Award Recommendation and Evaluation Synopsis.docx

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

The Department of Technology, Management, & Budget’s Procurement office has completed the evaluation of Request for Proposal No. 260000000598 - Milk, Dairy and Related Products and has recommended an award to Prairie Farms Inc. in the amount of $500,000.00 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:

Amanda Smart, Solicitation Manager.

SmartA1@michigan.gov 517-730-8796 Public copies of all bidder proposals can be found here: DTMB - Bid Proposals (michigan.gov) Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor to provide Milk, Dairy, and Related Products. The term of this contract is four (4) years, with up to six (6) renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on Thursday, January 29, 2026 for 28 days. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of Thursday, February 26, 2026 at 1:00 p.m. EST.

*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 The full evaluation process is stated in the RFP Proposal Instructions.

II. Evaluation Method Responses to this solicitation were reviewed by a Joint Evaluation Committee, which consisted of the following individuals:

Zanita Curtiss, Clinical Nutrition Manager DMVA – Michigan Veteran Homes at Grand Rapids Megan Murray, Procurement Technician DTMB – Financial Services, MI Veteran Homes

Pamela Koppleberger, Dietitian/Nutritional Manager MSP – State Police Training Academy Carolyn Sasatani, Dietitian/Nutritional Manager DHHS – Center for Forensic Psychiatry

Amanda Smart, Solicitation Manager DTMB – Central Procurement Services

Chantelle Woolard, Administrative Manager DHHS – Center for Forensic Psychiatry

David Zaleski, Procurement Technician DHHS – Caro Psychiatric Hospital

III. Evaluation Results A. Prairie Farms Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Prairie Farms Inc., based on a score of 87.5, met the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1 The Evaluation Team noted the following deficiencies:

a. Section 1.1.A, Product Selection: Some product and nutritional information could not be located.

b. Section 1.1.D, Product Labeling: Bidder provided an exception to minimum shelf life, offering a shorter shelf life than desired.

c. Section 1.3.A, Containers and Packaging: Bidder acknowledged requirement with no exceptions. However, Bidder failed to describe the materials used for primary containers and if they align with State’s requirements.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2-3 The Evaluation Team noted the following deficiencies:

a. Section 2.1, Quality: Bidder acknowledged requirement with no exceptions. However, Bidder did not initially describe the specific processes used to ensure ongoing compliance with federal and state quality regulations.

b. Section 2.1, Quality: Bidder acknowledged the requirement with no exceptions. However, Bidder did not clearly define the quality expectations referenced or the measurable criteria used to ensure products remain free from damage, spoilage, or contamination.

c. Section 3.1.B, Quality Assurance Program, Bidder acknowledged the requirement with no exceptions. However, Bidder did not fully describe the processes used to verify and monitor suppliers for quality and HACCP compliance.

d. Section 3.1.E, Quality Assurance Program: Health inspection record included violations requiring reinspection.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 4-7 The Evaluation Team noted the following deficiencies:

a. Section 4.2, Online Ordering System: Bidder noted an exception. The proposal includes a 48‑hour order lead time and no real‑time inventory visibility.

b. Section 4.3, Minimum Orders: Bidder noted an exception. The proposal includes a $200 minimum order, which does not align with the State’s preference for no minimum order.

c. Section 6.5, Backorders: Bidder noted an exception. The Bidder’s proposal includes a 48‑hour backorder fulfillment timeframe, which does not meet the State’s desired turnaround.

4. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 8-12 The Evaluation Team determined that the Bidder met all requirements of this section. No deficiencies were noted.

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team noted the following deficiencies:

a. Section 5.1: Bidder provided no response

b. Section 5.2: Bidder provided no response

c. Section 5.3: Bidder provided no response Total Score: 87.5/100 B. Cedar Crest Dairy, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Cedar Crest Dairy, based on a score of 89.5, met the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1 The Evaluation Team noted the following deficiencies:

a. Section 1.1.A, Product Selection: Some product and nutritional information could not be located.

b. Section 1.1.C, Product Selection, Bidder acknowledged the requirement with no exceptions. However, Bidder could not provide the required container sizes for multiple products, and the alternative sizes offered were not compatible with the State’s operational needs. As a result, the Bidder did not meet the product specifications required in this RFP.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2-3 Evaluation Team determined that the Bidder met all requirements of this section. No deficiencies were noted.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 4-7 The Evaluation Team noted the following deficiencies:

a. Section 7.2, Continued Inspection: Bidder acknowledged the requirement with no exceptions. However, Bidder noted an exception by outlining a 3–5 business day credit issuance timeline, which does not meet the State’s expectation for a faster turnaround.

4. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 8-12 The Evaluation Team determined that the Bidder met all requirements of this section. No deficiencies were noted.

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that the Bidder met all requirements of this section. No deficiencies were noted.

Total Score: 89.5/100 IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

V. Pricing Summary Pricing was evaluated for the bidders who passed technical. The following is a summary of their price proposals:

VI. Negotiations Second round pricing was offered. This did not result in updated pricing from the vendors original bid.

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.

Prairie Farms Inc. provided the best value to the State. Best value factors for Award Recommendation include:

Prairie Farms Inc. was the only bidder able to meet all required product specifications, including providing products in the container sizes needed for State operations. The company also demonstrated a clear ability to meet all delivery, service, and statewide support expectations required under the contract, as well as pricing 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 Prairie Farms Inc. in the amount of $500,000.00.

Version 2024-2 image1.png