Award Recommendation and Evaluation Synopsis 270000000032.pdf

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

Notice of Intent to Award Number: 270000000032

Notice of Intent to Award Date: 10/13/2026

The Michigan Department of Education has completed the evaluation of RFP 260000002603 - English Learner Program Support and has recommended an award to Lena Montgomery in the amount of $25,020, 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:

Jenny Manar, Solicitation Manager.

manarj@michigan.gov

517-241-2170

Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor to provide technical assistance, support compliance monitoring and evaluation, and review district reporting in collaboration with special populations manager and English learner consultant. The term of this contract is 1 year, with up to (6) additional (1) year renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on September 10, 2026, for 18 calendar days. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of September 28, 2026.

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

Augenblick, Palaich and Associates, Inc.

1658 N Lafayette St, Suite 1662-A Denver, CO 80218

NA NA

Lena Montgomery 4850 Freiermuth Road, Stockbridge MI 49285

Society of ReignMakers, LLC, 20245 W 12 Mile Rd, #112, Southfield, MI 48076

*SDVOB: Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Business **GDBE: Geographically Disadvantaged Business Enterprise https://www.michigan.gov/dtmb/policies/state-ad-board https://www.michigan.gov/dtmb/policies/state-ad-board

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: Mandatory Minimum Requirements

• Knowledge of the state and federal legal requirements related to English learner instructional programming.

• Experience providing technical assistance to districts regarding English learner programs.

• Knowledge and/experience establishing English learning programs including teacher certification requirements, associated costs, selecting instructional materials and supervising or coaching English learner instructional staff.

Proposal Instructions: Evaluation Process

Technical Evaluation Criteria Weight

1. Vendor Questions Worksheet 10

2. Schedule A – Statement of Work. Section 4 - General Requirements 50

3. Schedule A – Statement of Work. Section 5 – Project Plan 10

4. Schedule A – Statement of Work. Sections 6-11, 14, 16-24 10

5. Schedule A – Statement of Work. Sections 12, 13, and 15 20

Total: 100

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

II. Evaluation Method

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

Voting Voting

Jenny Manar – Solicitation Manager MDE/Office of Financial Management

Carol Munroe – Analyst MDE/Office of Financial Management

Michelle Williams – Special Populations Manager MDE/Office of Educational Supports-Special Populations Unit

Shoua Vang – Financial Unit Manager MDE/Office of Educational Supports

Michelle Headley – Migrant Education Consultant MDE/Office of Educational Supports-Special Populations Unit

III. Evaluation Results

A. Augenblick, Palaich and Associates, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Augenblick, Palaich and Associates, Inc. based on a score of 84/100, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Vendor Questions Worksheet 9/10 Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Preference would be to have employees located in the state of Michigan.

2. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Section 4 – General Requirements 45/50 Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The experienced resource would serve as a subcontractor rather than a project lead.

b. Responses suggest a more autonomous, less collaborative approach than preferred.

3. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Section 5 – Project Plan. 6/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The project plan lacked sufficient detail.

b. The project plan did not adequately address the questions posed.

4. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Sections 6-11, 14, 16-24. 9/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Lack of connection to the ADA policy shared.

5. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Sections 12, 13, and 15. 15/20 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The proposed team appears oversized for the project scope.

b. The use of multiple resources and subcontractors may create disconnects between departmental operations and project execution.

Total Score: 84/100

B. Lena Montgomery

The Evaluation Team determined that Lena Montgomery, based on a score of 92/100, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Vendor Questions Worksheet. 9/10 Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 3rd experience was not provided.

2. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Section 4 – General Requirements. 48/50 Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Did not provide details on review for compliance.

3. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Section 5 – Project Plan. 8/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The project plan lacked sufficient detail.

4. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Sections 6-11, 14, 16-24. 9/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Lack of connection to the ADA policy shared.

5. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Sections 12, 13, and 15. 18/20 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Sole proprietor with no identified backup resource listed.

Total Score: 92/100

C. Society of ReignMakers, LLC

The Evaluation Team determined that Society of ReignMakers, LLC based on a score of 80/100, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Vendor Questions Worksheet 7/10 Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. No relevant work experience in the 3 experiences provided.

2. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Section 4 – General Requirements. 40/50 Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Lacked direct knowledge and experience with English learner programs.

b. Responses in 4.3 and 4.4 did not adequately address all required questions or provide relevant examples aligned with the stated requirements.

3. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Section 5 – Project Plan. 8/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The project plan lacked sufficient detail.

4. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Sections 6-11, 14, 16-24. 9/10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Lack of connection to the ADA policy shared.

5. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Sections 12, 13, and 15. 16/20 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Lacked direct knowledge and experience with English learner program.

b. Proposed staffing structure lacks clarity regarding roles, responsibilities, and resource allocation.

Total Score: 80/100

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

Selection Criteria Augenblick, Palaich and

Associates, Inc.

Lena Montgomery

Society of ReignMakers, LLC

1 Vendor Questions Worksheet

9 9 7

2 Schedule A – Statement of Work. Section 4 – General Requirements

45 48 40

3 Schedule A – Statement of Work. Section 5 – Project Plan

6 8 8

4 Schedule A – Statement of Work. Sections 6-11, 14, 16-

9 9 9

5 Schedule A – Statement of Work. Sections 12, 13, and 15

15 18 16

Total 84 92 80

V. Pricing Summary

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

Deliverable Augenblick, Palaich and

Associates, Inc.

Lena Montgomery

Society of ReignMakers, LLC

1 Number of hours 450 417 232.50 232.50

2 Hourly Rate $215.00 $60.00 $120.00 $145.00

Total Price $ 96,750.00 $25,020.00 $61,612.50

VI. 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.

Award Recommendation is made to Lena Montgomery in the amount of $25,020.00