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. 250000003011- MDOC Food and Food Service Products and has recommended an award to Sun Valley Foods Company, a Michigan Corporation in the amount of $150,000,000.00, 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 food and food service products to support the operational needs of the Michigan Department of Corrections. The term of this contract is three (3) years, with up to seven (7) renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on Monday, December 8, 2025. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of Thursday, January 29, 2026.

Detroit, MI 48238

Carlsbad, CA 92010

*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: Mandatory Minimum Requirements The solicitation included a mandatory pre‑proposal meeting held on December 18, 2025, at 1:00 p.m. EST via Teams. Attendance was required for bidders to be considered responsive.

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 Joint Evaluation Committee, which consisted of the following individuals:

John Righter, Food Administrator MDOC – CFA Food Services Herb Barry, Food Service Manager – North MDOC – CFA Food Services

Lisa Schaible, Contract Monitor

MDOC - PMCD

Ed Freeman, CFA Contract Manager

MDOC - PMCD

Amanda Smart, Solicitation Manager DTMB – Central Procurement Services Dave McManus, CFA Financial Specialist

MDOC – PMCD

Arnold Vande Mark, Buyer

MDOC - PMCD

Angela Panetta, CFA Dietician MDOC – CFA Food Services

Steve Rigg, Category Development Manager DTMB – Central Procurement Services

Greg Torrey, Food Service Manager – South MDOC – CFA Food Services

III. Evaluation Results A. Sun Valley Foods Company The Evaluation Team determined that Sun Valley Foods Company based on a score of 87, 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 determined that the Bidder met all requirements of this section. No deficiencies were noted.

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

a. Section 2.1.K, Quality – Religious Menus/Passover: Bidder did not specify how religious meals will be stored to prevent product quality concerns.

b. Section 2.2.D, Consistency – Product Consistency Controls: Bidder did not specify how manufacturers will assist in ensuring product consistency across all facilities.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 4 - 6 The Evaluation Team noted the following deficiencies:

a. Section 4.1.A, Method of Procurement – COMS Integration: Bidder agreed to COMS but did not provide specific information describing how integration would work or any associated limitations.

b. Section 4.1.B, Online Ordering System: Bidder did not provide sufficient detail regarding the online ordering system, including what documents would be available and the scope of available training.

c. Section 4.3, Order Verification: Bidder did not explain how orders will be verified internally to ensure accuracy and prevent unauthorized orders.

d. Section 5.6, Contractor Delivery Programs and Distribution: Bidder provided vague answers and did not clearly explain its distribution control system or tracking systems used to manage deliveries.

e. Section 5.7, Emergency Services and Business Continuity: Bidder did not adequately explain how emergency ordering and emergency delivery situations would be accommodated.

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

a. Section 7.5, Reporting: Bidder indicated they could provide reporting but did not explain the reporting processes or the format and lifecycle of required reports.

b. Section 7.8, Training: Bidder did not provide details on the training process or any supporting training documentation.

c. Section 7.10, Security: Bidder did not provide details regarding the background check process used for staff assigned to MDOC facilities.

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

a. Section 2, Company Background Information: Bidder provided their gross annual sales, but did not sufficiently address annual revenue impact in response to the question.

Total Score: 87/100 B. GoodSource Solutions, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that GoodSource Solutions, Inc. based on a score of 86, 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: Bidder is only able to provide one of the fifteen product categories bid, which does not meet the RFP’s product selection expectations.

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

a. Section 2.3, Product Availability, Warehousing and Inventory Management: Bidder did not answer how bread, as a perishable item, will be managed to ensure availability.

b. Section 2.3.F, Inventory Management Controls: Bidder did not explain inventory controls or how inventory tracking will be performed.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 4 - 6 The Evaluation Team noted the following deficiencies:

a. Section 4.1.B, Procurement – Online Ordering: Bidder did not provide system access for testing and required confirmation numbers to be manually added

b. Section 4.3, Order Verification: Bidder indicated that only a sales representative can complete order verification, which does not allow for State employee verification.

c. Section 5.6, Delivery Programs and Distribution: Bidder did not explain their ERP system or how it supports distribution controls.

d. Section 5.7, Emergency Services: Bidder did not explain how emergency ordering processes would work and did not provide sufficient detail to demonstrate the ability to support urgent, unplanned ordering needs.

4. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 7 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 2, Company Background Information: Bidder provided their gross annual sales, but did not sufficiently address annual revenue impact in response to the question.

Total Score: 86/100 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. 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.

Sun Valley Foods Company provided the best value to the State. 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. Best value factors for Award Recommendation include:

· Sun Valley Foods Company achieved the highest overall technical score, earning 87 out of 100 points, demonstrating strong alignment with the requirements of the RFP.

· Sun Valley Foods Company demonstrated the ability to provide all required food product categories identified in the RFP, ensuring full coverage of MDOC’s extensive food service needs without gaps in product availability.

· Sun Valley Foods Company provided the most comprehensive and responsive proposal across key technical areas, including product specifications, quality controls, consistency, ordering and delivery, and compliance with MDOC operational needs.

· Sun Valley Foods Company demonstrated strengths in warehouse availability, inventory controls, and delivery protocols, supporting MDOC’s requirements for uninterrupted food distribution across 26 facilities.

· Sun Valley’s Foods Company proposed approach aligns with MDOC’s priorities for product quality, menu consistency, and structured substitution processes, ensuring stability in long‑term food service operations.

· Sun Valley Foods Company’s Michigan‑based presence further supports the State’s goals when evaluating best value.

Award Recommendation is made to Sun Valley Foods Company in the amount of $150,000,000.00.

Version 2024-2 image1.png