250000000963 - Award Recommendation.pdf

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Version 2024-2 Page 1 of 19

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

Notice of Intent to Award Number: 250000000963

Notice of Intent to Award Date: 8/20/2025

The Department of Technology, Management & Budget’s Procurement office has completed the evaluation of Request for Proposal No. 250000002135 for the following services:

1) Statewide Third-Party Administrator (TPA) Services for Drug and Alcohol Testing of State of Michigan Employees and Pre-Hire Applicants

2) Off-site Reference Laboratory Urine and Saliva Screening and Confirmation Services for Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) Prisoners, Parolees, and Probationers

The State has recommended an award to First Hospital Laboratories, LLC dba Vault Workforce Screening for Statewide Third-Party Administrator (TPA) Services for Drug and Alcohol Testing of State of Michigan Employees and Pre-Hire Applicants in the amount of $1,570,719.00 and to Abbott Laboratories dba Redwood Toxicology Laboratory, Inc for Off-site Reference Laboratory Urine and Saliva Screening and Confirmation Services for Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) Prisoners, Parolees, and Probationers in the amount of $462,766.50, pending State Administrative Board approval, if applicable.

More information on the State Administrative Board can be found at: State Administrative Board.

Bidders who were not recommended for the award are encouraged to schedule a debriefing session with the Solicitation Manager. The debriefing session will provide the bidder with the State’s rationale on why the bidder was not recommended for the award. The Solicitation Manager may be contacted as follows:

Nichole Harrell, Solicitation Manager.

Harrelln@michigan.gov 517-449-9245

Public copies of all bidder proposals can be found here: DTMB - Bid Proposals (michigan.gov)

Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor to provide Statewide Third-Party Administrator (TPA) Services for Drug and Alcohol Testing of State of Michigan Employees and Pre-Hire Applicants and Off-site Reference Laboratory Urine and Saliva Screening and Confirmation Services for Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) Prisoners, Parolees, and Probationers. Bidders could submit a proposal for one or both services. The term of each contract is three (3) years, with up to five (5) renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on April 15, 2025. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of April 29, 2025.

https://www.michigan.gov/dtmb/policies/state-ad-board https://www.michigan.gov/dtmb/procurement/contractconnect/bid-proposals

Version 2024-2 Page 2 of 19

1) Statewide Third-Party Administrator (TPA) Services for Drug and Alcohol Testing of State of Michigan Employees and Pre-Hire Applicants – Bidders:

Bidder Address, City, State, Zip Code SDVOB* GDBE**

DATCO Services Corporation 2280 Grass Valley Hwy, Ste. 232, Auburn, CA 95603

No No

Transitions by HR 21840 Harding St, Oak Park, MI No No

HourGlass Testing Solutions, LLC 418 Plymouth Ave NE, Grand Rapids, MI 49505

No No

Statcare Urgent & Walk-In Medical Care, PLLC dba Nao Medical

135 Mineola Blvd., Mineola, NY 11501 No No

Sincere Lab Services, LLC 43996 Woodward Ave., Ste. 05, Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302

No No

Employee Screening Services of Missouri, LLC dba Tomo Drug Testing

2055 S. Stewart Ave., Springfield, MO 65804

No No

First Hospital Laboratories, LLC dba Vault Workforce Screening

6150 Oak Tree Blvd., Ste. 490, Independence, OH 44131

No No

*SDVOB: Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Business **GDBE: Geographically Disadvantaged Business Enterprise

2) Off-site Reference Laboratory Urine and Saliva Screening and Confirmation Services for Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) Prisoners, Parolees, and Probationers – Bidders:

Bidder Address, City, State, Zip Code SDVOB* GDBE**

Abbott Laboratories dba Redwood Toxicology Laboratory, Inc.

3650 Westwind Blvd. Santa Rosa, CA 95403

No No

Technical Resource Management dba Cordant Health Solutions

5604 Fortune Circle South Dr., Suite N, Indianapolis, IN 46241

No No

DATCO Services Corporation 2280 Grass Valley Hwy., Suite 232, Auburn, CA 95603

No No

Phamatech, Inc. 15175 Innovation Drive, San Diego, CA 92128

No No

*SDVOB: Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Business **GDBE: Geographically Disadvantaged Business Enterprise

Version 2024-2 Page 3 of 19

EVALUATION SYNOPSIS

I. Evaluation Process

A Responsible Vendor is a vendor that demonstrates it has the ability to successfully perform the duties identified by the solicitation. A Responsive proposal is one that is submitted in accordance with the solicitation instructions and meets all mandatory requirements identified in the solicitation.

