RFP# 260000000042 - Award Recommendation and Evaluation Synopsis.docx

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

The Department of Technology, Management, & Budget’s Procurement office has completed the evaluation of RFP 260000000042 Financial & Strategic Consulting and Advisory Services and has recommended an award to Guidehouse in the amount of $13,000,000.00, 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:

Adam Ashley, Solicitation Manager.

Ashleya2@michigan.gov 517-855-1376 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 Financial & Strategic Consulting and Advisory Services. The term of this contract is 3 years, with up to 5 renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on November 7, 2026, for 19 days. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of November 26, 2026.

Chicago, IL 60601-5927

Chicago, Illinois 60606

McLean, VA 22102

New York, NY 10001

Southfield, MI 48075

Detroit, MI 48202

Benton Harbor MI, 49022

*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 Step 1: The following chart represents factors that will be utilized to score Step 1. A limited number of Bidders who receive a minimum score of 80 will be further evaluated based on the criteria identified in Step 2. Bidders who do not meet the minimum point threshold in Step 1 will not be considered for award.

Step 2: A limited number of Bidders who pass Step 1 will be required to make an oral presentation to the State as follows: The top 5 Bidders with the highest-ranking scores who pass Step 1 will be contacted after the initial JEC meetings to establish a date and time for the oral presentation. In the case of a tie or if the State deems otherwise necessary, the number of bidders could change. Oral presentations will be held virtually via MS Teams. The following chart represents factors that will be utilized to score Step 2. The State will select the Bidder with the highest combined score by summing the Bidder’s scores from Steps 1 and 2.

Oral presentations will be no longer than 25 minutes. They will include a brief narrative on company background, response to a case study provided by the State, and further explanation of one of the two non-State of Michigan experiences provided in the Vendor Questions Worksheet. The State is not interested in marketing materials.

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

II. Evaluation Method Responses to this solicitation were reviewed by the Solicitation Manager in collaboration with Joint Evaluation Committee, which consisted of the following individuals:

Adam Ashley, Solicitation Manager Central Procurement Services - DTMB

James Ranger, Innovating Contracting Manager Office of Major Projects - MDOT

Jennifer Frank, Buyer Specialist Purchasing and Budget - LEO

III. Evaluation Results Step 1: Technical Evaluation A. Baker Tilly Advisory Group The Evaluation Team determined that Baker Tilly Advisory Group, based on a score of 96, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Product Quality – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1 35/35 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. Service Capabilities – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2-5 6/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Resumes were not included in the bidder’s proposal.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 6-10 15/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

5. Vendor Experience 30/30 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 96/100

B. Crowe The Evaluation Team determined that Crowe, 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. Product Quality – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1 35/35 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. Service Capabilities – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2-5 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 6-10 15/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

5. Vendor Experience 15/30 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The referenced projects are not comparable in size of the projects that are expected for this Contract.

Total Score: 85/100 C. Guidehouse The Evaluation Team determined that Guidehouse, 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. Product Quality – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1 35/35 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. Service Capabilities – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2-5 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 6-10 15/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

5. Vendor Experience 30/30

Total Score:100/100

D. KPMG

The Evaluation Team determined that KPMG, 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. Product Quality – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1 35/35 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. Service Capabilities – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2-5 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 6-10 15/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

5. Vendor Experience 30/30 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score:100/100 E. Plante Moran Realpoint The Evaluation Team determined that Plante Moran Realpoint, based on a score of 97.5, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Product Quality – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1 35/35 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. Service Capabilities – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2-5 7.5/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The resumes were structured as bios and lacked detail on project experience.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 6-10 15/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet 10/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

5. Vendor Experience 30/30

Total Score: 97.5/100

F. Watson & Yates The Evaluation Team determined that Watson & Yates, based on a score of 73, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Product Quality – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1 35/35 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. Service Capabilities – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2-5 7/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The listed key personnel lack the expertise that the State is seeking.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 6-10 15/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet 6/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The company is newer and lacks the capacity and experience required for a contract of this size.

5. Vendor Experience 10/30 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The company has less than 5 years of experience. Additionally, the referenced projects size and duration are not comparable to what is expected by the State for this Contract.

Total Score: 73/100 G. Bean Consulting & CO The Evaluation Team determined that Bean Consulting & CO, based on a score of 73, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Product Quality – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1 35/35 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. Service Capabilities – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2-5 7/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The listed key personnel lack the expertise that the State is seeking.

b. The Project Director listed in the proposal is from the subcontractor.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 6-10 15/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet 6/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The company is newer and lacks the capacity and experience required for a contract of this size.

5. Vendor Experience 10/30 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The company has less than 5 years of experience. Additionally, the experience provided lacks sufficient detail such as the project’s relevance to scope of this Contract.

Total Score: 73/100

Step 2: Oral Presentations A. Baker Tilly Advisory Group The Evaluation Team determined that Baker Tilly Advisory Group, based on a score of 95, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Oral Presentations Evaluation Criteria.

1. Company Background 20/20 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. Case Study Response 40/40 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Vendor Experience 35/40 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The reference experience demonstrates relevant infrastructure experience; however, it does not fully reflect the broader infrastructure expertise desired by the State.

Total Score: 95/100

B. Guidehouse The Evaluation Team determined that Guidehouse, based on a score of 100, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Oral Presentations Evaluation Criteria.

1. Company Background 20/20 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. Case Study Response 40/40 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Vendor Experience 40/40 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score:100/100

C. KPMG

The Evaluation Team determined that KPMG, based on a score of 100, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Oral Presentations Evaluation Criteria.

1. Company Background 20/20 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. Case Study Response 40/40 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Vendor Experience 40/40 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score:100/100 D. Plante Moran Realpoint The Evaluation Team determined that Plante Moran Realpoint, based on a score of 92, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Oral Presentations Evaluation Criteria.

1. Company Background 20/20 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. Case Study Response 37/40 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The referenced project was not comparable in scale to what is expected by the State.

3. Vendor Experience 35/40 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The reference experience demonstrates relevant infrastructure experience; however, it does not fully reflect the broader infrastructure expertise desired by the State Total Score: 92/100

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

IV.

Version 2024-2 V. Technical Evaluation Summary

VI. Oral Presentations/Demonstrations

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

1. Baker Tilly Advisory Group

2. Crowe

3. Guidehouse

4. KPMG

5. Plante Moran Realpoint Staff/Role

Not to Exceed Hourly Rate

6. Watson & Yates

7. Bean Consulting & CO

VIII.

IX. Negotiations The awarded vendor provided second-round pricing that is reflected in the Pricing Summary above.

X. 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.

Guidehouse provided the best value to the state. Best value factors for the award recommendation include pricing and experience with the scope 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 Guidehouse in the amount of $13,000,000.00.

image1.png