Attachment 1 - Instructions to Offerors_Evaluation Criteria_23Q0092.pdf

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

Offers shall be accepted from the State Licensing Agency IAW Randolph-Sheppard Act or Small Businesses only.

Offerors shall submit proposal in electronic form via email only no later than 10:00 A.M. Mountain Time (MT) 01 August 2023. The point of contact is Ms. Brenda Ferjak, Contract Specialist, at brenda.m.ferjak.civ@health.mil and Mr. Anthony Smith, Contracting Officer, at anthony.j.smith138.civ@health.mil .

Offers received after 10:00 A.M., MT on 01August 2023 will be considered untimely and ineligible for award. It is vital that Offerors follow instructions provided.

Questions shall be submitted via email to Brenda Ferjak (brenda.m.ferjak.civ@health.mil) and Anthony Smith (anthony.j.smith138.civ@health.mil) not later than 10:00 A.M., MT 17 July 2023. No questions will be entertained after this date. Do NOT submit multiple emails for questions. Answers to vendor questions will be posted to SAM.gov.

Note: Only electronic (e-mail) offers will be accepted. Offers submitted by any other method are unacceptable. Each volume shall be submitted as a separate file in .pdf format, with the file names clearly identifying the Solicitation number, volume number and Offeror’s name. Past Performance Summary Information is to be submitted in Volume II as one complete volume. Compensation Plan and Pricing shall be submitted in Volume III. A sample Compensation Plan Worksheet is provided at Attachment 3 - Offerors are permitted to use own format. Offerors shall provide pricing details on the Excel spreadsheet attached to the solicitation (Attachment 4), renamed with the same naming convention. Pricing shall be included for the base and all option periods. A separate pdf of pricing is NOT required. Pricing information shall not be included or summarized in any other volume. The proposal shall not contain any extraneous information such as advertisements or marketing information.

Files larger than 20MB may need to be transmitted in separate emails. All emails, regardless of size, need to be received by the stated submission deadline. The Government will not be responsible for any failure of transmission or receipt of offers in its entirety, or any failure of the Offeror to verify receipt of the emailed proposal. It is the offeror’s responsibility to verify the Government’s receipt of complete offer.

This procurement is subject to the Randolph-Sheppard Act (R-SA), 20 U.S.C. §107, Operation of Vending Facilities and 34 CFR §395.33, Operation of Cafeterias by Blind

Vendors, which establishes a priority for blind persons recognized and represented by the State Licensing Agency (SLA), in the award of contracts for the operation of cafeterias on federal facilities. Accordingly, this requirement is solicited full and open to permit the State Licensing Agency to submit a proposal in accordance with 34 CFR

395.33(b). Offers will be accepted from the SLA or Small Business concerns, offers received from other than the SLA or Small Business will not be considered. This notice is not designed to discourage competition rather, it notifies all potential Offerors that the priority established by the R-SA for offers received from SLAs and their blind vendors is applicable to this procurement. The evaluation criteria is the same for all competing Offerors, including the responsible SLA. The award will only be made to a

Small Business concern or an SLA. If the SLA is dissatisfied with an action taken relative to its proposal, it may file a complaint with the Secretary of Education under the provisions of 34 CFR § 395.37.

The proposal shall be clear, concise and include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiation of the validity of stated claims. Responses to this solicitation shall strictly adhere to the mailto:brenda.m.ferjak.civ@health.mil mailto:anthony.j.smith138.civ@health.mil mailto:brenda.m.ferjak.civ@health.mil mailto:anthony.j.smith138.civ@health.mil requirements set forth in the solicitation. Therefore, each initial offer shall contain the Offeror’s best terms for past performance, compensation plan and price. Submissions that do not adhere to format and content requirements may be considered non-compliant. The Government reserves the right to eliminate any such offers from consideration for award.

