NIA1 260000000614.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 260000002250 Cadillac Place Cooling Tower Repairs project and has recommended an award to Systemp Corporation in the amount of $542,516.85, 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 a re-bid of RFP 26*1721 and was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor to provide Cadillac Place Cooling Tower Repair project. The term of this contract is through project completion, approximately winter 2026, with no renewal options. RFP 26*1721 did result in award of PO 26*6233 which was subsequently cancelled due to parts omissions from a supplier to the successful bidder.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on 6/18/2026 at 12:06. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of 7/2/2026.

*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 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

Marge Bustillo, Specialist

DTMB-SFA-BOD

III. Evaluation Results A. Systemp Corporation The Evaluation Team determined that Systemp Corporation 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. Section 1, Warranties The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory with no deficiencies noted.

2. Sections 2-3 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory with exceptions for possible part availability delays noted. Project completion could take longer due to part availability. Evaluation points were not deducted in this case.

3. All other sections The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory with 14.2 Hazardous Chemical Identification submitted unchecked.

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

Total Score:100/100

B. Tower Service and Supply The Evaluation Team determined that Tower Service and Supply 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. Section 1, Warranties The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory with no deficiencies noted.

2. Sections 2-3 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory with exceptions for possible part availability delays noted. Project completion could take longer due to part availability. Evaluation points were not deducted in this case.

3. All other sections The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory with no deficiencies noted.

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

Total Score:100/100

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

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

VII. Negotiations The JEC team members discussed negotiation options, and it was decided that Systemp Corporation had performed previous projects satisfactorily based on their experience, demonstrated knowledge and expertise regarding this project, produced a satisfactory submittal and was the lowest price, therefore, attempting to negotiate a lower price was not justifiable. Their errors and omissions in their submittal to RFP 26*1721 was not, at this juncture, justification to disqualify.

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 Systemp Corporation in the amount of $542,519.85.

Version 2024-2 image1.png