RFP 260000001784 Award Recommendation.pdf

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Version 2024-2 Page 1 of 49

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

Notice of Intent to Award Number: 260000000777

Notice of Intent to Award Date: 8/19/2026

The Department of Health and Human Services office has completed the evaluation of RFP 260000001784 Public Health Leadership Development Program and has recommended awards to the following bidders in the amounts listed below, pending State Administrative Board approval, if applicable.

1. Award Recommendation is made to Equity and Results Consulting LLC in the amount of $216,000.00.

2. Award Recommendation is made to JMG Connects, LLC in the amount of $216,000.00.

3. Award Recommendation is made to Lakeya Cherry LLC in the amount of $216,000.00.

4. Award Recommendation is made to Lisa Peacock Professional Services, LLC in the amount of $150,000.00.

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:

Sarah Oumedian, Solicitation Manager.

OumedianS@michigan.gov

517-335-1969

Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor to provide Training #1 Adaptive Leadership Development, Training #2 Psychological Safety and Team Functioning, Training #3 Health Equity Capacity Building, Training #4 Transformative Leadership Training, and Training #5 Senior Leadership Coaching. The term of these contracts is fourteen months, with up to 46 one-month renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on May 8, 2026 for twelve days. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of May 20, 2026.

Bidder Address, City, State, Zip Code SDVOB* GDBE**

AMN Leadership Solutions, Inc.

2999 Olympus Boulevard, Suite 500, Coppell, TX 75019

No No https://www.michigan.gov/dtmb/policies/state-ad-board https://www.michigan.gov/dtmb/policies/state-ad-board

Version 2024-2 Page 2 of 49

ATW Health Solutions, Inc.

625 W. Adams, 19th Floor, Chicago, IL 60661 No No

Be Kind Lyfe 2500 Dallas Highway, Ste 202 #1102, Marietta, GA 30064

No No

Brooks Coaching & Consulting LLC

2737 Norbert St, Flint, MI 48504 No No

Culture Shift Consulting Group

4220 Duncan Ave, Suite 201, St Louis, MO 63110 No No

Cameron Leadership Consulting LLC

3686 Orleans Way, Holt, MI 48842 No No

Dr. King Speaks, Inc. 845 187th Street, Homewood, IL 60430 No No

Equity and Results Consulting LLC

169 Hunter St., Kingston, NY 12401 No No

JMG Connects, LLC 2801 Clark St., Detroit, MI 48210 No Yes

Lakeya Cherry LLC 4315 3rd Ave. #2104, San Diego, CA 92103 No No

Lisa Peacock Professional Services, LLC

13804 S. West Bay Shore Drive, Unit 20, Traverse City, MI 49684

No No

LiveToWynn, LLC 200 Noth Jefferson Street, Suite 1705, Chicago, IL 60661

No No

Perspectivity International, LLC

700 Highlander Blvd. Suite 400, Arlington, TX 76015 No No

Robbins’ Nest Consulting, LLC

4057 N Mayfair Rd., Wauwatosa, WI 53222 No No

SARGAD LLC 755 W Big Beaver Rd, Suite 2020, Troy, MI, 48084 No No

Saving All Lame Excuses, LLC

7085 Nantucket Dr. SW, Byron Center, MI 49315 No No

The Quality Coaching Company, LLC

3068 Windfield Cir, Tucker, GA 30084 No No

*SDVOB: Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Business **GDBE: Geographically Disadvantaged Business Enterprise

Version 2024-2 Page 3 of 49

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

Bidders had the ability to submit responses for any or all of the training topics identified in Schedule A. Awards were made to all Contractors who meet the evaluation criteria set forth in this RFP for one or more training topic The State evaluated proposals for Training 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 based on the following factors:

Service Capabilities- Technical Evaluation Criteria

*To be scored once for all selected trainings

Weight

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1.1. A 20

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1.1. B 20

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1.2- 7 10

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet 10

Training #1- Adaptive Leadership Development

Delivery Capabilities- Technical Evaluation Criteria Weight

1. Composite Score from Service Capabilities Above 60

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1.1 C. 1. Training #1 40

Total 100

Training #2- Psychological Safety and Team Functioning

1. Composite Score from Service Capabilities Above 60

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1.1 C. 2. Training #2 40

Training #3- Health Equity Capacity Building

Version 2024-2 Page 4 of 49

Delivery Capabilities- Technical Evaluation Criteria Weight

1. Composite Score from Service Capabilities Above 60

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1.1 C. 3. Training #3 40

Training #4- Transformative Leadership Training

1. Composite Score from Service Capabilities Above 60

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1.1 C. 4. Training #4 40

Training #5- Senior Leadership Coaching

1. Composite Score from Service Capabilities Above 60

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1.1 C. 5. Training #5 40

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 (JEC), which consisted of the following individuals:

Voting Advisory

Alison Von Buchwald-Wright, State Assistant Administrator MDHHS/Public Health Administration

Sarah Oumedian, Departmental Specialist

MDHHS/BGP

Jasmine Hardy, Bureau Health Equity Strategist MDHHS/Public Health Administration/Bureau of Infectious Disease Prevention

Taylor Livingston, Departmental Analyst

MDHHS/BGP

Tamara Brickey, Workforce Development Director MDHHS/Public Health Administration

Version 2024-2 Page 5 of 49

III. Evaluation Results

A. AMN Leadership Solutions, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that AMN Leadership Solutions, Inc. 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 1.1. A (-8 Points)

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The Bidder response lacked detail, and a description of how the requirements will be met. Bidder reworded the requirements as a response.

The Bidder’s approach to addressing anti-racism health equity does not align with the State’s needs. (-5 Points)

b. The Bidder did not follow proposal instructions as responses for case studies were provided in individual training responses and one training was internal. (- 3 Points)

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1.1. B (-4 Points)

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The Bidder response lacked detail and did not demonstrate how they will comply with the requirements. Bidder reworded the requirements as a response. (-2 Points)

b. The Bidder did not describe how they would comply with the requirement to discuss evaluation feedback with the State Program Manager. (-1 Point)

c. The Bidder did not describe how they would comply with the requirement to ensure training materials are representative of the population and do not promote negative stereotypes. (-1 Point)

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1.2-7

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

5. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1.1 C.1. Training #1 (-20 Points)

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The Bidder response repeated requirements and did not describe how they will codesign a training curriculum that includes learning modules rooted in adaptive leadership theory. (-4 Points)

Version 2024-2 Page 6 of 49

b. The Bidder response repeated requirements and did not describe how they will codesign a training curriculum that includes framework, tools, and exercises to navigate complex challenges, collaboration, and change management. (-4 Points)

c. The Bidder response regarding building competencies repeats the requirement and does not describe how they will support the training requirements or how they will be incorporated into the proposed training modules. (-2 Points)

d. The Bidder response regarding embedding equity repeats the requirement and does not describe how they will support the training requirements or how they will be incorporated into the proposed training modules. (-2 Points)

e. The Bidder response regarding strengthening organizational capacity repeats the requirement and does not describe how they will support the training requirements or how they will be incorporated into the proposed training modules. (-2 Points)

f. The Bidder’s provided experiences did not effectively demonstrate the relevance to the work described in this training. The evaluators would have liked to see more quantitative results. (-6 Points)

6. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1.1 C. 2. Training #2 (-20 Points)

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The Bidder response repeated requirements and did not describe how they will codesign a training curriculum that facilitates experiential learning. (-4 Points)

b. The Bidder response repeated requirements and did not describe how they will codesign a training curriculum that integrates trauma informed leadership, grief support, and emotionally intelligent communication practices. (-4 Points)

c. The Bidder response regarding building competencies repeats the requirement and does not describe how they will support the training requirements or how they will be incorporated into the proposed training modules. (-2 Points)

d. The Bidder response regarding embedding equity repeats the requirement and does not describe how they will support the training requirements or how they will be incorporated into the proposed training modules. (-2 Points)

e. The Bidder response regarding strengthening organizational capacity repeats the requirement and does not describe how they will support the training requirements or how they will be incorporated into the proposed training modules. (-2 Points)

Version 2024-2 Page 7 of 49

f. The Bidder’s provided experiences did not effectively demonstrate the relevance to the work described in this training. The evaluators would have liked to see more quantitative results. (-6 Points)

7. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1.1 C. 3. Training #3 (-21 Points)

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were not satisfactory, the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The Bidder response repeated requirements and did not describe how they will codesign a training curriculum that incorporates health disparities, structural and social determinants of health, Root Cause Analysis, and Health in All Policies approaches. (-4 Points)

b. The Bidder response did not discuss mechanisms to assess learning outcomes and staff competency . (-5 Points)

c. The Bidder response regarding building competencies repeats the requirement and does not describe how they will support the training requirements or how they will be incorporated into the proposed training modules. (-2 Points)

d. The Bidder response regarding embedding equity repeats the requirement and does not describe how they will support the training requirements or how they will be incorporated into the proposed training modules. (-2 Points)

e. The Bidder response regarding strengthening organizational capacity repeats the requirement and does not describe how they will support the training requirements or how they will be incorporated into the proposed training modules. (-2 Points)

f. The Bidder’s provided experiences did not effectively demonstrate the relevance to the work described in this training. The evaluators would have liked to see more quantitative results. (-6 Points)

8. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1.1 C. 4. Training #4 (-16 Points)

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The Bidder response repeated requirements and did not describe how they will codesign a training curriculum that incorporates frameworks, tools and exercises on the topics of Emotional Intelligence, Strategic Communication, Change Management and Ethical Decision Making. (-4 Points)

b. The Bidder response regarding building competencies repeats the requirement and does not describe how they will support the training

Version 2024-2 Page 8 of 49

c. The Bidder response regarding embedding equity repeats the requirement and does not describe how they will support the training requirements or how they will be incorporated into the proposed training modules. (-2 Points)

d. The Bidder response regarding strengthening organizational capacity repeats the requirement and does not describe how they will support the training requirements or how they will be incorporated into the proposed training modules. (-2 Points)

e. The Bidder’s provided experiences did not effectively demonstrate the relevance to the work described in this training. The evaluators would have liked to see more quantitative results. (-6 Points)

9. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1.1 C. 5. Training #5 (-12 Points)

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The Bidder response regarding building competencies repeats the requirement and does not describe how they will support the training requirements or how they will be incorporated into the proposed training modules. (-2 Points)

b. The Bidder response regarding embedding equity repeats the requirement and does not describe how they will support the training requirements or how they will be incorporated into the proposed training modules. (-2 Points)

c. The Bidder response regarding strengthening organizational capacity repeats the requirement and does not describe how they will support the training requirements or how they will be incorporated into the proposed training modules. (-2 Points)

d. The Bidder’s provided experiences did not effectively demonstrate the relevance to the work described in this training. The evaluators would have liked to see more quantitative results. (-6 Points)

Training #1 Total Score: 68/100

Training #2 Total Score: 68/100

Training #3 Total Score: 67/100

Training #4 Total Score: 72/100

Training #5 Total Score: 76/100

B. ATW Health Solutions, Inc.

ATW Health Solutions, Inc. has not met the requirements of being responsive and responsible due to failure to follow instructions and submit a complete proposal. This bidder did not complete and attach the Schedule A – Statement of Work. The provided response did not include bidder boxes or follow our numbering structure.

Version 2024-2 Page 9 of 49

C. Be Kind Lyfe

Be Kind Lyfe has not met the requirements of being responsive and responsible due to failure to follow instructions and submit a complete proposal. This bidder did not complete and attach the Confidential Treatment Form, Vendor Questions Worksheet, Schedule A – Statement of Work or Schedule B - Pricing. The provided response did not include bidder boxes or follow RFP numbering structure.

D. Brooks Coaching & Consulting LLC

Brooks Coaching & Consulting LLC has not met the requirements of being responsive and responsible due to failure to follow instructions and submit a complete proposal.

The bidder did not complete and attach the Confidential Treatment Form or Schedule A

– Statement of Work. The provided response did not include bidder boxes or follow RFP numbering structure.

E. Culture Shift Consulting Group

The Evaluation Team determined that Culture Shift Consulting Group 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 1.1. A (-10 Points)

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The Bidder response did not describe which staff hold the required experience. (-4 Points)

b. The Bidder response did not describe which staff members have each of the required experience, credentials, and certifications. (-3 Points)

c. The Bidder did not describe their successful implementation of leadership programs with measurable outcomes of at least three case studies or references. The named case studies are not relevant to the work in this RFP.

(-3 Points)

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1.1. B (-11 Points)

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were not satisfactory, the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The Bidder response lacked detail, and a description of how the requirements will be met. Bidder reworded the requirements as a response.

(-2 Points)

b. The Bidder did not describe how they would comply with the requirement to ensure the primary trainer is present at each training session. (-1 Point)

c. The Bidder did not describe how they would comply with the requirement to discuss evaluation feedback with the State Program Manager. (-1 Point)

Version 2024-2 Page 10 of 49

d. The Bidder did not describe how they would comply with the requirement to maintain training materials to reflect current laws and policy. (-1 Point)

e. The Bidder did not describe how they would comply with the requirement to revise and submit approved training materials to the State Program Manager 30 days prior to scheduled training sessions. (-1 Point)

f. The Bidder did not describe how they would comply with the requirement to allow MDHHS to reproduce copies of materials and handouts. (-1 Point)

g. The Bidder did not describe how they would comply with the requirement to allow MDHHS to record the presentations. (-1 Point)

h. The Bidder did not describe how they would comply with the requirement to make own arrangements and pay for transportation, lodging, and meals. (-1 Point)

i. The Bidder did not describe how they would comply with the requirement to support the MDHHS Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Plan. (- 1 Points)

j. The Bidder did not describe how they would comply with the requirement to ensure training materials are representative of the population and do not promote negative stereotypes. (-1 Point)

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1.2- 7 (-6 Points)

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The Bidder did not provide resumes of all proposed Key Personnel. (-2 Point)

b. The Bidder did not provide overall organizational chart. (-2 Point)

c. The Bidder did not provide sample reports demonstrating reporting capabilities. (-2 Point)

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet (-1 Points)

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The Bidder response did not discuss company history. (-1 Point)

5. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1.1 C. 1. Training #1 (-24 Points)

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were not satisfactory, the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The Bidder did not provide a response on how they will codesign a training curriculum that includes learning modules rooted in adaptive leadership theory. (-5 Points)

Version 2024-2 Page 11 of 49

b. The Bidder did not provide a response on how they will codesign a training curriculum that includes framework, tools, and exercises to navigate complex challenges, collaboration, and change management. (-5 Points)

c. The Bidder did not provide a response on how they will develop and administer evaluation and reporting requirements. (-5 Points)

d. The Bidder response regarding building competencies repeats the requirement and does not describe how they will support the training requirements or how they will be incorporated into the proposed training modules. (-2 Points)

e. The Bidder response regarding embedding equity repeats the requirement and does not describe how they will support the training requirements or how they will be incorporated into the proposed training modules. (-2 Points)

f. The Bidder response regarding strengthening organizational capacity repeats the requirement and does not describe how they will support the training requirements or how they will be incorporated into the proposed training modules. (-2 Points)

g. The Bidder’s provided experiences did not effectively demonstrate the relevance to the work described in this training. (-3 Points)

6. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1.1 C. 2. Training #2 (-24 Points)

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were not satisfactory, the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The Bidder did not provide a response on how they will codesign a training curriculum that facilitates experiential learning. (-4 Points)

b. The Bidder did not provide a response on how they will codesign a training curriculum that integrates trauma informed leadership, grief support, and emotionally intelligent communication practices. (-4 Points)

c. The Bidder did not provide a response on how they will develop and administer evaluation and reporting requirements. (-4 Points)

d. The Bidder response regarding building competencies repeats the requirement and does not describe how they will support the training requirements or how they will be incorporated into the proposed training modules. (-2 Points)

e. The Bidder response regarding embedding equity repeats the requirement and does not describe how they will support the training requirements or how they will be incorporated into the proposed training modules. (-2 Points)

f. The Bidder response regarding strengthening organizational capacity repeats the requirement and does not describe how they will support the training

Version 2024-2 Page 12 of 49 requirements or how they will be incorporated into the proposed training modules. (-2 Points)

g. The Bidder’s provided experiences did not effectively demonstrate the relevance to the work described in this training. The evaluators would have liked to see more quantitative results. (-6 Points)

7. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1.1 C. 3. Training #3 (-27 Points)

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were not satisfactory, the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The Bidder did not provide a response on how they will codesign a training curriculum that incorporates modules on health disparities, structural and social determinants of health, Root Cause Analysis, and Health in All Policies approaches. (-5 Points)

b. The Bidder did not provide a response on how they will codesign a training curriculum that integrates mechanisms to assess learning outcomes and staff competency improvements. (-5 Points)

c. The Bidder did not provide a response on how they will develop and administer evaluation and reporting requirements. (-5 Points)

d. The Bidder response regarding building competencies repeats the requirement and does not describe how they will support the training requirements or how they will be incorporated into the proposed training modules. (-2 Points)

e. The Bidder response regarding embedding equity repeats the requirement and does not describe how they will support the training requirements or how they will be incorporated into the proposed training modules. (-2 Points)

f. The Bidder response regarding strengthening organizational capacity repeats the requirement and does not describe how they will support the training requirements or how they will be incorporated into the proposed training modules. (-2 Points)

g. The Bidder’s provided experiences did not effectively demonstrate the relevance to the work described in this training. The evaluators would have liked to see more quantitative results. (-6 Points)

8. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1.1 C.4. Training #4 (-21 Points)

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were not satisfactory, the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The Bidder did not provide a response on how they will codesign a training curriculum that integrates frameworks, tools and exercises on the topics of Emotional Intelligence, Strategic Communication, Change Management and Ethical Decision Making. (-4 Points)

Version 2024-2 Page 13 of 49

b. The Bidder did not provide a response on how they will develop and administer evaluation and reporting requirements. (-5 Points)

h. The Bidder response regarding building competencies repeats the requirement and does not describe how they will support the training requirements or how they will be incorporated into the proposed training modules. (-2 Points)

i. The Bidder response regarding embedding equity repeats the requirement and does not describe how they will support the training requirements or how they will be incorporated into the proposed training modules. (-2 Points)

j. The Bidder response regarding strengthening organizational capacity repeats the requirement and does not describe how they will support the training requirements or how they will be incorporated into the proposed training modules. (-2 Points)

k. The Bidder’s provided experiences did not effectively demonstrate the relevance to the work described in this training. The evaluators would have liked to see more quantitative results. (-6 Points)

9. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1.1 C. 5. Training #5 (-22 Points)

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were not satisfactory, the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The Bidder did not provide a response on how they will codesign a training curriculum that integrates one-to-one and small group coaching focusing on commitment to health equity, personal resilience and adaptive thinking, systems thinking and collaboration, organizational culture and change management, and psychological safety. (-5 Points)

b. The Bidder did not provide a response on how they will develop and administer evaluation and reporting requirements. (-5 Points)

c. The Bidder response regarding building competencies repeats the requirement and does not describe how they will support the training requirements or how they will be incorporated into the proposed training modules. (-2 Points)

d. The Bidder response regarding embedding equity repeats the requirement and does not describe how they will support the training requirements or how they will be incorporated into the proposed training modules. (-2 Points)

e. The Bidder response regarding strengthening organizational capacity repeats the requirement and does not describe how they will support the training

Version 2024-2 Page 14 of 49

f. The Bidder’s provided experiences did not effectively demonstrate the relevance to the work described in this training. The evaluators would have liked to see more quantitative results. (-6 Points)

Training #1 Total Score: 48/100

Training #2 Total Score: 48/100

Training #3 Total Score: 45/100

Training #4 Total Score: 51/100

Training #5 Total Score: 50/100

F. Cameron Leadership Consulting LLC

Cameron Leadership Consulting LLC has not met the requirements of being responsive and responsible due to failure to follow instructions and submit a complete proposal.

The bidder did not complete and attach Schedule A – Statement of Work. The provided response did not include bidder boxes but did follow RFP numbering structure.

G. Dr. King Speaks, Inc.

Dr. King Speaks, Inc. has not met the requirements of being responsive and responsible due to failure to follow instructions and submit a complete proposal. The bidder did not complete and attach the Confidential Treatment Form or Schedule A – Statement of Work. The provided response did not include bidder boxes but did follow RFP numbering structure.

H. Equity and Results Consulting LLC

The Evaluation Team determined that Equity and Results Consulting LLC 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 1.1. A

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1.1. B

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1.2- 7

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

5. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1.1 C. 1. Training #1 (-3 Point)

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

Version 2024-2 Page 15 of 49

a. The Bidder’s experience provided lacked detail, evaluators would have liked to see more quantitative results. (-3 Points)

6. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1.1 C. 2. Training #2 (-4 Point)

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The Bidder did not provide a response to blackout training dates. (-1 Point)

b. The Bidder’s experience provided lacked detail, evaluators would have liked to see more quantitative results. (-3 Points)

7. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1.1 C. 3. Training #3 (-4 Points)

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The Bidder did not provide a response to blackout training dates. (-1 Point)

b. The Bidder’s experience provided lacked detail, evaluators would have liked to see more quantitative results. (-3 Points)

8. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1.1 C. 4. Training #4 (-1 Points)

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The Bidder did not provide a response to blackout training dates. (-1 Point)

9. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1.1 C. 5. Training #5 (-1 Points)

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The Bidder did not provide a response to blackout training dates. (-1 Point)

Training #1 Total Score: 97/100

Training #2 Total Score: 96/100

Training #3 Total Score: 96/100

Training #4 Total Score: 99/100

Training #5 Total Score: 99/100

I. JMG Connects, LLC

The Evaluation Team determined that JMG Connects, LLC 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 1.1. A

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1.1. B

Version 2024-2 Page 16 of 49

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1.2- 7 (-4 Points)

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The Bidder did not complete the Key Personnel table provided to clearly identify required information (i.e., which key personnel positions are being fulfilled, roles and responsibilities, length of employment or affiliation with the Contractor, percentage of work time devoted to the Contract, and staff member location during the Contract performance). (-2 Points)

b. The Bidder did not provide resumes of all proposed Key Personnel. (-2 Point)

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

5. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1.1 C. 1. Training #1 (-6 Points)

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. . The Bidder’s provided experiences did not effectively demonstrate the relevance to the work described in this training. The evaluators would have liked to see more quantitative results. (-6 Points)

6. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1.1 C. 2. Training #2 (-6 Points)

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The Bidder’s provided experiences did not effectively demonstrate the relevance to the work described in this training. The evaluators would have liked to see more quantitative results. (-6 Points)

7. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1.1 C. 3. Training #3 (-6 Points)

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The Bidder’s provided experiences did not effectively demonstrate the relevance to the work described in this training. The evaluators would have liked to see more quantitative results. (-6 Points)

8. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1.1 C. 4. Training #4 (-6 Points)

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The Bidder’s provided experiences did not effectively demonstrate the relevance to the work described in this training. The evaluators would have liked to see more quantitative results. (-6 Points)

Version 2024-2 Page 17 of 49

9. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1.1 C. 5. Training #5 (-6 Points)

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The Bidder’s provided experiences did not effectively demonstrate the relevance to the work described in this training. The evaluators would have liked to see more quantitative results. (-6 Points)

Training #1 Total Score: 90/100

Training #2 Total Score: 90/100

Training #3 Total Score: 90/100

Training #4 Total Score: 90/100

Training #5 Total Score: 90/100

J. Lakeya Cherry LLC

The Evaluation Team determined that Lakeya Cherry LLC 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 1.1. A (-2 Points)

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The Bidder did not follow proposal instructions as responses for case studies were provided in individual training responses. (-2 Points)

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1.1. B (-7 Points)

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The Bidder response did not discuss how training curriculum would align with anti-racist pedagogy and decolonial frameworks. (-1 Point)

b. The Bidder did not describe how they would comply with the requirement to print and distribute supplemental documents to participants. (-1 Point)

c. The Bidder did not describe how they would comply with the requirement to incorporate and utilize adult learning principles as part of the presentation method. (-1 Point)

d. The Bidder did not describe how they would comply with the requirement to review results from student evaluations and incorporate suggestions regarding training methods into future trainings. (-1 Point)

e. The Bidder did not describe how they would comply with the requirement to discuss evaluation feedback with the State Program Manager. (-1 Point)

Version 2024-2 Page 18 of 49

f. The Bidder did not describe how they would comply with the requirement to maintain training materials to reflect current laws and policy. (-1 Point)

g. The Bidder did not describe how they would comply with the requirement to revise and submit approved training materials to the State Program Manager.

(-1 Point)

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1.2- 7

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

5. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1.1 C. 5. Training #5 (-7 Points)

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The Bidder did not provide a response on how they will develop and administer evaluation and reporting requirements. (-5 Points)

b. The Bidder response regarding building competencies repeats the requirement and does not describe how they will support the training requirements or how they will be incorporated into the proposed training modules. (-2 Points)

Training #5 Total Score: 84/100

K. Lisa Peacock Professional Services, LLC

The Evaluation Team determined that Lisa Peacock Professional Services, LLC 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 1.1. A (-4 Point)

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The Bidder response did not include all required credentials and experience in this bidder box. The experience with Lisa Peacock Professional Services, LLC is only four years. (-4 Point)

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1.1. B

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1.2- 7

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet

Version 2024-2 Page 19 of 49

5. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1.1 C. 4. Training #4

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

6. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1.1 C. 5. Training #5 (-2 Points)

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The Bidder response regarding building competencies repeats the requirement and does not describe how they will support the training requirements or how they will be incorporated into the proposed training modules. (-2 Points)

Training #4 Total Score: 96/100

Training #5 Total Score: 94/100

L. LiveToWynn, LLC

LiveToWynn, LLC has not met the requirements of being responsive and responsible due to failure to follow instructions and submit a complete proposal. The bidder did not complete the Schedule A – Statement of Work. The provided response did not include completed bidder boxes or follow RFP numbering structure.

M. Perspectivity International, LLC

The Evaluation Team determined that Perspectivity International, LLC 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 1.1. A (-6 Points)

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The Bidder did not demonstrate their experience in: (a.) designing and delivering leadership development programs in public health, governmental, or comparable sectors, (b.) expertise in transformative, adaptive, and health equity-focused leadership, with measurable outcome, (c.) experience applying anti-racist, intersectional, and culturally responsive frameworks, or (e.) expertise in leadership, equity, coaching, and instructional design. (-4 Points)

b. The Bidder did not demonstrate how their credentials and experience related to public health, equity, health equity, or related fields. (-2 Points)

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1.1. B (-5 Points)

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were not satisfactory, the following deficiencies were noted:

Version 2024-2 Page 20 of 49

a. The Bidder did not demonstrate how they will comply with the development of training curriculum requirements or relevant inclusion of anti-racist pedagogy and decolonial frameworks. (-2 Points)

b. The Bidder response did not include that training materials will be emailed to participants at least five days before each scheduled training session. (-1 Point)

c. The Bidder response to supporting the MDHHS Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Plan repeated the prompt and did not demonstrate how they will comply with this requirement. (-1 Point)

d. The Bidder response to ensuring training materials are representative of the population and do not promote negative stereotypes repeated the prompt and did not demonstrate how they will comply with this requirement. (-1 Point)

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1.2- 7 (-8 Points)

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were not satisfactory, the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The Bidder did not describe how the data retention, disposal, and retrieval requirements will be met. (-1 Point)

b. The Bidder did not identify Key Personnel full names and responsibilities that would be assigned to the contract in the designated table. (-2 Points)

c. The Bidder did not provide resumes of all proposed Key Personnel. (-2 Points)

d. The Bidders Organizational Chart did not provide full staff names. (-1 Point)

e. The Bidder did not provide sample reports demonstrating reporting capabilities. (-2 Points)

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet (-2 Points)

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The Bidder response lacked detail on company history, did not provide the number of employees, did not discuss partnerships, and reworded requirements as a response. (-2 Points)

5. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1.1 C. 1. Training #1 (-19 Points)

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were not satisfactory, the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The Bidder response repeated requirements and did not describe how they will codesign a training curriculum that includes learning modules rooted in adaptive leadership theory. (-4 Points)

Version 2024-2 Page 21 of 49

b. The Bidder response repeated requirements and did not describe how they will codesign a training curriculum that includes framework, tools, and exercises to navigate complex challenges, collaboration, and change management. (-4 Points)

c. The Bidder did not provide a response on how they will develop and administer evaluation and reporting requirements. (-5 Points)

d. The Bidder’s provided experiences did not effectively demonstrate the relevance to the work described in this training. The evaluators would have liked to see more quantitative results. (-6 Points)

6. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1.1 C. 2. Training #2 (-18 Points)

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were not satisfactory, the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The Bidder response repeated requirements and did not describe how they will codesign a training curriculum that facilitates experiential learning. (-4 Points)

b. The Bidder response repeated requirements and did not describe how they will codesign a training curriculum that integrates trauma informed leadership, grief support, and emotionally intelligent communication practices. (-4 Points)

c. The Bidder response on how they will develop and administer evaluation and reporting requirements repeated the prompt. (-4 Points)

d. The Bidder’s provided experiences did not effectively demonstrate the relevance to the work described in this training. The evaluators would have liked to see more quantitative results. (-6 Points)

7. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1.1 C. 4. Training #4 (-15 Points)

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The Bidder response repeated requirements and did not describe how they will codesign a training curriculum that incorporates frameworks, tools and exercises on the topics of Emotional Intelligence, Strategic Communication, Change Management and Ethical Decision Making. (-4 Points)

b. The Bidder did not provide a response on how they will develop and administer evaluation and reporting requirements. (-5 Points)

c. The Bidder’s provided experiences did not effectively demonstrate the relevance to the work described in this training. The evaluators would have

8. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1.1 C. 5. Training #5 (-9 Points)

Version 2024-2 Page 22 of 49

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were not satisfactory, the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The Bidder response related to the focus of one-to-one and small group coaching repeated the requirements and did not describe how they would comply. (-4 Points)

b. The Bidder did not provide a response on how they will develop and administer evaluation and reporting requirements. (-5 Points)

Training #1 Total Score: 60/100

Training #2 Total Score: 61/100

Training #4 Total Score: 64/100

Training #5 Total Score: 70/100

N. Robbins’ Nest Consulting, LLC

The Evaluation Team determined that Robbins’ Nest Consulting, LLC 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 1.1. A (-20 Points)

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were not satisfactory, the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The Bidder agreed to the requirements with no exception but did not provide a response in the bidder box describing how they would comply with the requirements. (-20 Points)

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1.1. B (-20 Points)

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were not satisfactory, the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The Bidder agreed to the requirements with no exception but did not provide a response in the bidder box describing how they would comply with the requirements. (-20 Points)

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1.2- 7

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet (-1 Point)

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The Bidder did not respond to affirmation or provide exceptions to Standard Contract Terms. (-1 Points)

5. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1.1 C. 2. Training #2

Version 2024-2 Page 23 of 49

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

6. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1.1 C. 4. Training #4

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

7. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1.1 C. 5. Training #5

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

Training #2 Total Score: 59/100

Training #4 Total Score: 59/100

Training #5 Total Score: 59/100

O. SARGAD LLC

The Evaluation Team determined that SARGAD LLC 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 1.1. A (-7 Points)

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The Bidder response lacked detail and did not describe how they meet minimum credentials and experience requirements. (-3 Points)

b. The Bidder’s response did not meet the requirement of having five or more years of experience in leadership training. (-4 Points)

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1.1. B (-4 Points)

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The Bidder response on training technique was not sufficient for the State’s needs and lacked detail on the training curriculum. (-2 Points)

b. The Bidder did not describe how they would support the MDHHS Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Plan. (-1 Point)

c. The Bidder did not describe how they would ensure training materials are representative of the population, and do not promote negative stereotypes.

(-1 Point)

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1.2- 7

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory.

4. Vendor Questions Worksheet

5. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1.1 C. 1. Training #1 (-20 Points)

Version 2024-2 Page 24 of 49

The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. The Bidder response repeated requirements and did not describe how they will codesign a training curriculum that includes learning modules rooted in adaptive leadership theory. (-4 Points)

b. The Bidder response repeated requirements and did not describe how they will codesign a training incorporating framework, tools, and exercises to navigate complex challenges, collaboration, and change management. (-4 Points)

c. The Bidder response regarding building competencies repeats the requirement and does not describe how they will support the training requirements or how they will be incorporated into the proposed training modules. (-2 Points)

d. The Bidder response regarding embedding equity repeats the requirement and does not describe how they will support the training requirements or how they will be incorporated into the proposed training modules. (-2 Points)

e. The Bidder response regarding strengthening organizational capacity repeats the…