Award Letter and Synopsis RFP 230000002512 Final.docx

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

Notice of Intent to Award Number: 240000000071 The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services office has completed the evaluation of RFP 230000002512 Psychiatric, Psychology and Physician Services and has recommended an award to the following Bidders, in the following amounts, pending State Administrative Board approval, if applicable. More information on the State Administrative Board can be found at: State Administrative Board.

Annashae Corp: $10,500,000.00 ATC Healthcare Services, LLC: $10,500,000.00 Care One Inc: $10,500,000.00 Consilium Staffing, LLC: $10,500,000.00 Jackson + Coker Locum Tenens: $10,500,000.00 Locumtenens.com: $10,500,000.00 Maxim Physician Resources LLC: $10,500,000.00

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:

Debra Frazzitta, Solicitation Manager.

Frazzittad@michigan.gov 810-966-2029 Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor to provide Psychiatric, Psychology and Physician Services for the State Psychiatric Hospitals. The term of this contract is three years, with up to 2, 1-year renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on August 29, 2023 for four weeks, two days. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of September 28, 2023.

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

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 full evaluation process is stated in the RFP Proposal Instructions.

II. Evaluation Method Responses to this solicitation were reviewed by Solicitation Manager and a Joint Evaluation Committee, which consisted of the following individuals:

Catherine Reid, MD, Medical Adviser State Hospital Administration MI Department of Health & Human Services

Debra Frazzitta, Solicitation Manager MDHHS Bureau of Grants and Purchasing

Nick Norcross, State Assistant Administrator State Hospital Administration MI Department of Health & Human Services

Brandi Bryant, Senior Executive Management Assistant, Clinical Affairs, Walter P. Reuther Psychiatric Hospital MI Department of Health & Human Services

III. Evaluation Results Bidder # 1 – Annashae Corp The Evaluation Team determined that Annashae Corp. based on a score of 99, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

A. Vendor Questions Worksheet (24/25) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

#2. Section 2 Company Background – For gross annual sales for last five years, bidder didn’t respond to the impact if awarded a contract through this RFP and it increases their gross revenue by 25%.

B. Statement of Work, Sections 1-2 (30/30) The Evaluation Committee determined that the overall responses were satisfactory, no deficiencies were noted.

C. Statement of Work, Sections 3-4 (30/30) The Evaluation Committee determined that the overall responses were satisfactory, no deficiencies were noted.

D. Statement of Work, Sections 5-8 (15/15) The Evaluation Committee determined that the overall responses were satisfactory, no deficiencies were noted.

Total Score: 99/100 Bidder # 2 – ATC Healthcare Services The Evaluation Team determined that ATC Healthcare Services based on a score of 97, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

A. Vendor Questions Worksheet (23/25) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

B. Statement of Work, Section 1-2 (30/30) The Evaluation Committee determined that the overall responses were satisfactory, no deficiencies were noted.

C. Statement of Work, Sections 3-4 (29/30) The Evaluation Committee determined that the overall responses were mostly satisfactory, the following deficiency was noted:

#3.7 Bidder discussed background checks and scope but didn’t address facility entrance requirements.

D. Statement of Work, Sections 5-8 (15/15) The Evaluation Committee determined that the overall responses were satisfactory, no deficiencies were noted.

Total Score:97/100

Bidder # 3 – BayInfotech LLC Bidder #3 did not meet the requirements of being a responsive bidder due to submitting an incomplete bid response per the RFP instructions. Sections of the Vendor Questions Worksheet and Schedule A Statement of Work were removed from the form that the bidder submitted.

Bidder # 4 –Care One The Evaluation Team determined that Care One based on a score of 97, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

A. Vendor Questions Worksheet (23/25) The Evaluation Committee determined that the overall responses were mostly satisfactory, the following deficiency was noted.

#5 Experience – Bidder’s Experience #3 does not fall within the last five years as required.

