NIA1 270000000067.docx

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, Bureau of Grants and Purchasing office has completed the evaluation of RFP 260000002483 - Title II Grant Evaluator and has recommended an award to Altarum Institute in the amount of $1,094,756.84, 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 a Title II Grant Evaluator. The term of this contract is three years, with up to two one-year renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on August 18, 2026, for four weeks. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of September 15, 2026.

Farmers Branch, TX 75234

Olathe, KS 66062

Lansing, MI 48906

Novi, Michigan 48375

*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 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:

Melinda Fandel, Juvenile Compliance Manager MDHHS/Bureau of Juvenile Justice Nicole Haring, Solicitation Manager MDHHS/Bureau of Grants and Purchasing

Elizabeth Shorter, Juvenile Justice Residential Contracts Analyst MDHHS/Bureau of Juvenile Justice

Emily Victor, Juvenile Justice Quality Assurance Analyst MDHHS/Bureau of Juvenile Justice

III. Evaluation Results A. Devbytes Inc Devbytes Inc has not met the requirements of being responsive and responsible due to failure to follow instructions and submit a complete proposal. This bidder did not complete and attach the Confidential Treatment form, Vendor Questions Worksheet, Schedule A – Statement of Work, Schedule B – Pricing, or Schedule F Attachment 1 – Byrd Anti Lobbying Certification.

B. BluePeak Data Consulting LLC The Evaluation Team determined that BluePeak Data Consulting LLC, 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.

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 Information. Bidder indicated receiving this contract would increase their gross revenue of $0.00 by more than 25% but stated the company would not need to scale up to manage this increase. – 1 point.

b. Section 2. Company Background Information. Bidder’s listed partnerships and strategic relationships do not bring significant value to the State and lack any partnerships or relationships with entities within the State of Michigan, or as it pertains to youth receiving services or delinquency. – 1 point.

c. Section 5. State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience. Bidder has no State of Michigan Experience and Bidder’s three prior experiences listed are not those of BluePeak Data Consulting. – 6 points.

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

a. Item 3.A. Bidder did not demonstrate past experience with developing evaluation plans specifically for grants funded with Title II dollars. – 3 points.

b. Item 3.C. Bidder did not demonstrate past experience in collecting and analyzing performance measure data as it pertains to Title II funding. – 3 points.

c. Item 3.D. Bidder did not demonstrate past experience working with State Advisory Groups regarding Title II funding. – 3 points.

d. Item 3.E. Bidder did not demonstrate prior knowledge or past experience with Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP )’s data systems and performance measures. – 3 points.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 4 - 8 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 9 - 13 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 12 Key Personnel. Bidder identified that their proposed subcontractor would be performing a higher percentage of work than the bidder itself. – 2 points.

5. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 14 – 22.

a. Section 14 Disclosure of Subcontractors. The proposed subcontractor is listed as the program evaluation lead and responsible for day-to-day operations of the contract. Additionally, the price of the proposed subcontractor’s work is approximately 42% of the total bid. -1 point.

Total Score: 77/100 C. Public Policy Associates LLC The Evaluation Team determined that Public Policy Associates LLC 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. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

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

a. Item 3.C. Bidder ‘s experience described in collecting and analyzing performance measure data did not pertain to Title II funding. – 3 points.

b. Item 3.E. Bidder’s knowledge of OJJDP’s data systems is outdated. OJJDP has not used the Performance Measurement Tool (PMT) for Title II reporting since January of 2022. – 2 points.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 4 - 8 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 9 - 13 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

5. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 14- 22 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 95/100 D. Altarum Institute The Evaluation Team determined that Altarum Institute, 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. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 3 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 4 – 8 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 9 – 13 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

5. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 14- 22 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 October 8, 2025, with a due date of October 19, 2026. 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 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.

Altarum provided the best value to the State. Best value factors for Award Recommendation include:

1. Altarum received the highest technical points, at 100.

2. Altarum is proposing a higher number of in-person site visits, which will result in higher quality and more thorough Title II grant evaluations.

3. Altarum’s proposed anticipated number of units is more in line with what would be expected to perform the contract activities outlined in the RFP due to the hours required for outreach, data collection and technical assistance with grantees.

4. Altarum demonstrated up to date knowledge of OJJDP’s data systems and performance measures.

5. Altarum included in their project plan how they would address potential risks, including reporting delays, data quality concerns, staffing changes, or implementation barriers.

As part of the best value determination amongst bidders overall economic impact to the State of Michigan was considered in making this award. Altarum provides the greatest overall economic impact to Michigan because:

1. Altarum employs the highest number of employees currently at locations within the State of Michigan with 53 employees.

2. Altarum’s average wage paid to employees employed at locations within the State of Michigan is highest, at $63.51/hour.

Award Recommendation is made to Altarum in the amount of $1,094,756.84.

Version 2024-2 image1.png