State of Maine RFP or RFA# 202509135 1 Rev. 10/1/2025 – DAFS/Office of State Procurement Services

JANET T. MILLS

GOVERNOR

AMANDA BEAL

COMMISSIONER

DEPARTMENT OF

Department of Agriculture, Conservation &

Forestry

RFP # 202509135

Consultant Services – Maine Natural Resources Disaster Relief Assistance (NRDRA)

1. Purpose Through the subject RFP, the Department sought assistance in designing and administering NRDRA to ensure: 1) clear eligibility parameters; 2) effective outreach to eligible applicants; 3) a simple and secure process for producers to apply for payments that includes quality customer service and effective technical assistance; 4) organized tracking of applications; 5) vetting of submitted materials for accuracy and completeness; and 6) calculation of producer loss payments.

2. Evaluation Process An evaluation team was composed of 3 evaluators from the Department of Agriculture, Conservation & Forestry. The evaluation team determined the eligibility of each Bidder, performed individual evaluations of each eligible proposal and recorded individual notes, then met as a team to apply the consensus method for recording the team notes and assigning scores to each proposal for Qualifications and Experience and the Proposed Services sections. Cost was scored using a mathematical formula.

3. Conditional Awards As a result of the evaluation process, the evaluation team announced its conditional contract awards to the following vendors:

Service/Category Vendor Name Consultant Service Beck Disaster Recovery

Below are the key factors that resulted in the award selection(s) made through this evaluation process:

4. Qualifications & Experience

• The Eval team expresses that the Bidder’s team showed direct experience with disaster relief;

experience working with federal with state agencies

• The Eval team noted that Bidder has successfully executed a similar grant in other states.

5. Proposed Services

• Eval team expressed that the Bidders detailed the services to be provided and reflected their history of work, a clear understanding, and the necessary skills to implement the work plan.

file://atlas/tmlbran$/Word%20documents/images/seal.gif

State of Maine RFP or RFA# 202509135 2 Rev. 10/1/2025 – DAFS/Office of State Procurement Services

JANET T. MILLS

GOVERNOR

AMANDA BEAL

COMMISSIONER

DEPARTMENT OF

Department of Agriculture, Conservation &

Forestry

6. Cost Proposal Beck Disaster Recovery submitted a cost of $646,890.00 and was the fourth lowest cost proposed.

7. Conclusion Out of 100 possible points, the evaluation team awarded Beck Disaster Recovery a total score of 88.24 The strength of the awarded proposal outweighed the other proposals through a combination of its qualifications and experience, proposed services, and proposed cost. The evaluation team determined that the proposal submitted by Beck Disaster Recovery represents the best value to the State of Maine.

file://atlas/tmlbran$/Word%20documents/images/seal.gif

Bidder/Applicant Name RSM

Date of Team Evaluation 12/5/2025

State of Maine RFP # 202509135 pg. 1 Revised 10/01/2025 – DAFS/Office of State Procurement Services

State of Maine

Department of Agriculture, Conservation & Forestry

Bureau of Agriculture, Food & Rural Resources

TEAM CONSENSUS EVALUATION NOTES

RFP

Coordinator

Name Jessica Routhier Title Contract Grant Manager Email Jessica.a.routhier@maine.gov

Evaluation Team

Name Craig Lapine Name Joy Bonenfant Name JoD Saffeir mailto:Jessica.a.routhier@maine.gov

State of Maine RFP # 202509135 pg. 2

SUMMARY

Points Available Points Awarded File 1 Preliminary Information N/A N/A

File 2 Organization Qualifications and Experience 50 30

File 3 Proposed Services 25 20 File 4 Cost Proposal 25 17.83 Total: 100 Total: 67.83

State of Maine RFP # 202509135 pg. 3

File 2 Organization Qualifications and Experience

Points Available Points Awarded 50 30

Section Team Notes Overview of the Organization 1. Project examples are not ag focus; would have been stronger with better projects and/or examples

2. No disaster experience

Subcontractors 1. Listed one Organizational Chart 2. Provided Litigation 1. Did not list actual open or closed litigation Certificate of Insurance 1. Provided and current. No concerns.

State of Maine RFP # 202509135 pg. 4

File 3 Proposed Services

25 20

Proposed Services 1. Extensive experience w/ ag

2. Seems like a lot of the work will be giving to subcontractor Implementation – Work Plan 1. Workplan very detailed and methodical for loss

2. Plans to calculate payments for all

3. Provided clear loss methodology for timber

State of Maine RFP # 202509135 pg. 5

File 4 Cost Proposal

25 17.83

Scoring Formula Lowest Submitted

Cost Proposal / Cost Proposal Being Scored x Score

Weight = Pro-Rated Score

$523,845.19 / $734,300.00 x 25 = 17.83

Team Notes

1. Response to email stated that any software was included in the proposed price

Bidder/Applicant Name IEM

Date of Team Evaluation 12/5/2026

Bureau of Agriculture, Food & Rural Resources

Name Jessica Routhier

SUMMARY

Points Available Points Awarded File 1 Preliminary Information N/A N/A

File 2 Organization Qualifications and Experience 50 42

File 3 Proposed Services 25 21 File 4 Cost Proposal 25 17.27 Total: 100 Total: 80.27

File 2 Organization Qualifications and Experience

50 42

Overview of the Organization 1. NC based company.

