MEMORANDUMJanuary 4, 2011

TO:Bill Walsh

Purchasing Operations

DTMB, Commodities Division

FROM:Michael Frezell, Vehicle Procurement Analyst

Bureau of Passenger Transportation

MDOT, Bus Acquisition and Intercity Transportation

SUBJECT:Evaluation Summary for Request for Proposal No. 071I0200250–

Small, Light-Duty, Non-Lift/Lift Passenger Buses with Alternate Seating

Reviewers

Fred Featherly / Michigan Department of Transportation
Rob Pearson / Michigan Department of Transportation
Michael Frezell / Michigan Department of Transportation

Statement of Work

This is a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Michigan Department of Transportation, Bureau of Passenger Transportation for small, light-duty, non-lift/lift passenger buses with alternate seating.

Background Information

This contract is for the purchase of small buses by Authorized Local Units of Government and Public Transit Agencies to be used in the provision of public transportation services throughout the State of Michigan.

All proposals were reviewed by the Michigan Department of Transportation in conjunction with the Department of Technology, Management and Budget, Purchasing Operations.

Bidders

The RFP was posted on the website onSeptember 1, 2010and the bid due date was October18, 2010. Bid notification was sent to 12 vendors via e-mail. The following four companies submitted timely proposals:

Vendor / City, State / Certified as Michigan Business
1. / Hoekstra Transportation, Inc. / Grand Rapids, MI / Y
2. / Midwest Transit Equipment / Kankakee, IL / Y
3. / Mobility Transportation Services / Canton, MI / Y
4. / Transportation Equipment Sales Corp. / Oregon, OH / N

Selection Criteria/Evaluation

Bidders were requested to provide detailed information relative to their ability to meet all of the specific requirements included in the RFP. Indicated below is a description of each of the specific requirements as well as a summary of each bidder’s response to the requirements.

Product Specifications (Appendix A) – 60 points possible

Hoekstra – 48 Points

Bidder Proposed Body Manufacturer: ElDorado National Inc.

When comparing the bidder’s offering to the Specifications in Appendix A, the following exceptions were noted:

  • Bidder does not offer a co-pilot/side passenger door and seat on the General Motors diesel bus.
  • Bidder did not provide dimensions for rubrails.
  • Bidder did not provide complete Altoona test reports for the buses bid. However, bidder did provide a letter stating the bus meets the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) “family of vehicles” concept (complete Atloona Report provided through clarifications).
  • Bidder proposes to use a 45,000 BTU rear heaterthat is 20,000 BTU less than other bidders.
  • Bidder did not provide wheelchair lift manufacturer specifications.
  • Main passenger side entrance door has a 26” clear opening when specification is 27” clear opening.
  • Bidder provides dual 1250 CCA batteries for the Ford while the General Motors has dual 770 CCA.

Conclusion:

Hoekstra offers a Ford gas chassis and a General Motors diesel chassis on an ElDorado bus for this bid. Only ElDorado’s Ford chassis offers the co-pilot/side passenger door and seat. Despite not offering a co-pilot/side passenger door and seat on the diesel chassis, the other exceptions listed above were determined to be minor deficiencies.

Midwest Transit Equipment – 47 Points

Bidder Proposed Body Manufacturer: STARTRANS BUS by SUPREME

When comparing the bidder’s offering to the Specifications in Appendix A, it was noted the bidder did not offer diesel chassis.

  • Bidder does not offer a co-pilot/side passenger door and seat on the General Motors diesel bus. Bidder originally submitted a no bid for a diesel chassis; however, due to a mistake to a vendor question answer, posted on September 28, 2010, a price was requested through clarifications.
  • Bidder did not provide anAltoona test report for the General Motors chassis.
  • Bidder provides a 33 gallon fuels tank for the General Motors chassis when specification is 35 gallon minimum.
  • Bidder did not provide material description for the branch guards.
  • Bidder did not list exceptions in part IX of the Cost Model/Evaluation form when there are clearly exceptions.

Conclusion:

Midwest Transit equipment offers a Ford gas chassis and a General Motors diesel chassis on an ElDorado bus for this bid. Only ElDorado’s Ford chassis offers the co-pilot/side passenger door and seat. Despite not offering a co-pilot/side passenger door and seat on the diesel chassis and an Altoona test report for the General Motors chassis, the other exceptions listed above were determined to be minor deficiencies.

