STATE OF MICHIGAN

ENTERPRISE PROCUREMENT

Recommendation of Award REVISED - April 11, 2018 Revisions in Italics The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Procurement Services office has completed the evaluation of RFP number 180000001116 for bundled, bulk and artificial firewood for resale by DNR at State of Michigan campgrounds and recreation areas, and has recommended a split award to the following Bidders. Recommended Contract Base Term years and Options to Renew were based on whether the proposal offered heat treated or non-heat treated wood, and whether the price proposed was within the State’s anticipated fair market value, as determined by the State. Contract values stated include all Base Term Years and Options to Renew. Any recommendation for award in excess of $500,000.00 is pending State Administrative Board approval.

* Bid Error / Withdrawn.

Bidders who were not recommended for 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 award. The Solicitation Manager may be contacted as follows:

Lisa Crozier-Green, Solicitation Manager CrozierGreenL@michigan.gov 517-284-5938

Background Information: The Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Parks and Recreation Division (PRD) is actively working toward offering 100% heat treated wood for resale to campers at all locations which allow campfires.

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for the selection of Contractors to provide heat treated and non-heat treated bundled and bulk firewood for resale at DNR campgrounds and recreation areas, and to determine whether the State should consider the option of offering Artificial Firewood for resale at one or more locations.

Bidders: The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on February 9, 2018. The following Bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of March 9, 2018.

City, State Zip

QDV*

Baldwin, Michigan 49304 No

Coldwater, Michigan 49036 No

Beaver Creek Firewood Products, LLC

993 26th Street Menominee, Michigan 49858 No

Orrville, Ohio 44667 No

Boyne City, Michigan 49712 No

Dragon’s Breath Firewood, LLC

4183 Canby Road Pellston, Michigan 49769 No

Levering, Michigan 49755 Yes

Carney, Michigan 49812 No

Clare, Michigan 48617 No

Newberry, Michigan 49868 Yes

Brimley, Michigan 49715 No

Covington, Michigan 49919 No

Mohaw, Michigan 49950 No

Lenox, Michigan 48048 No

Ishpeming, Michigan 49849 No

Kingsford, Michigan 49802 No

*QDV: Qualified Disabled Veteran. The State was not obligated to accept the lowest price proposal. If applicable, the State’s evaluation included consideration of a bidder’s qualified disabled veteran (QDV) status under MCL 18.1261(8).

Additional information on the QDV preference is available at: http://michigan.gov/micontractconnect/0,4541,7-225-48677-123519--,00.html.

Version 1 Revised: 07-28-2017

Evaluation Synopsis I. Evaluation Process A responsive proposal is one that is submitted in accordance with the solicitation instructions and meets all requirements identified in the solicitation. A responsible vendor successfully demonstrates, by the responses contained in a responsive proposal, that the vendor has the ability to perform the duties identified by the solicitation. Proposals which are not submitted in accordance with the solicitation instructions, or which do not provide the information requested, may be considered non-responsive. The State may request vendor clarification on vague or ambiguous responses. Proposal considered non-responsive may not be considered for award recommendation.

Proposal Instructions and Vendor Questions Worksheet, Section 7, Evaluation Process.

All proposals were to include complete responses to:

Bidders submitting proposals for Bundled or Bulk Firewood were asked to provide complete responses to:

Bidders submitting proposals for Artificial Firewood were asked to include complete responses to:

The Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Parks and Recreation Division (PRD), is actively working toward 100% heat treated wood at all locations which allow campfires. Proposals were evaluated using a tiered system, in the following order:

1. Proposals offering heat treated firewood per USDA / APHIS Treatment Schedule T314-c, 160º for 75 min.

2. Proposals offering heat treated firewood per USDA / APHIS Treatment Schedule T314-a, 140º for 60 min.

3. Proposals from vendors actively working toward kiln certification, with certain restrictions

4. Proposals offering non-heat treated wood, with certain restrictions

5. Proposals offering Artificial Firewood

USDA / APHIS Kiln Certification for Treatment Schedule T314-c

USDA / APHIS Kiln Certification for Treatment Schedule T314-a

Actively working toward kiln certification

Non-heat treated firewood

Artificial Firewood

Technical Evaluation The Vendor Questions Worksheet was evaluated to determine whether the vendor possesses the relevant experience to successfully provide the Contract Activities.

