Attachment 5 - Evaluation Criteria v2.pdf

UNCLASSIFIED // FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

DOJ Cafeteria

RFQ No. 15JPSS26Q00000012

In support of:

Justice Management Division (JMD), Facilities and Administrative Services Staff (FASS)

Request for Quotation (RFQ) Overview-

The Department of Justice (DOJ) intends to award a contract to operate a foodservice facility for the purpose of dispensing food, nonalcoholic beverages and such other items as may be authorized by the Government. The foodservice facility includes one main cafeteria, private dining room and catering services. The foodservices are to be operated for the benefit of approximately 1,000 occupants of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), RFK Main Justice (RFK) Building for FASS, to meet the requirement described in Statement of Work (SOW).

Table of Contents

Section A. Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Respondents

Section B. Evaluation of Proposals Section

Section C. List of Attachments

SECTION A: Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Respondents

1. All correspondence in conjunction with this RFQ shall be directed to the following Contracting Officer (CO) Government point of contact (POC): Mr. Andrew Martin, email:

Andrew.s.martin@usdoj.gov.

1.1. Communications and questions or requests for clarifications shall be submitted by email to the CO on or before January 28, 2026, no later than 5:00 p.m. local time (Washington D.C.). The subject of the email should contain the Offeror’s name and the RFQ number.

Failure to submit questions in the time specified may result in a “no response” from the Government, unless otherwise determined by the CO. Offerors should not direct any communications or questions (written or verbal) concerning this RFQ to anyone other than the CO. Answers to all written questions submitted will be provided as an amendment to this RFQ as soon as possible after the time and date listed above.

1.2. Questions and comments should be segregated by Volume (Volumes I through II) when submitted. When referencing specific text of this RFQ, questions or comments shall include the following information:

Solicitation Number:

Page # Section and Paragraph # or Attachment

Question/Comment Recommended Change or Supplemental Information

Requested

1.3. Offerors questions and responses by the Department may form the basis of an amendment to the RFQ. Responses to questions will not reveal the Offeror who proposed the question.

2. Offer Acceptance Period: The Department requires a minimum acceptance period of at least 90 calendar days. Offerors may specify a longer acceptance period than the Department’s minimum requirement. A response allowing less than the Department’s minimum acceptance period may be rejected

3. Quotation Submission Instructions: The Offeror shall submit documentation that comports with the requirements of this RFQ. Offerors shall acknowledge all amendments, complete necessary fill-ins in their entirety, and return them with their submission to this RFQ. Any response not in compliance with the Department’s request may be rejected. The Department, at its discretion, may incorporate all or portions of an Offeror’s quote at award.

3.1. Representations and Certifications: Offeror shall ensure they have updated and complete representations and certifications in the System for Award Management (SAM).

3.2. Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI): The Offeror shall disclose any potential or actual organizational conflicts of interest (OCIs) that your firm (to include subcontractors) may have with the requirements of the SOW/RFQ. Include a description of the OCI(s) mailto:Andrew.s.martin@usdoj.gov and the action(s) taken, if any, to avoid, mitigate, or neutralize the OCIs. A negative response is required.

3.3. RFQ responses shall be submitted in accordance with the instructions in this section. RFQ responses must be prepared in three parts: Volume I – Business Quote, Volume II – Past Performance, and Volume III – Price. The Volume I – Business Quote shall include Part A, Technical Approach; Part B, Management and Staffing Approach; and Part C, Organizational Experience. No volume, with the exception of Volume III – Price, shall contain any costs related to this RFQ; however, resource information may be contained in the technical quote so that your understanding of the scope of work may be evaluated.

3.4. RFQ responses are due no later than February 13, 2026, no later than 5:00 p.m. local time. Any quote, modification, or revision that is received after the exact time specified for receipt of quotes is late and will not be considered.

3.5. An official authorized to bind your organization must sign the RFQ responses. The Offeror’s quote shall provide convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors are reminded that that Department reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial quote, as received, without discussions.

This RFQ does not commit the Government to pay any costs incurred in the submission of any quotation or in making necessary studies for the preparation thereof. Nor does it commit the Government to procure or contract for said services. The Contracting Officer is the only individual who can commit the Government to the expenditure of public funds in connection with this proposed procurement.

3.6. The quote must include all data and information requested by these instructions and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions. Offerors shall be compliant with the requirements stated in the RFQ. The Department may reject any offer that is not in compliance with the instructions provided in this RSQ. Quotes must be clear, coherent, and prepared in sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The quote shall not simply rephrase or restate the Department’s requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet these requirements. Each volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated without seeking information from other volumes of the quote. Information required for quote evaluation, which is not found in its designated volume, will be assumed to have been omitted from the quote.

Offerors are advised not to make generalized statements, such as “the Offeror understands and will comply with the requirements,” “standard procedures will be used,” “well known techniques will be used,” “best known practices,” or statements that paraphrase the RFQ/SOW in whole or in part. General statements that the Offeror can or will comply with the requirements, that standard procedures will be used, that well-known techniques will be used, or paraphrasing the solicitation’s requirements in whole or in part will NOT constitute compliance. Failure to conform to any of the requirements of the solicitation may form the basis for rejection of the proposal.

Unnecessary elaboration or other presentations beyond that sufficient to present a complete and effective proposal are NOT desired. Elaborate artwork, expensive visuals, or other presentation aids are neither necessary nor desired. Clarity, completeness, and conciseness are essential, and the overall quality of the proposal will be evaluated in the context of being representative of the Offeror’s services. Since only the proposal submitted in response to this solicitation will be evaluated, Offerors should make certain that their proposal is complete regarding the information provided. Offerors are responsible for ensuring that their proposal responds to the requirements of this solicitation and are responsible for ensuring that a proposal contains sufficient detail for the Department to evaluate it. Data either previously submitted or presumed to be known will not be considered in the evaluation unless that information is contained in the proposal.

3.7. Quotation Format and Content:

(a) As stated in SOW Section 2, all deliverables/tasks mentioned (required and optional), may be needed through the life of the award therefore, the contractor must respond to each task. The proposal submitted shall include acknowledgement of these deliverables. Pricing should be presented to government at the time of proposal and will be incorporated in award by contract line item(s) as required on an as-need basis.

(b) All quotations shall contain the three separate volumes (and sections) identified in the chart below and be submitted as two (2) separate PDF files, subject to the quantities and page limits as specified below:

Volume Title Original Plus # of Copies Maximum Page Limit*

I Business A. Technical Approach

- Food Plan

- Ability to Make Profit

Electronic Version 55 Pages total (Resumes will not count against this total) II Past Performance Electronic Version 10 Pages

*Pages submitted in excess of the page limitations described above will not be evaluated.

(c) Paper, Page Size and Markings: Each volume shall have a Table of Contents for easy reference. The quotations shall be formatted such that, if printed, they fit within 8 ½ x 11- inch paper, in a commercially standard font size (no smaller than 11-point). The offeror should mark its RFQ response with any proprietary marking, if needed, based on their assessment of the contents of each of these volumes.

(d) Illustrations and Tables: Pages shall not contain any graphics or illustrations other than for the purposes of depicting the technical approach. These displays shall be uncomplicated, legible, and shall not exceed 8.5 x 11 inches. Text shall be no smaller than 10 point for tables, charts, graphs, and figures. Elaborate formats or color presentations are not required.

(e) After evaluation, selection, and award, the files of each unsuccessful quotation will be retained per FAR 4.805.

(e) Business Volume I Instructions

A. Technical Approach: The Offeror shall describe and demonstrate the soundness of their approach, methodology, technique, or plan to accomplish the tasks identified in the Section C of the Statement of Work (SOW) provided at Attachment 1 and address the requirements of C.9 of the SOW. Offerors shall address the SOW requirements by articulating their substantial understanding of the requirements by describing the strategy, approach and plan they will use to accomplish the tasks and describe how they have been successful using the proposed technical approach on previous similar efforts. Offerors shall also demonstrate their value added or unique qualifications, experience, and expertise to perform the work.

(1) Food Plan: The offeror shall provide sample menus for a week of service and discuss food quality, taste and freshiness. The offeror will discuss Food Saftey, Sanitation and Quality Control. The offeror will demonstrate how this can be accomplished.

(2) Abiltly to Make Profit: The offeror shall provide a plan to demonstrate that they will make a profit and not incur costs over the $2,000 monthly stipend (as there is no way to increase the stipend). The offeror shall provide all the planned costs for a proposed month and all the planned revenue and demonstrate that it will profitable.

B. Management and Staffing Approach: Each Offeror shall submit a plan to accomplish tasks in the SOW.

(1) Management Plan: Offerors shall demonstrate how they intend to manage the work processes, actions, and coordinations that will achieve effective and efficient performance of services meeting the goals and objectives stated in the SOW.

Offerors shall demonstrate how their response to the RFQ will mitigate risk to the Department.

