RFP No. 210000000561 - Filing Systems for Correctional Facilities - Award Recommendation & Synopsis .pdf

Version 4 Revised: 8/2019

Award Recommendation

Notice of Intent to Award Number: 210000000311

The Department of Corrections, Procurement office has completed the evaluation of Request for Proposal No.

210000000561, Filing Systems for Correctional Facilities and has recommended an award to Tab Products Co, LLC in the amount of $114,678.00.

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:

Ethan Todd, Solicitation Manager todde1@michigan.gov

517-241-5056

Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor to provide Filing

Systems for Correctional Facilities. The term of this contract is three years, with up to two, one-year renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on December 30,2020. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of February 16, 2021.

Bidder Address City, State Zip

SDVOB*

American Filing Solutions Inc

2855 Forest Creek Lane Naperville IL - 60565

No

The Casper Corporation

24081 Research Dr. Farmington Hills, MI 48335

No

Filetech Systems, Inc

30319 Clubhouse, Farmington Hills, MI 48334 No

Tab Products Co, LLC 605 4th Street, Mayville, WI 53050 No

*SDVOB: Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Business

STATE OF MICHIGAN PROCUREMENT

Department of Corrections 206 E. Michigan Ave.

Lansing, MI 48933 mailto:todde1@michigan.gov

Version 4 Revised: 8/2019

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 State will evaluate each proposal based on the following factors:

Technical Evaluation Criteria Weight

1. General Requirements - Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1. 30

2. Service Requirements - Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2. 20

3. Staffing - Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 3. 20

4. Other Requirements - Schedule A, State of Work, Sections 4. - 12. 10

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet 20

Total 100

Proposals receiving 80 or more technical evaluation points will have pricing evaluated and considered for award.

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:

Voting Advisory

Rachel Johnson, Office Records Supervisor Correctional Facilities Administration

Matthew Jex, Contract Monitor Procurement, Monitoring, and Compliance Division

Melissa Signor, Office Records Supervisor Correctional Facilities Administration

Ethan Todd, Buyer Procurement, Monitoring, and Compliance Division

III. Evaluation Results

A. American Filing Solutions Inc The Evaluation Team determined that American Filing Solutions Inc based on a score of 65, 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, Section 1., the Evaluation Team noted the following deficiencies:

a. Under section 1.1 Product Specifications the capacity of the proposed filing system for Charles Egeler Reception & Guidance Center (RGC) was not within the capacity range provided by MDOC, and no exception was stated.

b. Under section 1.1 Product Specifications the capacity of the proposed filing system for Cooper Street Correctional Facility (JCS) was not within the capacity range provided by MDOC, and no exception was stated.

c. Under section 1.1 Product Specifications the capacity of the proposed filing system for G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility (JCF) was not within the capacity range provided by MDOC, the 3rd shelf from the bottom did not have a vertical clearance of 12 ¾”, and no exception was stated.

d. Under section 1.1 Product Specifications the capacity of the proposed filing system for Parnall Correctional Facility (SMT) was not within the capacity range provided by MDOC, and no exception was stated.

e. Under section 1.1 Product Specifications the capacity of the proposed filing system for E.C. Brooks Correctional Facility (LRF) was not within the capacity range provided by MDOC, and no exception was stated.

f. Under section 1.1 Product Specifications the capacity of the proposed filing system for Michigan Reformatory (RMI) was not within the capacity range provided by MDOC, and no exception was stated.

g. Under section 1.1 Product Specifications the capacity of the proposed filing system for St. Louis Correctional Facility (SLF) was not within the capacity range provided by MDOC, and no exception was stated.

h. Under section 1.1, G. Project Necessary Steps the JEC did not find enough detail for necessary steps, responsibilities, and coordination necessary to make the project successful, from contract award, delivery, installation, to contract ending for the Contractor and MDOC. The JEC did not find enough detail whether installation can occur concurrently or sequentially.

General Requirements Score 12/30

2. Service Requirements - Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2., the Evaluation Team noted the following deficiencies:

a. Under section 2.1 Time Frames the JEC did not find a comprehensive response concerning how all filing systems will be delivered, installed, and pass acceptance testing within 90 calendar days of the Effective Date of the Contract.

b. Under section 2.3 Installation, A., the JEC did not find enough detail in the response.

Service Requirements Score 12/20

3. Staffing - Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 3., the Evaluation Team determined that overall the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Under section 3.1 Contractor Representative the JEC did not find the information requested.

Staffing 18/20

4. Other Requirements - Schedule A, State of Work, Sections 4. - 12., the Evaluation Team determined that overall the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Under section 6.1 Delivery Methods, the JEC did not agree to the proposed delivery method. MDOC cannot have filing systems delivered before installation.

