RFP_MNMCLs.docx

State of Minnesota Minnesota Department of Health

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

Assessing the Need for Enforceable Minnesota-Specific Drinking Water Standards—Minnesota Maximum Contaminant Levels (MN MCLs)

SWIFT ID: 2000018529

Date Posted: August 3, 2026

· Responses must be received not later than 4:00 p.m. Central Time, Friday, September 4 , 2026.

· Late responses will not be considered

· As of July 1, 2025, certain terms are unenforceable in state contracts. See Session Laws, 2025 Regular Session, Chapter 39, Article 2, Sec. 45.

Minnesota’s Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion The State of Minnesota is committed to diversity and inclusion in its public procurement process. The goal is to ensure that those providing goods and services to the State are representative of our Minnesota communities and include businesses owned by minorities, women, veterans, and those with substantial physical disabilities. Creating broader opportunities for historically under-represented groups provides for additional options and greater competition in the marketplace, creates stronger relationships and engagement within our communities, and fosters economic development and equality.

To further this commitment, the Department of Administration operates a program for Minnesota-based small businesses owned by minorities, women, veterans, and those with substantial physical disabilities. For additional information on this program, or to determine eligibility, please call 651.201.2402 or go to the Office of Equity in Procurement home page, at https://mn.gov/admin/business/vendor-info/oep/.

SPECIAL NOTICE: This is a request for proposal. It does not obligate the State of Minnesota to award a contract or complete the proposed program, and the State reserves the right to cancel this solicitation if it is considered in its best interest.

This Solicitation requires proposals to be submitted through the SWIFT Supplier Portal. Please note the security changes below that may impact responders from submitting a timely response.

SWIFT SUPPLIER PORTAL SECURITY CHANGES

There are new security measures that the Minnesota Management and Budget implemented on October 16, 2022. It is a new multi-factor authentication (MFA) to enhance the security of the State of Minnesota Supplier Portal. MFA is an authentication method that requires bidders and suppliers provide two verification factors to log into the SWIFT Supplier Portal. The goal of MFA is to create a layered defense that makes it more difficult for unauthorized system access to occur.

For information about these changes, please refer to the SWIFT Supplier Portal Multi-Factor Authentication FAQ document.

If you have not done so already, please make sure to log into the SWIFT Supplier Portal as soon as possible to get this authentication set up early so there are no issues when submitting a response to an RFP.

You are strongly encouraged to set your MFA during business hours of 8:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M., Central Time, Monday through Friday. You may experience delay setting your MFA after hours.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Solicitation Content

Solicitation Attachments

· Attachment A: Responder Declarations

· Attachment B: Exceptions to State's Terms and Conditions

· Attachment C: Cost Detail

· Attachment D: Responder Form

· Workforce and Equal Pay Declaration Page

· Attachment E: Reference Form

Sample Contract

· Exhibit A: Contract Terms

· Exhibit B: Insurance Requirements

· Exhibit C: Specifications, Duties, and Scope of Work

· Exhibit D: Pricing

SECTION 1 – INSTRUCTIONS TO RESPONDERS

Step 1: Read the solicitation documents and ask questions, if any Step 2: Write your response Step 3: Submit your response

STEP 1 – READ THE SOLICITATION DOCUMENT & ASK QUESTIONS, IF ANY

How to Ask Questions

The contact person for questions is:

Frieda von Qualen, Planning Director, Water Policy Center Minnesota Department of Health waterpolicy.mdh@state.mn.us.

Questions should be emailed to the contact by 4 p.m. Central Time on Friday, August 14, 2026 and include “MN MCLs” in the email subject line.

Other personnel are not authorized to answer questions regarding this Solicitation.

STEP 2 – WRITE YOUR RESPONSE

The Response Content section is in this link to Section 4. Prepare a written response and supply all requested content. Responses should address the requested information and documents detailed in Section 4. DO NOT INCLUDE Non-Public/Trade Secret data (as defined in this link to Minn. Stat. § 13.37).

Review, sign, and include the Responder Declarations with your response.

STEP 3 –SUBMIT YOUR RESPONSE

Where to Send Your Response

All responses to this solicitation (termed an “Event” within SWIFT) must be submitted through SWIFT using the Supplier portal (https://mn.gov/supplier). Training and documentation on how to submit your response is available through the Supplier portal link above. Fax, e-mail, and printed responses will not be accepted or considered. All costs incurred in responding to this solicitation will be borne by the Responder.

