Two Way Radio- Award Letter and Synopsis- NIA1 21-0380.pdf

Version 4 Revised: 8/2019

Award Recommendation Notice of Intent to Award Number: 210000000380

The Department of Technology, Management, & Budget’s Procurement office has completed the evaluation of RFP # 200000002445, Two-Way Radio and Radio Systems Sales and Service, and has recommended an award to EF Johnson and L3Harris in the amount of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) each, 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:

Valerie Hiltz, Solicitation Manager hiltzv@michigan.gov 517-249-0459

Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor to provide Two-Way Radio and Radios Systems equipment. The term of this contract is five years, with up to three additional one-year renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on September 30, 2020 and was available for review for twenty four days. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of October 23, 2020.

Bidder Address City, State Zip

SDVOB*

E.F. Johnson Company, Inc. 1440 Corporate Drive, Irving, TX 75038 No Electro Magwave, Inc.

6111 Carey Dr., Unit 1, Valley View, OH 44125

No

L3Harris Technologies, Inc.

221 Jefferson Ridge Parkway, Lynchburg VA 24501

No

Tele-Rad, Inc. 511 E. 8th Street, Holland, MI 49423 No

*SDVOB: Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Business

STATE OF MICHIGAN PROCUREMENT

DTMB Central Procurement 525 W. Allegan St, 1st Floor NE Lansing, MI 48933 https://www.michigan.gov/dtmb/0,5552,7-358-82550_85746_48756---,00.html

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, Mandatory Minimum Requirements

7. MANDATORY MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS. To avoid disqualification, if the bidder is not the manufacturer but claims to be a manufacturer’s representative, dealer, distributor, or authorized reseller, the bidder must provide with their solicitation response a copy of the official manufacturer’s documentation to support the claim.

Proposal Instructions, Evaluation Process

8. EVALUATION PROCESS. If all mandatory minimum requirements are met 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

2. Services – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2 50

3. Pricing – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 4 20

4. Delivery, Shipping and Packaging- Schedule A, Section 6 10

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet 10 Total 100

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

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

II. Evaluation Method

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

Voting Valerie Hiltz, Category Specialist, Solicitation Manager DTMB/ Central Procurement Services, Commodities Division Kate Jannereth, Deputy Director DTMB/ Administrative and Programming Division, MPSCS Kasey Mlujaek, MDOC/ Jackson Regional Offices, Radio Shop Paul Rogers, Fire Prevention Specialist DNR/ Fire Prevention

III. Evaluation Results

A. Bidder # 1- E.F. Johnson Company, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that E.F. Johnson Company, Inc., 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. General Requirements – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory with no deficiencies noted.

Score: 10/10

2. Services – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 2.5. SLA’s: The bidder did not agree with the contract specifications and took exception to this section. They wanted this to be negotiated on a case-by-case basis.

Score: 46/50

3. Pricing – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 4

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory with no deficiencies noted.

Score: 20/20

4. Delivery, Shipping and Packaging- Schedule A, Section 6

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory with no deficiencies noted.

Score: 10/10

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 6. Standard Contract Terms: Bidder did not accept the Standard Terms with no exceptions, redlines were presented.

b. Section 7. Michigan Economic Impact: Bidder indicated that no direct employees reside within the State of Michigan.

Score 7/10 Total Score: 93/100

B. Bidder #2- Electro Magwave, Inc.

Electro Magwave, Inc. has not met the requirements of being responsive and responsible due to their not completing the necessary solicitation response documents thus making it impossible for the JEC to complete a Technical Evaluation.

C. Bidder #3- L3Harris Technologies, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that L3Harris Technologies, Inc., based on a score of 97, did 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 determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.3. Recall Requirements and Procedures. The bidder did not respond to the question regarding recall requirements and procedures, but instead offered information on repair and returns.

Score: 9/10

2. Services – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory with no deficiencies noted.

Score: 50/50

3. Pricing – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 4

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory with no deficiencies noted.

Score: 20/20

4. Delivery, Shipping and Packaging- Schedule A, Section 6

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory with no deficiencies noted.