2. The Eval team noted that the bidder has extensive disaster recovery experience.

3. It was noted that the projects provided were not direct ag but did offer loan programs for ag

4. Thoughtful outreach strategies for individuals' level on rural communities

Subcontractors 1. None Organizational Chart 1. Provided Litigation 1. Have a few pending cases and a dozen or so dismissed

File 3 Proposed Services

25 21

Proposed Services 1. The Eval team noted that the Bidder did research on what would be required to run project. They showed an understanding of loss categories methodologies and payment calculations

Implementation – Work Plan 1. Workplan was provided and detailed.

File 4 Cost Proposal

25 17.27

Cost Proposal / Cost Proposal Being Scored x Score

Weight = Pro-Rated

$523,845.19 / $758,331.00 x 25 = 17.27

1. Applicant stated that any software needed would cost roughly $50,000 on the low end.

Bidder/Applicant Name Beck Disaster Recovery

Date of Team Evaluation 12/2/25

Bureau of Agriculture, Food & Rural Resources

Name Jessica Routhier

State of Maine RFP # 202509135 pg. 2 Revised 10/01/2025 – DAFS/Office of State Procurement Services

SUMMARY

Points Available Points Awarded File 1 Preliminary Information N/A N/A

File 2 Organization Qualifications and Experience 50 45

File 3 Proposed Services 25 23 File 4 Cost Proposal 25 20.24

Total: 100 Total: 88.24

File 2 Organization Qualifications and Experience

50 45

Overview of the Organization 1. 25 years of disaster grant management experience

2. Eval team expresses that the Bidder’s team showed direct experience with disaster relief; experience working with federal with state agencies.

3. Eval team noted that Bidder has successfully executed a similar grant in other states

Subcontractors 1. None Organizational Chart 1. Provided org chart for key personal for our project

2. Strong staff with strong disaster assistance Litigation 1. No current or closed litigation

State of Maine RFP # 202509135 pg. 4 Revised 10/01/2025 – DAFS/Office of State Procurement Services

File 3 Proposed Services

Points Available Points Awarded 25 23

Section Team Notes Proposed Services 1. Eval team expressed that the Bidder would have a dedicated applicant support team for this project, with a clear understanding of task required to develop a loss methodology.

2. Detailed Implementation – Work Plan 1. Strong and detailed work plan was provided.

File 4 Cost Proposal

25 20.24

Cost Proposal / Cost Proposal Being Scored x Score

Weight = Pro-Rated

$523,845.19 / $646,890.00 x 25 = 20.24

Bidder/Applicant Name CEI

Date of Team Evaluation 12/2/2025

Bureau of Agriculture, Food & Rural Resources

Name Jessica Routhier

State of Maine RFP # 202509135 pg. 2 Revised 10/01/2025 – DAFS/Office of State Procurement Services

SUMMARY

Points Available Points Awarded File 1 Preliminary Information N/A N/A

File 2 Organization Qualifications and Experience 50 20

File 3 Proposed Services 25 12 File 4 Cost Proposal 25 17.29

Total: 100 Total: 49.29

File 2 Organization Qualifications and Experience

50 20

Overview of the Organization 1. Firm is based in Maine

2. The Eval team expressed that they thought their experience lacked details with experience with agricultural disaster relief program design or management.

Subcontractors 1. Provided, but the Eval team noted that that it seemed like the subcontractors would be doing most of the work.

Organizational Chart 1. Provided Litigation 1. No current or closed litigation

2. No forestry experience would need to contract it all out

File 3 Proposed Services

25 12

Proposed Services 1. The Eval team noted that the plan was simple and concise but lacked detail which made the Eval team unsure of the ability to complete the job.

Implementation – Work Plan 1. The Eval team expressed that they thought the plan lacked detail on how the proposed services would be completed.

File 4 Cost Proposal

25 17.29

Cost Proposal / Cost Proposal Being Scored x Score

Weight = Pro-Rated

$523,845.19 / $757,625.00 x 25 = 17.29

Bidder/Applicant Name Eastern Research Group

Bureau of Agriculture, Food & Rural Resources

Name Jessica Routhier

SUMMARY

Points Available Points Awarded File 1 Preliminary Information N/A N/A

File 2 Organization Qualifications and Experience 50 30

File 3 Proposed Services 25 10 File 4 Cost Proposal 25 20.38 Total: 100 Total: 60.38

File 2 Organization Qualifications and Experience

50 30

Overview of the Organization 1. MA and ME based

2. The Eval team noted that the Bidder did not provide any project experience showing examples of administering disaster relief program(s).

Subcontractors 1. None Organizational Chart 1. Provided

File 3 Proposed Services

25 10

Proposed Services 1. The Eval team noted that proposed services seemed to be generic and show the Bidder’s lack of understanding of disaster relief programs.

Implementation – Work Plan 1. The Eval team expressed that the Bidder’s workplan lacked detail on how it would be implemented. outreach plan seems like a Google search. The remainder of the plan lacked detail.

