Award Recommendation RFP 24-249.docx

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

Notice of Intent to Award Number: 240000000238 The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services has completed the evaluation of RFP 240000000249 Family Preservation - Substance Abuse Treatment and Educational Workshop services and has recommended an award to Key Development Center, Inc in the amount of $280,000.00 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:

Darby Stimac, Solicitation Manager.

Stimacd@michigan.gov Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor to provide Family Preservation - Substance Abuse Treatment and Educational Workshop services. The term of this contract is three years with up to two, one year option years.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on November 2, 2023 for four weeks. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of November 30, 2023.

Brighton, MI 48114

*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.

In awarding the contract, proposals will be evaluated by a committee chaired by the MDHHS Bureau of Grants and Purchasing (BGP). Only those proposals receiving a score of 80 points or more will be considered for award. All qualified proposals will be evaluated based on rating criteria identified in the RFP.

MDHHS may utilize all bidder information, without regard to a proposal’s technical score, to determine fair market value for goods or services sought. MDHHS is not obligated to accept the lowest price proposal. If applicable, MDHHS’ evaluation will include consideration of a bidder’s qualified disabled veteran/service-disabled veteran owned business (QDV/SDVOB) status under MCL 18.1261(8). Additional information on the SDVOB preference is available at Michigan.gov/SDVOB.

MDHHS strongly encourages strict adherence to the standard contract terms. MDHHS reserves the right to deem a proposal non-responsive for failure to accept the standard contract terms. Nevertheless, the bidder may submit proposed changes to the standard contract terms in track changes (i.e., visible edits) with an explanation of the bidder’s need for each proposed change. Failure to include track changes with an explanation of the bidder’s need for the proposed change constitutes the bidder’s acceptance of the standard contract terms. General statements, such as that the bidder reserves the right to negotiate the standard contract terms, may be considered non-responsive. Failure to respond timely to requests for proposed changes to the standard contract terms during ongoing negotiations may be cause for disqualification.

MDHHS reserves the right to establish the criteria by which it will evaluate each bidder’s response, and by which it will determine the most responsive, capable, and qualified bidder(s). In addition to cost, other principal factors may be considered in evaluating proposals relative to:

. Reliability . Bidder’s past performance . Bidder’s ability to respond to all requirements outlined in the RFP . Bidder’s ability to maintain a presence in providing services . Financial stability . Continuity and stability in provision of service . Knowledge transfer activities

If MDHHS determines in its sole discretion that contracting with or awarding a contract to a bidder presents an unacceptable financial risk to MDHHS, MDHHS reserves the right to not award a contract to that bidder.

MDHHS may but is not required to conduct an on-site visit to tour and inspect the bidder's facilities; require an oral presentation of the bidder's proposal; conduct interviews, research, reference checks, and background checks; and request additional price concessions at any point during the evaluation process.

II. Evaluation Method Responses to this solicitation were reviewed by Subject Matter Experts.

III. Evaluation Results A. Bidder #1 Key Development Center

1. Bidder Experience and Past Performance (formal RFP) Score 11/12

The evaluation team determined that overall the responses were mostly satisfactory. The evaluation teams’ comments are noted below:

A3 (- 1) The bidder detailed their current referral process; however, the did not detail the process that was outlined in the RFP, for example, first-come-first served basis, the initial assessment, and the coordination of referrals for intensive and non-intensive services.

2. Education, Credentials & Qualifications (formal RFP) Score 8/8

The evaluation team determined that overall the responses were satisfactory.

3. Staffing, Training, Agency Organization and Location (formal RFP) Score 27/29

The evaluation team determined that overall the responses were mostly satisfactory. The evaluation teams’ comments are noted below:

C4 (-2) The bidder did not provide enough information on how they would prepare staff for MDHHS clients. The bidder listed all the qualified training for therapist; however, the evaluation team wanted details of training staff for initial assessment, coordination of services, and follow-ups.

4. Program Implementation/Work Plan (formal RFP) Score 46/51

The evaluation team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

D7 (-1) The bidder did not detail steps to develop the goals.

D11 (-1) The bidder did not detail an effective plan for notifying MDHHS staff in this section regarding daily availability.

D13 (-3) The bidder did not provide detail information on formal and informal working relationships with community agencies. The bidder only listed resources in the community.

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

V. Technical Evaluation Summary – Number of Units

Year 2: 2,500 Year 3: 2,500 Total: 6,750

Year 2: 12 Year 3: 12 Total: 36

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

VII. Clarification Clarification was requested and received from Key Development Center regarding category d questions and responses.

VIII. 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.

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 Key Development Center in the amount of $280,000.00.

Version 2023-1 image1.png