NIA1 26_548 Award Recommendation and Evaluation Synopsis - MIC Citizens Guide.docx

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

The Department of Treasury’s Procurement office has completed the evaluation of Request for Proposal (RFP) 260000001781 for the Development of a Citizen’s Guide to Infrastructure Systems and has recommended an award to Hubbell, Roth & Clark, Inc. (HRC) in the amount of $111,519.20, 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:

Lance Kingsbury, Solicitation Manager.

KingsburyL@michigan.gov 517.614.6458 Cc:

Adam Zanetti, Assistant Solicitation Manager ZanettiA@michigan.gov 517.667.1465 Background Information:

This RFP was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor to develop a Michigan‑specific citizen guide on infrastructure systems tailored to public stakeholders. The purpose of this document is to equip everyday taxpayers and infrastructure users with the awareness, knowledge, and confidence needed to support the management of infrastructure services and champion future infrastructure investments. The term of this contract is three years, with up to two, one-year renewal options.

A. Citizens Guide to Infrastructure Systems The Contractor must develop a Citizens Guide on Michigan’s infrastructure systems.

B. Citizens Guide to Infrastructure Systems (Surveys) The Contractor is required to develop and administer electronic Statewide surveys, including surveys directed at the general public to gather feedback on infrastructure issues, as well as surveys targeted to infrastructure asset owners to determine the knowledge they wish their citizens or customers possessed regarding infrastructure systems.

C. Citizens Guide to Infrastructure Systems (Educational Materials) The Contractor must create tailored, public‑facing educational documents and media to support the Citizens Guide.

D. Citizens Guide to Infrastructure Systems (Communications Strategy) The Contractor must develop a communications strategy to promote the Citizens Guide to the public.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on April 14, 2026, for 24 days. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of May 8, 2026.

*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 evaluated each proposal based on the following factors:

Proposals receiving a score of 80 or more technical evaluation points had their 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 a Joint Evaluation Committee (JEC), which consisted of the following individuals:

Nathan Hamilton, Manager of Planning, Outreach and Training Department of Treasury, Michigan Infrastructure Council Lance Kingsbury, Departmental Manager Department of Treasury, Purchasing

Palencia Mobley, PE Mode Collective MIC Chairperson Adam Zanetti, Buyer Department of Treasury, Purchasing

Erin Kuhn, Executive Director West Michigan Shoreline, Regional MIC Vice Chairperson Mandy Grewal University of Michigan MIC Member

III. Evaluation Results A. Hubbell, Roth & Clark, Inc. (HRC) The Evaluation Team determined that HRC, based on a score of 80, 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 Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Schedule A, Section 1.1.1.A.2. HRC did not provide samples of graphic design work. They only provided links and, as stated in the proposal instructions, references and links to websites or external sources may not be used in lieu of providing the information requested in the RFP within the proposal.

b. Schedule A, Section 1.1.1.A.7. HRC did not provide samples of previous education materials. They only provided links and, as stated in the proposal instructions, references and links to websites or external sources may not be used in lieu of providing the information requested in the RFP within the proposal.

c. Overall, most responses were satisfactory but lacked some detail on how they would meet the requirements.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2-5 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Schedule A, Section 3.1. HRC did not check that they have reviewed the requirement and either agree or have exceptions.

b. Schedule A, Section 4.3. The JEC had concerns regarding the Communications Strategy Key Personnel’s lack of experience in this area.

c. Schedule A, Section 5.3. HRC did not provide sample reports as requested. They only provided an Experience Matrix which listed their past work and the location where to find it. This information was located on a website or an external source and, as stated in the proposal instructions, references and links to websites or external sources may not be used in lieu of providing the information requested in the RFP within the proposal.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 6-10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and no deficiencies were noted.

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

a. The three relevant experiences provided lacked public-facing communications.

Total Score: 80/100

B. New Loka Creative LLC/Loka Creative (NLC) The Evaluation Team determined that NLC based on a score of 68, did not 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 Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were somewhat satisfactory and the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Schedule A, Section 1.1.1.A.3. NLC did not exhibit they have knowledge of Michigan’s infrastructure systems or familiarity with Michigan’s broader infrastructure context.

b. Schedule A, Section 1.1.1.A.3. NLC did not exhibit they have experience working with, or familiarity with, Michigan local units of government, Michigan state agencies, regional agencies, or other Michigan‑based infrastructure entities.

c. Schedule A, Section 1.1.1.A.7. NLC did not demonstrate a proven ability to develop professional, educational materials for non‑technical audiences, clearly translating complex technical concepts into easier to understand concepts and language. Additionally, the example NCL provided for previously created education materials were not relevant to the scope of this RFP.

d. Schedule A, Section 1.1.1.A.8. NLC did not demonstrate experience in developing communication strategies. Additionally, NLC stated: “Our founder…has deep expertise in public utilities, water conservation and reuse, environmental services, housing, economic development, and human services.” However, the resume provided for this individual does not reflect this.

e. Overall, most responses lacked relevant details on how they would comply with the requirements.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2-5 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. Schedule A, Section 5.3. NCL did not provide sample reports as requested.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 6-10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and no deficiencies were noted.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were somewhat satisfactory and the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The three experience descriptions lacked detail.

b. The three experiences that were provided are not relevant to this RFP.

Total Score: 68/100 C. Nove Communications Inc/LKF Marketing (LKF) The Evaluation Team determined that LKF based on a score of 100, 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 and no deficiencies were noted.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2-5 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and no deficiencies were noted.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 6-10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and no deficiencies were noted.

