Nutrition Services - Questions and Answers No. 1

Agency:	Shelby County
State:	Tennessee
Type of Government:	State & Local
NAICS Category:	541519 - Other Computer Related Services 561720 - Janitorial Services
Posted Date:	Jan 23, 2026
Due Date:	Feb 3, 2026
Solicitation No:	RFP 26-012-69
Original Source:	Please Login to View Page
Contact information:	Please Login to View Page
Bid Documents:	Please Login to View Page

Attachment Preview

Shelby County

Tennessee

Lee Harris, Mayor

Questions and Answers No. 1

ISSUED: January 23, 2026

RFP 26-012-69

Nutrition Services

(Aging Commission of the Mid-South)

TO ALL PROSPECTIVE BIDDERS:

The following questions were submitted by a potential bidder. Our answers are listed

below in red:

1. Scoring Methodology and Discretion

The RFP does not clearly identify whether proposals are evaluated using a standardized

scoring rubric or whether evaluators exercise unfettered discretion.

Clarification Requested:

• Do evaluators score proposals using a formal, written scoring rubric or evaluation

matrix?

• If not, are evaluators permitted to score proposals based on individual discretion without

predefined criteria?

Applicants cannot submit a rational proposal without knowing whether evaluation is

rubric-based or discretionary.

A: Please see scoring file posted with RFP 26-012-69, Nutrition Services

___

2. Disclosure of Scoring Rubric

If a scoring rubric or evaluation matrix exists, it constitutes material information necessary

for proposal preparation.

Clarification Requested:

• Will the scoring rubric, evaluation matrix, or scoring criteria used by evaluators be

disclosed to all potential applicants prior to the submission deadline?

• If not, please state the legal or procurement authority under which such material

evaluation criteria are withheld, given that comparable public procurements routinely

disclose scoring rubrics within the RFP or grant application.

Without disclosure, applicants cannot ensure alignment with evaluation priorities.

A: Please see scoring file posted with RFP 26-012-69, Nutrition Services

___

3. Insurance vs. Self-Insurance Conflict (Page 17)

Page 17 indicates that self-insurance is an option, while other sections of the RFP appear to

require commercial insurance policies issued by an insurance carrier, creating a direct

internal inconsistency.

Clarification Requested:

• Is self-insurance a permissible compliance option for this procurement, or is commercial

insurance issued by an insurance carrier mandatory?

A: Self-insurance is permissible.

• If self-insurance is permitted, please specify:

A: Must provide adequate proof/properly authorized Self-Insured COI

• Which coverages may be self-insured

A: All that are applicable to the services being provided. Requirements for

environmentally sensitive projects and bids over $5M are not applicable to the services

being provided.

• Any minimum financial thresholds, reserves, or documentation required

A: COI should outline coverages and coverage limits for at least the minimal financial

thresholds outlined in the RFP for applicable services being provided.

• If self-insurance is not permitted, please confirm that all vendors must carry commercial

insurance and identify which RFP provision controls.

A: N/A

Applicants cannot determine compliance without reconciliation of this conflict.

___

4. Bond Coverage Requirements (Page 17)

The RFP requires vendors to maintain “sufficient bond coverage,” but does not define the

term.

Clarification Requested:

• What specific type(s) of bond are required (e.g., performance bond, fidelity bond, surety

bond)?

• What is the minimum bond amount required for compliance?

• What is the bond coverage currently maintained by the incumbent or current service

provider for this contract?

Absent defined thresholds, applicants cannot assess financial feasibility or competitiveness.

A: As stated, bonds should provide protection for the AAAD (Shelby County/Aging

Commission of the Mid-South) and DDA Department of Disability and Aging (State of

Tennessee) from theft, forgery, embezzlement, and fraud loss by the service provider

agency, any of its agents or employees full or part time. Regarding type and amounts of

bonds, bonds should be adequate to cover the mentioned risk, regarding scope of work

contracted and quantity of work contracted with an organization receiving award under

RFP 26-012-69, Nutrition Services.

___

5. Existing Food Sites and Written Approval Requirement (Page 18)

Page 18 requires vendors to obtain written approval from AAAD prior to opening new

food sites, but does not disclose the current service landscape.

Clarification Requested:

• How many food sites currently exist under the AAAD Nutrition Services program?

A: See table below, outlined in red

• Where are these sites geographically located?

A: Sites exist in Fayette, Lauderdale, Shelby, and Tipton counties

• Are these sites operated by a single provider or multiple providers?