The proposal shall be prepared in three (3) separate volumes (four (4) volumes SLA only) as follows:

• Volume I – Administrative

• Volume II – Past Performance

• Volume III – Compensation Plan and Pricing

• Exception Volume IV – Subcontracting Plan (SLA ONLY): IAW FAR Part 19.702, the SLA, if submitting a proposal, shall submit Volume IV – Subcontracting Plan. Volume IV shall be submitted as identified in Volume IV below. Instructions for required components for the subcontracting plan can be found at FAR Clause 52.219-9 and DFARS Clause 252.219-7003.

VOLUME I – ADMINISTRATIVE

Include the following:

1. A summary or title page identifying the Offeror, the full address, phone, SAM UIC (not DUNS), CAGE code, point(s) of contact (POC(s)) of the Offeror, and the solicitation number.

Offeror shall include a statement that the Offeror agrees to hold the offered prices firm for 180 calendar days after the proposal closing date. (Page limit: 1 page)

2. A completed copy of PAGE 1 ONLY of the SF 1449 and any amendments to the solicitation, if any are issued, with the signature of a corporate officer authorized to negotiate for the company.

Electronic signature is acceptable. Do not include the entire SF 1449.

3. Offeror shall be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) prior to award, lack of registration shall make an offer ineligible for award. The Offeror shall submit a completed copy of FAR Provision 52.212-3, Representations and Certifications – Commercial Items. If the Offeror has completed the Online Representations and Certifications at SAM.gov, the Offeror shall provide an attestation statement on the title page.

4. Offeror shall complete and submit with its offer FAR 52.219-1 SMALL BUSINESS

PROGRAM REREPRESENTATIONS (MAR 2023) – ALTERNATE 1 (SEPT 2015)

5. Offeror shall submit a Mission Essential Contractor Services Plan in accordance with DFARS Clause 252.237-7023. There is no page limit for this plan.

VOLUME II – PAST PERFORMANCE.

The Offeror shall submit with its proposal evidence of recent and relevant past performance under which YOUR company (the Offeror) provided the same or similar services with similar magnitude and scope in the public and/or private sector. Performance shall have been by the Offeror (not by a subsidiary or sister company) either as the prime contractor or subcontractor. For a description of the characteristics or aspects the Government will consider in determining recency and relevancy, see the Evaluation Criteria for Factor 1

– Past Performance in the Addendum to 52.212-2.

• Offerors shall provide Past Performance Information (PPI) summary on three (3) task orders or stand-alone contracts/purchase orders the Offeror will complete or has completed within the past three (3) years from the closing date of this solicitation that the Offeror considers most relevant in demonstrating YOUR company’s (the Offeror’s) ability to perform the proposed effort. Offeror may use its own format for PPI summary submittals.

• Past Performance may be with the federal, state, and local governments and/or commercial/ private sector clients. If the Offeror performed as a subcontractor on the reference project, the past performance summary shall explain what percentage and type of work that was performed by the Offeror as subcontractor.

• Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) in accordance with the PPQ Form (Attachment 3).

The Offeror shall be responsible for sending blank PPQs to government agencies and/or private sector companies requesting past performance information on applicable projects.

Narratives are requested on questionnaires (PPQs) for all areas. If the narratives do not support the rating or if there is no narrative for a rating higher than satisfactory, the questionnaire rating will be evaluated as satisfactory.

It is the responsibility of the Offeror to track and ensure the completion/submission of the PPQs by the proposal due date. The Government will not accept incomplete or late PPQs.

• The Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past

Performance submittals and information obtained from other sources available to the Government.

VOLUME III – COMPENSATION PLAN AND PRICING

1. Offeror shall include a Compensation Plan for Regular Hours for each labor category. Each plan shall reflect compensation for the base and all option periods. A sample plan worksheet is included as Attachment 3.

2. The Offeror shall submit proposed pricing for all Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINS) identified in the solicitation on the Excel spreadsheet provided as Attachment 4. The Pricing Worksheet shall be submitted in Microsoft Excel format with all formulas intact with Tab 1 and Tab 2 completed. Offerors shall ensure the formulas and totals accurately reflect the pricing data proposed. Provide total pricing for the base period and each option period, as well as a grand total of the entire proposal (Tab 1). The Offeror shall include in their pricing matrix by each labor category the basic hourly labor rates being paid and annotate labor categories subject to the SCA WD and Occupation Code used (Tab 2). Cost and Pricing Data is not required under competitive and commercial acquisitions; however, if only one proposal is received - Other than Certified Cost or Pricing data may be required.

VOLUME IV – SUBCONTRACTING PLAN (SLA Only)

The priority established by the R-SA applies to this acquisition. Offers are being accepted by Small Businesses or SLA. Therefore, only the SLA is required to submit a subcontracting plan. The plan shall contain all the elements required in FAR Clause 52.219-9 and DFARS Clause 252.219-7003. Subcontracting plan shall contain separate percentage goals using Small Business (SB), Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB), HUBZone Small Business, Women Owned Small Business (WOSB), Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB), and Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) concerns as subcontractors. Small Business Offerors are not required to submit a subcontracting plan. Failure to comply with the requirement herein and FAR Clause 52.219-9 and DFARS Clause 252.219-7003 shall render the Offeror ineligible for award. The subcontracting plan shall be provided with the proposal.

(m) The non-FAR Part 12 discretionary FAR and DFARS provisions included herein are incorporated into this solicitation either by reference or in full text. If incorporated by reference, see provision 52.252-1 herein for locations where full text can be found.

(End of 52.212-1 Addendum)

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

Paragraph (a) is hereby replaced with the following:

(a) Offerors are hereby advised that the Randolph-Sheppard Act (20 U.S.C. 107) applies to this solicitation. In addition to the evaluation criteria stated below, and if one or more RSA State Licensing Agencies (SLA) submits a proposal, the source selection will be carried out in accordance with 20 U.S.C. 107, 34 C.F.R. 395.33, and other relevant laws and regulations as applicable.

The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation is the best value to the Government, price and other factors considered in accordance with FAR Parts 12 and 13. Price shall be determined fair and reasonable by the Contracting Officer.

It is contemplated that award will be made without discussions with offerors (except communications conducted for the purpose of minor clarification). Therefore, each initial offer shall contain the offeror's best terms for past performance, compensation, and price. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if it is later determined by the contracting officer to be necessary. If the Government enters into discussions, a competitive range will be established based on the evaluated price and other evaluation factors included in the solicitation. The Government will limit the number of offers in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated offers.

The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

(1) Factor 1 – Past Performance

(2) Factor 2 – Compensation Plan

(3) Factor 3 – Price

(4) Exception Factor 4 – Subcontracting Plan (SLA only) – refer to Exception Factor 4 evaluation

Award will be made using the Best-Value Tradeoff source selection. Past Performance is significantly more important than Compensation Plans. When combined, Past Performance and Compensation Plans are more important than Price. However, Price could become the determining factor if the offers are determined to be essentially equal. SLA only: Subcontracting Plan will be evaluated for acceptance.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

The Government evaluation process is as follows:

Step 1 – The Government will conduct a compliance review to determine if each Offeror met the submission requirements as outlined in Addendum to 52.212-1. Missing or incomplete submission requirements may make the offer non-compliant and ineligible for award.

The Government will verify Offeror’s small business status using the following:

(1) Offeror’s submitted FAR 52.219-1 SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM REREPRESENTATIONS

(MAR 2023) – ALTERNATE 1 (SEPT 2015)

(2) Offeror’s FAR 52.212-3 Representations and Certifications – Commercial Items at SAM.gov under

NAICS 722310

Step 2 – Evaluation Process

FACTOR 1 – Past Performance

The overall Performance Confidence Assessment (PCA) 1 rating is based on an integrated assessment of the Offerors recent, relevant, and quality past performance (PPIs, PPQs, and information obtained from other sources available to the Government). The resulting PCA rating is determined at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of recent, relevant, and quality past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a "Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

More recent performance will have a greater impact on the performance confidence rating than less recent effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Neutral Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance. In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contract citations deemed most relevant to the effort described in this solicitation. A rating of at least Satisfactory Confidence or Neutral Confidence shall be obtained in order to be eligible for award. More relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance. A “Substantial Confidence” rating of past performance will be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Satisfactory Confidence" rating.

