Notice of Intent to Award for Solicitation RFP #250000002760

The Michigan Department of Corrections and Department of Technology, Management, and Budget (DTMB) issued Request for Proposal (RFP) #250000002760 for Underground Storage Tank (UST) Inspection services across 14 correctional facilities and one DTMB building. The procurement sought a Type B Certified Underground Storage Tank Operator to perform comprehensive inspection services, including quarterly facility inspections, annual compliance testing for the Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA), and periodic cathodic protection tests. The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on July 11, 2025, with proposals due by August 27, 2025, representing a 48-calendar-day solicitation period. Three vendors submitted proposals: Phoenix Environmental, Inc., R. W. Mercer Co., and Soil Exploration Services, Inc. The Joint Evaluation Committee assessed proposals based on service requirements, staffing, contract requirements, and vendor questions, with technical evaluation scores ranging from 89 to 97 out of 100. The contract term is three years with up to five one-year renewal options, and the evaluation process focused on responsiveness, responsibility, and meeting all specified requirements.

The solicitation did not specify explicit set-aside designations or restrictions on respondent organization types. R. W. Mercer Co. was recommended for contract award at $365,553.00, pending State Administrative Board approval, despite having a lower technical evaluation score than Soil Exploration Services, Inc. The total estimated contract value is $2,736,639.98, with quarterly service prices varying between $300 and $1,130 per facility depending on location and contract year. Additional services include annual compliance tests priced at $2,000 per site and 3-year cycle compliance tests at $3,000 per site. Cathodic protection tests for specific facilities range from $875 to $2,228.59 per test. The pricing structure demonstrates incremental increases across base years and option years, with facility-specific pricing reflecting potential complexity or site-specific requirements. No pricing negotiations occurred that altered the original proposed amounts, and the award recommendation was primarily based on being the lowest-priced bidder meeting all procurement requirements.