NIA1 260000000861 - Award Recommendation and Evaluation Synopsis.docx

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

The Department of Technology, Management, & Budget’s Procurement office has completed the evaluation of RFP 260000000604 - Temporary Medical Staffing Services and has recommended an award to ATC Healthcare Services, Amergis Healthcare Staffing, P.I.E. Management, and Cell Staff, in the amount of $177,000,000.00 ($44,250,000.00 per Contract) pending State Administrative Board approval, if applicable. More information on the State Administrative Board can be found at: State Administrative Board.

Adam Ashley, Solicitation Manager Ashleya2@michigan.gov 517-855-1376

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 Contractors to provide Temporary Medical Staffing Services. The term of this contract is 3 years, with up to 3 1-year renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on March 17, 2026, for 41 days. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of April 27, 2026.

*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 the Solicitation Manager in collaboration with the Joint Evaluation Committee which consisted of the following individuals:

Adam Ashley, Solicitation Manager

DTMB – CPS

Brian D. Majerczyk, Mental Health Services Administrator

MDOC-BHCS

Andrew Fotenakes, Contract Manager Procurement, Monitoring, and Compliance Division

MDOC

Carlos Rodriguez, Contract Monitor Procurement, Monitoring, and Compliance Division MDOC

Lori Kissau, Division Administrator Health Care Services

MDOC

Lisa Lehnert, Buyer Specialist Procurement, Monitoring, and Compliance Division

MDOC

Debra Frazzitta, Buyer Buyer Specialist Bureau of Grants and Purchasing

MDHHS

Nick Norcross, State Assistant Administrator State Hospital Administration

MDHHS

III. Evaluation Results

1. Lancesoft The Evaluation Team determined that Lancesoft, based on a score of 88, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

I. Schedule A, Statement of Work, All Sections Except Section 2 58/60 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 1.3. Training: Checked both boxes of the bidder box.

b. 1.3.C Training: No boxes within the bidder box were checked.

II. Staffing – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2 23/25 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 2.6. Key Personnel: Resumes did not include a chronological work history.

III. Vendor Question Worksheet 7/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were unsatisfactory based on the following deficiencies that were noted:

a. Bidder did not provide experience placing staff in Correctional environments.

b. Experiences 1, 2 and 3 were small in size compared to this solicitation.

Total Score: 88/100

2. Home Care Kimistry Home Care Kimistry has not met the requirements of being responsive and responsible due to not including the Vendor Question Worksheet and Schedule A – Statement of Work.

3. Cogent Infotech The Evaluation Team determined Cogent Infotech, based on a score of 70, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

I. Schedule A, Statement of Work, All Sections Except Section 2 46/60 Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.1.2. General Requirements: Bidder did not demonstrate how they would meet this requirement.

b. Section 1.2.2. General Requirements: Bidder listed Wyoming instead of Michigan.

c. 3.1 Project Plan: Bidders project plan did not include project breakdowns for the timeline and task requirement.

d. 3.3. A. Reporting: Sample provided was not an Unsatisfactory Performance Report as noted in the requirement.

e. 4.1. Price Term: Bidder did not answer the 3 questions within this section.

f. 4.2. Price Changes: Bidder did not answer the 5 questions within this section.

II. Staffing – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2 24/25 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 2.8. Disclosure of Subcontractors: Bidder mentions a subcontractor previously in their proposal, but they were not disclosed.

III. Vendor Question Worksheet 0/15 The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were unsatisfactory based on the following deficiencies that were noted:

a. The response to the Company history was minimal and lacks details.

b. Experience 2: Project dollar value was not provided.

c. Experience 3: Project was small in size compared to this solicitation.

d. Experience 2 and 3: Experiences were not of similar scope to the solicitation.

e. Bidder did not provide experience placing staff in Correctional or Psychiatric environments.

Total Score: 70/100

4. Genie Healthcare, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Genie Healthcare, based on a score of 87, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

I. Schedule A, Statement of Work, All Sections Except Section 2 55/60 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 1.1.2. General Requirements: Bidder did not sufficiently describe how issues would be communicated and resolved in their communication plan.

b. 1.3. Training: Bidder did not detail their own training capabilities.

c. 3.1 Project Plan: Bidder did not provide a project plan with their bid response that was to include project breakdowns for the task, timeline, and resources requirement.

