RFP 21-2538- Uniform award_letter_and_synopsis.docx

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

Notice of Intent to Award Number: Click here to enter NIA1#.

The Department of Technology, Management and Budget Central Procurement office has completed the evaluation of RFP # 210000002538- Uniform /Logo Wear has recommended an award to Libra Industries Inc. of MI in the amount of $1,632,100.00, 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:

Valerie Ann Hiltz, Solicitation Manager.

hiltzv@michigan.gov 517-249-0459 Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor to provide Uniform / Logo Wear. The term of this contract is three years, with up to two one-year renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on Wednesday, August 18, 2021, and was published for 21 days before bids were due. Only one bidder submitted a proposal by the published due date of Wednesday, September 8, 2021

*SDVOB: Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Business

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: Mandatory Minimum Requirements None were required Proposal Instructions: Evaluation Process

9. EVALUATION PROCESS. The State will evaluate each proposal based on the following factors:

Proposals receiving 80 or more technical evaluation points will have samples evaluated and pricing evaluated and may be considered for award.

Bidder’s embellishment samples will be reviewed based on the following criteria. Whether the embellishment passes evaluation or not will determine how or if the state will continue to consider the bidder for award.

For those bidders that are offering proposed alternate products, the Product Data Sheet will be evaluated and if samples are being requested, they must pass the following evaluation criteria to be further considered for award.

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

II. Evaluation Method Responses to this solicitation were reviewed a Joint Evaluation Committee (JEC), which consisted of the following individuals:

Valerie Hiltz, Category Specialist, DTMB Central Procurement Services/ Commodities and Services Senthilkumar Kuppuswamy, Information Technology Manager, DTMB Agency Services/ DTMB, MCSC & SBO

Lisa Crozier-Green, Buyer, DNR Procurement Services Carl Chrzanowski, Business Analyst, DTMB Continuity Management and Disaster Recovery

Brad LaMacchia, Supply Chain Departmental Supervisor, DTMB State Facilities Administration/ Building Operations Division

Debbie Beck, Asset and Supply Chain Analyst, DTMB State Facilities Administration/ Building Operations Division

Jamie Mathews, Senior Executive Management Assist, DTMB Office of Support Services

Shelly Millimaki, Department Supervisor, DTMB Delivery Services

III. Evaluation Results A. 1- Libra Industries Libra Industries has met the requirements of being responsive and responsible The Evaluation Team determined that Libra Industries based on a score of 84, did meet the requirements of this RFP This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. General Requirements Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1 Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.1. Product Specifications, the state asked if bidders had a one stop or quick ship catalog and if so, what are the items and what is the improvement in delivery timeline. The bidder did indicate that they had such a catalog and notes indicated items were top sellers, but bidder didn’t indicate if there were any improvements to the delivery timeline or what they were.

b. Section 1.1.C Logo Production/Embellishments, the state asked for bidders to provide information relative to backer and thread count per square inch. Bidder didn’t provide information relative to the thread counts.

c. Section 1.3. Warranties, the state asked that bidders describe the warranties included in the bid. The bidder indicated they had a warranty but didn’t provide description or details.

d. Section 1.4. Recall Requirements and Procedures, the state asked bidders to describe in detail product recall procedures. The bidder didn’t provide detail.

e. Section 1.5. Quality, Referring to Schedule C, the state asked bidders to verify that they could provide patches and logos in the colors and with the threads specified. The bidder indicated that they would match threads as close to the artwork as possible but didn’t provide further information.

f. Section 1.5.B. Quality Control, the state asked bidders to describe in detail their quality control program. The bidder didn’t provide any details.

10/20

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

25/25

3. Other Requirements – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 3-11 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 3.6. Security, the state asked bidders to provide the scope of the background checks. The bidder didn’t provide any details.

b. Section 8.2. Payment Method, the state asked bidders to explain their process for accepting p-card payment and documentation relative to how to create a user account. No information was provided.

33/35

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

a. Section 5. State of Michigan Experience and Prior experience, the state requested that bidders provide three experiences within the past 5 years of similar size and scope as required in our solicitation. The bidder provided the three experiences, but they were of smaller size, and one was more than 5 years old.

16/20 Total Score: 84/100

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

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

VI. Negotiations Negotiations were held with Libra Industries and second round pricing was requested. The State had noticed the bidder’s pricing for all three years was the same and reminded the bidder that the pricing for the first three years was firm fixed.

Additionally, the State requested revised pricing for alternate embellishment options. For those items that were to receive patches, pricing was established both for the contractor providing the patch and the contractor affixing a patch provided by the State.

Warehousing will be an option available to the agencies to meet quick ship, one-off needs in established styles, colors and sizes as agreed upon by the agency and the Contractor.

VII. Award Recommendation Award recommendation is made to the responsive and responsible Bidder.

Award Recommendation is made to Libra Industries Inc. of MI in the amount of $1,632,100.00.

Version 2021-1 image1.png