Amendment 6 Summary.pdf

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE

RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended. is not extended.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15C. DATE SIGNED

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

Previous edition unusable

70Z08426RDL9500030006

Summary of Changes

1) Change submission deadline to 2 Feb 2026.

2) PWS Revision #2.

3) Added "Submit complete offers to the contract specialist at maeve.m.schaeffer@ucsg.mil" under Attention to Offerors and Instructions to Offerors.

4) Added the below note under 52.212-2 Addendum Menu Section "Variety and creativity are of equal importance."

5) Added the below note under 52.212-1 Addendum:

NOTE:

Please use Attachment 5_2024-2025 Estimations as a reference when preparing your pricing. The quantities required for the 2026–2031 period may change, and the figures in Attachment 5_2024-2025 Estimations may not reflect future needs.

This is a Firm-Fixed Price contract. The estimations in the attachment are provided to help you develop your pricing.

Important:

The base period for this contract consists of a 1-month Phase-In and an 11-month base period (totaling 12 months).

However, the Attachment 5_2024-2025 Estimations base period is based on a full 12-month period. Please adjust your pricing calculations accordingly to account for the difference in the base period duration.

Header Information

Close Date is changed from 26-JAN-26 12:00:00 to 02-FEB-26 12:00:00.

Section III: Contract Clauses

The following clauses are modified:

Clauses incorporated by full text

Attention to Offerors

Attention to Offers

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Operational Logistics Command (LOGCOM) invites you to submit an offer to provide Full Food Services at the Coast Guard Academy in New London, CT.

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code that applies to this Request for Quote (RFQ) is 722310.

Procedures will be in accordance with FAR Part 12 and 15.

Questions: Any and all questions regarding this solicitation shall be submitted by the below guidance.

1) Submit questions directly to the contract specialist, Maeve Schaeffer, via email to maeve.m.schaeffer@uscg.mil.

2) Emailed questions shall have the email subject titled as "70Z08426RDL950003Question Submission".

3) The question deadline is 1700EST on Tuesday, January 13th. Questions submitted after this time may not be answered.

4) Question responses will be posted to the Solicitation on SAM.gov as an attachment by COB on Tuesday, January 20th.

PLEASE CAREFULLY READ AND COMPLETE THE ENTIRE SOLICITATION DOCUMENT.

mailto:maeve.m.schaeffer@uscg.mil

The following information is highlighted for your attention:

1. Be sure to complete the SF1449 first page of offer, including appropriate signature.

2. Be sure to complete the pricing attachment provided in the Attachments section of the solicitation, titled "Schedule of Prices".This must be included in submission.

3. Be sure to read FAR Provisions 52.212-1 and 52.212-2 Addendums, which outlines submission requirements.

4. Be sure that your offer is submitted by the time and date specified onthe SF1449, and/or any amendments thereto.

5. Submit complete offers to the contract specialist at maeve.m.schaeffer@ucsg.mil.

Facsimile submission is not authorized under this announcement. FAILURE TO COMPLETE THE SOLICITATION DOCUMENTS AND AMENDMENTS AS REQUIRED MAY RESULT IN DELAY OF AWARD OR DETERMINATION THAT

YOUR OFFER IS NOT RESPONSIVE.

NOTICE: System updates may lag policy updates. The System for Award Management (SAM) may continue to require entities to complete representations based on provisions that are not included in agency solicitations, including 52.223-22, Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals—Representation, and paragraph (t) of 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications—Commercial Products and Commercial Services. Components shall not consider or use theserepresentations.

NOTICE TO OFFERORS: Only one proposal per prime vendor will be accepted under this solicitation. Multiple proposals submitted by the same prime vendor, regardless of teaming arrangements or partners, are not authorized and will not be considered. Offerors are advised to coordinate internally to ensure only a single proposal is submitted for evaluation.

