Mental Health Assessment
Submittal date February 23, 2026
Contacts
Applied Survey Research Jennifer Anderson-Ochoa [email protected] Beautiful Redeemer Ministries Rev Michael Gonzales [email protected] Center for Applied Research Solutions Kerrilyn Scott_Nakai [email protected] Cities and People Maya Paley [email protected]
Health Management Associates, Inc Sharon Bunyard [email protected] Illuminary Perspectives Laura Richards [email protected] Public Consulting Group Margot Thistle [email protected] RDA Consulting, SPC Dina de Veer [email protected] Recovery Innovations, Inc Marie Eddy [email protected] Social Change Partners Reed Connell [email protected] The Future Organization LLC Aimery Thomas [email protected] TrueCare24, Inc Bimohit Bawa [email protected] Summary of Scoring
Scorer #1 Scorer #2 Scorer #3 Scorer #4 TOTAL
1 Applied Survey Research 146,250.00$ 93 95 82 78 348 2 Beautiful Redeemer Ministries 184,370.00$ 68 61 63 48 240 3 Center for Applied Research Solutions 185,000.00$ 100 85 75 88 348 4 Cities and People 138,250.00$ 77 93 82 58 310 5 Health Management Associates, Inc 137,305.00$ 97 93 85 100 375 6 Illuminary Perspectives 99,525.00$ 76 73 64 48 261 7 Public Consulting Group 182,875.00$ 96 91 85 74 346 8 RDA Consulting, SPC 110,790.00$ 79 91 86 97 353 9 Recovery Innovations, Inc 149,375.00$ 93 89 83 50 315 10 Social Change Partners 177,850.00$ 100 95 78 85 358 11 The Future Organization LLC 181,982.12$ 87 78 71 80 316 12 TrueCare24, Inc 54,232.00$ 74 97 64 32 267 Table that was used to evaluate the bids is below:
Methodology (40 Points):
Excellent (35–40): Clear, detailed, and
innovative approach, directly aligned with
program goals, measurable outcomes, strong
community impact.
Good (28–34): Solid approach with some detail,
feasible implementation, outcomes mostly
measurable.
Fair (20–27): General approach described but
lacks detail, some concerns about feasibility or
alignment.
Poor (0–19): Unclear or inadequate
methodology, weak connection to goals, little
to no detail on implementation.
Staffing, Experience, and
Qualifications (25 Points)
Excellent (22–25): Highly qualified staff, strong
track record with similar programs, relevant
organizational capacity.
Good (18–21): Adequately qualified staff, some
relevant experience, organizational capacity
sufficient.
Fair (13–17): Limited experience, partially
relevant qualifications, some concerns about
staffing.
Poor (0–12): Unqualified staff or lack of
organizational experience, serious capacity
concerns.
Cost Proposal (25 Points)
Excellent (22–25): Cost is reasonable, well-
justified, efficient use of funds, clear budget
detail.
Good (18–21): Generally reasonable costs,
mostly justified, adequate budget clarity.
Fair (13–17): Costs somewhat high or
insufficiently explained, some budget detail
missing.
Poor (0–12): Costs unreasonable, poorly
justified, significant budget concerns.
Quality and
Completeness
(10 Points)
Excellent (9–10):
Proposal is thorough,
well-organized, error-
free, addresses all
requirements.
Good (7–8): Clear
proposal with minor
gaps or errors, most
requirements
addressed.
Fair (5–6): Somewhat
incomplete,
disorganized,
multiple errors,
several requirements
not addressed.
Poor (0–4):
Incomplete or
unprofessional
submission, major
sections missing.
Total
100