B. Statement of Work, Section 1-2 (29/30) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

#1.1. General Requirements – Bidder addressed the two-day response requirement, but they didn’t describe their recruitment process and if/how they maintain a pool of qualified candidates.

C. Statement of Work, Section 3-4 (30/30) The Evaluation Committee determined that the overall responses were satisfactory, no deficiencies were noted.

D. Statement of Work, Sections 5-8 (15/15) The Evaluation Committee determined that the overall responses were satisfactory, no deficiencies were noted.

Total Score:97/100

Bidder # 5 – Consilium Staffing The Evaluation Team determined that Consilium Staffing based on a score of 99, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

A. Vendor Questions Worksheet (24/25) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

#6 Standard Contract Terms – Bidder took exception to the Standard Contract Terms.

B. Statement of Work, Section 1-2 (30/30) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory, and no deficiencies were noted.

C. Statement of Work, Section 3-4 (30/30) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory, and no deficiencies were noted.

D. Statement of Work, Sections 5-8 (15/15) The Evaluation Committee determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory, and no deficiencies were noted.

Total Score:99/100

Bidder # 6 – DRW Healthcare Staffing The Evaluation Team determined that DRW Healthcare Staffing based on a score of 72, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

The following deficiencies were noted:

A. Vendor Questions Worksheet (16/25) #5 Experience – For all three experiences, Bidder states they provide staffing for Psychiatric inpatient, partial day program and outpatient facilities for adults, children & adolescents but they didn’t list the specific positions, the number of positions sourced, number of requests. There is no set value on pricing so unable to determine if similar in size.

#6 Standard Contract Terms – Bidder took exception to the Standard Contract Terms.

B. Statement of Work, Sections 1-2 (21/30) #1.1. General Requirements – Bidder stated they would only provide psychiatrist and physicians. While they agree with no exceptions, they did not respond to how they would comply with the requirements.

#1.4. Training – Bidder stated they agree with no exceptions but didn’t describe how they will comply with the requirement.

#2.2. Procedure – Bidder stated they agree with no exceptions but didn’t describe how they will comply with the requirement.

C. Statement of Work, Sections 3-4 (22/30) #3.4. Resumes – Bidder did not provide any resumes.

#4.2. Reporting – Bidder stated they agree with no exceptions but didn’t describe how they will comply with the requirement or provide any sample reports.

D. Statement of Work, Sections 5-8 (13/15) #5.3. Additional Pricing Notes – Bidder stated they agree with no exceptions but didn’t provide any details on what the mark-up percentage covers.

Total Score:72/100

Bidder # 7 – Jackson & Coker The Evaluation Team determined that Jackson & Coker based on a score of 95, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

A. Vendor Questions Worksheet (22/25) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

B. Statement of Work, Section 1-2 (30/30) The Evaluation Committee determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory, and no deficiencies were noted.

C. Statement of Work, Section 3-4 (29/30) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

#3.4. Key Personnel – Bidder took exception to Removal Credits and fees and is unable to agree.

D. Statement of Work, Section 5-8 (14/15) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

# 8. Liquidated Damages – Bidder took exception to this section and are unable to agree.

Total Score: 95/100 Bidder # 8 – Locumtenens.com The Evaluation Team determined that Locumtenens.com based on a score of 98, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

A. Vendor Questions Worksheet (24/25) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

#6 Standard Contract Terms – Bidder took exception to the Standard Contract Terms.

B. Statement of Work, Section 1-2 (30/30) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory, and no deficiencies were noted.

C. Statement of Work, Section 3-4 (30/30) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory, and no deficiencies were noted.

D. Statement of Work, Sections 5-8 (14/15) The Evaluation Committee determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

#8. Liquidated Damages – Bidder took exception to this section and are unable to agree.

