ITB 071I7000400



M E M O R A N D U M

TO: Rebecca Cook, Acting Commodities Division Director

DTMB - Procurement

FROM: Jim Wilson, Buyer Specialist

DTMB – Procurement, Commodities Division

DATE: 3/12/13

SUBJECT: Evaluation Synopsis for RFP #071I3200001 – Fleet Management Services

Background Information / General:

This is a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the provision of vehicles and an array of associated fleet management services.

The products and services desired by the State include the following: new and used vehicles, vehicle selection and acquisition services, vehicle capital cost financing, vehicle maintenance and repair and associated vendor management and payment services, accident management and subrogation services, vehicle remarketing services, provision of seasonal-use vehicles, provision and management of a commercial fuel card, and management analysis and reporting tools and services.

The Vehicle and Travel Services Division (VTS) of the Office of Support Services (OSS) of the Department of Technology, Management & Budget (DTMB) provides fleet management services for the State’s mostly centralized fleet. In addition to its fleet service activities, VTS is also charged by State statute with certain regulatory responsibilities including oversight of agency compliance with fleet-related rules and regulations, implementation of executive directives, and consolidated management reporting. VTS has a staff of 34 and a projected budget operating expense budget of $58.7 million for FY 2012. All capital and operating costs borne by VTS in furnishing vehicles and fleet management services to other State agencies are financed through a cost charge-back system. The proceeds of fleet user charges are accounted for in the State’s Motor Transport Fund.

State vehicles are operated by 17 agencies along with additional users such as the legislature, judiciary and higher education institutions. The State fleet includes many different types of vehicles including standard sedans, patrol cars, pickup trucks, buses, front-end loaders, heavy trucks, utility carts, and others. The majority of these services are provided through contracts with a fleet management company (currently Wheels, Inc.).

Bid Evaluation Method:

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

Voting:

Jim Wilson- DTMB

Joyce Van Coevering - DTMB

Sherri Irwin - MSP

Sharon Maynard – DNR

Sharon Lycos – LARA

Ron Foss – DTMB

Non-Voting:

Deb Stevens – DTMB

Roy Cischke- DTMB

| | |

| | |

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on the internet 8/30/2012 and was available for 67 days with a published due date of 11/7/2012. The following Bidders submitted proposals in response to this RFP:

|Bidder |City, State |Michigan Business |CRO |SDVOB |

|Wheels, Inc. |Des Plaines, IL |No |No |No |

|Automotive Resources International (ARI) |Mount Laurel, NJ |No |No |No |

|*Sutton Leasing |Sterling Heights, MI |Yes |No |No |

|*PHH Vehicle Management Services |Sparks, MD |No |No |No |

*Bidders submitted joint bids.

Selection Criteria and Evaluation:

3.021 Method of Evaluation

In awarding the Contract, proposals will be evaluated by a Joint Evaluation Committee (JEC) (chaired by DTMB Procurement).

3.022 Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria

The following chart represents the scoring of the particular factors:

|Weight |

|1. |Statement of Work (Article 1) |45 |

|2. |Prior Experience (4.012) |30 |

|3. |Staffing (1.031 & 4.013) |20 |

|4. |Bidder Information (4.011) |5 |

|TOTAL |100 |

The State reserves the right to request financial information from Bidders who score 80 points or more in their Technical Proposal, as provided in Section 3.043 (Financial Stability).

Oral Presentation/System Demonstration

Bidders who submit proposals may be required to make oral presentations of their proposals to the State (which includes “live” system demonstrations). These presentations provide an opportunity for the Bidders to clarify the proposals through mutual understanding. DTMB-Procurement will schedule these presentations, if required.

Site Visit

The State may conduct a site visit to tour and inspect the Bidder’s facilities. DTMB-Procurement will schedule these visits if required.

3.023 Price 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.

3.024 Award 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.

3.025 Reservations

(a) The State reserves the right to consider total cost of ownership factors in the final award recommendation (i.e. transition costs, training costs, etc.).

(b) The State reserves the right to award by item, part or portion of an item, group of items or total proposal, to reject any and all proposals in whole or in part, if, in the Director of DTMB-Procurement’s judgment, the best interest of the State will be so served.

(c) The State reserves the right to award multiple, optional use contracts. In addition to the other factors listed, offers will be evaluated on the basis of advantages and disadvantages to the State that may result from making more than one award.

(d) The State reserves the right to consider overall economic impact to the State in the final award recommendation. This includes considering principal place of performance, number of Michigan citizens employed or potentially employed, dollars paid to Michigan residents, Michigan capital investments, economically disadvantaged businesses, etc.

(e) The State reserves the right to award to another ‘best value’ contractor in case the original Awardee does not accept the award. This reservation applies for all of our solicitations whether they are quotes, bids, proposals, pre-qualified or pre-registered programs.

