RFP 210000000535 Award Recommendation - Truck Bodies, Seasonal Maintenance Equipment,_

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

07/26/16

Recommendation of Award

Notice of Intent to Award Number: 240000000018

The Department of Technology, Management, & Budget’s Procurement office has completed the evaluation of RFP # 210000000535, Truck Bodies, Seasonal Maintenance Equipment, & Upfitting Services, and has recommended a multiple award to Cimline, Inc., Henderson Products, Monroe Truck Equipment, Inc., Spaulding Mfg., Inc., Cives Corporation, and Warren, Inc. 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:

Yvon Dufour, Solicitation Manager dufoury@michigan.gov

(517) 249-0455

Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor(s) to provide Truck Bodies, Seasonal Maintenance Equipment, & Upfitting Services. The term of this contract is three (3) years, with up to two (2), one (1) year renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on www.michigan.gov/SIGMAVSS on 1/4/2023 for one hundred and thirteen (113) days. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of 4/27/2023.

Bidder Address, City, State, Zip Code SDVOB* GDBE**

ABCO Services 6923 Summerfield Rd. Petersburg, MI 49270 No No

Cimline, Inc. 2601 Niagara Lane N., Plymouth, MN 55447 No No

Henderson Products 1085 S. Third St. Manchester, IA 52057 No No

Monroe Truck Equipment, Inc.

1051 West 7th Street – Monroe, WI 53566 No No

National Highway Maintenance System

P.O. Box 5315, Akron, OH 44334 No No

Spaulding Mfg, Inc. 5366 East Rd, Saginaw, Mi 48601 No No

Versalift Midwest LLC 51761 Danview Tech., Shelby Twp., MI 48315 No No

Cives Corporation 3700 Mansell Road, Suite 500 Alpharetta, GA 30022

No No

Warren, Inc. 707 North Fir Ave Collins, MS 39428 No No

*SDVOB: Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Business

**GDBE: Geographically Disadvantaged Business Enterprise http://www.michigan.gov/micontractconnect/0,4541,7-225-48756---,00.html http://www.michigan.gov/micontractconnect/0,4541,7-225-48756---,00.html http://www.michigan.gov/SIGMAVSS

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.

Phase 1 – Mandatory Minimum Requirements: In the initial phase of the evaluation process, the Lead State will review all proposals timely received. Unacceptable proposals

(non-responsive proposals not conforming to RFP requirements) will be eliminated from further consideration.

To avoid disqualification, the Bidder must provide documentation to support the following:

1. The Proposer must be a manufacturer, or a Supplier authorized by the manufacturer to distribute the products they are offering. (Pass/Fail)

2. The Proposer must agree, if awarded a contract, that all “catalog” pricing must be published and available at all times via website access, and/or electronic/printed price pages.

(Pass/Fail)

Phase 2: Technical Proposal Evaluation (100 points)

Evaluation Criteria (NOTE: The Lead State and NASPO reserve the right to use related Bidder responses from other sections of the RFP that are applicable to each section below)

Possible

Points

Demonstrated Ability to Meet Statement of Work:

40 pts

Attachment B - Section B1. Scope & Function. (If applicable, section B2.

and B3. shall be scored separately)

Demonstrated Technical Capabilities:

15 pts

Attachment B - Section B4. General Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 1, 2, 5, 5.1, 7, and 11

Agreement with Lead State Terms and Conditions in Attachment F

Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 9

Qualification and Expertise of Staff:

Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 3 and 4

References:

Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 8

Total Technical Points 100 pts

Proposals receiving 80 or more technical evaluation points will have pricing evaluated and considered for award. See Attachment D – RFP Evaluation Scoresheet.

The Lead State may utilize all Bidder information, without regard to a proposal’s technical score, to determine fair market value for goods or services sought. The Lead State is not obligated to accept the lowest price proposal. If applicable, the Lead State’s evaluation will include consideration of a Bidder’s qualified disabled veterans/service-disabled veteran owned business(QDV/SDVOB) status under MCL

18.1261(8). Additional information on the SDVOB preference is available at: Michigan.gov/SDVOB.

The Lead State strongly encourages strict adherence to the Lead State Terms and Conditions. The

Lead State reserves the right to deem a bid non-responsive for failure to accept the Lead State Terms and Conditions. Nevertheless, the Bidder may submit proposed changes to the Lead State Terms and

Conditions in track changes (i.e., visible edits) with an explanation of the Bidder’s need for each proposed change. Failure to include track changes with an explanation of the Bidder’s need for the proposed change constitutes the Bidder’s acceptance of the Lead State Terms and Conditions. General statements, such as that the Bidder reserves the right to negotiate the terms and conditions, may be considered non-responsive.