Other Requirements 8/10

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

a. Under section 5., Experience 1, the JEC did not find the experience to be the same size as this project.

b. Under section 5., Experience 3, the JEC did not find the experience to be the same size as this project.

Vendor Questions Worksheet 16/20

Total Score: 66/100

B. The Casper Corporation The Evaluation Team determined that The Casper Corporation based on a score of 82, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

a. Under section 1.1 Product Specifications for Charles Egeler Reception & Guidance Center (RGC) the proposed filing system did not have a top shelf with vertical clearance of 12 3/4'”, and no exception was proposed for this difference. The JEC acknowledged the exception noted in the answer. However, it is essential for this location to have adjustable file dividers (free to move along the leading front edge of each shelf to support files).

b. Under section 1.1 Product Specifications the capacity of the proposed filing system for G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility (JCF) was not within the capacity range provided by MDOC, the 3rd shelf from the bottom did not have a vertical clearance of 12 ¾”, and no exception was proposed.

c. Under section 1.1 Product Specifications the capacity of the proposed filing system for Parnall Correctional Facility (SMT) was not within the capacity range provided by MDOC, and no exception was proposed.

d. Under section 1.1 Product Specifications the capacity of the proposed filing system for E.C. Brooks Correctional Facility (LRF) was not within the capacity range provided by MDOC, and no exception was proposed.

e. Under section 1.1 Product Specifications the capacity of the proposed filing system for Thumb Correctional Facility (TCF) was not within the capacity range provided by MDOC, and no exception was proposed.

f. Under section 1.1 Product Specifications the capacity of the proposed filing system for St. Louis Correctional Facility (SLF) was not within the capacity range provided by MDOC, and no exception was proposed.

g. Under section 1.1, G. Project Necessary Steps the JEC did not find enough detail for necessary steps, responsibilities, and coordination necessary to make the project successful, from contract award, delivery, installation, to contract ending for the Contractor and MDOC.

General Requirements Score 14/30 were noted:

a. Under section 2.1 Time Frames the JEC did not find enough detail in the comprehensive response concerning how all filing systems will be delivered, installed, and pass acceptance testing within 90 calendar days of the Effective Date of the Contract.

Service Requirements Score 17/20 overall, the responses were satisfactory and did not find any deficiencies.

Staffing 20/20 determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and did not find any deficiencies.

Other Requirements 10/10

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet, the Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and did not find any deficiencies.

Vendor Questions Worksheet 20/20

Total Score: 81/100

C. Filetech Systems, Inc The Evaluation Team determined that Filetech Systems, Inc based on a score of 75, did not meet the

a. Under section 1.1 Product Specifications the capacity of the proposed filing system for Charles Egeler Reception & Guidance Center (RGC) was not within the capacity range provided by MDOC, and no exception was proposed.

b. Under section 1.1 Product Specifications the capacity of the proposed filing system for Cooper Street Correctional Facility (JCS) was not within the capacity range provided by MDOC, and no exception was proposed.

c. Under section 1.1 Product Specifications the capacity of the proposed filing system for G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility (JCF) was not within the capacity range provided by MDOC, the 3rd shelf from the bottom did not have a vertical clearance of 12 ¾”, and no exception was proposed.

d. Under section 1.1 Product Specifications the capacity of the proposed filing system for Parnall Correctional Facility (SMT) was not within the capacity range provided by MDOC, and no exception was proposed.

e. Under section 1.1 Product Specifications the capacity of the proposed filing system for E.C. Brooks Correctional Facility (LRF) was not within the capacity range provided by MDOC, and no exception was proposed.

f. Under section 1.1 Product Specifications the capacity of the proposed filing system for Michigan Reformatory (RMI) was not within the capacity range provided by MDOC, and no exception was proposed.

g. Under section 1.1 Product Specifications the capacity of the proposed filing system for St. Louis Correctional Facility (SLF) was not within the capacity range provided by MDOC, and no exception was proposed.

h. Under section 1.1, G. Project Necessary Steps the JEC did not find enough detail for necessary steps, responsibilities, and coordination necessary to make the project successful, from contract award, delivery, installation, to contract ending for the Contractor and MDOC. The JEC did not find enough detail whether installation can occur concurrently or sequentially.

General Requirements Score 12/30 noted the following deficiencies:

a. Under section 2.1 Time Frames the JEC does not want visits to facilities to occur after contract award to confirm fit and measurements for new systems. Also, the comprehensive response provided could go over 90 calendar days.

b. Under section 2.6 Training the JEC did not find an explanation of the bidders training capabilities and any training that is included in its proposal.

