Notice of Intent to Award 250000000797 - Community Residential Services.docx

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

Notice of Intent to Award Number: 250000000797 The Department of Corrections, Procurement office has completed the evaluation of Community Residential Services and has recommended a split award to ten vendors in the amount of $62,667,300.00 pending State Administrative Board approval. Funding is subject to program utilization and availability of State funds and is subject to change.

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:

Chris Hopcraft, Solicitation Manager HopcraftC@michigan.gov 517-241-2192 Background Information:

Request for Proposal (RFP) 250000000541 was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor to provide Community Residential Services. The term of this contract is five years, with up to five, one-year renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on Monday, January 6, 2025. The published revised due date was Monday, February 24, 2025. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published revised due date of Monday, February 24, 2025.

*SDVOB: Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Business **The State performed site visits for new vendors. A site visit was performed by the evaluation team under Number 8: Evaluation Process.

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 Joint Evaluation Committee, which consisted of the following individuals:

Chris Hopcraft, Buyer Department of Corrections, Procurement, Monitoring, and Compliance Division Doug Clark, Department Manager, Department of Corrections

Chris Balmes, Contract Monitor Department of Corrections, Procurement, Monitoring, and Compliance Division Doug Jerzyk, Contract Monitor Department of Corrections, Procurement, Monitoring, and Compliance Division

Jane Blount, Analyst, Department of Corrections

III. Evaluation Results A. Alternative Directions The Evaluation Team determined that Alternative Directions 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. Schedule A, Statement of Work

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and noted the following deficiencies:

a. In Section 5.2, Reporting, Letter B, Community Residential Services Vendor Incident Notification, the bidder did not explain any reporting capabilities.

b. In Section 5.2, Reporting, Letter B, Community Residential Services Vendor Incident Notification, the bidder did not attach the required reports.

Score: 78/80

2. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and noted the following deficiencies:

a. In Section 5, State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience, the bidder did not provide a third reference.

b. In Section 6, Standard Contract Terms, the bidder did not provide a response.

c. Under Section 7, Insurance Requirements, Michigan Voluntary Protection Program, the bidder did not provide a response.

Score: 17/20

Total Score: 95/100

B. Carefirst Community Health Services The Evaluation Team determined that Carefirst Community Health Services 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. Schedule A, Statement of Work The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and did not find any deficiencies.

Score: 80/80

2. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and did not find any deficiencies.

Score: 20/20

Total Score: 100/100

C. Detroit Rescue Mission Ministries The Evaluation Team determined that Detroit Rescue Mission Ministries 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. Schedule A, Statement of Work The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and did not find any deficiencies.

Score: 80/80

2. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and did not find any deficiencies.

Score: 20/20

Total Score: 100/100

D. House of Commons The Evaluation Team determined that House of Commons based on a score of 98, 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 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and noted the following deficiencies:

a. In Section 4.1, Contractor Representative, the bidder did not provide the name of the Contractor Representative.

b. In section 4.2, Customer Service Toll-Free Number, the bidder did not provide a customer service number.

Score: 78/80

2. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and did not find any deficiencies.

Score: 20/20

Total Score: 98/100

E. Kalamazoo Probation Enhancement Program (KPEP) The Evaluation Team determined that Kalamazoo Probation Enhancement Program 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. Schedule A, Statement of Work The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and did not find any deficiencies.

Score: 80/80

2. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and did not find any deficiencies.

Score: 20/20

Total Score: 100/100

F. MoTown Square Development The Evaluation Team determined that MoTown Square Development 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. Schedule A, Statement of Work The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and did not find any deficiencies.

Score: 80/80

2. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and did not find any deficiencies.

Score: 20/20

Total Score: 100/100

G. New Paths, Incorporated The Evaluation Team determined that New Paths, Incorporated 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. Schedule A, Statement of Work The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and did not find any deficiencies.

Score: 80/80

2. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and did not find any deficiencies.

Score: 20/20

Total Score: 100/100

H. Riann Ryelee Foundation The Riann Ryelee Foundation submitted a proposal, and a site visit was performed. The two proposed site addresses were not ready to review at time of proposal, and a third address was proposed. The Evaluation Team found that the proposed address was not satisfactory for contract activities for Community Residential Services, and observed an empty alcohol container in open view during the site visit.

In addition, reference checks were performed, and it was found that some references did not know who the vendor was and had not worked with them previously.

Based on the result of the site visit and reference checks, the bidder was found to be not responsive and responsible. Therefore, this vendor was not considered for award.

I. SMB Probation Center DBA TRICAP The Evaluation Team determined that SMB Probation Center DBA TRICAP based on a score of 92, 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 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and noted the following deficiencies:

a. Under Section 1.1, Administration Standards, the bidder did not provide a response.

b. Under Section 1.2, Personnel Standards, the bidder did not provide a response.

c. Under Section 1.3, Management Control Standards, the bidder did not provide a response.

d. Under Section 1.4, Security Standards, the bidder did not provide a response.

e. Under Section 1.5, Facilities Standards, the bidder did not provide a response.

f. Under Section 1.6, Case Management Standards, the bidder did not provide a response.

g. Under Section 4.1, Contractor Representative, the bidder did not provide a response.

h. Under Section 4.2, Customer Service Representative, the bidder did not provide a response.

i. In Section 5.2, Reporting, Letter B, Community Residential Services Vendor Incident Notification, the bidder did not explain any reporting capabilities.

j. In Section 5.2, Reporting, Letter B, Community Residential Services Vendor Incident Notification, the bidder did not attach the required reports.

Score: 70/80

2. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and did not find any deficiencies.

Score: 20/20

Total Score: 90/100

J. Team Mental Health Services DBA Team Wellness Center The Evaluation Team determined that Team Mental Health Services dba Team Wellness Center 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. Schedule A, Statement of Work The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and did not find any deficiencies.

Score: 80/80

2. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and did not find any deficiencies.

Score: 20/20

Total Score: 100/100

K. Twin County Community Probation Center Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Twin County Community Probation Center 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 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and did not find any deficiencies.

Score: 80/80

2. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory and noted the following deficiencies:

a. Under Section 10, Supplier Diversity, the bidder did not provide a response.

Score: 19/20

Total Score: 99/100

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

V. Pricing Summary Pricing negotiations were not conducted, because the per diem and intake assessment rates are capped by the State Legislature. Award Amounts are based on MDOC estimates for average daily populations. Contract award amounts are included in the table below and reflect the regional coverage needs of the MDOC. Funding is subject to program utilization and availability of State funds and is subject to change:

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 price.

Economic impact was reviewed during bid evaluation and was found not to be a factor.

Split Award Recommendation is made to ten vendors in the amount of $62,667,300.00. Funding is subject to program utilization and availability of State funds and is subject to change.

image1.png