Contract Administration Data

1. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION: All contract administration matters will be handled by the following individuals:

a. CONTRACTOR: TBD

b. GOVERNMENT:

1) Jeff Haycox, Contracting Officer, U.S. Coast Guard LOGCOM, 300 E. Main Street, Suite 965 Norfolk, VA 23510

2) Maeve Schaeffer, Contract Specialist, U.S. Coast Guard LOGCOM, 300 E. Main Street, Suite 965 Norfolk, VA 23510

206-836-4014 or maeve.m.schaeffer@uscg.mil

2. CONTRACTOR REMITTANCE ADDRESS: All payments by the Government to the Contractor will be made in accordance with: ☒ FAR 52.232-33, Payment by Electronic Funds Transfer – Systems for Award Management, or ☐ FAR 52.232-36, Payment by Third Party

3. INVOICES: Invoices shall be submitted in IPP:

a. Quarterly ☐ b. Semi-Annually ☐ c. Other ☒ - Monthly mailto:maeve.m.schaeffer@ucsg.mil

Invoice Instructions: In conjunction with the subject award, proper invoices will be submitted through the Invoice Processing Platform (IPP) athttps://www.ipp.gov/. IPP is a secure web-based electronic invoicing system provided by the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Bureau of the Fiscal Service in partnership with the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (FRSTL). IPP is available at no cost to any commercial vendor or independent contractor doing business with a participating government agency.

Actions to take:

If you are already enrolled in IPP: If your company is already registered to use IPP, you will not be required to re-register and you do not need to contact IPP.

If you are NOT already enrolled in IPP: The point ofcontact you provided in your SAM.gov registration will receive two emails from ipp.noreply@mail.eroc.twai.gov. Please note that emails from this email address may filter into your spam or junk folder:

1. The first email will have the IPP Logon ID and a link to the IPP application.2. A second email, which will be sent within 24 hours of the first email, contains a temporary password. Once your contact receives these emails, please ensure they log into IPP and complete the registration process. Once registered to use IPP, your company may submit invoices electronically, receive e-mail notifications when requests are paid, view payment history, and access remittance downloads.

The e-mail notification of payment is sent when a payment is distributed to your bank account and may include the following payment information: Date of payment, dollar amount, invoice number, paying agency, payee name, and ACH trace number.

Vendor training materials, including a first time login tutorial, are available on the https://www.ipp.gov/ website. Once you have logged into the IPP application, you will have access to user guides that provide step-by-step instructions for all IPP capabilities, ranging from creating and submitting an invoice to setting up email notifications. Live webinars are held monthly and provide a great opportunity to learn the basic of the system and to call in and ask the IPP team questions about the IPP application.

IPP Customer Support is available to assist users of the system and can answer your questions related to accessing IPP or completing the registration process.

Toll-free number: 866-973-3131· Email address:IPPCustomerSupport@fiscal.treasury.gov· Hours of operation: Monday through Friday (excluding bank holidays) from 8:00am - 6:00 pm ET

52.212-1 ADDENDUM to 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors—Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Sep 2023)

The Government intends to award a FFP contract as a result of this solicitation in accordance with FAR Part 12 and 15 procedures. Award will be made to that offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government under the selection criteria set forth in this solicitation.

GENERAL

In addition to FAR 52.212-1, "Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items" and any other instructions contained elsewhere in this solicitation, the following information is provided:

Submit complete offers to the contract specialist at maeve.m.schaeffer@uscg.milon or before the deadline noted on the solicitation.

Faxes, mailed, and/or responses or any method other than SAM.gov are not acceptable. Offerors shall comply with the detailed instructions for the format and content of the proposals contained herein; proposals that do not comply may be considered unacceptable and may render the proposal ineligible for award. Offerors shall respond to all requirements of the solicitation. Offerors are cautioned not to alter the solicitation.

All electronic files and versions of offerors proposals shall be compatible with the current release of Adobe Acrobat and Microsoft Office Suite. The offeror shall be responsible for ensuring that their electronic proposals are virus free.

All proposal submissions and questions shall be in English.

mailto:ipp.noreply@mail.eroc.twai.gov

HARD-CARRIED PROPOSAL SUBMISSIONS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED.

Questions: Any and all questions regarding this solicitation shall be submitted by the below guidance.

1) Submit questions directly to the contract specialist, Maeve Schaeffer, via email to maeve.m.schaeffer@uscg.mil.

2) Emailed questions shall have the email subject titled as "70Z08426RDL950003 Question Submission".

3) The question deadline is 1700EST on Tuesday, January 13th. Questions submitted after this time may not be answered.

4) Question responses will be posted to the Solicitation on SAM.gov as an attachment by COB on Tuesday, January 20th.

The proposal shall consist of the following separate factors:

Factor I: Technical Plan

Factor II: Past Performance

Factor III: Price

2. REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPOSAL CONTENT:

Introduction and Purpose: This section specifies the format that offerors shall use in this Solicitation. The intent is not to restrict offerors in the manner in which they will perform their work but rather to ensure a certain degree of uniformity in the format of the responses for evaluation purposes.

Each volume should contain the following items in addition to the other information required by this solicitation:

The cover page should indicate the following:

• Title of the proposal

• Volume Number (I or II)

• Proposal Category (Factor)

• Solicitation Number

• Name and address of offeror, Cage Code, UEI and applicable Tax I.D. Number (TIN) and the offerors designated

Point of Contact's (POC) email address

• Name of offeror's contractual point of contact, email address and phone number

• Proposal validity period of 180 days from solicitation closing.

Proposals shall be prepared in two (2) separate and distinct volumes:

Volume I – Non Price Proposal

This volume shall address Factor I –Technical Planand Factor II – Past Performance and include all information required for proposal evaluation. This volume of the proposal shall exclude any pricing information.

Volume II – Price Proposal

This volume shall address Factor III – Price Proposal and shall include the completed solicitation documents and a complete and detailed price/cost breakdown with all supporting information.

Table of Contents: The table of contents should provide sufficient detail as to allow the important elements to be easily located.

(1) Requirements for Style: Each offeror shall submit a proposal that clearly and concisely describes and defines the contractor's response to the requirements contained in the SOLICITATION. Unnecessary elaboration or other presentations beyond that sufficient to present a complete and effective proposal are not desired and may be construed as an indication of the offeror's lack of understanding of cost consciousness. Elaborate art work and expensive visual or other presentation aids are neither necessary nor desired. The proposal shall contain all the pertinent information in sufficient detail in the one area of the proposal where it contributes most critically to the discussion of the same information. When necessary, the offeror shall refer to the initial discussion and identify its location within the submitted proposal.

(2) Proposal Page Limitations:

The following page limitations are established:

Volume Title Required Format Page Limit*

Volume I: Factor I– Technical Plan Microsoft Office Word or PDF 50 Pages total

Volume I: Factor II – Past Performance Microsoft Office Word or PDF (PPQ template in Attachments section)

12 Pages (Past Performance Questionnairesexcluded)

Volume II: Factor III – Price Microsoft Excel No Limit

Submissions are page limited to the maximum number of pages as defined in the table. These page limitations are inclusive of the executive summary and any charts, diagrams, and/or other graphics. Graphics (including tables) in the proposal may use an alternative font with 8 point size type or larger. Each "page" is defined as one sheet, 8 ½ " x 11", with at least one inch margins on all sides, using Times New Roman font with a point size of 12 or greater (e.g., "Times New Roman" style with 12 point font). Lines shall, at a minimum, be selected as single-spaced in Microsoft Word with Microsoft Word Normal character spacing. Pages shall be consecutively numbered. The offeror is permitted to submit no more than one page for each of the following, which will not be included in the page count: a cover sheet, list of tables, list of figures, list of acronyms, compliance matrix, and table of contents.

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

The Price Proposal is not page limited; however, the Price Proposal is to be strictly limited to price information and completed solicitation documents as described in the General Section at the beginning of this text.

* Page limits represent the maximum pages the Government will evaluate and are not construed as de facto standards for the amount of material expected in the proposal.

*Cross-Referencing: The proposal volumes shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated without cross-referencing to another volume. Information required for proposal evaluation, which is not found in its designated volume will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal.

Volume I Non-Price Proposal

This volume shall address the Non-Price factors such as technical approach and past performance and include all information required for proposal evaluation. This volume of the proposal shall exclude any reference to the price aspects of the proposal.

The Non-price evaluation factors are listed below:

Factor I :Technical Plan

The offeror shall provide in detail a Technical Plan that will successfully accomplish the requirements of the solicitation, including thePerformance Work Statement(PWS). The plan should contain a narrative explaining the offeror's ability to perform under the functional areas and tasks as well as capturing information required in response to the Factor Elements.