File 4 Cost Proposal

25 20.38

Cost Proposal / Cost Proposal Being Scored x Score

Weight = Pro-Rated

$523,845.19 / $642,581.08 x 25 = 20.38

1. Applicant did not respond to the email asking about software included in the proposed price.

Bidder/Applicant Name Chloeta

Bureau of Agriculture, Food & Rural Resources

Name Jessica Routhier

SUMMARY

Points Available Points Awarded File 1 Preliminary Information N/A N/A

File 2 Organization Qualifications and Experience 50 15

File 3 Proposed Services 25 8 File 4 Cost Proposal 25 25 Total: 100 Total: 48

State of Maine RFP # 202509135 pg. 3 Revised 10/01/2025 – DAFS/Office of State Procurement Services

File 2 Organization Qualifications and Experience

Points Available Points Awarded 50 15

Section Team Notes Overview of the Organization 1. Based in OK and been in business for 16 years.

2. Eval team noted that the projects listed were not relevant to to services that are needed.

Subcontractors 1. None Organizational Chart 1. Provided

Certificate of Insurance 1. Provided and current. No concerns

State of Maine RFP # 202509135 pg. 4 Revised 10/01/2025 – DAFS/Office of State Procurement Services

File 3 Proposed Services

Points Available Points Awarded 25 8

Section Team Notes Proposed Services 1. Eval team noted that the services did not seem to be well planned out and it seems like it was copied directly from the

RFP.

Implementation – Work Plan 1. Work plan was provided but was lacking detail

File 4 Cost Proposal

25 25

Cost Proposal / Cost Proposal Being Scored x Score

Weight = Pro-Rated

$523,845.19 / $523,845.19 x 25 = 25

1. Applicant did not respond to the email asking about software included in the proposed price.

Bidder/Applicant Name CohnReznick

Bureau of Agriculture, Food & Rural Resources

Name Jessica Routhier

SUMMARY

Points Available Points Awarded File 1 Preliminary Information N/A N/A

File 2 Organization Qualifications and Experience 50 44

File 3 Proposed Services 25 21 File 4 Cost Proposal 25 17.25 Total: 100 Total: 82.25

File 2 Organization Qualifications and Experience

50 44

Overview of the Organization 1. NJ based firm with 30+ years of experience

2. The Eval team noted that the Bidder has experience working with all US federal agencies.

3. The Eval team noted that all project examples where applicable to this project.

Subcontractors 1. Listed one that could be used if needed Organizational Chart 1. Provided Litigation 1. Don't really answer the questions did not provide a list

File 3 Proposed Services

25 21

Proposed Services 1. The Eval team noted that the Bidder provided a very detailed process of program design, establishing loss methodologies/procedures, TA & outreach, and payments

Implementation – Work Plan 1. Lack of resources in natural resources

2. Strong and detailed work plan was provided.

3. The Eval team noted that the Bidder provided a very clearly how they would execute the project.

File 4 Cost Proposal

25 17.25

Cost Proposal / Cost Proposal Being Scored x Score

Weight = Pro-Rated

$523,845.19 / $759,400.00 x 25 = 17.25

1. Applicant stated that any software needed would cost roughly $100,000 on the low end.

Bidder/Applicant Name FCMC LLC

Bureau of Agriculture, Food & Rural Resources

Name Jessica Routhier

SUMMARY

Points Available Points Awarded File 1 Preliminary Information N/A N/A

File 2 Organization Qualifications and Experience 50 42

File 3 Proposed Services 25 20 File 4 Cost Proposal 25 17.30 Total: 100 Total: 79.30

File 2 Organization Qualifications and Experience

50 42

Overview of the Organization 1. MO based

2. The Eval team noted the Bidder provided solid in experience and qualifications.

3. It was noted that the Bidder referenced crop and timber loss Subcontractors 1. None Organizational Chart 1. Provided

File 3 Proposed Services

Proposed Services 1. The Eval team noted that the Bidder would have a three-phased approach.

Implementation – Work Plan 1. Workplan was included that showed a plan and the capability to implement the project.

File 4 Cost Proposal

25 17.30

Cost Proposal / Cost Proposal Being Scored x Score

Weight = Pro-Rated

$523,845.19 / $756,800 x 25 = 17.30

1. Applicant stated that any software was included in the proposed price

Bidder/Applicant Name Pembroke

Bureau of Agriculture, Food & Rural Resources

Name Jessica Routhier

SUMMARY

Points Available Points Awarded File 1 Preliminary Information N/A N/A

File 2 Organization Qualifications and Experience 50 43

File 3 Proposed Services 25 17 File 4 Cost Proposal 25 17.75 Total: 100 Total: 77.75

File 2 Organization Qualifications and Experience

50 43

Overview of the Organization 1. The Eval team expressed that the Bidder showed a full understanding of the funding source and how the funds should be used and that they have the experience of working with producers

Subcontractors 1. Would have one subcontract Organizational Chart 1. Provided

File 3 Proposed Services

25 17

Proposed Services 1. The Eval team noted that the Bidder has relevant experience with Disaster Block grant. It was also noted that there was little to no mention of timber or aquaculture experience.

Implementation – Work Plan 2. Workplan provided but the Eval team noted that was confusion on what “research other states” means.