(1) Staffing Plan: Offeror will provide a detailed staffing plan, which demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to staff requirements in a reasonable amount of time, and the Offeror’s ability to recruit and retain qualified candidates for the work required by the SOW. Offerors shall describe how they will maintain the expertise of personnel, including cross-training and rotation of personnel, if applicable. Offerors shall provide a narrative of the labor pool from which the Offeror intends to recruit and maintain employees with the necessary skill sets during the performance of this contract. Offerors shall also address how they will minimize the risk of non-performance (e.g., performance gap or poor performance). The Offeror shall provide detailed rationale that supports the composition of the team (labor mix), the status of the team members (currently on staff, contingency hire, or other), the potential for those individuals not being available, and measures that will be instituted to mitigate risk.

(2) Transition Plan: Offerors will discuss how long it will take to provide 100 percent of the required team resources to assume the required tasks outlined in the SOW after contract award. The Offeror will address how they intend to transition the work in an efficient and effective manner from the incumbent to the follow-on engagement, as well as address risks and corresponding risk mitigation strategies.

C. Organizational Experience: Offerors shall describe its breadth and depth of experience and qualifications working within the requirements of the SOW. For purposes of this RFQ, breadth is defined as the extent to which the Offeror’s experience and qualifications correspond to the array of efforts set forth in the SOW.

Depth is defined as the extent to which the proposed experience and qualifications fully address an individual type of effort set forth in the SOW. The Offeror should also provide descriptions of any unique competencies that could provide additional benefit to the Department. Offerors should be mindful that the Department’s evaluation of their organizational experience is separate and distinct from its evaluation of Past Performance.

(f) Past Performance Volume II Instructions

A. Past Performance Reference Listing: Offerors shall provide information on no more than three (3) previous contracts performed for federal, state, and local government agencies and/or commercial customers, for which the Offeror’s efforts are recent and relevant to the efforts required by this RFQ and which demonstrates their ability to perform their proposed effort (e.g., providing Cafeteria Services) and to operate it while maintaining all necessary requirmenmts. Offerors shall also provide information on problems encountered on the identified contracts and the Offerors’ corrective actions. If the Offeror has no recent or relevant Past Performance, the Offeror shall state so.

(1) “Recent” is defined as occurring within the last three years prior to the RFQ closing date.

(2) “Relevant” is defined as a contract of similar scope, magnitude, and complexity to the requirements as set forth in this solicitation.

o Scope: Experience in the areas defined in the SOW.

o Magnitude: The measure of the similarity of the volume, dollar value and/or duration of the work actually performed under the Offeror’s submitted contracts to the SOW.

o Complexity: The measure of the similarity of technical difficulty, managerial intricacy, and/or required coordination of efforts and disciplines performed by the offeror in its submitted contracts to the SOW. For complexity, not only will the tasks performed by the Offeror be considered, but also the Offeror’s ability to coordinate tasks (e.g., concurrent performance requirements).

(3) “Quality” is defined as the classification of the contract item (supply or service) as determined by its technical description, its complexity, and the criticality of its application.

B. Past Performance Questionnaire. Offerors shall submit the “Past Performance

Questionnaire” (PPQ) form Appendix 1 for each listed contract referenced in the past performance reference list and email the questionnaire to the technical representative responsible for the referenced past/current contract. The questionnaire states that the technical representative should complete Section A of the questionnaire and email the entire questionnaire within the date and time designated on the questionnaire to the point of contract designated on the form. Questionnaires should not contain any classified information. Offerors may request/remind the technical representative to complete and email the form to the CO listed on the questionnaire. NOTE: Offerors shall clearly identify themselves on the form as the proposing Offeror so that questionnaires can be tracked to the correct Offeror.

Offerors shall provide the past performance questionnaire to their references and complete and return directly to CO before February 13, 2026, no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (the Department reserves the right to extend this submission dealine if conditions demand it). The Department may use all portions of the past performance questionnaire to determine whether the relevancy and recency requirements of the RFQ are satisfied. The Department may also use information from other sources to assess past performance, such as federal government offices and commercial sources. The Department may also contact the references provided or check available records, such as CPARS and PPIRS, for performance evaluation information.

A. Cover Letter: At a minimum, the price volume of the quotation shall include the following information:

(1) RFQ number:

(2) Offeror Name, Address, DUNS Number

(3) Authorized Individuals. Provide the name, title, telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address for the individual designated as the central point of contact for this quotation.

(4) Acknowledgment of RFQ Amendments (if applicable).

(5) Agreement with terms. A statement specifying the extent of agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the RFQ. Offerors are to clearly detail any exceptions taken and the rationale for the exceptions taken to the RFQ. Please note that exceptions taken to the RFQ may render the submission unacceptable to the Government.

(6) Assumptions. Offeror shall describe any assumptions used to develop the quotation.

