Enrollment Broker - Award Recommendation and Evaluation Synopsis.docx

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

The Department of Technology, Management and Budget - Procurement office has completed the evaluation of RFP 250000002756 Enrollment Broker System and Services and has recommended an award to Maximus US Services, Inc. in the amount of $182,784,632.91, 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:

Emily Massa, Solicitation Manager.

massae@michigan.gov 517-897-7321 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 Enrollment Broker Services for the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS). The term of this contract is five years, with up to five one-year renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on November 5th, 2025 for eight weeks. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of January 9th, 2026.

Pittsburgh, PA 15237

New York, NY 10112

Jefferson City, MO 65109

McLean, VA 22102

*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

· Schedule A – Section 5, 14

· Schedule A, Sections 4-12 (excluding Section 5)

· Schedule A - Attachment 1 -Business Specification Worksheet

· Vendor Questions Worksheet

· Attachment 1, Resume Templates

· Schedule A Sections 19 and 20

· Schedule A – Section 15, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27

· Schedule F – Disaster Recovery Plan

· Schedule G – Transition In and Out

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

II. Evaluation Method Responses to this solicitation were reviewed by a Joint Evaluation Committee, which consisted of the following individuals:

Emily Massa, Solicitation Manager

DTMB/CPS

Melissa Potter, Business Delivery Liaison MDHHS/SIA Business Integration

Julianne Denny, Program Manager MDHHS/ Medicaid Care Management & Customer Service Sudhakar Ramaswamy, Senior Deputy Director

MDHHS

Danielle Lefere, State Division Admin MDHHS/Strategic Integration Sharita Hurst, State Admin Manager DTMB/Agency Services

Sanju Sasidharan, Project Manager

DTMB/EPMO

John Moore, Business Relationship Manager DTMB/Agency Services

David Valentine, IT Manager DTMB/Agency Services Kenneth Young, Strategic Integrator MDHHS/Strategic Integration

David Alomo, Agency Services DTMB/Agency Services Nathan Buckwalter, General Manager DTMB/Agency Services

Dan Ridge, Director MDHHS/Medicaid Care Management & Customer Service Samantha McLean, Sec. and Data Gov Liaison MDHHS/Compliance and Data Governance

Brant Cole, State Bureau Admin MDHHS/Medicaid Payments & Systems Support

Joy Nakfoor, Category Manager

DTMB/CPS

Chelsea Lugibihl, Category Director

Jennifer Bronz, Category Manager

III. Evaluation Results A. Bidder # 1 – Automated Health Systems The Evaluation Team determined that Automated Health Systems based on a score of 74.577, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. General Call Center Requirements - Schedule A - Section 5, 14 (16.9/25)

a. Section 5.2-5.3: Bidder response lacked detail for 5.2.

b. Section 5.6: missing acknowledgment of several requirements, including assuring timely mailing of MDHHS‑approved materials requested by beneficiaries (5.6.1.v), confirming operational hours, ownership and maintenance of the beneficiary helpline, and mailing inserts or brochures with cards (5.6.vi), and explicitly confirming the logging of card‑related complaints (5.6.1.iii).

c. Section 5.7: Lacks detail regarding how bidder will fulfill the requirement.

d. Section 5.8: Missing information on 5.8.4 & 5.8.12 (specifically paper enrollments)

e. Section 5.11: Bidder missing information regarding CTS (5.11.6)

f. Section 5.13: Bidder did not address 5.13.3 & 5.13.4. Bidder only partially addressed 5.13.1.

g. Section 5.14: Bidder did not address 5.14.1(i)

h. Section 5.15: Bidder did not address the requirement to document received forms and correspondence in the CRM and to perform initial screening (5.15.1), did not address requirements 5.15.3 and 5.15.5, and did not note the requirement in 5.15.7 regarding MDHHS assisting with determining how to handle unclear mail.

i. Section 5.16: Bidder did not address 5.16.3.

j. Section 5.17: Bidder did not address requirements 5.17.2, did not acknowledge the State’s random audit requirement in 5.17.6, did not address the 48‑hour shredding requirement for undeliverable mihealth cards in 5.17.14, and did not address the requirement in 5.17.12 that the contractor is responsible for costs associated with defective cards.

k. Section 14: Bidder did not provide process for gaining access to the solution. Bidder did not provide contact for coordinating access and training and no additional information on training plan.

2. Systems and Support, Schedule A, Sections 4-12 (excluding Section 5), Schedule A - Attachment 1 -Business Specification Worksheet (15.2/25)

a. Section 4: Bidder failed to describe all requirements besides 4.2.

b. Section 6: The PAT provided was dated 11/2021. PAT did not provide details/timeline on bringing the service to full compliance. It did not provide a PAT for HealthTrack (EB system).

c. Section 7: Bidder did not address the following question “The Bidder must identify what network connectivity, or equipment will the State be required to have to meet the expected latency response time."

d. Section 8: Bidder mentioned that they have expertise with Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML), OpenID, and OAuth, but failed to say whether their EB solution support them.

e. Section 9: Bidder did not explain where electronic data was stored or their data management capability.

f. Section 10: Bidder failed to address key requirements, including FedRAMP, support for the State’s standard browser environment at no additional cost, and a description of the optimal IT environment, indicating limited due‑diligence on the State’s hosted environment. Their change‑management responses suggest an simplified process, lacking clarity on cost‑free changes, communication of software and architecture updates, and visibility into all change types.

g. Section 11: Bidder’s response is unclear and incomplete, offering general statements about meeting Pennsylvania requirements, security standards, and future technical demands without specifying what product, version, release, or licensing they are proposing, and in some places appears to respond to a different solicitation. They also propose using inboxes instead of the required CRM, provide insufficient detail on whether components are third‑party or open source, and give only a partial answer regarding device compatibility.

h. Business Specs - 42: Bidder is not clear if they can manage member data.

i. Business Specs – 76: Bidder response does not make sense for requirement.

j. Business Specs – 88: Bidder only partially responded to requirement. Bidder missed responding to portion regarding prior to production.

k. Business Specs – 133: Bidder response only focused on workforce staffing instead of the technical components as well.

l. Business Specs – 135: Bidder response only considered incidents and did not answer the actual requirement.

m. Business Specs – 144: Bidder did not acknowledge the HIPAA controls audit in the response.

n. Business Specs – 146: Bidder did not address requirement regarding Contractor staff completing required SOM training and provide proof.

o. Business Specs – 150: Bidder left out States security requirements and only addressed CMS in their response.

p. Business Specs – 172: Bidder addressed the requirement but did not provide how they would fulfill the requirement.

q. Business Specs – 177: Bidder addressed the requirement but did not provide how they would fulfill the requirement.

r. Business Specs – 183: Bidder did not answer the requirement fully.

3. Experience and Company Background Information, Vendor Questions Worksheet (21.25/25)

a. Section 5: Experience 1 provided was same scope but different size. Experience 3 provided was not relevant.

4. Staffing, Attachment 1, Resume Templates, Schedule A Sections 19 and 20 (11.827/15)

a. Section 19 – Security Officer: Bidder proposed 33% allocation which seems low, and the resume shows only three years of experience with AHS, contradicting the bidder’s claim of nine years.

b. Section 19 – Project Manager: Bidder states the proposed personnel is PMP certified, but this is not supported by the online certification database, and the experience timeline does not align with what is stated in the resume. The allocation plan shows the resource at 100% during implementation and dropping to 33% afterward which seems low.

c. Section 19 – Project Director – Bidder does not fulfill recent experience requirement for this staff.

d. Section 19 – Operations and IT Support Manager: Bidder did not provide adequate explanation of proficiency in the actual business operations.

e. Section 19 - Security Management and Assurance: Allocation is only 50% - this is low for the requirements of this position. The bidder did not provide adequate explanation on the proficiency in the required skills section.

5. Additional Requirements, Schedule A – Section 15, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, Schedule F – Disaster Recovery Plan, Schedule G – Transition In and Out (8.6/10)

a. Section 16: Bidder did not confirm the type of documents they intend to provide.

b. Section 22: Bidder did not confirm/acknowledge meetings at no additional cost to the State. Diagram did not provide a clear picture.

c. Section G: Bidder did not provide a detailed transition in and out plan.