Schedule A – Statement of Work was evaluated to determine whether the vendor demonstrated the ability to meet the required specifications and to comply with State requirements.

Proposals receiving 80 or more technical evaluation points were evaluated to determine whether the pricing proposed was within the States anticipated fair market value and eligible to be considered for award.

Price Evaluation Schedule B1 – Locations and Vendor Quotations were evaluated to determine whether the price proposed for Bundled or Bulk Firewood is within the State’s anticipated fair market value, as determined by the State. Anticipated annual requirements provided per location were estimates only.

Schedule B2 – Vendor Quotation for Artificial Firewood, All Locations were evaluated to determine whether the State should consider the option of offering Artificial Firewood for resale at one or more locations. Anticipated annual requirements were estimates only.

The State reserved the right to utilize all bidder information, without regard to a proposal’s technical score, to determine fair market value for goods or services sought. The State was not obligated to accept the lowest price proposal. If applicable, the State’s evaluation included consideration of a bidder’s qualified disabled veteran (QDV) status under MCL 18.1261(8). Additional information on the QDV preference is available at: http://michigan.gov/micontractconnect/0,4541,7-225-48677-123519--,00.html.

The full evaluation process was stated in the RFP Proposal Instructions.

II. Evaluation Method Responses to this solicitation were reviewed by the Joint Evaluation Committee (JEC) of the Solicitation Manager in collaboration with a PRD Subject Matter Expert which included the following individuals:

Evaluators

Lisa Crozier-Green, Solicitation Manager Department of Natural Resources Procurement Services

Jason Fleming, State Administrative Manager Department of Natural Resources Parks and Recreation Division

III. Evaluation Results A. ABC Property Management / Logging, LLC Based on a technical evaluation score of 80 points, the Evaluation Team determined that ABC Property Management / Logging, LLC did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

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

1. Vendor Questions Worksheet

a. Company Background Information. The proposal stated no employees, only subcontractors. After clarification, it was determined the individuals were 1099 employees or subcontractors, however, the number of individuals was not provided.

b. Locations Proposed. The proposal included the address from which wood would be obtained (point of origin), but did not include the distance in miles the wood would be moved from the point of origin, to the processing location, to each delivery location included in the proposal. After clarification, it was determined the wood would be moved 48 miles from the point of origin to the processing location, however, the distance from the processing location to each delivery location proposed was not included.

c. Relevant Experience. The proposal indicated at least one contract to provide firewood, however, the proposal did not provide the contract number, start and expiration dates, contract amount, or the contract administrator.

d. Relevant Experience. The proposal did not provide detail regarding how the experience was relevant to the subject of the RFP.

2. Schedule A – Statement of Work

a. Section 1, General Requirements, Bidders Response. The proposal stated firewood will not be moved more than 50 miles from the point of origin to the delivery location, however, based on responses provided in the Vendor Questions Worksheet, the Evaluators were able to determine firewood will be moved more than 50 miles to the furthest delivery location proposed.

b. Section 1, General Requirements, Bidders Response. The proposal did not provide the bundle size proposed (W x H x L).

c. Section 1, General Requirements, Bidders Response. The proposal stated no handle would be included.

d. Section 1, General Requirements, Bidders Response. Proposal indicated the use of rental vehicles for delivery and 6 delivery vehicles owned by Bidder. Upon clarification, it was determined the Bidder does not own delivery vehicles and will need to rent vehicles to make deliveries.

e. Section 3.3, Disclosure of Subcontractors. The Vendor Questions Worksheet indicated the use of subcontractors, but did not include subcontractor information in Schedule A.

Initial Technical Score: 76.5/100 Score After Clarification: 80/100

B. ATF Firewood Products Based on a technical evaluation score of 83.5 points, the Evaluation Team determined that ATF Firewood Products did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

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

1. Vendor Questions Worksheet

a. Company Background Information. The proposal stated this company has been in business for fifteen (15) years, but did not provide gross annual sales for the past five (5) years.

b. Locations Proposed. The proposal provided the distance in miles the wood would be moved from where the wood would be obtained (point of origin) to the location where the wood would be processed, but did not include the distance in miles the wood would be moved for every location proposed. After clarification, it was determined the wood would be moved 103 miles from the point of origin to the furthest delivery location.

c. Relevant Experience. No relevant experience was included.

