Award Recommendation & Evaluation Synopsis RFP 26-1634.pdf
PDF 125 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Intent to Award RFP 260000001634
- Solicitation number
- NIA1 591 260000000433 1
- Issued by
- Michigan
About this file
This is an Award Recommendation & Evaluation Synopsis for RFP 26-1634 issued by the State of Michigan. The document outlines the evaluation process and recommendation for contract award following a competitive solicitation. The RFP sought qualified vendors to provide specified products or services, with the evaluation conducted by a designated review committee that assessed proposals based on established criteria including technical merit, qualifications, and pricing competitiveness. The document details the scoring methodology employed during the evaluation phase and identifies the recommended awardee(s) determined to represent the best value to the state. The synopsis indicates the completion of the competitive procurement process and provides the formal recommendation moving toward contract execution.
The Award Recommendation & Evaluation Synopsis includes information regarding how proposals were evaluated against the RFP requirements, the scoring results of competing bidders, and the rationale for the recommended award selection. The document serves as the official record of the procurement evaluation and supports the integrity of the competitive process by documenting the decision-making methodology. This synopsis fulfills transparency requirements associated with state procurement procedures and provides all stakeholders with visibility into how the award determination was reached based on the established evaluation criteria and scoring methodology outlined in the original RFP.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Schedule B - Pricing Comparison RFP 26-1634.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Michigan.gov/MiProcurement
AWARD RECOMMENDATION
Notice of Intent to Award Number: 260000000433
Notice of Intent to Award Date: 04/29/26
The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT), Purchasing Unit has completed the evaluation of Request for Proposal (RFP) 260000001634 Culvert Rehabilitation and Drainage
Restoration, as Needed and has recommended award to Corby Energy Services, Inc in the amount of $4,356,188.95 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:
The purpose of the RFP was to solicit responses for the selection of a Prequalified Contractor for an “as needed” contract for culvert rehabilitation and drainage restoration. The Contractor will provide all necessary services to maintain culvert integrity and fluid flow.
Contractor (or subcontractor) must be prequalified in the following categories:
K Sewers and Water Mains N9-4A Sewer Cleanout N9-4B Sewer Inspection
Bidders:
The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on April 7, 2026, for 14 days. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of April 21, 2026.
Bidder Address, City, State, Zip Code SDVOB* GDBE**
Corby Energy Services, Inc.
6001 Schooner Drive Belleville, MI 48111
No No
Upper Peninsula Rubber Co Inc dba Tunnel Vision Pipeline Services
PO Box 541 Escanaba, MI 49829
No Yes
*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.
Prior experience/performance with the State of Michigan and prior relevant experience from referenced customers-Vendor Questions Worksheet, Section 5.
2.
Processes-Bidder’s detailed description of their process/procedure-Schedule A, Section 1.3.
3.
All required documents are completed, and responses are acceptable (Confidential Treatment Form, Vendor Questions Worksheet, Schedule A, Schedule B and Schedule C)
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
James Roath, Roadway Operations Engineer MDOT Bureau of Field Services, Transportation Systems Management and Operations Division, Region Support Unit
Michael Krcmarik, Transportation Engineer MDOT Bureau of Bridges and Structures, Structure Asset Management Unit
Anna Swanson, Buyer MDOT Contract Services Division, Purchasing Unit
Advisory
Michell O’Neill, Structure Asset Management Engineer MDOT Bureau of Bridges and Structure, Structure Asset Management Unit
III. Evaluation Results Corby Energy Services, Inc and Upper Peninsula Rubber Co Inc dba Tunnel Vision Pipeline Services are both prequalified in all the required prequalification categories.
A. Corby Energy Services, Inc.
The Evaluation Team determined that Corby Energy Services, 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. Prior experience/performance with State of Michigan and prior relevant experience from referenced customers-Vendor Questions Worksheet, Section 5.
The Evaluation Team determined the responses were satisfactory with no deficiencies noted.
Score: 20/20
2. Processes-Bidder’s detailed description of their process/procedure-Schedule A, Section 1.3.
The Evaluation Team determined the responses were satisfactory with no deficiencies noted.
Score: 75/75
3. All required documents are completed, and responses are acceptable (Confidential Treatment Form, Vendor Questions Worksheet, Schedule A, Schedule B and Schedule C).
The Evaluation Team determined the responses were satisfactory with no deficiencies noted.
Score: 5/5
Total Score: 100/100
B. Upper Peninsula Rubber Co Inc dba Tunnel Vision Pipeline Services
The Evaluation Team determined that Upper Peninsula Rubber Co Inc dba Tunnel Vision Pipeline Services, 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. Prior experience/performance with State of Michigan and prior relevant experience from referenced customers-Vendor Questions Worksheet, Section 5.
The Evaluation Team noted the following deficiencies:
a. Bidder’s proposal did not clearly demonstrate adequate staffing for performing contract activities at a statewide level.
b. Vendor’s prior performance issues and experience with MDOT resulted in discontinuing portions of the previous contract.
Score: 15/20
2. Processes-Bidder’s detailed description of their process/procedure-Schedule A, Section 1.3.
The Evaluation Team noted the following deficiencies:
a. Bidder’s reliance on subcontractors for portions of work may adversely affect timeline for completion of contract activities.
b. Response to Subsection I Bypass is confusing and appears to indicate that horizontal directional drilling will be the process used for every project and not just one of the processes available to use for a project.
Score: 65/75
3. All required documents are completed, and responses are acceptable (Confidential Treatment Form, Vendor Questions Worksheet, Schedule A, Schedule B and Schedule C).
The Evaluation Team noted the following deficiency:
a. Vendor did not explain how they would support the State’s compliance with Schedule A Section 1.4 Required Functionality Relating to Data Retention, Disposal, and Retrieval.
Score: 4/5 Total Score: 84/100
IV. Technical Evaluation Summary
Technical Evaluation Criteria
Corby Energy
Services
Upper Peninsula
Rubber Co Inc dba
Tunnel Vision
Pipeline Services
Prior experience/performance with State of Michigan and prior relevant experience from referenced customers-Vendor Questions Worksheet, Section 5.
20 15
Processes-Bidder’s detailed description of their process/procedure-Schedule A, Section 1.3.
75 65
All required documents are completed, and responses are acceptable (Confidential
Treatment Form, Vendor Questions Worksheet, Schedule A, Schedule B and Schedule C).
V. Pricing Summary Pricing was evaluated for the bidders who received 80 or more technical evaluation points and summarized on the attached Schedule B-Pricing Comparison RFP 26-1634.
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.
Corby Energy Services, Inc, provided the best value to the State. Best value factors for Award Recommendation include prior experience with MDOT, clear processes in Schedule A Section
1.3 Processes and overall pricing.
Award Recommendation is made to Corby Energy Services, Inc, award is in the amount of $4,356,188.95.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .