Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Prison Food Contract topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Blair County to award prison food services contract to Aramark after competitive RFP
Summary
Commissioners approved awarding the Blair County Prison food services contract to Aramark after an RFP process that produced three bidders; commissioners said the change should save roughly $300,000 annually and allow reallocation of corrections officers.
Blair County commissioners on Aug. 21 approved awarding the Blair County Prison food services contract to Aramark following a competitive request for proposals that drew three bids.
“The prison is requesting approval to award, reject, and rebid of the proposals received for food services for the Blair County prison. And we are looking to award the contract to Aramark,” a prison representative told the board during the meeting. The RFP drew responses from Aramark, Trinity and Summit, the representative said.
Commissioners said the change is expected to save the county about $300,000 a year compared with running the service in-house. One commissioner praised county staff and the prison administration for handling food service after the prior food service director resigned and said that temporary outside contracting would have cost in excess of $90,000 a month.
Motion and outcome: a commissioner moved to approve awarding the contract to Aramark; a second was recorded and the motion carried by voice vote. The meeting record does not list an exact roll-call tally.
Why it matters: commissioners said savings from the contract and the prison administration's interim actions will free funds and allow corrections officers who had been assigned to food service tasks to return to custody duties.
Details from the record: the RFP process yielded three respondents (Aramark, Trinity and Summit). Commissioners credited prison administration and county staff for preparing the RFP and for interim in‑house food operations that saved the county during the solicitation process.
No contract value or contract length was provided in the meeting transcript; the board voted to approve the award and did not specify further contractual terms during the public meeting.
