NIA 250000001043-Prison-based Substance Use Treatment Services.docx

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

The Department of Corrections’ Procurement office has completed the evaluation of Request for Proposal (RFP) 250000002000 – Prison-based Substance Use Treatment Services and has recommended an award to the following bidders in the amount noted below, pending State Administrative Board approval, if applicable:

· Catholic Charities of Jackson, Lenawee, and Hillsdale Counties – $11,718,172.00

· Gateway Foundation, Inc. – $5,573,211.00

· Partners in Change: Psychological & Community Services, PLC - $8,524,704.00

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:

Lisa Lehnert, Solicitation Manager LehnertL@michigan.gov

(517) 335-4904

Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractors to provide prison-based substance use treatment services. The term of this contract is five years and four months, with up to three, one-year renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on April 16, 2025, for 35 days. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of May 20, 2025.

*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:

Proposals receiving 80 or more technical evaluation points will have pricing evaluated and 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 (JEC), which consisted of the following individuals:

Lisa Lehnert, Buyer Department of Corrections-Procurement, Monitoring, and Compliance Division Elizabeth Sparks, Program Manager Department of Corrections-Bureau of Health Care Services

Elizabeth Boyd, Substance Use Treatment Services Manager Department of Corrections-Bureau of Health Care Services

Kathryn Santiago, Contract Monitor Department of Corrections-Procurement, Monitoring, and Compliance Division

III. Evaluation Results A. Catholic Charities of Jackson, Lenawee, and Hillsdale Counties The Evaluation Team determined that Catholic Charities of Jackson, Lenawee, and Hillsdale Counties (CCJLH) based on a score of 82, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

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

a. Background, A. Affordable Care Act – The bidder did not check the response box. (No deduction)

b. Background, Prosperity Regions – The bidder did not explain in detail how they will fulfill contract requirements at all facilities, including the number of staff that will be utilized to fulfill the requirements.

c. Scope – The bidder did not indicate if it is a current MAT provider or describe the MAT organization and their collaborative relationship with that organization.

d. Section 1.1. A. 2. – The bidder did not provide detailed information on the delivery of trauma treatment within its substance abuse programs to offenders.

e. Section 1.1. A. 5. – The bidder did not describe in detail their past experience in conducting group therapy.

f. Section 1.1. A. 6. – The bidder did not describe in detail their past experience in conducting individual therapy sessions.

g. Section 1.1. B. 2. – The bidder provided a sample of a completed treatment plan; however, the items listed as interventions are not actual interventions. Interventions are paramount to treatment outcomes.

h. Section 1.1. B. 6. – The bidder did not describe how their organization will review or audit discharge summaries to verify the items required in the discharge summary are met. The response just states chart audits will be completed.

i. Section 1.1. C. – The bidder did not describe in detail their past experience in implementing treatment interventions.

j. Section 1.1. E. – The bidder provided the Contractor staff responsible for email notification and indicated this individual will be responsible for 24/7 coverage. The MDOC requires there to be a backup in case this individual is not available. (No point deduction)

k. Section 1.1. I. – The bidder did not describe how they will retain staff with the specified qualifications.

l. Section 1.1. I. – The bidder did not describe the process of how they will verify licensure and/or certifications for staff.

m. Section 1.1. I. – The bidder did not provide detailed description of how they will provide this pool of qualified candidates.

n. Section 1.1. J. – The bidder did not describe the overall approach they will use for ensuring staff report any behavior suspected as being overfamiliar or unauthorized.

o. Section 4.2. – The bidder did not provide the customer service phone number.

p. Section 4.5. – The bidder provided the organizational chart; however, not all of the Key Personnel were listed on the organizational chart and the full-time equivalents (FTE) were not included.

2. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Item 5, Prior Experience – Experience 1 was not of similar size.

b. Item 5, Prior Experience - Experience 2 was not of similar size.

c. Item 5, Prior Experience - Experience 3 was not of similar size.

d. Item 10, Clean Corporate Citizen – The bidder did not provide a response. (No deduction) Total Score:82/100 B. CRC Recovery, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that CRC Recovery, Inc. (CRC) based on a score of 75, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

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

a. Section 1.1. A. – The bidder did not provide detailed information as to its experience of delivering trauma treatment within its substance abuse programs to offenders.

b. Section 1.1. A. 5. – The bidder did not describe in detail how they will ensure that the group therapy requirements are met.

c. Section 1.1. A. 5. – The bidder did not describe how they would track clinical staff’s performance.

d. Section 1.1. A. 5 – The bidder states they will use patient satisfaction surveys. Any surveys will need to be pre-approved by the MDOC Program Manager or designee prior to being utilized. (No point deduction)

e. Section 1.1. A. 5. – The bidder did not describe in detail their past experience in conducting group therapy.

f. Section 1.1. A. 6 – The bidder did not describe in detail how they will ensure that individual therapy session requirements are met.

g. Section 1.1. A. 6. – The bidder did not describe in detail how they will track clinical staff’s performance. The response stated how they would track patient progress.

h. Section 1.1. A. 6. – The bidder did not describe in detail their past experience in providing individual therapy sessions.

i. Section 1.1. B. 2. – The bidder did not provide a sample of a completed treatment plan. The treatment plan provided was blank.

j. Section 1.1. B. 2. – The bidder stated they will be using multidisciplinary teams to complete the treatment plan and obtaining input from the family. These methods will not be allowed on this contract for any services. (No point deduction)

k. Section 1.1. B. 3. – The bidder did not describe how they will verify the clinical staff is in compliance. The response stated how the progress note will be completed.

l. Section 1.1. B. 7. – The bidder did not describe how they will verify the clinical staff is in compliance.

m. Section 1.1. B. 7. – The bidder stated they will be providing flexible scheduling, transportation assistance, and telehealth options. The bidder will not be allowed to provide these services on this contract. (No point deduction)

n. Section 1.1. C. – The bidder did not describe their past experience in implementing the Behavior Contract.

o. Section 1.1. C. – The bidder did not provide specific treatment interventions they will utilize to improve successful progress in treatment.

p. Section 1.1. I. – The bidder did not describe how they will recruit, hire, and retain staff with the specified qualifications.

q. Section 1.1. I. – The bidder did not provide detailed description of how they will provide a pool of qualified candidates.

r. Section 1.1. I. – The bidder did not describe in detail how the clinical supervisor will ensure clinical staff has the abilities and core competencies.

s. Section 1.1. J. – The bidder did not describe in detail how your organization will evaluate that the clinical supervisor is reviewing that clinical staff have the necessary skills and knowledge.

t. Section 1.1. J. – The bidder did not describe how your organization’s clinical supervisor will verify, and monitor (frequency) clinical staff have the skills described in the requirement.

u. Section 1.1. J. – The bidder did not describe their plan for providing live supervision, along with the frequency of the live supervision.

v. Section 1.3. B. – The bidder did not explain their training capabilities and any training that is included in its proposal.

w. Section 1.5. – The bidder did not explain how the data retention, disposal, and retrieval requirements will be met.

x. Section 4.4. – The bidder did not complete the table for the required Key Personnel.

y. Section 4.7. – The bidder did not explain any additional security measures in place to ensure the security of the State and its facilities. (No point deduction)

2. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Item 5 – Prior Experience – Experience 1 is not of similar size.

b. Item 5 – Prior Experience – Experience 2 is not of similar size.

c. Item 5 – Prior Experience – Experience 3 is not of similar size.

Total Score:75/100 C. Gateway Foundation, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Gateway Foundation, Inc. (Gateway) based on a score of 95, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

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

a. Section 1.1. A. 5. – The bidder did not describe in detail how their organization will train clinical staff in conducting group therapy.

b. Section 1.1. B. 3. – The bidder did not describe how they will verify the clinical staff is in compliance. The response just stated what will be included in the progress note.

c. Section 1.1. J. – The bidder did not describe in detail how their organization will evaluate that the Clinical Supervisor is reviewing that clinical staff have the necessary skills and knowledge.

d. Section 1.1. J. – The bidder provided an attachment labeled “Staff Development Plan”; however, the attachment did not have a staff development plan included in it. It was just a list of potential training.

2. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Item 5, Prior Experience – Experience 3 was not of similar size.

