RFP26-1271 Award Recommendation and Evaluation Synopsis.docx

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

Notice of Intent to Award Number: 260000000686 Notice of Intent to Award Date: 7/29/2026 The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services has completed the evaluation of Permanency and Connections Expert (PACE) services statewide and has recommended an award to Orchards Children’s Services, Inc. in the amount of $9,570,000.00, 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 Permanency and Connections Expert (PACE) services. The term of this contract is three years, with up to two, one-year renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on May 21, 2026, for 5 weeks and 1 day. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of June 26, 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 a joint evaluation committee, which consisted of the following individuals:

Jessica Sweet, MDHHS Division Director - Foster Care, Adoption and Guardianship

Kristin Horattas, MDHHS State Administrative Manager

III. Evaluation Results

A. Methodist Children's Home Society

1. Bidder Experience and Past Performance- Category A Score 17/20

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

a. Category A1-a. Sub Question 1. The bidder did not include their foster care contract (MA230000001201) in the chart which is relevant service for this bid. – 1 point

b. Category A1-b. Sub Questions 2&3. The outcomes listed in the Actual Performance Outcome(s) column are generic and do not provide specific outcomes that were met for the services provided. – 2 points.

2. Education, Credentials & Qualifications- Category B Score 10/15

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

a. Category B1. The bidder did not include the position title, credentials, length of experience required for the PACE Recruiter. – 1 point.

b. Category B2. The bidder stated they possess extensive experience providing services that are substantially similar to those described in this RFP. The bidder’s response, however, did not provide specific details to demonstrate they possess the experience, qualifications, capacity, and skills to provide the services described in this RFP. – 4 points.

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:

a. Category C2. The caseload range identified in the RFP is 12–15. With nearly 250 ARC youth transitioning to PACE in addition to ongoing PACE referrals, the projected workload exceeds the stated capacity. – 1 point

b. Category C3. The bidder proposed 1.0 FTE for the PACE Program Supervisor, 1.0 FTE for the PACE Permanency Review Facilitator and 1.0 FTE for the Administrative Support Specialist. One FTE per position does not allow or account for staff time off for holiday, sick and personal time. – 2 points.

c. Category C4. The bidder did not provide specific details on how the training prepares staff for providing the proposed services. – 1 point

d. Category C5. The bidder’s organizational chart was difficult to read. No points deducted.

e. Category C6. The bidder stated they would immediately reassign vacant caseloads to existing Permanency and Connections Experts, the Permanency Review Facilitator and supervisory staff to prevent service disruptions. Transferring a caseload to the Permanency Review Facilitator is contrary to the requirements of the contract, which states, the Contractor must provide a PACE Permanency Review Facilitator to lead, coordinate, and monitor Annual Permanency Review Meetings for youth enrolled in the PACE program. – 1 point.

4. Program Implementation- Category D Score 37/45

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

a. Category D1. The bidder did not provide details on how they will meet the needs of the rural population. No points deducted.

b. Category D4. The bidder did not provide details demonstrating how the activities they perform will be fully implemented or maintained as required in the RFP. The response described the steps at a very high level and did not address operational specifics, performance expectations, or measurable processes that show the bidder’s capacity to consistently deliver the proposed services. – 3 points.

c. Category D8. The bidder did not provide metrics detailing what permanency outcomes they will be using e.g. completed adoptions, Reunification timeliness, or expectation for performance in these areas. – 2 points.

d. Category D11. The bidder did not identify how they would create new formal and informal working relationships. In addition, the bidder listed types of agencies and organization but did not include actual names of the agencies or organization with whom they work. – 1 point.

e. Category D12. The bidders response lacked detail on how services will be delivered to youth residing far from their listed office locations. The plan does not address how staff will maintain consistent in‑person contact in areas such as Western/Southwestern Michigan and the Upper Peninsula. No points deducted.

f. Category D14. The bidder checked both boxes regarding agreement with the Service Level Agreements (SLAs) rather than checking one or the other. – 2 points.

5. Vendor Question Worksheet (VQW) – Category E Score 21/25

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

a. Item 5. State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience. The bidder did not provide a list (including the contract numbers) of the contracts they hold or have held with the State for the last 10 years. – 1 point.

b. Item 5. State of Michigan Experience and Prior Experience. For all three experiences listed, the bidder listed themselves as the company name and should have listed the company name for the agency with which they contracted. Bidder also failed to provide the contract name, contact phone or contact email for all three experiences listed. – 3 points.

