RFP 25-1401 Award Recommendation and Evaluation Synopsis.docx

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services Bureau of Grants & Purchasing office has completed the evaluation of RFP 250000001401 Family Preservation- Family Assistance Program Services in Sanilac and St. Clair Counties and has recommended an award to Professional Counseling Center PC in the amount of $477,000.00, 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:

Jennifer Williamsen, Solicitation Manager.

Williamsenj1@michigan.gov

Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor to provide Family Preservation- Family Assistance Program Services. The term of this contract is 3 years, with up to two one-year renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on February 24, 2025, for four weeks. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of March 24, 2025.

*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 will evaluate each proposal based on the following factors:

Vendor Question Worksheet

Proposals receiving 100 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 subject matter experts, which consisted of the following individuals:

Amy Sherrod, Foster Care Supervisor St Clair County

Melissa Rebic, CPS Supervisor St. Clair County

III. Evaluation Results A. Bidder #1 Professional Counseling Center PC The Evaluation Team determined that Professional Counseling Center PC, based on a score of 122, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Experience and Qualifications- Category A Score 15 / 15

The evaluation team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. Delivery Capability- Category B Score 40 / 40

The evaluation team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Service Capability and Understanding – Category C Score 40/40

The evaluation team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Instructions for Bidders and Vendor Questions Worksheet (VQW) - Category D Score 27 / 30

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

(-3 points.) The Bidder did not provide the Contract numbers/details in the box provided for the three relevant experiences, nor did the Bidder properly identify the company details for those same three contracts/relevant experiences (i.e., Company name provided should be whom the Bidder has the contract with – not the Bidder’s information, along with the Contact name and details for the administrator of that contract).

B. Bidder #2 Spectrum Child and Family Services The Evaluation Team determined that Spectrum Child and Family Services, based on a score of 119, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Experience and Qualifications- Category A Score 15 / 15

The evaluation team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. Delivery Capability- Category B Score 37 / 40

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

(-2 points). The Contractor stated that they would not be prepared to serve a full caseload until 10/31/2025 instead of the anticipated contract start date of 10/1/2025.

(-1 point). Evaluators have concerns with the idea of mandating staff incentive leave while also ensuring consistent service delivery. What is the plan to prevent a gap in services to clients when the mandatory leave conflicts with existing staff turnover? Additional details were also needed regarding how many available staff members are cross trained to cover turnover/staffing shortages.

3. Service Capability and Understanding – Category C Score 39 / 40

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

(-1 point). Some of the community resources listed were not recognized as being active or established in the local area for serving families.

4. Instructions for Bidders and Vendor Questions Worksheet (VQW) - Category D Score 28 / 30

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

(-1 point) When describing 3 relevant experiences, the Contractor listed the incorrect contract number of MA24*0582 instead of the correct contract number, MA24*0820.

(-1 point) The Contractor did not list their gross sales. If not applicable, as they are a 501c3, they should make that note.

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

Vendor Question Worksheet

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:

$82.16

2,871

$33.95

8,064

$82.16

2,460

$20.37

8,064

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.

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 Professional Counseling Center PC in the amount of $477,000.00.

Version 2024-2 image1.png