RFP – 40101(d) GRP Grant Management Services – Request for Reconsideration and Response

Description

Helping clients prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters. April 10, 2025 Brian Daniel Director, Accounting and Finance Mississippi Development Authority Subject: Grant Management and Consulting Services 40101(d) Grid Resilience Program Request for Proposals RFx# 3120003070 Dear Director Brian Daniel, In accordance with the Notice of Intent to Award issued April 7, 2025, please consider this to be Hagerty Consulting, Inc.’s (Hagerty’s) Request for Reconsideration for the subject procurement. Specifically, Hagerty asks that the Mississippi Development Authority (MDA) reconsider its decision to reject Hagerty’s proposal due to proposed pricing being unreasonable. Hagerty, like other vendors, developed its pricing based on a series of assumptions, which were listed in our proposal. Upon review of the procurement file, as a contrast to AECOM, the awarded vendor, it is clear that Hagerty and AECOM used different assumptions to develop pricing. For example, there were material differences in assumptions for grant/ subrecipient monitoring. Scope Area Grant/ Subrecipient Monitoring Vendor Assumptions AECOM Monitoring focused on subrecipientlevel and project-level monitoring Hagerty Monitoring focused on subrecipientlevel monitoring only Pricing Impact The scope of work (SOW) requested specific grant monitoring activities with defined frequency. Hagerty’s pricing assumed these requirements only, while AECOM’s grant monitoring activities exceed the SOW requirements. Therefore, Hagerty and AECOM used different pricing assumptions which resulted in material differences in pricing. AECOM’s cost for grant monitoring, compliance, and reporting is $312,305. Hagerty’s cost for equivalent activities is $154,800. CHICAGO 1618 ORRINGTON AVE, SUITE 201 EVANSTON, IL 60201 www.hagertyconsulting.com 847-492-8454 As another example, Hagerty assumed the number of subrecipients likely to apply for the program. This has a significant impact on pricing for Sections 2.5 and 2.6 of the Scope of Services. This is evident in Hagerty’s cost for these activities being $170,000, while AECOM’s cost for the equivalent activities is $193,575 Given the difference in assumptions used, Hagerty’s pricing should not have been deemed unreasonable. As such, we request that MDA reconsider and re-score the proposals without disqualifying the Hagerty bid. Alternatively, we are happy to provide revised pricing based on a common set of assumptions provided to all vendors.