Total Score:98/100

Bidder # 9 – Loyal Source Government Services The Evaluation Team determined that Loyal Source Government Services based on a score of 89, did meet the requirements of this RFP This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

A. Vendor Questions Worksheet (19/25) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

B. Statement of Work, Section 1-2 (30/30) The Evaluation Committee determined that the overall responses were satisfactory, no deficiencies were noted.

C. Statement of Work, Section 3-4 (26/30) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

#3.7. Security: Background Check and Facility Entrance – Bidder didn’t respond to the requirements of background checks or facility entrance.

#4.2. Reporting – Bidder did not provide copies of sample reports that are being requested in the RFP.

E. Statement of Work, Sections 5-8 (14/15) The Evaluation Committee determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

# 8. Liquidated Damages – Bidder took exception to this section and are unable to agree.

Total Score: 89/100 Bidder # 10 – Maxim Healthcare The Evaluation Team determined that Maxim Healthcare based on a score of 94, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

A. Vendor Questions Worksheet (22/25) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

B. Statement of Work, Section 1-2 (30/30) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory, and no deficiencies were noted.

C. Statement of Work, Section 3-4 (29/30) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

#3.7. Security: Background Check and Facility Entrance – Bidder provided a response relating to background checks but didn’t address facility entrance requirement.

D. Statement of Work, Sections 5-8 (13/15) The Evaluation Committee determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

Total Score:94/100

Bidder # 11 – MHM Solutions The Evaluation Team determined that MHM Solutions based on a score of 93, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

A. Vendor Questions Worksheet (24/25) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

#6 Standard Contract Terms – Bidder took exception to the Standard Contract Terms.

B. Statement of Work, Section 1-2 (25/30) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

#1.1. General Requirements – Bidder has exceptions to the State having a right to hire temporary staff as a SOM employee without penalty.

C. Statement of Work, Section 3-4 (30/30) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory, and no deficiencies were noted.

D. Statement of Work, Sections 5-8 (14/15) The Evaluation Committee determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

# 8. Liquidated Damages – Bidder took exception to this section and are unable to agree.

Total Score: 93/100 Bidder # 12 – Rapid Temps LLC The Evaluation Team determined that Rapid Temps LLC based on 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.

A. Vendor Questions Worksheet (17/25) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

#5 Experience. Bidders listed three experiences but stated they were unable to provide details of their current contracts because they have far too many to list. Bidder did not list any specific positions as it relates to the positions in the RFP, number of requests, number that they placed, or durations. Only say requirements were met.

B. Statement of Work, Section 1-2 (18/30) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

#1.1. General Requirements – Under General Requirements, bidder stated they would provide psychiatrist, physicians, and psychologists. While they did say they agree with no exceptions, they did not respond to how they would comply with any of the requirements in this section of the RFP.

#1.4. Training – Bidder stated they agree with no exceptions but didn’t describe how they will comply with the requirement in the RFP document.

#2.1. Service Requirements – Timeframes – Bidder stated they agree with no exceptions but didn’t describe how they will comply with the requirement in the RFP document.

#2.2. Procedure – Bidder stated they agree with no exceptions but didn’t describe how they will comply with the requirement in the RFP document.

C. Statement of Work, Section 3-4 (12/30) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

#3.2. Customer Service Toll-Free Number – Bidder stated they agree with no exceptions but didn’t describe how they will comply with the requirement.

#3.4. Key Personnel – While the bidder stated they would comply with the requirement, the did not provide anything in the Key Personnel chart within the RFP.

Resumes – No resumes were provided.

#3.5. Organizational Chart – No organizational chart was provided.

#3.7. Security: Background Check and Facility Entrance – Bidder agreed with no exception but didn’t describe how they will comply with the requirement.

#4.2. Reporting – Bidder stated they agree with no exceptions but didn’t describe how they will comply with the requirement and didn’t provide any sample reports.

D. Statement of Work, Sections 5-8 (13/15) The Evaluation Committee determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

#5.3. Additional Pricing Notes – Bidder stated they agree with no exceptions but didn’t describe how they will comply with the requirement and include any information that is included in the mark up.

