Please wait...

If this message is not eventually replaced by the proper contents of the document, your PDF viewer may not be able to display this type of document.

You can upgrade to the latest version of Adobe Reader for Windows®, Mac, or Linux® by visiting http://www.adobe.com/go/reader_download.

For more assistance with Adobe Reader visit http://www.adobe.com/go/acrreader.

Windows is either a registered trademark or a trademark of Microsoft Corporation in the United States and/or other countries. Mac is a trademark of Apple Inc., registered in the United States and other countries. Linux is the registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in the U.S. and other countries.

Sole Source Justification Form Version 7.01 Page of Sole Source Justification Form - Part I Section I - General Information Will this Sole Source amend a Professional or Artistic Services contract?

If yes, what was the original contract value?

*Sole Source may not be used for amendments for Professional or Artistic Services if the amendment would increase the value by more than 5% of the initial award or extend the term by more than 60 days.

Section II - Proposed Term If a Term Contract, does the term, including renewals, exceed 12 months?

If yes, provide a detailed justification including any economic benefit received for agreeing to a multi-year term:

Section III - Funding Source Select the type of funding to be used (Check all that apply):

Section IV - Sole Source Justification Are there secondary justification(s) for this sole source?

Section V - Purchase History Has the Agency or University Purchased these supplies or services in the past?

Term Term From Term To Value Description Contract Number Type Section VI - Business Rationale

1. Provide a detailed explanation of the need for the supplies or services:

2. Provide a list and describe in detail the specifications required to satisfy the need:

3. Provide detail explaining the justification selected in Section IV to explain why the requested supplies or services are the only ones available that can satisfy the agency or university requirements?

4. What are the unique features of the supplies or services that are not available in any other product or by any other vendor? Provide specific quantifiable factors/qualifications:

5. Has the Agency or University considered alternative supplies or services to satisfy their need?

5a. If yes, name the alternative vendors whose supplies or services were evaluated:

5b. If yes, what were the alternatives for each vendor and why were they unacceptable? Be specific with regard to features, characteristics, requirements, capabilities and compatibility:

5c. Explain how the market evaluation was conducted?

*This evaluation is to determine available options within a market. If the evaluation is to determine quality or best suited option, this is not the appropriate source selection. Under no circumstances shall the evaluation consist of testing alternative options. These activities must be conducted in a competitive transparent environment (i.e. IFB or RFP).

5a. If no, why weren't alternatives evaluated?

6. Are there resellers or distributors?

7. What efforts were made to get the best possible price (i.e. did the agency/university negotiate) and how did you determine the price for this purchase is considered fair and reasonable?

8. Will this purchase obligate the State to this vendor for future purchases such as maintenance, licensing or continuing need?

8a. If yes, please provide details regarding future obligations and/or needs:

9. What will be the financial or other impact to the State if this sole source is not approved and a competitive bid is required?

10. Is there any additional information you would like to add to justify this sole source?

Section VII Requesting Department Signature Required I know and understand the contents of this Sole Source Justification and attest that all statements are true and correct and the fairness and reasonableness of the price was adequately confirmed.

State Agency Bureau/Division Head or University Purchasing Director Approval and Signature Required I know and understand the contents of this Sole Source Justification and attest that all statements are true and correct and the fairness and reasonableness of the price was adequately confirmed. (All prior form fields will lock once this e-signature is completed) SPO Approval and Signature Required Sole Source Justification Form - Part II Section I - General Information Was a Sole Source hearing held per 30 ILCS 500/20-25?

Section II - Sole Source Hearing Details The State posted to the Illinois Procurement Bulletin a description of the State's need, the justification for the sole source decision, and information regarding the opportunity to submit comments and testify at a public hearing. Notice of the hearing was also posted outside of the hearing room 48 hours prior to the hearing.

The public hearing was conducted for the purpose of receiving testimony regarding the sole source determination. The Hearing Officer recommends the following:

The following relevant documents are attached:

Section III - CPO Approval and Signature Required 9.0.0.2.20101008.1.734229 Ellen.H.Daley@illinois.gov

An RFP was awarded for 25-444DHS-PROCU-B-45146 on 03/16/2026. The new contract will include a 12-month implementation timeline following the contract start therefore it is imperative DHS keep the current system for continued services for Electronic Visit Verification during this time. The continued service is needed because the business rules and data exchange interfaces between DHS and Sandata are already set up to transmit information back and forth in near-real time which prevents disruptions in service/ program operation and payment for our providers to comply with the currently effective collective bargaining agreement as well as federal and state law while going through the procurement process for a new EVV contract. The Sandata system is integral to ensuring timely and accurate payment to providers. In FY25 HSP processed more than $960 million in payments to more than 35,000 HSP providers based on timekeeping within the EVV system. Without the system remaining in place during the new contract's 12-month implementation, there could be disastrous consequences and innumerable grievances from providers for a lack of timely payment and audit findings for the same .

The Sandata EVV system was originally built for DHS as a result of a competitive bidding process and the resulting business rules specifically match DRS rules and policy. At this time, Sandata software license is the only option to continued services until the new contract implementation is completed. The new contract will include a 12-month implementation timeline following the contract start therefore it is imperative DHS have continued services for Electronic Visit Verification during this time.

The EVV system has been used by DHS since January 1, 2014, and the payment of Individual Providers has been dependent on DHS staff reconciling the records in the system with paper timesheets submitted by providers since July 1, 2014. The system was developed pursuant to the Illinois SMART ACT (PA 97-0689, § 5-5f(g). If there is no EVV system in place while DRS selects a new vendor, Individual Providers will not be paid, leading to grievances pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Additionally, Section 12006(a) of the 21st Century Cures Act mandates that states implement EVV for all Medicaid personal care services (PCS) and home health services (HHCS) that require an in-home visit by a provider no later than 1/1/2023. Without this contract in place on 7/1/26 DHS will be in violation of the SMART ACT, 21st Century Cures Act and be unable to fulfill the terms of the CBA. DHS would lose Federal funding if found to be in non compliance with the 21st Century Cures Act.

The pricing breakdown for this sole source contract will be the same as in the existing contract, however the sole source contract will have a budget of $3.0M for one (1) year (costs were $2.650M in FY26). This amount is an estimate because the bulk of the expenses are usage-based and dependent on the number of calls logged by the system. The $350,000 increase for this contract is based on anticipated growth next year, as well as a contingency for additional technical implementation associated with the costs of transmitting 13 years of historical EVV data during the 12-month implementation period included in the new contract.

Budget breakdown is as follows:

Usage-based costs $2,400,000 Technical Implementation $310,890 Datawarehouse Fee $226,260 Yearly Maintenance Fee $62,850 Total $3,000,000