RFP 24-3117 Award Recommendation and Evaluation Synopsis.docx

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

The Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy’s Procurement office has completed the evaluation of RFP# 240000003117 for the Endangered Species Act Assessments and has recommended an award to GEI Consultants of Michigan, PC in the amount of $125,562.50, 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:

Lisa VanOstran, Solicitation Manager vanostranl@michigan.gov 517-599-7680

Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor to provide Endangered Species Act Assessments. The award document will be a one-time Purchase Order.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on September 18, 2024, for 29 days. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of October 17, 2024.

Columbus OH 43229

Moon Township PA 15108

Kent OH 44240

Brighton MI 48116

Wixom MI 48393

Stow OH 44224

Lansing MI 48933

Maumee OH 45357

Minneapolis MN 55414

*SDVOB: Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Business **GDBE: Geographically Disadvantaged Business Enterprise

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

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:

Lisa VanOstran, Procurement Manager EGLE/Finance Division Madeline Jazdzyk, Geology Specialist EGLE/Geologic Resources Management Division

Jim Armbruster, Field Operations Section Manager EGLE/ Geologic Resources Management Division

III. Evaluation Results A. Bidder # 1 – ASC Group, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that ASC Group, Inc. based on a score of 85, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1 Requirements The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3 Staffing The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 4 Project Plan The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Bidder did not provide the required project plan as part of their response.

b. Bidder did not provide the required sample reports as part of their response.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 85/100 B. Bidder # 2 – Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Civil & Environmental based on a score of 82, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

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

a. Bidder took exception to 1.2 Funding Requirements.

b. Bidder took exception to 1.3 Data Retention, Disposal and Retrieval

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3 Staffing The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 4 Project Plan The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Bidder did not provide a timeline with their project plan.

b. Bidder’s project plan includes site visits which would be outside of the pricing submitted.

c. Bidder did not provide the required samples reports as part of their response.

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

a. Bidder took exception to the State’s terms and conditions.

Total Score: 82/100 C. Bidder # 3 – Davey Tree Expert Company The Evaluation Team determined that Davey Tree Expert Company based on a score of 93, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1 Requirements The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3 Staffing The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 4 Project Plan The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

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

a. Bidder has previous litigation/contract cancellations.

b. Bidder did not provide gross annual sales for each of the past five years.

c. Bidder has previous labor, antidiscrimination, and/or environmental law compliance issues.

Total Score: 93/100 D. Bidder # 4 – EA Engineering Science and Technology, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that EA Engineering Science & Technology, Inc. based on a score of 100, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1 Requirements

The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3 Staffing

The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 4 Project Plan The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 100/100 E. Bidder # 5 – Egis BLN USA, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Egis BLN USA, Inc. based on a score of 98, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1 Requirements The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3 Staffing The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 4 Project Plan The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Bidder did not provide a crosswalk with their reporting samples.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 98/100 F. Bidder # 6 – EnviroScience, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that EnviroScience, Inc. based on a score of 87, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1 Requirements The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3 Staffing The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 4 Project Plan The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Bidder does not use IPAC as part of their reporting package.

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

a. Bidder’s examples of prior experience were not relevant to the size and scope of this RFP.

b. Bidder does not currently have employees located in Michigan.

Total Score: 87/100 G. Bidder # 7 – GEI Consultants of Michigan, PC The Evaluation Team determined that GEI Consultants of Michigan, PC based on a score of 98, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1 Requirements The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3 Staffing The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 4 Project Plan The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

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

a. Bidder took exception to the State’s terms and conditions.

Total Score: 98/100 H. Bidder # 8 – Mannik & Smith Group, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Mannik & Smith Group, Inc. based on a score of 90, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1 Requirements The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3 Staffing The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 4 Project Plan The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Bidder’s project plan did not go into specific detail about how they would accomplish the contract activities.

b. Bidder did not provide a timeline with their project plan.

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

a. Bidder has previous labor/antidiscrimination and/or environmental law compliance issues.

Total Score: 90/100 I. Bidder # 9 – Merjent, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Merjent, Inc. based on a score of 82, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

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

a. Bidder did not describe how they would comply with 1.2 Funding Requirements.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3 Staffing The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 4 Project Plan The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Bidder’s project plan proposes changes in price if the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service doesn’t agree with project packaging.

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

a. Bidder took exception to the State’s terms and conditions.

b. Bidder did not certify that they are not an Iran-Linked business.

Total Score: 82/100 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. Award Recommendation Award recommendation is made to the responsive and responsible Bidder who offers the best value to the State of Michigan. 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.

GEI Consultants of Michigan PC provided the best value to the State. Best value factors for Award Recommendation include pricing (submitting the second-lowest bid), and having the required experience, qualifications, and staffing needed to perform the work. Pricing submitted by the low bidder (EA Engineering Science & Technology) does not appear to be accurate based on rates proposed to complete the contract activities detailed in the Statement of Work.

As part of the best value determination, overall economic impact to the State of Michigan was considered and is not a determinative factor in making this award.

Award Recommendation is made to GEI Consultants of Michigan PC in the amount of $125,562.50.

Version 2024-2 image1.png