The offeror should also describe any risks associated with the solicitation, including the PWS and any risks associated with implementation of the offeror's technical plan and management approach; describe any techniques and actions to mitigate such risks; and explain whether the techniques and actions identified for risk mitigation have been successfully used by the offeror. The offeror should provide any other information it considers relevant to the solicitation.

Factor II: Past Performance

To demonstrate its past performance, the offeror shall identifyno more than three (3) of its most relevant contracts or efforts within the past five (5) years and provide any other information the offeror considers relevant to the requirements of the solicitation. Offeror shall have a minimum of five years of ongoing corporate/government experience in the past eight years in managing food service programs of comparable size and diversity of USCGA. Comparable size and diversity is defined as a contract to "Provide adequate and nutritious meals to approximately 1000 cadets/students and other eligible patrons to include, but not limited to, preparing food, formal table service, family style meals, formal and special events, providing chef and management staff, ordering and managing food storage, providing meals for NCAA athletic training, providing meals to medical clinic, and providing boxed meals, as required." It should be noted that this factor addresses overall relevant experience for the company not the experience of individuals involved with contract performance. The offeror shall fully demonstrate, in writing, that their company meets the minimum five or more years corporate experience requirement.

For purposes of this solicitation, a contract is defined as a single contract or a single task order placed under an ID/IQ contract, a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA), or a Federal Supply Schedule. Offerors shall not submit the IDIQ contract, FSS contract, or BPA itself as a reference. Offerors may submit a combination of no more than three (3) delivery orders (DOs), task orders (TOs), technical direction letters (TDLs), and/or technical area tasks (TATs) placed under an ID/IQ or BPA as one of the three examples of past performance. Such a combination must also meet the requirements stated above: each individual example in the combination must have been performed within five (5) years of the solicitation issuance date and demonstrate at least one (1) year of completed performance by the closing date of the solicitation. If a combination of DOs, TOs, TDLs and or TATs are used as a past performance example, the offeror shall state the specific experience claimed, period of performance, and dollar value of each. A Past Performance example that does not provide the level of detail required may not be evaluated. No more than one combination of DOs, TOs, TDLs and or TATs is permitted in the past performance submittal. One (1) year of completed performance is defined as twelve (12) consecutive months of performance.

References with less than twelve (12) consecutive months of service will not be considered.

If subcontractor experience is provided as part of the three (3) of its most relevant contracts or efforts, the subcontractor experience will be given weight relative to the scope and magnitude of the aspects of the work under the solicitation that the subcontractor is proposed to perform. Therefore, the offeror's proposal shall detail clearly the aspects of the work in the solicitation that the subcontractor is proposed to perform. The past performance of subcontractors who will be performing major or critical aspects of the solicitation will be considered as highly as a prime contractor's past performance.

If the prime offeror or intended subcontractor/partner submits a past performance example in which it served as a subcontractor, the prime/sub/partner shall detail clearly the work that it performed and the magnitude (dollar value) of that subcontracted work only. A Past Performance example that does not differentiate between the overall contract effort and the subcontractor effort may not be evaluated.

Failure of offerors to provide the required information and level of specificity may result in the contract reference not being evaluated. With respect to joint ventures, the procuring activity will consider work done individually by each member of the joint venture as well as any work done by the joint venture itself previously. Joint venture references must meet the temporal requirements described in ADDENDUM TO FAR PROVISION 52.212-1 (within five years and a year of completed performance. Additionally, if a joint venture member submits a past performance reference, the joint venture member shall detail clearly the work that it performed in that effort and the magnitude (dollar value) of that work. A reference that does not differentiate between the overall contract effort and the joint venture member's effort for that reference may not be evaluated.

The past performance of a joint venture member who will be performing major or critical aspects of the solicitation will be considered as highly as the joint venture's past performance.

The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) form is an attachment to solicitation.The PPQ must be submitted VIA EMAIL by the Reference point of contact by solicitation close date. Contract specialist email – maeve.m.schaeffer@uscg.mil.