Late responses will not be considered. Responses received after End Date above will not be considered, even if errors or delays were caused by issues outside of Responders’ control. If you need assistance please contact the SWIFT Vendor Assistance Helpline at 651-201-8100, Option 1, and then Option 1.

By submitting a response, your company is making a binding legal offer for the period of time set forth below in Section 6, Conditions of Offer.

SECTION 2 – SUMMARY OF SCOPE

Procurement Overview and Goals Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) requests proposals to help the State assess if there is a clear benefit to pursuing enforceable Minnesota-specific drinking water standards (MN MCLs) as a way to enhance public health protection, provide better certainty for public water systems, and simplify communications.

MDH therefore seeks a vendor to: understand other states’ approaches for enforceable drinking water standards, document Minnesota’s current regulatory framework, identify gaps and challenges, define programmatic needs (including skills, staff, and budget) and timeline to pursue MN MCLs, and develop a suite of options with detailed pros and cons for Minnesota to consider.

The deliverables from this project will help Minnesota evaluate its current strategy for managing health risks from drinking water contaminants to see if MN MCLs are needed. Deliverables will help assess if: 1) the current process is appropriately protective of public health; 2) MN MCLs would provide significant additional benefit that would outweigh the cost; and 3) partners are amenable to the concept of MN MCLs.

Background The Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SWDA) provides regulatory standards (maximum contaminant levels [MCLs]) for about 90 contaminants in public drinking water. MDH has the primary enforcement responsibility for public water systems in Minnesota under Section 1413 of the SDWA, 42 U.S.C. § 300g-2(a). While the SDWA provides a high level of protection for most households, there are gaps:

· There are contaminants that are not regulated through the SDWA and are common in Minnesota drinking water sources at levels that may present short- and long-term health effects or present health risks for certain populations (e.g., manganese[footnoteRef:2]). [2: Manganese in Drinking Water (www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/water/contaminants/manganese.html) ]

· There is growing evidence that some regulated contaminants (e.g., arsenic[footnoteRef:3]—a carcinogen) may need to have their current MCL revisited and lowered. There may be longer time lags at the federal level compared to the state level to adopt more protective values. [3: Arsenic in Drinking Water (www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/water/contaminants/arsenic.html) ]

· There may be instances where industries, land use, and/or geology in Minnesota make contaminants more of a priority or concern than they are at a federal level. Examples of this include arsenic (geogenic) and cyanazine[footnoteRef:4] (human-made). [4: Cyanazine in Drinking Water (PDF) (www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/water/docs/contaminants/cyanazine.pdf) ]

Currently, MDH addresses these gaps through working closely with community water systems to incorporate MDH health-based values (HBVs) and health risk limits (HRLs) into their approach for monitoring and treating water and communicating with customers. While water systems have generally followed MDH health-based guidance, there are flaws in the framework, including:

· It uses health-based guidance and does not have a mechanism to account for the cost of treating down to health-based guidance values.

· It is a voluntary system. Water systems receive a recommendation and technical assistance if there is a contaminant exceeding a health-based guidance value, but they are not required to follow that advice and may choose not to.

As such, MDH wants to assess if there is a clear benefit to pursuing MN MCLs to enhance public health protection, provide better certainty for public water systems, and make communication easier.

Project rationale Minnesota Laws of 2023, chapter 40, Article 2, section 7, directs MDH “…to develop public health policies and an action plan to address threats to safe drinking water, including development of a statewide plan for protecting drinking water.” That plan is now developed; it is the Minnesota Drinking Water Action Plan (PDF). One of the actions named in the plan is to Evaluate the need for and establish the approach for Minnesota-specific regulatory values for drinking water. The work to be completed under this Request for Proposals is the first phase of that work: Assess the need for and benefit of enforceable Minnesota-specific drinking water standards (MN MCLs).

Tasks and Deliverables.

The selected contractor shall perform all services under this contract using its own employees; subcontracting any portion of the work is prohibited. The contractor will work closely with MDH and have calls with them with them every two weeks to:

· Implement the activities listed below,

· Provide the deliverables listed under each activity, and

· Present findings to MDH leadership.

Activities

1. Document Minnesota’s current process

1.1. Using the existing materials that MDH will provide (including, but not limited to SWDA regulations and the Minnesota Contaminants of Emerging Concern framework, to be provided to the vendor by MDH) as a starting point, work closely with MDH-designated subject matter experts to document the current framework and processes, including:

· General overview of how the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) develops a federal MCL.

