NIA1 250000001061.docx

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

Michigan Department of Health and Human Services has completed the evaluation of RFP 250000002526 - Michigan Behavior Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) Survey Operations and has recommended an award to Guidesoft, Inc. dba Knowledge Services in the amount of $1,303,090.50, 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:

Nicole Haring, Solicitation Manager.

HaringN@michigan.gov 517-284-9454 Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor to provide BRFSS Survey Operations. The term of this contract is three years, with up to two renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on June 13, 2025, for four weeks. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of July 11, 2025.

Rockville, MD 20852

Reno, NV 89502

Guidesoft, Inc Dba Knowledge Services 9800 Crosspoint Blvd.

Indianapolis, IN 46256

Reston, VA 20190

*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

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 a Joint Evaluation Committee, which consisted of the following individuals:

Sarah Razak, Financial Specialist MDHHS/Bureau of Epidemiology and Population Health Nicole Haring, Solicitation Manager MDHHS/Bureau of Grants and Purchasing

Yan Tian, BRFSS Coordinator/Epidemiologist MDHHS/Bureau of Epidemiology and Population Health

Mary Kleyn, title MDHHS/Lifecourse Epidemiology and Genomics Division

III. Evaluation Results A. Abt Associates, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Abt Associates, Inc., 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. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. Statement of Work, Section 1 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Item B. 5. The bidder noted systematic recurring errors discovered in the sampling or interviewing operations would only be corrected at no cost to the State if the error is on the part of the Contractor. – 1 point.

b. Item B. 6. The bidder noted problems identified by the MDHHS Program Manager in reviewing the data sets would only be corrected at no cost to the State if the error is on the part of the Contractor. – 1 point.

3. Statement of Work, Sections 2-3 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 2.3 Disclosure of Subcontractors. The bidder is proposing a subcontractor to complete 47.38% of the Contract activities. – 5 points

4. Statement of Work, Sections 4-7 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 93/100

B. GDCC West, LLC The Evaluation Team determined that GDCC West, LLC, based on a score of 84, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

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

a. Section 2, Company Background. The bidder did not discuss their company’s history. – 1 point.

b. Section 2, Company Background. The bidder stated they routinely scale up or down to accommodate a workload but did not explain how the company will scale up to manage this increase if receiving a contract under this RFP would increase gross revenue by more than 25% from last year’s sales. – 1 point.

c. Section 2, Company Background. The bidder did not provide partnerships or strategic relationships that would bring significant value to the State. – 1 point.

d. Section 5, Experience 1. Experience is not of similar scope for the work described in this RFP. Results obtained only listed a number and are unable to be evaluated due to lack of detail. -2 point

e. Section 5, Experience 2. Experience is not of similar size or scope for the work described in this RFP. Results obtained only listed a number and are unable to be evaluated due to lack of detail. – 3 points.

f. Section 5, Experience 3. Experience is not of similar size or scope for the work described in this RFP. Results obtained only listed a number and are unable to be evaluated due to lack of detail. – 3 points.

2. Statement of Work, Section 1 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Item A.1. The bidder stated they have a well-established process to accommodate annual changes or additions to the survey questionnaire but did not describe that process. – 1 point.

b. Item B.1. The bidder agreed to maintain a team of dedicated interviewers but did not describe their team or how this requirement would be met. – 1 point.

c. Item B.6. The bidder did not provide a response to this requirement. – 2 points.

3. Statement of Work, Sections 2-3 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 2.4, Security. The bidder noted an exception stating a percentage of workstations are remote but did not describe how they would ensure the security of the State and its facilities. – 1 point.

4. Statement of Work, Sections 4-7 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 84/100 C. Guidesoft, Inc. dba Knowledge Services The Evaluation Team determined that Guidesoft, Inc. dba Knowledge Services, 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. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 5, Experiences 1 – 3. The bidder’s experiences are not related to Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Systems. – 3 points.

2. Statement of Work, Section 1 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Statement of Work, Sections 2-3 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Statement of Work, Sections 4-7 Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 97/100 D. ICF Incorporated LLC.

The Evaluation Team determined that ICF Incorporated, LLC., 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. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. Statement of Work, Section 1 Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Statement of Work, Sections 2-3 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Statement of Work, Sections 4-7 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 100/100

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

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

VI. Negotiations Second round pricing was requested on August 13, 2025, with a due date of August 20, 2025. The following is a summary of their second-round price proposals:

VII. Award Recommendation Award recommendation is made to the responsive and responsible Bidder who offers the lowest price to the State of Michigan. Low price is determined by the Bidder who meets the requirements and offers the lowest overall price as demonstrated by its proposal.

Award Recommendation is made to Guidesoft, Inc. dba Knowledge Services in the amount of $1,303,090.50.

Version 2024-2 image1.png