NIA1 260000000883 - Award Recommendation.pdf

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Version 2024-2 Page 1 of 16

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

Notice of Intent to Award Number: 260000000883

Notice of Intent to Award Date: 9/22/2026

The Department of Technology, Management & Budget’s office has completed the evaluation of Request for Proposal No. 260000001381 for Drug Screening & Confirmation Testing for MDHHS Children’s Services Administration and has recommended an award to Phamatech, Inc. in the amount of $13,505,000.00, pending State Administrative Board approval.

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:

Nichole Harrell, Solicitation Manager.

Harrelln@michigan.gov 517-449-9245

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 Drug Screening & Confirmation Testing for MDHHS Children’s Services Administration. The term of this contract is three (3) years, with up to five (5) additional one-year renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on Monday, March 16, 2026. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of Monday May 4, 2026.

Bidder Address, City, State, Zip Code SDVOB* GDBE**

Avertest, LLC dba Averhealth 2400 Old Brick Rd., Suite 142, Glen Allen, VA 23060 No No

Technical Resource Management, LLC dba Cordant Health Solutions

5604 Fortune Circle South Drive, Suite N, Indianapolis, IN 46241

No No

Forensic Fluids Laboratories, Inc. 225 Parsons Street, Kalamazoo, MI 49007 No Yes

Phamatech, Inc. 15175 Innovation Drive, San Diego, CA 92128 No No

*SDVOB: Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Business **GDBE: Geographically Disadvantaged Business Enterprise https://www.michigan.gov/dtmb/procurement/contractconnect/bid-proposals

Version 2024-2 Page 2 of 16

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

Proposal Instructions: Evaluation Process

Technical Evaluation Criteria Weight

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1. Requirements 108

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2. Acceptance, Section 3. Staffing, Section 4. Project Management and Section 5. Pricing 31

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 6. Ordering, Section 7. Invoice and Payment and Section 8. Service-Level Agreements 31

4.

Vendor Questions Worksheet Attached Resume(s)

Total 230

Proposals receiving 184 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 (JEC), which consisted of the following individuals:

Voting Advisory Nichole Harrell, DTMB – Procurement Laura Baldwin, MDHHS Brooke Westergard, MDHHS

Burke Jenne, DTMB – Agency Services Nicole Haring, MDHHS – Procurement Matthew Geiger, MDHHS Jess Pruett, MDHHS Kelsey Swartz, MDHHS Elizabeth Nesbitt, MDHHS Emily Taylor, MDHHS Kelsey Chaudoin, MDHHS Justin Seaman, MDHHS Ann LaHaine, MDHHS

III. Evaluation Results

A. Averhealth

The Evaluation Team determined that Averhealth, based on a score of 202.5, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

Version 2024-2 Page 3 of 16

1. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Section 1 Score 102/108

The evaluation team determined that overall, the responses provided were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Pg. 10, Section 1.2. Service to all 83 Counties in the State of Michigan, Letter A, Bidder did not adequately describe how they would implement Mobile Screening services throughout the State.

b. Pg. 13, Section 1.3. Specifications/Work Deliverables, Letter C, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

c. Pg. 26, Section 1.3.2. Provide Third Party Administrators (TPAs), E # 14, Bidder did not adequately describe how they would implement and ramp up Mobile Screening Services throughout the State.

d. Pg. 36, Section 1.8. Access Control and Authentication, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

2. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Section 2, 3, 4 and 5 Score 26.5/31

The evaluation team determined that overall, the responses provided were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Pg. 48, Section 3.4. Credential / Experience, Bidder failed to adequately detail the credential/experience of the laboratory personnel as requested.

b. Pg. 51, Section 3.9. Security, Letter A, Bidder failed to provide adequate details regarding the scope of the background checks and identify the company that would be conducting all background checks.

c. Pg. 52, Section 3.9. Security, Letter B, Bidder did not adequately describe how they will meet the requirements of the Schedule E – Data Security Requirements.

d. Pg. 52, Section 4.1. Project Plan, Bidder failed to adequately detail their anticipated Project Plan as requested.

e. Pg. 54, Section 4.3. Reporting, Bidder failed to adequately detail many of the reports requested by the agency i.e., training, customer service, subpoenas, and records requests.

3. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Sections 6 through 9 Score 31/31

The evaluation team determined that overall, the responses provided were satisfactory. No deficiencies were noted for these sections.

Vendor Questions Worksheet and Attached Resume(s) Score 43/60

The Evaluation Team noted the following deficiencies:

a. Pg. 2, Section 2. Company Background Information, Bidder noted that they have been a party to litigation against the State of Michigan.

Version 2024-2 Page 4 of 16

b. Pg. 4, Section 5. State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience, Experience 1, Bidder’s experience has no mention of mobile screening services, they failed to provide any qualitative/quantitative data for the results obtained and they failed to provide adequate detail regarding results obtained.

c. Pg. 5, Section 5. State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience, Experience 3, Experience provided is not similar in size and has no mention of mobile screening services. Bidder also failed to adequately detail the results obtained.

Total Score: 202.5/230

B. Cordant Health Solutions

The Evaluation Team determined that Cordant Health Solutions, based on a score of 178, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Section 1 Score 92/108

The evaluation team noted the following deficiencies:

a. Pg. 10, Section 1.2. Service to all 83 Counties, Letter A, Bidder did not adequately describe how they would implement Mobile Screening services throughout the State. Bidders proposed solution does not match/meet the requirements of the State.

b. Pg. 21, Section 1.3. Specifications/Work Deliverables, Letter C, Bidder has identified substances that will need to be sent out to two alternative laboratories for testing and will require additional time.

c. Pg. 28, Section 1.3. Specifications/Work Deliverables, Letter R, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

d. Pg. 31, Section 1.3. Specifications/Work Deliverables, Letter V, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

e. Pg. 34, Section 1.3. Specifications/Work Deliverables, Letter CC, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

f. Pg. 35, Section 1.3.1. Quality Control and Assurance Program, Letter A – C, Bidder failed to provide adequate detail regarding their existing Quality Control and Assurance Program and states they will develop and implement program that complies with all of the State’s requirements.

g. Pg. 39, Section 1.3.2. Provide Third Party Administrators (TPAs), Letter B, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

h. Pg. 41, Section 1.3.2. Provide Third Party Administrators (TPAs), Letter E, # 7, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

i. Pg. 41, Section 1.3.2. Provide Third Party Administrators (TPAs), Letter E, # 8, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

Version 2024-2 Page 5 of 16

j. Pg. 43, Section 1.3.2. Provide Third Party Administrators (TPAs), Letter E, # 14, Bidder’s proposed solution for Brick-and-Mortar testing locations and Mobile Screening Services does not match/meet the requirements of the State

k. Pg. 53, Section 1.6.1. IT Policies, Standards and Procedures (PSP), Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

l. Pg. 54, Section 1.6.3. SOM Digital Standards, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

m. Pg. 58, Section 1.8. Access Control and Authentication, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented as it pertains to Identity federation with MiLogin.

2. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 Score 21/31

The evaluation team noted the following deficiencies:

a. Pg. 69, Section 3.2. Key Personnel, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

b. Pg. 72, Section 3.2. Key Personnel, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

c. Pg. 84, Section 3.6. Work Hours, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

d. Pg. 94, Section 3.9. Security, Letter B, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

e. Pg. 103, Section 5.2. Price Changes, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

3. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Sections 6 through 9 Score 23/31

The evaluation team noted the following deficiencies:

a. Pg. 106, Section 9. Service Level Agreement (SLA), Metric # 1, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

b. Pg. 109, Section 9. Service Level Agreement (SLA), Metric # 2, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

c. Pg. 111, Section 9. Service Level Agreement (SLA), Metric # 3, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

d. Pg. 112, Section 9. Service Level Agreement (SLA), Metric # 4, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet and Attached Resume(s) Score 42/60

The evaluation team noted the following deficiencies:

Version 2024-2 Page 6 of 16

a. Pg. 2, Section 2. Company Background Information, Bidder failed to indicate whether this contract would increase gross annual sales by more than 25%.

b. Pg. 4, Section 5. State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience, Experience 1, Bidder did not provide contract value so evaluation team is unable to determine if experience is similar in size.

c. Pg. 4, Section 5. State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience, Experience 2, Bidder did not provide contract value so evaluation team is unable to determine if experience is similar in size.

d. Pg. 4, Section 5. State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience, Experience 3, Bidder did not provide contract value so evaluation team is unable to determine if experience is similar in size.

e. Contract Terms: The Bidder had redlines to the Contract Terms

f. Schedule E – Data Security Schedule: The Bidder had redlines to the Data Security Requirements

Total Score: 176/230

C. Forensic Fluids Laboratories, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Forensic Fluids Laboratories, Inc. based on a score of 180, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Section 1 Score 78/108