2. Schedule A – Statement of Work

a. Section 1, General Requirements, Bidders Response. The proposal stated firewood will not be moved more than 50 miles from the point of origin to the delivery location, however, based on responses provided in the Vendor Questions Worksheet, the Evaluators were able to determine firewood will be moved more than 50 miles to the furthest delivery location proposed.

b. Section 1, General Requirements, Bidders Response. The proposal did not indicate the bundle content (species), percentage of bark, number of pieces of wood or minimum and maximum wood sizes.

c. Section 1, General Requirements, Bidders Response. The proposal stated no handle would be included.

Initial Technical Score: 71/100 Score After Clarification: 83.5/100

C. Beaver Creek Wood Products Based on a technical evaluation score of 97 points, (+10 for kiln certification) the Evaluation Team determined that Beaver Creek Wood Products did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

The Evaluation Team determined the responses were mostly satisfactory, however the following deficiencies were noted:

1. Vendor Questions Worksheet

a. Company Background Information. The proposal stated the company has been in business for twelve (12) years, but did not include gross annual sales for 2013. After clarification the gross annual sales for 2013 were provided.

b. Company Background Information. The proposal did not include the complete physical address of the place of business with primary responsibility for this account. After clarification, the complete physical address was provided.

c. USDA / APHIS Kiln Certification. Although the proposal indicated this Bidder owns and operations a USDA certified kiln (T314-a), documentation of kiln certification was not included. After clarification, documentation of prior stated kiln certification was provided.

2. Schedule A – Statement of Work

a. Section 1, General Requirements, Bidders Response. Proposal did not include a response regarding whether the Bidder agrees to abide by delivery requirements in the LSS for all locations quoted.

b. Section 2.2, Reporting. The proposal did not include a response regarding future reporting capabilities or kiln recertification.

Initial Technical Score: 95/100 Score After Clarification: 97/100

D. Bio-Blocks (Summit Wood Industries, Inc.)

Based on a technical evaluation score of 96 points, the Evaluation Team determined that Bio-Blocks (Summit Wood Industries, Inc.), did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

The Evaluation Team determined the responses were mostly satisfactory, however the following deficiencies were noted:

1. Schedule A – Statement of Work

a. Section 1, General Requirements, Bidders Response. The proposal did not include a response regarding whether the Bidder agrees to abide by delivery requirements in the LSS for all locations quoted.

Technical Score: 98/100

E. Burt Moeke Forestry Based on a technical evaluation score of 91 points, the Evaluation Team determined that Burt Moeke Forestry did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

The Evaluation Team determined the responses were mostly satisfactory, however the following deficiencies were noted:

1. Schedule A – Statement of Work

a. Section 1, General Requirements, Bidders Response. The proposal stated firewood proposed would not be stored for a minimum of 1 year prior to delivery. After clarification it was determined that the Bidder had checked the wrong box.

b. Section 1, General Requirements, Bidders Response. The proposal did not indicate the material to be used to wrap firewood bundles. After clarification it was determined that stretch film will be used to bundle firewood.

c. Section 1, General Requirements, Bidders Response. The proposal did not include a response to whether the Bidder intends to rely on a third party vendor to make delivery.

d. Section 1, General Requirements, Bidders Response. The proposal did not include a response regarding whether the Bidder agrees to abide by delivery requirements in the LSS for all locations quoted.

Initial Technical Score: 89/100 Score After Clarification: 91/100

F. Dragon’s Breath Firewood, LLC Based on a technical evaluation score of 89 points (+5 for actively seeking kiln certification), the Evaluation Team determined that Dragon’s Breath Firewood, LLC did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

The Evaluation Team determined the responses were mostly satisfactory, however the following deficiencies were noted:

1. Vendor Questions Worksheet

a. Relevant Experience. The proposal did not provide a response to relevant experience.

2. Schedule A – Statement of Work

a. Section 1, General Requirements, Bidders Response. The proposal stated firewood will not be moved more than 50 miles from the point of origin to the delivery location, however, based on responses provided in the Vendor Questions Worksheet, the Evaluators were able to determine firewood will be moved more than 50 miles to the furthest delivery location proposed.

b. Section 1, General Requirements, Bidders Response. Proposal stated handle included, but did not indicate handle material. After clarification it was determined the handle proposed will be polypropylene webbing.

c. Section 2.2, Reporting. The proposal did not include a response regarding reporting capabilities.

d. Section 3.2, Key Personnel. The proposal did not include a response regarding Key Personnel.