Proposal Instructions: Evaluation Process

The State will evaluate each proposal based on the following factors:

1) Statewide Third-Party Administrator (TPA) Services for Drug and Alcohol Testing of State of Michigan Employees and Pre-Hire Applicants:

Technical Criteria Name Weight

Project Scope

• Schedule A1 - Statement of Work, Section 1 and 4

Service Requirements

• Schedule A1 - Statement of Work, Sections 2, 5 - 9

Staffing

• Schedule A1 - Statement of Work, Section 3

• Key Personnel attached résumés

Company Background

• Vendor Questions Worksheet

Total Weight 100

2) Off-site Reference Laboratory Urine and Saliva Screening and Confirmation Services for Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) Prisoners, Parolees, and Probationers:

Technical Criteria Name Weight

Project Scope

• Schedule A2 - Statement of Work, Section 1 and 4

Service Requirements

• Schedule A2 - Statement of Work, Sections 2, 5 - 9

Staffing

• Schedule A2 - Statement of Work, Section 3

• Key Personnel attached résumés

Company Background

• Vendor Questions Worksheet

Version 2024-2 Page 4 of 19

Technical Criteria Name Weight

Total Weight 100

The full evaluation process is stated in the RFP Proposal Instructions.

II. Evaluation Method

Responses to this solicitation were reviewed by a Joint Evaluation Committee (JEC), which consisted of the following individuals:

1) Statewide Third-Party Administrator (TPA) Services for Drug and Alcohol Testing of State of Michigan Employees and Pre-Hire Applicants:

Voting

Nichole Harrell, DTMB – Procurement Cheryl Schmittdiel, Office of the State Employer Jennifer White, Office of the Employer

2) Off-site Reference Laboratory Urine and Saliva Screening and Confirmation Services for Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) Prisoners, Parolees, and Probationers:

Voting Advisory

Nichole Harrell, DTMB – Procurement Andrew Fotenakes, MDOC Contract Manager Christopher Darling, MDOC SME Joseph Pirochta, MDOC SME

Christopher Hopcraft, MDOC Procurement Kristoffer Maddox, MDOC SME Robert Pawley, MDOC SME Jacob Erickson, MDOC SME

III. Evaluation Results

1) Statewide Third-Party Administrator (TPA) Services for Drug and Alcohol Testing of State of Michigan Employees and Pre-Hire Applicants:

A. DATCO Services Corporation

The Evaluation Team determined that DATCO Services Corporation based upon a score of 62, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Sections 1 & 4 Score 29/35

The following deficiencies were noted:

a. Page 3, Section 1.1.: 1, A (1) - B (1) Administration Management / Development of a Statewide Clinic/Provider Network, Bidder failed to provide a response in Bidder Response box.

b. Page 4, Section 1.1.: B. Development of a Statewide Clinic/Provider Network # 2, Bidder failed to provide a response in Bidder Response box.

c. Page 4, Section 1.1.: B. Development of a Statewide Clinic/Provider Network # 3, Bidder failed to provide a response in Bidder Response box.

Version 2024-2 Page 5 of 19

d. Page 5, Section 1.1.: B. Development of a Statewide Clinic/Provider Network (4 – 8), Bidder failed to provide a response in Bidder Response box.

e. Page 5, Section 1.1.: B. Development of a Statewide Clinic/Provider Network # 9, Bidder failed to provide a response in Bidder Response box.

f. Page 21, Section 4.1. Project Plan, Bidder failed to submit a sample project plan.

2. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Sections 2 & 5 – 9 Score 20/20

No deficiencies were noted for these sections.

3. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Section 3 Score 5/15

The following deficiencies were noted:

a. Page 15, Section 3.1. Contractor Representative, Bidder failed to provide a response in Bidder Response box.

b. Page 16, Section 3.2. Customer Service Telephone Number, Bidder failed to provide a response in Bidder Response box.

c. Page 16, Section 3.3. Technical Support, Repairs and Maintenance, Bidder failed to provide a response in Bidder Response box.

d. Page 16, Section 3.5. Key Personnel (B), Bidder failed to provide detailed, chronological description of Key Personnel’ work experience relevant to their proposed role.

e. Page 19, Section 3.7. Disclosure of Subcontractors, Bidder did not provide sufficient detail for any of the proposed subcontractors.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet Score 8/30

The following deficiencies were noted:

a. Page 2, Section 2. Company Background Information, Bidder fails to address whether receiving a contract under this RFP will increase gross revenue by more than 25% from last years sales.

b. Page 3, Section 5. State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience, Experience 1, Experience provided is similar in scope, but not size.

c. Page 4, Section 5. State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience, Experience 2, Experience provided is similar in scope, but not size.

d. Page 5, Section 5. State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience, Experience 1, Experience provided is similar in scope, but not size. Experience is also not within the last five (5) years.

Total Score: 62/100

B. HourGlass Testing Solutions, LLC

The Evaluation Team determined that HourGlass Testing Solutions, LLC based upon a score of 60, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

Version 2024-2 Page 6 of 19

1. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Sections 1 & 4 Score 33/35

The following deficiencies were noted:

a. Page 5, Section 1.1.: B. Development of a Statewide Clinic/Provider Network # 12, Bidder failed to address “After Hours Hotline” with 24/7 availability in their response.

b. Page 6, Section 1.1.: C. Breath Alcohol Testing, Urine Drug Testing, Split Specimen Testing #6 (b), Related Supplies and Shipping Services, Bidder failed to address non-negative reporting to the MROs within 72 hours in their response.

c. Page 13, Section 1.1.: H. Additional Requirements for Contractor (1 – 6), Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

2. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Sections 2 & 5 – 9 Score 20/20

No deficiencies were noted for these sections.

3. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Section 3 Score 7/15

The following deficiencies were noted:

a. Page 16, Section 3.5. Key Personnel, Bidder does not meet the requirement(s) as presented as they have provided one MRO who is not a full-time employee.

b. Page 16, Section 3.5. Key Personnel, Bidder does not meet the requirement(s) as presented as two of their purposed “Key Personnel” are not full-time employees.

c. Page 19, Section 3.7. Disclosure of Subcontractors, MRO is employed by Cynergy Wellness and Bidder failed to provide any subcontractor information.

d. Page 19, Section 3.7. Disclosure of Subcontractors, Incomplete response provided.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet Score 0/30

The following deficiencies were noted:

a. Page 3, Section 5. State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience, Experience 1, Bidder failed to provide any experience.

b. Page 4, Section 5. State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience, Experience 2, Bidder failed to provide any experience.

c. Page 5, Section 5. State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience, Experience 1, Bidder failed to provide any experience.

Total Score 60/100

C. Nao Medical

The Evaluation Team determined that Nao Medical based upon a score of 91, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Sections 1 & 4 Score 35/35

No deficiencies were noted for these sections.

2. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Sections 2, and 5 – 9 Score 20/20

Version 2024-2 Page 7 of 19

No deficiencies were noted for these sections.

3. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Section 3 Score 15/15

No deficiencies were noted for these sections.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet Score 21/30

The following deficiencies were noted:

a. Page 3, Section 5. State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience, Experience 1, Experience provided is similar in scope. However, size is unknown as Dollar Value listed as

TBD.

b. Page 4, Section 5. State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience, Experience 2, Experience provided is similar in scope. However, size is unknown as Dollar Value listed as

TBD.

c. Page 5, Section 5. State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience, Experience 1, Experience provided is similar in scope. However, size is unknown as Dollar Value listed as

TBD.

Total Score: 91/100

D. Sincere Lab Services

Proposal was considered nonresponsive. Bidder did not follow instructions and information submitted was incomplete. Bidder failed to provide a response in any of the Bidder Response boxes as required and did not submit any of the supporting documentation with their proposal as requested.