II. Evaluation Method

Responses to this solicitation were reviewed by the NASPO Sourcing Team, which consisted of the following individuals:

Voting Advisory

Yvon Dufour, Category Specialist, DTMB Central Procurement, State of Michigan

Katie Hines, Cooperative Portfolio Coordinator, National Association of State Procurement Officials, Lexington, KY

Robert T. Mitchell, Purchasing Agent IV @

Equipment Specialist, Center for Procurement and Contract Services, State of Colorado

Lauren Spatzierath, Procurement Operations

Manager, State Financial Services Division, Department of Administration, State of Montana

DeAna Reed-Sharpe, Procurement Manager, Office of State Procurement, State of South

Carolina

Scott Nelson, Purchasing Specialist, Office of

Procurement Management, State of South

Dakota

Jamie Bostyan, Purchasing Agent, Department of Transportation, State of North Dakota

III. Evaluation Results http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(12rtpbjmznw1mn4opquus2gz))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-18-1261 http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(12rtpbjmznw1mn4opquus2gz))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-18-1261 https://www.michigan.gov/SDVOB

Step 1 - Mandatory Minimums

Bidder Meets Deficiency

ABCO Services YES NA

Cimline, Inc. YES NA

Henderson Products YES NA

Monroe Truck Equipment, Inc. YES NA

National Highway Maintenance System YES NA

Spaulding Mfg., Inc. YES NA

Versalift Midwest LLC YES NA

Cives Corporation YES NA

Warren, Inc. YES NA

Step 2 – Technical Evaluation

A. ABCO Services (ABCO)

The Evaluation Team determined that ABCO, based on a score of 78/100, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Demonstrated Ability to Meet Statement of Work: – Attachment B - Section B1. Scope & Function (If applicable, section B2. and B3. shall be scored separately) SCORE 24/40

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

a. Bidder did not describe how they comply with the requirements of sections B1.1, B1.2, B1.4, B1.5, and B1.6.

2. Demonstrated Technical Capabilities: Attachment B - Section B4. General. Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 1, 2, 5, 5.1, 7, and 11 SCORE 9/15

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

a. Bidder did not describe how they comply with the requirements of section B4.2 and B4.10.

3. Agreement with Standard Contract Terms: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 9.

SCORE 15/15

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Qualification and Expertise of Staff: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 3, 4 SCORE 15/15

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

5. References: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 8. SCORE 15/15

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 78/100

B. Cimline, Inc. (Cimline)

The Evaluation Team determined that Cimline, based on a score of 97/100 (B1), 97/100 (B2), and 97/100 (B3), did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Demonstrated Ability to Meet Statement of Work: – Attachment B - Section B1. Scope & Function (If applicable, section B2. and B3. shall be scored separately) SCORE 40/40

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. Demonstrated Technical Capabilities: Attachment B - Section B4. General. Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 1, 2, 5, 5.1, 7, and 11 SCORE 15/15

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Agreement with Standard Contract Terms: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 9.

SCORE 15/15

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Qualification and Expertise of Staff: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 3, 4 SCORE 15/15

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

5. References: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 8. SCORE 12/15

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

a. Bidder did not provide all information requested for Experience #1, #2, and #3.

Total Score: 97/100

1. Demonstrated Ability to Meet Statement of Work: – Attachment B - Section B2. Scope & Function (If applicable, section B2. and B3. shall be scored separately) SCORE 40/40

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. Demonstrated Technical Capabilities: Attachment B - Section B4. General. Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 1, 2, 5, 5.1, 7, and 11 SCORE 15/15

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Agreement with Standard Contract Terms: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 9.

SCORE 15/15

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Qualification and Expertise of Staff: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 3, 4 SCORE 15/15

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

5. References: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 8. SCORE 12/15

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

a. Bidder did not provide all information requested for Experience #1, #2, and #3.

Total Score: 97/100

1. Demonstrated Ability to Meet Statement of Work: – Attachment B - Section B3. Scope & Function (If applicable, section B2. and B3. shall be scored separately) SCORE 40/40

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. Demonstrated Technical Capabilities: Attachment B - Section B4. General. Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 1, 2, 5, 5.1, 7, and 11 SCORE 15/15

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Agreement with Standard Contract Terms: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 9.

SCORE 15/15

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Qualification and Expertise of Staff: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 3, 4 SCORE 15/15

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

5. References: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 8. SCORE 12/15

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

a. Bidder did not provide all information requested for Experience #1, #2, and #3.

