Notice of Intent to Award- 250000000355.docx

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

The Michigan Department of health and Human Services has completed the evaluation of RFP 250000000002 v3 – Social Determinants of Health (SDOH) Strategy Evaluation and has recommended an award to Syra Health Corporation in the amount of $144,150.00, 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 strategy evaluation of SDOH. The term of this contract is one year, with up to four renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on October 4, 2024, for five weeks The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of November 8, 2024.

Sacramento, CA 95814

Portland, ME 04102

New York, NY 10112

Chicago, IL 60654

McLean, Virginia 22102

Okemos, MI 48864

Bozeman, MT 59715

Laurel, MD 20723

Princeton, MJ 08540

Okemos, MI 48864

Lansing, MI 48912

Eden Prairie, MN 55344

Boston, MA 02109

Lansing, MI 48912

Lansing, MI 48933

Carmel, IN 46032

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

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

Darien Pipkin, Senior SDOH Operations Specialist MDHHS/Policy and Planning Bureau Nicole Haring, Solicitation Manager MDHHS/Bureau of Grants and Purchasing

Laura Drayton, Senior SDOH Policy Advisor MDHHS/Policy and Planning Bureau Ninah Sasy, Policy and Planning Bureau Director MDHHS/Policy and Planning Bureau

Natalie Holland, Senior Data Advisor MDHHS/Policy and Planning Bureau Cartyea Mathies, State Administrative Manager MDHHS/Policy and Planning Bureau

Vicki Riddick, Senior Policy Strategy Advisor MDHHS/Policy and Planning Bureau Tiwanna Hatcher, State Administrative Manager MDHHS Policy and Planning Bureau

III. Evaluation Results A. Aurrera Health Group LLC The Evaluation Team determined that Aurrera Health Group LLC, 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. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1-2 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Item B.3.a.ii: Bidder did not include how they will examine the quality and relevance of training programs and their alignment with community health needs specific to the region covered by the Hub. -1 point.

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

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 5-8 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

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

a. Section 7. Michigan Economic Impact: Bidder did not state the minimum wage or average wage paid to employees employed at locations withing the State of Michigan. – 2 points.

Total Score: 97/100 B. Berry, Dunn, McNeil & Parker LLC The Evaluation Team determined that Berry, Dunn, McNeil & Parker LLC, 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.

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

a. Item B.1.a. and B.1.b: Bidder did not demonstrate an understanding of the Community Information Exchange (CIE). The State of Michigan is not administering a CIE, rather the State of Michigan is supporting the communities that are implementing a CIE. – 4 points.

b. Item B.3.a.ii: Bidder did not include how they will examine the quality and relevance of training programs and their alignment with community health needs specific to the region covered by the Hub. – 1 point.

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

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 5-8 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

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

a. Section 6. Standard Contract Terms: Bidder did not agree to the Standard Contract Terms. – 1 point.

Total Score: 94/100 C. Deloitte Consulting LLP The Evaluation Team determined that Deloitte Consulting LLP, based on a score of 99, 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, Sections 1-2 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

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

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 5-8 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

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

a. Section 6. Standard Contract Terms: Bidder did not agree to the Standard Contract Terms. – 1 point.

Total Score: 99/100 D. Do Tank Do LLC The Evaluation Team determined that Do Tank Do LLC, based on a score of 89, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

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

a. Item B.1.b.iii and B.1.b.iv: Bidder did not describe how interviews would be conducted or how the recorded interviews would be securely stored. – 1 point.

b. Item B.2.a.ii: Bidder did not describe the platform they would use to administer the online surveys or indicated surveys would be conducted online. – 1 point.

c. Item B.2.b: Bidder did not describe how they would develop an interview guide. – 1 point.

d. Item B.3: Bidder agreed to the requirements but did not explain how they would comply with the requirements. – 1 point.

e. Item B.4: Bidder agreed to the requirements but did not explain how they would comply with the requirements. – 1 point.

f. Item B.5 and B.6: Bidder agreed to the requirements but did not explain how they would comply with the requirements. – 1 point.

g. Item C.1 and C.2: Bidder agreed to the requirements but did not explain how they would comply with the requirements. – 1 point.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 3-4 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. Section 4.3 Reporting: Bidder did not explain its reporting capabilities and any reporting included in its proposal. – 1 point.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 5-8 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet:

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience: Bidder did not provide a dollar value for Experiences 1, 2, and 3. -3 points.

Total Score: 89/100 E. Guidehouse Inc The Evaluation Team determined that Guidehouse Inc, 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. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1-2 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. Item B.1.a: Bidder did not demonstrate an understanding of the Community Information Exchange (CIE). The State of Michigan is not administering a CIE, rather the State of Michigan is supporting the communities that are implementing a CIE. – 2 points.

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

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 5-8 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

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

a. Section 6. Standard Contract Terms: Bidder did not agree to the Standard Contract Terms. – 1 point.

Total Score: 97/100 F. Health Management Associates Inc The Evaluation Team determined that Health Management Associates Inc, 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. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1-2 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

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

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 5-8 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

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

a. Section 7. Michigan Economic Impact: Bidder did not state the minimum wage or average wage paid to employees employed at locations within the State of Michigan. – 2 points.

b. Section 9. Supplier Diversity: Bidder did not agree that if Bidder is awarded a contract with a dollar amount of $500,000 or greater from this RFP, Bidder shall provide a copy of their current EEO-1 demographic report provided that Bidder meets Federal requirements to file an EEO-1 report. – 1 point.

Total Score: 97/100 G. JG Research and Evaluation LLC The Evaluation Team determined that JG Research and Evaluation LLC, 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. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1-2 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. Item A.3.a: Bidder did not describe how the review of Phase One Initiatives would consider Items i, ii, and iii. – 2 points.

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

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 5-8 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

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

a. Section 2. Company Background Information: Bidder described their prior experience in similar work, but did not describe how their partnerships and strategic relationships would bring significant value to the State. – 1 point.

Total Score: 97/100 H. Laurel Health Advisors LLC The Evaluation Team determined that Laurel Health Advisors, LLC based on a score of 99, 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, Sections 1-2 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 3-4 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. Section 4.1. Project Plan: Bidder described how a project plan would be created, but did not submit its proposed project plan. – 1 point.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 5-8 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 99/100 I. Mathematica Inc The Evaluation Team determined that Mathematica Inc, based on a score of 99, 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, Sections 1-2 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

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

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 5-8 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

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

a. Company Background Information: Bidder did not discuss their company’s history. – 1 point.

Total Score: 99/100 J. Michigan Public Health Institute The Evaluation Team determined that Michigan Public Health Institute, based on a score of 99, 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, Sections 1-2 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. Item B.1.b: Bidder did not discuss how they would comply with item ii: When working with community-based organizations and consumers, a $40.00 incentive per interview must be offered. – 1 point.

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

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 5-8 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory but the following deficiency was noted:

a. Section 2, Company Background Information: Bidder described their prior experience in similar work, but did not describe how their partnerships and strategic relationships would bring significant value to the state. – 1 point.

Total Score: 99/100 K. Nyaa Health Services LLC The Evaluation Team determined that Nyaa Health Services LLC, based on a score of 93, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

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

a. Item B.1.b.ii: Bidder did not discuss how they would comply with item ii: When working with community-based organizations and consumers, a $40.00 incentive per interview must be offered. – 1 point.

b. Item B.1.b.iii: Bidder did not discuss how they would comply with item iii: Interviews must be conducted either by phone of video conference platform. – 1 point.

c. Item B.2.a: Bidder stated if allowed incentive participation from varied group, significantly underrepresented populations despite the requirement stating that the Contractor must offer a $30.00 incentive per survey. The Bidder did not demonstrate an understanding of the requirements. – 1 point.

d. Item B.2.b: Bidder did not describe their interview platform or submitting their interview guide for approval prior to conducting interviews. – 1 point.

e. Item B.3: Bidder referred to Phase 1 activities response, but did describe how they would comply with requirement. This requirement does not include the same requirements. Bidder’s response did not include survey development or administration. – 1 point.

f. Item B.5 and B.6: Bidder did not describe their ability to complete and submit a Phase Two analysis report of findings and recommendations. – 1 point.

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

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 5-8 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. 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 did not describe how their partnerships and strategic relationships would bring significant value to the state. – 1 point.

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

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

a. Item A.4: Bidder did not discuss development of specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART) goals, rather only described developing household SDOH scores to assist in SMART goal development. – 1 point.

b. Item B.2, letter a: Bidder agreed to the requirements but did not explain how they would comply with the requirements. – 1 point.

c. Item B.3: Bidder agreed to the requirements but did not explain how they would comply with the requirements. – 1 point.

d. Item B.4: Bidder did not discuss the three required meeting summaries. – 1 point.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 3-4 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. Section 4.1 Project Plan: Bidder did not include their organizational chart with names and titles of personnel assigned to the project. – 1 point.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 5-8 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. 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 did not answer if there has been a recent change in organizational structure or control. – 1 point.

b. Section 2, Company Background Information: Bidder did not describe how their partnerships and strategic relationships would bring significant value to the state. – 1 point.

c. Section 5, State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience, Experience 1: Experience is not relevant to the subject of this RFP. – 1 point.

d. Section 5, State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience, Experience 2: Experience is not relevant to the subject of this RFP. – 1 point.

e. Section 5, State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience, Experience 3: Experience is not relevant to the subject of this RFP. – 1 point.

f. Section 6, Standard Contract Terms: Bidder did not agree to the Standard Contract Terms. – 1 point.

Total Score: 89/100 M. Public Consulting Group LLC The Evaluation Team determined that Public Consulting Group LLC, based on a score of 99, 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, Sections 1-2 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

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

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 5-8 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

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

a. Section 5, State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience, Experience 1: Experience is not relevant to the subject of this RFP. – 1 point.

Total Score: 99/100 N. Public Policy Associates LLC The Evaluation Team determined that Public Policy Associates LLC, 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. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1-2 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Item B.1.a: Bidder agreed to the requirements but did not explain how they would comply with the requirements. – 1 point.

b. Item B.1.b: Bidder agreed to the requirements but did not explain how they would comply with the requirements. – 1 point.

c. Item B.6: Bidder did not include recommendations in Phase Two Report. – 1 point.

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

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 5-8 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses satisfactory.

Total Score: 97/100 O. Public Sector Consultants Inc The Evaluation Team determined that Public Sector Consultants Inc, 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. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1-2 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. Item A.2: Bidder did not describe how they would conduct a systematic literature review beyond listing data sources. – 1 point.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 3-4 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. Section 4.1 Project Plan: Proposed Project plan does not include an organizational chart with names and titles of personnel assigned to the project. – 1 point.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 5-8 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

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

a. Section 5, State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience, Experience 1: Experience is not relevant to the subject of this RFP. – 1 point.

Total Score: 97/100 P. Syra Health Corporation The Evaluation Team determined that Syra Health Corporation, based on a score of 99, 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, Sections 1-2 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 3-4 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 4.3 Reporting: Bidder did not explain its reporting capabilities and any reporting that is included in its proposal. – 1 point.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 5-8 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 99/100 Q. The Regents of the University of Michigan The Evaluation Team determined that The Regents of the University of Michigan, based on a score of 85, 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, Sections 1-2 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Item A.1: Bidder agreed to the requirements but did not explain how they would comply with the requirements. – 1 point.

b. Item A.2: Bidder agreed to the requirements but did not explain how they would comply with the requirements. – 1 point.

c. Item A.3: Bidder agreed to the requirements but did not explain how they would comply with the requirements. – 1 point.

d. Items A.4 and A.5: Bidder agreed to the requirements but did not explain how they would comply with the requirements. – 1 point.

e. Item B.1.a: Bidder agreed to the requirements but did not explain how they would comply with the requirements. – 1 point.

f. Item B.3: Bidder agreed to the requirements but did not explain how they would comply with the requirements. – 1 point.

g. Items B.5 and B.6: Bidder agreed to the requirements but did not explain how they would comply with the requirements. – 1 point.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 3-4 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

b. Section 3.1, Contractor Representative: Bidder did not identify a Contractor Representative. – 1 point.

c. Section 4.1, Project Plan: Bidder did not submit its proposed project plan. – 1 point.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 5-8 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

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

a. Section 5, State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience, Experience 1-3: Bidder did not provide enough information for the Evaluation Team to evaluate this experience. – 3 points.

b. Section 6, Standard Contract Terms: Bidder did not agree to the Standard Contract Terms. – 1 point.

c. Section 7, Michigan Economic Impact: Bidder did not provide an answer to the percentage of employees employed at locations within the State of Michigan that are covered by employer-provided health insurance. – 1 point.

d. Section 9, Supplier Diversity: Bidder did not provide an answer to Bidder agrees that if Bidder is awarded a contract with a dollar amount of $500,000 or greater from this RFP, Bidder shall provide a copy of their current EEO-1 demographic report provided that Bidder meets Federal requirements to file an EEO-1 report. – 1 point.

Total Score: 85/100 R. The Regents of the University of Michigan The Evaluation Team determined that The Regents of the University of Michigan, based on a score of 83, 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, Sections 1-2 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Item A.1: Bidder agreed to the requirements but did not explain how they would comply with the requirements. – 1 point.

b. Item A.2: Bidder agreed to the requirements but did not explain how they would comply with the requirements. – 1 point.

c. Item A.3: Bidder agreed to the requirements but did not explain how they would comply with the requirements. – 1 point.

d. Items A.4 and A.5: Bidder agreed to the requirements but did not explain how they would comply with the requirements. – 1 point.

e. Item B.1.a: Bidder agreed to the requirements but did not explain how they would comply with the requirements. – 1 point.

f. Item B.1.b: Bidder agreed to the requirements but did not explain how they would comply with the requirements. – 1 point.

g. Item B.2.a: Bidder listed an exception stating the sample size for the survey is too small but did not provide an appropriate sample size to comply with the requirement. – 1 point.

h. Item B.3: Bidder agreed to the requirements but did not explain how they would comply with the requirements. – 1 point.

i. Item B.4: Bidder did not discuss how focus groups would aim to capture barriers and opportunities or how many geographically represented individuals would be included per topic. – 1 point.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 3-4 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 3.1, Contractor Representative: Bidder did not identify a Contractor Representative. – 1 point.

b. Section 4.1, Project Plan: Bidder did not submit its proposed project plan. – 1 point.

c. Section 4.3, Reporting: Bidder did not explain its reporting capabilities and any reporting that is included in its proposal or include attached reports. – 1 point.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 5-8 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. 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 did not discuss company’s history. – 1 point.

b. Section 6, Standard Contract Terms: Bidder did not agree to the Standard Contract Terms. – 1 point.

c. Section 6, Michigan Voluntary Protection Program: Bidder did not provide a response. – 1 point.

d. Section 7, Michigan Economic Impact: Bidder did not provide and answer to the percentage of employees employed at locations within the State of Michigan that are covered by employer-provided health insurance. – 1 point.

e. Section 9, Supplier Diversity: Bidder did not provide an answer to Bidder agrees that if Bidder is awarded a contract with a dollar amount of $500,000 or greater from this RFP, Bidder shall provide a copy of their current EEO-1 demographic report provided that Bidder meets Federal requirements to file an EEO-1 report. – 1 point.

Total Score: 83/100 IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

Technical Evaluation Criteria

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

VI. 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.

For the two bidders who submitted proposals within the available budget, Syra Health Corporation provided the best value to the State. Best value factors for Award Recommendation include:

A. Their proposal is within the project’s budget.

B. Their technical evaluations score is the highest of the two proposals within budget, with a score of 99.

C. Their response to Evaluation Phase One, assessing the current state of housing and food access in Michigan, included a comprehensive approach in their use of data sources, including county health rankings, county health roadmaps, GIS mapping, and a strong approach into policy landscape analysis.

D. Their response to the literature review included strong approaches to dashboard development, highlighting their previous experience in dashboard development and how it would be applied to the State of Michigan’s needs, including on food insecurity, housing, social and demographics, and other variables the State needs.

E. Their response to SDOH Phase Three Recommendations includes actionable components in the reporting plan that will highlight both qualitative and quantitative metrics. These metrics will enhance the State’s monitoring approach, providing valuable insights on the State’s and its partners on SDOH programs. This, in turn, will improve program alignment, strengthen advocacy, and support the sustainability of the SDOH Strategy.

As part of the best value determination, overall economic impact to the State of Michigan was considered and is not a determinative factor in making this award.

Award Recommendation is made to Syra Health Corporation in the amount of $144,150.00.

Version 2024-2 image1.png