RFP26-1639 Award Recommendation and Evaluation Synopsis FINAL.docx

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

Notice of Intent to Award Number: 260000000429 Notice of Intent to Award Date: 6/18/2026

The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services has completed the evaluation of RFP260000001639 Family Preservation In Home Family Services in Livingston County and has recommended an award to Orchards Children’s Services Inc. in the amount of $270,000.00, 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 In Home Family 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 March 30, 2026, for four weeks. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of April 27, 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:

Melissa Rutan MiTEAM Quality Assurance Analyst MDHHS Livingston County Jennifer Williamsen Contract Administrator MDHHS Bureau of Grants and Purchasing

Lacey Hinton Community Resource Coordinator MDHHS Livingston County Jeannetta Johnson Program Manager

MDHHS BSC 4

III. Evaluation Results

A. Bidder #1 Advancing Business Solutions, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Advancing Business Solutions, Inc. based on a score of 87, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Experience and Qualifications- Category A

Score 2/15

A1 – The bidder did not provide any experience that is relevant to the services identified in the RFP. (-4).

A2 – The bidder reported no performance outcomes due to no experience relevant to the RFP. (-5) A4 – The bidder reported no experience that qualifies them to perform the services identified in the RFP. (-4)

2. Delivery Capability- Category B

Score 29/40

B1 – It was unclear to the evaluators what the acronym M.A.P.S. represented in the proposal. The bidder did not confirm the start date of 10/1/26. The recruitment, hiring, and training timeline is not realistic or practical for services in the RFP. (-1) B2 – Monthly notification of program openings would not meet the needs of the contract. (-1) B4 – The bidder states in Frequency of Non-Face to Face Contacts, “If clients are seen for more than 1 hour per month, non-face to face contact could be 2-4 per month (phone, virtual, collateral contacts)”. The RFP requires the client to have weekly and not monthly face-to-face contact. (-1) B5 – The bidder’s proposed number of units does not equate to the number of proposed families served. The bidder estimated between 20 to 40 families to be served per year. The bidder proposed 840 units of billable time in a 12-month period but if the estimated face to face time from B4 of 1 hour of face-to-face time per week + 30 minutes of travel on the low end or 1.5 hours of billable time per week x 20 clients per year x 52 weeks = 1,560 or 1.5 hours of billable time x 40 clients per year x 52 weeks= 3,120 hours of billable time which is higher than the bidders estimate of 840 billable units. (-3) B6 – The bidders proposed staffing allocation does not have enough availability to provide emergency/afterhours support to the proposed number of families served (40 clients). Geographic limitations prevent emergency/after-hours support; The bidder did not discuss the client population for the geographical area that would be served. (-3) B7 – The bidder did not account for training new staff in the hiring timeframe. (-2)

3. Service Capability and Understanding – Category C

Score 37/40

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

C3 – The bidder’s response lacked details regarding specific service methods and delivery. (-3)

4. Instructions for Bidders and Vendor Questions Worksheet (VQW) - Category D

Score 19/30

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

The bidder did not follow instructions regarding labeling each document with their name. (-1) The bidder does not have experience related to intensive home-based services, working with Child Welfare clients, or any experience that demonstrates that the bidder is prepared to provide the services required in the RFP. (-10) B. Bidder #2 Orchards Children’s Services, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Orchards Children’s Services, Inc., based on a score of 124, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Experience and Qualifications- Category A

Score 15/15

The evaluation team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

2. Delivery Capability- Category B

Score 39/40

B6 – The bidder does not state the geographic area of the worker to the location of the county. This is to ensure the availability of the workers to the clients. (-1)

3. Service Capability and Understanding – Category C

Score 40/40

The evaluation team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

4. Instructions for Bidders and Vendor Questions Worksheet (VQW) - Category D

Score 30/30

The evaluation team determined that the responses were satisfactory

C. Bidder #3 Samaritas

The Evaluation Team determined that Samaritas based on a score of 113, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Experience and Qualifications- Category A

