Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

The Department of Technology, Management, and Budget’s Central Procurement Office has completed the evaluation of Request for Proposal (RFP) 260000000513 for Accessible Passenger Vehicle – Modified Minivans and has recommended an award to Hoekstra Transportation, Inc. in the amount of $100,000, and Bus Service Incorporated in the amount of $100,000, 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:

Patrick Turcotte, Solicitation Manager.

TurcotteP@michigan.gov 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 Accessible Passenger Vehicle – Modified Minivan. The term of this contract is two years, with up to two one-year renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on 12/5/2025 for four weeks. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of 1/9/2026.

Grand Rapids, MI 49548

Canal Winchester, OH, 43110

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

Proposals receiving 80 or more evaluation points will have pricing evaluated.

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

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

Patrick Turcotte, Commodities Category Analyst DTMB, Central Procurement Rob Pearson, Bus Regulatory, Intercity Bus, Procurement Unit Supervisor MDOT, Office of Passenger Transportation

Blayne Mitchell, Vehicle Procurement Analyst MDOT, Office of Passenger Transportation Terry Harris, TITLE

MDOT, OFFICE

Valerie Shultz, Transportation Services Section Manager MDOT, Office of Passenger Transportation

Alannah Doak, Category Specialist DTMB, Central Procurement

Katie McFarland, Category Manager DTMB, Central Procurement

III. Evaluation Results A. Hoekstra Transportation, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Hoekstra Transportation, Inc. based on a score of 99, met the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule D – Small Class of Non-lift and Lift Transit Bus Specifications, and Schedule A – Statement of Work, Section 1.1 – Required Documentation (50/50 points) The evaluation Team did not find any deficiencies.

2. Schedule A, Section 1.2 – Product Specifications (10/10 points) The Evaluation Team noted the following deficiencies:

The evaluation Team did not find any deficiencies.

3. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Section 2 – Service Timeframes (5/5 points) The evaluation Team did not find any deficiencies.

4. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Sections 1.2, 6.1, and 6.2 – Timeframes, Delivery Program, General Delivery (5/5 points) The evaluation Team did not find any deficiencies.

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet, Schedule A – Statement of Work, Section 7 – Acceptance (20/20 points) The evaluation Team did not find any deficiencies.

6. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Section 7 – Acceptance (10/10 points) The evaluation Team did not find any deficiencies.

Total Score: 100/100 B. Bus Service Incorporated The Evaluation Team determined that Bus Service Incorporated, based on a score of 94, met the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

The evaluation Team did not find any deficiencies

1. Schedule D – Small Class of Non-lift and Lift Transit Bus Specifications, and Schedule A – Statement of Work, Section 1.1 – Required Documentation (50/50 points)

2. Schedule A – Section 1.2 – Product Specifications (10/10 points) The evaluation Team did not find any deficiencies.

3. Schedule A, Section 2 – Service Timeframes (4/5 points) The evaluation team found the following deficiencies:

a. The bidder provided pricing for additional training in requirement 2.3 for mechanical and technician review which violated the proposal instructions.

4. Schedule A, Sections 2.1, 6.1, and 6.2 – Timeframes, Delivery, Delivery Program, General Delivery (5/5 points) The evaluation Team did not find any deficiencies

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet, Schedule A, Section 3 – Staffing (17/20 points) The evaluation team found the following deficiencies:

a. For requirement 3.4 the bidder did not provide an org chart.

6. Schedule A, Section 7 – Acceptance (10/10 points) The evaluation Team did not find any deficiencies Total Score: 96/100 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:

BraunAbility Hoekstra Transportation, Inc.

FR Conversions Bus Service Incorporated

FR Conversions

Total Price With Options

VI. Clarifications The State requested clarifications to all bidders regarding whether the swing-away side entry ramp, foldaway rear seat footrest, and the video surveillance prep were standard equipment at no additional cost, unavailable, or available at additional cost. Bus Service Incorporated was also asked whether they would provide purchased vehicles in Michigan since they are based in Ohio.

Hoekstra Transportation, Inc. confirmed the swing-away side entry ramp was standard equipment at no additional cost. They also confirmed the foldaway rear seat footrest was standard at no additional cost. The bid for the video surveillance prep is confirmed as an additional equipment option but bid $0.

Bus Service Incorporated confirmed the swing-away side entry ramp was standard equipment at no additional cost. The foldaway rear seat footrest and video surveillance prep were confirmed as additional equipment options at additional cost. They also confirmed that vehicles purchased by Michigan Transit Authorities would be registered in Michigan prior to delivery.

VII. Award Recommendation Award recommendations are made to the responsive and responsible Bidders who offer 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.

Hoekstra Transportation, Inc. and Bus Service Incorporated provided the best value to the State. Best value factors for Award Recommendation include: passing the technical evaluation and price.

Award Recommendation is made to Hoekstra Transportation, Inc. in the amount of $100,000. Award Recommendation is made to Bus Service Incorporated in the amount of $100,000.

Version 2024-2 image1.png