DARPA Food Service Concession Synopsis Solicitation_10.28.24.pdf

Synopsis/Solicitation DARPA Food Service Concession

October 28, 2024

A. BACKGROUND/OVERVIEW

This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for a no-cost contract. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) seeks a vendor to establish and operate a food service concession inside the DARPA Headquarters building located at 675 N. Randolph St., Arlington, Virginia 22203 in accordance with the Statement of Work (SOW) (Attachment 1).

No-cost contracts are not subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) or Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Procedures, Guidance, and Information because they do not involve the expenditure of appropriated funds. However, the right for a vendor to fulfill a Government requirement to sell food products to the DARPA employee population in exchange for not paying rent or utility costs constitutes contractual consideration.

This solicitation does not require the submission of price/cost proposal.

To maximize efficiency and minimize the effort involved in the proposal evaluation process, all offerors must comply with the following instructions for proposal format and content. Proposals that do not comply with these instructions may be considered non-responsive and may render the offeror ineligible for award. Proposals must be clear, coherent, and prepared in sufficient detail for effective evaluation of the offeror’s proposal against the evaluation criteria.

This solicitation is provided under full and open competition, and there is no set-aside associated with this solicitation.

B. INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

1. The DARPA Contracting Officer is the sole point of contact for all questions under this solicitation. Any questions regarding this solicitation are due no later than 10:00 AM Eastern Time on Monday, November 4, 2024, and shall be submitted via email with Subject Line “Food Services Concessions Questions – [Offeror]” to the Contracting Officer at DARPAConcessionsRequirement@darpa.mil. DARPA’s responses to questions will be provided in an amendment to the solicitation and posted on SAM.gov.

2. Offerors are encouraged to visit the DARPA Headquarters building and inspect the proposed site to obtain information related to local conditions, which may affect performance of the contract. In no event will a failure to inspect the site constitute grounds for a claim after award of the contract. Site visits requests are due no later than 10:00 AM Eastern Time on Monday, November 11, 2024, and shall be submitted via email with Subject Line “Food Services Concessions Site Visit – [Offeror]” to the Contracting Officer at DARPAConcessionsRequirement@darpa.mil.

mailto:DARPAConcessionsRequirement@darpa.mil

3. Submission of electronic copies of proposals is due no later than 10:00 AM Eastern Time on Monday, November 25, 2024, and shall be submitted via email with Subject Line “Food Services Concessions Proposal – [Offeror]” to the Contracting Officer at DARPAConcessionsRequirement@darpa.mil. Responses received after the deadline may not be evaluated.

4. Use of Non-Government Advisors: Offerors are advised that information submitted to the

Government in response to this solicitation may be released to non-Government advisors who have signed non-disclosure agreements for reviewing and analyzing proposals. Unless the offeror provides a written objection to disclosure, consent is confirmed with the submission of the proposal. Any objection to disclosure shall be provided in writing to the Contracting Officer within ten (10) calendar days of solicitation issuance and shall include a detailed statement of the basis for the objection. The detailed statement shall identify the specific portions of the proposal the offeror objects to disclosure to non-Government advisors.

5. The offeror shall submit the proposal as follows—

a. Administrative Information (No page limit)

i. Cover page to include:

1. Contact information for and dated signature from the individual authorized to negotiate/bind the offeror in matters related to this solicitation and resulting contract.

2. Specification of proposal validity at least 90 calendar days from the response date of this solicitation.

3. Unique Entity ID (UEI) number (Note: If offeror previously obtained a Dun and Bradstreet (DUNS) number and registered at SAM.GOV, the offeror can find their UEI on SAM.GOV. If offeror does not possess a UEI number, indicate this information in the proposal and confirm that a UEI number will be obtained if awarded the contract. Offerors may obtain a UEI number, free of charge, at:

https://sam.gov/content/entity-registration.)