II. Staffing – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2 25/25 The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

III. Vendor Question Worksheet 7/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were unsatisfactory based on the following deficiencies that were noted:

a. The response to the Company history was minimal.

b. Experiences 2 and 3: Projects were small in size compared to this solicitation.

c. Bidder did not provide experience placing staff in Psychiatric environments.

Total Score: 87/100

5. Aequor Healthcare Services LLC.

The Evaluation Team determined that Aequor Healthcare Services, based on a score of 94, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

I. Schedule A, Statement of Work, All Sections Except Section 2 58/60 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. ADA Compliance: Did not address the digital requirements.

II. Staffing – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2 24/25 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 2.9. Security: Bidder did not provide a company to perform background checks.

III. Vendor Question Worksheet: 12/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Experiences 1, 2 and 3: Experiences were small in size compared to the solicitation.

Total Score: 94/100

6. Vastek, Inc The Evaluation Team determined that Vastek, based on a score of 77, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

I. Schedule A, Statement of Work, All Sections Except Section 2 52/60 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 1.1.1. General Requirements: Bidder did not describe how they would comply with the requirements provided.

b. 1.1.2. General Requirements: Bidder did not describe how they would comply with the requirements provided.

c. 1.3. Training: Bidder did not detail their own training capabilities.

d. 3.1 Project Plan: No project plan was included.

e. 3.3. Reporting; C. Quarterly Usage Report: Bidder did not describe how the requirement would be met.

f. 3.3. Reporting; D. Yearly Closeout Report: Bidder box was left unchecked.

II. Staffing – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2 23/25 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 2.6. Key Personnel: Resume was not provided for the CEO.

b. 2.7. Organizational Chart: The chart provided was missing names of the personnel.

III. Vendor Question Worksheet 2/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were unsatisfactory based on the following deficiencies that were noted:

a. Experiences 1, 2, and 3: Experiences were small in size compared to the solicitation.

b. Bidder did not provide experience placing staff in Correctional or Psychiatric environments.

Total Score: 77/100

7. Flagstar Staffing The Evaluation Team determined that Flagstar Staffing, based on a score of 79, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

I. Schedule A, Statement of Work, All Sections Except Section 2 54/60 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 1.1.1. General Requirements: Bidder did not describe how they would comply with the requirements provided.

b. 1.1.2. General Requirements: Bidder did not describe how they would comply with the requirements provided.

c. 3.3. Reporting: Bidder did not provide a sample for the Quarterly Usage report.

d. 4.1. Price Term: Bidder did not answer the 3 questions within this section.

II. Staffing – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2 23/25 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 2.6. Key Personnel: Resumes were not provided for two key personnel.

III. Vendor Question Worksheet 2/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were unsatisfactory based on the following deficiencies that were noted:

a. Experiences 1, 2 and 3: Experiences were small in size compared to this solicitation.

b. Bidder did not provide experience placing staff in Correctional or Psychiatric environments.

Total Score: 79/100

8. Zybs Consulting Zybs Consulting has not met the requirements of being responsive and responsible due to not completing the Schedule A – Statement of Work in the provided template.

9. Navitas Healthcare The Evaluation Team determined that Navitas Healthcare, 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.

I. Schedule A, Statement of Work, All Sections Except Section 2 57/60 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 1.1.1. General Requirements: Bidder did not answer how to comply with the requirements provided.

b. 1.1.2. General Requirements: Bidder did not answer how to comply with the requirements provided.

c. 1.3. Training: Bidder did not detail their own training capabilities.

II. Staffing – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2 25/25 The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

III. Vendor Question Worksheet 2/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were unsatisfactory, and the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Experiences 1, 2, and 3: Experiences were small in size compared to this solicitation.

Total Score: 84/100

10. Honu Management Group LLC The Evaluation Team determined that Honu Management Group, based on a score of 73, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

I. Schedule A, Statement of Work, All Sections Except Section 2 56/60 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 1.1.2. General Requirements: Bidder did not describe the mechanism used to regularly communicate and manage the temporary staff placed in State facilities.

b. 1.1.2. General Requirements: Bidder did not describe how issues would be communicated and resolved in their communication plan.

c. 3.1 Project Plan: Bidders project plan did not include project breakdowns for the timeline and resources requirement.

