DCFS B28909 SSJF CWPPG PO23-003 SPO SIGNED~1.pdf

Please wait...

If this message is not eventually replaced by the proper contents of the document, your PDF viewer may not be able to display this type of document.

You can upgrade to the latest version of Adobe Reader for Windows®, Mac, or Linux® by visiting http://www.adobe.com/go/reader_download.

For more assistance with Adobe Reader visit http://www.adobe.com/go/acrreader.

Windows is either a registered trademark or a trademark of Microsoft Corporation in the United States and/or other countries. Mac is a trademark of Apple Inc., registered in the United States and other countries. Linux is the registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in the U.S. and other countries.

Sole Source Justification Form Version 7.01 Page of Sole Source Justification Form - Part I Section I - General Information Will this Sole Source amend a Professional or Artistic Services contract?

If yes, what was the original contract value?

*Sole Source may not be used for amendments for Professional or Artistic Services if the amendment would increase the value by more than 5% of the initial award or extend the term by more than 60 days.

Section II - Proposed Term If a Term Contract, does the term, including renewals, exceed 12 months?

If yes, provide a detailed justification including any economic benefit received for agreeing to a multi-year term:

Section III - Funding Source Select the type of funding to be used (Check all that apply):

Section IV - Sole Source Justification Are there secondary justification(s) for this sole source?

Section V - Purchase History Has the Agency or University Purchased these supplies or services in the past?

Term Term From Term To Value Description Contract Number Type Section VI - Business Rationale

1. Provide a detailed explanation of the need for the supplies or services:

2. Provide a list and describe in detail the specifications required to satisfy the need:

3. Provide detail explaining the justification selected in Section IV to explain why the requested supplies or services are the only ones available that can satisfy the agency or university requirements?

4. What are the unique features of the supplies or services that are not available in any other product or by any other vendor? Provide specific quantifiable factors/qualifications:

5. Has the Agency or University considered alternative supplies or services to satisfy their need?

5a. If yes, name the alternative vendors whose supplies or services were evaluated:

5b. If yes, what were the alternatives for each vendor and why were they unacceptable? Be specific with regard to features, characteristics, requirements, capabilities and compatibility:

5c. Explain how the market evaluation was conducted?

*This evaluation is to determine available options within a market. If the evaluation is to determine quality or best suited option, this is not the appropriate source selection. Under no circumstances shall the evaluation consist of testing alternative options. These activities must be conducted in a competitive transparent environment (i.e. IFB or RFP).

5a. If no, why weren't alternatives evaluated?

6. Are there resellers or distributors?

7. What efforts were made to get the best possible price (i.e. did the agency/university negotiate) and how did you determine the price for this purchase is considered fair and reasonable?

8. Will this purchase obligate the State to this vendor for future purchases such as maintenance, licensing or continuing need?

8a. If yes, please provide details regarding future obligations and/or needs:

9. What will be the financial or other impact to the State if this sole source is not approved and a competitive bid is required?

10. Is there any additional information you would like to add to justify this sole source?

Section VII Requesting Department Signature Required I know and understand the contents of this Sole Source Justification and attest that all statements are true and correct and the fairness and reasonableness of the price was adequately confirmed.

State Agency Bureau/Division Head or University Purchasing Director Approval and Signature Required I know and understand the contents of this Sole Source Justification and attest that all statements are true and correct and the fairness and reasonableness of the price was adequately confirmed. (All prior form fields will lock once this e-signature is completed) SPO Approval and Signature Required Sole Source Justification Form - Part II Section I - General Information Was a Sole Source hearing held per 30 ILCS 500/20-25?

Section II - Sole Source Hearing Details The State posted to the Illinois Procurement Bulletin a description of the State's need, the justification for the sole source decision, and information regarding the opportunity to submit comments and testify at a public hearing. Notice of the hearing was also posted outside of the hearing room 48 hours prior to the hearing.

The public hearing was conducted for the purpose of receiving testimony regarding the sole source determination. The Hearing Officer recommends the following:

The following relevant documents are attached:

Section III - CPO Approval and Signature Required 9.0.0.2.20101008.1.734229 ellen.h.daley@illinois.gov

Quality Service Reviews (QSR) are a practice improvement approach using case reviews and interviews to assess current outcomes and system performance by gathering information directly from families, children and service team members. DCFS, with the assistance of the CWPPG, will utilize an Illinois specific review protocol for the examination of Family-Centered, Trauma-Informed, Strength-Based (FTS) Practice Model of practice that includes a model of supervision and the effective utilization of Child and Family Team meetings.

A major component of the Illinois Core Practice Model is the Child and Family Team Meeting (CFTM). The CFTM is the vehicle by which assessment, case planning and monitoring of permanency goals occurs with the family and with relevant stakeholders. DCFS has developed a CFTM training plan with CWPPG for staff in the immersion sites and the current Southern region expansion. DCFS has also developed a plan with CWPPG to train and develop DCFS and POS staff to become CFTM Master Coaches and Trainers to build the Department’s internal capacity and build sustainability for the practice.

Paul Vincent and his consultants are expected to confer with the parties, the B.H. Expert Panel, and conduct a review of the Department’s QSR and Child Family Team process, making recommendations if deficiencies are noted with regard to DCFS’s adherence to their recommended strategies in carrying out the matters contained in the Court-ordered Implementation Plan dated September 28, 2016. Please see Court Order attached.

Paul Vincent is no longer with CWPPG due to his retirement. This is a proprietary vendor that is court ordered by the B.H. Court Order.

In that Plan, the Court Order provides that CWPPG will assist DCFS with development of the curriculum, development and implementation of the Core Practice training model and training logistics at immersion sites, as well as with the development and implementation of a Quality Service Review (QSR) process.

The CWPPG consultants and contractors are considered by the federal court and B.H. Expert Panel, and plaintiff attorneys to be experts in the field regarding the implementation of immersion sites, Quality Service Review (QSR), and the Child and Family Team Meetings (CFTM) coaching and certification processes. Educational credentials of CWPPG staff and their consultants are in accordance with the hiring requirements of the CWPPG. CWPPG represents and warrants that its consultants are fully knowledgeable in the models that they are teaching and providing coaching and are experienced in education of other professionals.

The Quality Service Review instruments, process, and curriculum are sole source and are directly tied to the successful implementation of the Child and Family Team Meeting process which has been selected by the Department as a primary component of the IL Core Practice Model aim at improved the quality of engagement of children, youth, and families in the planning for and successful completion of services to improve the outcomes of safety, permanence, and wellbeing.

DCFS has substantially implemented Child and Family Team Meetings and QSR reviews in the Immersion Sites. DCFS has implemented two phases of the Core Practice Model. As the Core Practice Model rolls out to the balance of the state, we believe that case work practice will improve and that more children will achieve permanency and exit the child welfare system. CWPPG has supported DCFS in these efforts to implement statewide since 2016 and has developed a working knowledge of operations within Illinois. To change vendors mid-stream would significantly delay DCFS’ efforts to achieve statewide implementation.

Currently trained DCFS workers are able to train other workers with DCFS on the model. In FY23 the areas in the scope of work are Curriculum and CFTM Model customization for lessons learned; Creation of tools to support implementations and stainability of a revised Core practice model (Specifically CFTM); Support and consultation; and instruction and mentoring. DCFS is continuing to build more workers being trained with the support and instructions from Child Welfare Policy.