Award Recommendation and Evaluation Synopsis NIA 260000000682.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. 2600000001065 - Nutritional Services at the Center for Forensic Psychiatry (CFP) and Southeast Michigan Psychiatric Hospital (SMPH) – Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and has recommended an award to Morrison Management Specialist, Inc. in the amount of $14,000,000.00, 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 Nutritional Services at the Center for Forensic Psychiatry (CFP) and Southeast Michigan Psychiatric Hospital (SMPH). The term of this contract is two (2), with up to six (6) renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on Thursday, April 30, 2026. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of Thursday, May 28, 2026.

Boston, MA 02210

Warren, MI 48091

*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 preproposal meeting held on Tuesday, May 12, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. beginning at the Southeast Michigan Psychiatric Hospital (SMPH) and finishing at the Center for Forensic Psychiatry (CFP). Attendance was required for bidders to be considered responsive.

Proposal Instructions: Evaluation Process The full evaluation process is stated in the RFP Proposal Instructions.

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

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

Nick Norcross, State Assistant Administrator DHHS – State Hospital Administration Debra Frazzitta, Buyer Specialist DHHS – Bureau of Grants and Purchasing

Kathryn Russell, Administrative Officer

DHHS – SMPH

Andrea Vandenbergh, Hospital Director

DHHS - CFP

Carolyn Sasatani, Dietitian/Nutrition Manager

DHHS - CFP

Chantelle Woolard, Administrative Manager

DHHS - CFP

Amanda Smart, Solicitation Manager DTMB – Central Procurement Services

III. Evaluation Results A. Morrison Management Specialists, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Morrison Management Specialists, Inc. based on a score of 81, 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 and 3 The Evaluation Team noted the following deficiencies:

a. Section 1.1.B, Menu Structure Expectations: Bidder did not explain how patient preferences are incorporated into menu planning (e.g., surveys, preference tracking).

b. Section 1.1.C, Menu Cycle: Bidder submitted menu lacked meaningful variety and appeared hastily assembled, raising concerns regarding the Bidder’s menu development process and the level of consideration given to meeting CFP’s operational and nutritional needs.

c. Section 1.1.D / 3.1.C, Nutritional Analysis: Bidder’s nutritional analysis was incomplete and lacked required nutrient detail (e.g., saturated fat values), preventing full evaluation of menu compliance.

d. Section 1.2.B / 3.2.B, Product Specifications: Bidder proposed use of 80/20 ground beef, which does not meet the State’s required fat‑content standard (15–18%).

e. Section 1.3.D / 3.3.D, Adaptive Feeding Equipment: Bidder is able to meet the State’s requirement to supply adaptive feeding equipment, but is adding a 10% surcharge for the service.

f. Section 1.4.B / 3.4, Cleaning Requirements: Bidder stated they would not clean surfaces above six feet, which raised concern that critical areas may not be cleaned regularly and could present a health or safety issue.

g. Section 1.4.C / 3.4.C, Sanitation Procedures: Bidder did not explain their sanitation program or how cleaning chemicals are stored and controlled.

h. Section 1.4.D / 3.4.D, Corrective Cleaning: Bidder’s use of a “reasonableness” standard and a 48–72 hour correction timeframe raised concern that cleaning issues may not be addressed promptly, which could result in health or safety risks.

i. Section 3.1.A, NSLP Lunch Program: Bidder stated that menu products would be purchased and provided by the Hawthorn dietitian, but Hawthorn will not be at SMPH, resulting in concern regarding how NSLP meal production will be supported.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2 & 4 The Evaluation Team determined that the Bidder met all requirements of this section. No deficiencies were noted.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 5 The Evaluation Team determined that the Bidder met all requirements of this section. No deficiencies were noted.

4. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 6-9 The Evaluation Team noted the following deficiencies:

a. Section 9, Service Level Agreements (SLAs): Bidder requested that SLA compliance be set at 90% for the initial year of operations and then renegotiated, which raised concern as the State requires strong service to ensure patient health and wellbeing.

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

a. Section 2, Company Background Information: Bidder noted termination of the Ingham County Medical Care contract (3/31/24).

b. Section 5, Experience 1: Bidder did not provide outcome‑based details for the Connecticut Mental Health Center experience.

c. Section 6, Standard Contract Terms: Bidder proposed redlines to Contract Terms (Sections 1, 21, and 31).