· When, where, and for what MDH samples in public water systems.

· What MDH does if sampling shows a contaminant above the federal MCL.

· What informs the process Minnesota uses to decide the contaminants for which it develops health- based guidance values.

· How Minnesota health-based guidance values are different from federal MCLs.

· What MDH does if sampling shows a contaminant is above Minnesota’s health-based guidance value.

· What MDH does if a public water system does not manage risks for an unregulated contaminant that exceeds a health-based guidance value.

· Risk communication and how MDH describes the way Minnesota currently uses regulatory and non-regulatory values.

1.2. Deliverable for activity 1: Draft section for final report that defines, describes, and provides visualizations of these processes and criteria.

2. Understand and document other states’ approaches Document a continuum of approaches that states use for drinking water standards in public water systems.

2.1. Review existing MDH documentation of conversations and interviews with other states about state-level regulatory values for drinking water.

Gather information from six or more states that have established enforceable state-level regulatory values for drinking water to understand and describe the items listed below. States must include California, Michigan, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Illinois, and New Hampshire.

· The process they use to establish a state MCL (e.g., which agencies are involved in the process, how the value moves through adoption).

· How state MCLs factor into their framework for providing safe drinking water (e.g., does the state incorporate a cost-benefit analysis similar to federal MCL development).

· Challenges with enforcing the values, including if they had issues standardizing laboratory methods.

· What motivated them to pursue state MCLs.

· Benefits since implementing state MCLs.

· If having state MCLs met the need the way they expected.

· Resources the state needed to implement state MCLs and corresponding timeline.

Gather information from at least two states, including Wisconsin, that considered but ultimately did not adopt state-level regulatory values, to understand:

· Why the state did not move forward with them.

· What the state’s approach is in lieu of having state MCLs.

· How they balance unenforceable health-based values while using federal MCLs, including how they handle risk communications.

2.2. Deliverables for activity 2:

· List of states to interview, contacts at each state, and corresponding questions.

· Draft section for final report that includes findings and synthesis of themes.

3. Identify gaps with Minnesota’s current framework and potential challenges and benefits of developing a new approach

3.1. Work closely with MDH subject matter experts and conduct structured interviews with core public drinking water partners to identify gaps and challenges with Minnesota’s current framework. Key topics are listed below. MDH will identify the core partners, which include but are not limited to the Minnesota Section of the American Water Works Association, Minnesota Rural Water Association, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and Freshwater.

· Possible outcomes if Minnesota simply continued doing what it currently does and did not pursue state-level regulatory values for drinking water.

· What would happen if Minnesota adopted HRLs or HBVs as MCLs.

· What the opportunities/benefits of having state MCLs for drinking water would be. Scenarios to consider include, but are not limited to:

· Contaminants with no federal MCL but are found in Minnesota drinking water sources at concentrations that present a human health risk.

· Contaminants that have a federal MCL but studies suggest the MCL is not as protective as it should be.

· Populations not protected by the federal MCL.

· Minnesota-specific challenges/limitations using federal MCLs, including health inequities.

3.2. Deliverables for activity 3:

· List of questions to ask/discuss during structured interviews.

· Draft section for final report about findings and synthesis of themes from activity 3.

4. Define the process and timeline for Minnesota to pursue MN MCLs Much of the process is defined in the ASDWA State CEC Rule Development and Management Strategies Toolkit (PDF). This activity is to make the process specific to Minnesota.

4.1. Determine and describe the process Minnesota would need to follow to establish and implement a state program for MN MCLs.

Establish a realistic timeline of actions that would need to take place to move from Minnesota’s current approach to having a program to develop and implement MN MCLs.

4.2. Outline a process and recommendations for stakeholder engagement.

4.3. Deliverables for activity 4:

· Draft section for final report describing the process Minnesota would need to follow and associated timelines and actions.

· Outline for stakeholder engagement.

5. Estimate program costs

5.1. Identify critical skill sets and staffing MDH would need to establish a MN MCL program.

5.2. Identify critical skill sets and staffing MDH would need to administer ongoing MN MCL program, including periodically developing new state MCLs.

5.3. Identify if/how program costs are scalable.

5.4. Deliverable for activity 5: Draft section for final report that describes necessary skill sets, number of staff, and cost scalability considerations.

