RFP 250000001027 - Collection Services RFP - Award Recommendation and Evaluation Synopsis.docx

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

The Department of Technology, Management, & Budget’s Central Procurement Services office has completed the evaluation of RFP 250000001027 - Collection Services and has recommended an award to Coast Professional in the amount of $18,876,811.20, 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:

Emily Massa, Solicitation Manager - Primary massae@michigan.gov 517-897-7321

Joy Nakfoor, Solicitation Manager – Designee nakfoorj@michigan.gov 517- 249-0481

Public copies of all bidder proposals can be found here: DTMB - Bid Proposals (michigan.gov) Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor to provide the recruiting and hiring of non-State of Michigan staff to support a first party collection model. The term of this contract is three (3) years, with up to four (4) – one (1) year renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on February 6, 2025, for 44 days. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of March 21, 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

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:

Joy Nakfoor, Category Manager-Services

DTMB-CPS

Adam Zanetti, Buyer Treasury-Budget and Purchasing-Purchasing

Matthew Clark, Bureau Director Treasury- Collections Services Bureau Melissa Huisken, State Division Administrator Treasury-Collection Services Bureau

Pam Bennett, Departmental Specialist 14 Treasury-Collections Services Bureau

III. Evaluation Results A. Harris & Harris The Evaluation Team determined that Harris & Harris based on a score of 87, 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 (39.5/40) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.f. Staffing Levels - While bidder agreed to the requirement, the descriptive response detailed estimating different numbers of personnel from what the solicitation provided.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 3 – 4 (18/20) 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 provide a descriptive response of how reports would be provided.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 5 – 9 (10/10) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet (19.5/30) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Experiences 1 – 3 – All experiences provide basic information with little details. While the information states 1st party experience, all demonstrate 3rd party experience.

b. 6. General Experience, 1st question – Bidder response was basic and provided no details

c. 6. General Experience 5th question – Bidders response was basic and solely focused on collecting and compliance; nothing included development or customer services-oriented performance indicators.

Total Score: 87/100 B. Adecco USA, Inc The Evaluation Team determined that Adecco USA, Inc based on a score of 73.5, did not 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 (29/40) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.d. Return of State Property – Response provided by bidder contradicts damage requirement.

b. Section 1.e. Staff Roles, Location and Work – Bidder did not answer work site requirement

c. Section 1.a. Call Customer Service Rate – Bidder did not answer question related to work needed on this contract.

d. Section 1.g. Imaging Processing Rate – Bidder did not answer question

e. Section 1.h. Data Entry Garnishments – Bidder did not answer question

f. Section 1.2 Transition – Bidder response did not provide timeframes

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 3 – 4 (12/20) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 3.7 Disclosure of Subcontractors – Bidder did not complete section

b. Section 3.8 Security – Bidder provided no response in explanation box

c. Section 4.1 Project Plan - Bidder provided no response in explanation box

d. Section 4.3 Reporting – Bidder did not respond to requirements listed

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 5 – 9 (10/10) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet (22.5/30) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Experiences 2 & 3 – Roles presented in experiences are outside the scope of this solicitation

b. 6. General Experience, 1st question - Bidder response was basic and provided no details

c. 6. General Experience, 2nd question – Bidder response did not answer question asked

d. 6. General Experience, 5th question – Roles provided in bidder response are not part of this solicitation

e. 6. General Experience, 8th question – Bidder response was only for 1 year, not last 5 years Total Score: 73.5/100 C. Radius Global Solutions, LLC The Evaluation Team determined that Radius Global Solutions based on a score of 76.5, did not 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 (35.5/40) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.f. Staffing Levels – Bidder agreed with the State staffing levels, then proposed contradcitory levels it deemed appropriate

b. Section 1.g. Imaging Processing Rate – Bidder did not answer question

c. Section 1.h. Data Entry Garnishments – Bidder did not answer question

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 3 – 4 (17/20) 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 respond to requirements listed

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 5 – 9 (10/10) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet (14/30) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly unsatisfactory, and the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Experiences 1 – 3 – Bidder did not provide enough information to determine if scope is similar to solicitation and no dollar values were provided

b. 6. General Experience – 2nd question – Bidder response did not answer question asked

c. 6. General Experience, 8th question – Bidder response was only for 1 year, not last 5 years Total Score: 76.5/100 D. ContactPoint360, LLC The Evaluation Team determined that ContactPoint360, 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 (40/40) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 3 – 4 (20/20) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 5 – 9 (10/10) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet (27/30) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Experiences 1 – 3 – Dollar values provided were too broad/general to determine if size was similar Total Score: 97/100 E. F.H. Cann & Associates, Inc The Evaluation Team determined that F.H. Cann & Associates, 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 (36/40) [Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.d. Return of State Property – Bidder response was not sufficient for State owned property requirements

b. Section 1.f. Staffing Levels – Bidder response lacking around actual staffing levels provided by the State

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 3 – 4 (17/20) 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 respond to requirements listed

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 5 – 9 (10/10) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet (26/30) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Experience 2 – Size very small for length of contract and description

b. 6. General Experience, 8th question – Bidder response was a single value for last 5 years and was lacking details Total Score: 89/100 F. Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc The Evaluation Team determined that Pioneer Credit Recovery based on a score of 78, did not 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 (33/40) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.b. Personnel Interview and Hiring Process – Bidder response only restated requirements

b. Section 1.d. Return of State Property – Bidder response was not sufficient for State owned property requirements

c. Section 1.e. Staff Roles, Location and Work Requirements – Bidder response was lacking information

d. Section 1.h. Data Entry Garnishments – Bidder response missing key components

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 3 – 4 (14/20) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 3.8 Security - Bidder did not provide additional security requirements

b. Section 4.1 Project Plan – Bidder response not in alignment with 1st part solicitation requirements

c. Section 4.3 Reporting – Bidder did not respond to requirements listed

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 5 – 9 (10/10) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet (21/30) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Experience 2 – No dollar value provided

b. Experience 3 – Size is small

c. 6. General Experience, 4th question – Information provided is too generic with no strategy provided

d. 6. General Experience, 8th question – Bidder response was an average rate, not rates for the last 5 years

e. 6. General Experience, 9th question – Bidder did not answer the question Total Score: 78/100 G. Ray Klein, Inc The Evaluation Team determined that Ray Klein, Inc based on a score of 76, did not 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 (26/40) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.b. Personnel Interview and Hiring Process – Bidder response only restated requirements

b. Section 1.d. Return of State Property – Bidder response only restated requirements

c. Section 1.e. Staff Roles, Location and Work Requirements – Bidder response only restated requirements

d. Section 1.f. Staffing Levels - Bidder response only restated requirements

e. Section 1.a. Call Customer Service Rate - Bidder response only restated requirements

f. Section 1.h. Data Entry Garnishments - Bidder response only restated requirements

g. Section 1.2 Transition - Bidder response only restated requirements

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 3 – 4 (18/20) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 3.8 Security - Bidder response only restated requirements

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 5 – 9 (10/10) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet (22/30) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Experiences 1 – 3 – Not enough information to determine if scope is similar to solicitation requirements

b. Experience 3 – Size is small

c. 6. General Experience, 4th question – Bidder response missing portion of question Total Score: 76/100 H. Coast Professional, Inc The Evaluation Team determined that Coast Professional, 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 (38/40) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.b. Personnel Interview and Hiring – Bidder did not respond to State requirement

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 3 – 4 (20/20) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 5 – 9 (10/10) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet (29/30) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 7. Contract Terms – Bidder provided redlines to contract terms Total Score: 97/100 I. P.I.E. Management, LLC The Evaluation Team determined that P.I.E. Management, LLC based on a score of 77, did not 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 (32/40) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.b. Personnel Interview and Hiring Process – Bidder did not respond to State requirements

b. Section 1.d. Return of State Property - Bidder response was not sufficient for State owned property requirements

c. Section 1.e. Staff Roles, Location and Work Requirements - Bidder response did not respond to State requirements

d. Section 1.4 – Bidder response did not answer question asked

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 3 – 4 (17/20) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 4. Project Management – Bidder response provided alterative timelines and contradictions to requirements

b. 4.2 Meetings – Bidder exception does not align with State Requirements

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 5 – 9 (10/10) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet (18/30) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Experiences 1 and 2 – Bidders response out of scope

b. Experience 3 – Unable to determine direct scope and size of Bidder work in response as subcontractor; experience is outside the timeframe requested in the solicitation

c. 6. General Experience, 1st question – Bidder response as subcontractor and not recent

d. 6. General Experience, 2nd question – Bidder response did not answer strategy question

e. 6. General Experience, 4th question – Bidder response did not provide specifics and key component not answered Total Score: 77/100 J. MCM Staffing, LLC The Evaluation Team determined that MCM Staffing, LLC based on a score of 50, did not 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 (20/40) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly unsatisfactory, and the following deficiencies were noted:]

a. Section 1.a, b, d, e, f, a, g, h – Bidder did not provide descriptive responses

b. Section 1.2 - Bidder did not provide descriptive response

c. Section 1.4 - Bidder did not provide descriptive response

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 3 – 4 (11/20) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 3.4 - Bidder did not provide descriptive responses

b. Section 3.7 – Bidder did not provide a response

c. Section 3.8 Security – Bidder did not provide additional security requirements

d. Section 4.1 – Bidder did not provide response to explanation

e. Section 4.3 – Bidder did not respond to requirements listed

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 5 – 9 (9/10) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 5 – Bidder took exception with State requirement

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet (10/30) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly unsatisfactory, and the following deficiencies were noted:

a. 2. Company Background Information – Gross annual sales response is vague and missing justification for 25% increase

b. 5. Prior SOM Experience – No response provided

c. Experiences 1 and 2 – Experiences small for scope of RFP and results obtained not provided

d. Experience 3 – Scope was outside requirements of RFP and results obtained not provided

e. 6. General Experience, 1st question – Call center experience does not include collections experience

f. 6. General Experience, 2nd question – Bidder response did not fully answer question

g. 6. General Experience, 4th question – Bidder response were rules of thumb, not KPIs; question not fully answered

h. 6. General Experience, 5th question – Bidder response does not align with question

i. 6. General Experience, 8th question – Bidder response does not account for resources that align with this solicitation; response was an average rate, did not provide rates for last 5 years

j. 6. General Experience, 9th question – Bidder response does not align with question Total Score: 50/100 K. GC Parent, LLC The Evaluation Team determined that GC Parent, LLC based on a score of 45, did not 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 (1/40) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were unsatisfactory, and the following deficiencies were noted:]

a. Sections 1-2 – Bidder did not provide descriptive responses to most sections; Sections 1.c Equipment, 2.1 A., and 2.1 B did not require descriptive responses

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 3 – 4 (4/20) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were unsatisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Sections, 3.1, 3.4, 3.7, 3.8, 4.1, and 4.3 – Bidder did not provide descriptive responses to sections

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 5 – 9 (10/10) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet (30/30) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 45/100 L. 22nd Century Technologies, Inc The Evaluation Team determined that 22nd Century Technologies, 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 (40/40) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 3 – 4 (20/20) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 5 – 9 (10/10) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet (27/30) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Experiences 2 and 3 – size is small

b. 6. General Experience, 1st question – Bidder response did not include collections experience Total Score: 97/100 M. Lancesoft The Evaluation Team determined that Lancesoft based on a score of 62, did not 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 (26/40) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Sections 1 a., b., d., e., f., and a. – Bidder responses restated requirements

b. Section 1.2 Transition – Bidder response restated requirements

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 3 – 4 (15/20) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 4.1 – Bidder response restated requirements

b. Section 4.3 – Bidder response did not include requirements listed

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 5 – 9 (10/10) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet (11/30) The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly unsatisfactory, and the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Experiences 1, 2, and 3 – Bidder response unclear on direct scope and size of work which appeared to be as a subcontractor

b. 6. General Experience, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd questions – Bidder response is not related to roles required in this solicitation

c. 6. General Experience, 4th question – Bidder response was not related to internal recruiting and did not fully answer question

d. 6. General Experience, 5th question – Bidder response does not align with question

e. 6. General Experience, 8th question – Bidder response was an average rate, did not provide rates for last 5 years Total Score: 62/100

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

Bidder

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement V.

Version 2024-2 VI. Pricing Summary Pricing was evaluated for the bidders who passed technical. The following is a summary of their price proposals:

VII. Negotiations Second round pricing was requested of the top vendors that passed technical evaluation. Coast Professional was also asked to remove redlines to contract terms, which was agreed to.

VIII. 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.

Coast Professional provided the best value to the State. Best value factors for Award Recommendation include: prior 1st party collections experience, successful Key Performance Indicator (KPI) strategies, utilizing first time call calibration scores in staff performance indicators, and continuously improving policies and procedures from feedback.

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 Coast Professional in the amount of $18,876,811.20.

image1.png