Total Score: 97/100

C. Henderson Products (Henderson)

The Evaluation Team determined that Henderson, based on a score of 100/100 (B1), and 100/100 (B3), did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Demonstrated Ability to Meet Statement of Work: – Attachment B - Section B1. Scope & Function (If applicable, section B2. and B3. shall be scored separately) SCORE 40/40

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. Demonstrated Technical Capabilities: Attachment B - Section B4. General. Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 1, 2, 5, 5.1, 7, and 11 SCORE 15/15

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Agreement with Standard Contract Terms: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 9.

SCORE 15/15

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Qualification and Expertise of Staff: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 3, 4 SCORE 15/15

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

5. References: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 8. SCORE 15/15

Total Score: 100/100

1. Demonstrated Ability to Meet Statement of Work: – Attachment B - Section B3. Scope & Function (If applicable, section B2. and B3. shall be scored separately) SCORE 40/40

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. Demonstrated Technical Capabilities: Attachment B - Section B4. General. Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 1, 2, 5, 5.1, 7, and 11 SCORE 15/15

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Agreement with Standard Contract Terms: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 9.

SCORE 15/15

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Qualification and Expertise of Staff: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 3, 4 SCORE 15/15

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

5. References: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 8. SCORE 15/15

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 100/100

D. Monroe Truck Equipment (Monroe)

The Evaluation Team determined that Monroe, based on a score of 81/100 (B1), and 97/100 (B3), did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Demonstrated Ability to Meet Statement of Work: – Attachment B - Section B1. Scope & Function (If applicable, section B2. and B3. shall be scored separately) SCORE 24/40

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

a. Bidder did not describe how they comply with the requirements of sections B1.1, B1.2, B1.4, B1.5, and B1.6.

2. Demonstrated Technical Capabilities: Attachment B - Section B4. General. Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 1, 2, 5, 5.1, 7, and 11 SCORE 12/15

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

a. Bidder did not describe how they comply with the requirements of sections B4.2, B4.10, and B4.14.

3. Agreement with Standard Contract Terms: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 9.

SCORE 15/15

4. Qualification and Expertise of Staff: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 3, 4 SCORE 15/15

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

5. References: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 8. SCORE 15/15

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 81/100

1. Demonstrated Ability to Meet Statement of Work: – Attachment B - Section B3. Scope & Function (If applicable, section B2. and B3. shall be scored separately) SCORE 40/40

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. Demonstrated Technical Capabilities: Attachment B - Section B4. General. Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 1, 2, 5, 5.1, 7, and 11 SCORE 12/15

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

a. Bidder did not describe how they comply with the requirements of sections B4.2, B4.10, and B4.14.

4. Agreement with Standard Contract Terms: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 9.

SCORE 15/15

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

5. Qualification and Expertise of Staff: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 3, 4 SCORE 15/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

6. References: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 8. SCORE 15/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 97/100

E. National Highway Maintenance System (NHMS) The Evaluation Team determined that NHMS based on a score of 77/100 (B1), 97/100 (B2), and 97/100 (B3), did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Demonstrated Ability to Meet Statement of Work: – Attachment B - Section B1. Scope & Function (If applicable, section B2. and B3. shall be scored separately) SCORE 20/40

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

a. Bidder did not describe how they comply with the requirements of sections B1.1, B1.2, B1.4, B1.5, and B1.6.

2. Demonstrated Technical Capabilities: Attachment B - Section B4. General. Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 1, 2, 5, 5.1, 7, and 11 SCORE 12/15

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

a. Bidder did not describe how they comply with the requirements of sections B4.2, B4.10, and B4.14.

3. Agreement with Standard Contract Terms: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 9.

SCORE 15/15

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Qualification and Expertise of Staff: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 3, 4 SCORE 15/15

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

5. References: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 8. SCORE 15/15

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 77/100

1. Demonstrated Ability to Meet Statement of Work: – Attachment B - Section B2. Scope & Function (If applicable, section B2. and B3. shall be scored separately) SCORE 40/40

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. Demonstrated Technical Capabilities: Attachment B - Section B4. General. Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 1, 2, 5, 5.1, 7, and 11 SCORE 12/15

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

a. Bidder did not describe how they comply with the requirements of sections B4.2, B4.10, and B4.14.

3. Agreement with Standard Contract Terms: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 9.

SCORE 15/15

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Qualification and Expertise of Staff: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 3, 4 SCORE 15/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

5. References: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 8. SCORE 15/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 97/100

1. Demonstrated Ability to Meet Statement of Work: – Attachment B - Section B3. Scope & Function (If applicable, section B2. and B3. shall be scored separately) SCORE 40/40

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. Demonstrated Technical Capabilities: Attachment B - Section B4. General. Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 1, 2, 5, 5.1, 7, and 11 SCORE 12/15

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

a. Bidder did not describe how they comply with the requirements of sections B4.2, B4.10, and B4.14.