Total Score:74.577/100 B. Bidder # 2 – Deloitte The Evaluation Team determined that Deloitte based on a score of 74.246, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. General Call Center Requirements - Schedule A - Section 5, 14 (19.2/25)

a. Section 5.1.1: Failed to confirm exclusion from medical services program.

b. Section 5.2-5.3: 5.2 was not addressed.

c. Section 5.4: Suggests limited program knowledge and reliance on pilots that are not feasible for this project. Their scheduling approach also lacks the flexibility needed to respond to call volume spikes.

d. Section 5.5: Amazon Connect already supports conversational IVR, so no enhancement is needed. The vendor’s suggestion that SOM would manage part of their staff is inaccurate, as they are responsible for managing their own subcontractors.

e. Section 5.6: did not clearly confirm that the voice mailbox meets SOM requirements for both non‑English‑speaking and hearing‑impaired callers, and their complaint‑logging statements contradict each other. Overall, their responses suggest they do not fully understand SOM processes or requirements.

f. Section 5.8: incorrectly states that certain disenrollments are captured in the 5.8.6 CRM, and their list of valid reasons for plan changes is inaccurate. These errors indicate a misunderstanding of the process and requirements.

g. Section 5.9: reference to using CRM and the State’s DCT for tracking is incorrect, as this work is performed in Bridges and DCT is a Maximus product they cannot use. This further suggests they do not fully understand SOM requirements.

h. Section 5.10: inconsistent in defining Tier 2, suggesting they do not fully understand the requirement, and their claim that they would update user profiles is a security concern.

i. Section 5.11: did not understand requirement 5.11.4 or the Q&A regarding PSV forms, and their interpretation of the PO Box process is incorrect. It is also unclear how MDHHS could monitor service delivery through the CRM if the vendor is managing its own queues.

j. Section 5.12: did not address the following requirements : 5.12.8, 5.12.9.

k. Section 5.14: incorrectly states they would scan, log, update CRM records, and initiate outreach for address updates, which is not allowed and not part of the requirements. Their response shows a misunderstanding of returned mail processes, CRM usage, and the call center’s role in address updates.

l. Section 5.15: failed to address requirement 5.15.4 regarding answering beneficiary or representative questions about information needed by MDHHS.

m. Section 5.17: vendor’s change implying all call center representatives could perform these tasks raises significant security concerns, as such access should be restricted. This continues to show they do not fully understand the scope of work or the security requirements involved.

n. Section 5.18: omitted the requirement in 5.18.13 that MDHHS must approve any revisions to provided files. This oversight suggests they may not fully understand the reporting requirements.

2. Systems and Support, Schedule A, Sections 4-12 (excluding Section 5), Schedule A - Attachment 1 -Business Specification Worksheet (11/25)

a. Section 4: response is unclear, including the use of a subcontractor and reliance on State‑hosted solutions they should be providing themselves, and their edits to Schedule D conflict with the required support hours. Overall, their response suggests a lack of understanding of the scope and expectations.

b. Section 6: The Amazon Connect PAT did not display, and the Salesforce URL provided is not a PAT, so required PATs were not included in the bidder’s response.

c. Section 7: The vendor cannot select State partners, and their response shows a misunderstanding of presumptive eligibility. Their proposed approach would require changes to MiBridges just for their solution to fit, indicating a lack of alignment with the required scope.

d. Section 10: did not clearly explain their change‑management communication process. Their response suggests they do not fully understand required collaboration and oversight expectations.

e. Section 11: repeatedly proposed changes to State processes and systems, misunderstood key requirements, and referenced tools or workflows that do not align with how MiBridges, Siebel CRM, or MIEBS actually operate. Overall, their response suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the scope, required neutrality, system roles, and operational constraints.

f. Section 12: statements about real‑time CHAMPS integration and plan assignment are inaccurate and show a lack of understanding of both the MiBridges data flow and dental program rules. Overall, the response reflects misunderstanding of key system interactions.

g. Business Specs – 1: Offering health exchange like solution. The SOM is not looking for a solution for beneficiaries to compare plans or change plans.

h. Business Specs – 5: mention of formularies and RX Norm is irrelevant, as the SOM does not perform formulary comparisons and this was not part of the requirements.

i. Business Specs – 6: claim that the portal would integrate with MiBridges to display eligibility status does not align with the requirements and does not make sense for what the SOM is asking.

j. Business Specs – 7: proposed future functionality without confirming it would be ready by go‑live, repeatedly suggested solutions dependent on MiBridges that may not be feasible and introduced integrations and processes (such as myhb and “acceptable” replacement card timelines) that were not requested and could increase cost or complexity.

k. Business Specs – 13: The bidder proposed future functionality but did not clarify whether it would be available by go‑live.

