M E M O R A N D U M
TO:File
FROM:Mary Ostrowski, Buyer
DTMB - Purchasing Operations
DATE:March 30, 2010
SUBJECT:Award Summary for RFP 071I1300075 – Storage Distribution of Sexual Assault Kits
Background Information/General:
This request is for a three year contract with one six month option to provide services for Storage & Distribution of Sexual Assault Kits for Michigan State Police. The funding for the service is 100% General Funds.
Sexual Assault Evidence Collection kits are provided to hospitals, police agencies and rape crisis centers throughout the State of Michigan for the purpose of collecting evidence from suspect criminal sexual assault victims. The Contractor will serve as the point of contact as the receptor and distributor of the kits which are utilized by rape crisis centers and hospitals throughout the State of Michigan.
Joint Evaluation Committee (JEC):
The JEC for this RFP consisted of the following individuals:
Mary Ostrowski (Voting)Department of Technology, Management and Budget
Purchasing Operations
Suzanne Wilson (Voting)
Michigan State Police
Bidders:
The Request for Proposal (RFP) was posted on onJanuary 20, 2011 for four weeks. The following eight Bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of February 17, 2011:
Bidder / Address / City, State / Zip / SDVAffordable Neon Enterprises, Inc. / PO Box 427 / Marquette, MI / 49855 / No
Brian Hogan / 506 Garden Lane / Fowlerville, MI / 48836 / No
Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault / 3115 Isabella Street / Midland, MI / 48640 / No
Great Lakes Express Service, Inc. / 901 Call Street / Lansing, MI / 48906 / No
GSA International, Ltd. / 32500 Van Born Road, #600 / Wayne, MI / 48184 / Yes
Lockett Enterprises, LLC. / 310 E. Third Street / Flint, MI / 48502 / Yes
Patriot Solutions, LLC. / 7060 Placid Point Ct SE / Caledonia, MI / 49316 / Yes
University Moving and Storage Co. / 23305 Commerce Drive / Farmington Hills, MI / 48335 / No
3.022Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria
The following chart represents the scoring of the particular factors:
Weight1. / Statement of Work (Article 1) / 35
2. / Bidder Information (4.011) / 5
3. / Prior Experience (4.012) / 30
4. / Staffing (1.031 & 4.013) / 30
TOTAL: / 100
Oral Presentation
Bidders who submit proposals may be required to make oral presentations of their proposals to the State. These presentations provide an opportunity for the Bidders to clarify the proposals through mutual understanding. Purchasing Operations will schedule these presentations, if required.
Site Visit
The State may conduct a site visit to tour and inspect the Bidder’s facilities. Purchasing Operations will schedule these visits if required.
3.023Price Evaluation
(a) Only those proposals receiving a score of 80 points or more in the technical proposal evaluation will have their pricing evaluated to be considered for award.
(b) Evaluation of price proposals includes consideration for a Qualified Disabled Veteran Preference. 1984 PA 431, as amended, establishes a preference of up to 10% for businesses owned by qualified disabled veterans meeting the minimum point threshold for passing.
(c)The State reserves the right to consider economic impact on the State when evaluating proposal pricing. This includes, but is not limited to: job creation, job retention, tax revenue implications, and other economic considerations.
3.024Award Recommendation
The award recommendation will be made to the responsive and responsible Bidder who offers the best value to the State of Michigan. Best value will be determined by the Bidder meeting the minimum point threshold and offering the best combination of the factors stated in Section 3.022, and price, as demonstrated by its proposal.
Evaluation Results:
Affordable Neon Enterprises, Inc.
The JEC determined that Affordable Neon Enterprises, Inc.,based on a score of 80, couldmeet the requirements of the RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the selection criteria noted above.
- Statement of Work (Article 1 - excluding 1.031 which was evaluated under Staffing)
Score: 31/ 35
-Bidder did not specifically state compliance in their response to 1.021.
-Bidder did not addresswalk-ins or replying to questions in their response to 1.022.
-Bidder did not specifically address that they will comply on providing all information in Summary of Activity in 1.042.
- Bidder Information (4.011)
Score: 5 / 5
-The JEC determined Bidder met this requirement of the RFP with no exceptions.
- Prior Experience (4.012)
Score: 21/30
-Bidder provided minimal detail in their response.
-Bidder did not provide project costs.