(f) The State reserves the right to give a preference for products manufactured or services offered by Michigan firms if all other things are equal and if not inconsistent with federal statute. (See MCL 18.1261)

(g) The State reserves the right to disqualify any bid based on Sections 1.1 through 4.1 in the general Certifications and Representations (completed at vendor registration).

(h) Give a preference for products manufactured or services offered by Michigan-based firms if all other things are equal and if consistent with federal statutes. (MCL 18.1261);

(i) Disqualify any bid based on the failure to complete the Certifications and Representations in the Bid4Michigan registration.

(j) Disqualify any bid based on the information provided in the Certifications and Representations in the Bid4Michigan registration and responses from vendor references.

(k) The State reserves the right to modify the Contract Term stated in Section 2.1.1 and Section 2.1.2 of the RFP Document.

3.026 Award Decision

Award recommendation will be made to the Chief Procurement Officer, DTMB-Procurement.

3.027 Protests

If a Bidder wishes to initiate a protest of the award recommendation, the Bidder must submit a protest, in writing, by 5:00 p.m. on the date stated on the notice of recommendation to award. Bidder must include the RFP number and clearly state the facts believed to constitute error in the award recommendation along with the desired remedy. More information about the Bidder protest process is available at ; click on the “Vendor Information” link.

3.028 State Administrative Board

The State Administrative Board (SAB) must approve all contracts/purchase orders in excess of $250,000. The decision of this Board regarding the recommendation is final; however, SAB approval does not constitute a Contract. The award process is not completed until the Bidder receives a properly executed Contract or Purchase Order from DTMB Procurement.

Evaluation Results (100 points possible):

Wheels, Inc.

The JEC determined that Wheels could meet the requirements of the RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the selection criteria noted in the table above.

1. Statement of Work (Article 1) Score: 41 / 45

The JEC noted the following deficiencies:

• In Section A, Item 4 the bidder did not address the 30 day requirement on providing written recommendations on which models best meet each functional requirement.

• In Section D, Item 1a the bidder provided a map, but did not provide a list of vehicle maintenance and repair vendors as requested.

• In Section D, Item 5 the bidder supplied call center metrics, but did not describe the call center system as requested.

• In Section E, Item 1 the bidder provided a map, but did not provide a list of vehicle body repair vendors as requested.

• In Section E, Item 1 the bidder did not explain the differences between preferred and non-preferred pricing models.

• In Section G, Item 8 the bidder did not talk about timeframes for system recovery as requested.

2. Prior Experience (4.012) Score: 27 / 30

The JEC noted the following deficiency:

• The bidder described a detailed internal auditing/quality standard but did not discuss nationally recognized audit standard certification from third parties.

3. Staffing (1.031 and 4.013) Score: 20 / 20

The bidder met all specified requirement in these sections.

4. Bidder Information (4.011) Score: 5 / 5

The bidder met all specified requirements in this section.

Total Score: 93 / 100

Automotive Resources International

The JEC determined that Automotive Resources International (ARI) could meet the requirements of the RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the selection criteria noted in the table above.

1. Statement of Work (Article 1) Score: 33 / 45

The JEC noted the following deficiencies:

• In Section A, Item 7 the bidder did not address submitting statistics to the State at the same time as a lifecycle cost analysis.

• In Section B, Item 1 the bidder bases fixed rates on a spread relative to the three or four year SWAP rates instead of the Two Year US Treasury Bill as requested.

• In Section B, Item 2 the bidder proposed a maximum lease term of 50 months to the State. The State had required lease terms up to 84 months in the RFP.

• In Section D, Item 1 the bidder provided a list of locations, but not a map of vehicle maintenance and repair vendors as requested.

• In Section D, Item 4 the bidder did not affirm providing a toll free number as requested.

• In Section E, Item 1 the bidder provided a list, but did not provide a map of vehicle body repair vendors as requested.

• In Section E, Item 1 the bidder did not affirm the ability to make payments to any vehicle maintenance facility.

• In Section E, Item 7 the bidder did not provide a list of professional collision damage appraisal providers as requested.

• In Section F, Item 1 the bidder could not meet all of the data requirements on the fuel card as requested.

• In Section F, Item 6 the bidder did not provide a list of fuel locations as requested.

• In Section F, Item 14 the bidder stated fuel cards are typically delivered within 30 days instead of meeting the State requirement stating they must be delivered within 30 days.

• In Section G, Item 2 the bidder did not describe their security system and capabilities as requested.

• In Section G, Item 11 the bidder stated that a small number of customize reports may have an added fee.

• In Section H, Item 3 the bidder did not explain their process for notifying the State about billing errors or disputes.

2. Prior Experience (4.012) Score: 24 / 30

The JEC the following deficiency:

• The bidder supplied three references as requested but did not supply project description or costs as requested.

3. Staffing (1.031 and 4.013) Score: 18 / 20

The JEC noted the following deficiencies:

• The bidder did not supply resumes for all key personnel as requested.

• The bidder still had to identify team members to fill some identified roles.

