04b. ATTCH 4b- Addendum_to_RFO FAR_52.212-2.pdf

***Addendum to RFO FAR 52.212-2***

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 The Government will award a Best Value award resulting from this solicitation to the responsible contractor whose proposal conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered, without negotiations. The following factors will be used to evaluate offers:

1.0.1 Past Performance

1.0.2 Technical Capability

1.0.3 Price

1.1 Past Performance Evaluation.

1.1.1 The past performance evaluation will assess the risk of unsuccessful performance of the offeror’s proposed approach to performing efforts of a similar scope as the requirement described in the solicitation and attachments.

1.1.2 The past performance considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in providing the required meals that meet the contract requirements. In accordance with RFO FAR 15.503-2(c)(5), the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the contractor’s performance shall be considered. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror.

1.1.3 Past performance includes three (3) subfactors: recency, relevancy, and quality of the meals.

1.1.4 Recency. Past performance is considered recent if the meal delivery occurred within three (3) years of the date of the solicitation and includes present performance. References for more recent meal deliveries may receive more consideration. For example, a reference for meals provided 12 months ago may receive more consideration than a reference for meals provided 30 months ago. Recency will be expressed using the Past Performance Ratings described in Table 1.

Table 1 - Past Performance Recency Rating Adjectival Rating Description Very Recent Performance within 18 months of solicitation date Recent Performance from 19 to 36 months before solicitation date Not Recent Performance more than 36 months before solicitation date

1.1.5 Relevance. In establishing what is relevant to this acquisition, consideration will be given to the scope (same meals requirements: breakfast, lunch and dinner); similar required headcount;

similar menu types; and similar audience type). Relevance will be expressed using the Past Performance Relevancy Ratings described in Table 2.

Table 2 - Past Performance Relevancy Rating Adjectival Rating Description Very Relevant Past performance effort involved essentially the same scope as the current requirement.

Relevant Past performance effort involved similar scope as the current requirement.

Somewhat Relevant Past performance effort involved some of the scope as the current requirement.

Not Relevant Past performance effort involved little or none of the scope as the current requirement.

1.1.6 Quality of Meals Delivery. This evaluation factor will consider the following elements:

1.1.6.1 Customer Service (business relations, staff appearance, problem resolution)

1.1.6.2 Quality of Meals (food used, meal temperatures, storage containers)

1.1.6.3 Adherence to Schedule (flexibility in scheduling, timeliness of meal delivery)

1.1.6.4 Adherence to Menus (did not deviate from menus prior to approval)

1.1.6.5 Commitment to Customer Satisfaction and Business-like Concern for its

Attachment 04b- Addendum_to_RFO FAR_52.212-2 Page 1 of 3

Customers’ Interest.

1.1.7 Contracts submitted in the Past Performance section of the offeror’s quote will not be considered if the Government determines them to be not recent, not relevant, or lacking any credible past performance information. If the offeror does not have a record of Recent and Relevant past performance information the offeror will be rated as “Neutral” which is neither favorable nor unfavorable.

1.1.8 Past performance information may be obtained from any other sources available to the Government to include Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting (CPARS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS) or other databases; and interviews with Program Managers, Customers, Contracting Officers, and Contracting Officer Representatives (CORs) within our own agency or other agencies. Past performance for proposed subcontractors may be evaluated.

1.1.9 In evaluating the offeror’s performance history, the Government may compare the offeror’s deliveries or performance to the contract’s original delivery or performance schedule, unless the delay was Government-caused. Schedule extensions that were the fault of the offeror, even if consideration was provided, may be counted against the offeror.

1.1.10 Performance Confidence Assessment. Using the past performance subfactors and ratings identified above, the SSEB will assess performance confidence using the Performance Confidence Assessment described in Table 3.

Table 3 - Performance Confidence Assessment Adjectival Rating Description Substantial Confidence

Based on the Offeror's recent/relevant performance and/or subcontractor’s past performance, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the Offeror's recent/relevant performance and/or subcontractor’s past performance, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available for the Offeror and/or subcontractor, or the Offeror's performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the Offeror's recent/relevant performance record and/or subcontractor’s past performance, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the Offeror's recent/relevant performance record and/or subcontractor’s past performance, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

1.2 Technical Capability Evaluation

1.2.1 Evaluation of this factor will assess the contractor’s proposed approach and understanding of the requirements and risk factors. This will address the contractor’s performance plan and includes subcontractor information. The SSEB will assess technical confidence using the Technical Confidence Assessment in Table 4.

Table 4 – Technical Capability Confidence Evaluation Adjectival Rating Description Meets Proposal meets the minimum technical requirements of the solicitation.

Exceeds Proposal exceeds the minimum technical requirements of the solicitation.

Does Not Meet Proposal does not meet the minimum technical requirements of the solicitation.

1.3 Price Evaluation

1.3.1 Evaluation of price will be performed using one or more of the price analysis techniques in RFO FAR 15.4. Through these techniques the Government will determine whether prices are

Attachment 04b- Addendum_to_RFO FAR_52.212-2 Page 2 of 3 unreasonable, complete, and are not unbalanced.

1.3.2 Reasonableness. The Government will evaluate the price reasonableness of the offerors’ proposed prices to ensure that in its nature and amount, it does not exceed what would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business. The Government shall employ price analysis techniques in accordance with RFO FAR 15.4 to determine that the proposed price is fair and reasonable.

2.0 Bases for award.

2.1 Past performance and technical capability evaluation factors, when combined, are more important than price.

2.2 The Government intends to award a single Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) Contract as a result of this solicitation

2.2 Per RFO FAR 9.103, the contract will be placed only with an offeror that the Contracting Officer determines to be responsible, that is, those who can satisfactorily perform the necessary tasks and deliver the required meals on time. Prospective offerors, in order to qualify as sources for this acquisition, must be able to demonstrate that they meet standards of responsibility set forth in RFO FAR 9.104. In addition, the Government may assess the offeror’s financial ability to meet the solicitation requirements. No award can be made to an offeror who has been determined to be not responsible by the Contracting Officer.

2.3 Completeness. The Government’s ability to evaluate a proposal may depend on the level of detail and supporting documentation provided. Insufficient supporting documentation or detail in a proposal may prevent the Government from evaluating aa proposal.

Attachment 04b- Addendum_to_RFO FAR_52.212-2 Page 3 of 3