RFP 250000000487 - Award Recommendation.docx

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

The Department of Technology, Management, & Budget’s office has completed the evaluation of RFP 250000000487 for Get Ahead of Lead Filter Program and has recommended an award to JetCo Packaging Solution, LLC in the amount of $4,400,000.00, 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:

Jordana Sager, Solicitation Manager.

Sagerj2@michigan.gov 517-896-1903 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 selection of a Contractor to provide management of the direct shipment of an estimated 6,000 lead reducing drinking water filters and an estimated 100,000 lead reducing drinking water replacement cartridge sets per year for GAOL programs’ recipients across the State of Michigan. The term of this contract is three years, with up to three one-year renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on January 14, 2025. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of Tuesday February 11, 2025.

Detroit, MI 48209

Flint, MI 48507

Grand Rapids MI 49512

Knoxville, TN 37923

*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 Solicitation Manager in collaboration with Subject Matter Expert; Joint Evaluation Committee, which consisted of the following individuals:

Laura Gossiaux, Manager MDHHS, Community Services Unit Gerald Tiernan, Section Manager - MDHHS Chemical Planning and Response

Kristine Arvizu, Manager MDHHS, Grants and Contracts Kevin Dixon MDHHS, Community Services Unit

Justin Gallagher MDHHS, Community Services Unit Jeremy Waechter, Subunit Manager MDHHS, Community Services Unit

Jordana Sager, Buyer DTMB, Central Procurement Services Madi Donaghy MDHHS, Community Services Unit

George Curtis, Buyer - MDHHS

III. Evaluation Results A. Ideal Setech The Evaluation Team determined that Ideal Setech based on a score of 80, met the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Statement of Work, Section 1 36/50 The Evaluation Team noted the following deficiencies:

a. Section 1.1 A. – The Bidder did not provide an explanation on how the temperature and moisture levels are controlled in the building or how the space for this project would be established for the State.

b. Section 1.1. D. –The Bidder did not address the timeframe they would use to notify MDHHS that damaged product had been received.

c. Section 1.2. A. 3. - The Bidder did not provide an explanation of what happens during interruptions during shipments nor when the report would be updated.

d. Section 1.2. A. 4. - The Bidder did not provide a full explanation on when the ‘delivered’ status of shipments would be updated and how it would be communicated to MDHHS.

e. Section 1.2. A. 5. - The Bidder did not provide a full explanation of the process for how returned, lost and /or damaged shipments would be managed nor how this would be communicated to MDHHS.

f. Section 1.2. A. 6. - The Bidder did not describe how returned/undeliverable product would be documented back into inventory nor how this would be communicated to MDHHS.

g. Section 1.3. C. - The Bidder did not fully describe how documentation would occur when reshipping damaged or lost products nor how it would be communicated to MDHHS.

h. Section 1.5. D. - The Bidder did not provide details on how compliance would be met.

i. Section 1.5. E. - The Bidder did not provide details on how they intend to comply with any future changes.

2. Statement of Work, Section 2 - 4 19/20 The Evaluation Team noted the following deficiency:

a. Section 2.4. – The Bidder’s report did not provide the statistical summary information requested.

3. Statement of Work, Section 5 - 10 9/10 The Evaluation Team noted the following deficiency:

a. Section 5.1. – The Bidder’s sample invoice did not include an invoice number, unique resident ID number, or unit cost.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet 4/5 The Evaluation Team noted the following deficiency:

a. The Bidder did not follow proposal instructions in two areas: pricing was included in the proposal rather than being limited to Schedule B and files were not labelled as instructed.

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet – Experience 12/15 The Evaluation Team noted the following deficiency:

a. The Evaluation Team did not find Bidder’s experience relevant to the solicitation.

Total Score: 80/100 B. JetCo Packaging Solutions LLC The Evaluation Team determined that JetCo Packaging Solutions LLC based on a score of 100, met the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

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

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2-4 The Evaluation Team determined the responses were satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work Section 5-10.

