3rd Party Regionalization SOO Draft (23 Sep 24).pdf

23 September 24 3rd Party Regionalization SOO 1 of 7

23 September 24 3rd Party Regionalization SOO 7 of 7

Statement of Objectives 3rd Party Food & Beverage

Regionalization & Sustainment

Part I: General Information

1. Introduction The Air Force Services Center (AFSVC), Food & Beverage (F&B) Division, manages Appropriated F&B operations across the Air Force (AF). AFSVC requires periodic updates to the existing Food 2.0 Operations Plan, allowing for customization from its current Portfolio’s to a Regional structure. This update will streamline the transition while helping address current concerns and challenges.

2. Background In 2008, the Department of the Air Force (DAF) initiated an innovative approach to revamp its Food & Beverage (F&B) operations known as the Food Transformation Initiative (FTI).

It was determined that the traditional methods of managing base-level F&B operations were inadequate in meeting the needs of Airmen and the base community while also lacking financial liability. Consequently, the AF received funding through Air Force Smart Operations 21 (AFSO21), a program for improvement initiatives mandated by AF Chief of Staff.

This initiative allowed the AF to use best practices of the industry to enhance government work processes. Subsequently the AF embarked on testing FTI through large-scale, off-installation initiatives spanning multiple years. FTI was highly successful with fulfilling its key objectives as outlined below. Over the past decade the program has continually evolved and now operates under the name “Food 2.0”. Currently, the Food 2.0 program awaits funding approval from DAF to ensure its sustainability and global expansion.

2.1. Original AFSO21 business case key objectives:

2.1.1. Maintain & train military home base/war fighting feeding capabilities. Improve efficiency, reduce costs, and optimize service delivery.

2.1.2. Focus on changing lifestyles, needs, and preferences. Enhance food quality, variety, and availability.

2.1.3. Improve programs and facilities.

2.1.4. Provide modern, sought after, trendy, and nutritious meals. Restore a sense of community.

2.1.5. Partner where financially viable supporting socio-economically disadvantaged groups.

2.2 While Food 2.0 continues to be highly acceptable and desirable across the force, the basic program costs have rapidly grown and exceeded the cost of legacy/traditional run F&B operations. Fundamentally, the problem statement is whether this current model is sustainable or can and/or should it be modified to gain efficiencies which may optimize performance and delivery of program services As this program has grown AFSVC has

23 September 24 3rd Party Regionalization SOO 2 of 7 brought on several more resources to support the enterprise approach. Today more than 50 dedicated staff resources provide centralized program management, technology, contracting, logistics and financial management to 42 locations across 28 installations.

Additionally, current global providers have brought in similar enterprise layers of leadership, supplementing the positions awarded at each installation.

3. Current Issues, Concerns and Challenges

3.1 Higher than normal industry food, labor, contractor costs, and accountability measures.

3.2 DAF has employed global contractors using portfolio concept with layers of management from each operation. This concept provides corporate enterprise for both contractor and military/government management teams. The absence of regional or industry-specific multi-unit strategies in this process leads to significant challenges in managing travel costs across various geographical locations. Consequently, questions arise regarding the effectiveness, optimization, and overall impact of this approach.

3.3 Remote management teams for both contractor and military/government using a variety of standardized systems (menus, recipes, Front-of-House (FOH) and Back-of- House (BOH), customer Food Service Assessment Survey (FSAS), Prime Vendor and enterprise equipment care (i.e., SmartCare) but appears to not be fully impactful in correcting program management concerns.

3.4 The Program relies on Contracting Officer Representatives (COR) and Program Contracting Officer Representatives (PCOR) at the corporate level, it lacks the essential documentation required to evaluate contractor performance on a daily, weekly, monthly, and annual basis. This documentation, which is commonly utilized in Business & Industry (B&I) sectors, is crucial for recognizing and rewarding positive performance.

3.5 Customers expressing displeasure of high food costs and outdated décor, that have lost their trendiness over time. These concerns have led the DAF to suspect that the current situation is not aligned with program objectives.

3.6 While operations adhere to standardized level of service each possesses its unique characteristics based on specific mission requirements which adds the complexity of managing as an enterprise.

4. Scope of Services

4.1 Since inception and construction of the original business case, there has been limited independent 3rd party professional hospitality F&B review. The services requested and outlined below, would ensure what DAF developed and tested under FTI could continue to grow and sustain as Food 2.0 today. The services could involve but not limited to:

4.1.1 Incorporating industry best practices from the F&B hospitality, healthcare, and Business & Industry (B&I) sectors, engaging with professionals, consultants, or researchers familiar with AFSO21 methodologies as well as provide a more

23 September 24 3rd Party Regionalization SOO 3 of comprehensive understanding of its effects, challenges, and potential areas for improvement.