4. Agreement with Standard Contract Terms: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 9.

5. Qualification and Expertise of Staff: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 3, 4 SCORE 15/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

6. References: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 8. SCORE 15/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 97/100

F. Spaulding Manufacturing (Spaulding) The Evaluation Team determined that Spaulding, based on a score of 92/100 (B1), and 100/100 (B3), did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Demonstrated Ability to Meet Statement of Work: – Attachment B - Section B1. Scope & Function (If applicable, section B2. and B3. shall be scored separately) SCORE 32/40 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Bidder did not describe how they comply with the requirements of sections, B1.4.

2. Demonstrated Technical Capabilities: Attachment B - Section B4. General. Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 1, 2, 5, 5.1, 7, and 11 SCORE 15/15

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

a. Bidder did not describe how they comply with the requirements of sections B4.2, B4.10, and B4.14.

3. Agreement with Standard Contract Terms: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 9.

SCORE 15/15

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Qualification and Expertise of Staff: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 3, 4 SCORE 15/15

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

5. References: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 8. SCORE 15/15

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 92/100

1. Demonstrated Ability to Meet Statement of Work: – Attachment B - Section B3. Scope & Function (If applicable, section B2. and B3. shall be scored separately) SCORE 40/40

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. Demonstrated Technical Capabilities: Attachment B - Section B4. General. Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 1, 2, 5, 5.1, 7, and 11 SCORE 15/15

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Agreement with Standard Contract Terms: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 9.

4. Qualification and Expertise of Staff: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 3, 4 SCORE 15/15

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

5. References: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 8. SCORE 15/15

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 100/100

G. Versa-Lift Midwest (Versa-Lift)

The Evaluation Team determined that Versa-Lift, based on a score of 75/100 (B1), and 91/100 (B3), did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Demonstrated Ability to Meet Statement of Work: – Attachment B - Section B1. Scope & Function (If applicable, section B2. and B3. shall be scored separately) SCORE 24/40

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

a. Bidder did not describe how they comply with the requirements of sections B1.1, B1.2, B1.4, B1.5, and B1.6.

2. Demonstrated Technical Capabilities: Attachment B - Section B4. General. Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 1, 2, 5, 5.1, 7, and 11 SCORE 12/15

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

a. Bidder did not describe how they comply with the requirements of sections B4.2, and B4.14.

3. Agreement with Standard Contract Terms: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 9.

SCORE 9/15

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

a. Bidder has exceptions to Standard Contract Terms.

4. Qualification and Expertise of Staff: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 3, 4 SCORE 15/15

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

5. References: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 8. SCORE 15/15

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 75/100

1. Demonstrated Ability to Meet Statement of Work: – Attachment B - Section B3. Scope & Function (If applicable, section B2. and B3. shall be scored separately) SCORE 40/40

2. Demonstrated Technical Capabilities: Attachment B - Section B4. General. Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 1, 2, 5, 5.1, 7, and 11 SCORE 12/15

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

a. Bidder did not describe how they comply with the requirements of sections B4.2, B4.10, and B4.14.

3. Agreement with Standard Contract Terms: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 9.

SCORE 9/15

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

a. Bidder has exceptions to Standard Contract Terms.

4. Qualification and Expertise of Staff: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 3, 4 SCORE

15/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

5. References: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 8. SCORE 15/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 91/100

H. Cives Corporation (Cives)

The Evaluation Team determined that Cives, based on a score of 100/100 (B1), and 100/100 (B3), did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Demonstrated Ability to Meet Statement of Work: – Attachment B - Section B1. Scope & Function (If applicable, section B2. and B3. shall be scored separately) SCORE 40/40

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. Demonstrated Technical Capabilities: Attachment B - Section B4. General. Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 1, 2, 5, 5.1, 7, and 11 SCORE 15/15

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Agreement with Standard Contract Terms: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 9.

SCORE 15/15

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Qualification and Expertise of Staff: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 3, 4 SCORE 15/15

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

5. References: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 8. SCORE 15/15

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 100/100

1. Demonstrated Ability to Meet Statement of Work: – Attachment B - Section B3. Scope & Function (If applicable, section B2. and B3. shall be scored separately) SCORE 40/40

Questions Worksheet Section 1, 2, 5, 5.1, 7, and 11 SCORE 15/15

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Agreement with Standard Contract Terms: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 9.