Score: 10/10

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 6. Standard Contract Terms: Bidder did not accept the Standard Terms with no exceptions, redlines were presented.

Score 8/10 Total Score: 97/100

D. Bidder #4- Tele-Rad, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Tele-Rad, Inc., based on a score of 69.25, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria. This bidder bid on providing Unication pagers and Motorola Products which were specifically excluded from this solicitation as noted in Schedule A. Scope:

1. General Requirements – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.2. Third Party Warranty. The bidder did not provide the names and addresses to contract for warranty claims.

b. Section 1.3. Recall Requirements and Procedures. The bidder did not provide detailed information regarding the recall procedures.

c. Section 1.4. Quality Assurance Program. The bidder did not provide detailed information explaining their quality assurance program.

Score: 8.25/10

2. Services – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 2.1.A. System Engineering. The bidder indicated N/A but did not indicated if this was relative to Motorola or Unication or both.

b. Section 2.1.B. Installation. The bidder provided information regarding Motorola, which is not part of this solicitation. They were silent with regard to Unication.

c. Section 2.1.C. Maintenance. The bidder did not provide any information regarding Unication maintenance if any.

d. Section 2.1.F. System Hardware Upgrades. The bidder indicated N/A but did not indicated if this was relative to Motorola or Unication or both.

e. Section 2.1.G. Software Upgrades. The bidder did not indicate how this would be delivered or how often.

f. Section 2.1.H. Training. The bidder indicated N/A but did not indicated if this was relative to Motorola or Unication or both. Did not indicate if additional training was available for Unication at an additional cost. Insufficient information.

g. Section 2.3. Reporting. Bidder did not explain their reporting capabilities.

h. Section 2.5. SLA’s. The bidder did not use the final version of the solicitation for their response and did not provide acceptance of this requirement.

Score: 23/50

3. Pricing – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 4 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory with no deficiencies noted.

Score: 20/20

4. Delivery, Shipping and Packaging- Schedule A, Section 6

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 6.1 Shipping. The bidder did not indicate if whether or not there were any quantity limitations.

Score: 9/10

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory with no deficiencies noted.

Score 10/10 Total Score: 70.25/100

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

Selection Criteria E.F. Johnson L3Harris Tele-Rad 1 General Requirements – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1 10 9 8.25

2 Services – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2

46 50 23

3 Pricing – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 4

20 20 20

4 Delivery, Shipping and Packaging- Schedule A, Section 6

10 10 9

5 Vendor Questions Worksheet 7 8 10 Total 93 97 70.25

V. Pricing Summary

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

E.F. Johnson E.F. Johnson did not offer quick pay discounts. They offered a flat discount percentage off manufactured list price of 20% for products they manufactured with no discounts on third party products. Service will be charged at manufacturer’s list pricing without any discount.

L3Harris L3Harris offered a quick payment discount of 1% if payment is made within 15 days of receipt of invoice.

The discount percentage off manufacturer list price they offered ranged from 10% up to 45% for catalog items dependent on the equipment class. Service and non-catalog items will be charged at manufacturers list pricing without any discounts.

VI. Negotiations Negotiations were entered into with both bidders.

E.F. Johnson agreed to the SLA’s as written in the solicitation documents.

A more robust and definitive discount off of list structure was negotiated with L3Harris.

Both Bidders had provided licensing agreements for software imbedded in the equipment. These were rejected as unacceptable by the State. The State provided to the bidders for review additional standard software language as approved by the Attorney General’s staff and Michigan Cyber Security and Schedules C and D to be made part of the contract. Both bidders came to a final agreement with regard to incorporate this language into the resulting contracts.

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.

Both E.F. Johnson Company, Inc. and L3Harris Technologies, Inc. provided a best value offerings to the State.

Best value factors for Award Recommendation include their ability to sell and service their company’s manufactured and branded products by utilizing Michigan based employees and subcontractors, and their willingness to work within the confines of our MiDeal agreements. Award Recommendation is made to both E.F. Johnson Company, Inc. and L3Harris Technologies, Inc. in the amount of $1,000,000.00 each.