RFP 260000002552 Bid Award Letter.docx
DOCX document 78 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- NIA1 761 270000000015 1
- Issued by
- Michigan
About this file
This is a Notice of Intent to Award from the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy (EGLE) for RFP 260000002522 Orphan Well Prequalification. The solicitation sought responses for contractor selection to provide orphan well plugging, drilling, re-drilling, and restoration services. The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on August 25, 2026, with a proposal due date of September 22, 2026, allowing 27 days for submission. Five bidders submitted proposals by the deadline. The contract term is one year and five months with no renewal options. Awards were recommended on October 12, 2026, to all five responsive and responsible bidders: Lease Management, Inc.; M&A Energy Services LLC; NuPointe Energy LLC; Plants and Goodwin, Inc.; and Team Services LLC.
Contract awards were recommended as follows: Lease Management, Inc. ($100,000), M&A Energy Services LLC ($200,000), NuPointe Energy LLC ($200,000), Plants and Goodwin, Inc. ($200,000), and Team Services LLC ($100,000), totaling $800,000. Evaluation was conducted by a Joint Evaluation Committee consisting of EGLE staff and assessed bidders on four equally weighted criteria (25 points each): Key Personnel, Business Owned Equipment List, Company's Technical Experience and Ability, and Vendor Questions Worksheet. None of the bidders qualified as Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Businesses. One bidder, Lease Management, Inc., qualified as a Geographically Disadvantaged Business Enterprise. Evaluation scores ranged from 80 to 95 points, with Plants and Goodwin, Inc. receiving the highest score of 95 points. Common deficiencies noted across multiple bidders included incomplete equipment inventories and gaps in technical experience documentation.
View the file
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Michigan.gov/MiProcurement
Michigan.gov/MiProcurement
AWARD RECOMMENDATION
| Notice of Intent to Award Number: 270000000015 |
| Notice of Intent to Award Date: 10/12/2026 |
The Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy’s Procurement office has completed the evaluation of RFP 260000002522 Orphan Well Prequalification and has recommended awards to the following bidders:
| Lease Management | $100,000 |
| M&A Energy Services | $200,000 |
| NuPointe Energy | $200,000 |
| Plants and Goodwin | $200,000 |
| Team Services | $100,000 |
Background Information:
This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor to provide orphan well plugging, drilling, re-drilling and restoration services. The term of this contract is one year and five months, with no renewal options.
Bidders:
The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on August 25, 2026, for 27 days. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of September 22, 2026.
| Bidder |
| Address, City, State, Zip Code |
| SDVOB* |
| GDBE** |
| Lease Management, Inc. |
| 503 Industrial Avenue |
Mt. Pleasant MI 48858
| No |
| Yes |
| M&A Energy Services LLC |
| 159 Perry Highway, Suite 106 |
Pittsburgh PA 15229
| No |
| No |
| NuPointe Energy LLC |
| 1323 West 600 South |
Warren IN 46792
| No |
| No |
| Plants and Goodwin, Inc. |
| 360 High Street |
Bradford PA 16701
| No |
| No |
| Team Services LLC |
| 1587 Enterprise Drive, Box 1104 |
Kalkaska MI 49646
| No |
| No |
*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
| Technical Evaluation Criteria |
| Weight |
| 1. |
| Key Personnel – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3.2 |
| 25 |
| 2. |
| Business Owned Equipment List – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3.5 |
| 25 |
| 3. |
| Company’s Technical Experience and Ability – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3.6 |
| 25 |
| 4. |
| Vendor Questions Worksheet |
| 25 |
| Total |
| 100 |
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:
Jim Armbruster, Manager EGLE/Geologic Resources Management Division Madeline Jazdzyk, Geology Specialist EGLE/Geologic Resources Management Division
Keith Kidder, Geology Specialist EGLE/Geologic Resources Management Division Lisa VanOstran, Procurement Manager EGLE/Finance Division
III. Evaluation Results A. Bidder # 1 – Lease Management, Inc.
The Evaluation Team determined that Lease Management, Inc., based on a score of 80, 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 3.2 Key Personnel The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.
2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3.5 Business Owned Equipment List The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:
a. The documentation indicates that the bidder lacks a full and verifiable inventory of necessary equipment.
3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3.6 Technical Experience The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:
a. Bidder’s response did not meet all requirements for technical experience.
4. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:
a. Bidder’s previous experience lacked detail about projects.
Total Score: 80/100 B. Bidder # 2 – M&A Energy Services LLC The Evaluation Team determined that M&A Energy Services LLC, based on a score of 93, 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 3.2 Key Personnel The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.
2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3.5 Business Owned Equipment List The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:
a. The documentation indicates that the bidder lacks a full and verifiable inventory of necessary equipment.
3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3.6 Technical Experience The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:
a. Bidder’s response did not meet all requirements for technical experience.
4. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were mostly satisfactory.
Total Score: 93/100 C. Bidder # 3 – NuPointe Energy LLC The Evaluation Team determined that NuPointe Energy LLC, based on a score of 93, 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 3.2 Key Personnel The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.
2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3.5 Business Owned Equipment List The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.
3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3.6 Technical Experience The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:
a. Bidder’s response did not meet all requirements for technical experience.
4. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:
a. Bidder’s previous experience was not exactly relevant to the size and scope of the RFP.
Total Score: 93/100 D. Bidder # 4 – Plants and Goodwin, Inc.
The Evaluation Team determined that Plants and Goodwin, Inc., based on a score of 95, 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 3.2 Key Personnel The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.
2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3.5 Business Owned Equipment List The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.
3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3.6 Technical Experience The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:
a. Bidder’s response did not meet all requirements for technical experience.
4. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.
Total Score: 95/100 E. Bidder # 5 – Team Services LLC The Evaluation Team determined that Team Services LLC, based on a score of 90, 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 3.2 Key Personnel The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.
2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3.5 Business Owned Equipment List The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:
a. The documentation indicates that the bidder lacks a full and verifiable inventory of necessary equipment.
3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3.6 Technical Experience The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:
a. Bidder’s response did not meet all requirements for technical experience.
4. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.
Total Score: 90/100 IV. Technical Evaluation Summary
| Selection Criteria |
| Lease Management |
| M&A Energy |
| NuPointe Energy |
| Plants and Goodwin |
| Team Services |
| 1 |
| Schedule A, SOW, Section 3.2 Key Personnel |
| 25 |
| 25 |
| 25 |
| 25 |
| 25 |
| 2 |
| Schedule A, SOW, Section 3.5 Business Owned Equipment List |
| 15 |
| 20 |
| 25 |
| 25 |
| 20 |
| 3 |
| Schedule A, SOW, Section 3.6 Technical Experience |
| 20 |
| 23 |
| 23 |
| 20 |
| 20 |
| 4 |
| Vendor Questions Worksheet |
| 20 |
| 25 |
| 20 |
| 25 |
| 25 |
| Total |
| 80 |
| 93 |
| 93 |
| 95 |
| 90 |
V. Award Recommendation Award recommendations are made to the responsive and responsible Bidders who met the requirements of the RFP. Contracts will be awarded to the following bidders:
Lease Management, Inc. in the amount of $100,000 M&A Energy Services LLC in the amount of $200,000 NuPointe Energy LLC in the amount of $200,000 Plants and Goodwin, Inc. in the amount of $200,000 Team Services LLC in the amount of $100,000
Version 2024-2 image1.png
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .