Jersey Intel Exclusive
Middlesex, N.J. gave NaphCare $27.8M deal + top cost score
OPRA records show Middlesex County, N.J. awarded NaphCare a $27.81M jail health contract—$2.02M above CFG Health—yet gave NaphCare a 33.2/40 score on cost.
Follow-up to our Oct. 15 report.
JERSEY INTEL EXCLUSIVE
First reported by Jersey Intel. NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. — Middlesex County, N.J. commissioners voted 5–0 on Oct. 15 to award longtime vendor NaphCare PC, NJ LLC a three-year, $27,810,786.36 contract for medical and behavioral health care at the county adult jail and youth detention center — $2,019,399.56 more than a legally approved rival bid from CFG Health — after a county evaluation committee gave the higher-priced NaphCare proposal 33.2 out of 40 points for “Cost/Completeness” compared with 26 out of 40 for CFG Health, public records obtained by Jersey Intel under the Open Public Records Act show.
The procurement records, released Tuesday, Oct. 27 by the Middlesex County Office of Purchasing in response to a Jersey Intel OPRA request filed Oct. 15, also reveal that a third company, WTS Health, submitted a $4,991,187.00 proposal on Aug. 25 that was rejected for failing to include a bid guarantee — even though the text of Resolution 26-1210-R adopted by the Board of County Commissioners stated that the county “received a proposal” in the singular.
Image: Jersey Intel infographic. Photo: Middlesex County Administration Building, New Brunswick, Djflem / Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0). Source: Middlesex County OPRA W026049-101526.
- What we know: On Oct. 15, 2026, the Middlesex County Board of County Commissioners voted 5–0 to adopt Resolution 26-1210-R, awarding NaphCare PC, NJ LLC a 36-month contract (Dec. 1, 2026 through Nov. 30, 2029, with two 12-month renewal options) at $27,810,786.36 — $2,019,399.56 (7.83%) higher than rival CFG Health’s approved $25,791,386.80 bid.
- Why it matters: In the county’s Oct. 2, 2026 evaluation report, the five-member committee gave NaphCare 33.2 out of 40 points on Criterion 5 (Cost/Completeness of Proposal) while giving lower-priced CFG Health 26.0 out of 40, leaving CFG at 61.2 total points — below the county’s 65-point minimum threshold for consideration.
- 3-year cost up 42.3%: The new $27.81 million three-year base award is $8,261,136.84 (42.26%) higher than NaphCare’s amended 2021–2024 three-year base contract of $19,549,649.52.
Three proposals submitted Aug. 25 — though the resolution said “a proposal”
As Jersey Intel reported in our Oct. 15 report ahead of the vote, Middlesex County’s public agenda listed Resolution 26-1210-R by title only, without posting the evaluation report required under New Jersey’s competitive contracting statute, N.J.S.A. 40A:11-4.5(d).
The Oct. 2, 2026 Recommendation Report prepared by Qualified Purchasing Agent Alexandra Lopez on behalf of the Healthcare Services RFP Evaluation Committee shows that three companies submitted proposals on Aug. 25, 2026 for solicitation CC-26-927 (covering the Middlesex County Adult Corrections Center and Juvenile Detention Center for the 36-month initial term from Dec. 1, 2026 through Nov. 30, 2029):
| Cost Category (Dec. 1, 2026 – Nov. 30, 2029) | NaphCare PC, NJ LLC (Awarded) | CFG Health (Approved Rival) | Difference (NaphCare vs. CFG) | WTS Health (Rejected) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Medical Costs | $16,634,884.15 | $16,759,530.44 | -$124,646.29 (-0.74%) | $1,663,729.00 |
| 2. Behavioral Costs | $7,424,761.79 | $5,704,093.89 | +$1,720,667.90 (+30.17%) | $1,663,729.00 |
| 3. Social Services Adults Costs | $3,751,140.42 | $3,327,762.47 | +$423,377.95 (+12.72%) | $1,663,729.00 |
| Total 36-Month Lump Sum | $27,810,786.36 | $25,791,386.80 | +$2,019,399.56 (+7.83%) | $4,991,187.00 |
Why WTS Health’s $4.99M bid was disqualified
According to the recommendation report, Deputy County Counsel Jennifer Chang reviewed the three submissions and approved both NaphCare and CFG Health, while rejecting WTS Health because it “failed to provide Bid Guarantee.”
The county’s Addenda Report shows that on Aug. 11, 2026 — two weeks before bids were due — the Purchasing Office issued Addendum #5 noting that “a Bid guarantee is required for this project, however the ability to upload your security was not activated,” and instructing vendors to upload a copy as an additional attachment and mail or hand-deliver the original bid bond or certified check before the Aug. 25, 10:30 a.m. deadline. Only NaphCare and CFG Health are listed as confirming receipt of Addenda #1 through #5.
How the committee scored NaphCare 33.2 vs. CFG Health 26.0 on “Cost/Completeness”
The evaluation committee consisted of five members: County Administrator John A. Pulomena, Adult Corrections Warden Mark Cranston, Youth Services representative Karen Taylor, and consultants Dr. Amanda Parsons and Jay McManus.
Under the solicitation’s 100-point scoring matrix, proposals were graded across five categories, with any vendor averaging 65 points or less disqualified from consideration:
| Criterion (# in Report Table) | Maximum Points | NaphCare PC, NJ LLC | CFG Health | Point Gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Proposer Experience / Track Record | 10.0 | 9.0 | 6.2 | +2.8 |
| 2. Quality of Responses to Scope of Work | 35.0 | 26.0 | 21.6 | +4.4 |
| 3. Qualifications / Experience of Key Personnel | 5.0 | 4.8 | 2.8 | +2.0 |
| 4. Litigation / Penalty History | 10.0 | 6.8 | 4.6 | +2.2 |
| 5. Cost / Completeness of Proposal | 40.0 | 33.2 | 26.0 | +7.2 |
| Total Composite Score | 100.0 | 79.8 | 61.2 | +18.6 |
What the report says — and leaves out
Although the table on Page 4 of the recommendation report labels the left column “Evaluator 1” through “5,” the maximum values in those five rows match the five evaluation criteria weights (`10`, `35`, `5`, `10`, and `40` points = `100` points total), representing the five-evaluator averages for each criterion.
Despite CFG Health’s lump-sum price being $2,019,399.56 lower than NaphCare’s ($25,791,386.80 vs. $27,810,786.36), NaphCare outscored CFG Health by 7.2 points (33.2 vs. 26.0 out of 40) in Criterion 5, which combines “Relative cost – how does the cost compare to other proposals?” with “Full explanation,” “Are all required documents included,” “Is the proposed fee all-inclusive,” and “feasible proposal for securing cost-effective onsite specialty care and offsite care.” The five-page report contains no narrative explaining why the proposal that cost $2.02 million more received 7.2 more points in the cost and completeness category, and individual evaluator score sheets were not included in the county’s OPRA release.
Five-year contract history: $34.78 million since 2021 — and a $369,800 discrepancy in the 2025 extension
Records released in the county’s OPRA portfolio also trace how NaphCare’s expiring 2021–2026 contract (`CC-21-927-1`) grew across five years before the new $27.81 million award:
- Nov. 15, 2021 (Resolution 21-1460-R): Awarded NaphCare Inc. a three-year contract (Dec. 1, 2021 – Nov. 30, 2024) for $19,019,617.01 after NaphCare scored 90.6 out of 100 against rival Wellpath’s 82.4.
- March 3, 2022 (Resolution 22-335-R): Added $441,333.33 for an additional full-time position, raising the three-year total to $19,460,950.34.
- Feb. 16, 2023 (Resolution 23-282-R) & Nov. 2023 (Resolution 23-1483-R): Added $50,000.00 for methadone treatment services and $88,699.18 for grant-funded Medication Assisted Treatment and discharge planner positions, bringing the amended three-year total to $19,549,649.52 (or $19,599,649.52 counting both 2023 additions).
- Nov. 18, 2024 (Resolution 24-1451-R): Exercised the first one-year renewal option (Dec. 1, 2024 – Nov. 30, 2025) for $7,318,339.43.
- Nov. 17, 2025 (Resolution 25-1355-R): Exercised the second one-year renewal option (Dec. 1, 2025 – Nov. 30, 2026). Notably, the title of Resolution 25-1355-R states the extension is “In The Total Estimated Amount Of $8,236,503.33,” while the body’s WHEREAS and RESOLVED clauses state the amount as $7,866,702.83 — an unexplained $369,800.50 difference inside the same adopted resolution.
Across the five-year 2021–2026 cycle, Middlesex County authorized between $34,734,691.78 (using the $7,866,702.83 body figure) and $35,154,492.28 (using the $8,236,503.33 title figure and both 2023 amendments) for NaphCare. The new $27,810,786.36 three-year base award for 2026–2029 represents a 46.22% increase over the original $19,019,617.01 three-year award in 2021 and a 42.26% increase over the amended $19,549,649.52 three-year total.
Roll-call vote and ELEC campaign finance records
Resolution 26-1210-R was moved on Oct. 15, 2026 by County Commissioner Charles E. Tomaro, seconded by Finance Chair Leslie Koppel, and adopted 5–0 with yes votes from Commissioners Claribel A. Azcona-Barber, Charles Kenny, Koppel, Tomaro, and Commissioner Director Ronald G. Rios (Commissioners Chanelle Scott McCullum and Shanti Narra were absent).
A review of New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC) filings shows that on Oct. 27, 2017 — during NaphCare’s earlier contract cycle with the county — Birmingham, Alabama-based NaphCare Inc. reported four $2,500 corporate campaign contributions ($10,000 total) to Middlesex County commissioners: $2,500 each to the campaign committees of Leslie Koppel, Charles Tomaro, Shanti Narra, and then-Commissioner Kevin J. Hoagland. ELEC records show no subsequent corporate contributions from NaphCare to Middlesex County candidates since 2018. Under New Jersey law, contracts awarded through the statutory competitive contracting process (`N.J.S.A. 40A:11-4.1 et seq.`) are considered “fair and open” awards.
How county contracts and budgets affect Middlesex County taxpayers
County correctional health care contracts are funded through the Middlesex County purpose tax levy, which is billed to property owners across all 25 municipalities in the county. Middlesex County homeowners and residents tracking how county spending and local budgets affect their property tax bills can run a free assessment and overpayment check on GardenState.ai using the NJ Property Tax Calculator or look up current property values and comparable sales with the Free NJ Home Value & CMA Tool.
Tip: Have public records, vendor evaluations, or county contract documents from Middlesex County? Email jerseyintel@gmail.com.
Jersey Intel asks: Should county evaluation committees be required to publish each evaluator’s written explanation when a higher-priced bidder gets the top cost score? Share your view in the comments.