Initial Technical Score: 88/100 Score After Clarification: 89/100

G. Hauger Forest Products Based on a technical evaluation score of 100 points (+10 for kiln certification), the Evaluation Team determined that Hauger Forest Products did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

No deficiencies were noted.

Initial Technical Score: 100/100

H. Hoduski Forest Products Based on a technical evaluation score of 81 points, the Evaluation Team determined that Hoduski Forest Products did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

The Evaluation Team determined the responses were mostly satisfactory, however the following deficiencies were noted:

1. Vendor Questions Worksheet

a. Relevant Experience. The proposal did not provide a response to relevant experience.

2. Schedule A – Statement of Work

a. Section 1, General Requirements, Bidders Response. The proposal stated firewood will not be moved more than 50 miles from the point of origin to the delivery location, however, based on responses provided in the Vendor Questions Worksheet, the Evaluators were able to determine firewood will be moved more than 50 miles to the furthest delivery location proposed.

b. Section 1, General Requirements, Bidders Response. The proposal did not include the cubic feet of the bundles proposed.

c. Section 1, General Requirements, Bidders Response. The proposal stated no handle would be included.

d. Section 1, General Requirements, Bidders Response. The proposal did not indicate whether the Bidder intends to rely on a third party (subcontractor) for delivery.

e. Section 1, General Requirements, Bidders Response. The proposal did not indicate whether the Bidder intends to abide by the delivery requirements for each location proposed.

f. Section 1.4, Recall Requirements. The proposal did not include a response.

g. Section 1.5, Quality Assurance Program. The proposal did not include a response.

h. Section 2.2, Reporting. The proposal did not include a response.

i. Section 3.2, Key Personnel. The proposal did not include a response.

j. Section 3.4, Security. The proposal did not include a response.

k. Section 4.1, Pricing. The proposal did not include a response.

l. Section 5.2, Order Verification. The proposal did not include a response.

Technical Score: 81/100

I. Kleinhardt Wood Supply Based on a technical evaluation score of 87 points, the Evaluation Team determined that Kleinhardt Wood Supply did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

The Evaluation Team determined the responses were mostly satisfactory, however the following deficiencies were noted:

1. Vendor Questions Worksheet

a. Locations Proposed. The proposal did not include the distance in miles the wood would be moved from the point of processing to the delivery locations, and did not include a response for every location proposed.

b. Relevant Experience. The proposal did not provide a response.

2. Schedule A – Statement of Work

a. Section 1, General Requirements, Bidders Response. The proposal stated firewood will not be moved more than 50 miles from the point of origin to the delivery location, however, based on responses provided in the Vendor Questions Worksheet, the Evaluators were able to determine firewood will be moved more than 50 miles to the furthest delivery location proposed.

b. Section 1, General Requirements, Bidders Response. The proposal indicated no handle would be included.

c. Section 2.2, Reporting. The proposal did not include a response.

d. Section 3.4, Security. The proposal did not include a response.

Technical Score: 87/100

J. Michigan Fuelwood Products Based on a technical evaluation score of 93 points (+10 for kiln certification), the Evaluation Team determined that Michigan Fuelwood Products did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

The Evaluation Team determined the responses were mostly satisfactory, however the following deficiencies were noted:

1. Vendor Questions Worksheet

a. Relevant Experience. The proposal did not provide a response.

2. Schedule A – Statement of Work

a. Section 1, General Requirements, Bidders Response. The proposal stated no handle would be included, but could be included for an additional $.10/bundle.

Technical Score: 93/100

K. Pesola Logging Based on a technical evaluation score of 83 points, the Evaluation Team determined that Pesola Logging did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

The Evaluation Team determined the responses were mostly satisfactory, however the following deficiencies were noted:

1. Vendor Questions Worksheet

a. Relevant Experience. The proposal did not provide a response to relevant experience.