Total Score: 81/100 B. The FOG Group, Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that The FOG Group, Inc. based on a score of 85, met the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria. However, the State issued a Clarification Request to The FOG Group, Inc. on June 17, 2026, seeking required additional detail regarding their proposal. Per Section 9 of the Proposal Instructions, “Failure to respond to a Clarification Request timely may be cause for disqualification”. The State required a response no later than June 24, 2026, at 12:00 p.m. No response was received. Because bidders are required to respond to all State‑issued clarification requests, The FOG Group, Inc. was deemed non‑responsive and removed from further evaluation.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1 and 3 The Evaluation Team noted the following deficiencies:

a. Section 1.1.C, Menu Cycle: Menu contained repetitious items and did not demonstrate adequate variety, limiting a realistic view of planned offerings.

b. Section 1.1.D / 3.1.C, Nutritional Analysis: Bidder’s nutritional analysis was incomplete and lacked required nutrient detail (e.g., saturated fat, potassium), preventing full evaluation of menu compliance.

c. Section 1.3.A / 3.3.A, Disposable Service Supplies: Bidder proposed lightweight breakable utensils rather than flexible, non‑breakable options required for secure psychiatric settings.

d. Section 1.4.E / 3.4.E, Third‑Party Audits: Bidder does not utilize third‑party sanitation audits, creating concern regarding unbiased verification of compliance.

e. Section 3.1.A, Dual Population Requirements: Bidder does not have experience operating a combined adult and youth meal‑service system within a single account.

f. Section 3.1.B, Substitutions: Bidder did not explain SMPH substitution processes and referenced CFP instead, which did not ask a similar question.

g. Section 3.1.B, Sample Menu: Bidder did not provide a sample SMPH menu for adult and youth patients.

h. Section 3.1.J, Holiday Menu: Bidder did not provide a sample holiday menu for SMPH.

i. Section 3.2.E, Standardized Recipes: Bidder indicated a 60/40 scratch‑cooking ratio, which is a low percentage.

j. Section 3.3.C, Adaptive Feeding Equipment: Bidder did not explain how adaptive feeding equipment processes would differ for children and adolescents at SMPH.

k. Bidder’s sample cleaning schedule did not meet required sanitation standards, including insufficient deliming frequency for equipment such as the dish machine and frequency of equipment cleaning.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 2 & 4 The Evaluation Team noted the following deficiencies:

a. Section 4.4, Storage of Items: Bidder did not explain how items will be stored, including how refrigerated items will be kept cold for proper unit storage.

b. Section 4.5, Delivery Documentation: Bidder did not describe how delivery, documentation, and labeling requirements would be met.

c. Section 4.7, Corrective Action: Bidder proposed a 72‑hour corrective‑action timeframe, which does not meet SMPH’s requirement for immediate correction of tray‑accuracy issues.

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 5 The Evaluation Team noted the following deficiencies:

a. Section 5.2 / 5.3 / 5.5 / 5.6 / 5.9 / 5.10, Staffing: Bidder responded only for SMPH when questions required staffing, training, organizational structure, scheduling, subcontractor disclosure, and security procedures for both CFP and SMPH, resulting in incomplete dual‑facility responses.

4. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 6-9 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: Bidder has limited healthcare experience, with the business founded in 2003 and adding healthcare in 2006.

b. Section 5, State Experience and Prior Experience: Bidder has no experience with psychiatric hospitals and no Joint Commission experience.

Total Score: 85/100 IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

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

VI. Negotiations The State conducted negotiations with Morrison Management Specialists, Inc. to refine pricing and clarify specific operational commitments. Because SMPH is opening a new facility with fluctuating patient volumes, the State requested revised tiered pricing for SMPH only to ensure accurate cost projections under varying census levels. Morrison provided updated Year 1 and Year 2 SMPH pricing at multiple census tiers.

Negotiations also focused on resolving concerns related to sanitation responsibilities and fair, measurable service‑level agreements (SLAs).

The negotiated updates strengthened pricing accuracy for SMPH and confirmed Morrison’s ability to meet all mandatory requirements.

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.

Morrison Management Specialists, Inc. 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:

· Morrison provided complete, detailed, and facility‑specific responses for both CFP and SMPH, showing clear operational readiness across dual‑site psychiatric hospital environments.

· Morrison delivered a comprehensive and responsive proposal, offering clarity in areas such as nutritional analysis, sanitation controls, corrective‑action processes, meal‑service workflows, tray‑accuracy procedures, and IDDSI compliance.

· Morrison demonstrated strong compliance with the State’s food‑safety, regulatory, and operational standards, including required cleaning practices, sanitation program documentation, equipment‑handling controls, and NSLP requirements for SMPH.

Award Recommendation is made to Morrison Management Specialists, Inc. in the amount of $14,000,000.00.

Version 2024-2 image1.png