Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Version 2024-2 Page 1 of 6

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

Notice of Intent to Award Number: NIA1 260000000788

Notice of Intent to Award Date: 8/26/2026

The Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity office has completed the evaluation of RFP 260000002170 Workers Compensation Medical Bill Review and has recommended an award to The ASU Group in the amount of $245,000.00, 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:

Jennifer Frank, Solicitation Manager.nia1

FrankJ4@michigan.gov

Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor to provide Workers Compensation Medical Bill Review. The term of this contract is three years, with up to seven one-year renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on June 17, 2026 for 30 days. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of July 17, 2026.

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

Nexus Enterprises LLC 5600 Schertz Pkwy, Ste. 100 Schertz, TX 78154 YES NO

ManageAbility Inc 39500 High Pointe Blvd. Suite 400, Novi, MI 48375 NO NO

The ASU Group 2120 University Park Drive, Okemos, MI 48864 NO NO

Palm Grace Holding Limited, Inc

39997 W. James Ln, Maricopa, AZ, 85138 NO NO

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

Version 2024-2 Page 2 of 6

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:

Technical Evaluation Criteria Weight

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1 30

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2-3 20

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 4-6 30

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet 20

Total 100

Proposals receiving 80 or more technical evaluation points will have pricing evaluated and considered for award.

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 Advisory

Greg Rivet

LEO/ Workers Compensation

Jennifer Frank

LEO/Procurement

Denise Willmore

LEO/ Workers Compensation

Emily McDonough

LEO/ Workers Compensation

Stephanie Salyer

LEO/ Workers Compensation

Jeff Powell

DTMB/IT

Version 2024-2 Page 3 of 6

III. Evaluation Results

A. Bidder # 1

The Evaluation Team determined that Nexus Enterprises LLC based on 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 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:]

a. Lack of detail/specifics regarding data retention, technical requirements, and fee schedules.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2-3 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 4-6 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Staff had less than 2 years’ experience in current roles.

b. Lack of bill reviewers

c. Bidder does not currently hold a contract with proposed sub-contractor.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. It is unclear what experience there is working with/for Michigan fee schedules.

In the clarification request, it was noted the following discrepancies:

There is no guarantee that the subcontractor will be in agreement to work on this project.

Did not provide direct references showing experience working with/for in regards to Michigan fee schedule.

Total Score:91/100

B. Bidder # 2

The Evaluation Team determined that ManageAbility Inc based on 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 The Evaluation Team determined the following deficiencies were noted:

Version 2024-2 Page 4 of 6

a. Checked boxes but did not provide a response in the bidder response boxes.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2-3

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 4-6

The Evaluation Team determined the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Did not provide program manager name.

b. No Project plan was provided

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory.

Total Score:81/100

C. Bidder # 3

The Evaluation Team determined that The ASU Group 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.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Notes exceptions but did not explain.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2-3 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 4-6

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. No Project plan.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory.

Total Score:93/100

D. Bidder #4

Bidder #4, Palm Grace Holding Limited, Inc, has not met the requirements of being responsive and responsible due to not providing the required documents.

Version 2024-2 Page 5 of 6

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

Selection Criteria Nexus ManageAbility ASU Group

1 Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1

28 16 26

2 Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2-3

20 20 20

3 Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 4-6

24 27.5 28

4 Vendor Questions Worksheet 19 17.5 19

Total 91 81 93

V. Pricing Summary

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

Deliverable Nexus ManageAbility ASU Group

1 Medical Bill Review Services $6.25/bill $8/bill $6/bill

2 Utilization Review Services $98.50/review 25% of Net Savings

$90/hr

3 PPO Services 15% of Savings 25% of Savings 25% of Savings

4 Negotiations / Out of Network 15% of Savings 25% of Savings 25% of Savings

5 Physician Peer Review Services, if required or requested

$225.00 per review up to 100 pages; $1.00 per additional page over 100 pages

ESTIMATED pricing for 1 bill worth $10,000, with $2,000 in savings, assuming at least 5 bills can be reviewed per hour. Including one Physician Peer Review.

Nexus MAI ASU

Savings Invoice Savings Invoice Savings Invoice

Fee Schedule $6.25 $8.00 $6.00

Utilization Review Savings $1,000.00 $98.50 $1,000.00 $250.00 $1,000.00 $18.00

PPO Savings $500.00 $75.00 $500.00 $125.00 $500.00 $125.00

Negotiations Savings $500.00 $75.00 $500.00 $125.00 $500.00 $125.00

Peer Review $0.00 $255.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Totals $2,000.00 $509.75 $2,000.00 $508.00 $2,000.00 $274.00

Version 2024-2 Page 6 of 6

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.

The ASU Group provided the best value to the State. Best value factors for Award Recommendation include: Number of staff with a lot of experience, experience with the Michigan Fee Schedule, and the JEC team was impressed with steps they take if there is an overpayment.

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.

Award Recommendation is made to The ASU Group in the amount of $245,000.00.