Frequently Asked Questions: Beverage

General FAQs

How was a decision made to go out to a request for proposal (RFP)?

During the evaluation of a beverage model for campus, Beverage Working Group members researched and assessed multiple beverage service models presented by The Berkeley Innovative Solutions consulting group made up of MBA student consultants from the Haas School of Business. After a formal vote, a recommended model and corresponding comments were presented to the Advisory Committee in February 2022. The Advisory Committee reviewed all materials and completed a formal vote in March 2022. Recommendations, data and additional information from the Beverage Working Group and Advisory Committee were presented to the Chancellor’s Cabinet in May 2022. 

In consultation with the Cabinet and other stakeholders, the Chancellor decided to move forward with a campuswide request for proposal (RFP) for beverage services.

Who were the campus representatives on the Beverage Working Group? Advisory Committee?

Following the UPP Governance process, a committee was formed to include representation from a variety of UC Berkeley stakeholder groups. The  Beverage Working Group includes representation drawn from The Associated Students of the University of California (ASUC), Graduate Assembly, ASUC Student Union, Cal Athletics, Berkeley Dining, Office of Sustainability, Berkeley Recreation & Wellbeing, Supply Chain Management, University Health Services and UC Berkeley faculty.

The Advisory Committee is composed of voting and non-voting members drawn from the campus student body, faculty, administration and affiliates. Voting representation includes members from the ASUC, Graduate Assembly, Cal Alumni Association, Cal Athletics, Capital Strategies, Committee on Academic Planning and Resource Allocation, Communications and Public Affairs, Human Resources, Industry Alliances Office, Student Affairs, University Development and Alumni Relations and UC Berkeley faculty.

Why was a decision made to go out to RFP?

Various considerations were considered noting the significance of a beverage relationship for the campus, including beverage procurement and sales, partnership sponsorship funding, marketing activities, and enforcement of university policies that touch priority values and initiatives for many Berkeley stakeholders. Benefits of the selected campus model noted that an individual campuswide provider would: 

  • streamline implementation, creating an efficient RFP, contracting and relationship management process;

  • increase the university’s negotiating power with providers to better address campus sustainability and health priorities;

  • capitalize on potential sponsorship revenue and cost benefits given that the marketing and PR boost of a non-exclusive relationship are limited if departments are still offering these products on campus;

  • create a more attractive campus opportunity for potential providers that are more likely to have the resources to meet university needs in revenue, sustainability and nutrition.

What models were presented to the Beverage Working Group and the UBPS Advisory Committee?

Four models were proposed based on report findings presented by the Berkeley Innovative Solutions consulting group. After an initial review of these materials, several working group members suggested adding a fifth model for consideration, to which the broader working group agreed. 

The following five models were approved as the formal models used for the Beverage Working Group and Advisory Committee recommendation process:

  • Model I: Exclusive, Campuswide Pouring-Rights Contract with Sponsorship Component

  • Model II: Split Beverage Relationship(s) by Campus Units

  • Model III: Split Beverage Relationship(s) by Product or Channel

  • Model IV: Extend and Renegotiate Terms of Existing Contract with PepsiCo

  • Model V: No Marketing, with or without Exclusivity

Why didn’t Berkeley just renew or extend their current relationship with the campus beverage provider?

UC Berkeley is committed to a policy of competitive procurement when competition is known to exist. As a university best practice, it is common to secure a re-bid on product or service relationships after a 10-year relationship with a singular provider. A competitive RFP and award process considers the business requirements and policies of the university, along with the quality and price of goods and services. A new RFP would also provide the university an opportunity to reset partnership priorities.

In addition, a formal RFx solicitation process is required for non-federal funding for purchases that meet or exceed $100,000. No automatic term extensions are permitted per UC policy.

What types of services and benefits were included in the RFP?

The RFP process helped identify a potential beverage provider that could support the needs of multiple units and stakeholder groups. 