(7) Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI). Offeror shall include any disclosures of potential or actual organizational conflicts of interest (OCIs) as outlined Paragraph 3.2.

(8) Representations and Certifications. Offeror shall confirm all representations and certifications are completed in SAM.

(9) Quote expiration date.

SECTION B: Evaluation of Proposals

1. Evaluation Process: This is a fair opportunity competetion under the procedures in FAR

Subpart 15.3. The use of this fair opportunity process does not obligate the Department to determine a competitive range, conduct discussions with any Offerors, solicit proposals or revisions thereto, or use any other source selection techniques associated with FAR Subpart 15.3.

1.1 Exchanges: During the evaluation process, the Department reserves the right to conduct exchanges. If the Department conducts exchanges, it may be with one, several, or all Offerors. Exchanges may vary with each Offeror based on the Department’s need to understand or give the Offeror an opportunity to improve their quotation. However, exchanges with Offerors will be fair and equitable.

2. Evaluation Factors: The Department intends to issue a single award under this RFQ. In determining which contractor represents the best overall value, the Department will consider the following evaluation factors.

Factor 1 – Technical Approach, Factor 2 – Management and Staffing Approach, Organizational Experience Factor 3 – Past Performance

The non-price evaluation factors, Factors 1 through 3, are listed in descending order of importance. The non-price evaluation factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

Price becomes increasingly more important when Offerors receive similar ratings for the non-price factors. Offerors are forewarned that a submission meeting RFQ requirements with the lowest evaluated price may not be selected for award if a higher rated submission with a fair and reasonable price is determined to represent the best value to the Government.

2.1 Factor 1 – Technical Approach

The Department will determine if the proposal demonstrates understanding of the requirements (Cafeteria Services, maintain a high level of service, proving a high quality of food and the abiltly to stay profitable) through a sound approach, methodology, technique, or plan to accomplish all tasks identified in the SOW

Technical Approach will be evaluated to determine the manner and extent which it demonstrates the understanding of the requirements (including challenges, risks, and opportunities) and its ability to achieve the goals and objectives as they apply to the SOW.

2.2 Factor 2 – Management and Staffing Approach

The Department will evaluate the Offeror’s quote to determine how well it supports the achievement of the requirements outlined in the SOW.

Management Plan: This section evaluates how well the Offeror supports managing the work, the proposed methods to ensure schedules are met, the methods for achieving the goals and objectives stated herein (including challenges, risks, and opportunities), managing personnel (such as addressing personnel security clearance issues that reflect the ability to provide cleared personnel at time of proposal submission and throughout the contract), and any other information that may bear on the Offeror’s ability to perform the work successfully (i.e., difficulties, uncertainties, and risks associated with the work).

Staffing Plan: This section will be evaluated on how well the Offeror’s proposed staffing approach demonstrates the ability and commitment to provide a staff with strong technical expertise which correlates with the applicable tasks in the SOW. The Department will evaluate the proposed staffing approach on how effective it is in ensuring a fully qualified work force is both provided and maintained. The proposed labor mix will be evaluated to determine if it is adequate to perform the SOW tasks and if it demonstrates an understanding of the scope of work. Offerors who propose personnel that demonstrate a higher degree of related experience to the SOW requirements will be evaluated more favorably.

Transition Plan: This section will assess the Offeror’s demonstrated ability to transition 100 percent of the required team resources in an efficient and effective manner from the current Contractor the follow-on engagement within 30 days. In making this evaluation, the Department will consider the Contractor’s transition experience. The Department will also assess the transition plan’s thoroughness, including identification of risks and corresponding risk mitigation strategies to ensure that all staff are hired, cleared, fully trained, and prepared to assume the required duties at the close of the transition period.

The Department will evaluate the degree (breadth and depth) the Offerors demonstrate their organizational knowledge of the requirements of the SOW (e.g., Cafeteria Services, Food Quailtly, and maintain a profitable business). Offerors proposals also will be evaluated on the degree (breadth and depth) to which the Offeror has demonstrated the qualifications and organizational experience in performing work of the same or similar nature as that of the requirements of the SOW (e.g., Cafeteria Services, Food Quailtly, and maintain a profitable business). Offerors who demonstrate that their unique competencies could provide the Department with additional benefit will be evaluated more favorably.

2.3 Factor 3 – Past Performance

The Offeror’s Past Performance will be evaluated to assess the Offeror’s likelihood of successful performance in providing requirements similar in size, scope, and complexity of this solicitation (e.g., Cafeteria Services, Food Quailtly, and maintain a profitable business). The Department may use present and/or past performance data obtained from a variety of sources, not just those identified by the Offeror.

(a) There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: Recency, Relevancy and Quality.