Service Requirements Score 15/20

a. Staffing - Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 3., the Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and did not find any deficiencies.

Staffing 20/20

3. Other Requirements - Schedule A, State of Work, Sections 4. - 12., the Evaluation Team

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

a. Under section 5., Experience 1, the JEC did not find the experience to be the same scope as this project.

Vendor Questions Worksheet 18/20

Total Score: 75/100

D. Tab Products Co, LLC The Evaluation Team determined that Tab Products Co, LCC based on a score of 86, did meet the

1. General Requirements - Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1., the Evaluation Team determined noted the following:

a. Under section 1.1 Product Specifications the capacity of the proposed filing system for Charles Egeler Reception & Guidance Center (RGC) was not provided.

b. Under section 1.1 Product Specifications the capacity of the proposed filing system for Cooper Street Correctional Facility (JCS) was not within the capacity range provided by MDOC, and no exception was proposed.

c. Under section 1.1 Product Specifications the capacity of the proposed filing system for Parnall Correctional Facility (SMT) was not within the capacity range provided by MDOC, and no exception was proposed.

d. Under section 1.1, G. Project Necessary Steps the JEC did not find enough detail for necessary steps, responsibilities, and coordination necessary to make the project successful, from contract award, delivery, installation, to contract ending for the Contractor and MDOC.

General Requirements Score 22/30 were noted:

a. Under section 2.6 Training the JEC did not find an explanation of the bidders training capabilities and any training that is included in its proposal.

b. Under section 2.3 Installation, A., the JEC did not find a response to how once on-site to install, how long does each installation step take for the proposed filing system.

Service Requirements Score 16/20 overall the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Under section 3.7 Disclosure of Subcontractors, Manufactures, Installers, and/or Major Suppliers, the JEC did not find all information for each subcontractor, manufacturer, or major supplier.

Staffing 18/20

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet, the Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and did not find any deficiencies.

Vendor Questions Worksheet 20/20

Total Score: 86/100

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

Technical Evaluation Criteria

Weight American Filing Solutions Inc

The Casper Corporation

Filetech Systems, Inc

Tab Products Co, LLC

1 General Requirements

- Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1.

30 12 14

12 22

2 Service Requirements

- Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2.

20 12 17 15 16

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

20 18 20 20 18

4 Other Requirements - Schedule A, State of Work, Sections 4. - 12.

10 8 10 10 10

5 Vendor Questions Worksheet

20 16 20 18 20

Total 66 81 75 86

VI. Pricing Summary

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

Filing System by Facility

The Casper Corporation

Tab Products Co, LLC

1 Charles Egeler Reception & Guidance Center

(RGC)

$17,479.00 $17,808.00

2 Cooper Street Correctional Facility

(JCS)

$15,802.00 $13,825.00

3 G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility

(JCF)

$10,916.00 $9,254.00

4 Parnall Correctional Facility (SMT)

$10,818.00 $9,988.00

5 E.C. Brooks Correctional Facility

(LRF)

$15,900.00 $15,275.00

6 Michigan Reformatory (RMI)

$21,488.00 $17,098.00

7 Thumb Correctional Facility (TCF)

$17,951.00 $15,955.00

8 St. Louis Correctional Facility

(SLF)

$16,407.00 $15,475.00

Total Price $126,761.00 $114,678.00

VII. Negotiations:

Best pricing was asked for the bidders who passed technical. The following is a summary of the price proposals after negotiations:

Filing System by Facility

The Casper Corporation

Tab Products Co, LLC

1 Charles Egeler Reception & Guidance Center

(RGC)

$17,479.00 $17,808.00

2 Cooper Street Correctional Facility

(JCS)

$15,802.00 $13,825.00

3 G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility

(JCF)

$10,916.00 $9,254.00

4 Parnall Correctional Facility (SMT)

$10,818.00 $9,988.00

5 E.C. Brooks Correctional Facility

(LRF)

$15,900.00 $15,275.00

6 Michigan Reformatory (RMI)

$21,488.00 $17,098.00

7 Thumb Correctional Facility (TCF)

$17,951.00 $15,955.00

8 St. Louis Correctional Facility

(SLF)

$16,407.00 $15,475.00

Total Price $126,761.00 $114,678.00

VIII. 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. Tab

Products Co, LLC provided the best value to the State. Best value factors for Award Recommendation include

Total Price and responses provided for each facility under 1.1 Product Specifications, including the Bidder meeting all adjustable file divider specifications, providing drawings displaying exact locations of filing system placement within each filing system area, and providing the locations of each work/reference shelf. Award

Recommendation is made to Tab Products Co, LLC in the amount of $114,678.00.