File 4 Cost Proposal

25 17.75

Cost Proposal / Cost Proposal Being Scored x Score

Weight = Pro-Rated

$523,845.19 / $737,980.00 x 25 = 17.75

Bidder/Applicant Name Scholar Fund

Bureau of Agriculture, Food & Rural Resources

Name Jessica Routhier

SUMMARY

Points Available Points Awarded File 1 Preliminary Information N/A N/A

File 2 Organization Qualifications and Experience 50 25

File 3 Proposed Services 25 20 File 4 Cost Proposal 25 21.83 Total: 100 Total: 66.83

File 2 Organization Qualifications and Experience

50 25

Overview of the Organization 1. 4 projects listed, noted how relevant to NRDRA but hard to determine what some of the projects were for.

2. No mention of ag in project examples

3. No natural resource experience

Subcontractors 1. No subcontractors will be used Organizational Chart 1. Seem like small teach w/ director being project manager

File 3 Proposed Services

Proposed Services 1. Included links, which are not accepted

2. Demonstrate grasp on eligibility questions

3. Cost of technology is not included in their cost proposal

4. Offer plan that suggest basic of SDRP but no direct ag or forestry experience

Implementation – Work Plan 1. Talk about engaging Maine partners if in-person would rely on the co-op extension

2. What does “assist” us to build accusation methods?

3. Some parts are strong and other have holes

4. Workplan says they have worked with USDA, but no details were provided.

File 4 Cost Proposal

25 21.83

Cost Proposal / Cost Proposal Being Scored x Score

Weight = Pro-Rated

$523,845.19 / $600,000.00 x 25 = 21.83

Bidder/Applicant Name Integrum

Bureau of Agriculture, Food & Rural Resources

Name Jessica Routhier

State of Maine RFP # 202509135 pg. 2 Revised 10/01/2025 – DAFS/Office of State Procurement Services

SUMMARY

Points Available Points Awarded File 1 Preliminary Information N/A N/A

File 2 Organization Qualifications and Experience 50 20

File 3 Proposed Services 25 10 File 4 Cost Proposal 25 17.03

Total: 100 Total: 47.03

File 2 Organization Qualifications and Experience

50 20

Overview of the Organization 1. Puerto Rico based

2. The Eval team noted that all project examples were based in Puerto Rico and that none involved agriculture.

Subcontractors 1. One subcontractor mentioned Organizational Chart 1. Provided

File 3 Proposed Services

25 10

Proposed Services 1. The Eval team noted that there was very little detail in how outreach would be conducted but the our phase framework is clear

Implementation – Work Plan 1. Workplan would be a four-tier approach that lacked detail on how it would be executed.

File 4 Cost Proposal

25 17.03

Cost Proposal / Cost Proposal Being Scored x Score

Weight = Pro-Rated

$523,845.19 / $769,000.00 x 25 = 17.03

1. Cost actual is $817,000.00 as they did not include travel cost

2. Response to email stated that the software needed would cost roughly $200,000

Evaluator

Title Director of Food and Rural Resources Department Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry

Date of Individual Evaluation December 2, 2025

Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry

Agriculture Resource Development

INDIVIDUAL EVALUATION NOTES

File 2 – Organization Qualifications and Experience

Individual Notes Overview of the Organization Example projects don’t seem quite on target. I.e. municipalities as beneficiaries vs farmers/foresters as beneficiaries a big difference. Grant monitoring not SOM’s primary need. Heavy insurance focus. Work plan shows familiarity with forestry.

Subcontractors iParametrics Organizational Chart yes Litigation none Financial Viability No data Licensure/Certification Certificate of Insurance yes

File 3 – Proposed Services

Proposed Services Can do the job. Cookie cutter.

Implementation – Work Plan

Title Resource Administrator

Date of Individual Evaluation 12-4-25

Agriculture Resource Development

Overview of the Organization IL based company based

5 projects – none related to disaster relief although case study mentioned on page 2 However, see Services to be provided

Subcontractors One Organizational Chart Provided for our project Litigation Provided – not disclosed but none pending action or claims Financial Viability Can’t determine from information provided Licensure/Certification Provided and signed Certificate of Insurance Provided

Proposed Services RSM Team (including iParametrics) has worked with over 30 state-level agencies and 500+ cities, counties, and townships with over 75 presidentially declared disasters over the last 20+ years & more than $12 B in fed grant funds under management over the past 5 years.

Implementation – Work Plan 13 pages of very detailed work plan including loss methodologies. Also, will calculate payments for crop, timber, aquaculture and infrastructure losses.

Name Jo D. Saffeir Title Deputy Commissioner

Date of Individual Evaluation 11/28/2025

Agriculture Resource Development

Overview of the Organization Chicago, IL-based; tax accounting firm; manage grant programs for many states and federal agencies; project examples are not agriculturally focused; MEMA has been a client

Subcontractors Y – iParametrics LLC Organizational Chart Y but no detail Litigation N Financial Viability Licensure/Certification Y Certificate of Insurance Y

Proposed Services "Extensive experience [with]...agricultural assistance initiatives...and forestry relief efforts nationwide” Implementation – Work Plan Very detailed and methodical; provides clear documentation of timber loss methodology; comparable experience with crops?

