ITB 071I7000400
MEMORANDUM October 1, 2010
TO: Tony DesChenes, Director
Commodities Division
FROM: Irene Pena, Buyer Specialist
Purchasing Operations
DTMB, Commodities Division
SUBJECT: Evaluation Summary for Request for Proposal No. 071I0200170 –
Small 18 & 22 - Non-Lift/Lift Passenger Buses with Alternate Seating
Reviewers
|Jerry Smalley |Michigan Department of Transportation |
|Rob Pearson |Michigan Department of Transportation |
|Michael Frezell |Michigan Department of Transportation |
|Irene Pena |Department of Technology, Management and Budget |
Statement of Work
This is a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Michigan Department of Transportation, Bureau of Passenger Transportation for Small 18 & 22 - 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 on June 21, 2010 and the bid due date was August 10, 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. |Shepard Brothers, Inc |Cincinnati, 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 – 47 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 floor plan B in a diesel
• Bidder did not provide dimensions for each floor plan (provided update through clarification process).
• Bidder did not provide reflective triangles or web cutter for safety as specified (provided update through clarification process).
• Bidder did not provide General Motors specifications on the evaluation form.
• Under seat restraint storage system is listed as “Q’straint” and is not a suggested source.
• OEM Radio/PA and OEM PA system not a suggested source (provided update through clarification process).
• Bidder proposes to use a 45,000 BTU rear heater that is 20,000 BTU less than other bidders (provided update through clarification process).
• Evaluation form specifications are too generic and lacked sufficient detail.
Conclusion:
Despite not offering floor plan B in a diesel, the other exceptions listed above were determined to be minor deficiencies.
Midwest Transit Equipment – 57 Points
Bidder Proposed Body Manufacturer: STARTRANS BUS by SUPREME
When comparing the bidder’s offering to the Specifications in Appendix A, the following exceptions were noted:
• Floor plan B has 40 gallon fuel tank on the Ford chassis and 33 gallon on the Chevrolet chassis.
• Intellitec electrical panel not listed as a suggested source.
• Rustproofing not listed as a suggested source
• Velvac reverse alarm not listed as a suggested source.
Conclusion:
This bidder offered the most detailed of all evaluation forms received. In addition to bidding a Ford chassis, bidder also provided an alternate bid for both a General Motors gas and diesel chassis. The exceptions listed above were determined to be minor deficiencies.
Mobility Transportation Services – 45 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
• Fuel sender not accessible in the floor and does not meet specification.
• Precision Works electrical box not specified as a suggested source.
• Bidder does not offer floor plan B.
• Bidder did not provide General Motors specifications in evaluation form
• Bidder provides flares (not specified) for safety but did not list a fire extinguisher as specified (provided update through clarification process).
Conclusion:
Mobility Transportation’s proposal offers the thickest body panels of all bids. The major exceptions in their bid was the State of Michigan specified floor plan B is not available, no fuel sender floor access, and steel skin for the roof panel. However, the other exceptions listed above were determined to be minor deficiencies.
Shepard Brothers – 44 points
Bidder Proposed Body Manufacturer: Coach and Equipment Manufacturing Corp.
When comparing the bidder’s offering to the Specifications in Appendix A, the following exceptions and comments were noted:
• Bidder cannot meet specified salt spray test.
• Bidder provided marker lights that are not to specification.
• Bidder bid a quantity of 50 diesel chassis at the Ford price; however, bidder states they can only provide up to 15 diesel chassis from Ford. The remaining 35 diesels will come from General Motors at a higher price; however, the total bid does not reflect this.
• C&E design for radio and public address system is not a suggested source.
• C&E door not a suggested source.
• In the evaluation form, bidder references “just like 2009/2010 MDOT contract” repeatedly. The bidder should focus on what can be provided in the new contract that meets specification.
• Bidder did not provide General Motors specifications for GVWR and axle rating.
• Signal Stat strobe light is not a suggested source.
Conclusion:
Shepard Brothers attempted to offer up to 15 Ford diesel chassis at a much lower price compared to the General Motors diesel chassis. However, the bidder quoted the total bid price based on the 50 Ford chassis which is a misrepresentation. In addition, bidder did not meet the specified salt spray test and corrosion is a major concern for Michigan transit agencies. Finally, the references to the previous contract, on the evaluation form, made it difficult to evaluate the technical requirements. 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 currently has State of Michigan/MDOT small bus contract.
• Bidder has experience from past 10 years with delivery over 1,000 buses to Michigan transit agencies.
• Salesperson only has experience with two State of Michigan contracts.
Conclusion
Hoekstra Transportation has demonstrated capability to service size and scope of State of Michigan bus contracts
Midwest Transit Equipment – 18 Points
• Bidder has been in business since 1973.
