Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

Notice of Intent to Award Number: 260000000270 Notice of Intent to Award Date: 4/13/2026

The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services has completed the evaluation of RFP260000000919 Family Preservation – Fatherhood Initiative Services in Saginaw County and has recommended an award to InvolvedDad in the amount of $265,000.00, 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 517-335-9361 Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor to provide Family Preservation – Fatherhood Initiative Services. The term of this contract is two years and four months, with up to two one-year renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on February 6, 2026. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of March 6, 2026.

*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 100 or more technical evaluation points will have pricing evaluated and considered for award.

The State may utilize all bidder information, without regard to a proposal’s technical score, to determine fair market value for goods or services sought. The State is not obligated to accept the lowest price proposal. If applicable, the State’s evaluation will include consideration of a bidder’s qualified disabled veterans/service-disabled veteran owned business(QDV/SDVOB) status under MCL 18.1261(8). Additional information on the SDVOB preference is available at: Michigan.gov/SDVOB.

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:

Cathy Niedecken Program Manager

MDHHS BSC 2

Jennifer Williamsen Contract Administrator MDHHS Bureau of Grants and Purchasing

Lacey Williams Services Program Manager MDHHS Saginaw County

Shannon Vorhees Services Program Manager MDHHS Saginaw County

III. Evaluation Results

A. Bidder #1 Adoption Option, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Adoption Option, Inc. based on a score of 104, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Bidder Experience and Past Performance- Category A

Score 13/15

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

A1 3- The bidder did not meet all Expected Performance Outcomes: FAP – Gladwin County: #2- 71% of required 80%; Advanced Parent Ed – Arenac County: #1 – 62.5% of required 80% and #2 – 50% of required 80%; Advanced Parent Ed – Bay County: #1 – 60% of required 80%; Advanced Parent Ed – Clare & Isabella Counties: #2 - 66.6% of required 80%; and Advanced In-Home – Gladwin & Midland Counties:#2 - 0% of the required 80%. However, the bidder did provide a reasonable explanation and provided improvement steps. (-2)

A2- The bidders service history shows current contact with neighboring counties similar to services in this RFP.

2. Education, Credentials & Qualifications- Category B

Score 15/15

The evaluation team determined that the responses were satisfactory

3. Staffing, Training, Agency Organization & Location – Category C

Score 10/20

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

C2- The evaluators have concerns that the number of hours per week allocated to the Program Manager and Program Supervisor are low to provide adequate support, training and back up for the Fatherhood Initiative Specialist. This is a new position in a county that hasn’t previously had this service. (-5)

C3- The evaluators appreciated the supporting documentation provided regarding training details and curriculum was detailed and informative showing the plan to prepare staff for the position.

C5- The bidder expectation that the supervisor or other cross trained staff would have the availability to serve all Fatherhood Initiative clients in the event of a direct staff turnover seems unreasonable. The bidder stated that if there are no cross trained staff available, the Program Supervisor would cover the caseload, but this doesn’t appear feasible given only 0.15 FTE allotted to the Program Supervisor in this proposal. If the bidder has a hiring pool that they are ready to pull from, that should have been indicated in their answer. (-2)

C6- The response lacked detail regarding quarterly meetings, and supervisory involvement for a new employee and new program being offered in the County. (-2)

C7- The bidder provided limited detail on the agency’s accessibility and availability during non-traditional work hours. The bidder did not give details regarding how clients will be able to reach direct staff or supervision during non-traditional hours and how matters will be determined as urgent. It is not clear if ‘direct staff’ is the client’s identified worker or another direct staff member. A timeline for returning client calls outside of normal hours of operation was not identified. (-1)

4. Program Implementation- Category D

Score 43/50

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

D4- The bidder did not indicate a timeframe regarding contact with the referring worker to confirm referral, discuss case dynamics, identify family needs and services goals etc. The RFP states that the contact with the referring worker must be made within five (5) calendar days of accepting the written referral. The Bidder also failed to include that the Fatherhood Initiative Specialist will develop a written service plan within 30 days of the initial home visit, and that services will be provided for up to 6 months, with up to an additional 6 months if contractor and the referring worker determine as necessary. (-2)

D10- The bidders’ estimated number of non-billable hours is disproportionately higher to what was provided in D9. For example, 12 hours per month x 8 clients x 6 months and then doubled for the full year= 1,152 units. With the Bidder only estimating 8 to 12 hours per month of non-billable time per client, the non-billable units should be more in the range of 786 units to 1,152 units. There is also concern regarding the number of clients to be served. If 8 clients are expected to be served in 4 months, then a full year of service should include 24 clients, not 16. (-5).

5. Vendor Question Worksheet (VQW) – Category E

Score 23/25

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

5. State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience: Experience 1, 2 and 3- When providing details for the 3 relevant experiences working with the State of Michigan, the bidder provided their company name and contact information instead of the contact information of the individual they worked with at the State of Michigan. (-2)

B. Bidder #2 InvolvedDad

The Evaluation Team determined that InvolvedDad based on a score of 111, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Bidder Experience and Past Performance- Category A

Score 11/15

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

A1-3 The Bidder did not provide performance outcomes for the Group Parent Education and FP-Batterer Intervention Service contracts. Although these contracts just began on 10/1/2025 and data is not yet available, the Bidder failed to provide an explanation and describing improvement steps that will be taken, such as a new contract where a full year of services has not yet been performed to be able to provide the performance outcome details but will be provided once they become available. (-2)

A2-The bidder demonstrated a good understanding of the target population.

A4- The bidder did not provide any current connections or working partnerships in Saginaw County and didn’t demonstrate awareness of key partners in the geographic area. (-2) However, the bidder’s knowledge of resources in the communities they are currently contracted in demonstrates the ability to grow these relationships.

2. Education, Credentials & Qualifications- Category B

Score 15/15

The evaluation team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

3. Staffing, Training, Agency Organization & Location – Category C

Score 15/20

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

C1- The evaluators would have liked to see a more detailed timeline showing the time needed to recruit, interview, hire and ensure required training is met on or before the contract start date of 6/1/2026. If the bidder has a hiring pool that they are ready to pull from, that should have been indicated in their answer (-1)

C2- The Program Manager position wasn’t included on the Proposed Staffing Allocation chart as detailed on the organizational chart. If the Executive Director is responsible for the entire supervisory role there is concern that .05 FTE is not sufficient. (-1)

C4- The position titles listed in the response should match identically to what is on the organizational chart for easier reference. (no deduction)

C5- It would have been beneficial to see the proposed coverage provided by the Intake Coordinator or Program Manager in the event of staff turnover included in the response for C5. (-1)

C6- The evaluators are concerned that the .05 FTE allocated for an Executive Director to provide supervisory oversight for a new worker is too low. (-2)

4. Program Implementation- Category D

Score 45/50

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

D4- The Bidder did not include the following required steps to initiate and maintain the services outlined in the RFP: the written service plan will be developed within 30 days of the initial home visit, the direct worker will provide a minimum of 2 hours of face-to-face time to the client each month, and that services will be provided for up to 6 months, with up to an additional 6 months if contractor and the referring worker determine as necessary. (-2)

D5- The bidder noted making contact with the referring worker within 5 days, but evaluators would have liked to see additional information regarding confirmation of referral, discussion of case dynamics, identification of family needs, development of service goals & objectives, and established timeframes and schedules of contact. (no deduction)

D7- The evaluators appreciated the detailed response that demonstrated the bidder’s knowledge and obvious experience working with fathers. The companion support and small wins show they are creating attainable goals.

D9- Estimated travel time was unclear. (no deduction)

D10- In D9 the bidder proposes weekly face-to-face visits that average 1 to 2 hours per session for up to 6 months and 1 to 2 hours for estimated travel per visit. However, given those estimates 960 units appears to be unreasonably low for the number of clients that the Bidder proposes to provide weekly service to over a 12-month period.

In addition, 60 clients per FTE appears to be an unreasonably high number. The bidder stated they would meet the client once per week, but their billable hours of 960 units reflect the RFP requirement of 2 hours per month.

The bidder proposes 360 units of non-billable hours. Given this estimate the Program Specialist would only be allocated 0.5 hours per month of non-billable time for each of the 60 clients. According to the bidder’s information provided in Chart D9, the Program Specialist needs to spend between 1 to 2 hours per week on non-billable tasks, hence the 360 units would not be sufficient. (-3)

D11- Evaluators would have liked to see a more detailed plan to foster engagement specific to the County of Saginaw. (no deductions)

5. Vendor Question Worksheet (VQW) – Category E

Score 25/25

The evaluation team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

C. Bidder #3 Spectrum Child and Family Services

The Evaluation Team determined that Spectrum Child and Family Services based on a score of 109, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Bidder Experience and Past Performance- Category A

Score 14/15

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

A1-3 The Bidder did not meet the Expected Performance Outcomes for the Families Together Building Solutions contract for Ingham County. The Bidder’s actual performance outcome for #1 was 93 % out of 95% and an explanation and steps taken to improve results were not included. (-1)

2. Education, Credentials & Qualifications- Category B

Score 15/15

The evaluation team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

3. Staffing, Training, Agency Organization & Location – Category C

Score 12/20

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

C1- The Bidder provided a detailed timeline on their preparedness to provide services but provided an anticipated start date of 06/30/2026 which does not meet the anticipated contract start date of 06/01/2026. (-1)

C2- The evaluators have concerns the number of allocated hours per week for the Program Manager and Program Supervisor are too low to provide adequate support, training and back-up for the Fatherhood Initiative Specialist. (-3)

C3- The response lacked specific training program details for new and existing staff. (-3)

C5- The response lacked specific training program details for floater staff positions to cover caseloads in the event of staff turnover (-1)

C7- The evaluators appreciated the bidder providing clear details of accessibility and immediate response after hours and on holidays.

4. Program Implementation- Category D

Score 44/50

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

D3- The evaluators appreciated that the range of inclusive practices covered all demographics and supports the target population with the CCDEIB model.

D5- The bidder noted making contact with the referring worker within 5 days, but evaluators would have liked to see additional information regarding confirmation of referral, discussion of case dynamics, identification of family needs, development of service goals & objectives, and established timeframes and schedules of contact. (no deduction)

D6- The Bidder indicated in its Client Assessment Process that the Fatherhood Initiative Worker will schedule an initial home visit within 14 calendar days of the referral, however, per the RFP Section 1.1 General Requirements, F. Services to be Provided 1) a. which indicates that the worker “must meet with the Father within 7 days of the date of referral being accepted.” (-1)

D9- The Bidder listed the Duration of Service as 16 weeks, but the RFP states that services are to be provided for up to 6 months. Clients may need the additional 4 weeks, and this should be accounted for. It was unclear if 15 hours of travel time per week was per client or a total of all clients. (-2)

D10- The evaluators believe the estimated number of billable units provided is not enough to meet the estimated amount of service the bidder proposes to provide in D9.

On the chart on D9 the bidder estimated 4 hours of face-to-face contact per month for 4 months for each client and an estimated 2 hours of travel time for each visit totaling 6 hours of service per client per month or 1,152 units. The total of 1,152 units of billable service is more than the bidder estimate of 960 billable hours per year provided on D10. (-2)

16 weeks: 6 billable hours per client each month x 4 months x 16 clients x 3 quarters in a year = 1,152 units

20 weeks: 6 billable hours per client each month x 6 months x 24 clients x 2= 1,728 units

D14- Bidder did not confirm agreement or disagreement with the terms of liquidated damages. (-1)

5. Vendor Question Worksheet (VQW) – Category E

Score 24/25

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

Bidder did not provide gross annual sales for each of the last 5 years (-1).

D. Bidder #4 Be Doulaful

Be Doulaful’s proposal is determined to be unresponsive due to failure to follow instructions and submit a complete proposal. The proposal is disqualified and will not be evaluated.

E. Bidder #5 Friends of Royal Oak Township, Inc.

Friends of Royal Oak Township, Inc.’s proposal is determined to be unresponsive due to failure to follow instructions and submit a complete proposal. The proposal is disqualified and will not be evaluated.

F. Bidder #6 Solutions Behavioral Health LLC

Solutions Behavioral Health LLC’s proposal is determined to be unresponsive due to failure to follow instructions and submit a complete proposal. The proposal is disqualified and will not be evaluated.

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

V. Technical Evaluation Summary – Number of Units Proposed

Year 2: 761.91 Year 3: 761.91 Year 1: 480 Year 2: 960 Year 3: 960 Year 1: 320 Year 2: 960 Year 3: 960

Year 2: 16 Year 3: 16 Year 1: 20-30 Year 2: 50-60 Year 3: 50-60 Year 1:16 Year 2:48 Year 3:48

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

Year 2: 761.91 Year 3: 761.91 Total: 1,904.78

Year 2: 960 Year 3: 960 Total:

2,400 Year 1: $171.88 Year 2& 3: $109.38 Year 1: 320 Year 2: 960 Year 3: 960 Total:

2,240

Year 2 $25,000 Year 3 $25,000 Total:

$65,000

Year 2 $25,000 Year 3 $25,000 Total:

$65,000

Year 2 $25,000 Year 3 $25,000 Total:

$65,000

NA

Year 2: $130,004.80 Year 3: $130,004.80 Total: $300,011.20

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.

InvolvedDad provided the best value to the State. Best value factors for Award Recommendation include the high score and low and realistic unit rate. The selected bidder demonstrates a proven track record of successfully delivering comparable services to the target population as supported and documented in past successes.

As part of the best value determination amongst bidders overall economic impact to the State of Michigan was considered in making this award. InvolvedDad provides the greatest overall economic impact to Michigan due to paying employees an average wage of $25 per hour.

Award Recommendation is made to InvolvedDad in the amount of $265,000.00.

Version 2023-1 image1.png