Definitions

The following definitions will be utilized for the Performance Confidence Assessment determination:

(a) Recency Assessment An assessment of the past performance information contained in the Offeror’s submittals will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort shall be ongoing or shall have been performed within the past three (3) years from the closing date of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

(b) Relevancy Assessment An assessment of the recent past performance information will be made to determine its relevancy. This information will be evaluated to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the scope, magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

(c) Performance Quality Assessment After the determination of recency and relevancy, the Government will assess the performance quality (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the Offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the Performance Confidence Assessment. A separate quality assessment rating will not be assigned; rather, the Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating is based on the Offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

Relevancy Ratings: The Government will use the following relevancy definitions/ratings when assessing relevant past performance:

Relevancy Rating

Adjectival Rating Description

Very Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. (i.e., services included providing the same or larger sized service team, providing the same services, in the same environment as the solicited requirement.)

Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. (i.e., services included providing a slightly smaller sized service team, providing similar services in a similar environment as the solicited requirement.)

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. (i.e., services included providing a smaller service team, providing somewhat similar services in a similar environment as the solicited requirement.)

Not Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. (i.e., services included providing a considerably smaller sized team that did not encompass service, or where the scope, magnitude and complexities are dissimilar to the solicited requirement.)

Confidence Ratings: The Government will use the following definitions/ratings when making an overall Performance Confidence Assessment (PCA).

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Methods 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

Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will

Neutral Confidence

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.

Limited Confidence

Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will

No Confidence

Government has no expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

FACTOR 2 – COMPENSATION PLAN

Compensation Plan: The elements of the plan will be evaluated to ensure that the proposed compensation is sufficient to attract and retain quality Food Service Personnel. This factor will be rated as either “acceptable” or “unacceptable”. Compensation plans for both specialties shall be “acceptable” to be considered for award.

Acceptable Rating – Based on Medical Readiness Contracting Office - West market research, the proposed compensation is sufficient to attract and retain quality Food Service Workers. The offeror’s proposed basic labor rates by labor category meets the minimum hourly rate delineated in the SCA WD.

Unacceptable Rating – Based on Medical Readiness Contracting Office - West market research, the proposed compensation is not sufficient to attract and retain quality Food Service Workers. The offeror’s proposed basic labor rates by labor category does not meet the minimum hourly rate delineated in the SCA WD.

FACTOR 3 – PRICE:

Offers will be evaluated for price reasonableness. The proposed price will be evaluated for the entire effort, inclusive of all options. A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business. The Government may use various price analysis techniques to ensure a fair and reasonable price. Some of those techniques are, but not limited to, comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation and/or comparison of proposed prices with the Independent Government Estimate. Price shall be determined fair and reasonable by the Contracting Officer to be eligible for award.

EXCEPTION FACTOR 4 - SUBCONTRCTING PLAN (SLA ONLY) Evaluation

Evaluation of the subcontracting plan will be based on consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances.

The subcontracting plan will be evaluated to determine if the plan is compliant with the requirements of 52.219-9 and DFARS Clause 252.219-7003 and a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” will be assigned. Failure to submit an “Acceptable” Subcontracting Plan will make the Offeror ineligible for award

(b) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(c) Given that FAR 52.217-8 provides that the Government may exercise the Option to Extend Services at the rates specified in the contract (i.e., the rates in effect when the Extension of Services option is exercised), for purposes of evaluating the Option to Extend Services, the Contracting Officer will consider the prices submitted for the base and all option periods, since those are the binding prices should the Option to Extend be exercised.

(d) The award decision will be based on the best value offered to the Government and not solely on price and price related factors. In making the award decision, the Contracting Officer will consider the evaluated rating of all factors. Ratings of “unacceptable” will not be eligible for award.

(End of 52.212-2 Addendum)