Mobility Transportation Services – 52 points

Bidder Proposed Body Manufacturer: Champion Bus

When comparing the bidder’s offering to the Specifications in Appendix A, the following exceptions and comments were noted:

  • Steel skin on roof does not meet specification
  • Sub-flooring is not impervious to insects thus does not meet specification.
  • Bidder did not provide the BTU for the rear heater.
  • Bidder did not provide CCA specifications for the batteries.
  • Running boards are not to specification.

Conclusion:

Mobility Transportation’s proposal offers the General Motors chassis, on a Champion bus, for both gas and diesel. The Champion bus does offer the co-pilot/side passenger door and seat on both gas and diesel chassis. The major exceptions, in their bid,were steel skin for the roof panel not meeting specification, and the sub-flooring bid is not impervious to insects. However, the other exceptions listed above were determined to be minor deficiencies.

TESCO – 44 points

Bidder Proposed Body Manufacturer: Turtle Top.

When comparing the bidder’s offering to the Specifications in Appendix A, the following exceptions and comments were noted:

  • Akzo-Noble paint does not meet specifications.
  • Undercoating is water based “Patriot Pro” and does not meet specifications.
  • Bidder’s wheelchair restraint model does not meet specification.
  • Bidder did not provide CCA specifications for the batteries
  • Bidder provides a 33 gallon fuels tank for the General Motors chassis when specification is 35 gallon minimum.
  • Bidder provides a Sound-Off strobe light and not listed as an approved equal in the specifications.
  • Bidder provides “pebble color” for the interior color when light gray is specified.
  • Bidder did not provide entrance door and stepwell designs/drawings.

Conclusion:

TESCO’s proposal offers a Ford gas chassis and General Motors diesel chassis on a Turtle Top bus. The Turtle Top bus offers the co-pilot/side passenger seat for both gas and diesel chassis. The major exceptions in their bid were Akzo-Noble paint and water-based Patriot Pro undercoating not meeting specifications. However, the other exceptions listed above were determined to be minor deficiencies.

Prior Experience (Section 5.012) - 20 points possible

Hoekstra– 18 Points

  • Bidder has been in business for 81 years.
  • Bidder completed six contracts with State of Michigan.
  • Bidder has experience from past 10 years with delivery over 1,000 buses to Michigan transit agencies.
  • Bidder listed contracts with local transit agencies like Thunder Bay Transportation Authority and SMART.
  • Bidder did not provide contract costs.
  • Bidder did not provide contract start and ending dates.

Conclusion

Hoekstra Transportation has demonstrated capability to service size and scope of State of Michigan bus contracts

Midwest Transit Equipment – 15 Points

  • Bidder has been in business since 1973.
  • Bidder listed other state contracts; however, bidder did not provide contact names, addresses, and phone numbers
  • Bidder did not list any State of Michigan/MDOT contracts.
  • Bidder lacks individual vehicle contracts with Michigan transit agencies.

Conclusion

Midwest Transit Equipment currently only has two bus contracts but has demonstrated the ability to service size and scope of State of Michigan bus contracts.

Mobility Transportation Services – 16 points

  • Bidder did not provide contract start or end dates.
  • Bidder did not provide contract descriptions.
  • Bidder did not provide contract costs.
  • Bidder has no State of Michigan/MDOT contract experience.
  • Bidder has experience with local transit agency contracts and provide extensive list of contacts.

Conclusion

Mobility Transportation Services has no contract experience with the State of Michigan but has successfully serviced several contracts with many Michigan transit agencies. Based on the information provided, Mobility Transportation Services appears to have the capability to handle a State of Michigan bus contract.

TESCO – 19 points

  • Bidder provided the required references for the prior contracts including start and end dates plus costs.
  • Bidder no past state of Michigan/MDOT contract experience.
  • Bidder lacks individual contracts with Michigan transit agencies.

Conclusion

TESCO has no contract experience with the State of Michigan but has successfully serviced several contracts with other states and agencies. Based on the information provided, TESCO appears to have the capability to handle a State of Michigan bus contract.

