RFP 260000002460 Award Notice Letter.docx

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

The Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy’s Procurement office has completed the evaluation of RFP 260000002460 Pollution Prevention and Food Waste Reduction Technical Assistance Program and has recommended an award to Eastern Research Group in the amount of $401,570,48, 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 may 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:

Lisa VanOstran, Solicitation Manager.

vanostranl@michigan.gov 517-599-7680 Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor to provide Pollution Prevention and Food Waste Reduction Technical Assistance Program. The term of this contract is one year, with up to one one-year renewal option.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on August 18, 2026, for 33 days. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of September 21, 2026.

Concord, MA 01742

East Lansing, MI 48824

Novi, MI 48377

*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

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

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

Indumathy Jayamani, Engineer Specialist EGLE/Materials Management Division Tiffany Johnson, Engineer Specialist EGLE/Materials Management Division

Jake Wilkinson, Engineer Manager EGLE/Materials Management Division Lisa VanOstran, Procurement Manager EGLE/Finance Division

III. Evaluation Results A. Bidder # 1 – Eastern Research Group, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Eastern Research Group, Inc., based on a score of 98, 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 3 General Requirements The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

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

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 9 Reporting The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Bidder submitted a sample report template but did not include a sample report containing previous work.

4. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 12 and Attachment 1 Key Personnel The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

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

Total Score: 98/100

B. Bidder # 2 – Michigan State University The Evaluation Team determined that Michigan State University, based on a score of 75, 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 3 General Requirements The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. There may be a crossover between MISBF/CMU work through a similar grant and this project. Clear separation is required between both projects.

b. The bidder’s response primarily restated the requirements included in the General Requirements section and did not provide sufficient detail describing the bidder’s specific approach, methodology, or processes for completing the requested work.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 4 Project Plan The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Project plan states that the roundtable be an extension of MISBF’s work. This will not allow a clear separation of both projects.

b. The bidder’s response primarily restated the requirements included in the Project Plan section and did not provide sufficient detail describing the bidder’s specific project management process.

c. The proposed project timeline did not allocate sufficient time to complete the required tasks, which raised concerns regarding the feasibility of meeting project deadlines.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 9 Reporting The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Bidder’s sample toolkit while detailing best practice advice did not provide specific actionable items in plain language for industries to use.

4. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 12 and Attachment 1 Key Personnel The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The bidder proposed an extensive network of project partners. The evaluation team identified potential risks related to the complexity of coordinating multiple organizations, including maintaining consistent communication, ensuring accountability, managing interdependent tasks including invoicing and approvals.

b. Bidder did not provide sufficient details about responsibilities of each proposed key personnel role.

c. Bidder’s proposed Project Manager does not have previous P2 experience.

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

a. Bidder did not include list of State of Michigan contracts.

b. Bidder’s previous experience focused primarily on energy assessments.

Total Score: 75/100

C. Bidder # 3 – WSP Michigan, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that WSP Michigan, Inc., 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 3 General Requirements The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The bidder’s response primarily restated the requirements included in the General Requirements section and did not provide sufficient detail describing the bidder’s specific approach, methodology, or processes for completing the requested work.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 4 Project Plan The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The bidder’s response primarily restated the requirements included in the Project Plan section and did not provide sufficient detail.

b. Bidder’s plan states they may conduct facility walk through virtually instead of in person.

c. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 9 Reporting The Evaluation Team determined that the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Bidder did not include a sample report or toolkit as required.

d. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 12 and Attachment 1 Key Personnel The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Proposed key personnel do not have P2 or food and beverage experience.

b. Proposed key personnel who are in Michigan would not be doing the on-site technical assessments.

Total Score: 68/100 IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

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

VI. Award Recommendation Award recommendation is made to the responsive and responsible Bidder who offers the lowest price to the State of Michigan. Low price is determined by the Bidder who meets the requirements and offers the lowest overall price as demonstrated by its proposal.

Award Recommendation is made to Eastern Research Group in the amount of $401,570.48.

Version 2024-2 image1.png