l. Business Specs – 16: The bidder’s claim that call center staff could search enrollment transactions or CRM cases is inaccurate, as call center staff should not have access to either.

m. Business Specs – 21: did not confirm whether the functionality would be available by go‑live, and their claim that an existing role provides this capability contradicts requirements that explicitly prohibit that role from having such functionality.

n. Business Specs – 23: bidder focused on staff and system processes but failed to address the actual enrollment broker system itself.

o. Business Specs - 24: Proposed future enhancement, not available by State of Michigan go-live date.

p. Business Specs – 27: proposed benefit management features do not make sense, and the mention of formulary data is irrelevant because SOM does not provide formulary information by health plan.

q. Business Specs – 28: did not clarify whether the proposed enhancement would be available by go‑live, and it is unclear whether the bidder’s algorithm refers to the auto‑enrollment rules required by SOM. The bidder also failed to address the foster care algorithm and did not provide sufficient detail to show how the requirement would be fulfilled.

r. Business Specs – 29-30: Proposed future enhancement, not available by State of Michigan go-live date.

s. Business Specs – 33-37: Proposed future enhancement, not available by State of Michigan go-live date.

t. Business Specs – 38: statement about discontinued Medicaid eligibility does not align with SOM requirements and indicates misunderstanding, even though SOM provided a system overview. The bidder also failed to account for all disenrollment reasons.

u. Business Specs – 41: response does not make sense in the context of the requirement.

v. Business Specs – 42: response suggests a lack of understanding of the SOM process and overall process flow.

w. Business Specs – 43-44: Proposed future enhancement, not available by State of Michigan go-live date.

x. Business Specs – 45: proposed a future enhancement without confirming availability by the SOM go‑live date, and the bidder’s references to PE trainings and community partner features show a misunderstanding of both, as PE trainings are on‑demand and the community partner functionality is not being requested.

y. Business Specs – 46: bidder stated the information “may” be updated, but SOM requires that it must be updated as specified in the requirement.

z. Business Specs – 52: response shows that they do not understand the requirement or did not read it fully.

aa. Business Specs – 53: response shows that they do not understand the requirement or did not read it fully.

ab. Business Specs – 54: response shows that they do not understand the requirement or did not read it fully.

ac. Business Specs – 56: Proposed future enhancement, not available by State of Michigan go-live date.

ad. Business Specs – 58: Only partially responded to States requirement.

ae. Business Specs – 59: bidder made an incorrect assumption about the SOM requirement.

af. Business Specs – 71: did not address requirement.

ag. Business Specs – 72: did not address requirement.

ah. Business Specs – 76: did not indicate when the future enhancement would be available and did not address required advance notifications, referencing only MDHHS instead of all required parties.

ai. Business Specs – 88: did not address requirement.

aj. Business Specs – 94-113: Proposed future enhancement, not available by State of Michigan go-live date.

ak. Business Specs – 116: Bidder does not understand process based on response.

al. Business Specs – 121-124: Proposed future enhancement, not available by State of Michigan go-live date.

am. Business Specs – 126: Bidder does not understand process based on response.

an. Business Specs – 127: Bidder’s statement that data requests may require negotiated scheduling, prioritization, or additional resources is unacceptable to SOM.

ao. Business Specs – 132: did not fully address the requirement.

ap. Business Specs – 134: did not address the replacement of key staff within five business days.

aq. Business Specs – 172: did not address the demand requests for problem investigation or providing answers to the questions.

3. Experience and Company Background Information, Vendor Questions Worksheet (21.25/25)

a. Section 5 – Experience 1: bidder highlights MiBridges features, but MiBridges does not include a comprehensive call center, so this example does not align with what SOM is asking the bidder to propose.

b. Section 5 – Experience 2: Same scope but not the same size.

c. Section 5 – Experience 3: Same size but not the same scope.

4. Staffing, Attachment 1, Resume Templates, Schedule A Sections 19 and 20 (12.996/15)

a. Section 19 – Security Officer: the experience provided was not for a project with the same size and scope.

b. Section 19 – Project Manager: bidder’s experience is not comparable in size or scope to the SOM project, and the bidder was stated as PMP certified but not in the online database.

c. Section 19 – Project Director: bidder listed experience managing teams of up to 200 instead of the required 250–400. Bidder stated as PMP certified but not in the online database.

