NIA1 25_548 - Award Recommendation and Evaluation Synopsis.docx

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

The Department of Treasury has completed the evaluation of RFP 250000001096 and has recommended an award to Wolverine Mailing, Packaging, Warehouse, Inc. in the amount of $153,735, 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:

Adam Zanetti, Solicitation Manager.

zanettia@michigan.gov 517-667-1465 Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor to provide Address Updating, Direct Mail and/or Bulk Distribution Services. The term of this contract is three years, with up to three, one-year renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on 2/07/2025 for four weeks. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of 2/28/2025.

Detroit, MI 48211

*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:

The State is accepting individual bids for Address Updating (Schedule A - Section 1.2.), Direct Mailing of Forms (Schedule A - Section 1.3) and Bulk Distribution of Forms (Schedule A - Section 1.4). Bidders are not required to bid on all three sections, but may if they wish to.

To ensure fairness in evaluation, Schedule A - Section 1.2, Schedule A - Section 1.3 and Schedule A - Section 1.4 will have individual scoring criteria. Proposals will be evaluated on the individual score of each section and the combined score of the remaining sections.

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 Joint Evaluation Committee, which consisted of the following individuals:

Darron Birchmeier, State Administrative Manager Departmental Services/Forms, Documentation and E-File Services Matthew Rosendale, Departmental Manager Tax Administration Bureau/Individual Income Tax Processing

Heather Case, Departmental Specialist Departmental Services/Forms

Adam Zanetti, Buyer Bureau of Enterprise Services/Purchasing

III. Evaluation Results A. Wolverine Mailing, Packaging, Warehouse, Inc The Evaluation Team determined that Wolverine Mailing, Packaging, Warehouse, Inc based on a score of 93.25 for Address Updating, 90.25 for Direct Mailing of Forms and 86.25 for Direct Distribution of Forms did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. General Requirements – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1.1 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section G: Bidder did not provide Quality Assurance Plan with their bid.

2. Address Updating – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1.2 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section A: Bidder did not describe how they would comply with the requirement.

b. Section C: Bidder did not describe how they would comply with the requirement.

c. Section D: Bidder did not describe how they would comply with the requirement.

3. Direct Mailing of Forms – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1.3 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section B: Bidder did not describe how they would comply with the requirement.

b. Section C: Bidder did not describe how they would comply with the requirement.

c. Section H: Bidder did not describe how they would comply with the requirement.

d. Section K: Bidder did not describe how they would comply with the requirement.

e. Section L: Bidder did not describe how they would comply with the requirement.

f. Section M: Bidder did not describe how they would comply with the requirement.

4. Bulk Distribution of Forms – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1.4 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section C: Bidder did not describe how they would comply with the requirement.

b. Section D: Bidder did not describe how they would comply with the requirement.

c. Section E: Bidder did not describe how they would comply with the requirement.

d. Section F: Bidder did not describe how they would comply with the requirement.

e. Section I: Bidder did not describe how they would comply with the requirement.

f. Section J: Bidder did not describe how they would comply with the requirement.

g. Section L: Bidder did not describe how they would comply with the requirement.

h. Section M: Bidder did not describe how they would comply with the requirement.

5. Staffing – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 3.2: Bidder did not identify customer service telephone number.

b. Section 3.3: Bidder did not identify a number for technical support.

6. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2, 4-8 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 8: Bidder did not acknowledge acceptance or take exceptions (response left blank).

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

a. Section 2: Bidder did not provide the number of employees at company.

b. Section 5: Bidder did not provide results obtained for Experience examples 2 & 3.

Total Score for Address Updating + Remaining Sections: 93.25/100 Total Score for Direct Mailing of Forms + Remaining Sections: 90.25/100 Total Score for Bulk Distribution of Forms + Remaining Sections: 86.25/100 IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

V. Reserved.

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

A. Address Updating (Schedule A – Statement of Work, Section 1.2)

TOTAL

THREE-YEAR

TOTAL

B. Direct Mailing (Schedule A – Statement of Work, Section 1.3)

Mail per/M

C. Bulk Distribution (Schedule A – Statement of Work, Section 1.3)

Order Estimated Quantity Estimated

TOTAL

Initial Order Fulfilment (Fulfillment, labels, packing/handling)

Postage/Mailing (Based on 40# Box)

VII. Negotiations The Bidder requested qualifications for when liquidated damages could be considered, of which the State was agreeable with. The State requested additional information on what will be considered Excess Form Management. The State also requested second round pricing, and the Bidder confirmed their original pricing was best and final.

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 the factors stated in the Proposal Instructions Evaluation Process section, and price.

Wolverine Mailing, Packaging, Warehouse, Inc provided the best value to the State. Best value factors for Award Recommendation include: prior experience, ability to meet all requirements and price.

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

Award Recommendation is made to Wolverine Mailing, Packaging, Warehouse, Inc in the amount of $153,735.

Version 2024-2 image1.png