They suggest disbursement of funds occur in two stages (??);

outreach plan doesn’t appear focused on broad access (no multi-language materials); unusual note that they prefer to use their own contract terms

Agriculture Resource Development

Overview of the Organization Very impressive description of rural outreach. “IEM has run the most successful, fastest, most cost-efficient, large-scale disaster recovery programs in U.S. history.” True? Detailed description of loss methodology and payment calculations. Has worked with USDA but not ag projects. (Rural Development?) Did a disaster relief program with VT.

Subcontractors None Organizational Chart Litigation Noted. Lots of discrimination claims?

Financial Viability

Proposed Services Detailed description of process for establishing eligibility, valuing losses, and calculating payments. Turnkey platform for application materials. Thorough discussion of TA to applicants.

(Got a photo of a Maine potato field for their cover image.)

Date of Individual Evaluation 11-26-25

Agriculture Resource Development

Overview of the Organization NC based company

Founded 40 years ago in disaster response and recovery Per proposal they are the most successful, fastest, most cost-effective large-scale disaster recovery in US history – if true, impressive.

5 project examples provided but none directly to ag although did offer loan programs to ag producers (pg 30)

Subcontractors None Organizational Chart Provided and DACF plan included Litigation Provided & long list of labor & emp and breach of contract Financial Viability Can’t determine with info provided

Proposed Services 20 page detailed plan provided

+Team members include former HUD/FEMA officials along with emergency management and disaster recovery experts

- System they would use is not included in cost proposal so that score will be skewed. (pg 37)

Implementation – Work Plan Plan is thorough and viable but unknown costs are a factor.

Agriculture Resource Development

Overview of the Organization Raleigh, NC; woman/minority owned; deep disaster recovery experience, but not USDA; strong cultural awareness/focus: low-middle income individuals, applicants with limited English – to ensure broad benefit; no crop loss calculation experience

Subcontractors N Organizational Chart Y Litigation A long list of litigation Financial Viability

Proposed Services Responsible attempt to show understanding of loss categories, methodologies and payment calculations, but underscored the lack of experience

Implementation – Work Plan Extremely long proposal – caused concern over ability to be clear and concise

Date of Individual Evaluation November 26, 2025

Agriculture Resource Development

Overview of the Organization Significant relevant experience, including supporting states in implementing disaster relief grants from USDA and FEMA. Has worked for CT on FEMA.

Subcontractors None reported Organizational Chart Clear.

Litigation check Financial Viability Publicly traded co. Apparently stable.

Certificate of Insurance check

Proposed Services Clear understanding of the project. Description of work evidences familiarity with like projects. Curious about the “dedicated applicant support team.” who? Where?

Agriculture Resource Development

Overview of the Organization + 59 years in business, 24 years disaster relief direct experience

>500 state/local clients, >100 presidential declared disasters, >$81 billion in reimbursements

Subcontractors None Organizational Chart Chart is for project personnel, program manager has 4.2 billion in grant funding, 7 years experience on 13 disasters.

Litigation No claims, suits, litigations or judgements Financial Viability Cannot be determined from information provided to me

Proposed Services Organized, proven plan with relevant experience to back it up.

Bidder understands the dept needs, 10 pages of plan description but still lacking details.

Implementation – Work Plan +Department staff can monitor progress, get reports and manage docs…..but on who’s system?

+Proven system, previously tested w/ other states ? DACF equipment to be used and bidder will have access?

How Share point….seems we would be managing more than the bidder??

Date of Individual Evaluation 11/26/2025

Agriculture Resource Development

Title Deputy Commissioner Department Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry

Bidder/Applicant Name Beck Disaster Recovery

Date of Individual Evaluation 11/26/2025

File 2 – Organization Qualifications and Experience

Individual Notes Overview of the Organization DBA Tetra Tech, Inc. Specializes in disaster recovery. 25 years disaster grant management experience Subcontractors N Organizational Chart Y – Staff with strong disaster recovery experience, with the FL

Citrus Recovery Block Grant and the FL Timber Recovery Block Grant: $743M total. FEMA-heavy experience. A deep team

Litigation N Financial Viability

Proposed Services A bit unclear on the line between DACF and TetraTech’s roles:

“help design;” “we will co-design.” Detailed; understands tasks required developing loss methodology. Strong focus on equity and accessibility. Detailed outreach plan

Implementation – Work Plan Strong and detailed. No timeline provided.

Date of Individual Evaluation December 1, 2025

Agriculture Resource Development

Overview of the Organization Track record in working with DACF and SOM.

Subcontractors JGH consulting.

Organizational Chart yes Litigation none Financial Viability known Licensure/Certification NA

Proposed Services Understands scope of project.

Implementation – Work Plan How fast can they move? Needs assessment doc?

Phase 2: sole IT staff person?

Phase 3: leverage SCORE and SBDC

Agriculture Resource Development

Overview of the Organization +Non profit, + 48 years in business, + $1.75 billion in loans, eq tax credit to 3488 businesses. +Strong in community outreach -Only 2 projects submitted and neither are relevant to DACF’s needs.

+Maine based company.

Subcontractors 1-JGH Food Consulting Organizational Chart Provided for DACF specific project Litigation Provided & none Financial Viability Information not provided to determine this

Proposed Services Note: Proven success of state of Maine projects but not this type of project though.

Plan is simple and concise, detail is lacking and unsure of ability to complete the job from the information provided.