6. Develop and present a suite of options and considerations

6.1. Synthesize a continuum of options for Minnesota to consider, ranging from our current approach to developing and implementing MN MCLs.

6.2. Provide pros and cons for the options and core aspects to consider when evaluating options, including budgetary considerations.

6.3. Deliverable for activity 6: Draft section for final report that includes a series of options for Minnesota to consider that ranges from current approach to a robust MN MCL program. The report should include clear descriptions of pros and cons, budgetary implications, and key considerations for adopting the option.

7. Compile and present findings from activities 1-6

7.1. Deliverables for activity 7:

· Final report that combines findings from activities 1-6, following the State of Minnesota’s Accessibility Standard (PDF).

· Presentations to MDH leadership.

Mandatory Requirements

· Responder’s project team must have demonstrated experience working with regulatory requirements for drinking water and have provided similar services to other SDWA primacy states in the last five years.

SECTION 3 – PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Anticipated Contract Term.

The term of this contract is anticipated to be from October 1, 2026 to December 30, 2027, with the option to extend up to an additional one year in increments determined by the State.

Question and Answer Instructions.

All questions should be submitted no later than the date and time listed in Section 1, Instructions to Responders. The State is not obligated to answer questions submitted after the question due date and time.

Only personnel listed above are authorized to discuss this solicitation with responders. Contact regarding this solicitation with any personnel not listed above could result in disqualification. This provision is not intended to prevent responders from seeking guidance from state procurement assistance programs regarding general procurement questions.

If a Responder discovers any significant ambiguity, error, conflict, discrepancy, omission, or other deficiency in the solicitation, please immediately notify the contact person detailed above in writing of such error and request modification or clarification of the document.

Additional Tasks or Activities.

Responders are encouraged to propose additional tasks, activities, or goods above and beyond the scope of what is requested in this solicitation if they will substantially improve the results of this procurement. Any costs associated with these additional tasks, activities, or goods should be clearly marked and separated from costs associated with the tasks, activities, or goods specifically requested under this solicitation. Because cost is a factor in the evaluation of responses to this solicitation, failure to separate costs for additional tasks, activities, or goods may result in those costs being included in a Responder's cost proposal and result in a lower cost score for that proposal.

SECTION 4 – PROPOSAL CONTENT

Please submit the following information:

Work Plan. Responder should provide a description of the deliverables to be provided by the Responder along with a detailed work plan that identifies the major tasks to be accomplished and be used as a scheduling and managing tool, as well as the basis for invoicing. This document should NOT list cost detail. If cost detail is included in this document, the State may disqualify the proposal as non-responsive. MDH requests responder provide a statement of the objectives, goals, and tasks to show or demonstrate the Responder's view and understanding of the nature of the contract, and what makes the Responder uniquely suited for this work.

Document Minnesota’s current process Responder will indicate timeframe to complete this activity and which activity it would follow or precede.

Responder will describe the applications they will use to document and display frameworks and processes.

Understand and document other states’ approaches Responder will indicate timeframe to complete this activity and which activity it would follow or precede.

Responder will describe how they will develop interview questions, determine which states to contact, and how they will compile and synthesize responses.

Identify gaps with Minnesota’s current framework and potential challenges and benefits of developing a new approach Responder will indicate timeframe to complete this activity and which activity it would follow or precede.

Responder will describe how they will develop interview questions, determine which core partners to interview, and how they will compile and synthesize responses.

Define the process and timeline for Minnesota to pursue MN MCLs Responder will indicate timeframe to complete this activity and which activity it would follow or precede.

Estimate program costs Responder will indicate timeframe to complete this activity and which activity it would follow or precede.

Responder will describe the format in which they provide this analysis.

Develop and present a suite of options and considerations Responder will indicate timeframe to complete this activity.

Compile and present findings Responder will indicate timeframe to complete this activity.

Responder will describe how they will incorporate accessibility into project deliverables and ensure all final deliverables meet the State of Minnesota’s Accessibility Standard (PDF).

Qualifications and Experience. Responder will provide an outline of background and experience with examples of similar work done by the Responder and a list of personnel who will conduct the project, detailing their training, and work experience. Resumes or other information about project personnel should not, if possible, contain personal telephone numbers, home addresses, or home email addresses. If it is necessary to include personal contact information, please clearly indicate in the response that personal contact information is being provided.

Responder should describe in detail the scope of service and outcomes to be provided in its proposal.