II. Staffing – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2 17/25 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were unsatisfactory based on the following deficiencies that were noted:

a. 2.6. Key Personnel: Only two of the six requested Key Personnel were from the bidder. The remaining four were subcontractors.

b. 2.8: Disclosure of Subcontractors: Bidder indicates that subcontractors will perform approximately 60% of the work. Additionally, a subcontractor is identified as the employer of record for staff assigned to this Contract.

III. Vendor Question Worksheet 0/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were unsatisfactory based on the following deficiencies that were noted:

a. Gross sales history shows a significant drop year-over-year.

b. Bidder did not explain how they would scale-up to manage an increase.

c. Bidder provided the same Contract for all 3 experiences. All 3 of them were not of similar scope, and they were small in size compared to this solicitation.

d. Bidder did not provide experience placing staff in Correctional or Psychiatric environments.

Total Score: 73/100

11. Talantage, LLC The Evaluation Team determined that Talantage, based on a score of 79, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

I. Schedule A, Statement of Work, All Sections Except Section 2 58/60 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 1.1.2. General Requirements: Bidder removed the question for the mechanism used to regularly communicate and manage the temporary staff placed in State facilities.

b. 4.2. Price Changes: Bidder response was missing one of the five questions.

II. Staffing – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2 20/25 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 2.6. Key Personnel: Only one of the Bidder’s resumes included a chronological work history. The rest of the resumes did not include a chronological work history.

b. 2.7. Organizational Chart: Bidder’s chart did not include the names of the Key Personnel.

c. 2.8: Disclosure of Subcontractors: Bidder mentions a subcontractor for the Geographically Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (GDBE) requirement, however the bidder is not located in Michigan.

III. Vendor Question Worksheet 3/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were unsatisfactory based on the following deficiencies that were noted:

a. The response to the Company history was minimal.

b. Gross sales are low compared to historical spend of these Contracts.

c. Experience 1: Project dollar value was not provided.

d. Experiences 2 and 3: Experiences were small in value and not of similar scope compared to this solicitation.

e. Bidder did not provide experience placing staff in Psychiatric environments.

Total Score: 79/100

12. UltimateCare Management The Evaluation Team determined that UltimateCare Management, based on a score of 68, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

I. Schedule A, Statement of Work, All Sections Except Section 2 41/60 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 1.1.1. General Requirements: Bidder describes a county that is not part of Michigan.

b. 1.1.2. General Requirements: Bidder did not describe how they would comply with the requirements provided.

c. 1.1.2. General Requirements: Bidder did not describe in detail the mechanisms used to communicate the requirements with the candidate prior to submission to the State agencies.

d. 1.1.2. General Requirements: Bidder did not describe in detail the mechanisms used to regularly communicate and manage the temporary staff placed in State facilities.

e. 1.1.2. General Requirements: Bidder did not provide their communication plan with the placed staff and how issues would be communicated and resolved.

f. 1.1.2. General Requirements: Bidder did not describe how they will ensure they meet all compliance requirements to ensure temp staffing candidates start on time once an established start date is set with the State.

g. 1.2.3. General Requirements: Bidder response to the Corrective Actions was vague and lacked details.

h. 1.3: Training: Bidder’s response was vague and lacked detail on their training capabilities.

i. ADA Compliance: Bidder did not provide a response with details of how they will meet the requirements.

j. 3.1 Project Plan: Bidder did not submit a project plan, to include project breakdowns for the sub-projects, timeline, and resources requirement.

k. 3.3. Reporting: Bidder did not provide a sample for the Monthly report, nor did they explain their reporting capabilities.

l. 3.3. Reporting: Bidder did not explain how the requirement for the Quarterly Usage and Yearly Closeout reports would be met.

m. 4.1. Price Term: Bidder responses were short and vague.

n. 4.2. Price Changes: Bidder responses were short and vague.

II. Staffing – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2 23/25 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 2.4. Customer Service Number: Bidder did not provide a customer service number.

b. 2.9 Security: Bidders response to this section was vague and lacked elaboration and did not include the scope of the background check.

III. Vendor Question Worksheet 4/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were unsatisfactory based on the following deficiencies that were noted:

a. The response to the Company history was minimal.

b. Experience 1: The scope provided was not sufficient.

c. Experience 2 and 3: The scope was not sufficient and the project were small in size compared to this solicitation.

d. Bidder did not provide experience placing staff in Psychiatric environments.