E. Tomo Drug Testing

The Evaluation Team determined that Tomo Drug Testing based upon a score of 81, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Sections 1 and 4 Score 30/35

The responses provided were largely satisfactory, however, the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Page 3, Section 1.1.: 1, A (1) - B (1) Administration Management / Development of a Statewide Clinic/Provider Network, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

b. Page 3, Section 1.1.: B. Development of a Statewide Clinic/Provider Network # 2, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

c. Page 5, Section 1.1.: B. Development of a Statewide Clinic/Provider Network (4 – 8), Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

d. Page 22, Section 4.3. Reporting (A – H), Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

e. Page 22, Section 4.3. Reporting (A – H), Bidder failed to provide sample reports.

Version 2024-2 Page 8 of 19

2. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Section 2 and 5 – 9 Score 20/20

No deficiencies were noted for these sections.

3. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Section 3 Score 10/15

The responses provided were largely satisfactory, however, the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Page 16, Section 3.5. Key Personnel, Bidder does not meet the requirement(s) as presented as they have provided one MRO who is not a full-time employee.

b. Page 19, Section 3.7. Disclosure of Subcontractors, Bidder failed to provide subcontractor information for DrugPak.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet Score 21/30

a. Page 3, Section 5. State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience, Experience 1, Experience provided is similar in scope, not size. Bidder also failed to detail the results obtained.

b. Page 4, Section 5. State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience, Experience 2, Experience provided is similar in scope, not size. Bidder also failed to detail the results obtained.

c. Page 5, Section 5. State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience, Experience 1, Experience provided is similar in scope, not size. Bidder also failed to detail the results obtained.

Total Score: 81/100

F. Transitions by HR

Proposal was considered nonresponsive. Bidder did not follow instructions and information submitted was incomplete. Bidder failed to provide a response in any of the Bidder Response boxes as required and did not submit any of the supporting documentation with their proposal as requested.

G. Vault Workforce Screening

The Evaluation Team determined that Vault Workforce Screening, based upon a score of 93, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Sections 1 and 4 Score 32/35

The responses provided were largely satisfactory, however, the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Page 11, Section 1.1.: G. Medical Review Officer (MRO) and Substance Abuse Professional (SAP) Services (1 – 16), Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

b. Page 14, Section 1.4. Required Functionality Relating to Data Retention, Disposal and Retrieval, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

c. Page 22, Section 4.3. Reporting (A – H), Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as

Version 2024-2 Page 9 of 19

2. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Sections 2, and 5 – 9 Score 18/20

The responses provided were largely satisfactory, however, the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Page 31, Section 9.1. MDOC Vendor Rules and Regulations, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

b. Page 31, Section 9.2. MDOC Procurement, Monitoring and Compliance Division, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

3. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Section 3 Score 13/15

The responses provided were largely satisfactory, however, the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Page 19, Section 3.5. Key Personnel B., Bidder failed to provide detailed, chronological description of Key Personnel’ work experience relevant to their purposed role.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet Score 30/30

No deficiencies were noted for this section.

Total Score: 93/100

2) Off-site Reference Laboratory Urine and Saliva Screening and Confirmation Services for Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) Prisoners, Parolees, and Probationers:

A. Redwood Toxicology Laboratory, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Redwood Toxicology Laboratory, Inc. based upon a score of 90.3, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

5. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Sections 1 & 4 Score 31.5 /35

The responses provided were largely satisfactory, however, the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Page 4, Section 1.1. General Requirements for Urine and Saliva Testing (k – l), Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

b. Page 5, Section 1.1 General Requirements for Urine and Saliva Testing (n), Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

c. Page 11, Section 1.3. Requirements for Saliva Testing (a – b), Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

d. Page 11, Section 1.3. Requirements for Saliva Testing (c) Table 5: Initial Test Cut Off Concentrations, Bidder failed to provide a response in Bidder Response box.

e. Page 14, Section 1.3. Requirements for Saliva Testing (j – k), Bidder failed to accept the requirements as presented.

6. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Sections 2 and 5 – 9 Score 15.8/20

The responses provided were largely satisfactory, however, the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Page 14, Section 2.1. Training and Training Materials (b), Bidder failed to accept the requirements as presented.

Version 2024-2 Page 10 of 19

b. Page 30, Section 9.1. MDOC Vendor Rules and Regulations, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

c. Page 31, Section 9.4. MDOC Specific Security, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

d. Page 34, Section 9.5. MDOC Training, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

7. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Section 3 Score 13/15

The responses provided were largely satisfactory, however, the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Page 22, Section 3.2. Key Personnel, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

8. Vendor Questions Worksheet Score 30/30

No deficiencies were noted for this section.