-No mention of loss calculation or experience

Date of Individual Evaluation 11/25/2025

Agriculture Resource Development

Overview of the Organization Brief. Not detailed with respect to experience with agricultural disaster relief program design or management. CARES funding (2020) and AIIP (2021) did not require establishing loss calculation methodologies.

Subcontractors Y – JGH Food Consulting (Gray Harris) and Scott Marlow – formerly USDA FSA – unclear their level of experience verifying losses and setting up automated systems

Organizational Chart Y Litigation N Financial Viability

Proposed Services Phase One as described is largely done already, or what’s proposed is higher level than what is needed. Bidder would need to contract out forestry expertise.

Implementation – Work Plan Lacking detail.

Agriculture Resource Development

Overview of the Organization Maine presence.

Subcontractors Organizational Chart Provided. Not clear on producer support. Some fed experience.

Right skill sets?

Litigation none Financial Viability

Proposed Services Implementation – Work Plan Outreach. Not clear grasp of the ecosystem. Sample partner organizations seems to be Google-searched generic list with no actual relationships represented.

Not confident they have the right team.

Agriculture Resource Development

Overview of the Organization MA based company with office in Maine

+30 years’ experience

- No specific disaster relief is mentioned in qualifications or project examples Subcontractors None Organizational Chart Provided for our project Litigation Provided and none Financial Viability Can’t determine from info provided

Proposed Services 11 page description of proposed service plan, timeline provided

Pg 4 – self admitted that programs they have experience with vary with respect to scope of coverage, intent, and implementation (again no disaster relief experience)

Implementation – Work Plan Pg 6 outreach to Maine Assoc of Ag Fairs – is this a good option??

Pg 11 EPA staff ONLY on review committee – DACF will want a seat at this table

Agriculture Resource Development

Overview of the Organization MA and ME based. Unclear what ERG does: help clients manage natural resource programs? A broad consultancy. Have agricultural economists on staff with experience “estimating agricultural losses.” Some tangential forestry experience.

Worked on climate action plan for GOPIF. No examples of administering disaster relief programs or calculating losses.

Subcontractors N Organizational Chart Y Litigation N Financial Viability

Proposed Services Lacks detail and sophistication; not enough direct experience Implementation – Work Plan ~10 months proposed to dispensing payments. Not based on past experience administering such a program.

Agriculture Resource Development

Overview of the Organization Founded 2009. Experience with USDA, FEMA, others. Projects provided not terribly relevant.

Subcontractors NA Organizational Chart Adequate and appropriate staffing plan. Would like to know more about Alex Rivas, identified as “producer liaison.” Has ag infrastructure expertise—not clear about ag biz understanding.

Litigation Financial Viability

Proposed Services Has a methodology for evaluating producer loss. Very thin.

Implementation – Work Plan Promises partnership with “extension offices, producer associations, and commodity groups.” Existing relationships?

Agriculture Resource Development

Overview of the Organization + 16 years experience (founded in 2009)

+ 100’s projects delivered in US

- projects not relevant to ours specifically disaster relief

Subcontractors None Organizational Chart Provided 2 – Company org chart and project org chart Litigation Provided – None Financial Viability Cannot determine this with info provided

Proposed Services + Single point of contact Implementation – Work Plan Plan is concise, lacking detail and not well planned out

Payment calculation methodologies is vague

Agriculture Resource Development

Overview of the Organization OK-based; 16 yrs in business; disaster recovery a key focus area; have a Maine field office in Augusta. Stated agricultural expertise includes PFAS and USDA disaster programs. Some USFA experience – disaster preparedness. Also hazard assessment experience.

Subcontractors N Organizational Chart Y Litigation N Financial Viability

Proposed Services Lacks detail Implementation – Work Plan Lacks detail

Agriculture Resource Development

Overview of the Organization Lots of experience. Big staff.

Subcontractors Submittable (however, costs not included in bid) Organizational Chart Litigation Not clear Financial Viability

Proposed Services Has a methodology for evaluating producer loss.

Implementation – Work Plan NOTE: cost of Submittable services not included.

“In less than 8 months, CohnReznick reviewed and processed thousands of applications to support the timely, accurate, and compliant disbursement of more than $195 million in emergency rental and utility assistance to over 27,500 Connecticut households. Our efforts helped make UniteCT one of the nation’s most effective and responsive emergency rental assistance programs during the pandemic”

p. 8

Bidder/Applicant Name CohnRiznick

Agriculture Resource Development

Overview of the Organization NJ Based

+ 106 years old, +30 years exp and delivery of $67B in Fed funds, + Project experience applicable especially Texas GLO Hurricane Recovery

Subcontractors 1 Grant Management platform Organizational Chart Provided and our project is included Litigation Blurb included but question not answered.

Financial Viability Can’t determine from information provided

Proposed Services 15 page detailed plan provided with timeline Implementation – Work Plan Submittable platform implementation?? Will our OIT approve this program? Payment operations through same program??

SOM has our own payment platforms.

- Additional costs if Submittable is used, this will skew the score in the cost proposal section.

Agriculture Resource Development

Overview of the Organization Large firm, based in NJ/MD - focus on CPA, advisory and tax services. Experience with FEMA, HUD, EPA, USDA. Mississippi Delta Regional Food Bank: designed eligibility, application process and payment verification system. Managed CT HUD program with 27,000 applicants and TX Disaster Recovery with “rigorous underwriting.” Impressive, efficient management of very large programs. Has experience with Delta Regional Food Business Center.