SCORE 15/15

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Qualification and Expertise of Staff: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 3, 4 SCORE 15/15

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

5. References: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 8. SCORE 15/15

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 100/100

I. Warren Inc. (Warren)

The Evaluation Team determined that Warren, based on a score of 100/100 (B1), and 100/100 (B3), did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Demonstrated Ability to Meet Statement of Work: – Attachment B - Section B1. Scope & Function (If applicable, section B2. and B3. shall be scored separately) SCORE 40/40

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. Demonstrated Technical Capabilities: Attachment B - Section B4. General. Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 1, 2, 5, 5.1, 7, and 11 SCORE 15/15

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Agreement with Standard Contract Terms: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 9.

SCORE 15/15

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Qualification and Expertise of Staff: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 3, 4 SCORE 15/15

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

5. References: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 8. SCORE 15/15

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 100/100

1. Demonstrated Ability to Meet Statement of Work: – Attachment B - Section B3. Scope & Function (If applicable, section B2. and B3. shall be scored separately) SCORE 40/40

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Questions Worksheet Section 1, 2, 5, 5.1, 7, and 11 SCORE 15/15

3. Agreement with Standard Contract Terms: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 9.

SCORE 15/15

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Qualification and Expertise of Staff: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 3, 4 SCORE 15/15

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

5. References: Vendor Questions Worksheet Section 8. SCORE 15/15

Total Score: 100/100

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

Evaluation Including Section B.1 for Purchase

Weight ABCO Cimline Henderson Monroe NHMS Spaulding Versa-

Lift Cives Warren

1. Demonstrated Ability to Meet Statement of Work

40 24 40 40 24 20 32 24 40 40

2. Demonstrated Technical Capabilities 15 9 15 15 12 12 15 12 15 15

3. Agreement with Standard Contract Terms 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 9 15 15

4. Qualification and Expertise of Staff 15 15 12 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

5. References 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

Total: 100 78 97 100 81 77 92 75 100 100

Evaluation Including Section B.2 for Rental

Weight ABCO Cimline Henderson Monroe NHMS Spaulding Versa-

1. Demonstrated Ability to Meet Statement of Work 40 40 40

2. Demonstrated Technical Capabilities 15 15 12

3. Agreement with Standard Contract Terms 15 15 15

4. Qualification and Expertise of Staff 15 12 15

5. References 15 15 15

(* No Bid) Total:

100 NB 97 NB NB 97 NB NB NB NB

Evaluation Including Section B.3 for Parts, and Maintenance & Repair

Weight ABCO Cimline Henderson Monroe NHMS Spaulding Versa-

1. Demonstrated Ability to Meet Statement of Work 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40

2. Demonstrated Technical Capabilities 15 15 15 12 12 15 12 15 15

3. Agreement with Standard Contract Terms 15 15 15 15 15 15 9 15 15

4. Qualification and Expertise of Staff 15 12 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

5. References 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

(* No Bid) Total:

100 NB 97 100 97 97 100 91 100 100

VI. Pricing Summary

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

UNIT PRICING

See attachment 1 to NASPO Upfitting Synapsis

The following specifications were “no bids” for all the bidders who passed technical: 1 to 20, 24, 25, 27 to

34, 37 to 47, 49, and 63 to 75.

VII. Negotiations: Bidders with a passing technical score were asked to submit second round pricing. The following savings were met:

Warren, Inc. resubmitted new pricing for seven items. The discount resulted in 13.64% (potential savings of $68,200.00). No other pricing was submitted.

VIII. Award Recommendation:

Award recommendation is made to the responsive and responsible Bidder who offers the best value to the State of Michigan and NASPO. 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.

Cimline, Henderson, Monroe, Spaulding, Cives, and Warren provide the best value to the State. Best value factors for Award Recommendation include:

1. Provides sales, warranty, parts, and maintenance & repair services.

2. Provides their services to all States and Territories of the USA.

3. Provides a broad scope of equipment.

The Buyer recommends that Cimline, Henderson, Monroe, Spaulding, Cives, and Warren be awarded a contract for Truck Bodies, Seasonal Maintenance Equipment, & Upfitting Services.

Funding for this contract shall be as follows:

***Cimline Award amount: $1,000,000.00 ***Henderson Award amount: $500,000.00

***Monroe Award amount: $10,000,000.00 ***Spaulding Award amount: $1,000,000.00 ***Cives Award amount: $500,000.00 ***Warren Award amount: $500,000.00

***Award amounts are based on State of Michigan Agencies current spend on similar contracts. Does not include MiDEAL members which includes local units of government, school districts, universities, community colleges, and nonprofit hospitals.