Potential campus community benefits of the RFP included:

  • Providing goods, priority services, competitive pricing, and equipment to university-controlled and/or operated locations, entities and vending locations, including Berkeley Dining, International House, Student Union, residential housing, other campus buildings and Athletics concessions

  • Meeting current requirements and supporting on-going efforts dedicated to sustainability, health and wellness, as well as other mutually important initiatives

  • Supporting the university’s emergency preparedness with product and potential other equipment relevant to disaster relief

  • Developing educational and career opportunities for students

  • Funding for student scholarships

  • Supporting opportunities to further Berkeley research and innovation initiatives, impactful projects and programs

  • Providing product donations to departments and student groups in support of special events

How many vendors were aware of the RFP?

After the RFP’s release, 45 companies were either invited to submit bids for the RFP, or independently registered to review the RFP documents.

What factors were used to determine an appropriate vendor?

The RFP required bidders to provide information related to six broad criteria through which proposals were evaluated. These criteria, developed by the Beverage Working Group, included:  

  • Beverage Service

  • Sustainability

  • Health and Wellness

  • Campus Engagement and Partnership Communications

  • Financial Consideration

  • Values

The Beverage Working Group used these criteria to score initial proposals before selecting finalists. After meetings with finalists, the working group rescored proposals and arrived at a recommendation that was forwarded to the UBPS Advisory Committee.

What did the campus do to ensure partnerships were aligned with our values as a university, such as sustainability, social responsibility, and health and wellness?

UBPS is guided by a comprehensive governance model, which includes students, faculty and staff representatives, as part of a due diligence to identify partners and suppliers which were willing to support the campus mission of excellence in teaching, research and public service and meet UBPS’ four guiding principles
More specifically, and for this Beverage RFP, any potential partner needed to meet or adhere to relevant laws, policies and guidelines including but not limited to the following:

How did the RFP consider the visibility of a beverage provider on campus?

During the RFP and negotiation process, the Beverage Working Group worked with UBPS to finalize terms and contractual elements that were formally presented to the UBPS Advisory Committee. Recommended partnerships needed to be approved by both the advisory and executive committees prior to a final announcement.

Specific opportunities that were discussed included beverage vending, product sales, sponsorship and support of campus initiatives. Their opportunities were reviewed carefully and evaluated by students, faculty and staff of the Beverage Working Group to ensure they were in the best interest of the campus community.

When was the new agreement estimated to start?

The two-year extension agreement with PepsiCo expired on July 31, 2023. The RFP requested that a new relationship tentatively start in early August 2023 and proposed a 10-year relationship.

Timeline

The below dates detail the timeline and process of the campus's beverage discussions:

  • January 2020-January 2021: 2020 Beverage Working Group researched and evaluated the best model for beverage services on campus

  • January 2021: 2020 Beverage Working Group recommended moving forward with a two-year relationship extension. UBPS Advisory Committee voted and agreed; submitted recommendation to Finance Committee

  • February 2021: Finance Committee approved recommendation to extend a beverage relationship with PepsiCo for two-years

  • July 2021:

  • August 2021: 2021 Beverage Working Group assembled

  • September 2021: Berkeley Innovative Solutions consulting team conducted additional research and analysis

  • December 2021Berkeley Innovative Solutions consulting team presented research findings to 2021 Beverage Working Group 

  • January 2022Berkeley Innovative Solutions consulting team presented beverage models and data analysis to 2021 Beverage Working Group

  • February 2022: 2021 Beverage Working Group voted; made recommendation to the UBPS Advisory Committee

  • March 2022: UBPS Advisory Committee voted
  • May 2022:
    • UBPS Advisory Committee and 2021 Beverage Working Group recommendations shared with Cabinet
    • Additional presentations and faculty feedback shared with Cabinet
  • August 2022: In consultation with the Cabinet and other stakeholders, the Chancellor has decided to move forward with a campuswide request for proposal (RFP) for beverage services
  • September - October 2022: RFP development
  • November 2022: RFP posted

  • January 2023: Deadline for vendors to submit proposals to RFP

  • February 2023

    • Vendor finalists reviewed, selected and notified by working group

    • Finalist presentations to working group

  • March - April 2023:

    • Best and final offers
    • Working Group reviewed final offers and provided evaluation to Advisory Committee 
    • Advisory Committee reviewed evaluation; submitted recommendation to Finance Committee for final approval
    • Finance Committee reviewed recommendation and confirmed final decision 
  • May 2023: The university issued an intent to award to PepsiCo
  • May -  August 2023: Contract negotiations and agreement finalization
  • August 2023New contract started