Total Score: 100 B. Spaulding for Children

1. Bidder Experience and Past Performance- Category A Score 15/20

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

a. Category A1. The bidder did not include any Legacy Adoption Services (LAS) contracts in either of the charts which are relevant for this solicitation. The bidder also did not include their own adoption contract. – 2 points.

b. Category A3. The bidder states that they will partner with LAS throughout the entirety of their bid and share responsibilities but did not provide any information regarding LAS client participation, engagement, and investment in the program. – 2 points.

c. Category A4. The bidder did not provide information on any local community resources. – 1 point.

2. Education, Credentials & Qualifications- Category B Score 14/15

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

a. Category B1. The bidder indicated that the supervisor and staff would have the same amount of experience when the supervisor should have more experience than the staff – 1 point.

3. Staffing, Training, Agency Organization & Location – Category C Score 16/20

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

a. Category C1. The bidder indicated that only 2 of the recruiters will be with BSC 5 and 14 for the rest of the state. 2 recruiters seem unrealistic to serve the largest BSC in the state. – 1 point.

b. Category C2. The information on number of recruiters for each BSC does not match what is stated in the bidder’s response for Category C1. – 1 point.

c. Category C5. The bidder states that they will partner with LAS throughout the entirety of the bid and share responsibilities but did not provide and org chart for LAS – 1 point. The org chart provided is unclear whether the program manager role is completing non-PACE program work or not. – 1 point.

d. Category C8. The bidder lacked details regarding the accessibility/availability during non-traditional work hours.

4. Program Implementation- Category D Score 34/45

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

a. Category D3. The bidder states that they will partner with LAS throughout the entirety of the bid and share responsibilities but did not provide confirmation LAS will provide services to the target population without exclusions. – 1 point.

b. Category D5. The bidder states that they will partner with LAS throughout the entirety of the bid but did not include oversite to meet the timelines with LAS. – 1 point.

c. Category D6. The bidder states that they will partner with LAS throughout the entirety of the bid but did not provide details how LAS will be apart of the process for completing the assessments and how treatment plans will be developed and implemented. – 1 point.

d. Category D7. The bidder states that they will partner with LAS throughout the entirety of the bid but lacks details how they will integrate with LAS to develope and meet client goals. – 1 point.

e. Category D8. The bidder did not provide metrics on all types of permanency achieved which is a main goal for the program. – 1 point.

f. Category D10. The bidder states that they will partner with LAS throughout the entirety of the bid but did not include LAS in their plan for notifying MDHHS and/or prospective clients of service availability. – 1 point.

g. Category D11. The bidder did not provide specifics on informal working relationships with relevant community agencies. – 1 point.

h. Category D13. The bidder states that they will partner with LAS throughout the entirety of the bid but did not include them on the plan for use for specific assistance funds. – 1 point.

i. Category D14. The bidder did not check either box regarding agreement with the SLAs. – 2 points.

j. Category D15. The bidder did not include LAS in their plan on data retention, disposal and retrieval and how the requirements will be met. – 1 point.

5. Vendor Question Worksheet (VQW) – Category E Score 25/25

The evaluation team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 104 C. Orchards Children’s Services, Inc.

1. Bidder Experience and Past Performance- Category A Score 19/20

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

Category A1. The bidder did not list all specific outcomes that were met for their Placing Agency Foster Care (PAFC) contract. – 1 point.

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 20/20

The evaluation team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

4. Program Implementation- Category D Score 45/45

The evaluation team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

5. Vendor Question Worksheet (VQW) – Category E Score 25/25

The evaluation team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

Total Score: 124 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. 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.

Orchards Children’s Services, Inc. provided the best value to the State. Best value factors for Award Recommendation include: receiving the highest score and the best combination of factors. The bidder has a sustainable model with appropriate staffing, including five PACE supervisors, one program manager, twenty-two PACE recruiters, four PACE Permanency Review Facilitators and one clerical support staff. Their model is supported by realistic workload assumptions, and a structure that supports long‑term program stability. The proposal reflects both the capacity and readiness to successfully deliver the required services.

As part of the best value determination amongst bidders 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 Orchards Children’s Services, Inc. in the amount of $9,570,000.00.

Version 2023-1 image1.png