Total Score:95/100 D. Great Lakes Recovery Centers, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Great Lakes Recovery Centers, Inc. (GLRC) 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. Schedule A The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Background, B. Prosperity Regions – The bidder did not provide Schedule A-2.

b. Section 1.1. A. 6. – The bidder did not describe how they will ensure that individual therapy session requirements are met.

c. Section 1.1. B. 2. – The bidder did not describe the overall approach you will use for ensuring that the treatment plan is completed and individualized for each offender.

d. Section 1.1. C. – The bidder did not describe in detail their past experience in implementing treatment interventions, including the Behavior Contract.

e. Section 1.1. E. – The bidder did not explain how evening and weekend responses will be covered.

f. Section 1.1. J. – The bidder provided Attachment 4; however, it was not a Staff Development Plan. It appeared to be a supervision form.

g. Section 1.1. J. – The bidder did not discuss the reporting of any behavior suspected as being overfamiliar or unauthorized.

h. Section 4.7. – The bidder did not explain any additional security measures in place to ensure the security of the State and its facilities. (No point deduction)

2. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Item 5, Prior Experience – Experience 2 is not of similar size.

Total Score:92/100 E. Management & Training Corporation The Evaluation Team determined that Management & Training Corporation (MTC) 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. Schedule A The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.1. B. 6. – The bidder did not include the frequency of the review/audit. Response just stated periodically.

b. Section 1.1. J. – The bidder did not describe how your organization will evaluate that the clinical supervisor is reviewing that clinical staff have the necessary skills.

c. Section 1.1. J. – The frequency included in the bidder’s response is not sufficient for the MDOC. The MDOC would prefer the bidder to monitor and review clinical staff’s groups and documentation more frequently. (No point deduction)

d. Section 1.1. J. – The bidder states staff will be trained in professional moral and ethical conduct within the first three months. MDOC is requiring that this training be conducted prior to staff entering the MDOC’s correctional facilities. (No point deduction)

2. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory and no deficiencies were noted.

Total Score:98/100 F. Partners in Change: Psychological & Community Services, PLC The Evaluation Team determined that Partners in Change: Psychological & Community Services, PLC (Partners) based on a score of 93, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

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

a. Section 1.1. B. 2. – The bidder did not provide a completed treatment plan. Attachment 1 was blank.

b. Section 1.1. J. – The bidder did not describe how their organization will evaluate that the Clinical Supervisor is reviewing that clinical staff have the necessary skills and knowledge.

c. Section 5.1. – The bidder provided Attachment 8-Contract Closeout and Termination Plan; however, it only listed the specific items noted in the RFP and did not provide any detail.

2. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Item 5, Prior Experience – Experience 2 was not of similar size.

b. Item 5, Prior Experience – Experience 3 was not of similar scope and size.

Total Score:93/100 G. Wings of a Dove The Evaluation Team determined that Wings of a Dove (Wings) based on a score of 89, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

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

a. Background, Section B – The bidder did not provide Schedule A-2.

b. Scope – The bidder did not describe the type of MAT training staff will receive.

c. Section 1.1. A. – The bidder did not provide detailed information as to its delivery of trauma treatment within its substance abuse programs to offenders.

d. Section 1.1. A. 5 – The bidder did not describe in detail how their organization will ensure that the group therapy requirements are met.

e. Section 1.1. A. 6. – The bidder did not describe in detail how their organization would track clinical staff’s performance in conducting individual therapy sessions.

f. Section 1.1. B. 3. – The bidder stated that the progress note will be completed within seven days of the session; however, the RFP requirement is that progress notes must be entered in MDOC’s EHR system within the same business day. The bidder would be required to enter the same business day as the session. (No point deduction)

g. Section 1.1. I. – The bidder did not provide a detailed description of how they will provide a pool of qualified candidates.

h. Section 1.1. J. – The bidder did not describe in detail how they will verify clinical staff have the skills described in the requirement.

i. Section 1.3. B. – The bidder did not explain its training capabilities.

2. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Item 5 – Experience 1 was not of similar scope.

b. Item 5 – Experience 3 was not of similar size.

Total Score:89/100

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

V. Pricing Summary Pricing was evaluated for the bidders who passed technical evaluation. Please refer to the attached Excel document for a pricing summary per contract year offered by Bidders passing technical.

VI. Negotiations The Bidders submitted their initial pricing per contract year. MDOC Procurement then engaged in a 2nd round pricing negotiations.

VII. 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.

The below Bidders provided the best value to the State. Best value factors for Award Recommendation include:

· Proposed service locations

· MAT Experience

· Prior experience training on University of Cincinnatti curriculum

· 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 the following vendors for a five-year contract period:

Version 2024-2 image1.png