Roles and Responsibilities (Sections 1.030, 1.041, 1.042, 1.051, 1.0705, 1.0706) – 10 Points possible

Hoekstra – 10 Points

  • Steve Bolin primary account manager.
  • Bidder provides adequate reporting information.
  • Bidder is an active participant in MPTA conferences and Transit Vehicle & Maintenance Seminar.
  • Bidder provides high level of training to transit agencies at their office.
  • RFP response shows qualified staffing, reporting, and the ability to meet production requirements.
  • Bidder offers seven locations as certified warranty centers
  • Bidder estimates production to begin 4-6 weeks after pilot is approved.
  • Bidder offers ordering with use of electronic authorization and tracking.

Conclusion

Hoekstra meets or exceeds customer service, ordering, and training expectations.

Midwest Transit Equipment – 10 Points

  • Salesperson is located in Illinois.
  • Bidder has service location in Michigan
  • Bidder provided procedures for ordering and uses in-house “bus-track.”
  • Bidder provides adequate reporting information.
  • Bidder provides training programs that includes electronic versions (DVD’s).
  • Bidder has provided limited group training
  • Bidder estimates a pre-pilot within 30 days of purchase order.
  • Bidder attends MPTA conferences and Transit Vehicle & Maintenance Seminar.

Conclusion

Midwest Transit Equipment meets or exceeds customer service and ordering expectations.

Mobility Transportation Services – 9 points

  • Dave Brown primary account and contract manager.
  • Agencies can send orders via fax, e-mail, or mail.
  • ISO 9001 Certified
  • Bidder will authorize transit agencies to perform warranty work.
  • Bidder complies with reporting requirements.
  • Bidder complies with the production schedule.
  • Bidder estimates production to begin 4-6 weeks after pilot is approved.
  • Bidder statement on warranty and service responsibility not clear.
  • Bidder is not involved with training at the Transit Vehicle and Maintenance Seminar.
  • Bidder did not mention any training opportunities at bidder’s facility.

Conclusion

Mobility Transportation Services appears to meet or exceed customer service and ordering expectations.

TESCO – 9 points

  • Jeff Scharff is the primary account manager.
  • Electronic ordering and tracking system.
  • Bidder provided detailed ordering information.
  • Bidder meets reporting requirements.
  • Bidder states they are knowledgeable about State of Michigan contracts; however, bidder has never been awarded a State of Michigan contract.
  • Bidder has no involvement in the Transit Vehicle & Maintenance Seminar in HigginsLake.

Conclusion

TESCO appears to meet or exceed customer service and ordering expectations despite never holding a State of Michigan bus contract.

Company Information/Capabilities (Section 5.011, 5.013, 5.015, 5.016, 5.017) – 5 points possible

Hoekstra– 4 Points

  • Sales and service facility located in Grand Rapids, Michigan
  • 25-40 Million annually in sales
  • Bidder provides adequate staffing levels with both the vendor and manufacturer.
  • No contract terminations
  • Bidder did not provide a list of subcontractors.

Conclusion

Based on the information provided, Hoekstra Transportation has demonstrated the ability to service a State of Michigan small bus contract.

Midwest Transit Equipment – 4 Points

  • Corporate office and salesperson in Kankakee, Illinois
  • Service facility in Eaton Rapids, Michigan
  • NevadaCorporaton
  • $215,000,000 in sales over the last 5 years.
  • Bidder provided list of staffing contacts.
  • Bidder provides adequate staffing levels with both the vendor and manufacturer.
  • No contract terminations

Conclusion

Based on the information provided, Midwest Transit Equipment has demonstrated the ability to service a State of Michigan small bus contract; however, the bidder does not have a dedicated salesperson in Michigan.

Mobility Transportation Services – 4 points

  • Michigan Corporation.
  • Sales and service facility in Canton, Michigan
  • Sales volume over $12,000,000 per year for the last five years.
  • Bidder listed Jamie Lipka as the Champion contact
  • No contract terminations
  • Bidder did not provide a list of service locations.

Conclusion

Based on the information provided, Mobility Transportation Services has the ability to service a State of Michigan bus contract.

TESCO – 5 points

  • Corporate headquarters in Ohio
  • Most of the servicing is in Ohio
  • $15 - $35 million in sales annually
  • Using Professional leasing in Michigan for some servicing.
  • Jeff Pappas is the RFP contact.
  • Phil Tom, Vice President of Turtle Top, is the subcontractor contact.
  • No contract termination.