-Bidder’s experiences are not relevant to storing and distributing product.
- Staffing (1.031 & 4.013)
Score: 23 / 30
-Bidder provided minimal detail in their response.
-Bidder’s resumes provide minimal detail.
-Bidder’s staff experiences are not relevant to storing and distributing product.
Total Score: 80/ 100
Brian Hogan
The JEC determined that Brian Hogan, based on a score of 67, could notmeet the requirements of the RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the selection criteria noted above.
- Statement of Work (Article 1 - excluding 1.031 which was evaluated under Staffing)
Score: 28/ 35
-Bidder provided minimal detail in their responses for Article 1.
-Bidder did not state their compliance to reporting requirements.
- Bidder Information (4.011)
Score: 4 / 5
-Bidder did not provide sales volume, they stated 0.0.
- Prior Experience (4.012)
Score: 16 / 30
-Bidder provided minimal detail of their 30 years of experience.
-Bidder did not provide three specific experiences, descriptions, costs, starting and completing dates, contact name, address, phone number, email.
-Unable to determine relevancy based on minimal detail.
- Staffing (1.031 & 4.013)
Score: 19 / 30
-Bidder providedminimal detail in their response.
-Bidder did not provide resumes.
Total Score: 67 / 100
Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (CDVSA)
The JEC determined CDVSA, based on a score of 92, could meet the requirements of the RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the selection criteria noted above.
- Statement of Work (Article 1 - excluding 1.031 which was evaluated under Staffing)
Score: 33 / 35
-Bidder did not specifically state compliance in their response to 1.021.
-Bidder did not specifically state compliance in their response to the reporting requirements.
- Bidder Information (4.011)
Score: 4 / 5
-Bidder did not provide sales volume, they stated N/A.
- Prior Experience (4.012)
Score: 27 / 30
-Bidder’s provided grants as two of their prior experiences. These experiences are not relevant to storing and distributing product.
- Staffing (1.031 & 4.013)
Score: 28 / 30
-Bidder’s two of three staff experiences are not relevant to storing and distributing product.
Total Score: 92 / 100
Great Lakes Express Service, Inc.
The JEC determined that Great Lakes Express Service, Inc., based on a score of 74, could not meet the requirements of the RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the selection criteria noted above.
- Statement of Work (Article 1 - excluding 1.031 which was evaluated under Staffing)
Score: 33/ 35
-Bidder provided minimal detail in their responses for Article 1.
- Bidder Information (4.011)
Score: 5 / 5
-The JEC determined Biddermet this requirement of the RFP with no exceptions.
- Prior Experience (4.012)
Score: 17 /30
-Bidder provided minimal detail in their response.
-Bidder did not provide three specific experiences, costs, starting and completing dates, contact name, address, phone number, email.
- Staffing (1.031 & 4.013)
Score: 19 / 30
-Bidder provided minimal detail in their response.
-Bidderdid not provide resumes.
Total Score: 74 / 100
GSA International, Ltd.
The JEC determined that GSA International, Ltd., based on a score of 42, could not meet the requirements of the RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the selection criteria noted above.
- Statement of Work (Article 1 - excluding 1.031 which was evaluated under Staffing)
Score: 0/ 35
-Bidder did not respond to Article 1.
- Bidder Information (4.011)
Score: 4 / 5
-Bidder provided only four of five sales volumes by year.
- Prior Experience (4.012)
Score: 24 / 30
-Bidder did not provide costs, and start and complete dates for their three experiences.
- Staffing (1.031 & 4.013)
Score: 14 / 30
-Bidder did not respond to 1.031
-The JEC has concerns with only one staff assigned to the project.
Total Score: 42/ 100
Lockett Enterprises, LLC
The JEC determined that Lockett Enterprises, LLC, based on a score of 72, could not meet the requirements of the RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the selection criteria noted above.
- Statement of Work (Article 1 - excluding 1.031 which was evaluated under Staffing)
Score: 32/ 35
-Bidder provided minimal detail in their responses for Article 1.
-Bidder did not specifically state compliance to storage requirements in their response to 1.022.
- Bidder Information (4.011)
Score: 3 / 5
-Bidder did not provide sales volume by year.
-The JEC has concerns with the short length of time Bidder has been in business.
- Prior Experience (4.012)
Score: 18/ 30
-Bidder provided minimal detail in their response.
