STATE OF MICHIGAN



March 28, 2012

To: Kimberly Graham

From: Pamela Platte

RE: Synopsis – RFP-PP-511I2200010 – Furniture Camp Grayling DVQ

This is an RFP for the State of Michigan Department of Military and Veterans Affairs (DMVA) is seeking bids for household furniture to furnish the Distinguished Visitors Quarters (DVQ) at Camp Grayling, Michigan. The DVQ is comfortable lodging arrangements at a higher amenity standard for senior field grade officers while at mandatory annual training and for state, federal and other types of very important people (VIPs) such as, Politicians, Law Enforcement Executives, Foreign National Dignitaries, from across the world who are on official business in the State of Michigan.

JOINT EVAULATION COMMITTEE (JEC)

|Voting |Advisors |

| | |

|Bobbie Jo Freund |Pamela J. Platte |

|Department of Military and Veterans Affairs |Buyer |

|Chief Facilities Maintenance Office |Department of Military and Veterans Affairs |

|Facilities Engineering Section |State Operations; Purchasing & Contracts |

| | |

|Meagan Little | |

|Department of Military and Veterans Affairs | |

|Camp Grayling | |

| | |

|Chief Keli Algren | |

|National Guard Bureau | |

|Chief Facilities Maintenance Office | |

|Facilities Engineering Section | |

| | |

|Elizabeth Noffsinger | |

|Department of Military and Veterans Affairs | |

|Camp Grayling, Facilities Engineering | |

The RFP for the DVQ Furniture at Camp Grayling, RFP-PP-511I2200010 was posted on the Bid4Michigan website on March 12, 2012 with a due date of March 23, 2012 and following vendors responded.

1. WorkSquared

2. Jasen’s Fine Furniture

3. Comfort Center Furniture

The RFP was evaluated and awarded based on the following criteria:

Article 3 - Submitting Bids and Proposals

Method of Evaluation

Proposals will be evaluated by a Joint Evaluation Committee (JEC) (chaired by DMVA State Operations, Purchasing & Contracts)

Evaluation Criteria

The following chart represents the scoring of the particular factors:

| | |Weight |

|1. |Bedroom Proposal (Bidders response to Article 1, Scope of Work, Section|25 |

| |A. Bedroom) | |

|2. |Dining Room Proposal (Bidders response to Article 1, Scope of Work, |25 |

| |Section B. Dining Room) | |

|3. |Living Room Proposal (Bidders response to Article 1, Scope of Work, |25 |

| |Section C. Living Room) | |

|4. |Office Proposal (Bidders response to Article 1, Scope of Work, Section |25 |

| |D. Office) | |

| |TOTAL |100 |

Technical and Price Evaluation

(a) Proposals receiving a score of (80) points or more will be considered for award.

(b) Price proposals will only be evaluated from those bidders that the State considers for award in accordance with subsection (a). Evaluation of price proposals includes consideration of a qualified disabled veteran preference. MCL 18.1261 establishes a preference of up to 10% for businesses owned by qualified disabled veterans that are considered for award in accordance with subsection (a).

Award Recommendation

The award recommendation will be made for the bidder that: (a) is considered for award in accordance with Section Technical and Price Evaluation; (b) has its price proposal evaluated under Section Technical and Price Evaluation; and (c) in the State's determination, offers the best value to the State.

Protests

If a bidder wishes to protest the award recommendation, the bidder must submit a written protest by 5:00pm Eastern Time on the date stated on the notice of recommendation to award. The 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 buymichiganfirst; click on the "Vendor Information" link.

State Administrative Board

State Administrative Board (SAB) approval is required for all Contracts or Purchase Orders of $250,000.00 or more. The decision of the SAB is final; however, SAB approval does not constitute a Contract. The award process is complete when the bidder receives a properly executed Contract or Purchase Order from DMVA, Purchasing & Contracts.

Taxes

The State may refuse to award a contract to any bidder that has failed to pay any applicable State taxes or has any outstanding debt with the State.

False Information

If it is determined that a bidder purposely or willfully submitted false information, the bidder may not be considered for award, the State may pursue debarment of the bidder, and any resulting contract may be terminated.

