RFP 200000000205 - Evaluation Synopsis.docx
DOCX document 93 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- NIA1 171 210000000228 1
- Issued by
- Michigan
About this file
This is an Evaluation Synopsis for RFP 200000000205 issued by the Michigan Department of Technology, Management & Budget in conjunction with the Michigan Department of Transportation for Vehicle Hauling and Cleaning Services Prequalification Program. The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on November 6, 2020, with an initial four-week response period that was extended to January 4, 2021. Three bidders submitted proposals: Trotters Hauling and Moving (Grand Rapids, MI), Rusko's Towing (Dearborn, MI), and Gary's Towing and Repair (Saginaw, MI). The evaluation process assessed proposals using four technical criteria: Product Quality (50 points), Service and Delivery Capabilities (20 points), All Other Contract Activities (15 points), and Vendor Questions Worksheet (15 points), with a minimum threshold of 80 points required for pricing evaluation and award consideration.
The State determined to not award this solicitation to any bidder and to resolicit with revised requirements. Trotters Hauling and Moving was deemed non-responsive and non-responsible for failing to address RFP requirements and submitting only an operating agreement. Rusko's Towing received a score of 74/100, falling below the 80-point threshold, with deficiencies in Product Quality (35/50), primarily due to missing required responses in multiple sections and failure to provide a Contractor Representative and Key Personnel resumes. Gary's Towing and Repair achieved a score of 94/100 and met the technical threshold; however, the State declined to award because the Prequalification Program requires a pool of multiple qualified vendors for a Second Tier Solicitation, and one passing vendor was insufficient to establish the necessary vendor pool. Pricing was not evaluated due to the decision to resolicit. Debriefing sessions were offered to all bidders, with contact information provided for Solicitation Manager Jillian Yeates.
View the file
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
STATE OF MICHIGAN PROCUREMENT
| Department of Technology, Management & Budget |
| 525 W. Allegan St., Lansing, MI 48933 |
| PO Box 30026, Lansing, MI 48913 |
Award Recommendation
NIA1 210000000228
The Department of Technology, Management, & Budget’s Procurement office has completed the evaluation of RFP 200000000205 for Vehicle Hauling and Cleaning Services Prequalification Program and has determine to not award to any Bidders and resolicit the RFP with revised Requirements.
Bidders who submitted a bid 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:
Jillian Yeates, Solicitation Manager yeatesj@michigan.gov 517-275-1131
Background Information:
This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor to provide a prequalification program of Vendors for Vehicle Hauling and Cleaning Services for the Department of Technology, Management & Budget (DTMB) and the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT).
Bidders:
The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on November 6, 2020 for a period of four weeks. The State extended the bid deadline to January 4, 2021. The following bidders submitted proposals:
| Bidder |
| Address |
City, State Zip
SDVOB*
Trotters Hauling and Moving
2335 Buchanan Ave. SW Grand Rapids, MI 49507 N/A
Rusko’s Towing
2929 Ferney Street Dearborn, MI 48120 N
Gary’s Towing and Repair
2005 S. Michigan Ave.
Saginaw, MI 48602 N
*SDVOB: Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Business
Version 4 Revised: 8/2019
Version 4 Revised: 8/2019 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 EVALUATION PROCESS. The State will evaluate each proposal based on the following factors:
| Technical Evaluation Criteria |
| Weight |
| 1. |
| Product Quality – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1-4 |
| 50 |
| 2. |
| Service and Delivery Capabilities – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 5 and 6 |
| 20 |
| 3. |
| All Other Contract Activities – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Except Sections 1 – 6 |
| 15 |
| 4. |
| Vendor Questions Worksheet |
| 15 |
| Total |
| 100 |
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 a Joint Evaluation Committee (JEC), which consisted of the following individuals:
Voting
Jillian Yeates, Solicitation Manager DTMB, Central Procurement Services
Scott Poyer, Fleet Specialist MDOT, OOAS Fleet
Seth Wright, State Administrative Manager DTMB, Logistics and Operation Support
Ronald Turner, Departmental Supervisor DTMB, Logistics and Operation Support
III. Evaluation Results
A. Trotters Hauling and Moving (Trotters)
Trotters has not met the requirements of being responsive and responsible due to not submitting a response to the RFP according to the solicitation instructions. The Bidder only provided their operating agreement as a form of a response rather than addressing the requirements laid out in the RFP.