Total Score: 68/100

13. P.I.E. Management The Evaluation Team determined that P.I.E. Management, 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.

I. Schedule A, Statement of Work, All Sections Except Section 2 58/60 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 1.1.2. General Requirements: Bidder did not address how issues would be resolved.

b. 1.3. Training: Bidder did not describe their training capabilities.

II. Staffing – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2 25/25 The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

III. Vendor Question Worksheet 10/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The response to the Company history was minimal.

b. Experiences 1 and 2: Experiences were not of similar scope and small in size compared to this solicitation.

Total Score: 93/100

14. ATC Healthcare Services The Evaluation Team determined that ATC Healthcare Services, 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.

I. Schedule A, Statement of Work, All Sections Except Section 2 57/60 57/60 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 1.1.2. General Requirements: Bidder did not describe the mechanism used to regularly communicate and manage the temporary staff placed in State facilities.

b. 1.3. Training: Bidder did not provide details for what their training includes.

c. 4.1. Price Term: Bidder did not describe the methodology their firm uses to conduct annual market pay analysis for medical staff.

II. Staffing – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2 24/25 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 2.7. Organizational Chart: Bidders chart did not include all the Key Personnel.

III. Vendor Question Worksheet 14/15

a. Experience 3: Experience is small in size compared to this solicitation.

Total Score: 95/100

15. Healthcare Staffing Professionals The Evaluation Team determined that Healthcare Staffing Professionals, based on a score of 86, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

I. Schedule A, Statement of Work, All Sections Except Section 2 49/60 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 1.3. Training: Bidder did not provide details for what their training includes.

b. 3.1 Project Plan: Bidders project plan did not include project breakdowns for the task and timeline requirement.

c. 4.1. Price Term: Bidder did not answer the 3 questions within this section.

d. 4.2. Price Changes: Bidder did not answer the 5 questions within this section.

II. Staffing – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2 22/25 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 2.6. Key Personnel: Resumes were not provided for two Key Personnel.

b. 2.9. Security: Bidder did not provide a scope for their background checks process.

III. Vendor Question Worksheet 15/15 The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 86/100

16. Park Pharmacy The Evaluation Team determined that Park Pharmacy, based on a score of 79, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

I. Schedule A, Statement of Work, All Sections Except Section 2 54/60 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 1.1.1. General Requirements: Bidder response implies that they do not have the availability to fill all staffing requests.

b. 1.1.2. General Requirements: Bidder did not describe the mechanism used to regularly communicate and manage the temporary staff placed in State facilities.

c. ADA Compliance: Bidder did not provide details of how they will meet the requirements.

d. 3.1 Project Plan: Bidders project plan didn’t identify the resources for each task.

II. Staffing – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2 24/25 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 2.9. Security: Bidder did not discuss how the requirements would be met.

III. Vendor Question Worksheet 1/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were unsatisfactory based on the following deficiencies that were noted:

a. Gross sales were inconsistent and did not demonstrate capability to provide services for the entire State of Michigan.

b. Experiences 1, 2, and 3: Experiences were not of similar scope and small in size compared to this solicitation.

c. Bidder did not provide experience placing staff in Psychiatric environments.

Total Score: 79/100

17. Stafflink Inc.

Stafflink has not met the requirements of being responsive and responsible due to not completing the Vendor Question Worksheet and Schedule A – Statement of Work correctly.

18. Syra Health Corp Syra Health Corp has not met the requirements of being responsive and responsible due to not completing the Vendor Question Worksheet and Schedule A – Statement of Work correctly.

19. Worldwide Travel Staffing The Evaluation Team determined that Worldwide Staffing, based on a score of 86, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

I. Schedule A, Statement of Work, All Sections Except Section 2 58/60 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. ADA Compliance: Bidder did not provide a response with details of how they will meet the requirements.

II. Staffing – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2 17/25 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were unsatisfactory based on the following deficiencies that were noted:

a. 2.6. Key Personnel: Bidder did not include the Key Personnel and their assigned positions for the requested Key Personnel positions.

b. 2.6. Key Personnel: Resumes were not provided for two key personnel.

III. Vendor Question Worksheet 11/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Experience 1, 2, and 3: Projects were small in size compared to this solicitation.

b. Provided N/A for all Michigan Economic Impact questions.

