NIA1 250000001081.docx

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

The Department of Technology, Management and Budget, Financial Services, Operations office has completed the evaluation of RFP 250000003014 Cadillac Place Water Treatment and has recommended an award to Aurora Specialty Chemistries in the amount of $38,729.46, 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:

Todd Perry, Solicitation Manager.

perryt@michigan.gov Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor to provide Cadillac Place cooling tower water treatment. The term of this contract is three years, commencing approximately October 2025, with up to two renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on 9/2/2025 at 14:06. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of 9/16/2025.

*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:

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:

Elio Vettese, Manager

DTMB-SFA-BOD

Todd Perry, Solicitation Manager DTMB-Financial Services-Operations

Zachary Cooper, Supervisor

DTMB-SFA-BOD

Bob Walker, Equipment Technician

DTMB-SFA-BOD

III. Evaluation Results A. Aurora Specialty Chemistries The Evaluation Team determined that Aurora Specialty Chemistries based on a score of 95, 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.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory with no deficiencies noted.

3. All other sections The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a) 3.8 Did not explain security assurances. Deduct 5 points.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory with no deficiencies noted.

Total Score:95/100

B. H-O-H WATER TECHNOLOGY, INC.

The Evaluation Team determined that H-O-H WATER TECHNOLOGY, INC. based on a score of 95, 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.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory with no deficiencies noted.

3. All other sections The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a) 3.8 Did not explain security assurances. Deduct 5 points.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory with no deficiencies noted.

Total Score:95/100 C. Nalco Company LLC The Evaluation Team determined that Nalco Company LLC was not responsive. No Schedule A was found in the submittal.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1 Not found.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2 Not found.

3. All other sections Not found.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory with no deficiencies noted.

Total Score: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:

VII. Negotiations The JEC team members discussed negotiation options and it was decided that Aurora Specialty Chemistries had performed similar work satisfactorily, demonstrated knowledge and expertise regarding this solicitation, produced a satisfactory submittal and was the lowest price, therefore, attempting to negotiate a lower price was not justifiable.

VIII. 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 Aurora Specialty Chemistries in the amount of $38,729.46.

Version 2024-2 image1.png