• Bidder listed other state contracts.
• Bidder has limited experience with State of Michigan/MDOT contracts; however, currently, bidder has the medium and small hybrid bus 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 – 18 points
• Bidder did not specifically list any other state DOT contracts.
• 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.
Shepard Brothers – 18 points
• Bidder has been in business since 1980.
• Coach & Equipment has roots back over 100 years.
• Bidder has experience with contracts in other state DOTs.
• Bidder currently has State of Michigan/MDOT small bus contract.
• Lacks individual contracts with Michigan transit agencies.
Conclusion
Shepard Brothers has demonstrated the ability to service size and scope of State of Michigan bus contracts.
|Roles and Responsibilities (Sections 1.030, 1.041, 1.042, 1.051, 1.0705, 1.0706) – 10 Points possible |
Hoekstra – 9 Points
• Bidder provides adequate reporting information.
• Bidder has no issues with warranty and meets bid requirements.
• Bidder is an active participant in MPTA conferences and training sessions.
• 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.
Conclusion
Hoekstra meets or exceeds customer service, ordering, and training expectations.
Midwest Transit Equipment – 7 Points
• Bidder listed a warranty administrator.
• Salesperson is not located in Michigan.
• Bidder has service location in Michigan
• Bidder provided procedures for ordering.
• Bidder provides adequate reporting information.
• Bidder provides training programs that includes electronic versions (DVD’s).
• Bidder has provided limited group training
• Bidder attends MPTA conferences.
Conclusion
Midwest Transit Equipment meets or exceeds customer service and ordering expectations.
Mobility Transportation Services – 8 points
• Dave Brown primary salesperson
• Agencies can send orders via fax, e-mail, or mail.
• Bidder provided a good proposal for warranty and/or service work but did not provide the person responsible for warranty and/or service work.
• Bidder will authorize transit agencies to perform warranty work.
• Bidder states the company has a “passion for quality check” but did not explain this in detail.
• Bidder’s training proposal was weak with no detailed descriptions.
• Bidder complies with reporting requirements.
• Bidder complies with the production schedule.
• Bidder provided timeframe for pilot model is adequate.
Conclusion
Mobility Transportation Services meets or exceeds customer service and ordering expectations.
Shepard Brothers – 5 points
• Bidder did not sufficiently explain customer service and ordering.
• Bidder has conflicting statements about the availability with the Ford diesel chassis
• Bidder offers optional extended warranty prices; however, the State has not specified any extended warranty options.
• Bidder’s responses are written like all reviewers have a vast knowledge about the current bus contracts.
• Bidder offered to do two pilot models when the contract only requires one pilot.
• Bidder submits reports ontime and without a reminder.
• Bidder is very thorough with reporting.
• Bidder provides no in-house training at a sales office or service facility
• Bidder attends MPTA conferences.
Conclusion
Concerns were raised with Shepard Brothers’ proposal of having 15 diesel chassis dedicated to the MDOT contract yet in another statement saying “it will take a little longer for us to secure the Ford diesel chassis.” In addition, bidder is also trying to sell warranties/options outside of the State’s specifications.
|Company Information/Capabilities (Section 5.011, 5.013, 5.015, 5.016, 5.017) – 5 points possible |
Hoekstra – 5 Points
• Sales and service facility located in Grand Rapids, Michigan
• 25-40 Million annually in sales
• Bidder provides adequate staffing.
• No contract terminations
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
• Nevada or Utah Corporation? Conflicting information in bid.
• $293,006,824.00 in 2009 sales
• Bidder handles 2,100 buses per year.
• Bidder provided list of staffing contacts.
• Appropriate staffing levels with both the vendor and manufacturer.
• Star Trans is an ISO certified company.
• 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 for the last five years.
• Bidder listed Jamie Lipka as the Champion contact; however, did not list Champion as a manufacturing partner in section 5.016.
• No contract terminations
Conclusion
Based on the information provided, Mobility Transportation Services has the ability to service a State of Michigan small bus contract.
Shepard Brothers – 2 points
• Salesperson located in Cincinnati, Ohio.
• Corporate office/dealer in Canandaigau, New York
• Shepard Bros in business 28 years
• $50 million in sales annually
• Bidder provides affiliated service centers but nothing in northern, lower Michigan or the Upper Penninsula.
• Bidder did not provide specific names or minimum details for staffing.
• No contract terminations
Conclusion
Based on the information provided, Shepard Brothers has demonstrated the ability to service a State of Michigan bus contract; however, the bidder does not have a dedicated sales and service facility in Michigan.
|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 provides a start date within three weeks of the order.
• Bidder has a flexible production schedule.
Conclusion
Hoekstra has the ability to meet the delivery capabilities.