Subcontractors Y – for an independent intake platform possibly Organizational Chart Y – clear roles defined; deep bench Litigation N – But legal disclaimer should be reviewed.

Financial Viability

Proposed Services Very detailed 2 ½ month process for program design, establishing loss methodologies and procedures, TA & outreach, and payments – need to confirm timeline

Implementation – Work Plan Very detailed.

Agriculture Resource Development

Overview of the Organization Directly relevant experience supporting states and municipalities. in deploying federal disaster relief funds. Ten states. USDA, HUD, FEMA.

Subcontractors None listed.

Organizational Chart Litigation Check.

Financial Viability

Certificate of Insurance Yes.

Proposed Services Thorough understanding of the process. Reasonable sequence.

Time frames not identified.

Agriculture Resource Development

Overview of the Organization MO Based Company

1500 Recovery Projects >25 years Experience Managed/Consultation provided on >$5B in Fed/state funds 3 relevant projects described Maine lighthouse on proposal cover did not go unnoticed

Subcontractors Form is blank – assume none Organizational Chart States all employees “will have” experience, strange wording, makes me wonder when they will have this experience.

Proposed project org chart provided for our project

Litigation None Financial Viability Can’t determine from information provided

Proposed Services 6 page plan provided

Homegrown system for eligibility/tracking etc.

Implementation – Work Plan They will provide daily, weekly, and monthly reports.

No loss calculation formula/explanation Plan and capable to implement the project although no timeline provided.

Agriculture Resource Development

Overview of the Organization Missouri based. State that they have provided TA and program assistance to 1,500 state/local recovery projects (??). State that they were the first firm in the US to design and manage agricultural disaster recovery block grants. State they were engaged in FL Citrus and Timber Disaster Recovery Block Grant programs – Tetra Tech (and another bidder??) also stated that their firm managed these. Experienced in both crop and timber loss.

Subcontractors N Organizational Chart Y Litigation N Financial Viability

Proposed Services Less detailed than some other proposals regarding the process of developing loss calculation methodology Implementation – Work Plan Heavy on process, light on substance.

Agriculture Resource Development

Overview of the Organization Direct, relevant experience, including supporting other programs funded by the American Relief Act, 2025. FSA connections and understanding.

Subcontractors Karmen Consulting Organizational Chart Yes Litigation none Financial Viability No data Licensure/Certification yes Certificate of Insurance

Proposed Services Loss methodologies. Understand interaction with other RMA programs. Gets infrastruture difference.

Light on IT?

Implementation – Work Plan “understand..time-sensitive pressures.”

Date of Individual Evaluation 12-3-25

Agriculture Resource Development

Overview of the Organization VA based company

4 directly related projects specifically the State of GA, disaster relief from Hurricane Helene

Subcontractors One Organizational Chart Provided for our project Litigation Not provided Financial Viability Can’t determine from info provided

Proposed Services Pg 3 “DACF policy and methodology for calculating the loss”, we want them to do this.

Pg 5 – possible additional cost for IT system, this would skew the cost proposal score.

Implementation – Work Plan No project timeline provided, assume within RFP period??

Pg 4 “Pembroke could research how block grants were administered in other states”….are they prepared to do this project for us?

Date of Individual Evaluation 11/29/2025

Agriculture Resource Development

Overview of the Organization Springfield, VA-based; 10 yrs of FSA support; two key staff have worked at FSA; Kathy Sayers is listed at point of contact for their 1st project example; if they’ve helped design the eligibility parameters for the 220 Block Grant program, then perhaps they don’t understand the needs of Maine producers sufficiently;

appear to have solid experience verifying losses; less clear if they’ve developed calculation methodology

Subcontractors Y – another former FSA staffperson who is supporting GA on a disaster block grant very similar to the 220 block grant

Organizational Chart Y Litigation N Financial Viability

Proposed Services Relevant GA Disaster Block Grant experience; unclear if that program is all that much further along than ME in its development, so not sure how much learning there is to benefit from; little mention of timber or aquaculture experience

Implementation – Work Plan Reference to evaluating how block grants have been administered in other states suggests lack of prior experience;

no existing app portal/platform noted: “we will work with DACF to create new fillable pdf app docs/forms;” no timeline provided

Date of Individual Evaluation December 5, 2025

Agriculture Resource Development

Overview of the Organization Grasp of nuance. Program design and loss calculation. First names only? Move fast. AmeriCorps. HHS. No natural resource experience.

Subcontractors Organizational Chart Litigation Financial Viability

Certificate of Insurance

Proposed Services

Date of Individual Evaluation

12-4-25

Agriculture Resource Development

Overview of the Organization WA based company

Over past 5 years, they have managed >450k apps, delivered <$300 M in direct relief to across 16 states Team has “deep expertise” in prgm design, loss verification, app intake, case mngmnt, payment calculation, outreach, and rapid deployment of benefit delivery systems.

4 projects listed and noted how relevant to our NRDRA, projects in economic disruption and can’t determine what other 3 projects were for but no mention of Ag.