4.1.2 Critical to Food 2.0 is the need for continuous improvement. As such, measuring success and modifying goals and objectives to maintain cost efficiencies as outlined in current Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).

4.1.3 Providing support with submitted proposals, evaluations, suggestions, and considerations regarding "business telemetry". These proposals shall undergo assessment and guidance on financial aspects related to food service, with a focus on identifying areas for potential contractual expense reduction. Additionally, recommendations are sought to improve the existing structure and adjust incentives for optimal performance, ensuring compliance with Government rules, policies, and procedures.

5. Qualifications

5.1 AFSVC is seeking to collaborate with a professional hospitality consulting firm that possesses a minimum of ten (10) years of experience in the F&B hospitality industry, including engagements in college. healthcare, and Business & Industry (B&I) sectors.

These sectors encompass a range of arrangements, including independent, chain-owned, or concessionaire setups, each employing diverse acquisition and operational strategies.

5.2 A minimum of five (5) years of applied experience working with complex, multi-million-dollar government: contracts, transformative food initiatives, policies, procedures, acquisition strategies, source selection, price/cost analysis.

5.3 A minimum of five (5) years of experience assessing complex, multi-million program budgets and government funding sources for F&B programs using Nonappropriated Funds, and Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).

5.4 Have no financial interest in outcome of any award or possible award of any contract, directly or indirectly related to AFSVC Food 2.0 Program.

Part II: Work Requirements

6. Deliverables Deliverables encompass a review/assessment of current requirements. Results and recommendation should be presented as reports, analysis, standard operating procedures, etc. Contractor to suggest suitable format for delivering reports that effectively communicate the findings, insight, and recommendations. Contractors shall consider providing reports in multiple formats to accommodate different preferences and facilitate ease of use and sharing.

6.1 Develop, Modify, & Train

6.1.1 Contractor shall finalize inputs and edits to Food 2.0 core documents for a

23 September 24 3rd Party Regionalization SOO 4 of complete RFP package ready for issue according to AFNAFPO provided guidance.

6.1.2 Contractor shall modify the existing Foodservice Portfolio financial tool to enable future use as a forecasting and scenario analysis tool, bid evaluation tool and actual- to-budget contract oversight tool. Using metrics and a financial statement template previously developed. The financial tool is an Excel-based tool that requires redesign and modification to enable the tool to accomplish all intended objectives with detailed inputs and outputs consistent with the metrics and financial template providing monthly data by outlet, by base and by region as part of the final requirements package to the contracting team. Develop the evaluation criteria/factors, which include underlying assumptions to provide as part of the final requirement package to contracting team.

6.1.3 The Contractor shall provide ongoing support of additional modeling or analysis on an as needed basis. The Contractor shall be responsible for training Food 2.0 personnel in the use of the tool for continuing financial oversight of current and future installations/regions. At such time when personnel are conversant in the use and application of the oversight tool, the Contractor shall thereafter be available on a time and materials basis to provide related advisory services as required. The Contractor shall also interface, as necessary, with the Food 2.0 team and its advisors during the financial tool development to ensure the tool meets the needs of the program. All tools, templates, reports, oversight guide(s), and other documentation developed and delivered are the property of the DAF.

6.1.4 Contractor shall lead in the planning/coordination of calls with the HQ AFSVC/VM and VP teams. Agendas shall be required NLT 24 hours prior to the meeting and minutes shall be presented to the Contracting Officer within 48 hours of any scheduled calls/meetings.

6.2 Comprehensive review and assessment of current:

6.2.1 Statement of Work (SOW).

6.2.2 Statement of Objectives (SOO).

6.2.3 Contract structure fees, budget etc. (fixed vs. direct reimbursable).

6.2.4 General Accounting Office (GAO) reports and findings on FTI and Food 2.0.

6.2.5 Key performance indicators (KPI) and financial performance metrics.

6.2.6 Roles, responsibilities, and efforts of both contractor and military/government as it relates to SOW, SOO, and annual Installation Operating Plan (IOP).

6.2.7 Recipes, ingredients, and menu patterns, recommending efficiencies, error corrections to reduce food cost/waste etc.