Past Performance

The State may evaluate the bidder's prior performance with the State in making its award decision.

Financial Stability

The State may evaluate the bidder's financial stability in making its award decision. The State may seek financial information from the bidder and from third parties.

Environmental Impact

The State may evaluate the environmental impact of the bidder's proposal, such as energy efficiency of products or other environmental certifications, in making its award decision.

Clarifications and Deficiencies

(a) The State may issue a clarification request, in writing, to one or all bidders. A clarification request does not allow a bidder to change its proposal.

(b) The State may issue a Deficiency Report and Clarification Request (DR/CR) to each bidder determined to be in the competitive range. Each bidder must respond in writing to the DR/CR by the deadline established by DMVA, Purchasing & Contracts. The DR/CR response may include any changes to the bidder's proposal to address the listed deficiencies or clarifications, including alterations to the bidder's price proposal to address correction of the deficiencies.

Negotiations

The State may enter into negotiations with bidders on price or technical clarifications.

Best and Final Offer

The State may request a Best and Final Offer (BAFO) from each bidder determined to be in the competitive range. Each bidder must respond in writing with its BAFO by the deadline established by DMVA, Purchasing & Contracts. A BAFO request may be issued simultaneously with a DR/CR under Clarifications and Deficiencies.

There is no guarantee that any bidder will be allowed an opportunity to engage in negotiations under section Negotiations, or to submit a BAFO under this Section.

Site Visit

The State may conduct a site visit to tour and inspect the bidder's facilities. DMVA, State Operations, Purchasing & Contracts will schedule this visit, if required.

1. WorkSquared Points: 91 out of 100

Summary:

The vendor submitted a bid in response to RFP-PP-511I2200010 which met the minimum threshold of 80 points for the technical evaluation portion of this RFP; therefore, their pricing was evaluated to be considered for award.

Evaluation Criteria

| | |Score |Weight |

|1. |Bedroom Proposal (Bidders response to Article 1, Scope|22 |25 |

| |of Work, Section A. Bedroom) | | |

|2. |Dining Room Proposal (Bidders response to Article 1, |23 |25 |

| |Scope of Work, Section B. Dining Room) | | |

|3. |Living Room Proposal (Bidders response to Article 1, |24 |25 |

| |Scope of Work, Section C. Living Room) | | |

|4. |Office Proposal (Bidders response to Article 1, Scope |22 |25 |

| |of Work, Section D. Office) | | |

| |TOTAL |91 |100 |

1. Bedroom Proposal (Bidders response to Article 1, Scope of Work, Section A. Bedroom) - Score 22 out of 25 points.

• Vendor provided one hard copy and one electronic copy of their proposed bid in reference to the bedroom furniture as required in the RFP in Article 1, Statement of Work. The vendor did not include fabric swatches of their proposed furniture, rugs and fabric for all the items as required in the RFP.

• The RFP requirement in Article 1, Statement of Work, Scope of Work, A. Bedroom, a. One queen size bed, iii was for the proposed mattress to have a pillow top on each side. The JEC was unable to determine if the proposed mattress met the requirement with the description provided by the vendor.

• The RFP requirement in Article 1, Statement of Work, Scope of Work, A. Bedroom, g. Bedroom rugs, ii was for the proposed rugs to be 5’ x 8’. The JEC was unable to determine if the proposed rug met the requirement for size with the description provided by the vendor.

2. Dining Room Proposal (Bidders response to Article 1, Scope of Work, Section B. Dining Room) - Score 23 out of 25 points.

• Vendor provided one hard copy and one electronic copy of their proposed bid in reference to the dining room furniture as required in the RFP in Article 1, Statement of Work. The vendor did not include fabric swatches of their proposed furniture, rugs and fabric for all the items as required in RFP.

• The RFP requirement in Article 1, Statement of Work, Scope of Work, B. Dining Room, a. Barstools, ii was for the seat on the barstool to be between 29” and 30” in height. The JEC was unable to determine if the proposed barstool met the requirement for the height of the barstool seat with the description provided by the vendor.

3. Living Room Proposal (Bidders response to Article 1, Scope of Work, Section C. Living Room) - Score 24 out of 25 points.