Score 13/15

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

A2 – The bidder failed to adequately address or explain performance outcomes standards shortcomings for program #4, outcome #8. There was no explanation as to why the performance outcome was not met. The bidder stated N/A and there should have been an explanation. (-2)

2. Delivery Capability- Category B

Score 30/40

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

B1 – The bidder’s response has grammatical errors, leading to the elevators confusion/misunderstanding of the section. The elevators are concerned that if reports and documents submitted for the contract have similar errors, they would not be clear to the reader. (-1) B3 – The bidder’s Direct Service Worker allocated hours are not adequate for RFP service delivery. The one Direct Service Worker is allocated 28 hours per week according to the chart on B3. The evaluators would have liked to see the Direct Service Worker available 35-40 hours a week to ensure flexible hours for the clients. The travel distance for the Direct Service Worker is within 60 miles of Livingston County, which could also utilize a considerable amount of time if the worker is only allotted 28 hours per week. (- 2) B4 – The bidder stated minimum of one face-to-face visit for a minimum 1 hour each; however, the bidder did not state if the visit was weekly, bi-weekly or monthly. (-3) B5 – The bidders estimated number of clients to be served of 12 does not meet the service needs of the RFP. (-1) B6 – The bidders proposed staffing allocation does not have enough availability to provide emergency/after-hours support; Geographic limitations prevent emergency/after-hours support; The bidder did not discuss the client population for the geographical area that would be served. (-3)

3. Service Capability and Understanding – Category C

Score 40/40

The evaluation team determined that the responses were satisfactory

4. Instructions for Bidders and Vendor Questions Worksheet (VQW) - Category D

Score 30/30

The evaluation team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

D. Bidder #4 The Lincoln Center for Family and Youth

The Evaluation Team determined that The Lincoln Center for Family and Youth based on a score of 115, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Experience and Qualifications- Category A

Score 14/15

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

A1 – The bidder omitted total contract value and families served from contract #3. (-1).

2. Delivery Capability- Category B

Score 32/40

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

B3 – The bidder’s response indicates 1 direct care worker for approximately 16 hours per week; The evaluation team indicated that staffing is not sufficient for the RFP. (- 2) B5 – The bidder’s chart provided on response B3 and the proposed number of units in relation to the staffing allocation are not consistent; The chart in B3 staffing is .4FTE 16 hours per week and total units 840 hours. (-1) B6 – The bidder does not state the geographic area of the worker to the location of the county. This is to ensure the availability of the workers to the clients. The bidder does not detail the client population of the geographical area. The bidder stated that the population of children was in the child welfare system. (-2) B7 – The bidder’s response references management of “parenting-time cases”, and this RFP is for In-Home Family services. The evaluation team was unclear if the bidder was referencing the correct RFP. The bidder did not discuss new hire training. (-3)

3. Service Capability and Understanding – Category C

Score 40/40

The evaluation team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

4. Instructions for Bidders and Vendor Questions Worksheet (VQW) - Category D

Score 30/30

The evaluation team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

E. Bidder #5 Caring for Aging Hearts Home Care Agency Inc.

Caring For Aging Hearts Home Care Agency 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.

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

V. Technical Evaluation Summary – Number of Units Proposed

(2,520) 782 annually (2,346) 576 annually (1,728) 840 annually (2,520)

(120) 32 annually (96) 12 annually (36) 30 annually (90)

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

per hour

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.

Orchard Children’s Services Inc. provided the best value to the State. Best value factors for Award Recommendation include: high score, proposing a realistic staffing allocation for the Direct Services Worker, and Economic Impact factors.

As part of the best value determination amongst bidders overall economic impact to the State of Michigan was considered in making this award. Orchard Children’s Services, Inc. provides the greatest overall economic impact to Michigan because the minimum wage paid to employees is $15.46 and the average wage paid to employees is $23.50.

Award Recommendation is made to Orchards Children’s Services, Inc. in the amount of $270,000.00.

Version 2023-1 image1.png