In addition to the information requested above, offerors shall contact their past performance references and request that each reference complete the PPQ attached to the solicitation and e-mail the completed survey form directly tothe contract specialist, Maeve Schaeffer maeve.m.schaeffer@uscg.mil by the DUE DATE OF THIS SOLICITATION. The Government reserves the right to consider questionnairesreceived after the due date of the solicitation and to contact references for verification or additional information.

Volume II – Factor III - Price Proposal

The Price Proposal shall include the completed solicitation documents (Schedule of Prices Excel document). The price Proposal shall include all elements of price and such other price information considered appropriate to support the Proposal.

The pricing information shall be completed in accordance with the following:

(a) Completed pricing on the provided Excel attachment, titled Schedule of Prices.

(b) To account for the option periods possible under FAR 52.217-8 (maximum of six months), the Government will evaluate the option to extend services by adding six months of the offeror's final option period price to the offeror's total price. This amount will be the total evaluated price. The Government may choose to exercise the Option to Extend Services at the end of any performance period (base or option periods). Prices for the base and option periods, including the 6-month option available under FAR 52.217-8, will be evaluated to ensure that they are fair and reasonable for performance of the requirements established in the solicitation and as proposed in the technical submission.

The price for the effort associated with FAR 52.217-8 will not be included in the total awarded value at contract award. If, at the end of the contract's/order's period of performance (the end of the base period or any option period) and within the time period established in the clause, the Government chooses to exercise this option, the pricing will be pursuant to the rates specified in the contract for the preceding performance period.

(c) All supplemental information to support proposed price, to include but not limited to fully burdened labor rates, and estimated level of effort by labor category.

(d) Unless completed in SAM, RFQ, Representation, Certification and Other Statements of offerors- Completed by the offeror.

(f) All price and price supporting information shall be contained in the Price proposal and completed on the Excel attachment – Schedule of Prices. No price or pricing information shall be included in any other volume including cover letters. Offerors are responsible for submitting sufficient information to enable the Government to fully evaluate their price proposal.

(g) Proposal shall be valid for 180 days from solicitation closing date.

The completion and submission of the above items will constitute an offer (proposal) and will indicate the offeror's unconditional assent to the terms and conditions of this SOLICITATION and any attachments and/or exhibits hereto. Alternate proposals are not authorized. Objections to any of the terms and conditions of the SOLICITATION will constitute a deficiency (see FAR 15.001) which will make the offer unacceptable. An offeror may correct a deficiency only through discussions (see FAR 15.306(d) and 15.307).

NOTE:

Please use Attachment 5_2024-2025 Estimations as a reference when preparing your pricing. The quantities required for the 2026–2031 period may change, and the figures in Attachment 5_2024-2025 Estimations may not reflect future needs.

This is a Firm-Fixed Price contract. The estimations in the attachment are provided to help you develop your pricing.

Important:

The base period for this contract consists of a 1-month Phase-In and an 11-month base period (totaling 12 months). However, the Attachment 5_2024-2025 Estimations base period is based on a full 12-month period. Please adjust your pricing calculations accordingly to account for the difference in the base period duration.

NOTE: The North American Industry Classification (NAICS) code applicable to the requirements contained within this solicitation is 722310 Food Service Contractors.

The completion and submission of the above items will constitute an offer (proposal) and will indicate the offeror's unconditional assent to the terms and conditions of this SOLICITATION and any attachments and/or exhibits hereto. Alternate proposals are not authorized.

Offerors are strongly encouraged to confirm their proposal was received PRIOR to the closing date and time. It is the responsibility of the offerors to ensure that the contracting office has received their entire proposal, with all attachments, PRIOR to the solicitation closing date and time. Only the documents received prior to the solicitation closing date and time will be evaluated.

Submit complete offers to the contract specialist at maeve.m.schaeffer@uscg.mil on or before the deadline noted on the solicitation.

Addendum to 52.212-2 Evaluation—Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Nov 2021)

(a)The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers: Technical, Past Performance, Price.

The Government intends to award a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract as a result of this solicitation in accordance with FAR Part 12 "Acquisition of Commercial Items" in conjunction with FAR 15 "Contracting by Negotiation".

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract based on initial proposals. Therefore, the offeror's initial proposal should contain the offeror's best terms from a Technical Plan, Past Performance, and Price standpoint. The Government reserves the right to award a FFP contract to other than the lowest priced offeror; award a FFP contract without discussions; or award a FFP contract after discussions, whichever is in the best interest of the Government.

