RFP26-867 Award Recommendation and Evaluation Synopsis Ver 2.docx

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

Notice of Intent to Award Number: 260000000299 Notice of Intent to Award Date: 8/24/2026

The Notice of Intent to Award has been amended due to the original awardee’s formal rejection of the contract offer. Accordingly, the award has been issued to the next responsive and responsible bidder that successfully met all technical requirements.

The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services has completed the evaluation of RFP 260000000867 Families Together Building Solutions Services in Cass and St. Joseph Counties and has recommended an award to Catholic Charities West Michigan. in the amount of $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:

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 Families Together Building Solutions 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 January 29, 2026, for six weeks. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of March 12, 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 Joint Evaluation Committee, which consisted of the following individuals:

Kristina Herrington Community Resource Coordinator MDHHS Cass & St. Joseph Counties Jennifer Williamsen Contract Administrator MDHHS Bureau of Grants and Purchasing

Debra Faust Program Manager MDHHS Cass & St. Joseph Counties

Jeffrey Boyce Children’s Services Supervisor MDHHS Cass & St. Joseph Counties

III. Evaluation Results

A. Bidder #1 Catholic Charities West Michigan

The Evaluation Team determined that Catholic Charities West Michigan based on a score of 122, 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 19/20

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

A1- Question 2: The bidder did not provide actual performance outcome data for 12 months after case closure for FTBS #1 and #8. It was stated that MDHHS had not provided outcome data, yet this data should be available due to the start date of the contracts being 10/1/2023. It is unclear why the information is available for 6 months but not 12 months. The evaluators are concerned that the bidder does not also have their own method to track performance data. (-1).

2. Education, Credentials & Qualifications- Category B

Score 10/10

The evaluation team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

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

Score 24/25

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

C1- The bidder states that newly hired staff will not enroll in Family Preservation Core Training until 10/1/26 or the earliest date the training is offered after that which may require the use of contingent staff, possibly for an extended period of time (2 months or more). Training requirements include FTBS staff attending Core Training within 30 days of hire. Evaluators are concerned about the timeline including training of staff after the contract start date (-1).

4. Program Implementation- Category D

Score 44/45

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

D8- Evaluators are concerned that the bidder will not be able to determine if benchmarks 12 months after case closure are being met if they do not have a method to track this information internally and are not being provided the information through MDHHS as stated in A1- Question 2. (no deduction)

D9- The bidder is proposing 30 minutes of travel time once per week for a total of 2 hours per month. Evaluators are concerned this is a low amount of travel time for the geographical area (-1).

D12- The bidder provided a very comprehensive list of resources.

5. Vendor Question Worksheet (VQW) – Category E

Score 25/25

The evaluation team determined that the responses were satisfactory

Bidder #2 Samaritas The Evaluation Team determined that Samaritas based on a score of 123, 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 18/20

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

A1- Question 2 The bidder did not provide actual performance outcome data for 3 and 12 month follow-ups. Even if not required, the evaluators are concerned that the bidder does not also have their own method to track performance data (-1).

A1-Question 3 The bidder did not meet all Expected Performance Outcomes: Families First- Muskegon County: #1 94% out of 95; Families First – Barry, Eaton & Ingham Counties: #8 74% out of 80%; Families First- Calhoun County: #1 92% out of 95%, #6 65% out of 90% and #7 62% out of 85%; FTBS- Cass & St. Joseph Counties: #1 94% out of 95%; FTBS- Kalamazoo County: #3 76% out of 85% and #6 65% out of 90%. (-1).

2. Education, Credentials & Qualifications- Category B

Score 10/10

The evaluation team determined that the responses were satisfactory

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

Score 25/25

The evaluation team determined that the responses were satisfactory

C1- The bidder’s staff is already fully trained and ready to start services 10/1/2026.

4. Program Implementation- Category D

Score 45/45

The evaluation team determined that the responses were satisfactory

D1- The bidder demonstrated specific knowledge of the community and population to be served.

5. Vendor Question Worksheet (VQW) – Category E

Score 25/25

The evaluation team determined that the responses were satisfactory.

Bidder #3 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.

Bidder #4 Empowering One Counseling and Psychological Services Empowering One Counseling and Psychological Services’ 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

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.

The original awardee has formally declined the contract. As a result, the award is now being issued to the next responsive and responsible bidder who met all technical requirements.

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 Catholic Charities West Michigan in the amount of $570,000.00.

Version 2023-1 image1.png