Total Score: 90.3/100

B. Cordant Health Solutions

The Evaluation Team determined that Cordant Health Solutions based upon a score of 92.3, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

2. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Sections 1 & 4 Score 30.5/35

The responses provided were largely satisfactory, however, the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Page 3, Section 1.1. General Requirements for Urine and Saliva Testing (i), Due to separate RESPONSES document, bidders’ answers were confusing and difficult to locate.

b. Page 4, Section 1.1. General Requirements for Urine and Saliva Testing (k – l), Bidder does not hold HHS Certification or participate in the HHS Certification Program.

c. Page 5, Section 1.1. General Requirements for Urine and Saliva Testing (o), Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

d. Page 11, Section 1.3. Requirements for Saliva Testing (a – b), Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

e. Page 14, Section 1.3. Requirements for Saliva Testing (j - k), Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

4. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Sections 2 & 5 – 9 Score 16.8/20

The responses provided were largely satisfactory, however, the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Page 27, Section 5.1. Price Term, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

b. Page 30, Section 9.1. MDOC Vendor Rules and Regulations, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

c. Page 34, Section 9.5. MDOC Training, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as

5. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Section 3 Score 15/15

Version 2024-2 Page 11 of 19

No deficiencies were noted for this section.

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet Score 30/30

No deficiencies were noted for this section.

Total Score 92.3/100

C. DATCO Services Corporation

The Evaluation Team determined that DATCO Services Corporation, based upon a score of 48.8, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

2. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Sections 1 & 4 Score 21/35

The following deficiencies were noted for these sections:

a. Page 6, Section 1.1. General Requirements for Urine and Saliva Testing (q), Bidder failed to provide a brief description of each of their proposed laboratories.

b. Page 6, Section 1.1. General Requirements for Urine and Saliva Testing (r), Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

c. Page 6, Section 1.1. General Requirements for Urine and Saliva Testing (r), Bidder failed to provide a response in the Bidder Response box.

d. Page 6, Section 1.1. General Requirements for Urine and Saliva Testing (s), Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

e. Page 6, Section 1.1. General Requirements for Urine and Saliva Testing (s), Bidder failed to provide a response in the Bidder Response box.

f. Page 6, Section 1.1. General Requirements for Urine and Saliva Testing (t), Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

g. Page 6, Section 1.1. General Requirements for Urine and Saliva Testing (u), Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

h. Page 6, Section 1.1. General Requirements for Urine and Saliva Testing (u), Bidder failed to provide a response in the Bidder Response box.

i. Page 7, Section 1.1. General Requirements for Urine and Saliva Testing (v), Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

j. Page 7, Section 1.1. General Requirements for Urine and Saliva Testing (v), Bidder failed to provide a response in the Bidder Response box.

k. Page 7, Section 1.1. General Requirements for Urine and Saliva Testing (w), Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

l. Page 7, Section 1.1. General Requirements for Urine and Saliva Testing (w), Bidder failed to provide a response in the Bidder Response box.

m. Page 7, Section 1.1. General Requirements for Urine and Saliva Testing (x), Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

Version 2024-2 Page 12 of 19

n. Page 7, Section 1.1. General Requirements for Urine and Saliva Testing (x), Bidder failed to provide a response in the Bidder Response box.

o. Page 7, Section 1.2. Requirements for Urine Testing, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

p. Page 8, Section 1.2. a. Required Urine Panels (i – ii), Bidder failed to provide a response in the Bidder Response box.

q. Page 10, Section 1.2. a. Required Urine Panels, Table 1 – 4 Bidder Response box, Bidder failed to provide a response in the Bidder Response boxes.

r. Page 12, Section 1.3. c. Recommended Cut Off Concentrations for Oral Fluid Specimens, Bidder failed to provide a response in the Bidder Response boxes.

s. Page 14, Section 1.3. Requirements for Saliva Testing (l), Bidder failed to provide a response in the Bidder Response boxes.

t. Page 15, Section 1.4. OMNI Information System Requirements, b. System Requirements for Bidders, Bidder failed to provide a draft script in their data (software) environment for review.

3. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Sections 2, and 5 – 9 Score 15.8/20

The following deficiencies were noted for these sections:

a. Page 19, Section 2.1. Training and Training Materials (b), Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

b. Page 19, Section 2.1. Training and Training Materials (b), Bidder failed to provide an outline of its onsite training plan.

c. Page 19, Section 2.1. Training and Training Materials (c - d), Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

d. Page 36, Section 9.6. Service-Level Agreement, Metric 2, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

4. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Section 3 Score 8/15

The following deficiencies were noted for these sections:

a. Page 21, Section 3.1. Contractor Representative, Bidder failed to provide their primary Contractor Representative details.

b. Page 21, Section 3.1. Contractor Representative, Bidder failed to provide their alternate Contractor Representative details.

c. Page 24, Section 3.2. Key Personnel (B.), Bidder failed to provide detailed, chronological resumes of all proposed Key Personnel.

d. Page 24, Section 3.4. Customer Service Contact Information, Bidder failed to provide a response in the Bidder Response box.

e. Page 24, Section 3.5. Technical Support, Bidder failed to provide a response in the Bidder Response box.

Version 2024-2 Page 13 of 19

f. Page 25, Section 3.8. Disclosure of Subcontractors, Bidder failed to provide detailed subcontractor information for all proposed laboratories.

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet Score 4/30

The following deficiencies were noted:

a. Page 3, Section 5. State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience, Experience 1, Experience provided is similar in scope, not size.

b. Page 4, Section 5. State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience, Experience 2, Experience provided is similar in scope, not size.

c. Page 5, Section 5. State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience, Experience 1, Experience provided is similar in scope, not size. Experience is also not within the last five (5) years.

Total Score: 48.8/100

D. Phamatech Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Phamatech Inc. based upon a score of 95.9, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

2. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Sections 1 and 4 Score 32.9/35

The responses provided were largely satisfactory, however, the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Page 3, Section 1. General Requirements for Urine and Saliva Testing (j), Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) certificate provided by the bidder expired on 10/08/2024.

b. Page 7, Section 1.2. Requirements for Urine Testing (a) i and ii, Bidder failed to provide response in the Bidder Response box.

c. Page 13, Section 1.3. Requirements for Saliva Testing (e) 1 - 2, Bidder failed to provide detail on the methodology for both the initial screen and confirmation.

3. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Section 2 and 5 – 9 Score 20/20

No deficiencies were noted for these sections.

5. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Section 3 Score 13/15

The responses provided were largely satisfactory, however, the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Page 22, Section 3.5. Key Personnel B., Bidder failed to provide detailed, chronological resumes for all proposed Key Personnel.

6. Vendor Questions Worksheet Score 30/30

No deficiencies were noted for this section.

Total Score: 95.9/100

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

1) Statewide Third-Party Administrator (TPA) Services for Drug and Alcohol Testing of State of Michigan Employees and Pre-Hire Applicants:

Version 2024-2 Page 14 of 19

Technical Criteria Name DATCO Hourglass Nao Medical

Tomo Drug Testing

Vault Workforce

Project Scope

• Schedule A1 - Statement of Work, Section 1 and 4

-6 -2 0 -5 -3

Service Requirements

• Schedule A1 - Statement of Work, Sections 2, 5 - 9

0 0 0 0 -2

Staffing

• Schedule A1 - Statement of Work, Section 3

• Key Personnel attached résumés

-10 -8 0 -5 -2

Company Background

• Vendor Questions Worksheet -22 -30 -9 -9 0

Total Technical Evaluation Deductions -38 -40 -9 -19 -7

Technical Evaluation Score 62 60 91 81 93

2) Off-site Reference Laboratory Urine and Saliva Screening and Confirmation Services for Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) Prisoners, Parolees, and Probationers:

Technical Criteria Name Redwood Toxicology Cordant DATCO Phamatech

Project Scope

• Schedule A1 - Statement of Work, Section 1 and 4

-3.5 -4.5 -15.4 -2.1

Service Requirements

• Schedule A1 - Statement of Work, Sections 2, 5 - 9

-4.2 -3.2 -4.2 0

Staffing

• Schedule A1 - Statement of Work, Section 3

• Key Personnel attached résumés

-2.0 0 -7 -2

Company Background

• Vendor Questions Worksheet 0 0 -26 0

Version 2024-2 Page 15 of 19

Technical Criteria Name Redwood Toxicology Cordant DATCO Phamatech

Total Technical Evaluation Deductions -9.7 -7.7 -52.6 -4.1

Technical Evaluation Score 90.3 92.3 47.4 95.9

V. Pricing Summary

Pricing was evaluated for the bidders who passed technical. The following is a summary of their price proposals:

2) Statewide Third-Party Administrator (TPA) Services for Drug and Alcohol Testing of State of Michigan Employees and Pre-Hire Applicants:

Deliverable Est. Annual

Qty. Nao Medical TOMO Vault Workforce

1 SPECIMEN COLLECTION

AND TESTING 13,000 $55.00 $80.00 $39.70

2 QUEST PSC (Vault Only) - - $27.76

3 BREATH ALCOHOL TESTING 2,000 $48.00 $60.00 $34.13

4 RE-ANALYSIS OF SPLIT

SPECIMENS 2 $130.00 $275.00 $125.00

5 BLOOD 5 PANEL 2 $150.00 - $300.00

6 BLOOD 9 PANEL (TOMO

Only) - $230.00 -

7 MOBILE OR ON-SITE

COLLECTION (REMOTE) 2 $300.00 $75.00 $75.00

8 TRAINING (PER SESSION) 5 $250.00 $1,250.00 $200.00

9 LEGAL/TESTIMONY (PER

HOUR) 75 $250.00 $275.00 $150.00

10 LITIGATION PACKAGE 75 $250.00 $45.00 $90.00

11 SPECIAL

PROJECT/REPORTS 5 $250.00 $50.00 $200.00

12 IT DEVELOPMENT TIME 5 $250.00 $50.00 $200.00

Annual Spend $853,410.00 $1,191,910.00 $528,750.00

3-Year Base Term $2,560,230.00 $3,575,730.00 $1,586,250.00

Version 2024-2 Page 16 of 19

3) Off-site Reference Laboratory Urine and Saliva Screening and Confirmation Services for Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) Prisoners, Parolees, and Probationers:

Qty.

Redwood

Toxicology Cordant Phamatech

1 URINE PANEL A 6,720 $17.25 $16.50 $23.00

2 URINE PANEL B 1,500 $16.75 $15.00 $21.00

3 URINE PANEL C 1,000 $16.75 $15.00 $21.00

4 URINE SPECIAL REQUESTS 20 $16.75 $19.00 $25.00

5 LSD 20 $125.00 $104.95 -

6 URINE CONFIRMATION

TESTS 200 $16.75 $19.00 $27.00

7 AMPHETAMINE 10 $17.75 $19.70 $27.00

8 METHAMPHETAMINE 10 $17.75 $19.70 $27.00

9 BARBITURATES 10 $17.75 $19.70 $27.00

10 BENZODIAZEPINES 10 $17.75 $19.70 $27.00

11 CANNABINOIDS 10 $17.75 $19.70 $27.00

12 COCAINE 10 $17.75 $19.70 $27.00

13 BENZOYLECGONINE 10 $17.75 $19.70 $27.00

14 METHADONE 10 $17.75 $19.70 $27.00

15 OPIATES 10 $17.75 $19.70 $27.00

16 PHENCYCLIDINE (PCP) 10 $17.75 $19.70 $27.00

17 ALCOHOL 10 $17.75 $19.70 $27.00

Annual Cost $163,432.50 $154,811.50 $210,530.00

3-Year Base Term $490,297.50 $464,434.50 $631,590.00

VI. Negotiations

1) Statewide Third-Party Administrator (TPA) Services for Drug and Alcohol Testing of State of Michigan Employees and Pre-Hire Applicants:

Second-round pricing clarifications and offers were requested from all three bidders. As a result, Tomo Drug Testing reduced their overall bid by 4.69% and Vault Workforce Screening reduced their overall bid by .979%.

The following is a summary of their second-round pricing proposals.:

Version 2024-2 Page 17 of 19

Note, adjusted pricing is highlighted in red.