2. Schedule A – Statement of Work

a. Section 1, General Requirements, Bidders Response. The proposal stated firewood will not be moved more than 50 miles from the point of origin to the delivery location, however, based on responses provided in the Vendor Questions Worksheet, the Evaluators were able to determine firewood will be moved more than 50 miles to the furthest delivery location proposed.

b. Section 1, General Requirements, Bidders Response. Proposal did not provide the bundle size proposed or cubic feet per bundle. After clarification it was determined the bundle size proposed is 12” x 12” 16” with 1.33 CF per bundle.

c. Section 1, General Requirements, Bidders Response. The proposal stated no handle was included.

d. Section 1, General Requirements, Bidders Response. The proposal did not indicate whether the Bidder agrees to abide by the delivery requirements in the LSS for all locations quoted.

Initial Technical Score: 79/100 Score After Clarification: 83/100

L. Rock River Timber Based on a technical evaluation score of 89 points (+10 for kiln certification), the Evaluation Team determined that Rock River Timber did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

The Evaluation Team determined the responses were mostly satisfactory, however the following deficiencies were noted:

1. Vendor Questions Worksheet

a. Number of Employees: The proposal did not provide a response to the number of employees.

b. Relevant Experience. The proposal did not provide a response to two of the relevant experiences.

2. Schedule A – Statement of Work

a. Section 1, General Requirements, Bidders Response. The proposal did not indicate the cubic feet per bundles proposed.

b. Section 1, General Requirements, Bidders Response. The proposal stated the bundles would be banded, but did not indicate the banding material proposed.

c. Section 1, General Requirements, Bidders Response. The proposal stated a handle would be included, but did not indicate the handle material proposed.

d. Section 2.2, Reporting. The proposal did not include a response.

e. Section 3.4, Security. The proposal did not include a response.

Technical Score: 89/100

M. Snowshoe Forest Products Based on a technical evaluation score of 81 points, the Evaluation Team determined that Snowshoe Forest Products did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

The Evaluation Team determined the responses were mostly satisfactory, however the following deficiencies were noted:

1. Vendor Questions Worksheet

a. Relevant Experience. The proposal did not provide a response to relevant experience.

2. Schedule A – Statement of Work

a. Section 1, General Requirements, Bidders Response. Proposal did not provide the bundle size proposed.

b. Section 1, General Requirements, Bidders Response. The proposal stated the bundles would be banded, but did not include the wrapping or banding material proposed.

c. Section 1, General Requirements, Bidders Response. The proposal indicated no handle would be included.

d. Section 1, General Requirements, Bidders Response. The proposal did not provide the number of company owned vehicles.

e. Section 1, General Requirements, Bidders Response. The proposal did not provide the make, model and year of vehicles owned.

f. Section 1.4, Recall Requirements and Procedures. The proposal did not include a response.

g. Section 1.5, Quality Assurance Program. The proposal did not include a response.

h. Section 2.2, Reporting. The proposal did not include a response.

i. Section 3.4, Security. The proposal did not include a response.

j. Section 5.1, Order Verification. The proposal did not include a response.

k. Section 6.2, Packaging and Palletizing. The proposal did not include a response.

Technical Score: 81/100

N. Splittin’ Me Timbers Based on a technical evaluation score of 83 points, the Evaluation Team determined that Splittin’ Me Timbers did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

The Evaluation Team determined the responses were mostly satisfactory, however the following deficiencies were noted:

1. Vendor Questions Worksheet

a. Gross Annual Sales. The proposal stated the company has been in business for eight (8) years, but did not include gross annual sales for the last five (5) years.

b. Relevant Experience. The proposal did not provide a response.

2. Schedule A – Statement of Work

a. Section 1, General Requirements, Bidders Response. The proposal indicated no handle would be included.

b. Section 1, General Requirements, Bidders Response. The proposal did not indicate whether the Bidder agrees to the delivery requirements in the LSS for all locations quoted.

c. Section 1.3, Warranties. The proposal did include a response.

d. Section 1.4, Recall Requirements and Procedures. The proposal did not include a response.

e. Section 2.2, Reporting. The proposal did not include a response.

f. Section 3.4, Security. The proposal did not include a response.

Technical Score: 83/100

O. Stone Hearth Based on a technical evaluation score of 89 points (+5 for actively seeking kiln certification), the Evaluation Team determined that Stone Hearth did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

The Evaluation Team determined the responses were mostly satisfactory, however the following deficiencies were noted:

1. Vendor Questions Worksheet

a. Relevant Experience. The proposal did not provide a response.

