TO: Kevin Dunn, Director Services Division

M E M O R A N D U M

TO: Kevin Dunn, Director – Services Division DTMB - Procurement

FROM: Mary Ostrowski, Buyer DTMB - Procurement

DATE: November 9, 2012

SUBJECT: Award Summary for RFP 071I2200220 – DMC Crime Analysis and Compliance Monitoring Services

General: This request is for a three year contract to provide disproportionate minority contact (DMC), crime analysis, compliance monitoring of the juvenile delinquent population, and technical assistance services for grant writing and coaching for the Michigan Department of Human Services (DHS).

The purpose of this Contract is for the completion of statewide data collection efforts in the compilation of a Crime Analysis report, determination of disproportionate minority processing of minorities at various points of contact in the juvenile justice system (DMC) and compliance with the core requirements of detaining, jailing, or securing/confinement of juveniles in detention homes, jails, and lock-ups as required by Federal Act, JJDP; Section 223(a) 11, 12, and 13.

The Michigan Department of Human Services (DHS) is required by the Federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Act (JJDPA) of 2002 to meet four core mandates set forth in the Federal statute. The mandates are:

(1) Removal of juveniles from adult jails and lock-ups (JRI). (2) De-institutionalization of status offenders (DSO) and non-offenders. Status offenders are those which commit offenses that are only illegal due to offender’s age. (3) Separation of juveniles from adult detainees. (4) Address the basis for DMC in the juvenile justice system.

Michigan is assessed by the Federal Office of JJDP on meeting the core requirements, as well as other juvenile justice data and statistics. Part of the application to grant awards includes a detailed analysis of juvenile crime and a monitoring plan describing the process used for monitoring detention facilities and those places detaining juveniles (jails and lock-ups). Guided by the JJDP act, the Michigan Committee on Juvenile Justice (MCJJ) has required DHS to assess the reasons for DMC through intervention programming and systems change, monitoring of efforts and evaluation of the processes established to address DMC.

Joint Evaluation Committee (JEC): The JEC for this RFP consisted of the following individuals:

1 Mary Ostrowski, Buyer (Voting) DTMB Procurement

Jeanette Scroggins, (Voting) DHS Bureau of Child Welfare Funding and Juvenile Programs (BCWFJP)

Bonnie Fineas, (Non-Voting) DHS Purchasing

Technical Services, Server Services, Server Team 4 Terri Smith, (Non-Voting) DHS Office of Logistics and Rate Setting

Bidders: The Request For Proposal (RFP) was posted on www.bid4michigan.com on August 23, 2012, and was available for five weeks. The timeframe was extended from four weeks to five weeks due to additional time needed to complete the Question and Answer document. The following Bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of September 27, 2012:

MI Bidder Address City, State Zip SDVOB Business 119 Pere Public Policy Associates, Inc. Marquette Lansing, MI 48912 Y N Drive, Suite 1C 3400 Colchester CKE, Inc. Lansing, MI 48906 Y N Rd.

Selection Criteria and Evaluation:

3.022 Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria The following chart represents the scoring of the particular factors:

Weight 1. Statement of Work (Article 1, excluding 1.031) 35 2. Bidder Information (4.011) 5 3. Prior Experience (4.012) 30 4. Staffing (1.031 & 4.013) 30 TOTAL: 100

Oral Presentation Bidders who submit proposals may be required to make oral presentations of their proposals to the State. These presentations provide an opportunity for the Bidders to clarify the proposals through mutual understanding. DTMB-Procurement will schedule these presentations, if required.

2 Site Visit The State may conduct a site visit to tour and inspect the Bidder’s facilities. DTMB-Procurement will schedule these visits if required.

3.023 Price Evaluation (a) Only those proposals receiving a score of 80 points or more in the technical proposal evaluation will have their pricing evaluated to be considered for award.

(b) Evaluation of price proposals includes consideration for a Qualified Disabled Veteran Preference. 1984 PA 431, as amended, establishes a preference of up to 10% for businesses owned by qualified disabled veterans meeting the minimum point threshold for passing.

(c) The State reserves the right to consider economic impact on the State when evaluating proposal pricing. This includes, but is not limited to: job creation, job retention, tax revenue implications, and other economic considerations.

3.024 Award Recommendation The award recommendation will be made to the responsive and responsible Bidder who offers the best value to the State of Michigan. Best value will be determined by the Bidder meeting the minimum point threshold and offering the best combination of the factors stated in Section 3.022, and price, as demonstrated by its proposal.

Evaluation Results:

Public Policy Associates, Inc.

The JEC determined Public Policy Associates, based on a score of 95, could meet the requirements of the RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the selection criteria noted above.

1. Statement of Work (Article 1 - excluding 1.031 which was evaluated under Staffing) Score: 32 / 35 - 1.022.A.4: Bidder did not indicate they agree to provide input and prepare solicitations. - 1.022.B.1.f: Bidder did not address number five in their response. - 1.022.second B.2: Bidder did not indicate that they would establish evaluation processes; instead, Bidder indicated they would work to ensure that all DMC funded sites establish evaluation processes. - 1.022.D.4.d: Bidder did not indicate they would research, secure and write but instead will provide the MDHS assistance in writing. 2. Bidder Information (4.011) Score: 5 / 5 - The JEC determined the Bidder meets the requirements of the Section with no exceptions. 3. Prior Experience (4.012) Score: 30 /30 - The JEC determined the Bidder meets the requirements of the Section with no exceptions.

4. Staffing (1.031 & 4.013) Score: 28 / 30 - 1.031.1: The JEC has concern with Key Staff, Daniel Fitzpatrick - Research Assistant, minimal years of experience in current position.