5. Additional Requirements, Schedule A – Section 15, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, Schedule F – Disaster Recovery Plan, Schedule G – Transition In and Out (7.3/10)

a. Section 16: Didn’t provide any examples in the response.

b. Section 22: did not confirm/acknowledge meetings at no additional cost to the State.

c. Section 26: Bidder added language to the SLAs that raises concern for SOM.

d. Section F: did not provide a Disaster Recovery Plan.

e. Section G: transition plan places responsibility on the incumbent, omits required call center components, and includes elements such as job shadowing and eligibility management that are not part of the scope.

Total Score:74.246/100 C. Bidder # 3 – InfoCrossing The Evaluation Team determined that InfoCrossing based on a score of 82.6425, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria. Comment by Denny, Julianne (DHHS): Was the correct score listed here? Also should this include the staffing red flag regarding the submission and not just the information about not meeting best pricing?

1. General Call Center Requirements - Schedule A - Section 5, 14 (23.4/25)

a. Section 5.2-5.3: Bidder response lacked detail for 5.2.

b. Section 5.8: added targets for plan and PCP choice rates, but incorrectly stated that disenrollment reasons would be logged in the SOM CRM, which is not feasible, and the response omitted the required non‑discrimination element in 5.8.11.

c. Section 5.10: stated call center staff would complete profile changes, which is a significant security issue, and proposed an enhancement to notify callers when MDHHS acknowledges paper application reprint requests, which was not part of the requirement.

d. Section 5.15: omitted the requirement in 5.15.7 regarding MDHHS assistance with mail and failed to address both 5.15.4, which requires answering beneficiary or representative questions, and 5.15.5, which requires including initial screening information in the CRM.

e. Section 5.17: missing a response to 5.17.9.

2. Systems and Support, Schedule A, Sections 4-12 (excluding Section 5), Schedule A - Attachment 1 -Business Specification Worksheet (18.15/25)

a. Section 4: did not address the requirement to avoid using excluded parties and failed to acknowledge Schedule D section 2.2 regarding exceptions.

b. Section 6: bidder committed to provide PATs, however the PATs submitted did not explain how all third‑party components would be brought into compliance.

c. Section 10: did not address the requirement for supporting future browsers that reach over 5% market share and only stated they would follow the SUITE process.

d. Section 11: bidder partially addressed the requirement but did not provide the requested technical details for many of the listed solutions, and the enrollment broker system was not described. The response also suggests some misunderstanding of the required help desk and ticketing functions.

e. Section 12: bidder’s proposed error reconciliation process does not align with SOM requirements, as the system should reject the record and continue processing, with MHPs responsible for correcting errors in their next file.

f. Business Specs – 4: The bidder’s response indicates they do not fully understand the requirement.

g. Business Specs – 5: Bidder stated beneficiaries could compare benefit plans, this is not allowed within Michigan.

h. Business Specs – 6: bidder’s statement that this information would be provided in real time through CHAMPS does not align with the intended process, which requires it to come from the bidder’s system. The bidder also referred to displaying SNAP in the portal, which is out of scope and not relevant to the requirement.

i. Business Specs – 7: bidders approach to retrieving address information from CHAMPS or MiBridges does not align with the requirement, as the bidder should already maintain this information. The bidder also suggested integrating with the Mi card fulfillment vendor in a way that implies SOM would produce the cards, which is not what the requirement calls for.

j. Business Specs – 18: response indicates bidder does not understand requirement.

k. Business Specs – 19: response indicates bidder does not understand requirement.

l. Business Specs – 20: response indicates bidder does not understand requirement.

m. Business Specs – 21: response indicates bidder does not understand requirement.

n. Business Specs – 22: response indicates bidder does not understand requirement.

o. Business Specs – 23: response indicates bidder does not understand requirement.

p. Business Specs – 24: response indicates bidder does not understand requirement.

q. Business Specs – 25: response indicates bidder does not understand requirement.

r. Business Specs – 26: response indicates bidder does not understand requirement.

s. Business Specs – 27: response indicates bidder does not understand requirement.

t. Business Specs – 29: response indicates bidder does not understand requirement.

u. Business Specs – 30: response indicates bidder does not understand requirement.

v. Business Specs – 32: response indicates bidder does not understand requirement.

w. Business Specs – 33: response indicates bidder does not understand requirement.

x. Business Specs – 35: response indicates bidder does not understand requirement.

y. Business Specs – 36: response indicates bidder does not understand requirement.

z. Business Specs – 40: response indicates bidder does not understand requirement.