Nothing in this provision limits the Contracting Officer's discretion to rely on information available from other sources (e.g., past performance databases, discussions with other entities familiar with the offeror) or to use any other technique described FAR 9.1 when determining whether the offeror satisfies the FAR 9.104-1 general responsibility standards.

The evaluation of proposals will consider the Non-Price factors to be significantly more important than the Price factor. Factor I: Technical Plan and Factor II: Past Performance are equal; when combined they are significantly more important than Price Factor. The Government will conduct a tradeoff source selection process where non-price factors are more important than price factors. Initially, proposals will be ranked according to price, inclusive of all option pricing. An offeror's proposed prices will be determined by adding all extended amounts for the CLINs/SLINs. If the lowest priced proposal is evaluated to have a Technical Plan combined Technical/Risk rating of "Superior" and an overall Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating of "Substantial Confidence" that proposal represents the best value for the Government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other proposals. However, if the lowest priced proposal is not evaluated to have an "Superior" Technical Plan Combined Technical/Risk rating and a "Substantial Confidence" Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating, the next lowest priced proposal will be evaluated. The evaluation process will continue (in order of price from lowest to highest) until a proposal is evaluated to have an "Superior" Technical Plan Combined Technical/Risk rating and a "Substantial Confidence" Past Performance Confidence rating. The Contracting Officer shall make an integrated assessment best value award decision between the proposal rated "Superior" and "Substantial Confidence" and all lower priced proposals. If no offeror is rated as "Superior" with "Substantial Confidence," the Contracting Officer shall make an integrated assessment best value award decision among all offerors rated as "Neutral" or "Satisfactory Confidence.

The evaluation of risk is related to the assessment of the offeror's demonstrated capability. Risk, as it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an offeror's demonstrated capability to satisfy the Government's requirement may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Risk will be considered in the evaluation of all Non-Cost factors.

Technical Factor I consists of the offeror's technicalplan inclusive ofthe detailed elements noted below. Factor I will result in one overalltechnicalplan rating detailed in the rating table identified as "Combined Technical/Risk Table 1". Offerors simply providing general statements or paraphrasing/ parroting the PWS in whole or in any part may result in a rating of unacceptable. Risk, as it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an offeror's proposed approach to achieving the technical factor involves risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Risks will be considered in the evaluation of the technical factor.

Element 1 – TECHNICAL Approach o A: Menus o B: Key Personnel o C: Manning

Element 2 – MANAGEMENT APPROACH o A: Subsistence Procurement Capability and Inventory Requirements o B: Quality Control Plan o C: Financial Capability o D: Recruitment/Retention o E: Organizational Structure/Support o F: Phase-In Plan

Non-Price Proposal Evaluation Criteria

Factor I: Technical Plan

ELEMENT 1: TECHNICAL APPROACH

The offeror's Technical Approach will be evaluated on its feasibility, comprehensiveness, understanding, and capability to successfully accomplish the requirements in the PWS as specified in the instructions section. The technical approachshall demonstrate a viable plan for successful completion of all elements. The technical response shall also include and address the followingelements:

A: Menus

The offeror shall develop and submit with offer, two (2) three-week cycle menus for each location (Cadet Wardroom and Coast Guard Dining Facility) and five sample training meal menus (in accordance with all requirements in the PWS and TE#8). Menu standards for CGDF can be found in the PWS, Section 5. Emphasis shall be on variety and creativity. Variety and creativity are of equal importance. The below format shall be used for menu submission. A separate chart shall be submitted for each week.

WEEK 1

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

Breakfast

Lunch

Dinner

B: Key Personnel

(a) The offeror shall not base qualifications upon presumptions of future education or experience. Ancillary (non-key) personnel qualifications need not be documented in the proposal, but data may be required during negotiations or performance if ancillary (non-key) personnel qualifications are questioned. For all personnel proposed to be hired and/or permanently relocated, include a signed statement of intent by that person indicating willingness to be hired/relocated if the contract is awarded to the offeror.

