Award Recommendation and Evaluation Synopsis RFP 260000000897.docx

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

Notice of Intent to Award Number: 260000000623.

Notice of Intent to Award Date: 7/13/2026 The Department of Technology, Management & Budget’s Procurement office has completed the evaluation of RFP 260000000897, MiCAL Crisis Command Center Staffing Services and has recommended an award to Common Ground in the amount of $41,118,642 and Gryphon Place in the amount of $15,000,000.00, total for both contracts for base years is $56,118,642.00, 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:

Melissa Beck, Solicitation Manager.

Beckm3@michigan.gov 517-897-1502 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 MiCAL Crisis Command Center Staffing Services. The term of this contract is three years, with up to 3 - 1 year renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on April 23, 2026, for 36 days. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of May 29, 2026.

Bingham Farms, MI 48025

Iowa City, IA 52240

Kalamazoo, MI 49009

Mt. Clemens, MI 48043

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

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

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

Karen Everett Departmental Specialist Crisis Services and Stabilization Bureau of Specialty Behavioral Health Services MDHHS Taylor Livingston, Procurement Bureau of Grants and Purchasing, Professional Services Purchasing Section, MDHHS

Melissa Beck, Category Analyst, Solicitation Manager, DTMB

Tiera Smith Departmental Specialist Bureau of Specialty Behavioral Health Services, MDHHS

Krista Hausermann Section Manager Crisis Services and Stabilization Bureau of Specialty Behavioral Health Services, MDHHS

III. Evaluation Results – Technical Evaluation Criteria SOW (General) A. Common Ground The Evaluation Team determined that Common Ground, 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.

1. General, Section 1 Transition 24/25 The Evaluation Team determined the responses were satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 1.3.1 – Did not mention ADA accommodations for staff.

2. General, Staffing Section 2 25/25 The Evaluation Team determined the responses were satisfactory.

3. General, Project Plan 25/25 The Evaluation Team determined the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet 24/25 The Evaluation Team determined the responses were satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Did not agree with Contract Terms in initial bid.

Total Score:98/100

B. Gryphon Place The Evaluation Team determined that Gryphon Place, based on a score of 96, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. General, Section 1 Transition 23/25 The Evaluation Team determined the responses were satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 1.1.5 – Didn’t answer the question, didn’t mention a Business Continuity Plan.

2. General, Staffing Section 2 23/25 The Evaluation Team determined the responses were, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 2.1.6. – $18.00 is not a fair market wage.

b. 2.7 – Answer is regionally based, money spent on narrow topic area and narrow part of the population. No explanation of the rest of the State or the mental health part of the contract.

3. General, Project Plan 25/25 The Evaluation Team determined the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet 25/25 The Evaluation Team determined the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score:96/100

C. Macomb County Community Mental Health The Evaluation Team determined that Macomb County Community Mental Health based on a score of 88, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. General, Section 1 Transition 21/25 The Evaluation Team determined the responses were satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 1.1.3. – Did not have specifics on how they would comply with this section regarding project plan.

b. 1.3.1. – Did not mention ADA accommodations for staff.

c. 1.4. – Response lacked detail and understanding of this being from the State side and not the partner portal.

2. General, Staffing Section 2 19/25 The Evaluation Team determined the responses were satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 2.1. question – Not enough details on how an unexpected surge in contacts would be handled.

b. 2.1. question – Not enough details on how a hybrid model would work.

c. 2.1.3. – Not enough detail on staffing plan from current to future.

d. 2.1.5. – $19.46 is not a fair market wage.

e. 2.8. – Did not mention background checks.

3. General, Project Plan 23/25 The Evaluation Team determined the responses were satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 3.1. – Not enough detail on project plan, example does not address office space for additional 90 staff.

4. Vendor Question Worksheet 25/25 The Evaluation Team determined the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score:88/100

D. CommUnity Crisis Services and Food Bank The Evaluation Team determined that CommUnity Crisis Services and Food Bank based on a score of 76, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. General, Section 1 Transition 20/25 The Evaluation Team determined the responses were satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 1.1.3. – Did not have specifics on how they would comply with this section regarding project plan and doing business in another State.

b. 1.1.5 – Didn’t answer the question, didn’t address Business Continuity Plan, hardware or AI.

c. 1.3.1. – Did not mention ADA accommodations for staff.

d. 1.4. – Did not provide details when describing changes to its roadmaps.

2. General, Staffing Section 2 14/25 The Evaluation Team determined the responses were satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 2.1. – Bidder staffing plan is problematic, too heavy on admin support.

b. 2.1. – Did not answer how minimum staffing coverage is determined and adjusted based on demand and contract volume.

c. 2.1. – Concern with strategy for addressing workforce shortages. Training is expensive and seasonal workers would require a large amount of training for potentially irregular and decreased hours, may result in larger turnover. Licenses and training needed for seasonal and out of state employees are not feasible.

d. 2.1. – Turnover rates for past two years high at 27%.

e. 2.5.7. – Did not name designated key personnel.

f. 2.5.11. – Did not list key personnel staff member length of employment or affiliation with organization. No leadership staff listed.

g. 2.5.14 – Did not provide resumes.

3. General, Project Plan 22/25 The Evaluation Team determined the responses were satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 3.1. – Bidder hiring plan not feasible and the proposed highering timeframe is to short.

4. Vendor Question Worksheet 20/25 The Evaluation Team determined the responses were satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Concern of growth rate and increase of more than 25% with this contract.

b. Concern Bidder will have scalability issues going from 1 to 128 employees.

c. Concern of understanding Michigan’s behavioral health system and hiring and employing only staff that must reside in Michigan.

a. Total Score:78/100

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary – SOW (General)

V. Evaluation Results –SOW A1 – MiCal/988 Lines

The Evaluation Team determined that Common Ground, 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.

