Moving_award_letter_and_synopsis.docx

STATE OF MICHIGAN

ENTERPRISE PROCUREMENT

Recommendation of Award

The Department of Technology, Management, & Budget’s Central Procurement Services office has completed the evaluation of Request for Proposal No. Dept 171, ID 80000003470, Moving Services/Purchase and Rental of Moving Supplies and has recommended an award to Oneida Solutions Group, Inc. in the amount of $400,000.00 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:

Valerie Hiltz, Solicitation Manager hiltzv@michigan.gov 517-249-0459

Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor to provide Moving Services/Purchase and Rental of Moving Supplies. The term of this contract is three years with up to three additional one-year renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on Thursday, September 13, 2018. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of October 10, 2018.

City, State Zip

SDVOB*

Corrigan Moving and Storage, Inc. dba Corrigan Moving Systems 23923

Complete Quality Installation Service dba Oneida Solutions Group, Inc.

*SDVOB: Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Business

Version 1 Revised: 07-28-2017

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.

Solicitation Instructions, Section 7, Evaluation Process.

7. EVALUATION PROCESS. The State will evaluate each responsive and responsible proposal based on the following factors:

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 conjunction with advisors and assistants, which consisted of the following individuals:

Valerie Hiltz, Sr. Category Analyst, Solicitation Manager DTBM/ Central Procurement Services- Commodities Division Dan Stevens, Category Manager DTBM/ Central Procurement Services- Commodities Division

Eric DesChenes, Student Buyer DTBM/ Central Procurement Services- Commodities Division

III. Evaluation Results A. Bidder # 1- Corrigan Moving Systems

The Evaluation Team determined that Corrigan Moving Systems based on a score of 90, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1 The Evaluation Team determined that overall the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.1.I Inspections and Acceptance. Bidder responded that they took exception with the requirements and stipulated their own in both the claims process and payment terms.

Score: 45/50

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2 through 7 The Evaluation Team determined that overall the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:]

a. Section 3.1. Key Personnel- Bidder’s didn’t provide information regarding accounting contact and didn’t provide a primary contact for each location.

b. Section 3.3. Organizational Chart- Bidder provided a narrative, but not an organizational chart.

Score: 22/25

3. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 2- Company Background Information- Bidder didn’t provide the legal business address.

Score: 23/25

Total Score: 90/100 B. Bidder #2- Oneida Solutions Group, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Oneida Solutions Group, 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. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1 The Evaluation Team determined that overall the responses were satisfactory with no deficiencies noted.

Score: 50/50

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2 through 7 The Evaluation Team determined that overall the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 3.1. Key Personnel Information- Bidder didn’t provide a primary contact for each location.

b. Section 3.2. Security- Bidder didn’t identify the company that would be performing the background checks and didn’t provide the scope.

c. Section 3.5. Disclosure of Subcontractors- Bidder didn’t provide a response.

d. Section 6. Payment Methods- Bidder didn’t confirm that bank allows for EFT payments.

Score: 19/25

3. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 2- Company Background Information- Bidder didn’t provide the legal business address.

Score: 23/25

Total Score: 92/100

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

V. Pricing Summary Pricing was evaluated for the bidders who passed technical.

Bid day pricing was received from both bidders; however, there was missing pricing data in both quotes. The State requested second-round pricing.

Using their second-round pricing, the State input the bidder’s prices in five separate scenarios to be able to make “apples to apples” comparisons and then had each bidder confirm the accuracy and make any adjustments they felt would accurately reflect their proposal. The following is a summary of their scenario price proposals:

VIII. 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 factors stated in Technical Evaluation Criteria, Section 7 Evaluation Process, and price. Oneida Solutions Group, Inc. provided the best value to the State. Best value factors for Award Recommendation include but are not limited to: lowest price, statewide distribution of their locations, ample provision of rental products at each location, 100% acceptance of the Standard Terms without any redline requests. Award Recommendation is made to Oneida Solutions Group, Inc. in the amount of $400,000.00.

image1.jpeg