Total Score: 86/100

20. Select Savvy The Evaluation Team determined that Select Savvy, based on a score of 73, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

I. Schedule A, Statement of Work, All Sections Except Section 2 51/60 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 1.1.1. General Requirements: Bidder states they cannot fill all the roles that are being requested.

b. 1.1.2. General Requirements: Bidder did not describe the mechanism used to regularly communicate and manage the temporary staff placed in State facilities.

c. 1.1.2. General Requirements: Bidder did not provide how issues would be communicated.

d. 3.1 Project Plan: Bidders project plan did not include project breakdowns for the resource’s requirement.

e. 4.1. Price Term: Bidder did not provide methodology their firm uses to conduct annual market pay analysis for all positions.

II. Staffing – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2 22/25 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 2.6. Key Personnel: Bidder provided Teams instead of individuals for three of the Key Personnel roles.

III. Vendor Question Worksheet 0/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were unsatisfactory based on the following deficiencies that were noted:

a. The response to the Company history was minimal.

b. Bidder did not provide the gross annual sales for each of the last 5 years (only provided a total for the 5 years). Gross sales were inconsistent and did not demonstrate capability to provide services for all of State of Michigan.

c. Experience 1, 2, and 3: The scopes lacked details and the projects were small in size compared to this solicitation.

d. Bidder did not provide experience placing staff in Correctional or Psychiatric environments.

Total Score: 73/100

21. DevCare Solutions The Evaluation Team determined that DevCare Solutions, based on a score of 86, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

I. Schedule A, Statement of Work, All Sections Except Section 2 59/60 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 1.3. Training: Bidder did not detail their own training capabilities.

II. Staffing – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2 25/25 The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

III. Vendor Question Worksheet 2/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were unsatisfactory based on the following deficiencies that were noted:

a. Experience 2: Project value is small in size compared to this solicitation.

b. Experience 3: Project value is small in size compared to this solicitation, and the results obtained are the same as what was provided for experience 2.

c. Bidder did not provide experience placing staff in Correctional or Psychiatric environments.

Total Score: 86/100

22. Synergy Staffing The Evaluation Team determined that Synergy Staffing, based on a score of 71, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

I. Schedule A, Statement of Work, All Sections Except Section 2 49/50 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 1.1.2. General Requirements: Bidder did not describe how they would comply with the requirements provided.

b. 1.1.2. General Requirements: Bidder did not describe the mechanism used to communicate the provided requirements with the candidates prior to submission to the State Agencies.

c. 1.1.2. General Requirements: Bidder did not describe the mechanism used to regularly communicate and manage the temporary staff placed in State facilities.

d. 1.1.2. General Requirements: Bidder did not provide their communication plan with the staff placed.

e. 1.2.3 Procedure: Bidder did not answer the question on how they will handle performance feedback and corrective actions.

f. ADA Compliance: Bidder did not provide a response with details of how they will meet the requirements.

g. 3.3. Reporting: Bidder left the bidder boxes unchecked for the Quarterly Usage report. Also, the responses in these bidder boxes refer to the wrong report.

II. Staffing – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2 22/25 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 2.2. Contract Administrator: Bidder did not complete this section.

b. 2.3. Program Manager: Bidder did not complete this section.

c. 2.6. Key Personnel: Resume was not provided for one of the key personnel.

III. Vendor Question Worksheet 0/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were unsatisfactory based on the following deficiencies that were noted:

a. The response to the Company history was minimal.

b. Bidder did not provide the gross annual sales for each of the last 5 years (only provided a total for the 5 years). Gross sales do not demonstrate capability to provide services to all State of Michigan.

c. Bidder did not explain how they would scale up to manage the contract.

d. Experience 1, 2 and 3: Projects were small in size compared to this solicitation. Additionally, the experiences provided lacked details and no results were provided.

e. Bidder did not provide experience placing staff in Psychiatric environments Total Score: 71/100

23. Elegant Enterprise-Wide Solutions, Inc Elegant Enterprise-Wide Solutions has not met the requirements of being responsive and responsible due to not including the Vendor Question Worksheet

24. Staffing First The Evaluation Team determined that Staffing First, 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.

I. Schedule A, Statement of Work, All Sections Except Section 2 53/60 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 1.1.2. General Requirements: Bidder did not describe how they would comply with the requirements provided.

b. 1.3. Training: Bidder did not describe their training capabilities.

c. Reporting; Monthly Reporting: Bidder did not describe their reporting capabilities for this requirement.

d. 4.1. Price Term: Bidder response was missing 2 of the original questions.

e. 4.2. Price Changes: Bidder response was missing 2 of the original questions.

II. Staffing – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2 25/25 The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

III. Vendor Question Worksheet 4/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Bidder did not provide their gross sales nor did they explain how their company will scale-up to manage a 25% sales increase from this Contract.

b. Bidder did not provide experience placing staff in Correctional environments.

c. Experiences 1, 2, and 3: Experiences are small in size compared to this solicitation.

Total Score: 82/100

25. AB Staffing Solutions AB Staffing Solutions has not met the requirements of being responsive and responsible due to providing an incomplete Schedule A – Statement of Work

26. Cell Staff The Evaluation Team determined that Cell Staff, based on a score of 90, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

I. Schedule A, Statement of Work, All Sections Except Section 2 50/60 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 1.3. Training: Bidder did not detail their own training capabilities.

b. ADA Compliance: Bidder did not provide a response with details of how they will meet the requirements.

c. 3.1 Project Plan: Bidder did not provide a project plan to include project breakdowns for the task, timeline, and resources requirement.

d. 3.3. Reporting: Bidder did not fully elaborate on how the requirements for the/ individual reports would be met.

II. Staffing – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2 25/25 The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

III. Vendor Question Worksheet 15/15 The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 90/100

27. Care One The Evaluation Team determined that Care One, based on a score of 80, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

I. Schedule A, Statement of Work, All Sections Except Section 2 50/60 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 1.1.2. General Requirements: Bidder did not describe how they will comply with requirements.

b. 1.1.2. General Requirements: Bidder did not describe the mechanism used to regularly communicate and manage the temporary staff placed in State facilities.

c. 1.1.2. General Requirements: Bidders did not provide a proper communication plan.

d. 1.3. Training: Bidder did not provide their training capabilities.

e. ADA Compliance: Bidder did not provide a response with details of how they will meet the requirements.

f. 3.1 Project Plan: Bidders project plan did not include project breakdowns for the timeline requirement.

g. 3.3. Reporting: Bidder did not elaborate on their reporting capabilities.

h. 3.3. Reporting: Bidder did not describe how the requirements would be met for the Quarterly Usage report.

i. 3.3. Reporting: Bidder left the bidder box unchecked for the Yearly Closeout Report.

II. Staffing – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2 25/25 The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

III. Vendor Question Worksheet 5/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were unsatisfactory based on the following deficiencies that were noted:

a. Bidder did not explain how they would scale up if contract was more than 25%.

b. Experience 2: Project was small in size compared to this solicitation.

c. Experience 3: Project was over 5 years ago.

d. Bidder did not provide experience placing staff in Psychiatric environments.

Total Score: 80/100

28. Amergis Healthcare Staffing The Evaluation Team determined that Amergis Healthcare Staffing, based on a score of 96, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

I. Schedule A, Statement of Work, All Sections Except Section 2 57/60 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. ADA Compliance: Bidder did not provide a response with details of how they will meet the requirements.

b. 3.1 Project Plan: Bidders project plan did not include project breakdowns for the timeline requirement.

II. Staffing – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2 24/25 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 2.8: Disclosure of Subcontractors: Bidder did not specify how much of the total bid the subcontractor’s work would account for.

III. Vendor Question Worksheet 15/15 The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 96/100

29. Tryfacta The Evaluation Team determined that Tryfacta, based on a score of 86, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

I. Schedule A, Statement of Work, All Sections Except Section 2 49/60 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 1.1.2. General Requirements: Bidder did not describe the mechanism used to regularly communicate and manage the temporary staff placed in State facilities.

b. ADA Compliance: Bidder did not provide a response with details of how they will meet the requirements.

c. 4.1. Price Term: Bidder did not answer the 3 questions within this section.

d. 4.2. Price Changes: Bidder did not answer the 5 questions within this section.

II. Staffing – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2 25/25 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

III. Vendor Question Worksheet 12/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Experience 1, 2, and 3: Projects were small in size compared to this solicitation.

