Region 12b - Recommendation of Award.docx

STATE OF MICHIGAN

ENTERPRISE PROCUREMENT

Suite 1201 Lansing, MI 48933

Recommendation of Award

The Department of Health and Human Services has completed the evaluation of RFP210000001575 Families Together Building Solutions – Pathways to Potential Region 12b and has recommended an award to Orchards Children’s Services in the amount of $1,004,438.00 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 Analyst may be contacted as follows:

Stephen Henderson, Solicitation Analyst Hendersons7@michigan.gov 517-241-4082

Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor to provide Families Together Building Solutions – Pathways to Potential Services. The term of this contract is two years, with up to three, one year renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on May 12, 2021 for six weeks. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of June 23, 2021.

City, State Zip

SDVOB*

*SDVOB: Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Business

Revised: 10/4/19

Revised: 10/4/19 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.

Section II of the RFP, Description of Service Specifications, Contractor Responsibilities, 2.2 Credentials states:

The Contractor must assure that appropriately credentialed or trained staff under its control, including Contractor employees and/or subcontractors, must perform functions under this Contract. The Contractor must provide staff sufficient to adequately fulfill the terms of the contract and demonstrate a good faith effort to recruit and employ staff reflecting the racial, ethnic, and cultural composition of the contractor’s client population.

a. Standard FTBS Teams A standard full team is defined as: one part-time Program Manager (0.2-.25 FTE), one full-time Supervisor (1 FTE), and four full-time FTBS Workers (4 FTE). The Contractor must maintain a supervisory/direct service worker ratio of one supervisor to four FTBS Direct Workers, pro-rated for partial or multiple teams. Each full-time supervisor with a team of four must carry a minimum caseload of two families per year. Part-time staff is only allowed in circumstances where the staff is 0.5 FTE designated as a Supervisor and 0.5 FTE designated as a FTBS Worker. A part time supervisor/worker must carry a percentage of a Direct Worker caseload and percentage of a supervisor load. Each full-time FTBS Direct Worker may be assigned a caseload of up to six (6) families at a time and must carry an average of eighteen (18) cases per year. Exceptions to the full-time caseload must be discussed with the DHHS Family Preservation Program Office.

b. Contingent Staff Requirements Staff that work in other family preservation programs can fill in as contingent FTBS Direct Workers under the following conditions:

1) Contingent staff must have completed Core training and have 1-year experience in family preservation programs.

2) Contingent staff person must attend weekly team meetings when they are carrying a case. Additionally, they must attend at least 1 team meeting per month when they are not carrying a case.

3) Any case being served by a contingent staff person must have a documented 24/7 coverage plan.

4) The supervisor must meet with any family that is being served by a contingent staff person within the first 14 days.

5) The Family Preservation Program Office Specialist must be informed if/when a contingent staff person is being used, or is being planned to be used, for an extended period (2 months or more).

c. Qualifications for each position are as follows:

1) Program Manager: requires a master’s degree in the field of human service, preferably in social work. Administrative and clinical work experience is required.

2) Supervisor: requires a bachelor’s degree in the field of human services, preferably in social work.

3) FTBS Direct Worker: requires a bachelor’s degree requires in the field of human services, preferably in social work.

4) Exceptions: Degrees other than those within the human services field, for any position who may work directly with families, must be approved by Family Preservation Program Office.

d. Training Requirements All FTBS staff are required to participate in initial and ongoing training provided by MDHHS staff or trainers coordinated by MDHHS. At a minimum, all FTBS staff must attend the Family Preservation Core Training within 30 days of hire. An exception to the 30-day requirement is limited to times when trainings are cancelled or full. New FTBS staff shall not take cases until Family Preservation Core Training (4 days) is completed. In addition, the following special topics trainings must be completed within one year of hire:

1) The Family Preservation Service (FPS) Domestic Violence Training

2) Working with Substance Affected Families training

3) Family Preservation Solution-Focused training

4) Self-Awareness Training

5) Mental Health Training

6) Trauma Checklist Training: this training must be completed within the first year of this contract term for existing staff. The Contractor will be responsible for accessing this training through the MDHHS Learning Management System (LMS).

Staff transferring from Families First or Family Reunification Program or staff who have left family preservation services and returned, only need to participate in the program specific portion of Core Training if they completed the entire Core Training within two years of their employment in FTBS.

Section III of the RFP, Instructions for Bidders, requires:

To be considered, the proposal must be received by SIGMA VSS by the bid closing date and time indicated on the SIGMA VSS website.

To complete a proposal:

Refer to the instructions on how to respond to a solicitation included with this RFP in SIGMA VSS.

Complete Section IV, Proposal, and Section V, Confidential Treatment Form (CT Form).

Complete Exhibit I Byrd Anti-Lobbying Certification Delete unless you receive authorization from your manager.

Complete and submit Schedule B Pricing Matrix as required in the RFP.

Enter the Contract Price being bid in the Commodity Information Tab section in SIGMA VSS under Commodity section.

The full evaluation process is stated in the RFP.

II. Evaluation Method Responses to this solicitation were reviewed by a Joint Evaluation Committee.

III. Evaluation Results A. Judson Center

1. Bidder Experience, Qualifications and Past Performance Score 35/35

The evaluation team determined that overall the responses were mostly satisfactory. The evaluation teams’ comments are noted below:

(5 points) A1b - For the Parent Education Home Based – Macomb County example, the actual performance outcomes, were worded as projected outcomes versus actual outcomes. (0)

2. Staffing and Training Score 23/24

The evaluation team determined that overall the responses were mostly satisfactory. The evaluation teams’ comments are noted below:

(5 points) B1 - The bidder’s response regarding biweekly individual meetings and facilitating weekly team meetings does not match what the RFP requirement of weekly individual meetings and facilitating biweekly team meetings.(-1)

(3 points) B3 – The frequency of training provided by the bidder is ambiguous. (0)

3. Program Implementation (Work Plan) Score 37/41

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

(10 points) C5 - The family voice and collaboration were not clearly documented. The family was not clearly involved in the creation of the safety plan. The bidder stated the ages were not provided, however they were provided on the initial service plan and in the case scenario. (-3) (5 points) C6 – The bidder’s response indicated a four month intervention timeframe, however the RFP requirement for the initial intervention for FTBS is 90 days. (-1)

B. Orchards Children’s Services

1. Bidder Experience, Qualifications and Past Performance Score 35/35

The evaluation team determined that overall the responses were satisfactory.

2. Staffing and Training Score 24/24

The evaluation team determined that overall the responses were mostly satisfactory. The evaluation teams’ comments are noted below:

(4 points) B5 - The bidder referred to an Attachment A – Job Description, however no attachment was provided. (0)

3. Program Implementation (Work Plan) Score 41/41

The evaluation team determined that overall the responses were mostly satisfactory. The evaluation teams’ comments are noted below:

(6 points) C3 – The bidder answered the question however their response did not reflect a well-researched description of the resource gaps in the community. (0)

C. Samaritas

1. Bidder Experience, Qualifications and Past Performance Score 35/35

The evaluation team determined that overall the responses were mostly satisfactory. The evaluation teams’ comments are noted below:

(5 points) A1b – Although the bidders response included experience providing similar services, specific contract numbers were not provided for Families First, Families Together Building Solutions and Family Reunification.(0) (5 points) A2- The bidder’s response mentioned a 78% utilization rate for 2019 with no explanation on why the performance metrics were not met, although they did provide an explanation on why their performance metrics were not met for fiscal year 2020 which coincides with their response in A1b. (0)

2. Staffing and Training Score 24/24

The evaluation team determined that overall the responses were satisfactory.

3. Program Implementation (Work Plan) Score 41/41

The evaluation team determined that overall the responses were satisfactory.

D. Spectrum Child and Family Services

1. Bidder Experience, Qualifications and Past Performance Score 31/35

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

(5 points) A1b - The bidder did not provide a description of population served in any of their examples. (-1) (5 points) A2 - The bidder did not explain their CQI process or how they use it to address specific performance metrics. (-1) (4 points) A3 – The bidder does not explain how qualitative or quantitative information is used. (-2)

2. Staffing and Training Score 19/24

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

(5 points) B1 –The bidder provided a start date of 10/1/2021, however they noted they would not have two workers ready and trained until two weeks after the start date. The bidders response indicated daily or weekly phone calls to notify of referral openings, however the requirement is daily. (-2) (2 points) B2 – The bidder’s number of FTE’s for the Program Manager (1) does not match the RFP requirement (.20 - .25) per a standard FTBS team. (-1) (3 points) B3 – There is several examples of administrative policy and procedure training but few examples of training that would prepare staff to work in FTBS. The bidder provided an answer in B4. (0) (2 points) B4 – There is no distinction between program manager training and staff training. (-1) (4 points) B5 - The bidder did not describe how they will continue services during a period of staff turnover. (-1) (2 points) B7 – The bidder focused more on cultural inclusion rather than the process and addressing bias within the organization. (0)

3. Program Implementation (Work Plan) Score 36/41

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

(6 points) C3 - The bidder did not provide an answer on how they will address their resource gaps. (-2) (10 points) C5 – The bidder’s goals are not measurable and there is no timeframe for completion. Family voice was not clearly documented and there is no indication of family voice or collaboration. There is no indication that the family was involved in the safety plans. (-3) (5 points) C8 - The bidders response answered the question but provided minimum information. (0)

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

V. Technical Evaluation Summary- Number of Units Proposed

VI. Pricing Summary Pricing was evaluated for the bidders who passed technical. The following is a summary of their 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 factors stated in Section IV, Proposal, RFP Evaluation Criteria, and price. Orchards Children’s Services provided the best value to the State. Award Recommendation is made to Orchards Children’s Services in the amount of $1,004,438.00.

Revised: 10/4/19 image1.jpeg