The Evaluation Team determined the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet.

The Evaluation Team determined the responses were satisfactory.

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet - Experience The Evaluation Team determined the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 100/100 C. TGI Direct The Evaluation Team determined that TGI Direct based on a score of 82, met the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Statement of Work, Section 1 41/50 The Evaluation Team noted the following deficiencies:

a. Section 1.1 A. – The Bidder did not provide a detailed explanation on how the space would be allotted for this project for the State, temperature ranges within the warehouse, and pest control.

b. Section 1.2 A.2. – The Bidder did not address a process for training for staff on receiving and processing orders from MDHHS through the State managed File Transfer Portal.

c. Section 1.2. A. 4. - The Bidder did not respond to the question but instead noted “See provided attachment tracking and delivery”.

d. Section 1.2. A. 5. - The Bidder did not respond to the question but instead noted “see provided attachment”.

e. Section 1.2. A. 6. - The Bidder did not respond to the question but instead noted “See provided attachment Return report”.

f. Section 1.5. E. - The Bidder did not describe how they would comply with future changes.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2-4. 16/20 The Evaluation Team noted the following deficiencies:

a. Section 2.2.A.1. – The Bidder’s tracking report did not provide status updates but rather tracks packages shipped and tracking numbers. The Bidder’s real-time report did not provide up-to-date information.

b. Section 2.4. – The Bidder’s report did not provide the statistical summary information requested.

c. Section 4.1. – The Bidder pricing will increase when postage rates increase.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work Section 5 – 10. 9/10 The Evaluation Team noted the following deficiency:

a. Section 5.1. – The Bidder’s sample did not include a unique resident ID number.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet 4/5 The Evaluation Team noted the following deficiency:

a. The Bidder did not follow proposal instructions: pricing was included in the proposal rather than being limited to Schedule B.

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet Experience 12/15 The Evaluation Team noted the following deficiency:

b. The Evaluation Team did not find Bidder’s experience relevant to the solicitation.

Total Score: 82/100 D. TruePani Inc The Evaluation Team determined that TruePani Inc, based on a score of 89, met the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A, State of Work, Section 1 40/50 The Evaluation Team noted the following deficiencies:

a. Section 1.1 A. – The Bidder did not provide a detailed explanation on how the space would be allotted for this project for the State, temperature ranges within the warehouse, and pest control.

b. Section 1.1. D. –The Bidder did not address the timeframe in which MDHHS would be notified of damaged pallets being shipped from the State.

c. Section 1.2 A.2. – The Bidder did not address a process for training for staff on receiving and processing orders from MDHHS through the State managed File Transfer Portal.

d. Section 1.3. C. - The Bidder did not accept the requirement to ship replacement product when MDHHS alerts Contractor to resident receipt of damaged, broken, or lost product and reship replacement product at no additional cost to MDHHS.

e. Section 1.5. D. - The Bidder responded not applicable to this section.

f. Section 1.5 E. – The Bidder responded not applicable to this section.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2-4 20/20 The Evaluation Team determined the responses were satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work Section 5-10 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet. 4/5 The Evaluation Team noted the following deficiency:

a. The Bidder did not follow proposal instructions: pricing was included in the proposal rather than being limited to Schedule B.

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet – Experience 15/15 The Evaluation Team determined the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 89/100 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:

$87,000

VI. 2nd Round Pricing

$85,000

VII. Award Recommendation Award recommendations are 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.

JetCo provided the best value to the State. Best value factors for Award Recommendation include passing the technical evaluation, the lowest price - including best value in shipping and only charging for what is shipped, strong commitment to cross training staff on the State’s File Transfer Portal, flexibility to use other shipping carriers when necessary, and holds a Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC).

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

Award Recommendation is made to JetCo Packaging Solution, LLC in the amount of $4,400,000.00.

Version 2024-2 image1.png