The evaluation team noted the following deficiencies:

a. Pg. 2, Section 1.1. General Requirements, Letter B, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

b. Pg. 4, Section 1.1. General Requirements, Letter I, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

c. Pg 7, Section 1.2. Service to All 83 Counties in the State of Michigan, Letter A, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

d. Pg. 7, Section 1.2. Service to All 83 Counties in the State of Michigan, Letter A, Bidder’s response does not address implementation of Mobile Screening services throughout the State. Bidders proposed solution does not match/meet the requirements of the State.

e. Pg. 13, Section 1.3. Specifications/Work Deliverables, Letter N, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

f. Pg. 16, Section 1.3. Specifications/Work Deliverables, Letter V, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

Version 2024-2 Page 7 of 16

g. Pg. 17, Section 1.3. Specifications/Work Deliverables, Letter AA, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

h. Pg. 17, Section 1.3. Specifications/Work Deliverables, Letter CC, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

i. Pg. 20, Section 1.3.2. Provide Third Party Administrators (TPAs), Letter A, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

j. Pg. 21, Section 1.3.2. Provide Third Party Administrators (TPAs), Letter B, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

k. Pg. 21, Section 1.3.2. Provide Third Party Administrators (TPAs), Letter C, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

l. Pg. 22, Section 1.3.2. Provide Third Party Administrators (TPAs), Letter E, 1, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

m. Pg. 23, Section 1.3.2. Provide Third Party Administrators (TPAs), Letter E, 3, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

n. Pg. 23, Section 1.3.2. Provide Third Party Administrators (TPAs), Letter E, 4, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

o. Pg. 23, Section 1.3.2. Provide Third Party Administrators (TPAs), Letter E, 5, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

p. Pg. 23, Section 1.3.2. Provide Third Party Administrators (TPAs), Letter E, 6, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

q. Pg. 23, Section 1.3.2. Provide Third Party Administrators (TPAs), Letter E, 7, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

r. Pg. 24, Section 1.3.2. Provide Third Party Administrators (TPAs), Letter E, 8, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

s. Pg. 24, Section 1.3.2. Provide Third Party Administrators (TPAs), Letter E, 9, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

t. Pg. 24, Section 1.3.2. Provide Third Party Administrators (TPAs), Letter E, 10, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

u. Pg. 25, Section 1.3.2. Provide Third Party Administrators (TPAs), Letter E, 11, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

v. Pg. 25, Section 1.3.2. Provide Third Party Administrators (TPAs), Letter E, 12, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

w. Pg. 25, Section 1.3.2. Provide Third Party Administrators (TPAs), Letter E, 13, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

Version 2024-2 Page 8 of 16

x. Pg. 26, Section 1.3.2. Provide Third Party Administrators (TPAs), Letter E, 14, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

y. Pg. 26, Section 1.3.2. Provide Third Party Administrators (TPAs), Letter E, 14, Bidder’s response does not address implementation of Mobile Screening services throughout the State. Bidders proposed solution does not match/meet the requirements of the State.

z. Pg. 31, Section 1.5. Training, Letter A – H, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

aa. Pg. 35, Section 1.6.5. ADA Compliance, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

2. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 Score 26/31

The evaluation team noted the following deficiencies:

a. Pg. 43, Section 3.1. Contractor Program Manager, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

b. Pg. 46, Section 3.2. Key Personnel, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented

c. Pg. 48, Section 3.8. Disclosure of Subcontractors, Bidder failed to provide details for their proposed Third Party Administrators (TPAs).

d. Pg. 50, Section 3.9. Security, Letter B, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented

e. Pg. 52, Section 4.3. Reporting, Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented

3. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Sections 6 through 9 Score 31/31

The evaluation team determined that overall, the responses provided were satisfactory. No deficiencies were noted for these sections.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet Score 45/60

The evaluation team determined that overall, the responses provided were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Contract Terms: The Bidder had redlines to the Contract Terms

b. Schedule E – Data Security Schedule: The Bidder had redlines to the Data Security Requirements

c. Schedule E – Attachment 1 – HIPAA Business Associate Agreement: Bidder had redlines to the HIPAA Business Associate Agreement

Total Score: 180/230

Version 2024-2 Page 9 of 16

D. Phamatech, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Phamatech, Inc., based on a score of 207, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Section 1 Score 104/108

The evaluation team determined that overall, the responses provided were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Pg. 8, Section 1.2. Service to all 83 Counties, Letter A, Bidder did not adequately describe how they would implement Mobile Screening services throughout the State.

b. Pg. 25, Section 1.3.2. Provide Third Party Administrators (TPAs), Letter E (9), Bidder failed to accept the requirement(s) as presented.

c. Pg. 35, Section 1.8. Access Control and Authentication, Bidder failed to explain how they will mee the requirements for Access Control and Authentication.

2. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 Score 27/31

The evaluation team noted the following deficiencies:

a. Pg. 41, Section 3.1. Contractor Program Manager, Bidder’s proposed Program Manager, does not reside in the State of Michigan and Bidder does not mention whether they will appoint a Michigan-based Program Manager, as required.

b. Pg. 42, Section 3.2. Key Personnel, Letter A, Bidder’s proposed Training Representative, does not reside in the State of Michigan, and Bidder does not mention whether they will appoint a Michigan-based Training Representative.

c. Pg. 58, Section 3.8. Disclosure of Subcontractors, Bidder failed to disclose proposed subcontractors

d. Pg. 60, Section 3.9. Security, Letter A, Bidder failed to provide response in Bidder Response box

3. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Sections 6 through 9 Score 31/31

The evaluation team determined that overall, the responses provided were satisfactory. No deficiencies were noted for these sections.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet and Attached Resume(s) Score 45/60

The evaluation team noted the following deficiencies:

a. Pg. 4, Section 5. State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience, Experience 1, Bidder’s experience does not include mobile screening services. Bidder also failed to adequately detail the results obtained.

Version 2024-2 Page 10 of 16

b. Pg. 4, Section 5. State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience, Experience 2, Bidder’s experience does not include mobile screening services. Bidder also failed to adequately detail the results obtained.

c. Pg. 4, Section 5. State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience, Experience 3, Bidder’s experience does not include mobile screening services. Bidder also failed to adequately detail the results obtained.

Total Score: 207/230

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

Technical Evaluation Criteria Averhealth Cordant Forensic Fluids

Phamatech Inc.

Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1 -6 -16 -30 -4

Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2, 3, 4 & 5 -4.5 -10 -5 -4

Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 6 - 9 0 -8 0 0

Vendor Questions Worksheet & Attached Resumes -17 -18 -15 -15

Total Technical Evaluation Deductions -27.5 -52 -50 -23

Technical Evaluation Score 202.5 178 180 207

V. Pricing Summary

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

BID DAY

AVERHEALTH

Collection and Testing Services

Estimated Annual Usage

Collected By Unit Cost Extended Cost

Saliva Specimen Collection and Testing (per Sample) (10 panel)

50,000

Collection of Oral Fluid by MDHHS, Private Partner, or Third-Party Administrator

$46.90 $2,495,000.00

Collection Fee to Third- Party Administrator

$49.90 $2,500,000.00

Version 2024-2 Page 11 of 16

Urine Specimen Collection and Testing (per Sample) (10 panel)

1,000

Collection of Urine Specimen by Third- Party Administrator

$41.90 $45,900.00

Collection Fee to Third- Party Administrator

$49.90 $50,000.00

Re-Analysis (Confirmation Testing) As Needed (per Sample)

As Needed

N/A Included Included

Additional Optional Testing as Requested:

Estimated Annual Usage

Collected By Unit Cost Extended Cost

Additional drugs tested as indicated on the Chain of Custody or referral if the referral in entered through the bidder portal.

As Needed

N/A Included Included

Optional Services as Requested:

Estimated Annual Usage

Collected By Unit Cost Extended Cost

Education / Training (per Session)

1,000 Hours

N/A Included Included

Legal and Expert Witness Testimony

200 N/A Included Included

Training Guides 1,000 N/A Included Included

IT Development Time As

Needed N/A Included Included

Total One-Year Cost $5,096,000.00

Total Five-Year Cost $25,480,000.00

Version 2024-2 Page 12 of 16

PHAMATECH, INC.

Collection and Testing Services

Estimated Annual Usage

Collected By Unit Cost Extended Cost

Saliva Specimen Collection and Testing (per Sample) (10 panel)

50,000

Collection of Oral Fluid by MDHHS, Private Partner, or Third-Party Administrator

$35.00 $1,750,000.00

Collection Fee to Third- Party Administrator

$60.00 $3,000,000.00

Urine Specimen Collection and Testing (per Sample) (10 panel)

1,000

Collection of Urine Specimen by Third- Party Administrator

$34.00 $34,000.00

Collection Fee to Third- Party Administrator

$59.00 $59,000.00

Re-Analysis (Confirmation Testing) As Needed (per Sample)

As Needed

N/A Included Included

Mobile Specimen Collection and Testing (per Sample) (10 panel)

TBD

Mobile Collection of Specimen by Third- Party Administrator

$175.00 TBD

Additional Optional Testing as Requested:

Estimated Annual Usage

Collected By Unit Cost Extended Cost

Additional drugs tested as indicated on the Chain of Custody or referral if the referral in entered through the bidder portal.

As Needed

N/A Included Included

Optional Services as Requested:

Estimated Annual Usage

Collected By Unit Cost Extended Cost

Version 2024-2 Page 13 of 16

Education / Training (per Session)

1,000 Hours

N/A Included Included

Legal and Expert Witness Testimony

200 N/A Included Included

Training Guides 1,000 N/A Included Included

IT Development Time As

Total One-Year Cost $4,843,000.00

Total Five-Year Cost $24,215,000.00

VI. Negotiations

Second-round pricing clarifications and offers were requested from all bidders.

As a result, Averhealth reduced their overall bid by 9.7% and Phamatech, Inc. reduced their overall bid by 56.8%.

The following is a summary of their second-round pricing proposals:

AVERHEALTH

Collection and Testing Services

Estimated Annual Usage

Collected By Unit Cost Extended Cost

Saliva Specimen Collection and Testing (per Sample) (10 panel)

50,000

Collection of Oral Fluid by MDHHS, Private Partner, or Third-Party Administrator

$41.90 $2,095.000.00

Collection Fee to Third- Party Administrator

$48.90 $2,445,000.00

Urine Specimen Collection and Testing (per Sample) (10 panel)

1,000

Collection of Urine Specimen by Third- Party Administrator

$36.90 $36,900.00

Collection Fee to Third- Party Administrator

$48.90 $48,900.00

Version 2024-2 Page 14 of 16

Re-Analysis (Confirmation Testing) As Needed (per Sample)

As Needed

N/A Included Included

Additional Optional Testing as Requested:

Estimated Annual Usage

Collected By Unit Cost Extended Cost

Additional drugs tested as indicated on the Chain of Custody or referral if the referral in entered through the bidder portal.

As Needed

N/A Included Included

Optional Services as Requested:

Estimated Annual Usage

Collected By Unit Cost Extended Cost

Education / Training (per Session)

1,000 Hours

N/A Included Included

Legal and Expert Witness Testimony

200 N/A Included Included

Training Guides 1,000 N/A Included Included

IT Development Time As

Total One-Year Cost $4,625,800.00

Total Five-Year Cost $23,129,000.00

Version 2024-2 Page 15 of 16

PHAMATECH, INC.

Collection and Testing Services

Estimated Annual Usage

Collected By Unit Cost Extended Cost

Saliva Specimen Collection and Testing (per Sample) (10 panel)

50,000

Collection of Oral Fluid by MDHHS, Private Partner, or Third-Party Administrator

$28.00 $1,400,000.00

Collection Fee to Third- Party Administrator

$25.00 $1,250,000.00

Urine Specimen Collection and Testing (per Sample) (10 panel)

1,000

Collection of Urine Specimen by Third- Party Administrator

$26.00 $26,000.00

Collection Fee to Third- Party Administrator

$25.00 $25,000.00

Re-Analysis (Confirmation Testing) As Needed (per Sample)

As Needed

N/A Included Included

Mobile Specimen Collection and Testing (per Sample) (10 panel)

TBD

Mobile Collection of Specimen by Third- Party Administrator

$75.00 TBD

Additional Optional Testing as Requested:

Estimated Annual Usage

Collected By Unit Cost Extended Cost

Additional drugs tested as indicated on the Chain of Custody or referral if the referral in entered through the bidder portal.

As Needed

N/A Included Included

Optional Services as Requested:

Estimated Annual Usage

Collected By Unit Cost Extended Cost

Version 2024-2 Page 16 of 16

Education / Training (per Session)

1,000 Hours

N/A Included Included

Legal and Expert Witness Testimony

200 N/A Included Included

Training Guides 1,000 N/A Included Included

IT Development Time As

Total One-Year Cost $2,701,000.00

Total Five-Year Cost $13,505,000.00

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.

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.

Phamatech, Inc. provided the best value to the State. Best value factors for Award Recommendation include: Relevant experience and robust partnerships with Third-Party Administrators, vendor’s proposal was well aligned with the RFP requirements and included minimal exceptions, capability to deliver all requested services including mobile collection services, and competitive pricing.

The award recommendation is made to Phamatech, Inc. dba in the amount of $13,505,000.00.