3 - 4.013: Bidder’s Key Staff, Daniel Fitzpatrick - Research Assistant, does not have a minimum of five years’ experience with the four core mandates of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Act (JJDPA) of 2002 and the required Federal reporting criteria and preparation. - 4.013: Bidder’s Key Staff, Daniel Gough - Research Assistant, does not have a minimum of five years’ experience with the four core mandates of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) of 2002 and the required Federal reporting criteria and preparation.

Total Score: 95 / 100

CKE, Inc.

The JEC determined that CKE, Inc., based on a score of 24, could not meet the requirements of the RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the selection criteria noted above.

1. Statement of Work (Article 1 - excluding 1.031 which was evaluated under Staffing) Score: 15 / 35 - 1.022.A.1: Bidder did not specifically indicate their agreement to the requirement. - 1.022.A.2: Bidder provided minimal detail in their response. - 1.022.A.3: Bidder did not address the State not paying any travel costs. - 1.022.A.4: Bidder did not address providing input and preparing Federal reports and solicitations. - 1.022.A.5: Bidder did not specifically indicate their agreement to the requirement. - 1.022.A.6: Bidder provided minimal detail in their response. - 1.022.B.1.a: Bidder provided minimal detail in their response. - 1.022.B.1.c: Bidder did not provide a response. - 1.022.B.1.d: Bidder did not specifically indicate their agreement to the requirement, nor did the detail address the requirements. - 1.022.B.1.f: Bidder did not indicate their agreement of the requirement. Bidder provided minimal detail in their response. - 1.022 second B.2: Bidder provided minimal detail in their response. - 1.022 second B.3: Bidder did not address Statewide assessment in their response. - 1.022 second B.4: Bidder provided minimal detail in their response. - 1.022 second B.6: Bidder provided minimal detail in their response. - 1.022.C.2: Bidder’s response did not indicate an understanding of detention facilities by addressing residential facilities. - 1.022.C.3: Bidder did not address State training facilities in their response. - 1.022.C.4: Bidder did not address holding facilities in their response. - 1.022.C.5: Bidder did not provide a response. - 1.022.C.7.b: Bidder’s response did not indicate an understanding of the requirement. - 1.022.D.2: Bidder proposed use of outdated material to meet the requirement and the JEC has concern with the outdated material proposed to meet the requirement. - 1.022.D.3.b: Bidder provided minimal detail in their response. - 1.022.D.3.c: Bidder provided no detail in their response. - 1.022.D.4.a: Bidder provided no detail in their response. - 1.022.D.4.c: Bidder did not indicate they will provide model programs; instead, Bidder indicated they will assist with identification of model programs. - 1.022.D.4.d: Bidder did not indicate they would research, secure, and write; instead Bidder indicated they would work toward the identification and subsequent application to funding sources to sustain related projects. - 1.022.D.4.f: Bidder provided minimal detail in their response. - 1.022.D.4.g: Bidder provided minimal detail in their response. - 1.041: Bidder did not provide a response or Project Plan.

4 - 1.042.a: Bidder provided no detail. - 1.042.b: Bidder provided no detail. - 1.042.c: Bidder provided no detail. - 1.042.d: Bidder provided no detail.

2. Bidder Information (4.011) Score: 3 / 5 - Bidder did not provide a response in the web-page section. - Bidder did not provide sales volumes by year for the past five years.

3. Prior Experience (4.012) Score: 0 / 30 - Bidder did not provide three prior experiences of their firm including the following: description, detail, costs, start and complete dates, and a name, address, phone number and email of a contact for each.

4. Staffing (1.031 & 4.013) Score: 6 / 30 - 1.031.1.c: Bidder did not provide roles and responsibilities of the three Key Staff; instead Bidder listed their title. - 1.031.1.d: Bidder did not provide hourly rate of pay for the three Key Staff. - 1.031.1.e: Bidder did not indicate whether Key Staff, Marvel Lang, is full or part-time. - 1.031.1.f: Bidder did not identify where staff will be physically located during Contract performance. - 1.031.2: Bidder did not provide a Project Manager and indicated they will meet the Key Personnel Requirements in Section 4.013. - 4.013: Bidder’s Key Staff, Jacquelynne Bordon-Conyers - Facilitator, does not meet any of the four requirements of Key Personnel. - 4.013: Bidder’s Key Staff, Charles Corley - Team Leader/Manager, does not meet one of the four requirements:  Have a minimum of five years’ experience with the four core mandates of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Act (JJDPA) of 2002 and the required Federal reporting criteria and preparation. - 4.013: Bidder’s Key Staff, Marvel Lang - Co-Leader, does not meet three of the four requirements:  Have a minimum of five years’ experience with the four core mandates of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Act (JJDPA) of 2002 and the required Federal reporting criteria and preparation.  Have jail experience (intake processing).  Have knowledge of child abuse/neglect policies, procedures and practices impacting disproportionate minority contact.

Total Score: 24 / 100

Evaluation Summary:

5 Public Policy CKE, Inc. Associates, Inc.

SOW (35) 32 15

Bidder Info (5) 5 3

Prior Exp. (30) 30 0

Staffing (30) 28 6

Total (100) 95 24

Pricing Summary

Prompt Pay Bidder Initial Bid Total Revised Bid Total Negotiated % Discount Public Policy $674,455.35 $667,617.80 1% 1% net 15 Associates, Inc.

Award Recommendation: Award recommendation is made to the responsive and responsible Bidder who passed the Technical Evaluation and offered the Best Value to the State of Michigan.

Based on all of the information discussed above, the JEC recommends an award to Public Policy Associates, Inc. in the amount of $667,617.80.