M E M O R A N D U M

TO:Kevin Dunn,Services Division Director

DTMB– Procurement

FROM:Lance Kingsbury, Buyer Specialist

DTMB -Procurement, Services Division

DATE:February 28, 2013

SUBJECT:Award Summary for RFP 071I2200059 – Prisoner Food Service for MDOC

Background Information/General:

The Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC), Food Services, is responsible for providing food service to prisonersunder jurisdiction of the MDOC regardless of location. This includes all security levels, segregation units, minimum-security units and work camp facilities. The Food Service department provides administrative guidance and support for the delivery of food service operations. Food Service Managers, at institutional sites, have direct responsibility for delivering food service to prisoners. In addition, Central Office staffprovides operational direction and monitors the delivery of food service.

Statewide, the MDOC feeds approximately 43,500 prisoners a day serving three meals each day in addition to any required evening snacks and sack meals as mandated by institutional programs. MDOC also provides one meal per shift for facility staff at no charge to the employee. Approximately 68,000 meals are provided to staff each month.

The Statewide Standard Menu (SWSM), as required by the MDOC, meets or exceeds all Dietary Reference Intake values (DRI)as published by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Food and Nutrition Board (FNB). The SWSM provides a daily average intake of 2,600 calories for men and 2,200 calories for women. The MDOC also produces alternative meal trays including; lacto-ovo vegetarian option, religious diets and medical diets as listed in the MDOC Diet Manualand as prescribed by the appropriate medical staff.

Institutions employ a Food Service Supervisor-4 for facilities that house 900 or more prisoners and a Food Service Supervisor-3 for facilities that house less than 900 prisoners, complemented with Food Service Leader E9s.Meal services in satellite units are supervised by food service personnel.

Correctional Officers are assigned to the dining rooms during meal times and, when available, in the kitchen preparation areas to oversee prisoner workers and/or perform security functions. Typically, Food Service Leader E9s provide direct oversight of meal preparation and serving as well as performing security functions.

Joint Evaluation Committee (JEC):

The JEC for this RFP consisted of the following individuals:

Lance Kingsbury (Voting)
Department of Technology, Management and Budget / Carol Wilson(Voting)
Department of Corrections
Brad Purves (Voting)
Department of Corrections / Marsha Stansfield (Voting)
Department of Corrections
Mike Baker (Non-Voting)
Department of Corrections / Bard Anderson, RD (Non-voting)
Department of Corrections.

Bidders:

The Request for Proposal (RFP) was posted on the websiteJune 22, 2012, and was available for 90days with a published due date of September 20, 2012. The following Bidders submitted proposals in response to this RFP:

Bidder / City, State / Michigan Business / CRO / SDVOB
Aramark Correctional Services, LLC. / Philadelphia, PA / No / No / No
Trinity Services Group, Inc. / Oldsmar, FL / No / No / No

Selection Criteria and Evaluation:

The following chart represents the scoring of the particular factors:

Weight
1. / Statement of Work (Article 1) / 40
2. / Transition Plan (1.041) / 15
3. / Bidder Information (4.011) / 5
4. / Prior Experience (4.012) / 25
5. / Staffing (1.031 & 4.013) / 15
TOTAL: / 100

Oral Presentation

Bidders who submit proposals may be required to make oral presentations of their proposals to the State. These presentations provide an opportunity for the Bidders to clarify the proposals through mutual understanding. Purchasing Operations will schedule these presentations, if required.

Site Visit

The State may conduct a site visit to tour and inspect the Bidder’s facilities. Purchasing Operations will schedule these visits if required.

Price Evaluation

(a) Only those proposals receiving a score of 80 points or more in the technical proposal evaluation will have their pricing evaluated to be considered for award.

(b) Evaluation of price proposals includes consideration for a Qualified Disabled Veteran Preference. 1984 PA 431, as amended, establishes a preference of up to 10% for businesses owned by qualified disabled veterans meeting the minimum point threshold for passing.

(c)The State reserves the right to consider economic impact on the State when evaluating proposal pricing. This includes, but is not limited to: job creation, job retention, tax revenue implications, and other economic considerations.

Evaluation Results (100 points possible):

Aramark Correctional Services, LLC.