(b) Resumes are only required for proposed key personnel. The Project Manager, the Assistant Project Manager and the Chef Manager are considered key personnel for services being performed. The key personnel resumes shall, as a minimum, demonstrate that the individual meets the educational and experience qualifications specified in the PWS (See Section 7).

C: Manning

The offeror shall demonstrate an ability to meet manning requirements for on-site key and ancillary (non-key) personnel for the dining facility and special events. Along with a narrative describing the manning portion of the proposal, the offeror shall also submit a manning chart in the following format:

Labor Category Number of Employees Number of Hours/Year

ELEMENT 2: MANAGEMENT APPROACH

A: Subsistence Procurement Capability and Inventory Requirements

The offeror shall submit a comprehensive procurement plan detailing purchasing methods that will be used to procure subsistence items. The offeror's plan shall explain how subsistence will be procured during extended times of limited food availability such as natural disasters or national emergencies. The offeror shall maintain a subsistence inventory to sustain food service operations for a minimum for fourteen calendar days.

B: Quality Control Plan

The offeror shall submit a comprehensive Quality Control Program (QCP) to meet the minimum requirements in the PWS (Section 8.0). The plan shall designate the name of the proposed key on-site management and ancillary (non-key) personnel who shall be responsible for ensuring quality control requirements for the dining facility.

C: Financial Capability

Offeror must demonstrate they have or can get adequate financial resources to support and perform all requirements of PWS throughout the term of the contract. Offeror shall submit overall financial capability and strength of current relationships with financial institutions.

D: Recruitment/Retention

Offeror shall demonstrate the method to be used in recruiting the necessary personnel to perform under this contract and processes in place to retain personnel. Describe the methods the firm proposes to utilize an orderly transition in conjunction with the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement.

E: Organizational Structure/Support

Offeror shall submit the system of roles and responsibilities and values within their organization. Include functional statements of primary organizational elements and proposed staffing that will be participating in accomplishing defined tasks. Delineate the degree of authority the key on-site project manager(s) and his designated representatives will have for the total management of this contract (including operational and financial decisions). Specify matters he/she will be required to refer to the "Home Office" for decision.

F: Phase-in Plan

Offeror shall submit a plan, which includes management and personnel staffing. Offerors shall demonstrate how their firm will effectively accomplish the transition in conjunction with the incumbent contractor. Plan shall meet requirements set forth in the

PWS.

Combined Technical/Risk Rating Table 1

A combined Technical/Risk Rating will be utilized in the evaluation of the Non-Price Proposal Factor I. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Combined technical/risk evaluations will utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in the Combined Technical/Risk Rating Table below.

Adjectival Rating Description

Superior Exceeds the SOLICITATION requirements. The proposal yields significant benefits to the Government. Weaknesses, if any, are of small impact. NO significant weaknesses or deficiencies exist.

Good Exceeds the SOLICITATION requirements. The proposal yields some benefits to the Government. Weaknesses, if any, are of small impact. NO significant weaknesses or deficiencies exist.

Satisfactory Meets all SOLICITATION requirements. The proposal offers no significant benefits beyond the stated requirements. NO significant weaknesses or deficiencies exist.

Marginal Minimally meets the minimum SOLICITATION requirement(s) or has one or more significant weaknesses. Significant weaknesses are correctable without major proposal revisions.

Unsatisfactory Fails to meet the minimum SOLICITATION requirement(s).

The proposal has one or more deficiencies for which correction would require major revisions or a redirection of the proposal.

Technical Risk Table:

Rating Description

Low Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Note: A rating of "Marginal" for Factor I means that the offeror's proposal is not awardable without a change or changes to the offeror's proposal. A proposal, which includes a "Marginal" rating, is not eligible for award if award is made on initial offers.

Offerors that receive a "Marginal" rating are considered to be susceptible to correction if the Contracting Officer determines that an exchange is appropriate and said exchange is conducted.

Note: Offerors receiving a rating of "Unacceptable" for any factor will not be considered for an award and will not be further evaluated.

Note: Proposals that simply reiterate the requirements and state that they possess the capability to perform, and/or only provide general statements or paraphrase the PWS in whole or in any part will be considered Unacceptable.

DEFINITIONS:

Strength - An aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Weakness - A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Omission- An element of the government's requirement that has been overlooked and excluded from the proposal.

