RFP 240000002057- Award Recommendation and Synopsis 8-20-24.pdf

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

Version 2024-2 Page 1 of 6

AWARD RECOMMENDATION

Notice of Intent to Award Number: 240000001306

Notice of Intent to Award Date: 8/23/2024

The Department of Technology, Management and Budget office has completed the evaluation of RFP 240000002057 – Food and Food Related Products- Statewide and has recommended an award to Gordon Food Services in the amount of $9,500,000.00, 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:

Valerie Hiltz, Solicitation Manager.

HiltzV@michigan.gov 517-249-0459

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 Related Products. The term of this contract is for three base contract years, with up to three one-year renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on Tuesday, May 14, 2024, and was available for review for 28 days. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of June 10, 2024.

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

Gordon Food Services, Inc.

1300 Gezon Parkway, SW, Wyoming, MI 49509 No No

*SDVOB: Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Business **GDBE: Geographically Disadvantaged Business Enterprise https://www.michigan.gov/dtmb/policies/state-ad-board https://www.michigan.gov/dtmb/procurement/contractconnect/bid-proposals https://www.michigan.gov/dtmb/procurement/contractconnect/bid-proposals

Version 2024-2 Page 2 of 6

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

7. EVALUATION PROCESS. The State will evaluate each proposal based on the following factors:

Technical Evaluation Criteria Weight

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1 15

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2 30

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 3, 4, 5 & 6 20

4. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 7, 8, 9, & 10 15

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet 20 Total 100

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

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 (JEC) which consisted of the following individuals:

Voting

Kerri Bielski, Buyer DTMB/ Financial Services

Lauri Bonnell, Contract Analyst MDHHS/ Bureau of Grants and Purchasing, Facilities Purchasing Section

Valerie Hiltz, Category Specialist DTMB Central Procurement Services/ Commodities and Services Division

Kristin Myers, Buyer LEO/ Administrative Services

Karley Mika, Dietitian Nutritionist Manager 2 MDHHS/ State Hospital Administration/ Caro Psychiatric Hospital

Pam Mlostek, Executive Secretary MDHHS/ Children’s Service Agency/ Juvenile Programs

John Righter, Administrative Manager MDOC/ CFA Jackson

Lisa Schaible, Contract Monitor MDOC/ Budget and Operations Admin., Procurement, Monitoring and Compliance Division

Version 2024-2 Page 3 of 6

Voting

Amanda Webber, General Office Assistant MDHHS/ Children’s Service Agency/ Juvenile Programs

Advisory Arnold VandeMark, Contract Administrator MDOC/ Procurement Monitoring and Compliance Division

Nick Norcross, State Assistant Administrator MDHHS/ State Hospital Administration

III. Evaluation Results

A. Gordon Food Service

The Evaluation Team determined that Gordon Food Services, Inc. based on a score of 85, did meet 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 overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiency was noted:

a. Section 1.5.A. Bidder was required to explain what information would need to be collected in order to set up accounts, however the bidder didn’t provide this information.

14/15

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory with no deficiencies noted.

30/30

3. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 3, 4, 5 & 6 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly satisfactory, but the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 3.4. Bidder was required to describe how they would comply with Security requirements. Bidder indicated that they would comply but didn’t describe how.

b. Section 3.4. Bidder was required to provide the scope of background checks.

The Bidder indicated that background checks would occur, but they didn’t provide the scope of the background checks.

c. Section 5.6. Bidder was required to describe how they would comply with Order Verification requirements. The Bidder indicated that they had controls in place, but they didn’t describe what those controls were.

17/20

Version 2024-2 Page 4 of 6

4. Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 7, 8, 9, & 10 The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were satisfactory with no deficiencies noted.

15/15

5. Vendor Questions Worksheet The Evaluation Team determined that overall, the responses were mostly unsatisfactory with the following deficiencies noted:

a. Section 2. Bidder didn’t provide gross annual sales. Bidder did not indicate if the award of this contract would increase their gross annual sales more than 25%

b. Section 5. Bidder didn’t list all the contracts they have held with the State over the past 10 years.

c. Section 5. Experience 1. Bidders experience was of dissimilar size and JEC was unable to determine scope.

d. Section 5. Experience 2. Bidders experience was of dissimilar size and JEC was unable to determine scope.

e. Section 5. Experience 3. JEC was unable to determine scope.

f. Section 8. Bidder didn’t provide minimum wage information, didn’t provide average wage information.

9/20

Total Score: 85/100

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary

Selection Criteria Gordon Food Service

1 Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 1 14

2 Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 2 30

3 Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 3, 4, 5 & 6 17

4 Schedule A, Statement of Work, Section 7, 8, 9, & 10 15

5 Vendor Questions Worksheet 9

Total 85

Version 2024-2 Page 5 of 6

V. Pricing Summary

The Bidder pricing, having passed technical evaluation, was evaluated. The following is a summary of their price proposal:

Proposed Cost Plus

Product Category Subgroup Mark-up on Cost Chemical 10.60% Beverage 10.65% Beverage Dietary Supplements 7.75% Beverage Frozen Dietary Supplement 7.75% Beverage Abbot 10.60% Produce 11% Produce Fresh Berries 8.50% Produce Fresh Citrus 8% Produce Fresh Potatoes 5%

Produce Value Added Lettuce and Greens (clean/cut/bagged) 9.50%

Produce Value Added Potatoes (clean/cut/bagged) 5%

Tabletop 12.75% Charcoal 10.60% Salt Pellets 10.60%

A. General State of Michigan Pricing. Cost plus mark ups will be firm for the entire length of the Contract, mark-pus are as reflected above. The Cost-Plus mechanisms will not change, however the Contractor’s in-bound costs will fluctuate with market conditions. HPS will monitor the market pricing and evaluate changes against relevant factors such as any changes in the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPIU) (Series ID

CUUR0000SAF).

B. USDA School Food Purchasing Program- Agency Specific. Combination of Firm Fixed Pricing, fixed in four-month increments and Cost-Plus pricing mark ups which are as reflected above. Contract prices are firm for four-month increments: July 1 through October 31, November 1 through February 28/29, and March 1 through June 30.

All successive price changes to the net firm price list must be submitted t a minimum of 30 days before the next pricing period and are subject to the approval

Version 2024-2 Page 6 of 6 prior to implementation and will be subject to annualized Consumer Price index Food Away from Home.

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.

Gordon Food Services, Inc. provided the best value to the State. Best value factors for Award Recommendation include: 6.74 % cost savings over current contracts, volume rebates, the Contractor is a Michigan based business and is able to service the food service needs of the whole state.

Award Recommendation is made to Gordon Food Services, Inc. in the amount of $9,500,000.00.