Mandatory requirement: Responder’s project team must have demonstrated experience working with regulatory requirements for drinking water and have provided similar services to other SDWA primacy states in the last five years.

Responder should provide a brief (no more than one page) description of why selected staff are a good fit for the work.

Responder will provide to MDH a single point of contact to serve as project manager and liaison with MDH to coordinate and monitor all the necessary activities for this project.

References. The State reserves the right to verify the information submitted on Attachment E before an award is made. The State reserves the right to contact the references listed in Attachment E. The solicitation response will be rejected if the State, in its sole discretion, receives information that indicates the responder is non-responsible or non-responsive.

Responder should complete and submit “Attachment E: Reference Form” with their response. Responder should answer every question and provide all information requested on the reference form.

Responder should submit at least two completed reference forms with each reference’s company name and contact information with their response. Once Responder’s response is received, the Solicitation Administrator will send the same form to Responder’s reference(s) for each reference to fill out and return to the Solicitation Administrator.

Work Sample.

Responder should provide two work samples that reflect the quality of the deliverables they will provide to the State. Work samples are ideally very similar to the services being requested in this RFP.

At least one work sample should show how Responder builds health equity and/or environmental justice concepts into data analysis or projects.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.

Describe how Responder’s policies and practices promote diversity, equity, and inclusion in areas such as hiring.

Detail the Responder’s demographic breakdown and any other information pertinent to efforts in this area. Describe how Responder incorporates diversity, equity, and inclusion into how they develop project approaches and/or analyze data.

Cost Detail. Complete and submit Attachment C, “Cost Detail,” attached to this solicitation. Cost detail shall be broken down by activity listed in Section 2.

Submit all requested documentation, including, but not limited to, the following documents:

· Attachment A: Responder Declarations

· Attachment B: Exceptions to State's Standard Terms and Conditions

· Attachment C: Cost Proposal

· Attachment D: Responder Form if proposal is over $100,000.

· Workforce and Equal Pay Declaration Page

· Equal Pay Certificate Form

· Attachment E: Reference Form DO NOT INCLUDE Non-Public/Trade Secret data (as defined by Minn. Stat. § 13.37).

SECTION 5 – EVALUATION PROCEDURE AND CRITERIA

The State will conduct an evaluation of responses to this Solicitation. The evaluations will be conducted in three phases:

Phase 1 - Review responses for responsiveness and pass/fail requirements Phase 2 - Evaluate responses Phase 3 - Select finalist(s) Phase 1 – Responsiveness and Pass/Fail Requirements The purpose of this phase is to determine if each response complies with mandatory requirements. The State will first review each proposal for responsiveness to determine if the Responder satisfies all mandatory requirements. The State will evaluate these requirements on a pass/fail basis.

· Responses must be received by the due date and time specified in this RFP.

· Responder’s project team must have demonstrated experience working with regulatory requirements for drinking water and provided similar services to other SDWA primacy states in the last five years.

Phase 2 - Evaluate Responses Only those responses found to have met Phase 1 criteria will be considered in Phase 2.

The factors and weighting on which responses will be evaluated are:

Preference points are described under Solicitation Terms and will be applied to the total score after points have been awarded.

Phase 3 - Select Finalist(s) Only those responses that have been evaluated under Phase 2 shall be eligible for Phase 3.

The State will make its selection based on best value, as determined by this evaluation process. The State reserves the right to pursue negotiations on any exception taken to the State’s standard terms and conditions. In the event that negotiated terms cannot be reached, the State reserves the right to terminate negotiations and begin negotiating with the next highest scoring responder or take other actions as the State deems appropriate.

It is anticipated that the evaluation and selection will be completed by September 25, 2026.

SECTION 6 – UNENFORCEABLE TERMS AND SOLICITATION TERMS

Unenforceable Terms As of July 1, 2025, certain terms are unenforceable in state contracts. See Session Laws, 2025 Regular Session, Chapter 39, Article 2, Section 45.

Unenforceable terms

(a) A contract entered into by the State shall not contain a term that:

(b) If a contract is entered into that contains a term prohibited in paragraph (a), that term shall be void and the contract is enforceable as if it did not contain that term.

Solicitation Terms Competition in Responding The State desires open and fair competition. Questions from responders regarding any of the requirements of the Solicitation must be submitted in writing to the Solicitation Administrator listed in the Solicitation before the due date and time. If changes are made the State will issue an addendum.

