intent to Award Number: 250000000751

Notice of Intent to Award Date: June 10, 2025

The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT), Purchasing Unit has completed the evaluation of

Request for Proposal (RFP) 250000002236 Engineer Recruitment Services and has recommended award to Seacon Associates, LLC in the amount of $400,000.00, 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:

Ruth Thole, Solicitation Manager

TholeR@michigan.gov

517-335-4972

Background Information:

The purpose of the RFP was to solicit responses for the selection of a recruitment organization that specializes in the engineering arena and can provide candidates to fill vacant full-time Engineer and/or Engineer/Land Surveyor positions within MDOT. The Contractor must identify, screen, and provide candidates for positions that may require or prefer professional engineers or licensed professional engineers.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on April 29, 2025, for 24 days. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of May 23, 2025.

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

Hotep Consulting, LLC 1513 Stuart Rd.

Reston, VA 20194

No No

Seacon Associates, LLC 408 N. Cottage Ct.

Whitehall, MI 49461

Yes No

Wallman Unlimited Company 9548 Andes Ave.

Kalamazoo, MI 49009

Yes No

*SDVOB: Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Business **GDBE: Geographically Disadvantaged Business Enterprise https://www.michigan.gov/dtmb/policies/state-ad-board

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. Vendor Questions Worksheet – all questions complete and acceptable to MDOT 5

2.

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

3.

Contractor Engineering Specialization – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section

1.1. A.

4.

Contractor Application and Selection Process – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1.1. B.

5. Key Personnel Experience – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 4.3. 10

6. Contractor’s Recruitment Plan - Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 5.2. 20

Total 100

Proposals receiving 80 or more technical evaluation points will have pricing evaluated and considered for award.

II. Evaluation Method

Responses to this solicitation were reviewed by a Joint Evaluation Committee which consisted of the following Evaluation Team members:

Voting

Kelsa Cole, Staffing and Compensation Manager MCSC / MDOT Office of Human Resources

James Fults, Workforce Programs and Recruitment Section Manager MDOT Office of Organizational Development

Terry Harris, Buyer Specialist MDOT Contract Services Division, Purchasing Unit

Ruth Thole, Buyer MDOT Contract Services Division, Purchasing Unit

III. Evaluation Results

A. Hotep Consulting, LLC The Evaluation Team determined that Hotep Consulting, LLC based on a score of 91, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Vendor Questions Worksheet

The Evaluation Team noted the following deficiency:

a. Section 2. Bidder did not provide information or details relative to partnerships and strategic relationships.

Score: 4/5

2. Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 5 – State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience The Evaluation Team noted the following deficiency:

a. Bidder has no prior experience with the State of Michigan.

Score: 15/20

3. Contractor Engineering Specialization – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1.1. A.

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

Score: 25/25

4. Contractor Application and Selection Process – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1.1.

B.

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

Score: 20/20

5. Key Personnel Experience – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 4.3.

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

Score: 10/10

6. Contractor’s Recruitment Plan - Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 5.2.

The Evaluation Team noted the following deficiency:

a. Bidder’s plan referred to City of Cleveland on several occasions.

Score: 17/20

Total Score: 91/100

B. Seacon Associates, LLC The Evaluation Team determined that Seacon Associate LLC 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. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined the responses were satisfactory with no deficiencies noted.

Score: 5/5

2. Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 5 – State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience The Evaluation Team determined the responses were satisfactory with no deficiencies noted.

Score: 20/20

3. Contractor Engineering Specialization – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1.1. A.

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

Score: 25/25

4. Contractor Application and Selection Process – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1.1.

B.

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

Score: 20/20

5. Key Personnel Experience – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 4.3.

The Evaluation Team noted the following deficiency:

a. Bidder did not submit detailed, chronological résumés of all proposed Key Personnel.

Score: 2/10

6. Contractor’s Recruitment Plan - Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 5.2.

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

Score: 20/20

Total Score: 92/100

C. Wallman Unlimited Company The Evaluation Team determined that Wallman Unlimited Company based on a score of 50, 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 The Evaluation Team noted the following deficiencies.

a. Section 1. Bidder did not provide information for Contractor’s Contract Administrator and Contractor’s Program Manager.

b. Section 2. Bidder did not provide information or details relative to partnerships and strategic relationships.

Score: 3/5

2. Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 5 – State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience The Evaluation Team noted the following deficiencies.

a. Bidder has no prior experience with the State of Michigan.

b. Bidder’s prior experiences are with the same company and two of the three experiences were not primarily recruiting for engineer positions.

Score: 10/20

3. Contractor Engineering Specialization – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1.1. A.

The Evaluation Team noted the following deficiencies.

a. Bidder’s company (recruitment organization) has been in business less than 5 years;

therefore, does not meet the specified requirement.

c. Bidder did not provide information or clearly indicate that 50% of filled positions are engineers.

Score: 5/25

4. Contractor Application and Selection Process – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1.1.

B.

The Evaluation Team noted the following deficiencies.

a. Bidder did not address how application/selection process meets open, competitive, EEO requirements.

b. Bidder did not provide detailed Selection questions that would prescreen candidates.

Score: 10/20

5. Key Personnel Experience – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 4.3.

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

b. Bidder did not submit detailed, chronological résumés of all proposed Key Personnel

Score: 2/10

6. Contractor’s Recruitment Plan - Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 5.2.

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

Score: 20/20

Total Score: 50/100

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

Technical Evaluation Critera

Hotep

Consulting

Seacon

Associates

Wallman

Unlimited

Vendor Questions Worksheet – all questions complete and acceptable to MDOT 4 5 3

Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 5 - State of

Michigan Experience and Prior Experience 15 20 10

Contractor Engineering Specialization – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1.1. A.

25 25 5

Contractor Application and Selection Process –

Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1.1. B.

20 20 10

Key Personnel Experience – Schedule A, Statement of

Work, Section 4.3.

10 2 2

Contractor’s Recruitment Plan - Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 5.2.

17 20 20

91 92 50

V. Pricing Summary

Pricing was evaluated for the bidders who received 80 or more technical evaluation points and is summarized below. Search fee is a percentage of a hired candidate’s starting annual salary.

Bidder Search Fee

Hotep Consulting 22%

Seacon Associates 24%

The State’s evaluation will include consideration of a bidder’s qualified disabled veterans/service-disabled veteran owned business(QDV/SDVOB) status under MCL 18.1261(8). When considering SDVOB status, Seacon Associates search fee for comparison purposes is 21.80% (quoted search fee minus 10% of the low bid vendor’s quoted search fee).

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(12rtpbjmznw1mn4opquus2gz))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-18-1261

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.

Seacon Associates, LLC offered the State the best value when considering the following factors:

1. Seacon Associates’ partnerships, strategic relationships, and memberships with professional organizations would facilitate the recruitment of engineers and be an asset in fulfilling the contract.

2. Seacon Associates’ prior experience with the State of Michigan and knowledge of the State’s hiring process.

3. Seacon Associates is determined to be the low bid vendor when taking the SDVOB preference into consideration (per statute). In addition, Seacon Associates offered a quick payment discount of 3% off invoice if payment is made within 15 days.

As part of the best value determination, overall economic impact to the State of Michigan was considered but was not a determinative factor in making this award.

Award Recommendation is made to Seacon Associates, LLC in the amount of $400,000.00.