RFP 210000000703 - Award Recommendation - Small Bus.pdf
PDF 285 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Small Lift/Non-Lift Transit Buses
- Solicitation number
- NIA1 171 210000000360 1
- Issued by
- Michigan
About this file
This is an Award Recommendation document from the State of Michigan's Department of Technology, Management, & Budget Procurement Office for RFP #210000000703 regarding the procurement of Small Class Non-lift and Lift Transit Buses for local transit agencies. The RFP was posted on January 22, 2021, with a submission deadline of March 5, 2021, allowing forty-two days for bidder responses. Three bidders submitted proposals: Transportation Equipment Sales Corp. (TESCO) of Oregon, Ohio; Shepard Bros., Inc. of Canandaigua, New York; and Hoekstra Transportation Inc. of Grand Rapids, Michigan. The solicitation sought contractors to supply transit buses with a contract term of two years, with the option for up to two additional one-year renewal periods. All bidders met mandatory minimum requirements, including submission of signed FTA agreements, Altoona Test Bus Reports, valid motor vehicle dealer licenses, and completed affidavits for driver delivery. The contract is based on a maximum purchase quantity of 400 buses.
All three bidders achieved technical scores exceeding the 80-point threshold required for pricing evaluation, with TESCO and Shepard Bros. each scoring 100/100 and Hoekstra scoring 99/100. The evaluation team reduced Hoekstra's score by one point due to one reference being older than five years. In second-round negotiations, all three bidders submitted revised pricing, with TESCO providing the most significant reduction of approximately 4.51 percent on metal small bus pricing. The award recommendation allocates funding as follows: Hoekstra receives 95 percent of the $48 million total award amount ($45.6 million) for composite and metal small duty buses; TESCO receives 10 percent ($4.8 million) with pricing capped at Hoekstra's cost; and Shepard Bros. receives 5 percent ($2.4 million) with pricing similarly capped at Hoekstra's cost. All purchasing transit agencies shall be fully or equivalently funded by the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) for buses procured under these contracts.
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
07/26/16
Recommendation of Award
The Department of Technology, Management, & Budget’s Procurement office has completed the evaluation of RFP # 210000000703, Small Class of Non-lift and Lift Transit Buses, and has recommended an award to Multiple Bidders (see list below), pending State Administrative Board approval, if applicable. More information on the State Administrative Board can be found at: State Administrative Board.
Transportation Equipment Sales Corp. (TESCO)
Hoekstra Transportation Inc.
Shepard Bros., Inc.
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 Small Class of Non-lift and Lift Transit Buses for local transit agencies. The term of this contract is two (2) years, with up to two (2), one (1) year renewal options.
Bidders:
The RFP was posted on www.michigan.gov/SIGMAVSS on 1/22/2021 for forty-two (42) days. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of 3/5/2021.
Bidder Address City, State Zip
SDVOB*
Transportation Equipment Sales Corp. (TESCO) Oregon, OH 43618 No
Shepard Bros., Inc. Canandaigua, NY 14424 No
Hoekstra Transportation Inc. Grand Rapids, MI 49548 No
*SDVOB: Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Business
STATE OF MICHIGAN
ENTERPRISE PROCUREMENT
Department of Technology, Management & Budget 525 W. Allegan Street Lansing, MI 48933 P.O. Box 30026 Lansing, MI 48909 http://www.michigan.gov/micontractconnect/0,4541,7-225-48756---,00.html http://www.michigan.gov/SIGMAVSS
07/26/16
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.
Solicitation Instructions and Vendor Questions, Section 7, Mandatory Minimum Requirements.
7. MANDATORY MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS. To avoid disqualification, the bidder must provide documentation to support the following:
REQUIRED DOCUMENTS
A Signed Agreement with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Clauses (Schedule C)
B Altoona Test Bus Report (full test report required)
The Altoona Bus Test Report will certify
(i) that it is a full or partial STURAA Test (in compliance with the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act )
(ii) compliance per the following Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
1. The Class 1 and Class 2 bus model(s) offered are a minimum 5 years/150,000 mile, and 7 years/200,000 mile buses respectively.
2. Will meet the requirements of Federal Register Rules and Regulations 49 CFR Part 665, Bus Testing Program.
3. Testing is required for a manufacturer of a new bus model or a bus produced with a major change in component or configuration shall provide a copy of the test report(s) as specified in CFR §665.11 and § 665.13.