6.2.8 Methods used by DAF to accurately measure costs per meal (Plate Cost)

23 September 24 3rd Party Regionalization SOO 5 of

6.2.9 AF methods used to measure non-food costs associated with contract, contractor fix and reimbursable expenses (input costs such as labor costs, reimbursable supplies, paper disposables, smallwares etc.).

6.2.10 Food Service Assessment Survey results (2012, 2014 & 2016, 2018, 2023).

6.3 Comprehensive review and operational assessment at up to 10 locations varying in contractual set-ups. Observe and document operational similarities and differences.

Recommendations to be provided as a report:

6.3.1 Full Food Service contract – single DFAC.

6.3.2 Full Food Service contract – multiple DFACs operations.

6.3.3 Mess Attendant contract – single DFAC.

6.3.4. Mess Attendant contract – single DFACs and Satellite facility.

6.4 Strategic and tactical report provided by the contractor shall include findings, recommendations for process improvement, financial efficiencies, contractor incentives, program management adjustments, etc. in areas such as financial compliance analysis, Contractor compliance, Master Planning (Portfolio vs Region), food cost & production, staff & crew size to operations, job task analysis (Mil vs Civ) and hourly rate comparison by CBA, recipe adherence, equipment maintenance.

6.4.1 Provide assessment, recommendations and/or considerations for best & final negotiations.

6.4.2 Directly support the source selection team as advisors.

6.4.3 Travel as required to be in place at Port San Antonio and various installations, as a cost reimbursable, to complete reviews and/or assessment as directed.

(Installations TBD)

6.4.4 Cost containment (immediate, short- and long-term goals)

6.4.5 Review utilization of operations by analyzing the correlation between customer traffic and hours of operation.

Part III: Supporting Information

7. Task Timelines (Period of Performance)

7.1 Phase I (Program Plan of Action to Task) 0-30 Days

7.1.1 Contractor shall provide the following to begin 3 days from award date: Identify the tasks, critical milestones needing completion, develop a timeline, collaboratively identify selected bases for site visits, request additional specific data, if required, 23 September 24 3rd Party Regionalization SOO 6 of assign task/due outs, identify potential risks and challenges associated with task, monitor progress and track status of task. Communicate plan with regular updates, coordination among stakeholders, establish channels for sharing information.

Implement processes and procedures to ensure that deliverables meet specified requirements and expectations.

Phase II (Current Data/Program Review, Site Visits/Data Gathering) 30-90 Days

7.1.2 Contractor shall provide a report based on comprehensive review of all documents and identify strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities for improvement.

Provide recommended strategies to enhance data management practices, foster data-driven decision-making, and drive business success.

7.2 Phase III (Tactical Roadmap to Strategic Objectives) 90-120 Days

7.2.1 Contractor shall develop a high-level strategic goal and provide actionable plans and initiatives that drive progress and success. Provide a roadmap that navigates complexities of implementation and ensure the efforts are focused on achieving meaningful outcome that contribute to the overall success.

7.3 Phase IV (Development, Integration) 120-180 Days

7.3.1 Contractor shall ensure there is an understanding of the SOW and create a detailed plan that outlines tasks, timelines, resources required and potential risk.

Contractor shall build the necessary components, features, reports, graphs, etc.

according to project overall timeline, and potential risks. Upon completion the newly developed components shall be integrated with existing process and procedures.

Testing phase shall include rigorous scenarios that help identify vulnerabilities and ensure the reliability of the integrated solution functions. Contractor shall deploy various documents and ensure a smooth transition from the development stage to active operations.

7.4 Phase V (Surveillance and Acquisition Assistance) 180-360 Days

7.4.1 Contractor shall include a range of activities aimed at monitoring and obtaining information related to specific targets and objectives. The Contractor shall assist the government by providing support with Market Research, drafting requirements for proposals. - This assistance shall help AFSVC make an informed decision and navigate the complexities of the procurement process effectively.

8. Additional Performance Specifications The Contractor shall follow guidelines to ensure compliance with industry standards so that project objectives are achieved throughout the project lifecycle. Guidelines shall include methods, techniques, and formats consistent with industry food service best practice dashboards, metrics, templates from DAF and Project Management Institute for the following: Master SOW, Schedule of Services, Installation SOOs, Workbook/Staffing Guide Template, Evaluation Criteria (Technical & Financial), Proposal Requirements. All documents, recommendations, processes & procedures developed by the Contractor shall be compliant with government rules, policies, procedures, and applicable laws. The

23 September 24 3rd Party Regionalization SOO 7 of

Period of Performance is 1 year with an option of two (2) years from award of contract.