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

Total Score: 100/100 D. Public Sector Consultants, Inc. (PSC) The Evaluation Team determined that PSC based on a score of 53, did not 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 Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly not satisfactory, and the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Schedule A, Section 1.1.1.A.1. PSC’s response was “See project plan”. However, a project plan was not submitted by the proposal deadline.

b. Schedule A, Section 1.1.1.A.2. PSC’s response was “See project plan”. However, a project plan was not submitted by the proposal deadline.

c. Schedule A, Section 1.1.1.A.5. PSC has not worked directly with International Standards Organization (ISO) 55000 and 50001 standards for asset management best practices.

d. Schedule A, Section 1.1.1.A.7. PSC’s response was “See project plan”. However, a project plan was not submitted by the proposal deadline.

e. Schedule A, Section 1.1.1.A.8. PSC’s response was “See project plan”. However, a project plan was not submitted by the proposal deadline.

f. Schedule A, Section 1.1.1.B.1.a. PSC’s response was “See project plan”. However, a project plan was not submitted by the proposal deadline.

g. Schedule A, Section 1.1.1.B.1.b. PSC’s response was “See project plan”. However, a project plan was not submitted by the proposal deadline.

h. Schedule A, Section 1.1.1.B.2.a. PSC did not discuss how they plan to develop a Citizen’s Guide to Infrastructure Systems tailored to Michigan’s infrastructure based on the approved framework from the Asset Management Education Committee.

i. Schedule A, Section 1.1.1.B.2.b. PSC’s response was “See project plan”. However, a project plan was not submitted by the proposal deadline.

j. Schedule A, Section 1.1.1.B.2.c. PSC’s response was “See project plan”. However, a project plan was not submitted by the proposal deadline.

k. Schedule A, Section 1.1.1.B.2.d. PSC did acknowledge the Citizen’s Guide must not exceed a total length of 90 pages, ensuring that the document remains accessible, readable, and practical for a broad public audience. They also stated, “See project plan for details”. However, a project plan was not submitted by the proposal deadline.

l. Schedule A, Section 1.1.1.B.2.e. PSC did acknowledge each asset overview section of the Citizen’s Guide must be capable of functioning independently as a standalone document, ensuring that stakeholders can access and reference specific topics without needing to review the full Citizen’s Guide. They also stated, “See project plan for details”. However, a project plan was not submitted by the proposal deadline.

m. Schedule A, Section 1.1.1.B.2.h.i. PSC will meet the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.1 Level AA). For the Citizen’s Guide must be customizable to incorporate “Michigan-centric” case studies requirement, they stated “see project plan for more details”. However, a project plan was not submitted by the proposal deadline.

n. Schedule A, Section 1.1.1.B.2.h.ii. PSC’s response was “See project plan”. However, a project plan was not submitted by the proposal deadline.

o. Schedule A, Section 1.1.1.C.1.a. PSC’s response was “See project plan”. However, a project plan was not submitted by the proposal deadline.

p. Schedule A, Section 1.1.1.C.1.b. PSC’s response was “See project plan”. However, a project plan was not submitted by the proposal deadline.

q. Schedule A, Section 1.1.1.C.2.a. PSC’s response was “See project plan”. However, a project plan was not submitted by the proposal deadline.

r. Schedule A, Section 1.1.1.C.2.b. PSC’s response was “See project plan”. However, a project plan was not submitted by the proposal deadline.

s. Schedule A, Section 1.1.1.C.2.c. PSC’s response was “See project plan”. However, a project plan was not submitted by the proposal deadline.

t. Schedule A, Section 1.1.1.C.2.d. PSC’s response was “See project plan”. However, a project plan was not submitted by the proposal deadline.

u. Schedule A, Section 1.1.1.C.2.e. PSC’s response was “See project plan”. However, a project plan was not submitted by the proposal deadline.

v. Schedule A, Section 1.1.1.C.2.f. PSC’s response was “See project plan”. However, a project plan was not submitted by the proposal deadline.

w. Schedule A, Section 1.1.1.C.2.g. PSC’s response was “See project plan”. However, a project plan was not submitted by the proposal deadline.

x. Schedule A, Section 1.1.1.D.1. PSC’s response was “See project plan”. However, a project plan was not submitted by the proposal deadline.

y. Schedule A, Section 1.1.1.D.2. PSC’s response was “See project plan”. However, a project plan was not submitted by the proposal deadline.

z. Schedule A, Section 1.1.1.D.3. PSC’s response was “See project plan”. However, a project plan was not submitted by the proposal deadline

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2-5 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Schedule A, Section 5.1. PSC did not submit a preliminary Project Plan.

b. Schedule A, Section 5.3. PSC stated they submitted a Statewide Survey Results PDF; however, this was not submitted by the proposal deadline.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 6-10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and no deficiencies were noted.

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

a. The three experience descriptions lacked detail.

b. Two of the three experiences provided are not relevant to this RFP.

Total Score: 53/100

Scoring Summary

IV. Oral Presentations/Demonstrations N/A V. Pricing Summary Pricing was evaluated for the bidders who passed technical. The following is a summary of their price proposals:

Original Price:

Hubbell, Roth & Clark, Inc. (HRC)

Nove Communications Inc/LKF Marketing (LKF)

*Pricing Notes: Quick payment terms: 1% discount off invoice if paid within 5 days after receipt of invoice.

VI. Negotiations The following pricing tables are from second round pricing.

Hubbell, Roth & Clark, Inc. (HRC)

Nove Communications Inc/LKF Marketing (LKF)

*Pricing Notes: Quick payment terms: 1% discount off invoice if paid within 5 days after receipt of invoice.

VII. 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.

Hubbell, Roth & Clark, Inc. (HRC) provides the best value to the State. Best value factors for Award Recommendation include: their proposal offers the best combination of pricing and ability to meet technical requirements.

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.

Version 2024-2 image1.png