Award Recommendation and Evaluation Synopsis.pdf

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Version 2024-2 Page 1 of 5

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

Notice of Intent to Award Number: 270000000061

Notice of Intent to Award Date: 10/28/2026

The Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity office has completed the evaluation of RFP 260000002479 Workforce Development Layoff Aversion and has recommended an award to OneGoal Solutions in the amount of $379,390.00, 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.

Frankj4@michigan.gov

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 assessment of the Michigan workforce system’s current state of early warning and layoff aversion practices in the Rapid Response program as well as other business engagement activities.

The term of this contract is 1 year.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on 8/12/26. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of 8/26/26.

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

OneGoal Solutions 2250 Dock Ln., Apt 2204, Alexandria, VA 22314-

NO NO

Cazenovia Software, LLC 8 Market Place, Suite 300 Baltimore, MD 21202

NO NO

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

Version 2024-2 Page 2 of 5

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 criteria:

Technical Evaluation Criteria Weight

1. Schedule A Section 3, General Requirements 30

2. Schedule A Section 4-8 20

3. Schedule A Section 3, General Requirements 9-20 and Schedule A 30

4. Vendor Question Worksheet 20

Total: 100

Proposals receiving 80 or more technical evaluation points will have pricing evaluated and be 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

Amanda Lawrence LEO/Transition Office

Jennifer Frank

LEO/

Darelle Blake LEO/Workforce Development

Jimelle Howard, LEO/Workforce Development

Rey Guzman LEO/Workforce Development

Version 2024-2 Page 3 of 5

III. Evaluation Results

A. Bidder # 1

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

1. Schedule A Section 3, General Requirements The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. Schedule A Section 4-8 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Schedule A Section 3, General Requirements 9-20 and Schedule A The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Question Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score:100/100

B. Bidder # 2

The Evaluation Team determined that Cazenovia Software, LLC based on a score of 54.5, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A Section 3, General Requirements The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Although requirements are acknowledged, the response lacks detailed methodology to demonstrate how gathered information will be analyzed to determine recommendations for a future state Early Warning Layoff Aversion framework.

b. Does not describe how effective national models will be evaluated, including comparison criteria and how this information will help inform Michigan’s future-state recommendation.

2. Schedule A Section 4-8

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

a. Proposal identifies 12-month outline, milestones and quality assurance, however concerns with limited explanation of staffing contingencies and how the proposed timeline will be maintained if visits or reviews are delayed.

3. Schedule A Section 9-20 and Schedule A

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

Version 2024-2 Page 4 of 5

a. Proposed structure presents concerns regarding the bidder’s lack of staffing capacity to executive a comprehensive statewide assessment of 16 Michigan Works! Agencies, stakeholder interviews, site visits, roundtables, data analysis, and development of deliverables. Staffing information includes one person allocating 66% of time as the lead and the program manager.

b. Bidder provides evidence of workforce experience, however lack of evidence to support analytical capacity, workload distribution, and contingency resources necessary to support the timely completion and quality assurance.

c. Relies heavily on one individual for project management, technical experience, statewide engagement, analysis and report/deliverable development. Limited separation of duties creates potential risks of quality assurance and deliverables.

d. Proposal does not demonstrate sufficient additional analytical capacity or coverage to deliver the full statewide assessment, and development of deliverables, within specified timelines.

4. Vendor Question Worksheet

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

a. Organization has only one employee

b. Response was focused on software, outside of scope of this RFP

Total Score: 54.5/100

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

Selection Criteria Bidder #1 Bidder #2

1 Schedule A Section 3, General Requirements

30 8

2 Schedule A Section 4-8 20 16.5

3 Schedule A Section 9-20 30 25

4 Vendor Questions Worksheet

20 5

Total 100 54.5

V. Pricing Summary

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

Version 2024-2 Page 5 of 5

Deliverable Bidder #1

1 Total project cost estimate $ 379,390

Total Price $ 379,390

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.

OneGoal Solutions provided the best value to the State. Best value factors for Award Recommendation include: Showed experience and ability to complete this project.

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 OneGoal Solutions in the amount of $ 379,390.