Midwest Transit Equipment – 4 Points
• Bidder listed reasons why delivery schedule could not be met; however, stated normally 120 days with the manufacturer.
Conclusion
Midwest Transit Equipment has the ability to meet the delivery capabilities.
Mobility Transportation Services – 5 points
• Bidder offers the best delivery time of 90 days.
• Agrees to the 210 day delivery term.
Conclusion
Mobility Transportation Services offer the best delivery time; therefore, has the ability to meet the delivery capabilities.
Shepard Brothers – 5 points
• Bidder meets or exceeds the delivery program.
• Under current State of Michigan/MDOT small bus contract, 35 buses were delivered 142 days from order to delivery…excellent!
Conclusion
Shepard Brothers 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.
Shepard Brothers
• No litigation
• Did not check the Excluded Parties List System for this bidder because bidder did not pass the technical evaluation.
Total Point Comparison – Technical Evaluation
| |Hoekstra |Midwest Transit |Mobility |Shepard Brothers |
| | |Equipment |Transportation | |
|Bidder Name | | | | |
|Step 1 – Technical Review | | | | |
|(100 points possible) |85 |92 |80 |74 |
| | | | | |
Shepard Brothers did not pass the technical evaluation due to the several exceptions that were considered major including no salt spray test, inaccurate bidding on available diesel chassis, referencing past MDOT contracts as to meeting specification.
Three bidders met the minimum threshold of 80 points to be considered for award:
1. Hoekstra Transportation
2. Midwest Transit Equipment
3. Mobility Transportation Services
|Price Evaluation |Hoekstra Transportation |Midwest |Midwest |Mobility Transportation |
| |(Ford Gas/GM Diesel |Transit Equipment |Transit Equipment (Alt. GM|Services |
| |Chassis) |(Ford Gas/GM Diesel |Gas/ Diesel Chassis) |(Ford Gas/GM Diesel |
| | |Chassis) | |Chassis) |
|- Total Deductions (through negotiations) |None |-$86,940.00 |-$87,170.00 |-$232,010.00 |
|+ Change in Costs (through clarifications) |None |$20,700.00 |$67,200.00 |$21,000.00 |
New Revised Totals |$9,934,255.00 |$9,635,570.00 |$9,856,760.00 |$9,274,020.00 | |
Award Recommendation
Clarifications were conducted with Hoekstra, Midwest Transit Equipment, and Mobility Transportation Services. Although the results of these clarifications did not change any of the bidders’ scores, it did result in bid price changes for Midwest Transit Equipment and Mobility Transportation Services. Both Midwest Transit Equipment and Mobility Transportation Services were requested to change the driver’s seat from the as bid Freedman seat to Ford OEM or General Motors OEM seats. For Midwest Transit Equipment the Ford powered seat added $276 to the options while the General Motors power seat added $896 to the options. For Mobility Transportation Services there was no extra cost to change to the Ford OEM or General Motors OEM seats; however, there was an added charge of $140 per bus to match the driver’s seat covers with the passenger seats. Hoekstra bid a Ford OEM and a General Motors OEM driver’s seat; therefore, no changes were made for seating. However, Hoekstra was requested to upgrade their rear heater from 45,000 BTU to 65,000 BTU and did so at no extra cost.
Hoekstra had no exceptions to the specifications. All other sections of their proposal(s) met the requirements of the RFP and demonstrated their capability to service a contract of this size and scope. Therefore, Hoekstra is recommended for award.
Midwest Transit Equipment also had no exceptions to the specifications. Their proposal(s) met all other requirements of the RFP and demonstrated their capability to service a contract of this size and scope. They are also recommended for award.
Mobility Transportation Services had few exceptions to the specifications. Their proposal(s) met all other requirements of the RFP and demonstrated their capability to service a contract of this size and scope. They are also 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.
Hoekstra, Midwest Transit Equipment, and Mobility Transportation Services were requested to lower their respective bids by at least 2.5% through negotiations. Hoekstra declined to lower their bid. Midwest Transit Equipment lowered their base bus prices by 2.5% but did not reduce the price on the options. Mobility Transportation Services lowered all their prices (base bus and options) by 2.5%.
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.
Hoekstra, Midwest Transit Equipment, and Mobility Transportation Services offer competitive pricing with their proposed models, their services meet the RFP requirements, and they represent the best value to the State.
Based on all of the information discussed above, the following bidders are recommended for a multiple award: Hoekstra Transportation, Midwest Transit Equipment (Ford Gas/GM Diesel Chassis), and Mobility Transportation Services.
The total estimated contract value for Hoekstra Transportation is: $9,934,255.00
The total estimated contract value for Midwest Transit Equipment is: $9,635,570.00
The total estimated contract value for Mobility Transportation Services is: $9,274,020.00
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.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.