4. Bidders shall submit any and all reports related to the buses in this bid as specified in CFR §665.11 and § 665.13
NOTE: If the Bidder is submitting a partial test, a related full report must also be submitted with the bid response.
C Current Valid Motor Vehicle Dealer License
D Completed Affidavit for Driver Delivery (Schedule D)
Only proposals meeting the mandatory minimum requirements will be considered for evaluation.
8. EVALUATION PROCESS The State will evaluate each proposal based on the following factors:
Technical Evaluation Criteria Weight
1.
Specifications – Schedule B – Small Class of Non-lift and Lift Transit Bus Specifications, and Schedule A – Statement of Work sections 1.1 and 1.2.
2.
Company & Prior Experience and Key Personnel – Vendor Questions Worksheet, all Sections, and Schedule A, all of Section 3
3. Warranty – Schedule A, Sections 1.1.2 10
4. Support – Schedule A, Sections 3.5, & 3.6 5
5. Delivery – Schedule A, Sections 2.1, 6.1, and 6.2 5
Technical Evaluation Criteria Weight
6.
Acceptance, Inspection and Testing– Schedule A, Sections 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, and 7.4
Total 100
Proposals receiving 80 or more technical evaluation points will have pricing evaluated and considered for award.
The 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 State is not obligated to accept the lowest price proposal. If applicable, the 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 State strongly encourages strict adherence to the Contract Terms. The State reserves the right to deem a bid non-responsive for failure to accept the Contract Terms. Nevertheless, the bidder may submit proposed changes to the Contract Terms 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 Contract Terms. General statements, such as that the bidder reserves the right to negotiate the terms and conditions, may be considered non-responsive.
The State may but is not required to conduct an on-site visit to tour and inspect the bidder’s facilities;
require an oral presentation of the bidder's proposal; conduct interviews, research, reference checks, and background checks; and request additional price concessions at any point during the evaluation process.
II. Evaluation Method
Responses to this solicitation were reviewed by the Solicitation Manager in collaboration with Subject Matter
Experts; which consisted of the following individuals: Yvon Dufour – Solicitation Manager, Jeff Turner – MDOT
Vehicle Analyst, and Rob Pearson – MDOT Supervisor.
III. Evaluation Results
Step 1 - Mandatory Minimums
Bidder Meets Deficiency
Transportation Equipment Sales Corp. (TESCO) YES NA
Shepard Bros., Inc. YES NA
Hoekstra Transportation Inc. YES NA
Step 2 – Technical Evaluation
A. Transportation Equipment Sales Corp. (TESCO)
The Evaluation Team determined that TESCO, based on a score of 100/100, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.
1. Specifications – Schedule B – Small Class of Non-lift and Lift Transit Bus Specifications all sections, and Schedule A – Statement of Work sections 1.1 and 1.2. SCORE 50/50
The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(12rtpbjmznw1mn4opquus2gz))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-18-1261 https://www.michigan.gov/SDVOB
2. Company & Prior Experience and Key Personnel – Vendor Questions Worksheet, all Sections, and Schedule A, all of Section 3. SCORE 20/20
The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.
3. Warranty – Schedule A, Section 1.1.2. SCORE 10/10
The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.
4. Support – Schedule A, Sections 3.5 and 3.6. SCORE 5/5
The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.
5. Delivery – Schedule A, Sections 2.1, 6.1, and 6.2. SCORE 5/5
The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.
6. Acceptance, Inspection and Testing – Schedule A, Sections 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, and 7.4. SCORE 10/10
The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.
Total Score: 100/100
B. Shepard Bros., Inc. (Shepard)
The Evaluation Team determined that Shepard, based on a score of 100/100, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.
1. Specifications – Schedule B – Small Class of Non-lift and Lift Transit Bus Specifications all sections, and Schedule A – Statement of Work sections 1.1 and 1.2. SCORE 50/50
The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.
2. Company & Prior Experience and Key Personnel – Vendor Questions Worksheet, all Sections, and Schedule A, all of Section 3. SCORE 20/20
The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.
3. Warranty – Schedule A, Section 1.1.2. SCORE 10/10
The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.
4. Support – Schedule A, Sections 3.5 and 3.6. SCORE 5/5
The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.
5. Delivery – Schedule A, Sections 2.1, 6.1, and 6.2. SCORE 5/5
The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.