1. General Requirements, Schedule A1, Statement of Work, Section 1 (excluding Sections 1.2 – 1.4). 20/20 The Evaluation Team determined the responses were satisfactory.

2. Program Requirements to Confidentiality – Schedule A2, Section 1.2 – 1.4 33/35 The Evaluation Team determined the responses were satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 1.2. – Referral percents need to be higher based on the Outreach Team of 3 members.

3. Staffing, Training, Support – Schedule A1, Statement of Work, Section 1.5 24/25 The Evaluation Team determined the responses were satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

b. 1.5.8 – Did not explain crisis debriefing and supervision model.

4. Schedule A1, SOW, Funding Source Requirements to SLA, Section 2-5 20/20 The Evaluation Team determined the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score:97/100

B. Gryphon Place The Evaluation Team determined that Gryphon Place, based on a score of 96, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. General Requirements – Schedule A1, Statement of Work, Section 1 (excluding Sections 1.2 – 1.4). 20/20 The Evaluation Team determined the responses were satisfactory.

2. Schedule A1, Statement of Work, Program Requirements to Confidentiality, Section 1.2 – 1.4 33/35 The Evaluation Team determined the responses were, but the following deficiencies were noted:

c. 1.3.5. – Did not mention Privacy Officer

d. 1.4 – Bidder did not list how they would comply with privacy officer, policy/procedures and training.

3. Staffing, Training, Support – Schedule A1, Statement of Work, Section 1.5 25/25 The Evaluation Team determined the responses were satisfactory.

4. Schedule A1, SOW, Funding Source Requirement to SLA, Section 2-5. 18/20 The Evaluation Team determined the responses were, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 3. Staffing levels – Staffing plan does not include how Bidder would reach their staffing requirements in 90 days.

Total Score:96/100 C. Macomb County Community Mental Health The Evaluation Team determined that Macomb County Community Mental Health based on a score of 92, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. General Requirements – Schedule A1, State of Work, Section 1 (excluding Sections 1.2 – 1.4). 18/20 The Evaluation Team determined the responses were satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 1.1.3. – Did not have specifics on how they would comply with this section regarding project plan.

2. Schedule A1, Statement of Work, Program Requirements to Confidentiality, Section 1.2 – 1.4. 31/35 The Evaluation Team determined the responses were satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 1.2.1. – Lack of detail on the chat and text implementation plan.

b. 1.4.6. – No details on the Privacy Officer.

c. 1.4. – Not enough details on how frequently contact monitoring would operate and did not address how change would be implemented for a system that operates continually.

3. Staffing, Training, Support – Schedule A1, Statement of Work, Section 1.5 25/25 The Evaluation Team determined the responses were satisfactory.

4. Schedule A1, SOW, Funding Source Requirements to SLA, Section 2-5 18/20 The Evaluation Team determined the responses were satisfactory.

a. 3. – Staffing plan lacked detail for expansion.

b. 4.1.2.1. – Service level of 85% very low and close to non-acceptable rate.

Total Score:92/100 VI. Technical Evaluation Summary

VII. Evaluation Results – SOW A2 – Frontline Strong Together

The Evaluation Team determined that Common Ground, 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.

1. General Requirements, Schedule A2, Statement of Work, Section 1 (excluding Sections 1.2 – 1.6).

The Evaluation Team determined the responses were satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted: 19/20

a. 1.2. – Bidder did not align example with program requirements.

2. Program Requirements to Confidentiality – Schedule A2, Section 1.2 - 1.4 35/35 The Evaluation Team determined the responses were satisfactory.

3. Training Section 1.5 25/25 The Evaluation Team determined the responses were satisfactory.

4. Funding Source Requirements to SLA, Section 1.6 - 4. 20/20 The Evaluation Team determined the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score:99/100 VIII. Technical Evaluation Summary

IX. Evaluation Results – SOW A3 – MI Peer Warmline

The Evaluation Team determined that Common Ground, 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. General Requirements, 1.1. – 1.4. 20/20 The Evaluation Team determined the responses were satisfactory.

2. Program Requirements to Confidentiality, Section 1.5. – 1.7 35/35 The Evaluation Team determined the responses were satisfactory.

3. Staff Qualifications, Training and Support, Section 1.8. 25/25 The Evaluation Team determined the responses were satisfactory.

4. Staffing to SLA, Section 2-4 20/20 The Evaluation Team determined the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score:100/100 X. Technical Evaluation Summary

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

XII. Negotiations The awarded vendors provided second-round pricing that is reflected in the Pricing Summary above.

XIII. 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 proposals meeting the minimum point threshold and offering the best combination of the factors stated in the Proposal Instructions Evaluation Process section, and price.

Common Ground and Gryphon Place provided the best value to the State. Best value factors for Award Recommendation for Common Ground include, providing service for all three lines – MiCAL/988 Line, Frontline Strong and MI Peer Warmline. Detailed plan with the State with minimal transition, current staff have been there at least 2 ½ years. Best value factors for Award Recommendation for Gryphon Place include, their integrated infrastructure operates a blended contact center model, integrating 988 crisis services, local crisis lines and 2-1-1 information and referral services within a single operational structure; they conduct background checks on existing employees every two years.

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

Award Recommendation is made to Common Ground ($41,118,642) and Gryphon Place ($15,000,000.00) in total for the base years of $56,118,642.00.

Version 2024-2 image1.png