• Vendor provided one hard copy and one electronic copy of their proposed bid in reference to the living room furniture as required in the RFP in Article 1, Statement of Work. The vendor did not include fabric swatches of their proposed furniture, rugs and fabric for all the items as required in RFP.

4. Office Proposal (Bidders response to Article 1, Scope of Work, Section D. Office) - Score 22 out of 25 points.

• Vendor provided one hard copy and one electronic copy of their proposed bid in reference to the office furniture as required in the RFP in Article 1, Statement of Work. The vendor did not include fabric swatches of their proposed furniture, rugs and fabric for all the items as required in the RFP.

• The RFP requirement in Article 1, Statement of Work, Scope of Work, D. Office, c. Rug, i was for the proposed rug to be 2’ x 3’ in rectangular size. The JEC was able to determine by the picture the proposed rug was rectangular, but were unable to determine if the proposed rug met the requirement for size with the description provided by the vendor.

• The RFP requirement in Article 1, Statement of Work, Scope of Work, D. Office, b. Desk chair, iii was for the proposed chair to have leather on the arms; the vendor did not propose leather on the arms of the chair.

Price: $24,965.97

2. Jasen’s Fine Furniture Points: 90.5 out of 100

Summary:

The vendor submitted a bid in response to RFP-PP-511I2200010 which met the minimum threshold of 80 points for the technical evaluation portion of this RFP; therefore, their pricing was evaluated to be considered for award.

Evaluation Criteria

| | |Score |Weight |

|1. |Bedroom Proposal (Bidders response to Article 1, Scope|21.5 |25 |

| |of Work, Section A. Bedroom) | | |

|2. |Dining Room Proposal (Bidders response to Article 1, |23.5 |25 |

| |Scope of Work, Section B. Dining Room) | | |

|3. |Living Room Proposal (Bidders response to Article 1, |23.5 |25 |

| |Scope of Work, Section C. Living Room) | | |

|4. |Office Proposal (Bidders response to Article 1, Scope |22 |25 |

| |of Work, Section D. Office) | | |

| |TOTAL |90.5 |100 |

1. Bedroom Proposal (Bidders response to Article 1, Scope of Work, Section A. Bedroom) - Score 21.5 out of 25 points.

• Vendor provided one hard copy and one electronic copy of their proposed bid in reference to the bedroom furniture as required in the RFP in Article 1, Statement of Work. The vendor did not include fabric swatches of their proposed furniture, rugs and fabric for all the items as required in the RFP.

• Although the vendor provided pictures of the furniture proposed for the space as required by the RFP, it was difficult and time consuming to use an internet search engine to search for the manufacturer and item number to determine if the vendor’s proposed furniture would meet the dimension requirements set forth in the Bedroom Section of RFP. The JEC still was unable to find all dimensions; therefore, the JEC was unable to determine if selected pieces proposed by the vendor would meet the dimension requirements set forth in the Bedroom Section of RFP for the space.

• Although the vendor provided a picture of the bedroom rug proposed for the space as required by the RFP, there was no description provided; therefore, the JEC was unable to determine if the vendor’s proposed color tone of the rug would meet the requirements set forth in the Bedroom Section of RFP for the space.

• The RFP requirement in Article 1, Statement of Work, Scope of Work, A. Bedroom, d. One bedroom chair, iii was for the proposed chair to have a dark espresso finish, the vendor proposed a distressed pecan finish.

2. Dining Room Proposal (Bidders response to Article 1, Scope of Work, Section B. Dining Room) - Score 23.5 out of 25 points.

• Although the vendor provided pictures of the furniture proposed for the space as required by the RFP, it was difficult and time consuming to use an internet search engine to search for the manufacturer and item number to determine if the vendor’s proposed furniture would meet the dimension requirements set forth in the Bedroom Section of RFP. The JEC still was unable to find all dimensions; therefore, the JEC was unable to determine if selected pieces proposed by the vendor would meet the dimension requirements set forth in the Dining Room Section of RFP.