Deficiency - A serious flaw or a combination of weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to a potential unacceptable level.

Risk – (as it pertains to source selection) The potential for unsuccessful contract performance.

The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an offeror's proposed approach to achieving the Non-Cost technical factor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Factor II: Past Performance

The past performance evaluation factor assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror's ability to meet the contract's requirements based on the quality of a demonstrated recordof recent and relevant performance. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality. These are combined to establish a single performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror.

Past Performance Recency: Recency is the first aspect of the past performance evaluation and is the time period during which past performance references are considered relevant. Recency is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. For purposes of this solicitation, recent past performance is performance that has taken place within eight (8) years of the issuance date of this solicitation. Performance outside of this stated period will not be considered for evaluation purposes.

Past Performance Relevancy: Regarding relevancy, each past performance reference under each offeror's Past Performance submission will be evaluated to determine its scope and magnitude relative to the instant requirement. The following definitions will apply to this evaluation:

● Scope: Experience in the areas described in the PWS.

● Magnitude: The similarity of the dollar value of actually performedwork that exists between the PWS and the offeror's referenced contracts during the stated five-year period established by the solicitation.

The relevancy rating assigned to each past performance reference will be considered in determining the weight to be given to that reference in the overall Past Performance Confidence Assessment. References determined to be "Not Relevant" will not be further considered. Similarly, the quality of performance under a past performance reference that has no relevance to the instant requirement will not be considered in the overall assessment of past performance confidence. In determining the rating for the past performance factor, past performance of greater relevancy will have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

The aggregate of each offeror's past performance references in terms of scope and magnitude will result in the assessed overall relevance of that offeror's past performance.

Past Performance Quality: The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the offeror's past performance. The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror's performance, including general trends and usefulness of the information, and will incorporate this into the performance confidence assessment.

Past Performance Confidence Assessment: The overall assigned rating for past performance will be the Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating, defined in the table below. The assignment of this rating will be based on the overall quality of the recent and relevant past performance and will also consider the source of the information, the context of the data, and general trends in the offeror's performance. The quality of performance under a past performance reference that has no relevance to the instant requirement will not be considered in the overall assessment of past performance confidence.

Evaluation will focus only on work already performed. Work yet-to-be performed and work not reflecting one year of completed performance by the solicitation closing date will not be considered. One year of completed performance is defined as twelve-months of continued performance.

If the offeror's aggregated past performance is determined to be not relevant as defined in the solicitation, then the quality of the offeror's past performance will not be evaluated through a confidence assessment and the past performance factor will be rated as "Neutral." If an offeror's aggregate past performance is determined to be relevant, then each past performance reference under the offeror's past performance submission that contributed to the determination of aggregate relevance (i.e., each reference that is rated at least somewhat relevant) will be evaluated to determine the quality of the offeror's performance under that reference. The quality of performance on contract references that are rated Not Relevant is not evaluated even when the overall past performance is found to be relevant.

In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the past performance factor. In this case, the offeror's past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of "Neutral." Although an offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance may not be rated favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance, the Government may determine that a "Substantial Confidence" or "Satisfactory Confidence" past performance rating provides better value to the Government than a "Neutral" past performance rating.

In order to evaluate Past Performance, the Government may also utilize existing data sources, including the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), or other databases; communication with points of contact in the offeror's customer's organization, which could include private sector requirements and contracts personnel, Administrative Contracting Officers, Procuring Contracting Officers, Contracting Officer's Representatives, and other Government activity requirements personnel. The Government may verify past performance information. The Government may contact some or all of the references provided, as appropriate, and may collect information through questionnaires, telephone interviews, and existing data sources. The Government reserves the right to obtain information for use in the evaluation of past performance from any and all sources, including sources outside of the Government. This information will be used for the evaluation of past performance.

The past performance factor evaluation and past performance confidence assessment rating is separate and distinct from the contracting officer's responsibility determination. The assessment of the offeror's past performance will be used as a means of evaluating the relative capability of the offeror and other competitors to successfully meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Table

Rating Description

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

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

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

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

Past Performance ConfidenceRatings Table

Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, 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 record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, 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, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror's performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

This is neither a negative or positive assessment.

N…