A: Multiple

Applicants cannot assess service gaps, duplication, or expansion feasibility without this

baseline informationl

Arlington serving 25

Bartlett Senior Center serving 25

Bickford Community Center serving

City View Towers serving 50

Shelby

Ed Rice Community Center serving 40

Hope Heights serving 20

Jewish Community Center serving 20

(kosher meals)

North Lake serving 25

Orange Mound Senior Center serving

Plough Towers serving 40 (kosher

meals)

Ruth Tate Community Center serving

St Peter's Manor serving 30

Wesley Graceland Gardens serving 45

Shelby

MIFA

6265 Chester St

5727Woodlawn

233 Henry Ave.

256 S. Camilla St.

2935 N Watkins

383 Madison Ave

6560 Poplar Ave.

5190 Wesley Park Dr.

2972 Park Ave.

6580 Poplar Ave.

1620 Marjorie St.

108 N. Auburndale St.

1430 Graceland Pines

Arlington

Memphis

38002

38134

38107

38104

38127

38103

38119

38135

38114

38138

38106

38104

38116

Wesley Highland Meadows serving 20 Shelby

Wesley Millington Towers serving 35 Shelby

MIFA

3517 Andy Way Ln.

5077 Easley

Memphis

Millington

GoodWill Homes Senior Citizens

Center serving 168

Somerville Senior Center serving 40

Covington Community Center serving

DeWitt Community Center serving 18

Garland Community Center serving 20

Halls Community Center serving 30

Munford Community Center serving

St Mark's Village serving 15

___

Shelby

Fayette

Tipton

Fayette

Tipton

Lauderdale

Tipton

Fayette

GoodWill

Homes

SWHRA

163 W Raines Rd

12615 S Main St

100 W Washington St

3585 Hwy 57

1598 Garland Dr

605 Airport Rd

63 College St

85 St. Mark Cv

Memphis

Somerville

Covington

Rossville

Covington

Halls

Munford

Moscow

6. Average Meal Volume per Site

The RFP does not disclose utilization levels at existing food sites, which is material to

staffing, logistics, food procurement, and pricing.

Clarification Requested:

• What is the average number of meals served per day at each existing food site?

A: See table above for daily number

• Please provide averages by site for the most recent full program year.

A: 821 X 5 days X 52 weeks = 213,460

Without site-level volume data, applicants cannot reasonably estimate operational costs or

propose accurate per-meal pricing.

___

7. Home-Delivered Meal Volume

Home-delivered meals represent a distinct operational and cost structure from congregate

meals.

Clarification Requested:

• How many home-delivered meals were served per day by the incumbent provider during

the most recent 12-month period?

A: 1,245 persons have received a Home Delivered Meal in FY25/26.

1,245 persons X 5 days X 52 weeks = 323,700

• Please provide average daily volume and total annual volume.

A: Daily volume based on FY25/26, 1,245 persons have received a Home Delivered Meal,

annual volume would be 323,700. This represents approximation of utilization and

authorization of persons to participate in the future.

This information is necessary to evaluate fleet requirements, staffing, routing, and

insurance exposure.

38128

38053

38109

38068

38019

38066

38019

38040

38058

38057

___

8. Days of Meal Delivery

The RFP does not clearly state whether meal delivery is required seven (7) days per week

or fewer.

Clarification Requested:

• Are meals currently delivered seven (7) days per week?

A: No

• If not, on which days are meals delivered?

A: Varies by county for Home Delivered. Congregate meals are received Monday thru

Friday

• Are vendors expected to propose seven-day service, or to mirror the current delivery

schedule?

A: Neither for Home Delivered Meals. Congregate meals are served Monday thru Friday

Delivery frequency materially affects cost, staffing, and pricing assumptions.

___

9. Value of the Prior Contract

The RFP does not disclose the value of the contract it replaces.

Clarification Requested:

• What was the total dollar value of the prior or incumbent Nutrition Services contract,

including base term and any renewals or amendments?

A: $4,429,564 FY 25/26

Disclosure of the prior contract value is necessary for applicants to assess scale, feasibility,

and competitiveness.

___

10. Anticipated Value of the New Contract

The RFP does not state the anticipated value, funding range, or maximum award amount

for the new contract.

Clarification Requested:

• What is the allocated total dollar amount of the contract to be awarded under this RFP?

A: Shelby County is awaiting funding notice of nutritional program from State of

Tennessee for nutritional program for FY 26/27.

Applicants cannot submit a rational financial proposal without knowing the funding

magnitude and contractual scope due the fact that

This page summarizes the opportunity, including an overview and a preview of the attached documents.

Nutrition Services - Questions and Answers No. 1

Attachment Preview

Sign-up for a Free Trial, Government Bid Alerts

See Also