Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

Notice of Intent to Award Number: 260000000526

Notice of Intent to Award Date: 5/28/2026

The Michigan Department of Education has completed the evaluation of RFP 260000001876 - and has recommended an award to CN Resources LLC and Myers & Stauffer LC. The amount of each contract will be $922,500.00, 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:

Carol Munroe, Solicitation Manager and Jenny Manar munroec@michigan.gov manarj@michigan.gov 517-241-3329 517-335-0543 Please submit email to both listed above

Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor to provide Child Nutrition Program Monitoring and Compliance Reviews. The term of this contract is approximately one year, with up to seven one- year renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on April 24, 2026. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of May 8. 2026.

Bidder Address, City, State, Zip Code SDVOB* GDBE**

CN Resources 1930 North Arboleda Drive, Suite 101 Mesa, AZ 85213

NA NA

Macias Gini & O’Connell 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2200, Los Angeles, CA 90067

NA NA

Myers and Stauffer 700 W. 47th Street, Suite 1100 Kansas City, MO 64112

NA NA

Sarah Low, LMN Compliance LLC

286 A Drive South Climax, MI 49034

NA NA

School Food & Wellness Group

3347 Nicholson Drive, Suite A-101 Baton Rouge, LA

NA NA

*SDVOB: Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Business **GDBE: Geographically Disadvantaged Business Enterprise https://www.michigan.gov/dtmb/policies/state-ad-board mailto:munroec@michigan.gov

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

None

Proposal Instructions: Evaluation Process

Technical Evaluation Criteria Weight

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work – Scope of Work - Compliance Projects - Experience

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1 – General Requirements 20

3. Schedule A - Statement of Work, Section 2, 3, 4 20

4. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Section 5 – Project Management. Meetings, Reporting,

5. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Section 10 – ADA Compliance 5

6. Vendor Questions Worksheet 10

Total: 100

Proposals receiving a score of 80 or more technical evaluation points will have pricing evaluated and be considered for award.

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:

Voting Advisory

Emily Ross – Departmental Manager Office of Nutrition Services Michigan Department of Education

Sara Herman, Assistant Director Office of Nutrition Services Michigan Department of Education

III.

Evaluation Results

A. CN Resources The Evaluation Team determined that CN Resources, based on a score of 100/100, met the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating the Bidders responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work – Scope of Work – Compliance Projects – Experience, Section – Scope of Work. 25/25

The Evaluation Team determined the bidder met requirements

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1 – General Requirements – Section 1 – 20/20

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2, 3, 4 – 20/20

The Evaluation Team determined that the bidder met requirements

4. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Section 5 – Project Management. Meetings, Reporting – Section 5 – 20/20

5. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Section 10 – ADA Compliance – 5/5

6. Vendor Questions Worksheet. 10/10

Total Score:100/100

Voting Advisory

Michael Kelly – Financial Specialist

Mark Diebolt – Financial Manager

Michigan Department of Education Jenny Manar – Buyer Office of Financial Management Michigan Department of Education Carol Munroe – Solicitation Manager Office of Financial Management

B. Macias Gini & O’Connell The Evaluation Team determined that Macias Gini & O’Connell, based on a score of 55/100, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating Bidder’s responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work – Scope of Work – Compliance Projects – Experience, Section – Scope of Work. 12/25

Though there was experience in auditing, procurement, and procedures based on bidder responses bidder did not meet requirements, the following deficiencies are noted:

• Limited SNP experience

• Only one staff person had relevant but limited experience

• Only experience with single audit reviews

• Limited to no experience with evaluations

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1 – General Requirements – Section 1 – 9/20 - Though a response was provided bidder did not meet requirements and the following deficiencies are noted:

• Samples provided show no CNP experience

• Reports focused on technical assistance and trainings

• Samples not relevant to needs of Agency

• Section 1.5 was not robust in description or methods

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2, 3, 4 – 11/20

Though a response was provided the bidder did not meet requirements and the following deficiencies are noted:

• Only one staff person has required experience – limited to state of origin

• Staff reviewers TBD – no clarification

• Staff experience limited

• Work hours exceptions/staff leveraging unclear

15/20 - Though a response was provided the bidder did not meet requirements and the following

• Limited project plan

• Plan not relevant to work

• Satisfactory responses to reporting but plan did not align with projects

5. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Section 10 – ADA Compliance – 3/5

Though a response was provided the bidder did not meet requirements and the following deficiencies are noted:

• Not enough robust ADA checkers

• ADA compliance plan vague

6. Vendor Questions Worksheet. 5/10

Though a response was provided the bidder did not meet requirements and the following deficiencies are noted:

• No CNP references

• Experience listed does not align with agency needs

• Did not provide annual gross sales

Total Score: 55/100

C. Myers and Stauffer, LLC

The Evaluation Team determined that Myers and Stauffer, LLC, based on a score of 100/100, met the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating the Bidders responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work – Scope of Work – Compliance Projects – Experience, Section – Scope of Work. 25/25

The Evaluation Team determined the bidder met requirements

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1 – General Requirements – Section 1 – 20/20

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2, 3, 4 – 20/20

20/20

5. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Section 10 – ADA Compliance – 5/5

6. Vendor Questions Worksheet. 10/10

Total Score: 100/100

D. Sarah Low, LMN Compliance LLC

The Evaluation Team determined that Sarah Low, LMN Compliance, based on a score of 26/100, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating Bidder’s responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work – Scope of Work – Compliance Projects – Experience, Section – Scope of Work. 5/25

Though a response was provided based on bidder responses bidder did not meet requirements, the following deficiencies are noted:

• No detailed experience

• Sections not responded to

• No review team in place

• No clear plan

• Company recently established

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1 – General Requirements – Section 1 – 5/20 - Though a

• Proposed use of contractor but no specifics provided

• No clear capacity for the volume of work

• No detailed experience to do the work

• Limited responses

• No sample reports or reviews

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2, 3, 4 – 4/20

• Only one staff person

• No relevant experience

• No review team in place

• No mention of background checks

• Questions not fully answered

• Some responses needed clarification

5/20 - Though a response was provided the bidder did not meet requirements and the following

• Limited responses

• Reference attachments but none provided

• No clear project plan

• No reporting samples

5. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Section 10 – ADA Compliance – 3/5 following deficiencies are noted:

• Not enough robust ADA checkers

• Limited ADA compliance explanation

• No details on software to be used

6. Vendor Questions Worksheet. 4/10 following deficiencies are noted:

• Company only recently created

• No gross annual sales

• Company itself has no prior experience

• Limited responses

• No clear review experience

• Not all areas answered

Total Score: 26/100

E. School Food and Wellness Group, LLC The Evaluation Team determined that School Food and Wellness Group, LLC, based on a score of 67/100, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating Bidder’s responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work – Scope of Work – Compliance Projects – Experience, Section – Scope of Work. 14/25

Though there was experience in auditing, procurement, and procedures based on bidder responses bidder did not meet requirements, the following deficiencies are noted:

• No procurement review preparation experience

• No experience with other reviews

• Limited CNP experience – supporting NSLP participants

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1 – General Requirements – Section 1 – 14/20 - Though a

• Samples provided but did not reference USDA Procurement Review Tool or USDA recommended questions in samples.

• Experience is limited

• No sample reviews

• No experience doing USDA SNP/State Agency reviews

• Generic responses

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2, 3, 4 – 14/20

• Though experience in SNP from a sponsor support perspective description provided showed no procurement review at state level

• No robust experience doing USDA reviews

• Staff experience limited

• Better clarification needs on core review team

15/20 - Though a response was provided the bidder did not meet requirements and the following

• Project Plan not detailed

• Key reviewers not clearly identified

• Excel submission had functional errors

5. Schedule A – Statement of Work, Section 10 – ADA Compliance – 3/5 Though a response was provided the bidder did not meet requirements and the following deficiencies are noted:

• Not enough robust ADA checkers

• ADA compliance plan vague

6. Vendor Questions Worksheet. 7/10

Though a response was provided the bidder did not meet requirements and the following deficiencies are noted:

• Did not list relevant procurement review experience

• One reference could not be verified – reference no longer worked for organization

Total Score: 67/100

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

Selection Criteria CN Resources

Macias Gini O’Connell

Myers and Stauffer

Sarah Low School Food & Wellness

1 Schedule A, Statement of Work – Scope of Work - Compliance Projects - Experience

25 12 25 5 14

2 Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1 – General Requirements

20 9 20 5 14

3 Schedule A - Statement of Work, Section 2, 3, 4

20 11 20 4 14

4 Schedule A – Statement of Work, Section 5 – Project Management.

Meetings, Reporting, 20 15 20 5 15

5 Schedule A – Statement of Work, Section 10 – ADA Compliance

5 3 5 3 3

6 Vendor Questions Worksheet 10 5 10 4 7

Total 100 55 100 26 67

V. Pricing Summary

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

Deliverable CN Resources Myers & Stauffers

1 School Nutrition Program Procurement Reviews

Per review breakdown below for each deliverable

Per review breakdown below for each deliverable

2 Child and Adult Care Food Program

Administrative Reviews

3 School Nutrition Program Administrative Reviews

4 Summer Food Service Program Administrative Reviews

5 Special Projects

Total Price $922,500.00 $922,500.00

CN

Resources

Myers & Stauffer

Desk Reviews A - Procurement Review Small - Price Per Review $1,975 $1,750

Medium -Price Per Review $2,475 $2,250

Large - Price Per Review $2,975 $2,750

Extra Large - Price Per Review $3,475 $3,250

Hourly Rate $109 $185

Reviews that include On-Site Field Work

B - Child & Adult Care Food Program

Administrative Review

B - Child & Adult Care Food Program

Administrative Review

Small - Price Per Review $3,915 $3,000

Medium -Price Per Review $5,315 $3,500

Large - Price Per Review $6,715 $4,000

Extra Large - Price Per Review $8,115 $4,500

*Additional Site Visit 1/2 Day $975 $500

*Additional Site Visit Full Day $1,400 $1,000

Hourly Rate $130 $200

Reviews that include On-Site Field Work

C - School Nutrition Program

Administrative Review

C - School Nutrition Program

Review

Small - Price Per Review $8,220 $11,000

Medium -Price Per Review $10,275 $12,500

Large - Price Per Review $13,800 $14,000

Extra Large - Price Per Review $15,500 $15,500

*Additional Site Visit 1/2 Day $995 $500

*Additional Site Visit Full Day $1,470 $1,000

Reviews that include On-Site Field Work

D - Summer Food Service Program Administrative

Reiew

D - Summer Food Service Program

Reiew

Small - Price Per Review $2,740 $3,400

Medium -Price Per Review $3,495 $3,900

Large - Price Per Review $4,250 $4,400

Extra Large - Price Per Review $5,005 $4,900

*Additional Site Visit 1/2 Day $755 $500

*Additional Site Visit Full Day $775 $1,000

Work Type E - Special Projects E - Special Projects

Offsite Hourly Rate $109 $185

Fieldwork Hourly Rate $130 $200

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.

CN Resources and Myers & Stauffer LLC provided the best overall value to the State. Best value factors for Award Recommendation included experience, capacity, technical score and budget.

Award recommendation is made to CN Resources and Myers & Stauffer LLC in the amount of $922,500.00 per contract.