aa. Business Specs – 41: response indicates bidder does not understand requirement.

ab. Business Specs – 42: response indicates bidder does not understand requirement.

ac. Business Specs – 43: bidder did not respond to the requirement.

ad. Business Specs – 45: response indicated bidder does not understand how presumptive eligibility works.

ae. Business Specs - 46: response indicated bidder does not understand how presumptive eligibility works.

af. Business Specs – 48: response indicated bidder does not understand how presumptive eligibility works.

ag. Business Specs – 55: response indicated bidder does not understand the way the system was presented in the pre-bid presentation.

ah. Business Specs – 56: response indicated bidder does not understand the way the system was presented in the pre-bid presentation.

ai. Business Specs – 100: alerts to program staff are not relevant.

aj. Business Specs – 117: bidder presented real time and continuous updates which would not be accurate and is not consistent with what the RFP requirements list.

ak. Business Specs – 120: no real time synchronization is wanted.

al. Business Specs – 122: bidder did not indicate the portion regarding reporting the information to the State of Michigan.

am. Business Specs – 124: did not address the technical assistance portion of the requirement.

an. Business Specs – 125: response indicates the bidder does not understand the data synchronization workflow.

ao. Business Specs – 130: this is an HR function and doesn’t have to do with the EB system.

ap. Business Specs – 139: bidder did not address the requirements about completing the enrollment process within 28 business days.

3. Experience and Company Background Information, Vendor Questions Worksheet (17.5/25):

a. Section 5 – Experience 1: same scope but not same size.

b. Section 5 – Experience 2: answer provided but not relevant.

c. Section 5 – Experience 3: answered but missing crucial information.

4. Staffing, Attachment 1, Resume Templates, Schedule A Sections 19 and 20 (11.2425/15)

a. Section 19 – Security Officer: Experience provided does not demonstrate similar scope and size.

b. Section 19 – Project Manager: Bidder did not list the personnels skills and experience. Experience provided does not demonstrate similar scope and size.

c. Section 19 – Project Director: did not show any details on the experience with large scale projects.

d. Section 19 – Call Center Manager: names of projects or years was not listed.

e. Section 19 – Operations and IT Support Manager: Experience provided does not demonstrate similar scope and size.

5. Additional Requirements, Schedule A – Section 15, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, Schedule F – Disaster Recovery Plan, Schedule G – Transition In and Out (10/10) Total Score:82.6425/100 D. Bidder # 4 – Maximus The Evaluation Team determined that Maximus based on a score of 98.266, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. General Call Center Requirements - Schedule A - Section 5, 14 (24.6/25)

a. Section 5.14: did not acknowledge that they would be responsible for all mailing costs.

b. Section 5.18: did not state they report undeliverable miHealth cards by program.

2. Systems and Support, Schedule A, Sections 4-12 (excluding Section 5), Schedule A - Attachment 1 -Business Specification Worksheet (23.98/25)

a. Section 6: Failure to provide the third party PAT for Genesys Cloud application.

b. Section 12: Exhibit 1-81: has incorrect information.

c. Business Specs – 144: bidder did not acknowledge the HIPAA Controls audit.

3. Experience and Company Background Information, Vendor Questions Worksheet (25/25)

a. No deficiencies were identified in this section.

4. Staffing, Attachment 1, Resume Templates, Schedule A Sections 19 and 20 (14.666/15)

a. Section 19 – Call Center Manager (Beneficiary Lines): did not describe in detail the communication skills.

5. Additional Requirements, Schedule A – Section 15, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, Schedule F – Disaster Recovery Plan, Schedule G – Transition In and Out (10/10)

a. No deficiencies were identified in this section.

Total Score: 98.266/100

Technical Evaluation Summary

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

V. Negotiations Negotiations were conducted to address the vendors redlines on the contract terms, ensuring alignment with State requirements. All key issues were resolved collaboratively, resulting in mutually agreeable final terms. The awarded vendor’s final pricing submission resulted in cost savings of $4,676,341.45 over the five‑year contract term. Pricing provided in section IV reflects this cost savings.

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.

Maximus Us Services Inc. provided the best value to the State. Best value factors for Award Recommendation include: experienced key personnel, same scope and size work experience provided from other states, proven performance with State of Michigan, multiple proposed enhancements that improve efficiency, and the most favorable pricing.

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.

Version 2024-2 image1.png