The JEC determined thatAramark Correctional Services, LLC. (Aramark), based on a score of81, couldmeet the requirements of the RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the evaluation criteria noted in the table above.

1.Statement of Work (Article 1)Score: 33/ 40

The JEC noted the following deficiencies:

  • The JEC did not find where Aramark fully explained how they would meet all the rules and regulations for food service operations (RFP page 17).
  • The JEC could not find where Aramark explained payment requests for any meals that are provided in excess of the number equal to the meal counts under Daily Meals Served Count (RFP page 23).
  • Aramark did not confirm that they would perform all the security functions as outlined in the RFP, in regards to first responder for facility emergencies or perform shakedown/pat search of prisoners or work areas on a regular routine basis (they would perform the pat down with custody staff present). (RFP page 25).
  • Aramark did not provide a detailed response on how they would handle product recall (RFP page 22).

2.Transition Plan (1.041)Score: 12 / 15

The JEC noted the following deficiency:

  • The JEC determined Aramark’s transition plan lacked some detail regarding identifying timelines, methods and processes and service delivery plan.

3.Bidder Information (4.011)Score: 4 / 5

The JEC noted the following deficiency:

  • Aramark did not provide sales volume by year for each of the last five years.

4. Prior Experience (4.012)Score: 21/ 25

The JEC noted the following deficiencies:

  • Aramark did not provide detailed descriptions of their prior experiences.
  • Aramark did not provide email addresses for the responsible official of the customer organization.

5. Staffing (1.031 and4.013)Score: 11 / 15

The JEC noted the following deficiencies:

  • Aramark only noted three key personnel.
  • Resumes lacked detail.
  • Aramark’s staff’s resumes do not reflect that they have a Manager Certification Certificate from an American National Standards Institute (ServSafe or National Sanitation Foundation).
  • Aramark’s proposed Program Manager’s resume does not reflect the necessary college or university or a program of study from a vocational/technical school.
  • Aramark states they will offer ServSafe training to its managers and not line staff.

Total Score: 81 / 100

Trinity Services Group, Inc.

The JEC determined thatTrinity Services Group, Inc. (TSG), based on a score of80, couldmeet the requirements of the RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the evaluation criteria noted in the table above.

1.Statement of Work (Article 1)Score: 31 / 40

The JEC noted the following deficiencies:

  • TSG’s Diet Manual and their proposed method of diet distribution do not meet the MDOC’s diet policy standards.
  • TSG will not provide medical/nutritional counseling (pg 13).
  • TSG stated they will not perform the following security functions as required by the RFP: first responder for medical or facility emergencies, perform shakedown/pat search of prisoners or search of work area, or assist MDOC during emergencies or assist in mobilizations (pg 22).

2.Transition Plan (1.041)Score: 12 / 15

The JEC noted the following deficiency.

  • The transition plan lacks sufficient detail based on the bidder evaluating all facilities before developing a full plan.

3.Bidder Information (4.011)Score: 5 / 5

The JEC did not note any deficiencies.

4. Prior Experience (4.012)Score: 20/ 25

The JEC noted the following deficiency:

  • TSG only provided one detailed prior experience.

5. Staffing (1.031 and 4.013)Score: 12 / 15

The JEC noted the following deficiencies:

  • Only one of TSG’s staffmember’s resume reflects that they have a Manager Certification Certificate from an American National Standards Institute (ServSafe or National Sanitation Foundation).
  • TSG did not provide a detailed staffing plan as outlined in Section 1.031.

Total Score: 80 / 100

JEC Scoring Summary for Technical Proposal:

Aramark / Trinity
Weight
Statement of Work / 40 / 33 / 31
Transition Plan / 15 / 12 / 12
Bidder Information / 5 / 4 / 5
Prior Experience / 25 / 21 / 20
Staffing / 15 / 11 / 12
Total: / 100 / 81 / 80

Notes (no deductions were assessed):

Aramark’s proposed alternate menu does not meet the MDOC nutritional standards.

Aramark would need to use MDOC’s Diet Manual and ordering procedures for medical diets.

Pricing Summary:

Please see the details of original and second round pricing in the Food Service RFP Final Pricing Analysis Document.

Recommendation:

The pricing analysis did not demonstrate the savings level necessary, per Civil Service Standard D, to justify making a contract awardfrom this RFP.