RFP 240000002338 - Award Recommendation & Evaluation Synopsis.pdf

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Version 2024-2 Page 1 of 6

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

Notice of Intent to Award Number: 240000001454 Notice of Intent to Award Date: 10/8/2024 The Department of Technology, Management, & Budget’s Procurement office has completed the evaluation of Request for Proposal No. 240000002338 for Electronic Document Management (EDM) Scanning Project and has recommended an award to The Mannik & Smith Group, lnc.in the amount of $33,097,636.55, 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:

Alannah Doak, Solicitation Manager Doaka@michigan.gov 517-230-9424

Public copies of all bidder proposals can be found here: DTMB - Bid Proposals (michigan.gov) Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for a Contractor to provide technical support to EGLE from professionals skilled in understanding the industry-specific environmental documents. Support includes the review of remaining files in district offices and identifying documents considered necessary and official records of the state. Professionals will review, convert, and enter documents in Content Manager.

The term of this contract is five years, with up to five, one-year renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on Monday, July 1, 2024. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of Monday, August 26, 2024.

Bidder Address, City, State, Zip Code SDVOB* GDBE** Leonard Bros Data Management

620 Woodward Heights Ferndale, MI 48220

No No

The Mannik & Smith Group, lnc

2365 S. Haggerty Road, Suite 100 Canton, MI 48118

No No

Diskriter, Inc 370 Castle Shannon, Blvd# 10499 Pittsburgh, PA 15234

No No

*SDVOB: Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Business **GDBE: Geographically Disadvantaged Business Enterprise https://www.michigan.gov/dtmb/policies/state-ad-board https://www.michigan.gov/dtmb/procurement/contractconnect/bid-proposals https://www.michigan.gov/dtmb/procurement/contractconnect/bid-proposals

Version 2024-2 Page 2 of 6

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

Technical Evaluation Criteria Weight

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1 15

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2 - 8 40

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3 15

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet 30 Total 100

II. Evaluation Method

Responses to this Solicitation were reviewed by a Joint Evaluation Committee which consisted of the following individuals:

Voting Advisory Alannah Doak, Solicitation Manager DTMB - Central Procurement Services

Brad Pagratis, Division Director EGLE –Information Management Division

Nick Ekel, Section Manager EGLE – RRD - Information Management Section

Lisa VanOstran, Procurement Manager EGLE – Finance Division

III. Evaluation Results A. Leonard Bros Data Management

The Evaluation Team determined that Leonard Bros Data Management based on a score of 68, did not 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 Score: 8/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.1 General Requirements, Bidder acknowledged requirement with no exceptions. However, bidder failed to provide who their professionals are and what their professionals will perform as it relates to the RFP.

Version 2024-2 Page 3 of 6

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2-8 Score: 26/40 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 2.4.B Key Personnel Resumes, Bidder did not provide resumes for half of key personnel listed. Bidder did not provide resumes for personnel working on site.

b. Section 2.6, Disclosure of Subcontractors, Bidder did not identify all subcontractors and instead noted they would identify the GDBE subcontractors once awarded.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3 Score: 15/15 The Evaluation Team determined that the Bidder met all requirements of this section with no exceptions. No deficiencies were noted.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet Score: 19/30 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 2, Company Background Information, Bidder did not state gross annual sales for each of the last five years. Bidder did not fully describe partnerships and strategic relationships they think would bring significant value to the state.

b. Section 5 State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience, Prior experiences 1, 2, and 3 were not of similar size or scope to this RFP.

Total Score: 68/100

B. The Mannik & Smith Group, lnc.

The Evaluation Team determined that The Mannik & Smith Group, lnc based on a score of 99, 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 Score: 15/15 The Evaluation Team determined that the Bidder met all requirements of this section with no exceptions. No deficiencies were noted.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2-8 Score: 40/40 The Evaluation Team determined that the Bidder met all requirements of this section with no exceptions. No deficiencies were noted.

Version 2024-2 Page 4 of 6

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3 Score: 15/15 The Evaluation Team determined that the Bidder met all requirements of this section with no exceptions. No deficiencies were noted.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet Score: 29/30 The 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, Prior experience provided for experience 1 is not of similar size or scope to this

RFP.

Total Score: 99/100

C. Diskriter, Inc The Evaluation Team determined that Diskriter, Inc based on a score of 59, did not 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 Score: 5/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.1 General Requirements, Bidder acknowledged requirement with no exceptions. However, bidder lacked detail in how they will meet this requirement and did not show understanding of the deliverables of this project.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2-8 Score: 22/40 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 2.4.A All Key Personnel Listed, Bidder did not provide the responsibilities under column 3. Bidder did not complete column 4. Bidder did not complete column 6.

b. Section 2.4.B Key Personnel Resumes, Bidder did not provide resumes for half of key personnel listed. Bidder did not provide resumes for personnel working on site.

c. Section 2.6, Disclosure of Subcontractors, Bidder did not provide all detailed information as required.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3 Score: 15/15

Version 2024-2 Page 5 of 6

The Evaluation Team determined that the Bidder met all requirements of this section with no exceptions. No deficiencies were noted.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet Score: 17/30 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 2, Company Background Information, Bidder did not describe specific partnerships and strategic relationships they think would bring significant value to the State.

b. Section 5, State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience, Prior experiences 1, 2, and 3 were not of similar size or scope to this RFP.

Total Score: 59/100

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

Selection Criteria Leonard Bros Data Management

The Mannik & Smith Group, lnc.

Diskriter, Inc

1 Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1

8 15 5

2 Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2-8

26 40 22

3 Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3

15 15 15

4 Vendor Questions Worksheet

19 29 17

Total 68 99 59

V. Pricing Summary

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

Deliverable The Mannik & Smith Group, lnc.

1 FY 2025 Total Cost $6,234,720.00

2 FY 2026 Total Cost $6,421,437.60

Version 2024-2 Page 6 of 6

Deliverable The Mannik & Smith Group, lnc.

3 FY 2027 Total Cost $6,613,756.73

4 FY 2028 Total Cost $6,811,845.43

5 FY 2029 Total Cost $7,015,876.79

Total Price $33,097,636.55

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.

The Mannik & Smith Group, lnc. provided the best value to the State. Best value factors for Award Recommendation include: significant experience in providing technical support professionals with environmental science backgrounds, broad experience working with Content Manager as it relates to the contract requirements, experiences similar in size and scope, and extensive experience with providing staff to identify and match appropriate records and converting paper records to an electronic format.

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 The Mannik & Smith Group, lnc. in the amount of $33,097,636.55.