Subcontractors None Organizational Chart Provided with our project Litigation Provided and none Financial Viability Can’t determine from information provided

Proposed Services Clicked view demo X 2 in the link provided and nothing.

Pg 3 “help you build calculation methods” Implementation – Work Plan 18 page very detailed work plan, Pg 7, they show up with systems already built, tested, and proven at scale.

They will work with ME Coop exts and ag economists who understand our regions production systems and can provide technical guidance on loss verification methods. On who’s dime? How? Are coop exts on board to do this?

No time-line provided.

Agriculture Resource Development

Overview of the Organization (aka Unify); Seattle, WA-based; broad experience with high-volume relief programs; multilingual experience; project examples provided were implemented VERY quickly – very focused on speed and efficiency; no agricultural examples;

demo link didn’t work for me (?); included a 170-page insurance policy !!!;

Subcontractors N Organizational Chart N but bios of project team Litigation N Financial Viability

Proposed Services Offer a plan that suggests some basic understanding of SDRP but no direct ag or forestry experience; lack understanding that weather events have already been defined

Implementation – Work Plan Appendix E states they’ve worked with USDA programs but no detail provided; show experience allocating fund equitably; Set out methodology for calculating losses and payments;

IMPRESSIVE breakdown of implementation steps; have an already built platform for application management; unrealistic that they could engage Maine partners with little lead time if in-person TA support is needed (which it likely would be for some portion of applicants)

Agriculture Resource Development

Overview of the Organization Relevant project experience. Leaning on actuarial science as basis of expertise. I.e., loss valuation? Outreach lead is an accountant?

Subcontractors NovaForge. Appears to be well established partnership.

Organizational Chart yes Litigation none Financial Viability No data

Proposed Services Dedicated tech platform. Integrated data. 4-pronged TA for applicants, Implementation – Work Plan Timeline is longer than I would have liked to see—but perhaps it is what is required.

Agriculture Resource Development

Overview of the Organization Puerto Rico based company

Disaster recovery project experience but Ag is not mentioned Maine Logo on proposal did not go unnoticed

Subcontractors One – consulting firm specializing in disaster recovery (among others)

Organizational Chart Provided – not stated if for our project or the entire company though

Litigation Provided none Financial Viability Can’t determine from info provided Licensure/Certification Provided and Signed

Proposed Services 4 Phase plan with timeline included although long it is within the

RFP guidelines. Loss validation and payment calculation mentioned, ReconstructIQ – Integrums’ system for application and management tracking (included? no mention of additional cost).

Implementation – Work Plan Loss validation and payment calculation mentioned.

Team seems capable but outreach contact is an accounting professional and outreach analyst....strange combination.

Date of Individual Evaluation 11/28/25

Agriculture Resource Development

Overview of the Organization Puerto Rico-based; Partnering with NovaForge; all project examples in PR, none agricultural Subcontractors Y Organizational Chart Y Litigation N Financial Viability

Certificate of Insurance Y; will be updated if needed

Proposed Services Four phase framework is clear; very little detail in outreach plan Implementation – Work Plan Clear and detailed timeline but concerningly long – finishing in

November 2027, spanning change in administration

Revised 10/01/2025 – DAFS/Office of State Procurement Services pg. 1

AGREEMENT AND DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Consultant Services – Maine Natural Resources Disaster Relief Assistance (NRDRA)

I, Craig Lapine, accept the offer to become a member of the Evaluation Team for this solicitation for the State of Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry. I do hereby accept the terms set forth in this agreement AND hereby disclose any affiliation or relationship I may have in connection with a bidder who has submitted a proposal to this solicitation.

Neither I nor any member of my immediate family have a personal or financial interest, direct or indirect, in the bidders whose proposals I will be reviewing. “Interest” may include, but is not limited to: current or former ownership in the bidder’s company; current or former Board membership; current or former employment with the bidder; current or former personal contractual relationship with the bidder (example: paid consultant); and/or current or former relationship to a bidder’s official which could reasonably be construed to constitute a conflict of interest (personal relationships may be perceived by the public as a potential conflict of interest).

I have not advised, consulted with or assisted any bidder in the preparation of any proposal submitted in response to this solicitation nor have I submitted a letter of support or similar endorsement.

I understand and agree that the evaluation process is to be conducted in an impartial manner without bias or prejudice. In this regard, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, there are no circumstances that would reasonably support a good faith charge of bias. I further understand that in the event a good faith charge of bias is made, it will rest with me to decide whether I should be disqualified from participation in the evaluation process.

I agree to hold confidential all information related to the contents of this solicitation presented during the review process until such time as the Department formally releases the award decision notices for public distribution.

Signature Date

STATE OF MAINE

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

CONSERVATION AND FORESTRY

Janet T. Mills Governor

Amanda Beal Commissioner

11/21/2025

Revised 10/01/2025 – DAFS/Office of State Procurement Services pg. 1

AGREEMENT AND DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Consultant Services – Maine Natural Resources Disaster Relief Assistance (NRDRA)

I, Joy Bonenfant, accept the offer to become a member of the Evaluation Team for this solicitation for the State of Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry. I do hereby accept the terms set forth in this agreement AND hereby disclose any affiliation or relationship I may have in connection with a bidder who has submitted a proposal to this solicitation.

Nei