4. Federal Employer Identification Number (EIN) (also known as Federal Tax Identification Number (TIN)). If offeror does not possess an EIN/TIN, one must be obtained and provided with the offeror’s proposal. Offeror may obtain an EIN, free of charge, from the Internal Revenue Service at: https://www.irs.gov/businesses.

https://sam.gov/content/entity-registration https://www.irs.gov/businesses

ii. Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI): An OCI means a situation where

(1) because of other activities or relationships with other persons, a person/organization is unable or potentially unable to render impartial assistance or advice to the Government; or (2) the person’s/organization’s objectivity in performing the contract work is or might be otherwise impaired;

or (3) a person/organization has an unfair competitive advantage.

If applicable, the offeror shall provide identification of and/or mitigation plans for any potential, perceived, or actual OCI. Offerors are encouraged to disclose and discuss any actual or potential OCI with the Contracting Officer prior to submission of a proposal.

iii. Completed Representations and Certifications (Attachment 3).

b. Technical Proposal

i. Evaluation Factor 1 – Concept (4-page limit)

1. Executive summary of food services concession concept proposed to meet SOW requirements.

2. Proposed menus, including proposed retail selling prices. Offeror should include proposed menu promotions, specials, seasonal or regional specials, or other innovative menu options. Plans to promote healthier eating and lifestyles, such as plans to highlight “lighter fare” menu alternatives, posting nutritional content of entrees at point of sale, etc.

ii. Evaluation Factor 2 – Operations (4-page limit)

1. Proposed staffing and management of the concession, including offeror’s plans to train employees and ensure sufficient staffing to meet fluctuating demands, especially during peak business hours (e.g., higher patron periods). Details should also include proposed concession standards pertaining to proposed space and/or equipment cleaning, equipment maintenance, etc.

2. Marketing, advertising, and promotional plans.

3. Projected pro forma profit and loss statements for years 1, 3, and 5.

iii. Evaluation Factor 3 – Business/ Corporate/Personnel Experience and Past Performance (4-page limit)

1. Relevant business/corporate/personnel experience similar to the concept proposed and the SOW in scope and magnitude.

2. Any Government contract examples must include contract numbers, project titles, dollar amounts (if applicable), periods of performance, and Government points of contact (telephone and/or email).

6. The offeror shall comply with any specified page limits. The Government will not consider pages beyond the page limit specified. Print shall be a minimum 12-point font size. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font style, not less than 8-point. Margins shall be one (1) inch on all sides. Bolding, underlining, italics, and different colors may be used to identify topic demarcations or points of emphasis. The email size limit is 40 MB.

C. EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS OF AWARD

1. Award will be made to the single responsive and responsible offeror whose proposal, conforming to the solicitation, is determined to provide the “best value” to DARPA. “Best value” is defined as the proposal that offers the best combination of concept, operations, and business/corporate/personnel experience and past performance. The evaluation factors listed in descending order of importance are: Factor 1, Factor 2, Factor 3. There are no subfactors or unstated evaluation criteria. Price/cost will not be evaluated beyond menu pricing within Evaluation Factor 1.

2. Proposals will be evaluated based on the following:

a. Evaluation Factor 1 – Concept

i. Suitability: Appropriateness of proposed concept to maximize variety, meet patron demand, and fulfill SOW requirements. Evaluation rating in this area may consider planned or existing food service options provided near the DARPA Headquarters building.

ii. Menu: Appropriateness of the menu, including menu variety, planned promotions, inclusion of nutritious/healthy menu options, and reasonableness of menu pricing compared to pricing of similar concept menus in the local area near the DARPA Headquarters building.

b. Evaluation Factor 2 – Operations

i. Staffing and Management: Appropriateness of proposed staffing and management to support day-to-day operational requirements, including continuous training of employees, meeting customer demand during peak business hours (e.g., higher patron periods), cleaning and maintenance of the concession, and other SOW requirements.

ii. Marketing: Sufficiency of proposed marketing plan to advertise and promote the concession business.

iii. Sales Plan: Reasonableness of projected sales plans to sustain the concept considering projected pro forma profit and loss statements for years 1, 3, and 5.