• Although the vendor provided fabric swatches for the barstools as required by the RFP, the vendor did not provide a description of a proposed barstool or a picture of a proposed barstool; therefore, the JEC could not determine if the barstools met the requirement for the RFP.

3. Living Room Proposal (Bidders response to Article 1, Scope of Work, Section C. Living Room) - Score 23.5 out of 25 points.

• Although the vendor provided pictures of the furniture proposed for the space as required by the RFP, it was difficult and time consuming to use an internet search engine to search for the manufacturer and item number to determine if the vendor’s proposed furniture would meet the dimension requirements set forth in the Bedroom Section of RFP. The JEC still was unable to find all dimensions; therefore, the JEC was unable to determine if selected pieces proposed by the vendor would meet the dimension requirements set forth in the Living Room Section of the RFP.

• The RFP requirement in Article 1, Statement of Work, Scope of Work, C. Living Room, g. Table lamps, ii was for the proposed lamp to be distressed wood, the vendor proposed metal.

4. Office Proposal (Bidders response to Article 1, Scope of Work, Section D. Office) - Score 22 out of 25 points.

• Vendor provided one hard copy and one electronic copy of their proposed bid in reference to the office furniture as required in the RFP in Article 1, Statement of Work. The vendor did not include fabric swatches of their proposed furniture, rugs and fabric for all the items as required in the RFP.

• The RFP requirement in Article 1, Statement of Work, Scope of Work, D. Office, c. Rug, iii was for the proposed rug to have a large multi color cotton leaf pattern in beige, burgundy/red and gray color tones with a black background. The JEC was unable to determine by the picture if the proposed rug meet the color tone requirement set forth in the RFP.

• The RFP requirement in Article 1, Statement of Work, Scope of Work, D. Office, b. Desk chair, iii was for the proposed chair to have leather on the arms; the vendor did not propose leather on the arms of the chair.

Price: $16,427.87

2. Comfort Center Furniture Points: 94.5 out of 100

Summary:

The vendor submitted a bid in response to RFP-PP-511I2200010 which met the minimum threshold of 80 points for the technical evaluation portion of this RFP; therefore, their pricing was evaluated to be considered for award.

Evaluation Criteria

| | |Score |Weight |

|1. |Bedroom Proposal (Bidders response to Article 1, Scope|23 |25 |

| |of Work, Section A. Bedroom) | | |

|2. |Dining Room Proposal (Bidders response to Article 1, |23.5 |25 |

| |Scope of Work, Section B. Dining Room) | | |

|3. |Living Room Proposal (Bidders response to Article 1, |24 |25 |

| |Scope of Work, Section C. Living Room) | | |

|4. |Office Proposal (Bidders response to Article 1, Scope |24 |25 |

| |of Work, Section D. Office) | | |

| |TOTAL |94.5 |100 |

1. Bedroom Proposal (Bidders response to Article 1, Scope of Work, Section A. Bedroom) - Score 23 out of 25 points.

• Vendor provided one hard copy and one electronic copy of their proposed bid in reference to the bedroom furniture as required in the RFP in Article 1, Statement of Work. The vendor did not include fabric swatches of their proposed furniture, rugs and fabric for all the items as required in the RFP.

• Although the vendor provided pictures of the furniture proposed for the space as required by the RFP, it was difficult and time consuming to use an internet search engine to search for the manufacturer and item number to determine if the vendor’s proposed furniture would meet the dimension requirements set forth in the Bedroom Section of RFP. The JEC still was unable to find all dimensions; therefore, the JEC was unable to determine if selected pieces proposed by the vendor would meet the dimension requirements set forth in the Bedroom Section of RFP for the space.

• Although the vendor provided pictures of the furniture proposed for the space as required by the RFP, it was difficult and time consuming to use an internet search engine to search for the manufacturer and item number to determine if the vendor’s proposed furniture would meet the specification requirements set forth in the Bedroom Section of RFP. The JEC still was unable to find all specifications; therefore, the JEC was unable to determine if selected pieces proposed by the vendor would meet the specification requirements set forth in the Bedroom Section of RFP for the space.

2. Dining Room Proposal (Bidders response to Article 1, Scope of Work, Section B. Dining Room) - Score 23.5 out of 25 points.