4. Bidder Information (4.011) Score: 5 / 5

The bidder met all specified requirements in this / these sections.

Total Score: 80 / 100

Sutton Leasing / PHH

The JEC determined that Sutton Leasing / PHH could not meet the requirements of the RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the selection criteria noted in the table above.

1. Statement of Work (Article 1) Score: 18 / 45

The JEC noted the following deficiencies:

• In Section A, Item 4 the bidder did not address providing written recommendation to the State on which models best meet each functional requirement within 30 days from the date the State provides the functional requirements.

• In Section A, Item 5 the bidder did not describe a process to be able to occasionally purchase vehicles on behalf of the State.

• In Section A, Item 7 the bidder did not address submitting statistics to the State at the same time as a lifecycle cost analysis.

• In Section A, Item 8 the bidder did not describe a process for up-fitting services.

• In Section A, Item 9 the bidder talked about using an Excel spreadsheet to transfer ordering information.

• In Section B, Item 1 the bidder did not describe their financing model as requested.

• In Section C, Item 1 the bidder did not describe their remarketing process as requested.

• In Section D, Item 1 the bidder provided a map but did not provide a list of vehicle maintenance and repair vendors as requested.

• In Section D, Item 1 the bidder did not address the ability to make payments to any vehicle maintenance facility.

• In Section D, Item 2 the bidder stated that they will work with a supplier in an attempt to add the vendor to their network instead of describing a process for adding vendors.

• In Section D, Item 5 the bidder did not describe their current call center system as requested, they simply supplied call center metrics.

• In Section E, Item 1 the bidder did not supply a list or map of their vendors for body repairs.

• In Section E, Item 2 the bidder stated they would work with a supplier in an attempt to add them as a preferred vendor for body repair instead of describing a process for adding them.

• In Section E, Item 5 the bidder did not describe their current call center system as requested.

• In Section E, Item 7 the bidder did not provide a list of professional collision damage appraisal providers as requested.

• In Section F, the bidder simply stated they recommend we continue to utilize our existing provider for all 15 items with regard to Commercial Fuel Cards and services. This JEC has a concern with this as the fuel program is currently bundled with fleet management services.

• In Section G, Item 1 the bidder did not state that their system provides all the data element requirements listed at a minimum.

• In Section G, it was unclear if there would be data integration between both proposed bidders data into one system for the State to access.

• In Section H, the bidders both responded to billing questions. It was unclear which bidder would be the one point of contact and billing entity.

• In Section I, Item 1 the bidder did not describe a detailed transition plan.

• In Section I, Item 5 the bidder did not supply a transition plan for fuel, as they recommended staying with the existing vendor.

2. Prior Experience (4.012) Score: 3 / 30

The JEC noted the following deficiencies:

• The bidder did not supply any references as requested.

• The bidder had low acquisition service history numbers with regard to all models and vehicles.

• The bidder did not describe its history in working with upfitters as requested.

3. Staffing (1.031 and 4.013) Score: 5 / 20

The JEC noted the following deficiencies:

• The bidder stated that they would supply key personnel during negotiations.

• The bidder stated they would specify subcontractors during negotiations

• The bidder did not answer how many employees work in their remarketing department or provide detailed qualifications and experience or the manager of the department.

• The bidder did not supply resumes for all key personnel as requested.

4. Bidder Information (4.011) Score: 5 / 5

The bidder met all specified requirements in this / these sections.

Total Score: 31 / 100

Scoring Summary for Technical Proposal:

| | |Wheels |ARI |Sutton/PHH |

| |Weight | | | |

|Statement of Work (SOW) |45 |41 |33 |18 |

|Prior Experience |30 |27 |24 |3 |

|Staffing |20 |20 |18 |5 |

|Bidder Information |5 |5 |5 |5 |

|Total: |100 |93 |80 |31 |

Pricing Summary:

Please see the details of original, and second round pricing below.

Original bid prices - Cost across base years

| |Wheels |ARI |

|Total |$315,268,910 |Not able to completely |

| | |evaluate* |

*Could not completely evaluate ARI pricing due to their response stating that they are not currently supplying lease terms for 60 and 72 month leases on light duty vehicles. Below is a quote taken directly from ARI’s clarification document.

“On the pricing sheet in the bid response, ARI did insert lease rates for the 60 and 72 month terms and we did use the three-year SWAP rate since they were light duty vehicles. However, as previously noted, we are not currently offering these lease terms on light duty vehicles.”

Cost Savings/Avoidance:

|Category |Wheels |ARI |

|Savings |$3,242/year based on annual |N/A |

| |orders | |

A reduced price proposal was requested from Wheels, and they capped their acquisition fee at $250.

Award Recommendation:

The award recommendation is made to the responsive and responsible Bidder who passed Technical Evaluation and offers the BEST VALUE to the State of Michigan. The JEC recommends that Wheels be awarded the contract for Fleet Services in the amount of $315,268,910.00.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download