c. Evaluation Factor 3 – Business/Corporate/Personnel Experience and Past Performance

i. Quality of experience to support the Government’s confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the SOW requirements. DARPA reserves the right to seek past performance information from sources not furnished by offeror, as DARPA deems appropriate. However, while DARPA may elect to consider performance information obtained from sources not furnished by Offeror, the burden of providing current, accurate, and complete past performance information rests with the offeror. An offeror submitting no past performance information may also receive a rating based on the evaluation of predecessor companies, key personnel, and/or subcontractors/franchisees, as applicable.

ii. If past performance information is not available or not applicable (i.e., offeror does not have a predecessor company, key personnel or subcontractors/franchisees with relevant past performance), the offeror’s past performance will be evaluated as “Neutral,” which is neither favorable nor unfavorable. Offerors are advised a “Neutral” past performance rating may not represent the most advantageous proposal to DARPA.

3. Evaluation Ratings Tables:

a. Based on proposal evaluation, the Government will assign each offeror a rating of High Confidence, Medium Confidence, Low Confidence, or No Confidence for Factors 1 and 2:

Rating Description High Confidence The Government has high confidence that the offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in fulfilling the SOW requirements.

Medium Confidence The Government has some confidence that the offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in fulfilling the SOW requirements.

Low Confidence The Government has low confidence that the offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in fulfilling the SOW requirements.

No Confidence The Government has no confidence that the offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in fulfilling the SOW requirements.

b. Based on proposal evaluation, the Government will assign each offeror a rating of High

Confidence, Medium Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Low Confidence, or No Confidence for Factor 3:

Rating Description High 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.

Medium 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.

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. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Low 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.

4. Responsibility. As used here, the term “responsible” means the Contracting Officer can reasonably expect satisfactory contract performance and offeror is determined to have: (1) adequate financial resources; (2) a record of satisfactory performance; and (3) sufficient capacity to perform the requirements of this solicitation.

5. In the assessment and rating of offers, if it is determined that any single rating of an evaluation factor is judged to be Low Confidence or No Confidence, this could cause an offeror’s entire technical proposal to be similarly rated and determined to be ineligible for award.

6. DARPA may award the contract based on initial proposals received, without discussion of such proposals. Accordingly, proposals should be submitted on the most favorable terms offerors can submit to DARPA from a technical standpoint.

7. Proposals which do not conform to the requirements of this solicitation may be rejected without further evaluation, deliberation, or discussion.

8. During the evaluation process, the Government may, solely at its discretion, conduct oral or written exchanges with an offeror for any purpose, such as to gain a better understanding of the proposal or address deficiencies, errors, omissions, or other mistakes in the proposal if the Government determines it to be in the best interest of the Government. The Government need not conduct exchanges with all offerors. Rather, the Government may, at its discretion, conduct exchanges with only some offerors or only one offeror. As a result of such exchanges, the Government may allow an offeror to submit a proposal revision. The Government need not provide all offerors with an opportunity to submit a proposal revision.

Rather, the Government may, at its discretion, permit only some offerors or only one offeror to submit a proposal revision. If proposal revisions are allowed from more than one offeror, the Government may, solely at its discretion, impose non-common due dates for the revisions. In other words, the Government may elect to have a proposal revision date for an offeror that is different than a proposal revision date for another offeror(s).

9. In the event issues pertaining to proposals cannot be resolved to the Contracting Officer’s satisfaction, the Government reserves the right to withdraw and cancel the solicitation. In such event, offerors will be notified in writing.

10. The Government intends to award a no-cost contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal, conforming to this solicitation, is determined to provide the Government with the best value after evaluating proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria specified in this solicitation. The Government will make this determination utilizing a best value tradeoff process between evaluation factors in the order of importance specified and comparing proposals to select the offeror that provides the best value to the Government. The formal source selection procedures of FAR Subpart 15.3 and DFARS Subpart 215.3, such as a competitive range determination, oral or written discussions, or requesting final submission revisions from all offerors included within a competitive range, do not apply to this acquisition.