Total Score: 86/100

30. Acuity The Evaluation Team determined that Acuity, based on a score of 68, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

I. Schedule A, Statement of Work, All Sections Except Section 2 49/60 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 1.1.2. General Requirements: Bidder did not describe the mechanism used to communicate the provided requirements with the candidates prior to submission to the State Agencies.

b. 1.1.2. General Requirements: Bidder did not describe in detail the mechanism used to regularly communicate and manage the temporary staff placed in State facilities.

c. 1.1.2. General Requirements: Bidder did not describe how issues would be communicated and resolved in their communication plan.

d. ADA Compliance: Bidder did not provide a response with details of how they will meet the requirements.

e. 1.4. Required Functionality Relating to Data Retention: Bidder did not properly describe their data management capabilities.

f. 3.3 Reporting: Bidder did not describe how they would meet the requirements for the Monthly, Quarterly Usage, and Yearly Closeout reports.

g. 4.1. Price Term: Bidder response only provided the methodology used to conduct annual market pay analysis for RN/LPN positions rather than all positions.

h. 4.3. Temporary Employment Price Breakdown: Bidder did not specify the reasoning for Mark Up’s. Response included indirect mark-ups with no detail on what this includes.

II. Staffing – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2 19/25 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 2.6. Key Personnel: Bidder listed 3 individuals in their Key Personnel who appear to work for a separate company.

b. 2.7. Organizational Chart: Bidders chart did it include the subcontractor listed within the RFP.

c. 2.9. Security: Bidder did not describe how the requirement would be met and they did not provide a scope for their background checks process.

III. Vendor Question Worksheet 0/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were unsatisfactory based on the following deficiencies that were noted:

a. Experience 2: Project is out of scope and small in size compared to this solicitation.

b. Experience 3: Project scope lacks detail.

c. Bidder lacked details in the Michigan Economic Impact section.

d. Bidder did not provide experience placing staff in Correctional or Psychiatric environments.

Total Score: 68/100

31. Acro Service The Evaluation Team determined that Acro Service, based on a score of 80, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

I. Schedule A, Statement of Work, All Sections Except Section 2 51/60 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 1.3. Training: Bidder did not explain their training capabilities and any training included in its proposal.

b. 4.1. Price Term: Bidder did not answer the 3 questions within this section.

c. 4.2. Price Changes: Bidder did not answer the 5 questions within this section.

II. Staffing – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2 25/25 The Evaluation Team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

III. Vendor Question Worksheet 4/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were unsatisfactory based on the following deficiencies that were noted:

a. The response to the Company history was minimal.

b. Experience 1: Project results were short and vague.

c. Experience 2: Project was small in size compared to this solicitation, and the results were short and vague.

d. Experience 3: Project results were short and vague.

e. Bidder listed exceptions to the Contract Terms.

f. Bidder did not provide experience placing staff in Psychiatric environments.

Total Score: 80/100

32. InGenesis The Evaluation Team determined that InGenesis, 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.

I. Schedule A, Statement of Work, All Sections Except Section 2 56/60 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 1.1.2. General Requirements: Bidder did not describe how they would comply with the requirements provided.

b. 1.2.3. Procedure: Bidder did not explain how they handle performance feedback and corrective actions.

c. 1.4 Required Functionality Relating to Data Retention: Bidders response does not meet all the requirements of the question.

II. Staffing – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2 24/25 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 2.9 Security: Bidder did not describe how they intend to ensure the security of State facilities or whether they use ID badges.

III. Vendor Question Worksheet 9/15 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were unsatisfactory based on the following deficiencies that were noted:

a. The response to the Company history was minimal.

b. Bidder did not provide experience placing staff in Psychiatric environments.

Total Score: 89/100

33. Loyal Source Government Solutions The Evaluation Team determined that Loyal Source Government Solutions, based on a score of 87, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

I. Schedule A, Statement of Work, All Sections Except Section 2 54/60 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 1.1.2. General Requirements: Bidder did not describe how issues would be resolved in their communication plan.

b. 1.1.2. General Requirements: Bidder did not provide enough information for how they will ensure they meet all compliance requirements to ensure candidates start on time.

c. 1.2.3. Procedure: Bidder didn’t provide detail for how they would communicate with SOM agencies on feedback and corrective actions.

d. 3.1. Project Plan: Bidder did not include a project plan.

II. Staffing – Schedule A, Statement…