(i) The first aspect of the Past Performance evaluation is recency, as defined in the instructions section above in Section (f) Past Performance Volume II Instructions. If an instance of a past performance is deemed “Not Recent,” the Department will stop evaluation of the past performance reference, and it will not be evaluated for relevancy or quality.

(ii) The second aspect of the Past Performance evaluation is relevancy. The Department will determine how relevant a recent past performance is to the effort to be acquired through the this RFQ. The Department will consider the following aspects in its relevancy evaluation, as they are defined in the instructions section above: 1) scope, 2) magnitude, and 3) complexity. Each recent past performance reference provided by the Offerors will receive one of the relevancy ratings outlined in Section 3.2 below. If an instance of a past performance reference is deemed “Not Relevant,” the Department will stop evaluation of the past performance reference, and it will not be evaluated for quality or be included as part of the evaluation of an offeror’s performance confidence.

(iii) The final aspect of the Past Performance evaluation is the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance. The quality of any recent and relevant past performance will be evaluated under the following aspects: 1) Quality

(Service) 2) Timeliness (Schedule Performance) 3) Cost Control 4) Management (Business Relations) and 5) Other Areas (Problem Resolution such as Management of Key Personnel).

(b) After evaluating individual past performance submissions for recency, relevancy, and quality, the Department will assign one overall confidence rating for Past Performance as outlined in Section 3.2 below.

(c) The past performance evaluation conducted in support of this RFQ does not establish, create, or change existing records and history of the Offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how the Offeror performed those past contracts.

(d) In the case of an Offeror who does not provide information on recent or relevant past performance, or where past performance information is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on this factor. The Offeror shall receive the rating of “neutral,” meaning the rating is neither favorable nor unfavorable. In a best value tradeoff, the Department may determine that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating, as long as the determination is consistent with stated criteria.

(e) A significant achievement, problem, or lack of data in any element can become an important consideration. A negative finding under any element may result in an adverse performance confidence assessment.

(f) Since the Department may not contact any or all of the past performance sources provided, it is incumbent upon the Offeror to explain the relevance of the data provided. Offerors are reminded that while the Department may elect to consider data obtained from other sources, the burden of proving good past performance rests with the Offerors.

(g) Submitting more recent, relevant, and quality references may result in a higher-confidence rating. Likewise, submitting less than three recent, relevant, and quality references may result in a lower confidence rating.

3. Evaluation Ratings

3.1 Rating definitions for Factors 1 – Technical Approach, 2 – Management and Staffing

Approach

Adjectival Rating Description

Outstanding Quote greatly exceeds all minimum requirements of the criteria; has a high probability of success; contains no weaknesses or deficiencies. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good

Quote exceeds all the minimum requirements of the criteria; has an above average probability of success; contains no significant weaknesses and only minor, correctable weaknesses exist. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable

Quote meets all the minimum requirements of the criteria; has an average probability of success; no significant weaknesses and any deficiencies can be readily corrected. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Quote fails to meet one or more of the minimum requirements of the criteria; low probability of success; major weaknesses and/or significant number of deficiencies exist. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Quote fails to meet any of the minimum requirements of the criteria;

proposal needs major revisions; very low probability of success. The proposal will not be considered for award.

3.2 Ratings definitions for Factor 3 – Past Performance

Past Performance Relevancy Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this RFQ requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this RFQ requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this RFQ requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this RFQ requires.

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent and relevant performance record, the Department has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent and relevant performance record, the Department has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent or relevant performance record is available 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 and relevant performance record, the Department has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort..

No Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent and relevant performance record, the Department has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

4. Award

Following an evaluation and tradeoff analysis, the Department will make an award to the Offeror whose quote represents the best value to the Department, price and non-price factors considered.

The Department reserves the right to make an award based on other than the lowest quoted price.

4.1 Award on Initial Responses: The Department anticipates making an award based on initial responses, without engaging in exchanges with Offerors. Therefore, Offerors are strongly encouraged to submit their best technical solutions and price in response to this RFQ.

4.2 Comparative Analysis: The Department may perform a comparative analysis

(comparing Offeror responses to one another) as a part of tradeoff analysis.

4.3 Basis of Award: An award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose offer, conforming to the RFQ, is determined to be the best overall value to the Government. The evaluation will be conducted in accordance with the evaluation criteria stated in this Section B.

4.4 Brief Explanations: Post award notices will be issued in accordance with FAR Part

8.405(d).

SECTION C – List of Attachments

ATTACHMENT 2: SOW

APPENDIX 1: Past Performance Questionnaire

SECTION C – List of Attachments