Conclusion

Based on the information provided, TESCO has the ability to service a State of Michigan bus contract.

Deliver Capabilities (Section 1.0709) - 5 points possible

Hoekstra – 5 Points

  • Bidder agrees to 210 delivery terms with average 150 – 210 day range for delivery.
  • Bidder states availability of chassis may delay delivery.

Conclusion

Hoekstra has the ability to meet the delivery capabilities.

Midwest Transit Equipment – 5 Points

  • Bidder states delivery in 210 days is obtainable with it typically being 120 – 150 days.

Conclusion

Midwest Transit Equipment has the ability to meet the delivery capabilities.

Mobility Transportation Services – 5 points

  • Bidder agrees to the 210 day delivery term; however, offers delivery time of 90 days.

Conclusion

Mobility Transportation Services offers one of the best delivery time proposals; therefore, has the ability to meet the delivery capabilities.

TESCO – 5 points

  • Standard delivery is 120 days
  • Bidder will stock one unit for quick delivery offering a two week delivery if there is a popular configuration.

Conclusion

TESCO offers one of the best delivery time proposals and will stock a unit if there is a popular configuration; therefore, has the ability to meet the delivery capabilities.

Debarment/Suspension/Disclosure of Litigation (Section 5.017)
Verified Excluded Parties List System for all recommended bidders?
/ Yes No

Hoekstra

  • No litigation
  • Checked Excluded Parties List System for both Hoekstra Transportation and El Dorado National. Both entities returned no results on the system.

Midwest Transit Equipment

  • No litigation
  • Checked Excluded Parties List System for both Midwest Transit Equipment and Startrans. Both entities returned no results on the system.

Mobility Transportation Services

  • No litigation
  • Checked Excluded Parties List System for both Mobility Transportation Services and Champion Bus. Both entities returned no results on the system.

TESCO

  • No litigation
  • Checked Excluded Parties List System for both TESCO and Turtle Top Bus. Both entities returned no results on the system.

Total Point Comparison – Technical Evaluation

Bidder Name / Hoekstra / Midwest Transit
Equipment / Mobility
Transportation / TESCO
Step 1 – Technical Review
(100 points possible) / 86 / 81 / 86 / 81

Fourbidders met the minimum threshold of 80 points to be considered for award:

1. Hoekstra Transportation

2. Midwest Transit Equipment

3. Mobility Transportation Services

4. TESCO

Clarifications

Clarifications were conducted with Hoekstra and Midwest Transit Equipment. The clarifications results did not change the bid score for Hoekstra; however, the clarifications did make Midwest Transit Equipment’s bid responsive and did result in bid price change for adding the diesel engine and a diesel auxiliary heater option pricing to their proposal resulting in a $202,275 price increase.

Price Evaluation

Price Evaluation / Hoekstra Transportation / Midwest
Transit Equipment / Mobility Transportation
Services / TESCO
Original Bid / $2,887,965.00 / $2,765,320.00 / $3,120,110.00 / $3,395,955.00
- Total Deductions (through negotiations)
+ Change in Costs (through clarifications) / $202,275
New Revised Totals / $2,967,595.00

Award Recommendation

Hoekstra Transportation had few exceptions to the specifications. All other sections of their proposal met the requirements of the RFP and demonstrated their capability to service a contract of this size and scope. Hoekstra offers the lowest overall bid price,their services meet the RFP requirements and they represent the best value to the State. Therefore, Hoekstra is recommended for award.

MDOT was responsible for interpreting all information submitted, determining the quality of each vendor’s response to the requested information, and determining whether the information submitted demonstrated the bidder’s ability to sufficiently service the State.

Based on all of the information discussed above, the following bidder is recommended for award:Hoekstra Transportation

The total estimated contract value for Hoekstra Transportationis: $2,887,965.00

Was a JEC utilized?

Yes.No.

How was pricing submitted?

One Step.Multiple Step

How was pricing factored into the award decision?

Best Value/Lowest PriceBest Value/Combination of Score and Price

The award recommendation will be made to the responsive and responsible Vendor who offers the best value to the State of Michigan. Best value will be determined by the Vendor meeting the minimum point threshold and offering the best combination of the factors stated in Section 4.022, and price, as demonstrated by its proposal.

- 1 -