2. Schedule A – Statement of Work

a. Section 1, General Requirements, Bidders Response. The proposal did not indicate whether the Bidder agrees to the delivery requirements in the LSS for all locations quoted.

b. Section 1.4, Recall Requirements and Procedures. The proposal did not include a response.

c. Section 1.5, Quality Assurance Program. The proposal did not include a response.

d. Section 3.4, Security. The proposal did not include a response.

e. Section 5.2, Order Verification. The proposal did not include a response.

Technical Score: 89/100

P. TRICO Opportunities, Inc.

Based on a technical evaluation score of 100 points (+10 for kiln certification), the Evaluation Team determined that TRICO Opportunities did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

No deficiencies were noted.

Technical Score: 100/100

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary:

Initial Score

Final Score

Kiln Certification

V. Pricing Summary: Pricing was evaluated for the bidders who passed technical evaluation. Two Bidders (in bold) submitted documentation supporting QDV status, therefore their price quoted was adjusted to reflect the 10% QDV preference. The following is a summary of Bidders price proposals for scheduled delivery:

Face Cord

Face Cord Artificial Firewood w/Starter

ABC Property Management

$3.00/$3.25

ATF Firewood Products

$3.25

Bio-Blocks (Summit Wood Industries, Inc.)

$3.97/$6.94

Burt Moeke

$4.00

Dragon’s Breath Firewood, LLC

$4.00/$5.00

$100.00

Hauger Forest Products

Hoduski Forest Products

$3.25

Kleinhardt Wood Supply

$2.75

$4.15

Pesola Logging

$3.00/$3.30

Snowshoe Forest Products

$7.00

Splittin’ Me Timbers

$2.75/$2.90

Stone Hearth

$5.25

VII. Negotiations: Second Round Pricing. All Bidders were asked to submit second round pricing, verify locations proposed and add any locations not included in first round pricing. Due to issues with the new SIGMA VSS system, Bidders were asked to submit second round pricing, verify locations proposed and add any location not included in first round pricing by email. Two Bidders (in bold) submitted documentation supporting QDV status, therefore their price quoted was adjusted to reflect the 10% QDV preference. The following is a summary of Bidders second round price proposals for scheduled delivery:

Face Cord

Face Cord Artificial Firewood w/Starter

ABC Property Management

$2.90/3.00

ATF Firewood Products

$3.20

Bio-Blocks (Summit Wood Industries, Inc.)

$3.97/$6.94

Burt Moeke

$4.00

Dragon’s Breath Firewood, LLC

$3.80/$4.80

$100.00

Hauger Forest Products

Hoduski Forest Products

$3.25

Kleinhardt Wood Supply

$2.75

$4.15

Pesola Logging

$2.90/$3.10

Snowshoe Forest Products

$7.00/$7.50

Splittin’ Me Timbers

$2.75/$2.90

Stone Hearth

$4.75/$4.86

VIII. Award Recommendation:

Award recommendation is made to the responsive and responsible Bidders who offered the best value to the State of Michigan. Best value is based on whether the proposals met the minimum point threshold, offered the best combination of factors stated in Technical Evaluation Criteria, Section 7 Evaluation Process, and provided the best value to the State based on the State’s anticipated fair market value.

Award Recommendation is made to the following Bidders for the locations and amounts specified.

ABC Property Management*

Total Contract Estimated Aggregate Value

$57,000.00

*Bid Error / Withdrawn

ATF Firewood Products

Total Contract Estimated Aggregate Value

$68,800.00

Beaver Creek Firewood Products, LLC

Total Contract Estimated Aggregate Value

$337,608.00

Hauger Forest Products

Total Contract Estimated Aggregate Value

$110,000.00

Kleinhardt Wood Supply

Total Contract Estimated Aggregate Value

$390,500.00

*QDV Calculation Error / Re-Awarded

Michigan Fuelwood Products

Total Contract Estimated Aggregate Value

$3,664,565.00

Pesola Logging

Total Contract Estimated Aggregate Value

$29,000.00

Rock River Timber

Total Contract Estimated Aggregate Value

$534,400.00

**On Concession Contract

Splittin’ Me Timbers

Total Contract Estimated Aggregate Value

$213,000.00 image1.jpeg