Any evidence of collusion among responders in any form designed to defeat competitive responses will be reported to the Minnesota Attorney General for investigation and appropriate action.

Addenda to the Solicitation Changes to the Solicitation will be made by addendum with notification and posted in the same manner as the original Solicitation. Any addenda issued will become part of the Solicitation.

Data Security - Foreign Outsourcing of Work is Prohibited All storage and processing of information shall be performed within the borders of the United States.

Withdrawing Response A Responder may withdraw its response prior to the due date and time of the Solicitation. For solicitations in the SWIFT Supplier Portal, a Responder may withdraw its response from the SWIFT Supplier Portal. For solicitations done any other way, a Responder may withdraw its response by notifying the Solicitation Administrator in writing of the desire to withdraw.

After the due date and time of this Solicitation, a Responder may withdraw a response only upon showing that an obvious error exists in the response. The showing and request for withdrawal must be made in writing to Solicitation Administrator within a reasonable time and prior to the State’s detrimental reliance on the response.

Rights Reserved The State reserves the right to:

· Reject any and all responses received;

· Waive or modify any informalities, irregularities, or inconsistencies in the responses received;

· Negotiate with the highest scoring Responder;

· Terminate negotiations and select the next response providing the best value for the State;

· Consider documented past performance resulting from a State contract may be considered in the evaluation process;

· Short list the highest scoring Responders;

· Require Responders to conduct presentations, demonstrations, or submit samples;

· Interview key personnel or references;

· Request a best and final offer from one or more Responders;

· The State reserves the right to request additional information ; and

· The State reserves the right to use estimated usage or scenarios for the purpose of conducting pricing evaluations. The State reserves the right to modify scenarios, and to request or add additional scenarios for the evaluation.

Responses are Nonpublic during Evaluation Process All materials submitted in response to this Solicitation will become property of the State. During the evaluation process, all information concerning the responses submitted will remain private or nonpublic and will not be disclosed to anyone whose official duties do not require such knowledge. Responses are private or nonpublic data until the completion of the evaluation process as defined by Minn. Stat. § 13.591. The completion of the evaluation process is defined as the State having completed negotiating a contract with the selected Responder. The State will notify all responders in writing of the evaluation results.

Trade Secret Information Responders must not submit as part of their response trade secret material, as defined by Minn. Stat. § 13.37.

In the event trade secret data are submitted, Responder must defend any action seeking release of data it believes to be trade secret, and indemnify and hold harmless the State, its agents and employees, from any judgments awarded against the State in favor of the party requesting the data, and any and all costs connected with that defense.

The State does not consider cost or prices to be trade secret material, as defined by Minn. Stat. § 13.37.

A Responder may present and discuss trade secret information during an interview or demonstration with the State, if applicable.

Conditions of Offer Unless otherwise approved in writing by the State, Responder’s cost proposal and all terms offered in its response that pertain to the completion of professional and technical services and general services will remain firm for 180 days, until they are accepted or rejected by the State, or they are changed by further negotiations with the State prior to contract execution.

Award Any award that may result from this solicitation will be based upon the total accumulated points as established in the solicitation. The State reserves the right to award this solicitation to a single Responder, or to multiple Responders, whichever is in the best interest of the State, providing each Responder is in compliance with all terms and conditions of the solicitation. The State reserves the right to accept all or part of an offer, to reject all offers, to cancel the solicitation, or to re-issue the solicitation, whichever is in the best interest of the State.

Requirements Prior to Contract Execution Prior to contract execution, a Responder receiving a contract award must comply with any submittal requests. A submittal request may include, but is not limited to, a Certificate of Insurance.

Targeted Group, Economically Disadvantaged Business, Veteran-Owned and Individual Preference Unless a greater preference is applicable and allowed by law, in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 16C.16, businesses that are eligible and certified by the State as targeted group (TG) businesses, economically disadvantaged (ED) businesses, and veteran-owned businesses will receive points equal to 12 percent of the total points available as preference.

For TG/ED/VO certification and eligibility information visit the Office of Equity in Procurement website at https://mn.gov/admin/business/vendor-info/oep/ or call the Division’s Helpline at 651.201.2402.

Reciprocity State shall comply with Minn. Stat. § 16C.06, subd. 7, as that applies to a non-resident vendor. This paragraph does not apply for any project in which federal funds are expended.

Rev. 07.01.2025 image1.jpeg