-Bidder did not provide costs for their experiences.
-Bidder’s experiences are not relevant to storing and distributing product.
-Bidder’s PurchaseOrderexperiences are not relevant to the duration of this Contract (five years)
- Staffing (1.031 & 4.013)
Score: 19 / 30
-The JEC has concerns with only one staff assigned to the project.
-Bidder provided no detail in their response.
-Bidder staff experience is minimally relevant to storing and distributing product.
-Bidder did not specifically state that they will not be using subcontractors for this Contract, only states about prior.
Total Score: 72 / 100
Patriot Solutions, LLC
The JEC determined that Patriot Solutions, LLC, based on a score of 90, could meet the requirements of the RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the selection criteria noted above.
- Statement of Work (Article 1 - excluding 1.031 which was evaluated under Staffing)
Score: 35/ 35
-The JEC determined Biddermet this requirement of the RFP with no exceptions.
- Bidder Information (4.011)
Score: 4 / 5
-The JEC has concerns with the short length of time Bidder has been in business.
- Prior Experience (4.012)
Score: 24 / 30
-Bidder provided minimal detail on their responsibilities with the two Contracts they provided as part of their response to the three requested prior experiences.
-Bidder’s experiences are minimally relevant to storing and distributing product.
-Bidder’s Purchase Order experience is not relevant to the duration of this Contract (five years).
-References provided that are Contracts have only been serviced for a short period of time.
- Staffing (1.031 & 4.013)
Score: 27 / 30
-Bidder’s staff experiences are minimally relevant to storing and distributing product.
Total Score: 90 / 100
University Moving and Storage Co.
The JEC determined that University Moving and Storage Co., based on a score of 81, could meet the requirements of the RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the selection criteria noted above.
- Statement of Work (Article 1 - excluding 1.031 which was evaluated under Staffing)
Score: 33/ 35
-Bidder provided minimal detail in their responses for Article 1.
- Bidder Information (4.011)
Score: 5 / 5
-The JEC determined Biddermet this requirement of the RFP with no exceptions.
- Prior Experience (4.012)
Score: 24 / 30
-Bidder did not provide costs on experience one of three.
-Bidder’s experiences are not relevant to storing and distributing product.
- Staffing (1.031 & 4.013)
Score: 19 / 30
-The JEC has concerns with only one staff assigned to the project.
-Bidder provided no detail in their response.
-Bidder’s resumes provide minimal detail.
-Bidder’s staff experience is minimally relevant to storing and distributing product.
Total Score: 81 / 100
Pricing Summary:
A reduced price proposal was requested from the four bidders who passed the technical evaluation. They were also notified of the scope change of a five year contract to a three year contract. The bidders were able to provide the discounts shown below. Of the four passing bidders, there is one Service Disabled Veteran,Patriot Solutions, LLC. Due to Patriot Solution’s competitive pricing, the “up to 10%” preference is irrelevant.
Initial Bid / Affordable Neon Enterprises, Inc. / Council on Domestic Violence & Assault / Patriot Solutions, LLC. / University Moving & Storage Co.Unit Cost / $448.00 / $47.66 / $47.43 / $52.80
Annual Cost / $125,440.00 / $13,345.00 / $13,280.40 / $14,784.00
Total Cost (5 Yr.) / $627,200.00 / $66,725.00 / $66,402.00 / $73,920.00
Quick Payment Terms / 1%, 20 Days / None / None / None
Revised Bid / Affordable Neon Enterprises, Inc. / Council on Domestic Violence & Assault / Patriot Solutions, LLC. / University Moving & Storage Co.
Unit Cost / $398.75 / $47.66 / $41.85 / $51.20
Annual Cost / $111,650.00 / $13,345.00 / $11,718.00 / $14,336.00
Total Cost (3 Yr.) / $334,950.00 / $40,035.00 / $35,154.00 / $43,008.00
Quick Payment Terms / None / 5%, 30 Days / None / None
Award Recommendation:
Theaward recommendationis made to the responsive and responsible Bidder who passed theTechnical Evaluation and offered the Best Value to the State of Michigan.
Based on all of the information discussed above, the award is recommended to Patriot Solutions, LLC in the amount of $35,154.00.
Signatures:
Mary Ostrowski SignatureDate
Suzanne WilsonSignatureDate