• Vendor provided one hard copy and one electronic copy of their proposed bid in reference to the dining room furniture as required in the RFP in Article 1, Statement of Work. The vendor did not include fabric swatches of their proposed fabric dining room chairs as required in the RFP.

• Although the vendor provided pictures of the furniture proposed for the space as required by the RFP, it was difficult and time consuming to use an internet search engine to search for the manufacturer and item number to determine if the vendor’s proposed furniture would meet the dimension requirements set forth in the dining room Section of RFP. The JEC still was unable to find all dimensions; therefore, the JEC was unable to determine if selected pieces proposed by the vendor would meet the dimension requirements set forth in the Dining Room Section of RFP.

• Although the vendor provided pictures of the furniture proposed for the space as required by the RFP, it was difficult and time consuming to use an internet search engine to search for the manufacturer and item number to determine if the vendor’s proposed furniture would meet the specification requirements set forth in the dining room Section of RFP. The JEC still was unable to find all specifications; therefore, the JEC was unable to determine if selected pieces proposed by the vendor would meet the specification requirements set forth in the Dining Room Section of RFP for the space.

3. Living Room Proposal (Bidders response to Article 1, Scope of Work, Section C. Living Room) - Score 24 out of 25 points.

• Although the vendor provided pictures of the furniture proposed for the space as required by the RFP, it was difficult and time consuming to use an internet search engine to search for the manufacturer and item number to determine if the vendor’s proposed furniture would meet the dimension requirements set forth in the living room Section of RFP. The JEC still was unable to find all dimensions; therefore, the JEC was unable to determine if selected pieces proposed by the vendor would meet the dimension requirements set forth in the Living Room Section of RFP.

• Although the vendor provided pictures of the furniture proposed for the space as required by the RFP, it was difficult and time consuming to use an internet search engine to search for the manufacturer and item number to determine if the vendor’s proposed furniture would meet the specification requirements set forth in the living room Section of RFP. The JEC still was unable to find all specifications; therefore, the JEC was unable to determine if selected pieces proposed by the vendor would meet the specification requirements set forth in the Living Room Section of RFP for the space.

4. Office Proposal (Bidders response to Article 1, Scope of Work, Section D. Office) - Score 24 out of 25 points.

• Although the vendor provided pictures of the furniture proposed for the space as required by the RFP, it was difficult and time consuming to use an internet search engine to search for the manufacturer and item number to determine if the vendor’s proposed furniture would meet the dimension requirements set forth in the Office Section of RFP. The JEC still was unable to find all dimensions; therefore, the JEC was unable to determine if selected pieces proposed by the vendor would meet the dimension requirements set forth in the Office Section of RFP.

• Although the vendor provided pictures of the furniture proposed for the space as required by the RFP, it was difficult and time consuming to use an internet search engine to search for the manufacturer and item number to determine if the vendor’s proposed furniture would meet the specification requirements set forth in the Office Section of RFP. The JEC still was unable to find all specifications; therefore, the JEC was unable to determine if selected pieces proposed by the vendor would meet the specification requirements set forth in the Office Section of RFP for the space.

Price: $14,832.00

Award Summary:

The JEC has determined Comfort Center Furniture as the most responsive and responsible proposal in the amount of $14,832.00 as the best value to the State of Michigan, Department of Military and Veterans Affairs in reference to RFP-PP-511I2200010, Furniture Camp Grayling DVQ.

____________________________ Date: ______________

Kimberly Graham

Buyer Manager

____________________________ Date: ______________

Pamela J. Platte

Buyer

____________________________ Date: ______________

Bobbie Jo Freund

CFMO

____________________________ Date: ______________

Chief Keli Algren

CFMO

____________________________ Date: ______________

Elizabeth Noffsinger

Buyer

____________________________ Date: ______________

Meagan Little

Camp Grayling

-----------------------

State of Michigan

DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY & VETERANS AFFAIRS

Lansing

[pic]

RICK SNYDER

GOVERNOR

MG GREGORY J. VADNAIS

THE ADJUTANT GENERAL AND DIRECTOR

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

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

Google Online Preview   Download