CTF Award Letter-Synopsis.pdf

Version 4 Revised: 8/2019

Award Recommendation Notice of Intent to Award Number: 210000000081

The Department of Health and Human Services’ Bureau of Grants and Purchasing office has completed the evaluation of RFP 491-200000002444 and has recommended an award to Capitol Fundraising Associates in the amount of $216,000.00, 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:

Mike Roesner, Solicitation Manager RoesnerM@michigan.gov 517-284-0183

Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor to provide fundraising for Children’s Trust Fund (CTF) and auction event management services. The term of this contract is three years, with up to two, one-year renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on 09/30/2020. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of 10/21/2020.

Bidder Address City, State Zip

SDVOB*

Prues Hecker LLC

1315 Harvard Road Grosse Pointe, MI 48230

No

Capitol Fundraising Associates

124 W. Allegan Suite 1616 Lansing, MI 48933

No

*SDVOB: Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Business

STATE OF MICHIGAN PROCUREMENT

Michigan Department of Health and Human Services 235 S. Grand Ave, Suite 1201 Lansing, MI 48913 Grand Tower Building, Suite 1201, PO Box 30037 Lansing, MI 48909 https://www.michigan.gov/dtmb/0,5552,7-358-82550_85746_48756---,00.html

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

Technical Evaluation Criteria Weight

1. Product Quality – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1.1 Work/Deliverable

2. Service Capabilities – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2-4 Staffing, Meetings, Reporting

3. Vendor Questions Worksheet 15

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet – Section 5 Prior

Experience

Total 100 The full evaluation process is stated in the RFP Proposal Instructions section 6.

II. Evaluation Method

Responses to this solicitation were reviewed by a Joint Evaluation Committee consisting of the following individuals:

Voting Advisory Suzanne Greenberg, Director MDHHS Children’s Trust Fund

Mike Roesner, Contract Analyst MDHHS/Bureau of Grants and Purchasing

Alan Stokes, Analyst MDHHS Children’s Trust Fund

Amy Tattrie Loepp, Board Chair Children’s Trust Fund

III. Evaluation Results

A. Bidder # 1 – Prues Hecker

The Evaluation Team determined that Prues Hecker 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. Product Quality – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1. Work/Deliverable. 33/40 pts The Evaluation Team determined that overall the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. A3. Increase Funds Raised through Sponsorships - The response was vague and did not include specifics on goals that were established, if goals were achieved, timeframes, or deadlines. Minus 1 point

b. A4. In-kind Donor Prospecting and Retention Plan – Bidder stated they will work with the team to build a plan but did not provide the requested plan to obtain direct and in-kind donations. Minus 1 point

c. A5.Ticket Sales - The response did not include a plan to increase ticket sales. Minus 1 point

d. A6. Total Gross Revenue – Bidder did not describe a plan to meet the total gross revenue goal. The response indicates the goal is heavily reliant on the current contract, board chair, and sponsors. Minus 1 point

e. A7. Marketing the Signature Auction Event - The response describes the Bidder’s experience but did not include a plan to develop and deliver various media resources.

Minus 1 point

f. A10. Acquisitions Team Management - The response describes the Bidder’s experience but does not include a plan to obtain auction items each year. Minus 1 point

g. B1. Letters and Solicitation Materials - The response did not include a sample thank you letter. Minus 1 point

2. Service Capabilities – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2-4 Acceptance, Staffing, Project Management. 19/20 pts The Evaluation Team determined that overall the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 4.2. Reporting – Bidder did not provide sample reports - Minus 1

3. Vendor Questions Worksheet. 13/15 pts following deficiencies were noted:

a. 2. Company Background Information - Gross annual sales for each of the last 5 years was not clearly stated. Only one amount of $450,000 was provided. Minus 1 point

b. 2. Company Background Information - Partnerships and strategic relationships were not described. The answer only states the Contractor currently holds a contract with CTF and will continue to grow relationships. Minus 1 point

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet – Section 5 Prior Experience. 18/25 pts following deficiencies were noted:

a. 5. Prior Experience - There is not a third experience noted in the last 5 years. Minus 6 points

b. 5. Prior Experience - Dollar amounts and dates were not listed for fundraising events other than auctions - Minus 1 point

Total Score: 83/100

B. Capitol Fundraising Associates

The Evaluation Team determined that Capitol Fundraising Associates based on a score of 93, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Product Quality – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1.1 Work/Deliverable. 33/40 pts following deficiencies were noted:

a. A7. Marketing the Signature Auction Event - Bidder did not describe their plan to develop and deliver various media resources or the management role they played. Minus 1 point

b. A8. Secure Live Auction Items - The response did not explain the Bidder’s experience with soliciting and securing live auction items. Minus 1 point

c. A9. Auction Item Strategies - The response was vague and did not include a plan to solicit and secure gifts. Minus 1 point

d. A10. Acquisitions Team Management - Bidder did not include a plan to obtain auction items.

The example auction items did not take into account the current Covid environment and lack of interest in travel and concerts. Minus 1 point

e. B5. Auction Print Materials - The response relies heavily on previous materials, not developing new event materials. Minus 1 point

f. B4. Mobile Bidding Software - The Contractor has no experience uploading information into mobile bidding software. Minus 1 point

g. C.3.10 10 Assist in Auction Item Inventory Process - It is unclear how checking in attendees at events relates to tracking auction items as they are transported from CTF to the auction venue. The response gives a vague statement on how winning bidders will receive items, but not how the items will be tracked as they are being transported. Minus 1 point

2. Service Capabilities – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2-4 Staffing, Meetings, Reporting. 20pts

The Evaluation Team determined that overall the responses were mostly satisfactory.

3. Vendor Questions Worksheet. 15pts

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet – Section 5 Prior Experience. 25 pts

Total Score: 93/100

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

Selection Criteria Bidder #1 Prues Hecker

Bidder #2 Capitol Fundraising

1 Product Quality – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1.1 Work/Deliverable

33 33

2 Service Capabilities – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2-4 Staffing, Meetings, Reporting

19 20

3 Vendor Questions Worksheet 13 15 4 Vendor Questions Worksheet – Section 5 Prior

Experience 18 25

Total 83 93

V. Pricing Summary

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

Deliverable Bidder #1 Prues Hecker

Bidder #2 Capitol Fundraising

1 1 Unit=1 month $10,500.00/month $6,000.00/month Total Price

3-year Contract $378,000.00 $216,000.00

VI. 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 Capitol Fundraising Associates in the amount of $216,000.00.