6. Acceptance, Inspection and Testing – Schedule A, Sections 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, and 7.4. SCORE 10/10
Total Score: 100/100
C. Hoekstra Transportation Inc. (Hoekstra)
The Evaluation Team determined that Hoekstra, based on a score of 99/100, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.
1. Specifications – Schedule B – Small Class of Non-lift and Lift Transit Bus Specifications all sections, and Schedule A – Statement of Work sections 1.1 and 1.2. SCORE 50/50
The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.
2. Company & Prior Experience and Key Personnel – Vendor Questions Worksheet, all Sections, and Schedule A, all of Section 3. SCORE 19/20
The Evaluation Team determined the responses were satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:
a. Vendor Questions Worksheet, section 5, one of the three references provided was from more than 5 years ago.
3. Warranty – Schedule A, Section 1.1.2. SCORE 10/10
The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.
4. Support – Schedule A, Sections 3.5 and 3.6. SCORE 5/5
The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.
5. Delivery – Schedule A, Sections 2.1, 6.1, and 6.2. SCORE 5/5
The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.
6. Acceptance, Inspection and Testing – Schedule A, Sections 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, and 7.4. SCORE 10/10
Total Score: 99/100
IV. Technical Evaluation Summary
Weight TESCO Shepard Hoekstra
1. Specifications 50 50 50 50
2. Company & Prior Experience/Key Personnel 20 20 20 19
3. Warranty 10 10 10 10
4. Support 5 5 5 5
5. Delivery 5 5 5 5
6. Acceptance, Inspection and Testing 10 10 10 10
Total: 100 100 100 99
VI. Pricing Summary
Pricing was evaluated for the bidders who passed technical. The following is a summary of their price proposals:
Pricing in the table above reflects first and second round results for 400 buses.
VII. Negotiations: Bidders with a passing technical score were asked to submit second round pricing. The awarded contracts will reflect maximum purchase quantities for 400 buses, which is reflected in the following savings costs:
HOEKSTRA lowered their base vehicle pricing $400,633.37 (1.24%) for the composite Small Bus and
$400,456.52 (1.40%) for the metal Small Bus. SHEPARD lowered their overall pricing for their metal Small Bus
$190,665.18 (0.45%). TESCO lowered their overall pricing for their metal Small Bus $1,690,168.66 (4.51%).
No other relevant pricing changes were submitted in second round pricing.
VIII. Award Recommendation:
The award recommendation is made to the responsive and responsible Bidders who passed Technical Evaluation, and offers the best value to the State of Michigan.
1. The Buyer recommends that Hoekstra be awarded a contract for the Small Duty Bus. All purchasing
Transit Agencies shall be fully funded by MDOT for all Small Duty Buses included on this contract.
Funding for this contract shall be as follows:
*Award amount: $48,000,000.00 x 95%
Total Contract: $45,600,000.00
2. The Buyer recommends that TESCO be awarded a contract for the Small Duty Bus. All purchasing Transit Agencies shall be funded at a (maximum) price equivalent to the cost of the Hoekstra Small Duty Bus.
Funding for this contract shall be as follows:
*Award amount: $48,000,000.00 x 10%
Total Contract: $4,800,000.00
3. The Buyer recommends that Shepard be awarded a contract for the Small Duty Bus. All purchasing Transit Agencies shall be funded at a (maximum) price equivalent to the cost of the Hoekstra Small Duty Bus.
Funding for this contract shall be as follows:
*Award amount: $48,000,000.00 x 5%
Total Contract: $2,400,000.00
*Award amounts are based on a 400-bus total.
Description HOEKSTRA Composite HOEKSTRA Metal SHEPARD TESCO
Round 1 Round 2 Round 1 Round 2 Round 1 Round 2 Round 1 Round 2
Base Vehicle
32,632,039.74 32,231,406.37 29,028,833.65 28,628,377.13 31,852,490.93 31,732,625.93 30,346,256.11 28,691,875.45
Equipment Options
8,408,006.00 8,408,006.00 8,243,126.00 8,243,126.00 10,999,256.14 10,928,456.14 8,843,951.00 8,808,163.00
GRAND
TOTALS
41,040,045.74 40,639,412.37 37,271,959.65 36,871,503.13 42,851,747.07 42,661,082.07 39,190,207.11 37,500,038.45
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .