RFP25-961 Award Recommendation and Evaluation Synopsis Final.docx

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

Notice of Intent to Award Number: 250000000735 Notice of Intent to Award Date: 6/3/2025

The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services has completed the evaluation of RFP 250000000961 for Family Preservation – In-Home Family Services in Baraga, Houghton & Keweenaw Counties and has recommended an award to Copper Shores Community Health Foundation in the amount of $300,000.00, 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:

Mae Simon, Solicitation Manager.

Simonm9@michigan.gov Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor to provide Family Preservation – In-Home Family Services. The term of this contract is 3 years, with up to 2, one-year renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on February 13, 2025. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of March 13, 2025.

Houghton, MI 49931-0428

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

EVALUATION SYNOPSIS

I. Evaluation Process A Responsible Vendor is a vendor that demonstrates it has the ability to successfully perform the duties identified by the solicitation. A Responsive proposal is one that is submitted in accordance with the solicitation instructions and meets all mandatory requirements identified in the solicitation.

Proposal Instructions: Evaluation Process The State will evaluate each proposal based on the following factors:

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

III. Evaluation Results

A. Bidder #1 Good Will Farm Association, Inc. (DBA: U.P. KIDS)

1. Experience and Qualifications- Category A (condensed RFP) Score _15_/_15_

2. Delivery Capability- Category B (condensed RFP) Score _36_/_40_

B4. (-3) Raters thought the bidder’s response was very vague when addressing the staff’s availability during non-traditional work hours. Raters would have liked to see a more detailed plan on how these time frames, including evenings, weekends, and mornings would be addressed.

B5. (-1) Bidder’s plan to continue services if staff turnover occurred included pulling staff from other programs and/or coverage areas, however, did not touch upon anything related to hiring new staff. Raters would have liked to see reference made to a hiring process to fill behind the departed staff.

3. Service Capability and Understanding – Category C (condensed RFP) Score _31_/_40_

C1. (-4) Bidder response did not identify how they would actively engage clients or what steps would be taken to develop the clients’ goals. Bidder response was vague and lacked specific details and steps that would be considered documented efforts towards the development and maintenance of obtainable goals. No reference was mentioned to any type of form or tool that would be used to develop these goals with the client.

C2. (-1) Bidder identified numerous community resources but did not clearly identify how they would collaborate with those resources to connect clients to the services available. Raters would have liked to see more detail on the collaboration efforts between themselves and the community resources to utilize the available services to meet the needs of the clients.

C3. (-2) Bidder did not indicate or describe what their role would be in the treatment/service plan development process, nor what the service plan would include. Raters wanted to see the bidder elaborate on the sentence that indicated that each area scored as needing improvement comes with suggestions. Raters were wanting more detail as to what that included, who would offer the suggestions and how those suggestions would be implemented.

C4. (-2) Bidder response failed to mention that specific assistance requests need to be authorized and approved by MDHHS local office administrator. Bidder response did not indicate that the written plan to administer specific assistance also requires MDHHS approval. Both of these approvals are outlined in the RFP however, bidder failed to address the approval process for use of specific assistance funds.

4. Instructions for Bidders and Vendor Questions Worksheet (VQW) - Category D (condensed RFP) Score _30_/_30_

B. Bidder #2 Copper Shores Community Health Foundation

1. Experience and Qualifications- Category A (condensed RFP) Score _15_/_15_

2. Delivery Capability- Category B (condensed RFP) Score _38_/_40_

B2. (-2) Bidder response included the referral process and how referral sources would be made aware of service availability however, it did not contain an accurate description or knowledge of the client eligibility criteria or who the actual referral source is, as outlined in the RFP.

3. Service Capability and Understanding – Category C (condensed RFP) Score _39_/_40_

C2. (-1) Bidder identified numerous community resources and the services they provide but did not clearly identify how they would connect the clients to these community resources.

4. Instructions for Bidders and Vendor Questions Worksheet (VQW) - Category D (condensed RFP) Score _30_/_30_

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

V. Technical Evaluation Summary – Number of Units Proposed

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

VII. Negotiations 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.

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 Copper Shores Community Health Foundation in the amount of $300,000.00.

Version 2023-1 image1.png