B. Rusko’s Towing (Rusko’s) The Evaluation Team determined that Rusko’s based on a score of 74, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.
1. Product Quality – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1- 4 (35/50) The Evaluation Team determined that overall the responses were not satisfactory and the following deficiencies were noted:
a. Section 1.1, B.1 – The Bidder did not provide a response in the description section of the Bidder Box as requested.
b. Section 1.1, B.3 – The Bidder did not provide a response in the description section of the Bidder Box as requested.
c. Section 1.1, B.4 – The Bidder did not provide a response in the description section of the Bidder Box as requested.
d. Section 1.1, B.5 – The Bidder did not provide a response in the description section of the Bidder Box as requested.
e. Section 1.1, B.8 – The Bidder did not provide a response in the description section of the Bidder Box as requested.
f. Section 1.1, B.14 – The Bidder did not provide a response in the description section of the Bidder Box as requested.
g. Section 2.1 – The Bidder did not provide a response in the description section of the Bidder Box as requested.
h. Section 4.1 – The Bidder did not provide a Contractor Representative as requested.
i. Section 4.4, A – The Bidder did not provide a resume as requested for the Key Personnel listed.
2. Service and Delivery Capabilities – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 5 and 6 (15/20) The Evaluation Team determined that satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:
a. Section 5.1 – The Bidder did not include a project plan in the proposal response as requested.
b. Section 5.3 – The Bidder did not provide a description of their reporting capabilities as requested.
3. All Other Contract Activities – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Except Sections 1-6 (15/15) The Evaluation Team determined that the Bidder met all requirements in this Section with no exception.
4. Vendor Questions Worksheet (9/15) The Evaluation Team determined that overall the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:
a. Experience 1 – The Bidder’s experience did not include any cleaning related services, only hauling activities were described.
b. Experience 2 – The Bidder’s experience did not include any cleaning related services, only hauling activities were described.
c. Experience 3 – The Bidder’s experience did not include any cleaning related services, only hauling activities were described.
Total Score: 74/100
C. Gary’s Towing and Repair (Gary’s) The Evaluation Team determined that Gary’s based on a score of 94, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.
1. Product Quality – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1- 4 (50/50) The Evaluation Team determined that the Bidder met all requirements in this Section with no exception.
2. Service and Delivery Capabilities – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 5 and 6 (20/20) The Evaluation Team determine that the Bidder met all requirements in this Section with no exception.
3. All Other Contract Activities – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Except Sections 1-6 (15/15) The Evaluation Team determined that the Bidder met all requirements in this Section with no exception.
4. Vendor Questions Worksheet (9/15) The Evaluation Team determined that overall the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:
a. Experience 1 – The Bidder did not provided experience that was similar in size to the requirements of this RFP. The Bidder provided experience for only one hauling trip.
b. Experience 2 – The Bidder did not provided experience that was similar in size to the requirements of this RFP. The Bidder provided experience for only one hauling trip.
c. Experience 3 – The Bidder did not provide experience that was similar in size to the requirements of this RFP. The Bidder provided experience for only one hauling trip.
Total Score: 94/100
IV. Technical Evaluation Summary:
| Selection Criteria |
| Trotters |
| Rusko’s |
| Gary’s |
| 1 |
| Product Quality – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1-4 (50) |
| N/A |
| 35 |
| 50 |
| 2 |
| Service and Deliverables – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 5 and 6 (20) |
| N/A |
| 15 |
| 20 |
| 3 |
| All Other Contract Activities – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Except Sections 1-6 (15) |
| N/A |
| 15 |
| 15 |
| 4 |
| Vendor Questions Worksheet (15) |
| N/A |
| 9 |
| 9 |
| Total (100) |
| N/A |
| 74 |
| 94 |
V. Pricing Summary Pricing was not evaluated as the Evaluation Team determined to Re-Solicit the Solicitation with revised requirements.
VI. Award Recommendation:
The State has determined to not award any Bidders under this Solicitation. This Solicitation is for a Prequalification Program which requires a pool of Bidders for a Second Tier Solicitation. With only one passing vendor, the State cannot develop a pool of Bidders needed for the Program. Therefore, the State has elected to revise the requirements of the program and resolicit the request in SIGMA.
image1.jpeg
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .