RFP 250000001001 - Award Recommendation and Evaluation Synopsis .pdf

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Version 2024-2 Page 1 of 10

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

Notice of Intent to Award Number: 250000000897

Notice of Intent to Award Date: 8/25/2025

The Department of Technology, Management, & Budget’s Procurement office has completed the evaluation of RFP 250000001001 Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Delivery Service and has recommended an award to Crystal Flash, Inc. in the amount of $10,000,000.00, 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:

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 selection of a Contractor to deliver gasoline and diesel fuel to all State of Michigan locations, including the upper peninsula, requiring either tank wagon or truck transport deliveries. The term of this contract is three years, with up to five additional one-year renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on June 9, 2025, and was posted for 39 days. The following Bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of July 18, 2025.

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

Ace Petroleum Inc. 18263 W. Nichols Rd. Detroit, MI 48219 NO NO

Gen Oil Company 1238 Anderson Rd., Clawson, MI 48017 NO NO

RKA Petroleum Companies, Inc.

28340 Wick Rd, Romulus, MI 48174 NO YES

Crystal Flash, Inc. 1754 Alpine Ave NW, Grand Rapids, MI 49504 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 10

Non-Responsive Bidder: RKA Petroleum Companies, Inc. was deemed to be non-responsive as they failed to follow proposal instructions and failed to provide any documentation required in the RFP.

Version 2024-2 Page 3 of 10

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. General Requirements – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1 25

2. Service Capabilities – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2 20

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 3-10 25

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet 20

5.

Coverage – Contracts will not be awarded by county, fuel type or grade. They will be awarded by region only and the ability to service the whole region.

Total 100

II. Evaluation Method

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

Voting

Alannah Doak, Solicitation Manager DTMB - Central Procurement Services

Michael Wonn, Superintendent DTMB – Vehicle and Travel Services

Kimberly Marton, Senior Buyer – Purchasing Unit DNR - Finance and Operations Division

Patricia Graves, Senior Buyer – Purchasing Unit DNR - Finance and Operations Division

III. Evaluation Results

A. Ace Petroleum Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Ace Petroleum Inc., based on a score of 42, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. General Requirements – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were not satisfactory, and the following deficiencies were noted:

Version 2024-2 Page 4 of 10

a. Section 1.1.A.1, Transition for all Fuel Storage Tanks, Bidder acknowledged requirement with no exceptions. However, Bidder failed to fully describe their process.

b. Section 1.1.B.1, Transition for all Fuel Storage Tanks, Bidder acknowledged requirement with no exceptions. However, Bidder failed to fully describe their process.

c. Section 1.1.B, New Tank Install, Bidder acknowledged requirement with no exceptions. However, Bidder failed to fully describe their procedure.

d. Section 1.2, Product Specifications, Bidder failed to acknowledge whether they supply each fuel type.

e. Section 1.4.A, Emergency Event, Bidder acknowledged requirement with no exceptions. However, Bidder failed to fully describe their procedure.

f. Section 1.4.D, Emergency Event, Bidder acknowledged requirement with no exceptions. However, Bidder failed to fully describe their process.

g. Section 1.5, Marine Fuel/Recreational Gas, Bidder acknowledged requirement with no exceptions. However, Bidder failed to fully describe their ability.

h. Section 1.6, Spills, Bidder acknowledged requirement with no exceptions.

However, Bidder failed to explain in detail.

i. Section 1.11, Recall Requirements and Procedures, Bidder acknowledged requirement with no exceptions. However, Bidder failed to fully describe their procedure.

j. Section 1.13, Transition, Bidder acknowledged requirement with no exceptions. However, Bidder failed to fully describe their plan.

k. Section 1.14, Post-Contract Transition, Bidder noted an exception and requires NET 7 terms. Bidder failed to fully describe how they will comply.

l. Other, Bidder did not submit their documents in a modifiable format.

2. Service Capabilities – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 2.4, Maintenance, Bidder acknowledged requirement with no exceptions. However, Bidder failed to fully describe onsite maintenance.

b. Section 2.5, Project Prevailing Wage Requirements, Bidder acknowledged requirement with no exceptions. However, Bidder failed to fully describe how they would comply.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 3-10

Version 2024-2 Page 5 of 10

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were not satisfactory, and the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 3.3, Organizational Chart, Bidder failed to provide a complete and accurate organizational chart.

b. Section 3.5, Security, Bidder acknowledged requirement with no exceptions.

However, Bidder did not fully describe how they will meet this requirement.

c. Section 4.1, Price Term, Bidder noted an exception.

d. Section 4.2, Price Changes, Bidder noted an exception.

e. Section 5.4, Environmental Protection Regulation Fee, Bidder acknowledged requirement with no exceptions. However, Bidder did not fully describe how they will meet this requirement.

f. Section 6.4, Acceptance of Delivery, Bidder acknowledged requirement with no exceptions. However, Bidder did not fully explain how they will meet this requirement.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were not satisfactory, and the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1, Contact Information, Bidder failed to complete this section in full.

b. Section 2, Company Background Information, Bidder failed to complete this section in full.

c. Section 5.1. Experience 1, Description of the scope of the project was vague.

Bidder failed to complete this section in full.

d. Section 5.1, Experience 2, Description of the scope of the project was vague.

Bidder failed to complete this section in full.

e. Section 5.1, Experience 3, Description of the scope of the project was vague.

Bidder failed to complete this section in full.

f. Section 6, Standard Contract Terms, Bidder failed to complete this section.

g. Section 7, Insurance Requirements, Bidder failed to complete this section.

h. Section 8, Michigan Voluntary Protection Program, Bidder failed to complete this section.

i. Section 9, Michigan Economic Impact, Bidder failed to complete this section in full.

j. Section 11, Supplier Diversity, Bidder failed to complete this section in full.

k. Section 12, Other, Bidder failed to complete this section in full.

Version 2024-2 Page 6 of 10

5. Coverage – Contracts will not be awarded by county, fuel type or grade. They will be awarded by region only and the ability to service the whole region.

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were not satisfactory, and the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The vendor was not able to service nine out of twelve regions.

Total Score: 42/100

B. Gen Oil Company

The Evaluation Team determined that Gen Oil Company based on a score of 62.5, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. General Requirements – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were not satisfactory, and the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.1.A.1, Transition for all Fuel Storage Tanks, Bidder acknowledged requirement with exception. Bidder failed to fully describe their process.

b. Section 1.1.B, Transition for all Fuel Storage Tanks, Bidder acknowledged requirement with no exceptions. However, Bidder failed to fully describe their process.

c. Section 1.1.C.1, Transition for all Fuel Storage Tanks, Bidder acknowledged requirement with no exceptions. However, Bidder failed to fully describe their process.

d. Section 1.4.A, Emergency Event, Bidder acknowledged requirement with no exceptions. However, Bidder failed to fully describe their procedure.

e. Section 1.4.D, Emergency Event, Bidder noted an exception.

f. Section 1.6, Spills, Bidder noted an exception.

g. Section 1.7, Damages, Bidder noted an exception.

h. Section 1.9, Training, Bidder acknowledged requirement with no exceptions.

However, Bidder failed to describe in detail.

i. Section 1.11, Recall Requirements and Procedures, Bidder acknowledged requirement with no exceptions. However, Bidder failed to describe their procedure.

j. Section 1.13, Transition, Bidder acknowledged requirement with no exceptions. However, Bidder failed to describe their plan.

k. Section 1.14, Post-Contract Transition, Bidder failed to describe how they will comply.

l. Other, Bidder did not submit their documents in a modifiable format.

Version 2024-2 Page 7 of 10

2. Service Capabilities – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2

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

a. Section 2.1, Delivery, Bidder acknowledged requirement with no exceptions.

However, Bidder failed to describe their process.

b. Section 2.4, Maintenance, Bidder noted an exception. Bidder failed to respond fully.

c. Section 2.5, Project Prevailing Wage Requirements, Bidder acknowledged requirement with no exceptions. However, Bidder failed to fully describe how they would comply.

d. Section 2.7, Reporting, Bidder acknowledged requirement with no exceptions. However, Bidder failed to describe their capabilities.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 3-10

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were not satisfactory, and the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 3.3, Organizational Chart, Bidder failed to provide a complete and accurate organizational chart.

b. Section 3.5, Security, Bidder acknowledged requirement with no exceptions.

However, Bidder did not fully describe how they will meet this requirement.

c. Section 5.1, Authorizing Document, Bidder acknowledged requirement with no exceptions. However, Bidder did not fully describe how they will comply.

d. Section 5.2, Order Verification, Bidder acknowledged requirement with no exceptions. However, Bidder did not fully explain their procedure.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet

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 fully describe company background information.

b. Section 8, Michigan Voluntary Protection Program, Bidder failed to complete this section.

c. Section 13, Other, Bidder noted an exception.

5. Coverage – Contracts will not be awarded by county, fuel type or grade. They will be awarded by region only and the ability to service the whole region.

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were not satisfactory, and the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The vendor was not able to service seven out of twelve regions.

Version 2024-2 Page 8 of 10

Total Score: 62.5/100

C. Crystal Flash, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Crystal Flash, Inc. based on a score of 84, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

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

a. Section 1.1.A.1, Transition for all Fuel Storage Tanks, Bidder acknowledged requirement with exception. Bidder failed to fully describe their process.

b. Section 1.1.B, New Tank Install, Bidder acknowledged requirement with no exceptions. However, Bidder failed to describe their procedure.

c. Section 1.4.D, Emergency Event, Bidder noted an exception.

d. Section 1.5, Marine Fuel/Recreational Gas, Bidder acknowledged requirement with no exceptions. However, Bidder failed to fully describe their ability.

e. Section 1.14, Post-Contract Transition, Bidder failed to fully describe how they will comply.

2. Service Capabilities – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2 The Evaluation Team determined that the Bidder met all requirements of this section. No deficiencies were noted.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 3-10

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

a. Section 6.4, Acceptance of Delivery, Bidder acknowledged requirement with no exceptions. However, Bidder did not fully explain how they will meet this requirement.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet

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

a. Section 5.1. Experience 1, Bidder failed to complete this section in full.

b. Section 5.1, Experience 2, Bidder failed to complete this section in full.

c. Section 5.1, Experience 3, Bidder failed to complete this section in full.

5. Coverage – Contracts will not be awarded by county, fuel type or grade. They will be awarded by region only and the ability to service the whole region.

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

Version 2024-2 Page 9 of 10

a. The vendor was not able to service two out of twelve regions.

Total Score: 84/100

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

Selection Criteria Ace Petroleum Inc.

Gen Oil Company

Crystal Flash, Inc.

1 General Requirements – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1 8 8 17.5

2 Service Capabilities – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2 18.5 15.5 20

3 Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 3-10 10 15 20

4 Vendor Questions Worksheet 0 17.5 17.5

5 Coverage – Contracts will not be awarded by county, fuel type or grade. They will be awarded by region only and the ability to service the whole region

5.5 6.5 9

Total 42 62.5 84

V. Pricing Summary

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

Deliverable Description Crystal Flash, Inc.

1a Western UP No Bid 1b Central UP No Bid 1c Eastern UP $57,975.81 2 Northwest $25,150.26 3 Northeast $34,266.59 4 West Michigan $9,062.55 5 East Central Michigan $2,499.89 6 East Michigan $24,101.25 7 South Central $55,258.32 8 Southwest $2,440.35 9 Southeast $13,748.68 10 Detroit Metro $4,284.34

VI. Negotiations

Version 2024-2 Page 10 of 10

Second round pricing was offered. This did not result in updated pricing from the vendors original bid.

VII. 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.

Crystal Flash, Inc. provided the best value to the State. 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. Best value factors for Award Recommendation include:

• Crystal Flash, Inc. was the only vendor to receive a passing technical score.

• Crystal Flash, Inc. was the only vendor able to provide service to most of the State of Michigan. Crystal Flash, Inc. was the only vendor to bid on prosperity zones 1c, 2, 3, and 4. Crystal Flash, Inc. was also one of only two vendors to bid on prosperity zones 5 and 6.

• Crystal Flash, Inc., with a proven track record in working with the State for many years, has a deep knowledge of Michigan’s Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Delivery Service market. During this contractor relationship, Crystal Flash, Inc. has a proven track record of meeting or exceeding contract performance expectations.

• In their proposal response to Section 1.1.C.1, Crystal Flash, Inc. stated they provide a visual inspection of all state of Michigan tanks with every fuel delivery.

• Other Value, as there would be no change from the State’s current Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Delivery Service provider thus eliminating additional orientation or transition administrative burden for the State.

Award Recommendation is made to Crystal Flash, Inc. in the amount of $10,000,000.