Qty. Nao Medical TOMO Vault Workforce

1 SPECIMEN COLLECTION AND

TESTING 13,000 $55.00 $76.00 $39.70

2 QUEST PSC (Vault Only) - - $26.97

3 BREATH ALCOHOL TESTING 2,000 $48.00 $58.00 $34.13

4 RE-ANALYSIS OF SPLIT

SPECIMENS 2 $130.00 $275.00 $125.00

5 BLOOD 5 PANEL 2 $150.00 - $279.00

6 BLOOD 9 PANEL (TOMO Only) - $230.00 -

7 MOBILE OR ON-SITE

COLLECTION (REMOTE) 2 $300.00 $75.00 $75.00

8 TRAINING (PER SESSION) 5 $250.00 $1,250.00 $200.00

9 LEGAL/TESTIMONY (PER

HOUR) 75 $250.00 $275.00 $150.00

10 LITIGATION PACKAGE 75 $250.00 $45.00 $90.00

11 SPECIAL PROJECT/REPORTS 5 $250.00 $50.00 $200.00

12 IT DEVELOPMENT TIME 5 $250.00 $50.00 $200.00

Annual Spend $853,410.00 $1,135,910.00 $523,573.00

3-Year Base Term $2,560,230.00 $3,407,730.00 $1,570,719.00

2) Off-site Reference Laboratory Urine and Saliva Screening and Confirmation Services for Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) Prisoners, Parolees, and Probationers:

Second-round pricing clarifications and offers were requested from all three bidders. As a result, Redwood Toxicology Laboratory, Inc. reduced their overall bid by 5.75% and Cordant reduced their overall bid by .359%.

The following is a summary of their second-round pricing proposals.:

Note, adjusted pricing is highlighted in red.

Redwood

Toxicology Cordant Phamatech

1 URINE PANEL A 6,720 $16.75 $16.45 $23.00

2 URINE PANEL B 1,500 $14.50 $15.00 $21.00

3 URINE PANEL C 1,000 $14.50 $15.00 $21.00

Version 2024-2 Page 18 of 19

Redwood

Toxicology Cordant Phamatech

4 URINE SPECIAL REQUESTS 20 $15.50 $18.00 $25.00

5 LSD 20 $125.00 $104.95 -

6 URINE CONFIRMATION

TESTS 200 $15.50 $18.00 $27.00

7 AMPHETAMINE 10 $16.50 $19.70 $27.00

8 METHAMPHETAMINE 10 $16.50 $19.70 $27.00

9 BARBITURATES 10 $16.50 $19.70 $27.00

10 BENZODIAZEPINES 10 $16.50 $19.70 $27.00

11 CANNABINOIDS 10 $16.50 $19.70 $27.00

12 COCAINE 10 $16.50 $19.70 $27.00

13 BENZOYLECGONINE 10 $16.50 $19.70 $27.00

14 METHADONE 10 $16.50 $19.70 $27.00

15 OPIATES 10 $16.50 $19.70 $27.00

16 PHENCYCLIDINE (PCP) 10 $16.50 $19.70 $27.00

17 ALCOHOL 10 $16.50 $19.70 $27.00

Annual Cost $154,035.00 $154,255.50 $210,530.00

3-Year Base Term $462,105.00 $462,766.50 $631,590.00

VII. Award Recommendation

Award recommendation is made to the responsive and responsible Bidder who offers the best value to the State of Michigan. Best value is based on the proposal meeting the minimum point threshold and offering the best combination of the factors stated in the Proposal Instructions Evaluation Process section, and price.

1) Statewide Third-Party Administrator (TPA) Services for Drug and Alcohol Testing of State of Michigan Employees and Pre-Hire Applicants:

Vault Workforce Screening provided the best value to the State. Best value factors for Award Recommendation include passing the technical evaluation, competitive pricing, proven experience and established collection site coverage.

As part of the best value determination, overall economic impact to the State of Michigan was considered and is not a determinative factor in making this award.

Version 2024-2 Page 19 of 19

2) Off-site Reference Laboratory Urine and Saliva Screening and Confirmation Services for Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) Prisoners, Parolees, and Probationers:

Redwood Toxicology Laboratory, Inc. provided the best value to the State. Best value factors for Award Recommendation include passing the technical evaluation, bidder accreditations and experience combined with competitive pricing.

As part of the best value determination, overall economic impact to the State of Michigan was considered and is not a determinative factor in making this award.