Total Score: 60/100 Bidder # 13 – Resource Logistics Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Resource Logistics Inc. based on a score of 85, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

A. Vendor Questions Worksheet (10/25) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

#2. Section 2 Company Background – The Bidder states they have a proven track record of delivering exceptional healthcare services to the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services. They have a team of qualified Registered Nurses and Licensed Vocational Nurses to promote student well-being and academic success. They intend to pre-qualify vendors for approval by the Board of Education. They also state that their robust recruitment and selection process ensures that they provide skilled and competent nursing staff who can seamlessly integrate into the school community and deliver high-quality healthcare services. Later they state that they look forward to the opportunity to contribute to the well-being and academic success of State students.

B. Statement of Work, Section 1-2 (30/30) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory, and no deficiencies were noted.

C. Statement of Work, Section 3-4 (30/30) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory, and no deficiencies were noted.

D. Statement of Work, Sections 5-8 (15/15) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory, and no deficiencies were noted.

Total Score: 85/100 Bidder # 14 – Wellhart LLC The Evaluation Team determined that Wellhart LLC based on a score of 67, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

A. Vendor Questions Worksheet (23/25) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

B. Statement of Work, Section 1-2 (15/30) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

#1.1. General Requirements – Bidder has exceptions to the State having the ability to hire temporary staff as a SOM employee without penalty.

#1.4. Training – Bidder stated as the contractor, they cannot meet the MDHHS regulatory standards, policies and procedures as well as requirements of the Office of Recipient Rights listed A-F. They provide independent contractors that they do not exert control over or direct. They stated they can identify independent contractors that may participate and conform to all MDHHS training requirement, however, they cannot ensure they will abide by all MDHHS and hospital regulatory standards, policies, procedures, and requirements. The evaluation team is unsure if the bidder will ensure the independent contractors will comply with this requirement.

#2.4. Performance Evaluation and Competency Review Process – Bidder states they have exceptions, and that they cannot provide orientation for core professional competencies. Evaluation team is concerned that the bidder will not confirm with their independent contractors that they meet this requirement.

C. Statement of Work, Section 3-4 (15/30) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

#3.6. Disclosure of Subcontractors – Since the bidder is utilizing Barton & Associates for the recruiting and placement of candidates and 80% of the work will be done by them, the evaluation team would have liked more information on Barton & Associates including resumes and experience for staff.

#4.1. Meetings – Bidder states they can identify independent contractors who may participate in or attend daily medical report meetings with hospital clinical staff requirement, however, they cannot ensure they will abide by this requirement. They state that cannot exert control over its independent contractors or direct.

#4.2. Reporting – Bidder states they can identify independent contractors who may meet reporting requirements with documentation provided by MDHHS such as EMR requirements. However, the bidder will complete written monthly and quarterly usage reports.

D. Statement of Work, Sections 5-8 (14/15) The Evaluation Committee determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

#8. Liquidated Damages – Bidder took exception to this section and are unable to agree.

Total Score: 67/100

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

V. Pricing Summary Pricing was evaluated for the bidders who passed technical. Refer to pages 19 and 20 for a summary of their proposals.

VI. Award Recommendation Award recommendation is made to the responsive and responsible Bidders who offer 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 7, Company Background and Experience, no penalty to hire staff as a State of Michigan employee, and pricing. The following Bidders provided the best value to the State of Michigan. An Award Recommendation is made in the following amounts:

Annashae Corp: $10,500,000.00 ATC Healthcare Services, LLC: $10,500,000.00 Care One Inc: $10,500,000.00 Consilium Staffing, LLC: $10,500,000.00 Jackson + Coker Locum Tenens: $10,500,000.00 Locumtenens.com: $10,500,000.00 Maxim Physician Resources LLC: $10,500,000.00

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Version 2023-1 RFP 230000002512 Temp Staffing Pricing

image1.png