Recommendation of Award - RFP 20-2075 - MISEP Statistician - Final.docx

STATE OF MICHIGAN

ENTERPRISE PROCUREMENT

Suite 1201 Lansing, MI 48933

Recommendation of Award The Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) has completed the evaluation of RFP 20000002075 for a Statistician for the Modified Implementation, Sustainability and Exit Plan (MISEP) and has recommended an award to the Regents of the University of Michigan in the amount of $608,810.00 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 Analyst. 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:

Nathaniel Oliver, Solicitation Manager OliverN@michigan.gov

Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor to conduct MISEP monitoring and performance reporting to improve outcomes for children who come to the attention of the child welfare system in Michigan. The term of this contract is three years, with up to two-year renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on July 14, 2020, for five weeks. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of August 11, 2020.

City, State Zip

SDVOB*

Ann Arbor, MI 48105 No

McLean, VA 22102 No

Boston, MA 021009 No

Eagle, ID 83616 Yes

Ann Arbor, MI 48109 No

*SDVOB: Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Business

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 Section 6. 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 a Joint Evaluation Committee (JEC) which consisted of the following individuals:

Danielle Martin, Acting Director, MDHHS/Division of Continuous Quality Improvement (DCQI) Lance Kingsbury, Buyer Specialist MDHHS/Bureau of Grants and Purchasing

Kelly Sesto, Chief of Staff, MDHHS/Children’s Services Agency (CSA) Nathaniel Oliver, Contract Analyst MDHHS/Bureau of Grants and Purchasing

Allison Beckman, Departmental Specialist MDHHS/CSA/ CSA Office of Program Improvement

Nicole Leitch, Departmental Analyst, MDHHS/DCQI

III. Evaluation Results

A. Altarum Institute The Evaluation Team determined that Altarum Institute, 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.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1-4 Score 19/25 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1, Number 5. The bidder demonstrated technical capacity to validate data; however, the bidder did not demonstrate in-depth understanding for validating child welfare data (as provided in Attachment A – MDHHS Modified ISEP Reporting).

b. Section 1, Number 7. The bidder did not adequately articulate the ways in which subject matter experts will determine root causes or fully understand child welfare dynamics to engage in the level of analysis required.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 5 Score 25/25 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 6 Score 25/25 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet Score 17/25 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

The bidder’s experiences did not demonstrate any child welfare expertise to manage a contract of this scope.

Total Score: 86/100

B. Guidehouse, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Guidehouse, Inc., 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.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1-4 Score 19/25 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1, Number 5. The bidder demonstrated technical capacity to validate data; however, the bidder did not demonstrate in-depth understanding for validating child welfare data (as provided in Attachment A – MDHHS Modified ISEP Reporting).

b. Section 1, Number 7. The bidder did not adequately articulate the ways in which subject matter experts will determine root causes or fully understand child welfare dynamics to engage in this level of analysis.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 5 Score 25/25 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 6 Score 25/25 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet Score 17/25 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

The bidder’s experiences did not demonstrate any child welfare expertise to manage a contract of this scope.

Total Score: 86/100

C. Public Consulting Group The Evaluation Team determined that Public Consulting Group, 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.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1-4 Score 21/25 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1, Item 4. The bidder did not provide a detailed response of how statistical data analysis is conducted.

b. Section 1, Item 6. The bidder did not fully explain how they would secure confidential data.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 5 Score 25/25 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 6 Score 25/25 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet Score 25/25 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory.

Total Score: 96/100

D. Stonewall Analytics, LLC The Evaluation Team determined that Stonewall Analytics, LLC, based on a score of 82 did met 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 1-4 Score 15/25 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1, Number 5. The bidder demonstrated technical capacity to validate data; however, the bidder did not demonstrate in-depth understanding for validating child welfare data (as provided in Attachment A – MDHHS Modified ISEP Reporting).

b. Section 1, Number 7. The bidder did not adequately articulate the ways in which subject matter experts will determine root causes or fully understand child welfare dynamics to engage in this level of analysis.

c. Section 1, Item 4. The bidder did not provide a detailed response of how statistical data analysis is conducted.

d. Section 1, Item 5. The bidder did not demonstrate the subject matter expertise needed with child welfare data analytics to validate data and provide required reports correctly.

e. Section 1, Item 6. The bidder did not fully explain how they would secure confidential data.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 5 Score 25/25 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 6 Score 25/25 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet Score 17/25 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

The bidder’s experiences did not demonstrate any child welfare expertise to manage a contract of this scope.

Total Score: 82/100

E. University of Michigan The Evaluation Team determined that Michigan University, 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.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1-4 Score 21/25 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1, Item 4. The bidder did not provide a detailed response of how statistical data analysis is conducted.

b. Section 1, Item 6. The bidder did not fully explain how they would secure confidential data.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 5 Score 25/25 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 6 Score 25/25 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet Score 25/25 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory.

Total Score: 96/100

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

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

VI. Negotiations:

Bidders were asked to submit second-round pricing. The following is a summary of their second-round pricing:

VII. Award Recommendation:

Award recommendation is made to the responsive and responsible bidder who offers the lowest contract price to the State of Michigan. Low price is determined by the Bidder who meets the requirements and offers the lowest overall price as demonstrated by its proposal. Award Recommendation is made to the Regents of University of Michigan in the amount of $608,810.00.

image1.jpeg