NIA1 250000000685.pdf

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

Notice of Intent to Award Number: 250000000685

Notice of Intent to Award Date: 5/15/2025

The Michigan Department of Education office has completed the evaluation of RFP 250000001752 Education Logistical Support Services for the Special Populations Conference and has recommended an award to Coordinated Events by Jenna in the amount of $18,000.00, 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:

Jenny Manar, Solicitation Manager.

manarj@michigan.gov

517-241-2170

Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor to provide Education Logistical Support Services for the Special Populations Conference. The term of this contract is 1 year, with up to three (3) additional, three (3) year renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on March 10, 2025, for 21 calendar days. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of March 31, 2025.

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

Coordinated Events by Jenna

1600 Ash Street, Carleton, MI 48117 N/A N/A

MDB, Inc. 1001 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20036

N/A N/A

Public Consulting Group

LLC

148 State Street, 10th Floor, Boston, MA 02109 N/A N/A

Manhattan Strategy Group, LLC

4747 Bethesda Ave, Suite 1210, Bethesda, MD 20814

N/A N/A

*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: Mandatory Minimum Requirements

• Pre-Proposal Meeting scheduled March 17, 2025.

• Must have experience in event planning for special populations programs (English learner programs, Homeless Education programs, Neglected and Delinquent programs, Migrant Education programs, and/or At-risk programs).

• Bidder must provide a résumé that details their experience with event planning specifically for special populations and have a contextual knowledge of the common language terms used with each of the programs as well as basic program information.

Proposal Instructions: Evaluation Process

Technical Evaluation Criteria Weight

1. General Requirement – Schedule A, Statement of Work 70

Subsections 1-2 20

Subsections 3-4 20

Subsections 5-6 15

Subsections 7-8 15

2.

Schedule A – Sections 2-4

Section 2 - Service Requirements – Timeframes

Section 3 - Staffing – Key Personnel, Subcontractors, Security

Section 4 - Project Management – Project Plan, Meetings

3. Vendor Questions Worksheet 10

Total 100

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:

Voting Voting

Michelle Williams – Special Populations Manager MDE/Office of Educational Supports-Special Populations Unit

Shoua Vang – Financial Unit Manager MDE/Office of Educational Supports

Marissa Hutchinson – Secretary 9 MDE/Office of Educational Supports-Special Populations Unit

Carol Munroe – Department Analyst MDE/Office of Financial Management

Jenny Manar – Solicitation Manager MDE/Office of Financial Management

III. Evaluation Results

A. Coordinated Events by Jenna

The Evaluation Team determined that Coordinated Events by Jenna based on a score of 96/100, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. General Requirement – Schedule A, Statement of Work.

Subsections 1-2, 3-4, 5-6, 7-8. 69/70 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Limited detail in Subsections 1-2.

2. General Requirement - Schedule A – Sections 2-4. Section 2 – Service Requirements

– Timeframes. Section 3 – Staffing – Key Personnel, Subcontractors, Security.

Section 4 – Project Management – Project Plan, Meetings. 18/20 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Staffing concern over only one employee.

3. Vendor Questions Worksheet. 9/10

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

a. Staffing concern over only one employee.

Total Score: 96/100

B. MDB, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that MDB, Inc. based on a score of 83/100, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. General Requirement – Schedule A, Statement of Work.

Subsections 1-2, 3-4, 5-6, 7-8. 64/70 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Response is less collaborative and flexible than the State is looking for.

b. Program content knowledge experience is not strongly connected in subsection 1-2.

2. General Requirement – Schedule A – Sections 2-4. Section 2 – Service Requirements – Timeframes. Section 3 – Staffing – Key Personnel, Subcontractors, Security. Section 4 – Project Management – Project Plan, Meetings. 13/20

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

a. Key personnel and subcontractor are not located in Michigan.

b. Limited staff experience.

c. Not clear who would be onsite.

3. Vendor Questions Worksheet. 6/10

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

a. No experience working with the State of Michigan.

b. Key personnel are located out of state.

Total Score: 83/100

C. Public Consulting Group LLC

The Evaluation Team determined that Public Consulting Group LLC based on a score of 82/100, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. General Requirement – Schedule A, Statement of Work.

Subsections 1-2, 3-4, 5-6, 7-8. 59/70 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Response is less collaborative and flexible than the office is looking for.

b. No experience on OWL.

c. Lacking detail on presenter processes and management of pre/post conference.

2. General Requirement – Schedule A – Sections 2-4. Section 2 – Service Requirements – Timeframes. Section 3 – Staffing – Key Personnel, Subcontractors, Security. Section 4 – Project Management – Project Plan, Meetings. 15/20 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Key personnel and contractor are not located in Michigan.

b. Limited staff experience.

3. Vendor Questions Worksheet. 8/10

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

a. Key personnel are located out of state.

Total Score: 82/100

D. The Manhattan Strategy Group

The Evaluation Team determined that Public Consulting Group LLC based on a score of 90/100, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. General Requirement – Schedule A, Statement of Work.

Subsections 1-2, 3-4, 5-6, 7-8. 67/70 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Bidder did not state its experience with OWL.

2. General Requirement – Schedule A – Sections 2-4. Section 2 – Service Requirements – Timeframes. Section 3 – Staffing – Key Personnel, Subcontractors, Security. Section 4 – Project Management – Project Plan, Meetings. 17/20 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Key personnel and contractor are not located in Michigan.

3. Vendor Questions Worksheet 6/10

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

a. No experience working with the State of Michigan.

b. Key personnel are located out of state.

Total Score: 90/100

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

Selection Criteria Coordinated Events by Jenna

MDB Inc Public Consulting Group LLC

The Manhattan Strategy Group

1 General Requirements – Schedule A – Statement of Work - Subsections 1-8

69 64 59 67

2 General Requirements – Schedule A – Sections 2-4

18 13 15 17

3 Vendor Questions Worksheet

9 6 8 6

Total 96 83 82 90

V. Pricing Summary

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

Deliverable Coordinated Events by

Jenna

MDB Inc Public Consulting Group LLC

The Manhattan

Strategy Group

Total Price $18,000.00 $108,737.52 $275,000.00 $187,934.27

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 Coordinated Events by Jenna in the amount of $18,000.00.